O72 Proceedings of the Royal Irish Academy. 
with Erf. has seemed to me, after considerable examination, almost 
certain. 
Nor can I trace connexion between the speech for Zigarius in either 
place and Erf. or Col. Graevii. Though we find striking similarities 
(e.g. 1202. 25), H (in second place) and Col. read ne am RS for ne 
mers), yet the divergences are very numerous and important. In each 
case the speech is copied in H with considerable accuracy ; but to what 
family it is to be referred is a question I have been unable to answer. 
As also in the case of the speech for Hing Devotarus, at least where 
it occurs the second time and in full. The first time it occurs it only 
goes down to § 26, aetate 1216.26. That is just where the Gudianus, 
No. 335, stops. There is considerable agreement in the readings of that 
Ms. with H, and little divergence; so that one may fairly, in my opi- 
nion, refer both to the same family. But again I am bafiled as to 
where to refer the speech the second time it occurs. Suffice to say it 
does not agree to any great extent with either Erf. or Col. 
Fulgentius Planciades ‘‘ De abstrusis sermonibus” comes in oddly 
amongst all the Ciceronian works. It is inaccurately copied. It has 
quid sit before each gloss all through. It has no list at the beginning, 
and is addressed to Chalcidius. It, however, differs considerably from 
the Brussels ms., No. 9172 (for which see the treatise by Dr. Laurenz 
Lersch on Fulgentius: Bonn, 1844); but this is not the place to discuss 
the comparative worthlessness of H. 
On the speech for Milo we find in Orelli allusions (unfortunately 
only eight) to the Hittorpianus. They are: 1154. 16, ab improbis; 
1155. 4, dtuina; 1172.10, probari; 1173. 11, uides; 1171. 1, libente; 
1182. 2, ea; 1183. 31, et fortissimum; 1183. 31, elegit. In all these 
H has the same reading. (True, in 1155. 4, Orelli says Hittorp. reads 
diuinae, but Graev. declares that it has déuina). This makes a prima 
facie probability of the connexion of the two mss. 
Somewhat different is the case with the speech De Imperio Cn. 
Pompeii. Here I have noted some forty-one references in Orelli to 
the Hittorpianus; and H. agrees in all except five, viz.: 520. 28, 
prope (propter Hitt.) ; 521.28, prope (propter Mitt.) ; 523. 27, ut hac 
uos (ut uos Hitt.); 531, 18, quibus erat molestum (quibus erat sem- 
per molestum Mitt.) ; 538.21, iterum nune (nunc iterum Mi##z.). Still 
when against these we put such important agreements as 5238. 18, 
studio atque odio; 525. 15, partim; 17, illud, omitted ; 525. 20, quale ; 
529. 17, quae; 530. 26, repentina; 532. 24, commendamus; 534. 29, 
gereretur; 32, cuiusquam iniquitas; 537.12, facultatem; 538. 22, re- 
ficiendi, together with twenty-four other such agreements, we have 
very strong proof that, as regards this speech, H and Hittorp. are 
connected. 
The fragment that serves as introduction to the speech for Milo in 
Erf., viz. that beginning P. Clodius senator seditiosus fuit (ef. Orelli, 
1152), follows. It is to be noticed that it is thus out of place. It 
ought to have preceded the speech for Milo. 
The Erf. fragments of the third and fourth Verrines follow, and 
