^{page 100 note 1} ‘Matutinepater seu “lane” libentius audis’; so for the modern's benefit should the words be printed. There is really no reason against this vocative any more than against that in the fragment of Callimachus Schol. Par. ad Apoll. Rh. 2. 866 άνTι γάρ έKλήθ ‘“Iµβρασε’ παρθενιε. Francken, IV. 316 sqq. ‘tune herbas frondesque ternnt et rore madentis destringunt ramos, ac si quos palmite crudo arboris aut tenera sucos pressere medulla.’ The Dutch editor proposed to interchange the places of si quos and sucos But the truth appears to be that the pronoun has, more Graeco, been attracted into the case an antecedent in the main clause.

^{page 100 note 2} Here may be mentioned incidentally a use of si quis which, uncommon as it is, seems to have escaped the notice of all editors but

^{page 103 note 1} Cf. e.g. Dial. 1. 20. 4. ‘Snllano scias saeculo scriptam.’