Prefix spelling normalizations?

Latin Learning Latin
1

In a wide variety of texts, I stumble across variations in prefixes:

irrumpit or inrumpit
(Caesar Bello Gallico, Book V, Ch 44 [Oxford Classical Text, henceforth OCT]; Livy, Ab Urbe Condita, Book I, Ch 14 [Loeb])

and elsewhere:

irrupta and inrumpit inrumpunt inrumpentem
(Horace, Odes, I.13 [OCT], Aeneid: IV 640, VI 528; IX, 729 [OCT])

and one finds other variations:

adferebantur and affertur
(Caesar Bello Gallico, Book II, Ch.1 [OCT], Catullus LXXXIV, 9 [OCT])

I’m a little baffled to find these in authors contemporary with one another. As far as I can tell, these variations were not for metrical reasons (correct me if I’m wrong).

Are these variations made by the OCT editor or is there a manuscript tradition?
[In other editions (Bennett & Walker) I find other variations that seemed editorial: inlatus or illatus; adpetere or appetere, etc, but I haven’t found OCT examples to support these, alas, need more OCT.]

Was there a variation in classical times?; elsewhere, we can find an explanation for postfix changes, such as when the genitive endings change -iī; e.g. Bennett Grammar 26.2:
“Nouns in -ius and -ium, until after the beginning of the reign of Augustus (31 B.C.),
regularly formed the Genitive Singular in -ī (instead of -iī), e.g.
ingenium, ingenī
fīlius, fīlī
The Genitives accent the penult, even when it is short.”

–As one who is still learning Latin vocabulary words, I find it frustrating now and then to encounter a word I already know, but appearing in a slightly mangled form. I am editing some texts to help people improve their latin reading skills, and I’m wondering whether or not to normalize the spellings.

What annoys you more when reading: normalized words or variations in spelling?

Would you forgive an editor who normalized the spellings of a text to reduce the cognitive load on users trying to learn the vocabulary to read with fluency?

thanks,

Todd

2

I’m going to hazard an answer but it should be taken as provisional and subject to revision by those who know more than I do.

There were spelling variations in antiquity. This is borne out by inscriptions. But it’s difficult to know what the original spelling was in the case of literary texts that have survived exclusively in manuscripts.

It’s important to bear in mind that every text has its own history.

In some cases (e.g., Sallust), it seems clear that old-fashioned spellings such as inrupit, without assimilation would be preferred, consistent with his opinions that modern times were degenerate. But in other cases, it’s less clear.

Even where we have manuscripts from late antiquity (e.g., Vergil), we can’t be sure whether the texts as they’ve come down to us reflect what the authors actually wrote, or whether they were edited by ancient scholars who thought they knew what the authors actually wrote. Most of our texts are based on mss. that date, at the earliest, to the eighth or ninth centuries, and there’s no telling what happened in the millenium (or so) between the original date of composition and the mss.

Modern editorial practice is anything but consistent. Some editors normalize; others print alternative spellings that have ms. support. Reporting minor spelling various can clutter the critical notes (apparatus) and make it difficult to focus on true variants worthy of the reader’s attention.

So if you are preparing texts for beginners or intermediate reader, I would suggest that normalizing spellings to make it easier is probably a good idea. But if you’re editing a text for the Bibliotheca Teubneriana, you might want to reflect the spellings of the manuscripts more faithfully.