LIBRARY
Brigham Young University ἮΝ ;
~Gruidies
“He ae (giana: αν
51:9
ἢ
\)
τω Ως
»
*
4
a
i
ἵ
.
᾿ =
ἐ ΄
|
᾽
4 δ
Ἢ Ὰ
᾿ ; ὦ 7 Ν᾿ ot
Τὰν - ι ἐ ἜΝ
fxs nt ponent ᾿
as) f Mi eI eget tie
j i
} ᾿
ἢ +
'
.
3
—-
t ΤΙ
i Ι ἊΝ εἰν
THE
PART Mi
| GRENFELL AND HUNT
‘
©
ῦ
Ρ
δ .
᾿
i
δ
‘ εἶν
th
7h")
.
᾽
ἦν,
A PANS: \
) VY Ὁ
ed ες.
H PA
ΘΒ,
ay:
Ve Ι
EGYPT EXPLORATION FUND
GRAECO-ROMAN BRANCH
a Ee rs
OXYRHYNCHUS PAPYRI
PART XI
EDITED WITH TRANSLATIONS AND NOTES
BY
BERNARD P. GRENFELL, D.Lrrt.
FELLOW OF QUEEN’S COLLEGE, OXFORD; FELLOW OF THE BRITISH ACADEMY
AND
ARTHUR 8S. HUNT, D.Lnrrt.
PROFESSOR OF PAPYROLOGY IN THE UNIVERSITY OF OXFORD, AND FELLOW OF QUEEN’S COLLEGE
FELLOW OF THE BRITISH ACADEMY
WITH SEVEN PLATES
LONDON
SOLD AT
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 & CO., 14 BEDFORD STREET, COVENT GARDEN, W.C.
C. F. CLAY, FETTER LANE, E.C., AND I00 PRINCES STREET, EDINBURGH; AND
HUMPHREY MILFORD, AMEN CoRNER, E.C., AND 29-35 WEST 32ND STREET, NEw York, U.S.A.
1015
All rights reserved
PRINTED IN ENGLAND
AT THE OXFORD UNIVERSITY PRESS
PREFACE
Tue present volume, like Part V, consists of literary pieces, with
the exception of the Calendar of Church Services at Oxyrhynchus (1857),
which on account of its special interest is included with the theological
texts. The papyri of Antiphon Sophistes (1864) and Thucydides (1376)
belong to the first of the large literary finds in 1906, the lyric pieces
and one of the Hesiod fragments (1859) to the second, of which much
still remains to be published. The invocation of Isis (1880) and praise
of Imouthes-Asclepius (1381) were found in 1903, the Byzantine classical
pieces in 1897, the rest chiefly in 1905-6.
In editing the new classical fragments, especially the poetical
pieces (1858-1363), 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 early in 1916.
BERNARD P. GRENFELL.
ARTHURS. HUNT.
QueeEn’s CoLLEGE, OxrorD,
JUNE, 1915.
CONTENTS
PREFACE
List or PLATES
TABLE OF PAPYRI
ΝΌΤΕ on THE METHOD OF ΞΕ ΘῈ AND ‘Lee OF Αὐδδ ἀντ τἴοίϑ
TEXTS
THEOLOGICAL FRAGMENTS (1851-1857)
New CrassicaL Texts (1858-1368)
Extant CrasstcaL AuTHors (1869-1379)
Grarco-Ecypt1an Literary Papyri (1880-1384)
Homer Fracments (1385-1398) 3
Minor CrassicaL Fracments (1899-1404) .
APPENDIX
List or OxyruHyNcHus anp Hipen Papyri ΠΙΒΤΕΙΒΌΤΕΡ
INDICES
New CuassicaL FRAGMENTS - Z a : ᾿
PrrsonaL Names
GEOGRAPHICAL .
RELIGION . : :
GENERAL INDEX OF Gunes Worps . : ,
Supjects DiscussED IN THE INTRODUCTIONS AND ΝΌΤΕΒ
PassacEs DiscussED
248
253
262
263
264
267
273
276
LIST OF PLATES
I. 1851 recto, 1855 recto, 1857 Col.i. : Α ΞΟ
Il, 1858 ΕἸ. 2,1399. 5 ‘ i 2 : ἔξ 5
III. 1859 Frs. 2, 4, 1861 Frs. 1, 4,1876 Col.iv . 7 3
ΤΠ 1862 Ετι τ, Cola 2 : : : ὃ : : :
V. 1864 Fr. 1, Cols. v-vii . ; - : phe Ses ᾿
Vi. 1585: 1588 15.70.3... 2 EAE! ΚΝ εν
VII. 1869 Frs. 1-2 recto, 1870 Frs. 3 recto, 9 verso, 1871 recto
PABLE OF PAPYRI
(Ax asterisk denotes texts not printed in full)
DATE
1351. Leviticus xxvii (on vellum; PlateI) . . 4th cent.
1352. Psalms Ixxxii, ]xxxiii (on vellum) . Early 4th cent.
1353. First Epistle of Peter v(onvellum) . , . 4th cent.
1354. . Epistle to the Romans i : : . 6th or 7th cent.
1355. Epistle to the Romans viii (Plate 1) ‘ 3 « — 9rd. cent,
1356. Philo : grd cent.
1357. Calendar of Chur ch buries (Plate ie 535-6 .
1358. Hesiod, Cafalogue iii (Plate 11) 3rd cent.
1359. Hesiod, Catalogue (Plate III) Early 3rd cent.
1360. Alcaeus Late 2nd cent.
1361. Bacchylides, Scolia (Plate II!) Ist cent.
1362. Callimachus, Aefra (Plate IV) Ist cent.
1363. Callimachus, /amdéz (Plate VI) 2nd or early 3rd cent. .
1364. Antiphon Sophistes, Περὶ ᾿Αληθείας i (Plate v) Early 3rd cent.
1365. History of Sicyon (Plate VI) 3rd cent.
1366. Fragment of an Attic Orator Late 3rd cent.
1367. Heraclides Lembus, i tied of Hermipps, περὶ
Nopoberav . é Σ 3 Late 2nd cent.
1368. Romance 3rd cent.
1369. Sophocles, ieee “πῶ (Plate VII) 5th cent.
1370. Euripides, Medea and Orestes (Plate VII) 5th cent.
1371. Aristophanes, Clouds with scholia (Plate is 5th cent.
1372. Aristophanes, Frogs . ; 5th cent.
1378. Aristophanes, Peace and Keeps 5th cent.
1374, Aristophanes, Wasps 5th cent.
1375. Herodotus vii Early 2nd cent. :
1376. Thucydides vii (Plate IT) Late 2nd or early 3rd
cent. :
1877. Demosthenes, De Corona Late rst cent. B.c.
TABLE OF PAPYRI
Demosthenes, Contra Midiam
Livy i (Plate VI)
Invocation of Isis
Praise of Imouthes-Asclepius
Tale of Sarapis and Syrion
Sailor’s Song
Medical Recipes; Theological Extracts
Homer, Lizad ii
Homer, J/iad iv
Homer, liad v
Homer, J/zad vi :
Homer, //iad vii (on vellum)
Homer, Ziad ix
Homer, liad xi
Homer, Ziad xv
Homer, /izad xvi (on valle
Homer, Odyssey i
Homer, Odyssey vi (on τ πε ῸΣ
Homer, Odyssey ix :
Homer, Odyssey xviii with scholis
Homer, Odyssey xxi .
Title of Choerilus’ Epic (Plate II)
Fragment of a Comedy
Fragments of a Tragedy
Aristophanes (?) with scholia
Aristophanes (?)
Latin Fable
DATE
3rd cent.
Late 3rd cent.
Early 2nd cent.
2nd cent.
2nd cent.
Late 3rd cent.
5th cent.
5th cent.
3rd cent. ἢ
2nd cent.
Ist cent, B.C.
Late 4th cent.
5th cent.
5th cent.
3rd cent.
5th cent.
5th cent.
4th cent.
5th cent.
5th cent.
3rd cent.
Late 2nd or 3rd cent. .
2nd or early 3rd cent. .
5th cent.
5th cent.
5th cent.
3rd cent.
PAGE
187
188
190
221
234
236
238
242
242
242
242
242
242
242
243
244
244
244
244
244
244
245
245
246
246
247
247
NOTE ON THE METHOD OF PUBLICATION AND
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS
THE general method followed in this volume is the same as that in
Parts I-X. Of the new classical texts, 1860-2 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 isa 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 { δ 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 Papyrusforschung, 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. I-II, by F. G. Kenyon ;
Vol. III, by F. G. Kenyon and H. I. Bell; Vol. IV, by H. I. Bell.
xii”
ἘΠ ine} lao}
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS
P. R. = Corpus Papyrorum Raineri, Vol. I, by C. Wessely.
. Cairo Maspero = Catalogue des Antiquités égyptiennes du Musée du Caire,
Papyrus grecs d’époque byzantine, by J. Maspero.
. Fay. = Fayim Towns and their Papyri, by B. P. Grenfell, A. 5. Hunt, and
D. G. Hogarth.
. Flor. = Papiri Fiorentini, Vols. I and III, by G. Vitelli; ΝΟ]. ΠῚ, Ὁγ
D. Comparetti.
. Giessen = Griechische Papyri zu Giessen, Vol. I, by E. Kornemann, O. Eger,
and P. M. Meyer.
. Grenf. = Greek Papyri, Series I, by B. P. Grenfell; Series II, by B. P.
Grenfell and A. S. Hunt.
. Hamburg = Griech. Papyrusurkunden der Hamburgischen Stadtbibliothek,
by P. M. Meyer. ‘
. Hibeh = The Hibeh Papyri, Part I, by B. P. Grenfell and A. S. Hunt.
. Klein. Form. = Griech. Papyrusurkunden kleineren Formats, Studien z.
Palaeogr. und Papyruskunde iii, viii, by C. Wessely.
. Leipzig = Griechische Urkunden der Papyrussammlung zu Leipzig, Vol. Ι,
by L. Mitteis.
. Leyden = Papyri Graeci Musei Antiquarii Publici Lugduni- Batavi, by
C. Leemanns.
. Oxy. = The Oxyrhynchus Papyri, Parts I-VI and X, by B. P. Grenfell and
A. 5. Hunt; Parts VII-IX, by A. 5. Hunt.
. Par. = Les Papyrus grecs du Musée du Louvre, Wotices et Extraits, t. xviii. 2,
by W. Brunet de Presle and E. Egger.
. Petrie = The Flinders Petrie Papyri, Parts I-II, by 1 P. Mahaffy ; Part III, by
J. P. Mahaffy and J. G. Smyly.
. Reinach = Papyrus grecs et démotiques, by T. Reinach.
- Rev. Laws = The Revenue Laws of Ptolemy Philadelphus, by B. P. Grenfell,
with an introduction by J. P. Mahaffy.
. Ryl. = Catalogue of the Greek Papyri in the Rylands Library, Vol. I, by
A. 5. Hunt; Vol. II, by J. de M. Johnson, V. Martin, and A. S. Hunt.
P. Ryl. Coptic = Catalogue of the Coptic Papyri, by W. E. Crum.
. S. I. = Papiri della Societa Italiana, Vols. I-III, by G. Vitelli and others.
. Stud. Pal. = Studien zur Palaeographie und Papyruskunde, by C. Wessely.
. Tebt. = The Tebtunis Papyri, Part I, by B. P. Grenfell, A. S. Hunt, and
J.G.Smyly ; Part II, by B. P. Grenfell, A. 5. Hunt, and E. J. Goodspeed.
ΓΗ BOLOGICAL PRAGMENTS
1351. LEVITICUS xxvii.
2:6 χΧ 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. It 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.
(οι. 1. Col. ii.
To 7[0 ἐπίπεμπτον 15
του alpyuptov της Tet
5 μῆς kale εσται αὐτώ
αυτΊ]ο 12 cav δὲ απὸ του [αγρου της 16
Ο ἱερευς ava μἾεσον κα]τασχεσεαῖς αὐτου
ρ μ x
- : ᾿ ; [aytalon ανθρωπος Tw
[κυριω] και εστζαι
Verso.
Col. i. Col. ii.
10 0 αγι]ασας 19
[avrov προσθ]ησει το
[ἐπίπεμπτον] Tov ap φίεσεως αποδοθησε 24
2 THE OXYRHYNCHUS PAPYRI
[yuptov προς την TEL ee 5 |
[env alurov και εἶσται
15 [avrw] eav de uly λυ 20
ἱτρωσηται τίον
4--5. A omits της τιμης.
8. [αγια]ση: ayltaget FM.
15-16. λυτρωσἾηται : so the cursives 15, 53, 108, 118; Avrpwra is the usual reading.
1352. PSALMS ]xxxii, 1xxxiii.
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. θεός and κύριος are abbreviated as usual, but not vids
(ll. 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. Inl. 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 Il. 11, 15,
17, 21, 20.
Verso.
poé
κατα σου διαθηκην διεθοντο : Ta . xxx, Ὁ, ἢ
σκηνώματα tov ἶδουμαιων Kat οι
ἴσμαηλειται Μωαβ᾽ : και οι Ayyapn
vot Γαιβα και Appoev : και Apadnk’ 8
5 και αλλοφυλοι : μετα τῶν κατοι
κουντων Tupov : kat yap και Ασσουρ 9
10
15
20
25
30
35
1852. THEOLOGICAL FRAGMENTS
συνπαρεγενετο PET αὐτῶν : EYE
ιν
νηθησαν εἰς αντιλημψ τοις υἱοις
Aor :
site. διαψαλμα
ον Yn
ποιήσωμεν [alvros ws ty Μαδι-
ape και To σωσεισαρα: ws ο ἴαβειν
εν τῶ χειμαρρω Κεισων : εξολε
θρευθησαν : εν Acpdwp’ εγενηθη
σαν κοπρος Tn yn: εθου τους ap
χοντας avtwy ws tov pnd’ και
ZnB και Ζεβεβ᾽ και Σαλαμαν : a
παντὰς τοὺς ἀρχοντας αὑτῶν : Οἱ
τινες εἰπαν κληρονομησωμὲ
εαυτοις To αγιαστήριον του θυ:
ο Os μου εθου avrovs ὡς Tpoxor :
ὡς καλαμὴν κατὰ προσωπον >
Recto.
pir
ἀνεμου : woe πυρ o διαφλεξει δρυ
μον : ace prog KaTakavoat opn : ov
τως καταδιωξεις avTovs εν TH Ka
ταιγιδι σου : Kal εν TH οργὴ σου κατα
ἕξεις αὐτους ; πληρωσον Ta προσω
πα αὐτῶων ατειμιας : και ζητησου
σιν τὸ ονομῖία [ αὐτων ατειμιας : κ[α]ι
ζητησουσιν To ονομα cov κε :]| αισχῦ
θητωσαν Kat ταραχθητωσαν εἰς τον
αἰωνα TOU αἰωνος : καὶ ἐεντραπήτω
σαν Kat απολεσθωσαν [:] και γνωτωσαν
οτι ονομα σοι KS: σὺ μονος [lel] ὑψίστος
ἐπι Tacav τὴν γὴν:
Ty εἰς TO TEAOS UTEP τῶν ληνῶ
B 2
Io
II
12
13
14
15.
τό.
17
18.
Tg
Ixxxili.
4 THE OXYRHYNCHUS PAPYRI
τοις υἱοις Κορε Ψψαλμος
ὡς ἀγαπητα Ta σκηνώματα cov ΚΕ: 2
των δυναμεων : ἐπιποθεῖ Kat εκ 3
40 λείπει ἡ Wuxn pov εἰς τας αυλας Tov
κυ : ἡ καρδια μου και ἡ σαρξ μου ἡ
v
γαλλιασατο emt τον Ov Tov ζωντα :
Kal yap στρουθιον ευρεν eavT@ 4
1. διεθοντο: 1]. διεθεντο.
4. Ταιβα: Ταιβαλ $e®; Τεβαλ AT, Ναιβαλ Β.
5. και is omitted by Ne®T and many cursives.
10. διαψαλμα : om. ART.
II. ποιήσον, the corrected reading, is that of the MSS.
αὐτοις : avrovs R. There is no other authority for the insertion of yn after τη.
12. ], Σεισαρα (Σισαρα BbAT). Possibly the superfluous letters were dotted by the
corrector (cf. ll. 29, 34), for dots, if they had been inserted, would be no longer visible in this
place.
13. Κεισων : Κισσω(ν) A.
εξολεθρευθησαν : εξωλεθρ. A, εξωλοθρ. Bab,
14. Aepdop: cf. the cursive 276 Αερδωρ, 293 Αελδωρ; Αενδωρ BRART. The ὃ has
a dot over it and may be meant to be cancelled ; cf. Il. 29, 34.
15. kompos: ws κοπρος B, woe x. NART.
™ γῆ : τῆς yns R.
εθου: so Vet. Lat. posuish; θου other MSS.
16. Qpnd: Ὡρηβ MSS.
17. ZeBeB: Ζεβεε MSS.
Σαλαμαν : Σελμανα B, Σαλμανα MAR® (Σαλμαν R*) T, Σαλμαναν a number of cursives.
ἀπαντας : παντας MSS.
20. αγιαστηριον : SO RAT ; ϑθυσιαστηριον BR.
21. εθου : οἵ, 1.15; θου MSS.
23. aveyov: πυρος δὰ. R omits o after πυρ.
24. KaTaKavoat : κατακαύσει Εν:
26. καταξεις : ταραξεις BSA, ταραξης T, συνταραξεις R.
28. ζητησωσιν |.
29. ovoya: προσωπον A.
29-30. A dittography of avrwy . . . ovova has been inaccurately removed. In ]. 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 αὐτῶν in the previous line.
34. εἰ, as originally written, is found in B8; om. ART. The two letters have been
cancelled by dots added above the line. οὑψιστος R*.
37. Tos: OM. R.
39. επεποθει R. :
41. κ(υμιοὴυ : θ(εο)υ Σὰ, ηγαλλίασατο, as originally written, occurs also in the cursives
114, 202, 204. The alteration was made by the first hand.
42. τον θ(εοὴν τον ζωντα : SOR; θ(εοὴν ζωντα BRAT.
1353. THEOLOGICAL FRAGMENTS 5
1353. FIRST EPISTLE OF PETER v.
13:5 X 10-1 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. θεός and Χριστός 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 B against most other testimony is
noticeable in 1. 13 (cf. 1. 25), but there are divergences elsewhere, e. g. ll. 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
(ll. 11, 34); cf. in this respect 1075. introd., 1170.
Recto. Verso.
σκθ
δωσι χαριν τίαἸπεινω vy, 5, 6 opm [ἰυμων αἰδε]λφοτη
θη[τ]ε ουν ὕπο την κρία) τι επιτελεισθε [0] δὲ Os Io
ταιαὴν χειρα του θυ i> 20 maons xapit[ols [0] Kade
va vas ὕψωση ev σας nuas εἰς τὴν alw
5 Καιρω πασαν [τ]ην με 7 νιοἷν] αὐτου δοξαν ev
ριμνα[ν] ὕϊμων επιρι [X@ ολιγ]ον π[αἼθοντας
Ware ἐπ αυἷτον οτι αὖ [avros κα͵ταρτιει στη
τω μελει πίερι υμων 25 ἰριξει σθ]ενωσει avTw II
νήψατε γρηϊγορησα 8 ἱκρατος εἰι]ς τους αἰωνας
10 [τε] ο ἀντίδικος υἹμίω [των αἰωνων αμίην
[ο διαἸβοῖλος ws λεῖων δια Σιλουανου vpuv [2
[ωρ]νομενῖΐος περ͵ιπα του πιστΊου αδείλῴφου
[ret] ζητων [κα]τ[ αἸπεῖ 30 αἷς λογιζίομαι δῖε ολι
[@ αἸντιστητε στε 9 γίω]ν ἐεγραψα παρίακα
15 [ρεῖοι τη πι[στει εἰδὸ λων και επιμαρτίυρων
6 THE OXYRHYNCHUS PAPYRI
[Tels Ta avTa τῶν πα ταυτη [νἹ εἰναι αλη[θη
ἰθημα]των] τη εἰν] xo Χχαριν θυ] εἰς nv [στητε
35 ασ[πἸ]αζετίαι υἹμίας 13
3. χειρα: so BKL; χειραν SA. The complementary mark at the end of the line
is uncertain.
4. A dark mark above the line after ὑψωση is probably not to be regarded as a stop.
A diaeresis over uv of υμας is likely to have disappeared in a lacuna.
5. Katp@: A adds επισκοπῆς.
6. επιρήψατε:: επιρίρ)ιψαντες MSS.
g-10. It may be inferred from the space that ore did not precede ο asin NeL.
τι. [ο da]Bo[Aos : the 8, of which the vestige is hardly to be mistaken, is slightly to the
right of ο of ὠρνομενος, and since is an exceptionally broad letter it is clear that δια 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 ]. 34 below.
13. [κατα]πει(ν): so B (καταπιειν), Westcott-Hort; τινα καταπιειν NKL &c., τινα xaramiy
A ἄς. The common spelling καταπειν is found also in &* (καταπιν).
17. κοσμω: SO AKL &c.; τω κοσμω BN.
18. K transposes ὑμων αδελῴοτητι ; L omits υμων.
19. επιτελεισθε is for -σθαι.
21. ἡμας : 850 Καὶ ; υμας BRAL.
22. do€av: βασιλειαν και δοξαν L.
23. There is not room for τω which in B precedes Χριστω, nor for Ιησου which AKL
add after it.
24. ka |rapreet Ξ καταρτισει BNA ; καταρτισαι υμας KL
25. SKL ἄς. add θεμελιωσει after σθενωσει; BA agree with 1358 in its omission.
26. ς of el is slightly to the left of ν of c6|evwoe: and directly over the first ν of ato|yav.
It therefore appears that the reading here was still shorter than that of BA, and perhaps ro
was omitted, or ἡ dofa may have replaced ro κρατὸς as in cursive 45. SL have 7 δοξα και ro
κρατος, K ἡ δοξα xparos.
27. των αἰωνων : so NAKL &c.; om. Β.
32. There would be no rcom for και (δὴ) at the end of the line.
34. A(co)v]: του θεου all uncial MSS. But though the letters »@ here are damaged and
indistinct, there can be no doubt from the space that τοῦ was omitted, as in a few cursives,
including 13. At the end of the line eornxare (KL) would obviously be much too long.
1854. 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 difficult.
When complete, if the margin at the bottom of the columns was similar to that
1354. THEOLOGICAL FRAGMENTS 7
at the top, the leaf was about 28 cm. high, and its breadth may be estimated at
about 18cm. 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. 11. 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. 33, the initial letter of the following paragraph being also enlarged.
The usual contractions are found, including that of vids, though this word is once
written out (1. 6). Textually the fragment is of slight interest.
Recto.
προς Plwpaious
[IIavros δουλΊος Iv Xv KANTOS απο i 1
ἰστολος αφωρισμενος εἰς ευαγγελιίο
[θυ ο προε]πηγγειλατο δια τῶ 2
5 ἱπροφητων)] αὐτου εν γραφαις a
[γιαις περι Tolv viov αὐτου Tov γε 3
ἰνομενου εκ σπερματος Aad κατα
[capka του ορἼισθεντος vv θυ εν 4
ἰδυναμει κατα] πνὰ aylwovvns εὗ a
10 [vactacews ν]εκρων Iv Xv του κυ
ἴημων δι ov] ἐλαβομεν yapw ᾿ 5
[και ἀποστολὴν εἸι[5] ὕπίακοην)] more
[ws ev πασιν τοις εθνεσιν υἿπερ τί οἣν
ἰονοματος αὑτοῦ ev ot|s ἐστε καὶ [υἹ 6
15 [mers κλητοι Iv Xv παῖσιν τοις ovo? 7
[ev Ῥωμη αγαπητοις bv κλητοις
[αγιοις χαριὶς ὕμιν και εἰρηνηὴ a
[πο θυ πρὸς ἡμωὴν Ka κυ Iv Xv
ΟΝ ΑΝ Seapets τω θω μου δια] Iv Xv 8
20 [περι παντων υἹμὼν οτι ἡ πιστις
υμων καταγγείλλ[ε]τε εν ὁλω τῶ
[
ἰκοσμω papruls yap ploy εἶστιν o] 9
[8s ὦ λατρευω)] ev πῖνι μου εν TH
8 THE OXYRHYNCAHUS PAPYRI
Verso.
ευαγγελιω Tov vU aluTov ws αδια
25 λίήπτως μνείαν υἱμων ποιουμαι
παντοίτ]ε ὑπερ τῶν ἱπροσευχων μου 10
δεομενος εἰ mas ηΐδη ποτε evodw
θησομαι ev τω θείληματι του Ov ελθεῖ
προς vas: επιποίω yap ιδειν υμας ti!
30 ἵνα τι μετάδω χαριϊσμα υμιν πνατικοὸ
εἰς TO στιρηχθηναῖι υμας τοῦτο δὲ εστῖ 12
συνπαρακληθηνε εἶν υμιν δια της
εν αλίλ]ηλοις πιστίεως υμῶν τε καὶ Epou
Ov [Oem Se ὑμας ayvoew ἀδελῴοι o 13
35 τι [πολλακις προεθεμην ελθειν
πίρ]ος [vpas και εκωλυθην ἀαχρι Tov dev
po ἵνα τινα καρίπον [oxo και εν ὑμιν
καθως και εν τοις λίοιποις εθνεσιν EA 14
Anow τε και βαρβαϊροις σοφοις TE Kat a
40 νοητοῖς οφιλετης εἰμι ovT® TO κατ € 15
με προθυμον kali υμιν τοις ev Ῥωμὴη |
ευαγγεϊλισ]ασθίαι ov yap επαισχυνομαι To 16
Eee Ey Set zee
2. Ἰ(ησο)υ Χ(ριστοὴυ : SO NAEGKL &c.; Χριστου Ιησου B and 209 (early earth cent.).
4. The supplement is a trifle short ; perhaps a small blank space was left after θ(εο)υ.
Line τα is analogous.
16. ev Popn: Om. G, which has ev ayatn for αγαπητοις. E omits αγαπ. θεου. |
18. 209 alone has Χ(ριστο)υ Ιη(σο)υ, as in verse 1. 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 of rjo
stands slightly to the left of the κ of xa in the line above and directly above μ of dev in the
line below, and there is evidently not room for πρωτὸν μεν ευχαριστω, the ordinary reading.
There is some authority for the omission of μεν (so 40*, Chrys., and some versons), but
this reduction would hardly suffice unless there was also a lipography of the sylable -ro.
Possibly mparov was written a.
21. 1. καταγγεἸλλ[εἾται ; cf. 1. 32.
22% plolv : 80 BRACD&EKL &c.; μοι D*G.
26. ὑπερ: 1, em with the MSS.
εὐ[αἸγγίελι]ον δυναΐμις yap θυ |
1354. THEOLOGICAL FRAGMENTS 9
31. 1. στηριχθηναῖι, The supplement is of full length and the readins of A, τουτεστιν,
would be quite suitable. The ε of δε may of course have been elided.
32. 1. συνπαρακληθηναι ; cf. 1. 21.
34. Whether the papyrus had ov θέλω or ov οιομαι (D*G) cannot be determined.
41. G omits τοις ev Ῥωμη.
42. It seems likely enough on considerations of space that the terminal -a: was written
as ε once or even twice in the lacuna.
'1855. EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS viii.
Fr.r 11-2X4-4cm. 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 l. 53 is
the only form of stop, and no other signs occur except the diaeresis. θεός and
πνεῦμα 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 ἐφ᾽ in 1. 16, and an illegible reading in 1. 17, where the unknown
variant «Aevdeplovrat ano for ελευθερωθησεται ano has been inserted by the
corrector.
Verso.
οἷν [tn σαρκι viii. 12
[Tov κατα oapka (nv εἰ yap κατα σαρκα ¢\nt[e] ped 13
[Aere αποθνησκειν εἰ de πνὶ Tas πραξειῆς Tov ow
ματος θανατουτε ζησεσθε ooo yap ml θυ αγον 14
5 [rae ουτοι wi θυ εἰσιν ov yap ελαβετε πνα] δουλειας 15
ἵπαλιν εἰς φοβον αλλα ελαβετε TVA υιοθε]σιας εν
ἰω κραζομεν αββα ο πῆρ αὐτο το TVA συνμαρτυ 16
[pec τω πνὶ ἡμὼν οτι ἐσμεν Tlexva Ov εἰ dle Texva 17
[kat κληρονομοι κληρονομοι] μεν θυ συνκλήηρονο
10 [μοι δε Xv εἰπερ συνπασχομεὴν ἵνα καὶ συνδοξα
To
15
20
25
30
35
40
THE OXYRHYNCAHUS PAPYRI
ἰσθωμεν λογιζομαι yap ort ovk] αξια [7Tla παθηματα
[rov νυν Katpov προς τὴν μελλΊουσαν δ οἸξα]ν ἀποκα
[λυφθηναι εἰς ἡμᾶς ἡ yap αποἸκαραδῖ[οἸκ[ια] της [κἾτι
[σεως την αποκαλυψιν των] ὕων Tov θυ απεκ
[Cexerar τὴ yap ματαίοτητι ἡ] κτισις ὑπεταγή
[ovy εκουσα adda δια τον υποτ]αἕαντα [elm ελπιδι
οἾυται ἀπ|9]
[ore και αὐτὴ 7 κτισις ελευθεργηωθη!. .]] της δου
[λειας της φθορας εἰς THY ελεϊυθεριαν της δοξης
[των τεκνων tov θυ οιδαμεν yap οτἶ] πασα ἡ κτι
σις συνστεναζει και συνωδινΊει αχρίι)] του νυν
3 lines lost.
βλεπομενη
[ουκ ἐστιν eAmis ο yap βλεπει τις ελπιζει εἰ δὲ ο ov
[βλέπομεν ελπιζομεν δι υπομονης απΊεκδεχ[ο]
[μεθα woavtws de και To TVA συναντιλαμβανεται
[τη ασθενεια nuwv το yap τι προσευξωμεθα κα
[θο dec οὐκ οἰδαμεν adda αὑτὸ To Tva υπερεϊν[τ]υγχα
[νει στεναγμοις ἀλαλητοις o de εραυνων τας Καρ͵]διας
Recto. Plate I.
τις [eykadeoe κατα εκλεκτων θυ Os o δικαίων τις
ο κατίακρινων Xs Is ο αποθανων μαλλον de εγερθεις
os Kale ἐστιν ev δεξια του θυ os και ἐντυγχάνει ὑπερ
ἡμωΐν τις ἡμας χώρισει ἀπὸ THS ayamns του Χυ
θλιψις ἡ στενοχώρια ἡ διωγμος ἡ λιμὸς ἡ γυμνοτης
ἡ κινίδυνος ἡ μαχαιρα Kabws γεγραπται οτι eveKev
σου θ[αἸνατουμίεθα ολην την ἡμεραν ελογισθημεν
ὡς προβατα σφαΐγης αλλ εν τουτοις πασιν UmEpYLKM
μὲν δια Tov αγαϊπησαντος nuas πεπεισμαι yap οτι
ovre θανατος ov[re ζωὴ ovre ἀγγελοι ovTe ἀρχαι ov
τε εἐνεστωτὰ ουἷτε peAdovTa ovTe δυναμεις οὔτε
ὕψωμα ovte βαΐθος ovre τις κτισις ετερα δυνησεται
33,
18
τ
20
21
22
27
34
35
36
37
38
39
1855. THEOLOGICAL FRAGMENTS Il
[nluas χωρισαι anlo της ayamns Tou θυ της ev Xw lv
[τ]ω Κῶ npov [αληθειαν λεγω ev Xw ov ψευδομαι ae
45 ouvpaptupovons [pot τῆς συνειδησεως μου εν πνι
αγίω οτι λυπὴη plo. εστιν μεγαλη και αδιαλειπτος oO 2
δυνη τη Kapdia μίου ηυχομὴν yap αναθεμα εἰναι av 3
Tos ey@ amo του Χίυ ὑπερ τῶν αδελῴφων μου τῶν συγγε
vov μου κατα σίαρκα
3 lines lost.
αἰωνίας ἀμὴν οὐχ οιον δὲ ott ἐκπέεπτωκεν ὁ λογος 5, 6
του θυ oly yap παντες οἱ e€ Ind ουτοι Ind ουδ ort 7
55 εἰσιν σΐπερμα Αβρααμ παντες τεκνα αλλ εν Ισαακ
κληθησεῖται σοι σπερμα τοῦτ εστιν οὐ τὰ τεκνὰα τῆς 8
σαρκοῖς TavTa τεκνὰ τοῦ θυ αλλα τα τεκνα τῆς ἐπαγγε
λιας λ[ογιζεται εἰς σπερμα επαγγελιας yap ο Aoyos 9
ουτος [κατα τον Kalpov τοῦτον ελεύυσομαι Kat
60 εσῖται
3. του σαΐματος: so BNACKL &c.; τῆς σαρκος DEFG.
7. It is quite unlikely that wore, which in DE precedes αὐτο, stood in the papyrus.
14. του : om. FG.
τό. [εἶπ : so ABSCD¢CEKL ἄς. ; ef B*SCD*FG.
17. What was originally written in place of the ordinary reading ἐλευθερωθησεται aro is not
clear; no variant is recorded. Perhaps the first hand wrote ηλευθερωθὴ ex; the corrector
substituted ελευθερουται amo. At the beginning of the line it is improbable that διοτι
(S&D*FG) was read, the supplement being already of ample length.
19. yap: Se 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
τι kat followed τις as in SCACKL &c. The most suitable reading is that of B (so Westcott-
Hort); ΒΡ ΘΕῸ have τις τι, 8* τις kat. On the same ground ελπιζει (BNCCDFGKL &c.) is
preferable to vmopeves (ΝΑ).
30. There would clearly be no room for the addition of ὑπερ ἡμων (NCCKL &c.) before
στεναγμοις.
32. It is practically certain that ex vexpov (S*AC) did not follow ἐγερθεις. With regard
to the omission of I(ncov)s (so BDEK) and the addition of xa before ἀποθανων (so DEFGKL),
the space gives no evident indications.
33- kale: so BRCDEFGKL ; om. N*AC. ἡ
- 34. The supplement here is rather shorter than in the adjacent lines, and perhaps ov» |
was read after τις with FG.
39. Tov αγαΐπησαντος : so BNACKL; τὸν ayamnoavra DEFG.
40. In DE ovre efovora precedes ovre apxat, in C ovre εξουσιαι follows ; the papyrus
12 THE OXYRHYNCHUS PAPYRI
evidently had neither of these readings. It is equally certain that ovre δυναμεις followed
μέλλοντα, not apya as in KL.
42. τις may well have been omitted, as in DEFG.
44. [τ ω κ(υρι)ω: του κυριου ACFG. The papyrus possibly read Ι(ησο)υ after Χ(ριστ)ω
with D*EFG.
47-8. ἀναθεμα εἰναι avjros ey: αὖτ, eyo aval. εἰν. ΓΚΙ..
48. απο: so ΒΝΑΟΘΕΚΙ, &c.; ὑπο DEG. μου, which is omitted after adehpov by
D*FG, is required to fill the space.
49. τῶν kaTa DEFG.
54. ovrot Ἰ(σραγηλιται with DEFG is not impossible.
56. The space would admit of ore ov (δ 58").
57. τοῦ may have been omitted before 6(co)u, as in FG.
1356. PHILO.
Fol.4 16x 15-5 cm. Third century.
The following 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. 20 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 insidiatur. But the fragment is not to be found in the
13856. THEOLOGICAL FRAGMENTS 13
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, ll. 6-10, and the verso is concerned
with prayer. Of Fol. 11, another independent leaf, only a small corner from
the top remains. Frs. 1 and 2 are in the hand of Fols. 1, 4-7, 10-11; Fr. 3
is in that of Fol. 9, from the De Wercede Meretricis, but belongs to some other
treatise.
Fol. 4 recto.
p48
Tes TNS Ψυχῆς την Tept..avo.[.....].[..
εἐπιμελειας Kal προστασιας Tol.\.....--- av
Olplomivev mpaypatov ap..[....-...4.-
εν ἀρεταῖς καλλιστευουσης oor..[...]...-. [.
5 σιν ots δεοντως αν εἰποιμεν τε... Ϊ. . - - .1. μι
κροψυχια την θεου μεγαλονοιαν Trapaple|rpe
τε ἡ οὐκ εισθ οτι ηἡμεις [|| παθημία]σι μονΐο]ις
εἐλαυνομεθα και παραθηγομεθα πρίος αἸφρονας
ἐπεξοδους αναγκαζομενοι ποιεισθαι [Jro . hp.
IO TE avayl@ Kat ἀποῴφω προσεστιν λογισμω
yap pove χρηται KuBepyntn Tovs ἀρμοττον
Tas εκαστοις Καιροὺυς περιαρθρειν .. ς ανδρεῖς
a2 eee φιλοσοφια συμβιουν emipoppagoly
Tes .. υνδ.]. ε.. γυναικος γ. ἡτριδος συγ. |.
15 φους evBovdra [Tolvs περι θεων ηἡττωμενίους
φησι [γ]αρ θεοι δῖ... .]. νεσω.. 1. .] . τικαδαηΐ. .. ..
Ἐκ MU Π wh ares 208, :..: WAG). ὦ
vibe ΑΞ ΘΕ | 25 letters
eae Raya) dye fh 2s,
20 |
fl 30 ”? Κα
τοργασ. Ϊ. .]. δῖ Bie ey
ekev αἴ 711 25 »
THE OXYRHYNCHUS PAPYRI
Fol. 4 verso.
ΡΦῪ
[. .Jrn[.. +. -] τοὺς νομους θελει οὐκ ευκαταφρονη
25 Τίοὶς οἷυν δοκίηθεντι Κροισὼ τῶν καθ εαυτὸον ama
τίων γενομεῖνων ευδαιμονεστατω εἰναι Kaba
φαῖσιν εκ τοῖν Δελφικου τριποδος ενθουσιων o a
λ[η]θη[9] μίαν)τις προυθεσπισεν τελος οραν μακρου
β[ιοὴν τίων ylap αδικων ατειμωρητος ovders προς
30 αἰλ]ηθειᾳ[ν] αφειεται δικας de tas apportoveas
διδωσιν εἰ] καὶ μη evOus αλλ οψε youv ws oLovTac
τινες owe yap οὐδεν των ev τὴ φυσει BpaBevov
σι πανίτ]α δὲ εν καίρω διδωσι μεντοι και εἰ μὴ ενταῦ
θα και παρ ἡμειν αλλ εναουτε Tapa δικασῆταις
35 [κ]ρειττοσι λελυμενοις τῶν σώματος decpo
[o tla παθη και τας κακιας εζωπυρει Kat ενεφλε
[γ]εν εξ εαυτου ψυχαῖς yap ψυχας δικαζοντες yu
μνας ολας δι ολων κατανοοῦσι εἰιλικρινως οὗ
[0] αυθ ὑπο των περιαπτων |... .|y κατειλημπτο
40
σι
πρίοτερον απ. . “μενοι. [- .] . εν τινε σὺν Xo
[aE DG. ol Cane ericwaye satin cepa ον ciate Ἰυς ἐσὼω ε.Ϊ....
[ 25 letters )..02 ba) sie
[ Boise ] αἰποΊκρι
[ 32 ” 7 Ἰασι
45 [ 8. a Ἰατρί.}
[ a7 ΠΣ 71. [γε . τυρα
ἱν 24 Ἱμα yupvagoy
Fol. 8.
Verso. Recto.
akovely εγνω nf Ἰγοπίο]ιοι ὃ ουδεν
το ἀντι θυ... .jrf αν 25 ᾿ Ἰεναι οντων
θρωπους [ εἸμπνευθε
pevad| 1 228 tea
5 akpara p.[ 1. de εξ αποστο
1356. THEOLOGICAL FRAGMENTS
as ἐπενΐ Ἰτγομεν
ρειτεφί 30 ἡἹμιν
πανιΪ : των ολων
προ Too . [ res do
ἄλλα mp. [ 1..σα.
about 9 lines lost. 34 1. εὐ - τ:
Af... -].[ about 8 lines lost.
eTepous Ϊ malvoupyov
ae | 45 1. [vous
si |
}
Ἰν
Fol. 10 recto.
εμπειροΐ
evxeTar Til
avadiday Of
vos ἢ πηδαλ[ιουχων (?)
5 lows ὃ ovde 7. [
ερριζωμενος Ϊ
τρον π᾿. .Ϊ
μηδε γυρευσαι φυτον [
απο πηγῆς αποχετευσαι pl
IO μαι τον apdo η ταυτί
οὐχ Ελλην μονον αλλα Kale βαρβαρος
μενα μαρτυς de και al
gov πρὸς Καμβησην . [
> εἰποντα {...]...{
15 «|. lov of
Fol. 10 verso.
] λογισμου
σθαι Kata
ja kat αθροα
τό THE OXYRHYNCHUS PAPYRI
TalpecT@oal TH
20 7 evxais αποτει
1 οὐκ επισταμε
|v aperns θυ μελε
1 τελουσι τας evxas ἰστω
] πρεπον ευσεβε[α κοσμον οι
25 lfovres παρατηρήτεον de
Ἱλεστερων μηδ oca δυνατοι
Jey εὐχεσθαι δει yap τας συ
7 διδοντος μαλλον ἡ adge
μ]ετρεισθαι παρ o και δημο
30 [σι ] Tov ὑπερ τῆ
Fol. ττ.
Recto. Verso.
σωφροσυνηΐ 5 Ἰν εφειεται ἢ
κατασκευΐα ει Ἰγουσαι ov exo
pnyny θεῖ Joy
τ Ἰτης ὑπο Kj. .
|o
Pra?
]. κλοπαῖς Kat αἀρπαγῖίαις ja gf
Recto. Verso.
φυσις αἱ 5. 1: od]. «1αι
13856. THEOLOGICAL FRAGMENTS 17
τωσεΐ εἶστιν αλλο
ε jew
ae ] 5 τι dv
τὴς τὼ ae eee
Fr. 3.
Recto. Verso.
] φλλαῖ Javon)
Jee και . [ ]- era δῖ
Wf] «1 Ἰ γνήσιον [
Ἰ εἰπὼν οἱ Ἰανοησας |
5. Ἰεντα" doy a 15 lov ¢wvr[r
Jax τω" τουΐ Ἰιοχος τεῖ
71. a de raf Ἰκτως φ.[
Ἰαυταιῖ 7. are. καὶ
al Ἵ mpoot
10 oor 20 Ἰανεῖ
J.
Fol. 4. 1. The letter after περι may be z, but πὰ is unsatisfactory and a substantive is
rather expected. περιτιτανωσζιν is possible (cf. Hesych. (re)reravopévas yeyvipopévas).
5. s Of os has been corrected ; apparently the scribe began to write ὃ, Both τη and τι
seem to be inadmissible after εἰποιμεν.
6. θεοὺ : for the absence of contraction cf. ll. 15 and 16. Elsewhere in this MS. the
contracted form is used.
g. ἐπέξοδος 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 Ἰγων would suit the remains, but the construction is obscure.
10. anode after avayw looks like a corruption of avoow. τε is perhaps displaced.
12. mepiapOpew is presumably for περιαθρειν, which occurs in Philo ap. Euseb. Praep.
Evang. pp. 387 ο, 3938 (Mangey, ii, p. 636. 1, p. 641. 23); Philo also uses περιάθρησις.
The next word is possibly os.
13. The vestiges are consistent with ovp φιλ., though the v is too far from the pz.
εἐπιμορφαζειν 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 d[e] περι is a possible reading, but the * would be unsatisfactory and the passage
apparently devoid of construction. The ἄνδρες would rather be expected to be brought into
some relation with the γυνή. γοητριδος, if that is the word intended, is intelligible though
ς
18 THE OXYRHYNCHUS PAPYRI :
a novel form. Below the interlinear o 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 ovy.[ or
συπΐ seems inevitable,
23. Apparently not εκοντ.
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 ; for judging with their souls naked souls they see them distinctly through
and through.’
24. Some ink marks in the margin above οὐκ are probably accidental.
25. t[o]s suits the space better than z[e]s, and δοκίηθεντι perhaps better than οἰἤηθεντι,
Croesus is referred to by Philo also in ii, p. 60. 13 and p. 468. 116 Mangey.
26. av6pa|\rev is inadmissible.
27-9. According to the well-known story in Hdt. i. 32 the warning τέλος ὁρᾶν was given
to Croesus by Solon; cf. Diogen. viii. 51 τέλος ὅρα βίου (μακροβίου cod. Pant.; cf. μακρου
βιου here)’ τοῦτο τὸ ἀπόφθεγμα Σόλων εἶπε Κροίσῳ. In]. 27 φασιν is extremely doubtful.
31-2. oe xrd.; cf. e.g. Eurip. Fr. 224 Δίκα τοι δίκα χρόνιος, ἀλλ᾽ ὅμως ὑποπεσοῦσ᾽ ἔλαθεν,
ὅταν ἔχῃ tw ἀσεβῆ βροτῶν, Fr. 969 ἡ Δίκη. .. σῖγα καὶ βραδεῖ ποδὶ στείχουσα μάρπτει τοὺς κακοὺς
ἀεὶ βροτῶν. βραβευουσι has no definite subject and is perhaps an error for βραβευεται.
34. evaoure: 1. ev Α(ι)δου ye. For other uncorrected corruptions in this text cf. e.g.
Fol. 7 recto. 21 και yeahs for χλιανθ. and Fol. το. 8-10 below.
39. περιαπτων : cf. e.g. Philo i, p. 288. 6 Mangey ἀπαμφιασάμενοι τὰ περίαπτα γυμνὴν
ἐπιδείκνυνται τὴν ὑπόκρισιν. [vp oly might well be restored in the following lacuna, but there
then seems to be no subject for the verb unless κατείλήμπτο was regarded as plural.
40. συν : apparently not ov.
Fol. 8. 9. The doubtful σ is possibly «; the next letter has a vertical stroke and is not
a NOr o.
24. Ἰγοπίοἤ]ιοι : the first letter may be τ, and γ[ο]ν could be read in place of πίοἤι.
25. jevac: OF e{e]var.
33. The vestige after ca may be a medial stop.
Fol. 10. 4. πηδαλιοῦχος and πηδαλιουχεῖν are Philonian words, 6. g.i, p. 145. 33, Ρ. 131.
43 Mangey.
: 8. γυρευσαι is a vox nihil’; was φυτεῦσαι meant? ‘The ε has been corrected, perhaps
rom a.
9. ἀποχέτευσις is used by Philo (Mangey, i, p. 29), but apparently not the verb.
1o. A blank space is left after apdo, the archetype being presumably illegible or
defective. apdovra would be in keeping with the context.
13. προ σκαμβης is unattractive here, and we prefer to suppose that καμβησην was written
for Καμβυσην ; both paprus δε in ]. 12 and eovra in 1. 14 are in favour of a proper name.
14. For the use of the diplé 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. af.
1886. THEOLOGICAL FRAGMENTS 19
30. The reason for the comma-shaped mark after ὑπερ is not evident. Such marks are
not infrequently inserted at this period between doubled consonants, but would not be
expected between ὑπερ and την, and there is no parallel elsewhere in 1173 or 1856.
Fol. 11. 6. The first letter may be either y or τ, and ov exw may be ovs xo-.
Fr. 2. 1. The a has been rewritten. ,
4. v is made with a very long diagonal stroke in order to fill up the line.
Fr. 3. 5. The supposed stop may be the top of an «.
11. The spacing suggests that the division was ]as ονΐ.
1857. 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 συνάξεις 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.
σύναξις (conventus 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 (De eccl. 167. i. 3) is incorrect, Socrates,
who discusses συνάξεις and states that at Alexandria on Wednesdays and Fridays
the scriptures were read and expounded, πάντα τε τὰ συνάξεως γίνεται δίχα τῆς τῶν
μυστηρίων τελετῆς (7157. v. 22), shows that in the fifth century σύναξις was used for
a service which generally included the celebration of the Eucharist. The word
passed into Coptic, e.g. Hyvernat, Actes des Martyrs,i, Ὁ. 249 ‘un jour quwils
faisaient la sainte σύναξις dans le τόπος des saints apotres Pierre et Paul, au
jour de leur commémoraison qui est le cinquiéme a’ Epip’ (cf. p. 29), and continues
in the calendar of the Greek Church with reference to services on certain
important occasions, e.g. 7 σύναξις τῆς Θεοτόκου on Dec. 26. Nilles (Kalend.
utriusque eccl. i, Ὁ. 53 and ii, pp. 61-4) notes, as others have done, the resemblance
to the Latin s¢ationes 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 συνάξεις and the Roman szazzones 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 (IT).
ς 2
20 THE OXYRHYNCHUS PAPYRI
The text is in two columns, containing 32 and 36 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. 56 might
possibly come from a later column. The script is a rather large, somewhat
irregular uncial, the size of A, v, and x 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 Il. 1, 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 Χριστοῦ 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 II 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.
II is thus shown to be concerned with the year 535-6, less than a century
1357. THEOLOGICAL FRAGMENTS 21
after the Council of Chalcedon (451), which caused a schism in the Alexandrine
Church, and to fall 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 536 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 [I 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. 26), 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 (Il. 24-7, note).
On the general character of early church festivals and calendars see
Duchesne, of. czz. 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. 11-23, which gives a list of festivals observed
in Syria. Of the Latin Church the earliest calendars are the short Philocalian
tables (336) 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 II, 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 of. czt. x, pp. 187-210 (thirteenth-fourteenth
century), by Tisserand from Abul-Barakat in of. czt. x, pp. 252-78 (thirteenth
century), Wiistenfeld’s Synaxarium (fifteenth century; the second half of the
year was never issued), and Basset’s (from fourteenth and sixteenth century
MSS.; Patrol. Orient. i, pp. 224 544. and iii, pp. 247 sqq., covering Thoth—
Choiak only). For the modern calendar of the Eastern Churches see Nilles,
op. cit. and Malan, Calendar of the Coptic. Church. QI’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 1 =
Aug. 29) but Phaophi 23 (Oct. 21, not 20, in 535), this date being explained by
the title (11. 1-2), which states that the list refers to συνάξεις ‘after the πάπας
descended to Alexandria’. Πάπας was the ordinary title in Egypt of the
Alexandrian patriarch, e.g. in P. Amh. 3 (a). iii. 5 (cf. Deissmann, Licht vom
22 THE OXYRHYNCHUS PAPYRI
Osten, Ὁ. 137), Brit. Mus. 113 (10). 12, but it is applied also to presbyters and even
subordinate clergy, e.g. P. Brit. Mus. 417. 3 πάπας ‘Eppoumddews (a village in the
Arsinoite nome; cf. Deissmann, of. czz. Ὁ. 150) and 1631. ix verso. 1. In
P. Giessen 55. 2, as Mr. Crum remarks, π'π' means πρεσβύτερος, which is often
thus abbreviated in Coptic papyri, not πάπας, as suggested by the editor. In
1857 the mention of Alexandria and the obvious importance of the πάπας 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. I. 216. 4);
but κατελθεῖν 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. 21. 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 συνάξεις,
or about Easter or later, if it is a record of συνάξεις 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 σύναξις
in an interval between continuous συνάξεις from Dec. 19-28 and Jan. 7-13. That
is the only case where a Sunday is certainly omitted in II ; 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. 1 to set forth a comprehensive list of συνάξεις, 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. ll. 8, 10-11, and 24), at which the bishop of Oxyrhynchus was
very likely present. At Rome the s¢ationes are now 87, on 83 different days in
a year, distributed among 44 churches (Nilles, of. cit. ii. 63); at Oxyrhynchus
the συνάξεις 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 συνάξεις may have exceeded 1 30, 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
συνάξεις took place on Tubi 1 (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 εἰς
in 6. 5. εἰς τὴν ἁγί(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
1357. THEOLOGICAL FRAGMENTS 23
already common in sixth-century documents, e.g. 141. 3 (p. 25) and
P. Stud. Pal. x. 35 (p. 24). 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 συνάξεις or
of the public, is the most probable explanation of the care expended on its
production.
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 II, 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
νοτινὴ ἐκ[κλησία in ll. 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 (48 verso. iii. 20). 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
(Gott. gel. Anz. 1898, p. 676) wished to regard ἐκκλησία in 48 as a place of
assembly. The βορρινὴ ἐκκλησία mentioned in 48 verso. i. 10 perhaps occurs in
1. 50, which can be restored εἰς] τὸ β[ορρινὸν μαρτύριον. ἐκκλησία and μαρτύριον are
sometimes treated as synonymous at this period, as is indicated by e.g. 941. 3
οἰκονόμου Tod ἁγίου “lovcrov ... ἀντὶς τοῦ μαρτυρίου and 1811 ᾿Ανιανὸς πρ(εσβύτερος)
μαρτυρ(ίου) aa ᾿Ιούστου, this μαρτύριον being no doubt the same as the church of
St. Justus in 1. 10 of Π; cf. 1151. 50 and p. 27. The ἄμφοδον ἁγίας Εὐφημίας at
Oxyrhynchus known from 1038. 23 is moreover to be connected with the church
of that saint (cf. 1. 41, note), and the οἰκ(ονόμος) τοῦ ἁγίου Γαβριήλ in 993 with the
church named in 1. 54.
Except in the case of the ‘Southern church’ and possibly the ‘ Northern
martyrium’, ἐκκλησία and μαρτύριον do not occur in II, but ἐκκλησίαν has to be
supplied with τήν before μαρτύρ(ων) (1. 5), Φοιβάμμωνος (e.g. 1. 3), ᾿Αννιανῆς (Ll. 27
and 44), and ἄμα [Ἡραίδος (1. 40). On the church ‘of the Martyrs’ see 1. 5, note.
Phoebammon is presumably identical with the saint of that name (Amélineau,
Les actes des martyrs, pp. 54-9), whose day in later times (but not in II; cf.
Il. 46-8) was Tubi 27, and who is well known from many Theban and other Coptic
texts (cf. e.g. Crum, Coptic Ostraca, p. xii) and Christian inscriptions (e. g. that
quoted in 1. 20, note), besides B.G.U. 694 (Arsinoé, seventh-eighth century),
P. Brit. Mus. 1430, &c. (church or monastery at Aphrodito, eighth century),
P. Stud. Pal.x. 35 (sixth or seventh century). Ofthe last-mentioned papyrus, which
is a list of ὄψα supplied to various churches and monasteries at an unnamed town,
we append the text with some additional restorations :
24 THE OXYRHYNCHUS PAPYRI
+ Ocoddpo [ εἰς τὸν ἅγιον Pirdgevoly.. .
(ὑπὲρ) βρεουίου ὄψωϊν. .. εἰς τὸ μοναστήρ(ιον) τῶν [...
καρπῶν πέμπτης ἰνδικτίονος τῶν παρθενευουσῶν [...
εἰς τὸ μοναστήρ(ιον) τῶν |... ἀββᾶ Μαρκέλλου...
5 εἰς τὸν ἅγιον Φοιβάμμ[ωνα. .. 15 ABpaapiov |...
εἰς τὴν ἁγίαν Evdnpifav... εὐχαριστῶ. .Ϊ...
εἰς τὴν ἁγίαν ἄμα ‘Aplaiv... 711]: τὰν
εἰς τὸν ἀρχάγγελον [Μιχαὴλ (Γαβριὴλ ?) [- - Ἰφαρί. ..
εἰς τὸν ἅγιον ἀββᾶ. ]... [Dir δηίππου |...
Io εἰς τὸ μοναστήρ(ιον) ἀββᾶ ᾿Ανδρέου ἢ 20) πε ἘΠ]
The churches of SS. Phoebammon, Euphemia, and Philoxenus (ll. 5, 6, 11)
correspond to the churches in Il. 3, 51, and 24 of Π; ἡ ἁγία ἄμα Ἣ [αίς (so Crum
inl. 7; Wessely reads ’Ayay .[) may be identical with ἄμα... in 1. 40 of Π; the
archangel (1. 8) is doubtless Μιχαήλ or Γαβριήλ (cf. 11. 8 and 54 of II), and the
ἅγιος 4884 .[... (1. 9) may well be the saint in 1. 49 of I, while the monastery in
1. το can be that mentioned in 146. 1 and 147.1. Whether ἀββᾶ Μαρκέλλου and
᾿Αβρααμίου (Il. 14-15) are names of churches or monasteries or of private persons
is not clear; they do not occur in I, but in view of the marked coincidences in
Il. 5-11 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 p of ἄμα Ἣ [αίν is uncertain, and in 1. 40 of Π᾿᾿Αμα[ίου could be read (cf Βα...
682.1 = P. Klein. Form. 783 ἐνοικ(ίου) rod ἁγίου ᾿Αμαιω, perhaps a mistake for
᾿Αμαίου, a name occurring in e.g. P. Klein. Form. 6 55. 3), or e.g. ᾿Αμαϊρανθίου, or
᾿Αμαϊντίου (a reputed martyr under Hadrian; cf. Ruinart, Acta martyrum sincera,
p. 18). But ἄμα “Hpais is a well-known Coptic saint, whose day was Tubi 28
(Jan. 23); cf. Hyvernat, Actes i. 78 sqq. With regard to the two omissions of
ἅγιος in II, where P. Stud. Pal. x. 35. 5 and 7 insert it, scribes are often inconsistent
in thesemployment of that term (cf. e.g. 146. 1 with 147. 1); but the uniform
use in Π of the accusative, not the genitive with τήν, in the names of ἅγιοι
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 ἅγιοι was already attested, e.g. at
Oxyrhynchus (1058. 23 ἐκκλησία ἀββᾶ ‘Iepaxiwvos, later a Coptic saint; cf. 1. 46,
note), Aphrodito (P. Brit. Mus. 1419. 524. ἐκκλ(ησία) Ἑρμείου), Arsinoé (ἐκκλησία
13857. THEOLOGICAL FRAGMENTS 25
Ἰσίωνος, 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, Dict.de larchéol. chrét. i,
pp. 1110 544.). 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 II, they
have not survived in the modern Coptic calendar. Anniane may be identical with
the ᾿Ανιανή 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 ll. 14-19) and the services at Anniane’s church on Choiak 12
and Tubi17. 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 Arsinoé
in the seventh or eighth century (P. Klein. Form. 299 ἐκκλησία ᾿Ισίωνος, this Ision
being apparently identical with the ἄπα Ἰσίίζων whose monasteries are mentioned in
op. cit, 603); cf. pp. 26-7.
Other churches mentioned in 1857 include nine which were called after the
principal saints, St. Mary (1. 30), the archangels Michael (1. 8) and Gabriel (1. 54),
SS. Peter (1. 33) and Paul (1. 34?), the prophets Jeremiah (1. 46) and Zachariah
(1. 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: (1) 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 Π’᾿ 5 list ; (2) 141. 3 θυρουρ(ῷ) τοῦ ἁγίου ᾿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
26 THE OXYRHYNCHUS PAPYRI
‘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 (I. 22), Euphemia (1. 51), Julianus or
Julius (1. 48), Justus (1. 10), Menas (1. 11), apa Noup (1. 56), Theodorus (I. 65),
Theodotus (1. 63?), and Victor (1. 20) are still commemorated by the Coptic
Church, but not SS. Philoxenus (I. 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 Ὁ
(1. 46, note). The churches most frequently visited on the occasions of συνάξεις
were those of Phoebammon (8 ovv.), 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 συνάξεις were
held, at the others 2 or 1. According to Rufinus, who visited Oxyrhynchus early
in the fifth century, the city contained 12 churches zz quibus publicus agitur
populi conventus (i.e. σύναξις) exceptis monastertis in quibus 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
A.D. 535 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 IT provides some valuable information concerning
the various festivals and other days on which συνάξεις took place. Phaophi 25
(Oct. 22) was a ‘day of repentance’, a novel expression. A μοναστήριον τῆς
μετανοίας at Alexandria is known from P. Flor. 298. 54, and the word is used in the
Greek and Coptic Churches for ‘ obeisance’ (Nilles, of. cit.i, p. xiv). 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 κυριακὴ τῆς δευτέρας παρουσίας
is the Western Sexagesima, and the observance of the τεσσαρακοστὴ τοῦ ἁγίου
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, of. cit. p. 192, Tisserand, p. 258), but since the fifteenth
i ἘΞ
13857. THEOLOGICAL FRAGMENTS 27
century (cf. Wiistenfeld, of. czt., Hathur 4) on the day following. The omission of
ἁγίου 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 ἁγίου 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 ἅγιος
in the two papyri referring to his church and monasteries at Arsinoé (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 (Il. 8-g, Hathur 12-13 =
Nov. 8-9), Justus (]. το, Hathur 14 = Nov. 10), Menas (1. 11, Hathur 15-16 = Nov.
11—-12),and Philoxenus (Il. 24—7, Choiak 22—5 = Dec. 18-21), which were celebrated
by συνάξεις in their own churches (cf. p. 19). The archangel Michael’s and
St. Menas’ days (the first of the successive συνάξεις) coincide with their dates in
the mediaeval and modern Coptic and Greek calendars (a σύναξις of the archangel
in the Greek ; cf. p. 19); but St. Philoxenus’ day, in Egypt at any rate, was not
known previously ; cf. ll. 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 (1)
St. Justus the patriarch now honoured on both Phamenoth 16 (March 12) and
Pauni 12 (June 6), (2) the Justus whose Aczs are extant (cf. Amélineau, Les actes
des martyrs, p. 177), ἃ martyr at Antinoé, honoured in the mediaeval calendars on
Mecheir 9, (3) the companion martyr of St. Apollo (Mesore 1), 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 μαρτύριον ara Ἰούστου
at Oxyrhynchus, as the church is apparently called elsewhere (cf. p. 23), would
better suit the martyr of Antinoé. 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 σύναξις on Hathur 17 might be connected
with the Alexandrine custom in the fifth century (cf. p. 19) of holding συνάξεις on
28 THE OXYRHYNCHUS PAPYRI
Wednesdays. But the other two days are Tuesday and Monday, and the συνάξεις in
II 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 ]. 56 more frequent in II than any other week-day (7 συνάξεις,
the next being Tuesday and Thursday with 5), but this seems to be accidental.
The practice in II apart from Lent is hardly in accordance with Socrates’ state-
ments (Hist.v. 22) concerning the importance of Saturdays as a day for συνάξεις in
Egypt outside Alexandria.
In the lacuna affecting Il. 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 Il. 14-19
and 22. The observance of the Nativity (l. 30) by συνάξεις on three days
(Choiak 28-30 = Dec. 25-7, not 24-6, in 535) 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, of. cit. ili, p. 537)
‘en effet elle (la naissance) eut lieu a la fin du 28 de Kihak et le 29° jour, et
ausst, parce que dans les années bissextiles la nativité tombe le 28 de Kihak
et dans les années non bissextiles le 29, ils (les Peres de ’Eglise) ont voulu que
les deux jours fussent consacrés par honneur a cette sainte féte. An early
observance of Christmas Eve is less likely, for vigils (παραμονή 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 II (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. Inan ordinary year, in which Choiak 29 coincided with Dec. 25, there
were probably only two συνάξεις connected with Christmas, since Tubi 1 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, of. cit. p. 267), would be expected to be mentioned, and
either the first of the two συνάξεις in 1]. 33-4 on Tubi 1 (Dec. 27) might refer to the
ἡμέρα (aylov?) Στεφάνου, who is honoured by the mediaeval and modern Coptic
and Greek churches on that day, or the second συνάξις might be εἰς τὸν ἅγιον
1357. THEOLOGICAL FRAGMENTS 29
[Στέφανον ἡμέρα αὐτοῦ. A church of St. Stephen at Arsinoé 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. 26, 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. 33 was at St. Peter’s, that in 1. 34 was probably at St. Paul’s, and the absence
of a συνάξις 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 (οὖ. c. 470), who, if identical with the ἀββᾶς
Μάρκελλος in P. Stud. Pal. x. 35, 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, ἡμέρα Μαρκέλλου is less likely in 1. 35 than ἡμέρα νηπίων, but the fact that
Tubi 3 was a Sunday is sufficient to account for the σύναξις. After that day there
is a remarkable gap of a whole week without a σύναξις, but Tubi 11 (Jan. 6) is the
date of the Epiphany in the Coptic as in other calendars, and no doubt ἐπιφάνεια,
(ra) ἐπιφάνια, θεοφάνια or βαπτισμὸς τοῦ Χριστοῦ (cf. 1. 30) is to be supplied in
]. 36. What saints, if any, were celebrated by the συνάξεις on Tubi 12-15
(Jan. 7-10), some of which may be connected with the Epiphany, is doubtful
(cf. ll. 37-42, 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 (of. cit. p. 269)
compares that festival in Egypt with one observed in Gaul in the sixth century on
Jan. 11 or 18 and in Spain in the seventh century on Dec. 18; cf. also the σύναξις of
the Greek Church on Dec. 26 (p. 19). From this point up to |. 52 the numbers of
the days are missing, but a festival of St. Julianus on Mecheir 1 (Jan. 26) is
perhaps indicated by 1. 48, and the festival of Ὕπαπαντή may have been recorded
on Mecheir 8 (Feb. 2); cf. 1. 52, note. The two συνάξεις on consecutive week-
days, Mecheir 11-12 (Feb. 5-6), at the church of St. Gabriel the archangel
(ll. 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.
30 THE OXYRHYNCAUS PAPYRI
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 σύναξις τῶν ἀρχαγγέλων, but now on March 26
and July 13, while Wiistenfeld’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, of. cz¢. Ὁ. 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 (4 ἁγία τεσσαρακοστή), which in Egypt
began not earlier than Mecheir 14 nor later than Phamenoth το (cf. e.g. P. Grenf.
ii. 112), and in the year 536 on Mecheir 16 (Feb. 11); cf. p. 20. There was
a σύναξις on Sunday Mecheir 15, but none on the 16th or any week-day before
Saturday the 21st (Il. 58-9), when one of the two συνάξεις perhaps refers to the
day of St. Onesimus, St. Paul’s disciple. The absence of συνάξεις 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 II which has been fixed on other grounds;
cf. p. 20. In the concluding month Phamenoth (Feb. 25-March 26, ll. 63-8)
the days are lost throughout, and since Wiistenfeld’s Synararium 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 1]. 63-8 is hazardous, particularly since in three
of the six συνάξεις even the name of the church is doubtful. We have, however,
attempted a provisional reconstruction based on the assumption that the procedure
noticed in ll. 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. 63 and St. The[odorus] in 1. 65 (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
13857. THEOLOGICAL FRAGMENTS 21
in the modern calendar; cf. ll. 63-6, 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 Μαρίαν 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 ἡμέρα αὐτοῦ
supersedes κυριακή, there is a presumption against regarding Phaophi 23 in II as
All Saints’ day, though cf. note on l. 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
(οὖ. 407) for a festival of All Martyrs. Hence Oxyrhynchus in 536 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 II. 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 ἀδελφόθεος from St. James son of Alphaeus, celebrates the former
since the tenth century on Oct. 23, the Coptic similarly on Phaophi 26 (the same
day) and on Epeiph 18 or Choiak 30. No σύναξις is recorded in II 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 σύναξις is recorded in II, but in the mediaeval
Coptic calendars on Mecheir 11 (Feb. 5) and Phaophi 5 (Oct. 2), is in the same
position. Neither St. Demetrius Μυρόβλυτος (οὖ. 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 σύναξις in honour of St. Stephen on Choiak 30 or Tubi 1, if ll. 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 σύναξις in
II, and since his festival would naturally be celebrated at the church of ‘the
Evangelist’ (cf. p. 25), the only place where ἡμέρα αὐτοῦ can come in connexion
with that church is in 1. 42 (Tubi 15 = Jan. 10), for ll. 7 and 23 refer to Sundays,
It is, however, more probable that St. John’s day fell outside the period covered
by II, perhaps on Thoth 29 or 30 (Sept. 26 or 27) or Pachon 13 or τό (May 8 or 11)
22 THE OXYRHYNCHUS PAPYRI
when he is also commemorated on days corresponding to the two commemorations
of him in the Greek Church on Sept. 26 and May 8. The Circumcision (Tubi6 =
Jan. 1 in the Coptic calendars) is not marked by a σύναξις, 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 27 (Jan. 22) is the day of
St. Phoebammon in the Coptic synaxary consulted by Amélineau (/.c.), but though
1. 47 might refer to this day the σύναξις 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 τὸ (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
σύναξις 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.
+Ivaois συνάξεων μετὰ τὸ κατελθεῖν)
ἰνδ(ικτίονος) 16 ἐν ᾿Αλεξανδρ(είᾳ) τὸν πάπα, οὕ(τωςν"
Φαῶφι ky εἰς τὴν Φοιβάμμωνος κυριακ(ή), A.D. 535. Oct. 21 (20) Sun.
κε εἰς τὸν ἅγι(ον) Σερῆνον ἡμέρ(α) perav(oias), 23 (22) Tues.
5 A εἰς THY μαρτύρ(ων) κυριακή, 28 (27) Sun.
Addp y εἰς τὴν Φοιβάμμωνος ἡμέρ(α) ’Emipdy(ov), 31 (30) Wed.
ζ εἰς τὸν εὐαγγελιστ(ὴν) κυριακή, Nov. 4 (3) Sun.
ιβ εἰς τὸν &y(ov) Μιχαηλᾶ ἡμέρα αὐτοῦ, 9 (8) Fri.
ty εἰς τὸν αὐτόν, 10 (9) Sat.
to ἐδ εἰς τὸν ἅγι(ον) ᾿Ιοῦστον ἡμέρα αὐτοῦ, 11 (10) ὅπη.
te εἰς τὸν ἅγι(ον) Μηνᾶν ἡμέρα αὐτοῦ, 12 (11) Μοη.
is εἰς τὸν αὐτόν, ἢ ἘΣ ΓΝ 13 (12) Tues.
ιζ εἰς τὸν ἅγι(ον) ᾿Ιο[ῦ]στον, . 14 (12) Wed.
[Χοίακ] 6 lines lost.
20 ¢ εἰς τὸν ἅγι(ον) Bixropa, Dec. 4 (3) Tues.
[JB εἰς τὴν ἀννιανῆς κ[υριακή, g (8) Sun.
1857. THEOLOGICAL FRAGMENTS 33
te εἰς τὸν ἅγιον Κοσμᾶ ἡμέρα ᾿Ισίωνος, 12 (11) Wed.
16 εἰς τὸν εὐαγγελιστί(ὴν) κἸ]νριακ(ή), 16 (15) Sun.
κβ εἰς τὸν ἅγι(ον) Dirdger[oly ἡμέρ(α) αὐτοῦ, το (18) Wed.
25 Ky εἰς Tov αὐτόν, ὦ x! 20 (19) Thur.
κὃ εἰς τὸν αὐτόν, 21 (20) Fri.
κε ὁμοίως εἰς τὸν αὐτόν, 22 (21) Sat.
ks εἰς τὸν ἅγι(ον) Σ᾿ εἰρ]ῆνον κυριακί(ή), 23 (22) Sun.
κῷ εἰς τὸν αὐτόν, = a 4 24 (23) Mon.
30 kn εἰς τὴν ἁγίί(αν) Μαρίαν γέννα τοῦ Χριστοῦ, 25 (24) Tues.
κθ εἰς τὴν αὐτήν, A Ἢ ΝΜ 26 (25) Wed.
λ εἰς THY αὐτὴν ὁμοίως, 47 (26) Thur.
Col. ii.
Top: a els τὸν ἅγι(ον) Πέτρον ἡμέρα αὐτοῦ, Dec. 28 (27) Fri.
ὁμ(οίως) K(ai) eis τὸν ἅγι(ον) [Παῦλον ἡμέρα αὐτοῦ,
35 Ὑ εἰς τὴν Φοιβάμμίωνος κυριακή, 40 (29) Sun.
ta εἰς THY Φοιβάμμίωνος ἐπιφάνεια τοῦ Χριστοῦ, A.D. 536. Jan. 7 (6) Mon.
ιβ εἰς τὴν νοτινὴϊν ἐκκλησίαν, 8 (7) Tues.
ty εἰς τὸν ἅγι(ον) Didd€levor, ο (8) Wed.
ιδ εἰς τὸν ἅγιον Μ|ηχ[αηλᾶ ἡμέρα... .. : 10 (9) Thur.
40 eis τὴν ἄμα [Ἡραίδος ἡμέρα αὐτῆς (9),
te εἰς τὴν ἁγί(αν) Εὐφ[ημίαν ἡμέρα... .. , 11 (το) Fri.
εἰς τὸν εὐαγ[γελιστ(ήν),
is εἰς τὴν Φοιβάμίμωνος ἡμέρα Φιλοθέου (9) , 12 (11) Sat.
u¢ εἰς THY Ἀννιαϊνῆς κυριακή, 13 (12) Sun.
45 κα εἰς τὴν ἁγί(αν) Μαρίαν ἡμέρα αὐτῆς (3), 17 (16) Thur.
[kd εἰς τὸν ἅγιον) “Ιε[ρημίαν κυριακή (?), 20 (19) Sun.
[k. εἰς τὸν βαἸπτισϊτήν, |
[Mexelp a(?) εἰς τὸν ἅγι(ον} ᾿Ιουλ[ιανὸν ἡμέρα αὐτοῦ (3), 27 (26) Sun.
[ εἰς τὸν ἅγι]ον) ἀββᾶ. ...... ἡμέρα αὐτοῦ (3),
[ ὁμοί(ως) κ(αὶ) εἰς] τὸ β[ορρινὸν μαρτύριον (3),
[- εἸὶς [τὴν ἁγ)ΐζαν) Εὐφηϊμίαν,
[n] εἰς τὸν ἅγι(ον) Ζαχίαρίαν κυριακή (3), Feb. 3 (2) Sun.
ov) Σ ερ[ῆνον, 4 (3) Μοη.
ov) Γαβριὴλ ἡμέρα αὐτοῦ (?), 6 (5) Wed.
D
ῆ
θ εἰς τὸν ἅγι
o~ Oo
2 x ¢
ta ele τὸν ayl
34 THE OXYRHYNCHUS PAPYRI
55 [(β] εἰς τὸν αὐτόν, 7 (6) Thur.
᾿[ιδ9] εἰς τὸν ἅγι(ον) ἄπα Νοὺπ ἡμέρα. .. .. 9 (8) Sat.
[le εἰς τὴν Φοιβάμίμωνος κυριακή, 10 (9) Sun.
κα εἰς τὸν ayov) Φιλ[όξενον ἡμέρα... . .. ; 16 (15) Sat.
ὁμ(οίως) καὶ εἰς τὸν a[yov)...... ;
60 κΙβἹ εἰς Tov αὐτὸν [κυριακή, 17 (16) Sun.
κ[η] εἰς τὴν νοτιν(ὴν) éx[kAnolay ἡμέρα... .. : 23 (22) Sat.
κθ εἰς τὴν αὐτὴν ἰκυριακή, 24 (23) Sun.
Φαμενὼθ [5?] εἰς τὸν ἅγι(ον) Θεόϊδοτον ἡμέρα αὐτοῦ (3), March 2 Sun.
[(β 3] εἰς τὸν ἅγι(ον) Φιλόξίενον ἡμέρα, ΟΣ 8 Sat.
65 [(γ}] εἰς τὸν ἅγι(ον) Θε[όδωρον ἡμέρα αὐτοῦ, 9 Sun.
[109] εἰς τὴν Φοιβίάμμωνος ἡμέρα Κολλούθου (3), 15 Sat.
[k?] εἰς τὴν αὐτὴν κυριακή (3), 16 Sun.
[κς (Ὁ) elis τὴν ἁγί[(αν) Μαρίαν ἡμέρα. .. .. (?) 22 Sat.
Perhaps 1 line lost.
2. ivd/ IL. 10. ἴουστον II. 13. iolvjorov Π. 22. tovwvos Π. 46. ie Π.
48. ἴουλί Π.
‘ List of services after the patriarch descended to Alexandria, as follows: 14th indiction,
Phaophi 23rd at Phoebammon’s, Sunday; 25th at St. Serenus’, day of Repentance; 3oth at
the Martyrs’, Sunday.
Hathur 3rd at Phoebammon’s, day of Epimachus; 7th at the Evangelist’s, Sunday ;
12th at St. Michael’s, his day; 13th at the same; r4th at St. Justus’, his day; 15th
at St. Menas’, his day; 16th 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
likewise.
Tubi rst at St. Peter’s, his day; likewise also at St. Paul’s, his day; 3rd at Phoebam-
mon’s, Sunday; 11th at Phoebammon’s, Epiphany of Christ ; 12th at the Southern church ;
13th at St. Philoxenus’ ; 14th at St. Michael’s, day of ...; at ama Herais’, her day; 15th
at St. Euphemia’s, day of . ..; at the Evangelist’s; 16th at Phoebammon’s, day of
Philotheus ; 17th at Anniane’s, Sunday ; 21st at St. Mary’s, her day ; 24th at St. Jeremiah’s,
Sunday; 2[.]|th at the Baptist’s.
Mecheir 1st 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; gth at
St. Serenus’; 11th 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. ...; 22ndat the same, Sunday; 28th at the Southern church, day of. . .;
2gth at the same, Sunday.
13857. THEOLOGICAL FRAGMENTS 35
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; zoth at the same,
Sunday ; 26th at St. Mary’s, day of...’
1. Cf. pp. 21-2. évinstead of εἰς is common; cf. e.g. 144. 11 καταγαγεῖν ἐν ᾿Αλεξανδρείᾳ
and, for an early instance, P. Par. 10. 2 ἀνακεχώρηκεν ἐν ᾿Αλεξ.
2. 0: thec is partly effaced, but iv8(c)x(riovos) ὃ 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 Μιχαηλᾶ
and |. 22 Κοσμᾶ. For the name of the patriarch see pp. 21 and 43.
3. Φοιβάμμωνος : 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.
κυριακ(η): this word and ἡμέρα, wherever they come in Π, might be in the dative, but
γέννα in 1. 30 is in the nominative.
4. Σερῆνον : 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
(Ast. Eccl. vi. 4). The amba Serenus, archimandrite, and Serenus, ἡγούμενος, formerly
commemorated on Phamenoth 5 and 6 (Tisserand, 7. c.) seem to be later. On the question
of St. Serenus’ day cf. ll. 20 and 53, notes, and for ἡμέρα μετανοίας 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. paprip(wv): there was a well-known Coptic monastery of this name at Esna (Lato-
polis), and a church τριῶν μαρτύρων at Arsinoé is mentioned in e.g. P. Brit. Mus.
113 (8). 11, and one τοῦ ἁγίου μάρτ(υρος) at a village near Antinoé 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 (οὖ. 306), and two days earlier (Oct. 25) SS. Marcianus and Martyrius (fourth cen-
tury), whom Wiistenfeld’s and the modern Coptic calendars assign to Oct. 28,calling Martyrius
Mercurius. Maprup(iov) 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. Maprup(cavod), referring to
a saint now honoured by the Copts on Pachon 21, 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 paprip(ov) in view of the parallels and the rarity of abbreviations of
proper names in II. Moreover if Phaophi 30 had been the day of Martyri(an)us, ἡμέρα αὐτοῦ
would be expected in spite of its being Sunday ; cf. 1. ro.
6. ἡμέρα ᾿Ἐπιμάχου : cf. pp. 24 and 26-7. Wiistenfeld’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.
ἡ. τὸν εὐαγγελιστ(ήν) : cf. pp. 25-6, and, on the date of the festival of St. John, p. 31.
A church at Arsinoé was called τοῦ ἁγίου ἀποστόλου 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.
8-11. Cf. p. 27. Μιχαηλᾶ is not a correct form; cf. 1.2, note. The other saints now
honoured on Hathur 12-15 are unimportant. From Ῥ. 5.1. 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 τῆς ἑορτῆς τοῦ ἀρχαγγέλου Μ[ιχ]αὴλ τοῦ
D2
36 THE OXYRHYNCHUS PAPYRI
‘AOvp μηνός. There was a church of St. Michael at Arsinoé (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 αὐτόν (cf. ll. 25, 29, 31) are merely intended to fill up space, not to
indicate a repetition of ἡμέρα αὐτοῦ.
13. In the Greek and Coptic Churches Nov. 13 (Hathur 17) is the οὔ 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
Ἰοζῦ]στον cf. 1. 10; we are unable to reconcile the three doubtful letters with “Id{x]oBov
or the name of any other Greek or Coptic saint, but this second σύναξις at St. Justus’, for which
no special reason is assigned, is remarkable. A similar difficulty arises in Il. 20 and 29,
where it can be explained by the supposed omission of ἡμέρα αὐτοῦ; but that is inadmissible
here, if Ἰοζ[ῦϊστον is right, since his day has already occurred in 1. ro.
14-19. Three of these lines probably recorded services on the Sundays Hathur 21, 28,
and Choiak 5 (cf. p. 22), andthe remaining three some of the festivals of SS. Cosmas(I. 22,
note), Philip the Apostle (Hathur 18 = Nov. 14 in both the Greek and Coptic churches),
Matthew the Apostle (Hathur 20 = Nov. 16 in a thirteenth century Coptic calendar ;
cf. Nau, Z.c.), 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. 1,147. 1), and Peter of Alexandria, martyr
under Diocletian (Hathur 29 = Nov. 25 in the Coptic calendars; cf. Hyvernat, Actes des
martyrs, i, p. 263).
20. Βίκτορα : cf, 1151. 49 and two inscriptions from Bawit in Hall, Coptic 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. εὐκτήρια 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 Arsinoé 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
], 20 is not clear. Abul-Barakat’s list (Tisserand, ὦ, 5.) mentions only one (Epeiph 20 =
July 14), Nau’s menologia the same one and two more (Hathur 5 = Nov. 1 and Mesore 24
= Aug. 17), but none of these days corresponds with any of the eight dates in the modern
calendar (Hathur 1, 10, 21, 27, Choiak 6, Mecheir 14, Pharmouthi 4, 27) on which a Victor
is mentioned. Choiak 7 in ]. 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, eis τὸν αὐτόν would be expected in 1. 20 on the analogy ofe. g. 1], 8-9, while, if the date
of the commemoration has merely altered by a day (cf. the case of Epimachus, pp. 26-7),
ἡμέρα αὐτοῦ is wanted in |. 20. It is possible that the omission is accidental here and
in 1. 28, a hypothesis which would remove the similar difficulty in ]. 29, where the second
σύναξις 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 ll. τὸ and 28 with regard to the choice of
κυριακή and ἡμέρα αὐτοῦ, 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. Amélineau, 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. ᾿Αννιανῆς: οἵ, 1. 44 and p. 25. The name ᾿Ανειανή occurs in Lefebvre, Zuscripi.
chrét, no. 65. St. Anne, mother of the Virgin, who is commemorated in Wiistenfeld’s and
1357. THEOLOGICAL FRAGMENTS 37
the modern Coptic calendar on Hathur τι (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 1 (July 25), and by the Menol. Basil. also on Sept. g, is hardly likely to be
meant, though Choiak 12 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, of. cz#. p. 349), the two συνάξεις 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 ἁγίας would be expected, if she were meant.
July 25 is most likely to have been her day at Oxyrhynchus, if she was commemorated.
22. Koopa ἡμέρα “Ioiwvos: 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 (1) July 1, Romans martyred under Carinus,
(2) Oct. 17, Arabs martyred under Diocletian, (3) Nov. 1, 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 1 (Nov. 27) seems to refer to the Asiatics. Hathur 22 and
Choiak 1 come in the period covered by the lacuna in 1]. 14-19, where εἰς τὸν ἅγιον Koopa
ἡμέρα αὐτοῦ 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 το (Dec. 15) the Coptic calendars mention St. John,
ἡγούμενος (1. 6. John, archimandrite of Sifit about 400), and Theophania.
24—7. St. Philoxenus, who is also mentioned in 1150. 2 (sixth century), 1151. 48 (fifth
century ἢ) and P. Stud. Pal. x. 35. 11 (cf. p. 24), is either an otherwise unknown Egyptian saint
or identical with the monophysite bishop of Hierapolis (οὖ. about 523), who is honoured in the
mediaeval Syrian Jacobite menologia on Feb. 18 (Nau, of. ci#., p. 72) and other days. The
four συνάξεις in his honour (one more than at Christmas) indicate his great popularity, which
would harmonize with the shortness of the interval between his death and the date of U, 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
important.
28-9. For St. Serenus cf. ]. 4, note, and, for the two consecutive συνάξεις 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. ]. 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 γέννα τοῦ Χριστοῦ, P. Grenf. ii.
112 (@). 1 Χ(ριστὸ)ς Μαρία γέννα καὶ Μαρία Χ(ριστὸὴς γέννα καὶ Χ(ριστὸ)ς Μαρία γέννα, which seems
to be connected with the much disputed formula χμγ. γέννα 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. 1.
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 ], 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
38 THE OXYRHYNCHUS PAPYRI
day close to Tubi 1. A church of St. Peter at Arsinoé occurs in P. Stud. Pal. x. 75. 3.
Other saints commemorated on Tubi 1 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. 1, 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
Panopolis.
35. Cf. p. 29. J ’
36. For the Epiphany cf. p. 29. [π the mediaeval and modern Coptic Church this
festival is preceded by a vigil (cf. p. 28) and continues for three days, but since the συνάξεις
on the six following days here were at different churches, the presumption is rather against
their being connected with the Epiphany.
37. νοτινὴϊν ἐκκλησίαν: 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 overlooked the
parallel from 48 verso. St. Theodorus Orientalis, martyr under Diocletian, whose Acts
are extant, is celebrated by the Copts on Tubi 12, and ἡμέρα Θεοδώρου may have occurred
here, since the church of St. Theodorus (cf. ll. 63-6, note) probably refers to a different
saint of that name.
38. Φιλόξενον : cf, 1]. 24-7, note. iAd6leov (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. 11).
39. Μ[ιχ[αηλᾶ : cf.1. 8. Tubi 14 (Jan. 9) is in the Coptic calendars the day of Maximus,
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 (οὖ. in Armenia about 259).
40. ἄμα [‘Hpaidos: cf. p. 24. Her day was subsequently a fortnight later.
41. Εὐφ[ημίαν: cf. 1. 51 and pp. 23-4. She was an important saint whose day in the
mediaeval Coptic and Greek calendars is Epeiph 18 (July 12) and in the modern Coptic
one Epeiph 17 (July 11) and Pauni 8 (June 2) as well, so that ἡμέρα αὐτῆς is unlikely either
here or in 1. 51. On Tubi 15 Wiistenfeld’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 (0d. about 395), Domitianus
(οὖ. 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. ᾿Αννιαϊνῆς : cf. ]. 21, note, 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 ἡμέρα αὐτῆς would be more likely than a mention of any of these, and κυριακή is still more
probable.
45. ka: 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. “Ἱε[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 1, so that ἡμέρα αὐτοῦ 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. Ἱερώνυμον, whom the Copts honour on Phamenoth 15 (March 11) or Thoth 20
1357. THEOLOGICAL FRAGMENTS 39
(Sept. 17), and ‘Ié[paxa, 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, of. οἷ]. ii, p. 43), are less likely ; but ‘Iepaxéova
(who might be identical with the Syriac Hierax) ἡμέρα αὐτοῦ is possible; cf. p. 24. His
church, however, may be the one meant in 1]. 49, where ἅγι](ον) ἀββᾶ [ Ἱερακίωνα can be
restored, but the occurrence of ἅγιος, which is absent in 1058, is a slight objection to intro-
ducing him in eitherpassage. This saint's day, moreover, was Choiak 26 (Dec. 22) in the |
fourteenth century according to Basset’s synaxarium (Pa/rol. Orvent. iii, p. 525). He lived
in the reign of Diocletian and escaped from captivity at Oxyrhynchus (Amélineau, of. cit.
p. 83). The number of the day in 1. 46 is doubtful, «3 being restored because a Sunday is
wanted in |. 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. 17), andif I. 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
(οὖ. 391; cf. 1. 47, note).
47. τὸν βα]πτισ[τήν : 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 ἐπάγομ. 1 (Aug. 24) by the Copts, the general
σύναξις in his honour being on Jan. 7 (Tubi 12) 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 1; 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 σύναξις on that day, the only place in Π which is at all suitable for a festival in
his honour 15]. 47; but his day is more likely to have been Thoth 2 or Pauni 30, outside
the range of 0. 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
later.
48. ᾿Ιουλ[ιανόν : a Sunday service on Mecheir 1 is expected between Il. 47 and 51, and
since Ἰούδαν, i.e. the Apostle, who is honoured on that day in the mediaeval Coptic
calendars, cannot be read, the choice lies between Ἰουλ[ιανόν and “IovA[wv. A church of
St. Julius at Arsinoé is known from P. Klein. Form. 743. If Ἰούλ[ζιον be read, St. Julius of
Akfahs, the historian and martyr under Diocletian, whose Ac¢s are known (Amélineau,
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 Julius, martyr under Decius (Phaophi 25, 27, or 30). Hence ἡμέρα αὐτοῦ would
be unlikely, unless 1. 48 be referred to Mecheir 3, the festival ofthe Roman St. Julius. In
that case 1. 47 might refer to Mecheir 1, and the week-days between the two Sundays
in ll. 46—7 would be passed over, which is not a very satisfactory hypothesis, since Lent had
not yet begun (cf. p. 30). On Mecheir 1, 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 Ἰουλ[ιανόν to Ἰούλ[ιον, since the choice of the
church would be accounted for, if it was his day.
49. Probably either ἀββᾶ Ἱερακίωνα (cf. 1. 46, note), or ἀββίᾶ Παῦλον ἡμέρα αὐτοῦ,
referring to the chief of the eremites (οὖ. 341), who is celebrated in the mediaeval and
40 THE OXYRHYNCHUS PAPYRI
modern Coptic calendars on Mecheir 2 (Jan. 27), the approximate date of this line, or ἀββ[ᾶ
Μάρκελλον (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 [eis τὸν dy(ov)| Τοβ[ίαν, i.e. Τωβίίαν, there is barely room, and cf. p. 23. τὸ
Aloppivév μαρτύριον is more likely than e. g. τὸ Β[ασιλίου or Β[αρσαύμου, a bishop of Edessa com-
memorated on Mecheir 9 in the mediaeval Coptic calendars; but ]rof[ can be part of
a proper name in the genitive, like Φοιβάμμωνος (cf. p. 23), preceded by εἰς τήν. In that case
᾿Αρισ]τοβ[ούλου, one of the seventy-two disciples, now honoured by the Copts on Phamenoth 19
but absent from the mediaeval Coptic calendars, might be meant. σ, however, rather than
τ, would then be expected to come over the of ἁγ]ί(αν) in 1. 51, and on Phamenoth 19
there seems to have been a σύναξις at Phoebammon’s church (I. 66).
51. Cf. 1. 41, note. The saints commemorated by the Copts and Greeks from
Mecheir 4 to 7 are not particularly important.
52. [n|: this is restored because the gth (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 ἡμέρα αὐτοῦ is possible; but the latter day
(Feb. 2) coincides with the festival known in Eastern churches as ὑπαπαντή, 1. 6. 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, of. εἴ. p. 272), and the universal
observance of it in the Eastern Empire was ordained by Justinian in 542 (Niceph. 2772.
Eccl. xvii. 28), only six years after II was written, so that there may have been a reference to
it here instead of κυριακή (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 Θεοδόχος
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
κυριακή or ὑπαπαντή.
53. Σερ[ῆνον : οἵ, 1. 4,note. Seplamiwva or Σέργιον are also possible. A similar difficulty
arises in Ρ, Klein. Form. 627. 1 ἁγί(ου) Σερί (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 ἡμέρα αὐτοῦ might be supplied with Σέρ[γιον 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 ll. 14-19) ;
another, a martyr under Diocletian, whose Acts are extant (Scrzpt. Coft. iii. 1. iv), on
Tubi 27 (twelve days before Mecheir 9), and a third Serapion on ἐπαγομ. 1 (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 ll. 24-7, note. A πρε(σβύτερος) τοῦ ἀρχαγγέλου TaBpund
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 12th the Archangel Michael (cf. 1. 8) and SS. Fabianus, bishop of Rome (οὖ. 250), and
Gelasius (οὖ. 496).
56. awa Νοὺπ jpépla...: part of the ν of Νούπ and the rest of the line were on
a separate fragment, which is suitably though not certainly placed here. The day is
1357. THEOLOGICAL FRAGMENTS 41
probably Mecheir 13 or 14, for it cannot be earlier, and if it is later, ι10 must be read for cle
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 N or ἄπα Nj, but
the martyrdom of Anub under Diocletian is commemorated by the Copts on Pauni 19
(June 13). and formerly by the Greeks (Nilles, of. cz#. ii, p. 42) on June 5, while an abba
Nub or Anub, presbyter and martyr under Diocletian, whose Acés are extant (Script. Cop.
iii. 1. 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
ἡμέρ[α αὐτοῦ is unlikely; but ifit goes elsewhere, i. 6. in ll. 14-19 or 59 or in a later column
(cf. p. 20), either ᾿ΑἸνούπ or ἄπα] Νούπ can be read, and ἡμέρ[α αὐτοῦ might be right. dma
Nlovr would, however, still be the best restoration in 1. 56. ᾿Ανούπ is a very common
Byzantine name, so that ἄπζα) ᾿Ανούπ should perhaps be read, possibly referring to the
colleague of Apollo at Bawit; but cf. Crum, P. Rylands Copt. 461. 28-9, where apa Noub
occurs.
The paragraphi above and below 1. 56, elsewhere employed only at the end of a month
in |. 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 13-14 (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, στρατηλάτης, whom the Copts
commemorate on Epeiph 20 (July 14) and who is probably not the St. Theodorus of I. 65 ;
St. Cyril is honoured by the Latins on Feb. g 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.
Ῥ. 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 |. 4, or had a title of its own.
57. [tle: the vestiges suit ε rather better than 6, 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 cameinl. 56,
the suggested explanation of the paragraphi would still apply, perhaps even better; but
a σύναξις on Mecheir 19 would be on a Thursday, whereas in Il. 59-68 the evidence, so far
as it goes, points to συνάξεις 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 ἡμέρα ἸΠαπνουθίου
may have superseded κυριακή ; cf. 1. 10. Other saints venerated by the Copts on this day,
St. Primus, patriarch of Alexandria (οὖ. 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 (0. 311), amba Gabriel, bishop of Alexandria, amba
Zacharias, bishop, and Onesimus, disciple of St. Paul. The last may have been mentioned
in 1, 58 (ἡμέρα Ovncipov), or ἁ[γι(ον) ᾿Ονήσιμον is possible in 1. 59.
60. κ[β]: a Sunday is wanted here and εἰς τὸν αὐτόν implies that the day is the next
after Saturday, Mecheir 21; cf. ll. 8-9, 11-12,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 Porphyrius, 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
42 THE OXYRHYNCHUS PAPYRI
day was probably recorded; cf. e. g. 1]. 11-12. The second is aimost certainly Mecheir 29,
for that Sunday is wanted in ll. 61-2, and though the doubtful « in 1. 62 might be A there
is a vestige of another letter, which suits the cross-bar of 6 Line 61 therefore probably
refers to Mecheir 28 (Feb. 22), a Saturday; cf. p. 30. The Coptic calendars mention
St. Theodorus son of Romanus, martyr under Diocletian, a well-known saint, on that
day, and ἡμέρα Θεοδώρου 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, whom 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 (ἡμέρα Ἰτολυκάρπου instead of κυριακή).
63-6. On the restoration of the days in Phamenoth 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 τὸ (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
Cyrenia in Cyprus (οὖ. 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 ]. 63, which, if it is Phamenoth 6, can be restored either
Ged| Sorov ἡμέρα αὐτοῦ OF Θεόΐδωρον κυριακή, Or, if it is not the 6th, is probably the 5th (a Saturday),
in which case Θεόδωρον jyepa . . . is likely, and 1. 64 would 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 Arsinoé is known from e.g. P. Klein. Form. 164,
and another at Antinoé 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 11, Hathur 5, Tubi 12,
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. Orientalis on Tubi 12, the son of Romanus on Mecheir 28
(cf. Il. 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 το, and the στρατηλάτης on Epeiph 20. Without ἡμέρα αὐτοῦ in |. 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 Π, 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 Θεοί and @¢{ refers to the celebration of
the day of a St. Theodorus at his church. That ll. 63 and 65 refer to the two festivals
of different saints called Theodorus on the 12th and 2rst 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 ιβ in 1. 65 in
accordance with the modern calendar is that, if |. 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. Ὁ: 31:
1357. THEOLOGICAL FRAGMENTS 43
With regard to the two supposed Saturdays, Phamenoth 12 and 1g (Il. 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 (οὖ. 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 rgth ᾿Αριστοβούλου is
less likely than Κολλούθου, a well-known saint at this period (cf. e. g. P. Brit. Mus. 1460.
117), who in the Syriac calendar of 411 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
II, 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 σύναξις on a Monday in Lent would be contrary to the orders of the
Council of Laodicea. The mediaeval Coptic calendars commemorate SS. Porphyrius,
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 1. 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 ‘¢he. 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.
44 THE OXYRHYNCHUS PAPYRI
II. NEW CLASSICAL TEXTS
1358. HESIOD, Catalogue, BOOK iii.
ΕἾ. 1 22:2X10-10m., ΕἸ. 2 23-613 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 KardAoyos Γυναικῶν, for which "Hota: seems to have
been but another name (cf. Rzach in Pauly-Wissowa, Real-Encycl. viii. 1201 sqq.),
ascribed in antiquity to Hesiod. Extensive fragments concerning the suitors
of Helen have been published in Berl. Klassikertexte, V. 1. ii. 2-3, with smaller
pieces relating to Meleager and Bellerophon (ibid. 1. 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 (Ρ. 3.1. 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. 2. 9, note) and by 1859, 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. 2 Col. i the entry δι]ὰ πρα(κτόρων)
ε (ἔτους) λημ(μάτων) ε (ἔτους) (δραχμαὶ) ᾽Αριγ occurs, and in Col. ii the Oxyrhynchite
villages of Μονίμου and Μερμέρθα 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.
1358. NEW CLASSICAL TEXTS 45
The subject of the two fragments is quite different,and their order is uncer-
tain. Fr. 1 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, M 292 (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 Ziad, This identification was already implied by the Homeric
scholia cited above, e.g. Schol. T, Zc. “Hotodos δὲ Εὐρώπης καὶ Διὸς αὐτόν (sc. Σαρπ.)
φησι (cf. Schol. Eurip. Res. 29), and Immisch has noted that traces of it may be
seen in Homer (Roscher, Lexicon, iv. 403), in spite of Z 198-9 and the remark of
Aristonicus thereon (Schol. A, ad oc.) καθ᾽ Ὅμηρον Σαρπηδὼν vids Εὐρώπης οὐκ ἔστιν
οὐδὲ ἀδελφὸς Μίνωος, ὡς οἱ νεώτεροι καὶ yap of χρόνοι εὔδηλοι. A like tradition was
followed by Aeschylus (Nauck, 7 γαρ. Fr. 99), and the author of the Rhesus
(I. 29), probably also by Bacchylides (Schol. A, Homer, M 292); cf. Hygin. Fad.
106, where the Sarpedon slain by Patroclus is called Jovis et Europae filium.
Chronological difficulties were evaded by a legend that the hero’s life was super-
naturally prolonged: καὶ αὐτῷ δίδωσι Ζεὺς ἐπὶ τρεῖς γενεὰς ζῆν says Apollodorus iii.
I. 2. Others distinguished two Sarpedons, the son of Europa, and the Sarpedon
of the Ziad who according to Z 198-9 (cf. Apollod. iii. 1. 1. 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 ll. 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 Z 119
(Aristonicus) the position in the Ziad 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. 1, 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
46 THE OXYRHYNCHUS PAPYRI
ll. 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 1859, 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 Κατουδαῖοι and Πυγμαῖοι in 1]. 9 and 18; cf. the
note onl. 9. In Hesiod, Fr. 54, the story of Phineus and the Harpies is said to
have occurred ἐν τῇ καλουμένῃ γῆς περιόδῳ, 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
]. 20 and |. 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. 55) 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. ll. 25-6. We are thus
carried back to 1. 9 in which the Karovdaio. and Πυγμαῖοι 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.
Be 4.
Col. ii.
} Col. i. i x |
ΓΞ foe teh. bee B= ήτο: επερησε ὃ ρ᾽ adpupov ὕδωρ. ay
tie Sie te tise: BE > siete 1 Alos δμηθεῖσα δολοισι τί
[την pa λαθων ἡρπαξεὶ πατὴρ Kat δωρον εδωκεν τί
ίορμον οἱ χρυσειον ον ἨΠφαιστος κλυτοτεχνήὴς ΜΑ͂Σ
5 ἰποιησεν ποτ ἀγαλμα ιδυΐῆηησιν πραπίδεσσι[ν}}
[kat κτεανον trope πατρι] φερων'" ο ὃ εδεξατο δωροῖν About »
[autos ὃ ap δωκεν kovpn\t Φοινικ[οὴς ayavov. = ἔκων
Z Ἶ
[avrap eet ουτω τἼηλε τανισφύρωι Ευρωπίιηι [
[μιχθη p εν φιλοτητι πατὴρ avdpwy τε θεωΐν τε
10 [ἰαυτις ἐπειτ ameBn vuludns παρα καλλικόμ[οιο
ἴη ὃ apa παιδας ετικτῆεν ὕπερμενέϊ Κρονίιωνι
[κυδαλιμους ευηφεϊνέων ἡγητορας ανδίρων
[Mivw τε κρειοντα)] δικαιόν τε Ῥαδαμαυΐθυν
1858. NEW CLASSICAL TEXTS
[και Σ᾽ αρπηδονα dtov] apvpova τε Kpareplov τε
15 [roo εας τιμας δι]εδήσσατο μητιετα Zlevs
ἴητοι o μεν Avkins ευρ]έιης ἵφι avacce
ἰος ὦ ΟΕ τ ΠΡ Ἢ πόλεις εῦ ναιεταωσας Ϊ
πο gin ss πολ]λή ὃ ἔοι ἐσπετο τιμῆι
test 0 μεγαλη͵τορι ποιμενι λαων.
ἜΤ ὃ... 0 Τ᾽. μεροπων ανθρωπων
"στο οοο --....:. YAaro μητίετα Zeus.
ee πολ]υν ὃ εκρινατο λαον.
ere Τρ]ωεσσ᾽ επικουρους"
Β΄... site ahs 7 πολεμοιο δαήμων.
ee ἐπ aploT|epa σήματα φαινων
Oe es Zevs| αφθιτα μηδεα ειδως.
ΠΕ ὌοὃἮἭ..-.-.-... ὉΠ Jaro: αμφιβαλόυσαις
Eee | Διοθεν τερας fev.
Ni τ. gees ew Exrjopos ανδροφονοιο
SUR a en ] δὲ κηδε εθηκε.
[ 25 letters Ἰς Δργει[οἹισί-
[ 31» Ἰκᾳί
Fr: 2. Plate 11.
Se Ἰώντί
εὐ ΡΥ 7 - χί
ΠΝ lis also lawl 1. aod[
Προς: Ἰεσπεί. .|nvool
ΕΠ ΞΟ ἀκ Bi Ἰεπτα. .] . κερί
ΩΝ } em εργα: και nf
[- - - - Κατουδ]άιων: και Πυγίμαιων
Beas es απε)ιρεσιων peddvo|
[seer eae Ww] τεκε Tasca πελαίρη
20 cpl
25 π᾿ .Ϊ
Cola
47
48 THE OXYRHYNCHUS PAPYRI
ες Jas τε πανομφάιοίυ Διὸς
fois oldpa θεοισιν ὕφεζιμ]ενοι ατασ[θωσΊιν [ |
eee ΡῈ Ἰ Tov μὲν τε νοὸς [γλ]ωσσης καβ]υπΊερθεν.
15 [Διθιοπας] τε Λιβυς τε ἴδε Σ᾽ κυ[θ]ας ἵππημοϊλγου)ς
ετο- γ]ενεθ᾽ vios ὕπερίμ]ενεος Kpoviwvos-
fered ] μελανες τε kat A@jores μεγαθυμοι
[nde Κατου͵δαιοι και Πυγμάι[οι] apevnvor
ἴοι παντες] Κρειοντος Εἰρικτυπου εἰσι γενεθληι
20 [kat τουτουὶς περι κυκλίω]ι εθυνεον αἵσσοντες
Eee Weap .[.. . ΥἹπερβορεων εὔϊππων.
[ous τεκε In] φερβουσᾳ πολ]υσπερέας πολυῴφορβος
[τηλε παρ Ἠριδανοι]ῆο βα[θυρρ)οου ama ρεεθρα-
οσαί ]
(Se ee eee arenes imp Mater. = eee ] ηλεκτροιο.
25 [NeBpwdes τ opos| amu κίαι Διτν]ην παιπαλοεσσαν. J
ety aist ete τ Olpruyinv: ΔαιστίρυγονἼην τε γενεθλην.
ενθα Ποσειδάωνος ερισθ[εἸνέος γένεθ᾽ vios-
a
Tv παρα dlis modeoav: melo τ᾿ apge τε κυκλώσαντο.
—
“e@ . .
a Neo ee
ιεμενοι] papa ται ὃ εκφυγέειν και αλυξαι"
30 [ες τε Κεφαλλίηνων ἀγερώχων φῦλον ὀρουσαν. Ἄν
ΠΣ Ποσεήδαωνι Καλυψὼ ποτνια νυμφηι-
θοροντεξ-
Fee ee ΕΥΘΑΥΣ ylatav Apnriddao dvaxtos:
aes Tel ‘ , kar(w)
τ ee lj. ..Ja κλύον: αλλ apa και Tas
eerie a cee) ete eae Ἰν δια 7 aibepos ατρυγετοιο
By inc wisn ls ove τπρ -- μεταΐχρονιοισι ποδεσσι av(w)
Fr. 1. i. 3-16. ‘ Her then father Zeus carried off 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
tuled in might over broad Lycia.. .’ ᾿
4-5. Cf. Apollod. iii. 4. 2 τὸν ἡφαιστότευκτον ὅρμον, ὃν ὑπὸ Ἡφαίστου λέγουσί τινες
δοθῆναι Κάδμῳ, Φερεκύδης δὲ ὑπὸ Εὐρώπης ὃν παρὰ Διὸς αὐτὴν λαβεῖν. For ιδυιΐησιν cf. e.g.
1858, NEW CLASSICAL: TEXTS _. 49
Homer, Y 12 Ἥφαιστος ποίησεν ἰδυίῃσι πραπίδεσσι. 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, 8. ν. ἀγάλματα, . . . καὶ Ἡσίοδος τὸν ὅρμον ἄγαλμα καλεῖ (Hesiod, Fr. 233). As an
alternative θαῦμα ἰδεῖν 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
lines.
ve koupn|t Φοινικ[ο]ς: 50 Homer, =] 321 Φοίνικος κούρης.
8. τῖηλε is quite doubtful ; the A may be a, 4, or μ, and this is preceded by remains of,
apparently, a vertical stroke. καθευδε would suit the context, but a v is unsatisfactory.
Eipomea has been regarded as a late form (cf. Lobeck, Paral. p. 321), but is now shown |
to be of the same age as Εὐρώπη (first in Zheog. 357). That the inserted ε is due to the
corrector is not certain. For τανίσφυρος instead of τανύσφ. cf. Bacchy]l. iii. 60, v. 59.
12. ευηφείνεων, for which cf. Homer, Ψ 81, was suggested by Allen. ερισθεΐνεων or
μεγαλοσθενεων would also be suitable.
15-16. The supplement suggested in I. 15 is based on Theog. 885 ὁ δὲ τοῖσιν ἑὰς (Rzach
with Ahrens, εὖ MSS., ἐύ Heinsius) διεδάσσατο τιμάς. After avacce in |. 16 there is before
the break a blank space (in which a stop is possibly to be recognized), so that ἀνασσέιν
depending on 6. ρ΄. μοῖραν ἐδάσσατο or διεδάσσατο (cf. Theog. 520 ταύτην yap of μοῖραν ἐδάσσατο
μητίετα Ζεύς) is excluded. Λυκίης εὐρείης occurs in Homer, Ζ 173, 188, Π 455, &c.
18. 1, δε δι, and this was perhaps intended, the accentuator being rather careless about
the position of his marks; cf. note on ]. 21.
. 21. A horizontal stroke above the first τ of μητίετα is probably to be interpreted as an
acute accent intended for the next letter.
23. Cf. Homer, M 101 Σαρπηδὼν δ᾽ ἡγήσατ᾽ ἀγακλειτῶν ἐπικούρων.
25-8. The remains of these lines look very like a description of the portent which in
the //zad precedes the death of Sarpedon, II 459-60 αἱματοέσσας δὲ ψιάδας κατέχευεν ἔραζε maida
φίλον τιμῶν ; cf. Hesiod, Scut. 384-5 κὰδ δ᾽ dp’ ἀπ᾽ οὐρανόθεν ψιάδας βάλεν αἱματοέσσας σῆμα τιθεὶς
πολέμοιο ἑῷ μεγαθαρσέι παιδί. It does not, however, seem possible to read αιμΊατος in ]. 27,
though the « is not certain and y or perhaps r could be substituted. The final s of apqu-
᾿ βαλουσαις also is very faint, and the slight vestiges might be taken for a stop, but the accent
would then be wrong. Ζεὺς ἄφθιτα μήδεα εἰδώς occurs in Theog. 545, 550, &c.
ii. 1. It is not clear whether the small cross in thé upper margin here is the initial
letter (x) of an adscript or a critical symbol as e.g. 1281. Fr. 32. ii; cf. 1861. Fr. 5. ii.
There may also have been some insertion immediately above or below |. 1 ; the vestiges are
hardly to be accounted for by any single letter.
29. ets Op|: or perhaps ex τρί. The first letter is really more like o than e.
Fr. 2. i. 9. Cf. 1. 18 and Philod. Περὶ Εὐσεβ. 10 od|8 “Hovdd@ μή τίις ἐ]ν[γ]ελᾷ ὃς y[..... ]
ato. .|v ἢ [καὶ τ]ῶν Κατουδα[ζίων κ]αὶ τῶν Πυ[γμ]αίζων μνημονεύει, Harpocration i. 296. 7 (so Suidas
and Photius) 5. v. ὑπὸ γῆν οἰκοῦντες, λέγοι ἂν... καὶ τοὺς ὑπὸ Ησιόδου ἐν γ΄ Καταλόγου Karovdaious
ὀνομαζομένους (Hesiod, Fr. 60), Strabo i, p. 43 (cf. vii, p. 299) Ἡσιόδου δ᾽ οὐκ ἄν τις αἰτιάσαιτο
ἄγνοιαν Ἡμίκυνας λέγοντος καὶ Μακροκεφάλους καὶ Πυγμαίους, Harpocration i. 197. 10 5. v. Μακρο-
κέφαλοι, ἔθνος ἐστὶν οὕτω καλούμενον οὗ καὶ ᾿Ησίοδος μέμνηται ἐν γ' γυναικῶν Καταλόγῳ (Hesiod, Fr. 62).
The line might be completed with ἀμενήνων, as in |. 18.
: 10-14. The reference in this obscure passage, as Murray suggests, is perhaps to the
δῆμος ὀνείρων (Homer, w 12, φῦλον ὀνείρων Hesiod, Theog. 212). They are placed by Homer,
Z.c.,in the neighbourhood of the ᾿Ηελίοιο πύλαι beyond the ᾽Ωκεανοῦ ῥοαί and Λευκὰς πέτρη, and
so could well be named after the Πυγμαῖοι, who, according to Homer, Γ 5-6, lived near the
᾿Ωκεανοῖο poai; the Aethiopians and Libyans (I. 15) might indeed he expected to precede
E
50 THE OXYRHYNCHUS PAPYRI
rather than follow, but since these are coupled with the Scythians it is clear that the
topography is somewhat vague. In Hesiod, 7. ¢., the mother of the φῦλον ὀνείρων is Nv&, but
Euripides calls them sons of Earth in Z 7. 1263 and Hec. 70 πότνια χθών, μελανοπτερύγων
μᾶτερ ὀνείρων : with the epithet μελανοπτερύγων cf. μελάνοϊ in |. το. Lines 13-14 may be
explained as alluding to the substitution of the articulate prophecy of Apollo for prognostica-
tion by dreams, as described in Eurip. Z. Z. 1259 sqq. On these lines the passage may be
tentatively restored :— ἢ
[εἶτ᾽ ἐπ᾿ ἀπε]ιρεσίων peddvol. . . . δῆμον ὀνείρων
[τοὺς ΕΡΟΤΗΣ | τέκε Γαῖα πελώρη θυμοσόφους τε
μαντοσύν]ας τε πανομφαίοϊυ Διὸς εἰδότας αἴσῃ,
κωφοὺς δ᾽, ὄϊφρα θεοῖσιν ὑφε[ιμ]ένοι ἀτασ[θῶσἾιν
[μαντείαις] τῶν μέν τε κτλ.
If the accent on μελάνοί is right, only one syllable is wanting ; otherwise μελανόπτερον
ὄχλον would be suitable.
11. Taia πελώρη occurs several times in the Zheogony, e.g. 159, 173. But perhaps
πελώριος, Which is found as a fem. form in Zheog. 179, was-here used.
12. mavoudaios is an epithet of Zeus in Homer, © 250.
13. A dark mark on the edge of the papyrus before ¢pa does not look like an accent,
ατασζθωσΊιν, if right, is remarkable, the verb being used elsewhere in the present tense only.
ara\\Awo | (cf. Hesiod, Op, 131) cannot be read.
15. This line = Hesiod, Fr. 55, from Strabo vii, p. 300 Ἡσίοδος μάρτυς ἐν τοῖς ὑπ᾽
᾿Ερατοσθένους παρατεθεῖσιν ἔπεσιν Αἰθίοπας κλ. The MSS. of Strabo have re λιγυστὶ δέ, which
has been variously emended: Aiyvds re ἰδέ Naeke, Λίγυάς τ᾽ ἠδέ Heinsius, re Λίγυς τ᾽ ἠδέ
Bernhardy, τὲ Λίγυς re ἰδέ Rzach, Λίβυάς τ᾽ ἠδέ Clericus, re Λίβυς. τ᾽ ἦδέ 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 ε of the first re seems to be meaningless.
16-19. These lines apparently trace the origin of the Αἰθίοπες and others who had just
been mentioned (Il. 9, 15) from Zeus, who rather than Poseidon is presumably meant, as
usual, by Κρονίωνος ; cf. 1. 19 ᾿Ερικτύπου, 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 (Il. 27, 31) is hardly a reason for supposing that he was
intended here. Line 16 may be restored, with Murray, [ὧν ἄρ᾽ ἄναξ; 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. 1. 4, &c. Line 17 might then be completed [τοῖο Λιβυο].
Murray proposes [KoAxor yap]; they were peAdyxpoes 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. ]. 31.
20. The poet here returns to the Boreadae and Harpies, who are apparently the subject
of εθυνεον ; cf. 1. 28. θυνεῖν is a form peculiar to Hesiod.
21. Mr. Allen suggests that the name Φινεα 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 add’ Ἡσιόδῳ μέν ἐστι περὶ “Ὑπερβορέων εἰρημένα (Hesiod, Fr. 209), Steph. Byz. 8. v.
Ἡμίκυνες, ἔθνος οὐ πόρρω Μασσαγετῶν καὶ Ὑπερβορέων... kai Ἡσίοδος (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
Ὑπερβορέων analogous to the genealogy of the Αἰθίοπες, &c., in ll. 16sqq. For rexe Ty
cf. 1. rx above, and for the collocation π[ολ]υσπ. πολυῴφ., Homer, 1 154 πολύρρηνες πολυβοῦται,
K 315 πολύχρυσος πολύχαλκος. πολύφορβος, which may be a mistake for πολυῴορβους, is an
epithet of Demeter in Zheog. 912 and of γαῖα in Homer, I 568, &c,
13858. NEW CLASSICAL TEXTS 51
23-4. The restoration of Hp:davolo here (Allen) is commended by ηλεκτροιο in the
following line. The Eridanus is mentioned in Zheog. 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, Grzech. Myth. i,
p- 358; cf. Hdt. iii, 115 Ἤριδανόν τινα... ποταμὸν ἐκδιδόντα ἐς θάλασσαν τὴν πρὸς βορέην ἄνεμον,
Ap. Rhod. Arg. iv. 611-14 Κελτοὶ δ᾽ ἐπὶ βάξιν ἔθεντο, ὡς ἄρ᾽ ᾿Απόλλωνος τάδε δάκρυα Λητοΐδαο
συμφέρεται δίναις (Sc. ᾿Ηριδανοῦ), ἅ τε μυρία χεῦε πάροιθεν, ἦμος Ὑπερβορέων ἱερὸν γένος εἰσαφίκανεν.
Whether the interlinear addition in |. 24 is due to the corrector or to the original scribe is
not very clear.
25-6. Νεβρωδες was suggested by Lobel. The construction is awkward, though apparently
not more so than at 1. 15. For Acrv|nv and Olprvymp cf.’ Strabo i, p. 23 (Hes. Fr. 65)
Ἐρατοσθένης δὲ Ἡσίοδον μὲν εἰκάζει. . . πιστεύσαντα τῇ δόξῃ μὴ μόνον τῶν ὑφ᾽ “Ounpou λεγομένων
μεμνῆσθαι, ἀλλὰ καὶ Αἴτνης καὶ ᾿᾽Ορτυγίας τοῦ πρὸς Συρακούσαις νησίου καὶ Τυρρηνῶν. In 1. 26 νησον
is an obvious supplement, but is scarcely long enough for the lacuna; possibly ἰνησον ex
Olpr. was written. Murray proposes στυφλην. ,
24. wos: i,e. probably Laestrygon, who is called the son of Poseidon in Eustath.
p. 1649. 10; cf. Gellius, V. A. 15.21 Wepluni filtos dixerunt... Laestrygonas. Polyphemus
could hardly have been referred to in such vague terms. In place of evéa perhaps os re
might be restored, sc. Λαιστρυγών, supplied from Λαιστ[ρυγονἼίην.
θ of yeved was converted from ἃ τ.
28. mode means ‘to plough’ in Op. 462, but must here mean ‘range over’ if, as is the
natural assumption, the Boreadae are the subject. 7ις might also be e.g. τρις with em or
apa OF μεν preceding.
29. Cf, Scut, 231 ἱέμεναι μαπέειν, of the Gorgons, and 304 ἱέμενοι μαπέειν, ot δ᾽ ἱέμενοι
tradvéa, of hunters and hares.
30. ΚεφαλλἼηνων well suits the geography, the 2rpopddes or Πλωταΐ, where the pursuit
ended, being placed to the south of Zacynthus; cf. 1. 32 and Schol. Laur. Apoll. Rhod.
Arg. ii. 297 ὅτι δὲ ηὔξαντο οἱ περὶ Ζήτην τῷ Διὶ στραφέντες λέγει καὶ ᾿Ησίοδος "Evé οἵ γ᾽ εὐχέσθην
Αἰνηίῳ ὑψιμέδοντι (Fr. 51)" ἔστι γὰρ Αἶνος ὄρος τῆς Κεφαλληνίας, ὅπου Αἰνησίου Διὸς ἱερόν ἐστιν.
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 Καλυψὼ «rd, An aposiopesis analogous
to Theocr. i. 105 οὐ λέγεται τὰν Κύπριν ὁ βουκόλος ; iS unsuited to the Hesiodic style; and the
stop after νυμῴφηι invalidates a transference of the verb to the beginning of the next line.
Probably, then, either something has dropped out, as at |. 33 (6. g., as Mr. Lobel suggests,
δῆμον ᾿Οδυσσῆος ταλασίφρονος, ὃν μετέπειτα εἶργε Iloc. xrd.), or the verse is out of its place,
which is perhaps the more likely alternative, if θοροντες in the margin implies that a participle
preceded γ]αῖαν in 1. 32.
32. τ Apnriddao: i.e. presumably Dulichium; cf. Homer, π 395-6 Νίσου φαίδιμος
vids, ᾿Αρητιάδαο ἄνακτος, ὅς ῥ᾽ ἐκ Δουλιχίου κτλ. A reference to the Thessalian Cycnus, who is
called ’Apnriddns in Scut. 57 (cf. Apollod. ii. 7. 7), does not suit this context.
33. Possibly the supposed i 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. 1. ii. 8, Fr. 64. 57, 1282. ii. 3.
35. This verse, which was originally omitted, follows 1. 33 ; see the preceding note.
For μετα]χρονιοισι, which was restored by Allen, cf. Zheog. 269.
ii. 1. The marginal sign (cf. e. g. 16) is presumably due to the corrector,
52 THE OXYRHYNCHUS PAPYRI
1359. HESIOD, Catalogue.
From 15 Χ 7: cm. Early third century. Plate III
(Frs. 2 and 4).
The authorship of the following fragments is not established like that
of 1858 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 Κατάλογος Γυναικῶν. Fr. 1, the only substantial piece, is occupied
with the adventures of Auge and her son Teepe Fr. 2, 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 Epu|x@oviovo is to be restored in Fr. 4. 3,
that fragment would be expected to be concerned with the same family as Fr. 2;
ll. 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 may be 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. .
Pe
[
[ 18 letters | a το. je. [
[et et ne Ja |. s|vo-. Gevabal.!. Ὁ ΟΣ ea
[ει On p ηἹμεΐλλ]εν gs? 2 διε μυ[θον] ακουσῖζαι
T
5 [αθανα͵των ox οἱ rolc]| evapyees αντεφανησῖαν
[κεινη]ν δ᾽ ay μεγαροισιν ev τρεφεν ηδ᾽ ατίιταλλε
[SeEapler[ols [[e]licov δὲ θυγατρασιν ἤσιν eripla
[η texe| Τηλεῴφον Apkacidny Μυσῶν βασιληα
[mtx Pela ev φιλοτητι βίη Ἡρακληειη:
10 [os pa μεθ ἥππους στειχεν ayavov Δαομεδοντοῖς |
[or δὴ ποσσιὴν ἀαριστοι ev Ασ[ί])δι ἔτραφεν a'n:
[εκ δο y Αμαζον)δων μεγαθυμων φυλον εναιρῖε
— ὙΌΣ ΨΥ Σου
1359. NEW CLASSICAL TEXTS 53
[uapvapevos κἸεινης de τε yns εξηλασε πάσης |
[avrap o Τηλεφος] érpan’ Αχαιων χαλκοχιτώνων
1g [aomoras Kat εβησὶε μελαινάων emt r[qov
[avrap emet πολλους)] πελασεν χθονι Bal[riaverpy
[
[
αὐτου on dedunt|o Bin 7 avdpoxracin Tle
RS Se cra a η κατοπισθεν εἶ
(1 2 a , Ὅρος ]. ὡς δ᾽ ἵκοντο 6]
Πρό; 1 πεφοβημενοῖ
πο ΠΔέὃ’Ργ, πριν es tie «| 4 ἐτο κλυτος ἀρ
π΄... ὕει: Je dia κλεί. 1.1
πιο ΡΝ λον, ΠῚ
POS eee oe keane Ἰκλυτί
πο anor ae ae val
Br; 2. Ρίαίε TE.
. . . . . . .
Kl
και pl
5 Ἠλεκτρίη |
γειναθ᾽ [υποδμηθεισα κελαινεφει Κρονιωνι
Δαρδανον
Herior[a τε
os ποτε 4ημητρος μεγ εἐρασσατο καλλικομοιο
10 Kat Tov plev φλογερω δαμασεν πληχθεντα KEepavyw
Heriwva [xorwoapevos νεφεληγερετα Zeus
ουνεκα Alnuntp nukoyw em χειρας εβαλλεν
αὐτὰρ Aalpdavos nAOev ew ἀκτὴν ηἡπειροιο
εκ του Ερίιχθονιος και Tpws μετεπειτὰα γένοντο
15 Idos [τ Ασσαρακος τε και αντιθεος Γανυμηδης
νηϊ [πολυκληιδι λιπὼν ἱερὴν Σ᾽ αμοθρακην
54 THE OXYRHYNCHUS PAPYRI
Fr. 3
νοστοῖ
αἱ
άιθο. οἷ
Fr, 4. Plate 11],
Ἰκλεοῖ
‘Bao θύγατίρ
Ἰχθονίοιο
1. καλλος εἶ
5 εὐπλΊοκαμον 4ΔΠιομ]ηδίην
η δ Υακινθον γεινατ αμυ]μονά τε κρατερον τε
Je: Tov pa mor avros
PoiBos κτανε νηλε]ϊ δισκω
; |
Fr. 5. gg evan Sage
‘ca pen vol
Ἰν yepas αφίθιτον Ἰν ἵκανεν Ἰδων!
Jatpov τενΐ Ἰληες γ]ονήων- 70]
δια χρυση]ῆν Agpodirnv Ἰοιο ] καὶ ap.[
5 |. κε yuvlatk ]
Fr. 1. 3. Perhaps αθαΐνατοις (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 Arcas, 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
1359. NEW CLASSICAL TEXTS 55
embark on their black ie But when he had laid many low on mother earth, his death-
dealing might was stricken .
4-5. The reception of yn by the Mysian king Teuthras seems here to have been
attributed to a divine interposition. ηἸμεΐλλ]εν is quite conjectural ; the doubtful » may be 7,
and there is barely room for the two lambdas. In 1. 5 the supposed rough breathing on οἱ
is very uncertain, and a smooth one would be at least as consistent with the vestiges.
6. [xewnlv: sc. Auge; the subject is Teuthras.
7. Cf. Hyg. Fab. 99 cum esset orbus liberis, 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. Αρκασιδὴν : cf. Callim. 27. Dzan. 216, where the name is applied to Iasius, who like
Telephus was of the fifth generation from Arcas,
11. Cf. Homer, ¥ 348 ἢ τοὺς Λαομέδοντος, ot ἐνθάδε γ᾽ ἔτραφεν ἐσθλοί.
15. εβησῖε: cf. e.g. Homer, Π 810 φῶτας ἐείκοσι βῆσεν ἀφ᾽ ἵππων.
; 16. Cf. the Homeric line πάντας ἐπασσυτέρους πέλασε χθονὶ πουλυβοτείρῃ (Θ 277, &c.).
χθονὶ βωτιανείρῃ occurs in H. Afpoll. 363, H. Ven. 265. .
17. δεδμητ]ο is extremely uncertain; the slight remains of the final vowel would be
consistent with «. Above the line at this point is an ink-mark which suggests a stop, but
that can hardly have been intended here.
18. Possibly εβ]γ, but the lacunae now become too large for satisfactory restoration.
19. The last word may well have been θΐαλασσαν, as both Murray and Allen suggest ;
the remains after the initial lacuna are consistent with 6]oas.
21. Perhaps Αρ[γειφοντης, as in Hesiod, Οὗ. 84 πέμπε πατὴρ κλυτὸν Apy., but we|rero, as in
Homer, © 345 7. κρατὺς ’Apy., would be unsatisfactory, the vestige of the letter after the
lacuna apparently not suiting r.
22. Perhaps κλε[ιτοῦ, the last bi before the lacuna being part of the circumflex.
24. Cf. 1. 21 and note.
Fr. 2. 5 sqq. Cf. Homer, Υ 215 sqq., Apollod. iii. 12. 1-2.
6. For the supplement cf. Hesiod, Scut. 53.
8-12. Cf. Homer, ε 125-8 ὡς δ᾽ ὁπότ᾽ ᾿Ιασίωνι ἐυπλόκαμος Δημήτηρ, ᾧ θυμῷ εἴξασα, μίγη
φιλότητι καὶ εὐνῇ νειῷ ἔνι τριπόλῳ᾽ οὐδὲ δὴν ἦεν ἄπυστος Ζεὺς ὅς μιν κατέπεφνε βαλὼν ἀργῆτι κεραυνῷ,
Apollod. iii. 12. 1 ἸΙασίων μὲν οὖν ἐρασθεὶς Δήμητρος καὶ θέλων καταισχῦναι τὴν θεὸν κεραυνοῦται.
That Iasion was another name for Eetion is stated in Scho]. Apollon. Rhod. i. 916 ἐγέννησε
δὲ τρεῖς παῖδας, Δάρδανον τὸν ἐς Τροίαν κατοικήσαντα, ὃν καὶ Πολυάρχην φασὶ λέγεσθαι ὑπὸ τῶν ἐγχωρίων,
καὶ ᾿Ηετίωνα ὃν Ἰασίωνα ὀνομάζουσι" καί φασι κεραυνωθῆναι αὐτὸν ὑβρίζοντα ἄγαλμα τῆς Δήμητρος.
The scholiast’s authority here is supposed to have been Hellanicus, who is cited in the
context. The identity of Iasion with Eetion is also stated by Schol. Eurip. Phoen. 1129.
13-16. Cf. Apollod. ili. 12. 1 Δάρδανος δὲ ἐπὶ τῷ θανάτῳ τοῦ ἀδελφοῦ λυπούμενος Σαμοθράκην
ἀπολιπὼν εἰς τὴν ἀντιπέρα ἤπειρον ἦλθε. vy in |. 16 looks like a reference to the voyage of
Dardanus (in spite of Conon 21 πλοίων χρῆσις οὐδέπω ἦν), and if so it seems probable that
Il. 14-15 are parenthetical. Tros was the son of Ericthonius and father of Ilus, Assaracus,
and Ganymede. For 1. 15 cf. Homer, ¥ 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 ἘριΪχθο-
woo in 1, 3 and to suppose that the fragment is more or less closely connected with Fr. 2,
56 THE OXYRHYNCHUS PAPYRI
and 1]. 1-2 and 4 readily lend themselves to that view; Ἰκλεοί in 1. 1 may be Κλεοίπατρα
daughter of Tros, and καλλος in 1.4. might be taken to refer to her brother Ganymede.
On the other hand ll. s-8 are apparently concerned with the quite different subject of
Diomede and Hyacinthus. Perhaps a new section began at ]. 5.
_ 5-8. Cf. Apollod. iii. το. 3 ᾿Αμύκλα δὲ καὶ Διομήδης . .. ὙὙάκινθος. τοῦτον civ t τοῦ ᾿Απόλλωνος
ἐρώμενον λέγουσιν, ὃν δίσκῳ βαλὼν ἄκων ἀπέκτεινε. jain 1. 7 might perhaps be Αμυκλ]α.
Fr. 5. 2. αφίθιτον: cf. Homer, I 413 κλέος ἄφθιτον, H. Cer. 261 apd... . τιμήν. γέρας
apé. 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. 1,
lines 1-12 now reading as follows :— |
nm... . Ἰἀβολονπάτεραπί
Kal... ἡνκήνωπατεραϊ
ΠΡ 10 τ: Ἰωνάισχυντοσεπί
2. μ[:Ἰσοσαλιτρον"
»
53
Ξ ζευατερ'λὔδοιμενεπαὶ
συμφόραισιδισχελίοισσταϊί
ἀμμέδωκανάικεδυνάιμεθ᾽ ἐρΙ
10 εσπολινελθην"
ουπάθοντεσουδάμαπῶσλονουζ ᾿
ουδεγεινώσκοντεσ'οδ᾽ ωὡσαλώπαϊ.
That a new poem begins at 1. 7 is established by the coronis. συμφόραισι is -
another substantial gain, and ἄμμι, which we hesitated to restore, is confirmed.
The first word of 1. 6 was of course μῖσος, 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
appearance. ;
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
1360. NEW CLASSICAL TEXTS 57
the latter were consecutive becomes rather more hazardous. In colour and
condition, however, these additional fragments approximate to 1284. Fr. 1, and
may well have preceded it. They cannot be brought into close connexion with
1284. Frs. 3-6. ee
As in 1284, political references are frequent, and the poems seem to belong
mainly to the class of Στασιωτικά. Lines 1-8 of Fr. 1 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. ἀ πόλις in 1. ὃ 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 |. 11 (see the note there) they would be three-line stanzas, as
in one of the Berlin fragments of Sappho (Berl. Klassikertexte, v. %, 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 Alec. 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 12384. Fr. 1. :
58
5
5--
5
10
THE OXYRHYNCAUS PAPYRI
Pra:
[-}4f
ὠὡσπάρᾳαϊ
αλλαπἰ.] . |
τῶπο. .ἷ
πολλαί jel
ὡσεθέλ!
[1ττιτων . [
απολισἄμμα!
ουπαντ᾽ Hoan
ουδ᾽ ασυννετί Ἰσαμοισιδί
βώμωλατοϊ. .Ἰατοῦτ᾽ εφυλαξαΐ
μητιστωνκ Ἰκοπατρίδαν
ὁπωσί
σενφί
ἐισεταιφάνεραιτί Ἰσιναπαρχα .Ϊ
Fr. 2.
\rnv
Ἰοδεπλάτυ
Ἰκεφάλασ.μάτει
]
Ἰντεσ᾽
Ἰοξύλον
Ἰπροιειμονον
J
J
|
υμεισδεσιγατεωσπερνεκρωνιεροιμυσταιοί
δενδυναμενοιαντιστηναιτωιτυρανί
αλλαωμυτιληναιοιεωσετικαπνονμονοῖ
αφιησιτοξυλοντουτ, εωσουδεπωτυραννΐ
κατασβετεκαικαταπαυσατεταχεωσμηλαί
τεροντοφωσγενηται
Ἰσινΐ
Ἰακρονε. Ϊ
1360. NEW CLASSICAL TEXTS 59
Fr. 1.
LM
ὡς πάρα!
ἀλλὰ π|.].[
τῶ πο..Ϊ
5. πόλλα el
ὡς ἐθέλ!
[ὄγγττι τῶν. [
ἁ πόλις ἄμμα 1
Οὐ πάντ᾽ ἧς ἄπϊορος (9)
το οὐδ᾽ ἀσύννετ[ο]ς ἄμ(μγοισι dle
βώμω Λατοίδηα τοῦτ᾽ ἐφυλάξαο
ὅπως [
μή τις τῶν κ[αἸκοπατρίδαν κὰν ay
εἴσεται, φάνεραι τοῖσιν ἄπαρχαι Ϊ
Fr. 2.
\rnv
τ]ὸ δὲ πλάτυ
| κεφάλας, μάτει
| ὑμεῖς δὲ σιγᾶτε ὥσπερ νεκρῶν ἱεροὶ μύσται, o[v-
δὲν δυνάμενοι ἀντιστῆναι τῶι τυράνίνωι.
Ἰντες.
τς Η mig hve fae ἀλλ᾽, ὦ Μυτιληναῖοι, ἕως ἔτι καπνὸν μόνοϊν
ἀλλ΄, ὦ πολῖται, νῦν, ἔτι TIO ξύλον ἀφίησι τὸ ξύλον, τοῦτ᾽ (ἔστιν) Ews οὐδέπω τυραννεύει,
κατάσβ(ηγτε καὶ καταπαύσατε ταχέως, μὴ λα[μπρό-
as ἄμμι τὸν κάπνον] προΐει μόνον τεβον τὰ ik γένηται.
‘Fr. 3.
Ἰσινΐ
Ἰακρονε. Ϊ
THE OXYRHYNCHUS PAPYRI
Ἰελί- - ε1δ
Ἰωνεισαΐδαί
5 ]
1. ιλημεταξυπυρρασκαμυ
Ἰυφερωντινασπί
Ἰφησιτωβυκχιδι
1. γαρυμειν"
- Fr. 4. Pos, Fr. 6.
(οι. :. Col. ii Σ - vs
] τ “ἢ ᾿ς Ἰνα.1αἱ
' pal ΠΟ Jorde, Ἰιτόεργον
Ε οννο Ἰσέδωκ[ lea
rf ες και ‘5 Ἰτατοσκί 5 Ἰωντοκηων
5 avd es 4
dat vTa [-
5 te “τοὶ Ἰλίοιστάτί Ξ τα Ϊ
] £ ὠστοῖ
] 7 Kad. [
] το τὺ κ τ
Fr. 7 Fr. 8 Fr. 9 Fr. Io,
Ἰ. αθη 1... Ἰπεῖ δρῖ
] ] Ἰνα[ αθαϊ
Ἰάχη! Ἰν Ἰγεφῖ κα
poral Ἰύμαι Jade εδα
54a 5 Ἰκύθϊ . ΠῚ
[ae ae»
5
Fr.
Col. i.
lo
7τι
Joo
ον
5 joo
ay,
αθη]
1860.
ν ε
ἔστιν ἧ
NEW CLASSICAL TEXTS
JeAl. . .1δὲ
lov εἰς Aida [
]
7. Ay μεταξὺ Πύρρας κα[ὶ] Μυ[τιλήνηΞ
Ju φέρων τινὰς πί
7 φησὶ τῷ Βύκχιδι [
71. γὰρ ὑμῖν. ᾿
δισχε]λίοις στάτ[ηρας
Fr. 8.. Fr. 9
ἀπ} Ἰπεῖ
] Ἰναὶ
Ἰν Ἰγεφὶ
Ἰόμαί Jade
5 Ἰκύθι :
61
lo
να 1.1
ὃ ἠλ]ιτόεργον
Ἱμα.
5 (9) φίλ]ων τοκήων
Ἰν
ra Ϊ
Fr. 10.
δρῖ
ἀθαϊ
καὶ
édal
5.{}.
62
Pra:
Col. i.
- ΄
Ἰσσουσι αι.
jup
1τα[]
]ασί.] ουΐ
THE
Col. ii.
Fr. 12.
Jecoapi
read . [
Ἰφλαυροσυΐ
OXYRHYNCHUS PAPYRI
ἘΣ 15:
|o
]o”epooul
Jor
jtav
Free
kal
Jeol ἡ
Fr. 29.
hove . [
πάντα
Ἰρισενδεῖ
]ουσ.[
1860. NEW CLASSICAL TEXTS 63
Ετ. 11. Fr. 12.
Fr. 15.
ἜΡΟΝ ai. [ Ἰασσαμι Js
Ἰυμ- μί Ἱντες 3. [ ] ἀν(τὶ τοῦ) ἱεροσυ[λ
Ἰτα[] 2
5 Jac[.] οὐ 1 φλαῦρος vf Ἰων
- Ἰίαν
Fr. 14 Fr. 15 Fr. 16. Fr. 17,
Pe. Jaca Ἰτιδαϊ Ἰρφί
Is τῖ Ἰνοπτὶ Ἰ πολυ Ἰημῖ
ΟΝ vr ἿΝΙ
Fr. 18 Fr. 19 Fr. 20 Ἦτ. 21.
Ἰξωϊ Ἰβολλί Hi re
Ἰήκεῖ Ἰαμεγί Ἰγων] baba
Ἰαστοῖ Ἰτίσδ᾽ Jay Jol
Fr. 22. Fr. 22 Fr. 24 Fr. 25
ef jouel 7 Ἱκαῖ
κἸαλυπτί δ᾽ al Ἱγέρ Yo
vr See
Fr. 26. Fr. 27. Fr, 28. Fr. 29.
hak λα ᾿ Ἰδεξαί Jove . [
Ἰλετί | κ(ατὰ) τῶν [ atte
‘ Nala οὐ . Jove .[
_- =
64 THE OXYRHYNCHUS PAPYRI
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. . dupa may be divided
ἄμμ᾽ ἀ, dup’ being either accusative or dative ; for the latter cf. 1284. Fr. τ. 9 dup’ ἔδωκαν.
9. A new poem is marked by the coronis. The letter before the lacuna is probably
either y or πὶ; β, however, is not impossible. An adjective to balance dovvver(ols in the next
line is wanted. °
το. For the doubled ν in dovyver[o]s cf. Fr. 4. ii. 3, 1284. Fr. 2. ii. 8 ὀννώρινε, and
Alc. 18. 1 where the spelling ἀσυννέτημι is commended by these analogies. The rest of the
line is difficult. οἱ seems practically certain, and the next letter can only be core. Before
οἱ x could well be read, but this, though the preceding a may perhaps be A, gives no word.
That the letter next after the lacuna is the final s of acvvver[o|s is not certain, for below
the curved top there is a tiny speck which is consistent with e or 0; but to read τίοσ]ε or
z[oc]o does not suit the space so well, and leads to no other good result ; ὄλμοισι cannot be
regarded as likely here. We have thus been led to αμοισι, which would give a sense if
some such verb as συνθιγών followed, but is unsatisfactory since the dialect requires a second
p. γάρ too would seem more natural than δέ.
11. Under the 8 of Bwpo 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 hefe, some vestiges of it would have still been visible. There is
certainly no paragraphus below either 1. 12 or]. 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. For the construction μὴ . .. εἴσεται cf. e.g. Aristoph. Eccles. 486-8 περισκο-
πουμένη. . . μὴ ξυμφορὰ γενήσεται, Aesch. Pers. 116 sqq. φρὴν ἀμύσσεται φόβῳ... . μὴ πόλις
πύθηται. .. καὶ τὸ Κίσσιον πόλισμ᾽ ἀντίδουπον ἔσ(σγεται (ᾷσεται ἢ), Xen. Cyrop. iv. 1. 18 ὅρα μὴ
πολλῶν ἑκάστῳ ἡμῶν χειρῶν δεήσει. The irregularity apparently gave rise to the marginal note.
κακοπατρίδας is parallel in form to εὐπατρίδης. In 1284. Fr. 6. 12 as well as in Alc. 37 the
form κακόπατρις was used. For the paroxytone accent with gen. plur. of the. 1st declension cf.
1281. Fr. 14. 8, note.
Fr. 2. 3. pare: ef. Sapph. 54. 3. μάτεισαι. The preceding dot is a low stop, of which
there was no example in 1284.
4. The marginal note paraphrased the text. νεκρῶν μύσται is an unexpected combina-
tion, and the latter part of this line is very doubtfully deciphered. cao, ove, eve, might well:
be read instead of pv. ε of de 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 ll. 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. di. 3. ovvol: cf. 1284. Fr. 2. ii. 8 ὀννώρινε and note on Fr. 1. 10, above.
Fr. 6. 3-4. The accent points to ἠλ])ιτόεργον rather than |. τὸ ἔργον. Line 4, as com-
_ pared with ll. 3 and 5, is too long for the last verse of a Sapphic stanza.
5. φίλων τοκήων occurs in 1281. Fr. 1. 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.
1860. NEW CLASSICAL TEXTS 65
Fr. 12. 1. The curved stroke below the line shows that the letters belong to a single
word ; cf. e.g. 1238. Fr. 2. 20. It is the opposite of the diastole, of which there was an
example in 1234. Fr. 2. i. 6.
Fr. 15 possibly joins on above Fr. 16.
Fr. 17. 1. The doubtful ¢ may be v.
Fr. 18. 1. Ἱξωί : or fof.
Fr, 21 is rather doubtfully included here.
Fr. 28. The é 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. 1 only the
bottoms of the letters remain, is also uncertain.
1361. BACCHYLIDES, Scolza.
Fr. 1 18-1 X 13-1 cm, ' First century. Plate IIT
(Frs. 1, 4).
Bacchylides has already figured among the Oxyrhynchus papyri in 1091,
a column from Ode xvi (dithyramb). The fragments now 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 handwriting has a decidedly early appearance,
and is likely to fall well within the first century. Characteristic letters are ε and
6, of which the cross-bar commonly consists of a mere dot separated from
the curved strokes. €is similarly treated, and ¢ 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 20, 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 paragraphi.
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. 1, which at 1. 6 sqq. coincides with
Bacch. Fr. 20 and fortunately preserves the beginning of the poem from which those
F
66 THE OXYRHYNCHUS PAPYRI
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. 20 is commonly regarded as derived from a Παροίνιον,
or convivial piece, although no distinct class of Παροίνια 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 συμποσίοισιν ἄγαλμα. For the dedication of such poems to royal personages
cf.e.g. Pindar, Fr. 125, cited from τὸ πρὸς ἹΙέρωνα σκόλιον. 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 ll. 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 ll. 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. 1, but the direct reference in 1. 6 to συμπόται ἄνδρες. These reasons
combine to determine the classification of the poem as a convivial σκόλιον. [15
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 (ll. 6-7). The metre, as in Fr. 1, is
dactylo-epitritic, the strophes consisting of six verses each, in the following
scheme:
-“-πυυπ-πῶυυ -- [-
-πυ-- τ πυ- πίσφυ-- -
-,ὐ-- --υὐὖ en Lone
Sy a
“᾿ὠν-- UU —
π- πῷυ---- -ἀῶὐα [-- --
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
ἐν [κἸεφάλ[ᾳ . . . τ]ρίχες, with the interlinear adscript . . . ὑπὸ πατρὸς év.. ., 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
1861. NEW CLASSICAL TEXTS 67
a rape (Il. 13-14; cf. ll. 19-20). If Ἰδοντ᾽ in 1. 14 (cf. 1. 18) is the termination of
a name (-μέδοντ᾽ ?), 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.
Ἰν
1α
σι
ΙΟ
15
20
THE OXYRHYNCHUS PAPYRI
Fr. 1. Plate IIT.
ωὠβαρβιτε"μηκετιπασσαλονφυλασὶ
επτατονονλιγὺρανκαππανυεγᾶρυν.
δεῦρ᾽ ἐσεμασχερασ'ορμαινωτιπεμπὶ
χρυσεονμουσᾶναλεξανδρωιπτεροῖ
καισυμπορῖ. . ]σιναγαλμί. .]εικαδεσὶ
εὐτενέωναϊ. .. . +. eee Ἰναγκα"
δευομενᾶνκί. oo eee ee eee ΠΠι||σιθυμί
κυπριδοστελπῖ. «2-2 ee ee Ἰνασ-
Gperyvuper[... +. eee Ἰδωροισί
ανδρασινυψοῖ. . . .«.«...Ὁ Ἱμεριμνΐ
auTik[.|uevTT|.-- +++ es Ἰμνα .[
BONS ood 's SSeS ee Ἰχήσϊ
χρυ Ἰαιρῖ
πὺροφί Ἰαποῖ
νᾶεσαγοΐ
πλοῦτονωσϊὶ
ὧπί.] . μὲγὰλί
[.. . “ουπί
[.. dy]
[. - . -JonOupl
[. - - Ἰφρονοὶ
eae Ἰεπερί
Pre,
Ἰγιγαρανθῖ
γἸοιχαριτί
186]. NEW CLASSICAL TEXTS
Fr. τ, Plate Hi:
"QQ βάρβιτε, μηκέτι πάσσαλον φυλάσσων στρ. α΄
᾿Αλεξά]ν- ἑπτάτονον λιγυρὰν κάππανυε γᾶρυν:
ie δεῦρ᾽ és ἐμὰς χέρας: ὁρμαίνω τι πέμπειν
χρύσεον Μουσᾶν ᾿Αλεξάνδρῳ πτερὸν
καὶ ovpmooliolow ἄγαλμ᾽ ἐν] εἰκάδεσϊσιν, στρ. β΄
σι
εὖτε νέων ἀγαθῶν γλυκεῖ᾽ ἀἸνάγκα
σευομενᾶν κ[υλίκων θάλπη]σι θυμ[ὸν
Κύπριδος 7’ ἐλπίὶς (δῥαιθύσσῃ (Ὁ) φρέϊνας,
ἃ μειγνυμέν[α Διονυσίοισι] δώροις στρ. ¥
10 ἀνδράσιν ὑψοϊτάτω πέμπει] μερίμνας"
αὐτίκ[α] μὲν πί[ολίων Kpddeluva λίύει,
πᾶσι δ᾽ ἀνθρώποις μοναρ]χήσίειν δοκεῖ,
χρυϊσ᾽ῷ [δ᾽ ἐλέφαντί τε μαρμ]αίρί[ουσιν οἶκοι, στρ. δ΄
πυροφίόροι δὲ Kar’ αἰγλάεντ]α πόΪντον
15 νᾶες ἄγοϊυσιν ἀπ’ Αἰγύπτου μέγιστον
“- ἃ ΄ ε 7 7
πλοῦτον: ὡς [πίνοντος ὁρμαίνει κέαρ.
ὦ mal μεγαλ[οσθενέος ? στρ. €
[- . - -Jou7[
[-- λάχε ve 4
20 [—uls ἢ θυμί--α —-—— vu --
[— --Ἰφῤρονοί-- αὖ —Y¥— VU ---- στρ. ς΄
[— οΟἸεπερίω ὦ --Ξ --ὺὖ -- --
Γ- [9 vionoou a τ 9 ἐπ
Fr. 2.
re γὰρ ἀνθ
Jp χαριτῖ
69
Jo
THE OXYRHYNCHUS PAPYRI
Fr. 2.
ἘΠῊΝ
ἸΦῖ- - - Ἰκοτοσο. [
Ἰανθρωπωνδιαισί
Ἰνοσ᾿ισασδοτυχωνΐ
Fr. 4. Plate IIT.
aS
Kimora μηπωλιγνα . |
βαρβιτον"μελλί
ανθεμονμουσαΐ. . «“]ρωνΐ
ξανθαισινιπποισ
5 [. «ἹἸεροεντελεσασ
[- ισυνποταισανδρεσσιπὶ
[- τνανεσεῦκτιτον" εικ
[. (1ὐσθενυμνησαστονΐ
. Ἰσσιλαιψί:Ἰρο[.Ἰσφερί
[
10 [. .Jor7[. . .|kav cf ete
[- - Jol]. [. -Jropevoc
ΞΡ τς Jeave .[...]-[
ὺν-- Ἰεμοιτοτεκουραΐ
[Says Gone Ἰοσσοιδιοσπαγχρῖ
EU are ce ie Εν, Ἱμοστιθεσανμῖ
13861. NEW CLASSICAL TEXTS
Hy. 2.
1.1.1
Ἰφ[- - « οἸκοτος" o. [
] ἀνθρώπων διαισί
vos: ἴσας δ᾽ ὁ τυχὼν [
Fr. 4. Plate III.
ἹΠέρωνι ξ Peay
ΤΗΝ Μήπω λιγυαχίε avnK®@
βάρβιτον: μέλλ[ζω γὰρ ἤδη χρυσοπέπλων
ἄνθεμον Μουσάϊν ‘Télpwr[t κλυτῷ
ξανθαῖσιν ἵπποις
5 [ἑμ]ερόεν τελέσας
[κα]ὶ συμπόταις ἄνδρεσσι πίέμπειν
[At]rvay ἐς ἐὔκτιτον" εἰ κ[αὶ
ἱπρ]όσθεν ὑμνήσας τὸν [ἐν πώλοις κλεεννὸν
[πο]σσὶ λαιψ[η]ρο[[ς Φερίένικον ἐπ᾽ ᾿4λ-
10 [φει]ῷ τίε νῶκαν A
[—lp[v v —]ropevos
[—-— Ἰεανε. {--ο -- -
[-- -- ΑἹ ἐμοὶ τότε κούραϊΪ
[---Ἤ --ἸἼ ὅσσοι Διὸς πάγχρίυσον --- —
15 [---οω -- --ἶμος τίθεσαν μίυ υ —
στρ. a
στρ. β΄
στρ. γ
στρ. &
71
72
20
if
THE OXYRHYNCHUS PAPYRI
Fr. 5. Col.i.
Ἰτευειδεκαμί
Ἰονίαστάλὰι ]
Ἱτερόννιντελί ]
ασκαικἄᾶτᾶἄρατί. ........... le
ervdoveyd. os. 354 Ee ]
71. υποπατροσενῖ
fGen] JeGaAl sos 6s curs cose Ἰριχεσ. |
Ἰνσολοφουπα. .]....... ] [
1. χαλκεομιτρᾶν,. .. ... ]
Ἰοιοκορησ
Ἰθρασύχειρακαιμιαί,... |v
Ἰησκαλυκώπιδοσ.
Ἱπατέρ᾽ ἐμμεν᾽ «ἀλλά... [. «7. ρονοσ
εν] κρατερᾶτεκ᾽ si. kaptel.......
ovrabaven -
JeAtov
ἹἸενποσειδαονίασ
Ἰασελαυ
Ἰντοσολβιοντεκοσ.
Jexopnynp
Ἰρανηρωσ.
Ἰτου
Ἰαλλικρηδεμνουθεασ
J
Ἰκυσαγγελοσ. κ[.Ἰλλισφυραν
Ἰανευτεμολεν.
ἜΣ. Ὁ:
Ἰησεῖ
Ἰοῦτον
Ἱμασσοῖ
9 |
Col. ii.
Ιο pol
1861. NEW CLASSICAL
Pr.i5., Cola
Ἰτεύει δὲ Kap
Ἰονίας τάλαι[ν ]
Ἰτερόν νιν τελί ]
7. ας καὶ Katapatl........-.. le
10
15
20 TAGE
25
W ἔνδον exo... 2... ]
TEATS
]. ὑπὸ πατρὸς ἐν
le & ἐν [κἸεφαλ[ᾷ .. . . . . .. τ]ρίχες. [
χρ]υσολόφου πα... Ϊ- - - -..- ]
]+ χαλκεομίτραν [ ]
oto κόρης
] θρασύχειρα καὶ μιαί[φονο]ν
κόρ]ης καλυκώπιδος
[
AE Sone Ἴειν 8[
“7 τὸ55: JAes .[
] πατέρ᾽ ἔμμεν᾽- ἀλλά v[w] χρόνος
le; κρατερᾷ τέκ᾽ Πτολί(εμαῖος) kapre[pG τεκΊ]εῖν.
Ἰδοντ᾽ ἀνάγκᾳ"
(?) ἀ]ελίου
Ἰεν Ποσειδαονίας
les ἐλαυ-
Wros ὄλβιον τέκος
Je κόρην ἥρ-
Ἰραν ἥρως"
. |rov
κ]αλλικρηδέμνου θεᾶς
J
ὠκὺς ἄγγελος κ[αἸλλισφύραν
Jav εὖτ᾽ ἔμολεν"
73
Col. ti.
Io pol
74 THE OXYRHYNCHUS PAPYRI
Br, Ετ. 8. ΕΥ, 9. Fr. το.
] Ἰντὰλί Ἰαριτωΐ Ἰιουνΐ
]εν" Ἱμοῖ Ἰσταιπί “ov
Ἰονῴυ loo Ἰθεοποῖ Ἰπόσιν
Ἰμ[-Ἰλποῖ ] Ἰητοσῖ ]
Ἰοῦτοιτί 5 Ἰγιαμῖ δ kerf 5 Ἰκαπί
5 Ἰσιωσφ Pd ote th ge ὟΣ . aa
Jov.
Jer auf Fr. 11.
EE oe
Ἱμαινόλισγί
Fr. 12. Rr. 12. Fr. 14.
do..[ Ἰμονιωνΐ Ἰοεσσαί
στεφαναφοΐ Ἰδειλωι. [ |v.
x τοτενέω ομοφί ]. ενεισί Ἱμᾶσ
δευλύραιτεφοι! |code] :
5 Jevol
Breas. Fr. 16. Fr. 17. Fr. 18,
1.1 Io Ἰίναϊ Ἰασί
Ἰσιυπί Ἰεχεῖ Ἰνακροῖ Ἰγοξῖ
Ἰσαισῖ ]. vaf Ἰνκατί Ἰώστί
Ἰτνοῖ Jnv ]- aol kaof
νυ ms
1861.
Ft. J
]
je"
Jor φυΐ
Yi Dare
] ora ὦ. ὁ
7 Ἰσίως φί
7ον"
Ἰεται
1...
Fr. 12.
δὸ : εἶ
στεφαναφοῖρ
τότε νέων ὁμοφίων |
δ᾽ εὐλύρᾳ τε Φοίβῳ
NEW CLASSICAL TEXTS
Fr. 8. Fr. 9.
| ταλί Xapiraly (?)
μα Joram
]. ve ] θεοποίμπ
| Ἰητοσί
Iya pf δ }ιατί
ΕΥ. 11.
] μαινόλις γί
Fr. 12.
Ἰμονιων |
] dare . [
7. ἐνεισί
Ἱκῳ δὲ Of
5 Ἰενοί
Fr. τό. Pay τὴ:
Is Jol
lexe[ Ἰν ἀκροΐ
]. ναί Ἰν κατί
Ἰην } + aol
Fr. το.
Πιουνΐ
νον
] πόσιν
]
5 Ἰκαπί
Fr. 14.
Ἰοεσσαΐ
jw
Ἰμᾶς
75
76
Ἰαθημενη [
Ἱμασ
Ἰαίπατρι
]
|
Fr. 20.
J
Ἰαταιτοσαῖ
Ἰονθέμεθ]
Ἱτοτεγρωῖ
Ἰανξαθεοῖ
5 1ατεδηκαΪ
Ἰμιθεοί
Jnr .1
Fr. 26,
Ἰνσυνβῖ
Fr. 27.
] . ερείπεϊ
Ἰσοτανμί Ἰοσεπιχθ
Ἰὰσοινωΐ Ἰοτομηί
γτιγαρί Ἰαιγερΐ
THE OXYRHYNCHUS PAPYRI
Fr, 21.
14.)
J.e[
Ἰατοσί
Ἰπουΐ
5 Jew
Vel
Fr. 24.
Ἰισυνθεῖ
Ἰνανθρωπὶ
Ye. Ἱπποσαωσ [
Ἰτοσσί Ἰνεφαλικιαΐ
5 Ἰφεγγοσκατανθρωπί
Fr. 28.
Ἰνκαιφυσινΐ
Ἰεχάιτανεξί
Ἰολυχ.[
eel
κ]αθημένη
yas
Ja: πατρὶ
]
7
1861.
΄
NEW CLASSICAL TEXTS
Fr. 20.
]
Ἰαται roca
Jov θέμεθϊ]
7 ποτε Τρωαΐ
Jav ζαθεοῖ
5 jare δὴ καὶ
ἡ]μίθεοι
ηκτ .Ϊ
Fr. 21.
161
1:
Ἰατοσί
που
5 Ἶον.
Yel
Fr. 24.
e συνθεῖ
Ἰν ἀνθρωπί
7 λεζύκιππος ἀὼς
77
] τόσσ[οἱν ἐφ᾽ ἁλικία[ς
5 | φέγγος κατ’ ἀνθρωπί
] «KA. [
J. + oxal
5 Ικκα
Fr. 26.
Ἰν σὺν βῖ
Ί. ὅταν pf
Jas οἰνωΐ
Wii zl γὰρ |
Fr. 27.
]- ep εἶπε [
Jos émtx6[ov
Jo τὸ μηῖ
Jar γεμῖ
Fr. 28.
Ἰν καὶ φύσιν Ϊ
Je χαίταν ἐξ
Ἰολυχ « [
Ἰμφί
78
THE OXYRHYNCHUS PAPYRI
Fr. 29. Fr. 30. Br. 51.
5 ; ]-m«.[ Ἰεσκοῖ
xl Ἰχονΐ ]
οτί Ἰτοῖ Ἰου
yal 1.1 ]
5 Hf
Fr. 55. Fr. 34. Fr. 35
Fs. 37. Pr. 28: Fr. 30)
1.1 1. of ex]
Ἰνουσα 6:4 ]xaf
Way Ἰθεῖ 1{
Frnt: Fr, 42. Fr. 43.
kof-] . [ of Ἰ οἵδ!
Ἰκαιυπεῖ Ἰανχαρῖ ve
Fr. 45. Fr. 46. Fr. 47.
Ἰ. εἰ Ἰεν! Ir [
kev J. p.[ lee
Fr. 36.
Ἰθῆκῖ
Ἵμπὰϊ
Jour[
Fr. 40.
Ἰνειαΐ
Ἱτερῖ
Fr. 44.
Ἰνοεῖ
kool
Fr. 48.
16
Ie
1.1
Fr. 47.
1.1
Ἰνουσαΐ
|r ἀγί
Pr 41.
Hol] [
7 καὶ ὑπεῖ
Fr. 45.
1. εἰ
γιευΐ
1861.
NEW CLASSICAL
Fr. 42.
"Pol
Jav χαρὶ
Ετ. 46.
Jer
1.ρ..
TEXTS
79
8ο THE OXYRHYNCHUS PAPYRI
Fr. 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! 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.’
1. ¢uddo[cwy: or φυλάσσουσ᾽ ; 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, Οἱ, i. 18 ἀπὸ φόρμιγγα
πασσάλου AdpBav, Homer, 6 67 κὰδ δ᾽ ἐκ πασσαλόφι κρέμασεν φόρμιγγα. a
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 ismore formal, like the note in Fr. 21, 5, and less distinct
from the hand of the text.
4. Μουσᾶν.... πτερόΪν : cf. e.g. Pindar, Isth. i, 64 πτερύγεσσιν depbévr’ ἀγλααῖς Πιερίδων.
5. eixddeolow: cf. e.g. Plutarch, Won posse suaviter vivt 4 (1089 c) ἐξ ἐφημερίδων ἀνα-
λέγεσθαι... ποῦ Θάσιον ἔπιον ἢ ποίας εἰκάδος ἐδείπνησαν πολυτελέστατα, and the will of Epicurus
in Diog. Laert. x. 18 τὴν γενομένην σύνοδον ἑκάστου μηνὸς ταῖς εἰκάσι τῶν συμφιλοσοφούντων ἡμῖν.
6. At γλυκεῖ᾽ begins the citation in Athenaeus ii, p. 39 e (= Bacch. Fr. 20).
ἡ. σευομενᾶν was Blass’s correction of the MSS. reading cevopéva or γευομένα, The
first « of θαλπη]ισι has apparently been deleted by a dot placed above it. θάλπησι also MSS.
Jebb reads θάλπῃσι with Weir Smyth.
8. τ᾽ Anis (διδαιθύσσῃ: ἐλπὶς δ᾽ αἰθύσσει (δ᾽ ἐνθ. E) MSS., δ᾽ ἐλπὶς διαιθύσσει Erfurdt, δ᾽ ἐλπ.
διαιθύσσῃ Blass. The 7 of the papyrus implies a subjunctive, but there is not room for
διαιθυσσηι in the lacuna. Possibly αἰθυσσηι was written (the loss of δὲ would be easy before at),
though this too makes a rather long supplement even when the three iotas and the p are
allowed for.
Q-10. ἃ μειγνυμένα. .. ἀνδράσιν : ἀναμιγνυμένα . . . ἀνδράσι δ᾽ MSS., ἀμμειγνυμένα editors.
The reading of the papyrus is probably correct.
11. αὐτίκα μέν: Kaibel’s conjecture for the MSS. reading αὐτὴ μέν or αὐτὰς μέν is confirmed;
αὐτίχ᾽ ὁ μέν Bergk, εὐκτιμενᾶν Blass.
kpdde|uva λύει : the MSS. have the unmetrical κρήδεμνον, which has been corrected by
editors. Blass alters λύει to λύσειν On the ground that the lengthening of the v would
not accord with the practice of Bacchylides or Pindar, but the traditional reading is
defended by Jebb.
13-14. papplaipfovow ... αἰγλάεντἼα πόντον : the letters Ἰαιρῖ and Ja rol 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. 1. The combination is the more precarious
because πόντον is a conjecture (Erfurdt), though a very probable one ; atyAjevra νῆες MSS.,
a spondee being lost. Bergk inserted καρπόν after aiyAdevra, and this was adopted by Blass,
who, however, placed it after νᾶες, mistakenly, as the papyrus now shows.
17. The accent and breathing above the supposed o are doubtful.
18. This line should begin with a dactyl, for which the space before οὐπ seems
barely sufficient. Possibly there was a wrong division of Il. 17-18, or some other
dislocation.
ee ee Se ee eS
1861. NEW CLASSICAL TEXTS 81
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. 1
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 selis, and if this roughly corresponded with the
selis in the middle of Fr. 1, 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. 1. 23.
Fr. 3. 2-3. There is much resemblance here to Bacch. Fr. 34 ὀργαὶ μὲν ἀνθρώπων
διακεκριμέναι μυρίαι, but though ορί is quite possible in]. 2, and the doubtful σ at the end of
1. 3 may be e, the preceding letter was apparently not x. Of course if Bacch. Fr. 34 were
to be identified here, Fr. 3 would belong, if not to a different column from Fr. 1, at
any rate to a different poem. A small dot over the final ν of ανθρωπων is probably
accidental,
Fr. 4. 1-10. ‘ 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 μέτρον was — ὦ — --
or — vu — is not clear,
3. For κλυτῷ cf. e.g. Pindar, Pyth. i. 37 στεφάνοισί νιν ἵπποις τε κλυτάν.
8-10. If ᾿᾿Αλφειϊῷ (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 |. 8 cf. ll. 182-4 of that poem ἔνθ᾽ 6 κλεεννὸς ποσσὶ νικάσας δρόμῳ [ἦλθἾεν
Φερένικος.
11-12. Murray suggests [πλη]ρ[ 2 ἐρεπ]τόμενος [Μουσᾶν ἐπαλ]έ ἄνθε᾽, but avée does not suit
the remains in |. 12. rouevos may of course be τὸ μένος. In]. 11 a vestige of ink at one
letter’s distance from p may be either the top of a ¢ or Ψ, or of some interlinear mark, 6. 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 Jl. 13-15 fits readily into the previous scheme, and the
shortness of the next two lines also accords with it.
15. \sos: or possibly μο[ιῆς.
Fr. 5. 1. kapl : or καιΐ.
2. Perhaps Ποσειδα]ονίας ; cf 1.26.
4. The first letter, of which the lower half only remains, may be y, ει, p, or τ.
7. Ὑ, 4 By p, tT, v would be possible after ma. Perhaps πατρός should be restored ;
ef, 1. 6.
8. The vestige following o in the second line of the marginal note may either belong
to a letter, e.g. τ, or be a stop; cf. e.g. Fr. 21. 5.
12-13. ἀλλά after the stop is doubtless the conjunction, and the second accent shows
that an enclitic followed ; τοι or »[w, 6. g., would be suitable. In 1. 13 the deleted » points
to the termination of a verb, preceded by something like ὡς or dre. xparepa is presumably
to be constructed with avayxa in spite of the absence of the iota adscript. In the marginal
variant the infinitive τεκ]εῖν (?) was apparently made to depend on the phrase χρόνος ἔμολε, Or
G
82 THE OXYRHYNCHUS PAPYRI
whatever 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[αἸλλισφύραν is presumably a variant for some similar epithet, e.g. τανίσφυρον,
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 like our N.B., is sometimes surmounted by a small iota.
Fr. 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 μ[ε]λποί or -μ[ο]λποί.
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. θεοποῖμπ: cf. Bacch. xvi. 132. The fragment is rather like Frs. 7-8, but
a combination of this line with Fr. 7. 6 θεόπομπἾον has little probability.
Fr. 10. 3. Ἰπόσιν : the first letter may be read as ἡ or p, but these are more difficult.
Fr. 11. A junction of two selides passes through the ν of μαινόλις,
Fr. 12. 4. Cf. Eurip. Alc. 570 εὐλύρας ᾿Απόλλων. A dot in the o of φοι gives that
letter rather the appearance of 6, 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 ΕἾ. 8. It is similarly rather worn,
but of a lighter colour.
Fr. 18. 1. There is an ink-spot below the doubtful a.
3. That the mark above the partially preserved ὦ represents a rough breathing is
uncertain.
Fr. 19. 7. An ink-spot over the a 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. v and « being both narrow letters, λεζύκιϊππος does not overcrowd the lacuna.
Fr. 25. 5. Whether two thick ink-marks, which occur in the margin at the point of
fracture just below this line, had any meaning is uncertain.
Fr. 26. 3. ow is in keeping with the class of poems represented in these fragments ; ;
cf. introd.
Fr. 27. τ. Or |. ἐρεῖ πε. But the accent is uncertain.
1861, NEW CLASSICAL TEXTS 83
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.
Fr. 39. A reddish stain on this fragment makes it look rather similar to the top
of Fr. 4, but it does not séem to belong there, although |q«{ might be read in ]. 1.
Fr. 42. 2. That this line was the last of a column seems probable, but is not certain.
Fr. 44, 1. The shape of the o indicates which way up the fragment is to be turned.
Fr. 45. 1. A dot above the supposed ε of |. 2 may be the vestige of a long letter, ᾧΦ or
Ψ, preceding . εἶ.
Fr. 48. It is hardly certain that this fragment belongs to 1361.
13862. CALLIMACHUS, Aezza.
ΕἾ.1 24-4 18-5 cm. First century. Plate IV
(Fr. 1. 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 Aezia and Jambi (1011) was followed by that of pieces of
various poems from a papyrus book of which remains were identified both
at Berlin (Wilamowitz, Sitzungsber. Preuss. Akad., phil.-hist. Kl., 1912, pp. 524
sqq., 1914, pp. 222 sqq.) and Florence (P.S.I. 133), and of a scrap from the first
book of the Aetia in P. Rylands 13 (cf. Wilamowitz, Hermes, xvi. 3). To these are
now to be added the further fragments of the Aetia and Jaméz contained in 1362
and 1863. 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. 1875 and the
Bodleian Homer from Hawara; among the differentiating features are the
shapes of ε, 0, μ᾿ and the ‘ Ptolemaic’ £, for which cf. e.g. 1861. 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
G2
84 THE OXYRHYNCAHUS PAPYRI
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 ε; 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 ᾿Αθηναίῳ to Θηβαίῳ, and to infer that Thebes was among the
Greek cities visited by Callimachus (af. Schneider, Callim. ii, Ὁ. 378). But
it is now clear that the scene was Egypt, not Greece (1. 6); and the Athenian
Fr. 1. °Col 1. Plateilv:
nacovderOory|| ε]ισελανθανενουδότεδουλοισ
ἡμαρορεστειοιλευκοναγουσιχοεσ-
ε
ικαριουκαιπαιδοσαγωνεπετιονἀγιστῦν
ατθίσινοικτίστησονφαοσηριγονη
5 εἐσδαιτηνεκαλεσσενομηθέασ' ενδενυτοισι
ε
ξεινονοσα[.]γυπτωικαινοσανεστραφετο
μεμβλωκωσιδιοντικαταχρεοσ"ἢνδεγενεθλην
ἱκιοσὠ"ξυνηνειχονεγωκλισιην
ουκεπιτάξαλλαινοσομηρικοσ'αιενομοιον
ο
4
10 ὠὡσθεοσουψευδησέστονομοιοναγει:"
καιγαροθρηικιηνμεναπέστυγεχανδονάμυστιν
οινοποτειν᾿ολιγωιδηδετοκισσυβιωι-
τωιμενεγωταδελεξαπεριστέιχοντοσαλεισου
τοτριτονευτεδαηνουνομακαιγενεην"
15 ημαλεποστύδαληθεσοτουμονονῦὕδατοσαισαν
αλλετικαιλεσχησοινοσεχεινεθελει
τηνημεισ'ουκενγ] .Ἰραρυστηρεσσιφορειται
ουδέμινεισατί. - - .| . οῤρυασοινοχοὼν
αἰτησεισορόωϊ.Ἰοτελευθεροσάτμένασαινει"
20 βαλλωμενχαλεπωιφαρμακονενποματι
σ
θέυγενεσ' οσἰ.] . εμειοσ[Πθενπάραθυμοσακουσαι
[]Ππἰχάινειταδεμοιλί. Ἰξονΐ. « . «Ὁ. ον ον Ἰωι-
μυρμιδονωνεσσῆνατί. ........Ὁ Ἰμμισεβεσθαι
πηλεα"κωσΐ elikotévy[..... εν ἦκα:
1362. NEW .CLASSICAL TEXTS 85
origin of Pollis is no less evident from ll. 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 1]. 21 sqq. leaves no doubt that the poem is
the Aezia, 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.
He 277. Cons, PlateskV:
2
ἠὼς οὐδὲ πιθοιγὶς ἐλάνθανεν οὐδ᾽ ὅτε δούλοις
ἦμαρ ᾿Ορέστειοι λευκὸν ἄγουσι xées,
3 7 ‘ Ἂς >» 2 “2 [- lA
Ἱκαρίου καὶ παιδὸς ἄγων ἐπέτειον ἁγιστύν,
Arbicw οἰκτίστη, σὸν φάος, ᾿Ηριγόνη,
5 ἐς δαίτην ἐκάλεσσεν ὁμηθέας, ἐν δέ νυ τοῖσι
= ἃ > » Ν 3 va
ξεῖνον ὃς AlilyimT@ καινὸς ἀνεστρέφετο
μεμβλωκὼς ἴδιόν τι κατὰ χρέος" ἦν δὲ γενέθλην
ἼΚκιος, ᾧ ξυνὴν εἶχον ἐγὼ κλισίην
οὐκ ἐπιτάξ, ἀλλ᾽ αἶνος Ομηρικός, αἰὲν ὅμοιον
10 ὧς θεός, οὐ ψευδής, ἐς τὸν ὅμοιον ἄγει.
\ BY ε ΄ x eee x “
καὶ γὰρ ὁ Θρηικίην μὲν ἀπέστυγε χανδὸν ἄμυστιν
? - 25 7 es ΄
οἰνοποτεῖν, ὀλίγῳ δ᾽ ἥδετο κισσυβίῳ.
~ Ν £2. % 2Q? ed 3 2
τῷ μὲν ἐγὼ τάδ᾽ ἔλεξα περιστείχοντος ἀλείσου
ἈΝ 7 SF 30s Ν Ζ
τὸ τρίτον, εὖτ᾽ ἐδάην οὔνομα καὶ γενεήν,
15 Ἦ μάλ᾽ ἔπος τόδ᾽ ἀληθὲς ὅτ᾽ οὐ μόνον ὕδατος αἶσαν
ἀλλ᾽ ἔτι καὶ λέσχης οἶνος ἔχειν ἐθέλει"
τὴν ἡμεῖς, οὐκ ἐν γ[ὰ]ρ ἀρυστήρεσσι φορεῖται
οὐδέ μιν εἰς az[....]. ὀφρύας οἰνοχόων
αἰτήσεις ὁρόων] ὅτ᾽ ἐλεύθερος ἀτμένα σαΐνει,
, Lae 7 2 4
20 βάλλωμεν χαλεπῳ φάρμακον ἐν πόματι,
; - 2 ~
Θεύγενες, ὅσσ[α] δ᾽ ἐμεῖο σέθεν πάρα θυμὸς ἀκοῦσαι
ἰχαίνει, τάδε μοι λ[έϊξον [ἀνειρομένἼῳ"
Μυρμιδόνων ἐσσῆνα τίί πάτριον ὔμμι σέβεσθαι
, ~ wv
Πηλέα, κῶς “Ing: Evv|, wo: 4 ep Mate κα
THE OXYRHYNCHUS PAPYRI
25 τευδενεκενγήτειονϊδ. .Ἰυτί. - - Ἱοτονεχουσα
Col. ii.
npwockal Ἰοδουπαΐ
ELOOTET WO EVETTOU,
κεινηνηπερισηνΐ
ουθετερηνεγνωκα Τί
30 ουαταμυθεισθαιβο . |
τί. . εμεθενλεξαντοῖ
τί. . Ἱμακαρῆπαυρωνοϊ
ε-ν’-- Ἰλιησεινηϊνεῖ
ieee wi a Ἰθυιησμαΐ
Fr, 2. Fr. 2.
. εὐτί ]
Ἰηνΐ Ἰακακειθῖ
Ἰργερ οἷ y
Fr. 4. Fr. 5.
Ἰτειχισανΐ
εἰ Ἱγερωγοῖ
καιδιΐ Ἰλωσκακί
πληγὶ ἼἽκεληθϊ
δέιελοῖ i Eh eee
5 Καιμιναποῖ
avd iovoby|
1862. NEW CLASSICAL TEXTS 87
“- Lend 7 > » Ψ,
25 τεῦ δ᾽ ἕνεκεν γήτειον ἰδ. .Ju7[.. . ἄϊρτον ἔχουσα
Col. ii.
ἥρωος KalO\édou πα[ῖς
εἰδότες ὡς ἐνέπουΪσι
κείνην ἢ περὶ σὴν Ϊ
οὔθ᾽ ἑτέρην ἔγνωκα" τί
380 οὔατα μυθεῖσθαι Bo . [
τ[αῦτ ἐμέθεν λέξαντος
t[pioludkap, 7] παύρων ὄϊλβιός ἐσσι μέτα,
[ναυτἡλίης εἰ νῆιν exes βίον: ἀλλ᾽ ἐμὸς αἰών
[κύμασιν αἤθυίης μᾶϊλλον ἐσῳκίσατο.
Fr. 2. Fr. 3.
]- εὐτί ]
n> Ἰακα κεῖθ]εν
Ἱργερ.[ y
Ἰομηΐ
5 |. νεσσί
|. ra .[
Ἰρτροιῖ
eI
Fr. 4. Fr, 5.
ae Sa ἐτείχισαν [
τὰν Trepp γοῖ
καὶ δι Ἰλως κακί
πληγί 7 κε ληθ
δείελοϊ
5 καί μιν ἀπο
αὔλιον ὀθύΐει
88 THE OXYRHYNCHUS PAPYRI
Fr, 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 ἐλάνθανεν is Pollis; cf. Athen. xi, p. 477. quoted in the note on
1. 8. πιθοιγίς apparently occurs only here. The epithet ’Opéoreso: alludes to the well-known
legend which connected the institution of the Xées with the reception of Orestes at Athens
by Pandion; cf. e.g. Suidas, s.v. Χόες, Though this day like the other days of the ~
Anthesteria was apparently a dies nefastus (cf. Photius, 5. ν. μιαρὰ ἡμέρα), for slaves it was
ἦμαρ λευκόν since it was their privilege to participate in the celebrations; cf. Schol. Hesiod,
Op. 368 ἑορτὴ Τιιθοιγία, καθ᾽ ἣν οὔτε οἰκέτην οὔτε μισθωτὸν εἴργειν τῆς ἀπολαύσεως τοῦ οἴνου θεμιτὸν
ἦν, ἀλλὰ θύσαντας πᾶσι μεταδιδόναι τοῦ δώρου τοῦ Διονύσου.
3-4. The ἐπέτειος ἁγιστύς (the substantive only here; cf. P. Rylands 13. 12 πλαγκτύν) in
honour of Erigone, daughter of Icarius, was the Αἰώρα, at which a song called ἀλῆτις was
sung. This propitiatory festival is said (Hyg. As/r. ii. 4) to have been instituted as a means
of averting an epidemic of suicide among the women of Athens (cf. ᾿Ατθίσιν οἰκτίστη), which
followed the death of Erigone. It was 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. Ἴκιος here and “Ik in |. 24 were recognized by Wilamowitz, whose restoration of
Ἰκῷ for Κῷ in Schol. Pindar, Pyth. iii. 167 6 Πηλεὺς ἐν Κῷ τῇ νήσῳ . . . ἀπέθανεν, ὡς Καλλίμαχος
ἱστορεῖ (Hermes, xliv, p. 475) receives a further confirmation ; cf. Schol. Eurip. Zr. 1128 καὶ
προσελθεῖν (SC. τὸν Πηλέα) διὰ χειμῶνα τῇ (Ἴγκῳ τῇ νήσῳ καὶ ξενισθέντα ὑπὸ Μόλωνός τινος ΓΑβαντος
ἐκεῖ καταλῦσαι τὸν βίον. The correct reading had been preserved by the metre in the
epigram of Antipater, Anth. Pal. vii. 2 κεύθει καὶ Θέτιδος γαμέτην ἡ βραχύβωλος Ἴκος, 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, where ll. 11-14
are cited (= Callim. Fr. 109): Καλλίμαχος . . . λέγων ἐπὶ τοῦ οἰκείου ξένου τοῦ παρὰ τῷ ᾿Αθηναίῳ
Πόλλιδι συνεστιασθέντος αὐτῷ: Καὶ yap ὁ Θρηικίην κτλ. οἰκείου here seems meaningless, and
Meineke, af. Schneider, Callim. ii, p. 378 had already proposed Κείου. In view of the
proximity of ξεῖνον and Ἴκιος in Il. 6 and 8, it can hardly be doubted that Ἰκίου ξένου is the
true reading.
g—-10. ἐπιτάξ has here the meaning assigned to it by Helladius, Chrest. (Phot. Bz6/.
Pp. 532. 36a, Bekker) τὸ ἐπιτὰξ παρὰ Καλλιμάχῳ καὶ ᾿Αράτῳ κείμενον ... ὃ κατ᾽ ἐπίταγμα καὶ
κέλευσιν πράττεται. Perhaps this is the sense also in 1011. 239, if «jm|rdé there is rightly
supplied. The αἶνος Ὁμηρικός is from p 218 ὡς αἰεὶ τὸν ὁμοῖον ἄγει θεὸς ὡς τὸν ὁμοῖον.
Callimachus’ text apparently had the usual ὡς αἰεί (αἰεί τοι Plato, Zyszs. 214 A, Aristot.
1208 Ὁ 10), but és τὸν ὁμοῖον, a variant found in many MSS.
1362. NEW CLASSICAL TEXTS 89
Why the second hand rewrote the o of ov is not evident. A slight trace of ink (?) in
the centre suggests that the original letter had some appearance of a @; possibly 6 or e had
been actually written and then amended not quite successfully.
11--14. καὶ yap .. . τὸ τρίτον = Callim. Fr. tog from Athen. xi, p. 477 ¢, ll. 11-12
being also found in x, p. 442f. The reading in the second of these passages coincides
with that of the papyrus, whereas in the former dmjvaro (1. ἀνήνατο) and ζωροποτεῖν are found
in place of ἀπέστυγε and oivororeiv, and so too in Macrob. Sa¢. v. 21. Schneider, following
Bentley, preferred ἀπέστυγε but not οἰνοποτεῖν ; the early testimony of the papyrus should now
turn the scale in favour of the latter reading. ἱ
15-16. These two verses are quoted anonymously by Athen. i, p. 32 Ὁ along with one
of Simonides, and the three lines appear together as Simonides Fr. 88 in Bergk’s Poet. Zyr.
The MSS. of Athenaeus have γάρ for μάλ᾽, ἀλλά τι for ἀλλ᾽ ἔτι, and, except L, λεύχης for
λέσχης. Kaibel adopted Porson’s conjecture ἦν dp’ for ἦ γάρ and Bergk’s χλεύης for λεύχης,
neither of which is confirmed. λέσχης was rightly restored by H. Stephanus (Az/hol. p. 513)
and read by Casaubon and Schweighauser.
18-19. The restoration and sense of these two verses remains in doubt. In]. 18
ὀφρύας seems inevitable, and the accented « commends οὐδέ μιν, which, though the doubtful «
might be ε, is more likely than οὐδ᾽ ἔμεν. The following vowel may be either « or o; if eis
is right, ar ... should be an epithet of either ὀφρύας or οἰνοχόων, preferably the former,
since the exiguous traces of the letter after the lacuna suit s better than ». ἀτενεῖς, arpepeis,
ἀτρόμους, ἀτρόπους might serve. ἀτμένα caive is more in accord with the tenor of the passage
than ἀτμένας αἰνεῖ, and the clause ὅτ᾽. . . σαίνει 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 Il. 1-2), with
which, so far as is known, the Αἰώρα, as remarked above, had nothing to do. The double
accentuation of ἀτμένα may have arisen from confusion with arpevos.
22. txawet apparently =iyava, a form found in Babrius 77. 2, Herondas 7. 25,
Hesych., &c. ἰχαίνειν is not otherwise attested, but is credible enough. For ἀνειρομένῳ cf.
the Berlin fragment in Svtzungsber. Berl. Ahad. 1914, p. 224 ὅσσα δ᾽ ἀνειρομένῳ φῆ σ]ε, τάδ᾽
ἐξερέω.
23. Μυρμιδόνων ἐσσῆνα = Callim. Fr. 508. The rough breathing apparently given to
ἐσσῆνα in the papyrus may reflect a supposed connexion with ἑσμός ; cf. Etym. Magn. 383.
30 ἐσσήν .. . ἀπὸ μεταφορᾶς τοῦ μελισσῶν βασιλέως : derivations from ἕσσαι and ἡσσᾶν are also
there suggested.
24. Πηλέα... Ἴκῳ ; cf. Callim. Fr. 372 and note on 1. 8 above. At the end of the
verse Ἶκα may be either an acc. sing. of some noun in -€ or aneut. plur. ξυνὰ τὰ Geooadi]kd,
which Lobel suggests, would give a suitable sense. For κῶς cf. 1011. 4, 18 κοτέ.
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. 137e) and of γηθυλλίδες at the Theoxenia at Delphi
(id. ix, p. 372 8). [. .Ju7[...is presumably an epithet of dprov; there must have been at
least two letters between 1d and v, so that eur... is excluded unless the « of ἰδέ was
unelided, which is not at all likely. παΐ in 1. 26 suggests πα[ῖς or πα[ρθένος.
30. Bo is followed by remains of a perpendicular stroke.
32-4 = Callim. Fr. 111. 2-4, which are now proved to have no connexion with the
verse ἔνθ' ἀνέμων μεγάλων κῦμα διαλύγιον 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 |. 33, which are given in
the MSS. as ναυτιλίῃσιν ἥν, had been successfully emended, Bentley’s νῆιν and Nauck’s εἰ (ὅς
Bentley) being now confirmed.
90 THE OXYRHYNCHUS PAPYRI
Frs. 2-4. These may be assigned with probability to the second column of Fr. 1,
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.
Fr. 4. 4. détedo[: this line possibly = Callim. Fr. 190 δείελον αἰτίζουσιν, ἄγουσι δὲ
χεῖρας an’ ἔργου.
5- απο : or απεΐ.
6. αὔλιον is probably the substantive, as the paroxytone accent will then be intelligible,
though abnormal.
1363. CALLIMACHUS, Jaméz.
10-3 Χ 2-6 cm. Second or early third
century. Plate VI.
The identification of this fragment is assured by the occurrence in Il. 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. 86 were ἄθεοι
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.
[os a). ΜΝ
[.... alvdpes οἱ viv [
[.... κα]τήυλησθ᾽ o pel
[
[
[ov τον] πάλαι Πάγχαιοϊῖν ο πλασας Zava
[γερων] λαλᾶζων ἄδικα βιβλια ψηχει (?)
1863. NEW CLASSICAL TEXTS ΟΙ
[RUS ὁ Γι. yap evros ov
τι trey Ἰάγη Tiss ἡ πολί
ἴδ, [..... Ἰντα βωμόι τὶ
ἴν ττις: Jae προς Ardny Ϊ
[.... αν]δρες ὁκόσοι βοΐ
[- . τραγωδοι μουσα τί
ΟΣ p\Govos τις εμί
18. beat ose is 1 δὲ και τὸν ὃς χί
[od so Ἰν eraipny az
iS pees: ἴαμβον οστιΐς
(eee aa 7. ὡς τις Tous |
[.... ἄμετρα τοις [|
ΣΌΣ Ἰν οστις tHe Ϊ
πον πἸολλους" ev]
[πῆ ih his ste αἸνδρες" ὡς [|
Se .1 εκ γῆς ηλπίισ
εν. Ἰμέυουσινί
Ba? aie tet πόθος Ἰηστην my
fete Ae ane Jos pnrol
| eae arta eee te ] και yp
eles cansnanet: εἸξαρκί
Ἐν epee da sale ]. μαι
5- = Callim. Fr. 86. In], 5 ἱερόν is the MSS. reading, which had been corrected by
Meineke. The rough breathing on adees is doubtfully identified ; a smooth one would be
equally possible. In 1. 6 Παγχαῖον (so normally accented) was Bentley’s correction of the
traditional χάλκεον. The remains of the first letter of 1. 7 are inconsistent with », and
λαλαζων was apparently written, though the grave accent on the a implies ἀλαζών, the
ordinary reading, which there is no reason to doubt, Since a new sentence begins at l. 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 ψύχει or ψῦχε, of which the
former was defended by Reiske ; ψήχει Bentley, ψῆχε Diibner, ξύει Toup.
10. Ἶντα : or Jara, Jura, &c.
11. jac: OF ν.
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 ἥτις τραγῳδὸς μοῦσα ληκυθίζουσα.
Unfortunately the letter after μουσα is uncertain. A vestige of the top of it suggests a τ,
92 THE OXYRHYNCHUS PAPYRI
and A, 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. [ra πεντ]άμετρα is likely on the analogy of 1011. 313, 366.
25. |e, ja, or Ac are also possible before σ.
29. The supposed mark of length may be a rough breathing.
1364. ANTIPHON SOPHISTES, Περὶ ᾿Αληθείας i.
ΕἾ.1 22:3x38cm. Early third century. Plate V
(Fr. 1. Cols. v—vii).
The following 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 468, 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 44-5 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 1]. 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 ides, 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 ᾿Αθηναῖος τερατοσκόπος καὶ
ἐποποιὸς καὶ σοφιστής" ἐκαλεῖτο δὲ Aoyoudyeipos, and attributes to him a work Περὶ
κρίσεως ὀνείρων. Arguments between him and Socrates are reported by Xenophon,
Mem. i. 6, and ᾿Αντιφῶν 6 τερατοσκόπος is mentioned as one of Socrates’ opponents
1864. NEW CLASSICAL TEXTS 93
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 Περὶ
ὁμονοίας, which is praised by Philostratus (Vzt. Sophist. i. 15) and quoted at some
length by Stobaeus, and more doubtfully with another called Πολιτικός, of which
a few words and phrases are preserved. The Περὶ ἀληθείας 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 (De Antiphonte Sophista Tamblichi
auctore, p. 12), had already argued from certain fragments cited from Book i
(e. g. 2, 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 Περὶ ὁμονοίας and the Πολιτικός, but had some expres-
sion also in the Περὶ ἀληθείας. That 1864 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
φύσις and νόμος, So prominent in 1864, are opposed in a fragment from Book i
(Ant. Fr. 15), though the contrast there is of a different kind. Since the 4ooth
στίχος 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. 1, 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. 1, 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. φύσις, 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 φύσις and νόμος, fundamental in the later sophistic
94 THE OXYRHYNCHUS PAPYRI
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 ἔλεγε... καὶ τὸ δίκαιον καὶ τὸ αἰσχρὸν οὐ φύσει ἀλλὰ νόμῳ). Hippias in Xen.
Mem. iv. 4. τ4 emphasizes the diversity of laws in different localities, and Plato
puts into his mouth language analogous to that of Antiphon in Il. 59-63 below
(Prot. 557 ς ὃ δὲ νόμος, τύραννος ὧν τῶν ἀνθρώπων, πολλὰ παρὰ τὴν φύσιν βιάζεται).
Similarly Protagoras in the Theaetetus (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, Ὁ. 436, Engl. ed.). Teaching which
explicitly justified furtive breaches of the law (Il. 12-23, 36-43), and treated
obedience as merely a question of personal expediency (ll. 56 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 Jocus classicus. Similar ideas are expressed
e.g. by Euripides (Fr. 168 ὀνόματι μέμπτον τὸ νόθον, ἣ φύσις δ᾽ ton, Fr. 336 ὁ μὲν
γὰρ ἐσθλὸς εὐγενής, Jon 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. Περὶ ὁμονοίας, 1908, p. 29,
that Antiphon a Cynicorum grege rerum naturae veritatem 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 1864 gives the coup de grice to Blass’s theory (De Antiphonte
Sophista Iamblichi auctore) that certain passages in the Protrepticus of Iamblichus,
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. Fahresh. d. Gymn. in Ainau, 1902) and E. Jacoby (op. czt.),
and rejected by Wilamowitz (Avistot. τι. Athen, i. 174), but accepted without
reserve by Gomperz (of. 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 οὐκ ἐπὶ πλεονεξίαν
ὁρμᾶν δεῖ οὐδὲ τὸ κράτος... ἡγεῖσθαι ἀρετὴν εἶναι, τὸ δὲ τῶν νόμων ὑπακούειν δειλίαν...
φύσει γὰρ ἰσχυρᾷ ἐνδεδέσθαι ταῦτα (sc. τόν τε νόμον καὶ τὸ δίκαιον) and ἡ μὲν εὐνομία
13864. NEW CLASSICAL TEXTS 95
ἄριστον εἴη καὶ κοινῇ καὶ ἰδίᾳ, 7 ἀνομία δὲ κάκιστον (Blass, Frs. E, F = Iambl.
pp. 100, tor Pist.) can no longer be attributed to the sophist Antiphon.
The estimate of the literary qualities of the Περὶ ἀληθείας found in Hermo-
genes, De idets, ii. 11. 17 is on the whole borne out by the new fragments;
cf. the careful analysis of Antiphon’s style by Jacoby, of. czz. pp. 48 sqq., based
largely on the remnants of the Περὶ ὁμονοίας. After remarking that Thucydides
Was πολλῷ κεχωρισμένον (from Antiphon the orator) καὶ κεκοινηκότα τῷ εἴδει τῶν τῆς
᾿Αληθείας λόγων Hermogenes continues (c. 9) ὁ δ᾽ ἕτερος ᾿Αντιφῶν, οὗπερ οἱ τῆς
᾿Αληθείας εἰσὶ λεγόμενοι λόγοι, πολιτικὸς μὲν ἥκιστά ἐστι, σεμνὸς δὲ καὶ ὑπέρογκος τοῖς
τε ἄλλοις καὶ τῷ δι’ ἀποφάνσεων περαίνειν τὸ πᾶν, ὃ δὴ τοῦ ἀξιωματικοῦ τε λόγου ἐστὶ καὶ
πρὸς μέγεθος ὁρῶντος, ὑψηλὸς δὲ τῇ λέξει καὶ τραχύς, ὥστε μὴ πόρρω σκληρότητος εἶναι.
καὶ περιβάλλει δὲ χωρὶς εὐκρινείας, διὸ καὶ συγχεῖ τὸν λόγον καὶ ἔστιν ἀσαφὴς τὰ πολλά.
καὶ ἐπιμελὴς δὲ κατὰ τὴν συνθήκην καὶ ταῖς παρισώσεσι χαίρων, οὐ μὴν ἤθους γέ τι οὐδ᾽
ἀληθινοῦ τύπου μέτεστι τῷ ἀνδρί, φαίην δ᾽ ἂν ὡς οὐδὲ δεινότητος πλὴν τῆς φαινομένης
μέν, οὐ μὴν οὔσης γε ὡς ἀληθῶς. One obvious detail in common with Thucy-
dides is the spelling ξυν, which is consistently written in the papyrus. On the
other hand rr is found in ll. 151, 164; the previously extant fragments show oo
three times (Fr. 54 ἔλασσον, Fr. 61 ἐκπλήσσοιντο, Fr. 76 ἡσσώμενον), tr in other
places. An instance of an Ionicism occurs in 1. 116 ἥδοντας. The writer’s tendency
to poetical language may be seen in the metaphorical use of δεσμός in 1. 104, and
his tendency to poetical rhythm in the iambic trimeter in Il. 20-3 ; cf. note ad loc.
A fondness for synonyms remarked in the extant fragments is further exemplified
by Il. 266-7, 270-1. Parallelism and antithesis are prominent, and Hermogenes
was clearly right in saying that Antiphon was ἐπιμελὴς κατὰ τὴν συνθήκην καὶ
ταῖς παρισώσεσι χαίρων. The characteristic τὸ δι’ ἀποφάνσεων περαίνειν is also much
in evidence. Emphasis is sometimes gained by adding negative to affirmative
clauses, as in ll. 161-2; and the not infrequent omission of the verb εἶναι helps to
give a sententious effect. Hermogenes’ imputations of obscurity and superficiality
were probably not altogether ill-founded. The argument in 1]. 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
philosophy.
he oe
Col. i. Col. ii.
Fete ΣΙΝ ἐλ τος Ἰθου Gelvra [{{οἸυχ [fo] ]]>>
eS en mre «3 | 35 [[μολογηθεν}} > >
96
THE OXYRHYNCHUS PAPYRI
[. . .] δικαζιοσ]υνη
[walvra τῆς πὸ
[Aew|s νομιμα"
[ev] me αν πολι
10 [rev|nTa τις μὴ
ee
20
25
30
[παρ]αβαινειν"
ι
a3
χρῶτ αν ovr
ανθρωπος pa
λιστα [[07]] εαυτωι
ξυμφε]ροντως
δικαιοσυνηι" εἰ
μετα μεν μαρ
τυρων τίο]υς vo
μους μεγαϊλο]υς
αγοι- μονουμε
νος δε μαρτυ
pov Ta τὴς Gu
σεως TA μεν yap
τῶν νομὼν
[ἐπιθ]ετα" τα de
ἰτη9] φυσεως a>
[ναγ]καια. και Ta
[μεν] των vo>
[μωὴν ομολογη
[θεντ]α ov φυν
[τ ἐστιν τα de>
[της φυσεως φυν Ϊ
[τα ovx] ομολογη |
40
48
5°
55
60
65
[τα τα ovy vou
[—]
pa παραβαινων
L A
΄σ
ἢ av αθηι τους
ομολογησαντας
και αἰσχυνὴης
Kat ἔημιας a>
πηλλακται" μὴ
λαθων δ᾽ 6v- των -
δὲ τηι φυσει ξυμ
φυτων εαν TE
παρα το δυνατον
βιαζηται. εαν
τε παντας αν
α
θρωπους Δ[η])θηι.
ουδεν ελαττον
TO κακον:)] €av τε
παντες ἰδωσιν
ovdey μειζον"
ov yap δια δόξαν
π
βλατεται- αλλα
δι Ξαληθειαν" εστι
παν
de των δε] eve >
κα τουτων ἢ σκε
wis: οτι Ta πολλα
TOV κατα vo
μον δικαιων
πολεμιως TN
φυσίει] κειται" ve
νο[μο]θε]τηται
yap ἴεἶπι τε τοις o
φ[θ]αλμ[[ εἱς α δει
1864. NEW CLASSICAL TEXTS
Col. iii. Col. iv.
avTo[u|s οραν' και» 100 φεροντων" Ta.
& ov [de] [[σ]] και em de ξυμφεροντα:
τοις wow a dee av Ta μεν απὸ των
70 Ta ακουειν" και * vopov Ket >
& ov δει. και emt TnL μενα δεσμία
γλωττηι a τίε]» 105 της φυσεως εἶστι
δει avrnv λεγειν τα ὃ uo της gu
και @ ov δει: και ε σεως ελευθερα" ov Ϊ
5 πι ταις χερσιν κουν Ta. αλγυ»
a τε δεὶ avras δραν Te
vouvta ορθωι λ[ο]
και α ov δει" και
oo Vv
ἐπι TOLS ποσιν ε I10 yw. ονίνησι τη]ν]
g a τε det avrous φυσιν μαλλον
80 ἰέναι Kat Ef & OV ἡ τὰ εὐφραινον
Oe καὶ ἐπι τωι νῶι τα ὄυκουν ἄν ov
ε ae)
ε ξυμφερον
ὧν τε δι αὐτον : sunpep
115 Τ᾽ εἰη Ta λυπουϊντα)
επιθυμειν και
( ν
μαλλον ἡ τία ἡ
ὦ μη [εστι]ν ουν dov7[a] τα yap τω: [
wer J {--
85 οὐδὲ τίηι] φυσει αληθει ξυμφε
φιλιωτίερ]α ουδ οι. ρίοῖντα ov Bara [
κειοτεῖρα] ad wv . 120 πἴτ]ειν de: αλλ ω
οἱ vopolt αἴποτρε φίεϊλειν: Ta τοίνυν
πουσι τίους] αν θ]ρωπίουΞ] τηι φυσει ξυμ [
90 ἡ εφ α [προτρε φέροντα τίο]υτί.
πουσίιν] τίο yap 2 lines lost.
(nv [elore της φυ 136. [neler Ἰοτιαῖ..
σεως και τῇο απὸ ἴγν eu Res jan...
baviely και To [ [5.0.0 ] aval. .
95 μεν [¢\nv αὑτίοις arta καὶ δὶ - [-
ἐστιν απο των [| 130 | ....|vrat- Kale
98
135
T40
145
150
THE OXYRHYNCHUS PAPYRI
ξυμ[φερο]ντωῖϊν
το δε αἰποθανειν
απὸ τίων μη Evy
Col. ν. ΡΙαίε Ν.
[θον]τες ἀμυνων
[
[αρχ]ωσι tov dpay-
ται κ͵αι pn avTot
[Kat olitivels] av
[τους] γειναμε
[vouls Kat κακους
ovTas εἰς αὐτοὺς
ν
εὐ ποιωσι- και OL
κατομνυσθαι
διδοντες ετε»
ροις. αὑτοι δὲ μη
κατομνυμε
[vot] και τουτων
των εἰρημενων
πολλ αν τις εὖ
pot πολεμια τηι
y
φυσει" ένι TE av
λ
τοις [δ] αγυνεσθαι
τε μαλλον εξον
ηττω.[1]} καὶ ελατ
τω: ηἡδεσθαι" εξον
TAEL@ καὶ κακως
πασχειν. εξον
μὴ πασχειν:
ει μεν ovy τις
[τ]οις τοιαυτὰα προ
[Πεμενοῖς ἐπικου
[ρ]ησις εγιγνε
165
170
175
185
Os:
100
[οἱτινεῖς av πα [
Col. vi. Plate V.
οὐκ avlwpedes av
[[»]]}ην τίοις vo
μοις πειίίθεσθαι νυν
δὲ φαινεῖται τοις
προσΐεμζενοις
τα TolavTa TO εἰἶκ
νομου δικαιίον
ουχ᾽ Lkavoy emt
Κουρειν" 0 γε πρὼω
TOV μεν εἐπιτρε
TEL τωι πασχον
Tt παθειν καὶ Tot
δρωντι δρασαι-
και οὐτε evTav
θα διεκωλυε τον
TATKOVTA μὴ
παθειν- ουδὲ Tov
δρωντα δρασαι:
εἰς τε τὴν τιμὼ
ριαν αναφερο»
μενον οὐδεν
ἴδιωτερον επί
[τ]ωι [π]επονθοτι
n τῶι δεδρακο
[τ] περαι yap αἱ.
α[.1το΄. [. .Juor . [.
Pls =) ees Jas ws ε
παθεν [. .] duva
σθαι" anf. . .Jee δι:
1864.
160 [To] mapa τῶν vo
[μ]ων. ros de μη
[π]ροΐεμενοις ar
[A €}[]. Jjavriovpe
[ν]οις ελαττωσις-
4 lines lost.
Meee = |
στιν μαλὶ
οσήπερ τίωι... κα
205 τηιϊγορουΐντι ἡ τῆς
κατηγορίιας ...
πείθων a,
τωι τε πεΐπονθο
τι καὶ ταῖι δεδρα
210 κοτι γιγίνεται
yap rf
μασι κί
και κί
δυν[α
“215 decal
ovd|
Col. i.
Ἴτου
i"
Jo
235 Ιλ
ανθ]ρωποις
Ἱματα»
jn της
Ἰηλου" ε
240 Ἰωσενε
NEW CLASSICAL TEXTS
κην [...v- Tav
195 ta de κ[αϊταλει
πετα[ιἾ Kat τωι Opa
σαντῖι αἹρνεισθαι
Col. vii. Plate V.
TevOjev
ws €.[
220 τῶι Ϊ
ed]
af
Fr. 2.
Col. ii.
pov επίαιδουμε
θα τε κίαι σεβομεθα
τους δὲ [ex dav
λοῦ οἰκου οντας
270 oUTE επίαιδουμε
θα. ovre σεβομίεθα
εν τ[οἸντωῖι yap
προς αλληΐλους
BeBapBapol ye
PES Rr να τ να OR ἀεὶ τῆνος, 0
senng Bis en AOE ORE sk Ἶ
100 THE OXYRHYNCHUS PAPYRI
τεϊκμαιρε 218. θα: emer φυσει [>
] παρεχει παντα παντς:
; 7. [τας ᾿ ομοιως πεφυκῖία
Ἰείιστων μὲν και BapBa [
245 Ἰρων] pot και Ελληνΐες
τα ε- τς 280 εἰναι σκοπειν Ϊ
lav > . Se] παρεχει THA >
Ἱκί. .] τῶν guoet ἴοντων
] αναγκαίζων
] πασιν ανίθρω
j 285 mols’ m-.....
i tal
Te. κατία Saws
GOV ALS. ae
καὶ ἐκ]. sant
τοις. ore βίαρβα
290 pos agwpiarar
iN. Le] ἡμῶν ofvdes
if? ovre Ελλην[ αἰ
] ναπνεομεν
] TE yap εἰς τον a
] 295 ερία] amavres>
262 Ἰνο κατα To στομ[α] :
Ἰν [κ]αι κατία)] Tas pt
ps] aa: | vas’ Kal...
265 ΠῚ εν χί
Fr. 3. Fr. 4. Fr. 5. μ᾿ ᾿
iBeeat Jo. [ pol
Ἰνίεις" adl ei i a
Axetlere: Ἰυ toe ἐς Ἢ ee ais
; ] . [. ὦ οἸσαλί Ἷ ν᾽ Ἰποῖ 3 woul aA PERN
13864. NEW CLASSICAL TEXTS TOI
5 Aolyou: yf ΠΗ We} 5 Ἰνοσί
jevel Ἰακα
jaz] Ἰ προς
Fr. 6 Ἐν ἢ. Fr. 8 Fr. 9
Ἰιαπί Ἰαιτί ]Ἰ. αλί Ἰισί
Ἰουσᾳΐ }- zl Jro7| AI
Di, τὸ; Fr. 51. Fr. 12. Fr. 33;
ce le [ 1ητί γ
Ἱμηΐ Ἰοιᾳὶ Jal
Ἰουσί
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 witnesses 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,
102 THE OXYRHYNCHUS PAPYRI
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. What 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. Much 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 Joss, obedience to the laws would not be without
advantage ; but as it 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.’
6-11. Cf. Xen. Mem. iv. 4. 12-13, where Socrates argues with Hippias of Elis that ὁ μὲν
νόμιμος δίκαιός ἐστιν, ὁ δὲ ἄνομος ἄδικος.
7. Apparently ra has dropped out after [πα]ντα.
18-20 = Antiphon, Fr. 44 Diels, from Harpocration, 5. ν. ἄγει, ᾿Αντιφῶν δ᾽ ἐν τῷ Περὶ
᾿Αληθείας φησί Τοὺς νόμους μεγάλους ἄγοι, ἀντὶ τοῦ ἡγοῖτο. '
20--2. povoupevos . .. φυσεως is an iambic trimeter. Jambic rhythms occur also in
ll. 113-15, 181-4, 272-4; cf. Jacoby, op. εἴ]. 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. τι. The mistake was probably caused by the following «av τε.
49. The deleted ἡ has a dot placed above it, and is crossed through with a light
diagonal stroke. A similar method has been followed in 1]. 66, 68, 149, 151, 166, 291;
δε in 1. 57 has only the overwritten dots; cf. 1. 245.
68. Apparently the scribe inadvertently wrote ουδεις.
87 544. Since the author’s contention is that legal justice is contrary to nature
(Il. 59sqq.), 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... ὑπο: the variation of prepositions appears to correspond to no real
distinction of sense, and απὸ may be regarded as a clerical error.
108. 1. adyuvoyra: the final a was converted from o.
10g. τ Of τε is clear, but ye is required.
116. τα ηἾδοντα: cf. Ps.-Plat. Ax. 366a τὰ μὲν ἥδοντα ἀμυχιαῖα, and Pollux iii. 98 τὸ
yap ἥδω ᾿Ιονικὸν καὶ τὸ ἧσε σπάνιον μὲν παρ᾽ ἡμῖν, ᾿Ανακρέων δ᾽ αὐτὸ εἴρηκεν (Fr. 148). 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 ]. 131, where the supplement is practically assured by 1. 135. There will
be two lines entirely lost above 1. 126, if 1. 131 was ona level with]. 99. In]. 128 the
rough breathing is probable, but might possibly be an interlinear «. In ]. 129 the letter
after οἱ may be y, ἡ, μ, », 7, but not τ.
1864. NEW CLASSICAL TEXTS 103
131-4. The antithesis of δρᾶν and πάσχειν, which is repeated in Cols. vi-vii, occurs
in Antiphon, Fr, 58. ρ of δραν was apparently inserted after the a was written, perhaps by
the second hand.
148. re: ye seems to have been originally written and subsequently altered, mistakenly.
If the interlinear » is rightly read, the insertor wished to read τ ev 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 a of av (cf. ]. 113), but this would be unintelligible.
157. mpoltleuevors: 1. mpoo[cleuevors; cf. 1.169. The same mistake occurs in ]. 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 aly; cf. Crénert, Mem. Herc. p. 13. That the
final ν of an adjective should have been carried over into the next line is much less likely.
¥, μι π or perhaps « would be possible in place of νἱ in 1. 165. 7[o row 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 6. g. the words τῇ ἀληθείᾳ.
188. The marginal 6 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.
11. ii. 4 and 852. Fr. 25, note.
189-94. This passage ought to be restored. In]. 189 περαι, 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. ll. 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 εἤπεται in the Jacuna. The a at the end of the line may be δ, In 1. 190
the doubtful o may be ε; [rolus ri[yelpfowrlas suggests itself, but partial supplements are
useless. In 1. 193 απί and αγί are equally possible. The letter before & looks at first sight
like y, but this is probably due to a discoloured crack in the papyrus; ἐγδίκη does not occur.
δὲ» might be read as ad, 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 z.
219. A small smudge below ὦ is probably not a paragraphus.
225-7. These lines have been bracketed and crossed through in the same way
as ll. 34-6.
231. The lower part of a diagonal stroke is visible below this ν (or »), 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 p
is uncertain.
264. A horizontal stroke stands above Jus, 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. 848. The marginal note no doubt refers to the alteration in the
text. οὐκ was perhaps intended, though the suspension of the « 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 .. .’
104 THE OXYRHYNCHUS PAPYRI
266. Perhaps ποΐρων.
279. A short diagonal apex often attached by the scribe to the top of a vertical stroke
appears in « of xa in an exaggerated form.
285. πί : or γί.
286. κατα was perhaps originally written by a lipography for κατα τα.
299. This was probably the last line of the column, which is already longer than
Cols. i-vi of Fr. 1.
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 ons; a breathing is
. of course consistent with a compound, 6. g. αἤνιεις or συνιεις.
5. The broken letter before the lacuna seems to be by the second hand, in which case
lyov- probably ended the line.
Fr. 4. 1-2. Possibly what has been taken for vestiges of letters here is the effect
of dirt, and ]. 3 was the first of a column.
5. ju: perhaps ended the line; cf. the preceding note.
6. The margin after the final a 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 1864, is from near the ends of lines,
1865. HISTORY OF SICYON.
29-4 X 10-8 cm. Third century. Plate VI.
This interesting historical fragment consists of two nearly complete columns
of 35 lines, written in a fine upright uncial hand approximating towards the
biblical type (cf. 1892, which was found at the same time). Most of the letters
are broad, but o is small and ε and o narrow. ὦ 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 1865, 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 1865 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. 56 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.
[
13865. NEW CLASSICAL TEXTS 105
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 τοὺ 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. 126) as son of Aristonymus son of
Myron son of Andreas. Aristotle, to whom Pollux (ix. 77) attributes a treatise
called Σικυωνίων Πολιτεία, briefly discusses the government of the Sicyonian
tyrants (Pol. p. 1315 Ὁ, Bekker) πλεῖστον γὰρ ἐγένετο χρόνον ἡ περὶ Σικυῶνα
τυραννίς, ἣ τῶν ᾿Ορθαγόρου παίδων καὶ αὐτοῦ ᾿Ορθαγόρου" ἔτη δ᾽ αὕτη διέμεινεν ἑκατόν.
τούτου δ᾽ αἴτιον ὅτι τοῖς ἀρχομένοις ἐχρῶντο μετρίως καὶ πολλὰ τοῖς νόμοις ἐδούλευον, καὶ
διὰ τὸ πολεμικὸς γενέσθαι Κλεισθένης οὐκ ἦν εὐκαταφρόνητος, καὶ τὰ πολλὰ ταῖς
ἐπιμελείαις ἐδημαγώγουν, and elsewhere (p. 1216 a) treats Myron as the immediate
predecessor of Clisthenes, μεταβάλλει. καὶ εἰς τυραννίδα τυραννίς, ὥσπερ ἡ Σικυῶνος
ἐκ τῆς Μύρωνος εἰς τὴν Κλεισθένους. Pausanias, however (ii. 8.15 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, 1, and 31 years’ rule, and speaks
of Myron as ἀπὸ Ὀρθαγόρου κατάγων τὸ γένος, implying that he was not his son.
Plutarch (De ser. num. vind. 7) connects the tyranny of Orthagoras with an
oracle, Σικυωνίοις δὲ καὶ διαρρήδην ὁ θεὸς προεῖπε μαστιγονόμων δεῖσθαι τὴν πόλιν ὅτι
Τελητίαν παῖδα στεφανούμενον ἐν Πυθίοις ἀφαιρούμενοι διέσπασαν. ἀλλὰ Σικυωνίοις
μὲν Ὀρθαγόρας γενόμενος τύραννος καὶ μετ᾽ ἐκεῖνον οἱ περὶ Μύρωνα καὶ Κλεισθένη
τὴν ἀκολασίαν ἔπαυσαν. Libanius (Or. contra Severum, 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; ὅτι Σικυωνίοις ἔχρησεν ἡ Πυθία ἑκατὸν
ἔτη μαστιγονομηθήσθαι αὐτούς. ἐπερωτησάντων δὲ αὐτῶν τίς ὁ ταῦτα ποιήσων πάλιν
106 THE OXYRHYNCHUS PAPYRI
ἀπεκρίθη, ᾧ ἂν καταπλεύσαντες πρώτῳ γεγενημένον υἱὸν ἀκούσωσιν. ἐτύγχανε δὲ τοῖς
θεωροῖς ἠκολουθηκὼς τῆς θυσίας ἕνεκα μάγειρος, ὃς ἐκαλεῖτο ᾿Ανδρέας. μισθοῦ τοῖς
ἄρχουσι μαστιγοφορῶν ὑπηρέτει. 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, Ast. 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 (of. ci¢. i. 140-1) wished to reject
Nicolaus’ evidence about Myron altogether, most historians (e.g. Duncker, 17152.
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. 126). Clisthenes probably died about 565, for
Nicolaus (/.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 665
as the date of the foundation of the tyranny (so Duncker and Busolt), though
Plass, who (of. cit. i. 138) thought that revolutions might have occurred at intervals,
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’ μάγειρος, 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 (Il. 1-22). On reaching military age he became a
patrol (περίπολος), and distinguished himself in a war with the neighbouring
city of Pellene, being promoted to the post of περιπόλαρχος, in which he won fresh
successes and fame (Il. 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 (ll. 52-68). This resulted in the city taking some step (cf. 1. 70,
ΨΥ ee ΎΥΤΎΠΘΟΠΡΛΠΠΠΟ
1805. NEW CLASSICAL TEXTS 107
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 ἐκ τῶν τιμῶν but ἐκ τῆς
δημαγωγίας. 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 ll. 22 sqq., e.g. καταδραμόντων καὶ συμβαϊλόντων, πολὺ
πάντίων ηὐδο]κίμησε μάϊλιστα] τῶν περιπίόλων, φκειοῦτο κ[αὶ προσ]ήγετο, and displays
a fondness for the genitive absolute (ll. 28, 34-6, 52, 61-8) and the repetition of
the article with an adjective or other dependent words placed after a substantive
(ll. 9, 57, 64, 69). For one expression, παρήλλαξεν ἡλικίαν (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 ὕπτιον καὶ ἀνειμένον
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 ᾿Αθηναίων Πολιτεία, which has
very few instances of it. There are one or two other points of resemblance
in diction between 1865 and 842 (cf. notes on ll. 24 and 33), 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 (ll. 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
108 THE OXYRHYNCHUS PAPYRI
of agreement with the language of the ᾿Αθηναίων Πολιτεία (cf. ll. 21, 24, 26, 28, 40,
46—7, and 51, notes), though some of these consist in common expressions, and
the praise bestowed upon Orthagoras in 1865 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 ll. 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 ’A@. Πολ. usually speaks of the Athenians
as ὃ δῆμος 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 1865 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
evidence. >
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 μάγειρος from him to Orthagoras is perfectly intelli-
gible in the light of ll. 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 παῖδες Ὀρθαγόρου (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, 655 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 .
a ee ee, ee ee a ἃ
Se ee a
13865. NEW CLASSICAL TEXTS 109
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 1865, 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, of. czt. 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 τοὺ 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 1865,
and that he has confused Orthagoras with Myron or with Andreas, than that
τοῦ ᾿Ὀρθαγορέω has dropped out of the text in vi. 126 before rod ᾿Ανδρέω 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. Col. ii.
[οἹν[τ]α δημοτην kat και συμβαΐλοντων εξ a
φα[υϊλον τον ανθρω φνιδιου βοηθησας
πον" παρημελήησε ἀπεκτεινῖεν των πὸ
του μαντειου. καὶ τας λεμιων τινας και
5 μὲν αλλας θυσιας τας 40 πολυ παντίων nudo
[εἸπιταχθεισας εκ Tov κιμησε μαΐλιστα
[4]Ἰελφων ἀπεδωκε τῶν περιπίολων
τοις θεοις- της δὲ Tv avd wy οι ΣΤικνωνι
IIO
ΙΟ
THE OXYRHYNCHUS PAPYRI
ραννιδος της per
λουσης ἐσεσθαι κατε
[pponoev. o de Av
Splelas To ‘yevopevoy
QUT@ παιδιον ETPE
gev ονομα θεμενος
45
οι περιπολίαρχον av
τον απεδείίξαν εὐυθυς
be τυχὼν τίαυτης
τῆς τιμης εἰνικησε
τους πολεμίζους ETL
λαμπροτερίον ὥστε
των πολιτωῖν πολλοὺς
15 Ορθαγοραν ὃς μεχρι 50
μεν ηἡλικιας ὅϊιετε οικείουτο και προσ
[λ]εσε διαιτωμενος ἤγετο" καὶ χίρονου
και παιδευομενος προελθοντοῖς εἰλον
ουτῶς ὠσπερ ἢν EL To πολεμαρχΐίον αὖ
20 KOS υἱον OVTa μαγει BB Tov. padiora {μεν δι
[pov] και Tov τυχου]τος] δρι
a τὴν ανδρι[αν και
[τω]ν πολιτων- επει Ἵ 4
SanGesen ene aan τὴν εὐυτυχιαῖν .THY
ΤΡΕΥΜ ΣΕ ΘΕΊΡΕΝ κατα πολεμοῖν επει
Ta και To πληΐθος τῶν
25 λικιαν- ‘yevopevos se
Ἶ Ν ὅο πολιτων ev προς αὖ
των περιπολων τῶν
[φ]ρ[ο]Ἱυρουντῶν τὴν
[χω]ραν: πολεμοῦν συν
τον εἰχεν" πίολε
μήσαντος ὅδε κατα
τὴν ἀρχὴν alvdperws
την τε χωραν [τὴν
65 οἰκειαν διαϊφυλα
[εἸστωτος τοις Σικυω
30 νίοις προς ΠΠελλη
νεαξ᾽ ἢν pev εν ἃ
ξαντος: καὶ πίολλα κα
πᾶσι τοις Kalpols ε :
κα τοὺυβ πολεϊμιους᾽
vlep|yos και χαριεις"
[κ]αταδραμοντων
35 [Ole των Πελληνεζω]ν
ποιησαντοῖς o μεν
δημος ο τῶν [Σικυὼω
70 νιων αὐυθι[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
— Ὅν!
a.
eS ee ee ee i in nal
13865. NEW CLASSICAL TEXTS IIt
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...’
1. [οἸντ]α : something like yous (or αἰσθομενος) δὲ ο δημος ο τῶν Σικυωνιων (cf. 1. 69)
probably preceded.
11. Avdplejas: ν is practically certain, and the vestiges of the following letters suit dp[elas
very well. Cf. Diod. viii. 24 and introd. pp. 105-6.
16. δ[ιετελ]εσε: this verb occurs four times in *A@. Hod. with a participle.
20. μαγει[ρου]: cf. Diod. 2c. and p. 105.
21. tov tuxor|ros]: cf. ’AO. Tod. 27. 4 μᾶλλον τῶν τυχόντων ἢ τῶν ἐπιεικῶν ἀνθρώπων.
24. παρηλλαξεν ηἡλικιαν : οἵ, Plut. Adczd. 7, Cimon 1, Heliod. x. 22. The verb occurs
in 842. xix. 2 in the same sense, but with πεδίον, and twice in ’A@. Hod. with μικρόν meaning
‘ differ ’.
26. περιπολων των [φ]ρ[ο]υρουντων την [xw|pav: cf. AO: Tod. 42. 4 περιπολοῦσι τὴν χώραν.
28. πολεμου avr[e|oraros: Cf. AO. Tod. 24. 3 συνεστήσαντο τὸν πόλεμον.
33- xaptes: οἵ, 842. i. g ὅσοι γνώ]ριμζοι κ]αὶ χαρίεντες ἦσαν.
40. ηυδο]κιμησε: cf. ᾿Αθ. πολ. 14. 1 ὁ Πεισίστρατος καὶ σφόδρ᾽ εὐδοκιμηκὼς ἐν τῷ πρὸς
Μεγαρέας πολέμῳ.
44. περιπολίαρχον : cf. Thuc. viii. 92 ἐς τοῦ περιπολάρχου ξυνιόντας. Whether the termina-
tion was -os or -ns is uncertain, but πολέμαρχος (cf. 1. 54) is much better attested than
πολεμάρχης.
46-7. Cf. ᾽Αθ. πολ, 12. 5 εἰ γάρ τις ἄλλος, φησί, ταύτης τῆς τιμῆς ἔτυχεν.
51. προσΐηγετο: οἵ. ᾿Αθ. πολ. 20, I προσηγάγετο τὸν δῆμον.
66. πίολλα καἾκα τους πολε[μιους] ποιησαντοῖς : cf. 842, xv. 31 τοσαῦτα κακὰ ποιήσαντες τοὺς
Φωκέας, xVill. 36 οὐδὲν κακὸν ἐποίει τοὺς] ἐνοικοῦντας.
70. αὐθιΐς : this must refer to something mentioned not long previously, and θεωρους (cf.
Diod. 1.4.) εἰς Δελῴους ἐπεμψε OF πολεμαρχον avroy edero (cf. 1. 53) may have followed.
Σικυωνίων δῆμος (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 δημος here refers to the democratic party as opposed to the aristocrats is
unlikely.
1366. FRAGMENT OF AN ATTIC ORATOR.
32-7 X12 cm. Late third century.
The recto of this papyrus contains a report by a decaprotus concerning
payments of corn in A.D. 248-9, which will be published in Part XII. On
the verso are the beginnings of lines of the ὑπόθεσις and first column of
a speech by an Attic orator, preceded by the conclusion of a title Joyevous.
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
112 THE OXYRHYNCHUS PAPYRI
after the ὑπόθεσις 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. 6.
A certain Antisthenes, who is not identifiable with any of the bearers of that
name in the Prosop. AZt., is mentioned at the outset of the ὑπόθεσις, and
from the words φαρμακοί (1. 3), θάνατος (Il. 4 and 18), and συκοφαντί (ll. 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 Ἰογενους in any case probably refers to
a speech (either ὑπέρ or κατά being supplied) rather than an author. The
extant titles of orations concerning persons called Jogenes are two by Hyperides,
κατὰ ᾿Αθηνογένους, of which the first is partly preserved in a Paris papyrus, four
by Lysias, (1) περὶ τοῦ Διογένους κλήρου, (2) πρὸς Διογένην or κατὰ Διογένους (περὶ
χωρίου), (3) πρὸς Διογένην ὑπὲρ μισθώσεως οἰκίας, (4) πρὸς Γλαύκωνα περὶ τοῦ
Δικαιογένους κλήρου, and one by Isaeus, περὶ τοῦ Δικαιογένους κλήρου, which is
preserved entire. Ifthe title in 1866 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 ὦ ἄνδρες ᾿Αθηναῖοι (1. 6) rather suggests Demosthenes; other orators, so far
as can be judged, show a preference for ὦ ἄνδρες or ὦ ᾿Αθηναῖοι or ὦ ἄνδρες.
δικασταί, 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.
κατα (?) Joyevous
Col. ii.
Αντισθενοΐυς δικὴην Ϊ αι
φαρμακοΐ τίος θανΐατου
και εαυτοΐ θα τι πισύϊ
5 νατου κρίι 20 μενος Ϊ
πὰ _ [ΠἹματων
Καινον μεῖν wo avdpes Abn [1|κω del
σαν νυν ee ee ὐὐο eee
13866. NEW CLASSICAL TEXTS 113
vatoe φιλί συκο ὕμιν οἱ
φαντί αλ μελει τί
λο τι καὶ 25. vous πὶ
10 eyoy ουΪ νης τιν
και κατ.Ϊ τους pl ω αν
μενουΐ δρες γί
και συκοίφαντ καμν
με On [ 30 φιλος [
[5 και γεινΐ τοι To|
τοι ταυτηΐν
2. Αντισθενοῖυς : Αντισθενεῖι is possible, but not ΑντισθενηΊς.
.22. del: or do.
28. The letter following ὃρες might be y, η, μ, or », but not Αἰθηναιοι.
1367. HERACLIDES LEMBUS, Epitome of Hermippus Περὶ νομοθετῶν.
Fr. 1 29:5 X 12-4 col. 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. 2) shows that the work so utilized was the
epitome by Heraclides son of Sarapion, commonly called Heraclides Lembus, of
the treatises of Hermippus Περὶ νομοθετῶν, Περὶ τῶν ἑπτὰ σοφῶν, and Περὶ
Πυθαγόρου, another (Fr. 1) contains one nearly complete column and part of
a second from the end of Book i and the beginning of Book ii of the Περὶ
νομοθετῶν. Hermippus, who is called by Athenaeus 6 Καλλιμάχειος (i. 58f,
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. /. H. G. iii. 36-42. Though divided into
several books (the Περὶ νομοθ. had six, the Περὶ τῶν €. cod. four, and the Περὶ Πυθ.
two) and evidently self-contained, they are supposed to have been constituent
parts of a larger whole called Bio. 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
I
114 THE OXYRHYNCHUS PAPYRI
biographers, the Bio. of Satyrus and the Διαδοχαί of Sotion. Heraclides was one
of the authorities of Diogenes Laertius, who cites Ἥρακλ. ἐν τῇ τῶν Σατύρου Βίων
ἐπιτομῇ (viii. 40), ‘Hpakd. ἐν τῇ Σατύρου ἐπιτ. (ix. 26), “Hpakd. ἐν τῇ ἐπιτ. (following
a reference to the Bio. οἵ Satyrus, viii. 53), “HpaxA. ἐν τῇ ἐπιτ. τῶν Σωτίωνος
Διαδοχῶν (v. 79), Ἥρακλ. ἐν τῇ Σωτίωνος ἐπιτ. (viii. 7, x. 1). The natural inference
from such a method of citation is that Heraclides’ epitomes of the Bio. of
Satyrus and the Avadoxai of Sotion were two independent and self-contained
works, and they were so treated e.g. by Miiller in /. 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 (Anizg.
v. Karyst. pp. 87-9) and Susemihl (Alex. Litt. i. 503), but rejected by Unger
(Rhein. Mus. xxxviii. 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 Περὶ Πυθαγόρου. If Diogenes on the subject of Pythagoras
had also referred to Heraclides ἐν τῇ Ἑρμίππου ἐπιτομῇ, 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 νομοθέται. 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 ᾿Οξυρυγχίτης. This testimony conflicts with that of Demetrius Magnes
ap. Diog. Laert. v. 94, which describes Heraclides as KaAAariavés (Callatis in
Pontus) ἢ ᾿Αλεξανδρεύς. 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 official at Oxyrhynchus,
18670. NEW CLASSICAL TEXTS 115
Cronert (Colotes u. Menedemos, p. 136) holds that Suidas and Demetrius have
confused two persons, (1) Heraclides Lembos of Oxyrhynchus, statesman and
historian, and (2) Heraclides son of Sarapion, of Callatis, epitomizer. The .
discovery of 1867 does not of course prove the correctness of Suidas ; but it
is a little unfortunate for Crénert’s hypothesis that fragments of one of Heraclides’
epitomes, instead of the ‘Ioropia: or the Λεμβευτικὸς λόγος, 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. 1. 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 πόλις mentioned in 1. 7 was an Egyptian city. The short account of Demonax
(1. 19-39) is unfortunately much mutilated ; Hermippus disagreed with Herodotus,
who is cited in 1. 36, 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 (Il. 54-5). By Archimachus (ll. 56 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 (ll. 65-6), 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. 2 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 diorthotés, and we have therefore as usual
given the former the benefit of the doubt.
12
116 THE OXYRHYNCHUS PAPYRI
ἘΠ 1:
Col. i. Col. ii,
a
[06 of. 2 σ᾽όναη ες se
[.1α[. ..ὄ on δι[ο] και τινες
δίηκ[η]ν ἐπηνεγκαν av
[τ]ω exaTov και evevn
5 Κοίν]τα ταλαντὼν ὡς πὰ
ρα [Πτολεμαιου λαβοντος
εἰς [τη]ν πολιν ταύτην
δ᾽ αἰποϊφυγοντος αλλην
ἐπηνεῖγκαν TadavTov
το [εκατον] πεντήκοντα»
[kJa[e o plev εἰς Κορινθον
ὠιχεῖτο] καταδικασθεις
δὲ επ[ωλειτο . προς»
τὴν κ[αἸταδικην μετα
15 τῶν υἱπ]αρχοντων οὐδε
vos δὲ [των πολιτῶν
t
@vouple|vou ov TE aypot
διεφθαρησαν και ἡ οἱ
κα συνεπεσεν: Anpo
a o βασίλε]υς Μαντι
νεων" λεγεῖται] Κυρηναι
[ors] νομο[θείτησαι και
[εἰς 4ελῴφους [π]αραγενο
[μἸενίος . .1. δι[δοῖναι τα»
2 eee ]..[-. -Je- ypa
oe Ἰκεῖ. ovlupa
[x - ΜαντινΊεων [βα]σιλεὺυς
[o Anpolvag Pf... .] . . [.᾿
[προ]σνιμας Βαρκαιοίις πρὶ
ποτ Πα ππε-[]-.}:-- δια
[: oe Jey Mari... 50 wo|
13867. NEW CLASSICAL TEXTS 117
[..].@ καθ εν αἰ... «Ἰκουν Kov[. .. 2 + Πα τ δος
[- ..1. ov e€ov7[... .| ka .[.]. avikyo[.....
[. ..] AvBuny nf. . .] pe Bovgvyns: vopol bern
35 ἰμίνηται Kar του Aln|yuo σαι" μεμνηται ὃ αἴυτον
[να]κτος και ἩΗροδοϊτο]ς 55 kat Aagos o mourns
[ws vjro Μαυϊτ)ινε[ὡν]» Apxipaxov de φασι bec
[do]0ern Κυ[ρηἸναζιοι]ς ex Oat τινας νομουΐς Kat
[θεἸοπροπιου ey dat BG ee a aaa
lay β [rov|s ὑπ avrov τεεν
6 τ 5 ees
[AO|nvaiols Κεκροπα τον ο tas [.]. ν δὲ mapar[
[διφυ]η καὶ γηγενη Ba
[ἰσιλείυϊοντα mpwrov
ἢνπ|.}. ν χρωμενῖ. ..
Ἰεσιο[.] βα[σιλικί.. .Juvof.
Ἰατε. [. . Jaro . ολί. «Ἶναΐ
Ἰρωτί. . .] . . ravrny οΤτί.
65 [... (ἰκην βουλευταῖς
. « τετρακοσίους" . .
[νομο]θετησαι φασι" τῶν
45 ἱνομίων ὃ αὐτου τους [.. .|
[- .«.1. dov ευδοκιμη [ |
σαι Φιλοχορος δὲ τα ταῖν]
Fr. 2.
Ἡρ]ακλειδου tov
SJapamtovos en{t|roun
tov Ερμιππου περι
40 νομοθετῶν και
επῖτα σοῴφων και
ΠΊνθαγορου
Er 3. Fr. 4. Fr. 5. Fr. 6. ἘΠ. ἢ:
Ἰίευ ]- al Jer }- 4 Ἰκοῖ
Ἰφη ]. οἱ a ΝΜ ΤΣ:
Ἰθη» 1. of
]α προς :
2.344. ‘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.
118 THE OXYRHYNCHUS PAPYRI
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.’
1. It is not clear whether the superscribed a refers to |. 1 or is a displaced fragment.
6. 1. λαβοντι.
13. There seems to be anerror here. επίωΐλειτο is followed by a vertical stroke after
which there is a small break in the papyrus, and beyond this a vestige of the 7 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 zpos. To read ἡ (οικιαὴ
προς would involve an alteration of καταδικασθεις, and επ[ωλει το ( ) is not a very likely
alternative.
17. Whether the overwritten « was inserted by the original scribe or a corrector is
doubtful ; the v has not been deleted.
1gsqq. Cf. Athen. iv. 154d Ἕρμιππος δ᾽ ἐν al περὶ νομοθετῶν (F. H. G. iii. 36) τῶν povo-
μαχούντων evpetas ἀποφαίνει Μαντινεῖς Δημώνακτος ἑνὸς τῶν πολιτῶν συμβουλεύσαντος, καὶ ζηλωτὰς
τούτων γενέσθαι Κυρηναίους. Herodotus, who is cited below (I. 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 καταρτιστήρ, and the Mantineans accordingly sent Demonax ἄνδρα τῶν
ἀστῶν δοκιμώτατον Who τριφύλους ἐποίησέ σφεας and τῷ βασιλέϊ Βάττῳ τεμένεα ἐξελὼν καὶ ἱερωσύνας,
τὰ ἄλλα πάντα τὰ πρότερον εἶχον οἱ βασιλέες ἐς μέσον τῷ δήμῳ ἔθηκε (iv. 161); similarly
Diodorus viii. 30 ὅτι τῆς τῶν Κυρηναίων στάσεως διαιτητὴς ἐγένετο Δημῶναξ Μαντινεύς, συνέσει καὶ
δικαιοσύνῃ δοκῶν διαφέρειν. 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. παραγενομενοι (SC. οἱ Κυρηναῖοι) would be expected from the narrative of Herodotus,
but the following infin. indicates that Demonax is still the subject. do{v]ya: rather than
δι[δοῖναι is wanted, but is apparently not to be read; the doubtful initial ὃ may be a.
26. |xe[: or possibly feel
32. Apparently not δ[ιοικουν. χ may be read instead of κ.
33. εξ ὧν is also possible.
34 sqq. Cf. note onl. 19. There are dots above καὶ in both 1. 35 and 1. 36, but it is
doubtful whether they were intended as marks of deletion, though the first καὶ might probably
be spared; for the second cf. 1. 55. A small fragment containing part of the ὃ and the
second o of Hpodoros and a vestige of ὃ in the line above is not certainly placed here.
39. As in |. 17 the responsibility for the correction remains in doubt.
42. [διφυ]η : cf. Suidas s.v., Aristoph. Wasps 438, &c.
1867. NEW CLASSICAL TEXTS 119
46. The Jetters before » are indistinct, and there may have been some alteration;
perhaps |. [[. .J» should be read. The paragraphus below this line is of unusual length ;
it should, moreover, have been placed a line lower down.
53- Βουζύγης was the mythical ancestor of the Athenian priestly family of Βουζύγαι and
was regarded as the inventor of ploughing and the originator of various moral observances ;
cf. e.g. Schol. Aesch. ii. 78 Βουζ.. .. ᾿Αθηναίων τῶν πάλαι, ὅστις πρῶτος ζεῦγος ἔζευξεν, Hesych,
Βουζ. ἥρως ᾿Αττικός, 6 πρῶτος βοῦς ὑπὸ ἄροτρον ζεύξας, Etym. Magn. 206. 47, Append. Prov. 1. 61
ἀραὶ βουζύγειοι" Bovg. . . . ἄλλα τε πολλὰ ἀρᾶται καὶ τοῖς μὴ κοινωνοῦσι... ὕδατος ἢ πυρὸς ἢ μὴ
ὑποφαίνουσιν ὅδον πλανωμένοις, Diphil. Fr. 62 Kock, Schol. Soph. “4412. 255 λόγος δὲ ὅτι Bove.
᾿Αθήνησι κατηράσατο τοῖς περιορῶσιν ἄταφον σῶμα.
54-5. This passage must be added to the scanty fragments of Lasus (four in Bergk’s
Poet. Lyr.). :
56. ᾿Αρχίμαχος occurs as an Athenian name in Ps,-Demosth. Πρὸς Μακάρτατον 45, but
no lawgiver ᾿Αρχίμαχος is known. Presumably the reference is to ᾿Αρχέμαχος, the son of
Heracles by one of the daughters of Thespius (Apollod. ii. 7. 8), though apparently he is not
elsewhere credited with vopoéecia.
62-4. The letters eo, are, and pwr 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 ll. 63-4 are rather more to the left of the ε in ], 62 than is warranted by
the ordinary slope of the column. The doubtful σ following the ε may be y or π.
Fr. 3. 1. If Ἰζευ is right this fragment might well belong to the passage concerning
Buzyges ; cf. note on]. 53. The ¢ however, is not altogether satisfactory.
Fr. 7. If this fragment belongs to 1867, it must have come from near the end of a line,
on account of the compression of the letters.
1368. ROMANCE.
192 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 handwriting, towards the close of
the second century. A census and ἐπικεφάλαια 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 ina 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; v at the end of a line
sometimes takes the form of a stroke above the preceding vowel. Corrections
in ll. 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
120 THE OXYRHYNCHUS PAPYRI
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.
vn viois τὴν αὑτὴν θαψαίι
Ἰενδὲ μεικρον ἀπὸ τῆς οδου εκίτρα
]γεν wi 30 πεις κειμαι On ὕπο TH TAG
JAcos TAVIOTM EKELVN καὶ μετ ε
τ Joc εκει μου kopn Kady ἀμῴφω avnpy
Ἰην μενοι o δε Γλαυκετης εκ
|rnv TAayels womep εἰκος epbey
71. σι 35 ἕατο μεν οὐδὲν προς Tav
Ἰτοὺυς τᾷ emevevey δὲ μονον Kat
το Ἰπαι [αμ]α ἡλαυνεν o de νεανι
3 lines [cKxos] ηφανισθη επινευσαν
lost. [ros ὁ] de Γλαυκετης κατα Kpa
40 TOS ἡλαῦυνεν και apa ETE
Ja στρεφετο εἰ που avOis ἵδοι
15 Je εκεινον αλλ οὐκετι εβλεπε
Ἰσχυ αφικνειται OVY νυκτος ετι
Ἰὼ εἰς τὴν κωμὴην καὶ nv πα
|vo 2
a 45 ρ αὐτὴ mol]Aljapos τουτον δι
Η τινα
20 ] αβας opa {παρ αὑὐτη]] ἱπποστα
|xa σιν ανεωγμενὴν Και εν
Ἰα αὑτὴ στιβαδα evTeAn και
] φαυλην καταδησας ovy
Joe | 50 πρὸς TH φατνὴ Tov ἱππὸν
25 ] βαλων avtos em της στιβα
Ἰν δίοἸς ἐπεχειρει καθευδειν
|. kav TovT@® κατεισι γυνὴ δι
ον a κλειμακος ἡ ἣν εξ UTEPw
55 [ov alyouoa KaTw εἰς την LT
ἰποστασιν. ..
1368. NEW CLASSICAL TEXTS 121
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 aor ε. θαψέίιν would fill the line better
than θαψαι, which is rather short.
46. The deleted letters, which are a dittography from ll. 44-5, have dots placed above
and below them.
51. βαλων : cf. Arrian, τοι, ii. 20. το βαλὼν xabedde. This intransitive use of βάλλειν
(cf. ῥίπτειν) is also found in poetry, and in the colloquial βάλλ᾽ és κόρακας, &c.
11 FRAGMENTS OF EXTANT CLASSICAL
AUTHORS
1369. SOPHOCLES, Oedipus Tyrannus.
ΕἾ. 4:4X8-5r 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 (ll. 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
122 THE OXYRHYNCHUS ΡΑ͂ΡΥΚΙ
omitted owing to homoioteleuton, and where the Laurentian codex (L) breaks
down, as happens not infrequently in the choric passages, the papyrus (I) rarely
helps, so that the only novelties are ἐμβατεῦσαι for ἐμβατεύειν in 1. 825, a doubtful
variant in 1. 752, and an uncertain confirmation of an emendation in the corrupt
line 1310. It is interesting, however, that in at least three instances (Il. 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 [τουμον maples και καταμβλ]ύνων Keap [
xop(os) [ἰωναξ εἰπὸν μεν olv
690 χ᾽ αἷπαξ povoy ht dle
[—]
παραφίρονιμον αποροὴν
emt φρονίιμα] πεφανῖθαι
Hav [εἰ σε] νοσφιζομῖαι
[os τ ἐμαν yal φίλαν
695 [εν πονοις advoly
σαν κατ ορθον] ούρισας
[τανυν T εὐποῖμπος εἰ δύναι γίενου
10 lines lost.
708 [e“ov πακουσον Kat] pad ουνίεκ εστι σοι
[βροτειον οὐδεν μαντικῆς [exov Texvns
710 [φανω δὲ σοι σημεια τ]ῶνδε σίυντομα
Recto. . Plate VII (Frs. 1-2).
731 [ηυδΊατο yap tavT olvde πω ληξαντ exet
και που σθ᾽ ο χωρος ἴουτος ov rod nv παθος
[Φωκις] μεν ἡ yn κλίηζεται σχιστη ὃ odos
[ες ταυτοῇ Δελφῶν [karo Δαυλιας αγει
735 [Kat τις xplovos τίοισδ ἐστιν ουξ]εληλυθώς"
ἰσχεδον τι προσθεὶν ἡ συ τησδὃ ἐΐχων χθονος
1869. FRAGMENTS OF EXTANT CLASSICAL AUTHORS
[apxnv εφα]ινου TouT εκηρυχίθη πολει
[o Zev τι μου] δρασαι βεβοίυλευσαι περι
[τι ὃ ἐστι σοι Tlovt Οιδίπους εἰνθυμιον
[
740°
10 lines lost.
751 [avdpas λοχιτὰας οἱ alynp apl|xnyeTns
[πεντ noav οἱ ξυμπ]άντες: εἶν 0 αὐτοισιν ny
[κηρυξ ἁπηνη ὃ nye] Adiov μ[ια
Frs. 5 and 6. Recto.
775 [μητη]ρ Se Meplomn Awpis nyopny ὃ avnp
[αστῆων μέγισϊτος των exer πριν μοι τυχῃ [
477 [τοια]δ᾽ ἐπεστη θίαυμασαι μεν] αξία! ι}}’
179 [ανηρ] yap εν δείπνοις μ ὑπερπλ]ησθεὶς pe[On
780 [καλει πα]ρ᾽ owe πλαΐστος ὠὡσέ]ιγήν παΐτρι
[kayo βαρυνθεις την μ]εν ovoay nplepay
[μολις κατεσχον θατεῖρᾳι δ᾽ idy πέλαϊς
[unrpos marpos T ἡλεγ]χον' οἱ δὲ δυσίφορως
[τουνειδος nyov Tw μεἸθέντι Tov λίογον
Verso.
819 [ωθειν ὃ am οἰκων Kat Tad ουτις αλ͵Ίλος ἣν
820 [n yo π᾿ εμϊαυτω tacd [apas ο προστίήθεις.
[Aexn δεῖ Tov θανοῖντος εν χεροιν] εμαῖν.
ω.
[χραινίω δι [[n]vrep ἴωλετ ap εφΊυν κακός.
[ap ουχ: mas [[av]] ἄν[αγνος] εἰ με χρη φἴυγειν
[και μοι] φευγοντ[] μίη)γε ἴτους εμῆους [ιδΊεϊιν
825 [μηστ εμ]βατευσαι πατρίιδος ἡ γάμοις pe δει
[untpos ζ)υγῆναι και ἵπατερα κατακτανειν
[Πολυβον] ὅς εξεθρεψίε καξεῴφυσε με
123
124 THE OXYRHYNCHUS PAPYRI
rr. ἢ. Verso.
1304 [δήυναμαι o εἰἴθελων πολλ ανερεσθαι ἣν
1305 πολλα πυθεῖσθαι πολλα ὃ αθρησαι
τοιαν φρίκηϊν παρέχεις μοι
ala αἰαι
φευ φευ δύϊστανος eyw ποι yas
[φ]ερομαι τλίαμων πα μοι φθογγα
1310 [δαπ εἤητατίαι φοραδην
Recto.
1351 [ποδιας ελαβεν μ᾽ amo τε] Plovoly
[ερρυτο κανεσωσεν οἾυθεν ες χάριν
ἰπρασσὼν τοτε ]
[yap αν θανων ]
1355 [οὐκ nv φιλοισιν ovd εἶμοι τοσονδ᾽ ἄχοϊς
[θελοντι καμοι τοῦτ aly nv
[ουκουν πατρος ]
[y av φονεὺς ndOov ουδὲ νἱυμίφι[ος
. . e
688. καταμβλ Ἰύνων : so MSS., Jebb. Hartung and Wecklein proposed καταμβλύνεις,
689. xop(os), or possibly xop{o(s)], is written as an ordinary abbreviation with a stroke
through the p, not as in 1870. 1249 with o above and p under the x. Lines 689-97
are divided somewhat differently in L, which begins 1. 690 with -raé and 1. 696 with
κατ᾽ ὀρθόν.
693. σε) νοσφιζομαι : so MSS. Jebb adopts Hermann’s σ᾽ ἐνοσφιζόμαν.
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.
πόνοις in 1. 695 was corrected by Bergk to πόνοισιν in order to correspond to φθίνουσα in
1. 666 of the strophe, where Dindorf conjectured φθινάς, but the arrangement [ev πονοισιν
ad}y|[ovcav κατ ορθον] requires 13 letters before ούρισας in 1. 696, which is unlikely. In
ll. 666-7 the reading of the MSS. τρύχει ψυχάν, καὶ τάδ᾽ εἰ κακοῖς κακά again fails to correspond
to ἀλύουσαν κατ᾽ ὀρθὸν οὔρισας 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. δυναι γίενου or δυναιο [γενουῦ 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
1869. FRAGMENTS OF EXTANT CLASSICAL AUTHORS 125
erased above a Neither reading corresponds to |. 668 τὰ πρὸς σφῷν. Hermann and
Campbell read δύναιο, omitting γενοῦ, which word (or ἴσθι) would have to be understood.
740. ep|ora tov: OF possibly ep|ora [roy 3 cf. 1.1977.
752. Evyn|dvres was wrongly accentuated, unless a new variant, e.g. οὗτοι π]άντες, be
read for οἱ Euprjavres: cf. 1. 780, note.
777. The deletion of the wrong « after aga and the insertion of the mark of quantity
seem to be due to the first hand. After this verse 1. 778 σπουδῆς ye μέντοι τῆς ἐμῆς οὐκ ἀξία
has been omitted owing to homoioteleuton.
780. There are traces of ink between the two accents on é|: and ἤν which apparently
represent γ, i.e. y(c), or a smooth breathing. ‘The scribe clearly either did not read πλαστὸς
ὡς εἴην πατρί, which is indeed rather unexpected after καλεῖ μ᾽, or else misunderstood it. The
accent of ἦν must be wrong ; cf. 1. 752, note.
782. δ᾽ was corrected from « by the first hand. The supposed grave accent on ἴων
resembles a mark of elision.
821. The ν of εμαῖν is written very large.
822. The reading of the first hand n»wep was a mere error.
823. dv[ayvos]: there is room for two more letters in the lacuna, which is hardly smaller
than the space occupied by der ap ef in 1. 822, and there may well have been another
deletion. The first was apparently due to the original scribe.
824. pevyorr[t]: 1. φυγοντι] with A (the Parisinus), L originally had gv . τόντι, which
was converted into φυγόντι by the erasure of half the cross-bar of the 7 as well as all the
preceding letter.
μίη)τε: so A; μῆστι originally L, corrected by an early hand to μήτε. μ[η]στίι does not
suit the traces here, and μίησ]τι [ cannot be read.
825. [μηστ ep |Barevoa : μήτ᾽ ἐμβατεύειν LA, μήτ᾽ having been corrected in L by an early
hand from μῆστ or μή μ᾽; μήτ᾽ Or μή ᾽στ᾽ ἐμ. other MSS., μηδ᾽ ἐμβατεύειν Dindorf, Jebb. The
aorist fits in better than the present with φυγεῖν and ἰδεῖν in the preceding lines, but whether
the papyrus had μηστ᾽ (cf. 1. 824), μητ᾽, or μηδ᾽ is uncertain. Seven letters would be expected
in the lacuna on the analogy of 1]. 823-6, six according to 1. 827, so that [uyr’ εμ] or [μηδ᾽ ep]
is rather short.
826. There was possibly a low stop after ζ]νγῆναι.
827. céeOpey[e καξεφυσε: so M (Ambrosianus) and the late MSS. ; ἐξέφυσε κἀξέθρεψε
LA, Jebb ; but cf. Od. xii. 134 θρέψασα τεκοῦσά re, and introd.
1304. dlvvapa o εἶθελων : the reading is very doubtful, but the first letter visible seems
to be « or v, the next tobe » rather than ὃ, and four feet are found in ll. 1305, 1306, 1308,
and 1309. The arrangement of Il. 1304—10 is the same as that in L.
1306. τοιαν: so edd. with L marg. and some of the late MSS. ; ποίαν L, τοίαν with +
suprascr. A, &c.
1307. ava aa: so some of the late MSS.; ai ai αἴ LA, ai a? other late MSS., Jebb; cf.
1. 827, note.
1308. The accent on δύΐστανος is not certain.
1310. The reading [&:Jazwraz[a corr. from δι]απ[εἼγατζαι is unfortunately very uncertain.
LA have διαπέταται φοράδην |, the only variants for Svar. in the later MSS. being the corrupt
διέπταται and διαπέπταται. The letter above the line is notaore, but might be o. διαπωτᾶται,
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 ἐπιποδίας at the end of the line
preceding. That the scribe of 0 had no hesitation in dividing words between two lines is
clear from ll. 689 and 695. The restorations in ll. 1351-2 are from L, but the text and
metre of these lines are doubtful.
126 THE OXYRHYNCHUS PAPYRI
1355. dxos: so A and edd.; dxOos, the unmetrical reading of L, &c., is possible, but
in view of the other disagreements with L less probable.
1357. οὔκουν πατρός. . . νυμφίος forms one line in L.
1370. EURIPIDES, Wedea and Orestes.
Fr.r 8-1 18-1 cm. 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 1869 and 1871-4. One belongs to the Medea, the rest
to the Orestes, but the order of the plays is uncertain. The script isa good-sized
uncial of the sloping oval type with thirty-seven or thirty-eight lines to a column,
and resembles 1871. Fr. 1 (J7edea) contains parts of fourteen iambic lines near
the beginning of the drama (ll. 20-6, 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. 23 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
(ll. 445-9, 469-74, 482-5, 508-12, 685-90, 723-9, 811-17, 850-4, 896-8, 907-10,
934-6, 945-8, 1247-63, 1297-1305, 1334-45, 1370-1). An insertion of iota
adscript inl. 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. 1, while the accents, breathings, stops (high
point), and elision-marks are less frequent than in Fr. 1 and are probably due, like
the diaeresis (1. 470) and most of the paragraphi, to the first hand. Corrections
in ll. 1334 and 1342 and perhaps 511 are in a different hand, which may be
identical with that of the person who inserted the speaker’s name against ll. 470
and 1249 in good-sized uncials and paragraphi below ll. 1250, 1257, 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 ll. 1370 and 1371.
The writer of these notes may also have been responsible for the speaker’s name
against 1. 1260, but the speaker’s name added in uncials against 1. 1246, if not due
to the original scribe, was probably inserted by a fourth corrector. The cursive
notes are somewhat later than the scholia in 1871, 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 Wedea (ll. 5-12 in P. Didot, ed. H. Weil,
Monuments grecs, 1879, 18-22, and ll. 710-15 in 450) the present fragment is
too small to be of any practical use for textual purposes; but the pieces of
1370. FRAGMENTS OF EXTANT CLASSICAL AUTHORS τῷ
the Orestes are more valuable, being longer than the previously known papyrus
fragments of that play (Il. 339-43 with musical notes in P. Rainer, M7tthezl. v.
465; 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; P stands nearer
to MABV than toL. A noteworthy agreement with M against the other MSS.
occurs in 1. 946, and with A in 1. 1335, and probably in ll. 816 and 1370; on the
whole the corrected text is fairly accurate, though a slip in 1. 508 has passed
unobserved. Weil’s emendation ἄγ᾽ for ἀλλ᾽ 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.
Medea.
Fr. 2. 7 Verso.
20 Μηδεια δ᾽ ἡ δυστηνος ητιμασμένη.
βοᾶι μεν ορκους ανακαλεῖ de δεϊξιας
πίστιν μεγιστην- καὶ 6ἤεους μΊ]αρτυρεται.
Ε A
oras αμοιβῆς [εξ Iacovos κυρει]
κειται ὃ ασιΐτος σωμ ὑυφεις αλγηδοσι
25 Tov πάντα ἰσυντηκουσα δακρυοις χρονον
ἐπει [π͵|ρίος ανδρος nober ηδικημενη
Recto.
57 wo0 ἵμερός μ᾽ ὕπῆλθε γῆ" TE κουρανωι
λέξαι μολού[ση) δίε]υρο Μηδείας τυχας:
ora yap ή ταΐλαινα πῆΊανεται γόων"
60 (no σ᾽ ev ἀρχίη πημα κο]υδεπω μεσοῖ
ὦ μῶρος εἰ χρὴ δεσποτας εἰπεῖν τοδὲ
[ws οὐδεν olde των νεωτερων καϊκων"
[τι ὃ ἐστιν w γεραιε μη φθονει] ppacat-
128 THE OXYRHYNCHUS PAPYRI
25. π᾿ of παντα has been corrected.
58. μολούϊσηἾι: : so ABPV, edd. ; podotcay V (later hand) L.
Μηδείας: so V (with ἢ δεσποίνης suprascr.) LP (cf. Ennius, AZed. Fr. 3); δεσποίνης AB
and Schol. Phoen. 1, Wecklein, Murray.
Orestes.
Frs. 2 and 3. Recto. Plate VII (Fr. 3 recto).
445 [δια πῆρος [εχθ]ρίων ἡ προς Apyeas χερος
[παν]των προῖς actav ὡς θανω Bpaxus λογος
ὠ μέλεος ἤκειϊς συμῴφορας ες τουσχατον
[es o εἶλπις july καταφυγας Exel κακων
[αλλ αθἸλίως πίρασσουσιν evtvyns μολων
19 lines lost.
469 [θωμαι γερονἾτίος ομμ]ατίων φευγων Kopas
Tuv8(apevs) πίου που θυγ]ατρος της εμης ἴδω ποσιν
471 ΜΙενελαον] ἐπεὶ. yap τωι Κλυϊταιμνηστρας ταφωι
χίοας] χεομενος. εκλυον ὡς ἐς [Ναυπλιαν
ἥκοι συν ἀλοχωι πολυετης σίεσώσμενος
ἄγετέ με προς yap δεξίι]αν αἰυτου θελω
Verso.
482 [TL yap φιλου μοι πατρος ἐστιν ekylovos
[κεινου ‘yap ode meduke τοιουτοῆς γεγως"
[πεφυκεν ex de δυστυχει τιμ]ητέος"
485. [βεβαρβαρωσαι χρονιος ὧν εν βαρΊἸβαροις"
[Ελληνικὸον Tor Tov ομοθεν τιμαν αεἰ]'
21 lines lost.
508 [εἰ Tovd αποκτειΐνιεν σύλλεκτρίος yuvy]
[x@ Tovde mats av μητερ᾽ avraroxteviet
510 [καπειθ o κεινου] yevouevos φονω φονον [
ποι
ἱλυσει περας de κακων [{ποι]] προβήσεται:
ἰκαλως εθεντο ταυῖτα πατέρες οἱ παλαι:
13870. FRAGMENTS OF EXTANT CLASSICAL AUTHORS
Frs. 4 and 5. Verso.
685 ἰσυνεκκομιζειν duvap nl διίδω θεος
[θρησκοντα Kat KTewvovTa Tlovs [ενα]ντι[ους
[το ὃ av δυνασθαι προς θεων] χρίηζ τυχίειν
[nko yap ανδρων συμμάχων κεν]ὸν δοῖρυ
[ex@v πονοισιὶ μυρίοις adwpevos]
690 ἰσμικρα συν αλκη τῶν λελειμμενίων φίλων
Recto.
723 ἴοποι τραπομενος] θανΐατον Apyewy φυγω
ίουτος γα]ρ [nv μοι κ]αταφίυγη σωτηριας
725 [αλλ εἰσοϊρω [yap] τονΐδε φιλτατον βροτων
[Πυλα͵δην δίρομω στειχοντα Φωκεων απὸ
[ηδε][αἱν όψι[ν πιστος εν κακοῖς avnp
ἰκρεισϊσων γαΐληνης ναυτιλοισιν εἰσοραν
[θασσον] ἡ [we χρὴην προβαινων ἰκομην δι ἀστεως
.
Fr. 6. Verso.
811 [maA]ar παλίαιας amo συμῴορας δομων
[omro|re χρυΐσεας Epis apvos
[ηλυ]θε Tar[radidas
ἰοικ]τρότατα [θοιναματα
815 [και σἸ]φάγια γίενναιων τεκεων
[φον]ω! φόν[ος εξαμει
[βων δι] afeuaros ov προλει
K
129
130 THE OXYRHYNCHUS PAPYRI
Recto.
850 [IIvAadns coe ὃ ov μακραν od ayyedos|
[λεξειν Ta κειθεν σου κασιγνητοῦυ πεῖ]ρι"
[ω τλῆμον w δυστηνε Tov στρατηΐλατου
[4γαμεμνονος παι ποτνι ἨλεκΊτρα λόγους
[ακουσον ovs σοι δυστυχεῖς κω φίερων
Frs. 7 and 8. Recto.
896 [πηδωσ acer κηρυκες ode ὃ avrois] φίλοϊς
Jovow ε΄
[os αν δυνηται modeos ev T aplx ἢν
[ere τωδε ὃ nyopeve Atoundns alvag
8 lines lost.
907 [oray yap ηδυς τοις λογοις φρονων Kakws
[πειθη 70] πλῆθοϊς TH πολει κακον peya
[oro de συὴν va χρηστα [βουλευουσ αει
οιο [kav μη πα]ραυτικ αυτιϊς εἰσι χρήσιμοι
Verso.
934 [vplvy αμυνων] ουδεῖν ἡσσον ἡ πατρι
935 [ἐκτεινα μητέρ [ee yap ἀρσενων φονος
[eorar γυνἸ]αιξίιν οσιος ov φθανοιτ ετ av
8 lines lost.
945 [os nyopeve συγγονον σε τε κτ]ανειΐν
[μολις ὃ ἐπεισε μη πετρίουμ]ενος θίανειν
[τλημων Ορεστης αυτοϊχε[ιρι] δὲ σφαΐγηι
ἰυπεσχετ ev Td ημερ͵Ίαι [λ]ειψειν “β[ιον
Ετ. 9. Fol. I verso. Plate VII.
HA(exrpa) Muxnvifdes w φιλαι
1248 ta πρωτα [kata Πελασγον edos Ἀργείων
xep(os) τινὰ [Opoes avday ποτνια
1870. FRAGMENTS OF EXTANT CLASSICAL AUTHORS
1250 πία]ρ saa yap ετι σοι τοὃ εν Aavatdwy trode
στηθ [at μεν υμων τονὃ αμαξηρη τριβον
at ὃ [evé bad ἄλλον otpov es φρουραν δομων
τίει de με rode ypeos avers
εἶννεπε prot φιλα
1255 oPols] εχίει μὲ μὴ τις επι δωμασι
σταΐθεις emt φονιον αἰμα
πηΐματα πημασιν efevpn
τ [χώρειτ ἐπειγωμεσθ eyo μεν ovy τριβον
129 ᾿ [rovd εκφυλαξω tov προς ἡλιοῦ βολας
αλΊλο ἡμιχίοριον), καὶ μίην eyw τονδὃ os προς ἐσπεραν φερεὶ
1261 δίοχμια νυν Kopas διαφερ ομματων
εἰκειθεν evOad ειτα παλινσκοπιαν
exopulev ὡς θροεις
Fol. 1 recto.
1297 [ἡκουσαθ avdpes yelp exovow ev dolvar
[Ελενης To κωκυμ εστιν ὡς απεικασΊαι"
[w Atos w Atos ἀεναον Kparos ]
1300 [ελθ επικουρος εμοισι φιλοισι παντως
[Mevedae θνησκω συ δὲ παρων μ οὐκ ωἸφελει[ς
[φονευετε καίνετε ]
ἰολλυτε διπτυχα διστομα φασγανα]
[εκ χεέρος ιεμενοὶ ]
1305 [λιποπατορα λιπογαμον a πλειστο)υς
Fol. 2 recto.
[.aneor Opeo[rns μη. Savery ἐμου θ ὑπερ
1335 [ἐπ᾿ αἸξιοισι τ ap [ανευφημει δομος
mleple του yap αλίλου paddov av φθεγξαιτο τις
[αλλ εἶλθε kale μετασχες ἱκεσιας φιλοις
[on μητρί] πίροσπεσουσα τὴ μεγ ολβια
K 2
131
135 ἡ THE OXYRHYNCAUS PAPYRI
Mevedalov nas pn θανοντας evodery
1340 ay ὦ τραφίεισα pntpos ev χεροῖν εμης
OLKTELpoy ημας καπικουφισον κακὼν
ιθ᾽ εἰς ἀγαΐνα devp eyo ὃ nynoopat
σαϊτηριας yap τερμ EXELS ἡμιν μονὴ
dou διωκω Tov ἐμὸν ες δομους ποδα
1345 σἰωθηθ οσον γε τουπ Eu w κατα στεγας
Fol. 2 verso. Plate VII.
1370 [πεφευγα βαρβαροις evpalpiow eSos υποδηματο[ς
[kedpwra πασταδων ὑπερ] τερεμναὰ ἢ παστας
ἴ π[ε]πο[υ]κιλμενο[ς
: : τς [οὐἸκοϑ
448. ἡμίη : so ABLPV, edd. ; ἥ γ ἢ (yin rasura) M. The breathing is very doubtful.
472. xeouevos: SO ABLPV, edd.; xevpevos M.
485. ev Bap|Bapos: so ABLMPV, edd.; γράφεται ἀφ᾽ Ἑλλάδος Mv and Apollon. Ty.
Epist. 34.
508. αποκτειΐνιεν ovddexrplos: 1. ἀποκτείνειε συλ. The MSS, have ἀποκτείνειεν ὁμόλεκτρος,
but σύλλεκτρος is a good Euripidean word; cf. Her. Mur. 1, 1268. Possibly ὁμόλεκτρος is
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 ποι after κακων is likely to be due to the
corrector of Il. 1334 and 1342. δὲ ποῖ is read by all MSS. except L (δὴ πῆ) and a corrector
of Β (δὲ mq), and there is no reason to suppose an agreement with Lhere. δὴ ποῖ Wecklein,
Murray.
686. This verse is bracketed by Wecklein following Hermann.
687. [ro ae or [του (LP) can equally be read.
813. ἰηλυΐθε Ταυΐταλιδαις : so MSS. except L, which has ἤλυθε Τανταλίδαισιν. The metre
of this verse does not correspond to 1. 825 of the antistrophe θανάτου yap ἀμφὶ φόβῳ, and
Hermann proposed ὕπερ ἦλθε for ἤλυθε in 1. 813, Murray ἀμφὶ φόβῳ θανάτου γάρ in |. 825.
814. ox|rpérara: so MSS., Wecklein, Murray ; οἰκτρότατ᾽ és Weil. The vestiges of the
last letter suit a better than e.
816-17. The reconstruction is very uncertain. The MSS. have ὅθεν φόνῳ φόνος
ἐξαμείίβων δὲ αἵματος οὐ προλεί] (om. ὅθεν A), but 1. 816 does not correspond to 1. 828 of the
antistrophe κτείνων σὰν ματέρα μὴ πατρῴ] (κτείνων with ὅρα suprascr. A). Triclinius proposed
ἔνθεν for ὅθεν in 1, 816, Hartung deleted σάν in |. 828, but neither emendation yields an exact
correspondence. Neither οθεῖν nor τε[κεω]ν᾽ suits the vestiges of ink before φόν so well as ὡ
with « added above the line, apparently by the first hand. Probably ὅθεν was omitted with
A, but [. . . .Jot φονζωε φονος can be read, and the vestige of a letter in the next line would
suit o or o better than a, so that εξαμειβων δι! αιματἾοῖς is possible.
850. There is no trace of ink above πεῖρι. In Il. 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 ἄγγελος begins at 1. 852.
897. At the end of the line the first hand wrote ap]xy, which was corrected to αρχαισιν
nv, the last word being altered to 7, apparently by the same corrector. ἀρχαῖσιν ἡ MSS.
————— νᾶ...
13870. FRAGMENTS OF EXTANT CLASSICAL ΑΥΤΗΟΚΒ 133
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 Il. 896 and 898 is occupied by 25. πλεῖστον has been
conjectured by Εἰ W. Schmidt for πόλεος (v. 1. πόλεως).
907. τοις, the reading of the MSS., was corrected to τις by Musgrave. Lines 907-13
have generally been bracketed by editors following Kirchhoff, and ll. 916, 933, and 938-42
have been suspected, but they all either certainly or probably stood in the papyrus.
910. παῆραυτικ : Or malpavrix. For avri{s (i. 6. αὖθις : 50 MSS.) οἵ. 1174. ix. 20 and note.
There is a lacuna above the r.
945. The papyrus is more likely to have had myopeve with ABM (Wecklein) than
nyopevoe With LP (Murray), since there are already 23 letters lost in the space which is filled
in ll. 946-8 by 21.
946. mre|rp| oup |evos : so M, Wecklein ; πετρουμένους ABLPV, Murray.
1247 544. 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
1260-3. The subsequent insertion of paragraphi and of αλΊλο ημιχ(οριον) against 1. 1260 brings
the papyrus into harmony with the MSS., which apparently assign Il. 1258-9 and 1260
to different ἡμιχόρια, 1261-2 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 Il. 1259, 1262, and 1263, but hardly below 1261.
1250. πἰαρζαμενει yap: the MSS. apparently begin this line with γάρ, but the traces of
the first letter suit 7 better than γ.
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 247. Since all the indications point to the lines in this column having begun evenly,
unlike those in Il. 1247-63, it is improbable that before λιποπατορα the papyrus read ταν
which is inserted by 7 and adopted by edd., or εἰς which is inserted by B?; but there would
be room for θ᾽ 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. αἤξιοισι τ᾽ αρ : so A (τ᾽ ap’); ἀξίοισιν ap’ L, ἀξίοισιν dp’ B?, ἀξίοις τ᾽ ἄρ᾽ P, ἀξίοισιν
yap ΜΒ, ἀξίοισί τ᾽ ἄρ᾽ Wecklein, ἀξίοισί τἄρ᾽ Murray.
1337. κάϊι : so ABMP, edd.; om. L.
1340. ay; Weil’s emendation is confirmed ; ἀλλ᾽ MSS. and 1178, Wecklein, Murray.
ἀλλ᾽ has already occurred at the beginning of 1337 and is not wanted again here.
1342. ιθ᾽ (so MSS.) was corrected from #8 apparently.
1346 sqq. Since this column presumably had 37 or 38 lines like the rest, and the next
column begins at Il. 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, Il. 1370-1 began evenly, most or all the letters of mepevya, which
is usually assigned to 1369, must have come in 1370. βαρβάροις εὐμάρισι is the reading of A,
followed by Wecklein ; βαρβάροις ἐν εὐμάρισιν BLP (so Murray), βαρβάροισιν ἐν εὐμάρισιν M.
‘The Etym. Magn. also read ἐν, but there is barely room for it in the papyrus unless
πεφευγα be read.
The scholium εἰδος ὑποδηματος refers to ευμα͵ρισιν. A longer note beginning εὔμαρις εἶδος
ὑποδήματος σανδαλώδους, occurs in schol. BM.
1371. τερεμνα: so ALP; τέραμνα BMV, Wecklein, Murray. With the scholium on
παστάδων cf. Hesych. παστάς- οἶκος γεγραμμένος. Schol. BM have παστάδων δὲ τῶν κοιτώνων.
After an interval of three lines there are below the a οὕτερεμνα what may be traces of ink,
possibly the termination of ]. 1376 αιθε]ρ αἷμ or abep| ap.
134 THE OXYRHYNCHUS PAPYRI
1371. ARISTOPHANES, Clouds with Scholia.
10-6 X 12 cm. Fifth century. Plate VII
(recto).
This fragment and the other pieces of Aristophanes in the present volume
(1872-4 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 Klassiker texte, v. 2, no. 18), which confirm six emendations but do not
present a very correct text. 1871-4 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 (1874), 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 1874 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 1871, 39 ?-41 in 1872, 44 in 1878,
45-9 in 1874), while 1871 is distinguished by the presence of scholia, it is safer to
regard the different hands as representing separate MSS. Ifany two of the four
are to be combined, these would be 1878 and 1874, 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 Il. 1-11 and on the recto parts of 1]. 38-48 in
a good-sized, sloping uncial of the oval type. Inthe broad upper and right-hand
margins of the verso are scholia on 1]. 2-5 ina 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. 1 coincides with the top of a column
(cf. 1873 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
1871. FRAGMENTS OF EXTANT CLASSICAL AUTHORS 135
Berl. Klassiker?. v. 2, no. 18. 2-3), no fragment of the Pluius 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 Il. 39-48 being apparently
due to the original scribe, who also inserted the elision-marks, paragraphi, 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
hand.
The fragment (IT) 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. 3-5, 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 Mélanges Nicole, p. 214, 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.
Verso.
(I. 5) ot 5 oer ρεγκουσιν ovrws οἱ Αττικοι δια του] κ᾽ οἰ[κετα]ς ν[υ]ν ου τοὺς
θεραποντας μονον λέγει adda παντας τους κατα την οικι]αν" καζθευδήουσι μὲν ovr οι
αλλοι autos δε αγρυπνει και ρεγκουσιν ἐπη]γαγεν [{Ἰνα μαλλον αὐ[του]ς δειξη πασης [
οντας εξω φροντιδος ἰδιον ὝὙαρ τῶν μηδεν φροντΊἼιζοντων To βαθεως καθευδειν"
ἰίου του ]
[o Zev βασιλευ το χρημα Tov vuKT@|y ὅσον
[amepavrov ουδεποθ nuepa γενησΊεται
[kar μην mada y adexTpvovos| ἤκουσ᾽ εγώ
5 ἴοι & otkerat ρεγκουσιν add οὐκ aly πρίο] τοῦ
[απολοιο dnt ὦ πόλεμε πολλων ουνεκα)
σι
a Zev βασιλευ οὐκ ἁπλὼς χρὴ του[τ]ο
νόμιζειν εἰρηκεναι Tov ποιηΐ τή lv
€xeTat yap ἵστοριας To w Zev βασιλευ
Toavtns τοις Αθηναιοις Πυθοχρησ
Tov eyeveTO KaTakAvoa μὲν Tas
βασιλειας. προστησασθαι δε καὶ σε
Bew Ara βασιλεα wore ro λεχθεν THs
ἵστοριας ἐχεσθαι TavTns χρὴ νομιζειν
136 THE OXYRHYNCHUS PAPYRI
72 ουδεποθ᾽ ἡμερα γενήσεται" TOVTO Kat
[or οὐδὲ κολασ εξεστι μοι τοὺς οἰκεταΞ] τὸ opyCopevos καὶ vmoKpVOpEvOS
[αλλ ovd ο χρηστος ουτοσι veavias ] δυναται λεγειν"
[ἐγείρεται τῆς vuKTos adda. περδεταιἢ
10 [εν πέντε σισυραις εγκεκορδυλημενοὶς κατακεκαλυμμενος
[αλλ εἰ δοκει ρεγκωμεν εγκεκαλυμμέινϊοι 3 ᾿ : : Α
Recto. Plate VII.
. 2 λαφ(υγμου) t(ys) τρυφηξ ἡ κενεσεως χρημ[ατων : KwA(tados) vaos εοικωβ κωλοῖϑ ?
(5 ys eg key te ἡ Αφροδιτη : Γενετελ(λιδος) [ ;
+
Sakin(mbys) ἔασον ὦ δαίμονιε κατίαδαρθειν τι pe
σὺ δ᾽ οῦν κάθευδε: τα dle χρεα ταῦτ ισθ οτι
40 ἐς τὴν κεφαλὴν ἄπανϊἷτα την σὴν τρέψεται
me eee φεῦ" εἴθ᾽ Sher ἤ προμνΐηστρι ἀπολεσθαι κακως
εγει 24 δ
ἥτις pe γῆμ᾽ επῆρϊε τὴν onv μητερα
43 ἐμοὶ γὰρ ἢν ήδιϊστος αγροικος Bos
pumapos ευρωτιῶν ακόρ[ητος ELKN κείμενος
πλ[ηήθων βρύων μελίτ᾽ ταις [και προβατοις Kat στεμφυλοις
46 émeir’ ἔέγημα Μεγακλεους του Μεγακλεοὺυς
α
τὴν θυγατερα ζγροικος ὧν αδίελφιδην εὖ αστεω
του αδελφου rth Raritan, | - Ἶ Ξ reid
].-[ 5Σ᾿οσεμνὴν τρυφαΐσαν εγκεκοισυρωμενὴν
2. The marginal note (Il. 1-8) on ὦ Ζεῦ βασιλεῦ agrees nearly verbally with schol.
RVée Ald., which have in 1. 1 ἀργῶς for amos, |. 5 καταλῦσαι (rightly) for κατακλύσαι, |, 8 ταύτης
ἔχεσθαι for ἐχεσθαι ταυτης. V also has in ]. 1 νομίζειν τοῦτο for τ. vop., Ald. in 1. 2 τὸν ποιητὴν
εἰρηκέναι for etp. τ. π., OMitting ro ὦ Zev βασιλευ in 1]. 3 and και σεβειν in 1. 6, © Ald. Πυθοχρήστως
for Πυθοχρηστον in 1. 4, R omits μεν in |. 5, and RV at the end have an additional sentence
with a quotation from Homer.
3. With the marginal note (Il. 9-11) on οὐδεποθ᾽ ἡμέρα γενήσεται cf. schol. V τοῦτο καὶ
ὁριζόμενος δύναται λέγειν, where ὁριζόμενος is shown by Π to be an error for ὀργιζόμενος.
5. The note in the upper margin upon οἱ δ᾽ οἰκέται péyxovow corresponds closely to the
extant scholia, Ald. having οὕτως ᾿Αττικοὶ διὰ τοῦ κ (ovrws . . . κ om. RVO), οἰκέτας δὲ νῦν
(viv οἰκέτας RV) οὐ τοὺς θεράποντας μόνον (om. V) λέγει ἀλλὰ πάντας τοὺς κατὰ THY οἰκίαν.
καθεύδουσιν οὖν πάντες (καθεύδουσι νῦν, φησίν R, καθεύδοντας V) ὡς τῶν ἄλλων μὲν (om. RV)
ἀμεριμνούντων αὐτοῦ δὲ φροντίζοντος (αὐτὸν δὲ φροντίζοντα R). διὰ τοῦτο καὶ τὸ (om. RV) ῥέγκουσιν
ἐπήγαγεν (εἶπεν RV) ἵνα μᾶλλον δείξῃ αὐτοὺς πάσης ὄντας ἔξω φροντίδος. τῶν γὰρ βαθέως καθευδόντων
ἴδιόν ἐστι (om. R) τὸ ῥέγκειν (τῶν δὲ μηδὲν φροντιζόντων τὸ βαθέως καθεύδειν add. V and, with
κοιμᾶσθαι for καθεύδειν, Ἀ). I may have lost another line at the top, in which case the
1871. FRAGMENTS OF EXTANT CLASSICAL AUTHORS τὸ7
beginning was different ; but if the size of the lacuna in ll. 2-4 is correctly estimated, the
opening sentence of schol. Ald. just fits the gap inl. 1. 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]. 2. Π seems to have omitted the first half of this sentence,
just as schol. Ald. has omitted the second half. In Il. 2-3 Il seems to be somewhat shorter
than the extant scholia, which in both R and V are corrupt. The use of ἐπήγαγεν in Ald. for
εἶπεν in RV affords another point of contact with I.
10. κατακεκαλυμμενος in the margin isa gloss on εγκεκορδυλημενοΊς. Schol. V has ἃ long
note which is partly found in R, explaining the word as ἐγκεκαλυμμένος καὶ συνεστραμμένος.
38. Above the paragraphus over ἔασον something was written by the first hand which
looks more like a cross than « with a stroke through it, or y. 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
improbable.
39. δ᾽ οὖν : so RVAG, &c., edd.; μὲν ody or οὖν other MSS.
40. es: SOR, edd.; εἰς V.
41. καθ cavrov λεγει refers to φεῦ ; cf. schol. V ἰδίᾳ τὸ φεῦ and Ald, τὸ δὲ φεῦ ἰδίως. The
ε of εἴθ᾽ has been corrected by the first hand, probably from 6. ded’ is misspelled ὄφελ᾽
by R. That 7 had an accent as well as a breathing is not certain.
43. ἤδιίστος ἀγροικος : ἄγροικος ἥδιστος MSS., edd. ; Naber conjectured ἄγρ. ἥσυχος.
The order in 1 does not appear to have been corrected (cf. 1. 47) and may be right; but
under the accent over 7 is in similar ink a short horizontal stroke which is difficult to account
for, being unlike a breathing or letter. Perhaps another circumflex (cf. the preceding iv)
was partly written by mistake.
44. The marginal ρυπαρος probably refers to ευρωτιῶν rather than to axdp[yros. The
scholia in a fuller note explain edpwridy by εἰκῆ κείμενος, ἀκόρητος by ἀκαλλώπιστος.
45. πλί[ηἼθων refers to βρύων: cf. schol. R (not in V) αὔξων καὶ τεθηλώς. Suidas s. v.
ἀκόρητος adds καὶ πληθύνων, schol. © has θάλλων.
47. τὴν Ovyarepa του adehgov refers to αδ᾽ ελφιδην. Schol. © has τοῦ ἀδελφοῦ αὐτοῦ θυγατέρα.
The MSS. all have ἀδελφιδῆν ἄγροικος dv, agreeing with the corrector, and the reading of the
first hand, which separates ἀδελφιδῆν from Μεγακλέους rod M. and gives no caesura, is a mere
error; cf. 1. 43, note. Above the a of aé[eAdudyy 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
accidental.
48. The marginal note no doubt referred to σεμνὴν or εγκεκοισυρωμενην, which are both
commented upon in RV.
52. The note in the upper margin refers to this line δαπάνης, λαφυγμοῦ, Κωλιάδος, Γενετυλ-
λίδος, It is preceded by a critical mark which may have been repeated in the main text.
τ of x(n) has a stroke through it like that through the ¢ of λαφ(υγμου) and A of Tevered(Acdos).
The form κένεσις for κένωσις is not known (kevéwors occurs in Pindar), and is probably a mere
misspelling like Γενετελ(λιδος) in the next line, which, moreover, may well have contained the
word yevecews. With the explanation of λαφυγμοῦ as τ(ῆς) τρυφῆς καὶ κενώσεως xpnuldrer cf.
schol. V ἀδηφαγίας καὶ πολυτελείας" τουτέστι ἐκδεδιῃτημένης πολυτελεῖ τροφῇ" λαφυγμὸν γὰρ λέγει τὸ
ἀπλήστως ἐσθίειν, schol. Ald. τῆς περὶ τὰ ἐδέσματα πολυτελείας" τουτέστιν ἀσωτίας. λαφυγμὸν γὰρ
κτλ., adding quotations from Eupolis and Homer, schol. R ἀδηφαγίας καὶ τῆς πρὸς Ta ἐδέσματα
πολυτελείας. In view of the scholium in 1, τροφῇ in schol. V is probably corrupt for τρυφῇ :
οὗ τρυφὴ καὶ πολυτέλεια in Xen. AMemor. i, 6. 10 and schol. Brunck 5. v. καταγλωττισμάτων
(1. 51) εἰκότως δὲ ταῦτα καταλέγει δεικνὺς ὅτι αἱ εὐγενεῖς γυναῖκες ὑπὸ τῆς λίαν τρυφῆς τοιαῦτα πράττουσι.
U, unlike schol. R Ald., explains λαφυγμός as waste of money, not gluttony, and the first
part of the note in schol. V may have meant the same, for ἀδηφαγία, like λαφυγμός, is used in
both senses.
138 THE OXYRHYNCHUS PAPYRI
KoX(tados) vaos εοικως κωλοις] ev ὦ τιμαται ἡ Αφροδιτη : cf. schol. V Κωλιοὶ ναὸς τῆς ᾿Αφροδίτης
οὕτω καλούμενος, ἀπὸ τοῦ συμβεβηκότος τὴν προσηγορίαν λαβών" νεανίας γὰρ... Κωλιὰς δὲ ἐκλήθη ὅτι
θύοντος τοῦ ἱερέως ἱερεῖον κωλῆς ἱέραξ ἥρπαζεν καὶ ἐπέκεινα (]. ἐπ᾽ ἐκείνῳ with Suidas) τῷ τόπῳ
ἐπεκαθέσθη. Scho]. R is nearly identical, but in place of the last sentence adds Κωλιάδα δὲ
προσηγόρευσε τὸν τόπον ἀπὸ τῶν κώλων ἃ ἐν τοῖς δεσμοῖς κατεπονεῖτο. Schol. Ald. has of μὲν
Κωλιάδα τὴν θεὸν καλοῦσι νεανίου ᾿Αττικοῦ ἀποδράντος.. ... οἱ δὲ τόπον ἐοικότα κώλοις ἀνδρός, ἔνθα ἣ
θεὸς τιμᾶται. Whether Π had εοικως κωλοις after vaos (or Tonos) is uncertain, but in any case
the interpretation given by of δέ in Scho]. Ald. seems to be meant.
Γενετελ(λιδος) [: 1. TevervA(Acdos). Something like δαίμων τ(ης) yeverews αἰτιος probably
followed ; cf. schol. R δαίμων περὶ τὴν ᾿Αφροδίτην τῆς γενέσεως ἔφορος (αἴτιος Suid.), and
schol. V οἱ μὲν τῶν περὶ τὴν ᾿᾽Αφρ. ἀξιοῦσι θεῶν μίαν εἶναι διὰ τὸ γενέσεως αὐτὴν εἶναι τοῖς ἀνθρώποις
αἰτίαν κτλ.
1872. ARISTOPHANES, Frogs.
Fr.3 10-8 x9-4 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. 1871. introd. _ The
script, like that of 1878, is more compact than that of 1871 and 1874, and is also
distinguished by its form of \ 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. 1 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. 1871. 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 Il. 847 (?),
852, 853, and 893, and with RV and the Ambrosianus (M) against the Urbinas
(U) in ll. 857 and 891, while V, &c., are supported against R in ll. 890 and 894.
‘Mistakes occur in Il. 887 and 890, and very probably in ll. 879, 891, and 892, as
well as in ll. 888 and 897, where the MSS. too are corrupt and the error is now
traced back to the fifth century.
Pris Recto.
44 ἴω δαιμονιε προσελθε δεομαι yap τι] cov:
45 [@AA οὐχ οἷος T εἰμ αποσοβΊησαι τον γελίων
1872. FRAGMENTS OF EXTANT CLASSICAL AUTHORS
ἰορων λεοντην emt κροκω]τῶι κειμίενην
[τις ο vous τι κοθορνος και] ρόπαλον [ξυνηλθετην
[wor γης απεδημεις επείβατευον Κλεισίθενει
[καναυμαχησας Kat Kalredvo[aluey ye ἵναυς
50 [rev πολεμίων ἡ δωδεῖκ᾽ ἡ [ἱτρι]σκαίδιεκα
Verso.
85 [mor ynls o τλημίων es pakapwy εὐωχίαν
[o de Helvoxdens [εξολοιτο vy Ava
[Πυθαγ͵γελος δὲ πίερι ἐεμου ὃ ovdes λογος
[επιτρ]ιβομενου τίον ὠμον ουτωσι σφοδρα
[ουκο]υν erep ἐστ ενΐταυθα μειρακυλλια
90 [τραγ]ωδίας ποιοῦνϊῖτα πλειν ἡ μυρια
[Ευριπίδου [πἼλειν ἡ ἱσταδιω λαλιστερα
Ετ5. 2-4. Verso.
840 [αληθες ὦ παι της apoupatas θεου)
[ov δὴ με TavT ὦ στρωμυλιοσυλλεκτα]δη
και πτωχοποιε καὶ ρακιοσυρραπτα]δη
αλλ ov TL χαιρων αὖτ ερεις παὺυ Δισίχυλε
και pn προς οργην σπλαγχνα θερμηνης κοτ]ω
845 [ov δητα πριν Ὑ av τουτον ἀποφηνω σαφως]
[τον χωλοποιον οἱος ὧν θρασυνετΊαι
[apy apva μελανα] παι[δεῖς εἰξενεγκατ]ε
[Tugws yap εκβαινειν παᾳρασκευαζετΊαι
[o Κρητικας μεν σἼνλλεγων μονωδιας
850 [yapous ὃ ανοσιους] εἰσφερων εἰς THY τεχνηΐν
[ἐπίσχες ovros ὦ πολυ]τιμητ] «Δ {σχ]υλε.
[amo των χαλαζων 6] ὦ movnp Ευριπιδη
αναγίε σεαυτὸν εκπο]δων εἰ σωφρονεις
ἵνα pln κεφαλαιω τῇον κροταῴφον σοὺ ρηματι
139
140
855
860
879
880
885
890
895
goo
THE OXYRHYNCHUS FPAPYRE
ο
Oevaly um οργης exxen τοὶν ΤἼλεφἤω ||”
[ov de pn προς opynv Δισχυλ adda] mpaoves
[eAeyx ἐλεγχου λ]οιδορεισθαι [ὃ ov πρεῖπει
[ανδρας ποιητας] womep ἀρτοπωλιδας"
[ov ὃ εὐθυς worep πριΊνος εμ[π]ρη[σήθεις β[ο]αις
[ἐτοιμος εἰμ eywye κουκ avadvopat]
[Saxvew δακνεσθαι προτερος εἰ τουτΊωι δοκει.
ελθετ επηΐ.. . - - -- δυναμιν
δεινοτατοίιν στοματοιν πορισασθαι
pnpata kale παραπρισματ ἐπὼν
νυν γίαρ aywv σοφιας ode peyas
[χώρει προς epyov non]
[εὐχεσθε δΊη και ἰσφω τι πριν Tarn λεγειν
[4ημΊητερ ἡ θρίεψασα την ἐμὴν φρενα
[evale pe των ἴσων αἀξιον] μαρτηριίων
[ἐπιθεῖς καὶ ov δὴ λιβαν[ωτοὴν λαβαῖν καλως
[ετεροι] yap εἰσιν οἱσιν εὐχομαῖι θεοις
[ἰδιοι τινες οἱ κομμα κία)ινον και pada
[(θἡ δὴ προσευχου τ|.]. τοισιν ἰδιωταις θεοις
ε
[1.1.1 αἰθηρ [[αἰἴμον βοσκημα και γλωσσης στροφιγξ
και ξυνεσι και μυκτηρες οσφρίαντηριοι
ορθως μ edeyxew ὧν αν αἀπτίωμαι λογὼν
καὶ μὴν ηἡμεις επιθυμουμεν
Tapa σοφΐίοιν ανδροιν ἀκουσαι τινα Aoyov
εμμ[εἸλίειαν) eme δαι[α]ν [odor
γλωσσα μεν yap ηγριωται |
λημα ὃ οὐκ ατολμὸον apdiow ovd ακινητοι φρενες
προσίδοκαν ουν εἾικος εἶστι
Tov μεν αἀστειον τι λεξαι και κατερρινήμενον
τον [0 ανασπωντ avrompeuvols
συ =~ ΩΣ
1879. FRAGMENTS OF EXTANT CLASSICAL AUTHORS 141
87. The doubtful π᾿ of περι 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 ε of ¢{£eveyxar]e everything is very uncertain, but considerations
of space make it probable that Il had μέλανα with R, Velsen, H(all)-G(eldart), not μελαιναν
with VUAM, &c.
848. mal|packevager|a or -rle- can be read ; -ra MSS., edd.; but cf. 1. 892.
851. Αἰσχ]υλε. or, possibly, Αἰ σχ]υλε:, if the upper dot is not part of the «; but there is
no change of speaker.
852. ὃ]: so ΚΒ, edd.; τ᾽ M, om. VUA. That 0 did not omit a conjunction is
practically certain, for even with ὃ or τ there are only 15 letters in the space occupied by 18
in ]. 851 and by τό in 1. 853.
853. avayle: so R and most edd. ; ἄπαγε VUAM, &c.
855. θενωΐν : so RVUM and most MSS. (θένων) and edd. (devar) ; but θεἤνωῖν (A and
a few other MSS.) is possible.
857. mpefra: so RVAM, H-G; θέμις U, &c., Velsen.
859. εμ[π]ρη[σήθεις (RUM correctly) or εμ[π]ρι σήθεις (VA) can be read.
861. τουτΐωι : or, less probably, τουτΊω.
879. em....... : ἐπόζψομεναι (so MSS. except R én’ ὀψόμεναι) cannot be read, nor
apparently επιοίψομεναι or ἐπε. The arrangement of ll. 879-902 corresponds to that in RV,
from which UAM differ.
881. ρηματα (so MSS., Blaydes, H-G) has been altered by many editors (πρέμνα re
Velsen following Kock).
882. ode (restored from the MSS.) is generally altered to 6 by editors, following
Hermann.
887. μαρτηρίων (i.e. μαρτυριωνῚὴ is a mistake for μυστηριων.
888. και ov δὴ λιβαν[ωτο]ν AaBoly : so Suidas (om. λαβών) ; καὶ δὴ σὺ AUB. λαβών R, λαβὼν
δὴ καὶ σὺ UB. VUAM, &c., H-G; a few MSS. have καὶ σὺ λιβ. λαβών or λαβὼν καὶ
σὺ λιβ. π’᾿5 order lends some support to Fritzsche’s λιβ. καὶ σὺ δὴ λαβών, which is adopted
by Velsen.
890. τιΐΊνες οἱ: οἱ is a mistake for σοι, the reading of VUA, edd.; τινες σου R, τινες σοι
καί Μ.
891. δη: so RVM, Velsen, H-G; viv UA Ald. After προσευχου I has three letters
which are absent in the MSS. Possibly the scribe wrote τ[οϊυτοισιν {διοις (εδιοι occurred in
1. 890) for τοισιν ἰδιωταις. Only one dot is visible above the supposed {.
892. αιθηρ ἐμὸν is the reading of the MSS., but besides aimov originally for ἐμον 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, ἡ, 1, x, μη », 7, or τ, and
may have been the initial letter. It is not certain that there was any writing at all between
the doubtful a and Onp.
893. éveot: SOR, edd.; ξύνεσι. VUAM.
894. av απτωμαι: so VUAM, edd. ; ἅπτομαι R.
897. εμμ[ε]λ[ειαν] ene: ἐμμέλειαν ἔπιτε RVUA, Velsen, H-G, ἐμ. ἐπί re M, Bekker. In
the corresponding passage of the antistrophe (I. 994) the MSS. omit the word or words
answering either to εἐμμελειαν or to emre dail, and Dindorf wished to omit ἐμμέλειαν here.
ἔπιτε δαΐαν ὁδόν is not very satisfactory and was not the reading of the first hand of Π, who
wrote eme before da{aly[; but only the bottoms of the letters aa)» remain, and there may
have been a correction.
902. The o of τον seems to have been corrected.
142 THE OXYRHYNCHUS ΡΑΡΥΚΙ
1878, ARISTOPHANES, Peace and Kuighis.
Fr.1 8-5x17-3 cm. Fifth century.
The larger of these two fragments found with 1869-72 and 1874 (cf. 1871.
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 Kwights, 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 Kwights 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 Kuzighis,
is not quite certainly in the same hand as the other, for the letters are more
spaced out, as in 1871 and 1874, 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 Kzights 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 |. 1326 in a large cursive hand,
the paragraphus after 1. 1328, and the deletion of the repetition of 1. 1329. The
corrections in 1]. 6, 7, and 9 of the Kwights 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 1]. 37-46 and 86-95 with scholia (late fourth or fifth century),
edited by us in Mélanges Nicole, pp. 212-17, while the Peace has not hitherto
been represented on papyrus; but 1878 (II) 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. 11 of the Kwights ; but some errors of R are avoided. R is supported
against V three times (Kxights 7, 14, and 1058), V against R twice (Knights 8,
15). A small correction of the MSS. by Blaydes in Kwights 1017 is confirmed,
and perhaps another by Brunck in 1058.
1873. FRAGMENTS OF EXTANT CLASSICAL AUTHORS 143
Peace.
rd: Verso.
1326 Kat τίαγαθα) παντα ova απωλεσαμεν
συλλείξασΊθαι παλιν εξ ἀρχης
ληξαι τ ἰαιθωνα σιδηρον :
1329 δευρο ὦ [γῆυναι εἰς aypov
[[Sevpo ὦ γυναι εἰς αγρον]
1320 χώπως μέτ ἐμοῦ Karn
καΐλως κἸατακει[σΊει :
1332 υἱμην υμεναιε ὦ
1334 [|ὦ τρισμαϊκάρ w δικαι
1335 [os ταγαθα) νυν εἰχΊεις
1326. marta ova απωλεσαμεν : πάνθ᾽ ὅσ᾽ ἀπωλέσαμεν MSS. Above ova a 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 Ald.); but there is no sign of a cross-bar and the letter is
rather close to the preceding ι, so that perhaps y was written by mistake. The paragraphus
inserted below this line by the corrector and the double dots here and in ]. 1331 make I
correspond up to that point with RV, which assign Il. 1316-28 to the chorus, 1329-31 to
Trygaeus, 1332 to a ἡμιχόριον, and 1334 to another ἡμιχ., omitting 1. 1333 which was
a repetition of 1. 1332. Editors arrange and emend Il. 1329 5644. in a variety of ways.
The division of ll. 1332-5 in I, 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 Il. 1339-42 (τί δράσομεν
αὐτήν and τρυγήσομεν αὐτήν), which are divided by V between two ἡμιχόρια, like the repetitions
of Ὑμὴν Ὑμέναι ὦ in Il. 1336, 1346, 1351, and 1361. Dawes rejected ll. 1339-42, concerning
which schol. V remarks ἔν τισιν od φέρετα. But although the repetition of ]. 1329 is no doubt
wrong, it supports the view that ll. 1339-42 were found in IJ, as wellas the three concluding
lines which stand in RV but are absent in many MSS. After the τὸ extant lines of the Peace
there is just room for 25 more lines (ll. 1336-end) arranged as in R (V combines them into
14), besides the first 5 lines of the Knighés (cf. Fr. τ 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. up|evae @: for the absence of elision cf. 1. 1326, but the papyrus is much
damaged at the end of this line, and υμεναι (so RV) or υμἼεναιε is possible.
1334-5. ὦ δικαίως : |. ws dx. with MSS. ὦ ἰδ due to the two preceding instances of ὦ.
144 THE OXYRHYNCHUS PAPYRI
Knights.
1 a 1. Recto.
κακιστα δηθ᾽ ovtos ye mpwros Iladpdalyov}ev
αυταις διαβολαις : ὦ Kakodatpov mals εἴχεις
ima)
κακὼς καθαπερ ov : δευρο νυν προσεϊλ]θ᾽ wa
ξυναυλιαν κλαυσωμεν Ουλυμπου »[ο]μο}]}
Io μυμυ μυμυ μυμυ μυμυ μυμυ μυμυ
τι κρνυρομεθ᾽ addws vk εχρην (ητεῖιν τιν]α
σωτηριαν voy adAa μη κλαειν ETL
τι [οἿυν γενοιτ᾽ αν λεγε ov; συ μεν ovy μίοι λεγε
ἵνα μὴ paxopat: μα τον Απολλω yo μεν ov
15 [αλλ] εἰπε θᾳίρρων [εἸῖτα] καγίω col φίρασω
Fr 2. Recto.
1013 [ws ev νεφελαισιν] αἰετος [γενησομαι
ἰακουε dn vuv καὶ] προσεχίε Tov vouy εμοι
1015 [dpagev Ἐρεχθειδῆη λογιωΐν odov nv σοι Απολλων
[ἰαχεν εξ αδυτοι]ο dia τριπίοδων εριτιμων
ἰσωζεσθαι o exedelv ἵερον κυνα καρχαροδοντα
Verso.
1057 [@AA οὐκ av μαχεσίαιτο |xeoalTo yap εἰ μαχεσαιτο
ἰαλλα rode φρασΊσαι πρίο Πυλου Πύυλον nv σοι εφραζεν
[eo7e Πυλος πρ]ο Πυλοιο : τι τουτο λεγει προ Πυλοιο
1060 ἴτας mvedous φ]. Πηισιν κἰ[αταληψεσθ εν βαλανειω
[ eyo] 9 αλ[[λ]]ουτίος τημερον γενήσομαι
[ ovtos γαὶρ ημων τας mueAous αφηρπασεν
6. The ὠ of Παφλα[γονων seems to have been altered by the corrector from o of the
first hand. -ων MSS.
1373. FRAGMENTS OF EXTANT CLASSICAL AUTHORS 145
ἡ. avras: 580 RP Ald., edd.; αὐταῖσι VAre. The first hand wrote διαβολαισι by
mistake, a reminiscence of αὐταισι Bovdas in ]. 3; the corrector altered the final « into two
dots marking a change of speaker. The ς of εἤχεις seems to have been rewritten by the first
=a in order to make it larger, in harmony with the other enlarged letters at the ends
of lines.
8. wv: so V (νυν), A, ἄς, (viv); δή R Vat, Zacher, H-G.
9. The MSS. have νόμον with the corrector (so edd.), but Eustathius read νόμῳ. It is
not quite certain that the first hand wrote »[oluos, but the final letter is not v, , or «.
11. κρνυρομεθ᾽ : 1. κινυρομεθ᾽ with ATO; κινυρόμεσθ᾽ RP, κυνυρόμεσθ᾽ V. The κ of ux
(I. ove) is badly written, being almost like ἡ. τίνα, if that was the reading, must have been
rather cramped.
12. νων: SoT@PMA; νῶϊν VA, vaw R Vat.
13. τι [ο]υν: τίς οὖν RV with the other MSS. according to Blaydes and Zacher.
Bekker has τί οὖν, apparently by a misprint. The traces do not suit ris] ουν, and there is
not room for τις oluy, but 7 may well be arepetition from |]. 11. I agrees with RV, &c., in
having no change of speaker after γένοιτ᾽ ἄν. Most editors make a change and rearrange
ll. 13-16.
14. wa μη: so R Ald. Vat., edd. ; ἵνα σοι μή VA, &c.
15. [add]: so VA, &c., edd.; om. R. Editors, following Sauppe, generally invert the
order of ll. 15-16; cf. 1. 13, note.
IOI. εκελεῖυ᾽ : ἐκέλευσ᾽ RV, &c., edd., ἐκέλευσεν AO. Blaydes had conjectured ἐκέλευ᾽,
comparing the imperfect ἔφραζεν in Il. 1042, 1048, and 1058. The v is not absolutely
certain, but εἐκελευ]σ᾽ or εκελευσεῖν" cannot be read. In 1. 1049 the MSS. vary between ἐκέλευε
and ἐκέλευσε.
1058. φρασῆῖσαι : so most edd., following Brunck; φράσαι RIPM, φράζευ VAS, &c.
The o is somewhat smaller than would be expected, and there may have been a correction.
The letter comes above the a of πυλοιο, but the other o may have been omitted, at any rate
originally.
1060. φΊΓ.Ἴηισιν : φησί MSS., φησίν edd. The letter before mow was certainly not φ,
but seems to have been deleted by the first hand, so that φησίν was probably meant.
1061. The deletion of the superfluous A is apparently due to the first hand.
1062. This verse was rejected by Zacher.
1374, ARISTOPHANES, Wasps.
Fr. 1 .17°7X 12-8 cm. Fifth century.
Of the various fragments of Aristophanes found with 1869-70 (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 1871 and 1873. Fr. 2, but is larger and more irregular. There
are no corrections except one in ]. 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 paragraphi, occur. The page-
numbers 19[5] and 196 are found on Fr. 1. No column is completely preserved,
but Col. i had forty-five lines if 11. 475-6 were arranged, as is probable, like
L
146 THE OXYRHYNCHUS PAPYRI
ll, 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 x (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. 1878. introd. In R it stood ninth, between the
Acharnians and Thesmophoriazusae.
The text contains, as is usual in Byzantine literary fragments, a number
of scribe’s errors, but has several points of interest. The Wasps, like the Kxights,
is one of the plays in which V tends to disagree most with R, and the papyrus
(II), unlike 1872, strongly supports the former (cf. ll. 449,456, 506-7, 511, 568,
570, 573, 613, 621, 749, 790, and 806 ?), except where V has made an obvious mis-
take (ll. 571, 608, 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 Il. 452, 487, 749, 795, 802, 808, and 816 traditional
readings which have been suspected are confirmed. New readings also occur in
Il. 499 and 795.
The small fragment 1408 seems to be in the same hand as 1874, and its
colour suggests that it belongs to Fr. 1, but we have not succeeded in identifying it.
Fr. 1 verso. Cohiay
pale
443 [mplos βιαν χειρουσιν [ovdey των madat μεμνήμενοι
δε[Πῴφθερωῖΐν καξωμιδων as ovtos avtois ἡμπολα
445 Καὶ ku[vas kat τους modas χειμωνος οντος ὠφελεῖ
ὥστε pln ριγων y εκαστοτ αλλα ToOUTOLS Ὑ οὐκ EVI
ovd εν [οφθαλμοισιν αιδως των παλαίων εμβαδων
οὐκ αφηΐσεις ovde νυνι ft @ κακιστον θηριον
ουδ᾽ ανα[μνησθεις οθ evpwy τους βοτρυς κλεπτοντα σε
450 [π]ροσαγαΐγων προς τὴν ελααν εἕεδειρ ev κανδρικως
ἰωστε σε ἐΐηλωτον evar συ ὃ αχαριστος ησθ apa
arn’ ανεῖς με και συ Kal ov πριν τον νιον εκδραμειν
παν» νυν»
1874.
455
460
462
463
465
Fr.
486
487
4909.
495
FRAGMENTS OF EXTANT CLASSICAL AUTHORS
adda τουτων] μεν [Tax ἡμῖν δωσετον καλην δικην
ovker εἰς μακραν [w εἰδὴθ οἷος ἐστ ανδρων τροπος
οξυθυμων και Stkalioy και βλεποντων καρδαμα
mae παι’ o Ἐανθια τίους σφηκας amo τῆς οικιας
adda δρίω] Tour’ αλίλα καὶ ov tude πολλω τω καπνω
ουχι σ[ουσἾθ᾽ οὐκ εἰς [Kopakas οὐκ amite Tate τῶ ξυλω
και ov [πρ]οσθέϊις Αισχινην evtruge τον Σελλαρτιου
ap εμ[ελλομεν [ποθ ὑυμας αποσοβησειν τω χρονὼω
adda pa Δὲ ov ραΐδιως ουτως αν αὐτοὺς διεφυγες
εἰπίερ εἴτυχον τίων μελεων τῶν Φιλοκλεους
βεβίρωκοτες
apa [δητ οὐκ avra δηλα
τοις ἱπενησιν ἡ τυραννις
[ ὡς λαθρα y ελανθαν υπιουσα με)
εἰ συ y ὦ πονὼ Tovnpe καὶ κομηταμυνια
τίων νομων ἡμᾶς απειργεις wv εθηκεν ἡ πολις
I recto. Col. ii.
iat
[ ove ποτε y οὐχ ews Ϊ ]
[ αν] τι μου λοιπον nL
[ οστις npoly eme τυρῖαννι δ᾽ εσταληις
[ως απανθ υμιν τυραννις εστι Klar ξυνωμοται
[nv τε μειζον nv T ἐλαττον πραΐγμα τις Κατηγορῆήι
[ns ἐγω οὐκ nkovoa τουνομ οὐυδὴε πεντηκοντ᾽ ετῶν
νυν δὲ πολλωι Tov Taptxous εστιὶν afiwrepa
[wore καὶ δὴ τουνομ αὑτῆς εν ayopar κυλινδεται
[nv μεν ὠνῆται τις ορῴφως μεμίβραδας δὲ μη θεληι
[εὐθεως εἰρηχ ο πώλων πλησιοὶν τας μεμβραδὰς
[ουτος οψώνειν εοιχ avOpwros] emt τυραννιδι
[nv δὲ γητειον προσαιτή ταις αἸφυαις ἡδυσμα τι
[η λαχανοπωλις φησιν παραβλεψασα θατερω
[εἰπε μοι γητειον αἰτεῖις πότερον emt τυραννιδι
L2
147
148
500
505
510
Pre:
558
560
595
510
THE OXYRHYNCHUS PAPYRI
[n νομιζεις tas AOnvjas σοι τρεφε[ιὴν novopata :
[καμε y ἡ πορνὴ χθεῖς εἰσελθοϊντα της μεσημβριας
[ore κελητισαι κελευον] οξ[υθ]υμ[ηθἼ)εισα μοι
[nper εἰ τὴν Immov καθισταμ[αι] τυραννιδα:
[ταυτα yap τουτοις ακοΊυϊειν nde ele καὶ νυν εγὼ
[τον πατερ οτι βουλομαι] τουτωϊν] ἀπαλλαχθεντα τῶν
[ορθοφοιτοσυκοφαντοδικοϊταλαιπωρῶν τροπῶν
[ῴην βιον γενναιον ὠὡσπ]ερ Mopu fos] αἰτιαν exo
[ταυτα δραν ξυνωμοτης) ὧν Kat φρίον͵ων τυραννικα
[νη Δι ev δικηι y eyo yap οἾυδεν ορνιΐθων γ]αλα
ἴαντι του βιου λαβοιμ αν oly με νίυν αποστ]ερης
[ovde χαίρω βατισιν ovd εγχελεσιν αλλ ηἼδιοπαν
[δικιδιον σμικρον φαγοιμ av ev λοπαδι] πεπνιγμενον
[νη Δι ειθισθης yap ηδεσθαι τοιουτοις πρ]αγμασ[ιἣν |
[αλλ cay σιγων ανασχηι και μαθηις ayw λεγΊω [
2 recto. Col. iii.
as eu [ovd av ζωντ noew εἰ pn δια τὴν προτεραν amopugw
τουτι πἰεῖρίι των αἰντιβολουντων coT@ To μνήημοσυνον μοι
εἰ γ᾽ εἰσελθων ανἱτιβοληθεις καὶ THY οργην απομορχθεις
evOov τουτων wv [av φασκω παντῶν οὐδὲν πεποιηκα
αλλ᾽ ἀκροωμαι πασίας φωνας ιεντων εἰς αποφυξιν
dep ἴδω τι yap οὐκ [ἐστιν] αἴκουσαι θωπευμ evtavda δικαστη
οἱ μεν γ᾽ αποκλοιονΐτ]αι πενίΐιαν αὐτων Kat προστιθεασι
κακὸ προς τοις ovoly ews alylwy αν ἰσωση τοισιν εμοισιν
οἱ de λεγουσι μυθους ἡμιν οἱ ὃ Adjowmov τι γελοιον
οἱ δε σκ[ωἸπτουσ᾽ ἵν ἐγω γελασω Kat [τον θυμον καταθωμαι
kav pln Toluros αναπειθωμεσθα τία παιδαρι εὐθυς ανελκει
τας θηλζειΐας καὶ τοὺς υἱι]εις τηΐς χείρος eyw ὃ ἀκροωμαι
ta δὲ συϊγ]κηψαντ᾽ αποβληχίαται καπειθ ο πατὴρ ὑπερ αὑτῶν
womrep θεον αντιβολει με τρίεμων της ευὐθυνης απολυσαι
εἰ μεν χαίήρεις alpvlos φωνη [παιδος φωνην ελεησαις
1874. FRAGMENTS OF EXTANT CLASSICAL AUTHORS 149
ει δ᾽ av Tous] χοιρ[ιδι]οις χαίρω [Ovyarpos φωνὴ pe πιθεσθαι
χήμείις αὐἼτω τίοτε] της οργης ἰολιγον τον κολλοπ avelpev
575 ap ov [μεγαληι τίουτῇ εστ᾽ apxn [Kat του πλουτοῦυ καταχηνή
δευτίερον av σοὺ τοῖυτι γραφοῖμαι την του πλουτου καταχηνὴν
[και ταγαθα μοι μεμνησὶ axles φασκων της Ελλαδος αρχειν
Fr. 2 verso. Col. iv.
607 [ασπαζωνται δια ταργυριον Kat πρωτα] μεν ἡ [θυγατἼηρ μεν
[απονιζηὴ καὶ Tw 700 ἀλειφη και προϊσκυψασα φιληση
ε
[kau παππιζουσ apa τὴ γλωσσὴ το] τριώβολον κκαλαματα
610 [και To γυναιον μ᾽ ὑποθωπευσαν] φυστὴν μαζαν πρ[ο]σενεγκήι
[καπειτὰ καθεζομενὴ)] παρ εμῖοι π]ροσαναγκαζή gaye τουτι
[evtpaye τουτι τοισιν eyo γαίν]υμαι Kar μὴ με δεησης
[es σε βλεψαι και τον τ]αμιαν omoT αριστον mapabnoe
[karapacapevo|s Kat τονθορυσας αλλ᾽ ἣν μὴ μοι ταχὺ μαξηι
615 [rade κεκτημαι προβλημα κακὼν σκευὴν βεϊλ]εων αλεωρην
[Kav οινον μοι μὴ γχ]ης σὺ mew Tov ονον τοῖνδ᾽ εσκεκομισμαι
[owwov μεστον κατ εγχΊεομαι κλινας ouTols dle κεχηνως
[βρωμησαμενος του σον δινου plelya και στρίατιον κατεπαρδὲεν
619-20 [ap ov μεγαλην ἀρχὴν αἸρχω Kat τίο]υ ΖΔιους ου]δεν ελαττω
621 [οστιῖς akovw talv]? απερ o [Zelus
[nv γῆουν ἡμειῖς OolpuvBy[clopev
[ras] τις φησιν [των] παρι[οἹν[τΊων
[ovoly βρονται το δι]καστ[ηριοὴν
625 [o Ze βασίζλ]ευ [ Ί
[x
aly ασίτραψω ποππυζουσιν
Fr. 3 recto. Col. vii.
746 [a σου κελευνοντοὶς ovk επίειθετο
747 [vy δ tows τοισῖι cols
150 7111 OXYRAYNCAHUS ‘PAPYRI
[Aoyots πειθεται]
[
748 και cwdpover μεῖντοι μεθι
[eras ες To λοῖιπον τίο]ν τροπον
749 [πειθομ]ενος τε σοι
[(ὼ μοι pole
ουτος τι βοας
750 μη pole τουτων μηδὲν υπισχίνου
Κεινων ἐραμαι Keble γενοιμαν
ἵν ο κηρυξ φησις zits ange
στος ανιστασθω Ϊ
Καπισταιηΐν ἐπι τοις Κημοις
7885 ψηφιζομίενων ο τελευταιος
σπευδ᾽ ὦ [ψυχη που μοι ψυχή.
παρες [w σκιερα pa tov Ηρακλεα
μη νυΐν er eyo v τοισι δικασταις
κλεπτίοντα Κλεωνα λαβοιμι
760 [8 ὦ mlarep προῖς των θεων εμοι πιθου
. . Φ .
Fr. 4 verso. Col. viii.
790 [καπειτ] ενεθΐηκε τρεις λοπιδας μοι κεστρεων
[καγω νεκαψ οβίολους yap ὠομην λαβειν
[κατα βδελυχθέίις οσῴρομενος εξεπτυσα
[Καθ] εἰλκον αὐτοῖν o δὲ τι προς ταῦτ eth ο τι
ἰαλεἸκτρυονοῖ 5] μ [εἸφίασ]κ[ε κοιλιαν Exel
795 [Tax]v your καθεψεις γ᾽ αργίυριον ἡ ὃ os λεγων
[opas οσῖον Kat τουτο δητα [κ]Ἰερίδανεις
[ov mavy τῆι μικρον add’ οπερ μελλειΐς ποίει
ἰαναμενε ν]υν eyo de ταυθ᾽ néw φί[ε]ρωΐν
[opa To χρημα τα] λογ ws περαινεται
800 [ηκήηκοειν yap ὡς ΑἸθηναιοι ποτε
ἰδικασοιεν ἐπι ταῖς οἰϊκειαισι τας δικας [
[xav τοις προθυροις ενοι]κοδομησει mas avnp
ἰαυτω δικαστηριδιον μΊικρον πανυ
13874. FRAGMENTS OF EXTANT CLASSICAL AUTHORS 151
ίωσπερ Ἑκαταῖον πανταΐχου πρὸ των Oupwr [
805 [ἰδοῦ τί er ἐρεις ws ἀπαντῇ]ῇ eyo φερω
ἰοσαπερ εφασκον Katt πολλΊωι πλείονα
[apis μεν nv ουρητιασης αὐυἾτηι
[wapa σοι Κρεμήσετ eyyus εἾἶπι [Tov πατταλου
Frs. 4 and 5 recto. Col. ix.
814 [avrov pelyor [yap τὴν φακην ροφησομαι
815 ἰαταρ τι τῇον ορΐνιν ws en εξηνεγκατε
[wa Ὑ nly καθεζυδὴς απολογουμενου τινος
[adwv αἸνωθεῖν εξεγειρη o ουτοσι
[ev ete ποήίθω τα ὃ αλλ ἀρεσκει μοι To τι
[Onpwor] εἰ mas εκκομισαις το τοῦ Λυκου
5 lines lost.
825 εἶκαλουν καλει νυν ws καθημ εγω παλαι
φίερε νυν τιν αὑὐτω TpwTOY εἰσαγαγω δικὴν
τίει τις κακον δεδρακε των εν ToKia
ἢ ἴΘραττα προσκαυσασα πρωὴν την χυτραν
επισχες ovTos ὡς ολιγου μ απωλεσας
830 alvev δρυφακτου την δικην μελλεις καλεῖν
Frs. 4 and 5 verso. Col. x.
863 [και μην ness emt] Tats [omovdats
[kat Tals evxals ]
865 [φημην ayabnv λεξοῖμεν υμῖιν
[ore γενναίως εκ Tov π͵Ἰολεμοῖυ
[kat του νεικους ξυ]νεβητοῖν
[ευὐφημια μεν πρωτα νυν] ὑπαρχίετω
[» Φοιβ Απολλον Πυθι ew αγ]αθη τίυχη
5 lines lost.
875 [w decor αναξ γειτον ayuiev τουμου προθυ]ροῖν προσπυλας
(δεξαι τελετὴν καινην ὠναξ nv Tw TaTpL καιΪνοτομοίυμεν
152 THE OXYRHYNCHUS PAPYRI
[mavoov 7 αὐτου TovTo To λιαν στρυῴνον και] πρινινοῖν ηθος
ἷαντι σιραιου μελιτος μικρὸν τῶ θυμιδιω παραἹμιξας
444. δε φθερωΐν, or perhaps [δ]ιαφθεραΐν, is for διφθερων.
449. ουδ᾽: so V, &c., edd.; οὔτ᾽ R
452. avs: so MSS., H(all)-G(eldart) ; ἄφες Cobet.
453. τουτωῖν]: so MSS. and most edd. The v.1. τούτω is implied by the scholia.
454. es: es RV, edd.
456. mate: SO VI, &c., edd. ; παῦε R.
459. The MSS. assign this line not to the speaker of ]. 458 (Sosias), but to a different
person (οἰκέτης 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. ΠΟ 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. βεβίρωκοτες which 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. I agrees with RV in its division of these lines. There is no room before
ἐσταληις for #8’ which is commonly inserted on metrical grounds (cf. 1. 429) by editors,
following Hermann.
496. ταῖς alpvas: it is uncertain whether Π had ras (so MSS., Starkie, H-G) or τις
(Brunck on metrical grounds), especially as προσαιτὴ may have had an iota adscript.
497. φησιν] παραβλεψασα: παραβλέψασά φησι MSS., rightly.
499. τρεφεζιεν : φέρειν MSS. The remark of schol. V φησὶν ὅτι διὰ σὲ φύουσιν αἱ ᾿Αθῆναι
ἡδύσματα would apply to τρέφειν even better than to φέρειν, 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 1 probably did not have the correct spelling of the scholia op@po- :
ὀρθο- R, &c., ὀρθοσ- V. Possibly δικο was omitted.
506. exo: so V, &c., edd.; ἔχων R.
507. τυραννικα: SO V Suidas and most edd.; τυραννίδα R, &c. There are no double
dots at the end of this line or οἵ]. 511.
508. οἾυδεν : οὐδ᾽ ἄν MSS., rightly. The repetition of ἄν seems to have caused a difficulty,
as in ]. 510.
509. αποστΊερης : 1. αποστΊερεις with the MSS.
510. ηἼδιοπαν is an error for nd:ov av: cf. note on |. 508,
5II. πεπνιγμενον : 50 V, &c., edd.; πεπηγμένον R.
558. as: ὅς V, &c., edd., as R.
a ρος εἰ γ᾽: εἶτ᾽ MSS., rightly ; οὗ 1. 795, note. Paragraphi are omitted before this line
and |. 576. ‘
564. αποκλοιουΐτἼαι OF αποκλοιονΐ .Ἶτ[α]. can be read ; ἀποκλαίονται RV, ἀποκλάονται BC, edd.
565. This verse is corrupt in the MSS., which have κακὰ (κακά ye B Ald.) πρὸς τοῖς
(τοῖσιν Β Ald.) οὖσιν ἕως ἂν ἰσώσῃ (ἕως ἀνιῶν ἀνισώσῃ V) τοῖσιν ἐμοῖσιν. II is corrupt in having
κακὸ for κακα and may have omitted ame like RBC. Meineke proposed κακὰ πρὸς τοῖς οὖσι
(xaxoiat)v ἕως ἂν io. τ. ἐμ., Starkie κα. π. τ. οὖσιν ἕως ἂν (δή τις) ἰσώσῃ τ. ἐμ.
566. λεγουσι: so VBC; 1. λέγουσιν with R.
568. αναπειθωμεσθα: so VBC and most edd.; ἀναπειθώμεθα R.
1824. FRAGMENTS ‘OF EXTANT CLASSICAL AUTHORS 153
570. συϊγ]κηψαντ᾽ is for συ[γ]κυψαντ᾽ (so RV and most edd.) ; συγκυπτοντ᾽ BC Ald.
αποβληχζαται: SO V3; ἅμ ἅμα βληχᾶται R, ἀμβληχᾶται Bergk, ἅμα βρυχᾶται Van Leeuwen,
ἅμα βληχᾶται BC and most edd.
571. θεον : so RBC, edd.; θεός V.
573: χοιρ[ιδι]οις : so VBC, edd.; χοιρίοις R.
ae γραφοῖμαι : so Brunck ; ypdyoua MSS, against the metre (V has the line in the
margin).
577. Either axles (BC, edd.) or αχίρις (RV) may be restored. This line and 1. 626
may be the last of the columns.
607. μεν: € 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]σκυψασα: so RBC, edd.; προσκύσασα V. Richter’s emendation φιλῇ pe for
φιλήσῃ, accepted by Van Leeuwen, is not confirmed. .
609. exkadapara: |, -ra(v), IL may have omitted ro (added by Flor. Christianus) like
the MSS.
612. τοισιΐν : so RB Ald.; τοῖσι C, τούτοισιν V, edd. It is not quite certain that I had
the unmetrical reading here, but 17 or 18 letters would be expected in the lacuna and
τουτοισι]ν would require 20.
και μὴ pe Senons: καὶ μή pe δεήσηι (or denon) MSS., κεὶ μή pe δεήσει Elmsley, Blaydes, κοὐ
μή pe δεήσῃ H-G following Dobree.
613. παραθησει: so VBC, edd.; παραθήσηι with εἰ suprascr. R.
614. add nv: so T (ἀλλ᾽ ἤν) edd.; ἄλλην RVBC. Meineke thought that there was
a lacuna after this line, rejecting ll. 615-18.
619-20. II agrees with RVI in combining these two lines into one, which is uniform
with those preceding, and in omitting τῆς before του. BC Ald., reading τῆς τοῦ Διός, make
two lines corresponding to those following. For Acous ]. Avos.
621. ἀαπερ: so VB Ald., edd.; ὥσπερ R, ὅσπερ C.
623. φησιν : so R, correctly ; φησί VBC.
624. το δι]καστ[ηριο]ν : so RVC, edd. ; τὰ δικαστήρια Β.
746. The o οἵ οὐκ is above the o of σοις in the next line, and it is not certain whether
1 read ἅ with RBC and edd. (om. V), but there is no room for παρακελεύοντος (B Ald.).
The metre of this antistrophe is not at all clear. ἅ σου does not correspond to εἶναι in
]. 732, and cf. note on |. 749. Editors divide ll. 743-9 in several ways; Π᾿5 arrangement
agrees with that of RV.
749. {πειθομ]ενος : so MSS. ; πιθόμενος most edd., following Brunck, who wished to make
this verse correspond to 1. 736 σὺ δὲ παρὼν δέχου. [πιθομἼενος is too short for the lacuna, and
the emendation of this chorus on metrical grounds is insecure ; cf. l. 746, note.
τι Boas: so V and most edd.; τί μοι βοᾷς RBC.
752. φησις : φησι MSS., rightly, except R which has the unmetrical φησιν.
756. omevd : SO RBC, edd.; σπενδ᾽ V.
790. καπειτἾ eveb[nke: κἄπειτ᾽ ἐπέθηκε RBC Ald., Starkie ; κἄπειθεν ἔθηκεν V, κἄπειτ᾽ ἐνέθηκε
Bergk, whose emendation may well have been confirmed, H-G.
795. καθεψεις : so H-G with the MSS. ; κατέψεις Suidas, καταπέψεις Hirschig, καταπέττεις
Van Leeuwen.
Ὑ᾽ ἀργυριον : τἀργύριον MSS., Starkie, H-G, ἀργύριον Brunck. The article is unnecessary,
but defensible as generic, and with γοῦν in the same line γ᾽ is also superfluous; cf. εἰ γ᾽ for
er in |, 560.
796. ocjov... δητα : so RBC, edd.; os ὅσον... om. δῆτα V.
798. There is a blank space after ν]υν, but apparently no stop. Reiske wished to alter
ταῦθ᾽ to πάνθ᾽,
154 THE OXYRHYNCHUS PAPYRI
Sor. οἰἤκειαισι : |. οἰἤκιαισι.
802. Either ενοιἸκοδομήσει (VBC) or ανοι]κοδομησει (Ε, ἄς.) can be eae Editors
alter to εἐνοικοδομησοι, following Dobree.
806. [ocamep: so VI, HG: οσαπερ y (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. εἶπι : so MSS. Some editors wish to read ἐκ or ἀπό, but cf. Starkie’s note.
816. [wa y nv: so MSS., Starkie, H-G ; [ἐν 7]» (Cobet) is too short.
825-6. V omits these two verses owing to homoioteleuton.
865. The size of the lacuna suits λεξομεν (RBC, edd.) better than εξομεν (V).
867. ξυ]νεβητοῖν : so MSS. ; ξυνεβήτην H-G with many editors, following Elmsley, but
cf. Starkie’s note.
875. προθυ]ροῖυ : so RBC, edd.; προυπύλου V. πῆροζυπυλου would not suit the length of
the lacuna. For the unmetrical προσπύλας of the MSS. Bentley proposed προπύλαιε.
878. Below ἿἸμιξας there is a blank space of three lines, ll. 879 544. being divided into
short lines, as in RV. -:
1375. HERODOTUS vii.
15:5 X 12-3 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 1862, 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
paragraphi. 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. Col. ii.
μιλκαν Kapyn § 166 toot Ελίλησι ev § 167
Soviov εοντα » τηι ΣΙἠκελ[]ηε ἐμὰ
προς πατρὸς μὴ xovro εὖ nolus ap
τροθεν Se Supn Eapevor μεχίρι
κοσιον βασιλευ λ
5 ἐπ ‘i ae 5 δει[τ|]ης οψιηΐς ε
Ti πτ ἂν πι τοσοῦτο γαΐρ AE
δραγ[αἸθιην ws ἡ your ελκυσαι [Tv
1875. FRAGMENTS OF EXTANT CLASSICAL AUTHORS 155
συμβολὴ τε εγει [σἸυστασιν: ο ὃ Αμ[ιλ
10 VETO καὶ ἡσσω Kas εν τουτῶι | >
TO THL payne a> 10 τῶι xpovar ple
φανισθηναι muv νων ev Tat [oTpa
θανομαι: ovTe> τοπεδωι εθυεῖτο
γαρ (@VTA OUTE a και εκαλλιερεζετο
15 [ποθανοντα ἐπι πυρὴης μεῖγα
: ‘ : 15 [Ans clopara οἷλα
1, 6-8. Καρχη[δ7Ίονιων κατ ανδραγαἤθιην : κατ᾽ ἀνδραγ. Kapx. MSS.
9. eyewero: S has ἐγένετο.
10. ἡσσωτο: ὡς ἑσσοῦτο MSS.
ii, 1, 2. ἐν τῇ Σικελίῃ is omitted by P*RSV and bracketed by Hude.
6. τοσουτο: τοσοῦτον RSV.
λεἤγετ[α]ι: RSV have λέγειν. Cobet wished to omit the verb altogether.
12-13. The papyrus agrees with the MSS. in reading ἐθύετο καί which was bracketed
by Hude after Abicht.
1876. THUCYDIDES vii.
Height 31-8 cm. Late second or early third
century. Plate III
(Col. iv, ll. 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 (I) 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 72. 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, ii-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
156 THE OXYRHYNCHUS PAPYED
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 v 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 (Il. 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 (Π52 ll. 356,
491, 551, 931, 956, 968; II® 407, 705). Uncorrected slips occur in 1. 234 and
perhaps in 1. 638.
II 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. Theseven 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 B 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 II M exhibits more affinity to AEF than to CG.
From vi. 92 to the end a disturbing element is introduced by the fact that
B (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 B has declined. As the divergences between
B and C, particularly in vi. 92-viii, constitute the chief problem in the textual
criticism of Thucydides, we preface a detailed classification of II’s readings with
a summary of the evidence of extant papyri, showing the number of their agree-
ments with C against B and vice versa and of their new readings, but disregarding
“τὺ FRAGMENTS OF EXTANT CLASSICAL AUTHORS τὸ]
minor points such as ν ἐφελκυστικόν, in the neglect of which II resembles Ὁ.
P. Giessen 12 is published by F. Fischer in Thucyd. reliquiae in papyris et
membranis Aeg. servatae, Leipzig, 1913, pp. 27 sqq.; P. Wess. by Ὁ, 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. with C 4 withBo new 5
853 extracts from ii. 1-45 late 2nd ἐν 2 Ἄν a 322
8781 ii. 22-5 late Ist τ Ι Ὁ Ty see
P. Giessen 12 ii. 59-60 4th or 5th ys I 3 2 sg cee
225 [1]. go-I Ist He 3 ms fe) “a ΤΑΙ
8791 iii. 58-9 3rd μὴ I a 1) Nees
16+696 iv. 28-41 Ist a 4 = I » 29
880! v. 32-4, 40, 96-8, 103-5, 111 late 2nd y 2, Ps Dias tan 20
1180 v. 60-3 ard a fe) fi a cae ΓῊ
1246 vii. 38 early 2nd Ἢ fo) ¥ > sae ae
1247 viii. 8-11 and a 2 = πο
P. Wess. viii. 92 7th Ms 5 nN 3 ae
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 B 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 II’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.
With C against ABEFGM 2 ll. 23, 45, right.
high. # ABEFM I 66, wrong.
Pay οἷς; re ABEFM I 58, right.
io Mos ᾿ ΑΒΕῸΜ 1(2?) 616?, 712, doubtful.
3 eee νὰ BEGM I 625, doubtful.
» CGM a ABEF I 705, wrong, but corrected.
1 878. 47 τωι τείχει agrees with ABEFGM against C (τῷ τε τείχει), 879. 33 δε with ACEFGM
against B (om.), and 880. 82 cagws with ACEFGM against B (om.).
158 THE OXYRHYNCAUS PAPYRI
With CEFG against ABM I 444, right.
» ACEFG ᾿ ΒΜ I 144, doubtful.
7) ACETM ‘3 B I 157, right.
» ACEFMByp. _,, B I 725, doubtful.
» ACEFGM sae 21 (22?) 9, 49, 64, 99, 125, 195,
447, 495» 55% 570, 683, 723, 734, 739, 852, 881, 943, 951, right; 122, 432?, 792,
wrong ; 186, doubtful.
With B 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,
gi ?, 956, doubtful.
With B (suprascr.) E against ABCFM 1 Il. 94, right.
Spe 3 & ᾿ ACEFM 1 _ 406, wrong.
» BEM 5 ACFG I 699, right.
» BFM 3 ACE 1 508, right.
» ABEFM 3 CG 1 963, right.
» ABEFM Ἴς G 2 162, 350, right.
» ABEFGM » Θ 7 122, 234, 236, 633, 652, 050,
right ; 164, doubtful.
ΒΟ δ AEFM I 720, right.
» . BCGM . AEF I 442, right.
». BCEGM x AF 2 235, 487, right.
» BCEFM cu) Baye. I 724, right.
» ABCEFG ᾿ Μ IO 72-4, 121, 186, 496, 549, 720,
758, 782, 950, 967, right.
» ABCFGM 7 E 4 72, 146-7, 487, right.
. ABCEGM - F I 91, right.
» BCEFGM ᾿ Α I 405, right.
» ABCEFM 3 G 4 77,93, 149, 425, right.
ΠΝ m ABCGM 1 184, wrong.
From this table several conclusions follow. In the first place II occupies
a position almost exactly midway between Band C. Out of 69 passages in which
these two MSS. are at variance II agrees with C 32 (34?) times, with B 34
(35?) times in spite of the fact that in no less than 45 of these passages B 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 B is unsupported, I] 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 II in 1 out of 2 instances. The text
of B is therefore no longer isolated; it is practically as close to Π as is that
1876. FRAGMENTS OF EXTANT CLASSICAL AUTHORS 159
of Ὁ, its chief opponent, and closer to II than are A or M. Out of the whole 94°
passages in which the seven chief MSS. differ, Il agrees with E 58 (60?) times,
B 57 (593), F 57 (58?), C 56 (58?), and M 49 (50?), and with G 52 (53?) 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. E and F have very few
distinctive readings: out of 6 cases in which E and 6 in which F differs from BC
{I supports E twice (once with B suprascr.) and F once. Neither G nor A nor
M obtains any assistance for their peculiar readings from I], which agrees with
BC against them 4, 6, and 11 times respectively.
From the point of view of quantity of agreements IT 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 B in vi. 92-viii was clearly no exceptional phenomenon. Since C and
B are equidistant from II, 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 B in relation to II seems to us to favour the view that the special excellences
and defects of B in the later books are due to its being derived, like C, from
a text which is not far removed from that of II, but into which a number of
variations, chiefly errors, have been introduced in the intervening eight or nine
centuries. Of the 19 (21 ?) readings in which B alone is supported by II there are
two clear cases of omission in ACEFGM owing to homoioteleuton (ll. 190 and
602-4); in ll. 22, 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 II’s confirmation can be accepted without demur; in 1. 909
certainly and probably in ]. 961 ACEFGM have made mistakes owing to ditto-
graphy ; in ll. 277 and 702 trifling additions are found in B, the omission
of which may well be explained as slips. In all these 11 cases IIB are
certainly or probably right against the other MSS. The instances in which
IIB’s reading is probably wrong confine themselves to two apparent examples
of the confusion of ἤδη with δή (ll. 14 and 948; cf. 1. 19, where II is right and all
the MSS. wrong on this point), and πεπαυμένους for ἀναπεπαυμένους in ll. 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 om. δή, 150 ἐπέφερον for ἔφερον, 691 om. εἰσί, 911 add. τῆς ἢ) or
160 THE OXYRHYNCAHUS ΡΑΡΥΔΙ
slight changes in the order of words (Il. 197 and 562), and σωτήριον as a v.1. for
σωτηρίαν (1. 956). In any case they postulate only a trifling error on the part of
either ITB 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 B is proved by II to have preserved the right
text. C, when alone, contributes hardly anything of value in the chapters
covered by II; for in 1. 45 κωλύσουσι for κωλύσωσι after ὅπως, though probably
right, is trivial, the omissions of ὑπό in 1. 66, καί in 122 and 350, and ἡσυχαζόντων
in 236, the insertions of of in 164 and 234, the substitution of καταργόμενοι for
κατειργόμενοι in 162, ἐσόμεναι for ἔσονται in 633, ἀταξία for ἀταξίαν in 652, and
ἀναγκάζωνται for ἀναγκάζονται 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 ναυσὶ
καὶ ἵπποις καὶ μεγέθη ἐχούσαις, B ναῦς καὶ ἵππους καὶ μεγέθει ἐχούσαις, AEFM ναυσὶ
καὶ ἵπποις καὶ μεγέθει ἐχούσαις. The emendation of Duker ἰσχυούσαις for ἐχούσαις
would account for the datives, but II, which apparently had ναῦς καὶ ἵππους καὶ
μεγέθη ἐχούσαις, 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 B and C than
in the other MSS.
On the other hand, while the frequent and judicious support lent to B is one
of the chief features of II and cannot fail to increase the respect due to that MS.
in vi. 92—viii, the superiority of II’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 Τήνιοι for Τήιοι and 792 ἑκατέρωθεν
for ἑκάτεροι), and possibly a third (432 ᾧπερ δή for ᾧπερ), in which there are strong
reasons for considering B superior to TACEFGM. In 725 (διαλαβόντας for
προφθάσαντας) Π᾿ 5 support of the ordinary reading is confirmed by the removal of
the repetition of προφθάνειν in 751 (φθάσωσι II). The omission of γάρ, which
is inserted by B in 186, is quite defensible, and the changes in the order effected
by B in 83-4, 125, and 552 have nothing special to recommend them. The
following readings of B, 49 om. τά, 99 ἕκαστοι for ἑκάστοις, 195 λειπομένους for ἀεὶ
πολεμίους, 683 ἐβούλοντο for ἐβουλεύοντο, 723 τά for τάς, 739 τετάφθαι for τετράφθαι,
852 τρεψόμεναι for τρεψάμενοι, 881 om. μέρος, 943 τε for τότε, are merely due
to slips of a copyist and are naturally absent from II, while the rest of B’s peculiar
readings, 9 om. καί, 157 δέ (rejected by II) for re, 447 ἐσομένης for οὔσης,
495 Om. καί, 570 ἔπειτα δέ for ἔπειτα, 734 “ApdxAeva for αὐτοῖς Ἡρακλεῖ, 951 ἑκατὸν
kat for καί, though requiring consideration as probably ancient variants, have not
found favour with recent editors, whose judgement in selecting from B’s variants
1376. FRAGMENTS OF EXTANT CLASSICAL AUTHORS 161
is generally confirmed by II’s evidence, as also in the less numerous cases where
AEFGM are divided between Band C. Of these instances IICG are undoubtedly
right against ABEFM in 1. 58 (φόβου against φόβωι, a copyist’s error), and
IICEFG against ABM in 444 (φαίνεται against φαίνηται which is due to a con-
fusion of ἐᾶν with ἐάν). That Π is also right in supporting ACEFG against BM
in 1. 144 (κατὰ ἔχθος, omitting τό), CE against ABFGM in 616 (om. καῇ) and 712
(ἀποχωρήσασα against ὑποχωρήσασα) is more questionable, but still, as we think,
probable ; in an apparent but not quite certain agreement with ACF against
BEGM in 625 either reading may be correct. On the other hand II naturally
supports B (suprascr.) E in 94 ξυνδιασώσοντες (ξυνδιασώσαντες ABCFM by a slip),
BEM in 699 αὐτῶν (αὐτόν ACFG, also a slip), ABEF in 705 ἀναχωρήσοντες
(ἀναχωρήσαντες CGM, a dittography from the following ξύμπαντες, also found in Π
but corrected by II’), and ABEFM in 963 αὐτῷ πρώτῳ (om. πρώτῳ CG). The
agreement with BFM against CE in 508 as to the form πλευσομένους against
πλευσουμένους is trivial, and II has made the same mistake as BG in 406-7
παρεσκευάζεσθε for παρασκευάζεσθε, the origin of the error (παρεσκευαζεσθαι
wrongly corrected to -θε) 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 II uniformly supports BC save in the unimportant matter of
the spelling of στρατεία (1. 184), for which ITEF have στρατιά (cf. 1. 17 referred
to below, where IJ alone is correct on this point). With a few exceptions
(e.g. the reading of M in 720) 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 II 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 διέδοσαν
with Bekker’s KN for διεδίδοσαν and 853. v. 21 ἐκφυγεῖν with Paris. 1735 for
ἐκφεύγειν. II, however, exhibits at least 7 (8 ἢ) coincidences with the late MSS.
One of these, 747 οὐκ for οὐκέτι with apparently KN and Paris. 1734 and 1791,
is almost certainly right (Hude brackets ér with Kriiger), and the insertion of οἱ
before Συρακόσιοι in 999 with N, though perhaps due to a misplacement (cf. note
ad loc.), is in accordance with custom. In ll. 486-7, where the chief MSS. are
corrupt and II is unfortunately incomplete, it apparently agrees with Paris,
1637, 1638, and 1736 in omitting an ἄν which can hardly be right, though whether
that omission alone is sufficient to restore the passage is somewhat doubtful. In
M
162 THE OXYRHYNCHUS PAPYRI
544 Bekker’s KLNOPQ and Paris. 1637, 1638, 1733, 1734,and 1736 are stated to
read ἐπιβουλή (with ΠῚ instead of ἐπιβολή before τῶν σιδηρῶν χειρῶν, and this read-
ing of the later MSS. deserves consideration although rejected by recent editors.
Against the conclusiveness of the parallel χειρῶν σιδηρῶν ἐπιβολαί in 1. 434 may be
urged first the possibility that ἐπιβολή in the second passage is a reminiscence of
the first, and secondly the employment of the singular not the plural. In any
case ἐπιβουλή is to be regarded not as an error of the late MSS. but an ancient
reading. In 713 IJ agrees with Paris. 1637 in having που for ποι in καθεζομένη ποι
τῆς Σικελίας, a variant which is defensible. The omission, however, of Βοιωτοί
before Βοιωτοῖς in 142, which also occurs in Paris. 1636, is probably a mistake;
cf. the insertion of Δωριῆς in 152. Nor is there anything to be said in favour of
ἀντιλαβεῖν, which was erroneously read by If’ with Bekker’s H in 551, but for
which IT? rightly wished to substitute the ordinary reading ἀντιλαβήν. ἐνεκυκλοῦντο
for the usual ἐκυκλοῦντο in 946, which is partly supported by ἐνκυκλοῦντο in
Paris. 317, lacks parallels earlier than the Roman period, while the simple verb is .
common in Thucydides and occurs again as near as ]. 969; but for this very
reason the compound may after all be right; cf. 1]. 65 and 150. The agreements
between IT and the late MSS., though not very striking and in a few instances,
6. 2.551, probably due to accident, show that something may yet be gleaned from
further collations of the MSS. of Thucydides. :
The new readings peculiar to II, 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
2,50 lines of IT, and in the extracts from Book ii in 858, which was found with IT and
is contemporary with it; cf.p.157. The following eight seem to be improvements,
four of them confirming conjectures: 17 στρατείας for στρατιᾶς (so Aem. Portus ) ;
19 δή for ἤδη (so Gertz) ; 80(?) om. re (so Hude) ; 549 (?) om. ἄν (so Herwerden) ;
660-1 δικαίως ἴωσι for δικαιώσωσι; 691 om. ἔτι ; 751 φθάσωσι for προφθάσωσι ;
999 add οἱ before Συρακόσιοι. On the other hand the following seven are of more
doubtful value: 4 τῶι πεζῶι for τῶν πεζῶν, IO OM. μέν, 19 ὁμοτρόποις for ὁμοιοτρόποις,
63 ἀνενεγκεῖν for ἐνεγκεῖν, 67 add ἐπί, 152 Δωριῆς Δωριεῦσι for Δωριεῦσι, 732 τε
ναυμαχίας for ναυμαχίας te. In 86, 133, 352, 634, and 680 words certainly or
probably occurred in II which are not in the MSS., but owing to lacunae the
nature of the additions is uncertain. In 638 there was some variant for πεπύσθαι,
which however seems to have been the word intended. The insertion of καὶ ὡς in
363 and the omission of re in 931 and of of in 999 appear to be mistaken,
and δὲ πολεμίοις for δ᾽ ἐναντίοις in 695 and the insertion of ἅ 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
Se παψ ον
1376. FRAGMENTS OF EXTANT CLASSICAL AUTHORS ιό3
MSS. which have been widely suspected are generally confirmed ; cf. notes on
ll. 22-3, 81, 94-5, 110, 139, 175; 483, 664, and 992. The larger proportion
of new readings in 858 and much larger one in 16 +696 may well be due to
the different character of B in Book vii and in the earlier books, where it
usually combines with AEFM. If B had maintained its normal relation to
the other members of its family, 11 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 II 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); 858, however, in a majority of cases favours
the other side, the commentator in one case remarking of a variant found in
CEG ἐν ἐνίοις δὲ γράφεται. Π’5 support of B in the later books hardly affects
the question, since the change which comes over B at vi. 92, however it is
to be explained, clearly indicates another source for its text of the later books.
That B in them represents an edition by a grammarian seems to us, as has
been said, unlikely. In view of the notable agreements between B and II 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 II, 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 IT but had many points of divergence, partly to the normal
entrance of variations between the third and eleventh century, than to conjectures,
whether good or bad, of agrammarian. 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 858 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. g2-viii CG or ACEFGM represent the main tradition current in the second
century, and IIB 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 ’s text, which stands about midway
between B and C, is a strong argument for its normality. ΠΕ neither exhibits
a large number of arbitrary variants nor manifests any desire to eliminate
M 2
164 THE MOXYRAYNCHUS Parr
difficulties of construction, being on the whole decidedly conservative and com-
bining the good points of both B 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, B in vi. 92-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 858,
and in the later, as is shown by II, 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.
(οι. 1. Col. ii.
[ο]θεν και τους [πποὺυς Ala 54 κατία θ]αλασσα[ν] καλον [ 56. 2
[1ον: Α4θηναιοι de ns [τε [σφ])[σ]ι εἰς τους Εἰλλ]ηϊνα]ς το [
[ο]1. Τύυρρηνοι ziplowns εἶποι 55 αἰγωνἼϊσμα φανε]σθ]αι τους
[ησαΐντο τῶι πεζωι ες τὴν τε [γ]αρ αἰλλους] EAAn|vals εὖ
5 [λι]μ[ν]ην Kale] η[5] avroe τῶι θυ[9] τους μεν ελευθερουσθαι
[αλλῆωι ᾿σϊτρ]ατ[οἸπεδωι" γε 85. 1 τους δὲ φοβ[ο]ν αποϊλυεσΊήθαζι
[γεν]ημενηΐς δεῖ της νι [ ov yap ere δυϊν]αίτην εσΊεσθαι Ϊ
[κης τοις Σ]Ἰυρ[ακ]οσιοις > 60 τὴν υπολοιπῖον Αθη]ναι
[λαἸμίπρα]ς dn και Tov viav wv δυναμιν τίο]ν valreplov [ε
10 [τικοὺυ προτερον yap εφο [π]ενεχθησομ[ε]νοῖν πολε
[βουντο ταῖς μετα τον An | | Hloly ανενεγκειν" [kat αὖ
[μοσθενους] vavs επελίθου τοι δοξαντες αὐτίων αιτι
[cas of [μεν] 4θηναιοι εν [ | 65 [ole εἶναι ὑπο τε τῶν αλλων
[πα]νίτι dn αἸθυμι[ας] σαν avOpwmrev Kall τῶν επει
15 [Και] 0 παραΐλογος αἾυτοις] pe Ta επι ποίλ]υ θαυμίζασθησε
[yas η]ν [πολυ dle μ]ειίων ετι σθαι" και nv [dle αξίιος ο aym 38
[της] στρ[ατἹ]ειας [0] μεταμε κατα τίε] ταυΐτα και οτι
[Aos ποἸ]λεῖσι ylap [ταυ]τα[ 15] wo 2 70 [ovye A]Onvalioy μονον
[vats δΊη oplor|polzro\[s] ered [ ] [περι]εγίγνοντο [adda και
20 [θοντΊῆες δημ[οκρατοΊυμε τίων αλλων πολλίων guppa
[vals] τε ὠσπερ Kat [av|ror και χίων kat ofvjde αἴυτοι av po
[vavs kat] ιπίπ)]ους και [pleye νοῖν αλλα και peta τῶν ξυ
[θη εχ]ουΐσαι]ς ov δυν[αμ]ε 75 μβίοηθησαντων σφισιν
[vor ἐπενἼεγκειν [ovr εκ πὸ ηΐγεμονες τε γενόμενοι με
25 ἰλιτειαὶς τίει peraBoAns To τα Κοριίνθιων και Aaxe
13876. FRAGMENTS OF EXTANT CLASSICAL AUTHORS.
[διαφορον αυἸτίοις wt mpoon δαιϊμο]νιων [kar τὴν ode
15 lines lost. τεραν πολιν ἐεμπαρασχον
42 [Tov avrot σωθηναι povoly 56. 2 80 [res] προκι[ν)δυνίευσαι και
[ere τὴν επιμελειαν) ε [τ]ου ναυτικου μίεγα μερος
ἰποιουντοὸ ἀλλα καὶ οπωΐς [προϊκοψαντες εἰθνη yap
45 ἰεκεινους κωλυσο]υϊσι νο] [πλειστία On επίι play πο
[pegovres οπίερ nv alo [Au ταυτην ξίυνηλθε
[τε των παροντΊων [πο 85 [wAnv γε τοὴυ ξ[υμίπαντος
[Av odor κἸαθυπερτερ)α ἰὸν οδηιὸς ev] τωΐδε τωι
[Ta πραγματα εἸιν[α)ι: και [πολεμωι προς την] Αθηϊναι
50 [εἰ δυναιντο kpa\rnca A [wy τε πολιν Kat Alaxediac
[θηναιων τε και τωὶν ξυμ [μονιων τοσοιδεῖ yap eka
[μαχων καὶ κατα γην Ka{t] go [τεροι emt Σ᾿ικελιανἹ τίε και
[περι Σικελιαίς το]ς μεν
[ξυγκτησομενοι τὴν
[χωραν εἸλθίοντες τοις δὲ
[ξυνδι]ασω[σΊοντίες ἐπὶ Supa
95 [Kovolas εἰπ]ολείμησαν
[ov κατα δικην τι ἱμαλλον
[ουδε] κατα ξυϊγ]γείν]ειαῖν
[μετ] aAA[NrA@ly [σἸταίντες
[αλ]λ ὡς [εκαστῆοις της fur
100 [τυ]χ[ι]αἰς ἡ κατα) To ξίυμφε
[ρον n αἰναγκὴ exxev 4θη
[ναιο]. [μεν avtor Iwves
ἐπι 4Δαίριεας Συρακοσιους
(οἱ. iit. Calvav. Plate 111.
[exovres nAOoW Kale αἸυΐτοις 57. 2 155 [Συρακοσίων στρατευοϊμὶε
105 [7Ht avTne polyne [Kae νομι νοις ην]αγκαζοντο mode
[mous ετι χρωἸμενοίι Δημνιοι
[και ΙμβΊἸριοι [klar Διγινίηται
[or τοτῆε Διγίν)]αν [εἸιχίον και
[ere Εστι]αιης οἱ εν Εἴυβοι
[
Ε
ἱμεινἹ των [δ] περι Πελο
ἱποννησὶον νησιωτῶν
[Κεφαλλην)ες μεν και
57- I
[Ὁ]
166
110
1217
130
19
On
140
145
THE OXYRHYNCHUS PAPYRI
[at] Εσϊτιαι]αν οἰκουϊν]τεῖς a
[π]οικίοι οντες ξυ]νεϊστΊ)ρί α
[Tevoav Tov] δῖε αἴλλων ἴοι
ἵμεν υπηκοοι οἱ ὃ afro ξίυμ
ἱμαχιας αυτονομ]οῖι εἰσι
6 lines lost.
αἷπο] δὲ ἵνησων Kero και Av
δίριοι] και [ΤΊ]ηοι εκ ὃ Ιωνιας
Μιλη]σιϊο] και [ΣἸαΐμιοι και Xe
οι: τίουτίων Χιοι οὐχ ὑποτε
Aes οντες φοίρου ναὺς de
παρεχοντες αἰἷυτονομοι
ξυνεσπίοντο Kal TO πλει
[σῖτον ἴωνες οἶντες ovrot
[π]ανΐτ]ες και αἷπ Αθηναιων
ἰπλ]ην Καρυστίιω)ν: ουἰτΊο
[δ᾽ εἸιί σιν Ζίρυοπεῖς] υπηκίοοι
[δ οἹντῖεῖς Kat avialyxn opes
[ΔῈ Jes γε eme Acpteais
[nko|AovOouv: προς ὃ αὐτῖοις
[4ολης Μηθυμναιοι μεῖν
[valvor Kat ov φοΐρ]ω ὑπηκο
oj] Te]vedsor de καὶ Δινιοῖι v
ποτελεις" ouTot de AxoAn|s
A.odevot τοις κτισασι Boll
τοις μετα Συρακοσιων [κ]ατῖα
αναγκην εμαχοντΊἼ0 >
Πλαταιης δῖε] κατίαἹντικρυ
Βοιωτοις μονοι εἰ κ]οτως
κατα εχθος" Ῥοδίιο]ῆι δε και» 6
'Κυθηϊρι]οι Δωριηϊς] apgore
pot οἱ μεν Aaxedatporr >
wy απίοι]κ[ο]ι [Κυ͵θηριοι em
Ajajk[e|d[aiploviovs τίο]υς a
[μα] Γυλιππίωι] plelr AOnva
ο ἰΖακυνθιοι] avrovopot >
[mev κατα δε] To νησιω
ἱτικον μαλλον]) κατειργῖο
μενοι οτι θαλα]σ[σ]ης εἶ
ἰκρατουν οἱ Αθηναιοι g[vv
165 [ειποντο Κερκυ]ραιίζοι de
7 lines lost.
[dos το Κορινθίιων οὐχ no
[cov εἰπο͵ντο' καὶ! οἱ Μεσσίη 8
175 [vice νυν] καἰλ]οζυμεῖνοι [ex
[Navraxro|v και ex Πηυλου τίο
τίε ur AOnlva{iwr] εχομε [|
νηΐ ες τοὴν ποΐλεμο]ν παΐρε
ληϊφθησΊ]αϊν]- [kar eve Μίεγα
180 [ρ]εωῖν φυγαδες ov] πολῖλοι
[Meyapelvo[s] ΣΊἸελινου]ντι[οις
[ovat κατα ξ[υ]μφο]ραν epla
χοντῖο] τῶν de] αἰλλω]ν [ε 9
κουσῖιο οἷς μαλίλον ἡ στΊρα |
185 Tla [ἐγίγνετο [ηδη Alp
(yeliou [μεν ov] τῆς [élu{plwayl.
[as evexa μαλλον η] τῆς [|
[Δακεδαιμονιων |]. .].]] re [
ἰεχθρας και τ]ηϊ5] παραυτι Ϊ
190 [Ka εκαστοι ιἰἸδιας ὠφελι [
[as Awpins επΊι ΖΔωριεας |
[μεῖτα AlOnvaoly ἴωνωϊν
ηκολουθουν Μα)]ντινης
δῖε και αλλοι] Αρκαϊδ]ων
195 μ[ἰισθοφίοροι em] τους ae
[πολε]μιουΐς σφισιν] αποδει
κνυμ[εἸνίους ειωθ]οτεῖς Cle
ναι και [ToTE τοὺς μετΊα
[ΚἸορινθίίων ελθοντας Ap
2co καδας [olu[djev [ησσον δια
1376.
150 ὧν οπλα επεφερον' Podk
οἱ de Αργίει]οι yevos [ΣἼυρα
κοσί[οις μεὶν Awpins Ζωρι
[evor Γελωιο]ις δὲ Kale] αποι
[Kols εαυτίων ουσι μί[ε]τα
Col. ν.
17 lines lost.
[ravatoc βαρβαρων δε] Eye [ 57.11
[orator omep emnyalyor Ϊ
[ro και Σικελῶν To Teor]
[kac των εξω Σικελιαῆς Τίν
[ppnvev τε τινες κατα [du
[agopay Συρακοσίων Kale I
[amvyes μισθοφορο]ι: tora |
230 [de μεν pera Αθ]ηναιων
Supa
ἰκοσιοις δὲ αντε]βοηθη
[
[ἰεθνη εστρατευοὴν jo: 1
σαν Kjaplalpivacjoe μεν opo
[pot ov|res κα Γελωιοῖι οἰ[κ]ουν
235 [Tes] μετ [αυτους ἰεπειτ ἄκρα
[γαἹντι[ν]ων ησυχίαζοντων
[ev role [elm [εἸκεινία ιδρυμε
[vor ΣἸελιενίουντιοι Kar ode
[uely της [Σικελίας τὸ
18 lines lost.
Col. vi.
9 lines lost.
267 ἰαποσταλενῖτες [kat Σικυ 58. 3
ἰωνιοι avalyKac|To oTpa
[revoytes καὶ]. τίων εξω Πε
7 lines lost.
277 [ες Kat tmmot] Kat o [aAAos 4
FRAGMENTS OF EXTANT CLASSICAL AUTHORS
κερδῖο]ς ηγ[ο]υΐμενοι πολε
[μ]ιοῖυς1 Κρητῖες de και Αι
ak 3 lines lost.
Col. vii.
309 [ot τολ]μησασι] παΐρεσκευ 59. 3
310 αἰζοντ]ο Kal] ολίεγον ouvder
εἷς ουδεῖν ἐπενίοουν τοῖς de 60.1
[4θηναιοιῆς την ἷτε αἀποκλη
σιν ορωσι] kale την adAnv
[δη[ανοιαὴν αὐτίων αἰσθο
8 lines lost.
ἰεκπλε]υίσομενοι απειπον 2
[un επα͵γεϊιν ovre To λοι
325 [mov εμ͵ελλον [εξειν εἰ py
ἰναυκρα]τησουΐσιν εβου
ἰλευσαντο Ta μεν τειχήη τα a]
[vm εκλιπΊιν προς ὃ avrats
[rats ναυσιὴν αἴπολαβοντες
[διατειχήσμαϊτι οσον οἱον 7 ε
ἰλαχιστον τοις τε σκευεσι)
και τοις ἀσθενεσι ιΚανον
[γενεσθαι του]τῖο μεν φρου
[petv ἀπὸ δὲ tov αλ͵λίου πεῴου
335 [Tas ναὺς π͵ασαΪ9] cola ησαν
[και δυνατΊαι καἰ] αἵπλοωτε
[pat mavlra τινα εἰσβιβαζον
[res [[ην plev]] κίαι διαναυν
ἰμαχησαντες] ny plev νικω
5 lines lost.
345 [ptkov ἡ] Ελληνίικου φιλιου
ἰαντήληψεσθαι Kale οἱ μεν 3
168 THE OXYRHYNCHUS PAPYRI
[outros αἸφθονοῖς ξυνελε [ws εδοξ]ε αὐυ[το]ις ταυτ]α Kau
[yn και προὶς [αἸπανΐτας αὖ ἰεποιίησαν εκ τε ylap των a
29 lines lost. [vo τ]ειχων υποκ[αἸτεβη
380 ἰσαν klat τας ναὺς en|An|po
ἰσαν πΊασας αναγκασίανἾτ[ες
[....Jas εἰσίβαινειν [οσῆτις
[kat οπἸω[σήουν εδοκει ηλι [
ἱκιας με͵τεχων enmity
ἰδειος εἰν͵]αι" καὶ ξυνεπλη 4
[pwOncaly νηες αι πασΪαι] dle
[ka μαλίστα και εκατ[ο]ν" Ϊ
ἰτοξοτας] τε ew αἰυτας πὸ
[AAous και αἸκο[νἼτίιστας των
360 [τε Axapvavwly και τῶν a
ίλλων ἕενων εσεβιβαζον]
Col. viii. (οὶ. ἰχ.
και τὰ ἀλλα αἷς οἷον T HY 60. 4 4 lines lost.
kat ws e€ αναγκίαιου τε και 419 [πολΊλ[οι Kat ακοντισται 62. 2
τοι[αυτη]ς διανζοιας erro 420 [επιβ]ησονται Kat οχλος ὧι
365 ἰρισαντο] o de Νήῆικιας emer 5 ἱναυμαχιαν μεν trovoluple
21 (?) lines lost. [vo ev πίελαγει οὐκ] αν [ε
387 [cay ποὺ οἰκειαν πΊολ[ιν emt 61.1 χίρωμείθα δια] το βλαπτῖειν
[dev αθυμειν dle οἷν χρὴ οὐ 2 alv το] της επιστημήηΪς
[de πασχειν οπερ] οἱ αἵπειρο 425 τη] β[α)]ρυτητι των veloly [
390 [TaTo των ανθρωπων οἱ Tos] ev dle τηι εἸνθαδὶ ε] nvay [
[mpwros aywor odjadlev kacper|n| amo τῶν νείω]ν [
[Tes ἐπειτὰ δια] παντος ἰτην ἱπ]εφομαϊχιαι] mpolapopa
[eAmida του φοβου ομίοιαν cota ευρηται ὃ ἡμῖιν οσα 3
ταις ξυμῴφοραις εχοΊυσιν [a 3 430 xen αντ[ινα]υπηγηΐσαι Kale
395 [AA οσοι τε Αθηναιων) maple [π]ροῖς τας τ]ων] επαϊ[τ]ἷ[δΊα[ν
στε πολλων ηδὴ πολ]εΐμων [αἸυτ[ο][ς παἸχίυτητΊ]α[5] ὠπερ
ἰεμπειροι οντες Kat oot] - [μαλιστΊα [εβλ]απτίομεθ]α
[Tov ξυμμαχων ξυ]στίρα χίειρων σι]δίηγρων επιβολαι
1576.
400 [τε τῶν εν τοις] πολεμοις παρα Ϊ
405
410
475
480
485
[τευομενοῆι aer μνησθη
ἰλογων καὶ το της τυχης Kav Ϊ
[μεθ ἡμων ελπΊ]ισαϊ[ντἼες
[ornvat και ὡς αἸναμαχου
μενοι αἸξίίως του]δε του πλη
[θους οσοὴν [αυτοι] vuwy av
των εἸφορίατε π]αρεσκευα
Je[ 1ςᾳ [δε
[ἐπι] THe [του λιμεῖνος [σῆτε
ενΊειδο
[νοτ]ητίι προς Tov μ]ελλ[ο]ν
[Ta οἴχλίον των νεὼν εσῆε
[σθ]αι [και προς τὴν exe
ἰνω]ν [ἐπὶ των καταστρω
[ματ]ωϊν παρασκευὴν ots
ἴπροτερον εβλαπτομεθα])
Col. x.
8 lines lost.
[μ]η [ovres υμων της τε
φ[ω]νη[ς9] τίηι εἐπιστημῆηι
και ταῖν τροπων τῆι μι
μη[σ]εῖε εἸθα[υμαζεσθε
[κατα [την Ελλαδα και της ap
χίης της ἡμετερᾶς οὐκ ε
λασῖσον κατα To ὠφελει
G3. 2
σθαι: es [re το φοβερον τοις
υπηκοΐοις καὶ TO αδικει
σθαι [πολυ πλεον μετειχε
τε ὠστίε κοινωνοι μονοι 4
ελευζθερως μιν τῆς ap
FRAGMENTS OF EXTANT CLASSICAL AUTHORS
435
440
450
523
525
536
540
169
alt σχησου)σι τὴν παλιν a
ViaKpovotly της προϊσπεσου Ϊ
σης [vews| nv τὰ επι το[υ͵τοιϊς
οἱ [ἐπιβαται] υπουργωσι ες 4
τοῖυτο yap δΊη ηναγκασί με]
Oa [ωστῆε [πεζ]ομαίχ]ειν ἀπὸ
τίων νεὼν και TO μὴτε
[αυἸτου9] ανα[κροήυεσθαι μητ ε
Κεινΐους) εαν) ὠφελιμον
φαινετα[ι αἴλλως tle καὶ τῆς
[γ]1η5 πλίη]ν olcov αν οἿ mego[s]
[μων [επ]εχίηι πολεμίας
[ovens | ὧν χίρη) με
[μνημενο]υς διαμαχε
[σθαι οσον aly δυϊνησΊῖθε
63. I
[κ]αὶ pln εξωθεισθαΐι es αυτΊην
adda ξυμπεἸσ[οἸυσηῖς νἾηι
[vews μή mpolrepoly] age
[ουν ἀπολυεσθαι η] το[υ]ς a
12 lines lost
Col. xi.
5 lines lost.
[υμων νυν ἐσομενοι] Καὶ πίε = 64. 2
[for τοις AOnvaios| εἰσι Kale
[νηες Kat υπολοιπος] πολις Ϊ
10 lines lost.
σαΐμενος evOus exedeve 65. 1
πλίηρουν Tas ναὺς τωι
be [Γυλιππωι καὶ τοις Συρα
κοσίοις παρὴν μεν αἰσθα
νεσίθαι ορωσι Kat αὐτὴν
τὴν πίαρασκευην οτι ναὺ
μαχησίουσιν οἱ «Αθηναίοι
πρ[οηἸγγίελθη ὃ autos και
170 THE OXYRHYNCHUS PAPYRI
χης ov[res] δικίαιως av ἡ επιβουΐλη των σιδηρων
την vuy μίη καταπροΐδι 545 ΧχειϊρΊων [kat προς τε Ta ad
[δ]οτίε κ]αταϊφρονησαντ)ες λα εἰξ]ηρτίυσαντο ὡς εκαστα
δὲ Κορινίθιων τε ovs| πολ Kall προς TovTo Tas yap πρῶ 2
490 [Alaxe[s] νενικίηκατε klae [Σ᾿ κἸε pas [Kal TNS νεως av@ επι
ων πολίυ κατεβυρσωσαν οπως
[λιωτίων [ovd ἀαντιστη]ναι 550 αποϊλισ͵θαϊνοι και μη ἐχοι
[ovders ews ἡκμαζε το] ν[α]υ
_[rexov μιν} ηἰξίωσε a Fee il [7 χειρ επιβαλ
[μυνασθε αὑτους και δ]ειξία λομενη: Kale] εἰπειδὴ παν 3
495 [TE OTL καὶ μετ ασθενΊειας τα ετϊοιμα ny ἱπαρεκελεὺ
[και ξυμῴφορων ἡ υμετεῖρα σαΐντο εκειν])οις. οἱ TE
[επιστημὴ κΚρεισσΊων ἱεστ)ιν 555 στρατηγοι και [1λιππος.
ετΐερας ευτυχουσ͵ηϊς ρωμΊ]ης και ελεῖξα]ν το[ι]αδίε οτι μεν 66.1
τίους τε] «θηναιο]υς ἰυμων] 64.1 [κἸαλα [τα] πίρ]οειρίγασμενα και
500 [madly [av και Tade υπομι] ulmelp καΐλ]ων τίων μελλον
[μνησκω) o7[t ovre να]υΐς ev [Tov o aywv εσται w Supa]
[Tolls νεωσίοικοις addas o 560 κοσίιοι Kat ξυμμαχοι οι
[μοιας Talijode [ovre οπλιτων τε πίολλοι δοκειτε ἡμιν
[ηληκίῆαν υπείλιπετε εἰ τε [edelvale οἹνῖΐδε yap αν av
505 [ξυμ]βησ[ε]τίαι τι αλλο ἡ TO [Tay ουτω πρίοθυμως αν
ἰκρατειν}] υἱμιν τους τε ενθα [τελαβήεσθε kale εἰ τις μὴ ε
[de πολεμι]ουΐς evOus em εκει 565 [me οσον] Set] nob[ytar onpa
[va πλἸευϊσοἸμίενους Kat Tous [vouperv] AOnivaiovs yap 2
9 lines lost. [es την χωραν τηνδε ελ]
[Oovras π]ρωτοῖν μεν ene
ἴτης Σικελ]ια[ς καταδουλω
Col. xii. Col. xiii.
570 [cet] επ[ει]τία εἰ] καϊτορθωσει 66. 2 [ἰευρ]ησίουσι πως ov σφαλουσι 67. 2
[av] και τηϊς ΠεἸλ[οποννησου [τε] τας [vavs και ev σφισιν
[τε] και τηΐς αλλης Εἴλλαδος [αυἸτοις παῖΐῖντες οὐκ εν τῶι
[και] αἰρίχηΐν την] ηδη [μεγισ 625 ἰαυτων τρόπωι [κινουμε
την] τίων τε πριν Εἴλληνων [vol] ταραξίονται emer Kat 3
575 [Kat τ]ωΐν] νίυν κἸε[κἸτίημε ἴτω]. πληθίει των νεῶν
1376.
605
610
615
620
[vous mpwrot αἸνθίρωπων v
ποστΊ]αντίες τωι vavTiKat
[
ἰωιπεὶρ πανΐίτα κατεσχον
[
κ[ησεως προσγεγενημε
τας μ]εν [νενικηκατε vav
18 lines lost.
νης αὐτῶι TO Κρατίστους
εἰιναι εἰ τους κρατιστους ενι
κηΐσαμεν διπλασια] εκαΐστου
ἡ [eAms ta δὲ ποΐλλα προς
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
Tas επιχειρησΊεις ἡ με
γιστη ελπΊ[ς μεγ])στην
καὶ τὴν πΊ]ροθυμια[ν] παίρε
χέται Ta Tle της αἰνἼτίιμι
μησεως αἸυτων της ma
packeun|s ηΐμω]ν ταῖι
μεν ηἡμε]τερζωι] τροπῶι
ξυνηθη τε] εστίι Kale οὐκ ava
ρμοστοι m\pos εκ[ασΊτον |
[
[αυτων εἐσομεθα οι] ὃ επίει
ἱ
[
[7
[7
[
[
[
[
[xe
dav πολλοι μεν οπλιται])
ἐπὶ των] καϊταστρωματων
apa το] καθεΐστηκος wat
πολλοι δεῖ ακοντισται
χερσαιοι] ws ειπίειν A
Kapvaves] τε και alAAoL ε
mt vavs αναβα]ντες οι
ovd ows καθεζομενους]
pn To βελος αφειναι)
67. 1
2
630
635
640
645
650
655
660
FRAGMENTS OF EXTANT CLASSICAL AUTHORS
oluk ὠφελίησονται εἰ τις
[
]
[ν]α[υἹμαχη[ σε. πεφοβηται
]
]
]
λοντα[ι] ἐσονταῖι pacra ὃ es
171
k[at] rode υμίων οτι οὐκ ἰσαις
ev ολιγίω)] yap [πολλαι ἀργοτε
pat μεῖν es το dpay τι ὧν βου
] το βλαπτίεσ]θαίι αφ ων. ....
[η]μ[ν παρεσκίευασται το
[de αληθεστατον γνωτε
ἱεξ ὧν nl\ues οἰομεθα σα
[pos πεῖπυ . . σθαι υπερβαὰλ
ἱλοντων γ]αρ αυτίοις τῶν
ἰκακων kale βιαζζομενοι
[uo της π]αρουΐσης αποριας
[es απονοια]ν καίθεστηκα)]
[ov ov παρἸ]ασκζευης πιστει
μαλλον ἡ τ]υχίης αποκιν
ἰδυνευσει] ουτίως omT@s
ἰδυνανταῖι [uly ἡ [βιασαμε
[vor εκπλευ]σωσιϊν ἡ κατα
[ynv μετα τουτο την ἀπὸ
[xopynow| ποιώϊνται ὡς
[rwv γε π͵]αροντων [ουκ αν
[πραξον͵τες χειρίον προς
[ου]ν [ατ]αξιαν τε ἰτοιαυτὴν
[κ]αι τυχὴην αἰνδ]ρίων eavrny
[παρ]αδεδωκυιαΐν πολεμι
[ωτατων opyn πίροσμει
[ξωμεν: Kat νομίισωμεν
[apa μ]εν νἱομιμωτατον
[εναι πίρος τους εναντιοὺς
οἱ av ως ἐπι τιμωρια τοῦ
προσπίεσοντος δικαιως
ἴωσι αἰποπλησαι τὴς γνὼω
[ens το θυμουμενον apa]
68.1
172 THE OXYRHYNCHUS ΡαᾶΑβυΥκ 1
[δ εχθρ]ους αἰμυνασθαι exye
[νησοἹμενον ἡμιν Kat τὸ
665 [λεγο]με[ν]οῖν που ηδιστον
[εἰν]αι" ως ᾽δ εχθροι και ε 2
7 lines lost.
Col. xx. Col. xxi.
1 line lost. [a]AA εξελ(θοντας nbn may 73.1
675 [ἀνείλοντο και ἀποπλευ 72. 1 [ra]s ΣυρακοϊσἼ)ιους Kat τίους
σαντες προς την πολ͵]ιν τρο ξυ[μ]μαχ[ο]υς τας τε οἶδους
[παιον ἐστησαν a dle AOn. 2 am[otkodo|unoat Kat τία στε
[yao vio μεγεθους)] των 725 νοπορὰ τῶν χωριωΐν προ
[παροντων κακων νεϊκ[ ρ]ῶ φθασαντας φυλασσέΐιν
680 [μ]εν πίερι ἡ των νανυαγι οἱ δὲ ξυν[ε]γιγνωσκον μεν 2
[ων] ovd εἵπενοουν airy και avto οὐχ] ἡσσον ταυτία
ἰσαι] αναιϊρεσι]ν [τ]ης dle] νυ EKELVOU α και εδοκει TO[L
[κτος] ε[βο]υἰλ]ευοντο evOus 730 [η]τεὰα εἰναι" τους ὃ ανθἤρω
[αναχωρΊ]ειν: ΖΔημοσθε 3 [πο]υς αρτι ασμενοὺυς απο |
685 [νης de Νικ[ι]Ία προσελθων [τ|ε ναυμαχιας peyadns [πε
[yvopny εἸπ[ο]ιειτο] πληρω [παυμενους Kat apa eop |
ἰσανταὶς εἶτι] τὰς [λοιπας To τίης olvons ετυχε yap αὐτοις
[velov βι[α]σασ[θ]αι nv dv 735 Ἤρακλει ravtny τὴν ημῖε
[νων]ται apa εαΤι] Tov εκ ραν θυσια ovoa ov δοκειϊν ἃ
690 [πλουὴν λεγων ort πλειους padiws εθελησαι ὑπακου Ϊ
[ae λοΊιπται νηες χρησιμαι σαι: vTo yap Tov περιχαροὺς Ϊ
[σφισιν] ἡ τίοι]ς πολεμίοις" ἢ τῆς νικης προς ποσιν τε Ϊ
ἴσαν γα]ρ [τῇοις μεν Αθηναιοις 740 τραφθαι τους πολλοὺς ev Ϊ
[περιλοιποι ὡς εξηκον τηι E€opTnl και παντα
695 [Ta τῇοις de πολεμιοις ε μαλλον ελπιξειν av σῴφαϊν
[λασσο]υς ἡ πεντηκοντα" πε[ θέσθαι avrovs ἡ οπῖλα
και £v]yxwpouvtos ΝΙικιο[υ) 4 λαβοντας εν τωι παροντι Ϊ
[Tye γνίωμηι και βουλο[μ]ε 745 εἰξἸελθειν. ws δὲ τοις apxoviot 3
νῶν πληροὺυν αὐτῶν oft τίαυ]τα λογιζομενοις εφαι
700 ναυται οἰυκ)] ηθελον εσβίαι [ve]ro αἀπορα [κ͵αι οὐκ επειθε [
1876. FRAGMENTS OF EXTANT CLASSICAL AUTHORS 173
veilv| δια [το] καταπεπλη [ avtous 0 Εἱρμοκρατης avtos
ἰχθαι] ze] tne [no]on και μὴ [ [emt] τουτοις rade p[nXa]va
[av ετι] οἰεσθαι κρατησαι" 750 [ται δεδιως μη οἱ AOnva
και [or] μεν ws κατα ynv [or] καθ novyiav φθασωσι ev
ο τη]. νυκτι διελθοντες Ta
705 αναϊχ])ωρησί! α Πν[τ]ες ηδη as
ξυμπία]ντες την γ[ν]ωμη
εἰχον᾽ Eppoxparns de o 3.1
[χαἹλεπωτατὰ Tov χωριων
πεμπει των ETALPOV τι
Sy, 755 vas τίων εἸαυτου peta i
υρακ[οσἸ ος5] vmovoncas av ἘΠ ον ταν κῶν αἱ
τῶν τὴν [δι]ανοιαν καὶ vo
; vaiwy ἰστρατΊ]οπεδον ἢ
710 μισας [δΊεινον εἰναι εἰ τὸ
ν[κα ξ[υνεσκ)]οταζε' οἱ προσ [
ΠῚ σπβάτια κατα γὴν ἐλασαΐντες εξ] οσου τις εμεῖλ
απίοχωρησασα και καθε
[Ὡζομεν[η πον της ΣΊκελι
as βουλ[η]σεῖται] αυθις σφι
760 Xe αἰκουσεσθαι] και ανακα
λεσαμενοι {τιν]αΐς ws ον
τες τῶν Αθηναιων επῖι
715 [ot] τον πἰοήλ[ζε]μον ποιεισθαι ΡΝ ws ven ΤΣ τῶ NG
[εἸσηγ ειτ[αι] ελθων τοις κ[ια] διαγγελοι των ενΐδο
[ev τεἤλ[ε!ι ουσι ws ov χρεῶν 765 θεν εκελευον φραξειν ἷ
αἸποχώρησαι της νυκτ[οὴς Νικια pn απαγειν της νἷυ
[α
τῳ περιΐδειν λεγων κτος TO στρατευμα ws Sv
720 [talura a Kat [αυτωι εδοκει Wieainak: uae σον gules
Col. xxviii. Col. xxix.
11 lines lost, 21 lines lost.
780 ἰκοσιοι ev τ]ουτίωι προεὰλ 78.5 840 [σαντες προς To πεδιον 79. 5
[Oovre]s την διοδῖον την 7 μαλλοῖν οἱ Αθηναιοι nv
[ev τῆωι προσθε αἰπετειχι ] λισαντίο τηι δὲ υστε
[¢ov nv] δὲ λοφίος καρτε [placa mplovywpovy και οι
[pos και εκ]ατερα[θεν αὐτου [Συραϊκίοσιοι προσεβαλλον
785 [χαραδρ]α κρ[ημνωδὴης ε 845 τε πανταχη avTos κυκλω]
4 lines lost. και πίολλους κατετραυμα
79° [ξυμμίαχων αὐτοὺς ἱππεις 6 τιζ[οὴν Kale εἰ μεν επιοι
[και αἸκοϊντι]στίαι οντες πολ εν οἱ Αθηΐναιοι υπεϊχωρίουν
[λο]ε εκατεροι εἶκωλυον ge δ᾽ αἸναχαίροιεν επ]ε[κ]είεντο
174
795
800
879
880
885
903
908
910
THE OXYRHYNCHUS PAPYRI
[kat εἸσηκοντιζον ἴτε Kat
παριππευον" Kat χίρο
νον plev ποίλ]υν εμαχ[οὴν [
je «4. θηναιοίι} εἐπειτ a
ον 1αν παλι[ν] ες
[
[
το o
[ve
[ro avtlo στρίατοπεδοὶν
και τα εἸπιτηΐδεια οὐκετι
[ομοιως] εἰχοῖν ov yap ετι
18 lines lost.
Col. xxx.
10 lines lost.
[avrn οὐκ emt Κα]ταϊνης 80. 2
[Tar στρατευματ]ι αἷλλα
[karla [To ετε]ρῖον μἹεροῖς τῆς
ΓΣἤκελιας τὸ προς Καμίαρι
[vav καὶ. [Γεῖλαῖν και] ταῖς ταὺν
τη πολεις] κίαε Ελλ]ηνίιδας
[kat Bap\Bapojus κα]υΐϊσαν 3
[res ovy mupa πολλΊ]α εχαΐρουν
[ev τηι vuKTL κΊαι aluTols
[ovov φιλει και πα͵σι σΐτρα
ἴτοπεδοις μαλιστα dle [rows
13 lines lost.
[x@ple aula de Tye ew age 5
κνουνταῖι ὁμῶς προς τὴν
θαλαϊσΊσαν [kat εσβαντες
[es] την οδοῖν την Εἷλωρι
[νη]ν [ΚαἸλουμενην erro
[ρευοῖντο [omws ἐπειδὴ ye
ἰνοιντο] επὶι τῶ ποτάμω Tw
[ΚακἸ)υπαρίει παρὰ τον πὸ
[τ]Ἰαΐμ]ον [covey avw δια τῆς
μεϊσ]ογειας ηλπιζον yap
[και tous [Σικελοὺς ταυτη
850 [και μαλιστα) τοις [voTa
[τοις] προσπιπτΊονϊτες
[εἰ πως κἸΊατία
[νοι πᾷν Τὸ στρατευμα go
[β]ησειαῖν καὶ emt πολυ μεν
855 [τοιουτωι τ]ροπίω)ι ἀντει PF
[xov ot AOnva:o. emelira
12 lines lost.
Col. ἘΣΣΙ:
7 lines lost.
926 [ves exeXevoy εν] τοΐυτω
[δ᾽ ol Supaxoor [και] οἱ ξυΐϊμ
[μ]αχοι ὡς ἡ τε [nluepa [ε
γένετο καὶ εγνωσαν τουΐς
930 AOnvatovs απεληλυθο
Tas εν ally {ea ole ἱπΊολλοι
τον Τυλιππὸν εἰιἾχον exov
τα αφεϊναι τους Αθηϊναι
ous’ και κατα Taxos διω
935 κοντίες nt ov χαλεπῶς ἢ
σθανοῖντο κεχωρηκοτας
καταλίαμβανουσι περι αρισ
του wpaly καὶ ὠσπερ προσεμι
gav tolls μετα του Anpocbe
940 vous υσίτεροις τ ουὐσι καὶ σχο
[λαιτερον και ατακτοτερον)
Ἴ χωρουσίιν ὡς τῆς νῦκτος
1 tore ξυνεταρίαχθησαν
[elvOus προσπεσίοντες εμα
945 [χ]οντο καὶ οἱ ἱππίεις] τῶν
[ΣυἹρακοσιων εν[εκυκλουν
[7
Ο] τε patoy av[rovs] διχα
βἸρ[ αἸχίυ] τρίεψα]μίε
6
81. I
2
1376.
ous [pletTlemeupav amav
915. τησεσ[θ]α[ι εἸπίειδηὴ de] <[ye 6
vovTo emt] Tot [ποταμωι
[elupoy καἰ] evrar[Ba] φυλα [|
kn{v| τίιν]α των ΣυραϊκοσἼιων
aol. xxi.
15 lines lost.
984 μίαλλον nv eTL ἡ προς τῶν 81.5
985 AlO@nvawv και apa φειδω
τε τις ἐγίγνετο ἐπ εὐπρὰ
γίιαι ηδὴ σαῴφει pn προ
αἰναλωθηναι τωι και ε
νἱομιζον και ὡς Tav7n τὴ
995. idea καταδαμασαμενοι
ληψεσθαι avrovs ἐπειδὴ 82.1
γοίΐυν δὶ ἡμερας βαλλοντες
πανίταχοθεν τους AOnvat
οὺς Klar Evppaxovs ewpov
995 ἤδη [τεταλαιπωρημενοὺυς
τοις τίε τραυμασι᾿ καὶ THL
αλληΐι κακωσει κηρυγμα
ποιουῖνται Τυλιππος και
οἱ Συρίακοσιοι και ξυμμα
1000 χοὶ πίρωτον μεν τῶν νὴ
σιωτωΐν εἰ τις βουλεται ε
π᾿ ελευΐθεριαι ὡς σῴας am
[εν]αι" κίαι απεχωρησαν τι
7 lines lost.
τοι: τίε βιαιως μητε δεσμοις μήτε 2
τίη)ς [ἰαναγκαιοτατης ev
δειαζι διαιτης και παρεδὸ 3
σαν ἴοι παντες σφας αὑτοὺς
1015 εξακ[ισχιλιοι καὶ TO apyv
FRAGMENTS OF EXTANT CLASSICAL AUTHORS
175
[ndn ovrjas Kale ξυνηγον
[es ταυτο το de Niiixtoly στρα 3
9590 [τευμα απειχεῖ εν τίωϊε πρὸ
ἴσθε Klas [πεν]τηκονΐτ]α ora
[ἰδιους θ]αϊσσοὴν τε γαϊρ) ο
[Nexials nye] νομι ζίωϊν ov
[ro υπ]ομενε[εν ev τῶι τῖίοι
955 [ο]υτίωι] exovrTas εἰναι κΊαι
[μ]αχεσθαι Fortes: αἷλ
[Ala To ὡς TaxloTa ὑποχίω
ρ]ειν TooavTa paxoplevous
οσῖα αναγκαζονται: ὁ δε An 4
960 [μο͵σθενης ετυγχανε Tle
[τα πλ]ειω ev πονὼ ξυνίεχε
[orep|o ὧν δια το ὕστερω [ava
[x@pouv|re avt@t πρωτα[ι] επί!
[κεισθαι] τους πολεμίους" καὶ [TO
963 ἴτε yvous] τους Συρακοσίους διωΐ
κοντας οἷν προυχώρει par
[Aov ἡ es] μαχην ξυνετασ
ew]s
[cero |]. . -]]] ἐνδιατρειβων
176 ᾿ς THE OXYRHYNCHUS PAPYRYI
plov [0 εἰχον amav κατε
θεσαῖν εσβαλοντες ες ac
Biss πὰ Ὁ Pr. 5 Fr. 4.
JOpamp| 1:9] \ Jreal
aud . [ Jeez ].[ Ἰατεῖ
Jou ler[ val ]- a]
]. ov. [ Pee Jol ke. τί
5 Jou[ Bulbs | 5 Ἰυτί 5 oem
]-[ In . [ le
Jel
Br: Fr. 6 Bry Prog
Ja . [ | ]-[ al
] « σοι le lea) καὶ
6 Jae Ἰραΐ δ
Jay ] 1.1 ol
5 Jo. [ 5 le ier ae (es | papas |
Ετ 9 ἘΣ 10, Fram Pre
J. ¢ 1. Ιν΄ .
Ἰπνΐ Ir. [ Jrac . 1 Ἰθεί.]
ἴα ἐς: [ oes τοτί [ ] ]
Ἰστί 16 Ἱκτί Jn
Brot ΠῚ τῇ: Ετι 15. Εν, τό.
Jal Ja . [ Jov| Ἰανε
1τί Ἰτω προ Jral Jrox πὶ
fetid Ἰαρί Ἰτιτί ZI
A. |
Fr. 17. Fe. τ. Br. ng; Fr. 20,
}-[ }-[ [1.1 Ἰδὶ
Ἰσοῖ τι καθ ΠῚ
]-[ I al ]- up
1876, FRAGMENTS OF EXTANT CLASSICAL AUTHORS 177
Ἐν, 21. Ετ: 22: Fr. 23. Fr.:24.
αἱ 12} Jnl Jaral
aul eal J. τὶ Ἰσγεῖ
ea οἱ 1. γί ral I¢
Fr. 25. Fr. 26. Fre 29, Fr, 28.
ea Ἰτονΐ Ἰπολί Jaul
Ἰνεῖ Ἰαπαί level Ἰν epyar τῃ. [
Ἰηρῖ 7} end of column.
Pr, 29. Brae: ΒΕ ΟῚ; Fr 845.
Jel Jal Ἰτειΐ Jel
Jeau[ pf Τί Zt
Pr 33. Fr. 34. Fr, 35. Pr. 36, ΕἸ 572
le Jol Nal Ja. [ Jel
le Jal Ἰχεᾳὶ Ἰώ Ἰυβοιαΐ
Ετ. 48. Fr. 39. Fr. 40. Er 47:
Jroreo[ Ἰε Ἰτονα» Ἰκηνΐ
end of column.
Fr. 42. τοῖς 45. Fr. 44. Fr. 45.
Ἰικ .1 αἱ peel ΠῚ
3. Τυρρηνοι: Τυρσηνοι MSS., edd.
: 4. τῶι πεζωι: τῶν πεζῶν MSS. The dative (instrumental) is meant to balance τῷ ἄλλῳ
στρατοπέδῳ (Il. 5-6); but τροπὴν ποιεῖσθαι with the gen. occurs in ii. 19. 2, and the dative
may well be a mere slip ; cf. ἐναντία] for ev arta] in 1. 931.
g. και: 8. ACEFGM, edd.; om. B.
10, yap: μὲν γάρ MSS. μέν is superfluous, as is remarked by the scholiast, there being
no answering δέ but another μέν in 1]. 13.
14. mal[re ηδη : so, with the remark δὴ γράφεται, B; παντὶ δή ACEFGM, edd. ἤδη has
already occurred in I. 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 ἤδη
and δὴ arises in 1. 19, where Π, though imperfect, favours δή against ἤδη of the MSS., and
again in 1. 948.
17. στρ[ατῆειας : so edd., following the correction of Aem. Portus; στρατιᾶς MSS. Cf.,
however, 1. 184, where II has στρατια and most MSS. στρατεία. No regularity was observed
by scribes in the use of these words,
N
178 THE OXYRHYNCHUS PAPYRI
19. δ]: ηδ]η (MSS.) is too long and Gertz had already conjectured δή here. ἤδη, which
occurred recently in 1. 9 and by an error in 1. 14 (cf. note ad /oc.), is less appropriate.
ομ[οτ]ρο[ ro} s| : ὁμοιοτρόποις BCFGe?, edd., ὁμοιοτρόπαις AE, ὁμοιοτρόπως MG suprascr.
The surface of the papyrus is much damaged and the supposed po very uncertain, but
op{otor[po(zro)|{s] and ομ[οιοἸτρ[οποἾ [9] are unsuitable. ὁμοιότροπος occurs once elsewhere in
Thue. (iii. το. 1), but not ὁμότροπος. Herodotus, however, speaks of ἤθεα ὁμότροπα (viii. 144).
22-3. vavs και] ιπ[πΊους και [μ]εγεζθη εχ]ουσαιΐς : ναυσὶ καὶ ἵπποις καὶ μεγέθει ἐχούσαις MSS.,
except B (ναῦς καὶ ἵππους) C (μεγέθη) M (μεγέθη suprascr.) [3 (μεγέθη) and 4" (ναῦς καὶ ἵππους
καὶ μεγέθη αὐχούσαις. Duker’s emendation ἰσχυούσαις for ἐχούσαις is accepted by Hude and
Stuart Jones ; supports the simpler ἐχούσαις 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. povoly: or, less probably, σωθηναῖι, omitting er: in the next line with F.
45. kadvooly[or: so C, followed by Hude and Stuart Jones; κωλύσωσι ABEFGM. Cf.
1247. 23, which agrees with C in reading λήσουσι, not λήσωσι, after ὅπως. ͵
49. [ra: so ACEFGM, edd.; om. Β. τα is necessary to fill the lacuna.
58. φοβ[ο]υ : so CG, edd.; φόβωι ABEFM.
63. aveveykew: ἐνεγκεῖν MSS. except M, which has ἐπενεγκεῖν owing to the preceding
ἐπενέχθησόμενον. For ἀναφέρειν in the sense of ‘sustain’ in Thuc. cf. iii, 38. 3 αὐτὴ δὲ τοὺς
κινδύνους ἀναφέρει.
ἣ 64--5. αὐτίων αἰτιοῖι : so ACEFGM, Hude, Stuart Jones ; αἴτιοι αὐτῶν (αὐτῶν suprascr.) B,
lassen.
66. There is not room at the end of the line for [« vo των emer], the reading of ABEFM
and edd. ὑπὸ is also omitted by C and some of the later MSS.
67. em mo[Alv: πολύ MSS.
68. The supposed traces of [δ]ε ag{sos are very slight, and the supplement at the end of
the line somewhat long, for the € comes under μ of Oavp[acOyce|; but no variant here is
known, and neither ny [8] αξι[ος nor nv [alfto[s suits the vestiges. For final » represented by
a stroke cf. ll. 679 and 687.
72-4. The words των ad\dov . . . adda καὶ are omitted in M owing to homoioteleuton.
πολλίων: so ABCFGM, edd. ; πόλεων E.
76-7. μετα Κορίνθιων : so ABCEFM, edd. ; μετὰ τῶν Κορ. G.
80. προκιν]δυνευσαι : προκινδυνεῦσαί τε MSS.; but τε spoils the construction and is
bracketed by Hude, following Kriiger. . Since the v of δὺν comes under the final ν of ov in
]. 78 and above the final v of vavrixov in |. 81, it is probable, though by no means certain,
that re was omitted. The supposed ὃ of δυν is very doubtful, the vestiges suiting 7 better.
81. pleya pepos: so MSS., Stuart Jones ; Hude brackets μέρος with Kriiger and Stahl,
but Π must have had it.
83-4. πολιν ταυΐτην : so ACEFGM, edd.; B has ταύτην πόλιν with B and a superscribed.
85. [πλην ye τοῖν: soB; ACEFGM, edd. insert δή after ye, but neither | [wAqv ye δὴ το]υ
nor [πλην | ye δὴ του suits the size of the lacuna, since ξ of ξ[υγμίπαντος is under the € of
Elude in 1. 84. ᾿
86. After ξύμπαντος the MSS. have λόγου τοῦ which is not at all satisfactory. Heilmann
conjectured ξυλλόγου τοῦ, Kriiger ὄχλου τοῦ, which is accepted by Hude but not by Stuart
Jones. λογοῦ or oxAov is rather short for the lacuna, which has room for six letters before
του εν], but é[u|u|mavros ξυϊλλογου is unlikely and [Aoyov τοῦ ev twde| ται ποί inadmissible, although
it is not quite certain that ro belongs to rede rather than to τωι.
go. Σικελιαν]: so MSS., Stuart Jones; Hude adopts Kriiger’s conjecture Σικελίᾳ ‘The
τ of τε comes under ap of yap in 1. 89, and the reading of the MSS. yields τό letters where
1. 89 has 144, so that Σικελιαι even without iota adscript would be long enough ; but in the
φ
1376. FRAGMENTS OF EXTANT CLASSICAL AUTHORS 179
absence of very strong reasons for the dative (cf. Stahl’s note) Σικελίαν is more probable; cf.
ll. 94—5, note.
91. το]ς : so ABCEGM, edd. ; τούς F.
93. εἤλθζοντες : so ABCEFM, edd.; om. G.
94. [ξυνδι]ασω corres : so B (suprascr.) E (-σωισ-), edd.; ξυνδιασώσαντες ABCFM.
94-5. Συρακουσΐας : 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 +. The objection to ἐπὶ Συρακούσας is that since ἐπολέμησαν applies to both sides ἐπὶ 5.
ἐπολ. must mean not ‘ made war against S.’ but ‘ came to S. for the war’, which is awkward
if ἐπὶ Σικελίαν is retained in 1. 90, where I’s reading is unfortunately doubtful.
99. εκαστΊοις : so AB (suprascr.) CEFGM, Hude, Stuart Jones; ἕκαστοι B and Paris.
1638, which reading if retained would require ecyov in ]. 101, as in several of the late MSS.
103. Δωίριεας: so MSS. and cf. Il. 133 and 191; Δωριᾶς Hude, Stuart Jones. This
line seems to have been unusually long owing to a desire not to divide Supaxocvovs 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 Svpaxoauous
does not suit 1]. 104-14.
109. Ἐστι]αιης : so ACEF, edd. ; Ἑστιαιεῖς BGMc?.
TIO. ἘσίτιαιἾαν οἰκυυϊνἼτεῖς : so MSS.; these words are bracketed by Hude, following
Kriiger. That the fragment containing the doubtful eo and oc in the next line is rightly
placed is not certain.
121-2. The fragment containing a of αἷπο and 6 of ὅ[ριοι is not certainly to be placed
here. M omits καὶ before Αν]δίριοι and C before Tyi{or.
Tyo: so ACEFGM ; τΤήνιοι B, edd.; cf. p. 160. The traces of a stroke after 7 suit ε
better than ν, and the line is already rather long. |
125. ovtes φοίρου: so ACEFGM, edd.; B places φόρου before οὐχ ὑποτελεῖς.
127. ξυνεσπίοντο: so ABCEFGM, Stuart Jones; ξυνείποντο Hude with three of the
late MSS.
130. The supposed stop after Καρυστ[ιω]ν is doubtful.
τ τ ee les ye: Ἴωνές ye B,.edd. ; Ἴωνές τε ACEFGM. γε is right, but Ἴωνες could
be dispensed with, being a repetition of what has been stated in ]. 128; cf. notes on ll. 142
and 152. Moreover if the letter preceding es was v, and not a, δ, or A, 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. _Ia»|es ye is satisfactory enough by itself, but
it is difficult to fill up the lacuna. as, i.e. ὡς, due to the preceding ὅμως, is hardly long
enough.
139. κτισασι : SOCEFMB corr. g?, edd.; κτήσασι ABGc?.
Βοίωϊτοις: 80 MSS.; Βοιωτοῖς (rois) Lindau, followed by Hude and Stuart Jones.
Bod wrors| τοις iS too long.
142. κατ[αἸντικρυ Βοιωτοις ; So Paris. 1636; καταντικρὺ Βοιωτοὶ Βοιωτοῖς ABCEFGM, Stuart
Jones, καὶ ἄντικρυς Βοιωτοὶ Βοιωτοῖς Hude, adopting a conjecture of Bohme. The meaning of
καταντικρύ here has been much disputed. πΠ’5 reading apparently connects it with Βοιωτοῖς,
i.e. ‘opposite to’ or ‘against ’, not ‘ outright’ or ‘on the other hand’. But the omission
of Βοιωτοί is probably a mere error; cf. ]. 152, note, and p. 162.
144. κατα: SO AEF; κατ᾽ CG, xara τό BM and some of the late MSS., Hude, Stuart
Jones. The angular sign at the end of the line is not certain, but cf. 1. 141.
146-7. E omits o . . . Κυθηριοι owing to homoioteleuton.
149. μ[ε]γ : so ABCEFM (μετά), edd. ; pera τῶν G.
150. emehepov: 50 Β; ἔφερον ACEFGM, edd. The supposed stop is uncertain.
152. Awpms Awpievot: OM. Δωριῆς MSS. Since Δωριῆς has already been applied to the
N 2
180 THE OXYRHYNCHUS PAPYRI
Rhodians in |. 145 it is unnecessary here, but Δωριῆς ἐπὶ Δωριέας occurs in |. 191, and there
are several similar antitheses in this chapter; cf. notes on |. 142, where the divergence
between II and the MSS. is just the contrary to that found here, and 133, where Ἴωνες is
repeated in the same sentence by the MSS. (and perhaps 11), much as Δωριῆς here.
157. τε (corr. from δὲ by I’): re ACEFM, edd., δέ B.
162. κατειργίομενοι : so ABEFM, edd.; καταργόμενοι C, corr. c%.
164. ot Αθη]ναιοι : so ABEFGM, Stuart Jones; om. οἱ C, Hude. That M had o is not
quite certain, but if it was omitted there were only 11 letters where |. 163 has 12 and
165 13.
175-6. εκ Ναυπακτοῖυ: so B, Stuart Jones ; ἐν Ναυπάκτῳ ACEFGM, ἐν Ναυπάκτῳ ἐκ
Ναυπάκτου Hude following Classen.
184. στῆρατια : so EF; στρατεία ABCGM, edd.; cf. 1. 17, note.
186. [μεν ov]: so ACEFG, Hude; μὲν yap od B, Stuart Jones, μὲν οὖν M. _There is no
room for γάρ in the lacuna if the following τῆς is rightly read, and μεν yalp ov [τ]ης ξ]υ[μ]μαχ[]
does not suit the vestiges so well, besides yielding a line of 23 letters.
188. [Λακεδαιμονίων [. .|.] re: before re is what looks like either ὦ ΟΥ̓ o with a line
above it, or else τ or y with a stroke through it, and probably there was a correction. ‘The
MSS. read Λακεδαιμονίων re.
190. ὠφελίας : so B (ὠφελείας) a” marg., edd. ; om. ACEFGM owing to homoioteleuton;
cf. ll. 602—4,. note.
191. Awpteas: so MSS.; cf. note on I. 103.
193. The paragraphus below this line is uncertain.
195-6. αει [πολε]μιουΐς : so ACEFGM, edd. (αἰεί) ; λειπομένους Β.
197-8. ειωθ]οτεῖς ilevar: so B, avoiding a hiatus, followed by Bekker; ἰέναι εἰωθότες
ACEFGM, Hude, Stuart Jones. One of the dots over « is visible.
223-4. Ἐγείσταιοι: so ACEFGM; ’Eyeoraioi re B, Hude, Stuart Jones. The exact
position of this fragment is uncertain and Ἐγείσίταιοι re Or Ἐγεΐσταιοι re can also be read, with
emnyalyor[ro | και Σικελιωτων in 1]. 224-5. Σικελῶν is the reading of B, preferred by Hude and
Stuart Jones, Σικελιωτῶν of ACEFGM. Whichever arrangement be adopted, Π seems to
have agreed once with B against the rest, once with the rest against B, rather than with or
against B in both cases where this MS. differs from the others.
226. Ἰυρρηνων: cf. 1. 3.
234. ka: |. και.
οἰ κ]οζυντες]: so ABEFGM, edd. ; οἱ οἰκοῦντες C.
235. per [av|rous : so BCEGMf?, edd.; pera τούς AF.
236. ησυχαζοντων : so ABEFGM, edd. ; om. C.
267-79. The division of lines in both fragments of Col. vi is quite uncertain.
277. o[addos: so B, Stuart Jones; ἄλλος 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.
ll. 327-35 are rather long, and perhaps there were some omissions. That Π agreed with C
in reading τῶν for τά in 1. 327, or with B in having ἀσθενοῦσιν and ἁπάσας for ἀσθενέσι(ν) and
πάσας in ll. 332 and 335 is unlikely. The supposed A of ad]Afov in 1. 334 is very doubtful ;
it may be the w of πεζου.
337- εἰσβιβαζοντες : so BCf?, edd.; but εἐσβιαζοντες (AEFM) is equally possible. It is
fairly clear that the scribe first omitted πληρωσαι και διαναυμαχησαντες (So MSS.) owing to
homoioteleuton, and then corrected his mistake, partly at any rate, by expunging ην μεν.
The missing mAnpwoa may have been inserted in the margin.
350. κἾ]αι : so ABEFM, edd.; om. C.
1876. FRAGMENTS OF EXTANT CLASSICAL AUTHORS 181
352. [...-]as: om. MSS. Perhaps [mavrlas or [es auras or [ravrjas, though none of
these is any improvement.
356. απασΐαι], the reading of II’, does not. occur elsewhere as a variant for ai πᾶσαι
(MSS., 1).
358. re ex: so ACEFGM, edd. ; τ᾽ ἐπ B, τ᾽ ἐς Kriiger.
362-3. τα adda als o.ov τ nv] και ὡς εξ αναγκαιου τε kat: τἄλλα ὡς οἷόν τ᾽ ἢν ἐξ ἀν. τ. x. MSS.,
except B which has ὡς above ὅσα. It is not certain that Π had ofs rather than οἶσα, and
1. 363 is long enough without re. ὅσα οἷόν τ᾽ ἦν καὶ ws can hardly be right, and if ὡς οἷόν τ᾽
ἦν be retained, καὶ ὡς becomes superfluous, being perhaps due to a misunderstanding of τ᾽,
ἐξ ἀναγκαίου τε καὶ τοιαύτης διανοίας is a somewhat difficult expression, in which it is not clear
whether ἀναγκαίου is feminine or neuter.
386-96. The division of lines is uncertain.
399. ae: So MSS.; αἰεί Hude, Stuart Jones; cf. 1. 195.
405. av[rev: so BCEFGM, edd.; om. A.
406-7. πἸαρεσκευα[ζεσθἾε (corr. by 1° from -θ7αι) : so BG; παρασκευάζεσθαι ex. corr. c’,
παρασκευάζεσθε ACEF Mg”, edd. After this the MSS. have ἃ δὲ dpwya ἐνείδομεν, which seems
to have been seriously corrupted in I, a δὲ becoming τιοί. (?) and ενειδομεν becoming οἱ μεν :
the reading of the MSS. is superscribed by I*.
410-11. εσ]ε[σθ]αι : the division ¢l[cecO]a leaves ]. 410 too short, although [06] is hardly
enough for the lacuna at the beginning of ]. 411, where three letters would be expected.
425. τη]: so ABCEFMg”, edd.; om. G.
426. ηναγκασμευη) OF ἡναγκασμε[ν}[ι] can be read.
429. ευρηται: SO MSS.3; ηὕρηται edd.
430. χρη αντ[ινα]υπηγηΐσαι : so Βα", edd.; μὴ ἀντιναυπηγεῖσθαι (which makes no sense)
ACEFGM. Β adds ἀντιναυπηγεῖσθαι γράφεται.
432. ὠπερ: SoACEFGM; ᾧπερ δή Β, edd. Possibly δὴ 15 lost, the surface of the papyrus
being damaged; but this addition would make the line rather long.
442. αναϊκρονεσθαι : so BCGMf edad. ; ἀνακρούσεσθαι AEF.
444. φαινεταῖι] : so CEFG, edd.; φαίνηται ABM, ΑΒΕ having ἐάν for ἐᾶν in 1. 443.
447. [ovens]: so ACEFGM, edd. ; eaoperns (B, with οὔσης suprascr.) is too long, since
there was probably a space before ov.
450-2. The letters a of Ἰσθαίι, von of πε]σ᾿ ο]υσηΐς-, and €po and part of the τ of mpo|repo|y
were on a separate fragment which is not certainly to be placed here, on being very doubtful.
452-3. aé{oww... 7]: so B (with γράφεται ἤν) f, edd. ; but the reading of ACEFGM
agijov .. . ηνἾ would occupy the same space.
479-80. οὐκ εἤλασΐσον: cf. 1. 483, note.
480-1. ὠφελεῖσθαι ἔς re τό is repeated by mistake in E.
482-3. το αδικεισθαι : so ACEFGM, Hude ; τὸ μὴ ad. Ba*e?, Stuart Jones, τὸ διακεῖσθαι
some late MSS. The line is long enough without μή, but its omission is not certain.
483. ἵπολυ πλεον : so MSS. (πλέον Β, πλείω CG, corr. g?, πλεῖον AEFM). Hude follows
Kriiger and Stahl in deleting the words as inconsistent with and a gloss upon οὐκ ἔλασσον in
]. 479, where Classen wished to delete οὐκ ἔλασσον, retaining πολὺ πλεῖον here. Stuart Jones
keeps both phrases, and κατὰ τὸ ὠφελεῖσθαι is then contrasted with és re τὸ φοβερὸν τοῖς ὑπηκόοις
καὶ τὸ μὴ ἀδικεῖσθαι, though this is not very satisfactory. Π, however, clearly had πολυ πλεζι)ον :
the stop after ὠφελειΐσθαι suggests that it may have had δὲ for re, as desiderated by Reiske,
‘in |. 481.
486-8. δικζαιως av|rny νυν μίη καταπρο δι[δΊοτζε : the best MSS. are corrupt here, inserting
ἄν after δικαίως, which is impossible with the imperative (μή om, AF, add a’f?, xarampodidwre
E, -διδῶτε €2, -δοίητε some late MSS.). The simplest course, followed by Stuart Jones, is to
omit ἄν with Bekker, who in so doing claims the support of Paris. 1637, 1638, and 1736;
182 ΤΗΕ OXYRHYNGRUS PAPYRE
but this makes δικαίως very difficult, since ἀδίκως would rather be expected. Hude obelizes
the passage. I is unfortunately very imperfect : it is not certain that ἄν was omitted, and
the supposed traces of δικζαιως are very doubtful; but reckoning from [res there are r2 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 ἂν... καταπροδίδοιτε is forth-
coming, the imperative with μή being confirmed. The μ of μίη is fairly certain, for the
vestiges do not suit k.
491. The MSS. agree with ΠΡ in reading ὧν omitted by I" after [Σικ]εϊλιωτῆων,
495. και per ασθενΊειας : so ACEFGM, edd.; B omits καί, but the size of the lacuna here
is in favour of it.
496. upere|pa : so ABCEFG, edd.; om. M.
499. [vuov|: so edd. from B’s ἡ ὑμῶν ; but [ἡμῶν] (ACEFGM) may of course be read.
508. πλ]ευ[σομίενους : so BFM, Stuart Jones; πλευσουμένους CE, Hude, πλευσωμένους A.
πλευσουἹμ. cannot be read.
523-5. The division of lines in this fragment is uncertain, but there is a short blank
space alter πολις in 525. In that line before ὑπολοιπος ΠῚ may have had η, which is read by
edd. with some late MSS., but omitted by ABCEFGM.
544. emov[An: so several late MSS. ; ἐπιβολή ABCEFGM, &c., edd.; cf. χειρῶν σιδηρῶν
ἐπιβολαί in 434 and p, 162.
545-6. ta adda: τἄλλα MSS., except C and a few of the later ones which have πολλά.
CE L 2062:
549-50. οπως] απο[λισήθαϊνοι : ὅπως (καὶ ὅπ. Μὴ ἂν ἀπ. MSS. This use of ἄν with the
optative after ὅπως is rare, and Herwerden wished to delete ἄν here. The line is certainly
long enough without it.
551. αντιλαβειν (αντιλαβην ΤΙ) ἀντιλαβήν MSS., except the Cassellanus (-Beiv). The B
was perhaps retouched.
552-3. mavjra etlolua: so ACEFGM, edd.; ἕτοιμα πάντα Β.
562-3. αὐτῶν olura: 80 B; οὕτως αὐτῶν ACEFGM, edd.
568. dee]: so BCEFGM, edd. ; δή A with δεῖ suprascr. a”.
569-70. The letters ἐπ in]. 570, καὶ 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 ε of en{e:|r[a 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 καταδουλω]σει), OF
else καταδουλωσει | projected considerably in order to avoid dividing it between two columns;
cf. 1. 103, note.
επει]τα εἰ]: ἔπειτ᾽ et ACEFGM, edd. ; ἔπειτα δὲ εἰ Β.
571-2. ΠεἸλ[οποννησου | τε) : soB; om. re ACEFGM, edd. ΠεἸλ[οποννη] cov], omitting τε,
is somewhat less probable.
576-7. υποστΊαντζες: so MSS. The two letters following a have been corrected, perhaps
from Ae, 1. 6. ὑποσταλεντες.
598-602, The beginnings of these lines with the two paragraphi are on a separate
fragment, which is doubtfully assigned to this position. Line 600 is rather long (24 letters ;
om. τοὺς ὃ), and a paragraphus is hardly expected after ]. 597. The doubtful « in 1. 601
might be 8. το in 1. 599 is the reading of the MSS., retained by Stuart Jones ; Hude reads
rov with Kriiger.
602-4. τα de molAAa ... ελπ]ς : so ΒΕ" edd. ; om. (owing to homoioteleuton) ACEFGM ;
cf. 1. 190, note, and p. 159.
ότι. ex{ag |rov : so B, Stuart Jones ; τὴν ἑκάστην ACEFGM, τὴν (τέχνην) ἑκάστην Hude.
616. ακοΐντισται : SO CE; καὶ ἀκ. ABFGM, edd. ποίλλοι δε και] ak. is less probable.
622-44. The division of lines is nearly certain up to 1. 635, especially as there is
1376. FRAGMENTS OF EXTANT CLASSICAL AUTHORS 183
a short blank space before εν in]. 631. The fragment containing ll. 637-44 might go a little
further to the left.
625. [av|rov: so (αὐτῶν) ACF, Hude ; ἑαυτῶν (which does not suit the size of the lacuna)
B, Stuart Jones, atra() EGM, corr. g. But [av|rov may of course be αὑτῶν.
τρόπωι : ροπωι is on a separate fragment which is not certainly placed here.
633. εἐσονταῖι : so ABEFGM, edd. ; ἐσόμεναι C.
634-5. [ab ov... - | η]μ[ἐν : ἀφ᾽ ὧν ἡμῖν MSS. The attraction of the nominative of the
relative clause is unusual, but seems unavoidable. [ad wv ηδὴ is possible, but the missing
word may have preceded αφ ων.
637-8. σαφως πεῖπυ.. . σθαι : σαφῶς πεπύσθαι MSS., G having σφίσι γράφεται above σαφῶς.
The traces of the letter following mv suggest ἡ, ν, or 7; the next letter has almost entirely
vanished. mvOecé[a is not suitable, and would create a difficulty in filling up the preceding
lacuna; it is more likely that the scribe misspelled πεπυσθαι, and possibly it was corrected.
644. αποκινδυνευσει) or απουκινδυνευσαι], Duker’s generally accepted emendation of the
reading of the MSS., can be read.
649. ποιωΐνται : SO ABGc2f?, edd. ; but ποιοζυνται (CEFM) is possible.
652. [ατ]αξιαν : so ABEFGM, edd. ; ἀταξία C, corr. οἷ.
654. tale: so ABEFGMc?, Stuart Jones ; παραδεδωκῦαν C, Hude.
660-1. δικαιως ἴωσι : δικαιώσωσι C, δικαιώσωσιν ABEFGMCc’, edd. In this awkwardly con-
structed sentence δικαιώσωσιν is generally considered to govern ἀποπλῆσαι, Δ οἵ ἂν... δικαιώσωσιν
ἀποπλῆσαι τ. yv. τὸ θυμ. has to serve as the subject of νομιμώτατον εἶναι; cf. ii. 44. 1 τὸ δ᾽
εὐτυχές, οἱ ἂν... λάχωσι.. . . καὶ ois. . . ξυνεμετρήθη. With δικαίως ἴωσι, however, ἀποπλῆσαι is
to be connected with νομιμώτατον εἶναι and balances ἀμύνασθαι better. The other difficulties,
the fact that ἐναντίους is not the antecedent of οἵ, the change from the infinitive to the participle
after νομίσωμεν, and the superfluous καί before τὸ λεγόμενον, are not apparently affected by ΠΡ 5
readings.
663-6. The division of lines in this fragment is not quite certain.
664. ηΐμιν και : SO MSS. except Paris. 1638, which omits καί, καί had been deleted by
Reiske and is rejected by Classen and Hude but retained by Stuart Jones ; it is indispensable
in Π, if ἥμιν is right. τίε ημιν και, omitting ro, might be read.
680-2. rev ναυαγι ων] ovd εἶπενοουν αιτη)σαι] αναι[ρεσιὴν : Om. Tov MSS. There was some
variant in II unless 1. 680 had only 14 letters, and though in 1. 681 [evoloy 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 περι, whereas πΐερι ἡ ναυαγιων ovde | gives 13. αἰτῆσαι ἀναίρεσιν is
unnecessary, but av | [evolow εἶ. « « «« «6 τ τ |. .] ἀναι[ρεσιὴν is less likely than a slight change
in 1. 680, such as the insertion of των.
683. ε[βο]υϊλευοντο : so ACEFGM, Hude, Stuart Jones ; ἐβούλοντο Β.
691. [ae λο͵ιπαι : ἔτι αἱ λοιπαί Β, ἔτι αἱ λοιπαί εἰσι ACEFGM, edd. Π must have
omitted ἔτι or ai, probably the former, as well as εἰσί, ἔτι has recently occurred in |. 687,
where Classen wished to omit it as an intrusion from the present passage, in which he
suggested the omission of ai. More probably Π is right in omitting ἔτι here.
695. de πολεμιοις : δ᾽ ἐναντίοις ABCEFG, edd., δὲ ἐναντίοις M. πολεμίοις is probably
repeated from 1. 692.
699. αὐτων: so BEMf?g? edd. ; αὐτόν ACFG, αὐτάς some late MSS.
402. 7[e]: so B, Stuart Jones; om. ACEFGM, Hude.
705. aval x jopnear|r|es (corr. to -σοντες by 1°): ἀναχωρήσοντες ABEF¢?, edd., -cavres
CGM.
412. an οχωρησ͵ασα: so CE, Hude ; ὑποχωρήσασα ABFGM, Stuart Jones.
713. δ᾽ : so Paris. 1637; ποι ABCEFGM, edd., πη three other late MSS.
716. [εἸσηγειται : SO ABCEFGM, edd. ; ἐφηγεῖται οὗ and some late MSS.
184 THE OXYRHYNCHUS PAPYRI
720. axa: 50 BCG, edd.; καὶ d EM, καὶ ἃ καί AFg suprascr.
εδοκει: SO ABCEFG, edd.; ἐδόκει εἶναι M.
723. ras: so ACEFGM, edd.; ra B.
724-5. στενοπορα: so BCEFM, edd.; orevérepa AB γράφεται.
των χωριαΐν: 8. ABCEFM, edd. ; τῶι χωρίωι B γράφεται.
725-6. προ]ῴθασαντας : so ACEFMB γράφεται, Hude; διαλαβόντας Β, Classen, προδια-
λαβόντας Stuart Jones. Cf. ]. 751, note.
727. ξυιζε͵γιγνωσκον : so ACFM, edd.; ξυνεγίνωσκον BE.
728. nocov: so CEFGM, edd. ; ἧττον AB.
729. a: om. MSS. The insertion of ἅ may have been intended to ease the construction
of the infinitive δοκεῖν ἄν in 736 (which depends loosely on ξυνεγίγνωσκον, καὶ ἐδόκει ποιητέα
being parenthetic), but is probably due to a reminiscence of ἃ καὶ αὐτῷ ἐδόκει in 1.720. The
ink of a is rather faint and it may have been intentionally obliterated. C has ποιητεο for
mo|tn |rea (corr. 03):
732. [rle ναυμαχιας : ναυμαχίας te MSS. Cf. p- 162,
732-3. ses κρῖ: so B. avarre|mav |zevous (ACEFGM, edd.) is too long.
734-5. αἰΪτοις] Hpaxte.: so ACEFGM, edd.; Ἡράκλεια (Ἡρακλεῖ γράφεται) Β. Hude’s
conjecture ταύτῃ τῇ ἡμέρᾳ is not confirmed.
736. δοκειίν av: so MSS., but Π may have omitted ἄν.
739. terpapOa : so ACEFGM, edd.; τετάφθαι B.
747. οὐκ: sO apparently some late MSS. and Kriiger, followed by Hude; οὐκέτι
ABCEFGM, Stuart Jones. Cf. p. 161.
751. φθασωσι: προφθάσωσι C; προφθάσωσινν 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. εταιρων : so BCEFGM, edd.; ἑτέρων A, corr. 45.
755. €javrov: so ABEFGM, edd. ; ἑτοῦ C, corr. οἷ,
758. Elves |orage : so C; ξυνεσκόταζεν ABEFGc?, edd. ; ξυνεσκόταξεν Μ΄.
767. The initial o of Συρακοσιων has been corrected or rewritten.
768. The o of φυλασΐσοντων seems to have been inserted later by I’.
780-5. The division of lines is uncertain.
782. προσθε: πρόσθεν ABCEFG, edd., ἔμπροσθεν M. Cf. 1. g50, note.
792. εκατεροι: SO ACEFGM ; ἑκατέρωθεν B, edd. Cf. p. 160.
840-4. The division of lines in this fragment is not quite certain. Line 844 may be
shortened by restoring προσεβαλον with GM.
852. τρ[εψα]μ[εν]οι : so ACEFGM, εαα.; τρ[εψό]μ[ εν]οι (B) is not well suited to the size
of the lacuna.
879-89. The arrangement of these lines is fairly secure. To make κελιας in ]. 882
begin a line does not suit 883, and the division προς | Kalu[apsvay does not suit 879.
881. plepols: so ACEFGM, edd.; om. B.
885. Ἰβαροΐ is on a separate fragment, which is not quite certainly placed here.
909. ἐπι: so B, edd.; παρά ACEFGM, obviously from 1. 910.
911--12. δια της] μεϊσ]ογειί[ζας: so B; om. τῆς ACEFGM, edd. It is not clear that 0
inserted it, but if it is omitted the line had only 16 letters, for to read π]οζτ]αΐμον is less
satisfactory, besides reducing 1. gro to 16 letters.
914. [μ]ετζεπεμψαν: so ACEFGMB suprascr., Hude; but [uJ]er[ereupavro (B, Stuart
Jones) is possible.
915-16. [εἸπ[ειδη δεῖ «[ye|vovro or e|n[ec δὲ εγ]είνοντο can be read. ἐπεὶ δ᾽ ἐγ. CG, ἐπειδὴ δ᾽
ἐγ. AEFM, edd., ἐπειδὴ δὲ ἐγ. Β. The paragraphus below this line was probably added
by πὸ,
13876. FRAGMENTS OF EXTANT CLASSICAL AUTHORS τᾶς
917. [elvpov (ABCFGM) is more likely than [η]υρον (E, edd.) ; cf. 1. 429.
931. εναντια] (corr. by I” to ev αἰτ[ια]} : ἐν αἰτίᾳ τε MSS, evavria is a mere error, but τε,
which occurred in ], 928, is unnecessary. The surface of the papyrus is damaged after aur,
but if the corrector had added re, part of it ought to have been visible.
932. εκ Of exovra is apparently corrected, perhaps from ap.
938-9. womep προσεμιΐξαν : so ACEFGM (προσέμιξαν), Hude, Stuart Jones (-eye-); ὡς
προσέμιξαν B. Π may have had either ὡς or wozep,
943. tore: so ACEFGM, edd.; τε after an erasure B.
946. εν[εκυκἸλουν[το] : ἐνκυκλοῦντο Paris. 317, ἐκυκλοῦντο ABCEFGM, edd. ἐγκυκλοῦν does
not occur in Thuc., who uses κυκλοῦν frequently (the passive occurred in the lost 1. 969), but
ἐγκυκλοῦσθαι is common in writers of the Roman period. Cf. p. 162.
948. [nbn ovrjas: so B with δή suprascr.; δὴ ὄντας ACEFGM, edd. The size of the
lacuna strongly favours 767; cf. the confusion of δή and ἤδη in 1]. 14 and 19.
950. προΐσθε: so C, πρόσθεν ABEFG, edd. ; ἔμπροσθεν M; cf. 1. 782, note.
951. κ]αι : so ACEFGM, edd.; ἑκατὸν καί B with some late MSS.
956. σωτηριαν (σωτηριον Tl”): σωτήριον with σωτηρίαν suprascr. B ; σωτηρίαν ACEFGM,
Hude, Stuart Jones. Classen preferred σωτήριον.
959. [οσ͵α ἀναγκαζονται: so ABEFGMc, Stuart Jones; ὅσα ἀναγκάζωνται CK, ὅσ᾽ ἂν
ἀναγκάζωνται Dobree, Hude.
g60. τε: so MSS., except two of the late ones, Stuart Jones; Dobree, followed by
Hude, wished to omit it, but cf. the next note.
961. πονω: so B with the Cassellanus and Paris. 1733, Stuart Jones ; πόνῳ re ACEFGM,
Hude ; cf. the preceding note. 11 is likely to have been right.
963. πρωτα[ι]: so ABEFMg’, edd.; om. CG.
967. ξυνετασΐσετο: so ABEF, edd.; ξυνετάττετο CG, ἢ ξυνετάσσετο M.
968. Before ενδιατρειβων there is a correction, the reading of the MSS. being apparently
added by Ml? above the line. The first (and possibly the second) letter of ενδιατρειβων is
crossed through, but probably by mistake, unless ἐν occurred in the preceding word {μεν ἢ).
ἐνδιατρίβων MSS., edd.
992. γοζυν: so MSS. Hude and Stuart Jones adopt Dobree’s correction δ᾽ οὖν.
999-1000. οι Συρίακοσιοι : so the Clarendonianus ; om. oi ABCEFGM, edd. Cf. p. τότ.
Evppalyor: of ξύμμαχοι MSS.; cf. the preceding note. It is not certain that o 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.
Fr. 1. 2. Ἰναιδ 5 ἷ: ΟΓ Ἰνδιὸ 5 ἷς
Fr. 8. Ἰνδῖ can be read in 1. 3 and possibly @ in |. 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 epya may be a letter.
Fr. 87. 2. Possibly ΕἸυβοιαί, but not 1, 109. The colour of this fragment does not suit
Col. iii, so that Srup|cus . . . Ε]υβοιαίς (]]. 119-20) is also inadmissible, as is ] <[£@ Πελοποννησο]υ
Βοιωΐτοι in I], 269-70.
186 THE OXYRHYNCHUS PAPYRI
1377. DEMOSTHENES, De Corona.
20:1 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.
ετερων επακολουθειν ὁ 167
γνωμαις noOnv και par
λον vpas επαινῶι κατα
πολλα: Kat μαλιστὰαὰ ὃ επι
5 τῶι βουλευεσθαι τουτων
ασφαλεστερον και τα --
προς nas εχειν εν εὖ
νοιαι" οπερ οὐ μικραν
υμειν οἰσει ελπιζω po
10 πὴν εαν περ επι TAUTNS
μένητε της προθεσεως
lev ours διαθεις Φιλιππος § 168
Tas models προς αλληλας
[Sa τουτων Kat TouvToLs
[εἸπαρθεις τοις Ψψηφισμα
ἰσιν nKev exov τὴν du
15
ν]αμιν και την Edarevav
OS Soa
1377. FRAGMENTS OF EXTANT CLASSICAL AUTHORS 187
κἸατελαβεν ws ovd av
el] TL yevorto συνπνεὺ [
[
[
20 ἰσοντων ἡμῶν Kat [T\ov
[Θ]ηβαιων αλ[λα)] μην τον
[
τοτε σἸυμβαντα θορυ [|
βον τη]ι πολίει εἶστε μεν
[
[
25 ἰσαθ oluws tla αἸναγκαιο
απαντεῖς μικίρα)] ὃ axov
[Tara eomepal μεν yap nv § 169
ἴηκε δ ayyedAloly] tis] εἰς
4. kat: OM. MSS.
5. βουλευεσθαι : βουλεύσασθαι περί MSS. περί is indispensable.
9. |. owen.
11. After προθέσεως the MSS. add ἔρρωσθε.
12, ovr... Sdunmos: ofrw...6%. MSS. For the marginal note cf. introd.
15. Wypiopalory: Ψ. καὶ ταῖς ἀποκρίσεσιν MSS.
19. συνπνευΐσοΐντων : ἔτι συμπνευσόντων F vulg. ; ἔτι συμπνευσόντων ἄν SLA, ἔτι συμπνευσάντων
ἄν Elmsley, edd.
22-3. olvpBarra Aopu| Bov τη]: πολίει : συμβάντα τῇ πόλει θόρυβον A, Blass, συμβ. ἐν τῇ π. θ.
other MSS., Butcher.
24. [amavre|s (so MSS.) suits the lacuna better than [παντεῖς (Blass).
25. τία αἸναγκαιοΐτατα : so Tiberius, Blass (τάναγκ.) ; ἀναγκαιότατα first hands of SL, αὐτὰ
τὰ ἀναγκ. Vulg. and Butcher (ravayk.).
27. eis: ὡς (τοὺς πρυτάνεις ws ᾿Ελάτεια κατείληπται) MSS.
1378. DEMOSTHENES, Contra Midiam.
16 X 13-5cm. 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 beginning 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. 11. 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 ll. 11 and 19 remain uncorrected. Thereis no variant of importance.
Col. Col. ii.
διαν ἀπαντων τῶν € § 153
τηι πολίει λαϊμπροτα
188 THE OXYRHYNCHUS PAPYRI
Tov γεγενησθαι amo
KvateL yap αηδια δηπου
5 Kat αναισθησια καθ [exa
στην] τίη]ν exkA[notalpy
ταυΐϊτα Aleyov εἰ plelvTofe] § 154
τι πίο]τ ἐστι a λιτουργει
τηι [α]ληθειαι det σκοπεῖ
IO ἐγὼ προς ὑμᾶς Epo και
θεασία]σθε ὡς" καὶ ws av
τον εξετασω προς ε
λιτουργιαῚς § 151 μαυτον κριϊνω]ν ουτος
σκοπει δὴ μη Tovros] wo ανδρ[εἸς AOnriajou γεγο
[avrov εξαιτησΊηται 15 V@S ETN περι TEVTN
[kat ἐλαττω πολυ TH ΚΟΡΤ ἰσὼς ἢ μεικρον
5 [mode karaes] ἡ οσα ελαττίο]ν οὐδὲν ἐμοῦ
ἴσοι διδωσι καταγελα) πλειους λιτουργιας v
[one eyw de πρωτοὴν μὲ § 152 μεν λελιτουργηκεν os
ἰουδεν ἀγεννες υμῶ 20 δυο και τ]ρίακοντα ετῆι
ἱκαταγιγνωσκω) ovd v γέγονα Kaywl μεν Ka
10 [πολαμβανω τι]μησεῖ T €[|KeLvous
i. 3. The vestiges are doubtfully identified: ἐξαιτήσηται edd., ἐξαιτήσεται S and some
others,
5: οσα: Blass wished to read ὅσον, with ἔλαττον for ἐλάττω.
li. ΤΙ. ὡς" καὶ ws: 1. ὡς δικαίως with MSS
17. ελαττζο]ν : so S, edd.; ἐλάττω other MSS. But eAarr[@|: is also a possible reading.
18. 1. ὑυμειν. The scribe made the slightly lengthened stroke of ε, but then seems to
have inadvertently treated it as the first stroke of the ν.
1879. ΤιΙνΥ, 1.
14:3 ΧΊΟ 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
1879. FRAGMENTS OF EXTANT CLASSICAL AUTHORS 189
to be recognized. Minuscule forms are more sparingly employed in 1379 than
in 668 ; there are the usual 4 and d, but m is of the pure uncial shape, while + 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, 1879 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. 6—vi. 1), so far as it goes, shows a correct text, but is
too slight to give an insight into its quality or affinities.
[gtlam ventre pastoribuls v. 6
[ad reg\em tmpetum facit Ϊ
[et a do\mo Numitoris alia {|
[com|parata manu: adiuvalt
5 [Rem\us- tta regem optrun
[cat) N{ulnctor tnxder| pri Ϊ vi I
[meu t\\multum hosites
[2xvasis\se ulr\bem atigue
[adortos reg\am dictitans
το [cum pube\m Albanam [272
[arcem pralesidio armis|que
[ον 77 \zendam avocasset |
[postquam i\ulvelnes per\petra
[ta caed\e pergere ad se gira
15 tulantis utdit. extemplo
[advoca\to clon\celto. scelle
[γα tm 56] frlat\ris- orig\inem
[zepotum| ut genite |
5. optrun|caf|: 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. perac/a, instead of
perpetrata.
16. sce[/e|ra, not sce|[/ws (M), is indicated by the spacing.
18. Above the vestiges of the supposed w there is a mark suggesting the top of an 0 or
some other round letter. It does not look like an accident, but remains unexplained.
190 THE OXYRHYNCHAUS, PAPYRI
IV. .GRAECO-EGYPTIAN LITERARY PAPYRI
1380. INVOCATION OF ISIS.
21-8 X 112-5 cm. Early second century.
The recto of this long and interesting papyrus contains an invocation
(ἐπίκλησις) of the goddess Isis, the verso a somewhat analogous composition
in praise of Imhotep-Asclepius (1881). 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 a and e. ἡ 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 εἰ for . 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 πολυώνυμος (cf. 1]. 97 and 101) and giving
an elaborate list of her titles in towns or nomes of Egypt (ll. 1-76), and then in
towns, districts, or countries in other parts of the world (ll. 76-119). The second
section begins with a continuation of similar complimentary titles (ll. 119-42)
still governed by ἐπικαλοῦμαί σε, which no doubt occurred at the lost beginning
of the first section, and proceeds in 1]. 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, Metam. 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. 1880, however, is both earlier and on a higher level
than the magical papyri, which mostly belong to the third or fourth centuries and
13880. GRAECO-EGYPTIAN LITERARY PAPYRI I9l
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 1]. 21, 40,
70,74, and 94. It is obviously based mainly on Egyptian documents such as
those from which Brugsch (Religzon 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, Caza. no. 31169) 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),
φρόνησις (1. 44), and many Greek or non-Egyptian deities, the introduction of the
Hellenic scheme of the universe with Olympus (I. 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 Ios 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 1881 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 1880. I-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 Tside et Osiride, Apuleius, Metam. xi, and other literary testimony, the
archaeological evidence from statues, inscriptions, gems, coins, &c., is extensive ;
cf. Drexler in Roscher, Ler. d. griech. τ. rim. Mythol. ii. 373-548, Lafaye,
Hist. du culte des divinitéds d’ Alexandrie hors de l Egypte.
The various aspects under which Isis is regarded in 1880 may be classified
under the following heads. First as to her name, Ἶσις occurs in 1. 23 and often ;
more mysterious names ending in -ev and resembling those found in magical
papyri apparently occur in ll. 282, 286, and 296. Of her appellations derived
Ι92 THE OXYRHYNCHUS PAPYRI
from the Egyptian ᾿Εσερέμφις (1. 46) is known from the recently discovered Thea-
delphia inscription, while Θαυῆστις in 1. 68, Μοῦχις (Ὁ) in 1. 45, “Ove in 1. 1,
Ἰαθροῖχις in 1. 14, Ταχνῆψις in 1. 75, and ἰχμεῦνις in 1. 3 are new and may be
compared to the titles Ἶσις Νεφρέμμις and Νεφορσῆς at Socnopaei Nesus. In
places outside Egypt the titles Θαψίε ?|iors in 1. 105 (among the Magi), Σαρκοῦνις
in 1. 119 (at Susa on the ‘Red Sea’), Τί. .8[{1α and Παλέντρα (Ὁ) in Il. 114-15
(Troad and Dindyma) are also probably foreign appellations like the Egyp-
tian rather than names of distinct divinities. The remarkable titles Aariva
in 1. 104 (Persia), and “EAAds 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 ll. 30 and 72, Bubastis in 1. 4, Core in Il. 72 and
105, Dictynnis, a Cretan deity, in 1. 82, Hecate in |. 113 (cf. ll. 84 τριφυής,
ΟἹ τριοδῖτις, and the references to the underworld in ll. 127 and perhaps 164),
Helen in 1. 112, Hera in 1. 26 and often, Hestia in ll. 23 and 73, Io Sothis in
ll. 143-4 (cf. 1. 64, where she is also connected with Io in an obscure passage),
Leto in 1. 79, Maia in ll. 39, 42, 103, and 116, Nanai, an old Babylonian goddess,
in 1. 106, Praxidice in 1. 50, and Themis in]. 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 πολύμορφος (ll. g and 70) was worshipped as a kind of combination of
the divine, human, and animal elements. She is called θεός in ll. 77 and 107,
θεά in 1. 130, δία in 11]. 26, 86, and 111, ἱερά in Il. 18, 41, 110, ἁγία in Il. 34, 36, 89,
ἁγνή in 1. 86, ἀμίαντος in 1. 109, ἀβίβαστος in 1. 115, τελεία 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 Il. 126-7 θεῶν
πάντων τὸ καλὸν ζῷον, 1. 107 ταυρῶπις, 1. 58 ἀσπίς, 1. 66 γυπόμορφος ; cf. the mention
of her wings in ll. 219-20 and the institution of animal-worship ascribed to her
in ll. 139-42, and ll. 159-63. The ordinary representations of her as a beautiful
and youthful woman are indicated by the terms νέα in 1. 85, νύμφη in 1. 30, ὡραία
in 1. 90, καλλίμορφος in 1. 54, καλλίστη in 1. 100, χαριτόμορφος in 1. 59. With
regard to her power she is called παντοκράτειρα in 1. 20, πάντων δεσπότις in 1. 231,
δεσπότις in 1. 108, κρατίστη in 1. 96, μεγίστη θεῶν in 1. 142, μεγίστη in ll. 21, 92, and
perhaps 66, μεγάλη in 1. 77. As queen and ruler she appears as ἄνασσα τῆς
οἰκουμένης in 1. 121, ἄνασσα πόλεων in |. 57, and often as ἄνασσα simply, βασίλισσα
in ll. 36 and 218, δυνάστις in ll. 34, 41, 57, and 97, κυρία πάσης χώρας inl. 24. As
a warrior-goddess she is called orparia in Il. 71, 83, 102, ἡγεμονίς in 1. 52 (cf. 1. 193)
.
1880. GRAECO-EGYPTIAN LITERARY PAPYRI 193
στολαρχίς in 1. 8, νικήτρια in ll. 30 and 48, ταχυνίκης in 1, 69 ; cf. Il. 239-42, where
she is said to overthrow tyrants, and 1]. 80 ἐλευθερία.
Of Isis as law-giver fifteen θεσμοί are alluded to in 1]. 119-20 and two
προστάγματα in 1]. 155-7. Her foundation of νόμιμα is described in ll. 203-5 and
of θρήσκια in Il. 244-5. As saviour or benefactress she is called σώτειρα in ll. 91
and 293, ἀνδροσώτειρα in 1. 55, σώζουσα in 1. 76, δότειρα in 1]. 13 and 68, χαριτοδότειρα
in 1. το, ἀρίστη in 1. 99, ἀγαθή in 1]. 51, 59, 95, ἠπία in 1]. 11 and 86 (cf. 1. 155),
πρόνοια in 1. 43; cf. ll. 155-7 and 246-7, ὀρθωσία in ll. 39 and 98 probably refers
to help in childbirth. Her son Horus is εὐεργέτης καὶ ἀγαθός (ll. 246-7). Her
identification with Abundance and Fortune is referred to in ll. 51 τύχη, 88 πανά-
φθονος, 99 εὐπλέα, 134-5 τῶν τὰς καλὰς ἀγόντων ἡμέρας εὐθηνία. Increase and
decay were regulated by her (Il. 174-7, 194-6). In particular she was the
goddess of seas and rivers and protectress of sailors and travellers, as is shown by
ll, 61 πελάγους κυρία, 69 κυβερνῆτις, 15 and 74 ὁρμίστρια ; cf. the more detailed
description in I]. 121-3. The Nile was her special charge (Il. 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 ll. 214-16 to have given women power equal to
that of men, and in ll. 129-32 to be ἐν ᾿Ολύμπῳ θεὰ εὐπρεπής, κόσμος θηλειῶν καὶ
φιλόστοργος (cf. 1. 12), providing sweetness in assemblies. She was the goddess
of truth (1. 63 ἀλήθεια) and love (Il. 109 ἀγάπη θεῶν, 28 dayan[n, 94 φιλία, 137 μισ-
εχθής). The sorrows of Isis are well known, but in 1880 she is rather the goddess
of joy, as is shown by her titles εὐφροσύνη in Il. τὸ and 31, ἐν Λήθῃ ἱλαρὰ ὄψις in
11. 127-8, and by the gladness which she affords to the gods and her votaries
(ll. 131-5, 157-9, 161-3, and 178-9). The invention, jointly with Hermes, of
demotic writing, which is claimed by Isis in the Ios Inscr. 6-8, is alluded to in the
title γραμματική in 11. 48 and 123, and λογιστική in Il. 27 and 124 perhaps refers to
the discovery of arithmetic. She is also credited with the invention of weaving
(Il. 145-6) and wine (Il. 179-83); cf. the more general phrases ἐπίνοια in Il. 34 and
60, φρόνησις in 1. 44, φρονίμη in 11. 117 and 124, κεδνή in 1. 79, εὑρέτρια inl. 81, and
the account of Isis as εὑρέτρια πάντων in 1]. 183-6. She is identified with the
moon (1. 104), and the sun (ἡλίου ὄνομα in 1. 112); cf. Il. 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 1]. 159-61 and in
1. 235, where the Dioscuri are mentioned ; cf. Io Sothis in ll. 143-4. The institu-
tion of the year of 365 days seems to be ascribed to her (ll. 153-5 and 204-5).
As goddess of the sky (ll. 144-5) and light (Il. 248-9, 295), she regulated winds,
lightning, snow, rain, and especially dew (Il. 172-4, 227-39, 237-9). A curious
phrase πιστοΐασπις ἀνέμου καὶ ζῳῆς διάδημα (Il. 138-9; cf. Il. 193-4) is perhaps
derived from the Egyptian, like ἐν ταῖς πανηγύρεσι βόστρυχος in 1. 133 and τῶν
O
194 THE OXYRHYNCHUS PAPYRI
θεῶν ᾿Αρποκράτις in ll. 135-6. She was especially the goddess of immortality
(1. 13), which she conferred upon her husband and brother Osiris (ll. 242-3) and
her son Horus (ll. 246-7). Her recovery and burial of the former are mentioned
in 11. 186-9, and her appointment of Horus as successor of Osiris in ll. 209-14,
250-2, and 263-8. As the goddess of mysteries she is called μύστις (1. 111) and
χρησμῳδός (1. 43), and is seen by her votaries (ll. 152-3). Temples of Isis were
appointed by her in all cities (ll. 202-3), as is illustrated not only by 1]. 1-119,
but by special references to shrines or ceremonies at Busiris (ll. 269-71), ᾽Οσί-
ριδος ἄδυτον (11. 161-3), Memphis (249), Heracleopolis (150-2), Abydos (1. 278), and
an unknown town H[. οἶκτος (ll. 148-9). In the processions (ἐξοδίαι) of the gods
she took the chief part (ll. 136-7), being leader of the muses (Il. 62 and 128). She
was all-seeing (παντόπἰτις] in 1. 93, κατόπτις in 1. 87, πολυόφθαλμος in 1.129). Other
noteworthy titles, most of which are new as applied to Isis, are τὸ ἄνω in Il. 38 and
42, ἀπάτειρα in 1. 19, ἄφεσις ἐφόδων in 1. 80, λωτοφόρος in 1. 40, μία in 1. 6, πρῶτον
ὄνομα in 1. 143, and στείχουσα in 1. 87. Uncertain titles occur in ll. 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, Hevrodots zweites Buch,
190, Lanzone, Dzz. 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. 1) 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 (I. 21), the list turns eastward
to Buto (1. 27), the Saite nome (ll. 30-2), and the northern part of the central
Delta (ll. 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 (ll. 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 Il. 60-73, Pelusium and the extreme north-east
ll. 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 (ll. 15
Psochemis, 16 Mylon, 41 Teouchis, 69 Peucestis), and several that were previously
1380. GRAECO-EGYPTIAN LITERARY PAPYRI 195
unknown (Il. 11 Calamisis and Carene, 13 Hierasus, 17 Ce. . culemis (?), 22 Peph-
remis (= Papremis 9), 31 Caene, 40 Hiera, 47 Choatine, 54 Isidium, 64 Meniouis,
7° Melais, 71 Menouphis; cf. ll. 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 (Il. 78-81), Cyrene, Crete, Chalcedon, and Rome (Il. 81-3), Aegean
islands (ll. 84-5), Cyprus (Il. 86-9) and some other places which for various
reasons cannot be located with certainty (Il. 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 (Il. 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 (I. 102), India (1. 103), Persia (Il. 104-6), and Italy
(Il. 109), the Hellespont and coast of the Aegean (II. 110-15), Syria again
(1. 116-17), and finally an unknown Susa on the ‘ Red Sea’ (II. 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. 1881, 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.
196 THE OXYRHYNCHUS PAPYRI
Colt Col. 11.
[τὴν ἐν Adpodirns ?] πόλει ’Ove- 25. τὴν ἐν Εἰσί. ..... 1᾽... τς Ἰν,
ἔς τ - τὴν ἐν τῷ] ᾿Ηφαίστου οἴκῳ “Ἡρᾶν,. dialy,..... --«.-.-.--.. ‘| ἐν
[14 letters Ἰχμεῦνιν: τὴν Βουτῷ λοϊγιστικήν,.. . .᾿ ἐν
[ἐν 12 letters Ἰόφει Βούβασ- Θώνι aydninv......... jo χρό-
ἢ friars ΣΤ ae κ]αλουμένην: τὴν vo καὶ dyol.|).[....-... |nv- ἐν
[ἐν Anrlovs [π]όϊλεῖι [τ] μεγάλῃ μίαν, 30 τῶ Σαΐτῃ νἱηκήτίριαν, ᾿ΑἸθήνην, νύμφην"
ΣΥῸΣ Ἰιον: τὴν ἐν ‘Adpodirns πό- ἐν NnBeo.....]. [ιν ἐν Καινῇ εὐ-
[λει τοὴῖῦ ΠΠροσωπί[ίτου στολαρχεί- φροσύνηνί: ἐν Σάι Ἥραν, ἄνασ(σναν, τε-
[δα,] πολύμορφον, ‘Adpodirny: τὴν λείαν ἐν ᾿ΙΠσείῳ Ἶσ]ιν: ἐν Σεβεννύ-
το [ἐπὶ τοῦ Δέλτα χαριτοδώτειραν'" τῳ ἐπίνοιαν, δυ]νάστιν, “Ηραν, ἁ-
[ἐν Καλαμίσι ἠπίαν' ἐν τῇ Καρή- 35 γίαν[ ἐϊν] ‘Elpluod πόλει ᾿Αφρ[ο]δείτην,
[v]n φιλ[ό]στοργον' ἐν τῇ Νεικίου βασ[λεισίσαν, ἁγε]ίαν: ἐν Aeos πί6]-
[ἀ]θάνα(το)ν, δότειραν: ἐν τῷ “Ιεράσῳ λει τῇ pelk[pZ] ἀνασ(σγαν" ἐν Βουβά-
ΕΣ Ἰαθροῖχιν: ἐν Μωμέμ- στῳ τὸ ἄνω: ἐν ᾿Ηλίου πἰόλ]ει ᾿4φρ[ο]-
15 [φι ἄνασ]σαν. ev Ψωχήμει [olppio- δίτην: ἐν ᾿4[θ]ρίβ[] Mater, ὀρθωσίαν" ἐν
ἰτριαν]" ἐν Μύλωνι dyaoloaly τὴν 40 Ἱερᾷ Φθεμφ[θ)ούϊτ]ου λωϊτ]οφόρον- ἐν
[ἐν] Ke... κυλήμιε [. .Jrnv> τὴν ἐν Τεούχι ἱεράν, δυνάστειν" ἐν τοῖς
[‘Ep|uo[d πἸόλει καλλίμορφον, ἱεράν" Βουκολεῦσι Μαϊϊ]αν" ἐν Bou τὸ] ἄνω,
[τὴν ἐν Ναυκράτει ἀπάτειραν, εὐφρο- χρησμῳδόν] ἐν Καταβαθμῷ πρί6]-
20 ἰσύ]νην, σώτειραν, παντοκράτειραν, νοιαν" ἐπὶ τοῦ 'ἄπεως φρόνησιν
[μ]εγίστην: ἐν Ν[θίνῃ τοῦ Γυναικο- 45 ἐπὶ Λευκῆς ἀκτῆς Adppodeirny, Μοῦ-
[ποἸλείτου Adpodeirny: ἐν Πεφρή- χιν, ᾿Εσερέμφι]ν’ ἐν Φραγούρων πό-
[μὴ Ἶσιν, ἄνασσαν, ᾿ Ἑστίαν, [ανασσαν AGE. Be ees Ἰφι»[1 ἐν Χοατείνῃ
[ku]peiav πάσης χώρας- την εν Χνου]}
3. μ Of Ἰχμευνιν above the line. 10. ι of εἾπι and xapt- above εἰ deleted. l. χαριτοδότειραν.
11. First 1 of καλαμισι above « deleted. 13. τ Of doretpay corr. from p. 15. v Of [ο]ρμισίτριαν above
e deleted. 21. 6 of υἤθινη above the line. 23. iow Π. νυ Of ἐστιαν above εἰ deleted. 30. ὦ of
τω above the line (?). 34. t of δυναστιν above εἰ deleted. 34-5. κ of ayy above εἰ (deleted ?).
39. Ale] of α[θ]ρεβ[ι] above the line, and at of μαιαν above « (deleted ὃ).
Col. iii. Col. iv.
VELK PT PAUP Vea sa: s γ]ραμ- 70 βερνῆτιν: ἐν Μελαΐδι πολύμο[ρ-
ματεκ]η τ se. - ἐν Κυνὸς] πόλει gov: ἐν Μ[ε]νούφι στρ[α]τίαν[" ἐν
50 τοῦ Βου[σε]ι[ρε]ΐτ[ο]ν ΠΙραξ[ι]δ[ {κ[η]ν- Μετηλείτῃ K[dlpnv: ἐπὶ Χάρακος [A-
ee ὩῬΡ͵ ἡ» συυλμυκ νυν ρον — νυ
.
55
60
65
κυβερνητιν above εἰ deleted.
1880. GRAECO-EGYPTIAN LITERARY PAPYRI 197
ἐν Βουσείρει τύχην, ἀγαθήν: ἐν
Ἑρμοῦ πί[όϊλε[] τοῦ Μενδησίου ἡ-
yepovi[dja: ἐν Φαρβαίθῳ καλ-
λίμορφ[ο]ν- ἐν τῷ ᾿Ισιδίῳ τοῦ Σ ε-
θροΐτου ἀνδρασώτειραν" ἐν
Ἡρακλέους] πόλει τοῦ Σ᾽ εθροΐτου
δυνάστι[ν" ἐν Φερνο[ύ)φι ἄνασσαν
πόλεων[ ἐν Δε[ζοἸντωπόλει ἀσ-
πίδα, ἀγ[α]θήν- ev Τάνι χαρειτό-
μορῴφον, ἽΗρ[αἹ]ν: ἐϊπὶ Σ᾽ χεδίας ἐπί-
75
80
νοιαν" ἐϊπ]ὶ τίο]ῦ ‘Hpaxdiov πελάγους
κυρείαν[ ἐϊν] Κανώβῳ μουσανα-
γωγόν: ἐν Μεν[ο]ύθι ἀλήθιαν" [ely
ἹΜεν[ἡούει Tots ἢ “κτίξετται πί.. .].
[-Ἱμερείϊα]ς προκαθημέν[η]ν: ἐπὶ τοῦ
ΜΙ. “ἡνεστίου μεγίστου γυπόμορ-
gov, ᾿ἀφροδίείτην: ἐν Ταποσίρι
85
Θαυῆστιν, “ΗρίαἹ]ν, δώτειραν: ἐν τῇ Νή- 90
σῳ ταχυνκην: ἐν Πευκεστίδι kv-
θήνην: ἐν Πλινθίνῃ ᾿ Ἑστίαν" ἐν Ϊ
Πηλουσίῳ ὁρμίστριαν: ἐπὶ told
Κασίου Ταχνῆψιν: ἐπὶ τοῦ ᾽Εκ-
{x} ρἠ(γγματο[ς] Ἶσιν, σώξουσαν" ἐν τῇ
ApaBia μεγάλην, θεόν: ἐν τῇ [Νή-
σῳ ἱερωνικοτελοῦσαν: ἐν Δυκίᾳ
ἐλευθερίαν: ἐν Κνίδῳ ἄφεσιν ἐφίό.
δων, εὑἰρ]έτριαν: ἐν Κυρήνῃ "Low"
ἐν Κρήτῃ 4Δικτυννίν: ἐν Χαλκηϊδ᾽ό-
νι Θέμιν: ἐν Ρώμῃ στρατίανϊ" ἐν
ταῖς ΚυκλάϊσἼι νήσοις τριφυήν, “Ap-
Tepe: ἐν [ΠΠάθμῳ νέα, μ.. [.ιθ. .-
kn ἐν Πάφῳ ἁγνήν, Sia, nil: ἐν
Χίῳ στ[ίχουσαν: ἐν Σ᾿αλαμεῖνι κα-
τόπτιν: ἐν Κύπρῳ πανάφθο-
[olf] ἐν τῇ ΖΧαλκιδίκῃ [dlyiav: ἐν
τῇ Πιερία] ὡραίαν ἐν τίἢ] ᾿4σῇ εἼ ίᾳ [
τριοδεῖτιν: ἐπὶ τῆς Πέτρας σώ-
τειραν: ἐν Ὑψήλῃ μεγίστην"
54--5. σεθροΐτου ΤΠ. 58. 1. Δεοντοπόλει Or Λεόντω(ν) πόλει. 68. 1. δότειραν. 69-70. + of
80. ε of εφ[οδων rewritten. 85-6. 1]. νέαν,...
95
yoo
Col. v.
ἐν 'ῬΡεινοκορούλοις παντόπϊτιν"
ἐν Adpos φιλίαν: ἐν Σ᾽ τρξάτω)ν[ος
Πύργῳ Ἑλλάδα, ἀγαθήν ἐν
᾿Ασκάλῳ κρατίστην: ἐν Σινώ-
πῃ πολυώνυμον: ἐν Ῥαφέᾳ δυ-
vdorw: ἐν Τριπόλει ὀρθωσίαν' ἐν
Γάξῃ εὐπλέαν: ἐν Δελφοῖς ἀρίσ-
{o}rnv, καλλίστην: ἐν Βανβύκῃ ᾿4-
ταργάτει: ἐν Θρᾷξι [κ]ἀάν Δήλῳ πο-
λυώνυμον: ἐν ᾿Δμάζοις στρατί-
73. cof ἐστιαν above «deleted. 76. tow I. 78. ἵερωνικ. Π. 1. ἱερονικ.
, >
κην" .. . diav, ἠπίαν.
120
125
Col. vi.
τάρτην" ἐν Πτολεμαΐδι φρονίμ[ην'"
ἐν Σούσοις τῆς κατὰ τὴν ᾿Ερυθρ[ὰν θά-
λασσαν Σ᾽ αρκοῦνιν ἣ καὶ ἐν τοῖϊς] δε-
κάπαντι θεσμοῖς ἑρμηνεύεις πρώτί στα
ἄνασσα τῆς οἰκουμένης" ἐπίτρο-
mov καὶ ὁδηγὸν θαλασ(σ)ίων καὶ ποτα-
μίων στομάτων κυρίαν: ypappa-
τεικήν, λογιστικήν, φρον[ μην"
τὴν καὶ τὸν Νῖλον ἐπὶ πίᾶσ]αν χώραν
᾽ 4 ~ , Ν
ἐπανάγουσαν[ θεῶν πάντων τὸ
198
av: ἐν ᾿Ινδοῖς Maiav: ἐν Θεσσαλοῖς
σελήνην: ἐν Πέρσαις Aareivny: ἐν
Maras Κόρην, Θαψῖε 9]ῦσιν: ἐν Zov-
cos Νανίαν: ἐν Φοίνικι ΣΌῸρ[] ε]]ίας
105
130
θεός: ἐν Σ᾽αμοθράκῃ Tavpamis-
ἐν Περγάμῳ δεσπότις" ἐΐν] Πόντῳ
ἀμίαντος" ἐν ᾿Ιταλίᾳ ἀγάπην θε-
110 ὧν: ἐν Σάμῳ ἱεράν: ἐν ᾿ἙλληϊσπΊόν-
τῳ μύστειν: ἐϊν] Μύνδῳ dijaly ἐν
Βειθυνείᾳ Ἑλένην: ἐν Τενέδῳ ἡ-
λίου ὄνομα: ἐν Καρίᾳ ᾿Εκάϊτ]η" ἐν
Τρῳάδι κἀν Δινδύμῃ ΤΙ. .Ἰβ[αν,
Παλέντραϊν], ἀβείβᾳστοϊν, "Io:
ἐν Βηρυτῷ Meav: ἐν Sedov ’Ac-
135
115
140
102. 1. ᾿Αμαζύσι.
deleted. 105. 1. Mayo.
107. Geos. .; 1. θεόν, . . . ταυρῶπιν.
111. v Of μυνδω corr. 113. 1. ‘Exa{r|yv.
]. δεκάπεντε. eves Of epunvevers above the line.
for τον. 130. 1. Ὀλύμπῳ.
103. ἵνδοις II.
108, |. δεσπότιν.
at of patav above ε deleted.
6 of θαψεἼυσιν corr. from τ (?).
116. |. Matar.
124. First v of λογιστικην above ex deleted.
137. * Of μισεχθ)ην above εἰ (?).
THE OXYRHYNCHUS PAPYRE
καλὸν ζῷον: τὴν ἐν Δ[ή]θῃ tra-
ρὰν ὄψιν: τὴν μουσαναγωγόν"
τὸν πολί ογυόφθαλμ[ ο]ν[:] τὴν ἐν
᾿Ολύνπῳ θεὰν εὐπρ[ε]πήν[: κόσμον
θηλειῶν καὶ φιλόστ[ορ]γον[" τὴν ἐν
ταῖς συνόδοις ἡδίας εὐπορίαν"
τὴν ἐν ταῖς πανη[γ]ύρεσιν βέόϊσ]τρυ-
Xov' τῶν τὰς καλὰς ἀγόντων
ἡμ[έϊρας εὐθηνίαν[ τὴν τῶν θεῶν
Ἁρποκράτιν: τὴν ἐν ταῖς τῶν θεῶν
ἐξοδίαις πάνταρχον, μισεχθή]ν"
πιστοΐασπιν ἀνέμου καὶ ζωι-
js διάδημα" ἐξ ἧς αἱ εἰκόνες] Kali)
τὰ ζῷα πάντων τῶν θεῶν τίοῦ
104. Above ε of περσαις a(?)
106. ι οἵ νανιαν above ¢ deleted.
109. t of αμιαντος. above e deleted ; 1. -τον.
120. t Of -παντι above εἰ deleted.
129. 1]. τήν
Col. vii. Col. viii.
ὀνόματος σοῦ AX. patiampl........ 165 νον]ται() τὰ σὰ oO... ἴ- - «τ Ὁ
ας ἔχοντα προσκυνῖτα([ κ[υρ]ίᾳ σι, μ[ε- μ᾽. [...]. ovrat τὸ σοῦ [eee
γίστη θεῶν, πρῶτον ὄνομα, ᾿Ιοῖ 1ἴ. «.7.. ὁ νος kao. vouBay ΠΝ
Σῶθι: τὸ μεταίωρον κρατεῖς καὶ -- +L J. ρ. [ν᾿ ἀπέδειξαἸς ro. καὶ
145 ἀμ[ξϊτρητον() ἐϊπηνοεῖς καὶ τὰ [.].. vf. - [- «τ νν {παν « «1. αν (Ldn
θωτα ὑφῆναι: σὺ καὶ τὰς σῴαϊς yu- το .. [..]. καὶ τὴν γῆν σπορίμην
ναῖκας ἀνδράσι συνορμισθῆνἾ]αι [..].. acal.] ἅπαντα τὸν “βίον
θέλις" οἱ πρέσβεις ἅπαντες ἐν] HI. . [- «1.1. Ε] «τ 5 Ὁ. 01. πανταχῇ
KT@ θ(ύγουσι" νέαι ἅπασαι al..[...].€ TEA... κ νον [ἐϊπινοοῦσα τὴν δρό-
150 [. σαι ἐν Ἡρακλέους πόλει φέρ]ον- σον καὶ τὰ... [μενα πάντα καὶ
ται ἐπὶ σοῦ καὶ ἔκτισαν σοὶ τὴν 175 φθορὰν οἷς θέλις δίδοις, τοῖς δὲ
χώραν: ὁρῶσι σὲ οἱ κατὰ τὸ πιστὸν
ἐπικαλούμενοι: ἐξ ὧν ἐ.]. δῖ. .] κατὰ ἀ-
ρετὴν τῶν συνεστηκυιῶν ἡμε-
καθεφθαρμένοις αὔξησιν δί-
δίοις,) καὶ ἅπαντα διιαἸκαθαίρεις"
πᾶσαν ἡμέρ[αν] τῆ εὐφροσύνῃ κα-
1880.
155 ρῶν τξε" ἠπείᾳ σοῦ καὶ εὐδιάλ-
λακτος ἡ χάρις τῶν ὅδ[ύ]ο προσ- 180
ταγμάτων[ ἥλιον ἀπ᾽ ἀνατολῆς
μέχρι δύσεως σὺ ἐπιφέρεϊι]ς κ[ αἱ] ὅλοι
εὐφραίνονταίι olf θεοί: ἄστρ[ω]ν ἀ-
τόο νατολαῖς σὲ ἀκάματοι προσκυνοῦσιν
οἱ ἐπιχώριοι καὶ τὰ ἄλλα ἱερὰ ἐῷ- 185
α ἐν τῷ ᾿Οσίριδος ἀδύτῳ, ἱλαροὶ γεί-
γονται ὅταν σὲΪ[ν]] ὀνομάσωσιν'
οἱ. [. .] δ[α)ίμονες ὑπήκοοι σοὶ [γ]ϊ-
142. μ Of μ[εἤγιστη above οἱ (9) deleted.
εἶπινοεις above the line. 146-7. xa οἵ γυναικας corr.
152. p Of ορωσι above π᾿ deleted and « above the line.
164. ὕπηκοοι II. 176. 1. κατεφθαρμένοις.
182--3. |. εὐχαῖς (?).
Col. ix.
190 kK. |
eS eae Ae ale: oss ers
| See ] πόλει καί. .]
εν νον ἤηύξησας" ἡγ]ε-
Hovis διαδημάτων: αὐ[ξ]ήσεζως
195 καὶ φθορᾶς kali... .]Ἰήσεως κ[αὶ .].. ἤϊσε- 220
ως κυρία' σὺ τοῦ πᾳ... ν]. .] τα-
φῆς κί. -Javay .ἷ - - «1. sof] σὺ [.. «|
ee. Ocipls «Va ona Bes [ee
Kal. . Πα) ἐστὶν με]: 1: 1
200 σαφ( σὺ τὰ πάντα... μ.. ἷ- --- 225
kai τὰ πάντα πρὸς dia. o..{...]pl..
σας" ᾿Ισεῖα πάσᾳι[9] πόλεσιν εἰς τὸν [ἅπαν-
τα χρόνοϊν κατἸέσϊτ]ησας" κ[αὶ π]ᾶσί ιν
τὰ νόμιμα κ[αὶ ἐνιαυτὸν τέλι[ον πΊαᾳ-
205 ρέδωκᾳς[ k[ai...]. αφωνα πᾷσι o...|.
σεΐ.]ε({.]. a Klara ἅπαντα τόπον ἐν
᾿
πάντει τὸ πῖ. . . .| ἔδιξας πρὸς τὸ ἐ-
GRAECO-EGYPTIAN LITERARY PAPYRI
143. to I.
153. ὃ (or δ.]) above the line.
181. ]. πανηγύρεσιν.
184. ν οἵ ψίυχἼ]ρων above the line.
1059
τ[έ]διξας" σὺ κί.]. [.1α[. .]1.α εὑροῦσα
οἴνου πᾶν τὸ. [.]. [.1α[.] παρέσχες [΄. .}
πρῶτον ἐν ταῖς τῶν θεῶν πα-
νηγύρισιν ἐπ... [.Jroa καὶ εὐ-
χεαις καὶ ἐπικαν .. . .1 σὺ πάντων
ὑγρῶν καὶ ξηρῶν καὶ ψ[υχ]ρῶν: ἐξ ὧν
ἅπαντα συνέστηκεν" εὑρέτρια
πίάντων ἐγενήθης [ σὺ τὸν ἀδελ-
pov golv ἐπα]νήϊγ]αγες μόνη κυβερ-
νήσασα καλῶς καὶ εὐαρμόστως
θάψασα: σὺ τοῦ ἀγ]αθοῦ δαίμονος
144. ]. μετέωρον. 145. Second ε of
151. υ of ἐπι and εκτισαν above εἰ deleted.
161. ἵερα I.
182. ο of |roa above p deleted.
Col. x.
noas Kali ἐν τῷ] ἀδύτῳ 7]. . .jovn-
σας evn | 15 letters Ἰοραν
«ιν[.]. ς βασίλισσα np. [.]... rf. .Jvn
κυρίᾳ
πὶρ]οελοῦσα πᾶσαν χώραν |... σ]οῦ
τα |s πτέρυξ[εν" uv... [.]. 7]. . .Juor
ἐστιν" τὸ κ[.]ρ[.]ς ὃ ὑφέστηϊκε. .1. ε ἥλιον
‘Qo. .1 af... .juror[: σ]ὺ ris] γῆϊς κυ]ρία
@.pl.... πλήϊμμυραν ποταμῶν
1[.}....[7.[-- τη ἄγειν" καὶ τοῦ ἐν Ai-
γύπτῳ Nefrol, ev δ]ὲ Τριπόλι ᾿Ελευθέ-
ρου, ἐν δὲ τῇ ᾿Ινδικῇ Γάγγου" καὶ {ro}
δι᾿ ἣν τὸ πᾶν καὶ τ]ὸ ἐνκερ. . ν ἐστιν διὰ
πάν-
τος ὄμβρου καὶ πάϊσ]ης πηγῆς καὶ πά-
ἰση]ς δρόσου kali χι]όνος καὶ πά-
230 ons Δλί.Ἰσείω]ς Kali γ]ῆς καὶ θαλάσσης
A A 4 4 > 7
σὺ καὶ πάντων δεσπότις ἰσαεί:
200 THE OXYRHYNCHUS PAPYRI
dévar πάνϊτας ἀνθρώπους ὅτι σὺ T.[..].. ἕξ[1αὰς πάντας τοῦ πόλου
[-Jav . ovval...]. apa σοῦ: σὺ τὸν υἱ- τὸν. [.|eov * Dpov εἰς ἥλιον . [.].[. .].
210 ὄν ololy apy Avene i αἸντῆ κύρι- εν [Ἰοτ[.ν πλεῖον χώραν πᾶν ὯΩρος[
ον νέον Told πάϊντος κόσμου καὶ 235 σ[ὺ] Διοσκούϊρ .. ‘i .ljo.. p. ἐποίησας"
amr....kl....).v[[wacav]] [... τῇῆν gee). Lh |] kara . ov[. .| τροφῆς πᾶν
α΄. ἰὴ Any [πᾶἹσαν' εἰς τὸν ἅπΙαντα) «ὁ... “ἡρ[}1ὧν ηὔξη[σα]ς" σὺ ἀνέμων
χρό- κα[ὶ βρ]οντῶν καὶ ἀστραπῶν καὶ
νον [κ]ατέστησας" σὺ γυναιξὶν] χειόνων τὸ κράτος ἔχεις" σὺ στρα-
215 ἴσην δύναμιν τῶν ἀνδρῶν ἔϊποί. 240 Τείας καὶ ἡγεμονίας κυρία τοὺς εὐ-
κόπως διαφθείρεις πιστοῖς βου-
λεύμασιν: σὺ τὸν μέγαν [ΟἸσιριν
ἀθάνατοϊν ἐποίη[σἸα[ς] . [- . - « «-
202. ἴσεια Π. ε Οὗ πολεσιν corr. from υ (Ὁ) and ε of εἰς above the line. 206. a of |.a above the
line. 208. ι of ort above εἰ deleted. 213. € of es above the line. 215. ἴσην Il. 218. a in
the margin. 7νη above the line. 221. ὕφεστηϊ I. ε before ἡλιον above the line. 226. ov of
yayyovu COIT. 227. δι nv in the margin and ro above the line. 232. uv πολου above five deleted
letters. 237. 0 of .o.[{ above the line. 239-40. Second ε of exes and ε of στρατείας above the line.
1. τοὺς (rupdvvous); cf. p. 220. 241. € Of διαφθειρεις above the line in both cases.
Col. xi. Col. xii.
καὶ wmaon-yepe 7|\.|s |. 22 Ὁ πα- [
245 pédwKas Opyoxitja [..........-- [
ὁμοίως δὲ Kai “Qpfov] τί.] . [- - - -Jos ed- [
εργέτην γενάμε[νον] καὶ ἀγαθόν" 275 Kali [
σὺ κα]ὶ φωτὸς Kali] φλ[ε]γμάτων κυ- τι τηΐ
ρία: σὺ ἐν Μέμφι. [1]. [-Jelels [ἄϊδυτον": ὀἀη τέρᾳταᾳ[Ἵ ε.[
250 “(pos προκρίνας ὅτ[ι] ἐποίησας αὐ- ἱερῷ καὶ πολεί ἌἍ-
τοῦ διάδοχον. al. .]. εἶ. .] θρο- βυδον θύραν [
νιστής" χρησί μ]φίδ .]. [. . «]Ἰελην 280 σὺ ἡ κτίσασα ἐν Ϊ ἀ- ὃ
Trevemionpal..3:.\r. [ss Ἰασιαι φώναντον καὶ
tee) 3 oe Ἰα[.Ἰσαν" Ae. εθεῦ' καὶ αἱ
255 Καὶ [.....|t καὶ θ1.. .1 κατάγεις τοῖς τὴν εὐθῖαν τί
los pee \.am.[. Ἰξιν καὶ ἁγίαν" σὺ ἔκτισας... .Ϊ
εὖἰς ΠΩ a Ἰν κατ[ηὔ]ξησας κράτος 285 καὶ [ἐν τῇ προσ
ἜΧΗ τ": Ἰγα. « - - αι [ἀἸ]βουλίαις τααβδεῦ' σὺ δῖ
Pega st ήνς ].oac...[.] κελεύουσα of
1880. GRAECO-EGYPTIAN LITERARY PAPYRI 201
260 ἃ ἀνθ... .1. ν τὰ ἀνάφορᾳ πάν- chee [J]. ἃ
τα τί Ἰομένων πάντων ..... σὺ πᾳν.}..
τῶν καϊἰὶ....... 1s ae πάντων 290 των. .Ϊ
θεῷν κί. . .(1ας διάδοχον αὐτίδὴν ἐ- ἐποίησας τὸν [ εἰς
ποίησίας" καὶ τὸν T.[.] . ρον [.1. |]. cac]] τὸν αἰῶνα ν}}" [σὺ
265 βιυί.Ἰτι[. . . π]άν[τ]ων θρόνου κύρι- σώτιρα" σὺ .Ϊ
ον" καὶ χρησμῳδὸν βασιλέα νουσα ἱδρυμία
κατέϊσ]τησας ἐπὶ τοῦ πατρίου 295. σὺ καὶ τὸ φὼς τί
οἴκου εἰς τὸν ἅπίαν)τα χρόνον" ᾿ς ριωεανεῦ" ἱλί
ἐπεὶ cold] ἐκ τριῶν τὸ ἐν Bov- του" [σ]ὺ ἐπαυξί
270 σείρι ἱερὸν τὸ καλούμενον ἀσεβιεῖ)ς [κ]αὶ υἱ
ἘΠ Ἰ--.]-. ov arf. .] «.[-...].
250. υ οἵ προκρινας above εἰ. 250-1. τ Of avrov corr. from ὃ. 269. |. ἐπί.
296. ε οἵ oweavev above ἡ (or «?) 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... Hem,
divine ; at... at Buto skilled in calculation, ...; at Thonis love ...; in the Saite nome
victorious, Athena, nymph; at Nebeo. .. ; at Caene joy ; at Sais Hera, ruler, perfect ; at Iseum
Isis ; at Sebennytus inventiveness, mistress, Hera, holy ; at Hermopolis Aphrodite, queen,
holy ; at Diospolis Parva ruler ; at Bubastus 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, Mouchis, Eseremphis ;
at Phagroriopolis . . .; 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 Menouthis truth ;
at Meniouis seated before Io in whose honour .. . is founded ; at M ..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 ; in 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 Myrain Lycia
sage, freedom ; at Cnidus dispeller of attack, discoverer ; at Cyrene Isis ; in Crete Dictynnis ;
at Chalcedon Themis; at Rome warlike; in the Cyclades islands of threefold nature,
202 THE OXYRHYNCHOS\PAPY RI
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 worshipped 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 Magi 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
Maia; 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 ; O lady Isis, greatest of the gods,
first of names, Io Sothis ; thou rulest over the mid-air and the immeasurable ; thou devisest
the weaving of. ..; it isalso thy will that women in health come to anchor with men ; all the
elders at E .. ctus sacrifice; all the maidens who. . . at Heracleopolis turn (?) to thee and
dedicated the country to thee ; thou art seen by those who 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
«ον (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-
1880. GRAECO-EGYPTIAN LITERARY PAPYRI 203
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 I. 2, which was clearly in the neighbourhood of
the southern apex of. the Delta (cf. Il. 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-piah, ‘the temple of the divine personality of Ptah’ (Wiedemann, Herodots zwerfes
Buch, p. 47). The worship of Isis at Memphis is again mentioned in 1]. 249, where she is
said to have a special ἄδυτον there ; cf. Hdt. ii. 176. According to Diod. i. 22 and Euseb.
Praep. Evang. ii. τ 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 1880 was himself
_a priest of Isis at Memphis is not unlikely; cf. p. 195. Ἰχμεῦνιν in 1. 3 is an Egyptian
appellation like e. g. Ταχνῆψιν in 1. 75 (? Ταἰχμεῦνιν), and one or two other titles are lost in the
lacuna. Since the list of towns proceeds in a northerly direction, ἰπόλει in 1. 1 would
be expected to be not far south of Memphis, and ᾿Αφροδίτης] πόλει, the capital of the Aphro-
ditopolite nome (4271) is more likely than Νείλου] πόλει, which is placed by Ptolemy in the
Heracleopolite nome a little north of the capital, or Ἡρακλέους] πόλει (Lhmasia). Another
᾿Αφροδίτης πόλις (1. 7, note) is distinguished by the mention of its nome. If, however, as is
possible (cf. ll. 18, 70, 73, 87, 96, 116, notes), the geographical order is not being strictly
adhered to ἰη 1]. 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 Herodnpolis (Zed/ εἰ
Maskhita; Naville, Pithom, p. 6) is too far away to be suitable, but the ᾿Αφροδίτης 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 (I. 7), may be referred to,
or, possibly, Letopolis, if that town does not occur in |. 6, where itis expected. *Ove- in 1. 1
is probably the beginning of another Egyptian title like Ἰχμεῦνιν, &c., the first syllable perhaps
representing wz as in Ὀννῶφρις = Un-nefer, ‘good being’. A proper name Ὀνῆς with gen.
’Opéous occurs e.g. in P. Par. 5. xl. 4-5. With Ὀνείου πόλις (Zell εἰ Vahudia) or "Qv, the
Egyptian name of Heliopolis, there is not likely to be any connexion.
4. Ἰόφει: the doubtful o might be σ, but not μ, so that Μέμφει is inadmissible, even
apart from the probability that the ‘House of Hephaestus’ means the town as well as the
temple ; cf. the preceding note. Ἰοῴις was presumably in the Memphite or Letopolite nome.
The Coptic town Shetnoufi (Sha/andéf), about ten miles north of Letopolis, seems to
be different.
4-5. BovSao[rw: in Hdt. ii. 156 Βούβαστις is equated to ἴΑρτεμις 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. Βουβασίτίτου is unlikely owing to the absence of the
article (cf. ll..8 and 21, though later, in Il. 40 and 71, the article is omitted with nomes),
and because Bubastus comes in 1.37. κἰαλουμένην is not used elsewhere after titles in 1380.
6. [ἐν Λητ]οῦς [π᾿ [λει [τῇ μεγάλῃ : the name is uncertain and [ev . .Juno[.].[. .7. {τ} μ- can
be read, but)a mention of Letopolis (Awsém) is expected between the Memphite an
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 εἷς Ζεὺς Sdpams, e.g. 1882. 20; Isis is called ‘ the only
one’ in her Egyptian titles (Budge, of. εὖ, 277). M(a)iav, however, is possible ; cf. e. g.
1. 103 and Μεαν in 1. 116.
7-8. Aphroditopolis in the Prosopite nome is known from Strabo, p. 802 συνάπτει δὲ
... καὶ ἔτι 6 Προσωπίτης νόμος, ἐν ᾧ ᾿Αφροδίτης πόλις, and Pliny, V. #7. v. 10 Busiris, Cynopolts,
Aphrodites, Sais. The identification with Niciu, which according to Ptolemy was the
204 THE OXYRHYNCHUS PAPYRI
capital of the Prosopite nome, was rejected by Wiedemann (of. εἴ]. 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 Προσωπῖτις νῆσος and had a temple of Aphrodite, but that view is also
rejected by Wiedemann. ᾿Ατάρβηχις occurs elsewhere only in Steph. Byz., who omits this
᾿Αφροδίτης πόλις. The Prosopite nome apparently included a triangular island between the main
Canopic (western) branch and the Φερμουθιακὸς ποταμός, which issued at the Sebennyte mouth,
the northern limit of the nome being perhaps the ancient canal called Bahr el Fara‘inia
(‘ Pharaonic river’) which runs from east to west through J/endf; cf. Butler, Arab conquest
of Egpyi, p. 16'. But it also extended to the west bank, since Θερενοῦθις (Zerrdna) was
included in it; cf. B.G.U. 453. 2. There are ruins of a large town at Zawyet Razin on
the Rosetta branch south-east of AZeni#f, which might belong to ᾿Αφροδίτης πόλις. Mrs. Butcher
(Story of the Church in Egypt) would identify them with Niciu (cf. 1. 12), but Butler (ὦ c.)
follows Quatremére in placing that town, of which the Coptic name was Pshazz, at Shabshir,
where the canal joins the Rosetta branch, about six miles south of Jéshdédz, which is identified
with Niciu in a Graeco-Coptic-Arabic list of equivalents (Amélineau, Geogr. p. 283). Petrie
(Maukratzs,i, p. 93) puts Niciu at £7 Daharéa, twelve or thirteen miles from Naucratis. The
title ‘ mistress of the fleet’ given to Isis at ᾿Αφροδίτης πόλις Shows that it had a harbour of some
importance. The form στολαρχίς seems to be new.
9. ᾿Αφροδίτην : 1. 6. in Egypt usually Hathor, with whom Isis was often identified (cf.
Drexler, of. εἶδ. 494-9), Horus being identified with Eros.
το. [ἐ]πὶ rod Δέλτα : the writer tends to use ἐπί in place of ἐν when he is speaking of
a town named after some natural object, e. g. in Il. 44 τοῦ ”Amews, 45 Λευκῆς ᾿Ακτῆς, 60 Σχεδίας,
61 τοῦ Ηρακλίου, 74 τοῦ Kaciov, 75 τοῦ ᾿Εκρήγματος, 01 τῆς Πέτρας, but he is not consistent ; cf.
ll. 43 ἐν Καταβαθμῷ, 54 ἐν τῷ ᾿Ισιδίῳ. With districts he uses ἐν, e. g. in Il. 29 ἐν τῷ Σαΐτῃ and
71 [ἐνὶ Μετηλείτῃ and frequently in Il. 76 sqq. Probably therefore τὸ Δέλτα is a town rather
than a district and identical with the κώμη rather than the χωρίον at the junction of the
Canopic and Sebennytic branches described by Strabo, p. 788. τὸ Δέλτα in P. Rev. Laws
ΧΧΧΙ. 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. 25), or meant the Heliopolite nome, is not
clear. On the whole it is probable that in xxxi. 6 Μενε]λαΐδι καὶ Δέλτα together form the
Νιτριώτης of ΙΧ]. 20; cf. 1. 21, note. Ptolemy’s μέγα Δέλτα, μικρὸν A., and τρίτον A. are all
east of the Prosopite nome. The stop after χαριτοδώτειραν is not quite certain, as it might
be a continuation of the cross-bar of the ν ; but though 1. 11 presents difficulties it does not
seem possible to combine the first part of it into one long adjective.
11-12. For ἠπίαν cf. 1. 155. τη μίαν (cf. 1. 6) might be read, but the letter preceding ἡ
is more like. than τ No place Καλάμισις is known from Greek writers, but both it and
Καρήϊν]η apparently belong to the ἄλλαι πόλιες συχναί in the Prosopitis referred to by Hdt. ii.
41, and Colomos, which Geogr. Raven. 24 mentions next to JVicum (i.e. Νικίου : cf. 1. 12) is
perhaps identical with Καλάμισις, to which ΔΑ αἰ, 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 Ταχνῆψιν, is unlikely owing to the correction of the « of -μὲ from εἰ, for though
irregular in his use of « and e in datives and frequently altering εἰ to ε, the scribe does not
elsewhere alter a correct «, Καρήνη isonly known as a town in Mysia. With φιλ[ό]στοργον
cf. 1. 131 and the Ios Inscr. 24-5 ἐγὼ ὑπὸ τέκνων γονεῖς φιλοστοργεῖσθαι ἐνομοθέτησα.
12. τῇ Νεικίου : cf. ll. 7-8, note.
13. Either [.|6 ἁγίαν δότειραν or [d\@dva(ro)y δότ., or ἀθανα(σία)ν Sor. (as one or two words)
can be read. The incorrect form ἀθανασιανδότειραν would be similar to ἀνδρασώτειραν in |. 55
and would refer to the immortality conferred upon Osiris and Horus by Isis through her dis-
covery of τὸ τῆς ἀθανασίας φάρμακον (Diod. i. 25; cf. ll. 242-3, 246-7) ; but δότειραν occurs by
itself in 11. 13 and 68 and is probably a separate word here. There are some traces of ink
1880. GRAECO-EGYPTIAN LITERARY PAPYRI 205
above the second av, but they seem to be accidental. θανάτοιο δότειρα occurs in Hesiod, Op.
354. [᾿ΑἸθαναν for ᾿Αθήνην, which occurs 6. g. in 1. 30, is unlikely.
τῷ Ἱεράσῳ : this town, situated probably north of Niciu and not far from Momemphis
(1. 14), is unknown. Ἰέρασα at Cyrene is mentioned by Steph. Byz. and ‘Iépagos ποταμός in
Dacia by Ptolemy.
14. Ἰαθροῖχιν : perhaps ᾿Αθροῖχιν, for there is a blank space before a: but the surface of the
papyrus is damaged, and 6. g. Τ]αθροῖχιν (cf. Ταχνῆψιν |. 7 5) is possible.
Μωμέμ[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, (1) Χαβρίου κώμη, i.e. probably the Χαιρέου of Byzantine
geographers, (2) Ἑρμοῦ πόλις (Damanhir, cf. 1. 18), (3) Γυναικῶν πόλις καὶ Γυναικοπολίτης νομός
(οἴ. 1. 21), (4) ἐφεξῆς δὲ Μώμεμφις καὶ Μωμεμφίτης νομός" μεταξὺ δὲ διώρυγες πλείους εἰς τὴν
Μαρεῶτιν, (5) ὑπὲρ δὲ Μωμέμφεως δύο νιτρίαι . . . καὶ νομὸς Νιτριώτης, (6) πόλις Μενέλαος (cf, ll. 21
and 70, notes). Champollion’s identification of Momemphis with JZend/ is accepted by
Wiedemann (of. εἴϊ. 572) and Daressy (Rev. arch. 3™° sér. xxv. 208), but not by
Amélineau (Géogr. 250-1). This view would bring it within the Prosopite nome (cf.
ll. 7-8, note). Strabo’s statement that there was a Momemphite nome is at variance with
the evidence of P. Rev. Laws and the coins of the nomes, and probably the Μωμεμφίτης was
really a toparchy. From its position in 1880 Momemphis would be expected to be
somewhat north-west of Niciu, and the name J/endf suggests Μενοῦφις (1. 71, note) rather
than Momemphis, though the identification of Μενοῦφις with that Jendf also presents
difficulties.
15. ἄνασ)σαν: Aphrodite was the chief deity of Momemphis according to Strabo, Zc. ;
but though 7ην can be read, there is not room for ᾿Αφροδίτ]ην. For Isis as queen cf. p. 192
and 1. 82, note.
Ψωχήμει : this place is no doubt identical with Steph. Byz. ψώχεμμις πολίχνιον Αἰγύπτου.
᾿Αρτεμίδωρος ἐν ὀγδόῳ γεωγραφουμένων" καὶ Περίκερμις ἐκ δεξιῶν μερῶν καὶ Θαλαβαύδη καὶ Ψώχ.
Probably it and the two places mentioned in ll. 16-17 were in the Gynaecopolite or Nitriote
nome. The towns of the Saite nome apparently come in Il. 30-2, except Naucratis (I. 19,
note). For [ὁ]ρμίσίτριαν), which seems to be new, cf. 1. 74 ἐν Πηλουσίῳ épp. 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
Kafr el Zaydi.
16. Modu: this town is known only from Steph. Byz. Μύλων πόλις Αἰγύπτου. “Ἑκαταῖος.
17. Ke..«vAjpe: this town, which is likely to have been near Hermopolis Parva (1. 18 ?)
or Naucratis (I. 19), is unknown; cf. 1. 15, note.
18. [‘Ep|uo[d πόλει : the restoration is very uncertain, for Hermopolis ἡ μικρά (Damanhir)
would be expected to be mentioned as such in order to distinguish it from Herm. ἡ μεγάλη in the
Heptanomia, Herm. τοῦ Μενδησίου (J. 52), and Herm. near Buto (1. 35 ὃ). Moreover Hermo-
polis Parva was north of Naucratis (1. 19) and probably of Nithine (1. 21, note), being in the
᾿Αλεξανδρέων χώρα according to Ptolemy, though this is not a very serious objection, for it was
on the west bank of the Canopic branch (I. 14, note) and only twenty-four Roman miles from
Nithine, and a change of direction from north-south to east-west in any case takes place before
]. 27. But there would be room for another letter in the lacuna after po (or με), and perhaps
an unknown town [.. ue. . 7é\e was mentioned here, which, if it was south of Naucratis (Il. 19)
like Niciu (1. 12) and Momemphis (I. 14), would not disturb the geographical order.
Hermopolis Parva, however, if not mentioned here, was omitted altogether, unless it came
in 1. 26.
19. Ναυκράτει: 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 lx. 18 it is coupled with
206 THE OXYRHYNCHUS (PAPYRI
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. ll. 30-2 and 1. 18, note.
ἀπάτειραν : the reading is practically certain, for though the vestiges of the first letter
are very slight the second can only be π or 7. The form is new. ἀπάτωρ 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. De Js. οἱ Os.
12, Diod. i. 13, and the Ios Inscr. 11-12, while other legends made her the daughter of
Hermes (Plut. Δ. 5.) or of Zeus (i.e. Ammon) and Hera (Diod. /.c.). In 1880 Isis is often
identified with Hera and Maia, the mother of Hermes.
evgpo[ov|ynv: cf. p. 193 and ‘lady of joy and gladness’ in her Egyptian titles (Budge
op. cit. p. 247).
21. Νἤιϊθίνῃ τοῦ Tuvacxo[rojAeirov is no doubt MWVthine of the Itin. Anton. between
Hermopolts (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. Andro, i.e. ᾿Ανδρῶν πόλις, is
generally considered to be identical with Τυναίκων πόλις and appears to have been at Kharbald —
near JVegé/a where the desert bends away to the west and canals lead to Lake Mareotis (cf.
Strabo, p. 803 quoted in]. 14, note, and Amélineau, Geogr. 221). Kum el Hisn and Kum
Afrin, mounds south of Naucratis, may be identical with two of the places mentioned
in ll. 15-17 and 21-3. 1880 agrees with the earlier authorities Strabo, Pliny (/V. Z. 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-Ixxii, and that Ἰπολιτηι in xxxi. 4 is Τυναικο]πολίτηι
is very doubtful. ἩἩλιο]πολίτηι 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
Μενεἤ]λαΐδι καὶ Δέλτα in xxxi. 5-6 and Νιτριώτηι in Ixi. 20; cf. 1]. το and 70, notes. Puthin;
which is found in Geogr. Raven. 12 among unknown places in the north-west Delta, is
probably identical with MV2¢hine, and Πζι]θίνη 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 4a/aniin, between Zania and Mendf, but this is too far south for Nii, which
suggests a connexion with the goddess Neith and may well be the correct form. The
mention of the nome implies that there was another Nithine in Egypt; cf. ll. 7-8, 40, 52,
and 54, notes.
22. ΠεφρήΪμι] : this is very likely identical with the Πάπρημις of Hdt. ii. 63 and iii. 12,
which Wiedemann (of. c7#. 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 Βουσιρίτης, Sairns, Χεμμίτης, Παπρ., νῆσος ἡ Προσωπῖτις
καλεομένη, Na@ (Edt. ii. 165) indicates that it lay near the middle of the Delta, but rather
toward the west, i.e. between Zanfa 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. Ἑστία 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. [κυ]ρείαν πάσης χώρας : cf. ll. 125-6, note, and the Ios Inscr. 3-4 ἐγώ εἰμι ἡ τ[ὑραννἾος
πάσης xépas. ‘The deleted Xvov seems to be the beginning of an unknown town named after
the god Χνοῦβις (Chnum). Χνοῦβις in the Thebaid is placed by Ptolemy opposite Latopolis
(Esna).
15980ὃ.5Ό. GRAECO-EGYPTIAN LITERARY PAPYRI 207
25. Eo| ...: no suitable name for this town, which is likely to have been near Buto
(I. 27), is known. L£schefza occurs in a Coptic list of bishoprics next to Naucratis, but this
may refer to Σχεδία : cf. Amélineau, Géogr. p. 172. The doubtful ¢ might be o or @, but not
A or p, So that ᾿Ελ[ευσῖνι and Ἑρμοῦ πόλει (cf. 1. 18, note) are excluded.
26. For"Hpay cf. e. g. 1. 32, and for δίαϊν 1]. 86 and 111. The a of Ἥραν has apparently
been prolonged above the », perhaps by an afterthought. On the identification of Isis with
Juno cf. Diod. i. 25 and Drexler, of. οἷ]. 513-15. With what Egyptian goddess Hera was
generally identified is not clear. A cataract inscription (Ὁ. I. G. 4893) identifies her with
Satis. ἀμίαντον ἐν (ε above the line) Δι. is a less satisfactory reading, and ély | Μένδζητνι af is
inadmissible, but ἐν @yzolv[e, which in Roman times superseded Mendes, may have followed
dial v.
27. The supposed @ of Βουτῷ is very doubtful, but that town is expected about this
point. Its site has not yet been located with certainty, but Hogarth (of. εἴ, p. 4) accepts
Petrie’s proposal (Vaukraris, i, p. 91) to identify it with Ze? Fera‘tn. The name seems to
have survived in the village of Hé/u. Hermopolis, which according to Strabo, p. 802, was
near Buto, apparently comes later; cf. 1. 35, note. According to Hadt. ii. 156 Leto, ie.
Uat, a winged-serpent goddess, protectress of Lower Egypt (Wiedemann, of. εἴ. p. 263),
was the chief deity worshipped there, but Λητώ does not suit the vestiges of the second
letter, which seems to be round, and for λοίγιστικήν cf. 1. 124. Λητώ, however, may have
followed ; cf. 1. 79.
28. Gon: the reading is fairly certain. Strabo (p. 800) places it on the strip of coast
between Pharos and the Canopic mouth τὸ δὲ παλαιὸν καὶ Θῶνίν twa πόλιν ἐνταῦθά φασιν,
ἐπώνυμον τοῦ βασιλέως τοῦ δεξαμένου Μενέλαόν τε καὶ “Ἑλένην ξενίᾳ: cf. Steph. Byz. κεῖται δὲ κατὰ
τὸ στόμα τὸ Κανωβικόν, and Hdt. ii. 113. Parthey (Δ γαζεραο d. alten Aegypt.) puts it east
of the Canopic mouth on the site of Zana.
ἀγάπίην : cf. 1. 109 ἀγάπην θεῶν, which can be restored here, but ἀγάπην may be a title by
itself like φιλίαν in 1. 94.
28-9. If χρόνῳ is right, the preceding » might be ἄνω: cf. τὸ ἄνω in Il. 38 and 42. The
words seem to belong to a title, not a place-name ; but the » is very doubtful, and possibly
év..... .\@xpo|..@ καὶ "Ayo{ should be read. For the coupling of two names cf. 1. ror.
- 30. τῷ Σαΐτῃ : for a nome instead of a town cf. 1. 71 ἐν] Μετηλίτῃ, and for a district apart
from individual towns in it, il. 86-8. For υ»[εἸκήτίριαν cf. 1. 48 and Drexler, of. εἴ. 521. The
chief deity at Sais was Neith-Athena (Hd. ii. 59), so that this identification of Isis with
Athena was very natural; cf. Plut. De 75. οἱ Ος. ο τὸ δ᾽ ἐν Σάι τῆς ᾿Αθηνᾶς ἣν καὶ Ἶσιν νομίζουσιν
κτὰ., and 60 τὴν μὲν γὰρ Ἶσιν τῷ τῆς ᾿Αθηνᾶς ὀνόματι καλοῦσι. For Isis as νύμφη cf. the evidence
for her relation to nymphs discussed by Drexler, of. εἴΐ. 529--30, especially a Myconus inscr.
ἼσΊιδι [xorlpdv@ καὶ θεαῖς Novpats.
31. Νηβεοΐ suggests a possible connexion with the modern Wederra, close to Naucratis,
which was in the Saite nome (I. 19, note), but ἐν τῇ Beol (or Βεμί) can be read, though after
1. 13 the article is rarely used with place-names. The title may be Ἶ[σ]ιν ; cf. 6. g. 1. 76.
Καινῇ: the only known Egyptian towns of this name are (1) Kawy (Kena) in the
Thebaid, (2) Cee which the Itin. Anton. places between Zacona (in the κάτω rorapyia of the
Oxyrhynchite nome ; cf. 1285. 130) and /szz, i. 6. probably in the Heracleopolite nome, and
(3) a village in the Arsinoite nome (e.g. P. Tebt. 345). Chenopolis occurs in Geogr.
Raven. 111 in the list Xoy (Ξόις: cf. 1. 42), Zele, Chenop., Mem)nonia; and Caenopolis
id. 125 in the list Zzmoy (Antinoé?), Caenop., Selitra, Chara (Xdpaf?; cf. 1. 72, note),
Nichis (Νικίου ὃ), Nastrim, Babilon. ‘The arrangement is not clear in either case, but Cheno-
pols seems to refer either to Καινή = Kena or to Chenoboscium, while Caenopolis might be
our Καινή, which was probably in the Saite nome.
32. Sa: cf. 1. 30, note.
208 THE OXYRHYNCHAUS PAPYRE
33. Ἰἰσείῳ : this isthe 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 Behdit el Hagar, about eight miles north of Sebennytus
(Samandd; cf. the next entry), and it no doubt belonged to the Sebennyte nome. For
"Iow cf. e. g. 1. 23 ; at the Ἰσίδιον τοῦ Σεθροΐτου (1. 54) she was called ἀνδρ(ο)σώτειρα.
4. For ἐπΐνοιαν cf. 1. 60, and for dujydorw e.g. 1. 41.
35. ἐν] Ἑρμοῦ πόλει : there is some doubt about this name, which may be read ἔν . Jenov
πόλει. If ‘E[p μοῦ is right, this town seems to be the Hermopolis περὶ τὴν Βουτόν on an island
(Strabo, p. 802), since Herm. in the Mendesian nome comes in 1. 52 and for Herm. ‘Parva
], 18 is a much more suitable place than |. 35. The site of this Herm. is unknown ; from
its position here between Sebennytus (.Samandd) and Diospolis, which seems to have been in
the lower Sebennyte nome (]. 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 was mentioned in]. 22. The latter town was the capital of
the Φθενέτης νομός according to Ptolemy, and if rightly placed at Ze// Fera‘in (cf. 1. 27, note),
it was close to the Bahr Nashart, which Hogarth (/.c.) identifies with the Θερμουθιακὸς
ποταμός of Ptolemy and makes the boundary between the Φθενέτης νομός and its eastern
neighbour, the Σεβεννύτης κάτω. On the east side of this canal, in the district between
Tell Fera‘in and Kim Khanzir?, which Hogarth has identified on good evidence with
Παχνεμοῦνις, the capital of the Σεβεννύτης κάτω according to Ptolemy, are the ruins of a large
town at Hawalid, which Hogarth regards as the site of Phragonis (not mentioned in 1880), and
mounds of several smaller towns, 6. g. Haddadz (cf. Hogarth’s map), one of which may well
have been Hermopolis.
36. Baolijeto[car, ἁγε]ίαν : for Isis as queen, her true name according to Apul. Me/am.
xi. 5 (cf. 1. 82, note), cf. Drexler, op. οἱ]. 512-13. The εἰ of ἀγειαν may have been corrected,
as in the previous line, where « is not certainly deleted ; cf. 1. 250, critical note.
Δειὸς π[όϊλει τῇ pecx[pa|: Diospolis Parva elsewhere refers to 7é@ in Upper Egypt, but
this Diospolis is clearly that mentioned by Strabo, p. 802 πλησίον δὲ Μένδητος καὶ Διόσπολις καὶ
ai περὶ αὐτὴν λίμναι kai Λεοντόπολις" εἶτ᾽ ἀπωτέρω ἡ Βούσιρις ἐν τῷ Βουσιρίτῃ νομῷ καὶ Κυνόσπολις,
Hermippus Fr. 50 θάπτεται (sc. Demetrius Phalereus) ἐν τῷ Βουσιρίτῃ πλησίον Διοσπόλεως,
Hierocles, Synec. Νικίου, Ξόις, Φραυυνης (i. 6. ΦραγῶνιςῚ, Παχνεμοζ(ῦννις, Διόσπολις, Σεβέν(ννυτος, and
the coins inscribed Διοσπ(όλεως), or Διοσπ(ολίτου), κ(άτω). Its site is uncertain. Hogarth
(op. cit. p. 12) places it at Zell el Balaméin, a little north-east of Sherdém on the west bank of
the Damietta branch, about half-way between Sebennytus and the mouth, and Daressy
(Rev. arch. 318 sér., p. 208) at Belkés about seven miles west of Sherdin, but such a position
creates a considerable difficulty with regard to the statement of Hermippus that Diospolis
was in the Busirite nome, since that nome was south of the Sebennyte and cannot have
extended in the direction of Damietta; cf. ll. 49-50, note. Against Hermippus, however,
is to be set the fact that in1880 the Busirite nome comes later, and the position of Diospolis
in 1. 36 rather suggests that it lay somewhere between Sebennytus and Bubastis. 761]
Mokdam near Mit Ghamr 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 Διοσπολίτης 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 nomes in a
third-century ostracon (Milne, Zheban Ostraca, Ὁ. 151).
37-8. ἐν Βουβάστῳ τὸ ἄνω : Bubastus (the form -τις is not applied to the town in papyri)
is Zell Basta, near Zagazig. τὸ ἄνω (cf. 1. 42) is a curious expression, and it is not clear
whether the reference is to space (cf. ll. 144-5) or time. If to the latter (cf. 1. 82, note),
1880. GRAECO-EGYPTIAN LITERARY PAPYRI 209
there may be a connexion with 1. 28 ? ἄν]ω χρόνῳ. Bubastus was said to have been founded
in honour of Isis ; cf. Diod. i. 27 and the Inscr. of Ios 16.
38. Ἡλίου π[όλ]ει : about seven miles north-east of Cairo; cf. ll. 1-3, note.
39. ᾿Α[θ]ρίβ[ι]: Zell Atréd, near Benha.
Μαῖαν : cf. p. 192. 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 Damanhir, Hermopolis Parva, where Hermes = Horus,
probably a very old identification made before Egypt was familiar to the Greeks ; cf. p. 224.
ὀρθωσίαν : cf. 1.98. This term is a common title of Artemis. The explanation of
Schol. Pind. Οἱ. 3. 54 ὅτι ὀρθοῖ εἰς σωτηρίαν ἢ ὀρθοῖ τοὺς γεννωμένους is preferred by Hofer
(Roscher, Lex. d. griech. u. rim. Mythol. iii. 1213). Applied to Zeus the term = séafor.
40. Ἱερᾷ Φθεμφ] θ]ούϊ τίου : ‘Iepd 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 Taova (Ptolemy) or
Tavatrov πόλις (P. Brit. Mus. 921. 6), adjoined the Athribite nome (1. 39) on the west, being
north of the Prosopite nome (I. 8); cf. Itin. Anton, which places Zava twelve miles from
Andro (]. 21, note) and thirty from Cyno (ll. 49-50, note). The spelling varies, Φθεμθί )
and Φθεμφοευί( ) being found on coins, Φθεμφουθί in the best MSS. of Ptolemy, Φθεμφουθί ))
in P. Brit. Mus. 921, Φθεμφούθ in P. Ryl. 78. 5, Phthemphu in Pliny, WV. H. v. 49. It is not
certain that a letter is lost after ¢. For the omission of τοῦ cf. 1. 71 and ll. 4-5, note.
λω[τ]οφόρον : 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, Mum Augg. Alex. 6350). The
first o οἵ λα[τ]οφόρον is more like o, but φωσφόρον cannot be read and θεσἰμ]οφόρον (cf.
ll. 119-20) is also unsuitable.
41. Teovxt: this is probably identical with Steph. Byz. Tevwyis πόλις Αἰγύπτου. ἔστι καὶ
λίμνη ὁμώνυμος, 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 Zdkd#, the Greek name of which is unknown: the village Edkd is
between Adukir and Rose/ta.
41-2. τοῖς Βουκολεῦσι : the Βουκόλοι, as they are elsewhere called, were primitive
inhabitants of the marshes along the north-west coast, and revolted in a.p. 172. How far
east they extended is not clear. The Βουκολικὸν στόμα of Hadt. ii. 17 is supposed by Wiede-
mann (of. cif. Ὁ. 96) and others to be the Phatnitic mouth, which was between the Sebennytic
and Mendesian, but Sethe (Pauly-Wissowa, Realencycl. 5. 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. τὰ Βουκόλια in Β. G. U. 625 (cf. P. Hamburg 39) is
regarded by Wilcken (/.c.) as a district, but may mean the town Bucolva in Geogr. Raven. 9,
Naucratis being no. 6 and Prthin (cf. 1. 21, note) no. 12.
42. Hou: the € is very doubtful and Ξόι possibly occurred in 1. 32. If it did, ἐν Ξοίτ[η]
ἄνω, ‘the upper division of the Xoite nome’ might be read here; but for τ[ὸ] ἄνω cf. 1. 38.
Strabo describes its position (p. 802) ἐν δὲ τῇ μεσογείῳ τῇ ὑπὲρ τοῦ Σεβεννυτικοῦ καὶ Φατνιτικοῦ
στόματος Ξόις ἐστὶ καὶ νῆσος καὶ πόλις ἐν τῷ Σεβεννυτικῷ νομῷς ἔστι δὲ καὶ Ἑρμούπολις (cf. 1. 52»,
note) καὶ Λυκούπολις καὶ Μένδης. An ancient list of Greek, Coptic, and Arabic equivalents
(Amélineau, Geogr. p. 410) identifies Xois with Sakha, about half-way between Hermopolis
Parva and Thmuis. Pliny, V.Z. 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 Strabo’s statement that
Ls
210 THE OXYRHYNCHUS PAPYRI
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. Καταβαθμῷ: this can refer either to Κ, μέγας (Akaba el Kebir) on the boundary
between Egypt and the Marmarica according to Strabo, p. 678, and in the παράλιος of the
Libyan nome according to Ptol., or, more probably, to K. μικρός (Akaba el Soghir), placed by
Ptol. some distance inland behind Λευκὴ ᾿Ακτή (1. 45) and nearer to Apis (1. 44) than is
Κ, μέγας.
πρ[ό]νοιαν : Isis appears as πρόνοια on Alexandrian coins (Poole, Catal. p. 176); cf.
Plutarch, De Js. ef Os. 3 ἔτι πολλοὶ μὲν Ἑρμοῦ, πολλοὶ δὲ Προμηθέως ἱστορήκασιν αὐτὴν θυγατέρα"
ὧν τὸν μὲν ἕτερον σοφίας καὶ προνοίας, Ἑρμῆν δὲ γραμματικῆς καὶ μουσικῆς εὑρετὴν νομίζοντες. διὸ καὶ
τῶν ἐν Ἑρμουπόλει Μουσῶν τὴν προτέραν Ἶσιν ἅμα καὶ Δικαιοσύνην καλοῦσι, σοφὴν οὖσαν, ὥσπερ
εἴρηται, καὶ δεικνύουσαν τὰ θεῖα τοῖς ἀληθῶς καὶ δικαίως ἱεραφόροις καὶ ἱεραστόλοις προσαγορευομένοις.
Cf. also Apul. Me/am. xi. 18 dea providens and Drexler, of. cit. 540.
44. ἐπὶ rod” Areas φρόνησιν : for ἐπί cf. 1. 10, note, and for Apis Hdt. ii. 18 of... ἐκ
Mapéns τε πόλιος καὶ ἴΑπιος, Pliny, v. 39 Apis... . nobilis religione Aegypit 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 1880. Fourteau (Bull. de Inst. egypt. 5188 sér. viii. 99) suggests that
it was near Rds ’dmm Rokhdém. Apis was probably the ancient capital of the Libyan
nome, corresponding to JVu ent Hapi ‘the town of Apis’ in Egyptian texts. For Isis as
φρόνησις cf. 1. 124 and Plut. De Js. e¢ Os. 60.
45. Λευκῆς ᾿Ακτῆς : cf. Strabo, p. 799, Ptol. iv. 5. It was on the coast east of Paraetonium
and north of Καταβαθμὸς μικρός (1. 43, note), and is generally identified with Rds el Kanais.
Μοῦχιν : the first three letters are very doubtful. Modys is the name of villages in the
Arsinoite (P. Tebt. 609), Heracleopolite (P. Hib. 68), and Oxyrhynchite (1842) nomes.
There is no likelihood of any connexion with Μωχιάς, the title of Isis at Acoris (C.1.G.
4703 C), which refers to the Maxirns τόπος of the Hermopolite nome (P. Reinach. 15. t2, &c.).
46. Ἐσερέμφ[ι]ν : cf. the Theadelphia inscr. published by Breccia in Bull. de la Soc.
archéol. @ Alex. 1914, where a temple of Ἶσις ᾿Εσερέμφις is mentioned in ]. 17. Spiegelberg
(2.c.) translates the term ‘making a good name’.
Φραγούρων πόλει: i.e. the Φαγρωριόπολις of Strabo, p. 805, which Steph. Byz. calls
Φαγρώριον, the Geogr. Raven. Phagorior. Strabo mentions it as the capital of the Phagrorio-
polite nome (which is ignored by other authorities) along with Ἡρωώνπολις ( Tell el Maskhita)
and Φάκουσα (Fakés or, as Naville thinks, S¢ft οἱ Henna), and it probably lay in the Wad?
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 (ll. 37, 53, and 59).
44-8. 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 ev is right
Φακούσοις Or Ἡρώων πόλει may be supplied; cf. the preceding note. For y|pappare[ix|i[v cf.
1. 123 and p. 193.
49-50. Κυνὸς] πόλει τοῦ Βουϊσε]ρε τ οἷν : or, less probably, Λύκων] πόλει τοῦ B. 5 cf. Rosetta
Inscr. 22. This Cynopolis is mentioned in conjunction with Busiris (cf. 1. 51) by Strabo,
p. 802, Pliny, WV. H. v. 64, Hierocles, and Meletus, rev. 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 (Zmez el Amdid) in about the centre of the Delta, which position accords
very well with Herodotus’ statement (ii. 59) that Busiris was ἐν μέσῳ τῷ Δέλτα. That town
is identified in a list of Graeco-Coptic-Arabic equivalents with Adustr, three miles south of
Samanid (Sebennytus ; cf. 1. 33), which is confirmed by the equation of Βούσιρις to Abusir
in the case of the Letopolite town (C. I. G. 4699. 12) and the Heracleopolite (B. G. U. 1061.
8, &c.), while Κουνῶ(ν) κάτω is identified with the Coptic Panou and Arabic Beme, a few
1880. GRAECO-EGYPTIAN LITERARY PAPYRI 211
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 Τραιανὸς Ποταμός (Wadi Tumildt). P. Rev.
Laws in xxxi. 7 mentions the Busirite nome between the Sebennyte and Mendesian, and in
Ixiii. 6 between the Mendesian and Athribite.
50. Πραξ ι]δ[ {|κ[η]ν : cf. Tiirk and Hofer in Roscher, op. cit. ili. 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 Πραξιδίκη in Orph, Hymn. 29. 5.
For the identification of Isis with Persephone cf. 1. 72, note,
51. Βουσείρει : cf. ll. 49-50, note, 269-71, and Hat. ii. 59-60.
τύχην, ἀγαθήν: for Isis as Fortune cf. Drexler, of. cif. 545-6, and for ἀγαθήν (which
is probably separate from roxnv) cf. 1. 95 and C.I. G. 5041.
52. Ἑρμοῦ π[ὀ]λε[ι] rod Μενδησίου : cf. P. Tebt. 340. 5, which shows that it gave its name
to a toparchy, P. Ἀγ]. 217. 15-34, Strabo, p. 802, quoted in 1. 42, note, and Steph. Byz.,
who states that it was κατὰ Θμοῦιν. 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. Bakiéa, which is generally identified with Hermopolis,
is about three miles west of Zmez el Amdid. Φερνοῦφις (1. 57) was also in this nome.
Thmuis, the capital at this period (cf. Ptolemy and P. Ryl.), does not occur in 1880 except
possibly in]. 26.
53- PapBaibe: Horbét, the capital of a nome which lay between the Bubastite and
Tanite.
54. τῷ ᾿Ισιδίῳ τοῦ Σεθροΐτου : this place, named after a temple of Isis, was previously
unknown ; cf. "I[ceio in 1. 33. The Sethroite nome was in the extreme north-east of the
Delta ; cf. 1. 56, note.
55. ἀνδρασώτειραν seems to be an incorrectly formed compound (cf. ]. 13, note) rather
than two words, though for a confusion of sex cf. ll. 135-6, note.
56. Ἡρακλέους) πόλει τοῦ Σεθροΐτου : the nome is added to distinguish it from Heracleo-
polis Magna in the Heptanomia. Ptolemy makes Ἡρακλέους μικρὰ πόλις (v. 1. S<Opois) 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. Miiller (Ptol. iv. 5. 24)
identifies it with Zell el Serig (= Tell Βαμα).
57- Φερνούφι: this town was in the Mendesian nome, giving its name to a toparchy ;
cf. P. Ryl. 216. 274 and 217. 57, 59.
58. ΛεζοἸντωπόλει : this place, the capital of a nome, is sometimes identified with
Lell Mokdam near Mit Ghamr, between Sebennytus (I. 3 3) 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 west 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 lxvii. 8 between the Tanite and
Pharbaethite nomes, which favours the identification with ΖΕ Mokdam.
ἀσπίδα : Isis is often represented as a snake; cf. Drexler, of. cif. 533-9. In P. Amh.
128. 56 προφήτη(ς) ᾿Ἰσιδο(ς) "Οφεω(ς) it is not clear whether Οφεω(ς) is a title of Isis or
a proper name, as it is apparently in 1]. 116 of the same papyrus. ἐλπίδα is a less suitable
reading than ἀσπίδα,
59. Tam : San, near Lake Menzala. χαριτόμορφος is a new compound.
60. Σχεδίας : cf. Strabo, p. 800 διέχει δὲ τετράσχοινον τῆς ᾿Αλεξανδρείας ἡ Σχεδία, κατοικία
πόλεως ἐν 7 τὸ ναύσταθμον τῶν θαλαμηγῶν πλοίων κτὰ.
P2
212 THE OXYRHYNCHUS PAPYRI
61. τίο]ῦ Ἡρακλίου : cf. Strabo, p. 801 pera δὲ τὸν Κανωβόν (cf. 1. 62) ἐστι τὸ Ἡράκλειον τὸ
Ἡρακλέους ἔχον ἱερόν, Steph. Byz., who calls it “Ηρακλεόπολις (cf. 1. 56), and Geogr. Raven, 2
Eraclia, no. τ being Alexandria. For Isis in her familiar capacity of goddess of the sea cf.
p-. 193 and Drexler, of. czz. 474-90.
62. Κανώβῳ : near Adukér, but its precise situation is not certain.
μουσαναγωγόν : apparently a new form; cf. 1. 128. For Isis as leader of the Muses cf.
Plut. De Js. e¢ Os. 3 quoted in |. 43, note.
63. Μειζο]ύθι: cf. C.1.G. 4683 ὁ. τ Ἐἴσιδι Φαρίᾳ Elow τὴν ἐν Μενούθι, Steph. Byz. Μένουθις
Αἰγυπτία κώμη πρὸς τῷ Κανωπῷ, and Epiphanius, Adv. Haeres. iii, p. 1093, where a temple τῆς
Mevovéiridos is mentioned.
ἀλήθιαν: cf. the Ios Inscr. 32 ἐγὼ τὸ ἀληθὲς καλὸν ἐνομοθέτησα νομίζεσἾθαι, and P. Brit.
Mus. 46. 148 ἐγώ (sc. Abrasax) εἰμι ἡ ἀλήθεια.
64. Mer{sjove: it is not certain that any letter is lost between ν and o, and only a narrow
one is admissible ; Μενούθι (cf. 1. 63) or Μενού[θ]ει cannot be read, although the following word
might be rod. Σηκτιζ... is, however, a very unlikely name, the only one at all resembling
it being Σενσκειτήν[η] in C. 1. G. 4839. 11 Ἴσιδι τῇ Σενσ., referring to the modern Sekkef in the
Mons Berenicidis. The other places in ll. 60-76 are on or near the coast, so far as they
can be identified, and # xri¢era is confirmed by 1. 151 ἔκτισαν σοὶ τὴν χώραν (cf. also |. 280),
while for Ἰοῦς cf. ll. 143-4 Ἰοῖ 346. Io was often identified with Isis in Alexandrian times ;
cf. Drexler, op. cif. 439-40. πίόλ(ε)ι]ς is possible in 1. 64, but [ἡ]μερείας does not seem
appropriate in 1. 65, and for πόλις ΕἸ [[ηἹμερεί[α]ς there is not room, so that the construction
of Ἰοῦς remains obscure.
65-6. τοῦ ΜΙ. .|veoriov: the first letter is nearly certain, but the rest are very doubtful,
especially to, which might be read as «. Mfle|veAairov is inadmissible. μεγίστου is probably
a mistake for μεγίστην : cf.1. 21. γυπόμορφος is a natural epithet of Isis, who is often repre-
sented with a vulture’s wings; cf. 1. 220 and Drexler, of. εἴ]. 473-4.
67. Ταποσίρι : two towns of this name in the north-west of Egypt are known : (1) Tam.
(ἡ μεγάλη) east of Lake Mareotis, mentioned by Strabo, p. 799, but by other writers called
Ταφόσιρις, the modern Adusér, with a temple and a reputed tomb of Osiris, (2) Tam. 7 μικρά
between Alexandria and Canopus (Strabo, pp. 799-800). The towns mentioned in Il. 60-3
and the Μετηλίτης in 1. 72 suggest the second, but Πλινθίνη in 1. 73 is placed by Ptolemy close
to the first, and the sites of other places found in ll. 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
published by Néroutsos, Rev. arch. 1887, p. 214, and Domina Isis Taposirzs occurs in the
dedication of a statue found at Faesulae (C.I.L. xi. 1544); a papyrus to be published in
Part XII mentions ἱερὰ (γῆ) Ἴσιδος Ταποσειρίαδος in the Oxyrhynchite nome.
68-9. τῇ Νήσῳ : this is more probably Φάρος νῆσος off Alexandria (Ptol. iv. 5; cf p. 195)
than the desert island off the Canopic mouth (Scylax, Per7p/. 84) or Νῆσοι, a place in the
Mareotis (Anon. S/a/. mar. magn. 22-3). Vesz, which the Geogr. Raven. mentions next
after Anurton (᾿ Αγκυρῶν πόλις in the Heracleopolite nome?) and Cymnopolis (apparenitly in
the Heptanomia), is probably different, as is Σιδωνία νῆσος (Strabo, p. 799), between Δευκὴ
᾿Ακτή (1. 45) and Taposiris Magna (I. 67, note). For ταχυν]κην cf. 1. 84, note.
69. Πευκεστίδι : this was only known from Geogr. Raven. 73 Peucestim among several
unrecognizable towns, aucratim being no. 61 and Bufo no. 78. The title κυβερνῆτις
suggests that it was on the coast (cf. 1. 74 ἐν Πηλουσίῳ ὁρμίστριαν), probably not far from
_ Alexandria.
70. Μελαΐδι : this town or district is unknown, and perhaps Me(ve)Aaid: should be read ;
cf. P. Rev. Laws xxxi. 6. Μενε]λαΐδι there, however, if correct, seems to mean the district
round the πόλις Μενέλαος mentioned by Strabo, p. 803 (cf. 1. 14, note), as being in the south-
west of the Delta (Meve|Aaié: corresponds, partly at any rate, to the Nitriote nome; cf. |. 21,
1380. GRAECO-EGYPTIAN LITERARY PAPYRI 213
note), whereas in the light of the preceding entries Me(ve)Aai& here would more appropriately
refer to the Μενελαΐτης νομός, of which Canopus (I. 62) was the capital according to Ptolemy,
but which is ignored by P. Revenue Laws. The term MeveAais, however, does not occur
elsewhere, and with Me(ve)Aaté& it would be best to suppose that the list has made a sudden
divergence to the south of the Delta in spite of ll. 60-8 and 72-5, which are concerned with
the north coast; cf. the next note and that on]. 18.
71. Μ[ε]νούφι : this place is unknown ; and M{a|vovq: or ΜΙ εἰνούφι might be read. The
name strongly suggests the Arabic Mend/ (cf. 1. 14, note), but of the two towns of that name
one lies between Zan/a and Cairo, i.e. too far south to be appropriate unless Me(ve)Aaid: be
read in ]. 7o,and the other (/ehallet Meniif), about five miles north of Tavzéa, is identified with
᾿Ονοῦφις (the capital of a nome) in a Graeco-Coptic-Arabic list of equivalents; cf. Daressy,
Rev. arch. 3116 sér. xxv, p. 208.
στρ[αἸ]τίαν : cf. ll. 83 and 102. στράτιος is a well-known epithet of Zeus and Athena (cf.
ll. 30 and 72).
71-2. [ἐν] Μετηλείτῃ : there is no room for τῷ in the lacuna. The writer becomes more
sparing in the use of the article as he proceeds; cf. ll. 4-5, note. The Metelite nome
is placed by Ptolemy between the Μέγας ποταμός (i.e. the main western branch) and the Τάλυ
ποταμός, which issued at the Bolbitine (Rosetta) mouth, i. e. in the district now mainly occupied
by Lake Zdkd (cf. 1. 41, note). It isignored 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. K[élpnv: cf. 1. τορ and 1. 50, note. She was worshipped at Oxyrhynchus, as
is shown by a papyrus to be published in Part XII.
Xdpaxos: cf. Strabo, p. 760, who after describing the Κάσιον ὄρος (cf. 1. 75) proceeds
εἶθ᾽ ἡ ἐπὶ Πηλούσιον (cf. 1. 74) ὁδός, ἐν 7 τὰ Τέρρα καὶ ὁ rod Χαβρίου λεγόμενος χάραξ καὶ τὰ πρὸς TO
Πηλουσίῳ βάραθρα. Chara in Geogr. Raven. 127 (οἴ. 1. 31, note) is perhaps identical.
73. Πλινθίνῃ : this town in the Mapewrys νομός on the coast west of Alexandria not far
from Taposiris Magna gave its name to the Πλινθινίτης κόλπος : οἵ, Hdt. ii. 6, Strabo, p. 799,
Scylax, Per7pl. 105, Ptol.iv. 5. This entry is somewhat out of place ; cf. ll. 67-72, notes.
74. Πηλουσίῳ: Tell Farama, 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 Κάσιον ὄρος (Rds el Kurtin; cf. Hdt. ii. 6
and Wiedemann’s note) and the “Expyypa (sc. Σιρβωνίδος λίμνης), which Ptolemy assigns
together with Ῥινοκόλουρα (£7 Arésh) to a distinct region, the Κασιῶτις. “Ρινοκόλουρα, however,
occurs in |. 93 along with towns in Palestine, and was clearly regarded by the author
of 1880 as beyond the Egyptian frontier, as in Pliny, V. H. v. 68, and Strabo, who extends
Φοινίκη up to Pelusium (p. 756).
75. For τοῦ Κασίου cf. the preceding note, and for Ταχνῆψιν p. 192.
77. ᾿Αραβία probably means the Sinai peninsula or Arabia Felix rather than the νομὸς
’ApaBia. Petra, perhaps the capital of Arabia Felix, comes in]. 91. For θεόν cf. 1. 107 and
the Ios Inscr. 15-16 ἐγώ εἰμι ἡ mapa γυναιξὶ θεὸς καλουμένη.
77-8. τῇ [Νή]σῳ : οἵ. 1. 68. At the end of the line r is very doubtful, and perhaps ἐν
Σηΐ. .|e@ or Ty[. (ἰσῳ should be read; that any letters are lost is not certain. [τῇ [Νή]σῳ is
right, the reference may well be to an island on the west coast of Arabia called Ἴσιδος ἱερά
(Agatharchides in Geogr. Gr. min.i. 180, Diod. iii. 44), thought to be the modern Barahkan ;
cf. Drexler, op. cz#. p. 376.
78. The verb ἱερονικοτελεῖν is apparently new. For Isis-worship in Lycia cf. 1. 79
and Drexler, Mum. Zertschr. xxi. 184 sqq.
79. Λητώ: cf. 1. 27, note. Myra = Demoére.
214 THE OXYRHYNCHUS PAPYRI
80-1. ἐλευθερίαν : ἐλευθέϊρ]αν could be read, but Isis Eleutheria occurs on Alexandrian
coins of Galba (Poole, Coins of Alex. p. 23).
ἄφεσιν éf[d|bav, εὑ[ρ]έτριαν : ἀφέσιος is an epithet of Zeus in Pausan. i. 44. 9. ἔφοδος in
papyri usually means ‘attack ’, and é[é]Sv seems to depend on ἄφεσιν rather than εὑρέτριαν,
in connexion with which it would have to mean ‘communications’. For Isis-worship at
Cnidus cf. Drexler, Num. Zettschr. 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. Δικτυννίν : cf. Apul. Wefam. xi. 5 me primigenit Phryges Pessinunticam nominant
deum matrem; hinc Autochthones Alttict Cecropiam Minervam (cf. e. g. 1. 30); thine flu-
ctuantes Cyprit (cf. ll. 86-8) Paphiam Venerem (cf. e.g. 1. 9); Cretes sagztifert Dictynnam
Dianam (cf. 1. 84); Siculi trilingues Stygiam Proserpinam (cf. 1. 72, note); Eleusinit
vetustam (cf. 1]. 37-8, note) deam Cererem ; Iunonem (οἴ. 1. 26, note) ali, Bellonam (cf. 1. 83,
note) aliz, Hecatam (cf. 1. 113) ist’, Rhamnusiam ili ; et qué nascentis det Sols inchoantibus
tllustrantur radits Aethiopes Ariique, priscaque doctrina pollentes Aegyptit . . . appellant vero
nomine reginam (cf. 6. 5.1. 36) Lsidem. Dictynnis was another name of Britomartis; cf.
Diod. v. 76, and Rapp in Roscher, of. cdf. i. 821-8. The usual form was Δίκτυννα.
83. Θέμιν : cf. Πραξ[ι]δ᾽ {|κ{η]ν in 1. 50.
στρατίαν : the title is appropriate enough at Rome (cf. Il. 71, 102, 239-42, and 82, note),
but the reading is not certain, for the first letter is more like a than o 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 of τριφυήν in the next line. “Arpodw (a variant of Ἄτροπον ?)
or ”A(c)rpayw (a form quoted by Suidas, 5. 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, of. εἴΐ. 400-9, Lafaye, op. εἴ].
84. τριφυής is new as an epithet of Isis, and what it refers to is not clear. Perhaps
it means much the same as zpipopdos, which was an epithet of Hecate (I. 113; cf. 1. gt
τριοδῖτι). 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 edmple|aqy.
85. []é6u@: an island is expected, and [.]. ἐμῳ, 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 Παθμιτικὸν στόμα (Ptol. iv. 5) which others call Φατνιτικόν.
νέα 2.[.|6[..||kn : the writer changes in Il. 85-- from the accusative to the nominative,
as again in Il. 07-9. ν of νέα is very uncertain, but the space suits νέα (cf. ὡραία in |. go)
better than 6¢a. The second word is not μο[υ]σεκή or [γ]ραμμί αἸτε[]κή (cf. 1. 123), but the
doubtful « might be ν, and the 6 possibly e.
86. For evidence of Isis-worship in Cyprus (cf. Il. 87-9) see Apul. 77είαγι. xi. 5 quoted
in 1. 82, note, and Drexler, op. εἴ]. 379-80. For δία cf. Il. 26 and 111, and for ἠπία ]. 11.
diay cannot be read, but κενην with ὃ above the first » (i.e. κεδνήν : cf. 1. 79) is possible
instead of ἠπία.
87. Chios is inserted between two places in Cyprus. For evidence of Isis-worship
there see Drexler, of. cz. 381-2. στείχουσα as the title of a deity seems to be new.
κατόπτιν : cf, P. Brit. Mus. 46. 280-1 τῶν ἐπερωτώντων pe kai κατ᾽ ὄψιν μοι ἐρχομένων.
88. πανάφθονος is a new compound; cf. εὐπλέαν in |. gg.
89-90. The preceding mention of Cyprus and the occurrence of south Syrian towns in
ll. 93 544. 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 ll. 107-14. Petra, however, might be in the Macedonian Pieria; cf. note on
1. gt. [ὁδ]σίαν might be read for [ἀ]γίαν, but cf. e. g. 1. 34. Συρίᾳ] is inadmissible in 1. go.
90. ᾿Ασίᾳ, if right (Ἰωνίᾳ is unsuitable), probably means Asia Minor rather than the Roman
13880. GRAECO-EGYPTIAN LITERARY PAPYRI 215
province of Asia or Asia in general. On Isis-worship in Asia Minor cf. Drexler, Wum.
Zettschr. xxi. τ 5644.
91. τριοδεῖτιν : usually an epithet of Hecate ; cf. 1. 113 ‘Exa[r|7 and 1. 84 τριφυήν.
Πέτρας: about fifteen towns of this name are known. That in the Macedonian
Pieria (Livy, xxxix. 26) might be meant (cf. Il. 89-90, note); but the Arabian Petra (Wad?
Misa) was the most important and, as ll. 93 sqq. are concerned with Syria, was probably
intended, although Arabia occurred in 1. 77.
92. Ὑψήλῃ : the capital of an Upper Egyptian nome (Ptol. iv. 5) is unsuitable, but the
ὙὝψηλῖται described by Steph. Byz. as κατοικία Θράκης may be connected with this ‘yy. An
unknown place in Arabia or Syria, however, may well be meant; cf. ll. 93 566.
93. Ῥεινοκορούλοις : LZ Arish; cf. 1. 74, note. There is much variation in the spelling
of this name, which occurs elsewhere as Ῥινοκόρουρα or Ἱινοκόλουρα. 1880 is certainly
incorrect on this point.
παντόπἰτιν : Cf. 1. 87 κατόπτιν, but wavron|épov can be read. The second π᾿ has perhaps
been corrected from « or p.
94. Dora (Zantura) was between Ptolemais (I. 117) and Στράτωνος Πύργος 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 Καισάρεια Στράτωνος. It was situated between Dora
and Ascalon (1. 96) and is still called Kazsaréa.
95. Ἑλλάδα : for the personification of Hellas in art cf. Drexler in Roscher, of. civ. 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 Λατῖνα among the Persians
(Il. 104 and p. 192).
96. Ascalon ΗΝ was north of Gaza (1. 99) and south of Στράτωνος Πύργος (]. 94).
Sinope (.Szzub), 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 Js. εἰ Os. 28.
97. πολυώνυμον : cf. introd. and Drexler, of. εἴ]. 546-7.
‘Papég : the usual spelling is Ῥαφίᾳ or ‘Papeig. Réfa is between Rhinocolura (]. 93) and
Gaza (I. 99).
98. ἐν Τριπόλεϊ dpOwoiav: cf. 1. 225, where the mention of the river Eleutherus shows
that Zaradblus on the Syrian coast north of Berytus (I. 116), not Tripolis in the Cyrenaica,
is meant. A town called Orthosia between Τριπ. and the Eleutherus is mentioned by Strabo,
Pp- 753-4. For ὀρθωσία cf. 1. 39, note.
99. Tat): Gazza, a little south of Ascalon (I. 96).
εὐπλέαν : ἐύπλειος Occurs in Hom. p 467, but εὔπλεος nowhere else. 4 might be read for
the first « and « for v, and the fourth letter may be lost altogether; but cf. Il. 88 πανάφθονον,
135 εὐθηνίαν. That εὐπλέαν is a corruption of εὔπλοιαν (cf. 1. 74 ὁρμίστριαν) is hardly likely.
Δελφοῖς : no Isis-temple at Delphi itself is known, but Tithora in Phocis had one ; cf.
Pausan. x. 32. 9 and Drexler, of. czt. 387-8.
100. Βαμβύκη (Bambik) 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. 1. 116) cf. Pliny,
NV. H. v. 81 Bambycen quae alio nomine Mierapolis vocatur, Syris vero Mabog (2bi prodigiosa
Atargatis, Graecis autem Derceto dicta colitur). For other identifications of Isis with
Atargatis see Drexler, of. cz#. 500. The usual forms are ᾿Ατάργατις or ᾿Αταργάτη, and -rec here
is probably a mistake for -ry (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.
τοι. [κ]άν Δήλῳ: cf. 1. 114. Delos inscriptions frequently mention Isis.
102. ᾿Αμάζοις : i.e. ᾿Αμαζόσι. Apadors (i.e. ᾿Αμαδό(κονις) might be read, but στρατίαν (cf.
1. 83) suits the Amazons, who were regarded as historical even in late times.
216 THE OXYRHYNCHUS PAPYRI
103. India and the Ganges are mentioned in |. 226. That Isis-worship penetrated
there was not known previously. For Isis in Thessaly cf. Drexler, of. εἴ}. 387.
104. σελήνην: 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, of. cz#. 437-8.
Λατείνην : this title, which suggests that the Persians learnt Isis-worship from the
Romans, not the Egyptians, is curious; cf. “Ελλάδα in |. 95.
105. For Κόρην cf. 1. 72, note. Θαψ᾽ε ῦσιν or Tay. (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, of. εἴ, 379.
106. For Naviay or Ναν(αδῖαν (cf. the critical note) cf. Ἶσις Ναναῖα at Nabla in the
Arsinoite nome (P. Brit. Mus. 345. 3) and the Navaiov at Alexandria (6. 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 Macc. i. 13 and Wagner in Roscher, of. εἴ. iii. 4-5.
Φοίνικι Συρίας : Φοίνικῃη would be expected (cf. e.g. Ptol. v. 14. 3), but Φοῖνιξ occurs
as a place-name, and the form was perhaps intentional, though incorrect ; cf. 1. 100, note.
107. θεός : cf. 1. 77, note, and for the case, which continues up to I. 109, ll. 85-6.
Σαμοθράκῃ : 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, Vum. Zettschr. xxi, p. 55.
109. ἀΐγάϊπην θεῶν : cf. 1. 28 ἀγάπην... The first letter might be A, but λύπην does
not suit the space. On the extensive evidence for Isis-worship in Italy as well as Rome
(1. 83) see Lafaye, op. cz/., Drexler in Roscher, of. cz. 397-412. She had a temple at
Pompeii.
110. Σάμῳ : for evidence of Isis-worship there from coins and inscriptions see Drexler,
op. cit. 381.
111. puorew: cf. the Ios inscr. 27 ἐγὼ μυήσεις ἀνθρώποις ἀνέδειξα.
Μύνδῳ : on the Carian coast, ten miles north-west of Halicarnassus. The head-dress of
Isis appears on coins of Myndus; cf. Drexler, Mum. Zettschr. xxi. 130.
112. Ἑλένην : cf. Hdt. ii. 113-20, Plut. De Herod. malig. 12, who states that Menelatis
and Helen received πολλαὶ τιμαί in Egypt, and Engelmann in Roscher, of. εἴ2. i. 1949-52.
For Isis-worship in Bithynia cf. Drexler, Mum. Zettschr. xxi. 23.
ἡλίου ὄνομα: cf. e.g. ‘eye of the sun’ in the Egyptian titles of Isis (Brugsch,
Religion, 645), and ll. 157-9. ὄμμα is inadmissible.
113. Ἑκάϊτ]η : cf. 1. 91 τριοδεῖτιν and J. 84 τριφυήν. For Isis-worship in Caria οἵ,
Drexler, op. εἴ. 119.
114-15. Δινδύμῃ implies that the writer considered Δίνδυμα to be a feminine singular
instead of neuter plural. τίρι]βί]αν could be read in 1. 114, but the Latin form is not
suitable here (cf. 1. 91) and τίυμ]β[ ἔων is unsatisfactory, so that probably the word is a foreign
name, like the next. The ε of εν inl. 115 is not enlarged, as is generally the case with ἐν
in a new clause, and there is no trace of a stop before it; but ἐν Τρύϊῳ͵ for Tipe] (the absence
of which town is remarkable), or ἐν Τρύᾳ] for Τροίᾳ] could be read, making -aA the termina-
tion of the preceding name. _If not p, the letter following r can only be o: the next might
be a, 6,or A. For Isis-worship in the Troad cf. Drexler, Wum. Zeztschr. xxi. 59. ἀβίβαστον
= ἄβατον occurs elsewhere only in an ancient gloss ; cf. Stephanus, Zesaurus.
116-17. Berytus (BerréZ), Sidon (Sazda), and Ptolemais (4 ἀκα) were between Tripolis
(I. 98) and Ascalon (1. 96). For Isis-Astarte in Syria cf. Drexler in Roscher, of. cz? 500
and |. 100, note. For φρονίμ[ην cf. 1. 124.
118. This Susa (cf. 1, 105) is apparently unknown, like the title Σαρκοῦνις. The ᾿Ερυθρὰ
θάλασσα perhaps means the Persian Gulf (cf. Hdt. i. 180) rather than the Red Sea.
119-20. For Isis θεσμοφόρος cf. the Ios Inscr. 8-11 ἐγὼ νόμους ἀνθρώποις ἐθέμην καὶ
13880. GRAECO-EGYPTIAN LITERARY PAPYRI 217
ἐνομοθέτησα ἃ οὐδεὶς δύναται μεταθεῖναι, and Drexler, of. εἴΐ. 459-61. What the fifteen θεσμοί
were is unknown, and the two προστάγματα in |. 156 are equally obscure.
121-3. Cf. p. 193 and the Ios Inscr. 19-20 ἐγὼ θαλάσσια ἔργα copa.
123-4. For γραμματική cf. p. 193, λογιστική 1. 27, φρονίμη Il. 117 and 44, note.
125-6. Cf. ll. 222-6, Plut. De Zs. εἰ 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. 248). For πίᾶσ]αν χώραν cf. 1. 24 and note. Here, however, waclav (τὴν) χώραν
(cf. ], 151), i. 6. Egypt, would be more suitable.
126-7. τὸ καλὸν ζῷον : 1. 6. aS a cow; Cf. ]. 107 ταυρῶπις and 1]. 161-2, note.
127-8. For ἱλαρὰν ὄψιν cf. p. 193, and for μουσαναγωγόν |. 62, note.
_ 129. πολί{ολυόφθαλμ[ο]ν : the name Osiris was considered by some to mean πολυόφθαλμος
according to Plut. De 75, e¢ Os. το, but wrongly ; cf. Wiedemann, of. εἴ. 514.
129-32. For Isis as the model wife and mother cf. p. 193, the Ios Inscr. 29 sqq.
ἐγὼ στέργεσθαι γυναῖκας ὑπ᾽ ἀνδρῶν ἠνάνκασα ... ἐγὼ συγγραφὰς γαμικὰϊς εὗρα, and Drexler,
op. cit. 491. ἡδία (or ἥδεια) seems to be otherwise unattested.
133. βόϊσ᾽τρυχον : 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. ll. 135-6, note). But possibly the meaning of βόστρυχος here is ‘ bunch of
grapes’, alluding to Isis’ discovery of wine (Il. 179-83).
134-5. Cf. |. 51, note, and p. 193.
135-6. τὴν τῶν θεῶν “Apmoxpdrw: cf. ‘the female Ra’, ‘the female Horus’ in Isis’
Egyptian titles (Budge, op. cit. 277). 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
‘ Hartshéris ’.
137. The stop after pioex6\n\v is uncertain, and there might be one after πάνταρχον.
μισεχθής is not found elsewhere.
138-9. πιστοΐασπιν is a curious compound. τεις τὸ ἰάσπιν(ονν might be read, but, though
a letter may have been lost at the end of the previous line, ἄγεις or | ἄγεις is inadmissible.
For τ instead of γ cf., however, ]. 105 Marots. διάδημα rather supports πιστοΐασπιν ἀνέμου in
preference to πιστό(ν)" ἀσπὶν ἀνέμου, or ἀσπιλίαν ἐμοῦ, which couldalso be read. The writer is
fond of the adjective πιστός, but it does not occur elsewhere in 1880 as a title. There are
no other instances of the first person, though this is naturally found in similar invocations.
ἴασπιν is a known form of the accusative, but not ἀσπίν, and ἀσπίδα is correctly written
in]. 58. For διάδημα cf. 1. 194. ‘Isis of lapis-lazuli’ occurs among her titles in the
demotic papyrus mentioned on p. 191.
139-41. ai κύνες might be read for εἰκόνες, in which case a dittography of ai must be
supposed. A reference to the dogstar occurs in ]. 144, but the Ios Inscr. 27-8 ἐγὼ ἀγάλματα
θεῶν τειμᾶν ἐδίδαξα confirms εἰκόνες : cf. Diod. i. 15. If mp in 1. 141 is right, πρ[οσηγορί ας
ἔχοντα is possible, but -« top| (or τυρὴ may be read for ια zp). xapee're Or χάριτι is just
possible, but the first letter is more like A than a, μ, or x.
142. Kup ia Ἶσι plelyiory : «[vp|iais very doubtful, the space being barely sufficient. The
first letter of Ἶσι perhaps had a diaeresis, as in 1. 23. The letter above the line (cf. the
critical note) is also very uncertain : perhaps ἡ | μεϊγίστη should be read.
143-4. Ἰοῖ 366: for lo = Isis cf. 1. 64, note. The reading seems clear. Sothis, the
Egyptian name of Sirius, was identified with Isis ; cf. e.g. ᾿Ισισῶθι as one word (nom. or
voc.) among a number of magical names with which Isis is invoked in P. Brit. Mus. 121.
495, and Plut. De Zs. εἰ Os. 61, quoted in ll. 221-2, note.
145-6. There is a blank space before ἐπι]νοεῖς, of which the initial letter is enlarged,
but apparently no stop. κζαὶ τό in ], 144 would make that line unusually long, and ἀμέτρητον
2τ8 THE OXYRHYNCHUS. PAPYRI
suits κρατεῖς better than ἐΪπι]νοεῖς, for which cf. 1.173. The τ of θωτα in |. 146 is very
uncertain, but καὶ zo{velis κι ᾿Ἰθῶνα, 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 σώαἰς might be a and the first and third are very doubtful.
συνορμισθ]ῆν])αι is probably to be taken metaphorically (cf. the Ios Inscr. 21-2 ἐγὼ γυναῖκα καὶ
ἄνδρα συνήγαγα. ἐγὼ γυναιξὶ δεκάμηνον βρέφος ἐνέταξα), though there seem to be no parallels
for this use and ὁρμίστριαν occurs in |. rg.
148-9. This sentence apparently balances the one following. σοί has perhaps been
omitted before oi. πί can be read for ηΐ at the end of |. 148. There is not room for θύουσι,
but which letter was omitted between 6 and o is uncertain.
_ 149. ἅπασαι is very doubtful, but cf. 1.148 ἅπαντες. Possibly the second letter was μ
with w written above it. ἅμαξαι (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. ὁρῶσι makes good sense, referring to visions of Isis in dreams (cf. Drexler, op. οἷ.
522-5); but the supposed traces of letters above the line and the deletion of π᾿ are very
uncertain, Perhaps ὅπως should be read, the verb being then omitted.
153-5. Probably the corrected word beginning with e was an aorist, and rée agrees with
ἡμερῶν, Such an order being common at this period. The mention of the 365 days (cf.
1, 204 é|wavrév τέλι[ον») may be connected with the circumstance that at Sais the 5th intercalary
day, the last of the year, was the birthday festival of Isis; cf. P. Hibeh 27. 205.
155. For ἠπεία cf. ll. 11 and 86: possibly the « was deleted. For εὐδιάλλακτος cf.
P. Brit. Mus. 122. 28 εὐδιάλεκτος γενοῦ.
156. d[t]o προσταγμάτων : cf. the fifteen θεσμοί in |]. 120. The traces suit d[vjo better
than o[@|», which would moreover be superfluous after σοῦ in |. 155.
157-8. Cf. the Ios Inscr. 18-19 ἐγὼ ἡλίου καὶ σελήνης πορείαν συνέταξα.
161-2. τὰ ἄλλα ἱερὰ ζῷα is apparently accusative, not nominative. The ἱερὰ ζῷα may
have included a sacred cow representing Isis, as the sacred bull at Memphis represented
Apis. τῷ ᾿Οσίριδος ἀδύτῳ (cf. 1. 216) probably refers to τὸ τοῦ ᾽Οσίριδος ἄσυλον ἐν ᾧ κεῖσθαι τὸν
Οσιρίν φασιν, situated a little above Sais (Strabo, p. 803). A stop is expected before ἐν τῷ
or idapoi.
166. |. ονται : or] ..1ra.
167. The last word of the line is not βασιλίέ]α.
170. τὴν γὴν σπορίμην : Isis was especially the goddess of the fields and crops; cf. 6. δ.
the stele quoted by Diod. i. 14 εὑροῦσα τῆς κριθῆς καρπόν.
171. -aga\.| is probably a verb -ava[s] with ἅπαντα beginning a new sentence; but
-aral.].[*] πάντα can be read.
173. [ἐἸπινοοῦσα τὴν δρόσον : cf. 1. 229 and P. Leyden V. vii. 23 Ἶσις ἡ καλουμένη δρόσος,
aA Brugsch (Religion, 137) connects with the supposed origin of Isis as the morning-
glow.
174. There are short blank spaces after -cov and πάντα.
175-7. Cf. ll. 194-6, and Isis as τύχη (1. 51) and νέμεσις (Drexler, of. ε2]. 544-5).
178-9. Cf. p. 193.
179-83. The punctuation is uncertain: there may have been stops after παρέσχες
Or πρῶτον and after πανηγύρισιν. In 1, 180 παντός can be read and als] or ιν] before
παρέσχες. It is not certain that the two letters at the end of the line were deleted. πρῶτον
in ], 181 is very dubious, and . pos τότε is possible. In 1. 182 εποπτρα,Ϊ, 6. ἐπόπτρια (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. εὐχεαις (the two last letters are very doubtful) seems to be
a mistake for εὐχαῖς or εὐωχίαις, but ἐπικλήσεϊσι] cannot be read. Isis is not elsewhere
1380. GRAECO-EGYPTIAN LITERARY PAPYRI 219
credited with the discovery of wine, Isis-worship according to Plut. De Js. εἰ Os. 6 rather
enjoining abstinence from wine.
183-6. After ψὶ υχ)ρῶν there seems to be an omission of καὶ θερμῶν. That a stop is lost
after συνέστηκεν is not certain, although there is a blank space; if ἐξ ὧν starts a fresh sentence
connected only with what follows, there is a further omission in 1. 184 of something corre-
sponding to εὑρέτρια ἐγενήθης, but that can be avoided by connecting ἐξ ὧν with what precedes,
though πίά]ντων in 1]. 186 is then redundant.
187. gov émaly[ylayes: μ[έγα]ν (cf. 1. 242) #[y\ayes hardly fills up the space, but "Οσἠειρι]ν
ἤ[γ]. is possible. For ἐπα]νήγαγες cf. 1. 126 ἐπανάγουσαν.
189. ἀγ]αθοῦ δαίμονος might refer to the serpent regarded as the good genius of each
nome (Renouf, Proc. Soc. Bibl. Arch. 1890, p. 11; cf. ἀσπίς in 1. 58), or possibly to the
main western branch of the Nile (Ptol. iv. 5).
193-4. Either ηὔξησας (cf. 1. 237) or ἐπ]ηύξ. (cf. 1. 297) or xar|né (cf. 1. 257)
can be read. ἡγ]είμονίς is very insecure; xe|.[.]. s is not unlikely. For διαδημάτων
{1 150.
194-6. Cf. ll. 175-7. [κιυ]ήσεως is possible in 1. 195 (cf. Plut. De Js. εἰ Os. 62), but the
word contrasted with it is not στάσεως.
196-7. After ma (or 7A) there seems to be a correction, but it is not clear whether the
letters between πα and » were deleted. _A phrase referring to Osiris is expected (cf. ll. 188-9
and 198), but τοῦ mAéor[ros] is not satisfactory. κυ]ρία is inadmissible in 1. 197.
199-200. Perhaps ἐΐποίη]σας ; cf. 1. 263. A stop would be expected after it.
202-3. Ἰσ[ι]εῖα can be read ; but Ἰσεῖον is the commoner form at this period. For eis
τὸν [ἅπανἾτα χρόνο] ν κατ]έστ]ησας cf. Il. 213-14.
203-5. For τὰ νόμιμα cf. ll. 244--5, and for ἐ]νιαυτὸν τέλ(ε)ι[ον cf. Il. 153--5, note.
205-6. It is not certain that there were stops after wlapé6wxas and τόπον. The inter-
vening words are more likely to be governed by π᾿ αρέδωκας than by ἔδιξας in |. 207.
206-7. Perhaps ἐν πάντει τόπῳ κατΊ]έδιξας (cf. 1. 178), the object being ὅτι σὺ κτλ.
209. |m\av can be read at the beginning of the line, but not [mapa σοῦ.
210. The letter before va can well be μ, but”Aypora hardly fills up the space. ποίτ᾽ αμῶν
(cf. 1. 223) dn{alyrq is also unsuitable. For Horus-Apollo cf. ll. 246-7, note. The general
sense of ll. 209-14 is parallel to that of Il. 262-8.
212. «...|: perhaps κ[ατὰ .].
213. The stop after [πᾶσαν seems to be superfluous.
214-16. Cf. Diod. i. 27, who connects the high position of women in Egypt with Isis,
and 6. g. the alternative names of one of the nomes Γυναικοπολίτης and ᾿Ανδροπολίτης (1. 21,
note).
τῶ For ἀδύτῳ cf. ll. 162 and 249. The following letter can be η, x, or π.
217. Ἶοραν suggests φθ]οράν (cf. 1]. 175 and 195), but jopov can be read.
218. Possibly βασίλισσα Ἥρα: cf. e.g. 1.34. At the end of the line κυρι" is all that is
visible, and as there is no special trace of the surface being damaged, perhaps κυρίζα)" should
be read. There is however no other instance in 1880 of a participle beginning a fresh
sentence.
219. Perhaps [ἐπὶ σ]οῦ : cf. 1. 269.
220. πτέρυξι]ν : cf. ll. 65--6, note.
221-2. The supposed vestige of « after τό can be a diaeresis over: or v. For Horus
in connexion with the sun cf. 1. 233 and Plut. De Js. e¢ Os. 61 ἐν δὲ ταῖς Ἑρμοῦ λεγομέναις
βίβλοις ἱστοροῦσι γεγράφθαι... ὅτι τὴν μὲν ἐπὶ τῆς τοῦ ἡλίου περιφορᾶς τεταγμένην δύναμιν “Qpor,
Ἕλληνες δ᾽ ᾿Απόλλωνα καλοῦσι" τὴν δ᾽ ἐπὶ τοῦ πνεύματος οἱ μὲν ἴἤΟσιριν οἱ δὲ Σάραπιν οἱ δὲ Tobi
(cf. 1. 144) Αἰγυπτιστί.
222-6, Cf, ll. 121-3 and 125-6. ἐπανάγει (cf. ἐπανάγουσαν in 1. 126) is inadmissible in
220 THE OXYRHYNCHUS PAPYRI
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.
224. éveep..v ἐστιν : the doubtful p may be. εν may be ἕν. There is a short blank
space after ἐστίν, but apparently no stop. χερσαῖον cannot be read.
230. Whether γῆς καὶ θαλάσσης depend on λί.]Ἰσεζω]ς or are coupled with it is not clear ;
λζύ]σεζω]ς in the sense of ‘ breaking’ is not satisfactory.
232. jas is probably the termination of a verb, but nv¥é/nolas (cf. 1. 193) is unsuitable.
There perhaps ought to have been a stop at the end of the line.
233-4. Cf. ll. 221-2. In 1. 234 απὸ might be read at the beginning of the line, and
πλείονα ὥραν (or -pas) πᾶν ὄρος (not πρός) 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, of. cz#. 435.
237-9. Cf. Il. 138 and 227-30.
239-42. For the insertion of τυράννους proposed in the critical note cf. the Ios Inscr.
29 ἐγὼ τυράννωΪν alpyas κατέλυσα.
242-3. For Isis making Osiris immortal cf. ll. 13 and 246--7, notes.
244-5. Cf. Il. 203-4.
246-7. ἀθάνατον ἐποίησας is to be supplied from 1. 243. On the immortality conferred
by Isis on Horus cf. Diod. i. 25. τίῆ]ς [μητρ]ός is possible in 1. 246, but the doubtful o
may be ». Diodorus (1. ς.) says τὸν δὲ Ὧρον μεθερμηνευόμενόν φασιν ᾿Απόλλωνα (cf. 1. 210)
ὑπάρχειν καὶ τήν τε ἰατρικὴν καὶ τὴν μαντικὴν ὑπὸ τῆς μητρὸς Ἴσιδος διδαχθέντα διὰ τῶν χρησμῶν
(cf. ]. 252, note) καὶ τῶν θεραπειῶν εὐεργετεῖν τὸ τῶν ἀνθρώπων γένος.
248-9. Cf. 1. 295.
249. Μέμφι: cf. Il. 1-3, note.
250-2. αὐτοῦ is probably a corruption of αὐτὸν τοῦ πατρός, for Osiris does not seem to
have been mentioned since ]. 242 and cf. 1. 263 sqq. διάδοχον avz[d|y ἐποίησας]... ἐπὶ τοῦ
πατρίου οἴκου.
252. χρησ]μ]ῳ[δ.]. can refer to either Isis (cf. 1. 43) or Horus (cf. 1. 266).
254. Perhaps γῆν καὶ θάλ αἰσ͵σαν : cf. 1. 230.
257. Perhaps εὐϊβούλω ν, contrasted with [ἀβουλίαις in 1. 258.
263-4. Cf. ll. 250-2.
264-6. “Qpov cannot be read in ]. 264, nor does βυ in |. 265 seem to refer to ΓΑβυδος
(cf. 1. 279). With θρόνου cf. 1. 251 θρονιστής.
269-71. Cf. 1]. 51, note.
276. τι τηΐ : OF turn].
ο 278. “A\8udov: one of the chief reputed tombs of Osiris was there; cf. Plut. De Js. εἴ
Ss. 20.
280-1. Cf. 1, 284. ἀϊφώναντον seems to be for ἀϊφώνητον : cf. the next note.
282. Ἶλε. εθεῦ: cf]. 286 Ἰτααβδεῦ and ]. 296 |oweared. All three seem to be mystical
names of Isis in the vocative: cf. P. Brit. Mus. 121. 493-7 and 531-7.
285. [ἐν τῇ : or [ἀϊντί,
286. Cf. 1. 282, note.
291. For εἰς] τὸν αἰῶνα : cf. e.g. 1. 268. τὸν |"Qpov, followed by an adjective or
substantive, is not unlikely ; cf. Il. 209-14.
296. Cf.]. 282, note. ἱλί may well be some part of ἱλαρός : cf. Il. 127 and 162.
1881. GRAECO-EGYPTIAN LITERARY PAPYRI 221
1881. PRAISE OF IMOUTHES-ASCLEPIUS.
21-8 X 112-5cm. Second century.
The verso of 1880, 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. fiir G. Ebers, pp. 142 sqq.). In the λόγος
τέλειος of Hermes (Pseudo-Apul. 37) Asclepius is coupled with Isis and Hermes
as di terrent 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 (/mhotep, p. 19) of that writer’s entry
concerning King Zoser, as found in Africanus and Eusebius, be accepted,
Τόσορθρος ἔτη KO’ (ἐφ᾽ οὗ ᾿Ιμούθης) οὗτος ᾿Ασκλήπιος παρὰ Αἰγυπτίοις κατὰ τὴν
ἰατρικὴν νενόμισται, καὶ τὴν διὰ ξεστῶν λίθων οἰκοδομίαν εὕρατο, ἀλλὰ καὶ γραφῆς
ἐπεμελήθη. His principal temple, which was on the desert-edge near Memphis,
is mentioned in the Serapeum papyri, e.g. P. Leyden i, p. 77 τοῦ πρὸς
Μέμφιν μεγάλου ᾿Ασκληπιείου, and his tomb was supposed to be there (Sethe,
op. cit. Ὁ. 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 26th dynasty.
A. H. Gardiner (Zedtschr. f. Aeg. Spr. ΧΙ]. 146) has pointed out that scribes
were accustomed at least as early as the 18th 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 11th dynasty, which couples Imhotep ἡ
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 1881, 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
222 THE OXYRHYNCHUS PAPYRI
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 Imouthes son of Ptah, elsewhere,
e.g. in Il. 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, Mélanges 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 ᾿Ασκληπιεῖον. 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
(ll. 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 (Il. 168-202), and an invocation of pious worshippers (Il. 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. ll. 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
13881. GRAECO-EGYPTIAN LITERARY PAPYRI 223
(ll. 228-34). Menkaura, the builder of the third pyramid of Giza, was worshipped,
like his more famous predecessors Cheops (Khufu) 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,
Flerodots zweites Buch, 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 worship 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 (Il. 24—5, note), though owing to the loss of the first
column or two of 1881, in which the age of the book may well have been
described, and the uncertainty attaching to the precise restoration of 1]. 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 1881 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 Καλεοῖβις is not
found elsewhere, though Καλῖβις 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 /s. e¢
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. 1880. 1-3, note), and many towns
224 “THE OXYRHYNCHUS ΡΑ͂ΡΥΚΑΙ
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, of. ciz. 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 “Ἑρμῆς 6 Θηβαῖος was coupled by
Clement of Alexandria (Strom. i. 21) with ᾿Ασκλήπιος ὁ Meudirns as an example
of a deified man. Sethe (of. cit. 9) connects “Ἑρμῆς 6 Θηβαῖος 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, Pozmandres, 118 sqq. In view of the
many forms taken by Horus-worship and the antiquity claimed for this Egyptian
roll in 1881 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 1881 incidentally throws a few sidelights on Imhotep-
worship. The expression ταύτης (sc. γραφῆς) εὑρετής applied to him in 1]. 187-8
is in keeping with the statements of Manetho (cf. p. 221) and an author quoted
by Stobaeus, Zc/. phys.i. 41, who says that Asclepius invented ποιητική as well as
ἰατρική. The invocation to pious worshippers (Il. 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 ll. 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 ᾿Ασκληπιεῖον (cf. ll. 70-3, 145-51, and p. 221). From his
assertion in ll. 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
διδάσκαλος in connexion with his composition (Il. 181-98), he seems to have been. |
1881. GRAECO-EGYPTIAN LITERARY PAPYRI 225
by profession a literary man, with a knowledge of ancient Egyptian (ll. 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 ἀκεσώ-
dvvos and ἀλλαττόλογος. 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, whose oration εἰς ᾿Ασκλήπιον 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
tohim. If any of his Greek treatises had survived, the style would very likely
have shown several of the same characteristics as that of 1881, though the
rhetorical description of the appearance of Asclepius in ll. 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 ξυγγράφουσι δέ
τινες Kal τὰς θεραπείας, ἄλλοι δὲ ἀρετὰς τῶν ἐνταῦθα λογίων (cf. 1882), than with the
highly elaborated description of the appearance of Isis to Lucius in Metam. xi
or Aristides’ account of his visions of Asclepius in the ἱεροὶ λόγοι.
The text of 1381 is not very accurate and bears no trace of a systematic
revision. The only interlinear addition concerns the spelling of Μενχορήους,
e being written above ἡ 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. ll. 24-5, 59, 97, 129-30, 136, 222, 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 II.
Col. i. Col. ii.
[. .]v τα[ῦτ]α ἀκούφας ὁ Νεῖκτε- σαν ἑκάστῳ πίροφ]ητείαν. οὐ
[ve]iBis καὶ παροξυνθεὶς [σ]φό- μὴν ἀλλὰ καὶ Ϊ. . π]οιήσας τὴν
dpa μὲν ἐπὶ τοῖς ἀποστατί ο]ῦ- 25 βίβλον ἀνανεώσεως αὐτὸν
σιν τοῦ ἱεροῦ, βουλόμενος ᾿ΑἰσἸκλήπιον [ἐπλο]ύτισεν ἄλ-
above 7.
226 THE OXYRHYNCHUS: PAPYRI
5 δὲ ἐξ ἀναγραφῆς τὸ πλήῆ[θ]ος αὐ-
τῶν ἐπικρεῖναι θᾶτ]τ]ον, πα-
ρεκελεύετο Νεχαύτι [τ]ῷ διέ-
» Ν 3 a
ποντι τότε τὴν ἀρχιδ Πκ[ασ]τεῖξς
αν ἔραυναν τῆς βίβλου μη(νὶν
το ἑνὶ μάλιστα ποιήσασθαι. ὁ δὲ
ἐκτενέστερον αὐτὴν ἀναζη-
τήσας ἐκόμισε τῷ βασιλεῖ,
δίύ]ο [ἀν]τὶ τριάκοντα ἡμερῶν
la 3 4 > Ἂς
μόνον ἀναλώσας εἰς τὴν
7
15 [Chirnow.
[λε]ὺς πανὺ μὲν ἠγάσθη ἐπὶ
ἀναγνοὺς δὲ ὁ βασι-
“ “ e 4 ΄ ἃ X
τῷ τῆς ἱστορίας θείῳ, ἐξ δὲ
x 4 ς \ € ~ ‘
Kal εἴκοσι εὑρὼν ἱερεῖς [τ]οὺς
«
ἀπὸ Ἡλίου πόλεως προπίο]μ-
20 πεύσαντας τὸν θεὸν] εἰς τὴν
Μέμφιν ἀπένειμεν αὐτῶν
τοῖς ἐγγόνοις τὴν προ[σΊ]ήκου-.
4. ἵερου I. 18. ἵερεις II,
35. ]. ἐν for ον.
Col. iii.
45 καὶ ἐκώλυσέ [we τ]ὰ κατιόϊντα .. .]
δια ἀγανακτήσαντος [καὶ ἀθα-
νάτου ἀρετῆς αὐτοῦ 7/0 τῆς γρ]α-
Pals] σ[υἹνπληρουμένης] τίαπεί-]
νωμᾳ, ὀφελήσαντι δ᾽ je ὁ βί[οὴς
80 μὲν εὐδαίμων, ἡ δὲ [1 φήμη
[ἀἸ]θάναϊτ]ος. ἑτοιμότεϊ Προς γὰρ ὁ
θεὸς πρὸΪς] εἰ ε]ργεσίαϊ jv εἴ γε καὶ
τοὺς αὐτ(ίκγα μόνον εὐΪ Ἰσεβεῖς
τῇ προθυμίᾳ πολλάϊ Ἰκις ἀπηυ-
55 δηκυίης τῆς ἰατρικί Ἰῆς πρὸς
τὰς κατεχούσας αὐτοὺϊΐ Ἰς νόσους
39
35
40
24-5. 1. τῆς βίβλου dvar|éo|orv?.
38. ἴστοριας ΤΙ, a being corrected.
75
Alat|s πυροφόροις ἀρούραις τρια-
κοσίαις τριάκοντα, καὶ μάλ|ι-]
στα ἀκούσας διὰ τῆς βίβλου
τὸν θεὸν ὑπὸ Μενχορέους
[εἰς μέγεθος ἠσκημένον σε-
[β]ασμῶν.
[αἸὐτῆς βίβλου τὴν ἑρμηνείαν
[ἀρ]ϊξάμενος ᾿Ελληνίδι γλ[ώ]σσῃ
[
ἐγὼ δὲ πολλάκις τῆς
Ψ
ἔμ]αθον ὁν αἰῶνι κηρῦξαι, καὶ
ἐν μέσῃ βῥεύων τῇ γραφῇ
ἐπεσχέθην τὴν προθυμίαν
τῷ τῆς ἱστόριας [[τω]] μεγέθει,
δίηότι ἔξω ἑλεῖν ἔμελλον] av-
τήν: θεϊοϊ]ῆς yap μόνοι[ς] ἀλλ᾽ οὐ
[θν]ητοῖς ἐφ |φικ[. .] [δὴν τὰς θε-
ὧν διηγεῖσθαι) δυνάμεις. οὐ
γὰρ ἀποτυχόϊν]τι μοι μόνον
αἰδὼς ἢν πρὸς ἀνδρῶν ἀλλὰ
30. Second ε of μενχορεους
Col. iv.
σκ[ήψασα ἄ]ϑεος τεταρταίᾳ ἡ
φρείκη αὐτὴν ἐστρόβει, ὀψὲ
, a Eat Se
μόλις νοήσαντες ἱκέτ[α)]ι πα-
~ > ἈΝ Ν Ν “ ‘
ρῆμεν ἐπὶ τὸν θεὸν τῇ (μ)ητρὶ | |
ὠμενοι ἄκεσιν ἐπινεῦσαι
τῆς νόσου. ὁ 8 οἷα καὶ πρὸς mav-
τας χρηστὸς δι᾽ ὀνειράτων
Ν ; 7 be
φανεὶς εὐτελέσιν αὐτὴν
ἀπήλλαξεν βοηθήμασιν,
ἡμεῖς δὲ [[μη}} τὰς ἐοικυίας
δὰ θυσιῶν τῷ σώσαντι
> ΄ A 2 Ν
ἀπεδίδομεν χάριτας. ἐπεὶ
1881. GRAECO-EGYPTIAN LITERARY PAPYRI
ἔσωσεν. ὅθεν φυγὼν [τὸ ῥ]ειψοκίν-
δυνον [ells καιρὸν ἐτί Ἰήρουν —
τὸν τοῦ (γγήρίο]υς, ἀνε β]αΙ Ἰλλόϊμ]ην (δὲν
τὴν ὑπόσχεσιν. τότ je γὰρ] μά-
λιστα περισσόν τι τὴ] Ἰν ἡλικίαν
60
‘ x
φρονεῖν πέφυκε, tla Ἰχὺ yap ἡ
νε[ότ]ης καὶ ἐφ[ορ]μὴ gf Ἰθάνει
4
ὀρέγουσα τὴν προθυϊμί αν. ἐπεὶ
δὲ τίρ)]ιετὴς πα[ρ)ῴχητίο 1 χρόνος
μίηδ]ὲν ἔτι ploly κάμνϊ Ἰοντος,
τρ[ιεἸτὴς δὲ. .] τῇ μητί Ἱρὶ ἐπι-
65
49. 1. ὠφελήσαντι.
a Of ras corr. from ε. 86. v of vmaxoveas corr.
iCol‘v:
v[d\ucit|s ἀπαγγέλλειν. νὺξ
ἦν ὅτε πᾶν [ἐϊκεκοίμητο
ζῷον πλὴν τῶν ἀλγ|ζο]ύν- Ι
Tov, τὸ δὲ θεῖον ἐνεργέ-
95 στερον ἐφαίνετο, καί με
σφοδρὸς ἔφλεγε πυρ(ετ)ός, ἄσθμα-
τί τε καὶ βηκὶ τῆς ἀπὸ τοῦ
πλευροῦ] ἀναγομέν[η]ς ὀδύ-
νης ἐσφαδάϊζον: καρηβα-
100 ρηθεὶς [δὲ τοῖς πόνοις {ἀ) λή-
θαργος [elis ὕπνον ἐφερό-
μην: [ἡ] δὲ μήτηρ ὡς ἐπὶ
παιδί, Kali] φύ[σ]ει φιλόστοργος Ι
γάρ ἐστιν, ταῖς ἐμαῖς ὑπερ-
105 αλγ[ο]ῦσα βασάνοις ἐκαθέ-
ζετο μηδὲ καθ᾽ ὀλίγον ὕπνου
μετ[αἸλαμβάνουσα. εἶτ᾽ ἐξαπί(}-
νης ἑώρα---οὔτ᾽ ὄναρ οὔθ᾽ ὕ- I
mvos, ὀφθαλμοὶ yap ἦσαν
54-5. amnuvdnkvins της tarpixns Π.
120
227
80 δὲ κἀμοὶ μετὰ ταῦτα αἰφνί-
Oo ἄλγημα κατὰ δεξιοῦ
2 4 ~ A 2 4
ἐρύη πλευροῦ, ταχὺς ἐπὶ
τὸν βοηθὸν τῆς ἀνθρω-
7 4 y a
πίνης ἀϊρίμησα φύσεως,
85 [καὶ] πάλιν ἑτοιμότερος
ὑπακούσας εἰς ἔλεον
2 7 Ν » 7
[ἐϊνεργέστεϊρ]ον τὴν ἰδίαν
> 4 ? 4
ἀπεδείξατο εὐεργεσίαν,
ἣν ἐπαληθειῷ μέλλων
90 τὰς αὐτοῦ φρικτὰς δυ-
59. 1. (γγήρως.
87. ἴδιαν I.
70. ἵκεται IT.
Col. vi.
d€folus εἰσήει φαντασία ν],
καὶ ἀκόϊπ]ως κατ[οἸπτεύειν
7 wo AN, Ν
I5 κωλύουσα εἶτε αὐτὸν τὸν
θεὸν εἴτε αὐτοῦ θεράπον-
τας. πλὴν ἦν τις ὑπερμή-
Ἁ ἃ > wv
κης μὲν ἢ Kat ἄνθρω-
πον λαμπίρ)]αῖς ἠμφιεσμέ-
νος ὀθόναις τῇ εὐωνύ-
μῳ χειρὶ φέρων βίβλον,
ὃς μόνον ἀπὸ κεφαλ[ῆ]ς
ἕως ποδῶν δὶς καὶ τρίὶ]ς
᾽ 4 > Ν
ἐπισκοπήσας με ἀφανὴς
25 ἐγένετο. ἡ δὲ ἀνανήψασα
ἔτι τρομώδης ἐγείρειν με
ἐπειρᾶτο. εὑροῦϊσ]α δέ με
τοῦ μὲν [π]υρετοῦ ἀπηλίλ]α-
γμένον [ἡὥδρῶτα δέ μοι πολ-
30 λοῦ ἐπαπίο]λισθάνοντος
τὴν μὲν] τοῦ θε[οἹῦ προσε-
77:
μὴ
Ito
228
3 7 4
ἀκείνητοι διηνυγμένοι,
βλέποντες μὲν οὐκ ἀκρει-
Bas, θ{[.]εία γὰρ αὐτὴν μετὰ
99. εσφαδαῖζον Π.
J
ἐπαπ᾿ ολισθάνοντα.
140
145
150
155
καὶ Corr. from τῇ.
ποιΐας II.
Col. vii.
θεοῦ πρίοεἸλομένῃ μηνύειν ἀρε-
Ν Ν 2 \ , 3
τὴν προλαβὼν ἐγὼ πάντα a-
πήγγελον αὐτῇ" ὅσα [γ]ὰρ δι[ὰ] τῆς
ὄψεως εἶδεν ταῦτα ἐγ[ὼ] δι ὀ-
, Σ 4
νειράτων ἐφαντασιώθην.
καὶ τῶνδε τῆς πλευρᾶς λωφη-
σάντων μοι ἀλγηδόνων, ἔτι
μοι μίζα]ν δοντὸς τοῦ θεοῦ ἀκε-
σώδυνον ἰατρείαν, ἐκήρυσσον
αὐτοῦ [τ]ὰς εὐεργεσίας. πάλιν δ᾽ ἧ-
μῶν ταῖς κατὰ δύναμιν αὐτὸν
2 - 7
ἐξευμενισαμένων θυ[σ]ΐίαις
ΕΣ ST. oa, \ a 2 ε ΄
αὐτὸς ἀπῇτει διὰ [τ]οῦ ἐν ἁγνείαις
αὐτῷ προσπολοῦντ[ο]ς ἱερέως
‘ [4 2? JL
τὴν πάλαι κατηγγελμένην αὐτῷ
ὑπόσχεσιν. ἡμεῖς δὲ μηδὲ θυ-
σιῶν μήτε ἀναθήματο]ς χρε-
ώστας αὑτοὺς εἰδότες ὅμως
τούϊτο]ις αὐτὸν πάλιν ἱκετεύ-
ομίεῖν. ὡς [8] οὐ τούτοις ποἰλ]λάκις
> f e 3 x “
εἰπείι)ν ἥδεσθαι ἀλλὰ τῷ προ-
καθωμολ[ο]γημένω διηπό-
144. ἵατρειαν II. 145. 7 Of μων corr.
166. ioropials| Π.
175. ὕστερον II,
108. o of ovap corr. from a.
167. αθλον- ΤΙ,
THE OXYRHYNCHUS PAPYRI
κύνησε[ν] ἐπιφάνειαν, ἐ-
μὲ δὲ ἀπίομάσσουσα ν[η)φα-
λιώτεϊρον ἐποίησεν. καὶ
135 διαλα[ίλή]σαντί μοι τὴν τοῦ
110. 1. διηνοιγμένοι.
Col. viii.
plolu[y, κα]ὶ μόλις ταπεινοῦν-
129--30. ]. μου πολὺν
τί μοι τοῦτο τὸ θεῖοϊν] τῆ! 5] γρα-
2 Ν
lod € 7 2
160 φῆς ὑπῇει με χρέος. ἐπεὶ
δ᾽ ἅπαξ ἐπεγνώκει[ς] pe [alu] Al]-
λεῖν, δέσποτα, τῆς θείϊα]ς βί-
βλου, τὴν σὴν ἐπικαλεσάμε-
νος πρόνοιαν καὶ [ Ἰπλη[[ρ]}-
165 ρωθεὶς τῆς σῆς θε[ιΠότητος
ἐπὶ τὸν τῆς ἱστορία[9] ὥρμη-
σα θεήλατον ἄθλον. καὶ
οἶμαι καταϊπλ]ώσειν [τ]ῶ[ν
ο΄ σὴν προφηϊτε]ύων ἐπίνοι-
Iyo αν' καὶ γὰρ [τὸ]ν τῆς κοσμο-᾿
ποιίας πιθ] ανολ[ο]γηθέν-
τα μῦθον ἐν ἑτέρᾳ βίβλῳ
φυσικῷ πρὸς] ἀλήθειαν ἀνή-
πλωσα λόγῳ. καὶ ἐν τῇ ὅλῃ
γραφῇ τίὸ] μὲν ὕστερον προσ-
ἐπλήρωσα, τὸ δὲ περ[ί]σσευ-
175
ov ἀφεῖλον, διήγημα δέ
που μακρολογούμ! εἸνο[ 9]
συντόμως ἐλάλησα
154. ixerevoy εν II.
168. 1. xaOa mA kooery.
140. tepews II.
164. ει of
170--ἰ. κοσμο-
1881. GRAECO-EGYPTIAN LITERARY PAPYRI 229
Col. ix.
180 καὶ ἀλλαττόλογοϊν μῦθ]ον
ἅπαξ ἔφρασα, ὅθεν, [δέσ]ποτα,
κατὰ τὴν σὴν εὐμζένει]αν
ἀλλ᾽ οὐ κατὰ τὴν ἐμ[ὴν φρ]ό-
νησιν τετελεσιουρ[γ]η[σἾθαι
185 τεκμαίρομαι τὴν β[ίβλ]Ἰον.
᾿ τῇ γ[ὰ]ρ σῇ θειότητι [το]ιαύ-
τή ἁρμόζει γ[ρ]αφή.
δ᾽ εὑρετής, μέγιστε [θε]ῶν
τἰαὐτΊης
᾿Δσκλήπιε καὶ διδάσ[κ]αλε,
ο
190 kali] ταῖς ἁπ[άντων δί[κ]νυ-
σαι χάρισι. [πᾶσα yap [ἀΪνα-
θήματος ἢ [θ]υσίας δω)ρεὰ
τὸν παραυτίκα μ[ό]ν[οἱν
ἀκμάζει κα[ιρ]όν, ἔφθαρ-
195 ται δὲ τὸν μέλλοντα, γρα-
φὴ δὲ ἀθάνατος χάρ[ι]ς κα-
τὰ καιρὸν ἀνηβάσκο)υσα
τὴ[ν] μνήμην. ᾿Ἑλλην[ὶ]ς δὲ
πία)]σα γλῶσσα τὴν σὴν λα-
AA]. -[loe[e] ἱστορίαν κ[αὶ] πᾶς
"EXAlnv ἀνὴρ τὸν τίοἹῦ Φθᾶ
σεβήσεται ᾿Ιμού[ θην.
20
re)
200. ἵστοριαν I,
εἴληφε δόξαν, [καὶ διὰ τῆς ἡ
βίβλου τὴν φ[ήμην εὐτυ- ὃ
χήσας. τὴν τοῦ ‘AckAn-
πίου παιδὸς ᾿ Ηφ[αίστου τα-
230 φὴν καὶ τὴν τίοῦ “ὭἸγρου 'Ερϊί-
μ[ο]ῦ ἔτι δὲ Καλεοίβιος
205
210
215
220
225
205. εἰ Of ἀσεβεις corr. from ἡ.
Col. xi.
240
(ΟἹ. χ.
σύνι[τε δεῦρο, [ὦ ἄνδρες
εὐμ[ενεῖς] κα[ὶ ἀγα]θοί, ἄπι-
τε, Béoxalvoi] κ[αὴ] ἀσεβεῖν:
σύν[ἡτε, ὦ [.. .Jof. .1. [1, ὅσοι θη-
τεὐϊσ]αντεῖς] τὸν [θ]εὸν νό-
σων] ἀπηλλάγητε, [δ]σοι
τὴν ἰατρικὴν με[ταχἸειρί-
ζεσθε ἐπι[σ]τήμηϊν, ὅσοι
πονήσετε ζηλ[ωτα]ὶ ἀρε-
τῆς, ὅσοζι] πολλῷ πλήθει
ἐπηύξή[θ]ητε ἀγαθῶν,
ὅσοι κινδύνους θαλάσσης
πεϊρ]εσώθητε. εἰς πάν-
Ta γὰρ τόπον διαπεφοίτη-
κεν ἡ τοῦ θεοῦ δύναμις
σωτήριος. μέλλω γὰρ αὐτοῦ
τερατώδεις ἀπαγγέλλειν
ἐπ[]φανείας δυνάμεως
τε μεγέθη εὐεϊρ]γετημά-
τῶν (τε) δωρήματα. ἔχει δὲ οὕ-
Tos: [ὁ] βασιλεὺς Μενε-
χέρης τριῶν θεῶν κη-
δε[ΐίΖαν [εὐϊσεβήσας αἰωνίαν
209. ἵἴατρικην ΤΠ, 215. ε of εἰς corr.
τε Αἴγυπτος διὰ τοῦτο κ[αὶὶ
καρποῖς ἀφ(θγ)όνοις εὐθη-
νεῖτος. τῇ γὰρ Tov προεσ-
τῶτος εὐσεβείᾳ ὑποτε-
ταγμέναι εὐπίορ)οῦσι χῶ-
[ρ]αι, καὶ τοὐνα[ντί)ον ἐφ᾽ οἷς
235
230 THE OXYRHYNCHUS PAPYRI
᾿Απόλλωνος παιδὸς ἀφθό- ἐκεῖνος δυσσίεβε]ϊ ἐπὶ
νοϊ ἧς χρήμασιν δωρησά- τούτοις κακοῖς [ἀἸ]ναλίσκον-
μενος ἀντάποιναν ἔσ- 245 ται. ὃν δὲ τρόπον ἔχρη-
χεν εὐδαιμονίας πλῆ- σεν αὐτῷ ὁ θεὸϊς ᾿ΑἸ]σκλήπιος
θος. ἀπολέμητος γὰρ τό- σπουδάζειν αὑτ[ο]Ὁ περὶ
‘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 power 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 Mencheres.
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 zea]. 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 having with difficulty compre-
hended we came as suppliants before the god, entreating him to grant my mother recovery
from the disease. He, having 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 was 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
1881. GRAECO-EGYPTIAN LITERARY PAPYRI 231
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
ΜῈ 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 1 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. ταἰῦτα : the supposed + has an unusually short cross-bar on the left, and perhaps
ποϊλλ]ά should be read. The preceding word might be |. ..|. From the references to τοῦ
ἱεροῦ (1. 4), τῆς βίβλου (1. 9), and τὸν θεόν] (1. 20), 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.
Νε[κτενείβις : for the form cf. Νεκτενῖβις in Theopomp. Fr. 101 (G—H); Νεκτανεβώ,
-τεναβώ, -raveBis, &c., are found elsewhere.
232 THE OXYRHYNCHUS PAPYRI
4. τοῦ ἱεροῦ: sc. the ᾿Ασκληπιεῖον at Memphis (cf. Il. 21, 26, and introd.) rather than
at Heliopolis (1. 19), where no temple of Asclepius is known.
7. Neither Νεχαῦτις (or -αὐτης) nor Nexads seems to be known, but Νεχαώθ occurs, and
Neyads and Νεχευώ as variants of Νεχαώ. διέποντι τότε τὴν apxi6|t|k[ac|re|ijav 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 διεξάγοντι 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 well have been
the counterpart of a Pharaonic official. Mr. A. H. Gardiner compares the ‘chief lector’
Hardedef, who found writings in a temple (Erman, Dze MJarchen d. Pap. Wesicar,i.18 ; cf.
Ρ. 221). The superintendence of documents of various kinds was part of the duties of the
archidicastes in Roman times ; cf. e. g. 84.
9. py(vi): cf. 1. 13 ἀντὶ τριάκοντα ἡμερῶν. Of the second letter only the tip of a flourish
similar to that of the final 7 of 1. 11 is preserved.
24-5. These two lines are obscure and probably corrupt. ἀναγ[νώ σεως (cf. 1. 15)
cannot be read. If ἀνανεώσεως is right (ἀναν[εύ σεως 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 Ἰοιησας suggests nothing but zjomjoas or a compound, and
we are disposed to think τὴν βίβλον ἀνανεώσεως a mistake for τῆς βίβλου ἀνανέωσιν (cf. the
wrong cases in ll. 129-30), and to suppose a blank space, as often in 1381, before
ποιήσας, though [ἐκπ]οιῆσας is possible. The last letter of αὐτόν is reduced to a mere speck
of ink, and αὐτός can equally be read, but not αὐτὸ 7/6|, though ᾿Ασκλήπιον might easily
be a mistake for ᾿Ασκληπιεῖον : αὐτὸ (τόν is also unsatisfactory.
30. Μενχορέους : the « above the line is apparently in the rst hand and may represent
an alternative spelling rather than a correction. -novs is in late Ptolemaic times a common
form of the genitive of names ending in -ys. [ἢ]. 223 the nominative is spelled Meveyépys,
in Africanus ap. Syncellus Μενχέρης.
36. ῥεύων : this form of the present corresponding to the future ῥεύσω does not seem to
be attested elsewhere.
45-9. Near the ends of 1]. 48-67, and probably in Il. 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 ll. 48 and 56. This single layer
has for the most part perished, but without affecting the reconstruction except in]. 57, where
if a blank space was left τὸ must be omitted, and in 1]. 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 ll. 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 Av of ἐκώλυσε is rather cramped, but ἐκώλυε cannot be read,
and for the aorist οἵ. ]. 37 ἐπεσχέθην. For τὰ κατιόϊντα it is possible to substitute .| ἀχανοῦς. .;
but that is not a suitable epithet for Asclepius, and δια seems to be the plural of a neuter
word meaning ‘reproaches’, perhaps a misspelling of ὀν(ε)ί]δη ; cf. Hdt. vii. 160 ὀνείδεα
κατιόντα ἀνθρώπῳ. For ἀθανάτου cf. ll. 51 and 196, and for yp|a¢i{s| ll. 159, 175, 187, and 195.
[kai in 1. 46 makes the order of the following words rather awkward, and in ll. 47-8 τ[ῆς
γραφῆς)... συνπληρουμέν[ο εἷς . . .| (but not -μένηϊς ...|)could be read, if a blank space was
left (see above). For τἰαπείϊνωμα cf. 1. 158 ταπεινοῦντι μοι τοῦτο. ταπείνωσις is coupled with
σμικρολογία τῆς λέξεως by Plut. Mor. p. 7 a. τίῆς γραφῆς συνπληρουμένης) may be genitive
absolute, and ἀρετῆς would then be dependent on the word ending in -νωμα, which would
perhaps be an easier construction.
1881. GRAECO-EGYPTIAN LITERARY PAPYRI 233
49. For the spelling οφελησαντι cf. |. 72, where @pevot apparently represents (δε)όμενοι.
53. αὐτ(ίκγα μόνον : cf. 1. 193 τὸν παραυτίίἷκα μίό ον... καιρόν. The only alternative
Seems to be αὐτῷ μόνον, which yields a less satisfactory sense, and the traces suit a much
better than ὦ.
59. (y)nplolvs is not a known form and the np is not quite certain, for Xe might be read
for ἡ and cor ¢ forp; but the omission of y between vowels is easily explained and γήρως
suits the context ; cf. ]. 63 νεζότ᾽ης. Possibly the omissions in this line (a connecting particle
is wanted ; cf. ll. 97-8 and 222, notes) go still further, e. g. τὸν τοῦ (γήρως Kai... πλγήρ[ο]υς
ἀνε[β]αλλόμ]ην τὴν ὑπόσχεσιν.
67-8. Nothing is wanted between δέ and τῇ, and there was probably a blank space
or a deletion. ἄθεος is a curious epithet to apply to φρίκη, but ὁ] θεός spoils the construction
by becoming the subject of ἐστρόβει and so producing two nominatives. If rerapraa ἢ
Ppeckn is corrected to reraprain (or -a) φρείκῃ, which was certainly not written, rpverjs . .
ἐπισκήψας agreeing with ὁ] θεός is very unsatisfactory, for both words ought to agree with
φρείκη, 50 that further emendation becomes necessary, and the confusion of the construction
would be far worse than in ll. 158-60. If .\cos is not ἄ θεος, [d(mé)| θεο(ῦν is the simplest
change ; but a reference to the god is not wanted in 1. 68, especially as he is mentioned in
]. 71. émov{ could be read in place of émox|, but suggests no suitable verb, whereas
ἐπισκήπτειν is often used of νόσοι.
72. @pevor apparently represents δεόμενοι rather than εὐχόμενοι : for o in place of @
cf. 1. 49 οφελησαντι. That δέ occurred in the lacuna at the end of the preceding line
is unlikely, for « is written rather large and may well be the last letter, and final ε generally
has a long flourish, which should be visible.
74. δι’ ὀνειράτων : cf. Aristides’ diary in his ἱεροὶ λόγοι.
89-91. Cf. ll. 218-22.
97-8. ἄσθματί τε καὶ Byxi: τε is perhaps a mistake for δέ ; Cf.1. 59,note. βηκί for βηχί is
probably not a mere misspelling, βήκιον and βηκία being attested.
99. For σφαδαΐζειν in place of the usual σφαδάξειν see Herodian, Περὶ μον, AcE. 232. The
passive of καρηβαρεῖν is very rare.
100. [ἀλήθαργος : ἀληθάργητος in the sense of ‘active’ is known (Hesych. ἀλήστων"
ἀληθαργήτων), but ἀλήθαργος, in which the a- owing to the context cannot have a privative
force, is unattested and seems to be an error for λήθαργος.
108. ἑώρα has no object, the writer altering the construction ; cf. Il. 136 and 158-60.
111. μέν has no corresponding δέ, but is answered by πλὴν ἦν era. in |, 117; cf the
preceding note.
136. πρ[οε]λομένῃ : the dative can be connected with αὐτῇ in ], 1 38, but the sentence is
somewhat involved, and zp[oe|Aopévn(s) would be an improvement, or possibly mpl oe Aopeévn was
a nominative absolute ; cf. ll. 108 and 158-60, notes. The traces of the first two letters are
very slight, but exclude βο[υ]λομένῃ.
138. ἀπήγγελον is perhaps a new form of the aorist rather than a misspelling of
ἀπήγγελ(λνον.
148, {rlod: or [τίου = τινός, ᾿ τῷ
156-8. διηπορῖο ὕϊμε!ν could be read for dinrépjolu[y xa], but the correction of εἰπεῖν
to εἶπεν seems necessary.
158-60. ταπεινοῦντί po is inconsistent with ὑπήει pe: cf. Il, 108 and 136, notes,
. τοῦτο can refer to τῷ mpoxabopor|olynpéevw or to τὸ θεῖον τῆς γραφῆς χρέος, which follows.
* 164. There is not room for [ἐκ᾽πληρωθείς, and probably the space after the cor-
rected καί (cf. critical note) was blank.
ἥ 168--74. For καταϊπλ ώσειν, i.e. καθαϊπὰλ ὠσειν, οἵ. ]. 173 ἀνήπλωσα. It is not certain that
more than one letter is lost, but κατε[δ]ώσειν yields no sense. καθαπλοῦν is much rarer than
234 THE OXYRHYNCHUS PAPYRI
ἀναπλοῦν, for which cf. Hermes Trismeg. Poemand. i. τό οὔπω γάρ σοι ἀνήπλωσα τὸν πρῶτον
λόγον. The force of κατα in καθαπλοῦν here seems to be ‘ widely’ unfold (cf. ll. 198-202),
as contrasted with the beginning of the process (ἀναπλοῦν). xara|md|éoew would be cor-
rect as the Ionic form of καταπλεύσειν, but there is no parallel for the metaphorical use of this
verb in the sense of ‘come to an end’, and the alteration of ἀνήπλωσα to ἀνέπλωσα in 1. 173
would leave μῦθον to be governed by προφητεύων supplied from |. 169 or by some omitted
participle, which is very unsatisfactory.
180. ἀλλαττόλογος is a new compound. For μῦθον cf. 1. 172.
181. For [δέσίποτα cf. 1. 162 with σήν in the next line, as here. The ois very uncertain
and |yre or |yra could be read.
187. τὶ αὐτίης : sc. γραφῆς. The invention of demotic writing is usually credited to
Thoth and Isis (cf. p. 193), but cf. p. 224.
197. ἀνηβάσκ olvca τὴν] μνήμην : ἀνηβάσκειν is a very rare equivalent of ἀνηβᾶν, and is
censured by Thomas Magister. The accusative (of respect?) after it is curious, and
possibly our author treated it as a transitive verb. ' ς
201. Φθᾶ: cf. RosettaInscr. 4. The Greek equivalent Ἡφαίστου is used in |. 229 ;
ef. p. 222.
211. πονήσετε (yNwrali: ποιήσετε (or possibly -σεσθε)ὴ Or παρήσετε could be read, but not
Gv. Since ζλ[ωταῖὶ ἀρετῆς is fairly certain (cf. Isocr. Demon. p. 4b), an intransitive verb is
required.
222. (re) δωρήματα: for the omission of a connecting particle cf. ll. 59, 97, and 226-8,
notes. 6 is fairly certain, but the next two letters are very doubtful and the termination
might be ἡμων.
223. [δ] : it is not certain that any letter is lost.
226-8. For διὰ τῆς] βίβλου cf. 1. 29. The punctuation is uncertain, If τὴν φίήμην
εὐτυ]χήσας (cf. 1. go) is right, that participle is to be connected with what precedes rather than
with what follows, and is an explanation of αἰωνίαν εἴληφε δόξαν (cf. ll. 195-8), but there is an
asyndeton in]. 228. With és διὰ τῆς] there still seems to be no connecting particle between
Ἰχήσας and δωρησάμενος 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 Menkaura, not merely mentioned as evidence for his action ([ὃς ἐκ τῆς] βίβλου is unsatis-
factory) ; possibly he wrote it nominally himself; cf. p. 223.
228-32. Cf. pp. 223-4. In 1. 229 Ἡφαίστου the vestiges suit ἡ very well and are con-
sistent with ¢ In 1. 230 7[. . .Jpov (or Πιου or Jrov) might be read, but the article, though
omitted in 1. 231, is confirmed by 1. 228, and z[ov Ὥ]ρου is much the most probable restora-
tion. The p is written through what seems to be a blot of ink due toa correction, but there
is no reason to think that the p was deleted.
234. ἀντάποιναν : the form seems to be unattested, but dvrizowa (neut. plur.) in the MSS.
of the tragic poets is often misspelled ἀντάποινα.
247. περὶ τῆς ταφῆς (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 18th year of an
emperor (Hadrian or Antoninus ἢ), and will be published in Part XII. On the
1382. GRAECO-EGYPTIAN LITERARY PAPYRI 235
verso, in a large uncultivated cursive hand of the same century, is the conclusion
and title of a story concerning the ἀρετή of Zeus-Helios-Sarapis (cf. 1149. 1, 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 (ef.
Ρ- 225). On Hellenistic ‘aretology’ in general see Reitzenstein, Hellenistische
Wundererzihlungen, 10 sqq., and cf. 1881.
Col. ii.
vary 15 εἶπεν: διὰ σὲ χαρίσομαι τὸ ὕδωρ Φαρίταις.
1ε. ε σὺ ὁ καὶ ἀσπάσαμενος αὐτὸν ἀνέπλευσεν,
va ε καὶ ἀ(πο)δίδωσι τὸ ὕδωρ Φαρίταις καὶ λαμβάνι
]ro γυ- παρ αὐτῶν εἰς τιμὴν ἀργ(υρίου) (δραχμὰς) ρ. καὶ
΄ 7 ς 3 Ἂς 2 - a
5 |v βίον καταχωρίζεται ἡ ἀρετὴ ἐν ταῖς Μερκουρίου
vos 20 βιβλιοθήκαις. of παρόντες εἴπατε εἷς Ζεὺς
japov Σάρατις. eee serene. ||
μΊενος - Διὸς ‘Hdiov μεγάλου Yapa-
Pere πιδος ἀρετὴ ἡ περὶ Συ-
7 Ν Ua
ῖο Jw ρίωνα τὸν κυβερνή-
Ἰνη 25 TV.
lev
Bat
1. m above τ deleted. 16. «a corr. from δια. 17. ὕδωρ Pap. 22. voupa written
over some expunged letters. 24. υ Of κυβερνητὴν corr. from e.
‘... he said “For your sake I will bestow the water upon the people of Pharos.” And
having saluted him he sailed forth, and gave the water 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. ἀ(πο)δίδωσι or {a} δίδωσι can be read.
236 THE OXYRHYNCHUS PAPYRI
19. ταῖς Μερκουρίου βιβλιοθήκαις : Cf. 886. 2-5 ἀντίγραφον ἱερᾶς βίβλου τῆς εὑρετίσης ἐν τοῖς
τοῦ Ἑρμοῦ 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 εὑρεθεῖσα
ἐν ᾿Ηλιουπόλει τῆς Αἰγύπτου ἐν τῷ ἱερῷ ἐν ἀδύτοις ἐγγεγραμμένη ἐν ἱερυῖς γράμμασι. Mepkoupiov
may be merely equivalent to ἙἭ,ρμοῦ, but since the story is concerned with Pharos the
Mercury quarter of Alexandria (Hirschfeld, Dze kaiserlichen Verwaltungsbeamten, 364-5) is
likely to be meant. Whether it was called Μερκούριος or Μερκούριον is doubtful, the nomina-
tive not being found, but the neuter form is the more probable.
20. eis Ζεὺς Σάραπις is a common formula on gems; cf. 1380. 6, note.
1383. SAILOR’S SONG.
54X12 cm. Late third century.
This interesting little poem, 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 YY — YY —| Uv, and to P. Amh. 2, an early fourth-century
acrostic Christian hymn in practically the same metre; cf. Wilamowitz, Gézz.
gel. Anz. 1904. 670, P. Maas, Philol. 1909. 445-6, Powell, Class. Quarterly,
ν. 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 Νείλου is
scanned as a trochee, whereas in 18838, as in P. Amh. 2, accent is often more
important than quantity, e.g. v. 4 ὅτε μένειν, v. 7 GN ὑποτάξατε ναὔσιβάταις.
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
without exception in P. Amh. 2, that a verse should end with a paroxytone
iambus, which results in the form ὑδάτη being employed in 425 for ὕδατα, is
violated in e.g. v. 3 ἐγώ, v. 8 ἐπΐγεται. 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.
1883. GRAECO-EGYPTIAN LITERARY PAPYRI 237
Col. i. Col. ii.
le Ῥοδίοις ἐκέλευον ἀνέμοις / 3 καὶ μέρεσι σοῖς πελαγίοις,
] ὃ ὅτε πλέειν ἤθελον ἐγώ. / 4 ὅτε μένειν ἤθελον
] ἐκεῖ, > ἔλεγον μέρε(σιν) medaylofils Spy (YY) τυπῇ τὰ
] πελάγη. / 7a
5 1ον[[αρ]] ὑποτάξατε ναυσιβάϊτ]αις. 8 ὅλος dp ἄνεμος ἐπίγεται. 5 ἀπέ-
10 κλειε τὰ πνεύματα Kal, ν[ύὐ]ξ, 19 δὸς τὰ [ὕδατα évBara.
In the right-hand margin at right angles
“Ῥοδίοις dvépors.|
6. 1. τοῖς for cos. 9. tmoragare Pap. s of vavorBalr|as above the line. ν of aveyos corr. (?).
Ἰ. ἀπόκλειε.
‘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. μέρεσι, unless corrected to μέρεσιζνν, is scanned as a dactyl; cf. introd. Inv. 5 the
word is abbreviated, and the same difficulty arises, but though two dactyls occur in place of
two anapaests in vv. 7, 8, ἔλεγον in v. 5 is in favour of μέρε(σιν) there.
σοῖς: the top of the first letter is lost, but the bottom of the surviving stroke turns
to the right, whereas the bottom of ar should be straight or turn to the left. The second
person singular is found in ]. ro, where νύξ is addressed, but is out of place with μέρεσι πελαγίοις,
which recurs in ]. 8 without eile and τοῖς was no doubt meant.
4. ὅτε πλέειν : the form πλέειν is often found in MSS., but is usually corrected to πλεῖν.
Here it corresponds metrically to μένειν in the next verse, the first syllable being apparently
lengthened in both words owing to the accent, unless the first syllable of ὅτε is lengthened ;
cf, introd. To read mhe(i)ew is unnecessary.
8. ἐκεῖ seems to mean Rhodes. For μέρε(σιν) cf. 1. 6, note. An adjective making
a tribrach or trochee seems to have been omitted after μή; cf. ]. 10, note. For τυπῇ cf.
Hom. ὃ 580 ἅλα τύπτον ἐρετμοῖς. Possibly, however, μὴ (5555) rinr[e{re)] or μὴ τὐπτείτε —)]
should be restored before ra πελάγη.
9. ναυσεβάτης for ναυβάτης occurs in Manetho i. 123. For the shortened first syllable
cf. the next note and introd.
Io. καί is treated as short; cf. introd. Verse ro will not scan unless δός θ᾽ [ὑδ]ατ᾽
ἐΐβατα (~—) be read. There is not room for [κυματα, and after evBara any further letters
would run into the μ of ἀνέμοις] belonging to the title, of which the termination may have
been obliterated, although the papyrus is preserved. Perhaps, however, ἀνέζμοις) should be
read there; the traces of the ε are very slight and the letter may be raised above the line.
This would leave room for 3 or 4 letters between evBara 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 dds, the manner of writing the title, and the general appearance of the papyrus
all suggest the conclusion of the poem, and an omission is likely enough; cf. 1. 8, note.
238 THE OXYRHYNCHUS PAPYRI
13884. 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
ἐν τῇ ἐρήμῳ, and possibly the background was suggested by Matt. viii. 2-4,
Mark i. 40-5, Luke v. 12-16, where the healing of a leper is stated by Mark and
Luke to have led directly to the departure of Jesus ἐπ᾽ ἐρήμοις τόποις or ἐν ταῖς
ἐρήμοις ; or if the persons who met Jesus were lepers (cf. ll. 15 and 17, notes)
there might be a connexion with Luke xvii. 11-14; or, as Dr. J. V. Bartlet
proposes (cf. 1. 15, note), the background may have been provided by Matt. xiv.
13-14, which has ἐρήμων τόπων and ἐθεράπευσε (cf. θαραπία in 1.17). If ἡμ[ῖν 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 (1) 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 pe
in Fr. 2 recto. ii. 1 belongs to the narrative, and possibly also in (5) the Gospel of
Thomas, (6) the Traditions of Matthias, and (7) the Fayim 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 (ll. 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
13884. GRAECO-EGYPTIAN LITERARY PAPYRI 239
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 ἀπεκάλυψέ μοι
ὁ κύριος τί τὴν ψυχὴν δεῖ λέγειν ἐν τῷ ἀνιέναι εἰς τὸν οὐρανὸν (cf. 11. 23-4) καὶ πῶς
ἑκάστῃ τῶν ἄνω δυνάμεων ἀποκρίνεσθαι, 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. 408) or the Ascension of Isaiah (P. Amh. 1).
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, ἄρτι ἔλαβέ με ἡ μήτηρ μου τὸ ἅγιον πνεῦμα ἐν μιᾷ τῶν τριχῶν μου Kal ἀπήνεγκέ
με εἰς τὸ ὄρος τὸ μέγα 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 4 Jewish-Christian
work, is perhaps more likely to have been associated with the source of the
second extract.
Φούσκας καθαρσίου"
Ἑ κυμίνου (δραχμαὴ δ,
10
20
240 THE OXYRHYNCHUS PAPYRI
μαράθου (δρ.) B, £ ἄγγελοι k(upioy ἀνῆρθαν πρὸς plécor]
σελίνου (δρ.) ὃ, τὸν οὐρανὸν ὀφθαλμοὺς
κόστου (Ὦδρ.) ὃ, 25 πονο(ῦγντες καὶ σφόγγον κρα-
μαστίχης (δρ.) δ, τοῦντες. λέγι αὐτοῖς ὁ κ(υρίο)υ, τί ἀνήρ-
κωρίου (δρ.) ¢ bare, ἁγνοὶ πανκάθαροι ; ἴασιν λαβῖν
δαφνόκοκκα Ka, ἀνήλθαμεν, ᾿Ιαὼ Σ᾿ αβαώθ, ὅτι σοὶ
καροίου (δρ.) [ δοινατὸς καὶ οἰσχιρός.
πέρνης (δρ.) & 30 ὃΘΠῈϑ κεἰς στραγγουριτία, ἰᾶσε τὸν πο-
γλήχωνος (δρ.) & νο(ῦ)ντα"
φοίλλου (δρ.) [ P λαβὸν σπέρμα ἀγίνου ξερὸν [
ἅλατος [ τρίψας μετὰ (υ) οἴνου Ackadal-
ὄξους ae virov εἶτα θερμὰ miv{v}e.
ἀπήντησαν PLE food, ΠΝ avdlpes Ῥ “εἰς θαραπίαν οὐλον'
ἐν τῇ ἐρήμῳ Kali εἶπαν τῷ K(upi)o, 35 λαβὸν μῆλα κυπαρίσί(σνγον
᾿Ιεσοῦ, τί(ς) ἔνη θαραπίᾳ ἀρράϊστοις ; ζέσας κλοίζου.
καὶ λέγι αὐτοῖς, ἔλεον ἀπέδίωκα ἐ-
λήας καὶ σβύρν[α]ν ἐξέχ[υσα τοῖς
πεποιθόσι τῷ ὀνόματι τοῦ
πατρὸς καὶ ἁγ[ί)ου ἱπν(εύματο)ς καὶ τοῦ
viov. >>
3. μ Of μαραθου corr. 7. 1. κορίου. 9. 1. καρύου. 12. First ἃ οἵ φοιίλλου above
the line; 1. φύλλου. 17. teoov II; 1. Ἰησοῦ... ἔνι θεραπεία. 18. 1. ἔλαιον... ἐΪλαίας.
19. 1. σμύρια]ν. 22. ὕϊου Π. 23. |. ἀνῆλθαν. 25. σφογγον Il. 1. σπόγγον. 26. τοις
of avros above the line. 1. κ(ύριο)ς... ἀνήλθατε. 27. v of ayvo: corr. from οἱ, and o from
υ ἴασιν Π. 28. Second a of ἀνηλθαμεν corr. from ὠ. iaw Π. 28-9. 1. σὺ δυνατὸς καὶ
ἰσχυρός. ot Of οἰσχιρος above the line. 30. 1. στραγγουρητίαν. ἴασεΠ; 1. ἰᾶσα. 51. 1. λαβὼν
σπ. ἀκίνου. 32. ὕοινου II. 34. 1. θεραπείαν οὐλῶν. 35. 1. λαβών. 36. A οἵ 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 (9). 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 went 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 wounds. ‘Take the fruit of a cypress, boil it and apply.’
1384. GRAECO-EGYPTIAN LITERARY PAPYRI 241
10. Whether in this context πέρνα 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 μαλάβαθρον
(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. θε, θω, ew, or ov, but not os, may be read for es, only the tops of
the letters being preserved; but no combination with ll. 17-19 or 23 results, and in ll. 16
and 20-1 the restorations, which are fairly certain, are inconsistent with this fragment.
Bartlet prefers ἡμ[ῖν of Φαρισαῖοι, comparing 1224. Fr. 2 verso. ii. 1, but ἄνδ]ρες at this point
seems satisfactory. The preceding word may well have been a number (e.g. τρεῖς), but
since the exact length of the lacuna is uncertain there are several possibilities. ἡμῖν λεπροὶ
ἄνδ)ρες might also be read on the analogy of Luke xvii. 11 δέκα λεπροὶ ἄνδρες (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. αὐτῷ or τῷ σ(ωτῆγρι (cf. 840) may be restored instead of τῷ κ(υρί)ῳ, which is the
term used in the Gospels of Peter and Philip, or Ἰεσοῦ might be dative instead of vocative ;
cf. 1224.
17. For the spelling θαραπία cf. 1, 34 and the Arsinoite ἄμφοδον Θαραπείας (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 y, 1, p, or tr. For ἀρράϊΪστοις (Bartlet) cf. Mark vi. 13 ἤλειφον ἐλαίῳ πολλοὺς
ἀρρώστους, but if the second and third letters were pp there was a blank space between them.
jpw|....is less satisfactory, but the sentence may have ended at @apamia and the next word
be a verb. ἅπτεται (cf. 6. g. Matt. viii. 3 ἥψατο αὐτοῦ) might be read, but hardly ἥψαϊτο, and
there would be room after it for δέ, but not αὐτῶν. This reading would require λεπροὶ ἄνδρες
in ]. 15; cf. note ad loc.
18-19. The fourth letter of απεδί, if not δ, can only be A, but δ is more suitable. Neither
ἀπέδωκα nor ἀπέδ[(ε)ιξα makes a very good contrast with ἐξέχζυσα, of which only the tops of
the letters survive, and one verb would be sufficient; but though οὗ can quite well be read
for εξ (ο is really preferable to ε), and v is possible in place of x (or x), ὄζουϊσαν is inadmissible,
not only on account of the third letter, which, if not ε, must be ε, but because after the
fourth the top of a high letter like « ought to have been visible. ἐξεῦρον and ἐξέχεα are
open to the same objection.
20-2. For τ[ῷ ὀνόματι cf. Matt. xxviii. 19 βαπτίζοντες αὐτοὺς εἰς τὸ ὄνομα τοῦ πατρὸς καὶ τοῦ
υἱοῦ καὶ τοῦ ἁγίου πνεύματος, and introd. τῇ δυνάμει (Bartlet) can be substituted.
23-4. μ[έσον | τὸν οὐρανόν : the first letter, if not μ, can only be A, ν, ΟΥὙὁ π. After a lacuna
of two letters comes what may be the bottom of a vertical stroke, or merely a stain or
accidental spot. a[<u|r|rov is possible, but not z[6r] τ[ρίϊτον.
25. σφόγγον might be for σπόγγων (cf. 1. 31 λαβον) and the plural would be an advantage,
but κρατεῖν 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.
24. λέγουσιν seems to have dropped out between ἁγνοὶ πανκάθαροι and ἴασιν λαβῖν, or else
of δὲ εἶπαν is omitted.
30. στραγγουριτία (i. 6. -ρητία) is an unknown equivalent of orpayyoupia, and of doubtful
validity.
31. ξερόν is an Ionic form, but more probably a misspelling of ξηρόν ; cf. 1. 17 Ἰεσοῦ.
242 THE ΟΧΥΚΗΥΝΟΗΟΘ PAPYRI
V. HOMER FRAGMENTS
(The collations are with the text of Ludwich.)
13885. Fr.2 7:5 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 B 444-6 and
456-67 (the writing on the verso being obliterated), with occasional breathings
and accents. 460 7 xnvoly. Fifth century; in a sloping uncial hand;
brown ink.
1886. 19:9x7:8cm. Found with 1365 and 1392. On the recto parts of
2, lines in cursive. On the verso the upper part of a column containing
portions of A 257—71, with some accents and marks of elision and quantity.
A low stop occurs in 1. 262. 260 κρητηρσι κερῶμνϊίται 262 πινωσι. σον.
Third century ; in an upright informal hand.
1387. 9:9x42cm. Middle parts of E 206-24 with occasional high stops and
accents (208 βαλών"). Second century; in well-formed round upright uncials
of medium size.
13888, Fr.1 7-6x8-6cm. Four fragments, the first containing parts of Z 133-7
from the end of a column, and the others parts of Z 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 οἱ not μιν in 1. 159. First century B. Cc. (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. 6x17-7cm. Fragment of a double leaf from a vellum codex containing
on p. 1 beginnings of H 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. 62x5cm. 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 δῆ. Fifth century; in slightly sloping rather heavy uncials ;
brown ink.
1391. Fr.1 3:-9x3:7cm. Four fragments (one very small one unidentified),
found with 1869-74, &c., from the middle of two leaves of a papyrus codex
of A, written in brown ink in a large heavy sloping uncial of the fifth century.
HOMER FRAGMENTS 243
The text, which varies considerably from the vulgate and seems to be
remarkably corrupt, is:
PF, le
Recto. Verso.
526? [σι 566 7 θοϊυριδος αλκης
521 ἰείυρυ yelp aud ὠμοισιν 567 ερητυ]σασκίε φαλαγγας
528 [Kelioo up . [ 568 | τρωπαΐσκετο φευγειν
569 εἾἶπι νηαῖς οδευειν
Frs. 2 and 3. Recto.
597 [Neoropa ὃ ex πολεμΊοιο φερίον Νηληιαι ἱπποι
598 [ιδρωσαι nyov de Mjayaeva πίοιμενα Aawv
599 [Tov de ιδω]ν ενοησεῖ modapkns ἴδιος AyiAdeus
600 ἰεστήκει yalp emt πἰρυ]μίν]η μεγίακητει νηι
[
601 [εἰσοροων πΊονον atn[vy] ἰοἶκα τε δακρυοεσσαν
02.
aia ὃ εταιρ]ον εοἷν Πατροκληα προσεειπε
Verso.
634 [reccap εσαν Sorat de πελειαδεῖς A εκίαστον
635 ἴχρυσειαι νεμεθοντο (dum) ὃ ὑπο πυθμεῖνεσς ησαν [|
636 ἴαλλος μεν poyewy αποκινίησασκε τἰραπἸ)εζης
6372 [πλειον εον Νεστωρ ὃ ο yepov αἸιεογητις αΪ.]. dav Ϊ
[ 25 letters ] ‘ nti. . .«]εσκετο. |
640? [ 31 letters Joo λευκία ?
641? [mvepevat ὃ εκελευσεν ἐπεὶ p ὠπλισσεῖ KuK[EL@
526. Αἴας δὲ MSS. 528. κεῖσ᾽ ἵππους MSS. For the doubled σ οἴ, ]. 635, but the
second is very doubtful, being more like y. 598. 1. Mjaxaova. 634. ἀμφὶς (or -φὶ) ἕκαστον
MSS. 635. An omission of about 3 letters apparently occurred in the earlier part of this
line. 637. ἀμόγητι ἄειρεν MSS, 638-40. The MSS. have ἐν τῷ pa σφι κύκησε γυνὴ εἰκυῖα
θεῇσιν οἴνῳ Upapveio, ἐπὶ δ᾽ αἴγειον κνῆ τυρὸν κνήστι χαλκείῃ, ἐπὶ δ᾽ ἄλφιτα λευκὰ πάλυνε. Mr. T. W.
Allen suggests that after Il. 636 or 637 some new lines were added referring to Hecamede
and proposes με]σολευζκον €xovoa OF -[ka opovea with either χιτωνα OF εἰματα. πἰαρεκ)εσκετο
(cf. ξ 521) does not seem possible in the previous line. The vestiges of the supposed 1. 641
are very uncertain, but ll. 637 and 640 may have been meant, though very corrupt.
13892. 14:2xX91cm. Found with 1865 and 1386. On the recto first halves
of O 303-25. 307 BiBwr. 308 ὠμοισιν. 311 Tm. 324 κλονεουσ ιν]. Third
R2
244 THE OXYRHYNCHUS PAPYRI
century ; in upright calligraphic uncials of biblical type, resembling 25, 661,
867, P. Rylands 16. On the verso, which is partly covered by strips gummed
on in order to strengthen the roll, is some third-century cursive writing.
1898. 7x9-8cm. Fragment ofa vellum leaf containing on one side beginnings
of II 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. 165 αγαθὸν. τόδ ὃ 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.1 4:3x1-6cm. Six fragments (two unidentified), found with 1869-74,
&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 1893. Stops in the middle position
in ll. 269 and 296 are apparently original. 271 νῦν with δὴ interlineated in
darker ink. Fifth century; in a medium-sized sloping hand somewhat
resembling that of 1872 ; brown ink. |
1895. 6-5x8 cm. Fragment of a vellum leaf containing on one side the first
halves of ¢ 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 σπειρας, 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 τ adscript of μωμευηι added together with a high stop by
a later hand.’ εἰσὶν. 297 ελθης corrected to ελθῆην by a later hand.
303 κευθωσι. Fourth century; in a fine upright script rather similar to that
of the Codex Sinaiticus.
13896. Fr. 1 27x37 cm. Two fragments, found with 1869-74, &c., from
a papyrus book, containing on the verso parts of 1 358-61, 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 ne apparently corr. 411 νοῦσον
7. Fifth century ; in a sloping hand rather smaller and more compressed
than that of 1394; brown ink.
1397. 3x2-8cm. Fragment found with 1869-74, &c., containing on the verso
marginal scholia on o 67 and 70 in a small cursive hand. The text is
[wepte|Gwoal[ro * ra μηδεα τίοις ° paxeowy, and after a space nuénoev, an explanation
of #Adave. On the recto traces of a few obliterated letters, probably also
ascholium. Fifth century.
1398. 10x7-3cm. Beginnings of φ 356-67, 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 ‘
HOMER FRAGMENTS 245
paragraphus. 362 dipléin margin. δὴ. 363 A of πλαγκτέ and x of ray added
above the line by the corrector. 364 am’. 365 ημῖν idnx[now, the A added
above the line by the corrector; paragraphus below. Third century; in
calligraphic upright uncials of biblical type, resembling 1892, 661, &c.
VI. MINOR CLASSICAL FRAGMENTS
1399. 7-1x7-3cm. Plate II (verso). On the recto parts of 8 lines of, probably,
a petition to an official who is addressed as κύριε; a ὑπομνηματισμός of
a βασιλικὸς (γραμματεύς) is mentioned. Late second or third century. On
the verso the title
Χχοιριλου ποιηματὰ
εἶ K
βαρβαρικα" μηδι- περσίικᾶ
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 ofAAvBos
(cf. e.g. 801, 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 βαρβαρικὰ
Μηδικ(ὰ) Περσικά refer to three distinct poems; they rather designate in
common the famous epos of Choerilus which is called by Suidas ἡ ᾿Αθηναίων
νίκη κατὰ Ξέρξου, by Stobaeus Περσηίς (Flor. xxvii. 1), and by Herodian
Περσικά (II. pov. λεξ. p. 13, ii. gig 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 surviving fragments (Kinkel, Zp. Gr. Fr. pp. 265 sqq.). Suidas
credits Choerilus with another work called Λαμιακά and ἄλλα τινὰ ποιήματα,
of which nothing is known ; Naekein his monograph on Choerilus suggested
(p. 101) that Λαμιακά should be emended to Σαμιακά or else assigned to
Choerilus of Iasus.
1400. 6x 5:3cm. 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:
(οι. 1, Col. ii.
Jade. αποῖΐ
Ἰαλην γαμει: αυτηΐ
Ἰγιδω- μητρί
246 THE OXYRHYNCHUS PAPYRI
| Bean ἢ yo δὶ
,ν ὃ 9 5 avTal
5 |v δ avtw χρονοι- =e
Ἰσεται a
n-[
Ἴτος εἰ
5 εοἱ
Ἰρεμω: ;
1 Kato
Io
1401, Fr.1 8-5x6-6 cm.
Four fragments, found with 1369-74, &c., from
a papyrus codex of a tragedy, written in a hand similar to that of 1870 but
not identical, though possibly from the same MS. of Euripides. Fifth
century; brown ink. Frs. 1 and 2 are from the tops of columns. The
text 15 >
Fr. 1 recto. Fr. 2 recto. Fr. 3 verso.. Εἴ. 4 τεοΐο.
Jas xop(os) pol εὐ 1 1.1
Ἰγνώμην ava... ; ag joruf
jevra...[.|.. verso. τασὶ
ἰο ΈΡ 7. θρων σοφόν Or. [ verso.
5 Ἰθισεις Js 8 σοῖ €.[ J. anf
].avm... ]- Geos Ft y« J ja.)
Traces of 2 more
lines and 2 of a scho-
lium.
1402. Fr.1 3:6x4:2cm. Three fragments, found with 1369-74, &c., ofa codex
of Aristophanes (?) with semi-uncial scholia. The main text is in a different
hand from those of 1871-4, and it is not quite certain that Fr. 3 belongs to
this MS. Fifth century; brown ink. The text is:
Fr. 1 recto.
Fr. 1 verso.
pJaxouy : [ 1. οτε β[ο]υλονταίι
Ἴνῳι" Tous αλ]εκτρυονας προς αλληλους
1. we ατὶ μαχεΊσθ(αι) σκοροδα τιθεασιν ev
Ἴους εκ — τοις pluetnpow [
7. ναὸν κακί 5 Ἴ. εἰς ml
Juco ) yy real
ΟἹ Ἰπαρωΐ
MINOR CLASSICAL FRAGMENTS 247
Fr. 2 recto. Fr.. 3 recto, Fr. 3 verso.
Jo. τα δρεπανᾳ ε F
lee tit fel [ ι :
ποῖ
verso. a..[
J]... λέγει Ὁ ἘΞ
1 κυνα Oh gL [
5 Ἴνυς “ταὶ
Fr. 1 verso. 1-3 seem to be a note on σκόροδον or σκοροδίζειν : cf. Schol. Ach. 165
τούτοις (SC. ἀλεκτρυόσι) yap ὅτε μέλλουσι μάχεσθαι σκόροδα δίδοται ἐσθίειν, Knights 494 ὅταν γὰρ
εἰς μάχην συμβάλλωσιν αὐτοὺς σκόροδα διδόασιν αὐτοῖς, but the recto does not suit any point 30-50
lines distant from either of those two passages. Fr. 2 recto. 1 8perava suggests Frogs 576
δρέπανον λαβοῦσ᾽ and κυνα on the verso might refer to κυνοκλόπον in ]. 605. σκόροδα occurs in
1, 555 of the same play, but Fr. 1 recto does not seem to fit that part of the Frogs.
1408. 2x3-2cm. Fragment, found with 1869-74, &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.
J--[ 1.
Ἰνκκενΐ
Ἰνσαμενος Ϊ Ἰγουντ « [
Ἵνωτον τί 1. οικεναῖι ?
5 ]--[
1404. 5:°9x16-9cm. 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: Canis carnem inve\nit et flu--men t(r\ansiebat,
deinde cum in *aquam vidisset umbram car-‘nis existimav\it altera(m).
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. ¢ is commonly of the v shape, made without
lifting the pen, but twice has the form of «. On the verso, at right angles,
are the ends of four lines of Greek, perhaps an account.
248 THE OXYRHYNCHUS PAPYRI
APPENDIX
List of Oxyrhynchus and 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 V-IX, with a small portion of Part X, of the Oxyrhynchus
Papyri, and the remainder of those in Part I of the Heh Papyrt. 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 Museum. ‘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, Lancs.
Brussels = Musées 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-
III. 412. Β.Μ. 2040.
V. 840. Bodl. MS.
er th, στα.
841. B. M. 1842.
842. B. M. 1843.
843. Cairo 41082.
844. Harvard.
VI. 845. Cairo 41083.
846. Pennsyl.E.307 4.
847. Morgan.
848. Chicago.
849. B. M. 2041.
850. Bodl. MS. Gr.
ἘΠῚ 7. τ5 (P).
851. Muhlenberg.
852. Bodl.
853. Cairo.
854. Toledo.
855. Bodl. MS. Gr.
class. 4. 99 (P).
857. Princeton CC.
0174. 6. 857.
858. Muhlenberg.
859. Liverpool Class.
Gr. Libr. 418.
860. Bodl. MS. Gr.
class. f 88 (P).
861. Newton.
862. Cairo.
863. Cairo.
864. IllinoisG.P.864.
865. Newton.
866. Muhlenberg.
867. LllinoisG.P.867.
868. Muhlenberg.
869. Toledo.
870. Muhlenberg.
871. Princeton CC.
DLT 4, 6. O71.
872. Muhlenberg.
873. Yale.
874. Rylands 449.
875. Cleveland.
876. Princeton.
877. Pennsyl.E.3075.
878. Brussels.
879. Cairo 41084.
APPENDIX
Oxyrhynchus Papyri.
880. Graz MS, II.
. 1948.
881. Cambridge Add.
5884.
882. Yale.
883. Morgan.
884. Bod]. MS. Lat.
class. 6. 20 (P).
885. Cambridge.
886. Cairo.
887. Cairo.
888. Bodl. MS. Gr.
class. d. 98 (P).
889. Cairo.
890. IllinoisG.P.890.
891. Bodl.
class. 7. 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. Bod]. MS. Gr.
class. ¢. 65 (P).
901. Cambridge Add.
5885.
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. Bod]. MS. Gr.
class. c. 64 (P).
909. IllinoisG.P.go9.
910. Leland Stanford.
911. Muhlenberg.
912. Cairo.
913. B. M. 2045.
MS. Gr.
914. B. M. 2046.
915. Yale.
916. LllinoisG.P.916.
917. Yale.
918. B. M. 1843.
919. Cairo.
920. Cairo.
921. Cambridge Add.
5886.
922. IllinoisG.P.g22.
923. Rylands 451.
925. Princeton Τ᾽, S.
Pan.2.
926. Bolton 28. 14.1.
927. IllinoisG.P.927.
928. IllinoisG.P.928.
929. Cairo.
930. Glasgow.
931. Chicago.
932. IllinoisG.P.932.
933. Toledo.
934, Muhlenberg.
936. Toledo.
937. Cairo.
938. Chicago.
939. Cambridge Add.
5887.
940. Princeton CC.
0174. 6. g4o.
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.
1954-
950. Morgan.
951. Princeton.
952. Peabody Mu-
seum, Yale.
953. Louvain 218.
954. Leland Stan-
ford.
249
955.
956.
957.
958.
959.
960.
961.
962.
963.
964.
965.
Yale.
Cleveland.
Brussels.
Illinois G.P. 958.
Cairo 41378.
Pennsyl.E.3078.
Cairo 41379.
Illinois G.P.g62.
Toledo.
Cairo 41086.
Morgan.
966. Cairo.
968. St. Deiniol’s,
Hawarden, A. N.
39496.
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,
1953:
981. Peabody Mu-
seum, Yale.
982. Princeton.
983. Dublin.
984. B. M. 1842.
986. Cairo.
987. Harvard.
988. Cambridge Add.
5888.
989. Cairo.
990. IllinoisG.P.gg0.
991. Princeton CC.
0174. 6. 991.
992. Graz MS. I.
1952.
52
993. Pennsyl. E.
3079.
994. Brussels.
250
995. Cairo.
996. Graz MS. II.
1942.
997. Cambridge
Add. 5889.
998. Brussels.
999. Graz MS. III.
1941.
1000. Graz MS. I.
1951.
1001. Chicago.
1002. Morgan.
1003. Cleveland.
1004. Cairo 41088.
1005. Cairo 41089.
1006. Cairo 41090.
Vit θυ ΒΟῊΝ:
204}.
1008. Cairo.
1009. Cairo.
1010. Bodl. MS. Gr.
bib. g. 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.
1023.
1024. Illinois G. P.
1024.
1025. Bodl. MS. Gr.
class. d. 99 (P).
1026. Cairo.
1027. Princeton CC.
0174. 6. 1027.
1028. Princeton CC.
0174. 6.1028.
1029. Cairo.
1030. Illinois G. P.
1030.
1031. Cairo.
1032. Bodl. MS. Gr.
class. ὁ. 7 (P).
1034. Dublin.
THE OXYRHYNCHUS ΡΣ ΧΟ
1035. Illinois G. P.
1035.
1036. Princeton CC.
0174. 6. 1036.
1037. B. M. 2050.
1038. Muhlenberg.
1039. Newton.
1040. Princeton CC.
0174. 6. 1040.
1042. Illinois G. P.
1042.
1043. Princeton CC.
0174. 6. 1043.
1044. Toledo.
1045. Toledo.
1046. Muhlenberg.
1047. Toledo.
1049. Bodl. MS. Gr.
class. ὁ. 7 (P).
1050. Cambridge
Add. 5890.
1051. Illinois G. P.
IO5I.
1052. Bodl. MS. Gr.
class. 4. 100 (P).
1053. Cambridge
5801.
1054. Princeton CC.
0174. 6. 1054.
1055. Newton.
1056. Newton.
1057. Bodl. MS. Gr.
class. d. 100 (P).
1058. Princeton T.S.
Pap. 3.
1059. Newton.
1060. Rylands 452.
1061. B. M. 2051.
1062. Bolton 28.1 4.2.
1063. Toledo.
1064. Muhlenberg.
1065. Princeton T. 5.
Pap. 4.
1066. Toledo.
1067. Toledo.
1068. Princeton CC.
0174. 6. 1068.
1069. Cairo.
1070. Cambridge
Add. 5892.
1071. Cairo.
1072. Newton.
VILL 2073, Β. ΜΝ.
2052.
1074. Lllinois G. P.
1074.
1075. Β. Μ. 20523-
1076. Rylands 448.
1077. Muhlenberg.
1078. Cambridge
Add. 5893.
1079. B. M. 2053.
1080. Princeton T.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. ror (P).
1090. Liverpool
Class. Gr.
420.
1091. B. M. 2056.
1092. Bodl.
1093. Cairo.
1094. Muhlenberg.
1095. Muhlenberg.
1096. Princeton T.S.
Pap. 6.
1097. B. M. 2057.
1098. Cairo.
1099. Cambridge
Add. 5896.
1100. Bodl. MS. Gr.
class. 6. 100 (P).
1101. Bodl. MS. Gr.
class. c. 66 (P).
1102. B. M. 2058.
1103. Bodl. MS. Gr.
class. d. 102 (P).
1104. Bod]. MS. Gr.
class. d. 102 (P).
1105. B. M.
Libr.
1106. Edinburgh Pap.
Case 8.
1107. Princeton CC.
0174. 6. 1107.
1108. Muhlenberg. |
1109. Toledo.
1110. Bodl. MS. Gr.
class, ¢. 100 (P).
1111. Bodl. MS. Gr.
class. 7 go (P).
1112. Bodl. MS. Gr.
class. 6. ror (P).
1113. Muhlenberg.
1114. B. M. 2059.
1116. Bodl. MS. Gr.
class. ὦ. 103 (P).
1117. Cairo.
1118. Toledo.
1119. Bodl. MS. Gr.
class. ὦ. 5 (P).
1120. Illinois G. P.
1120.
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. Β. M. 2064.
1137. Toledo.
1138. PrincetonT. 5.
Pap. 7.
1139. Toledo.
1140. Liverpool
Class. Gr. Libr.
421.
1141. Muhlenberg.
1142. Cairo.
1143. B. M. 2065.
1145, Cairo.
—— ee eee eee
heed het ne «: ἢ
1146. Bodl. MS. Gr.
class. 6. 102 (P).
1147. Princeton CC.
0174. 6. 1147.
1148. Cairo.
1149. Princeton CC.
0174. 6. 1149.
1150. Rylands 453.
1151. Glasgow.
1152. Princeton T.S.
Pap. 8.
1153.
1154.
1155.
1156.
1157.
1159.
1160.
1161.
1162.
0174. 6. 1162.
1163. Dublin.
1164. Liverpool
Muhlenberg.
Newton.
Toledo.
Cairo.
Toledo.
Muhlenberg.
Newton.
Class.Gr. Libr. 422.
1165. Cairo.
IX. 1166. B.M.2066.
1167. Princeton T.S.
Pap. 9.
1168. Princeton T.S.
Pap. το.
1169. Princeton T.S.
Pap. 11.
1170. Bodl. MS. Gr.
bib. d. 14 (P).
1171. Princeton CC.
0174. 6. 1171.
1172. B. M. 2067.
1177. Illinois G. P.
1177.
1178. Cairo.
1179. Newton.
1180. Illinois G. P.
1180.
1. B. M. 1821.
2. Bod.
class. £ 78 (P).
- Bolton 28.1 4.3.
Princeton CC.
MS. Gr.
APPENDIX
1181. Muhlenberg.
1182. Cairo.
1183. Princeton CC.
‘0174. 6. 1183.
1185. Rylands 454.
1186. Cairo.
1187. Cairo.
1188. B. M. 2071.
1189. Princeton CC.
0174. 6. 1189.
1190. Dublin.
1191. Cairo.
1192. Toledo.
1193. Princeton CC.
0174. 6. 1193.
1194. Rylands 455.
1195. Liverpool
Class. Gr.
423. .
1197. Bodl. MS. Gr.
class. d. 104 (P).
1198. Newton.
1199. Edinburgh
Pap. Case 9.
1200. Cairo.
1201. Cambridge
Add. 5899.
1202. Princeton CC.
0174. 6. 1202.
1203. Toledo.
1204. Cairo.
1205. B. M. 2072.
1206. B. Μ. 2073.
1207. Princeton CC.
0174. 6. 1207.
1208. Bod]. MS, Gr.
class. 4. 6 (P).
1209. Rylands 456.
1211. Princeton CC.
0174. 6. 1211.
1212. Muhlenberg.
1213. Cambridge
Add. 5900.
Libr.
1214. Princeton CC.
0174. 6. 1214:
1215. Muhlenberg.
1217. Muhlenberg.
1218. Toledo.
1219. Muhlenberg.
1220. Cairo.
1221. Muhlenberg.
1222. Toledo.
1223. Cairo.
X. 1225. Princeton
T. 8. Papi ra.
1226. Liverpool
Class. Gr. Libr.
424.
1227. Muhlenberg.
1228. Glasgow.
1229. Illinois G. P.
1229.
1230. Newton.
1243. Muhlenberg.
1245. Cairo.
1246. Muhlenberg.
1247. Toledo.
1249. Cambridge
Add. 5901.
1250. Bodl. MS. Gr.
class. d. 97 (P).
1251. B. M 205%.
1301. Muhlenberg.
1302. Muhlenberg.
1303. Liverpool
Class. Gr.Libr. 425.
1306. Liverpool
Class. Gr. Libr. 426.
1307. Illinois G. P.
1307.
1308. Muhlenberg.
1309. Liverpool
Class. Gr. Libr. 427.
1310. Princeton CC.
o1r74. 6. 1310.
| 1311. Newton.
Hibeh Papyri.
3. Bodl. MS. Gr.
class. ¢. 89 (P).
4. B. M. 1822.
&. ΒΜ ΟΣ ΒΔ ἢ:
6. B. M. 1824.
7. Bodl. MS. Gr.
251
1312. Muhlenberg.
1314. Liverpool
Class.Gr. Libr. 428.
1315. Cambridge
Add. 5902.
1319. Muhlenberg.
1320. Liverpool
Class.Gr. Libr. 429.
1321. Liverpool
Class.Gr. Libr. 430.
1322. Liverpool
Class.Gr. Libr. 431.
1324. Bolton 28. 14.
4.
1325. Princeton CC.
0174. 6. 1325.
1326. Illinois G. P.
1326.
1327. Cairo.
1328. Newton.
1329. Cairo.
1330. Muhlenberg.
1331. Toledo.
1332. Toledo.
1333. Muhlenberg.
1334. B. M. 2074.
1335. B. M. 2075.
1337. Cairo.
1338. Illinois G. P.
1338.
1339. Cairo.
1340. Newton.
1341. Cambridge
Add. 5903.
1342. Princeton CC.
0174. 6. 1342.
1345. Liverpool
Class.Gr. Libr. 43 2.
1346. Toledo.
1348. Toledo.
1349. Illinois G. P.
1349.
1350. Cairo.
class. ὦ. 3785 (P).
8. Brussels.
9. Harvard.
252
10. Bodl.
class. Κ 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. BoM agar.
17. Bodl. MS. Gr.
class. d. 79 (P).
18. Bodl. MS. Gr.
class. 7. 80 (P).
19. Graz MS. I and
IIL. 1944.
20. B. M. 1826.
21. B. M. 1827.
22. Bodl. MS. Gr.
class. 4. 3 (P).
23. Morgan.
24. Cambridge Add.
4461.
25. Yale.
26. Bodl. MS. Gr.
class. d. 80 (P).
27. Dublin.
28. Bodl.
class. d, 81 (P).
29.° Bod: 15: Gr,
class. 4, 82 (P).
30. B. M. 1828.
31. Cairo 41073.
32. Chicago.
33. Cairo 41074.
34. Bodl. MS. Gr.
class. c. 60 (P).
MS. Gr. | 38. Graz MS.
MS. Gr.
THE OXYRHYNCHUS PAPYRI
1943-
40. Graz MS.
1947.
41. Bodl.
class. c. 61 (P).
47. Cambridge Add.
4462.
48. Cambridge Add.
4463.
50. Pennsyl. E. 3069.
51. B. M. 1829.
52. Bodl.
class. 4. 83 (P).
53. Cambridge Add.
4464.
57. Cairo 41075.
58. Morgan.
59. Cleveland.
63. Cairo 41076.
. Yale,
nope
. B. M. 1830.
a Bodl.
class. ὦ. 84 (P).
69. Cairo 41077.
76 (a). Leipzig Inv.
No. 614.
70 (3).
No. 615.
71. Cairo 41078.
72. Cambridge Add.
4406.
73. Bodl.
class. 4. 85 (P).
IW;
1:
MS., τε:
MS. Gr:
. Leland Stanford.
. Cambridge Add.
MS._ Gr.
Leipzig Inv.
MS. Gr.
74. Graz MS. I.
1949.
76. Brussels.
77. Leipzig Inv. No.
616.
78. Cairo 41079.
80. B. M. 1831.
81. Bodl. MS. Gr.
class. c. 62 (P).
82. B. M. 1832.
84(a). B.M.1833(a).
84(4). B.M.1833(0).
85. B. M. 1834.
87. Peabody Mu-
seum, Yale.
89. Morgan.
90. B. ΝΜ. 1835.
91. Morgan.
92. B. M. 1836.
93. Harvard.
94. Leipzig Inv. No.
617.
95. Bodl. MS. Gr.
class. Αὶ 81 (P).
96. Pennsyl.E.3070.
97. Yale.
98. Brussels.
99. Princeton.
. Brussels.
. Cairo 41080.
. Harvard.
4 BaMi1838%:
. Chicago.
. B. M. 1838.
. Leipzig Inv. No.
618.
108. Chicago.
109. Cleveland.
110. Berlin Postmu-
seum I A, a 10a.
111. Morgan.
112. Bod. MSGn
class. ες. 63 (P).
113. Grag (isa
1946.
115. Brussels.
116. Bodl. MS. Gr.
class. 6. go (P).
117. Pennsyl.E.3071.
119. Harvard.
121. Graz MS. III.
1945.
124. Cairo 41081.
128. Yale.
130. St. Deiniol’s,
Hawarden A. N.
39495:
131. Leland Stanford.
132, Grazie
1950.
133. Morgan.
137. Princeton.
145. B. M. 1839.
146. Dublin.
147. Cleveland.’
148. Yale.
150. B. M. 1840.
151. Morgan.
156. Pennsyl.E.307 2.
166. Harvard.
167. Pennsyl.E.3073.
169. Hibbard Library,
Chicago, OAT. 1.
171. B. M. 1841.
ΝΟ Ὁ
I. NEW CLASSICAL FRAGMENTS (including 1856).
(Figures in thick type refer to papyri, those in Italic type to Sragments, Roman
SJigures to columns ; schol. = scholium.)
ἀγαθός 1361. 1. 6.
ἄγαλμα 1861. 1. 5.
ἀγαυός 1858. 1. 7; 1859. 7.
Io.
ἄγγελος 1361. 5. 24.
ἄγειν 1361. 7. 15; 1862. 1.
2, 3,10; 1364. 20; 1368.
55-
ἀγέρωχος 1358. 2. 30.
ἁγιστύς 1362. 1. 3.
ἀγρός 1867. 17.
ἀδελῴός 1871. 47 schol.
ἄδικος 1356. Fol. 4.
1363. 7.
ἀἸέλιος 1861. 5. 15.
anp 1364. 294.
[dOavalros 1859. 1. 5.
᾿Αθηναῖοι 1866. 6; 1867. 41.
ἀθρόος 1356. Fol. το. 18.
aia 1859. 7. 11.
αἰγλάεις 1361. 7. 14.
Αἴγυπτος 1361. 7. 15.
“Awns 1856. Fol. 4. 34;
1360. 3. 4 ('Aidas); 1868.
II
29;
αἰέν 1362. 7. 9.
αἰθήρ 1858. 2. 34.
Αἰθίοπες 1858. 2. 15, 17.
αἴθοϊ 1859. 3. 3.
αἴθυια 1862. 1. 34.
αἰθύσσειν 1861. 7. 8 (1. {διλαιθ.).
αἶνος 1862. 7. 9.
αἰπύς 1858. 2. 23, 25.
αἱρεῖσθαι 1865. 53.
αἶσα 1362. 1. 15.
ἀΐσσειν 1858. 2. 20.
αἰσχύνη 1864. 40.
αἰτεῖν 1862. 7. 19.
αἴτιος 1366. 17.
Airva 1861. 4. 7.
1358. 2. 25.
αἰφνίδιος 1365. 36.
αἰών 1862. 1. 33.
ἀκούειν 1356. Fol. 8.1; 1859.
1. 4; 1862. 1. 21; 1364.
70.
ἄκρατος 1856. Fol. 8. 5.
axpo| 1361. 17. 2.
ἀλαζών 1868. 7.
ἀλγύνειν 1864. τοϑ, 149.
ἄλεισον 1862. 7. 13.
ἀλεκτρυών 1402. 1.
schol.
᾿Αλέξανδρος 1861. 7. 1 marg.
ἀλήθεια 1856. Fol. 4. 30;
1364. 56.
ἀληθήῆς 1856. Fol. 4. 27;
1362. 1. 15; 1864. 118.
ἁλής 1863. 5.
ἁλικία 1861. 24. 4.
dhirpés 1860. p. 56.
ἀλλά 1856. Fol. 4. 31, 34,
Fol. 8. 10, Fol. ro. 11;
1358. 2. 33; 1860. 1. 3,
4. 6 schol: ; 1861. ὅ. 12;
1362. 1. 9, 16, 33; 1864.
55, 120, 162; 1868. 42.
ἀλλήλων 1864. 273.
ἄλλος 1856. 2. 6, 3.1; 1865.
5; 1866. 8; 1867. 8.
ἁλμυρός 1858. 1. 1.
alter 1404. 4.
ἀλύσκειν 1858. 2. 29.
[Αλφει)ός 1361. 4. 9.
ἅμα 1868. 37, 40.
᾿Αμαζονίδες 1859. 7. 12.
Αἴτνη
verso
ἀμενηνός 1858. 2. 18.
Japerpa 1363. 19.
ἄμμος 1360. 7. 8, το.
ἀμύμων 1858. 1. 14; 1859.
4. 6.
ἀμύνεσθαι 1864. 132.
᾿Αμύντας 1361. 1. 1 marg.
ἄμυστις 1862. 1. 11.
ἀμφί 1358. 2. 28.
ἀμφιβάλλειν 1358. 7. 27.
ἄμφω 1368. 32.
dv 1356. Fol. 4. 5; 1864. y,
12, 38, 113, 131, 135, 146,
I -
ἀνάγιος 1856. Fol. 4. 10.
ἀνάγκα 1861. 7. 6.
1361. 5. 14.
ἀναγκάζειν 1356. Fol. 4. 9.
ἀναγκαῖος 1864. 26, 283.
ἀναδιδάσκειν 1356. Fol. το. 3.
ἀναιρεῖν 1368. 32.
ἄναξ 1358. 2. 32.
ἀναπνεῖν 1864. 292.
ἀνάσσειν 1858. 1. τό.
ἀναστρέφεσθαι 1862. 1. 6.
ἀναφέρειν 1364. 184.
᾿Ανδρέας 1365. 11.
ἀνδρεία 1865. 56.
ἀνδρείως 1865. 63.
avdpoxtacin 1859. 1. 17.
ἀνδροφόνος 1358. 7. 29.
dveiperOa 1362. 1. 22.
ἀνήκειν 1361. 4. 1.
ἀνήρ 1856. Fol. 4. 12; 1858.
1. 9, 12; 1361. 7. 10, 4.
6; 1868. 2,12, 22; 1366.
6, 27.
ἄνθεμον 1361. 4. 3.
ἀνάγκη
254
ἀνθιστάναι 1860. 2. 4 schol.
ἀνθρώπινος 1856. Fol. 4. 2.
ἄνθρωπος 1856. Fol. ὃ. 2;
1358. 1. 20; 1861]. 7. 12,
3. 3, £4. 2, 5(0); 1864.
13, 48, \80, 2506, 288;
1365. 2.
Ἰανοεῖν 1856. ὃ. 14.
ἀνοιγνύναι 1868. 47.
ἀνόσιος (atop Pap.) 1856.
Fol. 4. το.
ἀντί 1856. Fol. ὃ. 2; 1860.
13. 2 schol.; 1865. 43.
᾿Αντισθένης 1866. 2.
ἀντιφαίνειν 1859. 1. 5.
ἄνω 1856. Fol. 4. 1(?);
1358. 2. 35.
ἀνωφελής 1864. τόρ.
a&{| 1856. Fol. το. 28.
ἀπαλλάσσειν 1864. 41.
ἀπαρχή 1860. 1. 13.
ἅπας 1856. Fol. 4. 25; 1864.
295; 1365. 31.
ἀπειρέσιος 1858. 2. το.
ἀπό 1856. Fol. το. 9; 1861.
1. 15; 13864. 87, 96, 99,
102 ; 1868. 29.
ἀποδεικνύναι 1865. 45.
ἀποδιδόναι 1865. 7.
ἀποθνήσκειν 1364. 93, 98.
ἀποκριΐ 1856. Fol. 4. 43.
ἀποκτείνειν 1865. 38.
ἄπίορος 1860. 1. 9.
ἀποστοῖ 1856. Fol. 8. 28.
ἀποστυγεῖν 1862. 7. 11.
amore 1856. Fol. το. 20.
ἀποτρέπειν 1864. 88.
ἀποφεύγειν 1367. ὃ.
ἀποχετεύειν 1556. Fol. 10. 9.
aqua 1404. 3.
ἄρα 1358. 1. τ, 2. 33.
᾿Αργεῖοι 1858. 1. 31.
ἄρδειν 1856. Fol. 10. 10.
ἀρετή 1856. Fol. 4. 4, Fol.
Io. 22.
᾿Αρητιάδης 1858. 2. 32.
ἀριστερός 1858. 1. 25.
ἄριστος 1859. 1. τι.
᾿Αρκασίδης 1859. 1. 8.
ἁρμόττειν 1856. Fol. 4.11, 30.
INDICES
ἀρνεῖσθαι 1864. 197.
ἁρπαγή 1856. 1. 2.
ἁρπάζειν 1861. 5. το.
ἄρτος 1862. 1. 25.
ἀρυστήρ 1862. 1. τῇ.
ἄρχειν 1364. 134.
ἀρχή 1865. 63.
᾿Αρχίμαχος 1867. 56.
᾿Ασίς 1859. 1. τι.
ἀσύννετος 1860. 1. το.
ἀτᾶσθαι 1858. 2. 13 (?).
᾿Ατθίς 1862. 1. 4.
ἀτιμώρητος 1856. Fol. 4. 29.
ἀτ]ιτάλλειν 1859. 1. 6.
ἀτμήν 1862. 1. 19.
drpvyeros 1858. 2. 34.
αὖθις 1865. 70; 1368. 41.
αὔλιον 1862. 4. 6.
αὐξάνειν 1897. 70 schol.
αὐτάρ 1859. 2. 13.
αὖτε 1856. Fol. 4. 39.
αὐτίκα 1361. 1. 11.
αὐτός 1859. 4. 7; 1860, 4.
ii. 7; 1864. 67, 69, 73,
76, 79, 82, 95, 133, 138,
142, 148; 1865. 13, 44,
54, 60; 1867. 3, 45, 54;
59; 1868. 45, 48, 51;
1400. i. 5, li. 2. ὁ αὐτός
1364. 194; 1368. 28.
ἀφανίζειν 1868. 38.
ἄφθιτος 1858. 1. 26; 1859.
Ὁ. Obs
ἀφιέναι 1856. Fol. 4. 30;
1360. 2. 6 schol.
ἀφικνεῖσθαι 1368. 43.
ἀφορίζειν 1864. 290.
ΤΑφροδίτη 1859. 5. 4; 1871.
52 schol.
ἄφρων 1356. Fol. 4. 8.
᾿Αχαιοί 1859. 1. 14.
ἀώς 1361. 24. 3.
βαθύρροος 1858. 2. 23.
βάλλειν 1862. 1. 20; 1868.
BI.
βαρβαρικά 1399. verso 2.
βάρβαρος 1856. Fol. το. 11 (?);
1364. 278, 289.
BapBapoty 1864. 274.
BapBrros 13861. 7. 1, 4. 2.
Βαρκαῖοι 1867. 29.
βασιλεύειν 1867. 42.
βασιλεύς 1859. 1. 8; 1867.
20, 24.
βασιλικ[ός 1867. 62.
βιάζεσθαι 1864. 47.
βιβλίον 1868. 7.
βίη 1859. 1. 9, 17.
βίος 1856. Fol. 4. 29 ; 1862.
1,33. :
βλάπτειν 1364. 55, 110.
βλέπειν 1368. 42.
βλώσκειν 1861. 5. 25; 1862.
AG:
βοηθεῖν 1865. 37.
Βουζύγης 1867. 53.
βούλεσθαι 1402. 1. verso
schol.
βουλευτής 1867. 65.
βραβεύειν 1856. Fol. 4. 32.
Βύκχις 1860. 3 schol,
βωμός 1860. 1. 11; 363. το.
βωτιάνειρα 1859. 1. τό.
canis 1404. 1.
caro 1404. 1, 3.
cum 1404. 2.
γαῖα 1358. 2.32. Ταῖα 1558.
3. τι.
γαμεῖν 1400. 7. 2.
γάρ 1856. Fol. 4. 11, 16, 29,
32, 37, Fol. 10. 27; 1860.
3 schol.; 1861. 2. 1, 4. 2,
26. 4; 1862. 1. τι, 17;
1868. ὃ; 1364. 23, 54,
65, 91, 117, 180, 211,
272, 294.
yapus 1361. 7. 2.
ye 1864. 173.
γείνεσθαι 13864. 136.
yeven 1862. 1. 14.
γενέθλη 1858. 2. το, 26;
1362. 1. 7.
γέρας 1859. 5. 1.
γέρων 1363. 7.
γῆ 1859. 1. 13 ; 1868. 23.
ynyevns 1867. 42.
γήτειον 1862. 7. 25.
I. NEW CLASSICAL FRAGMENTS
γίγνεσθαι 1856. Fol. 4. 26 ;
1358. 2. 16, 27; 1859.
2. 6; 1860. 2. 6 schol.;
1364. 159, 210; 1365. 12,
25.
γιγνώσκειν 1356. Fol. 8. 1;
1362. 1. 29.
Γλαυκέτης 1368. 33, 39.
γλυκύς 1361. 7. 6.
γλῶσσα 1358. 2. 14.
1364. 72.
γνήσιος 1356. 3. 13.
γνώμη 1401. 7. 2.
γοῆτρις (?) 1856. Fol. 4. 14.
γονεύς 1859. 7. 3.
γοῦν 1356. Fol. 4. 31.
γυμνάζειν 1356. Fol. 4. 47.
γυμνός 1356. Fol. 4. 37.
γυνή 1356. Fol. 4.14; 1859.
5. 5 (Ὁ); 1368. 53.
yupevoa (= puredoa?) 1356.
Fol. ro. 8.
γλῶττα
δαήμων 1858. 7. 24.
δαῆναι 1862. 1. 14.
δαίτη 1362. 1. 5.
δαμᾶν 1358. 7. 2.
Δάρδανος 1359. 2. 7, 13.
δέ 1856. Fol. 4. 33, Fol. 8.
a4 28, Fol 10. 5, 12,25;
ape. 1.1) 6, 18, 22, 30,
2220; 1359. 7. 6, 7, 13,
πον: 19860: 1: 10,2: 2,
4 schol. ; 1861. 7. 12--14,
aa 4, ὃ. 6, 12. 4, 18. 4:;
ee: 2.5, 7,52; 21; 255
1363. 15; 1364. 21 εἴ
sacp.; 1865. 8 ef saep.;
1367. 8 εὖ saep.; 1868.
33, 36; 37> 39; 1400. i. δ.
δείελος 13862. 4. 4.
δειλός 1861. 78. 2.
δεῖν 1856. Fol. 10. 27; 1864.
66-82, 120.
Δελφικὸς τρίπους 1856. Fol.
4. 27.
Δελφοί 1865. 7 ; 1867. 23.
δεόντως 1356. Fol. 4. 5.
δεσμός 1856. Fol. 4. 35;
1364. 104.
δεῦρο 1361. 7. 3.
δεῦτε 1568. 5.
δέχεσθαι 1859. 1. 7 (?).
deinde 1404. 2.
Δημήτηρ 1859. 2. 9, 12.
δῆμος 1865. 69.
δημοῖσι... 1856. Fol. το. 29.
δημότης 1865. 1.
Δημῶναξ 1367. 19, 28, 35.
διά 1356. Fol. 4. 38; 1858.
2.34; 1859. 1.22; 1864.
54, 56; 1865. 55; 1868.
53:
διαβαίνειν 1868. 45.
διαδατεῖσθαι 1858. 1. 15.
(8:)abvooew 1361. 7. 8.
διαισί 1361. 3. 3.
διαιτᾶσθαι 1365. 17.
διακωλύειν 1864. 179.
διατελεῖν 1865. 16.
διαφθείρειν 1867. 18.
διαφυλάσσειν 1865. 65.
διδόναι 1856. Fol. 4. 31, 33,
Fol, 10: 283 1358. 2. 3;
1360. 5. 4; 1864. τοι;
1367. 24, 38.
δικάζειν 1356. Fol. 4. 37.
δίκαιος 13858. 7. 13; 1864.
GE, 171:
δικαιοσύνη 1864. 6, τό.
δικαστής 1856. Fol. 4. 34.
δίκη 1856. Fol. 4. 30; 1864.
193 ; 1866. 17; 1367. 3.
διό 1867. 2.
Διόθεν 1858. 1. 28.
Διομήδης 1359. 4. 5.
Διονύσια δῶρα 1861. 7. 9.
διορθοῦν 1867. 58.
dis 1358. 2. 28.
δίσκος 1859. 4. 8.
δισχέλιοι 1360. 5. 7.
διφυής 1867. 42.
dio 1859. 1. 4.
δοκεῖν 1856. Fol. 4.25; 1861.
4.11 δὶ
δόλος 1858. 7. 2.
δόξα 1364. 54.
δοῦλος 1362. 7. 1.
δρᾶν 13864. 76, 134, 177,
182, 188, 196, 209.
230
δρέπανον 1402. 2. recto schol.
δύνασθαι 1860. 2. 4 schol. :
1364. 192, 214, 287(?).
δυνατός 1856. Fol. το. 26;
1364. 46.
δῶρον 1858. 7. 3, 6; 1861.
Dee
ἐάν 1864. 45, 47, 51.
ἑαυτοῦ 1356. Fol. 4. 25, 37;
1364. 14; 1866. 4: 1871.
41 schol.
ἐγώ 1361. 4. 13; 1862. 8,
13, 21, 22, 31: 1866. 10;
1368. 31; 1400. ii. 4.
ἡμεῖς 1856. Fol. 4. 7, 34,
Fol. 8. 30; 1860. p. 56
(ἄμμι); 1862. 4.17; 1864.
"291.
ἐθέλειν 1860. 7. 6 ; 1862. 1.
τό.
εἰ. 1566. Fol. 4... 31, 33;
1359. 1. 4; 1861. 4 7;
1362. 1. 33; 1364. τό,
156; 1368. 41.
εἰδέναι 1856. Fol. 4. 7, Fol.
10. 23(?); 1858. 1. 5, 26;
1360. 13; 1862. 7. 27.
εἶδος 1870. 1370 schol.
εἰκάδες 1861. 7. 5.
εἰκός 1865. το ; 1368. 34.
εἰλικρινῶς 1856. Fol. 4. 38.
εἶναι 1856. Fol. 4. 26, Fol.
8... ag; 2. τα 5388." Ὁ
28, 2. 19; 1860. 2. 6
schol. ; 1861. 5.12; 1362.
1. 7, 323 1864.31 ef
Saep.; 1865. 1, 10, 19,
20, 31; 1868. 44, 54;
1400. i. 7.
εἰρήνη 1856. Fol. 11. 2.
eis 1860. 3. 4; 1862. 7. 18;
1364. 138, 183, 294;
1367. 7, 11 ; 1368. 44, 55.
εἷς 1867. 32.
ἐκ (ἐξ) 1856. Fol. 4, 27, 37,
Fol. 8. 28; 1859. 2. 14;
1363. 23; 1364. 170,
268; 1865. 6, 36; 1867.
38; 1868. 54.
256
ἕκαστος 1856. Fol. 4. 12.
ἑκατόν 1867. 4, το.
ἐκεῖνος 1868. 5, 31, 42.
ἐκπλήσσειν 1368. 33.
ἐκτρέπειν 1868. 29.
Ἕκτωρ 1558. 2. 29.
ἐκφεύγειν 1558. 2. 29.
ἐλάττων 1864. 50, 151.
ἐλάττωσις 1864. 164.
ἐλαύνειν 1856. Fol. 4. 8;
1861. ὅ. 17: 1868.37, 40
ἐλεύθερος 1862. 1. το ; 1364.
107.
ἐλέφας 1861. 1. 13.
Ἕλλην 1856. Fol. το. τι;
1864. 279, 292.
ἐλπίζειν 1363. 23.
ἐλπίς 1861. 7. 8.
ἐμός 1861. 1. 3; 1362. 1. 33.
ἔμπειρος 1856. Fol. το. 1.
ἐμπνεῖν 1856. Fol. 8. 26.
eupréyew 1856. Fol. 4. 36.
ev 1856. Fol. 4. 4, 32-4, 403
1359. 1. 6, 9, τι; 13861.
1.05, "5, €6545 8862. i253,
17, 20; 1864. 9, 148,
272; 1865. 31; 13868.
47, 53:
evaipew 1359. 1. 12.
ἐναντιοῦσθαι 1864. 163.
ἐναργής 1859. 1. 5.
ἔνδον 1861. 5. 5.
ἐνεῖναι 1864. 148 (&).
ἕνεκα 1864. 57. ἕνεκεν 1362.
ἽῈ 5ΕῚ
ἐνενήκοντα 1867. 4.
ἐνέπειν 1862. 1. 27.
ἐνεργός 1865. 32.
ἐνθουσιᾶν 1856. Fol. 4. 27.
ἐνταῦθα 1856. Fol. 4. 33;
1364. 178.
ἐντεῦθεν 1864. 2, 17.
ἐντός 1363. 8.
é|Eapx| 1868. 28.
ἐξεῖναι 1864. 150, 152, 154;
1367. 33 (?).
ἐξελαύνειν 1359. 1. 13.
existimare 1404. 4.
ἐπαιδεῖσθαι 1864. 266, 270.
ἐπεί 1364, 275.
INDICES
ἐπειδή 1865. 22.
ἔπειτα 1365. 58.
ἐπέξοδος 1356. Fol. 4. 9.
ἕπεσθαι 1358. 1. 18.
ἐπέτειος 1362. 1. 3.
ἐπί 1858. 2.8; 1859. 7.15;
1861. 24. 4; 1364. 65—
81, 90, 186 ; 1368. 51.
ἐπίθετος 1864. 25.
ἐπιθυμεῖν 1864. 83.
ἐπικουρεῖν 1564. 172.
ἐπικούρησις 1864. 158.
ἐπίκουρος 1858. 1. 23.
ἐπιμέλεια 1856. Fol. 4. 2.
ἐπιμορφάζειν 1356. Fol. 4. 13.
ἐπινεύειν 1868. 36, 38.
ἐπίστασθαι 1356. Fol. το. 21.
ἐπιστρέφεσθαι 1368. 40.
ἐπιτάξ 1362. 1. 9.
ἐπιτάσσειν 1365. 6.
ἐπιτομή 1867. 68.
ἐπιτρέπειν 1864. 174.
ἐπιφέρειν 1867. 3, 9.
ἐπιχειρεῖν 1868. 52.
ἐπιχθΐον 1861. 27. 2.
ἔπος 1862. 7. 15.
ἑπτὰ σοφοί 1867. 71.
ἑπτάτονος 1361. 71. 2.
ἔργον 1358. 2. ὃ.
Ἐρίκτυπος 1858. 2. το.
ἐρισθενήῆς 1858. 2. 27.
Ἐριχθόνιος 1859. 2. 14, 4.
3 (?).
Ἕρμιππος 1867. 69.
es 1861. 1. 3, 4. 7; 1862. 7.
5, 10; 1363. 5; 1367.
23. Cf. εἰς.
ἐσοικίζεσθαι 1362. 1. 34.
ἐσσήν (ἑσσήν Pap.) 1862. 1.
a3:
ἔσω 1856. Fol. 4. 41 (?).
ἑταίρη 1363. τό.
ἕτερος 1856. Fol. 8. 21;
1362. 1. 29; 1364. 141.
ἔτι 1860. 2. 6 schol.; 1862.
1. τό: 1865. 48:@)5
1368. 43.
εὖ 1858. 1.17; 1859. 7. 6;
1864. 139 ; 1365. 60.
εὐβουλία 1856. Fol. 4. 15.
εὐδαιμονέστατος 1856. Fol. 4.
26.
εὐδοκιμεῖν 1365.40; 1367. 46.
eins yns 1858. 1. 12.
εὐθύς 1856. Fol. 4. 31.
εὔιππος 1858. 2. 21.
εὐκαταφρόνητος 1856. Fol. 4.
24.
ἐΐκτιτος 1861. 4. 7.
εὐλύρας 1861. 12. 4.
ἐὐπλόκαμος 1859. 4. 5.
εὑρίσκειν 1864. 146.
εὐρύς 1858. 1. τό.
Εὐρώπη 1358. 1. 8.
εὐσέβεια 1856. Fol. το. 24.
εὖτε 1861. 1. 6, 5. 25; 1862.
1. 14.
εὐτελής 1868. 48.
εὐτυχία 1865. 67.
εὐφραίνειν 1864. 112.
εὔχεσθαι 1556. Fol. 10. 2, 27.
εὐχή 1856. Fol. το. 20, 23.
ἐφίεσθαι 1856. Fol. 11. 5.
ἔχειν 1356. Fol. 11. 6; 1861.
5. 5; 1862. 7. ὃ, 16, 25,
33; 1865. 61.
ἕως 1860. 2. 6 schol.
flumen 1404, 1.
ζάθεος 1861. 20. 4.
Zevs 1858. 1. 2, 15, 21, 26,
2.12; 1860. p. 56; 1861.
4,14; 1368. 6.
ᾧγμία 1864. 41.
ὧν 1856. 3. 15; 1864. 92,
95.
ζωπυρεῖν 1856. Fol. 4. 36.
ἦ 1862. 1. 15, 32.
41356. Fol. 4. 7, Fol. ro. 4,
10, 28 ; 1861.71. 20; 1362.
1. 28; 1864. 90, 112, 116,
188.
ἡγήτωρ 1858. 1. 12.
ἠδέ 1359. 1. 6, 7. 3 (?).
ἥδειν 1864. 116,152. ἥδεσθαι
1362. 7. 12.
ἤδη 1861. 4. 2 (ἢ); 1866. 14.
᾿Ηετίων 1859. 2. 8, II.
I, NEW CLASSICAL FRAGMENTS
᾿Ηλέκτρη 1859. 2. 5.
ἤλεκτρον 1358. 2. 24.
ἡλικία 1865. τό, 24.
ἠλιτοεργός 1860. 6. 3.
ἦμαρ 1862. 1. 2.
ἡμίθεος 1861. 20. 6.
Ἡρακλείδης Σαραπίωνος 1367.
6
Ἡρακληείη βίη 1859. 1. 9.
᾿Ηριγόνη 1862. 1. 4.
"Hpidavds 1858. 2. 23 (?).
Ἡρόδοτος 1867. 36.
ἥρως 1861. 5. 20; 1862. 7. 26.
ἡττᾶσθαι 1356. Fol. 4. 15.
ἥττων 1364. 151.
Ἥφαιστος 1358. 1. 4.
ἠώς 1362. 1. τ.
θάλπειν 1361. 7. 7.
θάνατος 1366. 4, 18.
θάπτειν 1868. 28.
θεά 1361. 5. 22.
θέλειν 1856. Fol. 4. 24.
θεοποΐμπ 1861. 9. 3.
θεοπρόπιον 1367. 39.
θεός 1856, Fol. 4. 6, 15, 16,
Pol 8: 2: Fol. to. 22,27;
1858. 1. 9, 2. 13; 1862.
1. 10; 1865. 8; 1400.
Lea:
_ Gevyerns 1362. 1. 21.
θρασύχειρ 1361. 5. το.
Θρηΐκιος 1362. 7. τι.
θρίξ 1361. 5. 6.
θρώσκειν 1358. 2, 32.
θυγάτηρ 1859. 1. ἢ, 4. 2;
1871. 47 schol.
θῦμος 1361. 1. 7 ; 1862. 7. 21.
θύνειν 1858. 2. 20.
θυσία 1865. 5.
tapBos 1868. 17.
ἴδιος 1862. 7. 7.
1864. 186.
ἰέναι 1864. 80.
ἱερός 1860. 2. 4 schol.
1363. 5.
Ἱέρων 1361. 4. 1 marg., 3.
ἱκάνειν 1859. 6. 2.
ἱκανός 1864. 172.
> ,
ἰδιώτερος
cv
ἱρὸν
Ἰκάριος 1862. 1. 3.
Ἴκιος 1862. 7. 8.
ἱκνεῖσθαι 1859. 1. το.
ἼἜκος 1862. 1. 24.
Ἶλος 1859. 2. 15.
ἱμερόεις 1361. 4. 5.
in 1404. 2.
invenire 1404. 1 (?).
ἱππημολγοί 1358. 2. 15.
ἵππος 1859. 1. το; 1861. 4.
4; 1868. 50.
ἱππόστασις 13868. 46, 55.
ἱρόν 1868. 5.
is 1558. 1. τό.
ἴσος 1859. 1. 7; 1861. 3. 4.
ἴσως 1856. Fol. το. 5.
ixaivew 1862. 1. 22.
καθά 1856. Fol. 4. 26.
καθεύδειν 1868. 52.
καθῆσθαι 1861. 19. 6.
κάθοδος 1862. 1. 26.
καθύπερθεν 1858. 2. 14.
καὶ γάρ 1862. 1. 11.
καινός 1862. 1. 6; 1866. 6.
καιρός 1856. Fol. 4. 12, 33;
1365. 32.
κακία 1856. Fol. 4. 36.
κακοπατρίδας 1860. 7. 12.
κακός 1864. 51, 137. κακόν
1365. 66. κακῶς 1864. 153.
καλεῖν 1862. 1. 5.
καλλίκομος 1858. 1. το.
καλλικρήδεμνος 1361. 5. 22.
καλλιστεύειν 1856. Fol. 4. 4.
καλλίσφυρος (-pav) 1861. 5. 24
schol.
κάλλος 1359. 4. 4.
καλός 1368. 32.
καλυκῶπις 1361. 5. τι.
κ]αλυπτί 1860. 22. 2.
Καλυψώ 1358. 2. 31.
Καμβύσης 1356. Fol. το. 13.
κάμιζειν 1866. 29.
καπνός 1860. 2. 6 schol.
καρτερός 1861. 5. 13 schol.
κατά 1856. Fol. 4. 25, Fol.
το. 17(?), 2. 4; 13859.
7 4; 1860. 28 schol. ;
1861. 1. 14, 24. 5; 1862.
5
my
1. 7; 1864. 60, 296-7;
1365. 58, 62; 1867. 32;
1368. 39; 1371. 41 schol.
καταδεῖν 1368. 49.
καταδικάζειν 1867. 12.
καταδίκη 1867. 14.
καταθρώσκειν 1865. 34.
κατακαλύπτειν 1371. 11 schol.
καταλαμβάνειν 1356. Fol. 4.39.
καταλείπειν 1364. 195.
κατανοεῖν 1356. Fol. 4. 38.
καταπαύειν 1860. 2. 6 schol. ;
1361. 1. 2 (κάππαυε).
κατάρατος 1861. 5. 4.
κατασβεννύναι 1860. 2.6 schol.
κατασκευάζειν 1356. Fol, 11. 2.
καταυλεῖν 1363. 3.
καταφρονεῖν 1865. το.
κατηγορεῖν 1864. 204.
κατηγορία 1864. 206.
κατιέναι 1868. 53.
κατόμνυσθαι 1864. 140, 143.
κατόπισθεν 1359. 1. 18.
κατοργᾶν 1856. Fol. 4. 21 (9).
Κατουδαῖοι 1858. 2. 9, 18.
κάτω 1358. 2. 33; 1868. 55;
1400. i. 9.
κε 1862. 5. 4.
κεῖθεν 1862. 3. I.
κεῖνος 1859. 1. 13 ; 1862. 7.
28.
κεῖσθαι 1364. 63, 103; 1368.
30.
Κέκροψ 1867. 41.
κένωσις (κενεσις Pap.) 1871.
52 schol.
xepaha 1860. 2. 3; 1861. 5. 6.
Κεφαλλῆνες 1358. 2. 30.
κῆδος 1858. 1. 30.
κισσύβιον 1862. 7. 12.
κλεεννός 1861. 4. 8 (?).
κλῖμαξ 1868. 54.
κλισίη 1862. 1. 8.
κλοπή 1856. 7. 2.
κλύειν 1858. 2. 33.
κλυτός 1859. 1. 21, 24(?);
1361. 4. 3.
κλυτοτέχνης 1858. 7. 4.
κόρη 1861. 5. 9, 11, 19; 1868.
32.
258
Κόρινθος 1867. τι.
κόσμος 1856. Fol. to. 24.
κούρα 1861. 4. 13.
κρατερός 1858. 1. 14; 1359.
4, 6; 1861. 5. 13.
κράτος 1368. 39.
κρείττων 1856. Fol. 4. 38.
κρείων 1858. 2. το.
κρήδεμνον (kpad.) 1861. 7. 11.
κρίνειν 1858. 1. 22.
Κροῖσος 1856. Fol. 4. 25.
Κρονίων 1858. 1. 11, τό.
κυβερνήτης 1856. Fol. 4. 11.
κύκλος 1858. 2. 20.
κυκλοῦν 1358. 2. 28.
κύλιξ 1361. 7. 7.
κῦμα 1862. 1. 34.
Κύπρις 1861. 7. 8.
Κυρηναῖοι 1867. 21, 38.
κύων 1402. 2. verso schol.
κώμη 13868. 44.
κῶς 1862. 1. 24.
Λαιστρυγόνιος 1858. 2. 26.
λαιψηρός 1361. 4. 9.
λαμβάνειν 1867. 6.
λαμπρότερος 1860. 2. 6 schol.
τον 1365. 49.
λανθάνειν 1862. 1. 1; 1364.
38, 43, 49.
Λαομέδων 1859. 1. 10.
λαός 1858. 1. 19, 22.
Λᾶσος 1867. 55.
Λατοΐδας 1860. 72. 11.
Aax| 1861. 7. 19.
λέγειν 1862. 7. 13, 22, 31;
1864. 73,145; 1567. 21;
1871. 41 schol.; 1402. 2.
verso schol. εἰπεῖν 1856.
Fol. 4. 5, Fol. 10. 14, 3. 43
1361. 27. 1.
λέσχη 1862. 1. τό.
λεύκιππος 1861. 24. 3.
λευκός 1862. 1. 2.
Λιβύη 1867. 34.
Λίβυς 1858. 2. 15.
λιγυαχής 1861. 4. 1.
λιγυρός 1361. 1. 2.
λογισμός 1856, Fol. 4. 10,
Fol. 10. 16.
INDICES
λόγος 1364. 1. 109, 3. 5.
Avew 1856. Fol. 4. 35; 1861.
The ae
λυπεῖν 1864, 115.
μάγειρος 1865. 20.
μαινόλις 1361. 71. 2.
μακρός 1856. Fol. 4. 28.
μάλα 1862. 7. 15. μᾶλλον
1856. Fol. 10. 28; 1362.
1. 34; 1864. 111, 116,
150. μάλιστα 1864. 13;
1365. 41, 55.
μαντεῖον 1865. 4.
Μαντινεῖς 1867. 20, 27, 31,
317:
μάντις 1856. Fol. 4. 28.
μαρμαίρειν 1861. 1. 13.
μάρπτειν 1858. 2. 29.
μάρτυς 1856. Fol. 10. 12;
1364. 17, 21.
μάσσων 1861. 6. 3.
ματεῖν 1360. 2. 3.
μάχεσθαι 1402. 1. verso schol.
μεγάθυμος 1858. 2.17; 1359.
1. 12.
μεγαλήτωρ 1558. 1. το.
μεγαλόνοια 1856. Fol. 4. 6.
μεγαλ[οσθενής 1861. 1. 17.
μέγαρον 1859. 1. 6.
μέγας 1864.19. μείζων 1864.
53. μέγιστος 1361. 7.
15.
μειγνύναι 1859. 1. 9; 1861.
1.9.
μελάνοϊ 1858. 2. το.
μέλας 1858. 2.17; 1859. 1.
ta
μέλειν 1366. 24.
pede, 1856. Fol. το. 22.
μέλλειν 1859. 1. 4; 1861. 4.
2; 1865. 9.
μέν 1858. 2. 14; 1859. 2.
10(?); 1861. 1.11; 1862.
1. 17, 13: 1864, τῇ, 25,
28, 95, 102, 174; 1365.
5, 16, 31, 55, 68; 1866.
6; 1867. 11; 1868. 35.
μὲν οὖν 1864. 156.
μέντοι 1856. Fol. 4. 33.
- μέριμνα 1361. 71. το.
μέροψ 1858. 1. 20.
μετά 1864. 17; 1867. 14;
1868. 31. μέτα 1862. 7.
32.
μεταξύ 1860. 3 schol.
μεταχρόνιος 1858. 2. 35.
μετρεῖν 1356. Fol. το. 29.
μέχρι 1365. 15.
μή 1856. Fol. 4. 31,33; 1860.
1. 12, 2. 6 schol.; 1864.
10, 42, 84, 99, 133, 142,
155, 161, 180.
μηδέ 1856. Fol. το. 8, 26.
Μηδικά 1399. verso 2.
μῆδος 1858. 1. 26; 1897. 67
schol.
μηκέτι 1861. 7. 1.
μήπω 1861. 4. τ.
μήτηρ 1400. ii. 3 (?).
μητίετα 1858. 1. 15, 21.
μιαιφόνος 1861. 5. το.
μικρόν 13868. 29.
μικροψυχία 1856. Fol. 4. 5.
μιμνήσκειν 1867. 34, 54.
pw 1362. 7. 18, 4. 5.
μῖσος 1860. p. 56.
μοναρχεῖν 1861. 7. 12.
μόνος 1856. Fol. 4. 7, 11;
1360. 2.6 schol., 7. μόνον
1356. Fol. ro. 11; 1862.
1. 15; 1868. 36.
povouv 1864. 20.
povoa 1868.13. Movoa1861.
1. 4, 4. 3; 1868. 4.
μυθεῖσθαι 13862. 1. 30.
μῦθος 1859. 7. 4.
μυκτήρ 1402. 1. verso schol.
Μυρμιδόνες 1862. 7. 23.
Μυσοί 1859. 7. 8.
μύστης 1860. 2. 4 schol.
Μυτιληναῖοι 1860. 2. 6 schol.
Μυτιλήνη 1860. 3 schol.
ναιετάω 1358. 1. 17.
vais 1359. 1. 15, 2.16; 1361.
A. Be
ναυτιλίη 1362. 1. 33.
νεανίσκος 1868. 37.
νεκρός 1860. 2. 4 schol.
αν νυν
I. NEW CLASSICAL FRAGMENTS
νέος 1361. 7. 6, 12. 3.
νῆις 1562. 7. 33.
mans 1359. 4. 8 (9).
νίκα 1861. 4. το.
νικαν 1865. 47.
νιν 1861. 5. 3, 12.
νόμιμος 1864. 8, 36.
νομοθετεῖν 1864. 63; 1367.
22, 44, 53-
νομοθέτης 1367. 39, 70.
νόμος 1856. Fol. 4.24; 1864.
ne, 24, 26, 6o, 88, 103,
160, 166,171; 1867. 45,
57:
νόος 1858. 9. τ4. Cf. νοῦς.
νοστοῖ 1359. 8. 1.
νοῦς 1864. 81.
νυ 1862. 1. 5.
νύμφη 1858. 1. το, 2. 31.
νῦν 1868. 2; 1864. 167.
νύξ 1368. 43.
ὁ (art.) 1860. 7. 4, 7, 8; αἱ.
6 (dem.) 1358. 2. 29, 33;
13859. 2. το; 13862. 7. 5,
11,13; 1363. 3.
6 (rel.) 1859. 2. 14, 4. 7;
᾿ς 1860. 7. 13°; 1362. 7. 17.
Joyevns 1366. 1.
ὅδε 1862. 7. 13, 15, 22.
ὁδός 1368. 29.
ὀθνεῖος 1862. 4. 6.
οἴεσθαι 1856. Fol. 4. 31.
οἰκεῖος 1365. 65. οἰκειότερος
1364. 86.
οἰκειοῦσθαι 1865. 51.
οἰκία 1867. 18.
οἶκος 1861. 1. 13 ; 1864. 269;
1370. 1371 schol.
οἴκτιστος 1862. 7. 4.
oivororew 1862. 7. 12.
οἶνος 1861. 26. 3; 1862. 7. 16.
οἰνοχόος 1862. 1. 18.
οἴχεσθαι 1367. 12.
ὁκόσος 1363. 12.
ὄλβιος 1861. 5. 18; 1362. 7.
32.
ὀλίγος 1362. 1. 12.
ὅλος 1356. Fol. 4. 38, Fol. 8.
51:
ὁμήθης 1862. 7. 5.
“Opnpixés 1862. 1. 9.
ὅμοιος 1862. 7. 9, 10. ὁμοίως
1864. 277.
ὁμολογεῖν 1864. 29, 33, 39.
épod| ov 1861. 12. 3.
évwava 1864. 110.
ὄνομα 1865. 14.
ὅπως 1860. 7. 12 schol.
ὁρᾶν 1356. Fol. 4. 28; 1862.
1.19; 1864.52, 67; 1868.
41, 46.
ὀργίζεσθαι 1371. 3 schol.
᾿᾽ορέστειοι χόες 1362. 7. 2.
᾿Ορθαγόρας 1865. 15.
ὀρθός 1864. 109.
ὁρμαίνειν 1861. 7. 3.
ὀρούειν 1858. 2. 30.
’Oprvyin 1858. 2. 26.
ὅς 1856. Fol. 4. 5, 35, Fol.
10. 29, 0]. τι. 6 ());
1859. 1. 5, 2. 9; 1361.
1.9; 1862. 1. 6, 8; 1363.
15; 1864. 38, 66, 90, 173;
1365. 15, 44; 1868. 54.
ὅσος 1356. Fol. το. 26.
ὅσοσπερ 1864. 204.
ὅσσος 1861. 4. 14; 1362. 7.
21.
ὅστις 1868. 17, 20; 1864.
131, 135.
ὅταν 1361. 26. 2.
ὅτε 1862. 7. τ, 19; 1402. 7.
verso schol.
ὅτι 1856. Fol. 4. 7; 1862.
1. 15; 1864. 59.
ὅττι 1860. 1. 7.
οὐ 1856. Fol. 4. 7, 24, Fol.
10: FI, 21°; 1860. 7. 9;
1862. 1.10, 15. οὐκ 1362.
1. 9,17; 1864. 165, 264
marg. οὐχ 1864. 33,
172.
οὗ 1858. 1. 18; 1359. 1. 5..
οὐδέ 1856. Fol. 4. 38, Fol.
10. 5; 1860. 1. 10; 1362.
1. 1, 18; 1864. 86, 113.
οὐδείς 1856. Fol. 4. 29, 32,
Fol. 8. 24; 1860. 2. 4
schol. ; 1864. 50, 53, 85,
$2
i
185, 216(?), 291; 1867.
15; 1868. 35.
οὖν 1856. Fol. 4. 25; 1364.
12, 36, 84, 156 (μὲν οὖν) :
1368. 43, 49.
οὐδέπω 1360. 2. 6 schol.
οὐκέτι 1868. 42.
οὔκουν 1864. 107, 113.
οὕνεκα 1359. 2. 12.
οὔνομα 1862. 7. 14.
οὖς 1862. 7. 30 (οὔατα); 1864.
6
9.
οὔτε 1862. 7. 29 : 1864. 178,
270, 271, 289, 292.
οὗτος 1856. Fol. 10. 10, 3.
8 (?); 1860. 1. 11, 2. 6
schol. ; 1861. 7. 4; 1862.
1. 31; 1364. 58, 123, 144,
272; 1365. 46 ; 1866. 16;
1367. 7, 64; 1568. 35, 45,
53. οὕτως 1865. 19.
ὀφθαλμός 1864. 65.
ὄφρα 1358. 2. 13.
ὀφρύς 1862. 71. 18.
ὀψέ 1856. Fol. 4. 31, 32.
Παγχαῖος (Πάγκαιοῖν Pap.)
1868. 6.
πάγχρυσος 1361. 4. 14.
πάθημα 1356. Fol. 4. 7.
πάθος 1856. Fol. 4. 36.
παιδεύειν 1365. 18.
παιδίον 1865. 13.
παιπαλόεις 1358. 2. 25.
παῖς 1361. 1.17; 1362. 7. 3,
26; 1365. 23.
πάλαι 1363. 6.
πανομφαῖος 1858. 2. 12.
πανοῦργος 1856. Fol. 8. 44.
παρά 1856. Fol. 4. 34, Fol.
10. 29 ; 1858.7. 10; 1864.
46, 160; 1367. 5; 1868.
44. πάρα 1862. 1. 21.
παραβαίνειν 1864. I1, 37.
παραγίγνεσθαι 1867. 23.
παραθήγειν 1356. Fol. 4. 8.
παραλλάσσειν 1365. 24.
παραμελεῖν 1365. 3.
παραμετρεῖν 1356. Fol. 4. 6.
παρατηρεῖν 1856. Fol. 10. 25.
260
παρέχειν 1864. 242, 281.
παριστάναι 1856. Fol. ro. 19.
πᾶς 1856. Fol. 4. 33; 1359.
Ὅτ: 1380.72) 9)'29
schol. ; 1861. 7. 12 ; 1364.
7, 48, 52, 57, 276, 284;
1365. 40.
πάσσαλος 1361. 7. I.
παστάς 1870. 1371 5000].
πάσχειν 1364. 131, 154, 155,
175, 176, 180, 181, 187,
101, 208.
πατήρ 1858. 1. τ, 9; 1860.
Ῥ. 56; 1861. 5. 6 schol.,
12, 10: 8.
πάτριος 1862. 1. 23.
παῦρος 1562. 1. 32.
πείθεσθαι 1564. 167.
πειθώ 1864. 207 (3).
πελάζειν 1859. 1. τό.
Πελληνεῖς 1865. 30, 35.
πέλωρος 1858. 2. τι.
πέμπειν 1861. 7. 3, το, 4. 6.
πεντήκοντα 1867. το.
περᾶν 1858. 1. τ; 1864. 189.
περί 1856. Fol. 4.15 ; 1358.
2. 20,285 4a62. 1. 28;
1367. 69.
περιαθρεῖν 1856. Fol. 4. 12.
περίαπτον 1856. Fol. 4. 39.
περιζώννυσθαι 1897. 67 schol.
περιπόλαρχος 1865. 44.
περίπολος 1865. 26, 42.
περιστείχειν 1362. 1. 13.
Περσικά 1399. verso 2.
πηγή 1856. Fol. το. 9.
πηδαλιουχεῖν 1856. Fol. το. 4.
Πηλεύς 1862. 1. 24.
πιθοιγίς 1862. 1. τ.
πίνειν 1861. 1. τό.
πλάζειν 1363. 6.
πλατάνιστος 1368. 30.
πλατύς 1860. 2. 2.
πλείων 1864. 153.
πληγὶ 1362. 4. 3.
πλήθειν 1371. 45 schol.
πλῆθος 1865. 59.
πλοῦτος 1361. 7. τό.
ποιεῖν 1356. Fol. 4. 9 ; 1864.
139; 1365. 68.
INDICES
ποίημα 1899. verso I.
ποιητής 1867. 55+
ποικίλλειν 1370. 1371 schol.
ποιμήν 1858. 1. το.
πολεῖν 1358. 2. 28.
πολέμαρχος 1865. 54.
πολεμεῖν 1365. 61.
πολέμιος 1864. 147; 1365.
38, 48,67. πολεμίως 1864.
62.
πόλεμος 1858. 1. 24; 1365.
28, 58.
πόλις 1858. 1.17; 1360. 7.
8; 1861. 7. 11; 1364. 7;
1367. 7.
πολιτεύεσθαι 1864. 9.
πολίτης 1865. 22, 50, 60;
1367. 16.
πολύς 1858. 1. 18, 22 ; 1860.
1.5; 1363.21; 1364. 59,
146; 1865. 40, 50, 66.
πλείων 1364. 153.
πολυσπερής 1858. 2. 22.
πολύφορβος 1858. 2. 22.
πόμα 1362. 1. 20.
πόντος 1861. 7. 14.
Ποσειδαόνιος 1361. 5. τό.
Ποσειδάων 1858. 2. 27, 31.
ποταμός 13868. 45.
ποτέ 1359. 2. 9, 4. 7; 1861.
20. 3.
πότνια 1358. 2. 31.
που 1368. 41.
πούς 1858. 2. 35; 1861. 4. 9,
10. 3; 1864. 78.
πρᾶγμα 1856. Fol. 4. 3.
πραπίδες 1358. 1. 5.
πρέπειν 1856. Fol. to. 24.
πρό 1856. Fol. 8.9; 1368. 5.
προέρχεσθαι 1365. 53.
προθεσπίζειν 1356. Fol. 4. 28.
προϊέναι 13860. 2. 7.
πρός 1856. Fol. 4. 8, 29,
Fol. 20:; 135 | 1968. τὰς
1364. 1. 273, 4. ἢ; 1865.
30, 60; 1367. 1. 13 and
3. 4; 1868. 35, 50.
προσάγεσθαι 1365. 51.
προσεῖναι 1356. Fol. 4. το.
πρόσθεν 1361. 4. 8.
προσίεσθαι 1864. 157, 162,
169.
προσνέμειν 1367. 29.
προστασία 1856. Fol. 4. 2.
πρότερον 1356. Fol. 4. 40.
προτρέπειν 1864, 9.
πρῶτον 1864. 173 ; 1867. 43.
πτερόν 1861. 7. 4.
Πτολεμαῖος (grammarian)
1361. 5. “1 Sema
(= Ptol. Soter) 1867. 6.
Πυγμαῖοι 1358. 2. 9, 18.
Πυθαγόρας 1867. 72.
πυροφόρος 1361. 1. 14.
Πύρρα 1360. 3 schol.
πωλεῖν 1367. 13.
πῶλος 1861. 4. ὃ (?).
ῥα 1859. 4. γ.
“Padapavéus 1358. 1. 13.
ῥάκος 1397. 67 schol.
ῥέεθρον 1358. 2. 23.
| ῥιζοῦν 1856. Fol. το. 6.
pis 1864. 297.
ῥυπαρός 1871. 44 schol.
σαίνειν 1362. 1. EQ.
Σαραπίων 13867. 68.
σέβεσθαι 1862. 1. 23; 1864.
207;,27%-
σεύεσθαι 1361. 1. 7.
σῆμα 1358. 1. 25.
σιγᾶν 1860. 2. 4 schol.
Σικυώνιοι 1865. 29, 43, 69.
σκέψις 1364. 58.
σκοπεῖν 1864. 280.
σκόροδον 1402. 1. verso schol.
Σκύθαι 1358. 2. 15.
σός 1861. 1. 4; 1862. 1. 28.
σοφός 1401, 2. verso 1. ἑπτὰ
o. 1367. 71.
στάτηρ 1860. 5. 7.
στείχειν 1359. 1. τό.
στεφαναφοΐρ 1861. 12. 2.
στιβάς 13868. 48, 51.
στόμα 1364. 296.
σύ 1860. 2. 4 schol. ; 1362.
1. 21; 1401. 3. verso 5.
ὑμεῖς 1860. 3 schol.; 1862.
1. 23 (ὔμμι); 1866. 23.
I. NEW CLASSICAL FRAGMENTS
συκοφαντ| 1866, 7, 13.
συμβάλλειν 1865. 36.
συμβιοῦν 1856. Fol. 4. 13.
συμμα[χ 1867. 26.
συμπίπτειν 1367. 10.
συμπόσιον 1861. 7. 5.
συμπότης 1861. 4. 6.
συμφέρειν 1864. 97, 99, 101,
114, 118, 122.
συμφερόντως 1364. 15.
συμφορά 1360. p. 56.
σύμφυτος 1864. 44,
σύν 1856. Fol. 4. 40; 1861.
26. τ.
συνθεῖ 1861. 24. 1.
συνιστάναι 1365. 28.
Συρακόσιος 1361. 4. 1 marg.
σῶμα 1356. Fol. 4. 35.
σωφροσύνη 1356. Fol. 11. 1.
τάλαντον 1367. 5, 9.
τάλας 1861. 5. 2.
ταλί 1861. 8. 1.
τανίσφυρος 1358. 7. 8.
ταχέως 1860. 2. 6 schol.
τε 1858. 7. 9, 13-14, 2. 12,
14, 15, 17, 26, 28, 34;
1969: 7. 4, 13, 147, 4. 6;
1961. 7. 8, 13,4. το, 12. 4;
1864. 45, 48, 51, 65, 72,
76, 79, 82, 109, 148, 150,
183, 267, 294; 1865. 64;
1367. 17.
τειχίζειν 1362. 5, τ.
τεῖχος 1868. 5 (retxevs).
τεκμαίρεσθαι 1864. 24.
τέκος 1861. ὅ. 18.
τελεῖν 1356. Fol. το.
1861. 4. 5.
τέλος 1356. Fol. 4. 28.
τελί 1861. 5. 3.
τέρας 1358. 1. 28.
τετρακόσιοι 1867. 66.
τῆλε 1358. 7. 8.
Τήλεφος 1859. 7. 8.
τιθέναι 1358. 1. 30; 1861. 4.
233
Orn «20. .2 5 1085... Tas
1367. 56, 59; 1402. 1.
verso 3 (?).
τίκτειν 1361. 5. 13 and schol.
τιμᾶν 1859. 7. 7; 1871. 52
schol.
τιμή 1858. 1.18 ; 1865. 47.
τιμωρία 1864. 183.
τίς 1861. 96. 4; 1862. 1. 55,
25.
τις 1856. Fol. 4. 32, 40;
1360. 1. 12, 3 schol.;
1361. 7. 3; 1862. 1. 7;
1363. 9, 14, 18 ; 1864. το,
146,156; 1865. 39; 1366.
9, 19 (?); 1867. 2, 57.
τοίνυν 1864. 121.
τοιοῦτος 1864. 157, 170.
τοκεύς 1360. 6. 5.
τοσαΐ 1361. 20. τ.
τόσσος 1861. 24. 4.
τότε 1359. 1. 5; 1861. 4. 13,
te τα
τραγῳδός 1868. 13.
transire 1404. 2.
τρέπειν 1359. 7. τ4.
τρέφειν 1859. 1.6, 11 ; 1865.
19}
τρίπους 1856. Fol. 4. 27.
τρίσμακαρ 1362. 1. 32.
τρίτος 1862. 7. 14.
τρυφή 1371. 52 schol.
Τρῶες 1358. 1. 23.
Tpo{ 1861. 20. 3.
τυγχάνειν 1365. 46. ὁ τυχών
1861. δ. 4; 1865. 21.
τυραννεύειν 1860. 2. 6 schol.
τυραννίς 1365. 8.
τύραννος 1860. 2. 4 schol.
τυραν 1856. Fol. 4. 46.
ὕδωρ 1858. 1.1; 1862. 7.
ER:
vids 13858. 2. 16, 27; 1865.
20; 1368. 3 (?).
umbra 1404. 3.
ὑμνεῖν 1861. 4. 8.
ὑπάρχειν 1367. 15.
ὑπέρ 1356. Fol. το. 30.
Ὑπερβόρεοι 1858. 2. 21.
ὑπερμενής 1858. 7. 11, τό.
ὑπερῷον 1868. 54.
ὑπό 1856. Fol. 4. 39, Fol.
11... 158]. 5.6 sehol.:
261
1364. 106; 1367. 37, 593
1368. 30.
ὑπόδημα 1870. 1370 schol.
ὑφιέναι 1858. 2. 13.
ὑψοτάτω 1861. 7. 10.
videre 1404. 3.
φαίνειν 1858, 1.25. φαίνεσθαι
1864. 168.
φάναι 1856. Fol. 4. τό, ry a
1360. 3 schol.; 1867. 56.
φάνερος 1860. 7. 13.
φάος 1862. 1. 4. Cf. φῶς.
φάρμακον 1862. 1. 20; 1366.
3 (ἢ).
φάτνη 1368. 50.
φαῦλος 1864. 268; 1365. 2;
1368. 49.
φέγγος 1861. 24. 5.
φέρβειν 1858. 2. 22.
φέρειν 1858. 1. 6; 1860. 3
schol.
Φερένικος 1361. 4. 9 and schol.
φθέγγεσθαι 1868. 34.
φθόνος 1863. 14.
φιλιώτερος 1364. 86.
φίλος 1860. 6. 5 (?); 1866.
30.
φιλοσοφία 1356. Fol. 4. 13.
φιλότης 1359. 1. 9.
Φιλόχορος 1867. 47.
pal 1866. 7.
φλαῦρος 1360. 12. 3.
φοβεῖν 1859. 7. 20.
Poi[Bos 1361. 12. 4.
Φοῖνιξ 1358. 1. 7.
φορεῖν 1862. 1. 17.
φρήν 1361. 7. 8.
Ἰφρονοΐ 1861. 7. 21.
φρουρεῖν 1865. 27.
φύειν 1864. 30, 32, 277.
φυλάσσειν 1860. 7. 11; 1361.
1. I.
φῦλον 1358. 2. 30; 1859.
1, 12.
φύσις 1856. Fol. 4. 32, 2. 1;
1361. 28.1; 1864. 22, 26,
32,44, 63, 85,92, 105, 106,
III, 122, 148, 275, 282.
262
φυτεύειν (γυρευσαι Pap.) 1856.
Fol. το. 8 (?).
φυτόν 1356. Fol. το. 8.
φῶς 1360. 2. 6 schol.
xara 1861. 28. 2.
χαλεπός 1862. 1. 20.
χαλκεομίτρας 1361. 5. 8.
χαλκοχίτων 1859. 1. 14.
χανδόν 1862. 7. 11.
χαρίεις 1865. 33.
Χάριτες 1861. 9. 1.
xapit| 1861. 2. 2.
χαρὶ 1861. 42. 2.
χείρ 1861. 7. 3; 1864. 75.
χθών 1859. 1. τό.
Χοιρίλος 1899. verso I.
᾿Αθήνη 1880. 30, 72.
᾿Αννιανή 1857. 21, 44.
᾿Απόλλων 1880. 210; 1881.
232.
“Αρποκράτις 1380. 136.
ἤλρτεμις 1880. 84.
᾿Ασκλήπιος 1881. 26, 189,
228, 246.
᾿Αστάρτη 1880. 116.
᾿Αταργάτη (-rec Pap.) 1880.
Too.
᾿Αφροδίτη 1380. 9, 22, 35, 38,
45, 67.
Βίκτωρ 1857. 20.
Βούβαστις 1380. 4.
Γαβριήλ 1857. 54.
Δικτυννίς 1880. 82.
Διόσκουροι 1380. 235.
Ἑκάτη 1880. 108.
Ἑλένη 1880. 112.
᾿Ἐπίμαχος 1857. 6.
Ἑρμῆς 1881. 230.
ἜἘσερέμφις 1880. 46.
Il.
INDICES
χορός 1401. 2. recto 1 marg.
χοῦς, xdes ᾿Ορέστειοι 1862.
1. 2.
χρέος 1862. 1. 7.
χρῆμα 1371. 52 schol.
χρῆσθαι 1356. Fol. 4. 11;
1364. 12; 1367. 61.
χρηστός 1867. 58.
χρόνος 1361. 5. 12; 1865.
52; 1400. i. 5.
χρύσεος 1861. 7. 4.
χρυσόλοφος 1361. 5. 7.
χρυσόπεπλος 1361. 4. 2.
χρυσός 1361. 1. 13.
χώρα 1865. 28, 64.
ψευδής 1862. 1. το.
ψήχειν 1868. 7.
Ἑστία 1880. 23, 73.
Εὐφημία 1857. 41, 56.
Ζαχαρίας 1857. 52.
Ζεύς 1882. 20, 22.
Ἥλιος 1882. 22.
i 1380. 26, 32, 34, 60,
8.
[‘Hpais|, ἄμα ["H.] 1857. 40 (?).
“Hgaoros 1380. 2; 1381. 229.
Θαυῆστις 1380. 68.
Θαψ ε]ῦσις 1880. 105.
Θέμις 1880. 83.
Θεόΐδοτος 1857. 63.
Θεόδωρος 1857. 65.
᾿Ιαὼ Σαβαώθ 1884. 28.
Ἱερημίας 1857. 46.
Ἰησοῦς 1884. 17.
Ἰμούθης 1881. 202.
ἸΙουλιανός 1857. 48.
Ἰοῦστος 1857. 10, 13.
*Iows 1880. 23, 33(?), 76,
8I, 115, 143.
Ἰσίων 1857. 22.
ψυχή 1856. Fol. 4. 1, 37.
1360. 2. 6 schol. ; 1861. 7.
1, 16; 1866. 6, 27 (?).
axis 1861. 5. 24.
ὠνεῖσθαι 1867. 17.
ὡς 1856. Fol. 4. 31; 1859.
1. 19; 18625 2. τὸ} 2:
1363. 22; 1864. τοι,
219(?); 1867. 5, 37 (?).
ὡς 1860. 1. 2, 6; 4. 11. 8.
ὥς 1861. 7. τό.
ὥσπερ 1860. 2. 4 schol.;
1865. 19 ; 1568. 34.
ὥστε 1865. 49 (?).
ὡστί 1861. 18. 3.
ὠφελεῖν 1864. 120,
PERSONAL NAMES.
Ἰώ 1880. 64, 143.
Καλεοΐῖβις 1381. 231.
[Κόλλουθος] 1857. 6.
Κόρη 1380. 72, 105.
Κοσμᾶς 1357. 22.
Aariva 1880. 104.
Λητώ 1880. 79.
Μαῖα 1880. 39, 42, 103, 116.
Mapia 1357. 30, 45, 68.
Μενχόρης 1881.30. Μενεχέρης
1381. 223.
Μηνᾶς 1357. τι.
Μιχαήλ 1857. 8, 39.
Μοῦχις (3) 1880. 45.
Ναναῖα 1880. τού.
Νεκτενῖβις 1881. 1.
Nexavrns 1881. 7.
Novr, ἄπα N. 1857. 56.
Ovel 1380. 1.
Ὄσσιρις 1880. 162, 198, 242.
Παλέντρα (?) 1880. 115.
ee
II, PERSONAL NAMES 263
[Παῦλος] 1857. 34.
Ταχνῆψις 1880. 75.
Πέτρος 1857. 33.
ὯΩρος 1880. 210, 222, 233,
Τί. «β[[]α 1880. 114.
234, 246, 250; 1881. 230.
Πραξιδίκη 1380. 50.
Σαβαώθ 1384. 28.
Σάραπις 1882. 20, 22.
Σαρκοῦνις 1880. 110.
Σερῆνος 1857. 4, 28, 53.
Συρίων 1882. 23.
Σῶθις 1880. 144.
111.
664 1881. 201.
[φιλόθεος] 1857. 43.
Φιλόξενος 1357. 24, 38,58, 64.
Φοιβάμμων 1357. 3, 6, 35, 36,
43; 57-
Χριστός 1857. 30, 36 (?).
GEOGRAPHICAL.
Ἰαθροῖχις 1880. 14.
he . εθεῦς 1880. 282.
οιωεανεῦς 1880. 296.
τααβδεῦς 1880. 286.
φις 1880. 47.
χμεῦνις 1880. 3.
(Where no number of the papyrus is given the reference is to 1880.)
ἔλβυδος 278.
ἤλθριβις 39.
Αἴγυπτος 224; 1381. 237.
᾿Αλεξάνδρεια 1857. 2.
7 Amis 44.
Γ᾿Αφροδίτης] πόλις τ.
᾿Αφροδίτης πόλις τοῦ Προσω-
πίτου 7.
Βούβαστος 37.
Βουκολεῖς 42.
Βούσιρις 51, 269.
Βουσιρίτης (νομός) 50.
Βουτώ 27.
Τυναικοπολίτης (νομός) 21.
Δέλτα το.
Διὸς πόλις ἡ μικρά 36.
"Expnypa 75-
Ἑρμοῦ πόλις (az) 18 (?); (0) 35.
Ἑρμοῦ πόλις τοῦ Μενδησίου 52.
Eo| 25-
Ἡλίου πόλις 38; 1381. Ig.
Ἡρακλεῖον 61.
Ἡρακλέους πόλις 150.
Ἡρακλέους πόλις τοῦ Σεθροΐτου
56.
(a) Egyptian.
Ἡφαίστου οἶκος 2.
H[. οἶκτος 148.
Θῶνις 28.
Ἱερὰ Φθεμφθούτου 40.
Ἱέρασος 13.
Ἰ]σεῖον] 33.
᾿Ισίδιον τοῦ SeOpoirov 54.
Καινή 31.
Καλάμισις 11.
Κάνωβος 62.
Καρήνη 11.
Κάσιον 75.
Καταβαθμός 45.
Ke . . κύλημις 17.
[Κυνὸς] πόλις τοῦ Βουσιρίτου 49.
Λεόντω(νν πόλις 58.
Λευκὴ ᾿Ακτή 45.
[Λητ]οῦς πόλις 4.
Μελαΐς 70.
Μέμφις 249; 1381. 21.
Μενδήσιος (νομός) 52.
Mer{iJous 64.
Μένουθις 63.
Μένουφις 71.
Μερκούριον 1882. 10.
Μερμέρθα p. 44.
Μετηλίτης (νομός) 72.
Μονίμου (ἐποίκιον) p. 44-
Μύλων τό.
Μώμεμφις 14.
ΜΙ. εἹνέστιον 66.
Ναύκρατις 10.
Νεῖλος 125, 225.
Νηβεοΐ 41
Νῆσος 68.
Νιθίνη 21.
Ξόϊς 42.
᾿᾽Οσίριδος ἄδυτον 162.
Πευκεστίς 69.
Πέφρημις 22.
Πηλούσιον 74.
Πλινθίνη 13.
Προσωπίτης (νομός) 8.
Σάϊς 32.
Σαΐτης (νομός) 30.
Σεβέννυτος 33.
Σεθροΐτης (νομός) 54, 56.
Σχεδία 6ο.
Τάνις 59.
264
Ταπόσιρις 67.
Τέουχις 41.
Φαγρωρίων (Φραγουρων Pap.)
πόλις 46.
Φάρβαιθος 53.
᾿Αμαζόνες 102.
᾿Αραβία 77.
᾿Ασία 90.
᾿Ασκάλων 96.
οἶνος 1884. 32.
᾿Ασκαλωνίτης
Βαμβύκη 100.
Βηρυτός ττό.
Βιθυνία 112.
Tayyns 226.
Γάζα 99.
Δελφοί 99.
Δῆλος IOI.
Δίνδυμα 114.
Δῶρα 94.
᾿Ελεύθερος 225.
Ἑλλάς 95.
Ἕλλην 1881. 201.
Ἑλληνίς 1881. 34, 198.
“Ἑλλήσποντος ΤΤΟ.
᾿Ερυθρὰ θάλασσα 118.
Θεσσαλοί 103.
Θρᾷκες ΤΟΙ.
ἀβίβαστος 115.
ἀγαθή 51, 59, 95.
ἀγάπη 28. dy. θεῶν τορ.
ἁγία 34, 36, 89.
ἁγνή 86.
INDICES
Papitns 1382. 15, 17.
Φέρνουφις 57.
Φθεμφθούτης (νομός) 40.
Χάραξ 72.
(ὁ) Non-Egyptian.
Ἰνδική 226.
Ἰνδοί 103.
᾿Ιταλία 109.
Καρία 113.
Κνίδος 80.
Κρήτη 82.
Κυκλάδες νῆσοι 84.
Κύπρος 88.
Κυρήνη 81.
Λατῖνος 104.
Λυκία 78, 79.
Μάγοι (Ματοι Pap.) 105.
Μύνδος ΤΙΙ.
Μύρα τῆς Λυκίας 79.
[Νῆ]σος ἢ:
Πάτμος (Παθμος Pap.) 85.
Πάφος 86.
Πέργαμος 108.
Πέρσαι 104.
Ilérpa 91.
Πιερία 90.
Πόντος 108.
Πτολεμαΐς 117.
IV. RELIGION.
(a) GRAECO-EGYPTIAN.
Χνουΐ 24.
Χοατίνη 47.
Ψώχημις 15.
Ἰοφις 4.
“ῬΡαφέα 97.
“Ῥινοκόλουρα (-ρουλα Pap.) 93.
“Ῥόδιοι ἄνεμοι 1888. 6, τι.
Ῥώμη 83.
Σαλαμίς 87.
Σαμοθράκη τοῇ.
Σάμος 110.
Σιδών ττό.
Σινώπη 96.
Σοῦσα 105.
Σοῦσα τῆς κατὰ τὴν ᾿Ερυθρὰν
θάλασσαν 118.
Στράτωνος Πύργος 94.
Τένεδος 112.
Τρίπολις 98, 225.
Tpwds 114.
Ὑψήλη 92.
Φοινίκη (Φοινιξ Pap.) Συρίας
τού.
Χαλκηδών 82.
Χαλκιδίκη 80.
Χίος 87.
Titles of [sis (all from 1880).
ἀγαΐ 29.
ἀθάνατος 13.
᾿Αθήνη 30, 72.
ἀλήθεια 63.
ἀμίαντος 109.
ἄνασσα 15, 16, 23, 32, 37.
ἄν. πόλεων 57. ἄν. τῆς οἰκου-
μένης 121.
ἀνδροσώτειρα (ανδρασ. Pap.)
55:
ἄνω, τὸ ἀ. 38, 42.
ἀπάτειρα 19.
ἀρίστη 99.
Δρποκράτις, τῶν θεῶν ‘A. 136.
"Apreuis 84.
ἀσπίς 58.
᾿Αστάρτη 116.
᾿Αταργάτη 100.
ἄφεσις ἐφόδων 8ο.
gale 9, 22, 35, 38, 45,
΄.
βασίλισσα 56.
βόστρυχος, ἐν ταῖς πανηγύρεσι
Β. 155.
Βούβαστις 4.
γραμματική 48, 123.
γυπόμορφος 66.
δεσποτίς 108. δεσπ. πάντων 23.
δία 26, 86, 111.
διάδημα ζῳῆς 139.
Δικτυννίς 82.
δότειρα 13, 68.
δυνάστις 34, 41, 57, 97-
Ἑκάτη 108.
Ἑλένη 112.
ἐλευθερία 8ο.
Ἑλλάς 95.
ἐπανάγουσα τὸν Νεῖλον 126.
ἐπίνοια 34, 60.
ἐπίτροπος 121.
᾿Ἐσερέμφις 46.
Ἑστία 23, 13.
εὐθηνία, τῶν τὰς καλὰς ἀγόντων
ἡμέρας εὐθ. 155.
εὐπλέα 99.
εὐπορία 132.
εὑρέτρια 81. εὗρ. πάντων 185.
εὐφροσύνη 19, 31.
ζῷον, θεῶν πάντων τὸ καλὸν ¢.
127.
ἡγεμονίς 52. ny. διαδημάτων
193.
ἡλίου ὄνομα 112.
ἠπία 11, 86.
IV. RELIGION
Ἥρα 26, 32, 34, 60, 68.
Θανυῆστις 68.
Θαψίε]ῦσις 105.
θεά, ἐν ᾿Ολύμπῳ 6. εὐπρεπής
130.
Θέμις 83.
θεός 77, τοῇ.
142.
μεγίστη θεῶν
ἱερά 18, 41, ττο.
ἱερονικοτελοῦσα 78.
ἱλαρὰ ὄψις, ἐν AnOy ir. ὅ. 127.
Ἶ σις 23, 33 (?), 76, 81, 115.
Ἰώ, Ἰοῦς... προκαθημένη 64.
"Id Σῶθις 143.
καλλίμορφος 18, 53.
καλλίστη 100.
κατόπτις 87,
κεδνή 79.
Κόρη 72, 105.
κόσμος θηλειῶν 131.
κρατίστη 96.
κυβερνῆτις 69.
κυρία 62, 142.
καὶ φθορᾶς kat... 195. κ.
τῆς γῆς 222. κ. θαλασσίων
καὶ ποταμίων στομάτων 123.
κι στρατείας καὶ ἡγεμονίας 240.
x. φωτὸς καὶ φλεγμάτων 248.
kK. πάσης χώρας 24.
ser
κ. αὐξήσεως
Λατῖνα 104.
Λητώ 79.
λογιστική 27, 124.
λωτοφόρος 40.
Μαῖα 39, 42, 103, 116.
μεγάλη 77.
μεγίστη 21, 66(?), 92.
θεῶν 142.
pia 6.
μισεχθής 137.
μουσαναγωγός 62, 128.
Μοῦχις (9) 45.
μύστις III.
μ. [.6[. «Ἰκή 85.
Ναναῖα (Νανια Pap.) 106.
Hey.
265
νέα 85.
νικήτρια 30, 48.
νύμφη 30.
ὁδηγός 122.
᾿ονεΐ Ι.
ὀρθωσία 39, 98.
ὄνομα ἡλίου 112.
143.
ὁρμίστρια 15, 74.
πρῶτον ὅ.
Παλέντρα (3) 115.
πανάφθονος 88.
πάνταρχος, ἐν ταῖς τῶν θεῶν
ἐξοδίαις π. 137.
παντοκράτειρα 20.
παντόπ᾽τις 93.
πιστοΐασπις ἀνέμου 1538.
πολύμορφος 9, 70.
πολυόφθαλμος 129.
πολυώνυμος 07, IOL.
Πραξιδίκη 50.
προκαθημένη, “lots...
πρόνοια 43.
πρῶτον ὄνομα 143.
πρ. 64.
Σαρκοῦνις 110.
σελήνη 104.
στείχουσα 87.
στολαρχίς 8.
στρατία 71, 83, 102.
σώζουσα 76.
Σῶθις, Ἰοῖ Σῶθι 144.
σώτειρα 20, ΟΙ, 293.
ταυρῶπις 107.
Ταχνῆψις 75.
ταχυνίκης 69.
τελεία 32.
τριοδῖτις 91.
τριφυής 84.
τυχὴ 51.
τί. 181 114.
φιλία 94.
φιλόστοργος 12, 131.
φρόνησις 44.
| φρονίμη 117, 124.
Ι ,
| χαριτόμορφος 59.
266
χρησμῳδός 43.
ὡραία go.
Ἰαθροῖχις 14.
᾿Απόλλων 1880. 210; 1381.
232.
᾿Ασκλήπιος 1881. 26, 189,
228, 246. δεσπότης 1381.
181. διδάσκαλος 1381. 189.
ὃ θεός =A. 1881. 51, 71,
116, 131,143; 207, 2a7.-
μέγιστος θεῶν 1881. 188.
Διόσκουροι 1880. 235.
ἀγαθὸς δαίμων 1880. 189.
ἁγνεῖαι ( Ασκληπίου) 1881. 148.
ἄδυτον 1880. 216. ᾿Ὀσίριδος
ad. See Index III (a). ἐν
Μέμφει a6. 1380. 269.
|
|
INDICES
1 [Γ
Tre . εθεῦς 282.
Ἰριωεανεῦς 296.
Ἰτααβδεῦς 286.
(2) Other Gods.
Ἑρμῆς 1881. 230.
Ζεὺς Σάραπις 1882. 20. Ζ.
Ἥλιος μέγας Σάρ. 1882. 22.
Ἥλιος. See Ζεύς.
Ἥφαιστος1880.2; 1381.229.
θεός. See ᾿Ασκλήπιος. θεοί
1380. 109, 126, 135, 136,
140, 143, 159, 181, 263;
1381. 188.
(3) Miscellaneous.
| εἷς Ζεὺς Σάραπις 13882. 20.
᾿ ἐξοδίαι θεῶν 13880. 137.
ζῷον, ζῷον θεῶν 1880. 127,,
140. ἱερὰ ζῷα 1880. τότ.
| ἱερεύς 1881. 18, 149.
ἀρετή 1881. 41, 136; 1882. ἱερόν 1880. 278; 1881. 4.
ΤΌ. 23.
βίβλος 1881. 9, 25, 29, 33,
162, τῇ 2 265, 224.
δαίμονες 1880. 164.
εἰκόνες θεῶν 1880. 139.
|
i. ἐν Βουσίρει τὸ καλούμενον
Εἰ 1880. 270.
ἱερός, i. ζῷα 1880. 161.
᾿Ισεῖα 1880. 202.
καλαὶ ἡμέραι 1880. 134.
(0) CHRISTIAN.
\rn 17.
|pes 47.
Ἰχμεῦνις ὩΣ
Ἰμούθης 1881. 202.
Καλεοῖβις 1581. 231.
ἔσσιρις 1880. 162, 198. μέγας
"Oo. 1580. 242.
Σάραπις. See Ζεύς.
66a 1381. 201.
*Qpos 1380. 222, 233, 234,
246,250; 1881. 230. “Qp.
᾿Απόλλων 1880. 210.
Λήθη 1880. 127.
Μενχόρης 1881. 30. Μενεχέρης
1381. 223.
NexreviSis 1381. τ.
ολυμπος 1380. 133.
πανηγύρεις 1880. 133, 181.
προπομπεύειν 1881. 19.
προσπολεῖν 1381. 149.
προφητεία 1381. 23.
σύνοδοι 1380. 132.
| Συρίων κυβερνήτης 1882. 23.
(1) Churches of Oxyrhynchus (all from 1857).
᾿Αννιανῆς 21, 44.
βαπτιστής 47.
ἅγιος Βίκτωρ 20.
τὸ β[ορρινὸν μαρτύριον 50.
ay. Ταβριήλ 54.
εὐαγγελιστής 7, 23, 42.
ἁγία Ἑὐφημία 41, 51.
dy. Ζαχαρίας 52.
apa [Ἡραϊδος 40.
dy. Θεόϊδοτος 63.
dy. Θεϊόδωρος 65.
dy. ‘Iepnuias 46.
. Ἰουλίιανός 48.
dy. ᾿Ιοῦστος 10, 13.
. Κοσμᾶς 22.
iy. Mapia 30, 45, 68.
paprup ov 5-
dy. Μηνᾶς 11.
ἅγ. Μιχαήλ 8, 39.
dy. ἄπα Νούπ 56.
νοτινὴ ἐκκλησία 37, OI.
ἅγ. [Παῦλος 34.
ἅγ. Πέτρος 33.
dy. Σερῆνος 4, 28, 53-
dy. Φιλόξενος 24, 38, 58,
64. .
Φοιβάμμωνος 3, 6, 35, 36, 43,
51:
ἀββία. .. 49.
ἅγιος =i 1 50-
IVR RELIGION
267
(2) Festivals and other Days (all from 1357).
γέννα τοῦ Χριστοῦ 30.
[ἐπιφάνεια τοῦ Χριστοῦ] 36.
ἡμέρα αὐτοῦ (--- Ταβριήλ)ὴ 54.
(="IovAtavod?) 48. (ΞΞ Ἰού-
στου) 10. (= Θεοδύτου ἢ)
63. (= Θεοδώρου) 65.
ἄγγελοι κυρίου 1884. 23.
ἅγιος, ayia. See Index IV
(ὁ). 1.
ἅγιον πνεῦμα 1884. 21.
βαπτιστής 1857. 47.
ἐκἰκλησία 1857. 61; cf. 37.
εὐαγγελιστής 1857. 7, 23, 42.
(ΞΞ Μηνᾶ) τ1. (ΞΞ Μιχαήλ)
8. (ΞΞ Παύλου) 54. (=Meé-
Tpov) 33. (= Φιλοξένου)
24. (Ξ- ἀββᾶ... .) 49. ἡμ.
αὐτῆς (Ξε ἄμα “Hpaidos?) 40.
= Mapias) 45. ju. Ἐπι-
(3) Miscellaneous.
aBBa 1357. 49.
ἄμα 1357. 40.
dma 1857. 56.
ἸΙαὼ Σαβαώθ 1884. 28.
Ἰησοῦς 1884. 17.
κύριος 1884. τό (9), 23, 26.
μάρτυρες 1857. 5.
μάχου 6. ny. Ioiwvos 22. ἡμ.
Κολλούθου (?) 66. ἡμ. μετα-
νοίας 4. ἡμ. Φιλοθέου (9) 43.
kupiakn 3, 5, 7, 21, 23, 28,
36; 44, 46, 52, 57, 60, 62,
7.
μαρτύριον 1857. 50 (9).
οὐρανός 1884. 24.
πάπας 1857. 2.
πατήρ 1384. 21.
σύναξις 1857. 1.
υἱός 1884. 22.
Χριστός 1857. 30, 36 (3).
V. GENERAL INDEX OF GREEK WORDS.
ἀββᾶ 1357. 49.
aBiBaoros 1880. 115.
ἀβουλία 1880. 258.
ἀγαθός 1880. 51, 59, 95, 247;
1381. 204, 213. ay. δαίμων
1380. 180.
ἀγανακτεῖν 1381. 46.
ἀγάπη 1880. 28, 109.
ἄγασθαι 1381. 16.
ἄγγελος 1884. 23.
ἄγειν 1880. 134, 224.
ἅγιος 1380. 34, 36, 89; and
see Index IV (4). 1.
ἁγνεία 1881. 148.
ἁγνός 13880. 86; 1384. 27.
ἀγωΐ 1880. 29.
ἀδελφός 1880. 186.
ἄδυτον 1380. 162, 216, 249.
ἀθάνατος 13880. 13,243; 1381.
46, 51, 196.
[a]éeos 1381. 68.
ἄθλον 1881. 167.
᾿Αθύρ 1857. 6.
αἰδώς 1881. 44.
αἱρεῖν 1881, 30.
αἰφνίδιος 1881, 80.
αἰών 1880. 292; 1381. 35.
αἰώνιος 1881. 225.
ἀκάματος 1880. 160.
ἄκεσις 1881. 72.
ἀκεσώδυνος 1881. 143.
ἀκίνητος 1881. I10.
ἄκινος 1884. 31.
ἀκμάζειν 1881. 194.
ἀκόπως 1881. 114.
ἀκούειν 1381. 1, 20.
ἀκριβῶς 1881. 111.
ἀλγεῖν 1881. 93.
ἀλγηδών 1381. 142.
ἄλγημα 1881. 81.
ἀλήθεια 1880. 63 ; 1381. 173.
ἀλλά 1881. 24 (od μὴν ἀ.), 40,
44, 156, 183.
ἀλλαττόλογος 1381. 180.
ἄλλος 1880. 161; 1381. 26.
ds 1383. 8; 1884, 13.
apa 1357. 40.
ἀμελεῖν 1881. τότ.
ἀμέτρητος, τὸ ἀμ. 1880. 145.
ἀμίαντος 1880. 109.
ἀμφιέννυσθαι 1381. 1109.
ἀναβάλλεσθαι 1881. 59.
ἀνάγειν 1381. 98.
ἀναγιγνώσκειν 1381. 15.
ἀναγραφή 1881. 5.
ἀναζητεῖν 1881. τι.
ἀνάθημα 1881. 152, 191.
ἀναλίσκειν 1881. 14, 244.
ἀνανέωσις 1881. 25.
avavnpew 1881. 125.
ἀναπλεῖν 1882. τό.
ἀναπλοῦν 1381. 173.
ἄνασσα 1880. 15, 16, 23, 32,
37> 57, 121.
ἀνατολή 1880. 157, 159.
avadopov 1380. 260 (?).
ἀνδροσώτειρα (ανδρασ. Pap.)
1880. 55.
ἄνεμος 1880.138, 237 ; 1888.
6, 9, II.
ἀνέρχεσθαι 1884. 23, 26, 28.
ἀνηβάσκειν 1881. 197.
ἀνήρ 1880. 147, 215; 1881.
44, 201; 1884. 15.
ἀνθρώπινος 1881. 83.
ἄνθρωπος 1880. 208; 1881.
118.
avrarowa 1881. 234.
ἀντί 1381. 13.
ἄνω, τὸ ἄ. 1880. 38, 42.
ama 1857. 56.
268
ἀπαγγέλλειν 1881. 91, 137,
219.
ἀπαιτεῖν 1881. 148.
ἀπαλλάσσειν 1881. 76, 125,
208.
ἀπαντᾶν 1884. 15.
ἅπαξ 1881. 161, 181.
ἅπας 1880. 148, 171, 177,
’ 485, 202;.206,-213, 2685
1381. 190.
ἀπάτειρα 1880. 19.
ἀπαυδᾶν 1381. 54.
ἀπιέναι 1881. 204.
ἀπό 1880. 157;
97, 122.
ἀποδεικνύναι 1880. 168 ; 1381.
88.
ἀποδιδόναι 1881. 79; 1382.
τ (ἢ); 1384, 18.
ἀποκλείειν 1888. 9.
ἀπολέμητος 1881. 236.
ἀπομάσσειν 1381. 133.
ἀπονέμειν 1381. 21.
ἀποστατεῖν 1381. 3.
ἀποτυγχάνειν 1881. 43.
ἄρα 1883. 9.
ἀργύριον 1882. 18.
ἀρετή 1880. 153; 1881. 47,
136, 234 5 1962. 19; 23.
ἁρμόζειν 1381. 187.
ἄρουρα 1381. 27.
ἄρρωστος 1884. 17 (?).
ἄρχεσθαι 1881. 34.
ἀρχιδικαστεία 1881. 8.
ἀσεβής 1380. 298; 1381. 205.
ἄσθμα 1881. 96.
ἀσκεῖν 1881. 31.
ἀσπάζεσθαι 1882. 16.
ἀσπίς 1880. 58.
ἀστραπή 1380. 238.
ἄστρον 1380. 159.
αὐξάνειν 1880. 183 (?), 237.
αὔξησις 1880. 176, 194.
αὐτίκα 1881. 53.
αὐτός 1857. ὃ εἰ saep.; 1880.
250, 263; 1381. 5 ef saep.;
1382. 16, 18; 1884. 18,
26. 6 αὖτ. 1357. 9 εἰ saep. ;
1381. 32.
αὑτοῦ 1381. 247.
1381. 10,
INDICES
ἀφαιρεῖν 1881. 177.
ἀφανής 1881. 124.
ἄφεσις 1380. 80.
ἄφθονος 1881. 232, 238.
ἀφώνητος (a\pwvavros Pap.)
1380. 280.
βαπτιστής 1857. 47.
βάσανος 1881. 105.
βασιλεύς 1880. 266; 1381.
12, 15, 223.
βασιλικὸς (γραμματεύς) 1899.
recto.
βασίλισσα 1880. 36, 218.
βάσκανος 1881. 205.
βήξ 1381. 97.
βιβλιοθήκη 1882. 20.
βίβλος 1881. 9, 25, 29, 33,
121, 162, 172, 185, 227.
Bios 1880. 171; 1881. 49;
1382. 5.
βλέπειν 1881. 111.
βοήθημα 1881. 76.
βοηθός 1881. 83.
βορρινός 1357. 50.
Bdorpvxos 1880. 133.
βούλεσθαι 1881. 4.
βούλευμα 13880. 241.
βροντή 1880. 238.
yap 1381. 40 ef saep.
ye 13881. 52.
γέννα 1857. 30.
γῆ 1880. 170, 222, 230.
γῆρας 1881. 59 (?).
γίγνεσθαι 1380. 162,164,186,
247; 1381. 125.
γλήχων 1884. 11.
γλῶσσα 1881. 34, 109.
γνῶσις 1357. τ.
γραμματικός 1880. 48, 123.
γραφή 1381. 36, 47, 159,
175, 187, 195.
γυνή 1880. 146, 214.
γυπόμορφος 1380. 66.
δαίμων 1880. 164. ἀγαθὸς ὃ,
1880. 189.
δαφνόκοκκα 1884. 8.
δέ 1880. 175, 225-6, 246;
1381. 10 ef saep.
δεικνύναι 1880. 207(?); 1881.
190.
δεῖσθαι 1381. 72 (?).
δεκάπεντε θεσμοί 1880. 110.
δεξιός 1381. 81.
δέος 1381. 113.
δεσπότης 1881. 162, 181.
δεσπότις 1880. τοῦ, 231.
δεῦρο 1881. 203.
διά1880. 227; 1881. 29, 74,
78, 138, 139, 148, 226(?),
237; 1882. 15.
διάδημα 1880. 139, 194.
διάδοχος 1880. 251, 263.
διακαθαίρειν 1380. 177.
διαλαλεῖν 1381. 135.
διανοιγνύναι 1881. 110.
διαπορεῖν 1881. 157.
διαφθείρειν 13880. 241.
διαφοιτᾶν 1381. 216.
διδάσκαλος 1381. 189.
διδόναι 1880. 175-6; 1381.
143; 1888. το.
διέπειν 1381. ἡ.
διηγεῖσθαι 1881. 42.
διήγημα 1881. 177.
δῖος 1880. 26, 86, III.
διότι 1381. 39.
dis 1881. 123.
δόξα 1381. 226.
δότειρα 1380. 13, 68.
δραχμή p. 44; 1882. 18;
1384. 2-12.
δρόσος 1880. 173, 220.
δύναμις 1880. 215; 1381. 42,
90, 146, 217, 220.
δυνατός 1384. 29.
60013881.13. δύο προστάγματα
1880. 156.
δύσις 1880. 158.
δυσσεβεῖν 1881. 243.
δωρεά 1881. 192.
δωρεῖσθαι 1381. 233.
δώρημα 1381. 222.
ἔγγονος 1381. 22..
ἐγείρειν 1381. 126.
eyxep .. v 1880. 227.
V. GENERAL INDEX OF GREEK WORDS
ἐγώ 1381, 32 e/ saep.; 1888.
ἡ. ἡμεῖς 1881. 77; 145,
151; 1884. 15.
ἐθέλειν 1888. 7.
ἔθνος 1880. 217.
εἰ 1881. 52.
εἰδέναι 1380. 207 ; 1881. 153.
εἴκοσι 1881. 18.
εἰκών 1380. 139.
εἶναι 1880. 199, 221, 227;
1381. 44, 92, 104, 109,
117.
εἷς 1880. 6; 1881. 10, 143;
1382. 20.
els 1857. 3 εἰ sacp.; 1380.
202, 268; 1381. 14, 20,
31,58, 86, 101, 215; 1882.
18; 1384. 30, 34.
εἰσαεί 1380. 231.
εἰσιέναι 1381. 113.
εἶτα 1881. 107; 1884. 33.
εἴτε 1881. 115, 116.
ἐκ (ἐξ) 1880. 139, 153, 184,
269; 1381. 5.
ἕκαστος 1881. 23.
ἑκατόν 1382. 18.
ἐκεῖ 1888. 8.
ἐκεῖνος 1381. 243.
ἐκκλησία 1357. 37, 61.
ἐκτενέστερον 1381. 11.
ἐκχεῖν 1884. 19 (?).
ἐλαία 1884. 18.
ἔλαιον 1884. 18.
ἔλεος 1381. 86.
ἐλευθερία 1880. 8ο.
Ἕλλην ἀνήρ 1881. 201.
“Ἑλληνὶς γλῶσσα 1881. 34,198.
ἐμός 1381. 104, 183.
ev 1357. 2; 1380. τ ef saep.;
1381. 35, 36, 172, 174;
1382. 19; 1384. 16.
ἐναντίος 1881. 242.
ἐνεῖναι (ἔνι) 1884. 17.
ἐνεργέστερον 1881. 87, 94.
ἐνιαυτός 1380. 204.
ἐοικώς 1381. 77.
ἕξ 1381. 17.
ἐξαπίνης 1381. 107.
ἐξευμενίζειν 1881. 147.
᾿ ἐξοδία 1380. 137.
ἔξω 1881. 39.
ἐπαληθίζειν 1881. 89.
ἐπανάγειν 1880. 126, 187.
ἐπαπολισθάνειν 1881. 130.
ἐπαυξάνειν 1881. 213.
ἐπαυξί 1880. 297.
ἐπεί 1881. 64, 79, 160.
ἐπείγεσθαι 1888. 9.
ἐπέχειν 1381. 37-
ἐπί 1880. 10, 40, 45, 60, 61, |
65,72,74575, 91,125,151,
267, 269; 1381. 3, 16, 71,
82, 102, 166, 242, 243.
ἐπιγιγνώσκειν 1881. 161.
emtkaneio Gar 1880. 153 ; 1881.
163.
ἐπικεφάλαιον 1368, introd.
ἐπικρίνειν 1381. 6.
ἐπινεύειν 1881. 72.
ἐπινοεῖν 1880. 145, 173.
ἐπίνοια 1880. 34, 60; 1881.
169.
ἐπισκήπτειν 1381. 67.
ἐπισκοπεῖν 1881. 124.
ἐπιστήμη 1881. 210.
ἐπίτροπος 1880. 121.
ἐπιφάνεια 1857. 56 (3).
ἐπιφέρειν 1880. 158.
ἐπιχώριος 1880. 161.
ἔραυνα 1381. 9.
ἔρημος 1884. τό.
ἑρμηνεία 1881. 33.
ἑρμηνείειν 1880. 120.
ἕτερος 1381. 172.
ἔτι 1381. 66, 126, 142, 231.
ἑτοιμότερος 1381. 51, 85.
ἔτος Pp. 44.
εὐαγγελιστής 1857. 7, 23.
εὐαρμόστως 1880. 188.
evBaros 1888. 10.
εὐδαιμονία 1381. 235.
εὐδαίμων 1381. 50.
εὐδιάλλακτος 1880. 155.
εὐεργεσία 1881. 52, 88, 145.
εὐεργέτημα 1881. 221.
εὐεργέτης 1880. 246.
εὐθηνεῖσθαι 1881. 238.
εὐθηνία 1880. 135.
εὐθύς 1880. 283.
εὐκόπως 1380. 240.
269
εὐμένεια 1881. 182.
εὐμενής 1881. 204.
εὔπλεος 1380. gg.
| εὐπορεῖν 1881. 241.
εὐπορία 1380. 132.
εὐπρεπής 13880. 130.
εὑρετῆς 1881. 188.
εὑρέτρια 1880. 81, 185.
εὑρίσκειν 1880. 179; 1381.
Ea, 129.
εὐσέβεια 1881. 240.
εὐσεβεῖν 1881. 225.
εὐσεβής 1381. 53.
εὐτελής 1381. 75.
εὐτυ]χεῖν 1381. 227.
εὐφραίνεσθαι 1380. 159.
εὐφροσύνη 1880. 19, 31, 178.
εὐχή 1880. 182 (?).
εὐώνυμος 1381. 120.
ἐφικτός 1381. 41.
ἔφοδος 1380. 80.
ἐφορμή 1881. 63.
exew 1380. 142, 239; 1881.
222, 234.
ἕως 1381. 123.
(ctv 1384. 36.
ζηλωτής 1881. 211.
ζγχτησις 1881. 15.
(on 1580. 138.
ζῷον 13880. 127, 140, τότ;
1381. 93.
| #1881. 118, 192.
ἡγεμονία 1380. 240.
ἡγεμονίς 1880. 52, 193.
ἥδεσθαι 1381. 156.
ἡδία 1880. 132.
ἡλικία 1881. 61.
ἥλιος 1880. 112, 157, 221,
233. Ἥλιος 1382. 22.
ἡμέρα 1880. 135, 154, 178;
1381. 13; and see Index
IV (6). 2.
ἤπιος 1880. 11, 86, 155.
θάλασσα 1880.
1381. 214.
θαλάσσιος 1880. 122.
θάπτειν 1880. 189.
118, 230;
270
θᾶσσον 1881. 6.
θεά 1880. 130.
θεήλατος 1881. 167.
θεῖος 1881. 17, 94, 112, 159,
162.
θειότης 1881. τόρ, 186.
θέλειν 1880. 148, 175.
θεός. See Index IV (a). 1
and 2.
θεραπεία (θαραπια Pap.) 1384.
17, 34-
θεράπων 1381. 116.
θερμός 1384. 33.
θεσμός 1880. 120.
θῆλυς 1880. 131.
θητεύειν 1881. 206.
θνητός 1381. 41.
θρήσκια 1880. 245.
θρονιστής 1880. 251.
θρόνος 1880. 265.
θύειν 1880. 149.
θύρα 1880. 279.
θυσία 1881. 78, 147,151,192.
ἰᾶσθαι 1384. 30.
ἴασις 1884. 27.
ἰατρεία 1881. 144.
ἰατρική 1881. 55, 209.
"law Σαβαώθ 1884. 28.
ἴδιος 1381. 87.
ἱδρυμί 1880. 294.
ἱδρώς 1881. 129.
ἱερεύς 1881. 18, 149.
ἱερόν1880. 270, 278; 1881.4.
ἱερονικοτελεῖν 1380. 78.
ἱερός 1880. 18, 41, 110, 161.
ἱκετεύειν 1881. 154.
ἱκέτης 1381. 70.
ἱλαρός 1880. 127, 162.
ἰνδικτίων ιδ 13857. 2.
Ἰσεῖον 1880. 202.
ἴσος 1880. 215.
ἱστορία 1881. 17, 38, 166, 200.
ἰσχυρός 1884. 29.
καθαπλοῦν 1881. 168.
καθάρσιος 1884. I.
καθέζεσθαι 1381. 105.
καθιστάναι 1880. 203, 214,
267.
INDIGES
καὶ yap 1881. 103, 170.
καιρός 1881. 58, 194, 197.
κακόν 1381. 244.
καλεῖν 1880. 5, 270.
καλλίμορφος 1880. 18, 53.
καλός 1880. 127, 134. κἀλ-
λιστος 13880. 100. καλῶς
1380. 188.
κάμνειν 1881. 66.
καρηβαρεῖν 1381. 99.
καρπός 1881. 238.
kapvov 1884. 9.
κατά 1880. 152, 153, 206;
1381. 81, 106, 118, 146,
182, 183, 196.
καταγγέλλειν 1381. 150.
κατάγειν 1880. 255.
καταδεικνύναι 1880. 178.
καταυξάνειν 1880. 257.
καταφθείρειν 1880. 176.
καταχωρίζειν 1882. 19.
κατέρχεσθαι 1357. I.
κατέχειν 1881. 56.
κατιέναι 1881. 45.
κατοπτεύειν 1881. 114.
κατόπτις 1880. 87.
κεδνός 1380. 70.
κελεύειν 1880. 259; 1383. 6.
κεφαλή 1381. 122.
κηδεία 1881. 224.
κηρύσσειν 1881. 35, 144.
κίνδυνος 1881. 214.
κλύζεσθαι 1384. 36.
κοιμᾶσθαι 1381. 92.
κομίζειν 1381. 12.
κόριον 1384. 7.
κοσμοποιία 1881. 170.
κόσμος 1880. 130, 211.
κόστος 1884, 5.
κρατεῖν 1580. 144; 1384. 25.
κράτιστος 1880. 96.
κράτος 1380. 239, 257.
κτίζειν 1880. 64, 151, 280,
284.
κυβερνᾶν 1380. 187.
κυβερνήτης 1882. 24.
κυβερνῆτις 1880. 69.
κύμινον 1884. 2.
κυπάρισσος 1884. 35.
κυριακή 1857. 3 ef saep.
κύριος 1880. 24, 62, 123,
142, 196, 210, 218, 222,
240, 248, 265; 1884.
16(?), 23, 26; 1899.
recto.
κωλύειν 1881, 45, 115.
λαλεῖν 1881. 179, 199.
λαμβάνειν 1381. 226; 1882.
17; 1384. 27, 31, 35.
λαμπρός 1881. 119.
λέγειν 1588. 8; 1884. 18,
26. εἰπεῖν 1881. 156;
1382. 15, 20; 1884. 16(?).
AnOapyos (adn. Pap.) 1881.
IOo.
᾿ Λήθη. 1880. 127.
λῆμμα P. 44.
λογιστικός 1880. 27, 124.
λόγος 1381. 174.
λωτοφόρος 1880. 40.
λωφᾶν 1881. 141.
Aj. ors 1380. 231.
μακρολογεῖσθαι 1381. 178.
μάλιστα 13881. το, 28, 60.
μανθάνειν 1381. 35.
μάραθον 1384. 3.
μαρτύριον 1857. 50 (9).
μάρτυς 1857. 5.
μαστίχη 1884. 6.
μέγας 1880. 77, 242; 1882.
22. μέγιστος 1880. 21,
66, 92, 142, 188.
μέγεθος 1881. 31, 38, 221.
μέλλειν 1881. 39, 89, 195;
218.
μέν 1881. 3, 16, 50, IIT,
118, 128, 135, yao
μένειν 1888. 7.
μέρος 13838. 6, 8.
péocos 1881. 36; 1884. 23 (?).
μετά 1857.1; 1381. 80, 112.
μεταλαμβάνειν 1881. 107.
μετάνοια 13857. 4.
μεταχειρίζεσθαι 1881. 209.
μετέωρος, τὸ μετ. 1580. 144.
Μεχείρ 1857. 48.
μέχρι 1880. 158.
μή 1888. 8.
V. GENERAL INDEX OF GREEK WORDS
μηδέ 1881. τού, 151.
μηδείς 1381. 66.
μῆλον 1384. 35.
μήν (subst.) 1881. 9.
μήν, ov μὴν ἀλλά 1881. 24.
μηνύειν 1381. 136.
μήτε 1881. 152.
μήτηρ 1881. 67, 71, 102.
μικρός. See Διὸς πόλις.
pucexOns 1880. 137.
μνήμη 1881. 198.
μόλις 1381. 70, 158.
μόνος 1880. 181; 1881. 40,
193. μόνον 1881. 14, 43,
53, 122.
μουσαναγωγός 1380. 62, 128.
μῦθος 1881. 172, 180.
μύστις 1880. ττι.
_ ναυσιβάτης 1888. 9.
νέος 1880. 85, 211 (ἢ).
νεότης 1381. 63.
νηφαλιώτερος 1381. 133.
νικήτρια 1880. 30, 48.
νοεῖν 1381. 70.
νόμιμος 1380. 204.
νόσος 1381. 56, 73, 207.
νοτινός 1857. 37, OT.
νύμφη 1880. 30.
νύξ 1881. 91; 1888. το.
ξηρός 1880. 184; 1884. 31.
. ὅδε 1881. E41.
ὁδηγός 1380. 122.
ὀδύνη 1881. 98. .
ὅθεν 1381. 57, 181.
ὀθόνη 1881. 120.
οἷα 1881. 73.
οἴεσθαι 1881. 168.
oixos 1880. 2, 268.
οἰκουμένη 1880. 121.
οἶνος 1880. 180; 1884. 32.
ὀλίγος 1881. 106.
ὅλος 1880. 158; 1381. 174;
1383. 9.
Ὄλυμπος 1880. 130.
ὄμβρος 1880. 228.
ὁμοίως 1857. 27, 32, 34, 50,
59; 1880. 246..
ὅμως 1881. 153.
ὄναρ 1381. 108.
ὄνειρον 1881. 74, 139.
ὄνομα 1380. 113, 141, 1433
1384. 20 (9).
ὀνομάζειν 1880. 163.
ὄξος 1884. 14.
ὁρᾶν 1380. 152; 1881. 108,
139.
ὀρέγειν 1881. 64.
ὀρθώσιος 1880. 39, 98.
ὁρμᾶν 1381. 84, 166.
ὁρμίστρια 1880. 15, 74.
ὅς 1380. 64, 119, 139, 175;
184, 221, 227, 260; 1881.
89, 122, 242, 245.
ὅσος 1881. 138, 206, 208,
210. 272s Ζ 1:
ὅταν 1880. 163.
ὅτε 1881. 92; 1383. 7.
ὅτι 1880. 208, 250; 1884.
28.
ov 1381. 40, 42, 155, 183.
οὐκ 1881. 111. οὐ μὴν ἀλλά
1381. 23.
ovAn 1884. 34.
οὔτε 1881. τοῦ.
οὗτος 1881. 1, 80, 139, 154,
155, 187,237, 244. οὕτως
1357. 2; 1381. 222.
ὀφθαλμός 1881. 109; 1384.
24.
ὀψέ 1881. 69.
ὄψις 1880. 128 ; 1381. 139.
maykabapos 1884. 27.
παῖς 1881. 103, 229, 232.
πάλαι 1381. 150.
πάλιν 1881. 85, 145, 154.
πανάφθονος 1380. 88.
πανήγυρις 1880. 133, 181.
mavrapxos 1380. 137.
πανταχῆ 1380. 172.
παντὴ 1880. 210.
παντοκράτειρα 1880. 20.
παντόπΪτις 1880. 93.
πανύ 1381. τό.
παπας 1857. 2.
παρά 1382. 18.
παραδιδόναι 1880. 204, 244.
271
| παρακελεύεσθαι 1881. 6.
παραυτίκα 1881. 193.
παρεῖναι 1881. 70; 1382. 20.
παρέχειν 1880. 180.
παροίχεσθαι 1881. 65.
παροξύνειν 1881. 2.
πᾶς 1880. 125 ef saep.;
1381. 73: 92, 137, 191,
199, 200, 215.
πατήρ 1884. 21.
πάτριος 1380. 267.
πείθειν 1884. 20.
πειρᾶσθαι 1381. 127.
πελάγιος 1888. 6, 8.
πέλαγος 18838. 8.
πέρνα 1384. το.
περί 1881. 247; 1882. 23.
περισσεύειν 1881. 176.
περισσός 1881. 61.
περισώζειν 1881. 215.
πηγή 1880. 228.
πιθανολογεῖν 1881. 171.
πίνειν 1384. 33.
morolacnis 1880. 138.
πιστός 1880. 152, 241.
πλεῖν, πλέειν 1888. 7.
πλείων 1880. 234.
πλευρά 1381. τ41.
πλευρόν.1881. 82, 98.
πλῆθος 1381. 5, 212, 235-
πλήμμυρα 1880. 223.
πλήν 1881. 93, 117.
πληροῦν 1381. 164.
πλουτίζειν 1881. 26.
πνεῦμα 1383. το; 1884. 21.
ποιεῖν 1880. 215, 235, 243,
250, 263, 291; 1881. 134.
ποιεῖσθαι 1881. το.
πόλις 1880. 58, 202.
Index III (a).
πολλάκις 1881. 32, 54, 155.
πόλος 1880. 232.
πολύμορφος 1880. 9, 70.
πολυόφθαλμος 1880. 129.
πολύς 1881]. 129, 212. πλείων
1880. 234.
πολυώνυμος 1880. 97, ΙΟΙ.
πονεῖν 1881. 211; 1884. 25,
30.
πόνος 1381. 100,
Cf.
272
ποτάμιος 1880. 122.
ποταμός 1880. 223.
που 1381. 178.
πούς 1381. 123.
πράκτωρ Pp. 44.
πρέσβυς 1880. 148.
mpoapety 1880. 219. προ-
αιρεῖσθαι 1381. 136.
προθυμία 1881. 37, 54, 60.
προϊστάναι 1381. 239.
προκαθῆσθαι 1380. 65.
προκαθομολογεῖν 1881. 156.
προκρίνειν 1580. 250.
προλαμβάνειν 1381. 137.
πρόνοια 1880. 43; 13881.164.
προπομπεύειν 1881. 19.
πρός 1880. 201, 207; 1381.
44, 52,55, 73,173; 1884.
23.
προσήκειν 1381. 22.
προσκυνεῖν 1380. 142, 160;
1381. 131.
προσπληροῦν 13881. 175.
προσπολεῖν 1581. 149.
πρόσταγμα 1880. 156.
προφητεία 1881. 23.
προφητεύειν 1881. 169.
πρῶτος 1380. 143,181. πρώ-
τιστα 1380. 120.
πτέρυξ 1880. 220.
πυρετός 1381. 96, 128.
πυροφόρος 1381. 27.
ῥεῖν 1881. 82.
peve 1881. 36.
ῥιψοκίνδυνος 1381. 57.
σεβασμός 1381. 31.
σέβεσθαι 1881. 202.
σελήνη 1880. 104.
σέλινον 1884. 4.
σμύρνα 1884. το.
σός1880.τόρ, 256(3); 1881.
163, 165, 169, 182, 186,
199.
σπέρμα 1384. 31.
σπόγγος 1884. 25.
σπόριμος 1880. 170.
σπουδάζειν 1881, 247.
στείχειν 1880. 87.
INDICES
στολαρχίς 1880. 8.
στόμα 1380. 123.
στραγγουρητία 1384. 30.
στρατεία 1380. 239.
στράτιος 1880. 71, 83, 102.
στροβεῖν 1381. 69.
ov 1880. 141 εἰ sacp.; 1382.
2,15; 1884. 28.
συμπληροῦν 1381. 48.
σύναξις 1857. I.
συνιέναι 1881. 203, 206.
συνιστάναι 1880. 154, 185.
σύνοδος 1880. 132.
συνορμίζειν 1380. 147.
συντόμως 1881. 179.
σφαδαΐζειν 1881. 99.
σφόδρα 1881. 2.
σφοδρός 1381. 96.
σώζειν 1880. 76; 1881. 57,
78.
σῶος 1880. 146.
σώτειρα 1880. 20, ΟΙ, 293.
σωτήριος 1381. 218.
ταπεινοῦν 1381. 158.
ταπείνωμα 1881. 48 (3).
ταυρῶπις 13880. 107.
ταφή 1880. 196; 1381. 229.
ταχυνίκης 1880. 64.
ταχύς 1881, 62, 82. θᾶσσον
1381. 6.
τε 1881. 97, 221, 222 (?).
τεκμαίρεσθαι 1381. 185.
τέλειος 1880. 32, 204.
τελεσιουργεῖν 1881. 184.
τέρας 1880. 277 (?).
τερατώδης 1381. 210.
τεταρταῖος 1381. 68.
τηρεῖν 1381. 58.
ris 1884. 17, 26.
τις 1381, 61, 117.
τξε ἡμέραι 1880. 155.
τοιοῦτος 1381. 186.
τόπος 1880. 206; 1881. 216.
τότε 1381. ὃ, 60, 236.
τρεῖς 1880. 269; 13881. 224.
τριάκοντα 1881. 13, 27.
τριακόσιοι 1381. 27.
τρίβειν 1884. 32.
tpetns 1581. 65, 67.
τριοδῖτις 1880. gt.
τρίς 1381. 123.
τριφυής 1880. 84.
Tpopwdns 1381. 126.
τρόπος 1381. 245.
τροφή 1380. 236.
Τῦβι 1357. 33.
τύπτειν 1883. 8.
(τύραννος 1880. 240.
τύχη 1880. 51.
ὑγρός 1380. 184.
ὕδωρ 1882. 15,17; 1888. το.
υἱός 1880. 209; 1884. 22.
ὑπακούειν 1881. 86.
ὑπεραλγεῖν 1881. 104.
ὑπερμήκης 1881. 117.
ὑπήκοος 1880. 164.
ὑπιέναι 1881. 160.
ὕπνος 1881. τοι, 106, 108.
ὑπό 1881. 50.
ὑπομνηματισμός 1899. recto. |
ὑπόσχεσις 1881. 60, 151.
ὑποτάσσειν 1881. 240; 1383.
9-
ὕστερος 1881. 175.
ὑφαίνειν 1880. 146.
ὑφιστάναι 1880. 221.
φαίνειν 1881. 75. φαίνεσθαι
1881. 95.
Φαμενώθ 1857. 63.
φαντασία 1881. 113.
φαντασιοῦν 1881. 140.
Φαῶφι 1357. 3.
φέρειν 1881. 121. φέρεσθαι
1380. 150; 1881. τοι.
φεύγειν 1881. 57.
φήμη 1881. 50, 227 (?).
φθάνειν 1381. 63.
φθείρειν 1381. 194.
φθορά 1380. 175, 195-
φιλία 1880. 94.
φιλόστοργος 1880. 12, 131;
1381. 103.
φλέγειν 1381. 96.
φλέγμα 1880. 248.
φοῦσκα 1384. I.
φράζειν 1881. 181.
φρίκη 1881. 69.
V. GENERAL INDEX OF GREEK WORDS
φρικτός 1881. go.
φρονεῖν 1381. 62.
φρόνησις 1880. 44, 81, 183.
φρόνιμος 1880. 117, 124.
φύειν 1881. 62.
φύλλον 1884. 12.
φυσικός 1381. 173.
φύσις 1881. 84, 103.
φώς 1880. 248, 295.
χαρίζεσθαι 1882. 15.
VI.
accent in relation to metre
236-7.
Alcaeus, στασιωτικά 57.
Alexander son of Amyntas
66.
All Saints’ Day 31.
Amazons 215.
Andreas of Sicyon 105-6,
108-9.
Andronpolis 206,
Anne, St. 36-7.
Anniane 23-5.
Anthesteria 88-9.
Antiphon Sophistes, works
92-3 ; Style 95.
Antisthenes 112.
Aphroditopolis (two towns)
203-4.
Apis (town) 210.
Apollo 223-4.
Apostle. See Evangelist.
Apostles, gospel of the XII
239.
Apuleius 190, 214, 225.
Arabia 213.
archidicastes 232.
Archimachus(Archem.?) 115,
110.
aretology 225, 235.
Aristides, rhetor 225, 233.
χάρις 1880. 156; 1381. 79,
IgI, 196.
χαριτοδότειρα 1380. Io.
χαριτόμορφος 1880. 59.
χείρ 1881. 121.
χιών 1880. 229, 239.
χρᾶν 1381. 245.
χρέος 1881. 160.
χρεώστης 1381. 152.
χρῆμα 1381. 233.
χρησμῳδός 1380. 43,
266.
252,
NOTES.
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-Ἰ.
Boreadae 46.
Bubastis 203.
Bucoli, Bucolia,
mouth 209.
Busiris 210-11.
Buto 207-8.
Buzyges 115, 119.
Bucolic
Caene 207.
Caesarea in Palestine 215.
Ἕ
273
χρηστός 1881. 74.
χρόνος 1880, 28, 203, 213,
268; 1981]. 65.
χώρα 1880. 24,
219, 234, 241.
125, 152,
ψυχρός 1880. 184.
ὦ 1381. 203, 206.
ὡραῖος 1880. go.
ὡς 1881. 102, 155.
ὠφελεῖν 1381. 49.
SUBJECTS DISCUSSED IN THE INTRODUCTIONS AND
(The numbers refer to pages.)
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
23-6.
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 II5.
Demosthenes, number of his
speeches 112; oldest frag-
ment of D. 186.
]
274
diadem 217.
Diodorus on Sicyon 105-6.
diplé 18.
Dioscuri 220.
Diospolis Parva (in the Delta)
208.
dreams, Homer on dypos
ὀνείρων 49—50.
Easter, date of 20, 30, 42.
Ebionites, gospel of the |
238-9.
Eleutherus, river 220.
emendations verified. (1)
Aristophanes: Bekker and
Blaydes 142, 145; Bergk
and Brunck 146, 153.
(2) Callimachus: Bentley
89, go-1; Nauck 89;
Η. 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
25-6.
festivals at Oxyrhynchus
26-32.
frontier of Egypt and
Palestine 213.
Gabriel, Archangel 29-30,
40.
Ganges 220.
Glaucetes, adventures of 119.
Greek calendar in relation to
Coptic 35-42.
INDICES
Gynaecopolite nome 206.
Harpies 46.
Hebrews, gospel according
to the 239.
Hecamede 243.
Helen 216.
Heliopolite nome 203.
Hellas (title of Isis) 215.
Flellenica Oxyrhynchia, style |
| John, St. J. the Baptist 25-6,
and authorship 107.
Hera 207%.
Heracleopolis 211.
Heracleum 212.
Heraclides Lembus 113-1 δ'
Herais, ama 23-5.
Hermes 209, 221, 223-4.
Hermippus 113.
Hermopolis, (1) 205; (2)
2οϑ; (3) 211.
Herodotus on Sicyon 105-6,
108-9.
Hesiod papyri 44; fragments |
identified 49, 50.
Hestia 206.
Hiera (town) 209.
Hieracion, St. 39.
Hierasus 205.
Hiero 66.
50; on Sarpedon 45, 49.
Horus 209, 219-20, 223-4.
Hypapante 29, 40.
Hyperides, possible author
of 1866. 112.
Hypsele (town) 215.
Iamblichus in relation to
Antiphon 94-5.
Icus 83, 88.
Imhotep, worship of 221-3;
tomb of 221, 223-4.
India 216.
Innocents’ Day 29.
To 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.
Ce ae ᾿
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.
Lasus, fragment of 119.
| Latina (title of Isis) 215.
' Mercurium at
law and nature contrasted
93-4-
| Lent 30, 41.
Leontopolis 211.
Leuce Acte 21ο.
Libanius on Sicyon 105-6,
108.
| lotus 209.
Homer on δῆμος ὀνείρων 49-- |
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.
Menelais 212-13.
Menkaura (hens )
221-3.
Menouphis 213.
Menouthis 212.
Alexandria
236.
| Metelite nome 213.
metre, accent and quantity
in 236; three-line stanzas
in Alcaeus 57.
VI, SUBJECTS DISCUSSED IN INTRODUCTIONS AND NOTES 275
Michael, Archangel 27, 30,
35-6.
Momemphis 205.
moon 216.
Mouchis 210.
Myron of Sicyon 105-6,
108-9.
Nanai, Babylonian goddess
ςιύό. ᾿
Nativity 20, 28.
nature and law contrasted
93-4.
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, 109.
Nile 209, 217.
Nithine 206.
Northern μαρτύριον 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 21-2.
Paul, St. 29, 37-8.
Pausanias on Sicyon 105,
108,
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
66.
Phernouphis (town) 211.
Philip, gospel of 238-9.
Philochorus, fragment of 115.
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-
trhynchus 24-7 ; saints’
days 26-30,
Samothrace 216,
Sarpedon 45, 49.
Saturday services 28, 30.
Satyrus 114.
scholia on Euripides, Or.133;
onAristoph. Clouds 135-8.
Serenus, St. 35.
Sethroite nome 211, 213.
Severus 43.
Sicyon, tyrants of 105-9.
Sinope 215.
snake, Isis as 211, 219.
Socrates on synaxeis 1g, 28.
sophists 93-4.
Sophocles MSS. in relation
to papyri 122.
Sothis 217.
Sotion 114,
Southern church 23, 38.
Staliones 19, 22.
Stephen, St. 28-9,
stichometry 2; stichome-
trical numbering in prose
works 103.
Sunday services 20, 22, 30,
3:1:
Susa on the Red Sea 216,
synaxis 19, 22, 26, 28.
Taposiris 212,
Telephus 52-5.
Teouchis (town) 209.
Thapseusis (title of Isis) 216.
Theodorus, 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,
244.
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 217, 219.
writing, discovery of 193,
224.
Xois, Xoite nome 209-10,
Zachariah, St. 40.
276
INDICES
PASSAGES DISCUSSED.
(a) AUTHORS.
VII.
PAGE
Aeschylus Fr. 99 (Nauck) . : ay i
Aesop 339 - 247
Agatharchides (Geogr. Gr. min. i, - 180) 213
Anthologia Palat. vil, 2. 88
Antiphon Soph, Fr. 44 (Diels) . 92, 102
Baya, bos ΤΟΣ
Apollodorus iii. 4. 2. : : sae
10. 3 ᾿ : Bren;
ΤΣΟῚ : : 5 7 ΝΩ͂Ν
Apuleius, 7είαγι. xi. 5 190, 208, 210, 214
Aristotle, AO. mod, 12. ἢ, 14. I, 20. I,
Be 2: hf 111
Πολ. p. 1310b +) EOF
1315b 105-6, 108-9
1316a 105-6, 108-9
Athenaeusi. 32b : : πὐν Θ 0
τ 5306: : ; -. 30
ἵν. τος: ; : PRE)
ἵν. 164d: . ; : 118
ix. 3724, : : Ἐν 90
Babrius 79 : 247
Bacchylides v . : ; : ec) aE
fr, 20° , : . 65-6, 80
Fr, 834. : ; Βα
Callimachus ΕἾ, 86 . ; : Ἐν On
οϑο : -
109 84, 88-9
111 ᾿ς 280
190 go
372 85, 89
508 89
Clemens Alex. Strom. i. 21 224
Diodorus i. 14. : Mer Ὁ
1 55 - 204, 216, 220
L 27. ED
Ϊ, 64. 223
iil, 44 ; ete
Vili, 24 - ee Gas III
viii, 30 118
Diog. Laert. v. 94, viii. 4, 53, ix. 26 114
Epiphanius, Adv, haeres. iii, Ὁ. wes 212
Euripides, Hec. 70 ᾿ 50
PAGE
Euripides, Z. Z. 1259 sqq. 5 . 50
Rhes. 29 . . a eee
Geogr. Ravennas 204, 206, 209-10, 212 -
Hebrews, gospel of the. : . 239
Helladius, Chrest, . ; : .- 88
Hermippus Fr, 50. « : . 208
Hermogenes, De zdezs ii. 11. τῇ. . 95
Herodian, I, μον. λεξ. 13. P » /24g
23 - . 233
Herodotus i. 180 : : 216
ery Ὁ : ; δ ΠΡ ὙΠ:
17 : , - . 209
P8504 : : : 210
Baie: 3 ἥ é . 210
113-20 : . 216
129 223
14. 204
ιρόο. 207
1035 - 206
ili, 12 206
iv. 161 118
ν. 104 109
vi. 126 105-6, "108-9
Hesiod, Zheog. 212 . : . “ae
Τ..30. ‘ : 45
Frs. 52-9 Pe
ane ae . 46
Fr, ge. 46, 50
Fr. 57. a oe
Fr. 60. 49
Pr 62. 49, 5°
ΕἸ. 65. ‘ : , 5I
Fr. 233 : : : 49
Hierocles, Synec. . : : 208, 210
Homer Z 198-9 : : : Ma |
p28 . : : : . 88
@1I2 - - . - 49
Hyginus, Fad, 99-100 " ; - 55
106 . : ς » 45
Hyperides, κατὰ ᾿Αθηνογένους 112
Iamblichus, Protrept. : : εν ae
Itin. Anton, . ; ; . 206, 210
/
VII. PASSAGES DISCUSSED 277
PAGE PAGE
Josephus, Arch, xv. 8. 5: A - 215 | Plutarch, De ser. num. vind.7 105, 108-9
Libanius, Or. cont. Sev. iii, τὰ 2581: 105-6 | Ptolemyiv.5 . : d 204-16
Luke v. 12-16. : - . 238 | Rufinus, 71:1 Won. v : . . 26
a ae : . : - 241 | Schol. Apollon. Rhod.i. οι6. See rts
XVill, II-14. : : 555 Eurip. 77. 1128. ; ae
Lysias, κατὰ Διογένους - : ΠΕ Ὶ 2 Hom. M 292 ‘ Bane i=
Manetho 5. ν. TécupOpos ΄. : . 221 Pind. PyZh. iii. 167.
Mark i. 40-5 . é : : - 238 | Scylax, 2 7722: τοῦ. ‘ ; . 213
ΜΕ} 15. .ς : : : - 241 | Socrates, 7151. v. 22 : . 19, 28
Matthew viii. 2-4. : - 238, 241 | Stephanus Byz. - 205, 209, 212
xiv. 13-14 . - : - 238 | Stobaeus, Zi. phys. i. ioe : , « amg
XXViil, Ig. : fs SAE Flor. 24.1 7 , : ae
Nicolaiis Damasc. Fr. 58 . : το, Strabo p. 25 Ξ : ‘ « gg
όι. 105-6, ee 4852. : : : : 20%
Pausanias ii, 8. 1 and vi. 19. 2-3. τορτό, rile : : é ies
108, 111 88. 5 ‘ : BBS
Phaedrus 1. 4 . ‘ ς : τ 247 "όο. F ὲ . i 2s
Philip, gospel of : ὲ 40 250 "9. 2 ; δ . 210
Philodemus, Περὶ Εὐσεβ. 10 : ay 40 7 815} ὦ : ‘ : τ BOS
Pliny, A.v.9 Ce : : » 209 792 . : : 209°
39 - . . « 250 799 . : : 210, 212-13
49 . - Ἶ ~ 1209 Soo . :- - « ΟΕ,
Gi". - 2 ΤΥ 256 891": : : ; 252; ΡΠ
6. ἕ : oaks 8602. Ξ 2 203, 207-10
81 Ξ : pref be 803. : - 205, 212, 218
Plutarch, De Js. ez Os. 3 ; Pam tobi 22 Son 3 ; ᾿ 510
é : - ΠΩ ΤΟ 807 Ἶ : » |) 808
9. ‘ . 207 | Suidas sv, Ἡρακλείδης : ς ὡς ὌΡΗ
Io. . ~ each 7 μαρμαρυγή . . . 214
όο. Ἵ 4 P2EO Χοιρίλος 245
61. ς RCS ΟΣ Fr. ΙΟῚ (Grenfell “Hunt) 231
De malign, Herod. 12 . 216 | Thucydides viii. g2 . III
(ὁ) PAPYRI AND INSCRIPTIONS.
PAGE PAGE
P. Amherst 2 . j Σ Ξ ᾿ 296. ἘΠ Ge xiv τ IQI, 204, 206, 209,
128. 56. P : ἘΠ ΖΕ ἐλ Samet 5
Β. α.ῦ. 625 . ‘ Ξ ; «| 209} P. ΒΊΟΥ 08, - -- 26
054 . ; ‘ : 35 | P. Giessen 12 (ed. F. Fischer) . - 157
Berl. Klassikertexte, v. 2, p. 12. Be 55. 2 ae
P. Brit. Mus. 46. 148 - : «ara | Py Grenf, i302 (a). τ΄" : bees
121. 405 . - . 203 | P. Hamburg 39 : Ξ : . eaeg
Paz. 20°)"; : . 218.) P, Leyden V. vii. 23 - ‘ . 518
gar. Σ : - 209 | P. Klein. Form. 299 : ς . an
1419. 526 . sae 627 - - - 40
P. Cairo dem. 31169 : 3 ΌΙ, 217 743 : ᾿ eee
©. 1G. 4682Ρ.1. : Ε ΕΑΓ 783 Ὶ ; Ἦν Σ᾽
T 3
278 INDICES
PAGE _—
Ῥ. Ὄχγεισ -: : : . Ὁ weg | PisOxy. 2278 =. ΟΣ: ae
43 verso. 1.10 . ; 23, 38 1180 . a. ραν
TAT. 3 : : τ ὙΠ Pood My ay oe Ue
146. 1 : - - 24, 36 1234 . ‘ - 4
14 [702ετ . : : 24, 36 1245 . : Ε tk
ot “ah -: 3 é ae sy 1246 . τ (iam
Hanoi rs - - : « 561) t: ΡΣ cs Ἐὰ ᾿
ΘῊΠ es! pe : : » 157 unpublished ©
Bue) Ξ 2 οὖς ἀϑήρ τε | 8. Rev, Laws xxxi.6 .- ΠΝ
558: - : : Fairey | XEXLL8 2 ΕΝ
878) ὁ : 3 : 280 Ix. 18 .. ΤΙΝ
879. ὃ : ΡΤ ΕΗ . Avil. 8... οὐ ΗΝ
880 . : : 2 κε 0g7 | Pi Rylands.78.5 ὑπ. | 30
Bee Oy καὶ Coptic 461. .. iam
SORT 500 ἢ : 88; 00} .Ρ..5..1.. ὅ3: Δ ht 0 ΠΣ
ΤΟΙΣ ΖΡ τ ; . . 23 ] P. Stod: Pal. x. 36... 4°. eee
ee ee he : ; Pea | 297 verso. 1.6 . .°
1150 ~> ; : 25, 334 δ ΟΡ ΤΟ ea + ich Ie
ΕἼΒῚ . - + 23, 25) 38; 37 320.99 C © . -:
ἐπ ὟΣ : 12-13 | P. Wessely (Wien. Stud. vii) ...
A
iS ΕἸ. “LS€r ‘on ὩΕΞΕΞΞΑ
ates τς age id
PLaTE I
᾿ς ᾿ ee
; λ τς 3 alae ion as ι..- i B28 5 τ, 5 q ¢ > ἐς = 3 : : ;
Ta eee Ἐῶ Ὁ Fac sce La S CaN x χε wes eee Ὁ eet ote ee
et
γε “-
ἘΝῚ -
΄
΄
τὰ ’ =
See το οὐ
ee ee
racer ve Ὁ ἘΣ ~ τ
- δι
Se. son
PLATE Il
No. 1950. “Fr. 2
᾿
berg ΟΣ ‘ON ᾿ es.
“ee
att |
PiaTE III
hevios
St
τὸ
+4)
᾿ μὰ:
rere LONSHNTANDS
OUTLIM ΘΝ |
| τ τ ΜΝ
"»ὦὐ -οὐδουσι δι νυ ἡ ee. ὦ νι δι πῶ σῶν. όῤννει
ῳ
7
ῬΡιαάατε IV
Νο. τϑός. ΕἾ. 1, (οἹ]. 1
PLaTE V
oh 4 ἘΠῚ ase
Pe Se thy
ey Ὧν 3:22 Ὲ)
AeA, ὃ
oe AGS 018 :-
AST. 5
fy ERP HEAL
POP dae te ees ἈΡΕΣΟΣ ΤΙΣ tie
quer
.ν,ε-
No. 1364. Fr. 1, Cols. v-vii
ΕἸΑΤΕΝΙ
MIADHY Io
Φ..
ἐ-
om Tere
Ls
re ae
ῬΑ Pe
r
az
τἐς
Ps.
45
ἴω
Οϑήϑ 6 ἢ ὌΔΕΙ ὋΝ
Ο129.4 ILEI ὋΝ
τῷ
ἘΞ
>
3)
[5
«
"ἢ
Ou
EGYPT EXPLORATION FUND
GRAECO-ROMAN BRANCH.
WE EGYPT EXPLORATION FUND, which has conducted Archaeological research
in Egypt since 1882, in 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, cach of about 250 quarto pages, with
facsimile plates of the more important papyrt, under the editorship of Drs. GRENFELL and
Hunt.
A subscription of One Guinea to the Graeco-Roman Branch entitles subscribers to the annual
volume, and to attendance at the Funds lectures in London and elsewhere. A donation of £25
constitutes life membership. Subscriptions may be sent to the Honorary Treasurers—for
England, Mr. J. Grarton Mung, 37 Great Russell St., London, W.C.; and for America,
Mr. Cuester I. CampBeLL, 527 Zremont Temple, Boston, Mass.
.
PUBLICATIONS OF THE EGYPT EXPLORATION FUND.
ἘΠΕ eS τ τ
MEMOIRS OF THE FUND.
I. THE STORE CITY OF PITHOM AND THE ROUTE OF THE EXODUS.
For 1883-4. By EpouarD NAVILLE. Thirteen Plates and Plans. (fourth and Revised
Edition.) 255.
II. TANIS, Part I. For 1884-5. By W. M. Frinpers Petriz. Eighteen Plates
and two Plans. (Second Edition.) 255.
III. NAUKRATIS, Part I. For 1885-6. By W. M. Frinpers Petriz. With
Chapters by CecIL SMITH, ERNEST A. GARDNER, and BARcLay V. HEap. Forty-four Plates
and Plans. (Second Edition.) 255.
IV. GOSHEN AND THE SHRINE OF SAFT-EL-HENNEH. For 1886-7.
By Epovarp NAvVILLE. Eleven Plates and Plans. (Second Edition.) 255.
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. 255.
VI. NAUKRATIS, Part IJ. For 1888-9. By Ernest A. Garpyer and F. Lt.
GRIFFITH. Twenty-four Plates and Plans. 255.
VII. THE CITY OF ONIAS AND THE MOUND OF THE JEW. The
Antiquities of Tell-el-Yahidiyeh. An Zxtra Volume. By EpovaRD NAVILLE and
F. Li. GRIFFITH. Twenty-six Plates and Plans. 25s.
VII.
XXVI.
XXVII.
XXVIII.
XXIX.
XXX.
XXXI.
XXXII.
XXXITI.
XXXIV.
XXXV.
XXXVI,
BUBASTIS. For 1889-90. By Epovarp Navitue. Fifty-four Plates and
Plans. 25s.
. TWO HIEROGLYPHIC PAPYRI FROM TANIS. 45 Extra Volume.
Containing THE SIGN PAPYRUS (a Syllabary). By F. Li. GrirFirH. THE
GEOGRAPHICAL PAPYRUS (an Almanac). By W. M. FLINDERS PETRIE. With
Remarks by HEINRICH BRucscH. (Out of print.)
. THE FESTIVAL HALL OF OSORKON II (BUBASTIS). For 1890-1.
By EDouARD NAVILLE. Thirty-nine Plates. 255.
- AHNAS EL MEDINEH. For 1891-2. By Enovarp Nave. Eighteen
Plates. And THE TOMB OF PAHERI AT EL ΚΑΒ. By J. J. Tytor and F. Lt.
_GRIFFITH. Ten Plates, 255.
. DEIR EL BAHARI, Introductory. For 1892-3. By Epovarp ΝΆ.
Fifteen Plates and Plans. 255.
. DEIR EL BAHARI, Part I. For 1893-4. By Epovarp Navitze. Pilates
I-XXIV (three coloured) with Description. Royal folio. 30s.
. DEIR EL BAHARI, Part Il. For 1894-5. By Epovarp Navitte. Plates
XXV-LV (two coloured) with Description. Royal folio. 30s.
. DESHASHEH. For 1895-6. By W.M.Furnpers Perriz. Photogravure and
other Plates. 255.
. DEIR EL BAHARI, Part III. For 1896-7. By Epovarp Navitte. Plates
LVI-LXXXVI (two coloured) with Description. Royal folio. 30s.
- DENDEREH. For 1897-8. By W. M. Fiinpers Perriz. Thirty-eight Plates.
25s. (Extra Plates of Inscriptions. Forty Plates. τος.)
- ROYAL TOMBS OF THE FIRST DYNASTY. For 1898-9. By W. M.
FLINDERS PETRIE. Sixty-eight Plates. 255.
. DEIR EL BAHARI, Part IV. For 1899-1900. By Epovarp NaviLLE.
Plates LXXXVII-CXVIII (two coloured) with Description. Royal folio. 30s.
- DIOSPOLIS PARVA. Ax Extra Volume. By W. M. Funpers Petrie.
Forty-nine Plates. (Out of print.)
. THE ROYAL TOMBS OF THE EARLIEST DYNASTIES, Part II. For
1goo-1. By W. M. FLINDERS PETRIE. Sixty-three Plates. 255. (Thirty-five extra
Plates, Ios.)
. ABYDOS, PartI. For 1901-2. By W.M.F. Perri. Eighty-one Plates. 25s.
. EL AMRAH AND ABYDOS. 45 Extra Volume. By D. Ranpatt-Maclver,
A. C. MAcE, and F. Lit. GriFFITH. Sixty Plates. 255.
- ABYDOS, Part II. For 1902-3. By W. M. Frinpers Perriz. Sixty-four
Plates. 255.
. ABYDOS, Part II]. An Extra Volume. By C. T. Curretty, E, R. Ayrton,
and A. E. P. WEIGALL, &c. Sixty-one Plates. 255.
EHNASYA. For 1903-4. By W. M. Frinpers Perr. Forty-three Plates. 25s.
(ROMAN EHNASYA. Thirty-two extra Plates. 105.)
DEIR EL BAHARI, Part V. For 1904-5. By Epovarp Navittz. Pilates
CXIX-CL with Description. Royal folio. 30s.
THE ELEVENTH DYNASTY TEMPLE AT DEIR EL BAHARI, Part I.
For 1905-6. By Epouvarp NAVILLE and H.R. HAL. Thirty-one Plates. 255.
DEIR EL BAHARI, Part VI. For 1906-7. By Epovarp Navitte. Plates
CLI-CLXXIV (one coloured) with Description. Royal folio. 30s.
THE ELEVENTH DYNASTY TEMPLE AT DEIR EL BAHARI, Part II.
For 1907-8. By EpouarD NAVILLE. Twenty-four Plates. 255.
PRE-DYNASTIC CEMETERY AT EL MAHASNA. For 1908-9. By
E. R. AYRTON and W. L.S. LoaT. 255.
THE ELEVENTH DYNASTY TEMPLE AT DEIR EL BAHARI, Part III.
For 1gog-10. By Epouarp NavILLe, H.R. Haut, and C. T. CURRELLY. Thirty-six
Plates. 2655.
CEMETERIES OF ABYDOS, Part I. For 1910-11. By Epovarp NaviLzz,
T. Ἐς PEET, and H.R. HALL. 2535.
CEMETERIES OF ABYDOS, Part 11. For 1911-12. By T. E. Peer. 255.
CEMETERIES OF ABYDOS, Part III. For 1912-13. By T. E. Pzer
and W..L.S. Loat. 25s.
INSCRIPTIONS FROM SINAI. By T.E. Perr and A. H. Garpiner. (Jn
preparation.)
ARCHAEOLOGICAL SURVEY.
Edited by F. Lu. GRIFFITH.
I, BENI HASAN, Part I. For 1890-1. By Percy E. Newserry. With Plans
by α. W. FRAsER. Forty-nine Plates (four coloured). (Owt of print.)
II. BENI HASAN, Part II. For 1891-2. By Percy E. Newserry. With Appendix,
Plans, and Measurements by G, W. FRASER. Thirty-seven Plates (two coloured). 25s.
II. EL BERSHEH, Part I. For 1892-3. By Percy E, Newserry. Thirty-four
Plates (two coloured), 255.
IV. EL BERSHEH, Part II. For 1893-4. By F. Lu. Grirritn and Percy E.
NEWBERRY. With Appendix by G. W. FRASER. Twenty-three Plates (two coloured). 2 55.
V. BENI HASAN, Part III. For 1894-5. By F. 1... Grirritn. (Hieroglyphs,
and manufacture, &c., of Flint Knives.) Ten coloured Plates. 255.
VI. HIEROGLYPHS FROM THE COLLECTIONS OF THE EGYPT
EXPLORATION FUND. For 1895-6. By F.Lu. GRIFFITH. Nine coloured Plates, 255.
VII. BENI HASAN, Part IV. For 1896-7. By F. Lx. Grirrirn. (Illustrating
beasts and birds, arts, crafts, ὅς.) Twenty-seven Plates (twenty-one coloured), 2 55.
VIII. THE MASTABA OF PTAHHETEP AND AKHETHETEP AT
SAQQAREH, Part I. For 1897-8. By NorMAN DE G. Davies and F. Li. GRIFFITH.
Thirty-one Plates (three coloured). 255.
IX. THE MASTABA OF PTAHHETEP AND AKHETHETEP AT
SAQQAREH, Part II. For 1898-9. ΒΥ Ν. ΡῈ G. Davigs and F.Lu.GrirFITH. Thirty-
five Plates. 255.
X. THE ROCK TOMBS OF SHEIKH SAID. For 1899-1900. By N. Ρε 6.
Davirs. Thirty-five Plates. 255.
XI. THE ROCK TOMBS OF DEIR EL GEBRAWI, Part 1. For 1900-1. By
N. DE G. DAviEs. Twenty-seven Plates (two coloured). 255.
XII. DEIR EL GEBRAWI, Part II. For rgo1-2. By N. pe G.Davms. Thirty
Plates (two coloured). 255.
XII, THE ROCK TOMBS OF EL AMARNA, Part I. For 1902—3. By N. peG.
DAVIES. Forty-one Plates. 255.
XIV. EL AMARNA, Part II. For 1903-4. By N. pr G. Davis. Forty-seven Plates. 255.
XV. EL AMARNA, Part III. For 1904-5. By N.peG.Davirs. Forty Plates. 255.
XVI. ELAMARNA, PartIV. For 1905-6. By N. pz G. Davins. Forty-five Plates. 255.
XVII. EL AMARNA, Part V. For 1906-7. By N. pr G. Davies. Forty-four Plates. 255.
XVII. ELAMARNA, Part VI. For 1907-8. By N. pe G. Daviess. Forty-four Plates. 255.
XIX. THE ISLAND OF MEROE. By J. W. Crowroot, and MEROITIC
INSCRIPTIONS, Part I. For 1908-9. By F. Lt. GRIFFITH. Thirty-five Plates. 255.
XX. MEROITIC INSCRIPTIONS, Part II. For 1909-10. By F. Lu. Grirrirn.
Forty-eight Plates., 255.
XX], FIVE THEBAN TOMBS. For rgto-11._ By N. pe G. Davirs. Forty-three
Plates. 255.
XXII. THE ROCK TOMBS OF MEIR, Part I. For 1911-12. By A. M. Brack-
MAN. Thirty-three Plates. 255.
XXIII. THE ROCK TOMBS OF MEIR, Part II. For 1912-13. By A. M. Bracx-
VI.
MAN. (lx preparation.)
GRAECO-ROMAN BRANCH.
THE OXYRHYNCHUS PAPYRI, Part I. For 1897-8. By B. P. Grenrett
and Α. 5. Hunt. Eight Collotype Plates. (Out of print.)
THE OXYRHYNCHUS PAPYRI, Part II. For 1898-9. By B. P. Grenrety
and Α. 5. Hunt. Eight Collotype Plates. 255.
. FAYUM TOWNS AND THEIR PAPYRI. For 1899-1900. By B. P. GrenFEtt,
A. 5. Hunt, and Ὁ. G. HoGARTH. Eighteen Plates. 255.
THE TEBTUNIS PAPYRI. Double Volume for 1900-1 and 1901-2. By B.P.
GRENFELL, A. S. Hunt, and J. G. SMyty. Nine Collotype Plates. (ot for sale.)
. THE OXYRHYNCHUS PAPYRI, Part III. For 1902-3. By B. P. Grenrecy
and A.S. Hunt. Six Collotype Plates. 25s.
THE OXYRHYNCHUS PAPYRI, Part 1V. For 1903-4. By B. P. Grenrett
and A.S. Hunt. Eight Collotype Plates. 25s.
VII. THE HIBEH PAPYRI, Part I. Double Volume for 1904-5 and 1905-6. By
B. P. GRENFELL and Α. 5. Hunt. Ten Collotype Plates. 455.
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. GRenFELy
and A.S. Hunt. Six Collotype Plates. 255.
X. THE OXYRHYNCHUS PAPYRI, Part VII. For 1908-9. By A. S. Hunt.
Six Collotype Plates. 255.
XI. THE OXYRHYNCHUS PAPYRI, Part VIII. For tg09-10. By A. S. Hunt.
Seven Collotype Plates. 255.
XII. THE OXYRHYNCHUS PAPYRI, Part IX. For 1910-11. By A. S. Hunt.
Six Collotype Plates. 255.
XIII. THE OXYRHYNCHUS PAPYRI, Part X. For 1911-12. By B. P. GRENFELL
and Α. 5. Hunt. Six Collotype Plates. 255.
XIV. THE OXYRHYNCHUS PAPYRI, Part XI. For 1912-13. By B. P. Grenreri
and Α. 5. Hunt. Seven Collotype Plates. 255.
XV. THE OXYRHYNCHUS PAPYRI, Part XII. For 1913-14. By B. P. GRENFELL
and Α. 5. Hunt. (lx preparation.)
ANNUAL ARCHAEOLOGICAL REPORTS.
(Yearly Summaries by F. G. Kenyon, W. E. Crum, and the Officers of the Society, with Maps.)
Edited by F. Lu. GRIFFITH.
THE SEASON’S WORK. For 1890-1. By Epovarp Navitxe, Percy E. Newserry, and
G. W. FRASER. 2s. 6d.
For 1892-3 a 1893-4. 25. 6d. each.
» 1894-5. aes Containing Report of D. G. HoGARTH’s Excavations in Alexandria.
»» 1895-6. With Illustrated Article on the Transport of Obelisks by EDOUARD NAVILLE.
», 1896-7. 25. Gh With Articles on Oxyrhynchus and its Papyri by B. P. GRENFELL, and a Thucydides
Papyrus from Oxyrhynchus by A. S. HunT.
»» 1897-8. 2s. 6d. With Illustrated Article on Excavations at Hierakonpolis by W. M. F. PETRIE.
», 1898-9. 25. 64. With Article on the Position of Lake Moeris by B. Ρ. GRENFELL and A. S. Hunt,
1899-1900. 25. 64, With Article on Knossos in its Egyptian Relations by A. J. EVANS.
And twelve successive years, 25. 6d. each.
A JOURNAL OF EGYPTIAN ARCHAEOLOGY (issued Quarterly), Commenced
January, 1914. 6s.a part, or £1 15. a year to Subscribers.
SPECIAL PUBLICATIONS.
ΛΟΓΊΑ ἸΗΣΟΥ͂ : ‘Sayings of Our Lord,’ from an Early Greek Papyrus. By B. P. Grenrett
and Α. 5. HuNT. 2s. (with Collotypes) and 6d. net.
NEW SAYINGS OF JESUS AND FRAGMENT OF A LOST GOSPEL. By
B. P. GRENFELL and A. 5. Hunt. Is. net.
FRAGMENT OF AN UNCANONICAL GOSPEL. By B. P. Grenretz and A. 8.
Hunt. Is. net.
ATLAS OF ANCIENT EGYPT. With Letterpress and Index. (Out of print)
GUIDE TO THE TEMPLE OF DEIR EL BAHARI. With Plan. (Out of print.)
COPTIC OSTRACA. By W.E. Crum. τος. 6d. net.
THE THEBAN TOMB SERIES, Vol. 1. THE TOMB OF AMENEMHET (No. 82).
By NINA DE G. Davies and A. H. GARDINER. 30s.
Slides from Fund Photographs may be obtained through Messrs. Newton & Co., 37 King Street,
Covent Garden, W.C., and Prints from Mr. R. C. Murray, 37 Dartmouth Park Hill, N.W.
Offices of the Egypt Exploration Fund:
37 GREAT RUSSELL STREET, LONDON, W.C., anpb
527 TREMONT TEMPLE, BOSTON, MASS., U.S.A.
Agents:
KEGAN PAUL, TRENCH, TRUBNER & Co., 68-74 CARTER LANE, E.C.
aie (QUARITCH, 11 GRAFTON STREET, NEW eOne STREET, Ww.
ὃς Co., 14 BEDFORD STREET, COVENT GARD
C. F. CLAY, CAMBRIDGE Oe PRESS, "FETTER LANE, RONDON, E.C., AND
INCES STREET, EDINBURGH
HUMPHREY MILFORD, “OXFORD UNIVERSITY PRESS, aie CORNER, E.C., awp
29-35 ‘WEST 32ND STREET, NEW YORK, S.A.
i)
| BRIGHAM YOUNG UNIVERSITY
TMA ATTN
31197 22884 0168
Live Music Archive
Librivox Free Audio
Metropolitan Museum
Cleveland Museum of Art
Internet Arcade
Console Living Room
Books to Borrow
Open Library
TV News
Understanding 9/11