[79]. I do not pretend to have extensively consulted or “compulsed” the learned and admirable labours of Mr Rutherford on this subject. But I have taken care to refresh and confirm old familiarity with Dindorf’s edition by reading that of Dübner with the additions in the Didot collection.
[80]. See the useful and interesting, if rather widely titled, paper of Ad. Trendelenburg, Grammaticorum Græcorum De Arte Tragicâ Judiciorum Reliquiæ. Bonn: 1867.
[81]. Ibid., p. 1.
[82]. Ed. P. N. Papageorgius. Leipsic: 1888.
[83]. Ed. Dindorf and Maass. Oxford, 6 vols., 1855-88.
[84]. See Dindorf’s collection, enlarged with variants at the beginning of vol. v. by Maass.
[85]. I.e., “recapitulation.”
[86]. I.e., “in the nature of conversational address, regular history, or argument.” But it is often very difficult to translate these rhetorical terms exactly. Hypostasis in particular is even more elusive in rhetoric than in theology.
[87]. I use the ed. of Jacobs, Leipsic, 1794, 10 vols. (nominally 3 vols. of Commentary, in 7 parts, 4 vols. of text, and 1 of Indices).