^{page 1 note 1} For examples of similar transpositions see vol. iv. p. 274, and add to them the omission of the words tunc uictorem...exercitu in VIII. 31. 7 by MPFU and their wrong insertion several lines above (§ 6);also the famous nest of cruces in the description of the Roman army (VIII. 8. 4–8) which one of us claims to have completely removed by a transposition for which there some actual evidence in M and O (Camb. Philo Soc. Proceedings, October 26, 1905).

^{page 2 note 1} We should find it hard to produce a parallel to in eadem audenti in the sense of in audenti eadem.

^{page 4 note 1} As in I. 35. 3 where most of the MSS offer it;I. 6. 4 where O inserts it after quoniam:I. 41. 7 (see above).

^{page 5 note 1} For id et Weissenborn reads ideo, Madvig id?, Postgate inde

^{page 9 note 1} Poor Cossus seems once more in trouble as in c. 20. (437 B.C.) about his consulship, and Livy does not say here that he too was created trib. mil. ex consulatu. Anyhow if the sep-timo anno of c. 20. 8 is correct there may have been evidence for his consulship with Quinctius in 431 B.C. which Livy did not choose to credit or to follow. But we are inclined to suggest that XI. should be substituted for VII. in c. 20. 8, where septimo is equally incompatible with the consulship in 428 B.C. which the current text of c. 30. 4 gives him, so that Madvig writes at c. 20. 8 Livius scribere debuit decimo XI is slightly more likely than X to have been corrupted into VII.

^{page 9 note 2} Such accidental omissions are extremely common at all periods;they are of course frequent in Puteanus (XXI-XXX); but in the irst Decade observe that O proceeds from VI. 40. 1 to c. 40. 17 and at c. 41. 10 puts in the missing sections of c. 40.;Harl. 2684 in XXIX. 29. 6 puts adfluetat—iuuenem after super abat. And in truth no one of our codices is free rom such errors, as will appear in our Critical Notes passim.

^{page 14 note 1} L. and S. give ob. 420 but Sieck says 402. There are no letters after this date.