400 Proceedings of the Royal Irish Academy. 



Cicero (cf. 19, 1), and lie "svould have been in receipt of it towards 

 the end of !N'oYember, certainly before Dec. 19tb. He, of course, 

 presumed that Atticus, as being so much nearer Eome, knew all about 

 that debate; hence the tone of his allusion to it in §7. After that 

 letter of Caelius, the next information which Cicero received was from 

 Atticus's letter which arrived Dec. 26, and which had doubtless been 

 despatched early in j^ovember before Atticus left Eome for Epirus. 

 This probably related the events of October. Cicero, not having heard 

 for a month about affairs at Rome, naturally spoke of himself as din 

 ignorans. 



The separation of these paragraphs from the main body of the 

 letter is due, like so many other good suggestions, to AVesenberg. It 

 has not been received with favour by most critics ; but it is adopted by 

 Schiche (pp. 21-24) — who, however, does not seem to notice that 

 Cicero may have learned of the debate of Sept. 29 from the letter of 

 Caelius (viii. 8) — and apparently also by C. P. "W. Miiller. It is to 

 be observed that §10 is a postscript, possibly written on Dec. 27 just 

 before Philogenes was sent back with the whole of v. 20. 



In this letter it is right to call attention to Schiche's (p. 8) 

 admirable addition in §1 of <C'oIossis> in the space of seven letters 

 left by M between ■idem and dein : also to the very learned defence by C. 

 F. W. Miiller of Koch's addition in §7 : Sed est totum <in eo> quid 

 .... sit (MSS. est), which was also conjectured by Boot and IrN^esen- 

 berg. To the latter is due the necessary alteration of est to sit. 



V. 21. 4. — In his ykvKVTriKpov illud : confirmas moram mihi 



nuUam fore : deinde addis, si quid secus, te ad me 



esse venturum. 



This is the punctuation of Schiitz and '^^"esenberg, and seems 



preferable to that of most editors who read yX. illud confirmas, moram 



mihi nullam fore. 



V. 21. 5. — (praeter eum nemo accepit). , . . Praeter eum nemo 

 accepit. 



It is quite possible that the words in parenthesis may be a gloss : 

 but somewhat similar repetitions are found: cf. vi. 1. 3. nee inde satis 

 efficitur in usuram mefistruam . . . ea vix in faenus Pompei quod satis 

 sit efficimit ; vii. 3. 6 JV^ujic venio ad frivaia . . . Ad jJrivata venio. 



The Affair of Scaptius. (Att. v. 21. 10-13 : vi. 1. 5-7 ; 2. 7-9). 

 "W'ithin the last three years three important discussions on this 

 most difficult affair have been published, by C. Bardt (Programm des 



