Amm. 20.8.3–4, Quid Claudius Iulianus, a militibus Augustus appellatus, Constantio II binis litteris ad posteritatem adtentior scripserit
Gualtherius Calboli
Abstract I took into account an Ammianus passage, namely 20,8,3–4, where the text edited by all modern scholars has been marked with two crosses to show that is not sure. As a matter of fact in every edition we read: [ Iulianus ] quamquam non † repugnanter, tamen nec adrogantibus uerbis, quicquam scripsit, ne uideretur subito repugnasse . Here adverb causes problems, because reader expects find scripsit without A solution place after uerbis as Pighi and Seyfarth did substitute But such too arbitrary. Another was proposed Petschening, i.e. replace repugnanter repurganter difference between reduced similar difficulty occurred also However, considered more attentive reading manuscript Fuldensis, father manuscripts which transmitted Ammianus’ text, found word , caused problem, exist produced editors from following reading: repugnant certant V m1 m2 ( = Fuldensis). seems have introduced order explain infrequent : first hand The gloss, second dividing eliminating this way: repugnan terr̭ tanῑ cer tant ) read ter considering great similarity c t Carolingian script, added /. This what remained tam for its part abbreviation On other hand, some examples behaviour employed librari, e.g. 22,8,29 Sauromatae, per quos amnes fluunt perpetui // Clark Rolfe Selem Fontaine Viansino quosdam esfluit quosđ/ m3. In case am letter n over es d deleted another placed over, thus arriving finally at expression: (i.e. Sarmatas perpetui: quosđ fluu petui clear example how librari worked.
Journal of Latin Linguistics