W. M. Lindsay, An Introduction to Latin Textual Emendation

List of Examples

(1) of word by Haplography:

• Cas. 556 “síquid ejus éssct, essct mécum postulátio” (A: ejus esset mecum P).
• Cas. 600 “tuam arcéssituram esse úxorem uxorém meam” (A: esse uxorem meam P).
• Epid. 245 “ínquit altera ílli: ibi illa nóminat Stratíppoclem” (illi ibi illi A: illi ibi P).
• Mil. 606 “átque eadem, quae illís voluisti fáccre, illi faciúnt tibi” (A: omits; illi P).
• Capt. 447 “ét tua et tua húc ornatus réveniam ex senténtia” (P: et tua huc OJ).
• Merc. 565 “quid fáciam? Quod opust fácto, facito ut cógites” (B: opust facto ut CD).
• Merc. 765 “non, nón te odisse aiébat, sed uxorém suam” (AB: non te CD).
• Mil. 837 “bonó subpromo et prómo cellam créditam” (om. et promo CD).
• Poen. 921 “nunc si eadem hie iterum iterem inscitiast” (A: hic iterum inscitiast P).
• The omission is deliberate in Amph. 723: “énimvero praegnáti oportet ét mălum et mālúm dari”, where the second et malum, rightly copied by the scribe, has been subsequently erased in D.

(2) of syllable by Haplography:

Mil. 1171 revcrearis A, revearis P.
Mil. 1412 verberabere A, verberare P.
Mil. 1172 formam amoenitatem A, formamoenitatis P.
Capt. 907 pro praefectura mea A, praefecturam et P.
Epid. 231 crocotulam A, crutulam BJ.
• In Nonius 34.10 “everriculum genus est retis, a verrendo dictum: vel quod trahatur, vel quod, si quid fuerit piscium nactum, everrat”, the Leyden MS. has rightly vel quod si quid, but its direct copy, the Laurentian, has vel si quid with omission of quod. In 37.17 qui inscriptum of the Leyden MS. is copied as quin scriptum.
• A syllable has been omitted, but not through haplography, by the Laurentian scribe in 198. 6, where he has written caniculam for the canaliculam of his Leyden original.

(3) of unintelligible word:

• Cas. 804 “nám quid illaec tám diu intus rémorantur remelígines?” (A: om. remeligines P).
• Epid. 95 “át enim— bat enim: níhil est istue: pláne hoc corruptúmst caput” (A: om. at enim bat enim P).
• Mil. 205 “déxterum. ita veheménter eicit: quód agit aegre súppetit” (A: om. cicit P).
• Truc. 148 “copia hic”. This was written in P copiac lic (through misreading the letter H of the original, ch. vi. § 1), which has been faithfully copied by B, while CD leave a blank space after copiac.
• Poen. 900 “Carthagine” (A). This was miswritten in P, and appears in CD as sariagine, while B leaves a blank space.
• Asin. 438 “trapezitam”. This was written in the original et rapezitam, and is so reproduced by B, while D has et rape followed by a blank space. In the original of EJ it was transcribed in the form et rapere ita.
• Merc. 687 “quamveis”. This, the spelling in A, was apparently also the form in P. In B it appears as quamvis, but in the original of CD as quam, with omission of the unintelligible veis.

(4) of small, unimportant word:

• Truc. 215 “verum ápud hunc mea era súa consilia súmma eloquitur líbere” (A: om. sua P).
• Truc. 216 “magisque ádeo ei consiliárius hic amícust quam auxiliárius” (om. ei A).
• Poen. 893 “fácile. Fac ergo id fácile noscam ego, út ille possit nóscere” (A: om. ego P).
• Pseud. 375 “si íd non adfert, pósse opinor fácere me officiúm meum” (A: om. me P).
• Cas. 47 “postquam éa adolevit ád eam aetatem, út viris （A: om. ca P） placere posset.”
• Epid. 225 “quid istuc tam mirabile est?” (A: om. tam P).
• Mil. 791 “ítaque eam huc ornátam adducas: éx matronarúm modo” (A: om. ex P).
• Mil. 1138 “neminem pol video” (P: om. pol A).
• In Nonius 38.24 (a line of Lucilius) “quídni et tu idem inlítteratum me átque idiotam díceres?” the scribe of the Laurentian MS. has omitted et tu of its Leyden original; in 19. 2 the scribe of the Harleian MS., a direct copy of the Laurentian, has written qua for in qua.

(5) of line:

In the original of CD
“haéret haec res, síquidem ego absens súm quam praesens lóngior,
”
Trin. 904:
was omitted, the previous line (v. 903) having the same ending longior. In the same original the equivalent of a line was omitted in a passage of the Rudens (vv. 470-1) from the same cause: “nusquam hércle equidem illam vídeo: ludos mé facit.
adpónam hercle urnam jám ego hanc in mediá via,
” where CD read: “nusquam hercle urnam jam ego hanc in media via”, omitting all the words from equidem to the second hercle.

• “

  AMPH.
  Quíd nunc, mulier? aúdin illum?
  

  ALC.
  Ego véro, ac falsum dícere.
  

  AMPH.
  Néque tu illi neque míhi viro ipsi crédis?
  

  ALC.
  Eo fit, quía mihi
  plúrumum credo.
  ”

  Amph. 755

  The similar beginning (ego and eo, ch. v. § 12) of Alcumena's two remarks led to the loss of all the words between illum and eo in the original of BDEJ. They are added by the corrector in B (p. 41).
• Cas. 570 “nam méo quidem animo, qui ádvocatos ádvocet” (A). The line is omitted in P. The preceding line ends with advocaverit.
• Mil. 852 “non hércle tam istoc válide cassabánt cadi”. This line, found in P, is omitted in A. The preceding line ends with sistebant cadi.
Aul. 426 was omitted in the original of V(E)J, because it has the same ending, caput sentit, as v. 425.
Epid. 81-85. The repetition of nunc quo in these two lines has led to the omission of the whole intervening passage in the original of VEJ.
Mil. 727-9. The homoeoteleuton and homoeoarchon of these lines has led to omission, but fortunately not to the same omission, in the Ambrosian Palimpsest, in the archetype of our minuscule MSS., and in some early MS. of Nonius, where this passage is quoted (p. 415 M.) (see the critical apparatus of the Ritschl edition of this play).
Epid. 415 ends with divinam domi; v. 419 with divinam tibi domi. The original of BVEJ omitted vv. 416-9, which have been added in the bottom margin of B by the corrector (p. 41), with a sign h.p., answering to a sign h.d. in the text (cf. p. 35).

(6) of word, through homoeoteleuton:

In Nonius 67. 25 (a passage of Varro) “quibus erant pecuniae satis, locupletis, adsiduos”, the similar ending of the two words satis and locupletis has caused the scribe of the Laurentian MS. to omit the first, satis, though both stand in the Leyden MS., of which the Laurentian is a copy.

The following corrupt lines I would emend on the supposition that their error is the loss of a word by haplography:—

• Most. 625 “id, <id> volo mihi díci, id me scire éxpeto.”
• Capt. 772 “néc <quicquam> quoiquam hómini supplicáre nunc certúmst mihi.”
• Pseud. 240 “mane, máne: jam ut voles med ésse, ita ero. Nunc tú sapis, <nunc tu sápiu's>.”
• Mil. 754 “quíd opus fuit hoc <súmpto> sumptu tánto nostra grátia?”
• Pseud. 1022 “si occásionem cápsit, qui <sic> sít malus” (cf. v. 1130 “sic scelestu's”).
• Most. 445 “pultábo. heus, ecquis <ist> ist? aperitín foris?” (istist for isti est, “is there”).

The word hominis (written hois with a line above, see ch. vii. § 5) may have been lost after hujus (hoius) in lines like:

• Capt. 275 “nam ád sapientiam hujus <hominis> nímius nugatór fuit.”
• Capt. 9-10 “eumque híne profugiens véndidit in Álide patri hújusce <hominis>: jám hoc tenetis? óptumest.”
• Poen. 83 “sed illi patruo hujus <hóminis>, qui vivít senex.”

The word ego (often confused with eo, ch. v. § 12) may have been lost after -eo of video in Most. 1120 “séd eccum tui gnatí sodalem vídeo <ego> huc incédere.”

In Merc. 319, where old Demipho is excusing himself for falling in love, A offers apparently: “humánum amarest átque id vi obtingit deum.
” But P has: “humanum amarest, humanum autem ignoscere est.
” Perhaps the passage originally ran: “humánum amarest, húmanum autem ignóscerest.
humánum (? ego patior), átque id vi obtingít deum.
”

In the Menaechmi, the Latin Comedy of Errors, at v. 278, P offers: “Menacchme, salve. Di te amabunt, quisquis ego sim.”

But A shows two lines of which only the beginnings¹ MENaechM and QVISQVISd are legible. I would restore the lines thus: “Menaéchme, salve. Dí te amabunt, quísquis es.
Quisquís! deliras. nón tu scis quis égo siem?
”

The eye of the scribe of P seems to have wandered from the quisquis of v. 278 to the quis immediately below, in v. 279. In another passage of the same play (vv. 163 sq.) one of the Menaechmi hands the Parasite a cloak, and asks him if he can by smelling it guess who the owner is. After the line: “écquid tu de odóre possis, síquid forte olféceris”, P has the single line: “facere conjecturam captum sit collegium”; but A shows two lines of which only the first half can be read: “FACERECOIECTVRAmCVMi
Cuoi*S*ASVttVS.
” Here the eye of the scribe of P may have wandered from the conjecturam of v. 164 to the same or a similar word in v. 165, though no one has yet succeeded in making a satisfactory guess about the intervening words.

In Truc. 38, the famous comparison of lovers to fish caught in a net: “dum huc, dum illuc rete † or impedit,
” the corruption or of the MSS. may be due to a blot having obscured the rest of the word in the original. I would restore to the passage the word orata, a goldfish (Festus 202 Th.), and read: “dum húc, dum illuc réte oratas ímpedit,
” with the same metrical hiatus of dum as in Cas. 612 of cum: “cum hác, cum istac, cúmque amica ctiám tua.”

The missing word in Most. 802 (bacchiac metre) began with s. Was it supersedere? “miséricordiá supersedére hominem opórtet.
”

Aul. 406 (the opening line of the scene) begins in the MSS. with the word Optati, which does not suit the sense. Some interjection seems to be required: ““Optati” cives, populares, incolae, accolae, advenae omnes,
dáte viam qua fúgere liceat, fácite totae pláteae pateant.
” I fancy it was Attatae, written with a common misspelling Aptatae (cf. p. 71) in the archetype, which in the original of our MSS. appeared as ptatae or ptati (the latter a grammatical correction, ch. i. § 9), with the initial letter left unsupplied by the “rubricator.”