‘iter menstruum'か‘intermenstruum'か？（Amm. 20,3,2）

Abstract

At Amm. 20, 3, 2, Valesius' conjecture ‘iter menstruum' should be adopted at the cost of manuscript-transmitted ‘intermenstruum' for the following reasons. First, Ammianus' description of the mechanism of the solar eclipse consists of three progressive explanations, from rudimentary to professional (20, 3, 2-5). Therefore ‘intermenstruum lunae ad idem reuocatur initium, ' where ‘initium' is identical with ‘ἐκλειπτικὸς σύνδεσμος' referred to in the third explanation (20, 3, 4-5), could not be easily reconciled with the first, rudimentary explanation. Second, with the subject ‘iter menstruum, ' ‘initium' in the phrase above should mean, not ‘node, ' but ‘monthly conjunction.' The moon being at the monthly conjunction is only half-correct indeed as the cause of the solar eclipse, but Ammianus shows a similar lack of precision at the beginning of his lecture on the lunar eclipse (20, 3, 7) too. In both cases he gives a more correct account soon after. And third, his knowledge of astronomy seems more or less superficial, and it would not be appropriate for us to expect of him precise writing at all times.