ist Subjekt exercitatio cogitandi totasque m. vel silentio (dum tamen ... ipsum) persequendi, d. h. dem Sinne nach tacita oratio, wie dum t. q. dicat i. s. i. zeigt, zu illa ist Subjekt vera oratio; componitur oratio aber ist nicht auffälliger als explicatur exercitatio.'

§ 27. ut Cicero. . tradit. Krüger (3rd ed.) follows Gertz in transferring this parenthesis to the end of the previous sentence, after ubique. Becher rejects it as a gloss.

aut legendum b M: om. BN Sal.: vel ad legendum Vall. Becher would omit it, on the ground that the whole chapter is concerned only with writing and speech, and even with writing only so far as it promotes the 'facultas ex tempore dicendi.'

§ 28. innatans Stoer: unatrans BN Ioan. Sal.: inatrans bH: iura trans Harl. 2662: intrans FM Vall.2.

§ 29. an si, Meister (following ed. Camp.): ac si bHFT Burn. 243: an Bn Bg M.

debent, all codd.: debemus Krüger (3rd ed.) after Gertz. Either scems quite appropriate to the conditional use of the participle: 'when men are debarred from both, they ought all the same,' &c.

sic dicere. The grounds on which I base this emendation are stated in the note ad loc. Bn Bg HN and most codd. have inicere, which looks as if some copyist had stumbled over the repetition of the letters -ic in what I take to be the original text, whereupon the preceding tamen (or tam) would assist the transition to inicere. Cp. the omission of sic in most codd. in ut sic dicerim 2 § 15. Halm (after Bursian) wrote id efficere, and so Meister. Other attempted emendations are vincere M. Harl. 4950, Burn. 244 Vall.2: tantum iniicere Harl. 4995: inniti or adniti edd.: id agere Badius: evincere Tornebladh.

§ 32. et in his: in his Halm and Meister: ne in his BN Ioan. HMC Dorv. Bodl.: ne in iis Harl. 2662 : vel in iis Spald. : vel in his Bonnell and Krüger (3rd ed.). I venture on et, which seems to help the antithesis with in hoc genere above: v. ad loc. velut summas ... conferre. So Bonnell (Lex. p. 139) Halm, Meister, Krüger 3rd ed.). The MSS. vary greatly : vel in summas in (sine bH : sive Harl. 4995) commentarium Bn Bg Dorv. Bodl. Harl 2662: velin summas et (suprascr. in) commentarium X: vel insinuamus sine commendarios M: commentariorum et capita Harl. 4950. Other conjectural emendations are velut in summas commentarium Spald. : mihi quae ser, velut in commentarium summas et c. conf. Zumpt: nec in his quae scrips, velim summas in commentarium et capita conferri Frotscher; vel in his quae scrips, rerum summas (cp. Liv. xl. 29. 11 lectis rerum summis) in commentarios conferre Jeep: ex iis quae scrips. res summas in commentarium et capita conferre, Zambaldi, on the ground that with conferre, ex his gives a better sense than in his). To these may perhaps be added et in his quae scrips, velut summas in commentariorum capita conferre.

In the Blätter f. d. bayer. Gymn. (1888) 14, pp. 90-91 Kiderlin discusses the whole passage. Keeping to the reading of the oldest MSS. (ne in his) he proposes ne in his quae scripserimus erremus: 'damit wir nich bei dem Vortrage dessen, was wir geschrieben haben, den Faden verlieren': cp. the use of errare xi. 2. 20 and 36. He rejects the various conjectures suggested above for vel in summas on the ground that it is impossible to explain 'summas in commentarium et capita conferre.' What is the meaning of entering the chief points in a note-book and heads' ('den Hauptinhalt in ein Gedenkbuch und einzelne Hauptabschnitte einzutragen '-Bonnell-Meister)? Can the note-book and the 'heads' be conjoined in this way? You can make an entry in your notes, but not in 'capita': 'in ein Gedenkbuch kann man eintragen, in Hauptabschnitte aber nicht.' Baur's version is excluded by the order of words: den Hauptinhalt und die einzelnen Punkte in ein Gedenkbuch eintragen.' Lindner's is even less satis

factory: 'welcher zufolge man auch von dem, was man geschrieben hat, den Hauptinhalt nach gewissen Hauptabschnitten eintragen soll.'

Kiderlin thinks the context shows that the essence of Laenas's advice was to enter the chief points in a memorandum. This demands the elimination of the unmeaning et which wrongly conjoins commentarium and capita. Again as summa and caput are synonyms for Hauptpunkt' (cp. iii. 11. 27 and vi. 1. 2) one of the two may very well be a gloss and the vel in vel in summas seems to show that these words were originally a marginal gloss to explain (in) capita. Kiderlin therefore proposes to transform the text as follows: ne in his quae scripserimus erremus [vel in summas] in commentarium capita conferre.

quod non simus, Regius, Frotscher, Becher, Meister, Krüger (3rd ed.): quod simus Bn Bg Ioan. M Dorv.: and so Halm: non simus bHT Bodl. In explanation of quod simus Spalding says 'ubi satis fidere possumus memoriae ne scribendum quidem esse censeo'; and so Prof. Mayor (Analysis, p. 56), 'We are even hampered by writing out at all what we intend to commit to memory: bound down to the written words, we are closed against sudden inspirations.'

hic quoque, Bn Bg and most codd.: hoc quoque Harl. 4995: id quoque bHM.

Bibaculus, M. Furius, i. 96. Empylus Rhodius, vi. 4.