M. Croiset, but it cannot be called entirely successful. The order in which they are to be presented in this edition is that followed in the best manuscripts, which, through its adoption in Rabe’s edition of the scholia to Lucian and in Nilén’s edition of the text, bids fair to become standard.
There are a hundred and fifty manuscripts of Lucian, more or less, which give us a tradition that is fairly uniform but none too good. There is no satisfactory critical edition of Lucian except Nilén’s, which is now in progress. His text will be followed in this edition where it is available; elsewhere, that of Jacobitz (1851). The critical notes will record not only departures from Nilén or Jacobitz, as the case may be, but also their chief divergences from the manuscripts. In order that text and translation may as far as possible correspond, conjectures have been admitted with considerable freedom: for the fact that a good many of them bear the initials of the translator he need not apologize if they are good; if they are not no apology will avail him. He is deeply indebted to Professor Edward Capps for reviewing his translation in the proof.
