Valerius Maximus: Memorable Deeds and Sayings

PREFACE.

and had noted that the Paris manuscript and A² exhibit instrumentoque suo and to his own instrument, he added that he did not know if this was the true reading. But he did not see that it itself stands out most clearly in A¹, in whose script instrumentoque suo the letter 'o' was twice changed into 'a' by the second hand.
Furthermore, while examining the Bern manuscript more accurately, it was my good fortune in not a few places, where the ancient script had been deleted by scraping, to track down what had once been written more certainly than had fallen to Halm. It may suffice to have composed a few examples of this kind. Therefore, at 1, 6. 2 (p. 25, 20), I had once noted that the first hand seemed to have written concionante seiunxit he separated while haranguing, where Halm added nothing in the notes except *elu*it A, efluxit mg. A, and the testimony of the Laurentian manuscript later taught me that I had detected that correctly. — 1, 7. 3 (p. 35, 18) in A it is now read p equi&is specie with the appearance of a horse, but the first e was struck through and &i is in an erasure, which, when Halm thinks was corrected from equietem a horseman, he is mistaken: for there is hardly any reason to doubt that these arose from equitis specie. — 4, 7. ext. 1 (p. 208, 13), where from Madvig's conjecture I wrote et eam qui, before the erasure, which now is in A **eam qui, it is known from certain traces of the old script not entirely removed that qui eam qui had been written. If he had seen this, perhaps Halm would have refrained from Foertsch's unproven attempt at correction, ueniam qui acceperat pardon which he had received. — 6, 7. 3 (p. 306, 13) Halm published prosequeretur he might accompany with a few other copies and noted sequeretur A, with a letter p or p erased before s, which I greatly marvel at, since it clearly appears that psequeretur had been written before the erasure. — 9, 2. 4 (p. 430, 9), where Halm reports that in A there is now lusitani**s, I for my part had noted lusit animis with letters mi erased, which the Laurentian manuscript later confirmed I had seen correctly. But these may suffice to signify that type of corruption. Anyone will be able to easily detect more, who compares Halm's variety of script with mine. At the same time, it will become evident from this collection of passages which I have composed above, in which the most learned man erred, that many of my findings, which he very bitterly attacked in the preface, are now free from that reproach, the testimony of the good books having been more accurately investigated.