372 VARRO ON FARMING 



II, 9, i6. " Ita enim sunt adsiduiores quod cum altero 

 idem fit acrior, et si alter videm fiter aeger est ne sine 

 cane grex sit." In the first place it is difficult to under- 

 stand Keil's objection to "idem" (for which he substi- 

 tutes "item," saying "'idem' . . . non habet quo 

 referatur)," for the turn of thought is quite Varronian. 

 The same dog becomes another, much fiercer — when he 

 has a mate. As for the rest many unhappy emendations 

 have been made, while no one seems to have noticed 

 the anacoluthon — harsh even for Varro — "quod ... fit 

 acrior — et si . . . est, ne sine cane grex sit." " Est," I 

 think, ought to be in the apodosis, where it is much 

 needed — and the sentence might be written " et si 

 alteruter fit aeger, est ut ne sine cane grex sit," "for 

 so they stick better to work, for the same dog when he 

 has a mate becomes fiercer, and if either of them falls ill, 

 the flock need not be without a dog." "Est" would 

 then be used as in Horace's "Est ut viro vir latius 

 ordinet || arbusta," or as in II, i, 28, "est qui ex- 

 pleas . . . lacunam." With " ut " inserted the Latin 

 is, of course, normal, the " ne " negativing only the 

 words "sine cane." In these books "ut" is omitted 

 two or three times, cf. II, 11, i. III, 2, 16, etc., and 

 Krumbiegel's index verborum at the end of Keil's 

 "Editio Maior." 



For "videm" I have written "uter," but it may be 

 simply an echo from the words "altero idem" preced- 

 ing. The "er " in " fiter" is, perhaps, due to the scribes 

 writing the " er" of " aeger" prematurely and neglect- 

 ing to correct it. 



III, I, 10. "In tuis quoque litteris." For " tuis " I 

 suggest "nitidis" (haplography). The passage is dis- 

 cussed in the Commentary. 



