Skip to main content

Full text of "The Oxyrhynchus papyri"

See other formats


Brigham Young University 

St^'- Ace. 

>5 No. 





















The Offices of the EGYPT EXPLORATION FUND, 37 Great Russell Street, W.C. 

AND 527 Tremont Temple, Boston, Mass., U.S.A. 

KEGAN PAUL, TRENCH, TRUBNER & CO., 68-74 Carter Lane, E.C. 

BERNARD QUARITCH, 11 Grafton Street, New Bond Street, W. 

ASHER 8c CO., 14 Bedford Street, Covent Garden, W.C. 

C. F. CLAY, Fetter Lane, E.C, and 100 Princes Street, Edinburgh ; and 

HUMPHREY MILFORD, Amen Corner, E.C., and 29-35 West 32ND Street, New York, U.S.A. 


All rights reserved 






The present volume, like Part V, consists of literary pieces, with 
the exception of the Calendar of Church Services at Oxyrhynchus (1357), 
which on account of its special interest is included with the theological 
texts. The papyri of Antiphon Sophistes (1384) and Thucydides (1376) 
belong to the first of the large literary finds in 1906, the lyric pieces 
and one of the Hesiod fragments (1359) to the second, of which much 
still remains to be published. The invocation of I sis (1380) and praise 
of Imouthes-Asclepius (1381) were found in 1903, the Byzantine classical 
pieces in 1897, ^^e rest chiefly in 1905-6. 

In editing the new classical fragments, especially the poetical 
pieces (1358-1363), we have received valuable suggestions and criticisms 
from Prof. Gilbert Murray. The assistance afforded by Mr. T. W. Allen, 
Dr. J. V. Bartlet, the Rev. F. E. Brightman, Mr. W. E. Crum, 
Mr. F. LI. Griffith, Mr. E. Lobel, Mr. J. G. Milne, the Rev. E. M. 
Walker, and Prof. U. von Wilamowitz-Moellendorff is acknowledged in 
connexion with the individual papyri. 

Part XII, consisting of documents of the late Ptolemaic, Roman, 
and early Byzantine periods, is in an advanced state of preparation, 
and we hope to issue it earty in 191 6. 


Queen's College, Oxford, 
June, 1915. 



List of Plates 

Table of Papyri 

Note on the Method of Publication and List of Abbreviations 




I. Theological Fragments (1351-1357) 

IL New Classical Texts (1358-1368) 

IIL Extant Classical Authors (1369-1379) 

IV. Graeco-Egyptian Literary Papyri (1380-1384) 

V. Homer Fragments (1385-1398) 

VL Minor Classical Fragments (1399-1404) 






List of Oxyrhynchus and Hibeh Papyri Distributed 



I. New Classical Fragments 253 

II. Personal Names 262 

III. Geographical 263 

IV. Religion 264 

V. General Index of Greek Words 267 

VI. Subjects Discussed in the Introductions and Notes . . • -273 
VII. Passages Discussed 276 


I. 1351 recto, 1355 recto, 1357 Col. i 

II. 1358 Fr. 2, 1399 

III. 1359 Frs. 2, 4, 1361 Frs. i, 4, 1376 Col. iv . [ 

IV. 1362 Fr. 1, Col. i 

V. 1364 Fr. I, Cols, v-vii .....".* 

VI. 1363, 1365, 1379 . 

Vir. 1369 Frs. 1-2 recto, 1370 Frs. 3 recto, 9 verso, 1371 recto 

ai the end. 


{An asterisk denotes texts not printed in full) 

1351. Leviticus xxvii (on vellum ; Plate I) 

1352. Psalms Ixxxii, Ixxxiii (on vellum) 

1353. First Epistle of Peter ν (on vellum) 

1354. Epistle to the Romans i 

1355. Epistle to the Romans viii (Plate I) 

1356. Philo 

1357. Calendar of Church Services (Plate I 

1358. Hesiod, Catalogue iii (Plate II) . 

1359. Hesiod, Catalogue (Plate III) 

1360. Alcaeus 

1361. Bacchylides, Scolia (Plate III) 

1362. Callimachus, Aetia (Plate IV) 

1363. Callimachus, Iambi (Plate VI) 

1364. Antiphon Sophistes, Περί Αληθείας i (Plate V) 

1365. History of Sicy on (Plate VI) 

1366. Fragment of an Attic Orator 

1367. Heraclides Lembus, Epitome of Hermippus, Περ 

'Νομοθίτων ..... 

1368. Romance 

1369. Sophocles, Oedipus Tyr annus (Plate VII) 

1370. Euripides, Medea and Orestes (Plate VII) 

1371. Aristophanes, Clouds with scholia (Plate VII) 

1372. Aristophanes, Frogs . 

1373. Aristophanes, Peace and Knights 

1374. Aristophanes, Wasps . 

1375. Herodotus vii .... 

1376. Thucydides vii (Plate III) . 

1377. Demosthenes, Be Corona . 


4th cent. 
Early 4th cent. 
4th cent. 
6 th or 7 th cent. 
3rd cent. 
3rd cent. 

535-6 . 

3rd cent. 

Early 3rd cent. 

Late 2nd cent. 

ist cent. 

I St cent. 

2nd or early 3rd cent. 

Early 3rd cent. 

3rd cent. 

Late 3rd cent. 

Late 2nd cent. 

3rd cent. 

5th cent. 

5th cent. 

5th cent. 

5th cent. 

5th cent. 

5th cent. 

Early 2nd cent 

Late 2nd or early 3rd 

Late ist cent. b. c 

















Demosthenes, Contra Midiam . 

. 3rd cent. 

. 187 


Livy i (Plate VI) ... . 

. Late 3rd cent. 

. 188 


Invocation of Isis .... 

. Early 2nd cent. 



Praise of Imouthes-Asclepius 

. 2nd cent. 

. 221 


Tale of Sarapis and Syrion 

. 2nd cent. 

• 234 


Sailor's Song 

. Late 3rd cent. 

• 236 


Medical Recipes ; Theological Extracts 

. 5th cent. 

. 238 


Homer, Iliad ii .... 

. 5th cent. 

. 242 


Homer, Iliad iv .... 

. 3rd cent. 



Homer, Iliad ν . . . . 

. 2nd cent. 



Homer, Iliad vi . . . . 

. ist cent. B.C. 

. 242 


Homer, Iliad vii (on vellum) 

. Late 4th cent. 



Homer, Iliad ix . . . . 

5th cent. 

. 242 


Homer, Iliad xi . . . . 

. 5th cent. 



Homer, Iliad xv . . . . 

. 3rd cent. 

• 243 


Homer, Iliad xvi (on vellum) 

. 5th cent. 

• 244 


Homer, Odyssey i . . . . 

. 5th cent. 

. 244 


Homer, Odyssey vi (on vellum) . 

. 4th cent. 

• 244 


Homer, Odyssey ix . 

. 5th cent. 



Homer, Odyssey xviii with scholia 

. 5th cent. 

• 244 


Homer, Odyssey xxi . 

. 3rd cent. 

• 244 


Title of Choerilus' Epic (Plate 11) 

. Late 2nd or 3rd c 

ent. . 245 


Fragment of a Comedy 

. 2nd or early 3rd 

cent. . 245 


Fragments of a Tragedy . 

. 5th cent. 

. . . 246 


Aristophanes (?) with scholia 

. 5th cent. 

. 246 


Aristophanes (?) .... 

. 5th cent. 

• 247 


Latin Fable ..... 

. 3rd cent. 

• 247 


The general method followed in this volume is the same as that in 
Parts I-X. Of the new classical texts, 1360-2 are printed in a dual form, 
a literal transcript being accompanied by a reconstruction in modern style. In 
the others, and in the fragments of extant authors, the originals are reproduced 
except for separation of words, capital initials in proper names, expansion of 
abbreviations, and supplements of lacunae. Additions or corrections by the same 
hand as the body of the text are in small thin type, those by a different hand in 
thick type. The Graeco-Egyptian literary texts and 1357, which is a non-literary 
document, are given in modern form with accentuation and punctuation. Abbrevia- 
tions and symbols are resolved ; additions and corrections are incorporated in the 
text, their occurrence being recorded in the critical apparatus, where also faults 
of orthography, &c., are corrected if they seemed likely to give rise to any 
difficulty. Iota adscript has been printed when so written, otherwise iota 
subscript is employed. Square brackets [ ] indicate a lacuna, round brackets ( ) 
the resolution of a symbol or abbreviation, angular brackets ( ) a mistaken 
omission in the original, braces { } a superfluous letter or letters, double square 
brackets [[ ]] a deletion in the original. Dots placed within brackets represent 
the approximate number of letters lost or deleted ; dots outside brackets indicate 
mutilated or otherwise illegible letters. Letters with dots underneath them are 
to be considered doubtful. Heavy Arabic numerals refer to the texts of the 
Oxyrhynchus Papyri in this volume and Parts I-X, ordinary numerals to lines, 
small Roman numerals to columns. 

The abbreviations used in referring to papyrological publications are 
practically those adopted in the Archiv fiir Papyrusforschimg^ viz. : — 

P. Amh. = The Amherst Papyri (Greek), Vols. I-II, by B. P. Grenfell and 

A. S. Hunt. 
Archiv = Archiv fiir Papyrusforschung. 

B. G. U. = Aeg. Urkunden aus den K. Museen zu Berlin, Griechische Urkunden. 
P. Brit. Mus. = Greek Papyri in the British Museum, Vols. Ι-Π, by F. G. Kenyon ; 

Vol. Ill, by F. G. Kenyon and H. I. Bell ; Vol. IV, by H. I. Bell. 


C. P. R. = Corpus Papyrorum Raineri, Vol. I, by C. Wessely. 

P. Cairo Maspero = Catalogue des Antiquites egyptiennes du Musee du Caire, 

Papyrus grecs d'epoque byzantine, by J. Maspero. 
P. Fay. = Fayum Towns and their Papyri, by B. P. Grenfell, A. S. Hunt, and 

D. G. Hogarth. 
P. Flor. = Papiri Fiorentini, Vols. I and HI, by G. Vitelli ; Vol. Π, by 

D. Comparetti. 
P. Giessen = Griechische Papyri zu Giessen, Vol. I, by E. Kornemann, O. Eger, 

and P. M. Meyer. 
P. Grenf. = Greek Papyri, Series I, by B. P. Grenfell; Series Π, by B. P. 

Grenfell and A. S. Hunt. 
P. Hamburg = Griech. Papyrusurkunden der Hamburgischen Stadtbibliothek, 

by P. M. Meyer. 
P. Hibeh = The Hibeh Papyri, Part I, by B. P. Grenfell and A. S. Hunt. 
P. Klein. Form. = Griech. Papyrusurkunden kleineren Formats, Studien z. 

Palaeogr. und Papyruskunde iii, viii, by C. Wessely. 
P. Leipzig = Griechische Urkunden der Papyrussammlung zu Leipzig, Vol. I, 

by L. Mitteis. 
P. Leyden = Papj^ri Graeci Musei Antiquarii Publici Lugduni-Batavi, by 

C. Leemanns. 
P. Oxy. = The Oxyrhynchus Papyri, Parts I-VI and X, by B. P. Grenfell and 

A. S. Hunt ; Parts VH-IX, by A. S. Hunt. 
P. Par. — Les Papyrus grecs du Musee du Louvre, Notices et Extraiis, t. xviii. 3, 

by W. Brunei de Presle and E. Egger. 
P. Petrie = The Flinders Petrie Papyri, Parts I-II, by J. P. Mahafify ; Part HI, by 

J. P. Mahaffy and J. G. Smyly. 
P. Reinach = Papyrus grecs et demotiques, by T, Reinach. 
P. Rev. Laws = The Revenue Laws of Ptolemy Philadelphus, by B. P. Grenfell, 

with an introduction by J. P. Mahafify. 
P. Ryl. = Catalogue of the Greek Papyri in the Rylands Library, Vol. I, by 
A. S. Hunt ; Vol. Π, by J. de M. Johnson, V. Martin, and A. S. Hunt. 
P. Ryl. Coptic = Catalogue of the Coptic Papyri, by W. E. Crum. 
P. S. L = Papiri della Societa Italiana, Vols. Ι-ΠΙ, by G. Vitelli and others. 
P. Stud. Pal. = Studien zur Palaeographie und Papyruskunde, by C. Wessely. 
P. Tebt. = The Tebtunis Papyri, Part I, by B. P. Grenfell, A. S. Hunt, and 
J. G. Smyly ; Part Π, by B. P. Grenfell, A. S. Hunt, and E. J. Goodspeed. 


1351. Leviticus χχνϊί. 

2•6 χ 5*9 cm. Fourth century. Plate I (recto). 

This small fragment comes from a vellum leaf which contained double 
columns and when complete must have been nearly square in shape. Tt is 
inscribed with upright uncials of medium size and the regular Biblical type ; 
though somewhat heavy, they are well formed and probably not later than the 
fourth century. A new paragraph is marked by a projection of a couple of 
letters into the margin, as well as by a paragraphus (1. 6 ; cf. e. g. 1169). At the 
ends of lines an unusual unevenness was permitted. The quality of the text is 
not apparent from so short a specimen ; a minor agreement with a few cursive 
MSS. is noticeable in 1. 15. 

Recto. Plate I. 

Col. i. 

Col. ii. 

αντ]ο 1 2 

[o iep€V9 ava μ\€σον 

TO t\o βπιπβμπτον i5 

τον α[ργνριου της τ^ι 
5 μη? κα[ί €σταί αντω 
eat/ 8ζ απο του [ay ρου της τ 6 
[κα]τασ•)(€σ€ω[ς αυτού 
[αγια]ση ανθρω[7Γος τω 
[κυριω] και €στ\αι 

Col. i. 


Col. ii. 

10 ayL\aaa^ 

\αντον προσθ]ησ€ΐ το 
[€πιΐΓ€μπτον] του αρ 


φ[€σ€ωί αποδοθησ€ 



\yvpLov π]/30? την t€c ται [ 

[μην α]ντον και ^σται .... 

15 [αντω] eav Se μ[η λν 20 

[τρωσ]ηται 7[ον 

4—5. Α omits τηΐ τιμής. 
8. [αγία]σ;; : άγιασα FM. 

Χ5— 16. λντρωσ]ηται : SO the cursives 15, 53' '°^' ιι8; λντρωται is the usual reading. 

1352. Psalms Ixxxii, Ixxxiii. 

13-1 X 10-5 cm. Early fourth century. 

A practically complete vellum leaf from a book of the Psalms. The 
stichometrical arrangement of lines, for which 1226 supplies an early instance, is 
not here adopted, but stichometrical divisions are marked, somewhat erratically, 
by means of double dots (cf. 657 and 1078). The letters, which are of a third 
to fourth century type, show some variation both of size and formation ; as 
a rule they are upright, but in 1. 21 the scribe has lapsed into a sloping style. 
At its best this hand is rather similar to that of 849, and is no doubt of approxi- 
mately the same date. Oeos and κύρως are abbreviated as usual, but not vios 
(11. 8, 37). Vertical and horizontal lines were drawn with a hard point as 
boundaries of the column, but there are no apparent traces of horizontal ruling 
within the space so marked. Alterations here and there have been made by 
a corrector who used a small cursive script. The pagination is original. The text is 
of a markedly ' mixed ' character. An agreement with R is noticeable in 1. 42, 
and another with the Vetus Latina against all other authorities in 1. 15. In 1. 34 
a reading of ART has been substituted, presumably by the diorthotes, for that of 
BN. Peculiar variants, apart from the spelling of proper names, occur in 11. 11, 15, 
17, 21, 26. 


κατά σον διαθηκην δι^θοντο : τα Ιχχχϋ. 6, 7 

σκηνώματα των Ιδονμαιων και οί 
Ισμαηλβιται Μωαβ' : και οι Αγγαρη 
VOL Γαιβα και Αμμων : και Αμαληκ 8 

5 και αλλόφυλοι : μ€τα των κατοι 

κουντων Τνρον : και γαρ και Ασσονρ 9 




σννπαρ€γ€ν€Τθ μ€τ αντων : eye 


νηβησαν ei? αντιλημψ roiy viois 
Λωτ : 



ποιησωμ€ν [a]vTOts (os τη Μα8ι> 
αμ και τω σωσασαρα : ω? ο Ιαβζΐν 
€Ρ τω γ^ιμαρρω Κξίσων ; €|ολ€ 
θρξνθησαν : ei/ Α€ρ8ωμ €γ€νηθη 
15 σαΐ' Koirpos τη γη : e^ov rovs αρ 
^orray αντων ω? τον ί2ρη8 και 
Ζηβ' και Ζββζβ' και Χαλαμαν \ α 
παντας τους άρχοντας αντων : οι 
Tives €ΐπαν κληρονομησωμβ 
eavTOLS το αγιαστηριον τον θν : 
ο θς μον ΐθον αντονς ω? τροχον : 
ω? καλάμη ν κατά πρόσωπον > 




1 + 



ανζμον : ωσ€ΐ πνρ ο 8ιαφλ€ξ€ΐ 8ρν 
μον : ωσ^ι φλοξ κατακανσαι ορη : ον 

25 τω? κατα8ιωξ€ΐ9 avTOvs €v τη κα 

ταιγι8ι σον : και ev τη οργή σου κατά 
^etS avTOvs : πληρωσον τα πρόσω 
πα αντων ατβιμια? ; και ζητησου 
σιν το ονομ[α ^αντ]ων ατ€ΐμιας : κ[α]ι 

30 ζητησονσιν το όνομα σου Κ€ :]] αισχϋ 
θητωσαν και ταραγβητωσαν ety τον 
αιώνα του αιώνος : και ζντραπητω 
σαν και απολΐσθωσαν [:] και γνωτωσαν 
ΟΤΙ όνομα σοι ks : σν μονός [[et]] ύψιστος 

35 ^7Γί πασαν την γην : 

πγ €ΐς το τξλος νπ^ρ των ληνώ 

Β a 







T0L9 viois Kope ψαλμός 
ως αγαπητά τα σκηνώματα σου κ€ ι ζ 

των δνναμ€ων : ζττιποθξΐ και €Κ 3 

4θ AeiTrei η ψνγτ) μου tiy τας αυΧας του 
κΌ : η κάρδια μου και η σαρξ μου η 


γαλΧιασατο €πι τον θ ν τον ζωντα : 

και yap στρουθιον ξ,υρζν €αυτω 4 

Ι. Βι^θοντο: 1, δΐίβ(ντο. 

4. Ταιβα : Ταιβάλ «ca ■ γφαλ AT, Ναιβαλ Β. 

5• και is omitted by ί^<ϊ•αχ and many cursives. 
ΙΟ. Βιαψαλμα: om. ART. 

11. τΓοιησον, the corrected reading, is that of the MSS. 

avTots : avTovs R. There is no other authority for the insertion of γη after τη. 

12. 1. Ί,ίΐσαρα (Σισαρα Bt>AT). Possibly the Superfluous letters were dotted by the 
corrector (cf 11. 29, 34), for dots, if they had been inserted, would be no longer visible in this 

13. Κασών : Κισσω(ί/) Α. 
(ξολβθρΐυθησαν : (ξωλεθρ. Α, (ξωλοθρ. Β*^, 

14• Αΐρ8ωμ: cf. the cursive 276 Αβρδωρ, 293 Αίλδωρ ; Αβι/δωρ Bt^ART. The δ has 
a dot over it and may be meant to be cancelled ; cf. 11. 29, 34. 

15. KOTTpos'. ως κοπροί Β, ωσ^ι κ. i^ART. 
τη -γη : της γηί R. 

ίθον: SO Vet. l^zX. posuisii ', βον other MSS. 

16. Ω,ρηδ: Ωρηβ MSS. 

17. ζφφ: ζφίΐ MSS. 

Ί,άΚαμαν : ^eXpam Β, Σαλμανα t^AR^• (Σαλμαν R*) Τ, Σαλμαναν a number of CUrsiveS. 
απαντάς : παντας MSS. 

20. α-γιαστηριον : SO i^AT ; θυσιαστήριου BR. 

21. (θον: cf. 1. 15; θον MSS. 

23. avepov : nvpos i^*. R omits ο after πυρ. 

24. κατακαυσαι '. κατακανσ€ΐ R, 

26. καταξΐΐί : ταραξΐΐς Βϊ^Α, ταραξης Τ, συντάραζες R. 

28. ζητησωσιν Γ. 

2 9• όνομα', πρόσωπον Α. 

29-30. Α dittography of αυτών . . . όνομα has been inaccurately removed. In 1. 29 the 
repeated letters have had dots placed above them ; in 1. 30 this method of deletion was 
abandoned and a round bracket inserted, but not in quite the right position. A corresponding 
bracket no doubt preceded αυτών in the previous line. 

34. ti, as originally written, is found in Bt^ ; om. ART. The two letters have been 
cancelled by dots added above the line, ο ύψιστος R*. 

37. τοις : om, R. 

39. €π(ποθ(ΐ R. 

41. κ{υμο)υ : θ{ΐο)υ t^*. ηγαλλιασατο, as originally written, occurs also in the cursives 
114, 202, 204. The alteration was made by the first hand. 

42. τον 6(eo)v τον ζωντα: SO R j ^(eo)»/ ζωντα BSAT. 


1353. First Epistle of Peter v. 

13*5 X lo-i cm. Fourth century. 

A leaf of thin vellum, broken and worm-eaten, but showing approximately 
the original dimensions. No clear traces of ruling are discernible. To the 
small size of the page the round uncial writing is on a rather disproportionately 
large scale ; the hand bears a general resemblance to that of the Codex Sinaiticus, 
though both the lines and the individual letters are there rather less widely spaced. 
There is no clear instance of punctuation. Of the common angular sign used to 
fill up short lines there is one doubtful example in 1. 3. ^eos and Χ,οιστο? were 
contracted as usual. The pagination number entered by a different hand on one 
side of the leaf shows that the volume was of considerable compass. 

The text appears to have stood in no close relationship to that of any of 
the main authorities. An agreement with Β against most other testimony is 
noticeable in 1. 13 (cf. 1. 25), but there are divergences elsewhere, e.g. 11. 17, 27. 
A variant not otherwise attested occurs in 1. 6, and there is certainly one 
reading, more probably two, which have hitherto rested on much later authority 
(11. II, 34); cf. in this respect 1075. introd., 1170. 


Βωσι χα,ριν τ\α\πζΐνω v. 5, 6 

07^[r]e ovv ϋπο την κρ[α] 

ται[α]ν Χ'^φοι, του dv ϊ> 

να νμας νψωση ev 
5 καιρώ πασαν [τ]/?^ //e 7 

ριμνα\ν'\ ϋ[μων ζπιρι 

ψατ€ 67Γ αυ\τον οτι αν 

τω /xeXei π[€ρί υμών 

νηψατξ γρη[γορησα 8 

ΙΟ [re] ο αντι[δίκο? υ]μ[ώ 

[ο 6ια]ΐ3ο[λος ω$• λζ]ων 

[ωρ]νομ€ν[θ5 π€ρ]ιπα 

[t€l] ζητών [κα]τ[α]τΓ€Ϊ 

[ω α]ντιστητ€ στ€ 9 

15 [ρ^]οι τη πι[σ]τ€ΐ €l8o 



σμω [ν]μων α[8€]λφοτη 
τι emTeXeiaOe [ο] δβ θ? 

2 ο πάσης χαρη\ο]9 [ο] καλ€ 
σας ημάς €ΐς την αιω 
νιογν"] αυτού δοξαν €ν 
[Χω ολιγ]ον π[α]θοντα9 
[αντος κα]ταρτΐ€ΐ στη 

25 [pii^i σθ]ζΐ'ωσ€ΐ αυτω 
[κράτος et]? τους αιώνας 
[των αίω\>ων αμ[ην 
δ[ία ^ιλονανου νμιν 
[τον πιστ]ου a(5e[X0of 

30 ω[ς λογιζ]ομαι δ[ι ολι 
γ[ω]ν ίγραψα παρ[ακα 
λων και €ΐΓΐμαρτ[νρων 


[re]y τα αντα των ττα ταυτη[ν\ uvai αλη[θη 

[θημα]τ[ωρ] τη e[v] κο χάριν θ[ν] €ί? ην [στητ€ 

35 ασ[π]αζζτ[αι ν](χ[ας 13 

3- xeipa : so BKL ; χίψαν i^A. The complementary mark at the end of the line 
is uncertain. 

4. A dark mark above the line after ν^ωση is probably not to be regarded as a stop. 
A diaeresis over ν of νμας is likely to have disappeared in a lacuna. 

5. καιρώ : A adds (τησκοπψ. 

6. 6πφΐ]λ|/•ατ€ : €πιρ(ρ)ιψαΐ'τβϊ MSS. 

9-10. It may be inferred from the space that cm did not precede ο as in ^^cL. 

II. [o δια]/3ο[λοί : the β, of which the vestige is hardly to be mistaken, is slightly to the 
right of ο of ωρ'\υομΐνο5, and since ω is an exceptionally broad letter it is clear that 8ia does 
not fill the available space. The addition of the article appears to be peculiar to the tenth- 
century cursive 13 ; another agreement, however, with that MS., which Eichhorn described 
as the queen of the cursives, is found in 1. 34 below. 

13. \κατα\π(ΐ{ν)•. SO Β (κατάπιαν), WeStCOtt-Hort ; τίνα καταπίΐΐν i^K^L 8cC., τίνα κατ απ ιη 

Α &C. The common spelling καταπίΐν is found also in ^* (καταπιν). 

1 γ. κοσμώ: SO AKL &C. ; τω κοσμώ Β^ί. 

1 8. Κ transposes νμων αδβλφοττ^τι; L omits νμων. 

xg. €ττιτ(\(ΐσθΐ is for -σβαι. 

21. ημαί ; SO Κ ; νμαί Bi^AL. 

2 2. ho^av. βασιλ€ΐαν και Βοζαν L. 

23. There is not room for τω which in Β precedes Ιίριστω, nor for Ίησου which AKL 
add after it. 

24. Ka]rapTifi : καταρτίσει Bi^A ; καταρτισαι νμας K.L•. 

2 ζ. i^KL &c. add βί^ίλιωσει after σθ(νωσ€ΐ ; ΒΑ agree with 1353 in its omission. 

26. s of «]$■ is slightly to the left of ν of σθ\ίνωσ(ΐ and directly over the first ν of αιω]νων. 
It therefore appears that the reading here was still shorter than that of BA, and perhaps το 
was omitted, or η 8οξα may have replaced το κράτος as in cursive 45. t^L have η δόξα και το 

κράτος, Κ η 8οξα κράτος. 

27• [των αιω]ΐ'ωι^: SO i^AKL &c. ; om. Β. 

32. There would be no rcom for και (t^) at the end of the line. 

34. ^(ίο)υ] : τον θίου all uncial MSS. But though the letters νθ here are damaged and 
indistinct, there can be no doubt from the space that τον was omitted, as in a few cursives, 
including 13. At the end of the line εστηκατ( (KL) would obviously be much too long. 

1354. Epistle to the Romans i. 

23-2 X 10-3 cm. Sixth or seventh century. 

This papyrus leaf containing the beginning of the Epistle to the Romans is 
in far from good condition. One side is broken away and other damage has 
been sustained, especially on the verso, where decipherment is in places difificult. 
When complete, if the margin at the bottom of the columns was similar to that 


at the top, the leaf was about 28 cm. high, and its breadth may be estimated at 
about 18 cm. The upright script, large and very heavy, is in the later Byzantine 
style ; similar hands are seen e. g. in the illustrated chronicle edited by Bauer and 
Strzygowski, Denkschr. Wiener Akad. li. 204, and the papyrus codex of Cyril Alex. 
De adoratione (New Palaeogr. Soc. Plate 203). The ink is of the reddish-brown 
colour common at that period. A high stop is used in 1. 29 and a paragraphus 
occurs below 1. '^'i,, the initial letter of the following paragraph being also enlarged. 
The usual contractions are found, including that of vto's, though this word is once 
written out (1. 6). Textually the fragment is of slight interest. 


[ίΤανλοί 5οι;λ]οί 1υ Χν κλητο? απο ί. ι 

[στόλος αφωρί]σμξνο? ei? ^ναγγ^λ^δ 

[θυ ο προ€]πηγγ€ΐλατο δια τω 2 

5 [προφητών] αντου ζν γραψαις α 

[yittiy 7Γ€/θί το]ν νιον αντου του ye 3 

[νομζνου ζ κ σ]πξρματο9 Δαδ κατά 

[σάρκα του ορ]ισθ€ντο? ϋϋ θυ cv 4 

[δυναμ€ί κατά] ττνα αγιωσννης e^ α <, 

ΙΟ [ι/αστασ€ως ν]€κρων Ιν Χυ του 1(ϋ 

[ημών δι ου] ξΧαβομ^ν χάριν 5 

[και αποστολην e]i[y] ν7Γ[ακοην] ττιστζ 

[α)9 €v πασιν τοις ζθνξσιν υ]π€ρ τ[ο]υ 

[ονόματος αντου €ν οι]? ζστ€ και [υ] 6 

15 [A'fiS" κλητοι Ιυ Χν πα]σιν τοις ονσι γ 

[ίν Ρώμη α'/α\πητοις θυ κλητοις 

[αγιοις χαρί]? ϋμιν και ξίρηνη α 

[τΓΟ θυ προς ημω]ν και κϋ Ιν Χυ 

[ τ]ω θω μου δι[α] Ιυ Χυ ^ 

2θ [π€ρι πάντων υ]μων οτι η πιστις 

[νμων καταγγ€]λλ[€]τ€ €v ολω τω 

[κοσμώ μαρτυ]ς γαρ μ[ο]υ ([στιν ο] 9 

[θς ω λατρεύω] (ν π[νι μου (ν τω 






eυayye\Lω του νΰ α\υτου coy aSia 

25 λ[ί]πτω9 μνζ,ιαν ν\^μ.ων ποιονμαί 

7Γαντο[τ]€ vnep των \προσ€υ•)^ων μου 
δβομ€νο5 €ί ττωί τ][8η ποτ€ ^υοδω 
θησομαι ev τω θί\ληματί του θυ eX6el 
προς υμάς' €πιποθ[ω γαρ iSeiv υμάς 

3θ ϊνα τί μ€ταδω γα.ρι\σμα υμιν ττνατίκο 
€IS το στίρηγθηνα\ι. υμάς τούτο 8e βστϊ 
συνπαρακΧηθηνί e\y υμιν δια τη? 
€1/ αλ[λ]ηλοί9 7Γίστ[€ω? υμωρ re και €μου 
Ου [^€λω δβ υμάς αγι /oeiv αδζλφοι ο 

35 ΤΙ- [ηολλακις ττροβθβμην ζλθβιι/ 

7r[p]os [υμάς και €κωλυθηι> αχρί του δ€υ 
ρο ϊνα τι[ι/α καρ^ιτον \ο"χω και ev υμιν 
καθώς και tv τοις λ[οίποίς eOv^aLv Ελ 
λησιν Τ€ και βαρβα[ροίς σοφοις re Kat a 

40 νοητοις οφιλ^τη[ς ei/zi ούτω το κατ e 
μ€ Ίτροθυμον κα[ί υμιν τοις iv Ρώμη 
€υαγγ€[λίσ]ασθ[αί ου γαρ ίτταισχυνομαί το 
€f[a]yy[eXi]oi/ δυνα[μις γαρ θυ 

[ ] • • • [ 

2. ΐ{ησο)ν Χ{ριστο)ν : SO biAEGKL &c. ; Χρίστου Ιησον Β and 209 (early fdurthcent.). 
4• The supplement is a trifle short; perhaps a small blank space was left after θ{(ο)ν. 
Line 1 1 is analogous. 1 

16. €V Ρώμη : om. G, which has ev αγάπη for αγαπητοί!. Ε omitS αγαπ. θΐον. 

1 8. 209 alone has χ{ριστο)ν ΐη{σο)υ, as in verse i. A blank space large inough for 
three or four letters was left at the end of this line. 

19. How the initial lacuna here should be filled remains doubtful. Tht ω of t-Jw 
stands slightly to the left of the κ of και in the line above and directly above μ of ^ων in the 
line below, and there is evidently not room for πρώτον μ^ν ευχαριστώ, the ordinaiV reading. 
There is some authority for the omission of μ€ν (so 40*, Chrys., and some veraons), but 
this reduction would hardly suffice unless there was also a lipography of the sy|able -τω. 
Possibly πρώτον was written a. 

21. 1. Karayy€]XX[e]rai ; cf. 1. 32. 

2 2. f{o]u : SO BNACDcEKL &c. ; μοι D*G. 
26. vnep: 1, €πι with the MSS. 


31. 1. στηριχβψα\ί. The Supplement is of full length and the readin^' of A, τουτεσηί», 
would be quite suitable. The c of 6e may of course have been elided. 

32. 1. σννπαρακΚηθηναι ; cf. 1. 21. 

34. Whether the papyrus had ου θίλω or ουκ οιο/χαι (D*G) cannot be determined. 

41. G omits TOif (V Τωμη. 

42. It seems likely enough on considerations of space that the terminal -at was written 
as e once or even twice in the lacuna. 

1355. Epistle to the Romans viii. 

Fr. I 1 1.2x4-4 cm. Third century. Plate I (recto). 

The following fragments of a leaf from a papyrus book are in an upright 
informal hand of much the same character as 1171, though smaller in size ; it may 
be assigned with probability to the third century. A paragraphus below 1. ^$ is 
the only form of stop, and no other signs occur except the diaeresis, ^eos and 
ττνίνμα certainly were contracted, and that the other ordinary abbreviations were 
used may be inferred with security from the spacing. A correction by a second 
hand is found in 1. 17. 

Unfortunately the leaf is badly mutilated^ the loss of more than half of every 
line depriving it of much of its value for critical purposes. The text appears to 
have been of good quality, showing, like 1171, a general agreement with the 
Codex Vaticanus, from which the two definite divergences are the avoidance of 
the vulgar spelling Ιφ' in 1. 16, and an illegible reading in 1. 17, where the unknown 
variant €λΐυθ€ρ]ουται αττο for ζλ^νθ^μωθησίται αττο has been inserted by the 


ο]υ [τη σ]αρκι viii. 12 

[τον κατά σάρκα ζην €t yap κατά σάρκα ζ\ητ[(ί\ μίλ 13 
[λ€Τ€ αποθνησκίΐν ei 5e πϊη τα? πραξβί]ς τον σω 

[ματοί Θανατοντ€ ζησ^σθί όσοι γαρ π]ΐ'ί θυ ayov 14 

5 \ται 0VT0L vi Θν €ΐσιν ον γαρ eXa/3er€ ττΰα] SovX^ia? 15 
[πάλιν eiy φοβον άλλα ζλαβ€Τ€ πνα νιοθζ]σια? ev 

[ω κραζομξν αββα ο πηρ αντο το πνα σν]νμαρτν 1 6 

[ρ€ΐ τω πνι ημών οτι €σμζν τ]€κνα 6[ν €ί δ]€ Τ€κνα if 
[και κληρονόμοι κληρονόμοι] μ€ν θν σννκληρονο 
ΙΟ [μοι 5e Χν €ΐπ€ρ σννπασ)(^ομ€]ν ϊνα και σννδοζα 


[σθωμ^ν λογίζομαι γαρ otl ovk] a^ia [τ]α παθήματα j8 

[του νυν καιρού προ9 την μζλλ]ουσαν S[o]^[a]v αποκα 
[λυφθηναί €Κ ημα? η γαρ απο]καρα8[ο]κ[ια] τη? [κ]τι ιρ 

[(Γζω? την αποκαλυψιν των] ϋα>ν του θυ απ€Κ 
15 [(Γεχ^ταί τη γαρ ματαιοτητι η] κτισι? υποταγή 2θ 

[ουχ €Κουσα άλλα δια τον υποτ^α^αντα \e\n ζλπιδι 

ο]υται °'?'[''] 

[οτι και αυτή η κτισι? €λξυθ(ρ]ωθη^. .]] τη9 δου 2 1 

[Xetay τη? φθορά? ety την €λ€]υθ€ριαν της δοξη? 

[των τ€κνων του θυ οιδαμ^ν] γαρ οτ\^ι] πάσα η κτι 22 

20 [σι? συνστ€ναζ€ΐ και συνωδιν]βι αχρ[ί1 του νυν 

3 lines lost. 

βλ€πο]μ€νη 24 

25 [ουκ ίστιν ζλπι? ο γαρ βλ(π€ΐ τι? βλπιζζΐ et] 5e ο ου 25 

[βλ€πομ€ν ζλπιζομβν δι υπομονή? απ]€κδβχ[ο] 

[μίθα ωσαυτω? δβ και το πνά συναντιλα]μβαν€ται 36 

[τη ασθζναα ημών το γαρ τι προσ€ν^ω]μ€θα κα 
[θο δβι ουκ οιδαμ^ν άλλα αυτό το ττνα υπ€ρ^'\ν[τ'\υγγα 

3θ [vei στεναγμοί? αλαλητοι? ο δζ €ραυνύ)ν τα? καρ]δια? 27 

Recto. Plate I. 

τι? [ζγκαλΐσζΐ κατα €κλ€κτων θυ θ? ο δίκαιων τι? 33> 34 

ο κατ[ακρινων Χ? Ι? ο αποθανών μάλλον δζ eyep^ety 

ο? κα[ι ζστιν ev δβξια του θυ ο? και ^ντυγχ^ανβι υπ€ρ 

ημω[ν τι? ημα? χωρισβι απο τη? αγάπη? του Χν 35 

35 θλιψ[ι? η στενοχώρια η διωγμό? η λιμό? η γυμνοτη? 

η κΐν[δυνο? η μάχαιρα καθω? γεγραπται οτι eveKev 3^ 

σου θ[α]νατουμ[€θα ολην την ημζραν ξλογισθημεν 
<ο? πρόβατα σφα[γη? αλλ €v τούτοι? πασιν υπερνικώ 37 

μεν δια του αγα[πησαντος ημα? πεπεισμαι γαρ οτι ^S 

40 οντ€ θάνατο? ον[τξ ζωη ούτε άγγελοι οντε αρχαι ον 

τε ενεστώτα ον[τε μέλλοντα ούτε δυνάμει? ούτε 39 

νψωμα ούτε βα[θο? ούτε τι? κτισι? έτερα δυνησεται 


{η\μ(ΐ^ χωρισαι αττ[ο τη9 αγάπης τον θν τη? €v Χω 1υ 

[τ]ω κω ημών [αληθζίαν Xeyco ζν Χω ου ψξνΒομαί ΐχ. ι 

45 σννμαρτνρονση? [μοι της συνειδήσεως μου €v ttvl 

αγιω οτι λύπη μ[οί εστίν μεγάλη και αδιάλειπτος ο 2 

δννη τη κάρδια μ[ου ηυγομην γαρ ανάθεμα είναι αν 3 

τος εγω απο του Χ\υ νπερ των αδελφών μον των σνγγε 
νων μου κατά σ[αρκα 

3 lines lost. 
αιων[ας αμήν ουχ οίον δε οτι εκπεπτωκεν ο λόγος 5, ^ 

τον Ου ο[υ γαρ πάντες οι εξ Ιηλ ούτοι Ιη\ ουδ οτι 7 

55 ci(Tiv σ[περμα Αβραάμ πάντες τέκνα αλλ εν Ισαάκ 

κληθησε[ται σοι σπέρμα τουτ εστίν ου τα τέκνα της 8 

σαρκο\<; ταύτα τέκνα του θυ άλλα τα τέκνα της επαγγε 
λιας λ[ογιζεται εις σπέρμα επαγγελίας γαρ ο λόγος Q 

ούτος [κατά τον καιρόν τούτον ελευσομαι και 

6ο εσ[ται 

3• '■"^ σω\ματος '. SO Βί^ ACKL &C. ; της σαρκός DEFG. 

7- It is quite unlikely that ωστβ, which in DE precedes αντο, stood in the papyrus. 
14. τον ; om. FG. 

16. [e>: so AB^CDcEKL &c. ; βφ B*^^CD*FG. 

1 7, What was originally written in place of the ordinary reading (λ(νθ{ρωθη(Τ(ται απο is not 
clear; no variant is recorded. Perhaps the first hand wrote ηλ(ΐθ(ρωθη ck; the corrector 
substituted (λ^νθίρονται απο. At the beginning of the line it is improbable that διότι 
(i^D*FG) was read, the supplement being already of ample length. 

19. γαρ : de A. 

25. The lacuna is of approximately the same length as those of the three following lines, 
and it is therefore hardly possible, even with allowance for the large number of iotas, that 
Ti και followed τις as in t«i°ACKL &c. The most suitable reading is that of Β (so VVestcott- 
Hort) ; B'DFG have n? n, N* τις και. On the same ground (λπιζπ (Bi^cCDFGKL &c.) is 
preferable to vnopevei (ti*A). 

30. There would clearly be no room for the addition of vnep ημών (t>icCKL &c.) before 


32. It is practically certain that ex νεκρών {WKC) did not follow fyfp^eir. With regard 
to the omission of \{ησον)ς (so BDEK) and the addition of και before αποθανών {so DEFGKL), 
the space gives no evident indications. 

33. κα[ι: so Bt^cDEFGKL ; om. t^*AC. 

34. The supplement here is rather shorter than in the adjacent lines, and perhaps ow 
was read after τις with FG. 

39. του α•γα\πτ}σαντος : SO Bi^ACKL; τον α-γαπησαντα XyKYG. 

40. In DE ovre ΐξονσια precedes oure αρχαι, in C nvTe (ξονσιαι follows ; the papjrus 


evidently had neither of these readings. It is equally certain that ovre bwa^eis followed 

μΐλλοντα, not αρχαι. aS in KL. 

42. Tis may well have been omitted, as in DEFG. 

44. [τ]ω κ{υρι)ω: τον κνριον ACFG. The papyrus possibly read ΐ(τ;σο)υ after χ{ριστ)ω 
with D*EFG. 

47—8. αναθΐμα eivai αν\τος εγω : αυτ. εγω αναθ. ΐΐν. CKL. 

48. απο : so BSACFKL &c. ; νπο DEG. μου, which is omitted after αδβλφωι/ by 
D*FG, is required to fill the space. 

49. των κατά DEFG. 

54. ovToi ΐ{σρα)ηλΐΓαι with DEFG is not impossible. 

56. The space would admit of on ov {^^B'). 

57. τον may have been omitted before 6{fo)v, as in FG. 

1356. PhiLO. 
Fol. 4 16x15-5 cm. Third century. 

The foUou^ing fragments are from the papyrus codex of Philo of which the 
pieces identified as belonging to extant treatises were printed under 1173. 
Apparently the codex contained other treatises which have not come down to us ; 
at any rate we have not succeeded in identifying several fragments, though it is 
likely enough that of the smaller pieces at least the place will be found among 
Philo's existing works. 

A palaeographical description of the papyrus was given in the introduction 
to 1173 ; the numeration of the leaves below is adapted to that of the leaves 
previously published. Fol. 4, the most considerable of the new fragments, is the 
left-hand leaf of a sheet of which Fol. 5, from near the beginning of the De 
Ebrietate, is the right-hand portion. Between the latter and Fol. 4, as the 
pagination shows, 5 sheets, i. e. 10 pages, intervened. The leaf is damaged in 
places, and in the recto it is difficult to obtain connected sense. Apparently the 
main subject is punishment, which is also under discussion on the verso, where 
interpretation is easier. The story of Croesus is cited in illustration of the 
doctrine that penalties are paid sooner or later, either in this world or the next, 
where disguise will be stripped off and the soul will be seen as it really is. Of 
Fol. 8, which belongs to the same sheet as Fol. 7, containing some of the final 
sections of the De Ebrietate, only beginnings and ends of lines remain. Since the 
pagination numbers are lost, there is no external indication as to whether the 
leaf preceded or followed Fol. 7. It is written in the more formal though perhaps 
not really different hand of Fols. 2-3, which come from the middle part of the 
Quod Deterius Potiori insidiatitr. But the fragment is not to be found in the 


preceding portion of that treatise, nor apparently in the De Ebrietate. Fol. 10 
is not connected with any of the fragments previously published. It is broken 
both at the side and the bottom, but the damage is less severe than in Fol. 8. 
There is an agricultural simile on the recto, 11. 6-το, and the verso is concerned 
with prayer. Of Fol. 11, another independent leaf, only a small corner from 
the top remains. Frs. i and a are in the hand of Fols. i, 4-7, lo-ii ; Fr. 3 
is in that of Fol. 9, from the De Mercede Meretricis, but belongs to some other 

Fol. 4 recto. 


T€9 TTjs ψνχΐΐ^ TJ^r TTepL . . αρω . [ ].[.... 

(TTifxcXeia? και προστασίας το[.]([ αν 

θ[ρ]ωπινωι/ πραγμάτων αμ . . [ 

€v ap^Tais καλλίστ^νονσης οσι ..[...]....[. 

5 σιν 019 5ξοντω9 αν αποιμ^ν re . . [ ] • Ι^'• 

κροψνχ^ια την 6eov μ^γαλονοιαν παραμ[(]τρι 
Τ€ η ουκ ξΐσθ οτι ημ€ί9 jj/i]] παθτ}μ[α]σι μον[ο]ΐ9 
€λαννομ€θα και παραθηγομίθα πρ[ο9 α]φρονα9 
€π€^ο8ον9 αναγκαζομ€νοι ποιβισθαι [■]τω . [.] . 
ΙΟ τ€ αναγιω και αποφω προσξστιν λογισμω 
γαρ μονω "χρηται κυβερνήτη του? αρμοττον 
τα9 ξκαστοις καιρούς π€ριαρθρ€ΐν . . ρ ανδρ€[ς 
φιλοσοφία σνμβιονν €πιμορφαζο[ν 


Τ€ί . . yy8[.] . € . . γυναικός γ . ητριδος σνγ . [. 
15 φονς ευβουλία [το]υς π^ρι Θ^ων ηττωμβν[ους 

φησι \y\ap θ^οι 5[. . .] . νίσω .[•.]• Τίκαδατι[. . . . 

f • • • .^λ[.] . . [ ]τι\α[ 

. [. .] [ 25 letters 

[....]..[ 28 ,. 

20 [ ] 

• • ι 3θ „ κα 

τοργασ .[..]. ^[ 25 ,. 

ίκον ..[•••]•[ 25 „ 



Fol. 4 verso. 


Γ. .]τ77[ ] του$ νομούς 6i\ei ουκ (υκαταφρονη 

25 τ[ο]ί ο[υν δοκ]7}θ€νη Κροισω των καθ εαυτόν από, 
'ί\ων γ^νομ^Ιγων €ν8αιμον€στατω €ΐναι καθα 
φα[σιν €Κ το]ν Δελφικού rpinoSos ^νθονσιων ο α 
^[^]%[^] H['°^^]Ti^ ττρονθβσπισίν τβλο? οραν μακρού 
β\ί6\υ τ[ων y\ap άδικων ατβιμωρητοί ουδείς ττρο^ 

3θ α[λ]?;^€ία[ΐ'] αφίαται δικας δζ τας αρμοττονσα^ 

διδωσιν e[i] και μη evBvs αλλ οψί γονν ω? οιονται 
TLV€S oyjre γαρ ονδίν των €v τη φνσΐΐ βραβζνον 
σι τΓαν[τ]α δβ €V καιρώ διδωσι μ^ντοι και ei μη ξνταυ 
θα και παρ ημξΐν αλλ evaoirre τταρα δικα[σ]ται^ 

35 [κ]ρ€ΐττοσί λίλυμ^νοι^ των σώματος δίσμω 

[ο τ]α ΊΓαθτι και Tas κακίας ζζωπυρΗ και ίν^φλί 
[γ](ν ξ^ eavTov ψνχ^αι? γαρ ψνχ^ας δικάζοντας γυ 
μνας ολας δι όλων κατανοονσι (ίλικρινως ου 
\S\ ανθ νπο των περιάπτων [. . . .]»' κατ€ΐλημπτο 

40 [πρ]οτ€ρον απ[. . .]μ€νοι •[••]• €v τινι συν λο 

[. . . .]αρα . [ ]υς ασω e . [. . . . 

[ 25 letters ]•« •[.•]• [. .]τΓω 

[ 3° Μ ] α[ττο]κρι 

45 [ 





] . [.]yc . τυρά 
]μα γυμναζων 

Fol. 8. 

■άκουαν (:γνω 7;[ 
το αντί θυ [. . .]ui'[ 
θρωπους [ 
5 άκρατα μ. . [ 

]γοπ[ο]ίθί δ ουδίν 
25 ]evai όντων 


]...$■ και 
] . δζ 6^ αποστο 



as €7Γ€1/[ 

προ Toar . [ 
10 (ζλλα πρ . [ 

about 9 lines lost. 
20 λ[. . . .] . [ 

erepovs [ 





τ\(ύν ο\ων 


] . 5if [ 

about 8 lines lost. 


] . [.]iOyy 



Fol. 10 recto. 



yos 77 πη8αΚ\ι.ον•^ων (?) 
5 Γσωί (5 ου8ζ ττ . [ 

ίρριζωμζνοί [ 

τρον 7 • • [ 

/ίτ^δε γνρ^νσαί ψντον [ 

απο πηγής απο)^€Τ€νσαι μ[ 
ΙΟ /ζαί τ?'' «yo^o ν ταντ[ 

ονχ Ελλην μόνον άλλα κα[ι βαρβαρο$ 

μ€να μάρτυς Se και α[ 

φων προς Καμβηστ)ν . [ 
> ίίποντα [•••]••.[ 
15 . [. »](ρν ο[ 

Fol. 10 verso. 

] λογισμού 

]σθαι κατά 
]α και αθρόα 





30 [σί 

] €νχ^αΐ9 αποτα 
] ot;/f €τησταμ€ 
]i' αρζτη? θν μ€λ€ 
] τίλονσι τα? βυχα? ίστω 
] wfjeirov €νσ€β€[ι\α κοσμον οι 
'\ζοντ€9 Ίταρατηρητζον 8e 
'γ<^στ€ρων μη8 οσα 8υνατοί 

]ef ^υγζσθαι Sei γαρ τας ον 
] διδοΐ'το? μάλλον η αδξι 
μ]ζτρζΐσθαΐ παρ ο και δήμο 
] τον νπζρ τη 



7t " 


Fol. IT. 


5 ]v €φ€ί€Ταί Tj 

]γονσαί oy εχω 


]τη9 νπο κ[. .] 


Fr. I. 


]νισαφρ αβ . . [ 

] . κλοπαΐ9 και αρπαγ[αί9 

]αι φ[ 

5 ]ί αλ[ 




φνσ-ι? α[ 

Fr. 2. 

5 ] • ?§[■ •]?ί 




καθ' *e[ 


€]στιν άλλο 
' leu- 
].τι δυ 



Fr. 3. 


] αλλω[ 
]« Kat . [ 

] €ΐπωι/ o[ 
5 ]€ντα• Soy . [ 

]at τω^ του[ 
] . ai δξ τα[ 

'[' ] 
ΙΟ ]οο'τ[ 



] , €ταί δ[ 
γνησιον [ 
ανοησας [ 
(Oiv ζων[τ 
ιοχο5 Τ€[ 
κτως φ . [ 
. ατ€ . κα,[ 


F0I. 4. Ι. The letter after nepi may be π, but πλ is unsatisfactory and a substantive is 

rather expected. π€ριτιτανωσ[ιν is possible (cf. Hesych. (τ()τιτανωμ€ναί γίγυψωμΐνας). 

5. ς of ois has been corrected ; apparently the scribe began to write δ. Both τη and η 
seem to be inadmissible after emo^ev. 

6. θίον : for the absence of contraction cf 11. 15 and 16. Elsewhere in this MS. the 
contracted form is used. 

9. ine^obos in the sense of punishment is common in Egyptian documents, but hardly 
to be found elsewhere except in Philo (Mangey, i, p. 283. 12, ii, p. 314. i, p. 525. 24). At 
the end of the line ]τα)ί{ would suit the remains, but the construction is obscure. 

10. αποφω after αναγιω looks like a corruption of ανοσιω. re is perhaps displaced. 

12. ττΐριαρθραν is presumably for nepiaOpeiv, which occurs in Philo ap. Euseb. Praep. 
Evang. pp. 387 c, 393 a (Mangey, ii, p. 636. i, p. 641. 23); Philo also uses πίριάθρησκ. 
The next word is possibly ms. 

13. The vestiges are consistent with σνμ φίλ., though the υ is too far from the μ. 
ίπψορφαζΐΐν occurs repeatedly in Philo, with the infin., as here, in i, p. 387. 30, ii, p. 551. 18 
Mangey, and with other constructions elsewhere. 

14. νυν δ[ί] wepi is a possible reading, but the π would be unsatisfactory and the passage 
apparently devoid of construction. The avSpes would rather be expected to be brought into 
some relation with the γυνή. γοητριδος, if that is the word intended, is intelligible though 



a novel form. Below the interlinear ο a correction has been made, but what was originally 
written (? v) and the purport of the alteration are not clear. At the end of the line συγ. [ or 
«Γυ7τ[ seems inevitable. 

23. Apparently not ΐκοντ. 

24-38. ' Let not then the truthful seer be despised who, when Croesus was supposed 
to be the happiest of all the men of his time, so the story goes, warned him under 
inspiration from the Delphic tripod to regard the end of a long life. For in truth no unjust 
person is allowed to go unpunished ; but he pays the fitting penalty, if not at once, then late 
at any rate, as some think, although nothing in nature is determined late, but everything in 
due season. However, he pays it, if not here and among us, then in Hades, with better 
judges, who are freed from the chains of the body which of itself kindled and inflamed 
passions and vice; forjudging with their souls naked souls they see them distinctly through 
and through.' 

24. Some ink marks in the margin above ονκ are probably accidental. 

25. τ[ο]ί suits the space better than τ[ω]ϊ, and ^οκ\ηθΐντι. perhaps better than οϊ\ηθ€ντι. 
Croesus is referred to by Philo also in ii, p. 60. 13 and p. 468. 116 Mangey. 

26. ανθρω\πων is inadmissible. 

27-9. According to the well-known story in Hdt. i. 32 the warning τίλοςόρΰν was given 
to Croesus by Solon; cf Diogen. viii. 51 τίΚος δρα βίου (^μακρόβιου cod. Pant. ; cf. μακρόν 

βίου here)• τοϋτο το άπόφθίγμα Σόλων elne Κροίσω. In 1. 27 φα[σιν is extremely doubtful. 

31—2. οψΐ κτλ. ', cf. e. g. Eurip. Fr. 224 Αίκα τοι δίκα χρόνιοί, αλλ' ο/χω; νποπεσοΰσ' eXaSev^ 
δταν ΐχτ] ην άσίβη βροτών, Fr. 969 V Δίκτ; . . . σίγα κα\ βρα8(Ί πόδι στΐίχονσα μάρτττει tovs κακόν! 

ae\ βροτων. βραβίνονσι has πο definite subject and is perhaps an error for βραβενΐται. 

34. evaovTe : 1. ev Α(Λδου ye. For Other uncorrected corruptions in this text cf. e. g. 
Fol. 7 recto. 21 και ανθωσ[ιρ] for χλιανθ. and Fol. 10. 8-10 below. 

39. ΤΓΐριαπτων : cf. e.g. Philo i, p. 288. 6 Mangey άπαμφιασάμΐνοι τα πΐρίαπτα γυμνην 

fmbeiKwvTai την νπόκρισιν. [νφ ω]ν might well be restored in the following lacuna, but there 
then seems to be no subject for the verb imless κατ^λημιττο was regarded as plural. 

40. συν : apparently not ow. 

Pol. 8. 9. The doubtful σ is possibly t; the next letter has a vertical stroke and is not 
a nor o. 

24. }yo7r[o]tot : the first letter may be r, and ■j{o]v could be read in place of π[ο]ι. 

25• ]evai : 0Γ eMvai. 

33. The vestige after σα may be a medial stop. 

Fol. 10. 4. ττηδαλιονχοί and πηδάλιουχΐΐν are Philonian words, e. g. i, p. 145. 33, p. 131. 
43 Mangey. 

8. yvpevaai is a VOX nihili; was φντΐϋσαι meant ? The e has been corrected, perhaps 
from a. 

9. άποχΐτευσις is used by Philo (Mangey, i, p. 29), but apparently not the verb. 

10. A blank space is left after apSo, the archetype being presumably illegible or 
defective, apbovra would be in keeping with the context. 

13. Ίτρο σκαμβης is Unattractive here, and we prefer to suppose that καμβησην was written 
for Καμβνσην ; both μαρτνς be in 1. 12 and einovTa in 1. 1 4 are in favour of a proper name. 

14. For the use of the diple in a prose papyrus cf. 1241. v. 5, 24, vi. 25, P. Hawara 15 
in Archiv v, p. 378. A similar sign is employed in 405 to mark a quotation, and possibly 
this is the meaning of the sign here. 

28. 1. α|ί. 


30. The reason for the comma-shaped mark after νπ^ρ is not evident. Such marks are 
not infrequently inserted at this period between doubled consonants, but would not be 
expected between vnep and τψ, and there is no parallel elsewhere in 1173 or 1356. 

Pol. 11. 6. The first letter may be either γ or τ, and ov €χω may be ovs χω-. 

Pr. 2. I. The α has been rewritten. 

7. J/ is made with a very long diagonal stroke in order to fill up the line. 

Pr. 3. 5. The supposed stop may be the top of an t. 
II. The spacing suggests that the division was ]as ov[. 

1357. Calendar of Church Services at Oxyrhynchus. 

29'6 X 36-4 cm. A. D. 535-6. Plate I (Col. i). 

This unique papyrus, one of the most interesting documents concerning the 
early Egyptian Church that has been discovered, contains a list of συνάξΐΐί at 
various churches on Sundays, festivals, and (apparently) other days through 
a period of five months in a year which was the 14th of an indiction-series. 
σνναξίί {conventtis or collecta), a term applied by Cyril Hierosol. and Chrysostom 
to Christian congregations in general, is used by Dionysius the Areopagite (fourth or 
fifth century ?) with especial reference to the celebration of the Eucharist ; and, though 
his explanation of the origin of the term [Deeccl. hier. i. 3) is incorrect, Socrates, 
who discusses συνά^^ι? and states that at Alexandria on Wednesdays and Fridays 
the scriptures were read and expounded, ττάντα re τά συνάξξωί yiverai hLya rrjs των 
μυστηρίων τ€λ€τψ {Hist. v. 22), shows that in the fifth century avva^is was used for 
a service which generally included the celebration of the Eucharist. The word 
passed into Coptic, e. g. Hyvernat, Acies des Martyrs^ i, p. 249 * un jour quHls 
faisaient la samte σύναξι^ dans le tottos des saints apotres Pierre et Paul, au 
jour de leur commdmoraison qui est le cinquieme d'Epip ' (cf. p. 29), and continues 
in the calendar of the Greek Church with reference to services on certain 
important occasions, e. g. η σύναξι$ τη^ Θίοτόκου on Dec. 26. Nilles (Kalend. 
utriusque eccl. i, p. ^"i, and ii, pp. 61-4) notes, as others have done, the resemblance 
to the Latin stationes or processions on fixed days to particular churches at Rome, 
especially in Lent or on festivals, when from before the times of the Gregorian 
Sacramentary (eighth century according to Duchesne, Christian Worship, 
ed. 4, p. 124) the Pope participated in the service and addressed the people — 
a duty which since 1870 is performed by a cardinal as his deputy. The parallelism 
between this list of συΐ'ά^βι? and the Roman stationes is indeed curiously close, 
as was observed by the Rev. F. E. Brightman, to whom and to Mr. W. E. Crum 
we are indebted for valuable assistance in the interpretation of this papyrus (Π). 



The text is in two columns, containing 32 and '3,6 or 37 lines respectively, 
of which the first has lost six lines in the middle but is otherwise complete, 
while the second is broken vertically down the middle, so that the details 
concerning festivals are lost, and there are also gaps affecting the numbers of the 
days and names of churches. The lines are closer together towards the end of 
Col. ii, of which the margin at the bottom is broken but was in any case much 
narrower than in Col. i, as if the writer were cramped for space, and it is not 
likely that any columns are missing, though a fragment assigned to 1. ^6 might 
possibly come from a later column. The script is a rather large, somewhat 
irregular uncial, the size of λ, ν, and χ and letters at the end of a line being often 
exaggerated. It suggests a scribe who was familiar with drawing up liturgical 
documents, probably Coptic as well as Greek, but was not particularly well 
educated, as is also indicated by the character of the Greek, which is correctly 
spelled but employs some vulgar forms ; cf. notes on 11. i, 2, and 8. 

Abbreviations are numerous, being indicated usually by a wavy line either 
above or after the last letter written ; but the contraction of Χρίστου is avoided. 
Diaereses and paragraphi are used occasionally; cf 1. 56, note. The palaeographical 
evidence points to a date not earlier than about A. D. 450 nor later than about 
550 ; but internal evidence fortunately enables the year to be fixed more 
precisely. Since several Sundays are recorded, the days of the week are known 
wherever the days of the month are preserved, so that e. g. Phaophi 23 (1. 3) was 
a Sunday. This day in an ordinary year corresponded to Oct. 20, but comes, 
like all the dates in Π as far as 1. 62, within the six months' period from Aug. 29 
to the end of Feb. during which owing to the difference of intercalation the 
days on the Egyptian calendar may fall one day later than usual in the Julian 
calendar. Hence Phaophi 23 in a Julian year next before a leap-year cor- 
responds to Oct. 21. There happens to be no occasion in the fourth and fifth 
centuries on which Phaophi 23 of the 14th indiction falls on a Sunday, and of 
the two years in the sixth century which fulfil the prescribed conditions, 535 and 
580, we have for palaeographical reasons little hesitation in preferring the earlier, 
which is in fact the only thoroughly suitable date, being confirmed by two 
pieces of internal evidence. In the first place the Nativity is recorded on Choiak 
28, not 29, as is natural if the year was bissextile ; cf p. 28. Secondly Easter 
in 536 in Egypt fell on March 23 (Ideler, Handb. d. Chronol. ii, p. 263), a date 
which is quite in accordance with the indications in Π concerning the beginning 
of Lent (cf. p. 30), and of which the arrival would form a not unnatural point for 
the conclusion of the document. In 581 Easter fell on April 6, so that Lent 
-began on Mecheir 30 (Feb. 24), and the year was not bissextile. 

Π is thus shown to be concerned with the year S'i^~6, less than a century 


after the Council of Chalcedon (451), which caused a schism in the Alexandrine 
Church, and to fail near the end of the patriarchate of Timotheus IV and of the 
period of compromise with the monophysites inaugurated by the Henoticon of 
the Emperor Zeno. Timotheus died in ^^6 and was succeeded by Theodosius, who 
was exiled by Justinian three years later, when the monophysite patriarchs of 
Alexandria were finally disowned by Constantinople and a permanent succession 
of rival catholic patriarchs began. The circumstance that Π belongs to the 
period of compromise accords well with the large number of churches mentioned, 
which had been greatly multiplied since the preceding century (cf. p. 36), and at 
most, but probably not all, of which the clergy were no doubt monophysites, as 
is perhaps also indicated by the exceptional prominence assigned to the festival 
of St. Philoxenus (11. 34-7, note). 

On the general character of early church festivals and calendars see 
Duchesne, op. cit. ch. viii. The earliest extant calendar of any of the Eastern 
Churches is a Syriac one, written in 411 and first published by Wright, and 
now by Nau in Patrol. Orient, x, pp. 1 1-23, which gives a list of festivals observed 
in Syria. Of the Latin Church the earliest calendars are the short Philocalian 
tables {'^'>β) referring to popes and martyrs buried at Rome, and the Martyro- 
logy attributed to St. Jerome, which is largely based on the same source as the 
Syriac calendar and in its present form is of the fifth century, a calendar of Tours 
(461-90), and another of Carthage (soon after 505). The oldest Byzantine 
calendars, that of Morcelli (eighth century?), that at Naples (ninth century?), and the 
Menologium of Basil (tenth century), are several centuries later than Π, which, as 
would be expected, differs considerably from them but agrees with the early 
Syriac martyrology with regard to the date of the commemoration of SS. Peter 
and Paul (cf. p. 29). Of the Coptic Church the earliest calendars are those 
published from menologia by Nau in op. cit. x, pp. 187-310 (thirteenth-fourteenth 
century), by Tisserand from Abul-Barakat in op. cit. x, pp. 353-78 (thirteenth 
century), Wustenfeld's Syjtaxarium (fifteenth century ; the second half of the 
year was never issued), and Basset's (from fourteenth and sixteenth century 
MSS. ; Patrol. Orient, i, pp. 334 sqq. and iii, pp. 347 sqq., covering Thoth — 
Choiak only). For the modern calendar of the Eastern Churches see Nilles, 
op. cit. and Malan, Calendar of the Coptic. Church. Il's list is naturally shorter 
than the mediaeval ones, and has many other points of difference. 

The starting-point is not the beginning of the Egyptian civil year (Thoth i = 
Aug. 39) but Phaophi 33 (Oct. 31, not 30, in ^'>,S)i this date being explained by 
the title (11. 1-3), which states that the list refers to σννά^ί,ι^ ' after the ττάττα^ 
descended to Alexandria'. Πάπα? was the ordinary title in Egypt of the 
Alexandrian patriarch, e. g. in P. Amh. 3 {a), iii. 5 (cf. Deissmann, Licht vom 


Osien, p. 137), Brit. Mus. 113 (10). τ a, but it is applied also to presbyters and even 
subordinate clergy, e.g. P. Brit. Mus. 417. 3 ττάττα? Έρμουπολεω? (a village in the 
Arsinoite nome; cf. Deissmann, op. cit. p. 150) and 1631. ix verso, i. In 
P. Giessen ^^. 2, as Mr. Crum remarks, ττ'ττ' means ττρίσβύτβροζ, which is often 
thus abbreviated in Coptic papyri, not ττάττα?, as suggested by the editor; In 
1357 the mention of Alexandria and the obvious importance of the πάπα? in 
question make it much more likely that the patriarch is meant than a local bishop. 
Oxyrhynchus was the seat of a bishop, who in 534 was abba Petrus (P. S. 1. 216. 4) ; 
but κατήλθαν would be a more natural word to use in reference to the patriarch's 
return than to the departure of the bishop of Oxyrhynchus on a visit to 
Alexandria. Probably, therefore, Timotheus IV had come to Oxyrhynchus on his 
way back from a tour of inspection in Upper Egypt, and started homewards a day 
or two before Oct. %i. The calendar, which is too elaborately written to be a mere 
private memorandum and may have been publicly exhibited, must have been 
drawn up either on his departure, if it is a notice concerning forthcoming avva^us^ 
or about Easter or later, if it is a record of συνάξ^ι^ actually held. It is not 
a complete list of days on which there were services, for few of the churches 
mentioned were visited more than two or three times in the five months, and 
just before the Epiphany a whole week (Dec. 31 -Jan. 6) passes without a σνναζι^ 
in an interval between continuous avva^^is from Dec. 19-28 and Jan. 7-13. That 
is the only case where a Sunday is certainly omitted in Π ; but a regular use of 
all the churches mentioned, with Eucharistic services on Sundays and probably 
on important festivals, is quite compatible with the apparent claim of the writer 
in 1. I to set forth a comprehensive list of συνάγει?, if that term is interpreted 
(cf. p. 19) in the light of the Roman stationes as special assemblies on Sundays 
and holy days at appropriate churches (if possible, the church of the saint whose 
day it was; cf. 11. 8, lo-ii, and 24), at which the bishop of Oxyrhynchus was 
very likely present. At Rome the stationes are now 87, on 83 different days in 
a year, distributed among 44 churches (Nilles, op. cit. ii. 6•^ ; at Oxyrhynchus 
the (Tvva^u^ in about five months from Oct. to March were 66, on about 62 different 
days, distributed among at least 26 different churches, so that in a year the 
whole number of σννά^^ι^ may have exceeded 130, and of churches 40. The days 
at Rome on which two or more stationes are held on the same day are Christmas 
Day and the Thursday following the Fourth Sunday in Lent ; at Oxyrhynchus two 
σννά^^ι^ took place on Tubi i (the day of St. Peter and St. Paul), 14, 15 and 
very likely on a day early in Mecheir (1. 50), possibly others. The use of ds 
in e. g. ets rr\v αγί{αν) Μαρίαν (1. 30) to indicate her church is exactly parallel to 
the use of ad in the Roman liturgy in connexion with the stationes, e. g. ad 
S. Paulum extra muros; the name of a saint standing for his church is 


already common in sixth-century documents, e. g. 141. 3 (p. 35 ) and 
P. Stud. Pal. X. '^^ (p. 34). That the calendar was an official one, drawn 
up by some presbyter or deacon or other assistant of the bishop of Oxy- 
rhynchus, for the use either of the clergy whose duty it was to attend σννάζζΐ^ or 
of the public, is the most probable explanation of the care expended on its 

Oxyrhynchus is not actually mentioned, but apart from the provenance of 
the papyrus and the correspondence between the saints invoked in 1151. 40-50, 
a Christian amulet of the fifth (?) century, and the names of several churches 
mentioned in Π, the fact that Oxyrhynchus was the town in question is proved by 
the occurrence of at least four known names of Oxyrhynchite churches. Thus the 
voTivi] (κ[κλησία in 11. 37 and 61 is doubtless identical with the church of that 
name in a list of guards stationed at the chief buildings of the town about 
A. D. 300 (43 verso, iii. 3o). The continued survival of this church through the 
period of persecution before Constantine is the more interesting because its 
existence in the reign of Diocletian had been questioned by Wilamowitz, who 
(GotL gel. Anz. 1898, p. 676) wished to regard εκκλησία in 43 as a place of 
assembly. The βορρινη εκκλησία mentioned in 43 verso, i. 10 perhaps occurs in 

I. 5O) which can be restored eis] το β[ορρινον μαρτύρων, εκκλησία and μαρτύρων are 
sometimes treated as synonymous at this period, as is indicated by e. g. 941. 3 
οικονόμου του αγίου ^Ιούστου . . . olvtIs του μαρτυρίου and 1311 ^Aviavos ττρ{€σβύτ€ρθ5} 
μαρτυρ{ωυ) αττα Ίούστου, this μαρτύρων being no doubt the same as the church of 
St. Justus in 1. 10 of Π ; cf. 1151. 50 and p. 27. The aμφobov ayCas Ευφημία? at 
Oxyrhynchus known from 1038. 23 is moreover to be connected with the church 
of that saint (cf 1. 41, note), and the οΙκ{ονόμο9) τοΰ αγίου Γαβριήλ in 993 with the 
church named in 1. 54. 

Except in the case of the * Southern church ' and possibly the ' Northern 
martyrium ', εκκλησία and μαρτύρων do not occur in Π, but ^κκλησίαν has to be 
supplied with την before μαρτνρ{ων) (1. 5), Φοιβάμμωνο? (e.g. 1. 3), 'Avviavrjs (11. 21 
and 44), and αμα ['Hpaibos (1. 40). On the church ' of the Martyrs' see 1. 5, note. 
Phoebammon is presumably identical with the saint of that name (Amelineau, 
Les acies des martyrs^ pp. 54-9), whose day in later times (but not in Π ; cf 

II. 46-8) was Tubi 27, and who is well known from many Theban and other Coptic 
texts (cf. e. g. Crum, Coptic Ostraca, p. χϋ) and Christian inscriptions (e. g. that 
quoted in 1. 20, note), besides B. G. U. 694 (Arsinoe, seventh-eighth century), 
P. Brit. Mus. 1430, &c. (church or monastery at Aphrodito, eighth century), 
P. Stud. Pal.x. ^^ (sixth or seventh century). Of the last-mentioned papyrus, which 
is a list of δ\1τα supplied to various churches and monasteries at an unnamed town , 
we append the text with some additional restorations : 


+ Θ€ο8ώρω [ e/y τον ayiov Φιλ6^€νο[ν . . . 

(ύπβρ) βρίονίον 6ψω[ν . . . eis το μοραστήρ{ιον) των [. . . 

καρπών π€μπτ[η9 ίνδικτίονο^ των παρθ^ν^υουσων [. . . 

6ί5 το μοναστήρ{ίον) των [. . . άββόί Μαρκύ\λο[υ . . . 

5 e/y τον αγιον Φοφάμμ[ωνα ... 15 Άβρααμίον [. . . 

e/y την άγίαν Ενφημί[αν . . . ευχαριστώ ..[... 

e/y την άγίαν άμα 'Ηρ[αΙν . . . πτ[. . . 

e/y τον άρχάγγίλον [Μιχαήλ (Γαβριήλ ?) [. . .]φαρι[. . . 

€19 τον άγων άββόί . [. . . [Φίλ }]ίππου [. . . 

ΙΟ €iy το μοναστηριών) άβ[βά 'AvSpiov ? 20 πβ . . . 6 . [ 

The churches of SS. Phoebammon, Euphemia, and Philoxenus (11. 5, 6, 11) 
correspond to the churches in 11. 3, 51, and 24 of Π ; η αγία αμα 'Hp[ais (so Crum 
in 1. 7 ; Wessely reads "λμαη . [) may be identical with αμα [. . . in 1. 40 of Π ; the 
archangel (1. 8) is doubtless Μιχαήλ or Ταβριηλ (cf. 11. 8 and 54 of Π), and the 
ayios αββα . [. . . (1. 9) may well be the saint in 1. 49 of Π, while the monastery in 

I. 10 can be that mentioned in 146. i and 147. i. Whether αββα Μαρκίλλον and 
Άβρααμίου (11. 14-15) are names of churches or monasteries or of private persons 
is not clear ; they do not occur in Π, but in view of the marked coincidences in 

II. 5-1 1 with churches at Oxyrhynchus that town is in any case quite as likely 
to be the one concerned as Heracleopolis, to which Wessely doubtfully refers it. 
The ρ of αμα Ήρ[αίν is uncertain, and in 1. 40 of Π Άμα[ίον could be read (cf. B. G. U. 
683. I = P. Klein. Form. 783 €volk{lov) του άγιου Άμαιω, perhaps a mistake for 
Άμαιου, a name occurring in e. g. P. Klein. Form. 655. 3), or e. g. Άμα[ρανθίου, or 
Άμα[ντίου (a reputed martyr under Hadrian ; cf. Ruinart, Acta martyrum sincera, 
p. 18). But αμα 'Hpats is a well-known Coptic saint, whose day was Tubi 38 
(Jan. 23) ; cf Hyvernat, Actes i. 78 sqq. With regard to the two omissions of 
aytos in Π, where P. Stud. Pal. x. '^^. 5 and 7 insert it, scribes are often inconsistent 
in the -employment of that term (cf. e.g. 146. i with 147. i); but the uniform 
use in Π of the accusative, not the genitive with την, in the names of άγιοι 
suggests that the absence of the term where Phoebammon, Anniane, and ama 
Herais are mentioned was no mere accident, and in the cases of Epimachus and 
Ision also, whose days are recorded (cf pp. 26-7), the omission may well have 
had a real significance. Probably none of these persons had yet been officially 
recognized as saints : that churches in Egypt were sometimes called after persons 
who were apparently not yet technically ^yioi was already attested, e.g. at 
Oxyrhynchus (1053. 23 Ικκλησία αββα Ίίρακιωζ/ο?, later a Coptic saint ; cf. 1. 46, 
note), Aphrodito (P. Brit. Mus. 1419. 524 kκκK{ησΊa) Έρμβίου), Arsinoe {Ικκλησία 


Ίσίωι/οί, cf. p. 27), and Alexandria, where the church of St. Michael was generally 
known as Alexander's after its founder, the patriarch from 313 to 326, and the 
church of Theonas was also called after its founder (Cabrol, VarchioLchrit. i, 
pp. 1 1 1 ο sqq.). Whether the churches of Phoebammon and the two others were so 
called because they too were the founders is very doubtful. Phoebammon is not 
known to have been connected with Oxyrhynchus, and though he and ama Herais 
must have been officially recognized as saints soon after the date of IT, they 
have not survived in the modern Coptic calendar. Anniane may be identical with 
the ^ kviavx] who gave her name to a Memphite village in P. Stud. Pal. x. 297 
verso, i. 6 ; but we have failed to trace her elsewhere. Her name recalls that of 
Anianus (Annianus is probably less correct), the second patriarch of Alexandria, 
and possibly she was his sister ; but there is a difference of several weeks between 
his day in the Coptic calendars (Hathur 20, which comes in the period covered 
by the lacuna in 11. 14-19) and the services at Anniane's church on Choiak 12 
and Tubi 17. That St. Anne, the mother of the Virgin, is meant is unlikely ; 
cf. 1. 21, note. Phoebammon is a common name, and if he and ama [. . . were 
different from SS. Phoebammon and ama Herais, both they and Anniane might 
be explained as the founders or even owners of churches. Since monasteries 
seem to have been sometimes called after private owners, this may have 
happened in the case of churches too. But it is more likely that they were 
martyrs or other holy persons venerated at Oxyrhynchus, though on a lower 
level of sanctity than e. g. St. Menas and St. Victor. They were thus in the same 
rank as Epimachus and Ision, of whom the former is obviously identical with 
St. Epimachus in the Coptic calendars, while the latter had a church at Arsinoe 
in the seventh or eighth century (P. Klein. Form. 299 εκκλησία Ίσίωνο?, this Ision 
being apparently identical with the άπα '1σί[ων whose monasteries are mentioned in 
op. cit. 603) ; cf. pp. 26-7. 

Other churches mentioned in 1357 include nine which were called after the 
principal saints, St. Maiy (1. 30), the archangels Michael (1. 8) and Gabriel (1. 54), 
SS. Peter (1. -s^•^ and Paul (1. 34?), the prophets Jeremiah (1. 46) and Zachariah 
(L 52, note ; which Zachariah is meant is uncertain), ' the Baptist ' (1. 47), and * the 
Evangelist' (1. 23). The selection of one particular evangelist as distinct from the 
others is somewhat remarkable. At first sight St. Mark, the founder of the See 
of Alexandria, might seem to be indicated, but St. John is probably meant for 
several reasons : (i) he is the only evangelist mentioned in 1151, and all the other 
saints there named (the Virgin and archangels, SS. Serenus, Philoxenus, Victor, and 
Justus) had churches in Il's list ; (2) 141. 3 θνρονρ{ω) του αγίου Ιωάννου implies that 
St. John was the patron saint of a church or monastery at Oxyrhynchus ; 
(3) there is apparently a contrast intended between (St. John) ' the Baptist ' and 


' the Evangelist ', which goes far to explain the omission of the name in both 
cases. The remaining churches were called after various lesser saints (chiefly 
Egyptian martyrs), of whom SS. Cosmas (1. 22), Euphemia (1. 51), Julianus or 
Julius (1. 48), Justus (1. 10), Menas (1. 11), apa Noup (1. 56), Theodorus (1. 6^), 
Theodotus (1. 6^ ?), and Victor (1. 20) are still commemorated by the Coptic 
Church, but not SS. Philoxenus (1. 24) and Serenus (1. 4). In ten instances the 
names are lost, but 1. 49 may well refer to the known church of abba Hieracion 
(1. 46, note). The churches most frequently visited on the occasions of σννάζ^^ 
were those of Phoebammon (8 συν.), SS. Philoxenus (7 or 8, including 4 in 
connexion with his festival), Mary (4 or 5, including 3 at Christmas), and Serenus 
(4) ; at the Evangelist's, St. Michael's, and the Southern church 3 avva^eis were 
held, at the others 2 or i. According to Rufinus, who visited Oxyrhynchus early 
in the fifth century, the city contained 12 churches in quibus puhliciis agitur 
popjili cojiveiittcs (i.e. σννα^ι^) exceptis monasteriis in qiiibiis per singula orationum 
domus sunt {Hist. Mon. v), and he was informed by the bishop of Oxyrhynchus 
that there were as many as 10,000 monks and 20,000 nuns. These numbers are 
probably exaggerated, but Rufinus' glowing account of the town's piety is 
corroborated by the large increase in the number of the churches, which in 
■^•^• ^?>h probably amounted to 40 or more (cf. p. 21). Oxyrhynchus must 
have been an important Christian centre, and the disappearance of its numerous 
churches and monasteries is much to be regretted. Relics of them may be seen 
in some pillars in the chief mosque of Behnesa, and a single Corinthian column 
which marks the modern Coptic cemetery in the desert to the south-west of the 
town ruins. 

Besides the list of churches Π provides some valuable information concerning 
the various festivals and other days on which σννάξξίί took place. Phaophi 25 
(Oct. 22) was a ' day of repentance ', a novel expression. A μοναστηρίου τη^ 
μξτανοίας at Alexandria is known from P. Flor. 298. 54, and the word is used in the 
Greek and Coptic Churches for ' obeisance ' (Nilles, op. cit. i, p. Ixiv). The date 
is too far removed from Christmas to be connected with Advent, which, moreover, 
does not seem to have taken its place among Western Church seasons before the 
latter part of the sixth century, while in the East the κνριακη ttjs bevrepas τταρονσίαζ 
is the Western Sexagesima, and the observance of the τβσσαρακοστη του αγίου 
Φιλίππου from Nov. 14 (his day, which may have come in 1. 14; cf. p. 28) to 
Dec. 24 cannot be traced back earlier than 806, when it was enjoined upon monks 
by Nicephorus, patriarch of Constantinople. Hathur 3 (Oct. 30) was the ' day of 
Epimachus ', i. e. St. Epimachus, a martyr under Maximian, commemorated in 
the Menol. Basil, and by the Coptic Church of the thirteenth-fourteenth centuries 
on the same day (Nau, op. cit. p. 19a, Tisserand, p. 258), but since the fifteenth 


century (cf. Wustenfeld, op. cit., Hathur 4) on the day following. The omission of 
αγίου before his name may well be explained, as in the case of Phoebammon and 
others (cf. p. 24), by supposing that he was not yet formally acknowledged as a 
saint ; but it is not clear that ayiov was anywhere inserted in connexion with the 
days of particular persons, and the omission may be due merely to desire for 
brevity. Ision, however, whose day was Choiak 15 (Dec. 11), is not called aytos 
in the two papyri referring to his church and monasteries at Arsinoe (cf. p. 25), 
from which alone he was known previously, so that with both him and Epimachus 
the omission is likely to be significant, especially since Ision, unlike Epimachus, is 
absent from the mediaeval and modern Coptic calendars. Neither of these two 
was commemorated in a church called after himself, and that such did not exist 
is clear from the contrast with the festivals of SS. Michael (11. 8-9, Hathur 12-13 = 
Nov. 8-9), Justus (I. ID, Hathur 14 = Nov. 10), Menas (1. 11, Hathur 15-16 = Nov. 
ii-ia),and Philoxenus (11. 24-7, Choiak 22-5 = Dec. 18-21), which were celebrated 
by avva^eLs in their own churches (cf. p. 19). The archangel Michael's and 
St. Menas' days (the first of the successive σννάξ€ί5) coincide with their dates in 
the mediaeval and modern Coptic and Greek calendars (a σύναξι^ of the archangel 
in the Greek ; cf. p. 19) ; but St. Philoxenus' day, in Egypt at any rate, was not 
known previously ; cf. 11. 24-7, note. 

The date of St. Justus' day creates a difficulty. The mediaeval and modern 
Coptic calendars mention apparently five saints of that name, and Hathur 14 
(Nov. 10) seems to correspond to a commemoration on Hathur 16 of Justus, 
a soldier martyred at Rome (fourth century ?) ; in that case he is different from (i) 
St. Justus the patriarch now honoured on both Phamenoth 16 (March 12) and 
Pauni 12 (June 6), (2) the Justus whose Acts are extant (cf. Amelineau, Les actes 
des martyrs, p. 177), a martyr at Antinoe, honoured in the mediaeval calendars on 
Mecheir 9, (3) the companion martyr of St. Apollo (Mesore i), and (4) the son of 
the Emperor Numerianus (Mecheir 11, but Mecheir 10 in the thirteenth century) ; 
but the Justus Martyr mentioned on July 14 in the Menol. Basil., and on Oct. 2 
in Morcelli's calendar, is perhaps identical with the soldier Justus. He is not 
found, however, in the mediaeval Coptic calendars, and the μαρτύρων αττα Ίονστου 
at Oxyrhynchus, as the church is apparently called elsewhere (cf. p. 23), would 
better suit the martyr of Antinoe. Hence we are disposed to think that the 
latter may be meant in 1. 10, in spite of the divergence from the mediaeval date 
of his festival. For a service at his church three days later (1. 13) and one at 
St. Victor's on Choiak 7 (Dec. 3, 1. 20), as well as for a service at St. Serenus' on 
Choiak 27 (Dec. 23, 1. 29), no explanation is given, and the reason for the choice 
of these days is obscure. The avva^Ls on Hathur 17 might be connected 
with the Alexandrine custom in the fifth century (cf. p. 19) of holding συι;ά^«? on 


Wednesdays. But the other two days are Tuesday and Monday, and the awa^eis in 
Π certainly depend mainly on saints' days, until Lent at any rate, when Saturdays 
predominate to the apparent exclusion of other week-days (cf. p. 30). Wednesdays 
are indeed until 1. 56 more frequent in Π than any other week-day (7 avva^eis, 
the next being Tuesday and Thursday with 5), but this seems to be accidental. 
The practice in Π apart from Lent is hardly in accordance with Socrates' state- 
ments {Hist.v. 22) concerning the importance of Saturdays as a day for (τυναξ^ίΐ^ in 
Egypt outside Alexandria. 

In the lacuna affecting 11. 14-19 references to the days of SS. Andrew the 
Apostle (Choiak 4 = Nov. 30), Philip the Apostle (Hathur 18 = Nov. 14), 
and Cosmas (Hathur 22 = Nov. 18) may be lost; cf. notes on 11. 14-19 
and 22. The observance of the Nativity (1. 30) by auya^eis on three days 
(Choiak 28-30 = Dec. 25-7, not 24-6, in ^'^^) does not seem to coincide 
with the three days' festival from Dec. 24-6 in the modern Coptic calendar. 
The mention of the Nativity occurs on Choiak 28, not 29 which is ordinarily 
Christmas Day, a circumstance which is best explained in accordance with 
the mediaeval Coptic synaxarium for Choiak 29 (Basset, op. cit. iii, p. 537) 
' en effet elle {la naissance) eut lien a la fin du 28 de Kihak et le 2<f jour, et 
aiissi^ parce qiie dans les annies bissextiles la nativity toinbe le 28 de Kihak 
et dans les annies non bissextiles le 29, ils {les P^res de VEglise) ont voulu que 
les deiix joiws fiissent consacris par honneur a cette sainte fete.' An early 
observance of Christmas Eve is less likely, for vigils {τταραμονή is the word in 
the Greek Church) are very rare in early church calendars, and if Choiak 28 was 
Christmas Eve the mention of the Nativity ought to have occurred in the 
next line. Christmas Day had about a century before the date of Π (cf. Duchesne, 
op. cit. p. 259) been fixed on Dec. 25 in the Eastern Church, one branch of which, 
the Armenian, still combines it with the Epiphany on Jan. 6, and that the 
Egyptian Church in the sixth century observed the Byzantine (i. e. Roman) date 
of Christmas irrespective of the peculiarities of the Egyptian calendar is in the 
case of so important a festival not a surprising exception to the rule governing 
saints' days. In an ordinary year, in which Choiak 29 coincided with Dec. 25, there 
were probably only two συvάξ€ίs connected with Christmas, since Tubi i was a day 
of other commemorations. 

In Col. ii the notices of saints' days &c. are lost but can in several cases 
be restored. The festival of St. Stephen, which is older than the discovery of his 
tomb in 415 (Duchesne, op. cit. p. 267), would be expected to be mentioned, and 
either the first of the two συνά^^ΐί in 11. 33-4 on Tubi i (Dec. 27) might refer to the 
ημίρα {αγίου ?) Στζφάνον, who is honoured by the mediaeval and modern Coptic 
and Greek churches on that day, or the second awakes might be eis τον άγιον 


[ΊτΙφανον ημζρα αντον. A church of St. Stephen at Arsinoe occurs in e. g. P. Stud. 
Pal. X. 75. 7. But in the East in early times, as is shown by the Syriac calendar 
of 411, the martyrdom of St. Stephen was celebrated on Dec. 36, that of 
SS. James and John, Apostles, on Dec. 27, and that of SS. Peter and Paul on 
Dec. 28, the first date being still observed in the Armenian Church, which 
inverts the order of the other two commemorations. Hence, since the service in 
1. ^'^ was at St. Peter's, that in 1. 34 was probably at St. Paul's, and the absence 
of a avva^is at this point in honour of St. Stephen, if not due to Christmas, may 
be accounted for by supposing that it took place on Thoth 15 (Sept. 12), when 
there was another commemoration of him in the Coptic calendars, or on Aug. 2, 
when he is mentioned in the Menol. Basil. In the mediaeval and modern Coptic 
calendars the day of St. Peter and St. Paul is Epeiph 5 (June 29), as also in the 
passage from Hyvernat's Actes des martyrs quoted on p. 19. 

Tubi 3 (Dec. 29) is Innocents' Day in the Coptic calendars, the Greek Church 
celebrating also St. Marcellus {pb. c. 470), who, if identical with the a/3/3as 
Μάρκελλο? in P. Stud. Pal. x. "^,^^ was formerly venerated in Egypt, though now 
no longer, and he may have had a church at Oxyrhynchus (cf. p. 24), possibly 
that mentioned in 1. 49. Since the service on Tubi 3 was at Phoebammon's 
church, Ί]μίρα Μαρκύλλου is less likely in 1. ^^ than ήμ^ρα νηπίων, but the fact that 
Tubi 3 was a Sunday is sufficient to account for the σνναξίς. After that day there 
is a remarkable gap of a whole week without a σύναξί^, but Tubi 1 1 (Jan. 6) is the 
date of the Epiphany in the Coptic as in other calendars, and no doubt €ττιφάνξία, 
(τα) ζττιφάνία, θζοφάνια or βατττισμοζ τον Χρίστου (cf. 1. 30) is to be supplied in 
1. 36. What saints, if any, were celebrated by the σννάξζΐ9 on Tubi 12-15 
(Jan. 7-10), some of which may be connected with the Epiphany, is doubtful 
(cf. 11. 37-43, notes); but the service on Tubi 16 (Jan. 11) in 1. 43 very likely 
commemorated St. Philotheus, a well-known saint at this period, and that at 
St. Mary's (1. 45) on Tubi 21 (Jan. 16) is clearly connected with the commemoration 
of her death in the mediaeval Coptic calendars and of the consecration of the 
first church of the Virgin in the modern calendar. Duchesne (op. cit. p. 269) 
compares that festival in Egypt with one observed in Gaul in the sixth century on 
Jan. II or 18 and in Spain in the seventh century on Dec. 18 ; cf. also the σύναζι^ of 
the Greek Church on Dec. 26 (p. 19). From this point up to 1. 52 the numbers of 
the days are missing, but a festival of St. Julianus on Mecheir i (Jan. 26) is 
perhaps indicated by 1. 48, and the festival of ^Τ-ηαταντή may have been recorded 
on Mecheir 8 (Feb. 2) ; cf. 1. 52, note. The two συνάξει? on consecutive week- 
days, Mecheir 11-12 (Feb. S~^)i ^^ ^^^ church of St. Gabriel the archangel 
(11. 54-5) may well be explained as implying that Mecheir 11 was his day, in 
accordance with the two services at St. Michael's on the occasion of his festival. 


The mediaeval Coptic calendars, however, commemorate him on Choiak 22 
(Dec. 18), the modern also on Phamenoth 30 (March 26), the Greek Church 
formerly only on Nov. 8, the σνναζίζ των αρχαγγέλων, but now on March 26 
and July 13, while Wustenfeld's calendar mentions another commemoration of the 
archangel Michael on Mecheir 12. The only archangel of whom a commemoration 
is known before the ninth century is Michael (Duchesne, op. cit. p. 276), but 
as Gabriel had a church, he probably had a day also. 

Mecheir 13 or 14 (Feb. 8 or 9) seems to have been a day of special importance 
(1. 56, note) owing to the approach of Lent (77 αγία τ€(Γσαρακοστη), which in Egypt 
began not earlier than Mecheir 14 nor later than Phamenoth 19 (cf. e.g. P. Grenf. 
ii. 112), and in the year ^^6 on Mecheir 16 (Feb. 11); cf. p. 20. There was 
a σνναξίί on Sunday Mecheir 15, but none on the i6th or any week-day before 
Saturday the 21st (11. 58-9), when one of the two συνάξ^ίί perhaps refers to the 
day of St. Onesimus, St. Paul's disciple. The absence of σύναξαν from Monday 
to Friday in this week is the more remarkable because in 11. 60-2, which cover 
the remaining nine days of Mecheir, the dates though incompletely preserved 
(cf. the notes) indicate only one week-day, also a Saturday, between two 
Sundays. This sudden rise of Saturday into prominence after Mecheir 15 
(cf. p. 28) is not likely to be an accident in view of the significant fact that in 
about 365 the Council of Laodicea (can. 49, Labbe i. 1505) ordered the oblation 
of bread and wine in the Eucharist as well as the celebration of the festivals of 
martyrs to be confined during Lent to Saturdays and Sundays, and it harmonizes 
very well with the date of Easter in Π which has been fixed on other grounds ; 
cf. p. 20. In the concluding month Phamenoth (Feb. 25-March 26, 11. 63-8) 
the days are lost throughout, and since Wustenfeld's Synaxarium ends at Mecheir 
30, no comprehensive mediaeval list of the Coptic saints commemorated in the 
following month is available in a translation; so that how far Nilles' list, 
representing the modern calendar, is in accordance with mediaeval tradition, is, 
when Nau's and Tisserand's mediaeval calendars omit the day, uncertain. Hence 
any scheme of reconstruction for 11. 63-8 is hazardous, particularly since in three 
of the six σννα^(.ι% even the name of the church is doubtful. We have, however, 
attempted a provisional reconstruction based on the assumption that the procedure 
noticed in 11. 59-62 was continued in conformity with the directions of the 
Council of Laodicea. The key to our restoration is the identification of 
SS. Theo[dotus] in 1. 6^ and St. The[odorus] in 1. 6^ (i.e. the bishop of 
Pentapolis) with the saints of those names who are now celebrated by the Coptic 
Church on Phamenoth 6 and 12 (March 2 and 8), but are not mentioned on those 
days in the mediaeval calendars. If that identification is correct, the days of 
these saints were no doubt recorded, the second probably falling a day later than 


in the modern calendar ; cf. 11. 6^-6, note. The day of St. Colluthus also, 
a well-known saint at this period, may well have been recorded in 1. 66, and in 
1. 68, if Μ,αρίαν is rightly restored, there may have been a reference to 
Easter Eve rather than to Good Friday or Easter Sunday. Whether the Sundays 
in Lent had special names remains uncertain. 

Since the calendar clearly includes all the more important festivals during 
Phaophi — Phamenoth, the absence of certain days and commemorations is 
noticeable. All Saints' day is celebrated by the Coptic Church on Phaophi 23 
(Oct. 20), which is recorded as a Sunday in Π. Since in 1. 10 ημίρα αντοΰ 
supersedes κυριακη, there is a presumption against regarding Phaophi 23 in Π as 
All Saints' day, though cf. note on 1. 20. The mediaeval Coptic calendars also 
omit this festival, but the Syriac calendar of 411 commemorates All Martyrs on the 
Friday after Easter, while the Greek Church celebrates All Saints on the Sunday 
after Pentecost, this date having been chosen as early as the time of Chrysostom 
{ob. 407) for a festival of All Martyrs. Hence Oxyrhynchus in ^'^6 may well have 
observed that festival at the Martyrs' church either on that day or the Friday 
after Easter, both of which fall outside the range of Π. Of a commemoration of 
All Souls' day, Nov. 2 in the Greek as in the Latin Church, but not observed in 
the Coptic, there is naturally no trace. The Greek Church, distinguishing 
St. James the άδελφό^^οί from St. James son of Alphaeus, celebrates the former 
since the tenth century on Oct. 23, the Coptic similarly on Phaophi 2<5 (the same 
day) and on Epeiph 18 or Choiak 30. No avva^is is recorded in Π on Phaophi 
26 and St. James is not mentioned on Choiak 30, so that if a festival of St. James 
was observed at this period Epeiph 18 is a more likely date. St. James son of 
Alphaeus, who is honoured by the Greeks on Oct. 2 or 9, by the Copts on 
Mecheir 10 (Feb. 4), when no awaits is recorded in Π, but in the mediaeval 
Coptic calendars on Mecheir 11 (Feb. 5) and Phaophi 5 (Oct. 2), is in the same 
position. Neither St. Demetrius Μυρόβλυτο^ {pb. about 306), an important saint 
commemorated on Phaophi 29 (Oct. 26) by both Copts and Greeks, nor 
St. Barnabas the Apostle, whose day was Pauni 17 (June 11) in the mediaeval 
calendars, but is Choiak 21 (Dec. 17) in the modern, is mentioned. The absence 
of a σννα^ι% in honour of St. Stephen on Choiak 30 or Tubi i, if 11. 33-4 are rightly 
restored, has already been discussed ; cf. pp. 28-9. St. John the Evangelist's day 
in the Coptic calendars is primarily Tubi 4 (Dec. 30), when there was no awa^tj in 
Π, and since his festival would naturally be celebrated at the church of * the 
Evangelist ' (cf. p. 25), the only place where ^/xepa avrov can come in connexion 
with that church is in 1. 42 (Tubi 15 = Jan. 10), for 11. 7 and 23 refer to Sundays. 
It is, however, more probable that St. John's day fell outside the period covered 
by Π, perhaps on Thoth 29 or 30 (Sept. 26 or 27) or Pachon 13 or 16 (May 8 or 11) 



when he is also commemorated on days corresponding to the two commemorations 
of him in the Greek Church on Sept. 2.6 and May 8. The Circumcision (Tubi 6 = 
Jan. I in the Coptic calendars) is not marked by a avva^is, an omission which is 
not surprising in view of the absence of that festival from the old Syriac, Roman, 
and Carthaginian calendars, although it is found in Gallican use in the sixth 
century, and in the early Byzantine calendars. Tubi 37 (Jan. 22) is the day of 
St. Phoebammon in the Coptic synaxary consulted by Amelineau (/. c), but though 
1. 47 might refer to this day the σύναξι^ was not at his church, and is therefore 
clearly unconnected with his festival. The Finding of the Cross by the Empress 
Helena in 326 is celebrated in the mediaeval and modern Coptic calendars on 
Phamenoth 10 (March 6) in addition to the Exaltation on Thoth 17 (Sept. 14), 
which alone is now celebrated in the Greek Church, though the Menol. Basil, 
also records the Apparition of the Cross on May 7. There was probably no 
σύναξίί on Phamenoth 10, which falls on a Thursday in Lent (cf. p. 30), and 
whether even apart from that circumstance there would have been a festival in 
connexion with the Cross is doubtful. 

In the Julian equivalents of Egyptian days appended to the text the numbers 
in brackets give the dates in an ordinary year which was not bissextile; 
cf p. 20. 

Col. i. 

+ rua>ai9 συνά^^ων μ€τα το κατ€λθ(€Ϊι/) 
iv8{iKTLovos) 18 ev 'AX€^av8p{€La) τον πάπα, ον{τως)' 

Φαωφί κγ eiy την Φοιβάμμωνος κυριακ{ή), A.D. 535• 

Κ€ ei'y τον αγι{ον) Hepfjvov ήμ€ρ[α) μζταν{οίας), 
5 λ e/y την μαρτνρ{ων) κνριακή, 
!Αθύρ γ e/y την Φοιβάμμωνο? ήμ€ρ(α) Έπιμάχ(ρν), 

ζ €19 τον €ναγγζλίστ{ην) κνριακή, 
ιβ €19 τον αγι{ον) Μι^^αηλά ημίρα αντον, 
ιγ €iy τον αυτόν, 

€19 τον ayi[ov) Ίονστον ήμύρα αύτοΰ, 
€ΐς τον αγι(ον) Μηνάν ήμύρα αντοΰ^ 
€19 τον αυτόν, _ _ _ 

€19 τον ayiipv) Ίο\υ\στον, 
[Χοίακ] 6 lines lost. 

20 ζ €19 τον αγι{ον) Βίκτορα, 

[ι]β €19 τηρ 'Αννιανή9 κ[υρια]κή, 

Oct. 21 (20) Sun. 

33 (22) Tues. 

28 (27) Sun. 

31 (30) Wed. 

Nov. 4 (3) Sun. 

9 (8) Fri. 

10 (9) Sat. 

II (10) Sun. 

12 (11) Mon. 

13 (12) Tues. 

14 (13) Wed. 

Dec. 4 (3) Tues. 
9 (8) Sun. 


ί€ ets τον ay ων Κοσμόί ή[μ€]ρα Ίσίωνο9, Ι2 (ΐΐ) Wed. 

ιθ €ίί τον €ύαγγ€λίσ7[{ην) κ]νρίακ{ή), ι6 (ΐ5) Sun. 

κβ €is τον αγι{ον) Φίλ6ξ€ν[ο]ν ήμ€ρ(α) αύτον, ig (18) Wed. 

25 κγ ils τον αυτόν, _ _ 2θ (19) Thur. 

κδ €LS τον αυτόν, 2ΐ (2θ) Fri. 

κ€ ομοίων €ί9 τον αυτόν, 22 (2ΐ) Sat. 

Kq- eis τον άγι{ον) ^€[ρ]ήνον κνριακ{ή\ 23 (22) Sun. 

κζ €is τον αυτόν, _ _ _ 34 (^S) ^Ο"• 

3© /ct; (is την άγί{αν) Μαρίαν ykvva του Χρίστου, 25 (24) Tues. 

κθ eh την αυτήν, _ _ _ 26 (25) Wed. 

λ €is την αύτην ομοίως, 27 (26) Thur. 

Col. ii. 

Τΰ^ί a eh τον αγι{ον) Πίτρ[ον ήμίρα αύτοϋ, Dec. 28 (27) Fri. 

6μ{οίως) κ{αϊ) eh τον ayiipv) [Παϋλον ήμύρα αύτον, 

35 y fi's' τ"^" Φοιβάμμ[ωνος Κυριακή, 3° (*9) S^'^• 

ία Ci? τ^Γ Φοιβάμμ[ωνο9 (τηφάν(ΐα του Χρίστου, A.D. 53^• J^"^• 7 (^) Μοη. 

ί)3 eh την νοτινη[ν ζκκλησίαν, 8 (7) Tues. 

ly eh τον dyi{ov) φιλό^[ζνον, 9 (^) Wed. 

ιΒ eh τον ayiov Μ[ί\χ[αη\α ήμίρα , ΙΟ (9) Thur. 

40 eh την άμα [HpaiSos ήμίρα αυτής {?), 

le eh την ayi{av) Εύφ[ημίαν ήμίρα , II (ΐο) Fri. 

eh τον eύay[yeλLστ(τjv), 

L<T eh την Φοίβάμ[μωνο9 ήμύρα Φιλοθ€ου(:) 12 (ΐΐ) Sat. 

ιζ eh την Άννία[νής Κυριακή, 13 (ΐ2) Sun. 

45 κα eh την ayi{av) Μα[ρίαν ήμίρα αυτής (?), 17 (ΐ6) Thur. 

[κδ eh τον ay]i(ov) Ί€[ρημίαν Κυριακή (?), 2θ (19) Sun. 
[κ . eh τον βα]πτισ[τήν, 

[Mexeip α(?) eh τον ayi{ov)] Ίουλ[ιανον ήμύρα αύτοϋ Q), 27 (26) Sun. 

[. eh τον ayi\{ov) άββ[ά ήμίρα αύτοϋ Q), 

5θ [ όμοί{ως) κ{αΐ) eh] το β[ορρινον μαρτύρων (?), 

[. e]h [την ay]i{av) Εύφη[μίαν, 

[η] eh τον ayi{ov) Ζαχ[αρίαν κυριακή (?), Feb. 3 (2) Sun. 

6 eh τον ayi{ov) Xep[ήvov, 4 (3) Mon. 

la eh τον ayi{pv) Γαβρ[ιήλ ήμίρα αύτοϋ (?), 6 (5) Wed. 



55 [t/91 e/y τον αυτόν, 

[ίδ?] €is τον άγι(ον) άπα Νούπ ήμ^ρ[α 

[t]e €19 την Φοιβάμ[μωνθ9 κυριακή, 

κα €19 τον άγί(ον) Φιλ[6ξ€νον ήμύρα , 

6μ{οίω9) καΐ e/y τον a[yL{ov) , 

6ο κ[β\ €L9 τον αύτον [κυριακή, 

κ[η\ €19 την νοτίν{ην) €κ[κλησίαν ημίρα , 

κΘ eh την αύτην [κυριακή, 
Φαμ^νωθ [ς-?] e/y τον ayi{ov) Θ€0[8οτον ήμίρα αύτον {?), 

[φ?] ei'y τον αγι{ον) Φίλ6^[€νον ήμίρα . . . ., 
65 [iy?] Ci'y τον άγί{ον) Θί[6δωρον ήμίρα αντοΰ, 

[ιθ?] €19 την Φοφ[άμμωνο9 ήμ€ρα Κολλονθου (?), 

[κ ?] e/y την αύτ[ήν κυριακή (?), 

[<ς-(?) eli'y την άγί[{αν) Μαρίαν ήμύρα (?) 

Perhaps ι line lost. 

7 (6) Thur. 

9 (8) Sat. 

ΙΟ (9) Sun. 

1 6 (15) Sat. 

17 (16) Sun. 

23 (22) Sat. 

24 (23) Sun. 
March 2 Sun. 

8 Sat. 

9 Sun. 

15 Sat. 

16 Sun. 
22 Sat. 


2. ϊνδ/ π. 

Μ)υλ[ Π. 

ΙΟ. 'ίουστον Π. 

13. ϊο[υ]σΓθϊ/ Π. 2 2. ϊσιωι/οί Π. 46• '«[ Π. 

' List of services after the patriarch descended to Alexandria, as follows : 14th indiction, 
Phaophi 23rd at Phoebammon's, Sunday; 25th at St. Serenas', day of Repentance; 30th at 
the Martyrs', Sunday. 

Hathur 3rd at Phoebammon's, day of Epimachus ; 7th at the Evangelist's, Sunday ; 
i2th at St Michael's, his day; 13th at the same; 14th at St. Justus', his day; 15th 
at St. Menas', his day; i6th at the same ; 17th at St. Justus'; . . . 

Choiak . . . ; 7th at St. Victor's ; 12th at Anniane's, Sunday ; 15th at St. Cosmas', day 
of Ision ; 19th at the Evangelist's, Sunday ; 22nd at St. Philoxenus', his day ; 23rd at the 
same ; 24th at the same ; 25th likewise at the same ; 26th at St. Serenus', Sunday; 27th at 
the same; 28th at St. Mary's, Nativity of Christ; 29th at the same; 30th at the same 

Tubi ist at St. Peter's, his day; likewise also at St. Paul's, his day; 3rd at Phoebam- 
mon's, Sunday ; i ith at Phoebammon's, Epiphany of Christ ; 1 2th at the Southern church ; 
13th at St. Philoxenus' ; 14th at St. Michael's, day of . . .; at amaHerais', her day; 15th 
at St. Euphemia's, day of . . . ; at the Evangelist's; i6lh at Phoebammon's, day of 
Philotheus ; 1 7th at Anniane's, Sunday ; 2 ist at St. Mary's, her day ; 24th at St. Jeremiah's, 
Sunday; 2 [.]th at the Baptist's. 

Mecheir ist at St. Julianus', his day; ... at St. abba . . ., his day; likewise at the 
Northern Martyr's shrine ; ... at St. Euphemia's ; 8th at St. Zacharias', Sunday ; 9th at 
St. Serenus'; nth at St. Gabriel's, his day; 12th at the same; 14th at St. apa Noup's, 
day of . . .; 15th at Phoebammon's, Sunday; 21st at St. Philoxenus', day of . . .; like- 
wise also at St. . . . ; 22nd at the same, Sunday ; 28th at the Southern church, day of . . . ; 
29th at the same, Sunday. 


Phamenoth 6th at St. Theodotus', his day; 12th at St. Philoxenus', day of . . .; 13th 
at St. Theodorus', his day; 19th at Phoebammon's, day of Colluthus; 20th at the same, 
Sunday ; 26th at St. Mary's, day of . . .' 

1. Cf. pp. 21-2. «V instead of eis is common; cf. e.g. 144. 11 Korayayfiv iv 'AXelafSpeia 
and, for an early instance, P. Par. 10. 2 άνακΐχώρηκΐν iv 'AXe^. 

2. ιδ : the t is partly effaced, but Ιν^{ι)κ.{τΊονος) δ cannot be read, even apart from the 
difficulty that would arise concerning the date, since Phaophi 23 did not fall on a Sunday 
of the 4th indiction between 390 and 675, both of which years are unsuitable ; cf. p. 20. 

■πάπα: the writer is fond of using this genitival form for the accusative; cf. 1. 8 ΜιχαηΚα 
and 1. 22 Κοσμά. For the name of the patriarch see pp. 21 and 43. 

3. Φοιβάμμωνο! : cf. pp. 23-5. This day was probably not All Saints' (cf. p. 31), and 
St. Dionysius of Corinth, martyr under Diocletian, and the prophet Joel, formerly honoured 
on Phaophi 23 (Nau and Tisserand, /. c), are ignored. 

KvpiaK(Jj) : this word and ημίρα, wherever they come in n, might be in the dative, but 
γίνρα in 1. 30 is in the nominative. 

4. 2(prjvou : cf. 11. 28-9 and 53, 1151. 47, and B. G. U. 954. 3, 29 (Heracleopolis). 
A Nitrian abbot visited by Cassianus in 395 and author of two extant discourses is less 
likely to be meant than a disciple of Origen, martyr under Severus according to Eusebius 
{^Hisi. Eccl. vi. 4). The amba Serenus, archimandrite, and Serenus, ηγούμενος, formerly 
commemorated on Phamenoth 5 and 6 (Tisserand, /. c.) seem to be later. On the question 
of St. Serenus' day cf. 11. 20 and 53, notes, and for ημίρα μετάνοια! cf. p. 26. On Phaophi 
25 (Oct. 22) the Coptic calendars commemorate two eremites of the Thebaid and 
St. Julius of Akfahs, martyr under Diocletian; cf. p. 39. 

5. μαρτύρ(α>ν) : there was a well-known Coptic monastery of this name at Esna (Lato- 
polis), and a church τριών μαρτύρων at Arsinoe is mentioned in e. g. P. Brit. Mus. 
113 (8). II, and one τοΰ άγΙου μάρτ(υρος) at a village near Antinoe in Crum, P. Brit. Mus. 
Coptic, p. 450. The Coptic calendars on Phaophi 30 (Oct. 27) commemorate SS. Abraham, 
a Syrian anchorite (fourth century ?), Valens, Anatolius (date uncertain), and a Julius and 
others, martyrs under Decius ; the Greek church St. Capitolina, martyr under Diocletian, and 
St. Nestor [οδ. 306), and two days earlier (Oct. 25) SS. Marcianus and Martyrius (fourth cen- 
tury), whom Wustenfeld's and the modern Coptic calendars assign to Oct. 2 8, calling Martyrius 
Mercurius. Μαρτνρ{ίον) could be read, and in that case he would stand in the same position 
as Phoebammon, who became a regular saint; cf. pp. 23-5. Μαρτνρ{ιανοΰ), referring to 
a saint now honoured by the Copts on Pachon 2 1, is also possible ; but since there is a doubt 
whether there ever was a Coptic saint Martyrius, and Martyrianus' day is far removed from 
Phaophi 30, we prefer μαρτύρ{ων) in view of the parallels and the rarity of abbreviations of 
proper names in n. Moreover if Phaophi 30 had been the day of Martyri(an)us, ήμίρα αίτοΰ 
would be expected in spite of its being Sunday ; cf 1. 10. 

6. ήμίρα Επιμάχου : cf. pp. 24 and 26-7. Wustenfeld's calendar commemorates on this 
day SS. Cyriacus (fourth century), and Athanasius and Irene, martyrs under Diocletian ; 
Morcelli's calendar Cyriacus ; the Menol. Basil. Epimachus and Eutropia. 

7. τον €ναγγίλιστ{ην) : cf. pp. 25-6, and, on the date of the festival of St. John, p. 31. 
A church at Arsinoe was called τοΰ αγίου αποστόλου simply ; cf. P. Stud. Pal. x. 75. 6. 
St. George of Alexandria (fourth century ?, not the soldier), who is celebrated on this day 
in the Coptic calendars, is ignored. 

8-1 1. Cf. p. 27. Μιχαηλά is not a correct form; cf. 1. 2, note. The other saints now 
honoured on Hathur 12-15 ^.re unimportant. From P.S.I. 63. 25 sqq. it appears that 
the whole festival of St. Michael lasted eight days or more, since an ageeement was made 
to repay a loan at Oxyrhynchus on the 8th day τψ ίορτης τοΰ άρχαγγίλου Μ[ιχ\αη\ τοΰ 

Ό 2 


Άθνρ μηνός. There was a church of St, Michael at Arsinoe (e. g, P. Klein. Form. 845), 
as well as at Alexandria (p. 25). For other mentions of St. Justus' church see p. 23. 

12. The lines after αυτόν (cf. 11. 25, 29, 31) are merely intended to fill up space, not to 
indicate a repetition of ημ(ρα αντοΰ. 

13. In the Greek and Coptic Churches Nov. 13 (Hathur 17) is the οδϊί of St. John 
Chrysostom, the translation of his relics being celebrated on Jan. 27 by the Greeks, but 
on Nov. 13 by the Copts, who also commemorate his death on Pachon 12 (May 7). For 
Ίο[ί]στοΐ' cf. 1. 10 ; we are unable to reconcile the three doubtful letters with Ίά[κ]ωβοΐ' 
or the name of any other Greek or Coptic saint, but this second σΰναξις at St. Justus', for which 
no special reason is assigned, is remarkable. A similar difficulty arises in 11. 20 and 29, 
where it can be explained by the supposed omission of ήμ^ρα αντοΰ ; but that is inadmissible 
here, if Ίο[ΰ]σΓοΐ' is right, since his day has already occurred in 1. 10. 

14-19. Three of these lines probably recorded services on the Sundays Hathur 21, 28, 
and Choiak 5 (cf. p. 22), and the remaining three some of the festivals of SS. Cosmas(l. 22, 
note), Philip the Apostle (Hathur 18 = Nov. 1 4 in both the Greek and Coptic churches), 
Matthew the Apostle (Hathur 20 = Nov. 16 in a thirteenth century Coptic calendar; 
cf. Nau, /. f.), Anianus, second patriarch of Alexandria (the same day in the Coptic calendars), 
Andrew the Apostle (Choiak 4 = Nov. 30 in both the Coptic and Greek churches), who 
probably had a monastery at Oxyrhynchus (146. i, 147. i), and Peter of Alexandria, martyr 
under Diocletian (Hathur 29 = Nov. 25 in the Coptic calendars; cf. Hyvernat, Acies des 
marlyrs, i, p. 263). 

20. Βίκτορα : cf. 1151. 49 and two inscriptions from Bawit in Hall, Coph'c and Greek 
Texts, pp. 143-4, where SS. Victor, Phoebammon (cf. pp. 23-5), Menas (cf. 1. 11), and 
George come at the head of lists of saints, (ίκτήρια of St. Victor are known at Lycopolis 
(P. Cairo Maspero i. 67006. 56) and Syene (P. Munich 9. 37) ; a church at Aphrodito 
(P. Brit. Mus. 1572, &c.); a λαύρα at Arsinoe was called after him (i.e. his church; 
P. Klein. Form. 675. 2, &c.), and he is often mentioned in Coptic texts, but which of the 
five (?) different saints of this name occurring in the modern Coptic calendar was meant in 
1. 20 is not clear. Abul-Barakat's list (Tisserand, /. i-.) mentions only one (Epeiph 20 = 
July 14), Nau's menologia the same one and two more (Hathur 5 = Nov. i and Mesore 24 
= Aug. 17), but none of these days corresponds with any of the eight dates in the modern 
calendar (Hathur i, 10, 21, 27, Choiak 6, Mecheir 14, Pharmouthi 4, 27) on which a Victor 
is mentioned. Choiak 7 in 1. 20 suggests a connexion with the bishop Victor coupled with 
the presbyter Anatolius (date ?) on Choiak 6 ; but if this Victor had been mentioned in 
1. 19, els τον αυτόν would be expected in 1. 20 on the analogy of e. g. 11. 8-9, while, if the date 
of the commemoration has merely altered by a day (cf. the case of Epimachus, pp. 26-7), 
ημ£ρα αντοΰ is Wanted in 1. 20. It is possible that the omission is accidental here and 
in 1. 28, a hypothesis which would remove the similar difficulty in 1. 29, where the second 
σνναξιε at St. Serenus' (on a Monday) is hard to account for if the preceding Sunday was 
not his day. But in view of the inapplicability of this explanation to 1. 13 (cf. note), 
we hesitate to postulate an inconsistency between 11. 10 and 28 with regard to the choice of 
Κυριακή and ήμίρα αντοΰ, SO that it remains doubtful whether Choiak 7 has anything to 
do with a festival in honour of St. Victor. Hence he is probably identical with the 
so-called son of Romanus, martyr under Diocletian, whose day is Pharmouthi 27 and who 
was the most important Victor; cf. Am^lineau, Les actes des martyrs, pp. 177 sqq. On 
Choiak 7 the mediaeval Coptic calendars celebrate several unimportant saints, the modern 
calendar Heraclas 8th patriarch of Alexandria, the Menol. Basil. St. Theodore of Egypt, 
Theodulus of Cyprus, and the prophet Zephaniah. 

21. 'Κννιανψ: cf. 1. 44 and p. 25. The name ^Κναανή occurs in Lefebvre, Inscript. 
chret. no. 65. St. Anne, mother of the Virgin, who is commemorated in Wtistenfeld's and 



the modern Coptic calendar on Hathur ii (Nov. 7), in Nau's and the modern on Choiak 13 
(Dec. 9, the Conception), and in all Coptic calendars together with the Greek Menol. Basil, 
on Mesore i (July 25), and by the Menol. Basil, also on Sept. 9, is hardly likely to be 
meant, though Choiak 1 2 comes near to the feast of the Conception ; for apart from 
the doubt about the early date of that festival, which cannot be traced back further than the 
seventh or eighth century (Nilles, op. cit. p. 349), the two trvm^etr at Anniane's church were 
both on a Sunday and so need imply no special festival. Procopius {De aedif. i. 3) states that 
Justinian erected a church in honour of St. Anne, but though the Latin Church did not cele- 
brate her till much later, the insertion of ay/as would be expected, if she were meant. 
July 25 is most likely to have been her day at Oxyrhynchus, if she was commemorated. 

22. Κοσμά i7[^€]pa *Ισίωι/οϊ : cf. 1. 2, note, and p. 27. The dedication of a church to 
St. Cosmas without St. Damian is noticeable. The Greek Church since the tenth century 
distinguishes three pairs of these saints (i) July i, Romans martyred under Carinus, 
(2) Oct. 17, Arabs martyred under Diocletian, (3) Nov. i, Asiatics, sons of Theodote, apparent- 
ly later. The Coptic church since the thirteenth century celebrates the Arabs on Hathur 22 
(Nov. 18) and the Romans on Pauni 22 (June 16); a third commemoration in the modern 
Coptic calendar on Choiak i (Nov. 27) seems to refer to the Asiatics. Hathur 22 and 
Choiak i come in the period covered by the lacuna in 11. 14-19, where et'y τον αγιον Κοσμά 
ημίρα αυτοΰ may well have occurred on the first of these two dates. The saints honoured by 
the Coptic Church on Choiak 15 are not important. 

23. Cf. 1. 7, note. On Choiak 19 (Dec. 15) the Coptic calendars mention St. John, 
ήγούμΐνος (i. e. John, archimandrite of Siut about 400), and Theophania. 

24-7. St. Philoxenus, who is also mentioned in 1150. 2 (sixth century), 1151. 48 (fifth 
century ?) and P. Stud. Pal. x. 35. 1 1 (cf. p. 24), is either an otherwise unknown Egyptian saint 
or identical with the monophysite bishop of Hierapolis {οί>. about 523), who is honoured in the 
mediaeval Syrian Jacobite menologia on Feb. 18 (Nau, op. cit., p. 72) and other days. The 
four συι/άξ«ί in his honour (one more than at Christmas) indicate his great popularity, Λvhich 
would harmonize with the shortness of the interval between his death and the date of Π, if 
the bishop of Hierapolis is meant ; but 1151 must in that case be later than 523. The day 
of St. Gabriel the archangel, Choiak 22 in the Coptic calendars, may have been Mecheir 11 ; 
cf pp. 29-30. The other saints honoured by the Copts or Greeks on Choiak 22-5 are not 

28-9. For St. Serenus cf. 1. 4, note, and, for the two consecutive σννίζΐΐς at his church, 
1. 20, note. Choiak 26 (Dec. 22) in the Coptic and Greek calendars is the day of 
St. Anastasia, martyr under Diocletian, and in Basset's mediaeval Coptic synaxarium of abba 
Hieracion, who had a church at Oxyrhynchus (cf. 1. 46, note, and p. 24), but is here ignored. 
Choiak 27 in the Coptic calendars is the day of Psote and Callinicus, bishops of the Thebaid 
and martyrs under Diocletian. 

30-1. For Christmas Day cf. pp. 20 and 28, and, for ykvva τον Χρίστου, P. Grenf ii. 

112 {a). I Χ(ριστό)ϊ Μαρία yevva κα\ Μαρία Χ(^ριστ6)ς yipva κα\ X(ptcrro)f Μαρία yevva, which seemS 

to be connected with the much disputed formula χμγ. yiwa there, as here, is probably 
a substantive, Μαρία being a mistake for Μαρίας. A κηπίον of the church of St. Mary 
is mentioned in 147. i. 

32. On Choiak 30 (Dec. 26) the Coptic calendars commemorate David and St. James, 
bishop of Jerusalem (cf. p. 31), as well as the second day of the Nativity, while the Greek 
Church commemorates the Virgin (Flight to Egypt; cf. p. 19 and 1. 45) and others. 

33-4. For the festival of St. Peter and St. Paul, or less probably St. Stephen, 
see pp. 28-9. In the mediaeval Coptic and Greek calendars the day of SS. Peter and Paul 
is Epeiph 5 (June 29) and St. Peter now has his own days on Mesore 7 (July 31) and 
Jan. 16. Numerous other saints called Peter are celebrated by the Copts, but not on any 


day close to Tubi i. A church of St. Peter at Arsinoe occurs in P. Stud. Pal. x. 75. 3. 
Other saints commemorated on Tubi i by the Copts include, besides St. Stephen, St. Leon- 
tius the Syrian, martyr under Maximian, after whom was named a hospital at Hermopolis 
(P. Klein. Form. 314. i, unless the reference there is to St. Leontius the Arab), Paul bishop 
of Ephesus, and Ischyrion and Aesculapius, who with 8,140 companions were martyred at 

35. Cf. p. 29. 

36. For the Epiphany cf. p. 29. In the mediaeval and modern Coptic Church this 
festival is preceded by a vigil (cf. p. 28) and continues for three days, but since the awa^eis 
on the six following days here were at different churches, the presumption is rather against 
their being connected with the Epiphany. 

37. ννηνη[ν ίκκΚησ'ιαν: cf. 1. 61, p. 23, and 1. 47, note. There was a church of this 
name at Aphrodito ; cf. e.g. P. Brit. Mus. 1419. 526, where the editor has overiooked the 
parallel from 43 verso. St. Theodorus Orientalis, martyr under Diocletian, whose Acts 
are extant, is celebrated by the Copts on Tubi 1 2, and ημίρα Qeohu>pov may have occurred 
here, since the church of St. Theodorus (cf. 11. 63-6, note) probably refers to a different 
saint of that name. 

38. Φι\όξ[ΐνον : cf. 11. 24-7, note. ΦΐΚόθ\ΐον (cf. 1. 43, note) is unsuitable. On Tubi 13 
(Jan. 8) the Coptic calendars commemorate the first miracle at Cana and sometimes 
St. Theophilus, whom the Menol. Basil, also mentions on this day, and St. Menas (cf 1. 1 1). 

39. Μ[ι]χ[α7;λά : cf. 1. 8. Tubi 14 (Jan. 9) is in the Coptic calendars the day of INIaximus, 
who is apparently identical with the monk of St. Macarius honoured with Domitius three 
days later, and sometimes the day of Archelides and Irene (date uncertain), while the early 
Greek calendars commemorate St. Polyeuctus {ob. in Armenia about 259). 

40. αμα [^Upaibos : cf. p. 24. Her day was subsequently a fortnight later. 

41. Έυή)\ημίαν•. cf. 1. 51 and pp. 23-4. She was an important saint whose day in the 
mediaeval Coptic and Greek calendars is Epeiph i8 (July 12) and in the modern Coptic 
one Epeiph 17 (July 11) and Pauni 8 (June 2) as well, so that ήμ^ρα αυτψ is unlikely either 
here or in 1. 51. On Tubi 15 Wtistenfeld's calendar mentions the prophet Obadiah and 
a fourth-century St. Gregory (not of Nyssa) ; the modern calendar Cyriacus and Julitta, 
martyrs under Diocletian ; the Menol. Basil. SS. Gregory of Nyssa {ob. about 395), Domitianus 
(ob. about 600), and Marcianus. 

42. Cf. 1. 7 and pp. 25-6. 

43. On Tubi 16 (Jan. 11) the Coptic calendars all commemorate St. Philotheus, 
martyr under Diocletian, and since a church called after him is several times mentioned in the 
Aphrodito papyri (e. g. P. Brit. Mus. 1572. 9), and, as Mr. Crum informs us, in unpublished 
Coptic texts from Thebes, his day is likely to have been mentioned here. 

44. ^λννια\νης•. cf 1. 21, uotc, and p. 25. On Tubi 17 the Coptic calendars mention 
St. Maximus (cf 1. 39, note), the companion of St. Domitius, the Menol. Basil. SS. Tatiana, 
martyr under Severus Alexander, Meorteus, martyr under Diocletian, and Athanasius. 
But ημ^ρα αυτή: would be morc likely than a mention of any of these, and κυριακή is still more 

45. κα : cf. p. 29. The Coptic calendars commemorate, besides the Virgin, Hilaria, 
daughter of the Emperor Zeno, St. Gregory of Nyssa (cf. 1. 41, note), and St. Agnes 
(third century). 

46. Ί([ρημίαν : i. e. the prophet Jeremiah, whose day in the Coptic calendars is Thoth 8 
(Sept. 5) or Pachon 5 (April 30), in the Greek Church May i, so that ημ^ρα αντοϋ is unlikely. 
A monastery dedicated to him near Memphis (P. Stud. Pal. x. 295-8) has been recently 
excavated by Quibell, and another, in the Thinite pagarchy, is known from P. Brit. Mus. 
1460. 12. Ί([ρωννμον, whom the Copts honour on Phamenoth 15 (March 11) or Thoth 20 


(Sept. 17), and 'ie[pa(ca, an Egyptian martyr mentioned in the Syriac calendar of 411 on 
June 15, who is different from a Nitrian monk contemporary with Chrysostom and formerly 
celebrated by the Greek Church (Nilles, op. cii. ii, p. 43), are less likely ; but Ί^ρακΊωνα 
(who might be identical with the Syriac Hierax) ημίρα αΐτον is possible; cf, p. 24. His 
church, however, may be the one meant in 1. 49, where oyD^ov) άββΰ [Ί^ρακίωνα can be 
restored, but the occurrence of ayws, which is absent in 1053, is a slight objection to intro- 
ducinghim in either passage. This saint's day, moreover, was Choiak 26 (Dec. 22) in the 
fourteenth century according to Basset's synaxarium (^Patrol. Orient, iii, p. 525). He lived 
in the reign of Diocletian and escaped from captivity at Oxyrhynchus (Am^lineau, op. cit. 
p. 83). The number of the day in 1. 46 is doubtful, κδ being restored because a Sunday is 
wanted in 1. 46 or 47 before the Sunday which is apparently accounted for in 1. 48. 
St. Antony the Great is honoured by both Copts and Greeks on Tubi 22 (Jan. 1 7), and if 1. 46 
refers to that day, he may well have been mentioned. Line 47 would then probably refer to 
Tubi 24. On that day (Jan. 19) the mediaeval Coptic calendars mention SS. Mary, a nun, 
Apa Psote, and Demetrius, the modern one commemorates St. Mercurius of Alexandria, 
while the Menol. Basil, mentions amongst others St. Macarius, a famous Egyptian saint 
{pl•. 391 ; cf. 1. 47, note). 

47. τον βά)^Ίΐσ\Ύψ : cf. pp. 25-6. His execution is commemorated by the Copts on 
Thoth 2 (Aug. 30), by the Greek Church on Aug. 29 ; his conception by both on Thoth 26 
(Sept. 23) ; his nativity by both on Pauni 30 (June 24); the finding of his head by both on 
Mecheir 30 (Feb. 24), and that of his bones by the Copts on Thoth 16 (Sept. 13) or 
Pauni 2 (May 27), by the Greeks on May 25 ; the deposition of his head on Phaophi 29 
(Oct. 26) by the Copts; his incarceration on (παγομ. i (Aug. 24) by the Copts, the general 
σύραξίί in his honour being on Jan. 7 (Tubi 1 2) in the Greek Church. The last is the only 
date at all near that in 1, 47, which cannot be earlier than Tubi 23 or later than Mecheir 4 
and was probably a week-day between the two Sundays Tubi 24 and Mecheir i ; cf. the 

• next note. The σύναξις on Tubi 12 (1. 37), which was at the Southern church, is not likely 
to be connected with a festival of the Baptist, and, Mecheir 30 not being available, since 
there was no σνναξκ on that day, the only place in π which is at all suitable for a festival in 
his honour is 1. 47 ; but his day is more likely to have been Thoth 2 or Pauni 30, outside 
the range of Π. The Coptic Church does not celebrate any very important saints from 
Tubi 23 to 30, St. Macarius (cf. 1. 46, note) being honoured on Tubi 8 or Phamenoth 27 or 

48. Ίονλ[ιανόν : a Sunday service on Mecheir i is expected between 11. 47 and 51, and 
since Ίού^αν, i. e. the Apostle, who is honoured on that day in the mediaeval Coptic 
calendars, cannot be read, the choice lies between 'lov\[iavou and 'iov\[tov. A church of 
St. Julius at Arsinoe is known from P. Klein. Form. 743. If Ίοΰλ[ιον be read, St. Julius of 
Akfahs, the historian and martyr under Diocletian, whose Ac/s are known (Amdlineau, 
op. cit. pp. 123 sqq.) and whose day is Thoth 22 (Sept. 19), is more likely to be meant than 
St. Julius bishop of Rome in 336-52 (now Mecheir 3, but not in the mediaeval calendars), 
or a third Juhus, martyr under Decius (Phaophi 25, 27, or 30). Hence ήμφα αντον would 
be unlikely, unless 1. 48 be referred to Mecheir 3, the festival of the Roman St. Julius. In 
that case 1. 47 might refer to Mecheir i, and the week-days between the two Sundays 
in 11. 46-7 ΛΥουΜ be passed over, which is not a very satisfactory hypothesis, since Lent had 
not yet begun (cf. p. 30). On Mecheir i, however, the Coptic Church commemorates 
St. Julianus, martyr with 5,000 companions, and although he is not mentioned in the 
mediaeval calendars, we on the whole prefer \ονϊ^ιαν6ν to Ίούλ[ίοι/, since the choice of the 
church would be accounted for, if it was his day. 

49. Probably either ά/3/3[α Ί(ρακίωνα (cf. 1. 46, note), or ά^/3[α Ώαϋλον ημ^ρα αντον, 

referring to the chief of the eremites {ob. 341), who is celebrated in the mediaeval and 


modern Coptic calendars on Mecheir 2 (Jan. 27), the approximate date of this line, or άββ[α 
Μάρκ(λλον (cf. P. Stud. Pal. X. 35 and p. 24), who is perhaps the Marcellus mentioned on 
Epeiph 22 of Nau's calendar but has disappeared from the modern one. 

50. For [eti τον ayi{ov)] Ύοβ[ίαν, i. e. Τω/3|ίαν, there is barely room, and cf. p. 23. to 
β[ορριν6ν μαρτνριον is more likely than e. g. τό Β[ασιλί'ου or Β[αρσανμον, a bishop of Edessa com- 
memorated on Mecheir 9 in the mediaeval Coptic calendars ; but ]ro^ can be part of 
a proper name in the genitive, like Φοιβάμμωνος (cf. p. 23), preceded by els τψ. In that case 
Άρισ]το/3[οΰλου, one of the seventy-two disciples, now honoured by the Copts onPhamenoth 19 
but absent from the mediaeval Coptic calendars, might be meant, σ, however, rather than 
T, would then be expected to come over the ι of ay\i(av) in 1. 51, and on Phamenoth 19 
there seems to have been a σνναξίί at Phoebammon's church (1. 66). 

51. Cf. 1. 41, note. The saints commemorated by the Copts and Greeks from 
Mecheir 4 to 7 are not particularly important. 

52. [η] : this is restored because the 9th (1. 53) was a Monday, so that a Sunday 
is wanted here. The day of St. Zachariah father of the Baptist is Thoth 8 (Sept. 5) in the 
mediaeval Coptic and Greek calendars ; Z. the prophet is commemorated on Hathur 4 
(Oct. 31) and Mecheir 14 (Feb. 8; so also the Menol. Basil.), a martyr Z. on Choiak 4 
(Nov. 30), Z. of Antioch on Pachon 20 (May 15) and Z. an eremite on Pachon 26 
(May 21) or Phaophi 13 (Oct 10). Of these the festival of the prophet Zachariah on 
Mecheir 14 is much the nearest to Mecheir 8, and ήμίρα αυτόν is possible; but the latter day 
(Feb. 2) coincides with the festival known in Eastern churches as υπαπαντή, i. e. Presentation 
of Christ in the Temple, and in the Western as the Purification of the Virgin. In the East 
this festival can be traced back to 350-400 (Duchesne, op. cit. p. 272), and the universal 
observance of it in the Eastern Empire was ordained by Justinian in 542 (Niceph. Hist. 
Eccl. xvii. 28), only six years after π was written, so that there may have been a reference to 
it here instead of κνριακη (cf. 1. 10). Since in the East this festival has always been one of 
Christ rather than the Virgin, the selection of another church than St. Mary's would 
be intelligible, especially if St. Zachariah is the father of the Baptist. St. Simeon 6 θίοΒόχο! 
and St. Anne (cf. 1. 21, note) are also honoured by the Copts on Mecheir 8, and by the 
Greeks on the next day (Feb. 3), but a mention of one of them is less likely here than 

κνρίακή or υπαπαντή. 

53• Σ(ρ[ηνον: cf. 1.4, note. Σ6ρ[απίωΐ'α or 2ep[y£oi' are also possible. A similar difficulty 
arises in P. Klein. Form. 627. i άγί(ου) 2ep[ (Arsinoite nome). The day of St. Sergius of 
Athribis, martyr under Diocletian, is Mecheir 13, only four days later than the date in 
1. 53, so that ημ€ρα αύτοΰ might be supplied with Σίρ[γι.ον also. St. Sergius, companion of 
St. Bacchus, a Syrian martyr under Maximian, is honoured by both the Greek and Coptic 
churches on Phaophi 10 (Oct. 7). The Coptic calendars celebrate a Serapion, bishop of Niciu 
(fourth century), on Hathur 27 or 28 (which falls in the period of the lacuna in 11. 14-19) ; 
another, a martyr under Diocletian, whose Acts are extant {Script. Copt. iii. i. iv), on 
Tubi 27 (twelve days before Mecheir 9), and a third Serapion on ΐπαγομ. i (Aug. 24). But 
St. Serenus is much more likely to have been mentioned than any of these. On Mecheir 9 
the Copts commemorate Paul, a Syrian martyr (fourth century) ; cf. 1. 52, note. 

54-5. Cf. pp. 23 and 29-30 and 11. 24—7, note. A πρ((σβΰτ(ρος) τοϋ αρχαγγέλου Γαβριήλ 

in the Arsinoite nome is known from P. Stud. Pal. x. 177. 6. The various Coptic calendars 
on Mecheir 11 mention SS. James son of Alphaeus (cf. p. 31), Basilides, Justus son of the 
Emperor Numerianus (cf. p. 27), and Palatianus, bishop of Rome (third century), and on 
the 1 2th the Archangel Michael (cf. 1. 8) and SS. Fabianus, bishop of Rome {οί>. 250), and 
Gelasius {οδ. 496). 

56. απα Νουπ ημ(ρ[α . . . : part of the V of ΝουτΓ and the rest of the line were on 
a separate fragment, which is suitably though not certainly placed here. The day is 


probably Mecheir 13 or 14, for it cannot be earlier, and if it is later, ι]θ must be read for t]f 
in 1. 57, to which there are objections. The various saints honoured in Mecheir by the 
Coptic and Greek churches do not include any whose name begins with Ν or Άπα 'n[, but 
the martyrdom of Anub under Diocletian is commemorated by the Copts on Pauni 19 
(June 13) and formerly by the Greeks (Nilles, op. ciU ii, p. 42) on June 5, while an abba 
Nub or Anub, presbyter and martyr under Diocletian, whose Acts are extant (Script. Copt. 
iii. I. ix), is celebrated by the Copts on Pauni 23 and sometimes on Epeiph 24 (July 11) 
also. If the position assigned to the fragment is correct, abba Nub is doubtless meant and 
ημ(ρ\α αυτού is Unlikely; but if it goes elsewhere, i. e. in 11. 14-19 or 59 or in a later column 
(cf p. 20), either 'Α\νοίπ or αττα] Νουττ can be read, and ημίρ\α αυτοΰ might be right, απα 
Ν[ούπ would, however, still be the best restoration in 1. 56. Άνονπ is a very common 
Byzantine name, so that απ(α) Άνούπ should perhaps be read, possibly referring to the 
colleague of Apollo atBawit; but cf. Crum, P. Rylands Copt. 461. 28-9, where apa Noub 

The paragraphi above and below 1. 56, elsewhere employed only at the end of a month 
in 1. 5, draw special attention to this day as for some reason of exceptional importance. 
Since the σύναξις was not at St. Mary's, a festival of the Virgin (cf. p. 29) is unlikely, and 
of the Coptic saints honoured on Mecheir 1 3-14 (Feb. 8-9) Severus, patriarch of Antioch, or 
the prophet Zachariah (cf 1. 52, note) are the most likely to have been mentioned. In the 
Greek calendar Feb. 8 is the day of St. Theodorus the Great, στρατηλάτη!, whom the Copts 
commemorate on Epeiph 20 (July 14) and who is probably not the St. Theodorus of 1. 65; 
St. Cyril is honoured by the Latins on Feb. 9 as well as Jan. 28, while in the Coptic Church 
his days are Thoth 12 (Sept. 9) and Epeiph 3 (June 27) and in the Greek Jan. 18 and 
June 9. But none of these seems important enough to account for the paragraphi, which 
may well be connected with the circumstance that Lent began in 536 on Mecheir 16 (cf. 
p. 30). Mecheir 14 would be the last week-day before Lent, and this may have given 
a special importance to the σύναξις, whether the day was that of a saint, or ' of Repentance ' 
as in 1. 4, or had a title of its own. 

57. [i]e : the vestiges suit e rather better than Θ, which is the only alternative (cf. 1. 56, 
note), and the 15th being a Sunday is wanted either here or in 1. 56. If it came in 1. 56, 
the suggested explanation of the paragraphi would still apply, perhaps even better; but 
a σίιναξις on Mecheir 19 would be on a Thursday, whereas in 11. 59-68 the evidence, so far 
as it goes, points to σννάξΐΐς on Saturdays and Sundays only. Mecheir 15 is in the 
mediaeval and modern Coptic calendars the day of St. Papnuthius, a well-known saint who 
had a church or monastery at Aphrodito (P. Brit. Mus. 1420. 204), so that ήμ^ρα Παπνουθίου 
may have superseded κνριακή ; cf. 1. 10. Other saints venerated by the Copts on this day, 
St. Primus, patriarch of Alexandria {οί>. about 120), the prophet Zachariah, and the forty 
martyrs of Sebastia, are less likely to have been mentioned. 

58-9. On the omission of the week-days from Monday to Friday see p. 30. 
Mecheir 21 in the Coptic calendars is the day of SS. Basil, Peter, bishop of Damascus, 
Peter, patriarch of Alexandria {οδ. 311), amba Gabriel, bishop of Alexandria, amba 
Zacharias, bishop, and Onesimus, disciple of St. Paul. The last may have been mentioned 
in 1. 58 {ημίρα Όνησίμον), or ci[yi{f)v) 'Ovijat/ioi' is possible in 1. 59. 

60. κ[β] : a Sunday is wanted here and els τον αυτόν implies that the day is the next 
after Saturday, Mecheir 21; cf. 11. 8-9, i i-i 2, and 24-32 with 35-6, where there is an interval 
of a week and the name of the church is repeated. On Mecheir 22 the mediaeval Coptic 
calendars mention SS. Pamphilus and Porphyrins, and bishop Marutha, martyr under 
Diocletian, the modern one St. Isidorus, martyr under Decius, and bishop Maronius 
(fourth century). 

61-2. On the first of these two days, which are consecutive (cf. 1. 60, note), a saint's 


day was probably recorded; cf. e. g. 11. 11-12. The second is almost certainly Mecheir 29, 
for that Sunday is wanted in 11. 61-2, and though the doubtful κ\η\. 62 might be λ there 
is a vestige of another letter, which suits the cross-bar of Θ. Line 61 therefore probably 
refers to Mecheir 28 (Feb. 22), a Saturday; cf. p. 30. The Coptic calendars mention 
St. Theodoras son of Romanus, martyr under Diocletian, a well-known saint, on that 
day, and ημίρα θ€ο8ώρον is possible in spite of the fact that the service was at the Southern 
church, for the St. Theodorus whose church is mentioned in 1. 65 and possibly inl. 63 seems 
to be different. The Menol. Basil, mentions on Feb. 22 St. Athanasius, Avhom the Copts 
commemorate on Pachon 7 and sometimes on Thoth 30, and on Mecheir 29 (Feb. 23) both 
Greek and Coptic churches, as well as the Syriac calendar of 411, commemorate St. Polycarp, 
who may have been mentioned in 1. 62 {ήμίρα Πολυκάρπου instead οί κνριακη). 

63-6. On the restoration of the days in Phamenoih see pp. 30-1. St. Theodotus of 
Ancyra (1. 63, Phamenoth 6) was martyred in 304, and St. Theodorus of Pentapolis (1. 65, 
Phamenoth 13) about the same time. The latter is commemorated by the Copts on 
Epeiph 10 (so also Nau's calendar), as well as Phamenoth 12. The mediaeval Coptic 
calendars mention the Emperor Theodosius on Phamenoth 7, but that day is a Monday. 
The Greek Church on Phamenoth 6 (March 2) celebrates another Theodotus, bishop of 
Cyreniain Cyprus {ob. about 324), Theodotus of Ancyra on June 7; and on March 9 (Phame- 
noth 13) both churches honour the forty martyrs of Sebastia in Armenia (fourth century .!*). 
There is no special difficulty in 1. 63, which, if it is Phamenoth 6, can be restored either 
Qeo\poTov ημίρα αυτόν or θ{ό[8ωρον κνριακη, or, if it is not the 6th, is probably the 5th (a Saturday), 
in which case θ€ό[δωρον ήμίρα ... is likely, and 1. 64 ΛνουΜ then most probably refer to the 
6th instead of the 12th. But a difficulty in any case arises in connexion with St. Theodorus 
in 1. 65. A church of St. Theodorus at Arsinoe is known from e.g. P. Klein. Form. 164, 
and another at Antinoe from P. Cairo Maspero i. 67022. 18, but which of the numerous 
saints of that name is meant is not clear. Nau's and Tisserand's lists each mention about 
thirteen commemorations of St. Theodore, occurring in both on Thoth 1 1, Hathur 5, Tubi 1 2, 
Mecheir 28, Pachon 2 and 9, Pauni 6, and Epeiph 20, and in Nau's list on Hathur 20, 
Mecheir 7 and 13, Pauni 18, and Epeiph 9, in Tisserand's on Hathur 4, Choiak 25, 
Mecheir 27, Phamenoth 21, Pharmouthi 5 and 7. The modern Coptic calendar according 
to Nilles celebrates, besides the bishop of Pentapolis, eight others, an obscure Th. with 
others on Thoth 9, Th. Orien talis on Tubi 12, the son of Romanus on Mecheir 28 
(cf. 11. 61-2, note), the martyr with Timotheus on Phamenoth 21, the disciple of 
St. Pachomius on Pachon 2, the Alexandrian monk on Pauni 6, the bishop of Corinth on 
Epeiph 10, and the στρατηλάτης on Epeiph 20. Without ήμερα αντου in 1. 65 it would 
be quite uncertain which was meant, except that Th. Orientalis and Th. son of Romanus, 
whose days come within the period covered by n, are unsuitable because their churches were 
not then visited. Since, however, two saints of this name have their days in Phamenoth, 
probably at least one of the two entries concerning eeo[ and θ€[ refers to the celebration of 
the day of a St. Theodorus at his church. That 11. 63 and 65 refer to the two festivals 
of different saints called Theodorus on the 12th and 21st is improbable, because the 21st is 
not likely to have been reached so early as 1. 65, and the bishop of Pentapolis is the only 
Theodorus whose festival need be considered. The objection to reading «/S in 1. 65 in 
accordance with the modern calendar is that, if I. 65 refers to a Saturday, 1. 66 would 
naturally refer to the following Sunday, in which case 1. 67, which is a day later than 1. 66 
(cf. 1. 60, note), would be a Monday. Hence we prefer to avoid a violation of the directions 
of the Council of Laodicea, and to suppose that the festival of St. Theodorus was on the 13th 
(Sunday) instead of the 12th ; cf. the similar variation in the case of the commemoration of 
Epimachus (pp. 26-7). Lines 66-7 then refer to the following Saturday and Sunday 
without difficulty, and 1. 68 can refer to Easter Eve; cf. p. 31. 


With regard to the two supposed Saturdays, Phamenoth 12 and 19 (11, 64 and 66), the 
Coptic calendars commemorate on the first Joseph son of the patriarch Jacob, as well 
as St. Theodorus, and in the thirteenth— fourteenth century mention Demetrius, patriarch of 
Alexandria {ob. 232), and Malachias, martyr, and on the second Aristobulus (cf. 1. 50, note; 
he is not in the mediaeval lists, which mention the power given to the disciples to bind and 
loose). The saints in the Greek calendar are unsuitable. For the 19th Αριστοβούλου is 
less Hkely than Κολλούθον, a well-known saint at this period (cf. e.g. P. Brit. Mus. 1460. 
1 1 7), who in the Syriac calendar of 4 1 1 was celebrated on that day, though he is not in the 
modern calendar. 

67. On Phamenoth 20 the Copts celebrate various martyrs of the period of Diocletian 
besides St. Athom. 

68. The Virgin and St. Euphemia are the only two female saints mentioned in 
Π, but this entry may of course refer to a third; cf,, however, p. 31. Possibly this service 
is to be connected with an ancient commemoration of the Virgin on Phamenoth 21 (Nau, 
op. cit. p. 200), but a σννα^ι^ on a Monday in Lent would be contrary to the orders of the 
Council of Laodicea. The mediaeval Coptic calendars commemorate SS. Porphyrins, 
Apraxia, and Anatolius on Phamenoth 26, the modern one St. Sabinus of Hermopolis, 
Sadoch and 128 companions martyred under Sapor (341), and the prophet Hosea. 

Additional note on I. 2. 

With regard to the name of the πάπας, whom we have identified with Timotheus IV, 
the patriarch of Alexandria in 535 (p. 21), Mr, Crum suggests that Severus of Antioch may 
be meant. He was dethroned in 519 and appears to have spent the rest of his life 
in Egypt, his death taking place according to various authorities in 538, 539, or 542. For 
the monophysites, in Egypt at any rate, he was ' t^e patriarch ' par excellence, and is 
so referred to occasionally without his name. The descent of the Alexandrian patriarch to 
his residence seems a somewhat inadequate point from which to date such a calendar 
as this, whereas no honour would be too much for Copts to pay to an incident connected 
with Severus, who has three distinct festivals in the Synaxarium. But whether Egyptians 
would refer to him as well as to the Alexandrian patriarch by the title πάπας is doubtful. 



1358. Hesiod, Catalogue, BOOK iii. 

Fr. I 22-2 X lo-i cm., Fr. 2 23-6 χ 13 cm. Third century. 

Plate II (Fr. 2). 

Some notable additions have been lately made by the papyri of Egypt to 
the surviving remains of the KaraAoyos Τυναικων, for which ΉοΓαι seems to have 
been but another name (cf Rzach in VdMly-V^'xssov^ai, Real-Encycl. viii. laoi sqq.), 
ascribed in antiquity to Hesiod. Extensive fragments concerning the suitors 
of Helen have been published in Berl. Klassikertexte, V. i. ii. a-3, with smaller 
pieces relating to Meleager and Bellerophon (ibid. i. 4), the latter of which 
is probably to be combined with 421 (cf. H. G. Evelyn -White in Class. Quart. 
vii, p. 217); a Strassburg papyrus deals with Peleus and Thetis (ed. Reitzen- 
stein, Hermes, xxxv, pp. 79 sqq.), and texts at Florence with Atalanta and 
Alcmena (P. S. I. 130, 131) ; the former of these heroines is also the subject of 
a scrap in the Petrie papyri (I. iii. 3). Further evidence of the popularity which 
this portion of the Hesiodic corpus evidently enjoyed is now provided by the 
following considerable fragments from the third book of the Catalogue (cf. 
Fr. 1. 9, note) and by 1359, in which the heroines Auge and Electra figure. 

1358 consists of two good-sized pieces, apparently having no direct connexion 
with each other. Their recto is inscribed with third-century official accounts, 
each fragment containing parts of two columns of which only the ends and 
beginnings of lines are preserved. In Fr. 1 Col. i the entry δι]ά ττρα{κτόρωΐ') 
e (έ'του?) λημ{μάτων) e (hovs) (δραχμαι) 'Apiy occurs, and in Col. ii the Oxyrhynchite 
villages of Μονίμου and Μίρμ4ρΘα are mentioned in separate paragraphs. The 
literary text on the verso may be referred with probability to the latter part of 
the same century. It is written in a slightly sloping uncial hand of rather large 
size and handsome appearance. Some corrections have been introduced in 
another, though not very dissimilar, writing, and this second hand may well be 
the source of the stops, accents, and other signs (except the diaeresis), but 
there is practically no difference in the colour of the ink. The acute accents are 
inclined at an unusually sharp angle to the line of writing and are sometimes 
even horizontal. Stops occur in all three positions, but do not appear to have 
been used with any real discrimination of values. From photographs kindly 
supplied by Prof Vitelli it is clear that this hand is not the same as that of either 
P. S. I. 130 or 131, which were also obtained from Oxyrhynchus. 


The subject of the two fragments is quite different, and their order is uncer- 
tain. Fr. I contains the ends of thirty-two lines from the upper part of a column, 
with slight remains of the column succeeding. The first fourteen lines of Col. i 
give the story of Europa, which was known to have been treated by Hesiod from 
the scholia on Homer, Μ 392 (Hesiod, Fr. 30), and will readily admit of an 
approximate restoration. In the lower portion of the column the allusions 
leave little room for doubt that the adventures were described of one of the sons 
of Zeus and Europa, Sarpedon, and that the writer identified him with the 
Sarpedon of the Iliad. This identification was already implied by the Homeric 
scholia cited above, e.g. Schol. T, /. ίτ. 'Ησίοδο? 6e Εΰρώτττ/? και Διό? αυτόν {sz. Σαρττ.) 
φησι (cf. Schol. Eurip. Rhes. 29), and Immisch has noted that traces of it may be 
seen in Homer (Roscher, Lexicon, iv. 403), in spite of Ζ 198-9 and the remark of 
Aristonicus thereon (Schol. A, ad loc.) καθ^ "Ομηρου Έιαρ-π-φων vlbs Εύρώττη? ονκ Ιστιι; 
ούδε α^ξλφο^ Μινωο?, ώ? οΐ ν^ώτ^ροι' καΐ γαρ οΐ χρόνυί ξν^ηλοι. Α like tradition was 
followed by Aeschylus (Nauck, Trag. Fr. 99), and the author of the Rhesus 
(1. 29), probably also by Bacchylides (Schol. A, Homer, Μ 292) ; cf. Hygin, Fab. 
106, where the Sarpedon slain by Patroclus is called lovis et Eiiropae filium. 
Chronological difficulties were evaded by a legend that the hero's life was super- 
naturally prolonged : και αντ^ δίδωσι Zei»s kiu. rpeis yeveas ζην says Apollodorus iii. 
I. 2. Others distinguished two Sarpedons, the son of Europa, and the Sarpedon 
of the Iliad who according to Ζ 198-9 (cf Apollod. iii. i. i. 3) was the son of 
Zeus and Laodamia, while another account made his parents Euandrus son 
of the first Sarpedon and Deidamia (Diodor. v. 79. 3). Since the agreement of 
the poet of the Catalogue with the Homeric account of Sarpedon seems to have 
been in other respects rather close (cf. notes on 11. 23, 25-8), his divergence 
on the point of genealogy is the more remarkable. It should perhaps be 
noted in this connexion that according to the statement of Schol. A on Ζ 119 
(Aristonicus) the position in the Iliad of the Glaucus episode, in which alone the 
mother of Sarpedon is named, was regarded as insecure. 

In the second fragment there are again remains of two columns, though 
those of the second are so slight as to be practically negligible. Of Col. i, 
as opposed to the main column of the preceding fragment, the top is lost while 
the end is preserved, but it is hardly likely that more than a few verses are 
entirely missing. The gap at the beginnings of the lines is fortunately slighter 
than in Fr. i, but restoration is nevertheless a matter of considerable difficulty. 
To some extent obscurity may be due to a faulty text. Some errors have 
been corrected, and in one place a whole line which had been originally omitted 
has been inserted ; but in 1. 31, at least, no construction seems obtainable as the 
text stands. The key to the subject of the whole passage seems to be given in 


11. 28 sqq., which describe an extended flight and pursuit of certain females 
apparently through the air. Following a suggestion of Mr. T. W. Allen, 
to whom we owe a number of contributions to the reconstruction of 1358 
and 1359, we suppose the pursuit to be that of the Harpies by the Boreadae. 
There is good reason to believe that this subject was treated in the third book (cf. 
Hesiod, Frs. 52-9) ; and that that book is the source of the present fragments is 
clear from the references to the ΚατουδαΓοι and ΥΙυγμαίοι in 11. 9 and 18 ; cf. the 
note on 1. 9. In Hesiod, Fr. 54, the story of Phineus and the Harpies is said to 
have occurred kv rfj καλουμίνγ y^s -nepioh^, but this is probably the appropriate 
name of that section of the book containing the account of the voyage of the 
Argonauts, in which the story of Phineus was an episode (cf. Rzach in Pauly- 
Wissowa, Real-Encycl. viii. 1205-6). From the similarity in phraseology between 
1. 20 and 1. 28 it may be inferred that in 1. 20 also the Boreadae are the subject ; 
and this being granted, the construction of 1. 15 (= Hesiod, Fr. ^^) is hardly to 
be explained unless that line is one of a series specifying the various peoples and 
places passed by the Harpies and their pursuers; cf. 11. 25-6. We are thus 
carried back to 1. 9 in which the ΚατουδαΓοι and X\.vy\).axo{. are mentioned and 
to which 1. 18 must be a retrospective reference. Hence it would appear that the 
whole of this column was a description of the flight, the chief points on the route 
being given with parenthetical explanations and amplifications. 

Fr. I. 
Col. i. 

Col. ii. 

X [ 

[ ϊ\πξ.ρΎ]σξ. δ ρ' αλμνρον ν8ωρ . . [ 

[ ] Alos δμηθύσα δοΧοισι τ[ 

\την ρα λαθών ηρπαξί] πατήρ και δωρον ^δωκ^ν τ[ 

\ορμον οι γ^ρυσ^ιον ον Η]φαίστο^ κ\ντοτ€)(νη9 . . 
5 [ποίησαν ποτ άγαλμα ιδυί]ησιν πραπίδζσσι^ν^ 

[και KTeavov πορ€ πατρι] φβρων ο δ βδζξατο δωρο[ν About 

Τ C 1 ITlf*^ 

[αντο9 δ αρ δωκ^ν κονρη]ί Φοινικ[ο]9 αγανον. η 


[αυταρ επεί οντω τ]τ]λ€ τανισφνρωι Ευρω•π[ι\ηί [ 
[μί)(^θη ρ iv φιλοτητϊ\ πατήρ ανδρών Τ€ 6^ω\ν Τ€ 
ΙΟ \αυτι^ €π€ίτ απφη ννΐΐίψης πάρα καλλικ6μ[οιο 
[η δ αρα τταιδα^ €τικτ]€γ i/Vep/xei/ei Κρον[ίωνι 
[κνδαλιμον9 €νηφί\ν€ων ηγήτορας ανδ[ρων 
[Μινω 76 KpeLOVTa] δίκαιον re Ραδαμαν[θυν 






KaL λαμπηδόνα διον] αμνμονα re κρατ€ρ[ον re 

τοισιν €as τιμα^ δι]ζδ[ά\σσατο μητι^τα Z[€V9 

ήτοι ο μα/ Λνκιη? €νρ]€ΐη9 ϊφί ανασσ€ 

π6]λ€ί9 ζϋ ναΐ€ταωσα9 [ 

7Γολ]λ77 δ €01 ia-rrero τιμηι 

μξγαλη]τορί ττοιμίνι λαών. . [ 

] . μ^ροπων ανθρώπων 20 ωρ\^ 

]'λατο μητίζτα Zevs. αιρ[ 

πολ]ΐΊ' δ ξκρινατο λαον. μ€[ 

Τρ]ω€σσ eniKovpovs' αρ[ 

] πολζμοίο δαήμων. 6 . [ 

€7Γ αριστ]€ρα σήματα φαινων 25 ττ . [ 

Zevs] αφθιτα μηδζα €ίδως. €λθ[ 

]ατοι αμφιβαλουσαις €νδ[ 

] Αιοθ^ν T€pas rJ€V' ζη[ 

Εκτ]ορο9 ανδροφονοιο «? Θρ[ 

] δζ κτ]δ€ €θηκ€. 3° '^"^ • [ 

25 letters ]y Αργ€ΐ[ο]ίσί• 

31 » ]κα[ 

Fr. 2. Plate Π. 
Col. ί. Col. i 

[ Μ 

[ •] . 5Κ 

[ ]^y'^[ 

[ V' χ[ 

5 [ ] . αοδ[ 

[ ]€σ7Γ€[. .]ί7ίΌσ[ 

[ ]«?•«[• •] • Kipl 

[ ]' €7Γί €ργα• και rj[ 

[. . . . Κατονδ]άιων' και Πνγ[μαιων 

ΙΟ [ απζ]ιρ€σιων μ€λάνο[ 

[ ]ν^ Τ€Κ€ Γαία 7Γ€\ω[ρη 







jay T6 πανομφάιο[υ Alos 

ο]φρα θίοισίν ϋφβ[ιμ]€νοι ατασ[θωσ]ιν [ ] 

] των μ€ν Τ€ voos \yX\(ΰσσηs καβ\υττ\ζρθζν' 

Αιθίοπας] re Λίβυς re 'iSc ^κν[θ\α9 ϊπ7Γημο[λγου]ς 

y]ej/e^' νΐθ9 νπ€ρ[μ]€ν€ος Κρονιωνο^• 

] μ€λαν€9 re και Αί[θ]ίοπζς μεγάθυμοι 

ηδ€ Κατον]8αιοι και Πνγμάι[οι] αμ^νηνοι 

0L παντ€9] KpeioPTO? Ερικτυπον €ΐσι γ€ν€θληί 

και τούτον]? πβρι κυκλ[ω]ί ζθυν€ον a'CaaovTes 

λ^/^αμ . [. . . Ύ]π€ρβορ^ων ^Όϊ-ιτιτων• 

ovs Τ€Κ€ Γη] φίρβονσα π[oλ]ι;σ7repeαs' πολυψορβοί 

τηλζ παρ Ηριδαι/οι\ο βα[θνρρ]οου αιπα ρείθρα• 

οσο[ ] 

]πρ . [ ] η\€Κτροιο• 

Νζβρωβζ? τ opos] atnif κ[αι Altv]t]v παίτταλοξσσαν. •/ 

τ 0]ρτυγιην Ααιστ[ρνγον]ίην re γ€ν€θλην. 

€νθα Ποσβι]δάωνο9 ipta6[€]vios yeved' vios- 
την πάρα δ]ί9 πόλωσαν π[€]ρι τ αμφί re κυκΧώσαντο• 
e/iei/oi] μαρψαΐ' ται δ ζκφνγίαν και αλνζαι• . 

ey re Κ€φαλλ]ηνοϋν αγ^ρώγων ψνλον όρονσαν- 

.... ΙΙοσ€ΐ]δαωνί Καλνψω ποτνια ννμψηι- 


γ]αΐαν Αρητιάδαο άνακτος• 

. • Τ«[ 1 ^ , κοτ(ω) 

ji]^. . .]α κλύον αλλ αρα και τα? 

. . . .]ν δια τ αιθβρο? ατρυγ€τοιο 

μ€τα]χρονιοισχ ιτοδίσσι αν(ω) 

Pr. 1. i. 3-16. ' Her then father Zeus carried oflf by stealth, and gave her as a gift the 
golden necklace which Hephaestus, famed for his art, once made for a delight with cunning 
mind, and brought and gave in possession to father Zeus ; and he received the gift with 
gladness : this gave he to the daughter of proud Phoenix. But when the father of gods and 
men had thus been mated in love afar off with Europa of slender ankles, he went away 
again from the fair-tressed maiden. And she bore to the almighty son of Cronus glorious 
sons, princes of wealthy men, lord Minos and just Rhadamanthus and godlike Sarpedon, 
blameless and powerful, to whom Zeus in his wisdom apportioned their honour. Sarpedon 
ruled in might over broad Lycia . . .' 

4—5. Cf. Apollod. iii. 4. 2 τον ηφαιστότ^υκτον ορμον, ov νπο 'Έίφαίστον Xeyovai rives 
ίοθηναι Κάδμω, ΦβρίκύΒης be νπο Ένρώπηί ον πάρα Aios αυτήν λαβ(ϊν. ΡοΓ ι8νι\η<τιν cf. C. g. 



Homer, Υ 1 2 "ϋφαιστος ποίησΐν ϊΒυίησι ττραπ'ώΐσσι. What has been taken as remains of an 
acute accent may be part of a diaeresis. The rest of the supplement in 1. 5 is prompted by 

SuidaS, S. v. ά•γά\ματα, . . . και 'Haiobos τον ορμον άγαλμα KaXel (Hesiod, Fr. 233). As an 

alternative θαύμα Ibuv ποίησε may be suggested, and this would perhaps be somewhat better 
adapted to the lacuna, which is of the same size as in the two preceding and following 

γ. κονρηΥ Φοίί'ίκ[ο]5 : SO Homer, £? 321 Φοίνικος κονρης. 

8. τ]η\€ is quite doubtful ; the λ may be a, δ, or μ, and this is preceded by remains of, 
apparently, a vertical stroke. Kaee]v8e would suit the context, but a υ is unsatisfactory. 
Ενρώττεια has been regarded as a late form (cf. Lobeck, Paral. p. 321), but is now shown 
to be of the same age as Έ,νράττη (first in Theog. 357). That the inserted 6 is due to the 
corrector is not certain. For τανίσφνρος instead of τανύσφ. cf. Bacchyl. iii. 60, v. 59. 

12. €υηφΐ]ν(ων, for which cf. Homer, Ψ 8i, was suggested by Allen, ίρισθήνΐων or 
μΐγαλοσθε'\νεων would also be Suitable. 

15-16. The supplement suggested in 1. 15 is based on Theog. 885 ό δε τοίσι»/ ea? (Rzach 
with Ahrens, il MSS., eV Heinsius) huhiaaaro τιμάς. After avaaae in 1. 16 there is before 
the break a blank space (in which a stop is possibly to be recognized), so that ανασσ^ιν 

depending on e.g. μοΊραν ΐΜσσατο or biebaaaaro (cf. Theog. 520 ταντην yap 01 μοΊραν εδάσσατο 
μητί(τα Zeis) is excluded. Ανκίης ενρΐίης OCCUrS in Homer, Ζ 173, i88, π 455, &c. 

18. 1. δε 01, and this was perhaps intended, the accentuator being rather careless about 
the position of his marks ; cf. note on 1. 21. 

21. A horizontal stroke above the first τ of μηηετα is probably to be interpreted as an 
acute accent intended for the next letter. 

23. Cf. Homer, μ ioi 2αρπη8ων δ' ηγησατ άγακλΐΐτών ιπικούρων. 

25-8. The remains of these lines look very like a description of the portent which in 

the /had precedes the death of Sarpedon, π 459-60 αίματοίσσας δε \j/ul8as κατεχ€ν(ν ίραζε παιδα 
φίλον τιμών' cf. Hesiod, Scu/. 384~5 '^"^ ^' "ρ' °^' ουρανόθεν ψιά8ας βάλεν αίματοεσσας σηματιθείς 

τΓολε/χοίο ε'ώ μεγαθαρσύ παώι. It does not, however. Seem possible to read at/x]arof in 1. 27, 
though the t is not certain and γ or perhaps τ could be substituted. The final f of αμφι- 
βαΧονσαιε also is very faint, and the slight vestiges might be taken for a stop, but the accent 
would then be wrong. Zevs αφθιτα μή8εα el8o)s occurs in Theog. 545, 550, &c. 

ii. I. It is not clear whether the small cross in the upper margin here is the initial 
letter (χ) of an adscript or a critical symbol as e.g. 1231. Fr. 32. ii; cf. 1361. Fr. 5. ii. 
There may also have been some insertion immediately above or below 1. i ; the vestiges are 
hardly to be accounted for by any single letter. 

29. eis θρ[: or perhaps εκ τρ[. The first letter is really more like σ than ε. 

Ft. 2. i. 9. Cf. 1. 18 and Philod. Περί Ένσΐβ. ίο ονψ Ήσιόδω μη t[is €]v[y]e\a os y[ ] 

ato[. .ji» η ^κα\ τ^ών Κατον8α[ίων κ]αι των Ώ.υ[γμ^αί[ων μνημονΐΰΐΐ, Harpocration i. 296. 7 (so SuidaS 
and Photius) S. v. νπο γην οΙκοΰντ€ς, λε'γοι αν . . , και τους νπο Ησιόδου ev γ' Καταλόγου Κατου8α[ους 
ονομαζομίνονς (Hesiod, Fr. 60), Strabo i, p. 43 (cf. vii, p. 299) Ησιόδου δ' ουκ αν τις αΐτιάσαιτο 
αγνοιαν Ήμίκυνας Χΐγοντος κα\ Μακροκ(φάλους καΐ Πυγμαίους, HarpOCration i. 1 97• ^^ ^•^• ^οκρο- 
κεφαλοι, ΐθνος 4στ\ν ούτω καΧούμΐνον ου και Ήσίο8ος μίμνηται ivy' γυναικών Καταλάβω (Hesiod, Fr. 62). 
The line might be completed with άμβνηνων, as in 1. 18. 

10-14. The reference in this obscure passage, as Murray suggests, is perhaps to the 
δήμος δνβίρων (Homer, ω 12, φΰλον ονείρων Hesiod, Theog. 212). They are placed by Homer, 
/. c, in the neighbourhood of the Ήελίοιο πΰΚαι beyond the ^Ο,κΐανοΰ βοαί and Αενκαςπίτρη, and 
so could well be named after the Πυγμαίοι, who, according to Homer, r 5-6, lived near the 
Ώκεαι/οΐο ροαί; the Acthiopians and Libyans (I. 15) might indeed be expected to precede 


rather than follow, but since these are coupled with the Scythians it is clear that the 
topography is somewhat vague. In Hesiod, /. c, the mother of the φΐϊΚον ονείρων is Νυ|, but 
Euripides calls them sons of Earth in /. T. 1263 and Hec. 70 ττότνια χθων, μΐλανοπτ τρύγων 
ματΐρ ονείρων: with the epithet με^ανοπτερύγων cf. μ(\άνο[ in 1. ΙΟ. Lines 13-14 ^^y he 
explained as alluding to the substitution of the articulate prophecy of Apollo for prognostica- 
tion by dreams, as described in Eurip. /. T. 1259 sqq. On these lines the passage may be 
tentatively restored : — 

err' fn ane^ipeaiwv με'Κάνοί. . . . Βημον ονείρων 

Tovs ] TfKe Γαία πεΧώ^^ρη θυμοσόφους re 

μαντοσύν\ΐ! re πανομφαίοϊυ Aios flBoras αιστ], 
κωφούς δ', δίφρα θίοίσιν ΰφεμμ^ίνοι άτασ\θωσ\ίΡ 
μαντύαίς^ των μεν re κτλ. 

If the accent on μ€λάνο[ is right, only one syllable is wanting ; otherwise μεΚαν&ιπ-ΐρον 
οχΚον would be suitable. 

11. Γαία πελώρη occurs Several times in the Theogony, e.g. 159, 173. But perhaps 
τΓίλώριοί, which is found as a fem, form in Theog. 179, was here used. 

12. πανομφαΐος is an epithet of Zeus in Homer, θ 250. 

13. A dark mark on the edge of the papyrus before φρα does not look like an accent. 
ατασ[θωσ]ίν, if right, is remarkable, the verb being used elsewhere in the present tense only. 
ατά\[λωσ]ίν (cf, Hesiod, Op. 1 31) cannot be read. 

15. This line = Hesiod, Fr. 55, from Strabo vii, p. 300 ΉσίοΒος μάρτυς εν τοΊς νπ 

'Ερατοσθένους παρατεθείσιν επεσιν Αιθίοπας κτλ. The MSS. of Strabo have τε λιγυστϊ δε, which 

has been variously emended : Αίγυάς τε 18ε Naeke, Αίγυάς τ ηΒε Heinsius, re Αίγυς τ' ηΒε 
Bernhardy, re Αίγυς τε Ιδε Rzach, Αίβυάς τ ηΒε Clericus, τε Αίβυς τ ηΒε Osann, none of these 
quite coinciding, with the reading of the papyrus, which may be accepted as correct. A mark 
like a very short grave accent above the e of the first re seems to be meaningless. 

16-19. These lines apparently trace the origin of the Αιθίοπες and others who had just 
been mentioned (11. 9, 15) from Zeus, who rather than Poseidon is presumably meant, as 
usual, by Κρονίωνος ; cf. 1. 19 Έρκτύπου, which though an epithet of Poseidon in Theog. 441, 
456, 930 would more naturally refer to Zeus when used independently. The fact that 
Poseidon is twice named below (11. 27, 31) is hardly a reason for supposing that he was 
intended here. Line 1 6 may be restored, with Murray, [ ων ap αναξ ; or possibly there was 
a mention of Epaphus, as Mr. Lobel suggests ; he is described as the father of Libya in 
Aesch. Suppl. 315-16, Apollod. ii. i. 4, &c. Line 17 might then be completed [roto Λιβυ?]. 
Murray proposes [Κολχοι yap]; they were μελά-^χροες according to Hdt. ii. 104. In the 
absence of corroborative evidence it seems hardly likely that μέλανες is to be taken as 
a proper name here, though the position of τε would suit this. For the superfluous iota 
adscript in 1. 19 cf. 1. 31. 

20. The poet here returns to the Boreadaeand Harpies, who are apparently the subject 
o{ εθυνεου; cf 1. 28. θυνεΐ,ν is a form peculiar to Hesiod. 

21. Mr. Allen suggests that the name Φ\\νεα stood here, but it seems very difficult to 
obtain a satisfactory completion of the line on that hypothesis. For the Hyperboreans cf. 

Hdt. iv. 32 αλλ'Ήσιόδω /LteV εστί περϊ Ύπερβορεων είρημενα (Hesiod, Fr. 209), Steph. Byz. S. V. 
Κμίκυνες, έθνος ου πόρρω Μασσαγετών κα\ Ύπερβορεων . . . ka\ Ησίοδος (Fr. 62). They were 

perhaps mentioned here as the starting-point of the chase. 

22. We regard this and the two following verses as a parenthetical amplification of 
Ύπερβορεων analogous to the genealogy of the Αιθίοπες, &c., in 11. 16 sqq. For τεκέ Γη 

cf. 1. II above, and for the collocation π[ολ]υσ7Γ. πολυφ.. Homer, I 154 πολϋρρηνες πολυβοΰται, 

^315 τΓολύχρυσος πολύχαλκος. πολύφορβος, which may be a mistake for πολυφορβους, is an 
epithet of Demeter in Theog. 912 and of γαΓα in Homer, I 568, &c. 


23-4. The restoration of Ηριδακοψ here (Allen) is commended by ηλίκτροιο in the 
following line. The Eridanus is mentioned in Theog. 338, and that the myth of the Heliades 
occurred in Hesiod was known from Fr. 199. The view that in its earliest form that story 
was connected with the Hyperboreans had already been taken by Preller, Griech. Myth, i, 

p. 358 ; cf, Hdt. iii. 115 'HptSai/oi» τίνα , . . ποταμορ ίκδώόντα ey θάλασσαν την npos βορίην αν€μον, 
Αρ. Rhod. Arg. iv. 611— 14 KeXrol δ' eVt βήξιν edevTO, ως αρ' ΆπόλλωΐΌ? τάδε 8άκρυα Αητοΐ8αο 
συμφερβται 8ίναις (sc. Ήρί8ανου), α τ€ μυρία χ^ΰί napoiOev, rjpos Ύπΐρβορίων lepbv yevos ΐΐσαφίκανΐν. 

Whether the interlinear addition in 1. 24 is due to the corrector or to the original scribe is 
not very clear. 

25-6. Ne/3p©8eswas Suggested byLobel. The construction is awkward, though apparently 
not more so than at 1. 15. For Κα-ν^ψ and ο\ρτνγιψ cf." Strabo i, p. 23 (Hes. Fr. 65) 

^Έρατοσθίνης 8e Ήσίο8ον pev (ϊκάζει . . . πιστΐΰσαντα rfi δόξη μη μόνον των ι/φ' Όμηρου λίγομίνων 
μΐμνησθαι, άλλα κα\ ΑΪτνης <α\ 'Ορτυγίας τοΰ προς Συρακούσαις νησίου κα\ Ύυρρηνων. In 1. 26 νησον 

is an obvious supplement, but is scarcely long enough for the lacuna ; possibly [νησον en 
θ]ρτ. was written. Murray proposes στνψλην. 

27. υιός: i.e. probably Laestrygon, who is called the son of Poseidon in Eustath. 
p. 1649. 10; cf. Gellius, N. A. 15. 21 Nepiuni filios dixerunt .. .Laestrygonas. Polyphemus 
could hardly have been referred to in such vague terms. In place of ΐνθα perhaps ος tc 

might be restored, sc. Ααιστρυγών, supplied from Ααίστ\ρυγονλ^ΐην. 

6 of yevtB was converted from a r. 

28. •πο\ΐΊν means ' to plough' in Op. 462, but must here mean ' range over ' if, as is the 
natural assumption, the Boreadae are the subject. ]tr might also be e. g. τρις with επί or 
apa or μίν preceding. 

29. Cf. Scut. 231 Ίψίναι μαπ€€ΐν, of the Gorgons, and 304 Ίίμίνοι μαπ€ΐΐν, οί δ' Ίψενοι 
νπαλύξαι, of hunters and hares. 

30. Κεφ"αλλ]?;ι/ωι/ well suits the geography, the Στροφάδεν or πλωταί, where the pursuit 
ended, being placed to the south of Zacynthus; cf. 1. 32 and Schol. Laur. Apoll. Rhod. 

Arg. ii. 297 OTi δε ηϋζαντο ol περί Ζητην τω Αά στραφίντες λε'γει κα\ Ησίοδος "Ένθ' οι γ' €υχίσθην 
Αΐνηίω νψιμ€8οντι (Fr. 57)' ^'*'^''' Ύ^Ρ ■^'""^ °Ρ°^ ''"'7^ Κ(φάΚληνίας, οπού Αΐνησίου Αώς lepov ioTiv. 

31. It seems impossible to obtain any connexion for this verse, since only a trochee 
is missing and a verb is demanded by the nominative Καλυ\//ω κτλ. An aposiopesis analogous 
to Theocr. i. 105 ol Xeyerai τάν Κνπριν 6 βουκόλος ; is unsuited to the Hesiodic style; and the 
stop after νυμφηι invalidates a transference of the verb to the beginning of the next line. 
Probably, then, either something has dropped out, as at 1. 33 (e. g., as Mr. Lobel suggests, 

8ημον Όδνσσηος ταλασίφρονος, ov μ^τίπΐΐτα eipye Ώοσ. κτλ.), or the VerSe is OUt of its place, 

which is perhaps the more likely alternative, if θοροντίς in the margin implies that a participle 
preceded γ]αΐαν in 1. 32. 

32. yyitav Αρητιάδαο: i.e. presumably Dulichium; cf. Homer, π 395-6 Νι'σου φαίδιμος 
υιός, Αρητιάδαο ανακτος, ος ρ ε'κ Δονλιχίου κτλ. Α reference to the Thcssalian Cycnus, who is 
called Άρητιάδης in Scut. 57 (cf. Apollod. ii. 7. 7), does not suit this context. 

33. Possibly the supposed ϊ belongs to the interlinear insertion. κατ{ω) at the end of 
the line calls attention to the verse which has fallen out and been subsequently supplied at 
the bottom of the column ; cf. e. g. 700. 27, 852. Fr. i. ii. 8, Fr. 64. 57, 1232. ii. 3. 

35. This verse, which was originally omitted, follows 1. 33 ; see the preceding note. 
For μΐτα]χρονιοισι, which was restored by Allen, cf. Theog. 269. 

ii. T. The marginal sign (cf. e. g. 16) is presumably due to the corrector. 

Ε 2 



1359. Hesiod, Catalogue. 

Fr. I 15 X 7•7 cm. 

Early third century. Plate III 
(Frs. 2 and 4). 

The authorship of the following fragments is not established like that 
of 1358 by coincidences with extant Hesiodea, but will nevertheless hardly 
be questioned. Their subject is clearly well-known heroines of Greek mythology, 
whose stories with those of their descendants are narrated just in the manner of 
the Hesiodic Kara\oyos Τυναικών. Fr. i, the only substantial piece, is occupied 
with the adventures of Auge and her son Telephus. Fr. a, from 1. 5, where the 
transition to a new subject is marked by a paragraphus, relates to Electra, 
daughter of Atlas, and her descendants. If Έ,ριΙχθονίοιο is to be restored in Fr. 4. 3, 
that fragment would be expected to be concerned with the same family as Fr. a ; 
11. 5-8, however, apparently relate to Diomede and Hyacinthus, who were 
not connected with the Dardanidae. 

The MS. is neatly written in a small, slightly sloping book-hand of a common 
type, and maybe roughly dated about the year A. D. 200. Accents and other 
diacritical signs, probably also the punctuation, are secondary, as is evident from 
the colour of the ink, and may be credited to the corrector who has made 
occasional small alterations in the text. 

Fr. I. 


18 letters ] . [.]8i[ ]e . [ 

] . . [. .]υο . 8ζναθα[ ] . [ 

ei 8η ρ η\μ€\\Χ\ξν re και €ΐ δΐ€ μν[θοΐ'] ακονσ[αί 


αθανα]των οι oc τοίΓίΤ] €ναργ€€ς αντζψανησ\αν 
κίΐνη\ν δ* [ζ\ν μίγαροισιν ev τρΐφβν ηδ' ατ[ιταλλ€ 
δ€^αμ]ξν[ό\ς ^e^iaov Se θυγατρασιν ησιν 6Τί/ζ[α 
η T€Ke] ΤηΧίφον Αρκασίδην Μϋσων βασιλη[α 
μί\θ(]ισ €v φιλοτητι βίη Ηρακληαη' 
09 ρα μίθ ι]ππονί στ€ΐ)^€ΐ/ αγανον Λαομ€δοντο[9 
οι δη ποσσι]ι^ άριστοι ev Ασ[ί]δι ίτραφίν α!'η• 
€Κ δ ο γ Αμαζον]ίδωΐ' μεγάθυμων φνλον ei'aip[€ 


[μαρναμ^νος κ]€ίνη9 Se re γης ΐξηλασ^ πάσης [ 

[αυταρ ο Τηλίφος] ίτραττ' Αχαιών χα\κοχιτων[ων 
15 [ασπιστας και €βησ]€ μ^Χαινάων (ττι ν[ηων 

[αυταρ €π€ΐ ττολλοι»?] mXaaev γβονι βω[τιαν(ΐρη 

[αυτοί; δη δ€δμητ]ο βιη τ ανδροκτασιη τ[€ 

[ ]η κατοπισβζν €[ 

Γ ] . ω? δ' ϊκοντο ^ 

2ο [ ] τηφοβημ€νο[ 

[ . .] . ζτο kXvtos αρ[ 

[ ]e δια K\e[. .] . [ 

[ '.....].[ 

[ ]ι<^^[ 

25 [...... Μ 

Fr. 2. Plate III. 


και μ[ 

5 Ηλ€κτρ[η 

γαναθ' [νποδμηθίίσα κ^λαινΐφίΐ Ερονιωνι 


ΐί^τι<Δν\α Τ€ 

OS ποτ€ Α[ημητρος μ€γ ΐρασσατο καλλικομοιο 

ΙΟ και τον μ{ζν φλογ^ρω δάμασαν πληχθ^ντα κ€ραννω 
Ηίτιωνα [χολωσαμζνος νΐφΐληγίρ^τα Zeuy 
ονν€κα Α[ημητρ ηνκομω €πι \upas φαΧΚΐν 
αυταρ Δα[ρδανο<! ηΧθ^ν ev ακτην ηπίΐροιο 
€Κ του Ερ[ιχθονιος και Τρως μ€Τ€π€ΐτα γβνοντο 

15 Ιλθ9 [τ Ασσαρακος Τ€ και αντιθΐος Γανυμηδης 
νηϊ [πολυκληιδι λιπών ΐΐρην Χαμοθρακην 


Fr. 3. 

άίθο . . [ 

Fr. 4. Plate III. 

'"[Sao θνγατ[ρ 
] . KaWos e[ 
5 €νπλ]οκαμον Α[ίομ]η8[ην 

η δ Τακινθορ γ€ΐνατ αμν\μονά τ€ κρατ€ρον re 

]α• τοί/ ρα τΓοτ avros 
Φοίβος κτανβ νηλ€\ί δισκω 

••. •••••• 

Fr. 5. Fr. 6. Fr. 7. 




]ί/ yepas αφ[θίτον 

]ι/ ϊκανΐΡ 


]αίμον Tev[ 


γ]ονήων• ηδ[ 

δια χρνση]ν Αφροδι[την 


] κατ αρ . [ 

5 ] . κ€ γυν[αικ 


• • • 

Pr. 1. 3. Perhaps αθανατοΐ5 (cf. 1. 5), but the preceding remains do not combine well 
with this. 

4-17. ' . . . if he delayed or feared to hear the word of the immortal gods who then 
appeared plainly to him. And he received and bred her up and tended her well in his halls, 
making her equal in honour with his daughters. And she was the mother of Telephus, of the 
stock of Areas, king of the Mysians, after being mated in love with mighty Heracles, who 
went after the horses of proud Laomedon, the swiftest of foot bred in the land of Asia, and 
destroyed the race of the high souled Amazons in battle and drove them from all that land. 
Now Telephus put to flight the warriors of the brazen-coated Achaeans and made them 


embark on their black ships. But when he had laid many low on mother earth, his death- 
dealing might was stricken . . .' 

4-5. The reception of Auge by the Mysian king Teuthras seems here to have been 
attributed to a divine interposition. ί;]/Λ€[λλ]ει/ is quite conjectural ; the doubtful μ may be η, 
and there is barely room for the two lambdas. In 1. 5 the supposed rough breathing on 01 
is very uncertain, and a smooth one would be at least as consistent with the vestiges. 

6. [iceii/r?]i/ : sc. Auge ; the subject is Teuthras. 

7. Cf. Hyg. Fab. 99 cwn esset or bus liber is, hanc pro filia habuit, and Fab. 100, where 
the story of the proposed marriage of Auge to Telephus is given. Another version 
represented Auge as having become the wife of Teuthras ; cf. Pausan. viii. 4, 9, 
Apollod. ii. 7. 4. 

8. Αρκασιδην: cf. Callim. H. Dian. 216, where the name is applied to lasius, who like 
Telephus was of the fifth generation from Areas. 

II. Cf. Homer, SE' 348 ^ tovs Αοομίδοντοί, ot evuade y ίτραφΐν ίσθλοί. 

15. eβησ^€•. cf. e.g. Homer, Π 810 φωτά! ieiKoai βησΐν αφ' Ίππων. 

1 6. Cf. the Homeric line πάίτα? ίττασσυτίρονς πίΧασΐ χθονί πονΧνβοτείρη (θ 277> &C.). 

χ6ον\ βωτιανΐίρτ) occurs ΊπΗ. Apoll. 363, Η. Ven. 265. 

17. δώμητ\ο is extremely uncertain; the slight remains of the final vowel would be 
consistent with f. Above the line at this point is an ink-mark which suggests a stop, but 
that can hardly have been intended here. 

18. Possibly φ^}, but the lacunae now become too large for satisfactory restoration. 

19. The last word may well have been 6[αΚασσαν, as both Murray and Allen suggest; 
the remains after the initial lacuna are consistent with θ\οω5. 

21. Perhaps A.p\ye^φovτηs, as in Hesiod, Op, 84 π^μπε πατήρ κΚντονΆργ., but πε^ετο, aS in 

Homer, Ω 345 π. κρατύς 'Apy., would be unsatisfactory, the vestige of the letter after the 
lacuna apparently not suiting r. 

22. Perhaps K\e[tTov, the last vestige before the lacuna being part of the circumflex. 
24. Cf. 1. 21 and note. 

Tr. 2. 5 sqq. Cf. Homer, ν 215 sqq., Apollod. iii. 12. 1-2. 
6. For the supplement cf. Hesiod, Scui. 53. 

8—12. Cf. Homer, e 125—8 &s δ' όπότ Ίασίωνι ενπλόκαμοί Αημητηρ^ ω θνμω (ΐξασα, μίγη 
φιΚότητι και eivfj νίΐω evi τριπόλω' ουδέ 8ην ηβν απνστοί Zeus os μιν κατίπίφνί βαλων αργητι κεραννώ, 
Apollod. iii. 12. ι Ιασίων μέν ουν ίρασθεις Αημητρο^ καϊ θίΚων καταισχνναι την deov KfpavvovTai. 

That lasion was another name for Eetion is stated in Schol. Apollon. Rhod. i. 916 (γέννησε 

δε Tpels πα'ώης, ΑάρΒανον τον (s Ύροίαν κατοικησαντα, ον καΐ ΤΙόλνάρχην φασί λΐγεσθαι νπο των εγχωρίων, 
και 'Αετίωνα ον Ίασιωνα ονομάζουσι' και φασι κεραννωθηναι αντον υβρίζοντα άγαλμα της Αημητρος, 

The scholiast's authority here is supposed to have been Hellanicus, who is cited in the 
context. The identity of lasion with Eetion is also stated by Schol. Eurip. Phoen. 1129. 

13—16. Cf. Apollod. iii. 12. I Aapbavos δε επ\ τω θανάτω τοΰ άδεΧφηΰ Χνπούμενος 2αμοθράκην 

άπολιπων εΙς την αντίπερα ή'πειρον ήλθε. νηι in 1. 1 6 looks like a reference to the voyage of 
Dardanus (in spite of Conon 2 1 πλοίων χρήσκ ουδεπω ην), and if so it seems probable that 
11. 14-15 are parenthetical. Tros was the son of Ericthonius and father of Ilus, Assaracus, 
and Ganymede. For 1. 15 cf. Homer, Υ 232. 

Fr. 3 containing beginnings of lines may well belong to the same column as Fr. 2, 
but their relative position is unknown. 

Fr. 4. 1-4. The subject of these verses is not clear. It is natural to restore Έρΐ^χθο- 
vLoio in 1. 3 and to suppose that the fragment is more or less closely connected with Fr. 2, 


and 11. 1-2 and 4 readily lend themselves to that view; ]κλεο[ in 1. i maybe KXeo[7rarpa 
daughter of Tros, and καΧΚος in 1. 4 might be taken to refer to her brother Ganymede. 
On the other hand 11. 5-8 are apparently concerned with the quite different subject of 
Diomede and Hyacinthus. Perhaps a new section began at 1. 5. 

5-8. Cf. Apollod. iii. 10. 3 Άμνκλα δε και Αιομη^ης . . . Ύάκινθο!. τούτον five ι τοΰ Άττόλλωι/ο? 
(ρωμΐνον λίγουσιν, ον Βίσκω βαλωρ άκων άιτίκτΐΐνΐ. ]α in 1. 7 might perhaps be Α/χυκλ]α. 

Pr. 5. 2. αφ\βιτον: cf. Homer, I 413 kK^os αφθιτον, Η, Cer. 261 αφβ. . . . τψην. γέρας 

αφθ. occurs in Alcaeus, Fr. 83. 

1360. Alcaeus. 

Late second century. 

Since the publication of Part X some additional fragments of 1234 have 
fortunately come to light. One or two small pieces have fitted on to Fr. i, 
lines i-ia now reading as follows : — 

. [ ] . [• . -M- •] • • [ 

ov[ ]τάιρ€ΐ 

π[ ]άβολον7Γοίτ€ραττ[ 

κα[. . . .]νκήνω7Γατ€ρα[ 

5 ■'■^ί ]ωνάίσχνντοσ€π[ 

i μ[.]σοσαλίτρον' 

Ι ζ€υ7Γατ€ρ'λνδοιμ€ν€•πα[ 
ΙΟ €σπολιν€\θην 

ονδ€γ€ίνώσκοντ€σ•οδ' ωσαλώ7Γά[ 

That a new poem begins at 1. 7 is established by the coronis. σνμφόραισι is 
another substantial gain, and αμμι, which we hesitated to restore, is confirmed. 
The first word of 1. 6 was of course μισό?, but the preceding verses remain 
obscure. It is disappointing that the gap at the beginning of them has not been 
more completely filled, but perhaps the missing fragment may yet make its 

The remainder of the new pieces are printed below. Frs. 1-3 certainly, and 
probably Fr. 5 also, are from the bottoms of Columns, but their position relatively 
to each other and to the columns of 1234 is unknown, and the assumption that 


the latter were consecutive becomes rather more hazardous. In colour and 
condition, however, these additional fragments approximate to 1234. Fr. i, and 
may well have preceded it. They cannot be brought into close connexion with 
1234. Frs. 3-6. 

As in 1234, political references are frequent, and the poems seem to belong 
mainly to the class of Στασιωτικά. Lines 1-8 of Fr. i are from the conclusion 
of a poem, of which, however, there is not enough to show clearly either the 
subject or metre ; 1. 8 may be scanned as an Adonius, but the absence 
of a paragraphus below 1. 4 is against Sapphics, ά -nokis in 1. 8 points to 
a political theme. The next piece opens with an apostrophe to some person 
who is apparently reproached as a half-hearted adherent of the party of Alcaeus. 
It is written in stanzas of uncertain length. If, as is possible, a paragraphus has 
disappeared below 1. 11 (see the note there) they would be three- line stanzas, as 
in one of the Berlin fragments of Sappho {Berl. Klassikertexte, v. 2, p. 12), con- 
sisting of a second Glyconic, a greater Asclepiad, and a lesser Asclepiad. This, 
however, is quite doubtful, though a stanza of more than four verses is unexpected. 
Fr. 2, in Alcaics, is shown by the accompanying scholia to be similarly concerned 
with politics. The citizens are rebuked for their timidity and urged to suppress 
the coming tyranny, which is compared to smouldering wood that will soon 
be bursting into flame. In Fr. 3 hardly anything is left of the main text ; a note 
on the lower margin explains a topographical allusion which occurred in it, 
and also mentions Bycchis, who figures in 1234. Fr. 3. 10 as well as in Ale. 35. 
3. There is little distinctive in the other fragments with the exception of Fr. 5, 
where the 2,000 staters in 1. 7 must mean the Lydian subvention already referred 
to in Fr. 1 of 1234 (reprinted above). Since Fr. 5 is evidently in Sapphics, it may 
even be part of the same poem as 1234. Fr. i. . 


Fr. I. 


α\\αττ\.] . [ 

τωτΓΟ . . [ 

5 πολλα[.]€[ 

[.]ττιτων . [ 
i απολίσάμ/ιά[ 

ϊ ονπαντησαΊτ[ 
ΙΟ ουδ' aavvveT[.]a-afioi(7tS[ 

βώμωλατο[. .]ατοΰτ €φυλαξα[ 


μητ ιστών ι^.]κο7Γατρίδαν σ€νφ[ 
ίισ€ταιφάν€ραΐ7^.]σιναπαρ)(α . [ 

Fr. 2. 







ποθί€ίαονον Χίτασβετεκαικατοττανσατεταχεωσμηλαί 

II fjuictfiui^u τίροντοφωσγενηται 

Fr. 3- 

]ακρον€ . [ 


Fr. I. 

[•M ^ 

ώί πά/)α[ 
άλλα π[.] . [ 
τω ττο . . [ 

5 7ΓΟλλα[.]6[ 

[ο]ττί τωί/ . [ 
ά πόλίί α/Λ/ία [ 

Ου ττάντ η? άπ[ορος{?) 
ΙΟ ού8' aavvveT[o\s άμΟι)οισί 5[e 
/8ώ)ΐίω Λατο[ιδ]α τοντ €0νλά|α[ο 
μη τΐ9 των κ[α\κο7Γατριοα]^ ^^^ Λ 
€Ϊσ€ται, φάν^ραι τ[όί'\σιν άτταρχαι [ 

Fr. 2. 

• • • • • •• • 

τ]ο 8e πΧάτν 
] Κξφάλα?, μάτ€ί 

1 ΰμ€Ϊ8 δί σιγάτε ωσττερ νεκρών Upol μύσται, ο[ύ- 

δίν δυνάμενοι άντιστήναι τώι τυράν[νωι. 

5 ]vTes. 

αλλ', ώ πολΐταί, νυν, eVi τ]ό ^νλ 

-5- ν \ / Ί ./. / κατάσβ(ηντε καΐ καταπαύσ<Λ•ε ταχεωβ, μή λαΓμπρό 

ay αμμι τον καπνον] προιπ μόνον '^^ '^^^^^ ^^ φ-5 γ^νηται. 

, , ^ ^ ^ „ τ\>/ άλλ', ώ Μυτιληναίοι, €«s «τι καπνέν μόνο[ν 

αλλ , ω ΤΓΟλίΤαί J ννν, €Τί τρ ςνλον άψίησι το ξύλον, τοΟτ' (εστίν) εω8 ούδειτω τυρανν[εΰει, 

Fr.3. * 

]ακρονζ . [ 



]6λ[. ..]Λ[ 


] . •:λημ€ταξυτΓυρρασ•κο[.]μυ[ 
] . γαρυμΐΐν* 

Fr, 4. 
Col. i. Col. ίί. 


Fr-5. Fr. 6. 

] • [ ]α,[ 

•5 ]τατοσ4 5 ]ωντοκηων\ 
jov 5 arq ] ••••^^^ 

5 ]^- avM ]λωίσ7άτ[ l^'"" ί 




^^' 1' Fr. 8. 

• • a 

] . αβη\ j r 

I ] 

5 [ ] 5 y<>e\ 

[ ] ■ . ■ . 


I^i"• 9. Fr. 10. 









• • 

5 [.]*[ 


Col. i. 




5 ]"«»■ 


• . -η 


€LS Άΐδα [ 



«στιν ή 

] . ιλη μ,ΐταξύ Ilvppas κα[1] Μν[τιλή 
]υ ψφων Tivas ιτ[ 
] φησί τω Βύκχιδι [ 
] . γάρ vyiiv. 


Fr. 4. 

Col. ii. 

' ' 


Fr. 6. 



^ ■ ]"«'[•] • [ 



? ηΧ\ιτ6€ργορ 


]? €δωκ[ 


καΐ τ[ 


]τατο9 κ[ 


(?) φίλ]ωι^ τοκήων 






δισ)(€]λίθί9 στάτ[ηρα9 

]ντα [ 


ώί το[ 

Καλ . [ 



. Fr. 7. Fr. 8. Fr. 9. Fr. 10. 


άχη[ y 



] 5 ΥνΟ[ 











■ 5 [.] . [ 



Fr. 13. 

Fr. II. Fr. 13. 

Col. i. Col. ii. .... 

• " ]ασσαιχι[ j^. 

Ι^ο-ονσι άί . [ ]νΤ€σ8 . [ ]α•Ί€ρο,Γν[ 

]«?ΐ.] ου[ .... j^„^ 

Fr. 14. 

] Φ•[ 

Fr. 15. 


Fr. 16. 


Fr. 17. 


Fr. 18. 

Fr. 19. 

Fr. 30. 

Fr. 21. 





Fr. 22. 

Fr. 23. 

Fr. 24. 

Fr. 25. 




Fr. 26, 

Fr. 27• 


Fr. 28. 



Fr. 29. 

]ίουσ• . Γ 


.]ονσ , [ 



Fr. II. 



5 ]««■[•] 

Fr. 12. 

Fr. 13. 





jj/rey 8 . [ 

1 άν(τΙ τοΰ) Ιεροσν[λ 


] φλανρο9 v[ 


Fr. 14. 

Fr. 15. 

Fr. 16. 

Fr. 17., 

] Φ•[ 

]^y τ • [ 
J^ σνμ[ 





] πολϊ^ 





Fr. ιί 

Fr. 19. 

Fr. 3θ. 

Fr. 21. 













Fr. 23. 

Fr. 23. 

Fr. 24. 

Fr. 25. 


]8' ά[ 



Fr. 26. 

Fr. 27. 

Fr. 28. 

Fr. 29. 



κ (ατά) των [ 

]ιονσ . [ 

piaev δ*[ 
. ]ουσ . [ 


Fr. 1. 8. The first mark of quantity is very doubtful, being abnormally low, but this might 
be accounted for by supposing the accent to have been written first, αμμα may be divided 
αμμ d[, αμμ being either accusative or dative; for the latter cf. 1234. Fr. i. 9 αμμ (δωκαρ. 

g. A new poem is marked by the coronis. Thfe letter before the lacuna is probably 
either γ or π ; β, however, is not impossible. An adjective to balance άσννν{τ[ο]ς in the next 
line is wanted. ' 

10. For the doubled ν in άσΰνΐ'€ΐ[ο]ς cf. Fr. 4. ii. 3, 1234. Fr. 2. ii. 8 onapive, and 
Ale. 18. I where the spelling άσνννΐτημι is commended by these analogies. The rest of the 
line is difiicult. 01 seems practically certain, and the next letter can only be σ or e. Before 
01 π could well be read, but this, though the preceding a may perhaps be λ, gives no word. 
That the letter next after the lacuna is the final s of ασννν€τ[ο]ί is not certain, for below 
the curved top there is a tiny speck which is consistent with e or ο ; but to read τ[οσ]Ε or 
τ[οσ]ο does not suit the space so well, and leads to no other good result ; ολμοισι cannot be 
regarded as likely here. We have thus been led to αμοισι, which would give a sense if 
some such verb as σννθιγών followed, but is unsatisfactory since the dialect requires a second 
μ. yap too would seem more natural than M. 

11. Under the β of βωμω there is a narrow crack in the upper fibres of the papyrus, in 
which a paragraphus may possibly have disappeared, though it seems more likely that, if 
a paragraphus had stood here, some vestiges of it would have still been visible. There is 
certainly no paragraphus below either 1. 12 or 1. 13. The accidental omission of a para- 
graphus is of course not impossible, though an unsatisfactory supposition in consideration of 
their regularity in 1234. 

12-13. Fo^ the construction μη . . . eta-erai cf. e.g. Aristoph. Eccles. 486-8 τηρισκο- 

πουμένη . . . μη ξνμφορα yevrjaerai, Aesch. Pers, 1 1 6 Sqq. ή>ρην αμνσσίται φόβω . . . μη πόλις 
πνθηται . . . και το Κίσσιον ττόΧισμ άντ'ώονπον €σ(σ)ΐται (ά'σβται ?), Xen. Cyrop. iv. I. 1 8 δρα μη 

πολλών ίκ,άστω ημών χειρών Berjati. The irregularity apparently gave rise to the marginal note. 
κακοπατρίδας is parallel in form to ίυπατρί8ης. In 1234. Fr. 6. 12 as well as in Ale. 37 the 
form κακόπατρις was used. For the paroxytone accent with gen. plur. of the ist declension cf. 
1231. Fr. 14. 8, note. 

Fr. 2. 3. μάτ€ΐ : cf. Sapph. 54. 3 μάτ€ΐσαι. The preceding dot is a low stop, of which 
there was no example in 1234. 

4. The marginal note paraphrased the text, νίκρών μνσται is an unexpected combina- 
tion, and the latter part of this Une is very doubtfully deciphered, σωσ, ave, eve, might Avell 
be read instead of μν. e of 8e has been corrected. 

6-7. An approximate restoration is made possible by the marginal paraphrase. That 
the metre is Alcaic is sufficiently clear from the rhythms of 11. 2-3 and 6-7 in conjunction 
with the shorter verse in 1. 4 and the final trochee in 1. 5. Line 7 is followed by a blank 
space equivalent to three lines, and was therefore probably the last, or (allowing for one 
shorter line) the last but one of the column. 

Fr. 4. ii. 3. ovvo[ : cf. 1234. Fr. 2. ii, 8 owapive and note on Fr. i. 10, above. 

Fr. 6. 3-4. The accent points to ηλ]ιτόΐργον rather than ]t τό epyov. Line 4, as com- 
pared with 11. 3 and 5, is too long for the last verse of a Sapphic stanza. 

5. φίλων τοκηων occurs in 1231. Fr. i. i. 22. 

7. There is only a short space after a, but the slight flourish with which it was finished 
is suggestive of a final letter. 

Fr. 7. The metre may well be Sapphic. 


Pr. 12. I. The curved stroke below the line shows that the letters belong to a single 
word ; cf. e. g. 1233. Fr. 2. 20. It is the opposite of the diastole, of which there was an 
example in 1234. Fr. 2. i. 6. 

Pr. 15 possibly joins on above Fr. 16. 

Pr. 17. I. The doubtful φ may be v. 

Pr. 18. I. ]|ω[: οτ]ζω[. 

Pr. 21 is rather doubtfully included here. 

Pr. 28. The ξ is less carefully formed than is usual in this hand, and the fragment 
perhaps does not belong to this text. The attribution of Fr. 29, where in 1. i only the 
bottoms of the letters remain, is also uncertain. 

1361. Bacchylides, ScoHa. 

Fr. I i8-ixi3-icm. First century. Plate III 

(Frs. I, 4). 

Bacchylides has already figured among the Oxyrhynchus papyri in 1091, 
a column from Ode xvi (dithyramb). The fragments novir published are from 
a different manuscript, and belong to a class not represented in the British 
Museum papyrus ; but their authorship is at once demonstrated by a coincidence 
with a passage cited by Athenaeus (Bacch. Fr. 20). 

The rather large and ornate handw^riting has a decidedly early appearance, 
and is likely to fall vi^ell within the first century. Characteristic letters are e and 
Θ, of which the cross-bar commonly consists of a mere dot separated from 
the curved strokes, ξ is similarly treated, and ζ, in which the connecting stroke 
is vertical and joins the horizontal strokes at their centre, is also in the archaic 
style. The apices or finials frequently added to straight strokes are another 
noticeable feature. Hands somewhat similar in these respects may be seen 
in 659 and P. Rylands 30, though probably those both belong to a rather earlier 
period than 1361 ; cf also 1238. Stops in two positions, high and medial, 
are employed, and accents, breathings, marks of quantity and elision, &c., have 
been inserted fairly frequently. Possibly some of these additions may be 
original, but the text has been corrected and annotated, apparently by more 
hands than one, and to them the diacritical signs are more probably due. It is 
noticeable that strophes are not marked off, as usual, by paragraphs 

Like other papyri from the same find (1906), the roll has suffered severely ; 
only three of the forty-eight fragments recovered are of any size, these having them- 
selves been largely built up of smaller pieces. Fr. i, which at 1. 6 sqq. coincides with 
Bacch. Fr. 30 and fortunately preserves the beginning of the poem from which those 



attractive verses were taken, is addressed to Alexander, i. e. no doubt Alexander 
son of Amyntas, king of Macedon, to whom an ode was also dedicated by Pindar 
(Fr. 120). This Fr. ao is commonly regarded as derived from a ΙΙαροίνιον, 
or convivial piece, although no distinct class of ΙΙαροίνια or Σκόλια is ascribed to 
Bacchylides by ancient authorities. That such was in fact the nature of the 
fragment is now quite evident from 1. 5, in which the poet describes his composi- 
tion as συμττοσίοισιν άγαλμα. For the dedication of such poems to royal personages 
cf e.g. Pindar, Fr. 125, cited from το ττρος Ί4ρωνα σκάλων. The piece is written in 
dactylo-epitritic stanzas of four verses, the first four stanzas forming a prelude, 
after which Alexander is directly addressed. 

The beginning of another poem, which is no doubt of the same class, is 
preserved in Fr. 4. This, as the marginal title states and would in any case 
be clear from internal evidence, was addressed to Hiero of Syracuse. In 11. 8-10 
the poet alludes to his previous compositions in honour of the victories of Hiero's 
famous horse Pherenicus ; and the coupling of ' chestnut steeds ' with the name of 
Hiero in 11. 3-4 might at first sight suggest that the present piece also was 
designed to celebrate some success in the games. But if this were a regular 
epinician ode, its omission from the Hiero group in the British Museum papyrus 
would be very strange, and the occasion of the victory would be expected in the 
marginal title. Moreover, on the positive side there is not only the analogy 
of Fr. I, but the direct reference in 1. 6 to σνμττόταυ avbpes. These reasons 
combine to determine the classification of the poem as a convivial σκάλων. Its 
date was subsequent to the year 476 B. c, as the mention of Aetna in 1. 7 proves ; 
and Bacchylides was not at the time in Sicily (11. 6-7). The metre, as in Fr. i, is 
dactylo-epitritic, the strophes consisting of six verses each, in the following 
scheme : 

— y^ \J — <u <u — — 

— \J ^ — <^ \J — 

— s^ [(^ — 

The only other piece of any size is Fr. 5, consisting of remains of two 
columns, those of the first being quite considerable, though there seems to be 
a good deal missing at the beginnings of the lines. This column contains 
a lengthy mythological narrative, the key to which is not yet found. Line 6 
h [κ]ίφάλ[α . . . τ]ρίχ(ί, with the interlinear adscript . . . virb irarpos ev . . ., suggests 
a reference to the story of Pterelaus or Nisus, or some analogous myth ; there is, 
however, no evident connexion between this and what follows, which relates to 


a rape (11. 13-14 ; cf. 11. 19-ao). l{]hovT in 1. 14 (cf. 1. 18) is the termination of 
a name {-μίΐοντ ?), this should provide the clue, but it has so far proved elusive. 
Notwithstanding this obscurity, the poem to which this column belonged may be 
presumed to be of the same class as the two discussed above. Its metre is 
of a different kind, and followed a more elaborate system, since no strophic 
correspondence is apparent. 

F a 



Fr. I. Plate III. 


]v €7Γτατονοι/λιγνρανκαπΐΓαν€γάρυν. 

]o 8€ΰρ'€σ€μασ)(^6ρασΌρμαινωτΐ7ημπ[ 

5 καισνμποσ{. . .]σιναγαλμ[. .]Ηκαδ€σ[ 

€ντ€νΐωνα[ ]ναγκα' 

σ€νομ€νάνκ[ ][[i]lo-tdv/z[ 

κνπριδοστ€λτΓ[. ]νασ• 

αμ€ΐγννμ€ρ[ ]8ωροισ[ 

ΙΟ ανδρασιννψοί ]μ€ριμγ[ 

αυτίκ[.]μξνπ[ ]/^fa . [ 

7Γασ[ ]χήσ[ 





1 5 να^σαγ^ 

• • 


α)7Γ[.] . /ί€γάλ[ 

[ ]ουπ[ 

[■ . . •]λαχ[ 

2θ [. . . .]σηθνμ[ 

[ ]φρορο[ 

[ y^^p[ 

[ ]7Wo[ 

Fr. 2. 




Fr. I. Plate III. 

'/2 βάρβιτ€, μηκίτι πάσσαλοι φυλάσ[σων 
Άλ€|ό]ν- ΙτΓτάτονον λιγυράν κάππανς yapvv 
Άμύντ]α. ievp' €$■ kμa.s γβρα^' όρμαίνω τι π€μπ[€ΐν 
χρνσζον Μουσαν 'AXe^avSpto πτβρο[ν 
5 f<*^ συμποσ[ίοι\σιν άγαλμ^ ii/] €ίκάδ€σ[σιν, 
€VT€ νίων ά[γαθών γλνκβΐ' ά]νάγκα 
σ€υομζναν κ\υ\ίκων βάΧτΓη\σί 6υμ\ον 
Κνπριδο? τ €λ7Γ[ί$• (8ι)αιθνσστι (?) φρξ]νας, 
St μ€ΐγννμίν[α Αιονυσίοισι] δώροις 

10 άνδράσιν ύψο[τάτω ττίμπ^ι] μξρίμν\α^' 
αύτίκ[α\ μ\ν •π\ο\ίων κράδί]μνα X[v€i, 
πάσ[ι 5* άνθρωποι^ μοναρ\•)(^σ\^ίν δοκΰ, 
χρν[σ]ω [S* ίΧίφαντί re μαρμ\αίρ\ονσιν οΊκοι, 
7Γυρο(ρ[6ροι δβ κατ αίγΧόί€ντ]α π6\ντον 

15 vd^s άγο[νσιν άπ Αιγύπτου μίγιστον 
πΧοντον ay [πίνοντας ορμαίνΐΐ κύαρ. 
ω π[α]ΐ μ€γαΧ[οσθ€ν€θ9 ? 
[. . . .]ουπ[ 
[ — ^]λάχ[ — ^w — ^ — <^ 

2θ [ — w]y η θνμ[ — ^ ^ — 

[ ]φρονο[ — <J \J — — — \^ 

[ — ^]€π€ρ[<^ \J — — — ^ 

[ — W \J\<TT](ro[y <^ 

στρ. α 

στρ. β* 

στρ. γ 

. 5' 


στρ. € 

στρ. ς- 

Fr. 2. 

]τι γαρ άν6[ 
]ω χαριτ[ 


Fr. 3. 

]0[. . . ^^κοτοσ'ο . [ 

Fr. 4. Plate III. 


ίοΐ^ιωι μηπωλιγνα . [ 
ανθ€μονμονσα[. . ']ρο>ρ[ 
5 [. .]€poePTeX€aa(T 

[. .'^συντΓθταισαν8ρ€σ<η'π[ 
[. .]τναν€σ€νκτιτορ'€ΐκ[ 
[. .]οσθ€νυμνησαστον[ 
[. .]σσιλαιψ[.]ρο[.]σφ6ρ[ 

ΙΟ [. .]ωιτ[. . .]καρ t^!i.[ 
[. . .]ρ[.] . [. .]τομ€Ροσ- 

[ ]^«ff •[..•]•[ 

[ ]€μοιτοτζκονρα[ 

[ ]ρσσοι8ιοσπαγχ^ρ[ 

15 [ ]μοστίΘ€σανμ[ 

[■•.. '•'•] 

[ ] 

[ ]yvai[ 

[ ]vair . [ 

20 [ ]• <^v[ 


Fr. 3. 

]0[. . . .]<oToy• . [ 
] ανθρώπων 8caia[ 
]vos' laas 5' τυχών [ 

Fr. 4. Plate III. 

Ί]«ρωνι 71*/ X r^> > r 

5υ]ρακοσίω. Μηπω λιγναχ[€ ανήκω στρ. α 

βάρβίτον μίλλ[ω γαρ ήδη χρυσοπζττΧων 

άνθ^μον Μουσα.[ν ^Ιύ]ρων[ι κλντω 

ξανθαΐσιν iirnois 
5 [ίμ]€ρ6€ν TcXiaas 

[κα]ϊ σνμπόταις άνδρξσσί ττ[€μπξΐν 

[Αϊ]τναν €ί ίύκτιτον ίί κ[αΙ στρ. β' 

[πρ]6σθ€ν ύμνησαν τον [ev πώλοίί KXeevvov 

[πο]σσι λαιψ[η]ρο[ΐ]9 Φ€ρ[ζνικον kn *Α\- 
ΙΟ [0βΟω τ[6 νί\καν ^^Ρ^^Τ 

[ — ^Ply ^ — ^τομζνο^ 

[ ]eai'e . [—ν 

[ *^] ^μοϊ τ6τ€ κούρα[ στρ. •/ 

[ — W — ] οσσοι Διο^ πάγχρ[νσον 

15 [— ^ ]μο9 τίθ^σαν μ\y w — 

[ U ] 

Γ VJ Ν-ί — \J \j — ] 

[ ]ι;ΐ'αί[ 

[ \ναπ . [ στρ. S* 

20 [ ] ' <^ν[ 


, , F'-^• CoI.i. CoLii. 

]ονίαστά\αι[ l 

] . ασκαικάτάρατ[ 1^ 

5 ]νζνδονζ•)(ο[ 1 

^ . ] . νΐΓοποτροσίν[ 

]i6ev[.y(f>a\[ ]ρίχ^σ- [ 

^υσολοφονπα . . [ 1 r 

] . χαλκ€ομιτραν[ 1 • [ >iv8[ 


'° Ρρο-<τνχ(ΐρακαιμιαι[. . . .]j/ r 

]ησκαλνκώπιδοσ ' r 

, , χ e[ 

]7Γατ€ρ ίμμ^ν-αλΧά .[••]• Ρονοσ ^γ 

Υ^ν^κρατ^ράτ^κ: πτο''καρτί[ ]«ν 


]8οντ ανάγκη ι• 
15 If^'oi^ 

2θ ]ρανηρωσ 



5 Χ ey . [ 

;ζα . [ 
]€νποσ€ΐδαοι/ίασ * r 

]ασ€λαυ . 

]ντοσολβιοντξκοσ• \ 

]^^ορηνηρ ^^ J^^ 


]αλλικρηδψνονθίασ r 

]/<:ι;σαγγ€λοσ κ[.]λλνσφνβαν ,g «^ r 

25 ]αρ€ντ€μολ€ν. r 

Fr. 6. 


Fr. 5. Col. i. 

'\ovias τά\αι\ν ] 

^TipOV VLV Τ6λ[ ] 

] . as Kot καταρατ[ ]t 

5 ]v 'ivSov €χο[ ] 

] . ύπο Ίτοτρόβ iv[ 

]i S' kv [κ]€0αλ[α Ap'^X'^^' ί 

χ^ρ]νσολ6φον πα . . [ ] [ 

] . χαΧκ^ομίτραν [ ] \ [; ; ; ; ; ;]x^,s . ^ 

^OLO κόρης 
ΙΟ ] θρασυ-^ζίρα και μιαί[φονο]ν 

κ6ρ]η5 καλνκώπιδος 

] πατ€ρ' ξμμ€ν'' άλλα ρ[ιν] χρόνος 
]e, κρατήρα τίκ Πτολ(€μοίθ5) κορτ€[ρ$ τ€κ]€ΐν. 

'\8ovT ανάγκα' 
15 (?) άγκίου 

Υν Ποσίΐδαονίας 
]ls eXav- 

V "IvTOS οΧβίΟν TiKOS 

]€ κ όρη ν ηρ- 
20 πασΐ ]ραν ήρωί' 

• ]τον 
κ]αΧΧίκρηδ€μνον ^eay 


<ί>\κύς dyyeXos κ[ο]λλισφΟραν 

25 ^ο-ν ewr' ίμοΧ^ν 


Col. ϋ. 


λ. . 

5 iif . 
μα . 



ΙΟ /io[ 


15 δρα[ 


Fr. 6. 

] μασσο[ν 




Fr. 7. 

Fr. 8. 

Fr. 9. 

Fr. 10. 


















5 ]yictiA 

5 ]{<^'Α 

5 ]<«?■[ 







Fr. II. 


] . . .4] . . . [ 


Fr. I a. 

Fr. 13. 

Fr. 14. 

80 . .[ 



]8€ί\ωι . [ 

X τοτ€ΐ/€ω^ομοφ[ 

] . €1/€ίσ[ 





Fr. 15. 

Fr. 16. 

Fr. 17. 

Fr. 18. 










] . .-?[ 





] . αυσ[ 




• • • 



Fr. 7. 


Fr. 8. 

Fr. 9. 

] μαινοΚι^ γ[ 

Fr. 10. 

1 ' 

]ι/ ταλ[ 





^σται π[ 


jor 0υ[ 


] 0€θπθ[/Ζ7Γ 

] ττόσιν 





] οδτοί τ[ 

5 lyia Μ 

5 ]ίατ[ 

5 ]fa4 

]σίω? 0[ 

. . . 

. . . 



Fr. II. 

Fr. 12. 

Fr. 13. 

Fr. 14. 

5o. . [ 


τότ€ vioDv ό/χο0[ωϊ/ 

5* evXvpa re Φοί[βω 

]μονιων [ 
] δξίλω . [ 

] . €V€l(j[ 

]κω 8k θ[ 



Fr. 15. 

Fr. 16. 

Fr. 17. 

Fr. 18. 





>• ύπ[ 


]v aKpc{ 




]v Kai[ 

] ώστ[ 



]. aia[ 


5 ] 'cai ξ[ 


. . . 

• • 


Fi". 19. Fr. 20, Fr. ai. 













5 ] 


5 ]9v. 

]αθημ€νη [ 

5 ]ατ€δηκά[ 




• • 


]?7fr • [ 




• • • 

^^•^^• Fr. 24. 

Ι?"! Μ ]γαρθρωπ[ 

3^^[ ] . κλ . [ μφ ,]τηΓοσαωσ [ 

^^^^ ] • • οχα[ 3τοσ•σ[.]ι/€0αλίΚία[ 

Μ ... 

Fr. 35. Fr. a6. Fr. a;. 

Fr. 28. 









5 Αί»'[ 


]οσ€7Γίχ^[ jexairai^eii 

]ρτομη[ ]ολνχ . [ 


Fr. 19. Fr. 20. Fr. ai. 





]arai TO(ra[ 



^OV θ€μ€6[ 



] ποτ€ Γρω[ 


5 ] 

]av ζαθ€ο[ 

5 ]β^• 


5 ]ατ€ 8η Afa[ 





]ai πατρί 

]ηκτ . [ 





Fr. 22. Fr. 23. Fr. 34• 

] . [ ]αΊτ[ ]ν άνθρωττΐ 

]οι;[ ]οι{ ] λ€[ΐ5Αίί]7Γπο9 άώ? 

]0ρ[ . ] . κλ . [ ] τόσσ[ο]ι/ €0' aAtict'a[y 

](7e[ ] . . οχα[ 5 ] φέγγος κατ άνθρω7τ[ 

5 V '[ 5 ]f f 4 

Μ ... 

Fr. 25. Fr. 26. Fr. 27. Fr. 28. 


ji' σύν β[ 

] . ep €iwe [ 

]v καΐ φνσιν [ 


]y oraj/ /ί[ 

]os €πι•)(θ[ον 

]e χαίταν k^ 


]as οινα[ 

]o TO μη[ 

]ο\υχ . [ 


]t. rr γάρ [ 

]m γ€μ[ 


5 λ4 



Fr. 29. 



5 μ[ 

Fr. 30. Fr• 31. 




Fr. 32. 


Fr. 33. 


Fr. 34. 

Fr. ^5- 

]0Te . [ 

Fr. 36. 


Fr. 37. 

• • • 



Fr. 38. 

Fr. 39. 


Fr. 40. 

Fr. 41. 
• • • • 


Fr. 45. 

Fr. 42. 

Fr. 45. 

Fr. 43• 


Fr. 47. 

]^ [ 


Fr. 44. 


Fr. 48. 




Fr. 29. 

Fr. 30. 

Fr. 31. 

Fr. 3 

• • 





].. K.[ 













5 μ[ 




Fr• 33• 

Fr. 34. 

Fr. 35. 

Fr. 36. 



lore . [ 











. . . 

. . . 

. . 

Fr. 37• 

Fr. 38. 

Fr. 39. 

Fr. 40. 






Ψ Λ 



y «y[ 




Fr. 41. 

Fr. 42. 

Fr. 43. 

Fr. 44. 

] και viri\ 


] . οΓδ[ 

• • • 


Fr. 45. 

Fr. 46. 


Fr. 4«. 

• • • 




Pr. 1. 1-16. 'For Alexander son of Amyntas. 

' My lyre, no longer hung upon the peg restrain the clear voice of thy seven strings. 
Hither to my hands I It is my wish to send to Alexander a golden feather from the wings 
of the Muses, to grace his banquets on the festal days, when, as the cups go swiftly round, 
a sweet force warms the heart of noble youths and a presage of the Cyprian goddess thrills 
the mind. Mingling with the gifts of Dionysus it sends a man's thoughts up to the clouds ; 
straightway he is overthrowing the battlements of cities, he fancies himself monarch of the 
world, his halls gleam with gold and ivory, and the corn-laden ships bring vast wealth 
from Egypt over the radiant sea ; such are the dreams wherewith the winecup stirs 
the soul.' 

I. φυλάσ[σωΐ': or φνλάσσονσ ; in the Anacreontea both the masc. and fem. are found, 
but in earlier writers the gender is not determined, βάρβιτος recurs in Fr. 4. 2, but is not 
elsewhere found in Bacchylides or Pindar. For πάσσαλος cf. Pindar, OL i. 18 άπο φόρμιγγα 

ττασσάλον λάμβαν, Homer, θ 6*] κα8 δ' €Κ πασσαλόφι κρίμασεν φόρμιγγα. 

2-3- The marginal note has been restored on the supposition that it contained the 
title, although in Fr. 4 this is placed rather higher up opposite the first line of the poem. 
The hand also seems to differ; it is more formal, like the note in Fr. 21. 5, and less distinct 
from the hand of the text. 

4. Μονσαν . . . τττ€ρό\ν : cf. e. g. Pindar, Isih. l. 64 πτβρνγεσσιν άερθεντ άγΧααΊς ΏιερΙΒων. 

5. εΙκά8(σ[σιν: cf. e. g. Plutarch, Non posse suaviter vivi 4 (1089 c) e'^ εφημερίδων άνα- 

λεγεσθαι . . . ποΰ θάσιον εττιον η ποίας εΐκάδος έδείπνησαν πολντελεσταΓα, and the will of EpicuruS 
in Diog. Laert. X. 1 8 την γενομενην σννοδον εκάστου μηνός ταΐς εΐκάσι των σνμφιΚοσοφονντων ημίν. 

6. At γλυκέα begins the citation in Athenaeus ii, p. 39 e (= Bacch. Fr. 20). 

7. σενομενάν was Blass's Correction of the MSS. reading σευομενα or γενόμενα. The 
first ι of θαΚπη\ισι has apparently been deleted by a dot placed above it. θά\πησι also MSS. 
Jebb reads θάλπτ]σι with Weir Smyth. 

8. T* ελπ[ίί (ρϊ^αιθνσστ]: ίΚπΧς δ' αίθνσσει (δ' ενθ. Ε) MSS., δ' ελπϊς διαιθνσσει Erfurdt, δ' ελπ. 

διαιθνσση Blass. The τ of the papyrus impUes a subjunctive, but there is not room for 
διαιθνσσηι in the lacuna. Possibly αιβνσσηι was written (the loss of St would be easy before m), 
though this too makes a rather long supplement even when the three iotas and the ρ are 
allowed for. 

9-10. a μειγννμεν\α . . . άνδράσιν : άναμιγννμενα . . . άνδράσι δ' MSS., άμμειγνυμενα editOrS. 

The reading of the papyrus is probably correct. 

II. αντίκα μεν: Kaibel's conjecture for the MSS. reading αίτή μεν or αντας μεν is confirmed; 

αντίχ 6 μεν Bergk, ενκτιμενάν BlaSS. 

κράδεΎνα \[νει : the INISS. have the unmetrical κρηδεμνον, which has been corrected by 
editors. Blass alters \νει to λΰσειν on the ground that the lengthening of the υ would 
not accord with the practice of Bacchylides or Pindar, but the traditional reading is 
defended by Jebb. 

13-14. μαρμ'\αίρ\ονσιν . . . αιγ\άεντ'\α πό\ντον : the letters ]atp[ and ]a πο[ are on a detached 
fragment which is placed here with hesitation, since the appearance of the verso is somewhat 
dissimilar from the adjacent portion of Fr. i. The combination is the more precarious 
because πόντον is a conjecture (Erfurdt), though a very probable one ; αΙγΧηεντα νηες MSS., 
a spondee being lost. Bergk inserted καρπήν after αίγλάεντα, and this was adopted by Blass, 
who, however, placed it after νάες, mistakenly, as the papyrus now shows. 

17. The accent and breathing above the supposed ω are doubtful. 

18. This line should begin with a dactyl, for Λvhich the space before ονπ seems 
barely sufficient. Possibly there was a wrong division of 11. 17-18, or some other 


23. The tops of the letters only remain ; the first, third, and fourth were round, but 
are not to be clearly identified. 

Frs. 2-3. The strong similarity of the verso of these two fragments to that of Fr. i 
makes it probable that they belong to the same column. In Fr. 3, moreover, there is at 
the right-hand edge some suggestion of a sells, and if this roughly corresponded with the 
sells in the middle of Fr. i, the remains of Fr. 3 would fit in with the metrical scheme, on 
the supposition that 1. 4 (the last of the column) was the first verse of the stanza. But 
Fr. 3. 2 does not lend itself to combination with Fr. i. 23. 

Fr. 3. 2-3. There is much resemblance here to Bacch. Fr. 34 6pya\ μεν ανθρώπων 
8ιακ(κριμ€ναι μνρΊαι, but though op[ is quite possible in 1. 2, and the doubtful σ at the end of 
1. 3 may be e, the preceding letter was apparently not κ. Of course if Bacch. Fr. 34 were 
to be identified here, Fr, 3 would belong, if not to a different column from Fr. i, at 
any rate to a different poem. A small dot over the final ν of ανθρώπων is probably 

Fr. 4. i-io. ' For Hiero of Syracuse. 

' Let me not yet lay aside the clear-sounding lyre ; I am now about to fashion a fair 
flower of the gold-robed Muses for Hiero, renowned for his chestnut steeds, with those 
who share his banquet, and to send it to well-builded Aetna. If in former time I have sung 
of Pherenicus, famed among steeds for his swiftness of foot, and of his victory by the 
Alpheus . . .' 

2. Line 14 shows that this verse was a trimeter, but whether the last μ^τρον was - ^ — 
or - *-» - is not clear. 

3. For κΚντω cf. e.g. Pindar, Pyth. i. 37 στεφάνοισί viv ΐηποις re κλντάν. 

8-1 0. If [Άλφ«]ω (Murray) is right, the reference is to Ode v, which celebrated 
Hiero's victory with Pherenicus at Olympia in 476 b. c. For the supplement suggested 

for the end of 1. 8 cf. 11. 182-4 of that poem ΐνθ' δ KKeewos ποσσί νικάσας ^ρόμω [ηλθ]Εν 

ΙΙ-Ι2. Murray suggests [πλ7;]ρ[€' €ρ(π]τόμΐνος[Μονσαν (πάΚ]ί ανθ( , but ανθέ doeS not SUit 

the remains in 1. 12. τομΐνος may of course be τ6 μένος. In 1. 11 a vestige of ink at one 
letter's distance from ρ may be either the top of a φ or ψ, or of some interlinear mark, e. g. 
a breathing. 

13 sqq. It seems clear that these verses do not form an epode but follow the metre 
of the strophe. What remains of 11. 13-15 fits readily into the previous scheme, and the 
shortness of the next two lines also accords with it. 

1 5. "jfios : or possibly ]μο[ψ . 

Fr. 5. I. καμ[: or καν[. 

2. Perhaps Ποσεώο^νίας ; cf. 1. 16. 

4. The first letter, of which the lower half only remains, may be y, t, p, or τ. 

7. γ, ι, μ, ρ, τ, ν would be possible after πα. Perhaps narplos should be restored ; 
cf. 1. 6. 

8. The vestige following σ in the second line of the marginal note may either belong 
to a letter, e.g. r, or be a stop; cf. e. g. Fr. 21. 5. 

12-13. άλλα after the stop is doubtless the conjunction, and the second accent shows 
that an enclitic followed ; r[oi or v[tv, e. g., would be suitable. In 1. 13 the deleted ν points 
to the termination of a verb, preceded by something like is or ore. κρατερά is presumably 
to be constructed with αναγκαί in spite of the absence of the iota adscript. In the marginal 
variant the infinitive τ€κ]ΰν (?) was apparently made to depend on the phrase xpovos εμολε, or 



\vhatever the verb was. The grammarian to whom this reading is ascribed may well be 
Ptolemaeus of Ascalon or Ptolemaeus Pindarion, more probably the latter, if his second 
name may be taken to indicate an interest in the lyric poets. It may be doubted whether 
the son of Aristonicus flourished early enough to be quoted here. 

24. κ\α^\ισφΰραν IS presumably a variant for some similar epithet, e.g. τανίσφνρον, 
which occurred in the lacuna. The word is normally of two terminations. 

ii. 2. For the marginal cross here and below cf. e. g. 841 passim. In 1174 this 
symbol, which is used much hke our N.B., is sometimes surmounted by a small iota. 

Pr, 6. There is a close resemblance in appearance between this fragment and the 
upper part of Fr. 5. i ; but we have not succeeded in finding a suitable combination. 

Fr. 7. 3. Either ^[e]\wo[ or -/χ[ο]λπο[. 

Fr. 8. This fragment, though in some ways similar to Fr. 7, is apparently not to be 
joined on at the bottom of it. There is a junction of two selides on the right-hand side. 

Fr. 9. 3. θΐθ7Γο[μπ: cf. Bacch. xvi. 132. The fragment is rather like Frs. 7-8, but 
a combination of this line with Fr. 7. 6 θ€Οπο[μ7Γ]ον t)as little probability. 

Fr. 10. 3. ] πόσιν : the first letter may be read as η or μ, but these are more difficult. 

Fr. 11. A junction of two selides passes through the ν of μαινόλκ. 

Fr. 12. 4. Cf. Eurip. A/c. 570 evXvpas Άττόλλω»/. A dot in the ο of φοι gives that 
letter rather the appearance of Θ, but the mark, if ink, is with little doubt an accident. 

Fr. 13. 2. The vestige after δειλωι might be regarded as a low stop. 

Fr. 14. There is a junction of two selides at the right-hand edge of this fragment ; 
possibly, therefore, it belonged to the same column as Fr. 8. It is similarly rather worn, 
but of a lighter colour. 

Fr. 18. I. There is an ink-spot below the doubtful a. 

3. That the mark above the partially preserved ω represents a rough breathing is 

Fr. 19. 7. An ink-spot over the α does not look like part of a circumflex or mark of 
quantity, and was probably accidental. 

Fr. 21. A junction of selides occurs to the right of this piece, which, however, differs in 
appearance from Frs. 8 and 14. 

Fr. 22. 5. The mark of elision is doubtfully identified. 

Fr. 24. 3. υ and t being both narrow letters, \([νκί]ππο5 does not overcrowd the lacuna. 

Fr. 25. 5. Whether two thick ink-marks, which occur in the margin at the point of 
fracture jast below this line, had any meaning is uncertain. 

Fr. 26. 3. οινω[ is in keeping with the class of poems represented in these fragments ; 
cf. introd. 

Fr. 27. I. Or ] . epel 7re[. But the accent is uncertain. 


Fr. 29. Two selides meet just in front of this column, which must therefore be different 
from Fr. 5. ii, Fr. 25, and Fr. 33. 

Fr. 33. 2. There is a mark of ink on the edge of the papyrus in front of this line. 

Ft. 39. A reddish stain on this fragment makes it look rather similar to the top 
of Fr. 4, but it does not seem to belong there, although \]k{ might be read in 1. i. 

Fr. 42. 2. That this line was the last of a column seems probable, but is not certain. 

Fr. 44. I. The shape of the ο indicates which way up the fragment is to be turned. 

Fr. 45. I . A dot above the supposed ι of 1. 2 may be the vestige of a long letter, φ or 
^, preceding . 6[. 

Fr. 48. It is hardly certain that this fragment belongs to 1361. 

1362. CallimaCHUS, Aetia. 

Fr. I 24.4 X ι8•5 cm. First century. Plate IV 

(Fr. I. Col. i). 

Callimachus, who for a long time was poorly represented in the papyri, 
has during the last few years been obtaining the position which he might reason- 
ably be expected to occupy. The publication of the important Oxyrhynchus 
fragments of the Aetia and Iambi (1011) was followed by that of pieces of 
various poems from a papyrus book of which remains were identified both 
at Berlin (Wilamowitz, Sitzimgsber. Prenss. Akad., phil.-hist. Kl., 1912, pp. 524 
sqq., 19 14, pp. 233 sqq.) and Florence (P. S. I. 133), and of a scrap from the first 
book of the Aetia in P. Ry lands 13 (cf. Wilamowitz, Hermes, xlvi. 3). To these are 
now to be added the further fragments of the Aetia and Iambi contained in 1362 
and 1363. The former consists of remains of two columns, the first of which is 
nearly complete, with some minor pieces which are with one exception likely to 
belong to the mutilated second column. They are written in a round, rather 
ornate uncial hand of medium size, attributable to the first century. Though no 
doubt of earlier date, this script has much in common with e. g. 1375 and the 
Bodleian Homer from Hawara ; among the differentiating features are the 
shapes of e, Θ, μ and the ' Ptolemaic ' ξ, for which cf. e. g. 1361. Stops (in two 
positions, high and medial), some accents, breathings, &c., have been supplied 
subsequently, as is clear from the different shade of the ink ; they may perhaps 
be due to the corrector who has made slight alterations here and there in the text. 

The authorship of the piece, which in any case would not have been 
difficult to guess, is at once established by several coincidences with extant 
fragments of Callimachus. Its subject is a conversation with a man named 
Theogenes from the island of Icus, who is questioned by the poet concerning the 

G a 


association of Peleus with Icus and the ceremonies with which it was celebrated. 
This conversation took place at a banquet given, as we are told by Athenaeus 
(xi. 477 c ; cf. note on 1, 8), by Pollis, an Athenian. Critics have objected 
to the statement of Athenaeus that Pollis is not an Athenian name, and Meineke 
proposed to emend Άθηναίω to Θηβαίω, and to infer that Thebes was among the 
Greek cities visited by Callimachus (op. Schneider, Callim. ii, p. 378). But 
it is now clear that the scene was Egypt, not Greece (1. 6) ; and the Athenian 

Fr. I. Col. i. Plate IV. 


5 €σδα,ιττ}γ€καλ€σσξνομηθίασ'€νδ€νντοισι 




Ι ο ωσθζοσονψ€υδησ€στοΐΌμοιοναγ€ΐ• 

Kaiyapo6 ρηικιην μ^ναττίστυγ^γανδονάμυστίν 



15 ημαΧ^ποστόδαΧηθ^σοτουμονονϋδατοσαισαν 



ονδίμιν^ισατί• . . .] . οφρυασοινογοων 

2ο βαλΧωμβνχ^αλζπωιφαρμακονβρτΓοματι 


θύνγ€ν€σ'οσ[.] . €μ€ΐοσ[^\θ€νπάραθυμοσακουσαι 

^€^ΐ)(^άιι/€ΐταδ€μοιλ[.]ξον[ ]ωι• 

μνρμίδονωνξσσηνατ[ ]μμισ€β€σθαι 

7Γηλξα'κωσ]^ζ^ικω^ξνν[ ]κα• 


origin of Pollis is no less evident from 11. 1-4, the point of which is that, though 
living in a foreign country, he took care to observe the Athenian festivals. 

The obvious aetiological drift of 11. 21 sqq. leaves no doubt that the poem is 
the Aetia, though the precise book is uncertain. Schneider supposed that 
Fr. 372, containing the reference to Peleus, occurred in Book i, and if that book 
treated of various festivals, it would be an appropriate source for a discussion of 
the peculiar ritual of Icus. But this attribution seems for the present quite 
conjectural ; and the question in any case is of no great importance. 

In the decipherment of this text material assistance has been rendered 
by Mr. E. Lobel. 

Fr. I. Col. i. Plate IV. 

ηω^ ovSe πιθοιγίς kXavOavev ούδ' οτ€ SovXols 

ημαρ 'OpeaTeioi Xcvkou άγονσι χόε?, 
Ίκαρίου και παιδος άγων knirGiov άγιστυν, 

Άτθίσιν οίκτίστη, σον φάος, Ήριγόνη, 
5 h δαίτην ίκάλ^σσ^ν δμηθβα^, kv δβ νυ τοΐσι 

^ζϊνον OS A\i\yvTrT(u Kaivos άνζστρίψξτο 
μζμβλωκώς ΐδιόν τι κατά )(ρ€ος• ην δ\ γξνίθλην 

"Ικιο^, ω ^ννην ζίχον eyo) κλισίην 
ουκ kπιτάξ, αλλ' ouvos 'Ομηρικός, aikv ομοιον 
ΙΟ ώί 6e6s, ου ψευδής, ey τον ομοιον άγ€ΐ. 

και γαρ 6 Θρηικίην μ\ν άπίστυγξ χ^ανδον άμνστιν 

οίνοποτ€Ϊν, όλίγφ δ' ηδζτο κισσνβίω. 
τω μ\ν kγω τάδ' eXc^a π^ριστ^ίγοντος άλξίσου 

το τρίτον, eyr' kδάηv οϋνομα και γ^νςήν, 
15 ^Η μάλ' enos τόδ* άληθξς δτ ου μόνον ύδατος αισαν 

αλλ' €Γί και λύσχης oivos ^χ^ιν βθίλξΐ' 
την ημζΐς, ουκ kv γ[α]ρ άρυστήρ^σσι φορξΐται 

ούδί μιν €is άτ[. . . .] . όφρύας οίνοχ^όων 
αίτήσ€ΐ9 όρόω[ν] οτ kλζύθ€pos άτμίνα σαινζΐ, 
2θ βάλλωμζν χαλεττω φάρμακον kv πόματι, 

©eiiyerey, οσσ[α] δ' e/ieto σ[β]θ€ν πάρα θυμο9 άκοϋσαι 

ίγαίνίΐ, τάδζ μοι λ[€]ξον [άν€ΐρομζν]ω• 
Μυρμιδόνων kaariva τ\ί πάτριον ΰ\μμι σίβ^σθαι 

Πηλύα^ κώί "Ικω ξυν[ ]κα, 


25 T€vBiveKivyrir€LovL\. .]υτ[. . . .]ρτον€χουσα 

Col. ii. 

30 οναταμνθζίσθαιβο . [ 
τ[. . .]€μζθ€νλ€ξαντο[ 
τ[. . .]μακαρηπανρωνο[ 

[ ]λιησ€ΐνηϊν€[ 

[ ]θυίησμα[ 

Fr. 2. 


. €t/r[ 

] . Ιπα . [ 


Fr. 4• 

5 καιμιναπο\ 

Fr. 5. 
] Τ€ίχίσαΐ'[ 

25 τ^ϋ δ' €V€K€j/ γήτ€ΐον ίδ[. .]υτ[. . . α]ρτον ίγουσα 

Col. η. 

ηρώο? κα[θ]δ8ου 7Γα[ΐ? 
ξίδ6τ€9 d>9 €ν€ΤΓον[σι 

ΚΗνην ή 7Γ€ρι σην [ 
οϋθ' ίτίρην ίγνωκα' τ[ 
3θ ονατα μνθΐΐσθαι βο . [ 
τ[αντ] ^μίθΐν Χ€^αντο[? 

τ[ρισ]μάκαρ, η ττανρων 6\λβί6? ίσσι μίτα, 
[ναυτι]λίη9 d νηιν €[χ€ί9 βίον αλλ' kμo? αιών 

[κύμασιν αΐψυίη? μά\\\ον ίσωκίσατο. 


Fr. 2. 

Fr. 3. 

] • ^^Λ 

]/>yep . [ 

5 ] . Ρ€σσ[ 
\. ιπα .[ 



]ακα KiL^ev 

Fr. 4• 


καΐ δι[ 


5 και μιν άπο[ 
ανλιον όθν[€ΐ 


€]τ€ίχισαν [ 
]τ€ρω γο[ 
]λοο9 κακ[ 
] Κ€ ληθ[ 


Pr. 1. 1-26. ' . . . Nor did the morning of the opening of the wine-casks escape him, nor 
that when the Jar-feast of Orestes brings the lucky day for slaves ; and celebrating the yearly 
rite of the daughter of Icarius — thy day, Erigone, who to Athenian women broughtest such 
woe — he bade kindred spirits to a banquet, and among them a stranger who was a recent 
dweller in Egypt, having come on some private business. He was by birth an Ician, and 
I shared his couch, not by design, but the Homeric proverb says truly that the god ever 
brings like to like ; for he was loath to drain off Thracian bumpers of wine, but took 
pleasure in a modest cup. To him, as the goblet was going round for the third time, when 
I had learnt his name and race, I said, "It is in sooth a true saying that wine wants to be 
mixed not with water alone, but also with converse. This is not carried round in ladles, 
nor will you ask for it regarding the proud looks of the cup-bearers, when the freeman 
fawns upon the servant ; so let us put it ourselves as a salve into the unsoftened draught, 
Theogenes, and tell me when I ask you all that my heart is eager to learn from you, why is 
it your country's custom to revere Peleus king of the Myrmidons, how does . . . Icus, and 
why does a girl with a leek and a . . . loaf (commemorate) the hero's coming ? " ' 

1-2. The object of ΐλάνθανεν is Pollis ; cf. Athen. xi, p. 477 c quoted in the note on 
1. 8. πιθοιγίε apparently occurs only here. The epithet OpeWftot alludes to the well-known 
legend which connected the institution of the Xoe? with the reception of Orestes at Athens 
by Pandion ; cf. e. g. Suidas, s. v. Xofs•. Though this day like the other days of the 
Anthesteria was apparently a dies nefastus (cf. Photius, s. v. μυαρα ημίρα), for slaves it was 
ημαρ XevKov sincc it was their privilege to participate in the celebrations ; cf. Schol. Hesiod, 

Op. 368 ioprfj Ώ.ιθοί•για, καβ" ην ovre οΐκίτην ovre μισθωτον e'ipyeiv rrjs αττολαυσεω? τον οίνου βΐμιτον 
ην, άΧΚα θίισανταί ττασι μ^ταΒώόναι του δώρου τον Αιονυσον. 

3-4• The eViVetos άγιστύί (the substantive only here; cf. P. Rylands 13. 12 πλαγκτυν) in 
honour of Erigone, daughter of Icarius, was the Αιώρα, at which a song called άΚητις was 
sung. This propitiatory festival is said (Hyg. Asir. ii. 4) to have been instituted as a means 
of averting an epidemic of suicide among the women of Athens (cf. ^Ατθίσιν οίκτίστη), which 
followed the death of Erigone. It Avas an offshoot of the cult of Dionysus, but is not 
known to have been connected with the Anthesteria, nor need any such connexion be 
implied by the present passage. 

8. "Iklos here and "ΐκω in 1. 24 were recognized by Wilamowitz, whose restoration of 

Ίκω for Κω in Schol. Pindar, Pyfh. iii. 167 ό Ι1η\(ύς ev Κώ τη νήσω . . . άπίθανιν, ώί Καλλίμαχο? 

Ίστορίΐ (Hermes, xliv, p. 475) receives a further confirmation ; cf. Schol. Eurip. Tr. 11 28 /cat 

TTpoaeKOeiv (sc. τον Τ1η\ία\ 8ia χ^αμώνα τη ("ΐ^κω τη νήσω καΙ ζΐνισθίντα νπο Μόλωί/ό? τινοί'Άβαντος 

€κύ καταλϋσαι τον βίον. The correct reading had been preserved by the metre in the 
epigram of Antipater, An/L Pal. vii. 2 κβυ^α mi θίτώος -γαμΐτην η βραχΰβωλος "Ikos, where 
the shortening of the initial vowel, notwithstanding the scansion of Callimachus, is 
remarkable. There remains one more passage in which we would suggest that the name 
of Icus in this connexion has been corrupted, namely Athen. xi, p. 477 c, where 11. 11-14 

are cited (:= Callim. Fr. 109): ΚάΧΧίμαχος . . . λίγων eVl τοΰ οίκΐίου ζίνου τον πάρα τω Αθηναίω 

πόλλιδι συν€στιασθίντος αντω' Και yap δ θρηικίην κτλ. οικείου here seems meaningless, and 
Meineke, op. Schneider, Callim. ii, p. 378 had already proposed Keiou. In view of the 
proximity of ξάνον and "iKtor in 11. 6 and 8, it can hardly be doubted that ΊκΊον ξίνον is the 
true reading. 

9-10. eVtrol has here the meaning assigned to it by Helladius, Chrest. (Phot. Bibl. 

P• 53 2• 3^ ^> Bekker) το ΐπιταξ πάρα Καλλιμάχω και Άράτω Keipevov ... ο κατ ΐπίταγμα καΐ 

κίλευσιν πράττΐται. Perhaps this is the sense also in 1011. 239, if κ^π]ιτά^ there is rightly 

supplied. The αίνος 'Ομηρικό: is from ρ 2l8 ως alfi τον όμοΊον ayei θΐος ώς τον όμοΊον. 

Callimachus' text apparently had the usual as aUi {aUi τοι Plato, Lyst's. 214 A, Aristot. 
1208 b 10), but er τον όμοϊον, a variant found in many MSS. 


Why the second hand rewrote the ο of ov is not evident. A slight trace of ink (?) in 
the centre suggests that the original letter had some appearance of a 5 ; possibly θ ox e had 
been actually written and then amended not quite successfully. 

11-14. και yap . . . το τρίτον = Callim. Fr. 109 from Athen. xi, p. 477 c, 11. 11-12 
being also found in x, p. 442 f. The reading in the second of these passages coincides 
with that of the papyrus, whereas in the former άπψατο (1. άνψατο) and ζωροποτίΐν are found 
in place of απεσηιγί and οίνοτιοτΐΐν, and so too in Macrob. Sat. v. 21. Schneider, following 
Bentley, preferred άπί'στυγε but not οίνοποτύν ; the early testimony of the papyrus should now 
turn the scale in favour of the latter reading. 

15-16. These two verses are quoted anonymously by Athen. i, p. 32 b along with one 
of Simonides, and the three hues appear together as Simonides Fr. 88 in Bergk's Poel. Lyr. 
The MSS. of Athenaeus have yip for /χάλ', άλλα τι for αλλ' ίτι, and, except L, \ΐνχΐ]ί for 
λέσχης. Kaibel adopted Porson's conjecture ην ap' for η yap and Bergk's χλεύης for λ^ύχης, 
neither of which is confirmed, λίσχηί was rightly restored by H. Stephanus {Anihol. p. 51 3) 
and read by Casaubon and Schweighauser. 

18-19. The restoration and sense of these two verses remains in doubt. In 1. 18 
οφρναί seems inevitable, and the accented e commends ov8e μιν, Λvhich, though the doubtful t 
might be e, is more likely than ούδ' ψίν. The following vowel may be either e or o; if ei'r 
is right, ατ . . . should be an epithet of either οφρνας or οΙνοχόων, preferably the former, 
since the exiguous traces of the letter after the lacuna suit s better than v. drei/el?, άτρεμάί, 
άτρομους, άτρόπονς might Serve, άτμίνα aalvei is more in accord with the tenor of the passage 
than άτμ^νας alvei, and the clause or . . . σαίνΐί is apparently a general description of the 
attitude of the guest on such occasions. It is hardly likely that an allusion is to be 
recognized to the license permitted to slaves at the Anthesteria (cf. note on 11. 1-2), with 
which, so far as is known, the Αιώρα, as remarked above, had nothing to do. The double 
accentuation of άτμίνα may have arisen from confusion with ατμενος. 

22. ιχαινει apparently = ΐχαΐ'α, a form found in Babrius 77. 2, Herondas 7. 25, 
Hesych., &c. ΙχαΊν^ιν is not otherwise attested, but is credible enough. For άναρομίνω cf. 
the Berlin fragment in Sitzungsber. Berl. Akad. 1914, p. 224 οσσα δ' άνεψομίνω φη[σ\(, τάδ* 


23. Μυρμώόνων εσσηνα = Callim. Fr. ζοΒ. The rough breathing apparently given to 
εσσηνα in the papyrus may reflect a supposed connexion with eV/xos ; cf. Etym. Magn. 383. 
30 €σσην . . . άπυ μεταφοράς του μίλισσων βασιλέως '. derivations from ΐσσαι and ησσάν are also 
there suggested. 

24. Πί^λί'α . . ."Ικω; cf. Callim. Fr. 372 and note on 1. 8 above. At the end of the 
verse ]κα may be either an ace. sing, of some noun in -ξ or a neut. plur. ξυν[α. τα θεσσαλψά, 
which Lobel suggests, would give a suitable sense. For κως cf. 1011. 4, 18 κοτε. 

25-6. A leek and a loaf were apparently the accompaniments of some ritual act 
performed by a girl. For the former cf. e. g. the use of πράσα at the archaic feast of the 
Dioscuri at Athens (Athen. iv, p. 137 e) and of yηθυλ\ί8eς at the Theoxenia at Delphi 
(id. ix, p. 372 a). [. .]υτ[. . . is presumably an epithet οι α]ρτον; there must have been at 
least two letters between ώ and υ, so that ejur ... is excluded unless the e of I8e was 
unelided, which is not at all likely. πα[ in 1. 26 suggests 7ra[tf or πα[ρθ€νος. 

30. βο is followed by remains of a perpendicular stroke. 

32-4 = Callim. Fr. iii. 2-4, which are now proved to have no connexion with the 
verse evff άνεμων μeyά\ωv κύμα SiaXiryiov associated with them by editors against the indications 
in Stobaeus. Schneider's conjectural reconstruction of the context, as might be expected, 
also turns out to be wrong. On the other hand the first words of 1. 33, which are given in 
the MSS. as ναυτιλίησιν ψ, had been successfully emended, Bentley's νψν and Nauck's el (o? 
Bentley) being now confirmed. 


Frs. 2-4. These may be assigned with probability to the second column of Fr. i, 
Fr. 4 being from the bottom of it. Fr. 5, which is of a lighter colour than the rest, is from 
the top of a different column. 

Ft. 4. 4. δ€ί€λο[: this line possibly = Callim. Fr. 190 δίύλοι; αΐτίζουσιν, αγουσι δε 
\€ipas απ epyov. 

5. απ•ο[ : or απε[. 

6. αϋλιον is probably the substantive, as the paroxytone accent will then be intelligible, 
though abnormal. 

1363. Callimachus, Iambi. 

10-3 X 2•6 cm. Second or early third 

century. Plate VI. 

The identification of this fragment is assured by the occurrence in 11. 5-7 of 
Callimachus Fr. 86, where an acute emendation of Bentley receives confirmation. 
Unfortunately both beginnings and ends of lines are missing throughout, and the 
loss is too serious for a satisfactory restoration. It seems fairly clear, however, 
that Schneider's suggestion that the persons addressed in Fr. 85 were αθξοι 
in general {Callim. i, p. 252) was wide of the mark, for the context here deals with 
poetry and literary matters. The poet is apparently apostrophizing various 
classes of writers. There is a close similarity between this piece and Fol. 6 
of 1011, and they may well be parts of the same poem. 

This text is on the verso of a narrow strip which on the recto has the 
beginnings of a dozen lines of, apparently, some official list drawn up towards the 
end of the second century. The writing on the verso is a small informal uncial 
which does not seem to be appreciably later in date ; it may fall within the 
second century or belong to the beginning of the third. Stops, which are in the 
high position, accents, and breathings are with little doubt due to a second hand, 
and the mark of elision in 1. 3 should perhaps be classed with these ; the diaeresis 
in 1. 5, on the contrary, is most probably original. 

[. . . . a]i'5/06S' 01 νυν [ 
[. . . . κα}^Ύ\υ\Ύ\σ& οι μ([ 

[ ]τ€ Μουσ€ων κα[ί 

[ey το πρ]ο rii^evs ϊρον [aXeey Sevre 

[ου τον] πάλαι ΙΙάγχ^αιο[ν ο ττλασαί Ζανα 

[ye/jooi'] ΧαΚαζων άδι[κα βιβλία ψηχ^ι (?) 


[ ]i yap €UTOS ov[ 

[ ]άγϊ/ ris' η 7Γθλ[ 

ΙΟ [ jira βωμοί τ[ 

[ ]αι προ? Αίδην [ 

[. . . . αι/]δρ€? οκόσοι βο[ 
[. . τραγ]ωδοί μούσα τ[ 

[ φ^θονο? TLS €μ[ 

15 [ ] δζ και τον oy χ[ 

[ "[ν ΐταιρην ατ[ 

[ ΐ\αμβον οστι\^ 

[ ] . ώί τίί του? ν[ 

[ ]άμ€τρα tols [ 

20 [ ]ν οστί? τηι [ 

[ π]ολλοι;5• €v[ 

[ a]v8pes' ως [ 

[ ] €Κ γης ηλπ[ισ 

[ ]μ4νουσιΐ'[ 

25 [ ]ΐΙ'^'^ν^ "^^Ι 

[ ]ως μητο[ 

[ ] και γρ[ 

[ «]^αρ4 

[ ] • /^«4 

3ο [ m . [ 

5-7 = Callim. Fr. 86. In 1. 5 iepov is the MSS. reading, which had been corrected by 
Meineke. The rough breathing on aXee? is doubtfully identified ; a smooth one would be 
equally possible. In 1. 6 Παγχαΐον (so normally accented) was Bentley's correction of the 
traditional χάλκΕον. The remains of the first letter of 1. 7 are inconsistent with v, and 
λαΚαζων was apparently written, though the grave accent on the α implies άλαζών, the 
ordinary reading, which there is no reason to doubt. Since a new sentence begins at 1. 8, 
a finite verb seems to be required after βιβλία, and ψήχων which Schneider adopts from 
Sextus Empiricus is unlikely to be right. Other .sources give ^/^χίι or ψϋχί, of which the 
former was defended by Reiske ; ψηχει Bentley, ψηχ^ Diibner, $iei Toup. 

10. lira: or ]aira, ]λιτα, &C. 

11. Jai: or v. i_ 1 • • • 
13. It is rather tempting to identify this line with Callim. Fr. 98 c, which is given in 

Schol. Saibant. on Hephaest. p. 36, Gaisf. ii in the form ητκ τραγω86ς μοίσα ληκνθίζουσα. 

Unfortunately the letter after μούσα is uncertain. A vestige of the top of it suggests a r, 


and λ, though perhaps not impossible, is unsatisfactory, since some of the lower part should 
be visible. It would therefore be rash, in spite of the similarity to Fr. 98 c, to assume that 
the first part of the line as given by Schol. Saibant. is corrupt. 

19. [τά πΐντ\άμΐτρα is likely on the analogy of 1011. 313, 366. 

25. ]ei, ^11, or ]λι are also possible before σ. 

29. The supposed mark of length may be a rough breathing. 

1364. AnTIPHON SOPHISTES, Ilepl Άληθΐίαί i. 

Fr. I 22-3x38 cm. Early third century. Plate V 

(Fr. I. Cols, v-vii). 

The follovi^ing fragments are written in a good-sized, sloping hand strongly 
resembling that of 7 (Sappho ; Part I, Plate ii), and dating probably from the 
opening decades of the third century. As in 463, an analogous though perhaps 
rather earlier specimen of the same type, the columns are narrow and somewhat 
short, the written surface measuring approximately 17 by 4^-5 cm. ; in 463 they 
were about 16x5 cm. It is noticeable that the ξ is formed by three distinct 
strokes, the comma-shaped middle stroke as a rule not touching either of the two 
horizontal ones. At the ends of lines the size of the letters was sometimes con- 
siderably diminished, but the scribe was nevertheless not very successful in 
maintaining a uniform length ; the common angular sign is used as a supplement 
here and there. Some alterations have been introduced into the text by a 
corrector to whom are likely to be due the occasional accents, breathings, 
and marks of elision and quantity (e.g. 1. 113). Perhaps he was also responsible 
for the punctuation, for which high and medial dots were usually employed ; of 
the low dot only one instance occurs (1. 289). In any case, however, these 
additions may be regarded as practically contemporary. 

The authorship of the fragment is fortunately established by the coincidence, 
pointed out to us by Wilamowitz, of 11. 18-20 with a citation in Harpocration 
from the treatise of Antiphon ' On Truth ' (Diels, Vorsokratiker, ii, p. 298, 
Fr. 44). This is the sophist Antiphon, to be distinguished from his more famous 
contemporary, the orator Antiphon of Rhamnus. There was much confusion 
between the two, and their identity and the attribution of their writings early 
gave rise to discussion ; cf. Hermog., De ideis, ii. 11. 7. Concerning the sophist 
few facts are known (see H. Sauppe in Ausgew. Schriften, 508 sqq., Blass, 
Att. Bereds. i. 108 sqq., Zeller, Gr. Phil. i. 1070, Gomperz, Gr. Denker, i, 
pp. 434 sqq., Engl. ed.). Suidas describes him as ^ΜηναΙοί τ^ρατοσκόττοί και 
iTTOTToids καΐ σοφιστής' e/caXetro he Αογομάγξψος, and attributes to him a work Uepl 
κρίσ€ως ονάρων. Arguments between him and Socrates are reported by Xenophon, 
Mem. i. 6, and * Αντιφών δ τξρατοσκόττοζ is mentioned as one of Socrates' opponents 


by Aristotle {ap. Diog. Laert. ii. 46). Besides the treatises ' On Truth ' and * On 
the Interpretation of Dreams ', Antiphon is commonly credited with a work riept 
ομονοίας, which is praised by Philostratus ( ViL Sophist, i. 15) and quoted at some 
length by Stobaeus, and more doubtfully with another called Πολιτικό'?, of which 
a few words and phrases are preserved. The Ilepi άληθζία5 was in two books, and 
the surviving remains go to show that the first of them dealt with metaphysics, 
the second with physics. Blass, however {L)e Antiphonte Sophista lamblichi 
auctore^ p. la), had already argued from certain fragments cited from Book i 
(e. g. a, 14, 17) that, besides metaphysical problems, questions of human conduct 
were discussed in it. This judgement finds its justification in the present 
papyrus, which proves that the ethical and political speculations of Antiphon 
were not limited to the ITepi ομονοίας and the Πολιτικό?, but had some expres- 
sion also in the Hepi άληθίία^. That 1364 is from the first book of that 
treatise is not certain, though eminently probable in view of the analogous 
fragments to which attention was called by Blass ; it may be noted too that 
φΰσΐ9 and νόμοί, so prominent in 1364, are opposed in a fragment from Book i 
(Ant. Fr. 15), though the contrast there is of a different kind. Since the 400th 
στίχοί is marked in 1. 188, the section here recovered occurred in the earlier part 
of the book. 

The papyrus consists of two main fragments with some small pieces, 
the place of which we have not been able to find. In Fr. i, which contains 
six consecutive columns nearly complete and the beginnings of lines of a seventh, 
the subject throughout is the antithesis between law and nature. After defining 
justice as the observance of law, the writer proceeds to maintain that it is 
advantageous to disregard the law and follow nature when this can be done 
without detection. The laws of man may be broken with impunity, but not 
the laws of nature, and they are often in antagonism. Laws are a restraint 
on nature, and in so far are irksome and painful, i. e. harmful. Obedience 
to specific laws may also involve a positive loss of pleasure or increase of 
pain. Nor do the laws sufficiently counterbalance these defects by the advan- 
tages attaching to obedience. The position of Fr. 2 relatively to Fr. 1 is 
unknown, but at least one column intervened between them if Fr. 2, followed 
Fr. I, and apparently a gap must also be postulated if the order is reversed. 
This fragment contains the ends of some lines of one column and the greater 
part of a second. The subject is still φυσι?, but in a rather different aspect. 
Antiphon is here maintaining the unnaturalness of distinctions of class and 
race. Men are all alike in their physical functions and requirements ; the 
barbarian is not differentiated by nature from the Hellene. 

This opposition between φΰσι? and νόμο$, fundamental in the later sophistic 


ethics, was, of course, not new. The antithesis is said to have been formulated 
by Archelaus, the pupil of Anaxagoras and teacher of Socrates (Diog. Laert. ii. 
4 eXeye . . . καΧ το bUaiov και το αίσχρόν ου φύ(Τ€ΐ άλλα νόμω). Hippias ίπ Xen. 
Mem. iv. 4-^4 emphasizes the diversity of laws in different localities, and Plato 
puts into his mouth language analogous to that of Antiphon in 11. 59-63 below 
(Prof. 337 c ό δ€ νόμο9, TVpavvos ων των άνθρώττων, ττολλα τταρά την φύσιν βιάζζταί). 
Similarly Protagoras in the Theaetehis (167 c) is made to remark on the conven- 
tionality and instability of right. Plato's views as to the ill effects of the 
doctrine may be read in Laws 889 d-e. But no such elaborate exposition of it 
as that here recovered has survived from the age of the older sophists. Remark- 
able too are the practical applications which Antiphon was apparently prepared 
to make of his theory. Gomperz has observed in connexion with this very 
philosopher that ' it was a sheer impossibility for the sophists ... to promulgate 
anti-social doctrines' {Gr. Denker, i, p. 436, Engl. ed.). Teaching which 
explicitly justified furtive breaches of the law (11. 12-23, 3'^~43)> and treated 
obedience as merely a question of personal expediency (11. ^6 sqq.), cannot, 
to say the least, be regarded as pro-social. In his insistance on the artificiality 
of distinctions of birth Antiphon appears in a more favourable light. Here too 
the papyrus is likely to provide a locus classicus. Similar ideas are expressed 
e.g. by Euripides (Fr. 168 ονόματι μέμτττον το νόθον, η φνσΐί δ' ϊση, Fr. ^^6 6 μ\ν 
γαρ €σθλοζ €νγ€νψ, Ιοη 854-6), but it would not be easy to find a more striking 
anticipation of the cosmopolitan ideal of the Cynics than that contained in 
Fr. 2. The judgement of E. Jacoby, De Ant. Soph. WipX ομονοίας, 1908, p. 29, 
that Antiphon a Cynicoruin grege rerum nattirae veritateni imitantium vehementer 
abhorreat turns out to be singularly wide of the mark. 

By its revelation of the views professed by Antiphon on the subject of 
nature and law 1364 gives the coup de grace to Blass's theory {De Antiphonte 
Sophista lamblichiauctore) that certain passages in the Protrepticus of lamblichus, 
which he acutely recognized as taken from an old Attic writer, were derived 
from our sophist. This attribution was contested on stylistic grounds by 
K. Topfer {xxi. Jahresb. d. Gymn. in Ainmt, 1902) and E. Jacoby {op. cit), 
and rejected by Wilamowitz {Aristot. u. Atken, i. 174), but accepted without 
reserve by Gomperz {op. cit. i, pp. 435 sqq., 585). Unfortunately one of the 
arguments used by Blass was the absence in the remains of Antiphon of this 
very doctrine about law and nature of which he is now seen to have been 
so thorough-going an exponent. The author of the passages in the Protrepticus 
held very different opinions. It is clear that such sentences as ονκ ΙτιΧ ττλζον^ξίαν 
όρμαν 6et ουδέ το κράτος . . . ηγ^ΐσθαί άρζτην elvai, το δε των νόμων νττακονζίν beiXiav . . . 
φύσίΐ γαρ ισχυρά Ιζ/δεδεσθαι ταΰτα (sc. τον tc νόμον και το δίκαιοι») and η μ^ν ευνομία 


άριστον ίίη κοΧ Koivfj και ίδια, 77 ανομία 6e κάκιστον (Blass, Frs. Ε, F = Iambi, 
pp. 100, ΙΟΙ Pist.) can no longer be attributed to the sophist Antiphon. 

The estimate of the literary qualities of the Ilept αΚηθ^ία^ found in Hermo- 
genes, De ideis,u. 11. 17 is on the whole borne out by the new fragments; 
cf. the careful analysis of Antiphon's style by Jacoby, op. cit. pp. 48 sqq., based 
largely on the remnants of the Ilept ομονοίας. After remarking that Thucydides 
was τΓολλω κ€χωρισμ4νον (from Antiphon the orator) καΐ κ€κοινηκότα τω ei5et των της 
'AAr/^cias λόγων Hermogenes continues (c. 9) ό δ' eVepos ^Αντιφών, ουττξρ οι της 
Άληθξίαί €ΐσι λζγόμξνοι λόγοι, ττολιτικόζ μ€ν ηκιστά Ιση, σ€μνος δ6 καΐ ντι^ρογκοί τοΐί 
τ€ άλλοις καϊ τω bi άττοφάνσζων Trepaiveiv το τταν, ο δη τον αζιωματικοΰ τ€ λόγου Ιστι και 
TTpos μίγζθος δρώντος, νψηλος δβ τ^ λίζζΐ καΐ τραχύς^ ώστε μη ττόρρω σκληρότητος tivai. 
και ττ€ριβάλλζΐ bk χωρίς ζνκριν^ίας, bib καΧ σνγχύ τον λόγον κα\ €στιν ασαφής τα ττολλά. 
καΐ €τημ€λης be κατά την συνθηκην και ταΐς τταρισώσ^σι χαίρων, ου μην ηθονς ye τι ουδ' 
αληθινού τύττου μέτ^στι τω avbp'i, φα'ιην δ' αϊ; ως oib\ b€Lvότητoς ττλην της φαινόμενης 
μίν, ου μην ούσης ye ως αληθώς. One obvious detail in common with Thucy- 
dides is the spelling ξνν, which is consistently written in the papyrus. On the 
other hand ττ is found in 11. 151, 164 ; the previously extant fragments show σσ 
three times (Fr. 54 έλασσον, Fr, 61 εκττλησσοιντο, Fr. 76 ησσώμενον), ττ in Other 
places. An instance of an lonicism occurs in 1. 116 rjbovTa. The writer's tendency 
to poetical language may be seen in the metaphorical use of δeσJuos in 1. 104, and 
his tendency to poetical rhythm in the iambic trimeter in 11. 30-3 ; cf. note ad loc, 
A fondness for synonyms remarked in the extant fragments is further exemplified 
by 11. 266-7, 270-1. Parallelism and antithesis are prominent, and Hermogenes 
was clearly right in saying that Antiphon was ετιιμίλης κατά την συνθηκην καΐ 
ταΊς τταρισώσζσι χαίρων. The characteristic το δι' ατοφάνσεων Trepaiveiv is also much 
in evidence. Emphasis is sometimes gained by adding negative to affirmative 
clauses, as in 11. 161-2 ; and the not infrequent omission of the verb eiz^at helps to 
give a sententious effect. Hermogenes' imputations of obscurity and superficiality 
were probably not altogether ill-founded. The argument in 11. 84 sqq. seems 
rather lacking in lucidity. Still, for the most part the writer puts his points 
clearly and forcibly enough, and the ornate style is effective and not unpleasing. 
These fragments are a notable addition to the relics of early Attic prose, and are 
of real interest for the history of Greek literature as well as for that of Greek 

Fr. 1. 
Col. i. Col. ii. 

[ ]θον 6[€]uTa [Jolvx [0]]]» 

[ ]V> 35 ^μολογηθξ^'^ > > 






.] 8ίκα[ιοσ\υνη 

τΓα\ντα τη9 ττο 

λβω]? νόμιμα• 

ev] r]L αν ττολι 

ΙΟ \T€v]r]Tai tl9 μη 



\ρα)Τ αν ουν 
άνθρωπος μα 
λίστα [[^]]' ίαντωι 

15 ξυμφ[€]ροντωί 
8ίκαιοσννηί• et 
μ€τα μβν μαρ 
τυρών τ[ο]υ9 νο 
μονζ μξγα[λό]υ9 

20 αγοί• μόνον μζ 
VOS Se μαρτυ 
ρων τα της ψυ 
σβως' τα μ€ν γαρ 
των νομών 

25 [67Γί^]6τα• τα Be 
[της] φνσίως α> 
[ναγ]καια• και τα 
[μ(ν] των νο> 
\βω]ν ομόλογη 

3θ [^cj't]» ον φνν 
[τ €στί]ν' τα Se > 
[τη 9 φνσ]ξως φνν [ 
[τα ονχ] ομόλογη [ 

[Γταΐ] τα ονν νουι 


μα παραβαίνων 

^^ λ 

η αν αθηι Tovs 


4θ και αισχννης 
και ζημίας α > 
πηλλακται• μη 
λαθών 5* όν των - 
Se τηι φνσ€ΐ ξνμ 

45 φ^των ξ,αν re 
πάρα το SvvaTov 
βιαζηται- €αν 
τ€ παντας αν 

θρωπονς λ[^η'^θηί• 

5© ονδβν έλαττον 

το κακον[^ eav τ€ 

παντός ιδωσιν 

ovSev μζίζον 

ον γαρ δια δόζαν 


55 βλατ€ται• άλλα 
δι^αληθζίαν €στι 


δ€ των^δί^ eve > 
κα τοντων η σκ€ 
ψις' ΟΤΙ τα πολλά 

6ο των κατά νο 
μον δίκαιων 
πoλeμιως τη 
φυσ[ei\ κ€ΐταΐ' ve 

65 γαρ [e]7ri τ€ τοις ο 
φ[θ]αλμ^ι^οΐ9 α ^ei 



Col. iii. 

αυτο\υ'\^ opav και> 

& ου [<5€]t• [[σ•]] και €πι 

TOty coaiu a Set av 

70 τα aKOveiu• και 

a ου Sei- και em τηι 
γλωττηι a T[e] > 
Sei αυτήν λξγξΐν 
και a ου Sei• και € 

75 πί Tais yepaiv 

a T€ del αυτας δραν 
και a ου Ser και 
eiri Tois τΓοσιν e 
φ a Te Sei αυτούς 

8o levai και e0 a ου 
Sei• και em τωι νωι 


ων Te Sl αυτόν 

eπιθυμeιv και 

Ο) μη [eaTi\v ουν 

~ Υί ] 
85 ουδ€ τ[ηι] φυσ€ΐ 

φιλιωτ[€ρ]α ουδ οι . 

KeiOTe[pa] αφ ων 

οι νομο[ι α]τΓθτρ€ 

πούσι τ[οι;ρ] ai/[e]pw'7r[ovs] 

90 7; €0 α \TrpoTpe 
ΊΓουσ^ιν^ τ\ο yap 
ζην [ejari της φυ 
σeω9 κ[αι τ]ο απο 
θαν[€ΐ]ν και το [ 

95 μ^^ [C]V'' av7[ois 
€στί[ΐ' α]7Γ0 των [ 

Col. iv. 

100 φepovτωv' τα 
δe ξυμφepovτa' 
τα μev απο των 
νομών Ke[i > 
μeva δeσμ[a 

105 τη9 φυσeως ([στι 
τα δ υπο της φυ 
σeως e\eυθepa' ον [ 
κουν τα αλγυ> 

νουντα ορθωι λ[ο] 


Ι ΙΟ γωι ονίνησι τη\ν\ 
φυσιν μάλλον 
η τα €υφραινον 
τα' όυκουν αν ου 
δ€ ξυμφepov 

H5 τ eιη τα λυπου[ντα] 
μάλλον η τ[α η 
δοντ[α] τα γαρ τωι [ 

αληθ€ΐ ξυμφ€ 
ρ[ο]ντα ου βλα [ 
1 20 π[τ]€ίί' del- αλλ ω 
φ[e]λeιv' τα τοινυν 
τηι ψυσ€ΐ ξυμ [ 
φepovτa τ[ο]υτ[. 

2 lines lost. 



• •]?Γί?[• • 
. .]απ[. . . 

. .] ανα[. . 

.\ και οι . [. 

.]νται• κα[ι 




TO Se α.\πο6αν€ΐν 
απο τ[ων μη ξνμ 

\oLTLve\9 αν πα [ 

Col. ν. Plate V. 

\βον\τ€^ αμυνών 
\ταί κ\αί μη αυτοί 
[α/))(]ωσ: του δραν 
135 ['^ο^ί ο]ίΤί i/e[y] αν 
[τους] γ€ΐναμ€ 
[νου]9 και κακούς 
οντάς €ΐς αυτούς 


cf τΓοιωσί- και οι 
Γ40 κατομνυσθαι 

δίδοντας ere > 

ροις• αυτοί <5e μη 


[vol] και τούτων 
145 '^'^^ ζίρημζνων 

τΓολλ αν τις ef 

pot πολβμια τηι 


φυσ^ί' ivi re αν 

τοις [[δ]] αγννβσθαι 

150 re μάλλον e^ov 
ηττω-^ί^ και €λατ 
τω- ηδζσθαΐ' e^ov 
πλ^ιω και κακώς 
7Γασ)(€ΐν• e^ov 

155 μν ττασχ€ΐν•^ 
€ί μ€ν ονν τις 
[τ]οις τοιαύτα προ 
[ι]€μ€νοις ΐττικου 
[ρ\ησις iyiyve 

Col. vi. Plate V. 

165 ουκ αν[ωφ€λ€ς αν 
[Γι/1]7;ί/ τ[οις νο 
μοις π€ΐ[6€σθαι νυν 
5e φαιν([ται τοις 

170 τα τοιαύτα το €[κ 
νομού δικαι\ον 
ουχ ικανον εττί 
κουρξίν ο ye ττρω 

τον μ€ν €7ΓΙΤρ€ 

175 ""€' ^^^ τίασγρν 
τι τταθίΐν και τωι 
δρωντι δρασαι• 
και ουτζ ζνταυ 
θα δΐξκωλν€ τον 

1 8ο 7Γασ)ζ^οντα μη 

παθΐΐν- ονδξ τον 
δρωντα δρασαι• 
€ΐς re την τιμώ 
ριαν αναφζρο > 

185 μ€νον ονδζν 
ϊδιωτ€ρον eiri 
[r]a)i \ττ\ίπονθοτι 
δ ν τωι δβδρακο 
[τι] π€ραι γαρ α[. 

190 «[•]Γ9 • [• •]''<'■'■ • [• 

ρ[ ]ας ως e 

παθίν [. .] δυνα 
σθαι• απ[. . .]ei δι 



1 60 \to\ irapa των vo 
\μ\ων• TOis Se μη 
[π]ροΪ€μ€νοις αλ 

[λ €]i'[[.]]ai'TiOV/X€ 

[v]oL9 (λαττωσι^• 

4 lines lost. 

202 [....].. [ € 

στιν ^αλ[ 

οσηπ€ρ τ[ωι . . κα 
205 τηίγορου[ντί η τη? 

κατηγορ[ια9 . . . 

π€ΐθω α . [ 

τωι τ€ π€[7Γονθο 

Tt και τω[ί SeSpa 
210 KOTL γιγ[ν€ται 

γαρ ν[ 

μασί κ[ 

και κ[ 

215 δ€σα[ 


Col. ί. 

235 ]λ 

]ματα > 
]η της 
]ηλου' 6 
24© yoaeve 

κην [. . .]f• ταυ 
195 f^ ^€ κ\α\τα'Κίΐ 

7Γ€τα[ί] καί τωι δρα 
σανι\ι α]ρν€ΐσθαί 

Col. νϋ. Plate V. 

μα[. . . . 
ω? € . [ 

220 Τ(ύί [ 





225 [[4 


230 το[ 

Fr. 2. 

Col. ii. 
ρων €ΤΓ[αιδονμ€ 
θα τ€ κ[αι σφομ^θα 
τους Se [eK φαυ 
λοΰ οικ[ου οντάς 
270 ουτ€ €π[αιδουμ€ 

Θα• ουτ€ σζβομ\ΐϋα 
ζν τ\ο)υτω[ι yap 
προ? αλλη[λους 

Η 2 


Τί]κμαιρ€ 275 θα- enei φνσβι [> 
] παρβχ^ζΐ πάντα 7ravT[es 

] . [.]ταί ομοίως π€φνκ[α 

]€ΐστ(ύν μ€ν και βαρβα [ 

245 ]Ρ^^'^ Ρ°^ '^"' Ελλην[€ς 

]τα e 280 eivar σκοπ^ιν [ 
]αι/> 5[e] Ίταρ^γζΐ τα> 

]/c[. .] τφι/ φυσ^ι [όντων 

] αΐ'αγκαί[ωι/ 

] ττασιν αν\θρω 

] 285 TTOiy π[ 

] ταί 

re /caT[a ..... 

και (:Κ[ 

τοις. οντ€ β[αρβα 
290 ρο9 αφωρί[σται 
] ■ ΟΙ] Ty/iiCui' o[y(5eiS 

] cure Ελληρ[•] a [ 

] ναπν^ομίν 

] τ€ γαρ €ί$• τον α 

] 295 ^P^c-], απαντ€ς> 

202 ]ί/ο κατά το στομ[α] 

]ν [κ]αί κατ[α] τα9 ρι 

Μ ovV . ^«^• <°^ • • • • 

265 ],ν[•^ ί'-^^Χί 

Fr. 3. Fr. 4. Fr. 5• 

]vi€is' αλ[ ] . . [ ]77[ 

]χοί[.]αΐΌ[ ]ν[ ]. . ν[ 

] . [. . .]σαλ[ ]πο[ ]ι^ομ[ 



λό\γου• y[ 

5 ]i/. . [ 5 ]ί/οσ[ 


]ακα . . 


] προί 


Fr. 6. Fr. 7. ' Fr. 8. Fr. 9. 









'] . Ότ[ 







Fr. 10. Fr. 11. Fr. 12. Fr. 13. 

].[ ]«.[ Μ Μ 

]μη[ ]οια[ ]π[ 

]ονσ[ . • . . 

6-189. ' • • • justice consists in not transgressing any of the ordinances of the state of 
which one is a citizen. A man would therefore exercise justice with most advantage to 
himself if in the presence of Avitnesses he held in esteem the laws, but in the absence 
of witnesses, the precepts of nature. For the precepts of the laws are adventitious, whereas 
those of nature are necessary, and the precepts of the laws are the product of agreement, 
not of growth, while those of nature are the product of growth, not of agreement. Thus 
in transgressing legal ordinances, whenever he is unobserved by the parties to the agree- 
ment, he is free both from shame and punishment, but not if he is observed. On the other 
hand, if he strain any of the innate principles of nature more than it can bear, the evil is no 
less, if he is unobserved by every one, nor any greater, if every one sees. For the injury 
does not depend on opinion but on fact. All this is the object of our inquiry ; because most 
of what is just according to law stands in opposition to nature. The law has laid down for the 
eyes what they ought to see and what they ought not, for the ears what they ought to hear 
and what they ought not, for the tongue what it ought to say and what it ought not, for the 
hands what they ought to do and what they ought not, for the feet whither they ought to go 
and whither they ought not, and for the mind what it ought to desire and what not. Now 
the things from which the laws deter men are not at all more agreeable or akin to nature 
than those to which the laws encourage them. Life and death are both natural ; and their 
life results from things that are beneficial, death from those that are not beneficial. And with 
regard to things beneficial, those that are ordained by the laws are restraints on nature. 


while those that are ordained by nature are free. What causes gladness then on a right 
view is of advantage to nature rather than what causes grief; and so what is pleasurable 
would be beneficial rather than what is painful. For the truly beneficial ought not to be 
injurious but advantageous. ^Vhat is beneficial, therefore, to nature . . . those who . . . 
and who repel attack but do not themselves begin the aggression, and who are kind to their 
parents even when these behave badly to them, and who permit others to affirm on oath 
but do not do so themselves. IMuch of what has been mentioned would be found to be in 
opposition to nature ; there is involved in it greater pain when less is possible, or less 
pleasure when more is possible, or injury when injury might be avoided. Now if those who 
adopted such courses as these had any protection from the laws, whereas those who did not 
adopt them but opposed them incurred loss, obedience to the laws would not be without 
advantage ; but as il is, legal justice is found inadequate to protect those who adopt them. 
First of all it allows the injury of the injured and the aggression of the aggressor, and besides 
not originally preventing the injured from being injured, nor the aggressor from making 
aggression, on being held over until punishment is inflicted, it is no more favourable to the 
injured than to the aggressor.* 

6-1 1. Cf Xen. 3iem. iv. 4. 12-13, where Socrates argues with Hippias of Elis that ό μίν 

νόμιμο! biKaios eariv^ 6 δε ανομο! άδικος. 

7. Apparently τα has dropped out after [7Γα]ι/τα. 

i8-20 = Antiphon, Fr. 44 Diels, from Harpocration, s. v. ayei, 'Αντιφών δ^ ev τω Uepl 

Ά\ηθ£ίαί φησί Tovs νόμους μΐγάλονς αγοι, άντ\ τον ηγοΐτο. 

20-2. μονονμίνος . . . φυσεω? is an iambic trimeter. Iambic rhythms occur also in 
11. 113-15, 181-4, 272-4; cf. Jacoby, op. cit. p. 66. 

34-6. Small curved brackets have been placed before and after the deleted letters, 
which have also been crossed through. The deleted paragraphus is only bracketed. 

45. Te : 1. TL. The mistake was probably caused by the following eai/ re. 

49. The deleted τ] has a dot placed above it, and is crossed through with a light 
diagonal stroke. A similar method has been followed in 11. 66, 68, 149, 151, 166, 291 ; 
δε in 1. 57 has only the overwritten dots ; cf. 1. 245. 

68. Apparently the scribe inadvertently wrote ονδίΐς. 

87 sqq. Since the author's contention is that legal justice is contrary to nature 
(11. 59 sqq.), he might here be expected to say that what is encouraged by the law is not 
more in accordance with nature than what is prohibited, instead of vice versa. But 
apparently he is here regarding law as predominantly negative, and is thus concerned 
to show that prohibitions and restraints involve pain, and so . are more akin to death 
than life. 

89. The syllables θρωπους seem to have been originally omitted. 

102-6. απο . . . υπο : the variation of prepositions appears to correspond to no real 
distinction of sense, and απο may be regarded as a clerical error. 

108. 1. α'Κγννοντα : the final a was converted from o. 

109. Γ of T6 is clear, but ye is required. 

116. τ[α η]8οντα: cf. Ps.-Plat. Ax. 366 a τα μ€ν ηδοντα άμνχια'ια, and Pollux ϋί. 98 το 
γαρ ηδω Ιονικον κα\ το ησΐ σπάνιον μίν παρ' ημίν, ' Ανακρίων δ' αύτο ΐΐρηκΐν (Fr. 1 48). Some 

instances of the active occur in later writers. 

126-30. The length of the lacunae at the beginnings and ends of the lines are 
calculated from 1. 131, where the supplement is practically assured by 1. 135. There will 
be two lines entirely lost above 1. 126, if 1. 131 was on a level with 1. 99. In 1. 128 the 
rough breathing is probable, but might possibly be an interlinear e. In 1. 129 the letter 
after 01 may be γ, η, μ, ν, π, but not τ. 


1 31-4. The antithesis of δράκ and πάσχίΐι/, which is repeated in Cols, vi-vii, occurs 
in Aniiphon, Fr. 58. ρ of bpav was apparently inserted after the α was written, perhaps by 
the second hand. 

148. T€ : ye seems to have been originally written and subsequently altered, mistakenly. 
If the interlinear ν is rightly read, the insertor wished to read τ ΐν instead of re. The first 
stroke of the ν is not clear, and the remainder of it is so much curved as to suggest a mark 
of short quantity above ο of αν (cf. 1. 113), but this would be unintelligible. 

157. πpo[t]e/ievoιs : 1. ■προσ\ι\ψΐνοα•, cf. 1. 169. The Same mistake occurs in 1. 162. 

165-6. The deletion of the ν at the beginning of 1. 166 (cf. 1. 231) is doubtless due to 
the corrector, who objected to the original division of the letters. Probably the word in 
question was av, which is sometimes divided a\v', cf. Cronert, Mem. Here. p. 13. That the 
final V of an adjective should have been carried over into the next line is much less likely. 
y, μ, π or perhaps t would be possible in place of v[ in 1. 165. τ[ο rois might be read 
in 1. 166. 

167. νυν makes the supplement a little long, but this is preferable to the supposition of 
a lost line containing e. g. the words rfj άληθΐία. 

1 88. The marginal δ is a stichometrical figure standing for 400. Stichometry, which 
is frequent in papyri of poetical works, is seldom met with in prose ; cf. e. g. P. Grenf. ii. 
II. ii. 4 and 852. Fr. 25, note. 

189-94. This passage ought to be restored. In 1. 189 nepai, if rightly read, may be 
an illustration of Antiphon's tendency to poetic words ; but perhaps the adverb is meant, 
as the scribe sometimes wrote iota adscript wrongly, e.g. 11. 151, 205. The p, however, is 
not altogether satisfactory, since a trace of the tail, if of average length, would be expected 
to be visible. The vestige of the top of the letter is consistent with τ, but there would 
barely be room for ejn-erai in the lacuna. The a at the end of the line may be δ. In 1. 190 
the doubtful ο may be e ; [το]νς τι[μω]ρ[ονντ]ας suggests itself, but partial supplements are 
useless. In 1. 193 απ[ and ay[ are equally possible. The letter before δι looks at first sight 
like γ, but this is probably due to a discoloured crack in the papyrus ; (γ8ίκη does not occur, 
δι > might be read as αλ, but αλκην is less likely in this context. 

203-7. As Murray suggests, the sense seems to be that the severity of τιμωρία will 
depend on the persuasiveness of the accuser ; but the connexion with the next three lines 
is not clear. 

211. V has apparently been converted from π. 

219. A small smudge below ω is probably not a paragraphus. 

225—7. These lines have been bracketed and crossed through in the same way 
as 11. 34-6. 

231. The lower part of a diagonal stroke is visible below this ν (or μ), which was 
probably crossed out and transferred to the end of the previous line, as at 1. 166. 

245. Dots are placed above the letters to be cancelled, as in 1. 57 ; that over ρ 
is uncertain. 

264. A horizontal stroke stands above ]υς, to the right of which there is a curved mark 
like those used elsewhere in this papyrus for purposes of deletion ; for interlinear strokes 
instead of dots cf. e. g. 843. The marginal note no doubt refers to the alteration in the 
text. ovK-was perhaps intended, though the suspension of the κ would be unusual. 

266-98. ' We revere and venerate [the great], but the lowly-born we do not revere or 
venerate ; for in this our conduct to each other is barbarized, since we are all by nature 
alike fully adapted to be either barbarians or Hellenes. We may see this from the needs 
which all men naturally have ; in ... no one is marked off as barbarian or Hellene. We 
all breathe the air with mouth and nostrils . . .' 


266. Perhaps πούρων. 

279. A short diagonal apex often attached by the scribe to the top of a vertical stroke 
appears in κ of km in an exaggerated form. 

285. τί[•. or y[. 

286. κητα was perhaps originally written by a lipography for κατά τα. 

299- This was probably the last line of the column, which is already longer than 
Cols, i-vi of Fr. i. 

Fr. 3. The rather dirty condition of this fragment and the next would suit a position 
in the first column of Fr. 2. 

2. The remains suggest a rough breathing rather than a diaeresis on ι ; a breathing is 
of course consistent with a compound, e. g. a\vieis or av\vuis. 

5, The broken letter before the lacuna seems to be by the second hand, in which case 
]you• probably ended the line. 

Fr. 4. 1-2. Possibly what has been taken for vestiges of letters here is the effect 
of dirt, and 1. 3 was the first of a column. 

5. ]i/• perhaps ended the line; cf. the preceding note. 

6. The margin after the final α is slight, but most probably this was the last letter 
of the line. 

Fr. 9. The comparatively small size of the letters indicates that this fragment, if it 
belongs to 1364, is from near the ends of lines. 

1365. History of Sicyon. 

29.4 X ro-8 cm. Third century. Plate VI. 

This interesting historical fragment consists of two nearly complete columns 
of ^^ lines, written in a fine upright uncial hand approximating towards the 
biblical type (cf. 1392, which was found at the same time). Most of the letters 
are broad, but is small and e and σ narrow. ω is generally placed rather 
high in the line of writing. At the end of a line the letters are sometimes 
small. 847 (Part VI, Plate vi) is a specimen of this style on vellum (fourth 
century), but is somewhat later than 1365, which is likely to be nearly con- 
temporary with 1234 (Part X, Plate iv) and P. Grenf. ii. 12 (Plate iii). These 
two papyri are in similar hands and have third -century cursive scholia, and 
we should assign 1365 to the earlier half of that century. An accompanying 
document was dated in the year 287. Paragraphi and two kinds of stops, the 
high and middle points, are employed, but the distinction between them is 
not accurately observed. A breathing in 1. 15 and accents in 11. 31 and 60 
with an interlinear insertion in 1. ^6 seem to be due to a corrector, but the 
diaeresis in 1. 20 is by the original scribe. The lines are rather short, ranging 
from 13 to 18 letters and rarely exceeding 15, and the loss of the ends throughout 
Col. ii is not serious. 


The subject of the fragment is the origin and rise of Orthagoras, tyrant 
of Sicyon during part of the first half of the seventh century B. c, and founder 
of a dynasty which brought that town into prominence in Greek history and 
maintained itself in power for about 100 years. Concerning this family, which 
belonged to the original Ionic inhabitants, not to the Dorian conquerors, very 
little is known, except with regard to the last ruler, Clisthenes, whose only 
daughter married Megacles the Alcmaeonid and became the mother of the 
Athenian reformer Clisthenes, a circumstance which gave Herodotus the oppor- 
tunity for an excursus on the government of the Sicyonian (v. 67-8), besides 
the well-known story of the wooing of Agariste (vi. 126-31). Orthagoras with 
the other predecessors of Clisthenes has been hitherto little more than a name, 
and concerning even that there were doubts, since Herodotus ignores him, 
giving the genealogy of Clisthenes (vi. i%6) as son of Aristonymus son of 
Myron son of Andreas. Aristotle, to whom Pollux (ix. 77) attributes a treatise 
called Ί,ικυωνίων Πολιτεία, briefly discusses the government of the Sicyonian 
tyrants {Pol. p. 13 15 b, Bekker) τιλύστον yap eyivero χρόνορ η Tiepl Σίκνώνα 
Tvpavvis, η των Όρθαγόρον ττα'ώων και αντου ^Ορθαγόρον' €τη δ' αϋτη Ιύμανίν ξκατον. 
τούτον δ' αΐτίον otl toTs αργομάνοΐί εχρώιτο μζτρίω^ και ττολλά Tols νόμοίί ibovX^vov, και 
bia το τΐολίμικόί γ^νίσθαι Κλξίσθ4νη9 ονκ ην ευκαταφρόνητος, κοΧ τα ττολλά ταΐς 
(τημξλείαΐζ €5ημαγωγονν, and elsewhere (p. 1316 a) treats Myron as the immediate 
predecessor of Clisthenes, μ€ταβάλλ€ΐ καΐ ds τυραννίδα τυραννία, ωσιτερ η Σικυωνοί 
€κ TTjs Μύρωνος et9 την Κλξίσθίνονΐ. Pausanias, however (ii. 8. ι ; cf. vi. 19. 2), 
agrees with Herodotus in the order Myron, Aristonymus, Clisthenes, and con- 
cerning the first gives the valuable piece of chronological information that 
he won a chariot-race in the 33rd Olympiad (648 B. C). Nicolaus Damascenus 
(Fr. 61), describing Clisthenes' accession, makes Myron, Isodemus, and Clisthenes 
brothers, assigning to them respectively 7, i, and 31 years' rule, and speaks 
of Myron as ά•πό Όρθαγόρον κατάγων το yivos, implying that he was not his son. 
Plutarch {De ser. num. vind. 7) connects the tyranny of Orthagoras with an 
oracle, Σικυωνίοι? δέ κ(ΐ\. διαρρήδην ό θεός ττροίΐττζ μαστιγονόμων δύσθαι την ττολιν ότι 
Ύζλητίαν τταΐδα στ^φανούμίνον ev ΤΙυθίοΐ5 αφαιρούμενοι διίσττασαν. άλλα Σικυωνίοι^ 
μεν Όρθαγόραί γενόμενος τύραννος καΐ μετ εκείνον οι ττερί Μύρωνα και Κλεκτθενη 
την άκολασίαν ετταυσαν. Libanius [Or. contra Scvci'um, iii, p. 251, Reiske) calls 
Orthagoras a μάγειρος, i. e. * butcher ', while Diodorus {Exc. Vat. viii. 24) applies 
that term to Andreas (cf. Herodotus), and gives another version of Plutarch's 
story about the oracle. By a curious chance this fragment of Diodorus connects 
closely with our papyrus, supplying the details which must have been given 
in the column immediately before Col. i ; on Σικνωνίοις εχρησεν η Πυβία εκατόν 
ετη μαστιγονομηθησθαι αυτούς, εττερωτησάντων δε αύτων τις δ ταντα ττοιησων τταλιν 


άτΐζκρίθη, ω αν καταττλζύσαντζί ττρώτω γ€γ€νημ4νον νΐον άκούσωσιν. (τύγγαι•€ be tols 
θίωροϊί ηκολονθηκως τηί θυσίας 'ένίκα μάγβίροί, os e/caAetro ^Avbpeas. μισθού τοΐί 
αρχονσι μαστιγοφόρων νττηρ€Τ€ί. This being all the evidence that has survived 
concerning the predecessors of Clisthenes, even the outlines of their history 
are uncertain. Orthagoras and Andreas were regarded by K. F. Hermann 
as one and the same person, and most recent historians since Grote have pre- 
ferred that view to the older one (e.g. Plass, Die Tyrannis, i. 137) that Andreas 
was the son of Orthagoras. It has been suggested (Abbott, Hist, of Greece, 
i. 370) that Orthagoras was only a nickname. Concerning Myron the statements 
of Herodotus and Pausanias are plainly inconsistent with those of Aristotle and 
Nicolaus, which are generally regarded as derived from Ephorus, like those 
of Plutarch and Diodorus, and while Plass [pp. cit. i. 140-1) wished to reject 
Nicolaus' evidence about Myron altogether, most historians (e.g. Duncker, Hist, 
of Greece, ii. 400, Busolt, Griech. Gesch. i. 661^) insert a second Myron between 
Aristonymus, who perhaps never reigned, and Clisthenes. The chronology of 
the latter is fairly secure : he took part in the First Sacred War, won a chariot- 
race at the Pythian games in 582 B.C. (Pausanias x. 7. 7), and at Olympia 
probably not later than 568, since his daughter Agariste, who was betrothed 
to Megacles after the victory, apparently had a daughter of marriageable age 
about 550 (Hdt. i. 60 and vi. 136). Clisthenes probably died about S^^, for 
Nicolaus {l.c) assigns to him 31 years, and his anti-Dorian institutions continued 
in force for sixty years after his death (Hdt. v. 68), Sicyon being found in the 
Spartan league by 495 (Hdt. vi. 92). Hence the 100 years' period mentioned by 
Aristotle and Diodorus has generally been considered to point to about 66^ 
as the date of the foundation of the tyranny (so Duncker and Busolt), though 
Plass, who {op. cit. i. 138) thought that revolutions might have occurred at intei^vals, 
preferred about 700, and Grote (iii. 37) 680-70. 

The new fragment, continuing, as has been said, the story of the oracle 
in Diodorus, settles the question concerning his Andreas at any rate, who proves 
to be the father of Orthagoras. According to our author the Sicyonians, 
despising Andreas' low rank (he is called in 1. 20' μάγ^ιρο^, as in Diodorus, 
and as Libanius calls Orthagoras), paid no attention to the prophecy that his 
son would be the future scourge of Sicyon, and Orthagoras was brought up 
in humble circumstances (11. 1-22). On reaching military age he became a 
patrol (ire/otTroAos), and distinguished himself in a war with the neighbouring 
city of Pellene, being promoted to the post of TrepnTOkapxos, in which he won fresh 
successes and fame (11. 22-52). After an interval, during which he seems to have 
become a democratic leader, he was elected polemarch, and carried on a vic- 
torious war (11. 52-68). This resulted in the city taking some step (cf. 1. 70, 


note) which probably led directly to his seizure of supreme power, but at this 
point the papyrus breaks off. The story of Orthagoras is thus somewhat similar 
to that told by Nicolaus (Fr. 58) concerning the rise of Cypselus, who utilized his 
office of polemarch at Corinth to make himself tyrant, although Aristotle 
{Pol. p. 1310 b) states that Cypselus became tyrant not e/c των τιμών but L• ttjs 
δημαγωγία?. In the case of Orthagoras it appears that both causes contributed 
to his success, and probably the same is true of Cypselus. The distinctly 
favourable estimate of Orthagoras by our author harmonizes well with the praise 
awarded to the tyrants of Sicyon by Aristotle (cf. p. 105) and Strabo, p. 382. 

The plain and straightforward but somewhat monotonous narrative of the 
fragment does not suggest an author who possessed very high literary merits. 
Hiatus is uniformly avoided. The writer is inclined to verbosity, especially 
in the long sentence in 11. 2il sqq., e. g. καταδραμόντων και συμβα[λόντων, ττολύ 
τιάντ^ων ηυδο]κίμησ€ μά[λίστα] των TTepL7T[oXwv, ωκξίοΰτο κ[αΙ ττροσ]ηγ€το, and displays 
a fondness for the genitive absolute (11. 28, 34-6, 52, 61-8) and the repetition of 
the article with an adjective or other dependent words placed after a substantive 
(11. 9, 57, 64, 69). For one expression, τταρηλλαξ^ν ηλικίαν (1. 24), there Seems to 
be no precise parallel before the Roman period, but the general style of the 
fragment points to an earlier writer, and in view of the close connexion with 
Diodorus, Ephorus has the first claim to be considered. The extant quotations 
of Ephorus' own words are hardly sufficient to form a clear conception of his 
peculiarities, but he seems to have been rather verbose (cf. Walker, Hellenica 
Oxyrhynchia, pp. 42-3), and Dion's criticism of his style as vtjtlov καΐ αν^ιμίνον 
would apply to 1365. The tendency to repeat the article is not traceable in the 
fragments which are certainly attributed to him, and is much more noticeable in 
the Hell. Oxy. (842) and Theopompus than in the ^Μηναίων IToXtreta, which has 
very few instances of it. There are one or two other points of resemblance 
in diction between 1365 and 842 (cf. notes on 11. 24 and '3^'^, and the hypothesis 
of a common authorship is attractive on stylistic grounds. Ephorus presumably 
described the Sicyonian tyrants in Books vii-viii, of which extant fragments refer 
to the First Messenian War and death of Croesus, while Theopompus is hardly 
likely to have discussed early Sicyonian history, so that, if 842 and 1365 belong to 
the same work, the identification would favour Walker's view that Ephorus was the 
author of 842. That our fragment comes from the lost treatise of Aristotle on 
the Constitution of Sicyon is also possible, but on the whole less likely in view of 
the popularity of Ephorus and the marked agreement with Diodorus. Our author 
shows an interest in political history, but his reference to the internal politics of 
Sicyon (11. 58-61) is rather vague, and he does not happen to mention the Dorian 
aristocracy who controlled three out of the four tribes. There are several points 


of agreement with the language of the ' Αθηναίων Πολιτεία (cf. 11. 21, 34, 26, 28, 40, 
46-7, and 51, notes), though some of these consist in common expressions, and 
the praise bestowed upon Orthagoras in 1365 is quite consistent with the opinion 
expressed in the Politics (cf. p. 105) ; but the early history of the Sicyonian tyrant 
is more detailed than the corresponding account of the rise of Pisistratus, and the 
references to the Sicyonians by name in 11. 29, 43, and 69 rather suggest a work 
in which the affairs of Sicyon formed an episode than one which was wholly con- 
cerned with that city. Aristotle in the Ά^. Πολ. usually speaks of the Athenians 
as δ 6ημο5 simply or uses the plural without specification. Diodorus is not 
likely to be author of the fragment, still less Nicolaus or any other writer of the 
early Roman age, and what historians in the Alexandrian period described 
Sicyonian affairs is unknown. That 1365 is either a fragment of Ephorus or, 
at any rate, of a writer who was deriving his information from Ephorus, whether 
Aristotle or another, remains the most satisfactory hypothesis. We have now 
to examine the value of his account in connexion with the previously known 

The circumstance that at length both Andreas and Orthagoras are mentioned 
by the same writer, and the Diodorus fragment is now shown to refer to 
Orthagoras' father, goes far to undermine the current opinion that there was 
a widespread confusion of the names of these two persons. Since Andreas was not 
himself tyrant, his omission by Aristotle and Plutarch is explained, and Libanius' 
transference of the term μάγαρο^ from him to Orthagoras is perfectly intelli- 
gible in the light of 11. 15-22. But the difficulty in Herodotus' genealogy of 
Clisthenes still remains. If Orthagoras was the son of Andreas, and Myron, 
the grandfather of Clisthenes, was really the son of Andreas, either Myron 
was the brother of Orthagoras, which is inconsistent with Aristotle's statement 
(cf. p. 105) concerning the Traibes Όρθαγόρου (the term Orthagoridae is a modern 
expression), or else there were two persons called Andreas, the father and the son 
of Orthagoras, and Herodotus was referring to the second. In the case of 
Myron there is reason to suppose that there were two rulers of that name 
(cf. p. 106), and since Herodotus' Myron is clearly identical with Pausanias' 
Myron who won the chariot-race in 648 B. C, to insert a generation between him 
and Orthagoras would result in pushing back Orthagoras' accession nearly 
to 700 B. c, a date proposed by Plass on other grounds (cf. p. 106) which are not 
convincing. Cypselus became tyrant at Corinth in the middle of the seventh 
century (652 according to Busolt, 6^^ Grote), and Theagenes at Megara apparently 
about the same time, so that the Sicyonian tyranny seems to have been the 
earliest of the three despotisms of the Isthmus ; but since Myron was contem- 
porary with Cypselus, it is not at all satisfactory to suppose two generations 



of tyrants at Sicyon before him, and if the 100 years' period (cf. p. 105) is at all 
correct, four generations of rulers are more suitable than five. The introduction 
of a second Andreas as well as a second Myron is therefore open to objection. 
On the other hand, the omission of the second Myron involves the rejection 
of the statements not only of Nicolaus but, what is more serious, of Aristotle, 
whose allusion (cf. p. 105) to the change from Myron to Clisthenes is quite com- 
patible with Nicolaus' account of the murder of Myron by his brother Isodemus 
which resulted in the speedy accession of Clisthenes, the third brother. If 
Herodotus' Andreas, the father of Myron, is to be distinguished from the 
Andreas of Diodorus and 1365, we should prefer to abandon the supposed 
100 years' period of the Sicyonian despotism. The evidence for it is not free 
from suspicion, being clearly connected, so far as Diodorus, i. e. Ephorus, goes, 
with the reputed oracle, while Aristotle's reference to it may well be derived 
from Ephorus. Plutarch moreover, who mentions the oracle but not the 100 
years (cf. p. 105), seems to be guilty of an anachronism, for his story implies that 
the gymnic contests at the Pythian games had been instituted before Orthagoras' 
time, whereas they are generally considered to have been added during the 
Sacred War (i. e. after 590 or 586 ; cf Duncker, op. cit. ii. 149). Recent his- 
torians regard the oracle as a later invention arising from the length of the 
rule of the Orthagoridae, but the number 100 is likely to have been due to 
the oracle, and its correctness is not confirmed by any evidence that is clearly 
independent. Herodotus, however, ought to have mentioned Orthagoras when 
giving a genealogy of the Sicyonian tyrants, and on the whole it seems more 
likely that his Andreas was identical with the father of Orthagoras in 1365, 
and that he has confused Orthagoras with Myron or with Andreas, than that 
τον ^Ορθαγορίω has dropped out of the text in vi. 136 before του Άνδρέω. As 
Walker observes, his genealogy of the kings of Salamis in Cyprus (v. 104) contains 
a somewhat analogous inaccuracy, there being one generation too many. 

Col. i. 

φα[ν]\ον τον ανθρω 
ΤΓον παρημ€λησ€ 
τον μαντΗον- και Tas 
5 μ€ν αλλάς θυσίας τας 
[€]πιτα\ΘΗσας €Κ των 
[Α]€λφων απίδωκ€ 
τοις OeoiS' της 5e τυ 

Col. ii. 
Kat σνμβα\λοντων e^ αι 
ψν ίδιον βο[ηθησας 
απίκτ€ΐν[ζν των πο 
λζμιων τιν[ας και 
4θ ΤΓολν παντ[ων ηυδο 
κιμησ€ μα[λιστα 
των π(ριπ[ολων 
ανβ ων 0L Ί1[ικνωνι 



pavviSo? τη? μ^λ 

ΙΟ λονση? eaeadai κατ€ 
[φρό]νησ€ν• ο δβ Αν 
δρ[€]α9 το γβνομ€νον 
αντω παιδιον (τρβ 
φζν όνομα θεμβνο? 

15 Ορθαγοραν 6ς μ^χρι 
μ€ν ηλικίας δ[ί€Τ€ 
[λ]€σ€ διαιτωμ€νο9 
και τταιδ€νομ€νο9 
οντάς ωσπβρ ην €ΐ 

2θ κος νΐον οντά μαγα 
[ρου] και του τν)^ον[το?] 
[τω]ν πολιτών enci 
δη δ€ την των παι 
[δω]ν παρηλλα^βν η 

25 λικιαν- γ€νομ€νος 
των πβριπολων των 
[φ]ρ[ο]υρονντων την 
[■χ^ω]ραν• πολέμου συν 
[e]aTCuTos τοις Χικυω 

3ο νιοις προς ΊΊ^λλη 
veas• ην μ€ν €v α 
πασι τοις καιροις e 
ν[€ρ]γος και χαρί«?• 

35 [δγ των Ιΐ€λλην€[ω]ν 

οι πίριπολ\αργον αυ 
45 τον απζδ€ΐ[ξαν ίνθυς 
δ€ τυ\ων τ\αυτης 
της τιμής €[νικησ€ 
τους πολ€μι[ους eTi 
λαμπροτ€ρ[ον ωστ€ 
5 ο των πολιτω[ν πολλοί;? 
ωικ€ΐουτο κ[αι προσ 
ηγίτο' και \[ρονου 
προ€λθοντο[ς ^ιλον 
το πολ€μαρχ[ον αυ 
55 TOV' μάλιστα [μεν δι 

α την ανδρι[αν και 
την €υτυ)(^ια[ν την 
κατά πολ€μο[ν €π€ΐ 
τα και το πλ7;[^09 των 

6ο πολιτών eO [προς αυ 
τον βίχξν ττ[ολξ 
μησαντος 5[e κατά 
την αρχ^ην α[νδρ€ΐως 
την re χωράν [την 

65 οιΚ€ΐαν δια[φνλα 

ξαντος• και π[ολλα κα 
κα Tovf πoλe[μιoυς 
ποιησαντο[ς ο μ€ν 
δήμος ο των [^ικυω 

7ο νιων αυθι[ς 

' , . . the people of Sicyon, knowing] the man to be one of the common folk and of no 
account, neglected the oracle, and while rendering to the gods the sacrifices enjoined by 
Delphi took no heed of the coming tyranny. Andreas brought up the child born to him, 
giving him the name of Orthagoras, and until he reached maturity he continued to receive 
the nurture and education natural for the son of a butcher and an ordinary citizen. After 
passing the age of boyhood, however, he became one of the patrols who guarded the 
country, and on the outbreak of war between Sicyon and Pellene he was active and 
agreeable on all occasions. When an incursion was made by the people of Pellene and 
a fight begun, he brought up reinforcements suddenly and killed several of the enemy 


and distinguished himself far above all the patrols. In return for this the Sicyonians 
appointed him chief of the patrols, and no sooner had he received this honour than he 
gained a still more brilliant victory over the enemy, thus winning over and attaching to 
himself many of the citizens. After a while they chose him as polemarch, chiefly on account 
of his courage and success in war, partly also by reason of the goodwill of the mass of the 
citizens towards him. During his office he fought bravely and kept close guard over his 
country, and inflicted much injury upon the enemy; whereupon the people of Sicyon 
again . . .' 

I. [ο]ί{τ]α : something like yvovs (or αισθομ(νος) 8f ο 8ημο5 ο των Σικυωριων icf. 1. 69) 

probably preceded. 

II. Av8p[e]as : ν is practically certain, and the vestiges of the following letters suit δρ[ε]α$ 
very well. Cf. Diod. viii. 24 and introd. pp. 105-6. 

16. 6[teTeX]€ae: this verb occurs four times in ^Αθ. Πολ. with a participle. 

20. μαγ£ΐ[ρον]: cf. Diod. /. c. and p. 105. 

21. τον τυχον^τος]: cf. A^. Πολ. 2 7-4 μαΚλον των τυχόντων η των ΐπΐίΐκών ανθρώπων, 

24• παρηΧλαξίν ηλικιαν : cf. Plut. Alcib, 7, Civioti I, Heliod. X. 23. The verb occurs 
in 842. xix. 2 in the same sense, but with neSiov, ^nd twice in Ά^. Πολ. with μικρόν meaning 
' differ '. 

26. πΐριπολων των [φ]ρ[ο]υρουιτωΐ' την γχω^ραν : cf. Ά^, Πολ. 42. 4 ττΐριπολοΰσι την χωράν. 
28. πολίμον συΐ'[6]στωτοί : cf. Α^. Πολ. 24• 3 ο^νεστησαντο τον πόΧεμον. 
33• X«P'«'f • cf. 842. i. 9 όσοι -γνώ^ιριμ^οι κ\αι χαρίΐντίί ήσαν. 

40. ηνδο^κιμησΐ : cf. Α^. Πολ. 1 4. Ι ό ΤΙεισίστρατος κα\ σφό8ρ' ΐυΒοκιμηκώς ev τω npos 
Meyaptas ττολίμω. 

44• πίριπολίαρχον : cf. Thuc. viii. 92 ε?τοΰ περίττολάρ^^οϋ ξυνιόντας. Whether the termina- 
tion was -OS or -ης is uncertain, but πολίμαρχοε (cf. 1. 54) is much better attested than 


46—7. Cf. Ά^. Πολ. 12. 5 f' y"P Tis άλλος, φησί, ταύτης της τιμής ΐτυχΐν. 

51. προσίί/γβτο : cf. Αθ. Πολ. 20. Ι πpoσηyάyeτo τον 8ημον. 

66. 7Γ[ολλα κα^κα τους 7Γθλί[μιουΓ] ποιησαντο' ς : cf. 842. XV. 3 1 τοσαντα κακά ποιησαντΐς τους 
Φωκίας, xviii. 36 ovBev κακόν ίποί[« τοϋί] ένοικονντας. 

70. ανθι[ς•. this must refer to something mentioned not long previously, and όίωρουϊ (cf. 

Diod. I.e.) €ΐς Δελφούς (πβμψε ΟΓ ττολίμαρχον αντον €ΐλ(το (cf. 1. 53) ^^7 ^ave followed. 

Σικνωνίων 8ημος (according to Pausanias vi. 19. 3) occurred in the dedicatory inscription 
upon the treasury built by Myron at Olympia after his victory in 648 B.C. (cf. p. 105); 
and that δήμος here refers to the democratic party as opposed to the aristocrats is 

1366. Fragment of an Attic Orator. 

32-7 X 12 cm. Late third century. 

The recto of this papyrus contains a report by a decaprotus concerning 
payments of corn in A. D. ;i48-9, vi^hich will be published in Part XII. On 
the verso are the beginnings of lines of the virodeaLs and first column of 
a speech by an Attic orator, preceded by the conclusion of a title joyerous. 
The script is a large cursive, except the title, which is in uncials, and is 
probably not more than a generation later than the report. A paragraphus 



after the νιχόθΐσι^ and a diaeresis occur, but no stops. The length of the lines 
is uncertain, but need not exceed an average of seventeen letters; cf. 1. 5. 
A certain Antisthenes, who is not identifiable with any of the bearers of that 
name in the Prosop. Att., is mentioned at the outset of the v-nodeaiSy and 
from the words φαρμακο[ (1. 3), θάνατοι (11. 4 and 18), and συκοφαντ[ (11. 7 and 
13) it appears that the orator was defending, rather than prosecuting, some 
one on a charge of poisoning, but whether Antisthenes was the victim or the 
accused is not clear. There is no trace in the fragment of a reference to 
Jogenes, and the title may well belong to a preceding oration, since no Attic 
orator of such a name is known, and \oyivovs in any case probably refers to 
a speech (either ΰττερ or κατά being supplied) rather than an author. The 
extant titles of orations concerning persons called ]ogenes are two by Hyperides, 
κατά Άθηνογ€νον5, of which the first is partly preserved in a Paris papyrus, four 
by Lysias, (i) irepl του Atoyivovs κλήρου^ (a) irpos Δι,ογίνην or κατά Atoyivovs (ττξρΐ 
χωρίον), (3) ττροΫ Αιογίνην υττ€ρ μισβώσβωί οικία?, (4) irpos Τλαύκωνα ττζρι τοΰ 
AiKaioyivovs κλήρου, and one by Isaeus, Trepl τοΰ Αίκαιογίνουί κλήρου, which is 
preserved entire. If the title in 1366 refers to the following speech, none of those 
orations is suitable ; but if, as is more likely, it is distinct from the speech con- 
cerning Antisthenes, it might belong to one of them, preferably one of the two 
speeches by Hyperides or the second of the four by Lysias. The apparent use 
of ώ avbpcs Άθηναΐοί (1. 6) rather suggests Demosthenes ; other orators, so far 
as can be judged, show a preference for ω avbpes or ω Αθηναίοι or ώ avbpes 
Ιικασταί, and were less commonly read than Demosthenes in the third century 
in Egypt. But the number of his speeches is given by a grammarian in Schol. 
Aesch. De fals. leg. § 18 as seventy-one, and since besides the sixty-one which 
are extant there are fragments of about twelve others attributed to him, none 
of which is suitable, it is very doubtful whether two more could be added. 

Col. i. 

κατά (?) ]oyeiOi/y 

Col. ii. 

και €αυτο[ θα 

5 νατον /Cjo[i 


Kau'ov μ€[ν ω avBp^s Αθη 

8ικην [ 
Tioy θαν[ατου 
τι πισ6[ 
20 μζΐ /os [ 

[.]κω δί[ 






vaLOL φιλ[ 


νμιν ο[ 



/zeXei τ[ 

λο TL κα[ 

25 P0V9 π[ 

eycoy ου[ 

νη9 Tiy[ 

και κατ . [ 

Tovs μ[ 

ω αν 


δρξ9 γ[ 

και σνκο[φαντ 


μ€ ηδη [ 

3θ φίΚο^ [ 

και γ€ίϊ/[ 

TOL Τ€^ 

τοι ταντ7)[ι/ 

2. Αντισβ(νο[υ5 : Αντισθ€νί[ι is possible, but not Ai/TtCT^ew;[s. 

2 2. 8e[ : or δο[. 

28. The letter following 8p€s might be γ, η, μ, or ν, but not λ\θηναίοι. 

1367. HeraCLIDES LembuS, Epitome of Hermippus ITept i;o/io0er(Sr. 

Fr. I 29-5 X 12-4 cm. 

Late second century. 

Papyrus rolls which had become worn through use were not infrequently- 
strengthened with patches gummed on the verso, but such patches, even when 
inscribed, seldom have any value of their own. An exception is provided by the 
fragments here published, which were stuck on the back of 1248, part of a copy 
of Plato's Politicus. One of them (Fr. a) shows that the work so utilized was the 
epitome by Heraclides son of Sarapion, commonly called Heraclides Lembus, of 
the treatises of Hermippus riept νομοθζτων, Flept των Ιτττά σοφών, and Hepl 
ΤΙυθαγόρου, another (Fr. i) contains one nearly complete column and part of 
a second from the end of Book i and the beginning of Book ii of the Ilepl 
νομοθετών. Hermippus, who is called by Athenaeus b Καλλιμάχ^ιο? (i. 58 f, 
V. 213 f) and wrote after the death of Chrysippus (208-205 B. c. : Diog. Laert. vii. 
184), was a voluminous biographical author, and the treatises above referred 
to are well known from citations ; cf. F. H. G. iii. 36-42. Though divided into 
se\?'eral books (the ΠβρΙ νομοθ. had six, the TTept των e. σοφ. four, and the Uepl ΥΙνθ. 
two) and evidently self-contained, they are supposed to have been constituent 
parts of a larger whole called Btot. The new fact which emerges from the title in 
Fr. 2 is that these treatises were epitomized by Heraclides Lembus. This 
circumstance has a not insignificant bearing upon the disputed question concern- 
ing the character of Heraclides' compilation of the works of two other eminent 



biographers, the Btot of Satyrus and the Διαδοχαι of Sotion. Heraclides was one 
of the authorities of Diogenes Laertius, who cites Ήρακλ. h rfi των Σατύρου Βίων 
(τητομιι (viii. 40)) '^ίίρακλ. ev rfi Σατύρου (ττίτ. (ix. 26), Ήρακλ. iv Tjj εττιτ. (following 
a reference to the Btot of Satyrus, viii. ^;^), "Άρακλ. h τ[] cttlt. των Σωτίωνο? 
Αιαδοχών (v. 79), Ήρακλ. Iv ττ} Σωτίωνοί k-uLT. (viii. 7, χ. i). The natural inference 
from such a method of citation is that Heraclides' epitomes of the Btot of 
Satyrus and the Ata5oxai of Sotion were two independent and self-contained 
works, and they were so treated e.g. by Miiller in F. H. G. iii. 169-71, Diels, 
however {Doxogr. Gr. p. 149), following a suggestion of Hecker {Philologus, v. 
433), has argued that the treatises of Satyrus and Sotion were digested by 
Heraclides into a single epitome, a theory accepted by Wilamowitz {Antig. 
V. Karyst. pp. 87-9) and Susemihl {Alex. Litt. i. 503), but rejected by Unger 
{Rhein. Mzis. χκχνι'ή. 494). Diels's objection to the common view, however, 
that Satyrus and Sotion had to some extent covered the same ground, and that 
it was useless to epitomize independently the same lives as given by the two 
authors, is conclusively met by the proof from the papyrus that Heraclides did 
not shrink from such repetition. Pythagoras was treated by Satyrus and Sotion, 
and Diogenes in dealing with his life expressly quotes Heraclides' epitome 
of them both (viii. 7, 40). Yet, as we now learn, Heraclides made an independent 
epitome of Hermippus Uepl ΥΙνθαγόρον. If Diogenes on the subject of Pythagoras 
had also referred to Heraclides h rfi Έρμίτητου €τητομτι, would not Diels and 
his supporters have said that the same great compilation which comprised 
Satyrus and Sotion was meant? There would have been just as much or as 
little basis for this identification as for the other. Some at least of the seven 
sages, too, figured in the pages of Satyrus and no doubt of Sotion ; and Satyrus 
must have included a number of νομοθίται. Since Heraclides epitomized these 
parallel treatises of Hermippus as such, it is reasonable to suppose that his 
procedure was the same in regard to Satyrus and Sotion, especially as that is the 
obvious deduction from the citations of Diogenes Laertius. 

That this new information concerning the epitomizing of Hermippus by 
Heraclides together with a specimen of his compendium should have now come 
from Oxyrhynchus is appropriate and natural in view of the fact that Suidas 
calls him Όξυρυγχίτη^. This testimony conflicts with that of Demetrius Magnes 
ap. Diog. Laert. v. 94, which describes Heraclides as Καλλατίανό$ (Callatis in 
Pontus) η 'AX€^aibp(:vs. The discrepancy has been met in various ways. Diels 
and apparently Wilamowitz (/. c.) accept Suidas and regard Demetrius as mis- 
taken. C. Miiller, Unger, and Susemihl effect a reconciliation by supposing that 
Heraclides was a native of Callatis, but lived at Alexandria at the court 
of Ptolemy Philometor, and also for some time as an oiificial at Oxyrhynchus. 


Cronert {Colotes u. Menedemos, p. 136) holds that Suidas and Demetrius have 
confused two persons, (i) Heraclides Lembos of Oxyrhynchus, statesman and 
historian, and (2) Heraclides son of Sarapion, of Callatis, epitomizer. The 
discovery of 1367 does not of course prove the correctness of Suidas ; but it 
is a little unfortunate for Cronert's hypothesis that fragments of one of Heraclides' 
epitomes, instead of the Ίστορίαι, or the Ae^/3ei;rt/cos λόγο^, should have come 
to light at Oxyrhynchus. 

The legislators discussed in the fragments are Demonax, Cecrops, Buzyges, 
Archimachus, and a personage at present unidentified whose fall is described in 
some detail in Fr. i. 1-19. This last belonged to the Hellenistic age, as is clear 
from the reference in 1. 6 to ' Ptolemy '. He was accused of peculation, fled to 
Corinth and was condemned in absence. The association with Egypt might 
suggest Demetrius of Phalerum, but he is excluded by the fact that Hermippus 
himself is the main authority for the statement that he died of snake-bite in that 
country (Diog. Laert. v. 78). It is, however, quite unnecessary to assume that 
the τΓο'λι? mentioned in 1. 7 was an Egyptian city. The short account of Demonax 
(11. 19-39) is unfortunately much mutilated ; Hermippus disagreed with Herodotus, 
who is cited in 1. ^6, and later authorities in describing Demonax as king of 
Mantinea. At this point Book i ended, and with Book ii the writer turned 
to Athens. In the seven lines which remain concerning Cecrops a citation 
of Philochorus is noticeable in 1. 47. Of Buzyges, the mythical ancestor of 
the Athenian Buzygae, we only learn that he was referred to in the poems 
of Lasus (11. 54~5)• ^7 Archimachus (11. ^6 sqq.) the son of Heracles, whose 
name is usually spelled Archemachus, is probably meant. He was apparently 
brought into some connexion with a senate of 400 (11. 6^-6), but here again the 
papyrus is disfigured by lacunae which make the sense difficult to follow. 

The text is written in a rather small hand, somewhat similar to that of 843 
(Part V, Plate vi) but firmer and more regular. It is probably of much the same 
date as 1248, in the mending of which 1367 was used, and may be assigned like 
that papyrus to the latter part of the second century. The title in Fr. a is 
in larger letters with horizontal dashes between the lines. For punctuation both 
paragraphi and dots in the high position are employed ; some at least of the 
paragraphi are apparently later additions, and the dots also are likely to have 
come from a second pen. The few corrections that occur are so slight or 
so imperfectly preserved that it is impossible to say with security whether they 
are due to the original scribe or to a diorthotes, and we have therefore as usual 
given the former the benefit of the doubt. 

I ? 


Fr. I. 
Col. i. Col. ii. 


[....]«.[... σ\υντ[ 

[.]α[. . . .]ίση 8ί[6\ και Tivcs 

5[ί]<[77]_ΐ' €ΤΓην€γκαν αν 

[τ]ω εκατόν και €ν€νη 
5 κο[ν]τα τάλαντων ω? ττα 

ρα [Πτο]λ€μαιου λαβοντος 

€19 [τη]ν πολιν ταντην 

8 a\TT6\<pvyovT09 αλλην 

€πη[ν€\γκαν τάλαντων 
ΙΟ [εκατόν] πεντήκοντα > 

[κ]α[ι ο μ]€ν eis Κορινθον 

ωί)(€[το] καταδικασθεί^ 

δε 6π[ω]λ€ίτο . προ9> 

την κ[α]ταδικην μετά 
15 των ν[τΓ]αρ)(οντων ουδέ 

V09 δε [τ]ων πολιτών 


ωνουμ[Ε]νον ου τε aypoi 

διεψθαρησαν και η οι 

κ[ι]α συνεπεσεν Δήμω 
> — 
20 ί/α| ο βασι\λε'\υ9 Μαντι 

νέων λεγε[ται] Κνρηναι 

[oisf] νρμο[θε]ττ]σαι και 

[ε]? Αελφους [π]αραγενο 

[μ]εν[ος . .] . δι[δο]ναι τα > 

25 [ ]••[•• -If • ypa 

[ ]κε[ . συ]μμα 

[χ . . Μαντιν]εων [βα]σιλεν9 
[ο Αημω]ναξ 0[. ...].. [.• 
[προ]σνιμα9 BapKaio[is πρ[ 

3θ [....]. α ... ίΤ€ . [.] . [. . . δια[ 

[. . . .]εν Μαντ[ιν ... 5° ^<^[ 



[. .] . α καθ ev α[. . .^κουν 
[...]. qv e|oi/T[. . . .] 

[• • •] 4Φψ V[' • •] /*« 
35 {μ]νηται και τον Α[η]μω 
[να]κτο9 και Ηρο8ο[τό]? 
[ως ν]πο Μαν[τ]ιν€[ων]> 
[8ό]θ€ΐη Κν[ρη]να[ιοι]9 €Κ 
'iflo ] 

[θξ]οπροπιον νο6[€τ]ης 

4θ ] β 

[Λθ]τ]ναι[ό\ΐ9 Κξκροπα τον 
\8ιφυ\γι και γηγ€νη βα 
[σι]Κΐ[ν]ρντα πρώτον 
\νομ6\θζτησαι φασί' των 

45 [νομ]ων S αυτού tovs [. . .] 
[...]. δον €υδοκιμη [ ] 
[σαι Φι]λοχορο9 δ€ τα τα{ν] 

κον[ ]α[ 

κα . [.] . ανικτ]σ[ 

Βουζνγης' νομο[θ€τη 
σαΐ' μζμνηται δ α[υτου 

55 και Aaaos ο ποιη[της 
Αργιμα^ον 5e φ[ασι β^σ 
θαι Tivas νομου[9 και 
[δι]ορθωσαι \ρησ[του9 δξ 
[του]9 υπ αυτόν τζ6[ζν 

6ο τας [.] . ν δξ παραν[. . . 
ί7ί'π[.] . ν χ^ρωμ€γ[. . . 
]€σίο[.] βα[σ]ιλικ[. . .]υνο[. 
]ατ€ . [. . .]ατο . ολ[. .]να[ 
]ρωτ[. . .] . . ταντην οτ[. 

65 [. . . •]κην βουλ€υτα[ί 
. . τ€τρακοσιους' . [. 

Fr. a. 

Ηρ]ακλ€ΐδου του 
2]αραπιωνος €π[ι]τομη 
των Ερμιππου π€ρι 
γο νομοθετών και 
i\Tr\Ta σοφών και 


Fr. 4. 


Fr. 6. 

Fr. 7. 








• . 


• • 


] . ίή 

]α προς 


2 sqq. ' Certain persons therefore brought an action against him for a hundred and 
ninety talents on the ground that he had received this sum from Ptolemy for the city. 


When he was acquitted of this they brought another for a hundred and fifty talents ; 
whereupon he withdrew to Corinth. He was condemned and he and his property were put 
up for sale to meet the judgement, but as none of the citizens offered to buy them his lands 
became waste and his house went to ruin. 

Demonax king of Mantinea is said to have given laws to the people of Cyrene, and 
going to Delphi . . . Demonax is also mentioned by Herodotus, who says that he was 
given as a legislator to the Cyrenaeans by the Mantineans in consequence of an oracle. 

Book ii. 

At Athens the double-formed earthborn Cecrops when he was king, it is said, was the 
first lawgiver, and of his laws the . . . were highly esteemed ; but according to Philochorus . . . 
Buzyges (is said) to have given laws ; the poet Lasus also mentions him. It is said that 
Archemachus promulgated some laws and amended others, and that the laws made by him 
were good . . . 

(Title) Epitome by Heraclides son of Sarapion of Hermippus on lawgivers and the 
seven sages and Pythagoras.' 

I. It is not clear whether the superscribed α refers to 1. i or is a displaced fragment. 

6. 1. \αβοντί. 

13. There seems to be an error here. επ[ω]λείτο is followed by a vertical stroke after 
which there is a small break in the papyrus, and beyond this a vestige of the π is visible 
before p. To interpret the vertical stroke as the forepart of the π is not at all satisfactory, 
owing to the height of the stroke and the width of the space beyond it. We prefer to 
suppose that a superfluous letter, or part of one, was written before προς. To read η (οικία) 
προί would involve an alteration of καταΒικασθας, and €π[ω]λει το (^ ) is not a very likely 

1 7. Whether the overwritten ι was inserted by the original scribe or a corrector is 
doubtful ; the ν has not been deleted. 

IQSqq. Cf. Athen. iv. l54d"Ep/xt7r7ro? δ' eV a trepX νομοθ(των (P. H. G. iii. 36) των μονο- 
μαχούντων evperas άποφαίνα Mavriveis Δημώνακτος evos των ττοΧιτων σνμβονλ(ύσαντο5, και ζηλωτας 

τούτων -γενίσθαι Κνρηναίονς. Herodotus, who is cited below (1. 36), relates how, on the 
accession at Cyrene of the lame Battus, that state was bidden by the Dephic oracle to apply 
to Mantinea for a καταρτιστηρ, and the Mantineans accordingly sent Demonax avhpa των 

άστων 8οκιμώτατον who τριφύλου: (ττοίησί σφ(ας and τω βασιΚί'ί Βάττω τΐμίν^α ΐξΐΚων και 'κρωσννας, 
τα αΚΚα πάντα τα πρότΐρον ειχοί/ οί βααϊΚίίς is μέσον τω 8ημω '4θηκ€ (iv. l6l)j similarly 
Diodorus viii. 30 δη της των Κυρηναίων στύσΐως διαιτητής iyiveTO Δημώναζ Μαντινίνς, σννίσΐΐ και 

δικαιοσίινυ 8οκών διαφίρΐΐν. According to all these passages Demonax was a private citizen, 
and it is strange that he should here be given the title of king. 

23-4. irapayevopevQi (sc. oi ΚυρηνοΊοι) would be expected from the narrative of Herodotus, 
but the following infin. indicates that Demonax is still the subject. δο[υ]ι/αί rather than 
hi\po\vai is wanted, but is apparently not to be read ; the doubtful initial δ may be a. 

26. ]/<e[: or possibly ]ασ[. 

32. Apparently not δ[4οι]κουι/. χ may be read instead of κ. 

33• f| ων is also possible. 

34 sqq. Cf. note on 1. 19. There are dots above και in both 1. 35 and 1. 36, but it is 
doubtful whether they were intended as marks of deletion, though the first και might probably 
be spared ; for the second cf. 1. 55. A small fragment containing part of the δ and the 
second ο of 1Λ.ροδοτος and a vestige of δ in the line above is not certainly placed here. 

39. As in 1. 17 the responsibility for the correction remains in doubt. 

42. \ριφυ\η•. cf. Suidas s. v., Aristoph. Wasps 438, &c. 


46. The letters before ν are indistinct, and there may have been some alteration; 
perhaps ] . |[. .Jv should be read. The paragraphus below this line is of unusual length ; 
it should, moreover, have been placed a line lower down. 

53. ^Boυζ<ιyης was the mythical ancestor of the Athenian priestly family of Βου^ύγαι and 
was regarded as the inventor of ploughing and the originator of various moral observances; 

cf e.g. Schol. Aesch. ii. 78 Βονζ. . . . Αθηναίων των πάλαι, δστις πρώτο: ζίΰγο: εζΐνξ€ν, Hesych. 
Βονζ. ήρως Αττικός, ό πρώτος βονς νπο αροτρον ζενξας, Etym. Magn. 2θ6. 47> Append. Prov. I. 6ΐ• 
άρα\ βονζνγΐίοι' Βονζ. . . . άλλα re πολλά άραται καΐ τοις μη κοινωνοΰσι . . . vbaTos η πυρός η μη 
νποφαίνουσιν οδον πλανωμίνοις, Diphil. Fr. 62 Kock, Schol. Soph. Ant. 255 λό'^ος δε οτι Βονζ. 
Κβηνησι κατηράσατο τοις π€ριορώσιν αταφον σώμα. 

54-5• This passage must be added to the scanty fragments of Lasus (four in Bergk's 
Poei. Ljyr.). 

56. Άρχίμαχος occurs as an Athenian name in Ps.-Demosth. Ώρ6ς Μακάρτατον 45, but 
no lawgiver Άρχίμαχος is known. Presumably the reference is to Άρχψαχος, the son of 
Heracles by one of the daughters of Thespius (Apollod. ii. 7. 8), though apparently he is not 
elsewhere credited with νομοθίσία. 

62-4. The letters €σ, ατ€, and ρωτ are on a small fragment which is stuck on in the 
position given in the text, but is perhaps not in its right place. It is noticeable that the 
initial letters of 11. 63-4 are rather more to the left of the e in 1. 62 than is warranted by 
the ordinary slope of the column. The doubtful σ following the e may be γ or π. 

Pr. 3. I. If ]ζ€ν is right this fragment might well belong to the passage concerning 
Buzyges; cf. note on 1. 53. The ζ, however, is not altogether satisfactory. 

Pr. 7. If this fragment belongs to 1367, it must have come from near the end of a line, 
on account of the compression of the letters. 

1368. Romance. 

19-2 X 9.6 cm. Third century. 

The recto of this papyrus contains the ends of eleven lines from an official 
register of persons, drawn up, to judge from the handw^riting, towards the close of 
the second century. A census and ^τηκ^φάλαία are mentioned, and the document 
no doubt had reference to taxation. On the verso is the upper part of a column, 
with some letters from the ends of lines of the column preceding, from an 
apparently unknown romance. This is written in a medium-sized irregular hand, 
employing for the most part uncial forms but with a tendency to cursive; 
it is not likely to be later than about the middle of the third century. A para- 
graphus is once written, but no other kind of stop ; ν at the end of a line 
sometimes takes the form of a stroke above the preceding vowel. Corrections 
in 11. 45-6 seem to be due to the original scribe. The fragment relates the 
adventures of a certain Glaucetes. During a ride he sees a vision of a youth who 
says that he and a maiden have been murdered and lie buried in a particular 
spot. Glaucetes then proceeds with his journey and arrives at a village where he 
prepares to pass the night. The piece is another illustration of the popularity 


of such compositions, of which evidence has already come from Oxyrhynchus in 
fragments both of extant and non-extant authors ; cf. 416-17, 1019, 1250. 

Col. i. Col. ii. 

λνη vLOis την αυτήν θαψα[ι 

]€v8e μζίκρον απο της oSov €κ[τρα 

]t€v νϊ 3° '^^'■^ Κ€ΐμαί δη νττο τη 7Γ[λα 

'Y^^ios τανιστω €Κ€ΐνη και fier € 

5 ]8l €KiL μου κόρη καλή αμφω ανηρη 

]j;i/ μξνοί ο Se Γλαυκίτη? €Κ 

"^την rrXayeis ωσπ€ρ eiKos €φθ€γ 

] . σί 35 i^^TO y-^v ουΒ^ν npos ταυ 

]του9 τα €n€V€V€v Se μόνον και 

ΙΟ ]παί [^η]'!!' η^ονν^ν ο 8e veavi 

ijngs [σ /coy] ηψανισθη ^πιν^υσαν 

lost. [tos ο] δζ Γλαυκ€τη9 κατά κρα 
40 TOS ηλαυνίν και αμα βπε 

]α στρίφξτο α που αύθις ϊδοι 

1 5 ]α ζΚ€ΐνον αλλ ουκ€τι ^βλίπΐ 

45 ρ αυτή 7Γθ[[λ]]α/ίθί τούτον δι 

]σχυ αφικν€ΐται ουν νυκτός €τι 

]ώ e[i]y την κώμη ν και ην πα 

2θ ] αβας ορα [[τταρ αυττ;!] ιπποστα 

](fa σιν ανΐωγμ^νην και €v 

]? αυτή στιβάδα €υτ€λη και 

] φαυλην καταδησας ουν 

]δ^ 5° προς τη φάτνη τον ιππον 

25 ] βαλων αυτός €πι της στιβα 

y δ[ο]ς €π€^€ΐρζΐ καθ^υδίΐν 

] • καν τούτω κατίίσι γυνή δι 

• • • α κλβιμακος η ην βξ υπ^ρω 
55 [ου α]γουσα κάτω €ΐς την ιπ 
[ποστασιν . . . 


Col. ii. * " . . . to bury her, turning aside a little from the path. There I lie beneath 
that plane-tree and with me a fair maiden, both of us slain." Glaucetes filled with natural 
astonishment said nothing in reply to this, but merely nodding his head rode on; and when 
he nodded the young man disappeared. Glaucetes hurried on, turning round at the same 
time on the chance that he might see him again ; but he beheld him no more. While it was 
yet night he arrived at the village, which was on the bank of a river. Crossing this he saw 
an open stable with a poor and mean litter inside; so having tied up his horse at the 
manger he threw himself down on the litter and tried to sleep. Meanwhile a woman descended 
by a ladder which led down from an upper room to the stable . . .' 

28. The letter before the lacuna is probably α or e. θα\\τ^ιν would fill the line better 
than θω\τα\ι., which is rather short. 

46. The deleted letters, which are a dittography from 11. 44-5, have dots placed above 
and below them. 

51. βαΚων : cf. Arrian, Ept'ci. ii. 20. 10 βάΚων KaBevSe. This intransitive use of βάλλεικ 
(cf. piirreiv) is also found in poetry, and in the colloquial /3άλλ' is κόρακα:, &c. 



13β9. Sophocles, Oedipus Tyrannus. 

Fr. 7 4-4x8.1 cm. Fifth century. Plate VII 

(Frs. 1-2 recto). 

These seven small pieces of three leaves from a papyrus book containing the 
Oedipus Tyrannus and no doubt other plays of Sophocles were part of a find of 
Byzantine literary fragments, which comprised 1369-74 and 1385, 1391, 1394, 
1396-7 and 1401-3, besides a few very small unpublished fragments. Parts 
of fifty-six lines from the middle and later portions of the drama are preserved, 
nearly half being lyric, but too incomplete to be of much value. The script 
is a somewhat irregular sloping uncial of the oval type and probably belongs to 
the fifth century or the beginning of the sixth, being thus little later than 22, the 
only other extant papyrus fragment of this play. There were about forty-three 
lines on a page. A few corrections have been inserted in a different but probably 
nearly contemporary hand (11. 780, 822, 1310) together with a breathing in 1. 827 
and the speaker's name in the margin of 1. 689. The other occasional correc- 
tions and breathings, with the stops (high and low points), paragraphi, accents, 
diaereses, and marks of elision and quantity, seem all to be due to the first hand. 
Iota adscript is generally omitted. The scribe was rather careless, 1. 778 being 


omitted owing to homoioteleuton, and where the Laurentian codex (L) breaks 
down, as happens not infrequently in the choric passages, the papyrus (Π) rarely 
helps, so that the only novelties are (μβατ^νσαι for ζμβατβύαν in 1. 825, a doubtful 
variant in 1. 75a, and an uncertain confirmation of an emendation in the corrupt 
line 1 3 10. It is interesting, however, that in at least three instances (11. 827, 
1306, 1307) and probably a fourth (1. 1355) the text agrees with the later MSS. 
against L, thus providing a fresh argument on the side of those who do not 
regard L as the ultimate source of the other MSS. of Sophocles. 

Frs. 1-4. Verso. 

688 [τονμον napicis και καταμβΧ\ύνων Κ€αρ [ 

xop(os) [ωναξ €ΐ7Γον μ^ν ο\υ 

690 )(' α\πα^ μόνον ισθι δ]€ 

1-J ' 
παραφ[ρονιμον απορό\ν 

€7Γί φρον[ίμα] ττξφαγίθαί 

μ αν [€ί σε] νοσφιζομ\αι 

[ο? τ ξμαν γα]ν φίλαν 

695 [^^ TTOvoLS α\υ6\υ 

[σαν κατ ορθόν] ούρισας 
[τανυν τ €ν7Γθ]μπο9 6ί 8ύναι γ[€νον 
ΙΟ lines lost. 

708 [βμον πακονσον kul] μαθ ουν[ξκ €στι σοι 
[βροτζίον ouSev μα]ντικήί [^χον τζχνης 

7 ΙΟ [φάνω Se σοι σημαία τ\ων8ζ σ[νντομα 

Recto. Plate VII (Frs. 1-2). 

731 [ηνδ]ατο γαρ ταντ o[vSe πω λη^αντ e^ei 

[και Tr]ov σ& ο χώρος [ovtos ου το8 ην πάθος 

[Φωκι?] μ€ν η γη κλ[ηζ€ταί σχιστή δ oSo9 

[es ταντο] Αβλφων [καπό Ααυλιας αγ€ΐ 
735 ['^"ί '■'^ χρ]ονος τ[οισδ €στιν ον^]€ληλνθώς• 

[σχζδον τι προσθ€]ν η συ τησδ ^[χων χθονος 


[αρχήν €φα]ινον τοντ €κηρνχ[θη πολίΐ 

[ω Zev TL μου] Spaaai βφο[υ\^υσαι nepi 

[τι δ €στι σοι τ\οντ Οιδίπους ^[νθυμίον 
74© [μηπω μ ^ρ\^Τ^ Τ?^ ^^ Λα[ιον φυσιρ 

ΙΟ lines lost. 
751 [άνδρα? λοχιτας οι α]νηρ «^"[χ^γετϊ?? 

[π€ντ ήσαν οι ξυμπ]άντ€ς• e[v δ αυτοισιν ην 

[κήρυξ απήνη δ ηγί] Αάϊον μ[ια 

Frs. 5 and 6. Recto. 

, .• • • • • • 

775 ί/^^^'?]/? h Μ€ρ[οπη Joapis ηγομην δ ανηρ 

[αστ]Μν μίγισ[το9 των e/cei πρί]ν μου τύχη [ 
'j'j'j [τοιαψ €π€στη 6[αυμασαι μβν] a^£a[[t]]• 
779 [^^νρ] y^fi ^^ δζίπν[οι? μ υπ€ρπλ]ησθ€ΐς μί[θη 
78ο [καλ€ΐ πα]ρ οινω- πλα.[στο9 ωσύ]ι^ήν πα[τρι 
[καγω βαρυνθ€ΐ9 την μ]ζν ουσαν ημ[€ραν 
[μολι? κατ€σχον Θατβ]ΐ3αι δ Ίων π6λα[? 
[μητρο9 πατρο9 τ ηλ€γ]χον• οι δβ δυσ[φορω9 
[τοννΐίδο? ηγον τω μξ]θ€ντι τον λ[ογον 


819 [ωθζΐν δ απ οίκων και ταδ ούτι? αλ]\θ9 ην 

820 [η γω π €μ]αυτω τασδ [αράς ο προστι\θ€ΐ9. 
[λ€χη δι] του θανο[ντος €v χ^ροιν] €μαΐν. 


[χραιν]ω δι ^η^^νπ^ρ [ωλετ αρ €φ]υν κακός, 
[αρ ουχ]ι πας [[αϊ/]] άν[αγνος] €ΐ μ€ χρη ψ[νγ€ΐν 
[και μοι] φ^νγοντ[ι] μ[η]τ€ [τους €μ]ους [ιδ]^ιν 
825 [μη<ττ €μ]βατ€υσαι πατρ[ιδος η γαμοις /xe δβι 
[μητρός ζ]υγήναι και [πατΐρα κατακτανίΐν 
[Πολυβον] ος e^e^/je\/^[e καξ^φυσ^ μβ 


Fr. 7. Verso. 

1304 \β\υναΐίαι σ β[θ€λων ττολλ avepeaBai 

1305 πολλά TTv6e[a6aL πολλά δ αθρησαι 
TOLav φρίκη[ν παρίχ^βις μοι 

αιαί atai 

φ^ν ψζυ δί^στανο9 εγω ττοί γα? 

[ψ]ξρομαί τλ[αμων πα μοι φθογγα 


1 3 ΙΟ [5i]a7r[[[e]]]rar[ai ψοραδην 


1 35 1 [πο8ιας ίλαβ^ν μ απο τε] <f:[ovo]y 

[eppvTo καν^σωσ^ν ojy^ev es χάριν 

[πρασσων rore ] 

[γαρ αν θανών ] 

1355 [ονκ ην φιλοισιν ονδ €]μοί τοσονδ' άχο[9 

[θίλοντι καμοί τουτ α]ν ην 

[ονκονν πατρός ] 

[γ αν φον€νς ηλθον ον]δ€ ν[νμ]φι[θ9 

688. καταμβλ]ύνων : SO MSS., Jebb. Hartung and Wecklein proposed καταμβλυνας. 

689. χορ(ος), or possibly χορ[ο{ΐ)\ is written as an ordinary abbreviation with a stroke 
through the p, not as in 1370. 1249 with ο above and ρ under the χ. Lines 689-97 
are divided somewhat differently in L, which begins 1. 690 with -πα^ and 1. 696 with 

κατ ορθόν. 

693. σε] νοσφιζομ\αι : SO MSS. Jebb adopts Hermann's σ ίνοσφιζόμαν. 

695-6. Eleven letters would be expected in the lacuna in 1. 695 and 10 in 1. 696; the 
restoration of the reading of the MSS. gives 12 and 11, but with several narrow letters. 
ττόνοις in 1. 695 was corrected by Bergk to πόνοισιν in order to correspond to φθίνουσα in 

I. 666 of the strophe, where Dindorf conjectured φθινάί, but the arrangement [ev πόνοισιν 
άΚ\υ\[ουσαν κατ ορθόν] requires 1 3 letters before ονρισας in 1. 696, which is unlikely. In 

II. 666-7 the reading of the MSS. τρύχίΐ ψνχάν, κα\ τάδ' ei κακοϊ: κακά again fails to correspond 
to άλύονσαν κατ ορθόν ονρισας in the antistrophe, and καί is generally omitted with Hermann. 
The papyrus supports the view that the error lies in the strophe, not in 1. 696. 

697. bvvai y\(vov or δυι/αιο [yeiOu ? can be read; the first hand of L had the former 
reading, the first corrector (with the other MSS.) the latter, something (two accents ?) being 


erased above ai. Neither reading corresponds to 1. 668 τα προς σφων. Hermann and 
Campbell read Βύναω, omitting yevov, which word (or ΐσθι) would have to be understood. 

740. €ρ\ωτα τον : Or pOSSibly €ρ\ωτα [t]ov ; cf. 1. 777• 

752. ξυμπ^ντί! was wrongly accentuated, unless a new variant, e.g. οΰτοι π]άντ(ς, be 
read for ot ξνμπ\άντίς : cf. 1. 780, note. 

777. The deletion of the wrong t after άξια and the insertion of the mark of quantity 
seem to be due to the first hand. After this verse 1. 77^ σπουδ^ί ye μίντοι της ίμης ουκ αξία 
has been omitted owing to homoioteleuton. 

780. There are traces of ink between the two accents on e]t and ψ which apparently 
represent y, i. e. 'y(e), or a smooth breathing. The scribe clearly either did not read πλαστό? 
as Λψ πατρί, which is indeed rather unexpected after καλή μ', or else misunderstood it. The 
accent of ην must be wrong ; cf, 1. 752, note. 

782. δ' was corrected from t by the first hand. The supposed grave accent on ίων 
resembles a mark of elision. 

821. The V of ΐμαΐνΐΒ written very large. 

822. The reading of the first hand ψπ^ρ was a mere error. 

823. av[ayvos] : there is room for two more letters in the lacuna, which is hardly smaller 
than the space occupied by wXer ap «φ in 1. 822, and there may well have been another 
deletion. The first was apparently due to the original scribe. 

824. φfvyovτ[ι] : 1. φνγοντ[ι] with A (the Parisinus). L originally had φυ . τόντι, which 
was converted into φvyόvτι by the erasure of half the cross-bar of the τ as Λλ^εΐΐ as all the 
preceding letter. 

μ[η]τ€ : so A ; μήστι Originally L, corrected by an early hand to μητι. μ[η]στ[ι does not 
suit the traces here, and μ['7σ]τί [ cannot be read. 

825. [μηοΎ ίμψατ(υσαι: μητ ΐμβατίΰίΐν LA, μητ having been Corrected in L by an early 
hand from μήστ or μη μ' ; μήτ or μη 'στ €μ. other MSS., μηΒ' ί'μβατίύΐΐν Dindorf, Jebb. The 
aorist fits in better than the present with φυyΐΊv and ISeiv in the preceding lines, but whether 
the papyrus had μηστ (cf 1. 824), μητ, or ;:ί7;δ' is uncertain. Seven letters would be expected 
in the lacuna on the analogy of 11. 823-6, six according to 1. 827, so that [μητ €μ] or [μηΒ" €μ] 
is rather short. 

826. There was possibly a low stop after C\vyrjvai. 

827. (ξ€θρ(\1/[ΐ κα|ε(/)υσε: SO Μ (Ambrosianus) and the late MSS. ; (ξίφνσε κάξίθρεψ^ 
LA, Jebb ; but cf. Od. xii. 134 θρό\τασα τεκοίσά τ€, and introd. 

1304. Β\νναμαί σ ΐ[θίΚων : the reading is very doubtful, but the first letter visible seems 
to be t or v, the next to be ν rather than δ, and four feet are found in 11. 1305, 1306, 1308, 
and 1309. The arrangement of 11. 1304-10 is the same as that in L. 

1306. Toiav: so edd. with L marg. and some of the late MSS.; ποίαν L, τοΊαν with π 
suprascr. A, &c. 

1307. aiai aiai : SO some of the late MSS. ; at a! αϊ LA, al αϊ other late MSS., Jebb ; cf. 
1. 827, note. 

1308. The accent on Βν[στανοί is not certain. 

1 3 10. The reading [8ι]απωτατ[αι corr. from δι]α7Γ[€]τπτ[αι is unfortunately very uncertain. 
LA have 8ιαπίταται φοράΒην \, the only variants for δίαττ. in the later MSS. being the corrupt 
δίίπταται and διαπίηταται. The letter above the line is not α or i, but might be o. 8ιαπωτάται, 
an epic form used also by Pindar, is adopted by Jebb from Musgrave and Seidler to preserve 
the anapaestic metre. 

1351. LA also have φόνου at the end of this line, but ΐπιποΒίας at the end of the line 
preceding. That the scribe of Π had no hesitation in dividing words between two lines is 
clear from 11. 689 and 695. The restorations in 11. 135 1-2 are from L, but the text and 
metre of these lines are doubtful. 


1355. άχο[ς•. SO A and edd. ; άχ0\ο5, the unmetrical reading of L, &c., is possible, but 
in view of the other disagreements with L less probable. 
1 35 γ. οϋκουν πατρός . . . ννμφίοί forms one line in L. 

1370. Euripides, Medea and Orestes. 

Fr. I 8-iXi8-icm. Fifth century. Plate VII 

(Frs. 3 recto, 9 verso). 

These nine fragments of seven different leaves from a papyrus codex of 
Euripides were found with 1369 and 1371-4. One belongs to the Medea^Wi^: rest 
to the Orestes, but the order of the plays is uncertain. The script is a good-sized 
uncial of the sloping oval type with thirty-seven or thirty-eight lines to a column, 
and resembles 1371. Fr. i {Medea) contains parts of fourteen iambic lines near 
the beginning of the drama (11. 30-6, 57-63). Iota adscript is twice written by 
the first hand, twice omitted, but inserted by a corrector who used darker ink and 
to whom are due the breathing in 1. 33 and frequent accents, stops (high, middle, 
and low points) except that at the end of 1. 59, and marks of elision ; diaereses 
and paragraphi are by the original scribe. The Orestes scraps, in the same hand, 
contain parts of nearly 100 lines scattered over the play, one-third being lyric 
(11. 445-9, 469-74, 482-5, 508-13, 685-90, 733-9, 811-17, 850-4, 896-8, 907-10, 
934-6, 945-8, 1347-63, 1 397-1305, 1334-45» 1370-1). An insertion of iota 
adscript in 1. 909 and a correction of 1. 897 are made in a small uncial hand, 
which employed brown ink like that of the main text and seems to be different 
from that of the corrector of Fr. i, while the accents, breathings, stops (high 
point), and elision-marks are less frequent than in Fr. i and are probably due, like 
the diaeresis (1. 470) and most of the paragraphi, to the first hand. Corrections 
in 11. 1334 and 1343 and perhaps 511 are in a different hand, which may be 
identical with that of the person who inserted the speaker's name against 11. 470 
and 1349 ii^ good-sized uncials and paragraphi below 11. 1350, 1357, and 1260, 
but was apparently not the writer of the text. Two glosses in late fifth or sixth- 
century cursive, explaining rare words, occur in the margin of 11. 1370 and 1371. 
The writer of these notes may also have been responsible for the speaker's name 
against 1, 1360, but the speaker's name added in uncials against 1. 1346, if not due 
to the original scribe, was probably inserted by a fourth corrector. The cursive 
notes are somewhat later than the scholia in 1371, but the main text probably 
belongs, like the other literary fragments of this find, to the fifth century rather 
than to the sixth. 

Like the two extant papyri of the Medea (11. 5-13 in P. Didot, ed. H. Weil, 
Monuments grecs, 1879, 18-33, and 11. 710-15 in 450) the present fragment is 
too small to be of any practical use for textual purposes ; but the pieces of 


the Orestes are more valuable, being longer than the previously known papyrus 
fragments of that play (11. 339-43 with musical notes in P. Rainer, Mittlieil. v. 
ojS^ ; 1062-90 in J. Nicole, Rev. de Philol. xix. 105 ; 1313-50, 1356-60 in 1178), 
and in spite of their unsatisfactory condition offer some readings of interest. The 
Orestes is one of the best attested of Euripides' plays, the Marcian (M), Vatican 
(V), and two Paris codices (A and B) being available as well as the Laurentian 
(L) and the Laurentian part of the Palatine (P). Of these M, the oldest (twelfth 
century), is acknowledged to be the best, A and V coming next ; Ρ stands nearer 
to MABV than to L. A noteworthy agreement with Μ against the other MSS. 
occurs in 1. 946, and with A in 1. 1335, and probably in 11. 816 and 1370 ; on the 
whole the corrected text is fairly accurate, though a slip in 1. 508 has passed 
unobserved. Weil's emendation ay for αλλ' in 1. 1340 is confirmed, which is the 
more remarkable since 1178, though five centuries older than 1370, agrees with 
the MSS. A new reading which may be right occurs in 1. 508. 

1401, which was found with 1370, is also perhaps Euripides, but is written 
in a different hand and seems to belong to a distinct MS. 

Fr. 1. Verso. 

20 Μηδζία ^ η δνστηνο^ ητιμασμύρη. 
βοαι /Χ6ί/ opKovs ανακαλεί 5[e iej^iay 
πίστίν μζ•γίστην• και ^[eofs μ]αρτνρζται. 
oias αμοιβή? [e^ Ιάσονος κυρα] 
Κ€ίταί δ ασι\το9 σωμ νφξΐς αλγηδοσί 
2 5 τον ττάντα \συντηκουσα δακρυοι? γ^ρονον 
βπ€ΐ [τγ]ρ[ο9 ανδρο? ησθίτ ηδικημξρη 


57 ύύσθ' i'/iepoy μ νττήλθβ •γη' τ€ κουρανωι 
Xi^ai μολού[ση]^ δ[€]υρο Μηδβίας τυγα?• 
ονπω γαρ ή τα[λαινα 7r]av€TaL γόων 

6ο ζηλω σ iv αρχ[η ηημα κο]νδ€πω μ^σοΐ 
ω μα>ρ[θ5 €ΐ χ^ρη δέσποτας ciueiy τοδ€ 
[ω$• ονδίν οιδ€ των ν^ωτ^ρων κα\κων' 
[τί δ eaTLV ω yepau μη φ6ον€.ϊ\ φρασαι• 


25. π 0Ϊ τταντα has been corrected. 

58. μο\ου[ση\ι : SO ABPV, edd. ; μολοϋσαν V (later hand) L. 

MijSetar: SO V (with η 8ΐσποίνης suprascr.) LP (of. Ennius, Med. Fr. 3); δΐσποίνης AB 
and Schol. Phoen. i, Wecklein, Murray. 

Frs. 2 and 3. Recto. Plate VII (Fr. 3 recto). 

445 [ίδία 'ΐτ\ρο^ [^X^M®*^ ^ προ? Apyeia? χβρο? 

[TrarJTooi/ προ[9 αστών coy βαι/ω βρα)(ν9 λόγος 

[ω μί]λ€09 ηκζΐ[9 συμφοράς ey τουσ•)(ατον 

[ey σ e]A7riy ^//[τ^ καταφνγας e^€i κακών 

[αλλ α^]λίωy π[ρασσουσΐΡ ξντνχ^ης μόλων 
19 lines lost. 
469 [θωμαι γ€ρον]τ[ος ομμ]ατ[ων φίνγων κάρας 
Τυνδ(αρίυ5) π[ον πον θνγίατρος της βμης ΐ[δω ποσιν 

471 Μ[€ν6λαον] €7Γ€ί γαρ τωι Κλν[ταίμνηστρας ταφωι 

χ[οας] χ^€ομ€νος• €κλνον ως ey [Νανπλιαν 

ήκοι συν αλθ)(^ωι πολυετής σ[(.σωσμζνος 

ayere μ€ προς γαρ Se^[i]av α[υτου θ^λω 


482 [τι γαρ φίλου μοι πατρός βστιν €κγ]ονος• 

[κξίνου γαρ oSe πξφυκ€ τοιουτο]ς yeycoy 

[π^φυκίν €1 δ€ δυστυγζΐ τιμ]ητ€ος' 
4^5 {βφαρβαρωσαί γ^ρονιος ων ev βαρ]βαροις• 

[Ελληνίκον TOL τον ομοθζν τίμαν aet]• 
21 lines lost. 
508 [ei τονδ αποκτ€ΐ]νί6ν σύλλ€Κτρ[ος γυνή] 

[χω τουδζ παις αυ μ\ητ€ρ ανταποκτζν['ζί 
5 ΙΟ [καπζίθ ο κείνου] γ^νομίνος φονω φονον [ 


[λνσεί πβρας δξ κα]κων [[ττοίΤ] προβήσ^ται• 
[καλώς eOevTO ταυ]τα πατύρζς oi πάλαι• 

Frs. 4 and 5. Verso. 

685 [συν^κκομιζ^ιν Βυναμιν η\ν 8ι\βω θξο? 

[θρησκοντα και κτΐΐνοντα τ]ου9 [eva\vTL[ov9 

[το δ αν δυνασθαι προ9 θβων] νρ[τ7^]α) τνχ[€ΐν 

[ηκω γαρ ανδρών συμμάχων κ€ν]ον δο[ρυ 

[εχοΰν τΓονοισί μνριοΐί αλωμ^νος] 
6go [σμικρά σνν αλκή των λ€λ€ίμμ€ν]ων φ[ιλων 


723 [οτΓοι τραπομξνοί] θαγ[ατον Αργζίων φύγω 
[ovTOS γα]ρ [ην μοι κ]αταφ[υγη σωτήρια? 

725 [αλλ €ΐσό]ρω [γαρ] τον[8€ φιΧτατον β ρότων 
[ΤΙυ\α\8ην δ[ρομω στ^ιγοντα Φωκίων απο 
[r]8e\L[d\v 6y^i[y πιστοί ev κακοί? ανηρ 
[κρζίσ^σων γα\Χηνη? ναντιΚοισιν ζΐσοραν 
[θασσον] τ] [μ€ χρην προβαίνων ικομην 8 1 άστεως 

Fr. 6. Verso. 

811 [παλ]αι παλ[αία? απο συμφορά? δομών 
[θ7Γο]76 χρυ[σ€α? epis apvos 
[η\ύ\θξ Ταν[τα\ιδαι? 
[οικ\τρ6τατα [θοιναματα 

8 15 [και σ]φάγια γ[^νναιων τ€Κ€ων 
[φον]ω• φ6ν[ο? e^a/iei 
[βων δι] α[ιματο? ου προλ^ι 




850 \Π.νλα8ηί €OiK€ δ ου μακράν οδ ayyeXoy] 
[λίξίίν τα κ^ίθ^ν σου κασιγνητου 7re]pt• 

[ω τλημον ω δνστην€ τον σΎρατη]\ατου 
[Αγαμ€μνορο9 παι ποτνι Ηλ€κ]τρα λ6γο[υί 
[άκουσον ου? σοι δυστυχείς η]κω φ[€ρων 

Frs. 7 and 8. Recto. 

896 [πηδωσ act κηρυκ€ς oSe δ αντοις] 0ίλο[ί 

]aitriv ι[ 

[oy αν δυνηται ττολεοί ev τ αρ]χ ψ 

[(Επί τωδί δ ηγορ€υ€ Διομήδη? d\va^ 
8 lines lost. 
907 [όταν yap ηδν^? t[ol? λόγοι? φρονων κακω? 

[π^ιθη το] π\ήθο[? τη iroXei κακόν μ€γα 

[όσοι δξ συ]ν vaf" γ^ρηστα [βουΧ^υουσ aei 
910 [καν μη τΓα]ραυτικ αυτι[? €ΐσι χρήσιμοι 


934 [υμιν αμυνών] ονδζ[ν ησσον η πατρι 

935 [^κτΐΐνα μ]ητίρ [ei γαρ αρσ€νων φόνο? 
[εσται γυν]αι^[ιν όσιο? ου φθανοιτ er αν 

8 lines lost. 
945 [os ηγορζυξ συγγονον σ€ τ€ κτ]αν€ΐ[ν 

[μολι? δ €7Γ€ίσ6 μη π€]τρ[ουμ]€νο? θ[αν€ΐν 
[τλημων Ορέστη? αυτ6\•)(ί[ιρι] δ\ σφα[γηι 
[ι;7Γ€σχ€Τ ζν τηδ ημ€ρ]αι [λ]ζΐψ€ΐν β[ιον 

Fr. 9• Fol. Ι verso. Plate VII. 

Ηλ(€κτρο) Μυκηνι[δ€? ω φιλαι 

1248 τα ττρωτα [κατά ΤΙ^Χασγον ^δο? Αργΐΐων 
xop(os) τίνα [θρο€ΐ? ανδαν ποτνια 


1250 7r[a]p[a//erei yap ίτι σοι τοδ €v Ααναί8ων ττοΧζΐ 

στηθ [αϊ μ^ν υμών τονδ αμαξηρη τρίβον 
αι δ [€ν]θ[αδ άλλοι/ οιμον e? φρουραν δομών 
τ[ί δζ μ€ τοδζ Xp€os anveis 
([vvewe μοι φίλα 
1255 0o/3o[s] e)([€i μ€ μη τΐ9 €πι δωμασι 
aTa[6eLS €ΤΓΐ φονιον αίμα 
7Γη[ματα πημασιν ξ^^υρη 

[χω/)6ίτ €ΐΓζΐγωμ€σΘ €γω μ€ν ουν τριβον 
1259 [τονδ €κφνλα^ω τον npos ηλιον βολα^ 

αλ]λο η|Αΐχ(οριον) και μ[ην €γω τονδ 09 rrpos €σπ€ραν φ€ρ€ί 
1201 δ[οχ^μια νυν Kopas διαφζρ ομμάτων 

([κ€ίθ€ν €νθαδ ίίτα τταλινσκοτηαν 
ΐγομ[ζν ως θ poets 

F0I. Ι recto. 

1297 [ηκονσαθ ανδρός χεφ ^γουσιν ev φ6\γωί 
\Έ1λζνη9 το κωκνμ €στιν cos απ(ΐκασ]αι• 
[ω Α 109 ω Aios αζναον κρατο9 ] 

1300 [€λ^ cwiKOvpos ίμοισι φιλοισι πα]ντως 

[Mei/eXae θνησκω συ δξ πάρων μ ουκ io]0eXei[y 
[φον^νΐτζ καίν€Τ€ ] 

[ολλϋτβ δίπτνχα διστομα φασγανα] 
[e/c χ€ρο9 ίξμζνοι ] 

1305 [λιποπατορα λιπογαμον α πλείστο]^? 

Fol. a recto. 


[[.]]λί///ωί' Ορ€σ[τη9 μη θανίΐν €μου θ νπ€ρ 
1335 [^'"' α]^ίθίσ-£ τ αρ [αν^υφημ^ι δομο9 

Tr[€p]t τον γαρ αλ[λοι; μάλλον αν φθβγξαιτο τι? 
[αλλ ΐ]λθ€ κα[ι μ€τασ)(€ς ικβσιας φίλοΐ9 
[^ν Ι^]νΐβ['] "^[ροστΓίσονσα τη μ€γ ολβία 
Κ 2 


M€ve\a[ov ημα9 μη Θανόντα^ eiaiSeiv 
1340 αγ ω τραφ[€ΐσα μητρο9 €u γ^ροιν €μης 
θίκτ€ίρον ^[μας καπικουφισον κακών 
ιθ' €ίί ay<c\ya δξυρ εγω δ ηγησομαι 
σω[τηρια9 γαρ Τ€ρμ e^ciy ημιν μονή 
ι[δον διώκω τον ζμον ey δομον^ πόδα 
1345 ο[ωθηθ όσον ye τουπ €μ ω κατά στΐγαί 

Fol. 2 verso. Plate VII. 

1370 [τΓζφξνγα βαρβαρ019 €νμα]ρΐσΐν «iSos υ'π•ο8ηματο[5 

[κζδρωτα πασταδων VTrep] τξρξμνα η ττασταβ 

• • • • • [°'-]i5?f 

448. ημ[η : SO ABLPV, edd. ; 17 -y ^ (γ in rasura) Μ. The breathing is very doubtful. 
472. χ(ομ(νο5•. so ABLPV, edd.; χίύμίνο! Μ. 

485. ev βαρ^αροίί : SO ABLMPV, edd. ; γράψΐται αφ" Ελλάδος Mv and ApoUon. Ty. 
£pis/. 34. 

508. anoKTfi^viev συλλ(κτρ^οί : I. anoKveiveie σνλ. The MSS. have άποκτΐίνίΐβν 6μόλ(κτροε, 

but σίιλλ^κτρος is a good Euripidean word; cf. Her. Fur. i, 1268. Possibly ομόλίκτρος \% 
a reminiscence of 1. 476, where it has a somewhat different sense. 

511. The initial lacuna ought to contain 13-14 letters, and ποι was no doubt omitted 
in its proper place by the first hand ; the deletion of -not after κακών is likely to be due to the 
corrector of 11. 1334 and 1342. hi ποί is read by all MSS. except L (δι) πη) and a corrector 
of Β (δε πή), and there is no reason to suppose an agreement with L here, δη ποί Wecklein, 

686. This verse is bracketed by Wecklein following Hermann. 

687. [to (ABMV) or [τον (LP) can equally be read. 

813. [ηλυψΐ Ίαι\ταλώαις : SO MSS. except L, which has ηλνθΐ Ίανταλ'ώαισιν. The metre 
of this verse does not correspond to 1. 825 of the antistrophe θανάτου yap άμφΐ φόβω, and 
Hermann proposed vnep ηλθβ for ήλνθί in 1. 813, Murray άμφ\ φόβω θανάτου yap in 1. 825. 

814. οικ]τρότατα: SO MSS., Wecklein, Murray ; οϊκτρότατ ds Weil. The vestiges of the 
last letter suit α better than e. 

816-17. The reconstruction is very uncertain. The MSS. have όθεν φάνω φόνοε 
εξαμ€ί\βων δι' αίματος ου πρ6λίί\ (om. οθΐν Α), but 1. 8ι6 does not correspond to 1. 828 of the 
antistrophe κτάνων σαν ματίρα μη πατρω\ {κτΐίνων with δρα suprascr. Α). Triclinius proposed 
(νθίν for δθ(ν in 1. 816, Hartung deleted σάν in 1. 828, but neither emendation yields an exact 
correspondence. Neither οθΐ\υ nor Τ6|/ί€ω]ι/• suits the vestiges of ink before φόι\_ so well as ω 
with t added above the line, apparently by the first hand. Probably οθΐν was omitted with 
A, but [. . . .]ωι φον\ωι φόνος can be read, and the vestige of a letter in the next line would 
suit ο or σ better than «, so that ίξαμΐίβων δι| αιματ]ο[ς is possible. 

850. There is no trace of ink atjove πφι. In 11. 852-4 23-4 letters are lost in the lacuna, 
but in 850 30, and in 851 29; these two lines spoken by the chorus therefore projected, 
although iambic. The ayyfλos begins at 1. 852. 

897. At the end of the line the first hand wrote αρ]χη, which was corrected to αρ]χαισιν 
ην, the last word being altered to ηι, apparently by the same corrector, άρχαΐσιν ^ MSB. 


There may have been another variant earlier in the line, for the reading of the MSS. gives 
only 22 letters in the space which in 11. 896 and 898 is occupied by 25. πλάστον has been 
conjectured by F. W. Schmidt for πόλ^ο? (v. 1. ποΚ^ως). 

907. t[ois, the reading of the MSS., was corrected to ns by Musgrave. Lines 907-13 
have generally been bracketed by editors following KirchhoiF, and 11. 916, 933, and 938-42 
have been suspected, but they all either certainly or probably stood in the papyrus. 

910. TTc^avTiK : or πα^αυτίκ. For avTi\s (i. e. avBis '. SO MSS.) cf. 1174. ix. 20 and note. 
There is a lacuna above the r. 

945. The papyrus is more likely to have had ηγορενε with ABM (Wecklein) than 
riyopevae with LP (Murray), since there are already 23 letters lost in the space which is filled 
in 11. 946-8 by 21. 

946. πΐ\τρ[ονμ\ΐνος : SO Μ, Wecklcin ; ττετρουμ/νονΓ ABLPV, Murray. 

1247 sqq. Paragraphi were not employed by the first hand, but Electra's lines project 
beyond those of the chorus; the arrangement is right as far as 1. 1259, but not from 
1 260-3. Th^ subsequent insertion of paragraphi and of αλ]λο ημιχ{οριον) against 1. 1260 brings 
the papyrus into harmony with the MSS., which apparently assign II. 1258-9 and 1260 
to different ημιχόρια, i26i-2 to Electra (L gives 1261 to the chorus), 1263 to the chorus (so 
Wecklein); Wilamowitz, followed by Murray, assigns 1262 to the chorus. Paragraphi may 
be lost below 11, 1259, 1262, and 1263, but hardly below 1261. 

1250. π[α\ρ[αμ(ν€ΐ γαρ: the MSS. apparently begin this line with γάρ, but the traces of 
the first letter suit π better than y. 

1305. The restoration, which follows the ordinary reading of the MSS., gives 27 letters 
in the lacuna, the corresponding space in 1. 1297 being filled by 28, in 1298 and 1300-1 
by 27. Since all the indications point to the lines in this column having begun evenly, 
unlike those in 11. 1247-63, it is improbable that before λιποπατορα the papyrus read ταν 
which is inserted by / and adopted by edd., or eis which is inserted by B^; but there would 
be room for ff before a, as desiderated by Hermann. 

1334. τλημων: SO MSS. There has certainly been a correction, affecting perhaps the 
first three letters. The τ above the line is large, and probably due to the corrector of 1. 1342 
and perhaps 511, who is different from the corrector of 897 ; cf. introd. 

1335. α\ξιοισι τ ap[: SO A {τ ap') ; άξίοισιν ap L, άξίοισιν άρ Β*, a|tOif τ ap Ρ, άξίοισιν 

γαρ MB, άξίοισί τ αρ Wecklein, άξίοισί ταρ Murray. 

1337• '«4'• ^° ΑΒΜΡ, edd.; om. L. 

1340• αγ : Weil's emendation is confirmed; αλλ' MSS. and 1178, Wecklein, Murray. 
αλλ' has already occurred at the beginning of 1337 and is not wanted again here. 

1342. iff (so MSS.) was corrected from ωδ apparently. 

1346 sqq. Since this column presumably had 37 or 38 lines like the rest, and the next 
column begins at 11. 1369-70, the papyrus no doubt included 1366-8, which are generally 
rejected on the authority of the scholium stating that they were interpolated by the actors. 

1370. If, as is probable, 11. 1370-1 began evenly, most or all the letters of πεφ^υγα, which 
is usually assigned to 1369, must have come in 1370. βάρβαροι: ίΐμάρισι is the reading of A, 
followed by Wecklein ; βαρβάροιε iv evpapiaiv BLP (so Murray), βαρβάροισιν «V (Ιμάρισιν Μ. 
The Etym. Magn. also read iv, but there is barely room for it in the papyrus unless 
π(\φ(υγα be read. ^ 

The scholium eiSo? υποδήματος refers to (νμα\ρισιν. A longer note beginning εΰμαρις (i8os 

υποδήματος σαν8αλά>8ονς, OCCUrS in schol. BM. 

1 37 1, τερεμνα: SO ALP; τίραμνα BMV, Wecklein, Murray. With the scholium on 

παστάδωι/ cf. Hesych. παστάς- οίκος γΐγραμμΐνος. Schol. BM have παστά^ων δι των κοιτώνων. 

After an interval of three lines there are below the ο ο{τ(ρ(μνα what may be traces of ink, 
possibly the termination of 1. 1376 αιθ(]ρ α[μ or αιθ(ρ] αμ. 


1371. Aristophanes, Clouds with Scholia. 

ιο•6 X 12 cm. Fifth century. Plate VII 


This fragment and the other pieces of Aristophanes in the present volume 
(1372-4 and 1402-3?) were discovered with 1369-70. Egypt has done little 
hitherto for the text of that poet, for none of the extant papyrus or vellum pieces 
is earlier than the late fourth century and nearly all are of slight value, the most 
interesting being the Hermopolis fragments of the Acharnians, Frogs, and Birds 
{Berliner Klassikertexte, v. %, no. i8), which confirm six emendations but do not 
present a very correct text. 1371-4 together are somewhat more extensive 
than the Berlin fragments, with which they are probably contemporary, and 
exhibit much the same characteristics. That they belong to four different MSS. 
is not certain, the hands being very similar though not identical. The number of 
the page, which is preserved in the case of the Wasps (1374), indicates that that 
play stood probably seventh, and the four plays {Clouds, Frogs, Peace, Knights) 
represented in the other fragments may well have been among those which pre- 
ceded the Wasps^ as they do in the Codex Venetus (V) together with the Plutus 
and Birds. But since the text of 1374 differs from the rest in its marked support 
of V and the absence of corrections, and the number of lines in a column, so far 
as can be judged, varies considerably (37 in 1371, 39 ?-4i in 1372, 44 in 1373, 
45-9 in 1374), while 1371 is distinguished by the presence of scholia, it is safer to 
regard the different hands as representing separate MSS. If any two of the four 
are to be combined, these would be 1373 and 1374, in both of which double dots 
are employed to mark a change of speaker. 

1371 is the upper part of the first leaf of the Clouds, containing on the verso 
a few letters from the ends of 11. i-ii and on the recto parts of 11. 38-48 in 
a good-sized, sloping uncial of the oval type. In the broad upper and right-hand 
margins of the verso are scholia on 11. 2-5 in a small uncial hand which is perhaps 
identical with that of the main text, and lower down is a gloss somewhat more 
cursively written than the scholia, but possibly by the same scribe. In any case 
these notes, which are in brown ink like the main text, are probably contemporary 
with it. Whether the longer notes occurred in the later columns except at rare 
intervals, if at all, is doubtful. Since 1. i coincides with the top of a column 
(cf. 1373 in which a new play begins near the bottom of a column), it is quite 
possible that the Clouds was the first play in this MS. ; in the Ravennas (R) and 
V the Plutus stands first, the Clouds second ; but, while this is the fourth fragment 
of the Clouds obtained from Egypt (cf. Reitzenstein, Hermes, xxxv. 604 sqq. and 


Berl. Klassikert. v. 2, no. 18. 2-3), no fragment of the Plutus has yet been found 
in that country. On the recto there are glosses in the left-hand margin, but in 
black ink instead of brown and in a certainly different semi-uncial hand ; the 
upper margin has some brief notes on 1. 52 in somewhat lighter ink by a similar 
but apparently not identical hand, while the speaker's name added also in light 
black ink before 1. 38 is due to yet a third annotator of this column. A correction 
of the order of words in 1. 47 was made, probably later than the glosses in 
the left-hand margin, by the writer of the notes at the top or by the writer 
of the speaker's name, and the same person may well have been responsible for 
the accents and breathings as far as 1. 38, those in 11. 39-48 being apparently 
due to the original scribe, who also inserted the elision-marks, paragraph!, and 
occasional stops (high and middle). The notes in the various semi-uncial hands 
can be assigned with confidence to the fifth century, to which the body of 
the text is also likely to belong. The scholia in 1402 are certainly in a different 

The fragment (Π) is too short to show the quality of the text. A variation 
in the order of words in 1. 47 which has been rightly corrected does not inspire 
confidence in a more legitimate variation of a similar character in 1. 43. The 
original scholia on 11. ^S, unlike the third-century commentary on the 
Acharnians (856), closely resemble the extant scholia, of which the older por- 
tions are derived from Didymus and other Alexandrian grammarians. In the 
fragmentary scholia on the Knights (late fourth or fifth century) published by us 
in Mdlanges Nicole, p. 314, the agreement with the extant scholia is less marked 
than here. In some places the readings of Π are superior, but in general 
schol. R and V are fuller. The later notes have little or no connexion with the 
extant scholia. 


(1. 5) <" δ oiKercu pefKovatv ovtws oi Αττικοί δια τοι/] κ' oi^iceTajs y^yly q[v TOVi 

θ(ραποντα5 μόνον Xeyei aWa iravras tovs κατά την οικι]αν' Ka[eevS]ovci μ(ν ovv o[( 
aWoi avTos Se aypvtrvei και peyKovaiv eTnjjyayev [_i]va μα\λον αυ[τοί;]ί δΐίξη πασψ [ 
OVTas (ξω φροντιδοί ίδιον yap των μηδΐν <ρροντ'\ιζοντα)ν το βαθίω$ καθίυδίΐν 

[jLov ιου ] 

\ω Z€V BaaiXeV το χρήμα των ννΚΤω]ν όσον ω Zev βασιΧ^υ ουκ απΧω^ χρη τον[_τ]ο 

L ~ ΛΓ ι Γ J νομιζΐΐν (ΐρηκ(ναι τον ■ποιη\τη\ν 

\aircpaVTOV ΟυΒ^ΤΤοθ ημξρα γ€νησ\€Ταί (χ^ται yap ϊστορια^ το ω Ζίυ βασιΧίυ 

<- ~ ■" ^ τoιavτηs τοίί Αθηναιοΐί Ώυθοχρησ 

[και μην ΤΤαΧαΐ γ aXeKTpVOVOS] ήκονσ fyCu 5 '''''•' «τ*"*'''*' κατακΚυσαι μ(ν ras 

^ ρ , „ βασιΚΐΐαί• ττροστησασθαι δ( και at 

5 [Οί ο ΟίΚζΤαΐ ρζγΚΟυσίν αλλ ΟνΚ α\ν ΤΓρ[θ\ τον ^««1/ Αια βασιΚία ωστ( το \(χθ(ν τψ 

[anoXoio δητ ω ιτολψ^ πολλών ovveKo] ί^^°'««^ '^""''' "'^^''^ ^ΐ"^ •""^'^*"' 


• -x % ovSevoO' ημίρα -γίνησίται• τούτο km 

[οτ ovSe κολασ φστι μοι τους οικ€τα9\ ^^ ορ^ιζομ^νοί και νποκρινομ(νο5 ' 
[αλλ ουδ ο χρηστό? ουτοσι veavia? ] ^'"'^«' ^^Ύί'"• 

[€γ6ίρ6ταί τη? WKT09 άλλα π^ρδίται] 
ΙΟ [ev nevTe σισνραι? €γκ€Κορδυλημ€νό\9 κατακίκάΚυμμΐνοί 

[αλλ €ί δοκ€ΐ ρ€γκωμ€ν €γκ€καλυμμ€\γ[οί 

Recto. Plate VII. 

(1• ^2) / λαφ(νγμου) τ(η5) τρνφηβ η Keveaews χρημ[οτων : Κωλ(ιοδθ5) vaos €0ΐκω5 κωλοιβ ? 
«ν ω τνίΑαται η Αφροδίτη : rev€TeX(XiSos) [ 


Φ€ΐδιπ(•ιηδη5) eaaov ώ Βαίμονίξ. κατ[αδαρθ€ίν τι μ€ 

συ δ" ονν κάθίυδβ• τα δ[€ χρ^α ταντ ισθ οτί 

40 ey την Κξφαλην άπαν[τα την σην τρίψξται 

καθ €αυτον φζ{). ^iff ώώΐλ' η προμν[ηστρι αττολξσθαι κακω? 

ητί? μ€ γήμ' €πηρ[€ την σην μητέρα 

43 ^μοί yap ην ηδί\στο? αγροικος βΐ05 

ptmopos ΐνρωτιων ακ6ρ[ητο9 €ΐκη Κ€ίμ€νο? 

■ΐΓλ[η]θων βρύων μέλίτται? [και ττροβατοι? και στζμφνλοις 

46 ξπ€ΐτ ίγημα Μζ[γακλ€ους του Μζγακλ€ου? 

Ρ, a 

την θυγατίρα aypoiKOS ων αδί^λφιδην €| αστξω? 

τον αδελφού 

] . . [ σ€μνην τρυψω[σαν €γΚ€κοισυρωμ€νην 

2. The marginal note (11. 1-8) on ω Zei βασίλεί agrees nearly verbally with schol. 

RVG Aid., which have in 1. I apyws for απλώς, 1. 5 καταλϋσαι (rightly) for κατακΚνσαι, 1. 8 ταύτης 
^χΐσθαι for ίχισθαι ταντης. V alsO has in 1. I νομ'ιζΐΐν τοντο for τ. νομ., Aid. in 1. 2 τον ποιητην 
(ϊρηκίναι for «p. τ. π., omitting το ω Zev βασίλΐυ in 1. 3 and και σ(β€ΐν in 1. 6, θ Aid. Πνθοχρηστως 

for Πνθοχρηστον in 1. 4, R omits μεν in 1. 5, and RV at the end have an additional sentence 
with a quotation from Homer. 

3. With the marginal note (11. 9-1 1) on ovbenoB^ ημίρα yevqatTai cf. schol. V τοϋτο κα\ 

6p^ζόμevos Βίναται Xeyeiv, where opi(opevos is shown by Π tO be an error for οργιζόμίνος, 

5. The note in the upper margin upon οί δ' οΐκίται βίγκονσιν corresponds closely to the 

extant scholia, Aid. having όντως 'ArrtKot δίά τοΰ κ {όντως . . . κ om. RVe), οΐκίτας Se ννν 
\ννν οϊκετας RVe) ού τους βΐράποντας μόνον (om. V) Xeyet άλλα πάντας τοίις κατά την οΐκίαν. 
καβίΰ^ονσιν ονν πάντες {καθΐΰ^ονσι ννν, φησίν R, καθΐν8οντας V) ως των άλλων μ(ν (om. RV) 
αμ£ριμνονντων αντον δί φροντίζοντας {αντον δί φροντίζοντα R). dia τοντο κα\ το (om. RV©) ρι'γκονσιν 
einjyayev {(inev RV) ίνα μάλλον ^el^j] αυτούς ττάσης οντάς €ξω φροντ'ώος. των yap βαβίως καθΐνΒόντων 
ιδίόι» e'oTt (om. R) το peyKeiv (τών δί μη8(ν φροντιζόντων το βαθίως καβ(νδ(ΐν add. V and, with 

κοιμάσθαι for KaufvSeiv, R). Π may have lost another line at the top, in which case the 


beginning was different ; but if the size of the lacuna in 11. 2-4 is correctly estimated, the 
opening sentence of schol. Aid. just fits the gap in 1. i. If 1. 4 is to harmonize with 
schol. RV, about 30 letters must be added on to each line, for which there is hardly room, 
and which are not required in 1. 2. π seems to have omitted the first half of this sentence, 
just as schol. Aid. has omitted the second half. In 11. 2-3 π seems to be somewhat shorter 
than the extant scholia, which in both R and V are corrupt. The use oiiinjyayev in Aid. for 
€Ϊπΐν in RV affords another point of contact with Π. 

10. κατακΐκαλνμμΐνος in the margin is a gloss on ΐγκίκορ8υλημ€νο]ς. Schol. V has a long 
note which is partly found in R, explaining the word as ΐγκίκαλνμμίνος κάΊ συνίστραμμίνο:, 

38. Above the paragraphus over eaaov something was written by the first hand which 
looks more like a cross than t with a stroke through it, or ψ. If it is more than a false 
start, it may be a critical mark. That it is a number referring to the page or quire is 

39. δ' οίν : so RVAG, &c., edd. ; μ€ν ovv or ovp other MSS. 

40. €s : so R, edd. ; ds V. 

41. καθ eavTOV Xeyu refers tO φίΰ ; cf. schol. V Ibia το φΐΰ and Aid. TO 8e φίΰ ίδίω?. The 

€ of eie' has been corrected by the first hand, probably from Θ. ώφίλ' is misspelled οφίλ' 
by R. That η had an accent as well as a breathing is not certain. 

43. η8ι[στος aypoiKos : aypoiKos η8ιστο5 MSS., edd. ; Naber conjectured αγρ. ήσυχος. 

The order in π does not appear to have been corrected (cf. 1. 47) and may be right; but 
under the accent over η is in similar ink a short horizontal stroke which is difiicult to account 
for, being unlike a breathing or letter. Perhaps another circumflex (cf. the preceding iju) 
was partly written by mistake. 

44. The marginal pvnapos probably refers to ΐνρωτιων rather than to ακόρ\ητος. The 

scholia in a fuller note explain (Ιρωτιων by eixij Κΐίμΐνος, άκόρητος by άκάΚΚωπίστος. 

45• π\[η]θωρ refers to βρύων : cf. schol. R (not in V) αΰξων κα\ τΐθηλως. Suidas s. v. 

άκόρητος adds και πληθύνων, schol. θ has ^άλλωΐ'. 

47• την θυγατέρα του α8ΐ\φου refers tO α8[(\φώην. Schol. θ has του αδβλφοΰ αυτοΰ θυγατίρα. 

The MSS. all have ά8ίλφώην αγροικος ων, agreeing with the corrector, and the reading of the 
first hand, which separates ά8ΐλφι8ην from Μΐγακλίους τοΰ Μ. and gives no caesura, is a mere 
error; cf. 1. 43, note. Above the α of αδ[ίλφιδ;7ί' is what may be a grave accent, but these 
are not employed elsewhere in the papyrus, and the stroke, which is very short, may be 

48. The marginal note no doubt referred to σψνψ or ίγκΐκοισυρωμ(νην, which are both 
commented upon in RV. 

52. The note in the upper margin refers to this line δαπάνης, λαφνγμοϋ, Κωλίόδο?, rei/eruX- 
λίδοί. It is preceded by a critical mark which may have been repeated in the main text, 
τ of τ{ης) has a stroke through it like that through the φ οίλαφ{νγμου) and λ of Γ(ΐΐΤ€λ{λώος). 
The form κίνΐσις for κ^νωσις is not known [κενίωσις occurs in Pindar), and is probably a mere 
misspelling like Τ(ν(Τ€\{λι8ος) in the next line, which, moreover, may well have contained the 

word γΐνΐσ^ως. With the explanation of λαφυγμοΰ as τ{ης) τρυφης κα\ κΐνώσίως χρημ[άτων cf. 
schol. ν άδηφαγίας κα\ πολυτελείας' τουτεστι εκδΐδιγιτημίνης πολντελεΐ τροφτ)• λαφυγμον yap λέγει το 
άπληστως εσθίειν, schol. Aid. της περί τα εδέσματα πολυτελείας• τουτέστιν ασωτίας, λαφυγμον γαρ 
κτλ., adding quotations from Eupolis and Homer, schol. R άδηφαγίας κα\ της προς τα εδέσματα 

πολυτελείας. In view of the scholium in Π, τροφή in schol. V is probably corrupt for τρυφη : 

Cfi τρυφή κα\ πολυτέλεια in Xen. Memor. i. 6. 10 and schol. Brunck S. v. καταγλωττισμάτων 
(1. 5l) εΐκότως δε ταΰτα καταλέγει δεικνύς δτι αί εύγενεϊς γυναίκες ΰπο της λίαν τρυφης τοιαύτα πραττονσι. 

Π, unlike schol. R Aid., explains λαφυγμός as waste of money, not gluttony, and the first 
part of the note in schol. V may have meant the same, for άδηφαγία, like λαφνγμός, is used in 
both senses. 


Κωλ(ίαδο?) vaos (οικω: κωλοίί] ev ω τιμάται η ΑφροΒιτη : cf. Schol. V Κωλιοι vans της ΆφροΒίτης 
ουτα καΚονμΐνος, άπο του σνμβφηκότο! την ηροσηγορίαν 'Καβύν' Vf ανίας yap . . . Κωλιά; δε ΐκληθη δτι 
θνοντος τον ίίρΐως iepfiov κωΚης ίίραξ ηρπαζ€ν κα\ tntKeiva (1. in (Κΐίνω with Suidas) τω τόπω 

^πΐκαθίσθη. Schol. R is nearly identical, but in place of the last sentence adds Κωλιάδα δε 

προσ7]γόρΐνσ( τον τόπον άπο των κώλων α (v TOtj• δεσμοί? κaτfπoveΐro. Schol. Aid. haS οί μίν 
Κωλίάδα την βΐον καΚονσι veaviov Αττικού απο8ράντος . . . οί δε τόπον ΐοικότα κωΚοις ανδρός, ίνθα ή 

θ(6ς τιμάται. Whether Π had ίοικως κωλοις after ναός (or τόπος) is Uncertain, but in any case 
the interpretation given by οί δε' in Schol. Aid. seems to be meant. 

Γε('ετελ(λιδοϊ) [ : 1. Γεί'ετιιλ(λίδοΓ). Something like 8αιμων τ{τ)ς) γει/εσεων αίτιος probably 
followed ; cf. schol. R δαίμων περί την Άφροδίτην της γίνεσΐως έφορο? (α'ίτιος Suid.), and 
schol. ν οί μίν των περϊ την Άφρ. άξιονσι θ(ων μίαν eXvai δια το γενεσεω? αυτήν ΐΐναι το'ις άνβρωποις 
αΐτίαν κτλ. 

1372. Aristophanes, Frogs. 

Fr. 3 ιο•8 χ 9•4 cm. Fifth century. 

These four fragments of two leaves from a codex of the Frogs were found with 
1371 and 1373-4, with which they are probably contemporary though certainly 
in a different hand and probably from a different MS. ; cf. 1371. introd. The 
script, like that of 1373, is more compact than that of 1371 and 1374, and is also 
distinguished by its form of λ which is often large and almost cursive. Parts of 
fifty-five lines are preserved from the early and middle portions of the play. 
Iota adscript is sometimes written. A correction in 1. 855 is by a different hand 
which used black ink, and to the same person are probably due the occasional 
accents (in Fr. i only) and stops. All three kinds of points are employed, but 
not very accurately, since the middle point is used instead of the high at the end 
of 1. 44 where there is a change of speaker. Marks of elision and diaereses 
are due to the first hand. 

The text, like that of the Berlin fragments of this play (cf. 1371. introd.), 
is of slight interest, but tends on the whole to support the most ancient MS., R 
(tenth century). Agreements with R against V, &c., are found in 11. 847 (?), 
δ5^> ^5?,^ and 893, and with RV and the Ambrosianus (M) against the Urbinas 
(U) in 11. 857 and 891, while V, &c., are supported against R in 11. 890 and 894. 
Mistakes occur in 11. 887 and 890, and very probably in 11. 879, 891, and 893, as 
well as in 11. 888 and 897, where the MSS. too are corrupt and the error is now 
traced back to the fifth century. 

Fr. I. Recto. 

44 [ω δαιμοι/ΐ€ προσξλθί δέομαι γαρ τι] σον- 

45 [αλλ ονχ oioy τ €ΐμ αποσοβ]τ]σαί τον γ€Χ[ων 


\ορων \€οντην €WL κροκω]τωί Κ€ΐμ[€νην 
[τΐ9 ο νονς tl κοθορνος και] ρόπαΚον [ξυνηλθ^την 
[ποι γης απ€8ημ€ί9 €π€]βατ€νον Κλ€ΐσ[θ€ν€ΐ 
[κανανμαχησα? και κα]τξδνσ[α]μ€ν ye [vav9 
50 [τούρ πολέμιων η 8ωδζ]κ η [τρί\σ•καίδ[€κα 


85 [ποι γη]9 ο τλτ}μ[<ΰν es μακαρων (νωχιαν 
[ο Se He]iO/cX€77? [ξξολοιτο νη Δια 
[ίΤι;^αγ]'γ€λθ9 ^6 ττ\ζρι ξμον δ ov8ei9 λόγος 
[€πίτρ]ιβομ€νον τ[ον ωμον ουτωσι σφοδρά 
[ονκο]υν €τζρ' €στ €ν[τανθα μζίρακνλλια 

90 [τραγ]ωδία9 ποιονρ[τα πλ€ΐν η μύρια 
[ΕυρηΓΪ\δου [ττ^^ιν τ] [σταδιω XaXiarepa 

Frs. 2-4. Verso. 

840 [αληθβ? ω παι της αρονραιας θίον] 

[σν δη μ€ ταυτ ω στρωμνλιοσνλλζκτά\δη 
[και πτωγοποΐξ και ρακιοσυρραπτα\δη 
[αλλ ου τι γαιρων αυτ €pei9 παν Αισ])(ν\€ 
[και μη προς οργην σπλάγχνα θζρμηνης κοτ\ύ 

845 [ον δητα πριν γ αν τούτον αποφηνω σαφώς] 
[τον χωλοποιον οίος ων θρασυν€τ]αι 
[αρν αρνα μέλανα'] παι[δζ\ς ί[|€ί/€γ/<:ατ]6 
[Τυφως γαρ €κβαι]ν€ΐν πα[ρασκ€ναζ€τ]αι 
[ω Κρητικας μβν σ]νλλξγων μονωδίας 

850 [γαμονς δ ανόσιους] ξίσφ^ρων ets την τ€')(νη[ν 
[ξπισ-^ζς ούτος ω ποΧν]τιμη[τ] Αι[σχ]νλ€. 
[απο των χαλαζων S] ω πονηρ Ευριπίδη 
αναγ[€ σ^αυτον ζκπο]δων ei σωφρονας 
ίνα μ[η Κ€φαλαιω τ]ον κροταφον σου ρηματι 



855 Qev(a[v υπ οργή? ε/ίχετ; To]y T7;Xe0[[a)]]i/• 

[σν 5e μη προί οργή ν Αισ^νλ άλλα] πραονως 
[eXey^ ξλζγχ^ον λ]οίδορ€ίσθαι [δ ου npe^iret 
[avSpas ποιητα^] ωσπ^ρ αρτοπωλίδας* 
[συ δ €υθυ9 ωσπβρ πρι]νο? €μ[π]ρτ)[σ]θ€ΐς β[ο]αις 

86ο [έτοιμος €ΐμ εγωγε κουκ αναδύομαι] 

[δακνξίν δακνζσθαι nporepos ei τουτ]ωι δοκ€ΐ. 


879 ζλθίτ ζπτ][ δυναμιν 

88ο δΗνοτατο\ιν στοματοιν ττορισασθαι 

ρήματα κα[ί τταραπρισματ €πων 
νυν y\ap άγων σοφίας οδζ //eyay 
[χωp€i TT/aoy epyov ηδη] 
885 [ί^χίσ-^ε δ]η και \σφω τι πριν ταπη λεγείρ 
[Αημ]ητ€ρ η θρ[βψασα την €μην φρ^να 
[eiva]i μ€ των [σων άξιον] μαρτηρι[ων 
[ετΓί^ε]? και συ δη λιβαν[ωτο]ν λαβω[ν καλω^ 
[eTepoi] γαρ ίίσιν οισιν €υχομα[ι Oeois 
890 [ίδιοι Ti]v^s οι κόμμα κ[α]ινον κ[αι μαλα 

[ιθι] δη προσ^υγου τ[.] . τοισιν ϊ[διωται^ Oeois 

[•] • [• •] ?ί^^Ρ 11^^]]/'°'' βοσκημα κ[αι γλώσσης στροφιγξ 
και ξυνξσι και μυκτηρίί οσφρ[αντηριοι 
ορθώς μ ελεγχείί' ων αν απτ[ωμαι λόγων 
895 και μην η[μ€ΐ9 βπιθυμουμ€ν 

πάρα σοφ[οιν ανδροιν ακουσαι τίνα λόγων 

ε/ί/^[ε]λ[είαΐ'] εττίε δαι[α]ν [οδον 

γλωσσά μ€ν γαρ ηγριωται [ 

λημα δ ουκ ατολμον αμφ[οιν ουδ ακίνητοι φρ^ν^ς 
900 προσ[δοκαν ουν €]ικος ([στι 

τον μ[ζν αστζίον τι λε^αί και κατ€ρρινημ€νον 

τον [δ ανασπωντ αυτοπρ€μνοΐ9 


87. The doubtful π of w[ept might be a low stop by the first hand. 

846. A high stop may have been lost at the end of the line. 

847. Before the final e of «[^eveyKorje everything is very uncertain, but considerations 
of space make it probable that π had μίλαι/α with R, Velsen, H(all)-G(eldart), not μέλαιναν 
with VUAM, &c. 

848• 7ία\ρασκ(υαζ(τ\αι 0Γ -rje• can be read ; -ται MSS., edd. ; but cf. 1. 892. 

851. ki\(Tx\vke. or, possibly, Αί[σχ]υλ€:, if the upper dot is not part of the c; but there is 
no change of speaker. 

852. δ]: so R, edd.; r' M, om. VUA. That π did not omit a conjunction is 
practically certain, for even with δ or r there are only 1 5 letters in the space occupied by 1 8 
in 1. 851 and by 16 in 1. 853. 

853. ava-yfe : SO R and most edd. ; απα-^ε VUAM, &c. 

855. Θίνω\ν : so RVUM and most MSS. {θίνων) and edd. {θίνων) ; but 5€[ι]ΐ'ω[ι/ (A and 
a few other MSS.) is possible. 

857. 7Γρ€]7Γ6ΐ : so RVAM, H-G ; θίμις U, &c., Velsen. 

859. ΐμ[ττ\}η[σ\θ(ΐς (RUM correctly) or €μ[Ίν]ρι[σ\θ€κ (VA) can be read. 

861. τοντ\α)ΐ : or, less probably, τουτ-]ω. 

879. 67Π7[ : (πο\ψομΐναι (so MSS. except R eV οψόμΐναι) cannot be read, nor 

apparently {πι<^ψομ(ναι or e7re[. The arrangement of 11. 879-902 corresponds to that in RV, 
from which UAM differ. 

881. ρήματα (so MSS., Blaydes, H-G) has been altered by many editors {πρίμνα re 
Velsen following Kock). 

882. obe (restored from the MSS.) is generally altered to 6 by editors, following 

887. μαρτηρι[ων (i. e. μαρτυρίων) is a mistake for μυστήριων. 

888. και συ 8η λιβαν[ωτο\ν λαβω[ν : SO Suidas (om. λαβών); κα\ 8η συ λιβ. λαβών R, λαβώρ 
8η κα\ συ λιβ. VUAM, &C., H-G; a few MSS. have κα\ σύ λιβ. λαβών or λαβών καΐ 

συ λιβ. n's order lends some support to Fritzsche's λιβ. κα\ σύ 8η λαβών, which is adopted 
by Velsen. 

890. Ti]v€s 01 : ot is a mistake for σοι, the reading of VUA, edd. ; Tives σου R, Tives σοι 
και Μ. 

891. 8η: so RVM, Velsen, H-G ; νΰν UA Aid. After προσίυχου Π has three letters 
which are absent in the MSS. Possibly the scribe wrote τ[ο]υτοισιν i[8iois {18101 occurred in 
1. 890) for τοισιν ι8ιωταις. Only one dot is visible above the supposed i[. 

892. αιθηρ ίμον is the reading of the MSS., but besides αιμον originally for ^μον the scribe 
wrote four (perhaps only three) superfluous letters at the beginning of the line. Of these 
all that is left is the bottom of a vertical stroke which would suit y, η, ι, κ, μ, ν, π, or τ, and 
may have been the initial letter. It is not certain that there was any writing at all between 
the doubtful α and βηρ. 

893. ξυνβσι : so R, edd. ; ξύν^σις VUAM. 

894. av απτ[ωμαι : SO VUAM, edd. ; άπτομαι R. 

897. e/i/x[6]X[etav] eirie : ψμελίίαν enire RVUA, Velsen, H-G, ΐμ. eni τ€ Μ, Bekker. In 

the corresponding passage of the antistrophe (1. 994) the MSS. omit the word or words 
answering either to ΐμμΐλααν or to emre 8ai\, and Dindorf wished to omit ΐ'μμίλ^ιαν here. 
eniTe 8atav 68όν is not very satisfactory and was not the reading of the first hand of Π, who 
wrote cTTie before 8ai[a]v [ ; but only the bottoms of the letters ai[a]v remain, and there may 
have been a correction. 

902. The ο of τον seems to have been corrected. 


1373. Aristophanes, Peace and Knights. 

Fr. I 8-5 X 17-3 cm. Fifth century. 

The larger of these two fragments found with 1369-72 and 1374 (cf. 1371. 
introd.) is the upper portion of a leaf containing on the verso ten lines from 
the concluding scene of the Peace, and on the recto ten lines from the opening 
scene of the Knights, the text of which began five lines before the end of 
the column on the verso. The order of the plays was thus different from both 
that in R, where the Knights and Peace stand fifth and sixth, and that in V, 
where the Knights, Birds, and Peace occupy the fourth, fifth, and sixth places. 
Illegible traces of what may have been the number of the page occur on the verso. 
The smaller fragment, which belongs to a much later scene of the Knights, 
is not quite certainly in the same hand as the other, for the letters are more 
spaced out, as in 1371 and 1374, while in the larger fragment the writing tends to 
be compact. The hand of 1374 is, however, distinctly larger, and on the whole 
it is probable that both fragments of the Knights belong to the same MS. The 
only stops found are double dots indicating a change of speaker. These are 
generally by the first hand where the change takes place in the middle of a line. 
Where double dots occur at the ends of lines {Peace 1328 and 1331), these are 
due to a corrector, who used darker ink and was also responsible in the Peace for 
the insertion of the missing syllable at the end of 1. 1326 in a large cursive hand, 
the paragraphus after 1. 1328, and the deletion of the repetition of 1. 1329. The 
corrections in 11. 6, 7, and 9 of the Knights together with the paragraphi are also 
due to a corrector, but not certainly the same. A solitary (wrong) accent in 
1, 1334 of the Peace and a few other corrections are probably by the first hand, 
as are certainly the marks of elision and diaereses. 

Of the Knights the only other papyrus fragment is one from Hermopolis 
containing parts of 11. 37-46 and 86-95 with scholia (late fourth or fifth century), 
edited by us in Milanges Nicole, pp. aia-17, while the Peace has not hitherto 
been represented on papyrus ; but 1373 (Π) is too short to be of much value. 
The text is carelessly written and the corrector not very observant, as is shown 
by e. g. 1. II of the Knights ; but some errors of R are avoided. R is supported 
against V three times {Knights 7, 14, and 1058), V against R twice {Knights 8, 
15). A small correction of the MSS. by Blaydes in Knights 1017 is confirmed, 
and perhaps another by Brunck in 1058. 


Fr. I. Verso. 

1326 και τ\α•γαθά\ πάντα οσα απωλεσαμίν 
σν\\(:[^ασ\θαι πάλιν e| αρχής 
ληξαι τ [αι.]θωνα σιδηρον : 

1329 Sevpo ω [γ]υναι eiy αγρον 
]ϊδ€νρο ω γνναι ^is αγρον^ 

1330 χωττω? μ€τ €μου καλή 
κα[λω9 κ]ατακ€ΐ[σ\€ί : 

1332 νΐμην νμ]€ναί€ ω 

1334 [<*> τρισμα]κάρ ω Βικαι 

1335 ['^^ ταγαθα] νυν €[χ]€ίί 

1326. πάντα οσα απω\(σαμ€ν : navff οσ' άπωλεσαμ^ν MSS. Above οσα α there seem tO be 
some traces of ink along the edge of the papyrus, i. e. a page number. 

1327. At the end of the line there is a smudge made by the corrector. 

1328. τ : so RV, &c. (δ' C Aid.); but there is no sign of a cross-bar and the letter is 
rather close to the preceding t, so that perhaps y was written by mistake. The paragraphus 
inserted below this line by the corrector and the double dots here and in 1. 1331 make π 
correspond up to that point with RV, which assign 11. 1316-28 to the chorus, 1329-31 to 
Trygaeus, 1332 to a ημιχόρων, and 1334 to another ημιχ., omitting 1. 1333 which was 
a repetition of 1. 1332. Editors arrange and emend 11. 1329 sqq. in a variety of ways. 
The division of 11. 1332-5 in π agrees with that in R, V combining 1334 with 1332 and 
1336 with 1335. 

1329. The repetition of this line, which is found only once in the MSS., was deleted 
by the corrector. Two instances of a similar repetition occur in 11. 1339-42 (W Βράσομΐν 
αντην and τρνγησομίν αυτήν), which are divided by V between two ήμιχόρια, like the repetitions 
of Ύ/χ'?" 'Y^fVat' S> in 11. 1336, 1346, i35i,and 1361. Dawes rejected 11. 1339-42, concerning 
which schol. V remarks ev τισιν ov φίρΐται. But although the repetition of 1. 1329 is no doubt 
wrong, it supports the view that 11. 1339-42 were found in Π, as well as the three concluding 
lines which stand in RV but are absent in many MSS. After the 10 extant lines of the Peace 
there is just room for 25 more lines (11. 1336-end) arranged as in R (V combines them into 
14), besides the first 5 lines of the Knights (cf. Fr. i recto) ; for since the normal column 
probably contained about 44 lines (cf. Fr. 2), there would still be a space equal to 4 lines 
available for the title. 

1332. t;/x]erm€ ω: for the absence of elision cf. 1. 1326, but the papyrus is much 
damaged at the end of this line, and νμ\ΐναί. ω (so RV) or νμ](ίναΐ( is possible. 

1334-5. ω 8ικαι[ως : 1. ωί δικ. with MSS. ω is due to the two preceding instances of ώ. 



Fr. I. Recto. 

6 κάκιστα δηθ' ουτο9 ye ττρωτο? ΙΙαφλα[γον]αΐ/ 
avrais διαβολαι? : ω κακοδαιμον 7Γω[? e];(eiy 
κακώς καθαπ^ρ συ : Sevpo νυν τΓροσ^\Κ\& ινα 


ξυναυλιαν κλαυσωμξν Ουλυμττου ΐ'[ο]μο\{9'^ 

ΙΟ μυμυ μυμυ μυμυ μυμυ μυμυ μυμυ 

τι κρνυρομζθ' άλλως υκ ^χρην ζτ]\τ^\ιν Τί[ι^]α 
σωτηριαν νων α\\α μη κλαζίν €τι 
τι [ο]υν yevoiT αν Xeye συ : συ μ^ν ουν μ[οι λέγε 
Ίνα μη μαχωμαι : μα τον Απολλω γω [μ€ν ου 

15 [αλλ] f[i]7re θα[ρρ]ων [^]ι[τα] καγ[ω σο]ί φ[ρασω 

Fr. 2. Recto. 

ΙΟ 1 3 [ω? €v νΐφίλαισιν] ateroy [γξνησομαι 

[ακουξ δη νυν και] 7Γροσ€)([€ τον νουν €μοί 

ΙΟΙ 5 [ψραζξυ Ερβ)(θ€ΐδ]η λογιω[ν οδον ην σοι Απόλλων 
[ia)(^ev 6^ αδυτοι]ο δια τριπ[οδων βριτιμων 
[σωζ€σθαι σ ζκβλβ]υ 'iepoy [κυνα καρ)^αροδοντα 


1057 [αλλ ουκ αν μα)(^εσ]αιτο [χεσαίτο γαρ €ΐ μαγ^σαιτο 

[άλλα τοδζ φρασ]σαι πρ\ο Πύλου Πυλον ην σοι ίφραζβν 
[€στι Πύλος πρ]ο Πυλοιο ; [τι τούτο Xeyei προ Πυλοιο 

ιο6ο [ray πυέλους φ]^•'\ΐηιοΊν κ[αταληψζσΘ €ν βαλαν€ΐω 
[ eyou] δ αλ[[λ]]oyr[oy τημ^ρον γβνησομαι 

[ ούτος ya]/3 η[μων τας πυέλους αφηρπασ^ν 

6. The ω of Παφλα[-γον]ων seems to have been altered by the corrector from ο of the 
first hand, -ων MSS. 


7. ανταις : SO RP Aid., edd. ; αυταϊσι ΥΑυθ. The first hand wrote διαβολαισι by 
mistake, a reminiscence of αυταισι βονλαις in 1. 3 ; the corrector altered the final t into two 
dots marking a change of speaker. The s of e]xets seems to have been rewritten by the first 
hand in order to make it larger, in harmony with the other enlarged letters at the ends 
of lines. 

8. wi^ : so V {vvv), A, &c. {νΰν) ; 8ή R Vat.^, Zacher, H-G. 

9. The MSS. have νόμον with the corrector (so edd.), but Eustathius read νόμω. It is 
not quite certain that the first hand wrote ν[ο]μος, but the final letter is not v, ω, or t. 

11. κρννρομΐθ^ : 1. κ.ινυρομ(θ' with ΑΓΘ ; κινυρόμΐσθ^ RP, κυννρόμΐσθ' V. The κ of νκ 

(1. ουκ) is badly written, being almost like η. τι[ν]α, if that was the reading, must have been 
rather cramped. 

12. νων : so ΓΘΡΜΔ ; νωϊν VA, νώιν R Vat. 

13. Ti [o\vv: Tt's ovv RV with the other MSS. according to Blaydes and Zacher. 
Bekker has τι ovu, apparently by a misprint. The traces do not suit τι[ς] ow, and there is 
not room for ti[s o]vv, but τι may well be a repetition from 1. 11. Π agrees with RV, &c., in 
having no change of speaker after γένοιτ αν. Most editors make a change and rearrange 
11. 13-16. 

14. iva μη: SO R Aid. Vat., edd. ; Iva σοι μή VA, &c. 

15. [αλλ]: so VA, &c., edd.; om. R. Editors, following Sauppe, generally invert the 
order of 11. 15-16 ; cf. 1. 13, note. 

1017. 6Κ€λ€]υ': €κβλΐνσ RV, &c., edd., fKeXeva-ev Αθ. Blaydes had conjectured «'«'λ^υ', 
comparing the imperfect 'ίφραζ^ν in 11. 1042, 1048, and 1058, The ν is not absolutely 
certain, but βκίλίψ' or ΐκΐΚίυσ(\ν' cannot be read. In 1. 1049 the MSS. vary between sKiXeve 

and ίκί\ΐυσΐ, 

1058. φρασ\σαι: SO most edd., following Brunck; φράσαι Rr-M, φράζΐν VAe, &c. 
The σ is somewhat smaller than would be expected, and there may have been a correction. 
The letter comes above the π of πυλοω, but the other σ may have been omitted, at any rate 

1060. φ]!^.'^ηισιν: φησί MSS., φησίν edd. The letter before ψσιν was certainly not φ, 
but seems to have been deleted by the first hand, so that φησίν was probably meant. 

io6i. The deletion of the superfluous λ is apparently due to the first hand. 

1062. This verse was rejected by Zacher. 

1374. Aristophanes, Wasps. 

Fr. I 17-7 X 12-8 cm. Fifth century. 

Of the various fragments of Aristophanes found with 1369-70 (cf. 1371. 
introd.) those of the Wasps are much the longest, portions of four leaves with 
more than 150 lines from the middle of the play being preserved. The script 
resembles that of 1371 and 1373. Fr. 3, but is larger and more irregular. There 
are no corrections except one in I. 609 made by the scribe himself, and, save for 
occasional double dots to indicate a change of speaker, no stops ; but apostrophes 
to mark elision, &c., besides diaereses and paragraph!, occur. The page- 
numbers I9[5] and 196 are found on Fr. i. No column is completely preserved, 
but Col. i had forty-five lines if 11. 475-^ were arranged, as is probable, like 



11. 486-7, and Col. ii may have had the same number, while in Cols, iii-iv the 
number increases to forty-seven or forty-eight. The next leaf is lost, and since 
Col. vii is for the most part lyric there is some uncertainty concerning the 
division of lines, which seem to have exceeded forty-six. In the last three 
columns a slight increase is discernible. Col. ix at any rate having apparently 
forty-nine lines. The leaf containing Cols, ix and χ (pp. 203-4) was turned so that 
the recto came first, whereas the verso would be expected to occupy this position 
and correspond to the verso in Col. viii. Since approximately 9,200 lines have 
to be accounted for before Col. i, the Wasps is likely to have been the seventh 
play in this MS., as in V ; cf. 1373. introd. In R it stood ninth, between the 
Acharnians and Thesmophoriaziisae. 

The text contains, as is usual in Byzantine literary fragments, a number 
of scribe's errors, but has several points of interest. The Wasps^Vik^^t. Knights, 
is one of the plays in which V tends to disagree most with R, and the papyrus 
(Π), unlike 1372, strongly supports the former (cf. 11. 449,456, 506-7, 511, 568, 
570, 573, 613, 621,749, 790, and 8c6?), except whereVhas made an obvious mis- 
take (11. 571, 6c8, 756, 796, 825-6, 865, and 875), and in 1. 612? As compared 
with R, V in this play seems to be distinctly superior. A slight correction of the 
MSS. in 1. 576 by Brunck on metrical grounds and probably another in 1. 790 
by Bergk are verified, but in 11. 452, 487, 749, 795, 802, 808, and 816 traditional 
readings which have been suspected are confirmed. New readings also occur in 
11. 499 and 795. 

The small fragment 1403 seems to be in the same hand as 1374, and its 
colour suggests that it belongs to Fr. i, but we have not succeeded in identifying it. 

Fr. ι verso. Col. i. 

443 [7Γρ]ο? βιαν χαρουσιν [ονδζν των τταλαι μ^μνημ^νοι 

Β^\ί\φθζρ(ύ\ν κα^ωμιδων α? ovros avTois ημπολα 
445 'f«t Ky[vas και rovs ttoSus χζίμωνος ovtos ωφζλ^ι 

ώστε μ[η ριγών γ ίκαστοτ άλλα τούτοις γ ουκ ivi 

ov8 €v [οφθαλμοισιν αι8ως των τταλαιων βμβαδων 

ουκ αφη[σ€ί9 ovSe wvt μ ω κακιστον θηριον 

ονδ* ανα[μνησΘ€ίς οθ ξυρων τονί βοτρνς κλ^πτοντα σε 
45° [7Γ]ροσαγα[γων ττρο? την ζλααν ίξξδζΐρ ev κανδρικως 

[ω]στ€ σε ζ[ηλωτον eivai συ δ αγαριστοί η<τθ αρα 

αλλ ai/e[y μ€ και συ και σν ττριν τον νιον €κδραμ€ΐν 


aWa TOVT(u\y'\ fiey [τα-χ^ ημιν βωσ^τον καλην δικην 

ovK€T ets μακράν [ιν ΐΐδηθ οω? €στ ανδρών τρόπος 
455 οξύθυμων και δίκα[ιων και βλ^ττοντων κάρδαμα 

παΐ€ Ίται ω Ηαι/^ία τ[οι;? σφήκας απο της οικίας 

άλλα δρ[ω] τοντ αλ[λα και συ τνφξ πολλω τω καττνω 

ουχ^ι σ[ονσ]θ' ουκ ίΐς [κόρακας ουκ απιτ€ παΐ€ τω ξυλω 

και συ [πρ]οσθβ[ις Αισ-^ινην ^ντυψζ τον Χ^λλαρτιου 
460 αρ e/z[e]XXo/xei/ [ποθ υμάς αττοσοβησ^ιν τω χρονω 

άλλα μα Δι ου ρο^ιως ούτως αν αυτούς δΐξφυγίς 

462 €ΐπ[€ρ €]τυ\ον τ[ων μζλ^ων των Φιλοκλ€ους 


463 CLpcL \δητ ουκ αυτά δήλα 
τοις [τΓίνησιν η τυραννις 

465 [ (ύς λάθρα γ ^λανθαν υπιουσα /xe] 

€[ι συ γ ω ττονω πονηρά και κομηταμυνια 
τ[ων νομών ημάς απβιργξΐς ων ^θηκξν η ττολις 

Fr. Ι recto. Col. ii. 




ο]υδ€ ποτ€ γ ουχ €ως [ ] 

αν] τι μου λοιπόν ηι 

όστις ημω]ν ίπι τυρ[αννιδ] €σταληις 
ως απανθ υμιν τυραννις €στι κ]αι ξυνωμοται 
ην τ€ μείζον ην τ €λαττον πρα]γμα τις κατηγορηι 
ης €γω ουκ ηκουσα τουνομ ουδ]€ τηντηκοντ €των 
νυν δ€ ΊΓολλωι του ταριχους €στι]ν αξιωτζρα 
ωστβ και δη τουνομ αυτής €]ν αγοραι κυλινδίται 
ην μ€ν ωνηται τις ορφως μ€μ]βραδας 5e μη θίληι 
ζυθίως ^ιρηχ ο πωλών πλησιο^ν τας μξμβραδας 
ούτος οψωνξΐν €04χ άνθρωπος] εττί τυραννιδι 
ην δξ γητ€ΐον προσαιτη ταις α]φυαις ηδυσμα τι 
η λαχ^ανοπωλις φησιν] παραβλξψασα θατ€ρω 
€ΐπ€ μοι γητ€ΐον αιτ€]ις ποτ^ρον €πι τυραννιδι 

L 2 


[η ρομιζας Tas Αθην]α9 σοι τρ€φβ[ι.]ι/ ηδυσματα; 

500 [καμ€ γ η πόρνη χΘ^]? €ΐσζλθο[ν]τα της μεσημβρίας 
[οτι κξλητισαί KeXevov] οξ[υθ]υμ[ηθ]€ίσα μοι 
\ηρετ €ί την Ιππων καθισ]ταμ[αι] τυραννίδα : 
[ταύτα yap τούτοις ακο]υ[€ΐν ηδε eli και νυν €γω 
[τον πάτερ οτι βουλομαι] τοντω[ν] απαΧΚαγβεντα των 

505 [ορθοφοιτοσυκοφαντοδίκο]τα\αιπωρων τροπών 

[ζην βιον yevvaiov ωσπ]€ρ Μορνχ[ος] αιτιαν €χω 
[ταύτα δραν ξννωμοτης] ων και ψρ[ον]ων τυραννικά 
[νη Δι ev δικηι γ €γω γαρ ο]νδξν ορνι[θων γ]αλα 
[αντί τον βιον λαβοιμ αν ο]ν με ν[νν αποστ]€ρης 

5 ΙΟ [ονδε χαίρω βατισιν ουδ εγχελεσιν αλλ η]δίοπαν 

[δικιδιον σμικρόν φαγοιμ αν ev λοπαδι] πεπνιγμενον 
[νη Δι €ΐθισθης γαρ ηδεσθαι τοιοντοις πρ]αγμασ[ι]ν [ 
[αλλ €αν σιγων ανασχηι και μαθηις αγω λζγ]ω [ 

Fr. a recto. Col. iii. 

558 ay €μ [ουδ αν ζωντ ηδειν €ΐ μη δια την προτεραν αποφνξιν 
τουτι 7r[e]p[i τ]ων α[ντιβολονντων βστω το μνημοσννον μοι 

560 et γ ασελθων αν[τιβοληθ€ΐς και την οργην απομορχθζΐς 
ένδον τοντων ων [αν φασκω πάντων ονδεν πεποιηκα 
αλλ' ακροωμαι πασ[ας φωνας ιεντων €19 αποφνξιν 
φξρ ΐδω τι γαρ ουκ [εστίν] α[κονσαι Θωπευμ ενταύθα δικαστή 
οι μεν γ' αποκλοιον[τ]αί πεν[ιαν αυτών και προστιβεασι 

565 κακό προς τοις ουσιν εως α[νιων αν ισωση τοισιν εμοισιν 
οί δε λεγονσι μύθους ημιν οι δ Αι[σωπον τι γεΧοιον 
οι δε σκ[ω]πτουσ ϊν εγω γελάσω και [τον θυμον καταθωμαι 
καν μ[η το]υτοις αναπειθωμεσθα τ[α παιδαρι ενθνς ανελκει 
τας θηλ[ει\ας και τους ν[ι\εις τη[ς χειρός εγω δ ακροωμαι 

57° ΤΛ δε σν[γ]κηψαντ αποβληχ[αται καπειθ ο πατήρ υπέρ αυτών 
ωσπερ θεον αντιβολει με τρ[εμων της ευθύνης απολνσαι 
ει μεν χα[φ€ί? α[ρν]ος φωνή [παιδος φωνην ελεησαις 


€i δ' αυ to\ls!\ χοί/)[ίδφί? γαιρω \6vyaTpo^ φωνή μ€ πιθ^σθαι 
XVfi^[iS αν]τω τ[οτ€'\ της οργής [ολίγον τον κολΧοττ αν^ιμ^ν 
575 c^p ου [μ€γ]αληι τ[οντ^ ear αρχή [και του πλούτου καταχηνη 
δ€υτ[€ρον αυ σον το]υτι γραφο^μαι την του πλούτου καταχηνην 
[και ταγαθα μοί μ€μνησ] αχ[εί$• φασκων της Ελλάδος αρχβιν 

Fr. 3 verso. Col. iv. 

607 [ασπαζωνταί δια ταργυριον και πρώτα] μβν η [θυγατ]ηρ μ€ν 
[απονιζη και τω ποδ αλζίφη καί προ]σκυψασα φιληση 

[και παππιζουσ αμα τη γλωσση το] τριωβολον κκαλαματα 
6ιο [και το γνναιον μ υποθωπβυσαν] φνστην μαζαν πρ[ο]σζν^γκηι 
[καπ^ιτα καθ^ζομ^νη] παρ €μ[οι π]ροσαναγκαζη φαγβ τοντι 
[ξντραγζ τουτι τοισί]ν εγω γα[ν]υμαι και μη μ€ δζησης 
[es σ€ βλξψαι και τον τ]αμιαν οποτ άριστον παραθησ€ΐ 
[καταρασαμζνο]^ και τονθορνσας αλλ' ην μη μοι ταχυ μαξηι 
6ΐ5 [ταδζ Κ€κτημαι π]ροβλημα κακών σκ€νην ββ[λ]€ων αλζωρην 

[καν οινον μοι μη γχ]ης συ πιβιν τον ονον το[νδ] €σκξκομισμαι 
[οίνου μ€στον κατ €γχ]βομαι κλινας οντο[ς δ]€ κ^χηνως 
[βρωμησαμ€νος τον σο]υ δινον μ[^]γα και στρ[α]τιον κατ^παρδ^ν 
619-20 [αρ ου μ^γαλην αρχήν α]ρχω και τ[ο]υ Διους ο[ν]δζν ζλαττω 
621 [οστφ ακονω τα[ν]& απ€ρ ο [Ζ€]υς 

[ην γ]ουν ημ(ΐ[ς θο]ρνβη[σ]ωμ€ν 
[πας] τις φησιν [των] τΓαρι[ο]ν[τ]ων 
[οιο]ν βρονται τ[ο δι]καστ[ηριο]ν 
625 [ω Ze]v βασι[λ]€υ [ ] 

[κα]ν ασ[τραψω ποππυζουσιν 

Fr. 3 recto. Col. vii. 

^46 [α σου κζλζυοντο]ς ουκ €π[€ΐθ€το 

747 ['^^^ ^ '^^^^ τοισ]ι σοις 


[Aoyoip πίΐθ€ταί\ 

748 [και σωφρονζί μ€]ντοί μξθι 
[στα9 €S το λο^ιπον τ[ο]ι/ τρόπον 

749 [π€ΐθομ]€νο9 re σοί 
[ιω μοί μο]ι 

0VT09 τι βοα9 

750 [μη μο]ι τούτων μηδ^ν νπισχ[νον 

Κζίνων €ραμαι Κ€ΐθ[ι γ^νοιμαν 
ϊν ο κήρυξ ψησι^ τ[ις αψηφι 
στος ανιστασθω [ 
κατΓίσταιτ^^ν €τγι τοί9 κημοΐ9 

755 ψηφιζομ[ζνων ο TeXevTaios 

σπ€νδ' ω [ψνχη ττον μοι ψυχή 
παρζ9 [ω σκκρα μα τον Ηρακλ^α 
μη νι{ν €τ €γω ν τοισι δικασταις 
κλ€πτ[οντα Κλέωνα λαβοιμι 

76ο [ίθ ω π]ατ€ρ ττρο[9 των θίων €μοί πίθου 

Fr. 3 verso. Col. viii. 

790 [καπατ] €ν€θ[ηκ€ τρ€ΐ9 λοπιδας μοι κ€στρ€ων 
[καγ]ω νβκαψ o/3[oAoi;y γαρ ωομην λαβίΐν 
[κατ]α βδ€λυχθ€[ΐ9 οσφρομξνος (ξβπτυσα 
[καθ] €ΐλκον αυτο[ν ο Se τι προ9 ταυτ ζΐφ ο τι 
[αλζ\κτρυονο[5!\ μ [^]φ[ασ\κ[ε κοιλιαν €χ€ΐν 

795 [ταχίν νουν καθζψξΐς γ αργ[υριον η S os λ^γων 
[opas οσ]ον και τούτο δητα [κ]€ρ[δαν€ίς 
[ου πάνυ τ]ί μικρόν αλλ' οπ^ρ μζλλφ ποΐ€ΐ 
[αναμίνξ ν]υν εγω δζ ταυ& ηξω φ[^\ρω[ν 
[ορα το χρήμα τα] λογι ωί π^ραινίται 

8οο [ηκηκοΐΐν γαρ ω? Α]θηναιοι ποτ€ 

[δικασοΐ€ν €πι ταις οι]κζΐαισι ray δικά? [ 
[καν T01S προθυροΐ9 €νοι]κοδομησ€ΐ π[α9 ανηρ 
[αυτω δικαστηριδιον μ]ικρον πάνυ 


[ωσ7Γ€/ϊ Εκαταιον παΐ'τα]χον προ των θυρών Γ 
8θ5 \}8ου τι €τ e/jei? ως απαντ] €γω φξρω 
[οσαπ€ρ ξφασκον κάτι πολλ]ωί nXnova 
\αμίς μ€ν ην ονρητιασηζ αν]τηι 
[πάρα σοι κρ^μησίτ eyyuy €]πί [τον ηατταλου 

Frs. 4 and 5 recto. Col. ix. 

814 [αυτού μ^^γων [yap την φακην ροφησομαι 

8 15 [αταρ τι τ]ον ορ[νιν coy €μ ΐξην^γκατΐ 
[ινα γ η]ν καθβ[ν8η9 απολογουμ^νου τίνος 
[αΒων α'\νωΘί[ν ζξζγξίρη σ οντοσι 

[ζν €τι πο]θω τα S \\αλλ apeaKCi μοι το τι 
[θηρωον] €1 πως ^[κκομισαις το του Λύκου 
5 lines lost. 

825 ([καλούν καλΐΐ νυν α>ί καθημ €γω πάλαι 
0[epe νυν τιν αυτω πρώτον €ΐσαγαγω δικην 
τ[ι τι? κακόν δζδρακξ των €v τωκια 
η [Θραττα προσκαυσασα πρώην την χυτραν 
([πισχ^ζς ούτος ως ολίγον μ απωλ^σας 

830 α[νζυ δρνφακτον την δικην μέλλεις καλπν 

Frs. 4 and 5 verso. Col. χ. 

8<?3 [και μην ημξΐς €πι] ταις [σπονδαις 

[και ταις €νχαις ] 

865 [φημην αγαθην λζξο]μ€ν νμ[ιν 

[οτι γίνναιως €Κ τον π]ολ€μο[ν 
[και τον νξΐκονς ξν]νίβητο[ν 
[(νφημια μξν πρώτα ννν] νπαρχ[ζτω 
[ω Φοιβ Απολλον Πνθι €π αγ]αθτι τ[νχ^η 

5 lines lost. 
875 [^ δΐσποτ αναξ γατον ayvuv τονμον προ6υ'\ρο[υ προσπνλας 
[δίζαι Τζλίτην καινην ωναζ ην τω πατρι και]νοτομο[υμ€ν 


[παυσον τ αυτού τούτο το λίαν στρυφνον καί] ττρινίνο[ν ήθος 
[αντί σιραιον μέλιτος μικρόν τω θνμιδιω παρα]μι^α^ 

444• δ€[Γφθίρω[ι/, or perhaps \ρ'\ιαφθΐρω\ν, is for διφθΐρων. 

449• °^^' '• so V, &c., edd. ; οϋτ R. 

452. av([s : so MSS., H(all)-G(eldart); «φ« Cobet. 

453. τουτω[ν] : SO MSS. and most edd. The v.l. τούτω is implied by the scholia. 

454. fis: f's RV, edd. 

456. irate : SO Vr, «&C., edd. ; nave R. 

459. The MSS. assign this line not to the speaker of 1. 458 (Sosias), but to a different 
person {olκeτψ R, Xanthias V), and generally give 1. 460 to him also (so most edd.). 
R, however, supports Π in marking a new speaker after 1. 459• π probably assigned 
ll.'458-9 to Bdelycleon, 460 to Xanthias or Sosias; Bergk gave 1. 456 to Sosias, 457-9 to 
Bdelycleon, 460 to Xanthias. 

462. βeβ[pcύκoτes Λvhich belongs to this verse was put in a line by itself, perhaps for 
want of space. 

465. This line, which would be expected to correspond to the two preceding, is corrupt 
in the MSS. 

486-7. π agrees with RV in its division of these lines. There is no room before 
(σταληις for ωδ' which is commonly inserted on metrical grounds (cf. 1. 429) by editors, 
following Hermann. 

496. ταις α]φνηις : it is uncertain whether Π had rats (so MSS., Starkie, H-G) or τα 
(Brunck on metrical grounds), especially as προσαιτη may have had an iota adscript. 

497. φησιν] παραβλίψασα: τταραβλεψασά φησι MSS., rightly. 

499. τpfφe[L]v: φepeίv MSS. The remark of schol. V φησιν οτί διά σε φΰουσιν η'ι ^Αθήναι 

η8νσματα \vould apply to τρίφειν even better than to φερειν, which connotes the idea of paying 
besides that of bearing. 

505. The restoration gives 22 letters in the lacuna where the lines above and below 
have 18 or 19, so that π probably did not have the correct spelling of the scholia όρθρο- : 
δρθο- R, &c., ορθοσ- V. Possibly δικό was omitted. 

506. εχω : so λ'^, &C., edd. ; ?χων R. 

507. τυραννικά : SO V Suidas and most edd. ; τυραννίδα R, &c. There are no double 
dots at the end of this line or of 1. 511. 

508. ο]υδεν : ονδ' αν MSS., rightly. The repetition of av seems to have caused a difficulty, 
as in 1. 510. 

509. αποστ^ερης : 1. anovT^epeis with the MSS. 

510. η\διοπαν is an error for ηδιον αν, cf. note on 1. 508. 

511. πΐπνιγμενον : so V, &C., edd.; TTeirqypevov R. 

558. as : OS V, &c., edd., ώ? R. 

560. €1 γ' : ΐΐτ MSS., rightly ; cf 1. 795, note. Paragraphi are omitted before this line 
and 1. 576. 

564. anoKXoiov[r\ai or αποκλοιοΐ'[.]τ[α]ι can be read ; άποκλαίονται RV, άποκλάονται BC, cdd. 

565. This verse is corrupt in the MSS., which have κακά {κακά ye Β Aid.) np6s toIs 

(τοίσιν Β Aid.) ουσιν ews αν Ισωστ] {eωs άνιων άνισώση V) τοίσιν epolaiv. Π is corrupt in havmg 

κακό for κακά and may have omitted ανιών like RBC. Meineke proposed κακά np6s to'is ουσι 

(κακοίσι^ν eωs αν ϊσ. τ. ip., Starkie κα. π. τ. ονσιν eas αν (δη Tis) Ισώση τ. f/i. 

566. λεγονσι: SO VBC ; 1. λε'γονσιν with R. 

568. avaπeιθωμeσθa : SO VBC and moSt edd. ; άναπ€ΐβώμΐθα R. 


570. σν•γ\κη•^αντ IS foi" av\y\Kvy^avT (so RV and mOSt edd.) ; συ-γκντττοντ BC Aid. 
αποβΚηχ^αται : SO V ; α/Λ ΰμα βΧηχαται R, άμβληχάται Bergk, αμα βρυχάται Van LeeUWen, 

αμα βληχάται BC and niost edd. 

571. θΐον: so RBC, edd.; θεός V. 

573• χοφ[ι8ί\οΐ5 : so VBC, edd.; χοφίοις R. 

576. ■γραφο[μαι : SO Brunck ; γράψομαι MSS. against the metre (V has the Hne in the 

577. Either ax[eis (BC, edd.) or αχ[ρις (RV) may be restored. This hne and 1. 626 
may be the last of the columns. 

607. μΐν: e was written with a long middle stroke as if it were originally the last letter 
of the line, and ν seems to have been added by the first hand later, με MSS., rightly. 

608. προ^σκνψασα : SO RBC, edd. ; ττροσκνσασα V. Richter's emendation φιλί? μι for 
φιληστ], accepted by Van Leeuwen, is not confirmed. 

609. ίκκαλαματα : 1. -τα(ι). Π may have omitted το (added by Flor. Christianus) like 
the MSS. 

612. τοίσψ : so RB Aid. ; τοϊσι C, τοντοισιν V, edd. It is not quite certain that Π had 
the unmetrical reading here, but 17 or 18 letters would be expected in the lacuna and 
τοντοισι\ν would require 20. 

και μη μι δέηση:: κα\ μη μι δεησηι (or 8ίηση) MSS., Kfl μη μ€ δεήσει Elmsley, BlaydeS, κοΰ 

μη με δεηστ] H-G following Dobree. 

613• "παραθησει; SO VBC, edd.; τταραθησηι with ει SUpraSCr. R. 

614. αλλ' ην: so Γ (αλλ' ην) edd.; αΚΚην RVBC. Mcinckc thought that there was 
a lacuna after this line, rejecting 11. 615-18. 

619-20. Π agrees with RVr in combining these two lines into one, which is uniform 
with those preceding, and in omitting της before τον. BC Aid., reading τψ τοΰ Διο'ί, make 
two lines corresponding to those following. For ^lovs 1. /::>.ιος. 

621. απερ: SO VB Aid., edd. ; ωσπερ R, οσπερ C. 

623. φησιν : SO R, correctly; φ^σί VBC. 

624. t[o δι1«αστ[ί7/3ΐο]ν ; SO RVC, edd. ; TCI δικαστήρια Β. 

746. The ο of ουκ is above the ο of σοις in the next line, and it is not certain whether 
Π read a with RBC and edd. (om. V), but there is no room for παρακελεύοντος (Β Aid.). 
The metre of this antistrophe is not at all clear, α σου does not correspond to είναι in 
1. 732, and cf. note on 1. 749. Editors divide 11. 743-9 in several ways; n's arrangement 
agrees with that of RV. 

749. [πειθομ]ενος : SO MSS. ; wt^o^efos• most edd., following Brunck, who wished to make 
this verse correspond to 1. 736 σύ δε πάρων δεχου. [πιθομ'\ενος is too short for the lacuna, and 
the emendation of this chorus on metrical grounds is insecure ; cf. 1. 746, note. 

Ti βοαί : SO V and most edd. ; τΊ μοι βοάς RBC. 

752. φησις : φησι MSS., rightly, except R which has the unmetrical φησιν. 

756. σπενδ' : SO RBC, edd. ; σπενδ' V. 

790. καπειτλ ενεβϊηκε : καπειτ επεθηκε RBC Aid., Starkie ; καπειθεν εβηκεν V, κίίπειτ ενεθηκε 

Bergk, whose emendation may well have been confirmed, H-G. 

795. καθει^εις : SO H-G with the MSS. ; κατεψεις Suidas, καταπελί/εις Hirschig, καταττέττεις 

Van Leeuwen. 

y apyvpiov : τάργύριον MSS., Starkie, H-G, αργνριον Brunck. The article is unnecessary, 
but defensible as generic, and with yoiv in the same line γ' is also superfluous ; cf. « γ' for 
«7-' in 1. 560. 

796. οσΙοι/ . . . δητα : SO RBC, edd. ; ος όσον . . . om. δήτα V. 

798. There is a blank space after ν]υν, but apparently no stop. Reiske wished to alter 

ταϋθ' to πάνθ'. 



8oi. οϊ\κ(ΐαισι '. 1. οϊ^κιαισι. 

8o2. Either tvni\κoboμησ€l (VBC) or ανοί\κο^μησίΐ (R, &c.) Can be restored. Editors 
alter to (νοικηΒομησοι, following Dobree. 

806. [οσαπ€ρ : so Vf, H-G ; οσαη(ρ -γ (RBC) is less likely, for there are already 
21 letters in the space which is filled by 20 in the line above and by 21 in the line below. 

808. e\m : so MSS. Some editors wish to read e'<c or άπό, but cf. Starkie's note. 

816. [iva y η]ι> : SO MSS., Starkie, H-G ; [iv η]ν (Cobet) is too short. 

825-6. V omits these two verses owing to homoioteleuton. 

865. The size of the lacuna suits λίξομ^ν (RBC, edd.) better than ίξομ€ν (V). 

867. ξν]νφητο[ν : so MSS.; ξυνφητην H-G with many editors, following Elmsley, but 
cf. Starkie's note. 

875. προθυ]ρο[ν : SO RBC, edd. ; προυπυλου V. π]ρο[υπτ;λου WOuld not Suit the length of 

the lacuna. For the unmetrical irpoanvXas of the MSS. Bentley proposed irponvXaie. 

878. Below ]μιξας there is a blank space of three lines, 11. 879 sqq. being divided into 
short lines, as in RV. 

1375. Herodotus vii. 

15-5x12.3 cm. 

Early second century. 

The upper parts of two columns, written in carefully formed round uncials 
of medium size. Although smaller in scale there is a close resemblance between 
this hand and that of the well-known Bodleian Homer (cf. Kenyon, Palaeogr. 
Plate 20) ; it is also similar in style to 1362, though probably of a somewhat 
later date and more appropriately assigned to the second century than the first. 
A correction in Col. ii. 5 seems to be due to the original scribe, who may also be 
responsible for the punctuation by means of high dots in combination with 
paragraphs A deep margin (7*5 cm.) was left at the top of the columns. 

In the text of the papyrus the chief point of interest is its failure to confirm 
suggested editorial excisions. Two unsupported variants (i. 6-8, 10) are of 
no importance. This is the sixth Herodotus fragment from Oxyrhynchus ; 
cf. H. G. Viljoen, Herodoti fragmenta in papyris servata. 

Col. i. 
μιΚκαν Καρχτ] 
Soviou ζοντα > 
π/>οί πατρός μη 
τροθβν δε Χνρη 
5 κοσιον βασιλίν 
σαντα Τ€ Καρχη 
[δ]ονιων κατ αν 
δρα•γ\α\θιην ω? η 


Col. ii. 

rotai Ελ[λησί ev 

τψ ^[ί]κζλ[ι]η[ί €μα 

χοΐ'το 6^ ηο[ν9 αρ 

ξαμ^νοι μ€χ[ρί 
5 δ6ί[[τ]]779 θψίη[! € 

ΤΓί τοσούτο γα[ρ Xe 

yeT[a]t ίλκνσαι [την 

§ ι67 


συμβολή re eyci [σ\νστασίν' ο δ Αμ[ιλ 

ΙΟ νίτο και ησσω κα9 ev τοντωι [> 

το τηι μαχηι α> ιο τω: χρονωι //[e 

φανισθηναι ττυν νων ev τωι [στρα 

θανομαι- οντ€> τοττίδωι €6ve[T0 

γαρ ζωντα ουτ€ α και €καλλίζρ([€το 

15 [ποθανοντα €πι πυρψ //e[ya 

.... 15 [λϊ/? σ\ωματα ο\\α 

i. 6-8. Καρχη\ρ'\ηνιων κατ αν^ρα•γ\α\θίην '. κατ άν8ραγ. Ιίαρχ, MSS. 
g. eyeiveTo : S has tyevero. 
10. ησσωτο : ws ίσσοΰτο MSS. 

ii. I. 2. iv TTJ Σικίλίυ is omitted by P*RSV and bracketed by Hude. 

6. τοσούτο : τοσούτον RS V . 

Xe]yeT[a]t : RSV have Xiyeiv. Cobet wished to omit the verb altogether. 
12-13. The papyrus agrees vi^ith the MSS. in reading eWero και which was bracketed 
by Hude after Abicht. 

1376. ThUCYDIDES vii. 

Height 31-8 cm. Late second or early third 

century. Plate III 
(Col. iv, 11. 155-165)• 

These considerable portions of the last third of a roll containing the seventh 
book of Thucydides belong to the large find of classical texts which produced 
841-4, 852-3, 1012, 1016-17, &c. The papyrus (Π) when discovered consisted of 
about 200 fragments, of which more than three-quarters have been identified. 
Excluding the small unplaced scraps, twenty columns, nearly all much damaged, 
are preserved, divided into three sections separated by gaps. The first, Cols, i- 
xiii, contains cc. 54-68. 2, after which there are six columns lost ; the second 
section, Cols, xx-i, follows, containing 7a. 1-73. 3 ; then comes another gap of six 
columns and finally the third section, Cols, xxviii-xxxi, containing 78. 5-82. 3, 
five or six columns more being required to finish the book. The hand is an 
elegant medium-sized uncial, resembling 1012 (Part VII, Plate iv) which was 
written between A. D. 205 and 250, and probably belongs to the early part of the 
third century or even the end of the second. The columns are tall, vii-viii 
having 53 lines, i, v, x, xi, xii, xiii 52. u-iv, vi, ix 51, xxviii-xxxi 50, xxxii 
at least 49, xxi 48, xx 47. The lines are not very even and range from 15 to 


23 letters, with an average of a little over 19. Their beginnings tend to 
slope away to the left as the columns proceed, giving the latter a considerable 
slant to the right. The common angular sign for filling up short lines is 
sparingly used, and final ν is occasionally represented by a horizontal stroke, 
at any rate in the later columns. Punctuation is indicated by high stops, 
marginal paragraphi, and sometimes by short blank spaces, but there are 
no breathings or accents, and diaereses are scarce. Iota adscript is rarely 
omitted in the first section, but frequently in the second and third. A few 
alterations have been made by the scribe himself (11. 157 and 338), and correc- 
tions or alternative readings have been inserted here and there in two different 
hands, which are probably but little later than that of the main text (Π^ 11. '^^6, 
491, 551, 931, 956, 968 ; Π^ 407, 705). Uncorrected slips occur in 1. 234 and 
perhaps in 1, 638. 

Π is in several respects the most important papyrus of Thucydides that has 
yet been found. While not possessing either the antiquity of the first-century 
fragments of Book iv (16 + 696) or the intrinsic merits of that unusually elaborate 
and careful copy, it is not only much the longest Thucydides papyrus extant but 
presents a good text, above the level of the average literary papyri of the same 
period, and moreover comes from a book in which the textual problems are 
exceptionally numerous and interesting. The seven chief MSS. form two groups, 
headed respectively by C, the tenth-century Laurentianus, and B, the eleventh- 
century Vaticanus. C is supported by G, the Monacensis (thirteenth century), 
which is sometimes defective, and Β by A, the Cisalpinus (eleventh or twelfth 
century), E, the Palatinus, F, the Augustanus, and M, the Britannicus (all 
eleventh century), the last usually approximating to a middle position, although 
in the chapters covered by Π Μ exhibits more afiinity to AEF than to CG. 
From vi. 92 to the end a disturbing element is introduced by the fact that 
Β (supported up to vii. 50 by the fifteenth-century Parisinus 1734) branches off 
from the rest to such an extent that it is now generally supposed to represent 
a different recension, due to a sagacious but arbitrary grammarian, and Wilamo- 
witz has proposed to identify this with an edition of Thucydides in thirteen books 
mentioned by Marcellinus. The ABEFM group was considered superior to 
CG by the older editors, who were imperfectly acquainted with C, but since the 
publication of Hude's text, which is based primarily on CG, the position has 
been reversed and the reputation of Β has declined. As the divergences between 
Β and C, particularly in vi. 92-viii, constitute the chief problem in the textual 
criticism of Thucydides, we preface a detailed classification of IT's readings with 
a summary of the evidence of extant papyri, showing the number of their agree- 
ments with C against Β and vice versa and of their new readings, but disregarding 


minor points such as ν Ιφζλκνστίκόν, in the neglect of which Π resembles C. 
P. Giessen 12 is published by F. Fischer in Thiicyd. reliquiae in papyris et 
menibranis Aeg. servatae, Leipzig, 1913, pp. 27 sqq. ; P. Wess. by C. Wessely in 
Wiener Stud, vii ; the others are all from Oxyrhynchus, the small pieces 17, 
451-3, and P. Geneva 257 being omitted. 

1245 i. 139-41 

4th cent. 


C 3 

with Β 



853 extracts from ii. i 


late 2nd 







878 ^ ii. 22-5 

late 1st 







P. Giessen 12 ii. 59-60 

4th or 5th 






225 ii. 90-1 







879 1 iii. 58-9 







16 + 696 iv. 28-41 








880^ V. 32-4, 40, 96-8, 

103-5, III 

late 2nd 






1180 V. 60-3 






1246 vii. 38 

early 2nd 





1247 viii. 8-1 1 








P. Wess. viii. 92 








The best text is given by 853, 225, 16 + 696, and 1247, several of the others 
having been carelessly written, while P. Giessen 12, 225, and 1246 are too 
short to show much of their real character. Of the four best the two first- 
century specimens tend to uphold C, the two second-century ones B, which in the 
parts covered by 853 is supported by AEFM, but not in those covered by 
1247. The balance is on the whole slightly in favour of C before vi. 92, and in 
favour of Β after that point. That the MSS. of Thucydides are in the main 
sound, but have deteriorated since the third century in a number of small points 
is indicated by some of the new readings, especially in 16 + 696. 

The instances in which Il's readings affect differences between the seven 
principal MSS. are classified as follows, so as to bring into prominence its 
relations to C and B, whether alone or in combination with AEFM, which 
in this book are nearer to C than to B. 





11• 23. 45. right. 

„ c 




66, wrong. 

„ CG 




58, right. 

„ CE 




616 ?, 712, doubtful. 

„ ACF 




625, doubtful. 

„ CGM 




705, wrong, but corrected. 

1 878. 47 τωι ταχίΐ agrees with ABEFGM against C (τό; re τύχα), 879. 33 δ* with ACEFGM 
against Β (om.), and 880. 82 aa<pws with ACEFGM against Β (om.). 



With CEFG against ABM 


„ ACEFM „ Β 

„ ACEF.MB yp. „ Β 

.447.495> 55'^^ 5Ί°^ ^^3, 723, 734, 739. 852, 

I 444, right. 

I 144, doubtful. 

I 157, right. 

I 725, doubtful. 
21 (22?) 9, 49. 64, 99. 1^5. 195. 
81, 943, 951. right; 122,432?. 79^. 

wrong ; 186, doubtful. 

With Β against ACEFGM 20 (21 ?) 22, 133, 175, 190, 277, 430, 

602-4, 611, 702, 909, 961, right; 14, 732-3, 948, wrong; 85, 150, 197, 562, 691, 
911?, 956, doubtful. 

With Β (suprascr.) Ε against ABCFM 






















I 11. 94, right. 

I 406, wrong. 

I 699, right. 

I 508, right. 

1 963, right. 

2 162, 350, right. 

7 122, 234, 236, 6^^, 652, 959, 

right; 164, doubtful. 

I 720, right. 

1 442, right. 

2 ^35^ 487, right. 
I 724, right. 

10 72-4, 121, 186, 496, 549, 720, 
758, 782, 950. 967. right. 

3 72, 146-7, 487, right. 
I 91, right. 

I 405, right. 

4 77.93, 149. 425, right. 
I 184, wrong. 

From this table several conclusions follow. In the first place Π occupies 
a position almost exactly midway between Β and C. Out of 69 passages in which 
these two MSS. are at variance Π agrees with C 32 (34?) times, with Β 34 
(35 ?) times in spite of the fact that in no less than 45 of these passages Β stands 
alone, while C stands by itself only 12 times, being twice supported by G alone, 
and 55 times by one or more of AEFM. Where Β is unsupported, Π agrees with 
it 20 (21 ?) times against 23 (24 ?) disagreements ; where C is alone, it agrees with 
Π 3 times out of 12, and CG are supported by Π in i out of 2 instances. The text 
of Β is therefore no longer isolated; it is practically as close to Π as is that 


of C, its chief opponent, and closer to Π than are A or M. Out of the whole 94 • 
passages in which the seven chief MSS. differ, Π agrees with Ε 58 (6o?) times, 
Β 51 (59 ?), F 5Ί (5» ?). C s^ (58 ?), and Μ 49 (50 ?), and with G 5a {s^ ?) times 
out of 86 passages, so that the nearest MS. to Π is not a leader of either of 
the two families but E, and F is on the same level as B. Ε and F have very few 
distinctive readings : out of 6 cases in which Ε and 6 in which F differs from BC 
Π supports Ε twice (once with Β suprascr.) and F once. Neither G nor A nor 
Μ obtains any assistance for their peculiar readings from Π, which agrees with 
BC against them 4, 6, and 1 1 times respectively. 

From the point of view of quantity of agreements Π thus does not consistently 
support one MS. against the rest. C or CG when unsupported by some or 
all of AEFM are confirmed in less than a third of the instances. But nearly half 
of B's numerous peculiar readings in the chapters covered by Π are now shown to 
have been in existence in the second or third century, and the tendency of papyri, 
which was already traceable in 1246-7 and to a less extent in P. Wess. (cf p. 157), 
to support Β in vi. 93-viii was clearly no exceptional phenomenon. Since C and 
Β are equidistant from Π, and there is no question of the text of C ever having 
been specially edited, it becomes doubtful whether that hypothesis is necessary 
in the case of B. An examination of the quality of the distinctive readings 
of Β in relation to Π seems to us to favour the view that the special excellences 
and defects of Β in the later books are due to its being derived, like C, from 
a text which is not far removed from that of Π, but into which a number of 
variations, chiefly errors, have been introduced in the intervening eight or nine 
centuries. Of the 19 (ai ?) readings in which Β alone is supported by Π ther^ are 
two clear cases of omission in ACEFGM owing to homoioteleuton (11, 190 and 
602-4) ; in 11. 32, 133, 175, 430, and 611 ACEFGM are clearly corrupt, while B's 
readings, which have been suspected of being due to an editor, are satisfactory, 
and in view of IT's confirmation can be accepted without demur; in 1. 909 
certainly and probably in 1. 961 ACEFGM have made mistakes owing to ditto- 
graphy ; in 11. 377 and 702 trifling additions are found in B, the omission 
of which may well be explained as slips. In all these 11 cases ΠΒ are 
certainly or probably right against the other MSS. The instances in which 
nB's reading is probably wrong confine themselves to two apparent examples 
of the confusion of ί/δτ] with δτ? (11. 14 and 948 ; cf. 1. 19, where Π is right and all 
the MSS. wrong on this point), and ττ€τταυμ4νουί for άναττίτταυμίνουί in 11. 732~3• 
The remaining 7 cases, about which there is some doubt whether, as in the 
editions of Hude and Stuart Jones, they should be rejected or, as we should 
in the light of the new evidence prefer, be accepted, are small omissions or 
insertions (1. 85 cm. δ^, 150 ^ττίφζρον for ίφ^ρον, 691 om. eiVt, 911 add. τψ}) or 


slight changes in the order of words (11. 197 and 56a), and σωτήριου as a v. 1. for 
σωτηρίαν (1. 9^6). In any case they postulate only a trifling error on the part of 
either ΠΒ or, as is, we think, more likely, of ACEFGM. That the latter group 
combines to make some very serious mistakes is quite clear from their omissions 
owing to homoioteleuton, where Β is proved by Π to have preserved the right 
text. C, when alone, contributes hardly anything of value in the chapters 
covered by Π ; for in 1. 45 κωλνσουσι for κωλύσωσι after οπω?, though probably 
right, is trivial, the omissions of ΰπο in 1. 66, και in 12,% and 350, and ήσυχαζόντων 
in 2^6, the insertions of oi in 164 and 334, the substitution of καταργόμ^νοι for 
κατ€φγόμ€νοι in 162, ^σόμ^ναί for eaovrai in 633, αταξία for άταζίαν in 6^2, and 
άναγκάζωνταί for αναγκάζονται in 959 are, for the most part at least, obvious slips. 
Lines 22-3 afford a good illustration of the nature of corruptions which have arisen 
in Thucydides' MSS. between the third and tenth century. C has there νανσΐ 
καΐ iTTTTOts καΐ μ^γ^θη (χούσαΐ5, Β vavs καΐ Xttttovs και μζγίθζΐ ^χοιίσαι?, AEFM ναυσΐ 
καΐ Xttttois καΐ μ^γίθζΐ Ιχοίίσαι?. The emendation of Duker layyovaais for ^γούσαι^ 
would account for the datives, but IT, which apparently had vav's καΐ L-mrovs καΐ 
μεγέθη €χονσαΐ5, is probably correct in spite of the simplicity of this reading, and 
the datives are to be regarded as errors which are less advanced in Β and C than 
in the other MSS. 

On the other hand, while the frequent and judicious support lent to Β is one 
of the chief features of Π and cannot fail to increase the respect due to that MS. 
in vi. 92-viii, the superiority of n's text to that of B, as to that of any other MS. 
of Thucydides, is shown by its slightly more frequent and not less judicious 
agreements with ACEFGM against B. Out of 23 (24?) of these (G is defective 
in a few cases) there are only two cases (122 Ύηνωι for Ύήιοι and 792 €κατ€ρωθζν 
for €/carepot), and possibly a third (432 ωττ^ρ δ?7 for ωττερ), in which there are strong 
reasons for considering Β superior to ITACEFGM. In 725 (btaXafiovras for 
■προφθάσανταί) TVs support of the ordinary reading is confirmed by the removal of 
the repetition of ττροφθάν€ΐν in 751 {φθάσωσι Π). The omission of γάρ, which 
is inserted by Β in 186, is quite defensible, and the changes in the order effected 
by Β in 83-4, 125, and 552 have nothing special to recommend them. The 
following readings of B, 49 om. τά, 99 έκαστοι for Ικάστοι?, 195 λξίττομίνονί for ad 
ττολξμίονί, 683 ζβονλοντο for (βουλζύοντο, 723 τά for ras, 739 τΐτάφθαι for τ€τράφθαι, 
852 τρίψόμζναί for τρζψάμζνοι, 88 1 om. μερο?, 943 '"^ ^^r τότ€, are merely due 
to slips of a copyist and are naturally absent from Π, while the rest of B's peculiar 
readings, 9 om. και, 157 bi (rejected by Π) for re, 447 ^σομάνψ for οΰση^, 
495 om. και, 570 ί-η^ιτα hi for ί-η^τα, 734 'Ηράκλεια for avTols ΉρακλεΓ, 951 εκατόν 
και for καί, though requiring consideration as probably ancient variants, have not 
found favour with recent editors, whose judgement in selecting from B's variants 


is generally confirmed by n's evidence, as also in the less numerous cases where 
AEFGM are divided between Β and C. Of these instances nCG are undoubtedly 
right against ABEFM in 1. 58 {φόβου against φόβωι, a copyist's error), and 
nCEFG against ABM in 444 {φαίνεται against φαίνηται which is due to a con- 
fusion of eav with kav). That Π is also right in supporting ACEFG against BM 
in 1. 144 {κατά €χθο$, omitting τό), CE against ABFGM in 616 (om. και) and 712 
{αττοχωρησασα against ντΐογωρησασα) is more questionable, but still, as we think, 
probable ; in an apparent but not quite certain agreement with ACF against 
BEGM in 61^ either reading may be correct. On the other hand Π naturally 
supports Β (suprascr.) Ε in 94 ^υ^διασώσοντε? (^υνδίασώσαι/τβ? ABCFM by a slip), 
BEM in 699 avTMv {αυτόν ACFG, also a slip), ABEF in 705 avayMpriaovTis 
{άναχωρησαντζς CGM, a dittography from the following ξύμτταντ^^, also found in Π 
but corrected by Π^), and ABEFM in 963 αυτω -πρώτω (om. ττρώτω CG). The 
agreement with BFM against CE in 508 as to the form ττλευσ onerous against 
ττ\ζυσουμ€νουί is trivial, and Π has made the same mistake as BG in 406-7 
τταρξσκζυάζζσθζ for τταρασκ€υάζ(σθ€, the origin of the error {-παρζσκίυαζζσθαι 
wrongly corrected to -Oe) being established. The 24 cases (cf p. 158) where 
BC combine against one or more of the other MSS. need not be discussed 
in detail, since Π uniformly supports BC save in the unimportant matter of 
the spelling of στρατύα (1. 184), for which ITEF have στρατιά (cf. 1. 17 referred 
to below, where Π alone is correct on this point). With a few exceptions 
(e.g. the reading of Μ in 730) the variations of the other MSS. from BC are 
mainly mere mistakes, and even where they are defensible the authority of Π 
coincides with the verdict already expressed by recent editors against them. 

Another interesting feature of Π is its occasional agreement with the later 
MSS. against the seven leading codices selected by Hude, who almost entirely 
disregards the later ones except Parisinus 1734 in vi. 92-vii. 50. The phenomenon 
of agreements between papyri and the ' deteriores ' is not new ; it has been 
decidedly marked e. g. in the case of Xenophon, as is shown by 463 and 697, but 
in that of Thucydides the only instances hitherto have been 16. ii. 36 hUhoaav 
with Bekker's KN for huhihoaav and 853. v. 21 (κφυγ^ΐν with Paris. 1735 for 
€κφ^ύγ€ΐν. Π, however, exhibits at least 7 (8 ?) coincidences with the late MSS. 
One of these, 747 ουκ for ονκίη with apparently KN and Paris. 1734 and 1791, 
is almost certainly right (Hude brackets ίτι with Kriiger), and the insertion of ot 
before 'Συρακόσιοι in 999 with N, though perhaps due to a misplacement (cf. note 
ad loc), is in accordance with custom. In 11. 486-7, where the chief MSS. are 
corrupt and Π is unfortunately incomplete, it apparently agrees with Paris. 
1637, 1638, and 1736 in omitting an av which can hardly be right, though whether 
that omission alone is sufficient to restore the passage is somewhat doubtful. In 



544 Bekker's KLNOPQ and Paris. 1637, 1638, 1733, 1734, and 1736 are stated to 
read ^ττιβονλη (with Π) instead of (ττιβολη before των σώηρων χαίρων, and this read- 
ing of the later MSS. deserves consideration although rejected by recent editors. 
Against the conclusiveness of the parallel χειρών σώηρων (ττιβολαί in 1. 434 may be 
urged first the possibility that ζττφολή in the second passage is a reminiscence of 
the first, and secondly the employment of the singular not the plural. In any 
case (τηβονλη is to be regarded not as an error of the late MSS. but an ancient 
reading. In 713 Π agrees with Paris. 1637 in having ττου for 7701 in καθζζομίνη ttol 
Trjs SiKeXtas, a variant which is defensible. The omission, however, of Βοιωτοί 
before Βοιωτοί? in 142, which also occurs in Paris. 1636, is probably a mistake ; 
cf. the insertion of Αωριης in 152. Nor is there anything to be said in favour of 
άντίλαβξίν, which was erroneously read by Π^ with Bekker's Η in 551, but for 
which n''^ rightly wished to substitute the ordinary reading άνηλαβην. (ν^κνκλονντο 
for the usual €κνκλοΰντο in 946, which is partly supported by Ινκυκλουντο in 
Paris. 317, lacks parallels earlier than the Roman period, while the simple verb is 
common in Thucydides and occurs again as near as 1. 969 ; but for this very 
reason the compound may after all be right; cf 11. 6^ and 150. The agreements 
between Π and the late MSS., though not very striking and in a few instances, 
e.g. 551, probably due to accident, show that something may yet be gleaned from 
further collations of the MSS. of Thucydides. 

The new readings peculiar to Π, apart from a few mere mistakes which 
have been corrected, number twenty-six. They are thus less frequent than those 
in the much shorter first-century fragments of Book iv, which would cover about 
250 lines of Π, and in the extracts from Book ii in 853, which was found with Π and 
is contemporary with it ; cf p. 157. The following eight seem to be improvements, 
four of them confirming conjectures : 17 arpareias for στρατία^ (so Aem. Portus ) ; 
19 bri for 7/δη (so Gertz) ; 80 (?) om. re (so Hude) ; 549 (?) om. av (so Herwerden) ; 
660—1 δικαίω? Γωσι for δικαιωσωσι ; 691 om. en ; y^I φθάσωσυ for ττροφθάσωσί ; 
999 add ol before Σνρακόσωί. On the other hand the following seven are of more 
doubtful value : 4τώι ττίζωι for τώι> ττ^ζών, ίο om. μ4ν, 19 ό/Λοτρο'ττοι? for δμοιοτρότΐοι^, 
6•^ aveveyKeiv for €ν€γκ€Ϊν, 67 add i-rri, 152 Δωρι^? Δωριείσι for Δωριευσι, y^2 Τ€ 
νανμαχία$ for ναυμαχίας τ€. In 86, 133) 35'^^ '^34' 3nd 680 words certainly or 
probably occurred in Π which are not in the MSS., but owing to lacunae the 
nature of the additions is uncertain. In 638 there was some variant for Έζττνσθαι, 
which however seems to have been the word intended. The insertion of καΙ m in 
^6^ and the omission of re in 931 and of oi in 999 appear to be mistaken, 
and 6e TroAejixiois for δ' ivavrioLs in 695 and the insertion of α in 729 are pro- 
bably errors of repetition. The new readings are thus not very numerous, 
nor, except in 661, do they make very much difference, and passages in the 


MSS. which have been widely suspected are generally confirmed ; cf. notes on 
II. 23-3, 81, 94-5> no, 139, 175, 483. 664, and 992. The larger proportion 
of new readings in 853 and much larger one in 16 + 696 may well be due to 
the different character of Β in Book vii and in the earlier books, where it 
usually combines with AEFM. If Β had maintained its normal relation to 
the other members of its family, Π would have presented far more novelties. 
The fact that nearly half of B's peculiar readings, including almost all 
those which are probably right, occur in Π proves their antiquity and value, 
and from vi. 92-viii B's authority is now entitled to rank at least as high as 
that of C. With regard to the earlier books of Thucydides the evidence 
of papyri has hitherto been conflicting, but on the whole tends to support 
CG against ABEFM (cf. p. 157) ; 853, however, in a majority of cases favours 
the other side, the commentator in one case remarking of a variant found in 
CEG kv hioLs be γράφζταί. U's support of Β in the later books hardly affects 
the question, since the change which comes over Β at vi. 92, however it is 
to be explained, clearly indicates another source for its text of the later books. 
That Β in them represents an edition by a grammarian seems to us, as has 
been said, unlikely. In view of the notable agreements between Β and Π the 
date of such a revision would have to be placed not later than the second 
century ; for after deducting from the total of B's peculiar readings (45) the 
instances (20 or 21) in which it simply supports Π, and those in which its reading 
can be readily explained by the ordinary processes of manuscript corruption, 
the remainder is small (about 12 ; cf. p. 158). This residue seems more likely 
to be due partly to the varied and independent character of its ancestor, which 
often agreed with Π but had many points of divergence, partly to the normal 
entrance of variations between the third and eleventh century, than to conjectures, 
whether goo4 or bad, of a grammarian. It is indeed possible, and even probable, 
that if the text of Books ii and iv corresponding to B's version of vi. 92-viii 
could be recovered, it would prove to contain many of the new readings of 853 
and 16 + 696, and 853 happens to represent the text used by a grammarian who 
flourished at some period between 10 B. C. and A. D. 130 and may have played 
a part in determining the future text of Thucydides. But to the view that 
in vi. 92-viii CG or ACEFGM represent the main tradition current in the second 
century, and ΠΒ stand apart as being due to a separate edition, several objections 
may be urged. The papyrus texts of Plato, Xenophon, Isocrates, and Demo- 
sthenes have, as a rule, been distinctly eclectic in their relations to the mediaeval 
MSS., and the eclectic character of n's text, which stands about midway 
between Β and C, is a strong argument for its normality. Π neither exhibits 
a large number of arbitrary variants nor manifests any desire to eliminate 

Μ 2 



difficulties of construction, being on the whole decidedly conservative and com- 
bining the good points of both Β and C, while 1246-7, so far as they go, display 
the same tendency to agree with many of B's peculiar readings. Probably, 
therefore, Β in vi. pz-viii represents a line of manuscript tradition which is 
different from that of ACEFGM, but to an equal extent conforms to the papyrus 
texts. B's variations from C in both the earlier books, as is indicated by 853, 
and in the later, as is shown by Π, are to a large extent as old as at least the first 
or second century. Beyond the first century the history of the text of Thucydides 
is as yet veiled in obscurity. 

Col. i. 
[oj^ei' και tovs [ί]7Γποΐ'5• e[^]a 54 
[/3]oj/• Αθηναίοι Se ης [re 
[o]i Τνρρηνοι τ[ρ\οπης ^[ποι 
\ησά\ντο τωι ττ^ζωι ey την 
5 [λί])ίί[ί']?7ΐ^ Ka[i\ 7y[y] αυτοί τωι 
[αλλ]ωι σ[τρ]ατ[ο]π€8ωι• ye 55• 
[γ€ν]ημ€νη[9 8e] της νι [ 
[κης τοις ΐ!]υρ[ακ]οαιοις > 
[λα]ιχ[7Γρα]ς ηδη και του ν[αυ 

ΙΟ [τικου π]ροτ€ρον γαρ e0[o 
[βονντο τα]? μ€τα του Αη [ ] 
[μοσθ^νους] ναυς €7reA[^oi; 
[σας ο]ι [μ€ν] Αθηναίοι ev [ ] 
[7ra]f[ri η8η α\θυμι\ας'\ ήσαν 

15 \και\ ο παρα[λογος α]ντ[οις] μ€ 
[γας η]ν [π]ολυ δ[€ μ^βιζων €τι 
[της] στρ[ατ]€ΐας [ο] μίταμξ 
[λος πο]λ([σι γ]αρ [ταυ]τα[ις] μο 
[ναις δ]η ομ[οτ](}ο[πο]ι[ς] eTreA [ ] 

20 [θοντ]€ς δημ[οκρατο]υμ€ 

[ναις] τ€ ωσπ€ρ και [αυ]τοι και 
[ναυς και] ιπ[π]ους και [μ]ζγ€ 
[θη €χ]ον[σαι]ς ου δυν[αμ]<ί 
[νοι eTrei'jey/ceii' [ουτ e/c πο 

25 [λίτίία]? τ[ί μεταβολής το 

Col. ϋ. 
κατ[α θ]αλασσα[ν] καλόν [ 5^• 2 
[σ0]ί[σ]£ e[y τους Ελλ]η[να]ς το [ 

55 α[γ(ον]ι[σμα φαν€]ι[σθ]αι τους 
re [γ]αρ α[\λους] Ελλη[να]ς €υ 
θυ[ς] τους μ€ν βλ^υθβρουσθαι 
τους δ€ φοβ[ο]υ απο[λυ€σ]Θα[ι 
ου γαρ €τι δυ[ν]α[την €σ]€σθαι [ 

6ο την υπολοιπ[ον Αθη]ναι 

ων δυναμιν τ[ο]ν υσ[τ€ρ]ον [e 
[π]€νζ)(^θησομ[(]ΐΌ[ν πολΐ 
μ[ο]ν ανΐνβγκξΐν [και αυ 
τοι δοξαντ€ς αυτ[ων αιτι 

65 [ο]ι €[ι]ναι υπο re των [άλλων 
ανθρώπων κα[ι των eTrei 
τα €πι πο[λ]υ θαυμ[ασθησ€ 
σθαΐ' και ην [5]e α^[ιος ο αγώ 3 
κατά T[e] ταυ[τα και οτι 

7θ [ουχί Α]θηνα[ιων μόνον 
[πζρι]ξγιγνοντο [άλλα και 
7[ων α]λλων πολλ[ων ^υμμα 
χ[ων κ]αι ο[υ]δ€ α[υτοι αυ μο 
νο[ν άλλα και μ€τα των ^υ 

75 μβ[οηθησαντων σψισιν 
τ][γ€μον€ς re γ^νομ^νοι /ze 
τα Κορι[νθιων και Αακ^ 


[διάφοροι/ av]j[ot9 ωι ττροση 
ij lines lost. 

42 [τον αυτοί σωθηραι μονο]ν 
[€τι την €πιμ€λ€ΐαν] e 
[ποιονντο άλλα και οττω]? 

45 [eKeivovs κωλνσο]ν[σί νο] 
[μιζορτ€9 ο]π[€ρ ην α]πο 
[re των παρορτ]ων [π]ο 
[λν σφων. κ]αθ[νπ€ρτ€ρ]α 
[τα πράγματα e]ii'[a]i• και 

5ο [ei δνναιντο κρα]ττ]σαί Α 
[θηναιων Τ€ και τω]ν ξνμ 
[μαχών και κατ]α γην κα[ι\ 

δαι[μο]νιων [και την σφ^ 
Tepav [πολιν €μπαρασχον 
56. 2 8ο [rey] 7Γροκι[ν]δνΐ'[€νσαι και 
[τ]ου ναυτικού μ['£γα. pepo9 
[προ]κοψαντ€9 ^[θνη γαρ 
[ηλ€ΐστ]α δη €π[ι μιαν πο 
[λιν ταυ]την ^[ννηλθζ 

85 [πλην ye το]υ ^[ν]μ[παντος 

[ €v] τω[δ€ τωι 

[πολ^μωι προί την] Λ6τ][ναι 
[ων re πολιν και Λ]ακξ8[αι 
[μονιων τοσοιδ^] γαρ €κα 

9θ [τ€ροι €πι ϋικβλιαν] T[e και 
[π€ρι ^ικί]λια[9 το]ι[9 μ^ν 
[ξνγκτη]σομ€γοι [την 
[\ωραν ζ]λ6[οντ€9 τοις δβ 
[ξυνδι\ασ•ω[σ]οντ[€^ €πι Χυρα 

95 [κουσ\α^ ^[τΛρλί^μησαν 

[ου κατ\α δικην τι [μάλλον 
[oi'5e] κατά ^ν[γ\γί[ν]Ηα[ν 
[/χ€τ] αλλ[ηλωλν [a\ra[vTiS 
[αλ]λ ω? [e/caarlots τη[ί ξυν 
ιοο [τι;]χ[ί]α[9 η κατά] το ξ[υμφ€ 
[βον] rj α[ναγκη €σ\€ν Αθη 
[ναιο]ι [μ(ν αυτοί Ιων€ς 
€πι Αω[ρΐζα9 Χυρακοσιου^ 

57- Ι 

Col. Hi. Col. iv. Plate III. 

[e/coires ηλθο]ν κα[ι α\υ[τοι^ 57. 2 155 \%υρακοσι\ων στρατΐυο[μΥ 

Ι05 [τηι αυτηι φ(ο]νηι [και νομι [νοις ην]αγκαζοντο πολζ 

[μοΐ9 €ΤΙ χρω]μ€νο[ι Λημνίοι Ι^ „ 

ΙΓ ΛΓ jfT. .L Γ [μ^ιν] των \\δ^€ π^ρι iieAo 

[και Ιμβ]ριοι [κ]αι Αιγιν[ηται j υ. jj 

"- '^ - "■ - [ποννησ]ον νησιωτών 

[οι τοτ]€ Αιγι[ν]αν [(]ιχ[ον και rr- ^ νν* ι 

'■ ^ / ι . ι -.Λ•^ [ΚΐφαλληνΥ? μ€ν και 

[€τι Εστι]αιη9 οι €v Ε[υβοι 




no \αϊ\ Εσ\τιαι]αν oiKovlv^Tiys a 

\jr\0lK[0L 0νΤ€9 ivy^[(^T]R[('^ 

[revaau των] 6[e α]λλωι/ [οί 3 

[μ€ν υπήκοοι οι] 8 a['rr]o ξ[νμ 
[μαχ^ίας αντονομ]ο[ί ασι 
6 lines lost. 

12 1 α[7Γθ] 5e [νήσων Κζίοί καί Αν 4 
δ[ρίθί] και [Τ]ηι[οί ίκ δ Ιωνίας 
Μι[λη]σι[οι] και [^]α[μιθί και Xl 
0L' τ[οντ]ων Xtoi oy[•^ vnore 

125 Xeiy oj/rey φο[ρον vavs Se 
παρ€χ^οντί9 α[ντονομοί 
ξυνξσ•π[οντο και το TrXei 
[σ]τοι^ Ιων€9 o[vt€S ovtol 
[π]αν[τ]€9 και α[π Αθηναίων 

130 [πλ]ην Καρνστ[ίω]ν' ον[τ]ο[ι 
[δ ^]ι[σ•ί]ν Αρνοπί[9] νπτ]κ[οοι 
[δ o]i'T[e]9 και αν[α]γκη όμως 

[ ]ey ye βττί Αωρίβα[9 

[ηκο]λονθουν• προς δ αντ\οις 5 

135 \Αϊ\ο\ης Μηθυμναιοι μ€[ν 
[να]υσι και ου φο[ρ]ω νπηκο 
ο[ι] Τ[6]νζδιοι δι και Αινΐύ[ι υ 
TTOTeXeis* ούτοι δζ Αιολη[ς 
Αιολζνσι τοις κτισασι Βοΐ[ω 

1 4θ τοις μ€τα Ίΐνρακοσιων [κ]ατ[α 
ανάγκην €μα)(^ον[τ]ο > 
Πλαταιης 8[e] κατ[α]ντικρυ 
Βοιωτοις μονοί €ί[κ]οτως 
κατά €)(^θος• Ροδ[ίο]ι δζ και > 6 

145 Κνθη[ρι]οι Αωριη[ς] αμφοτβ 
ροι οι μ€ν Αακίδαιμονι > 
ων απ[οι]κ[ο]ι [Κν]θηριοι ^πι 
Λ\α\κ\^\δ\αίμ\ονιονς τ[6\υς α 
[/ία] Γι;λί7Γπ[ωί] /^[e]^ Αθήναι 

[6ο \^ακυνθιοϊ\ αυτόνομοι > 
[μ^ν κατά 5e] το νησιω 
\τικον μάλΧον] κατ€ΐργ[ο 
[μ€νοι ΟΤΙ θαλα]σ[σ]ης e [ 
[κρατούν οι Αθη]ναιοι ξ[υν 

165 [€ΐποντο Κ€ρκν]ραι[οι 5e 
7 lines lost. 

173 [θος το Κορι]νθ[ιων ουχ^ ησ 

[σον €ΐπο]ντο' κα[ι οι Μζ]σσ[η 

175 [i^ici νυν] κα[Χ\ο[υμ^\νοι [eK 

[Ναυπακτο^υ κ[αι €Κ Π]υλου τ[ο 
r[e υπ Αθη]να[ιων] e^o/ze [ 
νη[ς €ς το]ν πο[λ€μο]ν πα[ρ€ 
λτ)[(ρθησ]α[ν]• [και €τ]ι Μ[€γα 

1 8ο [ρ]6θο[μ φυγαδζς ου] πολ[λοι 
[Μζγαρ€]υσ[ι] S[eXivov]vTi[ois 
[ουσι κατ]α ξ[ν]μ[φο]ραν €μ[α 
χοντ[ο] των δ[€] α[λλω]ΐ' [e 
κουσ[ιο]ς μαλ[λον η στ]ρα [ 

1 85 τια [ζγι]γνίΤ0 [ηδ]η Α[ρ 

[γί]ιοι [/xei/ ου] ττ]ς [ξ]ν[μ]μαχ[. 
[ας €V€Ka μάλλον η] ττ]ς [ 
[Αακΐδαιμονιων [[. .] .]] re [ 
[ζχθρας και τ]η[ς] παραυτι [ 

igo [κα €καστοι ι]διας ωφ^λι [ 
[ας Δωριης €π]ι Δωρίδας [ 
[μζ]τα Α[θηναιω]ν Ιωνω[ν 
7][κολουθουν Μα]ντινης 
δ[€ και άλλοι] Αρκα[δ]ων 

195 μ[ΐ-ο-θο]φ[οροι ετΓί] τους aei 
[πολ€]μιου[ς σφισιν] αποδζΐ 
κνυμ[€]ν[ους €ΐωθ]οτ€[ς ΐ]€ 
ναι και [τοτ€ τους μ^τ]α 
[Κ]ορινθι[ων €λθοντας Αρ 

2CO καδας [ο]υ[δ]€ν [ησσον δια 


150 ων όπλα ene^epov PoSl 

01 Se Αργ[€ΐ]οί yej/oy [Ι!]υρα 
Koai[ois /xe]i' Αωριης Αωρι 
[ξυσι Γ€λύύω]ί9 5e κα[ι] αποι 
[kols €αντ]ωι> ουσι μ[^]τοί 

Κ€ρδ[ο]9 ηγ[ο]ν[μ€νοι πόλε 
[/x]io[i;y]• Κρητ[€ς δζ και Αι 
3 lines lost. 

Col. V. 

17 lines lost. 

223 [ravaioL βάρβαρων 5e] Eye [ 57.11 
[σταιοί οιπ^ρ ξπηγα^γον [ 

2 25 \j^ '^^'- ^ίκ€λων το nXeov] 
[και των β^ω ^ικβλια]^ Τ[ν 
[ρρηνων re τιν]ξ9 κατά [δι 
[αφοραν ΐ!υρακοσι]ων κα[ι Ι 
[απυγ€9 μισθοφορο\ι• τόσα [ 

230 [(5e μβν μβτα Αθ]ηναιων 

[ζθνη €στρατζνο]ν Χυρα 5^• ι 
[κοβΊΟΐ^ δξ αντ€]βοηθη 
[σαν Κ]αμ[α]ρι[ναι\θί μ€ν ομο 
[ροι ον]τ€9 κα Γβ[λωιό]ι οι[κ]ο[υν 

235 [^^s] Α'^'" [οίν]τονς [eneiT Ακρα 
[γα]ντι[ν]ων ησνχ[αζοντων 
[er τω]ι [eJTT [e]^eii'[a ιδρνμβ 
[vol ^]€λίγ[ονντιοί και οιδξ 
[μ€]γ TT/y [HiKcXias το 
ι8 lines lost. 

Col. vi. 
9 lines lost. 
267 [αποσταλξν]τ€ς [και Χικν 58. 3 
[ωνιοι ανα\ΎΚασ[τοι στρα 
[τ^υοντ^^ κα]£ τ[ων €^ω lie 
7 lines lost. 
277 [e? KOLi ίΤΓΤΓΟί] και ο [aWos 4 

Col. vii. 

309 [oL τοΧ\μησω[σι\ πα[ρζσκ€ν 59. 3 

3 ΙΟ α[ζοντ\ο κα[ι'\ q\[Lyov ονδ^ν 

e[y ουδ6]ν €ney[oovv τοι? δξ 6ο. ι 
[Αθηναίοι]^ την [τ€ αποκλη 
σι[ν ορωσι] κ[α]ι τη[ν άλλη ν 
[δ]ι[ανοια]ν αντ[ων αισθο 
8 lines lost. 

323 [€κπλ€\ν[σομζνοι απ€ΐπον 2 

[μη €7ra]ye[ii' ουτζ το λοι 

325 [τΓον €μ]ζλλον [^i^iv €1 μη 
[ναυκρα]τησον[σιν ξβον 
[λίνσαντο τα μ^ν τζίχ^η τα α] 
[νω €κλιπ]([ιν προ9 δ ανταις 
[ταις νανσι]ν α[πολαβοντ€9 

330 [διατ€ΐ)(^ι]σμα[τι όσον οίον τ e 
[λαχ^ιστον τοις re σκ(υ€σι] 
[και Τ019 ασθίν^σι ικανον] 
[γ^ν^σθαι τον]τ[ο μ€ν φρον 
[ρ€ΐν απο δξ τον αλ]λ[ον πΐζον 

335 [τ(^^ vav9 7'"]«o"o[s] οσ[αι ήσαν 
[και δυνατ]αί κα[ι] α[πλοωτ€ 
[ραι παν]τα τίνα ί[σβιβαζον 
[τ€9 ^ην μ]^ν'^ κ[αί διαναν 
[μα)(^ησαντ€9] rjv μ[€ν νικώ 
5 lines lost. 

345 [ρίκου η] Ελλην[ικου φίλιου 

[αντι]ληψ€σθαι κα[ι οι μ€ν 3 



\ομίλο^ α?\(Ι)βονο['5 ^vueXe 
[γη και προί? [a]7rai'[ras• αν 
29 lines lost. 

[ω? e<5o^]e αν[το\ΐζ ταν[τ]α και 
[6ποι]ησαι/ e/c re y[ap τ]ωι/ a 
[νω τ]€ΐχων νποκ[α]τ€βη 

35° [σαν κ]αι τα? νανς ίπ[λη]ρω 
[σαν π]ασα9 αναγκασ[αν]τ[ζ? 
[. . . .]«? €[σ]βαιν€ΐν [οσ]τΐ9 
[και οπ]ω[σ]ονν eSoKei ηλι [ 
[κια? μ€]τ€χων ίττιτη 

355 [^eioy ^ιν]αι• και ξυν€πλη 

[ρωθησα]// νη€ί αι πασ[αι\ 5[e 
[κα μαλι]στα και €κατ[ο]ν' [ 
[τοξοτας] τ€ exr α[ντα9 πο 
[XXovs και α]κο[ν]τ[ιστα9 των 

360 [re Ακαρνανω]ν κ[αι των α 
[λλων ^(νων ^σββιβαζον] 

Col. νϋί. 

και τά άλλα ω[$• οίον τ ην 6ο. 4 
και ωί 6^ αναγκ[αιον re και 
τοι[αντη]9 8ιαρ[οια9 €7Γ0 

365 [ρισαντο]• ο Se N[iKias (Trei 5 
21 (?) lines lost. 

38'^ [σαν που οικ€ΐαν π]ολ[ιν em 61. ι 
[δίΐν αθυμ^ιν 8]e ο[ν γ^ρη ου 2 
[8ζ πασγ^ιν οττερ] οι α[ττζΐρο 

390 [τατοι των ανθρώπων οι tois\ 
[πρώτοι? αγωσι σφ\αλ[ζν 
[rey ^π^ιτα 8ιά\ παντο? [την 
[ελπίδα του φο]βου ομ[οιαν 
[ταις ξυμφοραι? €)^ο]υσιν [α 3 

395 [λλ όσοι re Αθηναίων] παρ[€ 
[στ€ πολλών ηδη πολ]ί[μων 
[€μπ€ΐροι οντ€9 και όσοι] 
[των ζυμμα•χων ξυ]στ[ρα 

Col. ix. 

4 lines lost. 

419 [7Γθλ]λ[οί και ακοντισται 

420 [€πιβ]η[σονται και όχλο? ωι 
[ναυμαχιαν μ^ν ποιο]υμ[(£ 
[ν]οι €v π[ξλαγ€ΐ ουκ] αν [e 
χ[ρο}]μί[θα δια] το βλαπτ[ίΐν 
α[ν το] τη? ^πιστημη[? 

425 τη[ι] β[α]ρυτητι των νζ[ω]ν [ 
€V (5[e τηι ζ]νθαδ[€] ηναγ [ 
κασμ€ν[η] απο των ν€[ω]ν [ 
[π]€ζομα[χιαι] προ[σφορα 
€σται• βυρηται δ ημ[ιν οσα 

43° ΧΡΙ αντ[ινα]υπηγη[σαι κα]ι 
[τΓ]ρο[? τα? τ]ω[ν] €πω[τ]ι[δ]α[ν 
[α]υτ[ο]ι[? πα]χ[υτητ]α[?] ωπίρ 
[μαλιστ]α ['eβλ]aπτ[oμ€θ]a 
γ]^ζΐρων σι]δ[η]ρων ίπιβολαι 

62. 2 



[τ€υο/ζ€ίΌ]ί α€ί μνησθη 

400 [τ€ Tcou €v Tois] πολίμοις πάρα [ 
[λογωι/ και το τ\η^ τνχης καν [ 
[μξθ ημών 6λπ]ίσα[ΐ'τ]€9 
[στηναι και ω? α]ναμα)(^ου 
[μξνοι α]ξι[ω9 τον]δ€ του πλη 

405 [θονς οσο]ν [αντοι] υμών αυ 
[των ^'\φο(3\ατ^ πλμρ^σκ^υα 

] € [ ] α [δί ev]«iSo 

\ζζσ&\αί τω\. αρω•γ\α οιμ€ν 62. ι 
[cTTi] τηι [του λιμζ]νθ5 [σ"]τ€ 
[ι/οτ]ί7τ[ί προ9 τον μ]ζλλ[ο]ν 
4 ΙΟ [τα ο]χλ[ον των ν^ων €σ]6 
[σ&\αι [και irpos την €Κ€ΐ 
[νω]ν [ίπι των καταστρω 
[ματ'\ω[ν παρασκίυην οις 
[προτ^ρον ίβλαπτομξθα] 

Col. χ. 
8 lines lost. 

474 [η]ϊ1 [ovt€s υμών της Te 63. 3 

4 75 0[<^]^''?[y] "^[V- ίΤΓίστημηι 
και τω[ν τροπών τηι μι 
μη[σ]([ι ΐ]θα[υμαζ€σθ€ 
[κ]ατα [την Ελλάδα και τη? αρ 
χ[ης της ημ€Τ€ρα9 ουκ e 

480 λασ[σον κατά το ωφίλξΐ 

σθαι• €9 [τ€ το φοβ^ρον τοις 

υπηκο[οις και το αδικ(ΐ 

σθαι [πολύ πλ€ον μ€Τ(ΐχ€ 

Τ€ ωστ[€ κοινωνοί μονοί 4 

485 €λζυ[θ€ρως ημιν της αρ 

α[ι σχησου'\σι την πάλιν α 
'ν[ακρουσι\ν της προ[σ\πζσου [ 
σης [νζως] ην τα ^πι το[υ'\τοι[ς 
οι [ίπιβαται] υπουργωσι ey 4 

το[υτο γαρ δ]η ηναγκασ[μ€] 

440 ^α [ωστ]6 [π€ζ]ομα[\\€ΐν απο 
τ[ων νξ,ων κ]αι το μητξ 
[αυ'\του[ς'\ ανα[κρ6\υζσθαι μητ € 
Κζΐν[ους] ία[ν] ωφβλιμον 
φαιν€τα[ι] α[λλως r]e και της 

443 [y]'?y ν^Ιν]^ ο[σον αν ο] π€ζο[ς] 
[ημ](βν [€π]€)([ηι πολ]€μιας 
[ούσης ] ων χ[ρη] μ^ 63. ι 

[μνημ(νο]υς διαμάχη 
[σθαι όσον α]ν δυ[νησ]θ€ 

45© [κ]αι μ[η €ξωθ€ΐ]σθα[ι e? αυτ]ην 
αλλ[α ξυμπ(]σ[ο]υση[ς ν]ηι 
[ν€ως μη προ]τ€ρο[ν] αξί 
[ουν απολυζσθαι η] το[υ]ς α 
12 lines lost 

Col. xi. 

5 lines lost. 

523 [υμών νυν €σομ€νοι] και 7γ[€ 64. 2 

[ζοι τοις Αθηναιοις] €ΐσι κα[ι 
525 [νηζς και υπόλοιπος] πολις [ 

ΙΟ lines lost. 
536 σα[μ€νος €υθυς cAceXeue 65. ι 

πλ[ηρουν τας νους τωι 
δ€ [Γυλιππωι και τοις ^υρα 
κοσι[οις παρην μίν αισθα 
540 νζσ[θαι ορωσι και αυτήν 
την π[αρασκ€υην οτι ναυ 
μαχησ\ουσιν οι Αθηναίοι 
πρ[οη'\ΎΎ[^λθη δ αυτοις και 



YT/y 0ί/[τ6?] SLκ[aLωs ο,υ 
την νυν }ΐ\τ} κατα7Γρο]δι 
[S]oT[e κ]ατα[φρονησαντ]€9 
δβ Κορίν\Θίων Τ€ ovs] ττολ 
490 [λ]α<ί[?] ν(νικ[ηκατ€ κ]αι [2'<f]e 


[λιωτ]ωγ [ονδ αντιστη]ναί 
[ονδβις εω? ηκμαζξ το] ν[α]υ 
[τίκον ημίν] ^[ii]<i>o•^ « 
[μυνασθβ αντονς και <5]e/|[a 

495 \j^ ΟΤΙ και μβτ ασθίν^ία? 
[καί ξνμφορων η νμ€Τ(]ρα 
[επιστήμη κρ€ΐσσ\ων [^o"'']/f 
6τ[€/οα9 ζντν\ονσ]τ][ς ρωμ]τ)^ 
t[ov9 re] Α[θηναω]νς [νμων] 64• ι 

500 [παλι]^ [αν και ταδβ νπομι] 
[μνησκοϋ] ot[l οντ€ να]υ[9 iv 
[τοφ v€(oa\oiKOis aWa^ ο 
[/ioijay τα\ι'\σδζ \ουτζ οπλιτών 

[ηλί]κ[ΐ]αν ΐ;7Γ€[λί7Γ€Τ€ €ί Τ6 

5^5 [i'^H-]^V^[^]'^[^'• '"^ άλλο η το 
[κρατζίν] ν[μιν tovs re ev6a 
[δξ πολ€μι]ον[ί evdvs €7Γ e/cet 
[να πλ]€ν[σο]μ[ξνονς και tovs 
9 lines lost. 

η €πιβον[λη των σίδηρων 

545 Χ^'^Ιρ]^^ ['<^'- τ^ρο^ Τ€ τα αλ 
λα ([ξ]ηρτ[υσαντο ωί έκαστα 
κα\ι npos τούτο Tas yap πρω 2 
pas [και τη? ν^ως ανω em 
7Γθλ[υ κατζβνρσωσαν οπω? 

55© απο[λισ]θα[νοι και μη ^γοι 

αντιλαβ€[ι\ν [η χ€ΐρ €πιβαλ 

λομξνη- κα[ι] ([ττξίδη παν 3 

τα €τ[οι]μα ην [παρ€Κ(λ€ν 

σα[ντο €K€iv]o[is οι re 

555 στρατηγοί και [Γιλιππο? 

και €λ(.[ξα]ν τό[ι]αδ[€ οτι μ^ν 66. ι 
[κ\αλα [τα] π[ρ]οαρ[-γασμζνα και 
^[Tre]^ '<α[λ]ωΐ' ^[ωί' μέλλον 
[των ο άγων εσται ω Svpa] 

560 κοσ[ίοι και ξνμμαχοι οι 
re π[ολλοι δοκ€ΐΤ€ ημιν 
[€ΐδ€]να[ι ο]ν[δ€ γαρ αν αν 
[των ο]υτω πρ[οθυμω? αν 
[τζλαβ]'ίσθ€ κα[ι ei τις μη e 

565 [πι όσον] (5e[t] ησβ[ηται σήμα 

[νου μεν] Αθη[ναιον9 γαρ 2 

[ey την ■χωράν τηνδε eX] 
[^oi'ray π]ρωτο[ν μεν επι 
[της ^ικελ]ια[9 καταδονλω 

Col. χϋ. 

570 [σ€ί1 e7r[ei]r[a ει] κα[τορθωσει 66. 2 
[αν] και τη[9 Πε]λ[οποννησου 
[τε] και τη[9 αλ]λη9 Ε[λλαδθ9 
[και] α,[ρ]χη[ν την] ηδη [μεγισ 
[την] τ[ων τε πρι]ν Ε[λληνων 

575 ['ίαί τ]<ί{^] Κ^»' '^y['<]^VI^^ 

Col. xiii. 
[ευρ]ησ[ουσι πως ου σφαλουσι 67. 2 
[re] ray [vavs και εν σφισιν 
[αυ]τοις πα[ντες ουκ εν τωι 
625 [αν]των τροπωι [κινούμε 

[νοι] ταρα^[ονται επει και 3 

[τω]ι πληβ[ει των νέων 


[rouy πρώτοι α]ι/^[/οω7Γωι/ ν 

[ποστ]αντ[€ς τωι ναυτικωι 

\ωίπζ\ρ παν\τα κατ(σ\ον 630 

[τας μ]ζΐ/ [ι^€ί/ικηκατ€ ναυ 
1 8 lines lost. 
598 κ[7/σ€ω9 προσγ€γ€ΐ'ημ€ 67. ι 

γ[7/9 αντωι το κρατιστον? 
6οο €[ιι/αί ei rovs κρατιστου^ €vi 635 

κτ}[σαμ€ν διπλάσια] €κα[στον 

η [ελτΓί? τα δε 7Γθ]λλα προ? 

[ras €πιχζΐρησ]€ΐ9 rj fx€ 

[γιστη eA7r]_i[s• μ^-γ^ιστην 
6ο5 [και την π]ροθυμια[ι/\ πα\ρς 640 

\^^ται τα rje τη9 α[ί^]τ[ί/ζί 2 

[/iT/aeooy α\υτ(ύν \τη9 πα 

[ρασκ€υη\^ τι[μώ\ν τα)\ι 

[μζν 77yue]rep[cut] τροπωι 
6 ΙΟ [^ννηθη re] 6στ[4 /ία]ί οΐ'[^ ανα 645 

[ρμοστοι π]ρο9 €κ[ασ]τοι/ [ 

[αι;τωί' (σομ^θα οι] δ €π[€ΐ 

[δαν πολλοί μ^ν οπλιταϊ\ 

[cTTi των\ κα\ταστρωματων 
6γ5 [τταρα το] καθί\στηκο^ ωσι 650 

[τΓολλοί (5e] αίίο[ΐ'Γίσταί 

[χ6;οσαίθ4] ω? €ίπ[€ίΐ' Α 

[καρνανί^] re /cat α[λλοί e 

[τΓί ναυ^ αναβα^ντζ^ οι 
620 \ουδ οπω? καθξζομβνους] 655 

[χρη το β(λοί αφβίΐ/αι] 


ο]υκ ωφ€λ[ησονται ei tis 

κ[αί] τοδβ νμ[ωι/ οτι ουκ laais 
ν]α[ν]μαχη\σ'Υ[ι π€φοβηται 

€v ολιγ[ω] γαρ [πολλαι αργοτ€ 
ραι μβ[ΐ' ey το δραν τι ων βον 
λοντα[ι] ξσοντα[ι ρασται δ ey 

το βλαπτ\(ίσ\θα\ι αφ ων ... . 
f]\f^\}\Y παρ€σκ[€υασται το ^ 

δζ αληθζστατον γνωτί] 
e^ ων η]μ€ΐ9 οι[ομ€θα σα 
0ωy πξ]πυ . . σθ[αι νπβρβαλ 
λοντων γ]α,ρ αντ[οΐ9 των 
κακών κα]ι βια[ζομ€νοι 
νπο τη9 π]αρον[ση9 απορίας 
ey απονοια]ν κα.[θ€στηκα] 
σιν ου παρ]ασκ\^ίυης πιστζϊ\ 
μάλλον η r]i;^[7;y αποκιν] 
δυν^υσ^ι] oι'τ[ωy 07Γωy 
δυναντά\ι [ϊ\ν rj [βιασαμζ 
νοι ^κπλ^ν\σωσι\ν η κατά 
γην μ€τ]α τούτο [την απο 
χωρησιν] ποιω[νται ωy 
των ye π]αροντων [ουκ αν 
πραξον]τ€9 χ€ΐρ[ον προς 68. ι 

ου]ν [ατ]α^ιαν re [τοιαντην 
κ]αι τυχην α[νδ]ρ[ων €αυτην 
παρ]αδ€δωκυια[ν πολ^μι 
ωτατ]ων οργή π[ροσμ€ΐ 
ζ]ωμ€ν• και νομ[ισωμ€ν 
αμα μ]€ν ν[ομιμωτατον 
ii\vai π[ρος τους ενάντιους 
οι αν ω[ς βπι τιμωρία τον 
προσπ[€σοντο9 δικαίως 
ϊωσι α[ποπλησαι της γνω 
[μης το θυμουμζνον αμα] 



\8 eyOpYivs α[μυΐ'ασθαί e/cye 
[νησο]μ€νον ^)[μίΐ^ και το 
665 [λ€γο]/Μ6[ι/]ο[ΐ' που ηδιστοι/ 
[€ΐν]αι• ω[^ 'δ ίγθροι και e 
7 lines lost. 

Col. XX. 

I line lost. 

675 \pLv^i\ovTO και απο'\π\ζυ 72. ι 

\(javTes προ^ την ποΧ\ιν τρο 
\τΓαιον έστησαν οι 5]e Αθη 2 

[ναιοι υπο μβγξθον?] των 
[παρόντων κακών ν€]κ[ρ]ώ 

68ο [μ]€ν π[€ρι η των ναυαγι 
[ων] ονδ ί[π€νοονν αιτη 
[σαι] αναι[ρ€σι]ν [τ]η$ S[€] νυ 
[ktos] ([βο]υ[λ]ίνοντο evOvs 
[αναχωρ]€ΐν' Αημοσθξ 3 

685 [νηί Si Νι]κ[ι]α προσίλθων 
[γνωμην €]π[ο]ΐ€ΐτ[ο] πληρώ 
[σαντα]9 ([τι] ray [λοι]πα9 τώ 
[ν€]ων βι[α]σασ[β]αι ην δν 
[νων]ται αμα ^ω[ι] τον €κ 

6go [πλον]ν λ^γων οτι πλζίουί 
[αι λο]ιπαι νη€^ χ^ρησιμαι 
[σφισιν] η τ[οι]ί πολ€μιοις• η 
[σαν γα]ρ [τ]οις μ^ν Αθηναίοι^ 
[π€ρι]\οιποι ως €^ηκον 

695 [τα τ]οΐ9 δξ πολζμιοις e 
[λασσο]νς η πεντήκοντα• 
[και ξν]γχωρονντο5 Νικιο[ν] 4 

[τηι γν]ωμηι και βον\ο[μ]€ 
νων πληρούν αυτών ο[ι 

700 ναυται ο[υκ] ηθβλον €σβ[αι 

Col. χχί. 

[α]λλ €ξβλ[θ]οντα9 ηδη π[αν 73• ι 
[τοί\ς ^υρακο[σ]ιους και τ[ου9 
iv[μ]μa)([o]υs τας re ο[δου9 
απ[οικοδο]μησαι και r[a στ€ 

725 νοπορα των χωριω[ν προ 
φθασαντας φυλασσ€[ιν 
οι δε ξυν[ε]γιγνωσκον μ[εν 2 

και αυτοί ου[)(\ ησσον ταυτ[α 
εκείνου α και εδοκει πο[ι 

73° [ϊ7]τ€α ειναί' τους δ ανθ[ρω 
[πο]υς άρτι ασμενους απο [ 
[τ]ε ναυμαχίας μεγάλης [πε 
[παυ]μενους και αμα εορ [ 
τ[ης ο]υσης ετυχ^ε γαρ αυ[τοις 

735 Ηρακλει ταυτην την ημ[ε 
ραν θυσία ούσα ου δοκει[ν ά 
ραδιως εθελησαι υπακου [ 
σαι• υπο γαρ του περι•)(αρους [ 
της νίκης προς ποσιν τε [ 

74© τραφθαι τους πολλούς εν [ 
τηι εορτηι• και πάντα 
μάλλον ελπιζειν αν σφω[ν 
πε[ι]θεσθαι αυτούς η οπ[λα 
λαβοντας εν τωι παροντι [ 

745 ^[^]^λθειν• ως δε τοις αργου[σι 3 
r[af]7a λογιζομενοις εφαι 
[νε]το άπορα [κ]αι ουκ έπειθε [ 


vco^y] δια [το] καταπίπλη [ 
[χθαι] T[e] TTji [ησ]ση και μη [ 
[αν 6tl] οΐίσθαι κρατησαΐ' 
και [οι] μ^ν ωs κατά γην 
705 αζ/α[χ]ωρ7?σ[[α]]ΐ'[τ]€ί η8η 

ξνμπ[α]ΐ'Τ€9 την γ[ν]ωμή 
eiyov Ερμοκρατη? Se ο 73• ' 

Έ!νρακ[οσ]ι[θ9] υπονόησαν αν 
των την [δι]ανοίαν και νο 

7 ΙΟ μισά? [S]€ivov €ivai ei το 
[σ]αντη στρατιά κατά γην 
απ[οχωρησ]ασα και καθζ 
[ζ]ομζν[η πο]υ τη? Χικ€λι 
as βονλ[η]σ€[ταί] ανθί? σφι 

715 [σ"ί] τον π[ο]λ[€]μον ποίξίσθαι 
[€]σηγ€ΐ7[αι] €λθων τοι? 
[ev Te]X[e]i ονσι ω? ου χρ^ων 
[α\πογωρησαι τη? ννκτ[ο]? 
[αν]τον? nepuSeiv λξγων 

720 [τα]υτα α και [α]υτωι ζδοκ^ι 

αυτού? ο Ερμοκρατη? αυτό? 
[€7Γί] τούτοι? ταδί μ[η-χ^α]να 

75° [ται] δίδιω? μη οι Αθήναι 
[οι] καθ ησυχ^ιαν φθασωσι €v 
[τη]ι νυκτι δΐζλθοντ€? τα 
[χ^α]λ€πωτατα των χωρίων 
ττίμπζΐ των εταίρων τι 

755 ^<^y τ[ων ζ]αυτου μβτα ιττ 
π€ων [προ?] το των Αθη 
ναιων [στρατ]οπ€δον η 
ν[ι]κα ξ[νν€σκ]οτα怕 οι προσ [ 
ζ\ασα[ντζ? e^] όσον τι? e/ie[X 

760 Xe α[κονσ^σθαι] και ανακα 
λζσαμβνοι [τιν]α[? ω]? ον 
τ€? των Αθηναίων €π[ι 
τ[η]δ€ΐοι ήσαν γαρ τ[ιν€? τω Νι 
κ[ία] διαγγζλοι των €ν[δο 

765 θ€ν eKeXevov φραζζΐν [ 

Νικία μη απαγ€ΐν τη? ν[υ 
κτο? το στράτευμα ω? Hv 
ρακοσιων τα? οδον? ψνλασ [ 

Col. xxviii. 

II lines lost. 

780 [κοσιοι €v τ]οντ[ωι TrpoeX 78. 5 
[θοντί]? την διοδ[ον την 
[ev τ]ωι προσθί α[π€Τ€ΐχι 
[ζον ην] δζ λοφ[ο? καρτ€ 
[ρο? και ζκ]ατ€ρω[θ€ν αυτόν 

785 [)(αραδρ]α κρ[ημνωδη? e 
4 lines lost. 

790 {.^^t^t^lp^X*^^ αυτόν? ιππ€ΐ? 6 

[και α]κο[ντι]στ[αι οντ€? πολ 
[λο]ι €κατ€ροι ([κωλυον 

Col. xxix. 

21 lines lost. 

840 [σα]ΐ'τ[€ί προ? το πεδίον 79• 5 

] μα\\ο[ν οι Αθηναίοι ηυ 
] \ισαν7[ο τηι δ€ υστ€ 
[ρ]αια πρ[ουγωρουν και οι 
[^νρα]κ[οσιοί προσφαΧλον 

845 \j€. πανταχη αυτοί? κνκΧω] 
και π[οΧΧον? κατΐτρανμα 
τιζ[ο]ν κα[ι €1 μ^ν €πιοι 
€v 01 Αθη[ναιοι νπί]χωρ[ουν 
e[i δ α]ναχα{ροΐίν €πΥ[κ]^[ιντο 



\και €]σηκοντιζον [re και 
[7Γαρι.]ππ€νον• και χ[ρο 

795 [^°^ fA^^ V9[^]^^ ^H-"-X[°y [ 
[το o]l Αθηραω[ι]• €π€ίτ α 
[ι/€χ^ωρη[σ]αΐ' παλί[ί/] ey 
[το αντ]ο σ•τρ[ατο7Γ€8ο]ν 
[και τα €]iTtTr][Seia ονκβτι 

8οο [ομοιωζ] ^ίχο[ν ου yap ζτί 
1 8 lines lost. 

850 [και μάλιστα] ro/y [νστα 
[τοις] προσπ[ηΓτ]ον[τ€9 
[et ττω? κ]ατ[α β]ρ[α]χ[ν] ΤΡ[^ψα]ιι.[ξ 
[ν]οι παν το στράτευμα φο 
[β]ησ[€ΐα]ν και €πι ττολυ μ^ν 6 

^55 [τοιοντωι τ'\ροπ[(ύ\ι αντ^ι [ 
[χρν 0L Αθηναίοι €7Γ€]ί[τα 
12 lines lost. 

Col. XXX. 
ID lines lost. 

879 [αντη ουκ evi Κα]τα[νη^ 8o. 2 

880 [τωι στρατξυματ]ι α[λλα 
[κατ]α [το eTe]p[ov //]epo[y τη9 
[^ι]κ€λια$ το π[ρο9 Κα]μ[αρι 
[ναν κα\ι [Τϊ\\α[ν και] τα[^ ταυ 
[τη TToXeis] κ[αι EKXy}v[i8a^ 

885 [και βαρ]βαρο[ν5 κα]υ[σαν 3 

[re? ουν πυρά πολλ]α €χ^α>[ρονν 
[ev τη ι νυκτι κ]αι α[υτοι? 
[οίον φίΧζΐ και πα]σι σ[τρα 
[τοπβΒοι? μαΧιστα <5]e [tois 
13 lines lost. 

903 [)(ωρ]€ΐ• αμ[α 8e τηι εω αψι 5 
κνουντα[ι όμως προ9 την 

905 θαλα[σ\σαγ [και €σβαντ€9 
[ey] την oSo[v την Ελωρι 
[νη]ν [κα]λ[ουμ€νην εττο 
[p€vo]vTO [οπως €π€ΐ8η ye 
[νοιντο] €π[ι τω ποταμω τω 

9 ΙΟ [Κακ]υπαρ[€ΐ πάρα τον πο 
[τ]α[μ]ον [loiiv ανω δια της 
μβ[σ]ογ€ΐ[α9 ηΧπιζον yap 
[«]«£ Toys [Χικέλους ταύτη 

Col. xxxi. 

7 lines lost. 

926 [I'ey eKeXevov «/] το[υτω 8i. i 

[8 oY Χυρακοσιοι [και\ οι ^v[/i 
[ΐΛρΐ-χοι ω? η re [η^μ^ρα [e 
yei'ero και eyvωσav rou[y 

930 Αθηναίους απΐΧηΧυθο 


τα? ev α[Γί/Τ1τ[ία o]i [π^οΧΧοι 
τον ΤυΧιππον ^[ΐ-]χον €κον 
τα αφ€[ι]ναι τουί Αθη[ναι 
ους• κ[αι κατά τάχος 8ιω 

935 κοντ[€ς ηι ου χαΧ^πως η 
σθανο[ντο Κ€χωρηκοτας 
καταΧ[αμβανουσι πβρι αρισ 
του ωρα[ν και ωσπ€ρ προσξμι 2 
^αν τοι[ς μ€τα του Δημοσθ^ 

940 νους υσ[τζροις τ ουσι και σχο 
\Χαιτ€ρον και αται^τοτ^ρον] 
] χωρουσ[ιν ως της νυκτός 
] τοτβ ξυνζταρ[αχθησαν 
[e]u^yy προσπ€σ[οντ€ς βμα 

945 [χ]?'''^θ' '^^^ 0^ ί7Γπ[eίy] των 
[^υ]ρακοσιων e^[e>ci'/f]Xoui' 
[το] re ραιον αυ[τους] διχα 


0V9 [/χ]€τ[€7Γ€/ΐί\|/•αί/ ατταν 
915 τησζσ[θ'\α[ί {\•!τ\ζΐ8η 5e] e[ye 6 

νοντο 6π[ι] τωί [ποτα]/ΐίωί 95° 

\e'\vpov κα[ί\ ζνταν[θ({\ φνλα [ 
κτ)[ν] τ[ίν]α των ^νρα[κοσ]ι[ωι/ 


Col. xxxii. 

15 lines lost. 

984 /i[a\\ov ην €TL η irpos των 8 1. 5 

985 Α[θηναίων και αμα φ€ί8ω 
τ[ζ τΐ9 ζγιγνζτο €π βνπρα 
y[Lai ηδη σαψζί μη προ 
α[ναλωθηναί τωι και e 9"° 
ν[ομίζον και ω? ταύτη τη Λ 

99'^ i[(5ea καταδαμασαμ€νοι 

λη[ψ€σθαί avTovs (7Γ€ίδη 82. ι 

γο[νν δι ημ€ρα^ βαλλοντ€ζ 

Trav\Tayp6ev τους Αθήναι 9^0 

OVS κ[αι ξνμμαχονς €ωρων 
995 ν^^ [τβταλαητωρημβνονς 

T01S τ[€ τρανμασί και τηι 

αλλ77[ί κακωσα κήρυγμα 

ποίον[νται Γνλιππος και 

0L ^νρ[ακοσιθί και ξνμμα 
ιοοο χο4 π[ρωτον μ€ν των νη 

σιωτω[ν η τι? βουλζται e 

7Γ 6λ€υ[θ6ρίαί ω? σφα$ ατη 

[€ί/]αί• κ\αι απ^γωρησαν τι 
7 lines lost. 
ΙΟΙ I τ[6 βιαίως μητ€ δξσμοι? μητβ 2 

τ\η]'! [αναγκαιότατης (ν 

δ€ΐα[ι διαίτης και τναρξδο 3 

σαν [οι παντός σφας αυτούς 
ΙΟ 1 5 €ξακ[ισχιλιοι και το αργν 

[ηδη οντ]ας κα[ι ξνν]ηγον 
[ey ταντο το δ^ Ν]ι[κιο]ν στρα 3 
[τ€νμα αττβίχβ] ev τ[ω]ι προ 
[σθζ κ]αι [π€ν]τηκον[τ]α στα 
[διους θ]α[σσο]ν re γα[ρ] ο 
[Νικία]? ηγ[€] νομι[ζ]ω[ν ου 
[το νπ]ομ€ν€[ι]ν €v τωι τ[οι 
[ο]υτ[ωι] ξκοντας eivai κ[αι 


[μ]α)(^βσθαι σωτηριαν α[\ 
[λ]α το ως ταχίστα νποχ[ω 
[ρ]€ΐν τοσαντα μαχ^ομ[€νονς 
[οσ]α αναγκάζονται• ο δ[€ Αη 4 
[μο]σθ€νης ^τνγχανβ τ[€ 
[τα πλ]€ΐω ev πονώ ^νν[€)(€ 
[στ€ρ]ω ων δια το νστ^ρω [ανα 
[■νωρονν]τι αντωι πρωτω[ϊ\ €π[ι 
[κ€ΐσθαι] τους πολ€μιονς' και [το 
[re γνονς] τους Χυρακοσιονς διω[ 
[κοντας ο^ν προνγωρ^ι μαλ 
[λον η ζς] μαχην ξννβτασ 

[σ€το [Γ. . .]]] (νδιατρβιβων 



pLov [o €ίχοι^ ατταν Kare 
θζσα[ν ζσβαλοντ€ς ey ασ 

Fr. I. 

yai8 . [ 


5 ]9d 

Fr. 5. 

] • o"o/[ 



5 ]ω. [ 
Fr. 9. 

Fr. 13. 


[ ] 

Fr. 17. 


Fr. 2. 



5 ].[ 

Fr. 6, 



5 l• 

Fr. 10. 



] . . ro7[ 


Fr. 14. 

]τω ττρο[ 


Fr. 18. 



Fr. 3. 





5 ].[ 

Fr. II. 





Fr. 15. 


Fr. 19. 


. αΓ 

Fr. 4• • 


5 ].[ 

Fr. 8. 


5 .[ 

Fr. 12. 


Fr. 16. 

]7Γωί 7γ[ 

' Μ ' 

Fr. 20. 

] • vd 


Fr. ai. Fr. 22. Fr. 23. Fr. 24. 

?[ ] . . [ ]o[ ]ατα[ 

?.'[ Υ^[ ] . η ]σγ€[ 

?? • [ ] • y[ ]γ??[ ]f[ 

Fr. 25. Fr. 26. Fr. 27. Fr. 28. 

] • [ ]tov[ ]πο\[ ]αί[ 

]^i>[ ] . [ end of column. 

Fr. 29. Fr. 30. Fr. 31. Fr. 32. 

]«[ ]«[ ]γ6*[ ]e[ 

]^«/[ Μ ]r[ Μ 

Fr. ^3. Fr. 34. Fr. ^S- Fr. 36. Fr. 37. 

If Μ m ]«.[ Μ 

y ]η[ ]χ€α[ ]ί[ ]i//3ota[ 

Fr. 38. Fr. 39. Fr. 40. Fr. 41. 

]τοΓ€σ[ ]e[ ]τονα> ]κην[ 

end of column. 

Fr. 42. Fr. 43. Fr. 44. Fr. 45. 

]f5 • [ «[ , ] • «[ Μ 

3• Ίυρρηνοι : Ύνρσψοι MSS., edd. 

4. τωι πΐζωι : των πίέ'ώι/ MSS. The dative (instrumental) is meant to balance τω αλλω 
στρατοπί^ω (11. 5-6); but τροπην ποκ'ισθαι with the gen. occurs in ii. 19. 2, and the dative 
may Avell be a mere slip ; cf. (ναντ[ια\ for fv uir^ia] in I. 931. 

9. «at : so ACEFGM, edd. ; om. B. 

10. γαρ : peu yap MSS. piv is superfluous, as is remarked by the scholiast, there being 
no answering be but another μίν in 1. 13. 

14. πα]ΐ'[τι η^η: SO, with the remark δι) γράφΐται, Β; παντί δη ACEFGM, edd. ήδη has 
already occurred in 1. 9, and its repetition so soon after must be wrong, but the size of the 
lacuna distinctly favours the supposed agreement with B. The same question between ή8η 
and δι; arises in 1. 19, where Π, though imperfect, favours δη against ήδη of the MSS., and 
again in 1. 948. 

17. στρ[ητ](ΐας: SO edd., following the correction of Aem. Portus ; στραπΜ MSS. Cf., 
however, 1. 184, where Π has στρατιά and most MSS. στρατύα. No regularity was observed 
by scribes in the use of these words. 



19. δ]»;: η^\η (MSS.) is too long and Gertz had already conjectured 617 here. vH which 
occurred recently in 1. 9 and by an error in 1. 14 (cf. note ad loc), is less appropriate. 

o/j[oT]po[7ro]i[s] : όμοιοτρόποις BCFGe^, edd., όμοιοτρόπαΐί AE, όμοιοτρόπως MG SUprasCr. 

The surface of the papyrus is much damaged and the supposed po very uncertain, but 
ομ[οι]οτ[ρο(7Γο)]ι[ί] and ο)υι[οιο]Γρ[οπο]ι[ί] are unsuitable, ομοιότροπος occurs once elsewhere in 
Thuc. (iii. 10. i), but not Sporponos. Herodotus, however, speaks oi ήθΐα όμότροπα (viii. 144). 

22-3. vavs και] ιη\ττ\ονς και [μ^εγ(\θη ίχ\ον^σαι\ς : νανσι κα\ Ιπποις κα\ μ(γΐθ(ΐ €χούσαις MSS., 
except Β {ναΰς και Ίππους) C {μεγίθη) Μ {μίγίθη SUpraSCr.) f^ {μΐ-γίθη) and a' {vavs κα\ ίππους 

κα\ μ(γΐθη ανχονσαις. Duker's emendation Ισχνονσαις for ίχούσαις is accepted by Hude and 
Stuart Jones ; Π supports the simpler εχοίσαις with the accusatives, as preferred by the older 
editors. The chief objection to it is that the plural of μέγεθος is not found elsewhere in 
Thuc; but cf. Stahl's note and p. 160. 

42. μονο]ν : or, less probably, σωθηνα]ι, omitting en in the next line with F. 

45. κω\νσο]υ[σι: SO C, followed by Hude and Stuart Jones; κωλύσωσι ABEFGM. Cf. 
1247. 23, which agrees with C in reading λήσουσι, not λησωσι, after όπως. 

49. [τα : so ACEFGM, edd. ; om. B. τα is necessary to fill the lacuna. 

58. φοβ[ο]ν : so CG, edd. ; φόβωι ABEFM. 

63. avfvfyKHv: iveyKe'iv MSS. except M, which has €π(νΐγκύν owing to the preceding 
4π(ν(χθησόμΐνον. For άναφερΐΐν in the sense of ' sustain ' in Thuc. cf. iii. 38. 3 αυτή 8e τους 

κίνδυνους αναφίρΐΐ. 

64-5. αυτ-[ωΐ' aiTio]i : SO ACEFGINI, Hude, Stuart Jones ; αίτιοι αυτών [αυτών suprascr.) Β, 

66. There is not room at the end of the line for [t υπο των ίπίΐ], the reading of ABEFM 
and edd. υπο is also omitted by C and some of the later MSS. 

67. fTTi πο[λ]ι; : πολύ MSS. 

68. The supposed traces of [5]e αξ[ιος are very slight, and the supplement at the end of 
the line somewhat long, for the ξ comes under μ of θαυμ[ασθησ€\ ; but no variant here is 
known, and neither ην [δ] αξι[ος nor ην [α]ίιο[? suits the vestiges. For final ν represented by 
a stroke cf. 11. 679 and 687. 

72-4. The words των αΧλων . . . άλλα και are omitted in Μ owing to homoioteleuton. 
ποΧΚ[ων: so ABCFGM, edd. ; πόλεων Ε. 

76-7. /xi]ra Κορι[νθιων : SO ABCEFM, edd. ; μετά τών Κορ. G. 

80. πρυκι[ν]8υν[(υσαι : προκινΒυνίΰσαί τ( MSS. ; but re spoils the construction and is 
bracketed by Hude, following Kriiger. Since the ν of 8υν comes under the final ν of νιων in 
1. 78 and above the final υ of ναυτικού in 1. 8 1, it is probable, though by no means certain, 
that Te was omitted. The supposed δ of 8υν is very doubtful, the vestiges suiting τ better. 

81. p[€ya μΐρος: SO MSS., Stuart Jones; Hude brackets μέρος with Kruger and Stahl, 
but Π must have had it. 

83-4. πολιι/ ταυ]την: SO ACEFGM, edd. ; Β has ταύτην πόλιν with β and α superscribed. 

85. [πλην ye το]υ : SO Β ; ACEFGM, edd. insert δτ; after ye, but neither | [πλην ye 8η το]υ 
nor [πλην I ye δ»? το]υ suits the size of the lacuna, since ξ of ξ[υ]μ[παντος is under the ξ of 

ξ[ννηλθε in 1. 84. 

86. After ξύμπαντος the MSS. have λόγου τού which is not at all satisfactory. Heilmann 
conjectured ξυλλόγον τοΰ, Kruger όχλου τοΰ, which is accepted by Hude but not by Stuart 
Jones, λογού or οχλον is rather short for the lacuna, which has room for six letters before 
του ev], but ^[υ]μ[παί'το5 ^D|XXoyou is unlikely and [λογού του ev τω8ε\τω[ι πο\ inadmissible, although 
it is not quite certain that τω belongs to τωδε rather than to τωι. 

go. Σικελιαν] : SO MSS., Stuart Jones ; Hude adopts Kriiger's conjecture Σικελία. The 
τ of τ[ε comes under ap of yap in 1. 89, and the reading of the MSS. yields 16 letters where 
1. 89 has 14^, so that SiKeXtat even without iota adscript would be long enough; but in the 


absence of very strong reasons for the dative (cf. Stahl's note) SiwXtai/ is more probable ; cf. 
11. 94-5, note. 

91. To]<[s : so ABCEGM, edd. ; τους F. 

93. €\\e[ovT(s : so ABCEFM, edd. ; om. G. 

94. [|υί'δι]ασω[σ]οντ[6? : SO Β (suprascr.) Ε (-σωισ-), edd.; ξυν8ιασώσαντ(ς ABCFM. 

94-5. 2νρακονσ]ας : SO MSS., Stuart Jones ; Bauer's emendation Συρακούσαις is accepted 
by Stahl and Hude ; cf. the former's note. The vestige before s suits a distinctly better 
than t. The objection to eVi Συρακονσας is that since ΐπόΚίμησαν applies to both sides fVi Σ. 
ί'πολ. must mean not 'made war against S.' but ' came to S. for the war', which is awkward 
if eVt Σίκελίαν is retained in 1. 90, where n's reading is unfortunately doubtful. 

99. (κηστ]οις: so AB (suprascr.) CEFGM, Hude, Stuart Jones; «κκιστοι Β and Paris. 
1638, which reading if retained would require εσχον in 1. loi, as in several of the late MSS. 

103. Δω[ρΐΕα?: SO MSS. and cf. 11. 133 and 191; Δωριάς Hude, Stuart Jones. This 
line seems to have been unusually long owing to a desire not to divide Συρακοσωνς between 
two columns. There happens to be no quite certain instance in Π of such a division, but 
Cols, vii, xii, and xxii probably began in the middle of a word. The division Συρακοσι\ον5 
does not suit 11. 104—14. 

109. Έστι]Μης: SO ACEF, edd. ; 'Eanaieh BGMc'^. 

no. Εσ[τίαι]αΐ' oiKui;[i/]r£[y : SO MSS.; these words are bracketed by Hude, following 
Kriiger. That the fragment containing the doubtful fa and oik in the next line is rightly 
placed is not certain. 

1 2 1-2. The fragment containing a of π'πο and δ of 6[piot is not certainly to be placed 
here. Μ omits km before Av\8[pioi and C before Ύηι[οι. 

Ίηι[οι. : so ACEFGM ; Ύήνωι Β, edd. ; cf. p. 160. The traces of a stroke after η suit t 
better than v, and the line is already rather long. 

125. ovTfs φο[ρον: so ACEFGM, edd.; Β places φόρου before ούχ vnoreXfls. 

127. ξνν(σπ[οντο : SO ABCEFGM, Stuart Jones; ξυνείποντο Hude with three of the 
late MSS. 

130. The supposed stop after Καρυστ[ιω]ν is doubtful. 

133. [ jf? ye : "ίωνες ye B, edd. ; "iwve's re ACEFGM. ye is right, but *Iwi/f s COuld 

be dispensed with, being a repetition of what has been stated in 1. 128 ; cf. notes on 11. 142 
and 152. Moreover if the letter preceding es was v, and not a, δ, or λ, the last stroke ought 
to be visible in a vacant space before es. The surface of the papyrus is, however, damaged, 
and part of the ν may have been rubbed off. iwv^s ye is satisfactory enough by itself, but 
it is difficult to fill up the lacuna, as, i. e. cbr, due to the preceding δμωί, is hardly long 

139. κτισασι: SO CEFMB corr. g-, edd.; κτησασι ABGc". 

Βοι[ω|τοί$• : SO MSS. ; Βοίωτοΐί (ro'is) Lindau, followed by Hude and Stuart Jones. 

Βοι[ωτοι$| Tots is tOO long. 

142. κατ[α\ντίκρν Βοιωτοις : SO Paris. 1 636 ; κιιται/Γίκρΰ Βοίωτοι Βοιωτοίί ABCEFGM, Stuart 

Jones, Koi avTiKpvs Βοιωτοί Βοίωτοΐί Hude, adopting a conjecture of Bohme. The meaning of 
καταντικρύ here has been much disputed, n's reading apparently connects it with Βοιωτοίς, 
i. e. ' opposite to ' or ' against ', not ' outright ' or 'on the other hand '. But the omission 
of Βοιωτοί is probably a mere error ; cf. 1. 152, note, and p. 162. 

144. κατά: so AEF; κατ CG, κατά τό BM and some of the late j\ISS., Hude, Stuart 
Jones. The angular sign at the end of the line is not certain, but cf. 1. 141. 

146-7. Ε omits 01 . . . Κνθηριοι owing to homoioteleuton. 

149. μ[ί]τ•. so ABCEFM {pcra), edd. ; μίτά των G. 

150. επίφίροι/ : so Β; ?φ6ροι/ ACEFGM, edd. The supposed stop is uncertain. 

152. Αωριης Δ.ωρι[(νσι : om. Δωριψ MSS. Since Δωρφ has already been applied to the 

Ν 2 


Rhodians in I. 145 it is unnecessary here, but ί^ωριης eVi Δωριβα? occurs in 1. 191, and there 
are several similar antitheses in this chapter; cf. notes on 1. 142, where the divergence 
between Π and the MSS. is just the contrary to that found here, and 133, where "ΐω^Γ is 
repeated in the same sentence by the MSS. (and perhaps n), much as ί^ωριψ here. 
157. re (corr. from be by n') : re ACEFM, edd., hi B. 

162. κατ(ΐρ•γ\ομ(νοι : SO ABEFM, edd. ; καταργόμινοι C, COrr. C^. 

164. 01 Αθη]ναίοι : SO ABEFGM, Stuart Jones ; om. οί C, Hude. That π had 01 is not 
quite certain, but if it was omitted there were only 11 letters where 1. 163 has 12 and 
165 13. 

175—6. fK Ναυ7Γακτο]υ : SO B, Stuart JoneS j eV Ναυττάκτω ACEFGRI, iv Ί^αυπάκτω c'k 

Νανττάϋτον Hude following Classen. 

184. στ]ρατία : SO EF ; στρατΐία ABCGM, edd.; cf. 1. 17, note. 

186. [pev ov]: so ACEFG, Hude; ph γαρ ου Β, Stuart Jones, μϊν ovv Μ. There is no 
room for γάρ in the lacuna if the following της is rightly read, and μ€ν ya]p ov [τ]η[5 ξ]υ[μ]μαχ[ι\ 
does not suit the vestiges so well, besides yielding a line of 23 letters. 

188. [Λακεδαί/χοι/ιωι/ [[. .] .]] re: before re is Avhat looks like either ω or ο with a line 
above it, or else τ or 7 with a stroke through it, and probably there was a correction. The 

MSS. read Αακί8αιμονίων re. 

190. ωφ(λι[ας : SO Β {ώφeλeias) a^ marg., edd. ; om. ACEFGM owing to homoioteleuton ; 
cf. 11. 602-4, note. 

191. Ampieas: SO MSS. ; cf. note on 1. 103. 

193. The paragraphus below this line is uncertain. 

195—6. aei [jroXe]jLHOv[f : SO ACEFGM, edd. (aUi) ; λΐίπομίνονί Β. 

197-8. ίΐωθ]οτ([ί ijemi: SO Β, avoiding a hiatus, followed by Bekker ; «Vai dwOOTes 
ACEFGM, Hude, Stuart Jones. One of the dots over t is visible. 

223-4. Έγ(\[σταιοι : SO ACEFGM; Έγΐσταΐοί re B, Hude, Stuart Jones. The exact 
position of this fragment is uncertain and Έγ([σ\ταιοι. re or Εγε[σται|οι re can also be read, with 
(πηγα\γον\το \ και 2ικΐλιωτων in 11. 224-5. ^ίκελώι/ is the reading of Β, preferred by Hude and 
Stuart Jones, Σικελιωτών of ACEFGM. Whichever arrangement be adopted, Π seems to 
have agreed once with Β against the rest, once with the rest against B, rather than with or 
against Β in both cases where this MS. differs from the others. 

226. Ί^νρρηνων: cf. 1. 3. 

234. κα : 1. και. 

ot[/<]o[ui'Te?] : SO ABEFGM, edd. ; οί oIkovpt€s C. 

235. per [αν]τονς: SO BCEGMf^, edd. ; μετά tovs AF. 

236. 7;συχ[α^οΐ'τωΐ' : SO ABEFGM, edd. ; om. C. 

267-79. The division of lines in both fragments of Col. vi is quite uncertain. 

277. ο [αλλοί: so Β, Stuart Jones; aWos ACEFGM, Hude. 

310-14. It is not certain that the fragment containing the beginnings of lines is 
correctly placed here, so that the division of lines is doubtful. 

323-39. The division of lines is uncertain. With the ordinary reading of the MSS. 
11. 327-35 are rather long, and perhaps there were some omissions. That Π agreed with C 
in reading τών for τά in 1. 327, or with Β in having άσθΐνοΰσιν and άττάσας for άσθ(ν€σι[ν) and 
πάσας in U. 332 and 335 is unlikely. The supposed λ of αλ]λ[ου in 1. 334 is very doubtful; 
it may be the π of πΐζον. 

337. ΐ[σβιβαζοντ(ί : SO BCf^ edd. ; but ί[σ/3ία^οΐ'τίϊ (AEFM) is equally possible. It is 
fairly clear that the scribe first omitted πληρωσαι και Βιαναυμαχησαντες (so MSS.) owing to 
homoioteleuton, and then corrected his mistake, partly at any rate, by expunging ην μεν. 
The missing πληρωσαι may have been inserted in the margin. 

350. κ]αι : so ABEFM, edd. ; om. C. 


352. [. . , .jas : om. MS5. Perhaps \τταντ\ας or [«$ αι-τ]αϊ or [raurjar, though none of 
these is any improvement. 

356. απασ\αί\, the reading of n\ does not occur elsewhere as a variant for αί πάσαι 
(MSS., π2). 

358. τ€ €7Γ : so ACEFGM, edd. ; r' eV B, τ is Kriiger. 

362—3. τα aXKa ωΓ? oiov τ ην\ και ως (ζ ανα•γκ\ηιον re και : ταΧΚα ως οϊόντ ην {ζ αν. τ. κ. MSS., 

except Β which has ώί above δσα. It is not certain that Π had w[s rather than ο[σα, and 
1. 363 is long enough without re. δσα οΐόν τ ην κα\ ώί can hardly be right, and if ώ? οΙόν τ 
ην be retained, κα\ ms becomes superfluous, being perhaps due to a misunderstanding of τ. 
€ξ αναγκαίου re κα\ τοιαύτης διανοίας is a somewhat difficult expression, in which it is not clear 
whether αναγκαίου is feminine or neuter. 

386-96. The division of lines is uncertain. 

399. aft: so MSS.; aUi Hude, Stuart Jones; cf. 1. 195. 

405. αν[των : so BCEFGM, edd. ; om. A. 

406—7. π]αρ€σκ(να[ζ(σθ\( (corr. by Π^ from -θ]αι) : so BG ; παρασκ(υάζ(σθαι ex. corr. c'^, 
παρασκΐνάζ€σθί ACEFMg'^, edd. After this the MSS. have ά δε άρωγα eVeiSo^ei/, which seems 
to have been seriously corrupted in Π, α 8e becoming τιο[. (?) and (νίΐδομ^ν becoming 01 μ(ν : 
the reading of the MSS. is superscribed by n^. 

410-11. €σ]6|[σ^]αι : the division €|[σ6σ^]αι leaves 1. 410 too short, although [σ^] is hardly 
enough for the lacuna at the beginning of 1. 411, where three letters would be expected. 

425. τη\ϊ\•. so ABCEFMg-, edd.; om. G. 

426. ηναγκασμ(ν\η\ OX ηvaγκaσμf\yy)\i\ can be read. 

429. (υρηται: SO MSS.; j;up7;rai edd. 

430. χρη αντ[ινα]υπηγη[σαι : SO Ba^, edd. ; μη αντινανπηγΐϊσθαι (which makes no sense) 

ACEFGINI. Β adds άντιναυπηγύσβαι γράφΐται. 

432. ωπ(ρ : SO ACEFGM ; mrep δη Β, edd. Possibly δη is lost, the surface of the papyrus 
being damaged ; but this addition would make the line rather long. 

442. ανα[κρο]υ(σθαι: SO BCGMf edd. ; άνακρούσΐσθαι AEF. 

444. φαινίτα[ι] : SO CEFG, edd.; φαίνηται ABM, ABF having fav for tav in 1. 443. 
447. [ovoTjr]: so ACEFGM, edd.; (σομ^νης (Β, with οΰσης suprascr.) is too long, since 
there was probably a space before ων. 

4oO-2. The letters α of '\σθα[ι, νση ΟΪ π(\σ\ο'\υση[ς, and epo and part of the r 0Ϊ ■προ'\τ€ρο\ν 

were on a separate fragment which is not certainly to be placed here, ση being very doubtful. 

452-3. αξι[ουν ... 7?] : so Β (with γράφίται ην) f, edd. ; but the reading of ACEFGM 
a^i\ov . . . »?!'] would occupy the same space. 

479-80. ουκ 6]λασ[σοι/: cf. 1. 483, note. 

480-1. ώφ(λ€Ϊσθαι es re τό is repeated by mistake in E. 

482-3. TO αδικίΐ]σθαι : SO ACEFGM, Hude ; τό μη άδ. Ba2e^ Stuart Jones, τό διακίΊσθαι 
some late MSS. The line is long enough without μή, but its omission is not certain. 

483. [πολν π\€ον : SO MSS. {πλίον Β, πλίΐ'ω CG, corr. g2, πλ(Ίον AEFM). Hude follows 
Kriiger and Stahl in deleting the words as inconsistent with and a gloss upon ούκ ΐΚασσον in 
1. 479, where Classen wished to delete ουκ έλασσον, retaining πολύ nXe'iov here. Stuart Jones 
keeps both phrases, and κατά το ώφΐλΐ'ισθαι is then contrasted with « Tf το φοβ^ρον τοΙς ύττηκόοκ 
κα\ το μη άδικ€Ϊσθαι, though this is not very satisfactory. Π, however, clearly had ττολυ 7rXf(t)oi' : 
the stop after ωφελ«]σ^αι suggests that it may have had δ( for Tf, as desiderated by Reiske, 
in 1. 481. 

486-8. δικ[αιω5 αν]την νυν μ[η καΓα7Γρο]δί[δ]οτ[ί : the best ]\ISS. are corrupt here, mserimg 
Άν after δικαίως, which is impossible with the imperative {μη om. AF, add a-f-, καταπροδίδωτί 
Ε, -διδωτ€ e^ -δοίητ€ some late MSS.). The simplest course, followed by Stuart Jones, is to 
omit av Avith Bekker, who in so doing claims the support of Paris. 1637, 1638, and 1736 ; 


but this makes hiKaias very difficult, since αδίκως would rather be expected. Hude obelizes 
the passage. Π is unfortunately very imperfect : it is not certain that av was omitted, and 
the supposed traces of biK\cn<us are very doubtful ; but reckoning from [res there are 1 2 letters 
in the corresponding space in the lines above and below, and 12 letters are necessary 
for 1. 486 apart from av. No support for Madvig's emendation av . . . καταπρο8ί8οιτ( is forth- 
coming, the imperative with μή being confirmed. The μ of μ[η is fairly certain, for the 
vestiges do not suit κ. 

491. The MSS. agree with 11^ in reading ων omitted by n^ after [Σικ]ε[λίωτ]ωί'. 

495• και μΐτ aae€v]eias : SO ACEFGM, edd. ; Β omits καί, but the size of the lacuna here 
is in favour of it. 

496. vμeτe]pa : SO ABCEFG, edd. ; om. M. 

499. [νμων] : SO edd. from B's ή νμων ; but [jy/ncoi/] (ACEFGM) may of course be read. 

508. π\\η\σο\μ\ΐνονί : SO BFM, Stuart Jones ; ττΚίνσονμίνους CE, Hude, πΚΐνσωμίνονς A. 

πλίυ[σου]μ. cannot be read. 

523-5. The division of lines in this fragment is uncertain, but there is a short blank 
space alter πολύ in 525. In that line before νπολοίποί Π may have had η, which is read by 
edd. with some late MSS., but omitted by ABCEFGM. 

544. ΐτΓίβον\λη : so several late MSS. ; ίπιβολη ABCEFGM, &c., edd. ; cf. χήρων σώηρων 
ίπφολαί in 434 and p. 162. 

545-6. τα αλ]λα•. ταλλα MSS., except C and a few of the later ones which have πολλά. 
Cf. 1. 362. 

549-50. όπως] απο\λισ'\θα[νοι : οττωϊ (καί δττ. Μ) αν απ. MSS. This USe of αν with the 

optative after δπως is rare, and Herwerden wished to delete av here. The line is certainly 
long enough without it. 

551. αντιλαβίΐν {αντιλαβην π^) : άντιλαβην MSS., except the Cassellauus {•βΐ'ϊν). The β 
was perhaps retouched. 

552—3. πονίτα ετ[οι]μα : SO ACEFGM, edd.; (τοιμα πάντα Β. 
562—3. αντων ο\ντω : SO Β ; ουτωί αυτών ACEFGM, edd. 

565. Sf[i]•• SO BCEFGM, edd. ; 8ή A with Μ suprascr. al 

569-70. The letters (•π in 1. 570, και in 571, and κα in 572 are a separate fragment which 
is not certainly to be placed here, and up to 579 the division of lines in Col. xii is doubtful. 
The supposed e of 6π[ίΐ]τ[α in 570 is rather large, and might well be the beginning of the line, 
but if so 569 must have been shorter than the MSS. reading (? δουλωσει] for κατα8ονλω\σ(ή, or 
else κατα8ονλωσΐί \ projected considerably in order to avoid dividing it between two columns ; 
cf. 1. 103, note. 

€π[€ΐ]τ[α ίΐ] : ΐ'πΐΐτ ei ACEFGM, edd. ; ΐπΐΐτα fie d B. 

571-2. Ώ(]λ[υποννησον \ re] : SO Β ; om. Te ACEFGM, edd. Π€]λ[οποννη\σον], omitting re, 

is somewhat less probable. 

576-7. νποστ]αντ[ίς : SO MSS. The two letters following α have been corrected, perhaps 

from λ€, i. e. νποσταλ€ντ€ί. 

598-602. The beginnings of these lines with the two paragraphi are on a separate 
fragment, Avhich is doubtfully assigned to this position. Line 600 is rather long (24 letters; 
om. Tovs?), and a paragraphus is hardly expected after 1. 597. The doubtful κ in 1. 6oi 
might be β. το in 1. 599 is the reading of the MSS., retained by Stuart Jones ; Hude reads 
τον with Kruger. 

602-4. τα be πο]λλα . . . €λπ]ι[? : SO Bf^ edd. ; om. (owing to homoioteleuton) ACEFGM ; 
cf. 1. 190, note, and p. 159. 

611. €κ[ασ]τοΐ' : SO B, Stuart Jones ; την ίκάστψ ACEFGM, τψ (τ^χνην) ίκάστην Hude. 

616. ακο\ντισται : SO CE ; κα\ άκ. ABFGM, edd. 7Γο|λλοι δ« και] ακ. is less probable. 

622-44• The division of lines is nearly certain up to 1. 635, especially as there is 


a short blank space before ev in 1. 631. The fragment containing II. 637-44 might go a little 
further to the left. . 

625. [αυ]τ-ωζ' : SO (αύτώζ/) ACF, Hude ; εαιτώι/ (which does not suit the size of the lacuna) 
B, Stuart Jones, αντώ(ι) EGM, corr. g. But [αν\των may of course be αΰτων. 

τροπωι : ροπωι Is on a Separate fragment which is not certainly placed here. 

633. (σοντα\ι: SO ABEFGM, edd. ; ΐσόμΐνηι C. 

634-5• [αφ 0)1/ . ... I η]μ[ι]^ : αφ' hv ήμ'ιν MSS. The attraction of the nominative of the 
relative clause is unusual, but seems unavoidable, [αφ ων ηδη is possible, but the missing 
word may have preceded αφ ων. u j. - 

637-8. σαφω! πε]7Γυ . . σβ[αι : σαφώς πιπίσθαί MSS., G having σφίσι γράφΐται above σαφώς. 

The traces'of the letter following πυ suggest η, j', or π; the next letter has almost entirely 
vanished, πυ^βσ^αι is not suitable, and would create a difficulty in filling up the precedmg 
lacuna ; it is more likely that the scribe misspelled π^ιτνσθαι, and possibly it was corrected. 

64*4. αποκινΒννευσ(ΐ] or αποκιν8νν(υσαι\, Duker's generally accepted emendation of the 
reading of the MSS., can be read. 

649. ποιω[νται : SO ABGc^P, edd. ; but ποω[ννται (CEFIM) IS possible. 

652. [ατ]αξιαν•. SO ABEFGM, edd. ; αταξία C, corr. c\ 

654. \7rap]a8ebwKVLa[v : SO ABEFGMc^ Stuart Jones ; τιαρα6(8ωκί)αν C, Hude. 

660- 1 . δίκαιως] ϊωσι : 8ικαιώσωσι C, δικαιώσωσιν ABEFGM c^ edd. In this awkwardly con- 
structed sentence δικαιώσωσιν is generally considered to govern αποπλησαι, andot &v. . . δ^αιώσωσ»/ 
άηοπλησαι τ, yv. το θνμ. has tO serve as the subject of νομψώτατον (Lvai ; cf. ii. 44. l τό δ' 
(VTVxiS, ot&v... λάχωσι . . . κα\ oJs . . . ξυν^μ^τρηθη. With δίκαίως 'ίωσι, however, αποπλησαι IS 

to be connected with νομψώτατον elvai and balances άμύνασθαι better. The other difficulties, 
the fact that evavriovs is not the antecedent of 01, the change from the infinitive to the participle 
after νομίσωμ,ν, and the superfluous καί before το λεγόμ^νον, are not apparently affected by n's 


663-6. The division of lines in this fragment is not quite certain. 

664. η\μιν και : so MSS. except Paris. 1638, which omits καΐ. και had been deleted by 
Reiske and is rejected by Classen and Hude but retained by Stuart Jones ; it is indispensable 
in Π, \ΐη[μιν is right. τ[ε ημιν KM, omitting το, might be read. 

680-2. των ναναγι\ων] ονδ ([πενοονν αιτη\σαι] αναι[ρβσι]ν : Om. των MSS. 1 here waS SOme 

variant in Π unless 1. 680 had only 14 letters, and though in 1. 681 [evo]ovv might be read with 
some late MSS., the following letter is like e, not a, and not more than 10 letters would be 

expected in 1. 680 after πϊ^ρι, whereas n[ept. η ναυάγιων ουδβ | gives 13. αΐτησαι άναφεσιν IS 

unnecessary, but ων \ [β.ο]ου. e[ 1 . .] «.«.[ρβσψ is less likely than a slight change 

in 1. 680, such as the insertion oi των. ^ 

68 q. ί[/3ο1υίλ>υο«/Γο : SO ACEFGM, Hude, Stuart Jones; ^βουλοντο Β. 

6oi. \ai io\L: 'iTi al λοιπαί Β, ετι ai λοιπαί είσι ACEFGM, edd. Π mUSt have 

omitted ?rt or al, probably the former, as well as e.V/. hi has recently occurred in 1. 687, 
where Classen wished to omit it as an intrusion from the present passage, in which he 
suggested the omission of αί. More probably Π is right in omittirig ert here. 

695. Be πολεμιοις: δ' evavTiois ABCEFG, edd., δί evavTiois M. πολέμιοι, IS probably 
repeated from 1. 692. 

699. αυτών : SO BEMf^ edd. ; αΐτόν ACFG, αΐτας some late MSS. 

702 rfel: so B, Stuart Jones; om. ACEFGM, Hude. ^ 

705. ανα[χ]ωρησαν[τ]ες (corr. tO -σοντ,ς by Π^) : άναχωρησοντ^ς ABEFg-, edd.. -σαντ,ς 


712. απ\οχωρησ]ασα: SO CE, Hude ; ύζτοχωρ^σησα ABFGM, Stuart Jones. 

713. A : SO Paris. 1637 ; ποι ABCEFGM, edd., πη three other late MSS. 
716 [eYnyeirai : SO ABCEFGM, edd. ; έφηγύται c* and some late Mbb. 


720. a και : so BCG, edd. ; καΙ a EM, και a και AFg suprascr. 
tSoKet : so ABCEFG, edd. ; 6δόκ« ΐϊναι Μ. 
723. ras: so ACEFGM, edd.; τά Β. 

724—5• στε]ΐΌπορα : SO BCEFM, edd. J στ€ΐ/ΟΓίρα AB γράφί ται. 

των χωριωΐν I SO ABCEFM, edd. ; τωι χωρίωι Β γράφΐται. 

725-6. προ]φ^ασαιτα5• : SO ACEFMB γράφετα», Hude ; διαλαβόντας Β, ClaSSen, irpohta- 

\αβόντας Stuart Jones. Cf. 1. 751, note. 

727. ξνν\^\•^ι•γνωσκον : SO ACFM, edd. ; ξυν(-^Ίνωσκον ΈΈ,. 

'J 28. ησσον: SO CEFGM, edd.; ήττον AB. 

729. a: om. MSS. The insertion of α may have been intended to ease the construction 

of the infinitive δοκ^Ιν αν in 736 (which depends loosely on ξυνίγίγνωσκον, κα\ e'SOKei ποιητία 

being parenthetic), but is probably due to a reminiscence of a κα\ αντω ebOKu in 1. 720. The 
ink of α is rather faint and it may have been intentionally obliterated. C has ποιητ^ο for 
π€\ιη]τία (corn c'^). 

732. [rje ναυμαχίας: ναυμαχίας Τ€ INISS. Cf. p. 162. 

732-3. πί\παυ]β(νονς : SO Β. ara7re|7rau]^fiOvy (ACEFGM, edd.) is tOO long. 

734—5. αυ[τοΐΓ] Ήρακ\(ΐ : SO ACEFGM, edd.; Ήράκλΐΐα (^Ήρακλΰ -γράφίταϊ) Β. Hude's 
conjecture ταύτη τί} ήμίρα is not confirmed. 

736. boKei\y αν : SO MSS., but Π may have omitted av. 

739. τΐτραφθαι : SO ACEFGM, edd. ; τ(τάφθαι Β. 

747. ουκ: so apparently some late INISS. and Kriiger, followed by Hude; ουκίτι 
ABCEFGM, Stuart Jones. Cf. p. i6i. 

75 1• φθασωσι: προφθάσωσι C; προφθάσωσιν ABEFGM, edd, προφθάσαντας recently 

occurred in 1. 725 and προφθάνειν is not found with a participle elsewhere in Thuc, so that 
the simple verb may well be right here. 

754. (ταιρων : SO BCEFGM, edd.; ίτίρων A, corr. a^ 

755. (]αντου: so ABEFGM, edd. ; eVoC C, corr. c^ 

758. ξ[υν{σκ^οταζΐ : SO C ; ξυνΐσκόταζ(ν ΑΈΈΥΟο^, edd. ; ξυν€σκόταξ{ν Μ.. 

ΐβη. The initial σ of Ί,υρακοσιων has been corrected or rewritten. 

768. The σ o{ φυ'Κασ'^σοντων seems to have been inserted later by n^ 

780-5. The division of lines is uncertain. 

782. προσθΐ : πρόσθΐν ABCEFG, edd., (μπροσθ^ν Μ. Cf. 1. 950, note. 

792. (κατεροι: SO ACEFGM; ίκατΐρωθΐν Β, edd. Cf. p. 160. 

840-4. The division of lines in this fragment is not quite certain. Line 844 may be 
shortened by restoring προσφαΚον with GM. 

852. τρ[6λ//α]μ[ίί']οι : SO ACEFGM, edd.; rp[eA|/o]p[er]oi (B) is not well suited to the size 
of the lacuna. 

879-89. The arrangement of these lines is fairly secure. To make KfKias in 1. 882 
begin a line does not suit 883, and the division 7r[pos | Κα\μ\αριναν does not suit 879. 

881. μ]ίρο[ς: so ACEFGM, edd. ; om. B. 

885. papo^ is on a separate fragment, which is not quite certainly placed here. 

909. ίτί\ι : so B, edd. ; παρά ACEFGM, obviously from 1. 910. 

911— 12. Sta r;;i] μί[σ]ογβί[ηΓ : SO Β ; om. τψ ACEFGM, edd. It is not clear that Π 
inserted it, but if it is omitted the line had only 1 6 letters, for to read π]ο[τ]α[μον is less 
satisfactory, besides reducing 1. 910 to 16 letters. 

914. [μ'\ΐτ\ΐπ(μ^\ταν : SO ACEFGMB suprascr., Hude; but \μ\ΐτ\ΐπΐμ•<^αντο (Β, Stuart 
Jones) is possible. 

915-16. [ί]7τ[«δί; ht\ f\ye\vovTo or e]n[6i de fyjfji/oirro can be read, inti δ' ty. CG, (π(ώη δ' 

iy. AEFM, edd., inubr] δ€ iy. B. The paragraphus below this line was probably added 
by Π». 


917. [e]upor (ABCFGM) is more likely tlian [^jvpoc (E, edd.) ; cf. 1. 429. 

931. ίΐ'αΐ'τ[ία] (corr. by Π- to fv atT[ta]) : fv αΙτία re MSS. ενάντια is a mere error, but xf, 
which occurred in 1. 928, is unnecessary. The surface of the papyrus is damaged after avt[, 
but if the corrector had added rt, part of it ought to have been visible. 

932. eK oi f κοντά is apparently corrected, perhaps from ap. 

938-9. ωσττίρ π/)οα•ί/χί]|αι/ : SO ACEFGM {προσψιξαν), Hude, Stuart Jones (-f/xet-) ; ώϊ 
προσίμιξαν Β. Π may have had either ως or ωσπ^ρ. 

943. Tore : so ACEFGM, edd.; re after an erasure B. 

946. fi'[e/cuK]\ow[To] : (vkvkKovvto Paris. 317, ΐκυκΚοΰντο ABCEFG^I, edd. iyKVKkovv does 
not occur in Thuc, who uses κυκΚοΰν frequently (the passive occurred in the lost 1. 969), but 
€γκνκλονσθαι is common in writers of the Roman period. Cf. p. 162. 

948. [ηδη οντ]ας : SO Β with 8η suprascr. ; 8η oi/Tuy ACEFGM, edd. The size of the 
lacuna strongly favours η8η ; cf. the confusion of δ;; and ή8η in 11. 14 and 19. 

950. προ[σθ( : so C, πρόσθίν ABEFG, edd. ; ?μπροσθ€ν Μ; cf. 1. 782, note. 

951. κ]αι : so ACEFGM, edd. ; 4κατ6ν και Β with some late MSS. 

956. σωτηριαν {σωτηριον Π^) : σωτήριου with σωτηρίαν SUpraSCr. Β ; σωτηρ'ιαν ACEFGM, 

Hude, Stuart Jones. Classen preferred σωτήρων. 

959• [οσ]α αναγκάζονται : SO ABEFGMc, StUart Jones ; οσα άνα-γκάζωνται CK, οσ αν 

άναγκάζωνται Dobree, Hude. 

960. τ[ε: so MSS., except two of the late ones, Stuart Jones ; Dobree, followed by 
Hude, wished to omit it, but cf. the next note. 

961. πονώ : so Β with the Cassellanus and Paris. 1733, Stuart Jones; πάνω re ACEFGM, 
Hude ; cf. the preceding note, π is likely to have been right. 

963. πρω7ω[ί] : SO ABEFMg^, edd. ; om. CG. 

967• ζνν(τασ\σ(το : SO ABE^F, edd.; ξυν^τάττ^το CG, ή ξυν(τάσσ(Το Μ. 

968. Before ίνδιατρΐίβων there is a correction, the reading of the MSS. being apparently 
added by n^ above the line. The first (and possibly the second) letter of (ν8ιατρ(ΐβων is 
crossed through, but probably by mistake, unless (v occurred in the "preceding word (jiev?). 
€ν8ιατρίβων MSS., edd. 

992. γο[νν : so MSS. Hude and Stuart Jones adopt Dobree's correction 8" ovv. 

999-1000. 01 2νρ[ακοσιοι : SO the Clarendonianus ; om. oi ABCEFGM, edd. Cf. p. 161. 

ξνμμα]χοι: οι ξΰμμαχοι MSS.; cf. the preceding note. It is not certain that 01 was 
omitted, but the lacuna is of the same length as that in 1. 998. 

1017. It is not certain that any lines are lost at the bottom of this column, which 
contains 49 lines so far, while Col. xxxi has 50. 

Frs. 1-45. These small pieces are not to be regarded as coming from tops or bottoms 
of columns unless so described in the text. 

Pr. 1. 2. ]vai8 . [ : or ]v8i8 . [. 

Fr. 3. ]v8[ can be read in 1. 3 and possibly θ in 1. 6, but this fragment is not from 
11. 110-15. 

Fr. 15. The light colour of this fragment resembles that of Cols, xx-i and xxxi-ii. 

Fr. 28. 2. The supposed stop after tpya may be a letter. 

Fr. 37. 2. Possibly Ε]υβοια[, but not 1. 109. The colour of this fragment does not suit 

Col. iii, so that Στι;ρ]([ΐί . . . Έ]υβοια[! (11. 1 1 9-20) is also inadmissible, as is ] «[|ω Ώ(\οποννησο]ν 
Βοιω[τοι in 11. 269-70. 


1377. Demosthenes, De Corona. 

29-1 X 12-4 cm. Late first century b. c. 

This nearly complete column from a roll of the speech De Corona is written 
in upright uncials whose informal character is exaggerated by the largeness 
of their scale. That the hand is of early date is clear from its style, which 
recalls that of 216, and a further proof is supplied by the verso, which contains 
accounts in cursive of the first century. The text on the recto may be ascribed 
with probability to the latter half of the first century B. c, or at any rate to the 
reign of Augustus, and thus seems to be the oldest fragment of any speech 
of Demosthenes hitherto recovered. Pauses in the sense are represented by 
short blank spaces, in which a high or medial dot is sometimes inserted (by 
a later hand ?) ; such blank spaces, however, occasionally occur when there is no 
pause. Paragraphi were also employed (1. 11). A horizontal dash is once 
used for the purpose of filling up a short line. Remains of a cursive adscript, 
referring to the previous column, occur in the left margin opposite 1. 12. 

The text shows a tendency to omission, and was evidently not distinguished 
by great accuracy, but is not without small points of interest. A coincidence 
with a reading of Tiberius which was adopted by Blass is noticeable in 1. 25, 

ζτ^ρων €πακολονθ€ΐν § 167 

γι/ωμαί9 ησθην και μαλ 

Xou νμας ^παυνωι κατά 

ΤΓολλα• καί μάλιστα δ eirt 
5 τ^'^ βονλζνζσθαι τούτων 

ασφάΚξστ^ρον και τα — 

7Γρο9 ημα^ εχ^ίν eu ev 

volar onep ου μικράν 

νμαν οισζΐ ζλπιζω ρο 
ΙΟ πην €αν nep em ταύτης 

μ^νητς τη? προθζσβω? 
Ι*•^ όντως BiaOei'} Φίλιππο? § 1 68 

τας τΓολβί? προ? άλληλα? 

[δ]ια τ όντων και τοντοι? 
15 [<ϊ\παρθζΐ? τοι? "ψήφισμα 

\(τι\ν ηκ€ν ζχ^ων την δυ 

[ν]αμιν και την Ελατ€ΐαν 


[κ\ατ€λαβζν ωί ου8 αν 

[€ί] TL γίΐ /OLTO σννττνίυ [ 
2θ \σ6\ντων ημών και [τ]ων 

[Θ]ηβαίων αλ[λα] μην τον 

[τοτ€ σ]νμβαγτα θορυ [ 

[βον τη]ί 7Γθλ[€ί ί]στ€ μ^ν 

[ατταιτε]? μLκ\pά\ 8 ακου 
25 [σαθ o]/icof τ[α d\vayKaLq 

\τατα eanipa\ μ€ν yap ην § 169 

[ηκ€ 8 αγγ€λλ](ϋ[ν] ti[s] ety 

4. και: om. MSS. 

5. βονΚ^νΐσθαι : βυυλΐύσασθαι nepi MSS. Jrept is indispensable. 
9. 1. οισΐΐν, 

. 1 1. After προθίσ€ως the MSS. add 'ίρρωσθΐ. 

12. οντω . . . Φιλίπποϊ : οντω . . . ό Φ. MSS. For the marginal note cf. introd. 

15. ^ηφισμα\σϊ\ν'. ψ. και ταΐϊ αποκρίσΐσιν MSS. ^ ^ 

19- συΐ'πί/ίυ[σο]ί/τωι/ : £τι συμπΓ€υσόι/τωί/ F vulg. ; ert συμπι/ίυσόι/τωι/ ««/ SLA, en συμπι/εισαί/τωκ 

flii; Elmsley, edd. « • - λ 

2 2-3• σ^/Λβαι/τα ^ορ^βοι/ τη\ι 7Γο\[(ΐ : συμβάντα ττ} πόλη θόρνβον Α, lilass, συμβ. €Ρ ττ, ττ. α. 

Other MSS., Butcher. 

24. faTTQi/riXso MSS.) suits the lacuna better than [παντφ (Blass). ^ 

25. r[a a]vayKmo[rara: SO TiberiuS, BksS (ra./ay»c.) ; avayKaiorara first hands of bL, αντα 
τα άνηγκ. Vulg. and Butcher [τάναγκ.). 

2 7. f If : ώϊ (τοΐ /s npvraveis ως ^Ε\άτ(ΐα κατ€ίληπται) M.ob. 

1378. Demosthenes, Contra Midiam. 

16 x13.5 cm. Third century. 

The upper part of a column, with the ends of a few lines from the column 
preceding, written in a medium-sized calligraphic hand of the biblical type. 
This style of script is now known to go back at least to the beginnmg of the 
third century (cf. 661, P. Rylands 16), and the present specimen appears to 
represent a comparatively early stage in its development. A high stop occurs in 
1. II. A diaeresis in 1. 10 takes the form of a short horizontal stroke. 

Though so carefully written the text is not distinguished by great accuracy, 
and errors in 11. 11 and 19 remain uncorrected. There is no variant of importance. 

Col. i. Col. ii. 

8ιαν απάντων των I § 1 53 

τηί πολ[€ί λα]μΐΓροτα 



λιτονργία]? § 151 

[σκοππ 8η μη τούτοις] 
[αν τον €iccίτησ]ητaι 
[και ζλαττω πο]λυ τηι 
5 [τΓολζί καταθας] η οσα 
[σοι 8ι8ωσί καταγζλα] 
[σηι ζγω Se πρωτο]ν μΐ § 152 

[ovBev ayevv\es νμώ 
[καταγιγνωσκω] ονδ ν 
10 [πολαμβανω τι]μησζΐ 

τον γ€γ€νησθαι απο 
κναΐΗ yap αηδία δηπον 
5 και αναισθησία καθ [εκα 
στη[ν] τ[η]ν €κκλ[ησια]ν 
ταν[τα λ]ξγων €ί μ[€]ντο[ί] 
τι π[ο]τ €στί α λιτονργξΐ 
τηί [οϊΫ^ηθίΐαί δβι σκοπ€ΐ 

ΙΟ ζγω TT/ooy νμα9 epco και 
θ€ασ[α]σθ€ toy και ω? αν 
τον ζξζτασω προ9 e 
μαντον κρι[νω]ν οντο9 
ω ανδρ[€]9 Αθην[αί]οι γ€γο 

ϊ5 ϊ'ω? ^τη π€ρι πζντη 
κοντ ίσως η μξίκρον 
^\αττ\ο\ν ονδίν €μον 
πλΐΐονς XiTOvpyias ν 
μξν λ€λιτονργηκ€ν oy 

20 δνο κ[αι τ]ριακοντα (τηι 
γ€γονα καγωι μ^ν κα 
τ ί[κζΐνον$ 

§ 154 

i. 3• The vestiges are doubtfully identified : (ξαιτησηται edd., €ξαιτήσ(ται S and some 

5. οσα: Blass wished to read δσον, with fXarrov for ίλάττω. 

ii. II. ω£• και ω: : 1. ins δίκα/ωϊ with MSS 

17. (\αττ[ο]ν: so S, edd.; ϊλάττω other MSS. But ίληΓτ[ω]6 is also a possible reading. 

18. 1, νμ(ΐν. The scribe made the slightly lengthened stroke oft, but then seems to 
have inadvertently treated it as the first stroke of the v. 

1379. LiVY, i. 

14-3x10 cm. Late third century. Plate VI. 

Livy so far has been represented in the papyri only by a portion of 
an epitome (668) ; now we have a fragment — unfortunately but a small one — 
from Book i of the historian himself. The present MS. resembles the epitome 
both in being in the form of a roll, and in the character of the script, which is of the 
mixed uncial style apparently prevalent in the provinces. A few differences are 


to be recognized. Minuscule forms are more sparingly employed in 1 379 than 
in 668 ; there are the usual b and d, but m is of the pure uncial shape, while r is 
in a state of transition between uncial and minuscule. The general resemblance, 
however, between the hands of the two papyri is so close that they must be of 
approximately the same date, and since 668 can be assigned with probability to 
about the end of the third century, 1379 may be referred with little hesitation 
to the same early period. Punctuation, which in 668 was not employed except 
with abbreviations, is here rather elaborate, medial and low dots being used for 
short pauses, and an angular mark in the high position for a more considerable 
interval (1. 6). 

The fragment (cc. v. 5-vi. i), so far as it goes, shows a correct text, but is 
too slight to give an insight into its quality or affinities. 

[gi]am venire pastoribu\s v. 6 

\ad reg^m impetum facit [ 

\et a do\ino Ntimitoris alia [ 

\coiit\parata viamc- adiuva[t 
5 \Reifi\tis• ita regem optrun 

\caf\ N\u\initor in/\er] pri [ vi i 

\mii\in t[n]mtdtnm holies 

\invasis\se n[r\be7n af\£tie 

[adortos reg]iam dictSjtans 
10 \ciiin piibe\m Albanain [in 

\arcem prd\esidio armis[que 

\opti\nendain avocasset [ 

\postquavi i\u[ve]nes per[petra 

[ta caed]e pergere ad se g[ra 
15 tidantis uidit. extempl\o 

\advocd\tg c[on]cilio. sce[le 

[ra in se\ fr[at]ris• orig\inein 

\fiepottini\ rit geniti [ 

5. optrun\cai\ : the size of the lacuna is in favour of the singular, which is read by most 
of the best MSS. 

13. The supplement at the end of the line is rather long in comparison with the others, 
but it would be rash to infer that the papyrus had some shorter word, e. g. peracia, instead of 

16. sce\le\ra, not sce\lus (M), is indicated by the spacing. 

18. Above the vestiges of the supposed u there is a mark suggesting the top of an or 
some other round letter. It does not look like an accident, but remains unexplained. 


1380. Invocation of Isis. 

21-8 X 112-5 cm. Early second century. 

The recto of this long and interesting papyrus contains an invocation 
((ττίκλησίζ) of the goddess Isis, the verso a somewhat analogous composition 
in praise of Imhotep-Asclepius (1381). As often happens with a roll that has 
been re-used, the surface of the recto has suffered considerably, and the ink is in 
many places very faint, rendering decipherment difficult, particularly in the later 
part where lacunae are more frequent. The twelve consecutive columns^ each 
containing 22-8 lines, are written in a small semiuncial hand with a tendency to 
cursive forms in certain letters, especially α and e. η is remarkable for its tall 
first stroke. Stops, usually in the high position and all having the same value, 
are common, and after one of these an initial letter is often enlarged. Diaereses 
are occasionally found, but no breathings or accents. Some corrections, chiefly 
due to misspellings of et for ι or vice versa, have been inserted in an apparently 
different but probably contemporary hand, though not regularly nor always intelli- 
gently (cf. 1. 120), besides a few insertions by the scribe himself, who was not 
very accurate. The handwriting of both recto and verso indicates a date not 
later than the second century, the recto probably having been written in the reign 
of Trajan or Hadrian, the verso under the Antonines. 

The invocation falls into two sections, the first being concerned with the 
goddess in her well-known capacity of ττολνώννμοί (cf. 11. 97 and 101) and giving 
an elaborate list of her titles in towns or nomes of Egypt (11. 1-76), and then in 
towns, districts, or countries in other parts of the world (11. 76-119). The second 
section begins with a continuation of similar complimentary titles (11. 119-42) 
still governed by ^-ηικαλονμαί σβ, which no doubt occurred at the lost beginning 
of the first section, and proceeds in 11. 142-298 to a long and somewhat dis- 
connected prose hymn of praise addressed to the goddess, dealing with the 
various aspects of her divinity and power. Similar but much briefer invocations 
of Isis occur in Apuleius, Metani. xi. 5, P. Leyden U ii, and P. Brit. Mus. 121. 
492-504, and the magical papyri contain numerous invocations of Hermes, who 
was sometimes regarded as the father of Isis, sometimes as her son (1. 39, note) 
or other kindred deities. 1380, however, is both earlier and on a higher level 
than the magical papyri, which mostly belong to the third or fourth centuries and 


are of a more composite character, being largely concerned with spells. Since the 
papyrus itself dates from near the beginning of the second century, the composi- 
tion of the invocation can hardly be placed later than in the first — a date 
supported by the evidence of some of the place-names, which suggest the period 
between Strabo and Ptolemy, contemporary with Pliny ; cf. notes on II. 31, 40, 
70, 74, and 94. It is obviously based mainly on Egyptian documents such as 
those from which Brugsch {Religioft d. alt. Aeg. 646-7 ; cf. Budge, Osiris and the 
Egyptian Resurrection, ii. 276-8) collected the Egyptian titles of Isis, and 
resembles the hymns to Osiris in the Book of the Dead. A demotic papyrus 
at Cairo (Spiegelberg, Catal. no. 31 169) contains a short list of the titles of Isis 
with those of other gods, preceded by a list of Delta towns. But though the 
Egyptian elements are strongly marked both in the general arrangement and 
many of the individual expressions, the invocation was no doubt composed 
in Greek, as is shown by the identification of Isis with e. g. Hellas (1. 95), 
φρόνησίί (1. 44), and many Greek or non-Egyptian deities, the introduction of the 
Hellenic scheme of the universe with Olympus (1. 130), Lethe (1. 127), and the 
Dioscuri (1. 235), and the numerous parallels to Greek inscriptions and other 
evidence for Isis-worship in the eastern Mediterranean. As an important docu- 
ment written by an initiate, it ranks with the well-known inscriptions of los and 
Andros (C. I. G. xii. v, nos. 14 and 739 ; cf Diod. i. 27), in which Isis speaks in 
the first person. When complete it must have been of considerable length, for the 
writing on the verso proceeds in the opposite direction to that on the recto, and 
while not much need be lost at the end of 1380, since 1381. i, though not the actual 
beginning, is certainly not far from it, there is reason to think that many columns 
preceded 1380. i, for most of 1381 is the prelude to a narrative which only begins 
in 1. 222 shortly before the papyrus breaks off. The list of Egyptian places which 
occupies 1380. 1-76 only covers the Delta, but the towns of Upper Egypt on the 
same scale would not have taken up more than the three or four preceding 
columns, and what preceded these is unknown. Isis-worship appealed to the 
Greeks and Romans much more than any other branch of the Egyptian religion 
and, in addition to the account of Isis in Diod. i. 11-27, Plutarch's treatise 
De /side et Osiride, Apuleius, Meiani. xi, and other literary testimony, the 
archaeological evidence from statues, inscriptions, gems, coins, &c., is extensive ; 
cf Drexler in Roscher, Lex. d. griech. n. roin. Mythol. ii. '>)']'>)- oA'^^ Lafaye, 
Hist, dii culte des divinitis d'Alexandrie hors de VEgypte. 

The various aspects under which Isis is regarded in 1380 may be classified 
under the following heads. First as to her name, Ίσ65 occurs in 1. 23 and often : 
more mysterious names ending in -eu and resembling those found in magical 
papyri apparently occur in 11. 282, 286, and 296. Of her appellations derived 


from the Egyptian Έσ€ρ4μφΐ5 (1. 46) is known from the recently discovered Thea- 
delphia inscription, while Θαυήστί^ in 1. 68, Μο{;χΐ5(?) in 1. 45, 'Ov^ in 1, i, 
]αθροΐχΐ9 in 1. 14, Ύαχνηψις in 1, 75, and ]χμ€ννα in 1. 3 are new and may be 
compared to the titles Ίσι? Νζφρ^μμι^ and Νεφορσ?/? at Socnopaei Nesus. In 
places outside Egypt the titles 0a\|^[e ?]ί)σι? in 1. 105 (among the Magi), Σαρκοΰνις 
in 1. 119 (at Susa on the 'Red Sea'), T[. .]β[ί]α and Παλ4ντρα{?) in 11. 114-15 
(Troad and Dindyma) are also probably foreign appellations like the Egyp- 
tian rather than names of distinct divinities. The remarkable titles Αατΐνα 
in 1. 104 (Persia), and Έλλά? in 1. 95 (Stratonos Pyrgos) testify to the strong 
hold which Isis-worship had taken upon the Graeco-Roman world. The 
syncretistic tendency of the age is well shown by the identification of Isis with 
various Graeco-Egyptian and foreign divinities. Aphrodite (i.e. Hathor) in 1. 9 
and often, Artemis in 1. 84, Astarte in 1. 116, Atargatis, a Syrian deity, in 1. 100, 
Athena (i. e. Neith) in 11. 30 and 72, Bubastis in 1. 4, Core in 11. 72 and 
105, Dictynnis, a Cretan deity, in 1. 82, Hecate in 1. 113 (cf. 11. 84 τριφνψ, 
gi τριοδϊτι?, and the references to the underworld in 11. 127 and perhaps 164), 
Helen in 1. 112, Hera in 1. 26 and often, Hestia in II. 23 and 73, lo Sothis in 
11. T43-4 (cf 1. 64, where she is also connected with lo in an obscure passage), 
Leto in 1. 79, Maia in 11. 39, 42, 103, and 116, Nanai, an old Babylonian goddess, 
in 1. 106, Praxidice in 1. 50, and Themis in 1. 83. Several of these identifications 
were known, but those with Artemis, Helen, Hestia, Leto, Maia, and the last two 
appear to be new. 

Isis as ττολύμορφοί (11. 9 and 70) was worshipped as a kind of combination of 
the divine, human, and animal elements. She is called 0eoy in 11. 77 and 107, 
θ€ά in 1. 130, δια in 11. 26, 86, and ι it, Upa in 11. 18, 41, no, αγία in 11. 34, 36, 89, 
αγνή in 1. 86, άμίαντο5 in 1. 109, άβίβαστο5 in 1. 115, rekeia in 1. 32. The forms under 
which she often appears in art, as a cow, serpent, or with a vulture head-dress and 
wings, the symbol of motherhood, are illustrated by the titles in 11. 126-7 θ^ών 
•πάντων το καλόν ζ^ον, 1. 1 07 ταυρωττίί, 1. ^8 άσττίί, 1. 66 γυττόμορφος ; cf. the mention 
of her wings in 11. 219-20 and the institution of animal-worship ascribed to her 
in 11. 139-42, and 11. 159-63. The ordinary representations of her as a beautiful 
and youthful woman are indicated by the terms vL• in 1. 85, νύμφη in 1. 30, ωραία 
in 1. 90, καλλίμορφοζ in 1. 54, καλλίστη in 1. 100, γαριτόμορφο'ί in 1. 59. With 
regard to her power she is called τταντοκράτζίρα in 1. 20, -πάντων δ€στΓοτυ in 1. 231, 
heσ'πότιs in 1. 108, κρατίστη in 1. 96, μεγίστη θίων in 1. 142, μεγίστη in 11. 21, 92, and 
perhaps 66, μεγάλη in 1. 77. As queen and ruler she appears as άνασσ-α ttjs 
οίκονμίνηί in 1. 121, άνασσα ττόλξων in 1. ^y, and often as ανασσα simply, βασίλισσα 
in 11. 36 and 218, δυΐ'άστι? in 11. 34, 41, 57, and 97, κυρία ττάσηί χώραί in 1. 24. As 
a warrior-goddess she is called στρατία in 11. 71, 83, 102, ηγψονίς in 1. 52 (cf. 1. 193) 


στολαρχίί in 1. 8, νικήτρια in 11. 30 and 48, ταχννίκη^ in 1. 69 ; cf. 11. 239-42, where 
she is said to overthrow tyrants, and 1. 80 eAev^epia. 

Of Isis as law-giver fifteen θεσμοί are alluded to in 11. 119-20 and two 
-προστάγματα in 11. 155-7. Her foundation of νόμιμα is described in 11. 203-5 and 
of θρησκια in 11. 244-5. ^^ saviour or benefactress she is called σώτζίρα in 11. 91 
and 2g^, avbpoauiTeipa in 1. ^^, σώζουσα in 1. 76, boTeipa in 11. 13 and 68, xapiToboTeipa 
in 1. 10, αρίστη in 1. 99, αγαθή in 11. 51, 59, 95, ήττία in 11. ii and 86 (cf. 1. 155), 
Ήρόνοια in 1. 43 ; cf. 11. 155-7 ^^^ 24^-7• ορθωσία in 11. 39 and 98 probably refers 
to help in childbirth. Her son Horus is evepyeVi)? καΐ αγαθός (11. 246-7). Her 
identification with Abundance and Fortune is referred to in 11. 51 τύχη, 88 irara- 
φθονος, 99 iVTiXia, τ 34-5 τ5>ν τάς καλά? αγόντων ημίρα^ (νθηνία. Increase and 
decay were regulated by her (11. 174-7, 194-6). In particular she was the 
goddess of seas and rivers and protectress of sailors and travellers, as is shown by 
11.61 ττ€λάγονί κυρία, 6g κυβζρνητίί, i^ and 74 δρμίστρια; cf. the more detailed 
description in 11. 12 1-3. The Nile was her special charge (11. 125-6), with which 
river are coupled in 11. 222-6 the Eleutherus and Ganges. As champion and model 
of the female sex she is said in 11. 214-16 to have given women power equal to 
that of men, and in 11. 129-32 to be ev Όλύμττω Oea ζυττρζΤΓψ, κόσμος θηλιών καΐ 
φιλόστοργοι (cf. 1. 12), providing sweetness in assemblies. She was the goddess 
of truth (1. 6;^ αλήθεια) and love (11. 109 άγάττη θ^ων, 28 άγάττ[η, 94 φιλία, 137 Μ'<^- 
€χθή$). The sorrows of Isis are well known, but in 1380 she is rather the goddess 
of joy, as is shown by her titles ευφροσύνη in 11. 19 and 31, L• Αήθη ιλαρά οφΐί in 
11. 127-8, and by the gladness which she affords to the gods and her votaries 
(11. 131-5, 157-9, 161-3, and 178-9). The invention, jointly with Hermes, of 
demotic writing, which is claimed by Isis in the los Inscr. 6-8, is alluded to in the 
title γραμματική in 11. 48 and 123, and λογιστική in 11. 27 and 124 perhaps refers to 
the discovery of arithmetic. She is also credited with the invention of weaving 
(11. 145-6) and wine (11. 179-83) ; cf. the more general phrases (ττίνοια in 11. 34 and 
6ο,φρόνησΐ5 in 1. 44, φρόνιμη in 11. II 7 and 124, κ€8νή in 1. 79, cvpeVpia inl. Si, and 
the account of Isis as ^νράτρια τιάντων in 11. 183-6. She is identified with the 
moon (1. 104), and the sun {ηλίου όνομα in 1. 112) ; cf. 11. 157-9. where she is said 
to bring the sun, and 221-2 and 232-4, two mutilated passages referring to Horus 
in connexion with the sun. With the stars she is connected in 11. 159-61 and in 
1. 235, where the Dioscuri are mentioned ; cf. lo Sothis in 11. 143-4• The institu- 
tion of the year of 365 days seems to be ascribed to her (11. 153-5 and 204-5). 
As goddess of the sky (11. 144-5) and light (11. 248-9, 295), she regulated winds, 
lightning, snow, rain, and especially dew (11. 172-4, 'i^JS^' 237-9). A curious 
phrase τηστοίαστι^ άνίμου και ζωψ διάδημα (11. 1 38-9 ; cf. 11. 193-4) is perhaps 
derived from the Egyptian, like ev rai? -ηανηγυρ^σι βόστρυχος in 1. 133 and των 



Θ^ων 'ApTTOKpaTLs in 11. 1 35-6. She was especially the goddess of immortality 
(I. 13), which she conferred upon her husband and brother Osiris (11. 242-3) and 
her son Horus (11. 246-7). Her recovery and burial of the former are mentioned 
in 11. 186-9, ^^^ h^*" appointment of Horus as successor of Osiris in 11. 209-14, 
250-2, and 263-8. As the goddess of mysteries she is called μύστι^ (1. iii) and 
χpησμ(ύbόs (1. 43), and is seen by her votaries (11. 152-3). Temples of Isis were 
appointed by her in all cities (11. 202-3), as is illustrated not only by 11. 1-119, 
but by special references to shrines or ceremonies at Busiris (11. 269-71), Όσί- 
pLbosabvTov (11. 161-3), Memphis (249), Heracleopolis (150-2), Abydos (1. 278), and 
an unknown town H[. .]ktos (11. 148-9). In the processions (Ι^οδίαι) of the gods 
she took the chief part (11. 136-7), being leader of the muses (II. 62 and 128). She 
was all-seeing {τταντόττίη^] in 1. 93,κατ07ΤΓΐ? in 1. 87, ττολυόφθαλμο^ in 1. 129). Other 
noteworthy titles, most of which are new as applied to Isis, are το άνω in 11. 38 and 
42, άττάτ€ΐρα in 1. 19, αφίσίς (φόδων in 1, 80, λωτοφορο? in 1. 40, μία in 1. 6, ττρωτον 
όνομα in 1. 143, and στζίχονσα in 1. 87. Uncertain titles occur in 11. 7, 17, 25-9, 
31, and 47, and much of the last four columns is obscure. Col. xii having only the 
beginnings of lines. 

The detailed list of places in which Isis was worshipped naturally adds much 
to the extant evidence on the subject (cf. Wiedemann, Herodots zweites Buck, 
190, Lanzone, Diz. di mitol. egiz. 813), and incidentally provides some valuable 
geographical information concerning the Delta, since the grouping of the places 
is more or less systematic. The section dealing with Upper Egypt is almost 
entirely lost, the first place mentioned being Aphroditopolis (1. i) or some other 
town in the vicinity of Memphis, which in 1. 2 is called by its old Egyptian name 
' the House of Hephaestus ' (Ptah). Proceeding northward along the main 
western branch of the Nile past Letopolis (1. 6) and the Prosopite nome (1. 8) to 
Naucratis (1. 19) and the Gynaecopolite nome (1. 21), the list turns eastward 
to Buto (1. 27), the Sai'te nome (II. 30-2), and the northern part of the central 
Delta (II. 33-7), then southwards to Bubastus (1. 37), Heliopolis (1. 38), and 
Athribis (1. 39). Again proceeding northward through the Phthemphuthite 
nome (1. 40) to Xois (1. 42), the list then shifts across to places in the Libyan 
nome far west of Alexandria (II. 43-5), then back to Phagroriopolis in the eastern 
Delta (1. 46) and other places in that quarter up to Tanis (1. 59). The coast east 
and west of Alexandria occupies 11. 60-73, Pelusium and the extreme north-east 
11. 73-6, after which the list turns to places outside Egypt. Besides a few nomes, 
about sixty-seven Delta towns are mentioned, including most of those found in 
Strabo or Ptolemy and several which were only known from Stephanus Byzantinus 
or the Geographus Ravennas and can now be located more definitely (II. 15 
Psochemis, i6Mylon,4i Teouchis, 69 Peucestis), and several that were previously 


unknown (11. 11 Calamisis and Carene, 13 Hierasus, 17 Ce. . culemis(?), 2% Peph- 
remis (= Papremis ?), 31 Caene, 40 Hiera, 47 Choatine, 54 Isidium, 64 Meniouis, 
70 Melais, 71 Menouphis; cf. 11. 4, 25, 31, and 66 where the names are new but 
uncertain). Alexandria is not mentioned, though a great Isis-temple there is 
known from 35 recto. 13. Perhaps the metropolis is accounted for by the 
mention of ' the Island ', if that of Pharos is meant (1. 68, note) , or it occurred 
without regard to its geographical position at the beginning of the list, which 
may, however, well have begun with Philae, or possibly the list was based on 
an ancient Egyptian one made before Alexandria was founded. 

The fifty-five places outside Egypt are naturally for the most part familiar, 
and are arranged with less regard to geography. Beginning in 1. 77 with Arabia, 
Asia Minor (11. 78-81), Cyrene, Crete, Chalcedon, and Rome (11. 81-3), Aegean 
islands (11. 84-5), Cyprus (11. 86-9) and some other places which for various 
reasons cannot be located with certainty (11. 89-92 ; Hypsele in 1. 92 is unknown), 
the list goes back to the frontier of Egypt and Palestine and mentions several 
towns on or near the Syrian coast (11. 93-9 ; Sinope in 1. 96 is out of place here). 
Then come Delphi (1. 99) and a rather mixed series of towns and countries 
including the Amazons (1• 102), India (1. 103), Persia (11. T04-6), and Italy 
(I. 109), the Hellespont and coast of the Aegean (11. 1 10-15), Syria again 
(11. 116-17), and finally an unknown Susa on the ' Red Sea ' (11. 118-19). 

Altogether the papyrus, in spite of its imperfect condition, supplies a fairly 
comprehensive and vivid picture of Isis-worship in the first century when that 
Graeco-Egyptian cult had become a world-force. It is an intentionally archaic 
kind of composition, as is clear on comparison with 1381, which, though also 
a composition in praise of a Graeco-Egyptian deity and professing to be concerned 
primarily with the translation of a hieroglyphic roll, is much more Greek than 
Egyptian in character and style, illustrating the rapid decline of ancient Egyptian 
influences, even in matters of religion, under the Romans. The author of 1380 
was no doubt a priest of Isis, possibly at Oxyrhynchus, where Isis had a separate 
temple (43 verso, ii. 16), but more probably at Memphis, which not only is 
dignified by an unusual name in 1. 2 (cf. p. 203), and singled out in 1. 249, but 
affords a connecting link with the text on the verso ; cf 1381, introd. 

In the text the high stops represent those in the original, the commas are 
inserted by us. For assistance in connexion with the ancient Egyptian evidence 
concerning Isis and Imhotep-Asclepius we are indebted to Mr. F. LI. Griffith and 
with regard to Alexandrian coins to Mr. J. G. Milne. 

Ο 2 



Col. i. 

\την kv 'Αφροδίτη? ?] noXei 'Ove- 

[ • την kv τω] ^Ηφαίστου οϊκω 

[ 14 letters ]χμζννιν• την 
[kv 12 letters ]6φ€ΐ Βονβασ- 

5 [tivj κ]αλονμίνην• την 

[kv Λητ]ονς [7r]6[Xe]i [ττ}] μίγάλτ} μίαν, 

[ ]ίθί/• την kv 'Αφροδίτη? ττό- 

[λ€ί το]ν Προσωπ[ί]τον στολαρ)(€ί- 
[δα,] πολύμορφον, Άφροδίτην την 

ΙΟ [eJTTi του Δίλτα χαρκΤθδώτ€ΐραν• 
[k]v Καλαμίσι ήπιαν kv ττ} Καρή- 
[ν]η φιλ[6]στοργον' kv Trj NeiKiov 
[α\θάνα(το)ν, δότ^ιραν kv τω ^Ι^ράσω 
[ "[αθροΐχιν kv Μωμίμ- 

15 [04 άνασ•]σαν' kv Ψωχιημ^ι [ό]ρμίσ- 
[τριαν]' kv Μύλων t ανασ[σα]ν' την 
[kv] Ke . . κυλημι [. .]την• την kv 
[Ερ]μο[ν 7Γ]όλ€ί καλλίμορφον, lepav 
[τη]ν kv Νανκράτ€ΐ αιτάτ€ΐραν, ξύφρο- 

2θ [σν]νην, σώτβιραν, παντοκράτζίραν, 
[μ]€γίστην' kv Ν[ι]θίντ} του Γυναικο- 
[πο]λ€ίτου Άφροδξίτην kv Πζφρή- 
[μι] Ίσιν, άνασσαν, Έστίαν, ^ανασσαν^ 
[κυ]ρ€ίαν πάση? χώρα?• ^την ίν Χνοιί^ 

Col. ίί. 

25 την kv Εσ[ ] . [ ]ν, 

"Ηραν, δία[ν, ]υ[ •] kv 

Βουτώ λο[γιστίκήν, . . . .• k]v 

Θώνι άγάπ[ην ]ω χρ6- 

νω και άγω[.] . [ ]ην• kv 

30 τω ^αΐττ} ν[ι]κητ[ριαν, 'Α]θήνην, νύμφην 

kv Νηβζθ[ ] . [.]ιν' kv Kaivfj ίύ• 

φροσύνην[' k]v Χάι ' Ηραν, ανασ{σ)αν, Τ€- 
λ€ίαί/[•] €1/ 'ί[σ6£ω '1&\lv' kv ^ββξννύ- 
τω kπί[voιav, δυ]νάστίν, "Ηραν, ά- 

35 γίαί'[•] k[v] 'Ε[ρ]μοΰ πάλα 'Αφρ[ο]δ€ίτην, 
βασ[ί]λζΐσ[σαν, άγ€]ίαν• kv Αζΐο? 7γ[0]- 
λ€ύ Trj μ€ίκ[ρα] άνασ{σ)αν' kv Βουβά- 
στω το άνω' kv 'Ηλίου 7ί[6λ]€ΐ Άφρ/^ο]• 
δίτην kv 'Α[θ]ρίβ[ί] Μαΐαν, όρθωσίαν kv 

40 'Je/3a Φθ€μφ[θ]ού[τ]ου λω[τ]οφ6ρον' kv 
Τΐούχ^ί ίξράν, δυνάστ€ΐν' kv τοΐ? 
Βουκολζΰσι Μα.[ΐ]αν• kv 'αόι τ[ο] άνω, 
^ζ^ρησμωδ6[ν]• kv Καταβαθμω πρ{ο\- 
voLav kπl του "Απ^ω? φρ6νησιν\^] 

45 kπl Αξυκη? Άκτη? Άφροδξίτηγ, Μοΰ- 
γίν, Έσ€ρζμφ[ί\ν• kv Φραγουρων πό- 
Xe[i Ι^ίί'ί*] ^^ Χοατξίνιι 

3• μ οΐ^χμ^υνιν above the line. 10. ι of [ejm and χαρι- above et deleted. 1. χαριτο^ότΐψαν, 

II. First ι of καλαμ\.σι above et deleted. 13. τ of Soreipav corr. from p. 15• •■ of [ο]ρΐΛσ[τριαν above 

«deleted. 21. ^i of i'[i]^ivjy above the line. 23. ϊσιν n. ι of βσ-ηαν above ei deleted. 30. ω of 

τω above the line (?). 34. t of δυ]ναστΐν above « deleted. 34~5• >■ of αγιαν above ei (deleted ?). 

39. β[ι] of o[o]ptiS[i] above the line, and ai of μαιαν above e (deleted?). 

Col. iii. 

ν€ΐκήτρ[ιαν• kv γ]ραμ- 

ματ(:[ίκ]η[ν, • kv Κυνο?] π6λ€ί 

50 του Β ου[σ€]ι[ρ€]ίτ[ο]υ Πρα^[ί]δ[ί]κ[η]ν' 

Col. iv. 

70 ββρνήτιν kv Μξλαΐδί πολύμο[ρ- 
φον kv Μ[€]νούφί θ'τρ[α]τίαν[• kv 
Μξτηλίίττ} Κ[6]ρην' kπt Χάρακο? \Α- 



kv Bovaetpd τύ\ην, άγαθήν kv 
Έρμου 7r[o]\e[i] του Μίνδησίου ή- 
γ€μονί[8]α' kv Φαρβαίθω καλ- 
λίμορφ[ο]ν' kv τω Ίσιδιω του Se- 

55 θροΐτου άνδρασώτΗραν kv 

Ήρακλ([ους] πόλβι του ^βθροΐτον 
δυνάστι[ν•] kv Φ€ρνο[ύ\φι άνασσαν 
πόλ€ωΐ'[•] kv Λ€[ο]ντωπ6λ€ί ασ- 
πίδα, άγ[α]θήν• kv Τάνι yapHTo- 

60 μορφον, "ΗρΙα^' ^[τΓί] ^χβδία^ knC- 
νοιαν k[n]i τ[ο]ΰ Ήρακλίου πελάγους 
κυρ€ίαν[•] k[v] Κανώβω μουσανα- 
γωγόν kv Μ€ν[ο]ύθί άλήθιαν [k]y 
M€v[t]oifei 'loOs ^ κτίζεται π[. . .] . 

^5 [•JA'f/if^'W^ προκαθημ€ν[η]ν• knl του 
Μ[. .]yeaTLov μβγίστου γυπομορ- 
φον, Άφροδ[ζί]την• kv Ταττοσίρι 

θήνην kv Πλινθιντ) ΈστΙαν kv [ 
ΊΊηΧουσίω όρμίστριαν knl το[ΰ 

75 Κασίου Τα^^νήψιν knl του Έκ- 

\ κ] ρή{γ)ματο[9] Ίσιν, σώζουσαν kv ττ} 
Αραβία μίγάλην, θ^όν kv jfj [Νή- 
σω ί^ρωνικοτβλοϋσαν kv Λυκία 
Λητώ• kv Μύροί? τη? Λυκία? Κζδνήν, 

8ο kX€vee[pi]av• kv Κνίδω άφζσιν kφ\ό- 
δων, €ύ[ρ]€τρίαι/• kv Κυρήνρ Ίσιν' 
kv Κρήττ} Δικτυννίν kv Χα\κτι\δ]ό- 
VL Θβμιν kv 'Ρώμυ στρατίαν[• kv 
ταΐ? Κυκλά[σ]ί νήσοι? τριφυην, "Λρ,- 

85 τξμβιν kv [ΙΙ]άθμω yea, μ . [.]ίθ[. .- 
κη' kv ΤΙάφω ά-γνήν, δια, fjnia[' kv 
Χίω στ[ί])(ουσαν' kv ^αλαμ^ΐνι κα- 
τόπτιν kv Κύπρω ττανάφθο- 

ν[ο]ν[•'\ kv TTJ Χαλκιδίκτ] [α\γίαν• kv 
Θαυήστιν," Ηρ[α]ν, δώτ^ιραν kv ττ} Νή- go Trj Iliepi[a] ώραίαν['] kv τ[τ]] !4σ[[€]]Γα [ 
σω ταχυν[ί]κην• kv Π^υκξστίδι ι^υ- τριοδύτιν kni τη? Γϋτρα? σώ- 

Teipav kv 'Τψήλτ] μ^γίστην 

54~5• *^^θροίτον Π. 
κνβίρνητιν above ci deleted. 
80. f of €φ[ο\δων rewritten. 

8. 1. AeovTOTTOXei or Α€Οντω(ν^ πόλρι. 68. 1. δότΐφαν. 6g—'JO. t of 

73. ι of ίστιαι/ above €t deleted. 76. iatv n. 78. UpuviK. Π. I. ifpoviK. 
85—6. 1. v(av, . . . κην' . . . δίαν, ηπίαν. 

Col. V. 

kv 'Ρ€ΐνοκορούλοΐ9 τταντ6ττ\τιν• 

kv Λώροι? φιλίαν kv Χτ ρ[άτωΥ[ο? 

95 Πύργω 'Ελλάδα, άγαθήι[•] kv 
Άσκάλω κρατίστην kv Σινώ- 
πη πολυώνυμον kv 'Ραφ^α δυ- 
νάστιν kv Τριπόλβι όρθωσίαν kv 
Τάζη eonXeav kv Λζλφοΐ? άρίσ- 

ϊοο \σ]την, καλλίστην kv Βανβύκη Α- 
ταρ•γάτ€ΐ' kv Θρα^ι [κ^άν Λήλω πο- 
λυώνυμον kv Άμάζοι? στρατί - 

Col. νί. 

τάρτην kv ΙΙτολζμαϊδι φρονίμ[ην• 
kv Ρούσοι? τη? κατά την 'Ερνθρ[αν θά- 
λασσαν Χαρκοννιν[•'\ η και kv τοΐ[?] δΐ- 

Ι20 κάπαντι θεσμοί? Ιρμην^ύπ? πρώτισ^τα 
άνασσα τη? οικουμένη?• kniTpo- 
πον και όδηγον Θαλασ{σ)ίων καΐ ποτα- 
μίων στομάτων κυρίαν "/ράμμα- 
Τζίκήν, λογιστικήν, φροΐ'[ί]μην' 

125 την καΐ τον Νΐλον km π[άσ]αν )^ώραν 
kπavάγoυσap['] θ€ών πάντων το 



av kv Ινδοί? Maiav kv ΘβσσαλοΓί 
σξλήνην kv HkpaaiS Λατ^ίνην kv 

105 Μάτοι? Κόρην, Θαψ[€ }]νσιν' kv Hov- 
σοίί Νανίαν kv Φοίνικί 5'fp[[e]]ias 
6e6i• kv Ιΐαμοθράκτ] ταυρωπι?• 
kv Πβργάμω δξσττότις• k[v] Πόντω 
apiavTOS' kv 'Ιταλία ά[γά]τΓην θβ- 

ιιο ων kv ^άμω lepdv kv Έλλ7/[σ7Γ]οί/- 
τω μύστ€ΐν' k[v] Μννδω δ![α]ν' kv 
Βίίθυνξία Έλύνην kv T[e]yiSa> ή- 
λιου όνομα' kv Καρία Έκά[τ]τΐ' kv 
Τρωάδι καν Αινδνμτ] Τ[. .]β[ι]αν, 

115 ΙΙαλίντρα[ν], άββίβαστο[ν, Ίσ]ίν• 
kv Βηρυτω Meav kv ^βιδωνι Ασ- 

καλον ζωον την kv Λ\^^β■p Ιλα- 
ραν όψιν την μονσαναγωγόν 
τον πολ{ο]ν6φθαλμ[ο]ν['] την kv 

130 Όλννττω Oeav €ύπρ[^]πήν[•] κόσμον 
θηλ€ΐων καΐ φιλ6στ[ορ]γον[•] την kv 
ταΪ9 συνοδοί? ή δ ία? ^ύπορίαν 
την kv ταΐ? 7Γανη[γ]ύρ€σίν β6[σ\τρυ- 
)(^ον' των τα? καλά? αγόντων 

135 νΐΑ^]Ρ^^ €ύθηνίαν[•] την των θίών 
ΆρτΓΟκράτίν την kv ταΐ? των θ^ων 
ίξοδίαι? πάνταρ^ον, 1^:^^χ'^[η\γ' 
πίστοΐαστην άνεμου και ζωι- 
ή? δίάδτ]μα' k^ η? at €tK6ve[?] κα[1\ 

140 τα ζωα πάντων των θβων τ[οΰ 

Ι02. \. Άμαζόσι. ΙΟ3. iVSoty Π, αι of /χαιαμ above e deleted. 104. Above e of π6/3σαί5 α (?) 

deleted. 105. 1, Mayois. θ of βαψ[ί'\νσιν corr. from τ (?). io6. ι of vaviav above f deleted. 

107. ueos. Π. ; 1. βΐόν, . . . τανρωπιν. Io8. 1. δΐσπότιν. lOp. ι of αμίαντος, above ft deleted; 1. -τον. 

III. ρ of μννδω COTT. II3. 1. Έκα[τ]ί;ι/. Il6. ]. Matav. I20. ι of -παι/τι above et deleted. 

I. SfKUnevre. eveis οί (ρμψΐνΐΐί above the line. 124. First I of λογιστίκί^ι/ above et deleted. 129. 1. την 

for roi/. 130. \. Όλνμπω. I 37. *■ οΐ μί.σίχθ[η]ν ahove ei {?). 

Col. vii. 

Col. viii. 

όνόματο? σου λ . ρατιαπρ\ 165 ϊ'9Μ?"^'(*) Γ^ ^^ 9 • • • [• 

as 'ίγοντα προσκυνΐταί^•] κ\υρ'\{α Ίσι, μ\<ί- ytt . [. .] . ονταΐ' το σου [. 

γίστη Θζων, πρώτον όνομα, Ίοΐ 
Χώθί' το μ€ταίωρον κρατύ? κ\α\ 

145 ο,μ\^τρητον(^) ?[''Ό.''9^ί5" ί^?' Ί^ [•] ' Η\.' ~ 
Θωτα ύφήναί• συ και τα? σωα[? γυ- 
ναίκα? άνδράσι συνορμισθ[ήν]αι 
θύλι?• οι πρβσββι? απαντά? k[v] Η[. . 
κτω θ(υ)ουσι• viai άπασαι αϊ ..[...]. ε- 
ι 50 [. .]σαι kv ^Ηρακλίου? πόλβί φ[^ρ]ογ- 
ται kπι σου και ζκτ\.σαν σοι την 
γωραν ορωσι σ\ οι κατά το πιστον 
kπικaλoύμ€yoι^ e| S>v k[.] . δ[. .] κατά ά- 
ρ^τήν των συν^στηκυιών ήμ€- 

τ[. . .] κασ . νουβαν δ[ι]α 

...[..]. ρ . [.]ν• άπ€δ€ΐξ[α]? το . και 

[•••■]' Λ' λψ[-''''']•-'/ΐ'ίη'' 

I'jo ..[..]. και την γήν σπορίμην 
[..].. ασα[.] άπαντα τον βίον 

[• •] • [•] •[•]••[ ] • ττπ^^^Χν 

Τ€λ . . Κ . . . . [k]πιvooϋσa την δρό- 

Ο'ον[•] και τά . . . [.]μ€να πάντα{'] και 

175 φθοράν 6ΐ? θΐλι? δίδοι?, τοΐ? δξ 

καθίφθαρμ^νοι? αϋξησιν δί- 

δ[οι?,] και άπαντα δ[ια]καθαίρ€ΐ?' 

πάσαν ήμ(ρ[αν] jfj ζύφροσύντ) κα- 



155 ρων τξζ• ηπύα σου και ^vSictX- 
XuKTOs f} χά/ρί? των S[v\o ττροσ- 
ταγμάτων['] ηΧίον άπ άνατοΧ^^ 
μ^χρί δνσ€ω9 συ €7Γί0€/θ€[ί]9 k\cu\ oXol 
€ύφραίνοντα[ι o]l θζοί' αστρ\α)\ν α- 
ϊ 6ο νατοΧαί^ σ\ ακάματοι προσκυνοϋσιν 
οι €πί\ώριοι καΐ τα άΧΧα lepa ζώ- 
α kv τω Όσίρίδο? άδυτω, ίΧαροι γβί- 
νονταί όταν cre[[i/TI ονομάσωσιν 
οΐ . [. .] δ\α]ίμον^^ υπήκοοι σοι [γ]ί- 

τ[€]8ιξα9' συ κ[.] . [.]α[. .]α σύρουσα 
1 8ο οίνου πάν το . [.] . [.]«[.] παρ€σχ€9 [[. .]] 
πρώτον kv tols των θξών πα- 
νηγύρισιν €7γ . . . [.]τοα και €ύ- 
X^ais και ίπικαν ..[..•] συ πάντων 
υγρών και ^ηρών και ψ[νχ]ρών' ΐξ ων 
185 άπαντα συν€στηκ€ν[•] βύρζτρια 

π[ά]ντων ζγ€νήθη9['] συ τον aScX- 
φόν σο[υ βπα]νή[γ]αγβ? μόνη κυβζρ- 
νήσασα καλώ? και ίύαρμόστω? 
θάψασα[• συ του άγ]αθοΰ δαίμονος 

142. /χ of //[ejytoT-r; above ot (?) deleted. 143. ϊοι π. 144. ]. μΐτΐωρον. ΐ45• Second € of 

f[7rt]i/oety above the line. 146-7. κα of yv]miKas corr. 151. I- of em and (κτισαν above ei deleted. 

152. p of ορωσι above 7Γ deleted and t above the line. 153. δ (or δ[.]) above the line. 161. 'Upa n. 

164. υπήκοοι π . I'j6. \. καηφθαρμίνοΐί, iSl. \. nnvqyiipeaiv. 182. ο of Iroa above ρ deleted. 

182-3. 1• ^^xais (?). 184. vof ^\yx\pa>v above the line. 

190 >c . [ 

σιΐ . 

Col. ix. Col. X. 

ησα9' κα[1 kv τω] άδυτω rj\. . .^ίνη- 

] . υ . p[ σα? ίθντι [ 15 letters ]op<iv 

α . [ ] TToAei κα\. .] . *ϊ^*'[•] • ^ βασίΧισσα ηρ .[.].. . ι{. . J\vti 

/c[.] . [ ληυ^ησα^' J7[y]^- κυρία 

μ\ο\γ\^ διαδημάτων αυ[^Υισζ\ω^ ^t[p^peXoϋσa πάσαν χώραν [. . . σ]οϋ 

195 KOU φθοράς κα\1 . . .^ήσ^ω^ κ\αΙ .] . . η\σ^- 2 2θ τ[αΓ ]y πτ^ρυ^[ϊ\ν' υ ...[.]. τ[. . .\μον 

ω? κυρία' συ του πα . . ν[. .] τα- 

Φνί 4• •lai'ay •[•••]• .'?['] ?"ί^ [•••]• 
αστω .... Όσιρ[. .] π . . . ν . [. . . . 
και ..[..]...[. .]τα ίστιν e[. . . . 

200 σα?(•) συ τα πάντα ... μ ..[... . 
και τα πάντα προ9 δια . ο . . [. . .]ρ[. . 
σα?• Ίσΰα 7Γασαί[?] πόΧβσιν e/? τον [άπαν- 
τα χρόνο[ν ΐ{ατ]€σ[τ]_7;σα?• κ[αι π]ασ[ιν] 
τα νόμιμα κ[αι €]νι αυτόν Τ€Χι[ον π]α- 

205 ρ€δωκα5['] κ[αΙ . . .] . άφωνα πασι ο . . . [. 
σ6[.]€ί[.] . α κ[ατα α]παντα τόπον[•] kv 
πάντζί το π[. . . .] ΐδιξας προ? το ί- 

kστιv'' το κ\_''\ρ[Μ ο ύφβστη[κζ . .] . « ήΧιον 
*/2/ο[. .] α[. . . .]υτον[• σ]ύ τή[ί] γη[ς κυ]ρία 
α . ρ[. . . . πΧή]μμυραν ποταμών 
τ[.] ..[.].[... .]τ) αγ€ί?• και τοΰ kv Αι- 

2 25 Ύ^πτω Ν€[ί'λο]ΐ', k[v δ]€ ΤριπόΧι ΈΧζυθί- 
ρου, kv δ\ TTJ Ίνδικγι Τά-γγου' καΐ {το} 
δι ην το πάν κ\αι τ]ό kvK^p . . ν kστιv δια 

τού ομβρου και πα[σ]7;? πηγής και πά- 
[στ;]? δρόσου κα\1 χι\όνο9 και πά- 

23° ?ν? λ[.]σί[ω]? κα[ι γ]ή9 και θαΧάσσηί[•] 
συ και πάντων δ^σπότΐί Ισαΐί• 



Seyai ιτάν\τα^ ανθρώπους δη συ r .[..]. . ^[.]ay πάγτα9 τοϋ πόλου 

[.]αν . ουνα[. . .] . αρα σοΰ' συ τον υί- τον . [.]€ον ' Slpov eiy ήλιον . [.] .[..]. 

210 όν σ[ο'\υ' Slpov 'Απ6}0<ωνα^ν^ ττ\α\ντη κύρί- . . [.]θ7[.]ΐ' πλ^ΐον χά>ραν πάν ^Ωρο9[•] 

ον veov το\ρ πά]ντο9 κόσμου και 235 (^[υ] Δίοσκού\ρ . . . .]ω . . /d . ζποίησα^' 

απ . . . . κ[. . . .] . ν ^TJ'CiO'ayJ^ [. . . T]fjv 

a λην [πά]σαν' e/s τον απ[αντα] 

νον \κ\ατίστησα^' συ yi'fai|i[i/] 
215 'ίσην δύναμίν των ανδρών ϊ[ποί- 

σα[ ] κατά . ον[. .] τροφής παν 

. ο . [. . .]ρ[.]ωΐ' ηνξη[σα]9• σύ άνίμων 
κα[ί βρ]οντών καΐ αστραπών και 
)(6ίόνων το κράτος e^eis* συ στρα- 
240 Teias και ηγεμονίας κυρία τους €ύ- 
κόπω9 διαφθείρεις πιστοΐς βου- 
Χζύμασιν συ τον μίγαν [Ό]σιριν 
άθάνατο[ν €ποί]τ)[σ]α[ς] . [ 

202. ϊσίΐα π. e of πόΚΐσιν corr. from υ (?) and e of €ty above the line. 206. α of ] . α above the 

line. 208. ι of ori. above ei deleted. 213. « of eis above the line. 215. ϊσψ Π. 2i8. at in 

the margin. ]i'jy above the line. 221. ϋφβστί?[ Π. e before j/Xtoz^ above the line. 226. ou of 

yayyov corr. 227. bt ην \n the margin and το above the line. 232. ν πολον above five deleted 

letters. 237. ο of . . [ above the line. 239-40. Second e of (χας and « of στρατιάς above the line. 
1. τους (rvpaviOvs); cf. p. 220. 241. € of 8ιαφθ(φΐΐς above the line in both cases. 

Col. xi. 
και πάστ) χώρα τ[.] . τ[ πα- 

245 ρ^δωκας θρήσκ[ι]α [ 

ομοίως δβ και ' ί2ρ[ον] τ[.] . [. . . .]ο? eu- 
ζργίτην γ€νάμ€[νον] και αγαθόν 
συ κ[α]1 φωτός κα[1] φλ[€]γμάτων κυ- 
ρία' συ ev Μίμ[φ]ι . [.] . [•]€[ί]9 [ά]δυτον' 

250 'ίΐρος προκρίνας οτ[ί\ €[ποί]ησας αυ- 
τού διάδοχον . «[. .] . f[. .] θρο- 
νιστής' X/"7f[/i]^[5 .].[•• .yXr}v 

τα ζπιστρα[ ]τ ' [ ]ασιαι 

ττ[ ]r}[ ]«[•]?■«»'• 

255 καΐ [ ]ί και θ[. . .] κατάγΗς τοις 

/c[ ]y . απ . [. .]^ιν και άγίαν 

€ύ[ ]ν κατ[ηύ]ξησας κράτος 

f[ ]τα . , . . αι [ά]βουλίαις 

[ ] . σασ ...[.] κζλξύουσα 

Col. χϋ. 



2 75 ι<[α]ί [ 

τι τη[ 

η Τ€ρατα['] e . [ 

iepa> και πολ€[ 

βυδον θύραν [ 
28ο συ ή κτίσασα iv [ 

φώναντον κα[ 

λ€ . €θ€ΰ• και α[ 

την (ύθΐαν τ[ 

συ ίκτισας . . • [ 
285 καΐ [k^y TTJ προσ[ 

τααβδ^ΰ' συ δ\_ 




260 a ay6[, . . .] . V τα άνάφορα ττάν- f^. ••••[•]• ? 

τα τ[.]ρμίνων πάντων .... συ yai'[•] • • 

των κα\1 ] ττάντων 290 των . . [ 

θ^ων κ[. . .]α9 8ιά8ογον αύτ[ο\ν k- knoiriaas τον [ €ί9 

ποίησ{α^•\ και τον τ . [.] . ρον [.] . [[. σασ]] τον αιώνα]^ν'^' [συ 

265 βυ[.]τί[. . . π]άν[τ]ων θρόνου κύρι- σώτιρα- συ . [ 

ον καΐ γ^ρησμω8ον βασιλία νουσα ί8ρυμ[α 

κατ^[σ]τησα9 knl του πατρίου 295 σι) και το φω? τ[ 

οίκου €19 τον άπ[αν]τα χρόνον' οιω^ανζΰ' 1\[ 

€πά σο\υ\ €Κ τριών το kv Β ου- του- [σ]ύ €παυξ[ 

2^0 σίίρι iepbv το καλούμξνον άσ€β[€Ϊ]9 [κ]αι υ[ 
Β[."'.] ...[...].. 0U άν[. .]..[...]• 

250. ι of πρηκρινας above «. 250-Ι. τ of αντον COTT. from δ. 269. 1. «τί. 

296. « of οιωία^υ above η (οΓ κ?) deleted. 

' ... at Aphroditopolis One- . . . ; in the House of Hephaestus chmeunis ; 

who at . . . ophis art called Bubastis, . . . ; at Letopolis Magna one, . . . ; at Aphroditopolis 
in the Prosopite nome fleet-commanding, many-shaped, Aphrodite; at Delta giver 
of favours; at Calamisis gentle; at Carene affectionate; at Niciu immortal, giver; at 
Hierasus . . . athroichis ; at Momemphis ruler ; at Psochemis bringer to harbour ; at 
Mylon ruler ; at Ce . . culemis . . . ; at Hermopolis of beautiful form, sacred ; at Naucratis 
fatherless, joy, saviour, almighty, most great; at Nithine in the Gynaecopolite nome 
Aphrodite ; at Pephremis Isis, ruler, Hestia, lady of every country ; at Es . . . Hera, 
divine ; at . . . ; at Buto skilled in calculation, . . . ; at Thonis love . . . ; in the Saite nome 
victorious, Athena, nymph ; at Nebeo . . . ; at Caene joy ; at SaVs Hera, ruler, perfect ; at Iseum 
Isis ; at Sebennytus inventiveness, mistress, Hera, holy ; at Hermopolis Aphrodite, queen, 
holy ; at Diospolis Parva ruler ; at Bubaslus of old ; at Heliopolis Aphrodite ; at Athribis 
Maia, supporter; at Hiera in the Phthemphuthite nome lotus-bearing; at Teouchis 
sacred, mistress ; among the Bucoli Maia ; at Xois of old, oracular ; at Catabathmus 
providence; at Apis understanding; at Leuce Acte Aphrodite, INIouchis, Eseremphis; 
at PhagroriopoHs . . . ; at Choatine victorious ; at . . . skilled in writing, . . . ; at Cynopolis 
in the Busirite nome Praxidice; at Busiris fortune, good ; at Hermopolis in the Mendesian 
nome leader ; at Pharbaethus of beautiful form ; at Isidium in the Sethroite nome saviour 
of men ; at Heracleopolis in the Sethroite nome mistress ; at Phernouphis ruler of cities ; 
at Leontopolis serpent, good ; at Tanis of gracious form, Hera ; at Schedia inventiveness ; 
at Heracleum lady of the sea; at Canopus leader of the muses; at Menoulhis truth; 
at Meniouis seated before lo in whose honour ... is founded ; at Μ . . enestium most great, 
vulture-shaped, Aphrodite; at Taposiris Thauestis, Hera, giver; in the Island swiftly- 
victorious ; at Peucestis pilot ; at Melais (.?) many-formed ; at Menouphis warlike ; m the 
Metelite nome Core; at Charax Athena; at Plinthine Hestia; at Pelusium bringer to 
harbour; in the Casian district Tachnepsis ; at the Outlet Isis, preserver; in Arabia great, 
goddess ; in the Island giver of victory in the sacred games ; in Lycia Leto ; at Myra in Lycia 
sage, freedom ; at Cnidus dispeller of attack, discoverer ; at Cyrene Isis ; in Crete Dictynnis ; 
at Chalcedon Themis; at Rome w^arlike; in the Cyclades islands of threefold nature, 


Artemis ; at Patmos young, . . . ; at Paphos hallowed, divine, gentle ; in Chios marching ; 
at Salamis observer ; in Cyprus all-bounteous ; in Chalcidice holy ; in Pieria youthful ; in 
Asia Avorshipped at the three ways ; at Petra saviour ; at Hypsele most great ; at Rhino- 
colura all-seeing ; at Dora friendship ; at Stratonos Pyrgos Hellas, good ; at Ascalon 
mightiest ; at Sinope many-named ; at Raphia mistress ; at Tripolis supporter ; at Gaza 
abundant ; at Delphi best, fairest ; at Bambyce Atargatis ; among the Thracians and in 
Delos many-named ; among the Amazons warlike ; among the Indians Maia ; among the 
Thessalians moon ; among the Persians Latina ; among the INIagi Core, Thapseusis ; at 
Susa Nania ; in Syrophoenicia goddess ; in Samothrace bull-faced ; at Pergamum mistress ; 
in Pontus immaculate ; in Italy love of the gods ; in Samos sacred ; at the Hellespont 
mystic ; at Myndus divine ; in Bithynia Helen ; in Tenedos name of the sun ; in Caria 
Hecate ; in the Troad and at Dindyma . . ., Palentra (?), unapproachable, Isis ; at Berytus 
IMaia ; at Sidon Astarte ; at Ptolemais understanding ; at Susa in the district by the Red Sea 
Sarkounis ; thou who also interpretest first of all in the fifteen commandments, ruler of 
the world ; guardian and guide, lady of the mouths of seas and rivers ; skilled in writing and 
calculation, understanding ; who also bringest back the Nile over every country ; the 
beautiful animal of all the gods ; the glad face in Lethe ; the leader of the muses ; the 
many-eyed ; the comely goddess in Olympus ; ornament of the female sex and affectionate ; 
providing sweetness in assemblies ; the lock of hair (?) in festivals ; the prosperity of observers 
of lucky days ; Harpocratis of the gods ; all-ruling in the processions of the gods, enmity- 
hating; true jewel of the wind and diadem of life; by whose command images and animals 
of all the gods, having ... of thy name, are worshipped ; Ο lady Isis, greatest of the gods, 
first of names, lo Sothis ; thou rulest over the mid-air and the immeasurable ; thou devisest 
the weaving of ... ; it is also thy will that women in health come to anchor with men ; all the 
elders at Ε . . ctus sacrifice ; all the maidens who ... at Heracleopolis turn (?) to thee and 
dedicated the country to thee ; thou art seen by those Avho invoke thee faithfully ; from whom 
... in virtue of the 365 combined days ; gentle and placable is the favour of thy two 
ordinances ; thou bringest the sun from rising unto setting, and all the gods are glad ; at the 
risings of the stars the people of the country worship thee unceasingly and the other sacred 
animals in the sanctuary of Osiris, they become joyful when they name thee ; the . . . spirits 
become thy subjects ; . . . (174-89) and thou bringest decay on what thou wilt and to the 
destroyed bringest increase, and thou purifiest all things ; every day thou didst appoint for 
joy ; thou . . . having discovered all the . . , of wine providedst it first in the festivals of the 
gods . . . ; thou becamest the discoverer of all things wet and dry and cold (and hot) of which 
all things are composed ; thou broughtest back alone thy brother, piloting him safely and 
burying him fittingly; . . . (193-6) leader of diadems ; lady of increase and decay and of 
. . . (202-17) thou didst establish shrines of Isis in all cities for all time; and didst deliver 
to all men observances and a perfect year ; and to all men ... in every place ; thou didst 
show ... in order that all men might know that thou . . . ; thou didst establish thy son 
Horus Apollo everywhere the youthful lord of the whole world and ... for all time ; thou 
didst make the power of women equal to that of men ; and in the sanctuary thou didst . . . 
nations . . . (222-31) thou, lady of the land, bringest the flood of rivers . . ., and in Egypt 
the Nile, in Tripolis the Eleutherus, in India the Ganges ; owing to whom the whole and 
the . . . exists through all rain, every spring, all dew and snow, and all . . . and land and 
sea ; thou art also the mistress of all things for ever; . . . (235-52) thou madest the . . . of 
the Dioscuri ; . . . thou hast dominion over winds and thunders and lightnings and snows ; 
thou, the lady of war and rule, easily destroyest tyrants by trusty counsels ; thou madest 
great Osiris immortal, and deliveredst to every country . . . religious observances ; likewise 
thou madest immortal Horus who showed himself a benefactor . . . and good ; thou art the 
lady of light and flames; thou ... a sanctuary at Memphis; Horus having judged before- 


hand that thou hadst appointed him successor (of his father) . . . enthroning him, . . . 
(265-70) thou didst establish him lord of the throne and oracular king over his father's 
house for all time ; in thy honour out of three temples that at Busiris called . . .' 

1-3. The 'House of Hephaestus' in 1. 2, which was clearly in the neighbourhood of 
the southern apex of the Delta (cf. 11. 7 sqq.), no doubt refers to the Hephaesteum at 
Memphis (Strabo, p. 807), being apparently used as a name of the city, like the Egyptian 
Hat-ka-ptah, ' the temple of the divine personality of Ptah ' (Wiedemann, Herodots zweites 
Buck, p. 47). The worship of Isis at Memphis is again mentioned in 1. 249, where she is 
said to have a special ahvTov there ; cf Hdt. ii. 176. According to Diod. i. 22 and Euseb. 
Praep. Evang. ii. i her tomb was at Memphis, according to Lucian, Adv. ind. 14, her hair, 
and she appears on the coins of the city and nome. That the author of 1380 was himself 
a priest of Isis at Memphis is not unlikely; cf. p. 195. \μίννιν in 1. 3 is an Egyptian 
appellation like e, g. Ύαχνη>\ην in 1. 75 (? Ύα\χμΐννιν), and one or two other titles are lost in the 
lacuna. Since the list of towns proceeds in a northerly direction, JTroXet in 1. i would 
be expected to be not far south of Memphis, and "Κ^ρο^[ττ]ί\ πάλα, the capital of the Aphro- 
ditopolite nome {Α/β/ή is more likely than NeiAou] noXei, which is placed by Ptolemy in the 
Heracleopolite nome a little north of the capital, or Ήρακλίου'ς] πόλ(ΐ (Ehnasia). Another 
'Αφροδίτης πόλΐΓ (1. 7, note) is distinguished by the mention of its nome. If, however, as is 
possible (cf. U. i8, 70, 73, 87, 96, 116, notes), the geographical order is not beiiig strictly 
adhered to in 11. 1-2, a town in the Heliopolite nome, which adjoined the Memphite on the 
north-east, might be meant. Heliopolis itself occurs in 1. 38, and Heroonpolis {Tell el 
MaskMta; Naville, Pithovi, p. 6) is too far away to be suitable, but the ΆφροΒίτης πόλις 
which is coupled with Heliopolis in P. Tebt. 313. 2, if it was in the Heliopolite nome and 
different from the town of that name in the Prosopite nome (1. 7), may be referred to, 
or, possibly, Letopolis, if that town does not occur in 1. 6, where it is expected. 'Oi/e- in 1. i 
is probably the beginning of another Egyptian title like ]χμίί>νιρ, &c., the first syllable perhaps 
representing un as in Όννωφριχ = Un-nefer, ' good being'. A proper name Όνης Avith gen. 
'Oveovs occurs e. g. in P. Par. 5. xl. 4-5. With Oveiov πόλις {Tell el Yahudia) or "Q-v, the 
Egyptian name of Heliopolis, there is not likely to be any connexion. 

4. 'όφει : the doubtful ο might be σ, but not /x, so that ^\ί\μφζΐ is inadmissible, even 
apart from the probability that the ' House of Hephaestus ' means the town as well as the 
temple ; cf. the preceding note. ]o0is was presumably in the Memphite or Letopolite nome. 
The Coptic town Shetnoufi {Shataniif), about ten miles north of Letopolis, seems to 
be different. 

4-5. Υίο{,βασ\τιν : in Hdt. ii. 156 ΒούβαστιςΪ5 equated {ο'Άρτψις and made the daughter 
of Isis. ' The identification of Isis with the cat-headed goddess Bubastis occurs also in P. Brit. 
Mus. 121. 496, and cf 1. 37, note. Βονβασ[τίτον is unlikely owing to the absence of the 
article (cf 11. 8 and 21, though later, in 11. 40 and 71, the article is omitted with nomes), 
and because Bubastus comes in 1. 37. κ]αλονμ€νην is not used elsewhere after titles in 1380. 

6. [eV Αητ]οίς [ιτ]ό[λ€]ι [rfi] μ(γύλτ] : the name is uncertain and [iu . .]/χ'?σ[.] . [. .]' [π}] μ- can 
be read, but a mention of Letopolis {Ausim) is expected between the Memphite and 
Prosopite nomes, and in this neighbourhood no other town likely to have been called ' the 
great ' is known, though that title is not elsewhere applied to Letopolis. 

μίαν. cf the common phrase efi Zeis• Σάραττί?, e.g. 1382. 20; Isis is called 'the only 
one' in her Egyptian titles (Budge, op. at. 277). Μ(ί.)ίαί', however, is possible; cf. e.g. 
1. 103 and Meai/ in 1. ii6. 

7-8. Aphroditopolis in the Prosopite nome is known from Strabo, p. 802 συνά^τ^ι U 

. . . και hi 6 Ώροσωπίτης νόμος, iv ω Αφροδίτης πόλις, and Pliny, Ν. Η. V. ΙΟ Blisins, CytlOpoh's, 

Aphrodites, Sais. The identification with Niciu, which according to Ptolemy was the 


capital of the Prosopite nome, was rejected by Wiedemann {op. cit. p. 195), rightly, as 1. 12 
shows. There is more to be said in favour of identifying it with the ^Ατάρβηχις of Hdt. ii. 41, 
which was in the ΏροσωπΙης vrjaos and had a temple of Aphrodite, but that view is also 
rejected by Wiedemann. Άτάρβηχις occurs elsewhere only in Steph. Byz., Avho omits this 
ΆφροΒίτης πόλΐί. The Prosopite nome apparently included a triangular island between the main 
Canopic (western) branch and the Φΐρμονθιακος ποταμός, which issued at the Sebennyte mouth, 
the northern limit of the nome being perhaps the ancient canal called Bahr el Fara'uma 
('Pharaonic river') which runs from east to west through Menu/; cf. Butler, Arab conquest 
0/ Egpyi, p. 16', But it also extended to the west bank, since Qepevovdn (Terrana) was 
included in it; cf. B. G. U. 453. 2, There are ruins of a large town at Zazvyei Razin on 
the Rosetta branch south-east oS. Menuf, which might belong to ΆφροΒίτης ηόλις. Mrs. Butcher 
{S/ory of the Church in Egypt) would identify them with Niciu (cf. 1. 1 2), but Butler (/. f.) 
follows Quatremere in placing that town, of which the Coptic name was Pshati, at Shabshir, 
where the canal joins the Rosetta branch, about six miles south of Ibshddi, which is identified 
with Niciu in a Graeco-Coptic- Arabic list of equivalents (Amdlineau, Ge'ogr. p. 283). Petrie 
{Naukt-atis,\, p. 93) puts Niciu at^/ Daharia, twelve or thirteen miles from Naucratis. The 
title * mistress of the fleet ' given to Isis at '.\φρο8ίτης πόλις shows that it had a harbour of some 
importance. The form στολαρχίς seems to be new. 

9. 'Αφρο81την : i. e. in Egypt usually Hathor, with whom Isis was often identified (cf. 
Drexler, op. cit. 494-9), Horus being identified with Eros. 

10. [ε]πΙ του AeXra : the writer tends to use eVt in place of eV when he is speaking of 
a town named after some natural object, e. g. in 11. 44 τοί'ΆπίωΓ, 45 Αενκψ Άκτης, 6o Σχ(8ίαί, 

6 I τονΉρακλίου, 74 τοΰ Κασίου, ^5 ''^^ Έκρηγματος, gi της Ώίτρας, hut he is not Consistent; cf. 

11. 43 fv Καταβαθμω, 54 eV τω Ίσώίω. With districts he uscs eu, e.g. in 11. 29 eV τω "Σαΐτη and 
71 [ev^ Μΐτηλίίττ] and frequently in 11. 76 sqq. Probably therefore τό Αίλτα is a town rather 
than a district and identical w-ith the κώμη rather than the χωρίον at the junction of the 
Canopic and Sebennytic branches described by Strabo, p. 788. τό Αίλτα in P. Rev. Laws 
xxxi. 6 is a district, but whether it corresponded to Strabo's χωρίον or was further north, as 
suggested by Hogarth {Journ. of Hell. Stud. xxiv. 2^^), or meant the Heliopolite nome, is not 
clear. On the whole it is probable that in xxxi. 6 Mei/ejXaiSt και Αίλτα together form the 
Ήιτριωτης of Ixi. 20 ; cf. 1. 21, note. Ptolemy's μίγα Δέλτα, μικρόν Α., and τρίτον Δ. are all 
east of the Prosopite nome. The stop after χαριτο8ώτ(ΐραν is not quite certain, as it might 
be a continuation of the cross-bar of the ν ; but though 1. 1 1 presents difficulties it does not 
seem possible to combine the first part of it into one long adjective. 

11-12. For ηπίαν cf. 1. 1 55. -η μίαν (cf. 1. 6) might be read, but the letter preceding η 
is more like t than τ. No place κάλάμισις is known from Greek writers, but both it and 
Καρη[ν]η apparently belong to the αλλαι πόλκς συχνοί in the Prosopitis referred to by Hdt. ii. 
41, and Colomos, which Geogr. Raven. 24 mentions next to Nicum (i.e. Nt/</ou : cf. 1. 12) is 
perhaps identical with ΚαΚάμισις, to which Kaliiib, near the Barrage, bears some resemblance. 
Καμμίσι could be read, but the division Κάμμι Σιη . . αν, treating the last word as an Egyptian 
title like Ταχνηψιν, is unlikely owing to the correction of the ι of -μι from et, for though 
irregular in his use of t and « in datives and frequently altering ei to i, the scribe does not 
elsewhere alter a correct ei. Καρήνη is only known as a town in Mysia. With φιλ[ό]στορ•γον 

cf. 1. 131 and the los Inscr. 24—5 «γώ υπό τέκνων γονΐΤς φίλοστοργΐϊσθαι ^νομοθέτησα. 

12. Tji Νίΐκίον : cf. 11. 7-8, note. 

13. Either [.]θ άγίαν 8ότεφαν ΟΓ [αθάνα(το)ν 8ύτ., Or άθανα(^σία)ν 8οτ. (aS One Or tWO WOrds) 

can be read. The incorrect form άθανασιαν8ότ(ΐραν would be similar to άν8ρασώτ€ΐραν in 1. 55 
and would refer to the immortality conferred upon Osiris and Horus by Isis through her dis- 
covery of TO της αθανασίας φάρμακον (Diod. i. 25 ; cf. 11. 242-3, 246-7) ; but 8ότηραν OCCUrS by 

itself in 11. 13 and 68 and is probably a separate word here. There are some traces of ink 


above the second av, but they seem to be accidental, θανάτοιο bornpa occurs in Hesiod, Op. 
354• [^]θαναν for Άθηνην, which occurs e. g. in 1. 30, is unlikely. 

τω Ίεράσω : this town, situated probably north of Niciu and not far from Momemphis 
(1. 14)) is unknown. 'Upaaa at Cyrene is mentioned by Steph. Byz. and 'Upaaos ποταμό! in 
Dacia by Ptolemy. 

14. ]αθροΊχιν : perhaps ΆθροΊχΐρ, for there is a blank space before a: but the surface of the 
papyrus is damaged, and e. g. Ύ^θρόίχιν (cf. Ύaχvη^l^ιv I 75) is possible. 

Μωμψ[φι]: cf. Hdt, ii. 163 and Strabo, p. 803, who in describing the voyage from 
Schedia (cf. 1. 60) to Memphis along the Canopic branch mentions the following places on 
his right, i.e. on the west bank, (i) Χαβρίον κώμη, i.e. probably the Χαφίου of Byzantine 

geographers, (2) Έρμου πόλις {DamanMr, cf. 1. 18), {^)Τνναικών πόλις και Τυναικοπολίτης vopos 
(cf. 1. 21), (4) (φ(ξψ be Μώμ(μφις κα\ Μωμ€μφίτηί νομός• μεταξύ δε διώρυγα πλ(ίους fls την 
Map€u)Tiv, (5) νπίρ δε Μωμ€μφΐως 8ύο νιτρίαί . . . κα\ vopos Νιτριώτης,{6) πολις MeWXaos (cf. 11. 21 

and 70, notes). ChampoUion's identification of Momemphis with Menu/ is accepted by 
Wiedemann {op. cit. 572) and Daressy {Rev. arch. ^^ s^r. xxv. 208), but not by 
Am^lineau {Ge'ogr. 250-1). This view would bring it within the Prosopite nome (cf. 
11. 7-8, note). Strabo's statement that there was a INIomemphite nome is at variance with 
the evidence of P. Rev. LaAVS and the coins of the nomes, and probably the Μωμιμφίτης was 
really a toparchy. From its position in 1380 Momemphis would be expected to be 
somewhat north-west of Niciu, and the name Menu/ suggests Μίνοίφις (1. 71, note) rather 
than Momemphis, though the identification of Mei/oi^ts with that Menil/ also presents 

15. ανασ\σαν'. Aphrodite was the chief deity of Momemphis according to Strabo, /. c ; 
but though \ψ can be read, there is not room for "κφροδΊτ\ψ. For Isis as queen cf. p. 192 
and 1. 82, note. 

<ί[(ύχήμίΐ : this place is no doubt identical with Steph. Byz. Ψώχεμμις πολιχνών Αϊγίπτου. 

*Αρτ(μί8ωρος iv ογδόω γ(ωγραφουμ€νων' κάϊ UfpiKeppis f< δβξιών μ(ρών κα\ θά\αβαχ>8η και Ψώχ. 

Probably it and the two places mentioned in 11. 16-17 were in the Gynaecopolite or Nitriote 
nome. The towns of the Saite nome apparently come in 11. 30-2, except Naucratis (1. 19, 
note). For [ό]ρ/χι'σ[τρίαι/1, Λvhich seems to be new, cf. 1. 74 eV Πτ^λουσιω όρμ. Psochemis 
apparently had a harbour of some importance, and may have been situated at the separation 
of the two branches leading to the Canopic and Bolbitic (Rosetta) mouths, i. e. at or near 
Ka/r el Zaydt. 

16. ΜυλωΐΊ: this town is known only from Steph. Byz. ΜυΚων πόλΐί Αίγΰπτου. Εκαταίος. 

17- Ke . . κνλημι Ι this town, which is likely to have been near Hermopolis Parva (1. 18 .?) 
or Naucratis (1. 19), is unknown ; cf. 1. 15, note. 

18. ['Ερ]μοϋ π]ό\€ΐ : the restoration is very uncertain, for Hermopolis ή μικρά {DamanJmr) 
would be expected to be mentioned as such in order to distinguish it from Herm.^ μ^γΟ^η in the 
Heptanomia, Herm. roi Μενδτ/σίου (1. 52), and Herm. near Buto (1. 35 ?). Moreover Hermo- 
polis Parva was north of Naucratis (1. 19) and probably of Nithine (1. 21, note), being in the 
ΆλεΙαι/δρεω!/ χώρα according to Ptolcmy, though this is not a very serious objection, for it was 
on the west bank of the Canopic branch (1. 14, note) and only twenty-four Roman miles from 
Nithine, and a change of direction from north-souih to east-west in any case takes place before 
1. 27. But there would be room for another letter in the lacuna after μο (or με), and perhaps 
an unknown town [. .^ff. . πψκ^ι was mentioned here, which, if it was south of Naucratis (1. 19) 
like Niciu (1. 12)^ and INIomemphis (1. 14), would not disturb the geographical^ order. 
Hermopolis Parva, however, if not mentioned here, was omitted altogether, unless it came 

in 1. 26. , f , • u I, 

19. ^αυκρίτίΐ: Nekrash, discovered by Petrie on the west side of the main branch, 
as correctly stated by Ptolemy but not by Strabo. In P. Rev. Laws Ix. 18 it is coupled with 


the Saite nome, as in Ptolemy, but it issued coins distinct from those of the Saite nome, the 
bulk of which was certainly on the east of the Canopic branch ; cf. 11. 30-2 and 1. 18, note. 

άπάταραν : the reading is practically certain, for though the vestiges of the first letter 
are very slight the second can only be π or η. The form is new. άπάτωρ occurs as an 
epithet of e. g. Hephaestus, but the point of its application to Isis is not clear. Elsewhere 
she is said to be the daughter of Cronos (i. e. Keb) and Rhea (Nut) ; cf. Plut. Be Is. et Os. 
12, Diod. i. 13, and the los Inscr. 11-12, while other legends made her the daughter of 
Hermes (Plut. /. <:.) or of Zeus (i. e. Amnion) and Hera (Diod. /. c). In 1380 Isis is often 
identified with Hera and Maia, the mother of Hermes. 

ΐΰ(^ρο\σν\)ψ '. cf. p. 193 and 'lady of joy and gladness' in her Egyptian titles (Budge 
op. cli. p. 277). 

21. N[i]5tw7 τον Γυΐ'αικο[7Γο]λεινου is no doubt Nithine of the Itin. Anton, between 
Hermopolis (cf. 1. 18, note) and Andro, stated to be twenty-four and twelve miles respectively 
distant from them in the itinerary from Pelusium to Alexandria, while a few lines later in the 
itinerary from Alexandria to Memphis Hermopolis is stated to be twenty-one miles from 
Andro, so that there would seem to be an error in the figures. Afidro, i.e. Άι/δρώι/ πόλιε, is 
generally considered to be identical with Τυναίκων πόλις and appears to have been at Kharbatd 
near Negila where tlie desert bends away to the west and canals lead to Lake Mareotis (cf. 
Strabo, p. 803 quoted in 1. 14, note, and Am^lineau, Ge'ogr, 221). Kum el Hisn and Kum 
A/riti, mounds south of Naucratis, may be identical with two of the places mentioned 
in 11. 15—17 and 21-3. 1380 agrees with the earlier authorities Strabo, Pliny (TV. H. v. 9. 9), 
and the coins (on which Isis or Hathor is represented) in mentioning the Gynaecopolite 
nome and ignoring the Andropolite, which is not mentioned before Ptolemy and P. Flor. 
278 (third century), but is commonly found in later writers on Egypt except Steph. Byz. 
Neither name occurs in P. Rev, Laws Ix-lxxii, and that '\ηο\ιτηι in xxxi. 4 is Τνναικο\πο\ίτηι, 
is very doubtful. ''Ά'Κιο\πο\ίτηι suits the size of the lacuna better, and would have the advan- 
tage of reducing the differences in the two lists of nomes to the correspondence between 
MerejXai'St και ΑίΧτα in xxxi. 5-6 and ^ίτριώτψ in Ixi. 20 ; cf. 11. 10 and 70, notes. Ptiht'n, 
which is found in Geogr. Raven. 12 among unknown places in the north-west Delta, is 
probably identical with Nithine, and n[t]^ti/;j could be read here, in which case the Itin. 
Anton., not the Geogr. Raven., would be corrupt. Pathanon was the Coptic name of the 
modern Βαίωιάη, between Tanta and Menuf^ but this is too far south for ΉιβΊνη, which 
suggests a connexion with the goddess Neith and may well be the correct form. The 
mention of the nome impHes that there was another Nithine in Egypt; cf. 11. 7-8, 40, 52, 
and 54, notes. 

22. ni0pjy[/xtl: this is very likely identical with the ΐΐάπρημις of Hdt. ii. 63 and iii. 12, 
which Wiedemann {op. cit. p. 264) places in the eastern rather than the western Delta, 
being the site of a battle between Inaros and the Persians. The position, however, assigned 

to the Papremite nome in the list Βονσιρίτης, Σαΐτης, Χ^μμίτης, Παπρ., νήσος ή ΤΙροσωπΐτΐ! 

καλίομίνη, Να^ω (Hdt. ϋ. 1 65) indicates that it lay near the middle of the Delta, but rather 
toward the west, i. e. between Tanta and Lake Borollos, and such a situation for Papremis 
would harmonize with the position occupied by Pephremis between the Gynaecopolite nome 
(1. 21) and Buto (1. 27). 

23. Εστία like Isis, was considered to be the daughter of Cronos and Rhea (Diod. 
i. 13). In late times she was identified with Demeter and Persephone, but not apparently 
elsewhere with Isis. 

24. [(culpetai/ πάσης χώρας: cf. 11. 1 25-6, note, and the los Inscr. 3-4 ΐγώ (Ιμι η τ[νρανν\ος 

πάσης χόρας. The deleted Χνου seems to be the beginning of an unknown town named after 
the god Χνονβις (Chnum). Χνοϋβις in the Thebaid is placed by Ptolemy opposite Latopolis 


25. Εσ[ . . . : no suitable name for this town, which is likely to have been near Buto 
(1. 27), is known. Eschetia occurs in a Coptic list of bishoprics next to Naucratis, but this 
may refer to Σχίδία : cf. Amelineau, Ge'ogr. p. 172. The doubtful σ might be ο or ω, but not 
λ or p, so that Έλ[ίυσΐΐΊ and Έρ[/χοϋ πόλίΐ (cf. 1. 18, note) are excluded. 

26. For "Ηρα»/ cf. e. g. 1. 32, and for δ/αΓι/ 11. 86 and 1 1 1. The α ofHpai/has apparently 
been prolonged above the v, perhaps by an afterthought. On the identification of Isis with 
Juno cf. Diod. i. 25 and Drexler, op. cit. 513-15. With what Egyptian goddess Hera was 
generally identified is not clear. A cataract inscription (C. I. G. 4893) identifies her with 
Satis. αμία\ν\τον iv (e above the line) At .[ is a less satisfactory reading, and ί\ν | Μίΐ/δ(»;τ)ί a[ is 
inadmissible, but iv e^olu[et, which in Roman times superseded Mendes, may have followed 


27. The supposed β of Βουτώ is very doubtful, but that town is expected about this 
point. Its site has not yet been located with certainty, but Hogarth {op. cit. p. 4) accepts 
Petrie's proposal {Naiikratis, i, p. 91) to identify it with Tell F era in. The name seems to 
have survived in the village of Ebtti. Hermopolis, Avhich according to Strabo, p. 802, was 
near Buto, apparently comes later; cf. 1. 35, note. According to Hdt. ii. 156 Leto, i.e. 
Uat, a winged-serpent goddess, protectress of Lower Egypt (Wiedemann, op. cit. p. 263), 
was the chief deity worshipped there, but \4ja does not suit the vestiges of the second 
letter, which seems to be round, and for λο'γιστικην cf. 1. 124. Αητώ, however, may have 
followed; cf. 1. 79. 

28. θώνι: the reading is fairly certain. Strabo (p. 800) places it on the strip of coast 

between Pharos and the Canopic mouth ro 5e παΚαών κάΊ θώνίν rtvn πάλιν ενταύθα φασιν, 
ίπώνυμον τον βασιλέως τοϋ 8(ξαμΐνον MfviKaov τ€ και Έλίνην ξενία : cf. Steph. Byz. Ke'irai be κατά 

το στόμα το Κανωβικόν, and Hdt. ii. 1 1 3. Parthey {Erdktmde d. alten Aegypi.) puts it east 
of the Canopic mouth on the site of Tuna. 

ά•γάπ[ην : cf 1. 109 ayaTn)v θΐων, which Can be restored here, but άγάπην may be a title by 
itself like φιλίαν in 1. 94. 

28-9. If χρόνω is right, the preceding ω might be ην]ω : cf. τό ανω in 11. 38 and 42. The 
words seem to belong to a title, not a place-name ; but the ν is very doubtful, and possibly 
fv !«XPo| . • ω fa« 'λγω[ should be read. For the coupling of two names cf. 1. lor. 

30. τω Σαΐττ) : for a nome instead of a town cf. 1. 71 eV] Μΐτηλίττ), and for a district apart 
from individual towns in it, 11. 86-8. For ν[ι]κήτ[ριαν cf. 1. 48 and Drexler, op. cit. 521. The 
chief deity at SaVs was Neith-Athena (Hdt. ii. 59), so that this identification of Isis with 
Athena was very natural ; cf. Plut. De Is. et Os. 9 τό δ' eV Σάι τψ Αθηνάς ην κάϊ^ίσιν νομίζονσιν 

κτλ., and 60 την μίν yap ^Ισιν τω της Άθηνας ονόματι καλονσι. For Isis aS νύμφη cf. the evidence 

for her relation to nymphs discussed by Drexler, op. cit. 529-30, especially a Myconus inscr. 

*Ισ1ίδι \κοι\ράρω και θΐαΊς Τ^ύνφαις, 

31. Ni;/3eo[ suggests a possible connexion with the modern Nedeira, close to Naucratis, 
which \vas in the Saite nome (1. 19, note), but eV τη Bfo[ (or Be/x[) can be read, though after 
1. 13 the article is rarely used with place-names. The title may be ΊΙ^σ^ι» ; cf. e. g. 1. 76. 

Kaivjj: the only known Egyptian towns of this name are (i) Καινή {Kena) in the 
Thebaid, (2) Cefie which the Itin. Anton, places between Tacona (in the κάτω τοπαρχία of the 
Oxyrhynchite nome ; cf. 1285. 130) and Isiu, i. e. probably in the Heracleopolite nome, and 
(3) a village in the Arsinoite nome (e.g. P. Tebt. 345). Chenopolis occurs in Geogr. 
Raven, iii in the list Xoy {Ζόις: cf. 1. 42), Tele, Chenop., Me{m)no7tia ; and Caenopolis 
id. 125 in the list Tinoy (Antinoef?), Coenop., Seliira, Chara {Χάραξ?; cf. 1. 72, note), 
Nichis {SiKiov?), Nastnm, Babilon. The arrangement is not clear in either case, but Cheno- 
polis seems to refer either to Καινή = Kefia or to Chenoboscium, while Caenopolis might be 
our Kati/17, which was probably in the Saite nome. 

32. Σόι: cf. 1. 30, note. 


33. Ί[σ6/ω : this is the natural point for mentioning Iseum (Steph. Byz., Geogr. Raven. ; 
Isidis oppidum, Pliny), which had one of the most important temples of Isis in the Delta. 
The ruins of the town are at Behbit el Hagar, about eight miles north of Sebennytus 
{Samanud; cf. the next entry), and it no doubt belonged to the Sebennyte nome. For 
Ίσ\ν cf. e. g. 1. 23 ; at the Ίσίδιοί' τοΰ Σίθροΐτον (1. 54) she was called άν8ρ(ο)σώτ€φα. 

34• For £7rt|iOtav cf. 1. 60, and for δυ]ΐ'άστιΐ' e.g. 1. 41. 

35. e[i/] 'Ε^^ρ]μοΰ noXei : there is some doubt about this name, which may be read «[i/ .jt/xov 
πόλΐΐ. If Έ[ρμον is right, this town seems to be the Hermopolis nep\ την Βοντόν on an island 
(Strabo, p. 802), since Herm. in the Mendesian nome comes in I. 52 and for Herm. 'Parva 
1. 18 is a much more suitable place than 1. 35. The site of this Herm. is unknown ; from 
its position here between Sebennytus [Samafitid) and Diospolis, which seems to have been in 
the lower Sebennyte nome (1. 36, note), it would be expected also to lie in one of the two 
divisions of that nome, and such a situation is not inconsistent with Strabo's statement that 
Herm. was near Buto, which Λvas mentioned in 1. 27. The latter town was the capital of 
the Φθ(ν(της νομός according to Ptolemy, and if rightly placed at Tell Fer din {(d. 1. 27, note), 
it was close to the Bahr Nashari, which Hogarth (/. r.) identifies with the θ(ρμονθιακ6ς 
ποταμό: of Ptolemy and makes the boundary between the Φθΐνίτης νομός and its eastern 
neighbour, the 2ΐβ€ννύτης κάτω. On the east side of this canal, in the district between 
Tell Ferdin and Kum Khanziri, which Hogarth has identified on good evidence with 
Παχι/ί/χοΰΐΊΓ, the capital of the 1.φΐνν<)της κάτω according to Ptolemy, are the ruins of a large 
\.G\vvi'3XHawalid,\s\\\z\\ Hogarth regards as the siteof Phragonis(not mentioned in 1380), and 
mounds of several smaller towns, e. g. Haddadi (cf. Hogarth's map), one of which may well 
have been Hermopolis. 

36. βησ[Γλ6ΐσ[σαι/, ay^jav : for Isis as quccn, her true name according to Apul. Meiam. 
xi. 5 (cf. 1. 82, note), cf. Drexler, op. cit. 512-13. The « οϊ ayi\iav may have been corrected, 
as in the previous line, where ft is not certainly deleted; cf. 1. 250, critical note. 

Δ«09 7r'o]Xet τι] μεικ[ρά'; : Diospolis Parva elsewhere refers to Ηύ in Upper Egypt, but 
this Diospolis is clearly that mentioned by Strabo, p. 802 πλησίον de Μ(ρ8ητος κα\ Αιόσπολις κα\ 

αΐ Trept αυτήν λίμναι κα\ Αΐοντόπολις' eir' άπωτίρω η Βονσφις ίν τω Βονσιρίττ] νομω και Κννόσπόλις, 

Hermippus Fr. 50 θάπτβται (sc. Demetrius Phalereus) eV τώ Βουσφίτη πλησίον Διοσπόλβω?, 

HierocleS, Synec. Νικίου, Sots, Φρανννης (i. e. Φραγωνις), ΐΙαχ^ν(μο(υ)νις, Αιόσπολις, Σ{βίν(ν')ντος, and 

the coins inscribed Διοσπ{όλ(ως), or Αιοσπ{ολίτου), κ[άτω). Its site is uncertain. Hogarth 
{op. cit. p. 12) places it at Tell el Balamun, a little north-east of Sherbin on the west bank of 
the Damietta branch, about half-way between Sebennytus and the mouth, and Daressy 
{Rev. arch. 3™β ser., p. 208) at Belkds about seven miles west of Sherbin, but such a position 
creates a considerable difficulty Avith regard to the statement of Hermippus that Diospolis 
w^as in the Busirite nome, since that nome Λvas south of the Sebennyte and cannot have 
extended in the direction of Damietta ; cf 11. 49-50, note. Against Hermippus, however, 
is to be set the fact that in 1380 the Busirite nome comes later, and the position of Diospolis 
in 1. 36 rather suggests that it lay somewhere between Sebennytus and Bubastis. Tell 
Mokdam near Mit Ghavir would be suitable, but that site has been sometimes considered to 
be Leontopolis (1. 58), and the mention of the lakes near Diospolis suggests that it lay not 
far from the coast. The issue of separate coinage indicates that it was in Hadrian's time 
the capital of a nome called Αωσπολίτης κάτω, but this is ignored by P. Rev. Laws, Strabo, 
and Ptolemy, and probably Diospolis belonged earlier to the Sebennyte nome. The 
Mendes papyri of the second century do not mention it, but it occurs with other nomas in a 
third-century ostracon (Milne, Theban Ostraca, p. 151). 

37-8. eV Βονβάπτω το ανω : Bubastus (the form -τις is not applied to the town in papyri) 
is Tell Basta, near Zagazig. το ανω (cf. 1. 42) is a curious expression, and it is not clear 
whether the reference is to space (cf 11. 144-5) or time. If to the latter (cf. 1. 82, note), 


there may be a connexion with 1. 28 ? αν\(ύ χρόρψ. Bubastus was said to have been founded 
in honour of Isis ; cf. Diod. i. 27 and the Inscr. of los 16. 

38. 'Ηλίου π[όλ]ει : about Seven miles north-east of Cairo ; cf. 11. 1-3, note. 

39. Ά[^]ρίβ[ι] : Tell Airib, near Benha. 

Maiav. cf. p. 1 92. As the mother of Hermes, she was a natural deity to identify 
with Isis, whom some legends made the daughter of Hermes (cf. 1. 19, note). Mr. Griffith 
well compares the Greek name of Damanhur, Hermopolis Parva, where Hermes = Horus, 
probably a very old identification made before Egypt was familiar to the Greeks ; cf. p. 224. 

ορθωσίαν : cf. 1. 98. This term is a common title of Artemis. The explanation of 
Schol. Find. 01. 3. 54 "'rt ορθοΊ els σωτηρίαν η ορθοί τους γίΐ'νωμΐνον! is preferred by Hofer 
(Roscher, Lex. d. griech. u. rom. Mythol. iii. 1 2 1 3). Applied to Zeus the term = stator. 

40. 'If pa Φ^6/χφ[^]ού'^Γ]ου : 'lepa occurs as a village-name in Egypt in the Arsinoite nome 
(P. Tebt. ii, p. 380), but this town was unknown. The Phthemphuthite nome, which 
is ignored by P. Rev. Laws and Strabo and of which the capital was Ταούα (Ptolemy) or 
Ίαναιτων πόλίί (P. Brit. Mus. 921. 6), adjoined the Athribite nome (1. 39) on the west, being 
north of the Prosopite nome (1. 8) ; cf. Itin. Anton. Avhich places Tava twelve miles from 
Andro (1. 21, note) and thirty from Cyno (11. 49-50, note). The spelling varies, Φθ(μθ{ ) 
and Φθ(μφο(υ{ ) being found on coins, Φθίμφουθίΐη the best MSS. of Ptolemy, Φθψφουβ^ ) 
in P. Brit. Mus. 921, Φθψφοίθ in P. Ryl. 78. 5, Phihemphu in Pliny, N. H. v. 49. It is not 
certain that a letter is lost after φ. For the omission of τοΰ cf. 1. 71 and 11. 4-5, note. 

X(u[r]o0opoK : the lotus-flower was a symbol of immortality in late times (Wiedemann, 
op. cit. p. 375) and the epithet is very appropriate here to Isis, who on the coins of the 
Phthemphuthite nome is represented with a lotus (Dattari, Numi Augg. Alex. 6350). The 
first ο of \<ύ\τ'\οφόρον is more like σ, but φωσψόρον cannot be read and θΐσ[μ]οφόρον (cf. 
11. 119-20) is also unsuitable. 

41. Ύΐούχι : this is probably identical with Steph. Byz. Ίίύωχις' πόλις Αίγυπτου. ΐστι κα\ 

λίμνη ομώνυμος, but is Otherwise unknown. It may have been in the northern part of the 
Phthemphuthite nome (cf. 1. 40) or in the Xoite (cf. 1. 42), or even further north (cf. the 
next note), if the Xoite nome did not extend to the coast. The name suggests a possible 
derivation for Lake Edku, the Greek name of which is unknown : the village Edku is 
between Abukir and Rosetta. 

41-2. Tois Βουκολεΰσί : the Βοι/κίίλοι, as they are elsewhere called, were primitive 
inhabitants of the marshes along the north-west coast, and revolted in a. d. 172. How far 
east they extended is not clear. The Βουκολικοί/ στόμα of Hdt. ii. 17 is supposed by Wiede- 
mann [pp. cit. p. 96) and others to be the Phatnitic mouth, which was between the Sebennytic 
and Mendesian, but Sethe (Pauly-Wissowa, Realencycl. s. v. Βουκόλοι), followed by Wilcken, 
Chrest. 21, introd., rejects this view, though Herodotus distinguishes the Bucolic from the 
Bolbitine and Canopic mouths, which were on the west. Strabo mentions the Βουκόλοι once 
(p. 792) in connexion with Alexandria, once (p. 802) in connexion with the district between 
the Sebennytic and Phatnitic mouths, τά Βουκόλία in Β. G. U. 625 (cf. P. Hamburg 39) is 
regarded by Wilcken (/. f.) as a district, but may mean the town Bucolia in Geogr. Raven. 9, 
Naucralis being no. 6 and PUhin (cf. 1. 21, note) no. 12. 

42. Sot : the I is very doubtful and Soi possibly occurred in 1. 32. If it did, «V Soir[.i7] 
ανω, ' the upper division of the Xoite nome ' might be read here ; but for τ[6] ανω cf. 1. 38. 

Strabo describes its position (p. 802) eV be rfj μ(σογ(ίω rfj ίπίρ τοΰ Σ(β(ρνυτικον και Φατνιτικοϋ 
στόματος Son ί'στι και νήσος και ηόλις ev τω "Σφΐννυτικω νομω. ίση bt και Έρμούπολις (cf. 1. ^2, 

note) και Ανκούπολις καΐ Μ/κδ»??. An ancient list of Greek, Coptic, and Arabic equivalents 
(Amdlineau, Geogr. p. 410) identifies Xois with Sakha, about half-way between Hermopolis 
Parva and Thmuis. Pliny, N. H. v. 9. 9, the coins of the nomes, and Ptolemy show that 
there was a separate Xoite nome in the first and second centuries, but Slrabo's statement that 



Xois was in the Sebennyte nome (cf. 1. 33) earlier is confirmed by the absence of the Xoite 
nome from the nome-lists in P. Rev. Laws. 

43. Καταβαθμώ: this Can refer either to K. μίγας [Akaba el Kebir) on the boundary 
between Egypt and the Marmarica according to Strabo, p. 678, and in the παράλιο: of the 
Libyan nome according to Ptol., or, more probably, to K. μικρός {Akaba el Soghir), placed by 
Ptol. some distance inland behind Aev/ci) 'Aktij (1. 45) and nearer to Apis (1. 44) than is 

K. μέγας. 

πρ[ό]νοιαν : Isis appears as πρόνοια on Alexandrian coins (Poole, Calal. p. 176); cf. 

Plutarch, De Is. et Os. 3 en ποΧΚοι μίν Έρμου, πολλοί δε Τίρομηθέως Ίστορηκασιν αυτήν θυγατέρα' 
ων τόι^ μεν έτερον σοφίας κα\ προνοίας, Έρμην δε γραμματικής κα\ μουσικής ευρετην νομίζοντες. διό κα\ 
των εν Έρμουπόλει Μουσών την προτεραν Ισιν αμα κα\ Δικαιοσυνην καλοϋσι, σοφην ούσαν, ωσπερ 
εΐρηται, κα\ 8εικνΰουσαν τα θεια τοΙς αληθώς κα\ δικαίως Ίεραφοροις και Ίεραστολοις προσαγορενομενοις. 

Cf. also Apul. Metam. xi. 18 dea providefis and Drexler, op. cit. 540. 

44. eVi τοΟ'Άπεω? φρόνησιν : for επί cf. 1. ΙΟ, note, and for Apis Hdt. ii. i8 oi . . . εκ 
Μαρεης τε πολιός καΙ'Άπιος, Pliny, V. 39 -^Ρ^^ • • • nobilis religio7ie AegypH locus, Strabo, p. 779» 
and Ptol. iv. 5, who both place it a little west of Paraetonium, an important town in Roman 
times but ignored by 1380. Fourteau {Bull, de Plnst. e'gypt. ^^^ s^r. viii. 99) suggests that 
it was near Rds 'umm Rokhdm. Apis was probably the ancient capital of the Libyan 
nome, corresponding to Nu ent Hapi ' the town of Apis ' in Egyptian texts. For Isis as 
φρόνησις cf. 1. 1 24 and Plut. De Is. ei Os. 60. 

45. Κενκης" Κκτης : cf. Strabo, p. 799, Ptol. iv. 5. It was on the coast east of Paraetonium 
and north of Καταβαθμος μικρός (1. 43, note), and is generally identified with Rds el Kanais. 

Μοΰχιι/ : the first three letters are very doubtful. Μ,ουχις is the name of villages in the 
Arsinoite (P. Tebt. 609), Heracleopolite (P. Hib. 68), and Oxyrhynchite (1342) nomes. 
There is no likelihood of any connexion with Μωχιάί, the title of Isis at Acoris (C. I. G. 
4703 c), which refers to the ΐΛωγίτης τόπος of the Hermopolite nome (P. Reinach. 15. 12, &c.). 

46. Έσ€ρε>φ[ι]ί' : cf. the Theadelphia inscr. published by Breccia in Bull, de la Sac. 
arche'ol. d'Alex. 19 14, where a temple of '^Ισις Έσερεμφις is mentioned in 1. 17. Spiegelberg 
{I. c.) translates the term ' making a good name '. 

φραγοίιρων πάλει : i. e. the Φαγρωριόπολις of Strabo, p. 805, which Steph. Byz. calls 
Φαγρό>ριον, the Geogr. Raven. Phagorior. Strabo mentions it as the capital of the Phagrorio- 
polite nome (which is ignored by other authorities) along with 'npωώvπoλις{Tell el Maskhutd) 
and Φάκουσα {Fakus or, as Naville thinks, Se/i el Benna), and it probably lay in the Wadi 
Tumildt or on the east bank of the Pelusiac branch in the Arabian nome. Bubastus, 
Pharbaethus, and Tanis, capitals of nomes on the west bank of that branch, occur at some 
little distance (11. 37, 53, and 59). 

47-8. Χοατίνη seems to have been in the south-east of the Delta, but whether the lacuna 
in 1. 48 contained another place-name or a second title of Isis is uncertain. If εν is right 

Φακονσοις OX ' Ηρώων πόλει may be Supplied ; cf. the preceding note. For γ]ραμματε[ικ]ή[ν of. 

1. 123 and p. 193. 

49-50. Κυν6ς]πόλειτοΰΒου[σ€]ι[ρε]ίτ[ο]υ : or, leSS probably, Λυκω»/] ττόλβι roC Β. ; cf. Rosetta 

Inscr. 2 2. This Cynopolis is mentioned in conjunction with Busiris (cf. 1. 51) by Strabo, 
p. 802, Pliny, N. H. v. 64, Hierocles, and Meletus, Brev. p. 188, while the Itin. Anton, places 
it thirty miles east of Taba (in the Phthemphuthite nome ; cf. 1. 40, note) and twenty-five 
west of Thmuis {Tmei el Amdtd) in about the centre of the Delta, which position accords 
very well with Herodotus' statement (ii. 59) that Busiris was iv μέσω τω Αελτα. That town 
is identified in a list of Graeco-Coptic- Arabic equivalents with Abusir, three miles south of 
Samanud (Sebennytus ; cf. 1. 33), which is confirmed by the equation of Βούσιρι? to Abusir 
in the case of the Letopolite town (C. I. G. 4699. 12) and the Heracleopolite (B. G. U. 1061. 
8, &c.), while Κουΐ'ώ(ΐ') κάτω is identified with the Coptic Panou and Arabic Berne, a few 


kilometres south of Abusir. Ptolemy also places Busiris a little south of Sebennytus but 
puts both towns much too far south, his whole arrangement of the eastern Delta being 
vitiated by the wrong position assigned to the Tpmavbs Ποταμό: ( Wadi Tumildt). P. Rev. 
Laws m xxxi, 7 mentions the Busirite nome between the Sebennyte and Mendesian, and in 
1x111. 6 between the Mendesian and Athribite. 

50. Π/7αφ]δ[ι]κ[7]ι/ : cf. Turk and Hofer in Roscher, op. cit. iii. 2912-30. Originally 
perhaps connected with the Lycian goddess Panyasis, Praxidice (or three Praxidicae) was 
a deity akin to the Erinyes and Persephone, who is called Ώραξιδίκη in Orp/i. Hymn. 29. K. 
For the identification of Isis with Persephone cf. 1. 72, note. 

51. Βουσεφβί: cf. 11. 49-50, note, 269-71, and Hdt. ii. 59-60. 

τύχψ, όγαθψ: for Isis as Fortune cf. Drexler, op. cit. 545-6, and for α^αθψ (which 
is probably separate from τΰχψ) cf. 1. 95 and C. I. G. 5041. 

52. 'Ep^oC π[ό]λί[ί] Toi Μ(ν8ησίου : cf. P. Tebt. 340. 5, which shovirsthat it gave its name 
to a toparchy, P. Ryl. 217. 15-34, Strabo, p. 802, quoted in 1. 42, note, and Steph. Byz., 
who states that it was κατά θμοίιν. Since the Mendesian nome extended to the coast on the 
north-east, being probably bounded on the west by the Damietta Nile, it probably did not 
extend far south of Mendes-Thmuis. Baklia, which is generally identified with Hermopolis, 
IS about three miles west of Tmet el Amdid. Φΐρνοίφις (1. 57) was also in this nome! 
Thmuis, the capital at this period (cf. Ptolemy and P. Ryl.), does not occur in 1380 except 
possibly inl. 26. 

53. Φαρβαίθω : Horbet, the capital of a nome which lay between the Bubastite and 

54. τω Ίσιδίω τον Σίθροΐτον : this place, named after a temple of Isis, was previously 
unknown; cf. Ί[σ€ίω in 1. 33. The Sethroite nome was in the extreme north-east of the 
Delta ; cf. 1. 56, note. 

55. άνδρασώτ€ΐραν seems to be an incorrectly formed compound (cf. 1. 13, note) rather 
than two words, though for a confusion of sex cf 11. 135-6, note. 

56. 'HpaK\e[ovs] noXei τον 2(θροίτου : the nome is added to distinguish it from Heracleo- 
polis Magna in the Heptanomia. Ptolemy makes 'Hpankeovs μικρά πδΚις (v. 1. Σΐθροϊή the 
capital of the nome, and places it to the south-south-east of Pelusium; the Itin. Anton, 
places it twenty-two miles from Pelusium and the same distance from Tanis. It would be 
expected to be on the Pelusiac arm, not far from Daphnae. C. Muller (Ptol. iv. 5. 24) 
identifies it with Tell el Serig (= Tell Battikh). 

57. Φΐρνούφι: this town was in the Mendesian nome, giving its name to a toparchy ; 
cf. P. Ryl. 216. 274 and 217. 57, 59. 

58. Α([ο]ντωπόλ€ΐ : this place, the capital of a nome, is sometimes identified with 
Tell Mokdam near Mil Ghamr, between Sebennytus (1. 33) and Athribis (1. 39) ; cf Strabo, 
p. 802, quoted in 1. 36, note. Jomard, however, placed it east of Thmuis near Lake 
Menzala. Ptolemy makes it south of Thmuis and Avest of Pharbaethus, but north of 
Sebennytus and Busiris, which is inconsistent with such a relation to Thmuis and Pharbae- 
thus. P. Rev. Laws xxxi. 8 mentions the Leontopolite nome between the Mendesian and 
Sethroite nomes, which rather favours Jomard's view, but in Ixvii. 8 between the Tanite and 
Pharbaethite nomes, which favours the identification with Tell Mokdam. 

ασπίδα: Isis is often represented as a snake; cf Drexler, op. cit. 533-9. In P. Amh. 
128. 56 προφήΓ»;(?) 'Ίσίδο(5) *θφίω(ί) it is not clear whether 'Όφ6ω(Γ) is a title of Isis or 
a proper name, as it is apparently in 1. 116 of the same papyrus. iK-niha is a less suitable 
reading than ασπίδα. 

59• τάι/ι : San, near Lake Menzala. χαριτόμορφοί is a new compound. 

60. Σχΐδίαε : cf. Strabo, p. 800 δΐ€χ€ΐ δε τετράσχοινον τψ Άλΐξανδρύας η 2χ(δία, κατοικία 
πόλεως iv ή το ναίισταθμον των θαλαμηγών πλοίων κτλ, 

Ρ 2 


61. τ[ο\ΰ Ήραϋλίον : cf. Strabo, p. 8oi μ(τα 8e τον Κηνωβόρ (cf. 1. 62) eVn το Ήράκληον το 

Ήρακλίονς ίχον iepov, Steph. Byz., who calls it Ήρακλ(όπολις (cf. 1. 56), and Geogr. Raven. 2 
Eraclia, no. i being Alexandria. For Isis in her familiar capacity of goddess of the sea cf. 
p. 193 and Drexler, op, cit. 474-90. 

62. Και/ώ;3ω : near Abukir-, but its precise situation is not certain. 

/ίουσαι/αγωγο'ι/ : apparently a new form ; cf. 1. 128. For Isis as leader of the Muses cf. 
Plut. De Is. et Os. 3 quoted in 1. 43, note. 

63. Μΐν\ο\\)θί : cf. C. I, G. 4683 b. I Εΐ'σιδι Φαρία Εισιν την iv Μ(νονθι, Steph. Byz. MevovOis 
Αίγνπτία κώμη npos τω Κανωπω, and Epiphanius, Adv. Haeres. iii, p. 1093, where a temple της 
Μίνονθίτώος is mentioned. 

άληθιαν: cf. the los InSCr. 32 εγώ TO άληθίί καλόν ^νομοθίτησα νομΊ.^€σ\θαι^ and P. Brit. 
MUS. 46. 148 iya> (sc. Abrasax) (Ιμι η αΚηβΐΐα. 

64. Mev[i\ovei : it is not certain that any letter is lost between ν and o, and only a narrow 
one is admissible ; MevovBi (cf. 1. 63) or Mevov[e]ti cannot be read, although the following word 
might be Toi. Σηκτιζ ... is, however, a very unlikely name, the only one at all resembling 
it being Σ(νσκίΐτην[η] in C. I. G. 4839. ιι'Ίσίδί τή Σΐνσ., referring to the modern Sekkeiin the 
Mons Berenicidis. The other places in 11. 60-76 are on or near the coast, so far as they 
can be identified, and fi κτίζεται is confirmed by 1. 151 €κτισαν σόι την χώραν (cf. also 1. 280), 
while for 'loiis cf. 11. 143-4 Ίοί Σωθι. Ιο was often identified with Isis in Alexandrian times ; 
cf. Drexler, op. cit. 439-40. π[όλ(€)ι]9 is possible in 1. 64, but \η\μΐράαί does not seem 
appropriate in 1. 65, and for π[όλΐΓ E]u|[7;]/iepei[a]i there is not room, so that the construction 
of Ίοίί remains obscure. 

65-6. τον m[. ^ν^στΊον : the first letter is nearly certain, but the rest are very doubtful, 
especially «o, which might be read as e. Μ[€]νελαίτον is inadmissible, μεγίστου is probably 
a mistake for μΐγίστην : cf. 1. 2 1 . γνπόμορφος is a natural epithet of Isis, who is often repre- 
sented with a vulture's wings; cf. 1. 220 and Drexler, op. cit. 473-4. 

67. Ύαποσίρι: two towns of this name in the north-west of Egypt are known : (i) Ύαπ. 
(ή μ(γάλη) east of Lake Mareotis, mentioned by Strabo, p. 799, but by other writers called 
Ύαφόσιρίί, the modem Abusir, with a temple and a reputed tomb of Osiris, (2) Ύαπ. ή μικρά 
between Alexandria and Canopus (Strabo, pp. 799-800). The towns mentioned in 11. 60-3 
and the Μ^τηλίτης in 1. 72 suggest the second, but ΏλινβΊνη in 1. 73 is placed by Ptolemy close 
to the first, and the sites of other places found in 11. 60-73 being doubtful, it is not clear 
which of the two is meant. A dedication to Isis with other gods from Tap. Parva was 
pubhshed by N^routsos, i?i'Z'. arch. 1887, p. 214, and Domina Isis Taposiris occurs in the 
dedication of a statue found at Faesulae (C. I. L. xi. 1544); a papyrus to be published in 
Part XII mentions Upa (y^) "Ισίδο? Ύαποσίΐρία8ος in the Oxyrhynchite nome. 

68-9. Tji Nijao) : this is more probably Φάρος νήσος off Alexandria (Ptol. iv. 5 ; cf p. 195) 
than the desert island off the Canopic mouth (Scylax, Peripl. 84) or Ν^σοι, a place in the 
Mareotis (Anon. Stat. mar. viagn. 22-3). Nesi, which the Geogr. Raven, mentions next 
aitev Anurion {'Αγκύρων πόλις in the Heracleopolite nome.?) and Cynopolis (apparently in 
the Heptanomia), is probably different, as is ΣιδωΜα νήσος (Strabo, p. 799), between Λευκι) 
Ακτή (1. 45) and Taposiris Magna (1. 67, note). For ταχ\)ν\ί\κην cf. 1. 84, note. 

69. Πευκεστίδι : this was only known from Geogr. Raven. 73 Peucestim among several 
unrecognizable towns, Naucratim being no. 61 and Btito no. 78. The \\Ue κυβ^ρνήτις 
suggests that it was on the coast (cf 1. 74 iv Ώηλουσίω όρμίστριαν), probably not far from 

70. Μελαίδι : this town or district is unknown, and perhaps M€(ve)\a't8i should be read ; 
cf. P. Rev. Laws xxxi. 6. M€v{]\ai8i there, however, if correct, seems to mean the district 
round the πόλις Μ(νίλαος mentioned by Strabo, p. 803 (cf. 1. 14, note), as being in the south- 
west of the Delta (Mei^ejXai'St corresponds, partly at any rate, to the Nitriote nome; cf. 1. 21, 


note), whereas in the hght of the preceding entries yi({yf)\a.lZi here would more appropriately 
refer to the Mei/cXan-jjr νομός, of which Canopus (1. 62) was the capital according to Ptolemy, 
but which is ignored by P. Revenue Laws. The term Mevekats, however, does not occur 
elsewhere, and with Μί(ι/6)λαΐδι it would be best to suppose that the list has made a sudden 
divergence to the south of the Delta in spite of 11. 60-8 and 72-5, which are concerned with 
the north coast; cf. the next note and that on 1. 18. 

71. ^[βΙΐΌυφι : this place is unknown ; and Μ[α]ι/οί1φι or Μ'€ΐ'νουφι might be read. The 
name strongly suggests the Arabic Mc7tii/[cL 1. 14, note), but of the two towns of that name 
one lies between Tania and Cairo, i. e. too far south to be appropriate unless Me(i/e)Xa(8t be 
read in 1. 70, and the other {jMehallet Meiiti/), about five miles north of Tanta, is identified with 
Όνονφις (the capital of a nome) in a Graeco-Coptic-Arabic list of equivalents ; cf. Daressy, 
J^ev. arch. 31^6 g^r. xxv, p. 208. 

σΓρ[α]τίαι; : cf. 11. 83 and 102. στρατιού is a well-known epithet of Zeus and Athena (cf. 
11. 30 and 72). 

71-2. [eV] MerjjXeiTj; : there is no room for τω in the lacuna. The writer becomes more 
sparing in the use of the article as he proceeds ; cf. 11. 4-5, note. The Metelite nome 
is placed by Ptolemy between the Meya? -ποταμός (i. e. the main western branch) and the Τάλυ 
ποταμοί, which issued at the Bolbitine (Rosetta) mouth, i. e. in the district now mainly occupied 
by Lake Edku (cf. 1. 41, note). It is ignored by P. Rev. Laws and Strabo, but found on the 
coins of the nomes (on which Isis or Hathor is represented), so that it seems to have been 
created or revived in the first century. 

72. κ[ό]ρ)7ί': cf. 1. 105 and 1. 50, note. She was worshipped at Oxyrhynchus, as 
is shown by a papyrus to be published in Part ΧΠ. 

Ύ^άμακος \ cf. Strabo, p. 760, who after describing the Κάσιον opos (cf. 1. 75) proceeds 

fl6 η eVi ΏηΚούσιον (cf. 1. 7 4) οδός, iv ■η τα Teppa καϊ ό τοΰ Χαβρίον Χΐγόμ^νος χήραζ καΐ τα προς τω 

Πηλουσίω βάραθρα. Chara in Geogr. Raven. 127 (cf. 1. 31, note) is perhaps identical. 

73. Ώλινθίντ] : this town in the Μαρίώτης νομός on the coast west of Alexandria not far 
from Taposiris Magna gave its name to the ΠλινθινΙτης κόλπος : cf. Hdt. ii. 6, Strabo, p. 799, 
Scylax, Peripl. 105, Ptol. iv. 5. This entry is somewhat out of place ; cf. 11. 67-72, notes. 

74. Π»;λουσίω : Tell Faravia, about twenty-five miles south-east of Port Said. Ptolemy 
refers to it by itself apart from the Sethroite nome, of which Heracleopolis was the capital 
(cf. 1. 56, note), and it issued separate coins, on which Isis occurs. Here it is also separated 
from the Sethroite nome, and is followed by the Κάσίον ορός (Pas el Kiirun ; cf. Hdt. ii. 6 
and Wiedemann's note) and the "Εκρη-γμα (sc. Σφβωνίδος λίμνης), which Ptolemy assigns 
together with 'Ρινοκόλονρα [El Arisk) to a distinct region, the Κασιώτις. 'Ρινοκόλονρα, however, 
occurs in 1. 93 along with towns in Palestine, and was clearly regarded by the author 
of 1380 as beyond the Egyptian frontier, as in Pliny, Λ^. Η. v. 68, and Strabo, who extends 
Φοινίκη up to Pelusium (p. 756). 

75. For τοΰ Κασίου cf. the preceding note, and for Ταχνηψιρ p. 192. 

77. 'Αραβία probably means the Sinai peninsula or Arabia Felix rather than the νομός 
Αραβία. Petra, perhaps the capital of Arabia Felix, comes in 1. 91. For dfov cf. 1. 107 and 

the los Inscr. 15-16 ί'γώ €Ϊμι η πάρα γυναιξί θίος καλονμίνη. 

77-8. ττ) [^η]σω : cf. 1. 68. At the end of the line τ is very doubtful, and perhaps eV 
2η[. .\σω or Ύη[. .|σω should be read; that any letters are lost is not certain. If T7 [Νΐ7]σω is 
right, the reference may well be to an island on the west coast of Arabia called "Ισώοί Ifpa 
(Agatharchides in Geogr. Gr. min. i. 180, Diod. iii. 44), thought to be the modern Barahkdn ; 
cf. Drexler, op. cit. p. 376. 

78. The verb UpoviKOTthfw is apparently new. For Isis-worship in Lycia cf. 1. 79 
and Drexler, Nuvi. Zeitschr. xxi. 184 sqq. 

79. Λι?τώ: cf. 1. 27, note. Myra = Dembre. 


80-1. i\€v6([pi\av : €λ€νθΐ[ρ]αν could be read, but Isis Eleutheria occurs on Alexandrian 
coins of Galba (Poole, Coins o/'Alex. p. 23). 

αφίσιν 4<Ι>[οψων, (ν\ρΥτριαν : άφίσιος is an epithet of Zeus in Pausan. i. 44. 9. ΐφοΒος in 
papyri usually means ' attack ', and ίφ[ό]δωι/ seems to depend on αφ(σιν rather than evpirpiav, 
in connexion with which it would have to mean ' communications '. For Isis-worship at 
Cnidus cf. Drexler, Num. Zeitschr. xxi. 124-5, and for Isis-worship at Cyrene cf. Hdt. iv. 186, 
who says that out of respect for her the women of Cyrene and Barca ate no cow's flesh. 

82. AiKTvvviv: ci. Apu\. Me/am. xi. 5 me primigenii Phryges Pessinuniicam nominant 
deum mairem ; hinc Autochthones Attici Cecropiam Minervam (cf. e.g. 1. 30)/ illinc flu- 
duantes Cyprii (cf. 11. 86-8) Paphiam Venerem (cf. e.g. 1. 9)/ Cretes sagittiferi Dictynnam 
Dianam (cf. 1. 84)/ Siculi trilingues Stygiam Proserpinam (cf. 1. 72, note); Eleusinii 
vetustam{d. 11. 37-8, note) deam Cererem ; lunonem (cf. 1. 26, note) alii, Bellonam (cf. 1. 83, 
note) alii, Hecatam (cf. 1. 113) isti, Rhamnusiam illi ; et qui nascentis dei Solis inchoantibus 
illustrantur radiis Aethiopes Ariique, priscaque doctrina pollentes Aegyptii . . . appellant vera 
nomine reginam (cf. e. g. 1. 36) Isidem. Dictynnis was another name of Britomartis ; cf. 
Diod. V. 76, andRapp in Roscher, op. cit. i. 821-8. The usual form was ί^ίκτνννα. 

83. Qkpiv : cf. Πρα^[ι]δ'^ί]κ[7)]μ in 1. 50. 

στρατίαν : the title is appropriate enough at Rome (cf. 11. 71, 102, 239-42, and 82, note), 
but the reading is not certain, for the first letter is more like α than σ and the cross-bar of r 
is very low, while the vertical stroke comes down further than usual, unless what looks like 
the bottom of it belongs to the η οι τριφνην in the next line. "Κτροφιν (a variant οί''Κτροπον ?) 
or " λ{σ)τρα^\ην (a form quoted by Suidas, s. v. μαρμαρυγή) is possible ; cf. for the latter 1. 238. 
On Isis-worship at Rome, which was firmly established in the time of Sulla, see Drexler 
in Roscher, op. cit. 400-9, Lafaye, op. cit. 

84. τριφνής is new as an epithet of Isis, and what it refers to is not clear. Perhaps 
it means much the same as τρίμορφος, Λvhich was an epithet of Hecate (1. 113; cf. 1. 91 
τριοδίτίί). Mr. Milne suggests a connexion with the three-faced goddess figured on the 
leaden tokens of Memphis {Ancient Egypt, 1915. 108). For τριφυήν cf. 1. 130 €νπρ[(]πήν. 

8ζ. [π\ίθμω: an island is expected, and [.]. (μω, which can be read, does not provide 
a suitable name, so that Patmos seems to be meant. The spelling may be due to the like- 
ness to the τΐαθμιτικον στόμα (Ptol. iv. 5) which others call Φατνιτικόν. 

νια μ . [.]t0[. .''\κη : the writer changes in 11. 85-6 from the accusative to the nominative, 
as again in 11. 107-9. " of "^^ ^^ ^^^7 uncertain, but the space suits via (cf. ωραία in 1. 90) 
better than Oia. The second word is not /ιο[υ]σ6[ι]κ)7 or [γ]ρο/χ/^[α]τ-ί[ι]κΐ7 (cf. 1. 123), but the 
doubtful ί might be v, and the θ possibly e. 

86. For evidence of Isis-worship in Cyprus (cf. 11. 87-9) see Apul. Metam. xi. 5 quoted 
in 1. 82, note, and Drexler, op. cit. 379-80. For δία cf. 11. 26 and iii, and for ηττΊα 1. ii. 
hiav cannot be read, but κΐνψ with δ above the first ν (i. e. κ^^νψ : cf. 1. 79) is possible 
instead of ήπία. 

87. Chios is inserted between two places in Cyprus. For evidence of Isis-worship 
there see Drexler, op. cit. 381-2. ατυχούσα as the title of a deity seems to be new. 

κατόπτιν : cf. P. Brit. MuS. 46. 280—1 των Ιπίρωτωντων μΐ κα\ κατ όψιν μοί αρχομένων. 

88. πανάφθονοΐ is a new compound ; cf. fvn\eav in 1. 99. 

89-90. The preceding mention of Cyprus and the occurrence of south Syrian towns in 
11. 93 sqq. make it probable that both Chalcidice and Pieria refer to the districts in north 
Syria (Pieria on the coast, Chalcidice inland near Belus), rather than the homonymous 
districts in Macedonia, which would more naturally have occurred in proximity to the places 
mentioned in 11. 107-14. Petra, however, might be in the Macedonian Pieria; cf. note on 
1. 91. [ό]σίαν might be read for [a]yiav, but cf. e. g. 1. 34. ^vpi[a] is inadmissible in I. 90. 

90. Ασία, if right ('Ιωνία is unsuitable), probably means Asia Minor rather than the Roman 


province of Asia or Asia in general On Isis-worship in Asia Minor cf. Drexler, Num. 
Zeitschr. xxi. i sqq. 

91. τριοδΰτιν: usually an epithet of Hecate ; cf. 1. 113 'Εκά[τ]7 and 1. 84 τριφνήν. 
UfTpas : about fifteen towns of this name are known. That in the Macedonian 

Pieria (Livy, xxxix. 26) might be meant (cf. 11. 89-90, note) ; but the Arabian Petra {Wadi 
Musa) was the most important and, as 11. 93 sqq. are concerned with Syria, was probably 
intended, although Arabia occurred in 1. 77. 

92. Ύψηλτ): the capital of an Upper Egyptian nome (Ptol. iv. 5) is unsuitable, but the 
Ύψηλΐται described by Steph. Byz. as κατοικία Θράκης may be connected with this Ύψ. An 
unknown place in Arabia or Syria, however, may well be meant; cf. 11. 93 sqq. 

93. 'PfcvoKopoiiXoig: EI A risk ; cf. 1. 74, note. There is much variation in the spelling 
of this name, which occurs elsewhere as 'Ρίνοκόρονρα or 'Ρινοκόλονρα. 1380 is certainly 
incorrect on this point. 

■ηαντόπ\τιν: cf. 1. 87 κατόπτιν, but iravTon[opov can be read. The second π has perhaps 
been corrected from t or p. 

94. Dora {Taniurd) was between Ptolemais (1. 117) and Στράτωι/οΓ Πύργο? in Palestine. 
The latter town was the earlier name of Caesarea (Joseph. Arch. xv. 8. 5), and is found in 
Strabo, p. 758, while Ptolemy calls it Καισάρβια Στράτων?. It was situated between Dora 
and Ascalon (1. 96) and is still called Kaisaria. 

95. Ελλάδα : for the personification of Hellas in art cf. Drexler in Roscher, op. cit. i. 
2027-8. She has no special attributes. That Isis should be regarded not far from 
Egypt as a specifically Greek deity is noticeable ; cf. her title Aanw among the Persians 
(1. 104 and p. 192). 

96. Ascalon {Askalan) was north of Gaza (1. 99) and south οίΣτράτωκο? Πύργο? (1. 94). 
Sinope {Sinub), which was on the north coast of Paphlagonia, is out of place among these 
Syrian towns. The statue of Sarapis was said to have been brought to Egypt from Sinope ; 
cf. Plut. De Is. et Os. 28. 

97. πολυώνυμοι/ : cf. introd. and Drexler, op. cit. 546-7. 

'Ραψία : the usual spelling is 'Ραψία or 'Ραφ^ία. Rifa is between Rhinocolura (1. 93) and 
Gaza (1. 99). 

98. €νΎριπόλ€ΐ ορθωσίαν: cf. 1. 225, where the mention of the river Eleutherus shows 
that Tarablus on the Syrian coast north of Berytus (1. 116), not Tripolis in the Cyrenaica, 
is meant. A town called Orthosia between Ύρι-π. and the Eleutherus is mentioned by Strabo, 
pp. 753-4. For ορθωσία cf. 1. 39, note. 

99. τάζϊ] : Gazza, a little south of Ascalon (1. 96). 

ev-nrXeav : (vnXetos occurs in Hom. ρ 467, but evnXeos nowhere else, θ might be read for 
the first e and ι for v, and the fourth letter may be lost altogether; but cf. 11. 88 πανάφθονον, 
135 ΐίθψίαν. That {ίιπλίαν is a corruption of (ϋπλοιαν (cf. 1. 74 όρμίστριαν) is hardly likely. 

Αΐλφοϊς : no Isis-temple at Delphi itself is known, but Tithora in Phocis had one ; cf. 
Pausan. x. 32. 9 and Drexler, op. cit. 387-8. 

100. Βαμβνκη [Bamouk) was an ancient town east of Antioch and twenty-four miles from 
the Euphrates. For the worship there of Atargatis (a form of Astarte; cf I. 116) cf. Pliny, 
N. H.v. 81 Bambycen quae alio noviine Hierapolis vacatur, Syris vero Alabog {ibi prodigiosa 
Atargatis, Graecis autem Derceto dicta colitur). For other identifications of Isis with 
Atargatis see Drexler, op. cit. 500. The usual forms are '^τάρτ^ατις or '^.τapyάτη, and -rei here 
is probably a mistake for -τη (cf. 1. 106, note), i. e. the nominative ; cf. 1. 107, note. 
At Oxyrhynchus the cult of this goddess occurs in a papyrus to be published in Part XII. 

10 1. [k^lv Δήλω: cf. 1. 114. Delos inscriptions frequently mention Isis. 

102. Άμάζοις : i.e. Ά/χα^όσί. Α/χαδοίί (i.e. Άραδ(5(κο)ι?) might be read, but στρατίαν (cf. 

1. 83) suits the Amazons, who were regarded as historical even in late times. 


103. India and the Ganges are mentioned in 1. 226. That Isis-worship penetrated 
there was not known previously. For Isis in Thessaly cf. Drexler, op. cit. 387. 

104. σΐληνην: for the common identification of Isis with the moon, which some 
Egyptologists consider to be a non-Egyptian idea, cf, Diod. i. 25 and Drexler, op. cit. 437-8. 

Αατύνην : this title, which suggests that the Persians learnt Isis-worship from the 
Romans, not the Egyptians, is curious ; cf. Ελλάδα in 1. 95. 

105. For Κόρην cf. 1. 72, note. θαψ[ΐ]ΰσιν or Ύαψ. (cf. the critical note; the missing 
letter is quite uncertain) seems to be the equivalent of a Persian appellation; cf. p. 192. 
Traces of Isis-worship among the Parthians are known ; cf. Drexler, op. cit. 379. 

106. For NaKiar or Ναί/(α)ίαΐ' (cf. the critical note) cf. ^latr Nawta at Nabla in the 
Arsinoite nome (P. Brit. Mus. 345. 3) and the Ναί/αίου at Alexandria (e. g. 34. ii. 6). Nanai 
was an old Babylonian goddess of fertility, identified with Artemis (cf. 1. 84), and had 
a celebrated temple near Susa ; cf. 2 Mace. i. 13 and Wagner in Roscher, op. cit. iii. 4-5. 

Φοινίκι Συρίας : Φοινίκη would be expected (cf. e.g. Ptol. V. 14. 3), but Φοίι/ιξ occurs 
as a place-name, and the form was perhaps intentional, though incorrect ; cf. 1. 100, note. 

107. θ(ός: cf. 1. 77, note, and for the case, which continues up to 1. 109, 11. 85-6. 
Σαμοθράκη : this island was the chief centre of the mysteries of the Cabiri, with which 

Isis may have been connected in Roman times. 

108. For Isis-worship at Pergamum cf. Drexler, JVum. Zeitschr. xxi, p. 55. 

109. ί^αψψ dewv: cf. 1. 28 άγάπην [. . . The first letter might be λ, but λ[ύ}πην does 
not suit the space. On the extensive evidence for Isis-worship in Italy as well as Rome 
(1. 83) see Lafaye, op. cit., Drexler in Roscher, op. cit. 397-412. She had a temple at 

no. Σάμ(ύ : for evidence of Isis-worship there from coins and inscriptions see Drexler, 
op. cit. 381. 

111. μυσταν : cf. the los inSCr. 27 «γώ μυήσεις άνθρώποις άνίδιιξα, 

Μυνδω : οη the Carian coast, ten miles north-west of Halicarnassus. The head-dress of 
Isis appears on coins of Myndus; cf. Drexler, Num. Zeitschr. xxi. 130. 

112. ''^λίνψ'. cf. Hdt. ii. 113-20, Plut. De Herod, malig. 12, who states that Menelaiis 
and Helen received πολλαΐ τιμαΊ in Egypt, and Engelmann in Roscher, op. cit. i. 1949-52. 
For Isis-worship in Bithynia cf. Drexler, Ntwi. Zeitschr. xxi. 23. 

ηλίου όνομα : cf. e. g. ' eye of the sun ' in the Egyptian titles of Isis (Brugsch, 
Religion, 645), and 11. 157-9. 'όμμα is inadmissible. 

113. "Εκά\τ\ϊ]•. cf. 1. 91 τριοδάτιν and 1. 84 τριφυην. For Isis-worship in Carta cf. 
Drexler, op. cit. 119. 

1 1 4- 1 5. Διι/δυ/^ϊ? implies that the writer considered Δίνδυμα to be a feminine singular 
instead of neuter plural. τ[ρι]/3[ι]αι/ could be read in 1. 114, but the Latin form is not 
suitable here (cf. 1. 91) and τ[υ^]/3[ι]«ΐ' is unsatisfactory, so that probably the word is a foreign 
name, Hke the next. The e of if in 1. 115 is not enlarged, as is generally the case with ev 
in a new clause, and there is no trace of a stop before it ; but iv Τρυ[ω] for τύρ[ω] (the absence 
of which town is remarkable), or eV Ύρύ\α\ for Τροί[α] could be read, making -παλ the termina- 
tion of the preceding name. If not p, the letter following τ can only be ο : the next might 
be a, δ, or λ. For Isis-worship in the Troad cf. Drexler, Num. Zeitschr. xxi. 59. άβίβαστον 
= αβατον occurs elsewhere only in an ancient gloss ; cf. Stephanus, Thesaurus. 

116-17. Berytus {Beirut), ζλάοη {Saida), and Ptolemais {Akka) were between Tripolis 
(1. 98) and Ascalon (1. 96). For Isis-Astarte in Syria cf. Drexler in Roscher, op. cit. 500 
and 1. 100, note. For φρονίμ[ην cf. 1. 124. 

118. This Susa (cf. 1. 105) is apparently unknown, like the title Σαρκοΰνις. The Ερυθρά 
θάλασσα perhaps means the Persian Gulf (cf. Hdt. i. 180) rather than the Red Sea. 

119-20. For Isis θ(σμοφόροί cf. the los InSCr. 8-1 1 ΐγω νόμου! ανθρώποις (θίμην κάϊ 


ΐνομοβίτησα a ovSeis bvvaTai μΐταθά,ναι, and Drexler, Op. cit. 459-6 1. What the fifteen β^σμοί 
were is unknown, and the two προστάγματα in 1. 156 are equally obscure. 

1 2 1-3. Cf. p. 193 and the los Inscr. 19-20 ί'•χώ θαΚάσσια fpyatvpa. 

123-4, For γραμματική cf. p. 193, λογιστική 1, 2'J, φρόνιμη 11. Il'j and 44, nOte. 

125-6. Cf. 11. 222-6, Plut. De Is. et Os. 32 and ' Whose husband is the inundation of 
the Nile ', ' Who maketh the Nile to swell in due season ' in Isis' Egyptian titles (Budge, 
op. cit. 278). For 7Γ[5σ]αΐ' χώραν cf. 1. 24 and note. Here, however, π ασ\αν (την) χώραν 
(cf. 1. 151), i• e. Egypt, would be more suitable. 

126-7. '^° καλόν ζωον : i. e. as a cow; cf. 1. 107 τανρωπίί and 11. 16 1-2, note. 

127—8. For ΐλαραν όψιν cf. p. 1 93, and for μουσαναγωγόν 1. 62, note. 

129. 7τολ{ο}νόφβαλμ[ο]ν : the name Osiris was considered by some to mean ττολνοφ^αλμο^ 
according to Plut. Be Is. et Os. 10, but wrongly; cf. Wiedemann, op. cit. 514. 

129-32. For Isis as the model Avife and mother cf. p. 193, the los Inscr. 29 sqq. 

βγω στ€ργ€σθαι γυναίκας vrr άνΒρών ηνάνκασα . . . εγω σνγγραφας γαμικας (νρα, and Drexler, 

Op. cit. 491. η^ία (or rjdeia) seems to be otherwise unattested. 

133. βό\σ τρνχον : the metaphorical use of this word is new and probably represents an 
ancient Egyptian expression ; a lock of hair characterizes many representations of Harpo- 
crates (cf. 11. 135-6, note). But possibly the meaning of βόστρυχος here is ' bunch of 
grapes', alluding to Isis' discovery of wine (11. 179-83). 

134-5• Cf. I. 51, note, and p. 193. 

135-6. την των θίών Άρποκράτιν : cf. 'the female Ra', 'the .^emale Horus ' in Isis' 
Egyptian titles (Budge, op. cit. 2'J η). The phrase seems to mean ' the darling of the 
gods ' and to be an adaptation from the Egyptian rather than a direct equivalent, since 
' Harpocrates ' means ' Horus the (male) child ', and the feminine would be something like 
' Hartsheris '. 

137. The stop after μισΐχΰ[η\ν is uncertain, and there might be one after ιτΜταρχυν. 
μισεχθης is not found elsewhere. 

138-9. ιτιστοΐασπιν is a curious Compound, rets τό ('ασπιι(οι/) might be read, but, though 
a letter may have been lost at the end of the previous line, ajjyeis or | ayet? is inadmissible. 
For Γ instead of γ cf., however, 1. 105 Μάτοις. διάδημα rather supports πιστοΐασιτιν άνίμου in 
preference to π£στο(ί')• άσπ\ν άνίμον,ον ασπιλι'αι/εροί, which could also be read. The writer is 
fond of the adjective πιστός, but it does not occur elsewhere in 1380 as a title. There are 
no other instances of the first person, though this is naturally found in similar invocations. 
"ιασπιν is a known form of the accusative, but not άσπίν, and ασπίδα is correctly written 
in 1. 58. For διάδημα cf. 1. 1 94. 'Isis of lapis-lazuli ' occurs among her titles in the 
demotic papyrus mentioned on p. 191. 

139-41. a'l κύν(ς might be read for fi/corer, in which case a dittography of αί must be 
supposed. A reference to the dogstar occurs in 1. 144, but the los Inscr. 27-8 ΐγω αγάλματα 

θ(ών Τ(ΐμάν ΐδίδαξη confirms etKo'res : cf. Diod. i. 1 5. If πρ in 1. 141 is right, πρ[οσηγορί]ας 

ίχοντα is possible, but -I Top[ (or τνρ) may be read for la πρ•. χάρΐ^ι τι or χάριτι is just 
possible, but the first letter is more like λ than a, μ, or χ. 

142. κ'υρία^Ισι μ\ΐ'γΊστη : κ[νρ]ία is very doubtful, the space being barely Sufficient. The 
first letter οί'Ίσι perhaps had a diaeresis, as in 1. 23. The letter above the line (cf. the 
critical note) is also very uncertain : perhaps η μεγίστη should be read. 

143-4. 'lot Ί,ίθι : for lo = Isis cf. 1. 64, note. The reading seems clear. Sothis, the 
Egyptian name of Sinus, was identified with Isis ; cf. e.g. "Ισισωθι as one word (nom. or 
voc.) among a number of magical names with which Isis is invoked in P. Brit. l\Ius. 121. 
495, and Plut. De Is. et Os. 61, quoted in 11. 221-2, note. 

145-6. There is a blank space before ([m]vo(is, of which the initial letter is enlarged, 
but apparently no stop. κ[α\ τό in 1. 144 would make that line unusually long, and άμίτρψον 


suits κρατύί better than i\'nt\vous, for which cf. 1. 173. The τ of θωτα in 1. 146 is very 
uncertain, but κα\ no\Le^is κ[ι\βωνα, which can be read, is hardly satisfactory. With Isis 
as the inventor of weaving cf. ' weaver and fuller ' in her Egyptian titles (Budge, 
op. cit. 278). 

146-7. The second letter of σώα[ί might be α and the first and third are very doubtful. 
σννορμισ&\Ύ\ν\αι is probably to be taken metaphorically (cf. the los Inscr. 21-2 εγώ γυι/αΐκα κα\ 

Άνδρα συνήγαγα. ϊγω γυναιξί δικάμηνον βρίφος ΐνίταξα^, though there Seem tO be nO parallels 

for this use and όρμίστριαν occurs in 1. 15. 

148-9. This sentence apparently balances the one following, σοί has perhaps been 
omitted before ol π[ can be read for η[ at the end of 1. 148. There is not room for θύουσι, 
but which letter was omitted between θ and σ is uncertain. 

149. απασαι is very doubtful, but cf. 1. 148 απαντάς. Possibly the second letter was μ 
with π written above it. αμαξαι (cf. Hdt. ii. 163) does not suit the traces of the fourth letter. 
Heracleopolis Magna is probably meant, not the Heracleopolis of 1. 56. 

152. όρώσι makes good sense, referring to visions of Isis in dreams (cf. Drexler, op. cit. 
522-5); but the supposed traces of letters above the line and the deletion of π are very 
uncertain. Perhaps οττω? should be read, the verb being then omitted, 

153-5. Probably the corrected word beginning with e was an aorist, and r^e agrees with 
ήμ(ρων, such an order being common at this period. The mention of the 365 days (cf. 
1. 204 ΐ]νιαυτ6ν τίλι[ον) may be connected with the circumstance that at Sai's the 5th intercalary 
day, the last of the year, was the birthday festival of Isis ; cf. P. Hibeh 27. 205. 

155. For ηπύα cf. 11. II and 86: possibly the e was deleted. For ίυδιάλλακτο! cf. 

P. Brit. Mus. 122. 28 (ύδιάλίκτοί γΐνοΰ. 

156. Β[ΰ]ο προσταγμάτων : cf. the fifteen θεσμοί in 1. I20. The traces suit δ[ύ]ο better 
than σ[ώ]ι/, which would moreover be superfluous after σοΰ in 1, 155, 

157""^• Cf• '^he los Inscr. 18—19 εγώ ηλίου κα\ σίληνης ττορύαν συνέταξα. 

1 6 1-2. τα άλλα Upa ζωα is apparently accusative, not nominative. The iepa ζωα may 
have included a sacred cow representing Isis, as the sacred bull at Memphis represented 

Apis, τω Όσίριδοϊ ΰδντω (cf 1. 2 1 6) probably refers to τό τοΰ'Οσίρι,δος ασυλον iv ω κΰσθαι τον 

"Οσφίν φασιν, situated a little above Sai's (Strabo, p. 803). A stop is expected before ev τω 

or ιλαροί. 

166. ] . ονται '. or ] . . ιται. 

167. The last word of the line is not βασϊλ[€]α. 

170. την γην σπορίμην : Isis was especially the goddess of the fields and crops; cf, e. g. 
the stele quoted by Diod. i. 14 ΐΰρονσα τψ κριθής καρπόν. 

171. -ασα[.] is probably a verb -ασα[ί] with άπαντα beginning a new sentence; but 
-α7α[.] . [•] ττάντα can be read. 

173• [ι^Ιπινοονσα την δρόσον: cf. 1. 229 and P. Leyden V. vii. 2^^1σις ή καλούμενη δρόσος, 

which Brugsch {Religion, 137) connects with the supposed origin of Isis as the morning- 

174. There are short blank spaces after -σον and πάντα, 

1 75-7• Cf. 11. 194-6, and Isis as τύχη (1. 51) and νίμεσις (Drexler, op. cit. 544-5). 

178-9. Cf p. 193. 

179-83• The punctuation is uncertain: there may have been stops after παρέσχες 
or πρώτον and after πανηγΰρισιν. In 1. 180 παντός can be read and ]α[ς] or ]o[v] before 
παρέσχες. It is not certain that the two letters at the end of the line were deleted, πρώτον 
in 1. 181 is very dubious, and . ρος τότε is possible. In 1. 182 εττοπτρα, i. e. επόπτρια (a late 
form) may have been first written (cf. κατόπτις in 1. 87), but the object of the correction (cf 
the critical note) is then obscure, ευχεαις (the two last letters are very doubtful) seems to be 
a mistake for εΙχα'Ίς or ευωχίαις, but επικ\ησε\σι\ cannot be read. Isis is not elsewhere 


credited with the discovery of wine, Isis-worship according to Plut. De Is. ei Os. 6 rather 
enjoining abstinence from wine. 

183-6. After ψ,υχίρώι/ there seems to be an omission of και θίρμων. That a stop is lost 
after συνύστηκ^ν is not certain, although there is a blank space ; if <i ων starts a fresh sentence 
connected only with what follows, there is a further omission in 1. 184 of something corre- 
sponding to fvperpia βγΐρηθης, but that can be avoided by connecting ΐξ Siv with what precedes, 
though π[ά]ντωρ in 1. 1 86 is then redundant. 

187. σο[ν €πα]νη[γ]αγ(ί : μ\ίγα]ν (cf. 1. 242) ή[γ\αγ€ς hardly fills up the space, but 'O<r[etpt]i' 
ή[γ]. is possible. JFor ena\vr][y\yes cf. 1. I 26 enavayovaav. 

189. ay'\aeov baipovos might refer to the serpent regarded as the good genius of each 
nome (Renouf, Proc. Soc. Bibl. Arch. 1890, p. 11 ; cf. ασπ/? in 1. 58), or possibly to the 
main western branch of the Nile (Ptol. iv. 5). 

193-4. Either ηϋξησας (cf. 1. 237) ΟΓ (π]η<>ξ. (cf. 1. 297) ΟΓ κατ]ηνξ. (cf. 1. 257) 

can be read. )7[γ]€|μοΐΊν is very insecure ; Ke\ .[.]. s is not unlikely. For 8ια8ημάτων 
cf. 1. 139. 

194-6. Cf. 11. 175-7. [«"Ι'ϊσίω? is possible in 1. 195 (cf. Plut. Pels, et Os. 62), but the 
ΛVord contrasted with it is not στ-άσ^ωί. 

196-7. After -πα (or πλ) there seems to be a correction, but it is not clear whether the 
letters between πα and ν were deleted. A phrase referring to Osiris is expected (cf. II. 188-9 
and 198), but τον TfKiov\jo%\ is' not satisfactory. κϋ\ρία is inadmissible in 1. 197. 

199-200. Perhaps (\noir]\aai ; cf. 1. 263. A stop would be expected after it. 

202-3. Ίσ[ψία can be read ; but Ίσεΐοκ is the commoner form at this period. For et? 

τον [aTTaj/jra yjpovo^ κατ]εσ[τ1);σα$• cf. 11. 2 1 3— 1 4. 

203-5. Fo•^ "' νόμιμα cf. 11. 244-5, and for ΐ]νιαντ6ν τ6λ(6)ίΓοι» cf 11. 153-5, note. 

205-6. It is not certain that there were stops after n]apiho)Kas and τόπορ. The inter- 
vening words are more likely to be governed by παρΐδωκας than by eSi^ay in 1. 207. 

206—7. Perhaps €v iravrei τόπ\ω κατ]€διξα5 (cf. 1. 178), the object being on σύ κτλ, 

209. [ττ'άν can be read at the beginning of the line, but not [π]αρα σοϋ. 

2 ΙΟ. The letter before ωνα can well be μ, bnί''Aμμωva hardly fills up the space, ποταμών 
(cf. 1. 223) άπ[α]ντή is also Unsuitable. For Horus-Apollo cf. 11. 246-7, note. The general 
sense of 11. 209-14 is parallel to that of 11. 262-8. 

212. k[. . .] : perhaps κ'ατα .]. 

213. The stop after [πά]σαΐ' seems to be superfluous. 

214-16. Cf. Diod. i. 27, who connects the high position of women in Egypt with Isis, 
and e. g. the alternative names of one of the nomes Γυναικοπολίτης and ΆνΒροττολίτης (1. 2i, 

216. For άδυτω cf. 11. 162 and 249. The following letter can be η, κ, or π. 

217. ]opav suggests φθ]οράν (cf 11. 175 and 195), but ]opov can be read. 

218. Possibly βασίλισσα "Ηρα : cf e.g. 1. 34. At the end of the line κνρι• is all that is 
visible, and as there is no special trace of the surface being damaged, perhaps κνμί(α)• should 
be read. There is however no other instance in 1380 of a participle beginning a fresh 

219. Perhaps [eVi σ]οΰ : cf 1. 269. 

220. πτ€ρνξ[ι]ρ•. cf. 11. 65-6, note. 

221-2. The supposed vestige of κ after τό can be a diaeresis over t or v. For Horus 
in connexion with the sun cf. 1. 233 and Plut. Pe Is. ei Os. 61 iv di ταΊς Έρμου λιγομ^ραις 

βίβλοι! ΊοΎορονσι γ(γράφθαι . . . οτι την μίν eVl τη! του ηλίου πΐριφοράς τ(ταγμίνην δυναμιν Ω,ρον, 
"Έλληνα δ* ΆπόλλωΐΌ κάΚοΰσι' την δ' eVl του πΡ(ΰματοί οί μίν'Όσιριν οι be Ί,άραπιν οι bt "Σ,ωθΧ 
(cf. 1. 144) Αίγυπτίοτ/. 

222-6. Cf. 11. 121-3 and 125-6. en-aVay" (^ci.ivavayovaavin 1. 126) is inadmissible in 


1. 224. The Eleutherus (cf. 1. 98, note) was quite a small river, and that it should be placed 
on the same level of sanctity as the Nile and Ganges is remarkable, 

227. ivKep . . V iariv. the doubtful ρ may be «. ev may be ev. There is a short blank 
space after iariv, but apparently no stop, χερσάΐον cannot be read. 

230. Whether γης καί θαλάσσης depend on λ[.]σ6[ω]Γ or are coupled with it is not clear; 
λ[ύ1σ([ω]ί in the sense of ' breaking ' is not satisfactory. 

232. Jar is probably the termination of a verb, but ηϋξ\ησ]α5 (cf. 1. 193) is unsuitable. 
There perhaps ought to have been a stop at the end of the line. 

233-4. Cf. 11. 221-2. In 1. 234 απο might be read at the beginning of the line, and 

■nXfiova ωραν (or -pas) τταν ορός (not προς) further on. 

235. The Dioscuri, though frequently associated with Sarapis on Alexandrian coins, 
are not known to have been specially connected with Isis ; but they like her were protectors 
of travellers by sea, and Isis was a goddess of the stars ; cf. 1. 159, and Drexler, op. cit. 435. 

237-9. Cf. 11. 138 and 227-30. 

239-42. For the insertion of τνράνυονς proposed in the critical note cf. the los Inscr. 

29 6γώ Tvpavvw\y αλόγας κατί\νσα, 

242-3. For Isis making Osiris immortal cf. 11. 13 and 246-7, notes. 
244-5. Cf. 11. 203-4. 

246-7. άθάνατον ϊποίησας is to be supplied from 1. 243. On the immortality conferred 
by Isis on Horus cf. Diod. i. 25. τ[ή]ς [μητρ]ός is possible in 1. 246, but the doubtful ο 

may be ω. DiodorUS {L C.) says τ6ν be *Ωρορ μεθ^ρμηνΐνόμΐνάν φασιν Απόλλωνα (cf. 1. 2Ιθ) 
ΰπάρχ(ΐν κα\ την re Ιατρικην καί την μαντικην υπο της μητρός Ισι8ος δι8αχθ(ντα 8ια των χρησμών 
(of. 1. 252, note) κα\ των θ(ραπΗων ivepytTelv το των ανθρώπων yeVof. 

248-9. Cf. 1. 295• 
249• Μ€μ[φ]ι : cf. 11. 1-3, note. 

250-2. αντοΰ is probably a corruption of αϋτον τοΰ πατρός, for Osiris does not seem to 
have been mentioned since 1. 242 and cf. 1. 263 sqq. 8ιάδοχον αντ[6]ν (ποίησ[ας] . . . eVl τοί 

πατρίου οικον. 

252. χρησ[μ]ω[8 .] . can refer to either Isis (cf. 1. 43) or Horus (cf 1. 266). 

254. Perhaps y]rj\v κα\ θάλ]α[σ\σαν : ci. 1. 230. 

257. Perhaps (ν'βούλων, contrasted with [ά]βουλίαις in 1. 258. 

263-4. Cf. 11. 250-2. 

264-6. ^Ωρον cannot be read in 1. 264, nor does βυ in 1. 265 seem to refer to "Αβυδο? 

(cf. 1. 279). With θρόνου cf. 1. 251 θρονιστής. 

269-71. Cf 1. 51, note. 

276. Ti τη^: or τυη;[. 

278. "Α]βν8ον•. one of the chief reputed tombs of Osiris was there; cf. Plut. De 
Os. 20. 

280-1. Cf. 1. 284. α\φώνηντον seems to be for αφώνητον : cf the next note. 

282. jXe.e^eu: cf. 1. 286 ]τααβ8(ΰ and 1. 296 ]οιωΐαν(ϋ. All three seem to be mystical 
names of Isis in the vocative : cf. P. Brit. Mus. 121. 493-7 and 531-7. 

285. \ey τη : or [α\ντΊ. 

2 86. Cf. 1. 282, note. 

291. For ety] τον αΙωνα'. cf. e.g. 1. 268. τον *Ωρον, followed by an adjective or 
substantive, is not unlikely ; cf. 11. 209-14. 

296. Cf 1. 282, note. ίλ[ may well be some part of ιλαρός : cf. 11. 127 and 162. 


1381. Praise of Imouthes-Asclepius. 

21-8 X ii2-5cni. Second century. 

The verso of 1380, which is in much better condition than the recto, 
contains an analogous text in honour of a deity whose worship in Roman times 
to some extent connects through Hermes with that of Isis, namely Imouthes, 
the Egyptian Imhotep, identified by the Greeks with Asclepius the god of 
medicine. This deity stands on a somewhat different level from that occupied 
by most other gods of Egypt, being a historical person who came to be deified, 
like Amenhotp son of Hapu, a sage whose sayings were still honoured in 
the Graeco-Roman period, as is shown by a Theban ostracon containing a selec- 
tion of them (Wilcken, Festschr. fur G. Ebers, pp. 142 sqq.). In the Kayos 
rekeios of Hermes (Pseudo-Apul. 37) Asclepius is coupled with Isis and Hermes 
as dii terreni et mundani. Egyptian writings on his temples and figures 
made Imhotep the son of Ptah, but attributed to him a human mother and 
wife. He seems to have been a celebrated sage, physician, and architect, 
who lived in the time of King Zoser of the 3rd dynasty, as was stated by 
Manetho, if Sethe's convincing emendation {Imhotep, p. 19) of that writer's entry 
concerning King Zoser, as found in Africanus and Eusebius, be accepted, 
Τοσορ^ροί Ιτ"η κ& (ίφ' ον 'Ιμούθη^)' ovtos ΑσκλήττίΟξ τταρα ΑΙγυτττίοι^ κατά την 
Ιατρίκην ν^νόμισται, κα\ τ-ην δια ζεστών λίθων οίκο^ομίαν ζϋρατο, αλλά καΐ γραφη5 
(ττζμζληθη. His principal temple, which was on the desert-edge near Memphis, 
is mentioned in the Serapeum papyri, e.g. P. Leyden i, p. 77 του -npos 
Μίμφίν μεγάλου ^Ασκληττίζίον, and his tomb was supposed to be there (Sethe, 
op. cit. p. 7), not far from the great step-pyramid which he built for Zoser; 
other temples to him at Thebes and Philae are known. The hieroglyphic 
evidence concerning Imhotep-worship comes mainly from inscriptions which are 
of the Ptolemaic age, though perhaps based in some cases on older material, and 
Sethe considers that his deification did not take place before the 36th dynasty. 
A. H. Gardiner [Zeitschr. f. Aeg. Spr. xl. 146) has pointed out that scribes 
were accustomed at least as early as the i8th dynasty to pour out the last 
drop of the water with which they mixed their ink as a libation to Imhotep. 
An ancient hymn, dating probably from the nth dynasty, which couples Imhotep 
with Hardedef, a wise and pious prince of the 4th dynasty (cf. 1. 7, note), 
is thought by Sethe to show that he was then regarded only as a sage. The 
author of 1381, however, asserts that the respect paid to Imhotep in late times was 
the revival of a worship encouraged or instituted by the celebrated king Mencheres 


of the 4th dynasty, but such attributions of great antiquity to religious foundations 
have commonly little historical value ; cf. pp. 223-4. 

Eleven columns, each of twenty-two or twenty-three lines, are for the 
most part well preserved, and few of the lacunae present serious difficulties. The 
author of the composition was primarily concerned with giving a paraphrase, 
rather than a literal translation, of an ancient Egyptian papyrus-roll concerning 
the worship of Imhotep, who in 11. 201-2 is called Imouthesson of Ptah, elsewhere, 
e. g. in 11. 228-9, Asclepius son of Hephaestus ; but the extant portion, which 
from internal evidence clearly comes from a point near the beginning of the work, 
is mainly of a prefatory character, and the actual paraphrase is not reached until 
Col. X. Lines 1-32 describe the circumstances attending the discovery of the 
roll, apparently at the temple of Imhotep at Memphis (cf. 1. 4, note), in the time of 
Nectanebo, the last of the Pharaohs and the subject of a number of legends in the 
popular literature of the Graeco-Roman period, e. g. the widely spread story of 
his being the father of Alexander, and the tale of his dream preserved in 
P. Leyden U (Wilcken, Milanges Nicole, 579-96). Owing to the loss of, 
probably, one or two columns at the outset, it is not known whether the writer 
stated the authority for his story about Nectanebo, which is likely in any case to 
have been derived from the priests of the " ΚσκΚψ!\.€\.ον. The worship of Imhotep 
had, it appears, decayed in the troublous times preceding that monarch, and the 
temple was largely deserted when the king, with a view to restoring the worship 
on its former basis, caused an examination of an ancient roll found there to be made 
through his ' archidicastes ', with the result that the descendants of a number of 
priests had posts of emolument revived for them, and the king made a large 
present of land to the temple. In 1. 32 the author enters upon a rather long 
personal explanation of the reasons which had led him first to undertake and 
then to postpone the publication of this ancient document in the Greek language 
(11. 33-64), and after three years interval to resume his work at the direct 
instigation of the god, who is represented as having miraculously appeared to him 
and his mother and cured him of a fever (11. 64-167). After further explana- 
tions addressed to Asclepius concerning the nature of this composition in his 
honour (11. 168-202), and an invocation of pious worshippers (11. 203-18), the 
writer proceeds to paraphrase the contents of the roll, but at 1. 247 the text 
breaks off soon after it had reached the really interesting point. 

The principal facts which emerge from the fragmentary account of the 
ancient Egyptian document are that it traced Imhotep-worship back to Mencheres, 
i. e. Menkaura, the Mycerinus of Herodotus (1. 222 ; cf. 11. 28-32), and that the 
tomb of Imhotep is classed with those of ' Horus son of Hermes and also Caleoibis 
son of Apollo' as having been the object of special honours from that king 


(11. 228-34). Menkaura, the builder of the third pyramid of Giza, was worshipped, 
like his more famous predecessors Cheops {Khiifu) and Chephren {Khafra) 
in Saite times, when scarabs with his name are common, and his piety, which was 
described apparently in some detail in the document with which our author 
is concerned, is often alluded to in Egyptian religious tales. Herodotus (ii. 129), 
followed by Diodorus (i. 64), contrasts his virtues with the vices of Khufu and 
Khafra for reasons which as regards the two latter are not clear (cf. Wiedemann, 
Herodots zweites Buck, 479) ; but the statements of the ancient Egyptian roll that 
no wars occurred in the time of Menkaura, and that the country was extremely 
prosperous, are in accordance with popular tradition, and whether the Avorship of 
Imhotep really dated from early times or not (cf. p. 221) that monarch is a most 
natural person to be associated with its institution or encouragement. The Old 
Empire kings were sometimes credited with composing books themselves, and 
from the manner in which Menkaura is connected with the βίβλος in both places 
in which he is mentioned it is quite possible that he was nominally the author of 
the roll. This was of considerable antiquity since it apparently required to 
be repaired by Nectanebo (11. 24-5, note), though owing to the loss of the first 
column or two of 1381, in which the age of the book may well have been 
described, and the uncertainty attaching to the precise restoration of 11. 226-7, it 
is safer to suppose that the roll was, in reality at any rate, the composition 
of a priest. The fact that it professed to have been written under the Old 
Empire is, however, compatible with a date not earlier than the Saite period, 
when the archaizing tendency of the age probably led to the production of much 
religious literature concerning the ancient kings. But so far as it goes, the 
evidence of 1381 favours the view that the worship of Imhotep began in the early 
days of Egyptian history. 

The interesting mention of the tombs of Asclepius, Horus, and Caleoibis 
honoured by Menkaura presents several problems. The name KaXeoi^is is not 
found elsewhere, though ΚαλΓ^ι? occurs in P. Grenf. ii. 32. 7, and no known ancient 
Egyptian deity bears a name which suggests an identification. His father, 
Apollo, would naturally be the god Horus, with whom Apollo was regularly 
identified in Graeco-Roman times (e. g. Hdt. ii. 156, Diod. i. 25, Plut. De Is. et 
Os. 12), but the four known sons of Horus were called Hapi, Mestha, Qebhsenuf, 
and Duamutf. Another difficulty arises from the mention of Horus son of 
Hermes (i. e. Thoth), who is distinguished from Apollo. Horus in late times 
(and probably in early times as well) was uniformly regarded as the son of 
Osiris, and it is remarkable, if Horus here is the ordinary deity of that name, 
that no legends about his tomb appear to be known, although Isis was sometimes 
supposed to have been buried at Memphis (cf. 1380. 1-3, note), and many towns 


claimed to possess the tomb of Osiris. Unless Apollo here means some other 

god than Horus, which is unlikely, there would seem to be only two suitable 

explanations of the distinction between Horus son of Hermes and Apollo, 

Either Horus son of Hermes was a deified man on the same level as Imhotep, 

being earlier than the 4th dynasty and the reputed son of a god, in which case 

he and Horus = Apollo have nothing to do with each other ; or else of the 

various local legends out of which the Horus-gods grew (cf Budge, op. cit. i. 

466 sqq.), two different myths are here associated, one making him a deified 

man (Horus son of Thoth), who had a tomb, the other placing him on a level 

with Ptah and Thoth and assigning to him a son Caleoibis, who in any case 

is likely to have been a deified man like Imhotep rather than an ordinary god. 

In support of the second view may be urged the somewhat similar conflict 

of testimony about Thoth, who under the title Έρμψ 6 Θηβαίος was coupled by 

Clement of Alexandria {Strom, i. 21) with Άσκλητηοί 6 Μβμφίτης as an example 

of a deified man. Sethe {op. cit. 9) connects Έρ /xrjs ό Θηβαίος with the Theban 

temple of ' Thoth-Teos, the ibis ', who, he thinks, was a deified high-priest 

of Memphis ; but this explanation is somewhat doubtful, particularly with regard 

to Clement's Hermes; cf. Reitzenstein, Pozmandrcs, 118 sqq. In view of the 

many forms taken by Horus-worship and the antiquity claimed for this Egyptian 

roll in 1381 we prefer to interpret ' Horus son of Hermes ' as the ordinary 

Horus, and regard the reference to the tombs of Asclepius, Horus, and an 

unknown Caleoibis, all in connexion with a 4th dynasty king, as another proof 

of the early character of the source whence this tradition was derived. 

That part of the preface which deals with the writer's personal affairs 
and occupies the bulk of 1381 incidentally throws a few sidelights on Imhotep- 
worship. The expression ταύτης (sc. γραφψ) ξνρζτής applied to him in 11. 187—8 
is in keeping with the statements of Manetho (cf. p. 221) and an author quoted 
by Stobaeus, Ed. phys. i. 41, who says that Asclepius invented τιοιητικη as well as 
ιατρική. The invocation to pious worshippers (II. 203-15) represents him not only 
in his usual character of healer of diseases, protector of physicians, and general 
benefactor, but also as specially concerned with the pursuit of virtue, and as the 
protector of seafarers, a function generally performed by Isis or the Dioscuri. 
With regard to the writer himself it is clear from 11. 145-51 that he was not 
a priest, and in none of his references to the healing art is there any indication 
that he was a physician. Where he lived is not stated ; probably his home was 
at Memphis near the ^Ασκλητιΐζΐον (cf. 11. 70-3, 145-51, and p. 321). From his 
assertion in 11. 170-4 that he had previously composed a 'physical' treatise 
on the creation of the world, and the passage in which he addresses Asclepius as 
διδάσκαλο? in connexion with his composition (11. 181-98), he seems to have been 


by profession a literary man, with a knowledge of ancient Egyptian (11. 32-5) and 
interested in mythology, being probably familiar with the works of the later 
Greek sophists and early writers of romances, as is indicated by his florid style 
and fondness for semi-poetical expressions and rare compounds, such as άκ^σώ- 
hvvos and oKXaTTOXoyos. The date of the MS. shows that the composition of the 
work took place not later than the early part of the second century, and it may 
belong, like that of 1380, to the first ; but it was probably at least two centuries 
later than Pap. V of Leyden (second century B. c.) and not far removed from 
the age of Aristides, Avhose oration eis Άσκλη-ηιον covers different ground from 
that of 1381, and Apuleius, who, like Aristides, flourished under the Antonines. 
Apuleius composed a treatise De mundo which is extant, an address in 
honour of Aesculapius which is lost, and a dialogue and hymn in honour 
of the same god, partly in Greek partly in Latin, of which an extract from 
the preface is preserved in his Flor. 18, and an extant Latin translation of 
the Greek dialogue between Hermes Trismegistus and Asclepius was attributed 
to him. If any of his Greek treatises had survived, the style would very likely 
have shown several of the same characteristics as that of 1381, though the 
rhetorical description of the appearance of Asclepius in 11. 91-140 was perhaps 
more on a level with the compositions of persons who had been cured at 
the Serapeum of Canopus, to which Strabo alludes in p. 801 ξνγγράφονσί bi 
Tives Koi TCLS θβραττεία?, άλλοι 6e aperas των €ντανθα λογίων (cf. 1382), than with the 
highly elaborated description of the appearance of Isis to Lucius in Metavi. xi 
or Aristides' account of his visions of Asclepius in the lepoi Koyoi. 

The text of 1381 is not very accurate and bears no trace of a systematic 
revision. The only interlinear addition concerns the spelling of Μ€νχορ7/οι;?, 
e being written above rj in a hand which may be different from that of the main 
text but is more likely to be the same. A number of small omissions occur and 
the construction of several sentences breaks down, though it is not always certain 
that this was the scribe's fault ; cf. 11. 24-5,59, 97, 129-30, 136, 322, and 226-8, 
notes. Pauses in the sense are sometimes indicated by blank spaces, which also 
sometimes appear, owing to roughness of the surface, in other positions. A single 
(medial) stop is found in 1. 167, but no other diacritical marks except diaeresis. 
The papyrus is referred to in the notes as Π. 

Col. i. Col. ii. 

[' •]^ Tfl^'"]? ο,κουσα^ b jyc[icre- σαν ίκάστω π[ροφ\ητύαν. ov 

[ι/€]Γ/3ί9 καΐ παροξννθζΐς [σ]φ6- μην άλλα και [. . π]οίήσα9 την 

8ρα μ\ν €7Γί τοΪ9 άποστατ[ο\ΰ- 25 βίβλον άναν[€ω\σ€ω9 αύτον 
σιν τον iepov, βουλ6μξν[ο]ς 'Α[σ]κλήπίον [6πλο]ντισ(ν &λ- 




5 (5e e^ άναγραψηί το πλ77ί^]ο? αύ- 
των ^πικρξΐναί θάτ[τ]οι/, ττα- 
peKeXeveTO Νίγαύτί [τ]ω 8ύ- 
ποντι Tore την άρ>(ί(5[ί]κ[ασ]τ€[ί'- 
αν '^ραυναν τή^ βίβλου fij}{vi) 

to eVi μάλιστα ποιήσασθαί. ό Se 
eKTeuiaTcpov αύτην αναζή- 
τησαν €κ6μισ€ τω βασιλξΐ, 
S[v]o [άν]τΙ τριάκοντα ήμβρών 
μόνον ανάλωσαν eiv την 

15 [ζ]ήτησιν. avayvovs Se ό βασι- 
[Ae]i)y πανύ μ\ν ήγάσθη enl 
τω την ίστορίαν θ^ίω, ίξ Se 
και ξϊκοσι βνρων lepeiv [τ]ονν 
άπο 'Ηλίου πόλεων προπ[ο]μ- 

2 ο π^ύσανταν τον θ€ο[ν] els τη[ν 
Μύμψιν άπίνζίμζν αύτων 
τοις kyyovoLV την προ\σ'\ηκου-. 

λ\αϊ\ν πυροφόροιν άρούραιν τρια- 
κοσίαιν τριάκοντα, και μάλ[ι-] 
στα άκουσαν δια την βίβλου 

3ο τον θβον ύπο Μ,^νγορίουν 
[e/]? μiyeθov ήσκημίνον cre- 
[β]ασμων. εγώ Se πολλάκιν την 
[α]ύτήν βίβλου την epμηveίav 
\άp'\^άμevov Έλληνίδι γλ[ώ]σστ) 

35 [^μ]αθον 6ν αίωνι κηρνξαι, και 
ev μ^στ) βζύων ttj ypaifi^ 
eπeσγe6ηv την ττροθυμίαν 
τω την ίστόριαν [[τω]] μζyeθeι, 
δ[ι]6τί €^0) eλeΐv '4μβλλο[ν] αύ- 

4θ την 6e[oT\v yap μόνοί\ν\ αλλ' ου 
[6ν]ητοΊν e[[0]]0iic[[. •]]τ[ό]_ΐ' τάν de- 
ων SLηyeΐσθa[L\ δvvάμeιv. ου 
yap άπο7υ•^ό[ν'\τι μοι μόνον 
alSoav ην προν άν8ρων άλλα 

4• ϊΐρον Π. 1 8. iVpeis Π. ^4~5• ^• '''ψ βίβλου ΰί'αΐ'[€ω]σίΐ' ?. 

above η. 35• '• ^^ for ον. 38• ιστορία: π, α being corrected. 

30. Second e of μΐνχορίους 

Col. iii. 

45 καΐ €.κωλυσ^ [μe τ]ά κατι6[ντα . . .] 
δια άyavaκτήσavτov [καΐ αθα- 
νάτου apeTTjV αύτοΰ τ[ο την yp]a- 
φή[ν] σ[υ]νπληρουμίν[ην] T[anei-] 
νωμα, οψέλησαντι ό[ ]e 6 βί\ο\ν 

50 μ\ν eύδaίμωv, ή Se [ ] φήμη 

[ά]θάνα[τ]ον. 4τοιμότ€[ ]ρον yap ό 
Oebv προ[ν] e[ύe]pyeσίa[ ]ν ei' ye και 
τονν αύτ{ίκ)α μόνον ^v[ ]σeβeΐv 
TTJ προθυμία 7Γολλα[ ]κιν άπηυ- 

55 δηκνίην την ίατρικ[ ]ήν ττρον 
τάν κaτe^)(oύσav αύτον\^ ]? νόσουν 

Col. iv. 

σκ[ήψασα ά]θ€ον Τ€ταρταία ή 

φρζίκη αύτην eστpόβeι, 6ψ€ 
7 ο μόλιν voήσavτev ίκίτ[α]ι πα- 

ρήμ^ν ίπι τον θebv τη (^μ)ητρι [ ] 

ωμζροι άκ€σίν ίπινίΰσαι 

την νόσου, ό S' οία καΐ προν πάν- 

ταν χρηστον Si όνβιράτων 
75 φavelv eύτeλeσιv αύτην 

άπήλλα^ζν βοηθήμασιν, 

ήμeΐv Se ^μη^ τάν ίοικυίαν 

δ[ί\ά θυσιών τω σώσαντι 

άπeδίδoμev γάριταν. €πeι 



'(ίσωσ^ν. οθβν φνγων \το βγι-^οκίν- 

8υνον [ei]y καιρόν €τ[ \ήρουν 

τον του (y)'7^[o]uy, άν€[β]α[ ]\\6[μ\τ^ν {81) 

6ο την νπόσγ^^σίν. τ6τ[ ]ξ γα[ρ] μά- 
λιστα πβρισσόν τι τη[ ]ν ήλικίαν 
φρονίΐν πίφνκ€, τ[α ])(υ γαρ ή 
ν€[6τ]η9 και €φ[ορ]μη φ[ ]θάνξΐ 
ορβγονσα την προθν[μί ]αν. inei 

65 Se τ[/ο]ί€τη9 7Γα[ρ]ωχ^ητ[ο ] )(p6vos 
μ[ηδ]€ν €τι μ[ο]ν κάμν[ λρντο?, 
τρ[ΐ€\τη^ S\\ . .] 7-77 μητ[ ]/θί km- 

80 8\ κάμοί μ€τα ταντα αίφνί- 
δι[ο\ν άλγημα κατά δβξιοΰ 
ίρύη πλ^νρον, ταχι)? επί 
τον βοηθον της άνθρύΰ- 
πίνης ω[ρ]μησα φύσεως, 

85 [καϊ\ ττάΧιν ετοιμότερος 
νπακονσας ety eX^ov 
[e]vepyeaT€[p]ov την ιδίαν 
άπεδεί^ατο evepyeaiav, 
ην ίπαληθβιώ μίλλων 

90 τάί αντοΰ φρικτας δν- 

49• 1• ωψίλησαντι. 54~5• οίΐ"'?ϋδ»;κυϊϊ;5 της Ιατρικής Π. 59• ^• (7)ίρ<"^• 

Π. α of τα? COrr. from e. 86. υ of υπάκουσα? COrr. 87• 'ί^ΐ•αν Π. 

70. ίκΐται Π. 1'J. μη 

Col. V. 

r[a]yiie[i]y anayyeWeiv. νύξ 
ην 0T€ πάν [€\κ€Κοίμητο 
ζωον πλην των άλγ[ο]ύν- 
των, το δβ θύον ίν€ργί- 
9 δ (TTepov ίφαίνίτο, και μ€ 

σφοδρό? e^Xeye πνρ{€τ)6ς, άσθμα- 
τί re καΐ βηκι τή9 άπο του 
7rXefp[o£'] άναγομ€ν[η]? οδν^ 
νης ίσφαδάϊζον καρηβα- 

ιοο ρηθζΐζ [δ]€ Tois πόνοι? {ά}λ77- 
Θαργο? [e]iy νπνον ίφβρό- 
μην [ή] 5e μήτηρ cuy (πΙ 
παιδί, κα[ι] φν[σ]€ί φιλόστοργο? 
γαρ εστίν, τάΐ? εμαΐ? ύπερ- 

1 05 αλγ[ο]νσα βάσανοι? εκαθε- 

ζίτο μηδ\ καβ" ολίγον νπνον 
μ€τ[α]λαμβάνονσα. ύτ ε^απ\ί\- 
νη? €ωρα — οντ οναρ ονσ ν- 
πνο?, οφθαλμοί γαρ ήσαν 

Col. vi. 

δε[ο]υ? ειστ]€ΐ φαντασίοί^ν'^, 
και άκό[π]ω? κατ[ο]πτ€ν€ΐν 
115 Κ(ύλνονσα efre αντον τον 
θεον €iT€ αντον θεράπον- 
τα?, πλην ην τι? νπερμή- 
κη? μεν ή κατ άνθρω- 
πον λαμπ[ρ]αΐ? ήμφιεσμε- 
Ι20 νο? όθόναι? τχι ενωνύ- 
μω χειρι φέρων βίβλον, 
ο? μόνον άπο κεφαλ[ή]? 
εω? ποδών δι? και τρ[ϊ\? 
επισκόπησα? με άφανη? 
125 εγ[ε]νετο. ή δε άνανήψασα 
ετί τρομώδη? εγείρειν με 
επειράτο. ενροΰ[σ]α δε με 
τον μεν [π]υρετον ά7Γί;λ[λ]α- 
γμενον [ι]δρώτα δε μοι πολ- 
ικό λον επαπ[ο]λισθάνοντο? 

την /^e[i'] τον θε[ο]ΰ προσε- 



no άκξίνητοι Βιηνυγμ^νοί, 

/SXeTTOiTe? μ\ν ουκ άκρα- 
βω?, ^[[.lleia γαρ αύτη ν μξτα 

κννησΐ[ν] ζπιφάν€ίαν, e- 
μ€ 8e άπ[ο]μάσσουσα ν[η]ψα• 
λιώτ€[ρο]ν ζποίησ€ν. και 
135 διαλα[λή]σαρτί μοι την τον 

99• ^(τφαδαϊζον Π, 

Ιθ8. ο οί οναρ COrr. from α. no. 1. διηνοιγμίνοι. 

129— 30• ί• ΜΟ^ πολΰΐ' 

Col. νϋ. 

Θΐοΰ ττρ[θ€]\ομ€νΐ] μηνύζΐν άρ€- 
την ΊτροΧαβων ίγω πάντα ά- 
ττήγγζλον αντβ' οσα \y\ap δί\α\ της 
οψζω? dSev ταϋτα ey[a)] St 0- 

140 ρζΐράτων ίφαντασίώθην. 

καΐ τωνδζ της nXevpas λωφη- 
σάντων μοι άλγηδόνων, ίτι 
μοί μί\α'\ν δοντο9 του θβοΰ άκ€- 
σώδννον ίατρξίαν, ίκήρνσσον 

145 ο-ύτον [τ]ας ζύζργίσίας. πάλιν δ* η- 
μών ταΐς κατα δύναμιν αντον 
βξΐυμ€νισαμ€νων Θυ[σ]ίαί9 
αύτο9 άπητβί δια [τ]ον kv άγν€ίαίς 
αύτω προσπολοΰντ[ο]9 ίβρβως 

ΐζο την πάλαι κατηγγζλμύνην αύτω 
νπόσγζσιν. ήμβΐς δΙ μηδ\ θυ- 
σιών μήτζ άνα6ήματ[ο]ς χρε- 
ωστάς αυτούς ίίδότίς όμως 
τον[το]ις αύτον πάλιν ίκξτβν- 

155 ^ΐΑβ^• ^^ [^1 °^ τούτοις πο[λ]λάκις 
Ηπ€{ι}ν ήδξσθαι άλλα τω προ- 
καθωμολ[ο]γημ€νω διηπό- 

Col. viii. 

/3[ο]ΐ'[ι/, κα\ι μόλις ταπ€ΐνονν- 

τί μοι τοντο το θ€Ϊο[ν] τή[ς] γρα• 

1 6ο 0779 ύπ^ζΐ μ€ χρ^ος- ^ττά 

δ' άπαξ ζπ€γνώκ€ΐ[ς] μ€ [a]jue[[X]]- 
Xeiv, δέσποτα, της 0^ί[α\ς βί- 
βλου, την σην ίπικαλζσάμξ- 
νος πρόνοιαν και [ ]πλη^ρ'^- 

ϊ6ζ ρωθίΐς της σης θ([ι]6τητος 
€πι τον της ίστορία[ς] ωρμη- 
σα θξήλατον άθλον. και 
οίμαι κατα[πλ]ώσ€ΐν [τ]ην 
σην προφη[τ€]ύων ίπίνοι- 

I'jo αν και γαρ [το]ν της κοσμο- 
ποιίας πιθ\α\νολ\ο\γηθίν- 
τα μΰθον kv έτύρα β[ί]βλω 
φυσικω προ[ς] άλήθζίαν άνη- 
πλωσα λόγω. και kv Trj ολη 

1 75 ΎΡ^Φϋ "^ί^] Η-^^ ύστερον προσ- 
€πλήρωσα, το δβ π€ρ[ί]σσ€υ- 
ον άφζΐλον, διήγημα δί 
που μακρολογούμ[ζ]νο[ς] 
συντόμως ^λάλησα 

1 44• ioTpeiav Π, 1 45• V οί ημών COTT. '49• 'ψ^^^• Π. Ι 54• "Cfevo/x' f jv Π. 1 64. t ΟΙ 

/cat COrr. from τ ?. l66. iaTopia[s]n. 167. αθλον- U. 168. \. καθαπλίώσ^ιν. 170-I. κοσμο- 

ττοι'ϊας Π. 1 75• i'^repoi' Π. 



Col. ix. 

180 Koi aWaTTO\oyo\y μΰβ]ον 

ατταξ ζφρασ-α, 66ev, [pia^noTcc, 
κατά την σην ξύμ\βνξ.ί\αν 
αλλ' ον κατά την ^μ[ην φρ]6- 
νησιν τζΤ€λζσιονρ[γ]ίι[σ]θαι 

185 τεκμαίρομαι την β[ίβλ]ον. 

Tjj y[a\p στ} θειοτητι [το]ιαν~ 
τη ά[ρ]μ6ζ€ΐ γ[ρ]αφή' τ[αντ]ηί 
δ' ζύρξτή?, μύγίστξ [θ€]ών 
Ασκλήπΐ€ καΐ διδάσ[κ]αλ€, 

1 90 κα[ί] ταΪ9 άπ[άν]των δί[κ]νυ- 

σαι γάρισι. [πα]σα yap [α\να- 
θήματο9 η [Θ]υσία9 δ[ω\ρζα 
τον παραντ[ί]κα μ[ο\ν[ο]ν 
άκμάζζί κα[ίρ]6ν, 'άφθαρ- 

195 τ<^'- ^^ '"Ο*' μ^^λοντα, γρα- 
φή δΐ αθάνατοι χ«)θ[ί]? κ(Χ•- 
τα καιρόν άνηβάσκ[ο]υσα 
τη[ν] μνήμην. Έλλην[ΐ\9 δβ 
π[ά]σα γλωσσά την σην λα- 

200 λ[^][[. .]]σ6[ί] ίστορίαν κ[αί] πα? 
"Ελ[λ]ην άνηρ τον τ[ο]ΰ Φθα 
σεβήσεται Ίμον\θ]ην. 

Col. χ. 
σύνί[τζ δε]ϋρο, [ω aV]5pey 
€ύμ[ζν€ίί] κα\1 άγα]θοί, άπι- 

205 '■^3 βάσκα[νοι\ κ[αϊ\ ασεβείς' 

σνν[ί]τ€, ω [. . .]ο[. .1 . [.1. όσοι θη- 
Τ€ν[σ]αντε[ς] τον [θ]€ον νό- 
σω[ν] άπηλλάγητε, [ο]σοι 
την ιατρικην μ([τα)(\€ΐρί- 

210 ζβσθξ ίπι[σ]τήμη[ν, οσ]οι 
πονήσ€Τ€ ζηλ[ωτα]ί αρε- 
τής, οσο[ί] τΓολλω πλήθει 
€πην^ή[θ]ητ€ αγαθών, 
όσοι κινδύνους θαλάσσης 

215 7Γε[ρ]ΐ€σώθητ€. εις πάν- 
τα γαρ τόπον διαπεφοίτη- 
κεν ή τον θεοΰ δύναμις 
σωτήριος, μέλλω γαρ αντοΰ 
τερατώδεις άπαγγελλείν 

2 20 επ[ι]φανείας δυνάμεως 
τ€ μεγέθη εύε[ρ]γετημά- 
των (τ€) δωρήματα, έχει δε ού- 
τως' [ο] βασιλεύς Μενε- 
χερης τριών θεών κη- 

225 δε[ί]αν [εν]σεβήσας αίωνίαν 

200. ίστορίαν Π, 205• " Ο^ ασφας C01T. from η. 209. ιατρικην Π. 215. e of «s COrr. 

Col. xi. 

εϊληφε δό^αν, [και διά της ? 
βίβλου την φ[ήμην εύτυ- ? 
\ήσας. την τ[ον Ασκλη- 
ττίου παιδος ' Ηφ[αίστου τα- 
230 φήν και την τ[οΰ ' Ω]ρου 'Ερ[- 
μ[ο]ΰ ετι δε Καλεοίβιος 

Τ€ Αίγυπτος δια τούτο κ[α]ί 
καρποΐς άφ{θ)όνοις εύθη- 
νεΐτο. TTJ γαρ τού προεσ• 
240 τωτος ευσέβεια ύποτε- 
ταγμεναι εύπ[ορ]ούσι χώ- 
[ρ]αι, καΐ τούνα[ντί]ον εφ' ο'ις 



'AπόWωvos παι8ο9 άφθό- ίκζΐνος δνσσ[6ββ]ί βπΐ 

ϊ/ο[φ νρήμασίν δωρησά- tovtol9 κακοΪ9 [ά]ναλίσκον- 

μ€νο9 άντάποίναν έ'σ- 245 '^ο.'- ον Se τρόπον '^χρη- 
2 35 χ^ί^ ξύδαιμονίας πλή- σ€ν αύτω ό 5eo[y 'Λ]σκλήπιοί 

θοζ. άτΓολίμητο^ γαρ τ6- σπουδάζ^ίν αύτ\ο\ϋ πβρί 

' Nectenibis on hearing this, being extremely vexed with the deserters from the temple 
and wishing to ascertain their number speedily by a list, ordered Nechautis, who then per- 
formed the duties of archidicastes, to investigate the book within a month, if possible. 
Nechautis conducted his researches with much strenuousness, and brought the list to 
the king after spending only two days instead of thirty upon the inquiry. On reading the 
book the king was quite amazed at the divine poAver in the story, and finding that there 
were twenty-six priests who conducted the god from Heliopolis to Memphis, he assigned 
to each of their descendants the due post of prophet. Not content with this, after com- 
pleting the renewal of the book (?), he enriched Asclepius himself with three hundred and 
thirty arurae more of corn-land, especially because he had heard through the book that the 
god had been worshipped with marks of great reverence by IMencheres. 

Having often begun the translation of the said book in the Greek tongue, I learnt at 
length how to proclaim it, but while I was in the full tide of composition my ardour was 
restrained by the greatness of the story, because I was about to make it public ; for to gods 
alone, not to mortals, is it permitted to describe the mighty deeds of the gods. For 
if I failed, not only was I ashamed before men, but also hindered by the reproaches (?) that 
I should incur if the god were vexed, and by the poverty of my description, in course 
of completion, of his undying virtue (?). But if I did the god a service, both my life would 
be happy and my fame undying ; for the god is disposed to confer benefits, since even 
those whose pious ardour is only for the moment are repeatedly preserved by him after the 
healing art has failed against diseases which have overtaken them. Therefore avoiding 
rashness I was waiting for the favourable occasion afforded by old age, and putting off the 
fulfilment of my promise ; for then especially is youth wont to aim too high, since imma- 
turity and enterprise too quickly extend our zeal. But when a period of three years had 
elapsed, in which I was no longer working, and for three years my mother was distracted by 
an ungodly quartan ague which had seized her, at length ha\ang with difficulty compre- 
hended we came as suppliants before the god, entreating him to grant my mother recovery 
from the disease. He, havhig shown himself favourable, as he is to all, in dreams, cured 
her by simple remedies ; and we rendered due thanks to our preserver by sacrifices. When 
I too afterwards was suddenly seized with a pain in my right side, I quickly hastened to the 
helper of the human race, and he, being again disposed to pity, listened to me, and displayed 
still more effectively his peculiar clemency, which, as I am intending to recount his terrible 
powers, I will substantiate. 

It was night, when every living creature Λvas asleep except those in pain, but divinity 
showed itself the more effectively ; a violent fever burned me, and I was convulsed with loss of 
breath and coughing, owing to the pain proceeding from my side. Heavy in the head with my 
troubles I was lapsing half-conscious into sleep, and my mother, as a mother would for her 
child (and she is by nature affectionate), being extremely grieved at my agonies was sitting 
without enjoying even a short period of slumber, when suddenly she perceived — it was no 
dream or sleep, for her eyes were open immovably, though not seeing clearly, for a divine 
and terrifying vision came to her, easily preventing her from observing the god himself 


or his servants, whichever it was. In any case there was some one whose height was more 
than human, clothed in shining raiment and carrying in his left hand a book, who after 
merely regarding me two or three times from head to foot disappeared. When she had 
recovered herself, she tried, still trembling, to wake me, and finding that the fever had left 
me and that much sweat was pouring off me, did reverence to the manifestation of the god, 
and then wiped me and made me more collected. When I spoke with her, she wished to 
declare the virtue of the god, but I anticipating her told her all myself; for everything that 
she saw in the vision appeared to me in dreams. After these pains in my side had ceased 
and the god had given me yet another assuaging cure, I proclaimed his benefits. But when 
we had again besought his favours by sacrifices to the best of our ability, he demanded 
through the priest who serves him in the ceremonies the fulfilment of the promise long ago 
announced to him, and we, although knowing ourselves to be debtors in neither sacrifices 
nor votive offering, nevertheless supplicated him again with them. But when he said 
repeatedly that he cared not for these but for what had been previously promised, I was at 
a loss, and with difficulty, since I disparaged it, felt the divine obligation of the composition. 
But since thou hadst once noticed, master, that I was neglecting the divine book, invoking 
thy providence and filled with thy divinity I hastened to the inspired task of the history. 
And I hope to extend by my proclamation the fame of thy inventiveness ; for I unfolded truly 
by a physical treatise in another book the convincing account of the creation of the world. 
Throughout the composition I have filled up defects and struck out superfluities, and in 
telling a rather long tale I have spoken briefly and narrated once for all a complicated 
story. Hence, master, I conjecture that the book has been completed in accordance with 
thy favour, not with my aim ; for such a record in writing suits thy divinity. And as the 
discoverer of this art, Asclepius, greatest of gods and my teacher, thou art distinguished by 
the thanks of all men. For every gift of a votive offering or sacrifice lasts only for the 
immediate moment, and presently perishes, while a written record is an undying meed of 
gratitude, from time to time renewing its youth in the memory. Every Greek tongue will 
tell thy story, and every Greek man will worship the son of Ptah, Imouthes. Assemble 
hither, ye kindly and good men ; avaunt ye malignant and impious ! Assemble, all ye . . ., 
who by serving the god have been cured of diseases, ye who practise the healing art, 
ye who will labour as zealous followers of virtue, ye who have been blessed by great abun- 
dance of benefits, ye who have been saved from the dangers of the sea ! For every place 
has been penetrated by the saving power of the god. 

I now purpose to recount his miraculous manifestations, the greatness of his power, the 
gifts of his benefits. The history is this. King Mencheres by displaying his piety in the 
obsequies of three gods, and being successful in winning fame through the book, has won 
eternal glory. He presented to the tombs of Asclepius son of Hephaestus, Horus son of 
Hermes, and also Caleoibis son of Apollo money in abundance, and received as recompense 
his fill of prosperity. For Egypt was then free from war for this reason, and flourished with 
abundant crops, since subject countries prosper by the piety of their ruler, and on the other 
hand owing to his impiety they are consumed by evils. The manner in which the god 
Asclepius bade Mencheres busy himself with his tomb . . .' 

I. τα[ντ]α'. the Supposed τ has an unusually short cross-bar on the left, and perhaps 
7Γο[λλ]ά should be read. The prededing word might be [. . .Jt. From the references to τον 
Upoi (1. 4), τψ βίβλου (1. 9), and τ6ν θίό[ρ\ (1. 2o), as if they had been mentioned previously, 
it is clear that Col. i is not the actual beginning of the papyrus, which on the recto breaks 
off in the middle of a column at this point. 

Ι<€[κτΐν{]ΐβΐ5 : for the form cf. Ν(κτίνΊβΐ5 in Theopomp. Fr. 101 (G-H); ^(κτανιβώ, 
-τ(ναβώ, -τανίβκ, &c., are found elsewhere. 


4. τον Upov: sc. the ΆσκληπκΙον at Memphis (cf. 11. 21, 26, and introd.) rather than 
at Heliopolis (1. 19), where no temple of Asclepius is known. 

7. Neither Nexairtr (or -αντης) ποΓ ΝΕχαΰί seems to be known, but Νεχαώ^ occurs, and 
Νεχ-αώ? and Νεχΐνώ as variants of 'Νΐχαώ. Suttovtl rare την άρχ^ι^\ϊ\κ\ασγ(\ί\αν on the analogy 
of 727. 5 would imply that Nechautis or Nechaus was a deputy; but it is doubtful whether 
the word is used here in its technical sense, or as equivalent to bie^ayovri in Ptolemaic docu- 
ments, which does not imply that the person in question was a deputy ; cf. P. Tebt. i, p. 84. 
The reference to an archidicastes in Pharaonic times is interesting. That official is known 
to have existed under the Ptolemies as well as under the Romans, and he may Avell have been 
the counterpart of a Pharaonic official. Mr. A. H. Gardiner compares the ' chief lector ' 
Hardedef, who found writings in a temple (Erman, Die Marchend. Pap. Wesicar, i. 18 ; cf. 
p. 221). The superintendence of documents of various kinds was part of the duties of the 
archidicastes in Roman times ; cf. e. g. 34. 

9. μί)(ΐ'ί)•. cf 1. 13 αντί τριάκοντα ημερών. Of the sccond letter Only the tip of a flourish 
similar to that of the final ?; of 1. 11 is preserved. 

24-5. These two lines are obscure and probably corrupt, άvay[vώyeωs (cf 1. 15) 
cannot be read. If άναν\€ώ^σΐως is right {άναν[ΐΰ_σ(ω5 seems to be the only alternative), the 
' book of renewal ' would have to be explained as a title derived from ancient Egyptian ; but 
this comes in very abruptly and ]οιησας suggests nothing but π'οιήσα: or a compound, and 

we are disposed to think την βί^λον ανανεώσεως a mistake for τψ βίβλου άνανε'ωσιν (cf. the 

wrong cases in 11. 129-30), and to suppose a blank space, as often in 1381, before 
π]οιησας, though [(κη]οιησας is possible. The last letter of αυτόν is reduced to a mere speck 
of ink, and αυτός can equally be read, but not αυτ6 τό, though Άσκληπιον might easily 
be a mistake for ΆσκληπιεΊον : αυτυ (τό) is also unsatisfactory. 

30. Mf νχορ(ονς : the e above the line is apparently in the ist hand and may represent 
an alternative spelling rather than a correction, -ηονς is in late Ptolemaic times a common 
form of the genitive of names ending in -ης. In 1. 223 the nominative is spelled Μενεχερης, 
in Africanus ap. Syncellus Μενχερης. 

36. ρεύων : this form of the present corresponding to the future ρεύσω does not seem to 
be attested elsewhere. 

45-9. Near the ends of 11. 48-67, and probably in 11. 45-7 also, a vertical strip 
of papyrus had scaled off the surface of the verso before it was written upon. Usually the 
scribe on reaching the single thickness, which had room for about two letters, left it blank, 
but in some cases he wrote across part or all of it, e. g. in 11. 48 and 56. This single layer 
has for the most part perished, but without affecting the reconstruction except in 1. 57, where 
if a blank space was left τό must be omitted, and in 11. 45-8, where the ends of lines are 
missing and the size of the lacunae ranges from 5-7 letters according to the amount of 
notice taken of the presumably missing strip. The general sense of 11. 45-9 is that the 
writer was afraid of vexing the god by the inadequacy of his tribute to him, but the construc- 
tion is not clear. The supposed λυ of εκώλυσε is rather cramped, but ε'κώλυε cannot be read, 
and for the aorist cf 1. 37 επεσχεθην. For τ ά κατιόϋ^/τα it is possible to substitute . άχανο[ΰς . ., 
but that is not a suitable epithet for Asclepius, and 8ia seems to be the plural of a neuter 
word meaning 'reproaches', perhaps a misspelling of 6ν{ε)ί]8η ; cf Hdt. vii. 160 6νεί8εα 
κατιόντα άνθρώπω. For άθα\νάτον cf. 11. 51 and 196, and for γρ]αφή[ς] 11. 159, i75> 187, and 195. 
\καί in 1. 46 makes the order of the following words rather awkward, and in 11. 47-8 τ[ης 
yp αφη s\ . . . συνπληρονμεν[ο 'ls . . .] (but not -μενη[ς . . . |) could be read, if a blank space was 

left (see above). For τ[απ6ί]ί/ω/χα cf. 1. 158 ταπεινοΰντι μοι τοντο. ταπί/νωσί? is COUpled with 
σμικρολογία της λέξεως by Plut. Mor. p. 7 a. τ[ης yp]aφης σννπληρουμεν\ης] may be genitive 

absolute, and άρετης Avould then be dependent on the word ending in -νωμα, which would 
perhaps be an easier construction. 


49. For the spelling οφίλ^σα.7ί cf. 1. 72, where ω^ιχ^^ο* apparently represents (SeWrot 
<...JJ: ""^'^'TrT '■ ''^\\• '93 rov ηαραντ\ί\κα ;^[d>io> . . . κα[φ]όν. The only alternative 
seems to be αντω μόνον, which yields a less satisfactory sense, and the traces suit a much 
better than ω. 

59- {y)npWys is not a known form and the ηρ is not quite certain, for λ^ might be read 
ior η and * or φ for ρ ; but the omission of γ between vowels is easily explained and γήρω: 
suits the context ; cf. 1. 63 ve[όr_η,. Possibly the omissions in this line (a connecting particle 

'' ίΤ^^ -r'l • • VT^ ^"^ "'' "°^^') -° '^^" ^"^^her, e. g. ro. roO (γ^ρ.. .ai . . .MploU 
αΐ'ί[/3]αλλο[μ]7;' την νποσχΐσιν. ■• -^ 

67-8. Nothing is wanted between 6[e and r^", and there was probably a blank space 
or a deletion, ά i^eoi is a curious epithet to apply to φρίκη, but 61 θ,ό, spoils the construction 
by becoming the subject of €στρό/3« and so producing two nominatives. If rerapraia η 
φρ^κη is corrected to τ^ταρταίη (or -a) φρύκυ, which was certainly not written rpur^s 
^πισκ[ηψα! agreemg with ό\ ueos is very unsatisfactory, for both words ought to' agree Λνίίΐί 
φρ^ικη so that further emendation becomes necessary, and the confusion of the construction 
would be far worse than in 11. 158-60. If .Beos is not Ά θ,ο,, [α(πά)! 6eo(i) is the simplest 
change; but a reference to the god is not wanted in 1. 68, especially as he is mentioned in 
1. 71. imav[ could be read in place of Ϊ7ησκ[, but suggests no suitable verb, whereas 

€πισκηπτ(ΐν is often used of νόσοι. 

72. ωμ^νοί apparently represents 8eop(voi rather than eixoptvoi: for ο in place of « 
cf. 1. 49 οφίλησαρτι. That Se occurred in the lacuna at the end of the precedin'r line 
is unlikely, for t is written rather large and may well be the last letter, and final e generally 
has a long flourish, which should be visible. 

74. St' 6ν€φάτων : cf. Aristides' diary in his Upo\ Xoyot. 

89-91. Cf. 11. 218-22. 

97-8. Άσθματί re καΐ βηκΐ : re is perhaps a mistake for bi ; cf. 1. 59, note, βηκί for βηχΐ is 
probably not a mere misspelling, βψιον and βηκία being attested. 

99. For σφα8αΐζ(ΐν in place of the usual σφάδαζαν see Herodian, Depi μον, λ(ξ. 23. The 
passive of καρηβαρήν is Very rare. 

100. {a}\iieapyos : όληθάργητος in the sense of 'active' is known (Hesych. άληστων 
αληθαργήτων), but άλήθαργος, in which the a- owing to the context cannot have a privative 
force, is unattested and seems to be an error for λήθαργος. 

io8. ίώρα has no object, the writer altering the construction; cf. 11. 136 and 158-60. 

III. μίν has no corresponding δ/, but is answered by πλην ^v κτλ. in 1. 117; cf. the 
preceding note. 

136. πρ[ο(\λομ(ντ): the dative can be connected with αντΡ, in 1. γ38, but the sentence is 
somewhat involved, and πρ[ο(]λομίνη{ή would be an improvement, or possibly πρ:ο6λορίν», was 
a nominative absolute ; cf. 11. 108 and 158-60, notes. The traces of the first two'letters are 
very slight, but exclude βο[ν]]<ομ(ντι. 

138. άπήγγίλον is perhaps a new form of the aorist rather than a misspelling of 

148. IrJoC : or \τ]ου = tivOs. 

^ 156-8. διη7τορ[ο'ί[μ(^ν could bc read for 8ιηπόρ[ο]ν[ν κα]ί, but the correction of dntw 
to etnev seems necessary. 

158-60. ranetvovvTi pot is inconsistent with in-i^et pe : cf. 11. 108 and 136, notes. 

tovto can refer to τω προκαθωμολοίγημίνω ΟΓ tO το θΰον της γραφής χρίος, which follows. 

• 164• There is not room for [ΐκ]ττληρωθ(ίς, and probably the space after the cor- 
rected και (cf. critical note) was blank. 

168-74. For κaτa^τλ\ωσfιv, i.e. κιιβα\πλώσ(ΐν, cf. 1. 1 73 άνήπλωσα. It is not certain that 

more than one letter is lost, but κατ«[δ]ώσίΐί' yields no sense, κηθαπλοϋν is much rarer than 


άναπλονυ, for which cf. Hermes Trismeg. Poemmid. i. l6 οί/'πω γάρ σοι άνηπλωσα τον πρώτον 

λόγον. The force of κατά in καθαπλοΰν here seems to be 'widely' unfold (cf. 11. 198-202), 
as contrasted with the beginning of the process {άναπλοϋν). κατα[πλ]ώσ6ίκ would be cor- 
rect as the Ionic form of καταττλΐνσαν, but there is no parallel for the metaphorical use of this 
verb in the sense of ' come to an end ', and the alteration of άνηπλωσα to άνίπλωσα in 1. 1 73 
would leave μϋθον to be governed by προφητεύων supplied from 1. 169 or by some omitted 
participle, which is very unsatisfactory. 

180. αλλαττόλογοί is a new compound. For μνθ\ον cf. 1. 172. 

181. For \δίσ\τΓοτα cf. 1. 1 62 with σην in the next line, as here. The ο is very uncertain 
and ]vTe or JM-a could be read. 

187. τ,αύτ]ηί : sc. γραφής. The invention of demotic writing is usually credited to 
Thoth and Isis (cf, p. 193), but cf. p. 224. 

197. ανηβάσκο'^σα τη[ν] μνήμην: άνηβάσκ€ίν is a very rare equivalent of άνηβΰν, and is 
censured by Thomas INIagister. The accusative (of respect?) after it is curious, and 
possibly our author treated it as a transitive verb. 

201. Φθί : cf. Rosetta Inscr. 4. The Greek equivalent Ήφ[αίστον is used in 1. 229 ; 
cf. p. 222. 

211. πονήσίτε ζη\ωταί•. ποιησ€Τ€ (or pOSSibly -aeaue) Or παρήσετί COUld be read, but nOt 

ζην. Since ζηλ[ωτα^1 άρίτψ is fairly certain (cf. Isocr. Demon, p. 4 b), an intransitive verb is 

222. (re) δωρήματα: for the omission of a connecting particle cf. 11. 59, 97, and 226-8, 
notes, δ is fairly certain, but the next two letters are very doubtful and the termination 

might be ημών. 

223. |ό] ; it is not certain that any letter is lost. 

226-8. For δια της] βίβλου cf. 1. 29. The punctuation is uncertain. If την φ[ημην 
{υτν])(ησας (cf. 1. 50) is right, that participle is to be connected with what precedes rather than 
with what follows, and is an explanation of αΐωνίαν εϊληφε δόξαν (cf. 11. 195-8), but there is an 
asyndeton in 1. 228. With os διά της\ there still seems to be no connecting particle between 
'^ησας and δωρησάμινος in 1. 233, and 1. 227 must be restored differently. The βίβλος 
is presumably the ancient Egyptian roll, as usual, but it appears here to be directly connected 
with IMenkaura, not merely mentioned as evidence for his action {[ος εκ της] βίβλου is unsatis- 
factory) ; possibly he wrote it nominally himself; cf. p. 223. 

228-32. Cf. pp. 223-4. In 1. 229 Ήφ[αίστου the vestiges suit η very well and are con- 
sistent with φ. In 1. 230 t[. . .]ρου (or ]ωυ or ]του) might be read, but the article, though 
omitted in 1. 231, is confirmed by 1. 228, and τ[οΰ'Ώ]ρου is much the most probable restora- 
tion. The ρ is written through what seems to be a blot of ink due to a correction, but there 
is no reason to think that the ρ Avas deleted. 

234. άντάποιναν: the form seems to be unattested, but dwtVoiiO (neut. plur.) in the MSS. 
of the tragic poets is often misspelled άντάποινα. 

247. π€ρϊ 1 [της ταφής (cf. 1. 229) is probable. 

1382. Tale of Sarapis and Syrion. 

15 X 25-3 cm. Second century. 

The recto of this papyrus contains portions of an official account of taxation 
on land, written in the second century and mentioning the i8th year of an 
emperor (Hadrian or Antoninus?), and will be published in Part XII. On the 



verso, in a large uncultivated cursive hand of the same century, is the conclusion 
and title of a story concerning the aper?? of Zeus-Helios-Sarapis (cf. 1149. i, note) 
in connexion with a pilot called Syrion. The papyrus had been reduced to 
about half its height before the verso was used, but was doubtless a long roll 
originally, and many columns may have been lost before Col. i. of which only the 
ends of lines survive. The tale ends with Syrion's disposal of some water, which 
probably had healing or otherwise miraculous qualities, to the inhabitants of 
Pharos. The story, which seems to have been based upon a manuscript preserved 
at Alexandria (1. 19, note), appears to have been Greek rather than Egyptian 
in origin, and is perhaps to be classed with the compositions of persons who had 
been cured of diseases at the Serapeum of Canopus, mentioned by Strabo (cf. 
p. 325). On Hellenistic ' aretology ' in general see Κ&\ίζ&ν\Β\.^{τ\, Hellcnisiische 
Wundererzdhlwigen, 10 sqq., and cf. 1381. 

Col. ii. 

15 UTTiv δια σ€ γαρίσομαι το νδωρ Φαρίται^. 
και άσπάσαμίνος αύτον άνίπΧζυσ^ν, 
και ά(πο)8ίδωσι το νδωρ Φαρίταις και λαμβάνι 
παρ αυτών e/y τιμήν άργ[νρων) (δραχμας) ρ. και 
καταγωρίζζται ή άρ^τη kv ταΪ9 Μξρκουρίον 

20 βιβλίοθήκαις. οί TrapouTe? €Ϊ7Γατ€ ely Zevs 
ϋάραπι?. [[ ]] 

]€ . ι σν ό 
]να e 
]το γυ- 
5 ]y βίον 

]". .'e 
10 ]ω 

]νη 25 


Ι. π above τ deleted. 16. και corr. from δια. ι γ. ϋδωρ Pap. 22. νσυρα written 
over some expunged letters. 24. υ of κυβιρνητην corr. from t. 

' ... he said " For your sake I λνίΐΐ bestow the water upon the people of Pharos." And 
having saluted him he sailed forth, and gave the Avater to the people of Pharos, receiving 
from them as its value 100 drachmae of silver. This act of grace is registered in the 
libraries of Mercurium. Let all present say " There is one Zeus Sarapis." (Title) The act of 
grace of Zeus-Helios, great Sarapis, regarding Syrion the pilot.' 

17. α(π•ο)δίδωσί or {α}δίδωσί can be read. 

Albs ^ Ηλίου μεγάλου Hapa- 
πίδο? άρ€τη ή π€ρι ^υ- 
ρίωνα τον κυβζρνή- 


19. Tois MepKovptov βιβλιοθήκαις : cf. 886. 2—5 αντίγραφαν lepai βίβΧον της (νρετίσης (v τοις 

τον 'Έρμου ταμίοις, which is the heading of a magical formula for obtaining an omen, and 
another heading of a magical formula in Catal. codd. Astr. Graec. vii, p. 62 βίβλος ^νρΐθΰσα 
ΐν Ήλιουπόλβι της Αίγύπτον if τω Upa iv αδΟτοΐί ΐγγ€γραμμΐνη iv tepois γράμμασι, Mepieovpiov 

may be merely equivalent to Έρμου, but since the story is concerned with Pharos the 
Mercury quarter of Alexandria (Hirschfeld, Die kaiserlicheyi Verwaltungsbeamten, 364-5) is 
likely to be meant. Whether it was called Μερκούριος or MepKovpiov is doubtful, the nomina- 
tive not being found, but the neuter form is the more probable. 

20. els Zfvf Σάραπις is a common formula on gems; cf. 1380. 6, note. 

1383. Sailor's Song. 

5-4x12 cm. Late third century. 

This interesting little poenn, a prayer to the Rhodian winds for a calm 
voyage, apparently complete, is closely parallel to 425, a brief invitation to 
sailors to compare the sea and the Nile, written in the second or third century 
in the metre ^=^ - ^=^ - \ y^^^u-, and to P. Amh. 2, an early fourth-century 
acrostic Christian hymn in practically the same metre ; cf Wilamowitz, GoU. 
gel. Anz. 1904. 670, P. Maas, Philol. 1909. 445-6, Powell, Class. Quarterly, 
V. 177. The 10 στίχοι are sometimes marked off by strokes, like the double dots 
indicating the στίχοι in the alphabetically arranged P. Amh. 2, but as in 425 the 
writing is continuous. The script is third-century cursive, probably dating 
from about 250-280 ; it is thus somewhat later than 425, as is also indicated by 
the greater irregularity of the metre. In 425 the metrical value of syllables 
still depends on quantity, not accent, except in one instance where NeiAou is 
scanned as a trochee, whereas in 1383, as in P. Amh. 2, accent is often more 
important than quantity, e. g. v. 4 OTe μίν^ιν, v. 7 αλ' νττοτάζατζ νανσιβάταις. 
Dactyls occur in place of anapaests or spondees in the first part of the verse 
more often than in P. Amh. 2, and the rule observed carefully in 425, and almost 
Avithout exception in P. Amh. 2, that a verse should end with a paroxytone 
iambus, which results in the form νδάτη being employed in 425 for ΰδατα, is 
violated in e. g. v. 3 €γώ, v. 8 eTriyerai. Verses 6 and 10 are highly irregular and 
probably corrupt. 

In the right-hand margin is the title ; on the left hand are the ends of two 
lines which are likely to have belonged to another poem of the same character, 
though not certainly in the same hand. There is a margin above and below 
Col. ii which seems to be, like 425, complete, though a word is wanted at 
the end. and the poem may possibly have been continued in another column ; 
cf. 1. 10. note. 


Col. i. Col. ii. 

] . 'PoSloi? eKe\€vou άνεμοι? / ^ και μ€ρ€σι σοΓ? π^λαγίοις, 

] 2 0T€ πλ€€ίν ήθξλοι/ €γώ. / * οτ€ μίναν ηθζλον 

] e/cei", 5 cAeyoj/ μ€ρί{σίν) 7reAayio[t]y ^ ^^ (^=^ν^) τυπ^ τα 

] πελάγη. / "^ αλ' 

5 ]?.^[[?/?]] ύποτάξατ€ νανσιβά[τ]αι?. ^ oAoy αρ' αν^μο^ kniyeraL. ^ άπΙ- 

ιο κλ6ί€ τα πνεύματα καί, ν[ν\ξ, ^° 8ο^ τα [ΰΒ]ατα ίυβατα. 
In the right-hand margin at right angles 
'Ρόδιοι? άν€[μοις.] 

6. 1. rolf for σοίί. g. νποταξατΐ Pap. ? of νανσιβα[τ\αίί above the line. V of ανίμο! corn (?). 
J. άπόκλ€ΐ€. 

' I commanded the Rhodian winds and the seaward parts when I wished to sail ; when 
I wished to remain there, I said to the seaward parts that the sea should not be smitten. 
Make the ocean obedient to seafarers ! Suddenly a whole tempest arises. Shut off the 
winds, and, night, grant that the waters be smooth. (Title) To the Rhodian winds.' 

6. /repeat, unless corrected to μΐρ(σι(ν), is scanned as a dactyl ; cf. introd. In v. 5 the 
word is abbreviated, and the same difficulty arises, but though two dactyls occur in place of 
two anapaests in vv. 7, 8, eXeyov in v. 5 is in favour of μΐρ({σιν) there. 

σοΙί : the top of the first letter is lost, but the bottom of the surviving stroke turns 
to the right, whereas the bottom of a τ should be straight or turn to the left. The second 
person singular is found in 1. 10, where νΰξ is addressed, but is out of place with μίρΐσι neXayioii, 
which recurs in 1. 8 without aols, and rois was no doubt meant, 

7. ore πΧΐ€ΐν: the form πλίαν is often found in MSS., but is usually corrected to πλΰν. 
Here it corresponds metrically to ^eVeti/ in the next verse, the first syllable being apparently 
lengthened in both words owing to the accent, unless the first syllable of ore is lengthened ; 
cf. introd. To read n\e(J)fiv is unnecessary. 

8. exei seems to mean Rhodes. For μίρΐ{σιν) cf. 1. 6, note. An adjective making 
a tribrach or trochee seems to have been omitted after μή\ cf. 1. 10, note. For τυπΐ] cf. 

Hom. δ 580 αλα τύπτον ΐρΐτμοΊς. PoSSibly, however, μη 0=^ τίπτ\ΐ(τΓΐ)'\ or μη τνπτ[ί(τε -)] 

should be restored before τα πeXάγη. 

g. ναυσιβάτης for νανβάτης occurs in Manetho i. 123. For the shortened first syllable 
cf. the next note and introd. 

10. καί is treated as short; cf. introd. Verse 10 will not scan unless δο? θ' [ίι5]ατ 
ΐνβατα (w-) be read. There is not room for [κνμ]ατα, and after €νβατα any further letters 
would run into the μ of ανΐ[μοΐ5] belonging to the title, of which the termination may have 
been obliterated, although the papyrus is preserved. Perhaps, however, όνΐ^μοα) sliould be 
read there; the traces of the e are very slight and the letter may be raised above the line. 
This would leave room for 3 or 4 letters between (νβατα and the edge of the papyrus. 
The missing syllables may have come in the next column, if Col. ii was one of a series ; cf. 
introd. But 80s, the manner of writing the tide, and the general appearance of the papyrus 
all suggest the conclusion of the poem, and an omission is likely enough ; cf. 1. 8, note. 


1384. Medical Recipes, Theological Extracts. 

30-2 X 15-4 cm. Fifth century. 

The beginning and end of this remarkable papyrus consist of medical 
recipes, the first for a purge, the others for curing strangury and wounds, while 
the middle portion is taken up with two theological extracts, which have 
evidently been inserted on account of their medical interest, perhaps as a kind of 
charm. The rather large, irregular semiuncial hand and numerous mistakes 
of spelling indicate an uncultivated writer of, probably, the fifth rather than the 
sixth century. A few corrections are all by the scribe himself, who employed 
the brown ink common at this period. The lower part of the papyrus is prac- 
tically complete, but in the upper part nearly all the right-hand half is missing, 
entailing the loss of only some of the figures in the first recipe, but the ends of 
all the lines except one in the first extract, of which the reconstruction presents 
difficulties, although the general sense is clear. 

Lines 15-22 are apparently derived from an uncanonical gospel. Jesus 
meets some persons, who ask Him how the sick can be relieved. The answer is 
that He has provided olive-oil and myrrh for those who believe in the name (or 
power) ' of the Father, the Holy Spirit, and the Son ', a notable inversion of the 
usual order of the Second and Third Persons of the Trinity. The scene is laid 
kv rfj €ρήμω, and possibly the background was suggested by Matt. viii. 2-4, 
Mark i. 40-5, Luke v. 12-16, λvhere the healing of a leper is stated by Mark and 
Luke to have led directly to the departure of Jesus i-n ^ρημοι^ tottols or ίν rais 
βρημοΐί ; or if the persons who met Jesus were lepers (cf. 11. 15 and 17, notes) 
there might be a connexion with Luke xvii. 11-14; o^> ^s Dr. J. V. Bartlet 
proposes (cf. 1. 15, note), the background may have been provided by Matt. xiv. 
13-14, which has έρημων τόττων and eOepaTrevae (cf. θαραπία in 1. 17). If ημ[ΐν in 
1. 15 is rightly restored, the gospel to which the extract belongs must have been 
professedly written by one of the disciples. The first person singular or plural 
occurred in the narrative of (i) the Gospel of Peter, (2) the Gospel of the 
Ebionites, which is probably identical with that of the Twelve Apostles (Harnack, 
Gesch. d. altchr. Liter, i. 625 sqq.), (3) the Gospel of Philip, (4) 1224, if μξ. 
in Fr. 2 recto, ii. i belongs to the narrative, and possibly also in (5) the Gospel of 
Thomas, (6) the Traditions of Matthias, and (7) the Fayum Gospel-fragment, 
of which three the extant remains are too slight to show the character of the 
narrative ; but in 655, 840, and 1081 the disciples are referred to in the third 
person, as presumably in the Gospels according to the Hebrews and Egyptians. 

The second extract (11. 23-9) is quite different from the first, being concerned 
with the ' angels of the Lord ' who are represented as having gone up to heaven 


to seek a remedy for their eyes from Jehovah Sabaoth, to whose power they 
appeal. The story seems to be incomplete, and this suggests that the first 
extract too perhaps broke off prematurely, though it ends at a more intelligible 
point than the second. The link connecting the excerpts with the medical pre- 
scriptions is probably not so much the mention of the olive-oil and myrrh 
as relieving sickness, and the sponge as relieving the eyes, but in the implied virtue 
of an appeal by name in the one case to the Trinity, in the other to Jehovah 
Sabaoth, who is often invoked in Gnostic prayers, e. g. 1060. The second 
extract is clearly not taken from any gospel like that of Peter and (apparently) 
that of the Twelve Apostles, which covered the same ground as the Synoptists, 
but the Gospel of Philip, of which the only extant fragment begins άττ€κάλνψ€ μοι 
δ κύριοι τι την ^νχην bu Aeyety iv τω ανύναι ds τον ονρανον (cf. 11. 23-4) ί^α^ ''''ώ? 
ΐκάστΊ] των ανω δυνάμεων άττοκρίν^σθαι, was a document of a different class, and 
seems a possible source for both excerpts. It is, however, safer to regard them 
as independent of each other, and in that case the second extract may well 
be from a Jewish, rather than Christian, work of an apocalyptic character similar 
to e. g. the Apocalypse of Baruch (cf. 403) or the Ascension of Isaiah (P. Amh. i). 
The first excerpt, considered by itself, can hardly be assigned with any con- 
fidence to a particular gospel, especially as it is uncertain what term was used in 
the narrative in speaking of Jesus (cf 1. 16, note). The unorthodox order of the 
Persons of the Trinity seems to point in the direction of that early conception 
which found expression in a curious fragment of the Gospel according to the 
Hebrews, άρτι eXaySe μ(. η μητηρ μον το ayiov ττνίνμα iv μια των τριχών μον καΐ άττηνζγκί 
μ€ eis το opos το μίγα Θαβώρ, and since that gospel is not itself a suitable source 
for 11. 15-22, there is something to be said in favour of assigning the passage to 
the Jewish-Christian Gospel of the Twelve Apostles, which Epiphanius and 
Jerome for obscure reasons wrongly identified with the Gospel according to the 
Hebrews. The Ebionite Gospel was probably a century later than the other, and 
unlike it was a secondary document of a pronounced Gnostic character, while the 
Gospel of Peter, which is partly based on the canonical Gospels but was used by 
Justin along with them, occupies a middle position, Harnack assigning its com- 
position to A.D. 110-30. The Akhmim fragment shows that the Gospel of 
Peter, to which 1224 possibly belongs, was still being studied in Upper Egypt in 
the fifth century, but the Gospel of the Twelve Apostles, as ^ Jewish-Christian 
work, is perhaps more likely to have been associated with the source of the 
second extract. 

Φούσκα? καθαρσίου' 
J^ κύμινου [δραχμαΐ) δ, 





μαράθου {δρ.) 


aiXivov [δρ.] 


κοστον {δρ.) 


μαστιχη^ {δρ.) 


κωρίου {δρ.) 




καροίον {δρ.) 

πίρι/η? {δρ.) 

γλήγωνο^ {δρ.) 

φοίλλον {δρ.) 



απήντησα}/ ήμ\ΐν . 

, . . . 

^ άγγελοι κ{νρίο)υ άνήρθαν προ5 μ[€σον] 
τον ούρανον οφθαλμού? 
25 πονο(ν)ντ€9 καΐ σφόγγον κρα- 

TovvT€s. Xeyi αύτοΐς ό κ{υρίο)υ, τί άνήρ- 
θατ€, άγνοΙ πανκάθαροι ; ϊασιν Χαβΐν 
άνήΧθαμξν, Ίαω ϋαβαώθ, οτι σοι 
δοινατο9 καΙ οίσγίρό?. 
30 e/s στραγ-Ϋονριτία, /άσε τον πο- 

S. Χαβον σπέρμα άγίνου ^epov [ 
τρίψα9 μ€τα {ν}οΐνον ΆσκαΧω[- 
νίτου Ητα β^ρμα πίν[ν]ζ. 
?]pey ^ e/y θαραττίαν ούΧον 

€v Trj €ρήμω κα[1 ύπαν τω κ{νρί)ω, 35 Χαβον μήλα κυπαρίσ(σ)ου 

Ι^σοΰ, tl{s) ίνη θ αραπιά άρρω[στοί? ', ζίσας κΧοίζου. 

καΙ Χίγί αντοΪ9, eXeov άπ€δ[ωκα e- 
Χήα9 καΐ σβύρν\α\ν ζ^^ίγ^υσα τοΓί 
πξποίθόσί τ[ω ονόματι τον 
πατρο9 καΐ <ίγ[ί]ον [πν{€ύματο)9 και τον 

3- μ οί μαραθον ΟΟΓΓ. 7• 1• <ορίου. g. 1, καρύου. 12. First λ of φοιλλου above 

the line; 1. φύλλου. ιη. ϊεσου Π; 1, Ίησοΰ . . . evi θίραπύα. 1 8. 1. ΐλαιον . . . e]\atay. 

19. 1. σμύρν\α\υ. 22. υίου Π. 23. 1. ανήλθαν. 2ζ. σφογ'γον Π. 1. σττόγγον. 26. Tois 

of αυτοΐί above the line. 1. κ{ύριο)ς . . . άνηλθατΐ. 2 7- " of αγνοί corr. from οι, and ο from 

υ? ϊασιν Π. 28. Second α οι ανηλθαμΐν COrr. from ω. ϊαω π. 28-9. 1. σΰ δυι/ατόί κα\ 

Ισχυρός, ot of οισ;^φθί above the line. 30. \. στραγγονρητίαν. ϊασε Π ; 1, ΐάσαί. ^1. \. λαβών 
σπ. άκίνου. ^2. ϋοινου Ώ. 34• \• depaneiav ουλών. 35• 1• λα^ώκ 3^• Χ οί κλοιζου 

above the line ; 1. κλύζου. 

' Ingredients of a purging draught : cummin 4 drachmae, fennel 2 dr., parsley 4 dr., 
costus 4 dr., mastich 4 dr., coriander 7 dr., 21 laurel-berries, nut . dr., ham {?) . dr., penny- 
royal . dr., silphium (?) . dr., salt . ., vinegar . . 

. . . men met us in the desert and said to the Lord " Jesus, what cure is possible for 
the sick ? " And He saith to them " I gave olive-oil and poured forth myrrh to them that 
believe in the name of the Father, the Holy Spirit, and the Son." 

The angels of the Lord Avent up to mid-heaven, suffering in their eyes and holding 
a sponge. The Lord saith to them " Why came ye up, ye holy and all-pure .? " (They 
say) " We came up to receive a remedy, Jehovah Sabaoth, for thou art mighty and strong. ' 

For strangury, to heal the sufferer. Take the dry seed of basil-thyme, crumble it with 
wine of Ascalon, then drink it hot. 

For treating Avounds. Take the fruit of a cypress, boil it and apply.' 


10. Whether in this context ττίρνα has its ordinary meaning of 'ham' is doubtful; 
a herb would be expected. 

12. φύλλον in medical writers is used sometimes with special reference to μαλάβαβρον 
(betel-nut), which was exported from India, and σίλφιον, which was exported from Cyrene. 
The latter is more likely to be meant. 

15. The position assigned to the isolated fragment ]pes is not certain, but no other 
place seems at all suitable. Oe, θω, εω, or ov, but not ος, may be read for es, only the tops of 
the letters being preserved; but no combination with 11. 17-19 or 23 results, and in 11. 16 
and 20-1 the restorations, which are fairly certain, are inconsistent with this fragment. 
Bartlet prefers ημ[ϊν οί ΦαρισάΙοί, comparing 1224. Fr. 2 verso, ii. i, but av8]pes at this point 
seems satisfactory. The preceding word may well have been a number (e. g. rpe'is), but 
since the exact length of the lacuna is uncertain there are several possibilities. fip[iv Xewpol 
av8]pes might also be read on the analogy of Luke xvii. 1 1 Sexa Xtnpol avSpts (cf. the other 
story of the healing of a leper mentioned in the introd.), but, as Bartlet observes, the context 
suggests that the questioners were persons who wanted to know how Jesus did his cures, 
rather than subjects of such cures. 

16. αυτω or τω σ{ωτη)ρι (cf 840) may be restored instead of τω κ[νρί)ω, which is the 
term used in the Gospels of Peter and Philip, or Ίεσοΰ might be dative instead of vocative ; 
cf. 1224. 

17. For the spelling θαραπία cf. 1. 34 and the Arsinoi'te αμφο8ον Oapanelas (e. g. P. Tebt. 
329. 3). After this come very faint traces of the bottoms of four letters, of which the first 
seems to have begun rather high up and may well be a, while the third has a vertical stroke 
suggesting γ, ι, ρ, or r. For αρρώ[στοις (Bartlet) cf. Mark vi. 13 ηλΐίψορ ΐλαίω ττολλοϊ-? 
αρρώστους, but if the second and third letters were pp there Λvas a blank space between them. 
ήμίν [. . . . is less satisfactory, but the sentence may have ended at θαραπία and the next word 
be a verb. απτ€[ται (cf. e. g. Matt. viii. 3 ηλί/ατο αντοΰ) might be read, but hardly ηψα[το, and 
there would be room after it for Se, but not αυτών. This reading would require Xenpol avb]p(s 
in 1. 15 ; cf. note ad loc. 

18-19. The fourth letter of απεδ[, if not δ, can only be λ, but δ is more suitable. Neither 
α7Γεδ[ωκα nor ά7Γ6δ[(ε)ιξα makes a very good contrast with ί|εχ[υσα, of which only the tops of 
the letters survive, and one verb would be sufficient ; but though of can quite well be read 
for e^ (o is really preferable to e), and υ is possible in place of χ (or κ), οζου\σαν is inadmissible, 
not only on account of the third letter, which, if not e, must be t, but because after the 
fourth the top of a high letter like σ ought to have been visible. e|eC[poi/ and e^«x[fa are 
open to the same objection, 

20—2. For τ[ω ονόματι cf. Matt. XXviii. 19 βαπτίζοντας αυτούς ΐϊς το όνομα τοϋ πατρός κα\ τοΰ 

νιου και τοΰ άγιου πνεύματος, and introd. τ[,7 δυνάμει (Bartlet) Can be Substituted. 

23-4. μ[ίσον I τον ουρανόν : the first letter, if not μ, can only be λ, ν, or π. After a lacuna 
of two letters comes what may be the bottom of a vertical stroke, or merely a stain or 
accidental spot. π[6μ]7Γ|τοΐ' is possible, but not τ[όΐ'] τ\ρί\τον. 

25. σφόγγον might be for σπόγγων (cf. 1. 3 1 λαβον) and the plural would be an advantage, 
but κρατ€Ϊν in the sense of 'holding in the hand', which occurs in Plutarch, Athenaeus, and 
other late writers, but not in the N. T., would be expected to govern the accusative. 

27. Χί-γουσιν seems to have dropped out between ayvo\ πανκάβαροι and Ιασιν λαβϊν, or else 
oi δε ehav is omitted. 

30. στραγγουριτία (i. e. -ρητία) is an unknown equivalent of στραγγονρία, and of doubtful 

31. ξ€ρόν is an Ionic form, but more probably a misspelling of ξηρόν, cf. 1. 17 Ίίσοΰ. 




(The collations are with the text of Ludwich.) 

1385. Fr. 2 7-3 χ 5*7 cm. Two fragments, found with 1369-74, &c., of a leaf 
from a papyrus codex, containing on the recto the beginnings of Β 444-6 and 
456-67 (the writing on the verso being obliterated), with occasional breathings 
and accents. 460 η χην(ύ[ν. Fifth century ; in a sloping uncial hand ; 
brown ink. 

1386. 19-9 X 7'^ cm. Found with 1365 and 1392. On the recto parts of 
a lines in cursive. On the verso the upper part of a column containing 
portions of Δ 257-71, with some accents and marks of elision and quantity. 
A low stop occurs in 1. 262. 260 κρητηρσι κ€ρων\ται l6% ττινωσι. σον. 
Third century ; in an upright informal hand. 

1387. 9*9 X 4-3 cm. Middle parts of Ε 206-24 with occasional high stops and 
accents (208 βαλών). Second century; in well -formed round upright uncials 
of medium size. 

1388. Fr. i 7-6 χ 8-6 cm. Four fragments, the first containing parts of Ζ 133-7 
from the end of a column, and the others parts of Ζ 138-50 and 156-60 
from the next column, of which 1. 160 was the last line. Stops occur in the 
form of an acute accent high above the line, probably by a second hand. 
The papyrus has ot not μιν in 1. 159. First century B. C. (found with a con- 
tract dated in the 19th year of Ptolemy Auletes, to be published in Part XII) ; 
in good-sized uncials of similar type to those of 659 and 686. 

1389. 6x17-7 cm. Fragment of a double leaf from a vellum codex containing 
on p. I beginnings of Η 182-94, on p. 2 ends of 218-30, on p. 3 a few 
letters from the beginnings of 250-5, and on p. 4 a few letters from the ends 
of 285-9, with frequent accents, breathings, and marks of elision ; stops in 
the middle position occur twice. Late fourth century ; in a sloping uncial 
hand similar to that of the Freer Gospels ; brown ink. 

1390. 6-2 X 5 cm. Fragment of leaf from a papyrus codex containing on the 
verso parts of I 287-96 and on the recto parts of 325-31, with frequent 
accents. 328 brj. Fifth century ; in slightly sloping rather heavy uncials ; 
brown ink. 

1391. Fr. I 3*9 χ 3-7 cm. Four fragments (one very small one unidentified), 
found with 1369-74, &c., from the middle of two leaves of a papyrus codex 
of Λ, written in brown ink in a large heavy sloping uncial of the fifth century. 


The text, which varies considerably from the vulgate and seems to be 
remarkably corrupt, is : 

Fr. I. 
Recto. Verso. 

526 ? [.]σί[ 566 ] Θο[υρί8οί αλκηί 

527 [ejypu γα[ρ αμφ ωμοισιν 5^7 ζρητυ\σασκ\β φάλαγγα? 

528 [κ€]ισσ νμ . [ 5^8 ] τρωπα[σκ€Τθ φζυγαν 

569 eJTTi νηα[9 oSiveiv 

Frs. 3 and 3• Recto. 

597 [Νέστορα 8 e/c πολ€μ]οω φζρ[ον Νηληιαι ιττποί 

598 [ίδρωσαί ηγον Se M]a^a€va π[οιμ€να Χαών 

599 \jo^ ^^ ι8(ύ\ν ζν\οησ^\ ποδαρκη? [8ios Αχ^ιλλζνί 
6οο [€στηκ€ί γα]ρ ein π\βυ\μ\ν\η μ€γ[ακητ€ΐ νηι 

6ο Ι [ζΐσοροων n]ovou αιπ[υν] ιω[κα re 8ακρνο€σσαν 
6ο 2 [tti-v/ra 5 ζταιρ\ον ζ.ο\ν Πατροκληα npoaeeine 


634 [τ€σσαρ ίσαν 8οιαί 8e πελίίαίε]? λ 6/(:[αστοΐ' 

635 [χρυσείαί ν^μ^θοντο {8υω) 8 υπο πνθμ€]ν€σ? ήσαν [ 

636 [άλλο? μ€ν μογ^ων αποκίν]ησασκ€ T[pa7r]e^i?y 

637 ? [ttXclov €ov Νζστωρ δ ο γζρων a]ifoyj77/y «[•] • 0^'»' [ 

[ 35 letters ] . ητ[. . .]ecr/cero . [ 

640? [ 3^ letters ]σο λ€υκ[α} 

641? [πιι^€μ€ναί 8 cKeXevaev enei ρ ωπλισσί] κυκ[€ίω 

526. Alas δε MSS. 528. «ίσ irrTTouf MSS. For the doubled σ of..). 635, but the 

second is very doubtful, being more like γ. 598. 1. }<ΐ]αχαονα. 634. άμφΐς (or -φι) ίκαστον 
MSS. 635. An omission of about 3 letters apparently occurred in the earlier part of this 

line. 637. άμόγητι. aeipfv MSS. 638-4O. The ]\ISS. have eV τώ ρά σφι κνκησΐ γννη (Ικν'ια 

θίησιν ο'ίνω Ώραμν€ίω, ϊπΐ 8' aiyeiov κνη τνρον κνηστι χά\κ€ίΐ], em δ' αΧφιτα \(νκα irakvvf, I\lr. Τ. Vv . 

Allen suggests that after 11. 636 or 637 some new lines were added referring to Hecamede 

and proposes μΐ\σο\ΐν\κον €χουσα Or -[κα φορούσα with either χιτώνα or (ΐματα. Ίΐ\αρΐκ\(σκΐΤ0 

(cf ^ 52i) does not seem possible in the previous line. The vestiges of the supposed 1. 641 
are very uncertain, but 11. 637 and 640 may have been meant, though very corrupt. 

1392. 14-3 X 9-1 cm. Found with 1365 and 1386. On the recto first halves 
of Ο 303-25. 307 βφων. 308 ωμοισίΓ. 311 τη. 334 KAoj;fouai[[r]]. Third 

R 3 


century ; in upright calligraphic uncials of biblical type, resembling 25, 661, 
867, P. Rylands i6. On the verso, which is partly covered by strips gummed 
on in order to strengthen the roll, is some third-century cursive writing. 

1393. 7 X 9-8 cm. Fragment of a vellum leaf containing on one side beginnings 
of Π 157-70, on the other ends of 191-203, with frequent accents and marks 
of elision. Oxytone words received a grave accent on the final syllable, 
e.g. \6^ αγαθόν. i66 δ inserted above the line by a second hand. Fifth 
century ; in upright rather heavy uncials resembling those of 848. The leaf 
was ruled on the verso (?) with a fine point ; brown ink. 

1394. Fr. i 4-3 χ i-5cm. Six fragments (two unidentified), found with 1369-74, 
&c., from a papyrus book, containing on the recto parts of a 266-76 and on 
the verso parts of 296-307, with frequent accents, &c., added in darker ink. 
Oxytone words have a grave accent, as in 1393. Stops in the middle position 
in 11. 269 and 296 are apparently original. 271 yyy with δ?/ interlineated in 
darker ink. Fifth century ; in a medium-sized sloping hand somewhat 
resembling that of 1372 ; brown ink. 

1395. 6•^ X 8-9 cm. Fragment of a vellum leaf containing on one side the first 
halves of ζ 264-75 and on the other 294-305, with frequent accents and 
marks of elision added in lighter ink. Stops in the high position occur. 
269 aiTCLpas, the final s rewritten and repeated in lighter ink above the line. 
273 φ of φημιν corrected ; a paragraphus was inserted by a later hand below 
this line. 274 ι adscript of μωμ^νηι' added together with a high stop by 
a later hand. ^ισΧν. 297 e\0]rj? corrected to €λΘ]ψ by a later hand. 
303 κ^υθοϋσι. Fourth century ; in a fine upright script rather similar to that 
of the Codex Sinaiticus. 

1396. Fr. i 2-7 χ 3*7 cm. Two fragments, found with 1369-74, &c., from 
a papyrus book, containing on the verso parts of ι 358-61, 364 and on the 
recto parts of 405-8, 410-12, with accents, &c., and three small unidentified 
scraps apparently from the same MS. 406 rje apparently corr. 41 1 νο\υσον 
τ. Fifth century ; in a sloping hand rather smaller and more compressed 
than that of 1394 ; brown ink. 

1397. 3 X 3-8 cm. Fragment found with 1369-74, &c., containing on the verso 
marginal scholia on σ 67 and 70 in a small cursive hand. The text is 
[■π€ρί€]ζωσα[το ^ τα /χηδεα τ[οι? ^ ρακ^σιν, and after a space ηυζησ^ν, an explanation 
of rjXhave. On the recto traces of a few obliterated letters, probably also 
a scholium. Fifth century. 

1398. 10 X 7'3 cm. Beginnings of φ 2i5^~^1i from the bottom of a column, with 
frequent accents, breathings, &c., added by a later hand, which has also 
corrected the text and inserted paragraphi and critical signs. Below 361 


paragraphus. ^6% diple in margin, δτ). 363 λ of ττλαγκτ4 and χ of ταχ added 
above the line by the corrector. 364 απ'. 365 ημΐν ϊληκ\ησι, the λ added 
above the line by the corrector ; paragraphus below. Third century ; in 
calligraphic upright uncials of biblical type, resembling 1392, 661, &c. 


1399. 7-1 X 7'3 cm. Plate II (verso). On the recto parts of 8 lines of, probably, 
a petition to an official who is addressed as Kvpte ; a ίττομνηματίσμός of 
a βασιλικοί (γραμματζύί) is mentioned. Late second or third century. On 
the verso the title 

)Ιοιριλου ποιήματα 
βαρβαρικά• μηδι• π€ρσ[ικα 

is written in upright uncials which may belong to the middle or latter part 
of the third century. The papyrus is hardly the right shape for a σιλλυ/3ο5 
(cf. e. g. 301, 1091), and is more likely to have come from the end of a roll. 
With regard to 1. 2, it is improbable that the three adjectives βαρβαρικά 
Μτ]δικ(ά) Πξρσικά refer to three distinct poems ; they rather designate in 
common the famous epos of Choerilus which is called by Suidas 7} 'Αθηναίων 
νίκη κατά Ξ,ίρξον, by Stobaeus Ylepariis {Flor. xxvii. 1), and by Herodian 
ϋξ^ρσικα (Π. μον. λβξ. p. 1 3, ϋ• 919 Lentz). This was divided into more than 
one book (Herodian, /. c), and may well have been of a rather wider compass 
than Suidas' title would suggest, though there are no indications of this in 
the few sui-viving fragments (Kinkel, Ep. Gr. Fr. pp. 265 sqq.). Suidas 
credits Choerilus with another work called Καμιακα and άλλα τίνα ττοιηματα, 
of which nothing is known ; Naeke in his monograph on Choerilus suggested 
(p. loi) that Ααμιακά should be emended to Σαμιακά or else assigned to 
Choerilus of lasus. 

1400. 6 X ^-^ cm. On the recto part of a second-century taxing-list, which 
will be described in Part XII. On the verso ends of 10 and beginnings of 
8 lines from the tops of two columns of a comedy, written in a small uncial 
hand of the second or early third century. The text is : 

Col. i. Col. ii. 

]αδζ• ατΓθ[ 

]αλην γαμπ- αϊ^Γ'7[ 

]τιδω• μηΤΒί 



5 '\v δ αυτω \pouoi• 
]tos η 
]ρ€μω : 
] κάτω 

ΙΟ ]ην [ ] 

η γω δ[ 



1401. Fr. Ι 8-5 x 6-6 cm. Four fragments, found with 1369-74, &c., from 
a papyrus codex of a tragedy, written in a hand similar to that of 1370 but 
not identical, though possibly from the same MS. of Euripides. Fifth 
century; brown ink. Frs. i and 2 are from the tops of columns. The 
text is : 

Fr. I recto. 

Υ/νώμην ava . . . 
]ζνπα . ..[.].. 
] . . [. .\] . 

5 Ι^ΌΊ'?" 

] . ανω , 

Fr. 2 recto. 

Fr. 3 verso. 


4 recto, 

χορ{ο%) fi9l 







] . θρων σοφόν 




5 7°ί i '[ 



ίΤί ' [ 


Traces of 2 more 

lines and 2 of a scho- 


1402. Fr. I ^-6 χ 4-2 cm. Three fragments, found with 1369-74, &c., of a codex 
of Aristophanes (?) with semi-uncial scholia. The main text is in a different 
hand from those of 1371-4, and it is not quite certain that Fr. 3 belongs to 
this MS. Fifth century ; brown ink. The text is : 

Fr. I recto. 

'}ovs (K 
] . vaov 
]vffeo( ) 



Fr. I verso. 

] . 0T€ /3[ο]υλοΐ'τα[ί 
rovs a\\tKTpvovas π[/)05 αλλτ^λουϊ 
μαχ(\σθ{αί) σκοροδα T^iOeaaiv fv 
rois μ]υκτηρσιν [ 

] . ets 7Γΐΐ'[ 
]w κΐα\_ 


Fr. 2 recto. Fr. 3 recto. Fr. 3 verso. 

]π6τ . [ 

]? • ( ) Γ» δ/)6παι/α ί[ ] . ^[ Π Γ 

]'"«Co/^««Os• >eT .Γ I'J • L 


verso. ο£ . . [ 

] . . . λ«γ£ί 

] «υνο ■ ΤΟ . . γ 

Fr. Ι verso. 1-3 seem to be a note on σκόρο8ον or σκοροΒΙζ^ιν : cf. Schol. ^c/J. 165 

τούτοις (so. αλβκτρνόσ») γαρ ore μί'λλουσι μάχίσθαι σκόροδα 8ί8οται. ί'σθίΐΐν, Knighis 494 «-τα" ^άμ 
€is μύχην συμβάλλωσιν αντονς σκόροδα διδόασιμ αύτοΐί, but the reCtO doeS not SUit any point 30-5O 

lines distant from either of those two passages. Fr. 2 recto, i δρέπανα suggests Frogs 576 
δρεπανον λαβονσ and κννα on the verso might refer to κννοκλόπον in h 605. σκόροδα occurs in 
1. 555 of the same play, but Fr. i recto does not seem to fit that part of the Frogs. 

1403. 2 X 3-2 cm. Fragment, found with 1369-74, &c., of the middle of a leaf 
from a papyrus codex, apparently in the hand of 1374, but not from the 
Wasps, though presumably Aristophanes. Fifth century. The text is : 

Recto. Verso. 

]VKK€U[ ] 

]νσαμ€νο? [ ]t?VI'T • [ 

y^Toy t[ ] . oiK€va[L ? 

5 "].*.[ 

1404. 5-9Xi6-9cm. On the recto, written across the fibres, part of a Latin 
paraphrase of the fable of the dog carrying a piece of flesh over a stream 
and deceived by his own image in the water; cf. Aesop 339, Babrius 79. 
Phaedrus i. 4. The text is : Ca7ns carnevi inye]nit ctflu--men i{r)ansiebai, 
deinde cum in ^ aqiiani vidisset iimbram car-^nis existiind^y\it alterai^in). 
There is a blank space of 2-5 cm. after 1. 4 and no trace of writing below, 
which would be expected to be visible if other lines followed immediately. 
The story thus seems to have been left incomplete. Third century ; in 
a rather large cursive hand, c is commonly of the ν shape, made without 
lifting the pen, but twice has the form of e. On the verso, at right angles, 
are the ends of four lines of Greek, perhaps an account. 



List of Oxyrhynchtis mid Hibeh Papyri distributed. 

The following is a list of published papyri which have been presented to museums and 
libraries at home and abroad since the publication of the last list in Part V, pp. 315 sqq. 
It includes the texts in Parts Λ'' -IX, with a small portion of Part X, of the Oxyrhynchus 
Papyri, and the remainder of those in Part I of the Hibeh Papyri. The reference numbers 
given to the papyri in the institutions to which they now belong have been added where 
ascertained. The following abbreviations are employed : — 

B. M. = British IMuseum. The numbers are those of the Catalogue of Greek Papyri. 

Bodl, = Bodleian Library, Oxford. The references are to the hand-list of MSS, 

Bolton = Chadwick Museum, Bolton, Lanes. 

Brussels = Musees Royaux, Brussels, Belgium. 

Cairo = Museum of Antiquities, Cairo, Egypt. 

Cambridge = University Library, Cambridge. The numbers refer to the ' Additions '. 

Chicago = Haskell Oriental Museum, University of Chicago, U.S.A. 

Cleveland = Library of Cleveland University, Ohio, U.S.A. 

Dublin = Library of Trinity College, Dublin. 

Edinburgh = University Library, Edinburgh. 

Glasgow = University Library, Glasgow\ 

Graz = University Library, Graz, Austria. 

Harvard = University Museum, Harvard, Mass., U.S.A. 

Illinois = University Classical Museum, Illinois, U.S.A. 

Leipzig = University Library, Leipzig, Germany. 

Leland Stanford = Library of Leland Stanford University, San Francisco, California, U.S.A. 

Liverpool = University Library, Liverpool. 

Morgan = Pierpont Morgan Collection, New York, U.S.A. 

Muhlenberg = Muhlenberg College, Allentown, Pennsylvania, U.S.A. 

Newton = Newton Theological Institute, Newton Centre, Mass., U.S.A. 

Pennsyl. = Museum of Science and Art, University of Pennsylvania, U.S.A. 

Princeton = University Library, Princeton, New Jersey, U.S.A. 

Princeton T. S. = Library of Theological Seminary, Princeton, New Jersey, U.S.A. 

Rylands = The John Rylands Library, Manchester. The numbers are those of the 

Catalogue of Greek Papyri. 
Toledo = Museum of Art, Toledo, Ohio, U.S.A. 
Yale = Library of Yale University, U.S.A. 

The following Oxyrhynchus and Hibeh Papyri had been passed on from Brussels to 
the University Library, Louvain, and have presumably been destroyed. They were num- 
bered in the classical inventory of the University Museum 204-19. 

Hibeh Papyri Nos. 39, 45. 

Oxyrhynchus Papyri Nos. 419, 478, 488, 507, 509, 673, 679, 743, 836, 953, 973. 



Oxyrhynchiis Papyri. 

III. 412. B.M. 2040. 
V. 840. Bodl. MS. 
Gr. th. ^.11. 

841. B. M. 1842. 

842. B. M. 1843. 

843. Cairo 41082. 

844. Harvard. 

VJ. 845. Cairo4io83. 

846. Pennsyl.E.3074. 

847. Morgan. 

848. Chicago. 

849. B. M. 2041. 

850. Bodl. MS. Gr. 
th./. 13 (P). 

851. Muhlenberg. 

852. Bodl. 

853. Cairo. 

854. Toledo. 

855. Bodl. MS. Gr. 
class, e. 99 (P). 

857. Princeton CC. 
0174. 6. 857. 

858. Muhlenberg. 

859. Liverpool Class. 
Gr. Libr. 418. 

860. Bodl. MS. Gr. 
class./ 88 (P). 

861. Newton. 

862. Cairo. 

863. Cairo. 

864. Illinois G.P.864. 

865. Newton. 

866. Muhlenberg. 

867. IllinoisG.P.867. 

868. Muhlenberg. 

869. Toledo. 

870. Muhlenberg. 

871. Princeton CC. 
0174. 6. 871. 

872. INIuhlenberg. 

873. Yale. 

874. Rylands 449. 

875. Cleveland. 

876. Princeton. 

877. Pennsyl.E.3075. 

878. Brussels. 

879. Cairo 41084. 

880. Graz IMS. II. 

881. Cambridge Add. 

882. Yale. 

883. Morgan. 

884. Bodl MS. Lat. 
class. ^.20 (P). 

885. Cambridge. 

886. Cairo. 

887. Cairo. 

888. Bodl. MS. Gr. 
class, d. 98 (P). 

889. Cairo. 

890. imnoisG.P.890. 

891. Bodl. MS. Gr. 
class. / 89 (P). 

892. Bodl. MS. Gr. 
class, d. 105 (P). 

893. Glasgow. 

894. B. M. 2042. 

895. Glasgow. 

896. Edinburgh Pap. 
Case 5. 

897. IllinoisG.P.897. 

898. Princeton CC. 
0174. 6. 898. 

899. Bodl. MS. Gr. 
class, c. 65 (P). 

901. CambridgeAdd. 

902. B. M. 2043. 

903. Princeton T. S. 
Pap. I. 

904. B. M. 2044. 

905. Edinburgh Pap. 
Case 6. 

906. Edinburgh Pap. 
Case 7. 

907. B. M. 2040. 

908. Bodl. IMS. Gr. 
class, c. 64 (P). 

909. IllinoisG.P.909. 

910. Leland Stanford. 

911. Muhlenberg, 

912. Cairo. 

913. B. M. 2045. 

914. B. M. 2046. 

915. Yale. 

916. IllinoisG.P.916. 

917. Yale. 

918. B. M. 1843. 

919. Cairo. 

920. Cairo. 

921. CambridgeAdd. 

922. IllinoisG.P.922. 

923. Rylands 451. 

925. Princeton T. S. 
Pap. 2. 

926. Bolton 28. 14. i. 

927. IllinoisG.P.927. 

928. IllinoisG.P.928. 

929. Cairo. 

930. Glasgow. 

931. Chicago. 

932. IllinoisG.P.932. 

933. Toledo. 

934. ^iluhlenberg. 

936. Toledo. 

937. Cairo. 

938. Chicago. 

939. CambridgeAdd. 

940. Princeton CC. 
0174. 6. 940. 

941. IllinoisG.P.941, 

942. Chicago. 

943. Toledo. 

944. Harvard. 

945. Cairo 41085. 

946. Morgan. 

947. HibbardLibrary, 
Chicago, OAT. 2. 

948. Pennsyl.E.3076. 

949. Graz MS. I. 


950. Morgan. 

951. Princeton. 

952. Peabody Mu- 
seum, Yale. 

953. Louvain 218. 

954. Leland Stan- 

955. Yale. 

956. Cleveland. 

957. Brussels, 

958. IllinoisG.P,958. 

959. Cairo 41378. 

960. Pennsyl.E.3078. 

961. Cairo 41379. 

962. Illinois G.P,962. 

963. Toledo. 

964. Cairo 41086. 

965. Morgan. 

966. Cairo. 

968. St. Deiniol's, 
Hawarden, A. N. 

969. Cairo 41087. 

970. Bodl. MS. Gr. 
class, g. 58 (P). 

971. IllinoisG.P.971. 

972. Cairo. 

973. Louvain 219. 

974. Yale. 

976. Princeton CC. 
0174. 6. 976. 

977. Liverpool Class. 
Gr. Libr. 421. 

978. Pennsyl.E,3077. 

979. Graz MS. I. 


981. Peabody ]Mu- 
seum, Yale, 

982, Princeton. 

983. Dublin. 

984, B. M, 1842, 

986. Cairo. 

987. Harvard. 

988. CambridgeAdd. 

989. Cairo. 

990. IIlinoisG.P.990. 

991. Princeton CC, 
0174. 6, 991. 

992. Graz MS. I. 

993. Pennsyl. E. 


994. Brussels. 



995. Cairo. 

996. Graz MS. II. 

997. Cambridge 
Add. 5889. 

998. Brussels. 

999. Graz MS. III. 

1000. Graz MS. I. 

1001. Chicago. 

1002. Morgan. 

1003. Cleveland. 

1004. Cairo 41088. 

1005. Cairo 41089. 

1006. Cairo 41090. 
VII. 1007. B. M. 


1008. Cairo. 

1009. Cairo. 

1010. Bodl. MS. Gr. 
bib.^. 3(P). 

1012. Toledo. 

1013. Cairo. 

1015. Cairo. 

1016. Toledo. 

1017. B. M. 2048. 

1018. Rylands 450. 

1019. Dublin. 

1020. Cairo. 

1021. Dublin. 

1022. B. M. 2049. 

1023. Illinois G. P. 

1024. Illinois G. P. 

1025. Bodl. MS. Gr. 
class. </. 99 (P). 

1026. Cairo. 

1027. Princeton CC. 
0174. 6. 1027. 

1028. Princeton CC. 
0174. 6. 1028. 

1029. Cairo. 

1030. Illinois G. P. 

1031. Cairo. 

1032. Bodl. MS. Gr. 
class, b. 7 (P). 

1034. Dublin. 

1035. Illinois G. P. 


1036. Princeton CC. 
0174. 6. 1036. 

1037. B. M. 2050. 

1038. Muhlenberg. 

1039. Newton. 

1040. Princeton CC. 
0174. 6. 1040. 

1042. Illinois G. P. 

1043. Princeton CC. 
0174. 6. 1043. 

1044. Toledo. 

1045. Toledo. 

1046. Muhlenberg. 

1047. Toledo. 

1049. Bodl. MS. Gr. 
class, b. 7 (P). 

1050. Cambridge 
Add. 5890. 

1051. Illinois G. P. 

1052. Bodl. MS. Gr. 
class, d. 100 (P). 

1053. Cambridge 

1054. Princeton CC. 
0174. 6. 1054. 

1055. Newton. 

1056. Newton. 

1057. Bodl. MS. Gr. 
class, d. 100 (P). 

1058. PrincetonT.S. 
Pap. 3. 

1059. Newton. 

1060. Rylands 452. 

1061. B. M. 2051. 

1062. Bolton 28.14.2. 

1063. Toledo. 

1064. Muhlenberg. 

1065. PrincetonT.S. 
Pap. 4. 

1066. Toledo. 

1067. Toledo. 

1068. Princeton CC 
0174. 6. 1068. 

1069. Cairo. 

1070. Cambridge 
Add. 5892. 

1071. Cairo. 

1072. Newton. 
VIII. 1073. B• M. 


1074. Illinois G. P. 

1075. B. M. 2053. 

1076. Rylands 448. 

1077. Muhlenberg. 

1078. Cambridge 
Add. 5893. 

1079. B. M. 2053. 

1080. PrincetonT.S. 
Pap. 5. 

1081. Cambridge 
Add. 5894. 

1082. B. M. 2054. 

1083. Cambridge 
Add. 5895. 

1084. Princeton CC. 
0174. 6. 1084. 

1086. B. M. 2055. 

1087. Cairo. 

1088. B. M. 2055. 

1089. Bodl. MS. Gr. 
class, d. 10 1 (P). 

1090. Liverpool 
Class. Gr. Libr. 

1091. B. M. 2056. 

1092. Bodl. 

1093. Cairo. 

1094. Muhlenberg. 

1095. Muhlenberg. 

1096. PrincetonT.S. 
Pap. 6. 

1097. B. M. 2057. 

1098. Cairo. 

1099. Cambridge 
Add. 5896. 

1100. Bodl. MS. Gr. 
class, e. 100 (P). 

1101. Bodl. MS. Gr. 
class, c. 66 (P). 

1102. B. M. 2058. 

1103. Bodl. MS. Gr. 
class, d. 102 (P). 

1104. Bodl. MS. Gr. 
class, d. 102 (P). 

1105. B. M. 

1106. Edinburgh Pap. 
Case 8. 

1107. Princeton CC. 
0174. 6. 1107. 

1108. Muhlenberg. 

1109. Toledo. 

1110. Bodl. MS. Gr. 
class, e. 100 (P). 

1111. Bodl. MS. Gr. 
class./; 90 (P). 

1112. Bodl. MS. Gr. 
class, e. loi (P). 

1113. Muhlenberg. 

1114. B. M, 2059. 

1116. Bodl. MS. Gr. 
class, d. 103 (P). 

1117. Cairo. 

1118. Toledo. 

1119. Bodl. MS. Gr. 
class, b. 5 (P). 

1120. Illinois G. P. 
1 1 20. 

1121. Cairo. 

1122. B. M. 2060. 

1124. Cambridge 
Add. 5897. 

1125. Newton. 

1127. Cairo. 

1128. Toledo. 

1129. B. M. 2061. 

1130. B. M. 2062. 

1131. Muhlenberg. 

1132. Princeton CC. 
0174. 6. 1132. 

1133. Cambridge 
Add. 5898. 

1134. B. M. 2063. 

1135. Cairo. 

1136. B. M. 2064. 

1137. Toledo. 

1138. PrincetonT.S. 
Pap. 7. 

1139. Toledo. 

1140. Liverpool 
Class. Gr. Libr. 

1141. Muhlenberg. 

1142. Cairo. 

1143. B. M. 2065. 
1145. Cairo. 



1146. Bodl. MS. Gr. 

1181. Muhlenberg. 

1214. Princeton CC. 

1312. Muhlenberg. 

class, e. 102 (P). 

1182. Cairo. 

0174. 6. 1214. 

1314. Liverpool 

1147. Princeton CC. 

1183. Princeton CC. 

1215. Muhlenberg. 

Class.Gr. Libr. 428 

0174. 6. 1147. 

0174. 6. 1183. 

1217. Muhlenberg. 

1315. Cambridge 

1148. Cairo. 

1185. Rylands 454. 

1218. Toledo. 

Add. 5902. 

1149. Princeton CC. 

1186. Cairo. 

1219. Muhlenberg. 

1319. Muhlenberg. 

0174. 6. 1149. 

1187. Cairo. 

1220. Cairo. 

1320. Liverpool 

1150. Rylands 453. 

1188. B. M. 2071. 

1221. ]Muhlenberg. 

Class.Gr. Libr. 429 

1151. Glasgow. 

1189. Princeton CC. 

1222. Toledo. 

1321. Liverpool 

1152. Princeton T. S. 

0174. 6. 1189. 

1223. Cairo. 

Class.Gr. Libr. 430 

Pap. 8. 

1190. Dublin. 

X. 1225. Princeton 

1322. Liverpool 

1153. Bolton28. 14.3. 

1191. Cairo. 

T. S. Pap. 12. 

Class.Gr. Libr. 431 

1154. Muhlenberg. 

1192. Toledo. 

1226. Liverpool 

1324. Bolton 28. 14 

1155. Newton. 

1193. Princeton CC. 

Class. Gr. Libr. 


1156. Toledo. 

0174. 6. 1193. 


1325. Princeton CC 

1157. Cairo. 

1194. Rylands 455. 

1227. Muhlenberg. 

0174. 6. 1325. 

1159. Toledo. 

1195. Liverpool 

1228. Glasgow. 

1326. lUinois G. P. 

1160. Muhlenberg. 

Class. Gr. Libr. 

1229. Illinois G. P. 


1161. Newton. 



1327. Cairo. 

1162. Princeton CC. 

1197. Bodl. MS. Gr. 

1230. Newton. 

1328. Newton. 

0174. 6. 1162. 

class, d. 104 (P). 

1243. Muhlenberg. 

1329. Cairo. 

1163. Dublin. 

1198. Newton. 

1245. Cairo. 

1330. Muhlenberg. 

1164. Liveipool 

1199. Edinburgh 

1246. Muhlenberg. 

1331. Toledo. 


Pap. Case 9. 

1247. Toledo. 

1332. Toledo. 

1165. Cairo. 

1200. Cairo. 

1249. Cambridge 

1333. Muhlenberg. 

IX. 1166. B.M.2066. 

1201. Cambridge 

Add. 5901. 

1334. B. M. 2074. 

1167. Princeton T.S. 

Add. 5899. 

1250. Bodl. MS. Gr. 

1335. B. M. 2075. 

Pap. 9. 

1202, Princeton CC. 

class. <f. 97 (P). 

1337. Cairo. 

1168. PrincetonT.S. 

0174. 6. 1202. 

1251. B. Μ 2057. 

1338. Illinois G. P. 

Pap. 10. 

1203. Toledo. 

1301. Muhlenberg. 


1169. PrincetonT.S. 

1204. Cairo. 

1302. Muhlenberg. 

1339. Cairo. 

Pap. 1 1 . 

1205. B. M. 2072. 

1303. Liverpool 

1340. Newton. 

1170. Bodl. MS. Gr. 

1206. B. M. 2073. 

Class. Gr.Libr.425. 

1341. Cambridge 

bib. d. 14 (P). 

1207. Princeton CC. 

1306. Liverpool 

Add. 5903. 

1171. Princeton CC. 

0174. 6. 1207. 

Class. Gr. Libr. 426. 

1342. Princeton CC 

0174. 6. 1171. 

1208. Bodl. MS. Gr. 

1307. Illinois G. P. 

0174. 6. 1342. 

1172. B. M. 2067, 

class, b. 6 (P). 


1345. Liverpool 

1177. Illinois G. P. 

1209. Rylands 456. 

1308. IMuhlenberg. 

Class.Gr. Libr. 432 


1211. Princeton CC. 

1309. Liverpool 

1346. Toledo. 

1178. Cairo. 

0174. 6. 1211. 

Class. Gr. Libr. 42 7. 

1348. Toledo. 

1179. Newton. 

1212. Muhlenberg. 

1310. Princeton CC. 

1349. Illinois G. Ρ 

1180. Illinois G. P. 

1213. Cambridge 

0174. 6. 1310. 


1 1 80. 

Add. 5900. 

1311. Newton. 

1350. Cairo. 



1. B. M. 1821. 

3. Bodl. MS. Gr. 

5. B. M. 1823. 

class, d. j^j (P). 

2. Bodl. MS. Gr. 

class, e. 89 (P). 

6. B. M. 1824. 

8. Brussels. 

class./ 78 (P)• 

4. B. M. 1822. 

7. Bodl. MS. Gr. 

9. Harvard. 



10. Bodl. MS. Gr. 
class./ 79 (P). 

11. Bodl. MS. Gr. 
class, g. 54 (P). 

12. Bodl. MS. Gr. 
class, g. 55 (P). 

13. Pennsyl. E. 3068. 

14. Bodl. 

15. B. M. 1825. 

17. Bodl. MS. Gr. 
class, ύ?. 79 (Ρ). 

18. Bodl. MS. Gr. 
class. / 80 (P). 

19. Graz IMS. I and 
III. 1944. 

20. B. M. 1826. 

21. B. M. 1827. 

22. Bodl. MS. Gr. 
class, b. f (P). 

23. Morgan. 

24. Cambridge Add. 

25. Yale. 

26. Bodl. MS. Gr. 
class, d. 80 (P). 

27. Dublin. 

28. Bodl. MS. Gr. 
class, d. 81 (P). 

29. Bodl. MS. Gr. 
class, i/. 82 (P). 

30. B. M. 1828. 

31. Cairo 41073. 

32. Chicago. 

33. Cairo 41074. 

34. Bodl. MS. Gr. 
class, c. 60 (P). 

38. Graz MS. III. 


40. Graz MS. III. 

41. Bodl. MS. Gr. 
class, c. 61 (P). 

47. Cambridge Add. 

48. Cambridge Add. 


50. Pennsyl. E. 3069. 

51. B. M. 1829. 

52. Bodl. MS. Gr. 
class, d. 83 (P). 

53. Cambridge Add. 

57. Cairo 41075. 

58. Morgan. 

59. Cleveland. 

63. Cairo 41076. 

64. Yale. 

65. Leland Stanford. 

66. Cambridge Add. 

67. B. M. 1830. 

68. Bodl. MS. Gr. 
class, d. 84 (P). 

69. Cairo 41077. 

70 {a). Leipzig Inv, 

No. 614. 
70 {b). Leipzig Inv. 

No. 615. 

71. Cairo 41078. 

72. Cambridge Add. 

73. Bodl. MS. Gr. 
class, d. 85 (P). 

74. Graz MS. I. 

76. Brussels. 

77. Leipzig Inv. No. 

78. Cairo 41079. 

80. B. M. 1 83 1. 

81. Bodl. MS. Gr. 
class, c. 62 (P). 

82. B. M. 1832. 
84(4 B.M.i833(a). 
84(^).B.M. 1833(3). 
85. B. M. 1834. 
87. Peabody Mu- 
seum, Yale. 

89. Morgan. 

90. B. M. 1835. 

91. Morgan. 

92. B. M. 1836. 

93. Harvard. 

94. Leipzig Inv. No. 

95. Bodl. MS. Gr. 
class./ 81 (P). 

96. Pennsyl.E.3070. 

97. Yale. 

98. Brussels. 

99. Princeton. 

100. Brussels. 

101. Cairo 41080. 

102. Harvard. 

104. B. M. 1837. 

105. Chicago. 

106. B. M. 1838. 

107. Leipzig Inv. No. 

108. Chicago. 

109. Cleveland. 

110. Berlin Postmu- 
seum I A, a 10 a. 

111. Morgan. 

112. Bodl. MS. Gr. 
class, c. 63 (P). 

113. Graz MS. I. 

115. Brussels. 

116. Bodl. MS. Gr. 
class, e. 90 (P). 

117. Pennsyl.E.3071. 
119. Harvard. 

121. Graz MS. III. 

124. Cairo 41081. 
128. Yale. 

130. St. Deiniol's, 
Hawarden A. N. 


131. Leland Stanford. 

132. Graz MS. I. 

133. Morgan. 
137. Princeton. 

145. B. M. 1839. 

146. Dublin. 

147. Cleveland. 

148. Yale. 

150. B. M. 1840. 

151. Morgan. 

156, Pennsyl.E.3072. 

166. Harvard. 

167. Pennsyl.E.3073. 
169. Hibbard Library, 

Chicago, OAT. I. 
171. B. M. 1841. 


Ι. NEW CLASSICAL FRAGMENTS {incbiding 1356). 

{Figures in thick type refer to papyri, those in Italic type to fragments, Roman 
figures to columns ; schol. = scholium.) 

αγαθός 1361. 1. 6. 

αγα\μα 1361. 1. 5• 

ayavQs 1358. 1. 'J ; 1359. 1. 

ayyeXos 1361. 5. 24. 

Άγ(ΐν 1361. 1. 15; 1362. 1. 
2, 3, lo; 1364. 20; 1368. 

άγίρωχοε 1358. 3. 30. 
άγίστυί 1362. JZ. 3. 
αγρός 1367. I 7- 

άΒ(λφός 1371. 47 schol. 
SSticos 1356. Fol. 4. 29; 

1363. 7. 
ajAiof 1361. 5. 15. 
ά;5/ί 1364. 294. 
[άθάρα]τος 1359. J. 5. 
Άθηραΐοι 1366. 6; 1367. 41. 
αθρόος 1356. Fol. ΙΟ. 1 8. 
αϊα 1359. ί. II. 
αίγλά^ίς 1361. J. 1 4. 
ΑιγυτΓτοί 1361. 1. ϊζ. 

"Αιδης 1356. Fol, 4• 34; 
1360. 5. 4 (Άΐδα?) ; 1363. 

alev 1362. J. 9. 
at% 1358. J2. 34. 
Μθίοπ^ς 1358. .5. I5, 17. 
ai'(9o[ 1359. 5. 3. 
αΧθυία 1362. J. 34. 
αίθίσσαν 1361. ί. 8 (1. {δι)αιθ.). 
αίνος 1362. 1. g. 
αΐπΰς 1358. 2. 23, 25- 
αίρΐΐσθαι 1365. 53• 
αίσα 1362. J. 1 5- 
άΐσσΐΐν 1358. <2. 2 Ο. 
αίσχννη 1364. 4©• 
αΙτΛν 1362. 1. 1 9. 

ai'jrto? 1366. 17. 

Αϊτι/α 1361. 4. 7• Α'ίτνη 

1358. ^. 25. 
αΙψνίΒίος 1365. 36• 
αΙών 1362. J. 33• 
α*£ού€ΐί/1356. Fol. 8. Ι ; 1359. 

1. 4; 1362. 1. 21 ; 1364. 

Άκρατος 1356. Fol. 8. 5• 
άκρο[ 1361. 17. 2. 
αλα^ώι/ 1363. 7• 
aX-yweti' 1364. 108, Ι49• 
αλΐΐσον 1362. ί. 13. 
άλεκτρυώι/ 1402. 1. verso 

Άλ(ξαν8ρος 1361. 1. Ι marg. 
άληθΐΐα 1356. Fol. 4• 30J 

1364. 56. 
αλί;^77ί 1356. Fol. 4• 27; 

1362. ί. 15; 1364. 1 1 8. 

ΰλης 1363. 5• 

άλικία 1361. J34. 4• 

άλιτρός 1360. ρ. ^6. 

αλλά 1356. Fol. 4• 31) 34» 
Fol. 8. 10, Fol. 10. II ; 
1358. j2. 33 ; 1360. 1. 3, 

2. 6 schol. ; 1361. 5. 12; 
1362. J. 9, 16, 33; 1364. 
55, 120, 162 ; 1368. 42. 

αλλήλων 1364. 273. 
άλλος 1356. 2. 6, 3. r ; 1365. 
5 ; 1366. 8 ; 1367. 8. 

αλμυροί 1358. 1. I. 

alter 1404. 4. 
άλίισκΐΐν 1358. 2. 2g. 
[Αλφ(ΐός 1361. 4. g. 
αμα 1368. 37, 40. 
Άμαζονίδ^ς 1359. 1. 12. 

αμει/ί^ι/όί 1358. -2. 1 8. 
]αμΐτρα 1363. Ι9• 
άμμος 1360. 1. 8, ΙΟ. 
άμύμων 1358. ί. Ι4; 1359. 

4. 6. 

αμίνΐσθαι 1364. 1 3 2. 

\\.μΰντας 1361. J. Ι marg. 

αμνστις 1362. 1. II. 
αμφί 1358. 2. 2 8. 
αμφιβάλλων 1358. ί. 27. 
(ίμφω 1368. 32. 

αϊ/ 1356. Fol. 4. 5 ; 1364. 9, 
12,38,113,131, 135, 146, 

ai/oytos 1356. Fol. 4• ΙΟ. 
ανάγκα 1361. ί. 6. dmyitij 

1361. 5. 14• 

ανάγκαζαν 1356. Fol. 4• 9• 
αναγκαίος 1364. 20, 283. 
«ι/αδίδάσκειι/ 1356. Fol. ΙΟ. 3• 
αναφύν 1368. 32. 
Άναξ 1358. ^. 32. 
avaTTVf'iv 1364. 292. 
άνάσσαν 1358. 1. 1 6. 
άναστρΐ'φίσθαι 1362. 1. 6. 
ανάφεραν 1364. 1 84. 
Άνδρίας 1365. II. 
άνδρύα 1365. 56. 
ά^ι/δρ«'ωί 1365. 63. 
άνδροκτασίη 1359. 1. I'J. 
άνδροφόνος 1358. 1. 29• 
άνύρΐσθαι 1362. 1. 2 2. 
άνήκΐΐν 1361. /. Ι. 
άνήρ 1356. Fol. 4• 12 ; 1358. 

1. 9, 12; 1361. ί. ίο, i. 

6; 1363. 2, 12, 22; 13ββ. 

6, 2 7- 

ανθψον 1361. i. 3. 



άνβιστάναι 1360. 2. 4 schol. 
ανθρωπινοί 1356. Fol. 4. 2. 
άνθρωπος 1356. Fol. 8. 2 ; 

1358. 1. 20; 1361. ί. 1 2, 

5. 3, 24. 2, 5(?); 1364. 

13, 48, 89, 236, 284; 

1365. 2. 
]ανούν 1356. 5. Ι4• 
άΐΌίγνΰί/αι 1368. 47• 
άνόσίοί {αποφω Pap.) 1356. 

Fol. 4• ΙΟ. 
αντί 1356. Fol. 8. 2 ; 1360. 
J5. 2 schol. ; 1365. 43• 

Αντισθένης 1366. 2. 
άντιψαίν€ΐν 1359. ί. 5• 
«Ι/ω 1356. Fol. 4• Ι (-Ο ; 
^ 1358. 2. 35• 

άνωφΐ'λης 1364. Ι 65. 

άξι[ 1356. Fol. ΙΟ. 28. 
άτταλλάσσίίί/ 1364. 4Ι• 
απαρχή 1360. ί. Ι3• 
ατταϊ 1356. Fol. 4. 25 ', 1364. 

295; 1365. 31• 
άπίΐρίσιος 1358. 2. ΙΟ. 
αττό 1356. Fol. 10. 9; 1361. 

ί. 15; 1364. 87, 96, 99> 

Ι02; 1368. 29• 
άποΒίίκννναι 1365. 45• 
άπο8ώόναι 1365. 7• 
άποθνησκΐΐν 1364. 93, 9^• 
άπο<ρι[ 1356. Fol. 4• 43• 

άποκτ fiveiv 1365. 38. 
απ[ορος 1360. 1. 9• 
άποστο[ 1356. Fol. 8. 28. 
αποστυγΕΪΐ' 1362. 1. 11. 
άποτΐΐ[ 1356. Fol. ΙΟ. 2θ. 
άποτρίπΐΐν 1364. 88. 
άποφεύγΐΐν 1367. 8. 
άποχ€Τίίίΐν 1356. Fol. ΙΟ. 9• 

aqua 1404. 3• 
i'tpa 1358. 1. I, 2. 33• 
'Apyeioi 1358. ί. 31. 
npdeiv 1356. Fol. ΙΟ. ΙΟ. 

άρ€τη 1356. Fol. 4• 4) Fol. 
10. 22. 

Άρητιάδης 1358. 2. 32. 
ή/)ίστ€ρΟΓ 1358. ί. 2ζ. 
άριστος 1359. ί. II. 
Άρκασιδης 1359. ί. 8. 
άρ/ι<5ττ€ΐν 1356. Fol. 4• 1 1> 3°• 

άρι/€ίσ^αί 1364. Ι97• 
αρπάγη 1356. 1. 2. 
άρπάζ€ΐν 1361. 5. Ι9• 
apros 1362. 1. 25. 
άρυστήρ 1362. ί. 17. 
αρχΕί!/ 1364. Ι34• 

αρχΐ7 1365. 63. 
Άρχίμαχος 1367. S^• 

Άσίί 1359. ί. II. 

άσννν€Τθς 1360. 1, ΙΟ. 
άτάσθαι 1358. <5. Ι3(?)• 
Άτθίς 1362. ί. 4• 

ατιμώρητος 1356. Fol. 4• 29. 
αψτάλλειμ 1359. 1. 6. 
άτμην 1362. J. Ι9• 
άτρΰγΐτος 1358. 2. 34• 

au(9ts 1365. 70; 1368. 41• 
αϋλιον 1362. 4. 6. 
av^ai/eii/ 1397. 70 Schol. 
αντάρ 1359. ^. Ι3• 
avTe 1356. Fol. 4• 39• 
αντίκα 1361. ί. 1 1 . 

avro's 1359. 4. 7 ; 1360. 4. 
η. 7; 1364. 67, 6g, 73> 
76, 79. 82, 95, ΐ33. 138, 
142, 148; 1365. 13, 44, 
54, 6ο; 1367. 3, 45. 54, 
59; 1368. 45, 48, 5ΐ ; 

1400. i. 5, ϋ• 2. ό αυτός 

1364. 194; 1368. 28. 
άφανίζΐΐν 1368. 38. 
Άφθιτος 1358. 1. 26; 1359. 

5. Ι. 
άφύναι 1356. Fol. 4• 3° ; 

1360. 2. 6 schol. 
άφικνίΐσθαι 1368. 43• 
άφορίζίΐν 1364. 290. 
'Αφροδίτη 1359. 5. 4 ; 1371. 

52 schol. 
άφρων 1356. Fol. 4• 8. 
^Αχαιοί 1359. 1. 14. 
άώς 1361. ^4. 3• 

βαθνρροος 1358. ^. 23. 

βαΚ\(ΐν 1362. J. 2θ; 1368. 


βαρβαρικά 1399. verso 2. 
/3άρβαροΓΐ356. Fol. ΙΟ. II (.0; 

1364. 278, 289. 
βαρβαρονν 1364. 2 74• 

βάρβιτος 1361. 1. ], ί. 2. 
Βαρκαΐοι 1367. 29. 
βασιλΐίΐΐΐν 1367. 42. 

βασιλ€νς 1359. ί. 8 ; 1367. 

20, 27. 
βασιλικό? 1367. 62. 
βιάζΐσθαι 1364. 47• 
βιβλίον 1363. 7• 
/3t'j7 1359. 1. 9, 17• 
βί'ο? 1356. Fol. 4• 29 ; 1362. 

1• 33• 

βλάπτειι/ 1364. 55, ΙΙ9• 
βλεπΐΐν 1368. 42. 

βλώσκ€ΐν 1361. 5. 25 ; 1362. 

ί. 7- 
^of^^eii/ 1365. 37• 

Βονζύγης 1367. 53• 
βούλίσθαι 1402. ί. veiso 

βονλιυτης 1367. 65. 
βραβξύην 1356. Fol. 4. 32- 

ΒύκχΐΓ 1360. 5 schol. 
βωμ<5Γΐ360. ί. II ; 363. ίο. 

βωτιάνίίρα 1359. 1. 1 6. 

canis 1404. ι. 
caro 1404. ι, 3. 
cum 1404. 2. 

ya'ia 1358. 2. 32. Γαΐα 1358. 

^. II. 
γαμΕΐι/ 1400. 1. 2. 

yap 1356. Fol. 4• 1 1, ι6, 29, 
32, 37, Fol• ΙΟ. 27; 1360. 
3 schol; 1361. 2. τ, 4. 2, 
26. 4; 1362. ί. II, ΐ7; 
1363. 8; 1364. 23, 54, 
65, 91, "7, ι89, 2ΐι, 
272, 294• 

γαρνς 1361. 1. 2. 

ye 1364. 173. 

yetVea^at 1364. 1 36. 

yevei] 1362. 1. 1 4. 

γίνίθλη 1358. ^. 19, 26; 
1362. 1. 7. 

yepay 1359. 5. I. 

y€pωι/ 1363. 7. 

γη 1359. ί. 13; 1363. 23. 

γηγενής 1367. 42. 

γήτειον 1362. ί. 25. 



yiyveauai 1356. Fol. 4. 26 ; 

1358. 3. 16, 27; 1359. 

3. 6 ; 1360. 3. 6 schol. ; 

1364. 159, 210; 1365. 12, 

yiyvaaKfiv 1356. Fol. 8. I ; 

1362. 1. 29. 
Τλανκΐτηΐ 1368. 33, 39• 
yXvKvs 1361. 1. 6. 
γλώσσα 1358. 3. 1 4• γλώττα 

1364. 72. 
γνησιοί 1356. S. 13. 
γνώμη 1401. 1. 2. 

yo^Tptr (?) 1356. Fol. 4. 14. 
yovevs 1359. 7. 3. 
yovv 1356. Fol. 4. 31. 
γύμναζαν 1356. Fol. 4. 47. 
γυμνός 1356. Fol. 4. 37• 
γννη 1356. Fol. 4. 14 ; 1359. 
5. 5 (?) ; 1368. 53. 

γυρ€υσαι (:= φντεϋσαι .?) 1356. 

Fol. 10. 8. 

δαημων 1358. J. 24. 

8αηναι 1362. J. 1 4. 

SatV»; 1362. 1. 5. 

δα/χδι/ 1358. 1. 2. 

ΔάρδπίΌί 1359. ,2. 7, 13. 

Se 1356. Fol. 4. 33, Fol. 8. 
24, 28, Fol. 10. 5, 12,25; 
1358. 1. I, 6, 18, 22, 30, 
j2. 29; 1359. 1. 6, 7, 13, 
19 ; 1360. 1. 10, ^. 2, 
4 schol.; 1361. i. 12-14, 

3. 4, 5. 6, 12. 4, i3. 4 ; 

1362. 1. 5, 7, 12, 21, 25; 

1363. 15; 1364. 21 e/ 
saep. ; 1365. 8 et saep. ; 
1367. 8 et saep.; 1368. 
33. 36,37.39; 1400. i. 5. 

SfieXos- 1362. 4. 4. 
δίίλόί 1361. J5. 2. 
huv 1356. Fol. 10. 27 ; 1364. 

66-82, 120. 
ΑίΧφικος τρίπονί 1356. Fol. 

4. 27. 

Δίλφοί 1365. 7 ; 1367. 23. 
δίόίπ-ωί 1356. Fol. 4. 5. 
δ(σμ05 1356. Fol. 4. 35; 

1364. 104. 

δίΟρο 1361. J. 3. 
biVT€ 1363. 5. 
δ6'χεσ(9αι 1359. 1. 7 (.?). 
deinde 1404. 2. 

Αημητηρ 1359. ^. 9, 12. 

δ^ /xoff 1365. 69. 

δ77/ίο[σί . . 1356. Fol. 10. 29. 

8ημότης 1365. I. 

Αημώναξ 1367. 19, 28, 35. 

δια 1356. Fol. 4. 38; 1358. 
.5.34; 1359. ί. 22; 1364. 
54, 56; 1365. 55; 1368. 


διαβαίνίΐν 1368. 45• 
διαΒατάσθαι 1358. J. 1 5. 
{δι)αιθύσσ€ΐν 1361. J. 8. 
διαισ[ 1361. 5. 3• 
8ιαιτάσθαι 1365. 17. 
8ιακωλν€ΐν 1364. Ι79• 
SiareXeiv 1365. Ι 6. 
διαφθΐίρΐΐν 1367. 1 8. 
8ιαφυλάσσ€ΐν 1365. 65. 

8ι8όνΜ 1356. Fol. 4• 3^> 33^ 

Fol. 10. 28; 1358. 1. 3; 

1360. 5. 4; 1364. 191 ; 

1367. 24, 38. 
8ικάζΐΐν 1356. Fol. 4. 37• 
δι^αιοί 1358. 1. 13; 1364. 

6ι, 171. 
δικαιοσύνη 1364. 6, 1 6. 
δικαστής 1356. Fol. 4• 34• 
δικν 1356. Fol. 4• 3θ ; 1364. 

193; 1366. 17; 1367. 3• 
διό 1367. 2. 
Δίο(96ΐ/ 1358. 1. 28. 
Διομήδης 1359. 4. 5• 
Αιονύσια δώρα 1361. 1. g. 
διορθοΐν 1367. 58. 
δις 1358. ^. 2 8. 
δί'σκοΓ 1359. 4. 8. 
δισχίλιοι 1360. 5. 7• 
δίφυ^ί 1367. 42. 
δ'ιω 1359. ί. 4• 
δϋ^Ιί/ 1356. Fol. 4- 25 ; 1361. 

1. 12. 
δόλος 1358. ί. 2. 
δόξα 1364. 54• 
δοΟλοΓ 1362. 1. Ι. 
δρ3.' 1364. 76, 134, ΐ77, 

ι82, ι88, 196, 209. 

δρίπανον 1402. 2. recto schol. 
δίνασθαι 1360. ^. 4 schol. ; 

1364. 192, 214, 287 (i•). 
δυνατός 1356. Fol. ΙΟ. 26; 

1364. 46. 
δώρο,; 1358. 1. 3, 6; 1361. 


€ά«Ί364. 45, 47, 5ΐ• 
ίαντοϋ 1356. Fol. 4• 2 5, 37 ; 

1364. 14; 1366.4; 1371. 

41 schol. 
^'γώ 1361. 4. 13; 1362. 8, 

13, 21, 22, 31 : 1366. ίο; 

1368. 31 ; 1400. η. 4• 

ήμ(Ίς 1356. Fol. 4• 7, 34, 

Fol. 8. 30; 1360. p. 56 

{αμμι); 1362.4. ιη ; 1364. 

ίθίΚίΐν 1360. 1. 6 ; 1362. 1. 

et 1356. Fol. 4• 31, 33; 

1359. 1. 4 ; 1361. 4. 7 ; 

1362. 1. 33; 1364. 1 6, 
156; 1368. 41. 

eibfvai 1356, F0I. 4. 7, Fo^• 

ΙΟ. 23(.>); 1358. ί. 5, 26; 
^ 1360. 13: 1362. 1. 27. 
«Γδοί 1370. 137° schol. 
(ΐκάδ^ς 1361. 1. 5. 
etVoy 1365. 19; 1368. 34• 
(Ιλικρινώς 1356. Fol. 4• 3^• 
eivai 1356. F0I. 4• 2 6, Fol. 
8. 25, 2. 10; 1358. 1. 
28, 2. 19; 1360. ^. 6 
schol.; 1361.5. 12; 1362. 
1. 7. 32; 1364. 31 ''' 
saep.; 1365. ι, ίο, 19, 
2θ, 31 ; 1368. 44, 54; 
1400. i. 7. 

ίΐρήνη 1356. Fol. II. 2. 

etr 1360. 5. 4; 1362. ί. 18; 

1364. 138, ι83, 294; 

1367.7,11; 1368.44,55• 
«s 1367. 32. 
(Κ {(ξ) 1356. Fol. 4- 27, 37' 

Fol. 8. 28; 1359. ^.14; 

1363. 23; 1364. 170, 
268; 1365. 6, 36 ; 1367. 
38; 1368. 54• 



βκαστος 1356. Fol. 4. 12. 
(κατόν 1367. 4, ΙΟ. 
eKUvos 1368. 5j 3^» 42• 

€κπ\ησσίΐν 1368. 33• 
inrpineiv 1368. 29. 
"Εκτωρ 1358. 1. 29- 
€κφ(ΰγ(ΐν 1358. ^.2 9- 
(λάττων 1364. 50, IS^• 
β'λύττωσίί 1364. 164. 
eXaweiv 1356. Fol. 4• § ', 

1361.5. 17; 1368. 37. 4θ 
€λ€ύθ€ροί 1362. ί. 19; 1364. 

€λίφα? 1361. 1. 1 3- 
"Ελλί^ι/ 1356. Fol. 10. 11; 

1364. 279, 292. 
eXniCetv 1363. 23. 
eXms 1361. 1. 8. 
€Vos 1361. 1. 3 ; 1362. 1. 33. 

ΐμπηρος 1356. Fol. ΙΟ. I. 
Εμπι/εΐκ 1356. Fol. 8. 26. 
(μφ\έγ€ΐν 1356. Fol. 4. 36, 

eV 1356. Fol. 4. 4, 32-4, 40 ; 
1359. i. 6, 9, 11; 1361. 
1. 5, 5. 6; 1362. i. 5, 
17, 20; 1364. 9, 148, 
272; 1365. 31; 1368. 
47, 53• 

(vaipeiv 1359. 1. 12. 

εναντιοΰσβαι 1364. 1 6 3• 

ίναρ-γψ 1359. 1' 5• 

tvbov 1361. 0. 5• 

evfivai 1364. 1 48 i^vC). 

evfKa 1364. 57. ei'eKei'1362. 

1. 25. 

fveuTjKOVTa 1367. 4. 
eveneiv 1362. 1. 27. 
ivepyos 1365. 32. 
ivBovaiciv 1356. Fol. 4. 27. 
ίντανβα 1356. Fol. 4. 33 ; 
1364. 178. 

ivTeidev 1364. 2, 1 7. 

eWos 1363. 8. 

έ]ζαρκ[ 1363. 28. 

e'leii/at 1364. 150, 152, I54 ; 

1367. 33(?)• 
f^eKaiveiv\Sb9. 1. I 3. 
existimare 1404. 4. 
ίπαι8€Ϊσθαι 1364. 2 06, 2 7 Ο. 
eVet 1364. 275. 

eneibr) 1365. 2 2. 
ewfira 1365. 58. 

fne$o8os 1356. Fol. 4. 9. 

ΐπΐσθαι 1358. ί. 1 8. 

eViVeios• 1362. J. 3. 

iVt 1358. ^. 8; 1359. ί. 15; 
1361. 24. 4; 1364. 65- 
8i, 90, 186 ; 1368. 51. 

ΐττίθίτος 1364. 25. 

(■ηιθνμάν 1364. 83. 

iniKovpelv 1364. I 7 2. 

ίπικοϋρησις 1364. 1 58. 

(ττ'κονρος 1358. 1. 23. 

ΐπιμ€λΐΐα 1356. Fol. 4. 2. 

ΐπιμορφάζΐΐν 1356. Fol. 4. 13. 

inivewiv 1368. 36, 38. 

ΐπίστασθαι 1356. Fol. lO. 21. 

ΐπιστρίφίσθαι 1368. 40. 

€πΐΓά^ 1362. 1. g. 

€πιτάσσ€ΐν 1365. 6. 

(πιτομή 1367. 68. 

e/rtrpeVeii' 1364. Ι74• 

ΐπίφίρΐΐν 1367. 3j 9• 

inixeipelv 1368. 52. 

eVtx^"" 1361. -27. 2. 
eVos 1362. J. 15. 
επτά σοφοί 1367. 7^• 
ίπτάτονος 1361. 1. 2. 
epyov 1358. ^. 8. 
ΈρΙκτυπος 1358. ^. 1 9. 
ΐρισθενης 1358. .5. 27. 
'Eptx^o'i/ios 1359. 2. 14, 4. 

"Ερμιππο: 1367. 69. 

e'f 1361. 1. 3, 4. 7 ; 1362. 1. 

5, 10; 1363. 5; 1367. 

23. Cf. ety. 
εσοικίζΐσβαι 1362. J. 34. 
εσσίίΐ/ {έσσην Pap.) 1362. J. 

έ'σω 1356. Fol. 4. 41 (?). 
ΐταίρη 1363. 1 6. 

?7-epoi 1356. Fol. 8. 21; 

1362. 1. 29; 1364. 141. 
en 1360. 2. 6 schol. ; 1362. 

1. 16; 1365. 48{.?); 

1368. 43. 
eil358. 1. 17; 1359. 1. 6; 

1364. 139; 1365. 60. 
ευβουλία 1356. Fol. 4. 1 5. 

ζυ^αψονίστατος 1356. Fol. 4. 

elboKiptlv 1365. 40; 1367. 46. 
6ϋ;;φί >;;? 1358. J. 12. 
6Ϊ'(9ύ?Ί356. Fol. 4. 31. 
fiJinnos 1358. .5. 21. 
ευκαταφρόνητος 1356. Fol. 4. 

ivKTiTos 1361. 4. 7. 
tvKipas 1361. i^. 4. 
ΐϋπλόκαμος 1359. 4. 5• 
€υρίσκ€ίν 1364. 146. 
fvpis 1358. J. 16. 
Ευρώπη 1358. J. 8. 
ευσέβεια 1356. Fol. ΙΟ. 24. 

e^re 1361. 1.6,5. 25 ; 1362. 
ί. 14. 

ευτελής 1368. 48. 
ευτυχία 1365. 6"]. 
ευφραίνειν 1364. 112. 
εϋχεσθαι 1356. Fol. ΙΟ. 2, 27. 
ευχή 1356. Fol. ΙΟ. 20, 23. 
εφίεσθαι 1356. Fol. II. 5• 

εχειν 1356. Fol. II. 6 ; 1361. 

5. 5; 1362. ί. 8, ι6, 25, 

33; 1365. 6ι. 
εως 1360. ^. 6 schol. 

flumen 1404. ι. 

ζάθεος 1361. 20. 4- 

Ζευί 1358. ί. 2, 15, 21, 20, 

^.12; 1360. ρ. 56; 1361. 

4. 14; 1363. 6. 
ti7Mi'a 1364. 41. 
C^v 1356. 5. 15; 1364. 92, 


ζωπυρε'ιν 1356. Fol. 4• 3^• 

^1362. 1. 15, 32. 

ή 1356. Fol. 4• 7> Fol• 1°• 4, 

10,28; 1361. J. 20; 1362. 

J. 28 ; 1364. 90, 112, 116, 


ή-γψωρ 1358. 1. 12. 

ή8έ 1359. 1. 6, 7. 3 (?)• 
jySeii/ 1364. 116, 152. η^εσθαι 

1362. ί. 12. 
ή'δ7;1361. 4. 2(?); 1366. 14. 
Ήετίων 1359. ^. 8, II. 



Ήλίκτρη 1359. j2. 5. 

ηΚΐκτρον 1358. 2. 24. 
ήλίκί'α 1365. i6, 24. 
^Xtroepyos• 1360. ^. 3. 
ημαρ 1362. ί. 2. 
ΐ7//ί^60ί 1361. 20. 6. 
ΉρακλίίΒηί Έαραπίωνος 1367• 


ΉρακληεΙη βίη 1359. 1. 9• 
'Hpi-yoi/ij 1362. ί. 4- 
"Ηριδαι/οί 1358. ^.23 (?). 
'Ηρόδοτο? 1367. 36. 
ήρωςΐ3β1.5. 2ο; 1362. ί. 2 6. 

ηττασθαι 1356. Fol. 4• Ι5• 
ήττων 1364. 1 5 Ι. 
"Ηφαιστος 1358. 1. 4• 
ηώς 1362. 1. Ι. 

θάλπίΐν 1361. ί. 7• 
ίάι/ατοί 1366. 4, 1 8. 
βάτττίΐν 1368. 2 8. 
^ea 1361. ο. 2 2. 

eiKfiv 1356. Fol. 4- 24- 

β(οπο[μπ 1361. 5. 3• 
θίοπρόπιον 1367. 39* 

θ(ός 1356. Fol. 4. 6, 15, 16, 
Fol. 8. 2, Fol. 10. 22, 27 ; 
1358. 1. g, 2. is; 1362. 
1. 10; 1365. 8; 1400. 

i. 4. 

θΐνγ^νης 1362. 1. 21. 
θρασύχ€ΐρ 1361. 5. ΙΟ. 
θρηΐκιος 1362. ί. II. 

^ρι'1 1361. 5. 6. 
θρώσκαν 1358. ^. 32. 
θνγάτηρ 1359. ί. 7> ^• 2 ; 

1371. 47 schol. 
%os 1361. 1. 7 ; 1362. J. 21. 
θύν€ΐν 1358. ^. 2θ. 
^υσι'α 1365. 5• 

ίαμβος 1363. 17- 

ibios 1362. 1. 7• i6tarfpos 

1364. 186. 
Uvat 1364. 80. 
iepos 1360. <5. 4 schol. ipof 

1363. 5. 
Ίερων 1361, 4. I marg., 3. 
ίκάΐ'βιΐ' 1359. 6. 2. 
Ικανός 1364. 172, 

'Ικάριος 1362. i. 3• 
"Uios 1362. J. 8. 
ίκρε'ισθαι 1359. 1. I p. 
''l*cosl362. i. 24. 
Ίλοϊ1359. -2. 15. 
i/xepoeis 1361. 4. 5. 
in 1404. 2. 
invenire 1404. i (.-'). 

ίππημολγοί 1358. .2. 15• 
ϊπποί 1359. 1. ίο; 1361. 4. 
4; 1368. 50. 

ίππόστασις 1368. 46, 55. 

Ιρόν 1363. 5• 

IS 1358. 1. ϊ6. 

Ίσος 1359. 1. 7 ; 1361. 3. 4• 

ισωϊ 1356. Fol. 10. 5• 
Ιχαίναν 1362. ί. 22. 

καβά 1356. Fol. 4• 2 6. 

KaOevbeiv 1368. 52. 
/<α(9ήσ(9αι 1361. ί9. 6. 
κάθοδος 1362. ί. 2 6. 
καθνπΐρθΐν 1358. .5. Ι4• 
και yap 1362. 1. 11. 
καινός 1362. ί. 6 ; 1366. 6. 
icatpos 1356. Fol. 4• 12, 33 j 

1365. 32. 
κακία 1356. Fol. 4• 36. 
κακοπατρ'ώας 1360. ί. 12. 
κακός 1364. 5^1 ^37• ι^αι^όν 

1365.66. καί<ώί13β4.ΐ53• 
καΧύν 1362. 1. 5• 
καΧΚίκυμος 1358. 1. ΙΟ. 
καλλικρηδίμνος 1361. 5. 2 2. 
κάλλιστίύΐΐν 1356. Fol. 4• 4• 
καλλίσφνρος {-ραν^ 1361. 5.24 

κάλλοΓ 1359. 4. 4- 
καλός 1368. 32• 
καλνκωπις 1361. 5. II. 
κ]αλνητ[ 1360. ^5. 2. 
Καλυψώ 1358. 2. S^- 
Καμβύσης 1356. Fol. ΙΟ. Ι3• 
κάμν[{ΐ.ν 1366. 2 9• 

καπνός 1360. 2. 6 schol. 
καρτίρός 1361. 5. 1 3 schol. 
κατά 1356. Fol. 4• 2 5, Fol. 

ΙΟ. ΐ7(?), -2. 4; 1359. 

7. 4; 1360. .58 schol.; 

1361. 1. 14,-24. 5; 1362. 

1. 7 ; 1364. 60, 296-7 ; 

1365. 58, 62; 1367. 32; 

1368. 39; 1371. 41 schol. 
καταΒύν 1368. 49• 
κατα8ικάζ€ΐν 1367. 12. 
καταΒίκη 1367. 14- 
καταθρώσκΐΐν 1365. 34• 
κατακαΧντττΐΐν 1371. 1 1 Schol. 
κατάΚαμβάνίΐν\Ζ5β. Fol. 4*39* 
καταΚΐ'ιπαν 1364. 1 95• 

κατανούν 1356. Fol. 4• 38• 

καταπανΐΐν 1360. 2. 6 schol. ; 

1361. 1. 2 {κάππαυΐ). 
κατάρατ^ος 1361. 5. 4• 
κατασβίνννναι 1360. 2. 6 SChol. 
κατασκεύαζαν 1356. Fol. 1 1. 2. 
καταυλά,ν 1363. 3• 
καταφρονύν 1365. ΙΟ. 
κατη•/ορΰν 1364. 2Ο4. 
κατηγορία 1364. 2θ6. 
κατύναι 1368. 53• 
κατόμνυσθαι 1364. 140, 1 43• 
κατόπισθΐν 1359. 1. 1 8. 
κατοργάν 1356. Fol. 4• 21 (.-*). 
ΚατονΒα'ιοι 1358. 2. g, 18. 
κάτω 1358. 2. 33 ; 1368. 55 »* 

1400. ΐ. 9• 
Kf 1362. 5. 4• 
κύθ[(ν13β2. 3. Ι. 
κΐ'ινος 1359. J. 13 ; 1362. 1. 


Μίσ^αι 1364. 63, Ι03 ; 1368. 

Κίκρο^ 1367. 4ΐ• 
κίνωσις (κΐν(σις Ρ^ρ.) 1371. 

52 schol. 
«φαλά1360.^. 3; 1361. 5. 6. 
Κβφαλλ^κίί 1358. 2. 3θ. 
κήδοΓ 1358. 1. 3θ. 
κισσνβίον 1362. J. 12. 
/ίλίίί/ίΌ'Γ 1361. 4. 8 (.?). 
(cXIpa^ 1368. 54• 
κλισίί? 1362. 1. 8. 
κλοτΓΐί 1356. 1. 2. 
κλίαν 1358. /2. 33• 
κλντός 1359. J. 2 1, 24(?); 

1361. 4. 3• 

#cXuT0Tf;^i/7;y 1358. 1. 4• 

κόρ;? 1361. y. 9, 1 1, 19 J 1368. 


Κόρινθος 1367. II. 
κόσμος 1356. Fol. ΙΟ. 24. 
κούρα 1361. 4. Ι^• 
κρατ€ρ05 1358. 1. 14; 1359. 

4. 6; 1361. 5. ΐ3• 
κράτοί 1368. 39• 
κρύττων 1356. Fol. 4• 35• 
κρίίων 1358. J2. ig. 

κρή8ΐμνον (κραδ.) 1361. 1. II. 
κρίνΐΐν 1358. 1. 22. 
Κροίσος 1356. Fol. 4• 25. 
Κρονίων 1358. ί. II, 1 6. 
κνβΐρνητης 1356. Fol. 4• H• 
κύκλος 1358. ^. 20. 
κυκλοίΐ' 1358. 2. 28. 
KvXt^ 1361. 1. η. 
κΰμα 1362. ί. 34• 
Κύττρις 1361. ί. 8. 
Kupjjmtot 1367. 21, 38. 
κυων 1402. ^. verso schol. 
κώμη 1368. 44• 
κως 1362. 1. 24. 

Λαιστρυ^όΐΊΟϊ 1358. 2. 20. 
λαιψηρός 1361. 4. g. 
λαμβάνων 1367. 6. 
λαμπρότίρος 1360. ,δ. 6 SChol. 

-ον 1365. 49• 
λανθάνΐΐν 1362. J. Ι ; 1364. 

38. 43> 49• 

Λαομίδωι/ 1359. ί. ΙΟ, 
λαός 1358. ί. 19, 2 2. 
Λάσοί 1367. 55• 
Αατοΐδας 1360. ί. 1 1 . 

λαχ[1361. J. 19- 

λίγαν 1362. J. 13, 2 2, ^Ι ; 

1364.73,145; 1367. 2ΐ; 

1371.41 schol.; 1402. 2. 

verso schol. elndv 1356. 

Fol. 4. 5, Fol. 10, 14, 5. 4; 

1361. 27. I. 
λίσχη 1362. 1. 1 6. 
λίύκιττποΓ 1361. 24. 3• 
λευκοί 1362. 1. 2. 
Αφ{ιη 1367. 34. 
Κίβνς 1358. .5. ΐ5• 

λιγυαχιίί 1361. 4. Ι. 
λι-γυρός 1361. J. 2. 
λογισμοί 1356. Fol. 4• ΙΟ) 
Fol. ΙΟ. 1 6. 


λό-γος 1364. 1. Ι09, 5. 5• 
λνςιν 1356. Fol. 4. 35 ; 1361. 

1. II. 
λυπίίκ 1364. 115. 

μάγίΐρος 1365. 20. 
μαινόλις 1361. 11. 2. 
μακροί 1356. Fol. 4• 2 8. 
μάλα 1362. J. 15. μάλλον 

1356. Fol. 10. 28; 1362. 
1. 34; 1364. Ill, 116, 

150. μάλιστα 1364. Ι3; 

1365. 41, 55• 
μαντΐΐον 1365. 4• 
Μαντινάς 1367. 2 Ο, 2 7, 3^, 

μάντις 1356. Fol. 4• 28. 
μαρμαίρ^ιν 1361. 1. Ι3• 
μάρπτίΐν 1358. ^. 29. 

μάρτυί 1356, Fol. ΙΟ. 12; 
1364. 17, 2 1. 

μάσσων 1361. 6. 3. 
ματί'ιν 1360. 2. 3• 

μάχ€σθαι 1402. J. verso schol. 

μΐγάθνμος 1358. -2. Ι 7 ; 1359. 

ί. 12. 
μΐγαλητωρ 1358. 1. 1 9. 
μΐγαλόνοια 1356. Fol. 4• 6. 
μ€γαλ[οσ5ίί/)7ί 1361. 1. I'J. 
μίγαρον 1359. 1, 6. 
μέγας 1364. 1 9• μείζων 1364. 

53• μέγιστος 1361. 1. 

μειγννναι 1359, J. 9 ; 1361. 

i. 9. 

μ6λάί/ο[ 1358. 2. ΙΟ. 

μελαί 1358. -2. 17; 1359. 1. 

μελ^ιι/ 1366. 24. 

μελε[ 1356. Fol. ΙΟ. 2 2. 

μέλλειν 1359. J. 4 ; 1361. 4. 

2 ; 1365. 9• 
μ6ί/ 1358. ^.14; 1359. 2. 

ιο(?); 1361. J. II ; 1362. 

1. II, 13; 1364. 17, 23, 

28, 95, Ι02, 174; 1365. 

5, ι6, 31, 55, 68; 1366. 

6; 1367. 1 1 ; 1368. 35• 

μεν ονν 1364. 1 56. 

μεντοι 1356. Fol. 4• 33• 

μέριμνα 1361, 1. ΙΟ. 
μepo^/^ 1358. 1. 20, 
μ€τά 1364. 17; 1367. 14; 

1368. 31. μ^τα 1362. 1. 


μεταξύ 1360. 3 SChol. 
μεταρ^ρόΐΊΟί 1358. ,2. 35• 
μετρε'ιν 1356. Fol. ΙΟ. 29. 
μβ;^ρι 1365. 15. 

μ)7ΐ356. Fol. 4- 3ΐ!33; 1360. 

1. 12, 2. 6 schol.; 1364. 

ΙΟ, 42, 84, 99, 133) ΐ42, 

155, ι6ι, ι8ο. 
μί?δ€ 1356. Fol. ΙΟ. 8, 26. 
Μηδικά 1399. verso 2. 
μήδοί 1358. 1. 26; 1397. 67 


μηκέτι 1361. 1. Ι. 
μηπω 1361. 4. Ι. 
μητηρ 1400. ϋ. 3 (?)• 
μητίετα 1358. 1. 15, 21, 
μιαιφόνος 1361. Ο. ΙΟ. 
μικρόν 1368. 29. 
μικροψνχία 1356, Fol. 4. 5• 
μιμνησκειν 1367. 34» 54• 

μΐίΊ362. 1. ι8, 4. 5- 
μίσοϊ 1360. ρ. 56. 
μοναρχεΊν 1361. 1. 12. 

μόΐΌί 1356. Fol, 4• 7> II j 
1360. ^. 6 schol., 7• μόΐΌ" 
1356. Fol. 10. 11; 1362. 
1. 15; 1368. 36. 

μονονν 1364. 2 ο. 

μοΰσα 1363. 1 3• Μοϋσαι 1361. 

1. 4,4.3-, 1363. 4• 
μνθεϊσθαι 1362. J. 30. 
μΰ^οί 1359. 1. 4• 

μυκτψ 1402. J. verso schol, 

Μυρμίδόζ/6ί 1362. 1. 23. 
Μυσοί 1359. 1. 8, 
μύστης 1360. ^, 4 schol. 
Μυτιληναίοι 1360, ^. 6 Schol. 
Μυτιλήνη 1360. 5 Schol. 

Γαιετάω 1358. 1. Ι7• 

ί/αΟί 1359, ί, 1 5, -2. 1 6 ; 1361. 

J. ΐ5• 
ναντιλίη 1362. 1. 33• 
νεανίσκος 1368. 37• 
νεκρός 1360. <2. 4 schol. 



vios 1361. 1. 6, 12. 3. 
νηΐί 1362. 1. 33. 
νη\ηί 1359. 4. 8 (?). 
νίκα 1361. 4. ΙΟ. 
wKai^ 1365. 47• 
νιν 1361. 5. 3• 12. 

νόμιμος 1364. 8, 36. 

νομοθΐτΐΐν 1364. 63 ; 1367. 

22,^ 44, δ3• 

νομοθίτης 1367. 39> 7°• 

νομό? 1356. Fol. 4• 24 ; 1364. 
ι8, 24, 28, 6ο, 88, 103, 
ι6ο, ι66, 171 ; 1367. 45, 

VOOS 1358. 3. Ι4• Cf. νους. 
νοστο[ 1359. 3. Ι. 
vois 1364. 81. 
W 1362. 1. 5. 
ννμφϊ? 1358. 1. ΙΟ, 2. 3ΐ• 
i/Ci/1363. 2; 1364. 167. 
νύξ 1368. 43• 

6 (art.) 1360. 1. 4, 7, 8; α/. 
ό (dem.) 1358. 2. 29, 33," 

1359. -5. 10; 1362. 1. 5, 
II, 13; 1363. 3. 

ο (rel.) 1359. 2. 14, 4. 7; 

1360. J. 13; 1362. ί. 17- 
'\oyevηs 1366. Ι. 

δδ6 1362. J. 13, 15, 2 2. 
οδό? 1368. 29- 
oiJi/elof 1362. 4. 6. 
οϊίσθαι 1356. Fol. 4• 3'• 
οϊκεΐοί 1365. 6ζ. oineiOTfpos 
1364. 86. 

οϊκίΐοΰσθαι 1365. ζ1. 

οΙκία 1367. 1 8. 

οίκος 1361. J. 13 ; 1364. 269 ; 

1370. 1 37 1 schol. 
οικτιστος 1362. 1. 4• 
οίνοποτΐΐν 1362. 1. 1 2. 
oifor 1361. ^<). 3; 1362. 1. 1 6. 

οινοχόος 1362. 1. 1 8. 
οϊχ(σθαι 1367. 12. 
όκόσος 1363. 12. 

ολβιοί 1361. 5. ι8; 1362. 1. 


oXiyos 1362. ί. 12. 

δλος 1356. Fol. 4• 38, Fol. 8. 

όμηθης 1362. ί. 5• 

'Ομηρικός 1362. ί. 9• 

όμοιος 1362. 1. g, ΙΟ. ομοίως 

1364. 2 77• 

o^oXoyeii/ 1364. 29, 33, 39• 
όμοφ[ων 1361. jf^. 3• 
όνινάναι 1364. ΧΙΟ. 
όνομα 1365. Ι4• 

δπως 1360. 1. 12 schol. 
όράν 1356. Fol. 4. 28 ; 1362. 

1.19; 1364.52,67; 1368. 

41, 46. 

6ργίζ(σθαι 1371. 3 SChol. 
Όρίστΐίοι χόΐς 1362. 1. 2. 
"Ορθαγόρας 1365. Ι5• 
όρ^όί 1364. 109. 
όρμα'ινΐΐν 1361. 1. 3• 

όρούΐΐν 1358. 2. 30. 

Όρτνγίη 1358. .$. 26. 

Of 1356. Fol. 4• 5) 35, Fol. 
10. 29, Fol. II. 6 (?); 
1359. 1. 5,-2-9; 1361. 
1. 9 ; 1362. J. 6, 8 ; 1363. 
15; 1364.38,66,90,173; 

1365. 15, 44; 1368. 54. 

όσος 1356. Fol. ΙΟ. 26. 
δσοσπ^ρ 1364. 2 04. 
δσσος 1361. 4. Ι4 J 1362. 1. 

οστίί 1363. 17, 2ο; 1364. 

131, ΐ3δ• 
όταν 1361. 26. 2. 
ore 1362. 1. Ι, 19; 1402. 1. 

verso schol. 
5τι 1356. Fol. 4• 7; 1362. 

ί. 15; 1364. 59• 
δττι 1360. J. 7• 
ον 1356. Fol. 4• 7, 24, Fol. 

10. II, 21; 1360. 1. 9; 

1362. ί. ΙΟ, 15• OVK1362. 

ί. 9, 17; 1364. 1 65, 264 

marg. ονχ 1364. 33, 

οδ1358. ί. ι8; 1359. 1. 5• 
ούδ€ 1356. Fol. 4• 38. Fol. 

10. 5; 1360. ί. ίο; 1362. 

1. Ι, ι8; 1364. 86, 113. 
ον8ύς 1356. Fol. 4• 29, 32, 

Fol. 8. 24; 1360. 2. 4 

schol. ; 1364. 50, 53, 85, 
S -Ζ 

i85, 2i6(?), 291; 1367. 

15; 1368. 35. 
οίν 1356. Fol. 4. 25 ; 1364. 

12, 36, 84, 156 {piv oiv); 

1368. 43, 49. 
ούδί'πω 1360. 2. 6 schol. 
oiiKfTi 1368. 42. 
οΰκονν 1364:. I07, 113. 
ovveKa 1359. 2. 12. 
οννομα 1362. 1. 1 4. 
ους 1362. 1. 30 {οϋατα); 1364. 

ovre 1362. ί. 29 ; 1364. 178, 

270, 271, 289, 292. 
ovrof 1356. Fol. 10. 10, 3. 

8 (.?); 1360. 1. II, 2. 6 

schol. ; 1361. 7. 4 ; 1362. 

J. 31; 1364.58,123,144, 

272; 1365. 46 ; 1366. 16; 

1367.7,64; 1368.35,45, 

53. ούτως 1365. I 9. 
όφθάΚμός 1364. 65. 

δφρα 1358. 2. 13. 
όφρίς 1362. 1. 1 8. 
o\//e 1356. Fol. 4. 31, 32. 

ΠαγχαΓοΓ (ΐΙάγκαίθ[ΐ' Ρ^,ρ.) 
1363. 6. 

πά•γχρνσος 1361. 4. Ι4• 
πά^ΐ7μα 1356. Fol. 4• 7• 

πά(9οί 1356. Fol. 4• 36. 
nai8fveiv 1365. 1 8. 
παώίον 1365. 13• 
παιπαΚόΐΐς 1358. -2. 25. 
τταί? 1361. J. 1 7 ; 1362. J. 3, 

26; 1365. 23. 
τταΚαι 1363. 6. 
πανομφαίος 1358. ~. 12. 
πανούργος 1356. Fol. 8. 44• 

παρά 1356. Fol. 4• 34, Fol. 

10.29; 1358. J. 10; 1364. 

46, 160 ; 1367. 5 ; 1368. 

44. ^άρα 1362. 1. 21. 
παραβαίν(ΐν 1364. II, 37• 
παραγίγνίσβαι 1367. 23• 
παραθηγ€ΐν 1356. Fol. 4• 8. 
παραλΧάσσίΐν 1365. 24• 
παραμ(Κ(Ίν 1365. 3• 
παραμίτρΰν 1356. ΙόΙ. 4• 6. 
παρατηρύν 1356. Fol. ΙΟ. 25. 



ιταρίχΐΐν 1364. 242. 281. 
παριστάναί 1356. Fol. ΙΟ. ΐρ- 
■πίς 1356. Fol. 4. 3.3 ; 1359. 
1. 13; 1360. 1. 9, 29 
schol. ; 1361. ί. 12 ; 1364. 

1, 48, 52, 57» 276, 284; 
1365. 4θ• 

ττάσσαλοί 1361. ί. Ι. 
τταστάς 1370. 1 37 1 schol. 
7Γάσχ€ίΐ/ 1364. 131, 154, ΐ55» 

175, ^76, ι8ο, ι8ι, 187, 

ιρι. 2θ8. 
ττατήρ 1358. ί. Ι, 9; 1360. 

ρ. 56 ; 1361. 5. 6 schol., 


πατριοί 1362. J. 2 3- 
τταίροΓ 1362. ί. 32. 
π^ίθεσθαί 1364. 1 67. 
πει^ώ 1364. 207 (.'). 
TTfXateti/ 1359. J. 16. 
ϊ1ΐΚ\ψ€ΐς 1365. 30, 35• 
■πίΚωροί 1358. ^.11. 
Ίτίμτταν 1361. ί. 3, ΙΟ, 4. 6. 
ττΐντήκοντα 1367. ΙΟ. 

irepav 1358. 1. Ι ; 1364. 189. 
TTepi 1356. Fol. 4. 15 ; 1358, 

2. 20, 28 ; 1362. 1. 28 ; 
1367. 69. 

Ήΐριαθρύν 1356. Fol. 4• 12. 
ΐΓίρίαπτον 1356. Fol. 4• 39• 
ΐΓΐριζώνννσθαι 1397. 6'J Schol. 
ττίριπόλ,αρχος 1365. 44• 
ιτερίιτολος 1365. 2 0, 42. 
ττεριστΐίχΐΐν 1362. 1. 1^. 

Πβρσικά 1399. verso 2. 
7n;yi7 1356. Fol. ΙΟ. g. 
7Γη8αλιονχ€Ϊν 1356. Fol. ΙΟ. 4• 
Πηλούς 1362. 1. 2 4- 
TTiSoiyis 1362. J. I. 
TTiveiv 1361. ί. 1 6, 
7τλάζ€ΐν 1363. 6. 
πλατάι/ιστοί 1368. 30. 
πλαττ^ί 1360. 2. 2. 
πλίίων 1364. 153• 
πλ^γ; 1362. 4. 3- 
πληθαν 1371. 45 schol. 
πλή^οί 1365. 59• 
πλοί>τοί 1361. 1. 1 6. 
?Γ0ίίΓι/ 1356. Fol. 4• 9 J 1364, 
139; 1365. 68. 

ποίημα 1399. verso ι. 

ποιητής 1367. 55• 

ττοίκίλλβιι/ 1370. 137^ schol. 

ποίμην 1358. 1. ΐρ- 
noXeiv 1358. ^. 28. 
πόλίμαρχος 1365. 54• 
TToXe/ifiv 1365. 61. 

πολψιος 1364. 147,' 1365. 

38,48,67. πολεμίωί1364. 

πόλρμοί 1358. ί. 24 ; 1365. 

28, 58. 
πόλΐί 1358. ί. IV; 1360. 1. 

8; 1361. 1. ιι ; 1364. 7; 

1367. 7• 
πολίΤ(ν€σθαι 1364. 9• 

πολίτης 1365. 2 2, 50, 6ο ; 

1367. 1 6. 
7Γολύί1358. 1. ι8, 22 ; 1360. 

1. 5; 1363.21 ; 1364.59; 

146; 1365. 4θ, 50, 66. 

πλίίων 1364. Ι53• 
πολνσ-πΐρής 1358. 2. 2 2. 
πολνφορβος 1358. 2. 22. 
πόμα 1362. 1. 20. 
πόντος 1361. 1. Ι4• 
Ποσίώαόνιος 1361. 5. 1 6. 
τΐοσ€ΐδάων 1358. ^. 27, 3Ι• 
ποταμός 1368. 4δ• 
ποτ€ 1359. 2. g, 4. 1; 1361. 

ΤΓΟττια 1358. 2. ^1. 
που 1368. 4Ι• 
πους 1358. ^. 35 ί 1361. 4. 9, 

ίΟ. 3 ; 1364. 78. 

πράγμα 1356. Fol. 4• 3• 
πραπίδΐς 1358. ί. 5• 
πρίπ€ΐν 1356. Fol. Ι ο. 24. 
ττρο 1356. Fol. 8. 9 ; 1363. 5• 

προ€ρχ(σθαι 1365. 53• 
προθεσπίζίΐν 1356. Fol. 4• 28. 
προίΐναι 1360. .5. 7• 
π /jof 1356. Fol. 4• 8, 29, 

Fol. 10. 13; 1363. 11; 

1364. 1. 273, 4• 7; 1365. 

3θ, 6ο; 1367. ί. 13 and 

5. 4 ; 1368. 35, 50. 
ττροσάγβσ^αι 1365. 5Ι• 
προσίίναι 1356. Fol. 4• ΙΟ. 
πρόσθίν 1361. 4. 8. 

προσίίσβαι 1364. 157, 1 6 2, 

προσνίμίΐν 1367. 29. 
προστασία 1356. Fol. 4• 2. 
■npOTfpov 1356. Fol. 4• 4θ. 
προτρίπΐΐν 1364. g. 
πρώτοι/ 1364, 173 ; 1367. 43• 
Ίττερόν 1361. ί. 4• 
ΐίτόλΐμαΊος (grammarian) 

1361. 5. 13 schol.; 

(=Ptol. Soter)13e7. 6. 
Πνγ/χαΓοι 1358. 2. g, 18. 
nv^aydpay 1367. 72. 
πυροφόρος 1361. 1. 1 4• 

Πυρρά 1360. 3 schol. 

πωλ('ίν 1367. 13- 

ττώλοί 1361. 4. 8 (.?). 
ρα 1359. 4. 7- 

'Ραδάραι/^υί 1358. ί. Ι3• 

ράκος 1397. 67 schol. 
p€e(9poi/ 1358. 2. 23. 
pt^Oii/ 1356. Fol. ΙΟ. 6. 
ρίϊ 1364. 2 97• 

ρνπαρός 1371. 44 Schol. 

σαίνΐΐν 1362. ί. ig. 
Σαραπίων 1367. 68. 
σ€β€σθαι 1362. ί. 23 ; 1364. 

267, 271. 
σίύίσθαι 1361. J. 7• 
σ^ρα 1358. 1. 25. 
σιγάι/ 1360. 2. 4 schol. 
Σικυώι /tot 1365. 29, 43' ^9• 
σκεψίί 1364. 58. 
σκοπΐ'ϊν 1364. 28ο. 
σκόροδον 1402. 1. verso schol. 

Σκυ^αί 1358. 2. 15- 
σΟΓ 1361. 1. 4 ; 1362. J. 28. 
σοφός 1401. ^. verso ι . 4πτά 
σ. 1367. 7ΐ• 

στάτηρ 1360. ο. 7• 

στ€ίχ€ΐρ 1359. ί. ΐ6. 

στ(φαναφο[ρ 1361. ί/2. 2. 

στίβάί 1368. 48, 5ΐ• 

στόμα 1364. 296. 

σν 1360. 2. 4 schol. ; 1362. 
1. 21 ; 1401. 5. verso 5• 
ύρεΓ? 1360. 5 schol.; 1362. 
1. 23 (wO; 1366. 23, 



συκοφάντη 1366. 7, 13. 
σνμβάλλΐΐν 1365. 36. 
συμβιονν 1356. Fol. 4. 13. 
σνμμα[χ 1367. 2 0. 
συμπίπτίΐν 1367. ΙΟ• 
σνμπόσιον 1361. 1. 5• 
συμπότης 1361. 4. 6. 

σνμφίρΐΐν 1364. 97> 99> loij 

114, 118, 122. 
σνμφίρόντως 1364. Ι5• 
συμφορά 1360. ρ. ζ6. 
σύμφυτος 1364. 44• 

συν 1356. Fol. 4• 4ο; 1361. 

J26. Ι. 
συ«/^€[ 1361. ^4. ι. 
συνιστάναυ 1365. 2 8. 

"Σνρακόσιος 1361. 4. Ι marg. 
σώ /Lia 1356. Fol. 4• 35• 
σωφροσύνη 1356. Fol. 1 1, ι. 

τάλαι/τοι/ 1367. 5> 9• 
τάλαί 1361. 5. 2. 

ταλ[ 1361. 8. Ι. 

τανίσφυροί 1358. 1. 8. 

raxecof 1360. 3. 6 schol. 

7-e 1358. 1. 9, 13-14, -2- 12, 

14, 15, 17, 26, 28, 34; 

1359. 1. 4, 13, 17,4. 6; 
1361. ί. 8, Ι3,ίί. IO,ί^.4; 
1364. 45> 48, 51, 65, 72, 
76, 79, 82, Ι09, 148, 15°, 
183, 267, 294; 1365. 64; 
1367. 17- 
τΐΐχίζΐΐν 1362. 5. Ι. 

τ(ΐχος 1363. 5 {τeιχeυs). 
Τΐκμαίρΐσθηι 1364. 24. 
tUos 1361. 5. 18. 

τΐλύν 1356. Fol. 10. 23 ; 

1361. 4. 5. 
τελοί 1356. Fol. 4• 28. 
Τ6λ[ 1361. 5. 3- 
τφαί 1358. 1. 2 8. 
Τΐτρακόσιοι 1367. 66. 
T^Xe 1358. ί. 8. 
Ίηλίφος 1359. ί. 8. 
Tt<9fVat 1358. 1. 30 ; 1361. 4. 

15, -50. 2; 1365. 14; 

1367. 56, 59; 1402. 1. 

verso 3 (Ο• 
τίκτΐΐν 1361. 5. 13 and schol. 

Tipav 1359. 1. 7; 1371. 52 

τιμή 1358. J. i8; 1365. 47. 

τιμωρία 1364. 1 83. 

nV 1361. 26. 4 ; 1362. J. 23, 

Tis 1356. Fol. 4. 32, 40 ; 

1360. 1. 12, 5 schol.; 

1361. 1. 3 ; 1362. J. 7 ; 
1363.9, 14,18; 1364. 10, 
146,156; 1365-39; 1366. 
9, 19 i•^); 1367. 2, 57. 

τοίνυν 1364. 12 1. 
rotoCTOf 1364. 157, 170. 
τοκΐύί 1360. ^. 5. 
τοσα[ 1361. 20. 1. 
τόσσος 1361. 24. 4. 
ToVel359. ί. 5; 1361.4. 13, 

τραγωδός 1363. 1 3. 

transire 1404. 2. 

TpineLV 1359. 1. 1 4. 

τρύφΐΐν 1359. ί. 6, 1 1 ; 1365. 

τρίπους 1356. Fol. 4. 27. 
τρίσμακαρ 1362. 1. 32. 
τρίτος 1362. J. 14. 

τρυφη 1371. 52 schol. 
Τρώ6ί 1358. 1. 2 3. 
Τρω[ 1361. 20. 3. 

τυ•)/;^άι/6ϋ/ 1365. 46. ό τυχών 

1361. 5. 4 ; 1365. 2 1. 

τυραννίύΐΐν 1360. 2. 6 schol. 
τυραννίς 1365. 8. 
τύραννος 1360. 2. 4 SChol. 
τυρανν[ 1356. Fol. 4• 46- 

ύδωρ 1358. ί. Ι ; 1362. 1. 

νίός 1358. 2. ι6, 27; 1365. 

2θ ; 1368. 3 (?)• 
umbra 1404. 3• 
ύμνάν 1361. 4. 8. 
ΰπάρχα,ν 1367. Ι5• 

un-ep 1356. Fol. ΙΟ. 30. 

Ύπερβόρίοι 1358. .5. 2 1. 
ύττΕρ/χείΊ^Γ 1358. ί. II, ι6. 
υπίρωον 1368. 54• 
υπό 1356. Fol. 4• 39, ^ο\. 
II. 7 ; 1361. 5. 6 schol.; 

1364. 106; 1367. 37,59; 

1368. 30. 
υπόδημα 1370. 1 37° Schol. 
ΰφύναι 1358. 2. 13. 
ύψοτάτω 1361. J. ΙΟ. 

videre 1404. 3. 

φαίνίΐν 1358. J. 25- φαίνΐσθαι 

1364. 1 68. 
φάι /at 1356. Fol. 4• 16, 27; 

1360. 3 schol. ; 1367. 56. 

φάνΐρος 1360. 1. 13- 

φίίοΓ 1362. 1. 4. Cf. 0ώί. 
φάρμακον 1362. ί. 20 ; 1366. 

2 (?)• 

φαπΊ; 1368. 50. 

φαύλος 1364. 268 ; 1365. 2 ; 

1368. 49• 
φί^οϊ 1361. 24. 5- 
φίρβΐΐν 1358. ^.2 2. 
φ//3«ι/ 1358. ί. 6 ; 1360. 3 

Φίρίνικος 1361. 4. 9 and schol. 
φθίγγΐσθαι 1368. 34• 
φ^οι /os• 1363. 14- 
φιλιώτίρος 1364. 86. 
φίλος 1360. 6. 5 (?); 1366. 

φιλοσοφία 1356. Fol. 4• Ι3• 
φίλότης 1359. 1. 9• 

Φίλόχορος 1367. 47• 

φιλ[ 1366. 7- 

φλαύρος 1360. ί5. 3- 
φϋ^είζ; 1359. ί. 20. 

Φοί[βοί 1361. 12. 4• 
ΦοΓί /t^ 1358. 1. 7- 
φο/3ίΓι/ 1362. J. 1 7• 
φρι?»' 1361. ί. 8. 
]φρονο[ 1361. J. 2 1. 
φρουρΐίν 1365. 2 7• 
φύ(ΐν 1364. 3°, 32, 277• 
φύλασσαν 1360. i. 1 1 ; 1361. 

1. Ι. 
φύλον 1358. 2. 3θ; 1359. 

J. 12. 
φύσις 1356. Fol. 4• 32, -5. Ι ; 
1361. ^.S. ι; 1364.2 2, 26, 

III, 122, 148, 275, 282, 



φυτΐύαν (yvpevaai Pap.) 1356. 

Fol. 10. 8(.?). 
φντόν 1356. Fol. lo. 8. 
φως 1360. 3. 6 schol. 

χαίτα 1361. 28. 2. 
χαλΐπός 1362. 1. 20. 
χά\κ€θμίτραί 1361. 5. 8. 
χαλκοχίτων 1359. 1. Ι4• 
χανδόν 1362. ί. II. 
χαρίεΐί 1365. 33• 
Χάριτες 1361. 9. Ι. 
χαριτ[ 1361. J2. 2. 
χαρ[ 1361. 43. 2. 
χ6ψ 1361. ί. 3 ; 1364. 75• 
χ^ώι/1359. 1. 1 6. 
Χοφίλος 1399. verso ι. 

χορΟ£ 1401. ^. recto ι marg. 

χους, χόα Όρίστΐίοι 1362. 
1. 2. 

Xpeos 1362. 1. 7. 

χρήμα 1371. 52 Schol. 
χρησβαι 1356. Fol. 4• HJ 

1364. 12; 1367. 61. 
χρηστός 1367. 58• 
Xpocos 1361. 5. 12; 1365. 

52; 1400. i. 5• 
χρΰσίος 1361. 1. 4• 
χρνσόλοφος 1361. 5. 7• 
;^ρυσ07Γί7Γλθ5 1361. 4. 2. 
χρυσοί 1361. 1. Ι3• 
χώρα 1365. 2 3, 64. 

>//ευδ)7ί 1362. ί. ΙΟ. 
ψηχ€ΐν 1363. 7• 

^/'υχ^J 1356. Fol. 4. Ι, 37• 

δ 1360. ^. 6 schol. ; 1361. 1. 

Ι, ι6 ; 1366. 6, 2 7(?). 
ώκύί 1361. 5. 24• 

ων(ΐσθαι 1367. Ι7• 

ώί 1356. Fol. 4-31; 1359. 
1. 19; 1362. ί. ΙΟ, 27; 
1363. 22; 1364. ι ρ ι, 
2ΐ9(.?); 1367. 5, 37 (?)• 
ώί 1360. 1. 2, 6; 4. ϋ. 8. 
ως 1361. J. ι6. 

ώσπ€ρ 1360. 2. 4 schol.; 
1365. 19; 1368. 34• 

ωστ€ 1365. 49 (?)• 

ώσΓ[ 1361. ίδ. 3• 

ώφίΧΰν 1364. Ι20. 


Άθψη 1380. 3ο, 72. 

Άννιανη 1357. 21, 44• 

"Απόλλων 1380. 2 ίο; 1381. 

ΆρτΓοκράτις 1380. 1 36. 
"λρτίμις 1380. 84. 
\\σκληιηος 1381. 20, 189, 

228, 246. 
Άστάρτη 1380. Ιΐ6. 
Άταργάτη {-re ι Pap.) 1380. 


•Αφροδ/τ/?1380.9, 2 2, 35>38, 
45. 67• 

Βίκτωρ 1357. 20. 
Βούβαστις 1380. 4• 

Ταβριηλ 1357. 54• 

AiKTvvvis 1380. 82. 
Αιόσκονροι 1380. 2 35• 

'Εκάτη 1380. Ιθ8. 
Έλΐρη 1380. 112. 
Έη-ιμαχο? 1357. 6. 

Έρ/ι^>- 1381. 230. 
Έσ€ρ€μφις 1380. 46. 

Έστ-ία 1380. 23, 73• 

Ευφημία 1357. 4Ij 5^• 

Ζαχαρίας 1357. 52. 
Zeus 1382. 20, 2 2. 

"Ηλιος 1382. 22. 
"Ηρα 1380. 26, 32, 34) 6ο, 

[Ήραΐς], Άμα [Ή.] 1357. 4° (.'). 
"Ηφαίστ-0Γΐ380.2; 1381.2 29- 

θανηστις 1380. 68. 
Θα\//[εΐ0σΐί 1380. Ι05. 
Βίμις 1380. 83. 
θΐό[8οτος 1357. 63• 
θβ^όδωροί 1357. 65. 

Ίαώ 2αβαώθ 1384. 28. 
Ίερημίας 1357. 46. 
Ί»7σοίί 1384. 17- 
Ίμοΰθης 1381. 202. 

Ίουλίαι/οί 1357. 48• 

ΊοΟστοΓ 1357. ίο, 13. 

ΊσΐΓ 1380. 23, 33(?). 76, 

8ι, 115, ΐ43• 
Ίσιων 1357. 2 2. 

Ίώ 1380. 64, Ι43• 

ΚαλΐοΙβις 1381. 231. 
'\Κόλ\ονβος] 1357. 6. 
Κόρτ; 1380. 72, 105. 

Κοσμάς 1357. 2 2. 

\ατΙνα 1380. 104. 
\ητω 1380. 79• 

Μαία 1380. 39) 42,103, ιι6. 
Μαρία 1357. 30, 4δ> 68. 

Μεΐ'χορ;;ί1381. 30- Μΐνΐχίρης 

1381. 223. 
Μτ^ι/άί 1357. II. 
Μιχαήλ 1357. 8, 39• 
Μοίχίϊ (?) 1380. 45• 

Narata 1380. 106. 
Νίκτ€ν'ίβις 1381. Ι. 
Ί>!€χαύτης 1381. 7• 
Νουπ, απα Ν. 1357. 56. 

Ovf[ 1380. Ι. 

*Οσιρΐϊ 1380. ι62, 198, 242. 

Παλίντρα (.^) 1380. II 5• 


[Παίλοί] 1357. 34. 
Πίτροί 1357. 33- 

Ώραξιδίκη 1380. 50. 

Έαβαώθ 1384. 2 8. 
Έάραπις 1382. 20, 2 2. 
Σαρκοΰ^ίί 1380. ΙΙ9• 
Sfp^iOs 1357. 4, 28, 53• 
ΣνρΙων 1382. 23. 
Σώ^ίί 1380. Ι44• 

Ύαχρη^ΐί 1380. 75• 
Τ[. .]β[1]α 1380. 114• 

Φ(95 1381. 20Ι. 
[Φίλίίι^βοϊ] 1357. 43• 
Φίλ(5|€ί/οί 1357. 2 4, 38, 58, 64. 
Φοιβάμμων 1357. 3, 6, 35, 3^, 
43, 57• 

Χριστοί 1357. 3°, 3^ (?)• 


Όροί 1380. 2 ΙΟ, 222, 233, 

234,246,250; 1381. 230. 

]αθροΊχΐ! 1380. 14. 
]\e . e^eCf 1380. 282. 

otw(ai>eii 1380. 296. 
'τααβδ^ίί 1380. 286. 

φι! 1380. 47• 
jx^eiwi 1380. 3• 


{W/ie)'e no ntiinher of the papyrus is given the reference is to 1380.) 

*Α/3υδοί 278. 
"Αθριβις 39. 

Αίγυπτο: 224; 1381. 237. 
^ΑλΐξάνΒραη 1357. 2. 
ΆτΓί? 44• 

[Άφροδι'τϊ;?] πόλΐί Ι. 
Αφροδίτη: ττόΧίί τοΰ Προσω- 
Ίτίτου 7• 

ΒουβαστοΓ 37• 
Βονκολβί; 42• 
Βούσφις ζΐ, 269• 
ΒονσιρΙτηί (νομοί j ζΟ. 
Βουτώ 2 7• 

Γνναικοπολίτη: {νομός^ 21. 

Δέλτα ΙΟ. 

Διόϊ πολίί 7/ μικρά 36. 

"Εκρηγμα 75• 

Έρμου πόλίί (λ) ι 8 (.') ; ((^) 35• 
Έρμου ττόλίί τοΰ Μενδησίου 52. 
Εσ[ 25. 

'Ηλίου ττόλίϊ 38; 1381. Ι9• 
Ήρακλΰυν 6 1. 
Ήρακλίουί 770λίί 15Ο• 
Ήρακλΐου: ττολίί τοΰ Σΐθροιτου 

(rt) Egyptian. 

ϋφαιστου olkos 2. 
Η[. .Iktos 148. 

θώι/ίΓ 28. 

'lepa Φθΐμφθούτου 4 Ο. 
Ίίρασος 1 3. 
Μίσ^Γοί-] 33- 
Ισίδιον τοΰ Σίθροιτου 54• 

Καιι/^ 3Ι• 

ΚαλάρισίΓ 1 1 . 

Κάνωβος 02. 

Kapηv7j 1 1 . 

Κάσίοΐ' 75• 

Καταβαθμός 43• 

Ke . . κΰλημις I'J, 

'\Kvv6s\ πάλις τοΰ Βουσιρίτου 49• 

Α(όντω(ν^ πόλΐί 58. 
Αΐυκη Άκτη 45• 
ίΛί^τ]οΰί πόλΐ! 4• 

MeXai*s 70• 

Μί'μφίΓ 249 ; 1381. 21. 
MtvBrjaios (νομός) ζ2. 
Mev^ijovis 64• 
Μΐνουθις 63• 
'^ϊevoυφ^s 'J 1 . 
MepKoipiov 1382. 1 9• 

Mf ρμίρθα ρ. 44• 
Μ(τη\ίτης (νομός) 'J2. 
Μονίμου (εποίκων) ρ. 44• 
Μυλών Ι 6. 
Μώμεμφις 14. 
Μ[. ,^νιστιον 66. 

Ναυκρατίί 19. 
Ν«λθ5 12 5, 2 2 5• 

Ν^Μ 31 • 
Ν^σοί 68. 

Ιίιθίνη 21. 

Ξόϊί 42• 

Όσίριδος (ίδυτον 102. 

ITeu/ceoTt'f 69• 
Ώίφρημίί 2 2. 
Πι^λοΰσιο»' 74• 
Πλίκ^ιι/τ; 73• 
Προσωπίτης (fopor) 8. 

ΣάΪ! 32. 

Σαίτης (νομός) ^Ο. 
Σίβεννυτος 33• 
Ί,ΐθροΐτης (νομός) 54, 56• 
Ί,χΐδία 6θ. 

Τάκ« 59• 



Ύαπόσιρις O'j. 
Ύΐονχΐί 41. 

Φαγρωρίων (φραγουρων Pap.) 

πόλις 46. 
Φάρβαιθο! 53• 

Αμαζόνες ΙΟ 2. 
Αραβία 77• 
Ασία go, 

^Ασκάλων g6. ΆσκάΚωνίτης 
oivos 1384. 32. 

Βαρβύκη ΙΟΟ. 
Βηρντο! 1 1 6. 
Βιθυνία 112. 

Τάγγη! 2 2 0. 
Γά^α 99• 

Α{\ψοί 99• 
Δ^λοΓ ΙΟΙ. 
Αίν8νμα 1 1 4• 
Αωρα 94• 

'EXei^epof 225. 
Έλλάϊ 95• 
"Ελλτ;!; 1381. 20Ι. 

Έλληνίς 1381. 34, 198• 
ΕλΧτ^σποντοϊ 1 1 ο. 
Ερυθρά θάλασσα 1 1 8. 

Θεσσαλοί Ι Ο 3. 
θράκες ΙΟΙ. 

Φαρ/τί?? 1382. 15, ι7• 
Φερνουφις 57• 
Φθεμφθούτης (νομός^ ^Ο. 

Χάραξ 72. 

(^) Ν Oil- Egyptian. 

'\ν8ικη 2 20. 
Ιι/δοί 103. 
Ίταλι'α 109. 

Καρία 1 13• 
Κι/ίδο5 8θ. 
Κρήτη 82. 
Κυκλάδεϊ ρ^σοί 84• 
Κυττροϊ 88. 
Κυρήνη 8 1. 

ΛατΐΐΌί ΐθ4• 
Λυκία 78, 79• 

Μάγοι (Ματοι Pap.) Ι Ο 5. 

Μυι/δοί III. 

Μύρα της Αυκίας 'jg. 

[Njjjaoy 77• 

nar/xos (Πα^/χοί Pap.) 85. 

Πάφο? 86. 

Πέργαμος Ιθ8. 

Πί'ρσαι 104. 

Ώετρα g ι , 

ΤΙιερια 90. 

Ποίίτοί ΐθ8. 

Πτολεραί'ϊ 1 17• 

ΧΐΌΐ;[ 24. 
Χοατίνη 47• 

Ψώχημις Ι ζ. 
^οφις 4• 

Ραφεα 97• 

'Pti /οκόλονρα (-ρουλά Pap.) 93• 
'Ρόδιοι άνεμοι 1383. 6, II. 
'Ρώρι, 83. 

ΈαΧαμίς S*J. 

Σαμοθράκη ϊΟ']. 

Σάμος Ι ΙΟ. 

Σώων 1 1 6. 

Σινώπη 96. 

Σοΰσα Ι05. 

Σοϋσα της κατά την Ερυθράν 

θάλασσαν 1 1 8. 
Στρατώνας Τΐΰργος 94• 

TiVeoof 112. 
Ύρίπολις g8, 225• 
Τρωάί 114• 

' Υψηλή 92. 

Φοινίκη (^Φοίνιξ Pap.) Συρίας 

Χαλκί^δώι/ 82. 
Χαλκιϋίκη Bg. 
Χίος 87. 

αβιβαστος ΙΙ5• 

«yai^•? 51» 59> 95• 

aya7r[7j 28. ay. θεών 1 09. 

«7'« 34. 36, 89. 
dyj/ij 86. 


(a) Graeco-Egyptian. 
(ι) Tii/es of/sis (all from 1380). 

α•)/ω[ 29. 
αθάνατος 13. 
'A^^i/r; 30, 72. 
αλήθεια 63. 
αμίαντος 1 09. 

ανασσα ΐζ, ΐ6, 23, 32, 37• 
ήΐ'. πόλίω»* 57• "''• ''"^S' οίκου- 
μενης 121. 

άνδροσώτειρα (ανΗρασ. Pap.) 




ανω, το α. 38, 42• 
άπάτ(ΐρα 19. 
άριστη 99• 

Αρποκράτΐί, των θ€ων Ά. 1^6. 
"Aprepis 84. 
ασπίς ζ8. 
Άστάρτη 1 1 6. 
Άταργάτη Ι Ο Ο. 
αφΐσις €φό8ων 8θ. 

'Αφροδίτη 9, 2 2, 35, 38, 45, 

βασίλισσα 36. 

βόστρυγοί^ ev τα'ις πανηγνρίσι 

f- 133• 
Έονβαστίί 4• 

γραμματική 48, 1 23. 
•γνπόμορφοί 66. 

SeoTTort y Ι θ8. δ€σπ, πάντων 2'^. 

δί'α 26, 86, III. 

διάδημα ζωής Ι39• 

AiKTVvvis 82. 

Soreipa 1 3, 68, 

δυι/άστίί 34, 41, 57, 97• 

Έκάτ?7 Ιθ8. 

Έλίνη 112. 

(Xevdepia 8 Ο. 

Έλλο'ί 95• 

επαι-άγουσα τόι/ ΝίΓλον 126. 

(πίνοια 34, 6θ. 

επίτροπος 121. 

Έσίρίμφις 46. 

'Εστία 23, 73•^ 

(νθηνια, των τάς κα\ας αγόντων 

ημέρας (υθ. Ι^ζ. 
βνπλί'α 99• 
€νπορία 132. 

(ύρΐτρια 8ΐ. ίύρ. πάντων 1 8 5• 
ευφροσύνη 1 9, 3'• 

faor, ^ewi' ττάιτωί' το καλοί" ^. 

f]yfpov'is 52. "jy• διαδημάτων 

C /93• 

^λίον όνομα 112. 
ήπί'α II, 86. 

Ήρα 26, 32, 34, 6ο, 68. 

θαυτ^στίΓ 68. 

θα•ψ•[€]θσίί 105• 

θΐά, ev ΌΧνμπω θ. (υπρΐηης 

θ€μις 83. 
^ίό? 77, Ιθ7• μ^γ'κττη θΐων 


tepti 18, 41, Ι ΙΟ. 

Ιΐρονικοτίλονσα 78. 

ιλαρά ολ//•ΐί, 61/ Λ^5_7 ί^• °• 12 7• 

'ΐσΐΓ 23, 33(0' 76, 8ι, 115- 

Ίώ, Ιοΰ? . . . προκαθημΐνη 64. 
Ίώ 2ώθις 1 43• 

καλλίμορφος 1 8, 53• 

καλλίστη ΙΟΟ. 

ί{ατόπτίΓ 87. 

/{εδι/^ 79• 

Κο'ρ;; 72, 105. 

κόσμος θηλίΐών Ι 3 Ι • 

κρατίστη 96. 

κυβΐρνητις 6g. 

κυρία 62, 142. if. αυξήσεως 
και φθοράς και . . . 1 95• '^• 
T^s γης 2 2 2. κ. ίίαλασσιωΐ' 
και ποταμίων στομάτων 1 2 3. 
κ.στρατΐίας κα\ ή-γίμονιαςΖ^Ο. 
κ. φωτός κα\ φλεγμάτων 248. 
κ. πάσης χώρας 24. 

Αατινα Ι04• 
Λ^τώ 79• 

XoyiOTiKJj 27, 124. 
λωτοφόρος 4 Ο. 

Μαία 39, 42, 103, Ιΐ6. 

/ieyoA?? 77• 

μΐγίστη 21, 66 (?), 92• pfy- 

θ(ών 142. 
μια 6. 

μισ(χθής 137• 
μουσαναγωγός 02, 128. 
Μοίχΐί (.?) 45• 
μύστις III. 
μ . [.].4. .>ή 85. 

Ναναΐα (Νανια Pap.) 1 06. 

vea 85. 

νικήτρια 30, 48. 
ι/ύμφι; 3 Ο. 

οδηγός 12 2. 

'Ol-ei Ι. 

ορθωσία 39, 98. 

όνομα ηλίου 112. πρώτον ο. 

1 43• 
όρμίστρια 1 5, 74• 

Παλ/ι/τρα (,?) 1 1 5. 

πανάφθονος 88. 

πάνταρχος, ev ταΐς τών θ(ών 

ΐξοδιαις π. Ι37• 
παντοκράτ€ΐρα 2 Ο. 
τταια-όπίτΐΓ 93• 
ΤΓίστοιασπίί άνίμον 1 38. 
πολύμορφος g, 70. 
πολυόφθαλμος 129. 
ττολι/ώι/νροί 97, ΙΟΙ. 
Πραζιδίκη qO. 

προκαθημίνη, Ίοΰς . , . jrp. 64. 
πρόνοια 43• 
πρώτον όνομα Ι43• 

Σαρκοϋνι; 1 1 9. 
σίληνη 104. 
στοιχούσα 8 "J. 
στολαρχίς 8. 
στρατιά 7 1, 83, 102. 
σάίζονσα 76. 
Σώ^ΐΓ, Ίοΐ ΣάΛ 1 44• 
σώτΐίρα 20, 9Ι, 293• 

τανρώπις lo'j. 
Ύαχνηψις 75- 
ταχννίκης 6g. 
Τ(λ(ία 32. 
τριοδΐτΐί 9Ι• 
τριφυης 84. 
τύχι? 51. 
Τ[. .]3ίί]α ΙΙ4• 

φιλία 94• 

φιλόστοργος 12, 1 3 1. 
φρόνησις 44• 
φρόνιμη 117, Ι24• 

χαριτόμορφος 59• 



χρησμω8ός 43. 
ωραία 9<^• 
λαθροίχΐί Ι4• 

Ίιον 7• 

]Xe . eOevs 282. 

Υααβδίΰί 2 86. 

ΓΙ, 1 7. 

φκ 47• 

Άττολλω!/ 1380. 2 ίο; 1381. 

Άσκλι^τΓίΟΓ 1381. 26, 189, 
228, 246. Βΐσπότης 1381. 
ΐ8ΐ. διδάσκαλο? 1381. 189. 

ό 0€0ί = Ά. 1381. 5^5 71' 
ιι6, 131, 143. 207, 217. 

μίγιστοί θ(ων 1381. 1 88. 
Διόσκουροι 1380. 2 35• 

(a) Other Gods. 

Έρμηί 1381. 230. 
Zeis Σάραπίί 1382. 2 Ο. Ζ. 
"HXios μίγας Σάρ. 1382. 2 2. 
Ήλιοί. See Zeis. 

"Ηφαιστο? 1380. 2; 1381.2 29. 

θίός. See Ασκληπιός. θοΊ 

1380. 109, 126, 135. 136, 
Ι40, 143. i59> 181, 263 ; 

1381. 188. 

Ίμοίθης 1381. 202. 
Καλίοΐ/3ΐί 1381. 231. 
"Οσιρι? 1380. 102, 198. piyas 

"Οσ. 1380. 242. 
Σάραπίί. See Zfvs. 
Φ^α 1381. 20Ι. 

"Ώρος 1380. 222, 233- 234r 
246,250:1381.230. '^Ωρ. 
ΆτΓολλω!/ 1380. 210. 

aya^oi δαίμων 1380. 189• 
ayvelai (^ Ασκληπιού^ 1381. 148. 
ahvTOV 1380. 216. 'Oaipidos 

αδ. See Index III (a), ϊν 

Μψφΐΐ αδ. 1380. 269. 
aperq 1381. 47. ^36; 1382. 

19. 23. 
βίβλος 1381. 9. 25, 29, 33. 

ι62, 172, ι85, 227. 

Βαίμονίς 1380. 164. 
ehoves βίων 1380. Ι39• 

(3) Miscellaneous. 

eis Ζινς Σάραπις 1382. 20. 
έ^οδι'αι θΐων 1380. Ι37• 
ζωον, ζωον θΐών 1380. 12 7, 
140. iepa ζωα 1380. Ι 6 1. 

ίίρίύί 1381. 1 8, ΐ49• 

lepou 1380. 278; 1381. 4• 

ί. €v Βουσι'ρει το καλονμίνον 

ε[ 1380. 270. 

ΐ€ρός, ι. ζώα 1380. ΐ6ΐ. 
Ίσεία 1380. 202. 
καλαΐ ήμίραι 1380. 1 34• 

λήθη 1380. 12 7. 
M6i';^op7jsl381. 30• Mei'fXe'pVS 

1381. 223. 

^(κτίνίβις 1381. Ι. 
"ϋΚνμπος 1380. Ι33• 
TravTjyvpeir 1380. 133. ^^Ι. 
προττομπΐύειν 1381. Ι9• 
ντροστρολ^ΐι/ 1381. Ι49• 
προφητεία 1381. 23. 
aivoboi 1380. 132. 
Συρίων κυβερνήτης 1382. 23• 

(δ) Christian, 
(ι) Churches of Oxyrhynchtis (all from 1357). 

^ λΛίνιανής 21, 44. 

βαπτιστής 47. 

ayios Βίκτωρ 2 Ο. 

το βίορρινον μηρτνριον ^ί 

ay. Γαβριήλ 54• 

ευαγγελιστής 7, 23, 42- 

άγια Ευφημία 4 Ι, 5^• 

ay, Ζαχαρίας 52. 

αμα ^ΉραιδοΓ 4Ο• 

&y. &εό\ροτος 63. 

ay. θί[όδωροΓ 65. 

νοτινή εκ^κλησία 37, 6 1. 

ay. Ίερημίας 46. 

αγ. Παϋλος 34• 

ay. ΊουλιιαίΌ'ϊ 4^• 

ay. Πέτρος 33• 

ay. Ίονστος ΙΟ, Ι3• 

ay. Σερήνος 4, 28, 53• 

ay. Κοσμάς 22. 

ay. Φιλόξενος 24, 3^. 5^. 

ay. Μαρία 30, 45. ^^• 


μαρτυρίων 5. 

Φοιβάμμωνος 3, 6, 35. 3^, 43. 

ay. Μηνάς 1 1. 


ay. Μιχαήλ 8, 39• 

dj3/3[a ... 49• 

ay. απα Νοΰττ 56. 

a[ytoy • • • 59• 



(3) Festivals and other Days (all from 1357). 

yevva του Χρίστου 30. 

\(πιφάρίΐα τον Χρίστου] 36. 

ήμίρα αντοΰ (^=ζΤαβριήλ^ 54• 
(=ΊουλίαΐΌί;?) 48• (=^Ίού- 
στον) ΙΟ. (= θΐοδότου?) 
63• (=θίθδώρου?) 05• 

ayyeXoi κυρίου 1384. 23. 

άγιος, άγια. See Index IV 

iytoj» TTveipa 1384. 2 1. 
βαπτιστής 1357. 47. 

€κ[κλησία 1357. 6ι ; cf. 37• 

ίϋαγγελιστ)7ί 1357. 7, 23, 42• 

(zriMi/i/a) II. {= Μιχαήλ) 
8. (=: Παύλου) 34• ( = Πέ- 
τρου) 33• (= Φιλοξίνου) 
24- (= άββά . . .) 49• iJM• 
αϋτ^ϊ ( = <7/χα Ήρπΐδοί.?) 40. 
(=Μαρίαί) 45• 'J/'• Έ''''- 

(3) Miscellanemis. 

άββά 1357. 49• 

α/χα 1357. 4θ• 

ίϊπα 1357. 56. 

Ίαώ Σαβαωθ 1384. 2 8. 

Ίτ^σοΰϊ 1384. 1 7• 

(cuptos 1384. ι6{?), 23, 26. 

μάρτυρας 1357. 5• 

μάχου 6. ήμ.^Ισίωνος 22. ήμ. 

Κολλούθου (.') 66. ή /i, μΐτα- 

vo'ias 4• ίί*• Φίλο^ί'ου (.') 43• 

Κυριακή 3, 5. 7» 21, 23, 28, 

3ο, 44,46,52, 57> 6ο, 62, 

μαρτύρων 1357. 5° (?)• 

ουρανός 1384. 24. 

πάπας 1357. 2. 

πατ)7ρ 1384. 21. 

σύναξις 1357. Ι. 

υΙός 1384. 2 2. 

Χριστός 1357. 3°, 36 (?)• 


άββά 1357. 49. 

άβίβαστος 1380. 11 ζ. 
αβουλία 1380. 258. 

aya^(;il380. 51,59,95, 247; 

1381.204,213. άγ. δηίρωι^ 

1380. 189. 
αγανακτΐΐν 1381. 46. 
αγάπη 1380. 28, ΙΟ9. 
αγασθαι 1381. 1 6. 
αγγίλος 1384. 2 3• 
ίϊγίίΐ/ 1380. 134, 224. 
άγιος 1380. 34, 36, 89; and 

see Index IV {^ί>). ι. 

άγνεία 1381. 1 48. 

αγνός 1380. 86; 1384. 27. 

αγα,[ 1380. 29. 

αδελφός 1380. Ι 86. 

«δντοιΊ380. 1 62, 2 1 6, 249• 

0^^1-0X05 1380.13,243; 1381. 

46, 51, 196• 
[ίί]θεος 1381. 68. 
άθλον 1381. 167. 
Άθΰρ 1357. 6. 
αΙΒώς 1381. 44• 
a'lpdv 1381. 39• 
αίφνβιος 1381. 8θ. 
αΙών 1380. 292; 1381. 35• 

αΙώνιος 1381. 2 2 5• 
ακάματος 1380. ΐ6θ. 
ακεσις 1381. 72. 
άκΐσώδυνος 1381. Ι43• 
ακίνητος 1381. Ι ΙΟ. 
άκινος 1384. 31. 
άκμάζΐΐν 1381. Ι94• 
άκόπως 1381. 1 14• 
άκοίβιν 1381. Ι, 29. 
ακριβώς 1381. III. 
άλγίΐν 1381. 93• 
άλγηδών 1381. Ι42. 
αλγημα 1381. 8 Ι. 

άλήθΐΐα 1380. 63 ; 1381. ΐ73• 

(ίλλά 1381. 2 4 {ου μην ά.Υ 40. 

44. 156, 183. 

άλλαττόλογος 1381. Ι 8θ. 
«λλοΓ 1380. ι6ι ; 1381. 26. 
dXs 1383. 8; 1384. 13. 

(ίμα 1357. 4°• 
άμελΰν 1381. Ι 6 Ι. 
όμίτρητος, το ημ, 1380. 1 45• 
apiWroy 1380. 109. 
άμφίίννυσθαι 1381. ΙΙ9• 
άναβάλλΐσθαι 1381. 59• 
άνάγ(ΐν 1381. 98. 
άναγιγνώσκειν 1381. Ι 5. 

αναγραφή 1381. 5• 
άναζητε'ιν 1381. 1 1. 
ανάθημα 1381. 1 52, Ι9Ι• 
άναλίσκίΐν 1381. 14, 244• 
άνανίωσις 1381. 25. 
di'ai'i;06ti' 1381. 125. 
άναπλίΐν 1382. 1 6. 
άναπλοϋν 1381. Ι73• 
Ιίνασσα 1380. 15, ΐ6, 23, 32, 

37, 57, 121. 
ανατολή 1380. 157, 159• 
άνάφορον 1380. 26ο (?). 
άνδρησώτΐίρα (αν^ρασ. rap.) 

1380. 55. 

άνεμος 1380. Ι 38, 237 ; 1383. 

6, 9, ιι• 

άνερχεσθαι 1384. 23, 26, 28. 
(ίι/7;/3ασί(6ΐί' 1381. Ι 97• 

άνήρ 1380. 1 47• 2 15' 1381. 
44, 20Ι ; 1384. 15. 

ανθρώπινος 1381. 83. 
άνθρωπος 1380. 2θ8 ; 1381. 


άντάποινα 1381. 234• 

άί'τιΊ381. Ι3• 

ανω, το ά. 1380. 38, 42. 
άπα 1357. 56. 



anayyeWdv 1381. 9I, 1 37, 

άπαιτύν 1381. 1 48. 
άπαΚΚάσσΐΐν 1381. 7^> 1 28, 

άπανταν 1384. 1 5- 
απαζ 1381. 1 6 1, i8i. 
απαί 1380. 148, ΐγΐ, 177, 

i85, 202, 206, 213, 268; 

1381. 190. 
άηάτΐίρα 1380. 1 9• 
airavhav 1381. 54• 
άπιίναι 1381. 2 04. 

από 1380. 157; 1381. 19, 

97, 122. 
aTTo^einvivailZSO. 1 68; 1381. 

άττοΜόναι 1381. 79; 1382. 

I7(?); 1384. 18. 

άποκΚε'κιν 1383. 9. 
άποίλίμητος 1381. 236. 
άπομάσσΐΐν 1381. Ι33• 
αποι/εμειΐ" 1381. 2 1. 
άποστατΐΐν 1381. 3• 
άποτνγχάνίΐ,ν 1381. 43• 
αρα 1383. 9• 
apyvpiov 1382. 1 8. 

αρΐτή 1380. 153; 1381. 47^ 
136, 211 ; 1382. ig, 23. 

άρμόζην 1381. 1 87. 
αρονρα 1381. 2 7• 
άρρωστος 1384. Ι 7 (?)• 
αρχΐσθαι 1381. 34• 
αρχι8ικαστ€ίη 1381. 8. 

άσ€β)7ί1380. 298; 1381. 205. 

άσθμα 1381. 96. 
ασκβίι/ 1381. ^Ι. 
ασπάζΐσθαι 1382. 1 6. 
ασπίς 1380. 58. 
αστραπή 1380. 238. 
αστρον 1380. Ι 59• 
αυξάνίΐν 1380. ΐ83(?), 237• 
αί/'^ί;σίί 1380. 176, Ι94• 
αντίκα 1381. 53• 
avTOs 1357. 8 έ/ JiZf/'. ; 1380. 
250, 263 ; 1381. 5 et saep.; 

1382. 16, 18; 1384. 18, 
26. ο αυτ. 1357. 9 et saep. ; 
1381. 32. 

αυΓοί 1381. 247• 

άφαιρΐΊ.ΐ' 1381. Ι 77• 
αφανής 1381. Ι 24. 

οφίσίί 1380. 8ο. 
αφ^οι/ϋ? 1381. 232, 238. 

άφώνητος {α φωναντος Pap.) 

1380. 280. 

βαπτιστής 1357. 47• 
βάσανος 1381. 105. 
βασιλΐύς 1380. 266; 1381. 

12, 15, 223. 
βασιλικός (^γραμματίύς^ 1399. 


βασίλισσα 1380. 36, 2 1 8. 
βάσκανος 1381. 205. 

βηξ 1381. 97• 

βιβλιοθήκη 1382. 20. 

βίβλος 1381. 9, 25, 29, 33. 

121, ΐ62, 172, 185, 227. 

βίος 1380. 171 ; 1381. 49 '> 

1382. 5• 
βλίπΐΐν 1381. III. 

βοήθημα 1381. 76• 

ΐ3ο;?(9όί 1381. 83. 
βορρινός 1357. 5°. 
βοστρυχοί 1380. 1 33• 
βούλ€σθαι 1381. 4• 
βοΰλΐνμα 1380. 241. 
/^/JOi/ri? 1380. 238. 

γάρ 1381. 4θ ί^/ saep. 

yf 1381. 52. 

yevva 1357. 3°• 

γή 1380. 170, 222, 230. 

γήρας 1381. 59 (?)• 

yiyfea^at 1380. 162,164,186, 

247 ; 1381. 125. 
■γληχων 1384. II. 
■γλωσσά 1381. 34, ^99• 
γνώσις 1357. Ι. 
■γραμματικός 1380. 48, Ι 23. 
γραφή 1381. 36, 47> Ι59> 

175, ι87, ΐ95• 
γυνή 1380. 146, 214. 
γυπόμορφος 1380. 66. 

δαίμων 1380. 1 64. αγαθός δ. 

1380. 189. 
8αφνόκοκκα 1384. 8. 

8e 1380. 175, 225-6, 246; 

1381. 10 et saep. 
htiKvvvai 13 8 Ο. 2 Ο 7 (?) ; 1381. 


Μσθαι 1381. 7 2 (?). 
δίκάπίντΐ. θίσμοί 1380. IIQ• 
Se^toi 1381. 81. 

δίος 1381. ιΐ3• 

δΐσπότης 1381. 1 6 2, ΐ8ΐ. 
δΕστΓΟΓίί 1380. ΐθ8, 23Ι• 
δεΰρο 1381. 203. 

δίά1380. 227 ; 1381. 29, 74> 

78,138,139,148, 226(.?), 

237; 1382. 15- 

διάδημα 1380. 139, ^94• 
διάδοχος 1380. 25 1, 263. 
διακαθαίρΐΐν 1380. 1 77• 
διaλaλeϊv 1381. 1 35• 
διανοιγνύναι 1381. 1 1 0. 
διαπορύν 1381. 1 57• 
διαφθ(ίρ€ΐν 1380. 241. 
διαφοιτάν 1381. 2 1 6. 
διδάσκϋλοί 1381. 1 89. 

διδόναι 1380. 175-6; 1381. 

143; 1383. ΙΟ. 
δύπ^ιν 1381. 7- 
διηγΐΐσθαι 1381. 42. 
διήγημα 1381. Ι77• 

δ'ιος 1380. 2 6, 86, III. 
διότι 1381. 39• 
δις 1381. 123- 
δόξα 1381. 2 26. 
δότ€ΐρα 1380. 13, 68. 
δραχμή ρ. 44; 1382. ι8; 

1384. 2-12. 
δρόσοί 1380. 173, 229• 
δύϊ/αμίΓ 1380. 215; 1381. 42, 

90, 146, 217, 220. 
δυνατός 1384. 29. 
δύο 1381. 1 3• δυο προστάγματα 

1380. 156. 
δυσίΓ 1380. 1 58. 
δυσσ(β(ΐν 1381. 2 43• 
δωρεά 1381. 1 92. 
δωρΐΐσθαι 1381. 2 33• 
δώρημα 1381. 2 2 2. 

{γγονος 1381. 2 2. 
eyeipe»/ 1381. Ι 26. 
eyicep . . ν 1380. 227. 



iym 1381. 32 et saep.] 1383. 

7. ήμύ5 1381. 77, 145, 

151 ; 1384. 15. 
ΐβί\(ΐν 1383. 7. 
e^j/of 1380. 217. 
el 1381. 52. 

€i8eVatl380. 207 ; 1381. 153. 
άκοσι 1381. 1 8. 
ζΐκων 1380. 139. 

ehai 1380. 199, 22 1, 227; 

1381. 44, 92, 104, 109, 

els 1380. 6; 1381. 10, 143; 

1382. 20. 

els 1357. 3 et saep.', 1380. 

202, 268; 1381. 14, 20, 

31,58,86,101,215; 1382. 

18; 1384. 30, 34. 
elaaei 1380. 2 3 1. 
elaievai 1381. 1 1 3. 
cn-a 1381. 107; 1384. 33. 
ftre 1381. 115, 116. 
e«(e"^)1380. 139, 153, 184, 

269; 1381. 5. 
eKaaros 1381. 23. 
εκατόν 1382. 1 8. 
eW 1383. 8. 
eKe'ivos 1381. 243. 
eκκ\ησίa 1351 . 37, 61. 
cKTereVrepoi' 1381. II. 
e'Kxe'iv 1384. 19 (?). 
eXaia 1384. 1 8. 
eXaiov 1384. 1 8. 
i'Xeos 1381. 86. 
ekevBepia 1380. 80. 
"Ελλί;!^ άνηρ 1381. 201. 
'Έ\\ψ\ς γλωσσά 1381. 34) 1 9^• 
^μ05 1381. Ι04, 183. 
ev 1357. 2 ; 1380. ι eisaep.; 

1381. 35) 36, 172, 174; 

1382. 19; 1384. 16. 
evavTios 1381. 242. 
ivelvaL (m) 1384. 1 7. 
evfpYeWrfpov 1381. 87, 94• 
eviavTos 1380. 204. 
eoiKO)s 1381. 77• 
€|1381. 17. 

ΐξαπίνη5 1381. 1 07. 
ίξ€υμΐνΙζ€ΐν 1381. 147. 
e\obia 1380. 137. 

ί|ω 1381. 39. 

(παληθίζίΐν 1381. 89. 

eiravayeiv 1380. I 26, 187. 

επαπολισθάΐ'ειν 1381. I30. 

enav^aveiv 1381. 2 1 3. 

έπαυ\[ 1380. 297. 

eiTfi 1381. 64, 79, 160. 

(π^ίγΐσθαι 1383. 9. 

ewf'xeiv 1381. 37. 

em 1380. 10, 40, 45, 60, 61, 
267,269; 1381.3,16,71, 
82, 102, 166, 242, 243. 

iniyiyvaaKfiv 1381. 161. 

eViKoXeZa^at 1380. 153 ; 1381. 

. ^63• 

ίτηκ€φά\αιον 1368. introd. 

eniKpiveiv 1381. 6. 

eiTiveveiv 1381. 72. 

e'nwoe'iv 1380. I45, I 73. 

eViz/om 1380. 34, 60; 1381. 

^πισκηπτ€ΐν 1381. 67. 
eπισκoπeΐu 1381. 1 24. 
eπιστημη 1381. 2IO. 
emrponos 1380. 121. 
^πιφύν€ΐα 1357. 36 (.''). 
em(})epetvl380. 158. 
einxuypios 1380. 1 6 1. 
epavva 1381. 9. 
epημos 1384. I 6. 
ίρμην6ία 1381. 33• 
epμηveieLV 1380. I20. 
erepos 1381. 172. 
en 1381. 66, 126, 142, 231, 
ero^ojepos 1381. ζΐ, 85. 
eros p. 44. 

evayye'Kίστήs 1357• 7, 23• 
eυapμόστωs 1380. 1 88. 
fU/Saros 1383. 10. 
ΐΐ^αιμονία 1381. 2 35• 
ίύδαί/χωί/ 1381. 50. 
evbuiKkaKTos 1380. 1 55. 
evepyeσLa 1381. 52, 88, 145• 
eυepyeτημa 1381. 221. 
evepye-njs 1380. 246. 
eiθηveϊσθaι 1381. 238. 
€ύθηνία 1380. 135. 
evOvs 1380. 283. 
ίύκόπωε 1380. 240. 

evμeveιa 1381. 1 8 2. 
eυμevηs 1381. 204. 
eCnXeos 1380. 99. 
einope'iv 1381. 24 1. 
evnopia 1380. 1 32. 
eimpenrjS 1380. I 30. 
evperris 1381. 1 88. 
evperpia 1380. 8 1, 1 85. 
€νρίσκειν 1380. 1 79; 1381. 

18, 127. 
€νσέβεια 1381. 24O. 
eΰσeβeΐv 1381. 225. 
€ϋσ(βη5 1381. 53• 
eireXris 1381. 75. 
evTv\xeiv 1381. 227. 
€υφραίι>£σθαι 1380. I 59. 
eυφpoσvvη 1380. 1 9, 31, 1 7 8. 
6ύχ)^1380. 1 82 (?). 

ΐχιωννμος 1381. 120. 

^φικτ05 1381. 41. 
i'(f)odos 1380. 80. 

eφopμη 1381. 63. 

exeivl380. 142, 239; 1381. 

222, 234. 
eωs 1381. 123. 

Ce'tv 1384. 36. 
ζηΧωτη5 1381. 2 11. 
ζητησις 1381. 15. 
fa)^1380. 138. 
ζώον 1380. 12 7, 14°» i6i; 
' 1381. 93. 

^'1381. 1x8, 192. 

ηyeμovίa 1380. 24O. 
ήyeμovis 1380. 52, 1 93. 
ήδΐσθαι 1381. 156. 
ή81α 1380. 132. 
ηΧικία 1381. 6l. 

fjXios 1380. 112, 157, 221, 
233. "HXtof 1382. 22. 

Ijpepn 1380. 135, 154, 178; 

1381. 13 ; and see Index 
IV {ύ). 2. 
ήπιος 1380. II, 86, 155. 

θάλασσα 1380. I 1 8, 230; 

1381. 214. 
θαλάσσιοί 1380. 12 2. 
^dn-Titi' 1380. 189. 



θασσον 1381. 6. 
θΐά 1380. 130. 
βΐηΚατος 1381, ΐβ']. 
^etoy 1381. 17, 94j 112, 159) 

θΐΐότψ 1381. 1 65, 1 86. 
θίλΐΐν 1380. 148, ΐ75• 
θΐός. See Index IV (ίζ). ι 
and 2. 

Oepawela (θαραπια Pap.) 1384. 
17, 34• 

βΐράπων 1381. 1 1 6. 

^€p/ids 1384. 33• 

θεσμός 1380. Ι20. 
βηΚνς 1380. 131. 
θητΐνίΐν 1381. 2θ6. 

(9ΐ'ί?τΟΓ 1381. 4ΐ• 
θρησκια 1380. 2 45• 
θρονιστηί 1380. 251. 
θρόνοί 1380. 265. 
θύ€ΐν 1380. 1 49• 
θύρα 1380. 279• 
^υσία138ΐ. 78, I47>i5ij 192• 

ϊασβαι 1384. 30. 
ί'ασίί 1384. 2 7- 
larpfia 1381. 1 44• 
ιατρική 1381. 55) 209. 
Ίαώ Σαβαώθ 1384. 2 8. 
ιδΐ0Γΐ381. 87. 
ίδρυ/ί[ 1380. 2 94• 
ίδρώς 1381. 129. 

Upfvs 1381. 18, 149• 

ίεροΊΊ380. 270,278; 1381.4• 

ίΐρονικητΐλίΐ,ν 1380. 78. 

Upas 1380. 18, 41, ΙΙΟ) ι6ι. 

Ίκΐτΐύαν 1381. Ι54• 

ίκΐτης 1381. 7°• 

ΐλαρο'ί 1380. 127, 1^2. 

Ινδικτίων ιδ 1357. 2. 

Ίσ6Ϊοι/ 1380. 202. 

Ί'σοί 1380. 2ΐ5• 

taropt'a 1381. 17,38,166,200. 

ϊσχνρόί 1384. 2 9• 

καθαπλοϋν 1381. 1 68. 
καθάρσιος 1384. Ι. 
καθίζΐσβαι 1381. Ι ©5• 
καθιστάναι 1380. 203, 214) 

και γαρ 1381. 103, 17°• 

καφο'ί 1381. 58, 194) ΐ97• 

κακόν 1381. 2 44• 

καΧίΐν 1380. 5) 270. 

καΧΚίμορφοί 1380. 1 8, 53• 
καλός 1380. 127, ^34• ''«^" 
λιστοί 1380. ΙΟΟ. καλώς 

1380. ι88. 
κάμνΐΐν 1381. 66. 
καρηβαρ(Ίν 1381. 99• 
καρπός 1381. 238. 
κάρυον 1384. 9• 

κατά 1380. 152, 153' 2ο6 ; 

1381. 8ι, ιο6, ιι8, 146, 
ι82, 183, 196• 

κaτayyiλλ(ιv 1381. 15°• 
Karayeiv 1380. 255• 
καταδβίκΐ'ύΐ'αι 1380. Ι 78. 
κατανξάνΐΐν 1380. 2 57• 
καταφθΐ'ιρΐΐν 1380. Ι 7 6 . 
καταχωρίζΐΐν 1382. ϊ<). 
κατίρχΐσθαι 1357. Ι. 
κατ€χ€ΐν 1381. 56• 
κατίΐναι 1381. 45* 
κατοπτΐΰΐΐν 1381. ΙΙ4. 
κατόπτις 1380. 87. 
κώνος 1380. 79• 
κΐλ(ύ(ΐν 1380. 259 ; 1383. 6. 

Κίφαλη 1381. 12 2. 
κηΒΐία 1381. 2 24• 
κηρνσσ€ΐν 1381. 35» ^44• 
κίνδυνος 1381. 214• 
κλύζ^σθαι 1384. 36. 
κοιμασθαι 1381. 92. 
κομ'ιζΐΐν 1381. 12. 
κοριοί/ 1384. 7• 
κοσμοποι'ια 1381. Ι 7θ. 
κόσμοί 1380. 130, 211. 
κόστος 1384. 5• 

κρατεΓμ 1380. 144; 1384.25• 
κράτιστος 1380. <)6. 
κράτος 1380. 2 39, 257• 
κτίζΐΐν 1380. 64, 151 ) 28ο, 

κνβίρνάν 1380. 187. 
κυβΐρνητης 1382. 24. 
κνβΐρνητις 1380. 69. 
κύμινον 1384. 2. 
κυπάρισσος 1384. 35• 
Κυριακή 1357. 3 ^^ saep. 

κύριος 1380. 24, 62, 123, 
142, 196, 2ΙΟ, 2ΐ8, 222, 

240, 248, 265; 1384. 
ι6(.?), 23, 26; 1399. 
κύΑύίΐν 1381. 45) ιΐ5• 

λαλΕΪμ 1381. 179, ^99• 
λαμβάνίΐν 1381. 226; 1382. 
17; 1384. 27, 31, 35• 

λαμπρός 1381. ΙΙ9• 

λ/γειι/ 1383. 8; 1384. 1 8, 

2 6. (ΐπΐΊν 1381. 156 ; 

1382. 15, 2ο; 1384. ι6(.?). 

λήθαργος {αληθ. Pap.) 1381. 

Αηθη 1380. 12 7. 
λήμμα ρ. 44• 

λογιστικός 1380. 27, 1 24. 
λόγος 1381. Ι74• 
λωτοφόρος 1380. 40. 
λωφάν 1381. Ι4Ι• 
λί.]σΐί 1380. 231. 

ρακρολογβΐσ^αι 1381. Ι 78. 
μάλιστα 1381. ΙΟ, 28, 6θ. 
μανθάνίΐν 1381. 35• 
μάραθον 1384. 3• 
μαρτύρων 1357. ζΟ {?"). 
μάρτυς 1357. 5• 
μαστίχη 1384. 6. 
μ€γας1380. 77) 242; 1382. 
2 2. μέγιστος 1380. 21, 

66, 92, 142, ι88. 

^eye^oj 1381. ^Ι, 38, 221. 
μίλλΐΐν 1381. 39) 89, 195, 

μέν 1381. 3, 1*5, 5°) III) 

ιι8, 128, 131, ΐ75• 
μίνίΐν 1383. 7• 
/Lieposl383. 6, 8. 
peVoyl381. 36 ; 1384. 23 (?). 
μ€τά 1357. Ι ; 1381. 8ο, 1 1 2. 

μ(ταλαμβάν€ΐν 1381. Ι07• 
μετάνοια 1357. 4• 
μεταχίΐρίζεσθαι 1381. 2 Ο 9. 
μετέωρος, το μετ. 1380. 1 44• 
Μεχε'ιρ 1357. 48• 
μίχρι 1380. 158. 
μή 1383. 8. 



μη^ί 1381. io6, 151. 

μφίίί 1381. 66. 

μηΚον 1384. 35. 

μην (subst.) 1381. 9. 

μην, ου μην ολλά 1381. 24. 

μηνΰΐΐν 1381. Ι 36. 

μητ€ 1381. 152. 

μ)7Τ7;ρ 1381. 67, 71) Ι°2. 

μικρός. See Διόί πόλΐί, 

μισεχθψ 1380. Ι37• 

/iKii^j; 1381. 198. 

/io'Xt? 1381. 70, 158. 

μόνος 1380. ι8ι; 1381. 40, 

193• μόνον 1381. 14, 43; 

53. 122. 
/ζονσαι/αγωγόί 1380. 62, 128. 
/xC^os 1381. 172, 180. 
μνστις 1380. III. 

νανσιβάτης 1383. 9• 
wo? 1380. 85, 211 (.?). 
νιότης 1381. 63. 
νηφαλιωτίρος 1381. 133* 
νικήτρια 1380. 30j 48. 
voelv 1381. 70. 
νόμιμος 1380. 204. 

νόσος 1381. 56, 73' 207. 
j/oTii/oV 1357. 37» 61. 

νύμφη 1380. 3°• 

νύξ 1381. 91 ; 1383. ίο. 
ξηρός 1380. 184 ; 1384. 31. 
oSe 1381. 141. 

οδηγός 1380. 12 2. 
68ννη 1381. 98. 
o^fy 1381. 57> ι8ι. 

οθόνη 1381. 1 2 ο. 
οία 1381. 73• 
οΪ6σ(9αι 1381. 1 68. 

οϊκος 1380. 2, 268. 
υΐκονμίνη 1380. 12 1. 

oiW 1380. ]8ο; 1384. 32. 
6\ί-γος 1381. ιο6. 
ολοί1380. 158; 1381. 174; 
1383. 9• 

"ϋλνμπος 1380. Ι30. 

ομβρος 1380. 2 28. 

ομοίως 1357. 27, 32, 34, 50. 

59; 1380. 246. 

δμως 1381. Ι 53• 
οναρ 1381. Ιθ8. 
oveipov 1381. 74, 139• 
όνομα 1380. 113, 14Ι5 143; 
1384. 2ο (.?). 

υνομύζίιν 1380. 163• 
οξος 1384. 14- 

όράν 1380. 152; 1381. ιο8, 

, /39• 

opiyeiv 1381. 64. 
ορθώσιης 1380. 39, 98. 
δρμάΐ' 1381. 84, 1 66. 

όρμίστρια1380. 15, 74• 

OS 1380. 64, 119, 139, 175, 
184, 221, 227, 260; 1381. 
89, 122. 242, 245. 

όσος 1381. 138, 2θ6, 2θ8, 

2ΙΟ, 212, 214• 
όταν 1380. 163. 
ore 1381. 92; 1383. 7• 
ΟΤΙ 1380. 2θ8, 250; 1384. 


οί 1381. 4θ, 42, 155, 183. 

οϋκ 1381. 1 1 1, οΰ /xiji' αλλά 

1381. 23- 
ουλή 1384. 34• 
oi/Ve 1381. 10S. 
ουτος 1381. Ι, 8ο, 139, 154' 

155-187,237,244• ουτως 

1357. 2; 1381. 222. 

οφθαλμός 1381. ΙΟ9 ; 1384. 


όψ^ 1381. 69. 

οψις 1380. 128 ; 1381. 139• 

παγκάθαρος 1384. 27. 

τταίί 1381. Ι03, 229, 232. 
πάλαι 1381. 1 50• 

πάλιν1381. 85, 145, ΐ54• 

πανάφθονος 1380. 88. 
πανη-γυρις 1380. 133, ΐ8ΐ. 
πάνταρχος 1380. 1 37• 
πανταχη 1380. Ι 72. 
παντή 1380. 2 1 0. 
παντοκράτίίρα 1380. 2 Ο. 
παντότ^τις 1380. 93* 
■ηανΰ 1381. 1 6. 
πάπας 1357. 2. 
παρά 1382. 1 8. 
παραδώόναι 1380. 204, 244• 

παρακίλ(ύ(σθαι 1381. 6. 
παραυτίκα 1381. 1 93• 
παρΰναι 1381. 7° ; 1382. 20. 
7!-ape;^fti' 1380. 180. 
παροίχΐπθαι 1381. 65. 
παροξύνίΐν 1381. 2. 
πάς 1380. 125 ^^ ^^^Ρ• ; 

1381. 73. 92, 137, ΐ9ΐ, 
199, 200, 215. 

πατήρ 1384. 21. 
πάτριος 1380. 267. 
πείθΐΐυ 1384. 2 Ο. 
πΐΐράσθαι 1381. 1 2 7. 
Ήίλά-γιος 1383. 6, 8.' 
πίλαγης 1383. 8. 
πίρνα 1384. ΙΟ. 
πίρίΊ381. 247; 1382. 23. 
πΐρισσίΰίΐν 1381. 1 76. 
περισσός 1381. 6 1. 
π(ρισωζ(ΐν 1381. 2Ι5• 
πηγή 1380. 2 28. 
πιθανολο-γύν 1381. Ι 7 Ι • 
πίνΐΐν 1384. 33• 
πιστοιασπις 1380. 1 38. 
7ΓΐσΓΟ$• 1380. 152, 241. 
πλ^ιν, πλίίΐν 1383. 7• 
πλ(ίων 1380. 234. 
πλίυρά 1381. 141. 
πλ(υρόν.1881. 82, 98. 

ττλ^^οί 1381. 5, 212, 235• 

πλημμυρά 1380. 223. 
πλην 1381. 93, 1^7• 
πληρούν 1381. Ι 64. 
πλουτίζ€ΐι> 1381. 2 0. 
ττι/βΟ/χα 1383. ίο; 1384. 2ΐ. 
τΓοίίίι/ 1380. 2 15, 235, 243, 
250,263,291 ; 1381.134• 

πυιΰσθαι 1381. ΙΟ. 
πόλις 1380. 58, 202. CL 

Index III (a). 

πολλάκις 1381. 32, 54, 155- 
πόλοΓ 1380. 232. 
πολύμορφος 1380. 9, 7°• 
πολυόφθαλμος 1380. Ι2 9• 
πολνί 1381. 12 9, 212. "■λείων 
1380. 234• 

πολυώνυμος 1380. 97- ΙΟΙ. 
πονιΐν 1381. 2ΐι; 1384. 25, 

πόνος 1381. 100. 


ΤΓΟτάμιος 1380. 12 2. 

ποταμός 1380. 223. 

■ηον 1381. 178. 

TTovs 1381. 123. 

πράκτωρ ρ. 44• 

■πρέσβνς 1380. 1 48. 

προαιρΰν 1380. 2Ι9• προ- 

αφίΊσβαι 1381. 1 36. 
προθυμία 1381. 37) 54? ^Ο, 
προ'ίστάναι 1381. 239• 
προκαθησθαι 1380. 65. 
προκαθομολο-γΐΐν 1381. 1 56. 
προκρίνίΐν 1380. 250. 
προΧαμβάνΐΐν 1381. Ι37• 
πρόνοια 1380. 43 ; 1381. 164. 
ττροτΓομπίυίΐΐ' 1381. ΐρ- 

προς 1380. 20Ι, 207; 1381. 
44, 52, 55, 73> 173; 1384. 

2 3; 
προσήκΐΐν 1381. 2 2. 
προσκυνΐΐν 1380. 1 42, ΐ6ο; 

1381. 131. 

προσπλη ρουν 138\. Ι75• 
προσπολύν 1381. Ι49• 
πρόσταγμα 1380. 1 56. 
προφητίία 1381. 23. 
προφητ(ν(ΐν 1381. ΐόρ. 
πρωτοί 1380. 143, ι8ι. ""ρώ- 

τιστα 1380. 1 2 Ο. 
πτίρυξ 1380. 220. 
TTVpeTos 1381. 96, 128. 
πνροφόρος 1381. 27• 

pell/ 1381. 82. 
pevetr 1381. 36. 
ριψοκίνδυνος 1381. 57• 

σφασμός 1381. 3^• 
σεβ^σβαι 1381. 202. 
σΐληνη 1380. 104. 
σΐΚινον 1384. 4• 
σμύρνα 1384. 1 9- 

σόί 1380.105, 236 (?); 1381. 
163, 165, 169, ι82, ι86, 

σπίρμα 1384. 3Ι• 
σττόγγοί 1384. 25. 
σπόριμος 1380. 170. 
σπούδαζαν 1381. 2 47• 
στ€ίχ(ΐν 1380. 87. 


στο\αρχίς 1380. 8. 
στόμα 1380. Ι 23. 
στραγγονρητία 1384. 30. 
στρατΐία 1380. 239• 
στράτίος 1380. 71, 83, Ι02. 

στροβΐΐν 1381. 6g. 

σύ 1380. 141 ^/ saep. ; 1382. 

2, 15; 1384. 28. 
σνμπΧηροΰν 1381. 48. 
σύναξις 1357. Ι. 
συνύναι 1381. 203, 2θ6. 
συνιστάναι 1380. 154, ^^ο• 
σύνοδος 1380. Ι 3 2. 
συνορμίζΐΐν 1380. Ι47• 
συντόμως 1381. Ι79• 
σφαδαίζίΐν 1381. 99• 
σφόδρα 1381. 2. 
σφοδρός 1381. 96. 
σύζειν 1380. "JO; 1381. 57, 

σώος 1380. 1 46. 
σώτεφα 1380. 20, 9Ι, 293• 
σωτήριος 1381. 2 1 8. 

ταπίΐνοΰν \381. 158• 
ταπ(ίνωμα 1381. 48 (?). 
ταυρωπις 1380. 107. 
ταφή 1380. 196; 1381. 229- 

ταχυνίκης 1380. 64. 
ταχύς 1381. 02, 82. θάσσον 
1381. 6. 

Τ€ 1381. 97, 221, 222 (?). 
τ(κμαίρ{σβαι 1381. 1 85. 
τΐλίίος 1380. 32, 204. 
τ(^(σιουρ•γ(Ιν 1381. 184. 
τίρας 1380. 277 (•'')• 
τερατώδης 1381. 219. 
τΐταρτα'ιος 1381. 68. 
τηρήν 1381. 58. 
τις 1384. 17, 26. 
τι? 1381. 6ι, 117. 

τξε ήμίραι 1380. Ι55• 
τοιούτος 1381. 1 86. 

τόπος 1380. 2θ6; 1381. 2ΐ6. 

τότί 1381. 8, 6ο, 236. 

τρίΓί 1380. 269; 1381. 224- 

τριάκοντα 1381. 1 3, 27. 

τριακόσιοι 1381. 27. 

τρίβ(ΐν 1384, 32. 

τρίίτής 1381. 65, 67. 

τριοδΊτις 1380. 9^• 
τρις 1381. 123. 
τριφυής 1380. 84. 
τρομώδης 1381. 12 0. 
τρόπος 1381. 245• 
τροφή 1380. 236. 
Ύύβι 1357. 33• 
τύπτειν 1383. 8. 
(τύραννος) 1380. 24Ο. 

τύχη 1380. 5ΐ• 

υγρός 1380. 1 84. 

ί;δωρ1382. 15, 17; 1383. ίο. 
νίός 1380. 209; 1384. 22. 
υπακούίΐν 1381. 86. 
inepaXyflv 1381. 104. 
νπΐρμήκης 1381, ΙΙ7• 
υπήκοος 1380. 1 64. 
νπιίναι 1381. ΐ6θ. 
ύπνος 1381. ΙΟΙ, Ιθ6, Ιθ8. 
υπό 1381. 30• 

υπομνηματισμός 1399. rectO. , 
υπόσχεσις 1381. 6θ, 1 51. 
νποτάσσΐΐν 1381. 240; 1383. 

υστΐρος 1381. Ι75• 
υφαίν€ΐν 1380. 1 46. 
ΰφιστάναι 1380. 2 21. 

φαΙν€ΐν 1381. 75• φαίνεσθαι 
1381. 95• 

Φαμςνώθ 1357. 63. 
φαντασία 1381. ΙΙ3• 
φαντασιοΰν 1381. 140. 
Φαώφι 1357. 3• 
φ(ρ(ΐν 1381. 121. φίρεσθαι 

1380. 150; 1381. ΙΟΙ. 
φΐύγΐΐν 1381. 57• 

φήμη 1381. 50, 227 (?). 

φθάνίΐν 1381. 63. 
φθΐίριιν 1381. Ι94• 
φθορά 1380. 175, ΐ95• 
φιλία 1380. 94• 

φιλόστοργος 1380. 12, Ι3Ι ; 

1381. 103. 
φλίγΐΐν 1381. 96. 
φλέγμα 1380. 248. 
φούσκα 1384. Ι. 
φράζ(ΐν 1381. 1 8 1. 
φρίκη 1381. 69. 



φρικτός 1381. QO. 

φρον(Ιν 1381. 62. 

φρόνησκ 1380. 44, 8i, 183. 

φρόνιμος 1380. Il7, I24. 

φύ(ΐν 1381, 62. 
φύλλον 1384. 12. 
φυσικός 1381. Ι73• 
φύσις 1381. 84, 103. 
φώί 1380. 248, 295• 

χαρίζΐσθαι 1382. 15. 

χάρις 1380. 156 ; 1381. 79; 
191, 196. 

XapiToboTeipci 1380. ΙΟ. 
χαριτόμορφος 1380. 59• 
χίίρ 1381. 121. 
χιών 1380. 229, 239• 
χραν 1381. 245• 
χρίΌ? 1381. 1 6ο. 
χρΐώστης 1381. 1 5 2. 

χρήμα 1381. 2 33• 

χρησμωδός 1380. 43» 252, 


χρηστός 1381. 74• 

χρόνος 1380. 28, 203, 2I3j 

268; 1381. 65. 
χώρα 1380. 24, 125, 152, 

2ΐ9> 234> 241. 
ψυχρός 1380. 1 84. 
S> 1381. 203, 206. 

ωραΊος 1380. 9°• 
ώί 1381. 102, ΐ55• 
ώφίλί'ιν 1381. 49• 



accent in relation to metre 

AlcaeUS, στασιωτικά ζ*]. 

Alexander son of Amyntas 

All Saints' Day 31. 
Amazons 215. 
Andreas of Sicyon 105-6, 

Andronpolis 206. 
Anne, St. 36-7. 
Anniane 23-5. 
Anthesteria 88-9. 
Antiphon Sophistes, works 

92-3 ; style 95. 
Antisthenes 112. 
Aphroditopolis (two towns) 

Apis (town) 210. 
Apollo 223-4. 
Apostle. See Evangelist. 
Apostles, gospel of the XII 

Apuleius 190, 214, 225. 
Arabia 213. 
archidicastes 232. 
Archimachus (Archem.?) 1 1 5, 

aretology 225, 235. 
Aristides, rhetor 225, 233. 

{TAe numbers refer to pages.) 

Aristophanes, order of plays 
134, 142, 146; papyri in 
relation to MSS. 134, 138; 
scholia 135, 136-8, 244. 

Aristotle on Sicyon 105-7; 
on Sicyonian Constitution 
105, 107-8. 

Asclepius. See Imhotep. 

Asia 214-15. 

Atarbechis 204. 

Atargatis 215. 

Athenaeus on Pollis 84, 88. 

Auge 52, 55. 

Bacchylides, fragments iden- 
tified 65, 81. 

Bambyce 215. 

book-form in papyri 6, 9, 
12, 121, 126, 134, 138, 
142, 145,242-4, 246-7. 

Boreadae 46. 

Bubastis 203. 

Bucoli, Bucolia, Bucolic 
mouth 209. 

Busiris 210-11. 

Buto 207-8. 

Buzyges 115, 119. 

Caene 207. 

Caesarea in Palestine 215. 

Calamisis (town) 204. 

calendar, early Christian 21. 
Julian and Egyptian 20. 

Caleoibis (deity) 223-4. 

Callimachus papyri 83 ; frag- 
ments identified 83, 88-91. 

Catabathmus 210. 

Cecrops 115. 

Charax (town) 213. 

Choerilus, works 245. 

Christmas 20, 28. 

churches at Oxyrhynchus 

Clisthenes of Sicyon 105-6. 

codex. See book-form. 

Coptic calendar in relation 
to Greek 35-43• 

Cosmas, St. 37. 

Croesus 12, 18. 

Cross, festivals of the 32. 
marginal cross 82. 

Cynopolis in the Delta 210. 

Cypselus 107-8. 

Delphi 215. 

Delta 204. 

Demonax 115. 

Demosthenes, number of his 
speeches 112; oldest frag- 
ment of D. 186. 



diadem 217. 

Diodorus on Sicyon 105-6. 

diple 18. 

Dioscuri 220. 

Diospolis Parva (in the Delta) 

dreams, Homer on δί^μο? 

ονίίρων 49—50. 

Easter, date of 20, 30, 42. 

Ebionites, gospel of the 

Eleutherus, river 220. 

emendations verified, (i) 
Aristophanes: Bekkerand 
Blaydes 142, 145; Bergk 
and Brunck 146, 153. 
(2) Callimachus : Bentley 
89, 90-1 ; Nauck 89 ; 
H. Stephanus 89. (3) 
Euripides: Weil 127, 133. 
(4) Sophocles : Musgrave 
125. (5)Thucydides: Ae- 
milius Portus 177; Gertz 
178; Herwerden 182; 
Hude 178. 

Ephorus 106-9. 

Epimachus, St. 25-7. 

Epiphany 29, 38. 

Eridanus 50-1. 

Erigone, festival of 88. 

Eseremphis (title of Isis) 210. 

Euphemia, St. 24, 38. 

Euripides MSS. in relation 
to papyri 127. 

Europa 45, 49. 

Evangelist, church of the 

festivals at Oxyrhynchus 

frontier of Egypt and 

Palestine 213. 

Gabriel, Archangel 29-30, 

Ganges 220. 

Glaucetes, adventures of 1 19. 
Greek calendar in relation to 

Coptic 35-42. 

Gynaecopolite nome 206. 

Harpies 46. 

Hebrews, gospel according 

to the 239. 
Hecamede 243. 
Helen 216. 

Heliopolite nome 203. 
Hellas (title of Isis) 215. 
Hellenica Oxyrhy7ichia, style 

and authorship 107. 
Hera 207. 
Heracleopolis 211. 
Heracleum 212. 
Herachdes Lembus 11 3-1 5. 
Herais, ama 23-5. 
Hermes 209, 221, 223-4. 
Hermippus 113. 
HermopoHs, (i) 205; (2) 

208; (3) 211. 
Herodotus on Sicyon 105-6, 

Hesiod papyri 44; fragments 

identified 49, 50. 
Hestia 206. 
Hiera (town) 209. 
Hieracion, St. 39. 
Hierasus 205. 
Hiero 66. 

Homer on ^ημο<: ονείρων 49- 

5ο; on Sarpedon 45, 49. 
Horus 209, 219-20, 223-4. 
Hypapante 29, 40. 
Hyperides, possible author 

of 1366. 112. 
Hypsele (town) 215. 

lamblichus in relation to 

Antiphon 94-5. 
Icus 83, 88. 
Imhotep, worship of 221-3 '■> 

tomb of 221, 223-4. 
India 216. 
Innocents' Day 29. 
lo 212. 

Iseum (town) 208. 
Isidium (town) 211. 
Ision 25, 27. 
Isis, titles 191-4, 203-20; 

worship in Egypt 194-5, 

203-13,218,220; worship 
elsewhere 195, 213-16. 

Island (place-name) (1)212; 
(2) 213. 

Italy 216. 

James, festival of St. 31. 
Jehovah Sabaoth 239. 
Jeremiah, St. 38-9. 
Jewish apocalyptic work 239. 
John, St. J. the Baptist 25-6, 

John, St. J. the Evangelist, 

church of 25-6 ; festival 

of 31—2. 
Julianus, St. 29, 39. 
Justus, St. 24, 27-8, 36. 

Laodicea, Council of 30, 43. 
I Lasus, fragment of 119. 
I Latina (title of Isis) 215. 
i law and nature contrasted 

Lent 30, 41. 
Leontopolis 211. 
Leuce Acte 210. 
Libanius on Sicyon 105-6, 

lotus 209. 
Lysias, possible author of 

1366. 112. 

Manetho on Imhotep 221. 

Mantinea 115, 118. 

Martyrs, church of the 35. 

Mary, the Virgin 29, 31, 43. 

Melais 212-^13. 

Memphis 195, 203. 

Menas, St. 27. 

Menelai's 212-13. 

Menkaura (Mencheres) 

Menouphis 213. 

Menouthis 212. 

Mercurium at Alexandria 
I 236. 

I Metelite nome 213. 
! metre, accent and quantity 
in 236; three-line stanzas 
I in Alcaeus 57. 


Michael, Archangel 27, 30, 

Momemphis 205. 
moon 216. 
Mouchis 210. 
Myron of Sicyon 105-6, 


Nanai, Babylonian goddess 

Nativity 20, 28. 
nature and law contrasted 

Naucratis 205-6. 
Nebeo[ (town) 207. 
Nechautes, archidicastes 232. 
Nectanebo 222-3. 
New Testament cursive MSS. 

.1, 5, 6. 
Niciu 203-4. 
Nicolaiis Damascenus on 

Sicyon 105-7, io9• 
Nile 209, 217. 
Nithine 206. 
Northern μαρτνριον 23. 
Noup, St. apa 40-1. 

oracle in relation to chrono- 
logy 105, 109. 
Orthagoras 105-6. 
Osiris 217-18, 220. 

Papnuthius, St. 41. 

Papremis 206. 

papyrus roll discovered in 

a temple 222-3. 
patriarch of Alexandria 2 1-2. 
Paul, St. 29, 37-8. 
Pausanias on Sicyon 105, 

Peleus, festival of 84-5. 
Pelusium 213. 
Peter, St. 29, 37-8. Gospel 

of P. 238-9. 
Petra 214-15. 
Peucestis (town) 212. 
Phagroriopolis 210, 

Pherenicus, horse of Hiero 

Phernouphis (town) 211. 
Philip, gospel of 238-9. 
Philochorus, fragment of 1 15. 
Philotheus, St. 38. 
Philoxenus, St. 27, 37. 
Phoebammon, St. 23-5, 32. 
Phthemphuthite nome 209. 
Plinthine 213. 

Plutarch on Sicyon 105, 109. 
Pollis 84-5, 88. 
Praxidice 211. 
Pronoia 210. 
Prosopite nome 204. 
Psochemis (town) 205. 
Ptolemaeus Pindarion 82. 
Pythagoras 114. 

Red Sea 216. 
repentance, day of 26. 
Rhinocolura 213, 215. 
Rome 214. 
Rufinus on Oxyrhynchus 26. 

saints with churches at Oxy- 
rhynchus 24-7 ; saints' 
days 26-30. 

Samothrace 216. 

Sarpedon 45, 49. 

Saturday services 28, 30. 

Satyrus 114. 

scholia on Euripides, Or. 133 ; 
onAristoph. C/oudsi^^-B. 

Serenus, St. 35. 

Sethroite nome 211, 213. 

Severus 43. 

Sicyon, tyrants of 105-9. 

Sinope 215. 

snake, Isis as 211, 219. 

Socrates on synaxeis 19, 28. 

sophists 93-4. 

Sophocles MSS. in relation 
to papyri 122. 

Sothis 217. 

Sotion 114. 

Southern church 23, 38. 

stationes 19, 22. 
Stephen, St. 28-9. 
stichometry 2 ; stichome- 

trical numbering in prose 

works 103. 
Sunday services 20, 22, 30, 


Susa on the Red Sea 216. 
synaxis 19, 22, 26, 28. 

Taposiris 212. 
Telephus 52-5. 
Teouchis (town) 209. 
Thapseusis (title of Isis) 216. 
Theodoras, St. 30, 42. 
Theodotus, St. 30, 42. 
Theogenes of Icus 83. 
Thonis 207. 
Thoth. See Hermes. 
Thucydides MSS. in relation 

to papyri 156-64. 
Timotheus IV, patriarch 21. 
titles of papyri 115, 235, 245. 
Trinity, order of Persons in 

the 238. 
triple- faced goddess 214. 
Tripolis 215. 
Tyre 216. 

uncanonical gospel 238-9. 

vellum fragments 1,2,5, 242, 

verso, use of for literary texts 
44,190,221, 245; patches 
for strengthening v. 113. 

Victor, St. 36. 

week-day services 28. 
wine 217-19. 

women, position of 2 1 7, 219. 
writing, discovery of 193. 

Xois, Xoite nome 209-10. 

Zachariah, St. 40. 

Τ 2 




{a) Authors. 



Aeschylus Fr. 99 (Nauck) . . .45 

Euripides, 7. T. 1259 sqq. 

. 50 

Aesop 339 247 

Rhes. 29 . 

• . 45 

Agatharchides {Geogr. Gr. min. i. 180) 213 

Geogr. Ravennas 204, 206, ί 

509-10, 212 

Anthologia Palat. vii. 2 . . .88 

Hebrews, gospel of the 

. 239 

Antiphon Soph. Fr. 44 (Dials) . 92, 102 

Helladius, ChresU 

. 88 

58 „ . . 103 

Hermippus Fr. 50 . 

. 208 

Apollodorus iii. 4. 2 . . . . 48 

Hermogenes, De ideis ii. 11. 17 

. 95 

10. 3 . . .56 

Herodian, Π. μον. Xe|. 13 . 

• 243 

12. I . . .55 

23 • 

. 233 

Apuleius, Meiavi. xi. 5 190, 208, 210, 214 

Herodotus i. 180 


Aristotle, Ά^. ττολ. i2. 5, 14. i, 20. i, 

ii. 6 

. 213 

24. 3> 27. 4, 42. 7 • • III 

17 . 

. 209 

Πολ. p. 1310 b . . . 107 



1315 b . 105-6, 108-9 


. 210 

1316 a . 105-6, 108-9 


. 216 

Athenaeus i. 32 b . . . .89 


. 223 

ii. 39 6 . . . .80 

141 . 

. 204 

iv. 137 6 . . . .89 

156 . 

. 207 

iv. 154 d .... 118 

163 . 

. 206 

ix. 372 a . . . . 89 

iii. 12 

. 206 

Babrius 79 247 

iv. 161 

. 118 

Bacchylides ν 8i 

V. 104 

. 109 

Fr. 20 . . . 65-6, 80 

vi. 126 . . I 

D5-6, 108-9 

Fr. 34 . . . . 81 

Hesiod, Theog. 212 . 

• 50 

Callimachus Fr. 86 . . . . 90 

Fr. 30 . 

• 45 

98c ... 91 

Frs. 52-9 . . 

. . 46 

109 . . 84, 88-9 

Fr. 54 . . 

. . 46 

III ... 89 

Fr. 55 . . . 

46, 50 

190 ... 90 

Fr. 57 . . . 

. 51 

372 . . 85,89 

Fr. 60 . 


508 ... 89 

Fr. 62 . 

49> 50 

Clemens Alex, ^ri^wz. i. 2 1 . .224 

Fr. 65 . 

• 51 

Diodorus i. 14 218 

Fr. 233 

. 49 

i. 25 . . . 204, 216, 220 

Hierocles, Synec. 

. 208, 210 

i. 27 . . . . . 219 

Homer ζ 198-9 

. 45 

i. 64 . . . . . 223 

ρ 2i8 . 

. 88 

iii. 44 . . . -213 

ω 12 . 

. 49 

viii. 24 . 105-6, 108-9, III 

Hyginus, Fab. 99-100 

• 55 

viii. 30 . . . .118 

106 . 

• 45 

Diog. Laert, V, 94, viii. 40, 53, ix. 26 114 

HyperideS, κατά Άβηνογίνους 

. 112 

Epiphanius, Adv. haeres. iii, p. 1093 • 212 

lamblichus, Proirept. 

. 94 

Euripides, Hec, 70 . . , .50 

Itin. Anton. 

. 206, 210 




Josephus, Arch. xv. 8. 5 

• 215 

Libanius, Or. cont. Sev. iii 

, p. 251 105-6 

Luke V. 12-16. 

. 238 

xi. II 

. 241 

xviii. 11-14 

. 238 

Lysias, κατά Aioyevovs 

. 112 

Manetho S. v. Ίάσυρθρος 

. 221 

Mark i. 40-5 . 

. 238 

vi. 13 . 

. 241 

Matthew viii. 2-4 

. 238, 241 

xiv. 13-14 . 

. 238 

xxviii. 19 . 


Nicolaiis Damasc. Fr. 58 

. 107 


105-6, 109 

Pausanias ii. 8. i and vi. i 

9. 2-3 105-6, 

108, III 

Phaedrus i. 4 . 

. 247 

Philip, gospel of 

• 239 

Philodemus, nepl Euo-e/S. ic 

> . . 49 

Pliny, N. ^. v. 9 

. 209 

39 • 

. 210 

49 • 

. 209 

64 . 

. 210 

68 . 

. 213 

81 . 

• 215 

Plutarch, De Is. et Os. 3 

210, 212 

6 . 

. 219 

9 • 

. 207 


. 217 


. 210 

61 . 

. 217 

De malign. Heroi 

iL 12 . 216 


Plutarch, De ser. num. vind. 7 105, 108-9 
Ptolemy iv. 5 . . . . 204-16 
Rufinus, Hist. Mon. ν , . .26 
Schol. Apollon. Rhod, i. 916 . . 55 
Eurip. Tr. 11 28 

Horn. Μ 292 ... 45 

Pind. Pyth. iii. 167 
Scylax, Peripl. 105 . . . .213 
Socrates, Hist. v. 22 • • 19, 28 

Stephanus Byz. . . 205,209,212 

Stobaeus, Ecl.phys. i. 41 . . . 224 

Flor. 27. I . . . 245 

Strabo p. 43 

382 . 

756 . 

758 . . 

760 . 

779 • 

788 . 
792 . 

799 . 

800 . 

801 . 

802 . 

803 . 
805 . 
807 . 

SuidaS S.V. Ήρακλείδι^ϊ 

Theopompus Fr. 10 1 (Grenfell-Hunt) 
Thucydides viii. 92 . 

10, 212-13 
207, 211 
212, 225 
203, 207-10 
205, 212, 2X8 




(δ) Papyri and Inscriptions. 



P. Amherst 2 . 


C. I. G. xii. V. 14 191, 204 

, 206, 209, 

128. 56 . 



216-18, 220 

B. G. U. 625 . 


P. Flor. 298 . 

. 26 

954 . 


P. Giessen 12 (ed. F. Fischer) 

• 157 

Berl. Klassikertexte, v. 2, p. 12 . 


55• 2 . 


P. Brit. Mus. 46, 148 


P. Grenf. ii. 112 {a), i 


121.495 . 


P. Hamburg 39 

. 209 

122. 28 


P. Leyden V. vii. 23 

. 218 



P. Klein. Form. 299 

. 25 

1419. 526 . 

• 38 



P. Cairo dem. 31 169 . . 19 

I, 217 



C. I. G. 4683 b. I . 



. 24 







Oxy. 16 157 

P. Oxy. 1178 .... 

. 127 

43 verso. I. 10 

23, 38 

1180 .... 

. 157 

141. 3 . . . 

. 25 

1224 . 

238-9, 241 

146. I 

24, 36 

1234 .... 

• 56-7 

147. I 

24, 36 

1245 .... 

. 157 

225 . 

. 157 

1246 . 

• 157 

425 . 

• 236 

1247 . 

. 157 

696 . 

• 157 

unpublished iii. 212, 213, 242 

842 . 

. 107, III 

P. Rev. Laws xxxi. 6 

204, 206 

853 . 

• 157 

xxxi. 8 

. 211 

878 . 

• 157 

Ix. 18 . 


879 . 

. 157 

Ixvii. 8 

. 211 

880 . 

• 157 

P. Rylands 78. 5 . 

. 209 

886. 2-5 

• 236 

Coptic 461 

. 41 

lOII . 

88, 90 

P. S.I. 63 . . . 

• 35 

1038. 23 

• 23 

P. Stud. Pal. x. 35 . 

24, 29, 37 


• 39 

297 verso, i. 6 

. 25 

II50 . 

25, 37 

P. Tebt. 313. 2 

. 203 

II5I . 

. 23, 25, 35, 37 

329. 3 . . . 

. 241 

II73 • 


P. Wessely \Wien. Stud, vii) 

• 157 

Plate I 

X C- ;^ 





-ίί ,'-■ Α >>'' •ύ >Μ <. , ,Ρ ^ < ,ι:- 

' ρ ■»■ "Τ; '■-' > ir ν.• Α Afs» ^ - ^ Κ' -^ 





; ε 1 3 

J< i 

"^^ «w* ■'»" 

• 4 d.U^ 


hf^t :- 

Λ.:• ν^'^^^-^ί^^-^^^- 



Plate II 



r.-:-i.'-.;,i ■. 


Ρ ^'' -^ 

No. 1399 


r'• f .r---,rv^>>, 4fr»| 






No. 1358. Fr. 2 

Plate III 


^ r^ W 

*> C <f,S 


3 g 2 i § 

-•' -^ £'< ' « 

c'' 2 ο '■■:3t.P-fi .^it •'■J. '!; 

' ' ' :?■' 9 "^. 





π!, 2 7. ;< 



It % χ\ 



CO Q e 5 ς:" χ' ν <ί Γ •:^ 

-<: t<. 'α- "■ ο U ο ϊ: η «^ ^ ^ 

Q c^<j ^ f^ > '■J > Ι: ^7 Ν, < 

■^ - — i-i — 

Plate IV 






Η» ,ίΑ€πον :_aAahoc oYtaoNor^'V^'VAT^ :'^^ 


Λ «' 

ν Γ' tt^ Νί e ^. ^ " : -1^ e Ι ο α " *^^ ^Λγ α^<^1*• ηρ^ Ai<c 




No. 1362. Fr. I, Col. i 

Plate V 


f r 


^'" ¥^^^^-(4^^^^ •φά 






No. 1364. Fn I, Cols, v-vii 

Plate VI 

1^- -T* 

Plate VII 


3^ '"f 


«>^^\- :^ 



— w-^ 






si W y^'-' 




If ;•■ ^ 


." V 



η^ΗΕ EGYPT EXPLORATION FUND, which has conducted Archaeological research 
in Egypt since 1882, iti 1897 started a special department, called the Graeco-Roman 

Branch, for the discovery and publication of remains of classical antiquity and early 

Christianity in Egypt. 

The Graeco-Roman Branch issues annual volumes, each of about 250 quarto pages, with 

facsimile plates of the more ijuportant papyri, under the editorship of Drs. Grenfell and 


A subscription ofOtie Guittea to the Graeco-Roman Branch entitles subscribers to the annual 

volume, and to attendance at the Funds lectures iti Lofidon and elsewhere. A do?iatio7t ^ £25 

constitutes life membership. Subscriptions may be sent to the Honorary Treasurers— for 

England, Mr. J. Grafton Milne, 37 Great Russell St., London, W.C. ; aiid for America, 

Mr. Chester I. Campbell, 527 Tremont Temple, Boston, Mass, 




For 1883-4. By Edouard Naville. Thirteen Plates and Plans. {Fourt/i ami Revised 
Edition.) 25J. 
Π. TANIS, Part I. For 1884-5. By W. M. Flinders Petrie. Eighteen Plates 
and two Plans. {Second Edition.) 25^. 

III. NAUKRATIS, Part I. For 1885-6. By W. M. Flinders Petrie. With 

Chapters by Cecil Smith, Ernest A. Gardner, and Barclay V. Head. Forty-four Plates 
and Plans. {Second Edition.) 25^. 


By Edouard Naville. Eleven Plates and Plans. {Second Edition.) 25J. 
V. TANIS, Part II ; including TELL DEFENNEH (The Biblical ' Tahpanhes ') 
and TELL NEBESHEH. For 1887-8. By W. M. Flinders Petrie, F, Ll. Griffith, 
and A. S. Murray. Fifty-one Plates and Plans. 25^. 
VI. NAUKRATIS, Part II. For 1888-9. By Ernest A. Gardner and F. Ll. 
Griffith. Twenty-four Plates and Plans. 255. 
Antiquities of Tell-el-Yahudiyeh. An Extra Volume. By EDOUARD Naville and 
F. Ll. Griffith. Twenty-six Plates and Plans. 25^. 
























For 1889-90. By Edguard Naville. Fifty-four Plates and 


Plans. 2c,s. 

Containing THE SIGN PAPYRUS (a Syllabary). By F. Ll. Griffith. THE 
GEOGRAPHICAL PAPYRUS (an Almanac). By W. M. Flinders Petrie. With 
Remarks by Heinrich Brugsch. {Out of print.) 


By Edouard Naville. Thirty-nine Plates. 25^•. 
AHNAS EL MEDINEH. For 189 1-2. By Edouard Naville. Eighteen 
Plates. And THE TOMB OF PAHERI AT EL ΚΑΒ. By J. J. Tylor and F. Ll. 
Griffith. Ten Plates. 2si. 

For 1892-3. By Edouard Naville. 

DEIR EL BAHARI, Introductory. 
Fifteen Plates and Plans. 253•. 

DEIR EL BAHARI, Part I. For 1893-4. By Edouard Naville. Plates 
I-XXIV (three coloured) with Description. Royal folio. 305. 

DEIR EL BAHARI, Part II. For 1894-5. By Edouard Naville. Plates 
XXV-LV (two coloured) with Description. Royal folio. 30^. 

DESHASHEH. For 1895-6. By W. ]M. Flinders Petrie. Photogravure and 

other Plates. 255. 

DEIR EL BAHARI, Part III. For 1896-7. By Edouard Naville. Plates 
LVI-LXXXVI (two coloured) with Description. Royal folio. 305•. 

DENDEREH. For 1897-8. By W. M. Flinders Petrie. Thirty-eight Plates. 
25^. (Extra Plates of Inscriptions. Forty Plates, lOi.) 


Flinders Petrie. Sixty-eight Plates. 25J. 

DEIR EL BAHARI, Part IV. For 1899-1900. By Edouard Naville. 
Plates LXXXVII-CXVIII (two coloured) with Description. Royal folio. 305. 

DIOSPOLIS PARVA. An Extra Volume. By W. M. Flinders Petrie. 
Forty-nine Plates. {Out of print ^ 

1 900-1. By \V. M. Flinders Petrie. Sixty-three Plates. 25J•. (Thirty-five extra 
Plates, loj.) 

ABYDOS,PartL For 1 901-2. By W. M. F. Petrie. Eighty-one Plates. 25J. 

EL AMRAH AND ABYDOS. An Extra Volume. By D. Randall-MacIver, 

A. C. Mace, and F. Ll. Griffith. Sixty Plates. 251. 

ABYDOS, Part II. For 1902-3. By W. M. Flinders Petrie. Sixty-four 

Plates. 255•. 

ABYDOS, Part III. An Extra Volume. By C. T. Currelly, E. R. Ayrton, 

and A. E. P. Weigall, &c. Sixty-one Plates. 255. 

EHNASYA. Fori 903-4. By W. M. Flinders Petrie. Forty-three Plates. 25^. 
(ROMAN EHNASYA. Thirty-two extra Plates. lOi.) 

DEIR EL BAHARI, Part V. For 1904-5. By Edouard Naville. Plates 
CXIX-CL with Description. Royal folio. 30J. 


For 1905-6. By Edouard Naville and H. R. Hall. Thirty-one Plates. 25J. 
DEIR EL BAHARI, Part VI. For 1906-7. By Edouard Naville. Plates 
CLI-CLXXIV (one coloured) with Description. Royal folio. 30^. 


For 1907-8. By Edouard Naville. Twenty-four Plates. 25J•. 


E. R. Ayrton and ^Y. L. S. Loat. 25^. 

For 1909-10. By Edouard Naville, H. R. Hall, and C, T. Currelly. Thirty-six 
Plates. 25J. 

T. E. Peet, and H. R. Hall. 255. 


and W. L. S. LoAT. 25^. 



For 1910-11. By Edouard Naville, 

For 1911-12. By T. E. Peet. 25J, 
ABYDOS, Part IIL For 19x2-13. By T. E. Peet 

By T. E. Peet and A. H. Gardiner. {In 


Edited by F. Ll. Griffith. 
1. BENI HASAN, Part I. For 1 890-1. By Percy E. Newberry. With Plans 

by G. W. Fraser. Forty-nine Plates (four coloured). {Oui of print:) 
II. BENI HASAN, Part II. For 1891-2. By Percy E.Newberry. With Appendix, 
Plans, and Measurements by G. W. Fraser. Thirty-seven Plates (two coloured). 25J. 

m. EL BERSHEH, Part I. For 1892-3. By Percy E. Newberry. Thirty-four 
Plates (two coloured). 255. 

IV. EL BERSHEH, Part II. For 1893-4. By F. Ll. Griffith and Percy E. 

Newberry. With Appendix by G. W. Fraser. Twenty-three Plates (two coloured). 25J. 

V. BENI HASAN, Part III. For 1894-5. By F. Ll. Griffith. (Hieroglyphs, 

and manufacture, &c., of Flint Knives.) Ten coloured Plates. 25J. 


EXPLORATION FUND. For 1895-6. By F.Ll. Griffith. Nine coloured Plates. 25J. 

VII. BENI HASAN, Part IV. For 1896-7. By F. Ll. Griffith. (Illustrating 

beasts and birds, arts, crafts, &c.) Twenty-seven Plates (twenty-one coloured). 25J•. 

SAQQAREH, Parti. For 1897-8. By Norman de G. Davies and F. Ll. Griffith. 
Thirty-one Plates (three coloured). 25^. 

SAQQAREH, Part II. For 1898-9. By N. de G. Davies and F.Ll. Griffith. Thirty- 
five Plates. 25i. 

X. THE ROCK TOMBS OF SHEIKH SAID. For 1899-1900. By N. de G. 
Davies. Thirty-five Plates. 251. 

N. DE G. Davies. Twenty-seven Plates (two coloured). 25J. 

XIL DEIR EL GEBRAWI, Part IL Fori9oi-2. By N. de G. Davies. Thirty 
Plates (two coloured). 25^. 

Xm. THE ROCK TOMBS OF EL AMARNA, Part L Fori902-3. ByN. deG. 
Davies. Forty-one Plates. 25J. 

XIV. EL AMARNA, Part II. For 1903-4. By N. de G. Davies. Forty-seven Plates. 25i. 
XV. EL AMARNA, Part III. Fori904-5. By N. de G. Davies. Forty Plates. 25^. 

XVL EL AMARNA, Part IV. Fori 905-6. By N. de G. Davies. Forty-five Plates. 25J. 

XVIL EL AMARNA, Part V. For 1906-7. By N. de G. Davies. Forty-four Plates. 25J. 

XVm. EL AMARNA, Part VI. For 1907-8. By N. de G. Davies. Forty-four Plates. 25^. 

INSCRIPTIONS, Part I. For 1908-9. By F. Ll. Griffith. Thirty-five Plates. 25^. 

XX. MEROITIC INSCRIPTIONS, Part Π. For 1909-10. By F. Ll. Griffith. 
Forty-eight Plates. . 255•. 
XX][. FIVE THEBAN TOMBS. For 1910-11. By N. de G. Davies. Forty-three 
Plates. 2 5 J. 

ΧΧΠ. THE ROCK TOMBS OF MEIR, Part L For 1911-12. By A. M. Black- 
man. Thirty-three Plates. 25J. 

XXIII. THE ROCK TOMBS OF MEIR, Part IL For 19 12-13. By A. M. Black- 
man. {In preparation.) 


L THE OXYRHYNCHUS PAPYRI, Part I. For 1897-8. By B. P. Grenfell 

and A. S. Hunt. Eight Collotype Plates. {Out of print.) 
II. THE OXYRHYNCHUS PAPYRI, Part II. For 1898-9. By B. P. Grenfell 

and A. S. Hunt. Eight Collotype Plates. 25J. 
IIL FA YUM TOWNS AND THEIR PAPYRL For 1 899-1 900. By B. P. Grenfell, 

A. S. Hunt, and D. G. Hogarth. Eighteen Plates. 25^. 
IV. THE TEBTUNIS PAPYRI. Double Volume for 1900-1 and 1901-2. By B. P. 

Grenfell, A. S. Hunt, and J. G. Smyly. Nine Collotype Plates. {Not for sale.) 
V. THE OXYRHYNCHUS PAPYRI, Part III. For 1902-3. By B. P. Grenfell 

and A. S. Hunt. Six Collotype Plates. 255. 
VI. THE OXYRHYNCHUS PAPYRI, Part IV. For 1903-4. By B. P. Grenfell 

and A. S. Hunt. Eight Collotype Plates. 25*. 

VIL THE HIBEH PAPYRI, Part I. Double \^olume for 1904-5 and 1905-6. By 

B. P. Grenfell and A. S. Hunt. Ten Collotype Plates. 45^. 

VIII. THE OXYRHYNCHUS PAPYRI, Part V. For 1906-7. By B. P. Grenfell 

and A. S. Hunt. Seven Collotype Plates. 255. 

IX. THE OXYRHYNCHUS PAPYRI, Part VI. For 1907-8. By B. P. Grenfell 

and A. S. Hunt. Six Collotype Plates. 255. 

X. THE OXYRHYNCHUS PAPYRI, Part VII. For 1908-9. By A. S. Hunt. 

Six Collotype Plates. 25^•. 

XI. THE OXYRHYNCHUS PAPYRI, Part VIII. For 1909-10. By A. S. Hunt. 

Seven Collotype Plates. 25^•. 

XII. THE OXYRHYNCHUS PAPYRI, Part IX. For 1910-11. By A. S. Hunt. 

Six Collotype Plates. 25^. 

XIII. THE OXYRHYNCHUS PAPYRI, Part X. For 1911-12. By B. P. Grenfell 

and A. S. Hunt. Six Collotype Plates. 255. 

XIV. THE OXYRHYNCHUS PAPYRI, Part XL For 191 2-13. By B. P. Grenfell 

and A. S. Hunt. Seven Collotype Plates. 25J. 

XV. THE OXYRHYNCHUS PAPYRI, Part XII. For 19 13-14. By B. P. Grenfell 

and A. S. Hunt. (^In preparation^ 


(Yearly Summaries by F. G. Kenyon, W. E. Crum, and the Officers of the Society, with Maps.) 

Edited by F. Ll. Griffith. 

THE SEASON'S WORK. For 1 890-1 . By Edouard Naville, Percy E. Newberry, and 
G. W. Eraser. 2j. dd. 
For 1892-3 and 1893-4. 2s. 6d. each. 
,, 1894-5. IS. 6d. Containing Report of D. G. Hogarth's Excavations in Alexandria. 
,, 1895-6. y. With Illustrated Article on the Transport of Obelisks by Edouard Naville. 
,, 1896-7. 2s. 6d. AVith Articles on Oxyrhynchus and its Papyri by B. P. Grenfell, and a Thucydides 

Papyrus from Oxyrhynchus by A. S. HUNT. 
,, 1897-8. 2s. 6d. ΛVith Illustrated Article on Excavations at Hierakonpolis by W. M. F. Petrie. 
,, 1898-9. 2s.6d. With Article on the Position of Lake Moeris by B. P. Grenfell and A. S. Hunt. 
,, 1899-1900. 2s. 6d. With Article on Knossos in its Egyptian Relations by A. J. Evans. 
And twelve successive years, 2s. 6d. each. 

A JOURNAL OF EGYPTIAN ARCHAEOLOGY (issued Quarterly). Commenced 
January, 1914. 6s. a part, or;^i is. a year to Subscribers. 


ΛΟΓΙΑ ΙΗΣΟΥ : ' Sayings of Our Lord,' from an Early Greek Papyrus. By B. P. Grenfell 
and A. S. Hunt. 2s. (Λvith Collotypes) and 6d. net. 


B. P. Grenfell and A. S. Hunt. is. net. 

Hunt. is. net. 

ATLAS OF ANCIENT EGYPT. With Letterpress and Index. {Out of print) 


COPTIC OSTRACA. By W. E. Crum. 10s. 6d. net. 

By Nina de G. Davies and A. H. Gardiner. 30^. 

Slides from Fund Photographs may be obtained through Messrs. Newton ώ-» Co., 37 King Street, 
Coz'ejit Garden, JV.C, and Prints from Mr. R. C. Murray, 37 Dartmouth Park Hill, N.W. 

Offices of the Egypt Exploration Fund: 


Agents : 









3 1197 22884 0168