Prolegomena.

We have briefly described the orthography of Codex B. Just as it reveals clear traces of a late age, in which the vulgar common or colloquial idiom had already strongly increased and the Latin language was sliding into the so-called Romance languages, so, since Lactantius, a most learned grammarian, should by no means be thought to have defiled his speech with such filth, it is certain evidence from which we learn that the codex has already degenerated not slightly from the nature of the first exemplar written by Lactantius. We shall understand this much more certainly from the following question.

Since the Codex Bononiensis Bologna Codex surpasses the others in age, and since it seems to claim greater authority for itself, it must now be asked how certain a witness it is of the words of Lactantius. Concerning this matter, although previously, when fewer of its readings were published than would allow a full judgment to be made, it did not escape the notice of learned men what should be thought. Already Isaeus accepted a few from its many readings, and later editors praised the codex rather than approved of it. Heusinger, indeed, a man of sober and simple judgment, says: "That most ancient Codex Bononiensis... in many places, which can be clear to anyone, reflects the hand not of Lactantius, but of some rather bold grammarian" (Emendationes p. 142). The codex will indeed always retain its own honor and dignity: for in many places, by that authority which age itself adds to it, it confirms readings handed down in other codices; in some places, it alone among all has preserved the true memory of what Lactantius wrote: such as 102, 5 terris lands; 115, 4 mare sea; 153, 5 inextricabilisque and inextricable; 233, 2 amis hooks; 247, 18 prosecarent they might cut through; 291, 4 fontes fountains; 336, 14 THNIKA; 455, 16 occidat he/it may kill; 565, 25 adplicuit he applied. But much more frequent are those places in it where it contains things changed not by chance or negligence, I would say, but deliberately and thoughtfully. For very often in B alone, either the author's words are distorted from their genuine form and meaning, or alien ones are inserted, so that it cannot be that the codex is considered anything but highly interpolated. Therefore, if caution is to be used in admitting the readings of any codex, it is certainly in this one, lest, while we trust in its antiquity, we be deceived by a deceptive appearance of simplicity, richness, elegance, or other virtues. Some errors, indeed, have arisen either from negligence or perhaps because its script...