On the Latin Language

With this example proposed, we add that we have indicated the distinctions, abbreviations, and distribution of verses here in the apparatus only in those places where the matter seemed noteworthy for some reason, or where the words absolutely had to be presented. For instance, a distinction was not to be entirely neglected, because quite often what learned men had corrected by conjecture was actually read correctly in the book itself, while in other cases a significant error was observed.

Very little need be said about abbreviations: for even those that Spengel cites in the preface² (p. V) as "less common" are in reality common. And it is strange that the same man, in a note to V 69 (p. 22, 11), wrote that the abbreviation q q̃ quoque (also) added in the margin by the manuscript hand F² is not found elsewhere: for it returns immediately at 28, 5 in the verse itself and in many other places (such as 137, 14; 139, 12; 146, 3; 154, 6; 168, 14; 179, 13; 183, 17). dr dicitur (it is said) and similar forms are not more notable (but rather that at 37, 17 de = dicunt they say [see note] and similarly 40, 9 de = dicam I will say [but cf. note], 107, 14 di = dicam I will say, we have dared to hypothesize). Furthermore, cf. note at 128, 2.

Accents appear frequently, which we have considered worth noting in a few places, such as quaré (or -éˢ) — which appears immediately on the first page of the codex (above v. 27) — because of Keil's error (at 93, 14, where he derives either quarem or quare?): this accent is almost always preserved unless it is distracted by something. Cf. also 119, 3; 162, 12; 188, 28. Likewise, 142, 5 q̃ is read (= qui, that is, quomodo how). Furthermore, 144, 24 sq. one might easily draw analogîas to the Greek ἀναλογίας analogies, but it may also be repeated from faulty pronunciation.

We have observed the corrections of the ancient scribes even more accurately than our predecessors, the frequency of which is of some value for forming a judgment regarding the authority of the codex and the necessity of critical art.1) Sometimes a correction made long ago lies hidden in what appears to be continuous script, such as 5, 22 c (for cuiusque); 18, 10 (uelãina?); 43, 11 sq. (ee); 44, 1 (circum); 45, 20. 22 (see apparatus); 51, 10 (cf. note); 86, 11 (dē disp.); 96, 3 (cf. note); 114, 1 (see apparatus); 135, 9 (le simili); 148, 5 (cōn cum); 148, 10 sq. (cf. note); 160, 5 (cf. note); 162, 26 (cf. note); 175, 19; 184, 18; 187, 5 (is casus); 190, 15 (see apparatus). Cf. among other places to be cited later, notes at 4, 14. 15; 5, 7. 9; 6, 3. 13. 30; 7, 6. 12; 8, 9. 11; 11, 1; 12, 2; 13, 9. 17; 17, 13. 15 sq.; 19, 15. 20; 20, 11; 22, 11; 24, 13. 27; 25, 13 (?); 27, 15. 20; 29, 2. 7. 13; 30, 3. 13; 31, 8; 32, 2; 34, 4. 7. 9; 35, 3. 4. 15; 36, 4; 79, 19; 80, 13. 14; 81, 7; 83, 1. 12. 14; 85, 9. 11; 87, 7; 88, 26; 89, 16; 91, 2; 93, 18; 94, 2. 14 sq. 16; 95, 18; 96, 10. 12; 97, 1. 21; 98, 2. 18; 99, 6. 12; 100, 10; 101, 2. 14; 103, 2. 9; 104, 3. 15; 106, 8; 107, 2. 6; 108, 12; 110, 7; 111, 11 sq.; 113, 2. 7 sq.; 117, 6. 9; 119, 3.