Appendix B: Specimen of Critical Apparatus with Remarks
|Plautus Captivi 251-269:--||(Read introduction, § 4 on the relationship of the MSS. of Plautus.)|
|251.||“HEG. jam ego revertar intro, si ex his quae volo exquisivero”
（am ego D, Nam ego F; que volo BDJ; exquisi vero J).
|The initial letter, left by D for the “rubricator” to fill in, has been wrongly supplied in the Renaissance copy F (see ch. iii. § 13). In the original quae was miswritten que whether in full (ch. v. § 9) or in contraction (ch. vii. § 5). J has wrongly divided exquisivero into two words (ch. i. § 4).|
|252.||“ubi sunt isti quos ante aedis jussi produci foras”
（edis BDE, aedes J. The MSS. put foras at the beginning of the next line).
|The misspelling of the original edis (ch. v. § 9, p. 70) has been emended, not altogether satisfactorily, in J.|
|253.||“PHIL. edepol tibi ne in quaestione essemus cautum intellego”
(om. in B1 DEVJ, add. B2; questione BDVJ, questionem E; chautum B1 DEV, cautum B2 J）.
|The archetype (whence the corrector of B took the correction, p. 41) had īquestione, and this was copied questione in the original of BD, etc. (ch. i. § 4), but in E from confused notions of grammar was put in the accusative (ch. i. § 9). The curious misspelling chautum is preserved with remarkable fidelity. The corrector of B emends it (ch. i. § 3) on his own authority, not on the authority of the archetype.|
|254.||“ita vinclis custodiisque circum moeniti sumus”
(vinculis B; custodiis que B, custodi isque E; moenitis E, muniti F）.
|custodiisque is wrongly divided into custodiis quae (spelt que) in B, and into custodi isque in E (ch. i. § 4). The moenitis sumus for moeniti sumus of E is a common case of dittography (ch. iv. § 4). Notice the modernised spelling muniti of the Renaissance MS.|
|255.||“HEG. qui cavet ne decipiatur vix cavet cum etiam cavet”
|J carelessly substitutes me for ne (ch. v. § 12).|
|256.||“etiam cum cavisse ratus est, saepe is cautor captus est”
|There is a small blank space at the beginning of the line in B and D, due apparently to the fact that the archetype had the et of etiam expressed by the ligature (ch. vi. § 1), so that the line seemed to lack an initial letter. The word is written with the ligature in B.|
|257.||“an vero non justa causa est ut vos servem sedulo”
(servet B1 DE V1, servem B2 V2 J）.
|The archetype had seruē, and in the original this contraction ē was wrongly expanded (ch. vii. § 2).|
|258.||“quos tam grandi sim mercatus praesenti pecunia”
(grandis immercatus BD, grandis inmercatus E V1, grandi sim mercatus V2 J; presenti BDV corr., presentia E V1 J）.
|The words of the proto-archetype GRANDISIMMERCATVS were wrongly broken up in the archetype and in the original into grandis immercatus, which in the original of EVJ were written grandis īmercatus. In the same original presenti was carelessly furnished with the ending of pecunia (ch. i. § 10).|
|259.||“PHIL. neque pol tibi nos, quia nos servas, aequomst vitio vortere”
(equom stulcio BD, [ve]l stulte B marg; equom stultio E V1 J, ecum V2, equum stulticie F; vertere EVJ）.
|The AEQVOMSTVITIO (-CIO) of the proto-archetype was misread as aequomstultio (-cio) (ch. vi. § 1), and wrongly written equom stulcio (ch. v. § 9) in the archetype or in the original. This vox nihili stulcio is wrongly emended on the margin of B and in the text of the Renaissance MS. F (ch. i. § 1). The archaism vortere was “modernised” in the original of EVJ (ch. i. § 7), while the archaism aequomst for aequom est has been accidentally preserved in all MSS. (ch. i. §§ 1-2). The word equom (for aequom） was absurdly connected with equus, “a horse,” by the corrector of V and the scribe of F.|
|260.||“neque te nobis si abeamus hinc, si fuat occasio”
|On the confusion of abeo and habeo see ch. v. § 9. Notice the preservation in all MSS. of the archaism fuat, which in other passages is usually changed to fiat, etc. (ch. v. § 7).|
|261.||“HEG. ut vos hic itidem illic apud vos meus servatur filius”
(aput BJ; me D）.
|The spelling of the archetype aput is preserved unchanged in two MSS. (ch. i. § 7). The me for meus of D is due to the omission of the shorthand sign for us (ch. vii. § 1). Whether Plautus wrote illi or illic is uncertain (ch. i. § 7).|
|262.||“PHIL. captus est? HEG. ita. PHIL. non igitur nos soli ignavi fuimus”
(ignari B1DEV, igitari J）.
|ignari was substituted for the similar word ignavi (ch. v § 7) in the original. J may have mistaken the n of its original for it (ch. vi), but more probably left the miswriting igit- for ign- (due to the preceding igitur) uncorrected (ch. iv. § 3).|
|263.||“HEG. secede huc: nam sunt, quae ex te solo scitari volo”
(solio J; stitari DVE）.
|A syllable is lacking for the metre. If the corruption is due to the omission of a small word unimportant to the sense of the sentence (ch. iii. § 6), the true reading may be secede huc tu, or else quae ego ex te. If the omission was a case of haplography (ch. iii. § 1), it may be secede huc nunc or solo solus (omitting nam). But the simplest correction is the transposition (ch. ii. § 1) of quae and ex te. The solio of J is a careless substitution (ch. v). In the original sc was probably written in a ligature resembling the ligature st.|
|264.||“quarum rerum te falsilocum mihi esse nolo. PHIL. non ero”
(rerum te ex te rerum E; falsu locum ex falsū locum E, falsi locum V1; michi J; volo V1, nolo V2）.
|The scribe of E at first transposed rerum and te (ch. ii. § 1), and wrongly emended the falsi locum of his original into falsum locum (ch. i. § 10). michi of J is a common mediaeval spelling. Cf. nichil for nihil. The scribe of V substituted volo for nolo, a frequent confusion in MSS. (ch. v. § 12).|
|265.||“quod sciam: si quid nescivi, id nescium tradam tibi”
(si q[no]d E, id quod J）.
|The quid of the original, probably written in contraction (as quod is in E), has been mistaken for quod (ch. vii. § 5). J has a wrong emendation (pp. 25 sq.）|
|266.||“nunc senex est in tostrina, nunc jam cultros adtinet”
(bitostrina B1 DE V1, intostrina B2 V2, intonstrina J; attinet VJ）.
|In the archetype or the original the preposition in was written, as it usually was in early minuscule, with the “tall” form of i (ch. vi. § 1), a manner of writing which makes the word often look like hi or bi. The archaic spelling tostr- (cf. mostrum, whence Mostellaria, for monstrum) has been preserved, thanks to the corruption of in, which prevented scribes from recognising the word.|
|267.||“ne id quidem; involucre inicere, voluit, vestem ut ne inquinet”
(ne inquinet ex nē quinet D; involvere F）.
|The scribe of D at first misread in as m (ch. vi. § 1). The Renaissance scribe, not understanding the Plautine involucre (a by-form of involucrum), emends it in Renaissance fashion (ch. i. § 1).|
|268.||“sed utrum strictimne adtonsurum dicam esse an per pectinem”
(strictim ne B1DEVJ; attonsurum JF; petinem B, first hand, DEV）.
|The scribe of the archetype did not recognise the ne of strictimne as the enclitic particle. The petinem (pettinem) of the archetype exhibits the Late Latin spelling -tt- for -ct- (ch. v. § 9). It is corrected in B and J, but was left in the other MSS., perhaps through a vague connexion of perpet- with perpetuus.|
|269.||“nescio: verum si frugist usque admutilabit probe”
(frugiest JF; admutila labit B, ad mutilalabit EV, admutalabit D, admutilabit J; prope B1, probae V）.
|The dittography of la in the original has been rightly emended in J. The confusion of prope and probe is common (ch. v. § 12), and the interchange of e and ae a universal practice in mediaeval as well as in early MSS. (ch. v. § 9).|