Full Version: the third eagle...
You're currently viewing a stripped down version of our content. View the full version with proper formatting.
I am currently working on Dio and I have the original text (according to TLG) read that Sulpicius Galba overcame the Chatti and Publius Gabinius defeated the Maurisians and so he retrieved the third and last eagle lost by Varus in 9 AD.

" ὅ τε Γάλβας ὁ Σουλπίκιος Χάττους ἐκράτησε, καὶ Πούπλιος Γαβίνιος Μαυρουσίους νικήσας τά τε ἄλλα εὐδοκίμησε, καὶ ἀετὸν στρατιωτικὸν ὃς μόνος ἔτι παρ’ αὐτοῖς ἐκ τῆς Οὐάρου συμφορᾶς ἦν ἐκομίσατο"

The problem is that the translation I used to check up the text says that Gabinius conquered the Chauci, while the text clearly says the Maurisians. What is wrong here? Can it be that it was Galba who retrieved the last eagle from the Chatti? Has anyone asserted that Dio made a mistake? Or maybe, is there another text of Dio mentioning the Chauci instead of the Maurisians?

Actually, right after, Dio again speaks of the Mauri and positively identifies them as Mauritanians, so it seems that either the Moors had the third eagle in their possession or it was Galba who retrieved it -always according to Dio-.
The Maurisi may be the Marsi.

As far as I know, the reading "Maurisi" is from the manuscript known as M (which seems to refer to the Venetian manuscript called Marcianus). The Loeb prefers the other part of the tradition, which has Kauchos, i.e., the Chauci (which is based on the Parisinus and Laurentianus - the Parisinus being a copy of the Laurentinianus that was made when the Laurentinianus was in a better state than it is today).

I take this from the Loeb-introduction, which is outdated. Nevertheless, I get the impression that there are two traditions, the Marcianus and the Laurentianus. Both are plausible in the German context (accepting that Kauchos refers to the Chauci, and Maurisi to the Marsi).

My personal opinion is to prefer the Chauci, because copyist M may have inserted Maurisi under influence of the Moors in the next section.
Yes, I downloaded the Loeb and saw what you are saying. Yet, even in that text (the Loeb version) the next paragraph starts with : "In the next year, the same Moors..."

" τῷ δὲ ἐχομένῳ οἱ αὐτοὶ αὖθις Μαῦροι πολεμήσαντες"

which directly points that they were mentioned in the last paragraph -which, in turn, points at the Maurisians being indeed the Moors, since should we replace that with Cauchi, it would make no sense-. Although there is some other mention of exploits against the Moors in the same paragraph, that latter wouldn't really fit to the flow of the text, at least in my opinion . Don't we have any confirmation by some other (Roman) author?
I don't know...