where are signs of corruptions which have been afterwards corrected.
In the manuscript from which the archetype of our present manuscripts was derived, a leaf (or leaves) at some time became transposed which contained the following: iv. vii. 42 (beginning with continere vellet), IV. vii. 43 (now II. ix. 8), 44 (II. ix. 9), 45 (II. ix. 10), II. x. 1, 2, II. xi. 1–7, II. xii. 1, 2 (through secundum consuetudinem). This leaf had stood originally after the leaf ending with the words quarum metu illi con- in II. ix. 7, and before that beginning with the words adventaret recepit aciem in II. xii. 2, and when transposed stood between the leaf which ends with the words cum in agmine milites, in IV. vii. 42, and the leaf beginning with the words -nere vellent pronuntiavit in the same chapter.
To F. Haase[1] and E. Hedicke[2] belongs the credit of the present arrangement of the examples. Haase, having chanced on a manuscript of Frontinus in a book-shop, bought it fairly cheaply, being attracted by a note after II. ix. 7, which in all the better manuscripts ended in this way: quantum metu illi cum adventarent, recepit aciem; persecuti aciem in fossas deciderunt et eo modo victi sunt. In this copy there followed in red ink the words: nota hic defectum magnum. Haase was led by this to investigate more fully and he decided, as a result of his researches, that the passages found in the codices at the end of Book IV. should not be placed after II. ix. 7, but within it, since the conclusion of II. ix, 7 was quite unsuitable to its beginning. Hedicke later followed up Haase's work, and by the discovery of like in-
