previous next

List of Examples

Additional examples of omission:—

(1) of word by Haplography:

(2) of syllable by Haplography:

(3) of unintelligible word:

(4) of small, unimportant word:

(5) of line:

(6) of word, through homoeoteleuton:

In Nonius 67. 25 (a passage of Varro) “quibus erant pecuniae satis, locupletis, adsiduos”, the similar ending of the two words satis and locupletis has caused the scribe of the Laurentian MS. to omit the first, satis, though both stand in the Leyden MS., of which the Laurentian is a copy.

The following corrupt lines I would emend on the supposition that their error is the loss of a word by haplography:—

The word hominis (written hois with a line above, see ch. vii. § 5) may have been lost after hujus (hoius) in lines like:

The word ego (often confused with eo, ch. v. § 12) may have been lost after -eo of video in Most. 1120séd eccum tui gnatí sodalem vídeo <ego> huc incédere.

In Merc. 319, where old Demipho is excusing himself for falling in love, A offers apparently: “humánum amarest átque id vi obtingit deum.
” But P has: “humanum amarest, humanum autem ignoscere est.
” Perhaps the passage originally ran: “humánum amarest, húmanum autem ignóscerest.
humánum (? ego patior), átque id vi obtingít deum.

In the Menaechmi, the Latin Comedy of Errors, at v. 278, P offers: “Menacchme, salve. Di te amabunt, quisquis ego sim.

But A shows two lines of which only the beginnings1 MENaechM and QVISQVISd are legible. I would restore the lines thus: “Menaéchme, salve. te amabunt, quísquis es.
Quisquís! deliras. nón tu scis quis égo siem?

The eye of the scribe of P seems to have wandered from the quisquis of v. 278 to the quis immediately below, in v. 279. In another passage of the same play (vv. 163 sq.) one of the Menaechmi hands the Parasite a cloak, and asks him if he can by smelling it guess who the owner is. After the line: “écquid tu de odóre possis, síquid forte olféceris”, P has the single line: “facere conjecturam captum sit collegium”; but A shows two lines of which only the first half can be read: “FACERECOIECTVRAmCVMi
” Here the eye of the scribe of P may have wandered from the conjecturam of v. 164 to the same or a similar word in v. 165, though no one has yet succeeded in making a satisfactory guess about the intervening words.

In Truc. 38, the famous comparison of lovers to fish caught in a net: “dum huc, dum illuc reteor impedit,
” the corruption or of the MSS. may be due to a blot having obscured the rest of the word in the original. I would restore to the passage the word orata, a goldfish (Festus 202 Th.), and read: “dum húc, dum illuc réte oratas ímpedit,
” with the same metrical hiatus of dum as in Cas. 612 of cum:cum hác, cum istac, cúmque amica ctiám tua.

The missing word in Most. 802 (bacchiac metre) began with s. Was it supersedere?miséricordiá supersedére hominem opórtet.

Aul. 406 (the opening line of the scene) begins in the MSS. with the word Optati, which does not suit the sense. Some interjection seems to be required: “Optaticives, populares, incolae, accolae, advenae omnes,
dáte viam qua fúgere liceat, fácite totae pláteae pateant.
” I fancy it was Attatae, written with a common misspelling Aptatae (cf. p. 71) in the archetype, which in the original of our MSS. appeared as ptatae or ptati (the latter a grammatical correction, ch. i. § 9), with the initial letter left unsupplied by the “rubricator.”

1 I write in capitals the letters which seem certain.

Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 United States License.

An XML version of this text is available for download, with the additional restriction that you offer Perseus any modifications you make. Perseus provides credit for all accepted changes, storing new additions in a versioning system.

hide Display Preferences
Greek Display:
Arabic Display:
View by Default:
Browse Bar: