The quotations from Empedokles shed more light on the method of Simplicius. Not infrequently lines are omitted in sequence, as two lines between 68 and 70 (_Phys._ 158, 1 f.), and again in the same quotation one line between 90 and 92, and two lines between 93 and 94. According to Bergk the line between 174 and 176 should be omitted (it is identical with 184); and Schneidewin inserts here line 175 (of Stein) from Stobaeos; the passage occurs twice in the same form in Simplicius, however (and once in the scholia to Aristotle), so that this error probably existed in the text from which Simplicius copied. On p. 33, 19 of the _Physica_ two passages from different parts of the poem of Empedokles are joined without break, and the end of line 95 (Stein 115) is modified to make the connection between the two passages. In two instances I believe that Simplicius (or some copyist) has repeated in a quotation some lines from the last previous quotation. On p. 159 of the _Physica_ the end of the first quotation is repeated as the end of the second, except that a summary phrase is substituted for the last half-line; again on p. 160 (lines 6-8) we find three lines which had occurred in the last previous quotation, and which are inserted here with the change of a connecting word. Sometimes we can point out an error that probably existed in the text from which Simplicius copied, as in the case of line 175 mentioned above. Thus ἐδεῖτο in line 99, κῆρυξ in 93, βεβλάστηκε at 105, and probably ἤερος in 78 appear in repetitions of the same quotation at different points, and so may be assigned to the source of Simplicius. In other instances we may say that Simplicius copied carelessly, as in the case of line 89, which is corrected in the prose paraphrase, and possibly 138, where the curious text in the _Physica_ may be corrected from the _de caelo_. The state of our manuscripts of Simplicius, however, is probably responsible for most of the numerous errors in the forms of words. From this survey of the sources I have omitted the names of many writers who furnish some little addition to our knowledge of the fragments, for their method of quotation is relatively unimportant, nor have I thought it necessary to consider later writers who throw light only on the later history of the fragments. Accordingly I have not spoken of Eusebios, who repeats quotations from Plutarch and from Clement, or of Theodoret, who drew from Clement, or of Julian, who drew from Plutarch. Again, I have not spoken of Stobaeos, or Eustathios, or the scholia generally, as sources, for we are not at present able to determine the line of tradition for these fragments. I have, however, examined the more important sources of fragments, in order that the student may be able to estimate the relative value of the sources, both as to text and as to directness of transmission, in his own study of them. II.