The structure of an ideal copy is uncertain (see Illustrations and Notes below). The solidus is used as a comma on the titlepage and in the text, and has been transcribed as such here. Leaves 37 and 42 are misnumbered '33' and '38' respectively. Leaves G2.3 are often bound before or after G1.4.

Signature: 2:̲ A-B⁴ C1 1︣ 21︣ D-E² F² G⁴ H-L² LL² LLL1 LLLL1 M⁶ N-T⁴. [67 leaves] $1 signed ( -A1; +A2, B2, G2, M2,3, N2, O2, P2, Q2, R2, S2, T2).

: Books 1-4 of this work are cast in the form of a Platonic dialogue between the author ('Tor.'), an eponymous Frenchman dubbed 'Iacobus Villafranca' ('Iac.'), a learned nobleman, 'Ioanes Nicola' ('Ioa.'), and finally Giovanni Caroto ('Car.'), 'graphidis peritissimus' and the artist responsible for the illustrations of architectural antiquities in book 2 (see Illustrations above). Books 5 and 6 are given over to recording and interpreting antique inscriptions found on buildings and monuments in and around the city. Sarayna's note to the reader on A1b calls attention to Serlio ('Sebastianus Sergius Bononiensis [sic]') and warns of the inaccuracy of the depiction of Veronese antiquities in what is presumably Serlio's third book, the first edition of which had just appeared, in March 1540 (see No. 2968 and Bury p.94) Caroto's woodcuts, the blocks for which are preserved in the Biblioteca Communale at Verona, were later reprinted in a folio volume issued under his name entitled De le ant'qita de Verona, con novi agionti, da M. Zvane Caroto ..., printed by Paolo Ravagnani in Verona in 1560 (British Library copy 1704.a.5). This work contains all the woodcuts in book 2 of the present volume plus the map of Verona and a (self?) portrait of the artist ('Iohannes Charotvs Pictor Veronensis'). In place of Sarayna's text however Caroto supplies no more than a brief paraphrase of the description of the theatre and amphitheatre (done into Italian), a list of inscriptions from books 5 and 6, and a number of 'soneti' by Francesco Petrucci and Giulielmo Cluson 'in lavde dilavtore et dilopera laqvale e necessaria adogni qualita di persone apittori aintaliatori et architeti con le sve misvre per ogni antigalia' (see the t.p.). In addition, one of the blocks was omitted (that of the pedestal, base and capital of the order belonging to the Arco dei Gavii, printed on G3b) and two were altered (that of the Arco di Giove Amone on I1a has the perspective extended to include its left flank, and the large cut on LL1a-2b has the frieze from the Cathedral removed and what appears to be a Roman military standard, with the letterpress legend 'Piero in Carian', substituted). Further differences arise in the much later reprint of Caroto's work by the fratelli Merlo in 1764 (see No. 567). For its part, Sarayna's text was translated into Italian by Orlando Pescetti and published in 1586 alongside a reprint of the same author's Le historie e fatti de' Veronesi ... (originally published in 1542) by Girolamo Discepoli. This version does not have Caroto's, or indeed any, illustrations. It was reprinted by Francesco de' Rossi of Verona in 1649. The Latin text also appears in a compilation entitled Italiae illustratae, seu Rerum urbiumque Italicarum scriptores varii notae melioris ... (Frankfurt, 1600), and much later, with additional material, in Graevius' Thesaurus antiquitatum ... Italiae (IX, part 7, [1725]).! %tThe physical complexities of the work are chiefly due to the printer's attempts to fit a series of large woodcuts into a small folio volume, although this does seem to have been undertaken with little forethought, and the 'Chartarvm Ordo.' on the final leaf goes only some way to explaining the structure of an ideal copy. There are some variations between surviving copies, especially in the two sheets signed LLL and LLLL, and in gatherings G, ︣ 2 ︣and F. However, it seems clear from the form of the signatures and the sequence of folio numbers that LLL and LLLL are both intended to be treated as single leaves, and bound folded, rather than as standard bifolia (see Illustrations above). Gathering G appears to have been designed to be bound in the normal way but, perhaps after printing, it was realised that the cut on G1b extends some way onto G4a, and in most copies this gathering has therefore been split up and bounde as G2.3 and G1.4 (or vice versa). The correct positions for 1︣, 21︣ and F1 are probably as described above, since this keeps the images of the 'Theatrum' and the 'Amphitheatrum' together. This is the structure of one of the Hofer copies, which has these three leaves signed in manuscript, 1︣ as 'CC', 21︣ as 'CCC', and F1 as 'F' (see Harvard Cat. II, 462). If this is correct, then the foliation can be made to work between leaves 8 and 13 by treating one of the three intermediate leaves (C, ︣or 2)︣ as two, which is quite plausible, given the large size of 1︣. If F1 (a view of the Amphitheatre) is bound after E2, this supplies leaves [17] and [18], but leaves a lacuna before leaf 20. This problem has been solved in the BAL copy by transposing 1︣ and F1, and counting the former as three leaves. In this copy, if single folded leaves are counted as one, and the triple folded leaf as three, the foliation is complete up to 25, although the images of the Theatre and Amphitheatre are now jumbled up, with the large folded section of the former some distance from the related text (which appears on B4 and C1; the Amphitheatre is discussed on D1-E1). The British Library copy (180.k.4) is as described above, save that ︣and 2 ︣are reversed (which is equally logical), followed by F, which is bound folded rather than as a bifolium; thus, in this copy, the foliation works up to leaf 15 (if ︣is counted as a single leaf), but there is only one more unnumbered leaf (E2) before leaf 20. The Fowler copy lacks the large folded section, and has all the other folded leaves bound as bifolia. In this copy F is bound as described above, but 2 ︣must be bound either before or after gathering E (see Fowler 289). Other copies lack the large section of the theatre, a fact noted by Cicognara who confuses the issue however by mistaking the subject of the view in question for the amphitheatre or 'Arena di Verona' (an error followed by Fowler). The second Hofer copy has ︣bound after LLL, 2 ︣after D2, and F after H2, which makes no sense at all (see Harvard Cat. II, 462). No two copies have been found which are precisely the same, and the physical description given above is an attempt to construct an 'ideal copy' based on a logical sequence of text and images. The printer's intentions remain unclear, however, and it is possible that the exigencies of printing blocks so much larger than the format of the text resulted in a number of changes in the press, even though all the variations so far noted are attributable to a binder's perplexity rather than a printer's ploy.

Roman type. The publisher's woodcut device of a personification of Hope appears on the titlepage, and another incorporating a crayfish is used above the colophon on T4a. Five-line woodcut initials appear on A2b, B1b, B4b, M2a, M4b and P2b.