GENERATION OF ANIMALS 



it simply omits the passage. I consider the time and 

 trouble spent upon Scot's version as well spent. 



The Greek commentary of Michael of Ephesus Comment^ 

 (formerly attributed to Johannes Philoponus), H-Mfchaeiof 

 12th century a.d., has been edited by Michael Ephesas. 

 Hayduck (Berhn, 1903), but it is of Uttle use for 

 textual criticism. 



Apart from manuscript errors of the usual kind, interpoia- 

 and losses of words or phrases due to homoioteleuton, "°"*' ®^'^- 

 etc., which \vill be found noted in their places where 

 they can be detected, the chief points of note in the 

 text of G.A. may be classed as follows : 



A. Paragraphs, occasionally sentences only, which 

 obviously interrupt the line of argument or are 

 superfluous to it. Of these, some seem to be 



{a) genuine Aristotelian material, but misplaced, 

 perhaps incorporated at the wTong place, or 

 perhaps originally supplementary notes never 

 intended to stand in the text ; 



(b) alternative versions of matter already in the 

 text ; 



(c) extraneous matter, derived from commentators' 

 remarks and wrongly incorporated in the text 

 {e.g., 724. b 12-23, 726 b 25-30). 



These are often found at the beginning or end of 

 a section, which suggests that they were originally 

 appended in the margin. There is no need to give a 

 full list of these passages, but a list of (a) and (6) may 

 be useful. They are : 



715 b 26-30 ; 718 a 27-34. ; 726 a 16-25 ; 732 a 12- 

 23 ; 737 a 35-b 7 ; 760 a 26-27 ; 760 b 2-8 ; 760 b 33— 

 761 a 2 ; 781 a 21-b 6. 



B. Short passages, often only a few words, derived 



