10 
givea Uiferent editions of this as he has 
done of other works? Might not this 
fragment »belong to the first oration for - 
Milo,' the only one. which was_ pro- 
nouneed, whicli.the short-hand writers 
shave handed down, and which existed 
in the time of Ascovius and Quintil- 
Jian? And as the manuscript proves 
that this new passage is very similar to 
the old, may we not consider that this 
page was nearly the same in the two 
vorations? Many other questions pre- 
_sent themselves, but we must leave it 
to those that have more time to draw 
conclusions.* 
* This is the restored passage, in the thir- 
“teenth chapter, in some copies, the eighth, 
of the oratien pro Milone, after these w ords 
of the aucient text, ‘irasci certe non debeo.”” 
_ The first four words, and half of the fifth, 
are restored by conjecture: “ Audistis, 
Judices, quantum Clodio pro-fuerit oceidi 
“Milonem ; convertite animus nune yicissiin 
ad Milonem. Quid Milonis intererat inter- 
fici Clodium? quid erat, cur Milo, non 
dicam, admitteret, sed optaret? Obstabat 
in spe. consulatus Miloni Clodius. At 
eo repugnante fiebat; imo vero eo fiebat 
Magis ; nec me suffragatore meliore ute~ 
-batur, quam Clodio. Valebat apud vos, 
judices, Milonis erga me remque publican 
‘meritorum memoria; valebant preces _et 
Jacryme nostra, quibus ego tui vos miri- 
“ficé moveri sentiebam ; “sed plus multo 
vaiebat periculorum impendentinm timor. 
“Quis enim erat civium, qui sibi solutam 
*P. Clodii praturam sine maximo rerum no- 
‘varum metu propone eret ? Solutam autem 
‘fore videbatis.”’ 
:. [Ye have heard, O judges, how advan- 
tageous to Clodius would have been the 
death of Milo: now, again, turn your at- 
‘tention to Milo. Of what profit could it 
‘be to Milo. that Clodius should be: slain? 
“Why should. he, I will not say, commit, 
“but why should he desire the deed? Clo- 
-dius was an obstacle to Milo in his hope 
-of obtaining the consulship. Yet, in spite 
of him, this would be accomplished; yea, 
truly, through him, it would have been ac- 
complished ; nor, in my judgment, could 
he have had a more able auxiliar than that 
‘same Clodius.—The recollection, judges, 
‘of Milo’s good offices towards me, and to- 
wards the commonwealth, was of weight with 
you; our prayers and tears (by which I, at 
that time, perceived that ye were greatly 
‘ moved) prevailed somewhat with you ; but 
-much more the fear of impending dangers. 
For what citizen was there, who held out to 
‘himself the prospect, of Publius Clodius 
being pretor, without the greatest appre- 
hension of commotion? But. ye saw. it 
_would be thus accomplished, &c.], The rest 
as in former editions. 
L'vragments of Cicero. 
ten without order or method.” 
. 
[Aug.!1, 
I think the. other. fragment, will meet 
with more Oppositio ys Peyron has 
compounded it.of anaoal different parts 
from Quintillian, anda scholiast,, to 
whom we owe some parts ofan-eration 
(for'a long time unknown) on the debts 
of Milo. ‘This is ‘certainly anvunfayour- 
able presumption ; and, to say thé truth, 
I should not dare to introduce adoubt- 
ful text into the magnificent pleading 
of Cicero, and which would still leave 
-the passage imperfect. However, as I 
-invite the learned to pronounce judg- 
ment in this case, it should, be men- 
_tioned that M. Peyron wrote from Tu- 
rin, the 6th February 1825, ia erder to 
explain how M. Mai, who supplied:the 
-oration on the debts of Milo, could 
-Imistake a passage from the note’of a 
scholiast for one of the text. .7°" is 
“ You must consider the Ambrosian cor 
mentary of Milan as the confused oppos - 
.tion (adversaria) of some grammarian, who 
has concluded too hastily, and whohas hardly 
‘marked the first and last words of the, quo- 
‘tation—“ Atque per...de nosir,..omn—,’ ‘he. 
intending afterwards to insert the entire 
passage, when he more elaborately com- 
piled those pages, which he has here writ- 
These remarks are valuable; but the 
“text appears too uncertain, too conjec- 
tural, not to leave a wish for farther 
jaformation. 
Nevertheless every friend of letters 
nist applaud the noble efforts of those 
‘diligent investigators, who seck to fer- 
tilize the lear ned dust of Rome, of Flo- 
rence, of Milan, of Padua, of, Verona 
and Turin; and let us:hope: that Italy, 
‘sorich in ancient spoils, may yet afford 
some forgotten memorials of the lapse 
of ages, that will diffuse new brilliancy 
on the splendid annals of her aticlent 
glory. 
A translation of the new. eroration 
‘for Scaurus shall ter minate his. imper- 
‘fect notice ; in which I shall endeayour 
‘to fill up, either according to conjec- 
ture, or by the aid of ords, ‘which an- 
‘cients have quoted, those gaps and 
hiatuses, which time or carelessness 
have left. The orator says: 
“ To whatever side\I turn, my jeyes,: I 
find materials for the defence of Aarons 
Scaurus. The palace which, you, 
6 
“ever recal ‘the virtues of his father, eis ‘of 
‘the senate ;* and. it may be said,” : 
be He, whose name was fisstivenrtered? in 
the .censor’s book, was called iSntering 
‘Senatus : oa dignity, tine confe 
no 
