Textus Originalis

PRAEFATIO.

enim codices omnes referendi sunt ad unum exemplar, codici P dissimile nec tamen impar. Ubicumque igitur ab altera parte stat unus P, ab altera ceteri cuncti, lis adhuc, ut aiunt, sub iudice est, atque nisi rationibus ex ipsa re vel ex genere dicendi petitis diiudicari non potest, utra lectio sincera sit. Ubicumque autem cum codice P sive AHL sive FIKM consentiunt, hanc lectionem ex archetypo profectam, diversam ex coniectura (nonnumquam fortasse ingeniosa et vera) ortam esse pro explorato habeo. Quid plura? quoniam codices AHL quanto propius absunt a P, tanto reliquis praestant, libris FIKM nihil effici puto nisi ut examinetur, utrum lectiones codicum AHL his tantum propriae i. e. menda novicia vel commenta postumi librarii sint, an utrique librorum generi communes ideoque aestimatione dignae. Compluribus quidem locis libri FIKM speciem quandam virtutis prae se ferunt atque editores priores deceperunt (veluti XI 38, 2 90, 4 XII 38, 3 65, 9): nunc autem testimonio codicis P fraudis sunt convicti. Quare aliis quoque locis nobis cautio est, ne illorum praestigiis obcaecemur. Nimirum non refragamur scripturae καταπολεμήσειν, cuius loco PHL praebent καταπρονομήσειν XII 54, 3 (non A, qui eandem invenit coniecturam atque FIKM) aliisque emendationibus facilioribus; neque tamen dubitamus, quin quicumque exemplar, unde manaverunt FIKM, confecit, eas lectiones assecutus sit coniectura. — At duo sunt loci, ubi contra consensum librorum P atque AHL lectionem codicum FIKM a prioribus editoribus receptam non sustuli, non quod eam genuinam esse putassem, sed quia non habui, quo sollertiore modo lectionem codicum PAHL corruptam corrigerem:

Traduzione

PREFACE.

the other manuscripts are to be referred to a single exemplar, dissimilar to codex P yet not unequal to it. Therefore, wherever on one side stands P alone, and on the other all the rest together, the case is still, as they say, before the judge, and unless it can be decided by reasons drawn from the subject matter itself or from the style of expression, which reading is genuine. But wherever either AHL or FIKM agree with codex P, I consider it established that this reading derives from the archetype, and the divergent one arose from conjecture (sometimes perhaps ingenious and true). What more? Since AHL, the closer they are to P, the more they surpass the rest, I think nothing is achieved by books FIKM except to examine whether the readings of codices AHL that are peculiar to them alone—that is, new errors or fabrications of a later scribe—or those common to both families, and therefore worthy of consideration. In several places, indeed, the books FIKM exhibit a certain appearance of excellence and deceived previous editors (for instance, XI 38, 2; 90, 4; XII 38, 3; 65, 9): now, however, by the testimony of codex P, they are convicted of fraud. Therefore, in other places as well, we must be cautious lest we be blinded by their illusions. Of course, we do not object to the reading καταπολεμήσειν, in place of which PHL offer καταπρονομήσειν at XII 54, 3 (not A, which presents the same conjecture as FIKM), and to other easier emendations; yet we do not doubt that whoever produced the exemplar from which FIKM originated attained those readings by conjecture. — But there are two places where, against the agreement of codices P and AHL, I have not removed the reading of codices FIKM that was received by previous editors, not because I thought it genuine, but because I had no more skillful way to correct the corrupt reading of codices PAHL: