What I gather from Edmonds is that the fragment at hand is found in a letter written by Iulianus (Julian the Apostate?) to Iamblichus, and the "offending" part of the letter reads thus:
Ἦλθες καὶ ἐποίησας ἦλθες γὰρ δὴ καὶ ἀπὼν οἷς γράφεις· ἐγὼ δέ σε μὰ ὤμαν· ἄν δ' ἐφύλαξας ἐμὰν φρένα καιομέναν πόθῳ [...] χαῖρε δὲ καὶ αὐτὸς ἡμῖν πολλά, καθάπερ ἡ καλὴ Σαπφώ φησιν, καὶ οὐκ ἰσάριθμα μόνον τῷ χρόνῳ ὃν ἀλλήλων ἀπελείφθημεν, ἀλλὰ γὰρ καὶ ἀεὶ χαῖρε.
After the obvious emendation of μὰ ὤμαν -> μαόμαν, the above translates to:
You came, and you did: for you came, even not being here, in your writing; and I was longing for you; and you guarded my heart which burnt with desire […] and you yourself be very well, as the beautiful Sappho says, and not only for as long as we've been parted, but be well forever too.
This would thus seem a two-part quote, part one containing what comes before the […] and part 2 containing what comes after. I have a couple questions here.
Question 1: ἐφύλαξας
For metrical reasons, and probably semantic reasons too, this verb is typically amended someway. Edmonds has ἔφλαξας=ἔφλεξας, "you burnt up", Campbell, Lobel-Page, Thomas, and The Complete Poems of Sappho have ἔψυξας, "you cooled down", and Greek Wikisource, Bibliotheca Augustana, and Wilamowits have ἔφλυξας.
What verb is that last form from, and what does it mean?
I'd guess φλύγω, φλύκω, φλύχω, or φλύσσω, but neither give results on Pereus Greek Word Study Tool…
Question 2: Bergk
Now I'm used to Bergk missing a lot of fragments because they were on papyri unearthed only after his edition, but this is a quotation, so I'm surprised it's not there.
How come Bergk doesn't have this fragment?
Bonus: What are the bracketed numbers here referring to? Was there a prior Bergk edition with different fragment arrangement?
Question 3: The vanishing second part
As far as I can tell, the first part isn't even attributed to Sappho (but maybe the […] had that attribution). The second part is explicitly καθάπερ ἡ καλὴ Σαπφώ φησιν though, so it's weird to see it missing from LP/C 48, and from The Complete Poems of Sappho. In fact, I flipped through all LP yesterday and I just couldn't find it.
How come that second part seems to be completely missing from Lobel-Page? Where is it in Campbell? And in Voigt too, though the TEST has that part of the quote:
Question 4: reconstructing part 2
From part 2, one would expect the poem being quoted to contain, maybe a few lines further down, something like:
χαῖρε (δὲ καὶ αὐτὸς ἡμῖν) πολλά, ἰσάριθμα τῷ χρόνῳ ὃν ἀλλήλων ἀπελείφθημεν.
Given that, after any of the emendations above, l.2 is «ὂν δ' ἔ≤≥ξας ἔμαν φρένα καυομέναν πόθῳ», a gl2d (i.e. xx–uu–uu–uu–ux), one would start a hypothetical extra line with:
χαῖρε πόλλα ... ἰσάριθμα
So we have a hole, perhaps filled with σὺ κάλ' or similar, and we are left with:
τῷ χρόνῳ ὃν ἀλλήλων ἀπελείφθημεν
One could try:
χαῖρε πόλλα ‹σὺ κάλ'› ἰσάριθμα χρόνῳ ὅτῳ
Let's ignore for a moment that Aeolic would mandate ὄττῳ and bye meter, assume she used a poetic licence to make that tau single and not screw the meter :). How do we fix that verb? I thought of ἀπέλειμμεν, but that would probably be active, so perhaps ἀπελείμμεθα. Except that would be perfect, so we need reduplication: ἀπυλελείμμεθα would be perfect medio-passive indicative. That is one syllable too many.
Has a perfect without reduplication ever been recorded in poetry, something like ἀπυλείμμεθα? Or else could we change the prefix to e.g. προλελείμμεθα and get away with it, despite it being strange that Iulianus would change the prefix that way when pseudo-quoting? Could we perhaps use a tmesis and throw a muta cum liquida to avoid lengthening the alpha of ἀπ in ἀλλάλαν ἂπ λελείμμεθα?