'The copy has lost its last two pages, which would have included the dated colophon; but the foliation indicates that it is a copy of the 1516 edition.
Tunstall’s copy of the De asse has a number of annotations—it is the only one of his surviving books to be so annotated, showing his interest—which we should probably connect with the process described in 1517 by Erasmus, mentioned above, that Tunstall ‘has worked through the whole of Budé’s De Asse’. The annotations attest the care with which Tunstall read the book. They fall into a number of groups. Many of them are additional marginal annotations, where he has highlighted a word or topic not otherwise highlighted by Budé in one of his marginalia, such as unusual words like ‘Citatus’ (FO LXXVIIr, CXLVIr), ‘Pensitant’ (LXXXVIIIr), ‘Defrutarium’ (CXLIIv) or ‘Repotiis’ (CXLVIIr). Others highlight topics which he also thought worth adding to the index at the beginning of the book, such as ‘Revera’ (LXXXr), ‘vinum nullarum virium’ and ‘vinum ingentium virium’ (CXXXIr), ‘ius quintae relationis’ (CXLVIv), all of which are also squeezed into the index as new entries. He also marked passages of authors, such as the frequent ‘Pli[nii] locus’, as well as the less frequent ‘Lo. Cic[eronis]’, ‘Curtij locus’, ‘Victruvij locus’ or ‘Colum[ellae] locus’. All these were additions very much in the spirit of Budé’s own marginalia. Tunstall also marked some corrections, mostly numerical, which are usual signalled with three dots in a triangular shape: for example, ‘octoginta’ for ‘nonaginta’ (LXVIIr), ‘octi’ge’ties’ for ‘quadringenties’ (LXXv), ‘vicie’s quarter’ for ‘vicies sexies’ (XCVIIr), and so on. He may also make other corrections, of grammar or content, e.g. ‘minimum’ for ‘minime’ (CXXIv), ‘minae’ for ‘drachmae’ (CXXVv). My favourite is where he points out that ‘Iudaea’ should be ‘vidua’, when discussing the widow’s mite (CXLVIIIr)! Other passages are just marked with what looks like a big C monogram; in fact it is a nota mark, an abbreviation of the word semeiosai (σημείωσαι) = nota bene, used by Greek scribes and also found in humanist manuscripts.
A few of the annotations were useful when he came to compile his Appendix, since they marked the passages where Budé discussed ‘Quot Aurei antiqui i’ libra’ (LIXv, CLIIIIv) or ‘Quot sestertia i’ aurea libra’ (LXIIv), but they do not seem closely linked to the writing of the Appendix, since many topics covered there are not annotated.'
(Burnett 2020b, pp. 19-20)
