14 PETRONIUS ARBITER 
31. Intra Kalendas. 'The explanation seems to be taken verbatim from Apollinaris 
Sulpicius,* according to A. Gell. N. A. 12, 13: “intra Kalendas igitur non ante 
Kalendas est sed in Kalendis, id est, eo ipso die quo Kalendae sunt.” ‘There is a 
trifling difference in the text of the two manuscripts, which is easily explained, the 
copyist of the Cod. Ricc. misapprehending the abbreviation .i. of his original (which 
is in the Cod. Vat.), and changing it into in. 
39. Pomoeriwm. "There is some slight difference in the text of the two manuscripts. 
Cf. A. Gell. N. A. 13, 14: * Pomerium quid esset, augures populi Romani, qui libros 
de auspiciis scribserunt, istiusmodi sententia definierunt ; * Pomerium est locus intra 
agrum effatum per totius urbis circuitum pone muros regionibus certeis determinatus, 
qui facit finem urbani auspicii'" The definition of Petronius may have been taken 
from the same source, viz. the Libri de Auspiciis. However this may be, the passage 
quoted by Gellius enables us to correct the errors of both manuscripts. 
33. Humanitas. 'The text of both manuscripts is very imperfect. The passage 
in A. Gell. N. A. 13, 16 enables us to some extent to reconstruct it: * humanitatem 
appellaverunt id propemodum, quod Graeci zaiBeíav vocant, nos eruditionem institu- 
tionemque in bonas artis dicimus. Quas qui sinceriter percupiunt adpetuntque, hi sunt 
vel maxime humanissimi. Huius enim scientiae cura et disciplina ex universis animan- 
tibus uni homini datast, idcircoque humanitas appellata est." This is an important in- 
stance to show that Petronius, in part at least, borrowed from Gellius; for the above 
definition, evidently identical with that of Petronius, seems to be original with Gellius, 
in expression at least, if not in substance. For this reason, I have not only in those 
passages in which the two manuscripts differ followed that which agrees with Gellius, 
but I should not be disinclined to adopt the reading of Gellius percupiunt, although 
both manuscripts have capiunt. The double superlative * maxime humanissimi” is to 
be noticed. 
34. Manubias. . Almost perfect agreement of the two manuscripts. C A. Gell. 
N. A. 18, 24: “Quid igitur? Simile est, inquit, apud eundem (Ciceronem) in praeda 
et manubiis? Nihil, nihil profecto istiusmodi est. Nam neque ornatius fit additis manu- - 
biis neque exaggeratius modulatiusve; sed aliud omnino praeda est, ut in libris rerum 
| verborumque veterum scribtum est, aliud manubiae. Nam praeda dicitur corpora ipsa 
. rerum, quae capta sunt; manubiae vero appellatae sunt pecunia a quaestore ex ven- | 
Ke praedae redac ees evident that the — S quoted here by Favorinus; | 
ec. Sulpicius Apollioaris, a poet and grammarian, lived in the middle of the Mund century o of p 
during the reign of the Antonines. Se ue 
T Favorinus was a ve Ae of the Zeie Hadrian. 
