Errors of Substitution
Substitution of a gloss for the word it explainsWe have seen in the last chapter that a gloss, or explanatory word, written in the original MS. over a difficult word, has often in the copy been inserted in the text. In many cases it has been substituted for the word which it was designed to explain (cf. p. 54). Thus in Virgil
the ignotos, which is in some MSS. substituted for ignaros, seems to be nothing but an explanation of the unusual passive sense of ignaros, and its appearance in the text is due to the error of some copyist, who found in his original: “rara per ignarosignotos errent animalia montis,” and who wrongly imagined that the purpose with which ignotos had been written above ignaros was to correct a mistake and not to explain a difficult term. The suprascript gloss was often preceded by the contraction i. or id with cross-stroke through d, standing for id est. In Capt. 832, a line quoted by Nonius as an instance of the adverb assulatim, “in splinters,” from assula, “a splinter”: “príusquam pultando ássulatim fóribus exitium ádfero,” we find assulatim replaced in the minuscule MSS. by the two words vel assultatim. This may have been a suprascript gloss, but was more probably a suprascript variant reading. For a variant or emendation was usually preceded by vel, written vl with cross-stroke through l (often mistaken for ut), or l with cross-stroke (so here in B), or else by al., standing for alter or aliter or alius codex.1 In Asin. 670 this sign al. is miscopied ADOL(escens) in D. The practice of writing interlinear and marginal glosses was a very old one; and the substitution of the explanation for the explained word is often of very early date. In the description of the greedy guests in Mil. 762 P has: “séd procellunt se ét procumbunt dímidiati dum áppetunt,” a line which scans perfectly, and has nothing about it to excite suspicion, were it not that it recurs fifteen lines below, having been rewritten, probably in the bottom margin of the page in the proto-archetype (see above, p. 35), in this form: “sed procumbunt in mensam dimidiati petunt,” perhaps originally sed procumbunt sed in mensam dum dimidiati petunt (or dimidiati dum appetunt). Now in the dictionary of Festus we find the old word procellunt explained by procumbunt, though in another passage of the same dictionary this line is quoted as sed procumbunt in mensam. This makes one suspect that the line as written by Plautus was: “séd procellunt séd2 in mensam dímidiati dum áppetunt,” and that procumbunt is a gloss on procellunt se in mensam, which at an early period found its way into the text. In early dictionaries, or “glossaries,”3 as they are called, the stock interpretation of O. Lat. oro tecum is rogo te. This gloss has ousted the Plautine word in A in Most. 682, where P begins the line rightly with bonum aequomque oras, but A destroys the metre with bonum aequomque rogas. The same gloss appears in P in Pers. 321, a line which in A ends with quod mecum dudum orasti, but in P with quod me dudum rogasti.
Substitution of classical for archaic formThe substitution of the classical for an archaic form, discussed in chap. i, e.g. íllic for illi adv., may often be really the substitution of a suprascript or marginal gloss. Thus in Amph. 631 the original of BDEJ seems to have had, like B, the Plautine adverb sĭmītu, “together,” in the text explained by simul in the margin. This simitu is retained by E, but simul is substituted for it in J, while the scribe of D wrote first simitu, then changed it to simul.
Wrong treatment of correction in original: good evidence that one MS is derived from anotherThis is the best place for mentioning a common cause of corruption in MSS., namely the wrong treatment by the copyist of a correction which he found in his original. In Amph. 1083 the original of BDEJ had mea, rightly corrected to meorum in this way: mea.orum. But none of the copies has got the word correctly. B has mearum, D morum, while the common original of EJ, another copy of the original of BD, had mea. Mistakes of this kind are usually the best evidence of the derivation of one MS. from another. The Harleian MS. of Nonius is proved to be a copy of the Laurentian codex by proofs of this sort, as well as other evidence. For example, the strange reading baretere (for baetere) of the Harleian in Nonius 77 M. 19 is clearly due to a misconception of the correction in the Laurentian, bretere;a its maulta (for multa） in 103 M. 25 is explained by the mataul of the older codex; its laum (for lanitium) in 212 M. 20 is due to a mistaking of the transposition signs for deleting signs in the lacinium corrected to lanicium of its original (cf. p. 32).
Substitution of word from contextA scribe often substituted for the true word a word from the immediate context, in a temporary aberration of mind. In Cicero Orator § 98, for example, acuteque has been substituted for arguteque; and if we seek for the cause, we find it in the previous occurrence of the word acuto in the sentence: “qui in illo subtili et acuto elaboravit, ut callide arguteque diceret.”
Substitution of word from parallel passageOften the substituted word comes from a parallel passage, which was in the mind of the scribe as he was writing. In Propertius ii. 1. 58: “solus amor morbi non habet artificem”, has been written non amat artificem, through a reminiscence of i. 2. 8: “nudus amor formae non amat artificem.” (On this error see also ch. i. § 14.）
Substitution of ecclesiastical or biblical wordsThe mediaeval scribes were monks; so it is not surprising that the parallel passage that occurred to their minds was often a passage from the Bible. A well-known example is Horace
where a whole class of MSS. substitutes pardus for pagus, the scribe of their common original having allowed his thoughts to revert to the passage of Isaiah (xi. 6): “habitabit lupus cum agno et pardus cum haedo accubabit.” Other substitutions that tell of monk-copyists are mentioned below.
Confusion of similar wordsBut the most widely extended error of substitution is the confusion of words that are similar in appearance. Many cases of this confusion really belong to chap. vi (Confusion of Letters) or chap. vii (Confusion of Contractions); for the substitution in a Latin MS. of lubet for jubet (iubet) means that the copyist has mistaken the letter i for the letter l (see ch. vi. § 1), and the substitution of quidem for quid est means that he has wrongly expanded the contraction ē (see ch. vii. § 2). Again, the substitution of tribus for tribubus is, properly speaking, a case of Haplography (see ch. iii. § 1); and so on. But it will be convenient for practical purposes to treat in this chapter all cases of the confusion of words, whatever the secret influence may have been. In most cases it is merely the general similarity of the words that has caused the mistake, e.g. militia for malitia. Here too the monk-copyist often betrays himself. In Horace MSS., for example, he has substituted amen for amem with comical result in
; similarly externa pacata becomes aeterna peccata, Hebrum is transformed to Hebraeum, etc. In Plautus MSS. the case is common of an archaic word, unfamiliar to the scribe, having been replaced by a familiar word of similar appearance; e.g. fuant (B), the subjunctive of O. Lat. fuo (whence fui), has become fiant in Pseud. 1029 (CD). Such substitution, however, is rather a case of deliberate emendation, and belongs to chap. i.
Substitution through insertion or omission of syllableVery commonly the substituted word differs from the genuine word in the insertion of a syllable. Thus infamia becomes in familia (e.g. in MSS. of Livy xlv. 38. 10), consido becomes considero. We must excuse such mistakes when we consider that a mediaeval scribe was in the habit of finding in his originals contractions like aia for anima, and syllables like er, us etc. expressed by shorthand signs (see ch. vii. § 1) which were often very faint and hardly discernible. The opposite error, of omitting a syllable, by which, for example, periratus has become piratus in Truc. 656, has been already mentioned in ch. iii. § 10. Diminutives, it should be noticed, are often confused with the simple word; e.g. servolus becomes servus (Asin. Arg. 4), primulo becomes primo (Cas. 40), saccum becomes sacculum (Capt. 90). Similarly frequentatives with simple verbs, e.g. clamito and clamo (cf. Most. 6); and 2nd singular with 2nd plural imperative, e.g. intercludite for interclude (Mil. 223; see Leo's note).
Substitution due to Late Latin pronunciationSpecial attention must be called to one cause of the confusion of words, namely Late Latin pronunciation. In Late Latin, for example, sci and si had a similar pronunciation, as we see from Italian, e.g. Ital. scimmia for Lat. simia (cf. scimia for simia in our minuscule MSS. in Mil. 179). To a scribe sis and scis, sitis and scitis were more or less equivalent forms, and the sci-forms of the original might appear as si-forms in the copy and vice versa. So with sce and se, e.g. quiesce and quiesse. Again, the diphthong ae had come to be a simple vowel like e; and a scribe wrote equus for aequus of the original as readily as we might write “gaol” for “jail.” The coincidence of the pronunciation of b and v made benefica and venefica equivalents (cf. Epid. 221, where veneficam is in the Palimpsest beneficam), and led to the coining of a new word for “sorceress,” viz. malefica. H was dropped in pronunciation, and so its presence or absence in writing was a matter of little importance; abeo is substituted for habeo, ortus for hortus. It would depend on the amount of education a Carolingian copyist had received and on the amount of attention he paid to his textbooks of orthography whether he left Late Latin misspellings untouched or altered them to the classical form. But it is seldom safe to take such spellings in Carolingian MSS. as e, ae, and oe; ch, ph, th, and c, p, t in words like letum, Bacchus; y and i; ti and ci before a vowel; f and ph, as evidence that this or that spelling was found in the original MS. Much more is this true of varieties of spelling which we ourselves regard as legitimate alternatives, such as quidquid and quicquid, nunquam and numquam, tingo and tinguo, conjux and conjunx, -clum and -culum, and the assimilation or non-assimilation of a preposition in compound verbs, e.g. inlicio and illicio; though of course one scribe differed greatly from another in the fidelity with which the exact spelling of the original was reproduced. In chap. i these Late Latin misspellings have been mentioned, in so far as they led to a wrong correction on the part of Carolingian scribes. Here we are concerned rather with misspellings which had the form of other words and so remained uncorrected. For a fuller account of them I refer the reader to Schuchardt Vokalismus des Vulgärlateins, and content myself here with enumerating a few of the more notable kinds: (1) a for au (cf. Late Lat. Agustus for Augustus, Ital. Agosto). Hence substitutions like catus for cautus (cf. Mil. 603 catalogos for cautela locus), fastus for faustus. (2) b for v, v for b. — Hence confusions of belle and velle, abeo and aveho, jubet and juvet, -bit and -vit, bibo and vivo. In Truc. 141 Veneris publicum is in B bene respublicum, which has been changed in CD to bene rempublicam. (For examples in A see Studemund's Index.) (3) c for ch, c for q, ci and ti before a vowel. — Hence condam and quondam are confused (cf. postquam for poscam Mil. 836); mecum is written for moechum, etc. ch came in parts of the Roman world (e.g. Italy) to represent the “hard” or normal sound of c, while the letter c was used for “soft” or palatalized c (cf. Ital. chi for Lat. qui and ci). The spelling ka for ca, recommended by some Latin grammarians, was much affected by Carolingian scribes (e.g. kaput, p. 60). (For examples of c for ch in A see Studemund's Index.) (4) e and ae, oe. — Hence confusions of fere and ferae, cedo and caedo, queror and quaero, equus and aequus, atque (adque) and ad quae, merens and maerens, letum and laetum. (For examples of the confusion of e and ae in A see Studemund's Index.) (5) e for ĭ. — In the Medicean MS. of Virgil we find the spelling agmena (A. i. 490; ii. 683). In Livy ii. 59. 7 “agmen e castris” has been wrongly changed to agmine castris by some scribe who thought it a misspelling like that of the Medicean Virgil. So in Tac. Hist. v. 2 nomen e suo has been wrongly corrected to nomine suo. (For examples in A, e.g. Stich. 625 emmortales, see Studemund's Index.) (6) f for ph.—(For exx. in A see Studemund's Index.) (7) h dropped or added.—Lat. h ceased to be sounded (cf. Ital., French, etc.), and so was on the one hand dropped in writing, or on the other wrongly added. Hence confusions of hostium and ostium, hortus and ortus, habeo and abeo, hos and os, his and is, honos and onus, honestus and onustus, etc. (For examples in A see Studemund's Index.) (8) i (and e) prefixed to initial sc, sp, st.—Hence confusions of i(n)specto and specto, e(x)specto and specto, etc. (9) i for ii.—The pronunciation of ii as yi or ī may have had something to do with the substitution of regis for regiis, sin for si in, sit for si id (it), etc. So hostiis takes the place of hostis, coloniis of colonis, etc. On his for (h)iis see p. 22. (10) m inserted in words like volu(m)ptas. Hence the frequent confusion of voluptas with voluntas in MSS. (11) m dropped.—Hence confusion of ablative singular with accusative singular of 3rd declension, e.g. patre for patrem. The error is often due to the neglect of the shorthand sign for m (ch. vii. § 1). (12) n dropped before s etc., e.g. istruo for instruo. This omission of n, which may in some cases be due to the neglect of the shorthand sign for the letter (ch. vii. § 1), has led to substitutions like struo for instruo, etc., the seeming istruo being deemed a misspelling of struo (cf. no. 8, above). Thus in Cic. Nat. Deor. i. 1 scientiam is substituted for inscientiam. The endings -as and -ans, -es and -ens are often confused. (13) o for ŭ, o for -um.—Hence the confusion of creatur and creator, ductus and doctus, etc. (For examples in A of o for u see Studemund's Index, e.g. Most. 794 nom for num.） (14) p for ph. (15) si, se for sci, sce.—This was a result of the palatalization of c before e, i, and led to substitutions like quiesse for quiesce. (16) tt (t) for ct, pt (cf. Late Lat. autor for auctor, Ital. otto, sette for octo, septem). Hence, e.g., littoris for lectoris. Attatae of Cas. 478 is written aptate in E. (17) t for th.—(For exx. in A see Studemund's Index.) (On the older confusion of -d and -t in pronunciation, whence confusions like haud (haut) and aut, quod and quot, nequid and nequit, see p. 21). (18) s for x.—Hence confusions like auxerint and hauserint, auxi and ausi. Mistakes like exiit for haec sit (Caesar B.G. iv. 7. 3), fac sit for faxit (Ter. Phorm. 554) are to be referred to the practice, prevalent in the Empire, of using cs for x. Another spelling was cx, e.g. ucxor. On the early spelling xs for x see p. 108. (19) i and y.—(For exx. in A see Studemund's Index.) (20) Double letter for single and vice versa. — This leads to confusions of words like callidus and calidus, errat and erat, reddit and redit.
A clue to home of archetypeMisspellings and confusions of words often give us a clue to the home of the archetype of a MS. Thus the use of a double consonant for a single is perhaps especially frequent in MSS. written by Irish scribes; for in the Irish language a single consonant flanked with vowels had come to have a spirant sound, while the true consonant-sound was retained only by the double consonant. Similarly the use of f for v has been thought to indicate a German original (cf. Germ. Vater, pronounced “fater”). In the Lombard script a separate sign was sometimes used for ti before a vowel (where the t was palatalized or assibilated) and before a consonant (where t retained its ordinary sound). So the absence of confusion between ci and ti may indicate an Italian original (see Mommsen's edition of Solinus, preface p. civ, Berl. 1895). A peculiarity of Spanish MSS. is the spelling quum for cum; and other “Spanish” misspellings are d for t in words like terridorium for territorium, g for c in words like vindigare for vindicare; while forms like tenire, invinire are called “Frankish” (see Hauler in Sitzber. Wien. Akad. 1888, p. 2 n.) (On “Spanish” misspellings see Muñoz y Rivero Palegrafia Visigoda 1881 p. 104; and on “Irish” misspellings Zimmer Glossae Hibernicae prolegg. p. xi.)
Mediaeval MSS. not written to dictationSubstitutions of this kind, it should be noticed, do not imply that the scribe wrote to dictation. Dictation of MSS. was practised in ancient times, and came again into use when the book-trade revived. But so long as the writing of books remained in the hands of monks, who were not intent upon turning out a large number of copies of the same work, but rather on making a single copy for their own Monastery Library, dictation was unknown. Usually the copy had to be made as quickly as possible from a MS. lent for the purpose from another monastery. In such a case a number of monks might be set to work on it at the same time, if the book was divisible into parts, so that dictation would be out of the question. All that we can learn of the Monastery Scriptorium suggests to us rather a room where a number of copyists sat in silence, each engaged on a different task. Witness the lines of Alcuin, which may have stood on the wall of the Scriptorium of St. Martin's Monastery at Tours: “hic sedeant sacrae scribentes famina legis,
nec non sanctorum dicta sacrata patrum.
his interserere caveant sua frivola verba,
frivola ne propter erret et ipsa manus, etc.;
” also the description of the Scriptorium at Touruai: “si claustrum ingredereris, videres plerumque xii monachos juvenes in cathedris sedentes, et super tabulas diligenter et artificiose compositas cum silentio scribentes.” In fact we are told of an elaborate code of signs being in use in the scriptorium to prevent the silence being broken. A monk who wished to be supplied with a pagan work scratched his ear like a dog; if he wished a missal he made the sign of a cross; and so on. These errors of substitution then in mediaeval MSS. are rather mistakes of eye than mistakes of ear.4
List of Similar WordsHere is a list of words commonly confused in the MSS. of Plautus and other Latin authors: ab and ob, e.g. Mil. 1178. ab- and ad-, e.g. abduco and adduco, Pseud. 1155, 1198; aversus and adversus, Virg. G. i. 218. abeo, habeo (passim), and aveho, e.g. Men. 852, Mil. 938, Curc. 553. ac, hac, freq., and hanc, e.g. Men. 825. actus and acutus, e.g. Mil. 1397. ad (see ab-) and at. addit and adit, freq., e.g. Most. 107 (aditur for additur). adduc and adhuc, e.g. Pseud. 389. adesse and ad sc(se), e.g. Most. 490. aeque and atque, e.g. Mil. 776. aequus and equus (passim). aere and erae, e.g. Stich. 361. agedum and agendum, e.g. Merc. 149. ago and aio, very freq., e.g. Merc. 448, Poen. 346 (see Keller ad Hor. Epp. i. 7. 22). aliquod and aliquot (passim). alius and avus, e.g. Pseud. 633. allēgo and all[icaron]go, e.g. Amph. 674. amabo and ambo, e.g. Cas. 393, Most. 467, Poen. 1211. amorcs and morcs, e.g. Mil. 1377. arca and area. arcem and artem. arguo and urg(u)eo. atque for atqui, e.g. Cas. 700. au- and aut, e.g. aufugio and aut fugio, Pseud. 1035. audeo and audío, e.g. Men. 852. aut and haud (haut), very freq., e.g. Mil. 1427. belle and relle, e.g. Most. 806. bellus and vellus. bibo and vivo, freq., e.g. Truc. 367. bis and ris. bonis and nobis. bonus and novus. cacdo and ccdo (passim). calidus and callidus, freq., e.g. Epid. 256. captivus and captus. catus and cautus. certe and recte. cibi and civi. citus and scitus, e.g. Pseud. 748. civis and tuus. clamas and damus, e.g. Most. 588. co- and eo, freq. coloniis and colonis. condam and quondam. conscia and conscientia. cui and qui, freq., e.g. Mil. 995; and cujus, freq., e.g. Hor. C. ii. 4. 14. cum and cum, e.g. Bacch. 398, Truc. 230. damus (see clamas). de- and di-, very freq., e.g. dimovco and demovco, Hor. C. i. 1. 13; descendo for discindo, Mil. 1395. One of Alcuin's Letters to Charlemagne deals with the difficulty of deciding between de- and di- forms, e.g. despicere and dispicere (Epist. 162 in Mon. Germ. Hist.: Epist. vol. iv). decere and dicere, e.g. Merc. 79. dedi and dedo, e.g. Asin. 428. descro, desidero, and desiderio, e.g. Capt. 145, 436. dici and dici, e.g. Capt. 56. dicite and di te, e.g. Pseud. 122. dico and duco, freq., e.g. Capt. 151. In Nonius 12. 16 ducitur of the Leyden MS. is copied dicitur in the Laurentian. diurnus and diuturnus. doctus and ductus, e.g. Capt. 787. domo and modo, freq., e.g. Mil. Arg. i. 13, 484; Men. 803; Stich. 623 (A); Virg. A. x. 141. ego, eo, ero, and ergo, freq., e.g. Pseud. 240, 914; Mil. 380, 1339 (see Leo's note on Truc. 711). egomet and ego et, e.g. Mil. 1375. ei and et, freq., e.g. Mil. 1429. eidem and fidem. em, hem, and est, e.g. Asin. 323, 358. emi and mi(mihi), e.g. Merc. 106. erat and errat, e.g. Most. 952. es and est, freq., e.g. Pseud. 387. esse and sese, freq., e.g. Pseud. 701, 750. esset and es sed. est and et. est and esse, freq., e.g. Amph. 884. et and sed (set), e.g. Mil. 1377 (after a word ending in -s). et and ut. Thus in Nonius 79. 17 (a line of Varro): “dehínc bipennis út levis passérculus”, the Laurentian MS., a copy of the Leyden MS., has et for ut of its original. etiam and et clam, e.g. Merc. 545. eum (see cum). excipio and expio, e.g. Aul. 775. exemplo and extemplo, e.g. Asin. 389; Mil. 890. In Nonius 90. 11 the scribe of the Laurentian has wrongly copied exemplo instead of extemplo of his original, the Leyden codex. faciam for fac sciam, e.g. Pseud. 696. facio and fio. facite for facete, e.g. Mil. 1141, 1161. fastus and faustus. faverit and fuerit. fere and ferre, freq., e.g. Capt. 105, Epid. 329. fingo and tingo. fit and sit, freq., e.g. Cas. 404. fluit and fuit. flumina and fulmina, e.g. Virg. A. iv. 250. fors and sors, e.g. Hor. S. i. 1. 2. Graecia (Graecus) and gratia, e.g. Merc. 525. gratus and oratus. habeo (see abeo). hac, hanc (see ac). haud (see aut). hem (see em). hercle and here, e.g. Mil. 59. hi and ii, his and iis (passim), e.g. Mil. 753. (See p. 22.） hic and hinc, freq. In Nonius 175. 15 hic stands in the Leyden MS., hinc in the Laurentian. hic eram and iceram, e.g. Mil. 28. hodie and odio, e.g. Cas. 404. homines and omnes (passim). honorem and homo rem, e.g. Mil. 228. honos and onus (honus), honestus and onustus (honustus), freq., e.g. Pseud. 218, Rud. 909. hortus and ortus, e.g. Most. 1046. hos and os, freq., e.g. Poen. 760. hospitium and hostium, e.g. Poen. 693. hostiis and hostis. hostium and ostium, freq., e.g. Most. 768, 795. huc, huic, and hunc, very freq., e.g. Pseud. 264. iceram (see hic eram). idem and item, e.g. Merc. 651. In Nonius 133. 18 idem of the Leyden MS. becomes item in the Laurentian. ii, iis (see hi, his, usque). iit and ut, very freq. illa for ilia, Ilia, very freq., e.g. Virg. A. i. 268. impero and impetro, e.g. Capt. 102. infernus and infirmus. In Nonius 98. 14 the Leyden MS. has infernos, but its copy, the Laurentian, has infirmos. inquit and quid (quit), e.g. Mil. 1325, 1343a. ins- and s-, e.g. inspecto and specto, Amph. 998. ita and tam, e.g. Mil. 560, and ite, e.g. Aul. 451. item (see idem) and itidem, e.g. Aul. 432. jaceo and taceo, e.g. Pseud. 1247. jam and tam, very freq., e.g. Juvenal iv. 95. jubet, juvet, lubet, and vivet (passim), e.g. Aul. 491, Curc. 554, Cas. 417. junctus and vinctus (passim), e.g. Capt. 113. laetum, letum (passim), and lentum. lasso and laxo. lectoris and littoris. lenis and levis (cf. Stich. 78). leon- and legion-, e.g. Aul. 560. libera and liberta, e.g. Epid. 504. lubet (see jubet). luculentus and lutulentus, e.g. Capt. 326. macra for machaera, e.g. Mil. 1423. maerens and merens (passim). malitia and militia, e.g. Mil. 189. malus and majus, freq., e.g. Juvenal iv. 7. me and ne, e.g. Mil. 199. mecum and metum. mecum for moechum, e.g. Mil. 1390. medicus and maledicus, e.g. Men. 946. memini and minime, e.g. Mil. 356. meto and metuo, e.g. Most. 799. mi (see emi). minimus, nimius, and nummus, e.g. Hor. C. ii. 6. 18. minus, minis, and nimis, freq., e.g. Hor. S. i. 5. 6. mirum and miscrum, e.g. Rud. 485. mirus and verus, e.g. Cas. 625. mobilis and nobilis, e.g. Hor. C. i. 1. 7. In Nonius 100. 27 mobilem of the Leyden MS. is wrongly copied nobilem in the Laurentian. modo (see domo). moles and mores, e.g. Mil. 194. moneo and movco, freq., e.g. Hor. C. iii. 7. 20. morem (see amores) and mortem, e.g. Capt. 232. multa and vita, e.g. Cas. 841, Pers. 734. multus and mutus, freq. munerum and numerum. mutuus, me tuus, and tuus, e.g. Mil. 316, Pseud. 286, 295. nam, non (freq.), and nunc, e.g. Aul. 603. nc (see me). ne, nec (freq.), and nunc, e.g. Pseud. 186. neque for nequco, e.g. Mil. 1342. nequid and nequil (passim). nimis, nimium (see minus, minimum). nobilis (see mobilis). nobis (see bonis). nolo and volo, freq., e.g. Merc. 769; Mil. 1239. nomen (nō） and non; and numen. non and nos, e.g. Most. 1159. nulli for ni illi, freq. num and nunc, e.g. Amph. 709. numero (see munerum), num vero, and nunc vero, e.g. Amph. 180. In Nonius 38. 5 publicanum vero of the Leyden MS. becomes in the Laurentian publica numero. nummus (see minimus). odere and odore. In Nonius 125. 26 odore stands in the Laurentian but odore in its copy, the Harleian. odio (see hodie). ol- and vol-, e.g. pracolat and praevolat, Mil. 41. omnes (see homines). omnia and omina, e.g. Virg. A. iii. 315. onus, onustus (see honos, honestus). opimus and optimus, e.g. Capt. 281. orbam and orabam. orbo and ordo. ornamenta (ornamta with stroke above m) and ornata, e.g. Epid. 222. ortus (see hortus). os (see hos). ostium (see hostium). pare and patre. paro and raro. patior and potior, e.g. Asin. 324. per, prac, and pro, e.g. Mil. 597. pius and prius. potes and putes, freq. prae, pro (see per). precor and praetor. probe and prope, e.g. Bacch. 1160, Capt. 269. proco and pro co. promisi for prompsi (promsi), e.g. Mil. 829, 841. prope, pro re, and prorae. propius, proprius (freq.), and propitius, e.g. Most. 466. qua and quia, e.g. Aul. 435. quae and que (passim). quaero and queror. quam and quom, e.g. Bacch. 76. quam tu and quantum, e.g. Mil. 314. quamquam, quaquam, and quaqua, freq., e.g. Aul. 102. quasi and quia si, e.g. Truc. 870. qui (see cui) and quin, e.g. Mil. 262. quid (see inquit). quiesce and quicsse. quictus and qui et. quin (see qui) for qui in, freq. quisque and quisquis, freq., e.g. Pseud. 973. quondam (see condam). quot and quod (passim). re- and rem, freq., e.g. resolvit and rem solvit, Asin. 433; cf. Trin. 912. recte (see certe). reddit and redit, freq., e.g. Cas. 719. regi and rei, e.g. Mil. 77. regiis and regis. relinqui and reliqui, freq. res for heres, e.g. Most. 234. s- (see ins-). saepe (sepe) and semper (sēper), e.g. Pseud. 225. saltem and salutem, e.g. Trin. 487. salto and saluto, e.g. Mil. 668. sci- and si-, e.g. scit and sit, scitis and sitis, scimus and simus (passim), e.g. Pseud. 179, 275, 641, 657, 831. scito for est cito (see faciam). scitus (see citus). se and si, freq., e.g. Amph. 662. sed (see et) and si. serus and servus, e.g. Bacch. 402. sesc (see esse). simulavit and si amavit, e.g. Mil. 1251. sin for si in, sit for si id (si it), freq. sit (see fit). sordibus and sordidus. specto and inspecto, e.g. Amph. 998. suam for si jam, freq. sumpsi (sūpsi) and si ipsi. suscipio and suspicio, e.g. Virg. A. vi. 724. tam (see ita) and tuam, e.g. Mil. 793. tamen and tamne. terere and terrere, e.g. Trin. 796. timeo and tumeo. tingo (see fingo). transicit and transigit, e.g. Virg. A. ix. 634. tu and ut, freq., e.g. Mil. 1276; and tum (freq.), tunc, e.g. Pseud. 240, Merc. 552. tunc for tune, freq. (cf. p. 85). tuus (see mutuus). ulli and vili, e.g. Virg. G. ii. 439. urgeo (see arguo). usquam and vos quam, e.g. Merc. 423. usque and iisque. ut (see tu, et, iit), vi, and vel, freq., e.g. Mil. 1066. utilis and vilis. utrum, virum, and verum, freq., e.g. Men. 988. vel (see ut). velim and vilem, e.g. Mil. 1243. velle, vellus (see belle, bellus). velut and vellit. vena and vera. venco and venio, freq., e.g. Men. 289, 549. verba and verbera, e.g. Most. 993. verus (see mirus, numero) and vir-, freq., e.g. Pseud. 1134, Pers. 84, 372. veto and vexo. vi (see ut). vilis (see utilis, ulli, velim). vinctus (see junctus). vis (see bis). vita (see multa). vivit and vult, e.g. Mil. 1051. viro (see jubet). vo- (see o-). volo (see nolo). voltus and volutus, e.g. Capt. 106. voluntas and voluptas, very freq., e.g. Truc. 353. vos quam (see usquam).
List of terminations commonly confused-ae and -e, e.g. fere (ferre DJ） for ferac, Capt. 123. -as and -ans, e.g. accuba(n)s, Most. 368. -bis, -bit and -vis, -vit, e.g. curavit for curabit, Amph. 487. -eo and -ebo, e.g. habeo for habebo, Merc. 439. -es and -ens. -et for -ebat, e.g. subolet for subolebat, Pseud. 421. -et and -it, e.g. ducet for ducit, Pseud. 788. So -is for -es, e.g. dicis for dices, Pseud. 1323 (see Leo's note on Mil. 664). -illus and -ulus, e.g. tantulus and tantillus. -isse and -ivisse, e.g. Amph. 272. -isti for -ti, e.g. Asin. 746; Trin. 556, 567, 602. -ite and -e te, e.g. agite and age te; cf. Mil. 1206 (sinite for sine te). -ito and -e tu, e.g. agito and age tu; cf. Poen. 1278 (facito for face tu). -m and -nt (see ch. vi. § 1), e.g. possum for possunt, Lucr. i. 104; cumulam for cumulant, Virg. A. xii. 515. -o for -abo, e.g. spero for sperabo, Mil. 1209. -o and -ero. -rent for -rint, e.g. amarent for amarint (amaverint). -stis and -sti (cf. Asin. 802). -to and -tu (see -ito above). -tor and -tur, e.g. datur for dator, Truc. 247. -us and -is. Both in capitals and uncials, as well as in minuscules, -us when written in ligature closely resembled -is. The same contraction is in early minuscule sometimes used for both. Uncial (and capital) -um, -un are also hardly distinguishable from -im, -in (ch. vi. § 2), e.g. terrarim for terrarum, Amph. 336.
List of ExamplesAdditional examples of the substitution of words:— (1) Of a gloss: Pseud. 592 “ignobilis” (attested by Festus: so A, but P has ignorabilis). Pseud. 1107 “luxantur” (“id est luxuriantur” Festus; attested for this line by Nonius). CD have luxuriantur, but B with its luxuriantur iantur gives indication that the true reading was present in some way in the archetype. Amph. 73 “sirémpse legem jússit esse Juppiter”. (The MMS. have for O. Lat. sirempse, “on the same terms,” the etymological gloss si similem rem ipse, overcrowding the line with syllables.) Trin. 340 “nam ét illud quod dat pérdit et illi pródit vitam ad míseriam.” (Prodit, the reading of A, is attested by Servius, but P has producit.） In Mil. 24, where the Parasite explains the reason of his reluctance to quit the Soldier's service, the reading of A seems to be: “nisi unum epityrum estur insanum bene.” But Varro quotes the line with epityra estur, which is more likely to have been the actual phrase used by Plautus, epityra being accusative plural, governed by the impersonal passive5 estur, so that the genuine line will be: “nisi únum: epityra éstur insanúm bene,
” “but one thing I will say: (his) olive-salad is frantically good eating.” Varro's reading appears to have been the original reading of P, though in our minuscule MSS. between epityra and estur stand the words ut apud illa (for illum probably). If we suppose ut to be a corruption of vel (see above, p. 64), these words will be a gloss on some unusual form of the demonstrative adverb, say illi or ei, “there,” “at that house”; though a simpler explanation of them is that they are an example not of substitution but of insertion, ut apud illum having been designed to explain the construction of the sentence “how frantically good eating is the olive-salad at his house!” (2) Wrong treatment of correction in original: Mil. 652 ends with subigito in convivio. In P this was wrongly written subigito meo convivio, but had been corrected by the writing of in over meo. The mistake and its correction, meo with suprascript in, is reproduced in B; but in the original of CD the nature of the correction was misunderstood, and the words subigito meo appear in CD as subigito min. Capt. 545. The correction in the original of BOVEJ of iste to si te has produced in BOV iste (changed by the corrector to site), in E iste (unchanged), in J is si te. Amph. 647. The word clueat was miswritten dueat in the original of BDEJ (on the change of cl to d see ch. vii. § 1). This was wrongly emended by writing re above. In B the correction has produced redeat; in D ducat, corrected to redeat; in EJ reducat. Asin. 589. The archaic form quoi was in the original of BDEJ either corrected or explained as cui. In B we find quo cui, in E cui quoi, in DJ cui. The same thing happened four lines farther on (v. 593); but here B reproduces the original exactly, quoi,cui while E has quoi cui and DJ cui. For other examples see Appendix A. An example which shows the relation of the Renaissance MSS. and early printed editions to the Codex Ursinianus (D) is Most. 464 “di té deaeqne omnes fáxint cum istoe ómine”, where in D the word axint (instead of faxint) is explained or emended by suprascript perdu to perduint. The Renaissance MSS. and the Editio Princeps have perduaxint or perduassint. (3) Word from context: Amph. 489-90 “et ne ín suspicióne ponatúr stupri, et clándestina ut céletur consuétio.” For consuetio, which is attested by Donatus and Festus, our MSS. (P) have suspicio, a substitution due to the occurrence of suspicione in the preceding line. Merc. 40 “princípio ut actas éx ephebis éxiit atque ánimus studio amótus puerilíst meus.” For ut actas, which has been restored by conjecture, our MSS. (P） have atque animus, a substitution from the following line. Most. 662 sqq. (the cunning slave Tranio is embarrassed by the question where the house is which he pretends his young master has bought). “quid ego núnc agam,
nisi ut ín vicinum hune próxumum --u-?
eas émisse aedis hújus dicam fílium.
calidum hércle esse audivi optumum mendácium.
” The minuscule MSS. end v. 663 with mendacium, the eye of the copyist of the archetype having been attracted by the ending of v. 665. The Ambrosian Palimpsest has —RDIĒ or —PERCITĒ. No satisfactory conjecture has yet been made about the missing word. Schoell reads istunc percitem. (4) Ecclesiastical word: Asin. 656 “salus interioris corporis amorisque imperator.” This is the reading of all the MSS. except B, which has interioris hominis, “the inner man,” clearly a Scriptural reminiscence. Cist. 666 “sánane es? Haec súnt profecto. Pérgin? Haec sunt. Sí mihi”, etc. Here profecto was miswritten prophctio in the original of BVEJ, a miswriting reproduced without correction in V. The word was possibly in the archetype expressed by a contraction (cf. Pseud. 256, where proh or oro has been wrongly expanded in our MSS. to profecto). I think that mica, imperat. of micare (sc. digitis), “to play the game of mora,” has been written amica in our minuscule MSS. in Stich. 700, where the two slaves are discussing how they are to settle who is to preside at their carouse. The P-reading is: ““amica” uter utrubi accumbamus. Abi tu sane superior”; but the beginning of the line in A, so far as it can be deciphered, “m (? a) * * * CEM”, suggests an micem as its reading. Truc. 736. The argentari of BCD may be a substitution for adcentare, due to the common confusion of c and g (ch. vi. § 1). Read:— “AST. lítteras didicísti: quando scís, sine alios díscere,
DIN. díscant, dum mihi ádcentare líceat, ne oblitús siem (argentarilliceam ni MSS.),
” “let them have their lesson. But let me strike in with my repetition too, for fear I forget it.” If we suppose uvida or uvidum to be a jocular expression for “the sea” in Plautus' time, the only fault in Most. 434 will be the substitution of unda. Read: “verúm si posthae mé pedem latúm modo
scies ínposisse in úvidam (uvidum), hau causa ílico est (MSS. undam).
quod núnc voluísti facere quin faciás mihi.
” The unmetrical adhaeresceret (AP) of Poen. 479 may be a gloss on some O. Lat. verb, say ambhaeresceret: “Quoi reí? Ne ad fundas víseus ambhaerésceret.”