234 Austin Morris Harmon, 



Constantii 1. 46. 1 ; 150. 21 ; 251. 26 



Craugasii I. 168. 19; 208. 18 



Chnodomarii 1. 102. 82 



Aesculapii I. 296. 9 



Procopii II. 89. 17 



Strategii II. 75. 16 



Vulcatii I. 253. 4 



The only case, as far as I know, of a common noun with the 

 genitive in -i is triclini (I. 48. 17), which is called for by the manu- 

 script as well as by the clausula, and which is to be accounted for 

 b}^ the fact that the title triclini rationalis had become formulaic 

 through long use. Instances of the ordinary genitive in -;'/ may be 

 found in the following passages: I. 96. 11 ; 103. 15; 113. 4; 175. 25; 

 193. 11; 279. 17; 284. 13: 317. 16; II. 4.9. 



Other points that I have noted in this connection are liut few. 

 The laws of the clausula support the manuscript reading commmiibal 

 in I. 163. 7 and require the introduction of the same form in II. 

 138. 1, and custodibat in II. 84. 30. They reject praesagiebat in I. 

 310. 34 (where V has praesagebat), and require either praesagibat 

 or praesagabat. Again, in II. 78. 15 they condemn the traditional 

 detestabant and favor the substitution of the usual form detestabantur 

 (cf. I. 291. 15). 



Chapter IV. CRrricisM. 



The observation that Ammianus favored certain cadences in his 

 clausulae and avoided others is of course one of great im]:)ortance 

 for text-criticism. Its practical significance is but little limited by 

 our uncertaint}' as to the exact status of the avoided cadences, for 

 even if the}' were not rejected altogether they were certainly so 

 seldom used that any reading which jiresents one of them is thereby 

 rendered suspicious and subject to emendation if emendation is 

 ])ossible. 



The principal matter of critical interest tliat has come to my 

 attention in working through the Histories is that in those cases in 

 which lacunae are filled out by Gelenius his suppleta conform to 

 the requirements of the clausula.^ We must therefore consider them 



1 E. g. I. 265. 17; 288. 18-20; II. 24. 5; 25. 28-29; 26. 3; 83. 2. 

 This fact has already been pointed out by Clark (Text Traditioji of Am. 

 p. 65), who also refers to Mommsen's vindication {Hermes 15. 244) of 

 one of these suppleta (II. 98. 14) on an epigraphic basis. 



