The Roman History (Res Gestae)

to embrace the merits of all previous editions, but to be free of their same faults, as he writes at the end of his preface.

In the first place, I could not forgive Hadrian for the following: although he used a different paper format and a different layout and arrangement of notes than his brother Henri had used (whose notes were printed separately after the completed text of Ammianus, and who had adapted the citations of various passages to the pages of that specific edition, as was fitting), Hadrian left these same numbers throughout, even though the paper is not τετράπυχος four-fold/quarto, and the content clearly disagrees with those numbers and Henri's intended purpose, containing something far different and unrelated on those cited pages. The result is that as often as a citation of a passage from Ammianus is made in the Valesian notes—which happens in countless places—it is tainted by a foolish flaw. How foul it is, for instance, when a Valesian note is placed on page 49 of the Parisian edition, in which it is written "[See Marcellinus below p. 31]," which occurs there in a note to the words the uncle of the Gaul would perish, when that page had already passed by so long before! Is it not improper that in that edition, in Book 27, Chapter 5, page 484, it is written at the word Mysia "[concerning which Marcellinus in book 18, page 140?]," when that page there falls within Book 16? It is all the more indecent because Henri, in his own edition, cited page 104 correctly. Indeed, this edition was not only prepared negligently in this regard, but was also intolerably bold in some way—I know not through whose intervention—so that a citation inserted by Henri was recently deleted and omitted. Thus, when Henri writes in his edition on page 399, which falls at the beginning of Book 30, where he points out inexplicabile inexplicable as a subject instead of inexpiabile inexpiable "[The same error persists in book 15, page 35]," this later edition subsequently expelled the fifth word along with the last number on page 585. Likewise, in the following note regarding τῷ cuppediæ the greed/daintiness, where Henri notes "[here and in book 26, page 311]," his brother wanted only "[here and in book 26]" to be published. I did not notice that he changed anything except once, namely in Book 31, Chapter 12, where Henri was noting the word recingi to be ungirded. Certainly, he should have changed that faulty bit which occurs in the note to Book 28, Chapter 3, page 525, at the words In the place of Valens, Iovinus, where Valesius writes: "[I am moved by the passage, which is on p. 370]," where there is nothing that pertains to this matter, and page 307 falls into a passage of book 25 which he cited; so I do not know what he intends.

Secondly, certain open errors appeared in the Valesian commentaries, whether of the printers or of the author himself. When I rightly hoped these had been corrected, or at least marked by some sign, I discovered to my horror that they were not only left there, but that new ones had been added. Thus, in Book 15, Chapter 4, regarding the final equilibrium, Henri names Antonius Loisellus, but in the new Parisian edition, it is Antoninus. Thus, in Book 31, Chapter 13, where a note is made about Equitius, it is now added for the first time from Henri's manuscript: "[And so Crispinianus cites in the Fasti]." In Book 23, Chapter 5, Henri cites the words He summons the interpreters, and notes: "[Read arcessiti interrogatique summoned and questioned, as the Augustan edition has it]." In this, the excellent man was wrong. For it is read clearly in that edition as accersiti. This is all the more noteworthy because Hadrian chose to add there that it is read this way in the Colbertine codex.

In Book 21, Chapter 10, Hadrian produced a new note of his brother's to the words ending in narrow, swollen hills, where he conflated different things into one. For all those words—"[In Nicephorus, in book 9, chapter 13, it is read σχόακις Schoakis, not much better than in Socrates, from whom Nicephorus copied it. Only Philostorgius in book 3 correctly names Σύκεις Ἄλπεις Sykeis Alpes: but Nicephorus here too preferred Σχόακις Schoakis]"—do not belong here, but to the preceding note about Succis, and Henri wanted them referred there, in whatever part of the page he may have noted it.

In Book 22, Chapter 8, are the words of Ammianus: sacrificing strangers to Diana, who is called Oreiloche among them, to which Henri, noting something, writes among other things: "[he established Iphigenia herself as priestess of his Tauropolis]," in which there is no meaning. Yet, I did not sustain changing anything, since Henri could have changed things that were published incorrectly. However, in Henri's own edition, it was priestess of Diana of Tauropolis, and that agrees sufficiently with the mangled words of Antoninus.