We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 11 February 2009
As the plan of the Oxford Bibliotheca does not allow an editor to justify his treatment of a text in detail, it is inevitable that misunderstandings should arise, and I see that even a competent Platonic scholar like C. Ritter has missed the point more than once in his recent Bericht (Jahresber. für Altertumsw., Vol. CLVII., 1912, 1). I make no complaint of that–it was inevitable–but I feel bound to put on record my views on at least the more important problems suggested by the text. First, however, I must say something about the MSS. and the use which I have made of them.
1 Ľhistoire et la critique du texte platonicien (Rev.de philologie, 1910, pp. 251sqq.). I can recom-mend this article as the clearest statement of the problem to be found anywhere.
2 In his edition, K. F. Hermann designates all the scholia which he found in B as O, to distinguish them from those he found in Ruhnken (R). The fact is, however, that the scholia common to B and other MSS. are regularly added by a later hand.
1 This is doubted by Mr. T. W. Allen in his Introduction to the Leyden photographic repro-duction. One of his points falls to the ground, however, if we regard Arethas as himself the author of the scholia, which are not derived from the archetype. In that case, he may well have written them in the margin himself.
2 The importance of these references has been justly emphasized by Immisch, O., Philol. Stud., I. p. 49 sq.Google Scholar
1 Schanz says “στρξαντα in marg, γρ. b, ” but γρ. στρξαντα is certainly in the hand of John the Calligrapher and not that of Arethas or any later corrector, so “b” should be B.
