Exhortation to Philosophy (Protrepticus)

PREFACE. V

Kiessling’s Latin translation, although it far exceeds Arcerius’s in quality—which could not be more faulty—cannot be judged as perfect in every respect, especially in the Platonic 1) In the Platonic excerpts, Kiessling mostly followed Ficinus (cf. Preface p. XV), such that he took no account in his translation of the places Iamblichus had changed, or rather corrupted. and Aristotelian excerpts. I honestly confess, however, that I was aided by it; nor should all the faults be held against Kiessling, since many highly corrupted passages could neither be translated nor understood in any way.

I can affirm without the charge of arrogance that I have produced something far better in my edition, provided this praise comes not from the editor’s own talent and learning, but from the virtue of the Florentine codex (Laurent. LXXXVI, 3; cf. Bandini III, 286 sqq.; Cobet, Mnemos. II [1874], 261 sqq.; Nauck, loc. cit. p. XXXIII sqq.), which Cobet was the first to declare the archetype of all existing books, and which I myself have attempted to demonstrate with the firmest arguments, as I believe, in Mus. ital. loc. cit. p. 457 sqq. Through the help of the Florentine archetype, therefore, countless errors have been removed or at least detected; others remain, which talented men, now informed of the transmitted text, may attend to with better hope. 2) Almost all readings of the Florentine codex had long been made public by Cobet (op. cit.), Hiller (Jahrbücher für Phil. CVII [1873], p. 387 sq.), and Vitelli (Mus. it. ...) For my part, I did not...