Varro: On the Latin Language (De Lingua Latina)

Simpler defects, often more similar to the previous ones, are those that have arisen from haplographia accidental omission of repeated words or lettersRegarding this, we have stated in the notes that one should not consider the opinion of L. Spengel at 67, 3 and 76, 12, etc., such as—to say nothing of single letters written only once—these passages illustrate: 4, 9; 11, 1; 19, 17; 25, 6; 30, 7; 79, 8; 85, 17 (? see note); 105, 8; 112, 1; 115, 17. 20; 118, 14 and 121, 12 (?); 122, 9; 124, 6; 132, 15; 137, 21; 149, 7 (see note); 158, 21; 159, 14; 160, 5; 182, 16; 183, 17; 186, 11; 187, 1. To these places we now add 131, 25, where, since we had propagated the common reading from the Aldine early printed edition longus instead of longi along with the earlier ones, you might even consider longior longer original: "orator": for the intervening comparative is defended by Quintilian Institutio II 13, 5 and similar places.

But far more frequent in F than haplographies is the error of dittographiarum accidental duplication of letters or words, which—to set aside again examples of single letters written twice, as well as passages corrected by the scribe himself (such as 10, 22 sq.; 29, 2 sq.; 30, 15; 104, 3; 115, 6 sq.; 117, 6; 118, 5; 128, 2; 134, 1; 136, 17; 144, 17; 146, 1; 150, 5 and 17; 168, 22)—we discover in these places: 10, 12 sq. 25; 12, 16. 17; 13, 16 sq. (see note); 16, 18; 17, 12; 22, 2 sq. 5; 24, 3; 28, 12; 31, 8; 33, 20; 37, 4 (? see note); 46, 6; 50, 7; 52, 17 and 53, 3 (where Priscian is free from error); 62, 5; 68, 6; 74, 6 sq. (?); 77, 22; 81, 6; 88, 23; 90, 8; 95, 9 (?); 96, 14 (see note); 97, 21; 101, 16; 105, 17 sq.; 107, 14 (?); 110, 2; 114, 16; 119, 9; 123, 14; 126, 20; 127, 12; 131, 17. 20; 134, 4. 13; 135, 5. 22; 136, 20; 137, 15; 143, 19 (see note); 150, 30; 151, 28; 152, 1. 12; 153, 1. 17; 156, 20. 21; 159, 3. 6 (see note); 160, 1; 162, 20; 163, 24 sq.; 167, 14. 19; 168, 14; 169, 11; 175, 19; 176, 2. 5; 177, 27; 178, 4; 181, 24; 183, 12 sq.; 185, 29 sq. (see note to 185, 28); 187, 11.

Now, while these additions might have arisen by chance or rather from the negligence of the scribe, there are not lacking those that seem to be attributable to the deliberate intention of those who augmented the text with interpolationibus later insertions. Although we concede that this area is more slippery, and scholars have not rarely strayed from the truth or the likely truth in establishing interpretations. And most recently, Roehrscheidt, in his review of the Reitzenstein bookThis review became known to us after the text and annotations had already been printed., sometimes fell into that traditional error of imputing to a 'corrector' things that cause difficulty, even if it is not at all easier to explain why he wrote them that way. Thus, nothing is explained at all, but rather the difficulty is increased. Indeed, at 52, 9 sq., since an interpolation is manifest from the testimony of Priscian, the suspicion is also prone in other places regarding...