On the Latin Language

120, 2; 122, 11; 123, 9. 14; 124, 8; 128, 2. 7. 11; 129, 13; 130, 21. 25; 135, 4; 137, 8. 14; 140, 19. 21; 144, 1 sq. 5. 13. 16. 21. 24; 147, 3; 149, 22; 155, 23; 156, 15; 157, 25 sq.; 158, 2. 6. 17. 20. 22; 160, 14. 17 sq. 20; 161, 16. 18. 19; 163, 4. 12. 13; 164, 4. 22. 29; 165, 7. 9. 10; 166, 9. 15. 18. 25; 167, 5. 16; 168, 10. 19; 169, 20. 23; 170, 4. 18. 23. 24. 32; 171, 4. 5. 9. 18. 22. 26; 172, 1. 3. 8. 19; 174, 6. 8. 19. 20; 175, 7. 13. 18; 176, 5. 31; 177, 11. 21; 178, 13 sq. 18; 179, 1. 6. 7. 19. 26; 180, 19; 183, 8. 11. 17. 18; 184, 14. 20. 28; 185, 15; 186, 27; 187, 8; 188, 2. 12. 25; 189, 14. 21. 29; 190, 7. 9. 20; 191, 2. A special place among the corrections is held by the transposition signs original: "signa traiectionis" (cf. 6, 21; 10, 13; 18, 16 sq.; 20, 5 sq.; 21, 18. 20 sq. [where it was hidden until now]; 30, 1; 93, 1; 113, 5; 133, 2; 141, 6; 144, 17 sq.; 163, 14; 170, 32; 174, 16; 175, 27 sq.; 182, 2): the meaning of these is generally very clear—even if men have sometimes erred in interpreting them—except for 163, 14, where it is doubted because of the mangled meaning (where see note).

In both these transposition signs and in other corrections (cf. 5, 12. 13; 6, 7. 13. 26. 29; 8, 19; 12, 8; 15, 9. 13; 23, 19; 25, 8. 16 sqq. 20; 26, 12; 29, 15; 30, 11; 33, 14; 35, 3. 5; 82, 16; 83, 13; 86, 3. 11. 16; 88, 9. 23; 89, 9. 16; 92, 3; 94, 5. 8. 9; 95, 11; 106, 1. 2; 109, 11. 13; 110, 11. 15; 111, 11; 114, 4 sq.; 117, 9; 119, 11; 128, 19; 144, 13; 154, 16; 157, 25 sq.; 165, 11) a question arises regarding the second hand: those who have collated the codex differ greatly in defining it. We agree entirely on this matter with what Keil presented in Spengel's commentary, p. 434: perhaps even those places that seem to belong to another scribe could have proceeded from the first hand; yet certainly if the same person wrote it, he did not correct it immediately, but afterwards, usually with a more slender duct. Therefore, where we write m. 2 second hand, we do not signify a different scribe so much as a later correction; nor do the first and second hands differ from each other in the reason or method of correcting. And we have also indicated that in the continuous context, one must think either of several scribes or of the writing intervals mentioned earlier (p. XV) (cf. also 101, 4). We can remain silent regarding the recent hand that appears here and there. Now, regarding the various corrections listed just now, it generally holds true that the errors of a scribe writing too quickly have been amended, but we find that sometimes even things that were correct have been changed for the worse. Finally, most errors of the same types have been left untouched, which seem at the very least to have existed in the archetype.

But before we put forward some things concerning the flaws of memory, briefly...1) Cf. also A. Spengel 'Ber. d. bayer. Akad.' year 1885, p. 254 sqq.