^{page 252 note 1} R.Ph. v (1931), 224 ff.; his theory of the origin of the gloss is fantastic.Google Scholar

^{page 252 note 2} Cratander's is justly described by Constans as ‘bizarre’.

^{page 252 note 3} Constans calls the genitive ‘difficult’. It is true that in Leg. 2. 45 Cicero uses the dative (donttm deo, a translation of ).Google Scholar

^{page 252 note 4} ‘Dabei muβ es offen bleiben, ob diese Hermathena eine Schulter- oder Körper- herme … gewesen ist’, Lullies, R., Würzb. Jhbb. iv (1949–1950), 137.Google Scholar

^{page 252 note 5} Cf. Gow, A. S. F., A. E. Housman, p. 23.Google Scholar

^{page 253 note 1} Conway, , ‘The Singular Use of nos in Cicero's Letters’, Trans. Comb. Phil. Soc. v (1899), 48 and 51,Google Scholar includes scripsimus under two of his headings, ‘formal plurals in phrases relating to letter-writing’ and ‘the plural of patronage’; he says it seems half-humorous, half-formal, ‘the long political treatise with which we have favoured you’. But Cicero's discussion of the political situation in this letter (§§ 2–7) is, by Ciceronian standards, not really very long; and I do not believe that there is any humorous note in this sentence, though it is unmistakable in the next (nam ne absens censeare, etc.).

^{page 254 note 1} Enim is not what we should expect. Corradus suggested iam, Wesenberg deleted. Perhaps autem.

^{page 254 note 2} Ed. Heiberg (Teubner); e.g. p. 2. 23 or 4. 12.

^{page 254 note 3} This consideration, if no other, rules out the conjecture of Constans .

^{page 255 note 1} The credit for this solution belongs to Mr. W. S. Barrett, for whose help in this passage I am most grateful. My original suggestion was AB, AΓ.

^{page 255 note 2} e.g. Heiberg, pp. 14. 9, 18. 20.

^{page 255 note 3} On these lines also is Constans' velim, sirempse condicione; but sirempse (even assuming that it can be construed with condicione) is not a word which can be foisted on Cicero (except possibly in a quotation from a law).

^{page 255 note 4} Cf. Bailey, Shackleton, Towards a Text, p. 83.Google Scholar

^{page 256 note 1} It has been foisted by some editors into the text of Catull. 29. 23, urbis o putissimei, where the manuscript reading is urbis opulentissime. Better than most of the rubbish which has been suggested in this passage would be urbis editissimi; for editus = praeclarus cf. T.L.L. v. 2. 97. 51; the manuscript reading would then be a gloss on ditissimi.

^{page 258 note 1} I have found the correct explanation in one place only, a brief biography of young Marcus given by C. Bardt in his Ausgew. Briefe, Kommentar, p. 384.Google Scholar

^{page 258 note 2} Were it not for this passage it would be tempting to emend but while this would achieve greater accuracy it would rob Cicero of his little joke.

^{page 259 note 1} The statement in T.L.L. ii. 2086. 31Google Scholar that di boni always precedes the question or exclamation is not correct; cf. Phil. 2. 80, 5. 14.Google Scholar The simple o di has been denied to Cicero (e.g. by Krebs-Schalmz, , Antibarbarus, i ⁷. 433),Google Scholar but it occurs three times in the Letters (Att. 9. 18.Google Scholar 2, Q.F. 3. 2. 2 and 6 (8). 4).Google Scholar

^{page 259 note 2} I have found four: Verr. 5. 97,Google ScholarMur. 84, p. red. ad Quir. 4Google Scholar (almost equivalent to an exclamation), Phil. ii. 10.Google Scholar

^{page 259 note 3} I give these figures as being (I hope) more correct than those given in T.L.L. v. i. 892. 46.Google Scholar

^{page 259 note 4} Cf. Bailey, Shackleton, Towards a Text, p. 8.Google Scholar

^{page 260 note 1} Hermes xxxiii (1898), 341.Google Scholar

^{page 260 note 2} Followed by Martin, , Würzb. Jhbb. iv (1949–1950). 3.Google Scholar

^{page 261 note 1} In Dom. 123 the two words occur together, but there is no proper contrast between them.

^{page 261 note 2} After this word some manuscripts insert in causam; Orelli remarks ‘exspectabas potius in scenam’. I think that in causam is the corruption of a gloss in caveam; for cavea = theatrum cf. T.L.L. s.v.

^{page 262 note 1} Cf. T.L.L. v. 2. 1536. 83 ff., vii. 2. 75. 38 ff.Google Scholar