Varro: On the Latin Language (De Lingua Latina)

But now, for the reconstruction of the archetype, it is of the highest importance that F accurately indicates the loss of leaves, which it had suffered quite often—but it signifies the lacunae by no means evenly—: cf. at 50, 3 (two leaves), at 91, 11 (one leaf), and at 99, 15 (likewise one); where the lacuna marked shortly after at 100, 14 without an addition, as it seems, is structured far differently and could not have contained more than a few verses from the entire context of the words. Furthermore, cf. at 146, 5, and finally at 179, 3 (three leaves) and at 181, 14 (likewise three). And counting these defects together with those which intervene, and assuming that quaternions gatherings of four sheets also appear in F, even if they are altered in the other part, L. Spengel probably concluded that the archetype consisted of sixteen quaternions, but that leaves IV and V had perished from the fourth, II and VII from the seventh, and I, II, III, and VI, VII, VIII from the fifteenth, while the eleventh had perished entirely. Added to this is the fact that the necessary transposition which George Buchanan and J. Scaliger discovered in the fifth book (cf. at 9, 14 sq. [11, 16 mid. — 13, 21 mid.]) is most easily explained by the same calculation, namely, from the fifth and fourth leaves of the first quaternion having been interchanged.

Just as these are open and manifest examples of defects and transposition, so no one will be surprised that a copy kept so poorly abounds even otherwise in both this and other types of errors and faults.

And we will speak later regarding the suspicion of more intricate transposition in book V §§ 115—183 (p. XL). Cf. also the notes at 177, 28. Regarding a smaller transposition, we advised at 96, 18: it involves placing a verse of about 33 letters before a number of letters almost double that size, which in F corresponds to one verse, and perhaps to two in some older copy. Otherwise—from the returning word aperta open—is explained the transposition perceived by Boot at 131, 25: 132, 1. Again, others are similar to those which we saw indicated above by the scribe himself, such as 15, 7, at 162, 6, and 182, 21. More strange, but necessary, is the permutation of words carried out by Luebbert at 178, 15 sqq. Finally, cf. the notes at 40, 10; 183, 11 sqq.; 189, 11.

Lacunae of letters, syllables, words, and verses claim a much larger space for themselves, such as those marked here and there by the scribe (cf. 16, 9; 93, 12; 100, 14; 133, 1. 10), which are mostly left without a mark. These very often—as in the transposition just mentioned—can be explained by homoeoteleuton similarity of endings or by homoeoarcton similarity of beginnings: cf. 15, 1; 16, 9. 16; 17, 6; 20, 18; 31, 7. 21; 34, 7. 9 (see note). 17; 35, 10. 20; 38, 21 = 50, 10; 39, 15 (see note); 40, 3 (? see note). 13. 16; 45, 3 (see note); 46, 8. 17; 49, 5; 50, 17 and 18 (?); 53, 7; 54, 3. 4. 6 sq.; 61, 8 and 62, 8 (see note); 66, 2. 20; 68, 11; 69, 3; 71, 2. 8; 72, 2; 77, 3 = 79, 19; 80,