Book vi. (about 93 A.D.) the

bereavements that left him desolate (_superstes omnium meorum_), should have had twelve years afterwards a daughter of marriageable age.

17. _Quibus (libris) componendis, ut scis, paulo plus quam biennium tot alioqui negotiis districtus impendi; quod tempus non tam stilo quam inquisitioni instituti operis prope infiniti et legendis auctoribus, qui sunt innumerabiles, datum est._

18. Milder references, such as those at i. 4, 5 and x. 1, 35 and 123, may have been written before the event mentioned above (the date of which is fixed by Suet. Dom. 10 and Tac. Agric. 2), and may have been allowed to stand.

19. _Ipse nec habeat vitia nec ferat. Non austeritas eius tristis, non dissoluta sit comitas, ne inde odium, hinc contemptus oriatur. Plurimus ei de honesto ac bono sermo sit: nam quo saepius monuerit, hoc rarius castigabit. Minime iracundus, nec tamem eorum quae emendanda erunt dissimulator: simplex in docendo, patiens laboris, adsiduus potius quam immodicus_ ii. 2, 5.

20. See Oscar Browning’s ‘Educational Theories’ p. 26 sqq., for a good account of Quintilian’s system.

21. xii. 1, 3 and 4 _ne futurum quidem oratorem nisi virum bonum: ... ne studio quidem operis pulcherrimi vacare mens nisi omnibus vitiis libera potest_.

22. Inst. Or. xii. 11, 4-7, cited by Browning pp. 33-4: _ac nescio an eum tum beatissimum credi oporteat fore, cum iam secretus et consecratus, liber invidia, procul contentionibus, famam in tuto collocarit et sentiet vivus eam, quae post fata praestari magis solet, venerationem, et quid apud posteros futurus sit videbit_.

23. Dr. Reid in _Encyclopaedia Britannica_.

24. i. 2. §§4-8: cp. Tac. Dial. 29.

25. i. 2. §8: cp. Iuv. xiv. 44 sqq.

26. _Quis enim ignorat et eloquentiam et ceteras artes descivisse ab illa vetere gloria non inopia praemiorum, sed desidia iuventutis et neglegentia parentum et inscientia praecipientium et oblivione moris antiqui?_—ch. 28.

27. M. F. Quintiliani de Institutione Oratoria, Liber Primus: Paris, Firmin-Didot et Cie. 1890, pp. xiv. sqq.

28. For the identification of this manuscript see below p. lxx.

29. Admiration for him was carried to such a pitch that at Leipzig the professor of eloquence was designated _Quintiliani professor_. Luther was one of his greatest admirers, preferring him to almost every other writer; and Erasmus was a diligent student of his works, especially Books i and x of the _Institutio_.

30. Stanhope’s Life of Pitt, vol. i. p. 11.

31. To Sir Stafford Northcote: “He was very fond of Quintilian, and said it was strange that in the decadence of Roman literature, as it was called, we had three such authors as Tacitus, Juvenal, and Quintilian,” Lang’s ‘Life of Lord Iddesleigh,’ vol. ii. p. 178.

32. Dr. Reid in the _Encyclopaedia Britannica_.

33. See M. Samuel Rocheblave: De M. Quintiliano L. Annaei Senecae Judice, Paris (Hachette), 1890.

34. Ep. xvi. 5, 6 _de compositione non constat_: Ep. xix. 5, 13 _oratio certam regulam non habet_.

35. i Prooem. §10 sqq., especially _neque enim hoc concesserim rationem rectae honestaeque vitae, ut quidam putaverunt, ad philosophos relegandam_. Cp. x. 1, 35: and xii. 2, 9 _Utinam ... orator hanc artem superbo nomine et vitiis quorundam bona eius corrumpentium invisam vindicet._ M. Rocheblave sees in these and other passages evidence of a bias against the representatives of philosophy on the part of Quintilian, which must have worked as powerfully in the case of a teacher of youth as the more open denunciations of Juvenal and Martial. He even finds traces of Quintilian’s influence with Domitian in the banishment of the philosophers from Rome in A.D. 94. It is certainly noticeable that the tone of his references to them becomes more bitter in the later books: e.g. xi. 1, 33-35: and xii. 3, 11-12. The Prooemium to Book i. may have been written last of all: and apart from it there is nothing in Books i to x (see i. 4, 5; x. 1, 35 and 123) so acrimonious as the extracts refered to. Cp. p. xiv.

36. See ii. 5, 10-12 _Ne id quidem inutile, etiam corruptas aliquando et vitiosas orationes, quas tamen plerique iudiciorum pravitate mirantar, legi palam ostendique in his quam multa impropria, obscura, tumida, humilia, sordida, lasciva, effeminata sint: quae non laudantur modo a plerisque sed, quod est peius, propter hoc ipsum quod sunt prava laudantur._ With this last cp. x. 1, 127 (of Seneca) _placebat propter sola vitia_. So i. 8, 9 _quando nos in omnia deliciarum vitia dicendi quoque ratione defluximus_: ii. 5, 22 (_cavendum est_) _ne recentis huius lasciviae flosculis capti voluptate prava deleniantur ut praedulce illud genus et puerilibus ingeniis hoc gratius quo propius est adament_: with which compare x. 1, 129 _corrupta pleraque atque eo perniciosissima, quod abundant dulcibus vitiis_: §130 _consensu potius eruditorum quam puerorum amore comprobaretur_. Rocheblave cites also viii. 5, 27, 28, 30.

37. It is doubtful if the allusion in §126 (_potioribus praeferri non sinebam quos ille non destiterat incessere_, &c.) is exclusively to Cicero. Seneca’s extant works contain many references to Cicero which are the reverse of disparaging: Rocheblave (p. 43) cites Ep. vi. 6, 6 where he speaks of him as ‘locuples’ in the choice of words: xvi. 5, 9 where he is ‘maximus’ in philosophy: xviii. 4, 10 where he is ‘disertissimus’: see also xix. 5, 16, and xvi. 5, 7.

38. Cp. Rocheblave, p. 46 _De Annaeo vero Seneca, velut olim de Catone defendebat lepidissimus consul, merito nobis dici videtur posse, quae deficiant, si minus omnia, pleraque saltem tempori esse attribuenda; quae vero emineant, ipsius scriptoris esse propria, et in primis oculos capere_: p. 36 _Eloquentiam non verbis, sed rebus valere, nec per se, sed propter quae docere animum possit, esse excolendam Annaeus semper professus est. Eloquentiam contra delectu verborum praecipue constare, et per se amandam et requirendam esse, nulla aut minima rerum adhibita ratione, docebant rhetores, et in primis Quintilianus_: p. 38 _Ergo quum in eloquentia duo sint praesertim consideranda, scilicet res verbaque, haud dubium est Annaeam pro rebus Fabium pro verbis, utrumque asperrime, egisse_.

39. See note on p. 58, where an extract is given which is quoted by Diderot in his Essai sur Claude et Néron. Instead of Seneca being the ‘corruptor eloquentiae’ the truth is that ‘il ne corrompit rien. Il suivit son génie, il s’accommoda au goût de ses contemporains, il eut l’avantage de leur plaire et de s’en faire admirer; et _l’envie lui fit un crime de ce qui passerait pour vrai talent dans un homme moins célèbre_.’

40. Montaigne, Essais ii. ch. x.

41. Fronto, De Oration. p. 157 _At enim quaedam in libris eius scite dicta, graviter quoque nonnulla. Etiam laminae interdum argentiolae cloacis inveniuntur; eane re cloacas purgandas redimemus?_ For Gellius see Noct Att. xii. 2.

42. “In the case of the first list, or list of Greek authors, he gives his readers fair warning that he is only repeating other people’s criticisms, not pronouncing his own. In §27 he mentions Theophrastus by name; in §52, speaking of Hesiod, he says _datur ei palma_, &c.; in §53 the second place is given to Antimachus by the consent of the _grammatici_; Panyasis is thought (_putant_) _in eloquendo neutrius aequare virtutes_, Callimachus (58) _princeps habetur (elegiae), secundas confessione plurimorum Philetas occupavit_. In 59 only three _iambographi_ are mentioned, those, namely, who were allowed by Aristarchus. The _novem lyrici_ were probably a selection of Aristarchus: in any case they are the _Pindarus novemque lyrici_ (for this need not be taken to mean strictly ten) of Petronius’s first chapter.”—Prof. Nettleship in Journ. of Philol. xviii. p. 258.

43. _Quod tempus_ (i.e. _paulo plus quam biennium_) _non tam stilo quam inquisitioni instituti operis prope infiniti et_ legendis auctoribus, qui sunt innumerabiles _datum est_: Epist. ad Tryphonem.

44. Claussen, Quaestiones Quintilianeae, Leipzig 1873, p. 343 note: _sententia mea, ut semel dicam, Quintilianus non omnia quae contuli opera in singulis iudiciis evolvit sed nonnullos locos memoria tenuit, adeo ut inscius interdum auctorum verba referret_. This (though somewhat inconsistent with the opinion quoted p. xxxii) is a milder verdict than that of Professor Nettleship, who, after speaking of Quintilian’s ‘somewhat pretentious moral overture’ (_vir bonus dicendi peritus_, &c.), adds: “one would be glad to know whether he would have thought it a necessary virtue in a _bonus grammaticus_ to read and conscientiously study the Greek authors on whom he passes formal critical judgments. For it is, alas! too plain that, whether Quintilian had or had not read them, he contents himself in many cases with merely repeating the traditional criticisms of the Greek schools upon some of the principal Greek authors.” (Journ. of Philol. xviii. p. 257.)

45. See Prof. Nettleship’s paper on ‘Literary Criticism in Latin Antiquity’ in Journ. of Philol. vol. xviii. p. 225 sqq.

46. Cp. iii. 1, 16, where he is eulogised among the Greek rhetoricians; ix. 3, 89: 4, 88 (‘similia dicit Halicarnasseus Dionysius’). Cp. the parallelism in regard to the Panegyricus of Isocrates, x. 4, 4: and for other instances see Claussen, op. cit. pp. 339-340.

47. The extant remains of this treatise have recently been edited by Usener (Bonn. 1889), with a valuable _Epilogus_. The scope of the work is indicated by Dionysius himself in the Epist. ad Pompeium iii. p. 776 R, Usener p. 50: τούτων ὁ μὲν πρῶτος αὐτὴν περιείληφε τὴν περὶ τῆς μιμήσεως ζήτησιν, ὁ δὲ δεύτερος περὶ τοῦ τίνας ἄνδρας μιμεῖσθαι δεῖ ποιητάς τε καὶ φιλοσόφους, ἱστοριογράφους (τε) καὶ ῥήτορας, ὁ δὲ τρίτος περὶ τοῦ πῶς δεῖ μιμεῖσθαι.

48. The standpoint from which both critics regarded this class of poetry was probably much the same as that which Dio Chrysostom applies to lyric poetry generally: μέλη δὲ καὶ ἐλεγεῖα καὶ ἴαμβοι καὶ διθύραμβοι τῷ μὲν σχολὴν ἄγοντι πολλοῦ ἄξια (cp. tunc et elegiam vacabit, &c., §58) τῷ δὲ πράττειν τε καὶ ἅμα τὰς πράξεις καὶ τοὺς λόγους αὔξειν διανοουμένῳ οὐκ ἂν εἴη πρὸς αὐτὰ σχολή (Or. xviii. 8, p. 478 R.)

49. How diverse the tradition of the various authorities came to be in regard to the epic poets may be seen from Usener’s note p. 137.

50. Cp. however Usener’s note p. 138 _Aristophanis propria fuit Menandri illa admiratio quam epigramma prodit Kaibelli_ p. 1085 (C.I.Gr. 6083): _cuius iudicii Kaibelius_ p. 490 _in Quintiliano_ x. 1, 69 _vestigia recte observavit_.

51. See Usener, p. 123: fr. xvii. _quid enim aut Herodoto dulcius aut Thucydide gravius_, fr. xviii. _aut Philisto brevius aut Theopompo acrius aut Ephoro mitius inveniri potest?_ It has been supposed that between these two fragments the words _aut Xenophonte iucundius_ may have fallen out: cp. Quint, x. 1, 82.

52. See especially fr. xi. _qua re velim dari mihi, Luculle, indicem tragicorum, ut sumam qui forte mihi desunt_: and cp. note on 1 §57.

53. Cp. the note on _qui parcissime_ x. 4, 4.

54. De Canone decem Oratorum Atticorum Quaestiones. Breslau, 1883.

55. _A iudicandis poetarum carminibus olim ars grammatica initium sumpserat, fuitque ante κριτική quam γραμματική_—Usener, p. 132.

56. See Prof. Nettleship, Journ. of Phil. pp. 230-231.

57. Among other traces of the use of such an abridgment by Cicero, Usener reckons his judgments on the Greek historians (Herodotus and Thucydides, Philistus, Theopompus and Ephorus, Xenophon, Callisthenes and Timaeus) in the second book of the _de Oratore_ (§§55-58), a work which was written ten years before the _Hortensius_: on Herodotus and Thucydides, Orat. §39: cp. Ep. ad Quintum fr. ii. 11 (13), 4, _ad Callisthenem et ad Philistum redeo, in quibus te video volutatum. Callisthenes quidem volgare et notum negotium, quem ad modum aliquot Graeci locuti sunt: Siculus ille capitalis, creber, acutus, brevis, paene pusillus Thucydides_.

58. _Adponam laterculum quam breve tam egregium, quod ex codice Coisliniano_ n. 387 _olim Athoo saeculi X Montefalconius edidit bibl. Coislin_. p. 597, _ex codice Bodleiano olim Meermanni recentiore Cramerus anecd._ Paris t. iv. p 196, 15 sq. Usener, p. 129.

59. Nettleship, in Journ. of Philol. p. 233.

60. Havell’s translation, p. 27.

61. See the note on x. 1, 85, with the quotation from Professor Nettleship’s article in the Journal of Philology. In the _Rheinisches Museum_ (xix. 1864, p. 3 sqq.) Mercklin pushed the parallelism to an excessive extent, endeavouring to find a correspondence between each individual Greek and Latin writer mentioned by Quintilian.

62. “His (Seneca’s) works are made up of mottoes. There is hardly a sentence which might not be quoted; but to read him straight forward is like dining on nothing but anchovy sauce.”—Macaulay, Trevelyan’s Life, i. p. 448.

63. _Pervasit iam multos ista persuasio, ut id demum eleganter atque exquisite dictum patent, quod interpretandum sit_: viii. 2. 21.

64. Tac. Dial. 20 _Iam vero iuvenes ... non solum audire sed etiam referre domum aliquid inlustre et dignum memoria volunt, traduntque invicem ac saepe in colonias ac provincias suas scribunt, sive sensus aliquis arguta et brevi sententia effulsit, sive locus exquisito et poetico cultu enituit_.

65. ii. 5, 10 _ostendi in his quam multa impropria, obscura, tumida, humilia, sordida, lasciva, effeminata sint: guae non laudantur modo a plerisque, sed, quod est peius, propter hoc ipsum quod sunt prava laudantur_.

66. He resembles other writers of the decadence in the frequent use of rare or poetical words, in neglecting the nice distinctions formerly made between synonyms, in the numbers of adjectives used substantively, &c.

67. In discussing Quintilian’s language and style, it must not be forgotten that he was a Spaniard by birth. In his recent pamphlet, ‘Ueber die Substantivierung des Adjectivums bei Quintilian’ (Berlin, 1890), Dr. Paul Hirt quotes an interesting remark of Filelfo (cp. G. Voigt, ‘Wiederbelebung des klass. Alt.’ i. p. 467 note), which has lately received some corroboration: _sapit hispanitatem nescio quam, hoc est barbariem plane quandam_. Filelfo did not like Quintilian: _nullam habet elegantiam, nullum nitorem, nullam suavitatem. Neque movet dicendo Quintilianus, neque satis docet, nec delectat._ But this was only Filelfo’s opinion, for which he would not have been able to furnish such scientific grounds as that lately (Archiv. f. Lat. Lex. und Gramm. 1 p. 356) supplied by Dr. E. Wölfflin, in regard to the adjective _pandus_. This word was in use in the days of Ennius, and occurs often afterwards in poetry, but not in prose. In Spain, however, it lingered, and is used by Seneca, Martial, Silius, Columella, and especially by Quintilian. After these writers it disappears again till the fourth century.—Cp. i. 5, 57 _gurdos, quos pro stolidis accipit vulgus, ex Hispania duxisse originem audivi_, which has been quoted (by Abbé Gédoyn, and by Hermann, following Gesner) strangely enough in disproof of Quintilian’s Spanish birth.

68. For this section I am especially indebted to a _Dissertatio_ by Adamus Marty: _De Quintilianeo Usu et Copia Verborum cum Ciceronianis potissimum comparatis_. Also the _Prolegomena_ in Bonnell’s Lexicon: and Dosson’s _Remarques sur la Langue de Quintilien_.

69. Marty (op. cit. p. 47) has an interesting note, in which, referring to the Zeitschrift f. Gymnasialwesen, xiv. pp. 427-29, he says it has been found that there are in Cicero 290 (296) substantives in _-tor_ and 44 (46) in _-trix_. Of these 73 in _-tor_ and 4 in _-trix_ are also in Quintilian, who has, on the other hand, 28 in _-tor_ and 8 in _-trix_ which do not occur in Cicero. These are—_adfectator_, _admirator_, _adsertor_, _agnitor_, _altercator_, _auxiliator_, _constitutor_, _consultor_, _contemptor_, _cunctator_, _delator_, _derisor_, _exactor_, _formator_, _iactator_, _insectator_, _latrator_, _legum lator_, _luctator_, _plosor_, _professor(?)_, _raptor_, _repertor_, _rixator_, _signator_, _stuprator_, _ventilator_, _versificator_, _cavillatrix_, _disputatrix_, _elocutrix_, _enuntiatrix_, _exercitatrix_, _hortatrix_, _iudicatrix_, (_litteratrix_), _sermocinatrix_.

70. This subject has been most exhaustively treated in a Programm by Dr. Paul Hirt, ‘Ueber die Substantivierung des Adjectivums bei Quintilian’ (Berlin, 1890), a monument of German thoroughness. See also Becher’s Quaestiones Grammaticae (Nordhausen, 1879), pp. 6 sqq.

71. Schmalz (Ueber den Sprachgebrauch des Asinius Pollio, p. 52) says that this usage, which is a favourite one with Pollio ad Fam. x. 32, 5 _Gallum Cornelium_), was first introduced by Varro (L. Lat. 5, 83 _Scaevola Quintus_: de Re Rust. i. 2, 1 _Libo Marcius_). It is frequent in Cicero’s correspondence, and became general in Velleius Paterculus.

72. See a Programm by David Wollner, ‘Die von der Beredsamkeit aus der Krieger- und Fechtersprache entlehnten Bildlichen Wendungen in der rhetorischen Schriften des Cicero, Quintilian, und Tacitus’ (Landau, 1886).

73. Halm’s account of this is more accurate than Meister’s. The former (Praef. p. viii) says _magnae autem lacunae Bernensis pergamenis insertis ex alio codice suppletae sunt_. The _alius codex_ which the writer of G had at hand is no longer extant: it no doubt belonged to the same family as the _Ambrosianus_, and _Bambergensis_ G is consequently of first-class importance, especially where the _Ambrosianus_ fails us. It is incorrect to say (with Meister, Praef. p. vi) _lacunae pergamenis ex alieno codice insertis expletae sunt_. The writer of G did not mutilate another codex in order to complete Bg: in some places he begins his copy on the blank space left at the end of a folio in Bg.

74. The _Pratensis_ is the oldest authority for the reading _tam laesae hercule_ at i. 2, 4: the _Puteanus_ and _Ioannensis_ agree. Again all three omit the words _de litteris_ at i. 4, 6, and show _praecoquum_ for _praecox_ at i. 3, 3 (so Voss. iii. and 7760), and _haec igitur ex verbis_ at i. 5, 2 (so Voss. iii.).

75. An account of this important codex has already been given in an article on M. Fierville’s Quintilian, Classical Review, February, 1891.

76. The subpunctuation of these letters by the second hand by the _Bambergensis_ is a phenomenon which may, I think, be explained in this way. The codex from which the readings known as b are taken must have been of considerable antiquity, and probably abounded in contractions: _lius_ may have seemed to the copyist the nearest approach to what he had before him, wherefore he subpunctuated Cloe. Cloelius in the _Bambergensis_ is a very intelligible mistake for Clodius. Another example of a similar mistake on the part of the writer of b occurs at x. 2, 7, where the Bambergensis now shows _id consequi q̣ụọd imiteris_, the writer of b having subpunctuated _quo_ because he did not understand the contraction for _quod_ which he had in the text before him. The copyist of the Harleianus at once follows suit, and hence the remarkable reading _id consequi dimiteris_, which in the Bodleianus and other MSS. becomes _de metris_ (see Crit. Note ad loc.). In fact, it seems that much of the corruption which has prevailed in the text of Quintilian is due to the fact that b very often did not understand what he was doing, and that through such codices as followed his guidance his errors became perpetuated. Cp. _totas at cures_ (for _vires_ b) _suas_ in the second last line of the Facsimile (x. 1, 109.)

77. The only places in the Tenth Book which form any obstacle to the theory that H was copied directly from the Bambergensis are the following: x. 3, 33, where the remarkable gloss _vindemoni_ occurs (repeated in F but not in T): see Crit. Notes ad loc. for an attempted explanation: x. 2, 1 _ex his summa_ H, a mistake evidently recognised by the copyist himself: and x. 1, 27 _blandita tum_ H (so L C), _libertate_ G.

78. The claim of the Codex Florentinus to be Poggio’s manuscript was definitely rejected by A. Reifferscheid in the _Rheinisches Museum_, xxiii (1868), pp. 143-146. Reifferscheid refers to a Codex Urbinas (577), an examination of which would probably settle the question, if it is what it professes to be, a transcript of Poggio’s manuscript. It bears the following inscription: _Scripsit Poggius Florentinus hunc librum Constantiae diebus LIII sede apostolica vacante. Reperimus vero eum in bibliotheca monasterii sancti galli quo plures litterarum studiosi perquirendorum librorum causa accessimus ex quo plurimum utilitalis eloquentiae studiis comparatum putamus, cum antea Quintilianum neque integrum neque nisi lacerum et truncum plurimis locis haberemus. Hec verba ex originali Poggii sumpta._

79. For the controversy as between the Turicensis and the Florentinus see Halm, Sitzungsberichte der königl. Akademie der Wissenschaften zu München, 1866, p. 499 note: and Fierville, Introduction, p. xcii. sqq.

80. Kiderlin (Rhein. Mus. xlvi. p. 12, note) cites the following passages in Book x, where S has preserved the right reading: I add those of my MSS. which are in agreement—§19 _digerantur_ (G H _dirigantur_, L _dirigerantur_): §27 _blandicia_, so Burn. 243 (G _libertate_, H L _blandita tum_): §55 _sed_ (G H _et_, om. L): §65 _tamen quem_ (G H _tamen quae_: M _tamquam_): §66 _correctas_ (G H _rectas_, M _correptas_): §67 _uter_ (G H M T _uterque_): §68 _reprehendunt_ (G H M _reprehendit,—et_ H ?): §69 _testatur_ (as Harl. 2662, 4995, 4950, 4829, Burn. 244, Ball., Dorv.), G M _praestatur_ (as Burn. 243, Bodl.): §76 _in eo tam_ (G _inectam_, M _in hoc tam_).

81. See note on the following page.

82. Since the above was written the readings of the _Vallensis_ have been given in detail for the Tenth Book by Becher (_Programm des königlichen Gymnasiums zu Aurich_, Easter, 1891). With the exception of _Harl._ 4995, no other fifteenth century codex furnishes so correct a text; and it is interesting to speculate whether the improvements are due to the progress of scholarship since Poggio’s discovery, or to the fact that the _Vallensis_ and _Harl._ 4995 derive, not from the class of MSS. to which Poggio’s belonged, but from some other and more reliable codex. If the latter was copied from the former, it will afford a test, such as Becher desiderates, for discriminating between the corrections made in the _Vallensis_. Those not adopted in _Harl._ 4995 were made, in all probability, after 1470. For example in 1. §23 _utile erit_ (_Vall._2) does not appear in the London manuscript, which also has _audatiora_ 5 §4: _nobis ac_ and _uno genere_ ib. §7: _virtutum_ ib. §17: _recidere_ ib. §22: _diligenter effecta_, (without _una enim_) ib. §23: _iniicere_ 7 §29. In all these places there are corrections by a later hand in the _Vallensis_. But in the following passages, among others, the copyist of _Harl._ 4995 adopts corrections which had already been made in the _Vallensis_: 1 §9 _quae cultiore in parte_: §19 _iteratione_: §31 _molli_: §38 _exequar_: §107 _qui duo plurimum affectus valent_: §117 _et vis summa_: §125 _tum_: 2 §15 _dicunt_: §17 _quam libet_: 3 §2 _et fundit_: §6 _scriptorum_: §17 _contextis quae fudit levitas_: §21 _simul vertere latus_: §31 _crebra relatione_: 5 §12 _de reo_: §25 _utilior_. A comparison of the two codices might possibly reveal the fact that the writer of _Harl._ 4995 is himself the author of some of the emendations in the _Vallensis_. Was he J. Badius?

1 ANALYSIS OF THE ARGUMENT.