Corpus of Latin Ecclesiastical Writers, Vol. XIX: Works of Lactantius, Part I

that this most accurate collation of this most ancient codex was necessary: which we present in this edition, having been made in the year 1864 by Carolus Zangemeister with the diligence and skill he is accustomed to use, after he had received this commission from the Vienna Academy. Certain passages of the codex were also inspected by O. Guerrini, prefect of the Bologna university library, B. Keil, and C. Schumacher, at my request.

Individual¹ pages of the codex contain two columns of thirty-three lines each; the beginning of a column is marked with a larger letter, indeed that of the codex, but ancient additions already betray that this damage is old. As for the fact that the Parisians (at p. 52, 14; 56, 11) produce '2. Bon.' as witnesses in that same part, I do not care. There remains that fourth lacuna of one leaf excised after the leaf that is now 188. Thomasius in his notes brings forward no reading which might seem necessary to have been on that leaf, but Isaeus on p. XXXXXV confirms from B the reading which our other codices provide, from the inmost heart (p. 577, 2 of our edition), but on the same page in B he reports that is to be consecrated (p. 578, 5) is read as is to be consecrated original: "consecrandum est" and for what is God (p. 578, 7) he reports who is God original: "quis sit deus" is read; the Parisians repeat both at p. 508, 9. 11. You might suspect that after Isaeus, that one leaf was finally removed, perhaps by a wicked man who wanted to have a specimen and piece of such an ancient codex: however, this conjecture is uncertain. For it is strange that those three readings heart, to be consecrated, who are inscribed in the margin in those places on p. 380 by Thomasius, even if they are not mentioned in his notes. But the many things which Thomasius added in the margin are by no means all excerpted from the ancient Bologna codex, or perhaps also from the more recent Bologna codex, or taken from elsewhere: for example, the readings added in the margin of Thomasius on p. 53 what is necessary to follow (p. 75, 24 of our ed.), p. 55 Sterculus (p. 77, 20), p. 63 Fanta (p. 89, 13), p. 65 grandson (p. 92, 16) are not from the ancient Bologna codex. Then on p. 378 in the margin of Thomasius is which his exhortations (p. 573, 16, which is missing in codex B), but note 154 has this: 'which his exhortations Seneca] must be read from the ancient codices'; Isaeus p. XXXXXV writes 'which his exhortations etc.] B.', the Parisians at p. 504, 18: '2. Bon. . . Which his exhortations.' Here it is manifest that Isaeus and the Parisians thought the reading of the margin of Thomasius was taken from the ancient Bologna codex. And so it must be conceded that it could have happened that Isaeus and the Parisians, following the margin of Thomasius, believed those three readings also to have been sought from codex B. It follows that the fact that Isaeus says those readings are from codex B must by no means be held as certain testimony demonstrating that he himself saw that leaf which is now missing.

¹ B¹ signifies the first, B² the second, B³ the third hand of the codex; the same method has been used for the other codices.