390 Proceedings of the Royal Irish Academy. 
Cic. Att. vir. 15 a. 2), an unpolished writer, nam illum tanti facio 
utqui [que mss. ut Lamb.] non Caesarem magis diligam. As to the 
difference between accedit ut and accedit quod, the best conclusion I 
have been able to arrive at from the study of all the examples in 
Cicero which I could find is, that with ut either a new fact or a new 
result (actual or logical) can be expressed; with quod only a new fact. 
Hence accedit ut may introduce something that is not the case; but 
accedit quod cannot do so. This is a slight divergence from Mr. Reid’s 
views (De Senec. 16), who considers that accedit ut can only signify a 
new result; but ¢f. Deiot. 2, Phil. nm. 62. 
x. 21. 4. duobus iam consulibus singularibus occisis. So nearly 
all the mss. H and Hittorp. omit sengularibus; but it is a strange 
word to have been added or corrupted from dittographia of consulibus, 
and might have easily fallen out ex homoeoteleuto. There is no neces- 
sity to suppose, as Graevius does, that these are the words of the 
soldiers. 
x. 21. 5. mortuo non modo honorem sed misericordiam quoque 
defuturum M; defuturam H. The reading of M is defended by 
Graevius as a peculiarity of the style of Plancus, who was fond of 
archaisms: cf. x. 11. 3, neque animum neque diligentiam defuturum 
(Stevech.); defuturam H. Also x. 24.1, Amor enim tuus ac ludicilum 
de meutrum..., sit adlaturus. So M, H. 
x. 21.6. ut exercitum locis habeam opportunis . . . dabo operam 
SoH. Ut¢is omitted by M, but it is added by Klotz and Baiter. 
x. 21.7. Fratrem meum tibi .. . excuses litteris M*; excusem 
(edd.); excusa H, Hittorp. These variants suggest a possible reading, 
excuses a litteris, 1. e. excuse on the score of letters, 7. e. excuse for not 
writing to you: cf. Cic. Att. vor. 14, nullum fuit tempus quod magis 
debuerit esse mutum a htteris. For a in this sense without an adj., 
Suet. Caes. 65 init. milites neque a moribus neque a forma probabat, 
sed tantum a uiribus, 
x. 28.5. quod C. Catium Vestinum, tribunum militum, missum 
ab Antonio ad me cum litteris exceperam numeroque hostis habueram. 
In quo.]| So H. The words numeroque hostis habueram are omitted in 
M. Asin so many other instances (see p. 384); we find here also H 
preserving a quite unobjectionable clause, which may readily have 
fallen out ex homocoteleuto. 
x. 24.7. Quodsi quantum debeo habuero apud eum auctoritatem, 
&e. So M, H, Hittorp. In x. 22. 3 M' reads tantum esse tui carita- 
tem, which Victorius and Gebhard adopt. But it is very bold to 
assume that Plancus wrote such extraordinarily bad grammar as that. 
Here our mss. are divided. Amstelod., Mentel., Graev., all read secun. 
quantam, in which reading we shall do well to acquiesce, as Graevius 
has done already. 
x. 25.1. laudem proximam Planco idque ipsius Planci testimo- 
