No CrossRef data available.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 11 February 2009
Dilts (Teubner, 1974) prints ⋯c⋯ᾳ πομπῇ (⋯c⋯αν πομπ⋯c codd., corr. Faber). Hercher before him (Teubner, 1866) adopted the conjecture θε⋯α πομπή (Davis). Several pieces of evidence tell in favour of the latter text.
1 Commentaria in Aristotelem Graeca, vol. XXI.2 (Berlin, 1896): [sc.
2 Cf. e.g. Soph. El. 1156–8; PI. R. 620d8; Plu. Mor. 361c, Sull. 7.10; Cass. Dio 57.15.7; lamb. Myst. 3.16; Lyr. Adesp. 1018 (b) 3–7 (PMG); AP VI.182.5; see F. Pfister, RE suppl. 7, 106.
3 See Whittaker, J., ‘The Value of Indirect Tradition in the Establishment of Greek Philosophical Texts or the Art of Misquotation’, in J.N., Grant (ed.), Editing Greek and Latin Texts (New York, 1989), pp. 63–95, esp. 83–9; id., Alcinoos. Enseignment des doctrines de Platon (Paris, 1990), pp. xxii-v.Google Scholar
4 But Calcidius' use of comes in his quotation of Thg. 128d2–7 (in Ti. 263.20–264.2 Waszink) strongly suggests wape-rrofitvov as his model (see Waszink's apparatus fontium).