PREFACE

But Orosius could have excerpted this little flower from Eutropius II 6 (which it is established was used by him for the preceding material); for with him, the other family of codices certainly exhibits 'coruus alis' raven with wings, with which Orosius's copy of Eutropius usually agrees (see what I said in the first edition p. XXVI), whereas in the only witness of the former family (the Gotha codex), 'coruus' was omitted by the first hand. However, what is handed down in Florus, 'sacra alite', presents neither the appearance of an interpolation by itself nor any offense at all, since it immediately follows: 'et inde Coruini' and from there the Corvini.

III 12 § 11 ueluti e specula as if from a watchtower] The best codices of Justin do not exhibit 'uelut e' as if from but 'uelut' as if or 'ueluti' as if, as Ruehlius taught. And so, perhaps the 'e' was born from the 'I' and one should write uelut e specula. Orosius I 1 § 16 said: 'e specula' from a watchtower, I pr. § 11 and III 23 § 2: 'de specula' from a watchtower.

III 13 § 9 sese himself] I have now written it so, since the Laurentian codex exhibits 'se' himself alone.

III 15 § 7 in the critical apparatus to line 7, after caudenas Caudinae, add: P.

III 16 § 5 sub una die in one day] Since the Laurentian codex alone testifies to 'uno' one, I have now preferred the authority of the rest of the best codices. Correctly, Goldbacher p. 107.

III 18 § 5 Mandos] In Justin XII 3 § 4, one reads 'Mardos' the Mardi (see Ruehlius), and it can indeed happen that 'n' in the Orosian codices was born from 'r'; but it is better not to change anything in an uncertain matter. 'Mandros', which certain interpolated codices exhibit, I think was repeated from III 19 § 6.

III 18 § 7 Euergetas the Euergetae] The codices of Justin exhibit 'euergitas' the Euergitae, as Ruehlius testifies. The Donaueschingen codex of Orosius provides the same, but by chance, I think, for in countless places Codex D has 'i' instead of 'e', and here it is stripped of the trust of the other codices.

III 20 § 11 in the critical apparatus, correct: tunc] PRD with L¹ then L².

III 22 § 14 etiam also] the Laurentian alone omitted it, which is why I have accepted it.

III 23 § 7 The forms Ptolemaeus and Ptolomaeus Ptolemy must be discussed in a proper commentary, which is not for this place.