In favour of a more or less direct connexion between Ho. and
A is the absolute identity of the recension, even down to omissions
and proprii erroies. Even at In Cat. § 13 {p. 293, 25) — where A
leaves a lacuna of twenty-eight or thirty letters to indicate what
is an omission of about forty letters in Ho. — there is a mark
in the margin of Ho. which may have helped a copyist to see
that something was wanting. Such marks recur in Ho. — probably
inserted by the second hand, and sharing therefore in the general
erasure made subsequently — in connexion with other lacunae and wrong
readings; e.g. reprcbala in Cat. ii. § 4; Cassialipes, h'i. § 16: zirhem

• M T CiiiU'mssexaialiiiKiinijiarSesiiiedila, Milan, 18(7

' II thia should be considered tlie more probable eiplBiiatiun of the conneuon between
IIo nnl A (and also belneen Ho and II), it "ill appear strange that it the arclittyte
coiitaineil the scholia tiow under discussion, they should have been copied by a different
hand in IIo As to the tent it will prob-ibly be argutd that the second hand m Ho was
revering to the ar(,het)pe when it inserted umus foe tmm, ilong «ith Other mort ari.haiL
(otma, and It li important to note that this process is by no means alsolutely invaiiahle
c B at 2f,i., 1,0 feieiidiim is allowed to esc-ipe without change, and so also elsewhere
fei/imiscendas, faa,,nduin, stuUisnmo', &l , while on the other hand A gives ton'ilii as well
as coHSih, and (if we may trust llaitet'b collation) the superlative in tmus not infre(|uently
On the whole I ini-Iine to the view ot the aitetalions by the second hand in Ho suggested



Hosted by



Google



Ivi INTRODUCTION

florere, iii. ^ 25 ; dolorc cyiiciatumqiic, iv. § i z : ct iiiposidssct Pro Dciot.
