by Riese (published by Teubner). Imitati non interpretati:  Cic. D.F. I. 7, gives his opinion as to the right use to be made of Greek models. _+Quae quo_:  these words are evidently wrong.  Halm after Faber ejects quae, and is followed by Baiter.  Varro is thus made to say that he stated many things dialectically, in order that the populace might be enticed to read.  To my mind the fault lies in the word quo, for which I should prefer to read cum (=_quom_, which would be written quo in the MSS.) The general sense would then be “Having introduced philosophy into that kind of literature which the unlearned read, I proceeded to introduce it into that which the learned read.” Laudationibus:  [Greek:  logois epitaphiois], cf. Ad Att. XIII. 48 where Varro’s are mentioned. _+Philosophe scribere_:  the MSS. all give philosophie.  Klotz has philosophiam, which is demonstrably wrong, physica, musica etc. scribere may be said, but not physicam, musicam etc. scribere.  The one passage formerly quoted to justify the phrase philosophiam scribere is now altered in the best texts (T.D. V. 121, where see Tischer).  Goer. reads philosophiae scribere; his explanation is, as Orelli gently says, “vix Latina.”  I can scarcely think Halm’s philosophe to be right, the word occurs nowhere else, and Cic. almost condemns it by his use of the Greek [Greek:  philosophos] (Ad Att. XIII. 20).  In older Greek the adverb does not appear, nor is [Greek:  philosophos] used as an adjective much, yet Cic. uses philosophus adjectivally in T.D. V. 121, Cat.  Mai. 22, N.D. III. 23, just as he uses tyrannus (De Rep. III. 45), and anapaestus (T.D. III. 57) Might we not read philosophis, in the dative, which only requires the alteration of a single letter from the MSS. reading?  The meaning would then be “to write for philosophers,” which would agree with my emendation cum for quo above. Philosophice would be a tempting alteration, but that the word [Greek:  philosophikos] is not Greek, nor do philosophicus, philosophice occur till very late Latin times. Si modo id consecuti sumus:  cf. Brut. 316.

Sec.9. Sunt ista:  = [Greek:  esti tauta], so often, e.g. Lael. 6.  Some edd. have sint, which is unlikely to be right. Nos in nostra:  Augustine (De Civ.  Dei VI. 2) quotes this with the reading reduxerunt for deduxerunt, which is taken by Baiter and by Halm; who quotes with approval Durand’s remark, “deducimus honoris causa sed errantes reducimus humanitatis.”  The words, however, are almost convertible; see Cat.  Mai. 63.  In Lael. 12, Brut. 86, we have reducere, where Durand’s rule requires deducere, on the other hand cf. Ad Herennium IV. 64, hospites