Florus, Epitome of Roman History and Fragment

PRAEFATIO EDITORIS

when Jahn had valued it less than it deserved, he frankly professed that it had not been treated by him with the same care as B1) p. VIIII.. Therefore, since I had already seen that many things neglected by him in the summaries of Livy, which are contained in the same volume, were also present in Florus, I collated Florus again and saw that considerably more had been passed over by Jahn than in the Bamberg codex. I can, however, refrain from harping on his errors, because the most famous man E. Wölfflin, himself having supplemented Jahn's collation, handed over all the most important things he had found to his student J. W. Beck to be edited in the Berlin Philological Journal XI (1891) p. 258 sq. Nevertheless, as happens in a collation instituted by another and permitted by the work, there are a few things here too that are less than correct, which, although minor, I will submit below, lest anyone wonder why I differ from his annotations: p. 27, 9 of this edition, N¹ added in ante imperio above the line; p. 46, 8 neccom mutatione (the former c above the line by hand 2) is read in N, not neccommutatio; p. 76, 18 N¹ changed cum in · cō · (not cū); p. 78, 16 sua uictoria N, uictoria sua N¹; p. 96, 7 spectacula N, but N² expunged cta; p. 97, 3 dis cipulis set (ci expunged by hand 2) N; p. 114, 18 omnis N, omnes N². Furthermore, I think these places should be added to the number of those that Beck says (p. 259) are necessary so that a just judgment can be formed of N: p. 105, 8 N has romanos terruere not non terruere romanos; p. 133, 3 it is bello in N, not belli; p. 152, 2 N has illud inusitatum not inusitatum illud; p. 155, 15 N has motus ciuitatis not ciuitatis motus; p. 167, 7 N has castris in epiro not in epiro castris. Furthermore, I give thanks to C. Zangemeister, who kindly informed me when I was in doubt about the writing of four passages.

That all other codices of the same class were not derived from this book, although Jahn had perceived this (p. X), the ones he had known from among them a little more accurately—the Monacensis, Berolinensis, Guelpherbytanus, and Haenelianus—are either very recent or very faulty. Therefore, since...