V 
 
 %.^.(f 
 
 PA 
 
 .^017 — T ' ars>^all. 
 
 T-'^Sc g runes arr? 
 critic isrr:S . 
 
 DEC itflSt 
 
 ||^^V Southern Branch 
 of the 
 
 University of California 
 
 Los Angeles 
 
 Form L 1 

 
 "^ <\.tt.^Kih<Y 
 
 U 
 
 This book is DUE on the last date stamped below 
 
 DEC I f^.^' 
 
 i 
 
 • c 
 
 Fonn I. •> 5jn-5,'24
 
 C R U C E S 
 
 AND 
 
 CRITICISMS
 
 CKUCES 
 
 AND 
 
 CRITICISMS. 
 
 AH EXAMINATION 
 
 OF 
 
 CERTAIN PASSAGES IX GREEK AND LATIN TEXTS. 
 
 BY 
 
 WILLIAM W. MARSHALL, M.A.,B.C.L., F.RS.L., 
 
 OF THE INNER TEMPLE ; 
 
 FORMERLY SCHOLAR OF HERTFORD COLLEGE, OXFORD ; 
 
 JOINT-AUTHOR OF "THE LATIN PRAYER BOOK OF CHARLES II;" 
 
 AUTHOR OF " PLUTARCH'S LIVES OF THE GRACCHI, TRANSLATED," ETC. 
 
 > > 3 3 
 
 LONDON : 
 JOLLIO'J" S'lOC'K, 62, PATERNOSTER ROW, E.G. 
 
 1886. 
 
 [All liii/htu licucrveil.] 
 
 01390
 
 
 ( c 
 
 ■ • 
 
 • c 
 
 C €
 
 
 TO 
 
 WILLIAM LEONARD COURTNEY, Esquire, M.A., LL.D. 
 
 FKLLOW, TUTOR, AND LIBRARIAN OF NEW COLLEGE, 
 OXFORD, 
 
 IN GRATEFUL REMEMBRANCE 
 
 OF 
 
 MANY PLEASANT HOURS PASSED WITH HlJl 
 
 IN THE 
 
 STUDY OF PHILOSOPHY.
 
 CONTENTS, 
 
 ^ 
 
 Page 
 
 Introduction ix. 
 
 GREEK AUTHORS. 
 
 I.~Aristotle, Nic. Etii. II. ix. 4 3 
 
 II. „ Nic. Eth. Y. ii. 9 6 
 
 III. „ Nic. Eth. V. iv. 14 9 
 
 IV. „ Nic. Eth. VII. vii. 2 10 
 
 V. • „ Nic. Eth. X. iv. 2 12 
 
 VI. — Plutarch, Caius Gracchus, xii 13 
 
 \ VII.— Thucydides, ii. 76 14 
 
 J5 VIII. „ vii. 30 16 
 
 IX. „ viii. 29 17 
 
 X. — Xenophon, Hell. i. 7 19 
 
 XI. „ Hell. ii. 3 22 
 
 >>j LATIN AUTHORS. 
 
 XII.— Cicero, Ad. Fam. vii. 5 27 
 
 XIII. 
 
 )) 
 
 Ad Att. V. 11 
 
 XIV. 
 
 )J 
 
 Ad Att. vii. 7 . . . 
 
 XV. 
 
 5J 
 
 Ad Att. vii. 1 1 
 
 XVI 
 
 5) 
 
 Ad Att. viii. 3 . . . 
 
 XVII. 
 
 )> 
 
 Ad Att. ix. 9 
 
 XVIII. 
 
 » 
 
 Ad Att. ix. 18 ... 
 
 XIX. 
 
 5> 
 
 Ad Att. X. 1... 
 
 XX. 
 
 )) 
 
 AdAtt. x. 8 ... 
 
 XXI. 
 
 >J 
 
 Ad Att. xi. 6 
 
 XXII. 
 
 Ii 
 
 Ad Att. xii. 2 ... 
 
 29 
 
 .30 
 
 32 
 
 35 
 
 36 
 
 38 
 
 40 
 
 41 
 
 43 
 
 46 
 
 XXIII.— Virgil, Aoneid xi. 319 47 
 
 XXIV. „ Aeneidxi. 774 49
 
 Sed magis acri 
 ludicio perpende et, si tihi vera videntur, 
 Dede inanus, aut, si falsmn est, accingere contra. 
 
 Lucretius.
 
 INTRODUCTION. 
 
 The following ^^ages contain a collection of original 
 thoughts which have occurred to the Author in his 
 private reading and in preparing pupils for the 
 University examinations. To discussions of this 
 tentative nature the proverb Quot homines, tot 
 sententicB must always be peculiarly appropriate ; 
 but it is hoped that the explanations offered in 
 these pages will m some degree conduce to a correct 
 apprehension of the meaning of the passages in- 
 vestigated. 
 
 In some instances an attempt has been made to 
 elucidate obscure allusions and to defend the read- 
 ing of the MSS. The object of other Criticisms is 
 to examine the existing text, and wdiere it appears 
 to be indisputably corrupt, to offer conjectural 
 emendations and to support these by collateral 
 evidence. 
 
 It may perhaps be of interest to some readers to 
 learn what method was employed in attempting to 
 solve several of the corrupt passages. By writing 
 the words continuously and in capitals with various 
 abbreviations an approximation was first made to 
 the probable form of an early MS., and the passage 
 was then studied with as little regard as might be 
 to the reading adopted by the Editors. What is 
 meant will be shown more clearly by quoting the 
 following remarks from Professor Ramsay's Proleg- 
 omena to his edition of Cicero's Oration I'ro
 
 X. INTRODUCTION. 
 
 Cluentio : — " It must be remembered that the most 
 ancient MSS. were all written in capitals and conti- 
 nuously, that is, without regular punctuation and 
 without separation of words. There were numerous 
 abbreviations introduced, some of them common and 
 universally recognized, such as a small horizontal 
 line placed above a vowel to represent m or n, others 
 peculiar to the individual scribe. By paying atten- 
 tion to these matters, we can explain the origin of 
 many various readings which, at first sight, appear 
 to bear no resemblance to each other. " 
 
 It will be noticed that the various Classical 
 authors are by no means equally represented. This 
 is to be explained partly by the fact that most of 
 the suggestions presented themselves spontaneously 
 to the Author's mind ; and partly by considerations 
 relating to the state and value of the MSS. upon 
 which in the case of each author our text depends, 
 and to the amount of critical labour previously 
 expended upon them. 
 
 It may perhaps also be asked, why in discussing 
 textual difficulties reliance has not been placed upon 
 a fresh examination of the best extant MSS. In 
 reply it is submitted that by such a course nothing 
 would have been gained. So far as concerns the 
 passages in question, what it is in the power of 
 research to do with existing MSS., has long ago 
 been done and done well ; and the only hope left, 
 failing of course the discovery of older and better 
 authorities, is to attempt to reconstruct from the 
 materials at command the probable form of still 
 earlier MSS. A few instances of such an attempt 
 will be found in the course of the following investi- 
 gations.
 
 GREEK AUTHORS.
 
 (o<; iyo) (TVix/SdWoixaL roicri ijxcftai'ecrL tol [jltj 
 yivoiCTKoiievai TeKixaipofjLei'O'i. 
 
 Herodotus.
 
 I. 
 
 €7ret ovv Tov fxecrov tv)(€lu aKpco^ ^ake-rrov, KaTarov 
 SevTepov (^acrt nXovv Ta ikd)(i(TTa XrjnTeop tcov 
 
 KaKiOV. 
 
 AeistotlE, Nic. Eth, II. ix. 4. 
 
 The origin of the proverb Kara tov Sevrepov nXovi/ 
 has given rise to much discussion. Aristotle is 
 impressing upon his readers that, where it is im- 
 possible to hit the mean between two vices, we 
 should at all events steer clear of that extreme 
 which is most opposed to the mean ; of the two 
 extremes one is fraught with danger, the other less 
 so ; therefore, as it is hard to hit the mean precisely, 
 we must choose the least of two evils, as the proverb 
 says, Kara tov hevTepov ttXovv. 
 
 Now, in this connection it is difficult to see the 
 approj^r lateness of the proverb if it means " with 
 oars, if not with sails," as the grammarian Eusta- 
 thius says. His evidence is however in no way 
 contemporary as he lived some fifteen centuries after 
 Aristotle. Nor is the testimony from another 
 source, quoted by Liddell and Scott in the 7th. ed. 
 of their Lexicon in support of this explanation, of 
 much higher value : 6 Seure/509 ttXov? eVrt St/Jttov 
 X€y6ixevo<;, av a7roTv)(r) rt? npcoTOv, e/c KOJiraLcn irXeiu, 
 Menand. Thras. 2. In fact little appears from this 
 except that the proverb refers to rowing. Now, a 
 merchantman was heavily built and was worked as
 
 4 CRUCES AND CRITICISMS. 
 
 a sailing vessel without oars or sweeps ; while men- 
 of-war were fitted with banks of oars, and in action 
 were propelled by oars alone, as we find that before 
 an engagement the sails were taken down and the 
 masts lowered. This passage then, if it proves any- 
 thing, tends to prove that the proverb was taken 
 from some manoeuvre of a man-of-war, probably in 
 action. But its evidence is so vague as to be worth 
 little unless otherwise supported. 
 
 The explanation offered by Mr. Williams " mak- 
 ing a losing tack " appears more to the point, but 
 even here what is the other of the pair of evils ? 
 The context seems to demand an explanation which 
 shows two evils and a mean which is good between 
 them. The same criticism applies with still more 
 force to a thu-d meaning assigned to the proverb, 
 " on the voyage home, if not on the voyage out;" it 
 is hard to perceive how this phrase, borrowed it 
 may be presumed from the technical language of 
 the Greek laws of bottomry, could be connected with 
 a mean between tw^o extreme vices. 
 
 Proverbs, like private letters and despatches, can 
 best be understood by a consideration of the times 
 at which they were originally used or written. In 
 the days of Plato and Aristotle what would be the 
 central point of Greek thought so far as it related 
 to naval affau-s ? The engagement at Salamis was 
 practically a land fight on shipboard ; so was that be- 
 tween Corinth and Corcyra except to the Athenian 
 ships. What then were the means which made the 
 Athenian seaman long for the open sea and not for 
 close quarters and straits ; which gave victory to 
 Phormio and those who learnt his secret ; which lent 
 Athens that dominion on the wave that was the
 
 AEISTOTLE. 5 
 
 safeguard of her Empii^e ; and the want of which in 
 the Great Harbour of Syracuse sealed once and for 
 ever the sentence of her fall ? The answer is the 
 skilful tactics of her fast-sailing tru^emes. Instead 
 of grappling or charging beak to beak, it was the 
 object of the Athenian captain to break through the 
 line, turn rapidly round, and charge, if possible, the 
 side, if not, the stern of the enemy's ship. This 
 Bl€K7tXov<;, as it was called, must have been the 
 theme of much conversation among the people for 
 whom it had done so much, and both Plato and 
 Aiistotle must have been familiar with it. An 
 example in later times of the TreptVXov? of a single 
 ship may be found in Plutarch's Life of Lucullus. 
 
 Now, Sevreyoo? 77X01)9 may be translated literally 
 " second charge," on the analogy of Ste/cTrXov? " the 
 charge through the line," and if this represents the 
 second charge made after first charging through the 
 enemy's line as described above, we have at once a 
 proverb taken from what must have been very 
 familiar at the time, and extremely appropriate to 
 the context. If you cannot hit the mean, Aristotle 
 would then teach, choose the extreme which is 
 frauglit with the least danger ; and, as the sailors 
 say in the Ste/cTT-Xov?, if you cannot ram the side, ram 
 the stern, but at all events avoid the beak. 
 
 It may be added that the proverb is alluded to in 
 three passages in Plato, where Professor Jowett 
 represents the sense by the idea of " second best " 
 or " next best ": " But as I have failed either to dis- 
 cover myself, or to learn of any one else, the nature 
 of the best, I will exhibit to you, if you like, what I 
 have found to be the second best mode of inquiring 
 into the cause (Plato. Phoedo, 99 d) :" "Happy
 
 6 CRUCES AND CRITICISMS. 
 
 would the wise man be if he knew all things, 
 and the next best thmg for him would be that he 
 should not be ignorant of himself (Philebus, 19 c) :" 
 *' Therefore, as there is a danger of this, the next 
 best thing in legislating is to have the laws observed 
 alike by one and all (Statesman, 300 b)." It may be 
 remarked however that Aristotle, as we should have 
 expected, appears to employ the phrase in a some- 
 what more accurate and restricted sense than it 
 bears in the Dialogues of Plato. 
 
 11. 
 
 ejret Se to avicrov koI to irXiov ov TavTov dXX eTepov 
 &»9 fxepo^ 77/309 oXov [to [xev yoip ttXeov airav 
 avLiJov, TO S' avKTOv ov nav irXeop), koI to 
 dSiKov KOL Tj a3tKta ov TavTOL dXX' erepa iKeivcov, 
 ra \kev w? P'^p'^ Ta o ws oAa. 
 
 Aristotle, Nic. Eth. V. ii. 9. 
 
 In this difficult passage some MSS, read Trapdvofjiov 
 instead of nXeov, but this does not appear probable, 
 as in ch. i. 8 6 ctSt/cos includes both 6 irapapoixos 
 and also 6 dvLcro<; with its subdivision 6 7rXeov€KTr]<;. 
 Sir A. Grant translates, " But as 'unequal' and 
 'more' are not the same, but stand related to each 
 other as part to whole (for 'more' is a species of 
 'unequal'), so", &c. He adds that " The only way 
 to give any meaning to this indistinct passage is to 
 consider what is said about 'more' and 'unequal' to 
 have nothing to do with irXeove^ia, but simply to be 
 an illustration of a part included by a whole." 
 
 With all respect to this weighty judgment, there
 
 ARISTOTLE. 7 
 
 may perhaps be something to be said for another 
 interpretation Avhich wonld connect irXiov with 
 TrXeove^ia and 6 TrXeopeKTrj^. In ch. i. 8 we have 
 the division mentioned above of 6 aSt/<:o9 into 6 
 7rapdvoixo<i and 6 duicros with its species 6 TrXeoveKTr)^, 
 while TO dStKou is divided smiply and more properly 
 into TO irapdvo^ov and to dvicrov. In the next 
 section but one we find that n\eov€KTr)<; is a species 
 of the genus ai^tcro?, the dSt/cta of the latter includ- 
 ing both nXeove^Ca and a selfish avoidance of evil. 
 Now, as TO icrov corresponds to 6 tcro?, so would 
 TO ttXeov be the natural form corresponding to 6 
 7rXeoveKTr]<; ; compare, ch. i. 10 to Tr\iov atyoetrat, and 
 especially iii. 2 for to nXeov in opposition to to lorov. 
 Is it not therefore possible to understand our pas- 
 sage as referring to the previous position that 6 
 TrXeoveKTTj^ is a species of 6 dvicro^ ? We should 
 then translate thus : " The unjust has already been 
 divided into the lawless and the unfair. * * * 
 The injustice treated of above (that is the universal 
 injustice, the okr) Aca/cta of ch. i. 19) is concerned 
 with the lawless. But just as the unfair and the 
 more are not the same but differ as whole and part 
 (for the more is only a species of the unfan), so the 
 present unjust and injustice are not the same but 
 different from the former, the present being as part 
 and the former being as whole ; for the present 
 injustice (the particular which in ch. ii. 2 appears to 
 be TrXeope^Lo) is a part of the universal injustice." 
 The meaning of the passage will in brief be as fol- 
 lows ; TO dSiKov includes to napdvofjiov and to dviaov : 
 and the particular injustice (whether it be mani- 
 fested in the TrXeoviKTi^s of ch. ii. 2, or more widely 
 speaking in the dvLcros which forms the genus) is a
 
 8 CRUCES AND CRITICISMS. 
 
 part of the universal injustice, just as in the 
 subordinate division to irXeov is a part of to avicrov. 
 In the same way we might say — animal is related to 
 body, just as man is to animal. 
 
 Still even in this way some confusion remains. If 
 Tikeove^ia is particular injustice, what place is occu- 
 pied by the remaining part of unfairness ? Is the 
 distinction between genus and species lost in ch. ii., 
 and does the writer there really mean 6 ai^to-o? and 
 not 6 7r\eov6KT7]<^ ? Again, he seems to make to 
 TTapdvo[xov in a certain way equivalent to to dSt/cov 
 in the universal meaning (cf. ch. i. 12, TrdvTa ra 
 voixifxd icTTL TTcug StKrata), while in ch. i. 8, Trapapofjiov 
 is of course a species of the genus dStKov ; yet 
 what can be a broader view of dStActa than the oXrj 
 KaKia which is the opposite of r] Kara to voyniiov 
 hiKaiocrvvy)!: 
 
 "It is no wonder," says Sir A. Grant on our 
 passage, "that confusion should have been caused 
 when the writer was at so little pains to avoid it ;" 
 and it is hoped that it will not seem out of place in 
 conclusion to point out two instances in this book 
 of similarly careless writing that have not it is 
 believed been before remarked. Fh^st, in ch. v. 15, 
 what is 7r/)og Ty]v xpetctv ? Does it mean " for all 
 practical purposes" as it appears to be usually taken ; 
 or might it not mean " by reference to demand," as 
 we are told in ch. v. 11, that r] XP^^^ (demand) navTa 
 crvvexet ? The second instance is in ch. vii. 2, where 
 ovSe fioLxo<;, iixoLxevae Se appears to be taken from 
 the jaotxo? in the preceding paragraph, it being 
 forgotten that this example was already used in 
 that paragraph in the words /cat yap av crvyyivoiTo — 
 ovK ea-TLv. In one of the more carefully written
 
 ARISTOTLE. 
 
 books no doubt ovSe ixol)(^6<;, iyiOL^evcre Se would long 
 ago have been omitted as an interpolation. 
 
 III. 
 
 OTav oe jxrjTe irkeov jjltjt ekarrov akk avTa ol 
 avT(ou y€ur]TaL, ra avTcov (^aalv e)(eLV koI ovte 
 tpr) [jLLOvcrO at ovre KepSaivetp. 
 
 Akistotle, Nic. Eth. V. iv. 14. 
 
 The words dXX' aura Sl avTiov yevrjTai seem always 
 to have been a stumbling block to the Com- 
 mentators. Sir A. Grant quotes the interpretation of 
 Felicianus, '' sed sua cuique per se ipsa evaserint ;" 
 of Argjropulus, " sed sua pei^ se ij^sa sunt facta;" 
 of Lambinus, " sed paria paribus respondent ;" he 
 translates himself, "but result in being themselves 
 by means of reciprocity." Chandler considers that 
 St' avTcov means " by buying and selling," and Mr. 
 Jackson thinks St' avrcov yevr]Tai equivalent to "come 
 mto their possession," adding the conjecture avra a 
 Set avTwv yivrjTat ; while Rassow inserts to. before 
 St' avTcov. Others take dXX' as equivalent to dXX' y), 
 "except when the loss or gain is their own doing;" 
 and others take St' avTcov as parallel in form to Std 
 fxecrov " in the middle" and aurd as " exactly as 
 they were." 
 
 Since none of these suggestions is considered alto- 
 gether satisfactory, perhaps it may be permissible 
 to add one more to their number. One of the MSS. 
 has TOL instead of avra, which perhaps points to the 
 fact that the av of avra is a separate word, and 
 that the reading should be dXX' av to, St' avTcou 
 yeurjT at. This would give good sense ; " but when
 
 10 CRUCES AND CRITICISMS. 
 
 things are neither more nor less, but amount again 
 to what they themselves have acquired," &c. ; which 
 is as much as saying that in an ideally fan' bargain 
 it is the nature not the amount of a man's wealth 
 that is changed. For the expression rot Sl avrcov as 
 meaning " what they themselves have acquu^ed " 
 compare Nic. Eth. IV. ii. 14, of? rot roiavra 7rpov7rdp)(€i 
 Si avToiv rj Sta tcov irpoyovoyv, and the expression not 
 uncommon m the Politics hC avrcov etpac "to be in 
 their possession ;" for 'origin' as the idea contained 
 in Sta we have also Xenophon's at Sta crw/xaro? 
 r)Soval, and Sta ^acrikioiv irecjiVKivaL : we may compare 
 also Plutarch Tib. Gracchus, VIII, ^are/jw? rjhr) St' 
 eavTcov to, TrXetcrra Kare^d^rcwv, "wdiere St' iavTcov " in 
 their own name" is opposed to vTroySXT^rot? npocraiTroLS, 
 and St' iavrov TTOLelv in Xen. Cyr. VII. ii. 24. 
 
 It is interesting to remark that in Plato's Pe- 
 public, VIII, 547, we have the variant readings 
 TO S' av, TO S' avTo, and toj S' av, to, showing the 
 probability of a confusion between aura and av to,. 
 
 IV. 
 
 o fxev ra? VTreppoAas olcokojv Toiv rjoeojv i] Katf 
 V7rep^o\a<i rj Sta tt poaipeciv, St' avras Kal 
 ixrjhev St' erepov airo/Balvov, dfcoXacrro?. 
 
 Aristotle, Nic. Eth. VII. vii. 2. 
 
 Upon this passage Sii^ A. Grant says, "It is plain 
 that rj before Sta TTpoaCpecnv in the text must be a 
 mistake," and he quotes one of Bekker's MSS. for 
 /cat in place of ^ and adopts this in his translation, 
 saying that it would answer to the expansion of the 
 Paraphrast ; but the ovx ekKoixevos k. t. X, of the
 
 AEISTOTLE. 1 1 
 
 Paraphrast would rather suggest 8ta irpoaipecnv 
 without either koX or 17. Another suggestion is to 
 read /ca^' 6 vTrep^oXal omitting the t] both before and 
 after ; but this is rather a violent change, and more- 
 over leaves no explanation of the alternative given 
 by the Paraphrast rj raq (f)vcreL fieydkas act tj^roiv 
 -qSopd'?, rj rag (f>v(r€L /xer^ta? v7rep/3aXX6pTco<; tjjrwv ; 
 the first of these is represented in the text of our 
 passage by ra? vTr€pj3oXd<g Slcokoju Toiv rjSeoju, but 
 what have we in the text thus emended to corres- 
 pond to the second alternative ? The paraphrase 
 suggests that the passage should mean : " He who 
 with deliberate purpose either pursues excessive 
 pleasures or pursues pleasures in an excessive 
 way," &c. 
 
 It is here proposed to make a slight change in the 
 MSS. reading which would give precisely the sense 
 requu^ed. If it could be supposed that 8ea has 
 dropped out before Sta, we should then have 6 pAv 
 ra? v7repl3oXd<; Slmkcov tcov rjSecjv ^ Kad^ VTrepjSoXd^ 
 Tjhea hid TTpoaipecriv, the latter clause of w^iich 
 would exactly answer to the Paraphrast's r^ rd<; (fyvaeu 
 perptaq inrep^aXXoPTO)'? tpqTcov, ov^ eXKopevo^ k. t. X. 
 It may be urged against this that ')7S€a without the 
 article would be uncommon, but as the article is 
 omitted in Ka9' vnep^oXd';, the rd which we should 
 have expected with rjSea might also be omitted to 
 correspond. A similar instance may be quoted in 
 Nic. Eth. III. i. 10, pdXXou S' €olk€u eKovaLOL<;, and 
 with a slight predicative force, in construction though 
 not in meaning, Xeyoj 8e /caret (Tvp/3e^r)K0<; rjSea ra 
 LaTpevovTa- -« -^ -«■ (pvaei o rjoea, a voLec irpagiu 
 T7]<; rotacrSe ffyvaeojs in this book, ch. xiv. 7.
 
 12 CRUCES AND CRITICISMS. 
 
 V. 
 
 Iv xpovo) yap rraaa Kivrjcri^ /cat Ti\ov<i tlv6<;, olov r) 
 OLKoooiMLKT} TcXeta, oTav TTOiTjcrri ov iffiteTaL. rf iv 
 airavTL S17 rw 'y(j)6voi rj totjtco. 
 
 Aristotle, Nic. Eth. X. iv. 2. 
 
 If ^ is retained before tovtoj, the last clause must 
 mean " either in the whole time or in the last indi- 
 visible moment of that time" ; but it seems hardly 
 possible to get this out of the Greek. The other 
 sense sometimes assigned to tovto) " any particular 
 part of that time" is contradicted by the last sen- 
 tence of this paragraph /cat ovk €<ttlu, k. r. \. 
 
 Sir A. Grant follows Michelet in omitting with 
 two MSS. rj altogether, translating " May we not 
 say {rj) then that it is perfect in the particular 
 ijovToj) time viewed as a whole ? " This however 
 does not account for the existence of the second r^, 
 unless it be supposed that it was a pure mistake 
 arising from the former rj. 
 
 It may be suggested therefore that for y) tovto) we 
 should read y ovto<;. If that was the original 
 reading, the corruption in the text might easily be 
 explained. The Ht might be changed into HT 
 owing to a misunderstanding of the iota, and the 
 form TovTo<; arising from that change would almost 
 infallibly be altered to tovto) to agree with xP^vw. 
 If y ovTo<; could be read, the sentence might then be 
 translated, " May we not say it is perfect in the 
 whole time viewed as such ? " And we might com- 
 pare the next chapter of this Book, paragraph 10, 
 6 aya6os fj tolovto^. The sense thus obtained is 
 exactly in accordance with the last words of this
 
 PLUTARCH, 13 
 
 section, ovK ecTTiP iv orcoovv ^povoi Xa^eiv KivrjCTLv 
 Tekeiav rw etSet, dXX' eiirep, eV rw airavTi. 
 
 VI. 
 
 Kai TTp6<; ye rov^ ixOpov<; ineyyekiovTaq avTco Xeyerai 
 OpaavTepov rov Seovro'? enrelv, ws SaphovLOV 
 yeXojTa yekcocnv, ov yiyvo)(TKovre<;, oaov avToi<? 
 (tk6to<s ck Ta)v avTov TrepLKe^vrai Troktrevixdrcov. 
 
 Plxttarch, Cams Gracchus, XII, 
 
 On this passage there is the following note in 
 Langhornes' Plutarch : " Why the laughter of 
 Gracchus's opponents should be called forced or 
 Sardonic, because they did not perceive his super- 
 iority, it does not appear. It might more properly 
 have been called affected if they did perceive it 
 (Koutledge's Ed.)." The reasonable character of 
 this criticism is self-evident. It is just possible 
 that Plutarch as a late writer used the word in 
 a loose sense, and even in Homer Od. xx. 301, 2, 
 jjieiSyjo'e 8e Ovjxo) crapSdvLov jotctXa toIov, the expression 
 seems to refer to a laugh of secret triumph. Still 
 from Plato Pep. I, 337 and other passages, the ex- 
 planation of the Scholiast or dv rts pLXj e/c Sta^eVew? 
 yeXa appeal's to be the more usual one ; and the 
 origin of the expression is seen in Virgil, Eel. vii. 41, 
 " Imino ego Sardois videar tihi aTnarior herhis." 
 As the meaning of a forced or unnatural laugh 
 seems so much more suitable to the general context, 
 it becomes interesting to notice how small an altera- 
 tion would be required to make our passage har- 
 monize with that meaning. In his " Plutarch's 
 Lives of the Gracchi," p. 44, the present .-mthor
 
 14 CRUCES AND CRITICISMS. 
 
 inserted a note to the following eifect upon the 
 passage before us : " With this text ' Sardonic ' 
 must mean ' of secret triumph,' as in Horn. Od. xx. 
 301, 2. The more usual and more suitable sense 
 might be retained by reading ol or m for ov, as in 
 Thuc. iv. 18, one MS. has ovre for wcrre ; the hazard 
 attending an omission of the negative is however 
 fully admitted." 
 
 The author was not at the time fully satisfied 
 with either of these suggestions ; and he has to 
 thank a former pupil, whose past successes at the 
 University are a bright augury of his future career, 
 for a much simpler and better emendation. Accord- 
 ing to this suggestion, we should substitute e for o, 
 and read 'taphovtov yeXcora yeXcocnv ev yiyvoi<TKovTe<^ 
 ocrov, K. T. X. The very same confusion occurs in 
 Thuc.vi. 75, where the MB. Palatinus Heidelhergensis 
 reads ov for ev. 
 
 VIL 
 
 Kai iJLrj)(^cLva<; TTpocrrjyov rfj TToXeu ol UeXoTTOvPTJcLOL, 
 fxcav jJL€v rj tov [xeydXov olKoSojJLitjjjLaTO'5 Kara to 
 ^oijaa TTyaocra^^etcra im jxeya re KareaeLcre, k. t. X. 
 
 Thucydides, II. 76. 
 
 This sentence occurs in the descrij^tion of the 
 siege of Plataea. As a protection against the 
 mound of the besiegers the Plataeans erected an 
 additional wall, called in the paragraph preceding 
 "that from which our passage is taken to /xeya 
 oLKooojxrjfjLa "^ * to Kara to ^cu/xa. W^e are then 
 immediately told in the present passage that " the
 
 THUCYDIDES. 1 5 
 
 Peloponnesians brought up engines, one of which 
 when brought up shook down to a great ex- 
 tent a portion of the great building [tov jxeyoiXov 
 olKoSofjLr]ixaTo<; Kara to y^co^a, k. t. X.), and terrified 
 the Plataeans." 
 
 Now, what is the meaning of Kara to ^^ixa in this 
 second passage ? Mr, Dale in his translation entirely 
 ignores the words, unless indeed he intends to 
 represent them by the expression " close to the 
 wall." They are commonly taken to mean " by way 
 of the mound," but it may be objected to this that 
 it is difficult to have /cara to x^jxa in different 
 senses in two consecutive paragraphs. 
 
 It is here suggested therefore that tov should be 
 read before /caret to y^wfjia, and the expression will 
 then exactly accord with that in the preceding 
 passage. Of course in this case the genitive will be 
 partitive, as in Thuc. i. 30, Theo.-xxv. 224, &c. The 
 change is not a very serious one if we consider that, 
 in the next chapter but one before this, the tcov of 
 TcJuSe is omitted by one of the best MSS., and the 
 6 before /BacnXevs by four of Bekker's MSS. ; and 
 again three chapters later one MS. omits tcju before 
 TTpo(T^oy]6rj(TdvTCxiv, and another ol before ^xev oTrXtrat. 
 
 It may be remarked in conclusion that Grote sup- 
 ports the sense thus derived (Part II. chap, xlix) : 
 " Archidamus further brought up battering engines, 
 one of which greatly shook and endangered the 
 additional height of wall built by the Plataeans 
 against the mound." 
 
 1)
 
 16 CHUCES AND CRITICISMS. 
 
 VIII. 
 
 TO. fxeu Khra rrjv MvKa\y)(T(TOP TrdOei ^prjCTaiLevoiV 
 ovSevo<; o)? eTrl jxeyeOeL tcou Kara tov noXefjiov 
 rjacrov oXocfivpacrOaL a^ioi rotavra ^vve/3r). 
 
 Thucydides, VII. 30. 
 
 The MSS. seem unanimous in reading xPV^^I^^^^^' 
 and it is therefore hazardous to attempt conjecture. 
 As the text stands we must understand " the 
 Mycalessians" from MvKoXiqcrcrov, or avTcov, or take 
 the genitive absolutely. In the edition " Gottleberi 
 et Bavej'i," the translation is " quam Mycalessus 
 accepit," but in the notes the authors retain the 
 genitive ; Mr. Dale translates : " With regard, then, 
 to Mycalessus, which experienced, considering its 
 extent, a calamity not less lamentable than any 
 which happened in the war, " &c. It must probably 
 have occurred to every reader of the passage 
 how much simpler it would be if we might read 
 •^p7]craix€V7)v, and there are sufficient reasons for 
 suspecting an error in the text ; first, the position 
 of the participle which is a sort of predicate and not 
 between the article and the substantive ; secondly, 
 the termination ov of MvKraXi^crcroi/, which would 
 suggest a masculine participle, if any, to agree with 
 it; thirdly, xprjcraiJLevrjv would be separated from 
 its substantive by irddeL ; and lastly, the next word 
 ovSei^o? and the tcov Kara tov TTokep^ov following 
 would suggest a genitive case, for which we may 
 compare Thuc. v. 82, where ^ Kpy eioiv probably 
 suggested the corrupt dyyeXoiv. It is also worthy 
 of note that in the very next chapter es r'r]v 
 ZaKvvOov is changed by one of the best MSS. to
 
 THUCYDIDES. 17 
 
 es re ZduvvOov, perhaps for the second reason 
 suggested above, namely the mascuhne termin- 
 ation in ou. These considerations seem to point 
 strongly to -xprjaa^eu-qv as the original word in the 
 present passage. 
 
 IX. 
 
 ojjLOJS Se IT a pa nevTe vav<; irXeou avSpl eKaaTO) rj Tpels 
 
 6/3oXol oip^okoyrjOrjcjav. 
 
 Thucydedes, Vm. 29. 
 
 In the winter of 412 B.C. Tissaphernes wished to 
 reduce the pay of the Peloponnesian fleet, and pay 
 each man three obols and not the full di-achma. 
 The Syracusan commander Hermocrates resisted 
 this, but the SjDartan officer Theramenes, as he 
 was only instructed to give up the fleet to Asty- 
 ochus, was indifierent through a mean spmt of 
 jealousy. It was agreed however that there should 
 be paid " a sum [for the whole fleet] larger by five 
 ships than three oboli a man per day." This 
 amounted to three talents a month for every five 
 ships [omitting koI irevTrfKovTa with Bekker, &c.]. 
 
 The difficulty is great to explain irapa irevre vav<;. 
 Mr. Dale's version given above follows Bloomfield, 
 but at best a weak and confused sense is obtained, 
 and the arrangement of paying the fleet proportion- 
 ately on such a basis would be extremely complicated. 
 On the other hand Goller and Arnold appear to 
 explain the words as " for every five ships," and so 
 identical with e's rrivTe vav<i of the next sentence ; 
 but it seems hard to understand -napa in the sense 
 of Kara against all analogy.
 
 18 CEUCES AND CRITICISMS. 
 
 Not an uncommon meaning of irapa is " except," 
 and it is here proposed to translate the passage, 
 " It was agi'eed that each man should be paid more 
 than three obols except in the case of five ships." 
 It will not be difficult to show both examples of this 
 meaning, and also what ships these five probably 
 were, and the reason why their pay was kept at the 
 reduced rate of three obols. 
 
 First, for irapa in the sense of " except " may be 
 quoted amongst other passages Herodotus ix. 33, 
 TTapa ev irdXaLcrixa eSpafxe vlkolv 'OXu^aTTtaSa ; Isaeus 
 xli. 36, TTapa TeTTapa<i xfj-Qij^ov^ iJi€Tea)(e Trj<? Tr6Xeo}<; ; and 
 Thucydides vii. 77, trap okiyov Si€<f)€vyov. Secondly, 
 in this book, chapter 6, we read that the Spartans 
 prepared for Chios avrl roiv Se/ca vewv TreVre. In 
 chapter 17 we find that the Spartan admiral Chal- 
 cideus left the seamen of these ships at Chios, and 
 manned the ships with substitutes from that island ; 
 and we are told again in chapter 32 that the number 
 of these ships was five. 
 
 It is then probable that these were the five ships 
 excluded from the enjoyment of higher pay. For 
 Thucydides expressly says the Spartan commander 
 /xaXaKo? rjv irepl tov p^LcrSov, and this would be one 
 reason for their exclusion. The fact of these five 
 ships being manned by Chians is another reason 
 why they should not be paid at high wages ; in 
 chapter 45 of this book Thucydides says that, 
 ahnost at the very time referred to in the passage 
 before us, Alcibiades advised Tissaphernes to lower 
 the pay of the fleet to three obols ; that Hermo- 
 crates alone opposed it (this is repeated from our 
 passage) ; and that Alcibiades replied in the name 
 of Tissaphernes to the States which applied for
 
 XKNOPHON. 19 
 
 money that the Chians were shameless, for though 
 the richest of the Greeks and protected by the aid 
 they received, yet they expected others to risk their 
 blood and fortunes for the liberty of Chios. Surely 
 this passage points to just such an exclusion of the 
 Chian crews on board the Spartan vessels from a 
 high rate of pay, as is hinted at in chapter 29, if 
 the present interpretation of rrapa neuTe vavs be 
 accepted. 
 
 X. 
 
 'Ap)(^eSr]iJLO<; 6 tov Sr^yaov Tore 7rpoe(rTr)KQj<; iu ^Kdrjvai^ 
 
 /cat rrj? AcKeXeta? e7rtjLteXd/A€i'09 'Epaa-LViSyj 
 
 iTTL^o\y]v iTTLJSaXcju KaTiqyopei iv SLKaaTrjpioj, 
 
 <f)d(TKcov i^ *E\\r](T7r6vTov avrou e^etv y^Tj ^ara 
 
 OVTOi TOV o-qfiov. 
 
 Xenophon, Hellenics I. 7. 
 
 It has been much disputed what is the meaning of 
 TTJ'i Ae/ceXetag iTnixeXofjievo^. Dobree conjectures rrjs 
 AeKarevcrecos, referring to the levying of the tithe in 
 the Hellespont ; Mr. Hailstone gives rrjs Aiw^eXta?, 
 and Grote, while approving of Dobree's conjecture, 
 says none of the commentators can explain the text 
 in a satisfactory manner. 
 
 But perhaps something can be urged in favour of 
 the MSS. reading. In the first place, where Avas 
 Deceleia ? " Dekeleia was situated on an outlying 
 eminence belonging to the range called Parnes, 
 about fourteen miles to the north of Athens * * *. 
 The hill on which it stood, if not the fort itself, was 
 visiVjle even from the walls of Athens. It was 
 admirably situated both as a central point for ex- 
 cursions over Attica, and for communication with
 
 20 CRUCES AND CRITICISMS. 
 
 Boeotia ; while the road from Athens to Oropus, the 
 main communication with Euboea, passed through the 
 gorge unmediately under it (Grote's Greece, Part II. 
 chap. Ix.)" When we compare Thuc. vii. 28, "The 
 carriage of provisions from Euboea, which before 
 was effected more quickly overland from Oropus 
 through Deceleia, was now carried on at great 
 expense by sea round Sunium ;" and further when 
 we read that, by the occupation of Deceleia, Athens 
 olvtI tov TToXt? eivac (()povpLov /carecrrTy, we cannot but 
 conclude that Deceleia was regarded as a most im- 
 portant spot in connection with Athenian imports. 
 Agis from his post at Deceleia saw the ships sailing 
 from the Euxine into the Piraeus (Xenophon, Hell, 
 i. 1 ), and it is probable that the Athenians too had 
 used it as a look-out for the corn ships. Nay more, 
 we are told that soon after this Thoricus was forti- 
 fied for the safe reception of these vessels instead 
 of their sailing on to the Piraeus (Grote, chap. Ixiii). 
 It is not improbable then, that before the occupation 
 of Deceleia the Athenians used to land some of 
 their cargoes at Oropus, and send them forward to 
 Athens by the same road as that by which the 
 Euboean produce was taken, just as aftei"wards they 
 sent them by land from Thoricus. 
 
 Now, in Boeckh's " Public Economy of Athens," 
 Bk. iii. c. 4, we find it stated that " The duty was 
 paid upon imported commodities at the unlading 
 (Demosth. Paragr. c. Lacrit. p. 932, 25 sq)." Also 
 that " Custom duties must necessarily have been 
 established by land against Megaris and Boeotia ; 
 for at certain times a total prohibition existed 
 against those countries. * * It is related of 
 Oropus, upon the boundaries of Attica and Boeotia,
 
 XENOPHON. 21 
 
 that the inhabitants were all plunderers and toll- 
 gatherers, and also raised a duty upon imported 
 goods. * * This might certainly be referred to a 
 duty paid upon entrance into the country, which 
 the Boeotians and the Athenians had at different 
 times collected at this spot ; but as Oropus was 
 situated on the sea, and as the importation from 
 Euboea into Attica originally went by way of 
 Oropus, the meaning remains uncertain (Dicaearchus 
 m the Description of Greece, and the verses of 
 Xenon which he has preserved)." 
 
 From a consideration of these points it appears 
 not improbable that there might be a sort of 
 custom-house at Deceleia for watching the imports 
 and duties as they went to Athens, and if so the 
 chief officer would be a very fit person to attend to 
 the tolls of the Bosphorus, which would in all proba- 
 bility be brought from time to time to Athens by 
 the same route ; and such an official would in that 
 case be a most proper person to institute the pro- 
 secution of Erasinides for stopping public money on 
 its way from the Hellespont, and his would be a 
 position " sufficiently exalted to confer upon him the 
 power of unposing the fine of limited amount called 
 
 It must be remembered that this toll was not a 
 new thing ; Mr. Grote says, " The Athenians seem 
 to have habitually levied this toll at Byzantium, 
 until the revolt of that place, among their constant 
 sources of revenue (chap. Ixiii.)" ; it would be in 
 existence therefore at a time when Deceleia was in 
 Athenian hands and possibly the seat of a Govern- 
 ment office. It is of course admitted tluit all this 
 is conjectural, but our passage su})ports the view,
 
 22 CRUCES AND CRITICISMS. 
 
 and the stress which Thucydides lays on the capture 
 of Deceleia shows what importance he attached to 
 its possession ; but it was not in accordance with 
 the Greek mind, even as manifested in a Thucydides, 
 to enter into matters of a financial character. It is 
 worthy of remark in conclusion that Thucydides 
 largely ascribes to the injury inflicted by the occupa- 
 tion of Deceleia that scantiness of money, which 
 necessitated the tax of 5 per cent, instead of the 
 tribute, " as their revenues were jbeing destroyed " 
 {ocrcp Koi ijl€l[,o)v 6 TToXe/AO? "^v • at Se TrpoaoSoL 
 ancoXXvuTo, vii. 28) ; and the words ^rjixaTOiv oXedpco 
 in the chapter before probably refer to the same fact. 
 
 XL 
 
 eTret o rjaueTO avTiTraXov tl tt] oXtyapvta crwicrT- 
 afxevov, irpotTO^ av riyep.o)v tm St7/xoj eV iKetvov; 
 lyivero ' odep StJttov kol K60opuo<s iiTLKaXeiTaL • 
 /cat yap 6 KoOopvo^ app-OTTeiv fxeu rot9 nocrlv 
 d[X(f)OT€poLS SoKel, arro^XiTTei S' 0,77' d/xcpoTepcju. 
 
 Xenophon, Hell. II. 3. 
 
 This passage refers to Theramenes, whom Mr. Grote 
 describes as " a long-sighted as well as tortuous 
 politician (History of Greece, Part II, chap. Ixiv)." 
 The general context will be best shown by quoting 
 a few lines from Mr. Grote's abridgement of this 
 speech of Critias denouncing him : " He must be 
 dealt with not only as an enemy, but as a traitor to 
 you as well as to us ; a traitor in the grain, as his 
 whole life proves. Though he enjoyed through his 
 father Agnon a station of honour under the demo- 
 cracy, he was foremost in subverting it, and getting
 
 XENOPHON. 23 
 
 up the Four Hundred ; the moment he saw that 
 ohgarchy beset Avith difficulties, he was the fii'st to 
 put himself at the head of the people against them ; 
 always ready for change in both directions. * * 
 He has well earned his surname of The Buskin, 
 fittmg both legs, but constant to neither (Part II. 
 chap. Ixv)." 
 
 Cobet omits the words kol yap to afxcpoTepoiv as 
 spurious, and with some show of reason. As they 
 stand, they appear entirely untranslatable, though 
 the meaning is clear, for it must correspond to the 
 answer of Theramenes, arroKaXeL Se KoOopvov p.e, oj? 
 aix(l)OT€poL<; TreLpdjfxei'ov apixoTTetv. 
 
 Now, there appears to have been one word running 
 in the mind of Xenophon in this part of the chapter, 
 which would perhaps help us to find the word which 
 he \\Tote, if the passage is genuine, instead of the 
 evidently corrupt d7ro/3Xe7reL. In the next sentence 
 we have ixeTa^dXXecrOaL, in the next but one /xera- 
 ySoXal and evjjieTd^oXo^, from w^iich we see that the 
 verb l3dXX(i) was in the author's mind at the thne he 
 \\Tote this passage. It appears from this not alto- 
 gether improbable that instead of dTro/SXeVet we 
 should have some form of aTTo/SdXXcj. The present 
 passive dno^dXXeTaL would certainly be an unusual 
 form, as of course ttlttto) is commonly employed as 
 the passive of ySaXXw. Still an unconnnon form 
 would tend to confusion in the MSS., and passages 
 such as Hdt. iii. 95, Thuc. viii. 81, Plato, Theaet. 
 153 E, Aeseh. Ag. 469, Aeseh. Cho. 1012, Pind. O. 
 i. 14, Theo. xviii. 1 1 , and others, might be quoted in 
 support of it ; and the passive is sufficiently common 
 in the perfect and aorist. It is not difficult to see, 
 if diro^dXXerai be the true reading, how the
 
 24 CRUCES AND CRITICISMS. 
 
 confusion may have arisen. In the first place the 
 similarity of the letters AAA might cause the omis- 
 sion of the first two ; there would then be written 
 oLTTo^XeTai ; further confusion may have arisen from 
 a variant reading aTro^dWei, the 2nd singular 
 middle, introduced on account of the exclamation 
 Qi &r]pdiJLei'e<; which immediately follows. The cor- 
 rujDt form dTTo^Xerai and this termination -et might 
 easily result in the aTroySXeVet of the MSS. 
 
 It may also be remarked that in the reply of 
 Theramenes the verb jaera/3aXXecr^at occurs again 
 more than once, showing that a repetition of ideas, 
 such as that which occurs in our passage and the 
 diroKaXel Se, k. t. X., of Theramenes, is not unsuit- 
 able to Xenophon's style of writing. If the above 
 suggestion could be admitted, the requisite opposition 
 between [xeu and Se would be obtained ; "for the 
 buskin seems to fit both feet, but is thrown off from 
 both ;" the buskin when unlaced would no doubt be 
 more easily thrown off than an ordinary shoe, as it 
 was made with straight soles to fit either foot. An 
 emendation such as that suggested above would 
 at all events seem preferable to omitting a sentence, 
 which is otherwise in Xenophon's style, on ac- 
 count of one slight corruption in the text ; and 
 we thus obtain sense which accords well with the 
 evident allusion in the passage to the time-serving 
 policy of Theramenes, and the constant changes in 
 his political attitude.
 
 LATIN AUTHOHS,
 
 Multa concurrunt simul, 
 Qui co7ijecturam hanc nunc facio. 
 
 Tere^xe. 
 
 Sed 7ieque tamfacilis res ulla est quin ea jyTWium 
 Difficilis magis ad credendum constet. 
 
 Lucretius.
 
 XIL 
 
 M. iffiuium, quern mihi commendas, vel regem 
 Galliae faciam, etc. 
 
 Cicero, Ad Fam. VII. 5 (Mr. "Watson's Selection, Ep. 27). 
 
 Cicero writes this letter to Caius Julius Caesar to 
 recommend Trebatius to his kindness, and says that 
 he was encouraged to do so by a letter which had 
 just arrived from Caesar inviting such recommend- 
 ation ; at the end of Caesar s letter we find the 
 words quoted above. 
 
 By " regem Galliae faciam^ Caesar probably meant 
 only to express in half -jocular language that he 
 would advance the interests of the person named. 
 But who was " M. itjiuius ? " Furius, Rufus, 
 Fulvius, and Orfius have been suggested, but as 
 Mr. Watson says, it is difficult to identify any of 
 them, and it may be added that it is almost as 
 difficult to trace any resemblance between any of 
 them and the word in the text. 
 
 There was a certain M. Fonteius who was Pro- 
 praetor of Gallia Narbonensis from 11 B.C. till 
 75 B.C. ; was defended by Cicero on a charge of 
 misgovernment in Gaul in 69 B.C. ; and is most 
 probably the man spoken of as being the cause of 
 Cicero's return to Bome a few months after this 
 letter was written, " redii Romam Fonteii causa (Ad 
 Att. iv. 15)." If this was the person named in tlio
 
 28 CRUCES AND CRITICISMS. 
 
 letter, it would give point to Caesar's expression 
 " regem Galliae," as Fonteius had already been 
 Propraetor of Narbonnese Gaul and had been 
 prosecuted for his maladministration of affairs in 
 that province. 
 
 Now, if the true reading of the original MS. was 
 
 MFONTEIVM, 
 
 and the FO and first two strokes of the N and the 
 lower stroke of the E became obliterated, we have 
 at once the 
 
 M ITFIVIVM 
 
 of the Medicean MS. of the eleventh century upon 
 which our text rests, except that the letters iv 
 appear to have been reduplicated. 
 
 Lastly, it is not at all improbable that M. Fonteius 
 was not only a client of Cicero, but also his friend, 
 and therefore a person whom Cicero would naturally 
 recommend to Caesar's notice. M. Boissier in his 
 " Ciceron et ses Amis " suggests that, though at 
 E-ome in the days of Cicero the ancient clientela was 
 well-nigh forgotten, yet the numerous professional 
 clients of the great pleaders of the Forum often 
 became also their personal friends and followers, and 
 formed a sort of revived clientela ; a clientela bound 
 not by law or bu'th but by ties of gratitude, 
 and following not rank but the higher nobility of 
 intellect. 
 
 It is impossible in a passage like the present, 
 where the text is hopelessly corrupt, to give or even 
 to entertain any decided opinion ; but the evidence 
 for the name of Fonteius would certainly seem to 
 predominate over that adduced in support of any 
 of the names hitherto suggested.
 
 CICERO. 29 
 
 XIIL 
 
 In praefectis excusatio iis, quos v.oles, cleferto. 
 
 Cicero, Ad Att. V. 11 (Watson, Ep. 31). 
 
 The words "excusatio iis'' are undoubtedly corrupt, 
 and emendation is the only course open to the 
 commentator. Orelli suggests " exceptis 7iegotiato7'- 
 ihus ; " Metzger " excusatio ni sit ; " while Boot 
 accepts the emendation " negotiator ni sit." The 
 objection to the first and last lies in their departure 
 from the text ; the objection to that of Metzger in 
 the fact that it does not represent what the context 
 seems to requu'e. 
 
 It is implied more than once in Cicero's letters 
 that he had a strong aversion to allowing negotia- 
 tores to occupy the post of Praefect. " Praefecturam 
 petivit : negavi me cuiquam negotianti dare, quod 
 idem tibi ostenderam" he writes to Atticus (Ad 
 Att. V. 21), and as this was written only some six 
 months after the letter in which " excusatio iis" 
 occurs, it seems not improbable that it was in the 
 latter that he had expressed as he says the same 
 feeling to Atticus. Again, three months later he 
 writes, " tu me, inquam, rogas,praefectus ut Scap>tius 
 sit f alias hoc statueramus, ut negotiatorem neminem 
 (Ad Att. vi. 2)." 
 
 It is then sufficiently obvious what should be the 
 meaning of the clause which is concealed under the 
 corrupt words "excusatio iis" ; the difficulty is to 
 obtain the sense required with the least departure 
 from the reading of the MS. Adopting ni from 
 two of the emendations quoted above, it having 
 probal)ly first been altered to in and then dro})pcd
 
 30 CRUCES AND CRITICISMS, 
 
 before the preposition ex, — unless indeed we may 
 assume that " In praefectis" should be " Fraefectos 
 ni," — we have 
 
 NIEXCVSATIOIIS, 
 
 which, by the insertion of a before v, and the 
 transposition of o to stand before t and of s to 
 stand before instead of after the last i, becomes 
 
 NIEXCAVSAOTIISI. 
 
 If we now suppose that "nee" once stood before 
 " otii" and was dropped as being a redundant con- 
 junction after "ni", we have 
 
 NIEXCAVSANECOTIISI, etc., 
 
 i.e., " In praefectis, ni ex causa necotii \negotii\ 
 si quos voles, defeTto" This emendation is slightly 
 supported by a corresponding phrase in a letter 
 quoted above. Ad Att. v. 21, "si j)^"ctcfectiis vellet 
 esse syngrapliae causa, me curaturum ut exigeret." 
 In conclusion, one passage may be quoted which 
 will show from later history the reason why Cicero 
 objected to place negotiatores in office. Tacitus writes, 
 Annals ii. 62, " vetei^es illic Sitevorum ^^raecZae et 
 nostris e provinciis lixae ac negotiatores reperti, 
 quos jus comme^xii, dein cupido augendi pecuniam, 
 postremum ohlivio patriae suis quemque ah sedihus 
 hostilem in agrum transttderat." 
 
 XIV. 
 
 Illud putato non adscrihis " et tibi gratias egit." 
 
 Cicero, Ad Att. VII. 7 (Watson, Ep. 44). . 
 
 This letter commences with a quotation from a 
 letter of Atticus : — " Dionysius arrived at Rome 
 on the 18th of December and gave me a letter of
 
 CICERO. 31 
 
 recommendation from you." "This," says Cicero, 
 " is what you write about Dionysius. You do not 
 add (Illud no7i adscribis) ' and he expressed his 
 gratitude.' " 
 
 What then is the word which is lurking under 
 the corrupt form "^^iito^o f " 
 
 Boot suggests " optatum,^^ " what I so much 
 ^^dshed to hear." Now, though Dionysius is men- 
 tioned with respect in Ad Att. iv. 15 and vi. 2, and 
 elsewhere, still it does not seem altogether probable 
 that a Koman of Cicero's haughty temperament 
 would " so much wish to hear" of the gratitude of 
 his freedman ; even though that freedman was one 
 of whom he says some three months after the date 
 of this letter (Ad Att. ix. 12), " ajDud me honoratior 
 fait quam apud Scipioneni Panaetius." 
 
 A much simpler emendation for 
 
 PVTATO, 
 
 in place of Boot's conjecture " optatum,'' would be 
 
 PVTATV. 
 
 Compare, on the confusion of 'o and 'u, Professor 
 Nettleship's Preface to Conington's Persius, p. viii. 
 Ed. 1872. This would give excellent sense. "Illud 
 put a tit non adscribis 'et tihi gratias egit ';" " You 
 do not add this for instance 'and he exj^ressed 
 his gratitude to you.' " For examples of this use of 
 ''puta" may be quoted " Quinte, puta, aut Puhli,'' 
 Horace, Sat. II. v. 32 ; "Hoc 'p''^ta non justum est," 
 Persius, Sat. iv. 9 ; " ut puta si legitimus tutor 7ton 
 sit idoneus," Justinian, Inst. I. tit. xxiii. ; " ut 2)Uta 
 niater" Id. Inst. I. tit. xxvi. ; " Si ille, jyuta, consid" 
 Pompon. Dig. 1. xxviii. tit. 5 ; "utimta funis,'' Seneca, 
 Q. N. 1. ii. ; " ut Phoeho, puta, filioque Plioehi," Auct. 
 Priap. Carm. 37. It is true that the word "puta"
 
 32 CRUCES AND CRITICISMS. 
 
 appears not to occur in this sense in Cicero's writ- 
 ings, but we find the plural "^3?^ tote" thus used 
 in Phil. ii. 6: " Cuif neminem noniinaho : ^^utote 
 tuTTi Fhonnioni alicui, turn Gnathoni, turn etiani 
 Ballioni." Cf. " Tu puto haec credis," Ad Att. viii. 
 9. Forcellini remarks on " Piita," " vulgus utitur 
 adverhialiter pro scilicet, exempli gratia,'' etc. ; and 
 as this is a private letter and to his most intimate 
 correspondent, Cicero might very possibly use a word 
 which he would not have thought proper to employ 
 in more serious writing. 
 
 XV. 
 
 Unam mehercule tecum apricationem in illo lucra- 
 tivo tuo sole malim, etc. 
 
 Cicero, Ad Att. VII. 11. (Watson, Ep. 47.) 
 
 Cicero commences this letter by expressing his 
 astonishment at the course of action pursued by 
 Caesar: "Let him keep his fortune," says he; 
 " I would rather have a little basking with you in 
 that ' lucrativo' sun of yours than all such tyrannies, 
 or rather I would die a thousand deaths before I 
 would harbour one such thought." 
 
 Mr. Watson considers the text hardly capable of 
 explanation, and it seems a matter for regret that 
 so fine a passage should be spoiled by the evidently 
 corrupt word " lucrativo." It is not Ciceronian, 
 and is meaningless in this passage ; for Boot s 
 explanation, quoted by Mr. Watson, does not appear 
 satisfactory : ''sol lucrativus did p)otuit et is quern 
 Atticus 7iegotiis surripuisset, et is quo id frueretur 
 aliquo loci irnpedimento amoto ejfecisset." There is
 
 CICERO. 33 
 
 also another reading " L^icretino," referring to the 
 estate of Atticus near Mount Lucretilis ; this is 
 more inteUigible, but has probably arisen from a 
 misconception of the meaning of the passage ; it is 
 to be much questioned whether the " apricatio" 
 here referred to is to be conceived as pleasant ; 
 certainly the " mori " of the next clause points in 
 another direction, and possibly most Romans as well 
 as Cicero would have been Epicureans enough to 
 prefer the sunny ease of a Sabine villa to the toil 
 and anxiety of such a government as Caesar's, 
 
 Now, it seems to be more than probable that the 
 word " tuo " fixes the " lucrativus (?) sol " as some- 
 thing mentioned in one of Atticus' previous letters. 
 In Ad Att. ix. 10, written on March 18, 49 B.C., 
 Cicero wiites, " Cum ad hunc locum venissem, evolvi 
 volumen epistolarum tuarum, quod ego suh signo 
 kaheo servoque diligentissime ; " then he quotes 
 letters in order under the dates of January 23, 25, 
 and 27 ; February 7, 11, 19, 22, 25 ; March 1, 4, 5, 
 and 9. Immediately before this Cicero says, " Sol, 
 ut est in tua quadam epistola, excidisse mihi e 
 mundo videtur. Ut aegroto, dum anima est, spes 
 esse dicitur," etc. It is therefore most probable that 
 the letter in which this " sun which seemed to have 
 fallen from the universe " is mentioned, was written 
 by Atticus some few days before that dated 
 January 23, the intervals between the other letters 
 in the list varying from one to eleven days. In 
 this case it might very well be delivered to Cicero, 
 before he wrote on January 19 the letter in which 
 *' lucrativus sol " occurs, and be lying before hun at 
 the time ; for Cicero was now in Campania and 
 Atticus at Rome.
 
 34 CRUCES AND CRITICISMS. 
 
 These considerations tend to prove that the sun 
 described by the corrupt word " lucrativus " is the 
 sun mentioned by Atticus in his last letter to Cicero, 
 where he is alludmg to his own ill-health. This is 
 supported by the " Ut aegroto" etc., which follows 
 ^^ sol excidisse,'' etc., in the one passage, and by the 
 " mori millies " following the " sole " in the other. 
 
 There seems little doubt that we have here the 
 key to the meaning of our passage, and that this 
 " lucrativus (?) sol " is the sun mentioned in the 
 letter of Atticus quoted in Ad Att. ix. 10. But it 
 is difficult to see what word or words are concealed 
 beneath the corrupt form in our text. The nearest 
 conjecture which suggests itself is to read e before 
 V, ITE in place of c, and es after A. This would 
 give us in place of " lucrativo " the two words 
 " leviter aestivo," "leviter" being of course in the 
 sense of " parum." But probably this conjecture is 
 worthless ; and the chief point worthy of attention 
 is that we appear able, from Ad Att. ix. 10, to fix 
 the meaning of the passage, which is perhaps more 
 important than the precise phraseology. 
 
 The sense of the paragraph will then be : "I 
 would rather have a little basking with you even 
 under that sickly sun you mention than all such 
 power, ntiy rather, I would die a thousand deaths 
 before I would entertain one such thought." Cicero 
 would prefer a brief moment with Atticus even on 
 the bed of sickness to all the pomp of tyranny, nay, 
 death itself to harbouring a hope of despotism.
 
 CICERO. 35 
 
 XVI. 
 
 " No7i accipere, ne periculosum sit, invidiosum 
 
 ad honos." 
 
 Cicero, Ad. Att. VIII. 3 (Watson, Ep. 54). 
 
 In the former part of this letter, written to Atticus 
 on the 20th of February, 49 B.C., Cicero has been 
 debating whether he should stand by Pompey, if he 
 left Italy, or should remain at Rome, in which case 
 he must fall into Caesar's power. If he stayed at 
 Home (he argues) he would do no worse than 
 Philippus, Flaccus, and Mucins did under Cinna's 
 tyranny. But even if he were to take this course, 
 he would be embarrassed by the retention of his 
 imi^erium: for suppose Caesar was well disposed 
 towards him, though of this he was by no means 
 certam ; but suppose he was ; then he would offer 
 Cicero a triumph. Then follows the sentence, ^'No7i 
 accijyere, ne j^ericulosum sit, invidiosum ad honos." 
 
 The meaning that the sentence should bear is 
 obvious : " Not to accept the triumph would be a 
 dangerous course, while my acceptance would bring 
 me into ill repute with the Conservative party." 
 
 Orelli proposes, " non acci2:>ere me p>(i^^icuIosum 
 est; accipere invidiosum ad honos." This is no 
 doubt the sense, but the alteration of "sit" into 
 "est," immediately followed by the gratuitous 
 insertion of " accipei^e," is rather an explanation 
 than an emendation of the passage. 
 
 Forcellini says that " non " is for " nonne" and 
 Hofmann that "ne" is for "ut non" "even supposing 
 that." At the best neither of these explanations 
 seems satisfactory.
 
 3G CRUCES AND CRITICISMS. 
 
 Orelli is doubtless right in the conjecture of "me" 
 for " ne," but a simpler emendation might perhaps 
 be suggested for the latter part of the sentence. If 
 for " sit " we read " set " (sed), the meaning of the 
 passage appears sufficiently clear without the actual 
 insertion of " accipere" ; though possibly it was the 
 condensed form of the sentence which caused the 
 confusion. We should then read, " JSfon accipere 
 me periculosum ; sed invidiosum ad honos;'' "not 
 to accept it would be fraught with danger ; but it 
 [sc. my acceptance) would bring me into disrepute 
 with good citizens." It has also been suggested by 
 a friend that we should perhaps read "invidiosus" 
 agreeing v/ith " triump>hus" understood from the 
 ^'trimnphum' of the previous sentence. This would 
 be a simple and effective emendation. In either 
 case the meaning will be, " Refusal on my part 
 would make Caesar my enemy, while my acceptance 
 would bring on me the suspicion of my party." 
 This agrees well with the next sentence, for which 
 neither Hofmann's nor Forcellini's explanation would 
 sufficiently account : "0 rem, inquis, difficilem et 
 inexplicahilem ! Atqui explicanda est." 
 
 XVII. 
 
 Volui. N S Q. Egi p>er p)raede'm, ille daret, Antii 
 cwm haheret venale : noluit. ,, 
 
 Cicero, Ad Att. IX. 9 (Watson, Ep. 62). 
 
 In this part of the letter Cicero is speaking of 
 certain gardens at Lanuvium, which at one time he 
 thought would be more pleasant than his Tusculan 
 Villa and would cost less than restoring it after its
 
 CICERO. 37 
 
 destruction by Clodius. Then he proceeds to say, 
 " Vohii," etc. 
 
 Accepting Boot's aud Orelli's emendation of 
 H. s. Q., the passage is translated, " I wished to buy 
 it for 500 sestertia. I aiTanged with a surety for 
 hiin to offer that amount, when he offered the estate 
 for sale at Antium, but he declined to take it ;" or, 
 with Mr. Watson, " I applied to a surety to pay the 
 money, as the proprietor offered the estate for sale 
 at Antium." But it may be safely objected that 
 the omission of " emere" after "vohii" without the 
 occurrence of a similar word before it in the letter is 
 at least unusual ; and again that the subject to 
 " haheret," if not also to " noluit," should be '^ ille,'' 
 that is to say, the surety for the intending purchaser 
 (and not the seller) is made to offer the estate for 
 sale ! Boot candidly says that he considers the 
 passage inexplicable. 
 
 As no satisfactory emendation seems to have been 
 suggested, it may perhaps be admissible to propose 
 the following: " Volui H. S. Q. ego j^er praedem 
 nil dare, Antii cum haheret venale : noluit" : "I 
 was willing to give him 500 sestertia through a 
 surety, when he offered the estate for sale at 
 Antium, but he refused it." The only alterations 
 here requu-ed are " ego " for " egi," " illi " for '' ^7/e," 
 and "■ dare'' for " daretJ' That a stop after H. s. Q. 
 should have been inserted will be a matter of no 
 surprise to any one acquainted with the study of 
 MSS. ; even when stops began to be inserted, this 
 stop might only be that which would naturally 
 follow the abbreviation " Q." Granted that"e<7o" 
 became changed to " egi " the rest would follow 
 easily, ''illi dare" becoming " ille daret" to make
 
 38 CRUCES AND CRITICISMS. 
 
 some approach to a construction. The reading 
 here suggested avoids the difficulty as to the 
 subject of " haheret " and " noluit " ; it may of 
 course be supphed from " illi" One objection 
 however might be brought against the suggested 
 reading, but an objection which rather strengthens 
 than disturbs it. It might be said that " ego " is 
 always emphatic and is therefore out of place here. 
 But in this passage Cicero is expressly emphasizing 
 his hope that " aliquis meorum " would purchase the 
 estate at Lanuvium, and says that he himself (ego 
 istos hortulos, etc.J had once thought it would be 
 a pleasant and cheap investment. We have in a 
 few Hnes " aliquis meorum" " maxime Tneus," " ego 
 illud," " ego istos," and " m,ihi " three times ; so that 
 the emphatic pronoun is most suitable to the spirit 
 of the passage. 
 
 XVIIL 
 
 In qua erat ero sceleri ! 
 
 Cicero, AdAtt. IX. 18 (Watson, Ep. 67). 
 
 After describing to Atticus the importunity with 
 which Caesar pressed him to proceed to Rome, 
 Cicero breaks into exclamations of disgust at the 
 companions of Julius : " Heliqua, o di ! qui comi- 
 tatus ! quae, ut tu soles dicere, veKvta ! in qua erat 
 ero sceleri ! o rem perditam^ ! o eopias despei^atas ! " 
 Now, what is the meaning of " in qua erat 
 ero sceleri ? " Orelli suggests ipecrx^^^f^, raillery ; 
 Hofmann ''erat area sceleris ;" and Kayser " /ce/aas 
 scelerum" (Mr. Watson's Select Letters of Cicero). 
 Some emendation indeed is absolutely necessary ;
 
 CICERO. 39 
 
 but perhaps one more simple than any of these may 
 be found by an examination of the reading of the 
 MSS. In place of 
 
 INQVAEEATEROSCELEEI, 
 
 by supposing that QVA should have been repeated, 
 and by substituting i for the second er and v for 
 the last I, we get 
 
 INQVAQVAERATIOSCELERV. 
 
 The passage will then read : " Reliqua, o di ! qui 
 comitatus ! quae, ut tu soles dicere, veKvia! in qua 
 quae ratio scelerum! o rem perditarti! o copias 
 desperatas /" 
 
 If the above be the true reading, it is easy to see 
 how the corruption arose : QVA being once omitted 
 after the qva preceding it, erat would be taken as 
 the verb ; possibly the ER might be repeated in 
 place of the i, and confusion might readily arise 
 between the similar forms of the letters i and v. 
 
 ^^ In qua quae ratio scelerwn!^^ is a very simple 
 sentence, appropriate in sense and in rhythm to 
 our passage, and quite in Cicero's style, which is 
 perhaps more than can be said of the other 
 emendations quoted above. Cf " Quae fuit ejus 
 peragratio itinerumr Phil. ii. §57; ''Qui risus 
 hominum !" Id. §73. " Quae tuafuga! quaeformido 
 praeclaro illo die ! quae propter conscientiani 
 scelerum desperatio vitae !" Id. § 88. Cf. also Virgil, 
 Aen. vi. 5G0, "Quae scelerum fades f Instances 
 of "ratio" in a similar meaning to that required 
 above are (vid. Forcellini suh voce) " oimii ratione 
 tueare," Ad Quint. Frat. i. 1 ; " ratione docentur et 
 via" Or. 33 ; and " mea ratio in tota amicitia 
 * * * constans et gravis" Ad Fam. iii. 8.
 
 40 CRUCES AND CRITICISMS. 
 
 XIX. 
 
 Maconi istiul, quod scrihis, non oniJd vkh'tnv taiii 
 re esse tristc auam verho. 
 
 Cicero, Ad Att. X, 1 (Watson, Ep. 68), 
 
 Various emendations have been suggested for the 
 corrupt word ''maconi;'' Boot gives us (jidpixaKou, 
 and Orelli eVSo/xv^ov, " the secret," which was 
 possibly suggested to him by Ad Att. v. 21. It 
 appears probable that both are right in conjecturing 
 a Greek word, and also a word of the neuter gender 
 with which " istud " may agree ; just as in this 
 letter "haec" agi'ees with dkr], and " tua ista 
 crehra " with eK^uiviqcn'^. 
 
 But perhaps a still simpler emendation may be 
 found. It is possible that the original word was 
 not a substantive at all, but an adjective ; and that 
 the passage is parallel to a sentence in Ad Att. v. 2 1 , 
 " yXvKVTTiKpov illud conjirmas." In this case it 
 would not be difficult to discover a suitable word 
 without any great departure from the MSS. In 
 place of 
 
 MACONIISTUD, 
 
 by inserting A, and supposing that the i has been 
 wrongly repeated, we obtain the reading 
 
 AMACONISTUD. 
 
 This will give us, " dixa^ov istud, quod scrihis,'' etc. 
 For in earl}^ times CH was always written c, as 
 " Antiocesis" for " Antiochensis," and "Baca" and 
 " Bacancdibus" for "Baccha" and " Bctccha7ialibus ;" 
 even Cicero himself seems to have objected to 
 writing "pit/c/^er" instead of " pulcer." Cf Orat. 
 48, 160. In later times, however, we find that the
 
 CICERO. 4 1 
 
 opposite custom obtains, and that c is often replaced 
 by CH, even where there is not the sUghtest reason 
 for such a change. 
 
 If the above emendation were accepted, the 
 sense of the passage would run as follows : " The 
 * insurmountable difficulty,' mentioned in your letter, 
 appears to me not so distressing in reality as it is 
 represented to be — not so hopeless in practice as 
 it is in theory." 
 
 XX. 
 
 An qui valde hie in ahsentcs solus tuli scehts, 
 ejusdeni cum PomiJeio et cum reliquis princi- 
 2^ihus non fcram ? 
 
 CiCEKO, Ad Att. X. 8 (Watson, Ep. 71). 
 
 This passage is undoubtedly corrupt, and the follow- 
 ing emendations have been hitherto suggested : ''qui 
 invadentis in ahsentcs,'' etc. (Hofmann) ; and " qui 
 vcdide hide ohstans ejus solus tidi scelus," etc. 
 (Kayser). The latter of these makes good sense, 
 but appears rather too far from the original read- 
 ing ; the objection to the former is that it does not 
 furnish us with any tangible allusion. 
 
 In 59 B.C. Caesar proposed an agrarian law to 
 provide for Pompey's vetei-ans and for poor citizens. 
 The law was carried in the teeth of the Consul 
 Bibulus and the optimates, and Pompey and Crassus 
 were placed on the Commission. Three years 
 afterwards in 56 B.C., when Caesar was absent from 
 Kome, Cicero proposed in the Senate that the 
 legality of tlie allotment of the Campanian land 
 under tlie provisions of Caesar's law should be 
 discussed. As Mr. Watson remarks, " No doubt
 
 42 CRUCES AND CRITICISMS. 
 
 the object of this motion was a repeal of the laws 
 of 59, and it was thus a direct challenge to Caesar." 
 Pompey apparently showed no signs of displeasure, 
 but Caesar was naturally much embittered against 
 Cicero when he learnt the facts from Crassus at 
 Ravenna. "Nam hoc senatus consulto in meam 
 sententiam facto Ponij^eius, cum mihi nihil ostendisset 
 se esse offensum, in SarcUniam, et in Africam 
 profectus est eoque itinere Lucam ad Caesai^em 
 venit. Ihi midta de mea sententia questus est 
 Caesar, qiiippe qui etiam Ravennae Crassum, ante 
 vidisset ah eoque in me esset incensus." Cicero, 
 Ad Fam. i. 9. But the fresh coalition between 
 Caesar, Pompey, and Crassus resulted in Cicero's 
 submission, and apparently in an apology to Caesar, 
 to which Cicero probably alludes under the term of 
 TTokivoi'^La in Ad Att. iv. 5 ; " suhtuvpicida mihi 
 videbatur esse TraX-ivcoSta." 
 
 Now, such a distinct challenge, such marked 
 opposition to Caesar, was never made before or after 
 by Cicero. He had opposed hun in the matter of 
 Catiline and at other times, but never had so openly 
 thrown the glove before him. With his lamentable 
 weakness of character Cicero soon repented the 
 course he had taken, and took refuge in recrimination ; 
 but it would be only consistent with that vanity, 
 which accompanies an unstable nature, that he 
 should afterwards boast of the same opposition as an 
 achievement. It is not at all improbable then that 
 he is alluding to it in this passage written some 
 seven years afterwards, and such allusion can be 
 obtained by a very small change in the words. If 
 we read HVivs for hicin and " ahsentis" for 
 " absentes," we have all the alteration requked ;
 
 CICERt). 43 
 
 and the passage will then read : " Adversahimur 
 igitur ? quod majiis scelus vel tantum denujue ? 
 quid turpiiisf An qui vcdde hujus ahsentis solus 
 tidi scelus, ejusdem, cum Pompeio et cum 7'eliquis 
 ]?rincipihus non feramf' "Shall we oppose Pompey? 
 What wickedness could be greater or so great ? 
 What more disgraceful ? Shall I, who though alone 
 stoutly resisted Caesar's wickedness in his absence 
 (in Gaul or at Ravenna), not resist it now with the 
 aid of Pompey and the other nobles ?" For " hujus'' 
 referring to Caesar, compare the next sentence 
 " cd) hoc" sc. " Caesare." If Cicero was alluding to 
 his conduct in 56 B.C., he could justly say "solus 
 tidi;" for Caesar's decree was for Pompey's veterans, 
 and both Pompey and Crassus were, as mentioned 
 above, members of the commission ; and though 
 Pompey showed no displeasure at the time, he 
 afterwards remonstrated with Cicero on the subject 
 through his brother Quintus. One more point may 
 be noticed. Cicero would have been most ready to 
 allude to his opposition to Caesar, if he thought 
 that Caesar's popularity and power were on the 
 wane ; and it is remarkable that in this very letter 
 he writes : " nidlo enim modo posse video stare istum 
 diutius, quill ipse per se etiam languentihus nobis 
 concidat." 
 
 XXL 
 
 Recipio temp>ore one do mo. Te nunc ad oppidum 
 et quoniam his placeret modo propius ac- 
 cedere, ut hac de re considerarent. 
 
 Cicero, Ad Att. XI. 6 (Watson, Ep. 80). 
 
 Tins is one of those passages wliich can hardly be 
 emended without a greater departure from the
 
 44 CRUCES AND CRITICISMS. 
 
 reading of the MSS. than is warrantable ; but it is 
 still interesting to inquire what are the slightest 
 changes by which good sense may be obtained. 
 
 " It is extremely irksome to me," says Cicero, 
 " to remain at Brundisium ; yet how can I act on 
 your advice and draw nearer to Rome without the 
 lictors whom the people gave me ? While I retain 
 my Imperium, they cannot be dispensed with, and 
 yet at the present moment I caused them to mingle 
 for a Avhile with the crowd, staves and all, as I 
 approached Brundisium, to prevent an assault on 
 the part of the garrison. I shall resume them (so 
 the sense of ' Recipio — considerarent^ must run) at 
 the proper time. Write to our two friends, as they 
 wished me to draw nearer to Rome, so that they 
 may consider about this point : I believe they would 
 advise me to resume them (credo fore auctores)." 
 
 The emendation here tentatively suggested is, 
 " Recipiam temp)ore. Modo tu nunc ad Oppium 
 et Quintum, quonicim his placuerit me modo 
 jyropius accedere, ut hac de re considerent." In 
 order to obtain this reading, we must change the 
 o of " Recipio " into a, transpose the D and M of 
 " domo," and read the pronoun " me " before the 
 second instead of the first "modo." For ''modo" 
 in this sense of " only " with the imperative, com- 
 pare Ad Fam. xvi. 11, " modo fcic, ne quid aliud 
 cures;" Ter. Ad. v. 3, 59, ''modo facito ut illam 
 serves," etc. Next we must read tv for te. The 
 omission of "scribe" or " scrihas" might be sup- 
 ported by such passages as " Sed tempore ipso de 
 epistolis (^sc. scriheham)" Ad. Quint. Frat. i, 2. The 
 next change is the introduction of the names of 
 Oppius and Quintus ; Oppius has before been con-
 
 CICERO. 45 
 
 jectiired as the correct reading for " oppidum " (see 
 Mr. Watson's note) ; but another name is required 
 to account for the phn-als " hi,s" and " confide r- 
 arent ;" this is now added by the conjecture of 
 QVINTVM from QVONIAM, the similarity of the two 
 words having probably occasioned the omission of 
 the former. With regard to Oppius, Cicero writes 
 (Ad Fam. ii. 16), " togani praetextain texi Oppio 
 piito te cmdisse," and (Ad Att. ix. 7)," /(/ nie jam 
 p>ridem agere intelleges ex litteris Bcdhi ef Oppii, 
 qicariim exeinpJa tihi 7nisi;" he was a close friend of 
 Caesar, and a corresj^ondent of Cicero. See also 
 especially Ad Fam. xi. 29, Ed. Graev., from which 
 it appears that Oppius had advised Cicero upon a 
 previous occasion, and that Cicero had a high opinion 
 of his judgment. Compare also Ad Att. v. 1, 
 xii. 19, and xiv. 1. The conjecture of Quintus 
 as the second name might be equally well supported; 
 the unfriendly feeling at present existing between 
 the two brothers would induce Cicero to ask Atticus 
 to write to Quintus for him ; in a letter written 
 to Atticus immediately before the one under 
 consideration, Cicero says " Quintus aversissimo a 
 )ne animo Patris fuit" (Ad Att. xi. 5); again in 
 this very letter Cicero tells Atticus : " Quintum 
 fratrem audio profectwn in Asiam, ut dcprecaretur ; 
 de filio nihil audivi. Sed quaere ex Diochare, etc. 
 Is dicitur vidisse euntem an jam in Asia," the latter 
 sentence of which probably refers, with all i-espect 
 to the judgment of Mr. Watson, to Quintus /i-a^er; 
 as, if it refers to the son, how coidd Cicero have said 
 that he had heard nothing of him ? In ;iiiy case this 
 apj)ears much like a direction to Atticus where 
 to write to Quintus. Again, sho]'tly aftoi- this
 
 46 CRUCES AND CRITICISMS. 
 
 (Ad Att. xi, 12) we find Cicero writing to Caesar 
 to disabuse his mind of the idea that Quintus 
 " had given the signal like a clarion for Cicero's 
 departure," though he complains to Atticus of his 
 brother's violent language ; so that by implication 
 if Quintus gave any advice it was probably 
 ^^ iwopius accedere." Lastly, for "^j/ace?'e^ " and 
 " considerarent " we have to read "j^lcccuerit " and 
 ^' consider ent ;" possibly " 2^ic('Ceret" was first read 
 in place of "^9/actierz7," and afterwards '' consider ent" 
 was attracted into the same tense. 
 
 This conjecture of the true reading is only 
 tentative, but it is hoped that it is one step nearer 
 to the truth ; and it has at all events the advantage 
 of giving us precisely the sense which the passage 
 seems to demand. 
 
 XXII. 
 
 Si quaeris quid putem, ego fructura puto. 
 
 CiCEKO, Ad Att. XII. 2 (Watson, Ep. 85). 
 
 After mentioning various rumours about the war 
 in Africa, and the ease and confidence of Caesar's 
 friends, Cicero charges Atticus with doing nothing ; 
 yet, says he, the question must be answered imme- 
 diately, and " if you ask my opinion, ego fructum 
 jouto." 
 
 As they stand these words can mean nothing, but 
 apparently, as Mr. Watson says, " some word mean- 
 ing ' settled ' is wanted, referring to the struggle in 
 Africa." Such a word it does not appear difiicult to 
 supply from the 
 
 FRVCTVM 
 
 of the MSS. If for the first v we read A, and
 
 VIRGIL. 47 
 
 suppose that after f the letter e has been omitted 
 owing to the similarity of those letters, and that 
 the F itself was originally a P, the curve of which 
 had become obliterated, we shall then have as the 
 orio'inal form 
 
 o 
 
 PERACTVM. 
 
 With this reading the passage will give very good 
 sense: "Si quaeris quid putem, ego loey'actum 
 2)uto ;" "if you ask my opinion, I think the struggle 
 is finished." For the form of the sentence we may 
 then compare, with Mr. Watson, Ad Fam. ix, 2, 4, 
 "ego confectum existimo ;" and for the meaning 
 may be quoted among other passages " i^eragenda 
 est fahula,'' De Senectute, 19; " ingenti caede 
 peracta," Virgil, Aen. ix. 242 ; " sacro quod 
 p>raestat rite peracto',' Juv. xii. 86; and "opus 
 peractum,'^ Statins, Silv. i. 1, 
 
 XXIII. 
 
 Aurunci Rutidique serunt, et vomer e duros 
 Exercent collis, atque horum asperrima pascunt. 
 
 Virgil, Aeneid XI. 318, 319. 
 
 The text of Virgil has come down to us in a state 
 so satisfactory, that it would seem almost profanity 
 in a scholar's eyes to suggest even the alteration of 
 a single letter when the MSS. are unanimous. But 
 in the passage quoted above there is little doubt 
 that we have not what Virgil wrote. In the first 
 place, to quote Professor Conington, " Horn, has 
 the two first letters of 'pascunt' written over an 
 erasure." In tlie second place, " Neither com- 
 mentators nor lexicographers ajDpear to explain the 
 
 H
 
 48 CRUCES AND CRITICISMS. 
 
 use of ' pascunt.' " Heyne seems to understand 
 " pascunt" to mean " they use for pasture," but this 
 is without authority ; Forcelhni quotes Martial for 
 the meaning " of cultivating the land under diffi- 
 culty, so that the cultivator rather maintains it 
 than is maintained by it (Conington)," but this is 
 " too recondite for a passage like this ;" a thu^d way 
 suggested is to take " asjjerrima " as nominative, 
 but it is not at all plausible, as the change of 
 subject would make a very confusing construction. 
 
 Ptelying then on the erasure under the first two 
 letters of '^pascunt'' in one of the best MSS. 
 (Roman), and on the lack of any sound explanation 
 of the meaning of that word, perhaps we may ven- 
 ture to suggest an emendation which only requires 
 the change of the second letter "a" into "o." If 
 this change could be admitted, we should then 
 have : — 
 
 " Aurunci Rutulique serufit, et vomere duros 
 Exercent collis, atque hoi'iim asperrima poscu7it." 
 
 In support of " j^oscunt " in the sense of " they 
 lay a demand on," Ovid might be quoted (Metam. I. 
 138, 139) :— 
 
 " Nee tantum segetes alimentaque dehita dives 
 Poscehatur humus ; " 
 and also Virgil himself (Georgics I. 127, 128) : — 
 
 " Ijjsaque tellus 
 Omnia liherius nullo poscente ferehat ;" 
 both of which passages relate like the present to 
 the earth and its produce ; while for ''2'^^^^^" with 
 the accusative of that on which the demand is 
 made, and without the accusative of the thing 
 demanded, we have Aeneid I. 666 : — 
 
 " Ad te confugio et supplex tua numitia posco."
 
 VIRGIL. 49 
 
 Compare also Cicero, Verres II. i. 26, " Hortatur 
 hospes ; i^oscunt majoribus p)oculis,'' and Aeneid v. 
 59, " Poscmnus ventos" where see Conington's note. 
 There is one more confirmation of this reading. 
 In hne 325, that is six hnes later, two MSS. read 
 '' 2^oscunt" for "_^90S5?m^;" the probability is that 
 the "poscunt" of that line came from the '' poscunV' 
 of line 319 if this be the true reading. 
 
 XXIV. 
 
 Ip)se, peregrina ferriigine clarus et ostro, 
 Spicula torquehat Lycio Gortynia cornu ; 
 Aureus ex humeris erat arcus, et aurea vati 
 Cassida. 
 
 ViEGiL, Aeneid XI. 772-5. 
 
 In this passage the difficulties are obvious, but no 
 remedy or adequate explanation appears to have 
 suggested itself to the Commentators. With the 
 most religious respect for the sanctity of the text 
 of Virgil, it is interesting to conjecture how the 
 confusion in the MSS. may have arisen, without 
 presuming to attempt a decided emendation ; and 
 in doing so we find ourselves confronted with a 
 possible solution of the difficulty. 
 
 We may translate the passage : " Chloreus him- 
 self, in all the glory of foreign purple and crimson 
 dye, was shooting Gortynian shafts from a bow of 
 Lycian horn ; golden was the bow that hung from 
 his shoulder, golden the helmet upon the seer's 
 head." If the text is to stand, we are reduced to 
 the necessity of supposing that " the bow of Lycian 
 horn " is identical with the " golden bow ; " or that 
 Chloreus carried a spare bow of gold in addition to
 
 50 CRUCES AND CRITICISMS. 
 
 the horn bow with which he shot ; or lastly, we 
 must suppose that " arcus" means "quiver." Not 
 one of these explanations however is at all satis- 
 
 factorv. 
 
 First, then, what do we learn from the MSS. ? 
 Professor Conington wi^tes, Vergilii Oi^era, Vol. III. 
 p. 375, Ed. 1871 : " Ribbeck seems rig-ht in restor- 
 ing ' erat' from Med., and one of his cursives (here 
 again we must recollect that Pal. and Pom. are 
 deficient). ' Sonat ' would naturally be introduced 
 from V. 652, just as Gud. and some inferior MSS. 
 have introduced ' humero.' ^ * * The Balliol 
 MS. omits V. 773." " Sonat " doubtless came, as 
 Professor Conington observes, from line 652 : — 
 '^Aureus ex humero sonat arcus et arma Dianae." 
 We may therefore turn our attention to the other 
 reading, that of the Medicean, on which Heinsius' 
 text chiefly rests, which is : — 
 
 ""Aureus ex humeris erat arcus," etc. 
 Now, the varia lectio of the other MSS. points to a 
 confusion in the original, and we must endeavour to 
 discover the probable form of the word which be- 
 came so confused, and the reason for such confusion ; 
 what the word was in fact, from w^iich the scribe of 
 the Medicean conjectured " erat arcus,'' and which 
 was so illegible that the copyists of the other MSS. 
 substituted ''sonat arcus,'' resorting to the not 
 uncommon expedient of inserting a portion of a 
 similar line. 
 
 Taking then as our starting point the reading of 
 the Medicean, 
 
 HVMERIS ERAT ARCVS, 
 
 first, we may conjecture that the word for which 
 ERAT ARCVS was substituted ended in vs ; secondly.
 
 VIRGIL. 5 1 
 
 we may conjecture that in the earlier part of the 
 word there was a vowel followed by E, followed by 
 another vowel and t, the first three letters of 
 ''arcKs" having probably been imported from 652 ; 
 thirdly, the plural " humeris " with the varia lectio 
 " humero " may perhaps give colour to the supposi- 
 tion of a consonant at the beginning of the last 
 word, which caused " Juimero" to become "humeris," 
 though "humero" may possibly have come from 652 
 with " sonat." From these considerations we may 
 now form a tentative conjecture of the original 
 word. If we allow t to stand for consonant, and * 
 for vowel, the form of the word would appear to be 
 
 t * R * TVS. 
 
 Turning to circumstantial evidence, it is difficult 
 to say from what part of Etruria Chloreus came, but 
 Arruns who is mentioned with him was possibly 
 from Clusium. It was Virgil's custom in the Aeneid 
 to draw the names of his heroes from those of 
 individuals or families in later times, and to make 
 them then- ancestors or founders. Cf. Aen. i. 288, 
 V. 117, 121-3, &c. Now, from Livy, v. 33, we find 
 that it was Arruns of Clusium who invited the 
 Gauls to cross the Alps, an action which led to the 
 taking of Rome in 390 B.C. The name of this 
 Arruns would probably be sufficiently remembered 
 in Virgil's day to induce him to connect his Arruns 
 not only with Etruria, as in xi. 784-6, but also with 
 the Etruscan city Clusium. If then Arruns came 
 from Clusium, it is not improbable that Chloreus 
 who was fighting near him came from the same city, 
 and in tliat case we shall be able to discover the 
 nature of the arms he bore. In Aen. x. 167-9, 
 in the catalogue of the Etruscan forces, we read : —
 
 52 CRUCES AND CRITICISMS. 
 
 " Suh quo mille manus juvenum, qui moenia Clusi, 
 Quique urhem liquere Cosas : quis tela sagittae 
 Gorytique leves kumeris, et letifer arcus." 
 If then Chloreus came from Clusium, his armour 
 should consist of " sagittae," "gorytus," and "arcus." 
 In our passage we have " sjncula" for "sagittae," 
 '' cornu" for " arcus," and "gorytus" is left to be 
 rej)resented either by " cassida " or the word hidden 
 in " erat arcus." " Cassida " of course has a totally- 
 different meaning, and besides the " ex humero " or 
 "ex hwneris" of our passage points to the "humeris" 
 in X. 169 as parallel : so that it is in " humeris erat 
 arcus " that we have to seek an equivalent to 
 " gorytus." Now, we showed above that from the 
 MSS. we might expect a word (t standing for 
 consonant and * for vowel), 
 
 t * R * TVS. 
 
 Is this very different from 
 
 GORYTVS, 
 
 and is it unpossible that this is the original word, 
 the corruption of which has caused the difficulty 
 in our passage ? In which case the line should 
 read : 
 "Aureus ex humero gorytus, et aurea vati 
 Cassida." 
 If then this be the word, what led to the confusion 
 in the MSS. ? In the next line before that under 
 discussion occurs the word " Gortynia " in a position 
 almost directly above "gorytus," if that be the true 
 reading. These two words, being so similar in form 
 and occurring in the position 
 
 GORTYNIA 
 GORYTVS, 
 
 would very probably cause a confusion in the
 
 VIRGIL. 53 
 
 MSS. As one instance out of many, compare 
 Lucretius v. 468 : — 
 
 " Corpore concreto circumdatus undique saepsit," 
 where " saepsit " according to Lachmann has come 
 from the next Hne but one beneath and the true 
 reading is '' jiexitr Cf also Juvenal viii. 4, where 
 for " humeroque" most MSS. have " 7iasumque'* 
 from " nasoque " in the next line, and Aesch. 
 Supp. 494, Ag. 1216, &c. 
 
 Again, if we accept the reading '' gorytus,'' it 
 gives a reason for the omission of line 773 in the 
 Balliol MS., viz., that the scribe's eye wandered 
 from " Gortynia " to the similar word " gorytus,^' 
 and in consequence he omitted the line. Compare 
 Lucretius v. 585, 6 : — 
 " Postremo quoscumque vides hinc aetheris ignes ; 
 
 Quandoqiddem quoscumque in terris cernimus 
 (ignes)," 
 where the "ignes" of line 585 caused the omission 
 of the "ignes" of 586 ; an example of the law of 
 Dissimilation, whereas the last quotations were 
 examples of the law of Assimilation. 
 
 Moreover, if we could assume gorytvs to be the 
 true reading, it would not be difficult to see how 
 ERAT ARCVS may have arisen from it, especially if 
 the form was partially obscured by confusion with 
 GORTYNIA, Probably erat would be the first con- 
 jecture ; the vs would remain, and would suggest a 
 word ending in vs, preceded by a long syllable to 
 complete the metre, and possibly confusion with 
 *' Gortynia" might have introduced some of the last 
 letters of that word between the t and the s, whicli 
 would give colour to the introduction of ARC from 
 hne 652 ; the remaining letter G may have caused
 
 54 CRUCES AND CRITICISMS. 
 
 the change from " humero" to " humeris." Having 
 then ah^eady 
 
 "Aureus ex humeris erat . . us et" etc., 
 the copyist of the Medicean would naturally refer to 
 line 652, 
 
 " Aureus ex humeris sonat arcus et, etc., 
 and adopt "arc" from that line just as the other 
 MSS. have adopted "sonat arcus." 
 
 Once more — and an accumulation of circum- 
 stantial evidence may at times amount to moral 
 certainty — in the Thebaid of Statins, iv. 265 seq., 
 v^e find a passage evidently imitated from the one 
 before us. In 265 to 269 we have " Igneus . . igneus," 
 " auro," " ostro," " pictus" and " j^luwiis," answering 
 to "Aureus . . aurea," " auro," " ostro," " pictus," 
 and "plumam" in Aen. xi. 771-777; besides 
 " Cydonaea" in the former answering to " Gortynia" 
 in the latter, and an allusion in the immediate 
 context of both to the hero's horse and his trappings. 
 Now, line 269 of this passage in the Thebaid is : — 
 
 " Terga, Cydonaea gorytus arundine pulsat." 
 It appears from this not improbable that Statins 
 found the word "gorytus" in our passage, though 
 it must be admitted that this argument is slightly 
 weakened by the fact that "sonat arcus" also occurs 
 in the same passage of Statius. 
 
 Lastly, "gorytus" is interpreted on Aen. x. 169 
 to mean " a quiver," though the more usual mean- 
 ing of the Greek word is of course " bow-case " or 
 sometimes " bow and arrow case." It is then in 
 Virgil the same as " ^^haretra" and thus for 
 " ex humero " with " gorytus " we may compare 
 " Gorytique I eves hum^eris" Aen. x, 169; "ilia 
 2?haretram Fert humero," i. 500, 1 ; " Pars leves
 
 VIRGIL. 55 
 
 hwnero pharetras," v. 558 ; and " humero gessisse 
 pharetras," xi. 844 : while for the epithet "au7^eus" 
 we have " pharetra ex auroj' iv. 138, and " aurata 
 pharetra," xi. 858, 9. 
 
 Thus the conjecture " gorytiis " — however improb- 
 able it may appear at first sight — would seem 
 capable of support on grounds both of external and 
 of internal probability. It would at the least afford 
 an explanation of the readings of the MSS., and 
 also of the cause of their corruption ; it would be 
 consistent with the parallel passage in the Thebaid ; 
 and it would harmonize well, not only with its 
 epithet, but with the rest of the immediate context. 

 
 GUILLE-ALLtS LIBRARY SERIES. 
 
 Edited by JOHN LINWOOD PITTS 
 
 Memhre de la Societe des Antiquaires de Normandie. 
 
 RECENTLY PUBLISHED. 
 
 THE PATOIS POEMS OF THE CHANNEL ISLANDS (First 
 Series), the Norman-French Text, with Parallel English 
 Translation, Historical Introduction and Notes. Demy 8vo. 
 In paper covers, or cloth gilt. 
 
 THE PATOIS POEMS OF THE CHANNEL ISLANDS (Second 
 Series), the Norman-French Text, with Parallel English 
 Translation, Philological Introduction and Historic Notes. 
 Demy 8vo. In paper covers, or cloth gilt. 
 
 THE SERMON ON THE MOUNT, AND THE PARABLE OF 
 THE SOWER, translated into the Franco-Norman Dialect of 
 Guernsey, from the French of Le Maistre De Sacy, by George 
 Metivier ; to which is added a Sark version of the Parable of the 
 Sower ; with Parallel French and English Versions. Demy 16mo. 
 Cloth gilt. 
 
 WT:TCHCRAFT AND DEVIL LORE IN THE CHANNEL ISLANDS, 
 
 Transcripts and Translations of the Depositions and Confessions 
 made in the most celebrated of the local Trials for Witchcraft, as 
 preserved in the Official Records of the Guernsey Royal Court, 
 with Historical Introduction. Demy 8vo. In paper covers. 
 
 IN PREPARATION. 
 
 THE PRECEPTE D' ASSISE OF THE ISLAND OF GUERNSEY : 
 
 comprising the ancient Norman-French Text, edited with 
 Parallel English Translation, Historical Introduction, Analysis, 
 Glossary and Notes ; engravings of Seals, Signatures, &c. 
 
 CHOICE EXCERPTS FROM THE ROMAN DE ROU, by Robert 
 Wage, of Jersey, the famous Norman Trouvere and Chronicler, 
 who flourished in the Twelfth Century ; with Parallel English 
 Translation and Historic Notes. 
 
 THE DESCENT OF THE SARAGOUSAIS.— A reprint of the old 
 Norman Ballad — including the rare additional verses — with 
 English Translation and Historic Notes. 
 
 GUERNSEY: 
 GUILLE-ALL:feS LIBEARY, 
 
 AND 
 
 THOMAS M. BICHARD, PRINTER TO THE STATES.
 
 BY THE AUTHOR OF " CRUCES AND CRITICISMS." 
 
 Plutarch's Lives of the Gracchi, translated from the 
 
 text of Siutenis, with Introduction, ^larginal Analysis, and 
 Appendices. By William W. Marshall, B.A., of the 
 Inner Temple, late Scholar of Hertford College, Oxford. 
 CrowTi 8vo., paper covers, Is. 6d., or cloth, 2s. Oxford, 
 James Thornton. 1881. 
 
 " Mr. Marshall has succeeded in cutting out of Plutarch a very neat 
 piece of biography and presenting it in a pleasant English dress, with a 
 carefxil introduction and a few useful Appendices. The English is the editor's, 
 and is very agreeable reading. The Introduction is a clever account of 
 Plutarch, with a critical notice of his work, his merits, and his inaccuracies, 
 together with a summary sketch of the affairs of Rome when the Gracchi 
 came into notice. The student of Roman history will be glad of this small, 
 but carefully edited, account of the two brethren." — School Guardian. 
 
 The Latin Prayer Book of Charles II. ; or, an 
 
 Account of the " Liturgia " of Dean Durel, together with a 
 Reprint and Translation of the Catechism therein contained, 
 with collations. Annotations, and Appendices, by the late 
 Rev. Charles Marshall, M.A., Rector of Harpurhey ; and 
 William W. Marshall, B.A. Demy 8vo. Cloth. 1882. 
 A few remaining copies may be obtained from Thomas Fargie, 
 21, St. Ann's Square, Manchester. Price, 7s. 6d. 
 
 The late Very Rev. J. S. Howson, D.D., Dean of Chester, 
 writes (July 9, 1883):— 
 
 " I have much pleasure in stating that I regard the work of Mr. Marshall 
 and his son upon the Latin Prayer Book of Charles II. as a publication of 
 great importance. The volume has been of much use to me personally ; and 
 I believe its value will be felt by all who study it candidly and carefully." 
 
 Major-General G. Hutchinson, Lay Sec, Chiirch Missionary 
 Society, writes (December 11, 1882) : — 
 
 "I am glad to be able to say that the Latin Prayer Book has been 
 considered so valuable that we have ordered now twenty copies to send 
 out to our libraries abroad." 
 
 FOU HOMli oriNIONH OF THE PRESS SEE NEXT I'AUE.
 
 OPINIONS OF THE PRESS. 
 
 " Many important points are elucidated." — British Quarterly Review. 
 
 " Such persons as are interested in the history of the Liturgy, and in the 
 history of thought in the Church of England generally, will set much store 
 by this book." — Literary World. 
 
 "A liturgical, historical, and theological work of great value, creditable 
 alike to the care, industry, and scholarly attainments of the editors. No 
 clergyman should engage in liturgical controversy without consulting its 
 pages." — Church Advocate. 
 
 " The present volume has been published on account of the scarcity of the 
 original Latin Prayer Book of 1670, and also to show what the revisers of that 
 period meant to convey by their words which they 'retained' or 'inserted.'" 
 — Clergyman's Magazine. 
 
 " This is a really interesting book." — The Churchman. 
 
 "Would it not be a substantial service to the theology of the Church if the 
 work of the Messrs. Maeshall were made a text book in theological halls 
 and colleges, and at the examinations held by the bishops? It is a book for 
 all libraries and for all schools of theology." — Liverpool Daily Courier. 
 
 "We have great pleasure in commending this work as a learned and 
 valuable contribution to our liturgical literature." — Record. 
 
 "A most valuable and timely volume." — Roch. 
 
 "We may thank the editors for reprinting what is now a very rare, and 
 always will be a very interesting book to liturgical scholars." — Church Times. 
 
 "Done with learning and candour." — Manchester Guardian. 
 
 " The work appears to have been well received in influential quarters, and 
 we are glad to note that her Majesty has been graciously pleased to accept a 
 copy. We also understand that two Archbishops, eleven Bishops, and eight 
 Deans of the Church of England have spoken of it in terms of commendation. 
 These facts show that the need for such a work existed, and that this need 
 has been fully and adequately supplied. We have been ourselves much 
 interested in the volume, and are deeply impressed with its importance. As a 
 work of reference it will prove indispensable." — Liverpool Albion. 
 
 IN PRE PAR A TION. 
 
 A Guide to the Law Examinations in the 
 University of Oxford. 
 
 This book is intended especially for the use of candidates for the 
 Examination in the Faculty of Law for the Degree of B.C.L. It will also 
 contain chapters devoted to the legal subjects required for the Honour Schools 
 of Jurisprudence and of Modern History, and to the branches of Law which 
 may be offered in the Final Pass School. 
 
 A Primer of the English Law of Property. 
 
 This work will contain a brief sketch in popular language of those 
 main principles which underlie the Law of Property, and which should 
 be familiar to all who are concerned with either real or personal property 
 within the jiirisdiction of English Law. 
 
 GUERNSEY : T. M. BICHARD, PRINTER TO THE STATES.
 
 University Of California Los Angeles 
 
 L 007 586 931 3 
 
 f « 
 
 UC SOUTHERN REGIONAL LIBRARY FACILITY 
 
 AA 000 531 772 2