possess such a transcendent superiority, either in point of accuracy or of age, as to make it unnecessary to weigh carefully the evidence furnished by other MSS. I have therefore thought it my duty to examine, as far as was in my power to do so, all evidence which could throw a light on the condition of the text up to the end of the 15th century. Thus, besides the critical editions of Orelli, Heindorf and Creuzer, I have had in constant use the Ascensian ed. of 1511, and two MSS (U and Y) most kindly lent to me by S. Allen Esq. of Dublin, whose father's name will be familiar to students of Cicero under the Latinized form 'Alanus.' I am further indebted to J. H. Swainson, Esq., late Fellow of Trinity College, Cambridge, for the use of his very careful collation of eight MSS. seven belonging to the British Museum, and one to the Cambridge University Library, as well as of the two earliest printed texts. This collation is given in an abridged form at the end of the volume, Another MS (0), recently purchased by the Trustees of the British Museum, has been collated for me by a member of the staff of the MSS department there: but in this, as in the other cases, I have myself compared the collation with the MS, wherever special importance attached to a particular reading. In like manner the end of the Oxford readings of four Oxford MSS given at the 4to edition of 1783 have been tested for me, e ou by H. P. Richards, Esq., and by J. S. Reid, Esq.. Beside the мs readings, I have also mentioned the differences between my text and those of SchöMüller and Baiter, both in his earlier and later editions. mann, In order to show that the record preserved to us in Orelli's MSS is at any rate not so complete as to dispense either with emendations or with a careful comparison of other MSS, I have given below, 1st, a list of passages, in which the text is supported exclusively by what are considered the inferior MSS in opposition to all Orelli's MSS in many of these cases the true reading had been independently restored by conjecture, and it is of course open to question how far the MSS themselves are to be considered as witnessing to a traditional reading or merely giving the scribe's emendation; 2nd, a list of passages in which the received text is supported by one only of Orelli's MSS; and 3rd a list of passages in which the 2 I may mention as an illustration of the danger of trusting to negative evidence in the case of мs readings, that scarcely one in ten of the inferences which I had drawn ex silentio on the part of the Oxford collator of 1783 was verified on examination of the мss themselves. received text rests solely on conjecture unsupported by any existing MS. Under each head I have mentioned only those readings which are accepted (except where otherwise stated) by Baiter, Schömann, and Müller in common with myself. 1. True reading preserved by inferior MSS in opposition to all Orelli's MSS. § 18. oculis (om. animi), Asc. V (Schömann dissents). § 26. continentem for incontinentem, Asc. UCHMRV. § 28. commenticium for conventicium, Asc. INOV, earumque for eorumque, Asc. CMV. § 29. § 39. fatalem vim for f. umbram, El. (Baiter dissents). ceteroqui for ceteroque, Oxf. u Moser's E and M. § 86. aliquid esse for aliquid iste, El. Oxf. e. § 87. lustrationem for illustrationem, GC El. Reg.' Herv. $97. at figura for ad figuram, UCHLO. (Baiter dissents). $99. ad speciem nec ad usum for speciem nec usum, G. (Baiter and Müller read by conjecture specie nec usu.) § 103. oportet et for oportet, CN of Moser. § 1. § 18. § 25. § 123. homunculi for homunculis, MR Herv. 2. True reading preserved by inferior MSS in opposition to all but one of Orelli's MSS.' ut before magno argumento, Ba Asc. UILO (Baiter dissents). turpius for fortius, C' Asc. El. Herv. Pal. 3. descendisset for descendis (or descendens) sed, B Asc. CNMR. si di for sic di, EUCV. § 28. reprehenditur for reprehenderetur, E (and by correction in B) CLMN. § 37. sententia est qui for sententias qui, A'UCM Asc. 1 I have not thought it necessary here to distinguish, as I have done in the critical notes, between positive evidence and ex silentio inference, as regards the readings of Orelli's Mss. M. C. § 122. nulla re for in n. r. CUY Asc. HO. 3. True reading restored by conjecture in opposition to all MSS. Greek for Latin in πρόνοιαν § 18, στεφάνην § 28, ἀσώματον § 30, εἱμαρμένην § 55, μαντική § 55, &c. iis for his repeatedly. § 13. omnium repeated. § 19. afficiendum for efficiendum. palmaria for palmaris. (Schömann dissents.) § 20. § 27. qua for quae. § 28. continente ardore for continentem ardorem. § 33. cingat for cingit. revocet for revocat. a magistro non dissentiens. Other conjectures are given by Sch., Ba. and Mu., but all alike change the MS reading. modo deus moveri for modo mundus moveri. (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. § 103. Ba. and Sch.) superior aeri aetheriis (MSS vary, other conjectures by 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 N. 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 *speciem1 § 99, *figuram § 97, * quae § 89, exorientem § 79, imbecillitate § 122, tu § 112 and 106, offensionem § 85, facilem § 53, *simile and continente ardore § 28, *natura § 23, partum ortumque § 41. 1 An asterisk is prefixed wherever the reading is doubtful. |