568 Proceedings of the Royal Irish Academy. 
The appearance in this Harleian ms. (which I shall call H for the 
future) of the fragment which is added before the oration for Milo in 
the Erfurdt ms., viz., that beginning ‘“‘ P. Clodius senator seditiosus 
fuit’’ (see Orelli, p. 1152), together with the fact that we find the 
very same fragments of the Verrines, viz. m1. §§ 1-10 to deprecati ; 
and in Verr. [V., those fragments and no others which appear in Erf., 
lead us at once to the surmise that in these works of Cicero, which 
are found both in H and Erf., we shall discover a considerable simi- 
larity. And though the similarity is not as great as I had at first 
expected to find, still there are several of the treatises in H which 
owe their origin to the same archetype as the Erf. ms.'. Now, there 
is another ms., containing various works of Cicero, which belongs to 
the same family as Erf. does. It was owned by the German theologian 
Melchior Hittorp; and we have a good deal of information concerning 
it preserved in the commentaries and Variae Lectiones of Graevius, 
from which source Wunder and Orelli derive their not unfrequent 
references to this ms. It has just those passages of the third and 
fourth Verrines that Erf. [and H] have. ‘‘Melchioris Hittorpii 
schedae ... excerpta sunt codicis Erfurtensis’”’ (Orelli, p. 2385, 
Introd. to Verr. u1.). Whether or not it came into Graevius’s posses- 
sion I cannot say. But, at any rate, it was a Cologne ms.—whether 
or not identical with the Coloniensis Basilicanus is doubtful (see 
Orelli’s Introd. to De Imper. Cn. Pompei, p. 516)—and much used by 
him along with another ms. of that city, which is generally called 
Coloniensis Graevit. 
Before, however, coming to the Hpistolae ad Familiares, it may be 
of some service to take a hasty glance at the other works in the ms., 
as we shall thereby, perhaps, see more clearly to what class this 
copy of the Epistles is to be referred. 
The Lpistola ad Octawianum has a striking resemblance to Ert., 
and is no doubt copied from the same archetype. I went through all 
the variants in Wunder (pp. 137-139), and found H agreeing with 
Erf. in every case except the following :—780. 15,” uidere non poterat 
H, non poterat uidere E.; 780. 22, pro H, proh E.; 781. 13, lap- 
pidabat H, lapidabat E.; 782. 18, utinam H, ut E.; 782. 31, pl. R. 
H, R. p. E.; 783. 5, audiet H, audiant E. H is sometimes 
corrected by a second hand: e. g., 781. 5, dolere H?, dolore H’; 
782. 8, praedicabant H’, praedicabam H'; 782. 5, celerem H?, 
scelerem H.' 
The same agreement may be observed in the De Petitione Consu- 
1 For a full account and collation of the Erfurdt ms., see Variae Lectiones 
librorum aliquot M. T. Ciceronis ex codice Erfurtensi enotatae ab Eduardo 
Wundero, Leipzig, 1827. 
- ? The references are to the pages and lines of Orelli’s Cicero, edited by 
alter. 
