Attention has also been given to the correction of certain errors of statement or of interpretation, but in some of the instances in which my critics have not been in accord with the authorities upon which my own statements have been based, I have ventured to abide by the conclusions of the latter. My little essay made, of course, no pretensions to establish any conclusions or to maintain any individual theories on questions of classical literature concerning which there might be differences among the scholars. My purpose was simply to trace, as far as might be practicable, from the scattered references in the literature of the period, an outline record of the continuity of literary activity, the methods of the production and distribution of literature, and the nature of the relations between the authors and their readers. For the citations utilised for this study, I was, as stated in my bibliography, chiefly indebted to such scholars as Wilhelm Schmitz, Joh. Müller, Paul Clement, Theodor Birt, Louis Haenny, H. Géraud, and A. Meineke. The citations given from the Greek or Latin authors were in the main based upon or corrected by the versions of these German or French writers, and were specifically so credited. The majority of my reviewers were ready to understand the actual purpose of my book and to recognise that my part in the undertaking was limited to certain general inferences or conclusions as to literary methods or conditions. In one or two cases, however, the critics, ignoring the specified purpose and the necessary limitations of the essay, saw fit to treat it as a treatise on classical literature and devoted their reviews almost exclusively to textual criticisms and corrections. In these, of course (irrespective of certain obvious errors above referred to), they found ample opportunity for differences of opinion with the authorities whose versions I had utilised, and ignoring the fact that my renderings were specifically credited to the German or French editions, they criticised or corrected these as if they had been presented by myself. It seems to me worth while, therefore, again to point out that with these issues between the scholarly or critical authorities I am not at all concerned, and that in their controversies I assumed to take no part. My sketches of literary methods, and the suggestions submitted by me as to the relations of authors and their readers, are affected very little by these scholastic controversies, and whatever interest or value they may possess will be entirely independent, for instance, of such a question as the correctness of the account given by Aulus Gellius (cited by me from Schmitz and Blass) of the correspondence between Aristotle and Alexander.