Purser — Cicevoh Correspondence during his Proconsulate. 393 



below, Att. V. 10. 1, where the MSS. give xv, but v must be right. 

 But as we have seen that Cicero had a long clay's journey before him, 

 he probably started early ; and I suggest that in is a corruption of 

 SI (= hora prima) : of . Biicheler's emendation in Att. xv. 4, init., 

 JjTX for II X of the MSS. When the copyist found ni coming after 

 lunias, he supposed that it had to do with the number immediately 

 preceding, and transposed it. 



Schiche's view {op. cit. pp. 7, 8) — that we should read xiii, sup- 

 posing that the triduum spent with Pompey comprised part of the day 

 of arrival at Tarentum, viz. the 18th, the whole of the 19th, and part of 

 the 20th — unduly contracts the time spent at Tarentum, which Pom- 

 pey's language {cotidie) would seem to imply was more than one clear 

 day, or even a day and a-half ; and unduly lengthens the time spent on 

 the uninviting Journey between Tarentum and Brundisium. Accord- 

 ing to Schiche's views, we must suppose three days, or portions of 

 three days, spent on the road, which seems improbable. 



V. 8. 3. — Scripsi etiam ad Camillum <ad Caelium> ad Lamiam. 



This was about the goods of Milo, The words ad Caelium are the 

 admirable addition of Schiche. His arguments are convincing {op), 

 cit. pp. 11, 12). Cicero did write to Caelius on the subject, cf. Pam. 

 viii. 3. 2, and most probably from Brundisium,^ from whence he wrote 

 to Atticus, Camillus and Lamia. Again, it was unlikely that he would 

 have written on the subject to Atticus who, he feared, was absent 

 from Rome (§ 2), and would not have written at the same time to 

 Caelius, who he knew was at Rome. The ' asyndeton bimembre ' may 

 of course be defended to some extent (cf. Lehmaun, Quaest. p, 25), but 

 it seems uncalled for here. Lastly, the omission is very likely to have 

 occurred owing to the similarity of Caillu and Caeliu. 



V. 9. 1. — sine impedimentis. 



Sin eis impedimentis M^ sine iis imp. M^ sine imp. S, s, c, (cf. 

 Lehmann De epp. ad Att. recensendis p. 70). This latter reading is 

 to be adopted, as it is so well supported. The readings of M would 

 lead one to conjecture sine meis imp. 



V. 10. 3. — Dices: 'Quidadhuc? Nondum enim in negotio versaris ? 

 JSTescio et puto molestiora restare. 



It is quite plain that Nescio spoils the sense. It is just the 



1 Cf. 0. E. Schmidt, Briefwechsel, p. 75. 



