No CrossRef data available.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 11 February 2009
The definition here ascribed to Philo is entirely in line with what we know of Philo from else where: Alex. Aphr. in APr. 184.6–10; Simp, in Cat. 195.33–196.5; Boethius, in de Int. 234.10–15. The same is not true of the definition here ascribed to Diodorus. For Diodorus, we are told elsewhere, defined the possible as that which either is or will be so: Cic. Fat. 13, 17; Plu. de Stoic rep. 1055d-e; Alex. Aphr. in APr. 183.42–184.5; Boethius, in de Int. 234.22–4,412.16–7. Something has therefore got garbled.
1 Phlp. in APr.169.17–21. This is fr. 136 in the collection of Doring, K., Die Megariker(Amsterdam, 1972)Google Scholar; and part of ft. II F 27 in the collection of Giannantoni, G., Socratis et Socraticorum Reliquiae(Naples, 1990). Both Doring, pp. 39–43, and Giannantoni, i.429–33, reprint all the other passages here cited.Google Scholar
2 I am grateful to Neil Hopkinson for helpful advice.