Exhortation to Philosophy (Protrepticus)

IV PREFACE.

On p. 116, 13, he writes concerning a conjecture μὴ παρορᾶν τὰ ἀπολλύμενα καὶ διαφθ., ἅτε τῆς τοῦ κόσμου κτλ. not to overlook the things perishing and corrupting, since [the nature] of the world etc., naturally because he had not understood that the participles depended on the verb παρορᾶν to overlook (i.e., περιορᾶν to disregard). On p. 122, 20, he added the small word ἐξ out of/from after μεταλαβεῖν to partake, because "δοκιμάζεσθαι to be tested/approved is not constructed with a simple genitive!" On the other hand, on p. 57, 16, Vulcanius (or rather, an Anonymous scholar) had most correctly conjectured ποιητικοῦ productive/creative for the absurd ποιητοῦ poetic, but Kiessling rejected it, for "τὸ ποιητὸν that which is created is sometimes the same as τὸ ποιητικόν that which is creative." Nor was he more successful on p. 34, 24, where he extracted αἱ τὴν ἄλλην the others the other from the faulty writing of the apographs αἱ δ' ἄλλαι τὴν the others the, when Vulcanius’s (i.e., Anonymous’s) conjecture αἱ δι' ἄλλο those through another (but the Florentine codex has ἄλλα other things) had long since hit the mark. Furthermore, he used the resources he had at hand—I mean the Arcerian edition and the Cizensis codex—quite negligently 1) For example, p. 15, 6, ἡγεμόνι leader appears in the Arcerian edition; Kiessling omits it even in the Latin translation. Regarding the Cizensis Codex, cf. Nauck p. XL sqq. and what I have discussed myself in Comparetti's Mus. ital. d'antich. class. II p. 466.; he neither saw the Parisian book himself nor the corrections of Scaliger. Instead, he examined a copy of the Arcerian edition kept in the library of the Leipzig Senate, on the margins of which a certain learned man had inscribed what Nicolaus Rigaltius had transferred from the Parisian codex to the Berlin copy of the Arcerian edition (v. Kiessling’s Preface, p. XII). Thus it happened that he sometimes attributed the faulty readings of the Parisian book to Scaliger (e.g., p. 121, 15 ὑπέρτατον highest for ὑπὲρ πάντων above all), while he either entirely omitted Scaliger’s conjectures or ascribed them to the Parisian book (e.g., p. 110, 15 ὄγκον bulk/pride [so also the Florentine codex] for οἶκον house).