^{page 183 note 1} C.Q. XXII, No. 2.

^{page 183 note 2} Commentary on Virgil, ed. Thilo. After each Terence reference I give the reference to the line of Virgil under which Servius makes the citation.

^{page 183 note 3} Preface to Terence, pp. liv–lvi.

^{page 183 note 4} Known as the ‘Scholia P. Danielis’ because that scholar first published this material in his edition of Servius (1600).

^{page 183 note 5} Vol. I, Preface.

^{page 183 note 6} See below, p. 185.

^{page 184 note 1} On Servius' use of contra (or econtra or item contra) see Aen. I 194, 210, 224, 599; III 130, 138. Aen. II 715 is an exact parallel. RELIGIO: metus. contra (‘contrariwise’) METUS: religio.

^{page 184 note 2} The words in square brackets are only in the enlarged Commentary.

^{page 184 note 3} I noticed too late for inclusion in this article Servius on Aen. VI 374, which is conclusive. Cf. Donatus, on Andr. 851Google Scholar.

^{page 185 note 1} Tbilo prints ergo here, but ego at Aen. IX 230.

^{page 185 note 2} I callergo an ‘emendation ‘because the idea ‘therefore’ is naturally suggested by the Terence context. If ergo were a mere miswriting it would be possible to argue that a slip in Servius was copied into Terence MSS.

^{page 186 note 1} See Dziatzko-Hauler, , Phormio, Anhang, p. 243Google Scholar.

^{page 186 note 2} Preface, pp. lxiv–lxv.

^{page 186 note 3} But Umpfenbach has been misled by an editor of Servius.

^{page 187 note 1} Cf. Phorm. 732 (Geo. IV 444).

^{page 187 note 2} I make the term Servius include Servius himself and any grammarian he may have used as his source.