O84 Proceedings of the Royal Irish Academy. 
These are, as I have said, small matters. The really important 
divergences—those that may lead to alterations of the received text— 
can only be given at the end of this discussion, after a lengthened 
examination of several of the difficult passages throughout the eight 
books. But it may not betaking up too much space if we just summa- 
rize here the principal additions to the received text found ; in H and 
omitted in M (the additions are in italics):—155. 40, illos apud me 
declamitare me apud eos coenitare ; 164. 21, diligentiae est tuaeque curde 
tum etiam; 175. 41, consentiente exercitu concordi ac bene de rep. sen- 
tiente sicut ; 189. 41, equitum JZ. Itaque; 198.7, Nesciebam ; Aguzlam 
perisse nesciebam : Caesari; 216. 38, scripsi guam reuera furere inuent. 
Quod uero aliquid de his sertpysi mivari noli; 2389.18, ov ddro rove 
akeos vehéAn ; 246. 12, id tbc confirmo in; 276. 18, dixissem et tamen 
adolescentem essem cohortatus. 
After these additions we cannot suppose that H was copied from 
M. However, it would be very wrong to suppose that their common 
ancestor (so to speak) was far remote. The following are a few of the 
important points of agreement in IX.-XII., such as show that M 
and H cannot be very widely disconnected VAR. 33, yAavuke ets ; 
145. 39, Chrysippas hee (for xpvourmeia ne an haec ; 147. 6, belle movi 
uel cum spes si; 152. 19, aestate (for est a te) ; 159. il, potiu? va7ro- 
tevypa; 159. 12, papiius (for papisius); 160. 36, inter capedonum, 
Haec ; 162. 23; Phartum, 168. 4, in experiendo in ea; 174. 39, subdi- 
tis; 180. 18, cui arone (for Cularone); 181. 10, quod ad Caesarem 
attinet uidebamus; 183. 33, diuinum rep. beneficium ; 191.31, unquam 
his (for inuidiam iis); 196. 36 [H. S. mihi fuit pecuniae | omitted ; 
199. 5, frigeo opta. non enim ( for frigeo opyavoy enim); 200. 30, iam 
iam (for Lamiam); 203. 24, commode de nobis; 208. 8, fide et de 
constantia; Caesaris e¢ totum; 211. 89, tidio; 215. 23, maxime; 
216. 15, laudi cenorum; 216. 19, celeriter iter expediri nobis; 
217. 38, reliquiae meae diligentiam ; 223. 41, senatus aut frequens; 
229. 2 [remp | omitted ; 229. 5, conamur ( for cogamur). 
As to the nature of the archetype from which all the ms. was de- 
rived, I do not feel certain about it in any respect, except that it was 
in wncials. Such variants as the following will show this :—152. 14, 
tam M., iam H.; 170. 39, adlua M., adiuua H.; 173.18, alancem 
M., aiacem H.; 174. 15, eorum M., forum H.; 175. 16, tuare M., 
iuuare H.; 181. 21, iepidus M., lepidus H.; 189. 4, gessisse M., ces- 
sisse H. ; 214. 32, pollulum M., pollutum H. ; 227. 41, agerrimum M., 
acerrimum H. ; 247. 29: eastris M., castris Hee 261. 7, et M-; er HE; 
261. 9, ui M., ut H.; 269. 9, propeas M., prodeas H.; 285. 1, malo- 
rumque M., maiorumque i. 308. 35, lugubrationibus M., lucubra- 
tionibus H. 
The best conclusion I can arrive at on the whole question is this : 
that from the original archetype of M—let us call it X—and which, 
as we see was in uncials, was copied another ms., not now forth- 
coming (Y.); and from this latter were copied the three German mss., 
viz. Harleian, Palatinus Sextus, and Erfurtensis; and the Harleian 
