Purser—On a London IS. of Cicero’s Letters. 399 
Baiter, objecting apparently to the harshness of M, read after Orelli, 
proque tua summa, &e. But what is given by H, inasmuch as it has 
uss. authority, is more likely to be correct than that. 
xm. 8.1. te me studiosissimum M; te mei studiosissimum (edd.) ; 
te erga me studiosissimum H. This latter looks as if it were the cor- 
rect reading; for though studiosus is not found constructed with erga, 
this is the regular preposition to express any feeling towards a person. 
But how to account for the omission of erga? I do not think the 
copyist of H could have made such an emendation. 
xur. 8.2. Sed tamen cum Caesar Sullanas uenditiones et assigna- 
tiones ratas esse uelit quo firmiores existimentur suae, si, &c. So the 
mss.; but H for the last two words has sua“*¢ Probably the ¢ isa 
corruption of the common symbol for we/, and this is an attempted, 
but erroneous, correction of é (=est). It cannot be a gentile pro- 
noun; we know of nostras, uestras, and cuias, but not suas; besides it 
would not have the meaning here required. 
xmr. 9.2. quae societas ordine ipso et hominum genere. So H, 
Hittorp. This reading is justly adopted by Graevius. The Bithy- 
nian branch of the publicani are a great factor in that state, both as 
belonging to the general corporation of publicani, and as being able 
men in themselves. 
xo. 10.2. Sed tamen causa communis ordinis. So H, Hittorp. 
In nearly all other ss., including M, we find causa omitted. But it 
must be supplied. 
xm. 10.3. wuideor mihi M; sed uideor mihi H. This makes the 
connexion more smooth, and may be adopted; though, indeed, the 
copyist of H is addicted to inserting conjunctions. Take, for ex- 
ample, xv. 9: H adds in that letter e¢ six times where apparently it 
was not in the archetype, ¢. g. 283. 28 (Orelli), e¢ non; e¢ nos; 30, 
et nam; 35, et unum; 39, et cura; e¢ quae mihi. 
xm. 10.38. et usus. Nam H; eius uinam M. If H had been 
copied from M, it could never have got this right reading out of the 
corruption of M; though it is easy for us to see how that corruption 
arose. 
xm. 11.3. mihi uero eo gratius feceris quod, &., H; eo is 
omitted by M. But it might more easily have dropped out than be 
added ; and, as added, the sentence is more idiomatic. 
xm. 15.1. Here H adds after <izy the words év dorto tov 6 axeos 
vepehy éxddvwe péAawa, which, with és ddro for év 670, is the full 
line of the Odyssey, 24.315. M has only ds vedéAy éxddvWe pédawva. 
Greek, as it appears in H, is not plain at all. It must be very like 
that of the Erfurdt ms. Here is the way these two lines are copied 
in H. AAkimo ceccA iHATIccekaio VITON w Neyeynion ¢oTo 
TY NaAkeos NEdeAvekad uve MAAINa. 
