PursEr—On a London MS. of Cicero's Letters. oil 
The spurious Declamatio Sallustii in Ciceronem, as it 1s given in H, 
agrees to some extent with ATB, as quoted by Orelli; and the Decla- 
matio Crceronis in Sallustium does so to a still greater extent. Both are 
very accurately copied. H. reads fuerint in 1425.15. Neither of these 
treatises occur in Col. Erf. or Hittorp. 
The Orations against Catiline are, if not the very book itself, at any 
rate in very close connexion with the ms. which Graevius calls his 
secundus. Take, for example, 663.1. Graevius tells us that his se- 
cundus reads publico consilio ‘‘sed eadem manus adscripserat superius 
psetho.”’? This accurately describes the reading of H. Again, 674. 15, 
Gr. sec. reads (agreeing with H), re quidem ne uobis omnibus etiam 
tum probata ; 683. 22, senatu equitibus Romanis urbe aerario ; 684. 14, 
mihi et urbis sine uestro et sine ullo tumultu satis praesidii consultum 
ac provisum est; 687. 14, in rempublicam destrictos retrosimus (where 
H has even the short mark over the 6); 703. 16, praesentis furore non 
mouear (above which in both Gr. sec. and H 1s written praesentis dolore 
non mouear); 715. 10, coadiuuet ( for quoad uiuet). On the whole I 
have looked through about one hundred and twenty of the references 
to Graev. sec. and found at least one hundred and tive agreeing abso- 
lutely with H. As to the other fifteen, 1 am not quite sure that they 
are real exceptions, e.g. 683. 19, Gr. sec. is said to read respondebunt 
tumulus sylvestribus, omitting Catilinae after respondebunt. H has 
Catilinae. But I think Graevius was insisting only that his secundus 
read tumulus, not tumulis, and did not want it to be understood that 
it omitted Catilinae. So 684.7, I do not believe Graevius intended that 
his secundus omitted cum iniquitate (H does not); for though he ig- 
nores it in the Variae Lect., he reads it in the text. The most impor- 
tant differences of H from Gr. sec. are: 665. 22, uerebere (uerebare 
Gr.); 666. 13, adseruarem (seruarem Gr.); 673. 4, euasit erupit (erupit 
euasit Gr.); 678.8, Quirites (om. H, ins. Gr.); 4 quod (quos Gr.); 696. 
8, ad supplicandos (ad supplicandos deos Gr.); 704. 8, ne manent deplo- 
randum P, R. (ne maneat P. R. nomen Gr.); 706. 7, formido (fortitudo 
Gr.). 1t will be easily seen by any reader of Graevius’s Variae Lec- 
tiones that such variants are trivial compared with all the other in- 
stances of agreement. That these two mss. are identical is, to my 
mind, all but certain. 
The Paradoxa stoicorum follow, but from what origin they are de- 
rived I cannot say. The tradition of mss. in Graevius’s notes and Variae 
Lectiones is very scanty, and what there is wanting in definiteness. 
There is considerable agreement with one of Gulielmius’s ss., but not 
sufficient to let us assume connexion. At 750. 25, H reads, Ego vero 
te non stultum ut sepe non improbum sed dementem iudico. Si quid 
in rebus ad uictum necessariis esse inuictum potest, &c. At 758. 27, 
the reading is as in the other mss. mentioned by Orelli. 
The speech for Marcellus, where it occurs first, belongs to the same 
family as the Medicean. It would be tedious and inapposite to give 
the proof in detail. I cannot at all discover to what family to refer the 
second copy of the speech. That it is in neither case connected 
