PREFACE.

He passed over in silence the writing of the first hand, uacuit was empty/void (so also L): for he himself rightly judges on p. XVIII that nothing at all that the primary codex contains should be omitted by a critic, especially when it is a matter of a corrupt passage. He did not note at 5, 1. init. (p. 215, 8) that the first hand exhibits procurrere to run forward, nor at 5, 2. 7 (p. 230, 11) that in A ne hac re lest in this matter is read without any erasure, nor at 5, 10. ext. 2 (p. 269, 29) audiit he heard, not audiuit he heard. — 7, 3. 7 (p. 338, 3) it certainly should have been mentioned that codex A hands down in alterum into the other, which L also has. — in the same codices 9, 4. ext. 1 (p. 440, 18) Cyprorum of the Cyprians is read, which he did not mention exists in A as well. And not to insist on pursuing minor things always, at 9, 2. 1 (p. 428, 28) he did not see that the name had been clearly written by the first hand of codex A; he thought it should be adserendum to be asserted/claimed, which in any case should have been accepted instead of the utterly inept writing of another scribe, adsequendum to be obtained/followed. And this same reading is confirmed by the Laurentian manuscript.

In orthographic matters, which they call things, he also changed many things against the testimony of the Bern manuscript, contrary to what he had promised, without any variation of writing being noted in the margins: for, to select a few examples out of many, he could have mentioned at 1, 1. 1 (p. 3, 1) that codex A hands down caliphoenã Caliphoena, not calliph., and that the name of Mount Letus 1, 5. 9 (p. 24, 14 and 16) is written twice as laetum happy/Letus. — He reports that the name Messalla 2, 4. 2 (p. 68, 11) and 2, 9. 9 (p. 102, 16) is inscribed with a single l in A; but at 5, 9. 2 (p. 266, 11) and 9, 14. 5 (p. 468, 7), where it is inscribed in the same way, he noted nothing, so that anyone might conjecture that the letter is doubled in the codex. — In the name of Ptolemy he rejects the vowel o in the second syllable, although C. Keil in Mus. Rhen. XVIII p. 268 and Fleckeisen in ann. 1866 p. 4. 5, Brambach Lat. Orth. p. 105 have shown that it is attested in all the best codices of the ancient writers. He indeed cites 1, 8. 9 (p. 49, 8) ptolomei of Ptolemy adding that it is generally so in codex A; he cites the same writing at 4, 3. 9 (p. 182, 13 and 23), but he does not correctly report 5, 1. 1 f. (p. 217, 10) that phtolomaeus Ptolemy is read in A. Who is there who would not conclude from that that in the remaining places 6, 4. 3 (p. 293, 22); 8, 9. ext. 3 (p. 397, 28); 9, 1. ext. 5 (p. 426, 12); 2. ext. 5