The edition of Heinsius formed the basis of all editions published during the two centuries that followed. Of these editions the most important was the 1727 variorum edition of Burman already referred to. It is from the copy of that edition at the University of Toronto Library that I have obtained my knowledge of Heinsius' notes. Burman was apparently the first editor to make use of _F_. On occasion he differs from Heinsius in his choice of readings. At xvi 44 he made the convincing conjecture _Maxime_ (codd _maxima_), subsequently confirmed by _B_ and _C_. His notes are informative; and my note on x 37-38 in particular is greatly indebted to him. For poem x Burman reproduced some notes from an anthology of Latin verse for use at Eton, produced by an anonymous editor in 1705[12]. [Footnote 12: _Electa minora ex Ovidio, Tibullo et Propertio_, London, 1705. The book was reprinted as late as 1860 (_Brit. Mus. Gen. Catalogue_, vol. 177, col. 470). I quote some of the notes on x in the commentary and apparatus.] In 1772 Theophilus Harles published at Erlangen his edition of the _Tristia_ and _Ex Ponto_ 'ex recensione Petri Burmanni'. Harles was the first editor to make use of _B_. In the introduction to his edition Harles relates how he wrote von Oeffele, librarian to the Elector of Bavaria, asking if there was any manuscript in the Elector's library that might be helpful in preparing his edition, and thereby learned of the existence of _B_. It is clear from Harles' introduction that he fully appreciated the manuscript's importance; and in his notes he gives many of its readings, pointing out where it confirmed suggestions of Heinsius and Burman. However, his text is simply reprinted from Burman's variorum edition. W. E. Weber's text of _Ex Ponto_ IV in his 1833 _Corpus Poetarum Latinorum_ is in effect a reprint of the Heinsius-Burman vulgate, except that at viii 59 he prints the manuscripts' incorrect accusative form _Gigantes_ (Heinsius _Gigantas_). But this fidelity to the vulgate text seems not to have been the editor's intention: in his introduction he speaks of 'Heinsianae emendationes felices saepe, superuacuae saepius ... quarum emendationum partem Mitscherlichius eiecit [Göttingen, 1796; I have not seen the edition], maiorem eiicere Iahnius coepit [Leipzig, 1828: the part of the edition containing the _Ex Ponto_ was never published]. dicendum tamen, etiamnunc passim haud paucas fortasse latere Heinsii et aliorum correctiones minus necessarias in uerbis Ouidianis, quas accuratior codicum inter se comparatio, opus sane immensi laboris, extrudet'. It would be understandable enough if Weber, faced with the labour of editing the entire corpus of Latin poetry, found himself unable to effect a radical revision of the text of the _Ex Ponto_.