Florus, Epitome of Roman History and Fragment

PRAEFATIO EDITORIS

strove to bring forth, especially since he did not have that method of rasurae erasures/scrapings which is rightly required today. Since it is now established that B¹ used the same archetype as the scribe, it cannot be doubted that these emendations are of the greatest value. Somewhat rarer and of lesser value are the corrections of a slightly more recent hand B² (B²), sometimes confused by Jahn with B¹, which also worked through the whole codex and seems to be attributable to the eleventh or twelfth century. Therefore, although Jahn had collated this excellent book quite diligently, nevertheless, Halm, who had brought it to Leipzig, discovered after inspecting the codex again that some good readings had been neglected by his friend. For when the latter had collated the Bambergensis against Seebod's copy but had handed over the Bipontine edition to the printer, it happened that those things which Seebod had already received from the codex were overlooked1) v. 'Iuli Flori epitomae libri duo recog. Carolus Halm', Lipsiae MDCCCLXIII p. III. ceterum gloriamur nunc diplomatica illa qua libri manu scripti conferri soleant diligentia, sed hac in re omnem aetatem priore maiorem curam adhibere sensimque eam auctam esse cum alia docent tum Ruhnkenii verba in praefatione Apuleii Oudendorpiani vol. I, p. IX: 'Oudendorpius in hac quoque collatione illam diligentiam, qua nunc critici veteres membranas excutiunt, aliquando requirit' et p. X sq.: 'tanti in hac librorum comparatione refert quibus oculis et quam otiose rem agas'. See 'Julii Flori Epitomae Libri Duo', edited by Carolus Halm, Leipzig 1863, p. III. Moreover, we now boast of that diplomatic diligence with which manuscripts are usually collated, but in this matter, other things show that every age exercises greater care than the previous one, and that it has gradually increased; for instance, the words of Ruhnken in the preface to Oudendorp's Apuleius, vol. I, p. IX: 'Oudendorp in this collation also sometimes requires that diligence with which critics now examine ancient membranes,' and p. X sq.: 'it matters so much in this comparison of books with what eyes and how leisurely you act.'. Thus, because Halm had not mentioned anything except the more serious matters, it was necessary for the book to be examined anew. When I had done this, I saw that there were other things in it that both editors had neglected, although they were of no small moment for emending Florus. Of these, I shall propose these few examples: p. 37, 3 of this edition, B correctly had tarenton, which B¹ changed to tarentum; p. 39, 18 olitus est in B, not olitum, as Jahn thought, who confused the small s placed above the u with the abbreviation for the letter m; p. 42, 14 tanta tamen is in B, not tamen tanta; p. 83, 17 B provides pauperrimis, not pauperibus; p. 101, 2 imperii habebat B, not habebat imperii; p. 104, 2, three letters perished in a place eaten by bookworms...