Varro: On the Latin Language (De Lingua Latina)

16; 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 unique place among the corrections is held by transposition signs1 (cf. at 6, 21; 10, 13; 18, 16 sq.; 20, 5 sq.; 21, 18. 20 sq. [where it had lain 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): it is generally very clear what these mean—even if men have sometimes erred in interpreting them—except that at 163, 14 it is doubted due to a mangled meaning (where see the notes).

Both in these transposition signs and in other corrections (cf. at 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) the question is raised regarding the "second hand": those who have collated the codex differ greatly among themselves in defining this. In this matter, we entirely agree with what Keil stated in Spengel's commentary, page 434: perhaps even those places which seem to be by another scribe could have originated from the first hand; but certainly, if the same person wrote it, he did not correct it immediately, but afterward, usually with a thinner stroke. Therefore, where we write m. 2 second hand, we do not signify a different scribe so much as a later correction: nor do hands 1 and 2 differ between themselves in the manner or method of correcting. Furthermore, we indicated that in the continuous context, one must consider either multiple scribes or the intervals of writing places mentioned earlier (p. XV) (cf. also at 101, 4). We can remain silent regarding the recent hand which appears here and there. Now, concerning the various corrections just enumerated, it holds true in general that the errors of a faster-writing scribe were most often amended, but we also sometimes find that passages which were correct were changed for the worse. Finally, most of the mistakes of the same types were left untouched, which seem to have been already in the archetype, at least for the most part.

But before we bring forward some points concerning the faults of memory, briefly...

1) Cf. also A. Spengel, 'Ber. d. bayer. Akad.', year 1885, pp. 254 sqq.