ablative of the instrument. _Mandare monum._: cf. I. 3. _Insculptas_: rare in the metaphorical use, cf. _N.D._ I. 45. §3. _Genere_: "department" cf. I. 3. _Navalibus pugnis_: ναυμαχιαις. _Instrumento et adparatu_: κατασκευη και παρασκευη. _Rex_: Mithridates. _Quos legisset_: = _de quibus l._; cf. the use of the passive verb so common in Ovid, e.g. _Trist._ IV. 4, 14. I take of course _rex_ to be nom. to _legisset_, the suggestion of a friend that Lucullus is nom. and that _quos legisset_ = _quorum commentarios legisset_ I think improbable. _Hodie_: Drakenborch on Livy V. 27 wants to read _hodieque_, which however, is not Ciceronian. In passages like _De Or._ I. 103 and _Verr._ V. 64, the _que_ connects clauses and does not modify _hodie_. On this subject see Madv. _Opuscula_ I. 390. _Etsi_: _M.D.F._ V. 68, shows that in Cic. a parenthetic clause with _etsi_ always has a common verb with its principal clause; a rule not observed by the silver writers. The same holds of _quamquam_, see n. on I. 5. _Calumnia_: properly a fraudulent use of litigation, συκοφαντια. The chief enemy was the infamous Memmius who prosecuted him. _In urbem_: until his triumph Luc. would remain outside the city. _Profuisset_: this ought properly to be _profuerit_, but the conditional _dicerem_ changes it. _Potius ... quam ... communicem_: n. on 23. §4. _Sunt ... celebrata_: cf. I. 11, 17 for the collocation of the words. _Externa ... interiora_: cf. _De Div._ II. 124 _sed haec quoque in promptu, nunc interiora videamus_. _Pro quaestore_: for this Faber wrote _quaestor_, arguing that as Luc. was Sulla's _quaestor_ and Sulla sent him to Egypt, he could not be _pro quaestor_. But surely after the first year he would be _pro quaestor_. Dav. reads _quaestor_ here and 11, saying "_veterem lectionem iugulavit Faber_". _Ea memoria ... quam_: Bentl., Halm, Baiter give _qua_, Halm refers to Bentl. on Hor. _Sat._ I. 6, 15. A passage like ours is _D.F._ I. 29, _ista sis aequitate, quam ostendis_, where one MS. has _qua_. Read Madvig's lucid note there. _De quibus audiebat_: Madv. _Em._ 121 makes this equivalent to _de eis rebus de quibus_, the necessity of which explanation, though approved by Halm, I fail to see. The form of expression is very common in Cic., and the relative always refers to an actually expressed antecedent, cf. e.g. _Cat. Mai._ 83. I take _quibus_ as simply = _libris_.