...from Peter Adamson (KCL/Munich). They seem fairly sensible. (I might quibble with #17, at least in the case of historical figures who have been subjected to exhaustive and sophisticated philosophical commentary--their the secondary literature may of co-equal importance with the primary text, at least for someone motivated by the philosophical issues.) What do readers who work in history of philosophy think? Submit your comment only once, they may take awhile to appear (busy day!).