PREFACE.

Indeed, three passages alone should suffice to prove that φ derived its origin from F. For instance, at 10. 9, where F has uite (though the c is the result of a correction), φ has uit. et calipsonis (though the corrector's hand added the c), so that it appears both had: uit et alipsonis (i.e., uice Calipsonis). A second passage is 266. 16: retabar in F¹, retardabar in F², and retabar in φ. Finally, you have the third at 275. 2: inter sacrum et osarum in φ; the same was in F, but there the o has been erased. To these can be added 58. 23, huius di in F¹φ versus huius modi in F², and the absurd reading at 70. 11, where F¹ and φ write cum filio instead of the correct consilio, which F² provides; 74. 25, sed dum sedulo in Fφ, which is a dittography accidental repetition of letters or words for simplici sedulo; 149. 32, aliares in F¹φ instead of saliares; and 275. 12, derascapi in Fφ.

Above all others, however, the lacuna that affects several lines of folio 160 r. and 160 v. is suitable for demonstrating that φ flowed from F; this reappears in φ on folio 43 r. and 43 v., where the gaps were filled by a second hand. Of lesser moment are a few small lacunae on page 85, which nevertheless occur in both codices; in both cases, they are filled by a second hand, though not in exactly the same way. I have discussed the larger lacunae more extensively in Mnemosyne 1895, 175–181.