370 Proceedings of the Royal Irish Academy. 
weight.* In fact, the only conclusion I can arrive at, touching these 
two treatises as they appear in H, is that they are not connected with 
Erf. nor Graey. prim.; and that it does not appear to what family 
they belong.t 
It is quite different as regards the Philippics. Here we can be 
very definite, for in H we have ; not only one of the same family as the 
Coloniensis, but the very book itself. In Col. the first two Philippics 
are pretty accurately copied, though we find such strange corruptions 
as 1243. 6, exhaimunt (for exhauriunt); 1271. 5, ‘Capouna ( for 
Capua), corruptions which H also exhibits. But from the third on, 
as may be seen from Graevius’s Variae Lectiones, Col. becomes extra- 
ordinarily corrupt, there being ever so many erasures and corrections. 
Take, for example, such a passage as the following: 1295. 14. Here 
Graevius says—‘‘ In Coloniensi quidem habetur “editorum lectio sed 
haec uerba se similem esse Kathilinae (sic ibi seribitur) gloriart sunt 
erasis uerbis a prima manu scriptis supposita recentiore a manu.” 
Now, this exactly describes the reading of H. Again, at 1346. 15, 
Graevius says :—‘‘ A/iz fuit etiam in Coloniensi sed erasae sunt lit- 
terae (ii relicto @ nota illa litterae a apposita est a recentiore manu, 
ab illa quoque additum est w dies. Ante interpolatorem in illo lege- 
batur guamquam qui unquam ali ludi laetiores fuerunt cum in singulis 
uersibus. Quam etiam est additum ab interpolatore.”” Here, again, 
H. answers entirely to this description. In short, I have gone 
through all the passages, such as the above (and they are many), 
where Graevius has noticed any sort of tampering with the original 
text of Col., and in all of them I have found in H exactly those 
alterations and corrections that he has referred to. Both Col. and H 
have the three large lacunae belonging to the D family (see Orelli’s 
Introd. to the Philippics), viz. 1268. 2-1269. 10; 13806. 3-1318. 
6; 1846. 16-1347. 7. Further they agree with the D family in 
beginning the fourth Philippic at 1286. 6. On these grounds, I 
am quite convinced that the copy of the Philippics in H is the 
Coloniensis Graevius referred to, though I feel bound to add that H 
has 1250. 6, tot praetorios . . . iuuentutis, which Graevius says are 
not found in Col. Graevius did vast work in his day, but was not 
exempt from error occasionally ; and I think he made some mistake 
here. 
3 Graevius alludes to Hittentorpianus (sic) at 589. 15, as haying contemplor. 
So has H. This, however, does not amount to much, though I presume Graey. 
refers to the Hittorpianus. But we have no definite tradition of this Ms. in these 
two treatises. 
4 The codex Gudianus, No. 335, agrees in some points with H, and might be 
supposed to be connected, as without doubt the speech for Deiotarus, where it 
occurs first in H, belongs to the same family as the Gudianus. But the points of 
difference are too great. 
