On the Latin Language

Now, regarding the reconstruction of the archetype, it is of the highest importance that F accurately indicates the lack of leaves, which it had suffered quite often—though it signifies them with gaps by no means evenly—cf. 50, 3 (two leaves), 91, 11 (one leaf), and 99, 15 (likewise one); where the lacuna marked shortly after at 100, 14 without addition, as it seems, is structured far differently and could not contain more than certain verses from the whole connection of words. Furthermore, cf. 146, 5, and finally 179, 3 (three leaves) and 181, 14 (likewise three). And calculating and assuming these defects together with those that intervene, and the fact that quaternions also appear in F—even if they are altered in the other part—L. Spengel concluded that the archetype probably consisted of sixteen quaternions, but that from the fourth, leaves IV and V had perished, from the seventh, II and VII, and from the fifteenth, I, II, III, and VI, VII, VIII, while the eleventh had perished entirely. Added to this is the fact that the necessary transposition which Georgius Buchanan and I. Scaliger discovered in the fifth book (cf. 9, 14 sq. [11, 16 med. — 13, 21 med.]) is very easily explained by this same calculation, namely, from the fifth and fourth leaves of the first quaternion having been exchanged with each other.

Just as these are open and manifest examples of defects and transposition, so no one will be surprised that a copy so poorly treated abounds otherwise in errors and defects of this and other types.

And we shall speak later of the suspicion of a more intricate transposition in Book V, §§ 115-183 (p. XL). Cf. also note at 177, 28. Regarding a smaller transposition, we have given warning at 96, 18: it concerns the placement of a verse of about 33 letters before the number of letters roughly doubled, which corresponds to one verse in F, and perhaps two in some more ancient exemplar. Otherwise—from the recurring word aperta open—is explained the transposition perceived by Bootius at 131, 25; 132, 1. Again, there are others similar to these, which we have seen indicated above by the scribe himself, such as 15, 7, at 162, 6 and 182, 21. More strange, but necessary, is the permutation of words performed by Luebbert at 178, 15 sqq. Finally, cf. note at 40, 10; 183, 11 sqq.; 189, 11.

A far ampler place is claimed by lacunae of letters, syllables, words, and verses, such as those marked here and there by the scribe (cf. 16, 9; 93, 12; 100, 14; 133, 1. 10), which for the most part have been left without a sign. These can very often—as in the transposition just mentioned—be explained by homoeoteleuton repetition of the same ending or by homoeoarcton repetition of the same beginning: cf. 15, 1; 16, 9. 16; 17, 6; 20, 18; 31, 7. 21; 34, 7. 9 (see note). 17; 35, 10. 20; 38, 21 = 50, 10; 39, 15 (see note); 40, 3 (? see note). 13. 16; 45, 3 (see note); 46, 8. 17; 49, 5; 50, 17 and 18 (?); 53, 7; 54, 3. 4. 6 sq.; 61, 8 and 62, 8 (see note); 66, 2. 20; 68, 11; 69, 3; 71, 2. 8; 72, 2; 77, 3 = 79, 19; 80...