Proclus: Commentary on Plato's Timaeus, Vol. I

than the German books, we did not note the obvious mistakes of John Hydruntinus a 16th-century Greek scholar and copyist so that the image of the tradition would not be obscured. Instead, we primarily received those variant readings of codex D that agreed with A, b, or one of the others. Nevertheless, that faulty book could not be completely ignored, lest codex Q be left without any support.

Whatever could be gathered in general concerning the fate and nature of that most precious book, which is said to have been preserved in antiquity in the archives of Mynas referring to Constantine Simonides or Minoides Mynas, a 19th-century manuscript collector ¹), we have collected above (I p. XIIIs, II p. III note 2). Few things remain. And first, indeed, those pages which falsely claim to have been written by a different scribe (207 to 347) embrace the commentaries from p. 67, 28 | νόησον understand/conceive to p. 356. Next, the names of celestial signs and stars brought forward from p. 34 to p. 67, as well as the nouns ἡμέρα day, νύξ night, μήν month, ἀριθμός number, κέντρον center, κύκλος circle, σφαῖρα sphere (as at the end of the third book, vol. II from p. 237), are not written in letters, but in symbols such as occur in astronomical and mathematical codices. Finally, concerning the gaps original: "fenestris" — literally "windows," here referring to textual omissions or holes in the manuscript that plague Q D $\varsigma$ and Q D, from which it appears that Q D $\varsigma$ flowed from one and the same archetype and Q D return to a single exemplar, and furthermore concerning the two large lacunae of codex D, which omitted p. 18, 1 to p. 20, 4 and p. 228, 24 to p. 230, 29, there is more to be discussed below, after we have spoken of the relationship that exists between Q, D, and $\varsigma$, as well as between Q, D, and $\varsigma$. For that codices Q D are far superior to the witnesses of the recensio uulgata is taught by six hundred passages of previous editions that were corrupt, now healed, and others formerly lacunose, now filled—the examples of which would be long to list.

1. Regarding Minoides Mynas, Jüthner has written in Wiener Sitzungsberichte CXLV p. 4ss, a matter on which Charles Kalbfleisch of Marburg advised me in letters. cf. also Omont, Inventory of the Greek Manuscripts of the National Library III ind.