§ 40.

1. 10. aliquantum: L with P only, on the ground that aliquantulum is foreign to Classical prose. It is now ejected from Div. 1, 73 where the inferior MSS alone have it, but there is still some evidence for it in De inv. 2, 29; Pro Quint. 15; (Cornificius) Ad Herenn. 4, 14.

1. 14.

§ 41.

in P. Scipione: four of Halm's MSS (including G) have in p. nasicam Scipionem, the remaining two in scipionem; P has in Scipione. It is not at all improbable that Cicero wrote in P. Nasica Scipione, or P. Nasica merely (as in Phil. 8, 13).

1. 18. proclivis: G H B proclivius; P L N proclivis (also four of Halm's MSS). Cf. 84, 1. 11 where three MSS have gravius for gravis. It has often been proposed to read proclivi, the adverb. (Cf. Tusc. 4, 42.)

§ 42.

1. 27. re publica: all MSS have the common abbreviation re p.: B H thinking the p has come from the following in peccantibus strike out publica, but the whole context shews them to be wrong.

§ 44.

1. 13.

verum: so MSS; edd. vero; cf. however my explanatory n.

§ 48.

1. 27. contrahat amicitiam: qy contrahatur amicitia?

1. 29. contigit: so B L with all the best MSS. H contingit.

§ 49.

1. 32. animante: so B L with M P D; H animo autem with G.

1. 4.

§ 50.

et tam trahat: so MSS; H B L N et attrahat, needlessly.

§ 55.

1. 24. laborant: so I have written with all MSS; edd. laborent. I think laborant is used in its very common Ciceronian sense = =solliciti nor do they trouble themselves as to the person for whom etc.'.

sunt

§ 56.

13. facit: so MSS.; edd. faciat, to suit 59, 1. 21.

1. 3. temptatis: G M P agree in tempestatis, a striking testimony in favour of the spelling temptatis against tentatis.

amicitia ex: so I have emended the reading of G M P amicitias which has arisen from ex having been written es (so estra often for extra). H has amicitiis with D; B N amicitia only, with two inferior MSS; L amicitia ipsa. [C. F. W. M. amicitia ex independently.]

§ 65.

1. 27. quem: MSS quam, with which reading fides comes in at the end of the sentence in a lumping and altogether un-Ciceronian fashion.

§ 69.

1. 7. posse esse: so MSS; many edd. om. posse.

1. II.

M.]

§ 70.

imbecilliore: so MSS; edd. mostly imbecilliores [not C. F. W.

§ 72.

P. 51, 1. 1. opera: MSS and edd. opere; but Cicero would say levare aliquem opera (nostra), not opere. Ĉf. 51, ll. 24, 25 si numquam opera nostra Scipio eguisset.

§ 74.

1. 14. aestimandi: this is Mommsen's emendation; the MSS have merely est; edd. generally mark a lacuna. [Qy. read est amicus?]

§ 75.

1. 23. Lycomeden: MSS and edd. Lycomedem, which Cicero cannot have written, as he constantly uses en not em in the accusative singular of Greek proper names in es. See Neue 1, pp. 56-58 ed. 2.

§ 77.

1. 17. graviter ac moderate: so I have corrected the MSS graviter auctoritate; L graviter ac temperate; H merely brackets auctoritate as a marginal gloss introduced into the text.

§ 91.

1. 26. voluptatem: so MSS; edd. voluntatem to correspond with voluntatem in 93, 1. 3.

§ 94.

11. 6-8. I have placed a comma at similes and changed the MSS reading horum into quorum. See n. With the MSS readings the sentence is most awkwardly constructed.

§ 96.

1. 24. cooptatio: it is remarkable that the MSS here agree in the form coaptatio. Mommsen quotes coaptato from the lex Iulia municipalis (Corpus Inscr. I, p. 121, 1. 86) which also has coptato (l. 106). Mommsen remarks 'cum o geminatam antiqui non admitterent fortasse pro ea substituerunt modo ō, modo oa, ut pro au scribitur modo ū, modo ou'.

§ 97.

The

1. 31. scena: most curiously P D and E (codex Erfurtensis) agree in giving scamna which seems to point to the spelling scaena. Latins often represented Greek ʼn by ae.

R. L.

II

ADDENDA.

p. 11.

Greek sources of the dialogue. Since my work first appeared (1879) I have read two pamphlets bearing on the Greek sources of the Laelius. The first is by Braxator, entitled 'Quid in conscribendo Ciceronis Laelio valuerint Aristotelis Ethicon Nicomachorum (sic) de amicitia libri' (Halle 1871). Its object is to shew that Cicero directly imitated Eth. Nic. 8, 9 throughout the Laelius. Braxator points out a number of verbal resemblances between the two works, nearly all of which are quoted in my notes. But he neglects to notice the great divergence between the two treatises in subject-matter and arrangement. If Eth. Nic. 8, 9 had been the basis of the Laelius, we should have had striking correspondence in the treatment of the theme. Altogether Braxator does not much advance the problem towards a solution. His work is hasty, as a sign of which it may be stated that the pamphlet contains perhaps more misprints than were ever before crowded together in the same space.

The second essay, that of Heylbut 'De Theophrasti libris epi pilias' (Bonn 1876), is a more careful production. Heylbut seeks to prove that Theophrastus copied Aristotle in the main, and that Cicero and Plutarch (in his writings on friendship) drew ultimately upon Theophrastus. The verbal resemblances between the Laelius and the Eth. Nic. would thus be explained. Heylbut believes that Cicero had before him only excerpts from Theophrastus contained in a work by some other author, and he suspects the same may be the case with Plutarch.

My own investigations lead me to think that the statements about friendship in the Laelius and those in De Finibus 2, 4, 5 go back to a common source, and that possibly Plutarch also used this source. The matter however is too intricate for argument here. If Hirzel's views of the sources of the De Finibus be correct, we shall thus be led back to Antiochus of Ascalon, the philosopher from whom Cicero drew so much elsewhere. But while many of Hirzel's arguments carry me with them, there are difficulties which for the present prevent me from giving a confident opinion.

p. 61, n. on § 1, 1. 2. Ꭶ nec dubitare: the construction of non dubitare with accusative and infinitive is regular in Livy; see Kühnast, Livian. Synt. p. 20. For the constructions with dubito in Cicero and other authors see my n. on Cato maior § 16.

n. on § 1, 1. 4. ita eram deductus etc.: formerly I took ita...ut as 'with the result that...' Prof. Iwan Müller, in one of his well known able and courteous reviews in Bursian's Jahresbericht, objected that this interpretation would require poteram...licebat. Surely not so; dependent clauses in Latin continually follow the syntax of the principal clause. My only ground for changing my view is that the interpretation now adopted seems to suit somewhat better the whole context. p. 62, n. on § 1, l. 5. a senis latere: cf. Catul. 21, 6 haerens ad latus with Ellis' n.

p. 63, n. on § 2, 1. 14. tum fere: Prof. Iwan Müller objects to my view (which agreed with that of C. F. W. Müller in his edition of Seyffert's Laelius) on the ground that the time is precisely indicated in the following sentence. I fail to see why Cic. should not say that certain talk prevailed 'about' a certain time, even though he is able to define the time exactly. Iwan Müller seems to favour omnibus for multis. C. F. W. Müller now reads (in his Teubner text) tum forte. p. 64, n. on § 3, 1. 2. ne ' inquam' etc.: cf. also Tusc. 2, 9 and Diog. Laert. 9, III, where he contrasts the αὐτοδιήγητος ἑρμηνεία with

that ἐν διαλόγου σχήματι.

p. 65, n. on § 4, 1. 7. feci ut prodessem: this is not quite the same as profui; it rather lays stress on the exertion which it cost Cic. to write the book.

§ 4, 1. 10. aptior quae: Draeger, hist. synt. 2, 534 ed. 2 says that this construction can only be paralleled from Ovid, Her. 3, 70. I have been unable to find any other example. The ordinary constructions of aptus are the dat., or acc. with ad (or in poets with in). Aptior is probably substituted here for the comparative of idoneus, which was not in use (cf. idonea in 1. 13).

n. on § 4, 1. 1o. loqueretur: Iwan Müller quotes for dicere, used with the abstract or personified subject, Fat. § ; Cato, Orig. 5, 5 ed. Jordan; for inquit Cic. Leg. 2, 58; add Att. 2, 5, 1 quid historiae de nobis praedicarint?

p. 69, n. on § 7, 1. 13. omnia tua etc.: the younger Seneca has many expressions like this, as in Epist. 66, 22 hominem habentem in se omnia; he also mentions the saying of Stilbo, also attributed to Bias of Priene, 'omnia mea mecum porto' (Ep. 9, 19), or 'omnia mea mecum sunt' (Dial. 2, 5, 6). Cf. also Cic. Tusc. 5 §§ 30, 36, 42; ib. 4 §§ 57, 61. p. 70, n. on § 7, 1. 14. credo ex hoc item: cf. Madvig on Fin.

2, 16.

§ 7, 1. 17. ut assolet: differs from ut solet, in being used only of some fixed and stated usage or ceremonial (Madv. on Fin. 5, 1).

p. 71, n. on § 8, 1. 29. incommodo: cf. Tusc. 5, 36, where it is said the sapiens will be unmoved, 'et nascentibus et cadentibus cum reliquis commodis, tum maxime liberis'.

p. 72, n. on § 9, 1. 3. sed hi in pueris: cf. Fin. 5, 62 sed haec in pueris; Sen. dial. 11, 3, 5 luget Polybius, in uno fratre quid de reliquis possit metuere, admonitus.