Valerius Maximus: Memorable Deeds and Sayings

scorned and rejected the manifest writing of the archetype without any cause, such as 2, 7. 10 (p. 88, 7); 3, 8. 2 (p. 154, 16); 4, 1. 7 (p. 165, 8); 4, 4. 11 (p. 193, 5), where hisque and to these/by these is far superior; 5, 2. 1 (p. 228, 8); 5, 6. ext. 1 (p. 257, 22), where A and the Paris manuscript maintain his to these/by these; 6, 6. 5 (p. 304, 14); 7, 6. 3 (p. 355, 13); 8, 2. 1 (p. 375, 14); 8, 3. 3 (p. 379, 10); 8, 14. 6 (p. 411, 16); 9, 10. 2 (p. 452, 9). And in these places he at least noted the disagreeing readings of the codex, which he neglected to do at 2, 7. 15 (p. 91, 1), where there was not even the slightest reason for departing from the Bern and Paris Vatican codices. What of the fact that he kept the same writing intact in the Paris manuscript which he judged should be changed in Valerius himself in this place? Add 4, 4. 7 (p. 190, 18), where A and the Paris manuscript have ex his from these. Cf. besides 5, 10. ext. 1 (p. 269, 14); 9, 10. ext. 2 (p. 453, 1). Now, indeed, he who judged that these things which I reported above were not to be tolerated, how could he bear the same pronoun at 1, 1. 15 (p. 8, 18); 1, 1. ext. 3 (p. 12, 24); 2, 10. 1 (p. 103, 14); 3, 2. 6 (p. 113, 26); 3, 3. 1 (p. 129, 22); 5, 3. ext. 3 (p. 241, 7) or in very many other places? This inconsistency and fluctuation of the most learned man sufficiently declares how uncertain the judgment is concerning the use of these pronouns. And to me, indeed, it seems that the one pronoun is not separated from the other by as great a distinction of notion and power as we feel when we, using our own language, distinguish the pronouns dieser this and der that (=the one): for it is rightly expressed in Latin, as can be known from the fact that — custodiebant pro eo uel inde they were guarding for that [purpose] or from there 2, 2. 2 (p. 62, 11) and quo magis — hoc certius pro eo certius by how much more — by that much more certainly, for that [purpose] more certainly (cf. pp. 131, 10; 141, 1; 174, 8) and similar things. Furthermore, I noticed that, contrary to the custom of our language, this pronoun is attached to nouns from which a final or consecutive clause depends, such as 2, 2. 4 (p. 63, 7) hunc morem retinuerunt, ne quis they retained this custom, so that no one, and 5, 3. 2 f. (p. 236, 23) hanc mercedem tulit, ne in urbe moreretur he received this reward, so that he might not die in the city. I judge that these also belong to the same class: 3, 7. 1 d (p. 144, 4) neque enim huc puto malignitatis uentum, ut ... for I do not think it has come to this point of malice, that..., where the best codices have huc puto eo malignitatis I think it has come to that point of malice