Purser—On a London MS. of Cicero’s Letters. 379 
Graevius is evidently wishing to emphasize ; 146. 25, Ostiae uideri eum 
commodius exire posse, Hittorp. Ostiac uiderl commodius eum exire 
posse, H. The point Graevius wishes to emphasize is that Hittorp. 
reads ostiae, not optime, and may have neglected to state correctly the 
order of commodius and eum. 172.1, ut magnam mihi partem laeti- 
tiae tua dignitas, afferat, Hitt. Ut magnam partem mihi laetitiae tua 
dignitas adferat, H. Here that Hitt. has afferat, not affert, is the point 
insisted on, not the position of mihi and partem. Similar errors I have 
noticed (I give the reading of H in each case) at 163. 26, quid ad te 
hercule coena numquid ad te; 185.5, repente Antonius in aciem ; 
188, 41, et ego mehercules longe remotus; 196. 30, septem numerum 
nunc; 197, 7, a te mi litterae redditae sunt; 228. 18, quod tuum est 
iudicium de omnibus; 235. 28, praedia in estimatione accepit ; 238. 21, 
meus autem est quam familiarissimus; 239. 7, hic ille est; 240. 41, 
esse eos M. Curt; 266. 27, aliquid ad me wos scribitis; 281. 10, etiam 
illud mihi animum advertisse uideor; 2838. 6, tum mei amantissimum 
te cognoul; 296. 32, ut nihil possit fierl ordinatius; 298. 32, tuis lit- 
teris nulio modo sum factus certior; 300. 18, fac opus ut appareat. 
All the rest of the readings of Hittorp. that we have handed down 
to us agree with H. That one, then, as copied from the other seems 
to me in the highest degree probable. If they were only brothers (so 
to speak) it would be unlikely that we should have closer agreement 
than between Erf. and Pal. Sext. (which are brothers), and the re- 
semblance between H and Hittorp. is much closer. My own opinion 
is that Hittorp. was copied from H, and that the latter is a brother of 
Pal. Sext. and Erf. The reasons I should give for considering that 
Hittorp. is copied from H, and not vice versa, is that in our list of 
differences between the two uss. we found five important omissions in 
Hittorp. whicz were not found in H, viz.: 206. 7; 216. 38; 249. 28; 
282.9; 298.2." Such omissions might have been made in a copy; a 
copyist could not have supplied them. 
The Palatinus Sextus, though agreeing very considerably with Hit- 
torp., and therefore with H, still varies so much that we cannot con- 
sider them to have been copied one from the other. Though a valuable 
Ms., it is less accurate than either of the other two. It was originally 
written in Germany (see Gebhard ap. Graev., p. 3, Pal. Sextus quem 
librum in Germania scriptum esse diuersitas a libris Italicis indicat), 
and is doubtless derived from the same archetype as Hand Erf. The 
tradition of it is not at all as extensive as that of the Hitt. Asa 
sample of its difference from H, I shall mention the places in Book XIV. 
where the two mss. are at variance. 
li The only passage that is strongly against my theory is 214. 14, ut optima spe 
maximoque animo Hitt. ; ut optimo maximoque animo H. It is, however, quite pos- 
sible that Graevius saw that Hittorp. read mazximogue, not et maximo, aud did not 
look further to see how it read the other words (see Variae Lect., p. 310). Another 
passage not so strong, and to be explained in the usual way, is 229. 20. 
R.I.A. PROC., SER. Il., VOL. II.—POL. LIT. AND ANTIQ. 28 
