This library is built in the open.
If you spot an error, have a suggestion, or just want to say hello — we’d love to hear from you.

bonian fragment of the Vatican original: "Otto-bonianum Vaticanum misc. Lat. 687, saec. xii", 12th century, which contains Capt. 400-555);
PBD, from which are derived both the book just mentioned (PE) and the first part of two manuscripts of greater importance: D (Vatican manuscript 3870, 11th-12th century, which contains Amph., Asin., Aul., Capt. 1-503, along with the twelve subsequent plays), B (Palatine manuscript 1612, 11th-12th century, which contains the first eight plays along with the twelve subsequent ones). Throughout the remaining plays, however, the twelve later ones as they are called, I have denoted with the sigla:
PCD, the book from which were described C (Palatine manuscript Heidelberg 1613 1: Recently reproduced phototypically in Leiden., 11th-12th century, which contains all twelve plays) and the second part of manuscript D;
PBC, the book from which were described both the book just mentioned (PCD) and the second part of manuscript B. But since learned men are accustomed to denote with the siglum P those readings which, having compared and weighed the individual manuscripts, are judged to provide the truest example of the Palatine recension, it was a matter of obligation for me to use that siglum in no other way. Therefore, you will usually find nothing except the siglum 'P' (or, if A is missing, 'cod.') applied, since I have acted so that I might oppose nothing but the best evidence of the Palatine recension (P) against the evidence of the Ambrosian palimpsest (A). Let no one, however, object to me that I have opposed a certain image of a book against the true book (A). For throughout most of the plays, I believe that the true book is indicated by the siglum P, that Teutonic 2: I suspect that the book by whose aid the readings of manuscript B were corrected (B³) whenever they differed from it was both the parent of PBD and the first part of PBC; therefore, I suspect that that Teutonic original was nothing other than this very volume, of which the first part was the source of the corrections (B³) and of which the second part was manuscript PBC. original, described from an ancient manuscript (PA) (perhaps 3rd-5th century) and produced in what is called rustic capital script (8th-10th century), from which all the above-mentioned manuscripts emanated; throughout those, however...