M. C.

é
lvili INTRODUCTION.
$81. guid si for quod si, E Ase, sic oceurrit for si o., BGC,
$85. offensionem for offensione EUY Asc, CH. § 86. —_religionis for religiones, BP UCHLO,
§ 108. potuerunt for potuerant A'UY Asc. CO. § 114. pulchre for pulchro, C?CHLO Asc.
§ 120. soleant EN of Moser.
$122. nulla re for inn. vr, CUY Asc. HO.
3. True reading restored by conjecture in opposition to all MSS. Greek for Latin in zpdvoay § 18, orepavyy § 28, aowparov § 30, cipappevnv § 55, pavruxyn § 55, &e.
iis for his repeatedly.
§ 13. omnium repeated.
$19. afficiendum for efficiendum.
§ 20. palmaria for palmaris. (Schdmann dissents.) § 27. qua for quae.
§ 28. continente ardore for continentem ardorem.
cingat for cingit. revocet for revocat. § 33. a magistro non dissentiens. Other conjectures are given by Sch., Ba. and Mu., but all alike change the MS reading. modo deus movert for modo mundus movert. (Sch. gives a different conjecture. ) § 39. universitatemque for universam atque. §$ 45. vitae actionem mentisque agitationem for vitam et actionem mentis atque agitationem. § 49. ad nos for ad deos, Ba. gives a different conjecture. § 64. om. aut before Neptuni. § 70. fieret for fieri.
nimis callide for nisi callide.
§ 72. equidem for quidem.
§ 73. «imane for inanes.
§ 74. liceat for liqueat.
§ 76. quod quoniam for ut quoniam. § 77. omnino for omnium.
§ 81. a parvis enim for apparuisse. § 82. add alia nobis.
§ 85. add visu after humano.
venerantes for numerantes.
TEXT AND ORTHOGRAPHY. lix
§ 86. om. id esse mortale. § 87. deoruwm numero for d. natura. § 89. transpose sumpsisses tuo jure. § 96. deorum for deo (Sch. dissents). § 103. superior aeri aetheriis (MSS vary, other poner by Ba. and Sch.) § 104. porro for postremo. § 107. num for nune. ea forma for ex forma. Cercopis, MSS vary. § 109. aequilibritatem, MSS vary. $111. quarundam, MSS vary. § 122. in imbecillitate for imbecillitatem.
Any one who will take the trouble to compare the text of the NV. D., as it now stands, with the text of the earlier editions from the Ed. Pr. of 1471 to the Variorum Ed. of 1818 will be astonished at the improvement which has been effected, owing in great part to judicious emendations by successive generations of scholars. The value and even the necessity of conjecture, as a means of restoring the text of this, as of other ancient writings, is sufficiently shown by the readings cited under the last head, but it may be proved even more conclusively by reference to other passages, which did not admit of the same brevity and simplicity of statement, such as § 24 quodque in deo, § 25 si di possunt, § 65 nihil est enim, in which it is confessed that the present text is wrong, though editors are not agreed on the right mode of restoring the true text. Whilst I am upon this subject, it may be well to give a few illustrations from the present book, of the commoner sources of corruption in MSS, so as to assist my younger readers in judging of the admissibility of any proposed emendation. The illustrations are taken from the various readings in Orelli’s edition as well as from my own. I make no attempt at an exhaustive analysis, but simply group together examples of similar confusion.
Addition or omission of final m: see critical notes on *speciem* § 99, * figuram § 97, * quae § 89, exorientem § 79, imbecillitate § 122, tu § 112 and 106, offensionem § 85, facilem § 53, * simile and conti- nente ardore § 28, * natura § 23, partum ortumque § 41.
1 An asterisk is prefixed wherever the reading is doubtful.
Ix INTRODUCTION.
Interchange of ¢and d: see on quot § 84, *inquit § 109, eer § 123, id § 113, aliquid § 57 and § 104, apud § pe sed § 61; at for ad in § 14, *§ 97; ad for at § 79 (twice), § 5 84, 5 00, § 109, § 115, § 116, § 122.
Interchange of final is and es; see on *intellegentis § 23, *reli- gionis § 86, mares § 95, voluptatis § 113, *mentis § 120.
Interchange of final of 7 and e ; see on cogitari § 24, *atqui § 16 and § 57, * familiart § 58, corport § 78, liberari § 117.
imacdhes of e and ae: see on cur aquae § 25, quae *§ 89, § 92, § 97, § 110, ipsa $110, terrenae § 103, ilae $101, equus § 77, aequili- britatem § 109.
Omission or addition of prefix in: see on *inscientiam § 1, incontinentem § 26, lustrationem § 87, individuis, § 110.
Omission or addition of initial //: see on orarum § 119, omnium § 108, and Ais below.
Confusion between 7s, zis, his: see on § 2, § 3, § 7, § 10, § 11, § 12, § 31, § 50, § 55, § 61, § 66, § 103, § 113, § 116, § 122, § 123.
Interchange of quid and quod: see on § 10, § 81, § 87.
Confusion between est, sit, sinfé, sunt: see on disputatum est § 15, pulcherrima est § 48, aestimanda est § 55, aliquando est § 68, ausa est § 93, dicenda est § 95, natura est § 96, variae sunt § 1, * vero sint § 25, caelo sunt § 34, quidem sunt § 41, innumerabilia sint § 50, animis sunt § 103, sunt quae § 109.
Interchange of parts of verbs generally,
(1) of Subjunctive and Indicative moods: see on *siné and soleant § 120, *videmus § 117, * tribuant 101, aberrant § 100, * decre- verint § 92, *fecerat § 85, negatis § 53, viderit § 49, fateamur § 44, * dixerat § 41, *appelletur § 36, cingat, revocet § 28.
(2) of Singular and Plural: see on diceretur § 88, vident § 101, Faciet § 109.
(3) of Second and Third Person; see on inquit § 100 and *§ 109, attigeris § 104.
Mistakes in the division of words: see notes on § 14 addubitare, § 18 descendisset, § 25 cur aquae, § 37 sententia est, qui aether, § 39 ioe dasa oe § 63 posteaque, alk § 66 similiora, § 79 exorien- tem, at erat, § 81 *a parvis enim, § 89 *argumentis sententiam, § 103 homuncult cn § 76 sn fomaiuats
TEXT AND ORTHOGRAPHY. Ixi
Omission of repeated words or syllables, and of words interposed between repeated words or syllables: see on § 13 omniwm omnium, § 26 in infinito, *omnino in eo, § 25 *aquae adjunxit—aquam ad- junxit, § 66 *hamata, § 71 quasi corpus aut quasi, § 78 formica Sormicae, § 81 apud eos—apud nos, § 82 *alia nobis, § 71 *in ceris diceretur, § 58 anteferret et, § 103 oportet et, § 49 *neque eadem ad, § 93 nist in eo—nisi in e0, § 103 *superior aert aetherws, § 98 *moribus paribus, § 2 *natura trahimur.
Construction altered through the influence of a nearer word : see on § 2 continet—in primis changed to continet est—in primisque, § 25 *mentem changed to et mente, § 36 vt divina, changed to ut divinam, § 49 docet changed to doceat after ut, § 70 esse changed to esset after utrum, fieret changed to fiert to suit following esse, § 71 quam for quod after mirabilius, § 73 imanes for inane to suit imagines, § 104 rationis for ratione to suit mentis.
Substitution of synonyms: see on § 68 quia for quod, so igitur for ergo constantly in C.
Interpolation,
(1) by unintentional repetition : see on § 63 *aut before Neptuni suggested by aut Carbo, § 35 *immittendique after minuendi.
(2) to complete construction: see on § 86 id esse mortale added after si quid sit, § 107 *quam inserted after minus probari possit.
(3) owing to explanatory gloss: see on § 33 * Platone added to explain magistro, § 13 * Terentius, &c. added before Synephebis, § 34 *tum to explain modo, § 58 *L. Crasso to explain familiari, § 112 *nectar ambrosiamque to explain epulas, § 1 *id est principium philosophiae to explain the allusion to the Academics, § 28 * praeterea added to correct ome, § 25 *alia added to escape apparent incon- sistency.
(4) owing to controversial gloss: see on § 19 *animi added as an answer to the question quibus oculis, on § 21 *quod ne—tempus esset possibly an answer to the preceding intellegi potest.
I proceed now to discuss the question of spelling. This has caused me some difficulty, as I am aware that my own feeling, or perhaps I should rather call it my prejudice, is opposed to the theory and practice of the most eminent both amongst our own and foreign scholars. I think however it is not mere obstinacy which prompts me to follow my own course in this matter, even
)xii INTRODUCTION.
against the advice of friends for whose judgement I have the highest respect, and who have studied the subject far more deeply than I can pretend to have done.
It appears to me that this apparently unimportant question is not obscurely connected with the larger question whether the Classics are still to form the staple of higher education amongst us. If their claim to do so is to be allowed, they must show good reasons for it, and they must at the same time leave room for other more immediately pressing studies. I believe that this claim will be allowed in so far as the study of the Classics supplies the necessary instrument for entering into the life and thought of the ancient world, and one of the best instruments for learning the laws which regulate the expression of thought. But the Universities will have to see to it that this is done far more thoroughly than it has yet been done; and for this purpose it will be necessary to drop some of the tmpedimenta which now occupy the time of the learner without tending, in any corresponding degree, to discipline and feed the mind. Yet, of late years, it seems to me that the burden of the impedimenta has been added to rather than reduced by the new importance which has been given to questions of etymology and orthography. No doubt a wonderful advance has been made in these departments, and, as special subjects for investigation, they naturally and rightly attract to themselves the attention of leisured scholars, but I cannot think they should be made so prominent as_ they have been in College and University examinations. Viewed in relation to the main ends of a classical education, I hold that spelling is simply a necessary evil, and that, for practical purposes, the best spelling is that which obtrudes itself least, and least diverts the attention of the reader from the thought of the writer. In books therefore which are printed for ordinary reading, we should not seek to reproduce the spelling of a particular age or of a par- ticular author, except where, as in Chaucer, it may be needed to show the scansion of a line, but we should endeavour to give the normal spelling of the language after it assumed a fixed and sta- tionary form ; just as we do not in our common Shakespeares repro- duce the inconsistent spelling of the early folios and quartos, though for the purpose of studying the history of the language we rightly print facsimiles of these’. In Latin it is generally agreed that the
1 See on this subject the very sensible remarks of Ritschl, Opuse. m1 pp. 722 foll. and 728. I can but echo his final words, spoken with reference to the
TEXT AND ORTHOGRAPHY. Ixili
language attained its highest formal development in the period which may be named after Quintilian, between Nero and Hadrian, according to Brambach (L/iilf/sbiichlein f. Lat. Rechtschreibung, p. V1), between the death of Augustus and that of Trajan, according to L. Meyer (Orthographiae Latinae Summarium p. 5). The latter lays down the following rules for our modern spelling of Latin: ne inaequalitate scribendi aut oculi offendantur legentium aut in errorem inducantur animi, scriptura nostra reddi oportet ad certue usum ac morem aetatis, ec quidem ejus, qua ipsa lingua scriptorum pariter ingeniis et studiis grammaticorum ad summam est adducta perfectionem; and in p. 6, praeterea ut in sermone, ita im scriptura tamquam scopulum nos fugere oportet quaevis inusitata.
Adopting these rules, it will follow first, that we need not trouble ourselves to frame a conjectural text, such as Cicero might have written, but should use the undoubted spelling of the latter half of the first century A.D. ; and secondly, that where this spelling itself was variable, as in the w or 7 of the superlative terminations, and the 2 or e of the accusative plural of i-nouns, we should select one mode and adhere steadily to that. In making the selection I should myself wish to apply to our own case the principle suggested by Meyer’s second rule, that, of two allowable spellings, that should be preferred which is wsitatius, least of a novelty to ordinary English readers,
Turning now to Miiller’s text I find there several examples of inconsistent, and some of unusual and, as I believe, incorrect spelling. This is the more to be wondered at, because in his excellent review of Baiter and Halm’s ed. in the Jahrb. f. Cl. Philol. for 1864, vol. 89, p, 261 foll. he condemns a similar inconsistency in them,
The following are the points in which the spelling in my edition will be found to differ from that in Miiller’s :
(1) I have always given the superlative termination in -imus; Miller at times has the form in -wmus. Thus we find facillume § 9, but facillimum § 61; turpissume § 29, but turpissime § 93; simillumus § 49, but simillimus § 98; praestantissumus § 47, but praestantissimus § 96 ; also levissumus § 13, vaferrumus § 39.
attempt to expel the old German forms ‘genitiv’, ‘ Virgil’: mége doch nicht deutscher Pedantismus einen Schatten auf deutsche Wissenschaft werfen, der gegen diese selbst den Spott des weitern Kreises der Gebildeten herausfordern muss /
lxiv INTRODUCTION.
(2) Ihave always written w after v; Miiller generally does so, e.g. vult in § 13, 33, 34, 69; vultis in §§ 89, 103, 107; Vulcanus § 81; but volt in § 41; voltis § 93; Volcanus §§ 83 and 84.
(3) I have always written es in the Acc. Pl. of the 7- declension ; Miiller usually has is, but we find utiles, salutares, § 38, inmortales § 45, leves § 59, similes §§ 90, 91, venerantes § 85, noctes § 54 though partis comes just before. Baiter consistently gives -7s in all cases.
(4) I have regularly assimilated, where it was allowable, because there is no doubt that assimilation was the tendency of the Latin language, and was practised in speaking even in the exceptional cases where it was necessary to preserve the spelling unaltered for the purpose of distinctness or to show the etymology, as in adswm (Roby, Vol. 1. p. 49 n.); Miiller as a rule does not assimilate, but we find exceptions, as in regard to the assimilation of 77 before labials : before 6; inbecillus § 122, but imbecillus § 45,
p; mpurus § 63, inpudenter § 69 &e., but impius § 63, impendeo § 45. (Baiter in both cases keeps i.) So conprehensio § 94, but comprehendo § 30.
m; inmensus § 22, and inmortalis frequently. in before linguals :
1. inlustris § 12; so conligatus § 9, but colligo § 4, comparo § 16 (where Baiter has con/igo and conparo).
r. mrigo § 120, inrideo § 101.
Assimilation of d:
before p. adpeto § 104, but appeto immediately after; so adpulsus, adprehendo, but appareo § 37, apparatus § 20, appello § 36.
f. adfluo § 49, but agluo § 114 and affluentia § 51, adfectus § 36, but afficio $19; so adfero, adfirmo &e.
r. adrideo § 17 and § 97, but arripio § 77.
l. allicio § 116.
s. adsentior § 12, adsequor § 23, adsidue § 114.
t. attinet § 84.
n. adnuo § 113.
ce. accurate § 15,
g. adgredior § 57,
(5) I have always preserved an s following # in composition ; Miiller varies, giving ews/stunt § 97, existat § 49, evstitid § 12 and § 21, eatitit $ 55 and § 91, eatingut § 29.
TEXT AND ORTHOGRAPHY. lxv
(6) In regard to nouns borrowed from the Greek I have followed Madvig’s rule (Gram. § 33 obs. 3), ‘Where both forms are in use, it is better to adhere to the Latin’, in accordance with the principles laid down by Quintilian 1 5 § 63 and Cicero Att. v1 9, (see the quotations in Roby §§ 471, 482). Thus I have always used the termination -em for the Acc. of Greek nouns in -es, whereas Miiller writes, at one time, Socraten (1 93), Timocraten (1 93), Simoniden (1 60), Nausiphanen (1 93), Cleanthen (111 5), but more generally Socratem (1 31), Timocratem (1 113), Simonidem (Div. 1 56), Empe- doclem, Aristotelem, Ganymedem, Archimedem, Euphratem, Xeno- phanem &c. So I have written wim, Apim in 1 82, where Miiller has Apim but bin : I have uniformly written Zeno, but in § 70 Miller gives Zenon.
(7) I have always written di in the Nom. and dis in the Abl.; Miiller uses di or dei, dis or deis indiscriminately.
(8) I have written Zyceo in § 72 where Miiller has Zycio, but in Div. 1. 8 and 22 he gives the spellings Lycewm, Lyceo. Where he writes oportune § 15, oportunitas § 92', benivolentia § 58, Xerses §$ 115, Argia § 82, I have written with Buiter opportune, opportunitas, benevolentia, Xerxes, Argiva. In one instance, cncoho, I have pre- ferred the less usual spelling to the ordinary imchoo (which Miiller keeps) not merely on the ground that it has most authority in its favour, but because it is the more rational, as showing better the etymology and probably also the pronunciation.
Thus far I have not departed much from the prevalent usage in the latest editions. I have now to plead guilty to two heresies, The first is that I have used the character J for the consonantal I, My reasons for doing so are as follows: (1) the use of J, to dis- tinguish the consonant from the vowel I, seems to me to stand on the same footing with the use of V to distinguish the consonant from the vowel U. Neither use was known to the ancients, but convenience has led most editors to preserve the distinctive V, indeed Madvig, who had dropped it in his first edition of the De Finibus, returned to it in the later editions; and all who write on the phonetics of Latin are compelled to mend the unscientific orthography of the Romans by treating the J and V as distinct letters known by distinctive characters. (2) It might perhaps be
1 See his own remarks on the untrustworthiness of MSS in their spelling of double letters, l. c. p. 138.
Ixvi INTRODUCTION.
somewhat bold for us in the nineteenth century to commence a reform of the alphabet which Cicero used, but in the first place we do not commence the reform, we merely keep the spelling which the common sense of preceding centuries has handed down to us; and in the next place we know from Quintilian 1 4 § 11, that Cicero himself felt the need of distinctive marks for the con- sonantal and the vowel I, and that it was his practice to double the I in writing such a word as Ajax. Though this symbol did not pass into general use, yet it was felt by others that some sort of distinctive mark was needed, and a tall I was occasionally employed in the imperial times to denote the consonantal sound of I. If the intervening generations have provided us with a more convenient character, I do not see why we are to throw away this advantage, any more than we do those of punctuation or of the discriminating types, which were equally unknown to the Romans. I may be allowed by the way to express my regret that Baiter, in common with many German editors, has ceased to mark the beginning of the sentence by a capital letter, thus making it more difficult to glance rapidly over a page and catch the general sense. What was the motive for this beyond a mere love of change in trivial details J am unable to conjecture.
If I may hope that my use of the letter J, as above explained, may be conceded, as at worst a venial error, I fear that the par- ticular use of it, which I am about to confess, can only be viewed in the light of a mortal sin by philologists of the modern school. I refer to my retention of the oldfashioned spelling of the compounds of jacio, conjicio rejicio disjicio for conicio reicio dissicio. As there can be no doubt that the latter was the usual spelling of the Quintilian age, how am I to defend the infringement of the rule, which I have myself laid down above? My answer is that rules must give way to principles, and the principle of good spelling is that it should represent correctly the etymology and the pronuncia- tion of the word, neither of which is done by the spellings in ques- tion. Another inconvenience arising from the omission of the J is that the laws of prosody will thus be broken in almost all the cases in which the compounds of jacio appear in Latin verse. In urging these objections 1 do no more than repeat what was said by the ancients themselves. Gellius has a chapter on this very subject (Y. A. 1v 17) in which he finds fault with the omission of the
consonantal 7 in the compounds of jacio, as confusing versification
APPENDIX ON DAVIES’ MSS. Ixvii
and giving rise to a wrong pronunciation, He quotes hexameter lines containing the words obiciebat, conicere, subicit, and says many readers lengthen the first vowel in order to make the lines scan, but ob, con and sub are essentially short syllables and only lengthened by the consonant which follows, secunda enim litera in his verbis per duo %, non per unum scribenda est ; nam verbum ipsum non est ‘icio’ sed ‘iacio’ et praeteritum non ‘icit’ facit, sed ‘iecit’. Id ubi compo- situm est, ‘a’ litera in ‘t’ mutatur, sicuti fit in verbis ‘insilio’, et ‘incipio’, atque ita’ vim consonantis capit, et tdcirco ea syllaba pro- ductius latiusque paulo pronuntiata priorem syllabam brevem esse non patitur. Then he goes on to say that quod apud Vergilium positum invenimus ‘inice’, sic esse Sintice’, ut supra dixi, et scribendum et legendum sciamus. I should wish therefore to keep the spelling with 7 in all except the rare cases in which the consonantal 7 ceases to exercise any influence on the quantity of the preceding syllable, as in reice Verg. Kel, 111 96, ddicit Mart. x 821. In such exceptional cases the spelling would be changed as in other cases of syncope or diaeresis.
APPENDIX ON DAVIES’ MSS.
It is a curious fact that, of the six MSS used by Davies for his edition of the Matura Deorum, viz. the Codex Regius, Bp. Moore’s copy of the Stephanus edition containing two marginal collations (styled by Davies Codices Elienses), the ms lent to him by Dr Richard Mead (Med.) and those belonging to the Cambridge University Library (Cant.) and to the Library of Lincoln College, Oxford (Linzc.), all but the two last have disappeared. In order to save trouble to others who may be interested in the text of Cicero, and also in the hope that possibly some one among my readers may be able to sup- plement my account with further information, I print here all that I have been able to ascertain about the history of the lost mss.
In the Preface to the Ist edition of the V.D. 1718, Davies de- scribes the Codd. El. as follows: uswm editionis Stephanicae cum duobus optimis Mss collatae dedit summus met, dum in vivis erat, patronus, Joannes Morus, nuper Kliensis Episcopus. Ten years later, in the Preface to his edition of the De Legibus, he speaks more
1 Fortassis legendum ‘itaque prima i vim’: ‘ita’ videtur enatum ex more librariorum exarantium I* pro ‘prima’. Otho’s note in loc.
Ixvill INTRODUCTION.
slightingly of the value of these readings: ‘£iens.’ varias lectiones significat, quas ex MS quodam vir doctus editiont Roberti Stephant A.D. MDXXXIX adlevit. Iste codex, quantum judicare datur, non magnam prae se tulit vetustatem. It will be seen that Davies here employs the Sing. Codex, as he also does in the list of Mss used by him for the Academica I, A.D. 1725 (collationem Ms factam in ex- emplari editionis Stephanicae) while for Academica JT he mentions on the same page varias lectiones ex duobus mss excerptas et adlitas orae editionis Stephanicae. Yet again, after having stated in the Preface to the Ist ed. of the Tusculans 1708, that Bp. Moore had lent him his Stephanus cum duobus optimis mss collatam, he adds in the 2nd ed. 1723 hos Eliensem primum ac secundum nominarvi: wis nune accessit ab eadem manw tertius in pergamena scriptus, and cites all three together in his notes as “Vienses tres, e.g. on nist haereret 1 § 27. From this it would appear that the collations of the two codices were in the same handwriting, and that Davies, after he had brought out his Ist ed., discovered in Bp. Moore’s Library a complete text of the Tusculans copied out by the writer of the collations. No mention is made of these Mss in the Preface to either of the editions of the De Divinatione and De Fato 1721 and 1730, nor have I come across any reference to them in the notes to the De Divinatione, but Cod. El. appears frequently in the notes to the De Futo.
Bentley’s Life and Letters furnish some additional information on the earlier history of the Codices. In July 1692 Bentley, writing to Graevius, who was then engaged on a new edition of his Cicero, informs him that Moore, at that time Bishop of Norwich, is pre- pared to send him Jlectiones variantes in Libris Philosophicis Ciceronis, quas ex vetusto codice descripserat quidam in ora ed, Rob. Stephani in Jol. Graevius, in his reply (Sept. 1692), accepts with thanks the Bishop’s offer, but says that he must finish the orations before he can proceed to the Philosophical works. In Jan. 1693 Bentley writes again to say that the Bishop will send the volume itself, and remarks in reference to the value of the readings quantivis esse pretit re ipsa comperies. Graevius, writing in the following December, acknow- ledges the receipt of the volume, which, he says, he will guard nigris diligentius urvis; all posterity shall know how grateful he is to the lender, Frequent allusions to the book appear in the subsequent correspondence, but Graevius is still too busy to make use of it, until at last the bishop becomes impatient, and Bentley writes in Aug. 1702 saepe mihi aurem vellit celeberrimus Praesul Norvicensis de
APPENDIX ON DAVIES’ MSS. lxix
Codice suo, quem jam per decennium, opinor, apud te detines. Op- timum esset si velles tibi describere, et codicem huc remittere; dolet enim tam bonum librum tam diu bibliothecae suae locupletissimae deesse. To this Graevius replies Nov. 1702, describendas varias mandavi juveni, ne longius justo retineatur hic liber. Prowimo vere ut salvus Viro Summo reddatur mihi erit curae; and again in De- cember Cicero in quo nune describendo sudat adolescens redibit ad vos proxima cum hirundine. The correspondence closes with a letter from Burmann in the following month, Jan. 15 1703, announcing Graevius’ death.
It would be interesting to know whether the collation made by the adolescens was ever completed, and whether it is still in existence at Utrecht or elsewhere. The volume itself must have been returned to its owner, as it was lent by him to Davies for his Ist ed. of the Tusculans, which appeared in 1709, and seems to have been used by the latter until his death in 1732. As Bp. Moore’s Library was purchased by Geo. I and presented to the University of Cambridge in 1715, the Stephanus ought to have found its way to the Univer- sity Library, and to be now safely locked up in one of the cases there, but Mr Bradshaw, the present learned Librarian, informs me that he can discover no trace of it, nor is there anything to be heard of it at Queens’ College, of which Davies was President.
I turn now to the Codex Regius which is described as follows in Davies’ preface to the V.D., mss Hlienses excipit Codex membrana- ceus in Bibliotheca Regia Londini servatus, cujus mihi copiam fecit Richardus Bentleius. The same MS is described in the Preface to the De Legibus as belonging to the Royal Library at St James’; mutilus est, nec ultra mediam partem libri secundi progreditur. Est annorum, ut videtur, cccc. It was also used for the Academica Bk. 11 and for the De Divinatione and De Fato, but apparently not for the Tusculans, where Reg. stands for a Paris Codex. Bentley who suc- ceeded Justell as “Library Keeper to His Majesty at St James’” in April 1694, wrote in May to Graevius, offering to send him variantes lectiones ex duobus vetustissimis Codd. ex Bibliotheca Regia Sancti Jacobi, but it does not appear whether they were ever sent. As the King’s Library was removed in 1752 to the British Museum, these two codices ought now to be there, but by a strange fatality these also have disappeared. Is it possible that they were among the 200 volumes ‘destroyed or greatly injured’ by the fire at Abingdon House in 1731, on which see Monk’s Life of Bentley, 11 308,
lxx INTRODUCTION,
Of ‘Med.’ I know nothing beyond the fact that it was used by Davies for the Zusculans, De Legibus and De Divinatione as well as for the Natura Deorum, and that in the preface to the De Legibus he describes it as a Ms of about 300 years old.
As regards the value of these mss, Madvig in his Preface to the De Finibus makes a broad distinction between Cod. El. 1 and Cod. El. 2, considering the latter to belong either to the better or to the mixed class of mss, while he has no hesitation in classing the former with the inferior mss. He finds fault with Davies for so frequently confounding the two. In the Ist book of the V.D. I notice three generally accepted readings, which rest either wholly or chiefly on the authority of Cod. EL, ascientiam §1, vim § 39, esse $86; and two in the 2nd Bk. resting on Cod. Reg., nuptam dicunt § 66, hic quaerat quispiam $133. It is evident from these facts that it would be of great service to Ciceronian criticism, if the mss could be re- covered and carefully collated.
EXPLANATION OF SYMBOLS’.
A. Codex Leidensis (Vossianus) no. 84, written in the x1th century (C in Moser’s ed.)?.
B. Codex Leidensis (Vossianus) no. 86, written in the xuth century (B in Moser) ?.