EXCURSUS III 367 



is '' nostri appellant," " a nostris appellatur." With re- 

 gard to the first passage Columella (v, i, 5) has: ** Sed 

 hunc actum provinciae Baeticae rustic! acnuam vocant," 

 and compares the Baetic " acnua " with the Gallic " are- 

 pennis" (Fr. arpent). Columella's uncle, on whose au- 

 thority the statement is made, was a native of Gades, 

 and had probably first-hand knowledge of the fact. 

 Varro also, who once stayed for a long time in Spain 

 (cf. Ill, 12, 6), was likely to know the local term. Per- 

 haps "Baetice" was originally written and *Matine" 

 put instead of it by a scribe who did not understand the 

 former word. In II, i, 19 "b" and *M" are confused, 

 "Obsippo" for *'01isippo." In the second passage, 

 "in Samothrace caprarum quas latine rotas appellant," 

 I would adopt Turnebus's emendation approved by Sca- 

 liger — "platycerotas" (irXaT-i/ice'pwrac), cf. Pliny, xi, 37. 

 A few lines before the copyist had written **la" for 

 ♦ ' pla " ( • ' laciditatem " instead of ' * placiditatem "). Per- 

 haps he read here " latyce rotas," and not knowing 

 what to do with " latyce " wrote instead a word he did 

 know — ** latine." 



II, I, I. ** Insta an quid ille, quae coeperat hie dis- 

 serere quae esset origo, quae dignitas, quae ars cum f 

 poetam sesum visere venissemus ne medici adventus 

 nos inredisset." The copyist of the earlier part of this 

 book seems to have been extremely unintelligent, not 

 in the least understanding what he was copying ; any 

 vowel is written by him for any other, letters and whole 

 syllables are omitted or interpolated, and letters are often 

 absurdly grouped — for instance, nine lines further on, for 

 the obvious "pecuariae athletae remuneremini nos," the 

 Archetype has ** pecuariathietae remune remininos." So 

 perhaps some boldness in emendation is permissible. 



