P R E F A C E

The original text here discusses the correction of textual errors in previous editions of Ammianus Marcellinus, specifically critiquing the work of Hadrianus Valerius (Hadrian) in his editing of Lindebrogius’s observations.

...one thousand. Add the negative ς the Greek numeral for 6, which had fallen out of the number of slaughtered Romans ς πλεῖστον 6,000, or very many. Therefore, since everything has been handled so accurately, we should surely imagine it would have been more correct for Hadrian to have edited Book 27, Chapter 9, near the end, as by the constitution of the Emperors Arcadius, Honorius, and Theodosius and a little later the constitution of the Emperors Valentinian, Theodosius, and Arcadius, rather than having Lindebrogius write Emperors original: "Imppp." in both places.

And why is the ridiculous addition to the Lindebrogian note on the words Vejovis fulmine lightning of Vejovis in Book 17, Chapter 10, not a concern, where the Parisian edition appends: [Gellius also mentions Diïovis in the place cited above]? Since this is of no benefit, I have seen myself that it did not proceed in that way from Lindebrogius, who had inscribed in the margin to the word Diïurnius daily, cited in that note from the Glossary: [γρ. Greek abbreviation for 'read' Diïovis. Gell. ibid.] The codex and his own handwriting, which are in Hamburg and from which I copied it myself, testify to this even today. But that the license which whoever that was in Paris used in the Lindebrogian notes may further appear, that excellent man marked some things at the place in Book 15, Chapter 8, regarding the rite and preparation of addresses from the tribunal’s platform, writing at the end: [But so that the matter may strike the eyes more clearly, it pleases us to append a type of an ancient coin for the sake of those who are less versed in these studies; in which the form of the tribunal and the image of the standards in this part appear], to which he had added a coin of the Emperor Probus. And that Hadrianic edition omitted all these words and the coin, by what authority I do not know. This fastidiousness is all the more foolish, because Henry Henry Valesius seems to describe that very coin in almost the same words in Book 16, Chapter 12. Vice versa, in Book 20, Chapter 5, where Ammianus makes mention of the Genius Publicus Public Spirit/Genius, the French edition decided to append an image of the Genius Publicus so trivial that nothing could be worse, which is proven by the beard alone, which never appears on coins of his time where the type of the Genius Publicus is most frequent, and is only attached to the Genius of the Senate on a coin of Antoninus Pius. And certainly, this type does not agree with the Lindebrogian description, since that description states it was with a veiled head, which is held otherwise in this figure. But also, so that the reader may know whence they sought it, or where Lindebrogius indicated it could be found, you will see cited there Piso, Chorel, and those who have written further on this matter, when he means Choul Guillaume du Choul, a 16th-century antiquarian.

But was Hadrian the one who should have so severely disparaged Lindebrogius’s Greek excerpts? Does he himself, or the whole world, not know how often his brother Henry repeats those very Lindebrogian excerpts and almost desires to make them his own? Did Lindebrogius not first note the insolence of Diocletian in Book 14, Chapter 11, with which he received Maximian, from Rufus Festus and Eutropius, and did Valesius not follow him? And in the same way, is the same action taken in the places of Velleius regarding the custom of fates? Does Valesius not bring forward the same thing from Gellius regarding alum in Book 20, Chapter 11, which Lindebrogius had brought forward before? But just as the latter wrongly places the numbers in Book 15, Chapter 5, so the other does wrongly in Book 16 at the beginning, when it is 15, 1. Is Valesius alone or the first who restored ἀπόκρυψιν σελήνης the eclipse of the moon to Ammianus in Book 20, Chapter 3, or explained it, and did Lindebrogius not precede him? Was that story of Julian shaking his shield and the passage of Vegetius from Book 2, Chapter 14, not pointed out and explained by Lindebrogius to Valesius? Did Valesius not repeat from Lindebrogius that the Massagetae are called Huns in the passage of Procopius at Book 23, Chapter 5? Did he bring the clashing of arms in assent and the passage of Julius Caesar from Book 7 of the Gallic War to this place from anywhere else than from Lindebrogius, or at least after him? Did Lindebrogius not note the discrepant number regarding the battles of Marcellus in Book 25, Chapter 3, from Pliny and Solinus before Valesius, and did the same Lindebrogius not first note those adoreas rewards/victories overshadowed by Catiline in the same place, taken from Solinus by imitation, in such a way that Valesius nonetheless inculcated that very same thing, so that he brought absolutely nothing at all beyond the Lindebrogian material? In Book 27, Chapter 6, where Ammianus praises a judge if he is like the laws, is it not Lindebrogius who notes first that this is done by him in imitation of Cicero in Book 1 of De Officiis, and is Valesius the one who nonetheless mixes that Lindebrogian excerpt into his own? For when Valesius, in Book 31, Chapter 2, regarding the sword among...