To the following conjecture of L. Mendelssohn, which has appeared in the Acta Societatis Philologae Lipsiensis, I would here call especial attention :

Att. ii. 5, 3, for et quid de P. Clodio fiat, et omnia he reads et quid de P. Clodio. De fratre omnia.

Thus he holds, as I do, that the reading of M, fratre, for fiat et, generally ignored by editors as an obvious error, is really the key to the true meaning of the passage. But I believe that the transposition suggested by me in my note on this passage (Ep. xxxii. §3) is much to be preferred, because it not only preserves the words of the ms, but also explains eius above, which is unexplained by Mendelssohn's reading. I would certainly omit fiat with him. The word is not found in M, and the ellipse involved in its absence is a very normal one. See Introduction, p. 70. The sentence would then run, Tu tamen de Curtio ad me rescribe certius, et quid de P. Clodio (sc. fiat) et fratre, et nunc quis in eius (sc. fratris) locum paretur, et omnia scribe. Metellus was the frater (cousin) of Clodius (see Cael. 60); and the question is, who is likely to succeed him as augur. Cicero was much interested in the appointment, and owns that 'it is the only bait by which he could be caught.'

§ 3. CONJECTURES IN HERMATHENA.

Other conjectures of mine on the letters will be found in Hermathena, No. i., pp. 195–209; No. iii., p. 109; No., vi., pp. 364-372; No. vii., p. 13; No. ix., p. 413; No. x., PP. 21-25. Subjoined is a Table of those already published, but not included in the present instalment: