Don’t you think you’re being a bit of a grumpsimus? There’s surely interest in keeping alive the work of Titivilli when it has some history to it.
So you’d side with the Titivilli and print mumpsimus?
But yes I should have let it go at Fabrication.
This being the 21st century, I’ve think they’ve evolved-they’re now Digititivilli.
No, but I’m going to make you read a personal story before I tell you why 
As you know, The Mabinogion is (/are, here begin the problems) the most important collection of Welsh prose literature, but the word ‘Mabinogion’ itself is only attested as a variant in a single manuscript and is clearly a scribal error.
Welsh is very rich in plural noun endings and the scribe seems to have mistaken the existing plural (Mabinogi, which is the final word of the first four stories) for singular and pluralised it by adding -on (cf. Hobbitses). This irritated me for a few years and following the example of some venerable 20th century Welsh literary scholars I would rather pompously make a point of saying Mabinogi rather than Mabinogion in the vain hope that I was part of a turning tide.
My Hakuna Matata moment came when I realised that the scribe who made the mistake was a Welsh speaker, the 18th century antiquarians who used the word Mabinogion as a title for the collection were Welsh speakers and that the name of the collection made no difference to the meaning of its contents. I’m now of the opinion that this quirk of the name adds to the richness of the history of the text and so, perversely, I’ve become quite fond of it and would be as miffed if it changed to Mabinogi as if publishers started printing Mary Evans instead of George Eliot.
To answer your question - hopelessly unqualified as I am to deal with anything relating to Latin - I wouldn’t print mumpsimus, because that interferes with the meaning of the text (Wikipedia informs me), but I sympathise with those who’ve become sentimentally attached to Fabri, whose name doesn’t seem to make any difference to the contents of his book. Don’t take any of this too seriously - I’m absolutely desperate for human contact beyond my house.
Good story Sean, thanks.
Agreed the form of the good brother’s name makes no difference to the contents of his diary, parts of which I found quite interesting. An app.crit. is the proper place for significant textual errors (of which there are not very many, but some of them fun to put right, the most satisfying for me being glari, for gloriari). That would serve to keep them alive, as you put it, without enshrining them in the text.
As to the good monk’s name, I don’t really care, and i have no hope of turning the tide, but if ever I have cause to mention him again I shall call him Felix Faber, simply because the absurd perversity of calling him Felix Fabri irks me (and “Mr. Fabri” irks me more). George Eliot was at least the name she chose to publish under. But as you and Walt say, hakuna matata. (Or Umpa umpa, stick it up your jumper.—Before your time. Before mine, actually.)
Not sure this counts as human contact, but it’s the best we can do.
errwso.
And lo, I was miffed…
BBC NEWS - Middlemarch and other works by women reissued under their real names