PROLEGOMENA.

which are followed by
p. 46, 14 for he says of times etc. up to the end.
Now, Carrio rightly understood that those leaves from p. 35, 9–46, 13 and p. 17, 8–35, 9 were to be transposed, and he found a not improbable cause of the confusion in the words for he says; for he wrote in one place (p. 35, 9): it is given to know. For he says in the first week, but in another place (p. 46, 13): frequent. But for of times. However, he did not perceive that the matter was not yet completely healed by this method. And so, first, he deleted the words but concerning the confirmation of birth, nevertheless, which the codices add at p. 17, 7 against the sense; but he thought he had amended the other place at p. 14, 6, which is read thus in the codices:

It seemed. What dissension Alcmaeon confessed to know definitely, thinking that no one could perceive what is formed first in an infant

[he thought he had amended it] if he deleted the words what is formed first in an infant, as a useless gloss, and wrote disserting instead of the words what dissension. There is no need to point out how futile these are. And I indeed saw immediately that the words but concerning the confirmation of birth, nevertheless, which cannot be borne at p. 17, 7, have their place at p. 14, 6, and that the words what is formed first in an infant must be retained: but the words what dissension created trouble for me, and I could not attain what should be done with them. But then, Lachmann taught me that these words pertain to p. 46, 13 and are to be replaced where Carrio incorrectly placed but for. And now the reason for the whole confusion is opened.