EXCURSUS III 373 



III, 5, 5. "Contra hie aviarium, quae mortuae ibi 

 sunt aves ut domino numerum reddat, solet ibidem ser- 

 vare." Keil changes *'hic" to "hoc" and indicates a 

 lacuna after "aviarium." It seems much simpler to 

 write "aviarius." There is then a much needed subject 

 for " solet," there is no need to alter the " hie " of the 

 archetype, the sense is perfectly plain, and there is no 

 need to assume a gap in the text. " Um " is sometimes 

 mis-written for "us," cf. Ill, 16, 5, where " neque idem 

 quod cera cibum " is found in the Archetype for the 

 obvious "neque . . . cibus," and a little later in the 

 same section " favum " for " favus." 



Ill, 5, 10. " quaad capitulum rutundum est " (so Keil). 

 " Qua ad capitulum " should surely be written — for the 

 sake of the sense and of the antithesis (" qua est quad- 

 rata") — and this is the reading of the Archetype. 



Ill, 14, 3. " Et hunc (cibum) dum serpit non solum 

 in area reperit sed etiam, si rivus non prohibet, parietes 

 stantes invenit." Keil interprets thus: "Cochleae non 

 solum cibum in area positum reperiunt, sed etiam stantes 

 parietes cibi inveniendi causa ascendunt." This is no 

 doubt what Varro means, but it is not contained in the 

 text. Jucundus conjectured "in parietes," Ursinus "in 

 pariete stante." Better, I believe, is "per parietes" for 

 the omission of "per" may be explained as a case of 

 haplography, and "invenit" has then its usual sense 

 and governs " cibum." Schneider objected to " stantes " 

 on the ground that all "parietes stant," but the word is 

 used emphatically as Horace's "vides ut alta stet nive 

 Candida II Soracte," and in antithesis to "area." The 

 snail not only crawls about the " area," but even climbs 

 the perpendicular walls. 



Ill, 16, 32. " Eximendorum favorum signum sumunt 



