PREFATORY NOTE 



important MSS. (see p. xvi of Vol. I), which fall into 

 two classes, (a) the two 9th-10th century MSS. and (b) 

 the two best of the 15th-century MSS. The photo- 

 stats, which were used by Dr. Ash for his collation 

 of Books III and IV, were purchased with a grant 

 provided by the Faculty Research Fund of the 

 University of Pennsylvania. The only point in 

 which my text of these books differs from that of 

 Dr. Ash is that I have not had an opportunity, which 

 Dr. Ash had, of comparing my text with that of the 

 MS. known as Morganensis 138, formerly Hamil- 

 tonensis 184 in the Pierpont Morgan Library in New 

 York. 



For some unexplained reason the text of Book V, 

 especially Chapter VIII to the end, is in a worse 

 condition than in any other part of the work, and 

 there is the further complication that, from Chapter 

 X to the end, the text, though slightly longer, is 

 closely identical with that of De Arhorihus, Chapter 

 XVIII to the end. It seems certain that the De 

 Arhoribus is part of an earlier and shorter treatise 

 which was afterwards superseded by the De Re 

 Rustica. It is a question how far the text of these 

 similar chapters in the De Re Rustica and the De 

 Arhoribus should be corrected from one another. 

 There are numerous places in which the text of 

 Book V is deficient or careless, and these can be 

 corrected from the De Arhorihus, but it also appears 

 that the author made a good many verbal changes 

 as well as inserting new matter. I have, therefore, 

 refrained from making the two slightly different 

 versions correspond exactly and have kept the MS. 

 reading in both treatises where it makes sense — 

 very often the same sense in slightly different 



viii 



