The Roman History (Res Gestae)

In Book 31, page 80 of the Parisian edition, at the page of the text 639, where the words are: While he was serving among his shield-bearers, and guarding the royal palace, they append this note as if it were Lindebrogius's: "[Socrat. book 3, chapter 1: one of the shield-bearers. Antoninus Aug. in the Itinerary]." Lindebrogius must have been a fool and a blockhead indeed if he sustained noting things in such a way that he could join these two citations about the same matter, which, however, these Parisians have saddled that excellent man with. Hadrian would have been right to complain about him, as he sustains writing in the preface, that he often dwells on trifles and fills entire pages with Greek excerpts everywhere, which we could do without with a calm mind. But, oh the crime! Those unlearned detractors of other men's work contracted a double note of Lindebrogius into one, when the last four words pertained to a note about Bononia, which note the Gauls, perhaps at the prompting of some author who wanted to play games, eradicated entirely. Moreover, anyone who examines page 38 of the Parisian edition's note in Book 17, Chapter 13, to the words With swords drawn, which they worship as gods, will recognize that complaint of Hadrian as very true, for there he sees a citation about the Alans from Book 31 and about the Danes from M. Adam placed twice with all the same words intact, and indeed six lines are filled with words that we could certainly not only do without with a calm mind, but which are repeated through mere stupidity. But let Hadrian take this away and enjoy it, so that he may boast of the Observations of Lindebrogius edited by him; let him not add that they are more corrected. For far be it from us to believe that Lindebrogius blathered thus or wanted to be filled out; Hadrian himself is at fault, since Lindebrogius had renewed that entire note, wishing for the whole prior one to be induced, which he did not obtain from the French kindness. However, so that you do not wonder less at Hadrian, he consulted no differently in his brother's note in Book 31, Chapter 2, to the words They bind with twisted ribbons; where, when Henri had placed in a note: "[Mela mentions this indeed regarding the Jaxamatae at the end of book 1]," this man, not satisfied with this, recently added: "[And Mela in book 1, last chapter, writes that the women of the Jaxamatae, who are closest to the mouth of the Tanais, fight from horses, and that those enemies they catch with lassos, they finish off by dragging]." Since Henri had appended these later at some time, either forgetting what he had once arranged to be edited there or wanting to explain that which he had collected more briefly before, it would not have been unseemly for Hadrian to inspect properly if Henri had left any note of his own will there. Lindebrogius was entirely delusional if in Book 17, Chapter 7, citing the words of Ammianus, he wrote Neptune infests the Ennos of moist substance, as Hadrian could edit there, when the author himself is otherwise in the Hamburg edition. Thus, to the words Which is estimated as the sun in Book 19, Chapter 4, for Hadrian's sake Lindebrogius cited Alexander on the Heliac Tablet twice. Surely he deserved to be dismissed as a herald who would inquire who has knowledge of Julian of Carrhae, whom two editions prove to have been known to Lindebrogius from the notes to Book 29, Chapter 11, to the words With the belly of the living woman cut open and the premature birth extracted. No one, indeed, will deny the copious and superfluous abundance of notes in Lindebrogius, who in that Parisian edition will have seen it written by Lindebrogius to Book 27, Chapter 4, after he cited Whence their radiance]: "[Whence his radiance. Ammianus wrote: whence their radiance.]" Truly a note worthy of exercising Parisian type! In the notes at the end of Book 20, among the new additions, they edited from Valerius Flaccus: Now, he says, let him snatch the Titan from the goddess bird, when Lindebrogius, as it is read in the poet himself, wrote cruel dirae. What, therefore, my reader, do you think of the Greek? To Book 23, Chapter 3, where the Gauls edit in the citation of Chrysostom σημάτων δέσμὸν a bond of signs, what, I pray, did they understand? But in Book 17, Chapter 4, Hadrian acted as a brilliant corrector; since in Hamburg, in the passage of Glycas, at the words by the appearance of a bee, it had been edited οὐχ εἰροτονητὸς not ordained, he himself edited οὐκ εἰροτονητὸς not ordained. Could I therefore hope from such a corrector that the Greek would be understood or restored in the allegation of Procopius to Book 19, Chapter 6, to the words The Gauls, impatient of delay, girded with axes and swords, where it is now edited twice: ἡ λαβὴ δὲ τῷ ξίφει βραχεῖα ἐστάγαν the handle of the sword is short...? as the Parisians do, or ἐστάγαν as the Hamburgers do? Much less could I think that he ought to have [fixed the citation] from Zosimus to Book 24, Chapter 7, to the words Slaughtering more or less two of the Persians...