On the Latin Language, Vol. I

Then also vi. 49 and vi. 45 may have changed places, but I have not introduced this into the present text; I have however adopted the transfer of x. 18 from its manuscript position after x. 20, to the position before x. 19, which the continuity of the thought clearly demands.

The text of F is unfortunately very corrupt, and while there are corrections both by the first hand and by a second hand, it is not always certain that the corrections are to be justified.

THE ORTHOGRAPHY OF THE

DE LINGUA LATINA ON THE LATIN LANGUAGE

The orthography of F contains not merely many corrupted spellings which must be corrected, but also many variant spellings which are within the range of recognized Latin orthography, and these must mostly be retained in any edition. For there are many points on which we are uncertain of Varro’s own practice, and he even speaks of certain permissible variations: if we were to standardize his orthography, we should do constant violence to the best manuscript tradition, without any assurance that we were in all respects restoring Varro’s own spelling. Moreover, as this work is on language, Varro has intentionally varied some spellings to suit his etymological argument; any extensive normalization might, and probably would, do him injustice in some passages. Further, Varro quotes from earlier authors who used an older orthography; we do not know whether Varro, in quoting from them, tried to