552 AV RANCHES MANUSCRIPT OF VACARIUS October save myself some trouble by simply copying Stolzel's description of P„ The resemblance is striking, down to the system of reference marks, and, in conjunction with the position of De Seruo Corrupto, makes me as certain as I can be without actually seeing P, that there is a close connexion between tjie two manuscripts. The organization of V and of the still older Merton fragments is quite different. There is a top margin of 40 mm., and an unusually deep bottom margin of 160 mm. Between these the writing is in 6 columns, 180 mm. high, and of the following breadths starting from the inner margin : col. 1 small-hand gloss 38 mm., cols. 2 and 3 text 42 mm. each, col. 4 small- hand gloss 44 mm., col. 5 main (Vacarian) gloss in same hand as text though smaller 28 mm., col. 6 small-hand gloss 38 mm. The columns are carefully ruled, but vary slightly in breadth from page to page. The main Vacarian gloss, for which col. 5 is reserved, always begins in the column spaces in the top margin above the columns of text, running on if necessary into col. 5 and into the bottom margin below the text. So long small-hand glosses often occur in the bottom margin. Interlinear glosses occur in the text frequently. Connexion is made between text and Vacarian ' gloss by red letters, a, b, c, in alphabetical order, showing a piece of straight copying. A good example is fo. 31 a (a-q). For the small-hand glosses such marks as — — o — are used. These glosses, of which I hope to give an example, are not later than the middle of the thirteenth century. They are very small, but beautifully written, and were inserted after the illumination, but before the glosses of a certain learned reader shortly to be mentioned. The number of the book is shown at the top of each recto in roman numerals, red and blue alternately, the verso being headed V., red. The space left for elaboration on the Vacarian work amounts to over three-quarters of the page. It was, perhaps, intended for the small-hand gloss actually inserted, which looks like a single piece of work, though never finished. The glosses of the learned reader just referred to are in a not much later thirteenth-century unprofessional hand. After their completion their author proudly wrote (fo. 1 a top right margin) : ' Omnes leges que in presenti compilatione continentur signate sunt sub titulis ' (' hie contractis ' added) ' prout in libris legalibus inueniuntur collocate.' The boast was true ; not only had he filled in many rubrics omitted by the rubricator, but he had followed the Vacarian title inscriptions throughout the work and supplied them with the references to the proper titles of Digest or Code, the Vacarian inscription being now from one, now from the other, and sometimes divergent. They are just the sort of additions that a reader, familiar with his Corpus, but enjoying the convenience of Vacarius's ■ select texts ', would find useful. I have not attempted to decipher the long and numerous fourteenth- century stilus glosses, which form a third mass ; they are now very faint. The illumination and rubrication of A is somewhat richer and much more profuse than Vs. It must be remembered that A has probably lost its best illuminations, and that its blank spaces have been largely cut out. Even so, an average page presents a charming, though sober, colour-
