[Footnote 26: See Merrill _C.P._ X, p. 23. The catalogue (G. Becker, _Catalogi bibliothecarum antiqui_, p. 282) was prepared about 1200, and is of Corbie, not as Merrill has it, Corvey. Chatelain (on plate LIV) regards the book as “provenant du monastère de Corbie.” At my request, Mr. H.J. Leon, Sheldon Fellow of Harvard University, recently examined the manuscript, and neither he nor Monsignore Mercati, the Prefect of the Vatican Library, could discover any note or library-mark to indicate that the book is a Corbeiensis. In a recent article, _Philol. Quart._ I (1922), pp. 17 ff.), Professor Ullman is inclined, after a careful analysis of the evidence, to assign the manuscript to Corbie, but allows for the possibility that it was written in Tours or the neighborhood and thence sent to Corbie.] [Footnote 27: _C.P._ X, p. 23.] [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 (angelsächsischen) Einfluss_ in Buchstabenformen, Abkürzungen, etc. Fol. 32r _saec._ IX _ex_ _vel_ X _in._ fol. 32v-46r in der Hauptsache _direkt insular_ mit historischen Notizen in festländischer 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 à 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 Orléans.]