394 Proceedings of the Royal Irish Academy. 
putares suspicabamur H. This latter is read by Orelli, Klotz, and 
Baiter. Baiter tells us it was a conjecture of Victorius. Orelli 
quotes it as the reading of M. 
xt. 21. 2. Sed tamen cum ego sensissem de lis qui exercitus habe- 
rent sententiam fierl oportere, &c. So M. Orelli has this note: 
Sententiam ferri h. |. prorsus dkvpov. Fort. S. C. fier? secundum 
morem Cod. M. compendia scripturae perverse interpretandi. H reads 
scientiam fiert. This leads us to what appears to be the correct read- 
ing, 8. C. iam fieri, ‘when I perceived that a decree of the senate 
ought now to be passed.”” Sezentiam in contraction would be sca. 
xr. 21.4. metum M; metuam (edd.); metuoH. This latter 
makes much the best sense in the passage. The error in M arose, 
I think, from the o of the archetype having a vertical stroke through 
it, as was often the case. See Chassant Dict. p. 62, for capital O. 
xt. 26.1. H reads. as does M, dent an decernant. The old 
arrangement seems to me the simplest, viz. to put a colon at necne, 
and to read: dent an non decernant. In contraction, non (=f) might 
easily have fallen out after the preceding nm. 
xt. 26.1. Crede mihi nisi ista omnia ita fiumt . . . magnum nos 
omnes adituros periculum M; fiant H. The conditional clause is ail 
dependent on ‘‘ Crede mihi.” Accordingly it is better to read with H, 
fiant. 
x1. 27.2. Multa praetereo quae temporibus illis inter nos familiar- 
issime dicta scripta communicata sint M, h; sunt H. The words 
temporibus willis make the relative sentence refer to special actual 
instances of intercourse; accordingly we require the indicative, as 
Graevius, Schiitz, and Baiter read. Orelli and Klotz retain the sub- 
junctive. 
xr. 27. 4. confirmatio animi mei fracti communi miseriarum metu 
H, Hittorp; communium miseriarum metu (all other mss. and edd.). 
The latter is no doubt right. 
x1. 27.7. tam defendo quam me scio a te aeque contra iniquos 
meos solere defendi H, Hittorp. The other mss. omit aegue. It 
should, however, be retained; and the slightly unusual position it 
occupies is due to a desire to bring it into close proximity to ziguos, 
a position in which the Latins liked to put antithetical words. The 
omission arose ex homoeoteleuto. 
xI. 27. 8. quibus nisi credideris me omnis officii et humanitatis 
exper iudicaris M; ame omnis. . . expersiudicaris H. This latter 
makes sense, but it is a very violent statement—too violent for the 
cordial and affectionate tone of the whole letter: ‘‘and if you do not 
believe this, then I must judge you destitute of all dutiful and natural 
feeling.” And the mode of expression is odd, ‘‘ You are judged by 
me,” for ‘‘I judge you.” The editors generally read expertem; and 
it is a trick of the copyist of M frequently to write only the first few 
