GENERATION OF ANIMALS 



Piatt seems to have known nothing of Bonitz' or 

 Susemihl's work, and Bitterauf seems to have kno\\'n 

 nothing of Piatt's work. Bitterauf refers to and 

 quotes Susemihl's article, but puts forward as an 

 original conjecture one which Susemihl had already 

 made (756 a.S^). 



Several emendations have been put forward by 

 various scholars, beginning vdth Schneider, on the 

 strength of Gaza's Latin version, others on that of 

 WilUam of Moerbeke. As a contribution to the pro- WiiUam of 

 jected Teubner edition of G.A., Dittmeyer " published ^lll^'tto'n. 

 in 1915 the first part of William's version (up to 

 737 b 5). Although this version gives support to two 

 small emendations already adopted in my present 

 text (at 733 b 34. and 734.* b 18), and at 775 a 11 ff. 

 (teste Schneider) preserves a passage which our Greek 

 Mss. have lost, in general it does not \ield am-thing 

 that is independent of our existing Greek mss. and is, 

 as Dittmeyer himself agreed, of little value for the 

 restoration of the text.** 



The case is far different ^^ith Michael Scot's version. Miclutei 

 This was made about 1217, not from a Greek text, t^nslation. 

 but from an Arabic translation, itself made at the 

 beginning of the 9th centurv^ and hence the Greek 

 text involved must have been considerably older than 

 any of our present mss. and a priori may have repre- 

 sented an independent tradition of the text : indeed, 

 my examination of Scot's version has proved this to 

 be so. Dittmeyer quotes Schneider's opinion (IV. 

 xxxvii) that Scot's version is of httle value for restor- 



" Guilelmi Moerbekensis translatio commentation is Aris- 

 totelicae De generatione animalium. Edidit Leonardus 

 Dittmeyer. Programm des K. humanistischen Gymnasiums 

 Dillingen a. D. fiir das Schuljahr 1914/15. 



•" See also P. A. (Loeb ed.), p. 47. 



xxix 



