The manuscript tradition presents a crux at this point: the text transmitted in the main witnesses (e.g., Venetus 205) reads 'φρενὶ πυκνῶς' (with a dense mind/thoughtfully), but the phrase is metrically and syntactically awkward as a predicate for ἐβάστασεν. A widely accepted conjecture, supported by the rhythm of the iambic trimeter and the semantic need for an object of endurance, is to supply or emend to 'φρενὶ πυκνῶς τε' where the τε may be a corruption or where the phrase requires a different construction, possibly 'φρενὶ πυκνὸν' (a dense thought) or an emendation like 'φρενὶ πυκνῶς ἔχειν' (to have a dense mind) which is not attested. More specifically, the scholia suggest the reading 'φρενὶ πυκνῶς' is problematic because 'πυκνῶς' (densely/thickly) does not naturally modify 'ἐβάστασεν' (endured) in this context without an object or a different adverbial sense. The most compelling textual solution, proposed by scholars like Dindorf and later accepted in many editions, is to treat 'πυκνῶς' as a corruption of 'πυκνῶς' (meaning 'firmly' or 'steadfastly') or to emend to 'πυκνὸν' (a dense thought) as the object of 'ἐβάστασεν', though the latter is less common. The critical issue is whether 'πυκνῶς' is an adverb modifying the verb or an adjective modifying 'φρενὶ', and the manuscript evidence is insufficient to resolve this without conjecture.