n^&iBii^Hh the Geometry of Boethius;'^ .'iM 533 



a part of the Demonstratio being inserted in the midst of the Euclid 

 in most of the MSS. The part so interpolated is not any of that 

 continuous whole, if it may be so termed, which we have called the 

 Appendix, but a portion of the Altercatio (p. 407, 1-410, 7), filling 

 nearly two leaves in the Bamberg {hi), and about one leaf in the 

 Rostock (r) MS. of the Demonstratio. A careful examination of the 

 contents of each page of the MSS. will convince any one that Blume 

 has made a stronger assertion than the facts warrant, when he says 

 that the two are completely blended together(ganz und gar vermengt), 

 and will at the same time show us how the confusion probably 

 arose *. Leaving out of consideration the two propositions of the 

 third book, inserted in the Altercatio (p. 408, 3-9), all that we find 

 is, that some few of the following propositions (389, 28-390, 20) are 

 placed at the end of the Altercatio. This may, I think, be readily ac- 

 counted for by supposing that a leaf of the codex from which our pre- 

 sent MSS. are derived, containing the portion in question, had been by 

 some accident transposed out of its proper place, and inserted where 

 we now find it. This transposition may also be accounted for by sup- 

 posing that the writer of the original MS. having by accident probably 

 overlooked or omitted the matter contained in p. 489, 28 seq., did 

 not discover his mistake till he had got to p. 408, 3, where he in- 

 serted the two first of the missing propositions, but then changed 

 his mind and reserved the remainder for the conclusion of the piece 

 he was then engaged about. I say the conclusion, for it is evident 

 that the following part of the Altercatio, from p. 410, 8, does not 

 cohere even with the Euclid f. 



That the Demonstratio did not proceed from the pen of Boethius, 

 few persons will be inclined to dispute. Independent of the grounds 

 assigned by Niebuhr and Blume for denying its genuineness, the 

 book itself shows that it is the production of a Christian, and that 

 consequently it cannot have been compiled by the author of the 

 ConsolatioJ. 



In order to understand and appreciate Blume's opinion on the 

 origin of the treatise we are considering, it is necessary to say a few 

 words on the classification of the different MSS. of the fragments of 

 the Agrimensors. In the article on these MSS. which we have al- 

 ready had occasion to refer to, and in which everything then known 



* The sequence of the matter in the MSS. is 387, 1-22 ; 388, 20-389, 20 ; 

 390, 21-391, 16; 391, 24-392, 17; 407, 1-408, 2; 408, 3-9 (389,21-27); 

 408, 10-410, 7 ; 389, 28-390, 20. In the second Berne MS. the Altercatio is, ac- 

 cording to Sinner, interpolated in a different place. 



t The conclusion of Euclid (p. 390, 20) is not far from the heginning of p. 15 

 of the Rostock MS., while p. 410, 8, corresponds with the latter half of the following 

 folio. That the writer was very stupid or very careless, is evident. See for in- 

 stance the confusion in 385, 21-386, 7; 388; 391, 18-26. The whole of 388, 

 21-389, 20, is such a confused and unintelligible medley, that it has been altogether 

 omitted in the various editions of Boethius' collective works. 



$ " In quibus locis arbores intactse stare videntur, in quo loco veteres errantes sa- 

 crificiuni faciebant," p. 401, C. In the passage of the Liber Coloniarum (p. 241, 5) 

 from which this is taken, errantes is not to be found. That Boethius was a heathen 

 has been clearly shown by Obbarius, in the introduction to his edition of the Con- 

 solatio, Jen. 1843. 



