It seems tolerably plain that one of these manuscripts was not copied immediately from the other, for while they often accord even in the strangest errors of the pen that men unskilled in Greek could fall into, their division of the Greek words, though equally false and absurd, is often quite different: it results therefore that they are independent transcripts of the same venerable archetype (probably stichometrical and some centuries older than themselves) which was written without any division between the words(218). From the form of the letters and other circumstances Cod. F may be deemed somewhat but not much the older; its corrector _secundâ manu_ evidently had both the Greek and the Latin of Cod. G before him, and Rabanus, in whose works the Dicta Pinophi are preserved (p. 178), was the great antagonist of Godeschalk, on whom the annotator of Codd. ΔG bears so hard. Cod. G is in 4to, of ninety-nine leaves, with twenty-one lines in each. The line indicating breathing (if such be its use, _see_ p. 178) and the mark > employed to fill up spaces (p. 51), more frequent in it than in F. ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Since Dr. Scrivener wrote the above, a very valuable little treatise—a “specimen primum”—has been given to the learned world by Herr P. Corssen(219), and a most clear and carefully argued paper has been sent to the editor by the Rev. Nicholas Pocock of Clifton. Both Herr Corssen and Mr. Pocock agree in showing that F was not derived from G, nor G from F, but that they come from the same original. Both agree, again, that the Greek version is derived, at least in large measure, from the Latin, as in such instances as the following, which are supplied by Mr. Pocock, who holds, and appears to prove, that F and G were copied from an interlinear manuscript: _ut sciatis_, ινα οιδαται (F, G), 1 Thess. iii. 3; _sicut cancer ut serpat_, ως γαγγρα, ινα νομηνεξει (G), 2 Tim. ii. 17, F having the same reading, only dividing the last word; Gal. iv. 3 _eramus autem servientes_, ημεθα δε δουλωμενοι (F, G). Herr Corssen considers that a Latin was the scribe of the original, that it was written in Italy, and that it was better than the Claromontanus (D), to which it had affinities, this last having an amended text with corrections from the Greek. The original of all three he supposes to date from not before the fifth century. But in some of these last suppositions we are getting upon the ocean of conjecture.