On the Latin Language

12; 84, 3. 8 (see annotations); 86, 2; 89, 1; 90, 4; 96, 14 and 97, 3 (see annotations); 103, 14; 107, 14 (?); 109, 6 sq. (twice?); 14; 111, 9 (?); 115, 12. 19 sq.; 118, 16; 119, 15. 16. 19; 120, 13; 121, 7 (see annotations); 126, 16; 129, 9. 22 (? see annotations); 130, 28 (?); 133, 20 (?); 136, 15. 18 (see annotations); 138, 2. 6. 12. 19; 139, 6; 140, 3. 5. 19; 144, 5. 15 sq. (see annotations); 145, 21; 150, 25; 151, 1. 29; 153, 7 and 13 (see annotations); 154, 14. 21 (see annotations). 26; 155, 17 sq.; 156, 23 (see annotations). 27; 157, 2. 14; 159, 1 (?); 160, 2 and 11 (?); 162, 9 (see annotations); 163, 12. 27 (see annotations); 164, 30 (see annotations); 166, 26 sq. (see annotations); 167, 7. 12; 168, 7 sq. 13 (?); 169, 22. 23 sq.; 170, 13; 172, 17; 175, 24; 182, 19; 183, 6 sq. 25; 184, 6 and 10 (?). 17; 186, 2. 4. 6. Although such a large number of errors might cause shock or even stir a scruple and doubt, nevertheless so many examples are placed beyond all doubt—not to mention the necessity of the argument being often visible, such as 113, 1 where the scribe himself supplied what was missing after the omitted signs, 53, 7 Priscianus Priscian, 109, 6 and 119, 16 Plautus, 115, 19 sq. where the parallel passage of Cicero comes to our aid—that one should not blame, but approve, if anyone attributes much to this method. Although it is clear in itself—a fact we have often pointed out above—that one cannot affirm the matter more certainly regarding any single passage. And there exists an even greater number of most certain lacunae gaps in the text that do not admit such a cause, but must be attributed either to the mere negligence of the scribes or to stains, fissures, and tears in the mutilated and ill-treated archetype. We are not surprised that quite often pro for (= p), sunt they are (= s̃), non not (= ñ), and others, as well as the modi modes from an abbreviation, have been omitted (cf. annotation to 125, 8). But besides these, there are also overly frequent omissions1: cf. among others 4, 6; 5, 16 (see annotations). 22; 6, 4. 22; 8, 19; 9, 2 (see annotations); 12, 15; 17, 17; 23, 3; 27, 6; 29, 9. 15 (?); 30, 5; 34, 18; 35, 1. 3. 8. 11 sq 19; 36, 8; 38, 4 (see annotations); 42, 24 (see annotations); 45, 1; 46, 5. 12 (see annotations); 54, 3. 21 (see annotations); 57, 12 sq.; 58, 6 and 9 (see annotations); 60, 6; 61, 8 (see annotations); 62, 9. 13 (see annotations); 66, 16 (?); 68, 5. 6; 69, 2; 71, 28. 29; 72, 19 and 73, 7 (see annotations); 74, 5. 10. 13; 75, 8 (see annotations); 77, 12. 20; 78, 10; 79, 9; 83, 2; 85, 9; 87, 7 (see annotations). 15; 90, 15; 93, 8. 20; 95, 9; 96, 14; 99, 9; 107, 6; 108, 6; 110, 1; 113, 12; 114, 10 (see annotations); 116, 11; 119, 1. 6; 120, 6; 127, 5. 11; 128, 11. 13 (see annotations); 129, 9 (see annotations); 130, 16; 131, 19; 136, 20; 145, 2. 16. 22; 148, 1. 23; 152, 26; 153, 7. 27; 154, 2. 21 (see annotations); 156, 23; 158, 12. 25 (see annotations); 160, 2; 163, 8; 164, 2; 165, 18. 21 (?); 167, 17; 168, 25; 173, 3; 178, 11. 16 sq.; 180, 22; 188, 19.

1) Regarding these, learned men have thought mistakenly at 134, 9 and 176, 6 (see annotations), and elsewhere.