which was certainly its reading (MPFU‡B0EHTDLA). A further point, and one in harmony with the modest tone in which Camillus is speaking, is gained if we follow Aldus and others in reading homoratorum, which might give rise to both the Veronese and the Nicomachean readings.

VI. 17. 2. The friends of M. Manlius Capitolinus in 385 B.C., agitating for his release from imprisonment, reproach the plebeians with suffering their champions to perish; Manlius will be done to death like Spurius Cassius or Spurius Maelius if he is not promptly rescued. These informal appeals to popular sentiment Livy represents, as he loves to do, in a lively passage of Orat. Obliqua, marked by concrete images and metaphors from the common life of the poor and the ethics of the bottom dog' (§ 3'suppose he did lie; would you kill even a slave for a fib?"). Hence he here introduces many colloquial expressions: destituat (§ 1) ‘leave in the lurch'; mersam fenore (§ 2) 'drowned in debt'; ad nutum respondere (§ 3) 'be at the beck and call of'; plenum sudoris ac sanguinis (§ 4) soaked in sweat and blood.' Not observing this dramatic feature, or disliking it, our dainty commentators have stumbled at an obvious example in the use of the word popularis (§ 2 ad fin.), though it is in the sentence which contains the coarsest metaphor of the whole passage:

saginare plebem populares suos ut iugulentur (MPFUþBOEHTDLA).

Duker and Madvig, thinking only of the political meaning of the word, proposed to excise suos (Duker), populares (Madv.); others change suos to uiros, or to uelut sues; the last brilliant effort preserves at least the colloquial tone, though no palaeographical warrant is offered for inserting uelut. But in Latin of all periods popularis is used freely with the genitive of a person or meus, tuus, and the like to mean 'a citizen belonging to the same country,' and this is extended by Ovid and Pliny to animals and plants (populares prunorum myxae, N.H. 15. 13, § 43); Sallust, whose influence on Livy is well known (cf. e.g. our note on 10. 28. 9), uses it to mean 'partisans, body of adherents' (sceleris, coniurationis, Cat. 22. 1; 24. I; 52. 14). There is a special point here in its use of those nobles who leave their own political party to act as champions of the plebs, ' their own adherents.' Manlius, pace Madvigii, could not be described as suus, i.e. plebeius; but he is plebeiorum popularis. The MSS. have written better Latin than their correctors.

VI. 18. 5-7. Quousque tandem ignorabitis uires uestras quas natura ne beluas quidem ignorare uoluit? Numerate saltem quot ipsi sitis, quot aduersarios habeatis. Si singuli singulos adgressuri essetis tamen acrius crederem uos pro libertate quam illos pro dominatione certaturos; quot enim clientes circa singulos fuistis patronos, tot nunc aduersus unum hostem eritis. Ostendite modo bellum; pacem habebitis. Videant uos paratos ad uim; ius ipsi remittent.

(Titus Manlius, who has been just released from prison, is inciting the plebeians to resist their oppressors, and insisting on the power they could exert if they act together.)

The only indication of trouble which the MSS. give is that HTDLA all omit the clause si singuli singulos adgressuri essetis, for which DL give the telltale his, which so often marks a lacuna (orig. h.s., i.e. hic supple') in the Nicomachean codices of Livy, as in others;1 the words are restored by correctors in TDA. But the enim after quot is unintelligible: 'even if you were only just their match in numbers, you would fight better than they since you would be fighting for freedom, they for their powers of oppression; FOR you are many times their number.' Clearly 'but' is wanted, not 'for.' To meet this Madvig most cleverly writes quoteni instead of quot enim, Heerwagen quot autem, Mommsen merely quot, supposing an interpolator of quite exemplary idiocy. But even with Madvig's quoteni the sentence is abrupt, needing to be introduced at least by nunc uero and followed by igitur, and it is in the wrong place. The speaker begins by bidding them estimate their numbers -an advantage of which even the beluae are conscious; then he passes to the justice of their cause (pro libertate), a higher ground of confidence. Why should he separate this argument from the clauses prophesying its triumph. (ostendite . . . ius ipsi remittent) by recurring to the numerical point, or separate the appeal to numbers from its justification?

The lacuna in HTDLA shows clearly what has happened. The sentence quot enim . . . hostem eritis belongs immediately after quot aduersarios habeatis ; but, with the following clause si singuli . . . essetis, thanks to the homoeon (habeatis essetis), fell into the margin; it contains 107-109 letters,2 i.e. just six lines of the normal length of the uncial column of the Veronensis (18 letters). It was then restored, but in the wrong place; and in the archetype of HTDLA in the course of the restoration it lost the last clause. Both these phenomena are frequent in the Nicomachean MSS. and elsewhere; see below for the first on 8. 8. 4. Other examples of partial restoration are to be found at 4. 2. 12 (Up); 4. 7. 6 (O); 3. 55. 3 (H); 8. 8. 4; 8. 30. 6; 9. 5. 10; 9.24. 14; 9. 36. 11-12 (O and T2); 9. 46. 6; 10. 11. 3 (F); 10. 13. 13 (P and F); 10. 21. 3 (Up); et sescenta alia.

VI. 23. 3-6. [3] Id aegre patiebatur Romanus miles, multo aegrius alter ex tribunis militum L. Furius ferox cum aetate et ingenio tum multitudinis ex incertissimo sumentis animos spe inflatus. [4] Hic per se iam milites incitatos insuper instigabat elevando qua una poterat aetate auctoritatem collegae, iuuenibus bella data dictitans et cum corporibus uigere et deflorescère animos; [5] cunctatorem ex acerrimo bellatore factum, et qui adueniens castra urbesque primo impetu rapere sit solitus, eum residem intra uallum tempus terere, quid accessurum suis decessurumue hostium uiribus sperantem? [6] quam occasionem, quod tempus, quem insidiis instruentem locum? frigere ac torpere senis consilia.

So all the MSS. (Vorm. MPFUþBOEHDTDL and probably A, v. inf.), a serried array; but in three typical points modern editors prefer their own 1 Walters, Class. Rev. XVII. (1903), p. 161; cf. 2 107 if enim and unum were written ENİ, our notes on 1. 39. 1 and 2. 1. 6. VNV.

devices. The worst of these, the substitution of the tame and commonplace capere for the vigorous rapere, which is thoroughly Vergilian and Livian (cf. 30. 14. 2 and Drakenborch's excellent note here) but unlikely to have occurred to a scribe, has perhaps been anticipated by Agennensis1 (though even there rapere seems the more likely reading), certainly by two or three of the dett. Gronov and Drak. both saw that rapere was right, but Luterbacher and Zingerle prefer milk and water.

Luterbacher again alters the first sentence by changing the place of ferox to follow ingenio without the faintest warrant in the MSS., nor suggesting any palaeographical excuse, simply because he thinks that ferox must be parallel to inflatus. But inflatus is plainly dependent, not parallel, and gives the second reason for the ferocia, i.e. the high-spirited obstinacy, of Lucius Furius; the first was personal, his age and temperament, the second was the encouragement he received from the temper of the people. In precisely the same way in 1. 25. 1 Livy wrote feroces et suopte ingenio et pleni adhortantium uocibus; for further illustrations of the same fondness for making one epithetive depend upon another (and so often avoiding a subordinate clause) see I. 14. 7 (densa obsita uirgulta) with our note, and add 10. 20. 8 and 10 (infrequentia armatis signa egressa, and infrequentes armati only a few of them armed'). The importance of understanding this idiom if we are to understand Livy is obvious.

In § 6 there is perhaps more excuse for Gronov's trouble, which arose from his not seeing that (as we believe) instruentem does not agree with locum but governs it, being parallel to sperantem. Gronov's emendation instruendis has been generally adopted; but the corruption of the obvious phrase insidiis instruendis into ins. instruentem does not seem very likely; whereas the slight zeugma, if it be one, in constructing instruere with occasionem and tempus appears to us quite natural in a brief summary of a series of scattered complaints. The word instruentem contains a sneer ('building up, toilsomely seeking') at Camillus' inactive policy, and so avoids a zeugma better than parantem would have done, to which Gronov must have thought it merely equivalent (cf. e.g. opulentius instructiusque of celebrating Games 1. 35. 7).

But if anyone prefers to end the first question at quod tempus, so as to refer both that and the preceding accusative to sperantem, we do not demur, provided that he consents to translate with us the straightforward phrase quem insidiis instruentem locum? instead of writing a new one.

VI. 32. 6. ut nondum satis claram uictoriam, sic prosperae spei pugnam imber ingentibus procellis fusus diremit.

So read MPFUþBOEHTDLA, with no hint of trouble. Any reader who remembers the Thucydidean λαμπρὰ ἤδη ἡ νίκη ἐγεγένητο (7. 55) will have all the more pleasure in Livy's pretty phrase for the 'bright sky' of victory, broken

1 So, as Professor Souter has pointed out, the sources. ethnicon of Agen is spelt in the best mediaeval

by a mysterious1 storm. But not Madvig; clarus is too lively for the schools of the nineteenth century. So schoolboys and other folk must all read the humdrum certam, and not dare to ask why any scribe should alter a phrase he had copied a hundred times into one with which he was only familiar in a different meaning ('famous '). Madvig was a prince among scholars, but his princedom was at times betrayed into somewhat despotic follies.

VI. 42. 13. recusantibus id munus aedilibus plebis, conclamatum a patriciis est iuuenibus se id honoris deum immortalium causa libenter facturos, ut aediles fierent. Quibus cum ab uniuersis gratiae actae essent, factum senatus consultum ut duo uiros aediles ex patribus dictator populum rogaret.

The three words in spaced type are really no less absurd, though less ungrammatical, than the causa libenter facturos three lines before this (in § 12), which, as Madvig points out, came into that section after deum immortalium by the simplest of errors (being anticipated from this section where they follow the same two words). In § 12 in T and F some early reader of each has underlined in red ink the words deum . . . facturos; in § 13 D has faithfully reproduced the puncts on either side of ut aediles fierent which came in with them from the margin; for other examples of such puncts see our note on 2. 32. 10 and Class. Quart. IV. (1910), p. 273; and on 8. 8. 4-7 below.

Considered as a gloss to libenter the words are perhaps a slightly cynical, but not a wholly unintelligent comment: considered (more simply) as a gloss to rogaret, they are an innocent explanation of the construction (aediles populum rogaret). But as a part of the text in the speech of the young patricians they make a ludicrous addition to deum imm. causa.

BOOK VII.

VII. 10. 13 (and X. 30. 9). Inter carminum prope modum incondita quaedam militariter iaculantes Torquati cognomen auditum; celebratum deinde posteris etiam familiae honori fuit.

For prope modum of the MSS. Madvig writes prope in modum, pointing out that the sense must be 'almost like (poetry),' which cannot be got out of prope modum save by supposing a quite unparalleled use of the phrase. We prefer carminum prope modo as a slightly simpler expression of the same meaning, and one likely to be corrupted into the familiar adverb propemodum.3 This however is a small point; our object here is to support Madvig's main contention, by pointing out that the word incondita had become practically a substantive, meaning 'impromptu verses, untrimmed epigrams.' In 4. 20. 2 Livy uses it as an epithet to carmina (cf. 4. 53. 11); but in 10. 30. 9 it appears as a substantive which itself takes an epithet (celebrata inconditis militaribus uictoria) ; so in Cic. Orat. 70. 233 si alicuius inconditi adripias dissipatam aliquam

1 For ingens see Cl. Rev. XXVI. (1912), p. 255. * Though any Lexicon will show that clarus is not rare as a stronger word to replace or augment certus (e.g. 22. 39. 22).

• Professor Anderson would prefer to excise the two words as a gloss to quaedam, which seems to us unlikely.

sententiam eamque ordine uerborum paullulum commutato in quadrum redigas, efficiatur aptum illud quod fuerit antea diffluens ac solutum (the example which follows from Gracchus seems to show that the reference is partly to ending with the rhythm of a proper clausula, partly to keeping the point of an epigram to the end). If anyone suggests that inconditi is an epithet to alicuius, we shall reply by asking how, in that case, he knows that that pronoun is neuter and not (according to the regular usage) masculine. So too Vergil, Ecl. 2. 4:

ibi haec in condita solus

montibus et siluis studio iactabat inani.

The reading we have quoted from 10. 30. 9 is that of MPFUþTDLA, i.e. all the better MSS. of that part of the Book; one of the dett. followed by the early editors adds carminibus, and Zingerle uersibus, both producing a cumbrous phrase pardonable in the fifteenth century, less so in the nineteenth. Were there no dictionaries at Innsbruck in 1890?

VII. 12. 5. (The Tiburtines make a sudden attack by night on Rome, but they find all snug and are easily routed next morning.)

Quin etiam bono fuisse Romanis aduentum eorum constabat (because the alarm put an end to civil strife). Alius aduentus hostium fuit proximo bello agris quam terribilior urbi.

So MPFUрBOHTDLA write the second sentence, though O and D put a punct before proximo (cf. p. 5 sup. on 6. 42. 13) and begin it with a capital letter, confirming Madvig's rejection of proximo bello as a gloss to explain terribilior ('than the last war'), for a comment from the margin often comes into the text still wearing the capital letter given to it by its proud parents (see our note on 1. 49. 7 and below on 8. 8. 4). But there is another weakness of such intruders that equally bewrays them-they cannot tell which way to turn. One scribe puts them before the nearest word, another after it; so illa tota competes with tota illa and convicts tota of its trespass in Praef. 5 (where we have collected a fraction of the examples in the first Decade). In the present sentence quam is clearly astray. Correctors in D and Rn and the early editors put urbi before terribilior, and of course several of the dett. put quam after the comparative; Madvig supposes a second comparative such as exitiabilior lost before agris. But is the phrase quam urbi worth so much labour? We follow one of the dett. (Oxon. B.) in omitting both words, which seem to us merely another gloss to explain the comparative, correct but quite unnecessary. In the process of insertion the phrase was broken in two and its fragments fell into different places.1

Other invading phrases with quam will be found in 2. 40. 8; 5. 54. 3; 26. 38. 4. In this last place the amusing thing is that quam, but with nothing more, has been inserted as early as in the text of Put., and that since the

1 Professor Anderson proposes agrestibus terribilior quam urbi, and attributes the confusion to

the homoeon -tib, terrib-. But agri includes the inhabitants as in 3. 6. 2.