ARISTOTLE 



ing the text, but it is obvious that neither he nor 

 Bitterauf" had troubled to read Scot's version of 

 G.^. beyond the tiny fr a.gmentH( frustula, Dittmeyer's 

 own word) quoted by previous scholars. Against this 

 we have the opinion of G. Rudberg,** M'ho had made 

 a considerable study of it in connexion with H.A. and 

 published its version ot H.A.'X. in extenso, that there is 

 no doubt of its critical value for rectifying the text ; 

 and this judgement I can confirm from my own 

 experience. Naturally, the circumstances dictate 

 that proper safeguards must be adopted in using it 

 for correcting the Greek text ; and what these are 

 can be learnt only by fairly wide experience of the 

 version itself; any judgement given," either for or 

 against, without this experience as a foundation is 

 worse than useless. My own method has involved 

 the transcription of a large number of continuous 

 passages from the mss. of Scot's version, containing 

 places which some previous editor or I myself had 

 already felt for some reason to be doubtful ; and the 

 pertinent parts of these, where they have anything to 

 contribute, I have given in the apparatus. Scot's 

 version sometimes confirms conjectures previously 

 made, sometimes it confirms the suspected corruption 

 of the text either through glosses or otherwise, and 

 in these cases may suggest means for remedying the 

 trouble. Often it clearly confirms the existing text ; 

 sometimes it gives no clear indication, and sometimes 



" Bitterauf quotes Scot only once, and that quotation is 

 taken from Bussemaker. 



* Kleinere Aristotelesfragen, in Eranos, IX (1909), 92 fF. ; 

 see also Zmn so-genannten 10. Buck der Tiergeschichte, Up- 

 sala, 1911. 



"= e.g., D. W. Thompson, C.R. LII (1938), 15 " the dubious 

 aid of an Arabic version " ; see also ibid., p. 89. 

 xxx 



