“Syllabification in Latin Inscriptions,” in _Classical Philology_, I
(1906), pp. 47-68.]


[Sidenote: _Orthography_]

The spelling found in our six leaves is remarkably correct. It compares
favorably with the best spelling encountered in our oldest Latin
manuscripts of the fourth and fifth centuries. The diphthong _ae_ is
regularly distinguished from _e_. The interchange of _b_ and _u_, _d_
and _t_, _o_ and _u_, so common in later manuscripts, is rare here: the
confusion between _b_ and _u_ occurs once (_comprouasse_, fo. 52v, l.
1); the omission of _h_ occurs once (_pulcritudo_, fo. 51v, l. 26); the
use of _k_ for _c_ occurs twice (_karet_, fo. 51r, l. 14, and _karitas_,
fo. 52r, l. 5). The scribe uses the correct forms in _adolescet_ (fo.
51v, l. 14) and _adulescenti_ (fo. 51v, l. 24); he writes _auonculi_
(fo. 53v, l. 15), _exsistat_ (fo. 51v, l. 9), and _exsecutos_ (fo. 53r,
l. 8). In the case of composite words he has the assimilated form in
some, and in others the unassimilated form, as the following examples
go to show:

fo. 48r, line 3, inpleturus fo. 48r, line 7, improbissimum
49r, 13a, adnotasse 48v, 23, composuisse
19, adsumo 50r, 1, ascendit
50r, 1, adsumit 6, imbuare
27, adponitur 22, accubat
50v, 3, adficitur 51r, 2, optulissem
51r, 19, adstruere 3, suppeteret
21, adstruere 16, ascendere
26, adpetat 51v, 16, accipiat