[Footnote 13: 'Diligenter autem et religiose tractaui codicem et singulas epistolas bis, et in locis uexatis saepius contuli. Neque tamen, quae hominum est imbecillitas, aciem oculorum quaedam effugisse, negabo' (xi-xii).] A curious feature of Korn's edition is its dual apparatus: below the report of manuscript variants is a listing of passages where his text differs from those of Heinsius and Merkel: 'Lectiones discrepantes editionum Heinsii et Merkelii adposui, ut et quantopere Ouidius Heinsianus a genuina forma discrepet dilucide perspiciatur, et quibus locis a Merkelio discesserim facilius adpareat' (xxxii). Korn ejects such obviously correct readings as _leuastis_ at vi 44 and _laxate_ at ix 73; in each instance the true reading is printed in large type at the bottom of the page. In addition, Korn rather unfairly included as different readings what were in fact only spellings which did not conform to the purified orthography then coming into use. _Cymba_ does not differ from _cumba_ (viii 28), nor is _Danubium_ a variant for _Danuuium_ (ix 80), nor again is _Vlysses_ different from _Vlixes_ (x 9). Finally, the second apparatus at several points misrepresents what Heinsius actually thought. Korn's confusion on this point is understandable, since determining Heinsius' textual preferences is often more difficult than it might at first appear. Editions were published under his name which did not incorporate all his preferred readings[14]; even the lemmas to his notes are taken from the edition of Daniel Heinsius, and are not a guide to Heinsius' own view of the text, which can only be discovered by reading the actual notes[15]. A good example of this can be found at x 47. Here Heinsius' text reproduces the standard reading _Cratesque_. The lemma in his note is _Oratesque_, the reading of Daniel Heinsius' edition. In the note itself Heinsius indicates his preference for the conjecture _Calesque_, communicated to him by his friend Isaac Vossius. Here Korn, along with all modern editors, prints _Calesque_ in his text; he reports _Cratesque_ as Heinsius' reading. [Footnote 14: A. Grafton has noted that Heinsius' publisher Elzevier seems to have been unwilling to alter the text as it already existed (_JRS_ LXVII [1977], 173). I owe my knowledge of Heinsius' editorial practices as here described to Professor R. J. Tarrant, who has examined the Harvard copies of the 1664 edition of Heinsius' text (without notes), the 1670 Leiden edition of Bernard Cnippingius, which reproduces Heinsius' notes, and the 1663 reprint of Daniel Heinsius' edition.] [Footnote 15: Consequently any statements I make on Heinsius' editorial practices are based on explicit statements in his notes.] Korn made one important conjecture in _Ex Ponto_ IV, printing _decretis_ at ix 44 for the manuscripts' _secretis_.