VII

EDITOR'S PREFACE

[Florus] could be emended1) Iuli Flori epitomae libri duo rec. et emend. Otto Iahn, p. III. In the same years that Iaeck’s description of the Bamberg library was produced—among whose book 'subscribers' Lachmann is mentioned—the young Iahn was enrolled as a citizen of the University of Berlin (cf. A. Michaelis in the book Allgemeine deutsche Biographie, XIII, p. 669).. When he did not anxiously hide the knowledge of this treasure from others—as is the habit of men of poor character—but freely shared it with those whom it concerned to know it, it happened that after the work of Seebodius (which is hardly worthy of mention, and to whose edition issued at Leipzig in 1821 that excellent book was applied with little profit)2) L. Annaei Flori epitome rerum Romanarum ad libros mss. Bambergensem Nazarianum duos Parisienses duos Monacenses etc. rec. Godofredus Seebode. Not even that great lacuna, which gapes in all books at II 18, 2 except the Bamberg codex, was filled by him. For he received nothing into the text, but only indicated in the annotation what was missing, to be restored 'from an ancient codex in commentaries.' But these commentaries never saw the light of day., that greatest of men and disciple and friend of Lachmann, Otto Iahnius, chose this task for himself and made the exemplar public at Leipzig in 1852, changed to such an extent that you would look in vain for that common Florus in the true Florus. For not only were very many places that were read as corrupted in the books of the other recension restored to their entirety from the best codex, and interpolations expelled and lacunae of sufficient size filled; but also, not a few faults which were not even absent from that [codex] were removed either by Iahn himself or by his friends, men of excellent acumen, C. Halmius, M. Hauptius, and Th. Mommsenus.

But what happens not rarely, that when a treasure is found, the inventor is blinded to its faults due to the greatness of its virtues, the same happened to Iahn as well. Although he did not entirely neglect the manuscripts of the other recension, they were so sordid to him compared to the quality of the Bamberg codex that he undeservedly excluded quite a few of their readings from Florus’s speech. When others perceived this, among them H. Saupp-