The Extant Greek Works of Apollonius of Perga, Vol. II

272, 6; 352, 24). There are also instances where he perceived an error but left a lacuna because he was not confident in emending it (II p. 244, 10, 13; 248, 6, 9; 322, 13; cf. p. 182, 25); at II p. 296, 6 it happened to him that, instead of the true reading ἡμέραν day, which he did not understand, he placed ἡμε with a following lacuna. In not a few places the interpolation is manifest, when he either incorrectly corrects errors he correctly identified (II p. 200, 25; 202, 21; 242, 5; 270, 7, 10; 296, 24; 302, 13; 304, 1, 8; 306, 7; 308, 26; 326, 13; 338, 14; 342, 15; 352, 5) or changes a good reading at his own whim (II p. 168, 12; 176, 24; 236, 3; 294, 23; 310, 2; cf. how at II p. 274, 3 he corrects γεναμένην having been born/made to γενομένην having been born/made, and how in the verb εὑρίσκω to find he always prefers forms without the augment, see II p. 292, 19; 294, 8, 23; 330, 12; 332, 12). At II p. 194, 26; 260, 1; 274, 5 he conspires with the recent hand of codex W.

apparatus From all these things it follows that in editing Eutocius, codex W alone must be considered the authority. Therefore, I have given all its discrepancies in the critical apparatus. But since p has so many plausible conjectures, I have also included its reading in full, except that I have noted nothing regarding the forms ἐστί is and ἐστίν is; of the other codices, I have noted only a few things from U v w, and have entirely neglected the rest.

Now let us look at the nature of codex W. I will explain below that the commentaries
Vat. 204 of Eutocius in it were excerpted from a codex of the Conics, where they were written in the margin, as had been ordered by Eutocius from the beginning; the numerous lacunae marked by the scribe himself show that the margins of this codex were damaged, especially toward the end.

Furthermore, that it was written in uncial letters is apparent from errors such as II p. 174, 23 ΠΛΕΟΝ more