^{page 103 note 1} See Vogel-Gardthausen, Gntchischi Schrdber, s.v.; Noiret, H., Lettres inédites de M.A., 1889 (Mém. de l'école francaise de Rome)Google Scholar.

^{page 104 note 1} Letters from Apostolius to him in Noiret, l.c.

^{page 104 note 2} But for Arnold's use of the sign R, see C.Q. 1936, 91.

^{page 104 note 3} R has recently received the attentions of Dain, M. Alphonse (see C.Q. 1936, 86 n.)Google Scholar , whose progress amongst the MSS of , Thucydides is marked by a trail of rubbish (Un manuscrit de Thucydide, le Monacensis gr. 126Google Scholar , L'antiquité classique, 1937, 119–123). He identifies the hand, notes that R is somehow related to 91, mentions the Latin note on f. 64 (see above) and concludes with this fatuity: ‘Un manuscrit de Michel Apostolius n'est jamais negligeable. Notre grec, savant consciencieux, copia un nombre important de volumes sur des originaux anciens qui ont disparu depuis. La plupart de ces textes remontaient aux travaux faits par les érudits Byzantins entre 1250 et 1350. Cette raison seule suffit pour que le Monacensis 126 mérite d'ecirc;tre étudié et justifie un déplacement a Munich.’ Nothing but harm can come of this practice of writing articles on single 15th-century MSS regardless of whether they have relatives or what those relatives are.

^{page 106 note 1} D, styled by Bekker, was collated in Book 7 by Bekker, in 4, 1–15 and 8, 1–23 by Arnold, and throughout by me in 1933. v, styled by me, was collated by me in 1934. N, styled by Bekker. was collated for Hudson as Cl (arendonianus), by Bloomfield for Poppo, by Arnold in Books 6–8, by Shilleto throughout (Books 1–2 only published), and by me throughout in 1932–3. V, styled by Arnold, was collated in 1, 1–39 by Zanetti, throughout for Arnold, and inspected by me in 1933.

^{page 108 note 1} Gallavotti, C. (Stud. It. 1934, 296–300)Google Scholar has reached the same conclusions from a study of the MSS of Theocritus.

^{page 108 note 2} The identification of a number of these is owed to Mr E. Lobel's unique knowledge of Renaissance scribes.

^{page 108 note 3} The only rational basis for a treatment of the Aristophanes MSS in general is analysis of content combined with dating. A subject like ‘The London MSS of Aristophanes’ (C.R. 1937, 164–6) would be futile, even if treated intelligently; for it assumes that 6 MSS out of 240 are likely to have individual importance or to closely related amongst themselves from the simple circumstance of their being conveniently accessible together in the British Museum. Mr Lockwood, however, has treated the subject unintelligently—namely, by counting the agreements and disagreements of one London MS with one or more of the other five. If not compecontent to relate the London MSS to the tradition as a whole, Mr Lockwood should have contented himself with correcting slips and noting anticipated conjectures.