[Footnote 28:  See Paul Lehmann, “Aufgaben und Anregungen der lateinischen Philologie des Mittelalters,” in Sitzungsberichte der Bayer.  Akad. der Wiss.  Philos.-philol. u. hist.  Klasse, 1918, 8, pp. 14 ff.  I am indebted to Professor Lehmann for the facts on the basis of which I have made the statement above.  To quote his exact words, the contents of the manuscript are as follows:  “Fol. 1-31v Briefe des Hierononymus u.  Gregorius Magnus + fol. 46v-47v, Briefe des Plinius an Tacitus u.  Albinus, in kontinentaler, wohl Regensburger Minuskel etwa der Mitte des 9ten Jahrhunderts, unter starken insularen (angelsaechsischen) Einfluss in Buchstabenformen, Abkuerzungen, etc.  Fol. 32r saec. IX ex vel X in. fol. 32v-46r in der Hauptsache direkt insular mit historischen Notizen in festlaendischer Style.  Fol. 48v-128 Ambrosius saec. X in.”]

[Footnote 29:  Commentatiuncula de C. Plinii Caecilii Secundi epistularum fragmento Vossiano notis tironianis descripto (in Exercitationes Palaeog. in Bibl.  Univ.  Lugduno-Bat., 1890).  De Vries ascribes the fragment to the ninth century and is sure that the writing is French (p. 12).  His reproduction, though not photographic, gives an essentially correct idea of the script.  The text of the fragment is inferior to that of MV, with which manuscripts it is undoubtedly associated.  In one error it agrees with V against M.  Chatelain (Introduction a la Lecture des Notes Tironiennes, 1900), though citing De Vries’s publication in his bibliography (p. xv), does not discuss the character of the notes in this fragment.  I must leave it for experts in tachygraphy to decide whether the style of the Tironian notes is that of the school of Orleans.]

The third class comprises manuscripts containing eight books, the eighth being omitted and the ninth called the eighth.  Representatives of this class are all codices of the fifteenth century, though the class has a more ancient basis than that, namely a lost manuscript of Verona.  This is best attested by D, a Dresden codex, while almost all other manuscripts of this class descend from a free recension made by Guarino and conflated with F; o, u, and x are the representatives of this recension (G) that are reported by Merrill.  The relation of this third class to the second is exceedingly close; indeed, it may be merely a branch of it.[30]

  [Footnote 30:  See Merrill’s discussion of the different
  possibilities, C.P. X, p. 14.]

[Sidenote:  The early editions]