intro
Bernardakis’s text of this work is one of his most unsatisfactory; even for an editio minor it is careless and confused to a deplorable extent. Nor are the means of correcting and supplementing it at hand, the fifth Teubner volume being still, one fears, in the remote future. Then, too. the only photographs available were those of E and Β. which are not likely to add much to our knowledge.See the recent brisk controversy as to their relationship: Manton, Class. Quart. xliii (1949), pp. 97-104; Hubert, Rhein. Mus. xciii (1950), pp. 330-336; Einarson and De Lacy, Class. Phil. xlvi (1951), p. 110, n. 56; Flaceliere, ed. Plutarch, Amatorius, pp. 35 ff. The evidence in this essay, for what it may be worth, seems to make it unlikely that B was here copied from either E or an immediate descendant; they both appear to go back to a common ancestor, perhaps through several intermediaries: see, e.g., 951 a, b, d, 953 e. See now Cherniss supra, pp. 27, note a; 31, 32. Consequently the only course that seemed prudent was to return to Wyttenbach wherever there was a reasonable doubt. Bernardakis has been tacitly corrected (or altered, whichever it may be) in a good many places. This has been done consistently when both E and Β agree with Wyttenbach’s and Hutten’s silence; Bernardakis’s silence, unfortunately, appears to have no significance.
intro
The work is no. 90 in the catalogue of Lamprias.
