^{page 126 note †} Burnet, J., Platonis Opera, i ², Oxf. 1905Google Scholar, and Plato's Phaedo, Oxf. 1911Google Scholar; Robin, L., Phédon, Paris, 1926Google Scholar (Oeuvres compl. de Plat. iv. 1, ‘Belles Lettres’).—OnW see: Krái, J., ‘Über d. Platocod. d. wiener Hofbibl. suppl. phil. gr. 7’ (Wien. St. xiv [1892], 161–208)Google Scholar, and Immisch, O., Philol. Stud. zu Pl., II: De recens. Plat. praesid. atq. ration., Leipz. 1903Google Scholar.

^{page 126 note ‡} This is the reading given by Robin in the text, most probably a misprint.

^{page 126 note §} L-&-S s.v. ρ exemplifies ρρθη only from Aristot. Categ II^b12, 14; the oldest of the Categ. (Ambros. L 93, 9th cent.) reads ρρθη in both passages. ρρθη is probably a Byzantine, or simply a wrong, spelling.

^{page 127 note *} 0. Immisch, op. cit. 33–9. On Henricus Aristippus and his translation of the Phaedo see: Metelli, L., ‘Sulle due redaz. del Fed. lat. di Arist.’ (Atti R. 1st. Ven. xcvil. ii. 113–40)Google Scholar; Kordeuter, V. and Labowsky, C., Meno, Lond. 1940 (Corp. Platon. Med. Aevi, Plato Lat. i), ix–xiGoogle Scholar; and Minio-Paluello, L., ‘Henri Aristippe, Guill. de Moerb.…’ (Rev. philos. de Louv. xlv [1947], 206–35)Google Scholar. An edition of Aristippus' Phaedo is now being printed as vol. ii of the Plato Lat.; the passage examined by Immisch had been published by Rose, V., ‘Die Lücke im Diog. Laert.…’ (Hermes, i [1866]), 372–3Google Scholar; some readings were published by Forster, N., Platonis Dialogi V, Oxf. 1745, 1752, 1765, 1800Google Scholar (from the Oxford MS. of Aristippus' translation), and by Wyttenbach, D., Plat. Phaed., Leyden 1810Google Scholar, and Leipzig 1825 (from the Leyden MS.).

^{page 127 note †} Burnet, J., How Platonism Came to England, Cambr. 1924Google Scholar (reprinted in Essays and Addresses, Lond. 1929, 265–76), 8 (= 273).

^{page 127 note ‡} Bekker, I., Platonis Scripta Omnia v, Lond. 1826Google Scholar.

^{page 127 note §} On Aristippus', method of translating see the article in Rev. philos. de Louv. quoted above, 211–20Google Scholar.

^{page 128 note *} The results of Aristippus' work in the three stages are still preserved; see Metelli, op. cit. Her opinion that the revisions are not Aristippus' work is not supported by facts or reasonable argument; cf. Rev. pkilos. de Louv. 212, n. 14.

^{page 128 note †} At 69^a7 λλαγ δονσ was rightly translated by commercium voluptates in the first version; but Aristippus had not understood the sentence, and translated the ρθ connected with λλαγ by recta; in his revision he thought the sense was more acceptable by reading λλ γ' δονσ or λλ γ' δονς and translating immo voluptates. At 82^b6 ἤ πον μελιττν is rightly rendered by vel apum in the final version; in one MS. of the first version we read vel canum, in the other the meaningless vel cāu; there must have been an unreadable mistake for apum in the common source of those two MSS., and there is no reason to conjecture— as Miss Metelli does— for vel canum an ἧ ποιμενικν, which Aristippus would never have translated in that way. At 97^b5 Aristippus' neque aliud vel alium quempiam in the final version, in the place of neque aliud nichil of the first, for οὐδ' ἄλλο οὐδν is probably the result of a possible alternative—in the masculine—added by Aristippus between the lines of his final copy, in a passage which he had not understood, and which does not make sense in either of his versions.

^{page 128 note ‡} See Immisch, op. cit. 65, 70.

^{page 128 note §} For the present purpose we consider as strictly characteristic of this family those readings which appear in w and Δ, and possibly in other manuscripts of the same group, but not in B, T, Y, and the manuscripts connected with them.