Origin of the Extant Text of the Dimension of the Circle

Abstract

On the basis of the texts P, T, and S, presented in the preceding chapter, we can recover the probable form of the source version in accordance with the following plan. Where P and T are in verbatim agreement, they must both be transcribing the source P*; but where they are significantly divergent, as in their handling of the convergence arguments, the source must have been tacit, leaving the commentators to their own resources to supply what is missing. Where T seems merely to be touching up the phrasing we read in P, I presume that P transmits a more faithful version of P*. As for the additions in T absent from P, they are for the most part to be assigned to Theon. In general, S confirms this reconstruction, by tending to agree with P and T where they agree, and by diverging where they diverge. But in the case of line [h], which is present in T, but absent from P, its standing in S indicates that it must have been present in P*. Similarly, line [t], present in T but absent from P, seems implied by S: [u], so that [t] is likely to have appeared in P*.