Acts of Archelaus (Acta Archelai)

that of Harnack, namely that the translation stands in connection with the note of Jerome and was perhaps undertaken at his suggestion.

4. The Manuscripts¹.

(A) Milan, Ambrosiana O. 210. Sup., written at the end of the sixth century² in half-uncial, came to Milan from Bobbio and bears the old number 20 (= 20 of the catalog of Bobbio written in the year 1461, which Peyron published in his edition of the fragments of Cicero's speeches, Stuttgart and Tübingen, 1824, p. 5 and 128). The manuscript contains on fol. 33^v—46 two excerpts from the Acta (= Cap. 4—14 and 46—52 of the present edition), which were first printed by Valesius in his edition of the church history of Socrates and Sozomen (Paris, 1668) after the Observationes. Valesius had been made aware of it by Emery Bigot, who apparently at the same time had incorporated the excerpts into his Collectanea—now Collectanea Bigotiana No. 3089 in the Inventaire d. mss. grecs de la bibl. nat. by Omont. Zacagni adopted the most important readings of Valesius into his edition of the Acta. I collated the manuscript in the spring of 1905 in Milan.

The leaves (25x19 cm) of the older part of the manuscript have 32 or 33 long lines, which are drawn with a dry stylus. The writing space is separated from the margin by vertical lines. The ink is the beautiful brown of the older manuscripts, yet it is very often faded. The parchment is partly fine and soft, so that the ink has often blurred and the letters are very difficult to read, partly thick and crude. The size of the quires varies. The first, second, and fourth are quaternions; the third is a quinio, whose second leaf has been cut out; the leaf 39—39^v stands alone; the sixth quire is a quaternion, whose first leaf is missing. The signatures are on the last page, at the bottom in the right corner: they are missing in the second and in the last quire. One quire, originally the fifth, has been lost. To this original component of the codex, a quaternion also written in half-uncial was later added, which contains a part of a letter from Pope Gelasius. See also Reifferscheid, Bibl. patr. lat. Vol. 2, 94—96, and Ficker, Studien zu Vigilius von Thapsus (Leipzig, 1897), p. 59.

1. See also Traube op. cit.
2. The statement by O. Seebass (Centralblatt f. Bibliothekswesen, Vol. 13, 66) that this manuscript belongs to the 9th/10th century is likely just an oversight; he does not seem to have seen it himself.