378 
Hart. Hirrorr. 
260. 39 est ille quidem libertus. est ille libertus. 
265. 15 mecum cupit esse. mecum cupit esse secum. 
266. 27 quando ita uobis placet. qm uobis ita placet. 
268. 19 id uelim sit eiusmodi. id uelim ut sit elusmodi. 
268. 27  Philotherum. Philotaerum. 
269. 19 Suis 8S. D. M. Cicero 8. D. Suis. 
212. 3 VIIIL Kal. Formis. omitted in Hittorp. 
275. 14 imbecilla. imbella. 
276. 8 salus. salus ipsius. 
281. 42 M. CatoS. D. Ciceroni Imp. M. Cato C. Imp. S. D. 
282. 9  potius. omitted in Hittorp. 
282. 16 sis. sim. 
284. 31 ego unus debeam. ego debeam. 
287. 37 nulla. ulla. 
288. 30 portam. portas. 
288. 33  reuertatur. reuertuntur. 
288. 38 refrexisset. refrixeret. 
292. 13 moraris. morareris. 
297. 17  uniuersae et senatus et reip. uniuersae reip. et senatus. 
2enO2 NSCOSnras se. 
298. 1 habet a tergo. habemus a tergo. 
298. 1  obrimi. obrul. 
298. 2 modo urbe salua. omitted by Hittorp. 
299. 36 satis scite. satis scire. 
299. 39 tu te mecum esse mi tu cumulatis- tum et mecum esse tum et mihi 
sime satisfacere puto. cumulatissime satisfacere pu- 
tato. 
30M 32) eal: illis. 
302. 17 caue ne suspiceris. caue ut suspiceris. 
303. 3 et N. ad cuius rutam puleio. et ad cuius rutam puleio. 
Proceedings of the Royal Irish Academy. 
Such are a// the real cases in which Hittorp. varies from H; and 
though they seem numerous, they are really very few and trifling 
compared with the vast number of agreements. There are a few other 
cases where there appears to be a variance between the mss., but these 
are, in my opinion, due to mistakes on the part of Graevius. And it 
may not be irrelevant here to say that we must not place too im- 
plicit faith on what Graevius says is the reading of this or that ms. He 
generally wishes to lay stress on some word or words, and disregards 
making the rest of his quotation exactly conform to what he finds in 
the ms. he is quoting from. Take, for example, 271, 9. In his Var. 
Lect., p. 337, we find within four lines the same passage of Hittorp. 
quoted as ‘sed s? metuendus’ and ‘sed metuendus.’ At 235.28, in the 
Var. Lect., p. 321, Graevius gives acceperit, as what Hittorp. reads; but 
in the notes under the text accept. At 228.18, Var. Lect., p. 317, com- 
mendarim is said to be the reading of Hittorp.; in notes under the text 
commendauerim. Such inconsistencies do not weaken one whit our ad- 
miration for Graevius’s wide and profound learning; but it shows that 
we are not necessarily to consider that in the following passages Hit- 
torp. reads exactly as Graevius states, and so is at variance with H, 
especially as in each case the point of divergence is not the matter that 
