Chapter IX: Part II: of The Oxyrhynchus Papyri (1899, pp. 1-8) contains a fragment (4)

_Vide_ Th. Mommsen, _Das Diokletianische Edikt über die Warenpreise_
(Hermes, xxv. 17-36, 1890); on the fragments recently discovered in
Megalopolis, see W. Loring, _Journal of Hellenic Studies_, 1890, 299;
also, _Revue Archéologique_, Mars-Avril, 1891, 268.

Footnote 29:

Herodotus v. 58. On the connection of _litera_ and διφθέρα, see M.
Bréal, _Rev. des Et. grecques_, iii. 10, 1890, 121 ff., and _Rev.
Crit._, 1892, 13. In Cyprus the schoolmaster was called the
διφθεράλοιφος.

Footnote 30:

_Cf._ Codex D, Mark i. 6.

Footnote 31:

_Cf._ Victor Schultze, _Rolle und Codex_, in the Greifswalder Studien,
Gütersloh, 1895, p. 149 ff.

Footnote 32:

_Vide_ C. R. Gregory, _Sur les cahiers des manuscrits grecs_, Académie
des Inscriptions, Aug. 1885; Berliner Phil. Wochenschrift, 1886, v.
159 ff.

Footnote 33:

_E.g._ in Cod. Barocc. 1 in the Bodleian, and in several Syriac
manuscripts.

Footnote 34:

_Vide_ G. Ebers, _Kaiser Hadrian_: also _The Writing Material of
Antiquity_, by Ebers, in the Cosmopolitan Magazine, New York, Nov.
1893; and especially Dziatzko (see above, p. 33). On the papyrus plant
(Cyperus papyrus L., Papyrus Antiquorum Willd.), see Bernard de
Montfaucon, _Dissertation sur la plante appelée Papyrus, sur le papier
d’Égypte_, etc. Memoires de l’Académie Royale des Inscriptions et
Belles Lettres, T. vi. Paris, 1729, 4to., pp. 592-608; Franz Woenig,
_Die Pflanzen im alten Aegypten, ihre Heimat, Geschichte, Kultur_,
Leipzig, 1886, pp. 74-129. J. Hoskyns-Abrahall pointed out that it is
found in Europe, not only in the neighbourhood of Syracuse in Sicily,
but also on the shores of Lake Trasimene: see _The Papyrus in Europe_,
in the Academy, 19th Mar. 1887. Lagarde raised a question as to the
etymology of the word papyrus (which has not yet been explained),
whether it might not be derived from Bura on Lake Menzaleh, where it
was first manufactured, _pa_ being the article in Egyptian; see his
_Mitteilungen_, ii. 260. If this is so, there is the more reason for
pronouncing the _y_ long, as ancient writers did, and not short as the
modern fashion is—papýrus, not pápyrus. _Cf._ Juvenal, iv. 24; vii.
101; Mart. iii. 2; viii. 44; x. 97. Catull. xxxv. 2. Ovid, _Met._ xv.
753; _Trist._ iii. 10, 27.

Footnote 35:

See U. Wilcken, _Recto oder Verso_, Hermes, 1887, 487-492.

Footnote 36:

Apoc. v. 1 can no longer be cited in support of this practice, seeing
we must take καὶ ὄπισθεν with κατεσφραγισμένον, according to Grotius
and Zahn. On ὀπισθόγραφον, _cf._ Lucian, _Vitarum Auctio_, 9; Pliny,
3, 5; _a tergo_ Juvenal, 1, 6; _in aversa charta_, Martial, 8, 22.

Footnote 37:

Pausanias, ix. 31, 4.

Footnote 38:

Deissmann, _Bibelstudien_, 26-54.

Footnote 39:

Hiller von Gaertringen, _Berl. Sitz.-Ber._, 21st July 1898.

Footnote 40:

See Wilcken, _Verein von Alterstumsfreunden im Rheinland_. Heft
lxxxvi. p. 234; also the _Berl. Phil. Wochenschrift_, 1889, 26.

Footnote 41:

_Cf._ Livy, B. iv. c. 7; Pliny, xiii. 11, “postea publica monumenta
plumbeis voluminibus mox et privata linteis confici coepta sunt.”

Footnote 42:

_Jüdisches Literaturblatt_, 1889, 10.

Footnote 43:

_Cf._ the verses inscribed on a marble tablet discovered in Andros by
Ross in 1844:—

ἐγὼ χρυσόθρονος Ἶσις ...
ἀφαλέων Ἔρμανος ἀπόκρυφα σύμβολα δέλτων
εὑρόμενα γραφίδεσσιν ἅ τ’ ἔξυσε πᾶσι χαράξας
φρικαλέον μύσταις ἱερὸν λόγον....

Footnote 44:

See Nestle, _Bengel_, p. 105.

Footnote 45:

_Zeitschrift für das Humanistische Gymnasium_, 1896, p. 27.

Footnote 46:

O. Hoffmann, _Griechische Dialekte_, i. 107.

Footnote 47:

Probably pens of the first quality—μονογόνατοι.

Footnote 48:

Harris, _Last Words of Baruch_, vi. 17, p. 56.

Footnote 49:

_Vide_ Harnack, _T. und U._, ii. 5, p. 68.

Footnote 50:

Socin, _Arabic Grammar_, 2nd ed., p. 55, line 14; p. 56, line 12.

Footnote 51:

_ZdmG._, xliii. 547.

Footnote 52:

Konstantin Oikonomos, περὶ τῶν ό ἑρμηνευτῶν, Bk. iv. p. 975.

Footnote 53:

Hody, 1684, p. 254 ff.

Footnote 54:

_Vide_ Harnack in the _ThLz._, 1885, cols. 321, 324, n. 5.

Footnote 55:

Ed. Feige, p. 53.

Footnote 56:

_Divin. Lect._, c. xv.

Footnote 57:

_Sächs. Sitz.-Ber._ (1889), xi. 4, 369.

Footnote 58:

Balsamon, the Canonist (c. 1200), complains that τινὲς δι’
αἰσχροκέρδειαν βιβλίων τῶν θείων γραφῶν ἐμπορευόμενοι ἀπήλειφον, and
he requests σημείωσαι ταῦτα διὰ τοὺς βιβλιοκαπήλους τοὺς ἀπαλείφοντας
τῶν θείων γραφῶν.

Footnote 59:

On Constantine’s Bibles, see Westcott, _Canon_, c. ii. p. 426; _Bible
in the Church_, c. vi. p. 155 ff.; Zahn, _Geschichte des N. T.
Kanons_, i. 64. Zahn combats the supposition that the entire Bible was
contained in each Codex, pointing out quite rightly that in that case
the latter could not have been εὐμετακόμιστα, and moreover that
Constantine speaks of σωμάτια, which does not mean codices but
something much more indefinite. Nor does he believe that Eusebius
intended to specify the number of sheets in each quire of the Codex or
of the columns in which it was written. “The fifty Bibles might and
would be distributed in 200 to 400 volumes.” According to the view
taken above there would be from 150 to 200 of these. _Cf._ Scrivener,
i. p. 118, n. 2.

Footnote 60:

For the order of the books in א, see Westcott, _Bible in the Church_,
Appendix B, “Contents of the most ancient MSS. of the Bible (A, B, א,
D, Amiat.)”; _Hist. of the Canon_, Appendix D, “Catalogues of Books of
the Bible during the first eight Centuries.”

Footnote 61:

Six leaves are now wanting between Barnabas and Hermas. What did these
contain, shall we suppose? Perhaps the Didache. Schmiedel makes a
different conjecture in the _Literarisches Centralblatt_, 1897, n. 49

Footnote 62:

_Vide_ Wordsworth and White, _Epilogus_, p. 737, _De Sectionibus
Ammonianis in Evangeliis_.

Footnote 63:

Ἀντεβλήθη πρὸς παλαιότατον λίαν ἀντίγραφον δεδιορθωμένον χειρὶ τοῦ
ἁγίου μάρτυρος Παμφίλου· ὅπερ ἀντίγραφον πρὸς τῷ τέλει ὑποσημείωσίς
τις ἰδιόχειρος αὐτοῦ ὑπέκειτο ἔχουσα οὕτως· μετελήμφθη καὶ διορθώθη
πρὸς τὰ ἑξαπλᾶ Ὠριγένους· Ἀντωνῖνος ἀντέβαλεν· Πάμφιλος διόρθωσα.

Footnote 64:

This agrees with the last of the so-called Apostolic Canons (85),
which includes Κλήμεντος Ἐπιστολαὶ δύο among the Books of the New
Testament after the Epistles of James and Jude. See Westcott, _Canon_,
Appendix D. iii. a.

Footnote 65:

On the Alexandrian division of the Gospels into 68, 48, 83, and 18
sections respectively, see Kenyon in the _Journal of Theological
Studies_, i. 149.

Footnote 66:

For the Festal Letter, see Westcott, _Canon_, App. D. xiv., p. 554;
_Bible in the Church_, p. 159 ff.; Preuschen’s _Analecta_, pp. 144
ff.; Burgess, _Festal Letters of Athanasius translated from the
Syriac_, p. 137. Sahidic published by C. Schmidt in the _Nachrichten_
mentioned above, 1898, p. 167 ff. He holds it to be the original form
of the Letter.

Footnote 67:

_E.g._ ΑΠΕϹΤΑΛΚΕΝ, 122_b_, 4.

Footnote 68:

An Indiction is a cycle of fifteen years, computed by the Greeks from
1st September 312 A.D. Its introduction was ascribed to Constantine
the Great. See Scrivener, i., App. C, p. 380.

Footnote 69:

See Scrivener, 1. p. 160, under Λ. This minuscule seems to be omitted
from Scrivener’s list. See below, p. 185.

Footnote 70:

“To Rome to come, to Rome to come,
Much of trouble, little of profit,
The thing thou seekest here,
If thou bring not with thee, thou findest not”; etc., etc.

See Scrivener, i. 180.

Footnote 71:

Or Evagrius. The name is difficult to decipher. See below, pp. 188 ff.

Footnote 72:

Ἔγραψα καὶ ἐξεθέμην κατὰ δύναμιν στειχηρὸν τόδε τὸ τεῦχος Παύλου τοῦ
ἀποστόλου πρὸς ἐγγραμμὸν καὶ εὐκατάλημπτον ἀνάγνωσιν ... ἀντεβλήθη δὲ
ἡ βίβλος πρὸς τὸ ἐν Καισαρίᾳ ἀντίγραφον τῆς βιβλιοθήκης τοῦ ἁγίου
Παμφίλου χειρὶ γεγραμμένον αὐτοῦ.

Footnote 73:

Perhaps in Sardinia, see below. Cf. Scrivener, i. p. 63 n. 1.

Footnote 74:

See Scrivener (Miller), i. p. 397.

Footnote 75:

Compare the remarks of Grenfell-Hunt on the papyrus (and vellum) books
and their respective handwritings in Part II. of the _Oxyrhynchus
Papyri_, p. 2 f.

Footnote 76:

Facsimiles of 13, 69, 124, 346 are given in Abbott’s _Collation of
Four Important Manuscripts_ (Dublin, 1877); see Scrivener, i. 343,
Plate XIII, 40.

Footnote 77:

See Blass’s _Praefatio_ to his edition of Luke, pp. lxix f. (1897),
and compare Hastings’ _Dictionary of the Bible_, iii. p. 144; Hoskier,
above, p. 5; below, p. 211.

Footnote 78:

Zahn asserts that traces of a system of Lections are to be found as
early as in Irenaeus, and likewise in Codex D. _Einleitung_, ii. 355,
on Luke i. 26.

Footnote 79:

On Luke viii. 15 Tischendorf observes that in 49^{evl} (a Lectionary
of the tenth or eleventh century, now in Moscow, presented to the
Monastery of the Mother of God τοῦ βροντοχίου by Nicephorus,
Metropolitan of Crete, and Antistes of Lacedæmon, in 1312) the lection
εἰς τὰς ἔξω ἐκκλησίας ended with this verse (15) and the words
attached to it, “And so saying He cried, He that hath ears to hear,
let him hear,” and that the additional verses were not read εἰς τὴν
μεγάλην ἐκκλησίαν, but vv. 20, 21-25 followed immediately after the
words ἐν ὑπομονῇ (v. 15).

Footnote 80:

On the “Livre d’Évangiles réputé avoir appartenu à S. Jean
Chrysostome,” _cf._ Ch. Graux, in the _Revue de Philologie_, Avril
1887.

Footnote 81:

Cf. Eusebius, _Demons. Evan._, iii. 7, 15, βάρβαροι καὶ Ἕλληνες τὰς
περὶ τοῦ Ἰησοῦ γραφὰς πατρίοις χαρακτῆρσιν καὶ πατρίῳ φωνῇ
μετελάμβανον. Zahn, _GK._ i. 33; Theoph., v. 64; Laud. Const., xvii.
9.

Footnote 82:

The date of Tatian’s birth is uncertain. Zahn decides for the year
110. He was in the prime of manhood by the year 160. See Hastings,
_Bible Dictionary_, ii. p. 697.

Footnote 83:

See below, p. 213, n. 3.

Footnote 84:

The Peshitto, so indicated from the principal edition by Schaaf,
1708-9.

Footnote 85:

_The Dialogues of Athanasius and Zacchaeus, and of Timothy and
Aquila._ Edited with Prolegomena and Facsimiles by F. C. Conybeare
(Oxford, 1898; _Anecdota Oxoniensia, Classical Series, Part VIII._).
See Notice in the _Lit. Cbl._, 1899, No. 5, col. 154 f.

Footnote 86:

Dates are still reckoned in Syria according to the Greek era, counting
from the year 312 B.C.

Footnote 87:

Hierapolis, now Membidsch on the Euphrates.

Footnote 88:

I. H. Hall, _Syriac Manuscript Gospels of a Pre-Harklensian Version_,
1883.

Footnote 89:

The Gospels appeared in 1778, the Acts and Catholic Epistles in 1799,
and the Pauline Epistles in 1803.

Footnote 90:

In Tischendorf’s critical apparatus these fragments are indicated as
Syr^{p(osterior)} or as Syr^{whit(e)}. It would be better to use the
symbol Syr^{po(lycarp)} for the first version of 508 made by Polycarp
for Philoxenus, and Syr^{tho(mas)} for Thomas of Harkel’s recension of
616. Gebhardt’s notation is as follows:—Syr^a is the Curetonian; Syr^b
is the Peshitto; Syr^c is the Harklean, of which again Syr^{ct} is the
text, Syr^{cm} the margin, Syr^{c*} sub asterisco; Syr^d is the
Jerusalem Syriac; while Syr^{bodl} is the text of 2 Peter, 2 and 3
John, and Jude. Zahn proposes to indicate the Philoxenian
(Tischendorf’s Syr^{bodl}) by Syr^2, and the Harklean by Syr^3; for
the Gospels he would employ Syr^c, Syr^s, Syr^h; Syr^1, therefore, is
the Peshitto.

Footnote 91:

Land, in the _Anecdota Syriaca_, iv., 1875; Harris, _Biblical
Fragments from Mount Sinai_, 1890; Gwilliam, in the _Anecdota
Oxoniensia_, Semitic Series, i. 5, 1893; ix. 1896;
Lewis-Nestle-Gibson, _Studia Sinaitica_, vi.

Footnote 92:

See F. Bulié, _Wo lag Stridon, die Heimat des h. Hieronymus?_ in the
_Festschrift für Otto Benndorf_. Vienna, 1898. Also _La patrie de S.
Jerome_ in _Analecta Bollandiana_, xviii. 3.

Footnote 93:

_Einleitung_, ii. 195.

Footnote 94:

_Epilogus ad Evangelia_, p. 656.

Footnote 95:

No. 71; 164 in Jerome’s letters.

Footnote 96:

No. 56 (A.D. 394), 67 (397), 101 (402).

Footnote 97:

Burkitt’s view was expressed more than three-quarters of a century ago
by C. A. Breyther, in a dissertation entitled, _De vi quam
antiquissimae versiones quae extant latinae in crisin evangeliorum IV.
habent_ (Merseburg, 1824). See v. Dobschütz, _ThLz._, 1897, 135.

Footnote 98:

Photolithographed by Clédat from a MS. at Lyons.

Footnote 99:

J. Heidenreich, _Der neutestamentliche Text bei Cyprian verglichen mit
dem Vulgatatext. Eine textkritische Untersuchung zu den h. Schriften
des Neuen Testamentes._ Bamberg, 1900.

Footnote 100:

This is the view of Zahn. Others, however, have no doubt that
Tertullian made use of a Latin version. Hoppe, in his treatise, _De
sermone Tertullianeo Quaestiones Selectae_ (1897), p. 6 (_de
Graecismis Tertulliani_) says, “Permultas enim (constructiones) T.
mutuatus est vel ex scriptoribus graecis, quibus assidue studuit, vel
ex librorum sacrorum translatione latina graecismis abundante, qua
utebatur.” And to this he adds, “Quam multa vocabula graeca in
Tertullianeum sermonem ex Itala quae vocatur translatione
redundaverint, discas ex Roenschii libro cum impigritate conscripto,
qui inscribitur, _Itala und Vulgata_, ed. sec., p. 238.” The Itala is
cited for _sciant quia_ (p. 18), _absque_ (p. 44), and for the use of
the superlative for the positive (p. 49). On this last the writer
refers to Rönsch, p. 415, and adds, “ex Itala T. hunc usum aliquotiens
assumpsisse videtur, quamquam in universum vitat.” _Cf._ Westcott,
_Canon_, Part I., c. iii. p. 251 ff.

Footnote 101:

Thus we have, following the numbers given above, in verse 4 (1)
απορεισθαι and διαπορεισθαι (or διαπορειν), (2) περι τουτου and περι
αυτου, (3) ιδου and και ιδου, (4) ανδρες δυο and δυο ανδρες, (5)
επεστησαν and παρειστηκεισαν, (7) εν εσθητι αστραπτουση (or λαμπρα)
and εν εσθησεσιν αστραπτουσαις (or λευκαις), (8) εμφοβων (or εν φοβω)
δε γενομενων και κλινουσων and ενφοβοι δε γενομεναι εκλειναν, (9) τα
προσωπα and το προσωπον (αυτων); in verse 11, (10) ενωπιον αυτων and
its omission; in verse 13, (14) εξηκοντα and εκατον εξηκοντα, (15) ᾗ
ονομα and ονοματι, (16) Εμμαους and ουλαμμαους. Of these (8), (15),
and (16) are found only in D. In the case of (15) the very same
variation is found at Tob. vi. 10 in the two recensions represented by
_Codex Vaticanus_ and _Codex Sinaiticus_.

Footnote 102:

1889, 91, 93, 95, 98; cited in the sequel as W.-W.

Footnote 103:

On the _Epilogus_ to the first volume of their Oxford edition, see
especially S. Berger in the _Revue Critique_, 1889, pp. 141-144; and
on the whole, Burkitt, _The Vulgate Gospels and the Codex Brixianus_,
in the _Journal of Theological Studies_, I. i. (Oct. 1899) pp.
129-134.

Footnote 104:

Compare E. Maugenot, _Les manuscrits grecs des évangiles employés par
Saint Jerôme_, in the _Revue des sciences ecclésiastiques_, January
1900.

Footnote 105:

The New Testament is contained in vol. iii. The copy I use has the
date 1743 on the title-pages of three volumes, but there is a note at
the end, p. 1115, which says, “E prelo exiit hic tomus anno 1749.”
Romæ, 1713-19, in _TiGr._, p. 1350, is a misprint. The imprimaturs of
the first volume are dated 1737. The work was reprinted with new
title-pages at Paris by Fr. Didot, 1751. Copies now cost from £15 to
£25.

Footnote 106:

The word Coptic is not derived from the town in Upper Egypt called
Coptos, but is a modification of the Greek word Αἰγύπτιος.

Footnote 107:

The spelling Bahiric is due to a wrong vocalisation of the word.

Footnote 108:

On the Middle Egyptian, see W. E. Crum in the _Journal of Theological
Studies_, I. 3 (April 1900), pp. 416 ff.

Footnote 109:

Westcott, _Canon_, Part II., chapter ii., § 1 _sub finem_.

Footnote 110:

H. Hyvernat, _Un fragment inédit de la version sahidique du Nouveau
Testament_ (Ephes. i. 6-ii. 8_b_). _Revue Biblique_, April 1900, pp.
248-253. The fragment is of the eighth or ninth century.

Footnote 111:

See also the Greek and Middle Egyptian manuscript published by Crum
and Kenyon, referred to above, p. 70.

Footnote 112:

The dates of Ulfilas’ birth and death are uncertain. He certainly
lived till autumn 381 or 383. The date of his life is variously given
as 310-380 or 318-388. According to Kauffmann, the Synod at which
Ulfilas was consecrated Bishop was that of Antioch, _De Encaeniis_,
341.

Footnote 113:

Or 1115 according to the Armenian reckoning.

Footnote 114:

Celsus’s polemic against Christianity has perished, but considerable
fragments are embedded in Origen’s Reply. See _Ante-Nicene Christian
Library_, vol. xxiii., (Clark, Edin.).

Footnote 115:

Clement of Alexandria cites Matt. xviii. 3 in four different ways. He
quotes Matt. v. 45 six times, and only once accurately.

Footnote 116:

Petropol. gr. 254, formerly cited as Paris. coisl. 212, written in the
year 1111, the oldest manuscript that Lagarde was able to use for his
edition of the _Apostolic Constitutions_. Further examples of the
untrustworthiness of manuscripts and printed editions will be found in
the small print at the end of this section.

Footnote 117:

See extended note (2) at the end of the chapter, p. 149.

Footnote 118:

On the question whether Clement of Rome knew the second Epistle of
Paul to the Corinthians, see J. H. Kennedy, _The Second and Third
Epistles of St. Paul to the Corinthians_. London, 1900, p. 142 ff.

Footnote 119:

Westcott, _Canon_, Part I., c. ii. 7.

Footnote 120:

_Ibid._, Part II., c. i. 1.; c. ii. 4.

Footnote 121:

Ambrosiaster is the name given to the unknown writer of a Commentary
on the Pauline Epistles, which till the time of Erasmus was attributed
to Ambrose. In recent times Dom G. Morin has raised the question
whether the writer may not be one Isaac, who is known to have lived in
the papacy of Damasus. He was a Jewish convert to Christianity, and
afterwards returned to his former faith. See Dom G. Morin,
_L’Ambrosiaster et le juif converti Isaac, contemporain du pape
Damase_, in the _Revue d’Histoire et de Littérature religieuses_, iv.
2 (1899), 112. This writer informs us that a new edition of the whole
of Ambrosiaster will be brought out by A. Amelli on the basis of a
very old manuscript from Monte Cassino. Morin believes that the text
of this manuscript, in spite of its age, is “fortement retouché, dont
on a éliminé la plupart des traits vraiment intéressants” (_ibid._, p.
121).

Footnote 122:

This reminds us of how Luther used to entreat the printers to let his
writings stand as he wrote them.

Footnote 123:

Called 2^{pe} by Tischendorf, and numbered 81 in Westcott and Hort,
and 565 in _TiGr._ Mark of this manuscript was edited by Belsheim in
1885, with a collation of the other three Gospels. It is a valuable
cursive, as appears from what is said of it in W-H: “The most valuable
cursive for the preservation of Western readings in the Gospels is 81,
a St. Petersburg manuscript called 2^{pe} by Tischendorf, as standing
second in a list of documents collated by Muralt. It has a large
ancient element, in great measure Western, and in St. Mark its ancient
readings are numerous enough to be of real importance.” See above,
under Codex N, p. 68.

Footnote 124:

The First Part has been issued: _A Textual Commentary upon the Holy
Gospels_. Part I. St. Matthew, Division I., cc. i.-xiv. (London, Bell,
1899). See notice by Gwilliam in _The Critical Review_, May 1900. In
this work Origen is also cited for Matt. v. 44.

Footnote 125:

In the _Expository Times_ for October 1897, p. 13 ff., I have called
attention to another instance in which a Scriptural quotation (Isaiah
lii. 5) is given with remarkable similarity in the _Apostolic
Constitutions_, with its original (i. 10, iii. 5, vii. 204), in
Ignatius (_Ad Trallianos_, viii.), and in 2nd Clement (c. xiii.).
Similar things are to be observed even in the N.T., as, _e.g._, in
Mark i. 2, where a quotation from Malachi iii. 1 is inserted between
the heading, “In the prophet Isaiah,” and the words taken from that
book. But they are found also in the writings of Paul, which has led
to the view that he may possibly have used some sort of dogmatic
anthology of the O. T. Clement of Alexandria has a good many
quotations from Philo. On his quotations from the Gospels, see P. M.
Barnard, _The Biblical Text of Clement of Alexandria in the Four
Gospels and the Acts of the Apostles_. _Texts and Studies_, v. 5,
Cambridge, 1899.

Footnote 126:

See below, Appendix II., Ἀντίγραφα.

Footnote 127:

_Vide infra_, Appendix I.

Footnote 128:

Fasciculus i., edited by Hauler, 1900.