PREFACE

Because Orosius from chapter 8 onwards has consistently used the former, and that reading of the codices could easily have arisen from this one if those words were written with initial letters; this seems to be indicated by the disagreement of the codices in chapter 8 § 1.

I 5 § 7 per opportuna through suitable things] I have restored the reading of the codices, which is entirely true; in the first edition, I had written peropportune very opportunely with previous editors.

I 5 § 8 masculi et q. s. males and so on are repeated from Paul's Epistle to the Romans 1:27.

I 5 § 11 misericordiarum of mercies] i.e., the fruits which those men owed to the mercies of the Lord. I think this old emendation of what was handed down (miseriarum of miseries) is proven by a similar passage concerning Sodom itself, which I found in the commentary on the prophet Amos 4:11 (Rufinus ed. Migne p. 1073): Tunc intellegat misericordias Domini Then let him understand the mercies of the Lord. Vallarsius conjectured that the author of that commentary is our Paul Orosius; whether that is probable or not is not for this place to decide.

I 7 § 2 Offiussa] Concerning the ss, cf. H. J. Mueller in: Histor. Unters. zu A. Schaefer's Jubil. p. 149.

I 10 § 4] It will not be useless to have warned that there can be no doubt at all regarding the Orosian reading of the Tacitean excerpt. Therefore, this first point is certain: in Orosius the words utrisque deserti et credentes abandoned by both and believing are missing. Secondly, from those things which he himself added about Tacitus, it is clear that Orosius referred both sibimet to themselves and the leader to Moses, and interpreted pepulissent they had driven away as the pluperfect subjunctive, not the future perfect subjunctive.

I 19 § 10] I have now written nihil nothing instead of nil, for greater authority must be attributed to the second hand of the Laurentian codex, with the other best codices agreeing, than to the first hand of that codex alone.

I 20 § 2 I have now preferred diu late long and widely, not late diu widely and long, which the Laurentian codex alone exhibits; cf. major edition preface p. VIII line 6 sqq. For in those types of errors which are proper to the Laurentian codex, no trust is to be placed in it against the consensus of the other best codices (cf. loc. cit. p. XVIII). Which I have followed even a little more strictly in this edition.