No CrossRef data available.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 11 February 2009
Since 
is a good Greek word, most scholars have assumed that it must be retained, and that the corruption is confined to the unintelligible letters which precede it. Constans deleted these letters as the remnant of a gloss, Sternkopf emended them to velut; neither solution is satisfactory, since 
by itself, without an indication of the recipient, is hardly intelligible.
page 252 note 1 R.Ph. v (1931), 224 ff.; his theory of the origin of the gloss is fantastic.Google Scholar
page 252 note 2 Cratander's 
is justly described by Constans as ‘bizarre’.
page 252 note 3 Constans calls the genitive ‘difficult’. It is true that in Leg. 2. 45 Cicero uses the dative (donttm deo, a translation of 
).Google Scholar
page 252 note 4 ‘Dabei muβ es offen bleiben, ob diese Hermathena eine Schulter- oder Körper- herme … gewesen ist’, Lullies, R., Würzb. Jhbb. iv (1949–1950), 137.Google Scholar
page 252 note 5 Cf. Gow, A. S. F., A. E. Housman, p. 23.Google Scholar
page 253 note 1 Conway, , ‘The Singular Use of nos in Cicero's Letters’, Trans. Comb. Phil. Soc. v (1899), 48 and 51,Google Scholar includes scripsimus under two of his headings, ‘formal plurals in phrases relating to letter-writing’ and ‘the plural of patronage’; he says it seems half-humorous, half-formal, ‘the long political treatise with which we have favoured you’. But Cicero's discussion of the political situation in this letter (§§ 2–7) is, by Ciceronian standards, not really very long; and I do not believe that there is any humorous note in this sentence, though it is unmistakable in the next (nam ne absens censeare, etc.).
page 254 note 1 Enim is not what we should expect. Corradus suggested iam, Wesenberg deleted. Perhaps autem.
page 254 note 2 Ed. Heiberg (Teubner); e.g. p. 2. 23 or 4. 12.
page 254 note 3 This consideration, if no other, rules out the conjecture of Constans 
.
page 255 note 1 The credit for this solution belongs to Mr. W. S. Barrett, for whose help in this passage I am most grateful. My original suggestion was 
AB, AΓ.
page 255 note 2 e.g. Heiberg, pp. 14. 9, 18. 20.
page 255 note 3 On these lines also is Constans' velim, sirempse condicione; but sirempse (even assuming that it can be construed with condicione) is not a word which can be foisted on Cicero (except possibly in a quotation from a law).
page 255 note 4 Cf. Bailey, Shackleton, Towards a Text, p. 83.Google Scholar
page 256 note 1 It has been foisted by some editors into the text of Catull. 29. 23, urbis o putissimei, where the manuscript reading is urbis opulentissime. Better than most of the rubbish which has been suggested in this passage would be urbis editissimi; for editus = praeclarus cf. T.L.L. v. 2. 97. 51; the manuscript reading would then be a gloss on ditissimi.
page 258 note 1 I have found the correct explanation in one place only, a brief biography of young Marcus given by C. Bardt in his Ausgew. Briefe, Kommentar, p. 384.Google Scholar
page 258 note 2 Were it not for this passage it would be tempting to emend 
but while this would achieve greater accuracy it would rob Cicero of his little joke.
page 259 note 1 The statement in T.L.L. ii. 2086. 31Google Scholar that di boni always precedes the question or exclamation is not correct; cf. Phil. 2. 80, 5. 14.Google Scholar The simple o di has been denied to Cicero (e.g. by Krebs-Schalmz, , Antibarbarus, i 7. 433),Google Scholar but it occurs three times in the Letters (Att. 9. 18.Google Scholar 2, Q.F. 3. 2. 2 and 6 (8). 4).Google Scholar
page 259 note 2 I have found four: Verr. 5. 97,Google ScholarMur. 84, p. red. ad Quir. 4Google Scholar (almost equivalent to an exclamation), Phil. ii. 10.Google Scholar
page 259 note 3 I give these figures as being (I hope) more correct than those given in T.L.L. v. i. 892. 46.Google Scholar
page 259 note 4 Cf. Bailey, Shackleton, Towards a Text, p. 8.Google Scholar
page 260 note 1 Hermes xxxiii (1898), 341.Google Scholar
page 260 note 2 Followed by Martin, , Würzb. Jhbb. iv (1949–1950). 3.Google Scholar
page 261 note 1 In Dom. 123 the two words occur together, but there is no proper contrast between them.
page 261 note 2 After this word some manuscripts insert in causam; Orelli remarks ‘exspectabas potius in scenam’. I think that in causam is the corruption of a gloss in caveam; for cavea = theatrum cf. T.L.L. s.v.
page 262 note 1 Cf. T.L.L. v. 2. 1536. 83 ff., vii. 2. 75. 38 ff.Google Scholar