CRITICAL NOTES. 511 



is one of the various readings found in the law itself (ii. viii. 19)* 

 but, as this reading has been generally rejected in that place, we 

 ■cannot allow it to be used here to confirm another of equally doubtful 

 authenticity. The conjecture which seems to me most satisfactory is 

 that of Wyttenbach, who would arrange the words thus — si huic legi 

 paruerint ipsi patres. Deluhra . . . This arrangement does not 

 affect the sense of the passage, wloich in this case remains the same 

 as it would be if Patrum were omitted from the text. At first sight, 

 the sentence commencing " Delubra esse, etc.," seemed to me to 

 require some connecting particle or other word of introduction, such 

 as ceterum (the orthography of which varies between cceterum, ccetrum 

 and ceterum). Ceterum "for the rest," "to continue," (comjjare the 

 French "(itt reste") is regularly used after a digression, whei'e the 

 speaker, dismissing a subject which he has been led parenthetically 

 to discuss, resumes the thread of his discourse. This word is, I 

 think, not unlikely to have become corrupted into patrum, especially 

 as the eye of the copyist would naturally be caught by patribus in 

 the line above. However, I am inclined, after consideration, to give 

 Wyttenbach's conjecture patres the preference. 



Ibid : II. xiii, 33. " Itaque neque illi assentior, qui hanc scientiam 

 negat umquam in nostra collegio fuisse ; neque illi, qui esse etiam 

 nunc 2^utat; quae mihi videtur apud'niaj ores fuisse dupliciter, ut ad 

 reipuhlicce tempus non numquam ad agendi consilium ssepissime per- 

 tineret." Here we have the various readings dupliciter and duplex : 

 the former of which is said to have the best MS. authority, while it 

 is at the same time the most awkward to explain. I cannot help 

 thinking that the original must have been faisse duplex, ita ut . 

 and that this passed into dapliciter, owing to that practice of con- 

 tinuous writing to which I have above alluded. 



Ibid : II. xvii, 44. " Tantuni ponam hrevi (v. 1. erui), duplicem 

 pcenam esse divinam quod (v. 1. quce) constaret (v. 1. constat et) et 

 vexandis (v. 1. ex vexandis) vivorum animis et ea fama mortuorum ut 

 eorum exitium et judicio vivorum et gaudio comprobetur." The text, 

 as it now stands, is obviously corrupt, and requires emendation. 

 Davies would read, " quod constat et ex vexandis . . . et ex ea 

 /ama." . . . Ernesti, (who has evidently been misled by Davies' 

 practice of following the vulgate in his text, and stating iii his notes 

 what he himself considers to be the true reading,) says that he agrees 

 with Da-vT.es in " omitting" ex, and thinks that et also might be dis- 



