Dux Germania Secunda?

[Robert Vermaat]

According to Scharf, during the passing on of the text of the ND, numerals were changed to words (and the other way round). If words sometimes had been abbreviatet, said alternating between numerals and words could have lead to confusing the letter I and the Roman One (see my previous post).

Maybe, but we have many such provinces (Prima/Secunda), are we supposed to think that the I was derived from Inferior there as well? Although it sounds ingenious, as a historian I have learned not to take the theoretical 'scribal error' as the magical answer to textual problems. It is disappointing that other authors take up this theory, which is of course unsupported by evidence. Do we even know for sure that 'Inferior' was shorthened to I and not to INF? It would have been better if Scharf had been able to present other occasions where an Inferior was misatken for a Prima.