IV PREFACE

There is no need to discuss more extensively the relationship that exists between these books, whether individually or arranged in classes (MP:QD, MP:Q:D), since in reviewing the third book we have found confirmed by many readings only those things which we set forth in the second chapter of the preface to the first volume (pages XXIX. XLIX). This only must be kept in mind: that codex DA "codex" is a manuscript in book form; 'D' is the shorthand label for a specific Paris manuscript., although it once preserved the true reading exceptionally well against Q ςSigla representing other manuscript groups. (page 286, line 6: original: "περισσῶς : περιεστῶς uel περιεστὼς" "excessively" instead of "standing around"), is generally closer to the ςThe "vulgate" or common version of the text. group than to Q.

The aids of lesser value are these:
ς = the common revision original: "recensio uulgata" of the Munich Royal Library codex 382 (A) and the Oxford Corpus Christi codex 98 (b), upon which the Basel and Schneider editions are based, as well as other books (Vol. I, pages XIV and XX ff.)
th = the Latin version by Niccolò Leonico Tomeo (Vol. I, pages XV f.) from page 119, line 25 to page 274, line 14, and from page 278, line 27 to page 292, line 29.
L = excerpts from the Laurentian Greek codex, shelf 28, codex 20 (Vol. I, page XV) from page 171, line 21 to page 174, line 9.

The judgment we previously made (Vol. I, pages XXXVII ff. and XXIX f.) concerning the authority of the common revision (ς) certainly had to be retained in restoring the text of the third book: whatever good [comes] from

who in the year 1814 wrote out the Neapolitan codex N of Proclus (Vol. I, page X), conjectured that he was the author of the dialogue on astrology entitled Hermippus. With his usual sagacity, he directed me to find in that dialogue those passages which must trace back to Proclus's commentaries, whether the author intended it or not (Vol. I, page L and page 476). Most recently, he informed me by letter that A. J. H. Vincent had previously published new readings and additions from the Paris codices 1838 (D) and 1841 (Vol. I, page XIV) in the Journal of Philology II (1847), page 347 ff. And indeed, in that journal, that learned man—while reviewing Schneider's edition, which was drawn from the worst sources—published several additions which we gathered half a century later in the 'Proclian Aids' original: "Subsidiis Proclianis". It is strange, however, that not even he, although he inspected the book, perceived the superiority of the Paris codex 1840 (P) over all the others. A certain friend named Mynas had shared codex Q (Vol. I, page XIII) with that same most learned man; this book had been preserved from ancient times in the archives of Mynas's family (page 352, note 1).