Purser—On a London MS. of Cicero’s Letters. 391 
nioM. Planciis omitted by H. The sentence runs better without it, 
and it looks very like a gloss. 
x. 25.2. Sin autem satisfactum officio reip. satisfactum putas H, 
Pal. Sext. Hittorp.; sin autem satisfactum reipublicae putas M. 
A transposition has been made in Y, and we should read, satis- 
factum officio satisfactum reipublicae. The chiasmus in the other 
case appears too artificial and affected for Cicero; and, further, the 
reading of Y will not account for the omission of officio satisfactum 
in M. 
x. 26.3. protrudimus M ; protendimus (vwlg.); producimus H, 
Hittorp. The latter word will not stand; it means ‘to prolong,’ and 
is applied to what is already existing. The reading of M is right: 
cf. also detrudi in Cic. Q. Fr. 1. 18. 3, ita putantur detrudi comitia in 
mensem Martium. 
x. 27.2. Itaque sapientius, meo quidem iudicio, facies si te in 
istam pacificationem non 7znterponeres M; .. . faceres ... inter- 
poneres H, Hittorp., Pal. Sext.; facves . . . interpones (edd.) Cicero 
felt full well that the pacification Lepidus was negotiating would only 
confirm Antonius in his tyranny, though he chose at first to consider 
that doubtful, and merely as one of two alternatives. Afterwards he 
expresses himself as if the negotiation would certainly be prejudicial to 
the free state. The imperfect subjunctive, then, being, as it is, best 
supported by the mss., should be read in both cases: ‘‘ We shall die 
sooner than yield; and so you would have acted more wisely if you 
had never mixed yourself up in that negotiation of yours for peace.” 
x. 80.3. dexterius cornu fugauerat legionem xxxv. ut amplius pas- 
sus D. ultra aciem processerit. So H. Manutius had already found this 
reading in two mss. All the others omit the number of paces. Five 
miles is rather a long distance for a victorious wing to advance in pur- 
suit ; but the fact of ms. authority for the distance must outweigh any 
such a priord objection. 
x. 82.5. Si quod iussissetis feci H (with ss underlined, to show 
that it is to be erased). In the next letter, § 1, we find in H iussetis 
for iussissetis. This is probably an allowable contraction, as we find 
duste for iussist? in Ter. Eun. 5.1.15; though it is more likely to 
have arisen from the copyist having gone on at the wrong ss. But 
the indicative is certainly required in the passage before us; and it is 
a mere mistake of the scribe underlining s7s instead of se. 
x. 33.4. Pontium. Quidam dicunt Octauianum quoque cecidisse 
H, Hittorp., Pal. Sext., accordingly in Y, but corruptly. Pontium 
Aquilam: dici etiam Octauianum cecidisse—the reading of M is no 
doubt right. Pontius Aquilas is mentioned by Dio Cass. xvi. 388. 3. 
x. 84.1. Equitatum habet magnum; nam omnis ex proelio inte- 
ger discessit ita ut sint amplius equitum. Itaque, &c. So M, omit- 
ting the number. H adds it, viz. m (=1000), a number likely in itself 
(Madyig had conjectured millia quinque to supply the place of ctague), 
