LIBRARY
Brigham Young University
,.ι,χλ ,btaiU€4 Ace.
PA No.
^s>
THE
OXYRHYNCHUS PAPYRI
PART XIII
GRENFELL AND HUNT
PA
3313
EGYPT EXPLORATION FUND
GRAECO-ROMAN BRANCH
THE
OXYRHYNCHUS PAPYRI
PART XIII
EDITED WITH TRANSLATIONS AND NOTES
BERNARD P. GRENFELL. D.Litt.
HONORARY PROFESSOR OF PAPYROLOGY IN THE UNIVERSITY OF OXFORD, AND FELLOW OF QUEEN's COLLEGE
FELLOW OF THE BRITISH ACADEMY
ARTHUR S. HUNT, D.Litt.
PROFESSOR OF PAPYROLOGY IN THE UNIVERSITY OF OXFORD, AND FELLOW OF QUEEN'S COLLEGE
FELLOW OF THE BRITISH ACADEMY
WITH SIX PLATES
LONDON
SOLD AT
The Offices of the EGYPT EXPLORATION FUND, 13 Tavistock Square, W.C. ι
AND 503 Tremont Temple, Boston, Mass., U.S.A.
BERNARD QUARITCH, 11 Grafton Street, New Bond Street, W. ι
HUMPHREY MILFORD, Amen Corner. E.C. 4, and 29 West 32ND Street, New York, U.S.A.
C. F. CLAY, Fetter Lane, E.C. 4
KEG AN PAUL, TRENCH, TRUBNER & CO., 68-74 Carter Lane, E.C. 4
GEORGE SALBY, 65 Great Russell Street, W.C. i
1919
All rights reserved
BRIGHSM YOUNG UNiVERSlTX
UBRARY
PROVO, UTAH
PRINTED IN ENGLAND
AT THE OXFORD UNIVERSITY PRESS
PREFACE
The present volume consists of literary texts, like Parts V and XI.
The papyri of Lysias (l606), Hyperides (l607), Aeschines Socraticiis
(1608), and an oration on the cult of a Roman Emperor (I612) belong
to the first of the three large literary finds of the 1905-6 season,
which produced 841-4, &c., and has now been completely published ;
those of Ephorus (leio), a work on literary criticism (I6I1), and
Herodotus (I6I9) belong to the second, which is not yet exhausted.
Most of the other texts were found in the early part of the same
season.
Prof. Hunt's continued absence from Oxford on military duties
has prevented him from taking an active part in the decipherment and
editing of this volume, but he has revised some of the papyri and the
proofs. We are much indebted to Mr. E. Lobel, who has made
numerous suggestions in the reconstruction and interpretation of the
new classical texts, and to Dr. J. V. Bartlet for similar help in regard to
the new theological texts. The assistance on various points afforded
by Mr. T. W. Allen, Profs. J. Burnet, J. B. Bury, and A. E. Housman,
Dr. C. Hude, Mr. H. Stuart Jones, Sir William M. Ramsay, Prof M.
Rostowze\v, and Sir John E. Sandys is acknowledged in connexion
with the individual papyri.
The two sections consisting of Contracts and Private Accounts,
which were omitted from Part XII owing to want of space, are held
over for Part XIV, which will contain non-literary documents and is in
active preparation. We hope to issue it in the course of 191 9, and that
Mr. J. de M. Johnson's edition of the valuable Theocritus papyrus
discovered by him at Antinoe will be issued simultaneously.
BERNARD P. GRENFELL.
Queen's College, Oxford,
September, ι 91 8.
CONTENTS
Preface .....
List of Plates . .
Table of Papyri .........
Note ox the Method of Publication and List of Abbreviations
PAGE
V
vi
vii
viii
TEXTS
L Theological (1594-1603)
IL New Classical Fragments (1604-1613) . . .
in. Fragments of Extant Classical Authors (1614-1625).
I
155
INDICES
I. New Theological Fragments ....
IL New Classical Fragments .....
III. Subjects Discussed in the Introductions and Notes
IV. Passages Discussed ......
217
219
230
233
I.
II.
III.
IV.
V.
VI.
LIST OF PLATES
1594 recto, 1597 verso, 1604 Fr. i
1606 Fr. 6, Cols, i-ii
1607 Frs. 5 + 4, 1608 Fr. 4, 1610 Frs. i, 4-6, 15
1615 recto, 1618 Col. x, 1622 Cols, ii-iii
1619 Fr. 10, 1621 veiso ....
1620, 1624 Cols. Ixiii-iv, Ixvi
at the end.
TABLE OF PAPYRI
1594. New Recension of Tobit xii (vellum ; Plate i)
1595. Ecclesiasticus i .
1596. St. John vi . . .
1597. Acts xxvi (Plate i)
1598. I Thessalonians iv — 2 Thess. i
1599. Hermas, Shepherd^ Sim. viii
1600. Treatise on the Passion
1601. Homily on Spiritual Warfare
1602. Homily to Monks (vellum)
1603. Homily concerning Women
1604. Pindar, Dithyrambs (Plate i)
1605. Menander, Μισοΰμΐνο9
1606. Lysias, πρόϊ Ίπποθίρσψ, Against Theomneslus, &c
(Plate ii)
1607. Hyperides (i*), For Lycophron (Plate iii)
1608. Aeschines Socraticus, Alcihiades (Plate iii)
1609. Philosophical Work : Meirological Fragment
1610. Ephorus xii or xi (Plate iii)
1611. Work on Literary Criticism
1612. Oration on the Cult of Caesar
1613. List of Early Athenian Archons
1614. Pindar, 01. i, ii, vi, vii
1615. Sophocles, Ajax (Plate iv) .
1616. Euripides, Orestes (vellum) .
1617. Aristophanes, Plutus .
1618. Theocritus, Id. v, vii, xv (Plate iv)
1619. Herodotus iii (Plate v)
1620. Thucydides i (Plate vi)
1621. Thucydides ii (vellum ; Plate v)
1622. Thucydides ii (Plate iv)
1623. Thucydides iii (vellum)
1624. Plato, Protagoras (Plate vi)
1625. Aeschines, In Ciesiphontem
CENTURY
PAGE
i) •
Late 3rd
I
6th . .
6
4th .
8
Late 3rd or 4th .
lO
Late 3rd or 4 th .
12
4th .
• 15
5th .
19
Late 4th or 5th .
2Γ
Late 4th or 5th .
• 23
5th or 6th .
25
Late 2nd
• 27
3rd . . .
45
'us, &c.
Late 2nd or 3rd .
48
Late 2nd or 3rd .
74
Late 2nd .
88
nt
2nd
94
Late 2nd or 3rd .
98
Early 3rd
127
3rd . . .
148
2nd . . . .
154
5th or 6th .
155
4th ... .
162
5th .. .
163
5th ... .
165
5th . . . .
168
Late I St or 2nd .
180
Late 2nd or 3rd .
189
4th ... .
194
Early 2nd .
196
5th or 6th .
197
3rd ... .
199
2nd . . . .
209
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-XII. 1604 (Pindar) is printed in dual form, a literal transcript being
accompanied by a reconstruction in modern style. In the other texts the
originals are reproduced except for separation of words, capital initials in proper
names, expansion of abbreviations, and supplements of lacunae. A reconstruction
in modern form of the more complete portions of 1606-7 and 1610-12 is also
given. 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. Square brackets [ ] indi-
cate a lacuna, round brackets ( ) the resolution of a symbol or abbreviation,
angular brackets ( > a mistaken omission in the original, braces { } a superfluous
letter or letters, double square brackets [[ ]] a deletion in the original. Dots
placed within brackets represent the approximate number of letters lost or
deleted ; dots outside brackets indicate mutilated or otherwise illegible letters.
Letters with dots underneath them are to be considered doubtful. Heavy Arabic
numerals refer to the texts of the Oxyrhynchus Papyri in this volume and
Parts I-XII, ordinary numerals to lines, small Roman numerals to columns. In
the case of vellum fragments the terms recto and verso'are usedlwith reference to
the upper and under sides of a leaf, not to the hair-side and flesh-side.
The abbreviations used in referring to papyrological publications are
practically those adopted in the Archiv fiir Papyriisforschiing^ viz. : —
Archiv = Archiv fiir Ρ apyrusforsclmng.
P. Amh. = The Amherst Papyri, Vols. I-II, by B. P. Grenfell and A. S. Hunt.
P. Brit. Mus. = Greek Papyri in the British Museum, Vols. I-V, by Sir F. G.
Kenyon and H. I. Bell.
P. Fay. = Fayum Towns and their Papyri, by B. P. Grenfell, A. S. Hunt, and
D. G. Hogarth.
P. Grenf = Greek Papyri, Series I-II, by B. P. Grenfell and A. S. Hunt.
P. Hibeh = The Hibeh Papyri. Part I, by R. P. Grenfell and A. S. Hunt.
P. Oxy. = The Oxyrhynchus Papyri, Parts I-XII, by B. P. Grenfell and
A. S. Hunt.
P. Ryl. = Catalogue of the Greek [jPapyri in the Rylands Library, Vol. I, by
A. S. Hunt.
P. S. I. = Papiri della Societa Italiana, Vols. I-V, by G. Vitelli and others.
I. THEOLOGICAL FRAGMENTS
1594. New Recension of Tobit xii.
6-2 X 7-5 cm. Late third century. Plate I (recto).
A nearly complete leaf of a diminutive vellum codex, containing Tobit xii,
14-19 in a recension which is not extant. Another fragment of a novel version
of this popular apocryphon (ii. 3-4, 8) vi^as published in 1076, but is later
in date (sixth century) than 1594, which is written in a small neat uncial hand of
an unusually early type, resembling the hands of 656 and 1007 (both Genesis :
Part iv, Plate ii and Part vii, Plate i). 656 is probably earlier than A. D. 350 and
likely to be somewhat older than 1007 and 1594, being written on papyrus and
having no contractions, whereas in the other two fragments Oeos is contracted ;
but, like 1007, 1594 was probably written in the second half of the third century.
The leaf when complete was nearly square, and of approximately the same size
as P. Ryl. 38 (Part i, Plate v), a fourth-century treatise on μαντική : for other
miniature codices of biblical texts cf. 842 and 1010. No punctuation is dis-
cernible, but a diaeresis over an initial ν apparently occurs on the verso, which
is much damaged and difficult to decipher. There are traces of what may be lines
of ruling in the margin of the recto, which is probably the hair-side.
There are two main Greek recensions of Tobit, one represented by the
Codex Sinaiticus (^ί), the other by the Cod. Vaticanus (B) and Cod. Alexan-
drinus (A). The recension of N, which is fuller and more picturesque than that
of BA, is tending to be regarded as the earlier. Besides these two there is for
chs. vi. 9-xiii. 8 a third Greek redaction represented by three cursive MSS., and
from vii. 11 supported by the Syriac version, which before that point agrees with
BA. This third recension occupies an intermediate position, being allied to Ν
but less verbose, and is sometimes supported by the Old Latin version, which,
like the Aramaic and earlier Hebrew versions, generally supports ii. The view
put forward in 1076 int., that 1076 belongs to the third Greek recension partially
preserved by the cursives, was adopted in the latest and only fully equipped
edition of Tobit, that of Mr. D. C. Simpson in Charles's Apocrypha and Pseud-
cpigrapha of the O. T. i. 174 sqq. ; cf. Joiirn. of Theol. Stud. xiv. 516 sqq.
Β
2 THE OXYRHYNCHUS PAPYRI
Leaving undecided the question whether the original language of Tobit was
Greek or Semitic, he thinks that the book was composed in Egypt not long before
170 B.C., and that the recension of Ν is the nearest approach to the original,
while that of BA did not reach its present form until about A. D. 180, and the third
recension was later still.
The conditions of the problem are somewhat altered by the discovery
■of 1594, which is on the whole much nearer to BA than to ti or the third recen-
sion, here fortunately extant. In vv. 14-17, where the two main recensions
do not greatly differ, 1594 agrees with BA against t^ in the insertion of ck (1. 3),
α-γίων (I. 3 ; α-γίων αγγέλων ΒΑ ; άγγίλων ^^), ττροσαναφίρουσιν (1. 3 5 S-^d. ras
ττροσ^νχα^ των αγίων ΒΑ ; τϊ αρίστη κασι,ν ^5), the omission of αυτών (1. 8), and
the insertion of Ισται (1. la) ; against these can be set only the agreements with
t^ in the form (ττ^σαν (1. 8), the insertion of ατιανίτα in 1. 13 {ττάντα i^ ; om. BA),
and και for BA's on in 1. 9. In vv. 18-19, where the text of i>? is longer than that
of BA and differently arranged, the new fragment agrees with BA in having
(μαντοΰ, not (μι], in 1. 1 5 and in constructing -ττάσα? τά$ ημέρας with ώτττανόμην νμίν
(11. 18-19), whereas ^5 connects the first phrase with the preceding evAoyeiTe
or with an added repetition of it, αντω νμνάτζ. Against this must be set the par-
tial agreements between 1594 and i^ as to the verb in 1. 16 {ημην μ^θ' υμών:
om. Β ; ηλθον A), and the occurrence in 1594. 20 of e^eiopeire μ€ (cf. Old Latin
videbatis me) corresponding to «'s Θζωρύτ4 μ^. With the peculiar readings of the
third Greek recension 1594 agrees against the other two in respect of the omission
of Σάρραν in 1. 2, and of αγγέλων in 1. 3, the insertion of €ττΙ την γην in 1. 9, and the
reading Oeov in 1. 6 (Beou without του μ^γάλον the cursives ; cf. Dei Old Lat.). But
elsewhere the third Greek recension follows i^ rather than 1594, and is shorter even
than BA in v. 19.
The new recension has also a number of peculiar readings, such as the
constant use of και as a connecting particle, where BA vary the monotony by
hi (1. 12 ; om. i^) or οθ^ν (1. ιη ; om. ί^) or the absence of connexion (1. 19), and
especially the new arrangement of vv. 18-19, which avoids both the obvious
omission in Β and the redundancy of ^ί at this point. On the whole 1594, while
belonging to the BA type of text, is distinctly better. Is this superiority to be
explained as resulting from a revision of the Β A text in the light of i^, or from the
priority and greater purity of the text illustrated by 1594, of which BA is a later
form ? The second hypothesis seems to us much the more probable for several
reasons. In the first place 1594 is an older MS. than Β or A. Secondly, the
constant use of και in 1594 points to a more archaic text than that of BA.
Thirdly, the text of BA, Avhere in comparison with that of 1594 it is markedly
inferior, as in vv. 15 and 18, seems to have arisen out of the text of 1594,
1594. NEW RECENSION OF TOBIT XII 3
not vice versa. In v. 15 the employment of ayto? by BA three times within
the same sentence, referring to different persons in each case, is intolerable,
and the addition of ras ττροσ^υχάί τώι; ay'uuv looks like a Christian gloss on
■προσαναφ^ρονσυν, which is intelligible by itself, while BA's αγίων αγγέλων [αγγίλων
S ; αγίων 1594 and the third recension) may be the result of a conflation of
readings or of a confusion between άγιων and αγλων, a contraction of αγγέλων
found e.g. in 1603. 12. In v. 18 1594 has έγω μ^θ' νμών ούχ 6tl ttj έμαυτοϋ
χάριτι ημην άλλα rfi Θίλησ^ι του θ^ου corresponding to B's οτι ου rf] έμαυτοϋ γάριτι
άλλα ΤΎ} θζλησζΐ του Θζοΰ υμών without a verb, which is supplied by A (add. ηλθον).
The phrase 'your God' is very inappropriate in the mouth of an angel, and
it is noticeable that the third recension, which at this point follows BA rather
than t^, ignores υμών. The explanation is probably that υμών had really
nothing to do with Θ^ου, but is the survival of ημην μζθ'' υμών found in both
1594 and i>?, and that A's ηλθον is merely a correction inserted to restore
the defective grammar. 1594's phrase ουχ ort.. . in place of BA's (on) ουχί . . .
gives a more literary touch to the passage, and might easily cause difficulty
to some one who did not understand that ημην was to be supplied with έγω
μζθ' υμών, with the result that a simpler construction was substituted. Fourthly,
the result of an attempt to combine the merits of BA and t•^ is partly eK-
tant in the third recension, and though that edition now appears to have
taken into consideration the text represented by 1594 as well as those of ^ί and
BA (cf. p. 2), it does not coincide with 1594, and is in fact nearer to ^5 than to
1594 or BA, just like 1076. That fragment on account of its affinity to b^ is still
to be considered as probably a specimen of the missing portion of the third
recension, not as part of the recension illustrated by 1594. We are therefore dis-
posed to regard 1594 as an earlier form of the BA text, which developed out of
1594 partly owing to certain editorial changes, partly owing to corruptions
introduced in the normal course of transmission.
There remains the question whether 1594 or bi more closely represents the
original text of Tobit. Owing to the small size of the fragment it is difficult to
speak with certainty ; but with regard to the characteristics of the Β A text which
Simpson {Jotirn. ofTheol. Stud. xiv. 527-8) selects as evidence for the later date
of Β A it is noticeable that (i) 1594 does not tend, like Β A, to avoid καί
as a connecting particle, (2) if 1594 is less redundant than in 11. 14-18,
in 11. 19-20 it has a repetition which is absent from b^, and (3) the two
uncommon words in 1594, -προσαναφέρουσι and ώτττανόμην, and the unusual
construction in 11. 14-16 are absent from i^, though as a rule the Β A text is more
commonplace than that of i^. The t^ text is certainly not conspicuously better
than that of 1594 in these six verses. The addition in t^ of Σάρραν before
Β 2
4 THE OXYRHYNCHUS PAPYRI
την νύμφην in 1. I and the omission of e/c in 1. 3 and €ΐτΙ την γήν in 1. 9 are
no improveerse (5), omitted by the uncial MSS., is found in cursive 248 and others
and in the Syro-Hexaplar, Latin, and Sahidic versions ; cf. int.
2 2. πανονργημ^ατα : SO i^AC ; πανονργίνματα Β.
23—4. Between these lines several cursives (not 248), the Syro-Hexaplar, Latin, and
Sahidic versions insert verse 7 ΐπιστημη σοφίας κτλ. ; cf. int.
24. σοφοΓ : this word, though found in the Greek MSS., is omitted by Box-Oesterley,
/. c, following the versions. In place of 11. 24-5 the Syriac and Arabic versions have ' One
(there is) who hath dominion over all her treasures '.
28. K?: Β alone of the Greek MSS. assigns this Avord to the previous verse. That
αντην, the reading of the MSS., was added at the end of the line is not quite certain, though
without it the line would be rather short ; cf. 1. 33, n.
29. ei8fv: soi^C; ιδβί; BA.
33. Whether this line, which was written in uncials by a different hand in darker ink
but intentionally obliterated, has any connexion with the main text is uncertain. The
readings of all the letters except the first four are very doubtful, and there are several
ink smudges on both sides of the papyrus which seem to be accidental. If ίπανω is right,
the reference is perhaps to an omission by the first hand, i.e. of αντην in 1. 28 rather than
avTov in ]. 32.
1596. St. John's Gospel vi.
IO-7X5-2 cm. Fourth century.
A fragment from the lower part of a leaf of a papyrus codex of St.
John's Gospel, containing vi. 8-12 and 17-32, but vi^ith the loss of slightly-
more than half the lines. It was found together with third-fourth century
documents, and probably belongs to the early or middle part of the fourth
century, the script being a medium-sized semiuncial. Ί{ησον)ί is the only
contraction, and one high stop occurs (1. 41) ; pauses are indicated by a slight
space in 1. 46, and probably by a larger space in the lacuna in 1. 49. The
papyrus, though hardly so old as 208 (parts of i and xx) and 1228 (xv. 25-
xvi. 31) and not very correctly spelled, is interesting on account of its early
date, being probably older than 847 (ii. 11-22 on vellum). The text is eclectic
in places (e. g. 1. 22), as often happens in early Biblical MSS., but tends,
like 847, to support Β rather than ϊ^, to which 208 and to a less degree 1228
incline, or A. There are 8 agreements with Β in the 10 places where Β and
i^"^ dififer, and in only i out of 5 places, where A differs from both i^ and B, does
1596 apparently support A (1. 21, n.). A new order of words seems to
occur in a passage where all three of the chief MSS. differ (11. 40-1, n.).
Recto.
14 lines lost
15 [avTOV AvSpeas αδζλφο^ Sίμcΰ]vo9 ΙΙζτρο[ν vi. 8
[ζστιν παιΒαριον ωδ€ oy ^]χ€ί nevre aprovs κ[ρί g
1596. ST. JOHN'S GOSPEL VI
20
25
[Bivovs και δυο οψαρία αλ]λα ταντα τι ξστιν 6ί[?
[τοσούτους nirev ο Is ποίησ]ατ€ τους ανθρωποχ^ς
[αναπ€σ€ίν ην 5e \ορτ]ρς πολύς ev τω τοπ[ω
[aveneaav ουν οί] ανδρός τον αριθ[μον
[<ασ€ΐ π€ντακισ])(ΐλ€ίθί ΐλζβξν ον[ν
[τους άρτους ο Ις κ]αι ^υγαριστησας €5(ίο[
[k€V τοις ανακβιμ]ξνοίς ομοίως και e[K
[των οψαριων οσο]ν ηθβλον ως δβ
[€ν€πλησθησαν] Xeyei τοις μαθηταις α[υ
Verso.
13 lines lost
[χοντο π€\ραν τ[ης βαΧασσης €ΐς Καψαρναουμ
4θ [κ]αι σκοτία ηδη €y[e]y[oi'ei και ου προς αυτούς
[€]ληλνθ€ΐ ο Ις• η re 6[αλασσα ανβμου μ^γα
[λο]υ πνέοντος δΐ€γ€ΐ[ρ€το ίληλακοτ^ς ουν
ως σταδιους ξΐκοσι π[ξντ€ η τριάκοντα Θζωρου
[σι\ν Ιν π€ριπατου[ντα ζπι της θαλάσσης
45 χαι €νγυς του πλοι[ου γινομβνον και
ΐφοβηθησαν ο δζ [Xeyei αυτοις εγω €ΐμι
μη φοβ€ΐσθαι ηθ([λον ουν λαβξΐν αυτόν
€ΐς το πλοιον και ([υθξως iyeveTO το πλοιον
€πι της γης €ΐς η[ν υπηγον τη €παυ
5ο ριον ο όχλος ο (στ[ηκως π^ραν της θαλάσσης
ΐδζν ΟΤΙ πλοιαριον [άλλο ουκ ην €Κξΐ €ΐ μη ev
17
18
19
20
21
16-18. The restorations of these lines, based on t^ and B, are quite long enough, even
allowing for the slope of the column towards the left, which is noticeable on the verso.
Hence it is very improbable that 1596 agreed with A and many later MSS. in adding
ev after παίδαρων in 1. 1 6 and Be after emev in 1. 18.
19. χορτ''^ος ttoXvs : SO nearly all MSS. ; ποΧνς χόρτος Α.
2 ο. ονν Οί] avSpes : this, the reading of i^B &c., suits the space better than ovp
01 αν{θρωπ)οί apBpes (A &c.). Some MSS. omit ovu or 01, and 1596 may have had
01 αν(^θρωπ\οι avdpes, omitting ovu.
2 1. [ωσ€ί (A and most MSS.) suits the length of the lacuna better than ωί (i^B).
ίλφεν : 1. €λαβ(ν.
ov[v : so ^"icABD and some others ; Se t^* &c.
22. ΐνχαριστησα: : SO AB and most MSS. ; ΐνχαριστησΐν και ^Ό &C.
ΙΟ THE OXYRHYNCHUS PAPYRI
ώω[κ(ν : SO i^D and some others ; δκΒωκΐν AB and most MSS.
23. καί•. so l^AB and most MSS. ; 8( και D &c.
40. [(flat σκοτία η8η ey\f'\y[ov(i : SO AB and mOSt MSS. ; κατελαβίκ 8f avtovs η σκοτία ^5D.
40—1. ου wpos avTovs \€]ληλνθ(ΐ ο ΐ{ησου)ί : ονπω ίλτ/λ. ΐ(';σ.) ττροΓ αυτ. i<5 ; ουπω προς αυτ,
(ΚηΚ. ο ΐ{ησ.) Β ; ονκ (\η\. προς αυτ. ο \{ησ.) Α. There is not room for ουπω here.
41. Tc. so most MSS. ; Se D &c.
42. 8i.eyei\peT0 : SO Β &C. ; 8ιηγίΐρ{Τθ ^ΑΏ &C.
43. ωί : SO ^B and most MSS. ; ωσ€ΐ AD &c. ; om. a few MSS.
στα8ιους : SO i^a ^el bAB and moSt MSS. ; σταδία i^*O.
43-4. θ(ωρου\σι]ν : the supplement in 1. 43 is rather long; and possibly ορω\σι]ν
occurred, though no such variant is known here. Before ΐ{ησυν)ν the MSS. insert τον, but
there is certainly not room for [το]ι/ here.
46. ο Se : so all Greek MSS. except i«i, which has και.
4 γ. φοβασθαι : 1. φοβίίσβΐ.
49• (TTL της γης: so ί<5<=ΑΒΒ and most MSS. ; em την γην ^* &c.
[νπηγον : so all MSS. except t^*, which has υπηντησίν. That reading is possible here,
for the supplement (13 letters) is 3 or 4 letters shorter than would be expected, but there
may well have been a considerable space before τη επαύριον, which begins a new section.
51. t8fv : so i^D &c. {eiSfv) ; ei8ov AB &c. ; ι8ων some MSS.
1597. Acts of the Apostles xxvi.
5-7 X 2-8 cm. Late third or fourth century.
Plate I (verso).
This scrap from the bottom of a leaf of a papyrus codex is tantalizing,
for it belongs to an abnormal recension of Acts. The script is a good-sized,
somewhat irregular uncial, which is certainly not later than the fourth century
and may belong to the latter part of the third. Μ has the middle brought
down below the side strokes ; the top stroke of Ξ is curved and the middle
of CO is slurred. 0eos is contracted, as usual. Whether stops were employed
is uncertain. All that survives is 7-10 letters from the beginnings or ends of
10 fairly long lines which covered xxvi. 7-8 and 20, and the reconstructions
of the lacunae are in several places doubtful ; but enough remains to show
that the text presented many novelties. In ch. xxvi D (Codex Bezae), the
principal rival of the current text, is defective ; but in 11. 3 and 8 there are strong
indications of agreements between 1597 and some of the variants presei-ved in
Old Latin MSS., so that the fragment seems to represent a very ancient Greek
text akin to the 'Western', apparently avoiding some of the difficulties of
construction and sense presented by the current text in this chapter. That
a piece of the ' Western ' text of Acts should make its appearance in Egypt
is an interesting circumstance, but perhaps not very surprising. The reading
of D in Matt. iii. 16-17 occurred in the Oxyrhynchus Irenaeus fragment (405;
1597. ACTS OF THE APOSTLES XXVI ii
Part iv, pp. 264-5), and in other papyrus or vellum fragments of Acts from
Egypt occasional agreements with D are found (in P. Amh. 8 at ii. 13, and in
von Soden's α ^ at iv. 3a).
Verso. Plate i.
TO δοοδ€κ[αφνλο}/ ημών €v €ΚΤ€ 7
νια ννκτ[α και ημ^ραν Xarpevei ev ?
ζλπιδι κ[αταντησαι ττζρι ης νυν ?
€νκαλον[μαι υπο Ιουδαίων ei ? 8
ζ ο θ? ν€κρ[ου9 €γ€ΐρ€ΐ
Recto.
[απ€ΐθη9 τη ουρανιω οπτασία α]λλα rots' ([ν 2θ
[Δαμασκω πρώτον re και Ιβρο]σολομοις κα[ι
[τη Ιουδαία και τοΐ9 ^θν^σιν] ^κήρυξα [
\μ^τανθ€ίν και €πιστρζψ€ΐν €]πι τον Θν [
ΙΟ [α^ια τη? μετάνοια? €ργα πρ]ασσοντας [
Ι— 3. The ordinary Greek text is eV eKT€v[e)ia νύκτα καΐ ημίραν Xurpeiov ίΚπίζίΐ. καταντησαι
{-ησΐΐν Β)• irefH ψ fXnibos ί-γκαλοΐιμαι, but Cod. Gigas (13th Cent.) which has instanter node ac
die deseruiunt in spe peruenire, de qua spe nunc accusor in place of the usual node ac die
deseruienies sperant deuenire, de qua spe accusor, seems to be based on a Greek text closely
allied to 1597. eXmbi in 1. 3 makes a verb, not a participle, necessary in 1. 2 ; but whether
iv should be inserted at the end of 1. 2 is doubtful, for it produces 20 letters in the lacuna,
whereas in 1. i there are only 16 in the corresponding space. Line i is, however, very short
compared with the lines on the recto, and possibly a dittography or unknown variant
occurred in the lost part of it. If so, there was no appreciable difference in the length of
the lines on the two sides of the leaf, and not only is there plenty of room for Xarpevei ev in
1. 2, but βλπιδοί, for the omission of which there is no parallel, can be restored instead of vw
in 1. 3, and βασιλίν inserted in 1. 4 (cf n.). But on the whole we prefer on account of
1. I to suppose that the lines on the verso are somewhat shorter than those on the recto.
4. After Ιουδαίων, before which many cursives insert τών, most Greek MSS. except A
insert βασιλιν ; but Cod. Gigas omits rex, and there may well have been a blank space before
V. 8. There is no room for βασιλβν here without creating a great difficulty in the restora-
tion of 1. I ; cf the preceding n. How 1597's recension of v. 8 was arranged is not clear.
The Greek MSS. all have τί Άπιστον κρίνΐται. παρ' νμϊν, fl 6 θ(6ς vfKpovs eye'ipei, which is repro-
duced in the Latin, and the omission oi^a line containing η . . . νμιν is an easy hypothesis. But
in view of the other new readings in 1597 the passage may represent a genuinely different
recension of a verse which comes into the context somewhat abruptly, and which Nestle
wished to place after v. 23.
6. Verses 9-19, which are missing at the top of the recto, would occupy 33 or
34 Hues corresponding to 11. 6-10, if the text was approximately as long as the ordinary
one ; but 1597 seems to be somewhat shorter than usual.
7. The restorations of 11. 9-10, which are practically certain, favour the insertion here
12 THE OXYRHYNCHUS PAPYRI
of either re before και with i*5AB (but not traceable in the Old Latin) or cr before ΐ^ρο]σολο-
/ioif with A, but not of both.
κα\ι I τη Ιουδαία : this restoration, though implying a new variant, suits the presumable
length of the lacuna in 1. 8 (if και tois ίθνεσιν is retained) much better than κα\ι | τοκ Ιουδαίου,
which would have the support of in omnem regionem iudeis, the reading of the Cod.
Colbertinus (13th cent.) and a corrector of the Cod. Perpinianus (13th cent.). t^BA have
τΐασαν τ€ την χωράν τη: Ιουδαίας, which is retained by Tischendorf in spite of the difficulty
caused by the unexplained accusative, in later MSS. governed by an inserted €is (so von
Soden). That 1597, which was shorter here than the current text, had κα[ι | ets πασαν την
χωράν της ίουδαιαί] and omitted και τοις edveaiv is possible, but less likely.
8. f κήρυξα : απη-^γίλλον (ί^ΒΑ) is the best attested reading, and the numerous variants
are all compounds of ayyeWdv in some form. The Old Latin MSS. have adnuntiare
in some form, except the Floriacensis (6th-7th cent.) which has praedicaui, apparently
representing €κηρυξη.
g. τον 6{eo)v : τον ζωντα θ. some cursives, &c. (including von Soden's chief ' Pamphilus '
group); cf. xiv. 15.
1598. I Thessalonians iv — II Thessalonians i.
Fr. 4 8-8 χ6•2 cm. Late third or fourth century.
Parts of two consecutive leaves and an unidentified scrap of a papyrus
codex, containing I Thess. iv. 12-II Thess. i. 2 with considerable lacunae. The
script is a large heavy round uncial of the early biblical type, not so formal and
calligraphic as e. g. 1166 (Part ix, Plate i), but, like 406, probably of the late
third rather than the fourth century. The usual contractions of ^«09, Ίησου?,
Kvpio'i, ττατήρ, and Χρίστο? occur. No stops are actually found, but a >-shaped sign
is used for filling up short lines. The numbers of the pages, which are twice
preserved (pp. 207-8), suggest that the book was a collection of St. Paul's
Epistles, and it is noteworthy that the usual order of these from Romans to
I Thess. would exactly account for the preceding 206 pages.
The text is interesting, being, as often, eclectic in character. It agrees with Β
four times against hi A, once with Β A against b5, twice with t«^A against B, once with
hi against BA. In 11. 60, 77, and 109 the papyrus clearly presented a longer text
than any of the MSS., but in no case is the addition preserved, though fairly
probable conjectures can be made. In 1. 70 the papyrus is shorter than the MSS.
The unidentified fragment does not agree with the ordinary text of any passage
in either of these two Epistles. A seventh- century vellum fragment of I Thess. iii.
6-9, iv. 2-5 has been published by Wessely {Stud, ztir Palaeogr. xii. 192).
Frs. 1 + 2 recto. Frs. 1 + 2 verso.
σζ ση
νοί [xpeitti/ €χητ£ ου OeXo I. iv. 13 [ούτως €ρ\€ται όταν λ€γ]ωσιν ν. 3
μ€ν [δξ νμα9 ayvonv αδίλ 35 [^ψν^ν '^^^ ασφαλβια το]τ αι
1598. / THESSALONIANS IV— II THESSALONIANS I 13
3 [0°]' \F^P'- "^^^ κοιμωμ(.νων
15 lines lost
νου και o[l νεκροί iv Χω α iv.
20 ναστησο\νται πρώτον 6
7Γ€ίτ[α ημζΐς οι ζωντ€9
0C ττ€ρ[ι\λ[ζίπομ€νοί αμα
συν αντοί9 α[ρπαγησομζθα
€ν fe0eAa[iy eii απαντη
25 σ-ιν του κΰ ei? [aepa και ούτω
παντοτζ συν \κω ^σομξθα ωσ
7 lines lost
17 lines lost
[8υσαμ€νοι θωρακ]α πίστ€[ ν. 8
1 6 [ως και αγάπης και] πζρικζφα[
17 55 [^αιαν βλπιδα σ]ωτηριας οτι [ g
[ουκ eOero ο θς] ημάς βί? ορ[
[γην άλλα eiy π]€ριποιη[σ]ίν
[σωτήριας δια τ]ου κΰ ημών
[Ιηυ του αποΘανον]τος ϋπ€ρ η ίο
6ο [μων πάντων ? ιν]α €ΐ[τβ γρ]η
iS 6 lines lost
Frs. 3+4 verso.
[σβ ]
[υμιν και προιστ]αν[ο]μ€ ν. 1 2
[νους υμών cv κω κα]ι νου
[θζτουντας υμάς] και ηγβι 13
7ο [σθαι αυτούς e]< περισσού
[ξν αγάπη δια το] ([ρ^γον αυ
[των] ([ιρην€υ€τ]€ ev αυτοις
[παρ]ακ[αλουμ€ν δξ υλμας α 14
[δξλφοι νουθξτβιτί] τους
75 [a]r?['<^]rMPF ^[<^\βοι[μυθβισ]θ€
τους ο[λ]ιγοψυχ[ους αντ€χ€
σθ€ των α[σθ\€[νων €v υμιν ?
μακροΘυμ€ίτ[€ προς παν
τας ορατ€ μη τ[ις κακόν αν ι ζ
8ο τι κάκου τινι απ[οδω άλλα
παντοτ€ το α[γαθον διωκξ .
Τ€ και €ΐς [αλλήλους και €ΐς
παν[τας πάντοτε, γαιρ^τζ. 1 6
αδιοό^ξ,ιπτως προσίυνζσθζ 17
85 €v π[αντι ζυχαριστξίτε του 1 8
ι8 lines lost
Frs. 3+4 recto.
[ σΟ
και π€ρι η[μων ασπασασθβ ν, 2 6
Ι05 τους αΒ^^λφους παντας ev
φιληματ[ι αγιω ζνορκιζω υ 27
μας τον κν [αναγνωσθηναι
την ΐπιστ[ολην πασιν τοις
αδ€λφ[οις τοις αγιοις ? η να 28
Ι ΙΟ ρις του [κΰ ημών Ιηυ Χυ μ€
θ υμ[ων
[προς Θ€σσα]λον€[ικ]ίΐς α
[προς Θ€σσαλο]ν([ικξ]ις β
[Παύλος και ^ιλ]ουανο[ς] και Π. i. ι
115 [Τιμοθΐος τη €κκ]λησια
[ΘίσσαλονζίΚίων €]ν θω
[πρι ημών και κω Ιη]υ Χω
[χάρις υμιν και ζίρηνη] απο 2
1 8 lines lost
14 THE OXYRHYNCHUS PAPYRI
Fr. 5 (middle of a column).
Verso. Recto.
137 ]ασ[ ]το[ τ 44 . .] Ιί^[
140 ];ca[
1-2. θίΚολμΐν: so ί^ΑΒ and most MSS. ; θίλω some cursives, versions, and citations.
22. ot πΐρ\ι\λ'^(ητομΐνοι : SO most MSS. ; om. FG &c.
25. τον κ(νρίο)υ : so ^^AB and most MSS. ; some others have τω Χριστώ.
26. συν: so ί^Α &C. ; 61/ Β.
35• '^"l'' • i^he 6 is not usually elided here.
56. ο ^(eo)s] ημάς: SO Β with SOme cursives; ημάς ο θ{€θ)ς Ϊ^Α &c.
59• [ϊ^= so β 3.nd the Aethiopic version; for i^ Χϋ, the ordinary reading, there
is not room.
vnep : SO ^^cAD and most others ; nepi ^^*B.
59-60. η\μων πάντων } iv\a: om. παίτωι/ MSS. No variant CXCept ■ypjjyopou/xei/ for yp?;yopQ)-
pev is known at this point, but the traces of letters in 1. 60 are irreconcilable with the ordinary
readings, ne being nearly certain, though the other vesdges are inconclusive.
67. 7Γμοιστ]αν[ο]μΐ[νον! : SO ^A, this being a common Egyptian form of the usual
ττροϊσταμίνονς. The reading is not quite certain, but suits the vestiges better than 7Γρ]οί[στα]-
μΐ[νονς, which seems to be the only alternative.
69. και : SO ^^AB and most MSS. ; ωστΐ FG.
70. e]^ πίρισσον : vnepeKwepiaaov ^A and moSt MSS. ; νπ(ρ(κπ(ρι.σσως BD*FG. In iii.
10 and Eph. iii. 20 there is no variant for vneptKnepiaaov, but in Mark xiv. 31 b^BCD &c.
read (κπιρισσως in place of en ττ^ρισσον.
71. The supposed traces oi ([p]yov are very doubtful, but no variant is known.
72. αυτοις; SO t^O* &C. ; eavTOis ABD° &C.
77. ο[σ^]6[ΐ'ωΐ' ev νμιν? : SO Bartlct ; the MSS. have nothing between ασθΐνων and
μακροθυματΐ,
82. και: SO ^^cB &c. ; om. 5^*AD &c.
104. και: so BD* &c. ; om. ^^ADc and most other IMSS.
106. (νορκιζω (ABD* &c.) suits the space better than ορκίζω (^<ξDb and most others).
109. αδίλφι^οί? τοις αγιοις : αδελφοί? t«i*BD &C. ; ayioig αδελφοίϊ ^•^''A &C.
111. After νμ[ων the papyrus may have had αμήν Λvith t^A &c.
112. The title agrees with $^B* ; other MSS. add ϊπληρώθη or ετίλίσθη or (γράφη άπο
Αθηνών.
113. The title agrees with ^5AB ; other MSS. prefix άρχεται.
114. 2tX]ouaiO[y] : SO t>5AB &c. ; some MSS. have Ί.ιΚβανός.
117. ΐί?(σο)]ι; χ(ριστ)ω : £0 ^?AB &c. ; χ{ριστ)ω \{ησο)υ D and some others.
144. This line corresponds in position to 1. 143, the upper part of the recto being lost.
The first contraction was presumably some case of κύριο? or Χριστός, but 1. 144 cannot be
combined with 1. 117.
1599. HERMAS, PASTOR, SIM. VIII 15
1599. Hermas, Pastor, Sim. viii.
24-5 X 19-8 cm. Fourth century.
A complete leaf of a papyrus codex containing Sim. viii. 6. 4-8. 3 of the
Shepherd of Hermas, this being the eighth Greek fragment of that popular
work which has been obtained from Egypt, besides a few Coptic fragments ;
cf. 1172. int. and Berl. Klassikertexte, vi, p. 16. The two pages are numbered
ηΐ and 73, the columns being slightly longer than those in 1172, where Sim. ii
occupies pp. 70-1. The script of the major portion is a medium-sized upright
semiuncial with a tendency to exaggerate the last stroke of a, κ, and λ. Some-
thing seems to have gone wrong with the verso, where the original writing has
been obliterated in 11. ^-6 and from 7 onwards, and a larger and less practised
hand, which imitates the style of the first, takes its place up to the end of the page.
The leaf was found with dated third-century documents, but the writing hardly
suggests so early a date, and it more probably belongs to the fourth century, like
1172, than to the last quarter of the third. 0eo? and κυριοϊ are contracted, as
usual. Pauses are indicated by high stops and blank spaces. An apostrophe is
sometimes used to mark elision or divide double consonants.
The text is not very good, being prone to omissions, especially owing to
homoioteleuton, as in 11. 19-ao, 35, 37, 40-1 ; cf. 11. 3, 9, 18, 32, 24, 32, '>^'3,,
41, 45, where 1599 is in nearly all cases clearly wrong. Other slips occur,
e. g. in 1. 29. But naturally the difference of nine centuries between the dates
of 1599 and the Codex Athous, which for this part of the Shepherd is the
sole Greek authority, expresses itself by a number of improvements in the
older text. In five places (11. 9 ξλάλησαί, ao, 31, 37, 54) it supports one or
both of the Latin versions against the Athous, which in 1. 54 had corrupted
αυτόν to λοίττόν, as discerned by Hilgenfeld. Of the other variants the most
noteworthy occur in 11. 3-4, 5, 11, 25, 38, 42, 46, 48, 50, ^6. Most of these
are probably right ; that in 11. 3-4 is apparently supported by the Aethiopic
version. There are, as usual in Hermas papyri, several changes in the order
of words (11. 6, 30, 44, 47, 49, 52), where the evidence of the older witness is
generally the more credible ; cf. 1172. int.
The collation with the text of the Codex Athous (ca) is based on Lake's
transcript in Facsimile of the A thos fragments of the Shepherd of Hermas, which
supersedes Simonides's transcript used by Gebhardt-Harnack and the imperfect
collation of Georgandas. The information as to the Latin Vulgate and Palatine
versions (L^ and L^) and Aethiopic version (A) is obtained from Gebhardt-
Harnack's and Hilgenfeld's editions. A new edition of the Shepherd is much to
be desired.
l6 THE OXYRHYNCHUS PAPYRI
Verso.
απο των τοιούτων [[7'9/9^Γ'?^]] ^ C^^ αη€[στη] viii. 6. 4
οι Se τα^ ivP^^ '^"^ άσηπτου? €πιδ€δωκο[τ€ς] και 5
οντοί' €γγν9 αυτών ήσαν ϋποκριται και \piS\ayas
€ΐσφ€ροντ€5 eTepas• και €κστρ€φοντί[ς] τους
5 δούλους του θυ' (2nd hand) /ία[[λ^ίστα δζ πάλιν τους ημαρ
1st hand τηκοτίς (2nd h.) μη αφβντί? a(ist h.)υτoυς (2nd h.) μ^τανο^ιν
άλλα ταις διδαγαις ταις μωραις πάθοντας αυτούς
ούτοι ουν ^γ^ουσιν έλπιδα του μζτανοησαΐ' βλ^πις 6
δβ e| αυτών μ^τανβνοηκοτβς αφ οτ€ (λαλησας
ΙΟ αυτοις τας ^ντολας μον κα[ι] eTt μ^τανοησωσιν
όσοι δβ ου μξτ^νοησαν απωλέσαν την ψυ)(^ην
αυτών όσοι δί μ^Τζνοησαν βξ αυτών αγα6[ο]ι
€γ[€\νοντο' και eyei'ero η κατ οικία αυτών €ΐ[ς
τα τιχη τα πρώτα' τιν^ς δβ και €ΐς τον πυργ[ο]ν
15 ανζβησαν βλ^πις ουν φησιν οτι η μετάνοια
των αμαρτωλών ζωην et^ei/ το δβ μη μ€τα
νοησαι θάνατον όσοι δί ημι^ηρους βπ([ 7. ^
δωκαν και €v αυταις σγ^ισμας nyov ακου^ πί[ρι.
αυτών όσων ήσαν αι ραβδα[ι\ ημι^ηρους [
2θ διψυχ^οι βισιν και καταλαλοι μηδ€ποτ€ €ΐρην[€υ ζ
οντβς €v (.αυτοις• άλλα διγοστατουντ^ς π[αν
τοτ€ και τούτοις φησιν ^πικξίται μ€ταν[οια
βλζπ^ις φησιν τινας ηδη e| αυτών μ€ταν[€νο
ηκοτας' και ίτι ξλπις ^στιν ev αυτοις μ€τα[νοιας
25 οσοι ουν φησιν e^ αυτών μ€ταν€νοηκα[σι 3
βραδυτ€ρον €ΐς τα τιχ^η κατοικησωσιν
οι δβ ου μβτανοησωσιν ταις πρα^ί[σ]ιν αυτών
θανατω αποθανουνται•
Recto.
ογ
1st hand ο[σοι δ]€ χλωρας €πιδζδωκοτ€ς τας ράβδους αυτών 4
3θ και [σ•)(^ι\σμας €)(^ουσας ούτοι πάντοτε πιστοί και
1599. HERMAS, PASTOR, SIM. VIII 17
α•γα\θοί\ ^yivovTO e)(oi/Tey 5e ζηΧον τίνα ev
αλ'[λη]λοί5 irepi πρωτιών και π^ρι Solas' άλλα
TravTes ούτοι μωροί eiaiu eu αλ'ληλοΐ9' άλλα και ου 5
τοι ακουσαντζ? των εντολών μου αγαθοί
35 ovTi9 €καθαρισαν eavTov^ και μ^τ^νοησαν
Tayy eyej/ero ονν η κατοικησις αυτών ety τον
πυργον eav Se τι? αυτών τταλιν ^ττιστραφη
€iy ττιν 8ιγρσ[τα\σιαν βκ'κολ ληθησ^ται του πύργου
και απολ^σι την ζωην αυτόν η ζωη πάντων 6
4θ eaTiv των τηρουντων Tas €ντολα9 του κν
και τα9 ^ντολας Se π^ρι πρωτιών η π^ρι δοξη?
ουκ €στιν άλλα π€ρι μακροθυμια^ και π€ρι ταπί
νοφρ[ο]συνη9 avSpos ev tois Se τοιούτοι^ η ζωη του κϋ
€v 8e τοις δι^οστατοις και παρανομοις θάνατος'
45 των §€ ξπιδξδωκοτων τας ράβδους ήμισυ χλωρας ήμισυ 8. ι
ζηρας ούτοι €ΐσιν οι ταις πραγματιαις αυτών
€νπ€φυρμζνοι και τοις αγιοις μη κολ'λωμ€νοι
δια τούτο το η[μι]συ αυτών ζη και το ήμισυ απίθανίν
πολλοί ουν ακουσαντ€ς των εντολών μου μ€Τ€ 2
5ο νόησαν όσοι ουν μ€Τ€νοησαν η κατοικία αυτών
[ety] τον πυργον τινξς δζ αυτών ety reXoy απ^στησαν
[οι>το]ί ουν μζτανοιαν ουκ ζγουσιν δια τας πράγμα
[τιας γ]αρ' αυτών ΐβλασφηζ^μη^σαν τον κν και απηρνησαντο
[α]υτον απωλέσαν ονν την ζωην αυτών δια την πο
55 [νη^ριαν ην έπραξαν πολλοί δι e| αυτών βδιψυχησαν 3
ούτοι ουν €τι ^γρυσιν μ^τανοιαν cav ταχύ μξτανοησωσιν
Ι . τοιούτων : SO ca and L^ ; L^ adds ergo, A igUur. The termination of the word
following τοιούτων is very uncertain ; but, though the obliteration might be accidental
instead of intentional, toivw does not seem long enough.
3. ούτοι' eyyvs αντων ήσαν. οντοι e-yyif αυτών' ήσαν yap ca, supported by L L and A.
3-4. [διδ]αχαί εισφ(ροντ€ί erepas : διδ. ξενας ίίσφ. ca. pravas in \}\} perhaps implies
a different adjective, but A's duplicem {docirinani) seems to support crtpas, for which
cf. Gal. '\\ 6 erepoj/ evayyi\iov. The Gnostics are supposed to be meant.
5. /χο[[λ]]λιστα : or poSsibly μαΧ\ιστα.
πάλιν: om. ca, L'L^.
ημαρτηκυτ^ς : ημαρτηκότας ca J cf. 1. 9, where the accusative in -fs recurs, and Jannaris,
H/sL Gr. Gram. p. 120.
C
i8 THE OXYRHYNCHUS PAPYRI
6. αφ^ντΐς : αφκντΐς ca in accordance with the other participles.
avTovs μ(τανο(ΐν : μΐτανούν αυτ. ca.
7. π(ΐθοντ(ς : SO ca and L^ {detinentes) ; detinebant U ; seducunt A.
9. e| avT(uv : ■noiCKov'i e| αυτ. ca with L \-?.
μ(ταν€νοηκοτ(5 '. και μ(τανΐνοηκότας ca ; cf. 1. 5» f••
αφ ore : αφ ης Ca.
ελαλί?σαί : SO L'L' {perhiUsti) ; ίΚάλησα ca ; mmiiaiiim est A. Editors prefer ελάλι^σα?.
Cf. the passage immediately preceding 1. i, where ca has (λάλησα, but L' implies ΐλάλησας.
ΙΟ. μ(τανοησωσίν : μΐτανοησονσιν ca ; cf. 11. 26-7 and Jannaris, qp. cit. p. 555.
II. μ€Τΐνοησαν•. μΐτανοησονσιν ca ; egerini (v.l. egeruni) L'L^. μ(τανοησονσιν is probably
due to a reminiscence of 1. 10.
ψνχην : ζωην ca ; Vi/a?ii L^L^.
12—3. aya^loli eyffliOi/To* και; om. L .
16. fixev: exeica; zwiiif (z'/'/i7;«) L^L^.
18. 7Γί[ρι : κα\ πΐρι ca ; i/if (Λ/ί) ve7O L^L"^.
19-20. m ρα/3δα[ι1 ημιξηρους 8ι.ψνχοί (ίσιν και καταλαλοι : αί ράβ8οι κάβα (1. κατά) το αντο
ημίξηροι 8ιψυχοί elaiV ovTe yap ζώσιν οϋτ€ τΐθνήκασιν. οι δε ήμιξηρους €χοντ(5 κα\ iv ανταϊς σχισμής,
οίτοι κα\ 8ιψυχο\ και καταλάλοί (Ισιν ca, the omissions in 1599 being mostly due to homoiote-
leuton ; cf. int. The archetype of 1599 may well have already lost κατά τύ αυτό, which is
omitted by Ιβ and A {tanhimmodo L^).
20. μ•>]8(Ίΐοτ(. : et mmquain L'L-A ; και μ-φΐ ca. και μηδίποτΐ Gebh.-Harn. ; but καΊ
is superfluous.
22. και: άλλα κα\ ca ; e/ {/it's) quidem L' ; 7iain d \?.
23. Γ/δ?; : om. ca, L'L-.
24. en ίλτΓΐΓ eartv er αντοι% μ6Γα[ι/οιαί : en, φησίν, ΐστιν iv avTo'is ίλπις μΐταν. Ca.
25. όσοι ovv: κα\ όσοι ca ; qiiiciiiiqtie vero \} ; quicunque enivi U.
μ(τανΐνοηκ€^σι\ βραδύτερου : μίταν. την κατοικίαν els τον ττνργον ΐξονσιν. όσοι 8e ίξ αυτών
βραδύτ€ρον μετανίνοηκασι ca. Cf. 11. 1 9— 20, η.
26. καΓοικί^σωσιν : -σουσικ ca. Cf. 1. ΙΟ, η. The supposed stop may be part of the κ of
κπ[σι in 1. 25.
27. 01 δε ου μ€τανοησωσιν : SO L•^ qin Vcro 71011 egerint ; όσοι be oh μετανοοΰσιν αλλ
ίμμύνουσι ca. Cf. 11. 10, 19-20, and 29, nn.
29. ο[σοι : ot ca. Cf. 1. 27 where the papyrus has ot for όσοι.
30. ούτοι πάντοτε : πάντοτε οντοι ca.
31. 8e: om. ca; hut sed'L^U.
32. δόξας : 1. δο^τ^Γ. δόξης τίνος ca with L^ {digJiUate quadani) ; L^ omits quadam. Cf.
1. 41, n.
33. ev αλληλοις: add ίχοντ(ς Trepl πρωτείων ca, w^hich edd. emend by inserting ζήλον after
έχοντες ίτοτπ U habeul iiiter se aeinidaiionem de principatu and \} de principatu cerianiur.
35. εκαθαρισαν : εκαθάρησαν ca.
37. αντων : ?,o 'UL? {eorum) ; om ca.
επιστραφη : επιστρίψτ} ca ; redierit DL". In classical authors the passive was used in this
sense ; but cf. Matt. xii. 44 επιστρέψω ei's τΰν οϊκόν μου.
38. εκκολληθησεται: εκβληθησεται άπο ca ; expelktiir L'L", εκκολλάν is not attested, but
seems not unlikely here; cf. 1. 47 τοις αγιοις μη κολλωμενοι. β and κ are often very similar
in cursive hands from the second century onwards.
40-1. των τηρονντων τας εντολας του κ(υριο)ν και τας εντολας δε: των τας εντ.τοϋ κ{υρ).
φνλοσσόντων εν τα'ις εντολαΐς δε ca with L^ ; {vi7a enini) eortan qui custodiunt ?nandata domiiii
in mandaiis consistii L^ και may be a mistake for κατά, but εν τοις δε τοιουτοις occurs
in 1. 43.
1599. HERMAS, PASTOR, SIM. VIII 19
41*. δο|ί;ί : fio|rjf Tivos ca with UL^
42. τα7πμοφρ[ο]σι;ΐ'ί/ϊ : ταπεινοφρονησίως ca ; humiUtatem animae L^ ; animi hmnil. L'•'.
Ύατ!(ΐνοή>ροσνντ\ occurs several times in the N. T. and i Clem, and in the Shepherd twice,
Vis. iii. 10. 6, Sim. v. 3. 7 ; but for ταπ^νοφρόνησις Stephanus only quotes Tertullian. 1599
is likely to be right.
43. fv Tois 8f ToiovTois : iv Tois TOiovrois ουν ca. L^ has for 11. 42-3 per patietitiam . . .
viiam homines consequentur.
44. ey 8e rois διχοστοτοίί : eV rots διχοστάτοΐϊ δε ca. ff δ? haS been corrected. δι;(οσΓάταΐί edd.
45. των he ί7τώ€8ωκ»των : οί δε εττεδωδοκοΓε? ca, rightly.
ήμισυ χλωρας ήμισυ ξηραί : ημ. μ€ν χ\. ήμ. δε ξηρ. ca ; UL" invert viride and aridum.
46. ταΐί ■κραηματιαίί avTV)V\ €V ταΐς 7Γραγματ€ίαις C2i ; 7iegOiiationibus {ilivolutl^ J-}\J^.
47. rots ayiOK μη κολΧωμ^νοι : μη κολλ. Tois ay. ca.
48. και το ήμισυ aneOnvev: το δε ήμισυ νΐκρόν ε'στι ca ; dimidium mortiium est\} \ diiuidiae
morhiae siinl 1?.
49. των (ντο\ων μου: μου των evT, ca.
50. ουν : γοΰν ca j UL•^ om. όσοι γουν μΐτ^νοησαν.
52. δια ras ττρα-^μα\τιας y\ap : δια yap τ. πραγμ. ca.
54• [aJuT-ov ■ Hilgenfeld's conjecture for the meaningless Xotrroi' of ca is confirmed ; cf.
e/ cum abnegaverunt L\ eumque abneg. \}.
56. ουν : om. ca ; adhuc el his est regressiis qui si cito . . . L\• qiiibus adhuc per celerem
poaiitentiam regressio esi L*.
1600. Treatise on the Passion.
2 2-5 X 7-8 cm. Fifth century.
This and the next three fragments (1601-3) all come from works which
do not seem to be extant, though in the absence of an adequate patristic lexicon,
except for the Apostolic Fathers and Apologists, this is not quite certain.
None of them is likely to have been composed before the third or fourth
century. 1600, which is most of a leaf from a papyrus codex, contains part
of a treatise on the Passion as foreshadowed in the Old Testament by
various types such as Abel, Joseph, and Moses, and being therefore at once
both old and new ; illustrations from Deuteronomy and the Psalms are
quoted. The verso clearly follows the recto, with an interval of perhaps not
more than a single line at the top. The script is a good-sized round uncial
of a formal type. The mound in which 1600 was found produced mainly
fifth-century documents, and that century rather than the sixth is likely to
be the date of the papyrus. The customary contractions for ^eos, Kvpios, and
Χρίστο? occur. Pauses are indicated sometimes by high stops or blank spaces,
but the employment of them is irregular. There are a few marginal corrections
in a similar but not identical hand. On both sides of the papyrus the surface is
much damaged in places. The restorations are largely due to Dr. Bartlet, who
suggests that 1600 may come from Hippolytus, Uphs 'Ιουδαίου?.
C 2
20
THE OXYRHYNCHUS PAPYRI
Recto. Verso.
xlw/^* ^Λ^ •
1 • [•] TTlO'T^OOi
. . el< μακρόν προσ
. . . .] οντω 8η και το
τον κν π]αθθ9 €κ μακρόν
. . . .]ωθ€ΐ' δια 8e τν
πον δηλω ?]θ€ν σήμερον
61' ημιν ?] τυγ^αΐ'ζί τ€τε
λ€ΐωμ€]ν[ον .]α
ΙΟ Ι lay καινο\ν το'] πα
λαιον] νομιζο[μ€νο]ΐ'
[ίστι γ]α,ρ καίνο[ν και τΓ\α
^\\αιον rol τον κν μνστη[
\pLOu ΊΓ^αΧαιον μ€ν κα[
1.5 [τα το]ν νομον καινον [
[5e κατ]α την χάριν αλλ €α\ν
[αποβ]λ€\Ιτης €ΐ9 τογ jyj'O^
[καιν]ον οψη δια τη? θν
[δοσ€ ?]ω9 τοιννν ei βον «£[
2 ο [λ€£ το] τον κν μνστηριο [
['γνω]ναΐ' αποβλ^ψον δ[η?
[eiy το]ΐ' Αβξλ' τον δι αδ€λ
[φαν φ]ονζνομ€νον €ΐ?
[τον ..]... τον ομοιω?
25 [ ] • • οζομζνον
[ζΐ? το]ν Ιωσήφ• τον ο
[μοι]ω9 ττιπρασκομζ
[νον] €£? τον Μωνσ^α
[τον] ομοιω? €κτιθ€\[μ€νον
3θ τ[ο]ν ομοι[ω9 . . . . μ€
νον €is το[ν9 άλλον?
τον? ομοιω? [κακω? πα
σχοντζ? αποβίλίψον <5e
και €1? τον er [Ησαΐα ω?
35 Ίτροβατον σφ[α•)(θζντα
τον παταξαν[τα
και σωσαντα [πολλον? ?
ττίρι τον α[ιμ]ατο? [
δια π[ρο]φητικτ)? [γραφή? ?
4θ τ[ο τον] κν μνστη[ριον
. . ο . . . μζνον ο [μ^ν γαρ
Μωνση? προ([φητζνσβ
και οψ€σθ€ την [ζα>ην ν
μων κρ€μαμ€ν[ην ξμττρο
45 σθ^ν των οφΘαλ[μων ν
μων ννκτο? και [ημζρα?
και ον πιστ€νσητ[€ ei? την
ζωην ν μων ο [δζ Ααν(ΐδ
([ι]π€ν ινα τι ^φρνα^^[ν ίθνη και
5θ λαοί €μξλ€τησα[ν κβνα
παράστησαν οι βα σιλ€ΐ?
τη? γη? και οι α.[ρχοντ€?
συνηγθησαν ^[πι το αν
το κατά τον κν κα[ι κατά του
55 Χν ο,ντον ον . • f [
6 . $■ coy αρνιον [ζΐ? σφαγην
αγομξνον τον [
(λογισαντο • • • [
Fr. 2 recto.
6ο ] • ίλ . [
1600. TREATISE ON THE PASSION 21
' Thus the Passion of the Lord which was (foreknown) for a long time and revealed by
a pattern, to-day finds itself fulfilled in us . . . new which was thought old. For the mystery of
the Lord is new and old, old in respect of the law, but new in respect of grace. But if thou
wilt consider the pattern, thou wilt see that it is new by the giving (?) of God. If then thou
wishest to know the mystery of the Lord, consider Abel who was killed through his brother ;
. . . who was likewise . . . ; Joseph who was likewise sold ; IMoses who was likewise exposed ;
. . . who was likewise . . . ; the others who likewise sufiered evil things. And consider also
him who in Isaiah was slain as a sheep, who (was ?) struck . . . and saved (many). Concern-
ing the blood . . . the mystery of the Lord is (revealed) through prophetic writing. For Moses
prophesied "And ye shall see your life hanging before your eyes night and day, and ye
shall have no assurance of your life ". And David said " Why did the nations rage and
the peoples imagine vain things ? The kings of the earth set themselves and the rulers
took counsel together against the Lord and against his anointed ", Whom . . . they
considered as a lamb led to the slaughter . . .'
8-9. τΐτί\(ΐωμΐνον or τίτΐλίσμΐνον would be expected, but hardly fills up 1. 9, which
is shorter than the rest and perhaps ends a sentence.
1 7. τον τύπον : the reading is very doubtful ; but neither τταλαιον nor 70 τταΚαων is satis-
factory, and cf. 1. 6. It is not quite certain that a fragment containing the supposed
ο of TVTzov, ΰ in 1. 18, and the top of the ν of /3ου and ea[ in 1. 19 is rightly placed here.
19. The marginal note apparently corrects et βουλει to iav βουλή, λη may have been
written in the margin below «αν or at the beginning of 1. 20, or possibly «αν | [βου]|λ[η
should be restored at the ends of 11. 19-21. δ[ is, however, preferable in 1. 21 ; cf. n.
21. There is a space between αποβλΐψον and δ[, which perhaps belongs to a marginal
addition beginning in 1. 19; cf. n. δ[€ is not wanted, αποβλίψον being the apodosis of ei
βον[λίί (but cf. 1. 33, where there is room for δε) ; and δ[η is more likely.
22. The readings after A/3eX are very uncertain, but τον νπυ τον \ [Καιν φ]ον€υομίνον does
not suit the vestiges.
24—5. fis [τον Ισ\αακ τον ομοίως [νπο ττρ]? σφαζομ€νον is unsuitable, though οζομΐνον doCS
not suggest an appropriate word.
32-3. 7Γα\σχοντΐς: cf. 1599. 5, n.
34—5. Cf. Isa. liii. 7 is πρόβατον eVt σφαγην ηχθη and 11. 56~7•
36. παταξαν\τα : παταχθΐντα would be expected.
43-8. A loose quotation of Deut. XXviii. 66 καί '4σται ή ζωη σον κρεμαμίνη απέναντι
των οφθαλμών σον, και φοβηθηση ημίρας καί νυκτός, και ου πιστενσβις τΐ] ζωη σου,
49-55 = Psalm ϋ. ι.
56-8. Cf. Psalm xliii. 22 ελογίσθημεν ως πρόβατα σφαγής and 11. 34""5) "•
59 -6ο. This unplaced fragment, being blank on the verso, presumably came near the
ends of lines ; but at the ends of 11. 13-15 there is apparently nothing lost. It is not clear
which way up it is to be read.
1601. Homily on Spiritual Warfare.
i2'7 X IO-2 cm. Late fourth or fifth century.
The lower part of a leaf of a papyrus codex containing a homily of some
kind on the warfare of the soul, largely concerned with Joel i. 6 (11. a sqq.) and 8
(11. 23-8), but also referring to Hosea iii. 3 (11. 29-30) and perhaps the Pentateuch
22 THE OXYRHYNCHUS PAPYRI
(1. 32). For much of the reconstruction we are indebted to Dr. Bartlet. The
script is a medium-sized semiuncial of the late fourth or fifth century, with
occasional high stops and the usual contractions of ^eos and probably Kvpios, but
not of utos. Abbreviations are found on the recto, which probably followed
the verso, and these perhaps occurred at the ends of lines of the verso also.
Brown ink was employed.
Verso.
[ ]<«/^!L^
[.jcu^Cf τον νου [oTL iOvos αν^βη
em την γην τον [κν ισγνρον γη
γαρ ψησιν αι •\//ϋ^[αί των άγιων
5 καί η ψν)(η τον νιο[ν τη? απωλζΐ(α9) ?
ίθνος ζ^ονσιων τ[ον κοσμον τον
τον και πν€νματικ[η €στιν ημιν
η πάλη και αναβαιν(\ί αντο ? ΐ-(τχν
ρον τνγγανον κα\ι avev αρι
ΙΟ θμων ων η Τ€ταρ[τη
κατά τούτο γαρ λ€λ[€κταί ανα
ριθμητον τοντον [Se τον ζθνονς
[οι] oSovTes λ€οντ[ο9 οτι ο avTL
[8l\ko? νμων δίαβολ[ο? wepinaTei
15 [^].'77<»ί' καταπίζΐν [
Recto.
]r«i • ί
]τΓνρον αι . . . . [.
] κ€ραννηση ριπτι
]ν αντων απολλνσι
]ρον τηριτιθησιν <5e
1 07Γ6/3 δηλονται ev
]τη9 μζτα^ν'^ ταντα
θρη]νησον ττροί μ€
1601. HOMILY ON SPIRITUAL WARFARE 23
σακ\κοΐ' ςπι τον άνδρα αν(τη5)
25 Ajeyet ην θρήνοι €πι
To]vs StKaiovs rovs €v τη
] τω θω θρην^ιν Se
ο]τι ^νηστζυσ{αν) και ΐθρηνζνσά
]u €λ€γ(€ΐή Ω,σηβ •γυναίκ{ι) πορ[νζνονση)
3θ 07 ί καθηση] €7Γ e/zoi και ου μη ττορν^^νση^)
] . ίο[. . .] . ρακ{ ) OTL ΤΓρωτ{ον) μ^ν
] . ζγραψζν Μωνση9 οτι eau
€]πιθνμ( ) την e| €Θν{ον9) εκκλησία
τ]ουτ{ ) αντί του μη ω? €θνικ{ )
2-1 5• ' . . . because " a nation is come up on the land of the Lord in strength ". By
" land " he means the souls of the holy, and the soul of the son of destruction by the " nation "
of the powers of this world ; and our wrestling is spiritual. And it " is come up being strong
and without numbers ", of which the fourth . . , ; for on this account it has been called
numberless. Of this nation " the teeth are those of a lion " because your adversary
the Devil walketh about seeking to devour . . .'
I. ]ωμ€[ΐ': the first and third letters might be o, and the same applies to ]ωμΐν in 1. 2.
2—3. Cf. Joel i. 6 OTi eSvos άνεβη eVi την γην μον Ισχνρον κα\ άναρίθμητον, οι οδόντΐς
αντοΰ obovres Χίοντος^ καΐ αΐ μΐιλαι αντον σκύμνου.
6. Γ of ίθνκ has been corrected.
7—8. Cf. Eph. vi. 12 OTi oiiK eariv ήμϊν η ττάλη προς αίμα και σάρκα, αλλά . . . προς τα iivev-
ματίκα της πονηρίας.
13—15• Cf. Ι Peter ν. 8 ό αντίδικος νμων διάβολος, ά>ς Xewv ωρνόμΐνος, πβριπατΐϊ ζητών τίνα
καταπιΐί].
1 8. κΐραννηση : Kepavvnvv is known, but apparently not κΐραννΰν.
23—4. Cf. Joel i. 8 Θρήνησαν προς μ€ νπίρ ννμφην πΐρκζωσμίνην σάκκον 4π\ τον Άνδρα αντης τον
παρθίνικόν. There is not room here for π^ρι^ζωσμ^νην, unless it was contracted, and certainly
not for υπΐρ ννμφην as well, so that the quotation was probably not verbal ; cf. 11. 2-3 and
29-30, nn.
29—30. Cf. HOS. iii. 3 κα\ ΐΐπα προς αυτιών, Ημέρας πολλοί καβηστ) en' εμοί, κα\ ου μη
πορνενσης . . .
1602. Homily το Monks.
1 2-5 χ ιο•8 cm. Late fourth or fifth century.
A leaf of a vellum codex containing apparently the beginning of a sec-
tion of a homily to ascetics on the spiritual warfare as illustrated by the
history of Israel. The vellum is stained and shrivelled in places, rendering
the decipherment sometimes difificult, especially on the verso (the flesh-side ?),
where the ink is fainter ; and we are indebted to suggestions of Dr. Bartlet
24
THE OXYRHYNCHUS PAPYRI
for several readings. The script is a good-sized uncial of the early biblical type,
not quite as old as 406 (Part iii, Plate i) or 849 (Part vi, Plate i), but pro-
bably of the late fourth century rather than the fifth. Ο is written small and
the middle of CO is slurred, as in 1597 (Plate i). Stops are freely employed,
these being generally in the middle position, but double dots and a mark like an
apostrophe are also used. A breathing is inserted in 1. 4. ^eoj, Ίϊ/σοΰ?, Ίσραηλ,
KvpLOi, ττΐ'ζΰμα, and Χρίστο? are contracted. Some remarkable expressions occur
in 11. 33-7.
Recto.
στρατιωται Χν• ακούσατε ττο
σα /ciy e<c ^jeLpo^ άνομων ο
θς eppvaaro τον Ιηλ- και μβ
h
νρι ου τα 7Γρο9 τον κν €τη
5 ρονσαν ουκ απ€στη αττ αντώ :
€Κ χ^ζΐρο9 γαρ Φαραώ €σω
σ€ν αντον οντος άνομου•
και /2γ βασιΚζω[^ α'\νοσίοτ€
ρου- και Αδαρ. μ^τ[α τ]ων άλλο
ΙΟ φυλών- και €π€ί τα προ9 θν
€τηρουσαν• eri eScoKev
αυτοΐ9 e/c καρπού τη9 ίο'χν
09 €παγγαλαμ€νο9 γην
Χαναναιων• και uVera^e
15 αυτοις του? αλλοφύλου?•
και μξτ αυτά οσα ev τη e
ρημω και τη ανυδρω ^και^
Trapeayev : ewt τούτοι?
προφητα? (ξβπβμψ^ν-
2θ κηρυσσίΐν τον κν ημω
Verso.
Χν Ιν oiTive? κατά ταξιν
και κληρον (^και) μζρισμον λα
κ
βοντ€? Ένα Χρυ καλοπαθοϋ
Τ€? υπο τον λαον ανηρβθη
2 5 σαν• ανηρβθησαν' αποστα
Te? πνο? ζωντο? κατά
τα? \αν]^ομια? αυτών €σ
φαλη[σαν] τη? κληρονομι
α?, της αιωνίου• και νυν α
30 δ€λφ[οι] μΐΐνατξ νικηται•
μζΐν[α]τ€ €ω? αν υπομβινά
Τ€? κ[υ]ρωμ€ν την προσβλβυ
σιν την προ? κν• και σνμ
φυτον και οπλον €υδο
35 κια? λαβωμ€ν Χν Ιν• αυτό
ϋπξρ ημών φυντα ζαυτο
γηι ίΓ<αί1] ούτω? ω? €στιν•
και παραλαβ€Τ€ τον λογον
ΟΤΙ πνα δυναμ^ω? €π e
40 σχ^ατω των καιρών ....
' Soldiers of Christ, hear how often God delivered Israel from the hand of the lawless,
and while they kept the things pertaining to the Lord He did not withdraw from them — for
He saved Israel from the hand of Pharaoh the lawless, and from Og, a more unholy king,
and from Arad with the men of other nations, and when they kept the things pertaining
to God He still gave to them from the fruit of strength, having promised to them the
land of Canaan, and He subjected to them the men of other nations — and again how
1602. HOMILY TO MONKS 25
He supplied them in the desert and waterless place, and in addition He sent forth prophets
to herald our Lord Christ Jesus, men who receiving in order and lot and due portion
the spirit of Christ and suffering ills from the people were put to death. They were
destroyed because they departed from the living Spirit after their own lawlessness ; they lost
the eternal inheritance. And now, brethren, remain conquerors. Remain until having
endured we attain the approach unto the Lord, and receive as innate and a shield
of well-pleasing Christ Jesus, Him who planted Himself for our sakes on earth so as He is ;
and accept the Avord, because a spirit of power in the last time . . .'
4. ίτηρονσαν : this form of the imperfect was introduced in the second century b. c ; cf.
INIayser, Graimnatik d. grt'ech. Pap. aus d. Piolemaerzeii, p. 323.
9. Αδαρ μ€τ\α τ'\ων αλλοφύλων : Άδάρ is a Jcwish month, not a proper name, and seems
to be corrupt, probably for Άράδ the Canaanite (Numb. xxi. 1-3).
1 2. καρπού της ϊσχνος : a phrase apparently meaning ' spoil '.
17. και has dots above it; cf. 1. 37.
23. The correction (if the supposed vestige of κ above the line is really ink) may be by
the first hand.
25. ανηρίθησαν : the subject reverts to αυτοις in 1. 15, i, e. the Jews.
32—5. We have not been able to find a parallel for the expressions in these lines.
36. φνντα is used transitively, as if it were φνσαντη. The traces suit φ very well.
Cf. ΐφν for ίφνσε in two British Museum Greek inscriptions, nos. 1004 and 1074, discussed
b}' J. A. R. INIunro in Class. Rev. 191 7. 142.
3 7• yj' '■ the dots above και indicating deletion are clear, but the scribe does not seem
to have also placed dots over -γψ. He (or the preacher) apparently meant ^v γηι. πνα
cannot be read instead. For γη as equivalent to human nature Bartlet compares Barn. vi. 9
άνθρωπος γαρ γη (στιν πάσχουσα.
38. λογον: i.e. the preacher's discourse probably, rather than the Gospel.
1603. Homily concerning Women.
2 1 -I X 13-3 cm. Fifth or sixth century.
The upper part of a column of a roll written in a large sloping uncial hand
of the fifth or sixth century with light brown ink. The subject is a diatribe,
addressed probably to ascetics, against the female sex, through whom the Evil
One is wont to exert his wiles. Examples from the Bible are cited in 11. i-ii,
a passage which seems to be modelled on Hebr. xi ; the rest consists of a more
general condemnation. A contraction ay(ye)Aoi;s and stops in the high and (more
commonly) middle position occur. 403 {Apocalypse of Baruch\ Part iii, Plate i ;
fifth century) is a somewhat earlier specimen of this type of uncial, of which sixth-
century specimens in smaller hands occur in P. Cairo Maspero '^7097 verso
(i. Plates xxviii-ix) and 67377 verso (ii. Plates xix-xx).
[. . . yvvoLLK Τ a του Ουρών 8e[
[ Ί . • 8ia γυναικο? το[ν σοφωτατον
[Χ6\λ\ο\μωνα προ? παραβασιγ [παρη-γα-γ^ ?
26 THE OXYRHYNCHUS PAPYRI
δία yvvaLKOS τον αι/δριωτ[ατον γαμψών
5 ξνρησα9 ^τυφλωσί- Sia γ[νναίΚ09 tovs
vLovs Ηλ(ΐ τον ΐ€ρ€ω9 ξδαφίισας ίκτανί ?
δια yvvaiKOS τον ουρανον [
βδιωξξ• δια γνναικο9 το[ν
Ιωσήφ €v φνλ(ακ)η δζσμ€νσα[9
ΙΟ δια yvvaiKOS τον τΓαντοττ[
Ιωαννην ατΓ€Τ€μζν• τι δ[€ νμιν €ρω
δια γυναικός tovs ayXovs [ κα
τζβα뀕 δια yvvaiKOS παντα[γ
τταντας φον^να• παντας ατ[ιμαζ€ΐ ?
15 yvvη yap αναιδής ονδβνο? φβ[ιδ€ται?
ον Λίνιτην τίμα- ονκ lepea ο[ν
αν προφητην αιδίΐταΐ' π[αντων
κακιστον yvvη ττονηρα [π]αντ[ων
(αν δΐ και πλοντον €)(?/ τη 7Γθν[ηρια αντη?
2 ο [av]v€pyovvTa• δισσον το κακο\ν
[.]το^ω . [.] . αθΐρατΓ^ντογ [
' . . . the Avife of Uriah . . . ; by a woman he turned aside the most wise Solomon (?) to
transgression ; by a woman he shaved and blinded the most brave Samson ; by a woman he
dashed to the ground and (slew) the sons of Eli the priest ; by a woman he . . . and perse-
cuted heaven ; by a woman he bound the most . . . Joseph in prison and . . . ; by a woman
he cut off the head of the all , . . John. What shall I say to you ? By a woman he . . .
cast forth the angels ; by a woman he . . . all, he slays all, he dishonours all. For
a shameless woman spares none . . ., honours not a Levite, reverences not a priest,
not a . . ., not a prophet. A wicked woman is the worst of all (ills ?), the . . . of all ; and
if she also have wealth as her ally in wickedness, the evil is double . . .'
7• There is hardly room for more than a participle at the end of the line. Gen. vi.
I sqq. seems to be referred to; cf. 1. 12 and II Peter ii. 4.
10. ιταντοπ\_ : or παντογ[. παντο•π[αθη by itself is too short, but another word may have
fo owed.
12. Possibly [απ ovpavov κα|τ€/3αλε : cf. 1. 7, n.
14. ατ[ΐμαζ€ΐ is rather short and ατ[ιμονς ττοκι can be read ; cf. 1. 15,
15. φεμδεται : Or φΐ^ώομενη ....
1 6. o[v πρ^σβντΐρον and ο\υκ. αποστολον are rather long, but o[v βασιλιά is possible.
17. Perhaps π[αντων κακών ΟΓ ζωών.
2 1. ξ can be read in place of ζ. το ζωον αθ^ραπ^υτον is too short, but it is not quite
certain that a letter is lost before το.
1604. PINDAR, DITHYRAMBS 27
11. NEW CLASSICAL FRAGMENTS
1604. Pindar, Dithyrambs.
Fr, I 18 X 25-3 cm. Late second century.
. Plate I (Fr. i).
To the valuable papyri of Pindar already obtained from Oxyrhynchus
(cf. 1614. int.) have now to be added two fragments of a roll containing his
dithyrambs, an important section of the poet's works hitherto represented only
by the first 18 lines of an ode for the Athenians about Semele (Fr. 75 Schroeder)
and a few short quotations. Two of these from the same dithyramb fortunately
occur in the papyrus, thus establishing its authorship and character, while another
Pindaric citation from an unspecified ode is also present. The larger fragment
contains the middle portion of two columns, of which the first comes from a point
near the conclusion of a dithyramb probably for the Argives, the second from the
beginning of a dithyramb for the Thebans. The smaller fragment belongs
to a third ode, possibly for the Corinthians, and may have preceded the other
two instead of following them. According to the /3tos Ylivhapov prefixed to the |
Codex Vratislaviensis there were two books of his dithyrambs, and the scholiast |
on Ol.yAn. 25 states that in the ist (book) Pindar attributed the discovery of the,
dithyramb to Thebes (Fr. 71). This claim is likely to have been made in an 1
ode for the Thebans, which may well have been the second of the three poems
in 1604. If so, all three odes probably belong to the ist book. Little can
be made of the first and third dithyrambs owing to the loss of the beginnings of
lines, but the first 30 lines of the second are nearly complete. In the recon-
struction and interpretation of this difficult papyrus we are indebted for a number
of valuable suggestions to Professors J. B. Bury and A. E. Housman, Sir John
E. Sandys, Mr. H. Stuart Jones, and Mr. E. Lobel.
The dithyramb according to the usual view, which has recently been disputed
by Professor Ridgeway,i \vas originally a song to Dionysus, as the paean was a
song to Apollo, but enlarged its scope in the time of Pindar's predecessors, Lasus
and Simonides. The latter wrote dithyrambs entitled Eiiropa and Meuinon, and
perhaps one on Dana'c, if the well-known fragment about her comes from j
a dithyramb rather than from a Qpi]vo^. Pindar and Bacchylides belong to
the middle dithyrambic period. Later dith}-rambic poets exercised greater
* Class. Rev. Γ912. 134-9, Class. Quart. 1912. 241-2.
28 THE OXYRHYNCHUS PAPYRI
freedom in their choice of subjects, and in Roman times ' dithyramb ' seems
to have been appHed to any lyric poem which contained a narrative concerning
the heroes ; cf. Plut. De Mus. lo and Jebb, Bacchyl. p. 39. Concerning the form
and character of the dithyramb hardly anything was known before the discovery
of the Bacchylides papyrus ; but in this the last seven odes (xiv-xx Blass ;
xix and xx are mere fragments) are generally regarded as dithyrambs, though
this classification of them is not altogether free from doubt, for, while xvi is
' called a dithyramb by Servius (c. 400 A. D.) and in 1091, it is in fact a paean to
Apollo, and xix might be a v^evaios. The titles of these odes are Άvτηι^opίbaL η
'EAe'vTji ατταίτησ IS, \^11ρακλη5^, Ήίθ^οι η θησίύί, θησ^ύί, Ίώ (ΆβίΐΓαιοι?),'Ίδα? (Λακεδαι-
μονίοις), and ι Κασσάί;δ/5α ?]. Dionysus is introduced only in xviii, the essential
feature of these poems being the presentation of a myth. The metre is in
only one case (xiv) dactylo-epitritic, which is generally employed in the epi-
nician odes ; but the division into strophes, antistrophes, and epodes is found
in four out of the five well-preserved dithyrambs, the fifth having only strophes.
' The introduction of ' free verse ' (άτιολζλνμίνα), not in strophes, is ascribed some-
times to Melanippides, a younger contemporary of Pindar (so Jebb, οβ. cit. p. 46,
Weir Smyth, Greek Melic poets, liii), sometimes to Lasus, or to Pindar himself
(Crusius in Pauly-Wissowa, Realenc. v. 1214) on the evidence of (i) Horace,
Odes iv. 2. 10 sejL per audaces nova dithyrambos verba devolvit mimerisqiie fertiir
lege sohitis, (2) Pseud o-Censorinus, c. 9 Pindari . . . qtn liberos etiaiii minuris
modos edidit, (3) Fr. 75 about Semele, which is thought to be in ' free verse ',
j (4) Pindar's reference in Fr. 79 to his predecessors' poetry as σγοινοτέν^α, which
' has been supposed to imply division into triads as contrasted with his own verse.
The new find, so far as it goes, does not contribute much to support Horace's
description of Pindar's dithyrambs. Apart from cyoLvoriveia (Π. i) there are
only two new words ^νάμ-ηνζ (I. 13) and ακναμτττ^ί (ΠΙ. 1 2). Dithyramb I
was certainly arranged in triads, Π either in triads or, less probably, in strophes,
while the remains of HI are not long enough to show the arrangement. Hence,
in the absence of any definite evidence for supposing that Fr. 75 is in ' free verse ',
that fragment can quite well be regarded as parallel to the first strophe of Π,
which is of about the same length. Fr. 79 happens to occur in Π, and the
recovery of the context of that passage so important for the history of the dithyramb
shows that Pindar was not referring to the distinction between triads and airoXeKv-
μ4ι•α. The metre of II, and probably of III also, is dactylo-epitritic, that of I
logaoedic, like Fr. 75. There are some irregularities (cf. II. 4-6, 8-11, 12, 13-14»
15 16, 19, 30, nn.), but hardly more prominent than those in the epinician odes.
With regard to the subjects of the dithyrambs, the title of II was ' Heracles
the bold or Cerberus', an episode also treated by Stesichorus (Fr. 11), another
1604. PINDAR, DITHYRAMBS 29
exploit of Heracles being treated by Bacchylides (cf. p. 28). I was appa-
rently concerned with the deeds of an Argive hero, perhaps Perseus. The
subject of III is uncertain, for the extant fragment comes from a part of the
dithyramb in which Dionysus was apparently addressed. He is also promi-
nent in Π, and is referred to in I, so that Pindar's dithyrambs were clearly
more of the nature of Dionysiac odes than those of Bacchylides. There is no \
trace of any of the three odes having taken the form of a dialogue such as I
Bacchyl. xvii. On the whole the impression created by the new find is that I
Pindar as a dithyrambist was distinctly conservative, and the innovations
introduced in the fifth century B.C. were not due to him. '
The papyrus was found in the mound which produced 1082-3, 1231, 1233-4
&c., but it is doubtful whether it belonged to that collection of lyric and
other texts. The handwriting is a medium-sized, rather square and sloping
uncial resembling that of 223 (after A. D. 185; Part ii, Plate i) and the
corrector who inserted two missing lines in 1234. a. ii (Part x, Plate iv). That
the main text was written before, not after, 200 is made probable (i) by the
title of Π, which is in a small cursive hand employing tj-shaped η and appa-
rently different from that of the main text, (a) by the numerous scholia in
another, still smaller cursive hand, referring to questions of reading or interpre-
tation. These marginalia, which are practically contemporary with the main text,
are very similar to those in 1234, and seem to belong to the second century
rather than the third. The main text was originally corrupt in not a few
passages, especially in HI, and has been subjected to considerable revision.
One of the correctors, who is responsible for the readings above the line in
Π. 37 and ΠΙ. 9 ov, is possibly identical with the original scribe or with the
writer of the title, but more probably different. A second corrector, to whom
we should assign all the other interlinear readings, is certainly distinct from
the original scribe, the first corrector, and the writers of the title of II and
the scholia. A few mistakes of spelling have escaped correction ; cf. II. 8-
II, ai, nn. An elaborate coronis, similar to those in 1234, occurred at the
beginning of II, but there is no paragraphus after II. 18, where it would be
expected. Accents, breathings, and marks of elision or quantity are not
infrequent, being mostly due to the first hand, but in some cases added by
the second corrector. The stops (high points, except two in the middle
position in I. 10 (?) and II. 14) seem to be all due to the first hand, like the
occasional diaereses.
I. Only the upper part of the column is of any value, but the slight
traces of 11. 25-38 are sufficient to show that they correspond to 11. 11-24;
cf. the reference to the antistrophe in 1. 20 schol. Lines i-io evidently belong
30
THE OXYRHYNCHUS PAPYRI
to the penultimate epode, which may have begun several h"nes earlier. The
concluding epode is lost. To judge by the length of lines in II, not more
than ID letters (i.e. 4 syllables) would be expected to be lost before 11. 7-12,
and 2 more letters before 11. 2-6 and 13-17. A shorter lacuna at the begin-
ning (4 letters) would suit 1. 15, but in 1. 14 one or two words seem to be
lost before aej^^re. That the poem was for the Argives is indicated by the
references in 11. 6-7 to the building of a city (Tiryns or Mycenae ?) by Cy-
clopes in Argive territory, and in 1. 9 to the house of Abas. The mention
of the Gorgons in 1. 5 suggests that Perseus was the subject, and possible
mentions of Danae and Acrisius or Proetus occur in 11. 1-3 ; but Phorcus himself
(1. 5), apart from his being the father of the Gorgons and Graeae, is not known to
be specially connected with the Perseus legends. The new strophe apparently
introduces a change of subject. After a reference to the Dionysiac gathering
and an address to the Muses, in 1. 15 begins a narrative of an adventure of
some one who seems to be newlj'• mentioned. Phorcus and probably the
Gorgons again occur, and Bury would refer this passage, not 11. i-io, to
Perseus. The approach of the end of the ode and some parallelisms with
Fr. 75 suggest that Dionysus himself might be meant. Possibly Frs. 254 and
284 are to be connected with this poem; cf. 11. i and 17, nn. The metre is
logaoedic. Some of the lines (e. g. strophe i and 3) might be regarded as
ending in dochmiacs, but these belong to tragedy rather than to lyrics.
Strophe Epode
Some lines lost (?)
— rj W— \^'_/WW !_/
1 w w w w [—
1 V^ w —
l-w--[
" w ? w w - ^ [
\-/ ■ v^V^V-/ WW»-'
! — w w — 1
1 w
— w'w — w — \J — »-> — v-• —
5
! — wwww — w[ —
v^v^ — V_/ WW — W
i=^ - - w w - ? [
_ ^ — WW —
' W WW — 1
1 —
1 — w— www — w-
-\ — ^^hi
1-w-^
iw?-w-
10
1w^
1604. PINDAR, DITHYRAMBS
31
II. This dithyramb for the Thebans was evidently well known in antiquity
on account of its opening reference to the σχοινοτίν^ια aoth] and σαν κίβbηλov,
which is quoted by several writers (Fr. 79*) and enables 11. 1-3 to be re-
stored. Another passage a few lines later (Fr. 79^), quoted by Strabo alone,
had been much corrupted in the MSS. of that author ; in a third fragment
which occurs (Fr. ao8) there are also marked differences between Plutarch's
citations and the text of the papyrus. Frs. 81 and 249 also have some points
of connexion with II, but are probably from different poems ; cf. 1. i, marg.,
n. The ode begins with a contrast between the older and newer form of
dithyramb in favour of the newer, which claims inspiration from the festival
held in honour of Dionysus at Olympus itself (11. 1-8). There follows in
11. 8-23 a picturesque and vivid description of the celestial festival, and a
characteristically grandiloquent reference to the poet himself, which leads to
the subject of Thebes and the ancestry of Dionysus, whose mother Semele
was the daughter of Cadmus and Harmonia (11. 23-30). The poem breaks
off shortly before the end of the antistrophe, where Dionysus himself was
apparently being addressed. An epode probably followed ; cf. p. 28. The
metre is dactylo-epitritic, like that of Fr. 74^, a corrupt quotation from
Pindar found in Epiphanius, which has been assigned by Schroeder to the
dithyrambs. The main subject of the poem, Cerberus, is not reached.
Strophe.
— VJ — ■=• — \^ ^J — \^v^
V_/
— \^ V_/ \^ \J — v^w
^ \J w . w — i —
— \^ \J — WW w —
WW — WW —
— w V^W — WWi —
— \^W w — w
— WW — WW WW —
K^
10 — W WW— WW
— w w
w*
— W W V_iW —
W* \n>
WW — WW— ■^— w w-=^
— \^ —
Ig — w" — w — v-* — w — w —
— w —
WW — WW
— W WW — V./W
III. In this dithyramb about 10 letters seem to be missing at the beginnings
of 11. 5-14, and about 5 more in 11. ^$-2^. There is no metrical correspondence
in 11. 1-21, and whether 11. 22-6 correspond to some of 11. i-io or not is
uncertain. Probably part of the fragment belongs to an epode, unless indeed
this poem was in άηολ(λνμ4να. Dionysus is apparently addressed in 11. 6 sqq.,
being invited to join in the festival celebrated at a certain city. Bury would
32 THE OXYRHYNCHUS PAPYRI
regard this as Corinth on the evidence of the ' neighbouring rock ' (1. lo) and
some other indications ; cf. 11. I4-I5> i^, 22, nn. The metre is apparently
dactylo-epitritic, with perhaps an admixture of other rhythms. The scheme
of 11. 3-19 is
]- ?v^-w^ 12 ]i:i--v^^^
Fr. I. Col. i. Plate i.
'\νλζ•γοντων'[
]ιοραρακτα[
]λ€ΐβομίνοι/δ . [
5 ]νσ€πατ€ραγοργοΐ'[
]κΧ(ύΤΓΟύν7ΓΤθΧΐ<Τα . Γ .]αν . σηντοοι8ιοο"διοαντωι
τ χ Γ 1γνοησ-α\^ίσδ€τ9ωσσολοικισμ^
\ν€ναργ€ΐμ€γαλωί . . •'! ' λ Ί•'
•■ 1 ' • » L οντοσμίτογ^ίΐσ-οι
]noi^vyej/T€a€paTaiSo/i.oy
}ντάβαντοσ
ΙΟ IXeei'• τ9ν?"ίέ«1''•?9νΤ9'"•'*^'*λωΐΓ€σδιονυσιακον
]δαίμονωνβρομίαδίθοινάι.πρζπ€ΐ
]κορνφαΐ'
]θίμζν ΐναμπνκίσ
]ξζτίτιμοισαίθαλοσαοίδάν
15 '\•γαρ€υγομαί•\^'γοΐ'Τΐδφροτοί
αι «ρκοσ
^αφνγοντανινκ^μίΧανάλμασ
^φορκοιο'συγγορονπατβρων κοράν
]τΓθΐ'τ (μολον
2 ο ] • ia.V€av »?■[•] •° ίανπ€ρισ•[
τ ΤΓ^ίξαντιστρ**
ψωμ^νον ■■ ^
]lov
1λ€γθ€ΐΤ6ΐημιαχογ
]
25 yP<^v
1604. PINDAR, DITHYRAMBS
33
\^, — \j \\j\ — \j —
\j
[^^ vj] v^ —
^J
V^ Wl^ <^v^— f
V^ \^ Γ — (^ v^ —
15
1 — ^^ — V<i —
1 — v^ — v-i ■
[
10 Toi/y
15
I. \ΛΡΓΕΙΟΙ^.]
] άτΓο Δανα\
jiOi^ ανακτά [
] λβιβόμβνον δ . [
]νσί πατ€ρα Γοργ6ν[ων
Κν\κλώπωι/' πτόλι^ άρ[ά ο/?
]ι/ ei/ "Apyit μβγάλω . . [
]ποι ζνγύντ€9 kpara δόμον
]ντ "Αβαντο$,
IXeet'. τούβ" «|evii|ovTO οΐ Κΰκλωπ€5. Διονυσιακόν,
Ι ζν\δαιμόνων βρομιάδι θοίνα npirret
2 ] κορυφαν
3 ] θίμΐν €νάμπυκ€^
4 aej^er eVi, ΜοΓσαί, βαλοί άοιδάν
5 ιγζ/ζί] γαρ ζν)(ομαι. λύγοντι δί βροτοί
6 ]α φυγόντα vlv και μ^λαν 'ίρκος άλμα9
7 κουράν ?] Φόρκοιο, σύγγονον ττατίρων,
8 ]ί/
9 ]7Γ0ΐ/ τ ίμολον,
ΙΟ ] . ιαν lav
€7Γ. α
.]αν . S ήν το οι δι' δ ου(τω5) διο( ) αύτφ,
ά]γνοήο•αντ€5 δί το(ΰτο) ws (Τθλοικιο•μο(υ)
ovTOS μ6ταγρ(άφουσιν) tls οί.
στρ. /3
κοραν
25
13
Ι
όιτ[.] . ο( ) ίάν ΐΓ€ρισ[σ(ω5)
■ΤΓρ(οσαχθ*ν?) ίξ άντιστρο(φή5).
'\p(ύμevov.
— \JYiov
1 λ€γό(μίνον) «ΊΓ* «πίμαχον.
— \j — \j ^ \j \j ^epav
D
άντ. β
34
THE OXYRHYNCHUS PAPYRI
30
35
Two lines lost
] ...[
]ασίωσ
* ]
λαν οκ6νΐΓ»ρισσο τ
] . ναιατο
'\μανθανατον\
]
]λαίσ
Fr. Ι. Col. ϋ. Plate i.
θβασ[
ηρακλησ
ηκ€ρβ£ροσ'
θηβαιοισ
[
5ίαπ€7Γ[.]α[ ]FF^?L
5 κ\οισιν€αί{ γΒότ^σ
οίανβρομιου[. . . .]ταν
καιπαρασκα[. .]ον8ίοσονρανί8άι
€νμίγαροίσϊ[. .]ι/τί•σ€μναΐμ€νκαταρ\€ΐ
ματ€ρί7Γαρμ[. .]ά\άίρομβοηνμπανων•
ΙΟ €ΐ'δ€κ:€χλαδ[. .]κρ6ταλ' αιθομύνατ€
δαΐσνποξαν[. .]ίσίπ€νκαισ'
βνδ^ναϊδωνβρίγδουποιστονα^αί•
μανίαιταλαλ[.]\[λα^τ€ορίνζταινψανχ€ΐ/ι
σνρκΧον(ύΐ•
15 ίνδ'οτΓαγκραΙ. .]σ κ epavvoa α μτΓν€ων
nvpK€KLyrj[ ]€γυαλιου
ίγχοσ•αλκαζσσα[.]ίπαλλά8ο[.]αιγισ
3°
35
4
5
6
7
8
9
ΙΟ
II
12
13
14
1604. PINDAR, DITHYRAMBS
Two lines lost
35
--]
•.[
^ N-» w — \j — Ity
]
ice»'
— €jaf ο Kcv Ίτερισσοβ.
] . paioTo
]μαν θάνατον [
]
]λαίί
]
II. &PA^[rS] ΗΡΑΚΛΗΣ Η ΚΕΡΒΕΡΟΙ ΘΗΒΑΙΟΙ:^.
Ι Π[ριν μ\ν epne ayoLvoriv^id τ aoiSa
2 διθ[νράμβων
3 καΐ το σα[ν κίβδαλον άνθρώποισιν άπο στομάτων,
4 διαπ€π[τ]α[νταί δξ νυν Ιροΐγ ?] πνλα[ι κύ-
5 5 κλοίσι veai- [. . . . €]ίδ6τ€9
6 οΐαν Βρόμιου \τζ\^\ταν
7 καΐ πάρα σκά\πτ\ον Δίο^ Ούρανίδαι
8 ίν μζγάροί? ί[σ{τ)ά]ντι. σβμνα μ\ν καταργεί ίστάντι '
9 ματίρι παρ μ[ξγ]άλα ρόμβοι τυπάνων,
ΙΟ ΙΟ kv δ\ κ^γΧαδ[ον'\ κρόταλ^ αίθομίνα re
11 δas ϋπο ξαν[θα]ΐσί π^νκαι^,
12 ev δβ Ναΐδων ίρίγδουποι στοναχ^αΐ
13 μανίαι τ άλαλ[αί] τ όρίν^ται (βί)ψαν\€νί
14 σνν κλόνω.
ιζΐΐ,ίνδό παγκρα[τη]? Kepavvbs άμπνύων
ι6 πΰρ κίκίνη[ταί το τ] Ένναλίον
I'j €γχο?5 άλκά^σσά [rje ΙΙαλλάδο[5] alyh ο . . . [
D %
στρ.
Fr. 79 a
Fr. 79 b
Fr. ao8
36 THE OXYRHYNCHUS PAPYRI
θ
μνριωνφογγαζ€ταικλαγγαΐσδρακοντων' οφ[
ριμφαδ' €Ϊσινάρτ€μισοΙοπ6λο€σ «οΐόττολοσ
20 ζ^νξαισ' ίνοργαισ
βακγζίαισφυ\ον\ζοντωνα.[
οδ€Κηλζΐταιχορ€νονσαισικα[
ρωναγΐλαισ'ζμβδ' €ξαίρ€Τθ[
καρνκασοφωνβπ€ωρ
25 μοΐ<τ'αν€στδίσ€λλάδικα[.]λ[
ζυγομΐνονβρίσαρματοισο\^
α
ivθά'Π■o9apμovιav[^ίa,^J^€v^ycό^
καδμονυψ7][. . .]σπραπίδ€σ[
ναν•δ[. .]σδ'ακ[ ]μφάν•
3θ καίΤ€κ^]ίνδοξο[. . . ,]ανθρωπο[
δωννσ[. :]θ .'[ :]τ[.]γ[
ματ^Ι
π€ί . [
('
Fr. 2.
]ί/αλ[
]
]ίτομ(ΐ'στασισ•
]ποδα
Χ
' 5 ]ίίατ€[ ]οί/κΐ'αί/ο[[<]]ιτϋΰΐ/
]TeavTe[. . .]ανμ€λίζοι
]πΧοκονσ[. . . ,^ωνκισσινων o'lrxf
]κροταφοΐ'[ ]
αν
«λ € I^ws]] ά
]€ωι^φψ^ον'^φίλιδηπολ(^ω^
ΙΟ ]ίοντ€σκοπ€λονγ€ίτοραπρντανί . [
]αμα'καιστρατία'^ΐσ^
'\τ ακναμτττΐίκρζμασον
1(ΓΤ6Υαρ/ΐασ τασ€πιδοροτιδα(Γ
1604. PINDAR, DITHYRAMBS 37:
18 μυρίων φθογγάζξται κλαγγαΐς δρακόντων. όφ[€ων
Ι ρίμφα δ' ύσιν Άρτβμΐί οίοπόλο? ζ^ύ- oloiroXos άντ. α
20 3 ^αίσ•' ^ν όργαΐ?
3 BaK^iats φΰλον λιόντων ά[γροτ€ρων Βρομίω'
4 ό δζ κηλίΐται γορ^υονσαισι κα\1 θη-
Β ρών άγξλαις. e/ie 5* €^aip€To[v
6 κάρυκα σοφών ζττίων
25 7 Μοΐσ άνίστασ 'Ελλάδι κα[λ]λ[ίχ^όρω ?
8 ί.υ)φμίνον βρισαρμάτοι? 6[λβον Τ€ ? Θηβαία,
9 ίνθα ποθ' Άρμονίαν [φ]άμα γα[μβτάν
ΙΟ Κάδμον ύ\|/•77[λαί]? πραπίδζσ[σι λα\ξΐν κ^δ- ?
II νάν A[io]s δ' άκ[ονσ€ν 6]μφάν,
3θ 12 καΐ τίκ ίϋδοξο[ν παρ'] άνθρώ7Γθ[ι? γ^ν^άν.
13 ^ιόννσ[^/]Θ, [7.1 7. "Μ-Μ" ""''
14 ματ€[ρο9 ?
15 ΤΓίί . [
III. [ΚΟΡΙΝΘΙΟΙ^?]
]ναλ[
]
]ιτο μ\ν στάσίί,
] πόδα
5 ] KaTt\^ Jof κυανογίτων
] reaj/ τ€[λ€τ]άΐ' μ^λίζοί
] πλόκον σ[τ€φα\νων κισσίνων άν(τΙ τοΰ) ιτλ[ίκτών?
] κρόταφον
]€ων ΐλθΐ φίλαν δη (?) ττολεα
ΙΟ ]ίον re σκ07Γ€λοΐ' γείτονα πρύτανι . [
]αμα και στρατιά,
] τ άκναμπτίΐ κρίμασον,
ly Τ€ γάρμαί Tas ίπιδορατίδαβ.
38 THE OXYRHYNCHUS PAPYRI
]7γ[. . . .]ντοσα^ρ^\ηνρνοίτοπο{
15 ]α)ί/π6λθΓ
"^αρπόγοιχορων^
]θίθ0ΐ'[[λ]]λθί/α)[
]€7Γ€ταλοισί7^[
20 ] .
]
'\τιταμιασ\^
'\νστο\ . [
Μ
Ι. Ι. Either Αανά[ας (referring to Perseus) or Δαι/α[οΟ {q.^. τρίτον^ άπο Α., referring to
Acrisius or Proetus) or Δαι/α[ών or else ]a πό8α ι/ . [ can be read, the last letter being quite
uncertain. Pindar Fr. 284 from Schol. A Homer S 319 αντη δε {Αανάη), &s φησιν Ώίν8αρος καΙ
άλλοι Tives, (φθάρη νπο τοΰ ττατρηδίλφου αυτψ Ώροίτον, οβΐν αύτοΐε καΐ στάσΐ9 εκινηθη might refer
to this dithyramb.
3. Possibly Άκ:ρίσ]ιον. The first letter might be ν or π, but hardly τ, so that Ώρο1.]τον
(of. 11. 6-7, n.) is unsatisfactory. Lobel suggests Avk]iov, referring either to Proetus or
lobates, king of Lycia, who restored Proetus.
4. The doubtful δ can be a or λ. For λίΐβόμ(νον cf Py. xii. 9 τ6ν (sc. θρψον) . . . Sie
Χΐΐβόμίνον δνσπΐνθΐϊ συν καμάτω.
5. The letter before σε can be e, i, σ, ν, or ω. For Phorcus (= Phorcys), the father of
the Gorgons, cf. 1. 1 7 and p. 30.
6. Bury suggests πρόγονόν re Κυκλώπων, Phorcus being grandfather of Polyphemus
through his daughter Thoosa.
6-7. The scholium is obscure, but seems to refer to the distinction between οϊ {= εαι/τω)
and 01 {= αντω), and οί with or without an accent presumably occurred in the text. Whether
the traces of a word following μιγαλωι belong to the text or a scholium is uncertain ; τ[ is
possible. Bury proposes πτόλι? αρ[ά οί | Βεδμητο (or τίτυκτο) κ(Ί.νω\ν iv "Apyet μεγάλωί τ[ίχνα.
The city in question was probably either Tiryns, which was built by the Cyclopes for
Proetus, as described in Bacchyl. x. 59-81, or Midea or Mycenae, of Avhich Perseus was the
legendary founder (Pans. ii. 15. 4), being assisted by the Cyclopes (Schol. Eur. Or. 965).
8-9. If CvyivTfs is to be taken literally, νιτ\ποι and "ικο]ντ (Stuart Jones) are probable;
but ipara suggests that the context may concern music, and Bury proposed φόρμιγγι δ' νμ]νοι
(vyevres ίρατά 8όμον | αχ€ον άνα σκιό(]ντ "Αβαντος, Comparing Homer λ 334 «ηληθμω δ' 'ίσχοντο κατά
μίγαρα σκιόΐντα. νμ^νοι is, hoAvever, Unsatisfactory, for if the doubtful letter was ν the middle
stroke ought to have been visible, so that π {κόμ]ποι ? Bury) or »; or . ι is preferable. The
' house of Abas ' means the palace at Argos ; cf. Py. viii. 55 "Αβαντος ΐυρνχόρονί ayvias.
10. The stop after ]\eev is not quite certain, and δ can be read for λ. Bury proposes
Tovs δ' ασμ ΐκή]\ΐ(ν, based on the scholium, in which τουβ is apparently quoted from the text
1604. PINDAR. DITHYRAMBS 39
]π[. . . .]i/Toy αύ•)(Ύ]ν βύοίτο ΤΓα[
15 jCuf 7Γ€λθί
^αν πόνοι γορων Γ
]ees τ' άοιδαί,
]οιο φνλον ω[
]€ π€τάλοί9 ήρ[ινοΪ9 ?
2θ ] .
]
]μιον Ιπ[π
]τι ταμίας [
]}/ στολ . [
25 ]λθ€[
Μ
and Διονυσιοκον refers to a different word. For fKrj]\eev cf. II. 22 and the Homeric verse
cited in 11. 8-9, n. The objection to it is that Pindar elsewhere uses the contracted forms
in imperfects.
1 1- 1 3. A new strophe begins here. Bury proposes something like άλλ' άν8ρών εύ]8αιμόνων
βρομιάδί θοίνα npenet | i'pyoiai λόγων^ κορυφαν | επιχωρΊοισϊ^ uepev. Cf. Neni. ix. 8 αλλ' ava pkv
βρομίυν φόρμιγγ , άρα δ αύλόι» eV ανταν ορσομΐν Ιππίων αΐθλων κορνφάν.
13-14• ^νάμπνζ is not found elsewhere, but έλικάμπνξ, κυανάμπνξ, λιπαράμπνξ, and χρνσάμττνξ
occur in Pindar. For άΐ]ξ(τ (Bury, Stuart Jones) cf. Οι. vi. 105 (μων δ' υμρων α^ξ' evrepnis
άνθος. Before it Bury proposes Uepaa vw, in order to explain viv in 1. 16. Βρομίω vw is also
possible ; cf. 1. 17, n.
15. νμμι] was suggested by Bury, who proposes an epithet of αοιδοί/, e.g. kXvtuu,
before it.
16. Regarding viv as Perseus, Bury proposes Λιβύα? TreStja (or γΰάλ]α) φυγόντα. κηρ]α
(Stuart Jones) is also possible. If Dionysus, who according to Paus. ii. 22. i attacked
Argos from the sea, were meant (cf. 1. 17, n.), 8((Γμ]α. (Lobel) would be suitable ; cf. Eur.
Bacch. 610 sqq. It is not clear whether epAcoy was simply omitted by the first hand or was
intended to take the place of αΚμας. The corresponding line of the antistrophe hardly
projects as far as would be expected if it contained equivalents of both words ; but the
collocation epKos aXpas OCCUrs in Py. ii. 80 «βάπηστόί άμι φϊΚΚος ws vnep e. a., where
αλμας is usually Connected with άβάπηστος, not ίρκος, and epKos is thought to mean
'net'. This parallel makes us disposed to retain boI, but τυπάι/ωΐ' is
likely to be right ; cf. Catullus, A/ys 9 typajiiim, iuham, Cybelle, iua, maier, inilia, which may
even have been an imitation of this passage. Bergk referred to this dithyramb Fr. 80, a quotation
from Pindar in a Herculaneum fragment of Philodemus, De pietate, which is restored Κύβε [λα]
μα.τ\ΐρ β^ωνΧ The metre may well be dactylo-epitritic, but there is no place for Fr. 80 in the
context of the reference to Cybele in 11. 8-9. Owing to the lacuna at the end of 1. 27 the
1604. PINDAR, DITHYRAMBS 43
correction of τνμττανων to τνπανων is not absolutely certain, for ya[p{)(i (Bury) can there be
supplied instead of -γά[μ€τάν (Housman); but, as Housman observes, 1. 9 seems to be
unrhythmical as it stands, since w ^ in this metre is not elsewhere followed by w -
unless there is a break between them, as at 01. vi. 4-5 and Bacchyl. viii. 9-10, and scribes
have often written τΰμ-ηανον where authors did not ; e.g. Hom. Hymn. xiv. 3, Eur. Hel. 1347,
Aesch. Fr. 57. 10, Apoll. Rhod. i. 1139, Anth. Pal. vi. 165. 5, and in the Catullus passage
cited above the MSS. give iympanum against the metre. With τνπάνωρ 1. g will have the
rhythm of 01. vi. 2 Kiopas ώς ort θαητον μί•γαρον. The point of ξαν^θα^ισι aS applied to nevKais
is not clear: Dissen explains it by the colour of the fire. With 11. 10-12 cf. Soph. An/ig.
1 1 26— 9 ae δ' vnep διλόφου ntrpas arepoyf/ οπωπί Xtyviis, 'ένθα Κωρύκιαι στίίχουσι Ννμφαι
Βακχίδΐί.
12. eV Se Ναίδων: — ^ — ^ corresponds to — ^ (apparently) in 1. 30; cf. 1. 19, η.,
and e.g. 0/. iii, epode i, 4, 5.
13-14. These lines are thrice quoted by Plutarch, (i) Quaesi. conv. i. 5. 2, (2) vii. 5. 4,
(3) De def. orac. 14, copied by Euseb. Praep. evang. v. 4, p. 185, and Theodoret, Graec.
off. cur., ed. Gaisford, p. 374. In (2) μανίαις τ άλάΚάΪ! τ ορινόμ^νοι occurs, the quotation
being accommodated to Plutarch's sentence ; (i) and (3) have όρινομίνων for ορίνΐται ; (i) has
ipiavxfvi, (2) and (3) ριψαύχ€νί for υψαύχΐνι. Both ορινομίνων (which would Correspond to
Ναίδωι/ in 1. 1 2) and ριψανχ^νι seem to be ancient variants (Theodoret, op. ci'L, p. 375 coins
a verb ρι^^αυχ^νΐΐν from the quotation), and ριψαύχ^νι, which occurs nowhere else, is, as |
Housman remarks, more appropriate than υψαΰχίνι to both κλάνω and Ναΐδων : cf. I
CatuU. A/)'s 23 ηδι capita Maenades vi iaciunt hederigerae, Cic. // Verr. iii. 49 cerviculam
iactaiuruvi, Eur. Bacch. 864 hipav els αίθίρα δροσΐρον ρίπτουσα. The metre, as he observes,
does not help much in deciding between ριψαύχ^ρι and νψαύχΐρι, for though with ριψαύχενι
the scheme ofl. 13 y^y.j — ^y^—^ — κ^ kj ^ corresponds to the last verse of the
epodes in Fy. iii, e.g. 1. 23, — ^ v./ — can generally take the place of — v-» , and is pre-
ceded by ^^ w and followed by — w— in e.g. Nem. xi. 14. βιψ-^οτ ν\Ι/-)ανχ(νι is appa-
rently the end of a member of the rhythm with syllaba anceps, and a member of the rhythm
also comes to an end after σνν κλάνω, as the hiatus there proves, so that these two words have
to constitute a whole member ; cf. |ίλάσίίο/χαι| in 01. vii. 9 and |atcui/or| in Fy. v. 7. The
alternative is to write ξνν κλάνω, but there seem to be only two examples of ξνν in Pindar's
MSS., and not one is established by metre, though cf, 1614. 9.
αλαλ[αί] : the first hand seems to have written αλαλ[α]λα originally. The final λα was
then crossed out and ι no doubt added above [a], but Avhether the scribe himself or a
corrector made the alteration is uncertain. Several of the MSS. of Plutarch have αλλαι for
άλαλαί, but the third letter here is more like α than λ, and the loop of it, though narrow, does
not seem to be a correction.
Ιζ~ΐ6. Kepavvos άμπνίων πνρ : cf. Fr. 1 46 πΰρ wveovTos a re (Pallas) κβραννοΰ αγχιστα δ(ξιαν
κατά xeipa ττατροί [ημίνη). In 1. 1 5 — ν-- — «-- occurs twice, very likely as equivalent to — ^-'
in the antistrophe (lost); cf. 11. 12 and 19, nn, ^
17. άλκά(σσα : in 01. ix. 72 and Py. v. 71 άλκάίντας is found, but the metre here requires
ae to be separate syllables. The scholium perhaps indicates a variant, but may be no more
than α1γί[5 accented; cf. 1. 19, n.
18. This verse is a Έτησιχάρ€ΐον. δφ[€&;ν is a gloss on δρακόντων.
19. ρίμφα δ' eiaiv : — \^ — \j here corresponds to — v^ in 1. i ; cf. 11. 12, 15-16, nn.
οίοττόλοΓ : this word, which seems to have been wrongly spelled but rightly accented by
the first hand, was wrongly accented by the corrector; cf. 1. 17 and I. 17, nn. οίοπάλος
δαίμων (unnamed) occurs in Py. iv. 28.
20. The syllable ζευ- really belongs to 1. 19; cf. 1. 2, n.
21. The misspelling βακχηαΐ! is not corrected. ά[γροτφων was suggested by Sandys and
44 THE OXYRHYNCHUS PAPYRI
Bury; cf. A'em. iii. 46 \(όντ(σσιν ayporepoii. Βρομίω (Bury) IS required to explain ό Se in 1. 22.
The metre is practically certain ; cf. 11. 1-3, n.
22-3. κα[ι θη\ρων•. SO Housman and Bury. The α of κα[ί is nearly certain, the only
alternative being o. The sentence is suggested by the mention of lions in the line above.
Bacchus is flattered not only by the attentions of his fellow-gods, but also by the worship of
brute creatures. dyeXat λ(όντων occurs in Find. Fr. 239.
25—6. Cf. Fr. 151 Μοϊσ άνΐηκί μ€, κα[λ]λ[ί;^ορω and ο[λ/3οι/ re were suggested by Bury; '
Sandys proposes κα\1 y]6[i'eaf with o[iacoi' re, but the traces of a letter after κα[.] suggest a, δ, λ,
or V. For the late position of re cf. IVem. ix. 34 παρά πίζοβόαις Χπποκ τΐ. That θηβαι:
occurred at the end of 1. 26 is clear from what follows (cf. Fr. 195 fvappare Θήβα), but
a restoration in which (νχόμ€νον meant ' boasting myself rather than ' praying for' would be
more appropriate. α[γαλμα is, however, inadmissible in 1. 26, the ο before the lacuna being
almost certain. For the metre of that Hne cf. 1. 7, n.
27. The first hand wrote ποτ αρμονιαν. φ]άμα γα[μ€Γάν IS due to Housman, who
corrects τύμπανων in 1. 9 to τυπάνων : Bury, retaining τύμπανων there, proposed φ]άμα ya[pvet :
cf. 11. 8-1 1, n. The first hand wrote φ]αμ(ν γα[ : the first corrector then added α above the line,
deleting e and perhaps ν also ; cf. III. 9, n. As Housman remarks, a verb does not seem
necessary with φάμα (sc. ΐοτι) : cf. Aesch. Septem 217-18 άλλ* olv Seovs tovs της άλοΰσης πόλίοί
€κ\€ίπίΐν λόγος, and φάτις in Pindar himself (according to the usually accepted emendation of
Bothe) in Is. viii. 40 Αίακίδα, όν τ ίνσββίστατον φάτις Ίαολκοΰ τράφ€ΐν πώίον, and ubi Jama in
Stat. Theb. i. 699.
28. {jylr^aTai\i could be read in place of ν•^η[\αΧ\ς. There is little doubt about the
s, τ being the only alternative, λαχύν κεδ-] (or ay-])|mv is due to Bury. Nonnus, Dionys.
iv. 28 sqq., represents Harmonia as at first reluctant to marry Cadmus. Housman prefers
ayeiv σίμωναν, comparing Nem. v. 47 σ^μνάν θίτιν Πηλία ff, AeSch. Prom. 560 αγαγς
'\Λ.σιήναν . . . δάμαρτα, and, for the present infinitive with ποτΐ in a past sense, Py. vi. 21-4
τάν ποτ . . . φαντί . . . παραινΰν. σεμνός has hosvever occurred in 1. 8. For πραπίΒες in
connexion with a suitor he compares Is. viii. 30 αλλ' οϋ σφιν αμβροτοι τίλισαν eivav θέων
πραπίδες.
30. ίνδοξο[ν : if ξ is right, the parts of it were joined instead of being written, as else-
where in 1604, as a dot between two strokes. The second ο is also doubtful, a being quite
as suitable. But the position of the accent over ev strongly favours (ν8οξο[ν, for €υδοκι,[μον and
-κη[τον are inadmissible, and though a crossed out τ might be read in place of ξ, (νδοτ([ιραν is
not a known word and (νδϋ^τ']ΐκ[ιμον is unsatisfactory apart from the wrong accent. At the
* beginning of the line — v./ corresponds to — <-- — ^ in 1. 12 ; cf. 1. 19, n, παρ'] άνθρώπο[ις
yevfav is due to Bury. 2epe\ap may be substituted for yeveav, she being in any case the
person chiefly meant, as is shown by the reference to her in 1. 32.
31. Αιοννσ[ must be vocative, for any other case would fill up the lacuna, leaving no
room for the letter preceding Θ, which apparently had an acute accent and was therefore
a vowel. Probably £^iovva[e was written and the e not elided; cf. re ορίνεται in 1. 13, If the
two letters in the lacuna formed a diphthong, the accent ought to have been more to the left.
32. ματί[ρος : i.e. Semele ; cf. 1. 30, n. ο could be read in place of e.
III. I. The doubtful λ can be v.
3. στάσις elsewhere in Pindar means ' sedition', but here may, as Bury remarks, refer
to the chorus either in the sense of κατάστασις {χάρων) or of a division ; cf. 1. 5, n.
5. Bury proposes κατ([ναντί]ον.
6. Tedv must refer to Dionysus, Ίΐ τ([λ(τ]άν is right; cf. int. p. 29.
7—8. Bury suggests βαλων δε] πλόκον σ[Γίφά]ΐ'ωι^ κισσίνων | άμφι τ(ον κρόταφον, making
μίλίζοι the end of a clause and connecting 11. 7-8 Λvith eXue in 1. 9. A stop may, however,
have been lost after κρόταφον. The scholium probably refers to the unusual expression
1604 PINDAR, DITHYRAMBS 45
τίΚόκορ στ(φάνων. For πλ[ί«τώί', SC. στιφάνων, cf. Eur. Hippol. 73 liKiKTov στίφανον, ορ[μου (cf.
Nevi. iv. 17) does not suit the vestiges.
9. Apparently φίλίδ»; was altered first to ή>ιΚ(ύς 8η and then, the correction being crossed
out, to φιλαν δη. The t after φιλ is not crossed out ; but the ov above the line begins close
to the λ and φιλαρ 8η (which makes the line end with two choriambi) is metrically preferable to
φιΚιαν 8η ΟΓ simply φιΚιαν. Moreover it is not certain that the ο of φθον was crossed out like
the φ and ν Avhen eX^e was substituted, and in II. 27 there is a similar doubt concerning the
deletion of a superfluous letter.
TToXfa is corrected from πολίω. The mark of quantity is not quite certain, but α alone
does not account for all the ink. πόλιν is clearly meant, but no form πολία is known, though,
since πόληα occurs in Hesiod, it does not seem impossible.
10. Bury proposes ne^wpliov . . . ττρντανιν, and would see in this line a reference to the
Acrocorinthus ; but πρυτανι . [ may be vocative, as in Fy, ii. 58.
11. \μα: the first letter might be λ and the second v; the third is more like a with a
high stop after it than [.]s. Bury suggests something like enoiro δ'] αμα, but the stop is an
objection to αμα.
12. άκναμπτ('ί, 'inflexibly', is a new adverb, άκαμπτος occurs in />r. iii. 71 and ακναμπτος
in the MSS. oi Py. iv. 72 {άκαμπτος Hermann).
13. Tas «ΊΓίδορατίδας is a gloss ou χάρμας, which was uscd in the sense of 'spear-shafts'
also by Stesichorus and Ibycus according to Schol. Find. O/. ix. 128.
14—15. Bury suggests &\ins 8' a]v\_eipa'^moi ανχην ρύοιτο πα[νάγνριν | epKOi τ ίγχωρί^ων πίλοι,
' Let the impassable sea-neck protect the festal gathering and be the bulwark of the people,'
comparing Οι. viii. 48 eV Ίσθμω πόντια and Eur. Afed. 212 πόντου κλ^δ' άπίραντον. αυχην\νθ\ύά
on this view mean the Isthmus of Corinth. The general sense of 11. 12-15 is, he thinks, 'Put
aside arms and preparations for war, and trust for defence to the Isthmus.' ανχψ elsewhere
in Pindar means the human neck, but that does not combine easily with pvono.
17. Perhaps πολυγα6]ίίί. aoi8ai can, however, be dative.
18. Bury suggests Σισύφ]ηιο or rXav(c]oio φνλον, referring to the Corinthians.
19. For π€τάλοι? ηρ\ινοΐί (Bury) cf. Py. ix. 46 οσσα T€ χθων ηρινα φύλλ' άναπψπ(ΐ. The
first letter of the line might be p.
22. Bury suggests στο]μιον ΐπ[π€ΐον (οΓ ΐ7Γ[που), referring either to the legend of
Bellerophon and the bridle {φίλτρην ιππ€ΐον) of Pegasus, a story told by Pindar in an ode
written for the Corinthian Xenophon {01. xiii), or perhaps to a particular kind of mouthpiece,
i. e. one of the IWeta evTta said to have been invented by the Corinthians {OL xiii. 20).
1605. MenaNDER, ΜΙΣ0ΤΜΕΝ02.
15 X 5-2 cm. Third century.
This exiguous fragment of a comedy, though' containing only the beginnings
of 27 h'nes from the top of a column and a few letters from the ends of lines of
the preceding column, has some interest, since it can with much probability
be identified. The name of a speaker, Γ({ταί), is inserted in the margin
against 11. 34-5, and characters of that name are known to have occurred in
three of Menander's plays, the "Ηρω?, Μισονμ€νο5, and UepLveia (if Koerte is
right in assigning 855 to the last-named play), while the^apparent mention in 1. 25
(cf. 1. 29, n.) of Θρασωνί^ης, the name of the leading character in the Μισούμίνος,
46 THE OXYRHYNCHUS PAPYRI
indicates the second of the three. Parts of about 50 lines near the end of that
play are extant in 1013, and there are 14 other fragments of it known, but
no correspondence with 1605 is at all likely, though one or two are just possible ;
cf. 11. 24-5, nn. Geta was the slave of Thrasonides, but who his interlocutor here
was is quite obscure. Other known characters in the play are Clinias, Demeas,
and Cratea. For the plot, which turned upon the redemption of Cratea through
her father Demeas from servitude with Thrasonides, a rough soldier, see 1013. int.
and Koerte, Menatidrea, li.
The handwriting is a medium-sized sloping uncial resembling 1376 (Part
xi, Plate iii), and probably of the third century, to which some dated documents
found together with 1605 belong. The speaker's name is written more cursively
by a different hand, which does not seem to be appreciably later than that of the
main text. Paragraphi occur, indicating changes of speaker, but no stops.
Another papyrus (3rd cent.) containing 23 lines divided between two scenes,
which has recently been published by Wilamowitz [Sitzungsb. d. Berl. Akad. 19 18,
ηΔ^η-^ as part of an uncertain comedy, perhaps by Menander, is probably to
be assigned to the Mt^ov/iez^os•. In the second scene a Avoman called Cratea
unexpectedly recognizes her father, whereupon the owner of the house intervenes,
and in the margin of 1. 18 re( ) occurs as the name of a speaker. Wilamowitz,
though noticing the agreement with the Mισoΰ/Λe^Όs with regard to Cratea,
attributes the fragment to a different play, chiefly because Γ€( ) is supposed
also to occur in the margin of 1. 12 in reference to a character who is addressed in
the next line as rr\Qia. From this he infers that re( ) is an unknown feminine
name. But it is much more likely that re( ) in 1. 18 is Υ^[τα'ΐ), and that in 1. 12,
where the decipherment is admitted to be very uncertain, either the marginal
note is to be read differently or some rearrangement of the supposed speakers is
to be introduced. Geta and Cratea will then be the characters in the Μισουμενο?,
the father will be Demeas, and the owner of the house Thrasonides, the action
being highly appropriate to that play. This explanation is confirmed by the
striking parallelism between Fr. 1 1 of the Μισουμενο?, άφαν^ϊ^ γίγόνασιν αϊ σττάθαί
and 1. II of the Berlin papyrus, ]p οίκω tus airaOas των γειτόνων.
Col. i. Col, ii.
ovKeri [
25 &paaw[ui8
Ti Taua[
καλώς [
9 lines lost ov παιδ[
1605. MENANDER, MI^OTMENOS
47
15
20
\€19
]"
]V
]θη
]
] . [ ]
]y κακόν
]
]ai
1
J
]
] παρην
ζηλοτνπ[ο
30
a νυν Ae[y
€is Tovp[yov
8ιακοσί[
νη Δια τ[
Γ€(τθ5)
ay aye [.] . [
απο Ti/y . [
36
φαινί[
διδοασιν [
7Γροσβνξ[
όντως απ[
4o
ουκ €ξα[
πως €ltt[
τα ρημα[τ
λ€γων τ[
eXeyei/ α[
45
ναι φησι [
ηκονσα[
€Κπλ€ί . [
αγαθά λ[
[σα ?]φ€ΐ Τί[
50
[κ]αλως . [
24- ουκ(τι is apparently the first word in the last line of a small detached fragment of
1013 (1. 26). But an actual coincidence is unlikely.
25. θρασω[νώ : this might possibly coincide with the corrupt Fr. 14 (Koerte) of
the Μισονμΐνος, which is generally restored μισοΰσι μίν \ θρασων(^δην), ώ narep, άπΐκτάγκασι
8' ου,
29• ζηλοτυπ\ο : cf. ΤΙΐρικΐΐρομίνη 408— Q ό δ' αλάστωρ εγώ j και ζηλότυττος ανθρωηος, Spoken
by Polemon, the counterpart of Thrasonides in that play.
34. Perhaps avaye \cr]t[avTov, as in Ί,αμία 1 45. The y is however very doubtful and
αΐΌΐσΓ.] . [ can be read. It is not clear whether rt(Tas) refers to 1. 34 or to 1. 35. The surface
of the papyrus between 11. 33-4 is rubbed, but there is no trace of a paragraphus, so that if
Γ€(τα5) refers to 1. 34 there was probably a change of speaker in the middle of that line.
48 THE OXYRHYNCHUS PAPYRI
1606. Lysias, Orations TTpbs Ίτητοθ€ρσην, Against Theomnestus, &c.
Height 29-5 cm. Late second or early third century.
Plate II (Fr. 6, Cols. i-ii).
Lysias has hitherto been represented in papyri only by some small third-
century B. C. pieces of the oration against Theozotides (P. Hibeh 14) ; but the
following fragments of several of his lost private speeches are more extensive
and valuable. Like 1607-8 and 1612, they form part of the first of the three
large finds of literary papyri in 1905-6, which also produced 841-4, 852-3, 1012,
1016-17, 1364, and 1376, the publication of this find being now completed.
The small group consisting of Frs. 8-18 was found separately in a different part
of the same mound, but no doubt belongs to the same roll. Originally about
300 in number, the fragments have been reduced by combinations to 150. Much
the longest of them is Fr. 6, which contains (i) the last three columns of a speech,
with the title (11. 237-8) προ? ^Ιτητοθ^ρσην ύττέρ θξρατταίνη^ followed by a blank
space, (2) the first two columns of a speech directed against a certain Theomnestus
by an unnamed plaintiff, irpos 'Ιτητοθ^ρσην is known as the title of a speech by
Lysias (no. Ixi) from Harpocration, who makes two quotations from it, Fr. 122
(Sauppe) άφαν-ιμ ουσία καΐ φανβρά and Fr. 123 Ί^ρώνυμοί. Fr. 122 seems to be
connected with Fr. 2 of the papyrus, where ovajCav . . . άφ[ανίσ]αι. is a probable
restoration in 11. 29-32, and φαν]€ρά is possible in 1. 48 ; but 'Updwixos does not
seem to occur in 1606, though it is tempting to restore his name in 1. 89. The
title of the second speech would at first sight be expected to be κατά Θίομνηστον :
but two orations of Lysias with that title are extant (x and xi), xi being merely
an abbreviation of x. Since both of these are quite distinct from the speech
against Theomnestus in the papyrus and presumably refer to a different person,
while Harpocration seems to have known of only one speech κατά Θίομνηστου,
i.e. the extant oration χ (Blass, Attische Beredsamkeit, i. 611), the title of the
second speech in 1606 is likely to have been something else. Fr. 9, belonging
to the smaller group, contains parts of the last 16 lines of what is obviously
a third speech, with part of the title, which seems to be unknown, and a few
letters from the beginning of what is much more likely to be a fourth speech
than the oration wpos Ίττ-ηοθξρσην, and among the numerous minute scraps from
the main find are certainly three (Frs. 19, 3o, and 22), and perhaps two more
(Frs. 21 and 44), which contain parts of titles. The minimum number of speeches
represented by the fragments as a whole is four, a figure which could be obtained
by assigning Fr. 9. ii to the speech -npos Ίτητοθ^ρσην, Fr. 19 (κατά Θ€ομνησ]του?)
or Fr. 22 to the speech against Theomnestus, and Fr. 20 to the title of the third
1606. LYSIAS 49
speech, and ignoring Frs. 21 and 44. But at least six of the lost orations are
much more probably represented, and though all of these may have been quite
short, it is clear that the fragments are widely scattered over different parts of
the roll. Lysias is credited by Plutarch ( Vita Lys. 836 a) with no fewer than
425 speeches, of which Dionysius and Caecilius recognized 233 as genuine. The
names of about 170 are known, and 34 are extant.
The script is a handsome uncial approximating towards the early biblical
type, hke 1234 (Part X, Plate iv) and 1365 (Part XI, Plate vi), and probably
belongs to the early part of the third century or even the end of the second.
Iota adscript was generally written. Paragraphi and two kinds of stops, in the
high and middle position, are employed ; that Fr. 82, in which a coronis occurs,
belongs to 1606 is not certain. Fr. 6, in which the upper and lower margins are
preserved, shows that there were 46-49 lines in a column. The other fragments
are or may be from the middles of columns except when it is otherwise stated.
The lines, which tend to begin and end more to the left as the column proceeds,
range from 15 to 22 letters, generally having 18 or 19, and the >-shaped sign is
used for filling up short lines. Deletions are indicated by a line drawn (by the
first hand) above the letters in question ; but the text has not apparently been
subjected to any independent revision, and several mistakes are noticeable,
generally omissions; cf. 11. 47, 115, 139, 141, 173, 217, 349-56, 536.
Of the oration ττρό? Ίτητοθ4ρσην the three concluding columns (II. 126-238),
though requiring a good deal of restoration, are fairly well preserved, and some
intelligible passages are provided by four other fragments (1-2 and 4-5) evidently
belonging to earlier columns of the same speech (11. 7-19, 28-47, 76-86, 114-24).
The respective order of these is doubtful, but Fr. 4 may be placed below Fr. 2
with an interval not exceeding 2 or 3 lines between 11. 48 and 76 ; cf. 11. 38-44, n.
Frs. 3 and 26 also probably belong to this oration, and perhaps Frs. 28-30, 87,
and 1 00- 1. It must have been one of Lysias' more important speeches, being
concerned, like the oration against Eratosthenes (xii), with the administration of
the Thiτω av€v μ]αρτνρων•
δον? [δζ και την] απαιτη
σιν [ ]s• evavTi
275 ον e[. . . ποιο ?]νμ€νο?
ηγη[σαμην π€ρ]ί€ργον
ζΐνα[ι ] μόνον
α[ ]τ€ρων
~ή ] • «^
28ο €ΐσ[ ] . ι
€1 μη παρ e/iof τ[ο αργν
ριον e^ei δνοιν θατ[€ρον
η παρ ζτξρον φα[σ]κ[€ΐν et
ληφζναι η αντ[ον το παν ?
300 €KT€TiK€vai τω[£ Θζοδο
τιδηι €1 μ[€]ν το[ιννν
πα[ρ] eTepov φησ€ΐ [ίίλη
[φβναι] καπ[
[
305 [
[
[
[
[ ]•«7[.
3ΙΟ [ ΚΚ•
[ ]ν μη απο[.
[ ]_£ τοκον α . [
[ ] νφ €τ€ρω[ν
τ[ ]να τοκον [.
315 [ ] 7Γ«/ε> ^/^ο[ν ?
e . [ ]σζν τον σννι[δο ?
To[s . .] . την αποριαν ο[
Kv[uv'\ δβηθηναι• π[αρα
δζ των μηννσοντω[ν
320 τοι? ίχ[^]ρ[ο]ίί α^[ϊ\ονν δα[
νζΐζ\(ϊ\σθαι• κα[ϊ\τοι π[ω?
€ΐκο? τα μξν €μα €[τ€
ροι? σνν€κδιδ[οσθαι αν
τωι δζ παρ ^τβρων δ[α
325 ν€ΐζ€σθ[αι\ ω? δ ον . [. .
το? vi[''^]?[^]y αντωι μ[. .
οντο? παρ €Tepoy δαν[€ΐ
ζξσθαι μξγα νμ[ι'\ν Te[
κμηριον ep'ju ο[τ€] γαρ [e
1606. LYSIAS
57
€Τ[ ]θατ€[ ]
€7γ[ ] ovy τι €
ξι[ τ]ο αργνρί
ον [ ] . €iy €στί[ ]
285 μ .[ ] . €^ αυ
τ[ τ\ου πρα
y\jiaTO^ ] TTOLTj
Frs. 7+45 +
333a[.]KOil[ 350
334 Trepi r|[. .]ou[.]a . . [
335 μ^^ o\KveLv 8^τι\θηναι ? . .
re 5e | ττβρι τον βοος π[
[e]7r cl/zoi οικ€ΐωι ovt[l ....
[.]αί I ττρο? /z€i/ oui/ t[o παρ e 355
[τ]6ρ|[ο]ι; φασκίΐν €ΐ[ληφ€
340 [ι/α]ί ταντα Aeyoo αϊ' [5e . .
[. . .] .lovTOS αργνρ[ωυ . .
[. . ν]/χα9 τον Θζο[μνηστον ?
[€ντ](υθ€ν χρη [e^era^eir ? 360
[πω]? ei/cos ^στίΐ/ r}[
345 [• •]?■ apyvpLOV 7Γ€[ρ]μδ[€ίν] €
[αν]τον €ί9 τον ^^Xf^J'^^] '^'-^
δ[ν]νον (λθοντα κα[ί το]σαι/
TTjv [δ^υναμιν €πί[δ]€ί|αί 365
T0L9 €χθροΐ9 και (ris/y ουτ[ω] σφο
33° X°[p]V7^'' civ[Sp&]ai [eis Δι
ονυσια 7ra[ \ι
λ[ί]α9 8ραχ[μα5 μι?
σθον δί€λι/[σ€
73-
δρα 6π[€]τ/ρ67Γ€ τη[ι τ'\υχη[ι
€1 [κ]αι τ[ι] εξαίφνης [β]πα
6ev περί το σώμα αμα
και τον βιον ανα•γ[κασ&\η
ναι τταθαν eiy τουτ\ο πρ^ο
ηκο]ντα ωστ€ €ΐ ζδυ [ο] ηλι
oy] ντΓζρημ^ρου οντ[θ9 κ]αι
ri]y όντως ανόητο? οστ[ι\9
αν]τον παρασκίναζζΐ [ν
πο] T01S €χ[θ]ροΐ9 γζνζσθαι
η τ]ί9 ourcoy άφρων οστι?
]€ΐ ολίγον δζΐν α
..... .]ναί η τΐ9 ν
] οστι? λ[. .] . ν
]«ί/^?[
]Υ Φ[' . . .
.].[.
(c) Against
Fr. 8.
[/iap]Tt/p[ey
[πα\λιν τ\ο\ιννν [ω] ai/(5pe[y
\δίκ\ασται coy τη\ν\ νανν
370 [ei' Κ]αρχηδονι α7Γ[€]δοτ[ο
. ylius, &C.
Fr. 9• Col. i.
[ ] νμ[^^ ?
[ ^ντων TOis μαρτν
375 [σ-ί ] _
[ ] μαρτυράς
Fr. 9•
390 [
[
[
Col. ϋ.
58
THE OXYRHYNCHUS PAPYRI
[μα\ρτυρησουσιν
[ν\μίν ο[ί
[ωρ //e]i/ τοίΐΊ/Γ ω avSpe?
j_a.[
[e7ri]7rXeoi/Te[y . .
. . . .
[δικασ]ται ουκ iyeyo^rju
[αντ]ωι κ[ο\ινωνο9 ακ[ον
395 δικ[
κα . [
Fr. 10.
380 [σατ€] τωι/ μαρτύρων και
λι^[
]αταπ[
]Vi[;]...[
Γ 1 . ατΓοδομζ
ονϊ
405
[ν ]ν αποΒοσθαι
ι
] • f 'fa/ [-If [
[. . . τ]αντα TOLvvv ω αν
400 [
]eiy μ^ντ[
[Sp€S δικαστ]αι σκοπούν
??[
] παρ iT€pcu\y ?
385 [τ€9 ]f^--'V[. .]€[.
Γ?[
]ay 5e \u[
[ ]a..aS.[...
. ή
410
] <5ίαλλα[
[. . . την] νανν [.]€ ...[..
[. . . . ■ψη]φισα[σ]θ€
[ προ9 ] . νλιον
Fr. II.
Fr. 12. Fr
■• ΐ3•
[ ] . r[
]λρν .[. . top
of col.
[. • . •]Γ[•]λλ[
425
] . in•] • [• • 436
] μαρτνρ[
[ 1 . [
] . ον οντα[
]ομαί
415
[']V • hi
οι/τα[.] . δίκαί[
]ν φ€ν[ [μαρ
[γ ]ρια
TVpfs]
[.]€ίΐ/ ίτ; τίσί;/ α
[
] αδικωί α
Fr. 14.
[^^[.jai /τα αρ . [.
. . ου 430
]υ οίον ου π[.] .
[• . ']V[
τω σφο8ρα μου [
fcare
]σατ€ 44° δυ €τη προσ[ €0α?
430
φρόνησαν [ω]σ7"[ί
. . .
] . . . ^τολμα σκ€
βονλίσθαι α[
σ^α[ί] αί/τ[
] . πράγμα- μ€ ποιησασ6[αι
[. .]α) δ€ίΐ/οτ[
]τον[. . . er
id of col.
[■ • -Irfi." •Η
435
Μ••• •
•Fr. 15.
Fr. 16.
Fr. 17•
Fr. 18.
[. .]ρϊ/στ[
447 ]π[ο\ν
450 ] . σ-τ . [ 453
l-.K
δαι/€ί^
]νη
>«." • [
]"Γ[
445
Υψα
] • • [ 455
]•^.[
1606. LYSIAS
(d) Miscellaneous,
59
Fr. 19 Fr. 20.
Fr. 21.
Fr. 22.
456 ]τοϋ 457 ττρος [
458 ] τταραν{ομων ?
459 a^e/[
460 προ9 [0 ?] . I
Fr. 23.
Fr. 24.
Fr. 25.
] . [.]7?ri
. .]7ί0ϊ'[
]«[
]ov και [
. π\αρα\[
485
]δωτωί [
]τουμ[ 47°
. .] πλ€ίο[
jTijf συμβα[λ
π]αρ€χομ[€
.] 5€ τωι/ . [
] μη του κλη[ρου
465 ]ητ€' κα[
] . αί πίστ[€ίϊ ?
] χρηματω[ν
] φασκο[ν
π]αραστ[
] eis TayTrj[i/
Μ .
.]pay €5ce[<
490
"Ιην €ΚΤίσιν σωτ[
. 475
τ]αχα ουν [
€]>ίαστωι/ [
τό\ν κΧηρον απ[
"Ιαι την παιδισκ[ην
.]ι/ Τίί 7Γα/ο[
μα
] ουν €φη βφα[ι
ρ]τυρα? € .
[
]?■??[•] ^ ^'- '"^ 0^[
.]8οκω κα[
495
]^[a]f e /ζοί δίκα\
48ο
.]ν ζΐναι κ[
.]ΐθν ΟΤΙ τ[
αν]αγκη τ . [
]τ[.] αίίοι;[σ]α? '*€ • [
βο'\υ\ίυσ[
]r)pev καλου[μ€ν
]ψ TL τ[
end of col.
500
]«Γί[
Fr. 26.
Fr. 27.
Fr. 28.
[. . .] ονκ α[
. . .
τα\[
520 . [
[. . .] αλλ €1 μ€ΐ/ απτ[.
ται t'[
^[
[. .•. . τΓ]ολ€μιους αν[τ .
.
τος τ[
h[
[. .] . [.] . ουκ αν 6ί)(€ΐ/ |
[' ' 515
ζ€τ[αι
δχ{
505 [. .]ακογτο9 τοιοντωί δ[
e
ί«έ[
δχ{
[τ/3θ]πωί 1)γησα[το] δ[ι
/oouy . [
525 β{
[κα]ίω9 αγανα[κτ€ΐν
ev τη[
π.[
€7Γί των πατ\ριων απο
d
ja\
6ο THE OXYRHYNCHUS PAPYRI
στζρονμξνοΫ [ ξα[
510 μοί βοκονσιν ο[ι τα υμ€ τι[
τ€ρα ΐΓρίαμζν\οι
Frs. 29 + 30 + 28? . Fr. 31.
530 ^^Χ ] . σ[. . . ]ωνα[.
/3|[ If/ooiS € 540 ]υοσυν[.
τ . |[ ]«£ αυτόν πα ' '\Tpos τουΓ
ρο.\ ]ον απο8α ] και τοις φο
ξα.\[. .]οί . Ι [. . α]υτον cvayl ]αί ay αν α
535 ^'[α '"Οί? αλ[λοί5] γ[ί]γί'ωσκοί/ κτ ττ\ο\\α ημαρ
τα μόνον (α ?) α|[ι/ α]ϋτω 5ί<αί 545 τ ]ρι μηδξν
[α)]ί παρ νμων φ\[€]ροί το[.] . ν ]ων φροντι
[. . . .]ν ποοί γαρ | δυνα[τ]αι αμφί\σβητξί τωι [
end of col. ]^ • '^ • Γ
Fr. 32. Fr. ^^. Fr. 34.
[#'7Γ[ ] • ^vos [ 565 ] •
550 [.]^€ΐ/τα[ '\του οντο9 8e τ[ ]τα
[']v7[.] . [ 8'^αγομ€νο9 [ ]αρ
[ο]νκ €^6λ[. .] . [ 56ο δια]λ€λνκ€ την [ ]θαι
€ίχ€Τ€ ου γαρ ^ι]κα[ιον ? ]ν ο φασκων [ ]ρα
μβν υμ[ι]ν ^[ί]σ€ν . [. . . ]<'^ios civai των [ ζ^ο ]ν
555 ^"irep τ[ο]υτου [.]?;[ ]ν π/)[ο]ί [τ]α9 €νίω[ ]σα
[.].[ * ' *]...[ ]ra
Fr. S5• Fr. 35. Fr. 37. Fr. 38.
[. .] . ν€ω[ 58o . [ ] . JVfoi
στρατ€ία[ φ[ ]y και 595 ]iv γαρ [
575 και €re[ 0[ ]ταί Ιτο^?!
σννξ . [ at;[ 590 1^ ]^fA.
των . [ re λ . [ ]€μ ]σα[
λ(ντ[ 5^5 «4 ] Υτ([
[.]βω[ ί[ ]αί 6οο ]j/ . [
1606. LYSIAS
6i
Fr. 39.
Fr. 40.
]Ro^
Col
. ί.
Col. ii.
β]€βαιθί π[
2
lines
5 lost
•[
ο]νκ απ[
] .
615 σ[
αμφ]ίσβητ[
6ιο
]υ
^l•
6ο 5 ] αποσ[
] .
ου
3 lines lost
]^«[
] •
620 a . [
Fr. 41.
Fr. 42.
Fr• 43•
Fr. 44.
]?[
>^[
.'[
]0o[
Μ
Ι^οι^ί
635 λ[
]κοστ[
]7Γ€γ[
630
]/^«[
•[
Μ
62 5 ]'"'Ρ0°'[
]ω.[
χ[
]νμ[
]ντα . [
]eep . [
4
645 ] [
Μ
]f4
4
640 fx[
]τοι{
]• [
Fr. 45•
Fr. 46.
Fr. 47.
Fr. 48.
>«.'[
654
]y?.[
]..
]?.[
] T^ept τ[
2 lines lost
]
].ο
650 ]μου ο[
>6. ..[.].
[
] Τ0Τ6
]π[•
w<'
]τα €7riTi75e[
α?
l»^
670 ];/χίθ
17^. [
]υ ω? αξίον
<
665 >
]•
]«[
66ο
]τ]ί φ[ω]νησαί
[
Ιοΰί
]«*'
Fr. 49•
Fr. 50.
Fr. 51.
Fr. 52.
]ρον
]l €ίσ6[
] 'f"''- f[
]•[
].^
] • «ί^^ίί
]y ^^ • [
].ν λα.λ[
675 ]ρ^ίγ
6δο
]ΰύστο . [
685
ομό]\ογουν[
6go ]. ωί τωι ττ(ρ\>σι.[
]ν
]ι τυγχ[αν
]iu TO a[
]μ€νον §[.]υξ . [
>
]0ΡΤ[
]7«?[
]νττ[
62
THE OXYRHYNCHUS PAPYRI
Fr• 53-
Fr. 54.
Fr. 55-
Fr. 55.
]«i . [
]..[
]'iH
706 ]fx[
]λ€ί Τί9 . [
]_ίαίτα[
] ov φασκωγ [
695 ]αθηκ[
700
] μαρτνσ[ι ?
] €Κ€ΐνη9 .
.[
]^0f?L
705 ]yoi/ άλλα
r[
]•.[
//a/jryj/per
end of col.
Fr. SI.
Fr. 58.
Fr. 59.
Fr. 60.
].[
711
Ιί'^ίί
715 ]ψασ[
] f/?y4
]θων \
]ασ€[
]ση πισ[
720
] • "T".»!
jexrej/ . [
]" y«[
]υομ€ν[
]<«!'€[
710 ]a[
].^.[
']"[
]<
Fr. 61.
Fr. 62.
Fr. 6^.
Fr. 64.
]r . . ToXy
7
27 ]aj' σί
730 ]ντοι/ e[
Jurcui π . [
τρι]ηραρχ[
] . TV
]αί ror . [
735
1ι8ηξαι τ[
725 πλο]υσίωτα[τ
y α/ί
]ασοι;Α:[
]i αΐ'αίσχι;»'[το9
]ω.'[
end of col.
]« . ['
5'ωσ
}]ίαδη9 κ[
Fr. 6s.
Fr. 66.
Fr. 67.
Fr. 68.
]<r^i
].[
top of col.
Μ
. m
].C7[
].6λλ[
Μ
740 ] . t[
745
]r[
]ων χ[
y[
]e^oy[
Μ
750 >«[
755
]ον α[
]?M
]v[
]•[
m
Fr. 69.
Fr. 70.
Fr. 71.
Fr. 72.
>•[
761
...[
765 ]..[
]ΐΌσ[
]yroi/ [
Xpoul
].ov.[
770
]9.^^[
]kop[
την [
]ero[
]/3ω^ [
760 ]a7r[
r[-]f[
]fP'f[
].α[
1606. LYSIAS
Fr. 73.
Fr. 74.
Fr. 75•
Fr. 76.
Μ
[.]..[ 781
Χω }\σιαδτι[
785 ] Oeo
Μ
[.]^?[
]..^eXr?[
]tvp
775 Μ
[:\ονΛ
"^ιτην .
]^
]•[
78ο
[•]«."[
m
]«
Fr. 77.
Fr. 78.
Fr. 79.
Fr. 80.
τη^ [
σθαΐ' και e . [
Μ-
801 ]π[. .] την
79° ovS[
[. . .]μ^νον [
]u. ϊ
]οιησαν
ψηφ[ί -
795
[...]... e|.[
]θω
]i δηλομ
απον[
[...]...[
8οο ]παι
]v VVVL
Fr. 81.
Fr. 82.
Fr. 83.
Fr. 84.
805 ] . . [
Λ
]..[.
i].[
](ονδ[
8ιο
> —
Γ
]ομ€
[.li/pa . [
]aSi
Γ δ.
ακ\
[δ ]Τ€
ζ]αθο[
]αλλ[
στα\^
]•!/[
820 [.].[
Fr. 85.
Fr. 85.
Fτον θ(όΙμνηστον evTlevOev χρη [e'^eTcifetf ? πω]? elKOi eariv η\_ ]? αργυρίου ττίίρΊιιδΓβΐΐ'Ι
έΓαυΙτοί' eh τον (σχα\^ον\ κίνδ\^υ'^νον (λθόντα κο[ί τo^τavτηv [δ]'•ναμιν (πι\_δ^Ίξαι τοις 4χθροΊς ; κα\ {τις)
ουτΓω] σφόδρα e^feVpeTre ttj \τ]ΰχη, el [<]α' r[i] (ξαίφνης [ejirn^ef, ωστ( πep\ το σώμα άμα kcu τον
βίον άνα•γ\κασθ\ηναι παθ('ίν ίίί τοχιτ\ο πργ\ηκο^ντα el eSv [ό] ΐ7Λί[οί] νπίρημψον οντ\ος ', icjat [τί]? ούτως
ανόητος οστίιλς [av]rcii' παρασκ(υάζ(τ\αι ΰπο το'ις e;([^jpoti γενέσθαι J [^ rjt; όντως άφρων όστις . . .
*. . . As he was my associate, I gave Theomnestus 30 minae, when he was obliged to
pay a penalty to Theozotides before sunset or else become liable for default. Having given
him the money naturally w^ithout witnesses and being defrauded of it, I am compelled to go
to law. Theomnestus previously was my friend and associate, but now at the persuasion
of my enemies this is how he acts, and he would have dared to do anything else against me.
Before this quarrel between us arose, I neither troubled him nor demanded back the
money . . . (1. 295) He must, if he has not had the money from me, make one of two
pleas, either that he has received it from some one else, or that he himself paid Theozotides
in full. If on the one hand he is going to assert that he received it from some one else, . . .
(1. 315) ... he hesitated to ask from me who was aware of his straits (?), but thought fit to
borrow from persons who were going to inform his enemies. Is it, however, probable that
my money should be lent out (?) to others, and that he should borrow from others than
myself.? To show that he did not think fit ... to borrow from some one else, I will pro-
duce an important piece of evidence. When he was providing a men's chorus at the
Dionysiac festival, ... (1. 338) With regard then to the assertion that he received the money
from some one else, that is my answer. But if (he paid from) the money which he had
by him, you must put these questions to Theomnestus. Is it likely that he would have
overlooked the extreme danger which he incurred and put so much power into his enemies'
hands ? Who ever had such exxessive trust in fortune, even if suddenly he became possessed,
that he Avas obliged to endanger his body and life as λυ^Ι, having come to this pass if the
sun set leaving him a defaulter.? Who is so senseless as to place himself at the mercy
of his enemies, or who is so foolish as to . . .'
3. συκίοφανίτ : cf. xii. 5 eVeiSi) δ οι τριάκοντα πονηρο\ pev κα\ συκοφάνται οντες εΙς την άρχην
κατέστησαν, to which 11. 2-4 w'ere probably similar.
5. ούτος means Lysias, as apparently throughout the fragments of this speech ; cf.
11. 43, 81, 144, 225. His opponents are spoken of as οντοι in 11. 32 and 229, while τούτων
in 1. 140 refers to both Lysias and Hippotherses. The letter following οντος can be
γ, t, or π.
8. [Πολεμαρχον is rather long for the lacuna, but seems necessary; cf. the next n. and
xii. 17 sqq.
9-10. την [ονσια^ν αφειλοντο : cf 11. 29, 162, and Plut. Vii. Lys. 835 e των τριάκοντα
παράΚαβόντων την πάλιν εξεπεσεν . . . αφαιρεθείς την ουσ'ιαν κα\ τον άδελφον ΤΙόλεμαρχον. \οικια^ν
could be read both here and in 1. 29 (cf. 1. 44), but is unsuitable; for Lysias with his brother
owned three houses (xii. 18), and the price mentioned in 1. 30, which must be not less than
30 and seems to be 70 talents, is too high for a single house; cf. xix. 29, where a house
costs 50 minae, and xix. 42, where a house and land cost 5 talents. A list of Lysias' losses,
given in xii. 19, includes 700 shields, 120 slaves, money, clothes, and furniture.
1606. LYSIAS 69"
II. (νΏίψαια: according to xii. 17 Lysias went to Megara from Athens, and Plut.
op. cit. 835 f states δι^γί^ eV Meyapoiy. The Piraeus is mentioned here as being the head-
quarters of the exiles after its capture by Thrasybulus. One of the houses of Lysias and
his brother was there; cf. Plato, Rep. 327 a.
II— 12. r]^i}^v'. cf. 1. 78•
12-13. απ[οφ6|ρ]£σ^αί : or αν\ακομι\ζ\^6αι ; cf. κ{ομιζ^σΥαι in 1. 1 6. _ αγ.[ or oi.[ COuld also
be read, and the verb may be intransitive; but possibly τα ^αντον, which in 1. .i6 has a line
above it, was added in the margin of 11. 12-13.
16-17. κ\ομιζίσ\θαι•. cf. 1. 43 and 12-13, n. The omission of ra εαυτού here is no
improvement, unless the words had been inserted in the margin of 11. 12-13.
17-18. Neither Nicostratus nor Xenoc[les] is known from other sources.
20. ασπ<[δ: Lysias had a shield-manufacturing business; cf xii. 19 and Plut. op. cit.
835 f, quoted in 11. 163-71, n.
29. ουσ\.αν'. cf. 11. 9-IO, n. ουσιαν . . . σ]υ\\ληφ[β(ΐσαν αξ]ιαν \ δε is possible.
30. €βΒ[ομηκο]υτα : the first letter might be σ or ω, and the traces of the second and
third are very doubtful, but unless there was another word before the number, φ8[ομηκο]ΐ'τα
is preferable to e. g. (ξ [και τρίακο]ντα.
31. [απ(δο]υτο is far from certain, especially since ι or ω can be read m place of κ, so
that the subject might be singular. If [απ€8ο]ντο is right, the subject seems to be the Thirty
Tyrants as contrasted with ovrm in 1. 32, which refers to Hippotherses and his associates.
32. αφ[ανισ]αί•. i, c. ίξαργυρίσαι : cf. the contrast between άφανψ and φανερά ουσία in the
fragment of this speech quoted on p. 48.
35-6. Cf 1. 163.
38-44. For oiro, meaning Lysias cf. 1. 5, n. The context does not suit the reference
of olros to Hippotherses, though there may be only a short gap between 11. 48 and 76 ; cf.
47. This line seems to be corrupt, though a[.] (but not α[ντ\ or any other letter than
a[) can be read in place of i[e]. A dittography of av δε is the simplest hypothesis, buc there
may well be an omission of μη before απο3ω[σ]£, and possibly [ω\ν δε αν {μη) αττοδω[(τ]ι should
be read.
48. The letter before pa can be s, but φαν]€ρα is possible ; cf. int. p. 48.
83. [6]νρηκοτος suits the spacc better than [η]νρηκοτο5 : in 1. 153 the spelling of »?vSa]i^omre
is uncertain.
86. [χαλε]π•ωί φ€ροντοί : cf. xix. 50.
89. ]υλον: o]v του is less suitable, and ΐβρωρ]νμου (cf. Lys. Fr. 123 quoted on p. 48) is
inadmissible. r ^ ^ u
92-3. Σωσιο[8ην}•. Σωσία (genitive) or Έωσια\νακτα is possible; but ct. ir. 64, where
αναισχνν[τος Σωσ]ια8η5 Can be restored in 11. 736-7• παραλαβωι/ [τον αναισχνν]τον Σωσια[8η.
could even be read here. Fr. 75, where Σω]σιαδη[ is not unlikely in 1. 781, may also refer
to this person. ir i 1
93-4. 8α]ν€ΐστην should perhaps be restored in 1. 93, but Ji- ευ την η\[μ(ραν την\ συγκει^ε,-
[νην is possible.
102. This line is in the same position in the column as.l. 92.
1 13-18. Cf XXxiv. II beimu yap av Λη, ω {avbpes) Αθηναίοι, el ore μέν εφευγομει/ (μαχόμ(βα
Αακί8αιμονίοΐί Ίνα κατί\6ωμ(ν, κατίΚθόντ^ς δε φίυξόμίθα 'ίνα μη μαχώμίθα.
ιΐ9• [οργιζοι\σθί : cf xii. 30, 80, 90• With tois €ωνημ([νοι]« τα νμ€Τ€ρα cf. U. 510-11•
124-5• Perhaps ί|[πείτα. . ,
12 7-8. Tas συ]νθη[κας τε και to]us νομουί could be read, but IS contrary to Lysias use
of Γε. Tais (or των) σν]νθη[καις (or -κων) κατά το]υς νομούς is more likely.
129. ακη]κοατ€: i.e. in 11. 38 sqq. probably.
ηο THE OXYRHYNCHUS PAPYRI
129-35. Either η\ in 1. 129 or . .]as• in 1. 130 is likely to belong to ημάς, which is
expected about this point, being perhaps contrasted with τ\ου\/\ avTihi[Kovs in 11. 133-4. If
there was a pause after αντώί[κονς, the next sentence may have begun ημ\ίΐ5 \τοινυν\ υμιν. In
view of the stop, however, at the end of 1. 132, t\ov[s\ αντώι[κου5 may be connected with what
follows, and mean both parties to the suit, not Lysias' adversaries, νμιν in 1. 134 clearly
goes with (■πιτρ€ττί\μΐν : cf Plato, ApoL 35 d ίμίν €πιτρίπω . . . κρίναι. There is room for [be TTfpi\
before τοντων in 1. 135, but -rrepi τούτων occurs shortly after in 1. 140.
iqn. [κρίσιν]: cf. XXV. ID ούτως yap av δικαιοτάτην (την) κρίσιν nepl αυτών ττοιοΊσθΐ. For
[■^νωμην] there is not room, irepi τον would be expected before πράγματος, but since nepi
Tourwfoccurs in the next line, the sentence would be improved by the omission of πραγ/ιατοϊ.
141. There seems to have been an omission of τΐ at the beginning of this hne, as in
1 115•
144—5. Cf. XXV. 17 δστις yap τότ€ ovbev εξημαρτον , . ., η που νΰν σφό8ρα προβυμησομαι.
χρηστός elvai. 8ο[ξας or 8ο[κων seems to be inevitable, for the letter before ο is more like δ
than λ, which is the only alternative.
148. [προσηκ^)ντ : OT [συμφΐρρντ.
149. It is not certain that the space (the width of a letter) between ηι and οτ[ι] was
blank, the surface of the papyrus being damaged. Whether μ€ν had a Se answering to it is
not clear, and perhaps μ€ν\[τοι should be read.
150. ν]μιν: or η^ίν.
155-6. Cf. xii. 43 eVetS?) Se η ναυμαχία κα\ ή συμφορά τη ττόλει eyeceTO.
157-9• C^• ^^^• 2° °^^^ ""'''" '"" ίλόχ'στοί' μέρος τψ ουσίας (λίου . . . ετυγχάνομ^ν, XU. 22
μ€την yap αν κα\ (μο\ τούτου τάγαθον ουκ ελάχιστον μέρος, and especially XviU. 2 των μεν κακών ουκ
ελάχιστον αυτός μετεσχε μέρος. The ν οΐ ]υσεν in*l. 1 59 is fairly certain. A verb meaning
' avoided ' is expected, but εφ^υγεν cannot be read.
160-2. Cf. 11. 8-10, nn.
163-71. Cf. Plut. op. cit. 8'^ζΐ επιθεμενων 8ε των από Φυλής τη καθόδψ, επε\ χρησιμότατος
απάντων ωφβη, χρήματα τε παράσχων δραχμας δισχιλίας και ασπίδας διακοσίας πεμφθείς τε συν
'Έρμάνι επικούρους εμισθώσατο τριακόσιους, δύο τ έπεισε τάλαντα δοϋναι θρασυδαΐον τον 'HXetoi/, ξένον
αύτω (better αΙτω) γεγονότα, which is clearly based upon the present passage, not, as
BlaSS {op. cit. p. 339) supposed, upon the speech περ\ τών Ιδίων ευεργεσιών (cf. 11. Ι77~9 ^■)•
Α shorter verb than εμισθώσατο seems to have occurred in 1. 165, though cf. xii. 59 επικούρους
μισθούσθαι. With the spelling τ[ε]ληι in 11. 1 70-1 cf. αναγκηι as the nominative in 11. 18 1-2.
173. παρ νμιν: the traces oft are very slight, but there is not room for υμών, which is
what Lysias probably wrote (cf. 11. 216-19, n.), though later writers, e.g. Dio Cass. Exc.
p. 66. 34, often use the dative with παρά in place of the genitive.
177-9. The speech προς Ίπποθερσην y/as probably delivered before that περ\ τών Ιδίων
ευεργεσιών, of which the contents and date are unknown.
178. α[ν\αμνημισκων: for μνημίσκειν, which appears as a form of μιμνησκειν in the Roman
period, but is' not likely to have been used by Lysias himself, cf. Porphyr. VzL Plotini 13 εν
δέ τισι λεξεσιν αμαρτάνων, ου γαρ αν ειπεν άναμιμνησκεται άλλα άναμνημίσκεται, and Ρ. Hamburg
37. 4 (2nd cent.) μνημίσκεσθαι, quoted by W. Schmid in Ber/. Phil. Woch. 1914• 1568.
184. επι μεν των τετρα[κο σιων : \. e. at the fall of the Four Hundred, when several of the
leaders escaped to Decelea; cf. Thuc. viii. 98.
1 9 1-4. That two originally separate fragments, one attributed to the middles of
11. 192-3, the other (Fr. 80) to the ends of 11. 191-4, are correctly placed admits of little
doubt.
194-7. The general sense is that Hippotherses took more pride in the destruction than
in the building of the walls; cf. xii. 63 καίτοι σφόδρ αν αυτόν οΐμαι μετά Θεμιστοκλέους πολιτευό-
μενον προσποιεΐσθαι πράττειν δπως οίκοδομηθήσεται τα τείχη, οπότε και μετά Θηραμένους δπως
1606. L YSIAS 71
καθαιρ^βήσίται, and xiv. 39 η των ηιχων καθτιρημίνων ayavaicrei. The first letter of μ[ίΐο]ι/ is,
however, very uncertain, y, η, ι, κ, ν, π, or τ being equally possible. οτ[ι. ο\μ[οιο]ν could be
read instead of οτ[ι] μ[(ΐο\ν, with km instead of η in 1. 196 (which as it stands is rather short) ;
but this does not combine well with ουδ ομ[ο]ιαί ελπίδα? in 1. 198. των τΐίχων κτλ. seems to
be a genitive absolute.
201. ωι/ : The first letter can be η, ι, or ω, but hardly v.
203. μeτaμeλη[σa^v : cf. the usc of the present participle absolutely in Isocr. 382 c and
Plato, Phaedo 114 a.
207. €φγα[σ]α[το : ζψ^α\σ\\αι is inadmissible. The next word may have been κακά.
212—13• Perhaps ■τ:ίν\ττ]κοντα τάλαντων.
216-19. Though the remains are scanty, the general sense is fairly clear; but in 1. 217
^av\ would be expected to end the line, and there is certainly not room for both etv and tv
after it. ίννσ\ιαν cannot be read. For χαμιν\ τταρα του [^ημον αττολαμ]8αν[βίν cf. 1. 172 and
XX. 30 Χ^Ρ'" ΤΓίφ' υμών απολάμβαναν.
230. The cancelling of ττβρι is supported by χ. 2 σνγγνώμην αν ΐίχον αΙτω των ΐϊρημίνων Ι
but cf. ix. 22 νπίρ των περιφανών αδικημάτων σνγγνώμην ποίίΐσθί, and xix. ^6 περί δε του πατρός
. . . σνγγνώμην έχετε•
239-46• [δφ ro[v] λο[γου τοι^του is Unsatisfactory, for the slight traces after το[ν] do not
suit λο, and if the letter preceding ]rov were v, the tail of it would rather be expected to be
visible.' [8i]n το[ν]του\[τον λο]γον is also unsuitable, and since this speech is for the prosecution
it is not likely to have begun with a reference to a speech by the defendant• [δι]α το[υ]
αγ[ω\νος τον]του is possible, but we have not been able to restore the whole passage satis-
factorily• [(φηκί]ναι could be read in 1. 242, but like λο]γον is not appropriate, and 8ίί[θηκ(]ν
in 11• 242-3 is rather short• With ίπ]ιτροπονί and ονσιαν in 11• 244-5 eft H• 267-8• The
vestige of a letter at the end of 1. 244 suggests ε, i, or v. κεΐ[λευει α]λλα is too long•
249• θ](ο8οτι8ηι: cf. 1. 300. He is not likely to be the same person as the θευζστίΒηε
against whom lix was directed, for the fragments of that speech in P• Hibeh 14 are
concerned with a γραφή παρανόμων on account of Th.'s proposals to alter the pay of soldiers
and arrangements for benefiting orphans• Nor is he to be identified with the θΐοζοτίδης
χορηγός τραγω8ών mentioned by Dem, xxi. 59. With regard to the spelling, θ^οζοτίΒης is the
only form recognized in the Prosopogr. Ait. ; but θεοσδοτίδι^ί or θΐοδοτίδης is commonly
found in Byzantine MSS.
266. . . •]ν : or επε](.
267-8. Cf• 11• 244-5•
269. The letter preceding το may be t or ω.
270. ]ai can be read in place of ]f.
271. Perhaps το]τ^, unless ο]τ€ was written twice by mistake, ye is the only alternative
to τε.
272. avev μ^αρτνρων : cf. 1. 252.
275. ποιο^υμΐνος : η, ι, or ω Can be read instead of v.
276. Cf. Xii. 35 η που σφάς αυτούς ήγησονται π^ρύργους νπίρ υμών τηρουμίνους.
293~4• Probably απαιτη'\σΐως ΟΓ αποδο]σεω5•.
294-5• αν[τιλε]γει cannot be read without altering the text, though it is the word
expected.
297. δνοιν θατ\(ρον•. cf• vi. 8, xii. 34•
302—3• Possibly \ΐΐληφ(\ναι ου]κ απ[.
312. The letter before τοκον might be ω, but is apparently not v.
317-18. o\kv[€lv] δεηθηναι: cf. 1. 335, where these words seem to recur. But the is
lower in the line than would be expected and there might be one or two letters lost after it.
The letter following κ, if not v, is μ.
72
THE OXYRHYNCHUS PAPYRI
320. The ίχθροί are those of Theomnestus (cf. 1. 349), not those of the plaintiff (1. 258).
322. The V of μ€ν is corrected from μ.
325—6. Possibly ουκ [avjroi: ονχ [ov\tos is not a satisfactory reading. The last three
letters of αυτωι are very doubtful, but the following μ is nearly certain, so that ■n[ap\ovTos
and ([ξ\οντος are excluded.
3^0—2. Cf. xxi. 2 fTi δ' αι/δράσι χορηγών eis Αιοννσια . . . (νίκησα και άνηΧωσα σνν rfj τον
τρίποδος άναθίαΐΐ π(ντακι.σχιλίας 8ραχμάς. αλ\\Κας δραχ[μας COuld be read.
333 a-41• That Frs. 45 and 73 join together and are to be placed near the beginnings
of these lines was ascertained after they had been printed in the miscellaneous section.
335. Cf 11. 317-18, n. δε ί[ could be read. Κ 8(η[θηναι is right, the next word may be
Τθ]|τ€.
337• Cf. 11. 246 and 256-7.
338-40. Cf. 11. 298-300.
344-5. The word or words before apyvpiov may well have ended ον\το]ς, corresponding
to 11. 340-1. ν\παρχον\το]ί is inadmissible.
348. ίπι[δ]€ΐξαι : or επι[.]ηξαι, which suggests no suitable word, though €πι[δ]ηξαι may
have been written for em[8]e4ai, as perhaps in 1. 738. [d]vvapiv is also difficult, but the ν of
[b]vv is almost certain.
349. ThatTty has been omitted before ουτ[ω] is clear from 11. 356-7. For οντ[ω] σφοδρά
cf. 11. 418-19.
350. Cf. ii. 79 ovK ΐττιτρ(ψαντ€ί rrept αυτών ttj τΰχη.
351-6. As the text stands, there is no construction for the infinitive αναγ\κασθ\ηναι in
1. 353 and no verb for ωστ6 in 1. 355. The simplest course is to transpose ώστε to I. 352
after [ej-a^ev, but the corruption may go deeper ; e. g. ώστε et fbv [o] »;Xt[os] υηερημίρον οντ[ος
may be transferred to 1. 352, or ώστε may be inserted there and a verb added for the second
ωστ€. For et? τοντ[ο πρ]ο[ηκο]ντα cf. Dem. XXviii. 5.
362-3. Perhaps ν\[μων or (ο)ν\[τωί.
367. Fr. 13 is perhaps to be placed immediately above Fr. 8, so that the stroke visible
under the μ of ]ομαι in 1. 437 represents the stroke lost above [ey in 1. 367.
370-2. These lines apparently began more to the left than 11. 368-9.
o'j'j—So. Cf. XXxi. 14 ώί ovv ωκίΐ re ϊνΏρωπω . . . άκονσατί τών μαρτύρων, μάρτυρας. Here
the mention of μάρτυρες comes first.
387. την'\ vavv: cf. 1. 369.
389. προς 1 . νλιον: ΟΓ pOSSibly ] . νλην or ] . . aiov or ] . . vov. προς Άρμόδιον, π. Άρχϊνον, and
7Γ, XvTphov are titles of lost speeches of Lysias ; but Αρ]μοδιον cannot be read, and the speech
π. ^ΑρχΙνον was concerned with Lysias' citizenship, which is clearly foreign to the subject of
Frs. 8-9. Of the speech π. Xvrplvov only one fragment is extant, \yhich is concerned with
an assault, and the vestiges do not suit Xv]rpivov. Fr. 20 possibly belongs to this line ; but
cf. int. pp. 48-9.
397. Possibly Αν[σιας in some form ; but cf. int. p. 48.
410. There was perhaps a blank space after άΚλα, indicating the end of a line.
416. It is not certain whether a letter has been obliterated after οντά, or there was
a blank space before the vestige of the next letter, which might be a, i. e. αδ<κα i[ or α δικαι[.
ω δίκασ[ται could be read, but Lysias regularly uses ώ ανδρΐς δίκασταί.
418-20. Cf. 11. 349 sqq. It is, however, unlikely that Fr. 11 belongs to the speech
against Theomnestus.
436-8. Cf. 1. 367, n.
440-1. ε0α][σκε: Fr. 16, in which 1. 449 ends ]εφα, may well belong to the ends of
1. 440 and the two preceding lines.
447-9. Cf. the previous n.
1606. LYSIAS 73
456. Possibly, but not very probably, κατά Β(ομνησ\τον : cf. int. p. 48. The two
extant orations κ. θΐομν. are distinguished as a and 0. There is a blank space above and
below ]rov.
457. Cf. 1. 389, n. There is a blank space above προΓ [, but the lower margin is
broken away.
458. The blank spaces above and below this line indicate a title. 'Yn-ep Φανίον παρα-
νόμων was the title of a speech of Lysias according to Athenaeus xii. 551 d, who quotes
a long extract from an invective against Cinesias, a writer of dithyrambs and comedies, this
being one of the two speeches np6s Κινησίαν mentioned by Harpocration. The speech κατά
θίοζοτ18υν was also concerned with παρανόμων (cf. 1. 249, n.), and Blass {op. cit. p. 350)
assigns five other speeches to the same category. But none of the other miscellaneous
fragments of 1606 suggests any of these speeches as its source.
459-60. Possibly a letter is lost before απ€£[. There is a space below 1. 460, but none
between 11. 459-60, such as is found elsewhere between the last line of a speech and the
title ; possibly therefore 7Γροσ[.] . [ is a heading like μάρτνρ€ς, and not a title. The vestige
of a letter would suit γ, η, «, κ, μ, ν, π, τ, or ν, and the lacuna between it and προ5, if not
blank, is likely to have contained o, since any other letter ought to have left visible traces.
No speech of Lysias προς o[. . . is known, and there is no reason to connect this fragment
with the title of civ π^ρΐ τη: ^Ονομακλΐους θυγατρόί.
468-83 It is not at all certain that Fr. 24 comes from a point near the beginnings of
lines; cf. 1. 483, n.
472-4. Cf. xii. 77 πολλά? πίστεις αυτοΊς έργω δεδωκώί, and 1. 7 1 6, where πισ[τις perhaps
recurs.
481. Apparently not 8η[\ονοτι.
483. ]ηρ€ν κα\ον[ : ΟΓ ]ηρ (νκαΚον[μΐν : in which case ]ηρ is probably not the beginning of
a line.
490. σωτ[: Σωσ[ίαδ7^ι (cf. 11. 92-3, η.) is inadmissible.
493. βίβα[ι: cf. 1. 602 β]φαιοι and Lys. Fr. 310 (from Harpocration) βίβαιώσ^ως Βίκης
ονομά ΐστιν ην δικάζονται οΊ ύνησάμΐνοί τι τω άπο8υμίνω, αν eTepos μίν άμφισβητη τον πραθΐντος, 6 oe
μη βέβαιοι. iv'ioTe κα\ αρραβώνας μόνου δοθίντος (Ίτα άμφισβητησαντός του eXayxavf την της βφαιώ-
σεως δίκην 6 τον αρραβώνα 8ούς τω λαβόντι. Ανσίας iv δυσΧ \ό•γοις. αμή>\ισβητγ OCCUrs in 1. 604
and αμφι]σβητ(ΐ in 1. 547, so that all three Frs. 25, 31, and 39 may have come from one of
the two speeches to which Harpocration was referring. In any case they probably belong
to an oration different from those against Hippotherses and Theomnestus; cf. int. The colour
of Frs. 31 and 39 suggests that they are to be placed near each other.
496. te . [: Ϊ€ρ[ωνυμος (cf. Lysias Fr. 123 and p. 48) might be restored, but cf. the
previous n.
506-11. Cf. 11. 118-20 καιτο[ι] δικαίως αν [οργιζοι]σθ€ τοις €ωνημ€[νοι]ς τα vpsTfpa and
XXxi. 33 MOJ/os δη . . . δικαίως ονδ' αν άγανακτοίη μη τυχών. Fr. 26 may Well belong tO the Spcech
προς Ίπποθίρσην, but the proposed restoration of 11. 506-7 makes those lines shorter than
usual by one or two letters, and en-t των πατ[ριων seems to be a mistake for em τοις πατ[ριοις :
cf. i. I eVt rots ■γ€γ(νημίροις άγανακτοίη.
520-9. Fr. 28 probably joins Fr. 29 ; cf. the next n.
530-5• That Frs. 29 and 30, both from the bottoms of columns, join, as indicated in
the text, admits of hardly any doubt; the position assigned to Fr. 28. 524-9 at the
beginnings of these lines is attractive, but not certain. A new sentence begins in 1. 533
with αποδΐΐ\, and αποδίΐ\ξω [τ]οιν[υν α]υτον would be expected ; but the traces of the letter
following I suggest no other vowel than a, and αποδΐΐξα[ι or αποδ€ΐξα[ς is difficult to construct.
The ο of ot . in 1. 534 is nearly certain, but the next letter might be ν and the third is quite
doubtful.
74 THE OXYRHYNCHUS PAPYRI
536. The left-hand part of the τ of τα is missing, and there is no external evidence for
τ being the first letter of the line. There is certainly not room for α \av α\υτω.
527-8. φΐροιτο [τ\ψ I [χαρϊ\ν is possible. Frs. 28-30 might belong to the speech npbs
Ίπποθίρσηΐ' : cf. 11. 1 7 1— 3.
539-48. Cf. 1. 493, n. It is tempting to place Fr. 53 to the left of Fr. 31, so that the
tip of the σ of ]μφ(σ[ in 1. 696 would belong to the bottom of the σ of ]σ-βητΐΐ in 1. 547. The
fibres suit well enough, though the two fragments would still not actually join each other.
Lines 544-7 would then run [. . , .]ai . [. . π]ολλα ημαρ\[τ . . . .]λ€ΐ (or ]α ei) Tis σοι (or τισι
οι) μη8(ν I [. . • . κ]αθηκων φροντι\[. . . . η]βφΐσβητΐΐ τωι, which remains obscure.
554• The letter following f[iyev seems to begin with a vertical stroke and not to be f.
559. Β]ιαγομ€νος : the middle of this verb is used by Plato, but not elsewhere by Lysias.
^αγομ^νοί can be read.
601-6. Cf. 1. 493, n.
641-7. It is not certain that Fr. 44 belongs to 1606.
648-53. Cf. 11. 333a-4i, n.
693-7. Cf. 11. 539-48, n.
716. Cf. 11. 472-4, n.
725. ττλο υσ<ωτα[τ : cf. 11. 153— 4.
735• Ί-^ηξαι : the η is clear, but €π\ώ(ΐξαι may be meant ; cf 1. 348, n.
736-7. For αναισχνρ[τος Σωσ\αδης cf. 11. 92-3, η. But LysiaS made speeches προς
Άλκιβιά^ην and προς \\ρχ(βιάδην, and either of these two names can equally well be supplied.
773-6. Cf. 11. 333a-4i, n.
781. For Σωνίαδί;[ cf. 11. 92-3, n.
785. Perhaps θΐο\μνηστοί or θΐο[ζοτιδηί (cf. 1. 249, n.).
801-4. Cf. 11. 1 9 1-4, n.
809-12. Whether this fragment belongs to 1606 is doubtful. There is no other
instance of a coronis in the papyrus.
829. ]ai ο Av[aias Can be read, in which case Fr. 87 would belong to the speech προς
'λπποθίρσην.
858-9. Fr. 128 is probably to be placed to the left of Fr. 97 with a slight gap between
them, in which case the combined reading is ]και/ ττοτε ίπ(\_ and ω α\ν8ρ(ς 8ικα\σται.
865. Possibly λαι ο Α[υσιας ; cf. 1. 829, η.
869. Possiblv ' Ανσ[ιας; cf. 1. 829, η.
934-5• Cf. 11. 858-9, η.
1607. Hyperides (?), For Lycophron.
Height 27-5 cm. Late second or early third century,
Plate III (Frs. 5 + 4).
These fragments of a lost oration, found with 1606, were originally more than
60 in number, but have been reduced by a quarter through combinations. At
least ten columns are represented, the longest fragment (i) containing parts
of three with some continuous passages ; but of the other pieces only Fr. 5 is of
much value, and not more than about 100 lines in all can be restored. The order
of the fragments is uncertain ; but the similarity in colour and texture of Frs. 2-
la suggests that they are to be placed near each other, and suitable positions have
1607. HYPERIDESQ), FOR LYCOPHRON 75
been found for Frs. 3 and 4 in combination with Frs. 2. ii and 5 respectively. That
Fr. 14 belongs to Fr. 3. ii is far from certain (cf. 11. 159-62, n.), for Frs. 13-20 form
another group, differing from the rest in colour. The handwriting is an upright,
rather irregular uncial of the late second or early third century, the letters being
as a rule somewhat widely separated. The script sometimes, e.g. in Frs. 13-20,
tends to become more compact ; but there seems to be no change of hand. There
were 39-40 lines in a column, and 11-18 letters, usually 13-15, in a line. The
common > -shaped sign is used for filling up short lines, being duplicated in 1. 87.
Iota adscript was written. High stops were employed, these sometimes approxi-
mating to the middle position, but probably without any intentional distinction.
All these, together with occasional diaereses over t and v, a mark of elision
in 1. 230, and an accent in 1. 455, are due to the original scribe, as are certainly most
of the corrections ; but the alterations in 11. 15, 71, 93, and 434 were possibly made
by a different person.
The oration was evidently in defence of a certain Lycophron, who is men-
tioned several times by name (11. 38, 106, 160?, and 387), but elsewhere is usually
called ovtos. He was accused of adultery with a woman whose husband was ill
(11. 180-8), the main subject of Fr. i being a denial of the charge that Lycophron
had dug a hole in the wall which divided his house from hers. It is also
evident that this person is identical with the Lycophron defended by Hyperides
in an oration of which a few fragments from the beginning and the whole of the
concluding portion are extant in P. Brit. Mus. 115. That speech was similarly
concerned with an accusation against Lycophron of adultery with an unnamed
woman whose husband was in a dying condition ; her brother Dioxippus, a
distinguished athlete (Hyperid. Lycophr. § 5), is obviously identical with the
Dioxippus of 1607. 385, and the Theomnestus alluded to in 1607. 219 as one of
the chief witnesses for the prosecution is no doubt the same as the accuser
Theomnestus who is bitterly attacked in Lycophr. § 3, while there is probably
a reference in 1607. 383 to Charippus, the second husband of the woman
in question {Lycophr. § 3). Since the British Museum oration was composed for
delivery by the defendant himself, who speaks in the first person, 1607, in which
Lycophron is mentioned in the third person, cannot belong to the missing part of
it, though it must have covered the same ground. The Oxyrhynchus fragments
therefore belong to another speech delivered in connexion with this cause celkbre
of about 340 B. c.
From the British Museum papyrus it is known that the proceedings against
Lycophron took the form of an daayyikla, which in the first instance was brought
before the δ^μ,ο? by the famous orator Lycurgus in the absence of Lycophron
from Athens on military service at Lemnos. In the fifth and the earlier half of
76 THE OXYRHYNCHUS PAPYRI
the fourth century B. C, etVayyeAtat brought before the bημos, either directly or
through the agency of the βονλη, were usually tried by the whole bij^os, as e. g. in
388 in the case of Ergocles, against whom a speech of Lysias is extant ; but after
361 the normal practice, as illustrated chiefly by the orations of Hyperides for
Lycophron and Euxenippus and that of Lycurgus against Leocrates, seems to
have been to refer such cases to a court of dicasts ; cf. Lipsius, Attisches Recht,
i. 176 sqq. Lycurgus is known from quotations to have composed two speeches
against Lycophron, and it is generally supposed that one of these was delivered by
himself before the whole δ^μο^, while the other was written for delivery before the
dicasts by the chief plaintiff, a certain Ariston, this being the speech to which Hy-
perides' oration for Lycophron was the reply (Blass, Att. Beredsamkeit, iii. 59). The
line of argument adopted in 1607 renders it impossible to regard the speech as the
Avork of Lycurgus, and there is some a priori probability that the author of it was
Hyperides. This orator was rather widely read in Egypt, for six of his speeches
are preserved more or less completely in four papyri from that country (682,
a fragment of a lost oration, may also belong to him), whereas, of his con-
temporaries other than Lycurgus, Demades and Dinarchus are not represented
in papyri, and neither Aeschines, who according to Pseudo-Plutarch 840 e wrote
only four speeches, nor Demosthenes, whose orations are nearly all extant,
is suitable as the author of 1607. Like Lycurgus, Hyperides may well have
taken part in the proceedings before the bημos concerning Lycophron in adον . [
43ο ]μον[
]ανδ . [
]μησα[
] . αυτο[ •
435 ]r.[
Μ
Fr. 29•
. ον .[
Η
455 ] ο ^e [
ηΐ' ΤΟ .[
10VS απαστ[
.Soi r . . [
[jOS /xer . [
460 ]ία ζνλα . [
] δξ jais . [
end of col.
THE OXYRHYNCHUS
410 μ[
PAPYRI
Fr. 34.
λα[
σί/[
.[
48ο φ[
«[
Γ[
485
F"r. 35•
] • L
>•[
]γ?[
ϊ•[
1? «Ιτ•]) • [
425 ]'V.6[
]ωιτ[
Fr. 35 (top).
Fr. 27 (top).
Jn
445 Z^»? 4
]7Γ6.[
λογ7?[
]€ίπ[
^77(56 [
440 jaos" <5e [
Fr. 28.
Fr. 26.
]?.[
441 ]α7Γίσ[ '
>..[
]ρ6σ[
450 ]r^[
]ασί.[
] ^^P' [
]f/?[
]i'ttv[
Fr. 30.
Fr. 32.
]•.?.[.•.
]?[
]αί. οοστ€ . [.
470 ]r . [
]την τ[.
]-F[
465 oji/ieiy βστίΓ
] . ^epa[7raif
end of col.
']'. §[
].<
Fr. 31.
466 ]vo
Fr• 33•
] προί
475 ]^ov[
' ].χ..
]."![
Fr. ^6.
Fr. 37. Fr. 38
]apa[
]o_t/[ 496 ]ασ[
490 Μ
Iff • [ ]f4
]^pi
495 ]f[
η
1607. HYPERIDES {?), FOR LYCOPHRON 85
Fr. 39.
Fr. 40.
Fr. 41.
Fr. 42.
Fr. 43.
498 ] . . hi . [
500 >[
502
].r[
]..[
506 ] . vc{
]i TOL<S . [
].^r[
jr[
505 1στα[
].[
end of col.
Fr. 44.
Fr. 45.
Fr. 46.
Fr. 47.
508 \τί7{
509 ]ιό[
510
Μ
511 ]•ίί[
Fr. 1. (i) . . . roGroli' διΓοΙρΰ^αι τον [τοΐχο]^ T^[y] πρόϊ r?;i/ [αΐ'^ρ]ω7Γ0ΐ' ομιλίας [evfJKev ουδαμώς
[πιθ^ανόν ΐστιν. ovre γαίρΐ ώί (προ?) rouy ττρότΐρον αντω λΐΐτουργονντας και πάν ο τι KeXev^oi^ προθυ-
μως νττομίνοντας Βιηνίχθη 8ί8ηλωκ€ν, ovff οτι γίνομίρης προς αυτόν αψιμαχίας eK€LVoi την χρΐίαν
[άΙτΓίίππΜ-ο, odev 6 Ανκόφρων em το τον τοίχον 8ιορνξαι κατηπ[€ίχθ^η, μηκέτι \τών\ σω[μ\άτων [
ο]μοίως τί[. . . (ϋ) . . . .^σθaι ουκ αν διώ[ρ]υ|ε τον τοΊχον. ηό[θ\€ν γαρ άνθρωπος [μ\η8ίν Karenei-
yό\μ^evoς αλλ' ΐχων την \(ί]ξονσίαν κα\ τα παρ" ΐκ^Ίνης fibevai καΐ τα παρ' αντον λίγ^ίΐ* [κ]αΙ . . .
(1. 55) *«"' το[ντω ού8€]πο0' ό Χρ[€μης ? τ^ι/] οΐκίαν άπ[(1π{ν ?] κα\ μην ά8υν\άτο]υ ye elxev τάξιν το τας
θίραπα'ινας αντης προς τούτον διαφερεσθαι. τις \_γ\αρ αν όντως εγΐνηθη Opaaeta ώστε η τα πάρα τούτου
ρηθ€ντα η τα παρ 4κ€ίνης προς τούτον πα\ρα\σιωπησαι της tSia[y] έχθρας [ev]eKa ; 7rpo[;i^]it[pos• δί] 7" ό
κίν\
\ηι
dveXfi, , , , , . , .- ..■ J- ....
οϊχον νπο τούτον πιθανόν, ovTe εΐώθει, καθάπ\ε\ρ Xeyei, ταΐς θεραπαίναις Βιαλΐγΐσθαι. τ[Ινος\ yap
eveKev ; [τι? προς] αίιτον τ[αντας] δΐίν€χ[θηναι εδίΐ (?)], ον φιλο[φρον€στ(ρον?] 8η της [^(σποίνης ?]
προσφΐ[ρομίνης ανγω . . .
' That he dug through the wall for the sake of intercourse with the woman is not at all
credible. For the accuser has not shown either that he quarrelled with the persons who
were in his service and readily submitted to any of his orders, or that owing to an altercation
with him they renounced their intimacy, in consequence of which Lycophron was reduced
to digging through the wall, since the servants were no longer . . .
... he would not have dug through the wall. For why should a man, who was
not in straits, but in a position both to get news from her and to send messages from
himself, . . . ?
... and Chremes never forbade him the house (?). Moreover that her maids quarrelled
with him was as good as impossible. For which of them could have become so bold
as to pass over in silence either his messages to her or her messages to him for the sake of
private enmity ? The danger was close at hand ; for . . . But, as it was, they saw that he
was in an excessively weak state, while she who was about to become the owner of the
house was kept before their eyes, for fear that if anything happened to him they would
suffer punishment for their revenge. It is therefore incredible that Lycophron dug
through the wall, and he was not in the habit, as stated by the accuser, of conversmg
with the maidservants. Why should he have done so ? What need was there for them^ to
quarrel with him when, their mistress being on quite familiar terms with him, they . . . ? '
Fr. 5. 212 τίσιν ουν τ(κμ[η]ρίοις χρησάμί[νος] τούτους K€\ev[fi] κατα8ικάζ(ΐν ; χ[ρη\•^α]ι, νη
Δια, ταΊ[ς των] κη8(στων μ[αρτυ]ρίαις Άνασχ€τ[ον] κα\ θ(ομνηστ[ου κα\] Κρίτωνος, ας καλ[ώς] ΐχον (στίν,
2} &[v]bpfs διαασταί, μ[η] παρ€ρ[γα)ί] (ξ([τά]σαι. την [γα]ρ ολη[ν κα^ηγορΐ[αν] in το[. . .
' On Λvhat proofs then does he rely when he bids them (sc. his fellow-citizens) give
86 THE OXYRHYNCHUS PAPYRI
a verdict of guilty ? He relies forsooth on the evidence of his relatives by marriage, Anas-
chetus, Theomnestus, and Criton, which it is your duty, gentlemen of the jury, to examine
with special care. For the Λvhole accusation (depends) on ... '
18. [πιθ]ανον: cf. 11. 94, 1 73, 236.
19. (ττροί): cf. 11. 61-2.
24. ^ώηΚωκίν : the subject is ό κατήγορος, sc. Ariston ; cf. int. p. 76.
26. αχΙ^ιμαχιας : cf. Acschin. De fals. leg. 176. ά^\τιμαχΐ\ν is quoted from Hyperides by
Antiatticista ap. Bekk. Anecd. 79. 12.
30-1. κατηπίΐΐχβλ^η : cf. 1. 43.
32. σω[μ\ατων: cf. 1. 76 and int. p. 76.
33. Te[ : or τρ[. The second letter may have been corrected.
48. ] . ουί : e or ρ can be read instead of o.
53-4. τη\ικο[ντοί .? ω]ν : the reference might be to the age of dying husband (cf. 11. 80-3
and int.) ; but it seems more hkely that he is the subject not of ]ατο in 1. 55 but of the verb
in 1. 58, and that Lycophron is the subject as far as 1. 55. In that case the point of τηλι-
κο[ντος would be that Lycophron was over 50 years of age when the trial took place, an
argument used in his defence on the charge of adultery in Lycophr. § 15.
56-8. The restorations are highly conjectural, but οχρ[ looks like a proper name, and
a mention of the husband, whose name is unknown, but who is called ίκάνος in 1. 80, is very
appropriate here, τί^ντψ is inadmissible in 1. 56.
63. ίγ^νηθη'. this form, which is common in the third century e.g., occurs in the MSS.
of Plato, Phileh. 62 d (ξ€γ€νήθη ημΊν {(ξ€γίν€θ' ήμϊν Stallbaum), and in two fragments of
Philemon; cf. Lobeck, Phryn. 109, and int. p. 76.
69. 7Γα[ρα]σιωπ»;σα4 : cf. int. p. 76.
71-3. προ[χ]6ΐ[ρο5• fie] i]v ο mvyhvvos: cf Hyper. Epitaph. 17 61? TO Kivlvvtviw [7Γρ]οχ€ίρωί,
73. ft? μ\ίν γαρ : μ^ν is required to balance wv be in 1. 80, but may have come in 1. 76.
76. σω\^ματα•. cf. 1. 32.
77-9. ]ττ(ΐν is perhaps ^ιορν\ττ(ΐν (cf 11. 14, 30, 92) and ]υγην might be 8ιορ]υγψ or
^ιωρ]υγψ, ihough neither form is classical, the best MSS. in Dem. vii. 40 having διορνχη. But
π[ρονθ€ν]το, if that is the right restoration, does not fit in very well with a reference to digging
through the wall, οντοι are the σώματα.
8o. e^eji^o]»/ : cf. 11. 56-8, n. The first husband of the woman is similarly alluded to
in Lycophr. xlvi €7re]tSij Ιτί\\ΐνττ}σΐν Ικψινος and xlvii ^κάνο^ \κνον\σαν την γνναΐΐκα ΐξ] αυτόν
καταλΐ[λοιπΐ]ν. μ^ν already projects for some distance into the margin, and there is no room
for [av after it, if av (λάμβαναν be read in 1. 87 ; cf. n. ad loc.
82. ασ6[(]νως 8ιαΚ€ΐμ(ν[ο]ν : cf LycOphr. §17 απόρωζ 8ιακ€ΐμενονς.
86-8. ττρο οφθαλμών αναλάμβαναν: cf. Epitaph. 1 7 προ οφθαλμών όρώμΐνα αντοΐς τα 8eivu,
and Polyb. ii. 35 λαμβάνων ττρο οφθαλμών το 7ίαρά8οζον των τότί γΐνομίνων. There seems to be
no instance of αναλάμβαναν Avith προ οφθαλμών, but with the division av ΐλαμβανον it is necessary
to suppose the omission of av in 1. 80.
97. 8ιαλΐγ(σθαι•. cf. int. p. 77.
98. The supposed stop after eveKev might be the beginning of r. For the supplements
in 11. 98-100 cf. 11. 60-2.
108. νη Δ([α : cf. 1. 2i6, Pemosth. i. 7, Euxenip. 12, 14, 27.
III. νπελαβΐ : a favourite Avord of Hyperides, occurring 11 times in his speeches.
128. διαρρη[^ην: ci. AthetlOg. lO, 16.
159-62. It is very doubtful whether Fr. 14, containing the supposed ends of these
lines, is rightly placed here, for the colour of it is different, especially on the verso (cf. int.
p. 74), and at a junction with the upper margin of Fr. 2, which becomes necessary, the
1607. HYPERIDESi^), FOR LYCOPHRON 87
fibres of the recto do not harmonize very well. 01 μ^ισθ\ον ^ίκα\ζοντ(ί is too short. οιμ[αι is
possible, and ov may be the negative,
1 70-1. Fr. 3 seems to be rightly placed here, καθ ν\ττΐρβ6Κψ is not unlikely in 1. 171 ;
cf. 1. 81.
198. This line was probably the last of the column, which is already slightly longer
than usual (40 lines compared to 39 in Fr. i).
199-200. Cf. 11. 170-1, n.
201-4. Fr. 4 almost certainly belongs to 11. 224-7.
208. τομΐνον : the last two letters are very doubtful ; but cf. I. 205. τομ(νην cannot be
read.
218-20. The very rare name Άνάσχιτος occurs also in C. I. A. ii. 804 Ba {'Av.
Δημοτΐλονς Άλαι^νς) in a list of Sureties in 340 b.c. for some triremes supplied to the
Chalcidians, the preceding name being Κρίτων Άστνόχου ΚυΒαθηνακύς, who is also mentioned in
C.I. A. ii. 807, and included among the κάλλιστοι τωνττολιτών by Aeschin. Conira Tiniarch. 156.
Probably these two persons are identical with Άι/άσχίτοϊ and Κρίτωι/ here. For θίό/χνί^στοί
cf. Lycophr. § 2 to δ' apyvpiov θ€θ[μΐΊ7]στω δί8ωσιν (sc. Ariston)' ΐκύνος δε λαμβάνων άνδράποΒα
άγορύζΐΐ, και τταρεχα ωσπ€ρ rois λι^σταΐί (πισιτισμόν, και δίδωσι τούτω vnep ίκάστον τοΰ άνδραπόδον
όβολον της ημίρας, οττωί αν τ; αθάνατος συκοφάντης.
2 20— Ι. καλ[ωί] €χον : cf. Demosih, viii. 22 καΚως \Jx(iv τόι»] Άρπαλοί' [εγδοίι/αι τ\\ν τΐοΚιν,
LycOphi'. § 1 1 κάι τοΰτο τΐώς καλώς 'ίχιι σε μίν . . . την κ.ατη•γοριαν ττοιησασθαι.
2 2 2—3• μϊηΐ ^Γapep[yως■^ (ξ('^τα]σαι : cf. Athcnog. 1 3 του? Te νόμους εξίτάζειν . . . napepya ταΚλα
πάντα ποιησάμΐνον.
228-31. It is not absolutely certain that these are the beginnings of lines.
236. πιθ[ανον: cf. 1. 18.
283. [τ]ωι Χα[ριπ]πω[ι] : the traces of the supposed πω are very slight and indecisive, but
a mention of Charippus, to whom Dioxippus gave his sister in second marriage, and who
figures largely in the charges discussed in Lycophr. §§ 3-7, is very appropriate ; cf int. p. 75.
ε-^δοντα or π/30 του (γδουναι is to be supplied at the end of the preceding column ; cf Lycophr.
§ 5 και yap οΐιτος (sC. DioxippUs) ηκολοϋθΐΐ δια το χηραν ΐγδίδοσθαι αυτήν,
284. e]tr [ο]λν[μπίαΐ' : it is not certain that any letter is missing in the lacuna after e]is,
and the following vestiges would also suit ai[ or ατ[ or possibly ίσ[, but Dioxippus was
victorious as a pancratiast at Olympia according to Plin. Nat. Hist. xxxv. 139 and others.
The date assigned to his victory by Foerster, Olymp. Sieger, no. 381, is 336 b.c, but there
is no very definite evidence for fixing the year, except the fact that Dioxippus went to Asia
with Alexander (Diod. xvii. loo-i), i.e. in 335 or 334, and died there, so that he cannot
have been at Olympia after 336. The oration of Hyperides against Lycophron is generally
assigned to 340 b. c, and if [θ]λι;[μπίαΐ' is right the victory of Dioxippus was more probably
in 340, or even 344, than in 336.
286-7. στ(:φανωσ\ο\ντα : στζφανωσ[α\ντα does not suit the size of the lacuna.
288. The τ of τέως has either been corrected from ι or else been inserted later.
289. The letter before πέμποντα seems to have been σ or υ with a stroke through it, and
the vestige of the preceding letter rather suggests α or λ, so that probably the scribe began
to write αυτωι or Αυκοφρονι, but Corrected it.
313-16. Cf. 11. 159-62, n.
336—7. For κα[θαπερ Xejyet cf. 1. 95.
427-36. These are perhaps the beginnings of lines; but if so, δα projects into the mar-
gin of 1. 433.
88 THE OXYRHYNCHUS PAPYRI
1608. Aeschines SocraticUS, Alcibiades.
Fr. 4 16x9-8 cm. Late second century.
Plate III (Fr. 4).
The source of these scanty fragments of a dialogue between Socrates and
Alcibiades, chiefly concerning the character of Themistocles, is shown to be the
Alcibiades of Aeschines Socraticus by coincidences with two of the six extant
quotations from that lost dialogue. Aeschines was one of the most important
followers of Socrates, being often placed by ancient critics next in rank to
Plato and Xenophon. His reputation rested not so much on his own con-
tributions to the development of his master's philosophy, which seem to have
been inconsiderable, but on the elegance of his style, which is specially praised
by Aristides and Hermogenes, and on the fidelity of his representation of
Socrates, which even led to the accusation in antiquity that the master, not the
disciple, was the author of the dialogues (Diog. Laert. Viia Aeschiuis, ii. 7).
The recovery of new fragments of the Alcibiades is therefore a matter of some
interest, especially in view of the current controversy initiated by Prof. Burnet
concerning the historical character of the Platonic Socrates.
The extant fragments of Aeschines' seven genuine dialogues have recently
been collected and discussed by H. Krauss (Teubner, 191 1) and more fully by
H. Dittmar {Philol. Untersnch. xxi. 191 2). Much the longest is Fr. i (Krauss)
of the Alcibiades from Aristides, orat. 46 (ii. 292 sqq., Dindorf) containing
a panegyric upon Themistocles addressed to Alcibiades by Socrates, and
concluding with a warning that even Themistocles' ξπι,στήμη was not strong
enough to save him from disasters. Another passage in the same oration of
Aristides (ii. 369) not only supplies a second fragment (small), which Krauss,
following C. F. Hermann, assigns to a position immediately preceding Fr. i,
but gives a general description of the context of Fr. i, from which it appears
that Alcibiades was reduced to tears by the sense of his own inferiority to
Themistocles. Before the end of the dialogue, which was put into the form
of a narrative by Socrates, as is shown by the use of the first person in referring
to him, Alcibiades seems to have left, and Frs. 3 and 4 (from Aristid. orai. 45)
apparently belong to the conclusion of the dialogue, being part of an explanation
of Socrates' general point of view in relation to Alcibiades, addressed to an
unknown third participator in the conversation. Frs. 5 and 6, from Priscianus
and Athenaeus respectively, are unimportant ; but evidently the general drift of
the whole dialogue was similar to that of the (Pseudo-)Platonic Alcibiades, a
desire to curb the arrogance of Alcibiades. Aristides in fact contrasts the two
dialogues, to the disadvantage of Plato. There are also apparent allusions to
1608. AESCHINES SOCRATICUS, ALCIBIADES 89
Aeschines' dialogue in Cic. Tttsc. iii. 77 and Augustin, Dc civit. dei, xiv. 8 ;
cf. Dittmar's Fr. 10, and pp. 99-103 of his edition. These indicate that Socrates
showed Alcibiades, who thought himself beatiis (ζν^αίμων), that he was really
stidtiis (άμαθψ), and as such 7mser (aeXtos), with the result that Alcibiades
entreated Socrates to free him from turpitiido {αίσχρότης) and teach him virUis
{άρζτή).
Of the 19 (originally 25) fragments of the papyrus only six are large
enough to be of any value, and the longest continuous passage is less than
20 lines (11. 34-52). Fr. 5 (11. 77-87) contains after parts of 5 new lines
Krauss's Fr. 2, immediately followed, as he had correctly surmised, by the
beginning of his Fr. i. This is continued after a gap in Frs. 6 and 7, the latter
fragment containing the bottoms of two columns. Since the extent of the
missing portion of Fr. 7. ii is known to have been approximately 19 lines, there
were about 30 lines in a column, and probably Fr. 5, of which the upper margin
is broken off, is from the top of a column ; for Frs. 5, 6, and 7. i together account
for 30 lines. With regard to the position of the other fragments, none of them
belongs to the four columns immediately following Fr. 7. ii, all of which must
have been occupied by the remainder of the extant panegyric on Themistocles,
and internal evidence indicates that at any rate Frs. i, 2, and 4 preceded Frs. 5-7.
Fr. I is placed in that position because the reference to Themistocles in 1. 3 may
be the first introduction of his name into the discussion, which continues to be
occupied with him in Frs. 4-7. Socrates seems to have asked a question
reflecting on his interlocutor's (presumably Alcibiades') relations to his parents,
adducing as a parallel the bad relations of Themistocles to his parents— a remark
which draws a protest from Alcibiades (11. 1-6). The next question is concerned
with a different subject, whether people are first μουσικοί and Ιτηηκοί or the
opposite, the second alternative being naturally adopted by Alcibiades (11. 7-15),
at which point the fragment ceases to be intelligible. The story that Themistocles
had been disinherited by his father, which is mentioned by Plutarch and other
writers (cf. 11. 38-9, n.), had in any case been alluded to by Socrates before Fr. 4,
in which Alcibiades is definitely stated to be the other speaker (1. 50) ; for in
11. 36-48 the latter expressed his surprise at the supposed disinheritance, and
vigorously condemned the character of Themistocles implied by such an incident.
There is an apparent connexion between this speech of Alcibiades and the
reference at the beginning of Socrates' panegyric on Themistocles (11. 85-7)
to Alcibiades' boldness in criticizing that statesman ; but Frs. 5-7 cannot be
combined with the remains of Fr. 4. ii, so that at least one column intervened
between Fr. 4. i and Frs. 5-7, though the gap is not likely to be wide. The
next question of Socrates (11. 48 sqq.) is incompletely preserved and somewhat
90 THE OXYRHYNCHUS PAPYRI
obscure, as is the point of his remark in II. 34-6, which preceded the outburst
of Alcibiades and mentions Apollodorus' defence τον φαύλου. This Apollodorus
is presumably the inseparable companion of Socrates who appears as the narrator
in Plato's Symposmm, and he seems to have taken part in the conversation in
Aeschines' dialogue. Though there is no reason to assign any of the remarks
in the extant portion of 1608 to Apollodorus, the two remarks from the end
of the dialogue (Frs. 3 and 4 Krauss ; cf. p. 88) may well have been addressed
to him : Anytus has been suggested there, but as a mere guess. The position
of Fr. 1 is more doubtful, since there is no apparent reference in it to
Themistocles ; but there seems to be a connexion between ά7Γο]λο)/ια? in 1. 28
and a'no\oydσQaι in 1. ofi, so that Fr. 1 is likely to have preceded Fr. 4
with no very great interval. The first 5 lines of Fr. 5 apparently belong
not to a speech but, like the next 3, to a piece of narrative : Alcibiades,
who is meant by αντόυ in 1. 83, is probably also indicated by αντ(ύ in 1. 79. Lines
82-136 correspond to Krauss's Fr. 2 and part of i. Here there are some small
variations between 1608 and the MSS. of Aristides, whose quotations do not
seem to be exact. In 11. 130-2, where the MSS. are corrupt, 1608 is incom-
pletely preserved, but does not seem to have been right ; cf. n. ad loc. The
papyrus as a whole is too short to prove much ; but such glimpses of Aeschines'
style as it affords indicate a close resemblance between his picture of Socrates
and Plato's in the earlier dialogues, and so far as they go rather support
Prof. Burnet's view that Plato was there giving a true representation of Socrates'
teaching.
1608 was found with 841-4, 1606-7, &c. The handwriting is a good-sized
elegant uncial of the sloping oval type, with a tendency to exaggerate the size
of α and v. It is a somewhat later specimen of this type than 24 (Demosthenes,
προοίμια δημηγορικά : Part i, Plate vii) and 665 {History of Sicily : Part iv,
Plate i), but earlier than e.g. 223 (Homer E: Part ii, Plate i) and Schubart,
Pap. Graecae, 19 b (Hesiod, Catalogue), and probably belongs to the latter half
of the second century. Iota adscript was generally written. Changes of speaker
are indicated (perhaps not consistently) by double dots with or without para-
graphi, and two kinds of stops, a high and a low point, are employed, besides
occasional diaereses over initial ι and r. A mark of elision in 1. ^'^ seems to be
due to the original scribe, but an accent and breathing in 1. "ί^η are probably
by the (contemporary) corrector, who has altered mistakes in 11. 10, o^'] (?), and
42. A critical mark against 1. 138 probably refers to a lost marginal note. The
scribe seems to have been rather prone to omissions ; cf. 11. 10 and 48-50. The
fragments are or may be from the middles of columns, except where it is stated
otherwise.
1608. AESCHINES SOCRATICUS, ALCIBIADES
91
Fr. I.
. [ π€/9ί TOi;y
aeavTOV yov[eas yeye ?
νησθαι. oios w€p [0 0e
μιστοκλης Xeyerat [πε
5 pi Tovs εαυτού yo\y^a^ :
ίνφημ€ί €φη ω ΐ![ωκρα
rey : 7r[o]Tepov Se SoKei [
σοι τοίι^"] αι/θρωτΓΟίς av\ay
καΐ(^\ iLvaL αμον[σονί
Ρ
ΙΟ ΤΓοτίΙρο]^ η μονσικο[ν5 γι
ν€σ[θά\ί• και ποτ€ρο[ν α
φι[ππον5] η ιππικο[ν9 : α
ναγ[καιο]ν μοι δοκ€ΐ [
αμου[σον5] irporepov κ[αι
15 αψιπ\που^ :] ουκο\υν . . .
[•]9Χ[ ]ν^ λ[. . . .
[ ]^"f[
Fr. 4•
Plate iii.
Col. ί.
[> ]ί^[
καλω9 Se κα.[ι] ο Απολ[λο
35 3ωρος νπ€ρ τον φαι^λου
απολογβισθαι : αλλ €*re[i
να ■ri δ 6ς €γω ουκ αν (>>μτι\ν
τον Θζμιστοκλζα νπ[ο Fr. 4• Col. ii.
τον πατρός αποκηρνγ\βη Plate iii.
40 ναι• φανλον γαρ και πορ . . .
ρω άνοιας ηκοντα τα
γ€ τοιαντα' ^ω^στις €19 δι
αφοράς τοιαντας και e
γθρας τας μ^γιστας
45 ττρος τονς eavTov γον[€
ας κατέστη• ο και παι
6ο 7€σ[
θρα:[
νΐ[
[
Fr. 2.
[ ]f[
[. . . .]τηριονς [
2θ [ο]νδ€Τ€ρονς δ€ΐ[ ....
α• οντ€ γαρ τους [
[ονδ]οτιονν <5e[
τησθαι τ]ΤΓ€[
[. .] ωστ6 α[
25 [.] των δικ[ δι
απραξασΘα[ι e
παιναν oi;T[e
j/ey δια τας τοι\αντας απο
λογίας απ€γν[ωσαν αν
3© θρωπων μ€[
[•..•>^V[
Fr. 3.
32 ]ντα[
Col. i.
Frs. 5, 6, 7.
(V τοις [
μ€γα\α[
αντωι ei^i[
80 κομζνωι τ[
αν αμαρττ][
γνονς ονν α[ντον €γω
ΟΤΙ ζηλοτνπ[ως βχίΐ προς
Θ€μιστοκλ[€α €ΐπον e
85 πβιδη τον [θίμιστοκλζ
ονς βιον €πι[λαμβαν€σ
[θ]αι €το\μη[σας σκ^ψαι
5 lines lost
[ω Χωκρατ^ς τα] τοιαντ[α
[ζΐδζναι : ηδη ο]υν πωπ[ο
92
50
55
THE OXYRHYNCHUS PAPYRI
65 [
Bapiov ξνλαβηθηναί
{αν) €vpo]iTO : οντω δη μικροί/ . [
ν€ΐΌ]μικα9 ζΐναι ην δ e γ[
γω ω Α]λκιβίαδη γον€σ{ι)ν α[
διαβ ^]ληθηναί. ωστβ τον γ[
€πίτνχ^ ?]oj/Toy ανθρωττον 7° ^[
] . τοντ €σ[τι ....]. γ[
].σ. [..;.].[••. λ.[
Ι a letters ]ταμ[.]ν τα[
II „ ] των φαν . [
λοτατων ?] εστίΐ/ ei Se 15 [
]ν τΓολιν Τ€ [
end of col, end of col.
95 [re σοι e//eXtja[ei/ ori ται;[
[τί^ί rr/y χω/)]»? τοσαΐ'[
[ri^y ονση9 οσ]ην ο ηλιο[ς
[πορζν€ταί η] καλ€ΐτ[αι
[Ασία €LS ανηρ αρχ^ι : π]α
ιοο [νν μ€ν ουν ζφη ο γ ?]e μ€
[γα? βασίλζυ^ : οίσ]^α ουν
[οτι €Κ€ΐνο9 €σ]τρατ€νσ€
[δζνρο και eTTi] Λακ^δαι
[μονιον^ ηγον]μζνο9 «ί
Ι05 [τοντω τω TToXjee κατά
[στρξψαιτο ρα\διω9 τους
end of col.
Fr. 7. Col. ii.
19 lines lost.
126 [πξζων και] χρηματω[ν
[τα των Ελλη]νων 7Γραγμ[α
[τα τΓολυ eXeiJTrero τα δβ
[βασιλ€]ως irpouyev αλ[
130 λ [?;5]ei OTL €1 μη αυτούς τ[ο'?
βονλ[€υ]€σθαι eKeivos [ttc
ρί€στ[αί] τα ye άλλα αυ[τον
τοσαυτα οντά το /zey[e^oy
o[y]5[e]i/ μ^γα e/zeXAei' [ω
1 35 φ^λησβιν και τούτο ([γνω
κ€ΐ αρα οτι οττοτβρων [αν
end of col.
Fr. II.
Fr. 12
\υκα[
[.]0ΤΓ[
"[v. και το[
κωσ[
6 ο '\υτωι αδ[
7Γ/)θ[
'\αντα[
ι65
δο . [
Fr. 8.
.[
ya[
i40J(e[
λοΐ'[
ωσ . [
re.[
145 Γ»?[
end of col.
Fr. 13.
166 και[
και[
Fr. 9.
σαυ . [
7;κ•α[
TyOi ρα[
150 αλλ[
θοι μη[
Fr. 10.
].[
155 ]νυίί[
ω 2ΐωκρ]ατζ9 ο[
]τω.[
Fr. 14.
170 ]τι
1608. AESCHINES SOCRATICUS, ALCIBIADES 93
Fr. 15.
Fr. 16.
Fr. 17,
Fr. 18.
Fr. 19,
top of col.
top of col.
176 πλ[
178 ]ai[
180 ] . . [
172 ]ou^f[
4
λίπ[
]olk[
Μ
]6 τοίαν[τ
175 τω[
1-6. Probably, as Prof. Burnet, to whom we are indebted for several suggestions in
the interpretation of 1608, remarks, Socrates asked ' Would you be willing to have behaved
to your parents as Themistocles is said to have behaved to his ? ' Alcibiades replies ' Hush,
Socrates '.
7-15. 'Do you think that men have to be unmusical before they are musical, and
unskilled in riding before they are skilled ? — I think that they must first be unmusical and
unskilled in riding.' For αμονσοι in conjunction with αφιπποι cf. Plato, I^ep. 335c. Burnet
thinks that this Avas part of an argument intended to show that Themistocles did not achieve
what he did φύσει (which Alcibiades considered sufiicient for himself). Since Themistocles
was so unsatisfactory in his youth, he must have become great and acquired ϊπιστημη by care
and practice.
16. [.]οχ[ : or [a]px[.
19. Perhaps [8ίκασ]τηριον f[.
28. Toi[arjTas απο]λογία? : cf. 1. 36 and int.
34-51. '. . . and ApoUodorus also to make a good defence on behalf of the mean.
— But, he replied, there is this point ; I should not have thought that Themistocles was dis-
inherited by his father ; for such conduct betokens a mean character and reaches the height
of folly, when a person is involved in such quarrels and in the most violent enmity with his
parents, which even a child would find a way of avoiding. — Did you think it so small-
minded, Alcibiades, said I, to be filled with hatred of one's parents that . . . '
34-5. Α7Γολ[λο]δωροί : cf. int. No orator of this name who was contemporary with
Socrates is known, τον φαν[λον can be masculine or neuter. As Burnet remarks, Alcibiades
may have been relying on his natural gifts, so that the question of κάλλοί arose. ApoUodorus
may well have championed the cause of ' the ugly' (e.g. Socrates) ; for he certainly stands
for the more cynical aspect of Socraticism, as appears from the beginning of the Symposium.
36. Of the double dots after άπολογΐΐσθαι only the upper is preserved.
αλλ eKf[i]yo : Burnet compares Hippias maior 283 d αλλ' ίκύνο, μών μη Αακ(8αι-
μόνιοι κτλ.
37• ή •* the first hand perhaps wrote ι.
38-9. Cf. int. and Plut. Fir/. Themist. 2 a be τούτων (ξαρτάσιν evioi διηγήματα πλάττοιτίϊ
άποκήρνξιν μΐν νπο τοΰ πατρός αυτοί) . . . δοκίί κατ(ΐ\τ(νσθαι,, Aelian, Var. hist. ϋ. I 2 άποκηρνχθΐΧί
νπο τοΰ πατρός, Nepos, Themist. I a paire exheredattis est.
40—1. πόρρω avoias ηκοντα : cf. Plato, Ellthyd. 294 e πόρρω σοφίας iJKeis.
48. [(αν) evpo]iTo: this reading is not very satisfactory; but edpoiro is preferable to
evpoi, the active not being used with an infinitive in classical times, and there is a change of
speaker before οντω, so that [av e]vpoi with the omission of double dots before οντω, though
a possible reading, is open to still greater objections.
50. yovea{i)v : γονιών is inadmissible.
52. [(πιτνχ\οντο5 was suggested by Burnet.
55-9. The fragment containing these lines was originally separate, and is not quite
certainly placed here.
61. Probably αΐ']|5ρω[π : cf. 1. 52.
77. This line is probably the top of the column ; cf. int. p. 89.
94 THE OXYRHYNCHUS PAPYRI
82-4. yvovs . . . Β(μιστοκΚ\€α == Aeschin. Fr. 2 ; cf. int. The MSS. of Aristides have
ζηΚοτΰπως έχοντα instead of ort ζη\οτνπ\<ύς ΐχΐΐ, and before ΟΐμιστοκΚία some of the deteriores
insert τόν, which was certainly omitted in the papyrus.
84-5. ΐ\πΐί^η του : from this point up to 1. 136 the papyrus corresponds to the beginning
of Aeschin. Fr. i ; cf. int. After ΐπΐώη the MSS. of Aristides insert roivw, which is evidently
due to looseness of quotation.
93-8. These remains are on a separate fragment, and there is no external evidence for
their being near the ends of lines.
94-5. o\vv πωπ[οτΐ σοι : ovv σοι πώττοτε MSS. 1608 may have Omitted σοι. The 6 of
(μ6\ησ]εν COmeS above the α of χωρ]α5• in 1. 96.
97. οσ]ην•. SO the 'deteriores', followed by Dindorf and Hermann. AET, which are
considered the best MSS., have όσον, which is adopted by Fischer, Krauss, and Dittmar.
οσην is, however, supported by Aristides xiv (i. 325, Dindorf) 6π(ρ yap m βφη τών Xoyonomv
Tvepi TTJs ^Ασία! λεγωυ οσην 6 ηλιης πορΐΰΐται ταύτης πάσης αρχΐΐν avhpa eva.
100. 7?]f : om. MSS.
105. 7roX]ee : SO MSS. πόλίΐ Krauss and Dittmar, following Herodian, ii. 2, p. 696 ώϊ
παρ' Αίσχίντ] τω Σωκρατικω τούτω τω noXfi : πόλη Hermann, following ChocroboSCUS.
130—2. et μη αντον το βοτίλίΰίσθαι fKe'ivois {eKfivos Ε) π^ριίσται, τά ye αΚ\α αυτών (^αυτόν Ε)
MSS. Dindorf: ft μη αυτοΰ τω βον\(ύΐσθαι ίΚΐΙνον . . . αυτόν Hermann: €t μη αυτών τώ βουλ.
ΐκΐ^νος . . . αυτόν Reiske : el μη αυτόν τωβου\. eKetvos . . . αυτόν Krauss, Dittmar. Whether 1608
had τ[ο or τ[ωι and αν[τον or αυ\των is uncertain ; but it apparently agreed with £ in reading
e/cetiOs (though eKeivoi[s is just possible), and certainly differed from all the MSS. and editors
in having αυτούς instead of αντοΰ — a novelty which seems to be erroneous.
134. €μ(\λΐν \ω^ψ€\ησeιv : ώφελι^σει MSS.
136. ορα : om. MSS.
138. For the critical mark cf. int. p. 90.
154-7. Fr. 10 resembles Fr. 7. ii in colour, but does not occur in the text of the
missing portion of that column.
159. The supposed low stop after ν might be the lower of two dots marking a change
of speaker, in which case καιτο[ι is not improbable.
162-5. This fragment is very likely to be placed above Fr. 9, but there is no actual
join.
1609. Philosophical Work (Eudorus ?). Metrological Fragment.
8 X ιο•2 cm. Second century.
The recto of this papyrus contains 13 nearly complete lines from the
middle of a column of a lost philosophical work, with a few letters from the
preceding and following columns. It is written in a clear compact semiuncial
hand of the second century, which somewhat resembles that of 410 (Part iii,
Plate iv) and is not later than the reign of Marcus Aurelius, more probably
belonging to the reign of Trajan or Hadrian. A stroke in the middle of 1. la
indicates the beginning of a new section. The subject under discussion is είδωλα
in mirrors, and the author, who alludes in 1. 13 to his commentary on the Timaeus
of Plato, and objects in 11. 16 sqq. to the views of Democritus, Epicurus, and
Empedocles, evidently belonged to the Academic school. The first commentator
1609. PHILOSOPHICAL WORK (EUDORUS?) 95
on Plato, was according to Proclus, In Tim. p. 24, Grantor of Soli in Cilicia, whose
discussion of the Timaeus is mentioned several times by Plutarch in his De
animae procreatione. But since Grantor was a contemporary of Epicurus and died
before him, he is unsuitable as the author of the papyrus, in which Epicurus is
ranked with Democritus and Empedocles. Another philosopher of the Academic
school, also mentioned by Plutarch, op. cit., in connexion with the Timaeus, is
Eudorus of Alexandria, who flourished about 25 B. c. and is generally thought
to have written a commentary on that dialogue, besides an encyclopaedic work
upon philosophy in general and a treatise on Aristotle's Categories. The
encyclopaedic work, of which a few fragments survive, is described by Stobaeus,
Eel. ii. 46 as Ευδώρου τον Άλβ^α^δρεω? ^ Κκα^Ύ\μικον φιλοσόφου διαιρβσυ τον κατά
φίλοσοφίαν λόγον, βιβλίου άζιόκτητον kv ω τΐασαν ^ττξζζληλυθζ ττροβληματικώί την
€τηστημην. It was used extensively by Arius Didymus of Alexandria, a Stoic
philosopher with eclectic tendencies, and seems to have been a work of some
importance. The account of it given by Zeller, Gesch. d.griech. Phipopular exploits, the recovery of the bones of Theseus. After 1. 46
Fr. 6 breaks off ; but it is practically certain that Fr. 7, which mentions ' king
Lyco[medes] ', is from an account of the Theseus story introduced, as by Plutarch,
in connexion with Cimon's capture of Scyros (11. 49-51, n.), and probably Fr. "^^^,
which mentions the Pelasgians, is to be placed between Frs. 7 and 8. It is signi-
ficant that Diodorus' reference to the Pelasgians at Scyros is not only the sole
mention of them in Book xi, but is also, except the mention of Byzantium, the one
detail in his account of the operations at Eion and Scyros which is not ultimately
traceable to Thucydides.
After the capture of Scyros Thuc. i. 98, 3-4 proceeds to describe a war with
Carystus in Euboea and the revolt of Naxos before coming to the twofold battle
of the Eurymedon by sea and land (i. ico. i). Diodorus on the other hand,
ignoring the first two events, but mentioning Cimon's return to Athens in quest
of reinforcements, narrates the operations in Caria which led up to a naval battle
off the coast of Cyprus on the same day as the land-battle of the Eurymedon.
The inherent improbabiHty of Diodorus' account of the double victory, especially
on account of the distance of Cyprus from the Eurymedon and the night-attack,
which is a favourite stratagem in Diodorus' battles, has been generally recognized
and ascribed to his use of Ephorus ; cf e.g. Busolt, iii. 146^ Our author's
1610. EPHORUS, XII {OR XI) lor
account evidently agreed closely with that of Diodorus, but probably narrated
some events omitted by him ; cf. Fr. 39 for a possible reference to the Euboean
war. Fr. 8 is with the exception of a couple of words and a difference of order
identical with a passage in Diodorus' description of the Carian operations, while
Frs. 9 + 10. i + ^'^^ which narrate the sea-fight off Cyprus, are also couched in very
similar language. The numbers of the ships on both sides taking part in the
naval engagement agree exactly with the figures of Diodorus, the figure of the
Persian ships being practically in accordance with that ascribed to Ephorus by
Plutarch (350 Ephorus ; 340 1610 and Diodorus ; Phanodemus' figure, 600, is an
obvious exaggeration) ; but the number of ships captured by Cimon is stated to
have been 100, as in the metrical inscription which is quoted (no doubt from
Ephorus) by Diodorus and is perhaps represented by Fr. 48 (cf. p. 102), and in
Lycurgus and Aristodemus, whereas Diodorus himself gives the number as ' more
than 100 ', being perhaps influenced by the different figure mentioned by Thucy-
dides (11. 63-76, n.). A detail omitted by Diodorus, the capture of a Persian
admiral, is recorded in 11. 'j^ sqq., and the remains of Fr. 10. ii do not clearly
correspond to any passage in Diodorus near this point, being too slight for certain
reconstruction (cf. 11. 77-8, n. for a suggestion). Probably they belong to the
early part of the description of the land-battle of the Eurymedon, and are to
be placed not long before Fr. 11, which records the killing of the Persian general
of the land-forces, Pherendates, in language practically identical with that of
Diodorus. This coincidence is of great importance for deciding the question of
the authorship of 1610, for from Plutarch it is known that Pherendates' name
occurred in Ephorus, from whom Diodorus no doubt obtained it ; cf. p. 106.
Frs. 12 + 13 continue the account of the land-battle, and since they constitute the
longest connected piece, afford the best material for a comparison between our
author and Diodorus. The general resemblance between them is very marked,
11. 94-101 presenting only trifling variants (cf pp. 103-4) ; in 11. 101-12 1610 gives
the more precise details about the destruction of the Persians, while Diodorus
enlarges upon the absence of the moon and its effects; cf p. 124. The small
Fr. 14 probably came immediately after Frs. 12 + 13 (1. 114 can even belong to
11. iia or 113), and describes one of Cimon's tactics in the land-battle in terms
similar to but not identical with those of Diodorus. Concerning the date of the
battle of the Eurymedon, which has been ascribed to various years between
470 and 465 B. C. (autumn of 468 Busolt), the papyrus gives no new information
beyond its general support of Diodorus, who assigns the engagement to 470, but
is very confused throughout the Pentecontaetia in adapting his authority,
Ephorus, to his own chronological system (cf p. no). It is noteworthy that 1610
agrees with Diodorus and Frontinus as to the locality of the two battles, while
I02 THE OXYRHYNCHUS PAPYRI
Polyaenus, ΛνΗο has been sometimes supposed to represent Ephorus on this point
more exactly than Diodorus (Busolt, /. c), inverts the scene, ascribing the land-
battle to Cyprus, the sea-fight to the Eurymedon (11. 62-76, n.). The battle of
the Eurymedon tended in ancient times to become confused with Cimon's later
operations at Cyprus in connexion with the Egyptian expedition, and all details
of later historians concerning it which are inconsistent with the statements of
Thucydides are usually rejected. The small Fr. 48, if it belongs to the inscrip-
tion about Cimon's victories which is quoted by Diodorus, is to be placed after
Fr. 14 (11. 267-9, n.), and Fr. 28 also perhaps refers to the land-battle of the
Eurymedon, coming shortly before Fr. 1 1 (11. 200-2, n.).
After the battle of the Eurymedon Diodorus (xi. 63-8) proceeds to narrate
first the revolt of the Helots and Messenians from Sparta, secondly the war
between Argos and Mycenae, and then turns to Sicilian affairs before reverting
to Persian. The corresponding portion of 1610 is missing, unless Fr. 43 refers to
the revolt of the Helots (11. 252-4, n.), and Fr. 41 to the Argive-Mycenean war
(11. 246-8, n.).
The third section of the papyrus consists of Frs. 15 and 16, which both refer
to Persian affairs. Fr. 16, which relates to the plot of Artabanus to kill Xerxes
and seize the throne, is almost verbally identical with Diodorus. The context of
Fr. 15, which mentions Artaxerxes, is not quite certain owing to the incomplete-
ness of the lines ; but most probably this fragment too is concerned with the plot
of Artabanus, and immediately preceded Fr. 16, affording apparent points of
contact with both Diodorus and Justin (11. 119 sqq., n.).
With regard to Frs. 17-62, Fr. 53 has been assigned to 11. 67-9 (p. loi), and
the most likely positions for Frs. 26 (p. 99), '^^ (p. 100), and 48 (p. 102) have been
indicated, while suggestions have also been made for the possible context of
Frs. 18 (p. 99), 28 (p. 102), 31 (p. 99), 38 (p. 99), 39 (p. loi), 41 (p. 99),
and 43 (p. 102). Fr. 17 seems to belong to a geographical description
of some place in connexion with a battle, being comparable e.g. to Diodorus'
description of Plataea, but referring to a different place (11. 134-9, n.). The
remaining fragments contain hardly any complete words, and no more instances
of a clear correspondence with Diodorus have been detected.
The relation of our author to Diodorus will be made clearer by the following
table of agreements and contrasts.
(i) Exact correspondences of 1610 wiih Diodorus. 11. 18-22 {Uavov μ\ν νττό
TTJs 77θλ€ω9 ητιμασμίνον την 6e 77ολιι^ δια tcls (Keivov ττράξζίί) ; 3°"^ (χαλ€ΐτωτάτην . . .
TTpos (Κζΐνον) ; ^6-6ΐ (τιαραθαλαττίων . . . ττόΚ^ων οσαι μ€ν (κ τηί Έλλάδοί ήσαν
άττωκισμίναι τΐαραχρημα σνν[ΐττ€ΐσ€, Λvith a slight alteration in the order ; v. tn/.) ;
63-9 (τό]ν τ[ών Υίίρσων στόλο^ν ττ€ρ\ [την Κύττρον] .... [διακοσί]αΐί ττ^νίτηκοντα tt]p[os]
1610. EPHORUS, XII {OR XI)
103
τριοί^κοσία^ κ\αΙ τζτταρ[άκοντα\ with slight variations in the order ; v. inf.) ; 84-8
{τον μί]ν στρατηγού . . . [Φ€p€vbάτη]v ά^€λ[φώοΰν] . . . του βασ[ιλ4ω5 h ττ}] σκηντι) ;
94-8 (από T7J9 rjirdpov την . . . των ττολζμίων Trpoy ras vavs) ; 267-9 (perhaps from
a metrical inscription of 8 lines quoted by Diodorus ; cf. p. 102).
(2) Inexact correspondences with Diodorus (additions of Diodorus other than
verbal changes are in round brackets).
Line. 1610.
16-17 ''"'s] δέ τοσοΰΓθΐ[? δια τ\ΐΛν 'i.py(i^
22-5 Til's μεγίστης τιμη^ υττό των 'Ελλήνων
άζιωθίΐσαν
27-9 (το]φ[ωτάτην και δικαι]οτά[την
3© [γξνομ€νη]ν
^7 • . .] 'ηαρ€ξ[€β]ημίν
37-46 'Αθηναίοι δβ Κίμωνος τον Μιλτιάδου
στρατηγονντοί «πλίυσαιτίί €κ Βυζαντίου
μζτα των συμμάγων Ήιοι^α την ΙττΙ Στρυ-
μόνί Ώζρσών εχόντων ^Ιλον καΐ [Σκνρο]ν,
ην νησον . . .
58-60 ex T^s *Ελλάδθ9 ήσαν άττωκισμ^ναι
63-6 το\ν τ[ών Ώζρσων στόλο]ν ττίρΐ [την
Κύττρον συ]ντζτά[)(θαί\
66~7 διακοσί]αΐ9 ττίνΐτήκοντα]
69-75 τ^αρο.ταγθζίσα9 6e •7Γθλύι; \p6vov
ΤΓολλα? μ€ν των κιvbυv€υoυσώv βαρβαρι-
κών νίων Ιύφθ(ΐρ€ν ίκατον δ' avrois άν-
8ράσιν ctXe
85 αυτών
Diodorus.
Tis bk rot? Ipyot? . . . τοσούτοΐί
έτταιρομίνην
σοφωτάτην καΐ ξτη€ΐκίστάτην
γ€γ€νημ€νην
ττΐττλίονάκαμζν τταρξκβάντζς
Αθηναίοι στρατηγόν ίλόμζνοι Κίμωνα
τον Μ. {και bύvaμιv άζιόλογον TrapabovTCs
€ξ4ττ€μψαν €ΐτΙ την τταράλιον τψ 'Ασίας
βοηθήσοντα μ\ν τοις συμμαχούσαις ττόλβσιν,
ζλίνθίρώσοντα be τάί Τί^ρσικαΐί en φρου-
pais κατ^χομίνας.) ovtos bk τταραλαβων τον
στόλον €v Βυζαντίω και (so Reiske ; καΐ iv
Βυζ. MSS. ; και €κ Βυζ. is suggested by
the parallel in 1610) καταττλζύσας im
ττόλιν την όνομαζομίνην Ήιο'ι/α, ταύτην μ€ν
ΐΐ^ρσών κατίχ^όντων (\€ΐρώσατο, Σκϋρον δέ
ΐΐίλασγών ^νοικονντων και Αολότιων e^e-
ττολιόρκησζ καΐ κτίστην 'Αθήναιον κατά-
στησαν κατ€κληρονγτισ€ την γωραν.
ήσαν €Κ της 'Ελλ. άπωκ. ταύτας
τον στόλ. των Π. bιaτpίβ€ιv ττζρι την Κ.
διακ. και ττ^ντήκ. ναυσΐ
γενομένου δ' αγώνος Ισχυρού {και των
στόλων αμφοτέρων λαμττρώς αγωνιζομένων
το τίλζυταιον ίνίκων οι 'Αθηναίοι και)
ττολλάς μ€ν των εναντίων νανς ^ίφθζίραν,
{τΐλ^ίονς) b\ των ίκατον συν αντοίς τοις
avbpάσι άλον
των βαρβάρων {τον irepov)
[04
THE OXYRHYNCHUS PAPYRI
93 εχθροί ?] ^ίίτί.Κ\ουν ο Jires
94 [dutrjre νομίζοντ€3
g6 ζφοζον αυτοΐς y^yovivai
98-101 ζφζνγον νττολαμβάΐ'οντζ^ eirat φι-
101—12 ου bi] ττολλοί μ^ν ΰττο των κανα-
τά ττροί avTovs άλλοτρίωζ exorras(?)
bid καΐ νομίσαντα
βττίφοράν elvai,
ω$ ττρόί φίλίαί (φίνγον
r?]s be vvKTos (οΐισης άσξληνου και σ.<ο-
Χζίφθέντων (κίΐ φυλάκων ατίθντίίτκον iv τανη^) συνίβαιν^ την άγνοιαν ττολυ μαΚλον
τ?? νυκτί, ττολλοΙ δέ ζώντ€^ ηλίσκοντο ο.νζ^σθαι και μηbίva τάληθ^ί bύvaσθaι
TTepiTTLTiTovTes τοΐί'Έλλησίν δια την άττο- Ibelv. διό και ττολλοΰ φόνου γβνομ^νου δια
ρίαν ϋττου τράτϊοιντο και τον [€]ζ[αίφνης την άταζίαν των βαρβάρων
aijTols ([TiineaovTa φόβ]ον
114-18 restoration uncertain
124-6 αυτοί κατα[σγ^(ϊν την βασιλβίαν
ΐβουλόμ](νο5
128-32 άν€\κοίνοΰ[το την ....]. ίν ~pds
Cf. 11. Τ 14-16, η.
eKpivtv . . . την βασ. els eaυτυv μeτaστησaι.
άνακυίνωσ-άμ€νο5 be την ίτιβουλην ττροί
[τον eivoij\ov] Μι0ρι[δάτ7/Γ καταΐκοιμι- Μ. τον evv. δ? ην κατακοιμιστηί τον βασ.
\στην του βασιλί\ωί
(3) Omissions in Diodorns. 11. 7~ΐ4 (different accounts of Themistocles'
reception by Xerxes); 15, 25-6, and 32-5 (sentences in the estimate of Themis-
tocles); 47-51 and 228-30? (the episode of Cimon's recovery of the bones of
Theseus) ; 57 {καλονμ€νων) ; 75—6 (capture of a Persian admiral) ; 87 (οντά) ;
119-22 and 125-7 (details of the plot of Artabanus). Besides these 11. 1-7,
^2-5, 77—83, 111-13, and 134—9, all of which are incomplete and obscure, seem to
belong to passages not corresponding to anything in Diodorus, as is also the case
with many of the minor fragments.
Where 1610 and Diodorus agree as to the sense, but express themselves
differently, sometimes one, sometimes the other is longer ; but on the whole
Diodorus in the chapters covered by 1610 is distinctly the shorter of the two,
details and even whole episodes which occur in 1610 being absent in his work.
We postpone the discussion of the few passages in which he is fuller than 1610,
until the question of the authorship of the papyrus has been decided (cf. p. iii) ;
for the present it is sufficient to point out that none of Diodorus' additional
sentences or phrases contains anything striking or implies any real divergence
from 1610, except perhaps in 1. 74 {-TrXeiovs των εκατόν for leio's εκατόν with regard
to the number of ships captured by Cimon off Cyprus). Beside the conspicuous
points of agreement the differences between 1610 and Diodorus, apart from his
omissions, in any case appear trivial.
The remarkably close resemblance between our author and Diodorus must
1610. EPHORUS, Xll {OR XI) 105
be explained in one of three ways. Either one of the two writers was copying
the other, or they derived their common information from the same source, i. e.
from the historian who is now always supposed to underlie Diodorus' account of
the Pentecontaetia, Ephorus. Between these alternatives the choice admits in
our opinion of hardly any doubt. The agreements between 1610 and Diodorus,
which sometimes amount to the identity of a whole sentence and extend over not
only the narrative but moral reflexions upon the character of individuals, are too
marked to be explained satisfactorily by the hypothesis of a common source ;
and there is no historian among Ephorus' contemporaries and successors who has
any particular claim to be regarded as the author of 1610. Theopompus, apart
from the great antecedent improbability that he would slavishly copy Ephorus
(or Ephorus him), dealt with the Pentecontaetia in an excursus upon Athenian
demagogues in Book χ of the Φιλιτττηκά (Fr. 90 Grenfell-Hunt), whereas 1610 has
all the appearance of belonging to a comprehensive history of Greece. The
detailed description of the plot of Artabanus (Frs. 15-16), which is probably in
part derived from Ctesias (11. 119 sqq., n.), does not at all suggest an Άτθί?, and
Phanodemus at any rate is excluded by his divergence from 1610 as to the size
of the Persian fleet in the sea-fight off the Eurymedon or Cyprus (11. 62-76, n.).
Callisthenes— apart from the fact that his histories primarily dealt with the fourth
century B.C.— is excluded by his disagreement with 1610 on the subject of the
name of the Persian general of the land-forces in the battle of the Eurymedon
(11. 84-8, n.). Of the historians (other than Ephorus), who according to Plut.
Tkemist. 27 (cf. 11. 7-12, n.) represented Themistocles as a suppliant to Xerxes,
like 1610, Dinon and Heraclides wrote histories of Persia, not of Greece,
Clitarchus an account of Alexander's Asiatic campaigns. Cratippus, whose
claims required to be considered in connexion with the Hellenica Oxyrhynchia
(842), wrote a continuation of Thucydides. 1610 might conceivably be the work
of another historian of about the age of Diodorus, following Ephorus with equal
fidelity ; but it is much more likely that the agreements between 1610 and
Diodorus are due to the circumstance that one Avork was the immediate authority
for the other.
The hypothesis that 1610 is based upon Diodorus may safely be dismissed.
The papyrus was written only about two centuries after him, and the view that
it represents the work of a historian of the Roman period, who was copying
Diodorus, is open to several objections. Of Diodorus himself there are no extant
papyri and Plutarch is equally unrepresented. The circulation in Egypt of the
works of the later Greek historians was evidently rather limited, and about
A.D. 200 people still preferred the more famous writers (cf. p. no). The partial
survival of Diodorus, who is never cited by heathen writers, though the title of
io6 THE OXYRHYNCHUS PAPYRI
his history was known to Pliny, is due to the circumstance that his work happened
to suit the Christians (Schwartz in Pauly-Wissowa, Realencycl. v. 664) ; and to
suppose that he served as the main authority for another and still more
elaborate history of Greece composed not later than A.D. 150 is to attribute to
him an importance to which he has no claim. 12, a historical composition of the
Roman period in Egypt, illustrates the kind of synchronistic Graeco-Roman
annals which \vere utilized by Diodorus (cf. Schwartz, op. cit. v. d^^^ but bears
no resemblance to 1610. A survey of the differences between our author's and
Diodorus' accounts of the same events (cf. pp. J03-4) is distinctly unfavourable
to the hypothesis that 1610 is the later of the two. Thus in narrating the
capture of Scyros our author is much more detailed, describing incidents which
are ignored by Thucydides and Diodorus, but not by Plutarch. The new details
in 1610 concerning the sea and land battles near the Eurymedon, though perhaps
of no great historical value, at any rate indicate a serious historian of a higher
calibre and distinctly better informed than Diodorus. There is every reason to
suppose that our author was earlier, not later, than Diodorus, and the way is now
clear for a discussion of the remaining hypothesis, that Diodorus was copying our
author, who is no other than Ephorus himself.
The identification of our author with Ephorus is supported by many con-
siderations, (i) Ephorus was a well-known and popular writer, extensively used
by writers of the Roman period, so that his works would be expected to turn up
in Egypt.
(2) The most important argument of all is that 1610 coincides Avith Ephorus
and Diodorus both as to the visit of Themistocles to Xerxes, not Artaxerxes
(cf. p. 99), and the name of the Persian general Pherendates (11. 84-8, n.), while
1610's and Diodorus' figure (340) of the ships in the Persian fleet in the sea-battle
off Cyprus is practically identical with the figure (350) ascribed to Ephorus
(11, 62-76, n.). The slight difference may well be due either to a corruption in
the MSS. of Plutarch {v for μ), or to a rounding-off of Ephorus' figure by that
writer. These three are the only extant pieces of direct evidence concerning
Ephorus' narrative of the events covered by the papyrus, and the coincidence
with regard to Pherendates, whose name is a certain restoration in 1. 86, is
particularly weighty.
(3) The close relationship between 1610 and Diodorus, though this resem-
blance often extends beyond the point which with the scanty available evidence
could hitherto be proved as regards Ephorus and Diodorus, is in the main such
as has been generally considered to exist between those two historians ; cf. pp. 105
and 1 1 1-2 and Schwartz, op. cit. v. 679.
(4) The general relation of 1610 to Plutarch, \vho has been thought (e.g. by
1610. EPHORUS, XII {OR XI) 107
Busolt) to have followed other historians, e.g. Theopompus, Heraclides, and
Callisthenes, more than Ephorus in dealing with the Pentecontaetia, is also quite
in keeping with what would be expected to be found in Ephorus. Particular
statements of Plutarch with regard to Ephorus are verified (all three pieces
of evidence discussed in (2) are obtained from Plutarch) ; but as a rule Plutarch
preferred a different authority, though his account of Cimon's recovery of the
bones of Theseus may have been obtained from 1610 (11. 49-5 1> "•)•
(5) The traces of connexion between 1610 and (i) Justin (11. 119 sqq., n.),
who certainly used Ephorus, (2) Polyaenus, (3) Frontinus (11. 62-76, n.), and
(4) Aristodemus (11. 7-12, 62-76, nn.), are such as would be expected to occur, if
Ephorus is the author.
(6) The account of the capture of Eion in 1610 (11. 37-46, n.) is borrowed
straight from Thucydides, whom Ephorus is supposed to have used. Elsewhere
he differs conspicuously from Thucydides, as was known, with regard to two
incidents which occur in 1610, the appeal of Themistocles to Xerxes and the sea-
fight off Cyprus (11. 7-12 and 62-76, nn.), an apparent indirect allusion being
made to Thucydides' account of the former incident.
(7) The arrangement of the narrative in 1610, in which events are evidently
grouped not annalistically as in Thucydides, but rather according to subject, is in
accordance with the definite statement of Diodorus v. i concerning the arrange-
ment adopted by Ephorus (κατά yivo's : cf. p. no).
(8) The disposition of our author to digress and moralize, which is illustrated
by his excursus upon Themistocles, is quite in harmony with Polybius' reference
(xii. 28) to Ephorus' fondness for irap^Kfiaaeis and γνωμολογίαι.
(9) The interest shown by our author in antiquarian lore, exemplified by
the excursus on Theseus (p. 100), accords very well with Ephorus' known interest
in that subject (cf. Schwartz, oJ>. cit. vi. 13).
(10) The prominence of the Athenians in 1610 is in keeping with the
supposed sympathies of Ephorus (cf Schwartz, op. cit. vi. 14), though these have
been disputed (cf. Walker, Hell. Oxy. 107).
(11) The historical arguments are to some extent reinforced by linguistic
evidence, for there is a general similarity of style between 1610 and the extant
fragments of Ephorus. Actual quotations of his words are very few, but there
are occasional agreements in them with 1610 in points of diction (cf. 11. 26, 94-9,
I03-4, 1 14-16, nn.), though these are not very striking. The careful avoidance
of hiatus (cf. 11. 59-60), the monotonous frequency of antitheses, and a decided
tendency to verbosity, especially in the reflexions upon Themistocles, accord very
fairly with the judgements of ancient critics upon Ephorus' style ; cf. Cicero,
Hortens. Fr. 12 qiiid . . .. Ephoro mitius inveniri potest ? ', Brut. 204 lenissimupt
io3 THE OXYRHYNCHUS PAPYRI
Ephori ingenmni ; Dio Chrys. xviii, p. 283 Έφορο? 5e τϊολΧψ μΐν ίστορίαν τταρα-
οώωσιν, το δέ νπτων καΐ άν€ίμ€νον της άτταγγβλίας σοι ουκ €τητηδ€ων. The digression
on Themistocles, if, as is practically certain, the whole of Diod. xi. 58. 4-59 was
taken with very little change from our author, contains somewhat more rhetoric
than would be expected to appear in Ephorus, and is nearer to Frs. 317 and 283
(Grenfell-Hunt) of Theopompus, which also have a series of rhetorical questions,
than to anything in Ephorus' extant fragments. But for reasons which have
been given (p. 105) Theopompus is quite unsuitable as the author of 1610, and in
spite of the well-known saying of Isocrates about his two illustrious pupils that
Ephorus required the spur, Theopompus the bit, the two disciples of that master
probably had many rhetorical devices in common.
Our conclusion therefore is that at last there is a papyrus which, especially
in view of its coincidences with fragments of Ephorus, and its close agreements
with Diodorus, can be ascribed to Ephorus with overwhelming probability.
The books of Ephorus' Ίστορίαι which dealt with the period round that
which is covered by 1610 were x-xiii ; cf. Schwartz, op. cit. vi. 5. Fr. 107 (Muller)
from Book χ is concerned with Miltiades at Paros and belongs to the interval
between Marathon and Salamis. A fragment from Schol. Aristid. p. 515. 22
(Muller, FHG. iv. 642) refers to the fine of 50 talents imposed on Miltiades
and paid by Cimon when a young man (Plut. Cimon 4), i. e. before the events
recorded in 1610. The scholiast gives as his source "Y.^opQ<i Iv τύ\ ττρώττ], which is
usually corrected to Ιι^δεκάτ??. There is also a difficulty about the number of the
book in Eph. Fr. 109 ; for his discussion of various opinions upon the causes of
the rise of the Nile is ascribed by most MSS. of Theo Progynin. to Book xi, but
one MS. has Iv τ?} τ:ΙμτΐΤΎ\ in the margin, and Joannes Lydus, in referring to the
same discussion, attributes it τ\\ -πρώττι, which has been usually corrected, as in
the other case, to Η•ο€κάτ•)]. Muller accepts τΐ€μ7ττΐ] as right on the reasonable,
and in our opinion sufficient ground that Book ν was geographical and is
known to have been concerned with Asia and Libya ; but Schwartz (/. c.) accepts
ΐν^ζκάτΊ], suggesting (what does not seem very probable) that an excursus on
Egypt may have occurred in connexion with the revolt of Inarus, which is
narrated by Diodorus in the chapters immediately following those corresponding
to Frs. 15-16 of 1610. After Fr. 109 there is no fragment of Ephorus which can
be assigned with certainty to a particular event and book until Fr. 126 from
Book xvii is reached. This records the death of Alcibiades and corresponds
to Diod. xiv. II. Fr. no, however, a mention of a Sicilian island Ύνχία in
Book xii, is doubtfully connected by Schwartz (I.e.) with the expulsion of
Thrasybulus from Syracuse in about 466 B.C. (Diod. xi. 68), and Fr. 124, a
mention of "Εντ^λα in Sicily in Book xvi, is thought by him to refer probably
1610. EPHORUS, XII {OR XI) 109
to the early history of Dionysius (cf. Died. xiv. 9). It is therefore not clear to
which book 1610 belonged ; but evidently xi or xii is the most suitable.
The new discovery in any case adds fresh fuel to the controversy concerning
the authorship of two other papyri from the same site, the Hellenica Oxyrhynchia
(842) and a fragment concerning the Orthagoridae in Sicyon (1365). In our first
edition of 842 we discussed the claims of Ephorus, Theopompus, and Cratippus
to be regarded as the author, and eventually decided doubtfully in favour of
Theopompus, a hypothesis which was advocated by E. Meyer and found con-
siderable favour in Germany, but very little in this country. The claims of
Cratippus were formerly advocated by Walker {Klio ν'ϋλ. 356-71) and are still
supported by the latest editor of the Hell. Oxy., J. H. Lipsius. The case for
Ephorus has been well stated by Judeich (Rhein. Mns. 1911. 94-139), and more
fully by Walker {Hell. Oxy. 19 12), whose able advocacy has gained many
adherents. With regard to 1365 our view that Ephorus (or Aristotle ?) might be
the author has been disputed by M. Lenchantin de Gubernatis {Atti Ace. Torino,
li. 290-305), on the ground that the oracle mentioned by Diodorus referred to
Andreas himself, implying that he was to be the first tyrant, whereas 1365 states
that Andreas' son Orthagoras was the first tyrant. This objection, however,
does not seem to us insuperable, for Diodorus' words are on Σίκνωνίοΐί ^χρησ^ν ή
ΥΙνθία €κατον €τη μασηγονομ.ηθζσθαί avrovs. ζΤΤ€ρωτησάντων δε αυτών tls ο ταντα
ττοίήσων τταλίν αττ^κριθη ώ αν κατατΐλ^νσαντ^^ ττρωτω γ€γ€νηιχ€νον νίυν άκονσωσιν . . .,
which points to the υίο? (Orthagoras) as the important person.
The authorship of 842 is too large a question to be adequately rediscussed
here, but the main bearings of the new find upon the problem, assuming that we
are right in attributing 1610 to Ephorus, may be indicated. Firstly, the agree-
ments between 842 and Diodorus, which could only be explained by his direct
or indirect use of the author of 842, and which constituted the most solid
argument in favour of the view that Ephorus was the writer in question (cf. Part v.
125-7 5 Walker, op. eit. 50 sqq.), are less marked indeed than the correspondences
of 1610 with Diodorus in Frs. 3, 8-1 1, 16, but are on much the same level as
those in Frs. 4-6, 12 + 13, 15. Secondly, the relation of 842 to Plutarch and
Justin is similar to that of 1610 to those authors. In both papyri the connexion
with Plutarch is slight, but their influence upon Justin is traceable. Thirdly,
the scale of the history in the two papyri is not dissimilar, when allowances are
made for the comparative paucity of evidence for the more ancient period. 1610,
though its account of the capture of Eion reproduces the brevity of Thucydides,
not the details of Herodotus (cf. 11. 37-46, n.), was evidently on a large scale,
being even more detailed than Diodorus, so far as can be judged. Hence the
discovery of 1610 goes some way to remove the supposed difficulty (cf. Part v,
no THE OXYRHYNCHUS PAPYRI
I. c, and in answer to it Walker, op. cit. 32 sqq.) that Ephorus' history was less
detailed than 842. Fourthly, while in 842 the narrative was arranged chrono-
logically in the style of Thucydides, in 1610 the arrangement bears no sign of
being annalistic, and was evidently to a large extent according to subject;
cf. p. 107. Here 1610 rather damages the position of Judeich, who {pp. cit. no)
minimized one of the chief difficulties in the attribution of 842 to Ephorus, the
fact that according to Diodorus v. i Ephorus' history was arranged κατά yivos,
and maintained that Ephorus did write more or less annalistically. Walker's
position, on the other hand, is less affected, for he had acutely divined {op. cit. 30-1)
from Diodorus' account of the Pentecontaetia that Ephorus' account of it was
arranged according to subject, not annalistically, just as in fact 1610 shows it to
have been with regard to two of the three incidents selected by Walker as
evidence (Themistocles in Persia, and Cimon's operations up to the battle of the
Eurymedon). This divergence, however, between 1610 and 842 (which belongs
to Book xviii, if it is by Ephorus) remains something of a difficulty in spite
of Walker's arguments {op. cit. 3a sqq.) for the view that in the later books of
Ephorus greater respect was paid to the annalistic method. Fifthly, speeches
in the style of Thucydides do not occur in either papyrus, but each of them has
at least one excursus (842 on the Boeotian constitution, 1610 on Themistocles ;
that in 842. χ on the character of an individual is too incomplete to be at all
intelligible). Lastly, there are rather more agreements in diction between
1610 and 842 (cf. 15-17, 56-61, 73-4, 24-9> ioi> I04. i^i, 123, nn.) than
between 1610 and the extant fragments of Ephorus (cf. p. 107), which owing to
the length of 842 is not surprising, and the general style of 842 is not unlike
that of 1610.
With regard to 1365, the circumstance that the parallel account in a frag-
ment of Diodorus breaks off just before the point at which the papyrus begins
prevents us from knowing the extent of their resemblance ; but they combine in
most respects remarkably well. The fondness for the genitive absolute and the
repetition of the article with an adjective placed after a substantive, which were
noted (Part xi. 107) as characteristics of 1365, do not appear in 1610, but the
general style is not at all dissimilar. The wide range of the library to which 1610
belonged and, to a less extent, that of the library containing 842 (1365 was found
with only a couple of Homeric fragments) render us unwilling to lay much
stress on the circumstance that all three papyri, which are approximately con-
temporaneous, come from the same site. In about A. D. 300 copies of most of
the Greek authors of the first rank and many of the second and third were
probably still in circulation at Oxyrhynchus. But the historian who would be
expected to come next in popularity to Herodotus, Thucydides, and Xenophon
1610. EPHORUS, XII {OR XI) iii
is Ephorus, not Theopompus, whose works had already begun to perish in
Diodorus' time (Theop. Fr. 28 Grenfell-Hunt, βνβλονς όκτω irpos tols ττ^ντηκοντα
(ξ ων TT€VT€ bLaφωvoΰσLv) ; and if, as we are rather disposed to infer from the joint
connexion with Diodorus, 842, 1365, and 1610 are the work of one author, he is
certainly Ephorus.
To summarize the chief points of value in 1610 from the point of view of our
identification of its author with Ephorus, (i) the most important is that it enables
us to realize for the first time at all adequately the debt of Diodorus, particularly
in Book xi, to that author. That the younger historian was under great
obligations to the older has long been supposed, but, since Diodorus also used
various other authors, the extent and method of his use of Ephorus, whose name
he rarely mentions, had nearly always to be guessed rather than proved. That
he sometimes incorporated whole sentences or even chapters with little or no
change, at other times merely paraphrased or abbreviated his main authority,
compressing some details and omitting some episodes altogether, but adding, so
far as 1610 goes (cf. pp. 102-4), hardly anything of his own, is not only new
but very valuable information. Where Diodorus is perceptibly longer than or
different from Ephorus in 1610, the new matter is probably in the main an
amplification introduced for the sake of variety (11. 37-46, loi-io) or a mere
rhetorical exaggeration (11. 69-75), though in regard to the latter passage some
of Diodorus' variations may be due to deference for Thucydides (11. 62-76, n.).
It is particularly instructive that Diodorus' account of the twofold battle of the
Eurymedon, which is just one of the cases where his precise relation to Ephorus
was most in doubt owing to the divergent evidence of Polyaenus (11. 62-76, n.),
proves to be on the whole a very faithful reproduction of the older historian, and
that a digression such as that in Diod. xi. 58. 4-59 on Themistocles is now
shown to have been borrowed almost verbally from Ephorus. Evidently
Diodorus was a writer of very slight originality, and a future editor of Ephorus'
fragments will be able to include most of Diod. xi with confidence. His debt
to Ephorus in that book is almost as great as are his obligations to Agatharchides
in iii. 12-48, where a comparison of Diodorus with the excerpts of Agatharchides
riept τψ kpvdpas θαλάσσης preserved by Photius shows that everything in Diodorus
down to the most minute details is borrowed from the older writer. Theopompus
on the other hand, so far as the Pentecontaetia is concerned, does not seem to have
been utilized to any serious extent by Diodorus. The effect of 1610 upon
the criticism of other books of Diodorus, especially xii-xv, is also likely to be
considerable, but the discussion of these falls outside our present scope. It is
clear, however, that much of Diodorus' work, which could be ignored, so long
as his statements were regarded as merely those of a writer of the Augustan
112 THE OXYRHYNCHUS PAPYRI
age, will henceforth have to be treated with the respect due to the celebrated
fourth century B. c. historian whom he was to a large extent copying.
(2) There is now much more material for estimating the scale of Ephorus'
history of the fifth century B. C. Diodorus seems to have incorporated most of
the essential parts, but by no means all the details and digressions, and Ephorus,
as is shown by the account of the land-battle of the Eurymedon and the plot of
Artabanus, evidently wrote at very considerable length, though his account
of the capture of Eion ignores the material available from Herodotus, and the
sea-fight off Cyprus is described in a few lines. His system in dealing with the
Pentecontaetia v/as to group events by subjects, not by definite years, an
arrangement which led Diodorus into great confusion about the chronology of
this period. But in dealing with the fourth century B. c, which occupied the
second half of Ephorus' Ιστορίαι. he may have employed a different method.
(3) With regard to the sources of Ephorus, 1610 exhibits one clear case of
direct borrowing from Thucydides (11. 37-46, n.), and an apparent reference to
him in an allusion to authorities vaguely described as ol μίν (1. 8, η.) ; but in
other respects 1610 comes into marked conflict with him ; cf. p. 107. Herodotus
is not utilized in connexion with the capture of Eion, and Frs. 15-16 do not
display any verbal connexion with the Πβρσικά of Ctesias, though Diodorus'
language in a passage in this context betrays a use of that author ; cf 11. 119 sqq., n.
There is now more reason than ever to suppose that the metrical inscription
upon Cimon's victories was quoted by Diodorus from Ephorus (11. 267-9, n.).
(4) Of later writers, other than Diodorus, who dealt with the Pentecontaetia,
Plutarch kept Ephorus' history in view, but preferred to follow other authorities,
while echoes of Ephorus are found in Justin, Aristodemus, Polyaenus, and
Frontinus (p. 107).
(5) For Ephorus' style the evidence is still scanty, and it is difficult to judge
it fairly from fragments so discontinuous and brief as those in 1610. But it does
not seem to have been much better than that of Diodorus, the leading charac-
teristics of it being easiness, verbosity, and tameness, with a tendency to
break into rhetoric (cf. pp. 107-8).
(6) The discovery of 1610 affects many points in the controversy concerning
the authorship of 842, and to a less extent that of 1365. On the whole it rather
supports the attribution of 842 to Ephorus, since it tends to remove the difficulty
caused by the elaborate scale of that work, and reinforces the most solid
argument for ascribing it to Ephorus, the evident traces of connexion between
842 and Diodorus. In the light of 1610 it is increasingly difficult to explain
those agreements with Diodorus from the point of view that 842 is the work of
Theopompus or Cratippus. On the other hand the resemblances between 1610
1610. EPHORUS, XII {OR XI) 113
and Diodorus often reach far beyond the point attained by 842, and the principal
obstacle to the attribution of 842 to Ephorus remains in a somewhat accentuated
form, the strictly chronological system imitated from Thucydides, which is found
in 842, as contrasted with Ephorus' arrangement according to subject, which is
well illustrated by 1610. With regard to 1365 there is less evidence for the
extent of its resemblance to Diodorus, but the hypothesis that it came from an
early book of Ephorus still remains attractive.
Ephorus, in spite of his celebrity and wealth of new information not to be
found in Herodotus, Thucydides, or Xenophon, was not a great historian, and to
judge by 1610 it may be doubted whether in his treatment of the fifth century B. c,
which brought him into frequent conflict with Thucydides, many of the novelties
were of real historical value. The servility of Diodorus, who, as it now appears,
followed Ephorus almost blindly through that period, and was practically
incapable of original composition, has probably prevented us from losing very
much when Books x-xv of the older historian perished. With his history of the
fourth century B. c. the case is different. Here Ephorus is likely to have been as
well informed as Xenophon, Theopompus, or any other, and if he was the author
of the account of Agesilaus' and Conon's campaigns and the excursus on the
Boeotian constitution in 842, his merits were by no means inconsiderable. Even
with regard to quite early Greek history he was sometimes, if 1365 is from his
work, distinctly independent of Herodotus and rather valuable.
It is in any case satisfactory that with the recovery of these fragments of
Ephorus' history of the Pentecontaetia the ' higher criticism ' of Diodorus not
only can point henceforth to several substantial verifications of the methods of
modern research in ancient history, but enters a new phase.
Fr. I. Plate iii. Fr. 2.
[ ] . aj/ Ac[. . . . 15 . . •]ωί/ ζσπου8[ασζ
\i ποτ€ τ
Tis ?] Se τοσουτοι[ς δι
[ ]tV^ ?■[•••• α ? τ]ων ζργω[ν ....
[ ]νι . [. . ανα
5 y\K\aiov [ejo-rij' [ P'r. 3•
e_i[y] τα τοτζ. π[€/)£ rov [ ]^ • [• •]^• •] ^^\_^ίνον
Θ€μιστοκλξο[νς λί fiev υπο της 7roXe[<»y
γονσι δ ol μ^ν ο\τι υπ€ 2θ ητιμασμξνον τ[ην
μνησ^ν αντ[ον ων δζ ττοΧιν δια τ[α\γ e
10 nepi τ€ της ν[αυμα k€lvov 7r/3a^e[i?] της
χιας και της γΐ^φυρας μέγιστης τιμής wo
χ 14 THE OXYRHYNCHUS PAPYRI
12 [7rpo]r/yyetX€• π[€ρί 8i των Ελληνωρ ail
[τη]9 νανμαχ[ία9 ... 25 ωθ^ισαν η μ^γαλην
[, .] . α[ [ηγζμονι ?]af οίον τ .
Frs. 4 + 5• Plate ϋί. Fr. 6. Plate iii.
σο]φ[ωτατην και €ί(ίτι[μζν . . . oOev ?
δικαι ?]:>τα[την . . . παρ€ξ[(β]ημ€ν' Α[θη
. . . Ατα[τ]η[ν] Ι κ[αι ναιοι [B]e Κ[ϊ\μωνος
30 χα\ζπ](ύτατ\ην [yivo τον Μι[\]τιαΒον στρα
μ^νη\ν ττρος | €Ke[ivov 40 τηγον[ντ]οζ €Κπλ€υ
οι δ υ\ιτο\αμβανου[σιν σαντ€? €Κ Βνζαντι
ΟΤΙ eiJTrep φου\η[6η ον μζτα των σνμμα
CK ? δο]υναι ττ)[ν ηγ€ χων [Ηι]ονα την €πι
35 μονια '?]ν απα[ ^τρ[νμο]νι Περσών e
45 χοΐ'[τω]ι/ ζίΧον και
['Χκνρολν ην νησ^ο^γ
Fr. 7. Fr. 8.
Col. i. Col. ii. παραθ^άλα^ττιων
Γ λτην ... κa\o^^υμζvω\y ττοΧζ
[ ]veiTai [.]ο[ ων οσ\αι μ€ν €κ τ[779
Γ ] . η^' αν πρω[ Ελ\α]δος ησα[ν α
50 [τον γαρ ? πρ]ο9 Λνκο μαν[ 6ο πω]κίσμ€ναι π[αρα
[μηδην τον β]ασιλ€α 55 ^l^^ii ]ΧΡ^Κ*] ο•νν[ζπ€ΐσ€
Frs. 9 + 10 + 53• Fr. II.
Col. i. Col. ii. [ τον μ(]ν
[ Κίμων ττνν] 85 [στρατηγο]ν αντων
[θανομ€νο9 το]ν τ[ων [Φ€ρΐνδατη]ν αδ^λ
[Πίρσ-ων στολο]ν π€ρι [φιδονν ov7]a τον βασ[ι
65 [την Κνπρον σν]ντ€τα [λεω? iv τηι] σκηνηι [
[χθαι δίακοσί]αΐ9 7rei/[
[τηκοντα 7Γ]ρ[ο?]| τρια[
[κοσια? κ]αι τζτ\ταρ[α
[κοντά] παραταχ[θζΐ
1610. EPHORUS, XII {OR XI)
"5
70 [σ]α9 ^e ττοΧνν \povo[v
TToWas μ^ν των κ\ιν
• •
8vvevova(cv βαρβα[ρι
ληνΐ
K(uv ν(.ων 8ΐ€φθ€[ι
λα . [
[pjer• ξκατον δ αντοΐ9
KUL . [
75 [a]u8paaiv [e]tXe ζωγρη
80
πατ[
[σας τ]ον π[ ]ων
τί τω[
τω[
τω[
Frs. 12 + 13•
Col. i. Col.
ii.
[
...].
9θ ]
[. .] δί€Τίλ[ονν o]uT€S•
[ωσ]Γ€ νομιζοντζ^ α
95 το της ηπ(.ιρ[ου\ την
ζφοδον αντ[οις yey]o
vevai των π[ο]λ€/χί
ων προζ τα.[ς] ναν[ς] €
φ€υγον νπο[λ]αμβα
ιοο vovT€S αντοις €ΐ[ν]αί
φιλίας ου δη π[ο\\λοι
μ€ν νπο των κατά
λαφθ^ντων €K€L
φυλάκων απ(θνη]^ί^
105 [σκο^] ξ ν τη ι νυκτι
[7ΓΟ\λλοι δξ ζωντ€ς η
λισκοντο τηριπιτττον
rey τοις Ελλη\σιν \ δια
την απορι[α^ν οττου
Ι ΙΟ τ[ρ]απ[ο]ί[ί'7Ό] | και τον
[<ί\^[αιφνης\ Ι αυτοις e
[πιπ^σοντα φοβ J]ov
[ .* . . . ']ατα
Fr. 14•
] στρα[τιωτ ?
115 ] v^i'^T ?
αν }]τοις πνρ[σον ?
]ιηνα[
]ον . [
Fr. 15• Plate iii.
[ τ ?]ους [
120 [. . . λογχ '?]οφορους ω[ν
[ ]ων €τυγχα[
[v€v Α]ρτα^€ρξης [
[αμα μ]€ν αυτός κατά
[σχίΐν ? τ]τ}ν βασιλ^ιαν
125 [βονλο } μ\ίνος' αμα δζ
[δ^διω ?]f μη πραγ
[μα
Fr. 16.
[ ανζ\κοίνου
[το ? την ....]. IV προς
130 [τον ^υνουχον] Μιθρι
[δατην κατα]ι<[ο]ιμί
[στην τον βασίλ€]ως
[ >
Ι 2
ii6
135
Fr. 17.
. ... So '?]λιχου t[.
] . βραχυν τόπον [.
jf KUL του στρατ[.
.] και μονοί των [
•] rioJnOiy π[. . . .
. . .]ι/οι/ e[. . . .
Γ//^ OXYRHYNCHUS PAPYRI
Fr. 18.
140 ]^e[
Col. i.
152 ]αλ
/^ί?
]ϋΓ
Fr. 20.
Col. ii.
155 •[
^.[
7Γ€ . Γ
Fr. 33 (tops of cols. ?).
Col. i. Col. ii.
170 '\V0L [
]€σ πάλιν α[
]»/ 175 ζκα[
κτ\_
ά\8ζλ[φον ?
€7Γί]^ί ί_ι/[αί ?
145 ].5f [
end of col. ?
Fr. 21.
160 ]α
] άλλα
].α.'
Fr. 19.
•[
€7γ[
150 σ6[
1 65
Fr. 24.
Col. i.
]• ω
]τυγ
[y^av — ] l8l
180 jiOU
].
Col. ii.
[ ■
hi
4
185 4
195
Fr. 26.
ΕΚ^ησιν
]λι;σαί ray [
Fr. 27.
196 ]e/(i . . [
^v opav [
]σ77ί ί[
]αλα[
Fr. 28.
200 Ι'^'Ή
] Αθηναι[ο
]yovTO κ[
ΙτΓ
Fr. 22.
]?
]5αί
]αν
]
fr.»25.
]σα *
]yovK
']■
190 ]ασί
].ο
Fr. 29.
]ωκ[.
235 ] • τα
]πο
Vi
Fr. 30.
Μ
^VTuyl
2 1 ο π]αρα τω[ί/
] πα/)α[
Fr. 31. Fr, 32. Fr. S3•
[. . . ]ΰΰσ7[ 2ΐ6 ]^'ct/[ 220 ]ι;[
τ?7ΐ/ e5a)/c[€ joy 7rp[ ]ασ[
χωράν re[ jiicoj/ [ ]σ•τωΐ' [
2 15 . [ ]^9ί4 Ι»^»?!
1610. EPHORUS, XII {OR XI)
117
Fr. 34.
]-v[
225 >[
]«[
].[
Fr. ^^.
Fr. SS (top).
] IJeXaayovi [
]v TLva• [
230 Ka\Ta(f>vy[
Fr. 39.
237 ^ai' [ TL<i Se ? 240 ] . . [
[π]ρα^[€ί ?
Fr. ^6.
231 ] /ftti τ . [
]λίσΓα [
Fr. 40. Fr. 41.
]t[ 246 ]ai[
]TOfj[ ]νμμ[
Fr. 43•
252 Μ
]οί au αλλτ][ 2 45 ]ί'€ίσ[ ]f'f<'^'''[
Fr. 44• Fr. 45. Fr. 46.
255 ] e^fpyl^ ] • [ 261 ]τα[
]repo( ] . [.] n[ ]reX[
]ασνγ[ 260 ]ντ€ . [ ]ντ[
Fr. 48. Fr. 49.
267 ra pju? eX[oi/ ? 270 Jui/tcui/
] αι/δίρων ? κ]αί τωι/
μ€]γ[α ? ] .
Fr. 50•
]«ί • [
2 75 Μ
Fr. 51.
276 Τ}[
Fr. 53•
282 ]f)[
]aL Τ€Τ[
]*••[
Fr. 5Β.
293 ]«/[
]ot[
Fr. 54.
285 ]λα[
]ι;το[
Fr. 59.
295 ] . o[
287
Fr. 55.
]«y[
] κατα[
Fr. 60.
297 o[
r[
Fr. 56.
290 ]γωι/
Fr. 61.
300 e[
Fr. 37.
235 ] • »'/[
Μ
end of col. ?
Fr. 42.
]a)p δ[€ ?
250 ]τατην
\a
Fr. 47.
]ακο[
205 >ί τ[
Fr. 53.
P[
280 r[
To[
Fr. 57•
291 ]y0[
Μ
Fr. 62.
301 ]
Ircoy
Fr. 1. (2) . . . 7Γ07•€ ... (δ) άί/α1γ[κ]αίόΐ' [eVni/ [ ] ei[s] τα. rare n[ep\ τοΰ] θ{μιστοκΚ€ο[υς.
Xc ,γουσί δ' οί μεν δ[τι ύ7Γ£]/αν>7σ?ΐ' αντ[όι/ δκ] περί τ€ r^s ν[ανμαχίας κα\ τη! γ[εφΰρας προ]ηγγΐίλΐ•
π[(ρί δε τη\ νανμαχ[ίας . . .
' ..." it is necessary to (return ?) to what (happened) then concerning Themistocles.
Some say that he reminded him of his warnings about both the sea-fight and the bridge; but
with regard to the sea-fight . . .'
2. ]i or ]η can be read.
4-5. ava !γ[κ]α(οι/: the supposcd γ could be p, but hardly r, v, or φ, which would m.ake
ii8 THE OXYRHYNCHUS PAPYRI
the beginning of 1. 5 project, and λ could be read in place of «. evayjy'e^iov (cf. 1. 12) is
excluded by the fact that only the plural of this word occurs in Attic. Bury suggests
ena\vi.f[vat ανα\γ\κ]αιον [(\στιν [αυθίί, referring to a previous account of the flight of Themistocles
(Frs. 1-5 are themselves part of a digression anticipating the chronological order of events ;
of. 1. 37 and p. 99). The letter following vi can be e, but the hiatus -ναι ava- is an objec-
tion to this restoration; cf. p. 107.
6. etfij τα : of the letter following e all that survives is the lip of a stroke which might
be vertical or horizontal, evra or ιπτα could be read, but suggests no suitable word.
7-12. Cf. p. 99, Thuc. i. 137 ΐσιτίμιτ(ΐ -γράμματα προς βασιλιά Άρταξίρξην τον Ξ€ρξον
ν€ωστ\ βασιλεύοντα, ε'δι^λου δε ή γραφή οτι θψιστοκλης ηκω πάρα σί, ος κακά μίν πλείστα Ελλήνων
(ϊργασμαι τον νμίτΐρον οίκον, όσον χρόνον τον σον πατίρα (πιόντα ίμοί άνάγκτ] ημννόμην, πολν δ en πλίίω
αγαθά, εηεώή ev τω άσφαλεΊ μέν εμοί, (κείνω 8e eV ΐπικιν8ννω πάλιν ή αποκομιδή (γίγνετο. και μοι ευεργεσία
οφείλεται {γράψαί τψ Τ€ εκ ΣαλαμΐΐΌ? προάγγελαιι/ τη? άμαχωρήσεω? και τψ των γεφυρώΐ',
ήν λ//-ίΐ)δώί προσεποιήσατο, τότε δι' αντον οΰ διάλνσιν), και νυν έχων . . ., Plut. Themist. 2'J
Θουκυδίδης μεν ουν κα\ Χάρων 6 Ααμψακηνος Ίστορονσι τεθρηκότος Ξερξον προς τον ν'ών αντοΰ τω
θεμιστοκλε'ι γενέσθαι τήν εντευξιν "Έφορο5 δέ και Αΐίνων και Κλείταρχο$ και Ηρακλείδη?, ετι
δ' άλλοι ττλείοΐ'ε?, προς αύτόΐ' αψικεσθαι toc Ξ^ρξην. τοΙς δε χρονικοΊς δοκεϊ μάλλον ό Θουκυδίδης
συμφερεσθαι, καίπερ ούδ* αίιτοΊς άτρεμα συνταττόμενος. The following accOUnt of the reception
of Themistocles by Artabanus the χιλίαρχος, who is identical with the Artabanus to whom
Frs. 15-16 refer (cf. 11. 119 sqq., n.), is stated by Plutarch to be derived from Phanias, with a
few extra details obtained from Eratosthenes περί πλούτου, and Phanias too, as is observed
by Busolt, iii. 132^ seems to have represented Xerxes as still reigning at the time of
Themistocles' arrival; cf. 1. 8, n. Plutarch does not state his source for the two next
chapters (28-9), which relate in detail the reception of Themistocles by the Persian king
and the honours paid to him, being partly derived from Thucydides, partly from some one
else (Heraclides ? Busolt, iii. 129'). A different version of the letter recorded by Thucydides
is put into Themistocles' mouth, ηκω σοι, βασιλεΰ, Θεμιστοκλής ... ω πολλά μεν οφείλονσι
ΤΙερσαι κακά, πλείω δε αγαθά κωλύσαντι τήν δίωξιν, οτε της Ελλάδος εν άσφαλε'ι γενομένης παρέσχε
τα ΟΙΚΟΙ σωζόμενα χαρίσασθαί τι κα\ υμΐν. Diodorus xi. 56. 8 shows more interest in the
stratagem by which Lysithides introduced Themistocles to Xerxes (cf. 11. 246-8, n.) than
in Themistocles' defence of himself before the king, which is described quite briefly
κάκείνον δόντος τω θεμιστοκλεΐ λόγον κα\ μαθόντος ως ουδέν ήδίκησεν. AristodcmUS ΙΟ κα\
υπεμμησεί' αυτόν (SC. Artaxerxes) των ευεργεσιών ας εδόκει κατατεθεΐσθαι εΙς τον πάτερα αυτοΰ
Ξερξην, λέγων κα\ της σωτηρίας αύτω γεγενήσθαι α'ίτιος [ενδε\ίξας λνσειν τους "Ελλ ηνας το ζεΰγμα,
though primarily based on Thucydides, shows traces of a knowledge of Ephorus ; cf. 11. 62-
76, n. Nepos ^Themist. 9) follows Thucydides, scio plerosque ita scripsisse, Themistoclevi
Xerxe regnanfe in Asiam transisse. Sed ego poiissimuin Thiicydidi credo . . ., quoting the
letter to Artaxerxes Idem vitilio plura bona feci postqiiavi in into ipse et ille in periculo esse
coepit. Nam cum in Asiam r ever Η vellet, proelio apud Salamiyia facto, litteris eum certiorem
feci id agi ut pons quevi in Hellesponto fecerat dissolveretur atqtie ab hostibus circumiretur : quo
nuntio ille periculo est liberatus. The earliest authority for the view that Xerxes, not
Artaxerxes, was the king in question is Aeschines Socraticus quoted by Aristid. ii. 293
(cf. 1608). The date of Themistocles' arrival in Persia continues to be a matter of dispute :
Busolt, iii. I32^ sides with Thucydides, and assigns that event to a period shortly after the
spring of 464.
8. o( μεν : cf. the previous n. Thucydides is probably included, for the expressions in
11. 11-12 seem to be derived from him, though αυτ\ον is apparently Xerxes, not Artaxerxes,
cf. the next n. Dinon may also be meant, for he was approximately Ephorus' con-
temporary. Clitarchus and Heraclides, who were younger, can hardly have been referred
to by Ephorus, nor can Phanias (cf. the previous n.), who was the disciple of Aristotle.
1610. EPHORUS, XII {OR XI) 119
8-9. νπ(\μρησ^ν αντ'ον: vve prefer v^:(\μvησev to αν(\μνησ(ν on account of the parallel
in Aristodemus 10 cited above. His work, the date of which is unknown, is based mainly
on Herodotus and Thucydides, but its frequent resemblances to Diodorus, especially as to
the causes of the Peloponnesian War, suggest the use of Ephorus, and νπίμνησίΐ> αυτόν looks
like a reminiscence of the present passage. αυτ[οί', however, here is, we think, Xerxes not
Artaxerxes, because (i) there is no mention of the king's father (cf. Thuc. I.e.); (2) the
accession of Artaxerxes is described by Diodorus in a much later chapter, to Avhich
Frs. 15-16 refer; (3) Ephorus is definitely known to have agreed with the majority of
historians that Xerxes was the reigning king. The difficulty is that owing to the loss
of the second part of the sentence from 1. 14 onwards it is not clear whether our author
accepted the opinion of οί μίν or not. If he rejected it, then avi\ov might be Artaxerxes
and Fr. i would be more suitably placed after Fr. 16, with a backward reference in II. 5-7
to the account of Themistocles in Persia which must in any case have preceded Frs. 2-5.
This would have the advantage of making the suggested connexion between 11. 7-12 and
both Thucydides and Aristodemus closer; but we are unwilling to separate Fr. i so widely
from Frs. 2-5, seeing that Themistocles is the subject of them all. To retain Fr. i where
it is, and make aw\ov Artaxerxes, with a possible forward reference in 11. 5-7 to a subsequent
mention of Artaxerxes, is a possible compromise ; but with [τΓρο\ήγγ(ΐ\€ the most natural dative
to be supplied is αντώ, i.e. Xerxes, not τώ πατρΧ αντοΰ which would be required by the identifica-
tion of αι;τ[οι/ with Artaxerxes.
10. ν[ανμα]χια5 : cf. 1. 13, Hdt. viu. 75, Thuc. I.e., Diod. xi. 17, Plut. Themist. 12
and 28.
11. T»ji ^[ίφυραί: cf. Hdt. viii. no ras iv 'ΈΧΚησττόντω γΐφνρας λύΐΐν, Thuc. Lc, Diod. xi
19. 5 τον TTaidaywyov των 18ίων νιων aneaTcike προς τον Ξ^ρζην δηΚώσοντα διότι μίλλονσιν οΊ Έλληνες
πλΐύσαντΐί ί'πι το ζΐϋγμα λύειν την γΐψνραν, and the next η. Diodorus' employment of
the singular (Hdt. and Thuc. have the plural) confirms >[ίφυρ«ί here; but the stroke
following της might be round just as well as straight.
12. [προ]ηγγ€ΐλ€ : cf. Thuc. I.e. ττροάγγΐλσιν. [ΐξ\η•γγ€ΐλε would also be Suitable; cf. Plut.
Them, \2 ov ίκπίμπει προς τον Ξίρξην κρίιφα κ(λ(ύσαί λίγΐΐν δτι θΐμιστοκλης ό των Αθηναίων
στρατηγός αίροίμΐνος τα βασϊλίως εξαγγέλλει πρώτος αίιτω τονς "ΕΧληνας άποδώράα-κοντας.
Ργ. 2. τίϊ δε . . λων ί'σττούδΓεσε ; n's .''] δε ToaovToi\s tia? τ^ών epya-^v . . .
15-17• ^f• Ρ• 99 ^^'^ Diod. xi. 59• 2 fis δέ προς άπασαν την (κ της Ασίας δύνυμιν άναστάτω
τί) πόλ(ΐ παρατοχθΰς ϊνίκησί ', τί$ δέ τοΐ$ εργοι$ ε'" ^φψΐΐ τή" πατρίδα δννατην κατ6σκ€υασ€
τοσούτοι? {τοντυΐ! MSS. ; τοιοντοις or τοσούτοις Reiske). ]ων can be a participle or the
end of a phrase like δια τών φγων. With ίσπονδ[ασ€ cf. 842. xiv. 7 ϊσπούδαζον (κπολΐμώσαι.
Frs. 3-5. . . . ε'λΓεΓί'οΐ'] pev υπο τψ πόλί[ωί] ητιμασμίνον, τ\ην\ δε πόλιΐ' δια τ[ά]? εκείνου
πρα^ε[ΐί] της μεγίστης τιμής υπό των Ελλήνων άξιωθεισαν, ή μεγάλην ^ιγεμονί ? αν οίον . . . σο\φωτάτην
κα\ δικαι\οτά\την ]''''['']'^{''] '^["'' χαλεπ]ωτάτ>;ι/ \yεvoμ(vη^^v προς εκ(\2νον. οί δ' ν^πόλαμβάνου^σιν
δτι ίϊΙτΓίρ (βουλι'\θη εκ ? δο^νναι τη\ν ηγεμονία ?\ν . . .
• . . . that while he was dishonoured by the city, the city owing to his achievements
was held by the Greeks to be worthy of the highest honour, which (city founded) . . .
a great empire . . . (the city) which was the wisest and justest became the most . . . and
. severe to him. Some suppose that, even if he wished to surrender the hegemony, . . . '
18 sqq. Cf. p. 99 and Diod. xi. 59. 3 διόπερ όταν τό μίγεθος των έργων αυτού βεωρήσωμεν
κα) σκοποϋντες τα κατά μέρος ευρωμεν eKeicoc μέΐ' υπό τήξ πόλεω? ήτιμασμεν©!', τήΐ' δέ ιτόλιΐ' δια
τά§ έκείμου πράζεΐ9 επαιρομίνην, εϊκότως την δοκονσαν είναι τών άπασών πόλεων σοφωτατηΐ' και
I20 THE OXYRHYNCHUS PAPYRI
επιεικέστατη I' χαλεπωτάτηΐ' irpos εκεϊΐ'Οΐ' (νρίσκομΐν y€y€vr]^ivr\v. €ΐ[ρ]ω[μ(ν\ is inadmissible
in 1. i8.
2i~2. T[a]s• eneivov πραξ€ΐς : cf. 11. 1 93-4, where the phrase perhaps recurs, suggesting
that Fr. 26 belongs to this context.
22-5. Diodorus has only one word here in place of seven : cf. p. 103.
26. Irjyepovi^av : cf. EphorUS Fr. 67 TeXfVTTjaavTos yap tKe'ivov (Epaminondas) την ήγΐμονίαρ
άποβαΚ€Ίν fiSvs τους Θηβαίους, oiovei is inadmissible.
27-31. Cf. Diod. Lc. The division of lines in Frs. 4 + 5 is uncertain, but there is
hardly any doubt that Fr. 5, containing the supposed ends of 11. 29-31, is rightly joined
to the other. Bury suggests άλλως before σο]φ[ωτα\ην and μα|ταίο]τ(ΐ[τ]??[ΐ'] before «[dt. Cf.
1. 32, n.
30-1. [7εΐΌ|μ6Μί]ι/ : [γΐγ€νη\μ{ΐ.η]ν (cf. Diod. I. c.) seems too long for the lacuna.
32. ν]πολαμβανοι[σιν : cf. 11. 94-9, η. The adopted restoration of 11. 32-5 was proposed
by Bury. (βονλη[θη (κ8ο]υΐ'αι produces a hiatus, which is unsatisfactory (cf. 11. 4-5, n.); but
Trpo8o\vpai seems too long, if χαλ€η]ωτατην is the beginning of 1. 30. With the division
χαλΐπΊωτατην, however, npo\bowai COUld be read; cf. 11.27-31, n. The division χαλ€\π]ωτατην
would create a great difficulty in 1. 31, for there would not be room for |fr;]t» or \σα]ν
and a participle is wanted there, the ν being nearly certain.
34. The vestige of a letter before vm suggests y, r, or v, so that τ]ηρ αιτι[αν is unsatis-
factorv, though the doubtful η can be i. απα[σαν is possible, but with another word than
ηy€μoι>ιa]ι', for which cf. 1. 26, n.
Fr. 6. . . . (φη[μίν . . ., o^ei/] παρ(ξ[ίβ^ημΐν. 'A[^i;]i'atot [S]e Κ[ί]μωνος τοϋ Μιλτιά8ου
στρατηγονΙνι'Ιος ΐκ•πλΐνσαντ(ς (κ Βυζαντίου μ(τά των συμμάχων ['HijOio την e'n\ Στρ^υμό^νι ΙΙςρσων
(χόιίτωλν (Ιλον κα\ [Σκνρο'ΐ', ην νηα\ολν . . .
' . . . from which we digressed. The Athenians under the command of Cimon son of
IMiltiades sailed out from Byzantium with their allies, and captured Eion on the Strymon,
which was in the possession of the Persians, and Scyros, which island . . .'
36-7. Probably roti^j ΐίρτ^μΐνοις or τωι/]| ίΐρη\μΐνων. For oBev^ cf. Arist. Elh. Nic. i. 5. i Οβ(ν
•παρΐ^^ίβημ^ν ^ and for παρ(ί\ΐβ^μ(ν Diod. xi. 59. 4 ΐΐ(ρ\ pkv ovv της θ^μιστοκλίους άρίτης ei κα\
ττ(τιλΐονάκαμ(ν TrapcKpaKTes, αλλ' ουν ουκ άξιον . . . The digression evidently contained the
estimate of Themistocles (Frs. 2-5); but the fibres of the verso of Fr. 6 suggest that
it belongs to a different column. Bury suggests something hke (πανιωμ^ν Se τοσούτων π^ριτου
θ€μιστοκλ(ους^ (ΐρη\^μ(νων'. cf. 11.4—5) ^•
37-46• Cf. pp. 99-100, Hdt. vii. 107, where the heroic defence of Eion by Βόγης is
described in some detail, Thuc. i. 98 (the source of the present passage; cf p. 107) πρώτον
ptv 'Hiot'a τήΐ' lirl ΣτρυμόΐΊ Μήδων i)^6v^<J}v ττολιορκία ΐΧΧον κα\ ηνδραπόδισαν, ΚιμωΐΌς τοΰ Μιλτιάδου
στρατηγού VTOS. €ττ€ΐτα Σκύρου την iv τω Αίγαίω ΐ'ήσοί', r]V ωκηυν Δόλοπρ?, ηνδρατ ό8ισαν καΐ ωκισαν
αυτοί, and Diod. xi. 60. 1—2 Άθηΐ'αΐοι στρατηγό»' ελο'μεΐΌΐ Κίμωμα τον Μιλτιάδου κτλ. (cited οη
ρ. 103), which is longer than 1610, but adds nothing new about the capture of Eion, and
bears distinct traces of derivation from 1610, especially the mentions of Byzantium and Pelasgi
(cf. p. 100). Plutarch's account {^Cimon 7) Κ/μων Se τών συμμάχων ή8η πρησκ€χωρηκότων αύτώ
στpaτηybς ets θράκην (πλΐυσ(, ττυνθανόμΐνος Ώ,^ρσών άνδρας ϊνδόξους κα\ auyyimy βασιλίως Ηιόνα
πάλιν παρά τώ Έτρυμόνι καμίνην ττοταμω κατίχοντας ίνοχλίΐν τοΙς nep\ τον τόπον fKelvov "Ελλησι.
πρώτον pev ουν αυτοί/ς μάχη τους ΐΐίρσας (νίκησί κα\ κατίκλ(ΐσ(ν €ΐς την πάλιν' €ττίΐτα τους υπίρ "Στρυ-
μόνα θράκας κτλ., which procccds to narrate the story of Βόγης (here called Βοίτη^) told by Hdt.,
is based on other historians than Ephorus.
46. [Σκυρυ]ν: cf. Thuc. and Diod. ίί. cc. Our author was much more detailed;
cf. Fr. 7.
1610. EPHORUS, XII {OR XI) Τ2ΐ
Fr. 7. 49-51. Cf. p. 100 and Plut. Cimon 8, where the story of Cimon's recovery of
the bones of Theseus is narrated in detail, being possibly based on Ephorus, especially the
mention of Lycomedes, ιτννθανόμΐνοί 8e τον πάλαών θησία τον Αιγε'ωί φν-γόντα μΐν ίξ ' Αθηνών els
Σκίρον, αντον δ' άποθηιόντα δόλω δίά φόβον υπο Ανκομη^ονς τον βασιλεω? ^'σπούδασε τον τάφον
avfvpelv. αν\[του 8e πρ]ο9 would make 1. ζο rather short, but perhaps αν\[τος (sc. Theseus)
d{e) . . . μ(ν]ος should be read. Fr. 35, which mentions the Pelasgians and a κα]ταφνγ[ή?, is
probably to be connected with the episode; cf. p. 100.
55. θησ{ : the last letter might be γ, η, κ, or ττ, but not f, so that a reference to Theseus
(cf. the previous n.) is inadmissible.
Fr. 8. των παραθ]αΚα[ττί(νν κάΚο'\υμΐνω[ν πόλεων οσ^αι μΐτά γοΰν την θάλατταν oibev υη αυτών ίπράχθη της
δυνάμεως Άξιον, αλλ' ευθύς εις την yrjv άποστρεφοντες εξεπιπτον ο'ι πρώτοι κα\ κατέφευγαν εις το πεζον
εγγύς παρατεταγμενον, ο'ι δε καταλαμβανόμενοι διεφθε'ιροντο μετά των νέων. ω κα\ δηλόν εστίν οτι
πάμπολλαί τίνες αι πεπληρωμεναι το'ις βαρβάροις νηες ήσαν, οτε πολλών μεν, ως εΙκός, εκφνγουσών,
πολλών δε συντριβεισών, όμως αιχμαλώτους διακοσίας ελαβον οι Αθηναίοι. The figure 200 alsO
occurs in the brief account of ThucydideS i. lOO εγε'νετο δε μετά ταύτα καΐ η επ' Ευρυμεδοντι
ποταμώ εν Παμφυλία πεζομαχία κα\ ναυμαχία ' λθηναίων καΐ των ξνμμάχων προς Μηδους, κοί ενικών τη
αντη ήμερα αμφότερα Αθηναίοι Κίμωνος τον Μιλτιάδου στρατηγοΰντος, κα\ είλον τριήρεις Φοινίκων κα\
διεφθειραν τας πάσας ες διακοσίας, and in the COnfused acCOUnt of NepOS {CwiOfl 2. 2), who
erroneously makes Mycale the scene of the sea-fight, Idem iterum apud Mycalen Cypriorum
et Phoejiicum ducentaruni navium classem devidam cepit. The concluding sentence of
Thucydides is obscurely worded, and it has been proposed to insert a numeral {π) after
Φοινίκων; cf. Busolt, iii. 146^ Plutarch evidently knew Ephorus' account, but followed
a historian (apparently Callisthenes), who agreed in the main with Thucydides as to the
locality of the sea-battle and the number of the Persian losses. Thucydides' account,
supplemented by Plutarch's, is usually preferred to any other (cf. Busolt, iii. 146^) ; but
besides DiodorUS AristodemUS 11. 2 Κίμωνος δε τον Μιλτιάδου στρατηγοΰντος άνεπλευσαν ε'πΐ την
ΤΙαμφνλίαν κατά τον λεγόμενον Ευρνμεδοντα ποταμον κα\ εναυμάχησαν Φοίνιξι κα\ Περσαις κα\ λαμπρά
έργα ε'πεδείξαντο, Ικατόι/ Τ€ μαΰξ cX-ocres αύτάΐ'δρουξ ε'πεζομάχησαν, waS evidently influenced by
Ephorus, and Froniinus, Sirateg. iv. 7. 45, agrees with Diodorus both as to the locality of
the sea-fight {apud insulam Cypron) and the stratagem of Cimon at the land-battle of the
Eurymedon (cf. Diod. xi. 61. 1-2 and 11. 77-8,n.). Polyaenus, ^/ra/^§•. i. 34. i, inverts the scene
of the sea-fight (off the Eurymedon) and the stratagem (Cyprus), and Klussmann and
Duncker (cf. Busolt, /. c.) held that this represented Ephorus' description more closely than
Diodorus' account — a view which is disposed of by 1610. Some echoes of Ephorus, how-
ever, seem to survive in Polyaenus' account; cf. και πολλά σκάφη βαρβαρικά Ιλώ^ with
11. 72-3 and τον στόλον ώ? φίλιοι' υποδέχονται with 11. 98- 1 ΟΙ. Justin gives no details, but
the figure 100 for the ships captured by Cimon is also found in Lycurg. c. Leocr. 72, and
is supported by the metrical inscription quoted by Diodorus xi. 62. 3, no doubt from
Ephorus, even if Fr. 48 does not actually belong to it (cf. 11. 267-9, ".). Diodorus'
exaggeration of it πλείους τών εκατόν (/. c.) is either merely rhetorical (cf. p. 1 1 1 ) or made out
of deference to the figure 200 in Thucydides. In favour of the second explanation is the
circumstance that his insertion of τ6 τελευταΊον ενικών οΊ Αθηναίοι suggests the influence of
Thucydides {κα\ ενίκων . . . Άθηνα'ιοι). Whether Diodorus had any other authority for his
statement τών στόλων αμφοτέρων λαμπρώς αγωνιζομένων than Ephorus' reference to πολνν χρόνον
may also be doubted. Aristodemus, /. c, speaks of λαμπρά έργα, but in reference to the Greeks
only, and Plutarch, /. c, definitely denies that the Persian fleet made any serious resistance,
in contrast to the subsequent κρατερά μάχη on land, of which his rhetorical description has
been ascribed to Theopompus; cf. Busolt, iii. 1461
62-3. For πννθανομενος cf. Diod. /. c. The verb may well have been αντεξεπλενσε (cf.
Plut. /. c).
66-9. The figures are exactly reproduced by Diodorus, /. c. No importance is to be
attached to the variation in Plutarch's figure (350 instead of 340) of the number of the
Persian fleet according to Ephorus; cf. p. 106. Frs. 9, 10. i and 53 do not actually touch
each other, but the combination is practically certain; cf. 11. 282-4, n. Of the third τ in
τετταρ[ακοντα a bit of the cross-bar is on Fr. 9 and the tail of the vertical stroke on Fr. 10.
73-4. διεφθε[ιρ]εν : this word occurs twice in 842 (xiv. 9 and xix. 20).
76. 7;[ ]ων: Ώ[ερσικ]ων (sc. δυνάμεων) (or π^ολεμι]ων), followed by ηγεμόνα (i.e.
1610 EPHORUS, XII {OR XI) 123
Tithraustes ; cf. Diod. /. c.) can be restored, but the article is expected, π is nearly certain,
7i[, γο[, or 7a>[ being the only alternatives and less satisfactory readings. τω\ν Ώ.€μσ\ων is
therefore inadmissible; but τον π[ ]a)j/|[5j;j/, i.e. a subordinate Persian admiral, or
conceivably Υα)[βρναν\ (cf. Callisthenes ap. Plut. /. c.) ων (i.e. ων) is possible,
77-8. The height of ihe columns in 1610 is unknown, but probably about 40 lines are
lost between 11. 76 and 77, so that the remains of Fr. 10. ii would be expected to be parallel
to some part of Diod. xi. 61. 1-2, which narrates the beginning of the land-battle of the
Eurymedon. Perhaps 11. 77-8 are to be connected with ΐνφίβασΐν els ras αίχμάλωτίδας ναΰς
των Ιδίων tovs αρίστου!, 8ονς τιάρας καΐ την αλληκ κατασκίνην πΐριθΐΐί ΤΙ^ρσικήν. οί δε βάρβαροι
προσπλ(Όντ(ί Άρτι τοΰ στόλου ταίϊ ΤΙΐρσικαΐς ναυσΐ καΙ τταρασκεναΐς ψ(υσθίντ(ς υπί\αβον τα: I8ias
τριήρεις eivai, tionep ούτοι μΐν προσΐδίζαντο κτ\. (cf. 11. 200— 2, η.). ibovTfs . . . και την αλ]\λην
[κατασκευήν νπε]\λαμ[βανον (cf. 1. 99) ^^ possible, the letter after λα beginning with a vertical
stroke (not β). Another passage which might be connected with 11. 77-8 is xi. 61. 4 tovs
μεν γαρ "Ελληκαϊ ονχ νπεΧάμβαιον ηκειν προς αύτου! μετά δυνάμεως το σύνολον μηδ' εχειν κτλ. But
Ελ][λ?7ί'[αΓ ονχ νπε]\λαμ[βαΐ'ον makes 1. 77 ^00 short, and in the absence of any correspondence
in ch. 61 with 11. 79-83 the remains of this column may well have been concerned with
details omitted by Diodorus; cf. p. 112.
"Ft. 11. τον με^νίστρατηγοίν αυτών\Φερενδάτη]ν άδελίφιδοΰν διτΊα τον βασγιλεως εν ττη σκην^ϊ
' . . . (they killed) their general Pherendates, who was the king's nephew, in his tent.'
84—8. Cf.p. 10 1 and Diod. xi.6l. 3 καίτοι/ μ,^ν στρατΎ\•γον τών βαρβάρων τον ετεροί'Φερεμδάτηΐ',
άδελψιδοΰΐ' του βασιλέως, εμ τη σκηι/τ) καταλαβόντες εφόνευσαν, which hardly differs. The two last
Avords or an equivalent must have followed 1. 82. Pherendates was mentioned by Ephorus;
cf. Plut. Cimon 12 quoted in 11. 62-76, n. and p. 106.
Frs. 12 + 13. . . . διβτελίουΐ' olfre?, [ωσίτε νομίζοντες από της ^rreip[ov| την εφοδον αυτίοΐς
γεγ'Ιονεραι των π\^ο^λεμίων ττρος το[ϊ] ^^[s] εφενγον, ΰπο^λ'^αμβάνοντες αντοΊς ei'[^]at φιλίας' ου δη
ττίοίλλοί μεν υπό των κατηλειφθεντων εκεϊ φυλάκων άπέθvT|\σκov^ εν τη ννκτί, πολλο) δε ζώντες
ήλίσκοντο περιττίτΐτοντες το'ις "Έ,λλησιν δια την άπορί^α^ν δττον τΓρ1άπ[ο1ί[ΐ'το1, καΐ τον \ε]ξ\αίφνης\
avTciis ε'^πιπεσόντα φόβ pjor.
' . . . Hence, thinking that their enemies' attack was from the land, they fled to
the ships, expecting these to be on their own side. There many of them were killed in the
night by the guards who had been left behind on the spot, while many were taken alive,
falling into the hands of the Greeks through their ignorance which way to turn and the fear
which had suddenly overtaken them.'
93. διετελγουν o]n-es : cf. 1365. 1 6 f[ieTeX]ea6 διαιτώμενος κα\ παιδευόμενος οϋτως. οι Ώισιδες
εχθροί may have preceded, the sentence probably corresponding to κα\ τά προς αίτυνς άλλοτρίως
έχοντας in Diodorus ; cf. the next η.
94 sqq. Cf. pp. 10 1—2 and Diod. xi. 61. 4—6 τονς μεν yap "Ελληνας ουχ νπελάμβανον ηκειν προς
αυτούς μετά δυνάμεως το σύνολον, μηδ' εχειν αϋτονς πεζήν στρατιάν πεπεισμένοι' τους δε Ώισίδας όντας
όμορους κα\ τα προς αυτούς άλλοτρίως έχοντας νπελάμβανον ηκειν μετά δυνάμεως {υπελ, . . . δνν. del.
Madvig). διό κα\ ►'ομίσαί'τεξ αϊτό τη? ηπείρου τϊ]ν επιφοράν εΐναι των ττολεμίω!/ ττρόξ τάς vaus ως
προς φίλιας εφευγοι/. της δε ΐ'υκτός οϋσης άσελήνου κα\ σκοτεινής συνέβαινε την ayvoiav πολύ μάλλον
αΰζεσθαι κα\ μηδενα τάληθες δύνασθαι Ιδε'ιν, διό και πολλού φόνου γενομένου δια την άταζιαν των
βαρβάρων ό μεν Κίμων κτλ.{οί. 11. II 4"! 6, η.). Plutarch's account(6V/?w« 13, fromTheopompus?;
cf. 11. 62—76, η.) is quite different, τών δε πεζών επικαταβάντων προς την θάλασσαν μέγα μεν έργον
εφαίνετο τώ Κιμωνι το βιάζεσβαι την άπόβασιν κα\ κεκμηκότας οκμησι και πολλαπλασιοις επαγειν τους
Ελληνας, δμως δε ρώμη καΐ φρονήματι τοΰ κρατειν όρων επηρμένους και πρόθυμους όμόσε χωρε'ιν τοΊς
βαρβάροις, άπεβίβαζε τους όπλίτας ετι θερμούς τω κατά την νανμαχίαν άγώνι μετά Kpavytjs καΐ δρόμου
προσφερόμενους. ύποστάντων δε τών ΤΙερσών κα\ δεξαμενών οίκ άγεννώς κρατερά μάχη συνεστη' καϊ
T24 THE OXYRHYNCHUS PAPYRI
των Αθηναίων avhpes ά-^αβοι κα\ τοΊς άζίώμασι πρώτοι και διαπρΐπε'ΐ! eneaov, πολλώ δ' άγώνι τρςψά-
μ(νοι τους βαρβάρους eicTdvov, (ίτα fjpovv αυτούς Τ( και σκηνας παντοίαπών χρημάτων γΐμοΰσας.
Diodorus' reference to the absence of the moon seems to be his own invention, since there
is no indication in 11. 105-7 of anything corresponding to it and no further reference to the
darkness is in fact expected after 1. 104. Possibly, however, the absence of the moon may
have been mentioned earlier in Ephorus' account.
94-9. νομιζοντίς . . . υπ< [λ'^αμβανοντΐς : cf νομίζομΐν υπολαμβάνοντ€ς in EphorUS Fr. 2, and,
for ΰπολαμβάνΐΐν, 11. 32, 77-8, η., and 842. vi. 10, xi. 17, xiv. 11.
loi. φίλιας : cf 842. xiv. 40 φιλίως, and Polyaen. Strateg. i. 34. i, quoted in 11. 62-76, n.
102-4. καταλειφθ€ντων . . . φυλάκων', cf. EphorUS Fr. 53 φύλακας 8e κατίλιπον.
104. απίθνη[σκοι'\•. cf 842. XX. 33 συμμίίξαντίς άποθ[ν]ησκυυσ•ιν.
io8. That the fragment containing σι and part of the ν of Έλλη\σιν and the ends of
11. 103-7 is rightly combined with the top of the ν admits of hardly any doubt.
II 1-12. The letter after αυτοις may be σ, and ]ων may be read for ]ov.
Fr. 14. . . . στριι^τιωτ? J νι^κτ ? — aijroty ιτυμ\_σ6ν? — Jir/^ar. . .
II4~l6. Cf. p. lOI, Diod. /. C. 6 μ(ν Κίμων ττροΐίρηκως τοις στρατιώταΐξ ηρος τον άρθησόμΐνον
TTupaoc συιτρΐχΐΐν ηρε προς ταϊς ναυσΊ συσσημον, ΐυΚαβούμΐνος μη ^ΐΐσπαρμίνων των στρατιωτών κα\
προς αρπαγην όρμησαντων γΐνηταί τι παράΚογον. πάντων δε προς τον πνρσον άθροισθίντων κα\ παυσα-
μίνων της αρπάγης, τότί μίν ΐΐς τας νανς άπ€χώρησαν. τη δ' νστίραία κτλ. πυρσίύΐΐν OCCUrs in
Ephorus Fr. 107. Fr. 48 not improbably came between Fis. 14 and 15; cf. 11. 267-9, ^•
FrS. 15—16. T?^ovs [. . . λογχ}^οφόρους, ω[ΐ' ]ωΐ' ετύγχα^νίν 6 'λ]ρταξίρξης^ [αμα
μ\ΐν αίιτος κατα^^σχβΐν ? τ^ην βασιλΐίαν [/3ουλο/^ι .?]eiOS-, αμα δί [δβδιώ ?]y μη πρα}[μα . . . j άνί'ΙκοινονΙτο ?
την . . .] . tf προς ^τον (υνοΰχον^ Μιθρ [δάτι^ι/ κατα1<[ο1ιμί[στ))ΐ' τον βασιΧί^ως.
' . . . the spearmen, of whom Artaxerxes happened to be . . ., being at the same time
anxious to obtain the kingdom himself and afraid that ... he communicated the (plot) to
the eunuch Mithridates, the king's chamberlain.'
119 SCjq. Cf. Dlod. xi. 69. I eVi δε τούτων κατά την Άσίαν ^Αρτάβανος το μ(ν yevos Ύρκάνιος,
ουναμινος oe πλ(7στον πάρα τω βασιλ€Ϊ Ξίρξτ) κα\ των δορυφόρων άφηγούμίνος, 'ίκρινΐν aveXeiv τον
Ζΐρξην κα\ TT)c βασιλείαν eir Ιαυτόμ μΐταστησαι. αμακοινωσάμεμος δε την έπιβονλην irpos ΜιθριΒάτηκ
τον ευνούχοι/, δί ην κατακοιμιστής του βασιλέως κη\ την κνριωτάτην ί'χων πίστιν, αμα δί κα\ συγγ(νης
ων Αρταβάνου καΐ φίλος ύπηκουσί προς την €πιβουλην. [και την κυριωτατη^ν can be restored in
1. 133. Probably Fr. 16 followed Fr. 15 wiih a very slight interval (cf. p. 102), which is in
accordance with the general appearance of the recto of these two fragments, though the
verso does not suggest their propinquity, αυτός in 1. 123 we refer to Artabanus, the phrase
κατο[σχΰν τ]ην βασιλύαν [βουλόμ](νος (cf κάτασχαν την αρχήν in Diod. xi. 69. 4 quoted bclow,
and την χώραν κάτασχαν in Ephorus Fr. 29) being very close to both Diodorus' τήν βασϊΚΐίαν . . .
μΐταστησαι and Justin iii. I J^erxes . . . quippe Artabanus praefectiis ems . . . in spem regni
adducius cum septem robustissimis filiis regiam vespert ingreditur, which is likely in any case
to have been partly derived from Ephorus. The chief difficulty is that hop)Jφόpoυς would be
expected in 1. 120, but the bottom of the letter preceding φο (which is practically certain)
does not come below the line, nor is the tail of a preceding ρ visible. The word is therefore,
we conjecture, a synonym for δορυφόρους, λογχ^φόρους being preferable to ξυστ]οφόροις.
With the reading τού]ς φόρους there might be a connexion with Diod. xi. 71. i (Vi hi τούτων
Αρταξΐρξης ο βασιλΐυς των ΤΙερσων άρτι την βασιΧίίαν άνακτησάμΐνος . . . δύταξί τα κατά τήν
βασϊλ(ΐαν συμφίρόντως αυτω . . . ΐπίμ(λήθη δε κα\ των προσόδων καΐ της δυνάμ€ων κατασκΐυής, και
καθόλου την βασιλίίαν δλην ίπΐ€ΐκως διοικων μεγάλης αποδοχής (τύγχανε παρά τοις Ιίίρσαις. The rest
of Fr. 15 would then have to be restored differently. But though αυτός could be Artaxerxes
1610. EPHORUS, XII {OR XI) 125
and [κτησάμ\ίνος IS possible in 1. 125, the other parallel is closer and more satisfactory. It is
just possible that, while Fr. 15 refers to the plot of Artabanus, the parallel section in Diodorus
is not 69. I but 69. 3—4 6 δ ovv Άρτάβηνος 7Γαραγ(νόμ(νος en νυκτοι; ονσης προ: τον Αρταζίρξην
€φησ€ Ααρΰον τον ά^ίΚφον αντον φονία yeyovevai τοΰ ττατροί και την βασιλίίαν fis eavTov τκρισπάν.
σνν(βονλΐνιτ(ν ουν αίιτώ προ τυν κατασχΰν €Κ€Ίνον την άρχην σκοττΐΐν όπως μη δονλίνστ} διο ραθνμ'ιαν
αΚ\α βασϊλ^νστ] τον φονία τοΰ πατρο: τιμωρησάμενος' (■ηηγγιΐΚατο δ' αΙτω avvepyovs παρίξίσθίη τους
δορνφόρονε τοΰ βασιλέως . But this too, in Spite of some resemblances, seems to suit Fr. 15
less well than does 69. i.
The plot of Artabanus is also described by Ctesias Frs. 29-30 Άρτάπανοί δε μέγα πάρα
3f p^j) 8υνάμΐνος μ(τ Άσπραμίτον τοΰ (ννονχον καί αντον μίγα δυναμΐνον βον\€νονται aveKflv Ξί'ρξην,
και άναιροΰσι κτλ. This is evidently one of the ultimate sources of Diodorus' statement,
which in any case must be derived (with some variations, if our explanation of Fr. 15 is
correct) from Ephorus, who was probably responsible for the change of Άσπραμίτης to Μιθρι-
δάτης : cf. the variation between Justin's Bacabasus (from Ephorus or Dinon ?) and Ctesias'
MeyaiSu^oi (Fr. 30), each representing the Persian name Bagabukhsha (cf. Gilmore, ad loc^,
the subsequent betrayer of Artabanus to Artaxerxes.
121. Ju)!/ is probably a participle, [η-γ^μων"] ων is possible ; but Artabanus himself, not
Artaxerxes, was in command of the δορυφόροι : cf. the previous n.
(Tvyxa[vfv: cf. 1. 1 78 ]rvy|[Y«i' .? A fondness for τυγχάνΐΐν characterizes 842; cf. Part
V. 124.
123. [άμα μ?]" : cf. 1. 125 αμα 8e and the Same contrast in 842. x. 2.
128—9. ανί'\κοινον[τη την ....]. iv : cf. Diod. /. C. άνακοινωσάμ(νος δ( την {πιβονΧην and
842. i. 3 κοινωσάμίνος . . . ττερι τοΰ πράγματα:. ave^Koivov [την βονλ(ν^σιν Can be read, but is
unlikely, the middle being much commoner than the active. The letter before iv is γ, ξ, σ,
or τ. πρα]ξιν would be the right length.
133. Cf. 11. 119 sqq., n.
134—9. Cf. p. 102 and Diod. xi. 30. 4—5 μΐτα be ταΰτα ίκ TTjs νπωρΐ'ιαί μΐΤΐστρατοπίΒΐνσαν
els €Τ(ρυν τόπον ΐνθ(τά)Τΐρον προς την οΚοσχΐρη ν'κην. ην yap e'/c μ'ν των 8(ξιων γΐωΧοφος νψηΧός, fK
δί των (νωνύμων ό Άσωπος ποταμός' τον δ' ανά μίσον τόπον eVelp^ef ή στρατοπ(8€ία, πβφραγμίνη
τη φνσ(ΐ κα\ τα'ις τ&ν τόπων άσφάΚύαις, where τόπος (cf. 11. 1 35 ^^^ ^3^) OCCUrs thrice,
though the context is different. στρατ[ο\π(8ου] is possible in 11. 136-7, and [(v\ τοις] τ[«]ττοις
(Bury) in II. 137-8, but hardly τ[ο|πο]υ in 11. 134-5. The dividing-point of the lines in this
fragment is uncertain.
140-5. Fr. 18 perhaps corresponds to Diod. xi. 57. 3 αντη (Xerxes' sister) πυθομ^νη την
παρονσίαν τον θΐμιστοκλίονε η\θ(ν (Ις τά βασι\(ΐα πίνθϊαην (σθητα \αββνσα και μΐτά 8ακρνων t/cerevf
τον άδίλφόΐ' ίπιθύναι τιμωρίαν τω θίμιστοκλΐΊ. ως δ' ου προσΐϊχΐν αντη, π(ριή(ΐ . . . Lines Ι43~5
can be restored τον α]δ6λ[φοΐ' τιμωρίαν (or κολασιν) προσ]θ(ΐν[αι θ(μιστοκλ{ΐ\ ω[ί] δί [. The ν
ϊη 1. 142, which is nearly certain, would then be expected to belong to δακρύων rather than to
'iKtTfve, but the vestiges of the letter following it do not suit ω, Λvhereas e is possible.
iKfTe]ve [κλαίουσα τον α]8€λ[φον would be suitable, but the remaining two lines 140-1 present
difficulties. ηλ[θ€ν in 1. 141 is unsatisfactory, for the preceding letter seems to be λ, not a, and
μ([λαινηι στο]λη is too short. If λ[αβυνσα και ικίτί]υε be restored, ]λη must be the accusative
plural of a word meaning ' clothes ' or, as there seems to be none available, an adjective in
agreement with e.g. Ιμάτια. The suggested correspondence with Diodorus therefore remains
very uncertain, especially since the supposed λ of α]Β^λ[φον can be a, and ]aem[ can be read
for ]'i(iv[.
178. ]rvy|[xai': cf. 1. 121, n.
192-4. if τας [€K(ivo]v πραξί[ις (cf. 1. 2o) is right, Fr. 26 may well belong to the estimate
of Themistocles. The doubtful e can be 1. Ελ]λ7;σιΐ' suggests that the corresponding
passage in Diodorus is xi. 59. 2—3 ωστ ίΐχ^ίρωτον γΐνίσθαι τοΊς "Ελλησι. δίότΓίρ οτην το μίγΐθος
126 THE OXYRHYNCHUS PAPYRI
των (pyau αυτοΰ θΐωρησωμςν κτλ., SO that Fr. 20 would Seem to come immediately above
Fr. 3 (cf. 11. 1 8 sqq., n.); but the fibres of the verso do not suggest this, and ]λυσαί is
difficult in such a context. The only alternative is ισ^χνσαι, with which reading Bury
suggests irapa rois Ελ]\ί;σιΐ' I[ μη ισ\χ\ισαι κτ\.
200-2. None of the references to the Athenians in Diod. xi. 55-70 corresponds verbally
to this passage ; but with the restoration ] λβηναι\ονς προσώ6\χοντυ it can well be connected
with xi. 61. 2 bicmep cvroi μίν ιτροσί^βζαντο Tous Άθηναίουξ ώ? φίλους οντάς, 6 be Κίμων κτλ. ^υοντο
can, however, be read in place of ])(οντο.
213-14, την or φην can be read. For ΐδωκ[( . . . χωράν as a possible reference to
Xerxes' presents to ThemistOCleS cf. Thuc. i. 138. 5 ταύτης γαρ ηρχΐ της χωράς, tovTOS
βασιλίως, and Diod. xi. 57. 7 (Βωρησατο δ' αντω TroXeis τρΰς . . . Αάμψακον be άμπΐλόφντον ΐχονσαν
χώραν πολλην. But the words might come in many other contexts, e. g. Cimon's distribution
of land in Thrace to the Athenians ; cf. Plut. Cimon 7 τψ hi χώραν . . . παρΐΒωκΐ τοΊς Άθηναίοις,
and Diod. xi. 60. 2 κα\ κτίστην Άθηναων καταστησας κατ^κληρονχησΐ την χώραν (cf. ρ. ΙΟ3).
2ΐ8. ]ι8ων [: cf. 11. 237-9> "•
219- ]φοιν[ : Fr. 32 does not seem to be connected with any of the references to the
Phoenicians in Diod. xi.
223. Perhaps ] Αβη[νοίοί in some form; cf. 1. 201.
228-30. The mention of the Pelasgians and κα]ταφυγ[η? suggests that Fr. 35 refers to
Scyros and Cimon's discovery of the bones of Theseus, who took refuge there; cf. 11. 49-
51, n., and p. 100.
237-9. Cf. p. 99 and Diod. xi. 59. 1—2 (Themistocles) τίς yap €Τ(ρος . . . ταΊς 18ίαις
ττράζίσιν άφ(ίλ(το της Σπάρτης ταντην την δόξακ ; τίνα δ' άλλον ιστορηκαμΐν μια ττράξει ποιησαντα
8i€veyKf7v αντυν μέν των fjye μόνων, την δί πόλιν των Έλληνί8ων πόλ(ων, τους δ "Ελληνας των βαρβάρων ;
The fact that ξαν was either actually or approximately the end of a sentence, as is shown by
the paragraphus, renders the connexion of that passage with Fr. 38 very probable. Bury
suggests δο^Ι^αι/ [τις 8f τα κοινά (κ\τΐν[ως πραττων μιαι\ πpα|[f( ... It is tempting also 10
connect with this fragment Fr. 32, where Έλλην]ι8ων can be restored in 1. 218, and
Fr. 39, where πολι]ι> των Έλ\[ληνι8ων is possible in 1. 241; but the other lines in those two
fragments do not harmonize easily with either that context or each other.
241-2. Cf. the previous n. There is a slight blank space betΛveen 01 and av in 1. 242,
which, however, is not fatal to Ένβ]οιαν, and with των Ελ\[ληνων in 1. 241 there might possibly
be a reference to the expedition of Cimon against Carystus in Euboea (Thuc. i. 98. 3 ;
cf. pp. loo-i), which was presumably mentioned by Ephorus.
246-8. There is a possible connexion with Diod. xi. 65. 4 Άλλων δ' ουκ όντων συμμά;^ωί»
(ρημία των επικονρουντων κατά κράτος ήλωσαν (sc. the IVIyceneans), or better with xi. 56. 7
κομίζ(ΐν ταντην ί'πι απήνης Κΐκρυμμ€νην κα\ των άπαντώντων μη8(να πολυπραγμόνων μη8ζ. κατ ο'^ιν
άπαντησαι ttj άγομίντ) (Lysiihides' device for the introduction of Themistocles to Xerxes;
cf, p. 99); but if so, Diodorus' version is longer.
252-4. Possibly συιτα]|^ο[ί δ€ Αρχι8αμος ο] | βα[σιλ(νς τοις αφ(σ'\^τη[κοσι : cf. Diod. xi. 63. 7
τούτον τον τρόπον οι π(ρΐλ(ΐφβϊντ(ς ίσώθησαν, ους σνντά^ας 6 βασιλίΰί 'Αρχί8αμος παρΐσκίυάζΐτο
πολΐμΐ'ιν τοΊς αφβστηκόσι. But between 11. 253 and 254 is a spot of ink which, if not
accidental, may belong to a paragraphus, implying a change of sentence, and γη[ can be
read for τη[.
255. evepyeTi'iv, (Ιΐργίτης, and tlepyeaia occur several times in Diod. xi, but the rest of
Fr. 44 does not suit the context of any of those passages.
257. ]ασυ7[: perhaps ]as ι;7γ[ο.
267-9. Fr. 48 exactly suits Diod. xi. 62. 3 να\υς (λ\ον tv πΐλαγΐΐ'\ αν8[ρων πληβονσας pe\y\a,
from the metrical inscription concerning Cimon's victories, which is in any case probably
quoted from Ephorus; cf. 11. 62-76, n. But the fragment is too small to be identified with
1610. EPHORUS, XII {OR XI) T27
certainty, and in 1. 269 π can be read in place of γ. Another possible parallel is xi. 54. 4
ΤΙανσανίαί μίν κρίνος προ8ι8όναι του§ "Ελλτ^ΐΌί ΐ8ηλωσί την Ιδίαν (πιβόΚην θΐμιστοκλύ και τταρΐκάλΐσΐ.
το]υς Έλ[ληνας την ώι\αν 8[η\(ύσας would account for 11. 267-8, and ]y[ (or ]π•[) might belong to
ίπιβόΚην or a synonym for it, or to π[αρ(καλ(σ€.
282-4. Fr. 53 is to be combined with Frs. 9+ 10. i, though not actually joining them,
and belongs to 11. 67-9 ; cf. 11. 66-9, n. The fibres on the verso harmonize excellently with
those of Fr. 10, and the vestiges in 1. 284 can be the top οι πα{ραταχ[θ(ΐσ]3ς).
1611. Extracts from a Work on Literary Criticism.
Fr. I ι8•6χ26•5 cm. Early third century.
These seventy fragments of a work on literary criticism, evidently composed
by a grammarian, were found with 1610, &c. The largest piece, Fr. i, contains
after a few letters from the ends of lines four nearly complete columns, while the
other pieces are much smaller ; about 130 lines in all are complete or can be
restored. Various literary topics, which have no apparent connexion with each
other, are discussed, being illustrated by frequent quotations from lost or (in
two cases) extant works — a circumstance which lends the papyrus considerable
interest. The two sections of which the beginnings are preserved (11. 38 and loi)
both commence with 6tl, so that probably the text is a series of extracts from
a longer work.
In Fr. I 11. 28-37 give the conclusion of a discussion of a contest of come- fi
dies and of the number of the judges. There is perhaps a contrast drawn
between the practice of the writer's own day and that of earlier limes, and j
the Bacchae of Lysippus and Πλούτοι of Cratinus are cited as authorities for '
a number (apparently that of the κριταί) being five ; but the context is obscure
in several points ; cf. 11. 30, '>,$, nn. ■
The next section (11. 38-100), which is practically complete, is mainly
concerned with Caeneus, the mythical king of the Lapithae, who was first a
woman, but was changed into a man by Poseidon, and rendered invulnerable,
then incurred the enmity of Zeus by making his subjects worship his spear
instead of the gods, and was ultimately buried alive by the Centaurs. The explana-
tion of Caeneus' spear, which became proverbial, is given in connexion with
a reference to it in Book ii of Theophrastus' TTept βασίλεια? (11. 38—46), the
whole story of Caeneus being related in an extract from Acusilaus of Argos,
an early writer on mythology who was probably older than Herodotus (11. 55-83).
Since the thirty-one extant fragments of Acusilaus (FHG. i. 100-3) contain
hardly any professed quotations of his actual words, the papyrus for the first
time affords an opportunity of estimating the character of that author's Ιστορία
or yeveakoyiaL. The dialect proves to be in the main Ionic, as had generally
been surmised, although no trace of it has been preserved in the extant
128 THE OXYRHYNCHUS PAPYRI
fragments ; and the style is decidedly primitive. A Doric form of the aorist
infinitive, ηκίν, is found in 1. 59, and a curious expression, μάλιστα χρημάτων,
occurs in 11. 67-8. The influence of Acusilaus' version of the Caeneus legend is
now traceable in scholia on Homer and Apollonius Rhodius, which may
have derived their knowledge of the passage through our author ; of. 1. 56, n.
A rather naive remark of the ancient logographer, that it was not Upov for
gods to bear children by mortals, leads our author first to the citation of
two lines from the Άλκμίων 6 bia Κορίνθου of Euripides, spoken by Apollo,
which illustrated this subject, and later to a short discussion of it, the last four
lines being fragmentary (11. 85-100).
In the third section (11. 101-20) the first four lines are fragmentary, the
ends of lines are missing throughout, and the conclusion is not reached,
so that the reconstruction is somewhat difficult. The subject is the various
persons called Thucydides, of whom three are distinguished, the politician (son
of Melesias and father of Stephanus), the historian (son of Olorus), and the
Pharsalian, as in Marcellinus' life of the historian. Polemon's treatise Uepl άκρο-
ττόλζω^, which is known from Marcellinus to have discussed the second and third
Thucydides, is here mentioned with reference to the first, apparently as the
authority for a statement based on epigraphic evidence that he was the father
of Stephanus, which is to be connected with an extant quotation from another
work of Polemon (11. loi-ii, n.). In confirmation of the paternity of Stephanus,
which seems to have been disputed, a passage from the Meuo of Plato is quoted,
and Fr. i breaks off where the writer was about to add fresh evidence on the
point from a lost comedy, the lapetus of Hermippus.
The order of the smaller fragments is quite uncertain except in a few
instances. Fr. 2. i is concerned with a βόρίΐοί Ittttos, two lines from the beginning
of the Omphale of Ion being quoted as an illustration (11. 121-7), but how the
subject was introduced does not appear. The difficulty, whatever it was, is
stated to have been solved by Mnaseas of Patara in his work Ilepi χρησμών
(11. 128-30). Fr. 4 is concerned with a female character in epic poetry (Penthe-
silea?), part of a hexameter line referring to her being cited (11. 146-7), besides
two mentions of her by authors whose names are imperfectly preserved, one of
them being perhaps Arctinus, who wrote the Aethiopis (11. 148-52). Frs. 5, 6,
and 43 are to be combined, as appears partly from external evidence, partly
from the resulting satisfactory restoration of 11. 160-4. The main subject of
this section, of which the beginning and end are not preserved, is the authorship
of a celebrated ancient ode to Pallas. The first three words of this ode Παλλάδα
ττ€ρσ€ττολίν beivav were quoted by Aristophanes in 1. 967 of the Clouds, and from
the extant rather confused scholia on that passage and another in Aristides it is
1611. WORK ON LITERARY CRITICISM 129
known that according to Eratosthenes Phrynichus (i. e. the comic poet) attributed
the authorship of the ode to Lamprocles, an early Athenian dithyrambic poet,
while others assigned the ode to Stesichorus. Our author, who refers to an in-
conclusive discussion of the claims of Lamprocles and Stesichorus by Chamaeleon
(a disciple of Aristotle), and possibly, but by no means certainly, mentions Erato-
sthenes (11. 158-9, n.), also adduces the evidence of Phrynichus in favour of
Lamprocles as the author, and quotes the passage in Aristophanes (11. 160-76).
Little can be made of the remaining fragments. There is probably a
reference in Fr. 8. ii to Hellanicus on KrtVeis (11. 211-1 Ay "•) ; but the context is
obscure. Fr. 9, which is more considerable, relates to a person with a name
beginning with probably A or Λ and ending in -bημo9 (e. g. Aristodemus), who,
after adventures in which the Naxians and Thracians were apparently concerned,
was carried off and put to death after a trial by the Parians (11. ai8-a8). The
Orestes of Theodectes (?) is quoted in Fr. 17, and apparently a play of Lysippus
in Fr. 21, while Fr. 16 perhaps has another reference to the Omphale of Ion, and
Fr. 14 possibly mentions Simonides. Other proper names which occur are Ασ(η}[
(1. 247, n-)j Lycia or the Lycians (1. 251), Odysseus (1. 272, perhaps in connexion
with his descent to Hades), and Ptolemaeus (possibly Ptol. Philopator or Phila-
delphus; 11. 369-70, n.). The names of the grammarians Aristarchus and
Didymus can be restored in 11. 231 and 283 respectively, but in neither place
with any confidence. That Frs. 31-2, 42, 44-5. 63-5, and 68 belong to 1611
is not at all certain. All the fragments belong to the middles of columns, except
Fr. I and where it is otherwise stated.
The handwriting is a small neat uncial closely resembling that of 1012, a
treatise on literary composition, written soon after A. D. 205 (Part vii, Plate iv).
leil also probably belongs to the first two or three decades of the third century,
and is approximately contemporary with 1610, of which the script is similar, but
larger. The columns are short, consisting of 24 or 25 lines of 14-20 letters,
generally about 17. The end of a section is marked in 1. 37 by a coronis, which
is employed after I..115 and probably 1. 138 to divide a quotation from the main
text. Paragraphi also occur after 11. 90 (where it is misplaced), 165, 214, and 231
to indicate quotations. Strokes against the margin of 11. 83-4 call attention to
the recommencement of the author's commentary at the end of the extract from
Acusilaus, of which the beginning is distinguished by the sign -^ (1. ^6, n.). The
obelus against 1. 116 apparently also indicates a quotation, and the two flourishes
after 1. 138 seem to be merely supplementary to the neighbouring coronis. High
stops were used, but not at all regularly ; one doubtful instance of a stop in the
middle position occurs in 1. 442. Occasional marks of elision and quantity and
accents are found in the poetical quotations (11. 91 and 127), and there are some
κ
I30 THE OXYRHYNCHUS PAPYRI
diaereses over t and v. An abbreviation, κ for και, is used in 1. ai6. Iota
adscript was not infrequently omitted by the first hand, but when ignored was
inserted by a contemporary corrector, who might even be the same scribe. The
insertion, however, of two words omitted in 1. 59 and similar additions of omitted
letters in 11. 281, 338, and 350 all seem to be in a second hand, especially the
cursively written e above 1. 281 ; in 11. 169 and 223 the alterations are most
probably due to the first hand. The revision of the papyrus was in any case
not very thorough, and several small mistakes remain uncorrected, 11. 45 ο for ου,
46 άξιον for αξίων, ^'] Ποσιδω^ for ΥΙοσ^ώ^ων, 6l αντον for αντην, 8θ opaov for ορθών,
84 τι for το, gi αττ' for αττο, loj the apparent omission of κάλου after Κο[αλ€μον, 127
αίν^ται for averai, 222 μ^Θικαν for μ^θηκαν : cf. also 11. 123, T46, and 172-3, nn.
The date of the papyrus itself excludes a later period than about the middle
of the second century for the composition of the work from which 1611 was
excerpted. On the other hand a date not earlier than 200 B. C. is indicated by
the references to (i) Polemon, who was a Delphic -npo^^vos in 177-6 B.C.
(Susemihl, Gesch. d. Alex. Lit. i. 667^^^), and according to Suidas a contem-
porary of Ptolemy Epiphanes (204-181 B.C.), and (2) Mnaseas, who according
to an ambiguously worded statement of Suidas was a pupil of Eratosthenes.
The striking resemblance between the discussion of the authorship of the ode
to Pallas in 1611 and the views attributed to Eratosthenes by the scholia on
Aristophanes' Clouds 967 (cf. pp. 128-9 and 11. 162-5, "•) ^^ first sight suggests that
the papyrus may consist of extracts from Eratosthenes' clebrated work ΠβρΙ
apxaias κωμωδία?. The first of the three sections in Fr. i seems to be concerned
with the Old Comedy; the second, about Caeneus, deals with a subject which
was the basis of plays by two writers of the Middle Comedy, Antiphanes
and Araros, and may well have been utilized earlier, while the third, about
Thucydides, leads up to a quotation from Hermippus. The two statements
attributed to Asclepiades of Myrlea by Suidas that Polemon (i) synchronized
with Aristophanes of Byzantium (the successor of Eratosthenes as librarian at
Alexandria; cf. p. 131) and (2) was the disciple ofPanaetius (about 180-110B.C.)
are scarcely consistent with each other, and the second has usually been regarded
as corrupt ; cf. Susemihl, i. 666^^^. Since Eratosthenes according to Suidas
was born in 276-2 B.C. and died at the age of eighty in the reign of Ptolemy
Epiphanes, it is possible that his ITept αρχαίας κω/χωδία? quoted Polemon's earlier
works. The suggestion of Knaack (Pauly-Wissowa, Realenc. vi. 360), that the
treatise on Comedy was written in the early part of Eratosthenes' life before
he left Athens for Alexandria, is not based on any evidence, and Theophrastus,
a writer utilized in it (cf. Strecker, De Lycophro7ie, Etiphronio, Eratosthene, &c.,
Fr. 75), is also quoted in 1611 (1. 38). Polemon, who joined the Pergamene
1611. WORK ON LITERARY CRITICISM 131
school, wrote a treatise against Eratosthenes (Susemihl, i. 670^°^) Ucpl ttjs
"Άθηνησιν Ερατοσθένους (ττώημίας, denying (probably ironically) that Eratosthenes
had ever been at Athens, and two of the six extant fragments of that treatise
(Frs. 47-8, FHG. iii. 130) apparently refer to statements in the Ilepi αρχαίας
κωμωδία?, which was therefore earlier than Polemon's attack on Eratosthenes.
It is, however, not quite clear that Polemon is mentioned in 1611 with approval
(cf. 11. loi-ii, n.), and the controversy between him and Eratosthenes may have
been begun by the latter. As regards Mnaseas, whose date mainly depends on
that of Eratosthenes, the fact that he is quoted with approval in 1611 (1. 128)
is not inconsistent with the hypothesis that he was the author's own pupil ;
but it is not quite certain whether Suidas meant to call Mnaseas the pupil of
Eratosthenes or of Aristarchus. The latter interpretation, which would of course
be fatal to the view that 1611 was the work of Eratosthenes, is rejected by
Susemihl, i. 679^°^. The date of Eratosthenes' death (196-4 B. c), which is accepted
by Susemihl mainly on the evidence of Suidas, thus leaves a narrow margin of
time available to which the Uepl αρχ. κωμ. could be assigned on the assumption
that 1611 belongs to that work ; but most of this margin tends to disappear,
if with Knaack (Pauly-Wissowa, Realenc. vi. 359) Strabo's statement that
Eratosthenes was the pupil of Zeno of Citium be accepted ; for Eratosthenes'
birth and death must then be put back about ten years earlier than Suidas' dates.
1241, which settles the order of the Alexandrian librarians from Apollonius
Rhodius to Cydas and rectifies some errors of Suidas, is apt to be mistaken
or corrupt in its chronological references to the Ptolemies with whom the
librarians were associated. But the position assigned to Eratosthenes, next
after Apollonius Rhodius and before Aristophanes of Byzantium, whose suc-
cessors were (omitting κοί Άρίσταρχος in 1241. ii. 8 as an interpolation) Apollonius
the ξίδογράφος and Aristarchus of Samothrace, suggests that Eratosthenes' literary
activity hardly continued as late as the reign of Epiphanes, and if the corrupt
Φίλοτ:άτοροί in 1241. ii. 15 is corrected to Έττιφά^ου? instead of Φίλομητορος, as is
possible, Eratosthenes' period of office at Alexandria must have ended soon
after the accession of Philopator in 222-1 B.C. Hence, though the difficulty
caused by the mention of Mnaseas can be got over, that caused by the reference
to Polemon Tlepl άκροττόλζως is a much more serious and probably insuperable
obstacle to the attribution of 1611 to Eratosthenes Uepl αρχαίας κωμωδία?. More-
over it is possible that the scholium on Aristophanes which gives Lamprocles'
version of the ode to Pallas is nearer to Eratosthenes' actual words than are the
other scholia, which agree with 1611 in quoting Phrynichus' version (cf. 11. 162-
5, n.), and the ode to Pallas was evidently the subject of much discussion.
Lastly, in 1611 the sections about Caeneus and Thucydides are not, so far
κ 2
132 THE OXYRHYNCHUS PAPYRI
as can be judged, specially concerned with Old Comedy, so that a later author
than Eratosthenes is distinctly more probable. Eratosthenes may even have been
referred to by name in the discussion of the ode to Pallas (11. 158-9, n.), and he is
in any case likely to have been the main source of that section of the papyrus.
The hypothesis of the Eratosthenean authorship of the section concerning
the ode to Pallas might be combined with the attribution of other sections
to different grammarians ; but though it is not certain that the various extracts
are all from the same work, there is more to be said in favour of the view that
they come from one of the miscellanies (σύμμίκτα), which were composed by several
grammarians of the Alexandrine and Roman periods. Of these miscellanies the
Earliest known is by Callistratus the pupil of Aristophanes of Byzantium and
composer also of a work Upds ras άθίτήσας (sc. of Aristarchus) and commentaries
on Cratinus and Aristophanes; cf. Athen. iii. 135 c-d, where the 7th book is
quoted, R. Schmidt, De Callistrato Aristophaneo, and Susemihl, i. 450. Another
composer of miscellanies was Herodicus KpaTTjreios, who is chiefly known from
quotations in Athenaeus from his three works, Προ? τον Φιλοσωκράτην, Σνμμικτα
υττομνηματα (Athen. viii. 34° e), and Kωμωbovμ€voL (in at least six books). His
date is disputed : Gudeman in Pauly-Wissowa, Realenc. viii. 974, assigns him
to the first century B. C. That the celebrated Didymus, who died in the reign of
Augustus, wrote Σνμμικτα is attested by the Etym. Gud. 124. 3, where it is
stated that Alexion (a first-century grammarian of Alexandria) made an epitome
of them. The Σνμμικτα are generally identified with the Συμποσιακά of Didymus,
which were also of a miscellaneous character ; cf. Cohn in Pauly-Wissowa,
Realenc. v. 470. Suidas'^ list of the works of Seleucus, the Homeric critic, who
lived in the time of Tiberius (Gudeman, /. c), ends καί άλλα σνμμικτα, and Seleucus
€v Σνμμίκτοΐί is cited by Schol. Apoll. Rhod. ii. 1055. Pamphila, who lived
in the reign of Nero, wrote according to Photius {Cod. 175) thirty-three books
σνμμίκτοη' Ιστορικών υπομνημάτων Κόγοι, which were largely used by Aulus Gellius
and Diogenes Laertius. 1611 may well belong to one of these five writers of
miscellanies ; but Didymus has the strongest claim to be regarded as the author,
since in his case the existence of an epitome is also attested. In the absence
of any clear reference to grammarians later than the second century B.C.
Callistratus is more suitable as the composer than Herodicus, Seleucus, or
Pamphilus, and 1611 seems to be somewhat earlier than 1012, which mentions
both Didymus and Caecilius Calactinus, and was not composed before A. D. 50.
Dionysius ό μουσικοί, who is known to have discussed the authorship of the ode
to Pallas (cf. 11. 162-5, n.) and lived in the time of Hadrian, is not at all likely
to be the author of 1611, for his known works are all concerned with μουσική
in some form or (if he was identical with Aelius Dionysius) lexicography, and
1611. WORK ON LITERARY CRITICISM
133
the Caeneus and Thucydides sections are not at all appropriate to him. Rufus,
who is coupled with Dionysius (cf. 11. 162-5, "•) ^"^^ is thought to have
epitomized his Μουσική Ιστορία (cf. Cohn in Pauly-Wissowa, Realenc. v. 986),
is, apart from other considerations, unsuitable on account of his date, which
is probably third century or later.
We are indebted to Mr. T. W. Allen for several suggestions in the recon-
struction of this papyrus.
Col. i.
Fr. I
Col. ii.
5 lines
lost
3 lines lost
[• • •]λ« . [
[. . .]y avTt[ ]aL•
>
30
[. . .]ov νυν σ . epa . η
λ^
fj,a9 §υ οντα9 τ^ττα
]ντων
ρ[α]? και Tov9 κριτα^ 8η
• i.a
λον όντως τ€τταρα
10 ]σ
κοντά Λυσ•ίππ[ο]9 S ev
]«
35
Βακχαις e ομοίως Se
]at9
και Κρατίνος ev Πλου
12 lines
lost
>
τοις Aeyei
[ο]τι το Ίταρα Θζοφραστωί
λ€[γο]μ€νον €ν τωι δξυ
40 τ€ρωί Πξρι βασιλζίας
πβρι του Καιν€ως δο
ρατο9 τούτο και ούτος
ζστιν ως αληθώς ο τωι
σκητττρωι βασιλεύων
45 ο(υ) τωι δορατι καθαπ^ρ
ο Καινούς άξιον γαρ
[κρα]τ€ΐν ο Καινούς τωι
[8ορ]ατι αλλ ονχ^ι τωι σκη
59• τ€ of T€KcV corr, from ου.
Col. iii.
[π]τρωι καθαπ[€ρ οι 7γ][ο
5ο [λλο]ι βασιλβις [ασφαλή ?] Ι ου
[γαρ] αδύνατο ττ[ρος ?] | της
[νπ Α^κουσιλαου [του] Ι Αρ
γζίου καταλ[€γομ^νης\
ιστορίας απολυσα[ι
55 Aeyei γαρ π€ρι Kaivea [
^ ούτως Καινηι δζ τηι
Ελατου μισγίται Ποσι
δων €7Γ€ΐτα ου γαρ ην
T€K€v ουτ
αυτοις lepov παιδας [[r]] e| e
60 κ€ΐνου ουτ e| άλλον ου
δίνος ποΐ€ΐ αυτόν Πο
σ€[ι]δ€ων άνδρα ατρω
[το]ν ισχυν €χοντα [//e]yi
[σ-]τ[7;]ΐ' των ανθρώπων
65 των τοτ€ και οτ€ τις αυ
τον κξντοιη σιδηρωι
η χαλκωι ηλισκζτο μα
λίστα χρημάτων και
γιγνζται βασιλεύς ου
7ο τος Λαπιθζων και τοις
Κίντανροις πολ€μ€€
σκ€ €π€ΐτα στησας ακον
72. t of enfcra added later.
134 THE OXYRHYNCHUS PAPYRI
Col. iv. Col. V.
\tiov iv ayopai τουτωι ?] [μ^νου ]
[/ceXeuei θυ^ιν ? ^eot] λί[
75 σί δ ou/f T^e . [ και} τα .[
Zivs ι8ων αυτ\ον τοϊ\υτα ιοο γ^ν [
τΓοιουντα aneiXec και r
εφορμά, τον. Κενταύρου, 8η .[.... και} Πολψων
κακανοι αυτόν κατά ^^ ^^^ ^. ^^^^ ^^^^^^
8ο κοπτονσιν opeiov κατά \ q S\
γης και άνωθεν πβτρην ^ ,r
'' ' '^ ' Ι05 αναγραφ[
,πιτιθπσιν σήμα και . ^^^ Μ,ληαιον [viou Xre
,α-ποθνηισκ,ΐ' τουτ ^[σ]τιν ^^^^^ ^^ ^^^ Κο[αλψον {καλόν)
, yap ισω, τι τωι 8ορατι αρ r ->
/ ι r ^ r r μ^νον πατ€ρα [οντοι :
8 ρ; Y6£f τον Kaivea δννα ρ, j,r ,
•^ Λ *^ ό6 τον σνγγραφ[€α μεν
ται 8e δια τοντον και το ^^^ ^^^^^ ^^^^^^ ^^^^^ ^^^ ρ
παρ Ενριπιδη^ ^ν Λλκμ€ ^^^ ^^ ^^^ Φαρσ[αλιον
ωνι τωι δια Κ\ο]ρινθον r ^
ι- -"^ wepi μζν ονν τον [τον 2,Τ€
λζνομζνον νπο θζον , r 7Τ\
' ι^ φανον πατρός κ\αι Ιΐλα
00 καγω μ^ν ατ€κνος eye , r j,^
y __ ' " ' των φησιν ev τ\ωι Me
νομην κξίνης απ • ^λ r ω
"' ' 115 νωνι όντως [οτι κ9ον
κμ€ωνι δ ίΤξΚξ διδν >
μα τβκνα παρθένος ~ κνδιδης δνο [ν€ΐς e^pe
eav ης ζητη' πως η t^" Μ€λησια[ν και ^re
95 τον θ€ον μ€ΐξις άγονος Φ<^^ον• τοντον[ς ^παιδ^ν
€στιν δια τον προκ€ΐ ^^^' ««' Ερμιπ[πος ο ποι
120 ητης ev Ιαπ€[τωι Xeyei
87. κ of άλκμΐωνι COrr.
Fr. a (tops of cols. ?). Fr. 3.
Col. i. Col. ii. 135 •• • i[
[. .] ev τη ι ϊωνο[ς Ομφ]α ΐ3ΐ [ ον πατ[
λη κατ αρχήν λβγομ€ ποι[ ο δζ θα[
[ν]ος Ηρακλ€ονς βόρειος ποιο . [ γ μ€γαλ[
[ιπ]πος όντως ορών μβν ^ • « • [ 7 ~πζνθ€\
125 [^[δη Πΐλοπος c^eXav ...
1611. WORK ON LITERARY CRITICISM
135
[νό]μ€ν Ερμη βοραον
Ι40
πο9 ποτ[
[ηΓ]πορ' αίνζται 8 οδο9
θαρσξΐ π[
[διαλ]€λνκ€ δ αυτό Μνα
OS e/i[
[σβαί ?] ΠαταρΙ^ν? ζ]γ τ(ύ[
^]
? ^If[
3ο [JTepi χ]ρησμω[ν
Fr. 4•
Frs. 5 + 43•
Col. i. Col. ii.
[-]•!
145 Sp[. .]t[
• - και? 155
σιν[
σν γυναί tlvos
€γγον[ο9
αδ[
eyx[e]ai ^ivai και τ[α e
αψ[
^rjs και ω? e/cri^eT[ai Ap
θα[
[ktl pjj/oy oXov
αυτη[9
νησβ[
144 ]i/ 150 [τον\ θάνατον και ο [. . 1 6ο
ταΐ9
^ΐΗ^ί^χο?
[. . .^δη^ δζ τον
τρ[. .
αφηγο[υ]μ€ρ[θ9
. [. . . ev] τ[ω] ;
e [.]ια[. .
Πα[λ]λα}[δα]
π€ρ[σ€πολ£ΐ'
γ[
i62a
[κληιζ]ω π[ολξμαδο
Fr. 6.
Fr. 7.
Col. i.
Col. ii.
].
[κο^ ayvav ττ[αίδα Δι
[.] . ή
].α•.
[ο?] μζγαλου δ\αμασιπ
TOIS [
195
]ω9 πυρ
ι65 ΤΓον ούτω παρα[ποΐξΐ ?
τοπ[
]ιπονο
διατΓορουσι γαρ ον[κ ο
1 8ο αμφ[
ο]ϋ μόνον
λίγοι 7T[e]pi τ[ου]των κα
Κ019 [
^ησ^ν αλ
[θ]α7Γ€ρ Χαμαιλξων πο
πλα[
λα και ] . βϋ^ΐΤεί/
Tcpov ποτ€ ^τη[σι])(^ορου
λαβ[
200
]μβον
1 7ο ^στιν η Λαμπροκλ[€
όσον [
]ονοΐί
[o]vs κ[αιπ]€ρ]^ι^ του Φρυι/[ι
ι85 χ€τ[
]τι γνη
[χον Λαμ]προκλ€ΐ μα[θη(ττ}) ι
? €ΐ;/οα) . [
] .'^^Γ[•
[Μιδωνο^ ?] ΤΓροσνζμον
Xittiy ω[σ•Γ€ ?
]ί/ί7σ[.
[tos και ? Α]ριστοφανη?
€ΐναι τον
[
205
]7Γ€γ[.
175 [^^ ? παραπ]οΐξΐ λίγων
ρισμον . [
[Παλλάδα] n[e]p(je[n]o {λιν)
1 90 α ye κα_ί
[_
end of col.
καί €v[
169. ν οί '2τη[σι]χορου ΟΟΓΓ. from s.
end of col.
136
THE OXYRHYNCHUS PAPYRI
Fr. 8.
Col. i. Col. ii.
[. .]. π . [
2IO χ6ρ6 . [
τοι συμ\^
βίων π[ ΕλΧανι
KOS δ €y [ταις Εθνών ?
κτισξσι [
215 δζ ΤΓ€ρΐ[
2θ6 ] . ιπον [.] . ροι κ [
]γΗ [.]€ σνμ[
Fr. 9•
αλλ[
iVa|[ioi ?
220 ταιχ[μίωι ?
τα τωι^ Θρα[κων
μίθικαν α[ποκομίσα ?
ι
[/ί]€ϊ/ο[[ίΊ] $€ τον Α[ρίστο ?
δημον €19 την Π[αρον ?
22 5 η^τίωντο τηρι τουτ[ων
οι Πάριοι και ei? δι[κα
στηριον €ίσαγαγορ[τ€9
απ€ΚΤ€ΐναν' κ[αι ? . .
[ ]r]9 δ €V [. . . .
μ^
230
235
240
Fr. 10.
αριστα[
δ €v ζ τρ[
διων €)([
ρ[ο]ν και κ[
την €ρνθ[ραν
ου ^evov [
παρατρ[
μα €^ην[
yap την . . [
κ αν eiTTiv [
245
Fr. II.
] . [
]eyf??[• • .
..... παρ }]οιμιω[. . . .
....]...[..] ei[. . . .
. .]αρΐ9 €σ)(ατοι.[. . . .
. . .]τονστ)9 ηδονα[9 η ?
αλγ }]ηδονας ο δζ Ασστ)[
• ' •]ί [<τ]τρατ€νοι π€ρ[ί .
end of col.
Fr. 12.
[• ']M
250 μονζ o[
Λνκι[
r€.[
ρω[
VI. [
255 ριΚ
6/C.[
[0]l . [
ου
Fr. 13.
Μ
]κοσμ[
26ο ]y αλλ . [
]?ί vμ^R[
]ον ποτ[
]πο των [
end of col.
Fr. 14.
Fr. 15.
Fr. 16.
]λα ταγμ[
270
]νυαδο[
275
]7)σω[
265 π]ρωτον [
] Αιδου υ[
φη ?]σι δ ζ [irepi ?
]ay λαβο[
Οδ]υσσ€υ9 . [
]η9 Ιων [
]ουτω α . [
]τησω . [
]λην τι[
]ωνιδον[
]os• κα[
Μ
ον[
mv • [
1611. WORK ON LITERARY CRITICISM
Fr. 17. Fr. 18.
280 [0eo56/f ?]τ[ί7]? S ev Ορ(σττ)[ ]euoy[
285 ]7Γ€/)σ[
] errt ττ}[
> 4 '
end of col.
[nepi ? . . .]aTLas φησιν
] . θην νπο
Fr. 19.
]Τ ' γ[
] καθ ην\^
290 ^μβLa . [
]αμα^ της [
end of col.
137
Fr. 20.
]aioL . [
]ou>c[
295
]<i>d
]y 5e
]o
300 ] . u
7ΐ]ΐ'σί7Γ
TToy (u — ] εντως
Fr. 25.
[. . .] νπαλ[
[. . .yrpov [
πανον και υ[
325 τ 6γχ7?[
iV TOIS [
end of col.
Frs. 31+23.
]η πρι
305 ]Ηλη
] πυρ
]/foy
'\τα
end of col. ?
Fr. 26.
]ουτ[
] β <P[
330 ]o yap . [
1 . ov\i[
end of col.
Fr. 39.
].σ€ί[
]7Γ/)0 . [
]ωδ[
345 > 4
]•[
]μαφυ[
360 ] . α7Γθ[
Fr. 30.
top of col.
346 ] ί7Γ7Γθλ[
]ασ[
Fr. 34.
]οσ[
365 ]τη[
Fr. 33.
]•[
310 ]υλ[
]?[
3^5 Μ
Fr. 37.
].τ[
335 y]0o[
]τρ^Λ
>ία[
Fr. 31.
350 ]. τα .[
6]7Γί0α[
]8οτ[
Fr. 35.
top of col.
366 ]y €*:[
Fr. 34.
]αίλ[
320 ]e_i . [
Fr. 28.
τα[
340 ]του V . .[
^rai Atp[
end of col.
Fr. 33.
]?/«[
355 ] • ω/)ί[
]αταΛθ[
^]"•ίΧ • [
Fr. 36.
]€coy 0[
370 ] Πτολ€/ι[αι
]στίσ[
370. r of Πτολ. inserted.
138 THE OXYRHYNCHUS PAPYRI
Fr. 37. Fr. 38. Fr. 39. Fr. 40.
372 €.[ 375 ]0a[ y^lA 381 ]M
π[ ]αυ[ ] . ai .[ ]φορο[
v[ ]0[ 380 ]σ[ jaTre^i
Fr. 41. Fr. 42. Fr. 43. Fr. 44.
] . ί Trpo[ ]Ly ?■/?[ ]"[ 396 ]v \ri[
385 j.Mfe.i ].yap νπ^ρ[ ]^ei/[ ]στο[
] . y . . τα[ 390 ]οννοστ[ '[^^Pi ]''''^[
].[ ].[ 395 W ]..[
Fr. 45. Fr. 46. Fr. 47. Fr. 48. Fr. 49.
400 ]ro ]. [ 406 ]. [ Μ 4" ]σ•
]va[ ]v αλ[ ]οι;λ[ 410 ]ητρί .[ jet
] . TO . [ 405 jai'i ]o[.] . [ end of col. ^iy
Fr. 50. Fr. 51. Fr. 52. Fr. 53.
].Te/[ 4ΐ6].5ο^[ 4i8 ] • [.]e[ 420 M- •] • [
415 ]ανω[ ]ai'v[ ]o• το λο[ ] . Τ6σωσ[
end of col. end of col. end of col. end of col.
Fr. 54. Fr.55. Fr. 56. Fr. 57. Fr. 58.
422 ]η[ ]v pei[ 426 ]των [ 42S ]ωρ .[ 430 ]^eA[
Μ 425 ]μ . [ Μ ]^«?[ ]λ\'[
Fr. 59• Fr. 60. Fr. 61. Fr. 62. Fr. 6^.
432 ] . παλ[ ]υξ[ 436 ]_i/ 438 ]κ[ 440 ] . ποί . [
]αρτα)[ 435 ]<?.•[ ]far ] . . [ ] . [
Fr. 64. Fr. 65. Fr. 66. Fr. 67. Fr. 68.
442 ]vai• o[ 443 ] • • l?[ 444 ]νσι[ 445 ] . σ[ ]_z/ 7Γατ[
end of col. end of col. ]χα[ 45° ]ffoiy[
]ακα[ ]fiA[
1611. WORK ON LITERARY CRITICISM 139
29~37• 1^ ^ντιγ, . . ; . •\ο.ιγ. . Λον νυν σ , (pa . ' ημάς δυ' ovras Τΐτταρ\α\ς και tovs κριτάς', δηλον όντως
τ(τταράκοντα, Αύσιπττ\ο]ς δ* fv Βάκχαις e', ομοίως 8e κα\ Κρατίνος iv ΤίΧοντοις 'Kiyei.
' ..." US being two, and the judges four ", thus evidently forty ; but Lysippus in the
Bacchae says that they were five, and so does Cratinus in the Πλοΰτοί.'
38—97. [o]rt TO πάρα θίοφράστω λe[yό^μfvov ev τώ Bevrepcu Tlfp\ βασιλιίας nfp\ τοχι Καινίως
δόρατος τυΰτο' ' και ούτος εστίν ως άΧηβως ό τω σκήπτρω βασιλίνων, ο(υ) τώ δόρατι καθάττίρ ή Καιν^νς.
αζι(ω^ν yap ^κραλτίΐν ό Καινίνς τω \δόρ^ατι, αλλ' ουχί τω σκη\π\τρω καθάττϊίρ οί π]ο[λλο]ί βασιλΐΐς,
ϊεσφάλη' ?] ου [γαρ] ebvvaTO τι^ρος Η της Ιΰπ' Ά^κονσιΚάου \του\ 'Apyeiov κατα\\ΐγομ€νηί] Ιστορίας
άποΧνσα^ι], Xeyti yap nepl Kaivea ούτως' ' Kaivfj δε TJj ΈΧάτου μίσγίται Ώοσ(ΐΒ(ΐ)ων. eneiTa,
oil yap ην αντοΐς Upov τταΐδας TtKev οντ e^ eKeivov οντ ΐζ aWov ονδενός, ποκΊ αντίη^ν ΙΙοσ(\ι\8ίων
άνδρα ατρω'το'Ιν, Ισχύν ΐχοντα [μ€ΐγι'[σΊΓ[?;1ι/ των ανθρώπων των τότ€, κα\ οτ( τις αντον κεντοίη σιδηρώ
η )^αΧκώ, ήλίσκίτο μάΧιστα χρημάτων. κα\ yiyvfTai βασιΧ(ύς ούτος Ααπιθέων καΐ τοΙς Κ^ντανροις
ποΧΐμίίσκΐ, ί'πΐΐτα στησας άκόν\τιον iv ayopa τούτω KeXevei dveiv ? deoliVri δ' οίικ η( . \ , και ?1
Ζίύ? Ιδών αντ\ον τα^τα ποιοΰντα ΰπειλίΐ και εφορμά, τους Κενταύρους, κάκεΐνοι αυτόν κατακόπτονσιν
ορ(θ\ον κατά yής και Άνωθεν πετρην επιτιθεισιν σήμα και αποθνήσκει.' τοΰτ' ίΤσΙτιΐ' yap "ίσως τ(τη τω
δόρατι αρχειν τον Καινεα. δύναται δε δια τούτον καΐ το παρ Εύριπίδτ] εν ΆΧκμεωνι τώ δια Κ\ο]ρίνθου
Χεγόμενον ΰπο θεοΰ'
' κάγώ μεν ατεκνος εγενόμην κείνης απ(ο),
ΆΧκμεωνι δ' ετεκε δίδυμα τέκνα παρθένος,
εάν τις ζητη πώς η τον θεοΰ μείξις αγονός εστίν, δια τον προκει\^μενον . . .
' That what Theophrastus says in the second book Concerning Kingship about the
spear of Caeneus is as follows. " And this is the king who really rules by his sceptre, not
by his spear like Caeneus." For Caeneus claiming to govern by his spear, not by his sceptre
as is the fashion of most kings, failed, because he had no power, according to the story related
by Acusilaus the Argive, to release. He describes Caeneus as follows. " Caene daughter
of Elatus was united to Poseidon; afterwards, since it was impious for them to have
children either by him or by any one else, Poseidon made her an invulnerable man,
possessing the greatest strength of any person then living, and when any one stabbed him
with iron or bronze, he was conquered most certainly of all. So Caeneus became king of
the Lapithae, and waged war with the Centaurs. Afterwards he set up his javelin in the
market-place and bade people sacrifice to it. But this was not (pleasing ?) to the gods, and
Zeus seeing him doing this, threatened him and stirred up the Centaurs against him ; and
they cut him down upright below the ground, and put a mass of rock above as a tomb ; so
he died." That is apparently what is meant by Caeneus ruling by a spear, and it also
explains what is said by the god in Euripides' ΆΧκμεων 6 διά Κορίνθον "And I was without
child by her, but she bare to Alcmaeon twin children, a virgin." If the inquiry is made
how union with a god is without offspring, (it is shown) through the aforesaid . . .'
101—20. OTi ουχ [ ]δη . [. . . . κάιί Πολ/μω!/] εν τω ['. ITfpi άκροπόγ^εως
δ[ 1 άναγραφί 1 τον ΜεΧησίον [υίόΐ', Στε^φάνου δε του Κο\^αΧεμου (καΧου^Υ
μενου πατέρα, ϊούτοι}] δε τον συyypaφ\^έa μέν^ φασιν Όλόρου νΐ^όν, Tpi?JT0V δε τον Φαρσ[άλιοΐ'.]
περί μεν ουν τοΰ \τον 2τε]φάνου πατρός κ\α\ ΙΐΧά]των φησίν εν τ[ω Με]ΐ'ωΐ'ί οϋτως' [' οτι θου^κνδίδης
δύο [ΰείς εθρε^ψεν ΜεΧησία[ν καΐ Στέ^φανον' τούτοι [s έπαίδευ^σεν.' κα\ "Ερμιπ\πος 6 ποι\ητης εν
^ΙαπεΙτώ Xεyει . . .
' That . . . and Polemon in the [.] book Concerning the Acropolis do not . . . Thucydides
... the son of Melesias and father of Stephanus called the Stupid ; but they say that the
historian was the son of Olorus, and a third was the Pharsalian. With regard to the father
I40 THE OXYRHYNCHUS PAPYRI
of Stephanus Plato also says in the Mem " That Thucydides brought up two sons, Melesias
and Stephanus ; these he educated ". And Hermippus the poet in the lapetus says . . /
121—30. ] ο iv τ_^'ΊωΐΌ[ί Ό/χφΙάλτ; κατ άρχην \(γόμ(^ν^ος Ήρακ\ΐου5 βόρειος [?7Γ]πο5 οντωε'
' ορών μΐν \η\^η Πίλοποί €'^€λαι[ΐΌ]μ€ΐ',
'Έρμη, βόραον \Ί.π\πυν' ajilrerat δ οδό?.'
[δίολίίλυκε δ' αυτό Μΐ'α[σ/αϊ ό ?] Παταρ[ίΰί eji/ τω [llfpl ;γ]ρί;σμά[ΐ' . . .
' ... the northern horse of Heracles mentioned at the beginning of the Omphale of Ion
thus : " At length from the boundaries of Pelops we drive forth, Ο Hermes, the northern
horse, and the road is finished." Mnaseas of Patara in his work Concerning Oracles has
solved the difficulty . . .'
146—52. '. . . K(v.V\ (TV, yvvai, τίνοί ((κ^γονοί (ϋχ\(\αι fivai j
κάί τ[ά (]$ψ, και ώς ίΚΓί^6τ[αι Άρκτί?]ι/θί όλον αύτη[ς τ6ν\ θάνατον. κα\ ό [ ρη! de τον
r,[..].[...eV]r[a]e' [.Η .>[...
' " . . . and thou, lady, from whom dost thou boast thy descent ? " and so on, and that
Arctinus relates her death in full, and des in the 5th book of . . .'
160— "76. "^Γαΐί φ[ρυ\ν^ιχος ] άφηγο[ν]μΐν[ος ]" ' Πα[λ]λα[δα π(ρσίπο\ιν κΚτιζγΰ
π ο\ΐμα8όκο]^ν άγνάν πίαίδα Διόί] /lifyaXov ί^αμάσιπ^πον' ούτω 7Γαρα[ποΐίί ?] ^ιαποροϋσι yap οι[κ oJXt'yot
7Γ elpi τΓαύΙτων, κο\θ]άπίρ Χαμαιλίων, πύτίρόν ποτΐ Στη^σι^χόρου ϊστίν ή Αα/χ7Γροκλ[€ο]υΓ, K^uin\fp τον
\φρυν\ίχου Ααμ]προκλ('ί μα[^7;^τ^) Μίδωνος ?] προσνίμον^τος. κα\ ? 'λ^ριστοφάνη! [δε ? παραπ^οΐίΐ λίγων
' Παλλάδα] 7Γ[ε]ρσί[π]ο[λιΐ' δΐίνάν ' . . .
' . . . Phrynichus relating ..." To Pallas destroyer of cities I call, to the sustainer of
Avar, the pure, the child of great Zeus, the horsetamer " thus introduces (?) it. For not a few,
like Chamaeleon, are in doubt whether this was formerly written by Stesichorus or by
Lamprocles, though Phrynichus attributes it to Lamprocles the pupil of Midon {?). Aristo-
phanes also introduces it saying "To Pallas destroyer of cities, the terrible" . . .'
219—28. . . . Νά|[ιοι? (V μ€γαιχ[μίω? ] τα των θρα^κών ]
μ(θ(η\καν. α\πυκομισύμ ?]eiOt δε τον Ά[ρ<σΓΟ ?ρημον ίΐς την Ώ^άρον ? | ιιτιωντο περί τοίίτ[ωί'] οί Πα'ρίοί,
κα\ ει? δι\κα}στηριον ε ισαγαγόι [τεϊ] άττίκταναν.
' . . . the Naxians ... is a disputed frontier . . . the Thracians . . . released him. The
Parians carried off Aristodemus to Paros and censured him for this, and after bringing him
to trial put him to death.'
23-7. Fr. 26, where in 1. 329 ] β κρ[ιται can be restored (cf. 11. 31-2), is perhaps to be
placed at the bottom of Col. i, as Allen suggests.
29. ]s avTt[ : the division of these letters is uncertain, η can be read instead of t.
30. ]ov : ev can equally well be read. All that is visible before 1^ is a spot of ink in
about the middle of the line. ]av is impossible, and other vowels are improbable.
€ . epa .: except in pa, only the bottoms of the letters are preserved. The first seems
to be ε or σ and [t] may be lost between it and the second, which is rather more like ε, θ, or σ
than e.g. γ or i, and does not come below the line as far as τ usually does in this hand. The
third must be ε, ο, or σ, and the last can be γ, η, i[s], κ, μ, ν, or π. Cf. the next η.
ημάς : the first person is not found elsewhere in 1611, and ημάς Svovras can hardly be
right, though possibly the participle is to be corrected to λύοντας or ί.(ιαλ)νοντας : cf. 1. 128
[δια]λε'λι/κε. The present active of 8veiv is very rare outside epic poetry, μα suits the vestiges
very well ; the lacuna between these two broken letters could take [i], but not [ερ]. As was
suggested by Prof. Rostowzew, it is better to divide δυ(ο) ovtos and regard ημα: . . . κριτας as
1611. WORK ON LITERARY CRITICISM 141
a quotation from a comedy. The preceding words can also be an iambic line, ending vw
ae opav. Cf. also 11. 23-7, n.
35. €'. for 5 judges at contests of comedies cf Schol. Ar. Birds 445 'ίκμναν κριτάι rovs
κωμικούς. oi df λαμβάνοντίί Tcis e ψηφονς ei8aιμόvovv, Hesych. nevre κριταί' τοσούτοι roty κωμικοΊς
f κρίνον ov μόνον ^Αθηνησιν άλλα και iv Έ,ικΐΧία, Zenobius, Cent. ϊ\\. 64 fv πείτε κριτών γούνασι κίϊται'
. . . πείτε κριται τονς κωμικοί^ 'ίκρινον, ως φησι ^Επίχαρμος, which is copied by Suidas. The difficulty !
is that 4 judges (1. 32) at contests of comedies are not attested at any period, and
what ' 40 ' refers to is very obscure. Apart from the references quoted concerning Comedy,
the question of the number of judges at dramatic contests and the method of selection is not '
yet very clear; cf Miiller, Lehrb. d. griech. Buhnenalt. 368-72. In Plut. Cwion 8 the ten
strategi appear as judges in a contest at which Sophocles won the first prize ; but it is generally
supposed that there were normally 5 judges for tragedies as well as for comedies, and these
were in both cases selected by lot from a larger body of 10, i.e. i for each tribe, this body
of 10 having been chosen by lot from a much larger number, of which the size is unknown.
But it is not satisfactory to identify the ' 40 ' with the largest body. The number ' 5 ' in |
connexion with Ήρακλείω στήλη τι? εστίν, εν f/ ψήφισμα μεν
Άλκιβιάδου, γραμματεύς δε Στέφανος θουκυδίδον . . . This Stele may Well be identified with Of
connected with the αναγραφή here, especially since the paternity of Stephanus seems to the
point with which our author is most concerned (cf. 11. 1 1 2 sqq.) ; but the Athenaeus quotation
is generally assigned to Polemon's Τΐερ\ ονομάτων άδοξων επιστολή (Athen. ix. 409 d), and
Polemon was there clearly concerned with the meaning of παράσιτος, not with Thucydides,
so that in any case our author's reference to Polemon ΠερΙ ακροπόλεως was not to the
passage quoted by Athenaeus. For Κο[αλεμου in I. 107 (suggested by Allen) cf Plut.
Cwwn 4 Κίμων δε . . . καϊ τω πάππω Κίμωνι προσεοικως την φύσιν, ον δι ενήθειάν φασι Κοάλεμον
προσαγορενθήναι, and Aeschines Socraticus quoted by Athen. v. 2 2θ\3Ίππόνικον μεν τον Καλλίου
Κοάλεμον προσαγορενει. The ο IS nearly certain, but it is necessary to suppose the omission of
κάλου owing to homoioteleuton. Upon the restoration of the end of 1. 108 depends the
sense of the whole passage. Starting from the fact that Polemon according to Marcellinus
mentioned both Thucydides the historian and Thuc. the Pharsalian (a proxenus of the
Athenians in 411 b. c. ; cf. Thuc. viii. 92) in the ΏερΙ άκροπ., vfe think that φασι in 1. no
includes Polemon (1. 102), and therefore in 11. 10 1-2 the name of another author is to be
supplied, to which δ?; . [ in 1. 102 may belong, [οντοι in I. 108 referring to both names. For
τρι]τον in 1. no cf MarceUinus § 28 quoted above. The general sense of 11. loi-ii seems
to be that Polemon llfpl άκροπ. and another author referred to not one Thucydides only
{ενα or ενικως may have followed ουχ in 1. loi) on the evidence of an inscription (.? δί'], or εξ],
άναγραφ[ών in 11. 104-5), but to three in all. A mention of Thucydides by name is expected
before 1. io6, and ©oyKueiJlSiji/ can well be restored in 11. 101-2 (in which case there is room
for only a very short name after it before και, and τον in 1. 106 is probably uv]\tov), or
θουκυΒιδην] | τον can be read in 11. 105-6 ; but a restoration of the whole passage is scarcely
possible. The hypothesis that ονχ qualifies the whole sentence and the point is that Polemon
did not mention (δ»7λ[οί could be read in 1. 102) the son of Melesias, but only the other two
persons called Thucydides, is unsatisfactory, for though Marcellinus does not refer to
Polemon in connexion with the son of Melesias, Polemon of course knew about the
politician, and αναγραφ[ does not at all suggest that ουχ is to be connected with a verb
meaning 'mentioned'. A different sense would be obtained by restoring [άλλοι in 1. 108 as
the subject of φασι, contrasted with Πολέμων in 1. 102, who would then stand by himself.
To get rid of the supposed author coupled with Polemon is an advantage, but with Tpi]rov in
1. no the passage would then produce a marked conflict with Marcellinus' statements that
1611. WORK ON LITERARY CRITICISM 145
Polemon referred to the historian and the Pharsalian in the mp\ άκροπ. This difficulty could
be somewhat lessened by restoring του^Γοι- instead of rpijiroi/ in 1. no, and supposino• the
general sense to be that Polemon identified a certain Thucydides with the son of Melesias
while others maintained that he was the Pharsalian. But the reference to the son of Olorus
then becomes rather pointless, especially in view of the circumstance that Polemon is known
from Marcellinus to have produced evidence for the ancestry of the historian.
1 13-19 Cf. 3Ie7W 94 c (νθυμηθητι 5tl Θουκυδίδης κτλ. One MS. (F) has <5 θουκ., which is
possible here, and before τούτους in I. ii8 the MSS. insert καί. A similar passage occurs in the
Pseudo-Platonic Uepl άρ^της 378 a, where it is stated with regard to Melesias and Stephanus
t6v y' erepov μέχρι -γηρως βιοΰντα, τον δ' hepov πόρρω πάνυ. IMelesiaS is a character in the
Laches, but nothing more is known about Stephanus, except the inscription discussed in
the preceding n. For the obelus against 1. 116 cf. 1. 56, n.
119-20. Έρμητ[ποί ο ποι]ητψ ; the title is added to distinguish him from the philosopher,
6 ΚαΧΚιμάχειος. The poet was older than Eupolis and Aristophanes according to Suidas!
The titles of nine of his comedies are known, but not the lapetus.
121. ΐωι/ο[ϊ θμφ]αλη : the Omphale was a satyric drama, of which sixteen fragments are
known. Another quotation from it perhaps occurred in 11. 277 sqq.
123. (υφ) Hpa/cAfoi/s should perhaps be read, Heracles being then the speaker of the two
lines; cf. 1. 89 \ΐyoμεvov υπο θίου. As the text stands, the subject of φλαυ[νο]μΐν may be
the satyrs, not Heracles.^ With βορ^ος [ιπ]πος (so Allen) cf. Homer Υ 221 sqq. roO τρισχίλιαι
ίπποι . . . τάων και Βορΐης ηράσσατο βοσκομενάων. Perhaps Bopeios should be written.
124-5. ορών . . . ΠελοτΓΟί: cf. Fr. 24 (NaUck) of the Omphale κα\ Σαρδιανον κόσμον ίΐδεναι
xpoos apeivov fj τ6ν Πέλοπος ev νήσω τρόπον. The scene of the Omphale was laid in Lydia
(cf. Frs. 22, 23, 27). Possibly Heracles had been sent by Omphale to fetch one of the
horses sprung from Boreas which belonged to Pelops ; cf. the legend of the capture of
the horses of Diomedes, which Heracles gave to Eurystheus (Apoilod. ii. 5. 8). But the
plot of the Omphale is very obscure.
127. αίι /erai, which would mean ' is winnowed ', is obviously an error for άν^ται : cf. e.g.
Homer Κ 251 μαλά yap νίιξ ανΐται.
128. [διαλ]6λυκ6 δ : οη the analogy of the preceding lines two letters before λ\λυκε would
be preferable, but probably the column sloped away a little to the left, though ο in 1. 129
can be omitted, [και λ]ίλυκΐ δ is also possible, the simple verb as well as διαλιίειν beino- used
for solving difficulties. Cf. for κα\ . . . δι 11. 174-5, η.
128-9. Μι/α[σ6αί• ο.?] Παταρ[^υΓ : cf. int. and Susemihl i. 679. 1611 agrees with the
^i i'rc?" ^^^^°^' ^^"^^^' ^^^ Lucian in giving Patara (in Lycia) as his birthplace, while
the MSS. of Athenaeus and Photius call him ό Πατρ^ύς, i. e. from Patrae in Achaea, but in
the light of 1611 are to be emended to 6 Παταρ^ύς. With regard to the title of his work on
oracles Schol. Pindar, 01. ii. 70 calls it Ώψ\ χρησμών, while Schol. Hesiod, Theog. 117 calls
It 17 των Αίλφικών χρησμών συvaγωyή. 1611 Seems to agree with the former, but τη[ι j των
χ]ρησμω[ν σvvayωyηι is a possible reading.
135-43• The coronis after 1, 138 probably indicates a following quotation (cf. 1. 115
and int. p. 129), to which θαρσ^ι in 1. 141 may well belong. Allen suggests ηενθί[σιλεια
.... in 1. 139 and θαρσει τΐ[ΐνθ(σιλ(ΐα in 1. 141, i.e. a quotation from the Aeihiopis of
Arctmus, which is perhaps cited in 11. 145-50 ; cf 11. 148-9, n. But oi (probably ί>ή ψ[ in
1. 142 does not suit this hypothesis, and the colour of Frs. 3 and 4 is different, so that
a connexion between them is unlikely. Lines 136-8 might also be hexameters, as Allen
remarks, e. g. ov πατ[ίρα κληισασ{αΥ ο δί θα[. . .
146. eyyoi/loy: this Spelling οίβκγονος occurs in Attic inscriptions down to 300 b.c. and
in Ptolemaic inscriptions and papyri (cf JMayser, Gramm. d.griech. Pap. p. 228); but is
not legitimate in hexameters.
L
146 THE OXYRHYNCHUS PAPYRI
148-9. Ap |/cTi ?]ΐΌί : [Αχ PjOio? can equally well be read, or possibly [. .jXtoj, Achaeus
wrote tragedies entitled "Αδραστοί, Ά^άυεί, Άθλα, Άλφΐσίβοια, θησΐύί, KvKvos, MoTpat, Μώμος,
Olbinovs, UeipiOovs, Φιλοκτήτης, and Φρίξος, one of which may have described the death of the
woman in question ; but if the author mentioned in 1. 149 also wrote the hexameter verse
quoted in 1. 146 (which is probable, but not clear), he is not likely to have been Achaeus. With
Ap\KTi]vos (Allen) the quotation would come from the Aethiopis, the woman being Penthesilea
and the speaker presumably Achilles ; cf. 11. 135-43, n. ΐκτιθΐτ\αι may, however, end 1. 148,
150-2. It is not possible to restore Ί-ιμωνι^ψ . . . τ[ω] e \τ:α\ιο{νων,
154. Not more than one line, if any, is lost before the top of the column, twenty-four
lines being accounted for, if Fr. 43, which is referred to the middles of 11. 160-2 a, is rightly
placed, as is practically certain. That Fr. 5 belongs to the upper part of the column of which
Fr. 6. i is the bottom is indicated by the colour of the verso besides the suitability of the
resulting restoration.
158-9. ί(α]jι9o[πep φησιν Έ.ρατοσβΐ\νψ (Allen) can be restored; cf. 11. 162-5, n. and int.
160. φ[ρυ]ΐ'[ίχο£ : cf. 1. 1 7 1 . «" j TOiy φ[ρυ]ΐ'[ί;^ου ωδαυ | αφ;;γο[υ]|ΐί€ΐ/[οι; is Unlikely On acCOUnt
of the verb in 1. 165 {napc^oui ?).
161. Perhaps a0jj-yo[u]/x6i[oi όντως.
162—5. Cf. Ar. Clouds 967 η 'Παλλάδα π(ρσΐπο\ιν 8eivap' η ' τηλίπορόν τι βόαμα', where
Schol. RV have άρχη άσματος Φρυνίχου, ω: Έρατοσθβνης φησίν (φη, ως Έρ. Φρυν. V), Φρύνιχος
(δε V, om. R) αυτοΰ τούτου τον άσματος μνημονΐν(ΐ ως Ααμπ ροκΚίους οντος Παλλάδα πΐρσίπτοΧιν
κληιζω πολΐμαδόκον ayvav τταΐδα ΔιΟΓ μΐ'^αΚου, and Schol. Aid. has . . . Ααμπ ροκΚίους ΐΐναί φασιν
Αθήναιον, τον ΜίδωΐΌ? νΐον. 'έχει be όντως' Παλλάδα πίρσΐπολιν κτλ., aS in Schol. RV, but adding
δαμάσιπτΓον after μ€γάλον. Άλλως, οίιτως Ερατοσθένης' Φρύνιχος αντοΰ τούτου τον άσματος μ€μνηται ως
Ααμπροκλίονς οντος τοΐι Μίδωι/υί υιοΰ η μαθητού' ΐχ^ι δε όντως' Παλλάδα π^ρσίπολιν Ββινην θ(ον
iypfKvboipov ποτικληιζω πολΐμαδόκον ayvav τταΐδα Δώς μ(yάλov δαμάσιπττον, κα\ κατά Ααμπροκλεα
νποτίθησι κατά λίξιν. Schol. Aristid. 21 7 Dindorf (in reference to the Aristophanes line) has
είδοί TovTO άσματος και άρχη' τον δε ποιητην αυτόν 'Ρονφος κα\ Διονύσιος (time of Hadrian) Ίστορονσιν
iv τηι Μονσικηι (sc. Ίστορίαι) Φρννιχόν τίνα, αΚλοι δε' φασι Ααμπροκλία η Στησίχορον. το δε ' Seivijv '
άντϊ τόν κλησω κείται παρά τώι κωμικώι' το yap άσμα όντως €χ£ΐ ' Παλλάδα πιρσεπολιν κλησω πολε-
μαδόκον ayvav παΊδα Διός μεγάλου δαμάσιππον (^δαμνηπλον OV δαμνηττωλον MSS.) αιστον (corrupt)
τταρθίνον. These passages are discussed by Wilamowitz, Texigesch. d. griech. Lyr. 84-5.
There were evidently at least two versions of the hymn. 1611 agrees with the version in
the first note in Schol. Aid., which is really the same as that of Schol. RV and Schol.
Aristid., the former scholium merely omitting δαμάσιππον and the latter having κλησω for
κληιζω and adding two words at the end. This, the shorter of the two versions, was that
of Phrynichus, as is clear from 1611, and was rightly stated by Schol. RV and Schol.
Aristid., whereas the first note in Schol. Aid. wrongly assigned it to Lamprocles. The
longer version, i. e. that of Lamprocles, with which Aristophanes' citation, so far as it goes,
agrees, was given in the second note in Schol. Aid., where the authorship is not clearly
indicated. None of the schol!k makes it clear which Phrynichus is meant. The lyric and
tragic poet was formerly supposed to be indicated, but now the Phrynichus in question
whether understood or not by the scholiasts (cf. Wilamowitz, /. c), is generally considered to
be the comic poet. 1611 also makes no clear sign on this point, but the way in which
Phrynichus and Aristophanes are coupled {παραποιΰ is apparently used with regard to both ;
cf the next n.) favours the identification with the comic poet. The brief statements in
Schol. RV may be derived from our author's fuller discussion, if he was reproducing Erato-
sthenes or, as is possible but not likely (cf int.), was Eratosthenes himself. The other
scholia do not seem to be specially connected with 1611.
165. παρα[π•οίει: cf. 1. 1 75 παραη]οΐΐΐ. The word can mean either 'imitate' or
' introduce '.
1611. WORK ON LITERARY CRITICISM 147
168. Χαμαιλίωι/: cf. p. 1 29. His work nepi κωμωΒία: is cited by Athen. ix. 374 a.
171. The omission of the superfluous t is indicated by both a dot above it (cf. e. g. 1624)
and a stroke through it.
172-3, μα[βη(τη) | Μιδωνοί ?] : μα may be at the end of the line, but μα\[θητηι] does not
fill the lacuna and is unintelligible. The suggested restoration is very doubiful, but brings
the passage into connexion with Schol. Aid. on Ar. Clouds 967 (quoted in II. 162-5, "•)
ΜίδωΐΌϊ νΙοΰ η μαθητον, and there is no objection lo μη[θη\, if the last two letters were written
small, as often happens at the end of a line. Schol. Plat. A/czd. i. 387 makes Lamprocles
the pupil of Agathocles and teacher of Damon. μο[ can hardly be an adjective of place,
for Lamprocles was an Athenian.
174-5. For και . . . 8e cf. 11. 128, n., 150-1, 228-9.
183. λα,ό[: ΟΓλα^.
195. πνρ : cf. 1. 306. But Fr. 7 does not belong to the same column as Frs. 21-2.
202. ■γνη\ is perhaps γνη[σιος in some form. ■γιγνη\[ται, cannot be read, p or ν being the
only alternatives for τ.
212-14. Έλλανι\οί δ (V [rats Έθνων?] uTiaeai: the restoration is due to Allen. The
AVOrks variously entitled Ilepi ίθνων, Εθνών όιομασίαι, Κτίσΐΐς, KriVeif (θνών κα\ πόλΐων (Hellan.
Fr. 109 from Steph. Byz. ; 1611 seems to have had ϊθνών or πόλιων alone), and perhaps ilfpi Χίου
κήσΐωτ, are all considered to be identical by Gudeman in Pauly-Wissowa, Rea/enc. viii. 136-7.
216. κ for κ{ηί) occurs as early as the end of the first century in the ^Αθηναίων Πολιτύα
papyrus.
218-28. Cf. int. p. 129.
222-3. fif^'^n" α[ποκομισα\μ}](νοι 8e : the vestige of the letter following καν is too slight
to be a real clue, but suggests α or λ more than a letter beginning w^ith a vertical stroke,
or round. μ(θ{ΐ)ικαν = μιθηκαν is much more likely than μΐβ ικαν . [ (i. e. some part of Ικανός),
for there is hardly room for a substantive in 1. 222 as well as the beginning of a participle.
In Dittenberger, Or. Gr. Inscr. 55. 6, άφ€Ϊκ(ν is apparently a mere variation of spelling for
άψηκίν, Avhich occurs in 1. 13, not a perfect, as regarded by Mayser, op. cit. p. 331.
223. The correction is by the first hand ; cf. p. 130. The reading of the letter after τον
is very doubiful, but α or λ suits better than any other letter.
224. π[αροι/ : cf. 1. 226. But J7, «■, μ, 1/ or γ . [ or t . [ can be read in place of π.
228-9. ^f• ^'• ΐ74~δ> ^•
231. If the paragraphus is rightly placed (cf. however 11. 90-1, where it is not), αρίστα\_
is not to be connected with 11. 232 sqq., so that λριστα\ρχοί is not very likely. Αριστο φανης
cannot be read.
245. ίσχατοι[ : the sccond letter might be γ or i, the third a or λ, the last v.
247. ο δε Ασσ7;[.• no personal name beginning thus is known, but there might be
a reference to the places "Ασσηρα or 'Ασστ^σο'ί or adjectives derived from them, ^seither
Ασσίί [ nor Ασσιο[ς is admissible ; Ασσιν[αρο5 (a river in Sicily so spelled in Thuc. vii. 84)
is possible, but seems too long, even with ejt στρατίνοι in 1. 248, while Ασσιν\αρο\ν [σίτρα-
Ttvoi, which is possible as a reading, gives no construction. The division us στ\_ (or σιι[)
does not suggest any suitable word.
268. Perhaps Ί,ιμ\(ύνώον.
270. ]ΐ'υαδο[: the third letter could be read as λ. The division πα^νυ αδ([ is more
probable than ]y vabi[.
278. Possibly Ομφα]λην ι cf. 1. 121, η.
28ο. [θ6οδεκ]τ[ί?]ί : the tip of a vertical stroke below the line suits r, and is inconsistent
Avith the terminations of Καρκίνος, Ένριπί8ης, or Ύιμησίβΐος, who are the only other tragic poets
known to have written an Ores/es. Of Theodectes' play with that title only one line
is extant.
L 2
148 THE OXYRHYNCHUS PAPYRI
281. e above the line is cursively written ; cf. p. 130.
283. ]ίδ[.]/χοί δ[. : να is possible in place of ώ, and α or λ instead of δ after ^los.
Δ]ιδ[υ]μοί h[f can be restored, but this line may belong to the quotation from the Orestes ;
cf. int. p. 129.
301. Λυσιπ[ποϊ : of. 1. 34.
303. yrp[•. Frs. 21 and 22 join here, the tail of the ρ being on Fr. 22.
306. πνρ : cf. 1. 195, n.
327-31. Cf. 11. 23-7, n.
339. After τη is an erasure with perhaps one or two letters above it.
341. λφ[ is more likely to be connected with Xelpiov than with Xipos. It does not seem
possible to read aip[.
359. ]ιααφυ[ : poSSibly Ερ]μαφρ[οδίτ.
369-70. Allen suggests βασιλ]ΐωί φ[ίλοπατορος] (or φ[ι\α8€λφον) Πτολ(μ[αιον : but if SO
the order of the words is unusual.
392-5. Fr. 43 has been assigned to 11. 160-2 a.
442. There is no other instance in 1611 of a stop in the middle position, and it is
very doubtful whether Fr. 64 belongs to this papyrus.
1612. Oration on the Cult of Caesar.
28-2 X 12 cm. Third century.
This papyrus, which was found with 1606-8, &c., and concludes the
publication of the first of the three large finds of literary papyri in 1905-6
(cf. 1606. int.), belongs to a speech of a novel character, the subject of it being
the cult of a Roman Emperor, who is called simply 'Caesar'. One column
of forty lines is fairly well preserved, and there are beginnings of lines of a second
column, besides a small detached scrap, which does not seem to belong to Col. i.
The handwriting is a not very elegant specimen of the sloping oval third-century
type. The beginnings of the lines, which contain 15-20 letters, slope away
to the left in a marked degree, and the ends are decidedly uneven. Paragraph!
and frequent high stops occur, t adscript is written in 1. 27, but in 1. 11 its
insertion is doubtful. A correction in 1. 12 is in a dififerent hand, which used
lighter ink, but seems to be not appreciably later than the first. In 11, 22-5
apparent corruptions have not been altered.
The main purport of the oration, so far as it can be ascertained, was the
opposition of the speaker to the cult of Caesar as practised in his own city
(1. 26 Ivdabe), or rather to certain extensions of it or novelties (cf 1. i, n.)
proposed by his adversaries. To Caesar-worship in general he does not seem
to have been opposed, for in 11. 22 sqq. he expressly deprecates ασίβ^ια towards
Caesar, and disclaims any wish to deprive him of the ' glory of immortality '. In
addressing his audience he habitually used the second person plural (11. 30 sqq.),
1612. ORATION ON THE CULT OF CAESAR 149
while his opponents are also spoken of in the plural (1. 11 φασι) ; but in 1. 10
[β]ονΚοιτο a single adversary seems to be indicated, and in 1. i the second person
singular is apparently used, with reference to an opponent more probably than
to himself in an objection placed in the mouth of an adversary. The first six
lines are too incomplete to be restored : a new sentence began in 1. 7, as is shown
by the paragraphus. The speaker refers to the rites performed in honour of
Caesar, and strongly asserts his satisfaction that these were not invented by his
fellow countrymen (im^ls), but at Nicaea by an individual whom he declines
to describe (11. 9-17). His argument is that this cult ought to be left to the
Nicaeans.. and that the observance of it at his own city would be as impious to
Caesar as the celebration of the Eleusinian mysteries at any other city than
Athens would be to Demeter (11. 17-29 ; this interpretation rests on two rather
violent alterations in the text, which are, we think, absolutely necessitated
by the context; cf 1. 22, n.). Evidently conscious that he was treading on
dangerous ground, the orator then declares his intention of proving that his
own views were not really derogatory to the immortality of Caesar (11. 30-5) ;
but the text becomes fragmentary at this point, a contrast being apparently
drawn in 11. 35-40 between the previous and the existing cults at the city
in question. From Col. ii nothing of importance can be gleaned.
The boldness of the speaker in dealing with so delicate a topic as Caesar-
worship is striking, and one would gladly have learnt more of his views on this
interesting subject. As the fragment stands, it is difficult, perhaps impossible,
to reconstruct the background of the situation with any approach to certainty.
The first questions to arise are (i) what place was meant by hOah^ in 1. 26, and
(2) which, if any particular emperor was meant by 'Caesar'? The reference
to Nicaea as the starting-place of the cult to which the speaker objected suggests
a connexion with the well-known description of the origin of Caesar-worship in
Dio Cassius 11. 20 Καίσαρ h\ kv τούτω (sc. 29 B. C.) τά re άλλα (χρημάτιζα καΐ τ^μίνη
ry τζ 'Ρώμτι καΙ τω ττατρί τω Καίσαρι ήρωα αυτόν Ίονλων ονόμασαν ίν re Έφεσω και h
Νικαία γενέσθαι ζφηκζν. αύται γαρ τότ€ αί ττολβι? iv re tij 'Ασία και h Trj Βιθυνία
7τροζΤ€τίμηντο. και τούτου? μβν rois 'Ρωμαίου τοϊί τταρ' avTols Ιτοικουσι τψαν ττροσέταξξ'
Tois δ€ δτ] iivoLS (Έλληναί σφαί βπικαλί'σα?) €αντω τίνα, tols μ\ν Άσιαι/οι? h Πβρνάμω,
Τ0Ϊ9 δ6 Bievvols h Νικομήδεια τψξνίσαι €ττύτρ€ψ€. καΐ τοντ Ικάθ^ν αρξάμ^νον και ew
άλλων αυτοκρατόρων ου μόνον iv tol9 Έλληζ^ικοι? €θν€σιν, άλλα και h rois άλλοι? οσα
των 'Ρωμαίων άκοι^ει ^γέν^το. Dio's statement that the temples at Pergamum and
Nicomedia were dedicated to Augustus alone requires modification, since it
conflicts with the statements of Tacitus, Ann. iv. 37, that the temple at Pergamum
was dedicated to Augustus and Rome, and of Suetonius, A?i£^. 52, that Rome was
regularly associated with Augustus in the provincial cults; cf. Kornemann,
I50 THE OXYRHYNCHUS PAPYRI
Klio, i. 98. The correspondence between the papyrus and Dio would be made
most exact by supposing the speaker in 1612 to be a Roman (which is in any
case probable), and ' Caesar' to be Julius throughout, kvdahe, with which Nicaea
is so vehemently contrasted, might well be Nicomedia ; for the two cities were
long engaged in feud on the question of the headship of Bithynia, and the
dispute was sufficiently important to be the subject of an oration by Dio Chrysostom
(no. 38), recommending his compatriots of Nicomedia to come to terms with
Nicaea. The hypothesis that the speaker in 1612 was a Nicomedian would
also accord very well with the reference in 11. 24-8 to Demeter ; for that goddess
appears on the coins of Nicomedia (Wroth, Caial. of Greek coins of PoJttus, &c.,
pp. 181, 183, 186), and Arrian, the most famous citizen of Nicomedia (cf. Steph.
Byz. s. v.), was perpetual priest of Demeter and Core there (Schwartz in Pauly-
Wissowa, Realenc. ii. 1230). With this interpretation of 1612, which is based
upon the identification of 'Caesar' with Julius and the existence of a close
connexion with Dio, the oration was presumably delivered during the reign of
Augustus, Avhen Caesar-worship of any kind was still a novelty. But there
are several other possible modes of interpretation. The references to * Caesar '
in 1612 do not necessarily indicate that he was dead at the time when the
oration was delivered (though cf. 1. 31. n.), and if he was alive, ' Caesar' must be
Augustus or one of his successors, not Julius. The date of the papyrus practically
excludes the possibility of a later emperor than Severus Alexander being meant
(Diocletian, who made his residence at Nicomedia, is quite out of the question) ;
but, especially in view of the rather compromising character of the contents of
1612, it would be more satisfactory to diminish the interval between the supposed
date of composition and that of the papyrus, which if 'Caesar' is Julius or
Augustus seems to be about 200 years. Caracalla and Heliogabalus both
wintered at Nicomedia, and festivals in honour of Commodus and the brothers
Caracalla and Geta are mentioned in the coins of Nicaea (Wroth, op. cit. pp. 162,
166). It is also just possible that in 11. '^^-6 there is a reference to ' Caesars' in
the plural, and that these are the reigning emperors. Not only is the hypothesis
that the scene of the speech was Bithynia quite compatible with the identification
of ' Caesar ' with a much later emperor than Augustus, but the provenance of the
papyrus rather suggests Egypt as the scene, though 1612 is hardly parallel to
e. g. 471, a speech before an emperor directed probably against a praefect
of Egypt, which is also arranged in literary form, with punctuation, &c. Against,
however, the advantages to be gained by making ' Caesar ' throughout a second
or even third century emperor has to be set the consequent impossibility of
connecting the reference to Nicaea with the passage quoted from Dio Cassius.
If 'the Nicaean' was the author of the proposal mentioned by Dio, as the
1612. ORATION ON THE CULT OF CAESAR 151
coincidence with regard to the place-name suggests, Ka[tcr]apt in 1. 11 ought
to be Julius, and there is no indication that in 11. 9, 24, and 32 a different
Caesar is meant. Moreover the use of the present tense kariv in 1. 15 in
place of ην, though explicable as a mere piece of rhetoric, rather indicates
that the Nicaean in question was still alive, and if so he cannot have been
a second or third century individual, unless the circumstances alluded to in
11. 14-16 were quite different from those described by Dio.
A third line of interpretation was proposed by Sir W. M. Ramsay, who, taking
Caesar as ' the Emperor' in the widest sense, i.e. including the dead as well as
the living, suggests that 1612 deals with the degradation of true Caesar-worship,
as expressing Roman patriotism, by superstitious admixture, as e.g. the Nicaean
cult of the βροτόττονί Xttttos illustrated by the coins of that city (cf. Drexler in
Roscher's Lex. d. griech. 11. rom. Mythol. ii. 2693-6), and regards the papyrus as
a speech made in opposition to some such proposed degradation in the second or
early third century. The horse with human feet figured in Nicaean coins of
Antoninus Pius and Gordian is generally supposed to be connected with the
horse possessing humaiiis similes pedes in the equestrian statue of Julius Caesar
before the temple of Venus Genetrix at Rome (Pliny, Nat. Hist. viii. 155 ; cf.
Suetonius, y>//wi• 61) ; but whether the rider represented on the coins, who seems
to be the god Men, was also identified with Julius Caesar, is more doubtful, and
there are no indications in 1612 that the superstitious element to which the speaker
objected was concerned with a horse.
On the whole we are disposed to regard ' Caesar ' throughout 1612 as Julius,
not Augustus or a later emperor, whether dead or reigning ; but the mention of
'the Nicaean ' seems more likely to refer to some unknown innovation connected
with the worship of Julius, than to either the establishment of that worship at
Nicaea as recorded by Dio or the cult of the βροτόττονί ΐττποί. In view of the
date of. the papyrus the speech was probably composed and delivered (or supposed
to be delivered) not earlier than the second century, and it is safer to make the
scene of it Egypt (i.e. Alexandria) than Bithynia. The author may well have
been a sophist of the age of Aristides or a little later, objecting to the introduc-
tion of some new kind of Oriental cult into the worship of Julius ; but such
a speech might also occur in a historical work in the style of Dio Cassius.
Fr. I. Col. i. Col. ii.
συ 8e vea τ[ [
ταύτα νιτ[ /*[
και tovtol[ ye[
152 THE OXYRHYNCHUS PAPYRI
και μ€ταπ[ °V • i
5 av exe[i] av[ ov 45 έ«[
κ eva€§[ei ovSe ? J<ov[
όσων [." ...]■[ > ^t^ ? '^^''t
Τα TO τ . [. . .] ποιητίον ^A
ταύτα [Και]σαρα και σ^μνυ 0epe[
ΙΟ VHV αν [β]ου\οιτο' λβγω 5° ασοι[
8e α τω Κα[ισ]αρι φασι re e^fi • [
κα[ι] σθαί , [
Xeiv [[ο]1 γαρ e[i] αρχής ονχ ev --^^^ _ ^
po/zei' 77/i€iy αντα καλώ? j-^-j^^, _ j-
ποιονντ€9' άλλα Νίκα ^^ ^^ ^^j-
15 €i;y βστίΐ' ο πρώτο? κα ^ g^^^j-
ταστησα?• οποίο? μ^ν αν ~^φ ^ ^
θρωπο? ον SeL Xeyeti/• e ^^^[•
στω δ ουι^ βκανου και y^p ^r
παρ €Κ€ίν[οι]? τ^λασθω όο χ[
2θ μονοί?' ωσπζρ πάρα τοί? χ^
Αθηναίοι? τα των EXeu ^^j-
σανιων ei βονλομ€[θ]α j-
auroj/ ασφ^ιν τό\ν] r
Καίσαρα- ωσπβρ αν και τη[ν ^^ j•
25 [Α]ημητραν σξβ[ο]υμ€ν [•
[α]!/ €ί/^αδ€ τ€λουντ€? j-
[ajuTiyt T7;j/ €Κ€ί[σ]€ reXe j•
[τί/]ι/• 01/ yap e^eXei aj/ei oi/xa[t ?
[i/a ?]i των TOLOVTCOV oySev ^^ ^^^ ^j•
30 [oTi] 8 ovK αφαιρησβσθ[ζ τοντο[
[την] δοξαν τη? αθαν[α ρονντ[
[σια?] τον Καΐσαρο? ea[v € upev? [
[μοί ? π]ζΐσθητ€ παραδζ[ί στολη[
[γ μα ν]μίν epo) το νυν τ[. ^^ προσα[
35 [ ] 7"α y»/' ^^*' '^t• • •1^ ζ€ί ωσ[
[ ]ν €Τ€λ[ονμ€]γ μζταν[
Γ κ]αί τ[ουτω ?]ν ovOev
Fr. 2.
ii ι ?]€pea[
Μ
1612. ORATION ON THE CULT OF CAESAR 153
[ ]<< .[...] αρχαία e . σ[. .]€τ[
[ ]τιι/ [to\u9 θζονς μ^ν -iT^i
40 [ ]να . ay 80 . ον . μ[
8—37• • • • "^οιητίον, ταντα [Καί]ταρα και σΐμννν^ιν αν [/3ΐοΰλοιτο, Xeyw δε α τω Κα[ισ]αρί φασι
TeXelf. κα[ί1 γαρ «'[^Ι άρχήί ονχ ΐΖρομίν ημ€Ϊς αντά, καλώς ποιοΰντ(!, αλλά Νικαευί εστίν ό πρώτης
καταστησας, όττοίοϊ /xeV άνθρωπος, ου Set λε'γίίΐ»* eorca δ' ουν €Κ(ίνου και nap ΐκΐίν\ο\ις τίΚ^ίσθω μόνοις,
ώσπερ πάρα τοις Άθηναίοις τα των Ελευσίνιων, d (μ?)) βουλόμ€[θ α αυτόν άσ€β€Ίν τό[ι/^ Καίσαρα, ώσπίρ
αν κα\ τη\ν ύί^ημητραν (α)σΐβ\ο\(^ι)μ(ν {[α\ν] ivBabe τ(λοΰντ(ς [α\ντϊι την ίκίι[σ]ΐ τ(λΐ[τη]ν• ου yap
(θίλα avfl[va?\ των τοιούτων οϋδίν. [οτι] δ' οίικ άφαιρησ€σθ[€ την^ 8όξαν της άθαν[ασΊας^ τοΰ
Καίσαρος ea\v eμo\ ? π]€ΐσθητ€, παράδί^ιγμα ΰΐαΐι/ ερώ το νυν τ[ ] τα yap των κ[. . Je[ ]υ
€Τ(λ\οΰμ(}ν [ κΐαι τ\ούτω PJi» oibev . . .
' . . . he would wish these (?) really to magnify Caesar, I am referring to the rites which
they say that they perform to Caesar. It was not we who originally invented those rites,
which is to our credit, but it was a Nicaean who was the first to institute them. The
character of the man need not be described : in any case let the rites be his, and let them
be performed among his people alone, as the Eleusinian rites are among the Athenians,
unless we wish to commit sacrilege against Caesar himself, as we should commit sacrilege
against Demeter also, if we performed to her here the ritual used there ; for she is un-
willing to allow any rites of that sort (?). As a proof that you will not be depriving Caesar
of the glory of immortality, if you listen to me, 1 will tell you . . .'
I. συ 8e vea τ[ : the use of the second person singular creates a slight, but by no
means insuperable difficulty; cf. int. συ might of course be e.g. ημι\\συ, and δ fv ίλπ[ι . . .
could be read; but vea suits the context (cf. 1. 38 αρχαία), referring to the rites in
question.
3. τουτοι[ : the last letter can also be y, μ, ν, or π.
4. μ€ταπ\^ '. ΟΓ ^era-y[.
7-8. ]ν μ[ΐ\τα : the vestige of a letter following ν is too slight to aftord a real clue, and
after it nothing may be lost.
8. TO τ .[. . .]: τ and υ sometimes closely resemble each other in this hand, and τοντ[.. .]
is just possible, but το τ folloΛved by η, ι, οτ υ is preferable. There may have been a high
stop after ποιητεον, the surface of the papyrus being damaged at that point. In any case
ταύτα seems to be the subject of σίμνυνειν, not the object of ποιητΐον, though the construction
of 11. 7-10 is not clear. The sentence may have begun Avith ei.
r' 10. av [β]ουλοιτο : the vestige of the supposed ν is very slight, and there would be room
for another letter in the lacuna, for ν[β] occupies the same space as Καισ in 11. 9 and 11.
δ is possible in place of a, but av seems necessary for the optative.
I I . τω Κα[ισ]αρι : Or τωι Κ[αισ]αρι. Cf. [α]υτηι in 1. 2 7.
14. NtKoeus : cf. int.
16. άνθρωπος may receive either a rough or a smooth breathing.
22. et βουλυμ([θ]α: the insertion of a negative is required both here and in 1. 25 to give
sense to the argument. σφ[ο]υμΐν there is evidently a mistake for ασΐβοψΐν, and here either
ft is to be altered to ου, or μη is to be inserted.
26. a[v] : V is almost certain, ω or ai, which are the only other possibilities, being much
less suitable. The repetition of av is not necessarily wrong, but probably there was
a mistake of some kind, possibly the incorrect division σ(β[ο]υμΐν'[η'ν (sc. ασφοιμΐν).
28-9- The subject of (θΐλ^ι is not clear, but is more likely to be Caesar or Demeter
154 ^^^ OXYRHYNCHUS PAPYRI
than the Nicaean. The next word is presumably an infinitive ending in [. a]t or \σθα\ι or
perhaps [a}v or [ίψ. The last letter is more like t than v, and no alternative is possible,
V before ei is almost certain, η being the only alternative. The first letter must be a, -y, δ, λ,
μ, ν, π, οτ τ : a spot of ink between this and ν probably, if the first letter is a, belongs to
that, not to a distinct letter, and is in any case inconsistent with a broad letter or one
coming below the line. avei\ya\t,, ' to allow ', is difficult, but suits the vestiges better than
α[ρν€ί\σθαι. In των certainly, and possibly in τοωυτων also, the ω is closed at the top, as
ii the scribe intended to alter it to ο ; but he certainly did not write τον τοιούτον originally,
and is more likely to have intended των τοιούτων, ovbev suits the vestiges better than ονθ^ν
(cf. I. 37). The supposed stop after it is uncertain; the surface of the papyrus is damaged
and ovBeva is a possible reading.
31. a^ai/|^aaiasj : cf. Dio Hi. 36 ώστ' Λττίρ άθάνατοί όντως ΐπιθυμύς yeveaSai in the speech
of IMaecenas to Augustus. Lines 30-2 seem more appropriate to a dead than to a living
Caesar, who did not become technically θΐός till his death ; cf. int. p. 150.
34. The fetter following wv, if not r, is probably 7 or ττ,
35-6. It is rather tempting to read των κ[αισ].Ί|'ρωΐ' (cf. p. 150) ; but the letter at the end
of 1. 35 is much more like e than a. ]υ might be the end of προ το]υ.
1613. List of Earl\' Athenian Archons.
4-6 X 4-4 cm. Second century.
This small fragment from the middle of a column belongs to a list of the
earliest Athenian archons with the numbers of their years of office, like the lists
in Eusebius (Schone, Euseb. CJiron. i. 188 and App. i a. 11), Jerome {op. cit.
App. I b. 31), the Excerpta Latina Barbari {op. cit. App. 6. 217), and Syncellus
(ed. Dindorf i. 368, 399) ; cf. v. Schoefifer in Pauly-Wissowa, Realenc. ii. 582-3.
Such lists were no doubt common in Egypt ; cf. the chronological list of
Olympic victors in 222, and A. Bauer's Alexandrinische Weltclironik {Denkschr. d.
Wien. Akad. Ii). The handwriting is a small uncial of the Roman period,
probably of the second century. After the abolition of the Athenian monarchy
archons according to tradition were appointed at first for life, afterwards for
ten years, and from 683 B.C. onwards annually. The change from archons for
life to decennial archons began according to the Exc. Lat. Barb, with Alcmaeon,
but the other authorities make him the last of the first category. The papyrus
contains the name of Alcmaeon (1. 5) with the names of his four predecessors
and six successors in the best supported order (cf. 11. 3-4, n.) ; but the numbers
of the years of office are missing throughout, and there is nothing to show Avhich
view was taken with reference to the chronology of Alcmaeon. One name
is quite corrupt (L 6. n.) and another is misspelled (1. 8, n.). Only one more
name after 1. 11 is required to complete the list of decennial archons: before
1. I eight names of archons for life are probably lost; cf. Π. 3-4, n.
1613. LIST OF EARLY ATHENIAN ARCHONS
155
Αρζΐ(ρ[ρων\\
ζτη [. .
θ€σ7Γί[€]^ί|
€τη [. .
Αγαμηστωρ\
€τη [. .
Αισχύλο?
€[τη . .
5 Αλκμξωρ [
€Τη . .
Xaios [
€τη . .
Αίσιμιδ[η9
€Τη . .
Κλξοδικ[ο?
€Τη . .
Ιππομ[ζΐ/η?
ζτη . .
ΙΟ Α€ωκρα[της
€Τη . .
A\jra.v8[po?
€Τη . .
1-3- That the originally separate fragment containing (τη (three times) is correctly
assigned to these lines is not quite certain.
3-4. Between Agamestor and Aeschylus the Exc. Lat. Barb, insert Thersippus, who
is placed by the other authorities (cf. int.) 4th in the list of archons for life, Ariphron
(1. 1) being 9th, as he presumably was here.
5. Αλκμιων ; cf. int.
6. Xaiof : 1. Xapof. From this point onwards the figure lost was presumably t in each
case ; cf int.
8. Κλίοδίψί: so also Syncellus; but Eusebius has (κ)λ6ΐ'δικοί or Klidikus, Jerome
EUdicus, and Exc. Lat. Barb. Celdicus. KXh8ikos is the correct form; cf Pans. i. 3. 3.
III. FRAGMENTS OF EXTANT CLASSICAL
AUTHORS
1614. Pindar, 01. Ί, ii, vi, vii.
28.8x27-2 cm. Fifth or sixth century.
The lost poems of Pindar occur in several papyri, chiefly from Oxyrhynchus,
Dithyrambs in 1604, Paeans in 841 and P. S. I. I47> Partheneia in 659, odes of
uncertain character in 408 and possibly 426 ; but the extant epinician odes have
not hitherto been represented in Egyptian finds, so that a special interest attaches
to this fragment of a codex of the Olympian odes. It consists of a single sheet
forming two leaves, the first of which contains i. io6-ii. 45 (when complete i. 104-
156 THE OXYRHYNCHUS PAPYRI
ii. 50), the second vi. 71-vii. 20 (when complete vi. 68-vii. 26). The lines are for
the most part short, being divided much as in the extant MSS., and of the four
columns two (i and iii) are fairly well preserved, but the other two have only the
ends of lines. The upper margin is not preserved anywhere, but in Col. iii 1. 150
(= 01. vi. 95) is the last. 20 more lines corresponding to vi. 96-105 are
required to complete the ode, but these must have been omitted in Col. iv,
for 1. 158 (vii. 6) is at the back of 1. iii (vi. 72), and that the number of lines lost
at the top of Col. iv did not exceed 7 is clear from the size of the corresponding
interval between the last extant line of Col. i (1. 51 = ii. 17) and the first of Col. ii
(1. 57= ii. 21). How the 5 missing lines were distributed between Cols, i and ii
is not quite certain, for, as far as Col. i by itself is concerned, there is room for
I or 2 more lines at the bottom. But if, as seems not improbable, Ode vii
began at the top of Col. iv, the top of Col. ii can be made fairly even with the top
of Col. iv only on the hypothesis that 1. 51 was the last of Col. i. Otherwise, if
e. g. there are only 3 lines instead of 5 lost at the top of Col. ii, there will certainly
not be room at the top of Col. iv for the first few lines of Ode vii, especially since
the writing in Cols, iii-iv is by a different scribe from that of Cols, i-ii and less
compact. Neither scribe employed a formal uncial, the hand of the first being rude
and irregular, while that of the second tends to become cursive, particularly in
et at the ends of lines. Black ink was used by the first scribe as far as 1. 67,
brown ink by him in 11. 68-95 and by the second scribe, whose pen was
thinner. Iota adscript was rarely written. Both scribes inserted marks of elision
and diaeresis and occasional stops (high points), the second also occasional
breathings and an apostrophe after yap in 1. 144 ; but a breathing in 1. '^j in
brown ink was not written, originally at any rate, by the first hand. That is the
only trace of a subsequent revision apart from corrections clearly due to the two
scribes themselves. The date of the papyrus is certainly fifth or sixth century,
more probably the former, but the Byzantine documents found with it have not
yet been unrolled.
The MSS. of Pindar's epinician odes are divided into two families, called the
Ambrosian and the Vatican. Of the first group the chief representatives are
A (13th cent), C (late 14th cent.), Ν (i3th-i4th cent.), V (late 13th cent.) ; of the
second Β (i2th cent.), D and Ε (14th cent.). In 01. i this classification has to be
modified, since A there combines v/ith the Vatican group, D with the Ambrosian.
The archetype of both families is assigned to the second century, to which
the extant scholia are also referred. The text is generally thought to have been
preserved with considerable care owing to the efforts of grammarians, and to have
undergone comparatively little corruption since the second century, before which,
as is shown by quotations, it was far from being fixed. This view is borne out
1614.
PINDAR, OL. I, II, VI, VII
157
by the papyrus, which carries back the evidence some seven centuries and is
very close to the text of the best MSS., agreeing sometimes with the Ambrosian
family (11. 79, 113, 116-17, 121, H^, 169), somewhat oftener with the Vatican
(11. 8, 24, 30, 2,6, 59, 82, 85, 9a, 95, 126, 175). The difficulty in ii. 6 (11. 32-3, n.)
and the interpolation in ii. 29-30 (11. 70-1, n.) recur. A number of slips are
found, as is usual in Byzantine texts ; cf. e.g. 1618. Of the new readings the most
interesting occur in ii. 39 and vi. 77 ; cf. 11. 88 and 119, nn.
Col. i (Fol.
3 lines lost
^l^eoy ίπιτροπο^ i. 106
5 €0)1/ 7[€αίσί μηδ^ται
ζγων \το\υ\το κηδο9 lepoav
/ίe/^ίyu^[αί]σί^[•] ei 6[e μη ταχύ λίττοί
en yXvKVT^pav κ[^ν (λπομαί
^υν αρματι θοω /cA[ei 110
10 |etr ^πικουρον ^[υρων.
ο
οδον A[[e]]y£wi/ τΓα[ρ evSeieXoy ξλθων
KpovLov €μοί μ^ν [ων Μοισα καρτ€ρω
τατον /3€λο9 αλκάι τρ[€φ€ΐ ? άλλοι
σί 8' αλλοί μβγαλοί- το δ €σχατο[ν κο
15 ρνψονταί βασιλ^νσΐ' μηκ€Τί
TTaiTTaLve ττορσων
€ΐη σ€ ye τούτον ιΐ5
υψον χρονον πατξΐν e//e
Te τοσσαδ^ νικαφοροις
2θ ομιλ€ΐν προψαντον σοφ[ία καθ Ελ
λανα? ξορτα πάντα
Θηρωνι Αακρα[γαντινω αρματι ?
ανα^[ι]φορμιγγ€[ς ύμνοι ϋ. ι
τ[ινα 6](ίον TLV η[ρωα
25 τη[α δ'] άνδρα Κ€λα[δησομςν
ήτοι Πισα μξν Αι[θ9
Ι verso).
Ολυμπιάδα δ' €σ[τα
aev Ηρακλξης
ακροθινα πολέμου [
3θ Θήρωνα (5e τ€τραο[ρια^ ϋ. 5
€ν€κα νικαφορον
γβγωνητξον οπι
δίκαιον ^ζνον
€ρ€ΐσμ Ακραγαντ[θ9
35 ευωνύμων 5e πατί[ρων
άωτον ορθοπολιν
καμοντ€? οι πολλά [θυμω
upov €σχον οίκημα [ ίο
ποταμού• Σικ^λια^ [τ €σαν
4θ οφθαλμ[ο]ς' αιω[ν δ e0e
7re μο[ρσι]μ[ος πλουτον
re και χα[ριν άγων
γνησιάγι^ err apeTais
αλλ' ω K[povie παι Pea?
45 ^δθ9 Ολ[νμπου ν€μων
α€θλω[ν re κορνφαν
πορ[ο]ν [τ Αλφζου
ϊα[ν]θ([ΐ9 αοιδαΐ9 ιζ
ί[νφρ]α[ν αρονραν €τι πα
5ο τρ[ιαν σφισιν κομισον
λ[ο/7Γίΰ yei'ei των δζ πεπραγμένων
158
THE OXYRHYNCHUS PAPYRI
\iv δίκα Τ€ και πάρα δικαν]
[αποιητον ου8 αν\
\Kpovos ο πάντων πατήρ]
55 [SvvaiTO θ^μ^ν ipyoav τί\ο<ϊ\
\KaBa 8€ ποτμω συν ξνδαιμονι yevoiT αν] ϋ.2θ
[ξσλων γαρ νπο χαρματω]ν [
[πημα θνασκ€ί πα]λίγκοτον δαμασθΐν
[όταν θβον Μοίρα] π€μπη
6ο [avcKa? ολβον νψ]ηλον
[€π€ται Se λογο9 €υ]θρονοις
[Καδμοίο κουραφ[•] €παθον
[αι μξγαλα] πένθος δζ
[πιτ]νβί βαρύ
65 [κρ€]σσονων προ9 αγαθών
[ζω]€ΐ μίν Ολυμπωΐί'
[αποθ]ανοισα βρομώ
[κ€ραυ]νον ταννξ
[θξίρα Ίΐ€μ€λ]α φιλξί
70 [δ€ νιν ΙΊαλ]λοί9 αιαι φιλ€
[οντι δζ Μ]οίσαι
[και Zivs πα]τηρ μαλα φιλζί
[δ€ παΐ9 ο κίσσο]φορο^
[Xeyorrt δ (]ν κ\α]ι θάλασσα
Col. ϋ (Fol. Ι recto).
75 [β^τα κοραισι N]r]peos
[a\iai9 βιοτον] αφθιτον
[IvoL τ€τα)(^θαί] τον ο
[λον αμφι χ^ρο]νον ήτοι
[βροτων γ€ Κ€]κριταί
8ο [π€ρα9 ου τι θαν]ατον
[ονδ ασυχ^ιμον] αμ^ραν
[owoTe παιδ'] αλιού
[aTeipei συν α]γαθω
[τ€λ€υτασομ]βν
25 85 [ροαι δ αλλοτ] αλλαι
[€υθυμιαν] re μ€τα και
[πάνων e? α]ρδρα9 ζβαν
[οντω' δζ Μοιρ] α re πατρωιαν
[τωνδ €χ€ί τον ? ζ]νφρονα ποτμον
9© [θβορτω σ]υν ολβω
[€7Γί τι και 7Γ]ημ[' α]γζΐ
[παλιντραπβλον αλ]λω χ^ρ[ον]ω
[ζξ ουπ€ρ €KT€ive Λαον μοριμο9] υιο?
[σνναντομ€νο9 ev δΐ Πυ ]
30 95 [θωνι γ^ρησθ^ν παλαιφατον] τζλΐσσ^ν
9 lines lost
3δ
4θ
5 lines lost
2nd hand e^ ο\υ πολυκλατον καθ Ελλανας vi. 72
III γβνο9 Ι[αμιδαν
ολβθ9 αμ ζσπζ\τ]ο τ[ιμωντ€? δ αρ^τας
€9 φανβραν οδον [ep)(^ovTai τ€κμαι
pel χρημ' €καστον μω[μο9 δ e^
115 άλλων κρζμαται φθονί[οντων
Τ019 019 ποτ€ πρώτοι? π^ρι [δωδ^κατον 75
δρομον €λαυνοντ€σσιν α[ιδοια ποτι
Col. iii (Fol. 2 recto).
γλωσσάΐ' ακονα? λιγυρα?
α μ' ζθζλον[τ]α προσ[ζρ]πζΐ
καλλιροαί[σι]ν πνοαις ματρομα[
τωρ ξμα Χτυμφαλι? ^υανθη? Μ([τωπα
135 πλαξϊππον α [Θηβα]ν €τι
85
Κ€ν Τ€9 €pai[€ivo]v ύδωρ
πιομαι ανδρ[ασιν α]ίχ/κ[ατα]ι[σί πλακών
ποικιλον υμ[νον ο]τρυ[ν]ον νυν ί[ταιρου9
1614 PINDAR, OL. I, II, VI, VII
159
σταξη Xapi9 evKXea μορφ[αν
6ί δ' €τνμως ύπο Κυλλανα9 ορο9
Ι20 Αγησια ματρω€9 avSpes
ναΐ€ταοντζ9 ^Βωρησαν θ^ων
καρνκα Xjejtrai? θνσιαι?
πολλά δη πολλαισιν Ερμαν €νσ€ββ[ως
09 αγώνας €χ€ί
125 μοιραν τ α^θλων Αρκαδίαν
τ evauopa τί
μαί- KIV09 ω παί 2,ωστρατον
α
συν βρνγδονπωί πατρι
Kpaiuu aeOev €υτνχ][ζ^ιαν
130 So^au €χω τιν ein
80
Αιν^α• πρω[τον μ,^ν Η
140 ραν TIap6ivia[u κξλαδησαί
γνωναί τ['] €nec[T apxai\oy [ο]γ^[ίδθ9
αλαθ^σί λογοΐ9 9°
[ei] φίυγομίν Βοι[α)Τΐαν νν
€ίσι γαρ' αγγ€λοί ο[ρθθ9
145 ηνκομωι/ σκντ[αλα Μοισαν γλυκύς κρατηρ
αγαφθβγκτων αοίδαν
146 ζίπον δ€ μ6μρα[σθαι ^νρα
κουσσαν [re] κ[αι Ορτυγία?
ταν λ^ργων καθαρω σκάπτω δι^πων
αρτία μ[ηδομ€νο? φοινικοπ^ζαν
150 αμφ'€π[ζί Δαματρα
end of column
95
7 lines lost
[viv ζαλούτον ομοφρονο? evfjay
[και €γω νέκταρ χυτον Μοισα]ν
1 6ο [δοσιν αξθλοφοροί? ]
[ανδρασιν πέμπων γλυκυν] καρπον
[φρ€νο9 ιλασκομαι ]
[Ολυμπία Πυθοι Τ€ νικω]ι/
[τΐσσιν ο δ όλβιο? ο]γ [ ]
1 65 [φαμαι κατζχο^ντ αγασβαι
\αλλοτ(. δ αλλον\ εποπτευεί Xapis
[ζωθαλμιο? α]δυμ€λ€ί
[θάμα μ^ν φορ]μιγγι παμφω
[ι/οισι τ €v €ρτί]σι[ν αυ]λων
ιγο [και νυν υπ αμφοτξρ]ων•
[συν Διαγόρα κατίβαν] ποννοντιαν
Col. iv (Fol. 2 verso).
[υμν^ων παιδ Αφροδι]τα?
νϋ. 6 [Αζλιοιο Τ€ νυμφαν ]
[Ροδον ζυθνμαχαν ] γ5
1 75 [οφρα πζλωριον ανδρ]α παρ Αλφξίωί
[στ€φανωσαμ€νον ]
[αιν€σω πυγμα? αποινα] και
ΙΟ [πάρα Κασταλία ]
[πατέρα re Δαμαγητον α]δοντα Δικά [ ]
1 8ο [Ασία? €υρυχορον ]
[τριπολιν νασον πζλ^χ?
[ζμβολω ναίοντ]α? Αργβιαι [σ]υν α[ίχμα\ι
[ίθέλησω τοισιν' e| 20
[αρχα? απο Τλαπολ^μου
ΙΟ lines lost
8. The second ν οί yXvKvrepav is corr. from e : i.e. the scribe began to write γλυ^ρω-
Tfpav, which is found in DN.
K[tv : so ABE ; all that remains is the tip of a vertical stroke, which would also be
i6o THE OXYRHYNCHUS PAPYRI
reconcileable with r[e, as proposed by Schr(oeder), but not with ΐ\Κπομαι, the reading
of CDN.
9. ^yv: this form is not certainly attested in Pindar; cf. 1604, II. 13, n.
κλ[ή|€ΐι/ : so CE, Schr. ; κΧ^ιζ^ιν BADN.
13. αΚκάι: so most MSS. rightly ; αΚκάν DE.
13-14. ηλλοί]σι : this passage is corrupt in the MSS., which all have αΚ\οισί against the
metre, except V (eV a.). The Byzantine correctors read in aWoiac, but Schr. conjectures
άμφ a.
1 γ. σ€ ye: σε re MSS., except V (om. re). The Scholl. remark 6 νους' άη δε σε μΐν
τούτον τον χρόνον . . . άλλως' αλλ' (ϊη σε τοϋτ. τ. χ. κτλ., from which it has been supposed that
there Avas a reading σε δε', τε, which connects with τε in 1. 19, seems preferable to γε, but
may have arisen from the second τε.
1 8. νψον: so MSS. except D {νψοΊς).
19. τε: δεϋΝ. Cf. 1. 17, η.
2 2. 1. Ακρα[γαντινω. Ή αρματι, which is usually added by the MSS. after it, was written,
the end of this line projected very considerably ; but cf. 1. 145.
24. θ]€ον•. θΐων EV.
Tiv η\ρωα : τίνα δ' ήρωα ΑΕ against the metre.
25. Tiv[a δ'] av8pa : SO ABE ; τίν avbpa CD against the metre.
29. ακροθινα: SO ABDN^, Schr.; άκροθίνια CN\ ZenodotUS ; άκροθίνιονΈ.
30. δε : ε is corr. from ο (?). The word is omitted by A, which has τβτραωρίας.
32-3. οπι δίκαιον ξ(νον : SO MSS. (mostly 6πί, but a few om). The second syllables of
om and ^evov ought to be long, and Schr. follows Hermann in reading om (= on-tSt) δίκαιον
ξίνων. The division between the corresponding lines 68-9 comes a syllable earlier.
36. ορθοπολιν : ορβόπτολιν against the metre ADN.
41. μο[ρσι]μ[ος πλοντον : SO MSS. ; μ. ό πλοντον (Hermann) or μ. in ολβον (Heyne) has
been suggested on metrical grounds.
52-7. These lines are restored so as to correspond to 11. 89-94. The traces of the
supposed V in 1. 57, which comes above the second a of δαμασθ^ν in 1. 58, are very doubtful,
and the first syllable of εσ(^)λωι/, the reading of the MSS. in 1. 57, is against the metre ; there
is also an uncertainty about 1. 94 ; cf. n. ad loc. The reason for the assignment of all
11. 52-6 to Col. ii is explained in int.
59. π(μπη: so most MSS., Schr.; πίμψτ) A.
62. ΐτταθον : πάθον Α. The word corresponds to Ai[os] \ o- in 11. 26-7.
65. ο of [κρΐ]σσονων is corr. from ω.
66. μ οι μεν is corr. (V has been omitted by mistake after it ; cf. 1. 169, n.
70. niai : 1. aiei.
70-1. φιλ([οντι δε Μ]οισαι: a superfluous verse which was athetized by Aristophanes,
but is found in all MSS. except those of Triclinius.
75. Ν]ί;ρεοί.• SO CE ; Ήηρίωί ABDN ; Νηρηος, required by the metre, occurs above the
line in CDN.
79. [βροτων ye: γε, which is omitted by B, must have been written.
80. Considerations of space make the unmetrical form nepas, found in all ancient MSS.,
more probable than neipas, which was introduced by the Byzantine correctors.
82. αλιού: SO BE; αελιΌυ against the metre ACDN.
85. αλλαι: άλλοΊαι against the metre C^DN.
88. a Te πατρωιαν : a τε πατρώϊον MSS., which is generally retained by edd., though
Hermann conjectured ατε (or a τά) πατρώϊα, and Mommsen ά τ6 miTpatov from the schol. κατε';^ει
τον (ϋφρονα πότμον η τύχη καθάπίρ το πατρωον κατεσχΐ. πατρωιαν muSt be wrong, but tWO Other
scholia οντω δέ ενί τούτων . . . ή πατρική μοίρα κακόν φίρ(ΐ . . . and ούτω δε και eVt τούτων . . . η
1614. PINDAR, OL. I, II, VI, VII i6i
πατρώα κακόν ayti μοφα would be compatible with an ancient reading ηατρωία, of which
πατρωιαν might be a corruption, due to (βαν at the end of the previous Hne. The last
syllable of 1. 88 can be either long or short. It seems, however, more likely that, as
suggested by Lobel, the scribe has omitted an elision-mark and πατρώι αν was really meant,
av belonging to «xetr. avfxtiv ' support ' is more suitable here than the simple verb ;
cf. Py. ii. 89 βίον . . . OS άνίχ(ΐ Tore pev τα κείνων τότ avff irepois εδωκει^ peya Kvbos and iVem,
vii. 89 el 8' avTo κα\ βώς άνεχοι, and κατ(χ(ΐ in the schol. quoted above. πατρώι{α) would be an
adverbial accusative or in apposition to τ6ν ίνφρονα πότμον. This reading is probably right.
89. 8-10 letters would be expected in the lacuna, where the ordinary reading of the MSS.
gives 12, and perhaps there was an omission, «χι may well have been written ; cf. 1. 127.
92. αλίλω ;^ρ[οι/1ω : aWos χρόνος Α.
93. Considerations of space favour the correct forms Aaov (i. e. Adov) and μοριμος (a v. Κ
in the scholia and introduced by the Byzantines) against Aa'iov and μορσιμος which are found
in the MSS.
94. This Hne, if written, must have been rather cramped, for vios in 1. 93 presents the
appearance of belonging to the line immediately above TeKfaatv (1. 95).
95. TtKeaaeV. SO Β rightly; reλeσf^' ACD ; reXtVaf E; om. N.
112. ο\βοί αμ : SO ACD^ ; δλ/3οϊ δ' άμ' the rest against the metre.
114. μω[μος δ ΐξ : 1614 may of course have omitted b, which is found in the MSS., but
Λvas deleted by Boeckh on metrical grounds.
1 1 6. πρώτοις : SO AC^DE, Schr. ; πρώτον BC^N.
117— 18. ποτι\σταξη : SO CD (-^«), Schr. ; ποτιστάζη ABE.
119. epos: so Callierges (Rome, 1515), as is supposed, from the scholia (e.g. in D;
cf. also Homer, Β 603 νπ6 Κν'Κ'Κψης ορός αΐπν) ; οροις ABCE ; οροις DE (lemma) ; ορίων conj.
Schr. The objection to ίίρος is that the second syllable is expected to be long here.
121. (8ωρησαν : SO AB^ rightly ; 8ώρησαν the rest.
126-7. τψ"' : so MSS. except A [τιμάν).
131. -γλωσσίι: the accent ought to have been paroxytone. Editors generally place no
stop after γλώσσα, explaining άκόνας λιγυρας as a genitive of quality. The papyrus agrees
with Boehmer, Avho connected άκ. λιγ. with πνοαΊς.
132. προσ[€ρ]π€ΐ : SO most MSS. and edd. ; προσψποι D; πρησί\κΐΐ Triclinius.
133. κα\\ιροαι^σί\ν', the ν (φίλκυστικόν is wrong; cf. 1. 1 42, n.
135-6. fTiKev: \. fTiKTfv. Tty is merely an error.
142. αλαθίσι: SO ABD ; I. αλαθ€σιν with EN.
144. (ίσι: ΐσσι MSS.; «ση Wilamowitz, objecting to the poet's address to his poem,
and avoiding the three predicates without a connecting particle. The second letter of «σι
was not corrected, but the third was not σ originally, being corrected from a letter with
a tail, probably t or p.
146-7. Ί.νρά\κονσσαν: Σνρακοσσΰν (BDE) is the form preferred by edd. The division
of these lines does not correspond to that in 11. iio-ii, where there are two more syllables
in the earlier line.
149-50. Cf. 11. 1 13-14, where there is a syllable more in the earher line.
150. On the omission of the end of Ode vi see int.
165• αγασθαι : 1. αγαθαι.
167. That 1614 had ζωθαλμως with most INISS. rather than ζωοφθαλμως with CNO^
is not certain.
169. Considerations of space favour the insertion of ev which is omitted by BDE
before ίντ€]σι[ν.
1 70. The stop after αμφοτίρ]ων is misplaced.
171. ποννοντιαν : 1. ταν ποντιαν with the MSS. The scholia mention a v. 1. πόντιας.
175. Αλφ€ΐωι: so most MSS.; *Αλφ€ώ(ι) A. Schr.
Μ
i62 THE OXYRHYNCHUS PAPYRI
1615. Sophocles, AJax.
4-2 X3-9 cm. Fourth century. Plate IV
(recto).
This small fragment from the middle of a leaf of a papyrus codex of
Sophocles, containing the beginnings of 11. 694-705 and ends of 753-64 of the
Ajax, was found with a number of other literary pieces which date from the third
or fourth century. The writing is a small sloping uncial with a tendency to
cursive forms and to exaggeration of the final letter of a line, and there is little
doubt that it belongs to the fourth century, probably to the earlier half of it.
Breathings, accents, marks of elision and quantity, and high stops were freely
inserted by the scribe himself The circumstance that this is the first papyrus
fragment of the Ajax to be discovered gives it a certain interest, but it is too short
to be of very serious value. A new variant in 1. 699, which has apparently left
a trace in Suidas, is likely to be right, as is another new reading in 1. ']^6, and the
quality of this text seems to have been distinctly high. The division of lines in the
choric passage is the same as that in the Laurentianus (L).
Recto.
io) 1(0 Παν [Παν
695 ώ Παν Πά[ν αλιπλαγκτ€ Κνλ
λάνια^ χ^ί[ονοκτνπον
Trerpaias [αττο SeipaSos φανηθ ω
β€ων γο[ροποί ανα^ οπω? μοί
Μυσια Κ[νωσί ορχ^ηματ αυτο8αη
7οο ξννων ι[αψης
νυν γ[αρ epoi μ^λ^ι γορ^υσαι
Ικαρίων [8 vwep π^λαγίων
μόλων [ανα^ Απόλλων
6 Αάλιος [ζυγνωστο^
705 €μοι ξν[ν€ΐη δια παντός €νφρων
Verso.
7δ3 [^'P|cti κατ ημαρ τονμφαν'\ζς \το νυν Toce
[Αιανθ νπο σκηναισι μηδ] αφ'ίντ eav
755 [fi ζύύντ (Κ€ΐνον €ΐσιδ€]ιν θίλοί ποτ€•
[βλα γαρ αντον τηνδ e6] ημζραν μονην
[δίαί Αθανας μηνις ως] ζψη λίγων
1615. SOPHOCLES, Α/ΑΧ 163
[τα γαρ περισσά κανονητλα σώματα
[niTTTeiu βαρβιαι? προς θ]€ωΐ' 8νσπραξίαίί
76ο [ίφασχ^ ο μαντις όστις ανθ]ρωτΓον φυσιν
[βΧαστων eneiTa μη κατ] αρθρωπ[ο]ν φρορήΐ'
[κ€ΐνο9 δ ατΓ οίκων ^νθνς] ^^ορμώμ^νος
\ανους καλώς λέγοντος] ^υρ^θη πατρός'
[ο μ€ν γαρ αυτόν ξνν^π^ί τ€]κv[o^v δορι
699• Μυσια: Νύσια MSS., a reading which seemed appropriate enough in view of the
close connexion between Pan and Dionysus. But, as was observed by Mr. A. C. Pearson,
Μύσια is probably right. Pan was the cult-companion of the Mother of the gods (Schol.
Pind. Py. iii. 137), and in Strabo 466 the Curetes are connected with iepovpyias . . . περί re
την τον Alos παώοτροφίαν την iv Κρήτη και τους τη5 μητρός των θέων ορ-γιασμούί ev Tjj Φρυγία και τυΐς
π€ρ\ την "ΐδην την Ύρωικην τόποις. The region of Trojan Ida was in Mysia (Jebb on Ai. 720),
and Κνώσια in 1. 699 is no doubt rightly referred to the Curetes. In the scholia on 1. 699
as quoted by SuidaS S.V. Νυσια is the following note : Νύσια- ορχηματος ei8os. τών γαρ ορχη-
σίων ή μΐν Β€ρ{κνντιακη Xeyerat, ή be Κρητική, ή δέ Ώαρικη \\. η κα\ πνρρίχη with L). Νυσια ουν τα
BepfKvvTia' Νυσ/αί yap €στιν η Β€ρίκνντιακή, Κνωσία 8e ή Κρητική. ev Μνσία γαρ και Κνωσσω
enipeXrjs ή ορχησκ. Μυσ/α there has been corrected to Νυσία, but in the light of 1615 Νυσια
and Νυσ/αί are to be corrected to Mvo-ta and Μυσία$•, for what has Nysa to do with the
Berecynthian Mother .? If Nysa and Dionysus are got rid of, everything fits together, and
Sophocles is brought into line with Strabo; cf. also Virg. Aen. ix. 619 buxus . . . Pere-
cyntia Malris Idaeae, and Lucr. ii. 611 sqq. Idaeam vocitant Matrem, etc., the Curetes
being mentioned in 1. 633.
754. αφΊντ' : the supposed elision-mark and breathing are uncertain.
755. OeXoi: so L ; ^eXet the recentiores.
756. την8 e^l ημepav μονην : ΟΓ τηvbe y\ ημ. μ.] τηώ(θ' ημίρα Lj τη8έ& ημ4ραι the
recentiores; some editors, objecting to the crasis of τη ήμίρα in Tragedy, write τ^δ' td'
ήμίρα or τηΚ ev ήμερα : T^be θήμίρα Jebb. The accusative is quite as good as the dative, but
whether the scribe understood the passage is doubtful, for no stop is required after μονην.
759. βαρειαις npos β]εων δνσπραξίαις : SO MSS. ; but whether the supposed traces of « are
really ink is not quite certain, especially as the preceding α is rather large, so that βαρεία . . .
δνσπραξία may possibly have been the reading, at any rate originally.
761. φρονήι: so originally L, corr. by a later hand to φρονύ, the reading of the
recentiores. Jebb prefers φρονήι.
1616. Euripides, Orestes.
4-2 X 7-8 cm. Fifth ceniury.
A fragment from the middle of a leaf of a codex of Euripides, containing
parts of Orestes 53-61 and 89-97, written on thin vellum with brown ink in a
round calligraphic uncial hand of probably the fifth century. Elision-marks and
high stops at the ends of lines are probably due to the first hand : a corrector, who
used black ink, has altered the reading in 11. 60 and 91 and added occasional
Μ a
i64 THE OXYRHYNCHUS PAPYRI
accents and stops (in 1. 56 in the middle position). This is the fifth fragment of
the Orestes which has been obtained from Egypt ; cf. 1370. int. It is too short to
have much bearing on the divergences of the MSS., but has a new reading which
may be right in 1. 61. The verso is in much worse condition than the recto. 1623
was found with 1616.
Recto.
53 [ηκ^ι ya\p [eliS y[qv Μβί'ελεω? Tpoias απο
[λιμ]€ΐ/α Se Να[υπλΐ€ΐοι^ €κπληρων πλάτη
55 [α]κταΐ(ην ορμ€ΐ Βαρον e/c \TpoLas χρονον
[α\λαισι πλαγχθ€ίί• την 8e δ[η πολυστονον
Ελβνην φνλαξας νύκτα μη [tls €ΐ(ηδων
μζθ' ημίραν στ^ίγονσαγ [(ον υττ Ιλιω
πα[ι8]€? τζθνάσιν ety π€τ[ρων βλθη βολας
6ο [πρ]ονπ€μψβ^ ets δωμ' ημ€[τβροι/ €στιν δ εσω
[κλαιουσ α]8€λφιην σν]μφορα? T[e δωμάτων
Verso.
89 [e| ουπ^ρ αίμα yevedXiov κατ]ηνν[σ€ν
90 [ω μ€\€ος η τΐκουσα θ ως διωλ]€Τ0'
[ούτως evei ταδ ωσ\τ απ€ΐρι\κ€ν κακοις•
[προς θβων πιθοΥ αν δητα μοι τι παρθ€ν€'
[ως ασχολος ye σνγγο]νου προσ^δρια•
[βον\€ί ταψον μοι] προς κασιγνητης μολ[€]ι[ν
95 [μητρός κ^λξνβις] της €μης τίνος χαρ[ίΐ^
[κόμης απαρχας κα]ί χοας φβρονσα €μας
[σοι δ ουχί θ€μι\τον προς φι\[ω]ν στ^ιχ^^ιν ταψον
53• W'^ • " edd., as in 1. 59 and 60.
58. The supposed accent on στΐίχονσαν is somewhat uncertain, being really over the
χ : but in 1. 59 the accent on πέτ[ρων (which is also not quite certain) is above the τ.
59- 7reV[piai/ : πίτρων Cod. Parisinus 2713; ττίτρών other MSS.; πίτρων edd. Cf.
1. 58, n. Whether 1616 had (Χθη with most MSS. or (λθοι with Vat. is of course uncertain.
61. σνίμφορπί : σνμφοράν MSS. Cf. int.
91. The first hand may have written 3 letters where ηκ was substituted by the
corrector. The MSS. vary between άπύρηκ€υ (so 1616 corr., the Marcianus and edd.),
άπίίρηκα, and άπΐίρηκ iv, but the original reading here seems to have been different.
97. φικ[ω\ν•. the MSS. vary between φίλων and φίλον. φίλων edd. ω suits the size of
the lacuna here better than o.
1617. ARISTOPHANES, PLUTUS 165
1617. Aristophanes, Plutus.
23-5X ι6•7 cm. Fifth century.
Part of a sheet containing two leaves of a papyrus codex of Aristophanes, one
of which has most of the first 60 lines of the Phitus, a play not hitherto repre-
sented in papyri, while of the other leaf only a small fragment is preserved, which
is insufficient for purposes of identification. The script is a mixture of uncial and
cursive in a style resembling that of 1599, but somewhat later in date, and
probably belongs to the fifth century, like most of the extant fragments of
Aristophanes upon papyrus. The breathings and most of the accents, which are
fairly numerous, are by the original scribe, who used brown ink ; but some accents
were added in black ink, presumably by a different person. The stops, consist-
ing of double dots marking a change of speaker or single high points, are, except
at the end of 1. '^^, by the first hand, as are probably the name of the speaker
against 1. 22, the glosses on 11. 34, 39, and 51, the iotas adscript, which were usually
omitted in the first instance, and all the corrections except perhaps that in 1. 13
and the correction or gloss in 1. 17. An omission of two lines after 1. 19 seems to
have been made good by an addition at the bottom.
The corrected text is fairly accurate, and shows the same tendency as that
observable to a marked degree in 1374 ( Wasps) to support the Venetus
(11. 17, 22, 32, 0,0,, 40) rather than the Ravennas (11. 38, 43, 51, but all points
of minor importance). In two places (11> 4 and 50) it agrees with the Parisinus (A)
against both R and V. The only new variant occurs in 1. 49, ταΰθ' for τονθ\ which
makes no difference to the sense. The difficulties in 11. 17^ 46, and 48 are not
affected, the reading of the MSS. being apparently confirmed in each case. The
circumstance that the Plutus begins at the top of a page suggests that this play
was the first of the codex, as in R and V : the same argument applied to 1371-4
made the Clouds the first play of that collection ; cf 1371. int.
Fol. I recto.
ώί αργαλίον πράγ/ζ'ΓΓαΤΙ ξστιν ώ Z(v κ[αι OeoL
SovXou γ€ΐ/ίσθαί ιταρα(ρρονονν\το^ δΐσποτου
ην γαρ τα βύλτισθ' 6 θεράπων λ6|[α? τι/χτ;
δο^η'^ 8e μη δράν ταύτα τω' Κ€κτ[ημ€ΐ/ω
5 //€Τ€)(€ίί/ ανάγκη τον θξράποντ[α των κακών
του σώματος γαρ ουκ ea τον κυρών [
κρατΗν ο δαίμων άλλα τον €ων[ημξνον
και ταντα μ^ν δη ταϋτα• τω' δ[€ Ao]^[ta
i66 THE OXYRHYNCHUS PAPYRI
oy θ^σπιω^ύ τρίποδο? €κ χρυ[σηλατον
ΙΟ μίμψιν δίκαιαν μέμφομαι τ[αντην οτι
larpos (ύν και μαντι? ω? φασιν [σοφό?
y ^ ,
μίλανχολώντ απύπ^μψβρ μο[ν τον δ^σποτην
π
οστι[9 ακ]ρλ[ουθ€^ι κα^ι^τό^ιτ^ιν^ϊα^ αν6[ρωπου τυφλού
τ\ουναντίον δρων η] προσήκ αυτω [ttoiciv
15 [οι γαρ β\(ποντ€9] roty τνφλοις η[γονμ£θα
ο[ντο9 δ ακολουθεί κ]αμ€ προσβι[αζ€ταί
] . «ί
κ[αι ταντ αποκρίνο^μ^νου το παρ[απαν ουδζ ypv
€γ[ω μζν ονν ουκ\ €σθ οπ[ως σιγησομαι
19 ^ ν^ f^V ΦΡ^^ν? ? [^' ^^^ ακολονθονμα/ ποτ€
22 Χρ(μ μα Δι αλλ αφί\Κ\(ύν τον σ[τ€φανον ην λυττης τι μζ
ϊνα μάλλον [α]λγτ)[ς]• λή[ρος ου γαρ παυσομαί
πριν αν φράσης μοι τ/[9 ηοτ €στίν ουτοσι
«5 [evvovs γαρ ων] σοι [πυνθανομαι πάνυ σφοδρά
6 lines lost
Fol. I verso.
32 [€π€ρησό]μζνθ9 ουν ωιγόμην coy τον 6eov
at
\τον ^μον] μ€ν αυτοϋ του ταλ^πωρου σχβδον
[ηδη νομι\ζω[ν] €ΚΤ€Τ0^€υσθαι βων (κ0(β\[ησ]θαι α[ηο
35 F^^ " υίον\ οσπ€ρ ων μονός μοι τυγχάνει'
[π€υσομ€]νος ei γ^ρη μ^ταβαλόντα toi/^s:] τρόπους
[uvaL πανλρυργον αδικο^υ^ν ϋγι\ς μηδ^ ev
[ω? τω βί]ω τουτ αύτο νομίσας συμφίρ^ιν :
[τι δητα Φο]ίβο9 €λακ€ν e/c των στεμμάτων
4θ [π€νσ€ΐ σαφ]ω9 γαρ 6 θβος etTre μοι ταδι•
αι
\οτω ξυναν]τησ€μι πρώτον (ξιων
[€Κ€λ€ΐ'σ€ το]υτου μη μζθΐ€σθαι μ' ^ημ^ ^τΐ'
[π€ΐθ€ΐν 5]' €μαυτω'^ ^υνακολουθΐΐν οικαδ€['Ι\
[και τω ζυν]αντάίς δητα πρώτω' : του[τ]ω^ :
1617. ARISTOPHANES, PLUTUS
167
45
€£τ ov ^vvl\us την ζπι\νοιαν του 6io}v
φραζονσα^ν ώ σκαί6τατ[€ σοι σαφέστατα
ασκίίν τον] ϋιον τον ίπι\γωριον τρόπον
τωι τούτο κρΟν^ι^ ; δη'Κίρν οτιη και τνφλ]ω
τανθ'
γνωναι δοκ]€ΐ ω? σφοδρ [€στί συμφ€ρο]ν
το μηδζν ασ]κ€Ϊν v[yie? ev τω νυν] χ^ρόνωί [:
ουκ ζσθ όπως ο] χ^ρησμος eiy τούτο ρίπξΐ <f>fs[f
αλλ €ί9 CTepov τι μ€]ΐζον ; ην δ ημιν φράσηι
όστις ποτ ^στιν ο}υτοσϊ και τ'γο^υ χάριν
και του δξομξνος] ηλθζ /^exia] νων €ν[θαδ€
ημών
πυθοψξθ αν τον χ^ρη[σμον] ο τι [νο€ΐ
αγ€ δη συ ποτβρον σαυτον οσ\η\ς €ί] φ[ρασ(ΐ<ί
4 lines lost
Fol. a verso.
1 1 lines lost
72 α . [
17 lines lost
100
Fol. 3 recto.
10 lines lost
: λ . [.
] : . T6 . .0 .
17 lines lost
4. τηντα : the accent is due to the corrector, ταντα A ; r' αντα U ; ταϋτα RV.
12. απίπ^μψΐν : \. αττ€π(μ^(.
I γ. αποκρινο]μ(νου : or a7roKpiw]/iei/ot, which is equally difficult ; άποκρινομενω R; άποκρινο-
μίνου VAU ; άποκρινόμ^νος Bentley. The interlinear writing does not seem to refer to the
termination of the word and may be a gloss, as in 1. 39 ; but it is not certain that
anything was written before at, and, as Dr. R. T. Elliott remarks, at may be merely
a variation of spelling of e; cf. 11. 33, 41.
19. The partly obliterated sign against this line seems to be distinct from the abbrevia-
tion of Χρεμ(υλοϊ) immediately below and to refer to the omission of 11. 20-1, which were
presumably supplied in the lower margin.
22. αφί [λ]ων : so VAU ; R. adds ye.
32. a>s : so VAU : προς R.
33. ToG: so VAU; om. R.
34 marg. Similar but not verbally corresponding notes on (κτ(τοξίϋσθαι occur in the
extant scholia.
37. There was possibly a stop (one or even two dots) after tv, but none is
required.
38. aiiTO : so RAU (aiiTo) : ωντώί COrr. from αυτώί (?) V.
σνμή>€ρην : so RV ; ξνμφ. AU. Cf. 1. 43, n.
39. eimv is an explanation of «λακίΐ/, not a variant. Double dots are expected at the
end of the line, and perhaps the lower one has been effaced.
i68 THE OXYRHYNCHUS PAPYRI
40. τ(•ίδί : so V ; Tohi RAU.
42. Whether the papyrus had eKekevae with VAU or exeXeue with R is uncertain.
43• ζννακολονβάν : so RAU; σινακ. V. Cf. 1. 38, Π.
45• i^'vi]eis : so RV ; ξννΐης AU.
46. φρα^ουσα]!» : SO MSS. ; φράζοντος Cobet. The traces of the last letter suit i',
but not s.
48. τνφλ]ω•. so MSS.; τυφλός Hemsterhuys. The reading of the vestiges is very
uncertain, and possibly there was a stop at the end of the line.
49. τανθ : Toiff MSS. τανθ' would be more likely to become τοίβ" in view of the following
συμφίρον than vice versa.
50. χρόνωί : so AU ; βίωι R ; ejtL (with yp. yeVfi κα\ χρόνω in the marg.) V.
51. its: so RAU; eW.
51 marg. For φΐρ\(ται (a note on pinei) cf. Schol. Junt. φέρεται, άποβΚίπΐΐ. κτλ. But
the vestiges are very doubtful.
52- μΐ^Ιζον : : R also marks a change of speaker here, assigning ην S" ημίν κτλ. to βίρ{άτΓων),
i. e. Κσρίωΐ', and 1. 56 originally to Xp{epvXos).
1618. Theocritus, Idf/s v, vii, xv.
Fr. 7 24-4x24 cm. Fifth century. Plate IV (Col. x).
These fragments of a papyrus codex of Theocritus, originally about 40 in
number, combined with the exception of a few minute scraps, which are not
printed, to form parts of four leaves, of which two containing Id. v. 53-end and vii.
1-13 are successive, and a third (vii. 68-117) is only separated from the second by
an interval of one leaf, while the fourth (xv. 38-100) may have come much later.
A narrow selis of the third leaf (Cols, vii-viii) was joined so that the verso corre-
sponds to the recto of the rest of the leaf. All the leaves are much damaged,
especially the first, of which the recto is barely legible anywhere owing to the dis-
colouration of the papyrus, and the second, which is in almost the last stage of
decay, so that decipherment is sometimes precarious. The script is a good-sized
somewhat irregular uncial with a tendency to cursive forms, especially in α and λ,
and resembles the Cairo Menander Plates D and Ε and 1369 {Oedipus Tyr annus ;
Part xi, Plate vii) : it most probably belongs to the fifth century rather than the
early part of the sixth. Iota adscript was generally omitted. The height of the
column varies from 32 lines in Col. ix to 25 in Cols, vii-viii. The first hand was
responsible for a few corrections, for the marks of elision throughout, and in
Id. vii for a number of accents and breathings, besides a breathing in v. 114.
Elsewhere in Id. vii, i. e. in Col. viii frequently and more sparsely in Cols, iv and
vii, accents and breathings were inserted by a corrector, who was not appreciably
later than the first hand and revised Id. ν and vii (not always very intelligently ;
cf. vii. ici, n.), but apparently not xv, altering a number of readings and adding
a few interlinear glosses (vii. no) and stops (vii. 77).
1618. THEOCRITUS, IDYLS V, VII, XV 169
The published fragments of Theocritus from Egypt have hitherto been very
exiguous, being limited to 694, which contains parts of xiii. 19-34 (2nd cent.),
some tiny vellum scraps of Id. i, iv, v, xiii, xv, xvi, xxii (Wessely, Wiener Stnd.
1886, 230sqq. and Mittheil. Pap. Rain. ii. 78 sqq. ; 5th or 6th cent.), and of xi and
xiv {Berliner Klassikertexie v. i, p. 55 ; 7th ? cent.), and a small piece of scholia on
V, 38-49 {pp. cit. v. 1, p. ^6\ I St or 2nd cent.), all of them being practically
worthless. Hence, pending the publication of the nearly contemporary and very
much longer fragments of a Theocritus codex found by Johnson at Antinoe, 1618
is in spite of its lamentable condition the first papyrus contribution of any
value for the text of that author. The Greek Bucolic poets are thought to
have been collected two centuries after Theocritus by Artemidorus, whose son
Theon edited Theocritus alone with a commentary. Additions to the collection
were made by other grammarians down to the second century, and in the fifth and
sixth centuries the Bucolic poets were much studied, but afterwards they suffered
a long period of neglect. When in the twelfth and thirteenth centuries MSS. of
them make their appearance, the collection of Artemidorus had been reduced to
a nucleus of poems of Theocritus {Id. i, iii-xiii) accompanied by varying additions.
The leading position in the MSS. is assigned to Κ (13th cent.), which contains
Id. i, vii, iii-vi, viii-xiv, ii, xv, xvii, xvi. . . . Other important MSS. or groups of
MSS. are (i) B, a lost codex which was the basis of the edition of Callierges and
the Juntine (both 1516), and apparently had i-xvii in nearly the same order as Κ ;
{i) PQT (all 14th cent.), which have the order i, v, vi, iv, vii, iii, viii-xiii, xv, xiv,
ii . . . ; (3) Η (i3th-i4th cent.) with the order i-xv, xviii . . . ; S (14th cent.)
with the order i-xiv, βπιτάφιο^ Βιωνο?, xv-xviii ; (4) Μ (13th cent.), considered to
be the second-best MS. for the earlier poems, with the order i-xvii ; (5) V (late
14th cent.) and Triclinius (c. 1300) with the same order as PQT up to xiii,
followed by ii, xiv, xv . . . ; (6) AEU (all 14th cent) with the order i-xviii ;
(7) Ο (lath cent. ; the oldest MS., but still imperfectly collated) containing only
V. 6 a-viii, allied to AE. In Id. xv, where the divergences of the MSS. are much
greater than in ν and vii, L (14th cent.), containing v. ^^-'^v . . . but imperfectly
collated in the earlier poems, supports V Tricl.
1618, as would be expected from its comparatively late date, does not present
a very correct text ; cf. 1614. Apart from the usual difficulties arising out of the
dialect and minor errors such as /xer' for /ney' in vii. 100, ωστ for οστ in vii. 103, συ
for ov in xv. 54, avras for ανται or αντα in xv. 6η, more serious corruptions occur
in vii. 73 τα Hares for ras s.tv^.a'i^ χ v. 99 φθίγξζΐ [tl] σφ' for φθίγξ^ίται tl σαφ\ In ν
1618 tends to support Κ against Μ (11. iii, 115-16, 118, 148; 57 and 146 are
doubtful) ; but in vii the opposite tendency is just as noticeable (11. 79, 90, 109 ;
against 11. 81-2, 85, 112), and in general the eclecticism of the papyrus is evident.
170 THE OXYRHYNCHUS PAPYRI
In V and vii new readings are rare, being confined to vii. 75 alV (φύοντο for αΐτ^
φύοντί and vii. 112 "Εβρω ττάρ ττοταμω for "Εβρον irap ττοταμον (both easier than the
reading of the MSS.), and vii. 9a ev ω[/)€σι for av copea, which makes no difference
to the sense. The difficulties in v. 118 and 145 recur, though in v. 116,
where all the MSS. except S have gone astray, 1618 has the right reading.
In XV, however, where the text of Theocritus is in a much more unsettled con-
dition, there are several novelties of importance. Chief of these is [ττ€ρν](ην
in 1. 98, confirming a generally accepted conjecture of Reiske for the corrupt
στΐίρχιν or τι^ρχην of the MSS. Other valuable readings are oykos άλαΘ4ω$ in 1. 72>
which seems to account for the variants of the MSS., and 6 κην Άχ€ροντ]ι φ[ίλ]ηθ€ίί
which removes a difficulty in 1. 86 ; but in 1. 38 Karet[77es does not solve the
problem of that corrupt passage, μη ά-ηοττλαγχθτΙ^ for μη τι ττΚανηθτΐί in 1. 67 is also
attractive^ and et^e for et τι in 1. 70 may be right, as possibly ΚαΚ^νσαι for AaAeC/iies
in 1. 92. Considering the fragmentary condition of Cols, ix-x, the gains are not
inconsiderable, and 1618 as a whole is an interesting specimen of a text which
stands apart from the existing families of MSS. and seems to have been at
least as good as that of K. That in the later poems, from xiv onwards, the
condition of the text has suffered considerably since the fifth century is now
probable, but the earlier poems do not seem to have undergone much change
between the fifth and thirteenth centuries. On this subject, however, much
fresh light may be expected from the Antinoe papyrus, which does not over-
lap 1618, and consists largely of the later poems.
With regard to the order of the Idyls, the placing of vii immediately after
ν is without parallel in the later MSS., but the arrangement in the contem-
porary vellum fragments published by Wessely, in which ν followed iv and
xxii followed xiii, xv being also represented, was possibly identical. The
occurrence of fragments of xv in conjunction with ν and vii suggests that xv
occupied an earlier position than usual, but the absence of revision in xv
supports the natural presumption that this poem followed, not preceded,
ν and vii, whether the interval was large or small.
Col. i (Frs. 1-2 recto).
V. 53 [στασω 8e κρατήρα μ^γαν X^evKoio γάλακτος
[rats Ννμφαις στασω Se και aieoy] αλΧον €λαιω
55 [αί ^f κ€ και τν μολη? απάΚαν πτ^ρίλν ω8€ πατησβι^
[και γλαχων ανθούσαν υπ€σ]σ€ΐται Se γ^ίμαίραν
[Seppara ταν πάρα tlv μαλακωτ^ρα ττολ^λακι? αρνων
\στασω δ οκτώ μ^ν γανλως τω ΙΙαν]ι γάλακτος
1618. THEOCRITUS, IDYLS V, VII, XV 171
[οΑίτω 8e σκαφιβας μίλιτος ττλεα κηρΥ ζχ^οισα^
6ο [αντοθξ μοι norepiaSe και αντοθί βουκο]λιασδ€υ
[ταν σαυτω πατ^ων e^e τα^ δρνα9 άλλα τ]ί9 <^/J^/^€
[tis κρίνει αιθ €vSoL ποθ ο βονκολος coSe] Ανκωπας
[ουδ€ν €γω τηνω ποτιδ^νομαι άλλα τον αν]δρα
[αι λης τον δρντομον βωστρησομξς 09 τα? €ρζ]ίκας
65 [τηνα? τας πάρα τιν ξνλοχιζ€ται ςστί δβ Μορσ]ων
15 lines lost
Col. ϋ• (F"rs. 1-2 verso),
81 Δαφνιν 6γ[ω] δ' αυταΐ9 γ^ιμαρω? δυο πραν ποκ ξθνσα
και γαρ (μ Ω,ττολλων [φιλ€€ΐ μ^γα καί καλόν αυτω
[κρι]ον €γω βοσκώ [τα δβ Kapvea και δη e0e/)7rei
πΧαν δυο τα? λο[ί7Γαί διδυματοκο? αίγας αλμ^λγω
85 και μ α τταΐ? π[οθορ€υσα ταλαν λ(γ€ΐ αυτό?] αμβλγζΐ?
φξυ φ€υ Λακα[ν τοι ταλαρω? σγζδον ίΐκατι πληροί
τυρω και τον [ανηβον (ν ανθ^σι παιδα μολύνει
βάλλει και μά[λοισι τον αιπολον α Κλζαριστα
τα? αιγά? πα[ρ€λωντα και αδυ τι ποππυλιασδζΐ
go κημ€ [γαρ ο Κρατιδα? τον ποιμένα λβίο? υπαντων
€κμαι[ν€ΐ λιπαρά δζ παρ αυχένα aei€T eOeipa
αλλ ου συ[μβλητ ζστι κυνοσβατος ουδ αν^μωνα
ττρο? ρ[οδα των ανδηρα παρ αιμασιαισι πίφυκβι
15 lines lost
Col. iii (Frs. ^-6 recto).
I line lost
no TOi Τ€ττιγ€[? ο^ρ[ητ€ τον αιπολον ω? ξρ^θιζω
[ουτω'\? χνμΐ? Θην €ρ€θισδ€τ[€ τω? καλαμβυτα?
[μισ€]ω τα? δασυκβρκο? αλ[ωπ€^κα? αι [τα Μικωνο?
[αΐ€ΐ φοι]τωσαι τα πο[θ€σπ€ρα ρ]αδοντι
[κα]ι γαρ €γω μισ€[ω τω? κανθ]αρο? οι τα Φιλ[ωνδα
115 [σΐ'ΐίία κατατρωγοντί? υπαν^μιοι φορξονται
[η ο]υ μβμνησ οτ ίγων τυ κατηλασα και τυ σ(σαρ[ω?]
172 THE OXYRHYNCHUS PAPYRI
\'iti\ ποτβκιγκλίζβν και τα^ δρυός ΐχ^ο τηνας
τούτο μζν ου μζμναμ^ ο]ι<:α μαν ποκα TiiSe τν δ[ησα9
Ευμαρας ζκαθτιρζ καλ[ως μα\]α τούτο γ* ισ[αμι
ν. Ι20 [η8η] τΐ9 Μορσ[ων πι]ι<:ρα[ινζταί η ουχί τταραισθξν
ΐσκιλλ]α9 ϊωγ γραια9 απο σα[ματος αυτικα tlWhv
[κηγω μαν κν^ιζω Μορσων τίνα και τ[υ Se λει/σσβί?
4 lines lost
127 [α παι]ς αν[θ ύδατος τα καλπιδι κηρια βαψαι
[ταί μξ]ν €μ[αι κυτισον re και aiyiXou αιγζς ίδοντι
κ[αί σ\)(^οινον π[ατζοντί και ev κομαροισι kcovtl
130 [ται]σι. δ" €μαις [οι^σσί παρ^στί μ€ρ α μβλιτβια
[φ(]ρβ€σθαι [τΓολλος δξ και ως ρόδα κισθος ζπανθ^ί
[ου]κ ζραμ Α.[\κίππας οτι μξ πραν ουκ €φίλησ€
[τ]ων ωτων κα[θ^\οισ οκα οι ταν φασσαν €δωκα
αλλ 6γω Ευ^μηδ^υς (ραμαι /zeya και γαρ οκ αυτω
135 τ(^^ σνριγγ [ω]ρ[β^α καλόν τι μ€ καρτ ^φιλησ^ν
ου θ^μιτον Λ άκων ποτ αηδονα κισσας ζρισδ(ΐν
ουδ €ποπας κ[υκνοισι τν δ ω ταλαν βσσι φιλ^χθης
Col. ίν (Frs. 3—6 verso).
I line lost
[δωρζίται Μορσων ταν αμνιδα και τν'\ δβ θυσα[ς
ΐ4θ [ταις Νυμφαις Μορσωνι κα\λον κρ^ας αυτικα τΓ€[μψον
[πζμψω ναι τον] Π[ανα φρι]μασ[σ]([ο] π[α]σα τραγισ[κωρ
[νυν ayeXa] κηγω[ν γαρ ιδ ω]? μ^γα. [τούτο] καχ^α[^ω
[καττω Λ]ακωνος τ[ω ποιμβνος οττι πο]κ ηδη
[ανυ]σαμαν τον αμνον e? ωρανον [υμμιν] αΧ^υμαι
145 ?fyf5 ^μαι θαρσ€ΐτ€ κ€ρουχιδ€ς αυρ[ιο]ν νμμ€
πάσας βγω λουσ]ω Χυβαριτίδος βνδοθ[ϊ] λιμ[νας
ούτος ο λ€υκιτ[α]ς ο κορυπ[τιλ]ος €t τι[ν'] οχ{[ν]σί[ις
ταν αιγών φλασ[σω] τυ π[ριν η] γ [el/^e κα\\[ΐ€]ρησ[αι
ταις Νυμφαις [ταν αμνον ο δ αν πάλιν άλλα] γβνοιμ[αν
150 αι μ[η τ]υ φλ[ασσαιμι Μ€λ]ανθιος αν[τι Κομ]ατ[α
. {sic)
3 lines lost
1618. THEOCRITUS, IDYLS V, VII, XV 173
vii. 4 \k Αντιγόνης Svo τ^κνα Λνκωπ^ο? ti τι Trej/o [€]σ6[λθί/
5 [χαωι^ των er ανωθί^ν απο Κλντια9 re] και αυτω [
6 [Χαλκωνθ5 Βουριναν ος «κ ποδοβ ανυε] κραναν
7 [ef γ €ν€ρ€ΐσαμ€νο9 π^τρα γονυ ται] 8e παρ αν\ταν
6 [Χαλκωνο? Βουριναν oy e/c ποδο? ανυ^ κ]ραναν [
8 [aiynpoi π]τ€λ\ξ^αι re ζυσκιον αλσο9 ^]φο^[']'^[ον
[χλωροισι]ν π[ίταλοισι κατηρ^ψ^ί^ κομ]οωσαι
ΙΟ [κουπω] ταν [μ^σαταν οδον αννμ€9 ου]δ€ το σαμα
[αμιν το Β]ρασι[λα κατίφαιν€το και το]ν οδιταν
ί\σθ\ον συ\ν Μ.\οισαισι Κνδωνικον €ν]ρομ[ζ]9 άνδρα
ουν[ομα] /ze[f Λνκιδαν η? δ anroXos ουδξ.] κ€ τΐ9 \ίΐν
Cols, v-vi lost
Col. vii (Fr. 7 recto).
68 [κνυζα τ]' ασφοδ€λ[ω re πο]λνγναμπτω re σ^Χινω
[και πιο]μ[α]ι μαλακω[9 μ^μνημψνο^ Αγ€ανοκτ95
7ο [αυταισ]ιν κνλίκ€[σ]σι και e[? τρνγ]α χ^ίλο? ίρζίδων
[αν\ησ]€ϋντι^ν^ δβ μοι δύο [π]οιμζν[€]9 ύς μ^ν Αχαρν^νζ
[eis δβ] Λνκωπίτας [ο] δι Τιτνρο[? €γγ]υθ€ν αΐ[σ€ΐ
[ω? πο]κα τα aavis -ρράσσατο [Δα]φνΐ5 ο βουτάς
[χω?] oyooy αμψ enoveiTO και ω? δρνβ^ αυτόν ίθρ[ην]ίυν
75 [-^ly^^W* '^'■τ ^φνοντο παρ όγθαισιν ποταμοΐο
€VT€ \ιων ώί τις κατ€τάκ^το μακροί ϋφ' Αΐμ[ον
η Αθω- ή Ροδόπαν ή Καύκασον €σγατ6ω\ν\τα
ασξΐ ο (US ποκ \ζ\δ^κτο τον αιποΚον ^ypea λάρναξ
ζωον ίόντα κακ[α]ΐσιν ατασθαλίησιν ανακτος
8ο coy re yiv αι σιμ[αι λ]€ΐμων6θ€ φ^ρβον ϊο\.σαι
Κίδρον ey αδ^ιαν [μα\]ακοις άνθίσι μάλισσαι
οι
ουν€κα γλυκύ Μοισ[α] κατά [στ]6ματο9 χ€€ νίκταρ
[ω] μακαριστξ Κομάτα τυ θην ταδζ τερπνά π^πονθέ^,ς
\κα\ι τύ κατ€κλάσθη9 ey λα[ρ]νακα και τυ μβλισσάν
85 [κηρια] φ^ρβόμ^νος eroy [ωρ^ιον ίξβπόνησας•
[αιθ €π] €μοι ζωοΐς €ναρ[ι6]μιος o)0eAey ήμ€ν
[ω? τοι ίγ]ων ^νόμ^υον αν ώρ€α τα9 καλας αίγας
174 ^^^ OXYRHYNCHUS PAPYRI
[ψωνα^ €ΐ.]σαίων τυ δ' νπο δρυσίν η y υπο nevKa[i?
[αδν μ^]λισδ6μ([ν]ος καΤ€κ[€]κλ][β^ισο ^[ete] Εο(χ[ατ]α
νϋ, ρο [χω μ^ν] τοσσ απών απ^παύσατο [τον δ]e μ[€τ] αυ[θί?
[κηγων t\ol ζφα[μαν Λνκίδα φίλ^ πρλλα [/i]et/ αλ[λα
[Νυμφ]αί κημ ζδίδ[α^α\ν €u ώ[ρ^σι βονκ\ο\[(οντα
Col. viii (Fr. 7 verso).
[^σθλα τα που κα\ί Ζ[ο.]νο[<}] ^[π]ι. [θ]ρόν[6\ν άγαγ[€ φαμα
[άλλα roy e/c] ττα[ν\των μ^γ νπ(:ΐροχογ οττι γ α,€ίδ€ΐν
95 ["■Pi^^fA ?λλ [ν7Γ]ακό[νσ]ον €n.e[t] φ[ίλ]ο^ ^V)-^[° Moiaats
^ιμιχιδαι μ[€ν] Ερωτβς (πίπταρον- η γαρ [ο <5eiAoy
[τοσσ]ον [epa Μ]υρτον9 ο[σοΐ'] dapos alyes epavlji
Aparos δ ο [τά\ πάντα φιλαίτατο? avepi τηνω
παιδο9 νπο σπλάγγνοισιν iyjei πόθον οΐδβν [Αριστα
ιοο €σθλος ανηρ μίτ άριστος ον ουδί κ€ΐ/ αυτό? αζΐδ[€ΐν
Φοίβος συν φόρμιγγι πάρα τριπόδίσσι μβτάιροι
COS €κ παιδος Αρατος νπ οστβον αιθ'-€Τ ^ρ(ύτι
τον μοι Παν Ομολας ζρατον [π^^kδov ωστ€ λίλογχ^ας
άκλητον /c€[iVo]io φίλα? ([? χείρας ξρύσαις
105 «τ ecrr αρα Φιλίνο? ο μαλ[θα]κο9 etre τις άλλος
κ€ΐ μ(ν ταϋ& ίρδοις ω Π[αν] φίλ€' μη τι συ παίδες
Αρκαδικοί σ/cίλλα[ί]σίί/ ϋπο πλευράς re καΐ ωμ[ού\ς
[τ]ανίκα μαστίζουν οτβ κρία τντΘα παρβίη [
€1 δ άλλως νζυσαις κατά pev χρόα παντ [ονν)(€σσι
εν ακαληψαις
Ι ΙΟ δακνόμίνος κνα[σαιο] και ev κνίδαισι [καθζυδοις
[ei]?;? δ' Ηδ[ω]νων μ^[ν ί]^ ώρ^σι χ6ί//ατ[ί μίσσω
[Εβ]ρο> πα[ρ] ποταμ<ύ τ[€]τραμμίνο[ς ξγγυθ^ν άρκτου
€v δζ 6e[pe]L πυματοισι [τΓ]α[ρ] Αι[θι]6π(σσι ν[ομ€υοις
πζτραι [υπ]ο Βλ^μύων 6θ(ν ουκίτι Νί[ιλος ορατός
115 \>μμ([ς δ Ύ^τιδος και Βυβλιδος αδύ λ[ιποντ€ς
[να]μα κ[αι Οικ€υ]ντα ξαν[θ]άς [ξδ]ος αιπύ Δι\ωνας
[ω μ\άλο[ίσιν Ερωτί\ς ^ρζ[νθομίν\οισιν ομο[ιοι
Some columns lost
1618. THEOCRITUS, IDYLS V, VII, XV 175
Col. ix (Frs. 8-16 recto).
XV. 38 [άλλα κατά γ^ωμαν απ[€βα roi το]ντο κατ eiTT[€9
[τωμ]τΓ^χ[ο]νον φ^ρ^ μοι κ[αι ταν\ θολιαν κατά [κοσμον
40 [αμφγθζ^ ουκ αξω τυ τζκν{ον μο]ρμω SaKylet ίππος
[δα]κρν€ [ο]σσα BeXHS χωλογ [δ ου S]h τυ γ€ν[βσΘαι
[ερπωμζ]^ Φρυγία τον μ[ικκον παι]σδ€ λαβ[οίσα
[ταν κυν €]σ•ω καλ^σον τ[αν αυλ^ιαν] α\ποκ\α^ον
[ω θίοι oaao]s ο•)([λ]ος πω[ς και ποκα το]υτο π[(ρασαι
45 [χρη το κακο]γ μυρμα[κ€ς αναριβ]μοι κ[αί αμζτ]ρο[ι
[πολλά τοί ω Πτ]ολ€[μαΐ€ π^ποιηται καλά fyoy]a
[e^ ω ev αθάνατοι^ ο τ^κων ουδ€ΐ9 κακοβργ]οζ
3 lines lost
51 α[δί]στα [Γοργοί τί γβνοιμ^θα τοι πολίμισται
ΐππ[ο]ί τ[ω] β[ασίληο9 avep φιλξ μη μ€ πατησης
[ο]ρθος α[ν]ξστ[α ο πυρρό? ιδ ω? άγριο? κυνοθαρση?
«[ ']
Ευνο συ φ€[υξη δίαχρησξίται τον άγοντα
55 α>να[θ]τ]ν μ[€γαλω? οτι μοι το βρέφος pevei €νδον
Θαρ[σ6ί Πραξίΐ'οα και δη γ^γβνημβθ όπισθεν
τοί δ [ζβαν e? χωράν καυτά συναγαρομαι ηδη
Ι line lost
[e/c π]αι[δο? σπβυδωμί? όχλος πολύς αμμιν €πιρρ]€ί
6ο [e^] αυλ[ας ω] μα[τ€]ρ €γ[ων ω τ€κνα παρ€νθ€]ι[ν]
€υμαρβ[ς] ας Τροιαν π[€ΐρωμ€νοί ην]θον Αχαιοί
[κα]λλισταί παίδων π[€ίραι θην πάντα] τζλ^ιται
[χρησ\μως α π[ρ€σβυτις απωιχ^το θ€σ]πιξασα
[παν]τα γυνα[ίΚ€ς ισαντι και ως Ζ^υς αγ\άγ(.6 Ήραν
65 [βασα\ι Πρ[αξινοα π€ρι τας] θυρ[ας οσσος ο]μιλος
[θ^σπίσιος Γοργοί δος] ταν χ^ρα μ[οΐ λαψβ και τυ
[Ευνοα Ευτυχιδος πο]τ€χ' αυτας μη [α]ποπλαγχθης
[πασαι αμ €ΐσ€νθωμξς] απριξ €χ€υ Ε[υ]νοα αμων
[οιμοι δαλαια διχα μ€υ] το θβριστριον η[δ]η
170
THE OXYRHYNCHUS PAPYRI
80
85
Col. X (Frs. 8-16 verso), Plate iv.
XV, 70 [βσχίστίαί Γοργοί ποτ-[τω Alos e]i^6 yevoLO
€νδαιμω\ν ωι/θρωπβ [φνλασ]<τβυ τ oyπ€χ^o^/o[^' μ]€υ [
ουκ €7Γ ^]μι.ν μ^ν ομ[ω^ 8e\ φυλάγομαι όχλος αλαθ€ω[ς
ωθevuθ] ωσπ([ρ v€9 θαρσί]ί γνναι ev καλώ f//iep
K€L9 ωρα]ς Κ7]π€[ίτα ψίλ α\ι/δρων ei/ καλώ e[ii/y
αμμ€ π€/}ίσ]Γ€λ'[λ]θΰ[ι/ χρηστού κ]οικτβιρμονος a[uSpo9
φλιβίται] Ευν[οα αμμιν a\y ω δαλα [τ\υ βι[αζ€υ
κ]αλλισ[τ €ΐ^]δο[ί πασαι ο ταν ν]υον ^4''"]' ο\ποκλα^ας
iTp]a|i[tOa] πο[ταγ ωδβ τα ττοίκ^Χα ιτρατο\ν αθρησον
λβΙτΓτα [και ωί χαρι^ντα θ^ων τηρον^^α^ματα φάσεις
ττολτν\ι. Αθηναία ττοιαι σφ ^πονασαν ^ρίθοί
3 lines lost
αυτός δ ως θαητος ew αργυρβας κατακ€ίτ]αι
κλισμω ττρατον ιονλον απο κροτάφων] κ\ατά\8αλλώ
ο τριφιλητος Αδωνις ο κην Αχ€ρον]τί φ[ίλ]ηθ€ίς
πανσασθ ω δνστανοι ανανντα κωτίλΧ\οίσ\α\ι.
τρυγόνας (κκναισ^υντι πλατ€ίασδοισα]ί α[παν]τα
μα TToOev ωνθρωπος τι i5e τιν ei κωτιλαι et/xe]y
90 \πασσαμ€νος ίπιτασσ€ Χυρακοσιαίς eTTi-aajcrei? [
ως €ίδης και τούτο Κορινθιαι ei/zes ανωθβν]
ως Kat ο Βίλλβροφων Π^λοποννασιστι λαλ](υσαι [
δω]ρίσδ[€ν δ ίξ^στι δο]κω τοις [/1]ωρ[ΐ€^]σσί
μη φνη Μ[ίλίτωδ€ς ος αμων] καρτ(ρο[ς] ethe line is too near the supposed ρ to be the final ν of (νθ(ΐ]ν
and seems to be the accent of Αχαιοί.
62. [κα]λλισται : SO D and another Paris MS. according to Ahrens, and a Venetian
MS. according lo Ziegler ; κάλλιστί Ρ ; κάλλιστα Κ &c., Wil.
64. Upav : so KP ; "Βρην most MSS.
67. αντας : aiira(t) Or αυτά MSS. ; αΰτα Wil.
μη [α]ποπλαγχθηί : μή τι (or τν) πλανηθτ^•: MSS. ά^:o^:λayχθrJi, an aorist often found in
Homer, may well be right. For the hiatus cf. e. g. the reading of the MSS. in vii. 88.
68. fxev : so most MSS. ; e^e KH.
αμων : SO mOSt MSS. rightly ; δωμά Κ ; δ/χωίϊ P.
70. Γοργοί : so most MSS. ; Γοργώ KE. For the stroke connecting ποτ and τω (by
the first hand) cf. vii. 102, n.
e]i^6 : t'L Ti MSS. Cf. int.
71. φυλασίσίυ : SO S ; φνλάσσίο the rest.
τ ονπ(χονο\_ν : 1. τώμπ€χονο\ι>.
72. φνλαξυμαι : SO MSS.; φυλαξοΐιμαι the aucicnt editions.
αλαθ€ω[ς : άθίως Κ ; αθρόως ΡΑ ; αθρωί Μ ; αθρόος (sometimes after ό'χλοί) other MSS. ;
άθαρίως Ahrens. αλαθ^ως accounts satisfactorily for the reading of Κ and the attempts to
emend it. The traces suit s• α verv well.
77. ,v]8o[i : if ev]8o[v, the usual form in the MSS., had been written, part of the ν would
have been expected to be visible ; but this is not certain.
86. Αδω^ΐί ο κην Axepov]ri φ[ιλ]ηθ6ΐς : "Αδ. b κψ Άχ. φιλύται most MSS. apparently
{φιλψαι Κ) ; "Αδ. ίς κψ Άχ. φιλ^ιται PV ; Άδωι/ ίς κψ Άχ. φιλάται Ahrens ; 'Άδωι /if ό κ^ν Άχ.
φιλητός Reiske, which comes near the reading of the papyrus, c! for of relative, though
common in Homer, seems to be very rare, if found at all, elsewhere in Theocritus ; but
φιληθΐ'ις would be a natural emendation to some one who misunderstood ο . . . φιλαται. Cf.
int. and vii. 75, n.
92. λαλ]ίυσαι : λαλίνμ(ς MSS. Cf. int.
94. ΐΐη : or (ΐψ.
g6. σιγή : SO Κ ; σίγα Other MSS.
98. [nepvyiv : SO Reiske for σπίρχιν or π4ρχην (Κ). The restoration is fairly certain,
for though e (but no other letter) might possibly be read instead of σ, there is not room for
five letters in the lacuna, and the traces suit σ better. Cf. int.
99. φθ(γξ(ί [u] σφ' : φθίγξύ τι σάφα Ρ; φθfyξe:τai τι σάφ' Other MSS. rightly.
100. Γολγωί : SO Κ ; γολγώ ΟΓ γολγόι^ the rest.
Ν 2
i8o THE OXYRHYNCHUS PAPYRI
1619. Herodotus iii.
Fr. lo IO-8 X 13-5 cm. Late first or early second cen-
tury. Plate V(Fr. 10).
These portions of a roll containing the third book of Herodotus belong, like
1092 (fragments of the second book in a different hand), to the large find of literary
papyri made in 1906 which produced 1082-3, 1174-6, 1231, 1233-5, 1359-61,
1610-11, &c. About 40 pieces, subsequently reduced by combinations to 25,
have been identified ; but several of the still more fragmentary texts accompany-
ing the Herodotus were written in hands so similar that small pieces of the various
texts can hardly be distinguished, and two of these MSS., Homer, Ν-Ξ
and a tragedy (?), seem to have been actually written by the scribe of the
Herodotus : we have therefore ignored for the present a large number of un-
identified scraps. Parts of about 220 lines scattered over chs. 26-72 are
preserved, the earlier columns being better represented than the later. The
hand is a well-formed round uncial of medium size, of the same class as P. Brit.
Mus. 128 (Homer Φ-ί2 ; Kenyon, Class. 7>^r/j•, Plate viii, there dated too early), 8
(Alcman?; Part i, Plate ii), and the Berlin Alcaeus (Schubart, Ρλ/. Graecae,
Plate xxix b), and no doubt belongs to the period from A. D. 50 to 150. Some
documents of the Domitian-Trajan period, e. g. 270 (A. D. 94 ; Part ii, Plate viii)
and P. Fay. no (a. D. 94; Plate v), are written in practically uncial hands of
a similar type, and the care with which iota adscript is inserted also supports a
late first-century date. Κ is written in two pieces separated by a space, and
Τ is q-shaped. The columns had 39-40 lines, and the beginnings of lines tended
to slope away slightly to the left. The lines range from 21-6 or 27 letters,
with an average of 23-4. The common angular sign is used for filling up short
lines. Punctuation was effected by short blank spaces and paragraph!, which
in the case of longer pauses are combined with a coronis, as e. g. in the British
Museum Bacchylides papyrus. A few stops (in the middle and low positions)
which occur (11. 177, 332, and 410) are not due to the original scribe ; but he was
responsible for the breathings in 11. 180 and 434, the occasional diaereses over
initial t or υ, as well as for the insertion above the line of an omitted word (1. 446),
and probably for the corrections or alternative readings added above the line
between dots in 11. 143, 327, and 380. The MS. has undergone considerable
revision, for at least two cursive or semiuncial hands, which are different from
that of the main text but approximately contemporary with it, can be dis-
tinguished in various notes in the upper margin or between the columns, either
correcting or explaining the text (11. 69, 131, ^^j, 379, 410, nn.).
1619. HERODOTUS III i8i
1619 is nearly i^ times as long as 1092, which is much the longest Herodotean
papyrus published hitherto ; the others, most of which also come from
Oxyrhynchus (18, 19, 695, 1244, 1375, Γ. Munich in Archiv, i, p. 471, Ryl. ^c^,
Brit. Μ us. 1 109 in Viljoen, Herodoti fragmenta in papyris servata, p. 44; cf.
also the lemmata in P. Amh. 12), are quite small. Since 1619 is also the earliest
or one of the earliest authorities for the author (P. Munich is ascribed to the
first or second century, the rest to the second or third), it is of considerable value
for the history of the text. The mediaeval MSS. are divided into two groups
known as (a) the Florentine, headed by A (tenth century) and Β (eleventh century),
and {β) the Roman, headed by RSV (all fourteenth century) : C, an eleventh
century MS. of group (a), Ρ (fourteenth century ; mixed) and Ε (excerpts only ;
thirteenth century) and other late MSS. are unimportant. Stein gave a decided
preference to (a), regarding unsupported readings of (/3), which had been preferred
by Cobet and other scholars, as in most cases conjectures. Hude puts the value
of the two families almost on an equality, with a slight preference for (a). 1619
bears practically the same relation as 1092 to the two groups, the agreements
with (a) being nearly twice as numerous as those with [β). A similar relation
is traceable in two of the other Herodotean papyri (19 and 1244 ; the others, so
far as they go, support (a), except P. Amh. 13) ; and the evidence is now
sufficiently extensive both to afford a substantial justification of the eclectic
method pursued by Hude before the appearance of 1092, and to confirm the
natural superiority on the whole of the older group. The tendency to
attest the antiquity of suspected interpolations, which is so often exhibited by
papyrus texts and is already traceable in regard to Herodotus (cf. Viljoen, op. cit.
p. 59), is illustrated by 1619 in 11. 28 and 69, where τ&ν κακών probably and
καλζομ€νονζ certainly occurred, though in both cases bracketed even by Hude, who
is more conservative in this respect than his predecessors. Other passages in
which the text of the mediaeval MSS. is confirmed against changes introduced by
modern scholars are 11. 17, 147, 168, ;^^^, and 411. Here the traditional reading
can generally be defended without much difficulty, but not in 1. 168, nor perhaps
in 1. ;^;^;^. With regard to new readings, in 1. 108, a passage in which the
repetition of the same word σκύλαξ had caused a difficulty, 1619 omits the word
in the third place in which it occurs in the MSS., while modern ediunlikely. , . r 1
^21. c]pL : so RSV, edd. There is room for u]p<o., but cf. 1. 139 ψγ- , , . , , ,
28 1619 probably agreed with the MSS. in havmg rcou κα.ω. which is bracketed b)
Stein and Hude'rbuti 39-33 are on a separate fragment of which the exact position is not
''''''3;. [e. Πβ,σα. : om. S. The size of the lacuna makes it certain that 1619 agreed with the
other MSS.
r4-5^VpKayo.|ra (R, edd.) is slightly preferable on grounds of space to .p[o.ayayo.\ra,
^''°;t7:::,:t'e>,.: so R, nude; .W...eVSV. t-H^.;;(ABP, Stein) ,s too shoi-t.
60 The wo strokes afte^ κα\.ομ^.ον, presumably refer to the marginal note (1. 49)-
whereCv'^rhavetJn repeatid Tt the banning of ^^e line; cf^l620. n.^^^^^^^^^^^
which is omitted by ABP and apparently erased m C, is omitted by Stein and bracKetea d)
Hude buUf the 'corrector wished to omit it, βασμ,.ο.. 8..a.ra[. not ^^^}f^^'^^^^^^
would'be expected in the note. Probably one or more words are ^^^^efo^^^^^^^^^
the note is explanatory, like that in the margin of 1. 355, ^^i^^^JJ^Vn^^iVLdefecdv; at tW
the note refers to 1. η 2, where βασ.\ψο. δ.καστα. occurs m the text (1619 is detective
point), is unlikely in view of the critical mark agamst 1. 69.
'::^';:;!^;:^:•1^^0, edd. ; .XW «..o. ... PRSV ; om. .XW σ. Naber ;
'^' '^"oi^Mier δ, the MSS. have rov. σκνλακα., but 1619 is probably right in its omission ;
cf. int. and|.^xo5, n.^^ ^ ^^^^ ..,...(.) is POSsibly by the -iter of the sc^^^^
on 1. 410, but is certainly not due to the writer of notes on 11. 69 and 355, and secerns no^
?o be by ihe first hand. The size of the lacuna suits the hypothesis that the first hand
had omitted ασ. „ , , , . , .
132-3. o.44[orarov. : ο.κ[η]{ον, (ABCP, edd.) IS too short.
135. L^.: so RSV {eJ -θ..), edd. ; [.α,Η (^BC) .^s too long.
136. κaτa\aμβa[v,iv]^. before this edd. insert κακά with RSV.
\]l iBcTgrfe^vi'thle original reading r, ^i e, while RSV rightly have ra,. δ'
(or δ€ ?) fV, agreeing with the superscribed reading. nn<;atisfactorv for
1 47. φρ.^ : so MSS., Stein ; ^{σήφόρ^. Naber, Hude. .σ]|βφορ« is unsatisfactor) , tor
the supplement in 1. 146 is already long enough.
149. και: om. P.
i88 THE OXYRHYNCHUS PAPYRI
150. bf : Kriiger's conjecture hrj is not supported.
168. TeKeaai: SO ABRSV ; om. E; καΚΐσαι (=-ei}aat?) C; (Ικάσαι'ί Slein. Hude
brackets this inappropriate word.
172. προσ(κτησθαι : ττροσκτησασθαι ^SY.
175• ■'"'7* Kpicrei: τη ■γινομ(ντ] κρΊσα RSV.
176. Καμβυσην: Καμβνσία MSS. liere as elsewhere in Hdt., though in the other cases
the word belongs to the first declension, and the Attic accusative is of course Καμβυσην.
With regard to Ξΐρξης, Ότάνης, and some other proper names in -ης both forms of the
accusative are found in ]\rSS. of Hdt. ; cf. Smyth, op. cii. § 438.
176-7. ToSe: om. RSV.
181. ηκουσ]α[Γ : om. ABCE.
231. Whether ίί'6Γ6λλ]'τ[ο] (ABCE) or ej/eriiXa]™ (RSV) is to be read is not certain.
There is no reason for supposing that in 1619 ό was inserted before σόί, as suggested by Bekker.
267. /^[ίτίΤΓίίτα χρονωι'. μ^τίη. χρ. uarepov MSS., which is too long. The vesiige of a
letter following λωι suits μ very well, but χ[ρονωι followed by μ(τ(π(ΐτα or varepov could be read.
υστίρον is Superfluous ; cf. vii. 7 χρόνω pereneira.
268—9. f7ri7'yiyeXX[ofro αυτωι: (ττηγγΐΚον το αυτό (V), inrjyytXov αύτω (S), inriyyeKKov αντω
(Schweighauser) are all unsuitable.
286-8. The position assigned to this fragment is far from certain, nep[i in 1. 288 being
doubtful, ρ or [o]t can be substituted for π, and η, ι, ν, or π for p.
319. 8ιαφ[οροι : the MSS. are corrupt, having διάφοροι eovres ίωντοΊσι {ίωντοί
RSV). Kriiger suggested ΐρΊζοντίς for foires•, Reiske supplied οίκψηι before iovres, Valckenaer
avyyeveis after ίωντοίπι. 1619 was clearly shorter, and the sentence may have ended Avith
διάφοροι, for in 1. 320 ων, which occurs in the MSS. after τούτων, is omitted, and the new
sentence may have begun ων τον των €iv[fK.fv. A connecting particle is, however, not
necessary with τούτων (cf. e.g. 1. 13), and the absence oi a paragraphus below 1. 319 suggests
that 11. 317-21 may have formed one sentence in the papyrus, though the scribe is not very
regular in the use of paragraphi.
320. For the omission of ων after του\των, which may be merely a slip, cf. the previous
note. RV have tveKtv for eiv eKfv.
321—2. e'^inepne: there is not room for απ(\πΐμηΐ (ABC, edd.), unless 01 before Κορίνθιοι
was omitted.
325. τιμωρεν[μ(νος : τιμωρεόμΐνοί RSV. Cf. Smyth, Op. cit. § 684. 2. The restoration
TTpoTepoi (npOTfpop RSV) is supported by the parallel in 1. 380; cf. n.
326-7. For the alternative form πρηχμα, which is ignored by the ]\ISS. of Hdt., see int.
328. ^oiKTfipf : so I\ISS. ; [οίκτιρα, the form preferred by edd., would be long enough.
333. ayada τα: SO MSS. ; (rn) αγαθά, τα edd. since Aldus.
339. (s : tls AB less correctly. At the end of the line, where the supplement is rather
long, producing a line of 27 letters, the division was perhaps (Ίχρην, but only 8 or 9 letters are
expected m the lacuna at the beginning of 1. 340.
344. σφί, the reading of the MSS. corrected by edd. to σφ(α, is rendered certain by the
size of the initial lacuna, απιθι suits the space better than απΐλθί (RSV).
346. φι^^οτιμιη: for η φι^οτιμιη (RSV, edd.) there is not room, if, as is probable, there
was a space after ων.
351. Either απΐβαλον or μ(Τ€βΛον (ABC) can be restored.
353. The supplement, based on AB. is rather long, producing a line of 27 letters, and
perhaps either η- should be omitted with R (SV om. ηδη), or re, or even both.
355. The marginal note is in the same hand as that in 1. 49.
361—2. RSΛ' have €Κτΰνοντα instead of eACTeii/or . . . ^apenvTfs.
363. fyivo]jTo: or eyeiOjrro (ABS, Stein).
1619. HERODOTUS ΠΙ 189
365. αφ(θη αν Ί,αμ^ος : αιρίθησαν Σαμίοις RSV.
370. δ^: om. RSV.
372. Αακ(δαιμ[ονιοισι (PRS ; -ηαι V) suits the size of the lacuna better than Αακί8αιμ[οΐίοι
(AB, edd.).
373-4. Πο]|λυ(ί[ρ(ατ)€α σ]τρατ. : the lacuna ought not to exceed 4 letters, but the omission
may have been supplied above the line, as in 1. 446.
378-9. ί]|δ[€θί'το: the supposed vestige of δ may belong to a paragraphus. In the
margin are traces of a note, which might refer to 11. 361-2, but is nearer to col. xxiv.
379-80. For the alternative spellings πρη]•γ[ματα, πρη]χ[ματα cf. 1. 327 and int.
383. τη[5: om. MSS. But cf. e.g. v. 82 τί} 'Χθψαίτ] re (re om. SVU) TTj Πολιαδι, vii.
43 '"S Άθηναίη τη Ιλίάδί.
386. wpoT^epoi ; ττρότ^ρον RSV.
406. τ\ρυ ορυ [y/xaros τοντον : τούτον τον υρ. RSV,
4 1 0. The supposed stop after λι]μ(να, which is not wanted, might be the bottom of a
critical sign referring to the marginal note, which begins n(ept) λιμ({ι/α) and seems to be of
an explanatory character. In the second line wcret π[' or π[' (i.e. παρά) or ω? eti[at can be
read; the third line does not seem to be >[ι]μί[ί' . . . The ink is lighter than that of the
main text and the marginal note on 1. 131, and the hand certainly different from that of
11. 49 and 355 marg.
411. κατά: so MSS., which continue «ϊκοσί δργνύων. Stein and Hude follow Eltz in
reading καί for κατά, which is not satisfactory. As Lobel remarks, κατά would be expected
here to mean ' about ', especially since most of the dyke was under water ; cf. the frequent
examples of κατά with numerals quoted by Schweighauser, Lex. Herod, ii. 10. Hence the
mistake may well lie in όργνιίωρ, for which we suggest opyvias, unless there was a substantive
(Ικοσιόρ-γνιον, meaning a ' length of 20 fathoms '.
423. 01 : om. C.
427-8. 1619 r,o doubt had δ;; ταντην ίΐχ€ (om. RSV) between αυτ[?;ΐ' and το]τ(.
430. παραγιν^το\^ί : Or pOSSibly f]? τα [Σονσα.
434. Of the supposed breathing over (]ξ only the tip of a horizontal stroke is left, which
might be interpreted as belonging to a paragraphus. Lines 433-4 would then begin [x]os
and [σι (]ξ, but this arrangement does not suit 11. 432 and 435-6 very well, and €ξ is a very
natural word on which 10 place a breathing; cf. 1. 180.
438. e]n-f[(re or f7rei]rf[ can be read.
440. Οτανη: Or. η AB, edd. ; Or. ή C.
443-4. f'pyuv 8e ovbep απ' αντών λαμπρορ yiveTai MSS. 1619 was shorter and presumably
omitted ylvtrai or άπ' αντων rather than λαμπρόν.
445. κατ(στ]Εωσας : κατίσ]τωσα5 (RSV) can equally well be read, but is somewhat less
suitable to the supposed length of the initial lacuna.
446. μ[ΐν, inserted above the line by the first hand, is read by all the MSS.
447. τοιωνΒί: so Hude with RSV; τοίων ABCP, Stein.
1620. ThUCYDIDES i.
14 X 14-3 cm. Late second or early third century.
Plate VI.
This fragment consists of the upper portion of two columns and a few
letters from the beginnings of lines of a third column of a roll containing
the first book of Thucydides, and covers chs. ii-i4with considerable lacunae.
igo THE OXYRHYNCHUS PAPYRI
The script is a medium-sized uncial of a second-third century type, resembling
843 (Part v, Plate vi) and 1175 (Part ix, Plate iii). That it is more likely to have
been written before A. D. 200 than after is indicated by the notes referring
to alternative readings, which have been added later in the upper margin
by a different and cursive hand. These notes are very like those in 1234
(Part X, Plate iv), of which the main text is not dissimilar in style to that
of 1620, though in a larger hand, and suggest a date not later than the reign of
Caracalla. The main text may therefore well be ascribed to the reign of
Commodus or even M. AureHus. The columns are rather tall, containing about
54 lines of 18-22 letters. High stops accompanied by paragraphi (which are to be
restored after 11. 3, 10, 14, and 21) are frequent, and there are occasional diaereses,
but no breathings or accents. Iota adscript was written in 1. 13, but
apparently not in 1. 62. An omission in 1. 3 is supplied by the original scribe,
who also superscribed a variant in 1. 67 ; but a slip in 1. 8 is corrected by the
writer of the marginal notes, which seem to be variants obtained from a different
and older MS., not corrections ; cf, 11. 67-8, n. Critical signs are placed against
the notes and the corresponding line of the text, four different signs being found
in Col. ii.
The relation of the papyri of Thucydides to the vellum MSS., \vhich are
divided into two families, CG and BAEF, Μ approximating to a middle position,
is discussed at length in 1376. int. ; cf. also Hude, Btill. de tacad. royale de
Danemark, 19 15, 579-85. Of the five best papyri the first century specimens
tend to support C, those of the second century B, especially in the later books.
In the chapters covered by 1620 both C and F are defective, the lost portions
having been supplied by later hands, in both cases from MSS. of the C family
(c and f), so that F and f represent different families. 1620, a careful and
elaborately revised text, agrees with Β against cfG four times, and with the
C family against Β twice. 1621, however, which is about a century later than
1620, inverts the relationship to the two families, agreeing five times with C, twice
with the Β group. 1622, which is about fifty years earlier than 1620 and agrees
twice with either group, and 1623, which is three or four centuries later and
agrees twice with the Β group, once with CG, are both too short to show their
real character. But the. customary electicism of papyri in relation to the
mediaeval MSS. is apparent throughout the four Thucydides fragments in the
present volume, and the division of the MSS. into two families is no doubt later
than the papyrus period ; cf. the parallel case of the MSS. of Herodotus
discussed in 1619. int.
New readings in 1620 occur in 11. i, 73-4, 76, and side by side with the
traditional readings in 11. 61, 67-8, 72 (cf. also Col. i. marg., 11. 58, 109, 112, nn.).
1620. THUCYDIDES I
191
Some of these are concerned \vith trivial differences, such as the omission of the
article or the order of words ; but in 1. 67 the traditional participle is no better
than the hitherto unrecorded infinitive, and, especially since the marginal readings
tend to be superior to those of the main text, the new reading proposed in the
marginal note on 11. 67-8 may well be right. A tendency to smooth slight
irregularities and roughnesses of style is traceable throughout 1620-3, especially
in 1621, which confirms two modern emendations ; and, although some of the
novelties can be explained as editorial improvements, and omissions may be
merely due to accident, the four new fragments seem to represent texts of rather
high quality, and distinctly support the impression gained by a survey of the
longer Thucydidean papyri such as 16 and 1376, that without resorting to
the drastic changes proposed by Rutherford there are many improvements to be
made upon the tradition of the mediaeval MSS.
Col. i.
]ίλ€ΐ και ολ(λα)
α'\πο[ν'\ωτζρον Τροιαν et 11. 2
λ]ον [αλ]λα δι α^ρηματιαν 3
τ]α 7τ[ρο] τούτων ασθενή ην
κ^α,ι αυ[τ]α ye δη ταυτ[α ο\νομα
στ]οτατα των ττριν y[eli'o
μ]€να• δηΧουται tol[^ e]pyois
υπο\δ€€στ€ρα οντά τ[η]9 φη
ον
μη]? και τ[[α)ΐ/"Π νυν π^ρι
αντ]ων δια tcvs ποιητα?
λογ]ον κατ[βσ]\ηκοτο$['] €π(ΐ ΐ2. ι
και μ€τα τα Τρλωϊκα [Γ^^ί?]]
η Ελλα9 €τι] μ^τανιστατο
τ€ κ]αι κατωικιζξτο ωστ€
μη ησνχ^ασ(ασ)]αν ανξηθηναί[•]
η Τ€ γαρ] αναγωρησι? των 2
ΕΧ\ην]ων €^ ΙΧιου γρονι
α γ(νομ]ζνη πολλά ζν€ω
Col. ϋ.
[Χ ]
[^ τα π€]ρι TOS [ναυβ
*J [τ€]σσαρα5 και τούτα «[τη] ίστι
μάλιστα και αλ(λα)
5 ^ τταλαιτατη
55 βαοΊλξίαι• ναυτικά τ€ (ξη[ρ] 13. ι
TV€TO η Ελλα9 και της θα
λασση? μάλλον avTuyov
Χ ΤΟ' πρώτοι δβ Κορινθιο[ι]
λΐγονται εγγύτατα τον
6ο νυν τρόπον μ€ταχ^€ΐρι
3 σαι τα πίρι νανς και τριη
pel? πρώτον ev Κορινθω
τη? Ελλαδο? νανπηγτι[
θηναι['] φαινζται 6[€ και q
65 Σαμιο\ι]? Αμβινοκλη? Κο
ρινθ[ιο]? νανπηγοί? ναυ?
• S•
-Ο ποιησαι τ^ττ[α^α?• ί\τη
δ (στι μαλισ7[α] τρια[κοσια
[ej? την τέλίυτην τ[ο]ΐ'5[€
ηο τον πολβμον οτ€ -^μ^Ιΐ-
νοκλη? Ι!αμι[οι?] ηλθ^• ν[αν 4
192
THE OXYRHYNCHUS PAPYRI
[χ/ζωσε] και στάσεις et/ ταΐ9 1 2. 2 '^ /ΐί^αχ]£α re παλα[ι]οτατη
[τΓολζσιν] ωζ em το πο\[υ e]y[i
20 \yvovTO α]φ ων €κπ€ίπτον
[τ€? τας] TToXeiy ζκτιζον
[Βοιωτοί] Τ€ γαρ οι νυν (^η[
32 lines lost
ω[ν'\ ri[8]ri ίσ[μ\^ν tf Κοριν
θίθύ\ν '/\ΐ:γ['^]τ['°'-'-] '"'99^ ^[^Ρ
75 Kvpa[io]v[s] (τη Se /J.a[\i
στα δ[ίακο]<τι.[α €]ξη[κ]ον[
τα €[στί μ]^χ[ρΐ- του αυτόν
31 lines lost
χ [ους €ποίησατο και Ρην^ι
Ι ΙΟ α.[ν ζλων ανβθηκ€ τωι Απα
[λ]λ[ωί'£ τωι Αηλιωί Φωκαης
D τ€ [ΜασσαΧιαν οικιζον
re[y Καρ-χ^ηδονωυς ew
κω[ν ναυμαγουντ€ς δννα
Col. iii.
13. 6 115
13. 4
[τωτατα γαρ ταύτα των ναυ
τικ[ων ην φαινίται 8e
και τ[αυτα πολλαις γ€ν€
α[ί9 υστέρα γβνομ^να των
Τ[ρωικων τριηρίσι μ€ν
3 lines lost, traces of 8 lines,
and 32 lines lost
14. I
Col. i. marg. κ«ι αλ{λα) ' and so on ' recurs in the third marginal note at the top of
Col. ii. !"he preceding word apparently does not occur anywhere in the known text
of 11. 1-54, and an unknown variant seems to be indicated; cf. 11. 67-8, n. ]e a« or ]κασι
or ]<\ei can be substituted for ]eXei.
I. Tpniav: την Ύροίην MSS. Cf. II. 58, 61, 73-4, nn.
3. re, supplied by the first hand, is in all the MSS.
τ:[ρο] τούτων : SO A'^cF^GIM, edd. ; Ti[pos] T. (ΑΈΕΕ^) is unsuitable to the size of
the lacuna.
4. y( : om. cfG.
8. των, the reading of the first hand, is a mere error.
II. ηΒη, which has a line above it to indicate deletion, is not known as a variant here.
14. [μη ησυχαο(ασ)]αν : the traces of α are very slight, but ν is fairly certain, and there
is not room for more than 7 or 8 letters in the lacuna, μη ησνχάσασα cP, Hude ; μη
ησνχάσασαν ΑΈΈΜΡ, Stuart Jones.
17—18. €vea[xpuaf] : SO AEM ; ΐνίόχμωσΐ Bcf, edd.
19. em TO πολ[ι/ : SO cEf, Hude ; om. το ABM, Stuart Jones.
21. Toy] TToXets: SO MSS., Stuart Jones; vias (Madvig, Hude) does not suit the size of
the lacuna.
22. Gertz wished to omit yap.
Col. ii. marg. Cf. 11. 58, 61, 67-8, 72, nn., and for καια\{\α) Col. i. marg. n.
58. Which word or words in this line were referred to in the lost marginal note at the
top of Col. ii is uncertain. The only clue afforded by the MSS. is the circumstance that in
Ε the t of πρώτοι is by a later hand, perhaps indicadng πρώτον as the original reading ; cf.
πρώτον \n'\. 62, If not πρώτοι/, the lost variant may have been ol Κορίνθιοι.•, cf. Π. i, 61,
73-4, nn.
1620. THUCYDTDES I I93
6i. vavs: τας va£s MSS., agreeing with the reading in the second marginal note.
τριηρας immediately following has no article, and τάς can be dispensed with ; but the
omission may be due to the accidental collocation of vavs and τριήρη which belong
to different sentences. Cf. 11. i, 58,• 73-4, nn.
62. πρώτον (v Κορινθω : SO BcEf, Hude ; iuK.np. AGM, Stuart Jones. Cf. 11. 73-4,
76-7, nn.
63. ναυπη-γηβηναι : SO ABEGM, Stuart Jones; ewavn.cfG suprascr, Hude.
67. ποιησΜ : ποιησας MSS., agreeing with the superscribed reading. The infinitive
makes the statement less definite and is quite appropriate.
Τ6ττ[α]ρα5, with the marginal variant [τ(]σσαρας : cf, the superscribed σσ in the case of
le. i. 4 ΐφνλαττον and 38 ηττηθΐκν.
βη-2,. ([τη] δ 6στι μάλιστα : SO all MSS. ; the marginal variant <ai ταντα ([τη\ (στι μαλ. is
unknown here, but at 1. 76, where 1620 like ABEGM has err, δε μα[λι]στα, cfG add. have
'ίτη δε μαλ. και ταίττ, and Bekkcr's Ν €τη δε μάλ. κα\ ταύτα. The most probable explanation of
this duplicate set'of variations is that the original reading was that of 1620. marg., but και
ταντα was omitted, δ being inserted in its place (so 1620. 67, ABEGM) ; και ταύτα was, how-
ever, supplied in the margin, from which the words were restored to the text in the wrong
place (as in N), resulting in the subsequent emendation of ταντα to ταύττ] (cfG add.). If the
reading of the later MSS. (G is 13th cent. ; cf are later than CF), which editors have hitherto
adopted, be supposed to be original, it is almost inexplicable that neither the scribe nor the
corrector of 1620 knew of the reading κα\ ταύτη in 1. 76, and that the corrector should make
matters worse instead of better. The source of the marginal variants in 1620 is probably
older than the main text, and may well have been a Ptolemaic papyrus or at any rate as old
as the archetype of 1620. In view of the great antiquity of the reading κα\ ταΐιτα and the
very late character of the evidence for κα\ ταύτη we much prefer to explain the variations in
the light of their chronological arrangement, and to regard the readings of (a) 1620. 67 and
the older MSS. and (b) Ν as intermediate steps in the process by which the reading
preserved in 1620. marg. became corrupted into that of cfG add.
71. ηλθ€: so MSS.; ηλθ^ν edd. The earlier papyri of Thucydides as a rule omit
V ΐφΐλκνστικόν at the end of a sentence ; cf. e. g. 1622. 81, 84.
72. παλο[ί]οτατ7? : SO somc of the deteriores; the earlier MSS. have πα\αιτάτη here, as
has the marginal note, but in e. g. ch. i. i παλαιότερα occurs.
73-4. ω[ΐ'] η[h\η io[p]iV η Κυρινθΐ(ύ[ν 7]ίΐ'[ί]τ[αι] : ων 'ίσμΐν γίγι/εται Κορ. MSS. (G at first in-
serted yiyviTai before ων Ισμΐν, but erased it), ισ is fairly certain, and the preceding letter can
be η, μ, or V, while the letter after <.ο[μ]ίν, if not 77, must be ν : the traces of ev and of a letter
after a[v] are very slight and indecisive. [ι]σ-μ[ε]ΐ' Κορ. might be read, but before it ων [φι?
is not long enough and ων [η]μΗς is inadmissible. η[δ]η is not very satisfactory, but prefer-
able to cu[v] σ[ν]νισ[μ](ν. The insertion of the article before Κορινθίω[ν may be right
(cf. 11. I, 58, 61, nn.); the loss of it may be due to the hiatus created when yiywrai
was placed before instead of after η Κορινθίων. That 1620 had the form 7]ίί'[ί]'-[αι] (with cf)
is uncertain, for vlty^^l•^*! ^^^ ^^ read.
75-6. μα[λι]στα: μάκ. καΐ ταύτη cfG add., edd.; cf. 11. 67-8, n.
76-7. ό[ιακο]σ<[α ι]ξη[κ]οντα : ίξηκ. και διακ. MSS. The traces suit δ[ιακο]α•ι[α very well,
but in 1. 77 μ](λ[ρι- is quite uncertain.
109. To what the critical sign refers is uncertain. The only variants m the Mbb. at
this point concern the spelUng 'Ρψααν or 'Ρψίαν (in other authors spelled 'Ρηναιαν or
'Ρηναίαν), except for the dittography 'Pfjveiav άνΐλών in cf.
112. The critical sign perhaps refers to a variant concerning the spelling of Μασσαλία»
(Mf σσαλίαν, Μασαλίαν, Μασσιλίαν, or Μασσαλίαν MSS.).
194 THE OXYRHYNCHUS PAPYRI
1621. Thucydides ii {Speeches).
14-3 X 1 1-4 cm. Fourth century. Plate V
(verso).
This leaf of a vellum codex is of a somewhat novel character, since it
belongs to a collection of the speeches in Thucydides. The fragment contains
the conclusion of the speech of Archidamus at the beginning of the war (ii. 11)
and the beginning of the funeral oration of Pericles (ii. 35). There are 21 lines
on a page and 20-5 letters in a line. Traces of the pagination are visible
on both sides, but the figures are illegible. The hand is a calligraphic uncial of
the same type as the Codex Sinaiticus, and the fragment has a special palaeo-
graphical interest, for some omissions by the first hand (11. 18 and 26) have been
supplied in darker brown ink by a cursive hand. These cursive additions
are not later than the fourth century, and the main text is likely to belong to the
early or middle part of that century. Stops occur in the high, middle, and low
positions, but are partly due to the corrector. A stroke for punctuation (1. 3) and
occasional diaereses and elision-marks are due to the original scribe, a breathing
to the corrector. Iota adscript was generally written : where omitted, it has been
supplied in at least one place (1. 16) and perhaps two others (11. 10 and 15),
apparently by the corrector.
The text as corrected is on the whole a good one and has several interesting
novelties, which are in most cases superior to the readings of the MSS. The
omission of the unsatisfactory ούτω in 1. 4 confirms a conjecture of Madvig,
though confidence in the omissions in 1621 is somewhat shaken not only by the
two mistaken omissions of the first hand, which are supplied by the corrector, but
by a third (1. 36), which has escaped his notice, νμίν for ημίν in 1. 25 confirms the
conjecture of Hude already substantiated by 853. vii. 15, the confusion between
these words being of course common, αμννασθαι for αμύν^σθαι in 1. 4 and the
omission of των before άλλων in 1. 19 may well be right. C is supported against
Β five times, Β against C twice ; cf 1620. int.
Recto. Verso.
\οτατοι a[v e]i€v• npos Τ€ το e 11. 5 αντων οραν ω? [ον\ν εττι τοσαυ[
7Γί^€ίρ€£σ[^]αί ασφαλέστατοι^ την πολιν στρατ€υοντ€9 Kat
[η]μ€ΐ9 §€ ονδ βττι αδύνατον 6 μ€γίστ[η]ν δο^α[ν] οίσομ€νο[ί
[α]μννασθαι πο[λ]ιν ^ργομ^θα 25 tols re προγονοί? και νμιν α[ν
5 [αλλ]α TOL? πασιν άριστα παρζσκ[(ν *« ^ων αποβοι[νοντων
■ ^ 70£ί €7Γ αμφοτζρα ^π^σθί ίο
[ασ\μ€νην' ωστ€ -χ^ρη και πάνυ • γ ι
1621. THUCYDIDES Π (SPEECHES) 195
[€λ]πιζ€ΐν 8ia μαχηί Uvai αντο[υ^ πη αν Tiy ηγηται• κοσμο[ν
[ει] μη και νυν ωρμηνται ev ω[ι ? και φνλακην nepL navros ti[ol
ονπω παρζσμεν- αλλ' όταν ΐν ουμενοι και τα παρ[αγ]γ€λλ[ο
ΙΟ τηί γηι ορωσιν ημάς 8ηονντα[9 3° μ^ι^α ο^€ω9 β€)(ομΐν[ο]ι• καλ
Τ€ και τα ικανών φθ6ΐροντα[? [λ]ιστον γαρ ToSe και ασφαλ€στ[α
ττασι yap ev tols ομμασι. και ^ν τ[ω 7 τον πολλούς οντάς ενι κοσμωι
παραυτικα οραν πάσχοντας γ^ρωμενους φαινεσθαι•
τι αηθες οργή προσπιπτ€[ι επιτάφιος
15 και οι λογισμωι (λα)(^ιστα [χρ]ω
μενοι θνμωι πλείστα ες ε[ρ]γδ 35 Φ μ]εν πολλοί των {εν)θαδε ηδη 35• ι
καθίστανται• Αθηναίους δε 8 ειρηκοτων επαινουσι τον
τι προσθεντα τωι νομωι τον λο
και πλειον των άλλων εικός « . r
γον τονοε ως καλόν επι τοις [
τοντο δρασαι- οι αρνειν τε αλλω . -,
'^ '^'^ _ εκ των πολέμων ϋαπτομε[
2θ \ά\^ιουσΐ' και επιοντες την τω ^
'■ •'* 4° ^οις αγορευεσσαι αυτόν εμ^οι
πελας δηουν μάλλον η των —τ, j, ,
11^••• ό αρκούν αν εόοκει είναι αν[
4- [α]βννασθαι: αμύνίσθαι οντω MSS., Stuart Jones ; άμνν(σθαι omitting οϋτω Hude,
following Madvig. For other variations between ημννΐσθαι and άμΰνασθαι cf. e. g. i. 96. i.
II. τα (Κίΐνων : SO C ; τα \ΐίνων A ; τάκΐίνων BEFM, edd,
12-13. και ev . . . opav is deleted by Hude, who alters πάσχονταί to πάσχονσί.
14. τι : Τ€ C.
15. Usener wished to delete 01.
18. Ti, supplied by the corrector, is in all the MSS.
19. άλλων: των άλλων MSS.; but τώι/ αλλωι/ has just occurred in 1. 18 and άλλων is quite
defensible.
21. των: Τ))»* MSS., rightly. It is certain that των was first written, but the second
half of the ω is incompletely preserved, and ω may have been corrected to η.
22. αυτών: αυτών C, Hude, Stuart Jones ; ίαυτών ABEFMl αυτών was probably
meant by the papyrus and is likely to be right.
22-3. τοσαυ\την: SO CEG marg. Β γρ. F^ γρ. M^f ex corr., edd. ; την αλλην ABFM' ;
τοιαύτην some late MSS.
24• ottro/xeroi : oiaptvoi B.
25. i^^ti': SO 853; ημΊν MSS. Cf int.
35. o[i μ](ν : so ABEFM with Tiberius, Syrianus, Dionysius, Castor, and IMax. Plan.
Hude (but not Stuart Jones) formerly carried his preference for CG to the length of reading
μ(ν ovv, but now (ed. maior^) brackets ουν.
3g_6. ί^δ;; ίίρηκοτων : SO CG {ή^η add. G^), schol., Syrianus, Max. Plan., edd. ; (Ιρηκότων
ήδη ABEFM ; om. ήδη Tiberius, Castor. The MSS. of Dionysius vary between ήδη dp. and
(ϊρ. ήδη,
39. πολίμων : πόλίων ABE.
40. Dobree wished to omit αυτόν.
41. δ': δί CG, edd. αρκούν αν : αν άρκοϋν Μ.
Ο 2
τφ THE OXYRHYNCHUS PAPYRI
1622. ThUCYDIDES ii.
17-5 X 21-2 cm. Early second century. Plate IV.
The chief interest of this much damaged fragment, which consists of
the lower halves of two columns and a bit of the column preceding, and contains
parts of chs. 6^ and oj of Thuc. ii, is palaeographical, for on the verso is part of
a contract for loan dated in Mecheir of the nth year of Antoninus Pius
(a. D. 148), so that the recto must have been written before 148, probably in the
reign of Hadrian, and is an unusually well dated specimen of second-century
uncial writing. Other papyri which more or less approximate to it in style and
date are 9 (Part i, Plate iii, which was there dated somewhat too late), 841
(Part v, Plate iii), 1233 (Part x, Plate iii), and 1619 (Plate iv). A > -shaped sign
is used for filling up short lines, and pauses are indicated by occasional blank
places, paragraphi, and stops chiefly in the middle position (the high stop
at the end of 1. 51 is not certain). A mark of quantity occurs in 1. $'^, and
a correction of spelling, possibly in a different hand, in 1. 81. The column con-
tained 29-30 lines of 16-22 letters. Iota adscript was written. 1622 agrees with
C twice and with the other family twice ; cf. 1620. int. The only new reading
occurs in the very compressed sentence beginning in 1. 84, of which the end is not
preserved. Here the text of 1622 is apparently corrupt as it stands, but is
perhaps nearer the original than the reading of the MSS., which may be only an
emendation; ci.n. ad loc. ■ ■
Col. i.
17 lines lost and traces of 7 lines [5ίωί] 7r€[p]iyfi/ecr^ai r\T]v\
25 \σοντον τωι Πζρικλ]α eue 65. 13 [''^°^]^V Π[eλ]oπoγuησ■ι[
[pLaaevae TOTe\ αφ ων αυτο9 30 [ω^ αυτών] τωι πολ^μωι
[7r/Doe]y[^]a) [κ^ο-ΐ [πα^νυ αν pat
Col. ii. Col iii.
16 lines lost 16 lines lost
[κ]αίτο[ν]α[υτον depov]? t[€\€V 67.1 J^I^io]? π[αρα τωι ^ιταλκηι 67. 2
τωντο? Αρίστ[€ν]9 Koptv π€[ί]θονσί τον ^αδοκον
θιος και Λακ(δ[α]ιμί[ν]ιων τον γ€γ€νη[μ]€νον Αθ[η
50 πρ€σβΗ9 Ανηριστο? και Νι 8ο να[ιον Χ]ίτα\κον νιον• TO\ys
KoXaos και Πρατοδαμο^' ^
m m άνδρας βγνίβίσαι σφισι- \ο
και 1ίγ€ατη9 Ιιμαγορας ^ s> α or
και Αργαοί ιδιαι ΓΓολ[λ]ί?
πω? μη διαβαντί? ω? β[α
1622. THUCYDIDES Π 197
•πορζνομζνο[ι ey] την Ασι σιλζα την €Κ€ΐνον πολιν [
55 <iy 09 βάσιλξα [ei π]α)9 7Γ€ί το μ€ρο9 βλαψωσι ο δζ >
σ€ΐαν αυτόν γ[ρ\ηματα re 85 7^/?"[^]€/? 7Γορίυομζνον['ί
7ra/3e;(e[i]f kul ^\ν\μιτο\^ avTovs δια τη^ Θραικης e
[μ]€ΐν• αφικΐΌνν[τ]α{. [ω?] Σι πι το πλοιον e/xeXXe>
[τ]αλκην πρώτον [τ]ο[ν T]ij τον [Ελ]\ησποντον π€[
6ο [/ojeco ey Θραικ7][ν βον]\ομ€ [ρ]αιω[σ€ΐν] πριν ^[σ]βαιν€ΐν [
Fr. 2. ]' ο .[
28-9. τ[ί;ι/ Ι πόλ]ιν : SO CG, Aristides, edd. ; των ABEFM.
51. Τίρατο8αμος : SO Μ, edd. ; ΏρατόΒημος CEFG ; ΣτρατόΒημος ΑΒ.
57- παρ(χ([ι]' (ΑΒ corr. EFM) suits the vestiges much better than παρασχίΜν (CGB^?,
edd.).
79. τον: om. CG.
80. viov : νιων A ; νόν Hude.
81. σφισι : for the omission of ν (φΐλκνστικόν cf. 1. 84 and 1620. 71, n.
84 sqq. For e/xeXXe in 1. 87 the MSS. have ω epeWov, making τηραιώσ^ιν intransitive
contrary to the customary usage of the passive in this sense, as was noticed by Thomas
Magister (early fourteenth century), e/neXXe may be merely a blunder due to some one who
wished to make mpaiajaeiv transitive and ignored ξνλλαμβάν€ΐ, which follows ΐσβαίναν (1. 89)
in the MSS. and governs nopevopevovs αυτούς. The loss of the end of the sentence in 1622
is unfortunate, for the construction was not quite clear. After ξνλλαμβάν€ί the MSS.
continue άλλου? δ* (so CG ; 8η Hude ; om. ABEFM, Stuart Jones) ξυμπίμψας μ(τά τοϋ
Α(άρχον τοϋ Άμανιάδου και €κίλΐνσ(ν (Kfivois napabovvai. e^iXXe cannot be defended as long as
the subject of it is Sitalces, who, as the context shows, had no intention of allowing the
Spartan envoys to cross the Hellespont ; but with the correction (6) ψ(\λ€ (sc. the ship) the
difficulty arising from the intransitive use of nepaiaiafiv would be removed, since a second
accusative for that verb could easily be understood from nopsvopevovg avrovs : cf. Polyb. iii.
113. 6 Tovs Xoinovs ΐζαγαγων . . . κα\ nfpaicoaas κατά 8ittovs τόπους το ρΐϊθρον, ω tptWov Avould
on this theory represent an attempt to emend the text as found in 1622.
Fr. 2. This fragment was adhering to the top left-hand corner of the papyrus,
but apparently by accident. If it really belongs to 11. 19-21, it may refer to ττροσ^ΐ\νομ\ΐνωι
or 11ίΚο\πον\νησιοις.
1623. THUCYDIDES iii.
14-7 X 5*5 cm. Fifth or sixth century.
This fragment of a leaf of a vellum codex contains part of Thuc. iii. 7-9,
with fairly numerous stops (in all three positions), paragraphi, accents, breathings,
and diaereses. The only correction preserved, the insertion οΐ a. ν (φξλκνστικόν in
1. 45, is due to the original scribe, who wrote a good-sized upright oval uncial
hand of the fifth or sixth century. Iota adscript is omitted once and written
once. Traces of ruling are discernible on the recto, which is the hair side. The
text in spite of its comparatively late date stands somewhat apart from the
'98
THE OXYRHYNCHUS PAPYRI
mediaeval MSS., agreeing once with CGM, probably twice with the Β group
(cf. 1620. int.), and presenting several new readings. Of these the omission of
των v€&v in 1. i and to ττζζόν for τον -η. in 1. ii are quite defensible. More interest-
ing is the variant ανί[•πλίνσ€ for l-n-Aeuae in 1. 8, where the simple verb was rather
ambiguous. The precise nature of the variation in 11. 19-20 is obscured by-
lacunae. 1616 was found with 1623.
Recto,
[πλεωυ? α'\ποπζμπ€ί παλι\~ y. 3
[βτΓ οίκον] 6 Ασώπιοζ- avros 4
\δ €)(ων 8]ω8ζκα αφικν^ΐ
[ται €9 Ναν]πακτον• και νστ€
5 [ρον Λκαρ\νανα^ αναστη
[σα? πανδη]μ€ί. στρατβνβι
[ζπ OiuLuSas] και ταΐί re ναν
[σι κατά ? τον Λχ]€λωον ave
[πλξνσβ και ο] κατά γην στρα
ΙΟ [το^ ζδηίον τη]ν χωράν
[ω? δ ου προσ€)(]ώρουν, το μ€ 5
[πξζον αφιησιν] αυτό? δ€
[πλ^υσας ey Λ€νκ]αδα και από
[βασιν €ί Νηρίκο]ν ποίησα
15 [μ^νο? αναχωρω\ν διαφθβί
[perat αυτο9 re κα]ι τη9 στρα
[τιας τι μ€ρο9 νπο τ\ων αυτό
\θζν τ€ ξνμβοηθνσ]αντων
[και φρουρών τίνων ?] ων υστ€ρο 6
2θ [νποσπονδου? τους] νεκρού?
[αποπλ€νσαντ€9 οι] Αθήναι
[οι πάρα των Λ€υκα]δι.ο:ν
ΙΟ lines lost
Verso.
δ€υΤ€ρθν €νΐκα [και €7Γ6ί
δη μβτα την €[ορτην κα
35 Τ€στησαν ey λο[γου9 €ΐπον
τοιάδξ' το μ€ν [καθιστό?
τοΪ9 ^Ελλησι νο[μιμον ω αν
δρ(9 Λακ€δαι[μονιοί και
^υμμαχοι Ί^σμ^ν rouy
40 γαρ αφιστα[μ€νους (ν τοΐγ
πόλεμοι? κ[αί ζυμμαχιαν
την πριν [απολαποντα?
οι δ€ξαμ€[νοι καθ . όσον μ€ν
ωφ€λουν[ται €v ηδονηι
45 ίχουσίν νο[μιζοντ€ς δ ξΐ
ναι προδ[οτα9 των προ του
φίλων )([ξΐρου9 ηγούνται
και ουκ α[δικο9 αυτή η αξι
ωσΐ9 ίστ[ιν €ΐ τυχοκν προ9
50 αλληλ[ου9 οι re αφιστα
μ€νοι κ[αι αφ ων διακρι
νοιντο \ισοι μ€ν τη γνω
μηι ον[τί9 και εύνοια
αντι[παλοι δ€ τη ι πάρα
ΙΟ lines lost
9. I
I. TrXfiovs α]ποπ(μπ€ΐ : πλ. άποπίμπΐΐ των ν(ων MSS. Since αί νη^ς OCCUrred ίη the
previous sentence, the repetition is unnecessary.
8-9. Qi^f 1[πλ€υσε : ewXenae MSS. άνανΧΐϊν OCCUrS Only OnCC in Thuc. i. IO4. 2 και
άναπ\(νσαντ(ς από θαΚάσσης is τον ΝίΓλον, where it implies sailing up Stream. If this was also
implied here, ΐ'αν|[σιΐ' ey τον Κχ\(\(ύον αν. may have been the reading ; but avt^nXivae may simply
1623. THUCYDIDES III 199
mean ' sailed out ', in which case it hardly differs from the simple verb and κατά means ' in
the direction of or 'off' or perhaps even ' on '. Oeniadae was situated near the mouth of
the Achelous, surrounded in winter by marshes into which the Achelous flowed (Thuc. ii.
102, 2), and of which one connected with the Gulf of Corinth according to Strabo,
p. 459. The ships may therefore have been taken a little way up the river. A compound
verb has this advantage over the simple one that it is not open to the interpretation ' he
sailed down the Achelous ', Avhich is inadmissible here; cf. iv. 25. 8 ran μίν νανσ\ nepmXfv-
aavTfs κατά τον Άκΐσίνην (in Sicily) ποταμον την γην ΐ^ηονν. That avinXtwe here means
' sailed back ' (Asopius had already passed Acarnania on his way up the gulf to Naupactus)
is less likely.
II. to: t6v MSS. Thucydides uses both the masculine and neuter of π€ζός substan-
tivally
18-19. a^ro\[eev (ABEFM, edd.) suits the length of the lacuna better than αυ7-ό|[^ι (CG).
The supposed accent is very doubtful.
19-20. τίνων?] ων νστ€ρον \[υποσπον8ονί : τινών ολίγων κα\ ΰστ€ρον υπ. MSS. There
is certainly not room for both τίνων and ολίγων and there is no trace of και, but ων instead of
being ων might be the termination of τιν]ων or ολιγ^ων with δ before νποσπονδους in 1, 20,
though the supplement there is quite long enough, ν and ep of νστίρον are fairly certain ;
the στ is cramped and seems to have been corrected, probably from π, and 5 is not a very
satisfactory reading, ων is not in accordance with Thucydidean usage in this context, και
varepov υποσπόνΒονς being common.
37-8. ανψρ^ς: SO ABEFM; om. CG, edd.
41. πολ€μο(! : soCGM, edd.; πολιμίοις ΑΒΈ¥.
1624. Plato, Protagoras.
Fr. I 10-5x17 cm. Third century. Plate VI
(Cols. Ixiii-iv, Ixvi).
These scanty remains of a roll containing the Protagoras originally consisted
of about 100 pieces, of which nearly three-quarters have been placed and some
very minute scraps ignored. The identified fragments, which amount to about
230 lines in all, are scattered over the latter part of the dialogue from pp. 337-
57, representing 33 out of the last 71 columns, but none at all completely.
The upper margin is partly preserved in Cols, ii, xx, xxxv, xxxvii, xlv, Ixi,
Ixiii-v, the lower in Cols, i, xvi, and Ixiii, showing that each column contained
37 or 38 narrow lines of 10-17 letters, usually 12 or 13. The writing is a hand-
some specimen of the now well-known third -century type of uncials approximating
to that of the early biblical codices ; cf. 1365. int. Like 1017 {Phaedrns), 1624
is remarkable for the presence of many corrections or alternative readings, which
have been inserted in a different and cursive hand. These seem to have been
written somewhat later in the third century than the scholia in 1241, but to be
contemporary with the scholia in P. Grenf. ii. 12, the main text in those two
papyri being in hands very similar to the first hand of 1624, which is
probably not later than the middle of the century. Iota adscript was written.
200 THE OXYRHYNCHUS PAPYRI
so far as can be judged. Paragraph! were employed by the first hand, but in
the four places in which they occur have been placed in brackets by the corrector.
Stops in all three positions occur, besides double dots marking a change of
speaker, but in many cases are due to the corrector, who was apparently responsible
for a breathing in 1. 169 and accent in 1. 285. Wedge-shaped signs for filling
up short lines, occasional diaereses over t and υ, and probably the accent in 1. 16
and elision-mark in 1. 227 are due to the first hand. The corrector's omissions,
apart from the bracketing of paragraph! mentioned above, are indicated in
11. 114, 272, 589 by a stroke, elsewhere by dots, above the letters in question.
Papyri of Plato ai'e now fairly numerous, 1624 being the 19th known ; but
no fragments of the Protagoras have been discovered previously. For this
dialogue the chief MSS. are Β (the Clarkeanus), Τ (the Marcianus), and W
(Vindobonensis 54) ; but 1624 happens to cover very few passages in which they
differ seriously. A mistake of BT is avoided (1. 360), but in 11. 629 and 663 the
papyrus apparently supports BT against W. In 11. 319 and 43.5 the first hand
agrees with the reading of W, the corrector with that of BT (in 1. 435 not
exactly). Some agreements between 1624 and Vaticanus 1029 are noticeable
(11. 435, 592, 632, nn.) and the text of Stobaeus is supported in 1. 396, so that
with regard to the existing tradition there is no reason to suppose that 1624 was
less eclectic than the longer Plato papyri from Oxyrhynchus, 843 and 1016-17.
In the new readings, which are frequent, the first hand and the corrector usually
took different views, the only instance in which they agreed upon a hitherto
unrecorded variant being the insertion of the article before /xe'pet in 1. 288. In
11. 6, 594, 632, and 637 the corrector has restored the ordinary reading of the
MSS. by inserting words omitted either intentionally or by inadvertence by
the first hand ; cf. also 11. 176-7, n. The first hand was not a very accurate
scribe, to judge by several apparent repetitions of syllables ; cf. 1. 114, n., and
843 {Symposium), which has numerous mistakes of this character. The most
striking of the new readings rejected by the corrector is the addition of at before
Ισαι in 1. 589, a i-eading which had been genei-ally adopted by modern editors
from a conjecture of Heindorf, but is hardly rendered more convincing. More
often it is the first hand, not the corrector, who agrees with the MSS. ; cf. 11. 15,
431, 481, 486, 490, 590, 592, 640, 66^, 666, 672, nn. In several of these places
there is an obvious difficulty in the ordinary reading, and in 1. 672 the corrector's
reading had already suggested itself to some of the Renaissance editors of
Plato as an improvement, while in II. 15 and 640 his readings seem to be
superior ; but the changes proposed in 11. 592 and 666 ai-e of more doubtful
value. The other novelties are all of the nature of omissions from the ordinary
text, in revising which the corrector, presumably on the authority of a different
1624. PLATO, PROTAGORAS
20 1
MS., exhibits an unwonted and perhaps exaggerated tendency to solve difficulties
by excisions. His text is, however, as a whole distinctly better than that of the
first hand, and interesting as a specimen of a recension which was probably due
to some Alexandrian grammarian, and possibly connected with the corrector's
text in 1017. A proneness to omissions of words found in the traditional text is one
of the characteristics of the Phaedo and Laches papyri of the third century B. c,
but these of course differ from the ordinary text much more widely than 1624.
Col. i (Frs. I. i, 2).
[Α^Φ Xi {^νν\ου\σ\ια 337 b
yiyvoLr\o\ i'//e[t]y re
[y]a/) 01 XeyovTi^ μα
λιστ αν όντως €Ρ η
5 μιν T01S ακονον
[σφ €νδοκιμοιτζ• και
[ονκ] ζπαίνοισθί' ev
δοκιμξΐγ τ€ γαρ €σ
τι πάρα ταΐ9 ψν
ΙΟ χαίί των [ακ]ονον
των av[€v] απα
τ[η9 €παι]ν€ίσθαι
[δξ] ev λογωί πολλά
[/ci]? πάρα δο^αν
ον
15 [■^ί\υδομζνων' η 337 c
[/xejiy τ αν οι ακον
[orre]? μαλιστ α\ν
[ούτως ζύ\φρα\ινοι
Λ 6 lines lost
35 [^^] 7"[οί^ Προδικον
Ιππ[ίας ο σοφό? €ΐ
πζν [ω ανδρός e
Col. ii (Frs. 1. ii, 3-4).
φη [οι παρόντες η
γο[υμαι εγω νμας
i
40 av[yyiv€is re και
oi/f[eioyy και πο]λί
[ray απαν]τας eivai
[φνσβι ο]υ νομωι• 337 d
[το yap] ομοιον τωι
45 ο[μοιω]ι φνσα ^vy
yct'[es'] ίστιν ο ie
vop[os\ τύραννος
ων των ανθρω
πω[ν'\ πολλά πα
5ο ρα τη[ν] φνσιν βια
ζζτ[αι η](ΐα9 ουν
1—1
αισ)([ρον] την μζν
φν[σιν τ]ων πρα
γ[ματων €ΐ]δ€[ν]αΐ'
12 lines lost
67 τον] τ[ο]ν αξ[ιωμα
τος] α^ιον α[ποφη
]ν[ασ]θαΐ' αλλ [ωσπ€ρ 337 e
70 ]roi'[y] φανλο[τατονς
]των ανθρω[πων
δια]ρ€ρ€σθα[ι αλ
ληλο]ις' e[yfu μ^ν
2 lines lost
202
THE OXYRHYNCHUS PAPYRI
lo lines lost
86 t[o κατά βραγυ λι
αν [ei μη η8ν ΊΊρω
Tay[opai αλλ 60€ί
ν[α]ί κ[αι γαλασαι
Col. Hi (Fr. ι. iii),
90 ταζ ri[vLa<i tols λο
33^ a yoLs [iva μεγάλο
7Γρ([π€στ€ροι και
ίνσ\[ημον€στ€
About 20 lines lost
Col. ix (Fr, 5). ■
[[ΐ'σ[τ€/)θί/]] ovK ορθω9
115 λ€7[€ί ίίπων ουν
\f\av\Ta πολλοί?
Col. xvii (Fr. 7).
12 lines lost
167 v[v και ot άλλοι ξγω
ι— J
το\ιννν ην S (γω
a γ (μ[οι 8οκΗ irepi
170 του α^ισμα^το? \του
του π^ίρ\α\σομ\αι
ϋμιν 8ι[ζ'\^€.λ[θ^ιν
φιλ[οσ]οφία γα[ρ βσ
τι^ παλαιοτατ[η
175 '"f '^"■'• ττλζίστη [των
Ελλήνων [[fa[i]] ^ν
Κρη[τ]ηι και ev [Λα
Κ€δα[ι]μονΐ' κα[ι σο
φισται πλ€ΐστ[οι
1 8ο γη? €Κ€ΐ €ΐσιν• α[λλα
ζ^αρνουνται κα[ι
σ•^ηματιζοντ[αι
αμαθζΐ? [βφαί* ι[
να μη κ[αταδη
185 λοι ωσιν [οτι σο
About 7 lines lost
Col. xvi (Fr. 6).
339 d About :^6 lines lost
153 neiv e[i βουλίΐ λα 341 e
ββιν μ[ου πζίραν
Col. xix (Fr. 8).
About 30 lines lost
342 a 223 [τίσττ;? ωσ]τ6 {φαι
[ν^σθαι τ^pv π[/3οσ]5ί[α
225 [λ€γο]μεΓθί' τται
[8ο? μ]η8€ν β€λτ€ΐ
[ω του]τ ον[ν] αυτό
[και των νυν] ζίσιν
[οί καταν€νο]ηκα
230 [σι και των π]αλ[αι ο
342 b
Col. XX (Frs. 9-1°)•
231 [τι το λακ]ωνιζ€[ιν
[τΓολι; μα]λλ[ον €σ
[τι φιλοσο]φ([ιν η
[φιλογυμν]ασ[τ(ΐν
235 [^t8oTe? ο]τι τ[οι
About 33 li"^s lost
342 e
342
1624. PLATO, PROTAGORAS
203
Col. xxiii (Fr. 11).
269 τ\οντο ye ή:ανζΐη 343 e
270 av [και ου ^ιμω
^'[^^^ I I
^To[. . .]] αλλ vnep
βα[τεν Set Ceij/ai
[e]u τ[ωί αισματι
Col. XXXV (Fr. 13).
280 [ό]υτ€ Λ|Λαλτ/ο[ί]α9• αλλ[α 347 d
[a]yrouy eavTois ϊ
Kavovs oj/Ta9 ivv[
[[.]]»/«£ av€V των λη
{p]a)v re και παιδι-
285 ων τούτων δια
της ζαυτων φω
νης XeyovTus τ€
και ακούονται ev τω[ί
/ί€/)€ί βαντων κο
290 [σ]μιωs' [ι<]ο[^] τταΐΊ'
[7Γθλ]ι/[ΐ' οινο]ν ττιω
About 26 lines lost
Col. xlvi (Frs. 18-19).
[απο τζ\γνης y[iyfe 351 a
395 \ται α]νθρωποίί• και
[απο θνμο]υ ye και
[απο μανια]^ [ωσ]
Col. Ιίχ (Fr. 21).
About 27 lines lost
428 ταΙ[ηλον (σται e 355 b
αν μ[η πολλοί? ο
Col. xxxi (Fr. 12).
275 [ί^οΐ] τ[ων γαρ ηλι 346 c
θιων [απζίραν ye
ΐ'€^λ[α ωστ n τΐ9
)(aipe[i ψζγων €μ
πλησ[θ€ΐη αν e
Col.'^xxxvii (Fr. 14).
318 [ποΐ€ΐν ο]υκ e^e 348 b
[λωΐ' etre 5]ωσ€ί[[ΐ']] [λο
320 [γον fire] μη 6[ία
[σαφςιν (]μοι. [γ]α[ρ
About 34 lilies lost
Col. xlv (Frs. 15-17).
356 γαρ [ei] ουτ[ω ματιών 350 d
epoio μ€' ([ι ισγυροι
[δ]ννατοι ^[ισι φαι 35° e
[η]ν αρ['] €π[€ΐτα
360 [ei] οι €πισταμ[ζνοι
[π]αλαΐ€ΐν δν[να
[τωτ]€ροι ζίσι τα)[ν
[μη €πισταμ]€ν[ων
About 30 lines lost
Col. Ivii (Fr. 20).
398 κο]υσι[ν ξφη ο 354 d
]Πρω[ταγορα9 αλ
400 λο] τ[ι ονν πάλιν
Col. Ixi (Fr. 23).
477 [f^i-y• "^^^ αγαθών 355 d
[τ]α κακά• η άξιων:
φησομζν δηλον ο
204
THE OXYRHYNCHUS PAPYRI
430 νομα[σι χ /oau/ze^a
Ι[α/)α]] η8^\ι re και a
νιαρωι [και αγαθωι
και κα[κωί αλλ e
πβι8η [δυο βφανη
και [
435 ταντα δ[υοιι^ ονο
^ονο^μα^σί ττροσα-γο
ρζ[νωμ(ν αυτά
π[ρω]τ[ον pev αγα
Col. 1χ (Fr. 22).
5 lines lost
[p€U ΟΤΙ γΐγν]ωσ
445 [k(ou ο ανθρχπ]ο9
[τα κακά οτι κ]α
About 30 lines lost
355 c
480 τι ατΓοκρινομίνοι
[[[°'"]']1 ^^'^ α^ιων ον
[τθ3\ν• ου yap αν €ξη
[μα]ρτανβι/ ον φα
[/ze]i/ ηττω etvai
485 [τα)]ν ηδονών: κα
[τα τί] δζ φησ-Η [[ϊσω?]!
[ανα]ξια βστί ταγα
[θα τω]ν κακών η
[τα κα]<α τω[ν α]γα
490 [θων] [[ί;]] κα[τ αλλ]ο τι
[η όταν] τα [/xef] μ€ΐ
[ζω τα δβ σμικροτ]€
About 23 lines lost
Col. Ixii (Fr. 24).
About 20 lines lost
535 ^oy κ[αι ηδξο? και 356 a
λ]νπηρ[ον μων a
λ]λωι τω[ι φαιην
α]ν €γωγ[€ η ηδο
About 13 lines lost
Col. Ixiv (Fr. 25. ii). Plate vi.
και ai φωναι [[at]] ϊ 35^ c
590 σαι ζ-γγυθ^ν [[/uei/]]
μ€ΐζους πορρωθ^ν
«λαττουβ
^e σμικροτ€ραι]^{Τ[ φαι
Ε—]]
ev αν: €ί ονν ev του 35^ d
C ]] ημίΐν ην
[[[τοι/]]τωί] το (υ πρατ
Col. Ixiii (Frs. 25• i, 26). Plate vi.
552 [(5ea ιστηις]. τα μα 356 b
[^ω aei καϊ\ πλ^ιω
[ληπτ€α €α]ν δβ
555 [^νπηρα np]os λύπη
[ρα τα €λαττ]ω και
[σμικροτ€ρα] €α[ν
About 22 lines lost
580 [κριν]ασθ€ φη[σω 35^ c
[φαιν]ΐΕται ϋμ[ιν
[τηι] οψίΐ τα [αυτ
[μ€γ€θ]η (γγυ6[€ν
[μ€ν μ]ξΐζω. π[ορ
585 [ρωθ^ν] δ€ €λατ[τω
[η ου φ]ησουσι: κ[αί
[τα παχ]€α και τ[α
1624.
595 [τ^ιν e]y τωι τα μ€ν
[μζγαλ]α μήκη [
[και 7Γρατ]τ€ΐν [και
About 28 lines lost
PLATO, PROTAGORAS
σ
[τΓολλα] ωαντ[ως
'θ5
Col. Ixv (Frs. 27, 28. i, 29-32).
626 πι τωι α[λ]77^€ί κα[ι 35^ e
eaccaev [αν] τον βί[ον]
[αρα αν ο]μολογοί
[ev ανθρ]ωποι npos
630 [τα]υτα τ][μ]ας την
[μζ]τρητ[ικ]ην σω
αν
[ζ€ΐ]ν Τ€χΐ'[77ϊ'] η αλ
[λην τ]τ:[ν μ^]τρη
[τικη]ν ω[/χο]λογ6ί:
^35 [τ'-] ^ ^^ ^^ "^[ν^] ^of π€
[ρ]ιττον κα[ι αρ]τιον
ην
αιρ€σ€ΐ η[μι]ν η σω
τηρια [του βιο]υ ο
[ποτ€ το πλ€ον ο]ρθω5
Col. Ixvi (Fr. 28. ii). Plate vi.
663 [7r]ei5[7; <5e η8ονη9 357 a
re κα[ι λυπηί ev op
665 θηι [[r77[t]] aipeaei ζφα
V
νη η[μιν η σωτη
ρια το[υ βιον ούσα
τον τ[€ πλ€ονο9 και
€λαττ[ονο9 και μ€ΐ
6'jo ζονος [και σμικρό
Tcpov [και πόρρω
ου
T€pcc[i και eyyvTe
ου
ρωι• αρ[α πρώτον
μ€γ ο[υ μζτρητι
About 25 lines lost
640 e<5e[i ζλζσθαι] και ο
ποτ[β το ξλατ]τον η
Fi•• 33-
αυτό προ? Ε[α]υτο• η
τ[ο €]τ€ρον π[ρ]θ9 το
[€Te]pov' €ΐτ [ejyyuy
6^5 ["TJe πόρρω [€ΐ]η τι
About 17 lines lost
7οο
Ϊ05
]υτ[
]θαι.[
].ηδη.[
]λα...[
]ω ουν [
Fr. 34. Fr. 35.
Fr.
36.
Fr. ^τ.
Fr. 38.
707 ]σα[ "J 11 ]σα[
ΐμ[ in
715 ]•
]μ
[
720 ]αίΐ'[
722 ]λι/π[
2o6 THE OXYRHYNCHUS PAPYRI
].6[
]χ.[
]'ri
Ύ
]ουτ[
710 ^V 7γ[
]γ[
]V^
V9V
Fr. 39.
Fr. 40.
Fr. 41.
Fr. 42.
Fr. 43•
725 ]ην[
728 ]7Γ.[
731
]^[
]ra.[
736 Ιλτ;
]του[
730 ]ur[
735
]κψ
Fr. 44.
Fr. 45•
Fr. 46.
Fr. 47.
Fr. 48.
738 ]σ.[
740 ]..[
742
]?; /Ctti . [
>•[
746 ].ω[
]<^[
](τθα[
]...[
745
]οσί[
]^«.[
6. και: SO MSS.
7. ίπαινοισθΐ : SO Β, edd. ; enaive'iaOf with Superscribed ot T.
8. μβμ : so MSS. ; τ£, the reading of the first hand, is probably due to a reminiscence
of 1. 2. It is not quite certain that he wrote [5e] rather than [re] in 1. 13.
15. [ψ(]ν8ομΐνων : SO MSS. except Vat. 1029 (^(νδομένω). The corrector's reading
ψΐν^όμίνον, which is passive, not middle, and refers to the subject of the infinitives, brings
out the antithesis between (ν^οκιμΐΐν and ίπαινύσθαι more clearly, and is likely to be right.
40. συ[γγΐν(ΐς SO BT. Elsewhere (11. 45 and 282) the first hand uses the ξ -form,
which the corrector preferred here.
69-71. The fragment containing ]!/[, ]rov[, and ]Γω[ is not certainly placed here, and
the division of lines is doubtful throughout 11. 67-73.
89. κ\αι χάλασαι : these words were bracketed by Cobet.
114. [[υσ[τ6ροι/]] : this word is in the MSS. and can hardly be dispensed with. It may
well have been omitted here by the corrector because it was written twice over (cf. 11. 271-2,
436, 593-4, nn.); but the preceding words are corrupt in BT (ήγοίτο Trorepov instead of ήτοι
TO TrpOTtpov) and may have been equally corrupt in 1624, in which case the omission
of νστ€ρον is possibly part of an extensive alteration.
169. y f μ[οι : so some edd. since Bekker ; but ye μ[οί (BT, Burnet) can of course be
read equally well.
173-4. ίσ]τί : so Τ ; fOTTii/ B, like the corrector.
176-7. [[κα[ι]] €p\ Κρη[τ]ηι : iv K. re MSS. The corrector may have added τ? after (v,
180. a\\\a makes the line rather long, but the division ηλλ' j i^apv. would be unusual.
Cf. 1. 280.
223-4. Fr. 45 might be placed here, [Tia]rj;[s and [ΐ'6]σ^α[4 being possible.
271-2. The MSS. have nothing between Σψων'ώον and <1λλ'. Possibly αλλ υπερ/3ατοί'
was written twice by mistake; cf. 1. 114, n.
281. (αντοις \ avTois BT. Cf. 1. 286, n.
283. The letter before vm is almost entirely lost, but has clearly been crossed through,
and there seems to be a letter above the line, so that it is not satisfactory to suppose that the
corrector simply altered the division ξυν\ΐΐναι., Avhich is legitimate but rather unusual, to
ξνν(ΐ\ναί. No variant is known here.
286. eavTdnv : αυτών Β, edd. J αυτών Τ. Cf. 1. 281, η.
288-9. ei/ τω[ι| /xepei : om. τωι MSS. The article is sometimes inserted, sometimes
1624. PLATO, PROTAGORAS 207
omitted, in this phrase by Plato; cf. Gorg. 462 a iv τω μίρ(ΐ ερωτών re κα) (ρωτωμ^νος with
496 b αλλ' iv μίρΐΐ οΐμαι eKaTtpov και λαμβάνΐΐ. και άπολλυίΐ.
3ΐ9• 5]iJffit[[y]l : δώσίί ΒΤ rightly ; δώσβ»» W.
357• 'σχυροι (Β) suits the probable length of the lacuna better than 01 ισχυροί (Τ, edd.).
360. [it] ot : so t, edd. ; oiei Β ; oUt T.
396. ye : so StobaeUS, Burnet ; re BTW, Schanz. Cf. από μανίας ye κα\ θνμοΐ) a few
lines before 1. 394, where Wt Stobaeus have -ye, and BT re.
397. [ατΓο μ.ανια]ς \ the s is fairly certain, and the length of the lacuna does not suit the
restoration [μανιαί ω]σ[τί, omitting αττο in accordance with Naber's conjecture.
398-400. The division of lines inithis fragment is quite uncertain.
431. l.apa-1: apa BTW; αμα a corrector of the Coislinianus, Burnet. The difficulty
is caused by the late position of apa in the sentence.
435. h[voiv: so W, Vat. 1029 ; BT agree with the corrector in adding και, but place it
after instead of before bvolv. BT's order seems preferable.
436. [[οι/ο]]μα[σι : probably ovo had been written twice by the first hand; cf. 1. ii4,n.
436-7. ^τpoσayo]\pi[υwμ€v : SO edd.; προσαγορίύομ^ BTW. Line 437 is already rather
short (11 letters), and the substitution of ο for ω, though possible, is not satisfactory.
pf[voptv αυτά πρω\τ[ον] p[ev is inadmissible, for, though r could be read instead of ττ, the only
alternatives to the τ of π[ρω]Γ[οί/ are y and π.
444-6. The position assigned to this fragment is far from certain.
481. |[[or]i]]: the corrector omitted this word, which is in the MSS., presumably
because {8ηλον) οτι had occurred in 11. 479-80; cf. int.
486. [[ϊσωί]] : this word is in the MSS., but can be dispensed with.
490. [[t;]] : the omission of this Λvord is distinctly an improvement, if ^ (so MSS. and
edd.) was meant. This question simply supplies the answer to the preceding one κατά τι 8i
κτλ., and does not introduce a fresh alternative of any kind. If η is retained, η seems
preferable to ή.
535-8. The division of lines in this fragment is uncertain.
582. [τψ] : so MSS. ; there would be room for two more letters in the lacuna.
588. ωσαντ[ωί : the σ above the line does not seem to be due to the ordinary corrector,
but it is not quite certainly by the first hand.
589. laq : ai is not in the MSS., but Heindorf s insertion of it has been accepted by
practically all editors. The absence of ai can however be defended by supplying οίσαι with
ϊσαι (cf. Ast's note), and it is not at all clear that the first hand was right, even though there
is a doubt about the deletion, ai has had dots placed above it, but through these is a
horizontal stroke, such as is used in 11. 114 and 272 to indicate the deletion of the letters
below. Seeing that in 1. 592 the corrector has eliminated double dots marking a change of
speaker not by running his pen continuously through them, but by crossing them out
separately, we prefer to suppose that the corrector in 1. 589 substituted one mode of express-
ing deletion for another (possibly for the sake of clearness, owing to the presence of
a diaeresis by the first hand over the following ι of ι\σαι), rather than that he changed
his mind about the omission of ai and meant to cross out the dots indicating deletion and let
at stand, or that this was the meaning of a possible second corrector. The bracketing of
the paragraphi below 11. 51, 167, 592, and 593 may have been due to a desire on the part of
the corrector to avoid confusion between paragraphi and horizontal strokes indicatmg
deletion. u • . • • u
590. Ιμ^ν-^ : nothing seems to be gained by the omission of this word, which is in the
MSS., but is not essential. Since the following word began μΐΐ, the intrusion or omission
of μ€ν would be eas)•. .
592f σμικροτίραι : SO INISS. exccpt Vat. 1029, which has eXarrovs κα\ σμίκρ., a conflation
2o8 THE OXYRHYNCHUS PAPYRI
of the alternative readings found here. The corrector's reading iXaTTovs is in accordance
with μύζω . . . ΐΚάττω in 11. 584-5.
593-4. The MSS. have d ουν iv τούτω ήμίν ην το κτλ., except Venetus 184, which places
υυν after τούτω, ημϊν can be dispensed with, but hardly ην. τον\\τωί ην'\ may have been the
reading of the first hand, but this restoration, even if ην had dots placed above it by the cor-
rector, fails to account satisfactorily for the position of the insertion ημ,ίΐν ην, and του|[τωι ye]
is less probable than a mistaken repetition of the syllable τον : cf 11. 114, 436, nn,, and for
the omission of ην after ημΙν 1. 637, η.
596-7. The lacuna after μήκη is not very adequately filled by a wedge-shaped sign. If
μήκη \κ.αι | be read, in the absence of any known variant for μήκη καΙ πράττειν the simplest
course would be to suppose a mistaken repetition of και : cf. the preceding n.
627—8. βι\ον\ apa av ο\μο\ο-γοί: OV pOSsibly βί|[θί' ap av ο]μ.
629. ανθρ\ύποι•. SO BT {ανθ^; οί ανθρ. W, Vat. 1029, Bumet. άνθρωποι may have been
meant if the first hand omitted 01, which, though probable, is not quite certain. The ω
of ανθρ'\ωποι apparently projected slightly to the left of the μ ofo]μoλoyoι in 1. 628 and α of
ημ\ας in 1. 63O.
632. αν : so BT ; om. Vat. 1029 like the first hand, av is necessary in view of (σωσΐν
av (1. 627) and (σωζ€ν av (lost in 1. 646).
637. ην: so BT. ην is indispensable; cf. 11. 593-4, n.
640. και : so BT. The corrector's reading η, i. e, ή, seems to suit the argument
better.
662-3. ί[π]«2[ν 8e: so BT; eVtSeSiy W, Vat. 1209 ; iVel fie δ?7 Burnet, following Adam.
The vestige before ιδ suits e better than π.
665. ^τη[ι'^ : τη Bt ; TTTj Τ. Vat. 1029 omits ev in 1. 664, and possibly the first hand or
the corrector differed there from the ordinary reading (v ορθηι (e. g. by having τηι ορθηι or tv τηι
ορθηι). The mere omission of τηι in 1. 665 is however more probable. The article can easily
be dispensed with.
666. η\μιν•. so MSS. The corrector's reading ίμΊν gains some support from the
proximity of tuv, & άνθρωποι (1. 662), which introduces the summing-up of the argument, and
the constant use of the second person plural throughout the dialogue with imaginary objectors
in pp. 353 sqq. ήμιΊς, however, not νμεΊί, is used in the previous steps of the argument (e. g.
in 11. 594, 637), and the theory that good and evil ultimately meant pleasure and pain is not
the starting-point of the opponents of Socrates in this part of the Protagoras, but on the
contrary is forced upon them by him, so that there was no need for Socrates to dissociate
himself from his opponents just at this point.
671-3. πορρω\τ€ρω\ι και eyyvTf\pwi : SO T, and with the omission of the final iotas Β and
modern edd. ; πορρωτίρον κα\ ^γγυτίρω Aid. (ι 5 1 3); πορρωτίρου και e'yyurepov Basileensis I
(1534), agreeing with the corrector. Stephanus objected to the coupling of the adverbs
without an article to the preceding adjectives, but his criticism has been answered (e. g. by
Stallbaum and Ast) by citing (i) numerous parallels in Plato for the omission of the article
in enumerations after the first noun, (2) instances of the coupling of adverbs with adjectives
in e. g. Protag. 356 a ταΰτα δ' eVri μ(1ζω Te κα\ σμικρότΐρα γι-γνόμίνα αλλήλων καϊ πλύω καϊ ίλάττω
κα) μάλλον καϊ ήττον, Phlhb. 4Ι 6 τι? . . . μΐ'ιζων και t'is ΐλάττων κα\ τις μάλλον κα\ τις σφοδροτίρα
λύπη. The objection to πορρωτίρον and eyyvTfpov here is that these adjectival forms are in
general post-classical. Thucydides, however (viii. 96), has bC ('γ-γντάτου ΐθορύβ(ΐ, while
Xenophon frequently uses iyyvTtpov adverbially, and there is an obvious advantage in
substituting adjectives for adverbs at this point, so that the corrector's reading is not lightly
to be rejected on philological grounds alone.
700-6. It is not quite certain that this fragment belongs to the Protagoras.
740-1. Cf. 11. 223-4, n. .
1625. AESCHINES, IN CTESIPHONTEM 209
1625. AesCHINES, In Ctesiphoiitem.
32-5 X 25 cm. Second century.
This fragment of a roll consists of three incomplete columns and a few
letters from a fourth, covering §§ 14-27 of Aeschines' oration against Ctesiphon,
written in a clear cursive hand of the second century, probably not later than
the reign of Hadrian or Antoninus, to which a document found with 1625
belongs. There were 51 or 52 lines in a column, and 24-30 letters in a line.
Iota adscript was regularly written, and elision generally avoided. Punctuation
was effected by paragraphi and high stops. Diaereses are sometimes placed
over initial t and υ ; accents, breathings, and marks of quantity are rare (11. 53,
60^, III). That the syllable inserted above the line in 1. 53 is in a different hand
is not quite certain, and a still greater doubt attaches to the supposed distinction
of hands in 1. 21. Seven other fragments of Aeschines from Egypt are known, of
which three (457, 703, and Hartel, Vortrag i'lher die Griech. Pap. Erz. Rainer,
45 sqq.) belong to different parts of this oration, two (458 and 440 ; cf. Blass,
Archiv, iii. 293) to the De falsa leg., and two (Nicole, Textes grecs ined. de Geneve,
pp. 5-12 and P. Halle 6) to the Contra Timarchum.
The MSS. of Aeschines number about 27, and fall into three main families,
called by Blass A, B, and C. In this oration A consists of ekl, Β of agmn Vat.
Laur. Flor., C of dfq Barb, h generally supports A rather than C, ρ usually
agrees with B. d (loth century) is the only MS. older than the thirteenth century,
but C, the family to which it belongs, has generally been regarded as inferior
to the other two, of which A is now usually considered superior to B. The
untrustworthy character in general of the MSS. has been clearly shown by the
papyri, most of which present a number of new and better readings, not
infrequently establishing conjectures. 1625, which is much longer than 457 and
703 and much older than Hartel's vellum fragments, is a carefully written
papyrus, and naturally does not fail to make several improvements upon the
ordinary text. The chief of these is in § 20, where two of the three families
have an omission and the third, A, is corrupt. Here the papyrus confirms the
simpler emendations of Lambinus, another early scholar (probably Scaliger),
and Wolf against the more elaborate changes proposed by later editors (11. 8i-a).
A gloss which had found its way into the text of all the MSS. in § 15 can now
be detected and explained with the help of the scholia (1. 19), and a gloss found
in Β and C, but not in A, in § 24 was absent from 1625 (1. 154, n.). Hamaker's
conjecture Upa for yk^a in § 18 is confirmed (1. 61), and Cobet's objection to the
repetition Aeyet . . . φτ^σί in § 21 is justified, though by the omission of φτ/σι, not
Ρ
2IO THE OXYRHYNCHUS PAPYRI
λίγξί, as he proposed (11. 94-5). A passage in § 19, in which the variation
between present and past participles had caused difficulties, is probably set right
(11. 69-70). The other new readings mainly concern the order of words (11. 3-4,
58-60, 97-8, 144-5), ^ lacuna having obscured a variant of some magnitude in
11. 135-6. In numerous instances evidence is provided for words which recent
editors have wished to delete, generally in order to avoid hiatus, about which
1625 (and probably Aeschines) was not more particular than the MSS. The
general relation of 1625 to them is very similar to that of most other Aeschines
papyri. A is on the whole supported more frequently than Β and much more
frequently than C, especially in important points of divergence, there being at
least 6 agreements with A (or 2 of the 3 MSS. composing it) against
BC (II. 24, 77, 81-2, 93, 116, 154 sqq.), i or 2 with AB against C (11. 78,
134?), and 3 or 4 with AC against Β (11. 25, yo, 117; cf. 11. 92-3, where
most of the Β group and one member of A are on the wrong side). On the
other hand 1625 agrees with Β against AC in 1. 73, with isolated members of
Β against all the other MSS. in 11. 62 and 131, and with BC against A at least
5 times (11. 22 twice, 52, 53, 120, 187?). C thus comes off the worst of the
three families in relation to 1625, since it gains no support for any of its peculiar
readings ; but when C is in combination with A or Β its relationship to 1625 is
much the same as that of Β in combination with A or C, 1625 agreeing with the
majority in about half the instances in either case, whereas A in combination
with Β or C is confirmed in 6 out of 7, or (if 11. 62 and 131 are included)
9, instances.
Col. i. (Col. ii.)
[ται ray χ6ίροτον[ί7ταν φησι^^' apyas 14 koll κοινηί τα γ^νη Ενμολπιδας και
[άπασαν evi π€ρί]λ[αβων ονολματί 65 Kr^pvKas καιτου^ α\\ου^ απαντα$\/\ιτα ι^
[ο νομοθέτη? κα]ί προ\σ€ίπωι/ απ]ασας λιν τους τριήραρχου? υπευθύνου? et
\αργα? eivai α]ς ο δη[μο9 χ€ΐροτ]ον€ΐ ναι KeXevei ο ι/ομος['] ο'\υ] τα κοινά δια
5 [και τον? 67Γίστα]τα9 ^ϊ/ισί των δη]μοσι χβιρισαντα? ονδ απο των νμζτ^ρων
\ων €ρΎων ζσ\τιν δ€ ο ' Δημοσθί'νη? προσόδων πολλά μ^ν νφη ρήμωναν?
[τίίχοποίος €]πιστα[τη9 του μ^γΟστου jo βραχ€α δί καταθ^ντα? ίπιδιδοναι
[των βργων κ]αι πα[ν]τα[? όσοι διαχζίρι \δ]ξ φασκοντα? αποδίδοντα? δ€ ν
[ζουσι τι των τη]? πολζ[ω? πλ^ον η τρι [Η-'-]Υ ί^<^ νμ€]τ€ρα• αλλ ομολογούμε
ΙΟ [άκοντα ημ€ρ]α?' και οσο[ι λαμβανον [νω? τα? πα]τ[ρχι]α? ουσία? ei? την πρ[ο]?
[σιν ηγεμονία]? δικαστη[ριων οι δε [νμα? ανηλωκοτ]α? φιλοτιμιαν ου τοι
[των έργων ε]πισταται πα\ντε? ηγε 75 [^"^ μόνον οι τριηραρχ]οι άλλα και τα με
[μονιαι γρωντ]αι δικαστηρίου τι του [γιστα των εν τ]ηι [πολει συνε]δριων
1625. AESCHINES, IN CTESIPHONTEM
211
[tovs KeXeuei] noieiv ov διακονην 15
15 [αλλ αργζΐν δο]ι<:ιμασΘ€ντα9 ey [τ]ωί
[δικαστηριωι €]π€ΐδη και αι κληρ[ωτ]αί
[αρχαι ουκ αδο]κιμασ[τ]οι• α\λα δοκιμασ 8ο
[θίΐσαι αργουσι κ\αί Χογον και ^νθν
[να9 €γγραφ€ΐγ προς τους [[ϊ•]] λογισ
20 [τα9 καΘαπ€ρ κ]αι τα? αλλάς αργας
ΤΙ
[κ^λζνβι ΟΤΙ 8]e αληθ'^ξς ?]]] λέγω τους νο
[μους αυτούς υ]μιν avayvoaaeTai•
[ νομ\οι
\οταν τοινυν ω aj/ipejy Αθηναίοι 1 6
2 5 [ay ο νομοθέτης αρχάς] ονομάζει
26 lines lost
Col. ii,
[φ]€ροντα' €V γαρ τα[υ]τηι [τ]ηι π[ολ]€ί ου 1 7
αι
[τω]ς αργαι ουσηι και τηλικαυτη[ι τ]ο μ€
γ^θος ονδξΐς βστιι/ ανυ[τΓ]€υθυνος
55 τ'^'^ και οπωσονν προς τα κοινά προσ
ξ,ληλνθοτων• διδάξω δ υ[μ]ας πρώτον 1 8
€πι των παράδοξων οίον τους Ϊ€ρ€ΐς
και τας ΐ€ρ€ίας υπ€υ[θ]υνονς €ΐναι ο νο
μος Κ€λ€υ€ΐ' και συλλήβδην παντας'
6ο και χωρίς έκαστους κατά σώμα' και τους
τα i'[e]pa μόνον λαμβάνοντας και τας
ίυχας τας υπ^ρ ημών προς τους θίους
€υχομ€νους' και ου μόνον ϊδιάι άλλα
85
9θ
95
[υπο την των δικ]αστων €[ρχξ]ται ψη
[φον πρώτον μζν] γαρ τη[ν βου]λην την 2 ο
[ev Αρζίωι παγωι] €[γ]γραφ[ξΐν] προς τους
[λογιστας ο νομο]ς κ€λ[ζυ€]ι λογον
[και ξυθυνας διδοναι] και τον e/c[ei] σκυθρω
[πον και των] μβγιστων [κυριο]ν αγβι
[υπο την υμΐτβραν ψηφον ου]κ a[p]cc στ€[φα
[νωθησ€ται η βουλή η e^ Apeio]y πάγου
[ουδζ γαρ πατριον αυτοις €στίν] ουκ α
[ρα φιλοτιμούνται πάνυ ye αλλ ουκ αγ]α
[ΐτωσιν €αν τις παρ αυτοις μη αδικη]ι
[αλλ eav τις ίξαμαρτανηι κ]ολαζου
[σιν οι δ€ υμ€Τ€ροι ρητορξς τ]ρνφω
[σι πάλιν την βουλην τους π€ν]τα
[κοσιους υπ^υθυνον πζποιη]κ€ν ο νο
[μοθβτης] και ουτ[ως ισχυρώς] απισ 2 1
[τ6ί τοις υπ]ζυθυνοις ωστ€ €υθυς αρ
[χομζνος] των νομών λξγ€ΐ' αρχήν
[υπ^υθυνον μη απο]δτ)[μζΐ]ν ω Ηρακλίΐς
[υπολαβοι αν τις οτι ηρ^α μη α\ποδη
[μησω ινα ye μη προλαβων τη]ς πα
[λβως χρήματα η πρα^€ΐς δρασ]μωι
[χρησηι πάλιν υπβυθυνον ου]κ e
[αι την ουσιαν καθιβρουν ουδβ ανα]θη
[μα αναθίΐναι ουδζ €κποιητον] ye
[I'eσ^αί ουδζ διαθβσθαι τα €αυ]τον
Col. iii.
ονδζ άλλα [τΓολλα• evi 5e λογωι €ve
χυραζί[ι ο] γ[ομοθ€της τας ουσίας των
Ι05 υπευθύνων €ως [αν λογον αποδωσιν
τηι πολΐΐ' ναι α[λλ €στι τις άνθρωπος ος 2 2
οντ€ €ΐληφΐ[ν ουδίν των δημοσίων
προφασιουν[ται μ^χρι δ^υρο ζίρησθω
μοι• [ο]τι δ[€ όντως ην υπεύθυνος ο Δη
μοσθΐν[ης oTe ούτος €ΐσηνζγκ€ το
ψηφι[σμα άρχων μ(ν την αρχήν την ?
145 €7Γΐ τω[ι Θίωρικωι άρχων 5e την
Ρ 3
212
THE OXYRHYNCHUS PAPYRI
ovT€ αναλωκ[€ προσήλθα Se προ9
TL των κοίνω[ν και τούτον απόφεραν
Ι ΙΟ /ceXei/ei Xoy[ov ττ/οο? rot's Χογιστα^
και πω? ο ye μ[η8ζν λαβών μη8ζ ανα
λωσα? αποισ[€ΐ λογον] ττ)ΐ π[ολ€ΐ' αντο9 150
νποβαλλζΐ κα[ί δι8α]σκ[ζΐ ο νομο9 α γ^ρη
γραφζίν K€Xe[vei] γαρ αντο τ[ουτο] ζγ[γρα
115 Φ^ΐ-^ OTL ον[τ€ €]λα(3[ον ov6]ev των της
τΓολβω? [ovTe αΐναλωσα αννπβνθν
[ν]ον [S]e και αζητητον και ανξ^ζτα\σ\
το[ν'\ ovdev €στιν των ev [τη]ι πολεί* ο
τι δι αληθή λ€γω αυτών ακουσατβ
Ι20 των νομων[']
νομοί
όταν τοινυν μαλ[ι]στα θρασννηται 23 185
Δημοσθένης λ^γ[ω]ν ως δια την €πιδο
σιν [ον]κ €στιν νπ€υ[θννος] eKeivo αν
125 τ(^['• νπ]οβαλλξΤ€• ον[κ ον]ν ^χρην ere'
ω Αημοσθζνζς €ασ[αι τον] τ[ω]ν λογισ
των κήρυκα κηρ[υ]^α[ι το π]α[τρ]ιον και
βννομον κήρυγμα τ[ουτο] τις βουλί
ται κατηγορζΐν €ασ[ον αμ]φισ•βητησαι
130 σοι τον βουλομ[€νον των] π[ολ]ιτων
ως ουκ €πιδ6[δωκας αλλ απο] πολ
λων ων €\€ί[ς €ίς την των Τ€ίχω]ι/
οικοδομ[ιαν μικρά κατβθηκας δ^κα τα
λαντ[α €ΐς ταύτα €κ της πολξως ξίλη
135 φ(>>^' μη [άρπαζα την φιλοτιμιαν
λου' μη[δ€ βξαιρου των δικαστών τας ψη
φους €Κ τ[ων χξίρων μηδ€ (μπροσθ^ν
των νομ[ων άλλα νστβρος ηολιτίυον
ταύτα γα[ρ ορθοί την δημοκρατιαν προς 24
140 μ€ν ουν τ[ας κ^νας ? προφάσεις ας ούτοι
των τ€ΐ[χ^οποιων ουδ€Τ€ρας 8e πω
των αρ)([ων τούτων λογον υμιν ου
δ €υθνν[ας δβδωκως ταυτ ηδη nei
ρασομαι \υμας διδασκίΐν €κ των δη
μοσιων γ[ραμματων' και μοι αναγνω
θι €7Γί τίνος [άρχοντος και ποιου μηνός
και €v τινι [ημ€ραι και €v ποιαι €κκλη
σιαι €χ€ΐρο[τονηθη Δημοσθένης
την αρχήν [την βπι τωι θξωρικωι
Col. iv.
28 lines lost
ψα[ι στ€φανωσαι• ως τοινυν και την 27
τω[ν τ€ΐχοποιων αρχήν ηρχ€ν οθ ου
το[ς το ψήφισμα ξγραψζ και τα δήμο
σια [χρήματα δΐξχ€ΐριζ€ και ίπιβο
λα[ς €πeβaλλe καθαπ^ρ οι άλλοι
αρχ[οντ€ς και δικαστηρίων ηγ€μο
1 8 lines lost
3. ο νομοθΐτψ, which must have stood in the lacuna, was bracketed by Weidner
1625. AESCHINES, IN CTESIPHONTEM 213
and Blass. Whether 1625 had προ[σ€ΐ.ττων with most MSS. and edd., or ττρο[(ΐ.π(ύν with dnq, is
uncertain. Cf. §17, where BC have ττροσίΐπΰν, A rightly προΗπΰν.
3-4. απ]ασας \ [αρχάς : αρχάς άπάσας MSS. Probably 1625 is right, and the reading of
the MSS. is due to the influence οι αρχάς άπάσας in 11. 1-2.
6-7. [Αημοσθ€]ι>ης was bracketed by Schanz and Blass, while after τβιχοποως Halm
inserted ων, for which there is not room here.
8. πα[ΐ']Γο[ί : so most MSS. and edd. ; but πο[ι/1τί[ί could be read with e.
18. και ΐνθνίνας was bracketed by Dobree and Blass.
19. προς τους [[ϊ .]] λογισ[τας : προς τον γραμματία και τους λογιστάς MSS. ; cf. Schol. Β (οη
the margin of a printed book ; source unknown) γραμματέα Xeyei τ6ν ΐΐωθότα iv τω κοινώ τά τοΰ
Βημον γράμματα άναγινώσκ(ΐν, and Schol. gm Vat. Laur. λογιστής ίκάστης φνλης efs•.' γραμματέα 8e
€καστοι ίίχον. Xeyet ο^" "ί"' "τον των λογιστών, άλλως• άρχοντας ήσαν δίκα ηρημίνοι καλοΰμ€νοι
Χογισταί . . . The omission of τ6ν γραμμάτια και in 1625 brings this passage into line with
11. 79-80 ί[γ]7ραφ|^€ΐί/] π /jos• τονς\λογιστας and IO9-IO αποφ€ρΐΐν\ κΐλ(υΐΐλογ\ον προς τους λογιστας,
where the MSS. equally ignore the γραμματΐίς. The scholia do not really support the
longer reading. The logistae no doubt had γραμματύς, but the order of the words and the
use of the singular γραμματέα show that these are not meant here, while the explanation of
Schol. Β is not at all convincing, for the γραμματείς who read the laws, &c., in the assembly
Avas quite a different kind of official from the λογισταί, and not likely to have been specially
concerned with eu^iiOt. A comparison of 1. 22 αναγνώσίται (sc. 6 γραμματ€ΰς) with § 124,
where most MSS. have άναγνώσΐται υμίν 6 γραμματεύς (ανάγνωθι Blass with e), indicates that
Schol. Β has been misplaced, and really refers to 1. 22, while τ6ν γραμματέα και in the MSS,
at 1. 19 is a corruption arising out of this very scholium or one like it owing to a mistaken
idea that τον γραμματέα occurred in the text about this point, the accusative case suggestino-
1. 19 as a suitable point for the insertion of the words with καί to restore the construction.
With regard to the deletion before λογιστας there were, as the scholium states, 10 of these
officials ; but it is unlikely that a second-century scribe would place a diaeresis instead of a
stroke above ι (which is fairly certain), if it meant 10, and he seems to have written or begun to
write another letter after ϊ, though it is not clear how much ink belongs to a stroke of deletion.
21. κΐλενει, which must have stood here, is deleted by several editors, but not by
Blass.
αληθή : of the supposed η above the line only a vertical stroke remains, and the cor-
rection may be due to the first hand : the nature of the original reading is still more
doubtful.
22. αυτούς υ^μιν: SO BC J ύμίν αυτούς A, Blass.
αναγνωσεται : SO BC, BlaSS ; άναγνωτΐ A. Cf. 1. 1 9, n.
23. νομ]οι: SO most MSS. and edd.; νόμος a; om. ep Vat.^
24. ανδρε^ς: SO A, Blass ; om. BC.
25. ας ο νομοθέτης αρχάς] ονομάζει j [ούτοι : SO AC, BlaSS ; ό μεν νομοθ. αρχάς ύνομάζτ] ούτοι
δε Β, Schukz.
52. εν : εύ kl.
5.3• αρχαιαι : SO MSS. ; αρχαία (τ) Blass, to avoid hiatus.
τηλικαντη[ι ; SO BC, BlaSS ; τοσαύττ) A.
55. και : om. Ip Vat. προς : εις p.
57. otoi' : ots p. ϊερεις : SO MSS. ; iep/ar edd.
58-9. ο νομός κελεύει : κελ. 6 vou, MSS. Cf. 11. 66-7, η.
59• παντας : απαντάς MSS.
60. και τους : om. κα\ MSS.
61. '{ε\ρα•. SO Hamaker; γέρα MSS., Blass. The top of the t is lost, but one of the
two dots is visible. Ιερά is no doubt right, the point being that priests got no public money.
214 THE OXYRHYNCHUS PAPYRI
The confusion was easy ; cf. the spellings \(μη and Τίμη for ihe same Oxyrhynchite village
(1285. 98 and 1444. 34) and eiyipov for upou in P. Weil vi. 6.
μόνον : so most MSS., Blass ; μόνα ag Vat,, Laur.
62. τας : om. MSS. ημών. SO a; ν/χώί/ the rest, Blass.
64. τα : so most MSS., Blass; κατά hm γρ.
65—6. παΧιν : κα\ πάΧιν q.
66—7• (ivai neXevei : KtXevtc eivai ρ Vat. Cf. 11. 58-9, n.
67-8. διαχΐφισαντας : the last α is corr. from f. 8ίαχ(ΐρίζοντας some edd., but cf.
11. 69-70, n.
69. προσόδων was bracketed by Bake and Blass.
69—7^• ''^φίΡνΗ-^'Όνί . . . καταθ(ντας : νφαιρονμίνους . . . καταθίντας AC ', ΰφαιρονμίνονί . , .
κατατιθίντας Β, Blass. Probably 1625 is right, and the reading of Β is an emendation of
that of AC, Avhich is a corruption of the papyrus text.
70-1. emStSoi/ai [6]e : SO MSS.; οΐ'δ' επίδίδόι/αι /xeV Blass.
73. Tas πα]τ[ρωι]α9 : SO B, Blass ; for Toi/s τάς ττατ. (AC, exccpt d) there is not room.
77. 8οκ]αστων•. SO kl ; δικαστηρίων the rest, Blass.
78. την: so AB, Blass; om. C.
81. δίδοναι, which must have stood here, was deleted by Cobet, but not by Blass.
81—2. και τον ««[ft] σκυθρω^πον και των^ μέγιστων ^κνριο^ν ayfi: SO Orelli, Baiter and
Sauppe, Simcox {τυν . . . σκνθρωπον Lambinus and marg. Bern. ; ayei Wolf) ; κ. των €κύ
σκυθρωπών κ. τ. pey. κνριον ayeiv Β ; om. AC ; κ. την (Κ, σκνθρωπον . . . κνρίαν ayei Wolf, Reiske,
Bekker, and, \vith Άγων instead of ayfi to avoid hiatus, Blass ; cf. int. There is not room for
[κυρια]^ in 1. 82, even if τοι* in 1. 8i did not require [κύριο jr.
84. η βουλή η (ξ ApeLo]v πάγου was bracketed by Blass to avoid hiatus.
92—3. aπισ[τeι τοις νπ](υθυνοις : SO Cahkl Vat. yp., edd. άπαιτ€Ϊ tovs νπ^νθΰνονς egmnp
Laur. Vat.
93. (υθυί : SO A, Blass ; ΐνθίω: BC.
94. Xeyti : this was deleted by Cobet, the MSS. having after ίπΐύθυνον in 1. 95 φησί,
which was clearly omitted in 1625 and is not necessary.
αρχήν : this was deleted by Hamaker, while Dobree preferred αρχής.
97-8. The MSS. have προλαβων χρήματα της πόλ(ωί η πράξεις, from which 1625 clearly
varied in regard to the position of τψ πόλ(ως and χρήματα, and possibly by the insertion of τά
after προλαβων.
1 03-4. €ν(^χνραζί[ι : SO Β ; €νίχνριάζ€ΐ A ; (Vf χαράζει or -pt'f« C.
104. o] ν^ομοθΐτης τας ουσίας των: SO A; τας ουσίας ό νομοθέτης τας των ^C, Έ\3,88 ; Om.
ό νομοθέτης Cobet. τ[ας ουσίας can be read in place of o] ν[ομοθετης, but the insertion of τας
before των would make the line too long, while the omission of ο lO^o^erj/s would leave it too
short, so that A's reading is the most probable, especially since 1625 shows no tendency to
avoid hiatus.
105. The supplement is rather short, and perhaps 1625 had άποδίδωσιν with c;
άποδώσι moSt MSS., BlaSS ; όποδώστ] hq Bern., αποδώσει Vat. Laur.
1 1 3-1 4. ο νομός a χρη] γραφειν was bracketed by Hamaker and Blass.
116. ανυπευθν[ν^ον : SO A ; αΐ'ίυ^υι/οΐ' BC, Blass.
117. αζητητον και ανεξετα[σ]το[ν] : SO AC, BlasS ; άνεξ. κα\ άζήτ. Β.
Ι20. των νομών : SO BC, Blass ; των t'v τη πόλει Α.
121. νομοί : so most MSS. ; νόμος 1 ; om. agp Vat.
124-5. αντω[ι : so most MSS. ; αυτό glm ; om. Blass on account of hiatus.
127. κήρυκα: κΰριον g.
131. επιδε[δωκας: SO g; άπεδωκας q; επίδωκας the rest, BlaSS. απο, which must haVC
Stood in the lacuna, is omitted by ek.
1625. AESCHINES, IN CTESIPHONTEM 215
132. ίχεί[ί : so MSS., Blass ; ίΐχ(ς (Bake) is inadmissible.
134. eis ταύτα (κ της ποΚίως is restored from most MSS., but C omits els and el have
noKiTfiai for TioXems, while Blass omits (κ, and Bekker reads e/c τών της. The length of the
lacuna favours the presence of both «i? and f if, but not των as well.
135-6 |λου : a and μ are the only alternatives to λ, and the lacuna maybe 2 or
3 letters shorter than as printed, but hardly any longer. The MSS. have nothing between
φΐΚοτιμίαν and μη^ΐ. An imperative either preceded by μη or governing άρπαζαν (instead of
αρτταζί) seems most likely, but ε|λοί is not satisfactory.
1 40. Whether 1625 had koivus Avith the MSS. or Kevas, the generally accepted correction
of Stephanus, is uncertain.
144-5. '■'?'' «W?" την?] I eni τα)[ι θεωρικωι: την enl τω θ. αρχήν (MSS., except h iVi των
θεωρικών) does not suit. την before αρχήν can be omitted from the restoration, but cf. 1. 154.
Blass proposed eVl τ6 βΐωρικόν in both places, comparing § 25 and avoiding hiatus in 1. 145 ;
most ]\ISS. in 1. 154 have των θεωρικών (which may of course have been the reading of 1625
in both places), but cdq have τω θεωρικώ.
146. 6e is omitted by df, πω by Ap Vat., and it is not certain that both these words
should be restored.
153. The restoration is rather short, containing only 16 letters compared with 21 in
the two lines above (1. 154 may be short for special reasons; cf. n.); and ο may be
inserted before Δημοσθένης. The loss of it would be easy owing to the hiatus.
154. After τωί θεωρικωι (ΟΓ των θεωρικών; cf. 11. Ι44~55 ^-^ -^C proceed ΟΤΙ μεσονντα την
αρχήν εγραψεν αντον στεφανονν άναγίνωσκε (αναγινώσκετε SOme MSS.) διαλογισμός τών ημερών.
{biaX. τ. ήμ. οτΏ. Β), while of the A group e has only ψήφισμα (so Blass) and kl omit the
title as well as the preceding sentence. oVt . . . άναγίνωσκε was deleted by Bekker and
subsequent editors as a gloss, but some retain διαλογισμό? τών ήμερων as the title. Allow-
ing for a title at the top of Col. iv corresponding to 1. 121, there is certainly not room
for more than 27 lines of continuous text, and there may have been only 26, so that
it is practically certain that the gloss was omitted by 1625, as in A.
187. The papyrus may have had καθαπερ και οι άλλοι with C, but is unlikely to have
omitted άλλοι with A.
INDICES
(π = the papyrus in question.)
I. NEW THEOLOGICAL FRAGMENTS.
Άβελ 1600. 2 2.
nyyeXos 1603. 12.
aytiv 1600. 57-
ayioy [1601. 4•]
άδ€λφ(5ί 1600. 2 2?; 1602. 29.
αθεράπευτο? 1603. 21.
αιδεΓσ(9αι 1603. I 7.
αι/ια 1600. 38.
αιώνιος 1602. 29•
aKoveiv 1602. I.
αλλά 1600. 1 6.
aWos [1600. 31.]
αλλόφυλοι 1602. 9, 15-
<ϊιΊβ02. 31.
άναβαίνΐΐν 1601. [2], 8.
άι/ηιδί7? 1603. Ι5•
avaipeiv 1602. 24-5•
αναρίθμητος 1601. II.
άνδριώτατος 1603. 4•
&vev [1601. 9]
άνηρ 1601. 2 4.
ανομία 1602. 2 7-
αι;ο/χοί 1602. 2, 7-
άνοσιώτΐ pas 1602. 8.
αντί 1601. 34•
άι-τίδίκοί 1601. 1 3•
αι/υδροί• 1602. 17-
από 1602. 5•
αποβλ€πεΐίΊ600. 17, 21, 33•
απολλνναι 1601. Ι9•
άποτίμνίΐν 1603. 1 1 .
απώλεια [1601. 5•]
Άράδ {αδαρ π) 1602. 9•
αριθμός 1601. Q.
άρΐ'ίοΐ' 1600. 56•
άτιμάζίΐν 1603. 14 ?
αϋτόί 1601. [8], 19, 24;
1602. 5, (ί ^aep.; [1603.
19.]
αφιστάΐΌΐ 1602. 5) ^5•
βασιλεύς 1602. 8.
βούλΐσθαι 1600. Ι9•
γάρ 1600. 12, [4ΐ]; 1601.
4, ιι; 1602. 6; 1603.
15-
yi)1601. 3; 1602. 13, 37•
γΜ/ώσκειι/ 1600. 21.
γράφΐΐν 1601. 32.
γραφή [1600. 39•]
yvi/»7 1601. 29; 1603. ι, et
saep.
Δαυείδ [1600. 48•]
δε 1600. 6; 1601. [12], 2θ,
27 ; 1603. II, ΐ9•
δεσ/χευειι; 1603. 9•
hi] 1600. 4.
δ7?λοί;ιΊ6θο. 7? ; 1601. 2 1.
διά 1600. 6, 1 8, 2 2?, 39;
1603. 2, et saep.
8ιάβολος 1601. Ι4•
διδόι/αι 1602. II.
δίκαιος 1601. 2 0.
δισσόί 1603. 20.
διώκειν 1603. 8.
δόσΐί 1600. 19?
δΰι/α /nts 1602. 39•
ear 1600. ι6 ; 1601. 32;
1603. ΐ9•
eavTOV 1602. 36.
€-γώ 1601. 2 3, 3°• W"?
[1600. 8 ; 1601. 7] >
1602. 2θ, 36.
εδαφιΧείΓ 1603. 6.
ε^ΐΊκόί 1601. 34•
Wvos 1601. [2], 6, [12], 33•
ει 1600. Ι9•
εΓι/αι [1600. 12; 1601. 7];
1602. 7, 37•
εΐΓ 1600. 17, 22-34, [47>
56]•
ε'κ, €ξ 1600. 3,5; 1601. 33 ;
1602. 2, 6, 12.
(κκΚησία 1601. 33•
(κττζμττΐΐν 1602. Ι9•
(κτιθίναι 1600. 2 9•
€μπροσθίν 1600. 44•
e'v 1600. [8], 34; 1601. 21,
26 ; 1602. ιό; 1603. g.
(ζυνσία 1601. Ο.
επαγγελλεικ 1602. Ι3•
επεί 1602. ΙΟ.
67;ιΊ601. 3, 24-5, 3θ; 1602.
ι8, 39•
^πιθνμ{ ) 1601. 33•
ε'ρείι/ [1603. II.]
(ρημος 1602. 1 6.
ΐσχατος 1602. 39•
en 1602. II.
evboKia 1602. 34•
εχειι/ 1603. Ι9•
€ω5ΐ602. 31 •
ζην 1602. 2 0.
ζητί'ιν 1601. Ι5•
ζωη 1600. [43]. 48.
Ήλεί 1603. 6.
fjpepa [1600. 46•]
Ήσαίαί [1600. 34•]
θ€Ος 1600. 1 8
1602. 3, ΙΟ.
1601.
2l8
INDICES
θρψΐΊν\&0\. 23, 25, 27•
θρην(ί(ΐν 1601. 2 8.
if/3fuf 1603. 6, 1 6.
Ί^σοΰ? 1602. 21, 35.
"Ισραήλ 1602. 3.
ισχυροί 1601. [3], 8.
ίσχυί 1602. 12.
Ίωά^?;? 1603. II.
Ιωσήφ 1600. 20 ; 1603. ρ-
καθήσθίΗ [1601. 30.]
καιι/οί 1600. ΙΟ, 12, 15, ι8.
καφός 1602. 40.
κάκιστης 1603. Ι 8.
κακόν 1603. 20.
κακοποθΐΐν 1602. 23.
κακώς [1600. 32.]
καρπός 1602. 12.
κατά 1600. 14, 16; 1601.
II ; 1802. 21, 26.
ί(ατίΐ/3άλλε,ι/ 1603. 12.
καταπίρο,ν 1601. Ι5•
Kfpavveiv 1601. 1 8.
κηρνσσΐΐν 1602. 2 Ο.
κληρονομιά 1602. 28.
κλήρος 1602. 2 2.
κόσμος [1601. 6.]
κρβμαννύναι 1600. 44•
κύριος 1600. [s], 13, 20,
40; [1601. 3]; 1602. 4,
20, 33•
κυρονν 1602. 32.
λαμβάνΐΐν \Q0'2. 2 2, 35•
λαός 1602. 2 4.
λiy(ιv 1600. 49 5 1601. 1 1,
25, 29.
Χΐυίτης 1603. 1 6.
λί'ωι; 1601. 13-
λο-γίζ(σθαι 1600. 58.
λόγοί 1602. 38.
μακρός 1600. 3, 5•
μ^ν 1600. 14, [41]; 1601.
3ΐ•
μ(ν€ΐν 1602. 30-1 .
μΐρισμός 1602. 2 2.
μΐτά 1601. 2 2 ; 1602. ρ, 1 6.
μίχρι 1602. 3.
/i-7 1601. 30, 34•
μυστήριον 1600. Ι3> 20, ^Ο.
Μωύσης 1600. 2 8, 42 ; 1601.
32.
νηστΐΰΐΐν 1601. 28.
νικητής 1602. 3°•
νομίζΐΐν 1600. II.
νόμος 1600. 15-
νους 1601. 2.
νΰν 1602. 29•
νύξ 1600. 46.
^υρίίι/ 1603. 5• ■
όδούί 1601. 13-
ομοίως 1600. 24-32.
οπλον 1602. 34•
όρΰν 1600. 1 8, 43•
ος 1601. ΙΟ, 25; 1602. 4•
οσοί 1602. 1 6.
oWep 1601. 21.
όστις 1602 2 1.
ΟΤΙ 1594. 15 ; 1600. ι ;
1601. [2, 13], 28, [3θ],
31-2; 1602. 39•
ου, ουκ 1600. 47; 1602. 5;
1603. 1 6, 17• ου μΐ7ΐ601.
30. ουχ ΟΤΙ 1594. 15-
ουδύς 1603. 1 5-
ουρανός 1603. 7•
Ονριος 1603. Ι .'
ουτοΓ 1601. 6, ΙΙ-Ι2, 22, 34 ')
1602. 1 8.
ουτω{ς) 1600. 4 ," 1602. 37-
οφθαλμός 1600. 45•
7rfi(9oy 1600. 5•
παλαιοί 1600. ΙΟ, 12, 1 4.
πάλη 1601. 8.
παντοπ\αθής? 1603. ΙΟ.
παράβασις 1603. 3•
παράγΐΐν [1603. 3•]
παραλάμβαναν 1602. 38.
πα/3ί;^είΐ' 1602. 1 8.
π5ί 1603. 13-14, 17-18.
πάσχειν 1600. 32.
πατάσσ(ΐν 1600. 36.
τΓβρι 1600. 38.
πΐριπατύν [1601. Ι4•]
π^ριτιθίναι 1601. 2 Ο.
πιττράσκίΐΐ' 1600. 27.
πιστ(ΰίΐν 1600. 47•
π'ιστις 1600. 2.
πλούτος 1603. 1 9•
πνΐΰμα 1602. 23, 26, 39•
πνίυματικός 1601. 7•
πολύς [1600. 37•]
πονηρία 1603. Ι9•
πονηρός 1603. 1 8.
πορνΐύίΐν 1601. 2 9, 3°•
ποσάκις 1602. Ι.
πρόβατον 1600. 35•
Ίτρός 1600. 3?'* 1601. 23;
1602. 4, ΙΟ, 33; 1603.3•
προσΐλβνσις 1602. 32.
προφητίύΐΐν 1600. 42.
προφήτης 1602. Κ)] 1603.
ΐ7•
προφητικός 1600. 39•
πρώτον 1601. ^1.
ρίπτΐΐν 1601. 1 8.
ρύίσθαι 1602. 3•
σάκκος 1601. 24.
Σαμψών [1603. 4•]
σήμΐρον 1600. 7•
Σολομών 1603. 3•
σοφώτατος [1603. 2.]
στρατιώτης 1602. Ι.
σύ. ύμ€ΐς 1600. 43» 45j 48 ;
1601. 14 ; [1603. II. J
σύμφυτος 1602. 33•
συν^ργΰν 1603. 20.
σφαγή [1600. 56.]
σφάζίΐν 1600. 35•
σφαλλΐΐν 1602. 27.
σώ^6ΐι/ 1600. 37 ; 1602. 6.
τάξις 1602. 21.
ταπΐΐνοφροσύνη 1599. 42•
τ(λ(ΐοΐιν 1600. 8 ?
τίταρτος 1601. ΙΟ.
τηρύν 1602. 4> II•
τιμάν 1603. Ι 6.
τίς 1603. II.
τοίνυν 1600. 19.
τυ-^χάν(ΐν 1600. 8 ; 1601. ρ•
1. NEW THEOLOGICAL FRAGMENTS
219
τνπος 1600. 6, I γ.
τνή>\ονν 1603. 5-
υίοϊ 1601. 5 ; 1603. 6.
νπίρ 1602. 36.
ύττό 1602. 24-
ϋπομίνίΐν 1602. ^ϊ.
υπότασσαν 1602. Ι4•
φάναι 1601. 4•
Φαραώ 1602. 6.
φί'ώίσθαι 1603. 15?
φον(ύ(ΐν 1600. 2 3 ; 1603. Ι4•
φυ€ΐι; 1602. 36.
φυλακΓ/ 1603. 9•
Xawmtot 1602. 14•
χάρι? 1600. Ι, 1 6.
χεΙρ 1602. 2, 6.
Χριστοί 1602. Ι, 21, 23, 35•
ψνχη 1601. 4, δ•
"Ων 1602. 8.
ώί 1600. [34], 56; 1601.34;
1602. 37•
Ώσηΐ 1601. 29.
. όζ(ίν 1600. 2 5-
Π. NEW CLASSICAL FRAGMENTS.
(a) 1604 (Pindar, Dithyramhs).
{Large Roman mimerals refer to the different poems ; sch. = scholium.)
"Αβας I. 9.
c'lyuu [II. 28 .?]
αγίλα II. 23.
άγνοί'ιν I. 6 ; sen.
άγρότΐρος II. 21 ?
άί^εί!» I. 14.
αίγί? II. Ι7•
αΙθόμ(νος II. ΙΟ.
άκναμπτΐ'ι III. Ι 2.
άκουαν II. 2 9•
αλαλά II. Ι3•
aXicaets II. Ι 7•
άλμα Ι. 1 6.
άμιτνύν II. Ι5•
αι/αΙ Ι. 3•
άνθρωπος II. [3], 3°•
αΐΊστάΐΌΐ II. 25.
άΐ'(τι τοΟ) III. 7 sch.
αντίστροφη Ι. 2 Ο SCh.
άοώά Ι. 14; [Π. ι]; III. ΐ7•
^πό Ι. Ι ; [II. 3•]
άπ . . ο( ) Ι. 20 £ch.
αρο Ι. 6 ?
"Apyos Ι. 7•
Αρμονία II. 27.
"Αρτΐμις II. Ι9•
ασττασι'ω? Ι. 3Ι ?
αυτό? Ι. 6 sch.
αυχην III. Ι4•
Βάκχιοί II. 21.
β\ώσκ€ΐν Ι. 19.
βρισάρματοί II. 20.
βρομιάς Ι. II.
Βρόμιος II. 6, [2ΐ].
βροτός Ι. Ι5•
■)/ημ6τίί II. 27.
γαρ Ι. 15-
γάτων III. ΙΟ.
■yei/ea [II. 3®•]
Fopydrf? I. 5•
Δαΐ'α[ Ι. Ι.
δαί II. II.
δί'Ι. 6 and sch., 15; Π. [4],
ΙΟ, 12, 15, 19, 22-3, 29•
δ^ III. 9 ?
8ιαπ(τάνννσθαι II. 4•
διθύραμβος II. 2.
Διονυσιακός Ι. ΙΟ SCh.
ΔιόκυσοΓ II. 3Ι•
διο( ) Ι. 6 sch.
8όμος Ι. 8.
δράκων II. 1 8.
e Ι. 6 and sch.
(γχος II. ΐ7•
€γώ II. 23•
(Ιδίναι II. 5•
ίΐι/αι Ι. 6 sch.
iis I. 6 sch.
Έλλάί π. 25.
eV I. 7 ; II. 8
ei/^a II. 27.
^Εννάλιος II. 1 6.
€0f I. 20 and sch
(ξ I. 20 sch.
(ξαίρΐτος II. 23.
6771 I. 23 sch.
ΐ'πιδορατίς III. 1 3 Sch
επίμαχος I. 2 3 Sch.
έ'ποί II. 2 4•
ίρατός I. 8.
€ρίγδουπος II. 12.
epfcoi I. 1 6.
€ρπ(ΐν II. I.
ΐρχΐσθαι III. 9, 25 ?
en I. 14.
(υάμπυξ I. I 3.
(ύδαίμων I. II.
(ϋδοξος II. 30.
(ϋχΐσθαι I. 15 ;
10, 12, 15, 20.
34•
ζΐυγννναι I. 8 j
Ζ(ΰς II. 7, 29.
II. 26.
II.
20.
τ} II title.
Ήρακλ^ί II title.
η ρινός III. 19 ?
^tiXos I. 14.
θάνατος I. ^6.
220
INDICES
θηβαι [II. 26.]
Θηβαίοι II title.
θήρ II. 2 2,
βοίνα Ι. II.
θρασνς II title.
iVrat ('go *) Π, ig.
ίροϊ [Π. 4•]
ίστάναι II. 8.
Κάδ/χοί II. 28.
και Ι. ι6; π. 3, 7 J 22, 30;
ΠΙ. II.
καΚΚ'ιχορος II. 25 ?
κάρυ^ II. 24-
κατάμχαν II. 8.
κεδίΌ'ί II. 28 ?
<tef Ι. [34] and sch.
Ace/mufos II. 15.
Κίρβΐρο! II title.
Κ6;^λαδ/ι/ηι II. ΙΟ.
κηλ(ϊν II. 2 2.
κίβδαλος [11. 3•]
Kti/eii/ II. 16,
κίσσινος III. γ.
κλα^γά II. 1 8.
kKOvos II. 14.
κό/37 Ι. 1 7 sch.
κορνψά Ι. 12.
κονρη [Ι. Ι γ.]
/cpeyaaiTviOi III. 12.
κρόταλα II. ΙΟ.
κρόταφο! III. 8.
κνανοχίτων III. g.
kvkKos II. 4•
Κυκλωψ Ι. 6, ΙΟ sch.
"Kayxavfiv [II. 28 ?]
Xeyftj; I. 2, 1 5, 23 Sch.
\€ίβΐσθαι I. 4.
λί'ωΐ' II. 2 I.
/xan'a II. 13.
μάτηρ II. 9, 32.
peyapa II. 8.
peyas I. 7 ; Π. 9.
Μ^λαϊ I. 16.
μιλίζίιν III. 6.
MeVII.[i], 8; III. 3.
μΐταγράφΐΐν I. 6 Sch.
Μοίσα II. 25. ΜοΙσαι 1. 1 4.
μυρίο! II. 1 8.
Ναϊάδβί II. 12.
ναίΐΐν Ι. 35•
ΓίΟϊ II. 5•
I'll' Ι. 1 6.
[II. 4•]
νυν
ξανθοί II. II.
ξ(νίζ(σθαι Ι. το sch.
ό Ι. [ιο] and sch., 34 sch. ;
II• 3> ΐ5> [ι6], 22.
ο Ι. 6 sch.
οιοττόλοϊ II. 19 and schol.
oios II. 6.
δλ/3οί II. 26.?
όμφά II. 29.
opyij II. 20.
όρίνίσθαι II. 13.
Ουρανίδαι II. 7•
οίίτοΓ Ι. 6 sch.
οϋτ-ωΓ Ι. 6 sch.
όφις II. 1 8 sch.
παγκρατη! II. 1 5.
Παλλάί II. 17-
^Ar. ΤΤ η ^-,.^
παρ II. 9• παρά II. 7, [s^]•
ττατηρ Ι. 5, Ι7•
TTeXeiJ' III. 15.
nepuraos I. 34 Sch. π(ρισσω5
I. 20 sch.
πίτάλον III. 19.
πΐΰκη II. II.
■π\(κτόί III. 7 sch. .''
TVkOKOS III. 7•
πόλΐϊ. TToKia III. 9, ττΓολίί
I. 6.
πο'ΐΌΓ III. 16.
ποτ€ II. 27.
TTois III. 4.
πραπίδί! II. 28.
npeneiv I. 1 1 .
πρί!» II. I.
npoaaydv I. 20 Sch. .?
πρύτανίί III. lO.
πΓολίϊ I. 6. Cf. πόλίί.
πυλ»; II. 4.
πύρ II. 1 6.
ρίμφα II. 19.
(ρί)\/^αυχι;ΐ' II. 13.
ρόμβος II. 9-
ρύ^σθαι III. 14.
σάν II. 3•
σΐμνός II. 8.
σκαπτον II. 7•
σκο'τΓίλοί III. ΙΟ.
σολοικισμοί Ι. 6 Sch.
σοφός II. 24.
στάσίί III. 3•
στ (φανός III. y.
σΓθλ[ III. 24.
στόμα [II. 3•]
στοί'α;(ά II. ι 2.
στρατιά III. 1 1.
σύ. vppt [Ι. 15•]
σνγγονος Ι. Ι 7•
συι/ II. 14•
σχοινοτίνής [II. Ι.]
ταμίας 111. 23.
re I. 19 : II. [ΐ], ΙΟ, 13,
[ι6], 17, [26]; III. ίο,
12-13, ΐ7•
τ€λ(τά Ι. 33 ; II. 6 ; III. 6.
Τ(ός III. 6.
Τίθεναι Ι. Ι3•
TLKTfiv II. 3Ο•
τύ•[μ|παι/α II. 9•
ύπό II. 1 1.
ΰψαύχην II. 13.
υψηλός II. 2 8.
φάμα II. 27.
φΐνγ(ΐν Ι. 1 6.
φθσγγάζΐσθαι II. 1 8.
φι'λοϊ III. 9•
Φόρκος Ι. 17.
φίλοι' II. 21 ; III. 1 8
λά/'Μα III• Ι3•
χορΐν(ΐν II. 2 2.
χοροί III. 1 6.
ώί Ι. 6 sch.
//. NEW CLASSICAL FRAGMENTS
221
ib) Other Classical Fragments.
(1600 is to be stipplied before the figtires in thick type. The extant portion
of 1608 is not indexed, except the proper names.)
ά-γαθός 5. 48.
Αγαμηστωρ 13. 2.
άγανακτΰν 6. ^CJ , 543•
άγνόί 11. 163.
ayovoi 11. 95•
αγορά [11. 73•]
άδίλφη 7. 283.
αδΐΧφίΒοΐΐί 10. 86.
a8f\ipos β. Υ, [ι6ι] ; 10. T43 ?
aSiKflv 6. 115, 117•
αδίκως β. 4^9•
αδύνατος 1. 59•
αθανασία 12. 3^•
'Αθηναίοι 6. 176; 10. 73? ^01 ; 12. 2Τ.
"Αιδ^ϊ 11. 271.
αίρίΐν 10. 45. 75» 207 ?
ΑΪσιμίδης 13. 7•
Αίσ;(υλοί 13. 3•
, αΐτιασθαι 11. 225.
άκόντιον 11. 72.
ακούει/ 5. 46 ; 6. 129, 136, 143' ΐ47» 379,
496; 7. 250; 9. ΐ5•
Άκουσίλαο? 11. 52.
ακρόπολίί. Ilfpt άκ. 11. 103.
αλγ/^δών 11. 247 •''
αληθώς 11. 43•
άλίσκΐσθαι 10. Ιθ6 ; 11. 67.
Άλκΐ]3ίάδ>75 8. 5^•
Άλκμίων (α) 11. 87, 91 ; ί*^) 13• 5•
αλλά 6. 83, [233]. 245' δθ2, 7θδ; 7. 44,
126, [ι6ι], 164; 8.36; 9. II ; 10. 163;
11. 198; 12. 14-
άλλος 6. 223, 259, 535 j H• 6°•
αλλότριος 6. 1 79•
&μα β. 352; 10. [ΐ23], 125-
άμαρτάν€ΐν 6. 544•
αμάρτημα β. Ι 8 Ο.
ά/χαρτί;[ 8. 8 1.
ημονσος 8. 9, Ι4•
άμφισβητΐίν 6. 547' 604.
άμψότίρος 7. ΙΙ5•
άν 6. [ιΐ4], ιι8, 123, [234], 235> 260, 504.
536 ; 7. 4θ, 63, 228 ; 8. 37, (48) ; 9. ι8 ;
10. 242?; 11. 240; 12. ΙΟ, 24, 26.
αν ^ ΐάν 6. 34^ ?
avayeiv 5. 34•
άναγκάζΐΐν β. 254, 353•
αναγκαίος 8. 8, 12 ; 10. 4•
ανάγκη 6. ΐ8ΐ, 293, 295, 4^2.
άναγράφ^ΐΐν 11. 105.
άΐ'αισ;^υιτ裕 6. 73^•
άνάκλασις 9. 1 1.
άνακοινοΰσθαι 10. 128.
αν<ιλαμβάν(ΐν 7. 87.
άναμιμνησκΐΐν {αναμνημισκΐΐν Π) 6. Ι 78.
*Αΐ'άσ;^€τοί 7. 2 1 8.
ai/eii' 11. 127.
άνηρ 6. 98Λ 935; 10• 75, 268?; 11. 62.
ώ ανδ. δικασταί β. 77, 1^4, 220, 368, 377,
859 J 7. 22 1. άνδράσι β. 33°•
άνθρωπος β. 225; 7. ΐ6, 42, 195; 8. 8, 29,
52; 11. 64; 12. 1 6.
άνύναι 12. 28 ?
ανόητος β. 357*
άνοια 8. 4Ι•
ανόμως 6. 1 59•
Ηΐ/τε^βσ^αι 7. 1 7 2 .
αντί 6. 171 ; 11• 29?
αντίδικος 6. 1 33•
άντιπράττ€ΐν 7• 9^•
ηνωθΐν 11. 8 Ι.
«Itoy 6. 659•
ά\ιοΐ>ν 6. II, 78, 320, 326; 7. 193 ; 10. 24;
11. 46.
άπαιτΐΐν 6. 264.
ηπαίτησις 6. 2 73•
άπ(ΐλ€ΐν 11. 77•
απι/ναί 9. 1 8.
από 5. 35; 9• ^9 > 10• 94• "'^'' H• 9'•
άπογιγνώσκ(ΐν 8. 29.
άποδ(ΐκννναι 6. 533•
άτΓοδ,^μΕίΐ' 7. 285.
πποδιδόΐΌί 6. 14, 3ΐ~2, 46-7» 37°, 38ι-2.
άποθνήσκΐΐν 10. ΙΟ4; 11. 83.
άποικίζΐΐν 10. 59•
άποκηρνττΐΐν 8. 39"
άποκομίζ(σθαι 11. 2 22 ?
aTTOKTeti'fti' 6. 9 j H• 228.
απολαμβάνων β. 2 Ι 7•
άπολβγίίΐ/ 7. 2 8, 58•''
222
INDICES
Απολλόδωρος 8. 34.
άπολλύναι 6. 83•
άπολογΐΊσθαι 8. 3^•
απολογία 8. 2 8.
άπολνβιν 11. 54•
απορία β. 3^7 5 1^• ^°9•
απορροή 9. 1 8.
άποσηρύν 6. ΙΙ7, 102, 253, 5°^, 949•
άποφίρισθαι 6.12?
άποψηφίζΐσθαι 6. 221.
απρατοί β. 4^•
άπρΐπης 7. ΐ8θ.
'ApyeTos 11. 52.
apyipiov β. 264, 283, 296, 341, 345•
άριστα 6. 2Ιο; 11. 23 1 ?
*Α[ριστό?^^ημος 11. 223.
Ά/ϋστοφάυί^ί 11. 174•
Άρίφρων 13. Ι.
ΆρκΓΪΐΌΓ 11. 148?
^Αρταξ^ρξηί 10. 12 2.
άρχαΊοε 12. 38.
αρχΐΐν 11. 84.
άρχ^ 11. 122 ; 12. 12.
do-e/Seli' 12. 23, 25•''
ασ^ενωΓ 7• 82.
Άσ/α 8-99•
άστΓί'ί 6. 20, 66.
Άσσί;[ 11. 247•
ατΐκνος 11. 90•
αΓί/χά^ίί!» 10. 20.
άτρωτος 11. 6 2 .
ai'T-c)? 6. 8, 85, 90, 148, 169, 182, 191, 202,
227, 232, [268], [272], 294-5, 299, 326,
379, 503Λ 532, 534, 536; 7. 20, 26, 61,
99, 103, 192, 206, 394; 8. 79, 82; 10.
9, 74, 85, 96, 100, 116?, 123; 11. 59>6ι,
^ 65, 76, 79, 128, 149; 12- ΐ3, ^3, 27.
αυτόν 10. 49 ^
άφαιρΰν 6. ιο; 12. 30•
αφανίζει/ 6. 32.
άφηγί'Ίσθαι 11. 1 6 1.
αφιππος 8. II, Ι5•
άφρων 6. 36Ο•
Άχαρνίύς 6. 89•
"Ayj/avSpos 13. II.
αψιμαχία 7. 26.
Βάκ;^αι 11. 35-
βαρβαρικοί 10. 7 2 .
βασιλ(ία 10. 1 24; 11. 4°•
βασιλΐύίΐν 11. 44•
βασιλΐίς 10. 51, §7, ^32; 11• 5°, 69•
βέβαιος (^βίβαιοΰν?) β. 493» 6θ2.
βίλτίων 6. 132, I4Ij 148, 204.
iSi'a 6. 227.
β^ος 6. 353•
βόρΐκος 11. 123, 126.
βονλ(σθαι 6. 138, 441 j 10. 33• 125.''; 12.
10, 22.
βονλΐΰΐσθαι 6. 498 •'*
βοΟί, ό β. 336•
βραχίς 10. 1 35•
Βνζάντιον 10. 4Ι•
γά/) β. 17, 113?, 122, 152, 157, 183, 242,
329, 538, 553- 595 ; 7. 19, 42, 63, 73, 9^,
187, 224, 228; 8. 21, 40, 151; 9• ίο,'
[10. 5ο.?]; 11. 46, [5ΐ], 55, 58, 84, ι66,
239, 389; 12. 12, 28, 35-
ye 7. 59, 162; 8. 42, 100.?; 11. 190.
re(ras) 5-35 ^arg.
γΐφνρα 10. II.''
γη 6. 43; 11• 8ι.
γίγνΐσβαι 6. [156], 205, 262, 359, 378; 7. 25,
63; 8. 2?, ίο; 10. 3θ, 96; 11. 69, 9°•
γιγνωσκην β. 535 > 8. 82.
γονείς 8. 2, 5, 45, 50-
γννη 11. 146.
8αμάσιππος 11. 1 64.
δανίίζΐσθαι 6. 320, 327, 444•
δί β. [7], 13, 41, 47, 85, ιι6, 143, ΐ55,
[163], 175, ι8ι, ι86, 189, [216], 224,
246, 251-2, 255, 257, 26ι, 266, 295, 3ΐ9,
324-5, 336, 494, 5θ5, 558; 7. [72], 8ο,
84, ι86, 288, 455; 8. 7, 34, 37, 49, 57;
9. 9, Μ, 31-2, [34], 37 ; 10• 8, [12], ι6,
[32], 38, 7ο, 74, ιο6, 125, [237], 249 i*;
11• 34-5, 56, 75, 86, 92, 107, 109, III,
127-8, 137, 151, [ΐ75]>213, 215, 223,
229, 232, 247, 276, 28ο; 12. ι, ιι,
1 8, 30.
8ί8ιως 10. 126.?
6ύν 6. 249, 36ι ; [7. ιοο]; 9. 14; 12. ΐ7•
dfivos β. 1 13 •^ 42 2 .?
8άσθαι β. 143, 219, 3ΐ8, 335•
Δΐκίλΐΐα 6. 1 86.
Μσποινα [7. 102.]
devTfpos 11. 39, (fi&^'"^) 329•
8η β. 417 ; 7. Ι02 ; 8. 48 ; 10. ιοί.
//. NEW CLASSICAL FRAGMENTS
223
δήλοί 6. 152, 193, 8o3; 11. 32.
^ηΚονν 7. 24.
Δημητηρ 12. 2 ζ.
Αημόκριτοί 9. ΐ6.
8ημοί [β. 2 17•]
δίάβ. 56 ?, 203, 239; 8.28; 10. [ι6?], 2ΐ,
ιο8 ; 11. 86, 88, 96.
διαβάλλΐσθαι 8. 51 ?
8ιαβολή 7. '2 11.
dtayai'a/CTeii' 6. 84•
Βιάγίσθαι 6. 559•
8ιακΰσθαι 7. 82.
δίακόσίοι 5. 32 ,* 10. 66.
διαλεγβσ^αι 7. 97•
BiaXvfiv β. 333» 56ο; 11. 128.
bianopflv 11. 166.
8ιαπράττ(σθαι 8. 25•
διαρρήδην 7. 128.
δίηΓίλίΐΐ' 10. 93•
Οιατιθΐναι 6. 242 .'*
διαφίρΐσθαι 7. 23, 62, ΙΟΟ.
διηφθΐίριιν 7. 194; 10• 73•
διαφορά 6. 202 ; 8. 42.
διδόι/αι 5. 37'" 6• 25 •^ 228, 248, 252, 271,
273, 474; 7. Ι07?; 10. 213.
δίδυ/χοί 11. 92.
δίκάέ'β"' 6. 17, 254, 871 ; 7. ΐ59•
δίκαιος β. 553 ^ δικαιότατος 10. 2 8 .^ δίκα/ω?
6. 1 1 8, 5θ6, 536. δίκαιότΐρον 6. 130.
δικαι[ β. 4ΐ6, 495•
δικαστηριον 11. 2 26.
δίκοστι?? β. 77> 114; 221, 369, 37^, ^^Α,
859 ; 7. 222.
δίκη 6. Ι03 ?, 184, 248.
Διονίιο'ΐα β. 33°•
διορΰττ(ΐν 7. 14, 23, 3°, 4°, 92•
Αιώξιππο! 7. 285.
δο«ίί/6. 144, 479•^ 5το; 8.7,13; 9• 9•
δολ(;(ΟΓ 10. 134 ?
δόξα 12. 3Ι•
δόρυ 11. 41, 45, 48, 84.
δραχμή β. 23, 167, 332; (symbol) 9. 31,
[37-8J.
δυ€ΐν β. 250, 355•
δύναμα β. 348•
δύνασθαι 6. 1 6, 34, 538 ; 11• 5 1, 85-
δύο β. 169, 297, 44°; 11• 3ΐ> ιι6.
δυστυχέστερος 6. 2 2 6.
δυστυ;^ια 6. 1 58.
δωρίά β. 172.
iai> 6. 47•'; 7. ι6ι; 11. 94; 12. 32.
iaυτoi {αϊτοί) β. 1 6, 8ο, 1 68, 177, 345, 358 ;
8. 5, 4δ•
ίβδομηκοντα 6. 30.
έβδομος (figure) 11. 232.
(■γγονος 11. 146.
εγώ β. 256, 26ο, 269, 296, 315 •^ 335•', 337,
419, 442, 495• 51°; 8. 13, 49, [82]; 11.
9ο; [12. 32]• ημείς 6. 201 ; 11. 3θ?;
12. 13.
εθελειρ 6. 552 ; 12. 28.
έθνος. [Εθι/ώιΑ κτίσεις 11. 2Ι3•
61 6. [ιΐ5], 123, 224, 226, 230, 250, 296,
301, 351, 355, 494, 5θ2 ; 7• [73], 187,
^ 194; 8. 57; 11• ΐ9ο; 12. 22.
εϊδεναι 7. 46•
εΐδωλον 9. Ι4•
εικός β. 252, 322, 344•
εΐuaι 6. [ιΐ4], 124, 141, 145, 149, 154, ι68,
174, 194, 20Ι, 244, 246, 251, 256, 277,
284, 327•', 337, 344, 356, 426, 480,
562; 7. ι8, 54, 72, 221, 236, 341, 465 ;
8• 9, 49, 53- 57 ; 9-32 ; 10. 5, 59, 87, 93,
ιοο; 11. 31, 43> 58, 75, 83, 96, ΐ47,
170, ι88 ; 12. 15, ΐ7•
('ίπερ 10. 33•
εΙς 5. 31 ; β. 93•', ι65, [234], 260, [330],
346, 354, 489; 7. 284; 8. 42; 9. 13;
10. 6 ; 11. 224, 226.
εις 7. 191 ; [10. 238.]
είσάγειν 11. 227.
είσιεναι β. 234.
είτα β. 201 .ί*
εΐωθεναι 7. 95•
εκ, εξ 6. ι86, 285; 7. 194; 10. 4ΐ, 58; 11-
59, 6ο; 12. 1 2.
έκαστος 6. 476 ; 9. Ι 9-
εκατόν 10. 74•
εκγονος {εγγονός Π) 11. 146.
εκδιδόραι 10• 34 •'
eVet 9. 9 ; 10• 103•
εκε'ινος 6. 63?, 7^4; 7. 27, 45, 68, 8θ, 228,
396; 8.36; 9. ίο; 10. ι8. 2ΐ, 31, ΐ94•';
11. 59, 79; 12. 18-19. Cf. «Γι/ο?.
εκεΊσε 12. 2 7•
εκπλείν 5. 47 •' ; 10• 40•
εκτίθεσθαι 11. Ι 48.
εκτίνειν 6. 249, 300.
εκτισις 6. 49°•
εκφευγειν β. 7•
224
INDICES
"Ελατο? 11. 57.
ίλάχιστος 6. Ι57•
i\evet\p 7. 344•
'EXeuaiVta 12. 2 I.
ΈλλαΜΚΟΓ 11. 212.
Έλλάί 10. 59•
"ΕλΧψΐί 8. 127 ; 10. 24, ιο8, 192.
eXm's 6. 198.
ΐμός 6. 258, 322.
'Ε/χτΓίδοκλτ^ί 9. Ι7•
eVe. II, 120, [370]; 9. 13; 10. [88], 105;
11• 34, 36, 39>ΐ73]> §7, 103, ιΐ4> ΐ2θ-ι,
129, 213- [219J 229, 232, 28θ, [302].
evavrios 6. 274, 534•
fveKa 7. 7Ι• evfKev 7. 17; 9^•
iveabe 12. 26.
€Vo;^Xeri/ 6. 263.
ivTtieev 6. 343.
ΐξαίφνης 6. 351 ; 10. Ill ?
e|eXa^i/eti/ 11. 1 2 5.
φτάζ€ΐρ [6. 343]; 7. 223.
ψ,ί 11. 147-
ίξονσία 7. 45•
(naiveiv 8. 26.
eVei [6. 163.]
€π-«δΐ7 6. 13, 34, 155 5 7. 419.
eneira 11. 58, 72•
eVt' 6. 82, 146, 184, 188, 199, 337, 508;
7. 29, 50; 9. lo-ii ; 10. 43 ; 11. 286.
eTTidfiKvCvai 6. 348.
eniKovpos [6. 1 64.]
Επίκουρος 9. 1 6.
impeveiv 6. 1 56.
ίπιπίτΓΤΐΐν 10. III?
(πιπΧ(ϊι> 6. 372.
(πιστο\η 7. 289, 337•
eniTTjSfios 6. 658.
€πιτίθΐναι 10. 144•'*; H. 82.
fmrpeTTfiv 6. 1 35, 350.
ΐπιτροπη β. 267.
ΐπίτροπος 6. 244.
(πιτυ-γχάνίΐν 8. .52 ?
€ργάζ(σθαι 6. 207, 719•''
epyoK 5. 31 ; 10. 17•
epetv 6. 224, 329; 7. 66-7; 9. 14; 10. 36;
12.34•
Έρμης 11. 120.
"Ερμιππος 11. ΙΙ9•
ερυθρός 11. 235•
ίρχίσθαι 6. 6θ, 347•
έ'σχατοί 6. 346,* 11. 2 45•
ίτίΰρος 6. 246, 257•
htposG. 297-8, 302, 313» 322, 327. 338;
7. 233 ?
fTos 6. 440 ,* 13. passim.
evbaipovfiv β. 1 53•
evBmpoveaTfpos 6. 22 0.
evepyeata 6. I 78, 2 1 7.
euepy[6^ 10. 255.
ΐυ\αβύσθαι 8. 47•
ΐυνοΰχος ΓΐΟ. 13©.]
Ευριπίδης 11. 87•
(υρίσκΐΐν 6. 83; 8. 48; 12. 12.
€υσ€βής 12. 6.
ΐύτνχία β. 200•
ΐΰψημΐΐν 8. 6.
6ΰ';(6σ^αί 11. Ι47•
ί'φοΒος 10. 96.
(φορμαν 11. 78.
ένιν 6. 41, 198, 232, 297, 504, 553; 7. 44,
59,177.221; 8. 79, [83]; 9- 3I•^[37];
10. 44 ; 11. 63 ; 12. 5•
έ'χ^ρα 7. 7ΐ; 8. 43•
ίχθρός 6. [190], 258, 320, 349, 359•
εωί 6. [ΐο], 152.
Ζΐίς 5. 33 ; 7• ιο8, 2ΐ6 ; 11• 76, [163]•
ζη)\.ότυη\ος 5. 29• ζηΚοτΰπως 8. 83.
^ι^ 10. ιο6.
fijTeir 11. 94•
Ca>ypel.v 10. 75•
"76• [196], 228, 298-9, [360], 362; 7.65,
8. ΙΟ, 12 ; 9. ι6-ΐ7 ; 11• 67, 17Ο; [2
ηγί^σθαί 6• 276, 506.
ήγΐμονία 10. 2 6 .?, 34 •''
η8η 6. 982 ; 11. 1 2 5•
ηδονή 11. 246.
Ήϊώι/ 10. 43•
ij/ceti; 6. 13 ■''; 8. 4Ι•
Ήλβϊοί 6. 1 68.
ηλικία 6. 204•
ήλιος 6. 2 50, 355•
^μφα 6. 33, 93 ?
ήμίτΐρος β. 142.
jjptavs 6. 78, 822; (symbol) 9. 36•
?ΐν (Ί said') 8. 37, 49•
ήπΐΐρος 10. 95•
'Υϊρακλής 11. 123.
ησυχία 7. 248.
..,68;
[2 46].
//. NEW CLASSICAL FRAGMENTS
225
θάνατος 11. I 50.
θαρσύν 11. 141.
θΐμιστοκΚης 8. 3, 38, 84-5 ; 10. 7•
θΐο^ΐκτης 11. 28ο ?
θΐοζοτ'ώης {Θ(0^υτι8ης Π) 6. 2 49? 3°°•
θίόμνηστος (α) β. 240, 247, 255, 342?:
{ύ) 7. 219-
θίός 11. 89, 95• ^(οί 11. 74 ? ; 12. 39•
θΐράπαινα β. 238; 7. 6θ, 96, 472•
θίστΓΐίύϊ 13. 2.
θησαυρός β. 8ΐ.
θουκυδι'δι?? 11. ΙΙ5•
QpaKfs 11. 2 2 1.
θρασνς 7. 64.
θρασωνίδηί 5. 25•
^υίίΐ' [11. 74•]
Ίαπίτόί 11. Ι 20.
ιδίΟί 7. 7^•
/fpeuf 12. 73j 81 .^
ύρόϊ 11. 59•
]ί€σθαι 7. ΐ8ΐ.
ίνα [β. 144 ]
ιππικός 8. 12.
'Ιπποθίρσης β. 74 •^ Ι37> 147» 237•
ίπ7Γολ[ 11. 34^.
Ιππομίνης 13. 9•
ιπτΓΟϊ 11. 12 4, Ι2 7•
ίστάναι 7. 241; 11. 72•
Ιστορία 11. 54•
tV;(uy 11. 63.
Ισχυ[ β. 886.
Ι'σωί 11. 84.
"Ιων 11. 121, 2 77 •■'
καθαιρΐϊν β. Ι97•
κα^άπβρ 7. 95> 336 ?; 11• 45> 49. ^67.
καθιστάναι 8. 4^ ', 12. 15•
κάθοδος β. ΐ65•
καί. κ -^ κα'ι 11. 2 1 6. καΐ -yop 7. 187 ,*
12. 12. /cat /XTji/ 7. 58•
Kaii/e^i 11. 41, 46-7, 55? 85•
KatH7 11. 56.
Ka'infp 11. 171.
Καΐσηρ 12. 9, II, 24, 32.
(caiVot 6. 118, 321.
κακός 5. I 7.
κα\ΰν 6. 483; 10. 57 ; 11. 107.
καλώς 5. 27, 5© ; 7. 22o; 8. 34; 12. 13.
Καρ;(/]δώΐ' 6. 37©.
κατά 7. 8ι, 171, 192; 9• ι6; 11. 8ο, Ι22.
KUTayeiv β. Ι 90.
/cαrα■yι•yι'ώσκf ti" 7. 1 6θ.
AtaraStKiifit;/ 7. 215•
κατακοιμιστης 10. 13^•
κατακόπτΐΐν 11. 79•
KUTaXfyeiv 11. 53•
(caraXetTTfti' 10. Ι02.
κατασκίυά^ί£ΐ/ β. 208 ; 7. 397•
καταφρονΰν 6. 419?' 7. ΙΟ9.
καταφυγή 10. 23Ο ?
κατΐΤί(Ί•γ(σθαι 7. 3°) 43•
*ίατ6/);^ίσ^αι 6. 12, 38, 42, 45, "S? Ι75•
κατ(χ(ΐν 10. 123 •'^
κατηγορία 7. 2 2 4•
κατοπτρίζ€ΐν 9. 19•
κάτοπτρο ν 9. ΙΟ.
ΚίίΐΌί 11. 91.
«eWti/ 6. 38, 235 ; 7. 2 1, 214; [11• 74•]
Kf νταυροι 11. 7 Ι, 78•
Kfvruv 11. 66.
κηδ(στης 7. 2 Ι 7•
Κι>ωι/ 10. 38, [62].
Kti'6weileii' 10. 7^•
κίνδυ^οί 6. 346 ; 7. 72•
Κλύδικος (κλεοδίκοί Π) 13. 8.
κλ/ιζ(ΐν 11. 102 a.
κλήρος β. 487» 49 1 •
Κοάλβμοί 11. Ι07•
κόγχη 9• 30•
κοίΐ'ωΐ'οί 6. 379•
κομίζΐσθαι 6. ΐ6 .?, 43) 1 73•
Κόρΐί'(9ο£ 11. 88.
κρατίΐν 11. 47•
Kpartvoy 11. 36.
κρίσις [6. 1 39•]
κριτής 11. 32.
Κρίτων 7. 2 20.
κτασθηι β. 44•
KTiVts• 11. 214•
κΰαθος 9. 27-8, 33~4•
Κύπρος [10. 65.]
Kupieveiv 7. 85.
κυρίΟΓ 7. 119•''
AaKeoai/ztirtoi 8. ΙΟ3•
λαμβάνων 6. 79? 227, 298, [302], 339;' U•
266.
Λα/χπροκλ^ϊ 11. ι 70, 172.
Καπίθαι 11. 7°•
220
INDICES
\ty(iv δ. 30?, 41?, 43-4; β. 79, 131, i82,
340; 7. 47. 95. 193, 290, 336?; 8. 4,
[84]; 10. 7; 11. 37, 39, 55. 89, [120].
122, 175, 240 ; 12. 10, 17.
XfiTovpyelv 7. 2 Ο.
Αίωκράτης 13. ΙΟ.
λόγοί 7. 335•
\ογχοφόρο! 10. Ι20 ?
λοιπός β. 146, Ι49•
Αυκι[ 11. 251.
ΑνκομήΒη! 10. ζΟ.
Αυκόφρων 7. 28, Ιθ6, ΐ6θ, 287•
λι;πίΪΓ β. 176.
Λυσίαί 6. 36, 79. ^S^. 15°. 211, 2ΐ6 ?, 222.
Ανσιππο! 11. 34. 30Ι•
μαθητής 11. 1 7 2 ?
/χάλίστα 11. 67.
μαρτνρΐΐν β. 37 1•
μαρτυρία 7. 2Ι7•
μάρτνί 6. 253, 272, 367. 374, 376, 380, 436,
[438], 477, 700-Ι, 828, 850.
μίyaς β. 328 ; 8. 78 ; 9. 29, 3°, 33 ; 10• 25,
269?; 11• 138, ΐ64• μ€γιστος 6. 2ΐ8 ; 8.
44; 10. 23 5 11. 63.
μ(βύναί 11. 2 2 2.
μείξις 11. 95•
μΐίων 6. 194 ?
Μΐλησίας (α) 11. Ιθ6 ; ((5) 11. Ιΐ7•
μίλλειν 7. 85•
μ€μνησθαι 6. 2 2 2.
μει/ 6. ιι> 39, ιΐ5• 122, 149, 152, 174, 184,
[227], 256, 30Ι, 322, 338, 377. 5^2, 554 ;
7. 73. 8ο, 176?, 183, ΐ94. 288; 9. ΐ2;
10. 8, 19, 58, 71, 84. ιθ2, 123: 11. 9°.
[109], 112, 124; 12. ι6.
Μέρων 11. ΙΙ4•
μίρος β. 157 ; 9• 35•
/χίτά 6. ι8, 35-6, 76, 187, 2θ6; 10. 42;
12. 4, 7 ?
μ€ταίχμιον 11. 219?
μΐταμίΧησαν 6. 203•
μίτοικος 6. Ι 54•
μΐ7 β. 124, 225, 230, 243, 251, 296, S^J
487; 7. 88, 163, 222, 445; 10• 126.
μη^ύ 7. 447•
μφίίς 6. 545 ; 7• 43•
μηκίτι 7. 3^•
/X7JI/ 7. 58.
μηνίκΐν 6. 3 ' 9•
Μί'δωί/ [11. 173?]
Μιθρώάτης 10. 130.
μικρός 9. 34• Cf• Μ^'**"'•
Μιλτιάδη;? 10. 39•
μίσγεσβαι 11. 57•
μισθός 6. 332 ?
μι/ά 6. 248 ; 9. 36.
Μνασίας 11. 12 8.
μόρος 10. 137; 12• 20. μόρον 6. 23Ο, 243;
277, 536; 7. 163; 11. ΐ97•
μουσικός 8. ΙΟ.
Μύσίοί 15. 099•
ναι 5. 45•
Na^iot 11. 219 ?
ραυμαχία 10. ΙΟ, Ig•
i/aCf 6. 369, 387 ; 10• 73, 98, 267 ?
Ρΐος 12. Ι.
νη Αία 5. 33; 7. Ιθ8, 2ΐ6.
νήσος 10. 46.
^ικαίύς 12. Ι4•
Νικόστρατϋί 6. Ι7•
νομίζΐΐν 8. 49; 10• 94•
νόμος 6. 12 8.
wi/ 5. 30; 6. 181; 7. 80; 11. 30; 12. 34•
νυνί β. 13, 194, 233, 257, 804.
ί/^^ΙΟ. 105, 115?
2eiO/f[Xi;sJ 6. Ι 8.
ξίνος 6. 1 68; 11. 236.
6. τα (Ις τον Ύίμαιον 9. Ι3• ^ρο τοϋ β. 256.
ciySoof 9. 35•
οδός 11. 127•
'Οδυσσεύς 11. 272.
£;(9€ί' 7. 28; [10. 36.]
οί(σθαι 6. 193 ; 8• 37 ;■ 12• 69 ?
οίκΰος 6. 337•
οικία 6. 44; 7. 57= 84•
οίκοδομίΐΐν 6. Ι95•
οΓοί 6. 43° J 9• 15 ; 10• 26. οΓόϊ nep 8. 3•
οϊχΕσ^αι 6. II, 36, 6ΐ, 163, ΐ85•
oKVflv 6. 317. 335•
ολίγος 6. 361 ; 11. 1 66.
"Ολορος 11. Ι ΙΟ.
όλος 7. 2 24 ; 11• ^49•
'Ολυμπία 7. 284•
ομιλία 7. 1 6.
όμοιος 6. 1 98. ομοίως 7. 33 H• 35•
//. NEW CLASSICAL FRAGMENTS
227
όμολο^ίίζ/ 6.. 95, 685 ; 7. i86.
'Ομφάλη 11. 121.
οναΒίζΐΐν 6. I Bo.
όποϊος 12. 1 6.
6πότ€ροί 6. 138, 140.
οπού lO.'lOp.
οττωϊ 7. 247•
όράνβ. 266; 7. 8i; 9. 11-12; 10. 197; 11. 76.
οργή 6. 870.
6ργίζ(σθαι [β. ΙΙ9•]
Όρίστψ 11. 2 8ο.
op^toi {opeios π) 11. 8θ.
όρμασθαι 6. 1 8 6.
o/joy 11. 124.
o's 5. 30; 6. 31, [45]> i84r 207, 233, (536);
7. 90, 184?, 220, 334; 8• 46; 10. [9],
25, 46, Ι2θ; 12. II. Cf. ου.
OS. ^ δ' 0J 8. 37-
ό'σιοί 12. 7•
όσος 6. 234; 10. 58; 11. 184.
οσπ€ρ 7. 79•
οστίί 6. 357, 36ο, 363 \ 7. 2ΐ ; 8. 42.
όστισοΰν β. 2 6θ. Cf. ουδοτιοϋι/.
δτ6 β. 271, 329; 7. 230; 11. 65.
δη β. 149, 194, 481 ; 7. 24; 8. 83; 10. 8,
[33]; 11-38, ΙΟΙ, [ιΐ5]; [12. 30.]
ου, οίκ, ουχ 5. 28, 4° ; 6. 83, 325, 378, 50Ι,
504, 552-3, 6θ3 ; 7. 40; 8. 37; 9. 9,
14; 11. 45, 5ο, 58, ιοί, ι66, 197, 239?;
12. 5, 12, 17, 28, 3θ.
ου 10. ΙΟΙ.
ουγκιά (symbol) 9. 37•
oiibapcus 7. 17.
ουδ( 6. 14, [ΐ57], 172, 198, 203, 264, 294,
919; [12.6?]
oibils 6. [123], 171, 175; 7. 465; 11. 60;
12. 29, 37•
oibenore 7. 54, 56, 112.
ούδ€πώποτ€ 6. 2 Ο 2.
oiiSeVepo? 7. ΙΙ5; 8. 20.
ου8οτιοΰν 8. 2 2.
ουκίτι 5. 2 4•
οΰκονν 7. 9Ι•
ουκοΰν 8. 15.
οΖν β. 220, 475, 493 ; 7. 212, 341 ; 8. 82 ;
9. 33• ^' °^^ 12. ι8. μίν ουν 6. 149 •^
338; 9. 12 ; 11. 112.
ουσία β. [9], 29, 245, 208.
οϋτ€ 6. 32, 43-4, 177, 179, 263; 7. ι8, 24,
92, 94, 237, 239; 8. 2ΐ, 27; 11. 59, 6ο.
οΖτοςβ. 5, 32,43, 76, 8ι, 135, Μο, ΐ44, ΐ7ΐ,
223, 225, 229, 259, [26ϊ], 340, 354 383,
489, 555, 558, 596 .^ 848; 7. μ, 56, 62,
65, 67, 69, 79, 83, 89, 93, 99, 125, 214,
23ο; 8.53; 9•ΐ3; 11-42, 69, [73], 76,83,
86, [ιο8], ιι8, ι67, 225; 12. 2, 3,9, 37 •^
71. οΖτω{ή 5. 39 ; 6. 242, 349, 357, 36ο,
4ΐ8; 7. 63; 8. 48; 11. 33,56, 115, 124,
ι65, 302.
ουχί 11. 48.
οφθαλμός 7. 86.
παώάριον 8. 46.
παίδίύίΐι/ 11. 1 1 8.
παώισκη 6. 492.
παίϊ 5. 28 ? ; 11. 59, 163.
πάλιν β. 368.
Παλλάς 11. 102, [176].
παντελώς 6. 15^ ?
παρά β. 79, 173, 2ΐ6, 296, 298, 302, 315,
3ΐ8, 327, [338], 537; 7. 45, 47, 65-8,
205; 10- 2 ίο; 11. 38, 87; 12. 19, 2θ.
παρα[ 6. 21, 532; 10. 211.
παρά8(ΐγμα 12. 33-
παραθαλάττιος 10. 56.
παραλαμβάνίΐν 6. ^Ι.
παράνομα 6. 4.58 ?
παραποΐ€ΐν 1ί. ι6ζ?, 1 75•
παρασιωπάν 7. 69.
παρασκΐυάζΐΐν 6. 358•
παράτασσαν 10. 69.
παραχρήμα 10. 6θ.
παρίΐναι 5. 22 ?
παρΐκβαίνειν 10. 37•
παρίργως 7. 223.
παρίχαν 6. 1 66, 1 70, 464.
παρθένος 11. 93•
Πάριοι 11. 2 2 6.
παριστάναι 6. 473•'*
παροίμιον 11. 2 43 •''
παροινύν 7. 4 ^ 3 ί*
Πάροί 11. 2 24 ?
Tras• β. 193, 241, [299?]; 7. 21, 421.
πάσχ^ινβ. 351, 354; 7. 88.
ΐΐαταρΐνς 11. 129.
πατ-ΐ7ρ 8. 39; H• 108, II 3.
πάτριος 6. 5θ8.
πατρίς 6. 1 88.
TTfi'^itc 6. 169, 257; 12. 33•
Π^ιρακΰς Q. II.
228 INDICES
Ώΐλασγοί 10. 2 28.
Π€λο\|/• 11. 125.
πψπαν [β. 165]; 7- 289•
πίμπτος 11. Ι52•
π(νθ([ 11. Ι39•
weVre 11. 35•
πεντήκοντα 6. 22 ; 10. 66.
πι ρ. οΙός nep 8. 3•
πΐρί β. Ι40-Ι, 177' 179' ^^->
3.^4, 336, 352, 649 ; 7. 401, 4,
24», [281].
TTtpitivai 9. 2 1.
nepifpyos 6. 276.
πβραστάΐ'πι 6. 947 ^
πΐριορΰν 6. 345•
πίριττίπτίΐν 10. ΐθ7•
Ώίρσαι 10. 44> [64]•
•πΐρσίπολις 11. 1 62, 1 76.
•πέρυσι, β. 690 ?
■πίτρη 11. 8ΐ.
πι(9αι;ΟΓ 7. ι8, 94, 173' 236.
ττιπράσκΐΐν 6. 40•
■πίστα β. 472 ?
Πλάτωΐ' 11. ΙΙ3•
πλήθος β. 37•
πλησι•^ 6. 823.
ηλουσιώτατοί β. 153» 72 5•
nXoOrot 11. 36.
πόθΐν 7. 4Ι•
ποίίΐν β. 64, 192, 219, 275 •^ 287, 442; 7.
49, 392; 11. 6ι, 77; 12- 8, Μ-
ποιητής 11. ΙΙ9•
πολί/Λαδόκοί 11. 102 a.
Πολ6/^αρ;(θί [6. 8.]
πολί /xf 41/ 11. 7 Ι •
πολέμιος 6. 1 87, 5^3 ) 10• 97•
Ώολΐμων [11. Ι Ο 2.]
πόλι? β. 142, 189; 7. 287; 8. 58; 10. 19,
2 1, [57]•
πολίτης 6. Ι9Ι) 201.
πολιοί 6. 33' 71. [ί62], 2θ6, 265, 544; 7.
86; 10. 7°"!' ι°ΐ' 1°^; 11• 49• πλύων
β. 470.
πόρρω 8. 4°•
Ποσ^ιδί'ωΐ' 11. 57' 6^•
TTore β. 858 ; 10. 2 ; 11. 169.
πότερον 8. 7) II ; U• 168.
πρ5γ/χα β. 139, 286, 433; 10• 126?
πράξις β. 851 ; 10. 22, Ι94•
πράττειν β. 137' 231, 259; 7. 23Ο, 242.
πρίασθαί β. ζΙΙ•
πριν β. 250, 26 1.
πρό 6. 256 ; 7. 86.
προαγγίλλρίΐ' 10. 12.
προαιρΐϊσθαι 7. 4^5 ^
προήκίΐν 6. 354•
προθυμΰσθοι β. Ι45•
προθύμως 7. 2 2.
προκύσθαι 11. 96.
ττρο'ί β. 86, 237, [241J, 338, [389], 457,
46ο, 563; 7. 15, (ΐ9), 25, 6ι, 69, [98],
[209], 394; 8. 45, [83]; 10. 31, 5°, 67,
98, 129; 11• 5ΐ ?
προσεΰχεσθαι 5. 38.
προσήκοντα 6. Ι 48?
προσνίμειν 11. Ι73•
προσφερισθαι 7. 103•
πρότερου 7. 19» 8. ΙΟ, Ι4•
προτίθΐσθαι 7. 79 ?
πρόχειρος 7 ■ ^ϊ
πρώτος 12. 15• πρώτον 6. 121 ; 11. 265.
Πτολί/χαΐο? 11. 37®•'^
πννθύνεσθαι [10. 62. J
πίρ 11. 195, 3°6.
πυρσός 10. 1 16 .?
πωλεΐι/ 6. 1 9. 1 23.
ττώτΓοτε 6. Ι75• '
ττώί 5. 41 ; β. 321, 344, 538; 7. ΐ73;
11. 94•
ρήμα 5. 42-
σαφής 5. 49 ^
σίαυτοΰ 8. 2,
σεμνΰνειν 12. 9•
σ»7μα 11. 82.
σίδηρος 11. 66.
σκηνί] 10. 88.
σκήπτρον 11. 44, 48•
σκοπεΐν 6. 384•
Σ /fCpos 10. 46•
σοφώτατος 10. 27 •'
σπευδΕίι» 7. 238 ?
σ7Γ0ΐ;δά^6ίΐ' 10. Ι5•
ΣτίφαΐΌί 11. Ιθ6, 112, Ιΐ7•
στεφανοΰν 7. 2 86.
"Στησίχορος 11. 169.
στ()λθί 10. 64.
//. NEW CLASSICAL FRAGMENTS
229
στρατ(ία 6. 574•
arpareveiv 6. 189 ; 11. 248.
στρατηγβι•^ 10. 39.
στρατηγός 10. 85.
στρατιώτης 10. 1 1 4 ?
στρατ[ 10. 136.
Στρνμών 10. 44•
συγγνώμη 6. 23 1.
σνγγραφίΰς 11. Ι09•
συγκύσθαι Q. 94•
συκοφαντΐ'ιν 6. 3 ?> 20,5 J 7. 331 ?
συλλα/:χ3άΐ'€ΐΐ' 6. 28.
συμβάΧΚαν 6. 486?
σύμμαχος 10. 42•
συμπιιθΐίν 10. 6ΐ.
σνμποΚιτΐίχσθαι 7. 2 ΙΟ.
συ 8. 8 ; 11. 146; 12. ι. ύμεί? 6. 35> ^34)
ΐ43-4> Ι50, 152, ΐ73. 207, 220, 228, 234,
241, 328, 342, 371, 373 ?, 537, 554> 923 5
7. 159; 12. 34•
συμφορά 6. 8θ, 121, 155, 200.
συνεώίναι 6. 316 ?
σννίκδι8όναι 6. 3^3•
συνθήκη 6. 39, 45. 1 2 7.
συΐ'θί[κ 7. 1 1 8.
συιτάσσίΐι/ 10. 65.
σφάΧΧίΐν [11. 50•]
σφόδρα 6. 349, 419•
σ;^€δόι/ β. 241.
Ί,ωκράτης 8. 6, 93, ^S^•
σώμα 6. 352; 7. 32, 7^ ?
Ί,ωσιάδης 6. 92 ?, 737 ?, 7^1 ?
σωφρονύν 7. 102, 1 85•
τάλαι /rof 6. 3°, 17Ο•
TO^tf 7. 60.
τάχα 6. 475•
re β. [167], 259 ; 7. ΙΙΟ; 10. ΙΟ.
τύχος 6. Ι95•
Τίκμηριον 6. 328 ; 7. 212.
τΐκνον 11. 93•
TfXeiw 12. II, 19, 26, 36.
TeXeos 6. 20Ι ?
τ6λ6Τ)7 12. 27.
Τ€λίυτ[ 6. 577•
TtKos 6. 170.
Τίτ{άρτη) 9-31•
Τίτρακόσιοι. οί TtT. β. 184•
Τ(τταράκοντα 10. 68 J 11. 33•
τίτταρα 11. 31.
τίως 7. 2 88.
τηλίκοϋτοί 7. ,53•
τίκτΐΐν 11. 59 {feKfv), 92,
Tt'juaioi 9. 13•
Tt/xij β. 14, 7^ ; 10. 23.
τιμωρία 7. 89.
Wf 5. 26. ^• 6. 2 25, 2 28, (349), 357, 36ο.
362, 417; 7. 63, 97-8?, 105, 212: [10.
ι6, 237]; 11• 146.
"f 6• 351, 477, 494, 499, 694; 7. 89, 187;
10. 229; 11• 65, 84, 94•
τοΐνυν 6. 34, 76, 3θΐ, 368, 377, 3^3•
toioiJtos β. Ι20, 174, 183, 5^5; 8. 28, 42-3,
173; 9• 15; 12. 29.
τοί^οί 7. 15, 3°, 41, 93•
TOKOS 6. 3 Γ 2, 3^4•
τολμάν 6. 2 00, 432•
ToVoflO. 135, 138•
τοσούτος 6. 347 J 10• ^6.
Tore β. 197, 231 ; 10. 6 ; 11. 65.
τουτίστι 8. 53•
τρ(π€σθαι\0. ΙΙΟ.
τρΐφΐΐν 11. 1 1 6.
τρκίκοιτα 6. 247• Ο' ''■ρ. 6• 82, 12 2, ΐ6θ.
τριακόσιοι 6. 1 64.
Tptvpapxi 6. 724•
τρίτος 11. ΙΙΟ.?
τρόπος β. 5^6.
τυγχάι/«ι/ 6. Ι42, 68ΐ ; 10. 121, 178.
-rhn 6. 350.
υίός 11. [ΐθ6], ΙΙΟ, [ΐΐ6].
υα€Τΐρος β. ^7. Ι20. 1^8. Ι
υιός 11. [lObJ, ΙΙΟ, [HOj.
υμίτερος Q. 37, Ι20, 158, Ι92, 199, 5^°•
imip 6. 238, 555; 7. 184, 333; 8. 35;
11. 389.
υιτΐρβολή 7. 8 1 , 171.''.
υπ€ρημ(ρος 6. 25 1, 356.
ΰπεχΐΐν 7. 9°•
υπό 6. [ι6ο], ι82, 258, 313, [3δ8]; 7. 412;
8. 38; 10. 19, 23, Ι02; 11. [52], 89,
282.
ϋποΚαμβάνην 7. III ; 10. 32. 99•
υπομ€ν€ΐν 7. 2 2.
υπομιμνησκ(ΐν 10. 8.
φαίν€σθαι 5. 36 ; β. 239 J 9• 9•
φάυαι 5. 45; β• 302, 493~4 ?; 8. 6 ; 9. ι8 ;
11. ΧΙΟ, 1X4, 276?, 281; 12. IX.
φαν(ρός 7. 33°•
ΦαρσάΧιος 11. Ι Χ Χ.
230
INDICES
φάσκίΐν β. 298, 339> 440 ?, 466, 561, 7θ3•
φανλοί 8. 35. 4θ, 56•
φφειι/ β. 86, 537•
Φ6ρ6ΐ'δάτ»75 10. 86.
φ(ύγ€ΐρ β. 35, 163, 174. 183. ι85, 427;
10. 98.
φίλιος 10. ΙΟΙ.
φίλοΓ 6, 256.
φίΚοφρονίστ^ρον 7. ΙΟΙ ?
φόβος 10. 112?
φρονϋν 6. ΐ95•
φροΐ'Γί[ 6. 546•
ΦρνΜ;(θί 11. ι6ο, ΐ7ΐ•
φύλαξ 10. Ι04•
φωνΛν β. 66ο.
;^αλίπώί 6. 86.
■χαΚανώτατοί 10. 3^.
;(αλκόί 11. 67.
'Κ.αμαϊΚίων 11. 1 68.
Χάριππυί 7• 283.
Xcipts 6. 172, [216].
Χάροψ (xuios π) 13. 6.
χίλίοί 6. 351•
χορηγ€ΐν 6. 329•
;^ρεία 7. 27.
X>>i?s 7. 57 ?
χρη β. 343•
χρ^μα 6. ι6ι, [ι67], 488; 11. 68.
χρησθαι 7. 2 1 3, 215-
χρ(ήσίί) 11. 56 marg.
χρησμοί 11. Ι30.
χρι^στόί 6. Ι45•
χρόνος 10. 7θ.
χρον[ 6. 762.
χώρα 10. 2Ι4•
ψηφίζίσθαι 6. 139, 235. 388•
ψηφ[ 6. 79 1•
S 6. 77. [ιμ], 220, [368], 377. 383, [859];
7. 221 ; 8. 6, [5oJ.
ώί/βίσ^αι 6. 15, 40, 73. "9, 123 •
ως β. 115, 117, 325, 369, [377], 659;
7. 19, 339; 9• 17; H. 43, 148.
ωσπΐρ 6. 8ΐ, 252 ; 12. 20, 24.
ώστε β. 193. 243. 355. 42ο; 7• 64, 463;
8. 24, 51 ; 10• 94 ; 11• ι87?
III. SUBJECTS DISCUSSED IN THE INTRODUCTIONS AND
NOTES.
(TL• mimbers refer to pages.)
Abas 30, 38.
abbreviations 22,95,97, 129-
30, 147, 189.
Academic school 94.
Achaeus 146.
Acrocorinthus 32.
Acusilaus 127-8, 14 1-3.
Aeschines 209-10.
Aeschines Socraticus 88-90,
118.
Agatharchides iii, 142.
Alcibiades 88-90.
Alcmaeon, archon 154.
Alexandria 151.
Alexandrian librarians 1 30- 1 .
Alexion 132.
amnesty in 403 b. c. 50.
{a) English and Latin.
Anaschetus 78, 87.
Andreas 109.
Apollo 128, 143.
Apollodorus 90, 93.
Arad 25.
archons 154.
Arclinus 128, 145-6.
Argives 27, 30, 102.
Aristarchus 129, 131.
Aristides 151•
Aristodemus loi, 107, 112,
118-19, 122.
Aristophanes 1 28-9,146, 165.
Aristophanes of Byzantium
1 30-1.
Artabanus 102, 112, 118,
124-5.
Artaxerxes 99, 102, 106,
II 8-1 9, 124-5.
Asclepiades of Myrlea 1 30.
Athenians 107, 126.
Augustus 1 50- 1.
Bacchylides 27-9.
Barbari Excerpta Latina
154-5•
Bellerophon 45.
Bithynia 150-1.
Boges 120.
book-form in papyri 6, 8, 10,
12, 15, 19,21,155-6, 162,
165, 168.
Boreas 145.
Bucolic poets 169.
///. SUBJECTS DISCUSSED IN INTRODUCTIONS AND NOTES 231
Byzantium 100, 120.
Cadmus 31.
Caeneus 127-8, 130-3, 142.
Caesar-worship 148-51.
Callisthenes 105, 107,122-3.
Callistratus 132.
Caria loo-i.
Carthage 51.
Cerberus 28, 31.
Chamaeleon 129, 147.
Charippus 75, 87.
Charon of Lampsacus 99.
Cimon 99-102, 107-8, no,
112, 120-1, 126.
Clidicus, archon 155.
Clitarchus 105, 118.
comedy 127, 130-2, 140-1.
contractions i, 3, 7, 8, 10, 15,
19, 22, 24-5.
Corinth 27, 32, 45.
Crantor 95.
Cratea 46.
Cratinus, ΤίΚοϋτυι 127, 141.
Cratippus 105, 109, 112.
critical marks 90, 129, 167,
187, 190.
Criton 78, 87.
Ctesias 105, 112, 125.
Cyprus 100, 102, 104, 106-7,
112, 122.
dactylo-epitritic metre 28,
31-2, 41-3.
Decelea 70.
Demeter 149-50.
Democritus 94-6.
dialect, Doric 128, 143, 169,
177-9; Ionic 95, 127-8,
143, 181-2, 187-9.
Didymus 129, 132, 148.
digressions 107, 110,112-13,
118.
Dinon 99, 105, 118, 125.
Dio Cassius 149-51.
Diodorus 98-113, 118-25,
DionysiuS 6 μουσικός 1 3 2.
Dionysus 27, 29-31, 39, 40.
Dioxippus 75, 87.
dithyrambs 27-9.
drachmae 97.
Eion 100,107, 109, 112,120.
Eleusinian mysteries 149.
emendations confirmed (i)
Aeschines 209 ; (2) Her-
mas 15; (3) Plato 200;
(4) Theocritus 170; (5)
Thucydides 191, 194.
Empedocles 94-6.
Ephorus 99-102, 105-13,
118-25.
Epicurus 54-6.
Eratosthenes 129-32, 146.
Euboea lOO-i, 126.
Eudorus 95.
Euripides, \\λκμ(ων 6 tia
Κορίνθου 12 8, 143 ; Orestes
163-4.
Eurymedon 100-2. 106,
110-12, 122.
Eusebius 154.
festival at Olympus 31.
Frontinus 101, 107, 112, 122.
Geta 45-6.
Gorgons 30, 38-9.
Harmonia 31, 44.
Harpocration 48, 51, 73, 77.
Hellanicus 129, 147.
Hellenic a Oxyrhynchia 109-
13•
Helots 102.
Heracles 28, 40, 145.
Heraclides 105, 107, 118.
Hermas papyri 1 5.
Hermippus, lapeius 128,
130, 145•
Herodicus 132.
Herodotus 100, 109, 11 2-1 3,
119-20, 181-2.
hiatus 107, I20, 179, 210,
213-15•
Hippocrates 97.
Hippolytus 19.
Hippotherses 48-50.
homilies 21-5.
homoioteleuton 7, 15, 18.
horse-worship 151.
Hyperides 75-8.
Ion, Oviphale 128-9, 145.
Isocrates 108.
Jerome 154. '
judges at contests 127, 141.
Julius Caesar 150-1.
Justin 102, 107, 109, 112,
i20j 124.
Lamprocles 129, 131, 146-7.
Lasus 27, 41-2.
Latin versions 2. 4, 6, 10-12,
15•
liquid measures 95, 97-8.
loan, action concerning 51.
logaoedic metre 28, 30.
Lycia 129.
Lycomedes 100, 121.
Lycophron 75-7, 86.
Lycurgus 75-6, loi.
Lysias 48-50.
Υ.γά'^ψχ^, Bacchae 127, 129,
141.
Lysithides 118, 126.
Manto 143.
Marcellinus 128, 144-5.
Men 151.
Menander 45-6.
metres 28, 30-3. 41-3•
metrology 95, 97-^.
Miltiades 108.
mina 95, 98.
mirrors 94-5.
miscellanies 132.
Mithridates 124-5.
Mnaseas 128, 130-1, 145.
Muses 30.
Naxians 129.
Nepos 118, 122.
Nicaea 149-51.
Nicomedia 150.
Odysseus 129.
Oeniadae 199.
Olympia 87.
Olympus 31.
Omphale 145.
Orestes 147.
Orthagoridae 109-13.
232
INDICES
Pallas, ode to 128-33.
Pamphila 132.
parents and children 89.
Parians 129.
Passion, the 19.
Paul, epistles of St. 12.
Pausanias 100.
Pelasgians 100, 120-1, 126.
Pelops 145.
Pentecontaetia 9S-113.
Penthesilea 128, 145-6.
Perseus 30, 38-9.
Persians 99-102, 105-6,
121-5.
Phanias 118.
Phanodemus loi, 105.
Pherendates 10 r, 106, 123.
Phorcys 30, 38.
Phrjnichus 129, 131, 146.
Pindar, Dithyrajnhs 27-32;
Olympiati odes 155—7.
Plato 88, 90, 94-5, 199-201.
Plutarch 43, 89, 99, loo-r,
105-7, 109, 112, 118,
120-2.
Polemarchus 49, 68.
Polemon 128, 130-1, 144-5.
Pollux 77.
Polyaenus 102, 107, 111-12,
122.
Polybius 107.
Poseidon 127.
Ptolemaeus 129.
αθανασία 154•
άκναμπτίί 28, 45.
αναλάμβαναν 86.
άναμνημίσκων 'JO,
aveivai 1 54•
άνίχαν l6l.
άπ^Ίττασθαί 'J 6.
άπο\€\νμ€να 28, 3 1.
άφ(ϊκίν Ι47•
•γραμματ€υΣ 2 1 3•
^ιαγόμ(νοί 74•
Βιάλίγΐσθαι 77•
διορυχη 86.
recensions, Tobit 1-6 ; Acts
10; Plato 199-201 ;
Thucydides 190.
Rufus 133.
schema Pindaricum 42.
scholia on Pindar, Dith. 29 ;
Aristophanes, Plutus 165,
167-8; Herod, iii 180,
187-9.
Scyros 100, 106, 120, 126.
Seleucus 132.
Semele 31.
Sicyon 109.
sigma in lyrics 41-2.
Simonides 27, 129.
Socrates 88-90.
speeches in Thucydides ii
194.
Stephanus son of Thucydides
128, 144-5•
Stesichorus 28, 129.
Stobaeus 95, 200.
Strabo 41-2, 131.
Suidas 77, 130-2, 162-3.
symbols 95, 129.
Syncellus 154.
Thebans 27, 31.
Themistocles 88-9, 99,
106-7, iio-ii, 118-20,
125-6.
Theocritus 169-70.
{b) Greek.
fyy ovos 145•
ϊγ^νηθη 76, 86.
fSiKaifivTo 182, 187.
ftδωλ(I 94—6.
ίίσαγγελία 75—^•
€Κκολλΰν 1 8.
epKOS αΚμας 39.
f τηρούσαν 25•
€υάμπνξ 28, 39.
Καινή 142.
Κ,αμβύσην 1 82, 188.
κάρυον 98.
κατσίΓτριζομίνων 96.
Theodectes, Orestes 129, 147•
Theomnestus (ι) 48, 50-1,
73; (2) 75,87.
Theophilus 76.
Theophrastus 127, 130, 141.
Theopompus 105, 107-9,
111-13, 122-3.
Theozotides 51, 71, 73.
Thersippus, archon 155.
Theseus 100, 107, 121, 126.
Thirty tyrants 49-50.
Thracians 129.
Thrasonides 45-6.
Thucydides (i) the historian
98-100, 102, 106-7, 109-
13, 118-22, 128, 144-5.
190-1, 194, 196-8; (2)
the politician 128, 144-5 >
(3) the Pharsalian 128,
144-5•
Tithraustes 123.
Tobit 1-4.
vellum codices i, 23, 163,
194, 197.
women 25.
Xenophon 113.
Xerxes 99, 102, 106-7, 118-
19, 126.
Zeno of Citium 131.
Κΐντοιη 143•
Kepavvtiv 23.
κιβδαλο? 41.
ΚοάλφΟί 144.
«όγχ'? 95, 97•
κοχΚιάριον 97•
κύαθος 97•
λογισταί 2Ι3•
μ{6{()1καν Ι47•
μΐταμί\ησαν 'JI.
Μνσια όρχηματα 1 63•
μνστρον 98.
///. SUBJECTS DISCUSSED IN INTRODUCTIONS AND NOTES 233
ο 179.
01, oi 38.
6πτάν(σθαί 4.
Ονχ ΟΤΙ 3.
■παρανόμων 73•
παρασιωπάν 'J 6.
Tlarapevs 1 45•
■ηατίρων 40.
ntpaimaeiv 197•
πΧόκο! 44—5•
ffoXeo 45.
πρηχμα I 82.
πυλαι 42.
ριψαύχην 43•
σάζ/ 41^2.
στάσις 44•
σνμμικτα Ι 32.
σ,ι^οιίΌΓίί'εια 28, 4•^•
σώμα 76—7•
ταπεινοφροσύνη 1 9 ■
TfKif 143•
Τ€τάρτη 97•
τνττανον 43•
φάμα (eVrt) 44•
φνντα 2 ζ.
φύοντι Ι 7 7 •
Φόρκοί 38•
χόρ/ία 45•
xpw« 143•
χρησίί 142.
IV. PASSAGES DISCUSSED.
PAGE
PAGE
Acls xxvi. 7-8, 20 = 1597.
Deuteronomy xxviii. 66 =
= 1600. 43-8.
Aelian, Var. hist. ii. 1 2
93
Dio
Cass. Ii, 20
. 140
Aeschines In Ctes. 14-27 =
: 1625.
Hi. 36
. 154
Aeschines Socrat. Fr. i
Krauss =
Dio
Chry?. xviii, p. 283
. 108
1608
. 84 sqq.
Diodorus iii. i 2-48 .
III
Fr. 2 = 1608. 82-4
V. I .
• 107, no
Frs. 3, 4
.
88, 90
xi. 17
. 119
Agatharchides, De mare Eryih. 7
142
19. 5 .
. 119
Anecd. Bekker p. 97 .
77
30• 4-5
102, 125
Anecd. Ox on. ii. 452
142
54. 4 •
. 127
Anecd. Parisinum de notis
142
56. 7 .
126
Apollodorus iii, 7. 4, 7
143
56.8 .
. 118
Aristides i. 325 Dindorf .
94
57• 3 •
. 125
ii. 292
. 88-
90,94
57• 7 •
. 126
ii. 369
88-9
58• 4-59
. Ill
Aristodemus 10
I
18-19
59• I .
126
II. 2 .
122
59• 2 . 99, 103, 119, 125-6
Aristophanes, Clouds 967 =
1611. 176
59• 3 99,
102-3, 119-20, 125
Phdus 1-56 :
= 1617.
59• 4 .
99-100, 103, 120
Athenaeus v. 220 b .
144
60. 1-2 99
-100, 103, 120, 126
vi. 234 d .
.
144
60. 4 .
lOI, 103, 121
viii. 331 d, &c.
145
60. 5-6
100-3, I2I-2
X. 448 c, 455 b-
c
41
61. 1-2
123, 126
xi. 467 a.
41
6r. 3 .
101, 103, 106, 123
Bacchylides xiv
28
61. 4-6
IOI-2, 104, 123-4
Barbari Excerpta Latina
(Schone
62. I .
. 121
Euseb. Chron. App. 6) .
154-5
62. 3 .
. IOI-2, 122, 126
Catullus, A/jys g
42-3
63• 7 •
126
Censorinus 9 .
.
28
65. 4 .
126
Cicero, Bru/. 204 .
107-8
68
. 108
Ho r tens. Fr. 1 2 .
107
69. I .
• 102, 104, 124-5
Ctesias Frs. 29-30 .
125
69• 3-4
124-5
234
INDICES
PAGE
PAGE
Diodorus xi. 71. i .
. 124
Lysias
Fr. 122 Sauppe
48,69
xii-xiv
III
123 . . 48,
69, 73
xiv. 9 . . .
109
310 ^ ^ ^ . .
51, 73
II.
. 108
Τΐΐρι των Ιδίωι/ eixpyeaiajv
70
Exc. Vat. viii. 24
109
Marcellinus, Vit. Thiic. 16-17 .
144
Dionysius Halic, De comp. verb, i
4 • 41
28
144
Ecclesiasticus i. 1-9 = 1595.
Menander, Μισού /xefoy 26 .
47
Ephesians vi. 12
• 23
Fr. 1 1 Koerte .
46
Ephorus Frs. 107, 109-10, 124, 126 . 108
14 .
47
115 . . 99,
106, 118
ΙΙ(ριΚΐΐρομ4νη 408— 9 .
47
X16 . . loi, 106, 121-C5
P. Beriin
46
FHG iv. 642
. 108
MetrologiciScriptores(Hultsch)i.75-6
>
Euripides, Orii/<?i 53-61, 89-97 =
1616.
235, 238, 256
97
Eusebius, Chron. i. 188 Schone
154-5
i• 234, 243
98
Eustathius, Homer A 264
. 142
ii. 198-9 .
98
1335• 52 .
41
Nepos
Themist. i .
93
Frontinus, Strateg. iv. 7. 45
lOI, 122
9 . . .
118
Genesis vi. i .
. 26
Ciinon 2 .
122
Hebrews xi . . . .
• 25
Nonnus, Dionys. iv. 28 sqq.
44
Hermas, Shepherd, Sim. viii. 6. 4-
8.3
Numb
;rs xxi. 1-3 .
25
= 1599.
Papyri, P.Brit. Mus. 128 .
180
Herodian ii. 2 .
• 94
P. Oxy. 12 .
106
Herodotus iii. 26-72 = 1619.
1012
132
vii. 107 .
100, 120
1076
• 1-4
viii. 75, no .
. 119
1241. ii. 15
131
HesychiuS, ττει/τε κρίτα'ι
. 141
1376 . 109-11, 113
Homer A 264 ....
. 142
Sitzungsber. d. Berl. Akad. 19 18
; 46
Υ 221 sqq. .
. 145
I Peter v. 8 .
23
Horace, Odes iv. 2. 10
28
2 Peter ii. 4 .
26
Hosea iii. 3 .
21, 23
Phlege
then Fr. 34 .
142
Hyperides, vnep Ανκόφρονοί . 75,
77, 86-7
PhotiuS, ΤΙνθου . . . .
145
σννη-γορικός
. 77
Pindar
, 01. i-ii, vi-vii = 1614.
Fr. 171 Blass .
• 77
Py. ii. 80 . . .
39
Inscriptions, Brit. Mus. G.I. 1004,
1074 25
Fr. 71 Schroeder .
27
C.I.A. ii. 804, 807 .
78,87
74b
31
O.G.I. 55. 6 .
. 147
75 • • 27-8,
40, 42
Ion, Ompliale Fr. 24 Nauck
• 14.5
79 a = 1604. II. 1-3.
Isaiah liii. 7 . . . .
21
79 b = 1604. II. 8-11.
Jerome (Schone, Euseb. C/^row. App
.lb)
80.
42
154-5
81 .
31, 40
Joel i. 6, 8 .
21, 23
167 .. .
142
John vi. 8-22 = 1596.
168-9 •
40
Justin iii. i . . . .
. 124
208 = 1604. IL 13-14.
ix. I .
100
249 .. .
3i> 40
Lucretius ii. 611
• 163
254 .. .
39
Lycurgus, Contra Leocratem 72
. 122
284 .. .
38
Lysias xii. 17 .
. 69
Plato,
Hipp, maior 283 d .
93
63 . . . .
. 70-1
Meiio 740 = 1611. 1 15-19.
xxviii ....
• 76
Philebus 62 d .
86
IV. PASSAGES DISCUSSED
235
PAGF
PAGE
Plato, Fro/ag. 337 b-357 a = 1624.
Schol. Pindar, 0/. ii. 43 .
161
■^^P- 335 c .
• 93
70 . . .
145
Timaeus 71b, 72c .
. 96
77 •
161
Pliny, Nat. Hist. viii. 155
• 151
Py. ii. 80 .
39
147
Plutarch, Themist. 2
89, 93
Plalo, Alcib. i. 387
12
. 119
Sophocles, ^/ΰ'Λ' 694-705, 753-64 =
27
. 118
1615.
28
. 119
Stobaeus, Ed. ii. 46
95
Cimon 4 .
. 144
Strabo x. 466 .
163
7 .
120, 126
469 .
41-2
8 .
. 121, 141
Suetonius, lul. 61 .
151
12 .
loi, 121-3
Aug. 52 .
149
13 .
123-4
Suidas, Μυασεαί
130
A'' or at. 835 e
. 68
Νυσια .
163
835f .
69-70
ΥίοΚίμων
130
849 d .
. 77
ΣίΚΐυκος
132
De Mas. 10
28
Syncellus i. 368, 399 Dindorf . i
54-5
Polemon (FHG. iii) Fr. 4 .
. 144
Tacitus, Ann. iv. 37
149
47-8
• 131
Theocritus, Id. v, vii, xv = 1618.
^8
. 144
Theopompus Fr. 28 Grenfell-Hunt .
III
Polyaenus, Strateg. .1. 34. i
102, 122
90 . . .
105
Polybius iii. 113
• 197
217, 283
108
xii. 28 . . .
107
I Thessal. iv. 13-2 Thess. i. 2 = 1598.
Psalm ii. i = 1600. 49-55.
Thucydides i. 11 -14 = 1620.
xliii. 22 .
21
98 . . 107, 120
, 126
Schol. Aeschines, De/als. leg. i
8 . 77
100 .
122
In Ctes. 15
• 213
137 . . . 11
8-19
ApoUon. Rhod. i. 59
128, 142
138 ... .
126
Aristides 217 Dindorf .
128, 146
ii. II, 35 =1621.
Arist. Birds 445 .
. 141
65, 67 = 1622.
Clouds 967 .
128, 146-7
iii. 7-9 = 1623.
Hesiod, Theog. 117
. 145
Tobit xii. 14-19 = 1594.
Homer A 264
128, 142
Virg. Aen. ix. 619 .
163
Lucian, Gall. 19 .
. 142
Zenobius, Cent. iii. 64 . . .
141
Pindar, 6>/. i, 115 .
i6o
Plate I
iS ■*.■■
*1.
it '■ ' "•
' j-T "^ί'Ί .'is ...
'*' '> ^ Hi fc^ Υ Κ iw^.? ^
^^^^? V v:: «r - ^
•>t 5
t
5 <^,f<Ci.V*>V'?:■V••
■.'δ
;i ι: 1 ^ ? ^ *-
^ ί •* ί " ί^ 5 ' -'
' w 2 >• ^ '* ^ '-
ON
Ο
2
ti
m
1ίΗ
m \^ f
V ^ t ?•■
Plate II
-Tf>rMAx«>c'-f ^.fl
ΛΥ
Λ)
/
•Wo I
^i
Mf>fX
.-ΓΛλ•Υ
>
AH r /cr^ , Λ 4-p-» 1 i^N^rM
ry'rUf^MfN»r'»|*y f.>rHr
7 ' f i^ii^^ f > fA#/ ΑΓ.ί i^• ^ jjLu
Af
Α-^ϋΝίπβχί^
ays-It -^f^l*•
-f A Η^ΜΤ^^^'^^
jcAiA' ^ "^
Af.if'rA
iA •'^*
1
Τ
No. r6o6. Fr. 6. Cols, i-ii
.^ijct^^^j^^
^.νΐΐ^
No. 1607. Frs. 5 + 4
Plate III
^,•*;. ''1;%* r^ ^ >*
^* J^^ "»^^
V
.-/"ν-ΛΛ >* =-'
f*.
ty
No. 1610. Frs. 4 + 5
No. 1608. Fr. 4
^rr :f^^ί/■
No. 1610. Fr. I
Τ V:r"-S•.*^'
*"«-» \'
Λ—
* •
No. 1610. Fr. 6
♦ frii
-•N't
No. 1610. Fr. 15
Plate tV
No. 1618. Col. X
No. 1615 r^c/o
i'-Si.'ft^
, "it
*<* \>*A"'s/''
A*
• . 1
#
a"^^.,-,''^
.•il^^SP
;, s." • ^r-y >iriJ ^^Jr?
rir,ftfV0UfM»Y
1 ^
S\ . «I[,
5- ''■
No 1622. Cols, ii-iii
T^•*, 3VM^i;r.-]V iVt-^f^t-^nm-
Plate V
JLL&i^4α3N~T-Q'•
No. 1619. Fr. 10
>•
'CT
■\ I i'
./
«
:7,
^f^i
w
V
No. 1 62 1 wrso
Plate VI
4i
-^
Γ ^Λχτ^
ο
No. 1624. Col. Ixvi
C KyriH
No. 1624. Cols. Ixiii-iv .-.. ^ *-4
i-H•*!^
Pff>»t
' τ TAinrhiS#-nM<
Γ-1 /t
V</i^
^ t •'^^- -i"
ri J^
No. 1620
EGYPT EXPLORATION FUND
GRAECO-ROMAN BRANCH.
ΎΉΕ EGYPT EXPLORATION FUND, ivhich 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, each of about 250 quarto pages, with
facsimile plates of the more important papyri, under the editorship of Profs. Grenfell and
Hunt.
A subscription of One Guinea to the Graeco-Roman Branch entitles subscribers to the anyiual
volume, and to attendance at the Funds lectures in London a)id elsewhere. A donation <?/ £25
constitutes life membership. Subscriptions may be sent to the Honorary Treasurers— for
England, Mr. J. Grafton Milne, 13 Tavistock Square, London, W.C. i ; and for America,
Mr. Chester I. Campbell, 503 Tremont Temple, Boston, Mass.
PUBLICATIONS OF THE EGYPT EXPLORATION FUND.
MEMOIRS OF THE FUND.
I. THE STORE CITY OF PITHOM AND THE ROUTE OF THE EXODUS.
For 1883-4. By Edouard Naville. Thirteen Plates and Plans. {Foiirtli and Revised
Edition.') 25J.
Π. TANIS, Part I. For 1884-5. By W. M. Flinders Petrie. Eighteen Plates
and two Plans. {Second Edition.') 25J.
HI. NAUKRATIS, Part I. For 1885-6. By W. M. Flinders Petrie. With
Chapters by Cecil Smith, Ernest A. Gardner, and Barclay V. Head. Forty-four Plates
and Plans. {Second Edition.') 2^s.
IV. GOSHEN AND THE SHRINE OF SAFT-EL-HENNEH. For 1886-7.
By Edouard Naville. 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. 25^.
VI. NAUKRATIS, Part II. For 1888-9. By Ernest A. Gardner and F. Ll.
Griffith. Twenty-four Plates and Plans. 25J.
VII THE CITY OF ONIAS AND THE MOUND OF THE JEW. The
Antiquities of Tell-el-Yahudiyeh. An Extra Volume. By Edouard Naville and
F. Ll. Griffith. Twenty-six Plates and Plans. 25^.
R
VIII. BUBASTIS. For 1889-90. By Edouard Naville. Fifty-four Plates. 25^.
IX. TWO HIEROGLYPHIC PAPYRI FROM TANIS. An Extra Volume.
Containing THE SIGN PAPYRUS (z. Syllabary). By F. Li.. Griffith. THE
GEOGRAPHICAL PAPYRUS (an Almanac). By W. M. Flinders Petrie. With
Remarks by Heinrich Brugsch. i^Out of print.)
X. THE FESTIVAL HALL OF OSORKON II (BUBASTIS). For 1 890-1.
By Edouard Naville. Thirty-nine Plates. 25^.
XI. AHNAS EL MEDINEH. For 1891-2. By Edouard Naville. Eighteen
Plates. And THE TOMB OF PAHERI AT EL KAB. By J. J. Tylor and>. Ll.
Griffith. Ten Plates. 25^.
XIL DEIR EL BAHARI, Introductory. For 1892-3. By Edouard Naville.
Fifteen Plates and Plans. 255.
XIII. DEIR EL BAHARI, Part L For 1893-4. By Edouard Naville. Plates
I-XXIV (three coloured) with Description. Royal folio. 301.
XIV. DEIR EL BAHARI, Part IL For 1894-5. By Edouard Naville. Plates
XXV-LV (two coloured) with Description. Royal folio. 30J.
XV. DESH.\SHEH. For 1895-6. By W. M. Flinders Petrie. Photogravure and
other Plates. 255.
XVI. DEIR EL BAHARI, Part III. For 1896-7. By Edouard Naville. Plates
LVI-LXXXVI (two coloured) with Description. Royal folio. 30J.
XVII. DENDEREH. For 1897-8. By W. M. Flinders Petrie. Thirty-eight Plates.
25^. (Extra Plates of Inscriptions. Forty Plates. loi.)
XVIII. ROYAL TOMBS OF THE FIRST DYNASTY. For 1898-9. By W. M.
Flinders Petrie. Sixty-eight Plates. 25^.
XIX. DEIR EL BAHARI, Part IV. For 1899- 1900. By Edouard Naville.
Plates LXXXVII-CXVIII (two coloured) with Description. Royal folio. 30i.
XX. DIOSPOLIS PARVA. An Exira Volume. By W. M. Flinders Petrie.
Forty-nine Plates. {Out of print ^
XXI. THE ROYAL TOMBS OF THE EARLIEST DYNASTIES, Part II. For
1 900-1. By λΥ. Μ. Flinders Petrie. Sixty-three Plates. 25^•. (Thirty-five extra
Plates, lOi.)
XXIL ABYDOS, PartL For 1 901-2. By W. M. F. Petrie. Eighty-one Plates. 25^.
XXIII. EL AMRAH AND ABYDOS. An Extra Volume. By D. Randall-MacIver,
A. C. Mace, and F. Ll. Griffith. Sixty Plates. 255•.
XXIV. ABYDOS, Part II. For 1902-3. By W. M. F. Petrie. Sixty-four Plates. 25^.
XXV. ABYDOS, Part III. An Extra Volume. By C. T. Currelly, E. R. Ayrton,
and A. E. P. Weigall, &c. Sixty-one Plates. 255•.
XXVI. EHNASYA. For 1903-4. By W. M. Flinders Petrie. Forty-three Plates. 25J.
(ROxMAN EHNASYA. Thirty-two extra Plates. 10s.)
XXVII. DEIR EL BAHARI, Part V. For 1904-5. By Edouard Naville.
CXIX-CL Avith Description. Royal folio. 30^.
XXVIII. THE ELEVENTH DYNASTY TEMPLE AT DEIR EL BAHARI,
For 1905-6. By Edouard Naville and H. R. Hall. Thirty-one Plates. 25J.
XXIX. DEIR EL BAHARI, Part VI. For 1906-7. By Edouard Naville.
CLI-CLXXIV (one coloured) with Description. Royal folio. 30^.
XXX. THE ELEVENTH DYNASTY TEMPLE AT DEIR EL BAHARI, Part II.
For 1907-8. By Edouard Naville. Twenty-four Plates. 25J.
XXXI. PRE-DYNASTIC CEMETERY AT EL MAHASNA. For 1908-9. By
E. R. Ayrton and W. L. S. Loat. 255.
XXXII. THE ELEVENTH DYNASTY TEMPLE AT DEIR EL BAHARI, Part ΙΠ.
For 1909-10. By Edouard Naville, H. R. Hall, and C. T. Currelly. Thirty-six
Plates. 25.Γ.
XXXIII. CEMETERIES OF ABYDOS, Part I. For 19 10-11.
T. E. Peet, and H. R. Hall. 25^.
XXXIV. CEMETERIES OF ABYDOS, Part II. For 1911-12.
XXXV. CEMETERIES OF ABYDOS, Part III. For
and \V. L. S. Loat. 255.
XXXVI. INSCRIPTIONS FROM SINAI, Part L For 191 3-14. By A. H. Gardiner
and T. E. Peet. 35J.
Plates
Part I.
Plates
By Edouard Naville,
By T. E. Peet.
19 1 2-13. By T. E.
2 5i.
Peet
ARCHAEOLOGICAL SURVEY. .
Edited by F. Ll. Griffith.
I. BENI HASAN, Part I. For 1 890-1. By Percy E. Newberry. With Plans
by G. W. Fraser. Forty-nine Plates (four coloured). {Out of print.)
II. BENI HASAN, Part II. For 189 1-2. By Percy E. Newberry. With Appendix,
Plans, and Measurements by G. W. Fraser. Thirty-seven Plates (two coloured). 25^.
III. EL BERSHEH, Part I. For 1892-3. By Percy E. Newberry. Thirty-four
Plates (two coloured"). 25J.
IV. EL BERSHEH, Part II. For 1893-4. By F. Ll. Griffith and Percy E.
Newberry. With Appendix by G. W. Fraser. Twenty-three Plates (two coloured). 25^.
V. BENI HASAN, Part III. For 1894-5. By F. Ll. Griffith. (Hieroglyphs,
and manufacture, &c., of Flint Knives.) Ten coloured Plates. 25J•.
VI. HIEROGLYPHS FROM THE COLLECTIONS OF THE EGYPT
EXPLORATION FUND. For 1895-6. By F. Ll. Griffith. Nine coloured Plates. 25J.
VII. BENI HASAN, Part IV. For 1896-7. By F. Ll. Griffith. (Illustrating
beasts and birds, arts, crafts, &c.) Twenty-seven Plates (twenty-one coloured). 25J.
VIII. THE MASTABA OF PTAHHETEP AND AKHETHETEP AT
SAQQAREH, Part I. For 1897-S. By Norman de G. Davies and F. Ll. Griffith.
Thirty-one Plates (three coloured). 25^•.
IX. THE MASTABA OF PTAHHETEP AND AKHETHETEP, Part II.
For 1898-9. By N. DE G. Davies and F. Ll. Griffith. Thirty-five Plates. 255.
X. THE ROCK TOMBS OF SHEIKH SAID. For 1 899-1 900. By N. de G.
Davies. Thirty-five Plates. 25^.
XL THE ROCK TOMBS OF DEIR EL GEBRAWI, Part I. For 1900-1. By
N. DE G. Davies. Twenty-seven Plates (two coloured). 25J•.
XII. DEIR EL GEBRAWI, Part II. For 1901-2. By N. de G. Davies. Thirty
Plates (two coloured). 25^.
XIII. THE ROCK TOMBS OF EL AMARNA, Part I. For 1902-3. By N. deG.
Davies. Forty-one Plates. 25J.
XIV. EL AMARNA, Part II. For 1903-4. By N. de G. Davies. Forty-seven Plates. 25^.
XV. EL AMARNA, Part III. For 1904-5. By N. de G. Davies. FortyPlates. 25i.
XVI. EL AMARNA, Part IV. Fori 905-6. By N. de G. Davies. Forty-five Plates. 25^.
XVII. EL AMARNA, Part V. For 1906-7. By N. de G. Davies. Forty-four Plates. 25^.
XVIII. EL AMARNA, Part VI. For 1907-8. By N. de G. Davies. Forty-four Plates. 25J.
XIX. THE ISLAND OF MERGE. By J. W. Crowfoot, and MEROITIC
INSCRIPTIONS, Part I. For 1908-9. By F. Ll. Griffith. Thirty-five Plates. 25^.
XX. MEROITIC INSCRIPTIONS, Part II. For 1909-10. By F. Ll. Griffith.
Forty-eight Plates. 25^-.
XXL FIVE THEBAN TOMBS. For 1910-11. By N. de G. Davies. Forty-three
Plates. 2 5 J.
XXII. THE ROCK TOMBS OF IMEIR, Part I. For 1911-12. By A. M. Black-
man. Thirty-three Plates. 25J•.
XXIIL MEIR, Part II. For 1912-13. By A. M. Blackman. Thirty-five Plates. 25^.
XXIV. MEIR, Part IIL For 1913-14. By A. M. Blackman. Thirty-nine Plates. 25J.
XXV. MEIR, Part IV. For 1914-15. {hi preparaiion.)
graecOtROMan branch.
I. THE OXYRHYNCHUS PAPYRI, Part I. For 1897-8. By B. P. Grenfell
and A. S. Hunt. Eight Collotype Plates. {Out of print.)
II. THE OXYRHYNCHUS PAPYRI, Part 11. For i!
and A. S. Hunt. Eight Collotype Plates. 25J.
III. FAYUM TOWNS AND THEIR PAPYRI. For 189
A. S. Hunt, and D. G. Hogarth. Eighteen Plates. 25^.
IV. THE TEBTUNIS PAPYRI. Double Volume for 1900-1 and 1901-2. By B. P.
Grenfell, A. S. Hunt, and J. G. Smyly. Nine Collotype Plates. {Not for sale.)
V. THE OXYRHYNCHUS PAPYRI, Part III. For 1902-3. By B. P. Grenfell
and A. S. Hunt. Six Collotype Plates. 25i.
i-9.
By B. P. Grenfell
)- 1 900. By B. P. Grenfell,
VI. THE OXYRHYNCHUS PAPYRI, Part IV. For 1903-4. By B. P. Grenfell
and A. S. Hunt. Eight Collotype Plates. 25J.
VII. THE HIBEH PAPYRI, Part I. Double Volume for 1904-5 and 1905-6. By
B. P. Grenfell and A. S. Hunt. Ten Collotype Plates. 45^.
VIII. THE OXYRHYNCHUS PAPYRI, Part V. For 1906-7. By B. P. Grenfell
and A. S. Hunt. Seven Collotype Plates. 25J.
IX. THE OXYRHYNCHUS PAPYRI, Part VI. For 1907-8. By B. P. Grenfell
and A. S. Hunt. Six Collotype Plates. 255•.
X. THE OXYRHYNCHUS PAPYRI, Part VII. For 1908-9. By A. S. Hunt.
Six Collotype Plates. 25^.
XI. THE OXYRHYNCHUS PAPYRI, Part VIII. For 1909-10. By A.S.Hunt.
Seven Collotype Plates. 25^.
XII. THE OXYRHYNCHUS PAPYRI, Part IX. For 1910-11. By A. S. Hunt.
Six Collotype Plates. 25^.
XIII. THE OXYRHYNCHUS PAPYRI, Part X. For 1911-12. By B. P. Grenfell
and A. S. Hunt. Six Collotype Plates. 25X.
XIV. THE OXYRHYNCHUS PAPYRI, Part XL For 191 2-13. By B. P. Grenfell
and A. S. Hunt. Seven Collotype Plates. 25J•.
XV. THE OXYRHYNCHUS PAPYRI, Part XII. For 1913-14• By B. P. Grenfell
and A. S. Hunt. Two Collotype Plates. 25J.
XVI. THE OXYRHYNCHUS PAPYRI, Part XIII. For 1914-15- By B. P. Grenfell
and A. S. Hunt. Six Collotype Plates. 255.
XVII. THE OXYRHYNCHUS PAPYRI, Part XIV. {In preparaiion.)
ANNUAL ARCHAEOLOGICAL REPORTS.
(Yearly Summaries by F. G. Kenyon, W. E. Crum, and the Officers of the Society, with Maps.)
Edited by F. Ll. Griffith.
THE SEASON'S WORK. For 1890-1. By E. Naville, P. E. Newberry, and G. VV. Fraser. 2s. 6d.
For 1892-3 and 1893-4. 2s. 6d. each.
„ 1894-5. 3i. 6d. Containing Report of D. G. Hogarth's Excavations in Alexandria.
„ 1895-6. 3J•. With Illustrated Article on the Transport of Obelisks by Edduard Naville.
,, 1896-7. 2s. 6d. With Article on Oxyrhynchus and its Papyri by B. P. Grenfell.
,, 1897-8. 2s. 6d. AVith Illustrated Article on Excavations at Hierakonpolis by W. M. F. Petrie.
„ 1898-9. 2s. 6d. With Article on the Position of Lake Moeris by B. P. Grenfell and A. S. Hunt.
And thirteen successive years, 2s. 6d. each.
A JOURNAL OF EGYPTIAN ARCHAEOLOGY (issued Quarterly) commenced
January, 1914. 6s. a part, or;^i li. a year to Subscribers.
SPECIAL PUBLICATIONS.
ΛΟΓΙΑ ΙΗΣΟΥ : ' Sayings of Our Lord,' from an Early Greek Papyrus. By B. P. Grenfell
and A. S. Hunt. 2s. (with Collotypes) and 6d. net.
NEW SAYINGS OF JESUS AND FRAGMENT OF A LOST GOSPEL. By
B. P. Grenfell and A. S. Hunt. ij. net.
FRAGMENT OF AN UNCANONICAL GOSPEL. By B. P. Grenfell and A. S.
Hunt. js. net.
COPTIC OSTRACA. By W. E. Cruji. 10s. 6d. net.
THE THEBAN TOMB SERIES, Vol. I. THE TOMB OF AMENEMHET (No. 82).
By Nina de G. Davies and A. H. Gardiner. 305.
Slides frotH Fund Photographs 7nay be obtained through Messrs. A'cwton er' Co., 37 Ring Street,
Covent Garden, W.C. 2.
Offices of Ibe Egypt Exploration Fund:
13 TAVISTOCK SQUARP:, LONDON, W.C. i, and
503 TREMONT TEMPLE, BOSTON, MASS., U.S.A.
Agents :
BERNARD QUARITCH, 11 GRAFTON STREET, NEW BOND STREET, W. i
HUMPHREY MILFORD, OXFORD UNIVERSITY PRESS, AMEN CORNER, E.G. 4
29-35 WEST i2ND STREET, NEW YORK. U.S.A.
C. F. CLAY, CAMBRIDGE UNIVERSITY PRESS, FETTER LANE, E.G. 4
KEGAN PAUL, TRENCH, TRUBNER & Co., 68-74 CARTER LANE, E.C 4
GEORGE SALBY, 65 GREAT RUSSELL STREET, W.C. i
BRiGHAM YOUNG UNIVERSITY^
3 1197 22884 0184
TVNews
OpenLibrary