PREFACE XIII

III 23 § 35 enixe eagerly] thus L alone, against PRD, which exhibit 'obnixe' strenuously; but Justin agrees with L.

IIII 5 § 8 temptatio [temptatae traditum est] cauillationis temptation [it is handed down as 'temptatae'] of caviling] To Goldbacher p. 107, it seems the simplest thing to posit a lacuna, for the word has not rarely fallen out. In both matters, he is egregiously wrong. For in the archetype of Orosius, lacunae are very rare, and what I have written, changing the syllable ae into io, is much simpler, as much on account of the form of the letters as on account of the following genitive, by which a scribe could easily have been misled. That, however, which Goldbacher proposed as an example, 'temptatae cauillationis suspicio' suspicion of attempted caviling, cannot be admitted at all.

IIII 6 § 36] in the critical apparatus, line 5, for D write: G.

IIII 6 § 39 flagella patris the scourges of the father] cf. 'flagella Domini' the scourges of the Lord, Judith 8:27.

IIII 8 § 3 murale wall-] I have retained the transmitted reading in this edition. Interpolated codices provide 'molare' millstone- with Seneca Epistles 82 § 24. But we do not have Seneca transmitted in better books than Orosius, and by itself that 'murale' is slightly more probable.

IIII 9 § 6 pugnatoribus with fighters] Likewise Eutropius II 22. Therefore, Gronovius Obs. 4, 19 did not correctly propose 'propugnatoribus' with defenders.

IIII 21 § 1 tribunus tribune] What the codices provide, 'miles' soldier, does not seem to be tolerable even in Orosius. And so I have now written 'tribunus' with Livy's Periocha p. 51, 2 (Jahn), which used the same Epitome as Orosius; TRIB. could easily be confused with MIL.. That the abbreviation 'trib.' or 'trib;' for the word 'tribunus' was once in use is shown, for example, by the Nazarian codex of the Periochae from the 9th century, which often exhibits it (1st hand): p. 10, 6. 27; 13, 21; 15, 18; 21, 8 and elsewhere. And from that, it is explained why on p. 92, 12 in it, 'tribus' is read instead of 'tribuni'.

IIII 22 § 7 and § 8 Manilius] The codices say 'Manlius'. But since in § 1 the same consul is correctly named Manilius, such an error cannot plausibly be attributed even to Orosius.

V 1 § 6 annos ducentos two hundred years] perhaps repeated from Florus II 17 § 5. Cf. Strabo 3 p. 158; Velleius 2, 38, 4.

V 15 § 18 (cf. major ed. p. XVIIII line 16)] Forms