fo. 53r, line 1, com (_or_ con)-pulit 5, ueni-ebat 7, iniu-rias 8, ex-secutos 10, prae-terea 12, aduoca-tione 13, con-seruandum 15, com-paratum 16, sub-uertas 17, cumu-les 18, obliga-ti 23, tris-tissimum
fo. 53v, line 2, facili-orem 3, si-quis 5, offi-ciorum 7, praepara-tur 8, super-est 10, sim-plicitas 11, compro-bantis 14, diligen-ter 20, cog-nitio 22, milita-ret 26, exsol-uit
[Footnote 12: Such a division as _ut_|_or_ on fol. 7, l. 10, is due entirely to thoughtless copying. The scribe probably took _ut_ for a word.]
[Footnote 13: For further details on syllabification in our oldest Latin manuscripts, see Th. Mommsen, "Livii Codex Veronensis," in _Abhandlungen der k. Akad. d. Wiss. zu Berlin, phil. hist. Cl._ (1868), p. 163, n. 2, and pp. 165-6; Mommsen-Studemund, _Analecta Liviana_ (Leipsic 1873), p. 3; Brandt, "Der St. Galler Palimpsest," in _Sitzungsberichte der phil. hist. Cl. der k. Akad. der Wiss. in Wien_, CVIII (1885), pp. 245-6; L. Traube, "Palaeographische Forschungen IV," in _Abhandlungen d. h. t. Cl. d. k. Bayer. Akad. d. Wiss._ XXIV. 1 (1906), p. 27; A.W. Van Buren, "The Palimpsest of Cicero's _De Re Publica_," in _Archaeological Institute of America, Supplementary Papers of the American School of Classical Studies in Rome_, ii (1908), pp. 89 sqq.; C. Wessely, in his preface to the facsimile edition of the Vienna Livy (MS. lat. 15), published in the Leyden series, _Codices graeci et latini_, etc., T. XI. See also W.G. Hale, "Syllabification in Roman speech," in _Harvard Studies of Classical Philology_, VII (1896), pp. 249-71, and W. Dennison, "Syllabification in Latin Inscriptions," in _Classical Philology_, I (1906), pp. 47-68.]
The spelling found in our six leaves is remarkably correct. It compares favorably with the best spelling encountered in our oldest Latin manuscripts of the fourth and fifth centuries. The diphthong _ae_ is regularly distinguished from _e_. The interchange of _b_ and _u_, _d_ and _t_, _o_ and _u_, so common in later manuscripts, is rare here: the confusion between _b_ and _u_ occurs once (_comprouasse_, fo. 52v, l. 1); the omission of _h_ occurs once (_pulcritudo_, fo. 51v, l. 26); the use of _k_ for _c_ occurs twice (_karet_, fo. 51r, l. 14, and _karitas_, fo. 52r, l. 5). The scribe uses the correct forms in _adolescet_ (fo. 51v, l. 14) and _adulescenti_ (fo. 51v, l. 24); he writes _auonculi_ (fo. 53v, l. 15), _exsistat_ (fo. 51v, l. 9), and _exsecutos_ (fo. 53r, l. 8). In the case of composite words he has the assimilated form in some, and in others the unassimilated form, as the following examples go to show: