Acts of Archelaus (Acta Archelai)

h: omitted, olera 15, 29; aurio always; exorrescere 68, 2; aduc 67, 26; on the other hand honore (= onere) 13, 19; honus 13, 23; exhonerari 13, 20; horti 15, 26.

m is very often omitted in the accusative, and added in the ablative (see p. XXXVIII, XL).

p: irregularly sumsi 8, 18 and sumpsit 12, 19; adsumtum 68, 13.

s: omitted, exemet 9, 19; 76, 12; trangan 4, 21; intruxerat 5, 11; instead of x, escitati 14, 19; on the other hand detextanda 72, 1.

t, th: sathanae 7, 21; thunc 10, 24; 12, 17; 21, 21 (cf. ttunc 23, 14); retores 23, 11; retoricae 23, 9; instead of s, exceltiores 23, 15.

Betacism: certabit 76, 1; iaeiunabit 75, 8. 10; inperabit 75, 24. 25; saluabit 75, 4; on the other hand ciuos 68, 2; ciuum 69, 3; guuernatores 21, 27; bilissimae 72, 2; alligauit 73, 18; guuernentur 69, 9; suscitauit 73, 22; 74, 26.

Other errors: hosptiis 5, 15; saluotoris 7, 19; eclesiastica 67, 9 (cf. also p. XXXVIII—XLI).

The following words are assimilated: accedo, accendo, accipio, accitus, adimpleo (adinpleo 18, 21), agnosco, ascendo, assero, collega, colligo (and conligo), comm-, comparo, comperio, corripio, corrumpo (and conrumpo), occ-, succedo, suff-, circundo once.

(T) Turin, Library of the Court Archive, I. b. VI. 28, written in the sixth or seventh century, was also formerly in Bobbio and bears the number 67 (= 67 in the catalog of 1461; see Peyron op. cit. p. 21, 177). The manuscript is written in uncial, except for fol. 61^v/62, which contain a short history of Manes extracted from the Acta (p. 90, 22—95, 20) and are written in half-uncial. For the description of the manuscript see Reifferscheid op. cit. p. 140 ff, Mommsen, Chronica Minora, Vol. I, 156, and Brandt, p. LXXVI f. of the prolegomena of his edition of Lactantius; illustration in Vayra, Curiosità e ricerche di storia subalpina, Vol. 3, p. 350 (Turin, 1879), and in Cipolla, Monumenta palaeographica sacra, plate 7.

Lagarde (Septuaginta-Studien, second part, p. 4, 1892) thinks, in contradiction to Holder, Reifferscheid, and Studemund, that the uncial script is 'an artificial one' and the manuscript must be dated later because the history of Manes (fol. 61^v/62) is written in 'minuscules'; it could therefore only have originated at a time when minuscule was the common script. But the section in question is not written in minuscule, but, as said above, in half-uncial; the uncial script is not a later artificial imitation; also the type of abbreviations speaks against a later dating. The use of the half-uncial is likely explained by the fact that the scribe in the mentioned passage simply reproduced the script of his exemplar.