Valerius Maximus: Memorable Deeds and Sayings

One could also doubt whether in the Bernese iudicem really stands and not rather the abbreviation iud., as it is correctly noted from the Vienna codex. I rightly guessed this; for B does not have iudicem, but iuit., just as at 6, 2, 4 it is written for iudices. — 3, 3, Ext. 1 Kempf edited this: Est et illa uehemens et constans animi militia, litteris pollens, uenerabilium doctrinae sacrorum antistes philosophia quae ubi pectore recepta est, [hominem] inhonesto atque inutili adfectu dispulso, totum in solidae uirtutis munimento confirmat etc. There is also that vehement and constant warfare of the mind, powerful in letters, the high priestess of venerable sacred doctrines, philosophy, which when it is received in the breast, with [the man] having cast off dishonest and useless affection, confirms the whole in the bulwark of solid virtue etc. Kempf did not judge correctly regarding the establishing of the script of this passage because he exchanged the readings of the first and second hands in B among themselves: if he had known that in B the first hand exists as homini for the man and that it was wrongly corrected to hominem the man, he would hardly, I think, have doubted to accept Perizonius' excellent conjecture, which has already been attempted in some codices: omni inhonesto .. adfectu dispulso with every dishonest .. affection cast off. — 3, 7, Ext. 4 Kempf, leaving the common reading, wrote quite boldly humanae fabricauere manus human hands fashioned, thinking the reading of the first hand in B was fabrice, but since this clearly has fabricę, it will seem more advisable to emend to fabric[at]ę manus [s̃], especially since the same kind of faults is very often detected in the Bernese. — 3, 8, Ext. 3 Kempf noted this on the words auctorem ascriberet might attribute as author: 'auctorem * * A.' He fell more often into the same error which he committed here. If he had attended to the corrector of the Bernese, who in nearly six hundred places separated syllables or letters that seemed to him badly joined from his own mind, he would have omitted noting anything here in the critical commentary. For what the first hand had written auctorem ads criberet, the second, with the letters ads deleted, changed thus: auctorem | ascriberet. We add one example of the same error for this sole reason, that silence in such places, about which absolutely nothing was to be noted in the critical commentary, might not be turned against us as a charge of negligence. 7, 4, 1 Kempf has this in the critical notes: 'cui : * opera (sed illud : a corr.) A': but he did not understand that the first scribe had written thus: cui | us opera, whence by the second hand this was made...