There are, however, a number of places in Conjugial Love where editors or translators have detected a probable omission, and I have myself added to them. The true text may have been longer, but what I propose is, I think, the minimum needed to make sense of this sentence. We come now to a more difficult source of error, where we have no reason to believe that the printer did not faithfully reproduce his copy, and the error is therefore attributable to the author himself. Editors and translators have made this correction, but it is one that needs to be noted. We must consider here the passages which contain grammatical errors unlikely to be simple misprints.
Angelus stans ante decem novos advenas, ex vestitu tunc apparentes ut inquilini .
Grammar requires that inquilini be changed to accusative inquilinos. Any Greek scholar would know that this is a slip for lipothymia, but Swedenborg was probably copying someone else's error. In such a case I should restore the correct form, with a note, but I observe that Rogers keeps the erroneous one. On the other hand, Swedenborg often used unclassical spellings, such as athmosphaera for atmo-, which were common in the 18th Century, and these I should prefer to keep. But these are matters which do not concern the translator, since they do not affect the meaning.