398 Proceedings of the Royal Irish Academy. 
diversity in mss. as to the orthography of this word. Bambrach . 
(Neugestalt. d. lat. Orthog. p. 78) quotes Probus—Fetigati an fatigati ? 
melius fetigati quod fetzgo dicatur et fess¢ non fass?. 
xm. 26.1. Tanta enim liberalitate se tua usos praedicabant, &c., 
M; esse tua H. The reading of the archetype was probably se esse. 
xu. 28.1. Sed metuisti, ut ais, ne nimis liber in ulcisendo wide- 
rere. Metuisti igitur, ne grauis ciuis ne nimis fortis ne nimis te 
dignus uiderere. So the editors; but the mss. M and H, Hittorp., 
Pal. Sext., read minus for nimis in both cases. Graevius attempts to 
defend the mss., but he fails to explain how ze grauis ciuis is to be 
taken. He asks—Quid est nimis se dignus? It is analogous to the 
English expression ‘‘ to surpass oneself.” To be liber was to be fortis 
and te dignus; and these latter words Cicero is substituting for the 
word (viz. liber) which Cornificius had himself used. 
xm. 30. 5. quo studiosior iussis M; eius sis, edd.; tu sis H; tu 
eius sis, Hittorp., Pal. Sext. This latter is the right reading. It 
accounts for all the corruptions, and we require ¢w as an antithesis to 
ego. This is one of the few examples I have found of Hittorp. pre- 
serving a correct reading which is not found in H; but I cannot be too 
sure, knowing Graevius’s way, that it is quoted correctly. 
xm. 1. 2. traditus mihique commendatusque est M; traditus 
mihique est commendatus H. This latter reads very smoothly, and is 
probably right. It will be a considerable difficulty in any case to ac- 
count for the insertion of gue in both places in M. 
xur. 1. 3. cum idem ut ad te scriberem rogasset H; ut is omitted 
by M, but supplied by most editors. 
xm. 4.1. H reads nec in honoribus meis nec meis laboribus. 
xm. 5.1. impedis M; impediri Hh; impedio edd. And we do 
no doubt require a present tense. Graevius says that some mss. read 
impediri uelim. If so, this is the true reading, the corruption having 
arisen from the copyist having continued at the wrong 7. But it is 
unlikely that both families should have thus erred. 
xu. 6.2. Itaque hoe eius officium quod adhibetur erga illos 
Hh. This is undoubtedly correct. From the error of M, which 
reads adhibeturga, in, omitting er after -wv (we must remember, too, 
that erga is written g in cursive hand), the ordinary reading is derived, 
viz. quod adhibet erga illos, which makes good sense, but does not 
account for the variants. 
xu. 6.5. pertinere arbitrabor M; arbitror pertinere H. But 
the future is required. MHittorp. reads (according to Graevius) ardi- 
trabor pertinere; but I question if Graevius was thinking of anything 
beyond the fact that the words were transposed (see some remarks on 
p-. 378). 
xu. 7.1. quae tua summa in me obseruantia M; tuaque H, h. 
Either would suit; but the reading of H runs smoother. Klotz and 
