[74] Ap. Mai vii. 135.
[75] Praep. xiii. 6,—μονου του 'ενος (vol. ii. 294).
[76] Same word occurs in St. Mark iv. 37.
[77] iii. 101.
[78] Falconer's Dissertation on St. Paul's Voyage, pp. 16 and 12.
[79] Let the learned Vercellone be heard on behalf of Codex B: 'Antequam manum de tabulâ amoveamus, e re fore videtur, si, ipso codice Vaticano inspecto, duos injectos scrupulos eximamus. Cl. Tischendorfius in nuperrimâ suâ editione scribit (Proleg. p. cclxxv), Maium ad Act. xxvii. 14, codici Vaticano tribuisse a primâ manu ευρακλυδων; nos vero ευρακυδων; atque subjungit, "utrumque, ut videtur, male." At, quidquid "videri" possit, certum nobis exploratumque est Vaticanum codicem primo habuisse ευρακυδων, prout expressum fuit tum in tabella quâ Maius Birchianas lectiones notavit, tum in alterâ quâ nos errata corrigenda recensuimus.'—Præfatio to Mai's 2nd ed. of the Cod. Vaticanus, 1859 (8vo), p. v. § vi. [Any one may now see this in the photographed copy.]
[80] Ap. Galland. x. 225.
[81] Remark that some vicious sections evidently owed their origin to the copyist knowing more of Latin than of Greek.
True, that the compounds euronotus euroauster exist in Latin. That is the reason why the Latin translator (not understanding the word) rendered it Euroaquilo: instead of writing Euraquilo.
I have no doubt that it was some Latin copyist who began the mischief. Like the man who wrote επ' αυτω τω φορω for επ' αυτοφωρω.