К вопросу об одной конъектуре в трактате Марка Теренция Варрона «De lingua Latina».
Two emendations are proposed to Gregorio Correr's Progne (1428) and to the Canticum salutatorium in solenni trumphali ingressu uictoris et pacificatoris Petri Magni... in suam imperialem sedem urbem Moscuam (1721).
1. In the text of Passio S. Sebastiani (BHL 7543), 13, AASS 2.267, instead of …ita illic refectio, quam os susceperit, melliflua in gustu hoc unicuique sapit, quo fuerit delectatus, a new reading is proposed: ...ita illic refectio, quam os susceperit, melliflua in gustu. Hoc unicuique satis, quo fuerit delectatus. Besides, examination of the available part of the manuscript tradition (which is huge and nearly unexplored) possibly points to instability of the transmitted text as well. 2. In the text of Chromatius of Aquileia’s Sermones, 26.94–98 Étaix–Lemarié, instead of post multas uirtutes et mirabilia, quae fidem credentium confirmauit, a new reading is proposed: post multas uirtutes et mirabilia, quae fidem credentium confirmarunt (if r could be mistaken for the left vertical line of u, then it is easy to imagine a corruption of -rũt to -uit). 3. A new approach to the solution of the problem posed by senseless and unmetrical ductor iacet in Corippus, Iohannis 4.1 is proposed: the word ductor could originate as a gloss to rex, which could in its turn be a corruption of res (the verb has to be corrected as well, but here no clearly preferable decision seems to occur). The best of the preceding conjectures, that of L. Nosarti, is criticized on palaeographic grounds.
A new conjecture eam <suaui> deuinctam and A. Palmer’s conjecture eam <leni> deuinctam (preferably the latter one) are recommended in Cat. 64.122 on the grounds of plausibility of haplographic omission of both inserted words: for the first one, suaui deuinctam > deuinctam (cf. Lucr. 4.453–454, Varro Logistor. fr. 28 Bolisani); for the second one, leui deui- > deui-, given the affinity of n and u in Latin minuscule script (cf. Enn. Ann. 2 Skutsch, Lucr. 4.1009, Hor. Carm. 3.1.22–23, Ou. Met. 8.823, Ou. Fast. 4.653, Ou. Trist. 4.3.22). The conjectures preferred by modern editors and researches of Catullus’ text (viz., K. Lachmann’s <uenerit>, aut ut, preferred by most modern editors, Pomponius Laetus’ eam <placido> deuinctam, preferred by D.R. Shackleton Bailey and G. Trimble, and J.M. Trappes-Lomax’s aut ut securo deuinctam) do not meet the requirement of providing a plausible explanation of the process of corruption. Both conjectures recommended also correspond in sense to the epithet dulci that we find in the corresponding place of a similar expression in Ciris 206 (a passage obviously dependent on Catullus) and that E. Baehrens argued to have correspondences in a number of passages connected with Ariadne’s dream (Philostr. Imag. 1.15.1, Nonn. Dion. 47.320, Prop. 1.3.7); however, inserting the word dulci itself in Cat. 64.122 (as done in MS Grenoble, Bibliothèque Municipale 549 and in ed. Romana 1472) is impossible, as pointed by G. Trimble, since Catullus uses the word dulcis just two lines earlier, in Cat. 64.120.