vee
Hal
ibe
ay ;
ἀνέ; re
ἡ. ΑΝ ν b
is ὲ xs mee v
ae A iad ὶ uy ἡ
iy ΩΣ =~
” ΜᾺ Ἢ { τὰ fe ie
στὰ Me r ἢ
4 me hips |
ple annie
OXYRHYNCHUS PAPYRI
PART XIII
GRENFELL AND HUNT
—S
SS,
EGYPT EXPLORATION FUND
GRAECO-ROMAN BRANCH
ΠΕ
OXYRHYNCHUS PAPYRI
PART XIII
EDITED WITH TRANSLATIONS AND NOTES
BY
BERNARD P. GRENFELL, D.Lirt.
HONORARY PROFESSOR OF PAPYROLOGY IN THE UNIVERSITY OF OXFORD, AND FELLOW OF QUEEN’S COLLEGE
FELLOW OF THE BRITISH ACADEMY
AND
ARTHUR <3. HUNT, ΥΥ:
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. I
AND 503 TREMONT TEMPLE, BosTON, Mass., U.S.A.
BERNARD QUARITCH, 11 GRAFTON STREET, NEW BOND STREET, W. I
HUMPHREY MILFORD, AMEN Corner, E.C. 4, AND 29 WEST 32ND STREET, NEW YorRK, U.S.A.
C. F. CLAY, FETTER LANE, E.C. 4
KEGAN PAUL, TRENCH, TRUBNER & CO., 68-74 CARTER LANE, E.C. 4
GEORGE SALBY, 65 GREAT RussELL STREET, W.C. 1
1919
All rights reserved
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 (1606), Hyperides (1607), Aeschines Socraticus
(1608), and an oration on the cult of a Roman Emperor (1612) 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 (1610), a work on literary criticism (1611), and
Herodotus (1619) 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.
Rostowzew, 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 1919, and that
Mr. J. de M. Johnson’s edition of the valuable Theocritus papyrus
discovered by him at Antinoé will be issued simultaneously.
BERNARD P. GRENFELL.
QueEEn’s CoLLecE, Oxrorp,
SEPTEMBER, 1018.
CON ha his
PAGE
PREFACE 3 ἱ Ἶ : : : 3 3 : : , : i Ἶ v
Lest or Piares “)/ τς : : Ἔ : : : : ; β : vi
TABLE oF Papyri 3 2 : ᾿ 8 ; 3 é : : ΩΣ
Note on THE METHOD OF Rice AND List oF ABBREVIATIONS . ; . vin
TEXTS
I, THEoLocicaL (1594-1603) : : ὦ : ; 2 ; I
II. New Crasstcat FRAGMENTS (1604-1613) . : : . εἰ 697
III]. Fragments ΟΕ Extant CrassicaL AUTHORS (1614-1625). ; : - 155
INDICES
I. New TueotocicaL FRAGMENTS ; ἃ 4 Ὶ : : : .. ery
IJ. New Crassicat FRAGMENTS . ᾿: : ; Σ 2 ; Z . ) 2g
III. Supyects Discussep ΙΝ THE InTRopUcTIoNS AND Norges . : : . 2250
IV. Passaces DiscussEp : 3 . Ἶ : é : Ξ Ξ ., 233
List.OF PLATES
I, 1594 recto, 1597 verso, 1604 Fr. 1
il. 1606 Fr. 6, Cols. i-ii , ;
III. 1607 Frs. 5 +4, 1608 Fr. 4, 1610 Fre, | I, 4- a if. af tee
V. 1619 Fr. =A 1621 verso
VI. 1620, 1624 Cols. Ixiii-iv, Ixvi
1594.
1595.
1596.
1597.
1598.
1599.
1600.
1601.
1602.
1603.
1604.
1605.
1606.
1607.
1608.
1609.
1610.
1611.
1612.
1613.
1614.
1615.
1616.
1617.
1618.
1619.
1620.
1621.
1622.
1623.
1624.
1625.
TABLE OF PAPYRI
New Recension of Tobit xii (vellum; Plate i)
Ecclesiasticus i .
St. John vi
Acts xxvi (Plate i) ὲ
1 Thessalonians iv—2 Thess. i
Hermas, Shepherd, Sim. viii
Treatise on the Passion
Homily on Spiritual Warfare
Homily to Monks (vellum)
Homily concerning Women
Pindar, Dithyrambs (Plate 1)
Menander, Micovpevos
Lysias, πρὸς Ἱπποθέρσην, Agains! 7 ΕΝ &e.
(Plate ii)
Hyperides (Ὁ), Hor iin on (Plate Ἢ
Aeschines Socraticus, 4 εϊδίαάός (Plate iii) .
Philosophical Work: Metrological Fragment
Ephorus xii or xi (Plate iii)
Work on Literary Criticism
Oration on the Cult of Caesar
List of Early Athenian Archons .
Pindar, Οἱ. i, ii, vi, vii
Sophocles, Ajax (Plate iv) .
Euripides, Orestes (vellum) .
Aristophanes, Pluéus .
Theocritus, Jd. v, vii, xv (Plate i)
Herodotus iii (Plate v)
Thucydides i (Plate vi)
Thucydides ii (vellum; Plate we
Thucydides ii (Plate iv)
Thucydides iii (vellum)
Plato, Protagoras (Plate vi)
Aeschines, Jz Cresiphoniem : : :
CENTURY
Late 3rd
611 ."
41ἢ :
Late 3rd or 4th
Late 3rd or 4th
4th d
5th
Late 4th or 5th
Late 4th or 5th
5th or 6th
Late 2nd
3rd
Late 2nd or 3rd
Late znd or 3rd
. 2nd
Late 2nd
Yves :
Late 2nd or 3rd
Early 3rd
Greed.
5th or 6th
ath .
5th
5th
5th
Late 1st or 2nd
Late 2nd or 3rd .
4th
Early 2nd
5th or 6th
3τ4
and
NOTE ON THE METHOD OF PUBLICATION ΕΣ
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 { δ a mistaken omission in the original, braces { } a superfluous
letter or letters, double square brackets [] ]] a deletion in the original. Dots
placed within brackets represent the approximate number of letters lost or
deleted ; dots outside brackets indicate mutilated or otherwise illegible letters.
Letters with dots underneath them are to be considered doubtful. Heavy Arabic
numerals refer to the texts of the Oxyrhynchus Papyri in this volume and
Parts I-XII, ordinary numerals to lines, small Roman numerals to columns. In
the case of vellum fragments the terms recto and verso”are usediwith 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 Papyrusforschung, viz. :—
Archiv = Archiv fiir Papyrusforschung.
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. = Faytim 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 B. P. Grenfell and A. S. Hunt.
P. Oxy. = The Oxyrhynchus Papyri, Parts I-XII, by B. P. Grenfell and
A. 5. Hunt.
P. Ryl. = Catalogue of the Greek {/Papyri in the Rylands Library, Vol. I, by
A. S. Hunt.
P. S. I. = Papiri della Societa Italiana, Vols. I-V, by 6. Vitelli and others.
I. THEOLOGICAL FRAGMENTS
1594. NEW RECENSION OF TOBIT Xii.
6-2 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. 2-4, 8) was 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. 250 and
likely to be somewhat older than 1007 and 1594, being written on papyrus and
having no contractions, whereas in the other two fragments θεός 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. 28 (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 v 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 (N), the other by the Cod. Vaticanus (B) and Cod. Alexan-
drinus (A). The recension of &, 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. ὃ 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 &
but less verbose, and is sometimes supported by the Old Latin version, which,
like the Aramaic and earlier Hebrew versions, generally supports XN. 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-
epigrapha of the O.T. i. 174 sqq.; cf. Fourn. of Theol. Stud. xiv. 516 sqq.
B
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 δὲ is the nearest approach to the original,
while that of BA did not reach its present form until about A. Ὁ. 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 δὴ 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 § in the insertion of ἐκ (I. 3),
ἁγίων (1. 3; ἁγίων ἀγγέλων BA; ἀγγέλων &), προσαναφέρουσιν (1. 3; add. τὰς
προσευχὰς τῶν ἁγίων BA; παρεστήκασιν &), the omission of αὐτῶν (1. 8), and
the insertion of ἔσται (1. 12); against these can be set only the agreements with
Nin the form ἔπεσαν (1. 8), the insertion of ἅπαιϊτα in]. 13 (πάντα 8; om. BA),
and καί for BA’s ὅτι in 1. 9. In vv. 18-19, where the text of δὲ is longer than that
of BA and differently arranged, the new fragment agrees with BA in having
ἐμαυτοῦ, not ἐμῇ, in 1. 15 and in constructing πάσας τὰς ἡμέρας with ὠπτανόμην ὑμῖν
(ll. 18-19), whereas δὲ connects the first phrase with the preceding εὐλογεῖτε
or with an added repetition of it, αὐτῷ ὑμνεῖτε. Against this must be set the par-
tial agreements between 1594 and δὲ as to the verb in 1. 16 (ἤμην μεθ᾽ ὑμῶν :
om. B; ἦλθον A), and the occurrence in 1594. 20 of ἐθεωρεῖτέ pe (cf. Old Latin
videbatis me) corresponding to N's Oewpeiré we. 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 ἀγγέλων in |. 3, the insertion of ἐπὶ τὴν γῆν in 1. 9, and the
reading θεοῦ in 1. 6 (θεοῦ without τοῦ μεγάλου the cursives ; cf. Dez Old Lat.). But
elsewhere the third Greek recension follows δὲ 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 καί as a connecting particle, where BA vary the monotony by
δέ (1.12; om. &) or ὅθεν (1. 17; om. δὴ) or the absence of connexion (1. 19), and
especially the new arrangement of vv. 18-19, which avoids both the obvious
omission in B and the redundancy of δὲ 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 BA text in the light of 8, 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 B or A. Secondly, the
constant use of καί in 1594 points to a more archaic text than that of BA.
Thirdly, the text of BA, where 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 a
not vice versa. In v. 15 the employment of ἅγιος by BA three times within
the same sentence, referring to different persons in each case, is intolerable,
and the addition of τὰς προσευχὰς τῶν ἁγίων looks like a Christian gloss on
προσαναφέρουσιν, which is intelligible by itself, while BA’s ἁγίων ἀγγέλων (ἀγγέλων
δ; ἁγίων 1594 and the third recension) may be the result of a conflation of
readings or of a confusion between aywv and ayAwy, a contraction of ἀγγέλων
found e.g. in 1608. 12. In v. 18 1594 has ἐγὼ μεθ’ ὑμῶν οὐχ ὅτι TH ἐμαυτοῦ
χάριτι ἤμην ἀλλὰ τῇ θελήσει τοῦ θεοῦ corresponding to B’s ὅτι οὐ τῇ ἐμαυτοῦ χάριτι
ἀλλὰ τῇ θελήσει τοῦ θεοῦ ὑμῶν without a verb, which is supplied by A (add. ἦλθον).
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 §&, ignores ὑμῶν. The explanation is probably that ὑμῶν had really
nothing to do with θεοῦ, but is the survival of ἤμην μεθ᾽ ὑμῶν found in both
1594 and δὲ, and that A’s ἦλθον is merely a correction inserted to restore
the defective grammar. 1594’s phrase οὐχ ὅτι... in place of BA’s (ὅτι) οὐχὶ...
gives a more literary touch to the passage, and might easily cause difficulty
to some one who did not understand that ἤμην was to be supplied with ἐγὼ
μεθ᾽ ὑμῶν, with the result that a simpler construction was substituted. Fourthly,
the result of an attempt to combine the merits of BA and & is partly ex-
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 & and
BA (cf. p. 2), it does not coincide with 1594, and is in fact nearer to & than to
1594 or BA, just like 1076. That fragment on account of its affinity to δὲ 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 δὲ 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 BA text which
Simpson (ourn. of Theol. Stud. xiv. 527-8) selects as evidence for the later date
of BA it is noticeable that (1) 1594 does not tend, like BA, to avoid καί
as a connecting particle, (2) if 1594 is less redundant than ἰη Il. 14-18,
in ll. 19-20 it has a repetition which is absent from §&, and (3) the two
uncommon words in 1594, προσαναφέρουσι and ὠπτανόμην, and the unusual
construction in ll. 14-16 are absent from &, though as a rule the BA text is more
commonplace than that of 8. The §& text is certainly not conspicuously better
than that of 1594 in these six verses. The addition in δὲ of Σάρραν before
B 2
4 THE OXYRHYNCHUS PAPYRI
τὴν νύμφην in 1. 1 and the omission of ἐκ inl. 3 and ἐπὶ τὴν γῆν in 1. 9. are
no improvements ; ἁγίων without BA’s ἀγγέλων in 1. 3 and προσαναφέρουσι without
BA’s τὰς προσευχὰς τῶν ἁγίων are hardly open to the inferences which Simpson
(op. cit. 521) draws from a comparison of the ‘ angelology’ of BA and δὲ concern-
ing the later character of BA. The use of θεοῦ τοῦ μεγάλου in 1]. 6 in place of N's
κυρίου perhaps illustrates the ‘ tendency to emphasize the transcendental character
of the Godhead’ which according to Simpson (/oc. cit.) serves to distinguish BA
from δὲ, and ὀπτάνεσθαι (1. 19), as he pointed out, came to have a definite
Christian connotation, being found in Acts i. 3 with reference to the appearances
of Christ after the Resurrection. But the word occurs in the LXX and Ptolemaic
papyri, and curious linguistic affinities between Tobit xii. 16-22 and the Gospels
(cf. Simpson’s ἢ. ad /oc.) are traceable in the text of & as well as BA, so that the
mere occurrence of ὀπτάνεσθαι does not prove much. The reading of 1594 in
v. 18 ἐγὼ μεθ᾽ ὑμῶν οὐχ ὅτι τῇ ἐμαυτοῦ χάριτι ἤμην is defensible against N’s ἐγὼ ὅτε
ἤμην μεθ᾽ ὑμῶν οὐχὶ τῇ ἐμῇ χάριτι ἤμην μεθ᾽ ὑμῶν : but the arrangement of vv. 18-10
as a whole is more satisfactory in δὲ ; for πάσας τὰς ἡμέρας is more appropriate in
conjunction with εὐλογεῖτε than with ὠπτανόμην, and the repetition εὐλογεῖτε...
ὑμνεῖτε in & is probably better than the repetition ὠπτανόμην .. . ἐθεωρεῖτε in 1594,
which here combines the two verbs found singly in δὲ and BA, though whether
N’s θεωρεῖτε is superior to ἐθεωρεῖτε in 1594, here supported by the Old
Latin, is very doubtful. In 1. 3 ἀγγέλων (8) is perhaps preferable to ἁγίων
(1594), the two words being liable to confusion as soon as contractions came
into use (cf. p. 3).
Our conclusion therefore is that, while the recension of δὲ is probably older
than that of BA, & had before the age of the Antonines, perhaps even from the
earliest times when Tobit was read in Greek, a rival in the shape of the text
to which 1594 belongs. This was largely superseded after A.D. 200 by the
BA recension, which was based on it; but traces of the influence of the 1594
text are discernible in the Old Latin version, which was made probably
before 300, and the 1594 text remained sufficiently important by the side of the
BA text for it to be used in the compilation of the intermediate text found in the
cursives and 1076, which was designed (in the fourth or fifth century ?) as a com-
promise between the various conflicting versions of the story. The result of the
discovery of 1594 is, we think, to diminish somewhat the superiority in point
of age which can be claimed for the recension of δὲ over others, and to increase
the respect due to both BA and the third recension, as being either based upon
or, in the case of the third recension, influenced by an older recension which
is independent of δὲ and may well contain some original elements.
1594,
Recto.
ἰσα]σθαι σε και τὴν νυμ
φην σου εγω ειμι Ῥαφαηλ
εἰς εκ τῶν ᾧ αγιαϊν) οἱ προσ
αναφερουσιν και εἰσπορεὺυ
5 ovTat ενῶπιον τῆς δὸ
ἕης του θυ του μεγαλου
και εταραχθησαν οι β και
ἐπέσαν ETL προσωπον
[ele τὴν ynv Kat εφοβη
το [θησαν και εἰπεν avjros
[en GoBacbe ἐἰρηνηὶ
ΧΙ. 14
15
τη
τό
20
17
NEW RECENSION OF TOBIT XII 5
Verso.
υμιν εἐσται Kat Tov Oy [ev
λογειτε εἰς τον αἀπανΐἷτα
atwva eyo 'Ῥμμεθ υμων 18
οὐχ OTL TH ἐμαυτοῦ χαρι
τι ἡμὴν adda Ty Oedn
σει Tov θυ Kat avTov evdo
γειτε και Tacas Tas ημῖε 19
ρας ὠὡπτανομὴν ὕμιν
και εθεωρειτε με οτίι
ou[k εφαγον ovde επίιον
I line lost
In place of a collation, we give the new text side by side with the three
extant Greek versions and the Old Latin in full.
1594.
14 ἰάσα]σθαί σε Kai τὴν
νύμφην cov. "5 ἐγώ εἰμι
“Ῥαφαήλ, εἷς ἐκ τῶν ἑπτὰ
ἁγίων οἱ προσαναφέρουσιν
καὶ εἰσπορεύονται ἐνώπιον
τῆς δόξης τοῦ θεοῦ τοῦ
μεγάλου. 15 καὶ ἐταρά-
χθησαν οἱ δύο καὶ ἔπεσαν
ἐπὶ πρόσωπον ἐπὶ τὴν γῆν
καὶ ἐφοβήϊθησαν. 1 καὶ
με ΄-
εἶπεν αὐ τοῖς [Μὴ φο-
“" ἘΞ ς = Ψ
βεῖσθε, εἰρήνη] ὑμῖν ἔσται:
καὶ τὸν θεὸν εὐλογεῖτε εἰς
τὸν ἅπαντα αἰῶνα. 18 ἐγὼ
Pe ~ > fig ba:
μεθ᾽ ὑμῶν οὐχ ὅτι TH ἐμαυ-
lo vA 4 2 μὴν “
τοῦ χάριτι ἤμην, ἀλλὰ τῇ
καὶ
θελήσει τοῦ θεοῦ'
- 4
αὐτὸν εὐλογεῖτε. 19 Kal
ΒΑ.
14 ἰάσασθαί σε καὶ τὴν
νύμφην σου Σάρραν. 15 ἐγώ
εἰμι Ραφαήλ, εἷς ἐκ τῶν
« DY ς ’, by 2
ἑπτὰ ἁγίων ἀγγέλων
οἱ προσαναφέρουσιν τὰς
προσευχὰς τῶν ἁγίων καὶ
εἰσπορεύονται ἐνώπιον τῆς
δόξης τοῦ ἁγίου. .16 καὶ ἐτα-
΄ ¢ 4 Δ
ράχθησαν οἱ δύοκαὶϊ ἔπεσον
(σαν A) ἐπὶ πρόσωπον, ὅτι
ἐφοβήθησαν. 11 καὶ εἶπεν
αὐτοῖς Μὴ φοβεῖσθε (add
ὅτι ΑἹ εἰρήνη ὑμῖν ἔσται"
τὸν δὲ θεὸν εὐλογεῖτε εἰς
τὸν αἰῶνα, 18 ὅτι οὐ τῇ
> ~ iA > A “
ἐμαυτοῦ χάριτι, ἀλλὰ τῇ
θελήσει τοῦ θεοῦ ὑμῶν
(add ἦλθον A): ὅθεν ev-
XN.
14 ἰάσασθαι Kai Σάρραν
τὴν νύμφην σου. 1 ἐγώ
“Ραφαήλ,
ε Ν > Ψ ἃ ua
ἑπτὰ ἀγγέλων OL TAPETTN-
εἰμι εἷς τῶν
κασιν καὶ εἰσπορεύονται
39 , ~ , 2
ἐνώπιον τῆς δόξης κυρίου.
16 καὶ ἐταράχθησαν οἱ δύο
καὶ ἔπεσαν ἐπὶ πρόσωπον
αὐτῶν καὶ ἐφοβήθησαν.
1 καὶ εἶπεν αὐτοῖς Μὴ
φοβεῖσθε, εἰρήνη ὑμῖν"
τὸν θεὸν εὐλογεῖτε εἰς
΄ 4 IA 18 2 BY
πάντα τὸν αἰῶνα. ἐγὼ
ὅτε ἤμην μεθ᾽’ ὑμῶν οὐχὶ
τῇ ἐμῇ χάριτι ἤμην μεθ᾽
ὑμῶν, ἀλλὰ τῇ θελήσει
τοῦ θεοῦ: αὐτὸν εὐλογεῖτε,
A 7 Ν € 7
κατὰ πάσας Tas ἡμέρας
6 THE OXYRHYNCHUS PAPYRI
πάσας τὰς ἡμέρας ὠπτα- λογεῖτε
νόμην ὑμῖν καὶ ἐθεωρεῖ- αἰῶνα.
τέ με ὅτ[] οὐϊκ ἔφαγον ...
2 wt
οὐκ epayor .
Cursives 44, 106, 107.
14 ἰάσασθαί σε καὶ τὴν νύμφην σου.
15 ἐγώ εἰμι ἹΡαφαήλ, εἷς τῶν ἁγίων τῶν
παρεστώτων ἐνώπιον τοῦ θεοῦ. 19 καὶ
3 4 > 7 ΠΡ . > ‘
ἐταράχθησαν ἀμφότεροι καὶ ἔπεσαν ἐπὶ
v4 3 - .} Ν Ν ~ e 2
πρόσωπον αὐτῶν ἐπὶ τὴν γῆν ὅτι ἐφο-
βήθησαν (ὅτι ἐφ. Om. 44).
αὐτοῖς, Μὴ φοβεῖσθε, εἰρήνη ὑμῖν ἔσται:
17 καὶ εἶπεν
> Se Ν 6 4 18 Z. ; “ 3. ες
εὐλογεῖτε τὸν θεόν, 18 ὅτι οὐ τῇ ἐμῇ
> ‘ “A
αὐτὸν εἰς
19 πάσας τὰς ἡμέ-
ρας ὠπτανόμην ὑμῖν καὶ
lal ~ ἈΝ
τὸν αὐτῷ ὑμνεῖτε. "9 καὶ θε-
A ”
ωρεῖτέ με ὅτι οὐκ ἔφα-
yov...
Old Latin.
4 tentare te et Sarram nurum tuam.
1 Ego enim sum Raphahel, unus de
septem angelis sanctis qui adsistimus et
conversamur ante claritatem Dei. 15 Et
conturbati sunt utrique et ceciderunt in
faciem et timuerunt. 11 Et dixit ilis
Raphahel: Nolite timere, pax vobiscum,
Deum benedicite in omni aevo. 15 Etenim
cum essem vobiscum non mea gratia
eram sed voluntate Dei: ipsi ergo
benedicite, et omnibus diebus decantate
εἴ. Et videbatis me quia mandu-
cabam...
χάριτι ἀλλὰ τῇ θελήσει τοῦ θεοῦ ἐγὼ
ἦλθον. 19 καὶ οὐκ ἔφαγον...
3. προσαναφερουσιν : this word occurs twice elsewhere in the LXX, Judith xi. 18 ἐλθοῦσα
mpocavoicw σοι and 2 Macc. xi. 36 ἃ δὲ ἔκρινε προσανενεχθῆναι τῷ βασιλεῖ.
11-12, That or should be read in 1. 11 before εἰρηνη with A is improbable, the line being
long enough without it, and similar words of connexion being avoided elsewhere in the frag-
ment; cf. p. 3. It is just possible that υἹμειν should be read instead of υμιν in 1, 12.
13. ets: ἐπὶ might be read, but εἰς is regularly used in this phrase in the LXX
and N. T.
15. οὐχ ott: κ is the only alternative to x and the vestige of the next letter suits o, but
not ε, so that οὐκετι is an unsatisfactory reading, even if it suited the context. The traces of
εἶ are slight, but suggest no other appropriate reading, so that οὐχ or is practically certain ;
ci, int.
20-1. οτἶι | ουἷκ (so δὲ) is very uncertain, but suits the slight traces somewhat better
than xa{e | οὐκ (BA) or ουΐκ εἰφαΐγον.
1595. ECCLESIASTICUS i.
18 X 11-2 cm. Sixth century.
A leaf from a papyrus codex, containing the first nine verses of Ecclesiasticus
in the LXX, written with brown ink in large heavy round uncials of the
type represented by e.g. Schubart, Pag. Graec. Berol. 44a (Iliad xxii), probably
in the sixth century, to which documents found with or near 1595 belong. The
numbering of the pages, if it existed in the position occupied by the numberings
1595. ECCLESIASTICUS I 7
in e.g. 1598, is not preserved, so that it is uncertain whether this is the first leaf
of the codex or only of a section. The beginnings of verses are marked by fresh
lines which project slightly, and the ends by high stops apparently throughout,
though owing to injuries to the surface these are not always discernible. The
usual contractions for θεός, κύριος (but not in 1. 1), and οὐρανός occur.
Verse 7 ἐπιστήμη σοφίας τίνι ἐφανερώθη καὶ τὴν πολυπειρίαν αὐτῆς τίς συνῆκεν ;
which is generally regarded as a doublet of v. 6, is omitted, as in the chief
uncial MSS.; but v. 5 (πηγὴ σοφίας λόγος θεοῦ ἐν ὑψίστοις, καὶ αἱ πορεῖαι αὐτῆς
ἐντολαὶ αἰώνιοι) is retained, as in some cursives and versions (cf. ll. 16-19, n.),
though this too has generally been rejected as a doublet of the preceding
verse; cf. Box-Oesterley in Charles’s Apocr. and Pseudepigr. i. 318. The resem-
blance, however, between vv. 4—5 is much less marked than that between vwv.
6-7, and since v. 4 ends with αἰῶνος, v. 5 with αἰώνιοι, the hypothesis that
the disappearance of v. 5 is an error due to homoioteleuton has, we think,
more to justify it than the view that it is a Pharisaic addition. In other
respects the text of 1595 is not remarkable, the spelling and arrangement
agreeing with NAC rather than with B. A note at the bottom of the recto
perhaps refers to an omission. This is the first papyrus of Ecclesiasticus.
Verso. Recto.
‘[waloa copia mapa κυριου k[a τ ev diorots:
[μ]ετ auTov εστιν και αι ποριαι αὐτΐης ev
[els Tov αιωνα"
[ap|uov θαλασσων και
5 [σἸταγονας ὕετου Kal
[ηἹμερας atwvos τις
[εἸξαριθμησει:"
ἰυψ)ος ovvov Kat πλατος
[ylns Kat αβυσσον και
το σοφιαν τί[9] εξιχνι
[α]σει-
ἱπρίοτερα παντῶν εκτι
[σ]ται coda:
[Kat] συνεσις φρονησε
Ι5 ὡς εξ alwvos:
[πη]γὴ σοφιας λογος θυ
20
25
τολαι αιωνιοι"
ριζα σοφιας τινι ἀπε
καλυφθη:
Kal Ta πανουργημίατα
auTns τις εγνίω'
εἰς ἐστιν σοῴος [pope
ρος ododpa:
καθη[μ]ενος ἐπι τίου
θρονου αυτου᾽
κς avTos εκτισεν [avTny ?
και elev και εξηϊριθμη
σεν αὐτήν"
και e€exeev αὑτηΐν emt
TavTa Ta εργα [avTou:
[erave . αὐτὴν]
8 THE OXYRHYNCHUS PAPYRI
9-Ο. kas σοφιαν : om. Syriac and Latin versions.
16-19. This verse (5), omitted by the uncial MSS., is found in cursive 248 and others
and in the Syro-Hexaplar, Latin, and Sahidic versions ; cf. int.
22. πανουργημίατα: 50 SAC; πανουργευματα Β.
23--. Between these lines several cursives (not 248), the Syro-Hexaplar, Latin, and
Sahidic versions insert verse 7 ἐπιστήμη σοφίας κτλ. : cf. int.
24. sopos: this word, though found in the Greek MSS., is omitted by Box-Oesterley,
1. ε., following the versions. In place of ll. 24-5 the Syriac and Arabic versions have ‘ One
(there is) who hath dominion over all her treasures’.
28. xs: B alone of the Greek MSS. assigns this word to the previous verse. That
αυτην, 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. ]. 33, ἢ.
29. «dev: SONC; dev 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 ἐπανω is right,
the reference is perhaps to an omission by the first hand, i.e. of avrny in |. 28 rather than
αὐτου in ], 32.
1596. ST. JOHN’S GOSPEL vi.
10-7 X 5:2 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 17-22, but with 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. ᾿Ι(ησοῦ)ς is the only
contraction, and one high stop occurs (I. 41) ; pauses are indicated by a slight
space in |. 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 B rather than &, to which 208 and to a less degree 1228
incline,or A. There are 8 agreements with B in the 10 places where B and
* differ, and in only 1 out of 5 places, where A differs from both & 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 (Il. 40-1, n.).
Recto.
14 lines lost
15 [avrov Avdpeas ο adeAgos Sipolvos Πετροῖυ vi. 8
εστιν παιδαριον wde os εἴχει πέντε apTous k\pl 9
1596. ST. JOHN’S GOSPEL VI 9°
[θινους Kat δυο οψαρια αλΊλα TavTa τι εστιν εἰς
ἰτοσουτους εἰπεν ὁ Is ποιησατε tous ανθρωπουΐς IO
ἰαναπεσειν ἣν δὲ xoprjos πολυς ev TH τοπίω
20 [averrecay ovy οἱ] avdpes Tov αριθῆμον
[woe πεντακισίχιλειοι ελεβεν ουΐν II
[rovs aprovs o Is Klar ευχαριστησας dal
[Kev τοις ανακειμΊενοις ομοιως Kal εἰκ
[Tov οψαριων ocoly nOedov ὡς δε
25 ἱενεπλησθησαν)] λεγει τοις μαθηταις αἷυ 12
Verso.
13 lines lost
[xovTo πεῖραν z[ns θαλασσης εἰς Καφαρναουμ ἢ
40 ἰκ]αι σκοτια On εγ[ε͵γίονει καὶ ov προς avTous
[εἸληλυθει o Is: ἢ τε θίαλασσα avepou μεγα 18
[Aolu mveovTos διεγείρετο εληλακοτες ουν 19
ὡς σταδιους εἰκοσι πΐεντε ἡ TplakovTa θεωρου
ἰσι]ν Iv περιπατουΐντα ἐπι της θαλασσης
45 Kal ἐνγυς του πλοιίζου γινομενον Kat
εφοβηθησαν ο de ἴλεγει avTos eyw εἰμι 20
μὴ φοβεισθαι ηθεῖλον ουν λαβειν αὐτον 21
εἰς τὸ πλοιον καὶ εἶυθεως eyeveTo TO πλοιον
ἐπι THS γῆς εἰς niv vTNnyov τὴ επαὺ 22
50 ριον ὁ Οχλος ο εστίηκως περαν τῆς θαλασσης
ἴδεν οτι πλοιαριον ἰαλλο οὐκ ny EKEL εἰ μὴ εν
16-18. The restorations of these lines, based on δὲ 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 παιδαριον in 1. 16 and δε after εἰπεν in |. 18,
19. xopt]os πολυς : 50 Nearly all MSS. ; modus xopros A.
20, οὐν οι] avdpes: this, the reading of NB &c., suits the space better than ovp
οἱ av(Opwm)or avdpes (A &c.). Some MSS. omit ow or οἱ, and 1596 may have had
ot ar( Opwm)ot avdpes, Omitting ovr.
21. a (A and most MSS.) suits the length of the lacuna better than ὡς (SB).
edeBev: 1. ἐλαβεν.
ουἷν : So NCABD and some others; δὲ N* &c.
22. ευχαριστῆσας : SO AB and most MSS. ; ευχαριστῆσεν Και ND &c.
ΙΟ THE OXYRHYNCHUS PAPYRI
ἐδωΐκεν : 50 ND and some others; διεδωκεν AB and most MSS.
23. καὶ: 50 RAB and most MSS. ; de και D &c.
40. [x jac σκοτια non εγ[εἼγίονει : so AB and most MSS. ; κατελαβεν δε αὐτους ἡ σκοτια SD.
40-1. ov προς avtous le |AnAvOec o Ἰ(ησουὴς : oumw εληλ. 1(ησ.) προς αὖτ, Sj ουπω προς αὖτ.
ἐληλ. ο 1(ησ.) B; οὐκ εληλ. προς aut. o Ἰ(ησ.) A. There is not room for ovze here.
41. te: so most MSS.; δὲ Ὁ &c.
42. dueye[pero: so Β &c. ; διηγειρετο RAD ὅζο.
43. ὡς : 80 8B and most MSS. ; woe AD &c.; om. a few MSS.
σταδιους : SO N2 Vel BAB and most MSS.; σταδια N*D.
43-4. θεωρου σιν : the supplement in 1. 43 is rather long; and possibly opo|ou|y
occurred, though no such variant is known here. Before I(noov)v the MSS. insert τον, but
there is certainly not room for [ro|v here.
46. o δε: so all Greek MSS. except 8, which has και.
47. φοβεισθαι : 1. φοβεισθε.
49. ἐπι τῆς yns: SO 8CABD and most MSS. ; ἐπὶ τὴν γὴν N* &c.
[umnyov : so all MSS. except &*, which has ὑπηντησεν. 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 τή ἐπαυριον, which begins a new section.
51. ιδὲν : SOND ἄς. (ειδεν) ; εἰδον AB &c.; ιδων some MSS.
1597. ACTS OF THE APOSTLES xxvi.
5:1 Χ 2:8 οἴη. 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. M has the middle brought
down below the side strokes; the top stroke of = is curved and the middle
of ὦ is slurred. θεός 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 ll. 3 and 8 there are strong
indications of agreements between 1597 and some of the variants preserved 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 a® at iv. 32).
Verso. Plate i.
To δωδεκζαφυλον ἡμῶν εν εκτε 7
via νυκτία Kal ἡμεραν AaTpever εν ?
ελπιδι κίαταντησαι περι nS vu?
ενκαλουίμαι ὑπο Ἰουδαιων eu? , | 8
5 0 Os νεκρίους eyeper......
Recto.
απειθης τη ovpaviw οπτασια αἾλλα τοις εἰν 20
[
[Δαμασκω πρωτον τε και Ἰερο]σολομοις Kale
[τη Ιουδαια και τοις εθνεσινῚ εκηρυξα [
[
μετανοειν Kat επιστρεφειν εἶπι τον Or |
10 [αξια τῆς μετανοιας epya TplacoorTas |
1-3. The ordinary Greek text is ἐν ékrev(e)ia νύκτα καὶ ἡμέραν λατρεῦον ἐλπίζει καταντῆσαι
(-hoew B) περὶ ἧς ἐλπίδος ἐγκαλοῦμαι, but Cod. Gigas (13th cent.) which has zmstanter nocte ac
die deseruiunt in spe peruentre, de qua spe nunc accusor in place of the usual nocle ac die
deserutentes sperant deuentre, de qua spe accusor, seems to be based on a Greek text closely
allied to1597. «Amd in ]. 3 makes a verb, not a participle, necessary in 1]. 2; but whether
ev should be inserted at the end of 1. 2 is doubtful, for it produces 20 letters in the lacuna,
whereas in |. 1 there are only 16 in the corresponding space. Line 1 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 Aazpeve: ev in
]. 2, but ελπιδος, for the omission of which there is no parallel, can be restored instead of νυν
in 1. 3, and βασιλεὺ inserted in]. 4 (cf. n.). But on the whole we prefer on account of
1. x to suppose that the lines on the verso are somewhat shorter than those on the recto.
4. After Ιουδαίων, before which many cursives insert τῶν, most Greek MSS. except A
insert βασιλεῦ ; but Cod. Gigas omits 7¢x, and there may well have been a blank space before
ν. 8. There is no room for βασιλευ here without creating a great difficulty in the restora-
tion of l. 1; cf. the preceding n. How 1597’s recension of v. 8 was arranged is not clear.
The Greek MSS. all have ri ἄπιστον κρίνεται παρ᾽ ὑμῖν, εἰ ὁ θεὸς νεκροὺς ἐγείρει, which is repro-
duced in the Latin, and the omission of a line containing τι. . . usw isan 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 lines corresponding to ll. 6-10, if the text was approximately as long as the ordinary
one; but 1597 seems to be somewhat shorter than usual.
ἡ. The restorations of ll. 9-10, which are practically certain, favour the insertion here
12 THE OXYRHYNCHUS PAPYRI
of either re before καὶ with ®AB (but not traceable in the Old Latin) or ev before Ἱερο]σολο-
pots with A, but not of both.
ka[t | τη Iovdaa: this restoration, though implying a new variant, suits the presumable
length of the lacuna in ]. 8 (if καὶ τοις e6veow is retained) much better than kale | τοις Ιουδαιοις,
which would have the support of 7 omnem regionem wudeis, the reading of the Cod.
Colbertinus (13th cent.) and a corrector of the Cod. Perpinianus (13th cent.). BA have
πασαν τε την xwpav τῆς Iovdaas, which is retained by Tischendorf in spite of the difficulty
caused by the unexplained accusative, in later MSS. governed by an inserted εἰς (so von
Soden). That 1597, which was shorter here than the current text, had xa{c | εἰς πασαν την
χωραν της Iovdaas] and omitted xa: τοις εθνεσιν is possible, but less likely.
8. exnpvéa: απηγγελλον (NBA) is the best attested reading, and the numerous variants
are all compounds of ἀγγέλλειν in some form. The Old Latin MSS. have adnuntare
in some form, except the Floriacensis (6th—7th cent.) which has praedicaui, apparently
representing ἐκήρυξα,
9. τον θ(εοὴν : τὸν ζῶντα 8. some cursives, &c. (including von Soden’s chief ‘ Pamphilus’
group); cf. xiv. 15.
1598. I THESSALONIANS iv—II THESSALONIANS i.
Fr. 4 8-8x6-2 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 θεός, ᾿Ιησοῦς,
κύριος, TaTHp,and Χριστός 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 B
four times against 8A, once with BA against x, twice with 8A against B, once with
δὲ against BA. In 1l.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. zur Palaeogr. xii. 192).
Frs. 1+ 2 recto. ΕἾ, I +2 verso.
a¢ on
vos [xpetay exnTe ov θελο I. iv. 13 [ovrws epxeTat οταν λεγωσιν v. 3
μὲν [δε vas ayvoev αδελ 35 [ἰειρηνη Kat ἀσφαλεια τοῇτ at
1598.
3 [hole [περι των Kolpopevov
20
0
75
80
85
15 lines lost
vou καὶ oft νεκροι ev Xw a iv. 16
ναστησοῖνται πρωτον ε 17
πειτία ἡμεῖς οἱ ζωντες
οἱ περ[ιἸ]λίειίπομενοι apa
συν αυτοις αἱρπαγησομεθα
σιν του KU εἰς [aepa και ovTw
πάντοτε σὺν [kK@ ecoueba wo 18
7 lines lost
Frs. 3 +4 verso.
[a8 J
ίυμιν Kat προιστ]αν[οἾμε v. 12
[yous υὑμων ev Κῶ kali vou
[θετουντας vas] Kat nye 13
σθαι avrous εἶκ περισσου
[ev ἀγαπὴ δια τοὶ εἶργον αὖ
[Tov] e[tpnveverle ev avrois
ἱπαρ)ακίαλουμεν δὲ viuas a
[δελῴοι νουθετειτε] τοὺς
[αἹγα[κΊρ[οἹυς πίαἹρα[μυθεισΊθε
Tous οἰλ]ιγοψυχίους avreyxe
σθε των αἰσθ]είνων ev υμιν ?
i4
μακροθυμειτῖε προς παν
τας ορατε μὴ tls κακον ἂν 15
τι κακοῦ τινι απίοδω adda
πάντοτε To αἴγαθον διωκε.
τε Kal εἰς ἰαλληλοὺυς και εἰς
πανίτας πάντοτε χαίρετε τό
αδιαίλειπτως προσευχεσθε 17
ev πίαντι evxapioreite τοῦ 18
18 lines lost
I THESSALONIANS IV—II THESSALONIANS I
55
60
105
IIo
115
17 lines lost
[Sucapevor θωρακἸα more v. 8
[os και ἀγαπῆς και] mepixedal
ἱλαιαν ελπιδα σ]ωτήηριας ott Ϊ 9
ἰουκ εθετο o Os] ἡμας εἰς ορί
[ynv αλλα εἰς πἸ]εριποιησ]ιν
ἰσωτηριας δια τῇου κυ ἡμων
[Inv του αποθανονΊτος ὕπερ ἡ
ἱμὼων πάντων ἢ wia ere γρ]η
6 lines lost
Frs. 3+4 recto.
L ot]
nluov acmacacbe ν. 26
και περι
Tous αδίελῴφους παντας εν
φιληματίι ayiw ενορκιζω v
μας τον kv ἰαναγνωσθηναι
27
τὴν επιστίολην πασιν τοις
αδελῴ[οις τοις αγιοις ἢ ἢ χα
pis του [kv ἡμων Inv Xv με
θ υμίων
[pos Ocooa)rove exer
[προς ΘεσσαλοΊνέϊι κεῖις B
ITavdos και Σιλ)ουανοῖς)] καὶ II, i, 1
Τιμοθεος Tn εκκ]λησια
πρὶ ἡμων καὶ K@ Inly Xo
χάρις υμιν και εἰρηνη] amo 2
18 lines lost
[
[ ——
[Θεσσαλονεικεων ev θω
[
[
14 THE OXYRHYNCHUS PAPYRI
_ Fr. 5 (middle of a column).
Verso. Recto.
131 Jao[ }rof 144.) Inf
jal Jeera
vol Ἰσενΐ
140. kal
1--2. θελοῖμεν : so SAB and most Μ55.; θέλω some cursives, versions, and citations.
22. ot περ] εἸλ[ειπομενοι : So most MSS.; om. FG &c.
25. Tou κ(υριοὴυ : SO SAB and most MSS.; some others have τω Χριστω.
26. συν: SONA &c.; εν Β.
35. to|r: the ε is not usually elided here.
56. ο A(co)s| nuas: so B with some cursives; npas o θ(εοὴς RA &c.
59. [Ijv: so B and the Aethiopic version; for ijv Xv, the ordinary reading, there
is not room.
ὑπερ: 50 SCAD and most others; περι &*B.
59-60. ηΐμων παντων ? wia: om. παντων MSS. No variant except ypynyopoupev for γρηγορω-
μεν is known at this point, but the traces of letters in 1. 60 are irreconcilable with the ordinary
readings, ae being nearly certain, though the other vestiges are inconclusive.
67. προιστ]ανζοἸμεΐνους : so SA, this being a common Egyptian form of the usual
προϊσταμένους. The reading is not quite certain, but suits the vestiges better than πρ͵]οι[στα]-
μεΐνους, which seems to be the only alternative.
69. και: SO SAB and most MSS. ; wore FG,
70. εἾκ περισσου : υπερεκπερισσου SA and most MSS. ; ὑπερεκπερισσως BD*FG. Tn
το and Eph. iii. 20 there is no variant for υπερεκπερισσου, but in Mark xiv. 31 &BCD &c,
read εἐκπερισσως in place of ex περίσσου.
71. The supposed traces of εἶργον are very doubtful, but no variant is known.
72. avros: 50 NO* &c.; εαὐτοις ABD¢ &c.
77- αἰσθ)ενων ev vuv?: so Bartlet; the MSS. have nothing between ασθενων and
μακροθυμειτε.
- 82. και: 50 NCB &c.; om. R*AD &c.
104. και: so BD* &c.; om. SAD¢ and most other MSS.
106. ενορκιζω (ABD* &c.) suits the space better than ορκιζω (SD? and most others).
10g. adeAdlow ros αγιοις : ἀδελῴοις R*BD &c.; αγιοις αδελῴοις RCA &c.
111. After υμίων the papyrus may have had αμην with RA &c.
112. The title agrees with SB*; other MSS. add ἐπληρώθη or ἐτελέσθη or ἐγράφη ἀπὸ
᾿Αθηνῶν. 4 ‘
113. The title agrees with 8AB ; other MSS. prefix ἄρχεται.
114. Σιλ]ουανος] : so NAB &c. ; some MSS. have Σιλβανός.
117. In(co)|v X(pror)o: so SAB &c.; Χ(ριστ)ω I(nov)v 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 κύριος or Χριστός, but ]. 144 cannot be
combined with ]. 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 Szm. 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. Klasstkertexte, vi, p. 16. The two pages are numbered
72 and 73, the columns being slightly longer than those in 1172, where Szm. 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, x, and A. Some-
thing seems to have gone wrong with the verso, where the original writing has
been obliterated in ll. 5-6 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. θεός and κύριος 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 ll. 19-20, 25, 27, 40-1; cf. ll. 3, 9, 18, 22, 24, 32, 33,
41, 45, where 1599 is in nearly all cases clearly wrong. Other slips occur,
e.g. inl.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 (ll. 9 ἐλάλησας, 20, 31, 37, 54) it supports one or
both of the Latin versions against the Athous, which in 1. 54 had corrupted
αὐτόν to λοιπόν, as discerned by Hilgenfeld. Of the other variants the most .
noteworthy occur in ll. 3-4, 5, 11, 25, 38, 42, 46, 48, 50, 56. Most of these
are probably right; that in ll. 3-4 is apparently supported by the Aethiopic
version. There are, as usual in Hermas papyri, several changes in the order
of words (Il. 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 Athos 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 (1,1 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.
16
5
Ist hand
Io
20
Ist hand
30
THE OXYRHYNCHUS PAPYRI
Verso.
οβ
απο τῶν τοιουτων [τοιουτων ἡ (on απεϊστη) Vili. 6, 4
οἱ de τας Enpas Kat aonmrovs επιδεδωκ οἶτες) Kat 5
oUTOL’ εγγυς avTwy ησαν ὕποκριται Kat [διδαχας
εἰσῴφεροντες ετερας" καὶ εκστρεφοντεῖς)] Tous
δουλους του Ov: (2nd hand) μαϊλἤλιστα δὲ παλιν τοὺς ἡμαρ
τήκοτες (2nd ἢ.) μη αφεντες a(ist h.)vrovs (2nd h.) μετανοειν"
αλλα Tats διδαχαις Tals μωραις πειθοντες αὐτοὺυς
ουτοι ovy εχουσιν ελπιδα Tov μετανοησαι: βλεπις 6
δὲ εξ avT@y μετανενοηκοτες ab οτε ελαλησας
auTols τας ἐντολας μου" καἰ] ETL μετανοησωσιν'"
οσοι O€ ov μετενοησαν ἀπώλεσαν την ψυχὴν
αὐυὐτων: ogo de μετενοησαν εὖ αὐτων αγαθ]ο]ι
εγίεϊνοντο' καὶ ἐγένετο ἡ κατ᾿οικια αὐτῶν εἰς
τα τιχη Ta πρωτα" τινες δε και εἰς τον πυργἶο]ν
aveBnoav: βλεπις ovy φησιν οτι ἡ μετανοια
Tov αμαρτωλων ζωὴν εἰχεν To δὲ μὴ μετὰ
νοησαι θανατον οσοι δε ημιξηρους επεΪ "1
δωκαν Kal εν αὑταῖς σχίισμας εἰχον' akove πεῖρι
αὐτων: οσων noav αἱ ραβδα[ι] ημιξηρους Ϊ
διψυχοι εἰσιν και καταλαλοι μηδεποτε εἰρηνίευ 2
οντες εν εαὐτοις" adda διχοστατουντες πίαν
τοτε καὶ τουτοις φησιν EMLKELTAL μετανΐίοια
βλεπεις φησιν τινας δὴ εξ αὐτῶν μετανΐενο
nkoTas* και ετι EATS ἐστιν εν αὕτοις μεταϊνοιας
οσοι ovy φησιν εὖ αὐτῶν μετανενοηκαΐῖσι 3
βραδυτερον εἰς Ta τιχη κατοικησωσιν"
οἱ δὲ ov μετανοησωσιν ταις πραξεΐσ͵)ιν αὐτων
θανατω αποθανουνται:"
Recto.
oy
οἷἶσοι dle χλωρας επιδεδωκοτες τας paBdovs avrwy 4
και ἰσχιΐσμας ἐχουσας ovTol παντοτε TOTO Kal
1599. HERMAS, PASTOR, SIM. VIII 17
αγαϊθοι] eyevovto exovrTes de ζηλον τινα εν
αλἸληλοις περι πρωτιων και περι δοξας" adda
παντες OUTOL μωροι εἰσιν εν aA'ANAOLS' αλλα καὶ ov 5
τοι ἀκούσαντες τῶν EvTOAWY μου αγαθοι
35 οντες εκαθαρισαν εαὐτοὺυς Kal μετενοησαν
ταχὺ εγενετο ουν ἡ κατοικῆσις αὑτῶν εἰς τον
πυργον: εαν δὲ τις avTwy παλιν επιστραφη
εἰς τὴν διχοσίτα]σιαν ex’ κολληθησεται του πυργου
καὶ απολεσι τὴν ζώην αὐτου" ἡ (won παντῶν 6
40 εστιν τῶν τηρουντων τας EVTOAAS TOU KU
καί Tas ἐντολας δὲ περι πρωτιων ἡ περι δοξης
οὐκ ἐστιν αλλα περι μακροθυμιας και περὶ ταπι
νοφρί[ο]συνης ανδρος ev τοις δὲ τοιουτοις ἡ ζωὴ τοῦ KU
ev de τοις διχοστατοις Kat παρανομοις θανατος"
45 τῶν de επιδεδωκοτων tas ραβδους ἡμίσυ χλωρας ηἡμισὺυ 8.1
ξηρας οὔτοι εἰσιν οἱ Tals πραγματιαις avTwy
ενπεφυρμενοι και τοις αγιοις μὴ κολ᾽λωμενοι
δια τοῦτο To ηϊμιΐσυ αὐτων (ὴη Kal TO ἡμισυ απεθανεν
πολλοι ουὐν ακουσαντες τῶν EVTOAMY μοὺ μετε 2
50 νοησαν οσοι ovy μετενοησαν ἡ κατοικία αὐτῶν
[ets] τον πυργον τινες δὲ αὐτῶν εἰς τελος ἀπεστησαν
[ουτοῆι ovy μετανοιαν οὐκ exovolw δια Tas πραγμα
[Tuas γ]αρ᾽ αὐτων εβλασφηζμη)σαν Tov KY καὶ απηρνήσαντο
[alvrov απωλεσαν ovy τὴν ζώην αὐτῶν δια τὴν πο
BD [νη]ριαν nv ἐπραξαν πολλοι δὲ ε αὐτων εδιψυχησαν 3
ουτοι OUY ETL εχουσιν μετανοιαν εαν ταχὺν μετανοησῶσιν,
I. τοιουτων: so ca and L?; 1,1] adds ergo, A ἡρημγ. The termination of the word
following τοιουτων is very uncertain; but, though the obliteration might be accidental
instead of intentional, τοινυν does not seem long enough.
3. ourot’ eyyus αὑτων ἡσαν: οὗτοι ἐγγὺς αὐτῶν' ἦσαν yap ca, Supported by L*L? and A,
3-4. [διδαχας εἰσῴφεροντες erepas: 610. ξένας εἰσῴφ. ca, pravas in L'L? perhaps implies
a different adjective, but A’s duplicem (doctrinam) seems to support erepas, for which
cf. Gal. i! 6 ἕτερον εὐαγγέλιον. The Gnostics are supposed to be meant.
5. μα[λήλιστα : or possibly μαλ'λιστα.
παλιν : om. ca, 1,11,3.
ἡμαρτήκοτες : ἡμαρτηκότας ca; οἵ. 1. 9, where the accusative in -es recurs, and Jannaris,
Hist. Gr. Gram. p. 120.
ς
18 THE OXYRHYNCHUS PAPYRI
6. adevres: αφιεντες ca in accordance with the other participles.
auToUs peTavoely : μετανοεῖν αὖτ. Ca.
7. πείθοντες : so ca and L! (detinentes) ; detinebant L’; seducunt A.
9. εξ avrwy: πολλοὺς ἐξ ait. Ca with L'L?.
μετανενοήκοτες : καὶ μετανενοηκότας ca; Cf. 1. 5, n.
ap ore: ἀφ᾽ ἧς Ca. 3
ἐλαλησας : so L'L? (fertulist’); ἐλάλησα ca; nuniialum est A. Editors prefer ἐλάλησας.
Cf. the passage immediately preceding |. 1, where ca has ἐλάλησα, but L* implies ἐλάλησας.
IO, μετανοησωσιν : μετανοησουσιν Ca ; cf. ll. 26-7 and Jannaris, op. cit. Pp. 555-
II. perevonoav: μετανοήσουσιν ca ; egerint (ν.]. egerunt) L'L?. μετανοήσουσιν is probably
due to a reminiscence of 1. 10.
ψυχην: Conv ca; vitam L*L?.
12-3. ayablo| εγζενοντο᾽ και : om, L*.
16. etxev: ἔχει ca; inesse (vitam) L'L?.
18. πεῖρι: καὶ περὶ ca; de (his) vero L*L?.
19-20. at ραβδα[ι] ημιξηρους διψύυχοι εἰσιν Kar καταλαλοι : αἱ ῥάβδοι καθὰ (]. κατὰ) τὸ αὐτὸ
ἡμίξηροι διψυχοί εἰσιν" οὔτε γὰρ ζῶσιν οὔτε τεθνήκασιν. οἱ δὲ ἡμιξήρους ἔχοντες καὶ ἐν αὐταῖς σχισμάς,
οὗτοι καὶ διψυχοὶ καὶ καταλαλοί εἰσιν Ca, the omissions in 1599 being mostly due to homoiote-
leuton; cf. int. The archetype of 1599 may well have already lost κατὰ τὸ αὐτό, which is
omitted by L? and A (/antummodo L*).
20. μηδέποτε: ef nunguam L'L°?A; καὶ μηδὲ Ca. καὶ μηδέποτε Gebh.-Harn.; but καί
is superfluous.
22. kat: ἀλλὰ καὶ ca; ef (his) quidem L*; nam et L?.
23. ἤδη : om. ca, L'L’.
24. ert ελπις ἐστιν εν αὐτοις μεταΐνοιας : ἔτι, φησίν, ἐστὶν ἐν αὐτοῖς ἐλπὶς μεταν. Ca.
25. ogo ουν : καὶ ὅσοι ca; guicungue vero L'; guicungue enim L?.
μετανενοηκαΐσι] βραδυτερον : μεταν. τὴν κατοικίαν εἰς τὸν πύργον ἕξουσιν. ὅσοι δὲ ἐξ αὐτῶν
βραδύτερον μετανενοήκασι ca. Cf. ll. τ9--20, ἢ. ;
26. κατοικησωσιν: -covow ca. Cf. 1. το, ἢ. The supposed stop may be part of the x of
κασι in 1 25.
27. οἱ δὲ ov μετανοησωσιν: so L*, gud vero non egerint; ὅσοι δὲ οὐ μετανοοῦσιν ἀλλ᾽
ἐμμένουσι ca. Cf, ll. 10, 19-20, and 29, nn.
29. οἷσοι : of ca. Cf. ], 27 where the papyrus has οἱ for ooo.
30. οὔτοι mavrote: πάντοτε οὗτοι Ca.
31. de: om. ca; but sed L'L’. :
32. Sofas: 1. δοξης. δόξης τινὸς ca with L? (dignitate quadam); L* omits guadam. CL.
Ι. 4τ,.
33. εν αλληλοις : add ἔχοντες περὶ πρωτείων ca, which edd. emend by inserting ζῆλον after
ἔχοντες from 1.7 habent inter se aemulationem de principatu and 1,2 de princtpatu certantur.
35. εκαθαρισαν : ἐκαθάρησαν Ca.
37. αὐτων : so L'L? (eorum); om ca.
ἐπιστραφη : ἐπιστρέψῃ ca; redierit 1.1.2. In classical authors the passive was used in this
sense; but cf. Matt. xii. 44 ἐπιστρέψω εἷς τὸν οἶκόν pov.
38. εκκολληθησεται: ἐκβληθήσεται ἀπὸ ca; expelletur 1,71,2. ἐκκολλᾶν is not attested, but
seems not unlikely here; cf. 1. 47 rows ἀγιοις μὴ κολλωμενοι,. and κ are often very similar
in cursive hands from the second century onwards.
40-1. των τηρουντων τας evroAas ToU κ(υριο)υ και τας evtodas Se: τῶν τὰς ἐντ, τοῦ κ(υρ).
φυλισσόντων' ἐν ταῖς ἐντολαῖς δὲ ca with L?; (vila enim) corum qui custodiunt mandata domint
in mandatis consistit 1.1. καὶ may be a mistake for κατα, but ev ros δὲ τοιουτοις Occurs
1η 1]. 43.
1599. HERMAS, PASTOR, SIM. VIII 19
41. δοξης : δόξης τινὸς ca with L'L?.
42. ταπινοφρ[ο]συνης : ταπεινοφρονήσεως ca; humilitatem animae ΤΑ; animd humil. ΤΆ.
ταπεινοφροσύνη occurs several times in the N. T. and r Clem. and in the Shepherd twice,
Vis. iii. 10. 6, Sém. v. 3. 71 but for ταπεινοφρόνησις Stephanus only quotes Tertullian. 1599
is likely to be right.
43. ev τοις δε τοιουτοις : ἐν τοῖς τοιούτοις οὖν ca. L* has for ll. 42-3 per Patientiam .. .
vilam homines consequentur.
44. ev δε τοις διχοστατοις : ἐν τοῖς διχοστάτοις δὲ ca. ev δε has been corrected. διχοστάταις edd.
45. tov de επιδεδωκοτων : οἱ δὲ ἐπεδωδοκότες ca, rightly.
ἡμισὺ χλωρας ἡμισυ Enpas: ἥμ. μὲν xr. ἥμ. δὲ Enp. ca; LIL? invert v2ride and arzdum.
46. ταις mpaypatias αὐτων : ἐν ταῖς πραγματείαις ca; negotiationibus (involuti) LL’.
47- Tots αγιοις pn κολλωμενοι : μὴ KOAA, τοῖς dy. Ca.
48. και To ἡμισυ areOavev: τὸ δὲ ἥμισυ νεκρόν ἐστι ca; Aimidium mortuum est L.; dimidiae
mortuae sunt 1.3.
49. τῶν evrohwy pov: pou τῶν ἐντ. Ca.
ΒΟ, ovv: γοῦν Ca, L'L? om, οσοι youv μετενοῆησαν.
52. δια τας mpaypalrias γ]αρ : διὰ γὰρ τ. mpayp. Ca.
54. [αἾυτον - Hilgenfeld’s conjecture for the meaningless λοιπόν of ca is confirmed ; cf.
ef cum abnegaverunt L', eumque abneg. L’.
56. ow: om. ca; adhuc et his est regressus gui si cito...L*; guibus adhuc per celerem
poenttentiam regressio est L?.
1600. TREATISE ON THE PASSION.
22-5 Χ 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 θεός, κύριος, and
Χριστός 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, Πρὸς Ἰουδαίους.
C2
20
σι
Io
20
25
THE OXYRHYNCHUS PAPYRI
Recto.
Le sei bee ae F χ]αριν" οτίι
balcony aber |. [.] meorews
[. ++. €lK μακρου προσ
fier eet 1 οὕτω δὴ Kat το
[Tov Kv π͵αθος εκ μακρου
[......|obev δια δὲ τὺ
που δηλω ]θεν σημερον
[ev ἡμιν 2] τυγχάνει τετε
ἱλειωμε]νίον .]α
le email Jas καινοῖν το] πα
ἰλαιον] νομιζοϊ μενοὴν
ἵεστι ylap καινοῖν καὶ tla
ἵλαιον το] Tov κυ μυστηΐ
ριον π]αλαιον μεν καὶ
[Ta τοὴν νομὸν καινον |
[δε κατα τὴν χαριν add εαἷν
ἰαποβίλεψης εἰς τὸν TUTO™
ἰκαινῖον on δια της θυ
[doce Plas τοινυν εἰ βου «al
λει To] Tov KU μυστήριο [
[yvelvary αποβλεψον 8[m?
[εις τοῖν ABed- τὸν δι aded
{gov φίονευομενον εἰς
[Tov ..|... τον ομοιως
λα 1... οζομενον
[ets τοῖν Ιωσηφ’ τον o
[Hotlos πιπρασκομε
(vov] εἰς τὸν Μωυσεα
[Tov] ομοιως εκτιθεΐμενον
(Se)
σι
σι
οι
Verso.
Tiolv ομοίως .. .. με
νον εἰς τοὺς αἀλλοὺς
τους ομοιως [KaKwS πὰ
αποβίλεψον de
Και εἰς τον εν [Ήσαια ὡς
σχοντες
προβατον σφίαχθεντα
τον παταξανίτα.....
Kal σωσαντα ἱπολλους ?
Tov. Γαἰιμίατος [sce
δια πὶροϊφητικης [ypagns ὃ
το του] κυ μυστηΐριον
+O... μενον o μεν yap
Movons προεϊφητευσε
kat οψεσθε την ἰζωην v
pov κρεμαμενίην ἐμπρο
σθεν των οφθαλίμων v
μὼν vuKTos καὶ [npepas
Kal ov πιστευσητίε εἰς τὴν
ζωην ὑμῶν ο [de Δανειδ
εἶπεν sya τι εφρυαξεῖν εθνη και
λαοι ἐμελετησαῖν κενα
παρεστησαν οι βαΐσιλεις
TNS YNS Και οἱ αἰρχοντες
συνηχθησαν εἶπι το av
TO κατα Tov KU Kall κατα Tov
Kv αὐτοῦ ον... ὃ: ἘΠ}
€.S ὡς ἀρνιον [es σφαγὴν
αγομενον Tov Ϊ.. .......-
ἐλογίσαντο. «a age «alee
Fr. 2 recto.
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 ; Moses who was likewise exposed ;
... who was likewise . . .; the others who likewise suffered evil things. And consider also
him who in Isaiah was slain as a sheep, who (was Ὁ) 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-g. τετελειωμενον OF τεέτελεσμενον would be expected, but hardly fills up 1. 9, which
is shorter than the rest and perhaps ends a sentence.
17. tov τυπον: the reading is very. doubtful ; but neither παλαιὸν nor τὸ παλαιὸν is satis-
factory, and cf. 1. 6. It is not quite certain that a fragment containing the supposed
ὁ of τυπον, v in |. 18, and the top of the v of βου and eal in |. 19 is rightly placed here.
19. The marginal note apparently corrects εἰ βουλει to eav βουλη. λη may have been
written in the margin below «av or at the beginning of |. 20, or possibly «av | [Bou]|A[y
should be restored at the ends of ll. 19-21. δῖ is, however, preferable in ]. 21; cf. ἢ.
21. There is a space between ἀποβλεψον and δῖ, which perhaps belongs to a marginal
addition beginning in 1]. 19; cf.n. δῖε is not wanted, ἀποβλεψον being the apodosis of εἰ
βουΐλει (but cf. 1. 33, where there is room for de); and 8[y is more likely.
22. The readings after ABed are very uncertain, but τὸν ὑπὸ τοῦ | [Kaw lovevopevov does
not suit the vestiges. bike
24-5. εἰς [rov {c |aak TOV ομοιὼς ἴυπο mp|s σφαζομενον is unsuitable, though ogouevoy does
not suggest an appropriate word.
32-3. maloxorres: cf. 1599. 5, n.
34-5. Cf. Isa. lili. 7 ὡς πρόβατον ἐπὶ σφαγὴν ἤχθη and 1]. 56-7.
36. παταξαυτα : παταχθεντα would be expected.
43-8. A loose quotation of Deut. xxviii. 66 καὶ ἔσται ἡ ζωή σου κρεμαμένη ἀπέναντι
τῶν ὀφθαλμῶν cov, καὶ φοβηθήσῃ ἡμέρας καὶ νυκτός, καὶ οὐ πιστεύσεις TH ζωῇ σου.
49-55 = Psalm ii. 1.
56-8. Cf. Psalm xliii. 22 ἐλογίσθημεν ὡς πρόβατα σφαγῆς and Il. 34-5, n.
59-60. This unplaced fragment, being blank on the verso, presumably came near the
ends of lines ; but at the ends of Il. 13-15 there is apparently nothing lost. It is not clear
which way up it is to be read.
1601. HOMILY ON SPIRITUAL WARFARE.
12. X 10-2 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 (Il. 2 sqq.) and 8
(11. 23-8), but also referring to Hosea iii. 3 (Il. 29-30) and perhaps the Pentateuch
22
(I. 32). For much of the reconstruction we are indebted to Dr. Bartlet.
script is a medium-sized semiuncial of the late fourth or fifth century, with
occasional high stops and the usual contractions of θεός and probably κύριος, but
not of vids. Abbreviations are found on the recto, which probably followed
the verso, and these perhaps occurred at the ends of lines of the verso also.
THE OXYRHYNCHUS PAPYRI
Brown ink was employed.
20
Io
I
-
9
[ωμεὲεν του vou [ore εθνος ανεβη
ἐπὶ τὴν γὴν Tov κυ ἰσχυρον y7
yap φησιν a ψυχίαι τῶν αγιων
καὶ ἡ Ψυχὴ Tov ϑιοῖν της am@ded(as) ?
εθνος εξουσιων τίου κοσμου Tou
του Kal πνευματικΐη ἐστιν ημιν
ἡ παλὴ και αναβαινεῖι αὐτο ἢ ἰσχυ
ρον τυγχανον Kall avev apt
θμων wv ἡ TeTaplTn.......
κατα τοῦτο yap λελίεκται ava
ριθμητον τουτου [de του εθνους
[οἱ] οδοντες λεοντῖος οτι ὁ ἀντι
[διῖκος ὕμων διαβολίος περιπατει
[τὼν κα απ εεινν [κυ Ἐπ τον
Recto.
NEF AL προ
Ἰπυρον αι... .Ϊ:
κεραυνησὴ ριπτι
]
lv αυὐτων απολλύυσι
Ἰρον περιτιθησιν de
]
omep δηλοῦται εν
Ἰσης μετα υ]}} ταυτα
θρη]νησον προς pe
1601. HOMILY ON SPIRITUAL WARFARE 23
gak|kov emt Tov avdpa av(rns)
25 Aleyee nv θρηνει emt
Tolus δικαίους τοὺς ev TH
Ἰ τω θω θρηνειν δὲ
οἸτι ενηστευσ(αν) Kat εθρηνευσᾶ
Ἰν edey(ev) Done γυναικ(ι) πορ(νευουση)
30 οτί καθηση)] ἐπ ἐμοι καὶ ov μὴ πορν(ευσηΞ)
7. εο- «.]1. pak ) o7t πρωτ(ονὴ μεν
|. ἐγραψεν Μωῦσης οτι εαν
εἸπιθυμί ) την εἕ εθν(ους) εκκλησιᾶ
τ]ουτί ) ἀντι του μὴ ws εθνικί )
2-15. ‘... because “a nation is come up on the land of the Lord in strength”. By
‘‘Jand” 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. Ἰωμεῖν : the first and third letters might be o, and the same applies to Joey in 1. 2.
2-3. Cf. Joel i. 6 ὅτι ἔθνος ἀνέβη ἐπὶ τὴν γῆν μου ἰσχυρὸν καὶ ἀναρίθμητον, οἱ ὀδόντες
αὐτοῦ ὀδόντες λέοντος, καὶ ai μῦλαι αὐτοῦ σκύμνου.
6. s of εθνος has been corrected.
7-8. Cf. Eph. vi. 12 ὅτι οὐκ ἔστιν ἡμῖν ἡ πάλη πρὸς αἷμα καὶ σάρκα, ἀλλὰ... πρὸς τὰ πνευ-
ματικὰ τῆς πονηρίας.
13-15. Cf. τ Peter ν. 8 ὁ ἀντίδικος ὑμῶν διάβολος, ὡς λέων ὠρυόμενος, περιπατεῖ ζητῶν τίνα
καταπίῃ.
18. κεραυνηση : κεραυνοῦν is known, but apparently not κεραυνεῖν.
23-4. Cf. Joel i. 8 θρήνησον πρός με ὑπὲρ νύμφην περιεζωσμένην σάκκον ἐπὶ τὸν ἄνδρα αὐτῆς τὸν
παρθενικόν. ‘There is not room here for περιεζωσμενην, unless it was contracted, and certainly
not for ὑπερ vupdny as well, so that the quotation was probably not verbal; cf. ll. 2-3 and
29-30, nn.
29-30. Cf. Hos. iii. 3 καὶ εἶπα πρὸς αὐτήν, Ἡμέρας πολλὰς καθήσῃ ἐπ᾽ ἐμοί, καὶ οὐ μὴ
πορνεύσῃς....
1602. HOMILY ΤῸ MONKs,
12:5 X 10-8 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 difficult, especially on the verso (the flesh-side ?),
where the ink is fainter; and we are indebted to suggestions of Dr. Bartlet
24 1 “GE OXYRAYNCHUS 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. O is written small and
the middle of W 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. θεός, Ἰησοῦς, Ἰσραήλ,
κύριος, πνεῦμα, and Χριστός are contracted. Some remarkable expressions occur
in ll. 32-7.
Recto. Verso.
στρατιωται Xv. ακουσατε πὸ Xv Iv οιτινες κατα ταξιν
σακις εκ χειρος ἀνομὼν oO kat κληρον (kal) μερισμον λα
Os eppucato τον Ind. και με κ
ἢ ΞῈ βοντες πνα Χρυ καλοπαθοῦ
χρι ov Ta προς Tov kV ETH
ρουσαν οὐκ ἀπεστὴη απ AUTO: Tes ὑπὸ Tov haov ἀνηρεθὴ
οι
wo
OL
εκ χειρος yap Φαραω cow σαν. ἀνηρεθησαν᾽ αἀποστᾷ
τες πνὸος ζωντος κατα
σεν QUTOV οντος ἀνομου. ΠΙΒΟΣ ¢ 5 T
και Dy βασιλεαΐς αἸνοσιοτε τῶν [ἂν ομύαν' ΟΥΤΩΣ εν
ρου: kat Αδαρ. μετία των αλλο φάληϊσαν] τὴς ΚλΉρΟνΟΜΙ
10 φυλων. Kal Emel TA προς Ov Fe EY αν ιν.
20 δελῴφ[οι] μεινατε νικηται-"
ετηρουσαν- ETL εδωκεν 3 Plot] μεινατε viKn
iz μεινία]τε ews αν υπομεινᾶ
auTols εκ καρπου τῆς ἰσχυ Oi Nise
δὲ ica peices γῆν τες k[v|pwpev THY προσελεὺ
ς Ἷ σιν τὴν προς KV. Kat σὺ
Χαναναιων. Kat ὕπεταξε Τὴν τρ i
φυτον καὶ οπλον evdo
I5 autos τοὺς αλλοφυλους. τ
κιας λᾳβωμεν Xv Iv. αὐτὸ
(SP)
οι
και μετ αὑτα OTH εν TN ε
ρήμω και τη ανυδρω [και]
παρεσχεν : επι ToUTOLS
προφητας εξεπεμψεν-
20 Κηρυσσειν TOY KV ἡμῶ
ὕπερ ἡμῶν φυντα e€avTo
γηι |[Kat]] ουὑτως ὡς εστιν-
και παραλαβετε τον λογον
οτι πνὰ δυναμεως em ε
40 σχαάτω TOV KalpOV....
‘ Soldiers of Christ, hear how often God delivered Israel from the hand of the jawless,
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 ]awlessness ; 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 word, because a spirit of power in the last time .. .’
4. ετηρουσαν : this form of the imperfect was introduced in the second century B.c. ; cf.
Mayser, Grammatth d. griech. Pap. aus αἴ, Ptoleméerzeit, p. 323.
9. Αδαρ μετα των αλλοφυλων : ᾿Αδάρ is a Jewish month, not a proper name, and seems
to be corrupt, probably for ’Apdé the Canaanite (Numb. xxi. 1-3).
12. καρπου τῆς ἴσχυος : a phrase apparently meaning ‘spoil’.
17. καὶ has dots above it; cf. ]. 37.
23. The correction (if the supposed vestige of « above the line is really ink) may be by
the first hand.
25. ανηρεθησαν : the subject reverts to avros in |. 15, i. 6. the Jews.
32-5. We have not been able to find a parallel for the expressions in these lines.
36. φυντα is used transitively, as if it were φυσαντα. The traces suit @ very well.
Cf, ἔφυ for ἔφυσε in two British Museum Greek inscriptions, nos. 1004 and 1074, discussed
by J. A. R. Munro in Class, Rev. 1917. 142.
37. yne: the dots above xa indicating deletion are clear, but the scribe does not seem
to have also placed dots over yp. He (or the preacher) apparently meant ev yy. va
cannot be read instead. For γῇ as equivalent to human nature Bartlet compares Barn. vi. 9
ἄνθρωπος yap γῆ ἐστιν πάσχουσα.
38. λογον: i.e. the preacher’s discourse probably, rather than the Gospel.
1603. HOMILY CONCERNING WOMEN.
21-1 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 1]. 1-11,
a passage which seems to be modelled on Hebr. xi; the rest consists of a more
general condemnation. A contraction ay(ye)Aovs 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 67097 verso
(i. Plates xxviii-ix) and 67177 verso (ii. Plates xix—xx).
[. . . γυναῖκ ?ja του Oupiov δεῖ
ee Ree ].+ δια yuvatkos τοῖν σοφωτατον
[SolA[oluwva προς παραβασιν ἱπαρηγαγε ?
26 THE OXYRHYNCHUS PAPYRI
δια γυναικος Tov ανδριωτίατον Σαμψων
5 ξυρησας ετυφλωσε: δια γίυναικος Tous
νιους λει του tepews εδαφίισας εκτανε ?
δια γυναικος Tov ovpavoy [.........
εδιωξε: δια γυναικος Tolv........
Ιωσηφ εν φυλ(ακ)η δεσμευσαϊΐς .. ....
10 δια γυναικος Tov mavTom|.........
ἴωαννην απετεμεν. τι δῖε viv Epo
δια γυναικος τοὺς αγλους [........ κα
τεβαλε: δια γυναικος πανταῖξς - - --.---
παντὰς φονευει: πάντας ατίιμαζει ?
15 γυνὴ yap αναιδης ovdevos φείιδεται ?
ov Aevirny τιμα' οὐκ ιερεὰα olv........-
ov προφητην αιδειται: πίαντων .....
κακιστον γυνὴ πονηρα [π͵]αντίων .....
eav δε και πλουτον EXN τὴ πονΐηρια αὐτὴης
20 ἰσυἹνεργουντα' δισσον To κακοῖν ........
[.]rog@ . [.]. aBepamevroy [......---
‘,.. the wife of Uriah ...; bya woman he turned aside the most wise Solomon (9) 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 awomanhe...
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..., nota 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, mavton|: Or wavtoy|. παντυπίαθη by itself is too short, but another word may have
fo owed.
12. Possibly [απ ουρανου ka|reBane : οἴ, 1. 7, Nn.
14. es is rather short and ar[ipous ποίει can be read ; cf. 1. 15.
15. φέζιδεται : or φε[ιδομενη ....
16. οἷυ πρεσβυτερον and οἷυκ ἀποστολον are rather long, but οἷν βασιλεα is possible.
17. Perhaps πίαντων κακων Or ζωων.
21. € can be read in place of ¢. τὸ (wov αθεραπευτον is too short, but it is not quite
certain that a letter is lost before ro.
1604. PINDAR, DITHYRAMBS 27
Il. NEW CLASSICAL FRAGMENTS
1604. PINDAR, Dithyrambs.
Fr. 18 X 25-3 cm. Late second century.
Plate I (Fr. τὴ.
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 βίος Πινδάρου prefixed to the |
Codex Vratislaviensis there were two books of his dithyrambs, and the scholiast |
on Οἱ xiii. 25 states that in the 1st (book) Pindar attributed the discovery of the
dithyramb to Thebes (Fr. 71). This claim is likely to have been made in an
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 1st 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,’ was 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 Ewropa and Memmnon, and
perhaps one on Davai, if the well-known fragment about her comes from |
a dithyramb rather than from a θρῆνος. Pindar and Bacchylides belong to
the middle dithyrambic period. Later dithyrambic poets exercised greater
1 Class. Rev. 1912. 134-9, Class. Quart. 1912. 241-2.
—EE
28 THE OXYRHYNCHUS PAPYRI
| freedom in their choice of subjects, and in Roman times ‘ dithyramb’ seems
to have been applied to any lyric poem which contained a narrative concerning
the heroes ; cf. Plut. De Mus. το 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 ὑμέναιος. The titles of these odes are ᾿Αντηνορίδαι ἢ
“Ἑλένης ἀπαίτησις, Ἡρακλῆς), Hideo. ἢ Θησεύς, Θησεύς, Ἰώ (᾿Αθηναίοις), Ἴδας (Λακεδαι-..
μονίοις), and [Kacodvépa?]. 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’ (ἀπολελυμένα), not in strophes, is ascribed some-
times to Melanippides, a younger contemporary of Pindar (so Jebb, of. czt. p. 46,
Weir Smyth, Greek Melic poets, 1111), sometimes to Lasus, or to Pindar himself
(Crusius in Pauly-Wissowa, Realenc. v. 1214) on the evidence of (1) Horace,
Odes iv. 2.10 seu per audaces nova dithyrambos verba devolvit numerisque fertur
lege solutis, (2) Pseudo-Censorinus, c. 9 Pindari... qui liberos etiam numeris
modos edidit, (3) Fr. 75 about Semele, which is thought to be in ‘free verse’,
(4) Pindar’s reference in Fr. 79 to his predecessors’ poetry as σχοινοτένεια, 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 σχοινοτένεια (II. 1) there are
only two new words εὐάμπυξ (I. 13) and ἀκναμπτεί (111. 12). Dithyramb I
was certainly arranged in triads, II either in triads or, less probably, in strophes,
while the remains of III 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 11,
which is of about the same length. Fr. 79 happens to occur in II, 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 ἀπολελυ-
μένα. 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. τό, 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 II, 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
Bacchyl. xvii. On the whole the impression created by the new find is that |
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 1284. 2. ii (Part x, Plate iv). That
the main text was written before, not after, 200 is made probable (1) by the
title of II, which is in a small cursive hand employing y-shaped ἡ and appa-
rently different from that of the main text, (2) 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 III, and has been subjected to considerable revision.
One of the correctors, who is responsible for the readings above the line in
II. 27 and III. 9 αν, 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—
ΤΙ, 21, nn. An elaborate coronis, similar to those in 1284, 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 (Ὁ) 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 Il. 25-38 are sufficient to show that they correspond to ll. 11-24;
cf. the reference to the antistrophe in 1. 20 schol. Lines 1-10 evidently belong
|
’
30 THE OXYRHYNCHUS PAPYRI
to the penultimate epode, which may have begun several lines earlier. The
concluding epode is lost. To judge by the length of lines in II, not more
than τὸ letters (i.e. 4 syllables) would be expected to be lost before Il. 7-12,
and 2 more letters before 1]. 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 aé|éere. That the poem was for the Argives is indicated by the
references in ll. 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 Danaé and Acrisius or Proetus occur in ll. 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 newly mentioned. Phorcus and probably the
Gorgons again occur, and Bury would refer this passage, not ll. 1-10, 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. ll. 1 and 17, nn. The metre is
logaoedic. Some of the lines (e.g. strophe 1 and 3) might be regarded as
ending in dochmiacs, but these belong to tragedy rather than to lyrics.
Strophe Epode
Some lines lost (?)
eS es 2 Ὁ) Ce Ὁ juuuul-?
JuuH oes |
7 > Γ
'ωυ-ππῳω "Ξ υϑυυ--5
7 7 [
Vir vue Ea ᾿Ξ |
= 7 “εἰς YU va εν (ἢ f=
5 | SY SSeS 5 Jm~vvuvye-—yl
VuEr— Ur mr UE UR -- ¥j--uu-?|
>) . x
----ἰ -ππυ-τυ-πτυυ -- |
vy 'Ϊπωπωυωυω-πω κ
j—vuu¥ —o—
10 Pee — 10 ju
1604. PINDAR, DITHYRAMBS 31
II. This dithyramb for the Thebans was evidently well known in antiquity
on account of its opening reference to the σχοινοτένεια dowdy and σὰν κίβδηλον,
which is quoted by several writers (Fr. 79*) and enables ll. 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. 208) there are also marked differences between Plutarch’s
citations and the text of the papyrus. fF rs. 81 and 249 also have some points
of connexion with II, but are probably from different poems; cf. |. 1, 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 (Il. 1-8). There follows in
ll. 8-23 a picturesque and vivid description of the celestial festival, and δ᾽
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 (ll. 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.
-πω-Ξ-υὐυ-πυυ -- -- Ιο --ὑ-ππυυπωυ- YS
Ν᾿
--ωυ-π-πω- --.υυ-τυυω -- πυωυ-Ξ-υ--- υῳ-
ΠΟ ΞΟ ῸΣῚ.- υωυ-πτυυ -ὉΞ--οὧο- -- τ UX
Β-πυωπωυ- YS -ὦ--
NC - τ SO Ξ ᾿Ξ
-ωο--πυυ-πωυ - UHH He UU Ua
ω
πυω-----ὧ---- --Ἃὁἡ---- π-͵υ-π-υυπυω--"
ORC ORC enon — UU τ--᾿ῷοι-- --
III. In this dithyramb about 10 letters seem to be missing at the beginnings
of 1]. 5-14, and about 5 more in I]. 15-25. There is no metrical correspondence
in ll. 1-21, and whether ll. 22-6 correspond to some of ll. I-10 or not is
uncertain. Probably part of the fragment belongs to an epode, unless indeed
this poem was in ἀπολελυμένα. Dionysus is apparently addressed in ll. 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’ (I. 10) and
some other indications ; cf. ll. 14-15, 18, 22, nn. The metre is apparently
dactylo-epitritic, with perhaps an admixture of other rhythms. The scheme
of ll. 3-19 is
1Ξ Py eo 12 |¥--vvr
ae ae
5 Ἰυυ-ἤτυνυςς jen a= ei
Fi | Caldas Plate:
Ἰαποδαναΐ
Ἰνλεγοντωνΐ
Πιονανακταὶ
Ἰλειβομενονδ. |
5 Ἰυσεπατεραγοργονὶ
Ἰκλώπων'πτολισα «f Jay . σηντοοιδισοῦ διραύυτωι
Wwevapyeipeyadar . . [ eee re
Ἰποιζυγεντεσερατᾶιδομον : ἴ
Ἰντάβαντοσ
Io Ace Vy: τουσεξενιζοντοοικυκλωπεσδιονυσιαάκον
Ἰδαιμονωνβρομιαδιθοιναιπρεπει
Ἰκορυῴαν
Ἰθέμεν: ευὐαμπυκεσ
Ἰξετετιμοισαιθαλοσαοιδᾶν
15 Ἰγαρευχομαι'λεγοντιδεβροτοι
αι ερκοσ
Ἰαφυγοντανινκεμελαναλμασ
Ἰφορκοιο'συγγονονπατερων" κορᾶν
Ἰν
Ἰποντ᾽ ἐμολον"
20 | . ιανἕαν απί.]. 9. ἐανπερισί
Ἰρωμενον" πρεξαντιστρ᾽
μον
Ἰλεγοεπεπιμαχον
]
25 Ἰεραν
-15
1604. PINDAR, DITHYRAMBS 33
4
τ... ee
ἢ μω: οὖς τ:
οἷν fee
ὃ. : oe
Io 15---υοὐππυξυυυ υϑυυ--ἶυ --ὸ
Ἐν:
I. [4PrEIOI>.|
7 ἀπὸ Aaval ἐπ. α
Ἰν λεγόντων [
Ἰιον ἄνακτα [
‘ 1 λειβόμενον ὃ. [
Δ , 2,
i Woe πατέρα Topyoviwv
Κυκλώπων" πτόλις ἀρ[ά οἱ ὃ αν. ς ἦν τὸ ot δι᾿ ὃ οὕ(τως) διοί ) αὐτῷ,
ae 3 ἀγνοήσαντες δὲ το(ῦτο) ὡς σολοικισμοί(ῦ)
Ἵν ἐν Ἄργει μεγάλῳ .. [ ὄντος μεταγρ(άφουσιν) εἰς ot.
Ἶποι ζυγέντες ἐρατᾷ δόμον
wr Ἄβαντος,
10 τοὺς Ἰλεεν. mous’ ἐξενίζοντο ot Κύκλωπες. Διονυσιακόν.
1 εὐδαιμόνων βρομιάδι θοίνᾳ πρέπει στρ. β
2 | κορυφὰν
1 θέμεν: εὐάμπυκες
aél€er ἔτι, Μοῖσαι, θάλος ἀοιδᾶν
ὔμμι] γὰρ εὔχομαι. λέγοντι δὲ βροτοὶ
κουρᾶν 9] Φόρκοιο, σύγγονον πατέρων, κορᾶν
3
4
5
6 Ja φυγόντα νιν καὶ μέλαν ἕρκος ἅλμας
7
8 Ἰν
9 Ἱπὸν τ᾽ ἔμολον,
ey > en κι
20 lav ἑὰ ἀπί.] . ο( ) ἐὰν περισ[σ(ῶς)
τῇ 1 τ x πρ(οσαχθὲν 1) ἐξ ἀντιστρο(φῆϑ5).
II Ἰρωμενον.
12 — υἹΐον
13 1 λεγό(μενον) ἐπ᾽ ἐπίμαχον.
14 -Ἰ
25 I -πυ-ύυνῦυ -- --Ἰεραν ἀντ. β
D
34 THE OXYRHYNCHUS PAPYRI
Two lines lost
lo
3° ko
Ἰασιωσ
]
]reAeTaLo
Jav οκενπέρισσοτ
35 7. vatato
Ἰμανθανατονΐ
]
aw
]
Fr, τ. Coli 11. Plate i:
θρασί
ηρακλῃσ
ἡκερβεροσ [
θηβαιοισ {πί
Io
15
8.6
καιτοσαΐ
διαπεπί.Ἶαἰ. «- «“-. 6 τὰν Ἰπυλᾳὶ
κλοισινεαι[. . ++ - Ἰιδότεσ
δίανβρομιουϊΪ. . . ταν ᾿
καιπαρασκαΐ. “Ἰονδιοσουρανίδᾶι
evpeyapolat|. «Ἱντι᾽σεμναϊμενκαταρχει
ματεριπαρμί. ἀλαιρομβοιτυμπανων"
ενδεκέχλαδί. .|Kporad αἰθομένατε
δαϊσυποξαν. .Ἰισιπευκαισ'
ενδεναϊδωνερίγδουποιστοναχαι"
ἵστάντι
μανίαιτ᾽ αλαλί. Π[λατεορίνεταιυψαύχενι
συνκλονῶι"
ak εἰς \ -
evd ὁπὰγκρὰϊ. .Ἰσκεραυνοσαμπνεῶν
7
πυρκεκίνηϊΪ. + - Ἰενναλιου
εγχοσ'αλκαεσσᾳ[Ἰεπαλλάδοϊ Ἰαιγισ
30
35
μι
1604. PINDAR, DITHYRAMBS
Two lines lost
35
4 υπυυυτ-τπτυνυ -- —| ἘΝ
5 --.συ--υτ-ου τοὺ Ξ υ]ις
6 ωνυ-υπττνυ -οῦ --]ις
7 ——v—u ἀσπ]ασίως
; ]
9 —] τελεταῖς,
ie) KEV - ἐὰν ὅ κεν περισσόξ.
II ]- vaiaro
12 Ἱμαν θάνατον [
13 ]
]
λαις
J
11. ΘΡΑΣΤΥΣῚ HPAKAHS H KEPBEPOX OHBAIOIS.
II[piv μὲν ἕρπε σχοινοτένειά τ᾽ ἀοιδὰ
διθ]υράμβων
καὶ τὸ σὰϊν κίβδαλον ἀνθρώποισιν ἀπὸ στομάτων,
διαπέπίτ]αϊνται δὲ νῦν ἱροῖς Ὁ] πύλαι κύ-
Be LO ho τ᾿ ome
κλοισι νέαι- [.... εἸἰδότες
οἵαν Βρομίου [τελε]τὰν
καὶ παρὰ σκάϊπτ]ον Διὸς Οὐρανίδαι
; ΄ € 4 »Ὲ \ ΄ ε
ἐν μεγάροις ἵσ(τ)άϊντι. σεμνᾳ μὲν κατάρχει ἵἱστάντι
' , A - «7 4
ματέρι πὰρ μίεγ]άλᾳ ῥόμβοι τυπάνων,
ἐν. δὲ κέχλαδ[ον] κρόταλ᾽ αἰθομένα τε
δᾷς ὑπὸ ξαν[θα]ῖσι πεύκαις,
ἐν δὲ Ναΐδων ἐρίγδουποι στοναχαὶ
μανίαι τ’ ἀλαλ[αί] τ᾽ ὀρίνεται (ῥι)ψαύχενι
ἅ ἊΣ
σὺν κλόνῳ.
5) ᾽ Ἑ Ν Ν ? vA
ἐν 0 ὁ παγκραϊτὴ)ς κεραυνὸς ἀμπνέων
πῦρ κεκίνηται τὸ τ ᾿Ενυαλίου
ἔγχος, ἀλκάεσσά [τ]ε Παλλάδος] αἰγὶς OLEH
D 2
στρ. α
Fr. 79a
Pr 79 Ὁ
THE OXYRHYNCHUS PAPYRI
6
μυριωνφογγαζεταικλαγγαϊσδρακοντων' — o4[
ριμφαδ' εἰσινάρτεμισοϊοπόλοεσ οοόπολοσ
2 >]
20 (evgalo ενοργαισ
βακχειαισφυλονλεοντωναΐ
οδεκηλεϊταιχορευούσαισικα
pavayedato-eped εξαίρετοϊ
καρυκασοφωνεπεων
25 polo avécrao ελλάδικα(.Ἰλί
ευχομενονβρισαρματοισοΐ
; a
evOdrrovappoviay|.|api εν ἢ] γα
καδμονυψηϊ. . σπραπιδεσί
vay. .Jodak[....-- lear:
30 καιτέκ[ Ἰέυδοξοῖ. . . .JavOpero|
dtovval. 119. τὸ τως 1π.}γ.
pare
me. [
᾿
ΕΥ. 2.
Ἰναλί
]
Ἰιτομενστασισ"
|roda
xX
a; kare. ...- Ἰονκυανο[ « ]:rov
Ἰτεαντεί. . «]ανμελιῴοι
Ἰπλοκονσί. . . Πνωνκισσινων αἴπλί
Ἰκροταφονΐ |
Xe ie. ΝΣ
Jeo] G [Ol] ov Πφιλιδηπολεί o]]
ro Ἰιοντεσκοπελονγειτοναπρυτανι. [
Ἰαμᾳ'καιστρατια io ||
|r ακναμπτεικρεμασον"
Ἰστεχαρμασ τασεπιδορατιδασ
20
25
30
Io
18
I
2
3
4
5
6
1604. PINDAR, DITHYRAMBS
μυρίων φθογγάζεται KAayyats δρακόντων. ὄφ[εων
ῥίμφα δ᾽ εἶσιν Ἄρτεμις οἰοπόλος ζεύ- οἰόπολος
fais’ ἐν ὀργαῖς
Βακχίαις φῦλον λεόντων ἀϊγροτέρων Βρομίῳ'"
ε X\ aA ὡς Ν
ὁ δὲ κηλεῖται χορευούσαισι Kali θη-
ρῶν ἀγέλαις. ἐμὲ δ᾽ ἐξαίρετοῖν
κάρυκα σοφῶν ἐπέων
7 Moio’ ἀνέστασ᾽ ᾿ Ελλάδι καϊλἸ]λ[ιχόρῳ ὃ
εὐχόμενον βρισαρμάτοις ὄλβον τεῦ Θήβαις,
ἔνθα ποθ᾽ Ἁρμονίαν [φ]άμα γαϊμετὰν
Κάδμον ὑψηϊλαῖῆς πραπίδεσϊσι λαχεῖν κεδ- ἢ
νάν: Διὸς δ᾽ ἄκζουσεν ὀϊμφάν,
καὶ τέκ᾽ εὔδοξοϊν παρ] ἀνθρώποις γενεάν.
Mrowot..|....-.-kebl
paré[pos ?
1) ei alae aa a
Ill. [KOPIN@IOIZ Ὁ]
Ἰναλί
|
iro μὲν στάσις,
7 πόδα
| Koren. : Jov κυανοχίτων
7 τεὰν τεϊλετ]ὰν μελίζοι
] πλόκον στεφάνων κισσίνων ἀν(τὶ τοῦ) πλ[ζεκτῶν ?
| κρόταφον
Ἰεων ἔλθε φίλαν δὴ (?) πολέα
Ἰιον τε σκόπελον γείτονα πρύτανι .Ϊ
Ἰαμα καὶ στρατιά,
7 τ᾽ ἀκναμπτεὶ κρέμασον,
]s τε χάρμας τὰς ἐπιδορατίδας.
38 THE OXYRHYNCHUS PAPYRI
In|. - - -ντοσα[[ρ]χηνρνυοιτοπαΐ
15 Ἰονπελοι"
Ἰλανπόνοιχορωνί
Ἱεεστ᾽ αοιδαι:
Ἰοιοφυϊλ]λονωΐ
Ἰεπεταλοισηρὶ
20 ]-
Ἰμιονΐ € [ler{
|riraptaol,
woron . [
25 Ἰλθεῖ
el
I. x. Either Δανάϊας (referring to Perseus) or Δαναοῦ (e.g. τρίτον] ἀπὸ A., referring to
Acrisius or Proetus) or Δαναῶν or else ja πόδα » .[ can be read, the last letter being quite
uncertain. Pindar Fr. 284 from Schol. A Homer = 319 αὐτὴ δὲ (Δανάη), ὥς φησιν Πίνδαρος καὶ
ἄλλοι τινές, ἐφθάρη ὑπὸ τοῦ πατραδέλφου αὐτῆς Προίτου, ὅθεν αὐτοῖς καὶ στάσις ἐκινήθη might refer
to this dithyramb.
3. Possibly ᾿Ακρίσ]ιον. The first letter might be » or =, but hardly τ, so that IIpoi|rov
(cf. ll. 6-7, n.) is unsatisfactory. Lobel suggests Avx|or, referring either to Proetus or
Iobates, king of Lycia, who restored Proetus.
4. The doubtful ὃ can be a or A. For λειβόμενον cf. Py. xii. g τὸν (sc. θρῆνον) . . . die
λειβόμενον δυσπενθέϊ σὺν καμάτῳ.
5. The letter before σε can be ε, ε; ¢, v, or . For Phorcus (= Phorcys), the father of
the Gorgons, cf. 1. 17 and p. 30.
6. Bury suggests πρόγονόν τε Κυϊκλώπων, Phorcus being grandfather of Polyphemus
through his daughter Thodsa.
6-7. The scholium is obscure, but seems to refer to the distinction between ot (= ἑαυτῷ)
and οἱ (= αὐτῷ), and οἱ with or without an accent presumably occurred in the text. Whether
the traces of a word following μεγάλωι belong to the text or a scholium is uncertain; τί is
possible. Bury proposes πτόλις ἀρ[ά οἱ | δέδμητο (or τέτυκτο) κείνω]ν ἐν Ἄργει μεγάλωι τ[έχνᾳ.
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 which Perseus was the
legendary founder (Paus. ii. 15. 4), being assisted by the Cyclopes (Schol. Eur. Or. 965).
8-9. If Cvyérres is to be taken literally, ἵπποι and ixo|yr’ (Stuart Jones) are probable;
but ἐρατᾷ suggests that the context may concern music, and Bury proposed φόρμιγγι δ᾽ ὕμ]νοι
ζωγέντες ἐρατᾷ δόμον | ἄχεον ἀνὰ σκιόε]ντ' ”ABavros, comparing Homer A 334 κηληθμῷ δ᾽ ἔσχοντο κατὰ
μέγαρα σκιόεντα. ὕμνοι is, however, unsatisfactory, for if the doubtful letter was v the middle
stroke ought to have been visible, so that π᾿ (xép|mou? Bury) or 7 or .e is preferable. The
‘house of Abas’ means the palace at Argos; cf. Py. viii. 55 "Ἄβαντος εὐρυχόρους ἀγυιάς.
το. The stop after Ἶλεεν is not quite certain, and ὃ can be read for A. Bury proposes
τοὺς δ᾽ Gop? ἐκήλεεν, based on the scholium, in which τοὺς is apparently quoted from the text
1604. PINDAR, DITHYRAMBS 39
Jal... Ἶντος αὐχὴν ῥύοιτο tral
15 Jov πέλοι
av πόνοι χορῶν [
Jees τ’ ἀοιδαί,
Ἰοιο φῦλον αἱ
Je πετάλοις ἠρ[ινοῖς ?
20 Τ᾿
Ἰμιον ἐπίπ
]re ταμίας |
Vv aro . [
25 Ἰλθεῖ
wf
and Διονυσιακον refers to a different word. For exn|deev cf. II, 22 and the Homeric verse
cited in 1]. 8-9, n. The objection to it is that Pindar elsewhere uses the contracted forms
in imperfects.
11-13. A new strophe begins here. Bury proposes something like ἀλλ᾽ ἀνδρῶν εὐ]δαιμόνων
βρομιάδι θοίνᾳ πρέπει | ἔργοισι λόγων] κορυφὰν | ἐπιχωρίοισι] θέμε. Cf. Wem. ix. 8 ἀλλ᾽ ἀνὰ μὲν
βρομίαν φόρμιγγ᾽, ἀνὰ δ᾽ αὐλὸν ἐπ᾽ αὐτὰν ὄρσομεν ἱππίων ἄεθλων κορυφάν.
13-14. εὐάμπυξ is not found elsewhere, but ἑλικάμπυξ, κυανάμπυξ, λιπαράμπυξ, and χρυσάμπυξ
occur in Pindar. For de|fer’ (Bury, Stuart Jones) cf. Οἱ, vi. 105 ἐμῶν δ᾽ ὕμνων def? εὐτερπὲς
ἄνθος. Before it Bury proposes Περσεῖ νυν, in order to explain ww in 1. 16. Βρομίῳ νυν is also
possible ; cf. 1. 17, n.
15. typi] was suggested by Bury, who proposes an epithet of ἀοιδᾶν, e.g. κλυτᾶν,
before it.
τό. Regarding wy as Perseus, Bury proposes Λιβύας medila (or γύαλ]α) φυγόντα. κῆρ]α
(Stuart Jones) is also possible. If Dionysus, who according to Paus. ii. 22. 1 attacked
Argos from the sea, were meant (cf. 1. 17, n.), δεσμ]ὰ (Lobel) would be suitable ; cf, Eur.
Bacch. 610 sqq. It is not clear whether ἕρκος was simply omitted by the first hand or was
intended to take the place of ἅλμας. The corresponding line of the antistrophe hardly
projects as far as would be expected if it contained equivalents of both words; but the
collocation ἕρκος ἅλμας occurs in Py. ii. 80 ἀβάπτιστός εἰμι φελλὸς ὡς ὑπὲρ & a., where
ἅλμας is usually connected with ἀβάπτιστος, not ἕρκος, and ἕρκος is thought to mean
‘net’. This parallel makes us disposed to retain both words, and to regard them as
a periphrasis for the sea, like the scholiast on Py. ii. 80, who explains ἕρκος as ἐπιφάνεια,
‘surface’.
17. kopév points to a word like it in the text, either a synonym or κορᾶν differently
spelled (kovpay?) or wrongly accented (cf. II. 19, n.). The Graeae or more probably the
Gorgons (cf.1. 5 and p. 30) must be meant, and the line may have begun with ἐς followed by
a word implying ‘abode’ (τὰν ὃ). Pindar Fr. 254 from Apollodorus ii. 38 αὗται δὲ ai νύμφαι
πτηνὰ εἶχον πέδιλα καὶ τὴν κίβισιν, ἣν φασιν εἶναι πήραν. Πίνδαρος δὲ καὶ Ἣσίοδος ἐν ᾿Ασπίδι ἐπὶ roi
Περσέως κτλ. may have referred to this dithyramb. σύγγονον πατέρων is obscure. If the stops
before and after these words are correct, they seem to be in apposition to νιν, which is
40 THE OXYRHYNCHUS PAPYRI
unsatisfactory. As Stuart Jones remarks, σύγγονον would be expected to agree with a word
like dperav in the next line. πατέρων is probably the plural of amplification; cf. Fr. 75. τὸ
Βρόμιον ὅν τ᾽ ᾽᾿Εριβόαν τε βροτοὶ καλέομεν, γόνον ὑπάτων μὲν πατέρων μέλπεμεν γυναικῶν τε Kadpeiav
ἔμολον (v. 1, Σεμέλην). The resemblances between this passage and Il. 15--το (βροτοὶ... πατέρων
. ἔμολον) suggest that νιν might be Dionysus, not Perseus; cf. 1], τό, n.
18. |v is not visible on the facsimile.
1g. |rov: or]. cov. μ Of epodor is corrected from τ.
20. The marginal note refers to éav, which ‘ is rejected (?), being superfluously introduced
from the antistrophe’, i.e. 1. 34, which ends ἐάν and also contained a superfluous word. The
last letter of an[.].0( ) might be 6 or A, but ἀπ[οβ]άλ(λεται) and ἀποδο(κιμάζεται) are not
satisfactory readings.
23. The o of Aeyo(pevov) is not raised above the line, as would be expected if the word
is an abbreviation ; but Aero is inadmissible.
28. In the margin are traces of a scholium.
34. ἐ]άν: οἴ. 1. 20, ἢ. το Kev περισσον would be expected ; cf. |. 6, schol.
II. ‘ Heracles the bold or Cerberus. For the Thebans.
Formerly both dithyrambic song issued from the lips of men long drawn out and the
sigma under suspicion ; but now new gates have been opened for sacred choirs: they (sing ὃ),
knowing what manner of festival of Bromius the celestials by the very sceptre of Zeus
celebrate in their halls. Beside the majesty of the great mother of the gods begins the
beating of drums; therewith swells the music of the castanets and the torch blazing below
the yellow pine-brands; therewith resounding laments of the Naiads, wild dances and
shouts are stirred in the fury of tossing the neck on high. Therewith moves the almighty
thunderbolt breathing fire, and the sword of the god of War, and the valiant aegis of Pallas
rings with the hissing of countless serpents. Lightly comes Artemis the lone huntress, who
has yoked in the Bacchic revels the race of most savage lions for Bromius, while he is
enchanted also by the dancing throng of beasts. Me too, a chosen herald of wise words,
the Muse raised up to pray for prosperity (?) for Hellas with its fair dances and chariot-
pressing Thebes, where of old, as the story tells, Cadmus by high design won sage Har-
monia as his bride, and she hearkened to the voice of Zeus and became the mother of
offspring famed among men. O Dionysus,.. «ἢ
I Marg. θρασζὺς] Ἡρακλῆς ἢ KepBepos: Heracles is called θρασυμάχανος in Ol. vi. 67. For
other examples of alternative titles of dithyrambs cf. p. 28. It is tempting to connect with
| this ode Pindar Fr. 2498 (Schol. AB on Homer © 194) Ἡρακλῆς εἰς “Atdov κατελθὼν ἐπὶ τὸν
Κέρβερον συνέτυχε Μελεάγρῳ τῷ Οἰνέως, οὗ καὶ δεηθέντος γῆμαι τὴν ἀδελφὴν Δῃάνειραν, ἐπανελθὼν εἰς φῶς
ἔσπευσεν εἰς Αἰτωλίαν πρὸς Οἰνέα, καταλαβὼν δὲ μνηστευόμενον τὴν κόρην ᾿Αχελῷον τὸν πλησίον ποταμόν,
διεπάλαισεν αὐτῷ... δοκεῖ δὲ τῶν ἐν τῇ Ἕλλάδι ποταμῶν μέγιστος εἶναι ὁ ᾿Αχελῷος" διὸ καὶ πᾶν
ὕδωρ τῇ τούτου προσηγορίᾳ καλεῖται. ἡ ἱστορία παρὰ Πινδάρῳ. But Fr. 2490 (221. ix. 14), which
seems to belong to the passage in question about the Acheloiis, is in a different metre,
πρόσθα μέν σ᾽ ᾿Αχελωίου τὸν ἀοιδότατον εὐρωπία κράνα Médlavd|s te ποταμοῦ ῥοαὶ τρέφον κάλαμον.
A fragment concerning Heracles from a dithyramb (Fr. 81) is quoted by Aristides ii. 70
ὅτι καὶ ἑτέρωθι μεμνημένος περὶ αὐτῶν ἐν διθυράμβῳ twit σὲ δ᾽ ἐγὼ παράμιν (παρ᾽ ἄμμιν Boeckh,
παρά νιν Bergk*), φησίν, αἰνέω μέν, Τηρυόνη, τὸ δὲ μὴ Διὶ (At Hermann) φίλτερον σιγῷμι πάμπαν. .
The metre of this from αἰνέω... πάμπαν corresponds to II. 1-3 «8|, and the words preceding
αἰνέω might correspond metrically to the end of an epode; but the capture of the oxen of
Geryones is a different exploit, and Fr. 81 is likely to belong to another dithyramb. Fr. 169
(Plato, Gorg. 484 Ὁ, Aristides, ii. 68, Schol. Pind. Wem. ix. 35 νόμος ὁ πάντων βασιλεὺς κτλ.),
which mentions Geryones and is in dactylo-epitritic metre, but does not correspond to the
extant part of II, and Fr. 168 (Athenaeus, x. 411 b, Philostratus, mm. ii. 24 δ(ογιὰ βοῶν θερμὰ
kth.), which refers to the devouring of an ox by Heracles at the house of Coronus, an
1604. PINDAR, DITHYRAMBS 41
episode connected with the capture of the Cretan bull (Apollod. ii. 5. 7), and is not in
dactylo-epitritic metre, certainly have no connexion with our dithyramb.
1-3 (= Fr. 79%). Cf. Strabo x. 469 μάρτυρες δ᾽ οἱ ποιηταὶ τῶν τοιούτων ὑπονοιῶν (Sc. COn-
cerning the Curetes and Corybantes): 6 re yap Πίνδαρος ἐν τῷ διθυράμβῳ οὗ ἡ ἀρχὴ πρὶν μὲν
- εἷρπε σχοινοτονίας (σχοινοτένειά edd.) τ᾽ ἀοιδὰ (ν. ]. ἀοιδαὶ) διθυράμβων (-8@ most MSS.), μνησθεὶς
δὲ (δὲ om. most edd.) τῶν περὶ τὸν Διόνυσον ὕμνων τῶν τε παλαιῶν καὶ τῶν ὕστερον, μετάβας ἀπὸ
τούτων φησί" σοὶ μὲν κατάρχει (κατάρχειν edd.) μᾶτερ παρὰ μεγάλαι (ν. 1]. μεγάλοι : μεγάλα πάρα edd.)
ῥοίμβοι (ῥόμβοι edd.) κυμβάλων, ἐν δὲ κεχλάδων (κεχλάδειν edd.) κρόταλ᾽ αἰθομένα τε das (dais some
edd.) ὑπὸ ξανθαῖσι πεύκαις (= 1]. 8-11), τὴν κοινωνίαν τῶν περὶ τὸν Διόνυσον ἀποδειχθέντων νομίμων
παρὰ τοῖς Ἕλλησι καὶ τῶν παρὰ τοῖς Φρυξὶ περὶ τὴν μητέρα τῶν θεῶν συνοικειῶν ἀλλήλοις, Athen. |
X. 455 b Πίνδαρος δὲ πρὸς τὴν ἀσιγμοποιηθεῖσαν φδήν, ὡς ὁ αὐτός φησι Κλέαρχος, οἱονεὶ γρίφου τινὸς |
ἐν μελοποιίᾳ προβληθέντος, ὡς πολλῶν τούτῳ προσκρουόντων διὰ τὸ δυνατὸν (ἀδύνατον edd.) εἶναι ἀπο-
σχέσθαι τοῦ σίγμα καὶ διὰ τὸ μὴ δοκιμάζειν, ἐποίησε (corrupt ?)* πρὶν μὲν εἷρπε σχοινοτενία (1. -τένειά)
τ᾽ ἀοιδὰ καὶ τὸ σὰν τίβοηλον (κίβδηλον edd.) ἀνθρώποις, Χ. 448 ο καθάπερ οἱ ἄσιγμοι καλούμενοι τῶν
γρίφων" ὅθεν καὶ Πίνδαρος πρὸς τὸ & ἐποίησεν ὠδήν (corrupt ?), xi. 467 ἃ τὸ δὲ σὰν ἀντὶ τοῦ σίγμα |
Δωρικῶς εἰρήκασιν. of γὰρ μουσικοί, καθάπερ πολλάκις Ἀριστόξενός φησι, τὸ σίγμα λέγειν παρῃτοῦντο
διὰ τὸ σκληρόστομον εἶναι καὶ ἀνεπιτήδειον αὐλῷ"... καὶ Πίνδαρος δέ φησι" πρὶν μὲν ἧρπε σχοινοτένειά
τ᾽ ἀοιδὰ καὶ τὸ σὰν κίβδηλον ἀπὸ στομάτων, Dionysius, De comp. verb. 14 εἰσὶ δ᾽ οἱ καὶ ἀσίγμους
ὅλας @das ἐποίουν' δηλοῖ δὲ τοῦτο καὶ Πίνδαρος ἐν οἷς φησι" πρὶν μὲν ἧρπε σχοινοτενῆ φωνήεντα (OF
other corruptions) διθυράμβων καὶ τὸ σὰν κίβδηλον (v. 1. κίβδαλον) ἀνθρώποις (ν. 1. -ποι). From
these varying forms of ]. 3 Hermann restored καὶ τὸ σὰν κίβδαλον ἀνθρώποισιν ἀπὸ στομάτων.
The termination of the line is wanting in both ll. 3 and 18, but there is no reason to doubt |
Hermann’s restoration ; cf. for the metre ]. 7.
I. σχοινοτένεια : this is formed on the analogy of ἡδυέπεια, μουσογένεια, &C., and means
‘ stretched out like a rope’, ‘ prolix’; cf. Philostr. Herozc. i. 14 μὴ ἀποτείνειν (τὰ ἄσματα) pnd |
σχοινοτενῇ ἐργάζεσθαι. It does not refer to division into triads, for II itself is divided into
triads or strophes; cf. p. 28 and 1. 3, ἢ.
2. The division ἀοιἰδὰ διθυράμβων would be expected from the arrangement of Il. 19-20, 7
but δα (or 87) δῖ does not suit the traces of |. 2, and the real dividing-point of the feet is
probably after ἀοιδά here and ¢ev- in |. 20.
3. καὶ τὸ σὰϊν κίβδαλον : the meaning of this isa long-standing difficulty. Athenaeus and
Dionysius (cf. ll. 1-3, n.) supposed that it referred to the ὠδαὶ ἄσιγμοι, i.e. of Pindar’s pre- |
decessor, Lasus, Athenaeus x. 455 c proceeding to quote a line without o from Lasus’ hymn |
to Demeter. The epitomator of Athenaeus, followed by Eustathius, p. 1335. fs misunder-
standing this, attributed the composition of odes without o to Pindar himself. | Boeckh and
Dissen translate κίβδηλον ‘pravum’, supposing that it refers to the mispronunciation of σ in|
the Dorian dialect (so also Donaldson and Weir Smyth), and that Pindar meant to contrast |
the old-fashioned odes in which « was used with the new kind without o invented by Lasus, |
Pindar himself reverting to the old-fashioned type. | Sandys (translation of Pindar in the |
Loeb series), connecting κίβδηλον (sc. ἦν) with ἀνθρώποισιν ἀπὸ στομάτων, translates ‘ when |
the sibilant san was discarded from the lips of men’, i.e. was rejected as spurious,
The mutilated condition of II. 4-5 leaves the context obscure in some points, espe-
cially as to the precise nature of the transition to the account of the Dionysiac festival in
Olympus (cf. Il. 4-6, n.); but it is tolerably certain that the new kind of dithyramb which |
is contrasted with the old is not the dithyramb of Lasus, but of Pindar himself, as is also
shown by the definite reference to himself in 1. 23. Hence Boeckh’s view of Pindar’s |
relation to the two kinds of dithyramb is just the opposite of what the context demands.
Sandys’s translation gives the right kind of sense, but ἀνθρώποισιν ἀπὸ στομάτων is much more
likely to be dependent on ἕρπε than on κίβδαλον, and the position of τ᾿ indicates that ἕρπε, not |
ἦν, is to be supplied with κίβδαλον. We are disposed, therefore, to regard τὸ σὰν κίβδαλον as |
42 THE OXYRHYNCHUS PAPYRI
| a reference to Lasus’ @dai ἄσιγμοι, σάν being used as the equivalent of σίγμα, and κίβδαλον
| comparing it to base coin which when produced is rejected, and implying a contrast with
| Pindar’s own use of σ, which was unrestricted.
4-6. διαπέπ[τ)αῖνται δὲ and πύλαι were suggested by Sandys, νῦν by Lobel, κύἤκλοισι by
Bury. The slight vestiges towards the end of the line suit πυλαίε rather well, especially
the π᾿ and A (for which a is the only alternative); but the preceding lacuna is rather short
for the proposed supplement. The metre of |. 4 is fixed by 1. 22. For opening the
‘gates’ of song cf. ΟἿ. vi. 27 πύλας ὕμνων ἀναπίτναμεν, Vem. ix. 2 ἀναπεπταμέναι ξείνων vevixavrat
θύραι, Bacchyl. Fr. 5. 2 οὐδὲ yap ῥᾷστον ἀρρήτων ἐπέων πύλας ἐξευρεῖν. κύ]κλοισι refers to the
κύκλιοι χοροί Of the dithyramb. To find an anapaest short enough for the lacuna before
εἰδότες in 1. 5 is difficult. If πύλαι is right, εἸϊδότες must belong to a new sentence and may
refer to χοροί (e.g. something like σοφοὶ οἱ εἼϊδ.)}; but Bury would connect it with the
preceding line, suggesting διαπεπ[ρ]άχασι δ᾽ ——— vu κύϊκλοισι νέαν [σοφοὶ εὖ €liddres | οἵαν
Βρόμιος [ἰδ]έαν κτὰλ., and comparing (Vem. ix. 3 ἀλλ᾽ ἐπέων γλυκὺν ὕμνον πράσσετε and Eur.
Bacch. 471 ra δ᾽ ὄργι᾽ ἐστὶ τίν᾽ ἰδέαν ἔχοντά σοι: νεαν for νεαι, Βρομιος for Βρομίου, and ιδΊεαν for
τελεῖταν are possible readings; but τελε]τὰν (Sandys) suits ἱστάντε particularly well, and the
metaphor of the gates is attractive. For Βρομίου [τελε]γὰν cf. Py. ix. 97 νικάσαντά σε καὶ
τελεταῖς ὡρίαις ἐν Παλλάδος εἶδον. Βρομίωι is inadmissible. The metre of 1. 5 is somewhat
abnormal. After a choriambus is an anapaest and a cretic, or else an ionic a minore and
iambus. For anapaests in dactylo-epitritics cf. e.g. Py. i. 2, 6, iii. 4; for ‘iambic catalexis’
cf. Ol. vi. 5, Wem. viii. 14.
7. The last syllable of Οὐρανίδαι was marked long by the first hand, short by the
corrector, who wished to indicate (rightly) that the word was nom. plur., not dat. sing.; cf.
I. 8 epara. The syllable is long as a matter of fact, but there was no point in marking it
long at the end of a line, unless indeed the first hand wished to connect it with ἐν in 1. 8
and scanned -ρᾶνϊδαι ἐν together in spite of the hiatus. But, as Housman remarks, the
metre of ]. ὃ corresponds to e.g. Py. iv. 296 δαιδαλέαν φόρμιγγα βαστάζων πολίταις, and in each
case the phrase — U ὦ —u vw — comes both before and after, so that a is to be regarded as
merely a slip.
8. The last syllable of the line seems to stand by itself (cf. the preceding n.), as
frequently in Bacchylides’ dactylo-epitritics. In Pindar’s there seem to be instances of
hypercatalexis in Frs. 29-30 (from an ὕμνος).
i[o(r)a]re: there is not room for ora in the lacuna and the marginal ἱστάντι indicates
that the main text was in some respect different. If there had been a wrong accent over if it
ought to have been visible, and there is no doubt that the first hand read ἰσάντι, a Doric form
not found in Pindar but quite suitable in itself. ἰσάντι would make sense (cf. εἰδότες in 1. 5),
but ἱστάντι is preferable.
8-11. ceva... πεύκαις : this passage (Fr. 79>; cf. 1]. 1-3, n.) is quoted by Strabo
with several corruptions or variations, oot for σεμνᾷ, μᾶτερ παρά for parept πάρ, ῥοίμβοι κυμβάλων
for ῥόμβοι τυμπάνων, and κεχλάδων for κέχλαδ᾽ ον] (or -d[ev]). Misled by σοί, modern editors were
unable to restore the passage on the right lines. The confirmation of the schema Pindaricum
katdpxet... ῥόμβοι against emendations is interesting. Another instance occurs in]. 13 μανίαι τ᾽
ἀλαλ[αί] τ᾽ ὀρίνεται, which had been obscured in the quotations of this by Plutarch. Two more
occur in Il, 18-19 of the fragmentary dithyramb for the Athenians (Fr. 75); in the epinician
odes this construction is rare. κυμβάλων may have stood in Strabo’s text of II, but τυπάνων is
likely to be right ; cf. Catullus, Azys 9 fypanum, tubam, Cybelle, ua, mater, initia, 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 gze/afe, which is restored Κυβέλα]
Har[ep θεῶν. 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 |. 27 the
1604. PINDAR, DITHYRAMBS 43
correction of τὔμπανων to τὔπανων is not absolutely certain, for γα[ρύει (Bury) can there be
supplied instead of γὰάμετάν (Housman); but, as Housman observes, 1. 9 seems to be
unrhythmical as it stands, since ὦ ὦ — — in this metre is not elsewhere followed by —— vu --,
unless there is a break between them, as at OV. vi. 4-5 and Bacchyl. viii. g—10, and scribes
have often written τύμπανον 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 /ympanum against the metre. With τυπάνων ]. 9 will have the
thythm of Οἱ. vi. 2 κίονας ὡς ὅτε θαητὸν μέγαρον. The point of ξαν[θα]ῖσι as applied to πεύκαις
is not clear: Dissen explains it by the colour of the fire. With ll. ro-12 cf. Soph. Anig.
1126-9 σὲ δ᾽ ὑπὲρ διλόφου πέτρας στέροψ brane λιγνύς, ἔνθα Κωρύκιαι στείχουσι Νύμφαι
Βακχίδες.
12. ἐν δὲ Ναΐδων : — v — ὦ corresponds to -- ὦ -- — (apparently) in 1. 30; cf. 1. 19, n.,
and e.g. Οἱ, iii, epode 1, 4, 5.
13-14. These lines are thrice quoted by Plutarch, (1) Quaest. 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.
aff. cur., ed. Gaisford, p. 374. In (2) μανίαις τ᾽ ἀλαλαῖς τ᾽ ὀρινόμενοι occurs, the quotation
being accommodated to Plutarch’s sentence ; (1) and (3) have ὀρινομένων for ὀρίνεται ; (1) has
ἐριαύχενι, (2) and (3) ῥιψαύχενι for ὑψαύχενι. Both ὀρινομένων (which would correspond to
Ναΐδων in |, 12) and ῥιψαύχενι seem to be ancient variants (Theodoret, of. εξ, p. 375 coins
a verb ῥιψαυχενεῖν from the quotation), and ῥιψαύχενι, which occurs nowhere else, is, as \
Housman remarks, more appropriate than ὑψαύχενι to both κλόνῳ and Naidev: cf.
Catull. As 23 ube capita Maenades vi tactunt hederigerae, Cic. II Verr, iii. 49 cerviculam
tactaturum, Eur. Bacch, 864 δέραν εἰς αἰθέρα δροσερὸν ῥίπτουσα. The metre, as he observes,
does not help much in deciding between ῥιψαύχενι and ὑψαύχενι, for though with ῥιψαύχενι
the scheme οἵ]. 13 UU —-UYU—-Y¥—U———v ¥ corresponds to the last verse of the
epodes in Py. ili, e.g. 1. 23, τ ω ὦ — can generally take the place of — u—-, and is pre-
ceded by v -- — and followed by — u—in e.g. Wem. xi. 14. pu-(or ὑψ-)αύχενι is appa-
rently the end of a member of the rhythm with sy//aba anceps, and a member of the rhythm
also comes to an end after σὺν κλόνῳ, as the hiatus there proves, so that these two words have
to constitute a whole member ; cf. [ἱλάσκομαι! in O/. vii.g and αἰῶνος in Py. v. ἢ. The
alternative is to write ξὺν κλόνῳ, but there seem to be only two examples of ξύν in Pindar’s
MSS., and not one is established by metre, though cf. 1614. 9.
ἀλαλ[αί]: the first hand seems to have written αλαλ[αλα originally. The final λα was
then crossed out and « no doubt added above [a], but whether the scribe himself or a
corrector made the alteration is uncertain. Several of the MSS. of Plutarch have ἄλλαι for
ἀλαλαί, but the third letter here is more like a than 4, and the loop of it, though narrow, does
not seem to be a correction.
15-16. κεραυνὸς ἀμπνέων nip: cf. Fr. 146 πῦρ πνέοντος ἅ τε (Pallas) κεραυνοῦ ἄγχιστα δεξιὰν
κατὰ χεῖρα πατρὸς (ἡμένα)ῆ. In 1. 15 -- ὦ -- occurs twice, very likely as equivalent to — ὦ -- --
in the antistrophe (lost); cf. Il. 12 and 19, πῃ.
17. ἀλκάεσσα: in Ol. ix. 72 and Py. v. 71 ἀλκάεντας is found, but the metre here requires
ac to be separate syllables. The scholium perhaps indicates a variant, but may be no more
than aiyi[s accented; cf. ]. 19, n.
18, This verse is a Στησιχόρειον. ὄφ[εων is a gloss on δρακόντων.
19. ῥίμφα δ᾽ εἶσιν : — v — ὦ here corresponds to — ὖ —— in]. 1; cf. ll. 12, 15-16, nn.
οἰοπόλος : 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. οἰοπόλος
δαίμων (unnamed) occurs in Py. iv. 28.
20. The syllable ζευ- really belongs to 1. 19; cf. ]. 2, n.
21. The misspelling βακχειαις is not corrected. d[yporépwr was suggested by Sandys and
44 THE OXYRHYNCHUS PAPYRI
Bury; cf. Wem. iii. 46 λεόντεσσιν ἀγροτέροις. Βρομίῳ (Bury) is required to explain ὁ δέ in 1. 22.
The metre is practically certain ; cf. Il. 1-3, ἢ.
22-3. kali 6y|pav: so Housman and Bury. The a of καίί 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. ἀγέλαι λεόντων Occurs in Pind. Fr. 239.
Ι
25-6. Cf. Fr. 151 Μοῖσ᾽ ἀνέηκέ με. κα[λ]λ[ἰχόρῳ and ὄλβον τε were suggested by Bury;
Sandys proposes καἰὶ y]e[vedy with oftkdy re, but the traces of a letter after xal.] suggest a, 8, A,
or v. For the late position of re cf. em. ix. 34 mapa πεζοβόαις ἵπποις τε. That Θήβαις
occurred at the end of |. 26 is clear from what follows (cf. Fr. 195 εὐάρματε Θήβα), but
a restoration in which εὐχόμενον meant ‘ boasting myself’ rather than ‘ praying for’ would be
more appropriate. ἄγαλμα is, however, inadmissible in 1, 26, the o before the lacuna being
almost certain. For the metre of that line cf. 1. 7, n.
27. The first hand wrote wor appouav. φἾάμα yalperav is due to Housman, who
corrects τυμπάνων in |. 9 to rumdvev: Bury, retaining τυμπάνων there, proposed φ͵άμα yal pve:
cf. 1]. 8-11, n. The first hand wrote φ]άμεν yal : the first corrector then added a above the line,
deleting ε and perhaps ν also; cf. III. 9, n. As Housman remarks, a verb does not seem
necessary with φάμα (sc. ἔστι): cf. Aesch. Sep/em 217-18 ἀλλ᾽ οὖν θεοὺς τοὺς τῆς ἁλούσης πόλεος
ἐκλείπειν λόγος, and φάτις in Pindar himself (according to the usually accepted emendation of
Bothe) in Js. viii. 40 Αἰακίδᾳ, ὅν τ᾽ εὐσεβέστατον φάτις ᾿Ιαολκοῦ τράφειν πεδίον, and ubt fama in
Stat. Zhed. i. 699.
28, tilora]s could be read in place of ὑψηίλαῖῖς. There is little doubt about the
s, t being the only alternative. λαχεῖν κεδ-} (or dy-})|vav is due to Bury. Nonnus, Deonys.
iv. 28 sqq., represents Harmonia as at first reluctant to marry Cadmus. Housman prefers
ἄγειν σεμ] νάν, comparing Wem. v. 47 σεμνὰν Θέτιν Πηλέα θ᾽, Aesch. Prom. 560 ἄγαγες
“‘Howvay . . , δάμαρτα, and, for the present infinitive with ποτέ in a past sense, Py. vi. 21-4
τάν wor... arti... παραινεῖν. σεμνός has however occurred in |. 8. For mpamides in
connexion with a suitor he compares Js. vill. 30 ἀλλ᾽ οὔ ow ἄμβροτοι τέλεσαν εὐνὰν θεῶν
πραπίδες.
30. εὔδοξοϊν : 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 o is also doubtful, a being quite
as suitable. But the position of the accent over ev strongly favours evdo£o[y, for ευδοκίίμον and
-κητον are inadmissible, and though a crossed out τ might be read in place of &, evdore[upay is
not a known word and ευδο[[τ]κίιμον is unsatisfactory apart from the wrong accent. At the
* beginning of the line — ὦ — — corresponds to—-U—vinl. 12; cf. ]. 19, ἢ. παρ᾽] ἀνθρώπεἰις
γενεάν is due to Bury. Σεμέλαν may be substituted for γενεάν, she being in any case the
person chiefly meant, as is shown by the reference to her in ]. 32.
31. Διονυσΐ must be vocative, for any other case would fill up the lacuna, leaving no
room for the letter preceding 6, which apparently had an acute accent and was therefore
a vowel. Probably Διονυσίε was written and the ε not elided; cf. re opivera in 1. 13. If the
two letters in the lacuna formed a diphthong, the accent ought to have been more to the left.
32. paré[pos: i.e. Semele; cf. 1. 30, ἢ. o could be read in place of ε.
III. τ. The doubtful A can be ν.
3. στάσις elsewhere in Pindar means “ sedition’, but here may, as Bury remarks, refer
to the chorus either in the sense of κατάστασις (χορῶν) or of a division; cf. 1. 5, n.
5. Bury proposes κατεναντίον.
6. τεάν must refer to Dionysus, if re[Aer]dv is right; cf. int. p. 29.
7-8. Bury suggests βαλὼν δὲ] πλόκον στεφάνων κισσίνων | ἀμφὶ τεὸν κρόταφον, making
μελίζοι the end of a clause and connecting ll. 7-8 with ἔλθε inl, 9. A stop may, however,
have been lost after κρόταφον, The scholium probably refers to the unusual expression
1604 PINDAR, DITHYRAMBS 45
πλόκον στεφάνων. For πλ[εκτῶν, sc. στεφάνων, cf. Eur. Hippol. 73 πλεκτὸν στέφανον. ὅρ[μον (cf.
Vem. iv. 17) does not suit the vestiges. ,;
9. Apparently φιλιδὴ was altered first to φιλως δὴ and then, the correction being crossed
out, to φιλαν 8y. Thee after gid is not crossed out; but the av above the line begins close
to the Xand φιλαν dy (which makes the line end with two choriambi) is metrically preferable to
φιλιαν dn or simply φιλιαν. Moreover it is not certain that the o of ov was crossed out like
the @ and ν when edée was substituted, and in II. 27 there is a similar doubt concerning the
deletion of a superfluous letter.
modea is corrected from πολεωώ. The mark of quantity is not quite certain, but a alone
does not account for all the ink. πόλιν is clearly meant, but no form zodéa is known, though,
since πόληα occurs in Hesiod, it does not seem impossible.
10. Bury proposes πελώρμον.. . . πρύτανιν, and would see in this line a reference to the
Acrocorinthus ; but mpuram . [ may be vocative, as in Py. ii. 58.
11. ἴαμα: the first letter might be A and the second v; the third is more like a with a
high stop after it than [.s. Bury suggests something like ἕποιτο δ᾽] ἅμα, but the stop is an
objection to dua.
12. ἀκναμπτεί, ‘inflexibly’, is a new adverb. ἄκαμπτος occurs in 775. ili, 71 and ἄκναμπτος
in the MSS. of Py. iv. 72 (ἄκαμπτος Hermann).
13. τὰς ἐπιδορατίδας is a gloss on χάρμας, which was used in the sense of ‘ spear-shafts’
also by Stesichorus and Ibycus according to Schol. Pind. O/. ix. 128.
14-15. Bury suggests ἅλιος δ᾽ dln[eipalyros αὐχὴν ῥύοιτο mal vdyupw | ἕρκος τ᾽ ἐγχωρίων πέλοι,
‘Let the impassable sea-neck protect the festal gathering and be the bulwark of the people,’
comparing OZ. viii. 48 ἐπ’ Ἰσθμῷ ποντίᾳ and Eur. Med. 212 πόντου κλῇδ᾽ ἀπέραντον. αὐχήν would
on this view mean the Isthmus of Corinth. The general sense of I]. 12-15 is, he thinks, ‘ Put
aside arms and preparations for war, and trust for defence to the Isthmus.’ αὐχήν elsewhere
in Pindar means the human neck, but that does not combine easily with ῥύοιτο.
17. Perhaps πολυγαθἼέες. αοιδαι can, however, be dative.
18. Bury suggests Σισύφ᾽οιο or ΓλαυκἸοῖο φῦλον, referring to the Corinthians.
19. For πετάλοις np[wois (Bury) cf. Py. ix. 46 ὅσσα re χθὼν jpwa φύλλ᾽ ἀναπέμπει. The
first letter of the line might be p.
22. Bury suggests στόϊμιον ἵπίπειον (or ἵππου), referring either to the legend of
Bellerophon and the bridle (φίλτρον ἵππειον) of Pegasus, a story told by Pindar in an ode
written for the Corinthian Xenophon (O27. xiii), or perhaps to a particular kind of mouthpiece,
i.e. one of the ἵππεια ἔντεα said to have been invented by the Corinthians (ΟἹ. xiii. 20).
1605. MENANDER, MIZSOYTMENOS.
15 Χ 5:2 cm. Third century.
This exiguous fragment of a comedy, though'containing only the beginnings
of 27 lines 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, Té(ras), is inserted in the margin
against ll. 34-5, and characters of that name are known to have occurred in
three of Menander’s plays, the “Hpws, Μισούμενος, and Περινθία (if Koerte is
right in assigning 855 to the last-named play), while the apparent mention in 1. 25
(cf. 1. 29, n.) of Θρασωνίδης, the name of the leading character in the Μισούμενος,
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. ll. 24--5, πῆ. 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 ΤΟΜῊ soldier, see 1018. int.
and Koerte, Wenandrea, li.
The handwriting is a medium-sized sloping uncial resembling 1876 (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 (Sztzungsb. d. Berl. Akad. 1918,
747-9) as part of an uncertain comedy, perhaps by Menander, is probably to
be assigned to the Μισούμενος. In the second scene a woman called Cratea
unexpectedly recognizes her father, whereupon the owner of the house intervenes,
and in the margin of 1.18 Γεί. ) occurs as the name of a speaker. Wilamowitz,
though noticing the agreement with the Μισούμενος with regard to Cratea,
attributes the fragment to a different play, chiefly because Γεί ) is supposed
also to occur in the margin of |. 12 in reference to a character who is addressed in
the next line as τηθίαα From this he infers that Γεί ) is an unknown feminine
name. But it is much more likely that Te(_) in 1. 18 is Γέ(τας), 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 Μισούμενος,
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. 11 of the Μισούμενος, ἀφανεῖς γεγόνασιν at σπάθαι
and 1. 11 of the Berlin papyrus, |p οἰκῶ τὰς σπάθας τῶν γειτόνων.
Col. 1. Col. ii.
ovkere |
25 Θρασαϊνιδ
τι Taval
καλως Ϊ
g lines lost ov παιδὶ
1605. MENANDER, ΜΙΣΟΥΜΕΝΟΣ 47
ζηλοτυπῖίο
30 a νυν λέγ
εἰς τουρίγον
διακοσι
10 Jes vn Ata τί
] Bisa POU EL
Js ἀπὸ τῆς .Ϊ
Ἰν 36 _ pave
Ἰθη διδοασιν |
15 ] “ mpocevg|
ἡ τ τὺ: ] ouTos an
\v κακον 40 “οὐκ εξα]
] πως ειπὶ
Joe Te ρημαΐτ
20 ἢ λεγων τί
] “ἔλεγεν αἱ
] παρην 45 ναι φησι [
]. ηκουσα]
ae τὼ ὑς ᾿ἐκπλει ἯΙ
᾿ᾳγαθα Xf
σα pe τῇ
5ο [κ]αλως . [
24. οὐκετι 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. ΘρασαΪνιδ : this might possibly coincide with the corrupt Fr. 14 (Koerte) of
the Mucovpevos, which is generally restored μισοῦσι μὲν | Θρασωνζ(ίδην), ὦ πάτερ, ἀπεκτάγκασι
δ᾽ οὐ.
29. ζηλοτυπίο : οἵ, Περικειρομένη 408--9 ὁ δ᾽ ἀλάστωρ ἐγὼ καὶ ζηλότυπος ἄνθρωπος, spoken
by Polemon, the counterpart of Thrasonides in that play.
34. Perhaps avaye [o|eavrov, as in Sania 145. The y is however very doubtful and
avac|.|.{ can be read. It is not clear whether I'e(ras) refers to 1. 34 or to 1. 35. The surface
of the papyrus between ll. 33-4 is rubbed, but there is no trace of a paragraphus, so that if
T'e(ras) refers to 1. 34 there was probably a change of speaker in the middle of that line.
48 THE OXYRHYNCHUS PAPYRI
1606. LYSIAS, Ovations πρὸς Ἱπποθέρσην, Against Theomnestus, ὅ 6.
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, 852-8, 1012,
1016-17, 1864, and 1876, 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
200 in number, the fragments have been reduced by combinations to 150. Much
the longest of them is Fr. 6, which contains (1) the last three columns of a speech,
with the title (ll. 237-8) πρὸς ἹἹπποθέρσην ὑπὲρ θεραπαίνης followed by a blank
space, (2) the first two columns of a speech directed against a certain Theomnestus
by an unnamed plaintiff. πρὸς ἹἹπποθέρσην is known as the title of a speech by
Lysias (no. Ixi) from Harpocration, who makes two quotations from it, Fr. 122
(Sauppe) ἀφανὴς οὐσία καὶ φανερά and Fr. 123 ἱἹερώνυμος. Fr. 122 seems to be
connected with Fr. 2 of the papyrus, where ovcliav ... ἀφ[ανίσ)αι is a probable
restoration in ll. 29-32, and φαν)ερά is possible in 1. 48 ; but ἹἹερώνυμος does not
seem to occur in 1606, though it is tempting to restore his name in |. 89. The
title of the second speech would at first sight be expected to be κατὰ Θεομνήστου :
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 κατὰ Θεομνήστου,
i.e. the extant oration x (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 πρὸς ᾿ἱπποθέρσην, and among the numerous minute scraps from
the main find are certainly three (Frs. 19, 20, 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 πρὸς Ἱπποθέρσην, Fr. 19 (κατὰ ΘεομνήσΊτου ?)
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, like 1284 (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 ina 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. ll. 47, 115, 139, 141, 173, 217, 349-56, 536.
Of the oration πρὸς Ἱπποθέρσην the three concluding columns (Il. 126-238),
though requiring a good deal of restoration, are fairly well preserved, and some
intelligible passages are provided by four other fragments (i—2 and 4-5) evidently
belonging to earlier columns of the same speech (II. 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 Il. 48 and 76; cf. ll. 38-44, n.
Frs. 3 and 26 also probably belong to this oration, and perhaps Frs. 28-30, 87,
and 100-1. It must have been one of Lysias’ more important speeches, being
concerned, like the oration against Eratosthenes (xii), with the administration of
the Thirty Tyrants and his own grievances. In xii Lysias prosecuted Erato-
sthenes, who was one of the Thirty, for the murder of his brother Polemarchus
(cf. 1606. 8-9, 161) ; the present action mainly turned on the question of the
restoration of Lysias’ property on his return from exile. As the title implies,
the speech was on the side of the defence ; but that the real defendant was not
the θεράπαινα but Lysias himself, is clear not only from the general tenour of the
fragments, in which Lysias is very prominent, but from the expression φεύγει τὴν
δίκην applied to him in ll. 189--4, and the closing appeal in 1. 221 ἀποψηφίσασθαι
Λυσίου. How the θεράπαινα became involved in the case does not appear, but
presumably she was acting merely as Lysias’ agent. With the plaintiff Hippo-
E
50 THE OXYRHYNCHUS PAPYRI
therses were associated one or more other individuals, the plural being employed
in reference to the side of the prosecution, which is called οὗτοι in Il. 32 and 229
and perhaps of ἀντίδικοι in 1. 133. Nicostratus and Xenojcles] (Il. 17-18) may well
be two of the persons meant, and possibly Sosia[des] (Il. 92-3, n.). The dispute
was concerned with the ownership of property (οὐσία) worth 70 (?) talents, formerly
belonging to Lysias, which had been seized by the Thirty and apparently sold
by them to Hippotherses and his associates (Il. 28-34), and which Lysias was now
trying to recover. By the terms of the amnesty arranged at the time of the
restoration of the democracy in B.C. 403, sales made during the administration
of the Thirty remained valid ; but unsold property reverted to its original owners,
an exception being made in the case of land and houses, i.e. immovable property,
which were to be returned in any case (Il. 38-48). This reference to the amnesty
is important, confirming Grote’s views (Hist. of Greece, viii, ch. 66) on the
nature of the agreement ; but the precise application of it to the dispute between
Hippotherses and Lysias is obscured by the incompleteness of Frs. 1-5. Lysias
evidently regarded the terms of the amnesty as in favour of his contentions, but
Hippotherses too may have appealed to it, and perhaps the interpretation was
one of the chief points of dispute. In ll. 13-17 Lysias complains that he was
being prevented by the prosecution from buying back his own property from
the purchasers ; but in ll. 76 sqq. he is found objecting to a claim of Hippo-
therses for half the price of, apparently, the οὐσία described in ll. 28-34, and in
ll. 114 544. he criticizes the legality of the sales effected by the Thirty. This
evidence is not very easy to combine into a connected argument ; but apparently
the οὐσία bought from the Thirty by Hippotherses contained land and houses,
and Hippotherses refused to surrender these without compensation, whereupon
Lysias, through the θεράπαινα, took some step towards ejecting Hippotherses
which resulted in the prosecution, possibly in some form of δίκη ἐξούλης. The
peroration, to which ll. 127-236 belong, does not throw much light on the
facts of the case, which are referred to only in general terms (Il. 224-36), but
in itself is of much interest, since it contains an eloquent comparison of Lysias’
behaviour towards the State with that of his opponent. The patriotism of Lysias,
who after losing his brother and much property made large sacrifices in support -
of the democrats, is recorded in a passage which was evidently before Plutarch
when writing his account of this part of Lysias’ life (Il. 163-71, n.), and is
contrasted with the pro-Spartan zeal of Hippotherses. The speech must have
been delivered very soon after the restoration of the democracy, i.e. in 403 or
402 B.C.
The second oration, that directed in prosecution of Theomnestus, after a very |
short introduction (ll. 239-46), proceeds to the narration of the facts. The
1606. LYSIAS 51
unnamed plaintiff claims to have lent his friend Theomnestus 30 minae in
order to pay a debt to a certain Theozotides for which judgement had
been entered against Theomnestus. The transaction took place without
witnesses, and Theomnestus, having subsequently quarrelled with the plaintiff,
now denied the loan (ll. 246-61). After a mutilated passage apparently
explaining the nature of the quarrel, which seems to have been connected with
the guardianship of some property, and the unsuccessful attempts of the plaintiff
to get his money returned (ll. 261-95), a dilemma is propounded for the defence.
Theomnestus must maintain either that he borrowed the money from some one
else, or that he did not borrow any money at all, in order to pay Theozotides
(11. 295-301). Of these alternative lines of defence the first is rebutted in
ll. 301-40, Fr. 7 probably belonging to the column following Fr. 6. v, while the
second is dealt with in ll. 340-66 by putting a number of questions designed to
show that Theomnestus would not have run the risks which he actually incurred,
if he had had the requisite money at hand. The rest of the speech is lost, and
there are no indications of the date of its delivery.
The third speech (Frs. 8, 9. i and probably some of Frs. 10-18), apparently
against a person whose name ended in -ylius, seems to have been concerned
with the sale of a ship at Carthage, and a question of partnership; but there is
nothing to show what was the subject of the fourth speech (Fr. 9. ii and probably
some of Frs. 10-18). With regard to the remaining fragments the more or less
probable position of Frs. 13, 16, 28, 45, 53, 73, 80, and 128 has been ascertained.
Fr. 25 apparently comes from a fifth speech about an inheritance (κλῆρος), and
Frs. 31 and 39, which probably belong to the same oration, may be connected with
a reference in Harpocration to βεβαιώσεως δίκη in two unnamed speeches of Lysias
(cf. 1. 493, n.), while probably one of Frs. 19-22 belongs to the title of it. Fr. 64
might come from the speech πρὸς ᾿Αλκιβιάδην or that πρὸς ᾿Αρχεβιάδην.
We are indebted to Mr. E. Lobel and Dr. C. Hude for several good
suggestions in the restoration of this papyrus.
(a) πρὸς ἹἹπποθέρσην.
Fr. I.
11 letters Vela PRI 15 Olovs τοῖς εωνημευοις
Hor. y; [eels tients [[7]a eavrov]] δυναται k[opige
Ray CUR οι θα τ Hee ec) 5 σθαι Νικοστρατος yalp δι
8... Ἰυτ πο δες: κἸαζεται μετα Ἐενοκίλεους ἡ
Rds: |: OUTOS ον fs τοῖν πωληΐσᾶντος . .... ..
52
10
ο
3
THE OXYRHYNCHUS PAPYRI
thet he ἡτανα! 2... -
eee Bhs εἹξεφυ[γεῖν τοῖν δὲ α
Ἰδελφίοὴν αὐτίο]υ [Πολεμαρχον
] απεκτειναν καὶ τὴν [ovat
aly αφειλοντο και [ews
pew ev Πειραιει ὠιχεῖτο ἡ
ξίήου κατελθων απίοφε
ρίεσθαι νυνι δὲ επεϊιδη ἡ ἢ
κΊει ουδὲ την τιμὴν απο
Fr. 2.
ΠΕ ce A - συλ
Ang[d....- ovo Lav
δὲ εβδίομηκοῖντα Ta
λαντων [απεδὸ ὕἾντο ny
OUTOL OUT αφ[ανισἾαι OUT A770
δοσθαι πολίλων)] ἡμέρων
εδυναΐντο εἸπεί[ι]δ η] τίοι]
36 νυν μεθ [υμων φίευϊγων
40
48
Δυσιας [ωιχετο και μετ αἹ
του υμ[ετίερου πληθους
κατηλθεν κελευουσων
των συνθηκων Ta μεν
πεπραμενα TOUS εωνὴ
μένους exelv τα δὲ a
[π]ρατὰ τους κατελθοντας
[κ]ομιζεσθαι ουτος ovTe γὴν
[ου]τ οἰκιαν Κεκτημενος
[a] και at συνθηκαι τοις κα
[τεἤλθουσιν απεδιδοσαν
[εα]ν δὲ {av δῖε]) amoda[ole
πὸ δ 0}: Ἰτοί. . «Ἰερα
20 .\va ασπιϊδ 12 letters
. .jo Tapa, 14
melvrnkov[Ta ΤΊ
Slpaxpoly τῷ
vo. [ Ἴ
25 κεἴδοὺς ΤΠ. 15
σθαι o.[ 13
«tas of 13
κί
αἱ
ἐπὶ 75
55 Bol
otal
απὶ
σασὶ
den
60 eAbal
ωιχετῖο
λων αἱ
[εἸκεινΐ
ποιησαΐ
65 σασανΐΪ
ὡς ασπιδ
noapely
Fea
πίολλων [
Ἱιπομί
εἸωνημενῖ
Jrov πποῖθερσ
|rral
1606.
Fr. 4. Col. i.
ΤᾺΣ ] μετα ταϊυτα] τοι
ἰνυ]ν w avdpes δικασται τίο
ἰημ]ισυ της τιμης nge
[ov παρα Λυσιου λαβειν λε
80 [γων] τας eavTov συμῴο
[plas womep τουτου θησαυ
[ρ]ον [ele τῶν τριακοντα
[εἸνρηκοτος αλλ οὐκ απολω
ἰλείκοτος Ta οντα διαγα
85 [valkrovvros ὃ αὐτου και
[χαλεϊπως φέροντος προς
sae eee rr...
Raa NR DOL a bss Ἰυμί.] .. @
ἀπ ΟΣ Ἰυλον Αχαρ
90 ἰνεως...... Ἰπουσιν avTw
(a τ τρῸς ] παραλαβων
τ ΕΝ 7 Tov Σωσια
are. νείστην ἢ
ae Ἰ συγκειμε
τ oS ee. Jos ὠμολο
Dees oh bite ane ahs lev τοις av
πο τε τες Ἰομε
τ ia hee Wo, Oe 7 avnp
ΟΣ τ τον Ἰενωι
Mr eis ek ΧΟ SR αὶ Ἰσεδει
Col: i. . Plate i.
Pee st oe συνθη
Πρ Ὁ το]υς νομοὺς
ΠΣ akn|koaTe ἢ
ΡΝ 5 '* She a's Jas δικαιοτε
ΠΡῸΣ “τ. τς: ras Xe
LYSIAS
Fr.
Bre 4. ΟΟἿΙ. 11.
προΐ
δικηΐ
Del
105 γεν “ἢ
τουΐ
τροπὶ
δωνΐ
oval
110 ἔαντος [
ον]. [el
Too|
Ετ. 5.
δεινοὴν γίαρ
[av en @ ανδρες δικΊασται [
[ec κἸατηλθεζτεν plely ws adie
ἰκἸουμενοι των de οντων |
115
[αἸποστερεισθε ὡς αδικουν]
[τε]ς᾿ καιτο] δικαίως αν
[οργιζοι]σθε τοις εωνημε
120 [νοι]ῖς Ta ὑμετερα εν ταῖς το!
[αυ]ταῖις συμῴοραις πρω
ἷτο]ν μεν yap οι τριακονΐτα
[ovdev aly ἐπώλουν εἰ οἱ [w
ἰνησομενοι μὴ ησαν εἶ.
EG) [etesnahals Ir. -Jyxav εἶ. .Ἷν
Col. ii+Fr. 80. Plate ii.
[Hrejov gfevoly ovta ε
αυΐτω]: επειΐσεν] avroy δυὶ
0 τάλαντα πίαρ]ασχειν Tle
Ant καὶ ἀντι τίο]υτων ουδὲ
μιαν χίαρ]ιν ουδὲ δωρεαν
593
54
135
140
145
150
160
165
THE OXYRHYNCHUS PAPYRI
(ely woah (a> Ἰς BeAttous:
ΟΝ τ]ου[9] αντιδι
[kous.. «Ἱεισί. « ««- 7 υμιν
ee ] τουτων ἐπιτρεπο
[μεν αἸκουσαντας τα Avot
[αι και ἤπποθερσηι πεπρα
[γμεν]α οποτεραν βουλεσθε
[κρισιν ?| πραγματος Ψψηφι
[σασθαι] περι τουτων o7ro
[<re)pos βελΊτιων ὧν περι την
[ημετερ]Ίαν πολιν τυγχα
[vec δεοῖμαι ὃ υμων ακου
σαι wa κῖαι ουτος υμιν do
[gas χρΊηστος εἰναι mpobv
[μηται εἾπι του Aolmov καὶ ο
[Ππποθερ]σης ακουσας Ta
[προσηκΊοντ αυὐτωι βελτι
[ων το λοιῖπον ne οτίι] μεν
[ow ? ...Ja Δυσι[. . . . υἹμιν
ἘΣ ΠΡ, Ἰεπί. παΊντε
λως ἢ δηλοὴν
pets ηυδα)ιμονειτε πλου
sg oma}
σιωτατος n\y τῶν μετοι
εἐπειδῆη δὲ συμῴο
|
K@V
cc
pa εγενετο)] ἐπέμενε
ovde γ]αρ ελαχίστον με
ρος των υμεήτερων δυστυ
τι Ἐπ ΚΞ
os
&
=
. .jucev avopas
—
ὑπὸ τῶν τριαΐκοντα Kat
αδελῴφου και] χρηματων
πολλων απεσἸτερημ εἸνοίς]
ἐπεὶ δε φευγων ὠἰχέετο
επικουρους] τριακοσι
σι. σι γτικνι
ous ἐπεμψεν ἢ) εἰς THY κα
εω[5] plely yap v
175
180
185
190
195
200
205
παρ ὑμιν κεκομισταῖ και
φευγων μεν TolovTos ἣν
κατελθων δε ovdeva πω
[wore AOnvatwy ελυπη
[σε]ῖν ουτε περι τῶν avTOU
αἰν]Ἰαμνημισκων evep
γίεσίων ovTe περι Tov αλ΄΄
λ[οτριων ονειδιζων apap
[τηματωὼν νὺυν ὃ ἀναγ
“KL περι avTov λέγειν νυ
πὸ τοιουτου yap φευγει THY
δικ[η]ν
᾿ τρα[κο]σιων φευγων ὠϊχε
os ἐπὶ μεν Τῶν TE
To ek 4εκελειας de ορμω
μενος plel7a τῶν πολε
μιων εἶπι τὴ]ν πατριδα
ἐστρατευΐσεν οἱ Ole της πὸ
λεωΐς ἐχθροι κατηγαὶ
γον av[rov και] πίολιτην
υμετερον emlornoay
᾿ὡστὶ οιμαι macl\t δηλον
etvalt] o7[t] μ[ειο}ν vuve
ῴφρονει τῶν τίειχων WLKO
δομημενὼων [ἡ τῶν
τοτε καθηιρημενων [
ovd ομί[ο]ιας ελπιδας ε
χει επί: Talis υμετεραις
ευτυχ[ιαις Kat συμῴοραις
εἰτα τίελεος ?] ὧν [π]ολιτης
[kat] ουδ[επωπῆοτε αυτωι
μεταμελη[σα]ν οἴυδε δι
α την ηλικι[α]ν β[ελτι
ὧν γεγενημενῖος ouKo
ῴφαντει τοὺς πολλίους με
1606. \ LYSIAS
[θοδον και mlaperyero 6 a vpas ειργα[σ]αῖτο. ..
[xpnuara re δῆραχμας καὶ Tae ΕΣ:
7 lines lost Gov7|
210: ἄριστα feta es Cele oe 8,
por Aral ΧΟΥ͂Σ οὐ
καὶ WET ce ἊΣ
Bey: [ἡ We PPR ἘΠ ΑΣΑ Ce
Fr; 6..- Col..iit.
Δ[υσιαν de Xaptv] mapal [a] ὃ vues δωσετε ἡ τις
του [δημου απολαμΊβανειν <ev) τοϊυ]των ευδαιμονεστε
εργίεσιαν) τὴν μεγι 230 [pos] εἰ py μονον {[περι]] των
olny πεποη]κοτα deo ἰτοτ]ῆε πρᾶχθεντων συγ
220 pale ουἱν ὑμων w avdpes [γνωμην avros εξετε
δικασται ἀποψηφισασθαι [αλλα] Kat νυνι περι wv
Avotov μεμνημένους [av els υμας εισιωσιν o
kat τ[ο]υτου κ[αι] Tov addov 235 [oa] av κελευωσιν ψηφι
τῶν εἰ ρ]ημενων εἰ de εισθε
225 pln] τις εσται TovTov avOpw Fe ἃ
πων OvoTVXETTEPOS εἰ TA τ: Inmobeponv
ev] avrot Brat ληψονται ὑπερ θεραπαινης
μ ὑπερ θερ :
(6) Against Theomnestus.
Pr: 6.: “Cok iv. Fr: 6...) Caley.
[φαίνεται [δι]α του] .. [.] [
ἘΝ jrov Θεομνηστος [
προς ἢ] vpas [ox]edov παν 290 [
....Jvat οὕτω yap διε οἷ
θηκε ὴν ware μὴ po δ
ἱ
[
Be
[voy em|tTpomous εἰναι KE τὴν avaykny [...-.-
[... @AA@ xlale THY ουσιαν σεως ovd autos ar[....
[
πος ονἾτε ὃ εταίρωι 295 Te αναγκη ὃ αὐΐτωι:
56
THE OXYRHYNCHUS PAPYRI
[Θεο]μν[ηστωι τριακον
[τ]α μνας εδωκα δικην
deov εκτισαι ΘἸεοδοτιδηι
250 πριν δυναι τον ηλίιον εἰ
260
265
270
275
de pn υπερημερον εἰναι
δους δὲ womep etko[s] αν ε]ν
μαρτυρων αποστἰ εἸρουΐμ]ε
νος avaykagopat δικα
ζεσθαι
προ Tov μεν nv μοι φιλος
Θεομνηστος δε
και εταιρος νυνί δε πει
σθεις vio τῶν εμων εχθρων
ταυτα τε πραττει και αλ
Ao οτιουν av εἰς epe [εἸτολμη
σεν" πριν ὅδε ταυτη]ν ἡ
[μιν τὴν ὅδ[ιαφορ]αν γενε
σθ]α]. ovre ηἰνωχλη]σα οὔτε
amnitnoa [To αργ͵]υριον ov
δεῖ τς Ge gus πΊ͵ολυς εξο
ΟΣ abana 3 2 lv δὲ εωρων
Slee τς επι]τροπὴν
ουσΐιας αὐτω κα͵τεσκευα
σμεΐνην... 7. ντὸ με
ERM ae ΣῈ τ: lv Tht τῆς a
Tipe ao eet alae ats τε οτε εδω
kK ἰαυτω avev μὶ)αρτυρων.
δους [de και την] απαιτη
ον Se Ἰς ἐναντι
. ποιὸ ϑἼυμενος
ηγηΐσαμην περ)ιεργον
7) ae νἀ τς ]
POO MEE κπὲ τὴ τον τ. ὩΣ ΤΕΥ
300
320
325
εἰ μὴ Tap εμοῦυ 7/0 apyu
ριον exec δυοιν θατίερον
ἡ παρ ετερου φαϊσἸκΐειν εἰ
ληφεναι 7 αὐτῖον TO Tay?
εκτετικεναι Tat Θεοδὸ
τιδηι εἰ plely τοίνυν
᾿ παϊρ] ετερου φήσει [ειλη
[pevat] Καπὶ.". 660. οὐ
le ieuein eheata ἘΝ 1. ani.
years ere eet nee Ἱεινί.
ΕΣ νυ τ τς Ἰν μη αποΐ.
ΠΣ Σ jt Toxov α. Ϊ
[eet 7... | νῴ ετερωΐν
Torte ide ua OE Ἰνα τοκον |.
ἘΞΟΧῊ: ] παρ εμοίυ ὃ
ap ΠΑΝ Ἰσεν του συνί[δο ὃ
τοῖς. .]. την αποριαν of
κνΐειν} δεηθηναι" πίαρα
δὲ τῶν μηνυσοντωΐν
τοις εχ[ θ]ρίο]ις αξί ἤουν dal
νειΐ εσθαι: καζι]τοι πίως
“εἰκὸς τὰ μεν Epa εἶτε
pots συνεκδιδίοσθαι av
τῶι δὲ παρ ετερων δία
νειζεσθ]αι]
τος ηξ[ιω]σί εἶν αὐτωι pl. .
οντος παρ ετερου δαυΐει
ὦσσθαι peya υμ[ν τεῖ
κμηριον ep» οἶτε] yap ἴε
ως ὃ ov...
1606. LYSIAS 57
ἘΠῚ τ τεῦ Ἰθατεΐ | 330 χοΐρηγει ανΐδρα]σι [εις Ae
ἘΠῚ: - 55 ὁ τῇ | ουν τι ε ονυσια παί... ..... χι
ἐκ Bats <A ΩΣ Tlo apyupt Atlas δραχίμας ...... pu?
a RS ]. εἰς εστι | σθον διελυΐσε.......
5 μὰς [-. - ν ἢ. εἰ av
Ἐκ... πον τίου mpa
γίματος .. . ... | ποιη
Frs. 7+45+73.
3334|-Jvol...... 350 Opa enle|rpere τηΐι τ]υχηΐι
334 περι τί. .]ου[.]1α . .[ εἰ [kjae τί] εξαιῴνης [εἶπα
335 μου οἶκνειν den[Onvar?.. θεν περι TO σῶμα apa
τε de | περι tov Boos πῖ... .. και Tov βιον αναγ[κασθ]η
[εἼπ εἰμοι οἰκείωι οντῖι... .. ναι παθειν εἰς τουτίο πρἾο
[.]ae | προς μὲν ovv τίο παρε 355 [nkolyra wate εἰ edu [0] ηλι
[τ]Ἰερ[οἱν φασκειν εἰληφε [os] umepnuepov οντίος κ͵]αι
340 [val ταυτα λεγω αν [de.. [τι]ς ovrws ἀνοητος οστίιἸς
[- ..].lovros ἀργυρίιου .. [avlrov παρασκευαζει [v
[.. vjuas tov Θεοΐμνηστον ὃ [πο] τοις e€x[O]pors γενεσθαι
[εντ]ευθεν χρη [εξεταΐξειν ὃ 360 [η τῇις ουτως αφρων οστις
[πω]ς εἰκος ἐστιν ηΪ. . . .--- ΚΣ ΤΣ Jee ολιγου dev a
345 [. -|s apyuptov πεϊρ)ειδίειν)] ε :΄:- Wat ἡ τι v
[αυ]τον εἰς τον εσχαϊτον] κιν [πο ΣΟ ae eae ] οστις Al. .].. ν
δίυ]νον ελθοντα καίι τοῖΊσαν -- Ἰαιμεῖ
τὴν ἰδῆυναμιν επι[δ]ειξαι ΠΟ. τς Ἰν εξοΐ- . - -
τοις €xOpois και {τις) ουτίω] odo Ἐν je ae
(c) Against... ylius, ὅδ.
Fr. 8. Ετ. 9. Col, t. Fr 9. Gok it:
[uap|ruples Mer oe Τυμίιν 390
[παλιν τίοἸινυν [ω] ανδρεῖς ea Ἰυτων τοις μαρτυ [
[δικίασται ws την] vavy 578 [ot | y Ἢ ἱ
310 [ev ΚἸαρχηδονι απίε]δοτίο [ ] Paprupes [
58 THE OXYRHYNCHUS PAPYRI
[μα]Ἱρτυρησουσιν [υἿμιν ofc [ws pely τοινυν ὦ avdpes τα.
[επι]πλεοντεῖς .. - - + [δικασῆται οὐκ εγένομην 395 ᾿δικ
[αυτΊωι κ[ο]ινωνος ax[ov Ka .[
Pr. το. 380 [care] τῶν μαρτυρων Kat Auf
Ἰαταπί ΝΣ ].. αἀποδομε ov[
BOG A 1: ὁπ... 1 [ete Acs ie Ἰν αἀποδοσθαι πηΐ
1. ε και [.Jo[ [- .«. ταυτα τοινυν ὦ avy 400 Ϊ
Jes μεντί [δρες δικαστ]αι σκοπουν εσί
1 παρ erepaly ? 555 res bs ee. uf. |e. Tol
Jas de λει | aaa las. ies ters τί
410 | διαλλαϊ [ow την] ναῦν [.Ἰε. «. [- -
Je - [ [- - -- ΨηφισαίσΊθε '
[ mpos 17. ὑλιον
Ἐτο τὰς Hr. 12, Fr. 12.
(eet Aa πἢ jAouv .[.. top of col.
[- «τ Jal 425 1... 6486 1 μαρτυρί
- eal |. ov ovtal he Ἰομαι
415 [Ἰν. wl y perl [uaprupes]
ονταῖ.] . δικαι [γ Ἰριὰ
[:}1εἰν On τισιν al ] αδικως a Fr. 14.
[-Ἰου[Ἰαντὰ ap.[...0v 430 lv ovoy ov |.) 1
τς Τῷ σφοδρα pou [κατε Ἰσατε 440 Ou etn προσ eda?
420 φρονησεν [wloz[e... 71. +. ετολμα axe βουλεσθαι al
σθαι] αντί 1. mpaypa- με ποιησασᾷἾαι
[Jo δεινοτί ποῦν end of col.
[. - Ire. εἦντί 435 yal.
ἜΤ, 15. Pe. τό. ΒῚ τὴ. Fr. 18,
[. -Jonoz[ 447 nfo 450 71. στ.[ 453 1- vf
δανειζ vn | Ἵμεν . [ Ἰειτί
445 6+ AL Ἰεφα hal 155 ἀντι
Fr. 19 Fr. 20.
456 Jrov 457 προς [
Fr. 23.
1. [-}ror[
Ἰου και [|
Ἰτουμί 410
7 \apexople
465 |yte καὶ
] packoly
Ww
_ 475
480
Fr. 26
] ovk a[..-..----
a
505 [- .|axovTos
1606.
LYSTAS
(@) MISCELLANEOUS.
. πἸολεμιους av[7T..
[τροΐπωι ηγησαῖτο dle
[κα]ίως ἀαγαναϊκτειν
ἐπι των πατίριων απὸ
τοιουτωι dleE
Ετ. 21.
458 | παρανίομων ὃ
Fr. 24.
. ἡτιονΐ
. πἸ]αραλί
. πλειοῖ
.7δὲ
7. αἱ
Tov .Ϊ
πιστίεις ?
π)αραστὶ
.|pas
edalK
τίαχα ovy [
..| αλλ εἰ μεν amt...
PSY m7
[.] - οὐκ av εἰχεν ΞΕ.
εἸκαστων [
εἹν τις παρ μα
ρίτυρας ε οἴ
εἸδοκω Kal
vy εἰναι Kl
.cov οτι τί
αν]αγκη T.[
Ἰηρεν καλουΐίμεν
end of col.
Fr. 27.
εν ταλί
ται vf
Tos τί
515 ζεται
δειξῖ
ρους . [
ev τηΐ
Hl
485
490
495
500
39
Fro 22.
459 ged
460 pos [O ?}.[
Fr. 25.
Jel
Borax [
Ἰτην συμβαῖλ
1 μη του κληΐρου
Ἰ χρηματαῖν
7 εἰς ταυτηΐν
|nv. εκτισιν cor
τοὴν κληρον ani
Jae την παιδισκίην
] ουν εφη βεβαίι
Ἰση[.] 8 εἰ τι gal
θαι ἐμοι δικαΐ
1π[-Ἴ ακουϊσΊας te «[
Ἰ και . « [Jur]
Bolwrevo[
Ἰην τι τί
Ἰατι
Fr. 28.
60
510 pot δοκουσιν oft Ta ὑμε τί
τερα mplaper[ol.....
Frs. 29+ 20- 28}. Ετ. 91.
535 θη a ws) τας edie Jove{.
β|: νυ prac. SE Jepos ε 540 Ἰνοσυνΐ.
πο edeain + i Jat avrov πα |rpos τουΐ
[Cee eee Jov αποδει ] και τοις go
ξαΐ. εἿοι.. | [. . αἴυτον ενανΐ jar ayava
535 Tila τοις αλίλοις] γ[ἤγνωσκον KT πίολλα ἡμαρ
Ta μονον <a?» aly alurw δικαι 545 7 Jot μηδεν
[w]s wap vor φ[εῖροι rof.]. ν Jov φροντι
[- «. ἦν mos yap | δυναϊτ]αι αμφισβητει τωι [
end of col. Je. τ
Fr. 32 ΕΠ 95. Fr. 924.
[φητί ]- evos Ϊ 565 1].
550 [.JOevral ]rov ovros de τὶ ]ra
[-}7{.] . [ δ᾽ιιαγομενος Ϊ Jap
[olux εθελί. .] . [ 560 διαίλελυκε Thy [ θαι
εἰχετε ov yap δίιϊκαίιον ὃ lv ο φασκων Ϊ Ἰρα
“μεν υμ[ν εἰσεν.. [... Ἰαιος evar τῶν [| 510 ἢν
555 ὕπερ τίο]υτου [.]η Ἰν mplols [τ]ας ενιωΐ Ἰσα
575
‘LHE OXYRHYNCHESYVPAPYRI
στερουμενος [......
[1.1
Fr. 35. Fr. 36
[. .] - veo 580 . [
στρατειαΐ dl
και ετεΐ φί
συνε. [ αυΐ
των .«Ϊ τε mi
λευτί 585 εκ
[Jeol dL
fal
J.--[ \ra
Pr. 427. Fr. 38.
Ἰ- ονκαῖ
Ἰν και 595 |\w yap [
|ras Ἰτουτί
590 Je el
Ἰεμ Jeol
] rel
Jou 600 |v. |
Ετ. 20.
Προ [
βἸΊεβαιοι πί
οἿυκ απί
αμφ]ισβητί
1 αποσῖ
Ἰσᾳί
605
By. 41.
Ie
Jol”
Ἱπενῖ
625 Ἰπροσί
pre οἱ
hol
Fr. 45.
oul
} περι τὶ
650 Ἰμου of
Jrede[
\re . |
Jel
Fr. 49.
Ἰρου
71.ε
675 \pev
"πὶ
Ἵν
1606. LYSIAS 61
Fr. 40.
Cale 1. Coli 11.
2 lines lost al
ee 615 σί
ὅτο | |e πὶ
7. ov 3 lines lost
1 620 a. [
]- ec. |
Fr. 42. Froao, Ἐτ, 44.
Ἰτηῖ Π }pol
Ἰτουΐ 635 λί Ἰκοστί
639. Ἱμαΐ -[ Ἰνεῖ
jo. Ν᾽ Ἰημῖ
1θερ.1 κί 645 11
Jed{ εἶ Ἰτουΐ
640 pl Pea
Fr. 46. Fr 47. Fr. 48.
654 Ἶπο.ί |.. jo-[
2 lines lost ] 1.0
free 1: | τοτε Ἰπτί.
Ἰτα επιτηδέϊια ὃ Ἰν 670 Ἶηχιο
ju ὡς αἀξιον εἶ 665 ἵν Ae
660 Ἰης φίω]νησαιΐ Jou Ἰαν
Fr. 50. ΕΥ͂. 51. Fr. 52.
kp toe] } ac τε 1.1
71. ἐσηι Ἵν ov.[ 71.ν Aa. AL
680 ἤἸωστο. [
1ε τυγχίαν
Ἰοντί
685 ομοἸλογουνΐ
\w τὸ αἱ
Ἰσεσί
690 1. ὧι τῶι περυσιΐ
Ἱμενου δ[.Ἱυξ . [
Ἰυττί
62
Fr. 53.
Jaz. [
Ἰλει τις . [
695 Ἰαθηκί
Ἰμφεσί
1.1
Fr. 57.
1.1
Ἰθων of
Ἰεπεν . [
"10 jal
Fr. bi: .
ἸΓ . .« ταλί
τρἡηραρχΐ
725 πλο]υσιωταῖτ
Jo .[
Fr. 65.
Ἰσιεί
ἜΝ}
Wao | sca]
Ἱερουΐ
lege
Fr. 69.
y-[
tov [
Ἰκον
760 Ἰαπὶ
THE OXYRHYNCHUS PAPYRI
Fr. 54.
1.1
Ἰιαιταί
700 | μαρτυσίι ἢ
μαρτυ]ρες
is, 58.
τι Ἰισαΐ
Ἰασεί
Ἰν γαῖ
1. κυ
Fr. 62.
727 Ἰαν σι
7. τυ
Ἱν ἂμ
end of col.
Fr. 66.
1.1
1. αἱ
745 = Jel
Ἰντί
Ετ. 55.
J}. al
] ov φασκων [
] εκεινης ..[
705 jyov adda vf
end of col.
Fr. 59.
715 Ἱψασί
lon mol
Ἰνομενΐ
1..1
Ετ. 62.
730 Ἶυτον εἶ
jae tov.[ 7385
Ἰασουκῖ
Je-[
Fr. 67.
top of col.
71. ελλί
Jor χί
750 Ἰναὶ
Tos |,
Ἰετοί
Ἰεριεῖ
Fr. 56.
196 Ἰμί
Fr. 60.
Ἰ εργαί
ἤ2ο 1. τεινΐ
|kave[
Jaf
Fr. 64.
Jura 7. [
Ἰιδηξαι τί
|e αναισχυνΐτος
Σωσ ?|adns kl
Fr. 68.
Ἰυνί
Yy
755 jou αἱ
JEL
Fr. 72,
Ἰνοσί
110 Ἰοιτί
Ἰβων [
1- αἱ
ἘΠῚ. 23;
Ἰα{
Jeol
775 \e7[
}-[
Pr 77.
την |
790 ovd|
ψηφίι
ᾳπουὶ
Fr. 81.
gop |..([
Jovdl
Jade
Ἰαλλί
Fr, 85.
821 δου τί
ημισίυ
πλησι
end of col.
Fr. 89.
835 om .[
dia . [
οἱ πλοῖ
end of col.
Ετ. 92.
847 15:
] de τουτωι ze. [
Ἰεμετί
1606.
[ποῖ ]- - θεληΐ
[.Jov . [ Ἰπην.
780 [εἰν JL
Fr. 78. Fr. 79.
σθαι: και ε.Ϊ Ἰεκί.
[- «μενον Ϊ pt
705 [- --ν» εξ.} Ἰθω
ΠΊΕ Ὶ 800 Ἰπαι
Fr. 82. Fr. 83.
τ μ
810 aot Lie
iat 815 . |re
oral ]. Ed
Fr. 86 Fr. 87.
7.} top of col.
825 1αυΐ | μαρτίυρ
161. lr, 0 20
Ἰισεαῖ 830..7.}
Fr. go Fr QF.
Ἰοντί 84τ ὧν Tol
Ἰφανωνΐ τιαν τί
840 ἸἾυτωι [.]...[ Knv .[
Fr. 94. Fr. 95.
850 palpruper [ 852 al
τὴ]ν πραξιν [ αἱ
end of col. ni
1.5 781 Σ΄ ϑ]σιαδηΐ
]
LYSIAS
Prijs
63
Fr.76.
785 ] θεο
\rnp
Je
Ja
Fr. 80.
801 Ἰπί..] τὴν
Ἰοίησαν
Je δηλον
yy νυνι
831 []ν.
επί
oTpalT
al
Fr. 92.
Teal
845 τεσί
εισί
Fr. 96.
855 ].77-[
Ἰσφεισὶ
Ἰονιᾳί
64 THE OXYRHYNCHUS PAPYRI
P1507; Fr. 98. Fr. 99.
top of col. top of col. 862 αἰ
858 ] ποτε ere 860 Ἰτω.Ϊ[ “af
w avédples δικαΐσται Ἰωμαί λί
ir. 205; Fr. 102. Fr. 103.
868 Ἰ{ 870 Ἰης opyns aval Ἱποὶ
blank space Jas δικαζειν [ jal
Ἰλυσί Jor πρὶ 875. Ἰδῖ
Fr. 105. Fr. 106. Pr. τοῦ:
aul 882 [εἸλουΐ 885. 1].Ϊ
880 Ἰιδοΐ [.7γε οἱ ioxu .[
1. x] al lel
Fr. 109. Fr. 110 Hr, Ji
891 Jal Jy. 897 Ἰπρὶ
1. af 895 8p. [ [eval
Ἰαφί Ἰαυτί 1.1
Pr,.ai4. Fr. 114 Fr. 115.
]- -lel 906 Ἰανΐ 908 |ex[
_ jrof Ἰτωι of Ἰιαρῖ
905 1δ-- end of col. end of col.
ἘΣ τῶν, Fr, 118. Fr. 119.
912 jor a jdpeve 916 re ακηΐ
val 915 In ἢ Je απατηΪ
Fr. 121. Fr. 122. Fr, 123.
920 Ἰευΐ 922 aT Ἰτου κί
1. οδῖ Ww: vpily 925 jot αἰ
Fr. 100.
865 Ἰαιολί
Jue
Ἰντί
Fr. 104.
876 ἾἸνωι pl
Ἰσον πεῖ
990 Ἶρα
jae
le
Fr. 1363
top of col.
910 Tol
xl
Fr. 120.
918 Ἶυτον
olude
Fr. 124.
926 jay
lvoe
Pie 125:
928 Ἰδικωί
le peal
Hr. 120.
936 jop .
jep δαι
Br: 1.29.
eros of
945 Joe και [
Br. 137.
952 εἰν
ἀπ. |
Br, 141.
960 Ἶτο αἰ
Ira . [
ΕῪ, 145.
968 bas
Ἰστί
Fr. 149.
976 ἢν
]
Ἰσ
Pr, 1.52,
983 Ἰτολί
ἘΠῚ 1 ee
1606.
Fr. 126.
930 Ἰστρίατ
Ἰεσε
Pr 150:
938 |v wn
J. ¢
Pre 154.
946 | εμαυΐτ
πε ? prea 7|
Fr 136.
μ.ῖ
955 wale
Fr. 142.
962 Ἰται αἱ
Feet
Br 146.
P79 hs Es: of
Ἰσπί
Fr. 150.
top of col.
979 αλλί
Fr. 154.
984 Jar|
LYSIAS
Pr.127)
932 Ἰειαΐ
Ἰδιοτί
τὰ Yor.
940 Ἰωκ.Ϊ
αν
Prri35:
9418 onl
am loovepn|
Fr. 139.
956 αἱ
κί
Br 143.
"αὶ
965 Jol
ΕΥ, 147.
912 Ἶα. 1
Ὧϑ6. Ὁ ΠΠΠ}
ΕΥ, 158.
985 ἰανί
65
Fr. 128.
Year
935 αἸνδρ[ες
Fr. 132,
gaa) 7,1}
νος [
975 [τισί
οὗτος... [e|Eépulye|v, τὸϊν δὲ ἀδελφὸν αὐτί ο]ῦ [Πολέμαρχον͵ ἀπέκτειναν καὶ τὴν
[odcialy ἀφείλοντο. καὶ [ἕως μὲν ἐν Πειραιεῖ dyelro ἠξί]ου κατελθὼν ἀπ[οφέρ]εσθαι, νυνὶ δὲ ἐπειδὴ
Ε
66 THE OXYRHYNCHUS PAPYRI
ἥκ ει οὐδὲ τὴν τιμὴν [ἀποδ]οὺς τοῖς ἐωνημένοις [τ]ὰ ἑαυτοῦ δύναται κ' ομίζεσ]θαι. Νικόστρατος yal p
δικ]άζεται μετὰ Ξενοκ[λέους το]ῦ πωλήϊσαντος ...
‘Lysias ... escaped by flight, but they killed his brother Polemarchus and took away
his property. While he was away at the Piraeus, he claimed to get it back on his return ;
but now when he has come back, he is unable to recover what is his own, even by paying
the price to the purchasers. For Nicostratus is prosecuting him with Xenocles, who offered
ig@igsale τοῖος
Fr.2. ... σ]υλληφίθ..... οὐσἸ αν δὲ £83 opnko|vra ταλάντων [ἀπέδο ? vo, ἣν οὗτοι οὔτ᾽ ἀφανίσαι
οὔτ᾽ ἀποδόσθαι πολ] λῶν ἡμερῶν ἐδύναϊντο. ἐπε ε]δ ἡ] τί οἴϊνυν μεθ᾽ [ὑ]μῶν φ[εὐύ]γων Δυσίας ἰῴχ]ετο καὶ
μετ[ὰ] τοῦ ὑμ[ετ]έρου πλήθους κατῆλθεν, κελευουσῶν τῶν συνθηκῶν τὰ μὲν πεπραμένα τοὺς ἐωνημένους
ἔχειν, τὰ δὲ ἄϊπ]ρατα τοὺς κατελθόντας [κ]ομίζεσθαι, οὗτος οὔτε γῆν [οὔ]τ᾽ οἰκίαν κεκτημένος, [a] Kal at
συνθῆκαι τοῖς κα[τεΪλθοῦσιν ἀπεδίδοσαν, [ἐὰ]ν δὲ {μὴ ἢ) ἀποδάσῖι...
“νος and sold the property for 70 talents, which property they were unable either to
realize or to sell within a long period. So when Lysias departed with you into exile
and returned with your democracy, the treaty enjoining that buyers should keep their
purchases, but the returned exiles should recover what was unsold, he, not having obtained
either land or house, which even the treaty restored to the returned exiles, or if it
did (not ?) restore .. .’
δ,
Fr. 4. μετὰ τα[ῦτα] τοί νυ]ν, ὦ ἄνδρες δικασταί, τὸ ἥμ]ισυ τῆς τιμῆς ἠξίζου mapa Λυσίου λαβεῖν,
λέγων] τὰς ἑαυτοῦ συμφοϊρ]άς, ὥσπερ τούτου θησαυϊρ)ὸν Ἶ ἐπὶ τῶν τριάκοντα [εἸδρηκότος ἀλλ᾽ οὐκ
ἀπολωἸλε]κότος τὰ ὄντα. διαγαϊναϊκτοῦντος δ᾽ αὐτοῦ καὶ [χαλεπῶς φέροντος πρὸς...
‘Afterwards then, gentlemen of the jury, he claimed to receive half the price from
Lysias, recounting his own misfortunes, as if Lysias had discovered a treasure in the time of
the Thirty and not lost his property. Lysias being indignant and unwilling to submit
᾽
Fr. 5. δεινὸ]ν γὰρ ἂν εἴη ὦ ἄνδρες δικ]ασταί, [εἰ κ]ατήλθε(τεν μ[ ἐν ὡς ἀδ[ ικ]ούμενοι, τῶν δὲ ὄντων
[ἀἸποστερεῖσθε ὡς ἀδικοῦιυτεἧς. καίτοι] δικαίως ἂν [ὀργίζοίσθε τοῖς ἐωνημένοιϊς τὰ ὑμέτερα ἐν ταῖς
τοι[αὐταις συμφοραῖς. mpa|roly μὲν γὰρ οἱ τριάκοντα οὐδὲν ἂ]ν ἐπώλουν εἰ οἱ [ὠνησόμ]ενοι μὴ
3
ἧσαν.
‘It would be monstrous, gentlemen of the jury, that you should come back from exile
as the injured parties, and yet be deprived of your property as if you were the wrongdoers.
You might, however, justly be angry with the purchasers of your property in times of such
misfortunes ; for in the first place the Thirty would not have been offering anything for sale
unless there had been intending buyers.’
Fr. 6. i-iii. ὑμῖν [δὲ περὶ ὃ] τούτων ἐπιτρέποϊ μεν ἀἸκούσαντας τὰ Availa καὶ “Ππποθέρσῃ πεπρα-
[γμέν]α ὁποτέραν βούλεσθε [κρίσιν 9] ( ?) πράγματος ψηφίσασθαι] περὶ τούτων ὁπόϊ(τεγρος βελ]τίων dv
περὶ τὴν [ἡμετέρ]αν πόλιν τυγχάΪνει. δέοϊμαι δ᾽ ὑμῶν ἀκοῦσαι, ἵνα κἸ)αὶ οὗτος ὑμῖν δόξας χρ]ηστὸς εἶναι
mpobv| μῆται ἐπὶ τοῦ λοιποῦ, καὶ ὁ [Ἱπποθέρ]σης ἀκούσας τὰ ἱπροσήκ]οντ᾽ αὐτῶι βελτίζων τὸ λοιπὸν ἧ.
ὅτ[ 1] μὲν [οὖν ἡ... .1α Λυσί[. ... ὑμῖν ΒΤ τ ν 7επ|. παἸντεϊλῶς ? δῆλο]ν. ea[s| μ[ ἐ]ν γὰρ ὑϊμεῖς
ηὐδα)ιμονεῖτε πλουσιώτατος ἦ]ν τῶν μέτοιϊκων, ἐπειδ]η δὲ συμφορὰ ἐγένετο] ἐπέμενεν, [ovde γ]ὰρ
ἐλάχιστον μέρος τῶν ὑμε]τέρων δυστιϊχιῶν.... .Jucev, ἀνόμως [ὑπὸ τῶν τριάκοντα καὶ [ἀδελφοῦ καὶ]
χρημάτων πολλῶν area |repyplé|vols* ἐπεὶ δὲ φεύγων ᾧχετο, [ἐπικούρους] τριακοσίους ἔπεμψεν ?| εἰς τὴν
κάϊθοδον καὶ mlapéoxero χρήματά τε δ]ραχμὰς ἰδισχιλίας καὶ ἀσπίδας διακοσίας ... Θρασυδαῖον τὸν
"Hiei lov ἑξΐένο]ν ὄντα ἑαιΐτῷ] ἔπει[σεν] αὐτὸν δύο τάλαντα πἰαρ]ασχεῖν τ[έϊλη, καὶ ἀντὶ τ[οἠύτων
οὐδεμίαν Fa οὐδὲ δωρεὰν παρ᾽ ὑμ(ῶ)ν κεκόμισται. καὶ φεύγων μὲν τοιοῦτος ἦν, κατελθὼν δὲ οὐδένα
πάΪπ]οτε ᾿Αθηναίων ἐλύπησεν, οὔτε περὶ τῶν αὑτοῦ ἀϊν]αμιμνήσκων εὐεργ[εσιἸῶν οὔτε περὶ τῶν
ἀλλ[ο]τρίων ὀνειδίζων ἁμαρὶ τη]μάτων. νῦν δ᾽ ἀνάγκη περὶ αὐτοῦ λέγειν, ὑπὸ τοιούτου γὰρ φεύγει τὴν
1606. LYSIAS 67
δίκ[η]ν᾽ ὃς ἐπὶ μὲν τῶν τετραϊκο]σίων φεύγων ᾧχετο, ἐκ Δεκελείας δὲ ὁρμώμενος ple|ra τῶν πολεμίων ἐπὶ
τὴ]ν πατρίδα ἐστράϊτευσεν, οἱ δ]ὲ τῆς mddew|s ἐχθροὶ κατήγαἾ]γον αὐτὸν Kal] π[ολίτην ὑμέτερον ἐποίησαν.
ὥστ᾽, οἶμαι, πᾶσι δῆλον etvalc| ὅτι] μ[εἴο]ν νυνὶ φρονεῖ τῶν τειχῶν φκο]δομημένων [ἢ τῶν] τότε
καθῃρημένων, οὐδ᾽ ὁμ[ο]ίας ἐλπίδας ἔχει ἐπ[ὶ τα]ῖς ὑμετέραις εὐτυχ tats] καὶ συμφοραῖς, εἶτα πἰέλεος ὃ
dv [π]ολίτης, οὐδεϊπώπ]οτε αὐτῷ Panic οἰὐδὲ δι]ὰ τὴν ἡλικί[αἹν βελτίων γεγενημέιΪος,
συκοΪφαντεῖ τοὺς πολλ[οὺς με]θ᾽ ἃ ὑμᾶς εἰργά[ σατο... Λυσίαν δὲ χάριν] παρὰ τοῦ [δήμου ἀπολαμ]-
Bar{ew] (εὐγεργ[ εσίαν] τὴν μεγίστ[ην πεποιηκότα. δέομαι ob |v ὑμῶν, ὦ ἄνδρες δικασταί, ἀποψηφίσασθαι
Λυσίου μεμνημένους καὶ τί οἰύτου κ[αὶ] τῶν ἄλλων τῶν εἰ[ρ]ημένων. εἰ δὲ μη]. τίς ἔσται τούτου ἀνθρώπων
δυστυχέστερος, εἰ τὰ [μὲν] αὐτοὶ βίᾳ λήψονται, τὰ] δ᾽ ὑμεῖς δώσετε; ἢ τίς τούτων εὐδαιμονέστερος Ἶ, εἰ
μὴ μόνον τῶν [τότ]ε πραχθέντων συγγνώμην αὐτοῖς ἕξετε, [ἀλλὰ] καὶ νυνὶ περὶ ὧν [ἂν εἰς ὑμᾶς εἰσίωσιν
ὅσα] ἂν κελεύωσιν ψηφιεῖσθε ;
πρὸς ἹἹπποθέρσην ὑπὲρ θεραπαίνης.
. . . we leave it to you, after hearing the actions of Lysias and Hippotherses, to
give whichever verdict on the matter you choose with regard to the question which of the
two is the better citizen. And I beg you to listen, in order that both Lysias, having been
judged by you to have done his duty, may be still more zealous in the future, and
Hippotherses hearing the truth about himself may behave better.... For while you were
prosperous Lysias was the richest of the metoeci ; but when disaster came he stayed on; for he
did not in the least fail to share in your misfortunes, being illegally deprived by the Thirty of
both his brother and much money. When he left Athens in flight, he sent 300 mercenaries to
help in the restoration and provided both 2,000 drachmae in money and 200 shields . . . (and
going to) Thrasydaeus the Elean, who was his guest-friend, he persuaded him to provide
two talents in taxes, though in return for this he has never obtained any recompense or
favour from you.. Such was his behaviour in exile, while since his return he has never
given offence to a single Athenian either by recalling the benefits conferred by himself or by
making reproaches for the sins of others. But now it is necessary to speak about him, since
his accuser is a man of this character: in the time of the Four Hundred he took to flight,
and making Decelea his head-quarters fought with the enemy against his country; and it
was the foes of the city who restored him and made him your fellow-citizen. Hence it is,
I think, plain to all that he is now less pleased with the walls which were built than with the
walls which were then destroyed, and bases quite dissimilar hopes upon your good fortunes
and your disasters, and then being a full citizen, and never having repented or improved
through age, he slanders the democracy after what he has done against you . . . (it is just) that
Lysias should receive the thanks of the people for having conferred the greatest benefit upon
them. I entreat you therefore, gentlemen of the jury, to acquit Lysias, remembering both
this and the other arguments which I have used. Otherwise who in the world will be more
unfortunate than Lysias, if his opponents are to take part of his property by force and part
of it is to be given to them by you, or who will be happier than they, if you intend not only
to pardon them for their past misdeeds but also now, whatever proposals they may make to
you, to vote for all their demands ? Against Hippotherses on behalf of a maidservant.’
Fr. 6. iv—v, 7. [®ai|vera [δ] το]. [τ ae Ἰγου Θεόμνηστος ἱπρὸς ἢ] ὑμᾶς ἰσχ]εδὸν πᾶν
εν ν ἦναι. οὕτω yap διέθηκε ὃν ὥστε μὴ μόνον ἐπ])ιτρόπους εἶναι κε... ἀϊλλὰ κα]ὶ τὴν οὐσίαν
πο τος ὄν]τι δ᾽ ἑταίρῳ [Gco|ur[ qo |ro τριάκοι τ]α μνᾶς ἔδωκα, δίκην δέον ἐκτῖσαι Θ]εοζοτίδῃ πρὶν
δῦναι τὸν ἥλιον, εἰ δὲ μή, ὑπερήμερον εἶναι. δοὺς δὲ ὥσπερ εἰκὸΪς] ἄν[ ε]υ μαρτύρων, ἀποστ| ]ρούϊμ]ενος
ἀναγκάζομαι δικάζεσθαι. Θεόμνηστος δὲ πρὸ τοῦ μὲν ἦν μοι φίλος καὶ ἑταῖρος, νυνὶ δὲ πεισθεὶς ὑπὸ τῶν
ἐμῶν ἐχθρῶν ταῦτά τε πράττει καὶ ἄλλο ὁτιοῦν ἂν εἰς ἐμὲ [ἐϊτγόλμησεν. πρὶν dé ταύτη]ν ἡμῖ]ν τὴν
δ[ιαφορ]ὰν γενέσθαι, οὔτε ἠϊνώχλη]σα οὔτε ἀπήτησα [τὸ ἀργ)ύριον, ovde . . . (]. 293) - - - τὴν ἀνάγκην
12244 σεως οὐδ᾽ αὐτὸς ar... «Ἶτει. ἀνάγκη δ᾽ αἰϊτῷ], εἰ μὴ map’ ἐμοῦ τὸ ἀργύ]ριον ἔχει, δυοῖν
θἄτ]ερον,] ἢ παρ᾽ ἑτέρου alo |x| eww εἰληφέναι ἢ αὐτὸν τὸ πᾶν ἢ] ἐκτετικέναι τῷ [Θεοζο]γίδῃ. εἰ μ[ἐὴν
F 2
‘
68 THE OXYRHYNCHGUS! PAPYRI
oliver] παρ᾽ ἑτέρου φήσει [εἰληφέναι] καπΪ.. XL 315) παρ᾽ ἐμο[ Ὁ) εἶ oe) eres 7σεν τοῦ συνει[δό]το[ς
.| τὴν ἀπυρίαν ὀκυ εῖν δεηθῆ ναι, mlapa| δὲ τῶν μηνυσόνταν] τοῖς ἐχιθ]οῖο lis ἀξιοῦν δανείζ ε Ἶσθαι.
Kal ἤτοι πῶς] εἰκὸς τὰ μὲν ἐμὰ ἑτέροις συνεκδίδί οσθαι, αὐἸτῷ δὲ παρ᾽ ἑτέρων δανείζεσθαι]; ὡς δ᾽
ov . [..|ros nglio| σ[ε]ν αὐτῷ pl..| ὄντος παρ᾽ ἑτέρου Barlei|fecOar μέγα ‘alt Ἵν τεκμήριον ἐρῶ. ὅτε] γὰρ
[ἐἶχο pn yet ay, ἱδράϊσι [eis Allaptants παΐ... - xed [iJas δραχμὰς . . . μι]σθὸν διέλυσε... . (1. 338)
πρὸς μὲν οὖν τὸ παρ᾽ élrép[olu φάσκειν εἴληφε; ταῦτα λέγω: apie Ass ] . ovTOs ἀργυρίου .. ..
ὑμᾶς τὸν Θεόϊμνηστον évt |edOev χρὴ [ἐξετάζειν ὃ πῶ]-» εἰκός ἐστιν ape: Sidhe OE |s ἀργυρίου me| p |ud| εἰν]
ἑϊαυ]τὸν εἰς τὸν ἔσχαΪτον] κίνδ[υ Ἶνον ἐλθόντα kali το] ταύτην [8] vapey ἐπιϊ δεῖξαι τοῖς ἐχθροῖς ; καὶ (is)
οὕτω] σφόδρα én|é|\rpere τῇ [τ]ύχῃ, εἰ [κα i τί ἐξαίφνης [ἔϊπαθεν, ὥστε περὶ τὸ σῶμα ἅμα καὶ τὸν
βίον ἀναγκασθῆναι παθεῖν εἰς τοῦτ ο προ nko\vra εἰ ἔδυ [ὁ] ἥλι[ος] ὑπερημέρου ὄντἰος ; κ]αὶ [ον οὕτως
ἀνόητος ὅστἰ ἧς [αὑτὸν παρασκευάζεται ὑπὸ τοῖς ἐχἰ θ]ροῖς γενέσθαι ; [i τί; οὕτως ἄφρων ὅστις.
... As he was my associate, I gave Theomnestus 30 minae, when he was aie to
pay a penalty to Theozotides before sunset or else become liable for default. Having given
him the money naturally without witnesses and being defrauded of it, 1 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 . . . (I. 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 excessive trust in fortune, even if suddenly he became possessed,
that he was obliged to endanger his body and life as well, 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. συκ]οφαυΊτ: cf. ΧΙ]. 5 ἐπειδὴ δ᾽ οἱ τριάκοντα πονηροὶ μὲν καὶ συκοφάνται ὄντες εἰς THY ἀρχὴν
κατέστησαν, to which ll. 2-4 were probably similar.
5. οὗτος means Lysias, as apparently throughout the fragments of this speech; cf.
ll. 43, 81, 144, 225. His opponents are spoken of as οὗτοι in Il. 32 and 229, while τούτων
in ]. 140 refers to both Lysias and Hippotherses. The letter following ovros can be
Ύ; ¢ OF 7.
8. [Πολεμαρχον is rather long for the lacuna, but seems necessary; cf. the next ἢ. and
ΧΙ]. 17 564.
9-10. την [ovoraly αφειλοντο: cf. ll. 29, 162, and Plut. Vit. Lys. 8356 τῶν τριάκοντα
παραλαβόντων τὴν πόλιν ἐξέπεσεν... ἀφαιρεθεὶς τὴν οὐσίαν καὶ τὸν ἀδελφὸν Πολέμαρχον. [οικιαὶν
could be read both here and in ]. 29 (οἴ. ]. 44), but is unsuitable; for Lysias with his brother
owned three houses (xii. 18), and the price mentioned in ]. 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
11. ev Πειραιει : according to xii. 17 Lysias went to Megara from Athens, and Plut.
op. cit. 835f states διῆγεν ἐν Μεγάροις. 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, ep. 3274.
11-12. nétlov: cf. 1. 78.
12-13. anlope|plecOar: OF αὐακομιζἼεσθαι ; οἵ. κ[ομιζεσ θαι in 1. 16. ay.| or αι. could also
be read, and the verb may be intransitive; but possibly ra eavrov, which in ], τό has a line
above it, was added in the margin of ll. 12-13.
16-17. κ[ομιζεσἾθαι: cf. 1. 43 and 12-13, n. The omission of ta eavrov here is no
improvement, unless the words had been inserted in the margin of ll, 12-13.
17-18. Neither Nicostratus nor Xenoc[les] is known from other sources.
20. aom|5: Lysias had a shield-manufacturing business ; cf. xii. 19 and Plut. op. cz.
835f, quoted in ll. 163-71, n.
29. ovo|iav: cf. 1]. g-10,n. ovo... σ]υλ]ληφ[θεισαν αξἾιαν | δε is possible.
30. εβδ᾽ ομηκο͵ντα : the first letter might be o or ὦ, and the traces of the second and
third are very doubtful, but unless there was another word before the number, εβδ[ομηκο]ντα
is preferable to e.g. εξ [και τριακοΊντα.
31. [απεδοῖντο is far from certain, especially since « or ὦ can be read in place of ν, so
that the subject might be singular. If [ameSo|yro is right, the subject seems to be the Thirty
Tyrants as contrasted with ovr in 1, 32, which refers to Hippotherses and his associates.
32. aplauola: i.e. ἐξαργυρίσαι : cf. the contrast between ἀφανής and φανερὰ οὐσία in the
fragment of this speech quoted on p. 48.
35-6. Cf. 1. 163.
38-44. For οὗτος meaning Lysias οἱ... 5, n. The context does not suit the reference
of οὗτος to Hippotherses, though there may be only a short gap between ll. 48 and 76; cf.
int. p. 49.
47. This line seems to be corrupt, though αἰ.] (but not a{vt| or any other letter than
αἰ) can be read in place of é[e]. Α dittography of av de is the simplest hypothesis, buc there
may well be an omission of μη before αποδω] σ]ι, and possibly [|v δε av (un) αποδω[ σ]ι should
be read.
48. The letter before pa can be s, but φαν]ερα is possible ; cf. int. p. 48.
83. [ε]υρηκοτος suits the space better than [η]υρηκοτος : in 1. 153 the spelling of nvda|ipoverre
is uncertain.
86. [χαλεΐπως φεροντος : cf. ΧΙΧ. 50.
89. |vdov: olv rou is less suitable, and lepov|ypov (cf. Lys. Fr. 123 quoted on p. 48) is
inadmissible.
92-3. Bworaldqv?: Σωσια (genitive) or Σωσιαίνακτα is possible; but cf. Fr. 64, where
αναισχυνΐτος ΣωσἼιαδης can be restored in ll. 736-7. παραλαβων [rov αναισχυν͵τον Sacral bn.
could even be read here. Fr. 75, where Σω]σιαδηΐ is not unlikely in 1. 781, may also refer
to this person.
93-4. δαἼνειστην should perhaps be restored in 1. 93, but |v εἰς την n||mepav την] συγκειμεῖ-
ἴνην is possible.
102. This line is in the same position in the column as _l. 92.
113-18. Cf. xxxiv, 11 δεινὸν γὰρ ἂν εἴη, ὦ (ἄνδρες ᾿Αθηναῖοι, εἰ ὅτε μὲν ἐφεύγομεν ἐμαχόμεθα
Λακεδαιμονίοις ἵνα κατέλθωμεν, κατελθόντες δὲ φευξόμεθα ἵνα μὴ μαχώμεθα.
11g. [οργιζοι]σθε: cf. xii. 30, 80, 90. With τοῖς ewvype|vor|s ra vperepa cf. ll. 510-11.
124-5. Perhaps εἤπειτα.
127-8. ras συ]νθηΐκας τε καὶ τους νομους could be read, but is contrary to Lysias’ use
of re. ras (or των) συ]νθηΐκαις (Or -κων) κατα το]υς vouous is more likely.
129. ακηἤκοατε: i.e. in Il. 38 544. probably.
70 THE ΟΧΥΒΔΗΥΝΟΠΗΟΞ ΡάΑρΡυδβι᾽
129-35. Either ἡ] in 1. 129 ΟΓ. «ας in 1. 130 is likely to belong to ἡμας, which is
expected about this point, being perhaps contrasted with τΊου[ς] αντιδιίίκους in Il. 133-4. If
there was a pause after avridi{xous, the next sentence may have begun myles [row] υμιν. In
view of the stop, however, at the end of |. 132, τ]ου[ς] avridi[kous may be connected with what
follows, and mean both parties to the suit, not Lysias’ adversaries. υμιν in 1. 134 clearly
goes with emer pemrc| fev : cf. Plato, Apol. 35 ἃ ὑμῖν ἐπιτρέπω . ... κρῖναι. There is room for [δε περι]
before τούτων in ]. 135, but περι rovrwy occurs shortly after in |. 140.
139. [kpow]: cf, XXV. 10 οὕτως yap ἂν δικαιοτάτην (τὴν) κρίσιν περὶ αὐτῶν ποιοῖσθε. For
ἰγνωμην] there is not room. περι tov would be expected before mpayparos, but since περι
τουτων occurs in the next line, the sentence would be improved by the omission of mpayparos.
141. There seems to have been an omission of τε at the beginning of this line, as in’
] 115.
144-5. Cf, xxv. 17 ὅστις yap τότε οὐδὲν ἐξήμαρτον. . ., ἦ που viv σφόδρα προθυμήσομαι
χρηστὸς εἶναι. δοίξας or δοίκων seems to be inevitable, for the letter before o is more like ὃ
than Δ, which is the only alternative.
148. [mpoonk|ovr: OF [συμφερΊοντ.
149. It is not certain that the space (the width of a letter) between m and or|:] was
blank, the surface of the papyrus being damaged. Whether μὲν had a δὲ answering to it is
not clear, and perhaps μενΐϊτοι should be read.
150. υἿμιν: or ηἹμιν.
155-6. Cf. xii. 43 ἐπειδὴ δὲ ἡ ναυμαχία καὶ ἡ συμφορὰ τῇ πόλει ἐγένετο.
157-9. Cf. xii. 20 οὐδὲ κατὰ τὸ ἐλάχιστον μέρος τῆς οὐσίας ἐλέου... ἐτυγχάνομεν, xlil. 22
μετῆν yap ἂν καὶ ἐμοὶ τούτου τἀγαθοῦ οὐκ ἐλάχιστον μέρος, and especially xviil. 2 τῶν μὲν κακῶν οὐκ
ἐλάχιστον αὐτὸς μετέσχε μέρο. The v of Ἶυσεν in®l. 159 is fairly certain. A verb meaning
‘avoided’ is expected, but ep|vyev cannot be read.
160-2. Cf. ll. 8-10, nn.
163-71. Cf. Plut. op. cit. 835 f ἐπιθεμένων δὲ τῶν ἀπὸ Φυλῆς τῇ καθόδῳ, ἐπεὶ χρησιμώτατος
ἁπάντων ὥφθη, χρήματά τε παρασχὼν δραχμὰς δισχιλίας καὶ ἀσπίδας διακοσίας πεμφθείς τε σὺν
Ἕρμᾶνι ἐπικούρους ἐμισθώσατο τριακοσίους, δύο τ᾽ ἔπεισε τάλαντα δοῦναι Θρασυδαῖον τὸν ᾿Ἠλεῖον, ξένον
αὐτῷ (better αὑτῷ) γεγονότα, which is clearly based upon the present passage, not, as
Blass (op. cat. p. 339) supposed, upon the speech περὶ τῶν ἰδίων εὐεργεσιῶν (cf. 1]. 177-- 1.}.
A shorter verb than εμισθωσατο seems to have occurred in ]. 165, though cf. xii. 59 ἐπικούρους
μισθοῦσθαι. With the spelling τ[εἤληι in Il. 170-1 cf. ἀναγκηι as the nominative in Il. 181—2.
173. map υμιν: the traces of « are very slight, but there is not room for ὑμῶν, which is
what Lysias probably wrote (cf. ll. 216-19, n.), though later writers, e.g. Dio Cass. Exc.
Ῥ. 66. 34, often use the dative with παρά in place of the genitive.
177-9. The speech πρὸς Ἱπποθέρσην was probably delivered before that περὶ τῶν ἰδίων
εὐεργεσιῶν, of which the contents and date are unknown.
178. αἰν]αμνημισκων: for μνημίσκειν, Which appears as a form of μιμνήσκειν in the Roman
period, but is not likely to have been used by Lysias himself, cf. Porphyr. V2. Plotint 13 ἐν
δέ τισι λέξεσιν ἁμαρτάνων, οὐ yap ἂν εἶπεν ἀναμιμνήσκεται ἀλλὰ ἀναμνημίσκεται, and P. Hamburg
37. 4 (2nd cent.) μνημίσκεσθαι, quoted by W. Schmid in Berl. Phil. Woch. 1914. 1568.
184. emt μεν Tov TeTpa| ko σιων: i.e. at the fall of the Four Hundred, when several of the
leaders escaped to Decelea; cf. Thuc. viii. 98.
191-4. That two originally separate fragments, one attributed to the middles of
ll. 192~3, the other (Fr. 80) to the ends of ll. 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᾽ ἂν αὐτὸν οἶμαι μετὰ Θεμιστοκλέους πολιτευό-
μενον προσποιεῖσθαι πράττειν ὅπως οἰκοδομηθήσεται τὰ τείχη, ὁπότε καὶ μετὰ Θηραμένους ὅπως
1606. LYSIAS 71
καθαιρεθήσεται, and xiv. 39 ἢ τῶν τειχῶν καθηρημένων ἀγανακτεῖ. ‘The first letter of μ[ειοὴν is,
however, very uncertain, y, 7, 1, *, ¥, 7, or r being equally possible. οτίει o|u{oro|v could be
read instead of οτ[ι μ[ειο]ν, with καὶ instead of ἡ in 1. 196 (which as it stands is rather short) ;
but this does not combine well with ovd opu[olas ελπιδας in 1. 198. τῶν τειχὼν κτὰ. Seems to
be a genitive absolute.
201. wv: The first letter can be 7, «, or , but hardly v.
203. perapeAn|caly: cf. the use of the present participle absolutely in Isocr. 382 c and
Plato, Phaedo 1144.
τς φορῆ. εἰργαϊσἸαΐτο : expyalo|r[ac is inadmissible. The next word may have been kaka,
212-13. Perhaps πενΐτηκοντα ταλαν των.
216-19. Though the remains are scanty, the general sense is fairly clear; but in], 217
Bav{ would be expected to end the line, and there is certainly not room for both ew and ev
after it. Avo av cannot be read. For χαριν) παρα του ἰδημου απολαμβαιΪειν cf. 1. 172 and
XX. 30 χάριν παρ᾽ ὑμῶν ἀπολαμβάνειν.
230. The cancelling of περι is supported by x. 2 συγγνώμην ἂν εἶχον αὐτῷ τῶν εἰρημένων :
but cf. ix. 22 ὑπὲρ τῶν περιφανῶν ἀδικημάτων συγγνώμην ποιεῖσθε, and xix. 56 περὶ δὲ τοῦ πατρὸς
οὖς συγγνώμην ἔχετε.
239-46. [δια του] λοΐγου τουΐτου is unsatisfactory, for the slight traces after του] do not
suit Ao, and if the letter preceding |rov were v, the tail of it would rather be expected to be
visible. [δια ro[v] τουΐτου Aolyov 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. [δια το[υ]
αγίωϊνος τουτου is possible, but we have not been able to restore the whole passage satis-
factorily. ειρηκεῖναι could be read in |. 242, but like λοίγου is not appropriate, and διε[θηκεὶν
in ll. 242-3 is rather short. With en |irporous and ovovay in ll. 244-5 οἴ ll. 267-8. The
vestige of a letter at the end of 1. 244 suggests ε, ε, or v. κεΐλευει αἶλλα is too long.
249. ΘἸεοδοτιδηι: cf. 1. 300. He is not likely to be the same person as the Θεοζοτίδης
against whom lix was directed, for the fragments of that speech in P. Hibeh 14 are
concerned with a γραφὴ 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 Θεοζοτίδης
χορηγὸς τραγῳδῶν mentioned by Dem. xxi. 59. With regard to the spelling, Θεοζοτίδης is the
only form recognized in the Prosopogr. Ait.; but Θεοσδοτίδης or Θεοδοτίδης is commonly
found in Byzantine MSS.
266. ...|v: or ἐπε͵ι.
267-8. Cf. ll. 244-5.
269. The letter preceding ro may be or ὦ.
270. ja can be read in place of |v.
271. Perhaps τοῖτς, unless o|re was written twice by mistake. γε is the only alternative
tO Te.
272. avev μ]αρτυρων : cf. 1. 252.
275. moo? |ypevos: ἡ, τ, or ω can be read instead of v. .
276. Cf. xil. 35 ἦ που σφᾶς αὐτοὺς ἡγήσονται περιέργους ὑπὲρ ὑμῶν τηρουμένους.
293-4. Probably απαιτηἼσεως or arodo|cews.
294-5. αἰζτιλεΐγει cannot be read without altering the text, though it is the word
expected.
297. dvow θατΐερον : cf. vi. 8, ΧΙ], 34.
302-3. Possibly [ειληφεῖναι ουἹκ απί.
312. The letter before τόκον might be , but is apparently not ν.
317-18. olkr[ew] δεηθηναι : cf. 1. 335, where these words seem to recur. But the o is
lower in the line than would be expected and there might be one or two letters lost after it.
The letter following «, if not ν, is p.:
72 THE OXYRHYNCHUS PAPYRI
320. The ἐχθροί are those of Theomnestus (cf. 1. 349), not those of the plaintiff (1. 258).
322. The ν of μεν is corrected from μ.
325—6. Possibly οὐκ [av|ros: ovx [ou|ros is not a satisfactory reading. The last three
letters of αὐτῶι are very doubtful, but the following μ is nearly certain, so that πίαρίοντος
and ¢[é|ovros are excluded.
330-2. Cf. xxi. 2 ἔτι δ᾽ ἀνδράσι χορηγῶν εἰς Διονύσια... ἐνίκησα καὶ ἀνήλωσα σὺν τῇ τοῦ
τρίποδος ἀναθέσει πεντακισχιλίας δραχμάς. ad}\Aas δραχΐμας 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. ll. 317-18,n. δὲ εἶ could be read. If δεηΐθηναι is right, the next word may be
TONITE.
337. Cf. ll. 246 and 256-7.
338-40. Cf. ll. 298-300.
344-5. The word or words before ἀργυρίου may well have ended ovjro|s, corresponding
to ll. 340-1. u{wapxov|ro|s is inadmissible.
348. em[dle€ar: or επί .7ηξαι, which suggests no suitable word, though επι[δ]ηξαι may
have been written for επι[δ]ειξαι, as perhaps in 1. 738. [8]vvapw is also difficult, but the ν of
[δΊυν is almost certain.
349. That us has been omitted before ουτζω] is clear from ll. 356-7. For ovr[a] σφοδρα
cf. ll. 418-19.
350. Cf. ii. 79 οὐκ ἐπιτρέψαντες περὶ αὐτῶν τῇ τύχῃ.
351-6. As the text stands, there is no construction for the infinitive ἀναγ[κασθἤηναι in
1. 353 and no verb for wore in 1]. 355. The simplest course is to transpose wore to 1. 352
after [εἼπαθεν, bat the corruption may go deeper; 6. g. ware εἰ edu [0] ηλι[ος] ὑπερημερου ort os
may be transferred to 1. 352, or wore may be inserted there and a verb added for the second
wore. For ets τουτῖο πρ]ο]ηκο͵ντα cf. Dem. xxviii. 5.
362-3. Perhaps v||yov or (ο)υΐϊτως.
367. Fr. 13 is perhaps to be placed immediately above Fr. 8, so that the stroke visible
under the μ of Joua in 1. 437 represents the stroke lost above [es in 1. 367.
370-2. These lines apparently began more to the left than 1]. 368-9.
377-80. Cf. xxxi. 14 ὡς οὖν @ke τε ἐν Ὡρωπῷ.. . . ἀκούσατε τῶν μαρτύρων. μάρτυρες. Here
the mention of μάρτυρες comes first. ;
387. την] ναυν: cf. 1. 369. :
389. προς ]. υλιον: or possibly |. vAny or ]..aovor]..vov. πρὸς ᾿Αρμόδιον, π. ᾿Αρχῖνον, and
π. Χυτρῖνον are titles of lost speeches of Lysias; but Αρίμοδιον cannot be read, and the speech
π. ᾿Αρχῖνον was concerned with Lysias’ citizenship, which is clearly foreign to the subject of
Frs. 8-9. Of the speech 7. Xurpivov only one fragment is extant, which is concerned with
an assault, and the vestiges do not suit Χυΐγρινον. Fr. 20 possibly belongs to this line; but ᾿
cf. int. pp. 48-9.
397. Possibly Δυΐσιας in some form ; but cf. int. p. 48.
410. There was perhaps a blank space after adda, indicating the end of a line.
416. It is not certain whether a letter has been obliterated after ovra, or there was
a blank space before the vestige of the next letter, which might be a, i.e. αδικα «| or a δικαί.
ὦ δικασῖται could be read, but Lysias regularly uses ὦ ἄνδρες δικασταί.
418-20. Cf. Il. 349 sqq. It is, however, unlikely that Fr. 11 belongs to the speech
against Theomnestus.
436-8. ΟΕ]. 367, n.
440-1. εφα]σκε: Fr. τό, in which 1. 449 ends Ἰεῴα, may well belong to the ends of
]. 440 and the two preceding lines.
447-9. Cf. the previous ἢ.
1606. LYSIAS . 73
456. Possibly, but not very probably, κατα Θεομνηστου: cf. int. p. 48. The two
extant orations κ᾿ Θεομν. are distinguished as a’ and β΄. There is a blank space above and
below Ἰτου.
457. Cf. 1. 389, n. There is a blank space above προς ἷ, but the lower margin is
broken away.
458. The blank spaces above and below this line indicate a title. Ὑπὲρ. Φανίου παρα-
νόμων was the title of a speech of Lysias according to Athenaeus xii. 551d, who quotes
a long extract from an invective against Cinesias, a writer of dithyrambs and comedies, this
being one of the two speeches πρὸς Κινησίαν mentioned by Harpocration. The speech xara
Θεοζοτίδου was also concerned with παρανόμων (cf. 1. 249, n.), and Blass (0p. εἴ. 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 ame{. There is a space below]. 460, but none
between Il. 459-60, such as is found elsewhere between the last line of a speech and the
title ; possibly therefore mpoo[.] .[ is a heading like μάρτυρες, and not a title. The vestige
of a letter would suit y, 7, «, «, #, ν, π, τ, Or v, and the lacuna between it and zpos, if not
blank, is likely to have contained ο, since any other letter ought to have left visible traces.
No speech of Lysias πρὸς O[. .. is known, and there is no reason to connect this fragment
with the title of civ περὶ τῆς ᾿Ονομακλέους θυγατρός.
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 πολλὰς πίστεις αὐτοῖς ἔργῳ δεδωκώς, and 1. 716, where πισίτις perhaps
recurs.
481. Apparently not δηΐλονοτι.
483. Ἶηρεν καλουΐ : or |yp ἐνκαλουΐμεν : in which case ]ηρ is probably not the beginning of
a line.
490. σωτί : Σωσίιαδηι (cf. 1]. 92-3, n.) is inadmissible.
493. BeBale: cf. 1. 602 BleBao and Lys. Fr. 310 (from Harpocration) βεβαιώσεως δίκης
ὄνομά ἐστιν ἣν δικάζονται οἱ ὥνησάμενοί τι τῷ ἀποδυμένῳ, ἂν ἕτερος μὲν ἀμφισβητῇ τοῦ πραθέντος, ὁ δὲ
μὴ βεβαιοῖ. ἐνίοτε καὶ ἀρραβῶνος μόνου δοθέντος εἶτα ἀμφισβητήσαντός του ἐλάγχανε τὴν τῆς βεβαιώ-
σεως δίκην ὃ τὸν ἀρραβῶνα δοὺς τῷ λαβόντι. Λυσίας ἐν δυσὶ λόγοις. αμφ]ισβητὶ occurs in 1. 604
and ἀμφιίσβητει 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. ie .[: Ἰερίωνυμος (cf. Lysias Fr. 123 and p. 48) might be restored, but cf. the
previous n.
506-11. Cf. Il. 118-20 καιτοι] δικαιως αν [οργιζοι]σθε τοις εωνημεΐνοι]ς τα ὑμετερα and
XXXi. 33 μόνος δὴ... δικαίως οὐδ᾽ ἂν ἀγανακτοίη μὴ τυχών. Fr, 26 may well belong to the speech
πρὸς Ἱπποθέρσην, but the proposed restoration of Il. 506-7 makes those lines shorter than
usual by one or two letters, and em των πατριων seems to be a mistake for em rors πατίριοις:
cf. i. 1 ἐπὶ τοῖς γεγενημένοις ἀγανακτοίη.
520-9. Fr. 28 probably joins Fr. 29; cf. the next ἢ.
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 amode|, and αποδειίξω [rlow{vy αἼυτον would be expected; but the traces of the letter
following £ suggest no other vowel than a, and αποδειξα[ι or αποδειξαΐς is difficult to construct.
The o of οι. in 1. 534 is nearly certain, but the next letter might be v and the third is quite
doubtful.
74 THE -OXYRHYNCHUS PAPYRI
536. The left-hand part of the τ of ra is missing, and there is no external evidence for
τ being the first letter of the line. There is certainly not room for a [av ajuro.
537-8. φεροιτο [την | [χαρι]ν is possible. Frs. 28-30 might belong to the speech πρὸς
Ἱπποθέρσην: cf. ll. 171-3.
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 of Ἰμφεσί in 1. 696 would belong to the bottom of the σ of Ἰσβητει 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 [. 4 jae - [. . wloAAa ηἡμαρ τ ΕΞ «λει (or |e ει) τις σοι (or τισι
οι) μηδεν | [.... κ]αθηκων pporti|. .. . ηΪμφεσβητει τωι, which remains obscure.
554. The letter following ἐ[ε]σεν seems to begin with a vertical stroke and not to be «.
559. dlayouevos: the middle of this verb is used by Plato, but not elsewhere by Lysias.
Ἰναγομενος can be read.
601-6. Cf. 1. 493, n.
641—7. It is not certain that Fr. 44 belongs to 1606.
648-53. Cf. ll. 333 a—41, n.
693-7. Cf. ll. 539-48, n.
716. Cf. Il. 472-4, n.
725. πλο)υσιωταῖΐτ: cf. ll. 153-4.
735. Ἰιδηξαι : the η is clear, but επ]ιδειξαι may be meant; cf. 1. 348, n.
736-7. For avacyw|ros Sao|adns cf. ll. 92-3, n. But Lysias made speeches πρὸς
᾿Αλκιβιάδην and πρὸς ᾿Αρχεβιάδην, and either of these twc names can equally well be supplied.
773-6. Cf. ll. 333 a—41, n.
781. For Σω]σιαδηΐ cf. 1]. 92-3, n.
785. Perhaps eb alla or Θεο[ζοτιδης (cf. 1. 249, n.).
8o1—4. Cf. ll. 191-4, n.
809-12. Whether this fragment belongs to 1606 is doubtful. There is no other
instance of a coronis in the papyrus.
829. Ja o Av[ovas can be read, in which case Fr. 87 would belong to the speech πρὸς
ἹἹπποθέρσην. ᾿
858-9. ΕἾ. [28 is probably to be placed to the left of Fr. 97 with a slight gap between
them, in which case the combined reading is ἱκαν ποτε ἐπε and ὦ αἾνδρες δικαΐσται.
865. Possibly |a o A{vovas; cf. 1. 829, n.
869. Possibly | Avo{ias; cf. J. 829, n.
934-5. Cf. ll. 858-9, n.
1607. HyPERIDES(?), For Lycophron.
Height 27:5 cm. [818 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 (1) 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 al] can be restored. The order
of the fragments is uncertain; but the similarity in colour and texture of Frs. 2—
12 suggests that they are to be placed near each other, and suitable positions have
1607. HYPERIDES(?), FOR LYCOPHRON 5
been found for Frs. 3 and 4 in combination with Frs. 2. ii and 5 respectively. That
Fr. 14 belongs to Fr. 2. ii is far from certain (cf. ll. 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 aline. 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. and v, a mark of elision
in 1. 230, and an accent inl. 455, are due to the original scribe, as are certainly most
of the corrections ; but the alterations in ll. 15, 71, 93, and 424 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 (ll. 28, 106,160 ?, and 287), but elsewhere is usually
called οὗτος. He was accused of adultery with a woman whose husband was ill
(ll. 180-8), the main subject of Fr. 1 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. ZLycophr. ὃ 5), is obviously identical with the
Dioxippus of 1607. 285, 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. § 2, while there is probably
a reference in 1607. 283 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 célébre
of about 340 B.C.
From the British Museum papyrus it is known that the proceedings against
Lycophron took the form of an εἰσαγγελία, which in the first instance was brought
before the δῆμος 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. εἰσαγγελίαι brought before the δῆμος, either directly or
through the agency of the βουλή, were usually tried by the whole δῆμος, 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, Aztisches 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 δῆμος, 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
work of Lycurgus, and there is some ὦ frzorz 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 δῆμος concerning Lycophron in addition
to the subsequent trial before the dicasts; but the employment of the phrase
ὦ ἄνδρες δικασταί in 1607. 221-2, not ὦ ἄνδρες ᾿Αθηναῖοι as in Lysias’ speech against
Ergocles, is irreconcilable with the hypothesis that the δῆμος as a whole was being
addressed. Lycurgus in his oration against Leocrates uses ὦ ἄνδρες, ὦ ᾿Αθηναῖοι
and ὦ ἄνδρες δικασταί indiscriminately, but in a speech delivered before dicasts, and
if Hyperides was the author of 1607 he must have written two’ orations for
. delivery at the same trial, one (the British Museum papyrus) spoken by Lyco-
phron, the other (1607) spoken either by the author himself or by a third person.
The British Museum oration concludes with an appeal from Lycophron to a certain
Theophilus to speak on his behalf, and it is to this speech, also composed by
Hyperides, rather than to a speech delivered by Hyperides in the first person, that
we are disposed to attribute 1607. This hypothesis is distinctly supported by
internal evidence. Hyperides was censured by several ancient critics, particularly
Hermogenes, for carelessness in his choice of λέξεις (cf. Blass, of. cit. iii. 25 sqq.),
and 1607 has several not strictly Attic expressions, which seem to be taken from
common life. Thus ἀπείπασθαι with an accusative (l. 28) and παρασιωπᾶν (1. 69)
are not attested before Polybius, nor is ἐγενήθη (1. 63, n.) with certainty before
Philemon. σῶμα in 1]. 32 and 76 is used in a manner approximating to its third
1607. HYPERIDES(?), FOR LYCOPHRON 77
century B.C. use as ‘slave’, and it is possible that διαλέγεσθαι in J. 97 is used
de concubitu, which would be exactly parallel to the rare use of διαλέγεσθαι in the
sense of πλησιάζειν ταῖς γυναιξί ascribed to Hyperides by Moeris, p. 195 (= Blass,
Fr. 171). That quotation, together with two similar references in Pollux to
Hyperides’ use of διειλεγμένος, is assigned by Blass to the oration περὶ Φρύνης, but
the Moeris quotation might even refer to the present passage. There are also
several other agreements with Hyperides in points of diction; cf. ll. 26, 71-3, 82,
86-8, 108, 111, 128, 220-3, nn.
Against the attribution of 1607 to Hyperides it may be urged that the
British Museum papyrus has the title at the end (ἀπολογία ὑπὲρ Λυκόφρονος)
without the addition a’ or β΄, and proceeds to the speech for Euxenippus, and the
ancient references to the speech for Lycophron (four in Pollux, one in Anti-
atticista in Bekker, Avecd. p. 97) do not mention morethan one. But the British
Museum papyrus contains only three selected orations, and since the quotations in
Pollux and Antiatticista from the speech for Lycophron do not occur in it, they
might even refer to 1607, not to that speech. If there were two speeches for
Lycophron, sometimes distinguished as a’ and β΄, the ignoring of that distinction
by Pollux and Antiatticista would be no more remarkable than the failure of
Harpocration in seven out of nine cases and of Suidas twice to state which of the
two speeches of Lycurgus they meant by κατὰ Λυκόφρονος. Moreover the title
of 1607 may have been something different from ὑπὲρ Λυκόφρονος β΄. Accord-
ing to Pseudo-Plutarch 849d Hyperides composed 77 speeches, of which 52
were genuine. The titles of nearly 70 are known, and none of these is at all
suitable for identification with 1607, except possibly a speech which is vaguely
described by Pollux as συνηγορικός. But the scholiast on Aeschines, De falsa leg.
§ 18, gives the number of Hyperides’ orations as 170, and though the figures
assigned by this scholiast to the speeches of the orators are in general less trust-
worthy than those of Pseudo-Plutarch, and in some cases (e. g. in regard to Lysias
and Isaeus) certainly corrupt, the figure 77 for Hyperides may well be too small,
while, even if correct, it leaves a small balance of unknown speeches, of which 1607
may have been one. That Athenian advocates sometimes composed two
orations for delivery by different speakers at the same trial is known from the two
extant orations of Lysias against Alcibiades, of which the second is not a reply
by the speaker of the first, and is not parallel to the second speech of Demosthenes
against Aphobus; cf. Blass, of. cit.i. 492. Though open to some difficulties, the
view that 1607 passed in Egypt as the composition of Hyperides offers the most
satisfactory explanation. Whether it was actually genuine is more doubtful,
in view of Pseudo-Plutarch’s rejection of one-third of the speeches assigned to
Hyperides. While the first oration of Demosthenes against Stephanus is
78 THE OXYRHYNCAHUS PAPYRI
generally regarded as authentic, the second is not; cf. Blass, of. czt. iii. 409 sqq.,
472-5. But against the hypothesis that 1607 is a later composition ascribed
to Hyperides must be set the apparent mention in ll. 218-20 of two individuals,
Anaschetus and Criton, who are known from an inscription of 340 B,C., the
approximate date of the British Museum speech.
We are indebted to Mr. Lobel and Dr. Hude for several good suggestions
in the restoration of this papyrus.
Fr: ἢ:
13 lines lost
[rovro|y δι[ο]ρυξαι τον
15 [τοιχοὴ]ν τη[5] προς {oly
[ανθρ]ωπον ομειλιας
[ἐνεῖκεν ουδαμως
[πιθανον ἐστιν" οὔτε
γα[ρ] ὡς {προς) Tous προτερον
20 auvTw. λειτουργουν
τας και πᾶν ο τι κελεὺυ
[ο] προθυμως ὕπομε
νοντας διηνεχθη
Col. i.
δεδηλωκεν: ovb o
25 Tk γενομενῆης προς
auTov αψιμαχιας
εκεινοι τὴν χρειαν
[αἸπειπαντο οθεν o Av
κοῴρων επι To Tov
30 τοιχοὸν διορυξαι κα
τηπίειχθ]η μηκετι
[Tov] σω[μ]ατων Ϊ.. .|
[- » οἸμοιως τέΐ. os «-
5 or 6 lines lost
21. v Of παν Corr.
Fr. 1. Col. ii (complete).
40 [. . «σθαι οὐκ av dw
υξε Tov τοιχον" πὸ
ἰ
[ρ]
[Oley yap ἀνθρωπος
ἰμ]ηδὲεν κατεπειγο
ἰμ]ενος αλλ ἐχὼν τὴν
ἱ
45 [εἸξουσιαν και Ta παρ ε
κεινης εἰδεναι και
Ta παρ αυτοὺυ λέγειν
[k]ac τίους ἢ΄. .]- ους ο
ΠΣ ΣΉ ΝΤΗΣ ] ποιεισθαι
Fr. 1. Col. iii (complete).
amep οὗτοι πίρουθεν ὃ
80 ro: νὺν δ εκ[ε]ιν[ο]ν μεν [
ewpov καθ] ὑπερβο
Anv ασθείνως δια
κειμεν[οἱν TavTny
δὲ τίην τ]ης οἰκίας
85 μίεϊλλουσαν κυριευ
εν πίο]λυ προ οφθαλ
μων ανελαμβα
νον pn παθοντος
τι τουτου τιμωριαν
90 ὕποσχωσιν ὧν ἂν
55
60
65
70
1607.
Ἐν" ]Π. ην επί. .].
eae rev τηλι
κοίυτος ὃ wy ουδεπο
περ πεν. Ὁ... Jato Kat
To[vT@e ουδεῖποθ o
Χρίεμης ? την] οἰκιαν 95
απίειπεν ?] Kat μὴν
αδυνατο]υ ye εἰχεν
ταξιν to τας θερα
παινας avTns προς
τουτον διαφερεσθαι: «τὰ
τις [γ]αρ av ουτῶς eye
νηθη θρασεια wore
ἡ Ta παρα τουτου
ρηθεντα' ἧτα παρα
τουτου ρηθεντα]}
ἢ Ta παρ εκεινης
προς Touvtov παρα
σιωπησαι τῆς ἴδιας
ρ
εχθας [εν]εκα' προ
[χ]είρος de] nv o κιν
ἰδυνος εἰ ἢ μ]εν yap
115
92. 1. [δ]ορυχθηναι.
Rie
Col. i (top).
το}... Ἰν συνοι
ies oo! vot κυρι 160
HYPERIDES (?), FOR LYCOPHRON
τεπίρα)ξαν" ovKovy
ουτίε δ)ιερυχθηναι
οι
τον τί υ]]χον ὕπο του
του πιθανον ουτε
εἰωθει καθαπε]ρ λεῖ
yet ταις θεραπαιναι;
διαλεγεσθαι" τίινος
yap ενεκεν" τι ἢ προς
[yee] αυτον τίαυτας
διενεχζθηναι εδει ὃ
ον φιλο[φρονεστερον ?
dn της ἰδεσποινης ?
προσφεΐρομενης av
o Δυκοφίρων .......
δον τον. 1:0 % a
καὶ oy ὙΠ. -τὖὖὐ.ὉὉ
Kateppov|noe......
Te TOP pels τ 1 1 2S es
ὕπελαβε klar
95- Second a of καθαπε]ρ corr. from o.
Col. ii (top) + Frs. 3 and 14?
(υ)μεις οἱ pil... .Jov δικα
ζοντεῖ[ς Avkogpolvos κα
79
80 THE OXYRHYNCHUS PAPYRI
120 Goa%. si. k se 1. ὡσιν" ταγνω [σε]σθε αλλ 9] εαν
rey ] + voee ye σωφρο]ν]Ἴητίε . - -] - [-]
Προ Ἰωτατὴν μη μονίον . . ..-
δ κεν: | παρὴη μους αλίλα και...
Dee ee Ἰμενηι" 165 wove, [wis τ xyes
MB τ ὁ: τίουτον VON sa avai aie hae
Beer ce τα: ar νότος
ΠΟ ec wots Jura 2 lines lost
[ie το Ὁ ] διαρρη r7o {. «Ἐσ]θδάε ». οἰ, cue
Be ον sp cae Irs mov [καθ ul...---.
130 [ 11 letters ]. εἰν avrexea[Oar ....
Marek.” τ fe πως mialvov ..t
Me ae ile CVAL τοῖς [elaine τον;
Ae + lexa 175 TOvVTA TOs sip tink
κε Aes 7 [σθαι μὲν ρος.
ἜΠΗ | 54 Ss 7 ΤῊ ἜΧΟΙ εις date ἢ
le A ae’: λικι[αἱν ταῖ. . « « «Ὁ
Γι" |. ar χωρησεῖ εἰς = oe
ἘΠῚ ΟΣ 1. Fae ρ
ἰ ΤᾺ 185 O° ἀπέπε]:- τὸς
χε: 1θο δι
ἔεσ αν ΤΉ] sce ΠΣ
Ι :
so 3» Ge 2] σῦν ae ee
[ 13 at lac ἢ
Ἐκ fev Touj....-.-
ἘΣ ore Ἶκα ἘΞ
Ἐν ὑϊ[π]ερ wv [....--
[ 1 » | ᾿
ΠΡ 3 185 σ[[ οΠ]ωφρονΐ τ σις
τ ᾧ : 5 ομολογείΪ. . - -
Fe ΚΕ eae υ ἐ
Ξ Kal yap εἰ τιξ ᾿- - -’
ae lo :
ee Tih. « -| TAB = =
[ I4 ”» ] © Η al ir ξ so
11 lines lost ee
190 av Onn[..-..---
ὃ
{τ 3: μίαν avatal....
σε ..[ κατ αὐτου 7|..--
200 Ἰκαθυΐ εἰπειν ἠξιαΐσ .. -
Πτῆεε μὲν εκ τίου ἢ δι
201
205
210
215
220
225
1607.
ἘΝ ΓΕΖ:
Ἰρί.1λὶ
Ἰεκτοί
Ino 6
Frs. 5 (top) + 4. Plate iii.
Topevoy .[..
. [1ησομενὴν [προς ὃ
[Tous συνπολιί[τευ
ομενους διαβοΐλην
τισιν ovy τεκμίη
ι
piolulls χρησαμεῖνος
τουτοὺυς κελευΐει
καταδικαζειν" χίρη
rake νη Διᾳ Ταῖς τῶν
κηδεστων μίαρτυ
ρ[αις Ανασχετίου
kat Θεομνηστίου και
Κριτωνος ας καλίως
εχὸν ἐστιν w aly
δρες δικασται pln
παρερ[γως] εξεῖτα
gat τὴν [γα]ρ οληῖν κα
τηγορι[αν] | εκ τοῖ..
HYPERIDES(?), FOR LYCOPHRON
195 εφθαρκενΐαι τὴν av
Opl[eJJoror [.....
Fr. 6 (top).
γαρ αν αυτί.....
κεινοὺυς TO... ss
230 08’ ovra Taf.....
[
235. 5 BFE abe arate ats
240
s/s) πραττέϊ......
[
[
[
{σ]τάναϊ", rs Tou Gs
[
[
[
245
250 γνω.
οὐ πο τὴς
82 THE OXYRHYNCAHUS PAPYRI
Ἰησαι" 260 σασθαΐι
τ ae Br τὸ:
pe 267 Ire
255 Τις " ς
ἣν πὶ ἡ}
1το xl Brat.
Jou ee | 269 | συνΐ
Fr. 13 (tops of cols.).
7 (οι. 1. Col. ii.
275 | [τωι Χ αἰριπΊπω[] την. [a
δελφηΐν els [ΟἸλυίϊμπιαν
] 285 αποδημησα τον Ale
i wginnloly stepave
Ἰεν σ[οῖντα τὴν πολιν: Av
289 Ἰπερί. Koppova de Tews μεν
Ee eee [λυΐπεμποντα επισῖτο
i eee 290 ἰλαὶς Aeyery [....... Ἰκει
ee ees ee Biren i.
ΠΥ: PES ache ΠΥ
Fr. 14 (top).
cg ae lov δικα
fs Sinisa ΞΘ lvos κα
S15 |. 6s neue peo] eae
Fr. 15 Fr. τό
Col. i Col. ii [
390 δον ΡΝ] ee ga φί
oe ae a ἘΣ συ εἶ
πος... 355 Bel
ature: . |... one υ Toul
55 ae Com π΄ Tal
335 Aoyol.......-- uy
272 Ἰοαχί
Ἰροσαῖ
Ἰεχί
Col. iii.
[-- 1
oa
295 θεν.Ϊ
emrev|
αἱ. Ἰτοῖ
Berar εἶ
3800 γασμί
= lines lost
1607. \HYPERIDES (),, FOR LYCOPHRON 83
τες KalOamep de ? πον . [
γε πε feats ss ὃς ε 360 παραδὶ Ετ. 19.
ὅς WRGTONRC «τ. των Ϊ 380 = da
Jo MAGE css. ... see Ta 7A. [ Ἰδε
|. 340 κοὺυς αχαΐ. ces nog le. [
Ja ΟὟ ἐσ τ whe, τ. Tan Ee
320 Jo ΠΟ | a τ. ἢ: 365 Aca
᾽.α POD ΚΟΙ τ τὸν are Ὁ Fr. 20
] eNEUUE| ple... Br τ: Fak
] 345 Ma]. [- «- Ὁ. τὐν εν lel 385 ἰαρί.] - [
] BAO Pain we Ἰσσί Ἰην μί
3285 πο a a ee ee 1 ἘΠ} |. εἰ τοῖς [
1 REG um aren dal 4 cao per Ἰσαν mi
] Trav Ἄν ae alae ae 370 μι. [ Ἰυτον εἶ
] 350 (ms «1... eee jo εσὶ 390 J. Ha.
| Upton (ete ates =, anaes. ee Ἰσαί Ἰταί
end of col.
Er 21. ἘΠῚ 22:
Col. i. Col. ii. en |
ieee. ] ποιησασ ] ὕπο τουΐ
π᾿... |riav γε πα ϑὴ]ροινεισθῖαι ?
_ ---: πῖρος avTovs Ἴσον rol
|| ----.-.. Ἰγμίατος 218: peat...)
--- -:-.- εἸἰκει[ν]ου Ἰνεσθαι [
--. κ]ατασκευ Ἰυσί.}. .1
Pe a ss Ἰαθειν
“on ee ]rov.. [ Pr 2%,
ee ee yD «) «. « |xove . [ Ἰντοί
πε aaa Joe περι 7 επειδίη
Pie eerie ds Ἰζω εἰ 420 Ἰπαμουΐ
ποτ τοῦς. Ἰ]γειν ]s και πασίης
Pees dee as ] e€e 408 af Ἰσυνης . [
[95 Eee Tplonpet ταί 1. σαι pl
84 THE OXYRHYNCHUS PAPYRI
avd . [
Ἰμησᾳῖ
Ἰδανη.Ἰιτὶ
]. αυτοῖ '
]. τους απαστὶ
1. Oot ΠΤ ἢ
Jvos μεν.Ϊ
460 ea ευλα.Ϊ
] δὲ ταῖς οἴ
end of col.
Pin 92. Pr. 45.
λα 1.1
ou) eel
-[ 485 Ἰ|υτὶ
480 φί 1- »ἱ
αἱ Iral
410 pl
Fr. 25 (top).
al
πε.
Ἰειπὶ
440 loos de [
Fr. 26.
441 jamo[ -
Ἰρεσὶ
Ἰασι. [
Ἰειδὶ
Pr. 30.
το 0 τῇ. ate
Ja woTe. |.
|rnv τί.
465 olvdets εστιν
end of col.
τὰ 91:
466 Ἰνὸ
| προς
Jo all] -[
J.v. &
Ἰωπί
425
Fr. 27 (top).
445 μὴ πὶ
Aoyn|
μηδε [
Fr, 28.
Je. [
ve. [
450 Ἰτη
] περι [
Ἰναυΐ
Ἐπ 50.
Jel
0 fre]
1. υἱ
1. θεραπαιν .
1. 4
].¢
Fr, 92.
475 Ἰλουΐ
1. νεῖ
Er, 97: Fr. 38
Jov| 496 Ἰασί
Jee. [ Ἰεπί
405. Je
1607. HYPERIDES (?), FOR LYCOPHRON 85
Fr, 39. : Fr. 40. Fr. 41. Fr. 42. Fr. 43.
498 1... δὲ. 500 Ἰμί 592 J. τί 1.1 506 ]- νοΐ
je ros. [ ]. ετί πὶ 505 Ἰσταί 1.1
end of col.
Fr. 44. Fr. 45. Fr. 46. Fr. 47.
508 Ἰτετί 509 |vol 510 Ἰπί 511 ]. τί
Ἐτ. 1. (i)... τοῦτοῆν δι[ο]ρῦξαι τὸν [rotxo|y tis] πρὸς τὴν [ἄνθρ]ωπον ὁμιλίας [ένεἶκεν οὐδαμῶς
[πιθ]ανόν ἐστιν. οὔτε γὰ[ρ] ὡς (πρὸς) τοὺς πρότερον αὐτῷ λειτουργοῦντας καὶ πᾶν ὅ τι κελεύοι] προθύ-
pws ὑπομένοντας διηνέχθη δεδήλωκεν, οὔθ᾽ ὅτι γενομένης πρὸς αὐτὸν ἁψιμαχίας ἐκεῖνοι τὴν χρείαν
[ἀἸ]πείπαντο, ὅθεν ὁ Λυκόφρων ἐπὶ τὸ τὸν τοῖχον διορῦξαι κατηπ[είχθ]η, μηκέτι [τῶν] σω[μ]άτων ΕΣ
ὁμοίως τεΐ. Ἐν {τὸς ie οὐκ ἂν διώ[ρ]υξε τὸν τοῖχον. πό[θ]εν γὰρ ἄνθρωπος ee κατεπει-
γόμ]ενος ἀλλ᾽ ἔχων τὴν [ἐξουσίαν καὶ τὰ παρ᾽ ἐκείνης εἰδέναι καὶ τὰ παρ᾽ αὑτοῦ λέγειν [κ]αὶ . . .
(1. 55) καὶ τούτῳ οὐδέ]ποθ᾽ ὁ Xpléuns? τὴν] οἰκίαν ἀπ᾿ εἴπεν 1] καὶ μὴν ἀδυνάτο]υ γε εἶχεν τάξιν τὸ τὰς
θεραπαίνας αὐτῆς πρὸς τοῦτον διαφέρεσθαι. τίς [γ]ὰρ ἂν οὕτως ἐγενήθη θρασεῖα ὥστε ἢ τὰ παρὰ τούτου
ῥηθέντα ἢ τὰ παρ᾽ ἐκείνης πρὸς τοῦτον πα[ρα]σιωπῆσαι τῆς ἰδίας] ἔχθρας [ἕνεκα ; mpd xe pos δὲ] ἦν ὁ
κὠζδυνος. ef? μ]ὲν yap... (iii) ἅπερ οὗτοι m[povbev?|ro. νῦν δ᾽ ἐκί εἼϊν οἷν μὲν ἑώρων κα θ᾽ ὑπερβο-
λὴν ἀσθ] εἸνῶς διακείμευ οἿν, ταύτην δὲ τὴν τ]ῆς οἰ Ἰκίας μέλλουσαν κυριεύειν π[ο]λὺ πρὸ ὀφθαλμῶν
ἀνελάμβανον, μὴ παθόντος τι τούτου τιμωρίαν ὑποσχῶσιν ὧν ἀντέπ[ρα]ξαν. οὔκουν οὔτ[ε δ]ι(ο)ρυχθῆναι
τὸν τοῖχον ὑπὸ τούτου πιθανόν, οὔτε εἰώθει, kabanle|p λέγει, ταῖς θεραπαίναις διαλέγεσθαι. τίίνος] γὰρ
ἕνεκεν ; [τί ἢ πρὸς] αὐτὸν ταύτας] διενεχθῆναι ἔδει (?)|, ὃν φιλο[φρονέστερον 2] δὴ τῆς [δεσποίνης 9]
προσφερομένης αὐΪτῷ ..
‘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 (ἢ). 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 conversing
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 οὖν τεκμ[η)ρίοις χρησάμεϊνος] τούτους κελεύει] καταδικάζειν ; χ[ρῆ]τα]ι, νὴ
Δία, ταῖϊς τῶν] κηδεστῶν plapru|pias ᾿Ανασχέτ[ ουἹ καὶ Θεομνήστου καὶ] Κρίτωνος, ἃς καλ) ῶς ἔχον ἐστίν,
ὦ ἄ[ν]δρες δικασταί, μ[ὴ] παρέργως] ἐξε[τά]σαι. τὴν [γὰρ ὅληΪν ka |rnyopi{ αν] ἐκ Tol...
‘On what. 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 whole accusation (depends) on .. .’
18. [m6]avov: cf. ll. 94, 173, 236.
19. (προς): cf. ll. 61-2.
24. δεδηλωκεν : the subject is ὁ κατήγορος, sc. Ariston ; cf. int. p. 76.
26. αψιμαχιας: cf. Aeschin. De fals. leg. 176. ἁψιμαχεῖν is quoted from Hyperides by
Antiatticista ap. Bekk. Azecd. 79. 12.
30-1. κατηπειχθΊη: cf. 1. 43.
32. colplarov: cf. 1. 76 and int. p. 76.
33. te: Or tp[. The second letter may have been corrected.
48. 7. ous: ε or p can be read instead of o.
53-4. τηλικοζυτος ὃ ly: the reference might be to the age of dying husband (cf. ll. 80-3
and int.); but it seems more likely that he is the subject not of jaro in 1. 55 but of the verb
in 1. 58, and that Lycophron is the subject as far as ]. 55. In that case the point of τηλι-
ko[vros 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 o χρί looks like a proper name, and
a mention of the husband, whose name is unknown, but who is called ἐκεῖνος in 1, 80, is very
appropriate here. ταΐυτηι is inadmissible in 1. 56.
63. εγενηθη : this form, which is common in the third century B.c., occurs in the MSS.
of Plato, Phrleb. 62d ἐξεγενήθη ἡμῖν (ἐξεγένεθ' ἡμῖν Stallbaum), and in two fragments of
Philemon; cf. Lobeck, PAryn. 109, and int. p. 76.
69. παϊρα]σιωπησαι: cf. int. p. 76.
71-3. mpo[x et pos δε] nv o ko[Suvos: cf. Hyper. Lpztaph. 17 εἰς τὸ κινδυνεύειν [πρ]οχείρως.
73. εἰὖ plev yap: μεν is required to balance νυν é in |. 80, but may have come in 1. 76.
76. σωΐματα: cf. 1. 32.
44-9. |rrew is perhaps διορυττειν (cf. Il. 14, 30, 92) and Ἰυγην might be διορ]υγην or
διωρἼυγην, though neither form is classical, the best MSS. in Dem. vii. 40 having διορυχή. But
n|povder|ro, if that is the right restoration, does not fit in very well with a reference to digging
through the wall. ovro: are the σώματα.
80. εκ[ ε]ω[οῇν : cf. 11. 56-8, n. The first husband of the woman is similarly alluded to
in Lycophr. x\vi ἐπε]ιδὴ ἐτελεύτησεν ἐκ]εῖνος and xlvii ἐκεῖνος [xvod |oav τὴν yuvalixa ἐξ] αὑτοῦ
καταλέϊλοιπεῖν. μεν already projects for some distance into the margin, and there is no room
for [av after it, if av ἐλαμβανον be read in |. 87 ; cf. n. ad loc.
82. acble|vas διακειμενοἱν : cf. Lycophr. ὃ 1 ἀπόρως διακειμένους.
86-8. πρὸ οφθαλμων avedapBavoy: cf, Epitaph. 17 πρὸ ὀφθαλμῶν ὁρώμενα αὐτοῖς τὰ δεινά,
and Polyb. ii. 35 λαμβάνων πρὸ ὀφθαλμῶν τὸ παράδοξον τῶν τότε γενομένων. ‘There seems to be
no instance of ἀναλαμβάνειν with πρὸ ὀφθαλμῶν, but with the division av ehapBavoy it is necessary
to suppose the omission of αν in ]. 80.
97. διαλεγεσθαι: cf. int. p. 77.
98. The supposed stop after ἐνεκεν might be the beginning of τ. For the supplements
in ll. g8—100 cf. Il. 60-2.
108. νη Δία: cf. 1. 216, Demosth. i. 7, Euxenip. 12, 14, 27.
111. ὑπέλαβε : a favourite word of Hyperides, occurring 11 times in his speeches.
128. διαρρηΐδην : cf. Athenog. το, τό.
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. HYPERIDES (?), FOR LYCOPHRON 87
fibres of the recto do not harmonize very well. οἱ pieoO]ou dixalfovres is too short. οιμῖαι is
possible, and ov may be the negative.
hi 170-1. Fr, 3 seems to be rightly placed here. καθ υἱπερβολην is not unlikely in 1. 171;
ΕἸ. INST.
198. This line was probably the last of the column, which is already slightly longer
than usual (40 lines compared to 39 in Fr. r),
199-200. Cf, ll. 170-1, n.
201-4. Fr. 4 almost certainly belongs to ll. 224-7
208. τομενον : the last two letters are very doubtful; but cf. 1. 205. ropeyny cannot be
read.
218-20. The very rare name ᾿Ανάσχετος occurs also in C.I.A. ii. 804 Ba (Av.
Anporédovs ᾿Αλαιεύς) in a list of sureties in 340B.c. for some triremes supplied to the
Chalcidians, the preceding name being Κρίτων Ἀστυόχου Κυδαθηναιεύς, who is also mentioned in
C.I.A. ii. 807, and included among the κάλλιστοι τῶν πολιτῶν by Aeschin. Contra Timarch, 156.
Probably these two persons are identical with ᾿Ανάσχετος and Κρίτων here. For Θεόμνηστος
cf. Lycophr. ὃ 2 τὸ δ᾽ ἀργύριον Geol pry |or@ δίδωσιν (sc. Ariston)’ ἐκεῖνος δὲ λαμβάνων ἀνδράποδα
ἀγοράζει, καὶ παρέχει ὥσπερ τοῖς λῃσταῖς ἐπισιτισμόν, καὶ δίδωσι τούτῳ ὑπὲρ ἑκάστου τοῦ ἀνδραπόδου
ὀβολὸν τῆς ἡμέρας, ὅπως ἂν ἢ ἀθάνατος συκοφάντης.
220-1. καλίως] exov: cf. Demosth. viii. 22 καλῶς [ἔχειν τὸν] ἽΔρπαλον [ἐγδοῦναι τ]ὴν πόλιν,
Lycophr. § 11 καὶ τοῦτο πῶς καλῶς ἔχει σὲ μὲν... τὴν κατηγορίαν ποιήσασθαι.
222--3. μη] mapep|yos| e£e[raloa: cf. Athenog. 13 τούς τε νόμους ἐξετάζειν... πάρεργα τἄλλο
πάντα ποιησάμενον.
228-31. It is not absolutely certain that these are the beginnings of lines.
236. mOlavor: cf. 1. 18.
283. [τ]ωι Xa|pur|ro{s|: 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. δὲ 3-7, is very appropriate ; cf. int. p. 75.
εγδοντα OF προ του εγδουναι is to be supplied at the end of the preceding column ; cf. Lycophr.
§ 5 καὶ yap οὗτος (sc. Dioxippus) ἠκολούθει διὰ τὸ χήραν ἐγδίδοσθαι αὐτήν.
284. els [ΟἸλυΐμπιαν : it is not certain that any letter is missing in the lacuna after εις,
and the following vestiges would also suit αὐ or ατ or possibly eae but Dioxippus was
victorious as a pancratiast at Olympia according to Plin. Wat, Ast. xxxv. 139 and others.
The date assigned to his victory by Foerster, Olymp. Steger, no. 381, is 336B.c., but there
is no very definite evidence for fixing the year, except the fact that Dioxippus went to Asia
with Alexander (Diod. xvii. 100-1), 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 340B.c., and if [ΟἸλυΐμπιαν is right the victory of Dioxippus was more probably
in 340, or even 344, than in 336.
286-7. στεφανωσίοἾντα : στεφανωσΐαἾντα does not suit the size of the lacuna.
288. The τ of τεως has either been corrected from or else been inserted later.
289. The letter before πεμποντὰ seems to have been o or v with a stroke through it, and
the vestige of the preceding letter rather suggests a or A, so that probably the scribe began
to write αὐτῶι Or Λυκοῴρονι, but corrected it.
313-16. Cf. ll. 159-62, n.
336-7. For καίθαπερ λεΐγει cf. 1. 95.
427-36. These are perhaps the beginnings oe lines; but if so, 8a projects into the mar-
gin of |. 433.
88 THE OXYRHYNCHUS PAPYRI1
1608. AESCHINES SOCRATICUS, Alcibiades.
Fr. 4. τό Χ998 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. Vita Aeschinis, ii. 7).
The recovery of new fragments of the A/czbiades 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, 1911) and more fully by
H. Dittmar (Philol. Untersuch, xxi. 1912). Much the longest is Fr. 1 (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’ ἐπιστήμη 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. 1,
but gives a general description of the context of Fr. 1, 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. oraz. 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. Zusc. iii. 77 and Augustin, De civit. det, xiv. 8;
cf. Dittmar’s Fr. 10, and pp. 99-103 of his edition. These indicate that Socrates
showed Alcibiades, who thought himself deatus (εὐδαίμων), that he was really
stultus (ἀμαθής), and as such miser (ἄθλιος), with the result that Alcibiades
entreated Socrates to free him from ‘arpitudo (αἰσχρότης) and teach him virtus
(ἀρετή).
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 (ll. 34-52). Fr. 5 (ll. 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.1. 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 1g 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. 1, 2, and 4 preceded Frs. 5-7.
Fr. 1 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 (Il. 1-6). The next question is concerned
with a different subject, whether people are first μουσικοί and ἱππικοί or the
opposite, the second alternative being naturally adopted by Alcibiades (Il. 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
ll. 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 (Il. 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 (ll. 48 sqq.) is incompletely preserved and somewhat
90 THE OXYRAYNCHUSVPAPYRI
obscure, as is the point of his remark in ll. 34-6, which preceded the outburst
of Alcibiades and mentions Apollodorus’ defence τοῦ φαύλους This Apollodorus
is presumably the inseparable companion of Socrates who appears as the narrator
in Plato’s Symposium, 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. 2 is more doubtful, since there is no apparent reference in it to
Themistocles ; but there seems to be a connexion between ἀποἸλογίας in 1. 28
and ἀπολογεῖσθαι in |. 36, so that Fr. 2 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 αὐτόν in 1. 82, is probably also indicated by αὐτῷ in 1. 79. Lines
82-136 correspond to Krauss’s Fr. 2 and part of 1. Here there are some small
variations between 1608 and the MSS. of Aristides, whose quotations do not
seem to be exact. In ll. 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 aand v. It is a somewhat later specimen of this type than 24 (Demosthenes,
προοίμια δημηγορικά: Part i, Plate vii) and 665 (A/zstory of Sicily: Part iv,
Plate i), but earlier than e.g. 223 (Homer E: Part ii, Plate i) and Schubart,
Pap. Graecae, το Ὁ (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 1 and v. A mark of elision in 1. 53 seems to be
due to the original scribe, but an accent and breathing in |. 37 are probably
by the (contemporary) corrector, who has altered mistakes in ll. 10, 37 (?), 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. 1]. ro and 48-50. The
fragments are or may be from the middles of columns, except where it is stated
otherwise.
1608. AESCHINES SOCRATICUS, ALCIBIADES ΟΙ
Pr: τ.
| ae ee περι TOUS
σεαυτου yovleas yeye ?
νησθαι. ovos περ [o Oc
μιστοκλης λέγεται {πε
5 pl Tous εαυτοῦυ yolveas :
᾿εὐφημει epn @ Σΐωκρα
τες : πίοτερον de δοκει [
σοι Tots] ανθρωποις αναγ
καιοϊν] εἰναι ἀμουΐσους
10 τ ρον ἡ μουσικοίυς γι
veo[Oalt- καὶ ποτεροῖν a
φιίϊππους] ἡ ἱππικοΐυς : a
ναγ[καιοῖν por δοκει Ϊ
apou|cous| προτερον Ki az
15 αφιπίπους :] οὐυκοίυν . .
Ἐτ. 4. Col.i. Plate iii.
καλως δὲ ka[t] ο Απολίλο
35 δωρος ὑπερ του φαυΐλου
απολογεισθαι: αλλ εκέίι
vo ἢ ὃ ὃς ey@ οὐκ αν ὠὡμηΐν
Ber’ Col; it
τον Θεμιστοκλεα vaio
του TaTpos αποκηρυχίθη
40 ναι: φαυλου yap και πορ
p® ανοιας nKovTa Ta
ο
γε τοιαυτα' [llores εἰς δι
αφορας TolavTas και ε
χθρας τας μεγιστας
45 προς τοὺς εαὐτοῦ yovie
ας ΚΑΤΕσΤΉ" 0 Και Tat
20
25
30
80
85
[- .. .|7nptovs [.......
[oluderepous del. ....
a οὐτε yap Tous [......
[ουδ]οτιουν δεῖ... . . «-
τησθαι ηπεΐ. . .. - --
[-- στε αν τ 2s eager
[-1 τῶν Gite) τὸ δι
ampagacOa[t....... ε
παινειν" οὐτῖε. . . .«-«--
ves δια τας TollavTas απο
λογιας απεγνίΐωσαν av
θρωπῶν pel.....---
[iis Safes τ.
He.
Ἰυταὶ
Frs. 5, 6,7. Cake
EV TOLS [- ~~). wae Ses
peyadal. . «τ ὐ ες -
αὐτῶι ἐἰχεῖ...- : «Ὁ «----
KOPEV@L Tl... 2. eee
αν. ABAPTT|..- ws 2
“γνοὺς ουν αἷυτον ἐγω
οτι ζηλοτυπίως EXEL προς
Θεμιστοκλίεα εἰπον ε
melon του [Θεμιστοκλε
ους βιου επίίλαμβανεσ
[θ]αι ετολμηΐσας σκεψαι
5 lines lost
[ω Σώκρατες τα] τοιαυτία
[εἰδεναι : dn olvy πωπῖο
THE OXYRHYNCHUS PAPYRI
92
δαριον ευλαβηθηναι 65 [ 95 τε σοι εμελησῖεν οτι ταυΐ
[(av) evpolito: ουτω dn μικρον ef [TNs TNS xwplas τοσαυΐ
[νενομικας evar nv ὃ ε γί της ovons οσην o ηλιοῖς ͵
50 [yo ὦ AjrkiBiadn γονεσ(ὼν al ἰπορευεται ἡ) καλειτίαι
[διαβ Ῥ]ληθηναι. ware Tov γί [4σια εἰς avnp ἀρχει: mia
[ἐπιτυχ ὕοντος ανθρωπου 7o δὶ 100 [vy μὲν ovy εφὴ ὁ γῦ)ε με
[ait 1. ποῖ leant. το hiss) 4} [yas βασιλευς : οισ]θα ᾿ουν
[-debopen’ ee ieny atest 1 Bie [ [ort εκεινος εσ]τρατευσε
55 [ 12 letters Ἰταμί.]ν ταὶ ἰδευρο και emt] Δακεδαι
Γαι ἢ αὔτ αν “ἢ ἱμονιους ἡγουμενος εἰ
ἰλοτατων 3] ἐστιν εἰ de 7a 105 [τούτω Tw πολ͵Ί]εε κατα
ΠΥ ΜῊ γοΐρ ἀν lv πολιν τε [ ἰστρεψαιτο ρα]διως τους
end of col. end of col. end of col.
Pr.+7.- *Golsat. Fr. Fr. 9
19 lines lost. Ἢ σαν.
126 [πεζων και] χρηματαῖν ee 4) nkal
[7a των Εϊλληϊνων mpaypia yal Tpt pal
[Ta πολυ ελειπετο Ta δε 140 χεΐ 150 αλλί
[βασιλεως προειχεν" αλί ᾿λου yap [[n]]-[
130 A [nd]ee ort εἰ μη αὑτοὺς tio? ao . [ Gor μῆϊ
βουλ[ευ]εσθαι εκεινος {πε ει. [-εοιεἰ
ριεστίαι] Ta ye αλλα αυἱτον τε in
τοσαυτα ovTa To μεγἴίεθος 145 THI Fr. Io.
ο[υ]δ εν peya εμελλεν [w TLL ἢ
135 φελησειν καὶ τοῦτο εἶγνω end of col. 155 Ἰνυμί
κει apa οτι οποτερῶν [av wo Sexplares of
end of col. Jro οἱ
Fr, 12. Fr. 12 1A og 17. Fr, 14.
jukal [- Jom] 166 και Jo
Ἰν. Kat Tol κωσὶ ξυν 170 |r
160 jure adl 7 pol, και 7]
Ἰανταῖ 165 δο.Ϊ|
1608. AESCHINES SOCRATICUS, ALCIBIADES 93
51 τῇ: Br 10. Lis agit ¢ Pra <6. Br. 10;
top of col. top of col. 176 πλί 178 Jaz 180 1]. .[
172 Ἰουθεῖ al Neri ou Jon
Je τοιαυΐτ 175 To
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 ἄμουσοι in conjunction with ἄφιπποι cf. Plato, Rep. 3355. Burnet
thinks that this was part of an argument intended to show that Themistocles did not achieve
what he did φύσει (which Alcibiades considered sufficient for himself). Since Themistocles
was so unsatisfactory in his youth, he must have become great and acquired ἐπιστήμη by care
and practice.
τό. [.Jox[ : or [α]ρχί.
19. Perhaps [δικασήτηριου ¢[.
28. τοίζαυτας ἀποἤλογιας : cf. 1. 36 and int.
34-51. ‘... and Apollodorus 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. Amod[Ao|dwpos: cf. int. No orator of this name who was contemporary with
Socrates is known. τοὺ φαυζλου can be masculine or neuter. As Burnet remarks, Alcibiades
may have been relying on his natural gifts, so that the question of κάλλος arose. Apollodorus
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 Symposzum.
36. Of the double dots after ἀπολογεισθαι only the upper is preserved.
αλλ εκεζι]νο: Burnet compares Aippras maior 283d ἀλλ᾽ ἐκεῖνο, μῶν μὴ Λακεδαι-
μόνιοι κτλ. '
31. 4: the first hand perhaps wrote «.
38-9. Cf. int. and Plut. Vit, Themist. 2 ἃ δὲ τούτων ἐξαρτῶσιν ἔνιοι διηγήματα πλάττοντες
ἀποκήρυξιν μὲν ὑπὸ τοῦ πατρὸς αὐτοῦ... δοκεῖ κατεψεῦσθαι, Aelian, Var. hist. ii. 12 ἀποκηρυχθεὶς
ὑπὸ τοῦ πατρός, Nepos, Zhemist. 1 a patre exheredatus est.
40-1. moppw ανοιας nxovra: Cf. Plato, Huthyd. 294 € πόρρω σοφίας ἥκεις.
48. [(av) evpoliro: this reading is not very satisfactory; but εὕροιτο is preferable to
εὕροι, the active not being used with an infinitive in classical times, and there is a change of
speaker before ovrw, so that [av «lupo: with the omission of double dots before ovra, though
a possible reading, is open to still greater objections.
50. yoveo(:\v: γονεῶν is inadmissible.
52. [emrux|ovros was suggested by Burnet.
55-9. The fragment containing these lines was originally separate, and is not quite
certainly placed here.
61. Probably αν] θρωπ: cf. 1. 52. !
77. This line is probably the top of the column ; cf. int. p. 89.
94 THE OXYRHYNCAHUS PAPYRI
82-4. yvous .. . Θεμιστοκλίεα = Aeschin. Fr. 2; cf. int. The MSS. of Aristides have
(ndotiras ἔχοντα instead of ore ζηλοτυπίως exet, and before Θεμιστοκλέα some of the deteriores
insert τόν, which was certainly omitted in the papyrus.
84-5. εἤπειδὴ του : from this point up to |. 136 the papyrus corresponds to the beginning
of Aeschin. Fr. 1; cf. int. After ἐπειδή the MSS. of Aristides insert τοίνυν, 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. olvv mwnlore σοι : οὖν σοι πώποτε MSS. 1608 may have omitted oo. The ε of
ἐμελησἾεν comes above the a of χωρΊας in 1]. 96.
97. οσην : so the ‘ deteriores’, followed by Dindorf and Hermann. AET, which are
considered the best MSS., have ὅσον, which is adopted by Fischer, Krauss, and Dittmar.
ὅσην is, however, supported by Aristides xiv (i. 325, Dindorf) ὅπερ γάρ τις ἔφὴ τῶν λογοποιῶν
περὶ τῆς ᾿Ασίας λέγων ὅσην 6 ἥλιος πορεύεται ταύτης πάσης ἄρχειν ἄνδρα ἕνα.
100. y?Je: om. MSS.
105. πολ]εε: So MSS. πόλει Krauss and Dittmar, following Herodian, ii, 2, p. 696 ὡς
παρ᾽ Αἰσχίνῃ τῷ Σωκρατικῷ τούτω τὼ πόλει : πόλη Hermann, following Choeroboscus.
130-2. εἰ μὴ αὐτοῦ τὸ βουλεύεσθαι ἐκείνοις (ἐκεῖνος E) περιέσται, τά ye ἄλλα αὐτῶν (αὐτόν E)
MSS. Dindorf: εἰ μὴ αὐτοῦ τῷ βουλεύεσθαι ἐκεῖνον... αὐτόν Hermann: εἰ μὴ αὐτῶν τῷ βουλ.
ἐκεῖνος... αὐτόν Reiske: εἰ μὴ αὑτοῦ τῷ βουλ. ἐκεῖνος... αὐτόν Krauss, Dittmar. Whether 1608
had το or τωι and av{rov or αὐἷτων is uncertain; but it apparently agreed with E in reading -
ἐκεῖνος (though exexvoi[s is just possible), and certainly differed from all the MSS. and editors
in having αὐτούς instead of αὐτοῦ---ἃ novelty which seems to be erroneous.
134. epedrev [ωἸφελησειν : ὠφελήσει MSS.
136. apa: om. MSS.
138. For the critical mark cf. int. p. go.
154-7. Fr. τὸ 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 xa:ro{c 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 Io-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 |. 12
indicates the beginning of a new section. The subject under discussion is εἴδωλα
in mirrors, and the author, who alludes in 1. 13 to his commentary on the 7zmaeus
of Plato, and objects in ll, τό 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, /z 7272. p. 24, Crantor of Soli in Cilicia, whose
discussion of the Zzsaeus is mentioned several times by Plutarch in his De
animae procreatione. But since Crantor wasacontemporary 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, of. c7zz., in connexion with the 77zmaeus, 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,
Eccl. ti. 46 as Evddpov τοῦ ᾿Αλεξανδρέως ᾿Ακαδημικοῦ φιλοσόφου διαίρεσις τοῦ κατὰ
φιλοσοφίαν λόγου, βιβλίον ἀξιόκτητον ἐν ᾧ πᾶσαν ἐπεξελήλυθε προβληματικῶς τὴν
ἐπιστήμην. 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. Philos. i.612, who
considers that it collected the answers of the chief writers on the main problems of
philosophy, is quite in harmony with the papyrus. A difficulty with regard to
the attribution of 1609 to Eudorus, who naturally wrote in Attic, arises from
the occurrence of an Ionic form, περιεούσας, in 1. 21. The context there, however,
and the occurrence elsewhere of several non-Ionic forms (οὖν, τούτων, ᾿Εμπεδοκλῆς)
indicate that the author was in this case using Empedocles’ language, though
περιεούσας cannot itself have occurred in hexameters.
On the verso in a different and larger semiuncial hand, which is not earlier
than A.D. 150 and may even be later than 200, are the ends of 11 lines from the
middle of a column of metrological tables, similar to e.g. 9. verso and 669.
Some abbreviations and the usual symbols for drachma (I. 31) and % (1. 36) occur.
The amount lost at the beginnings of lines is uncertain, but seems to be
considerable in most, if not all, cases, and not much can be gleaned from the
fragment. As far as 1. 37 it is concerned with liquid measures, especially in
relation to the cyathus, weights being expressed in drachmae; the last δὲ lines
deal with the mina and its subdivisions. The κόγχη, an uncommon measure, is
mentioned in 1. 30, with a novel weight assigned to it. Details are discussed in
the commentary.
Recto.
Cole 1. Col. ii. Col. iii.
doxn δὲ exer φα[ιν]εσθαι ov
10 yap ἐπ εκείνου TOV κατοπτρου
οραται αλλ ἡ ανακλασις επι
96 THE OXYRHYNCHUS. PAPYRI
TOV OP®VYTGN περι μεν ovy
ΠΕΣ τουτὼν εν τοις εἰς τον Τι
Ἶπο μαιον εἰἰρ]ηται ov δει δὲ εἰ
ἸνοἹυν 15 δωλον τοιουτον ἀκούειν οἱ τς
Ἱνταῦὺ ον τὸ κατα Ζημοκριτον ἡ Em τί
Ἱμεν κουρον ἡ ws Ἐμπεδοκλης [
5 |e amoppoas Pain av απιεναι Τί
rw amo εκαστου τῶν κίατοπτρι 25 ¢
jez 20 (opevwy Kat 7Tl...-..-.--- a
|rn MEpleougas [ss 5 Ps ale peie were
‘(if?). . . and it (the image) seem to appear there. For it is not seen on that mirror,
but the reflexion to the person seeing (is seen). This, however, has been discussed in my
commentary on the Timaeus. An image ought not to be described as it is in the systems
of Democritus or Epicurus, or as Empedocles would say that emanations come off from
each of the objects shown in the mirror and. . . surviving .. .’
12. opwvra: ν is practically certain and the very faint traces of the two preceding letters
suit pw, but joining o is a descending stroke which is superfluous and seems to be merely
a ligature. The stroke after ορωντα is a mark of punctuation.
13. εἰς τον Τιμαιον : i.e. in connexion with 71 Ὁ οἷον ἐν κατόπτρῳ δεχομένῳ τύπους καὶ κατιδεῖν
εἴδωλα παρέχοντι : Cf. 72 C. ἷ
14. de: εἰ is very cramped, and the « was probably omitted originally.
16. For Democritus’ theory of εἴδωλα cf. Sext. Math. ix. 19 Δημόκριτος δὲ εἴδωλά τινά
φησιν ἐμπελάζειν ἀνθρώποις κτλ. Epicurus’ views are expressed in his Zgzst 1 af. Diog. Laert.
x. 46 sqq.
18. For Empedocles’ views on ἀπορροαί cf. Ritter and Preller, 2715]. phil. Graec. §§ 166 h,
111 Ὁ.
: 19. κἰα]γοπτριζομενων is passive ; cf. Plut. De plac. philos. 894 ἴ καταντικρὺ δὲ τοῦ κατοπ-
τρίζοντος αὐτὴν (SC. ἡλιακὴν περιφεγγείαν) ἀστέρος. The middle is the form commonly used.
21. περιεουσας : cf. int. p. 95.
Verso.
27 jadi. .1 κοί[αθί ).. .
| Kota) ε- [ἡν
Ἰσον και ἡ pey|a]
30 [An | κονχῆ ἢ Heya]
[An ex jee 5 tn ἢ Oe rer’
Jopar εἰσιν de of
1 ovy peya Kora6(ou ?)
το δε]
μικρον κοιαθου
1609. METROLOGICAL FRAGMENT 97
35 -] oydoov pepos
\ a § ἡ pva [- τὶ
[exec fo em S| ped ἡ δὲ fo
[5 n? MeN (are ek eae
24. xoa6( ): κύαθος is thus misspelled throughout, a circumstance which raises a doubt
whether some other forms are correct. The cyathus was regularly 4 of a κοτύλη, but of
varying weights and subdivisions.
29. Ἶσον : or |eov.
29-31. The doubtful y of pey[aAn might be ν in both 1. 29 and 1. 30, but in neither
place is pet|| kpa admissible. The restoration ἡ μὲν koyxy ἢ pey[alAn ex Jee would suit Il. 34-5,
where ογδοον pepos might follow immediately after κοιαθου, but 1], 31-2 do not seem to be
concerned with the μικρὰ κόγχη, and, since the break along the left side is practically vertical,
it would be necessary to suppose that the beginning of |. 31 projected by several letters
beyond Il. 30 and 35, while it is very difficult to restore the other lines, especially ll. 32-4,
on the hypothesis of a short lacuna or no lacuna at all at the beginnings, The κόγχη occurs
together with κόγχη χηραμίς as a medicinal measure in Hippocrates (Hultsch, Mefrol. Scrip/.
i. 75-6), and is equated by Hesychius and Photius to the χήμη, which is treated variously
as 2, 3, 1, or 2 of a cyathus. In the Cleopatrae tabula (Hultsch, i. 235; cf. 256) the
μεγάλη κόγχη is equated to the ὀξύβαφον and contains 14 cyathi, weighing 15 drachmae, while
the ἐλάττων κόγχη contains 4 cyathus, weighing 5 dr. The papyrus evidently gives the
weight of the μεγάλη κύγχη as 18 dr.: the initial lacuna in 1. 31 may well have contained
a statement of the relation of this κόγχη to a cyathus, which presumably stood in the ratio
of 1: τῷ to it, especially as a cyathus of 12 drachmae is indicated by ll. 35-6; cf. n.
31. ex lev: or ay lee or rot et or eo|re,
31-2, ter’ is presumably rer(apry), but there is room for a letter between ε and the
vertical stroke which is supposed to represent the second τ. τετάρτη is not known as a liquid
measure, but τέταρτον μέρος OF τεταρτημύριον κοτύλης OCCUFS in Hippocrates (Hultsch, 1, 75°),
and τέταρτον is common in the sense of 1 ξέστης or guartartus, 1. 6. ὁ κοτύλη OF 3 cyathi.
The connexion of 1, 32 with the preceding line is obscure. Only εἰσιν is certain. ἧοραι
suggests au opar, but ἀμφορεύς is the regular Greek form : δραΐχμαι is inadmissible. ὃ of δε
is fairly certain (no figure in the thousands or hundreds will suit), but the following letter,
if ε, is very cramped. δ΄, i, e. 8(paxyai), could be read; butin 1. 31 the ordinary symbol for
drachmae occurs and in ], 36, where the figures seem to refer to drachmae, the preceding
abbreviation was different. The figure οβ (?) probably refers to drachmae, and perhaps gives
the weight of a κοτύλη ; cf. 1. 31.
33-6. If the genitive «(v)aduv in 1. 34 is right, these lines are clearly concerned with
a subdivision of the cyathus, the smaller measure being apparently 4 of it and weighing
τ. drachmae, which is in accordance with the weight ascribed to a μεγάλη κόγχη in |, 31, if
the cyathus in 1609 is, as usual (cf. Il. 29-31,n.), 2 of a pey. κόγχη. The smallest measures
for liquids were the χήμη, κόγχη (ἐλάττων), κοχλιάριον, μυστρίον OF λίστριον, μύστρον, and κάρυον,
but since the measure in question is neuter, the first two need not be discussed. The κοχ-
λιάριον is sometimes, e.g. in the Cleop. /ab., treated as weighing 1 drachma, i.e. τ of a
cyathus there, but 54, of the cyathus in 1609; elsewhere (e.g. Hultsch, i. 238. 7) it weighs
3 γράμματα, i.e. 2 drachmae. The terms μέγα and μικρόν do not occur in connexion with it,
but something like κοχλιαριον] ουν peya κοιαθ(ου) [exrov (or τεταρτον, if it weighed twice the
μικρόν) pepos το δε] μικρον κοιαθου [—| ογδοον pepos can be restored in ]]. 33-5, though how the
H
98 THE OXYRHYNCHUS PAPYRI
lacunae in ll. 35-6 were filled is in any case obscure. μύστρον (Hultsch, ii. 198-9) is some-
what less suitable than κοχλιάριον. The μέγα μύστρον has sometimes 2, sometimes 3 cyathi,
but elsewhere is τἷξ or 345 κοτύλη i.e. 3 or 4 cyathus, while the μικρὸν μύστρον is gg ΟΥ
gz κοτύλη, i.e. 3. or 4 cyathus, which is not very close to 3 cyathus. The μυστρίον or
λίστριον, Which is rarely mentioned, is the same as the μικρὸν μύστρον, and unlikely to be
distinguished as μέγα and μικρόν : but two kinds of κάρυα are known, the βασιλικόν, which
weighed 4 drachmae in the Cleo. /ad., but elsewhere 7 drachmae (Hultsch, i. 243. 8), and
the Ποντικόν, which weighed 1 drachma (Hultsch, i. 243. 9), so that καρυον] is as good as
κοχλιαριον in ]. 33. οὖν is not very satisfactory, and the o is uncertain; but to κα]ρυζοὺὴν there
is the objection that the tail of a p ought to have been visible. In the absence of any known
measure of which the smaller size was 3 cyathus and weighed 13 drachmae, the name to
which peya and μικρὸν refer and even the supposed connexion between Il. 34-6 remain
doubtful. The stroke before the figures in ]. 36 is smaller than that after rer in ]. 31 and
may belong to a letter (e.g. 6 or μὴ above the line.
36-8. Cf. the Cleop. ab. (Hultsch, i. 234) ἡ Πτολεμαϊκὴ μνᾶ ἔχει ο(ὐ)γ(γίας) ιη, (δραχμὰς)
ppd... ἡ ovyyia ἔχει δραχμὰς η.
1610. EPHORUS, xii (or xi).
Frs. 124+13 15:2X9-1 cm. Late second or early third cen-
tury. Plate III (Frs. 1, 4-6, 15).
These 60 fragments (originally about 70) of a lost historical work were found
with 1611, 1619, &c.; cf. 1619. int. They are mostly quite small, the longest
containing less than 20 complete lines; but owing to frequent correspondences
with Diodorus xi. 59 sqq. a large amount of restoration is possible, and about
100 lines in all are intelligible. In at least 16 cases the context of the fragments
can be established, and in spite of their unpromising appearance they constitute
a valuable find, especially since they deal with events in the Pentecontaétia,
which are for the most part outside the scope of Herodotus’ history, and are only
briefly sketched by Thucydides. ;
The handwriting is a handsome upright uncial approximating towards the
biblical type, like 1234, 1865, and 1606, but more calligraphic than the first two.
1012 and 1611 are also written in similar hands, but smaller. The date of the
papyrus is not later than the early part of the third century and may go back to
the latter part of the second, being approximately A.D. 200. There are no
lection-marks except the common angular signs for filling up short lines, para-
graphi, and high stops. Pauses are sometimes also indicated by blank spaces.
The only correction is the deletion of the iota adscript of απεθνηισκον in 1. 104:
elsewhere (Il. 105 and 198, but not in 1. 60?) iota adscript was generally written,
and, so far as can be judged, the scribe was more careful than the average. The
lines were short, ranging from 12-17 letters and usually consisting of 14 or 15.
The height of the columns is uncertain. All the fragments come or may come
1610. EPHORUS) ΧΙ (OR XT) 99
from the middles of columns, except where it is otherwise stated. There is no
external evidence to show their order, and the chronology of the twenty years
following the battle of Plataea is in many points uncertain. The arrangement of
Frs. 1-16 in the text is based on the order of the corresponding passages in
Diodorus, and admits of little doubt. That Frs. 1-5 preceded 6 is clear from the
reference to a change of subject in 1. 37.
Of the three groups into which Frs. 1-16 fall the first, containing Frs. 1-5
(il. 1-35; cf. 1]. 36-7), is concerned with Themistocles. The most intelligible of
them is Fr. 3, which comes from an estimate of his character and agrees very
closely with a passage in Diod. xi. 59, no fewer than 13 consecutive words being
identical ; cf. p. 102. In Frs. 2 and 4+ 5 the division of lines is uncertain, and
the resemblances to Diodorus are less marked, especially in the second half of
Frs. 4+ 5, which does not correspond at all; but the points of agreement with
Diodorus (cf. 1]. 15-17 and 18 sqq., nn.) are sufficient to show that these frag-
ments refer to other parts of the same chapter as Fr. 3, and are to be placed
Fr. 2 shortly before Fr. 3, and Frs. 4+ 5 almost immediately after it. The small
Frs. 26 and 38 also may belong to the character of Themistocles ; cf. ll. 192-4
and 237-9,nn. Fr. 1, in which Themistocles is mentioned in 1. 7, presents
greater difficulties, since not only are the ends of lines missing, but no direct
parallelism to Diodorus is traceable. Probably 1]. 7 sqq. refer to the reception of
Themistocles by Xerxes at the Persian court, which in Diodorus precedes the
character of Themistocles, and the allusion in ]. 8 to the statements of of μέν is
to be connected with the ancient discrepancies among historians as to both the
reigning king (Artaxerxes according to Thucydides and Charon, Xerxes accord-
ing to Ephorus, Dinon, and others), and the circumstances attending Themi-
stocles’ arrival; cf. ll. 7-12, n. That our author, like Diodorus but unlike
Plutarch, favoured views opposed to that of Thucydides is clear from his general
support of Diodorus, especially with regard to the accession of Artaxerxes (Frs.
15-16) ; but the influence of Thucydides’ language is apparent in ll. 11-12 and
evident later in Fr. 6. It is also possible that Fr. 31 is to be connected with
Thucydides’ and Diodorus’ accounts of the presents of land made by the Persian
king to Themistocles (ll. 213-14, n.), and Frs. 18 and 41 with Diodorus’ account
of the adventures of Themistocles in Persia. Fr. 41 in that case comes shortly
before Fr. 1 (Il. 246-8, n.), while Fr. 18, if the context has been rightly caught
(11. 140-5, n.), may be placed between Frs. 1 and 2, preceding Fr. 31, if that
fragment too refers to Themistocles.
The second group, consisting of Frs. 6-14, is concerned with Cimon’s opera-
tions in the Aegean and Southern Mediterranean against the Persians, which are
summarized by Thuc. i. 98-100 and more fully treated by Diodorus and Plutarch.
H 2
100 THE OXYRHYNCHUS PAPYRI
The end of a digression (i.e. the excursus upon the career of Themistocles) is
announced in 1]. 36-7, and in 1. 37 a new section begins, just as in Diodorus, with
the departure of the Greek fleet from Byzantium. This town had evidently
already passed out of the possession of Pausanias according to our author, as is
also implied by Diodorus and Plutarch, but not by Thucydides, whose indefinite-
ness as to the date of Pausanias’ expulsion (i. 131), coupled with a statement in
Justin ix. 1 that Pausanias held the city for seven years, has led to a controversy
whether the transference of Byzantium to the Athenians took place in 476 or
470B.C.; cf. Busolt, Grzech. Gesch. iii. 96’. 1610 supports the earlier date. Our
author’s account of the capture of Eion on the Strymon is clearly borrowed with
hardly any variation from Thucydides, Herodotus’ story of the heroic defence of
the Persian governor being ignored. Diodorus here adds a sentence about the
Athenian projects, which is probably his own invention (cf. p. 103); but his
description of the capture of Eion is apart from some unnecessary verbiage
equally brief, being somewhat closer to our author than to Thucydides and
having the same general construction of the sentence (ll. 37-46, n.). Plutarch’s
account, based on Herodotus, is much longer.
The next event recorded is the capture of Scyros (1. 46), which is briefly
mentioned by Thucydides and Diodorus. Our author, however, seems to have,
like Plutarch, devoted much more space to this episode, which led to one of
Cimon’s most popular 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 (Il. 49-51, n.), and probably Fr. 35,
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. 1co. 1). 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 improbability 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, ΧΙ (OR XP) IOL
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 + 10.1+ 53, 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 (ll. 62-76, n.). A detail omitted by Diodorus, the capture of a Persian
admiral, is recorded in ll. 75 sqq., and the remains of Fr. το. ii do not clearly
correspond to any passage in Diodorus near this point, being too slight for certain
reconstruction (cf. ll. 77-8, ἢ. 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,
ll. 94-101 presenting only trifling variants (cf. pp. 103-4); in ll. 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. 112 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 Pentecontaétia in adapting his authority,
Ephorus, to his own chronological system (cf. p. 110). It is noteworthy that 1610
agrees with Diodorus and Frontinus as to the locality of the two battles, while
102 THE OXYRHYNCHUS PAPYRI
Polyaenus, who 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 (ll. 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. 11 (ll. 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 (ll. 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 (Il. 119 sqq., n.).
With regard to Frs. 17-62, Fr. 53 has been assigned to 1]. 67-9 {p. 101), and
the most likely positions for Frs. 26 (p. 99), 35 (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 (Ρ. 99), 38 (p. 99), 39 (Ρ. 101), 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 (Il. 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.
(1) Exact correspondences of 1610 with Diodorus. 1]. 18-22, (ἐκεῖνον μὲν ὑπὸ
Ths πόλεως ἠτιμασμένον THY δὲ πόλιν διὰ τὰς ἐκείνου πράξεις) ; 30-1 (χαλεπωτάτην...
πρὸς ἐκεῖνον) ; 56-61 (παραθαλαττίων... πόλεων ὅσαι μὲν ἐκ τῆς Ἑλλάδος ἦσαν
ἀπῳκισμέναι παραχρῆμα συνϊέπεισε, with a slight alteration in the order; v. 227.) ;
63-9 (Toy τῶν Περσῶν orddolv περὶ [τὴν Κύπρον]... .. [διακοσίαις πενϊτήκοντα π]ρ[ὸς]
1610.
EPHORUS, XII (OR XI)
103
τριαϊκοσίας κ]αὶ τετταράκοντα] with slight variations in the order; v. zzf.); 84-8
(τὸν peély στρατηγὸν.
94-8 (ἀπὸ τῆς ἠπείρου τὴν.
οὖς [Φερενδάτη]ν ἀδελ[φιδοῦν) . .
ες τῶν πολεμίων πρὸς τὰς ναῦς); 267-9 (perhaps from
. τοῦ βασιλέως ἐν τῇ] σκηνῇ) ;
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 τίς] δὲ τοσούτοιϊς διὰ τ]ῶν Epyolv
22-5 τῆς μεγίστης τιμῆς ὑπὸ τῶν “Ἑλλήνων
ἀξιωθεῖσαν
27-9 σο]φ[ωτάτην καὶ δικαι]οτάϊτην ... ..
. ΟἸγά[τ]η[ν»] κ[αὶ
30 ἰγενομένη)ν
37 - - .] παρεξ[έβ]ημεν
37-46 ᾿Αθηναῖοι δὲ Κίμωνος τοῦ Μιλτιάδου
στρατηγοῦντος ἐκπλεύσαντες ἐκ Βυζαντίου
μετὰ τῶν συμμάχων ιόνα τὴν ἐπὶ Στρυ-
μόνι Περσῶν ἔχοντων εἷλον καὶ Σκῦρον,
ἣν νῆσον ...
58-60 ἐκ τῆς “Ελλάδος ἦσαν ἀπῳκισμέναι
63-6 τὸν τῶν Περσῶν στόλο]ν περὶ [τὴν
Κύπρον συ]ντετάϊχθαι]
66-7 διακοσί]αις πενϊτήκοντα)
69-75 παραταχθείσας δὲ πολὺν χρόνον
πολλὰς μὲν τῶν κινδυνευουσῶν βαρβαρι-
κῶν νέων διέφθειρεν ἑκατὸν δ᾽ αὐτοῖς ἀν-
, δράσιν εἷλε
85 αὐτῶν
Diodorus.
τίς δὲ τοῖς ἔργοις... τοσούτοις
ἐπαιρομένην
σοφωτάτην καὶ ἐπιεικεστάτην
γεγενημένην
πεπλεονάκαμεν παρεκβάντες
᾿Αθηναῖοι στρατηγὸν ἑλόμενοι Κίμωνα
τὸν Μ. (καὶ δύναμιν ἀξιόλογον παραδόντες
ἐξέπεμψαν ἐπὶ τὴν παράλιον τῆς ᾿Ασίας
βοηθήσοντα μὲν ταῖς συμμαχούσαις πόλεσιν,
ἐλευθερώσοντα δὲ τὰς Περσικαῖς ἔτι φρου-
ραῖς κατεχομένας.) οὗτος δὲ παραλαβὼν τὸν
στόλον ἐν Βυζαντίῳ καὶ (so Reiske ; καὶ ἐν
Bu¢. MSS.; καὶ ἐκ Bu¢. is suggested by
the parallel in 1610) καταπλεύσας ἐπὶ
πόλιν τὴν ὀνομαζομένην ᾿Ηιόνα, ταύτην μὲν
Περσῶν κατεχόντων ἐχειρώσατο, Σκῦρον δὲ
Πελασγῶν ἐνοικούντων καὶ Δολόπων ἐξε-
πολιόρκησε καὶ κτίστην ᾿Αθηναῖον κατα-
στήσας κατεκληρούχησε τὴν χώραν.
ἦσαν ἐκ τῆς. EAA. ἀπῳκ. ταύτας
τὸν στόλ. τῶν II. διατρίβειν περὶ τὴν Κ.
\
διακ. Kal πεντήκ. ναυσὶ
γενομένου δ᾽ ἀγῶνος ἰσχυροῦ (καὶ τῶν
΄ 2 / “ 5 Ly
στόλων ἀμφοτέρων λαμπρῶς ἀγωνιζομένων
“ “ \
TO τελευταῖον ἐνίκων οἱ ᾿Αθηναῖοι καὶ)
Ν Ἂς ΄“ 2 ’ “ ,
πολλὰς μὲν τῶν ἐναντίων ναῦς διέφθειραν,
ld Ν “ ε a Ν > tal lal
(πλείους) δὲ τῶν ἑκατὸν σὺν αὐτοῖς τοῖς
ἀνδράσι εἷλον
τῶν βαρβάρων (τὸν ἕτερον)
104
93 ἐχθροὶ ?| διετέλουν ὄντες
94 ἰὥσ]τε νομίζοντες
96 ἔφοδον αὐτοῖς γεγονέναι
g8-101 ἔφευγον ὑπολαμβάνοντες εἶναι φι-
λίας
IOI-12 οὗ δὴ πολλοὶ μὲν ὑπὸ τῶν κατα-
THE OXYRHYNCHUS PAPYRI
τὰ πρὸς αὐτοὺς ἀλλοτρίως exovTas(?)
διὸ καὶ νομίσαντες
3 ‘ Φ
ἐπιῴφοραν εἶναι
ὡς πρὸς φιλίας ἔφευγον
“- Ν ‘ x 9 , \ "
τῆς δὲ νυκτὸς (οὔσης ἀσελήνου καὶ σκο-
λειφθέντων ἐκεῖ φυλάκων ἀπέθνῃσκον ἐν τεινῆς) συνέβαινε τὴν ἄγνοιαν πολὺ μᾶλλον
τῇ νυκτί, πολλοὶ δὲ ζῶντες ἡλίσκοντο αὔξεσθαι καὶ μηδένα τἀληθὲς δύνασθαι
ne Ν p70 \ a ’
περιπίπτοντες τοῖς “Ελλησιν διὰ τὴν ἀπο- ἰδεῖν. διὸ καὶ πολλοῦ φόνου γενομένου διὰ
ρίαν ὅπου τράποι:το καὶ τὸν [ἐ]ξ αἰίφνης, τὴν ἀταξίαν τῶν βαρβάρων
αὐτοῖς ἐϊπιπεσόντα φόβ᾽ον
114-18 restoration uncertain _
124-6 αὐτὸς καταϊσχεῖν τὴν βασιλείαν
Cf. ll. 114-16, n.
ἔκρινεν . .. τὴν Bac. εἰς ἑαυτὸν μεταστῆσαι
[| Bovddp|evos
ἀνακοινωσάμενος δὲ THY ἐπιβουλὴν πρὸς
128-32 ἀνεϊκοινοῦϊτο τὴν ....|. ww πρὸς
Γ lal Ἶ / ‘ a
[rov εὐνοῦχον] Διθριϊδάτην καταΐκοιμι- M. τὸν edv. ὃς ἦν κατακοιμιστὴς τοῦ Bac.
ἱστὴν τοῦ βασιλέως
(3) Omissions in Diodorus. 1]. 7-14 (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 (καλουμένων) ; 75-6 (capture of a Persian admiral); 87 (ὄντα) ;
119-22 and 125-7 (details of the plot of Artabanus). Besides these ll. 1-7,
52-5, 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. 111);
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 (πλείους τῶν ἑκατόν for 1610's ἑκατόν 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, XII (OR X1) 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, ie
from the historian who is now always supposed to underlie Diodorus’ account of
the Pentecontaétia, 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 Pentecontaétia in an excursus upon Athenian
demagogues in Book x of the Φιλιππικά (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. 1 5-16), which is probably in
part derived from Ctesias (Il. 119 sqq., n.), does not at all suggest an ᾿Ατθίς, 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 (Il. 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.j. Of the historians (other than Ephorus), who according to Plut.
Themist. 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 Hedlenica 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 work 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. 110). The partial
survival of Diodorus, who is never cited by heathen writers, though the title of
106 THE OXVRHA YNCHUS 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 were utilized by Diodorus (cf. Schwartz, op. cit. v. 665), but bears
no resemblance to 1610. A survey of the differences between our author’s and
Diodorus’ accounts of the same events (cf. pp. 102-4) 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. (1) 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 with 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 (Il. 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
(ll. 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 111-2 and Schwartz, of. cit. v. 679.
(4) The general relation of 1610 to Plutarch, who 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 Pentecontaétia, 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 (Il. 49-51, n.).
(5) The traces of connexion between 1610 and (1) Justin (ll. 119 sqq., n.),
who certainly used Ephorus, (2) Polyaenus, (3) Frontinus (ll. 62-76, n.), and
(4) Aristodemus (Il. 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 (ll. 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 (Il. 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. 1 concerning the arrange-
ment adopted by Ephorus (xara yévos: cf. p. 110).
(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 παρεκβάσεις 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, of. 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, ll. 26, 94-9,
102-4, 114-16, nn.), though these are not very striking. The careful avoidance
of hiatus (cf. ll. 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 quid .. .. Ephoro mitius inveniri potest? , Brut. 204 lenissimunt
108 THE .OXYRHYNCHUS “PAPYRI
Ephori ingenium ; Dio Chrys. xviii, p. 283 Ἔφορος δὲ πολλὴν μὲν ἱστορίαν παρα-
δίδωσιν, τὸ δὲ ὕπτιον Kal ἀνειμένον τῆς ἀπαγγελίας σοι οὐκ ἐπιτήδειον. 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. 217 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’ “ἱστορίαι which dealt with the period round that
which is covered by 1610 were x-xiii; cf. Schwartz, of. cit. vi. 56. Fr. 107 (Miiller)
from Book x is concerned with Miltiades at Paros and belongs to the interval
between Marathon and Salamis. A fragment from Schol. Aristid. Pp. 515. 22
(Miller, FHG. iv. 642) refers to the fine of 50 talents imposed on Miltiades
and paid by Cimon when a young man (Plut. Czmon 4), i.e. before the events
recorded in 1610. The scholiast gives as his source Ἔφορος ἐν τῇ πρώτῃ, which is
usually corrected to ἑνδεκάτῃ. 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 Progymun. to Book xi, but
one MS. has ἐν τῇ πέμπτῃ in the margin, and Joannes Lydus, in referring to the
same discussion, attributes it τῇ πρώτῃ, which has been usually corrected, as in
the other case, to ἑνδεκάτῃ. Miiller accepts πέμπτῃ as right on the reasonable,
and in our opinion sufficient ground that Book v was geographical and is
known to have been concerned with Asia and Libya; but Schwartz (Δ c.) accepts
ἑνδεκάτῃ, 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. 11. Fr. 110, however, a mention of a Sicilian island Tvxéa in
Book xii, is doubtfully connected by Schwartz (Δ 2) with the expulsion of
Thrasybulus from Syracuse in about 466 B.C. (Diod. xi. 68), and Fr. 124, a
mention of “Evreda in Sicily in Book xvi, is thought by him to refer probably
1610. ELPHORUS, ΧΗ (OR XT) 109
to the early history of Dionysius (cf. Diod. 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 (1865). 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 (K/io viii. 356-71) and are still
supported by the latest editor of the He//. Ory., J. H. Lipsius. The case for
Ephorus has been well stated by Judeich (Rhein. Mus. 1911. 94-139), and more
fully by Walker (Hell. Oxy. 1912), whose able advocacy has gained many
adherents. With regard to 1865 our view that Ephorus (or Aristotle ?) might be
the author has been disputed by M. Lenchantin de Gubernatis (Azti Acc. 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 ὅτι Σικυωνίοις ἔχρησεν 7
Πυθία ἑκατὸν ἔτη μαστιγονομήθεσθαι αὐτούς. ἐπερωτησάντων δὲ αὐτῶν τίς ὁ ταῦτα
ποιήσων πάλιν ἀπεκρίθη ᾧ ἂν καταπλεύσαντες πρώτῳ γεγενημένον υἱὸν ἀκούσωσιν... .,
which points to the υἱός (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; Walker, of. cit. 50 sqq.), are less marked indeed than the correspondences
of 1610 with Diodorus in Frs, 3, 8-11, 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. ll. 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,
110 THE OXYRHYNCHUS PAPYRI
1. ε., and in answer to it Walker, of. 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. 1c7. Here 1610 rather damages the position of Judeich, who (of. céz. 110)
minimized one of the chief difficulties in the attribution of 842 to Ephorus, the
fact that according to Diodorus v. 1 Ephorus’ history was arranged κατὰ γένος,
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 (οὐ. czt. 30-1)
from Diodorus’ account of the Pentecontaétia 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 (of. cit. 32 544.) 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. x 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, 94-9, IOI, 104, 121, 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 1865, 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 1865, 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 (1865 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. 200 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, βύβλους ὀκτὼ πρὸς ταῖς πεντήκοντα
ἐξ ὧν πέντε διαφωνοῦσιν) ; 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, (1) 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 (Il. 37-46, 101-10) or a mere
rhetorical exaggeration (ll. 69-75), though in regard to the latter passage some
of Diodorus’ variations may be due to deference for Thucydides (Il. 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 (Il. 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
Περὶ τῆς ἐρυθρᾶς 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 Pentecontaétia 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 OXYRHYNCAUS PAPYRI
age, will henceforth have to be treated with the respect due to the celebrated
fourth century B. Cc. 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
Pentecontaétia was 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’ ἱστορίαι, 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 (ll. 37-46, n.), and an apparent reference to
him in an allusion to authorities vaguely described as of μέν (1. 8,n.); 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 Περσικά of Ctesias, though Diodorus’
language in a passage in this context betrays a use of that author ; cf. ll. 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 (Il. 267-9, n.).
(4) Of later writers, other than Diodorus, who dealt with the Pentecontaétia,
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 1865. 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
161]. BPHORUS) ΧΙ (ΟΝ XP) 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 1865 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 tampaigns 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 1865 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 Pentecontaétia 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.
Pet. Plates. Bes 2
= ἂν Rhea 15... ων εσπουδίασε
νι... ava
γίκ]αιον [εἸστιν [.....
εἰ 5] τα τοτε πΐερι Tov
Θεμιστοκλεοῖυς λε
γουσι ὃ ot μεν οἶτι ume
μνησεν αὐτίον ὧν
IO περι TE της νίαυμα
χιας και τῆς γίεφυρας
τις ?] δὲ τοσουτοιἷς δι
a? των εργωΐν ....
By. 3:
[ Je = [. -Jo[. .] ex[ecvor
μὲν ὑπο της πολεΐως
20 ητιμασμενον τίην
de πολιν δια τίαὶς ε
κεινον πραξεῖι5] της
μεγιστης τιμης ὑπο
114
12 [προ]ηγγειλε" πίερι de
[τη]ς vavpaylias... 25
Frs. 4+ 5. Plate iil.
σο]φίωτατην Kat
δικαι ?jotalTnv ...
. ἡτα[τΊη[ν] | και
30 χαλεπ]ωτατην [yevo
μενη]ν προς | exe[tvov 40
ot ὃ υἱπολαμβανουίσιν
οτι etjrep εβουλη[θη
εκ ? dojuvar τηΐν nye
THE OXYRHYNCHUS PAPYRI
tov EdAnvev age
ὠθεισαν᾽ ἡ peyadnv
[ηγεμονι Play οιον τ.
Fr. 6. Plate iii.
εἰρηΐμεν .. . οθεν ὃ
παρεξ[εβημεν" Al On
ναιοι [dje Κίήμωνος
του Μέλ]τιαδου στρα
τηγουϊντ]ος εκπλεὺυ
σαντες εκ Βυΐαντι
ov μετα των συμμα
χων [Hijova την em
Στρίυμοῖνι Περσων ε
45 Χονίτω)ν εἰλον Kat
35 povia?\y amal.....
Ping
Col. i Col. ii.
[ey ve tore ΠΣ |rnv Me
ἌΡ νὴ: Ἰνειται [-1ο
ΠΕ: ]. ns αὖ πρωΐ
50 [του yap? mpjos Δυκο par
[undnv tov βἸΊασιλεα 55 θησι
Frs. 9+ 10+ 53.
Col. i. Col. ii.
ΞΕ Κιμων πυν]
[θανομενος τοὴν τίων
[Περσων στολοὴν περι
65 [την Κυπρον συντετα
[χθαι διακοσίαις πεν
[τηκοντὰ πΊρϊος]} τριαΐ
[κοσιας κΊαι τετταρία
[
κοντα] παραταχίθει
[Σκυροὶν" nv νῃσίοὴν
Fr, 8.
παραθ]αλαϊττιων
Kadolvpevaly πολε
@v οσὶαι μεν εκ τίης
Ἐλλα]δος noaly a
60 πωϊκισμεναι mapa
Ἰχρημία)] συνΐεπεισε
Φερενδατη]ν αδελ
φιδουν οντῆα τον βασίι
[Aews ev τη σκηνῆι |
[
85 [oTpatnyoly αὐτῶν
[
[
7O
[plev- εκατον ὃ autos . και
75 [αἹνδρασιν [εἸιλε ζωγρη 80 πατὶ
σας τῇον πῖἶ. . . .- Ἰων τι Tol
ἥ Tol
TO
Frs. 12+13.
Coli. Col. ii.
1610.
[clas de πολυν xpovoly
πολλας μεν τῶν Κἰιν
δυνευουσων βαρβαίρι
κων veov διεφθέι
EPHORUS, XII (OR X1)
[. .] διετελίουν olvres:
[ωσ]τε νομιζοντες a
95 πο της ηπειρ[ου] τὴν
εφοδον αὐτίοις yey}o
vevat τῶν πίοϊλεμι
ὧν προς Tals] vavis] ε
φευγον υποϊλ]αμβα
100 vovTes avTots εἰ[ν]αι
.
=e φιλιας ov dn πίἰοΊλλοι
fev ὑπο των κατα
λειῴθεντων εκει
φυλακων απεθνη[ ι}}
105 [oKov] εν THL VUKTL
[ποῖλλοι de ἕωντες ἢ
λισκοντο περιπίπτον
τες τοις Ελλη)σιν | δια
την atropial|y οπου
110 τίρ]απ[ο)[ντο] | και τον
[elé[acpvns] | avros ε
[πιπεσοντα po ? lov
12
' 120
Fria
1 στρα[τιωτ ὃ
115 ] νυϊκτ ?
av ?|rots mup|cov ?
|enval
Jov - [
Ετ. 15. Plate tik
sad, abla eal ah ale T Pjous [
ες λογχ Plopopous οἷν
νος Ἰων ervyxal
vev ὁ Alptagepéns Ϊ
apa μ]εν autos κατα
σι cen Bll eee Sl cee Il coe |
.
125
μα
δεδίιω ?]s μη πραγ
Ἔ
Ξ5
Fr. 16.
urea ot ave|KoLvouv
[τὸ tap ἐπ γι
[
130 [τον εὐνουχον] Μιθρι
[δατην κατα]κίο)ιμι
στην του βασιλεως
[
115
σχειν ὃ την βασιλειαν
βονλο Pulevos: apa de
ιν προς
116 THE OXYRHYNCHUS PAPYRI
Ἐπ τῇ; Be, 18. Fr. 19:
pea ae he do ϑήλιχου τί. 1490 ue ἢ
135 .- .]. βραχυν τόπον [. Ἰληλί δὶ
«ἦν καὶ Tov στρατῖί. Ἰν .[ ει .[
«7 καὶ povo τῶν [. αἸδελίφον ? em
..] tlojwos mie... επι]θεινζαι ὃ 150 σεΐ
ΣΝ Woy ¢.... 145 ]- de [ τί
end of col. ?
Fr, 20. Fr, 21. Fr. 22.
Col. i. Col. ii. 160 Ja τό Ἵν
155 «Ϊ Ἰνους Ja
152 Ἰαλ σὶ 1σθε 1δαι
1: μη πὶ ] gra αν
uv aa We ae ]
πε.Ϊ
Fr, 23 (tops of cols. ?). Fr..24. Fr.925.
Col. i. Col. ii. Coleg, Col. ii. ]oa.
170 vou [ | @ is: Ἰνουκ
leo παλιν al |rvy μ Le
Ἰν 175 εκαᾳΐ [xav—] ιδι al 190 Ἰασι
κτί 180 7κου 185 αἱ ]-0
δ
Fr. 26. Fr, 27. Fr. 28. Fr. 29.
ΕλΊλησιν 196 Jexe..[ 200 Joey Ἰωκί.
Ἰλυσαι τας [ Ἱν οραν [ 1 A@nvaio 295 : Τῷ
εκεινο Ply mpagelis Jone Of lvovro κὶ ]7o
195 16. Ἰαλαΐ [μι ye
Ἦ . 50. ig, 51: ie; 3% Fr. 33.
Ἰατί [- - - ]ωστί 216 Ἰναί 220 = Jul
Ἰντανΐ τὴν εδωκίε Ἰου πρὶ Ἰασί
210 πΊαρα ταῖν χώραν τεῖ . dor [ Ἰστων [
] παραί 215 οἷ Ἰφοινΐ | Jabal
Pr. 24.
1. af
225 |u|
jel
}-[
Fr. 38.
1610.
Fr. 35 (top).
1 Πελασγους [
Ἰν τινα" Ϊ
230 κα͵ταφυγί
237 ἔαν {τις δεὺ 240 |..[
τενΐ----μιαι ὃ
Ἰντων ελ
EPHORUS, XII (OR XT)
ΒΥ γ0:
231. Κατ |
Ἰλιστα [
Ἰισεῖ
Fr. 40. Fr. 41.
1 246 Jae
Ἰτομί Ἰυμμῖ
117
end of col. ?
Fr. 42.
Jos δῖε
250 Ἰτατὴν
[wlpag[er ? Joc av αλληΐ 245 Ἰνεισί Ἰεκατί μια
ΕΥ, 42. Fr. 44. Ετ. 45. Fr. 46. Fr 47.
252 ξαΐ 255 ] evepylé -[ 261 Jral Ἰακοῖ
Bal Ἰτεροιΐ ΤΕ a 7τελί 265 |e τί
THI Jaovy| 260 Ἰντε. [ Ἰντί vit
Fr. 48. Ετ, 49. Pr. 50. ΕΥ̓. δι. Fr. 52.
267 va?lus ελίον ᾽ 270 Ἰυντῶν Jaz - [ 276 ηἾ pL
] ανδίρων ὃ κ͵]αι τῶν Ἰωτί πὶ 280 τί
με]γία ? 1. 275 Ἰτηΐ onl ToL
Fr. 53. Fr. 54. Fr 553. Fr. 56. Fr, 57.
282 lel 285 Ἰλα 287 Jayl Ἰν 291 Ἰυφί
αι τετί Ἱντοῖ Ἰ καταί͵ 290 Ἰγὼν Joel
J.-[
Fr. 58. Fr. 59. Fr. 60. Pr ὅτ. Fr. 62,
293 Ἰαι 295 ]- al 297 of δ gor |
jor[ Ἰντί τί 300 εἰ τως
Fr. 1. (2)... more... (5) ἀναἸγ[κ]αἴόν [ἐστιν |... Jei{s] τὰ τότε περὶ τοῦ] Θεμιστοκλέους.
λέγουσι δ᾽ οἱ μὲν ὅϊτι ὑπέϊμνησεν αὐτὶ ὃν ὧν] περί τε τῆς νἱαυμα χίας καὶ τῆς γεφύρας προ]ήγγειλε"
mlept δὲ τῆς ναυμαχίας ..
‘,.. it is necessary to (return?) to what (happened) then concerning Themistocles.
Some say that he reminded him of his warnings about bcth the sea-fight and the bridge; but
with regard to the sea-fight.. .’
2. | or ἢ can be read.
4-5. ava|y{xjaov: the supposcd y could be p, but hardly τ, v, or Φ, which would make
118 THE OXYRHYNCHUS PAPYRI ὺ
the beginning of I. 5 project, and A could be read in place of a. evay |y/e|Acov (cf. 1. 12) is
excluded by the fact that only the plural of this word occurs in Attic. Bury suggests
era |vte| vac avaly|« |aov [εἸστιν ζαυθις, referring toa previous account of the flight of Themistocles
(Frs. 1-5 are themselves part of a digression anticipating the chronological order of events ;
cf. 1. 37 and p. 99). The letter following can be ε, but the hiatus -va: ava- is an objec-
tion to this restoration; cf. p. 107.
6. e{s| ra: of the letter following ε all that survives is the tip of a stroke which might
be vertical or horizontal. evra or exra could be read, but suggests no suitable word.
7-12. Cf. p. 99, Thuc. i. 137 ἐσπέμπει γράμματα πρὸς βασιλέα Ἀρταξέρξην τὸν Ξέρξου
νεωστὶ βασιλεύοντα. ἐδήλου δὲ ἡ γραφὴ ὅτι Θεμιστοκλῆς ἥκω παρὰ σέ, ὃς κακὰ μὲν πλεῖστα “Ἑλλήνων
εἴργασμαι τὸν ὑμέτερον οἶκον, ὅσον χρόνον τὸν σὸν πατέρα ἐπιόντα ἐμοὶ ἀνάγκῃ ἡμυνόμην, πολὺ δ᾽ ἔτι πλείω
ἀγαθά, ἐπειδὴ ἐν τῷ ἀσφαλεῖ μὲν ἐμοί, ἐκείνῳ δὲ ἐν ἐπικινδύνῳ πάλιν ἡ ἀποκομιδὴ ἐγίγνετο. καί μοι εὐεργεσία
ὀφείλεται (γράψας τήν τε ἐκ Σαλαμῖνος προάγγελσιν τῆς ἀναχωρήσεως καὶ τὴν τῶν γεφυρῶν,
ἣν ψευδῶς προσεποιήσατο, τότε δι αὐτὸν οὐ διάλυσιν), καὶ νῦν ἔχων .. ., Plut. Themzst. 27
Θουκυδίδης μὲν οὖν καὶ Χάρων 6 Λαμψακηνὸς ἱστοροῦσι τεθνηκότος Ξέρξου πρὸς τὸν υἱὸν αὐτοῦ τῷ
Θεμιστοκλεῖ γενέσθαι τὴν ἔντευξιν' Ἔφορος δὲ καὶ Δείνων καὶ Κλείταρχος καὶ Ἡρακλείδης, ἔτι
> ἄλλοι πλείονες, πρὸς αὐτὸν ἀφικέσθαι τὸν Ξέρξην. τοῖς δὲ χρονικοῖς δοκεῖ μᾶλλον ὁ Θουκυδίδης
συμφέρεσθαι, καίπερ οὐδ᾽ αὐτοῖς ἀτρέμα 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. ll. 119 sqq., n.), is stated by Plutarch to be derived from Phanias, with a
few extra details obtained from Eratosthenes περὶ 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, ἥκω σοι, βασιλεῦ, Θεμιστοκλῆς... ᾧ πολλὰ μὲν ὀφείλουσι
Πέρσαι κακά, πλείω δὲ ἀγαθὰ κωλύσαντι τὴν δίωξιν, ὅτε τῆς Ἑλλάδος ἐν ἀσφαλεῖ γενομένης παρέσχε
τὰ οἴκοι σωζόμενα χαρίσασθαί τι καὶ ὑμῖν. Diodorus xi. 56. 8 shows more interest in the
stratagem by which Lysithides introduced Themistocles to Xerxes (cf. ll. 246-8, n.) than
in Themistocles’ defence of himself before the king, which is described quite briefly
κἀκείνου δόντος τῷ Θεμιστοκλεῖ λόγον καὶ μαθόντος ὡς οὐδὲν ἠδίκησεν. Aristodemus 10 καὶ
ὑπέμνησεν αὐτὸν (SC. Artaxerxes) τῶν εὐεργεσιῶν ἃς ἐδόκει κατατεθεῖσθαι εἰς τὸν πατέρα αὐτοῦ
Ξέρξην, λέγων καὶ τῆς σωτηρίας αὐτῷ γεγενῆσθαι αἴτιος [ἐνδεἸ]ίξαϊς λύσειν τοὺς Ἕλληνας τὸ ζεῦγμα,
though primarily based on Thucydides, shows traces of a knowledge of Ephorus : οἵ. ll. 62—
76, n. Nepos (Zhemist. 9) follows Thucydides, sczo plerosgue τα scripsisse, Themistoclem
Xerxe regnante in Asiam transisse. Sed ego potissimum Thucydidi credo . . ., quoting the
letter to Artaxerxes Jdem mulio plura bona fect postqguam in tuto ipse et ille in periculo esse
coepit. Nam cum in Asiam reverts vellet, proelio apud Salamina facto, lilteris eum certiorem
fect id agi ut pons quem in Hellesponto fecerat dissolveretur atque ab hostibus circumiretur : quo
nunito 1116 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. 1322, sides with Thucydides, and assigns that event to a period shortly after the
spring of 464.
8. ot μεν: cf. the previous ἢ. Thucydides is probably included, for the expressions in
ll. 11-12 seem to be derived from him, though αὐτίον 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 X1) 119
8—9. ὑπείμνησεν avtiov: we prefer ὑπεΐμνησεν to aveluynoev on account of the parallel
in Aristodemus τὸ 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 ὑπέμνησεν αὐτόν looks
like a reminiscence of the present passage. avz(ov, however, here is, we think, Xerxes not
Artaxerxes, because (1) there is no mention of the king’s father (cf. Thuc. 2. 4); (2) the
accession of Artaxerxes is described by Diodorus in a much later chapter, to which
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 |. 14 onwards it is not clear whether our author
accepted the opinion of of μέν or not. If he rejected it, then αὐτίον might be Artaxerxes
and Fr. 1 would be more suitably placed after Fr. 16, with a backward reference in ]]. 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 ll. 7-12 and
both Thucydides and Aristodemus closer ; but we are unwilling to separate Fr. 1 so widely
from Frs. 2-5, seeing that Themistocles is the subject of them all. To retain Fr. 1 where
it is, and make avz[ov Artaxerxes, with a possible forward reference in Il. 5—7 to a subsequent
mention of Artaxerxes, is a possible compromise ; but with [προ]ήγγειλε the most natural dative
to be supplied is αὐτῷ, i.e. Xerxes, not τῷ πατρὶ αὐτοῦ which would be required by the identifica-
tion of avz[ov with Artaxerxes.
10. "αυμαϊχιας : cf. 1. 13, Hdt. viii. 75, Thuc. 1. ς.,) Diod. xi. 17, Plut. Zhemist. 12
and 28.
II. τῆς ylepupas : cf. Hdt. viii. 110 τὰς ἐν Ἑλλησπόντῳ γεφύρας λύειν, Thuc. 2. «., Diod. ΧΙ.
19. 5 τὸν παιδαγωγὸν τῶν ἰδίων υἱῶν ἀπέστειλε πρὸς τὸν Ξέρξην δηλώσοντα διότι μέλλουσιν ci Ἕλληνες
πλεύσαντες ἐπὶ τὸ ζεῦγμα λύειν τὴν γέφυραν, and the next n. Diodorus’ employment of
the singular (Hdt. and Thuc. have the plural) confirms y[epupas here; but the stroke
following της might be round just as well as straight.
12. [προ]ηγγειλε: cf. Thuc. /.c. mpodyyehow. [εξ]ηγγειλε would also be suitable; cf. Plut.
Them, 12 ὃν ἐκπέμπει πρὸς τὸν Ξέρξην κρύφα κελεύσας λέγειν ὅτι Θεμιστοκλῆς ὁ τῶν ᾿Αθηναίων
στρατηγὸς αἱρούΐμενος τὰ βασιλέως ἐξαγγέλλει πρῶτος αὐτῷ τοὺς Ἕλληνας ἀποδιδράσκοντας.
Fr. 2. τίς δὲ. . .Jov ἐσπούδασε ; τίς ἢ] δὲ τοσούτοις διὰ ἢ τ]ῶν ἔργων
15-17. Cf. p. 99 and Diod. xi. 59. 2 τίς δὲ πρὸς ἅπασαν τὴν ἐκ τῆς ᾿Ασίας δύναμιν ἀναστάτῳ
τῇ πόλει παρατοχθεὶς ἐνίκησε; τίς δὲ τοῖς ἔργοις ἐν εἰρήνῃ τὴν πατρίδα δυνατὴν κατεσκεύασε
τοσούτοις (τούτοις MSS.; τοιούτοις or τοσούτοις Reiske). ἴων can be a participle or the
end of a phrase like διὰ τῶν ἔργων. With ἐσπούδασε cf. 842. xiv. 7 ἐσπούδαζον ἐκπολεμῶσαι.
Frs. 3-5. ... ἀμεῖνον] μὲν ὑπὸ τῆς πόλεως] ἤτιμασμένον, τ[ὴν] δὲ πόλιν διὰ τ[ὰ]ς ἐκείνου
πράξεις) τῆς μεγίστης τιμῆς ὑπὸ τῶν Ἑλλήνων ἀξιωθεῖσαν, ἣ μεγάλην ἰἡγεμονί ὃ; ? ‘av οἷον... σο φ᾽ ὡτάτην
καὶ δικαιοτάτην... .... Ἰγα[τ]η[ν] κ[αὶ χαλεπ]ωτάτην [γενομένην πρὸς ἐκε[ίνον: οἱ δ᾽ τι βθρολν σιν
ὅτι εἴπερ ἐβουλή[θη ex? lines τὴν nyepovia? |v...
*,.. 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 ἐλ νῳουμῦ
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,. ..’
18 564: Chaps 99 and Diod. xi. 59- 3 διόπερ ὅ ὅταν τὸ μέγεθος τῶν ἔργον αὐτοῦ θεωρήσωμεν
καὶ σκοποῦντες τὰ κατὰ μέρος εὕρωμεν ἐκεῖνον μὲν ὑπὸ τῆς πόλεως ἠτιμασμένον, τὴν δὲ πόλιν διὰ
τὰς ἐκείνου πράξεις ἐπαιρομένην, εἰκότως τὴν δοκοῦσαν εἶναι τῶν ἁπασῶν πόλεων σοφωτάτην καὶ
120 THE OXYRHYNCAHUS PAPYRI
ἐπιεικεστάτην χαλεπωτάτην πρὸς ἐκεῖνον εὑρίσκομεν γεγενημένην. ευ[ρ]ω[μεν] is inadmissible
in 1. 18.
21--2. τ[αῆς exewou πραξεις : cf. ll. 193--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. [nyepoulay: cf. Ephorus Fr. 67 τελευτήσαντος yap ἐκείνου (Epaminondas) τὴν ἡγεμονίαν
ἀποβαλεῖν εὐθὺς τοὺς Θηβαίους. otover is inadmissible.
27-31. Cf. Diod. Δς. The division of lines in Frs. 4 -Ὁ 5. ἰδ uncertain, but there is
hardly any doubt that Fr. 5, containing the supposed ends of Il. 29-31, is rightly joined
to the other. Bury suggests addos before σο]φίωτα την and μαΪταιο]τατ]ην] before και. Cf.
Li32 en:
30-1. [γενοΪμενη]ν : [γεγενημενη]ν (cf. Diod. 2. c.) seems too long for the Jacuna.
32. υἸπολαμβανοιΐσιν : cf. 1]. 94-9, n. The adopted restoration of Il. 32-5 was proposed
by Bury. εβουληΐθη ἐκδοΊυναι produces a hiatus, which is unsatisfactory (cf. ll. 4-5, n.); but
προδοΊυναι Seems too long, if xaden|wrarny is the beginning of 1.30. With the division
xa|Aem jorarny, however, mpo|do |vvat could be read ; chal 27-31, n. The division χαλεΪπ]͵ωτατην
would create a great difficulty in 1. 31, for there would not be room for νη]ν or |caly
and a participle is wanted there, the ν being nearly certain.
34. The vestige of a letter before va suggests y, τ, or v, so that r|nv aay is unsatis-
factory, though the doubtful ἡ can be « απαΐσαν is possible, but with another word than
ηγεμονια᾽ν, for which cf. |. 26, n.
Fr. 6. .. . eipyipev . . ., ὅθεν] παρεξ[ἐβἼημεν. ᾿Α[θηναῖοι [δ]ὲ K[iluwvos τοῦ Μιλτιάδου
στρατηγοῖϊντ jos ἐκπλεύσαντες ἐκ Βυζαντίου μετὰ τῶν συμμάχων "Ht |6va τὴν ἐπὶ Στρ[υμό]νι Περσῶν
ἐχόνϊ τω]ν εἷλον καὶ [Σκῦρο]ν, nv volo...
‘... from which we digressed. The Athenians under the command of Cimon son of
Miltiades 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 τοις} εἐερηΐμενοις or των etpn|pevov. For οθεν cf. Arist. Eth. Wie. i. 5. 1 ὅθεν
παρεξέβημεν, and for παρεξ[εβίημεν Diod. xi. 59. 4 περὶ μὲν οὖν τῆς Θεμιστοκλέους ἀρετῆς εἰ καὶ
πεπλεονάκαμεν παρεκβάντες, ἀλλ᾽ οὖν οὐκ ἄξιον... 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 like ἐπανίωμεν δὲ τοσουτων περι tov
Θεμιστοκλεους] ειρηϊμενων: cf. 11.4--5, n.
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) πρῶτον
μὲν Ἠιόνα thy ἐπὶ Στρυμόνι Μήδων ἐχόντων πυλιορκίᾳ εἷλον καὶ ἠνδραπόδισαν, Κίμωνος τοῦ Μιλτιάδου
στρατηγοῦντος. ἔπειτα Σκῦρον τὴν ἐν τῷ Αἰγαίῳ νῆσον, ἣν ᾧκουν Δόλοπες, ἠνδραπόδισαν καὶ ᾧκισαν
αὐτοί, and Diod. xi. 60. 1-2 ᾿Αθηναῖοι στρατηγὸν ἑλόμενοι Κίμωνα τὸν Μιλτιάδου κτλ. (cited on
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 (Czmon 7) Κίμων δὲ τῶν συμμάχων ἤδη προσκεχωρηκότων αὐτῷ
στρατηγὸς εἰς Θράκην ἔπλευσε, πυνθανόμενος Περσῶν ἄνδρας ἐνδόξους καὶ συγγενεῖς βασιλέως ᾿Ηιόνα
πόλιν παρὰ τῷ Στρυμόνι κειμένην ποταμῷ κατέχοντας ἐνοχλεῖν τοῖς περὶ τὸν τόπον ἐκεῖνον Ἕλλησι.
πρῶτον μὲν οὖν αὐτοὺς μαχῇ τοὺς Πέρσας ἐνίκησε καὶ κατέκλεισεν εἰς τὴν πόλιν" ἔπειτα τοὺς ὑπὲρ Στρυ-
μόνα Θρᾷκας κτλ., which proceeds to narrate the story of Βόγης (here called Βούτης) told by Hdt.,
is based on other historians than Ephorvs.
46. [Skupo}v: cf. Thuc. and Diod. //. cc, Our author was much more detailed;
ΘΠ Βτ:. ἡ.
1610. EPHORUS, XII (OR XI) 121
Fr, 7. 49-51. Cf. p. 100 and Plut. Czmon 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, πυνθανόμενος δὲ τὸν παλαιὸν Θησέα τὸν Αἰγέως φυγόντα μὲν ἐξ ᾿Αθηνῶν εἰς
Σκῦρον, αὐτοῦ δ᾽ ἀποθανόντα δόλῳ διὰ φόβον ὑπὸ Λυκομήδους τοῦ βασιλέως ἐσπούδασε τὸν τάφον
ἀνευρεῖν. αὐΐΐτου δὲ προς would make |. 50 rather short, but perhaps av|[ ros (sc. Theseus)
δ(ε) . ... μενος should be read. Fr. 35, which mentions the Pelasgians and a κα]ταφυγ[ή ὃ, is
probably to be connected with the episode; cf. p. 100.
58. Ono: the last letter might be y, η, «, or , but not ε, so that a reference to Theseus
(cf. the previous n.) is inadmissible.
Fr. 8. τῶν rapaé αλαϊ ττίων kao |upeve|v πόλεων ὅσἾαι μὲν ἐκ τ[ῆς “Ἑλλάδος ἦσαΪν ἀπῳ Ἰκισμέναι
πἰαραἸχρῆμα συνέπεισε...
©. of the so-called coast cities those which had been founded from Greece he at
once persuaded (to revolt).’
56-61. The division of lines in this fragment is practically certain. Cf. p. ror and
Diod. xi. 60. 4 πλεύσας οὖν μετὰ παντὸς τοῦ στόλου πρὸς τὴν Καρίαν, τῶν παραθαλαττίων πόλεων
ὅσαι μὲν ἦσαν ἐκ τῆς Ἑλλάδος ἀπῳκισμέναι, ταύτας παραχρῆμα συνέπεισεν ἀποστῆναι τῶν
Περσῶν, ὅσαι δ᾽ ὑπῆρχον δίγλωττοι καὶ φρουρὰς ἔχουσαι Περσικὰς βίαν προσάγων ἐπολιόρκει, Which
only differs by the omission of καλουμένων, the changed position of ἦσαν, and the insertion
of ταύτας. Plutarch’s account (Cimon 12) is differently worded, τὰ μὲν ἐπόρθει καὶ κατεστρέ-
φετο, τὰ δὲ ἀφίστη καὶ προσήγετο τοῖς Ἕλλησιν, ὥστε τὴν ἀπ᾽ ᾿Ιωνίας ᾿Ασίαν ἄχρι Παμφυλίας
παντάπασι Περσικῶν ὅπλων ἐρημῶσαι, and proceeded to give fresh details omitted by Diodorus.
With rapaé]ada[rriov cf. 842. xxi. 17 Φρυγίας τῆς παρ[αθαλαττιδίου, and with ἀπῳκισμέναι
Ephorus Fr. 30a (FHG. iv. 642) from schol. Aristid. p. 11. 17 Dindorf οἱ δὲ ras ἀποικίας
καταλέγουσιν᾽" εἰς "Ἔφορον ἀποτείνεται ὃς περὶ τῆς ᾿Ιωνικῆς ἀποικίας ἔγραψε (sc. in Book iii).
Frs. 9410453. ... Κίμων πυνθανόμενος τὸΪν τ[ῶν Περσῶν στόλο]ν περὶ [τὴν Κύπρον
συἸντετάϊχθαι, διακοσίαις πευϊτήκοντα π]ρ[ὸς] τρια[κοσίας καὶ τετταράκοντα. mapatax| cic as δὲ πολὺν
χρόνον πολλὰς μὲν τῶν κ[ιν Ἰδυνευουσῶν βαρβα[ρι]κῶν νεῶν διέφθειρεν, ἑκατὸν δ᾽ αὐτοῖς ἰἀἸνδράσιν [ε]ἵϊλε
ζωγρήσας tov lis: τ «itera
‘(Cimon attacked, perceiving) that the Persian fleet was drawn up off Cyprus, with
two hundred and fifty ships against three hundred and forty. After they had opposed each
other for a considerable time, he destroyed many of the barbarians’ ships which ran into
danger and captured a hundred of them with the crews, taking alive . . %
62-76. Cf. p. ror and Diod. xi. 60. 5-6 οἱ δὲ Πέρσαι τὸ μὲν πεζὸν στράτευμα Ou ἑαυτῶν κατε-
σκεύασαν, τὸ δὲ ναυτικὸν ἤθροισαν ἔκ τε Φοινίκης καὶ Κύπρου καὶ Κιλικίας" ἐστρατήγει δὲ τῶν Περσικῶν
δυνάμεων Τιθραύστης, υἱὸς ὧν Ξέρξου νόθος. Κίμων δὲ πυνθανόμενος τὸν στόλον τῶν Περσῶν διατρίβειν
περὶ τὴν Κύπρον καὶ πλεύσας ἐπὶ τοὺς βαρβάρους ἐναυμάχησε διακοσίαις καὶ πεντήκοντα ναυσὶ πρὸς
τριακοσίας καὶ τετταράκοντα. γενομένου δ᾽ ἀγῶνος ἰσχυροῦ καὶ τῶν στόλων ἀμφοτέρων λαμπρῶς
ἀγωνιζομένων τὸ τελευταῖον ἐνίκων οἱ ᾿Αθηναῖοι, καὶ πολλὰς μὲν τῶν ἐναντίων ναῦς διέφθειραν,
πλείους δὲ τῶν ἑκατὸν σὺν αὐτοῖς τοῖς ἀνδράσιν εἷλον. τῶν δὲ λοιπῶν νεῶν καταφυγουσῶν εἰς
τὴν Κύπρον οἱ μὲν ἐν αὐταῖς ἄνδρες εἰς τὴν γῆν ἀπεχώρησαν, αἱ δὲ νῆες κεναὶ τῶν βοηθούντων οὖσαι
τοῖς πολεμίοις ἐγενήθησαν ὑποχείριοι. In xi. 62. 1 Cimon’s total captures in connexion with
this battle are estimated at 340 triremes, i.e. the whole Persian fleet, Diodorus forgetting
there to allow for the ships sunk. Plutarch’s account (Czmon 12), as usual, is mainly
different, Ἔφορος μὲν οὖν Τιθραύστην φησὶ τῶν βασιλικῶν νεῶν ἄρχειν καὶ τοῦ πεζοῦ Φερενδάτην
(cf. 1. 86), Καλλισθένης δ᾽ ᾿Αριομάνδην τὸν Τωβρύου κυριώτατον ὄντα τῆς δυνάμεως παρὰ τὸν Εὐρυμέδοντα
ταῖς ναυσὶ παρορμεῖν, οὐκ ὄντα μάχεσθαι τοῖς Ἕλλησι πρόθυμον, ἀλλὰ προσδεχόμενον ὀγδοήκοντα ναῦς
Φοινίσσας ἀπὸ Κύπρου προσπλεούσας. ταύτας φθῆναι βουλόμενος ὁ Κίμων ἀνήχθη, βιάζεσθαι παρε-
122 THE OXYRHYNCAUS PAPYRI
σκευασμένος, ἂν ἑκόντες μὴ ναυμαχῶσιν. οἱ δὲ πρῶτον μέν, ὡς μὴ βιασθεῖεν, εἰς τὸν ποταμὸν εἰσωρμί-
σαντο, προσφερομένων δὲ τῶν ᾿Αθηναίων ἀντεξέπλευσαν, ὡς ἱστορεῖ Φανόδημος, ἑξακοσίαις ναυσίν, ὡς δ᾽
Ἔφορος, πεντήκοντα καὶ τριακοσίαις. ἔργον δὲ κατὰ γοῦν τὴν θάλατταν οὐδὲν ὑπ᾽ αὐτῶν ἐπράχθη τῆς
δυνάμεως ἄξιον, ἀλλ᾽ εὐθὺς εἰς τὴν γῆν ἀποστρέφοντες ἐξέπιπτον οἱ πρῶτοι καὶ κατέφευγον εἰς τὸ πεζὸν
ἐγγὺς παρατεταγμένον, οἱ δὲ καταλαμβανόμενοι διεφθείροντο μετὰ τῶν νεῶν. ᾧ καὶ δῆλόν ἐστιν ὅτι
πάμπολλαί τινες ai πεπληρωμέναι τοῖς βαρβάροις νῆες ἦσαν, ὅτε πολλῶν μέν, ὡς εἰκός, ἐκφυγουσῶν,
πολλῶν δὲ συντριβεισῶν, ὅμως αἰχμαλώτους διακοσίας ἔλαβον οἱ ᾿Αθηναῖοι. The figure 200 also
occurs in the brief account of Thucydides i. 100 ἐγένετο δὲ μετὰ ταῦτα καὶ ἡ ἐπ᾽ Εὐρυμέδοντι _
ποταμῷ ἐν Παμφυλίᾳ πεζομαχία καὶ ναυμαχία ᾿Αθηναίων καὶ τῶν ξυμμάχων πρὸς Μήδους, καὶ ἐνίκων τῇ
αὐτῇ ἡμέρᾳ ἀμφότερα ᾿Αθηναῖοι Κίμωνος τοῦ Μιλτιάδου στρατηγοῦντος, καὶ εἷλον τριήρεις Φοινίκων καὶ
διέφθειραν τὰς πάσας ἐς διακοσίας, and in the confused account of Nepos (Czmon 2. 2), who
erroneously makes Mycale the scene of the sea-fight, Zdem tterum apud Mycalen Cypriorum
et Phoentcum ducentarum navium classem devictam cepit. The concluding sentence of
Thucydides is obscurely worded, and it has been proposed to insert a numeral (πὴ 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, ili. 146°); but
besides Diodorus Aristodemus 11. 2 Κίμωνος δὲ rod Μιλτιάδου στρατηγοῦντος ἀνέπλευσαν ἐπὶ τὴν
Παμφυλίαν κατὰ τὸν λεγόμενον Εὐρυμέδοντα ποταμὸν καὶ ἐναυμάχησαν Φοίνιξι καὶ Πέρσαις καὶ λαμπρὰ
ἔργα ἐπεδείξαντο, ἑκατόν τε ναῦς ἑλόντες αὐτάνδρους ἐπεζομάχησαν, Was evidently influenced by
Ephorus, and Frontinus, Stra/eg. iv. 7. 45, agrees with Diodorus both as to the locality of
the sea-fight (apd znsulam Cypron) and the stratagem of Cimon at the land-battle of the
Eurymedon (cf. Diod. xi. 61, 1-2 and ll. 77—-8,n.). Polyaenus, S/raéeg. i. 34.1, inverts the scene
of the sea-fight (off the Eurymedon) and the stratagem (Cyprus), and Klussmann and
Duncker (cf. Busolt, 2. 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. καὶ πολλὰ σκάφη βαρβαρικὰ ἑλών with
ll. 72-3 and τὸν στόλον ὡς φίλιον ὑποδέχονται with 1]. g8-1o1. Justin gives no details, but
the figure 100 for the ships captured by Cimon is also found in Lycurg. ¢. 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. ll. 267-9, n.). Diodorus’
exaggeration of it πλείους τῶν ἑκατόν (1. c.) is either merely rhetorical (cf. p. 111) or made out
of deference to the figure 200 in Thucydides. In favour of the second explanation is the
circumstance that his insertion of τὸ τελευταῖον ἐνίκων οἱ ᾿Αθηναῖοι suggests the influence of
Thucydides (καὶ ἐνίκων... ᾿Αθηναῖοι). Whether Diodorus had any other authority for his
statement τῶν στόλων ἀμφοτέρων λαμπρῶς ἀγωνιζομένων than Ephorus’ reference to πολὺν χρόνον
may also be doubted. Aristodemus, /.c., speaks of λαμπρὰ ἔργα, but in reference to the Greeks
only, and Plutarch, 1. ε., definitely denies that the Persian fleet made any serious resistance,
in contrast to the subsequent κρατερὰ μάχη on land, of which his rhetorical description has
been ascribed to Theopompus; cf. Busolt, iti. 146°.
62-3. For πυνθανομενος cf. Diod. /.c. The verb may well have been αντεξεπλευσε (cf.
Plut. 2. c.).
66-9. The figures are exactly reproduced by Diodorus, 7. 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. ll. 282-4, n. ΟΥ̓ the third τ in
τετταρίακοντα a bit of the cross-bar is on Fr. 9 and the tail of the vertical stroke on Fr. ro.
73-4. διεφθέζρ]εν : this word occurs twice in 842 (xiv. 9 and xix. 20).
76. n[.. . . «ων: ΠΙερσικων (sc. δυνάμεων) (or πὶ ολεμιἸων), followed by ἡγεμονα (i.e.
1610 EPHORUS, XII (OR X1) 123
Tithraustes ; cf. Diod. 7. c.) can be restored, but the article is expected. 7 is nearly certain,
ye[, yo[, or yo[ being the only alternatives and less satisfactory readings. rejy Περσίων is
therefore inadmissible; but τὸν Π᾿. . . . .Jov|[Syv, i.e. a subordinate Persian admiral, or
conceivably l'e[Spvar] (cf. Callisthenes ap. Plut. /. c.) wv (i.e. ὧν) is possible.
77-8. The height of the columns in 1610 is unknown, but probably about 40 lines are
lost between Il. 76 and 77, so that the remains of Fr. ro. 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 ll. 77-8 are to be connected with ἐνεβίβασεν εἰς τὰς αἰχμαλωτίδας vais
τῶν ἰδίων τοὺς ἀρίστους, δοὺς τιάρας καὶ τὴν ἄλλην κατασκευὴν περιθεὶς Περσικήν. οἱ δὲ βάρβαροι
προσπλέοντες ἄρτι τοῦ στόλου ταῖς Περσικαῖς ναυσὶ καὶ παρασκευαῖς ψευσθέντες ὑπέλαβον τὰς ἰδίας
τριήρεις εἶναι. διόπερ οὗτοι μὲν προσεδέξαντο κτλ. (cf. Il. 200-2, Π.). ἰδόντες. . . καὶ τὴν αλ]λην
[κατασκευὴν ὑπε] λαμίβανον (cf. 1. 99) is possible, the letter after λα beginning with a vertical
stroke (not 8). Another passage which might be connected with ll. 77-8 is xi. 61. 4 τοὺς
μὲν yap Ἕλληνας οὐχ ὑπελάμβανον ἥκειν πρὸς αὐτοὺς μετὰ δυνάμεως τὸ σύνολον μηδ᾽ ἔχειν κκλ. But
Ἐλ]ληνίας οὐχ υπε]]λαμίβανον makes 1. 77 too short, and in the absence of any correspondence
in ch. 61 with Il. 79-83 the remains of this column may well have been concerned with
details omitted by Diodorus; cf. p. 112.
Fr. 11. τὸν μεν [στρατηγὸ]ν αὐτῶν | Φερενδάτη |v ἀδελί φιδοῦν ὄντ]α τοῦ βασιλέως ἐν τῇ] σκηνῇ [
‘... (they killed) their general Pherendates, who was the king’s nephew, in his tent.’
» 84-8. Cf,p.1o01 and Diod. xi. 61. 3 καὶ τὸν μὲν στρατηγὸν τῶν βαρβάρων τὸν ἕτερον Φερενδάτην,
ἀδελφιδοῦν τοῦ βασιλέως, ἐν τῇ σκηνῇ καταλαβόντες ἐφόνευσαν, which hardly differs. The two last
words or an equivalent must have followed |. 82. Pherendates was mentioned by Ephorus ;
cf. Plut. Czmon 12 quoted in 1]. 62-76, ἢ. and p. 106. ᾿
Frs. 12413. .. . διετέλουν ὄϊντες, [ὥσ]τε νομίζοντες ἀπὸ τῆς ἠπείρ[ου] τὴν ἔφοδον αὐτ[οῖς
γεγ])ονέναι τῶν πἰ ο]λεμίων πρὸς τὰς] ναῦς] ἔφευγον, ὑπο[λ]αμβάνοντες αὐτοῖς εἶν]αι φιλίας" οὗ δὴ
πἰοΪλλοὶ μὲν ὑπὸ τῶν καταλειφθέντων ἐκεῖ φυλάκων ἀπέθνῃσκον] ἐν τῇ νυκτί, πολλοὶ δὲ ζῶντες
ἡλίσκοντο περιπίπτοντες τοῖς Ἕλλησιν διὰ τὴν ἀπορί[α]ν ὅπου τίρ]άπ[ ο]ή ντο], καὶ τὸν [ἐξ αἰφνης]
αὐτοῖς ἐϊπιπεσόντα φόβ ? jor.
‘... 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. SueredA[ovy olyres: cf. 1865. τό δ[ιετέλ]εσε διαιτώμενος καὶ παιδευόμενος οὕτως. ot Πισιδες
expo. may have preceded, the sentence probably corresponding to καὶ τὰ πρὸς αὐτοὺς ἀλλοτρίως
ἔχοντας in Diodorus ; cf. the next ἢ.
94 sqq. Cf. pp. ror—2 and Diod. xi. 61. 4-6 τοὺς μὲν yap Ἕλληνας οὐχ ὑπελάμβανον ἥκειν πρὸς
αὐτοὺς μετὰ δυνάμεως τὸ σύνολον, μηδ᾽ ἔχειν αὐτοὺς πεζὴν στρατιὰν πεπεισμένοι' τοὺς δὲ Πισίδας ὄντας
ὁμόρους καὶ τὰ πρὸς αὐτοὺς ἀλλοτρίως ἔχοντας ὑπελάμβανον ἥκειν μετὰ δυνάμεως (ὑπελ. .. . Suv. del.
Madvig). διὸ καὶ νομίσαντες ἀπὸ τῆς ἠπείρου τὴν ἐπιφορὰν εἶναι τῶν πολεμίων πρὸς τὰς ναῦς ὡς
πρὸς φιλίας ἔφευγον. τῆς δὲ νυκτὸς οὔσης ἀσελήνου καὶ σκοτεινῆς συνέβαινε τὴν ἄγνοιαν πολὺ μᾶλλον
αὔξεσθαι καὶ μηδένα τἀληθὲς δύνασθαι ἰδεῖν. διὸ καὶ πολλοῦ φόνου γενομένου διὰ τὴν ἀταξίαν τῶν
βαρβάρων 6 μὲν Κίμων xrd.(cf.ll.114—16,n.). Plutarch’s account (Czmon 13, from Theopompus?;
cf. ll. 62-76, n.) is quite different, τῶν δὲ πεζῶν ἐπικαταβάντων πρὸς τὴν θάλασσαν μέγα μὲν ἔργον
ἐφαίνετο τῷ Κίμωνι τὸ βιάζεσθαι τὴν ἀπόβασιν καὶ κεκμηκότας ἀκμῆσι καὶ πολλαπλασίοις ἐπάγειν τοὺς
Ἕλληνας, ὅμως δὲ ῥώμῃ καὶ φρονήματι τοῦ κρατεῖν ὁρῶν ἐπηρμένους καὶ προθύμους ὁμόσε χωρεῖν τοῖς
βαρβάροις, ἀπεβίβαζε τοὺς ὁπλίτας ἔτι θερμοὺς τῷ κατὰ τὴν ναυμαχίαν ἀγῶνι μετὰ κραυγῆς καὶ δρόμου
προσφερομένους. ὑποστάντων δὲ τῶν Περσῶν καὶ δεξαμένων οὐκ ἀγεννῶς κρατερὰ μάχη συνέστη" καὶ
124 THE OXYRAYNCHUS PAPYRI
τῶν ᾿Αθηναίων ἄνδρες ἀγαθοὶ καὶ τοῖς ἀξιώμασι πρῶτοι καὶ διαπρεπεῖς ἔπεσον. πολλῷ δ᾽ ἀγῶνι τρεψά-
μενοι τοὺς βαρβάρους ἔκτεινον, εἶτα ἥρουν αὐτούς τε καὶ σκηνὰς παντοδαπῶν χρημάτων γεμούσας.
Diodorus’ reference to the absence of the moon seems to be his own invention, since there
is no indication in 1]. 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. vopiovres . . . υπι[λ]αμβανοντες : Cf. νομίζομεν ὑπολαμβάνοντες in Ephorus ΕἾ. 2, and,
for ὑπολαμβάνειν, ll. 32, 77-8, n., and 842. vi. το, xi. 17, xiv. 11.
ΙΟΙ. φιλιας : Cf. 842. xiv. 40 φιλίως, and Polyaen. S/raeg. i. 34. 1, quoted in 1]. 62-76, ἢ.
102-4. xarahepCevray .. . φυλακων: cf, Ephorus Fr. 53 φύλακας δὲ κατέλιπον.
104. απεθνηΐσκο! |: cf. 842. xx. 33 συμμείξαντες ἀποθ] ν]ήσκουσιν.
108. That the fragment containing o and part of the ν of EAAn|ow and the ends of
l]. 103-7 is rightly combined with the top of the ν admits of hardly any doubt.
111-12. The letter after αὐτοῖς may be o, and Ἰων may be read for 7ον.
Fr. 14... orpa[rier ?—] νι[κτ ?— ai |rois mup| σὸν ὃ.--Ἰιηναΐ..
114-16. Cf.p. 101, Diod. Δ. ς. 6 μὲν Κίμων προειρηκὼς τοῖς στρατιώταις πρὸς τὸν ἀρθησόμενον
πυρσὸν συντρέχειν ἦρε πρὸς ταῖς ναυσὶ σύσσημον, εὐλαβούμενος μὴ διεσπαρμένων τῶν στρατιωτῶν καὶ
πρὸς ἁρπαγὴν ὁρμησάντων γένηταί τι παράλογον. πάντων δὲ πρὸς τὸν πυρσὸν ἀθροισθέντων καὶ παυσα-
μένων τῆς ἁρπαγῆς, τότε μὲν εἰς τὰς ναῦς ἀπεχώρησαν. τῇ δ᾽ ὑστεραίᾳ κτλ. πυρσεύειν Occurs in
Ephorus Fr, τοῦ. Fr. 48 not improbably came between Frs. 14 and 15; cf. ll. 267-9, n.
Frs. 15-16. τ ? jous [. . . Aoyx ? lopdpous, av Be phere . jov ἐτύγχαΪνεν ὁ ’AlprakepEns, [ἅμα
μὶ]ὲν αὐτὸς κατασχεῖν ? τ]ὴν βασιλείαν [βουλόμ ? jevos, ἅμα δὲ ἰδεδιὼ ?|s μὴ πραγἷμα ree ἀνε]κοινοῦϊ το ὃ
τὴν ...|. ιν πρὸς [τὸν εὐνοῦχον] MiOp [δάτην κατα |x| ο]ιμι[ στὴν τοῦ βασιλέως.
‘,.. 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.’
11g sqq. Cf. Diod. xi. 69. 1 ἐπὶ δὲ τούτων κατὰ τὴν ᾿Ασίαν ᾿Αρτάβανος τὸ μὲν γένος Ὑρκάνιος,
δυνάμενος δὲ πλεῖστον παρὰ τῷ βασιλεῖ Ξέρξῃ καὶ τῶν δορυφόρων ἀφηγούμενος, ἔκρινεν ἀνελεῖν τὸν
Ξέρξην καὶ τὴν βασιλείαν εἰς ἑαυτὸν μεταστῆσαι. ἀνακοινωσάμενος δὲ τὴν ἐπιβουλὴν πρὸς Μιθριδάτην
τὸν εὐνοῦχον, ὃς ἦν κατακοιμιστὴς τοῦ βασιλέως καὶ τὴν κυριωτάτην ἔχων πίστιν, ἅμα δὲ καὶ συγγενὴς
ὧν ᾿Αρταβάνου καὶ φίλος ὑπήκουσε πρὸς τὴν ἐπιβουλήν. [και την κυριωτατη |v can be restored in
1. 133. Probably Fr. 16 followed Fr. 15 with 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. αὐτός in 1. 123 we refer to Artabanus, the phrase
κατα[ σχεῖν τ]ὴν βασιλείαν [βουλόμ]ενος (cf. κατασχεῖν τὴν ἀρχήν in Diod. xi. 69. 4 quoted below,
and τὴν χώραν κατασχεῖν in Ephorus Fr. 29) being very close to both Diodorus’ τὴν βασιλείαν...
μεταστῆσαι and Justin ili. 1 Xerxes... guippe Artabanus praefectus etus...in spem regnt
adductus 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 δορυφόρους would be
expected in ]. 120, but the bottom of the letter preceding go (which is practically certain)
does not come below the line, nor is the tail of a preceding p visible. The word is therefore,
We conjecture, a synonym for δορυφόρους, λογχ]οφόρους being preferable to ξυστ]οφόροις.
With the reading τοὺ]ς φόρους there might be a connexion with Diod. xi. 71. 1 ἐπὶ δὲ τούτων
᾿Αρταξέρξης ὁ βασιλεὺς τῶν Περσῶν ἄρτι τὴν βασιλείαν ἀνακτησάμενος. . . διέταξε τὰ κατὰ τὴν
βασιλείαν συμφερόντως αὑτῷ... ἐπεμελήθη δὲ καὶ τῶν προσόδων καὶ τῆς δυνάμεων κατασκευῆς, καὶ
καθόλου τὴν βασιλείων ὅλην ἐπιεικῶς διοικῶν μεγάλης ἀποδοχῆς ἐτύγχανε παρὰ τοῖς Πέρσαις. The rest
of Fr. 15 would then have to be restored differently, But though αὐτός could be Artaxerxes
1610. EPHORUS, XII (OR XI) 125
and [xrncap|evos is possible in ]. 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. 1 but 69. 3-4 ὁ δ᾽ οὖν ᾿Αρτάβανος παραγενόμενος ἔτι νυκτὸς οὔσης πρὸς τὸν ᾿Αρταξέρξην
ἔφησε Δαρεῖον τὸν ἀδελφὸν αὐτοῦ φονέα γεγονέναι τοῦ πατρὸς καὶ τὴν βασιλείαν εἰς ἑαυτὸν περισπᾶν.
συνεβούλευσεν οὖν αὐτῷ πρὸ τοῦ κατασχεῖν ἐκεῖνον τὴν ἀρχὴν σκοπεῖν ὅπως μὴ δουλεύσῃ διὰ ῥᾳθυμίαν
ἀλλὰ βασιλεύσῃ τὸν φονέα τοῦ πατρὸς τιμωρησάμενος" ἐπηγγείλατο δ᾽ αὐτῷ συνεργοὺς παρέξεσθαι τοὺς
δορυφόρους τοῦ 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 ’Apramavos δὲ μέγα παρὰ
Ξέρξῃ δυνάμενος μετ᾽ ᾿Ασπραμίτου τοῦ εὐνούχου καὶ αὐτοῦ μέγα δυναμένυυ βουλεύονται ἀνελεῖν Ξέρξην,
καὶ ἀναιροῦσι 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 ’Aompapirns to Μιθρι-
δάτης : cf. the variation between Justin’s Bacadbasus (from Ephorus or Dinon ?) and Ctesias’
Μεγάβυζος (Fr. 30), each representing the Persian name Bagabukhsha (cf. Gilmore, ad /oc.),
the subsequent betrayer of Artabanus to Artaxerxes.
121. ων is probably a participle. [ηγεμων] wy is possible; but Artabanus himself, not
Artaxerxes, was in command of the δορυφόροι: cf. the previous ἢ.
ετυγχαΐνεν : cf. 1.178 |rvy|[yav? A fondness for τυγχάνειν characterizes 842; cf. Part
ν. 124.
123. [apa μεὴν : cf. 1. 125 ava de and the same contrast in 842. x. 2.
128-9. ανε]κοινουΐτο toy... .]. w: cf. Diod. 7. ς. ἀνακοινωσάμενος δὲ τὴν ἐπιβουλήν and
842. i. 3 κοινωσάμενος... περὶ τοῦ πράγματος. ave |kowvov [την Bovdev|ow can be read, but is
unlikely, the middle being much commoner than the active. The letter before w is y, ἕξ, σ,
ort. πραΐξιν would be the right length.
133. Cf. ll. 119 sqq., n.
134-9. Cf. p. 102 and Diod. xi. 30. 4-5 pera δὲ ταῦτα ἐκ τῆς ὑπωρείας μετεστρατοπέδευσαν
eis ἕτερον τόπον εὐθετώτερον πρὸς THY ὁλοσχερῆ νίκην. ἦν yap ἐκ μὲν τῶν δεξιῶν γεώλοφος ὑψηλός, ἐκ
δὲ τῶν εὐωνύμων ὁ ᾿Ασωπὸς ποταμός" τὸν δ᾽ ἀνὰ μέσον τόπον ἐπεῖχεν ἡ στρατοπεδεία, πεφραγμένη
τῇ φύσει καὶ ταῖς τῶν τόπων ἀσφαλείαις, where τόπος (cf. ll. 135 and 138) occurs thrice,
though the context is different. στρατί οἰπεδου] is possible in ll. 136--7, and [εν] τοις] τζο]τοις
(Bury) in Il. 137-8, but hardly τί οἰπου in Il. 134-5. The dividing-point of the lines in this
fragment is uncertain.
140-5. Fr. 18 perhaps corresponds to Diod. xi. 57. 3 αὕτη (Xerxes’ sister) πυθομένη τὴν
παρουσίαν τοῦ Θεμιστοκλέους ἦλθεν εἰς τὰ βασίλεια πενθίμην ἐσθῆτα λαβοῦσα καὶ μετὰ δακρύων ἱκέτευε
τὸν ἀδελφὸν ἐπιθεῖναι τιμωρίαν τῷ Θεμιστοκλεῖ. ὡς δ᾽ οὐ προσεῖχεν αὐτῇ, περιήει ... Lines 143-5
can be restored τὸν αἸδελί gov τιμωριαν (or KoAaow) mpog |Jew[at Θεμιστοκλει] ας] de[. The v
in 1. 142, which is nearly certain, would then be expected to belong to δακρύων rather than to
ἱκέτευε, but the vestiges of the letter following it do not suit ὦ, whereas ε is possible.
uxere |ve ἰκλαιουσα τον αἾδελί pov would be suitable, but the remaining two lines 140-1 present
difficulties. ηλίθεν in ]. 141 is unsatisfactory, for the preceding letter seems to be A, not a, and
μεΐλαινηι στοἤλη is too short. If A{aBovea και txere|ve be restored, |An 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. ἱμάτια. The suggested correspondence with Diodorus therefore remains
very uncertain, especially since the supposed A of αἸδελί φον can be a, and Ἰσειπί can be read
for ew.
178. Jrvy|[xav: cf. 1. 121, n.
192-4. If ras [εκεινο]υ mpage[es (cf. 1. 20) is right, Fr. 26 may well belong to the estimate
of Themistocles. The doubtful « can be «. EA]\now suggests that the corresponding
passage in Diodorus is xi. 59. 2-3 ὥστ᾽ εὐχείρωτον γενέσθαι τοῖς Ἕλλησι. διόπερ Grav τὸ μέγεθος
126 THE OXYRHYNCHUS PAPYRI
τῶν ἔργων αὐτοῦ θεωρήσωμεν xrr., SO that Fr. 26 would seem to come immediately above
Fr. 3 (cf. ll. 18 sqq., n.); but the fibres of the verso do not suggest this, and |Avoa is
difficult in such a context. The only alternative is to?|yvom, with which reading Bury
suggests mapa ros EA|\now |...... μη ισΐχυσαι κτλ.
200-2. None of the references to the Athenians in Diod. xi. 55-70 corresponds verbally
to this passage; but with the restoration | Αθηναίους προσεδεΐχοντο it can well be connected
with xi. 61. 2 διόπερ οὗτοι μὲν προσεδέξαντο τοὺς ᾿Αθηναίους ὡς φίλους ὄντας, ὁ δὲ Κίμων kth. Ἶυοντο
can, however, be read in place of |xovro.
213-14. τὴν or φην can be read. For edexie . . . xopay as a possible reference to
Xerxes’ presents to Themistocles ef. Thuc. i. 138. 5 ταύτης yap ἦρχε τῆς χώρας, δόντος
βασιλέως, and Diod. xi. 57. ἐδωρήσατο δ᾽ αὐτῷ πόλεις τρεῖς... Λάμψακον δὲ ἀμπελόφυτον ἔχουσαν
χώραν πολλήν. But the words might come in many other contexts, e.g. Cimon’s distribution
of land in Thrace to the Athenians; cf. Plut. Czmon 7 τὴν δὲ χώραν. .. παρέδωκε τοῖς ᾿Αθηναίοις,
and Diod. xi. 60. 2 καὶ κτίστην ᾿Αθηναῖον καταστήσας κατεκληρούχησε τὴν χώραν (cf. p. 103).
218. Ἶιδων : cf. ll. 237-9, n.
219. Ἰφουΐ : Fr. 32 does not seem to be connected with any of the references to the
Phoenicians in Diod. xi.
223. Perhaps ] Αθηΐναιοι in some form; cf. 1. 201.
228-30. The mention of the Pelasgians and κα]ταφυγ[ή ἢ suggests that Fr. 35 refers to
Scyros and Cimon’s discovery of the bones of Theseus, who took refuge there; cf. ll. 40--
51, n., and p. 100.
237-9. Cf. p. 99 and Diod. xi. 59. 1-2 (Themistocles) ris yap ἕτερος . . . ταῖς ἰδίαις
πράξεσιν ἀφείλετο τῆς Σπάρτης ταύτην τὴν δόξαν ; τίνα δ᾽ ἄλλον ἱστορήκαμεν μιᾷ πράξει ποιήσαντα
διενεγκεῖν αὑτὸν μὲν τῶν ἡγεμόνων, τὴν δὲ πόλιν τῶν “Ἑλληνίδων πόλεων, τοὺς δ᾽ Ἕλληνας τῶν 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 do||fay [τις δὲ τα Kowa ex|rev[ws πραττων μιαιὶὶ mpagle ... It is tempting also to
connect with this fragment Fr. 32, where ἙλληνἼδων can be restored in 1. 218, and
Fr. 39, where πολιν των Ἐλ[ληνιδων 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 ἢ. There is a slight blank space between o and αν in |. 242,
which, however, is not fatal to ΕυβἼοιαν, and with τῶν EA|[Anver in |. 241 there might possibly
be a reference to the expedition of Cimon against Carystus in Euboea (Thuc. i. 98. 3;
cf. pp. 100-1), which was presumably mentioned by Ephorus.
246-8. There is a possible connexion with Diod. xi. 65. 4 ἄλλων δ᾽ οὐκ ὄντων συμμάχων
ἐρημίᾳ τῶν ἐπικουρούντων κατὰ κράτος ἥλωσαν (sc. the Myceneans), or better with xi. 56. 7
κομίζειν ταύτην ἐπὶ ἀπήνης κεκρυμμένην καὶ τῶν ἀπαντώντων μηδένα πολυπραγμονεῖν μηδὲ κατ᾽ ὄψιν
ἀπαντῆσαι τῇ ἀγομένῃ (Lysithides’ device for the introduction of Themistocles to Xerxes;
cf. p. 99); but if so, Diodorus’ version is longer.
252-4. Possibly συντα]ξαΐς δε Αρχιδαμος o| βαΐσιλευς τοις αφεσἾ τηΐκοσι : cf. Diod. xi. 63. 7
τοῦτον τὸν τρόπον οἱ περιλειφθέντες ἐσώθησαν, ods συντάξας ὁ βασιλεὺς ᾿Αρχίδαμος παρεσκευάζετο
πολεμεῖν τοῖς ἀφεστηκόσι. But between Il. 253 and 254 is a spot of ink which, if not
accidental, may belong to a paragraphus, implying a change of sentence, and y| can be
read for τη.
255. εὐεργετεῖν, εὐεργέτης, and εὐεργεσία occur several times in Diod. xi, but the rest of
Fr. 44 does not suit the context of any of those passages.
257- Ἰασυγί : perhaps Jas υπο.
267-9. Fr. 48 exactly suits Diod. xi. 62. 3 va |us eX{ ov ev mehayet| avd| pov πληθουσας pely[a,
from the metrical inscription concerning Cimon’s victories, which is in any case probably
quoted from Ephorus; cf. ll. 62-76, n. But the fragment is too small to be identified with
1610. EPHORUS, XII (OR XI) 127
certainty, and in ]. 269 π can be read in place of γε Another possible parallel is xi. 54. 4
Παυσανίας μὲν κρίνας προδιδόναι τοὺς Ἕλληνας ἐδήλωσε τὴν ἰδίαν ἐπιβολὴν Θεμιστοκλεῖ καὶ παρεκάλεσε.
τους Ἑλίληνας τὴν ιδι]αν δίηλωσας would account for Il. 267--8, and Ἰγ[ (or |n|) might belong to
ἐπιβολὴν Or a Synonym for it, or to π[αρεκαλεσε:
282-4. Fr. 53 is to be combined with Frs. 9 + 10. i, though not actually joining them,
and belongs to ll. 67-9; cf. ll. 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 of πα(ραταχί Aes).
1611. EXTRACTS FROM A WORK ON LITERARY CRITICISM.
Fr.1 18-6 x 26-5 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. 1, 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 (ll. 38 and τοι)
both commence with ὅτι, so that probably the text is a series of extracts from
a longer work.
In Fr. 1 ll. 28-37 give the conclusion of a discussion of a contest of come-
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 times, and |
the Bacchae of Lysippus and Πλοῦτοι 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. ll. 30, 35, nn.
The next section (ll. 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’ Περὶ βασιλείας (Il. 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 (Il. 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 ἱστορία
or yeveadoyia. 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, rexév, is found in 1. 59, and a curious expression, μάλιστα χρημάτων,
occurs in ll. 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; cf. 1. 56, ἢ.
A rather naive remark of the ancient logographer, that it was not ἱερόν for
gods to bear children by mortals, leads our author first to the citation of
two lines from the ᾿Αλκμέων 6 διὰ Κορίνθου of Euripides, spoken by Apollo,
which illustrated this subject, and later to a short discussion of it, the last four
lines being fragmentary (Il. 85-100).
In the third section (ll. 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 Περὶ axpo-
πόλεως, 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 (Il. ror-11, n.). “In confirmation of the paternity of Stephanus,
which seems to have been disputed, a passage from the JZevo of Plato is quoted,
and Fr. 1 breaks off where the writer was about to add fresh evidence on the
point from a lost comedy, the /apetus of Hermippus.
The order of the smaller fragments is quite uncertain except in a few
instances. Fr. 2.i is concerned with a βόρειος ἵππος, two lines from the beginning
of the Omphale of Ion being quoted as an illustration (ll. 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 Περὶ χρησμῶν᾽
(ll. 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 (Il. 146-7), besides
two mentions of her by authors whose names are imperfectly preserved, one of
them being perhaps Arctinus, who wrote the Aethiopis (ll. 148-52). Frs. 5, 6,
and 43 are to be combined, as appears partly from external evidence, partly
from the resulting satisfactory restoration of Il. 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
περσέπολιν δεινάν 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 (ll. 158-9, n.), also adduces the evidence of Phrynichus in favour of
Lamprocles as the author, and quotes the passage in Aristophanes (ll. 160-76).
Little can be made of the remaining fragments. There is probably a
reference in Fr. 8. ii to Hellanicus on Κτίσεις (ll. 212-14, n.); but the context is
obscure. Fr. 9, which is more considerable, relates to a person with a name
beginning with probably A or A and ending in -δημος (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 (Il. 218-28). 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 Omphaie of Ion, and
Fr. 14 possibly mentions Simonides. Other proper names which occur are Ασσηΐ
(1. 247, n.), 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 Il. 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. τ 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).
1611 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 1. 115 and probably 1. 138 to divide a quotation from the main
text. Paragraphi also occur after 1]. go (where it is misplaced), 165, 214, and 231
to indicate quotations. Strokes against the margin of 1]. 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 x (l. 56, 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 (ll. 91 and 127), and there are some
K
130 THE OXYRHYNCHUS PAPYRI
diaereses over « and v. An abbreviation, x’ for καί, is used in 1. 216. lota
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 ε above 1. 281; in ll. 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, 1], 45 o for ov,
46 αξιον for afiwv, 57 Ποσιδων for Ποσειδεων, 61 avrov for αὐτην, 80 ορειον for ορθιον,
84 τι for το, 91 am’ for απο, 107 the apparent omission of καλου after Κοίαλεμου, 127
αἴνεται for ἄνεται, 222 μεθικαν for μεθηκαν : cf. also Il. 123, 146, 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 (1) Polemon, who was a Delphic πρόξενος 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 Il. 162-5, n.) at first sight suggests that
the papyrus may consist of extracts from Eratosthenes’ clebrated work Περὶ
ἀρχαίας κωμῳδίας. The first of the three sections in Fr. 1 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 (1) synchronized
with Aristophanes of Byzantium (the successor of Eratosthenes as librarian at
Alexandria; cf. p. 131) and (2) was the disciple of Panaetius (about 180-110 B.C.)
are scarcely consistent with each other, and the second has usually been regarded
as corrupt; cf. Susemihl, i. 66611%. 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 Περὶ ἀρχαίας κωμῳδίας 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 Lycophrone, Euphronio, Eratosthene, &c.,
Fr. 75), is also quoted in 1611 (1. 38). Polemon, who joined the Pergamene
1611. WORK ON LITERARY CRITICISM 121
school, wrote a treatise against Eratosthenes (Susemihl, i. 67015%) Περὶ τῆς
᾿Αθήνησιν ᾿Ερατοσθένους ἐπιδημίας, 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 Περὶ ἀρχαίας
κωμῳδίας, 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. 101-11, 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.6797°°. 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 Περὶ apy. 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 καὶ ’Apiorapxos in 1241. ii. 8 as an interpolation) Apollonius
the εἰδογράφος and Aristarchus of Samothrace, suggests that Eratosthenes literary
activity hardly continued as late as the reign of Epiphanes, and if the corrupt
Φιλοπάτορος in 1241. ii. 15 is corrected to ᾿πιφάνους instead of Φιλομήτορος, 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 Περὶ ἀκροπόλεως is a much more serious and probably insuperable
obstacle to the attribution of 1611 to Eratosthenes Περὶ ἀρχαίας κωμῳδίας. 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. ll. τό2--
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
K2
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 (ll. 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 mzscellanies (σύμμικτα), which were composed by several
grammarians of the Alexandrine and Roman periods. Of these miscellanies the
éarliest known is by Callistratus the pupil of Aristophanes of Byzantium and
composer also of a work Πρὸς τὰς ἀθετήσεις (sc. of Aristarchus) and commentaries
on Cratinus and Aristophanes; cf. Athen. iii. 125 c-d, where the 7th book is
quoted, R. Schmidt, De Callistrato Aristophaneo, and Susemihl, i. 450. Another
composer of miscellanies was Herodicus ὁ Κρατήτειος, who is chiefly known from
quotations in Athenaeus from his three works, Πρὸς τὸν Φιλοσωκράτην, Σύμμικτα
ὑπομνήματα (Athen. viii. 340 e), and Κωμῳδούμενοι (in at least six books). His
date is disputed: Gudeman in Pauly-Wissowa, Realenc. vill. 974, assigns him
to the first century B.c. That the celebrated Didymus, who died in the reign of
Augustus, wrote Σύμμικτα is attested by the Aiym. Gud. 124. 2, where it is
stated that Alexion (a first-century grammarian of Alexandria) made an epitome
of them. The Σύμμικτα 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 καὶ ἄλλα σύμμικτα, and Seleucus
ἐν Συμμίκτοις 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
συμμίκτων ἱστορικῶν ὑπομνημάτων λόγοι, 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 ὁ μουσικός, who is known to have discussed the authorship of the ode
to Pallas (cf. ll. 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. ll. 162-5, n.) and is thought to have
epitomized his Μουσικὴ ἱστορία (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.
5 lines
lost
Ἰν
prov
hs @
10 |o
jee
Ἰαις
12 lines
lost
Fee
Col. ii.
3 lines lost
ERELEY se τ a
ORS ἀντ τ. Jae
30 [...Jov νυν σ΄. ερα. ἢ
μας Ov οντας τεττα
ρία]ς και τους κριτας δὴ
λον ovTws τετταρὰ
κοντα Avonniol|s ὃ ev
35 Βακχαῖις ξ ομοιὼς de
και Κρατινος εν Πλου
τοις λεγει
>
40
45
[ο]τι το παρα Θεοφραστωι
‘Acyoluevov ev τῶι dev
τερωι Περι βασιλειας
περι του Καινεως do
ρατος τοῦτο καὶ οὑτος
ἐστιν ὡς αἀληθως ο τωι
σκηπτρωι βασιλευων
o(v) τωι δορατι καθάπερ
ο Kawevs αξιον yap
[κρα]τειν ο Katvevs τωι
[δορίατι αλλ ουχι τωι σκη
59. τε οὗ τεκέν corr. from ou.
Col. iii.
[πΊτρωι καθαπίερ οἱ π7}ο
50 [AAo]: βασιλεις [ἐσφαλη 3] | ov
[yap] εδυνατο πῖρος ?] | τῆς
[ut A]kovothaov [Tov] | Ap
γείου καταλ[εγομενης]
ἱστορίας amroAvaalt
55 λέγει yap περι Καινεᾳ Ϊ
χ ουτως Καινηι δε τηι
Edarov μισγεται Toot
δων ἐπειτα ov yap nv
τεκέν OUT
avros iepov παιδας |[7]] εἶ ε
60 κεινοῦ our εξ αλλου ov
devos roves avtov IIo
σε[Ἴδεων avdpa atpw
[Toy ἰσχὺν exovra [μεῖγι
[σ]τίη]ν τῶν ανθρωπων ;
65 τῶν τοτε Καὶ OTE τις av
τον κεντοιὴ σιδηρωι
7 χάλκωι ἡλίσκετο μα
λιστα χρηματῶων και
γίγνεται βασιλεὺυς ov
70 Tos “απιθεων Kat τοις
Kevravpos πολεμεε
OKE ἐπειτὰ OTNTAS akov
72. ι of ἐπειτα added later.
134 THE OXYRHYNCHUS PAPYRI
Col. iv. Col. v.
[τιον εν ayopat TouTwt ?] [MEVOU woes scenes ]
[keAever θυειν ? Deo] Nils τῆς ess es oe
"5 ot ὃ οὐκ NE.[.-+e0 και ? Τὰ (se 56 colores
Zevs ἰδων αὐυτίον talvTa 100 KEV [eens snnnwne stem
TolovvTa απειλει Kal EB
XK OTL OVX [os --τ τ τὴν
ενταυρου
Popes einer uray 6n.[.... Kat? Πολεμων
κακεινοι QUTOV κατα
ev tot |. Περι ἀκροπο
80 κοπτουσιν ορειον κατα
ἢ NEGS Ole οτος
και ανωθεν πετρὴν
Li habeas τὰ fairy 105 avaypagl........
επιτιθεισιν σημα Kal Σ :
᾿ tle tov Μελησιου νιον re
αποθνηισκει" τοῦτ εἰσΊτιν
/ 7 τ φανου δὲ του Κοίαλεμου (καλουὴ
,γαρ wos τι τῶι δορατι ap :
μένου πατερα ἴουτοι ἢ
85 yew tov Καινεα δυνα
de Tov συγγραφίεα μεν
ται δε δια TovTov καὶ TO
110 φασιν Ολορου vifoy tpi?
παρ Ευριπιδη" ev Adkpe
tov δὲ τον Φαρσίαλιον
ὠνι τῶι δια ΚΙο]ρινθου
περι μὲν ovy του [Tov Σῖτε
λεγομενον ὑπὸ θεου :
φανου πατρος κίαι Πλα
ο Kayw@ μεν ατεκνος eye
Ala he ; ns τῶν φησιν ev τίωι Me
νομὴν κεινης am }
PN Ί 115 νωνι outws [ott Θου
κμεωνι ὃ ετεκε διδυ
μα τεκνα παρθενος . κυδιδης δυο ἴνεις εθρε
εαν τις ζητη" πὼς ἢ ψεν Μελησιαῖΐν και Στε
95 του θεου μειξις ayovos φανον' τουτουΐς επαιδευ
ἐστιν δια του προκει σεν" kat Ερμιπῖπος o ποι
120 τῆς ev Ιαπείΐτωι λεγει
87. κ Of ἀλκμεωνι Corr.
Fr. 2 (tops of cols. ὃ). Fr. 3.
Col. i. Col. ii. 135. scfm
[..] 9 ev rye Ivols Ομφ]ᾳ 131 [ ov πατί
An κατ ἀρχὴν heyoue Toll o δε Bal
[νος Hpaxdeous βορειος ποιο.Ϊ 7 μεγαλί
[ἰπ͵πος ovT@s opwy μεν p.a.[ 7 ae
125 [n|6n Πελοπος εξελαυ
1611.
[νοῖμεν Eppn βορειον
[τπΊπον" αἴνεται ὃ οδος
ἰδιαλελυκε 0 αὐτο Mva
ἰσεας οὔ] Παταρίευς ely ται]
WORK ON LITERARY CRITICISM
135
140 πος ποτὶ
θαρσει πὶ
os epi
9 <&¢
130 [Περι x]pnopoly......
Fr. 4 Frs. 5+ 43.
Col. i. Col. ii ley
Se eT Be Pee ee Kat ? 155 at
συ γυναι Tivos εγγονΐος αδὶ
ευχίε]αι εἰναι και τία ε ag
Ens Kat ws εκτιθεῖζαι Ap Gal
[κτι ϑῆνος ολον αυτηΐς νησεῖ
144 Ἰν 150 [τον] θανατον και o [.. 160 ταις Φ[ρυνίιχος ....-
[.. .JOns δὲ τον zp. . agnyolvluev[os.....
-[... εν] τίω] € [.]ια..
|
θὲ: 6.
Gal. i.
[κοὴν αγναν πίαιδα Ar
[os] μεγαλου ὅδίαμασιπ
165 πον ovT@ παραΐποιει ?
᾿ διαπορουσι yap ουΪΐκ ο 180
λίγοι m[e]pe τίουτων Ka
[θ]Ίαπερ Xapaihewy πο
τερον ποτε Στηϊσιχορου
το ἐστιν ἡ Aapmpokdle
[ols κ[αιπΊερ[[ 11] του Φρυνήι
[xov ΔαμΊπροκλει μα[θη(τῃ) ?
[Μιδωνος 9] προσνεμον
[ros και ἢ ΑἹριστοφανης
175 [δε ἢ παραπΊοιει λεγων
[Παλλαδα] π[ε]ρσε[π]Ἰο[λεν)
end of col.
190
169. v of Στηΐ σιχορου corr. from s.
Παϊίλ]λα[ δα] περίσεπολιν
162a ἰκληιζίω πίολεμαδο
Be?
Col: ii. if
[Ἰ. γ᾽ 71. σι
τοις [ 195 Ἰως πυρ
τοπὶ Ἰιπονο
αμφί οἿυ μονον
κοις [ ]ησεν adr
πλαΐ λα και 1. εἶ ξἾεν
Aa Bl 209 Ἰμβον
οσον | Ἰονοις
χετὶ \re yun
evpo . [ ] . ἐστί.
λιαις αἷστεῦ Ἰνησί.
ειναι Tov [| 205 Ἰπενΐ.
ρισμον . |
et ye καὶ [
και ενἶ
m- Jel
end of col.
136 THE OXYRHYNCHUS ‘PAPYRI
Fr. 8. ΕΥ. ο.
Col. i. Col. ii. αλλί
[- . -Jev[ ἸΝαξίιοι ὃς τς τος iene ev? pe
Ae ater ἢ 220. TALM| MUO Ὁ. τ τὺ
210 xepe . [ τα Tov Opalkov.....
τοι συμ μεθικαν αἰποκομισα ?
ων πἶ. . ... Ελλανι υ
oO ὃ i [rats Εθνων ? [#levol|s]] δε τὸν ἀρ ΣΝ
ἜΜ πα δημον εἰς τὴν ΠΙαρον ?
Ἔχε: ἀπ 225 n'TLwvTO περι τουτίων
ὯΝ ot Πᾳαριοι και εἰς δικα
206 1. ἱπὸν [1. por K [
ΠΕ ΣΡ δ, στηριον εἰισαγαγονΐτες
; απεκτειναν" K[al?..
[ον σεν ἢ Ἰης δ ev [
Fr. το. Be. δ: Frage
POOR Arta g a wih aes Ὁ Wk dias. ΠΡΟΣ ΤΣ ὧς ἘΠΕ ΑΕ [- (τιν
᾿ ἀρισταῖ sie ete ve re Ἰεγ Κη]: 250 μοὺς of
Digs Cireht eden bton dase arbre παρ ? joLpLo Δυκι
διων εχί Ἐπ RE tet τε [|
ρίο]υ και «Ki 245 ..japls εἐσχατοί. . .. ραΐ
235 τὴν ερυθΐραν - Jrovens ἡδοναῖς n? νι .Ϊ
ov ἕενον [| αλγ ?\ndovas o de Acan| 255 ριλί
παρατρί «ἦε. [στρατευοι περίι. εκ .Ϊ
μα εξηνΐ end of col. [ole . [
yap thv..[ ov?
240 Kk αν εἰπεν [
Fr, 12. Pr. 14. Fr. 15 Εν, τό.
rel Ve ταγμβί 210 puado 25 \noo|
Ἰκοσμί 265 πῆρωτον Ϊ 1 Ardov υἱ gn ἴ)σι de [περι ?
260 Ἰν add. [ Jav AaBof Odluccevs . [ Ins ἴων [
Joe ἡμερί Ἰουτω a. [ |rno@ . [ nv ti
Joy ποτὶ Ἰωνιδου] Jos: καὶ Ἰντί
πο των Ϊ ov[
Ἰω{.]1η « [
end of col.
1611. WORK ON LITERARY CRITICISM 137
ΕΥ, τῇ. Fr, 18. Ετ. το. Ey. 20.
280 [Θεοδεκ 2}r[n]s ὃ ev Ορεστηΐ Ἰθνουΐ Ir. »[ Ἰαίοι.
ὼ : 285 |repo[ ] καθ ny Ἰουκῖ
[wepi?...laTias φησιν Derk of ἢ ἜΝ
7. θην υπο ; 5
H-Juos δ Ἶν κί Japas τῆς [ 295 ]..
ET es cl end of col. end of col. Ἰωμί
ΕΥ5. 21 + 22. Pr-23: Fr. 24.
In - [- ln πρι 1.1} Jad
Js de 305 Ἰειλη 310 Al ἡ jatool
Jo | mvp Jal Ἱκεμῖ
800 7.0 ἶκος Ἰεν 1. μἱ
Alvour |ra Jor[ 320 Jee. [
πος ev—] cuTws end of col. ? Jov[ |keal
Ἰντρῖ. 315. Ἰστί
Fr. 25. Fr, 26. Br27. Fr. 28.
[...] υπαλί Jas επί rey ral
[. - -levpov [ Ἰουτί Te sal her's
5 wv τῇ [-]-[
Tavov Kal υἱ |B κρ Ἰντί
‘ 340 J|rov ν..Ϊ
. 325 T eyxal 330 Jo yap-[ 335. Jn Oo
ev τοις [ 1. ουλεῖ Ἰγριτί ea
; : : end of col.
end of col. end of col. Ἰνιαί
Fr. 20. Fr. 30. Pe. 44, Fre 32.
71. cer top of col. Jos Jazof
|rpo . [ 346 | ἱππολί abou Manas | 355 ]- ὡριΐ
Ἰωδί et o7[ εἰσέψαι Ἰατακοῖ
Ste. Worl
345 |v &{ Ἰαμῖ a ejmex « [
tas jue Tol :
Ετι 22. ir. 44. ΒΟ: ' Fr. 36.
7.} 1δ top of col. Jews Of
Ἰμαφυΐ Ἰοσί 366 Ἰς εκί 370 1 Πτολεμίαι
86ο 1. αποί Ἰστεῖ ]. as τί Ἰστισί
lof 865 Ira lef
370. τ Of Drod. inserted.
138 TRE. OXYRAVNCAUS Farr
Βα οῆ: Fr. 48. Fr. 39. Fr. 40.
ΒΙ͂Σ Ἐπ 315 |Pal Ἰαιμὶ 381 deo]
πὶ Jav| J. αι Ἰφοροῖ
rf 16 380. dol ἰαπερῖ
Fr. 41. Fr. 42. Fr. 43. Fr. 44.
1... προῖ ky tel pf 396 Ἰν ληΐ
385 |.[.Jve.[ ]- yap υπερῖ Ἰμενΐ Ἰστοῖ
].u..Tal 390 Ἰουνοστί |rep| ral
1.1 1.1 395 Ἰωπὶ 1.1
Fr. 45. Fr. 46. Fr. 47. Fr, 48. Fr. 49.
goo ro Eee er atx Jo
val Ἰν arf Ἰουλί 410 |nrpe.[ jee
70) 405 Ἰανΐ jo[-]- [ end of col. ls
Fr. 50. Fr. 51. Fr. 52. Fr. 53-
71. Tel 416 1. do6[ 418 71. [le 420. .:, ΠῚ
415 javol Ἰανυΐ 105 To Ao ]. τεσωσὶ
end of col. end of col. end of col. end of col.
Fr. 54. Fr. 55. Fr. 56. Pes 57: Fr. 58.
422 Jnl Ἰν pel 426 Ἰτων [ 428 Ἰωρ.[Ϊ 430 Ἰθελί
Ἰφυ 455 lee [ Wel reed) Jarl
Fr. 59. Fr. 60. προ: Fr. 62. Fr. 63.
432 |. Tad Ἰυξῖ 436 | 438 Ἰκί 440 1. ποι.Ϊ
Ἰαρταῖ 435 Jo. οἴ Ἱκατ 1..1 1.1
Fr. 64. Fr. 65. Fr. 66. Fr. 67. Fr. 68.
442 var of 443 ]--€af 444 Ἰσί͵ 445 ]- of Ἰν πατί
end of col. end of col. Xal 459 Ἰμοιγῖ
]
]
Jaxal Ἰειλί
]
1611. WORK ON LITERARY CRITICISM 139
29-37. |sdvri...:..Jal...Jov νῦν σ΄. epa. “ἡμᾶς δύ᾽ ὄντας rérrap|als καὶ τοὺς kpirds’, δῆλον οὕτως
Ξ ’, ὦ , , ς , ‘ ‘ - > LA ΄
τετταράκοντα, Λύσιππος δ᾽ ἐν Βάκχαις ε΄, ὁμοίως δὲ καὶ Κρατῖνος ἐν Πλούτοις λέγει.
‘,.. “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 Πλοῦτοι.᾽
\ ‘ « \ a
38-97. [dre τὸ mapa Θεοφράστῳ λεγόμενον ἐν τῷ δευτέρῳ Περὶ βασιλείας περὶ τοῦ Καινέως
, a“ ee ‘ i, Bh > ε > - ε ~ , ΄ > a , , ¢ ae
δόρατος τοῦτο" “ καὶ οὗτός ἐστιν ὡς ἀληθῶς ὁ τῷ σκήπτρῳ βασιλεύων, ο(ὐν τῷ δόρατι καθάπερ ὁ Kaweis.
ἀξι(ῶὴν γὰρ [κραἸτεῖν ὁ Καινεὺς τῷ [δόρ]ατι, ἀλλ᾽ οὐχὶ τῷ σκήπ]τρῳ καθά οἱ π͵ολλο]ὶ βασιλεῖ
yap [κρ ® δόρατι, χὶ τῷ σκήϊπ]τγρῳ καθάπ]ερ οἱ π ασιλεῖς,
2 aN ἢ ᾽ \ δύ x Pa a ΕΝ λά a]? , λ ΄ ς ,
ἐσφάλη" ?| οὐ |yap| ἐδύνατο π᾿ ρὸς Υ] τῆς | ὑπ᾽ ᾿Α ΙΚκουσιλάου [τοῦ] ᾿Αργείου καταλ] εγομένης ἱστορίας
2 “a ΄ a ΄σ r
ἀπολῦσαι]. λέγει yap περὶ Καινέα οὕτως" “ Καινῇ δὲ τῇ Ἐλάτου μίσγεται Ποσειδζέγων. ἔπειτα,
> Bb > > ΄“- « A δι ‘ ἂψ, ) 5 ? , yw? > ΕΣ > , - > ‘ ,
οὐ yap ἢν αὐτοῖς ἱερὸν παῖδας τεκὲν οὔτ᾽ ἐξ ἐκείνου οὔτ᾽ ἐξ ἄλλου οὐδενός, ποιεῖ αὐτ(ὴ)ν Ποσε[ι]δέων
2 a F > \ »” [ ] if [ ] - > , a , Ἐπ δ εἴτ , a
ἄνδρα ἄτρω roly, ἰσχὺν ἔχοντα | pe γί σἼτη ν τῶν ἀνθρώπων τῶν τότε, καὶ ὅτε τις αὐτὸν κεντοίη σιδηρῷ
a 2 ‘ ἘΞ
ἢ χαλκῷ, ἡλίσκετο μάλιστα χρημάτων. καὶ γίγνεται βασιλεὺς οὗτος Λαπιθέων καὶ τοῖς Κενταύροις
πολεμέεσκε, ἔπειτα στήσας ἀκόντιον ἐν ἀγορᾷ τούτῳ κελεύει Ovew? θεοῖσι δ᾽ οὐκ ἦε. Ϊ... -..» καὶ ὃ]
Ζεὺς ἰδὼν αὐτ[ὸν τα]ῦτα ποιοῦντα ἀπειλεῖ καὶ ἐφορμᾷ τοὺς Κενταύρους, κἀκεῖνοι αὐτὸν κατακόπτουσιν
” a ε a a a
ὄρ(θλιον κατὰ γῆς καὶ ἄνωθεν πέτρην ἐπιτιθεῖσιν σῆμα καὶ ἀποθνήσκει. τοῦτ᾽ éla|rw yap ἴσως 7() τῷ
δό + A ΄ δύ δὲ ὃ Q ’ LY ‘ ᾽ > , > 9 ΄ les A ,
part ἄρχειν τὸν Καινέα. δύναται δὲ διὰ τούτου καὶ τὸ παρ᾽ Εὐριπίδῃ ἐν ᾿Αλκμέωνι τῷ διὰ Κἰ ο]ρίνθου
t
ε Η
λεγόμενον ὑπὸ θεοῦ"
6.2 ὦ oo» ? , , »
κἀγὼ μὲν ἄτεκνος ἐγενόμην κείνης ano),
᾽
᾿Αλκμέωνι δ᾽ ἔτεκε δίδυμα τέκνα παρθένος.
ἐάν τις ζητῇ πῶς ἡ τοῦ θεοῦ μεῖξις ἄγονός ἐστιν, διὰ τοῦ προκειμένου...
‘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’ ᾿Αλκμέων ὁ διὰ Κορίνθου “ 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...’
1Ο1--20. ὅτι οὐχ [........-...-]7. [εν ον Kal? Πολέμων] ἐν τῷ [΄. Περὶ ἀκροπόλεως
οι τὰς .| ἀναγραφ]. . « « -«. .] τὸν Μελησίου [υἱόν, Στε]φάνου δὲ τοῦ Κο[αλέμου (καλου)]-
μένου πατέρα, [οὗτοι ἢ] δὲ τὸν συγγραφέα μέν] φασιν ᾽Ολόρου vil dv, τρί ?Jrov δὲ τὸν Φαροσάλιον.]
περὶ μὲν οὖν τοῦ [rod Στεφάνου πατρὸς κ[αὶ Πλάϊτων φησὶν ἐν τῷ Μένωνι οὕτως" [‘ ὅτι Θουκυδίδης
δύο [ὑεῖς ἔθρεψεν Μελησίαϊν καὶ Στέ]φανον" τούτοις ἐπαίδευσεν. καὶ Ἕρμιππος ὁ ποι]ητὴς ἐν
᾿Ιαπε τῷ λέγει...
‘That... ἀηά Polemon in the [.] book Concerning the Acropolis do ποῖ... 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
140 THE OXYRHYNCHUS PAPYRI
of Stephanus Plato also says in the Jeno “ That Thucydides brought up two sons, Melesias
and Stephanus; these he educated”. And Hermippus the poet in the Japefus says .
121-30. ] ὁ ἐν τῇ Ἴωνοϊς Opp ἄλῃ κατ᾽ ἀρχὴν Aeyopel v Jes Ἡρακλέους βόρειος [ἴπ͵πος οὕτως"
ὅρων μὲν ἤ \8 Πέλοπος ἐξελαί [vo Her,
Ἑρμῆ, βόρειον {1πΊπον᾿ ἄτζι}νεται δ᾽ ὁδός."
[διαλ])έλυκε δ᾽ αὐτὸ Μναΐσέας ὁ ἢ] Παταρ[εὺς ἐν τῷ [Περὶ χ]ρησμῶ [» Syed
... 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, O Hermes, the northern
horse, and the road is finished.” Mnaseas of Patara in his work Concerning Oracles has
solved the difficulty...’
146-52. ‘... καὶ ἢ] σύ, γύναι, τίνος ἔζκγγονος εὔχ[ εἾαι εἶναι ;’
καὶ τὰ ἑξῆς, καὶ ὡς ἐκτίθεται "Apkti?|vos ὅλον αὐτῆς τὸν] θάνατον. καὶ ὁ [. «0. «|Oys δὲ τὸν
τρί. | - [. τὶς ἐν] τί ῷ] ε΄ [.Ἰια[. . jaf. 4 -
««...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. Ἰταις φ[ρύἼνιχος...... | ἀφηγο[ύμειζος.. .. | “ Πα[λ]λάϊδα περσέπολιν κλήζ]ω
π[ολεμαδόκο]ν ἁγνὰν maida Διὸς μεγάλου δίαμάσιπ᾽πον ᾿ οὕτω παραΐποιεῖ ἢ] διαποροῦσι γὰρ οἰκ ὀἸλίγοι
πἰ εἰρὶ τ[ού]των, Kal θ]άπερ Χαμαιλέων, πότερόν ποτε Στηϊ σι]χόρου ἐστὶν ἢ Λαμπροκλ[έο]υς, κζαίπ]ερ τοῦ
[ϑρυνίχου ΛαμἸπροκλεῖ pal θη(τῇ) Μίδωνος ἢ] mpoovepor|ros. καὶ ἢ ᾿ΑἹριστοφάνης [δὲ ? παραπΊοιεῖ λέγων
‘ Παλλάδα] ale Ἰρσεΐπ᾽ Ἰοῖλιν δεινάν ᾿
. Phrynichus relating ... “To Pallas destroyer of cities I call, to the sustainer of
war, 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 Ὁ Aristo-
phanes also introduces it saying ‘‘ To Pallas destroyer of cities, the terrible” .. .’
219-28. ... Naé (cor? πο τ ξο: ἐν pe |raty| μίῳ ? ΣΕΥ τὰ ΠΡῸΣ ] Ta TOV με. Pg - .|
μεθ(ῆγκαν. ἀϊποκομισάμ ? levor δὲ τὸν *Alprord ϑ]δημον εἰς τὴν Π[άρον ἢ) ἠτιῶντο περὶ τούὐτ[ ων] οἱ Πάριοι,
καὶ εἰς δικαστήριον εἰσαγαγόι [res] ἀπέκτειναν.
... 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 | 8 xp[era can be restored (cf. ll. 31-2), is perhaps to be
placed at the bottom of Col. i, as Allen suggests.
29. ἧς avr: the division of these letters is uncertain. ἡ can be read instead of «.
30. |ov: εν can equally well be read. All that is visible before v is a spot of ink in
about the middle of the line. av is impossible, and other vowels are improbable.
€ . €pa.: except in pa, only the bottoms of the letters are preserved. The first seems
to be ε or σ and [:| may be lost between it and the second, which is rather more like ε, 6, or σ᾿
than e.g. y ors, 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 y, 7, ds], «, μι ν, or 7. Cf. the next ἢ.
nvas: the first person is not found elsewhere in 1611, and ἡμας δυοντας can hardly be
right, though possibly the participle is to be corrected to Avovras or δζιαλ)νοντας : cf. 1. 128
[διαἸλέλυκε. The present active of dvew is very rare outside epic poetry. μα suits the vestiges
very well; the lacuna between these two broken letters could take [1], but not [ep]. As was
suggested by Prof. Rostowzew, it is better to divide δυ(ο) ovras and regard yas . . . κριτας as
1611. WORK ON LITERARY CRITICISM 141
a quotation from a comedy. ‘The preceding words can also be an iambic line, ending νυν
ae opav. Cf. also Il. 23-7, ἢ.
35. €: for 5 judges at contests of comedies cf. Schol. Ar. Birds 445 ἔκριναν κριταὶ τοὺς
κωμικούς. οἱ δὲ λαμβάνοντες τὰς ε΄ ψήφους εὐδαιμόνουν, Hesych. πέντε κριταί" τοσοῦτοι τοῖς κωμικοῖς
ἔκρινον οὐ μόνον ᾿Αθήνησιν ἀλλὰ καὶ ἐν Σικελίᾳ, Zenobius, Cent. iii. 64. ἐν πέντε κριτῶν γούνασι κεῖται"
«+. πέντε κριταὶ τοὺς κωμικοὺς ἔκρινον, ὥς φησι Ἐπίχαρμος, 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 tois 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, Lehrd. d. griech. Biihnenalt. 368-72. In Plut. Czmon 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. 1 for each tribe, this body
of το 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 contests of comedies might also refer to the contending poets, of whom 5 are |
attested in the time of Aristophanes and in the second century 8.6. (cf. Miiller, of. οἱ]. 321), ‘
and these might be connected with rov?|s avr in 1. 29 and be contrasted with qyas dv ovras,
not with τέσσαρας καὶ τοὺς xptras. Owing to the loss of the beginning we are unable |
to suggest a satisfactory explanation of the passage ; but in view of (1) the common use of |
κριταί in connexion with dramatic contests in particular, and (2) the two references to Old
Comedy, it remains probable that contests of comedies are in some way meant. Of the
Bacchae of Lysippus, which seems to have been his most popular play, six fragments are
known, and of Cratinus’ Πλοῦτοι nine. |
38. [o|re: cf. 1. 10r. The papyrus is not broken, but no trace of o is visible; it has
᾿ more probably been obliterated than omitted by mistake. τὸ might be the beginning of
a section of a work in the style of Aristotle’s Problems, but does not suit rovro in |, 42;
cf. the next n.
42. τουτο, we think, refers to the following quotation, like ours in ll. 56 and 115.
There is no marginal indication of the beginning of a quotation here, as there is commonly
elsewhere (cf.p. 129); but καὶ ovros is unintelligible as part of our author’s commentary. Where
the Theophrastus quotation ends is not quite clear. It might stop after Καινεὺς in 1. 46, or
arodvoa|t ἸΏ 1. 54, Or αποθνηισκει in 1. 83, where the Acusilaus quotation in any case ends
and there are strokes in the margin, or even after Kawea in 1. 85. That ll. 85-100 belong
to Theophrastus is very unlikely, their subject being irrelevant to his treatise. We adopt
]. 46 as the dividing-point between the Theophrastus quotation and our author’s comment.
If Theophrastus had quoted the long Acusilaus extract, which is not in itself likely, an
allusion to the latter would rather have been expected at the beginning of the section, and
below 1. 46 a paragraphus or other critical sign may have been lost.
46. a&ov is a mistake for αξιων. Cf. p. 130.
49-52. The ends of these lines are on a fragment which was originally separate, but is
very suitably placed here, though there is no external indication that it belongs to the top
of acolumn, aljAdo|: is inadmissible in ll. 49-50. προς] της in 1. 51 is not at all satisfactory
in the apparent sense of κατά with the accusative, but πίερι] is no improvement, and
a preposition is required. μ andv are the only alternatives to 7, ὅια being thus excluded
and μετα being also unsatisfactory.
53. «can equally well be read in place of the r of καταλ[εγομενης, but και αλίλων (with του
instead of um in ]. 52) makes |. 53 much shorter than the preceding lines, though not much
shorter than |. 54 if ἀπολυσαίι there is right. απολυσαΐσθαι is possible as far as the size of the
lacuna is concerned, but would make 1. 54 unusually long.
142 THE OXYRHYNCHUS PAPYRI
55- Katvea: ΟΥ̓ Καινεωΐς.
56. x in the margin, marking the beginning of the quotation, probably, as Allen
suggests, means χρ(ῆσις), 1.6. ‘ passage’; cf. Dion. Hal. De rhez. 4 and Apoll. Dysc. De synt.
i. 119. It also occurs in Anecd. Oxon. ii. 452. 19 X ᾿Αριστοφάνους ( = Birds 1180), and in
the Axecd. Parisinum de notis (Bergk, Zettschr. f. Alter. 1845, 88) along with the obelus,
which occurs in ]. 116 of the papyrus, also apparently to indicate a quotation, for which the
usual sign in papyri is the diple, e.g. in 405 (Part iii, Plate i). The obelus is explained
in the Azecd. Paris. in accordance with its usual sense of indicating an error ; of X¥ the writer
says chi et ro: haec sola vix ad voluntatem untuscuiusque ad aliquid notandum ponitur.
Kawyt: Kawis, not Kawn, is the feminine form of Kawet’s elsewhere; cf. Phleg. Fr. 34
oi αὐτοὶ (sc. Hesiod, Dicaearchus, Clearchus, Callimachus and others) ἱστοροῦσι κατὰ τὴν
Λαπιθῶν χώραν γενέσθαι ᾿λάτῳ τῷ βασιλεῖ θυγατέρα ὀνομαζομένην Kawida’ ταυτῇ δὲ Ποσειδῶνα
μιγέντα ἐπαγγείλασθαι ποιήσειν αὐτὴν ὃ ἂν ἐθέλῃ, τὴν δὲ ἀξιῶσαι μεταλλάξαι αὐτὴν εἰς ἄνδρα, ποιῆσαι τε
ἄτρωτον. τοῦ δὲ Ποσειδῶνος κατὰ τὸ ἀξιωθὲν ποιήσαντος μετονομασθῆναι Καινέα. Ovid, who describes
at considerable length Caeneus’ death in 77είαηι. xii. 172 sqq., also has (σεῖς. Acusilaus’
work was largely based on Hesiod, and the story of Caeneus may have been derived from
the poet, though in the extant remains of Hesiod Caeneus is mentioned only in Scw#. 179
among the list of the chiefs of the Lapithae. Homer also has only one mention of him,
A 264 Καινέα τ᾽ ᾿Ἐξάδιόν τε καὶ ἀντίθεον ἸΠολύφημον, on which Schol. A remarks ὁ Kaweds
Ἐλάτου μὲν ἦν παῖς, Λαπιθῶν δὲ βασιλεύς, πρότερον ἢν παρθένος εὐπρεπής, μιγέντος δὲ αὐτῇ Ποσειδῶνος,
αἰτησαμένη μεταβαλεῖν εἰς ἄνδρα ἡ νεᾶνις ἄτρωτος γίνεται, γενναιότατος τῶν καθ᾽ αὑτὸν ὑπάρξας.
καὶ δή ποτε πήξας ἀκόντιον ἐν τῷ μεσαιτάτῳ τῆς ἀγορᾶς θεὸν τοῦτο προσέταξεν ἀριθμεῖν. δι᾽ ἣν αἰτίαν
ἀγανακτήσας ὃ Ζεὺς τιμωρίαν τῆς ἀσεβείας παρ᾽ αὐτοῦ εἰσεπράξατο. μαχόμενον γὰρ αὐτὸν τοῖς
Κενταύροις καὶ ἄτρωτον ὄντα ὑποχείριον ἐποίησε: βαλόντες γὰρ αὐτὸν οἱ προειρημένοι δρυσί τε καὶ
ἐλάταις ἤρεισαν εἰς γῆν. μέμνηται δὲ αὐτοῦ καὶ ᾿Απολλώνιος ἐν τοῖς ᾿Αργοναυτικοῖς (i. 59), λέγων οὕτως"
Καινέα γὰρ δὴ πρόσθεν ἔτι κλείουσιν ἀοιδοὶ Κενταύροισιν ὀλέσθαι, ὅτε σφέας οἷος ἀπ᾿ ἄλλων ἤλασ᾽
ἀριστήων᾽ οἱ δ᾽ ἔμπαλιν ὁρμηθέντες οὔτε μιν ἀγκλῖναι προτέρω σθένον οὔτε δαΐξαι, ἀλλ᾽ ἄρρηκτος
ἄκαμπτος ἐδύσατο νειόθι γαίης, θεινόμενος στιβαρῇσι καταΐγδην ἐλάτῃσιν. Eustathius’ comment on
the verse is very similar ὁ δὲ μῦθος φύσει ἄτρωτον αὐτὸν εἶναί φησι, πλάττων καὶ ὅτι παρθένος
εὐπρεπής ποτε γεγόνοι, καὶ ἸΤοσειδῶνος αὐτῇ μιγέντος, αἰτησαμένη ἀνὴρ γενέσθαι καὶ ἄτρωτος μεῖναι, ὧν
ἤθελεν ἔτυχε. λέγεται δὲ καὶ ὑπερφρονῆσαι. ἀκόντιον γάρ, φασιν, ἐν ἀγορᾷ μέσῃ πήξας εἰς ὀρθὸν θεὸν
τοῦτο προσέταξεν ἀριθμεῖν. ὅθεν ἡ δίκη ποινὴν αὐτὸν ἀσεβείας εἰσπραττομένη πεποίηκεν ὑπὸ τοῖς
Κενταύροις, οἱ δρυσί τε καὶ ἐλάταις εἰς γῆν ἤρεισαν ἄρρηκτον καὶ ἄκαμπτον δύντα ὑπὸ γῆν, θεινόμενον
στιβαραῖς καταΐγδην ἐλάταις, ὥς φησιν ᾿Απολλώνιος. Schol. Apoll. Rhod. i. 59 has μυθολογοῦσι δὲ
τὸν Καινέα πρότερον γεγονέναι γυναῖκα, εἶτα ἸΤοσειδῶνος αὐτῇ πλησιάσαντος μεταβληθῆναι εἰς ἄνδρα. τοῦτο
γὰρ ἤτησε καὶ ἀτρωσίαν. ἤρισε δὲ καὶ ᾿Απόλλωνι καὶ ἐνικήθη. οὗτος ἔκελευε τοὺς παριόντας ὀμνύναι εἰς
τὸ δόρυ αὐτοῦ" ἔνθεν ἡ παροιμία τὸ Καινέως δόρυ. τινὲς δέ φασι Καινέα συμπλεῦσαι τοῖς ᾿Αργοναύταις,
οὐ Κόρωνον. ὁ δὲ ᾿Απολλώνιος παρὰ Πινδάρου εἴληφε λέγοντος, ὁ δὲ χλωρῆς ἐλάτῃσι τυπεὶς ᾧχετο
Καινεὺς σχίσας ὀρθῷ ποδὶ γᾶν (=Pind. Fr. 167 Schroeder). τοῦτο δὲ αὐτῷ συνέβη διὰ τὸ μήτε
θύειν μήτε εὔχεσθαι τοῖς θεοῖς, ἀλλὰ τῷ ἑαυτοῦ δόρατι. διὸ Ζεὺς ἐφορμᾷ αὐτῷ τοὺς Κενταύρους,
οἵτινες κατὰ γῆν αὐτὸν ὠθοῦσιν. Agatharchides’ description (De γ»ιαγί Eryth, 7) is ἔτι Καινέα τὸν
Λαπίθην τὸ μὲν ἀπ᾽ ἀρχῆς γενέσθαι παρθένον καὶ γυναῖκα, ἡβήσαντα δὲ εἰς ἄνδρα μεταστῆναι, τὸ δ᾽
ὕστατον εἰς τὴν γῆν ὑπὸ τῶν Κενταύρων καταδῦναι ταῖς ἐλάταις τυπτόμενον, ὀρθόν τε καὶ ζῶντα. The
connexion between some of these passages and the Acusilaus extract is very close, especially
in the earlier part of Schol. A on A 264 (followed by Eustathius), and the later part of
Schol. Apoll. Rhod. i. 59, where Acusilaus is either slightly paraphrased or reproduced.
Evidently Acusilaus was the chief authority for the Caeneus legend, though e. g. the details
about the request to be made into a man, which are absent in Acusilaus and are elaborated
in Schol. Luc. Ga//. 19 somewhat differently, are probably derived from another mytho-
logist.
1611. WORK ON LITERARY CRITICISM 143
59. ἱερον: a diaeresis above « may be lost. Acusilaus’ remark seems very naive in
the light of the number of legends about children of the gods by mortals; and it is not
surprising that in Il. 85-100, the union of gods and mortals is further discussed by our
author with a parallel from Euripides.
τεκέν : most of the fourth letter has disappeared in a lacuna; but after « is part of
a stroke which suits the beginning of ε, and the end of a horizontal stroke joining the
middle of ν survives, which excludes rexew, the ordinary Ionic form, found e.g. in Hdt.
vi. 131, but of course with a circumflex accent. τεκέειν is an altogether impossible reading,
though parallels for such a form are not wanting in Hdt.; cf. Smyth, Jonze Dialect, § 602.
rexéev is just possible as a reading, but much less probable than τεκέν, because (1) the lacuna
is not large enough for ee with cross-bars as long as that in the « after τ, (2) the accent, with
the reading ee, would really be on the second ε, not the first, where it ought to have been
placed, (3) though the Ionic second aorist infinitive in eiv is ultimately derived from -éev
(cf. Smyth, 1. c.), that form of the infinitive is not found in either Hdt. or Ionic inscriptions,
any more than in the MSS. of Homer, so that Acusilaus, though a writer of considerable
antiquity, is not at all likely to have used the form τεκέεν, nor would the corrector of the
papyrus have been likely to ascribe it to him by error. τεκέν is a Doric form, parallel to
ἐξελέν, ἀγαγέν, &c. (cf. Kiihner-Blass, Gramm. i. 2, p. 58), and, the present extract being the
sole authority for Acusilaus’ dialect, does not require to be altered to τεκεῖν, especially since
Dorisms tend to occur in Ionic, and the corrector has put the right accent on the form, not
merely omitted ε.
ἐκεινου : i.e. Poseidon, as is clear from εξ αλλοὺ ovdevos, in spite of the confusion of
genders in 1. 61. Cf. also Plut. Zhes. 20 τεκεῖν ἐκ Θησέως ᾿Αριάδνην Οἰνοπίωνα.
61. avrov: |, aurny.
63. [uelyolr[nly: cf. γενναιότατος τῶν καθ᾽ αὑτόν in Schol. A quoted in 1. 56, n.
66. κεντοιη : OF κεντοι 7. Herodotus avoids optatives in -1 and does not contract -eo
after a consonant, so that Acusilaus’ usage was in any case not parallel to his. φοροίη
occurs in Homer ¢ 320, mAovroin in Tyrtaeus, συμμαρτυροίη in Solon, δοκοίη in Heraclitus,
while Hippocrates prefers -o1 to -εοι. On the other hand Theognis has φιλοῖ, and ‘ even in
prose there is ample support for o after consonants as well as after vowels’ (Smyth, of. cz/.
Ρ. 531; οὗ § 651).
67-8. μαλιστα χρηματων : the lexicons do not afford any parallels for this expression.
73-4. For the suggested restoration of these lines cf. the scholiasts quoted in 1. 56, ἢ.
75. The letter following ye can be ν. σι ὃ ov και ε. [ is inadmissible, εἰ being the only
alternative to η. No word meaning ‘worshipped’ seems suitable, and θεοιΐσι ὃ xrd. is
apparently to be connected with what follows rather than with the preceding sentence, so
that a word meaning ‘ pleasing ’ would be appropriate (nev [ηδυ ?).
80. ορειον is evidently a mistake for ορθιον, as remarked by Allen; cf. ὀρθῷ ποδί in the
Pindar fragment and ὀρθόν in Agatharchides, both quoted in |. 56, n. The Ionic form of
ὄρειον would be ovpetov, and that word is quite inappropriate here.
84. mis for το.
85-6. A predicate for δυναται would be expected in place of δια rovrov, €.g. Touro
OF toov.
84-93. Of Euripides’ ᾿Αλκμέων ὁ διὰ Κορίνθου only three fragments are known with
certainty (Frs. 74, 75, 77 Nauck), but the argument of it is described by Apollodorus iii. 7. 7,
who calls the children in question (Amphilochus and Tisiphone) παῖδας δύο, not twins as in
1. 92. Their mother (the παρθένος of 1. 93) was Manto, daughter of Tiresias, and the θεός
of |. 89 is evidently Apollo; cf. Apollod. iii. 7. 4 πέμπουσιν ᾿Απόλλωνι καὶ τὴν Τειρεσίου θυγατέρα
Μαντώ, and Ep. 6. 3, where in a different legend Mopsus is called the son of Apollo and
Manto.
144 THE OXYRHYNCHUS PAPYRI
97. The verb in the apodosis may well have been δηλοῦται, as Rostowzew suggests.
ro1—11. The restoration of ll. 102-3 Πολεμων .. . axporo|Aews is due to Stuart Jones ;
cf, int. and Marcellinus, Veta Thuc. δὲ 16-17 ὅτι yap” Ολορός ἐστιν ἡ στήλη δηλοῖ ἡ ἐπὶ τοῦ τάφου
αὐτοῦ κειμένη, ἔνθα κεχάρακται' Θουκυδίδης ᾿Ολόρου ᾿Αλιμούσιος (in ὃ 55 the inscription is quoted
on the authority of Antyllus). πρὸς γὰρ ταῖς Μελιτίσι πύλαις καλουμέναις ἐστὶν ἐν Κοίλῃ τὰ καλούμενα
Κιμώνια μνήματα, ἔνθα δείκνυται "Ἡροδότου καὶ Θουκυδίδου τάφος. εὑρίσκεται (δὴ δ δῆλον ὅτι τοῦ
Μιλτιάδου γένους ὦν" E€vos γὰρ οὐδεὶς ἐκεῖ θάπτεται. καὶ ἸΠΤολέμων δὲ ἐν τῷ Περὶ ἀκροπόλεως τούτοις
μαρτυρεῖ, ἔνθα καὶ Τιμόθεον υἱὸν αὐτῷ γεγενῆσθαι προσιστορεῖ, and ὃ 28 ἐγένοντο Θουκυδίδαι πολλοί,
οὗτός τε ὁ ᾽Ολόρου παῖς καὶ δεύτερος δημαγωγός, Μελησίου, ὃς καὶ Περικλεῖ διεπολιτεύσατο" τρίτος δὲ
γένει Φαρσάλιος, οὗ μέμνηται Πολέμων ἐν τοῖς Περὶ ἀκροπόλεως, φάσκων αὐτὸν εἶναι πατρὸς Μένωνος.
There were four books of the Περὶ ἀκροπ. according to Strabo ix. p. 396. The letter
following δὴ in 1. 102 is very uncertain, only a spot of ink at the bottom of the line being
preserved, which indicates an angular letter (a or A) or else one beginning with a vertical
stroke (e. g. μ, v, or 7) rather than a round letter such as σ. dvaypadg{ in]. 105 (Ψ is the only
alternative for @) suggests an inscription about Thucydides son of Melesias and father of
Stephanus, parallel to that apparently mentioned by Polemon in the same work with
reference to the historian; and in fact Athen. vi. 234d states that Polemon γράψας περὶ
mapaciray φησὶν οὕτως"... ἐν Kuvoodpyet μὲν οὖν ἐν τῷ "Ηρακλείῳ στήλη tis ἐστιν, ἐν 7 ψήφισμα μὲν
᾿Αλκιβιάδου, γραμματεὺς δὲ Στέφανος Θουκυδίδου... This stele may well be identified with or
connected with the ἀναγραφή here, especially since the paternity of Stephanus seems to the
point with which our author is most concerned (cf. ll. 112 sqq.); but the Athenaeus quotation
is generally assigned to Polemon’s Περὶ ὀνομάτων ἀδόξων ἐπιστολή (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 Περὶ ἀκροπόλεως was not to the
passage quoted by Athenaeus. For Κοζαλεμου in 1. 107 (suggested by Allen) cf. Plut.
Cimon 4 Κίμων δὲ... καὶ τῷ πάππῳ Κίμωνι προσεοικὼς τὴν φύσιν, ὃν Ov εὐήθειάν φασι Κοάλεμον
προσαγορευθῆναι, and Aeschines Socraticus quoted by Athen. v. 220 Ὁ Ἱππόνικον μὲν τὸν Καλλίου
Κοάλεμον προσαγορεύει. The o is nearly certain, but it is necessary to suppose the omission of
καλου Owing to homoioteleuton. Upon the restoration of the end of |. 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. Thue. viii. 92) in the Περὶ ἀκροπ., we think that φασι in 1. 110
includes Polemon (I. 102), and therefore in 1]. ror—2 the name of another author is to be
supplied, to which 6y.[ in l. 102 may belong, [ovro: in 1. 108 referring to both names. For
rptjrov in 1. rro cf. Marcellinus ὃ 28 quoted above. The general sense of Il. ΤΟΙ ΠῚ seems
to be that Polemon Περὶ ἀκροπ. and another author referred to not one Thucydides only
(ἕνα or ἑνικῶς may have followed οὐχ in 1. 101) on the evidence of an inscription (? δι], or ἐξ],
ἀναγραφῶν in 1]. 104-5), but to three in all. A mention of Thucydides by name is expected
before ]. 106, and Govxvé:]|5ny can well be restored in ll. ro1—2 (in which case there is room
for only a very short name after it before και, and τὸν in 1. 106 is probably av]jrov), or
Θουκυδιδην] | τον can be read in 1]. 105-6; but a restoration of the whole passage is scarcely
possible. The hypothesis that ovy qualifies the whole sentence and the point is that Polemon
did not mention (δηλίοι 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 ἀναγραφί does not at all suggest that οὐχ is to be connected with a verb
meaning ‘mentioned’. A different sense would be obtained by restoring ἰαλλοι in ]. 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 rp:|rov in
1. 110 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 Περὶ ἀκροπ. This difficulty could
be somewhat lessened by restoring rov]|roy instead of tp||rov in 1. 10, and supposing 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.
113-19 Cf. Meno 94 ς ἐνθυμήθητι ὅτι Θουκυδίδης κτλ. One MS. (Ε) has 6 Θουκ., which is
possible here, and before τουτους in 1. 118 the MSS. insert καί. A similar passage occurs in the
Pseudo-Platonic Περὶ ἀρετῆς 378 a, where it is stated with regard to Melesias and Stephanus
τόν γ᾽ ἕτερον μέχρι γήρως βιοῦντα, τὸν δ᾽ ἕτερον πόρρω πάνυ. Melesias 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. Ἑρμιπΐπος o ποιίητης ; the title is added to distinguish him from the philosopher,
ὁ Καλλιμάχειος. ‘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. Iwvols Ομφ]αλη: the Omphale was a satyric drama, of which sixteen fragments are
known. Another quotation from it perhaps occurred in Il. 277 sqq.
123. (vp) Hpaxdeous should perhaps be read, Heracles being then the speaker of the two
lines ; cf. 1. 89 λεγομενον ὑπο θεου. As the text stands, the subject of εξελαυνοῖμεν may be
the satyrs, not Heracles. With βορειος [u|ros (so Allen) cf. Homer Y¥ 221 566. τοῦ τρισχίλιαι
ἵπποι... τάων καὶ Βορέης ἠράσσατο βοσκομενάων. Perhaps Βορειος should be written.
124-5. opwv... Πελοπος: cf. Fr. 24 (N auck) of the Omphale καὶ Σαρδιανὸν κόσμον εἰδέναι
χροὸς ἄμεινον ἢ τὸν Πέλοπος ἐν νήσῳ 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 (Apollod. ii. 5. 8). But the
plot of the Omphaie is very obscure.
127. atverat, which would mean ‘is winnowed ’, is obviously an error for ἄνεται : cf. e.g.
Homer K 251 pada γὰρ νὺξ ἄνεται.
128. [διαλΊελυκε 3: on the analogy of the preceding lines two letters before AleAuke would
be preferable, but probably the column sloped away a little to the left, though o in 1. 129
can be omitted. και A]eduxe 8 is also possible, the simple verb as well as διαλύειν being used
for solving difficulties. Cf. for καὶ. ... δέ Il. 174-5, Nn.
128-9. Μναΐσεας 0?| Παταρίευς: cf. int. and Susemihl i. 679. 1611 agrees with the
scholia on Hesiod, Pindar, and Lucian in giving Patara (in Lycia) as his birthplace, while
the MSS. of Athenaeus and Photius call him ὁ Πατρεύς, i.e. from Patrae in Achaea, but in
the light of 1611 are to be emended to 6 Παταρεύς. With regard to the title of his work on
oracles Schol. Pindar, Ol. ii. 70 calls it Περὶ χρησμῶν, while Schol. Hesiod, Zheog. 117 calls
it ἡ τῶν Δελφικῶν χρησμῶν συναγωγή. 1611 seems to agree with the former, but tlt | των
χ]ρησμωΐν συναγωγηι is a possible reading. :
135-.43. The coronis after ]. 138 probably indicates a following quotation (cf. 1. 115
and int. p. 129), to which θαρσει in 1. 141 may well belong. Allen suggests Πενθεζσιλεια
....in 1.139 and θαρσει Π[ενθεσιλεια in 1. 141, i.e. a quotation from the Aethiopis of
Arctinus, which is perhaps cited in Il. 145-50; cf. ll. 148-9, n. But os (probably és) εμῖ in
Ἰ. 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, €. δ. ov mar|epa kKAyicao(a)!| o δε Gal. oe
146. eyyovos: this spelling of ἔκγονος occurs in Attic inscriptions down to 300 B.c. and
in Ptolemaic inscriptions and papyri (cf. Mayser, Gramm. d. griech. Pap. p. 228); but is
not legitimate in hexameters.
L
146 THE OXYRHYNCHUS PAPYRI
148-9. Ap|kre?vos: [Ax ?]avos can equally well be read, or possibly [. .!dcos. Achaeus
wrote tragedies entitled ἔΑδραστος, ᾿Αζᾶνες, ἾΑθλα, ᾿Αλφεσίβοια, Θησεύς, Κύκνος, Μοῖραι, Μῶμος,
Οἰδίπους, Πειρίθους, 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 (whichis probable, but not clear), he is not likely to have been Achaeus. With
Ap|kr|vos (Allen) the quotation would come from the Aeshzopzs, the woman being Penthesilea
and the speaker presumably Achilles ; cf. 1]. 135-43, n. εκτιθετἧαι may, however, end 1. 148.
150-2. It is not possible to restore Σιμωνιδης . . . τω] & [παιαΐνων.
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 ]]. 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. iis the bottom is indicated by the colour of the verso besides the suitability of the
resulting restoration. .
158-9. καἤθα[περ φησιν Eparoode|yns (Allen) can be restored ; cf. Il. 162-5, n. and int.
160. @pulfexos: cf. 1.171. εν | ras Φ[ρυἼνχου wats | apnyo| vier ov is unlikely on account
of the verb in ]. 165 (παραΐποιει ?).
161. Perhaps agnyo[u|uer[os ουτως.
162-5. Cf. Ar. Clouds 9647 ἢ “Παλλάδα περσέπολιν δεινὰν᾽ ἢ “ τηλέπορόν τι βόαμα᾽, where
Schol. RV have ἀρχὴ ᾷσματος Φρυνίχου, ὡς ᾿Ερατοσθένης φησίν (py. ὡς Ἔρ. Φρυν. V), Φρύνιχος
(δὲ V, om. R) αὐτοῦ τούτου τοῦ doparos μνημονεύει ὡς Λαμπροκλέους ὄντος Παλλάδα περσέπτολιν
κλήιζω πολεμαδόκον ἁγνὰν παῖδα Διὸς μεγάλου, and Schol. Ald. has ... Λαμπροκλέους εἶναί φασιν
᾿Αθηναίου, τοῦ Μίδωνος υἱοῦ. ἔχει δὲ οὕτως" Παλλάδα περσέπολιν κτὰλ., as ἴῃ Schol. RV, but adding
δαμάσιππον after μεγάλου. ἄλλως. οὕτως ᾿Ερατοσθένης" Φρύνιχος αὐτοῦ τούτου τοῦ ᾷσματος μέμνηται ὡς
Λαμπροκλέους ὄντος τοῦ Μίδωνυς υἱοῦ ἢ μαθητοῦ" ἔχει δὲ οὕτως Παλλάδα περσέπολιν δεινὴν θεὸν
ἐγρεκύδοιμον ποτικλήιζω πολεμαδόκον ἁγνὰν παῖδα Διὸς μεγάλου δαμάσιππον, καὶ κατὰ Λαμπροκλέα
ὑποτίθησι κατὰ λέξιν. Schol. Aristid. 217 Dindorf (in reference to the Aristophanes line) has
εἶδος τοῦτο doparos καὶ ἀρχή" τὸν δὲ ποιητὴν αὐτοῦ Ῥοῦφος καὶ Διονύσιος (time of Hadrian) ἱστοροῦσιν
ἐν τῆι Μουσικῆι (SC. ἱστορίαι) Φρύνιχόν τινα, ἄλλοι δέ φασι Λαμπροκλέα ἢ Στησίχορον. τὸ δὲ “ δεινὴν ᾽
ἀντὶ τόῦ κλήσω κεῖται παρὰ τῶι κωμικῶι" τὸ γὰρ ᾷσμα οὕτως ἔχει ‘ Παλλάδα περσέπολιν κλήσω πολε-
μαδόκον ἁγνὰν παῖδα Διὸς μεγάλον δαμάσιππον (δαμνηπλον or δαμνηπωλον MSS.) ἄιστον (corrupt)
παρθένον. ‘These passages are discussed by Wilamowitz, Zexigesch. 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. Ald., which is really the same as that of Schol. RV and Schol.
Aristid., the former scholium merely omitting δαμάσιππον and the latter having «Ano for
κλήιζω 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. Ald. 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. Ald., where the authorship is not clearly
indicated. None of the scholfa 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 (παραποιεῖ 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. παραΐποιει: cf. 1. 175 παραπΊοιε. The word can mean either ‘imitate’ or
‘introduce ’.
1611. WORK ON LITERARY CRITICISM 147
168. Χαμαιλεων: cf. p. 129. His work Περὶ κωμῳδίας is cited by Athen. ix. 374 a.
171. The omission of the superfluous cis indicated by both a dot above it (cf. e.g. 1624)
and a stroke through it.
172-3. μα[θηζ(την | Μιδωνος ὃ]: μα may be at the end of the line, but pal/@yrm] does not
fill the lacuna and is unintelligible. The suggested restoration is very doubtful, but brings
the passage into connexion with Schol. Ald. on Ar. Clouds 967 (quoted in ll. 162-5, n.)
Μίδωνος υἱοῦ ἢ μαθητοῦ, and there is no objection to μα[θη), if the last two letters were written
small, as often happens at the end of a line. Schol. Plat. Adczd. i. 387 makes Lamprocles
the pupil of Agathocles and teacher of Damon. ol can hardly be an adjective of place,
for Lamprocles was an Athenian.
174-5. For xa... de cf. ll. 128, n., 150-1, 228-9.
183. λαβῖ : or λαθΐ.
195. πυρ: cf. ]. 306. But Fr. 7 does not belong to the same column as ΕἾ. 21--2.
202. γνη] is perhaps γνησιος in some form. γιγνηΐται cannot be read, p or v being the
only alternatives for r.
212-14. Ἑλλανιΐκος ὃ ev [ras Εθνων ἢ] κτισεσι: the restoration is due to Allen. The
works variously entitled Περὶ ἐθνῶν, ᾿Εθνῶν ὀνομασίαι, Krices, Κτίσεις ἐθνῶν καὶ πόλεων (Hellan.
Fr. 109 from Steph. Byz. ; 1611 seems to have had ἐθνῶν or πόλεων alone), and perhaps Περὶ Χίου
κτίσεως, are all considered to be identical by Gudeman in Pauly-Wissowa, Realenc. viii. 136-7.
216. « for x(a‘) occurs as early as the end of the first century in the ᾿Αθηναίων Πολιτεία
papyrus.
218-28. Cf. int. p. 129.
222-3. μεθικαν alrroxopica|p ? |evor Se: the vestige of the letter following καν is too slight
to be a real clue, but suggests a or A more than a letter beginning with a vertical stroke,
or round, μεθίε)ικαν = μεθῆκαν is much more likely than μεθ xa .{ (i.e. some part of ἱκανός),
for there is hardly room for a substantive in ]. 222 as well as the beginning of a participle.
In Dittenberger, Or. Gr. Jnscr. 55. 6, ἀφεῖκεν is apparently a mere variation of spelling for
ἀφῆκεν, which occurs in 1]. 13, not a perfect, as regarded by Mayser, of. εἴ. p. 331.
223. The correction is by the first hand; cf. p. 130. The reading of the letter after τὸν
is very doubtful, but a or A suits better than any other letter.
224. Dlapov: cf. ]. 226. But 7, «, μι » or y .[{ ore.[ can be read in place of π.
228-9. Cf. ll. 174-5, n.
231. If the paragraphus is rightly placed (cf. however 1]. go—1, where it is not), apsora[
is not to be connected with Il. 232 sqq., so that Αρισταζρχος is not very likely. Apsoro| φανης
cannot be read.
245. eoxaroi|: the second letter might be y or +, the third a or A, the last ν.
247. 0 de Agon|: no personal name beginning thus is known, but there might be
a reference to the places “Aconpa or ᾿Ασσησός or adjectives derived from them. Neither
Agats | nor Ασσιος is admissible ; Ασσινζαρος (a river in Sicily so spelled in Thue. vii. 84)
is possible, but seems too long, even with «|: στρατευοι in 1. 248, while Ασσιν[αροὴν [o|rpa-
revot, Which is possible as a reading, gives no construction. The division as σηΐ (or σι)
does not suggest any suitable word.
268. Perhaps Σιμ]ωνιδου.
270. Ἰνυαδο : the third letter could be read as A. The division ma?|vv ad| is more
probable than |p υαδεί.
278. Possibly Ομφαλην : cf. ]. 121, ἢ.
280. [@codex|x[n|s: the tip of a vertical stroke below the line suits τ, and is inconsistent
with the terminations of Kapkivos, Εὐριπίδης, or Τιμησίθεος, 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.
L2
148 THE OXYRHYNCHUS PAPYRI
281. « above the line is cursively written; cf. p. 130.
283. |é[.Juos ὃ. : va is possible in place of ιδ, and a or 2 instead of ὃ after Joos.
A|\8[v]uos δε can be restored, but this line may belong to the quotation from the Oresées ;
cf. int. p. 129.
301. ΛυσιπΊπος: cf. 1. 34.
303. Ἰντρί : Frs. 21 and 22 join here, the tail of the p being on Fr. 22.
306. πυρ: ἘΠῚ 1985; ἢ.
327-31. Cf. ll. 23-7, n.
339. After ry is an erasure with perhaps one or two letters above it.
341. λιρί is more likely to be connected with λείριον than with λιρός. It does not seem
possible to read αιρί.
359. |uape[: possibly Ἐρ]μαφρ[οδιτ.
369-70. Allen suggests βασιλ]εως Φ[ιλοπατορος] (or φ[ιλαδελφου) Πτολεμαιου : but if so
the order of the words is unusual.
392-5. Fr. 43 has been assigned to Il. 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 X12 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, Paragraphi
and frequent high stops occur. « adscript is written in 1. 27, but in 1. 11 its
insertion is doubtful. A correction in 1. 12 is in a different hand, which used
lighter ink, but seems to be not appreciably later than the first. In ll. 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 ἐνθάδε), or rather to certain extensions of it or novelties (cf. 1. 1, n.)
proposed by his adversaries. To Caesar-worship in general he does not seem
to have been opposed, for in ll. 22 sqq. he-expressly deprecates ἀσέβεια 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 (ll. 30 sqq.),
1612. 4 ORATION. ON THE .CULT, OF CAESAR 149
while his opponents are also spoken of in the plural (1. 11 gaci); but in 1. τὸ
[β]ούλοιτο a single adversary seems to be indicated, and in 1. 1 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 ]. 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 (ἡμεῖς), but at Nicaea by an individual whom he declines
to describe (Il. 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 (Il. 30-5) ;
but the text becomes fragmentary at this point, a contrast being apparently
drawn in ll. 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 (1) what place was meant by ἐνθάδε in |. 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 li. 20 Καῖσαρ δὲ ἐν τούτῳ (sc. 29 B.C.) τά τε ἄλλα ἐχρημάτιζε καὶ τεμένη
τῇ τε Ῥώμῃ καὶ τῷ πατρὶ τῷ Καίσαρι ἥρωα αὐτὸν ᾿Ιούλιον ὀνομάσας ἔν τε ᾽᾿Εφέσῳ καὶ ἐν
Νικαίᾳ γενέσθαι ἐφῆκεν. αὗται γὰρ τότε αἱ πόλεις ἔν τε τῇ ᾿Ασίᾳ καὶ ἐν τῇ Βιθυνίᾳ
προετετίμηντο. καὶ τούτους μὲν τοῖς Ρωμαίοις τοῖς παρ᾽ αὐτοῖς ἐποικοῦσι τιμᾶν προσέταξε'
τοῖς δὲ δὴ ξένοις (Ἕλληνας σφᾶς ἐπικαλέσας) ἑαυτῷ τινα, τοῖς μὲν ᾿Ασιανοῖς ἐν Περγάμῳ,
τοῖς δὲ Βιθυνοῖς ἐν Νικομηδείᾳ τεμενίσαι ἐπέτρεψε. καὶ τοῦτ᾽ ἐκεῖθεν ἀρξάμενον καὶ ἐπ᾽
ἄλλων αὐτοκρατόρων οὐ μόνον ἐν τοῖς ᾿Ελληνικοῖς ἔθνεσιν, ἀλλὰ καὶ ἐν τοῖς ἄλλοις ὅσα
τῶν Ῥωμαίων ἀκούει ἐγένετο. 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, Azz. iv. 37, that the temple at Pergamum
was dedicated to Augustus and Rome, and of Suetonius, Aug. 52, that Rome was
regularly associated with Augustus in the provincial cults; cf. Kornemann,
150 THE OXYRHYNCHUS PAPYRI
Klio, i. y8._ 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. ἐνθάδε, 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 ll. 24-8 to Demeter; for that goddess
appears on the coins of Nicomedia (Wroth, Catal. of Greek coins of Pontus, &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, when 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 N icomedia, 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, of. cet. pp. 162,
166). It is also just possible that in 1]. 35-6 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 I51
coincidence with regard to the place-name suggests, Ka{fclap: in 1. 11 ought
to be Julius, and there is no indication that in ll. 9, 24, and 32 a different
Caesar is meant. Moreover the use of the present tense ἐστίν in 1. 15 in
place of ἦν, 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 cr third century individual, unless the circumstances alluded to in
ll. 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 βροτόπους ἵππος illustrated by the coins of that city (cf. Drexler in
Roscher’s Lex. d. griech. τ. 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 humants similes pedes in the equestrian statue of Julius Caesar
before the temple of Venus Genetrix at Rome (Pliny, Vaz. Hist. viii. 155; cf:
Suetonius, /w/ias 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 βροτόπους ἵππος. 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.
Bist) Colts Col. ii.
σὺ δὲ VEE 7... 1... ee -- : [
ταῦτα ὑπί: 5) ca eed ΠΝ μὶ
Καὶ τοῦτοι. τὸ...» vel
152
5
10
15
20
25
30
THE OXYRHYNCHUS PAPYRI
και μεταπῖ.. + eee reese
av €xe[t] aul... eee es ou
Kk evoeBles see ee ovde P
οσιον ἾΪ- - « «1 - «τ. Ἰν ple?
τα το τ.ἴ- - -] ποιήτεον
ταυτα [Καιΐσαρα και σεμνυ
νειν αν [β)ουλοιτο' eyo
de a τω Καίισίαρι φασι τε
κα[1]
λειν" [lol] vee εξ] apxns ovx εὖ
ρομεν ἡμεῖς avTa Kadws
ποιουντες" adda Nixa
evs ἐστιν 0 πρῶτος Ka
TaoTnoas’ οποιος μεν av
θρωπος ov det λεγειν" €
στω ὃ ουν εκεινου καὶ
map εκεινϊοι)ῆς τελεισθω
μονοις" ὥσπερ παρὰ τοις
Αθηναιοις τα τῶν Ἐλευ
σεινιων" εἰ Bovdope| Ola
αυτον ασεβειν Tolv|
Καισαρα: womep αν και τηΐν
[4]ημητραν σεβίο)υμεν
[aly evOade τελουντες
[alurne την εκει[σ)ε τελε
[τη]ν" ov yap εθελει gavel
να ἢ]. τῶν τοιουτων οὐδεν"
[ort] 8 οὐκ αφαιρησεσθῖε
[την δοξαν της αθανΐα
[σιας] του Καισαρος ealy ε
μοι ἢ π]εισθητε παραδέϊι
ἶγμα υἹμιν epw TO νὺν Τί.
[ ..] Ta yap τῶν κί... «|e
[κυ ρέθου Seine ju ετελ[ουμεὶν
eae klat τίουτω ὃν ουθεν
Fr. 2.
81 uP lepea|
Ἰηρῖ
Jroul
[.1ον . 1
55 ον εχΐ
Ρ av7|
ad. |
pev|
yap 7
65
οιμαίι ὃ
70 του δὶ
τουτοὶ
ρουντί
ἵερευς |
στοληΐ
75 προσαΐ
ζει ὠσὶ
μεταυΐ
1612. ORATION ON THE CULE ΟΥ CAESAR 153
EP eres. kk. [.. | apxata €. of. .]ετί
[.......|rey [Tolus Beous μεν .|ral
ΠΟ fete + oe ἀπο ..\va. av 80. ov. pl
8-37. ... ποιητέον, ταῦτα Καίσαρα καὶ σεμνύνειν ἂν [β]ούλοιτο, λέγω δὲ ἃ τῷ Κα[ίσ]αρί φασι
τελεῖν. κα[ὶ] γὰρ ἐΐξ] ἀρχῆς οὐχ εὕρομεν ἡμεῖς αὐτά, καλῶς ποιοῦντες, ἀλλὰ Νικαεύς ἐστιν ὃ πρῶτος
καταστήσας. ὁποῖος μὲν ἅνθρωπος, οὐ δεῖ λέγειν" ἔστω δ᾽ οὖν ἐκείνου καὶ παρ᾽ ἐκείν οἿις τελείσθω μόνοις,
ὥσπερ παρὰ τοῖς ᾿Αθηναίοις τὰ τῶν ᾿Ελευσινίων, εἰ (μὴ) βουλόμεθα αὐτὸν ἀσεβεῖν τὸϊν] Καίσαρα, ὥσπερ
ἂν καὶ τὴϊν Δ]ημήτραν (ἀ)σεβ[οἼζι)μεν {[ἀ]ν} ἐνθάδε τελοῦντες ἰα]ὐτῇ τὴν ἐκεῖ ole τελε[ τήν" οὐ γὰρ
ἐθέλει ἀνεῖϊνα ἢ]. τῶν τοιούτων οὐδέν. [ὅτι] δ᾽ οὐκ ἀφαιρήσεσθε τὴν] δόξαν τῆς ἀθαν[ασίας) τοῦ
Καίσαρος ἐὰΐν ἐμοὶ ὃ π]εισθῆτε, παράδειγμα ὑ]ωῖν ἐρῶ τὸ νῦν τί... ... ] τὰ γὰρ τῶν κἶ.. «Fla τ πε το = jv
ἐτελ[οῦμε]ν [...... κ]αὶ τούτω ὃ]ν ovdev...
‘... 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 (?). Asa proof that you will not be depriving Caesar
of the glory of immortality, if you listen to me, I will tell you...’
I. ov δε vea τ: the use of the second person singular creates a slight, but by no
means insuperable difficulty; cf. int. ov might of course be e. g. musl|ov, and ὃ εν «Amie...
could be read; but vea suits the context (cf. 1. 38 apxaa), referring to the rites in
question.
3. τουτοιΐ : the last letter can also be y, p, ν; or π.
4. peran| : or μεταγί.
7-8. lv plelra: the vestige of a letter following ν is too slight to afford a real clue, and
after it nothing may be lost.
8. ro r.|...]: τ᾿ and v sometimes closely resemble each other in this hand, and τουτί...
is just possible, but τὸ τ followed by ἡ, «, or v is preferable. There may have been a high
stop after ποιητεον, the surface of the papyrus being damaged at that point. In any case
ravra seems to be the subject of σεμνυνειν, not the object of ποιητεον, though the construction
of ll. 7-10 is not clear. The sentence may have begun with εἰ.
4 10. αν [β]ουλοιτο: the vestige of the supposed » is very slight, and there would be room
for another letter in the lacuna, for »[8] occupies the same space as Kaw in ll. g and τι.
8 is possible in place of a, but av seems necessary for the optative.
11. τῶ Ka{iolape: ΟΥ τῶι Ε[αισαρι. Cf. [αἸυτηι in 1]. 27.
14. Νίκαευς : cf, int.
τό. ἀνθρωπος may receive either a rough or a smooth breathing.
22. εἰ βουλομε[θ]α : the insertion of a negative is required both here and in ]. 25 to give
sense to the argument. σεβο]υμεν there is evidently a mistake for ασεβοιμεν, and here either
εἰ is to be altered to ov, or μη is to be inserted.
26. αἷν]: ν is almost certain, ὦ or a, which are the only other possibilities, being much
less suitable. The repetition of ἄν is not necessarily wrong, but probably there was
a mistake of some kind, possibly the incorrect division σεβ[ο]υμεν[ ην (sc. ασεβοιμεν).
28-9. The subject of εθελει is not clear, but is more likely to be Caesar or Demeter
154 THE OXYRHYNCHUS PAPYRI
than the Nicaean. The next word is presumably an infinitive ending in |. a|: or {oa}: or
perhaps [aly or [ev. The last letter is more like « than ν, and no alternative is possible.
v before εἰ is almost certain, being the only alternative. The first letter must be a, y, ὃ, A,
μιν, 7, Or 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. ανειΐναἾι, ‘to allow’, is difficult, but suits the vestiges better than
alp|veicéa\. In τῶν certainly, and possibly in τοιουτων also, the is closed at the top, as
if the scribe intended to alter it to o; but he certainly did not write roy rocovrov originally,
and is more likely to have intended των τοιουτων. ovdev suits the vestiges better than ουθεν
(cf. 1. 37). The supposed stop after it is uncertain; the surface of the papyrus is damaged
and ovdeva is a possible reading.
31. αθανΐασιας]: cf. Dio lii. 36 ὥστ᾽ εἴπερ ἀθάνατος ὄντως ἐπιθυμεῖς γενέσθαι in the speech
of Maecenas to Augustus. Lines 30-2 seem more appropriate to a dead than to a living
Caesar, who did not become technically θεύς till his death; cf. int. p. 150.
34. The fetter following νυν, if not τ, is probably y or =.
35-6. It is rather tempting to read των Κ[αισ]αΐρων (cf. p. 150); but the letter at the end
of ]. 35 is much more like ε than a. |v might be the end of προ rolv.
16138. LIST OF EARLY 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. Chron. i. 188 and App. 1a. 11), Jerome (op. cit.
App. 1b. 31), the Excerpta Latina Barbari (of. czt. App. 6. 217), and Syncellus
(ed. Dindorf i. 368, 399); cf. v. Schoeffer 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 Alerandrinische Weltchronik (Denkschr. d.
Wien. Akad. 1). 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 (I. 5) with the names of his four predecessors
and six successors in the best supported order (cf. ll. 3-4, n.); but the numbers
of the years of office are missing throughout, and there is nothing to show which
view was taken with reference to the chronology of Alcmaeon. One name
is quite corrupt (1. 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. 1 eight names of archons for life are probably lost; cf. ll. 3-4, n.
16138. LIST OF EARLY ATHENIAN ARCHONS 155
A pecg| pov evn [..
Ocomifelus| eT |. -
Ayapnorwp| evn [.-
Aisyvdros εἶτη ..
5 ἄλκμεων ΪἾ €TN
Χαιος [ €TN
ΔΑισιμιδίης εἐτὴ j
Κλεοδικ[ος €TN
Ϊππομίενης ετῆ
10 “εωκραίτης €TN
Arravd| pos 3 €TN
1-3. That the originally separate fragment containing ern (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 gth, as he presumably was here.
5. Adkpeor: cf. int.
6. Xaos: 1. Xapoy. From this point onwards the figure lost was presumably « in each
case ; cf. int.
8. Κλεοδικίος : so also Syncellus; but Eusebius has (Κ)λείδικος or Aizdikus, Jerome
Elidicus, and Exc. Lat. Barb. Ce/dicus. Κλειδικος is the correct form; cf. Paus. i. 3. 3-
εἰ FRAGMENTS OF EXTANT CLASSICAL
AUTHORS
1614. PINDAR, Ol. i, ii, vi, vil.
28-8 x 27-2 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. 147, 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. 106-ii. 45 (when complete i. 104--
156 Vif? OXYRAYNCHUS \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
(= OL. 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. 111 (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 (I. 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
ει at the ends of lines. Black ink was used by the first scribe as far as ]. 67,
brown ink by him in Il. 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 γάρ in 1. 144; but a breathing in 1. 37 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.), N (13th-14th cent.), V (late 13th cent.) ; of the
second B (12th cent.), D and E (14th cent.). In Οἱ i this classification has to be
modified, since A there combines with 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.
PIN DAR) OF UE, ELT
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 (ll. 79, 112, 116-17, 121, 146, 169), somewhat oftener with the Vatican
(IL. 8, 24, 30, 36, 59, 82, 85, 92, 95,126,175). The difficulty in ii. 6 (lI. 32-3, n.)
and the interpolation in ii. 29-30 (Il. 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. ll. 88 and 119, nn.
σι
Io
15
20
Col. i (Fol. 1 verso).
3 lines lost
θίεος ἐπιτροπος i, 106
εων τεαισι μηδεται
exov [το]υϊτο κηδος Ιερων
μεριμν[αι])σιν["] εἰ δῖε μη ταχὺ λιποι
ετι γλυκυτεραν κίεν ελπομαι
ξυν ἀρματι θοω κλίει
ξειν ἐπικουρον εἶυρων.
oO
odov Allel}yov παρ evderedov ελθων
Kpoviov: ἐμοι μεν [wv Moca καρτερω
τατον Bedos αλκᾶι τρίεφει ἢ αλλοι
σι δ᾽ ἀλλοι μεγαλοι: το ὃ ἐσχατοῖν Ko
ρυῴφουται βασιλευσι: μηκετι
TANTALVE πορσιον
εἰὴ σε γε τουτον 115
υὑψου χρονον πατεῖν εμε
τε τοσσαδε νικαφοροις
ομιλειν προῴφαντον σοφίια καθ EX
λανας eovTa παντα
ae 2°23 .2° 2 5.5]
Θηρωνι Aakpalyavtive appar?
αναξ[ Πφορμιγγεῖς υμνοι iis) t
τίινα Oleov τιν᾽ ηρωα
25 τινα δὴ avdpa κελαϊδησομεν
ητοι ]Πισα μεν Ailos
30
40
4
OL
50
Odvymada δ᾽ εσῖτα
σεν Hpakdens
ακροθινα πολεμου [
Θηρωνα de τετραοίριας
ενεκὰ νικαῴφορου
γεγωνητεον om
δικαιον ἕενον
εἐρεισμ᾽ Axpayavz([os
ευωνυμων δὲ πατεΐρων
awTov ορθοπολιν
καμοντες οἱ πολλα [θυμω
ἵερον ἐσχον οἰκημα Ϊ
ποταμου; Σικελιας [τ ἐσαν
οφθαλμ[ο]ς" ataly ὃ ede
πε μοϊρσι]μίος πλουτον
τε και χαΐριν ayov
γνησιαΐις ἐπ apeTats
αλλ᾽ wo Κίρονιε παι Peas
edos Ολίυμπου νεμων
αεθλωΐν τε κορυῴφαν
πορ[οὴν τ ἄλῴφεου
talv]Oeis αοιδαις
εἰυφρ]αῖΐν apovpay ετι πα
τρίιαν σφισιν κομισον
il.
λίοιπω yever των de πεπραγμενων
Io
15
158
THE OXYRHYNCHUS.PAPYRI
Col. ii (Fol. 1 recto).
[ev δικα τε και παρα δικαν]
[αποιητον ovd αν
[Xpovos 0 παντῶν πατηρ])
35 ἰδυναιτο θεμεν εργων τελος]
aba δεποτμὼ συν ευδαιμονι γενοιτ av] ii.20
[
ἰεσλων yap ὑπο χαρματωὶν Ϊ
ἴπημα θνασκει παλιγκοτον δαμασθεν
[oray θεου Μοιρα] πεμπη
[avexas ολβον υψΊηλον
[επεται δὲ λογος ευἼθρονοις
60
[Καδμοιο κουραι]ς["] ἐπαθον
αι μεγαλα] πενθος de
[πιτΊνει βαρυ
65 ἰκρείσσονων προς αγαθων
[ζω]ει μεν Ολυμπιοις
[αποθ]ανοισα Bpopw
ἱκεραυνου τανυε
[θειρα Σ'εμελ]α φιλει
zo [δε νιν Παλῖλας αἰαι φιλε
οντι δε Moca
[
[
και Zevs πα͵τηρ pada φιλει
[de mats ο κισσοφορος
[
λεγοντι ὃ εἰν kale θάλασσα
25
30
78
80
85
go
μετα κοραισι N]npeos
[αλιαις βιοτον] αφθιτον
[Ivor τεταχθαι]
[Aov aude χρο]
[Bporwy ye κεῖκριται
TOV O
νον TOL
[wepas ov τι Oavjarov
[ovd ασυχιμον] apepay
ἴοποτε παιδ᾽ αλιου
ἰατειρει συν αγαθω
ἰτελευτασομ]εν
ροαι ὃ αλλοτ᾽] αλλαι
[ευθυμιαν] τε μετα και
[πονων ες alvdpas εβαν
[ουτω" de Μοιρ᾽ a τε πατρωιαν
ἰτωνδ exe Tor? εἸνῴρονα ποτμον
[θεορτω συν ολβω
40
[eme τι και π]ημί᾽ ayer
[ἰπαλιντράπελον αλλω yxplov|o
[εξ ovmep εκτεινε Aaov μοριμος] υἱος
ἰσυναντομενος εν δε Πυ |}
[θωνι χρησθεν παλαιφατον) τελεσσεν
9 lines lost
Col. iii (Fol. 2 recto).
5 lines lost
and hand εξ οἷυ πολυκλειτον καθ Ελλανας vi. 72
rrr yevos Π.αμιδαν
ολβος ap’ εσπεῖτ]ο τίιμωντες δ᾽ ἀρετὰς
es φανεραν οδον [epxovTa τεκμαι
ρει χρημ᾽ εκαστον μαωΐμος ὃ ef
115 ἄλλων -κρεμαται φθονεζοντων
τοις ols ποτε πρωτοις περι ἰδωδεκατον 75
δρομον ελαυνοντεσσιν αἰιδοια ποτι
γλωσσᾶι: akovas λιγυρας
ἃ μ᾽ εθελον[τ]α προσ[ερΊ]πει
καλλιροαι[σιὴν πνοαῖς ματρομαΐ
Top eua Στυμφαλις evavOns Μείτωπα
πλαξίππον ἁ [Θηβαὶν ert
κεν “πὲ ερατεινοὴῖν υδωρ
85
πίομαι ἀνδρίασιν αἸὐιχμ[ατα)σι πλέκων
ποικιλον υμῖνον οἸτρυΐν)ον νυν εἰταιρους
1614. PINDAR, OFF Π|, VE ΚΠ 159
σταξη Xapis εὐκλεα μορφίαν Αινεα: πραΐτον piv H
εἰ δ᾽ ετυμως ὑπο Κυλλανας ορος 140 ραν Παρθενιαΐν κελα δησαι
120 4γησια ματρωες ανδρες γνωναι τ] emer ἀρχαι]ον [οἸνείιδος
ναιεταοντες εδωρησαν θεων αλαθεσι λογοις go
kapuka λ[ ἤιταις θυσιαις [εὖ φευγομεν Βοιωτιαν vv
πολλα δὴ πολλαισιν Ερμαν ευσεβεΐως εεσι yap αγγελος οἶρθος
os αἀγωνας €xél 145 ηὔκομων σκυτίαλα Μοισαν γλυκὺυς κρατὴρ
125 μοιραν 7 αεθλων Apkadiay 80 αγαφθεγκτων αοιδαν
T evavopa τι 146 εἰπὸν δὲ μεμναῖσθαι Συρα
ὑπ δ τς κουσσαν [τε] κίαι Ορτυγιας
pat κινος ὦ παι Σωστρατου aad :
Ἵ ταν ἵἱερίων καθαρω σκαπτω διέπων
συν βρυγδουπωι πατρὶ aptia μίηδομενος φοινικοπεζαν
κραινει σεθεν ευτυχ lear 150 ἀμφ᾿ επίει Aaparpa 95
130 δοξαν exw TW’ emt end of column
Col. iv (Fol. 2 verso).
7 lines lost [υμνεων mad Adpodijras
[νιν ζαλωτον opodpovos evyjas vii. 6 [Δ4ελιοιο τε νυμῴφαν |
και eyo νεκταρ χυτον Μοισαὶν : [Ροδον evOvpaxav | 15
160 [doow αεθλοῴφοροις ] 175 [oppa meAwpiov avdpja παρ ἄλφειωι
[avdpaciy πέμπων γλυκυν καρπον [ἰστεφανώωσαμενον |
ἰφρενος tAacKopat ] [aweow πυγμας αποινα) και
[Ολυμπια Πύυθοι τε νικωὶν IO [rapa Κασταλια 1
ἴτεσσιν ο ὃ ολβιος οἷν [ | ἰπατερα τε Aapayntov αἰδοντα Aika [ |
165 [papa κατεχοῖντ᾽ ἀγασθαι 180 [4σιας evpvxopov |
[adore ὃ αλλον] ἐποπτευει Xapis _ ἰτριπολιν vacov πελίὶας
[ζωθαλμιος αἸδυμελει [euBorw ναιοντῖας ἄργειαι [σ]υν ajtxpale
[θᾶμα μεν φορΊμιγγι παμῴφω [εθελησω rool] εξ 20
[vost T εν εντε͵σιίν αυλων [apxas απο Τλαπολ)εμου
170 [kal νυν ὑπ apgoreplov: 10 lines lost
ἴσυν Atayopa κατεβαν) ποννοντιαν
8, The second υ of γλυκυτέραν is corr. from ε: i.e. the scribe began to write γλυκερω-
repay, which is found in DN.
κίεν: so ABE; all that remains is the tip of a vertical stroke, which would also be
160 THE OXYRH YNCHOCS ΡΑΡΥᾺΚΙ
reconcileable with τε, as proposed by Schr(oeder), but not with «[Awopa, the reading
of CDN.
9. vv: this form is not certainly attested in Pindar; cf. 1604, 11. 13, n.
κλ[ειήξειν : So CE, Schr. ; κλειζειν BADN.
13. αλκᾶι: so most MSS. rightly ; ἀλκάν DE.
13-14. addoiJou: this passage is corrupt in the MSS., which all have ἄλλοισι against the
metre, except V (ev ἅ.). The Byzantine correctors read ἐπ᾽ ἄλλοισι, but Schr. conjectures
ἀμφ᾽ a.
17. oe ye: σέ te MSS., except V (om. re). The scholl. remark 6 νοῦς" εἴη δὲ σὲ μὲν
τοῦτον τὸν χρόνον . . . ἄλλως" ἀλλ᾽ εἴη σὲ τοῦτ. τ. x. KTA., from which it has been supposed that
there was a reading σὲ δέ, τε, which connects with re in 1. 19, seems preferable to ye, but
may have arisen from the second τε.
18. ὑψου: so MSS. except D (éwois).
19. τε: Oe.DN. (1. 17, ἢ.
22. 1. ἀκραγαντινω. Τῇ ἀρματι, which is usually added by the MSS, after it, was written,
the end of this line projected very considerably ; but cf. 1. 145.
24, Oleov: θεῶν EV.
τιν᾽ ηρωα: τίνα δ᾽ ἥρωα AE against the metre.
25. τα δ᾽ avdpa: so ABE; τίν᾽ ἄνδρα CD against the metre.
29. axpo6wa: so ABDN?, Schr. ; ἀκροθίνια CN’, Zenodotus ; ἀκροθίνιον E.
30. de: € is corr. from o(?). The word is omitted by A, which has rerpaapias.
32-3. ome δικαιον Eevov: so MSS. (mostly ὀπί, but a few 6m). The second syllables of
om and ἕενον ought to be long, and Schr. follows Hermann in reading ὄπι (= ὄπιδι) δίκαιον
ξένων. The division between the corresponding lines 68-9 comes a syllable earlier.
36. ορθοπολιν : ὀρθόπτολιν against the metre ADN.
41. μο[ρσιμίος πλουτον : so MSS.; μ. ὁ πλοῦτον (Hermann) or μ. ἐπ᾽ ὄλβον (Heyne) has
been suggested on metrical grounds.
52-7. These lines are restored so as to correspond to ll. 89-94. The traces of the
supposed ν in 1. 57, which comes above the second a of δαμασθεν in |. 58, are very doubtful,
and the first syllable of ἐσζθγ)λων, the reading of the MSS. in 1. 57, is against the metre; there
is also an uncertainty about 1. 94; cf. n. ad Joc. The reason for the assignment of all
ll. 52-6 to Col. ii is explained in int.
59. πεμπὴ: 50 most MSS., Schr.; πέμψῃ A.
62. enabov: πάθον A. The word corresponds to Aros] | O- in ll. 26-7.
65. ο οἵ [κρε΄σσονων is corr. from ὦ.
66. μ of μεν is corr. ev has been omitted by mistake after it; cf. ]. 169, n.
oO. aa: 1]. ave,
70-1. φιλέζοντι de ΜΊοισαι: a superfluous verse which was athetized by Aristophanes,
but is found in all MSS. except those of Triclinius.
75. N|npeos: 80 CE; Νηρέως ABDN ; Νηρῆος, required by the metre, occurs above the
line in CDN.
79. [Bporwy ye: ye, which is omitted by B, must have been written.
80. Considerations of space make the unmetrical form zepas, found in all ancient MSS.,
more probable than πειρας, which was introduced by the Byzantine correctors.
82. αλιου: so BE; ἀελίου against the metre ACDN.
85. αλλαι: ἀλλοῖαι against the metre C?7DN.
88. a τε πατρωιαν: ἅ τε πατρώϊον MSS., which is generally retained by edd., though
Hermann conjectured ἅτε (or ἃ ra) πατρώϊα, and Mommsen ἃ τὸ πατρώιον from the schol. κατέχει
τὸν εὔφρονα πότμον ἡ τύχη καθάπερ TO πατρῷον κατέσχε. πατρωιαν Must be wrong, but two other
scholia οὕτω δὲ ἐπὶ τούτων... ἡ πατρικὴ μοῖρα κακὸν φέρει. .. and οὕτω δὲ καὶ ἐπὶ τούτων... ἡ
ΤΟΙ PINDAR, ΕΣ Tf}. Vi, VIL 161
πατρῴα κακὸν ἄγει μοῖρα would be compatible with an ancient reading πατρωία, of which
πατρωιαν might be a corruption, due to «Say at the end of the previous line. 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 warp: ἄν was really meant,
ἄν belonging to ἔχειν. ἀνέχειν ‘support’ is more suitable here than the simple verb;
cf. Py. ii. 89 θεὸν... ὃς ἀνέχει τότε μὲν τὰ κείνων τότ᾽ αὖθ᾽ ἑτέροις ἔδωκεν μέγα κῦδος and Nem.
Vii. 89 εἰ δ᾽ αὐτὸ καὶ θεὸς ἀνέχοι, and κατέχει in the schol. quoted above. πατρώι(α) would be an
adverbial accusative or in apposition to τὸν εὔφρονα 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. ex: may well have been written; cf. ]. 127.
92. αλλω xplov|o: ἄλλος χρόνος A.
93. Considerations of space favour the correct forms Λαον (i.e. Λᾷον) and μοριμος (a v. ].
in the scholia and introduced by the Byzantines) against Aaiov and μορσιμος which are found
in the MSS.
94. This line, if written, must have been rather cramped, for wos in ]. 93 presents the
appearance of belonging to the line immediately above τελεσσεν (I. 95).
95. τελεσσεν: SO Brightly; τέλεσεν ACD; τελέσας E; om. N.
112. ολβος ap’: so ACD!'; ὄλβος δ᾽ ἅμ᾽ the rest against the metre.
114. poluos ὃ εξ : 1614 may of course have omitted 8, which is found in the MSS., but
was deleted by Boeckh on metrical grounds.
116. πρωτοις: so AC*?DE, Schr.; πρῶτον BC'N.
117-18. ποτισταξη : so CD (-ξει), Schr. ; ποτιστάζει ABE.
11g. opos: so Callierges (Rome, 1515), as is supposed, from the scholia (e.g. in D;
cf. also Homer, B 603 ὑπὸ Κυλλήνης ὄρος αἰπύ) ; ὅροις ABCE; ὄροις DE (lemma); ὀρέων conj.
Schr. The objection to ὄρος is that the second syllable is expected to be long here.
121. εδωρησαν : so AB? rightly ; δώρησαν the rest.
126—7. τιμᾶι : so MSS. except A (τιμὰν).
131. γλωσσᾶι: the accent ought to have been paroxytone. Editors generally place no
stop after γλώσσᾳ, explaining ἀκόνας λιγυρᾶς as a genitive of quality. The papyrus agrees
with Boehmer, who connected ἀκ. Acy. with πνοαῖς.
132. mpoolep|re:: so most MSS. and edd.; προσέρποι D ; προσέλκει Triclinius.
133. καλλιροαι[σιὴν: the ν ἐφελκυστικόν is wrong ; οἵ. 1}. 142, n.
135-6. ετικεν : 1. ετικτεν. τες iS merely an error.
142. αλαθεσι: so ABD; 1. adabeow with EN.
144. εεσι: ἐσσὶ MSS.; ἔστι Wilamowitz, objecting to the poet’s address to his poem,
and avoiding the three predicates without a connecting particle. The second letter of εεσι
was not corrected, but the third was not o originally, being corrected from a letter with
a tail, probably « or p.
146-7. Συραϊκουσσαν : Συρακοσσᾶν (BDE) is the form preferred by edd. The division
of these lines does not correspond to that in 1]. 110-11, where there are two more syllables
in the earlier line.
149-50. Cf. ll. 113-14, where there is a syllable more in the earlier line.
150. On the omission of the end of Ode vi see int.
165. αγασθαι : 1. ἀγαθαι. [
167. That 1614 had ζωθαλμιος with most MSS. rather than ζωοφθαλμιος with CNO?
is not certain.
169. Considerations of space favour the insertion of ev which is omitted by BDE
before εντε]σιν.
170. The stop after anorep|ov is misplaced.
171. ποννοντιαν : |, ταν ποντιαν with the MSS. The scholia mention a v. 1. ποντίας.
175. Αλφειωι; so most MSS. ; ᾿Αλφεῶ(ι) A. Schr.
M
162 THE OXYRAYNCHUS ‘PAPYRI
1615. SOPHOCLES, Ajax.
4:2 X 3-9 cm. Fourth century. Plate 1V
(recto).
This small fragment from the middle of a leaf of a papyrus codex of
Sophocles, containing the beginnings of ll. 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 Azax 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. 756,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.
to wo Παν [Ilav
695 ὦ Ilav Παῖΐν αλιπλαγκτε Κυλ
Aavias χιϊονοκτυπου
πετραίας [amo δειραδος φανηθ ὦ
θεῶν χοΐροποι αναξ οπως μοι
Μύσια Κίνωσι ορχηματ avtodan
yoo vay fans
νυν ylap εμοι μελει χορευσαι
Ικαριων [δ υπερ πελαγεων
μῦλων [avag Απολλων
6 ΖΔᾶλιος [evyvworos
795 ἐμοι ξυϊνειη dia παντὸς evdpwv
Verso.
ειἰρξαι κατ ἡμαρ τουμῴαν]ες [To νυν roce
Αιανθ ὑπο σκηναισι pnd] αφ᾽ἐντ᾽ εᾶν
[
[
755 [€t ἕωντ εκεινον εἰισιδεῖιν θέλοι ποτε"
ἰελα yap avrov τηνδ ε0] ἡμεραν μονην"
[
διας Adavas μηνις ws] εφη λεγων'’
1615. SOPHOCLES: 4.)4Χ 163
_ [Ta yap περισσα κανονητ]ία σώματα
ἱπιπτειν βαρειαις προς θ]εων δυσπραξίαις
760 [εφασχ ο μαντις οστις ανθῆρωπου duo.
βλαστων επειτα μη κατ) ανθρωπίο]ν φρονῆι"
[
[
[kevos δ απ otkwy εὐυθυς] εξορμώμενος
[avovs Kadws λεγοντος] ευρεθη πατρος"
[
0 μεν yap avroy εννεπει τε]κνο]ν δορι
699. Μύσια: 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 ἱερουργίας... περί τε
τὴν τοῦ Διὸς παιδοτροφίαν τὴν ἐν Κρήτῃ καὶ τοὺς τῆς μητρὸς τῶν θεῶν ὀργιασμοὺς ἐν τῇ Φρυγίᾳ καὶ τοῖς
περὶ τὴν Ἴδην τὴν Τρωικὴν τόποις. The region of Trojan Ida was in Mysia (Jebb on Az. 720),
and Κνώσια in |. 699 is no doubt rightly referred to the Curetes. In the scholia on 1. 699
as quoted by Suidas s.v. Nuova is the following note : Nuova’ ὀρχήματος εἶδος. τῶν γὰρ ὀρχή-
σεων ἡ μὲν Βερεκυντιακὴ λέγεται, ἡ δὲ Κρητική, ἡ δὲ Παρική (. ἡ καὶ πυρρίχη with L). Νύσια οὖν τὰ
Βερεκύντια" Νυσίας γάρ ἐστιν ἡ Βερεκυντιακή, Κνωσία δὲ 4 Κρητικῆ. ἐν Μυσίᾳ γὰρ καὶ Κνωσσῷ
ἐπιμελὴς ἡ ὄρχησις. Μυσίᾳ there has been corrected to Νυσίᾳ, but in the light of 1615 Νύσια
and Nvoias are to be corrected to Μύσια and Μυσίας, 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 duxus... Bere-
cynita Mairis Idaeae, and Lucr. ii. 611 sqq. Ldaeam vocttant Matrem, etc. the Curetes
being mentioned in 1]. 633.
754. αφ᾽ ἐντ᾽ : the supposed elision-mark and breathing are uncertain.
755- Geka: so L; θέλει the recentiores.
756. τηνδ ε6Ἶ ἡμεραν povnv: or τηνδὲ y| ny. μ.; τῆιδεθ' ἡμέρα L; τηδέθ᾽ ἡμέραι the
recentiores; some editors, objecting to the crasis of τῇ ἡμέρᾳ in Tragedy, write τῇδ᾽ ἔθ᾽
ἡμέρᾳ or τῇδ᾽ ἐν ἡμέρᾳ: τῇδε θἡμέρᾳ 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 προς blewv δυσπραξίαις : so MSS.; but whether the supposed traces of ts are
really ink is not quite certain, especially as the preceding a is rather large, so that βαρείᾳ.
δυσπραξίᾳ may possibly have been the reading, at any rate originally.
761. φρονῆι: so originally L, corr. by a later hand to φρονεῖ, the reading of the
recentiores. Jebb prefers φρονῆι.
1616. EURIPIDES, Orestes.
4:2 X 7-8 cm. Fifth century.
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: acorrector, who
used black ink, has altered the reading in ll. 60 and 91 and added occasional
M 2
164 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. 1870. 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. 1628
was found with 1616.
Recto.
ἴῃ γα]ρ [els γίην Μενελεως Τροιας απὸ
ἰλιμίενα δε Ναίυπλιειον ἐκπληρων πλατη
55 [αἸκταῖσιν ορμει δαρον εκ [Tporas χρονον
[ἄϊλαισι πλαγχθεις: τὴν δὲ δίη πολυστονον
Ελενην φυλαξας νυκτα pn ἴτις εἰσιδων
μεθ᾽ ημεραν στείχουσαν ἴων ut [λιω
παΐιδ)ες τεθνᾶσιν εἰς πέτίρων ελθη βολας
60 [πρ]ουπεμψε" εἰς δωμ᾽ nyelrepov ἐστιν ὃ ecw
[κλαιουσ αἸδελφίην συμῴφορας tle δωματων
Verso.
89 [εξ ovmep apa γενεθλιον κατΊηνυϊσεν
90 [w μελεος ἡ τεκουσα θ ws διωλΊετο"
ἰουτως exer Tad wolr ἀπείρηκεν KaKols:
προς θεων πιθο] av δητα μοι τι παρθενε'
[ws ἀσχολος γε συγγονου προσεδρια"
[βουλει ταῴφον μοι] προς κασιγνητης μολ[ε])ήν
95 [μητρος κελεύεις] τῆς ἐμῆς τινος χαρίιν
[Kouns amapxas Kal χοας φερουσα εμας
ἴσοι ὃ ουχι θεμῆτον προς φιλίω)ν στειχίειν ταῴον
53. [εἾις : ἐς edd., as in ]. 59 and 60.
58. The supposed accent on στείχουσαν is somewhat uncertain, being really over the
x: but in 1. 59 the accent on πέτζρων (which is also not quite certain) is above the τ.
59. πέτίρων: πέτρῶν Cod. Parisinus 2713; πετρῶν other MSS.; πέτρων edd. Ch
1. 58, n. Whether 1616 had «An with most MSS. or «Ado: with Vat. is of course uncertain.
61. συΐμφορας : συμφοράν MSS. Cf. int.
91. The first hand may have written 3 letters where « was substituted by the
corrector. The MSS. vary between ἀπείρηκεν (so 1616 corr., the Marcianus and edd.),
ἀπείρηκα, and ἀπείρηκ᾽ ἐν, but the original reading here seems to have been different.
97. φιλίω]ν : the MSS. vary between φίλων and φίλον : φίλων edd. ὦ suits the size of
the lacuna here better than o.
1617. ARISTOPHANES, PLUTUS 165
1617. ARISTOPHANES, Plutus.
23:5 X 16-7 cm. Fifth century.
Part of asheet containing two leaves of a papyrus codex of Aristophanes, one
of which has most of the first 60 lines of the Plutus, a play not hitherto repre-
sented in papyri, while ofthe 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. 35, by the first hand, as are probably the name of the speaker
against 1. 22, the glosses on 1]. 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. 1g seems to
have been made good by an addition at the bottom.
The corrected text is fairly accurate, and shows the same ee as that
observable to a marked degree in 1874 (Wass) to support the Venetus
(ll. 17, 22, 32, 33, 40) rather than the Ravennas (Il. 38, 43, 51, but all points
of minor importance). In two places (Il. 4 and 50) it agrees with the Parisinus (A)
against both R and V. The only new variant occurs in 1. 49, ταῦθ᾽ for τοῦθ᾽, which
makes no difference to the sense. The difficulties in ll. 17, 46, and 48 are not
affected, the reading of the MSS. being apparently confirmed in each case. The
circumstance that the P/utus 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 1871-4
made the Clouds the first play of that collection ; cf. 1871. int.
Pol. 1 recto.
ws ἀργαλέον πρᾶγμ᾽ αἢ] ἐστιν ὥ Zed klar θεοι
δοῦλον γενέσθαι παραφρονοῦντος δεσποτου
nv yap τα βέλτισθ᾽ ὁ θεράπων λεξίας τυχὴ
Sogn δὲ μὴ δρᾶν ταυτὰ τῶ' κεκτίημενω
= μετεχειν ανάγκη Tov θεράποντία τῶν Kakwv
του σώματος yap οὐκ εᾶ τον κυριον |
κρατεῖν ο δαιμων αλλα τον εωνΐημενον
και ταῦτα μεν δη Tatra: τῶ! de Δο]έϊια
166
Io
15
25
32
40
THE OXYRHYNCHUS PAPYRI
os θεσπιωδεῖ τρίποδος εκ χρυϊσηλατου
μέμψιν δικαιαν μεμῴφομαι τίαυτην ort
ἰατρος ὧν Kat μαντις ὡς φασιν [cogos
Y
μελανχολῶντ᾽ απέπεμψεν poly tov δεσποτὴν
π
otis ακἸολίουθενι καΐ ι]]τό[} ιτἼ}ι»[[ α]] ανθίρωπου τυῴφλου
τίουναντιον δρων n] προσῆκ αυτω [ποιεῖν
[oc yap βλεποντες) τοις τυφλοις ἠΐγουμεθα
οἴυτος ὃ ακολουθει κ]αμέ προσβι[αζεται
1. αἱ
κίαι TavT αποκρινοίμενου To παρίαπαν οὐδὲ ypu
εγίω μεν οὺν ovk] εσθ οπΐως σιγήσομαι
Φ᾽ ν μὴ φρασῆς o [Tt Twd ακολουθουμεν ποτε
Xpen μὰ Δ αλλ αφείλ]ων tov στεφανον nv Aumns TL με
ἵνα μαλλον [αἸλγηΐς] λῆρος ov yap παύσομαι
“πριν αν ppaons μοι τιϊς ποτ εστιν ουτοσι
[evvous yap ων] σοι ἱπυνθανομαι πανυ σφοδρα
6 lines lost
Fol. I verso.
[erepnoo|uevos ovy ὠιχόμην ws τον θεον
αι
[Tov ἐμον] μεν αὐτοῦ τοῦ ταλεπωρου σχεδὸν
[ndn νομι]ζω[ν] εκτετοξευσθαι Burov ἐκβεβλ[ησῆθαι αἴ πο
"Ἢ 4 τ ; λελοιπεναι
[τον δ υἱον] ὁσπερ ὧν μονος μοι τυγχάνει"
[πευσομεῖνος εἰ χρη μεταβαλόντα τουΪς] τροπους
εἰναι mavjovpyov: adtkollul|y ὕγιὲς μηδὲ ἐν
[
[ws tw βιω τουτ᾽ αὗτο νομίσας συμφερειν:
εἰπεν
[7 δητα Φοιβος ἐλακεν εκ τῶν στεμματων"
ἰπευσει cadlws yap ὁ θεος εἰπε μοι ταδι'
αι
[orw ξυναντησεμι πρῶτον εξιὼν
[exeAevoe το]υτου μη μεθιεσθαι μ᾽ [ἡμ]} ἔτι:
ἱπειθειν δ΄ ἐμαυτω! ξυνακολουθεῖν οικαδε[:}
[kat τω ξυν)αντᾶις δητα πρώτω! : τουΪτΊω":
1601. ARISTOPHANES,: PLOTOS 167
45 [ect ov ξυνί]εις τὴν επινοιαν του θεοὶν
[φραζουσαὶν ὦ σκαιότατίε σοι σαφεστατα
[ασκειν τον] ὕιον Tov επιϊχωριον τροπον
[rat τοῦτο κριΐνεις : δηλίον οτιηὴ καὶ τυφλΊω
: ταυθ᾽
γνωναι doxje ὡς σφοδρ [eats συμφεροὴν
[
[ro μηδεν ασ]κεῖν υ͵γιες εν Tw νυν] χρόνωι Ϊ:
[ovk εσθ οπως 0] χρησμος εἰς TouTO ρέπει φερῖεται
[αλλ εἰς ετερον τι μεῖϊζον: ny ὃ ημιν φράσηι
[oo7ts ποτ ἐστιν οἸυτοσὶ καὶ τίο]ν χαριν
και του δεομενος] ἡλθε μετα] νων ενίθαδε
ἡμων
[πυθοιμεθ αν τον χ)ρησμον) ο τι ἴνοει
οι
οι
[aye δὴ συ ποτερον σαυτον οσΊτιϊς εἰ] φίρασεις
: 4 lines lost
Fol. 2 verso. Fol. 2 recto.
11 lines lost 10 lines lost
5 τὰ 1} 100 Aeatlet ate ars Me wiles =
17 lines lost [ia Tes soar
I 7 lines lost
4. tavra: the accent is due to the corrector. ταὐτὰ A; τ᾽ αὐτὰ U; ταῦτα RV.
12. απέπεμψεν : 1. απέπεμψε.
17. αποκρινοΐμενου : OF αποκρινοίμενοι, which is equally difficult ; ἀποκρινομένῳ ἘΚ; ἀποκρινο-
μένου VAU; ἀποκρινόμενος 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 a, and, as Dr. R. T. Elliott remarks, a may be merely
a variation of spelling of ε; cf. Il. 33, 41.
19. The partly obliterated sign against this line seems to be distinct from the abbrevia-
tion of Xpeu(vAos) immediately below and to refer to the omission of I]. 20-1, which were
presumably supplied in the lower margin.
22. αφεΐλ]ων : so VAU; R. adds ye.
32. ὡς: so VAU: πρὸς Κ.
33. τοῦ: so VAU; om. R.
34 marg. Similar but not verbally corresponding notes on ἐκτετοξεῦσθαι occur in the
extant scholia.
37. There was possibly a stop (one or even two dots) after εν, but none is
required.
38. adro: so ΚΑΤ) (αὐτὸ) : wird corr. from airéi(?) V.
συμφερειν: SORV; ξυμφ. AU. Cf. 1. 43, n.
39. emev is an explanation of ἐλακεν, not a variant. Double dots are expected at the
end of the line, and perhaps the lower one has been effaced.
168 THE OXYRHYNCHUS PAPYRI
40. tadi: SO V ; τοδί RAU.
42. Whether the papyrus had exeXevoe with VAU or ἐκέλευε with R is uncertain.
43. ξυνακολουθεῖν : so RAU; συνακ. V. Cf. 1. 38, n.
45. ξυνῆεις : so RV; ξυνίης AU.
46. ppafovoaly: so MSS.; φράζοντος Cobet. The traces of the last letter suit ν,
48. τυφλ]ίω: so MSS.; τυφλὸς Hemsterhuys. The reading of the vestiges is very
uncertain, and possibly there was a stop at the end of the line.
49. ταυθ: tov MSS. ταυθ᾽ would be more likely to become τοῦθ᾽ in view of the following
συμφέρον than vice versa.
50. χρόνωι: so AU; βίωι R; ἔτει (with yp. γένει καὶ χρόνῳ in the marg.) V.
51. εἰς: so RAU; és V
51 marg. For φερζεται (a note on ρέπει) cf. Schol. Junt. φέρεται, ἀποβλέπει κτλ. But
the vestiges are very doubtful.
52. peli¢ov: : R also marks a change of speaker here, assigning jv δ᾽ ἡμῖν κτλ. to θερ(άπων),
i.e. Καρίων, and |. 56 originally to Xp(epvaAos).
1618. THEOCRITUS, /ay’/s v, vii, xv.
Fr. 7 24-4x 24cm. 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 /d. 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 a and A,
and resembles the Cairo Menander Plates D and E and 1869 (Oedipus Tyrannus ;
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-vili. The first hand was
responsible for a few corrections, for the marks of elision throughout, and in
Td. vii for a number of accents and breathings, besides a breathing in v. 114.
Elsewhere in /d. 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 /d.v and vii (not always very intelligently ;
cf. vii. τοι, n.), but apparently not xv, altering a number of readings and adding
a few interlinear glosses (vii. 110) 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 /d. i, iv, v, xiii, xv, xvi, xxii (Wessely, Waener Stud.
1886, 220sqq. and Mittheil. Pap. Rain. ii. 78 sqq.; 5th or 6th cent.), and of xi and
xiv (Berliner Καὶ lassikertexte v. τ, p. 55; 7th? cent.),and a small piece of scholia on
v, 38-49 (op. cit. v. 1, p. 56; Ist 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 Antinoé, 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 (/d. i, iii—xiii) accompanied by varying additions.
The leading position in the MSS. is assigned to K (13th cent.), which contains
Td. i, vii, iii-vi, viii-xiv, ii, xv, xvii, xvi. ... Other important MSS. or groups of
MSS. are (1) 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 K ;
oe ose
ii...; (3) H (13th-14th cent.) with the order i-xv, xviii...; S (14th cent.)
with the order i-xiv, ἐπιτάφιος Biwvos, xv—xviii; (4) M (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) O (12th cent. ; the oldest MS., but still imperfectly collated) containing only
v. 62-viii, allied to AE. In /d. xv, where the divergences of the MSS. are much
greater than in v and vii, L (14th cent.), containing v. 55-xv ... 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 per’ for wey in vii. 100, wor for oor’ in vii. 103, ov
for ov in xv. 54, avras for avra: or avra in xv. 67, more serious corruptions occur
in vii. 73 ta Zaves for τας Zeveas, xv. 99 φθεγξει [τι] σφ᾽ for φθεγξειται τι cag’. Inv
1618 tends to support K against M (ll. 111, 115-16, 118, 148; 57 and 146 are
doubtful) ; but in vii the opposite tendency is just as noticeable (Il. 79, 90, 109 ;
against ll. 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 air’ ἐφύοντο for αἵτε
φύοντι and vii. 112 Ἕβρῳ πὰρ ποταμῷ for “EBpov πὰρ ποταμὸν (both easier than the
reading of the MSS.), and vii. 92 ἐν @[peor for av’ Spea, 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 [πέρυ]σιν
in 1. 98, confirming a generally accepted conjecture of Reiske for the corrupt
σπέρχιν or πέρχην of the MSS. Other valuable readings are ὄχλος ἀλαθέως in 1. 72»
which seems to account for the variants of the MSS., and 6 κὴν ᾿Αχέροντ]ι φ[ιλ]ηθείς
which removes a difficulty in 1. 86; but in 1. 38 κατεῖϊπες does not solve the
problem of that corrupt passage. μὴ ἀποπλαγχθῆς for μή τι πλανηθῇς in 1. 67 is also
attractive, and εἴθε for εἴ τι in 1. 70 may be right, as possibly λαλεῦσαι for λαλεῦμες
inl. 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 Antinoé papyrus, which does not over-
lap 1618, and consists largely of the later poems.
With regard to the order of the /dyls, the placing of vii immediately after
v is without parallel in the later MSS., but the arrangement in the contem-
porary vellum fragments published by Wessely, in which v followed iv and
xxii followed xiii, xv being also represented, was possibly identical. The
occurrence of fragments of xv in conjunction with v 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,
v and vii, whether the interval was large or small.
Col. i (Frs. 1=2 recto).
v. 53 ἰστασω δε κρατηρα peyav AlevKoto γάλακτος
ταις Nupdats oracw de και αἀδεος)] αλλον ελαιω
55 [ae δε κε και τυ μολης απαλαν πτεριὶν ὧδε πατήσεις
[
[
[kat yAaxov avOevoay υπεσΊσειται δε χίμαιραν
ἰδερματα ταν παρα τιν μαλακωτερα πολ͵λακις ἀρνὼν
l
στασω ὃ oxTw μεν yavdws τω Παν]ι γάλακτος
ὲ
IG18. SO TAROCRTITUS, ΠΟΥ 5 V, ΚΠ, XV
[ox7w de σκαφιδας μελιτος πλεα κηρ]) ἐεχοισας
60 [αυτοθε μοι ποτερισδε και avTobe βουκοἸ]λιασδευ
ταν σαυτω πατεων exe τας δρυας αλλα τῆις appe
[ουδὲν ἐγω τηνω ποτιδευομαι adda τον αν͵]δρα
[ae Ans tov dpvtopoy βωστρησομες os τας epeliKas
65 [Tnvas τας mapa tw ξυλοχιζεται ἐστι de ΜορσΊων
15 lines lost
Col. it (Frs. 1-2 verso).
81 ΖΔαῴνιν ey[w] δ᾽ avrats χίιμαρως δυο πρᾶν ποκ εθυσα
καὶ yap ἐμ Ὥπολλων [φιλεει μέγα και καλον αὐτω
[κρι]ον eyo βοσκω [ra de Kapvea καὶ dn εφερπει
᾿πλαν δυο τας Aojimas διδυματοκος atyas αἸμελγω
. 85 καὶ p α παῖς πίοθορευσα ταλαν λεγει avTos] ἀμελγεις
᾿φεὺυ φευ Λακαΐν τοι ταλαρως σχεδὸν ειἰκατι πληροι
τυρω και τον ἰανηβον εν ανθεσι maida μολύνει
“βαλλει και μάζλοισι τον αιἰπολον a Κλεαριστα
τας atyas παΐρελωντα και adv τι ποππυλιασδει
90 κῆμε [yap ο Κρατιδας τον ποιμενα λειος ὑπαντων
ἐκμαίίνει λιπαρα δὲ παρ αὐχενα σείετ εθειρα ͵
᾿αλλ᾽ ov συϊμβλητ ἐστι κυνοσβατος ovd ἀνεμωνα
προς ρίοδα των avdnpa παρ αιμασιαισι πεφύκει
15 lines lost
Col. iii (Frs. 3-6 recto).
I line lost
110 Tot τεττιγεῖς οἱρήητε Tov αἰπόλον ws ερεθιζω
[ουτω]ς χυμες θην ερεθισδετίε τως καλαμευτας
ἱμισείω τας dacuKepkos αλίωπεῖκας αἱ [ra Μικωνος
Jno
{ater φοιτωσαι τα ποίθεσπερα pladovte
[kale yap eyo μισείω τως KavOlapos ὃι τα Φιλίωνδα
115 [συῖκα κατατρωγοντες ὑπανεμίοι φορεονται
[η οἷν μεμνησ᾽ or’ ἐγων τὺ κατηλασα και τυ cecaplos]
172
THE OXYRHYNCHUS PAPYVRI
[ev] ποτεκιγκλιζευ και Tas Opvos nxeo τηνας
TOUTO μεν ov peuvapl olka μαν ποκα τειδὲ TU δίησας
Evyapas εκαθηρε καλίως μαλ]α tovto γ᾽ ισΐαμι
v. 120 [dn] τις Μορσίων πιϊκρᾳίινεται ἡ οὐχι παραίσθευ
127
'σκιλλίας ἴων γραίας amo σαΐματος auTika τιλλειν
ἰκηγω μαν κν]ειζω Μορσων τινα καὶ tv δε λευσσεις
4 lines lost
[a mails ανίθ vdatos τα καλπιδι κηρια Baa
|
και σίχοινον πίατεοντι Kat εν κομαροισι κεοντι
ται μεὶν εμῖαι κυτισον τε και atytAov ayes εδοντι
130 [ται]σι δ᾽ ἐμαῖς ἰοιεσσι παρεστι μεν a μελιτεια
138
[40
145
150
[pelpBecOax ἵπολλος Se Kat ws poda κισθος επανθει
[0 υἹκ ἐραμ’ Αἴλκιππας οτι pe πραν οὐκ εφιλησε
ἱἰτίων ὠτων καίθελοισ οκα οἱ ταν φασσαν εδωκα
“αλλ eyo Ευϊμηδευς ἐραμαι μεγα καὶ yap ok αὐτω
Tav συριγγ ἰω]ρίεξα καλον τι με καρτ εφιλησεν
ov θεμιτὸν Λακων ποτ andova κισσας ερισδειν
ουδ᾽ εἐποπας κυκνοισι TU ὃ ὦ ταλαν εσσι φιλεχθης
Col. iv (Frs. 3-6 verso).
1 line lost
δωρειται Μορσων ταν apvida καὶ τυ] δε Obvoals
ταις Νυμῴφαις Μορσωνι κα͵λον κρεας avtika πεῖμψον
[
|
[meno ναι τον] Π΄ανα dptluacic|cio| πία]σα τραγισΐκων
νυν ἀγελα] κηγωΐν yap ιδ ols peye [Tovto] καχαίξω
[katt Alaxwvos τίω ποιμενος οττι ποὶκ On
[avu|gapav τον ἀμνον ες wpavoy [upp] αλευμαι
αιγες ἐμαι θαρσειτέ κερουχιδες αὐυρἰιοὴν υμμε
πᾶσας eyo λουϊσίω Συβαριτιδος ενδοθ!ι) λιμῖνας
ουτος o λευκιτία)ς ο κορυπίτιλ]ος εἰ τιϊνἾ οχε[υ]σέε[ις
ταν atyav φλασίσω) tu πῖριν ἡ] y [ele καλλ[ιε]ρησίαι
ταις Nupdats [rav αμνον o ὃ av παλιν αλλα] γενοιμίαν
αι pln τὴν φλίασσαιμι ΜελΊανθιος ανῖτι ἸΚομ]ατία
(sic)
3 lines lost
Vil. 4
5
6
7
6
8
Io
68
7O
75
1618. THEOCRITUS, IDYLS V, VII, XV
[k Αντιγενης δυο texva Avkwmeos εἰ τι πε]ρ [εἸσθῖλον
ἰχαων των ετ ανωθεν απο Κλυτιας τε] kat av7w [
[XaAkwvos Βουριναν os ex ποδος ανυε] κραναν
[eu γ εἐνερεισαμενος meTpa γονυ ται] δὲ παρ αὐΐταν
[Χαλκωνος Βουριναν os εκ ποδος ανυε κῆραναν [
[ἰαιγειροι m\reAlear τε εὐσκιον αλσος ἐἸφᾳ[ι]ν[ον
ἰχλωροισιὶν πίεταλοισι κατηρεῴφεες κομοωσαι
[kouT@| ταν [μεσαταν οδον avupes ουδὲ το capa
ἰαμιν το ΒΊ]ρᾳσίλα κατεῴφαινετο και Toly οδιταν
εἶσθλον συὶν Μίοισαισι Κυδωνικον ευἹρομ[εῖς ἄνδρα
ουνίομα] μεῖν Δυκιδαν ns ὃ αἰπολος οὐδε] κε τις μιν
Cols. v—vi lost
Col. vii (Fr. 7 recto).
ἰκνυζα τῇ ᾳσφοδελίω τε ποὶλυγναμπτω τε σελινω
[και πιομ[α]ι μαλακαΐς μεμνημ)]ένος Αγεανακτος
[αυταισ]ιν κυλίκε[σ]σι καὶ εἷς τρυγ]α χεῖλος ερειδων
[αυλησΊ]εῦντι[ ν]})] δὲ μοι δύο [πΊοιμεν[ εἰς eis μεν Αχαρνεὺς
? - 7: 2
X@s] opos aud επονεῖτο Kat ws δρύες avrov εθρ[ην]ευν
Πμεΐρ]α ar εφύοντο map όχθαισιν ποταμοῖο
\ μ ΄ ἈΝ oe ,) ΄
€UTE χιὼν ὡς τις κατετάκετο μακρὸν Up Aiplov
» 9
[
[ws ποῖκα τα Bavés npdoocato [Aalpus o βουτας
[
[
ἡ Ado: ἡ Ῥοδόπαν ἡ Καύκασον ecyaréaly|ra
ασει δ᾽ ὡς ποκ᾽ [έ]δεκτο τον αἰπόλον evpea λάρναξ
ζωὸν εόντα κακ[α]ῖσσιν ατασθαλίησιν avaxtos
ὡς τε νιν αἱ σιμίαι λ]ειμωνόθε φερβον ἴοισαι
κεδρον ες αδειαν [μαλΊακοις ἄνθεσι μέλισσαι
ουνεκα pes 'ΜΜοισία)] κατα [or|oparos χέε νέκταρ
[] μακαριστε Κομᾶτα τυ θην ταδε τερπνὰ removes
[κα]ὶ τὺ κατεκλάσθης ες λαΐρνακα και τυ μελισσᾶν
[κηρια] φερβόμενος έτος ἰωρ]ιον εξεπόνησας"
[ar ex] enor (ζωοῖς evap[iO|ucos ὦφελες ἢμεν
[
ws τοι εγ᾽ὼν ενόμευον av ώρεα Tas Kadas atyas
173
174
vii, 90
95
100
105
IIs
THE OXYRHYNCHUS. PAPYRI
[povas εἰἰσαίων tv δ' ὑπο δρυσὶν ἡ y vio mevKalis
[adv μεἸ]λισδόμεϊ ν]ος κατεκ[εἸκλ[[ ε]]σο Oee] Koplar]e
[χω μεν τοσσ᾽ εἰπὼν CREE [Tov εἰν μετ] αυϊθις
[κηγῶν.. Tot εὐαϊμαιν AuKioa pire won
[Νυμφ]αι ΩΝ ἐν εν ἄϊρεσι nage
Col. viii (Fr. 7 verso).
[εσθλα τα mov καὶι Zialvo[s| em [θ]ρόν[οἱν dyayle Papa
[aAAa roy εκ] παίνἼτων μέγ᾽ ὑπείροχον οττι y aeideuy
[ἀρξευμ] add [υπ]ακοϊυσὶον επεῖ1] φίιλ]ος ἐπλεῖο Μοισαις
Σιμιχιδαι plev] ἔρωτες εἐπέπταρον. ἡ yap ἴο δειλος
[roca lov (epa ΜΊνρτους οἷσον] elapos atyes ερανΐτι
Aparos ὃ ο [τα] πάντα φιλαίτατὸός avept τήνω
παιδὸς ὑπο σπλάγχνοισιν εχει πόθον οἴδεν [Aptotis
εσθλος ανὴρ μετ᾽ αριστος ὃν ovdé κεν autos αειδίειν
Φοῖβος συν φόρμιγγι παρα τριπόδεσσι ΜΕΠΠΕΙΝ
ὡς εκ παιδὸς Aparos ὕπ᾽ οστεον αιθ᾿-ετ᾽ ἔρωτι
τον μοι Ilav Ομόλας ερατὸν [π]έδον ware λέλογχας
ἄκλητον Keivolo φίλας εἰς χ]ειρας ερείσαις
et et apa Φιλίνος ὁ μαλ[θα]κὸς είτε τις addos
κει μεν ταῦθ᾽ ἔρδοις w ΠΙαν) φίλε: μη τι ov παῖδες
Apkadtkol σκίλλαζι]σιν ὕπο πλευρας τε καὶ ὠμ[ου]ς
[τἸανίκα μαστίζοιεν ore κρέα τυτθὰ παρείη |
i la μέ
εἰ ὃ ἄλλως vevoais κατα μεν χρόα παντ᾽ [ονυχεσσι
εν ακαληφαις
δακνόμενος κνα[σαιο)] Kat εν κνίδαισι [καθευδοις
[εης δ᾽ Ηδίω]νων μεῖν εν ώρεσι χείματίε μεσσω
[Ε βΊρω παρ] ποταμω τἰε]τραμμένοϊς εγγυθεν ἀρκτου
εν δὲ θέζξρε]ι πυματοισι [π]α[ρ] 4 ἰθἠόπεσσι νομευοις
πετραι [υπ]ο Βλεμύων όθεν οὐκέτι Νέείιλος ορατος
υμμεῖς & Ὑ]Ἱετιδος καὶ Βυβλιδος add λίιποντες
[va]ua και Οικευϊντα ξαν᾿ θ]ᾶς [εδ]ος αἰπὺ Ζι[ωνας
[@ μ]άλοζισιν Ε!ρωτεῆς ερε[υθομέν]οισιν ομοίιοι
Some columns lost
1618. THEOCRITUS, IDYLS V, VII, XV 175
Col. ix (Frs. 8-16 recto).
xv, 38 [aAAa Kata ylvopav απίεβα τοι TolvTo κατ᾽ εἰπΐες
[τωμ]πεχίοἶνον φερε por κίαι ταν] θολιαν κατα |Koopov
40 [ap pudes οὐκ αξω Tu τεκνίον polppw δακνίει cmos
[Sa]kpve [οσσα θελεις χωλον [6 ov dja τὺ γενΐεσθαι
τῳ ἠδ: Φρυγια τον μίικκον παιῖσδε λαβίοισα
[ταν κυν᾽ «low καλεσον τῖαν αὐυλειαν] αἰποκλαξον
[@ θεοι οσσοὶς ox{Alos πωΐς Kat ποκα τοΊυτο πίερασαι
45 [xen To Kaxoly puppalkes αναριθῆμοι και ἀμετ]ροίι
[πολλα τοι w Πτ]ολεῖίμαιε πεποιηται καλα epy|a
[εξ w ev αθανατοις o τεκὼν οὐδεὶς κακοεργἾος
3.1π65 lost
sr a[dijora [Topyor τι γενοιμεθα τοι πολεμισται
immo\ τίω] βίασιληος avep φιλε μη με πατησης
[οἹρθος αἰνεστία ο πυρρος 18 ὡς αγριος κυνοθαρσης
ee. pevén διαχρησειται Tov ayovTa
55 ὠνα[θ]ην μ[εγαλως οτι μοι to βρεῴφος μένει evdor
᾿θαρίσει Πραξινοα και δὴ γεγενημεθ οπισθεν
τοι ὃ [eBay es χωραν καυτα συναγειρομαι dn
1 line lost
[ex mlaidos σπευδωμες oxAos moAvs appiy επιρρ͵ει
60 [εξ] αυλίας @] μαίτε]ρ εγίων ὦ τεκνα παρενθε]ι ν]
evpapes] εἰς Τροιαν πίειρωμενοι ην͵θον ΑΙ χαιοί
ἰκαλλισται παιδων πίειραι θην παντα] τελειται
[χρησμως a πίρεσβυτις απωιχετο θεσ]πιξασα
[παν͵]τα γυναΐικες ἰσαντι Kat ws Ζευς αγ]άγεθ᾽ Ηραν
65 [θασα]ῆι Πρίαξινοα περι τας] θυρίας οσσος οἸμιλος
[θεσπεσιος Γοργοι δος] ταν xepa plot λα]βε και Tv
[Evvoa Ἑυτυχιδος molr'ex’ auras μὴ [a αἸποπλαγχθης
[πασαι ap εἰσενθωμες] απριξ exev ἘΤυ]νοα ἀμὼν
[οιμοι δειλαία diya μευ] το θεριστριον ηδ]η
176 THE OXYRHYNCHUS-PAPYRI
Col. x (Frs. 8-16 verso). Plate iv.
xv, 70 [εσχιστΊαι Γοργοι ποτ-ίτω Atos εἸεθε γένοιο Ν
[evdaipwly ὠνθρωπε [φυλασήσευ τ᾽ ονπεχονοῖν μευ [
[ουκ em εἶμιν μεν ομίως de] φυλαξομαι οχλος ἀλαθεαϊς
[ωθευνθ}] ὠὡσπεῖρ ves θαρσε)ι γυναι εν καλω εἰμες
[kes wpals κηπείιτα gid alvdpov ev καλω «ins
75 |appe περισ]τελλ]ωΐν χρήστου κἸοικτειρμονος αἷνδρος
φλιβετα Ευνίοα app aly ὦ δειλα [τὴν Bilagev
[
[
[κἸαλλισίτ᾽ εν]δοῖι πασαι ὁ ταν νῆυον et] αἰποκλαξας
[Πρ]αξινοαὶ ποῖταγ ὧδὲ Ta ποικ]ιλα πρατοῖν αθρησον
[λεῖπτα [kat ὡς χαρίεντα θεων περον]αΐματα φασεις
80 [πο]τνΐι 4θηναια mora of εἐπονασαν εριθοι
3 lines lost
[avros ὃ ws θαητος ἐπ apyupeas κατακειτΊ]αι
85 ἰκλισμω mpatov ἰουλον amo κροταφων) κ[αταϊ]βαλλῶ
[o τριφιλητος ἄδωνις ο κην ἌχερονἾτι φ[ιλ]ηθεις
[ἰπαυσασθ w δυστανοι avavuTa καωτιλλ)οισὶ α)!
[τρυγονες εκκναισευντι πλατειασδοισα)ι αἰπαν͵τα
μα ποθεν ὠνθρωπος τι δὲ τιν εἰ κωτιλαι ELpels
go [macoapevos επιτάσσε Συρακοσιαις επιτασΊσεις |
[ws εἰδης Kae τουτο Κορινθιαι εἰμες aver]
[ws και ο Βελλεροῴφων Πελοποννάσιστι λαλΊευσαι [
ἰ
pn φυη ΜΙελιτωδες os ἀμων]) καρτεροϊς) «7
δω]ρισδίεν ὃ εἕεστι δοίκω τοις [4 ]ωρίιεεῖσσι
95 πλαϊ[ν] ενῖος οὐκ ἀλεγω μη μοι κενεαὶν απομαξης
᾿σ[ἤγη Πρίαξινοα μελλει τον Αδωνι]ν αειδεῖεν
a tas Αργέϊιας θυγατη]ρ ἱπολυιδρις αἸοιϊδος
ατις και [περυϊσιν Tov ἴαλίεμον ἀριστευσε
φθεγξει [τι] σφ᾽ oda καλοῖν διαθρυπτεται ηδὴ
100 δεσποιν᾽ [a] Γολγως τε και ἴδαλιον εφιλησας
v. 53. The vestiges of ll. 53, 56, 58, 60-2, and 65 are too slight to give a real clue.
57. πολλακις : so KH?AE (and O according to Wilamowitz, who, however, elsewhere
states that this MS. begins at 1. 62); τετράκις MPQTH’. There are fairly distinct traces
of A, but possibly it was corrected from or to p by the first hand.
87. tupw: the w seems to have been corrected from ον.
1618, ZTHEOCRITUS, IDYLS V, VII, XV 177
111. χυμες : SOK; κ᾽ dupes or x’ dupes the rest.
ερεθισδετίε: so most MSS.; ἐρεθίζετε KMP.
114. eyo: so MSS.; ἐγὼν edd. since Brunck. Cf. |. 116, where 1618 has eyo, but
most MSS. and edd. ἐγώ.
115. φορεονται : 8. KOHA; ποτέονται MPQTY, v.1. in schol.
116. [η olv: η is omitted by OPTQ? Tricl., but must have been written here.
μεμνησ᾽ : SO KP (μεμνασἾ according to Hiller; but according to Wilamowitz KP have
μέμνα like MHA'E, others reading μέμνασ᾽.
or: so MSS.; ὅκ᾽ Tricl., edd. For eyoy cf. 1. 114, n.
117. nxeo: 1, ELXEO.
118. pay ποκα: SO K yp. (ὅκα μάν ποκα τίν τοι Sjoas) M?PQT'H!S? Tricl.; μὰν the rest ;
μάν τοι Wilamowitz.
τειδε: SOK; τεῖνδε P; τῆνδε Ο : τῆδε MOAS.
121. [σκιλλΊας ἴων : the reading is uncertain, but no variant is known.
129. σήχοινον : so ASL; σχῖνον other MSS., edd.
144. tov: so MSS. except K? (τὰν; so edd.).
145. κερουχιδες : SO MSS, κερουλίδες and κερουλκίδες are vv. ll. in the scholia ; κερούτιδες
Ahrens.
146. λιμἶνας : so MAE; but the vestiges are too slight to decide with certainty between
this and κραΐνας (KOP).
148. 7 γ᾽ [εμε: so KO &c.; ἢ ἐμὲ M'PQ Tricl.; ἤ γέ με Schaefer. Cf. vii. 88, ἢ.
vii. 5-6. The v of avro| has a stroke through it in the black ink used by the corrector,
and it is not clear whether he rewrote that letter or was making a flourish at the end ot
kpavav when inserting |. 6 in its proper place. Line 7 was placed before 1. 6 by the first
hand. The final letter of κραναν is not much like » in either place, but no variant is known.
8. ἔφαινον is the reading of the MSS., corrected to ὕφαινον by Heinsius, comparing Virg.
Eccl. ix. 42 lentae texunt umbracula utes. All that survives in the papyrus is an accent by
the corrector (as is that in ]. 12) and traces which are reconcilable with ga and ν.
to. The first hand apparently wrote onya,
12-13. It is not certain that the fragment containing εἰ and ουν at the beginnings of
lines is correctly placed here.
13. μὲν : apparently corr. from νιν, rather than vice versa. μιν MSS.; νιν edd.
69. The first hand perhaps wrote Ay:avakros like P.
70. αυταισἾιν: so (or αὐταῖσι) MSS.; αὔαισιν Schaefer; αὐταῖς ἐν Valckenaer. The
traces of a letter preceding ν do not suit ε.
71. The v of αὐυλησήευντε seems to have been corrected or added by the second hand,
which crossed out the superfluous ν at the end.
73. ta Zaves: 1. τας Heveas (or ξενέας) with KMO &c.; ξενίας PS; ἃ ν.]. ξανθᾶς Ge:
Ξάνθας) is recorded by the scholia.
74. apd’ επονειτο: so Ahrens; ἀμφεπονεῖτο Wil. with KPH; dudemodciro OSQAE
Tricl.; in M vis corr. from A. The apostrophe does not necessarily imply that the scribe
regarded aud and emoverro as two words; cf. 6. g. v. 116 Kar'ndaga.
75. aur’ efvovro: aire φύοντι MSS. The intransitive use of φύω is very rare in
early writers, but occurs again in Theocr. iv. 24 καλὰ πάντα φύοντι (where, however, HS
read φύονται) and in Mosch. iii. 108. avr’ εῴυοντο removes a difficulty, but may be only an
emendation or a slip due to the other imperfects ; cf. xv. 86, n.
78. The first hand wrote ae and seems to have omitted ξ of Aapvaé.
79. ατασθαλίησιν : so M3; ἀτασθαλίαισιν KP.
N
178 THE OXYRHYNCHUS PAPYRI
(80. λ]ειμωνόθε : λειμωνόθεν KP; λειμωνοθὶ M ; λειμωνόθε the rest (?). Above the vo the
corrector has apparently crossed out a grave accent by the first hand, which at the end of
the line seems to have written sovea like P.
81. ἄνθεσι: 50 K; |. ἀνθεσσι.
82. [στ]όματος xée: 50 KP &c.; στόμα ἔγχεε M.
83. Κομᾶτα: the MSS. wrongly accentuate this paroxytone.
merovOe[ts: ονθε is very doubtful, and wemer.. might be read; but no variant is
known.
85. εξεπόνησας : so most MSS. (ἐξεπόνασας) ; ἐξετέλεσσας OM and v. 1. in the scholia.
86. ewor: so most MSS.; ἐμεῦ P, edd.
88. η ¥ υπο: ἢ ὑπὸ MSS. There is room for two letters between n and v, and γ᾽ is
uncertain; but cf. v. 148.
90. απεπαύσατο: so most MSS.; edd.; ἀνεπαύσατο Κ.
92. κημ᾽ εδιδί αξα]ν : κἠμὲ δίδαξαν MSS. apparently.
ev ἄζρεσι : av’ ὥρεα MSS., a reading which may well be due to the proximity of av’ dpea
ΠῚ} 850... Cf ant.
94. orm γ᾽ aedew: so O Tricl. and ν.]. in the scholia. The vestiges are very faint,
but do not suit ὦ τυ γεραιρεζι)ν, the ordinary reading.
96. 9: 1. ἢ:
98. Ἄρατος: so KMPQA’; Ὥρατος SA? Tricl.
100. per: |. μεγ΄. Cf. the next note.
IOI. petaipor: peyaipo. MSS. except P (μεγαίρει). Probably the first hand wrote peyatpor,
and the corrector altered it wrongly, being apparently under the influence of the incorrect
per’ inl. 100. Ther is clear; pe-yatpo (cf. 1. 102, n.) cannot be read.
102. The first hand had divided wrongly a er, which the corrector altered by a stroke
connecting 6 and ε; cf. xv. 70, n.
103. Ομόλας: 50 KM 3; ὁμόλου HO; ὁμόλου with ὦ suprascr. P ; Μαλέας Ahrens.
ὥστε: |, bore.
104. κεζίνο]ιο: So KMP &c.; τήνοιο H. Above the « is a superfluous accent added
by the corrector.
ερείσαις : the corrector apparently added an accent above ep, but crossed it out, adding
one Over tc, though that is really more like a rough breathing.
105. etr’ ἐστ᾽ apa Φιλίνος : 50 MSS. except 8 (εἴτε Φ. ἄρ᾽ ἐστίν). 1618’s accent on Φιλίνος
should have been circumflex.
106. κει: so S, edd.; xiv the rest.
ταῦθ᾽ : so Η &c.; ταῦτ᾽ KMP.
έρδοις : So KMPE?; ἔρδεις HSE”.
av: so K?; rv most MSS. and edd.
108. μαστίζοιεν : μαστισδοιεν MSS. apparently.
10g. vevoas: somost MSS.; vetoes K; vevoors PS. What the first hand wrote instead
of αλλως is obliterated..
110, With the gloss on ev κνίδαισι cf. schol. xvidn ὑφ᾽ ἡμῶν, ἀκαλήφη δὲ ὑπ᾽ ᾿Αττικῶν.
111. ὠρεσι: οὔρεσι, KMP &c.
112. [EB]pw παΐρ | iades page a new reading. The first hand wrote [EB ]oov πα[ρ] ποταμον.
ἕβρον πὰρ ποτ. 5. εὖρον πὰρ ποτ. KMOPHA. Οἱ int.
Ἐ τ -: : so most MSS.; ; κεκλιμένος Κ γρ- MPTQ'; τετραμμένον some late MSS.
The corrector at any rate must have read -pévos, not -μένον.
113. The first hand wrote Ad @|omo.
116. Οἰκευῖντα : so S and schol. ; οἰκεῦντας O ; οἰκεῦντες the rest; Οἰκοῦντα Hecker.
1618: “THEOCRITUS, IDVES ΚΓ, VIL AV 179
Xv. 38. τοῖυτο kar etnies: τοῦτο κα e. KL; τ. καλὸν ε. PHS?AE; τ. kad’ ε. some late
MSS. ; rod τόκα ε. Or ναὶ καλὸν εἶπας the old edd. Cf. int.
41. [δακρυε : so MSS. ; δάκρυ᾽ edd.
[oloca θελεις : SO KP &C,; ὅσσ᾽ ἐθέλεις HS. @ is corr. from ἃ or z by the first hand.
42. παιΐσδε: so most MSS. ; παῖδα K.
54. Euvoa ov φεζυξη: Εὐνόα od φευξῇ MSS. It is possible that o was added above the
line after a[, but the o of ov was not corrected.
59. empple: these two letters are on a separate fragment of which the position is
uncertain.
Go. εγίων @ τέκνα παρενθε]ήν. The supposed ε is represented by the tip of a stroke
above the χ of Ayaoé in 1. 61, which suggests « or p. The MSS. vary between τέκνα εἶτα
π. HUSW Tricl., ὦ τέκνα εἶτα π. AEL, and ὦ τέκνα π. KPH’. The objection to the
restoration of either of the first two readings is that wapev6e]{» would not come at the right
point and with zalp[evdew the last letter or two would be expected to be visible, whereas
a vestige of ink at the end of the line is too near the supposed p to be the final ν of ενθειῆν
and seems to be the accent of Ἀχαιοί.
62. [καλλισται: so D and another Paris MS. according to Ahrens, and a Venetian
MS. according to Ziegler ; κάλλιστε P ; καλλίστα K &c,, Wil.
64. Hpav: so KP; Ἥρην most MSS.
67. avras: avra(c) or αὐτά MSS. ; αὗτα Wil.
μη [αἸποπλαγχθης : μή τι (or rv) πλανηθῇς MSS. ἀποπλαγχθῇς, an aorist often found in
Homer, may well be right. For the hiatus cf. 6. 5. the reading of the MSS. in vii. 88.
68. exev: so most MSS.; ἔχε KH.
apov: so most MSS. rightly; δωμά K; δμωίς P.
40. Τόργοι : so most MSS.; Γοργὼ KE. For the stroke connecting mor and rw (by
the first hand) cf. vil. 102, n.
εἾιθε : εἴ τι MSS. Cf. int.
71. φυλασΊσευ : so S; φυλάσσεο the rest.
τ᾽ ont 1, τὠμπεχονοΐν.
72. φυλαξομαι : so MSS.; φυλαξοῦμαι the ancient editions.
αλαθεωΐς : ἀθέως Ἰζ ; ἀθρόως PA; ἄθρως M; ἀθρόος (sometimes after ὄχλος) other MSS. ;
ἀθαρέως Ahrens. adafews accounts satisfactorily for the reading of K and the attempts to
emend it. The traces suit s a very well.
77. ενἼδοε : if ενἼδοῖν, 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. Ades o κην ΑχερονἾτι φ[ιλΊηθεις : “Ad. & κὴν “Ax. φιλεῖται most MSS. apparently
(φιλῆται K) ; "Ad. ὃς κῆν Ax. φιλεῖται PV ; “Adav ὃς κὴν Ax. φιλεῖται Ahrens ; ΓΑδωνις ὁ κῆν Ax.
φιλητός Reiske, which comes near the reading of the papyrus. ὅ for ὅς relative, though
common in Homer, seems to be very rare, if found at all, elsewhere in Theocritus; but
φιληθείς would be a natural emendation to some one who misunderstood o... φιλειται. Cf.
int. and vii. 75, n.
92. λαλΊευσαι : Aadedpes MSS. Cf. int.
94. em: OF etn.
96. σιγη : so Καὶ ; σίγα other MSS.
98. {περυ]σιν : so Reiske for σπέρχιν or πέρχην (K). 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 o better. Cf. int.
99. φθεγξει [τι] σφ᾽ : φθεγξεῖ ri σάφα Ῥ; φθεγξεῖταί τι σάφ᾽ other MSS. rightly.
100. Γοόλγως : SOK; γολγώ or γολγόν the rest.
N 2
180 THE OXVYRAYNCEHOS Faryad
1619. HERODOTUS iii.
Fr. 10 10-:8X13-5 cm. Late first or early second cen-
tury. Plate V (Fr. το).
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, N-Z
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 ¥-Q; Kenyon, Class. Texts, Plate viii, there dated too early), 8
(Alcman?; Part i, Plate ii), and the Berlin Alcaeus (Schubart, Pap. 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. 110 (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. K is written in two pieces separated by a space, and
Y is y-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 paragraphi, 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 (ll. 177, 332, and 410) are not due to the original scribe; but he was
responsible for the breathings in 1]. 180 and 434, the occasional diaereses over
initial . or v, 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 ll. 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 (ll. 69, 131, 355, 379, 410, nn.).
Ἀ
1619. HERODOTUS III 181
1619 is nearly 15 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, 1875, P. Munich in Archiv, i, p. 471, Ryl. 55,
Brit. Mus. 1109 in Viljoen, Herodoti fragmenta in papyris servata, p. 44; εἴ.
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 B (eleventh century),
and (8) the Roman, headed by RSV (all fourteenth century): C, an eleventh
century MS. of group (a), P (fourteenth century ; mixed) and E (excerpts only ;
thirteenth century) and other late MSS. are unimportant. Stein gave a decided
preference to (a), regarding unsupported readings of (8), 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 (8). 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. 12); 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, of. εἶ.
Ῥ- 59), is illustrated by 1619 in ll. 28 and 69, where τῶν κακῶν probably and
καλεομένους 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 ll. 17, 147, 168, 333, and 411. Here the traditional reading
can generally be defended without much difficulty, but not in 1. 168, nor perhaps
in 1. 333. 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 editors have
proposed to omit it in the second, and in 1. 267 the redundancy of the expression
ov πολλῷ μετέπειτα χρόνῳ ὕστερον is remedied by the apparent omission of ὕστερον.
The addition of τῆς before ἐν Αἰγίνῃ in 11. 383-4 may well be right, but the
omission of ὧν after τούτων in 1. 320 may be merely a slip. The solution of
the crux in 1. 319, where the MSS. are corrupt and 1619 had a shorter reading,
is barred byalacuna; cf.1l.443-4,n. The other new readings concern the dialect,
182 THE OXYRHYNCHUS PAPYRI
in which respect 1619 is not conspicuously more correct than the MSS., as is
shown by e.g. the forms ἐδικαιεῦντο (1. 19), κρίσει (1. 175), and ode (I. 344).
πρῆχμα, an alternative reading in ll. 327 and 380, though not found in the MSS.,
is known in the fifth century B.C. from a Chian inscription: cf. Smyth, /ozzc
Dialect, ὃ 350. For Καμβύσην, a new form of the accusative as far as
Herodotus is concerned, see 1. 176,n. Regarded as a whole, the text of 1619
is free from scribe’s errors (one seems to have occurred in 1. 374, another in 1. 131
to have been corrected subsequently) and generally sound, presenting not many
novelties, but combining most of the good points in both the families (a) and
(8). Of an alternative recension with great variations, such as that indicated in
1092. ix, there is no trace.
Before the discovery of Herodotean papyri the origin of the two lines of .
tradition represented by the MSS. was naturally not the subject of much
discussion. Editors of Herodotus from Wesseling to even Hude were content
to assume the existence of an archetype of the two families, and to aim at
reconstructing it without much regard for the question whether it was
Alexandrian, Roman, or Byzantine. In 1909 Aly (Rhein. Mus. xiv. 591 sqq.)
put forward the hypothesis that (a) mainly represented the Alexandrian text
as edited by Aristarchus, (8) the pre-Alexandrian vulgate in a redaction of the
time of Hadrian; but this view, which would cut the ground from the archetype-
theory, has not gained much acceptance, and is controverted by Jacoby in
Pauly-Wissowa’s Realenclycl. Suppl. ii. 516-17. 1619 certainly does not lend it
any support. Jacoby himself is also sceptical about the validity of the current
archetype-theory, and is disposed to regard the two families as quite ancient
recensions, parallel to the papyri. But the most natural inference to be drawn
from the eclectic character of 1092 and 1619 is that these first-second century
papyrus texts were older than the division of the families (a) and (8), which
seems to have taken place not earlier than the fourth century; cf. 1092. int. and
Viljoen, of. czt. p. 56. By the first century the text of Herodotus had
reached a condition which is only slightly better than the text recoverable from
a combination of (a) and (8).
Frs. 3, 7, 10, and 20 are from the tops of columns, Fr. 14 from the bottom,
the rest from the middles. The point of division of lines is quite uncertain in
Frs. I, 2, 13, 23, and 24, and the proposed arrangement of Frs. 9, 20, and 25 is
only tentative.
Cola. (Px. τὸ: Col. iii (Fr. 2).
aywyolvs αἰπικομενοι 26 6 em |p alifver Oar 27
εἸισι εἰς ] τοτε παντΐες
1619. HERODOTUS 111 183
€xolvor pler κεχαρη]κοτες optal corey
Αισχριωνιης φυΐλης ] 0 Καμβυίσης
τ απε]χουϊσι
Col. iy (Frs. 3-6). Col. v (Frs. 7-8).
το [piwy αξιος μεν γε Διγυπτιων 29 [ βασΊιληιοι δικαστα[ι
[ovros ye 0 θεος αταρ τοι] ὕμεις 50 ἰτοτατος αποκτενεοντία μιν 0 30
[ye ov χαιροντες γελωταὶ] ἐμε θη [δε avaBas es Σουσα αἴπεκτεινε
ἴσεσθε ταυτα ειπας ενε]τειλατο [Σμερδιν οἱ μεν λεγοῆυσι ἐπ a
ἴτοισι ταυτα πρήσσουσι τους μεν [ypnv εξαγ]αγονῖτα οι δε es] την E
[
15 [peas απομαστιγωσαι Διγυπτι ρυθρην θαλασσαν mpjoayayov
[ov δε τῶν αλλὼν τὸν ἂν AjaBo 55 [Ta κατ]αποντῶσαι πρώωϊτον μὲν 31
σι ορταζοντΊ]α κτεινίειν ορ]τη μεν (on Aeylovor Καμβυσηι τίων κα
[
[
[on διελελυ]το Acyvmrio[ict] οἱ δὲ κων αρ͵]ξαι tovro δευτεῖίρα de ε
[ypees εδικαιίευντο ο δῖε Antis> ἑεργασατο την αδελφείην επι
ἱ
ἱσπομείνην οἱ es Δἰ[γ)υίπτον τηι
20 [πεπληγμεῖνος Tov μηΐρον «pe
ve [ev τωι t]por κατακίειμενος 60 [Kat συνοικεῖε και aly οἱ απ au
“και [Tov μεν] τελευτησίαντα εκ φοτερων αδεϊλφεη [εἐγημε δὲ av
του τρωματοὴς εθαψαΐν οἱ τιρεες [την wdle ουδαμίως yap εωθε
λαθρίηι Καμ)βυσεέω Καμβυσης 30 [σαν προΐτερον τίηι]σι αδεϊλφεηισι
25 de ὡς [λεγουσι Αιγυπτιοι αὑτικα ἰσυνοιίϊκεειν Πέρσαι ηραίσθη
δια τίουτο το αἀδικημα epavn 65 [μιης των αδελῴφεων Καμβυσηϊς
εων [ovde προτερον φρενηρης και ἐπειῖτα βουλομενος αὐτὴν
και πίρωτα μὲν τῶν κακῶν εξερ [γημαι ott oluk εωθοτὰ emevoe
l
[yaoato Tov αδ)]ελφείον Σμερδιν ε € ποιησειν εἰρε]το καλεσας»
30 ἰοντα πατρος Kat] μητίρος τῆς av τους βασιληιους καἸλεομενους2
[rns τον ἀαπεπεῖμψε [es Περσας 40 ἰδικαστας εἰ τις ἐστι κἸελευὼν vo
ἰφθονωι εξ Αιγυΐπτου οἷτι To τοξον [wos tov βουλομενον αἸδελφείηι
[μουνος Περσεωὴν οσον [τε emt δυο [συνοικεειν οἱ δὲ βασιλη]ιοι [δι
15 lines lost About 16 lines lost
Col. vi (Fr. 9).
About 15 lines lost ν]Ίεσθαι οἱ d[vo de γενομένους ov
Ἰκωμενίου de του σκυλακος αδελ 32 τω bn επιίκρατησαι Tov σκυμ
105 |peov αὐτίου αλλον σκυλακα απο νου και τον [μεν Καμβυσην noe
p\ngavra [rov δεσμον mapaye ; About 18 lines lost
128
130
135
184
Col. vii (Frs. 10. i, 11). Plate v
κα ἐεμιμησαο τον Κυρου) οικον
αποψιλωσας τον δὲ θυμΊωθεν
εν γαστρι και μιν εκτρωϊσαν a εκτρωσασί
99
[
|
[ra eumndnoat avTne €xov|ont>
|
[ποθανειν
ταυτα μεν) ες τοὺς οἱ
κἰ[εἸξοτατους ο ΚαμβυσΊης εξεμα
vn εἰτῖε On δια tov Amily εἰτε και
adAws οια [πολῖλα [εωθε] avOpw
πους καταλαμβαΐνειν 1 και γαρ τι
140
145
150
266
va Kal εκ ‘yevens [vovdo|y peya
Anv λεγεται dye o KapBvon|s
[τ]ην ἴρην ονοϊμαζουσι τινες ov
νυν Tol αεικεῖς οὐδὲν nv του ow
ματος νουσον [μεγάλην νοσεον
τος μὴηδε τας φίρενας υγιαινειν
ταδε = τους αἴἷλλους Περσας εξ 34
ἐμανὴ λεγετῖαι yap εἰπεῖν av
[τ]ον προς ΠΙρηξασπεα τον etipa
τε μαλίζιστα και o Tas αγγελιας
εφορεε οἷυτος TovTov τε ὁ Tals
οινοχοοῖς nv τωι KapBvone τι
μὴ δὲ και αἰυτὴ ov σμικρὴ ειπειν
δὲ λεγεται ταῖδε Πρηξασπες
κίο]ιον [we τινα νομίζουσι Περ
16 lines lost
ColsxidPr. 22, ti)"
᾿ 19 lines lost
K{fapBvons τον Κροισον ov πολ 36
Aor μίετεπειτα χρονωι Kat οἱ Oe
ραποῖντες μαθοντες TovTo emny
γελλίοντο αὐτῶι ὡς TrEpLELn
Σ----
270 Καμβίυσης δε Κροισωι μεν συνη
THE “OXYRHYNCHOS PAPYRI
Col. viii (Fr. 10. 1). Plate v
168 vat προς τον ἱπατερ]α τελεσαι Ku 34
pov
170 μεινων tov [πατροὶς
οἱ δὲ aplerBovTo| ws en a
Ta TE yap €
κεινου παντΐα εχειὶν αὑτον και
προσεκτησθαι Αἰ[γυΐπτον τε και
τὴν θαλασσαν Πεΐρσ]αι μεν ταῦ
ta ελεγον Κροισος δε παρεων
175 τε καὶ οὐκ ἀρεσκομενος τῆι Κρι
σει εἰπε προς τον Καμβυσὴν τα
δὲ ἐμοι μεν ν]υ]ν
Σ----
ov δοκεεις ομοιος εἰναι τωι πὰ
ω παι Κυρου.
[Tpt οἷν yap Kw τοι [εσ΄τι ὕιος οιον
180 [oe εκειῖνος κατείλ]πετο ἤσθη
ἴτε ταυτα ακουσ]αΐς οἹ Καμβυσης
26 lines lost
Col. ix (Frs. το. iii, 12. i). Plate v.
208 οντία IIpngacmea de opwrTa
35
᾿ανΐδρα ov dpevnpea και περι ε
δὲ
210 ὠὐΐτωι δειμαινοντα εἰπεῖν
Σ-----
σπίοτα ovd αν αὑτον eywye do
Κείω Tov θεον ovTw αν Kados
βαίλεειν
γασίατο
τοτε μεν TavTa εἕερ
ετερωθι δε Περσεων
215 ομίοιους Toot πρώτοισι δυωδε
ka [em ουδεμιηι αιἰτιηι αξιο
Xplelo[e ἐλων (wovTas em Kepa
7 lines lost
225 [ov δὲ κτεινεις μεν avdlpias ge 36
[ωυτου πολιητας em] ουδεμίιηι
[αιτιηι αξιοχρεωι ελΊων κτει
[vers δὲ παιδας ην de] πολλα τοι
[
αὑτὰ ποιηις Opa οκως μη σεὺ
1619.
About 15 lines lost
Col. xii (Fr. 13).
286 βοηθεοντΊα-ς 39
1 Kpatnioas
ταφροὴν περίι
Col. xviii (Fr. 14).
About 28 lines lost
911 Kev της αἰτιης νὺν δε Gel ETTEL 49
τε εκτισίαν τὴν νῆσον εἰσι αλλη
λοισι διαφίοροι . . - - «Ὁ του
320 τῶν εἰνεκεν ἀπεμνησικακε
ov τοισι Σΐαμιοισι οἱ Κορινθιι ε
ἴπεμπε δὲ [ες Σαρδις ἐπ εκτομηι
Περιανδρίος τῶν πρωτων Kep
κυραιων [επιλεξας Tous παιδας
325 τιμωρειυΐμενος
᾿ Κερκυραίιοι ἡρξαν ἐς avrov πρήη
προτεροι yap οι
Ὁ ὡρ
γμα αἰτασθαλον ποιησαντες ε
HERODOTUS III 185
230 ἰαποστησονται Tlepoa εἾμοι de
[πατὴρ aos Kupos ενετελλ)]ετί οἹ
About 15 lines lost
Col. xx (Fr. 15).
328 ἥϊισι συμἸπίεπτωκοτα ἰοικτειρεέ 52
᾿υπίει]ς δὲ της [oplyns ηἴε ἰασσον
330 καὶ ἐλεγε ὦ παι KOTEPA τίουτων
>—
ALPETWTEPA εστι ταῦτα τία νυν
[εχ]ων πρησσεις: ἡ Try τυραννι
[Sa Klar αγαθα τα νυν εγίω εχὼ TAU
τα εἸοντα τῶι πάτρι επι[τηδεον
335 ἱπαρ]αλαμβανειν
[τε mas και Κορινθου τηΪς ευδαι
[
[Aev αντι]στατεων τε κίαι opynt
[χρεωμενἾος es τον [ale ηκίιστα ἐχρὴν
340 [εἰ yap τιΐς συμφορη [ev αὕυὅτοι
[σι yeyove] εἰξ ns υποψιην es
os εωἱν Epos
μονος βαἸσιλευς αλητηΐν βιον εἰ
Col. xxii (Fr. 16-17).
342 [σειν] και [TOV οἰκον TOV TATPOS δι 53
[αφορηθεντα μαΐῖλλον ἡ avTos
[σφε αἸπελθων εἶχειν απιθι es τα
345 ἰοικι]α παυσαι σεωυτὸν (ημι
[oy φιϊλοτιμιη ἱκτημα σκαιον
[un Tot] κακωι τίο κακὸν ἰὼ πὸ
[
λλοι] τῶν διίίκαιων Ta επίει
Col. xxiii (Frs. 18. i, 19. i).
355 [emt TNS Roe: ΟΝ 54
5 lines lost
361 [omopevor εκτεινον εἰ ely 55
[κεστεῖρα [προτιθεισι πολλοι δὲ
350 non τα μηΐϊτρωια διζημενοι
τα πατρωιϊα απεβαλον τυραν
[ν]ις χρημα [opadrepoy πολλοι δε
[alurns εἰρασται εἰσι ο δεγερων TEN?
[δ]η και πίαρηβηκως py Swis Ta
Col. xxiv (Frs. 18. ii, 19. il).
ναι ogi τους de deEapevous δύ
370 ovTw on απίαλλασσεσθαι ταῦ
την πρωτηὴν ἰἱστρατιὴν ἐς THY
365
385
425
430
435
186
νυν ot παρεοντες] Aakedaiplo] 55
ἱνίων ομοιοι εγινοῖντο ταυτηΪν]
την ημερὴν ἄρχιΐηι τε και AvKw
ἵπηι atpeOn αν Sapjos Αρχίι]ης
[yap και Δυκωπης μὶουνοῖι συν
ἱεσπεέσοντες φευγουΐσι εἷς To
ἰτειχος τοισι Σ᾽ αμιοισ]ι [Kat απο
. ὅδΐεοντο
“x?
380
THE OXYREYNEAUS PAPVRI
Aoinv Λακεδαιμίονιοισι Δωριε
ες ἐποιήσαντο [| ot δεπι τον Ilo 57
λυκίρ(ατ)εα σ]τρατείυσαμενοι Σ΄αμι
4 lines lost
τὰ δὲ των Σιφνιων mpy
γίματα ἡκμαζε TovToy Tov χρο
νον καὶ νησιωτεων μαλιστα ε
πίλουτεον ATE εοντων AUTOLOL
Col. xxvi (Frs. 20-1).
σαν ες το ιροὴν τῆς AOnvains της 59
εν ἄιγινηι ταῦτα dle εποιησαῖίν
εγκοτον εχονΐτες Σ αμιοισι Arye
νηται προτΊεροι yap Σαμίζοι ex A
μφικρατεος)] βασιλευοντῖος ev
About 18 lines lost
Col. xxix (Fr. 22).
στραϊτευεσθαι emt Tov μαγον Kal 64
ot αν[αθρωισκοντι ἐπι τον ἵππον
του ἰκολεου του ξιῴφεος o μυκης
αποΐπιπτει γυμνωθεν δὲ το
ξίφος παίει τὸν μηρον τρωμα
Col. xxxv (Fr. 24).
Tapayly|eTale 70
ὙστΊ]ασπεος [
τουτίων yap δὴ xv
υπαρχ]ος emer ὧν |
εἸἰξ των Πεΐρσεων
Aapleov προϊσεταιρισασθαι
συνελΊήθοντες | γι
εἰδιδοσαΐν
εἰπέίιτε
406
410
427
440
445
[πηγῆς apxitexrav de Tlov opy{ 60
ἵγματος τουτου eyevero] Meya
ἵρευς Ευπαλινος Navorpo|pouv
[Touro μεν δὴ εν τῶν τριω]ν ε
[ore δευτερον δε περι Nueva. 7 λιμέ..
woe πί..
[xopa εν θαλασσηι βαθος] κατα λι.1. - ἴ--
About το lines lost
Col. xxxiii (Fr. 23).
τὴ]ν αυτίην 68
το]ῆτε ο μαγῖος
συνΊοικεε και Ϊ
Col. xxxvii (Fr. 25).
Tol περησο]μεῖν] αμειίβεται Mapa 72
os τοισδε] Oravn ποῖλλα εστι
Ta Aoywr μὴεν οὐκ οια τε [δηλωσαι
εργωι de adja δε εστι Ta [λογωι μεν
ora τε ερ]γον ὃ ουδεῖν λαμπρον
am αὐτῶν ? vjues δὲ ἴστε φυΐλακας
τας κατεστΊ]εωσας εουσας οἶυδεν
μεν
χαάλεπας πα͵ρελθειν τοῦυτὸ [yap ἢ
1619. HERODOTUS III 187
μεων εοντωὶν τοιωνδε ουδὶεις οσ
τις ov πα͵ρησει τὰ μέν κοΐυ καται
δεομενος] nueas Ta δὲ κίου και
450 δειμαινωῖν τοῦτο δὲ εχίω avTos
σκηψιν ευὐυπ]ρεπεστίατην Τῆι
7. πανῆζες : om. R.
15. Lhe size of the lacuna favours απομαστιγῶσαι (ABC) rather than απομαστιγνώσειν
RSV).
( 17. ορτη : (ἣ) ὁρτὴ Schaefer, Hude. There is certainly not room for 7 in the lacuna.
19. εδικαιευντο : a ‘hyper-Ionic’ form due to false analogy ; cf. Smyth, Lonzc Dialect,
§ 690. «dix]evvr0 (so RSV) is unlikely.
21, t|pwr: 80 RSV, edd. There is room for te|pax, but cf. 1. 139 ἴρην.
28. 1619 probably agreed with the MSS. in having rev κακων, which is bracketed by
Stein and Hude; but ll. 29-33 are on a separate fragment of which the exact position is not
certain.
31. [es Hepoas: om. 5. The size of the lacuna makes it certain that 1619 agreed with the
other MSS.
49. Cf. 1. 69, n.
54-5. mploayayor|ra (R, edd.) is slightly preferable on grounds of space to πρίοσαγαγονΐτα,
the ordinary reading.
58—9. επιϊσπομεΐνην : SO R, Hude; ἐπισπωμένην SV. εἰσπομενην (ABP, Stein) is too short.
69. The two strokes after καλεομένους presumably. refer to the marginal note (I. 49),
where they may have been repeated at the beginning of the line; cf. 1620. ii. καλεομένους,
which is omitted by ABP and apparently erased in C, is omitted by Stein and bracketed by
Hude; but if the corrector wished to omit it, Bao|Aniovs δικασταΐς, not Bag |Anuow δικασταίι,
would be expected in the note. Probably one or more words are lost before Bac}Anoe and
the note is explanatory, like that in the margin of |. 355, which is in the same hand. That
the note refers to 1. 72, where βασιληιοι δικασται OCCUrs in the text (1619 is defective at this
point), is unlikely in view of the critical mark against 1. 69.
103-4. νιΪϊκωμειΐου : νικομένου BR.
105. αὐτου αλλον σκυλακα: SO ABC, edd. ; ἄλλον αὐτοῦ ox. PRSV ; om. ἄλλον ox. Naber ;
cf. the next n.
108. After 87 the MSS, have τοὺς σκύλακας, but 1619 is probably right in its omission ;
cf. int..and |. 105, ἢ.
131. The cursive marginal note ἐκτρωσασ(αν) is possibly by the writer of the scholium
on |. 410, but is certainly not due to the writer of notes on ll. 69 and 355, and seems not
to be by the first hand. The size of the lacuna suits the hypothesis that the first hand
had omitted ac.
132-3. otk εἸζοτατους : οικ[ηἼους (ABCP, edd.) is too short.
135. [ewOe|: so RSV (éa6ev), edd. 5 [εωθεε] (ABC) is too long.
136. καταλαμβαίνειν): before this edd. insert κακὰ with RSV.
137. ka: om. ABC, edd.
143. ABC agree with the original reading τὰ δὲ ἐς, while RSV rightly have τάδε δ᾽
(or δὲ ἢ) és, agreeing with the superscribed reading.
147. epopee: SO MSS., Stein ; ἐ(ζσε)φόρεε Naber, Hude. εσἤεφορεε is unsatisfactory, for
the supplement in |. 146 is already long enough.
149. και : om. P.
188 THE OXYRHYNCHUS PAPYRI
150. de: Kriiger’s conjecture δὴ is not supported.
168. τελεσαι: so ABRSV; om. E; καλέσαι (= -eioa?) C; εἰκάσαι ἢ Stein. Hude
brackets this inappropriate word.
172. προσεκτησθαι: προσκτήσασθαι RSV.
175. τηι κρισει: τῇ γινομένῃ κρίσει RSV.
176. Καμβυσην: Καμβύσεα MSS. here as elsewhere in Hdt., though in the other cases
the word belongs to the first declension, and the Attic accusative is of course Καμβύσην.
With regard to Ξέρξης, ᾿Οτάνης, and some other proper names in -ns both forms of the
accusative are found in MSS. of Hdt.; cf, Smyth, of. εἴ}. § 438.
176-7. tade: om. RSV.
181. ακουσ]αΐς : om. ABCE. : :
231. Whether everedd]-7[o] (ABCE) or ενετειλαῖτο (RSV) is to be read is not certain.
There is no reason for supposing that in 1619 6 was inserted before σός, as suggested by Bekker.
267. pleremerta χρονωι: μετέπ. xp. ὕστερον MSS., which is too long. The vestige of a
letter following dw: suits μ᾿ very well, but χίρονωι followed by pereme:ra or vorepov could be read.
ὕστερον is superfluous; cf. vii. 7 χρόνῳ μετέπειτα.
268-9. επηγ᾽γελλίοντο avtar: ἐπήγγελον τὸ αὐτὸ (V), ἐπήγγελον αὐτῷ (S), ἐπήγγελλον αὐτῷ
(Schweighauser) are all unsuitable.
286-8. The position assigned to this fragment is far from certain, περι in 1. 288 being
doubtful. ν or [ok can be substituted for 7, and y, «, ν, or w for p.
319. diaglopar.........: the MSS. are corrupt, having διάφοροι ἐόντες ἑωυτοῖσι (ἑωυτοὶ
RSV). Kriiger suggested ἐρίζοντες for ἐόντες, Reiske supplied οἰκήιοι before ἐόντες, Valckenaer
συγγενεῖς after ἑωυτοῖσι. 1619 was clearly shorter, and the sentence may have ended with
διαφΐίοροι, for in 1. 320 ὧν, which occurs in the MSS, after τούτων, is omitted, and the new
sentence may have begun....... wy τουΐτων εἰεκεν. A connecting particle is, however, not
necessary with τούτων (cf. e.g. ]. 13), and the absence of a paragraphus below 1. 319 suggests
that ll. 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 ov after τουΐτων, which may be merely a slip, cf. the previous
note. RV have ἕνεκεν for ew εκεν.
321-2. e]|meume: there is not room for απεΐπεμπε (ABC, edd.), unless o before Κορινθιοι
was Omitted.
325. τιμωρειΐμενος : τιμωρεόμενος RSV. Ce Smyth, op. cit. § 684. 2. The restoration
προτεροι (πρότερον RSV) is supported by the parallel in 1. 380; cf. ἢ,
326-7. For the alternative form πρῆχμα, which is ignored by the MSS. of Hdt., see int.
328. ἰοικτειρε: so MSS. ; ἰοικτιρε, the form preferred by edd., would be long enough.
333. αγαθα ra: so MSS.; (ra) ἀγαθὰ τὰ edd. since Aldus.
339. ες: εἰς 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 εἰχρην, but only 8 or g letters are
expected in the lacuna at the beginning of |. 340.
344. σφε, the reading of the MSS. corrected by edd. to σφεα, is rendered certain by the ~
size of the initial lacuna. amé& suits the space better than απελθε (RSV).
346. φι]λοτιμιη : for ἡ φιϊλοτιμιη (RSV, edd.) there is not room, if, as is probable, there
was a space after ov.
351. Either ἀπεβαλον or μετεβαλον (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 τε, or even both.
355. The marginal note is in the same hand as that in 1. 49.
361-2. RSV have ἐκτείνοντες instead of ἔκτεινον . . . mapedvtes.
363. eywolvro: or eyevo|yro (ABS, Stein).
1619. HERODOTUS III 189
365. atpeOn av Σαμ͵]ος : αἱρέθησαν Σαμίοις RSV.
370. dn: om. RSV.
372. Λακεδαιμζονιοισι (PRS ; -ησι V) suits the size of the lacuna better than Aaxedatp[orior
AB, edd.).
373-4. UollAve[p(ar)ea o|rpar. : the lacuna ought not to exceed 4 letters, but the omission
may have been supplied above the line, as in ]. 446.
378-9. «]|8[eovro: the supposed vestige of ὃ may belong to a paragraphus. In the
margin are traces of a note, which might refer to ll. 361-2, but is nearer to col. xxiv.
379-80. For the alternative spellings πρηγίματα, πρη]χίματα cf. 1. 327 and int.
383. THs: om. MSS. But cf. e.g. v. 82 τῇ ᾿Αθηναίῃ te (τε om. SVU) τῇ Πολιάδι, vii.
43 τῇ AOnvain τῇ ᾿Ιλιάδι. ;
386. mpor|epor: πρότερον RSV.
406. tlov ορυΪγματος τουτου : τούτου τοῦ dp. RSV.
410. The supposed stop after λιΐμενα, which is not wanted, might be the bottom of a
critical sign referring to the marginal note, which begins περι) λιμείνα) and seems to be of
an explanatory character. In the second line ὡσεὶ πί΄ or a[‘ (i.e. παρά) or ws eu[ae can be
read; the third line does not seem to be λ[ιμεῖν ... The ink is lighter than that of the
main text and the marginal note on ]. 131, and the hand certainly different from that of
11. 49 and 355 marg.
411. κατα: so MSS., which continue εἴκοσι ὀργυιέων. 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 ὀργυιέων, for which we suggest dpyvias, unless there was a substantive
εἰκοσιόργυιον, meaning a ‘length of 20 fathoms’.
423. οι: OM. (ΘῈ
421-8Ὁ. 1619 no doubt had δὴ ταυτην εἰχε (om. RSV) between αὐτίην and τοῆτε.
430. mapayw|eralc: or possibly «|s ra [Σουσα.
434. Of the supposed breathing over εἶξ 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 [a «|é, but this arrangement does not suit ll. 432 and 435-6 very well, and ἕξ is a very
natural word on which to place a breathing; cf. 1. 180.
438. e|re[ure or ἐπει]τεῖ can be read.
440. Oravn: τ, 7 AB, edd.; ’Or. ἢ C.
443-4. ἔργον δὲ οὐδὲν dm’ αὐτῶν λαμπρὸν γίνεται MSS. 1619 was shorter and presumably
omitted γίνεται or am αὐτῶν rather than λαμπρόν.
445. κατεστΊεωσας : xateo|rooas (RSV) can equally well be read, but is somewhat less
suitable to the supposed length of the initial lacuna.
446. μῖεν, inserted above the line by the first hand, is read by all the MSS.
447. towvde: 50 Hude with RSV; τοίων ABCP, Stein.
1620. THUCYDIDES i.
Ι4 Χ14.3 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. 11-14 with considerable lacunae.
190 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 1284
(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. Aurelius. The columns are rather tall, containing about
54 lines of 18-22 letters. High stops accompanied by paragraphi (which are to be
restored after ll. 3, 10, 14, and 21) are frequent, and there are occasional diaereses,
but no breathings or accents. Jota 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. ll. 67-8, n. Critical signs are placed against
the notes and the corresponding line of the text, four different signs being found
Ἰπι( Ὁ]..1..
The relation of the papyri of Thucydides to the vellum MSS., which are
divided into two families, CG and BAEF, M approximating to a middle position,
is discussed at length in 1876. int.; cf. also Hude, Bull. de lacad. royale de
Danemark, 1915, 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 B against cfG four times, and with the
C family against B 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 B 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 B 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. 1, 73-4, 76, and side by side with the
traditional readings in ll. 61, 67-8, 72 (cf. also Col. i. marg., Il. 58, 109, 112, nn.).
1620. THUCYDIDES I ΙΟΙ
Some of these are concerned with 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 ll. 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.
Cort. Col. ii.
JeX\er και αλ(λα) [Χ i
[> ta πεῖρι tas [vaus
— [te]ocapas kat ταυτα εἴτη] ἐστι
μαλιστα και aA(Aa)
5 Δ παλαιτατη
[αἸπο[νωτερον Τροιαν εἰ 11,2. 55 βασιλειαι: ναυτικα τε e€njp] 13.1
[AJov [αλῖλα δὶ αχρηματιαν 3 τυετο ἡ Ελλας και τῆς θα
τε
an Fis eel saccular λασσης μαλλον αντειχον
[κ]αι av[rja ye δὴ ταυτία ονομα ἌΣ pene de Κορινθιο ἢ
- λέγονται εγγυτατα Tov
5 ἰστίοτατα τῶν πριν γίεϊνο ΤΟΙ
60 νὺυν τρόπου μεταχειρι
ἱ
[
[μ]ενα: δηλουται τοις εἸργοις
[
2 σαι Ta περι ι τρι
υποἸδεεστερα ovta τίηἸς φη pl ναὺς και Tply
BY pets mpwrov ev Κορινθω
[μη]ς καὶ z[lov]] νυν περι της Ελλαδος ναυπηγηΐ
[αυτῆων δια τοὺς ποιητας θηναι[1 φαινεται Sle και 3
το ἰλογΊου κατίεσἸχηκοτος)) ewer 12.1 65 Σαμιο[ες Αμεινοκλης Ko
[kar μετα τα Tpl\wika [[ηδὴ}} ρινθ]ιο]ς ναυπηγοῖς ναὺς
[η Ελλας ετι] μετανιστατὸ «5. ;
ἴτε Klat κατωικιζετο woTE oa Ore Terataipes oe i
[un ησυχασ(ασαν αυξηθηναι} ὃ ἐστι μαλιστία)] τριαϊκοσια
15 In τε yap] αναχωρησις τῶν 2 [els τὴν τελευτὴν τίο]υδῖε
[Ελληνων εξ ἴλιου χρονι 70 τοῦ πολεμου ore Ape
[a γενομενη πολλα evew _voxAns Σαμίοις) nAOe νίαν 4
192 THE OXYRHYNCHUS PAPYRI
[χμωσε] και στάσεις εν Tals 12,2 “ἡ μίαχ]ια τε παλα[ι]οτατη 13. 4
[ἰπολεσιν] ws ἐπι To πολίυ εἾγί! οἷν] [dln ισίμ]εν ἡ Κοριν
20 [yvovto αἱῴ wv εκπειπτον θιωΐν γ]ιν[ εἸτί αι] προς Kiep
[res Tas] models εκτιζον" 75 Kupa{tolu[s] e7n δὲ pairs
[Bowwro] τε yap οἱ νυν εξη 3 στα δίιακο]σι[α εἸξη[κἸονΐ
32 lines lost Ta εἶστι μ]εχίρι Tov αὐτοῦ
31 lines lost
Col. iii.
x [ous emonoato και Pynvee 13.6 115 [TwTaTa yap ταῦτα τῶν vav
110 aly eA@y ἀνεθηκε τωι Aro τικίων nv φαινεται de 14. I
[Aleve tar Ζ4ηλιωι Φωκαεις καὶ τίαυτα πολλαῖς γενε
> τε [Μασσαλιαν οικιζον alls υστερα γενομενὰ τῶν
τεῖς Καρχηδονιους ενι Τίρωικων τριήρεσι μεν
κωΐν ναυμαχουντες δυνα 3 lines lost, traces of 8 lines,
and 32 lines lost
Col. i. marg. καὶ ad(Aa) ‘and so on’ recurs in the third marginal note at the top of
Col. ii. ‘The preceding word apparently does not occur anywhere in the known text
of ll. 1-54, and an unknown variant seems to be indicated; cf. ll. 67-8, ἢ. 7ε aee or ἾἮκασι
or Ἶκλει can be substituted for Ἰελει.
I. Τροιαν : τὴν Τροίαν MSS. Cf. ll. 58, 61, 73-4, nn.
3. te, Supplied by the first hand, is in all the MSS.
n[po] τουτων : so A’cF?GM, edd.; z[pos] τ. (A’BEF’) is unsuitable to the size of
the lacuna.
4. ye: om. cfG.
8. των, the reading of the first hand, is a mere error.
11. dn, which has a line above it to indicate deletion, is not known as a variant here.
14. [μη novxao(ac)|av: the traces of a are very slight, but » is fairly certain, and there
is not room for more than 7 or 8 letters in the lacuna. μὴ ἡσυχάσασα οἴ", Hude; μὴ
ἡσυχάσασαν ABEMfF?, Stuart Jones.
17-18. εἐνεαχμωσε] : so AEM ; ἐνεόχμωσε Bef, edd.
19. em τὸ πολίυ : so cEf, Hude; om. τὸ ABM, Stuart Jones.
21. τας] modes: So MSS., Stuart Jones; νέας (Madvig, Hude) does not suit the size of
the lacuna.
22. Gertz wished to omit yap.
Col. ii. marg. Cf. ll. 58, 61, 67-8, 72, nn., and for και ad(Aa) Col. i. marg. ἢ.
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
E the « of πρῶτοι is by a later hand, perhaps indicating πρῶτον as the original reading ; cf.
πρωτον inl. 62. If not πρωτον, the lost variant may have been οἱ Κορινθιοι ; cf. Il. 1, 61,
73-4, nn.
16090ϑθ.Ὀ FHA UCY DIVES: 1 193
61. ναυς: ras vats MSS., agreeing with the reading in the second marginal note.
τριήρεις immediately following has no article, and τάς can be dispensed with; but the
omission may be due to the accidental collocation of vais and τριήρεις which belong
to different sentences. Cf. Il. 1, 58,°73—-4, nn.
62. mpwrov ev Kopwho: so BcEf, Hude; ἐν K. sp. AGM, Stuart Jones. Cf. Il. 73-4,
76-7, nn.
63. ναυπηγηθηναι : so ABEGM, Stuart Jones; éwavm.cfG suprascr, Hude.
67. ποιήσαι : ποιήσας MSS., agreeing with the superscribed reading. The infinitive
makes the statement less definite and is quite appropriate.
τεττία]ρας, with the marginal variant [τεΐσσαρας : cf. the superscribed σσ in the case of
16. i. 4 εφυλαττον and 38 ηττηθειεν.
67-8. εἶτη]) ὃ ἐστι μαλιστα : So all MSS. ; the marginal variant καὶ ταυτα εἶτη] ἐστι pad. is
unknown here, but at ]. 76, where 1620 like ABEGM has ern δε μαΐλι]στα, cfG add. have
ἔτη δὲ μάλ. καὶ ταύτῃ and Bekker’s Ν ἔτη δὲ μάλ. καὶ ταῦτα. The most probable explanation of
this duplicate set of variations is that the original reading was that of 1620. marg., but και
ταῦτα was omitted, ὃ being inserted in its place (so 1620. 67, ABEGM); «a: ταῦτα 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 ταῦτα to ταύτῃ (cfG add.). Ifthe
reading of the later MSS.(G is 13thcent.; 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 καὶ ταύτῃ 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 καὶ ταῦτα and the
very late character of the evidence for καὶ ταύτῃ 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 (4) N as intermediate steps in the process by which the reading
preserved in 1620. marg. became corrupted into that of cfG add.
a1. mde: so MSS.; ἦλθεν edd. The earlier papyri of Thucydides as a rule omit
ν ἐφελκυστικόν at the end of a sentence; cf. e.g. 1622. 81, 84.
72. mado[tjorarn : So some of the deteriores ; the earlier MSS. have παλαιτάτη here, as
has the marginal note, but in 6. g. ch. 1. I παλαιότερα OCCUTS.
73-4. ofr] η[δ]) ιο[μἾεν ἡ Κουρινθιωΐν γ][εἸτ[ αι]: ὧν ἴσμεν γίγνεται Kop. MSS. (G at first in-
serted γίγνεται before ὧν ἴσμεν, but erased it). ἐσ is fairly certain, and the preceding letter can
be n, μ, or v, while the letter after co[p]ev, if not η, must be v: the traces of ev and of a letter
after «[»] are very slight and indecisive. _[:]ou[«]v Kop. might be read, but before it ων [ηἹμις
is not long enough and a [n]ues is inadmissible. 7[8]7 is not very satisfactory, but prefer-
able to αν] σζυ]νισίμ]εν. The insertion of the article before Κορινθιωῖν may be right
(οἴ. 11. τ, 58, 61, nn.); the loss of it may be due to the hiatus created when γίγνεται
was placed before instead of after ἡ Κορινθίων. That 1620 had the form γ]υ[ε]τίαι] (with cf)
is uncertain, for γ]ιγν[ε]τ[αι] can be read.
75-6. palA:jora: μάλ. καὶ ταύτῃ cfG add., edd.; cf. ll. 67-8, n.
76-7. δ[ιακο]σι[α εἸξη[κἼοντα : ἑξήκ. καὶ διακ. MSS. The traces suit δ[ιακο]σιζα very well,
but in 1. 77 μ]ελίρι is quite uncertain.
109. Τὸ what the critical sign refers is uncertain. The only variants in the MSS. at
this point concern the spelling 'Ῥήνειαν or Ῥηνίαν (in other authors spelled Ῥήναιαν or
‘Pnvaiav), except for the dittography Ῥήνειαν ἀνελών in cf.
112. The critical sign perhaps refers to a variant concerning the spelling of Μασσαλίαν
(Μεσσαλίαν, Μασαλίαν, Μασσιλίαν, Or Μασσαλίαν MSS.).
O
194 THE OXYRHYNCHUS PAPYRI
1621. THUCYDIDES ii (Speeches).
14:3 XII-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 (ll. 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. 2) and
occasional diaereses and elision-marks are due to the original scribe, a breathing
to the corrector. Jota adscript was generally written : where omitted, it has been
supplied in at least one place (1. 16) and perhaps two others (ll. 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 οὕτω 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. ὑμῖν for ἡμῖν in 1. 25 confirms the
conjecture of Hude already substantiated by 858. vii. 15, the confusion between
these words being of course common. ἀμύνασθαι for ἀμύνεσθαι in |. 4 and the
omission of τῶν before ἄλλων in 1. 19 may well be right. ( is supported against
B five times, B against. C twice; cf. 1620. int.
Recto. Verso.
ae {1
χοτατοι aly elev. προς TE TO ε II. 5 αὐτῶν opav: ws [ouly emt τοσαυΐ
πιχειρεισίθ]αι ασφαλεστατοι" “τὴν πολιν στρατευοντες και
[ηἹμεις δὲ ovd emt αδυνατον 6 μεγιστίη]ν δοξα[ν] οἰσομενοίι
[αἹμυνασθαι ποίλ]ιν ερχομεθα 25 τοις TE Tpoyovols Kat ὑμιν alv
5 [αλλ]α τοις πασιν apioTa παρεσκίευ εκ τῶν αποβαιζνοντων
ἰασἹμενην. ὠστε χρὴ και πανυ τοις ἐπ᾿ ἀμῴφοτερα επεσθε [o
Io
15
20
1621.
[ελ]πιζειν δια payns ἵεναι αὑὐτοίυς
[εἴ μη καὶ νυν ὠρμηνται εν oi?
ove πάρεσμεν: add οταν εν
τη! γηι ορωσιν ἡμᾶς δηουνταῖς
τε καὶ Ta εκεινων φθειρονταῖς
πᾶσι yap εν τοις ομμασι. και εν τίω 7
παραυτικα οραν πασχοντας
τι andes opyn προσπιπτέΪι
Kat οἱ λογισμωι ελαχιστᾳ [xp|o
μενοι Ovum πλειστα ες εἰρ]γο
καθιστανται: Αθηναιους δε 8
τι
και πλειον των αλλων ELKOS
TovTo δρασαι: οἱ ἀρχειν τε AAA®
[αἸξιουσι' και ἐπιοντες THY TH
πελας δηουν μαλλον ἡ τῶν
PHUCYDIDE Si 1 (SPEECHES)
E95
πὴ av τις ἡγήται: κοσμοῖν
Kat φυλακὴν περι παντος πῖοι
ουμενοι- και Ta παρ[αγ͵γελλίο
μενα οἕεως δεχομενΐο7ι" “Kan
[Alcrov yap τοδε kat ασφαλεστία
Tov πολλοὺς ovTas EYL KOTHOL Ὁ
Xpepevous φαινεσθαι:
ἐπιτάφιος
oft μῆεν πολλοι τῶν (evade ndn 35.1
ELPNKOT@Y ETALVOUTL τον
προσθεντα τωι νομῶι Tov do
γον τονδὲ ὡς καλον emt τοις [
εκ των πολεμὼν θαπτομεῖ
40 vols ἀγορευεσθαι αὐτον: εμῖοι
δ᾽ αρκοὺυν av εδοκει ειναι ανΪ
4. [α]μυνασθαι : ἀμύνεσθαι οὕτω MSS., Stuart Jones; ἀμύνεσθαι omitting οὕτω Hude,
following Madvig. For other variations between ἀμύνεσθαι and ἀμύνασθαι cf. e.g. i. 96. 1.
II. τα εκεινων : SOC; τὰ ᾿κείνων A; τἀκείνων BEFM, edd,
12--[Γ(3. καιεν...-
14. τι: TE 6:
15. Usener wished to delete οι.
οραν is deleted by Hude, who alters πάσχοντας to πάσχουσι.
18. τι, supplied by the corrector, is in all the MSS.
19. αλλων : τῶν ἄλλων MSS.; but τῶν ἄλλων has just occurred in 1], 18 and αλλων is quite
defensible.
21. tov: τὴν MSS., rightly.
It is certain that rey was first written, but the second
half of the ὦ is incompletely preserved, and » may have been corrected to η.
22. avtav: αὐτῶν C, Hude, Stuart Jones; ἑαυτῶν ΑΒΕ",
meant by the papyrus and is likely to be right.
22-3. τοσαυΐτην: so CEG marg. B yp. Εἰ yp. ΜΈ ex corr., edd. ; τὴν ἄλλην ABFM® ;
τοιαύτην some late MSS.
ἤδη ABEFM ; om. ἤδη Tiberius, Castor.
24. οισομενοι᾿: οἰόμενοι Β.
25. ὑμιν: SO 858; ἡμῖν MSS. Cf. int.
αὑτῶν was probably
35. oft zlev: so ABEFM with Tiberius, Syrianus, Dionysius, Castor, and Max. Plan.
_ Hude (but not Stuart Jones) formerly carried his preference for CG to the length of reading
μὲν οὖν, but now (ed. maior?) brackets οὖν.
35-6. dn εἰρηκοτων : so CG (ἤδη add. (11), schol., Syrianus, Max. Plan., edd. ; εἰρηκότων
eip. ἤδη.
39. πολεμων : πόλεων ΑΒΕ.
40. Dobree wished to omit avrov,
41. δ᾽ : δὲ CG, edd. αρκουν av: ἂν ἀρκοῦν M.
Ο2
The MSS. of Dionysius vary between ἤδη «ip. and
196 THE OXYRAYVNCGCHUS PAP TA
1622. THUCYDIDES ii.
17-5X 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. 65 and 67 of Thuc. ii, is palaeographical, for on the verso is part of
a contract for loan dated in Mecheir of the 11th 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), 1288 (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. 53, 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 ; cf.n. ad loc.
Col. i.
17 lines lost and traces of 7 lines [dws] πεΐρ]ιγενεσθαι τ[ην]
25 ἴσουτον τῶι ΠἜΕερικλΊει ἐπε 65. 13 [7roA |v ΠΙελἸοποννησίῖ
ἱρισσευσε τοτεὶ] ah wy avTos 30 [ων avtwy| τῶι πολεμῶι
ἱπροε]γἰ ν]ω [Klas ἱπα͵νυ ἂν pas
Col. ii. πο ae
16 lines lost 16 lines lost
[k]ac του] αἴυτου Oepouls τίελευν 67. τ μίονοὶς πίαρα τωι Σ᾿ ταλκηι 67. 2
τωντος Αριστίευ]ς Κοριν πείθουσι τον Σ᾽ αδοκον
θιος και Aakedla)ipucly or τον γεγενηΐμ]ενον 4 θη
50 πρέσβεις Avnpiotos και Nu 80 ναΐιον ΣΊἸιταλκου viov- Tojus
κολαος και IIpatodapos: ε
ανδρας εγχιρισαι σφισι: ἴο
kat Teyeatns Τιμαγορᾶς
yeaTn μαγορ Tas μη διαβαντες ὡς Bla
kat Apyetos ιδιαι Πολίλ]ις
1622. THUCYDIDES II 197
Topevopevolt ες] την Act σιλεα THY εκεινου πολιν [
55 av ὡς βάσιλεα [ει πως met To μερος βλαψωσι ο de>
σειαν αὐτὸν χ[ρίηματα τε 85 πεισίθ]εις πορευομενουΐς
παρεχε[ι]ν και ξ[υἸμπολε αὑτους δια της Opaikns ε
[mew αφικνουνίτ]αι [ws] Xu πι TO πλοιον εμελλε»-
ἰτ]αλκην πρωτον [τ]ον ΤΊ τον [Ελ]λησποντον πε
60 [ρ]εω ες Θραικηΐν βουλομε [ρ]αιω[σειν] πριν εἰσΊβαινειν |
Ετ. 2. pee af
28-9. την | πολ]ιν : so CG, Aristides, edd.; τῶν ABEFM.
51. Πρατοδαμος : so M, edd. ; ; Πρατόδημος CEFG ; Στρατόδημος ΑΒ.
57- mapexe(e]y (AB corr. EFM) suits the vestiges much better than παρασχεῖν (CGB!?,
79. Tov: OM. CG.
80. wov: viev A; ὑόν Hude.
81. σφισι: for the omission of ν ἐφελκυστικόν cf. 1. 84 and 1620. 71, n.
84 544. For epeAXe in 1]. 87 the MSS. have ᾧ ἔμελλον, making περαιώσειν intransitive
contrary to the customary usage of the passive in this sense, as was noticed by Thomas
Magister (early fourteenth century). ἔμελλε may be merely a blunder due to some one who
wished to make περαιώσειν transitive and ignored ξυλλαμβάνει, which follows ἐσβαίνειν (1. 89)
in the MSS. and governs πορευομένους αὐτούς. The loss of the end of the sentence in 1622
is unfortunate, for the construction was not quite clear. After ξυλλαμβάνει the MSS.
continue ἄλλους δὲ (so CG; δὴ Hude; om. ABEFM, Stuart Jones) ξυμπέμψας pera τοῦ
Aedpxov τοῦ ᾿Αμεινιάδου καὶ ἐκέλευσεν ἐκείνοις παραδοῦναι. ἔμελλε 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) ἔμελλε (sc. the ship) the
difficulty arising from the intransitive use of περαιώσειν would be removed, since a second
accusative for that verb could easily be understood from πορευομένους αὐτούς : cf. Polyb. iii.
113. 6 τοὺς λοιποὺς ἐξαγαγὼν . .. καὶ περαιώσας κατὰ διττοὺς τόπους TO ῥεῖθρον. ᾧ ἔμελλον would
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 1]. 19-21, it may refer to προσγενομζενωι
or Πελοϊπονΐνησιοις.
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, tie insertion of a v ἐφελκυστικόν in
1. 45, is due to the original scribe, who wrote a good-sized upright oval uncial
hand of the fifth or sixth century. Jota 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
798 THE OXYRHYNCHUS PAPYRI
mediaeval MSS., agreeing once with CGM, probably twice with the B group
(cf, 1620. int.), and presenting several new readings. Of these the omission of
τῶν νεῶν ἴῃ 1. 1 and τὸ πεζόν for τὸν π. in 1. 11 are quite defensible. More interest-
ing is the variant ἀνέϊπλευσε for ἔπλευσε in 1. 8, where the simple verb was rather
ambiguous. The precise nature of the variation in ll. 19-20 is obscured by
lacunae. 1616 was found with 1623.
Recto. Verso.
ἰπλειους αἸποπεμπει παλι 7. 3 δευτερον ενικα [kal επει wee
[er οἰκου] ὃ Ασώπιος- αὐτὸς 4 ᾿δὴ μετὰ τὴν εἰορτην κα
[δ exov δΊωδεκα αφικνεῖ 38 τεστησαν ες λοΐγους εἰπον
[rar ες Ναυπακτον- και vote τοιάδε: το μεν καθεστος 9.1
5 [pov «Ακαρ]νᾶνας αναστη "τοῖς "Ελλησι νοίμιμον ὦ av
[cas πανδημεί. στρατευει Opes Aaxedailpovior και
[er Οινιαδας] και ταις τε vav ξυμμαχοι ἴσμεν Tous
[oc Kata? τον Αἰ χ]ελῶον ave 40 yap αφισταϊμενους ev τοις
[wAevoe και οἱ κατα γὴν στρα πολεμοις και ξυμμαχιαν
το [τος εδηιονυ tly χωραν" την πριν ἰαπολειποντας
[ws ὃ ov προσεχ]ώρουν. To μὲ 5 οἱ δεξαμεῖνοι καθ. οσον μεν
ἱπεζον αφιησιν] avros de ὠφελουνΐται εν ndovne
[πλευσας ες Δευκ]αδα και από 45 €xovow νοΐμιζοντες ὃ εἰ
[βασιν es Νηρικοὴὶν ποιησᾳ ναι προδίοτας τῶν προ τοῦ
15 μενος avaxwpoly διαφθει φιλων χίειρους ἡγουνται
ίρεται autos τε καὶ]. τῆς στρα καὶ οὐκ αἰδικος αὑτὴ ἡ αξι 2
ἰτιας τι μερος ὑπο των αυτό wots εστῖιν εἰ TUXOLEY προς
[θεν τε ξυμβοηθησΊαντων 50 αλληλίους οἱ τε αφιστα
[kat φρουρων τινῶν ?| ὧν vaTEpo 6 μενοι k[at ad wv διακρι
20 [υποσπονδοὺυς τους] νεκροὺς volwTo [trot μεν TH γνῶ
ἰαποπλευσαντες οἰ] AOnvat μηι ονῖτες και evvola
ἴοι παρα των Δευκα]διων αντιί[παλοι δὲ TnL παρα
10 lines lost 10 lines lost
I, πλειους αἰποπεμπει: mA. ἀποπέμπει τῶν νεῶν MSS. Since. ai νῆες occurred in the
previous sentence, the repetition is unnecessary.
8-9. ανεπλευσε: ἔπλευσε MSS. ἀναπλεῖν occurs only once in Thuc. 1. 104. 2 καὶ
ἀναπλεύσαντες ἀπὸ θαλάσσης ἐς τὸν Νεῖλον, where it implies sailing up stream. If this was also
implied here, vau|[cw es τον Ax |eAwov αν. may have been the reading ; but ανεΐπλευσε May simply
1628. THUCYDIDES LII 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’. Ocniadae was situated near the mouth of
the Acheloiis, surrounded in winter by marshes into which the Acheloiis flowed (Thue. 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 Acheloiis’, which is inadmissible here ; cf. iv. 25. 8 ταῖς μὲν ναυσὶ περιπλεύ-
σαντες κατὰ τὸν ᾿Ακεσίνην (in Sicily) ποταμὸν τὴν γῆν ἐδήουν. That ἀνέπλευσε here means
‘sailed back’ (Asopius had already passed Acarnania on his way up the gulf to Naupactus)
is less likely.
11. to: τὸν MSS. Thucydides uses both the masculine and neuter of πεζός substan-
tivally
18-19. αὐτόΐθεν (ABEFM, edd.) suits the length of the lacuna better than αὐτό
The supposed accent is very doubtful,
19-20. τινων ἢ] ὧν vorepoy [υποσπονδους : τινῶν ὀλίγων καὶ ὕστερον ὑπ. MSS. There
is certainly not room for both τινων and ολιγων and there is no trace of και, but wy instead of
being ὧν might be the termination of τινων or ολιγων with ὃ before υποσπονδους in 1, 20,
_ though the supplement there is quite long enough. v and ep of vorepov are fairly certain ;
the or is cramped and seems to have been corrected, probably from π, and ὃ is not a very
satisfactory reading. ὧν is not in accordance with Thucydidean usage in this context, καὶ
ὕστερον ὑποσπόνδους being common.
37-8. av]|dpes: so ABEFM ; om, CG, edd.
41. πολεμοις : sO CGM, edd.; πολεμίοις ABEF.
[4 (CG).
1624, PLATO, Protagoras.
Pha ro-n% 17 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 23 out of the last 71 columns, but none at all completely.
The upper margin is partly preserved in Cols. ii, xx, xxxv, xxxvii, xlv, 1xi,
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 12. 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. 1865. int. Like 1017 (Phaedrus), 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. Paragraphi 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 « and v, 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 paragraphi mentioned above, are indicated in
ll. 114, 272, 589 by a stroke, elsewhere by dots, above the letters in question.
Papyri of Plato are 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 B (the Clarkeanus), T (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 Il. 629 and 663 the
papyrus apparently supports BT against W. In ll. 319 and 435 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, 848 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 μέρει 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 ll. 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 αἱ before
ἴσαι in 1. 589, a reading which had been generally 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. ll. 15,
431, 481, 486, 490, 590, 592, 640, 665, 666, 672, nn. In several of these places
there is an obvious difficulty in the ordinary reading, and in |. 672 the corrector’s
reading had already suggested itself to some of the Renaissance editors of
Plato as an improvement, while in ll. 15 and 640 his readings seem to be
superior; but the changes proposed in ll. 592 and 666 are 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 201
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 in1017. A proneness to omissions of words found in the traditional text is one
of the characteristics of the Pkaedo and Laches papyri of the third century B.C.,
but these of course differ from the ordinary text much more widely than 1624.
(οἱ. : (Ετ5. 1. 1, 2).
[μιν ἡ [ξυν]ου[σ]ια gon [ot mapovtes ἢ
γιγνοιτ[ο]. υμε[ι]ς τε γοζυμαι eyw υμας
[γ]αρ οἱ λεγοντες μα ξ
40 συΐγγενεις τε και
Col. ii (Frs. 1. ii, 3-4).
331 Ὁ
λιστ αν ovTws εν ἢ
οἰκείους και πο͵λι
5 μιν τοις akovov
[Tas amavjras eva
[σιν ευδοκιμοιτε" Kar
Ἰγων ανθρωΐϊπων
δια]ῤερεσθαΐι ad
ληλοῖις᾽ εἶγω μεν
2 lines lost
ἰουκ] επαινοισθε: ev ἰφυσεξ oly νομῶι; 331 ἃ
τ [To γαρ] ομοιον τωι
δοκιμειν TE yap ἐσ 45 οἰμοιω]ι φυσει g~vy
τι παρα ταις ψυ γεν[ε9] ἐστιν ο δε
IO χαις τῶν [ακ͵Ίουον νομίος] τυραννος
Tov αν[ευ] ama ev τῶν avOpw
τίης επαι]νεισθαι πων] πολλα πα
[de] ev λογωι πολλα 50 pa την] φυσιν Bia
[xt]s mapa δοξαν ζεται ημας ουν
ον [--
15 [ψε]νυδομενων" 7 337ς αισχ[ρον] τὴν μεν
ἱμεῖις τ αὖ οἱ ακου φυΐσιν των mpa
ἰοντε]ῖς μαλιστ aly γίματων εἰ]Ἰδε[ν]αι"
[ovrws ευἸῴραζινοι 12 lines lost
16 lines lost 67 του] τίο]ν αξίιωμα
35 [δὲ] τίον Προδικον τος] αξιον αἰποφη
Ἱππίιας ο σοφος ει Ἰνασῖθαι: αλλ ἰωσπερ 3376
πεν [w avdpes ε 70 Ἰτουΐς] φαυλοίτατους
202
167
170
175
180
185
10 lines lost
86 τίο κατα βραχυ λι
av [ει pn ηδυ IIpo
ταγίοραι αλλ. .εφει
να). κίαι χαάλασαι
(ΟΠ ΕἸ):
[[vo[repor]] οὐκ ορθως
115 λεγίει. εἰπὼν ovr
[τ]αυϊτα πολλοις
Col. xvii (Fr. 7).
12 lines lost
νίν και οἱ αἀλλοι eyo
[Ξ-
τοόϊινυν nv ὃ eye
ἃ y εμῖίοι δοκει περι
του a{topalros [Tou
του πειρ[α]σομίαι
ὕμιν δι[εἸξελ[θειν
φιλ[οσ]οφια yalp ἐσ
τι" παλαιοτατΐη
τε και πλειστὴ [TOY
Ελληνων [κα[{]] εν
Κρηϊτῆηι και ev (Aa
κεδα[ζιμονι" Kale oo
φισται πλειστίοι
yns exer εισιν' αἶλλα
εξαρνουνται Kalt
σχηματιζοντίαι
αμαθεις [εἰναι uf
va μη κ[αταδη
λοι wav [ote oo
About 7 lines lost
THE, OXYRAYNCHUS PAPYRE
Col ai (Fr. τ. 111).
338 a
339d
3428
342 Ὁ
90 Tas ηϊνιας τοις λο
235
yous [iva μεγαλο
πρεϊπέστεροι και
ευσχίημονεστε
᾿ΑΒοιΐ 20 lines lost
Col. xvi (Fr. 6).
About 36 lines lost
ec βουλει λα
βειν μίου πειραν
TTELV*
Col. xix (Fro
About 30 lines lost
ἱτιστης walre [pace
[verOat τῇον πίροσΊ]δι[α
ἰλεγομενον παι
[δος μ]ηδεν βελτει
[ω του]τ᾽ ov[y] avro
[και των νυν εἰσιν
[ot κατανενοηκα
[
σι Kal τῶν πΊαλίαι Oo
Col. xx (Frs. 9-10).
[τι TO λακἸ)ωνιζέϊιν
πολυ μαΐλλ[ον eo
[7e φιλοσοφεῖιν ἡ
ἰφιλογυμν)ασίτειν
[edores οἦτι τίοι
About 33 lines lost
3416
3428
3428
269
270
280
285
290
395
428
1624.
Col. xxiii (Fr. 11).
τίουτο ye φανειη 3436
αν [kal ov Σιμω
Μίδου [[... Ὰ οἷ ]
[[ro[. . .]] αλλ ὑπερ
Ba{rcv der ὄειναι
[ely τίωι αἰσματι
Col. xxxv (Fr. 13).
folure ψαλτρ[ι]ας: αλλία
ἰαἸντους εαυτοις ¢
347d
Kavous οντας ξυνΪ
[ele
[]- vee avev των An
[ρ]ων τε και παιδι-
ὧν τουτων δια
της εαὐτων hwo
νης λεγοντας TE
και ακουοντας εν Tall
μερει eavTwy Ko
[σἹμιως" [κἸα[ν] πανυ
[πολ]υϊν οινοὴν ma
About 26 lines lost
Col. xlvi (Frs. 18-19).
απο τεϊχνης γίιγνε
Tat αἸνθρωποις" και
301 8
[
[
[aro θυμοὴν ye και
[
απο μανιαὴς [wo]
Col. lix (Fr. 21).
About 27 lines lost
ταΐηλον εσται ε 355 Ὁ
av p(n πολλοις o
PLATO, PROTAGORAS
275
318
320
356
360
398
400
477
Col. χχκχὶ (Fx. 12).
[μος] τίων yap ηλι
θιων ἰαπειραν γε
346 ς
νεθλία wor εἰ τις
Χχαιρεῖι ψέγων ep
πλησίθειη av ε
(ο]. xxxvii (Fr. 14).
ἴποιειν oluk εθε 3480
λων ete δ]ωσει[[ν]] [Ao
[yov etre] μη dra
[
cape εἶμοι [y]a[p
About 34 lines lost
Col. xlv (Frs. 15-17).
yap [et] ουτίω μετιων 350 d
Epolo με" εἶι ἰσχυροι
[δυνατοι ἐἔἰισι hac 3506
[η]ν αν] επίειτα
[ει] οἱ ἐπισταμίενοι
[π]αλαιειν δυΐνα
ἱτωτΊεροι εἰσι ταῖν
[zn επισταμἸ)ενίων
About 30 lines lost
Col. lvii (Fr. 20).
Κο]υσιϊν edn o
\IIpw[rayopas ar
λο] τίει ουν παλιν
Col. Ixi (Fr. 23).
[μι]ν. των ayabov 3554
[τ]α kaka 7 αξιων:
φησομεν δηλον o
203
204
430 νομαΐσι χρωμεθα
[[apa]] ηδεῖίι τε και a
νιαρωι [kat ayabor
και καϊκωι αλλ €
melon [δυο εφανὴη
και [
435 TavTa ὅϊυοιν ovo
[[ovo||ualor προσαγο
ρείνωμεν αὑτὰ
πίρω)τίον μεν aya
Col. Ix (Fr. 22).
5 lines lost
[μεν oTt ytyv]oo 3556
445 [κων o ἀανθρωπΊος
[Ta Kaka οτι κ͵]α
About 30 lines lost
Col. Ixii (Fr. 24).
About 20 lines lost
535 voly και ἡδεος και 356 ἃ
λ]υπηρίου pov a
Apo Tale φαιην
aly eywy[e ἡ ηδὸ
About 13 lines lost
Plate vi.
356 ς
Col. Ixiv (Fr. 25. ii).
kat at φωναι [acl] ζ
590 σαι εγγυθεν [[per]|
μειζους πορρωθεν
ελαττους
δὲ optxporepad|:|| pat
εν αν: εἰ OUY EV TOU
[—] Ἤμειν ἣν
{{του]]τωι] τὸ εὖ πρατ
356 ἃ
THE OXYRHYNCHUS PAPYRI
480 τι ἀποκρινομενοι
[[[or}]] οὐκ αξιων ον
[Tw|v- ov yap av egy
[μαρτανεν ov pa
[Helv ἡττω ειναι
485 [τωὴν ἡδονων: κα
τα τι] de φησει [ἴσως
αναϊξια ἐστι Taya
θα τωὶν κακων" ἢ
θων] [[n]] κατ αλλ]ο τι
μεν] μει
ζω τὰ de σμικροτ]ε
About 22 lines lost
[
[
[
[Ta Kalka Tolv alya
[
[η οταν] Ta
[
Col. Ixiii (Frs. 25. i, 26).
552 [dea ἐστηις]. Ta pet
[ζω aet και] πλειω
ἰληπτεα ealy de
555 ἱλυπηρα mplos λυπὴη
[pa Ta ελαττΊω και
ἰσμικροτερα) εαἷν
About 22 lines lost
580 [κρινασθε φηΐσω
[φαινΊεται ὕμιν
[τη] oer τα [aur
[μεγεθ]η εγγυδ]εν
ἱμεν μ]ειζω. πίορ
585 [ρωθεν] de ελατίτω
[7 ov φ]ησουσι: και
[
Ta παχ͵εα και τία
Plate vi.
356 b
356c
1624.
595 [Tew εἶν τῶι Ta μεν
ἱμεγαλ]α pnkn |
[Ka πρατΊτειν [Kae
About 28 lines lost
PLATO, PROTAGORAS
Col. Ixv (Frs. 27, 28. i, 29-32).
626 me τωι afAlnOa Kale
ἐσωσεν [αν] tov βιον]
[apa αν οἸμολογοι
[ev ανθρίωποι προς
630 ἰταυτα ηἰμ)ας τὴν
[με]τρητικην σὼ
ae εὰρνὶ η αλ
λην τ]ηῖν με͵τρη
uxn|y αἰμοἸλογει:
635 [tt] ὃ εἰ ev zim] του πε
tuo! Nome! Sree που πη
+
ρ]ιττον Kalt ap|riov
Ἣν
αἰρεσει ημιῖν ἡ ow
τηρια [Tov βιο]ν o
ποτε τὸ πλεοὸν ορθως
640 εδεῖε ελεσθαι]) eas 0
ποτίε To ελατΊτον ἢ
αὑτὸ προς εἰα͵υτο' 7
τίο εἸτερον πίρ]ος το
ἰετε]ρον" ext [elyyus
645 [ettle moppw [ειη τι
About 17 lines lost
Bre 34. ΕῪ, 25.
707 Ἰσᾳὶ 711 Ἰσαΐ
jel Ἰθεῖ
350e
σ
ἱπολλα] @auT| ws
Col. Ixvi (Fr. 28. ii).
(medi δὲ ηδονης
Plate vi.
357 a
Te καὶι λυπὴης εν op
θηι {{τη[1}} αἰρεσει eda
υ
vn ημιν ἡ σωτη
pia τοῖυ βιου ουσα
του τίε πλεονος Και
ελαττίονος και μει
670 ᾧονος [Kat σμικρο
᾿ἤρο
τερου [Kal πορρω
ου
τέεραίι και εγγυτε
ου
ρωι" apla πρωτον
μεν οἷν μετρητι
About 25 lines lost
Fe 55.
Ἱντί
Fr. 38,
722 Ἰλυπὶ
Jen]
206 THE OXYRAYNCHUS “PAPYRI
wel x Je τ Ἰουτί
710 |v πί }7 ]ηε 5
Pry 40. Fr. 40. Pr.45. Fr. 42. Fr, 43.
125 Ἰηνῖ 128 Ἰπ.] 731 || τα οἵ 736 Ἰλη
αἱ . Jou Ἵν KN:
pe Oe εἰ 185 γι ᾿
In" [ v
Fr. 44. Fr. 45. Fr. 46. Ετ. 47. Fr. 48.
η38 Ἰσ. 7A0> | nce 742 Ἶη KOE, Ἰν. 746 1. αἱ
xn] Ἰσθαΐ Jeee[ ΟᾷΡ5ΑΛἠΪ45 Ἰοσι lwo. [
6. kat: so MSS.
7. ἐπαινοισθε: SO B, edd.; ἐπαινεῖσθε with superscribed οἱ T.
8. μεν: so MSS.; re, the reading of the first hand, is probably due to a reminiscence
of 1. 2. It is not quite certain that he wrote [δὲ] rather than [re] in ]. 13.
15. [ψε]υδομενων : so MSS. except Vat. 1029 (ψευδομένω.. The corrector’s reading
ψευδόμενον, which is passive, not middle, and refers to the subject of the infinitives, brings
out the antithesis between εὐδοκιμεῖν and ἐπαινεῖσθαι more clearly, and is likely to be right.
40. σιζγγενεις SOBT. Elsewhere (ll. 45 and 282) the first hand uses the é-form,
which the corrector preferred here.
69-71. The fragment containing Ἱν, ]rov[, and Ἰτωΐ is not certainly placed here, and
the division of lines is doubtful throughout 1]. 67-73.
89. και χαλασαι: these words were bracketed by Cobet.
114. [vo[repov]]: 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. ll. 271-2,
436, 593-4, nn.); but the preceding words are corrupt in BT (ἡγοῖτο πότερον instead of ἤτοι
τὸ πρότερον) and may have been equally corrupt in 1624, in which case the omission
of ὑστερον is possibly part of an extensive alteration.
169. y εμίοι : so some edd. since Bekker; but ye μίοι (BT, Burnet) can of course be
read equally well.
173-4. ἐσ͵τι : so T; ἐστιν B, like the corrector.
176-7. [xa{i]] ἐν! Kpn[r|n : ἐν K. τε MSS. The corrector may have added re after ev.
180. αἶλλα makes the line rather long, but the division αλλ᾽ | εξαρν. would be unusual.
Cf. 1. 280.
223-4. Fr. 45 might be placed here, [rio] rn[s and [νε]σθα[ι being possible.
2471-2. The MSS. have nothing between Σιμωνίδου and ddd’. Possibly add υπερβατον
was written twice by mistake; cf. ]. 114, n.
281. eavros: αὑτοῖς BT. Cf. 1. 286, n.
283. The letter before va 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 ξυνίειναι, which is legitimate but rather unusual, to
ξυνειϊναι. No variant is known here.
286. εαὐτων : αὑτῶν B, edd.; αὐτῶν T. Cf. 1. 281, n.
288-9. ev ra[t| μερει: om. τωι MSS. The article is sometimes inserted, sometimes
1624. PLATO, PROTAGORAS 207
omitted, in this phrase by Plato; cf. Gorg. 462 ἃ ἐν τῷ μέρει ἐρωτῶν τε καὶ ἐρωτώμενος with
496 Ὁ ἀλλ᾽ ἐν μέρει οἶμαι ἑκάτερον καὶ λαμβάνει καὶ ἀπολλύει.
319. δ]ωσει[[ν7 : δώσει BT rightly ; δώσειν W.
357. ἰσχυροι (B) suits the probable length of the lacuna better than οἱ ισχυροι (T, edd.).
360. [εἰ] οἱ : sot, edd.; over B; οἴει T.
396. ye: so Stobaeus, Burnet ; τε BTW, Schanz. Cf. ἀπὸ μανίας ye καὶ θυμοῦ a few
lines before ]. 394, where Wt Stobaeus have ye, and BT τε.
397. [απο panals: the s is fairly certain, and the length of the lacuna does not suit the
restoration [μανίας ωἾσῖτε, omitting amo in accordance with N aber’s conjecture.
398-400. The division of lines insthis fragment is quite uncertain.
431. [apa]: ἄρα BTW; ἅμα ἃ corrector of the Coislinianus, Burnet. The difficulty
is caused by the late position of ἄρα in the sentence.
435. vow: so W, Vat. 1029; BT agree with the corrector in adding καί, but place it
after instead of before δυοῖν. BT’s order seems preferable.
436. [ονομα[σι : probably ovo had been written twice by the first hand; οἵ. 1. 114,2.
436-7. mpocayo||pe| vaper : so edd. ; προσαγορεύομεν BTW. Line 437 is already rather
short (11 letters), and the substitution of o for ὠ, though possible, is not satisfactory.
ρεΐνομεν aura πρωΪτ[ον] μεν is inadmissible, for, though τ could be read instead of z, the only
alternatives to the τ of a[pa|r[ov are y and π.
444-6. The position assigned to this fragment is far from certain.
481. [[ork]: the corrector omitted this word, which is in the MSS., presumably
because (8nAov) or: had occurred in ll. 479-80; cf. int.
486. [[icos]]: this word is in the MSS., but can be dispensed with.
490. [7]: the omission of this word is distinctly an improvement, if 7 (so MSS. and
edd.) was meant. This question simply supplies the answer to the preceding one κατὰ τί δὲ
κτὰ., and does not introduce a fresh alternative of any kind. If η is retained, 7 seems
preferable to 7.
535-8. The division of lines in this fragment is uncertain.
582. [7m]: so MSS.; there would be room for two more letters in the lacuna.
588. ὡσαυτίως : 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. [a]: αἱ is not in the MSS., but Heindorf’s insertion of it has been accepted by
practically all editors. The absence of αἱ can however be defended by supplying οὖσαι with
ἴσαι (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. a has had dots placed above it, but through these is a
horizontal stroke, such as is used in ll. 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 ]. 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 « of soa), rather than that he changed
his mind about the omission of a: and meant to cross out the dots indicating deletion and let
a stand, or that this was the meaning of a possible second corrector, The bracketing of
the paragraphi below Il. 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 indicating
deletion.
590. {{μεν : 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 pee, the intrusion or omission
of μεν would be easy.
592: opixporepar: so MSS. except Vat. 1029, which has ἐλάττους καὶ gpixp., a conflation
208 THE OXYRHYNCHUS PAPYET
of the alternative readings found here. The corrector’s reading ἐλάττους is in accordance
With μείζω... ἐλάττω in Il. 584-5.
593-4. The MSS. have εἰ οὖν ἐν τούτῳ ἡμῖν ἦν τὸ κτλ., except Venetus 184, which places
οὖν after τούτῳ. ἡμῖν can be dispensed with, but hardly ἦν, τουϊΐτωι ην] may have been the
reading of the first hand, but this restoration, even if nv had dots placed above it by the cor-
rector, fails to account satisfactorily for the position of the insertion ypew qv, and τουΐτωι γε]
is less probable than a mistaken repetition of the syllable rov: cf. ll. 114, 436, nn., and for
the omission of ἦν after ἡμῖν |. 637, n.
596-7. The lacuna after μηκη is not very adequately filled by a wedge-shaped sign. If
μηκη [και | be read, in the absence of any known variant for μήκη καὶ πράττειν the simplest
course would be to suppose a mistaken repetition of καὶ : cf. the preceding ἢ.
6247-8. βι[ον] apa αν oluodoyor: or possibly βίϊ[ον ap αν oly.
629. avOp|oro: so BT (ἄνθ.) ; of ἄνθρ. W, Vat. 1029, Burnet. ἅνθρωποι may have been
meant if the first hand omitted o, which, though probable, is not quite certain. The o
of ανθρίωποι apparently projected slightly to the left of the μ of ομολογοι in |. 628 and a of
nplas ind 630.
632. av: 80 BT; om. Vat. 1029 like the first hand. ἄν is necessary in view of ἔσωσεν
ἄν (1. 627) and ἔσῳζεν ἄν (lost in 1. 646).
637. mv: soOBT. ἦν is indispensable; cf. ll. 593-4, n.
640. ka: soBT. The corrector’s reading y, i.e. 7, seems to suit the argument
better.
662-3. εἰπ]ειξίη de: soBT; ἐπὶ δὲ δὴ W, Vat. 1209; ἐπεὶ δὲ δὴ Burnet, following Adam.
The vestige before ιδ suits ε better than 7.
665. [{τηϊ.1: τῇ Bt; πῇ T. . Vat. 1029 omits ev in 1. 664, and possibly the first hand or
the corrector differed there from the ordinary reading ev ορθηι (e. g. by having ry ορθηι or ev τῆι
ορθηι). The mere omission of rm in]. 665 is however more probable. The article can easily
be dispensed with.
666. ἡμιν: so MSS. The corrector’s reading ὑμῖν gains some support from the
proximity of εἶεν, ὦ ἄνθρωποι (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. 353 544. ἡμεῖς, however, not ὑμεῖς, is used in the previous steps of the argument (e. g.
in ll. 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 Profagoras, 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. moppalrepale και eyyute|pwr: so T, and with the omission of the final iotas B and
modern edd. ; πορρωτέρου καὶ ἐγγυτέρω Ald, (1513); moppwrépov καὶ ἐγγυτέρου Basileensis 1
(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 (1) 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. “γοίαρ. 356 ἃ ταῦτα δ᾽ ἐστὶ μείζω τε καὶ σμικρότερα γιγνόμενα ἀλλήλων Kal πλείω καὶ ἐλάττω
καὶ μᾶλλον καὶ ἧττον, Phileb, 4τ ε tis... μείζων καὶ τίς ἐλάττων καὶ τίς μᾶλλον καὶ τίς σφοδροτέρα
λύπη. The objection to πορρωτέρου and ἐγγυτέρου here is that these adjectival forms are in
general post-classical. Thucydides, however (viii. 96), has δ ἐγγυτάτου ἐθορύβει, while
Xenophon frequently uses ἐγγύτερον 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 Profagoras.
740-1. Cf, 1]. 223-4, ἢ. :
1625. AESCHINES, IN CTESIPHONTEM 209
1625. AESCHINES, Jz Ctesiphontem.
32:5 X25 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 1 and v; accents, breathings, and marks of quantity are rare (ll. 53,
63,111). 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 iiber die Griech. Pap. Erz. Rainer,
45 544.) 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 inéd. 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, B of agmn Vat.
Laur. Flor., C of dfq Barb. ἢ generally supports A rather than C, p usually
agrees with B. d (10th 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 (ll. 81-2).
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 B and C, but not in A, in § 24 was absent from 1625 (I. 154, n.). Hamaker’s
conjecture ἱερά for γέρα in § 18 is confirmed (1. 61), and Cobet’s objection to the
repetition λέγει ... φησί in § 21 is justified, though by the omission of φησί, not
Ρ .
ΣῪ
210 THE OXYRHYNCHUS PAPYRI
λέγει, as he proposed (lJ. 94-5). A passage in § 19,in which the variation
between present and past participles had caused difficulties, is probably set right
(ll. 69-70). The other new readings mainly concern the order of words (ll. 3-4,
58-60, 97-8, 144-5), a lacuna having obscured a variant of some magnitude in
ll. 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 B 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 (ll. 24, 77, 81-2, 93, 116, 154 sqq.), I or 2 with AB against C (ll. 78,
134?), and 3 or 4 with AC against B (Il. 25, 70, 117; cf. ll. 92-3, where
most of the B group and one member of A are on the wrong side). On the
other hand 1625 agrees with B against AC in |. 73, with isolated members of
B against all the other MSS. in ll. 62 and 131, and with BC against A at least
5 times (ll. 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 B its relationship to 1625 is
much the same as that of B in combination with A or C, 1625 agreeing with the
majority in about half the instances in either case, whereas A in combination
with B or C is confirmed in 6 out of 7, or (if Il. 62 and 131 are included)
9, instances.
Col. i. (Col. ii.)
[Tat Tas xelpoTo|yintas φησιὶν apxas 14 και κοινηι Ta yevn Evpodmidas και
[amacas evt περιϊλίαβων ονο]ματι 65 Κηρυκας και τοὺς addovs amravtas|*| 7a το
[o νομοθετης καὶ. προΐσειπων απΊασας “λιν τοὺς τριηραρχους υὑπευθυνοὺς εἰ
[apxas εἰναι αἷς o δηΐμος χειροτΊονει ναι κελεύει ο vopos|*] ου] τα Kowa δια
ἷκαι τους επιστα]τας φηΐϊσι των δη]μοσι χειρισαντας ovd amo τῶν υὑμετερῶν
[av εργων εσ͵τιν de ο | Anpoobe\vns προσοδων πολλα μεν υφηρημενοὺς
ἱτειχοποιος εἸπισταΐτης του μεγιΐστου 70 βραχεα δε καταθεντας επιδιδοναι
[Tov εργων K\jat παϊν)ταῖς οσοι διαχειρι (dle φασκοντας αποδιδοντας δὲ ὕ
ἰζουσι τι τῶν τη)ς πολείως πλεὸν ἡ TPL ἱμιῖν [7a vpelrepar αλλ ομολογουμε
ἰακοντα npeplas: Kat οσοῖι λαμβανου ἵνως τας πα]τίρωι]ας ουσιας εἰς τὴν πρὶ οἿς
[ow nyepovials δικαστηΐριων o de [unas avndwxoT\as φιλοτιμίαν" ov τοι
Tov εργων εἰπισταται παΐντες NYE 75 |vuv μονον οἱ τριηραρχ͵]οι ἀλλα και τὰ με
L
[Hoviat χρωντΊαι δικαστηρίιου τι TOU ἵγιστα των εν τῇηι [ode συνεϊδριων
1625.
τοὺς κελευει] ποίειν: ov διακονεῖν 15
[
15 ἰαλλ ἀρχειν δοϊκιμασθεντας εν [τῇωι
[δικαστηριωι εἸπειδὴ καὶ at κληρίωτ]αι
ἰαρχαι οὐκ αδοϊ]κιμασίτ]οι: adda δοκιμασ
[θεισαι ἀρχουσι Klar λογον καὶ ευθυ
[vas eyypaget|y προς τὸυς [[i.]] λογισ
20 [Tas καθαπερ κ͵]αι τας addas apxas
[
y ἢ
κελεύει ort Ole adnO[[[es ?]]] λέγω Tous vo
μους αὑτοὺς υἹμιν avayvecerat:
νομΊοι
οταν τοινὺυν w ανδρεὶς Αθηναιοι τό
|
[
|
25 [as o νομοθετης apxas| ονομαζει
26 lines lost
Col. ii.
[Plepovra: ev yap τα[υ]τηι τΊηι π[ολ]ει ov 17
αι
ἰτω]ς αρχαι ovone και τηλικαυτηϊι το με
γεθος ovdes ἐστιν ανυ[πΊ]ευθυνος
55 τῶν καὶ OTwOOUY προς τα κοινὰ προσ
εληλυθοτων: διδαξω δ᾽ υἱμ]ας πρωτον 18
ἐπι Tov παραδοξων" οἷον τοὺς ἵερεις
“καὶ Tas ἵερειας υπευ[ἰθ]υνους εἰναι o vo
μος κελευει' Kat συλληβδην παντας"
60 και χώρις εκαστοὺυς Κατα σωμα" και TOUS
Ta tlelpa μονον λαμβανοντας και Tas
evxas τὰς ὑπερ ἡμῶν προς τοὺς θεους
εὐχομενοὺυς" Kat ov μονον ἴδιᾶι adda
Col. iii.
οὐδὲ adda [πολλα' evr δὲ Aoyar Eve
᾿ χυραξέι ΟἹ] νομοθετης τας ουσιας των
105 ὑπευθυνων ews [av λογον αποδωσιν
τηι Tove’ ναι αἰλλ εστι τις ανθρωπος os 22
ουτε εἰληφεῖν οὐδεν των δημοσίων
AESCHINES, IN CTESIPHONTEM
211
[uo τὴν τῶν δικαστων εἴρχεῖται Wn
| pov πρωτον μεν] yap τηΐν βουλην τὴν 20
[ev Apetor παγωι] εἰ γ]γραφίειν)] προς τους
80 [λογιστας o vopols κελίευεῖι λογον
[Kat evOuvas διδοναι] και Tov εκ[ει] σκυθρω
[Tov καὶ των] μεγίστων [κυριοὴν aye
ἵυπο τὴν ὑμετεραν ψηφον ove αἰρ]ᾳ στεῖφα
[νωθησεται ἡ βουλη ἡ εξ Apeoly mayov
85 [ovde yap πατριον αὑτοις ἐστιν] οὐκ a
[pa φιλοτιμουνται πανυ γε αλλ οὐκ αγ]α
ἱπωσιν εαν τις παρ avTos μη αδικη]ι
Γ
5
σιν οἱ δὲ υμετεροι ρητορες τ]ρυῴφω
αλλ εαν τις εξαμαρτανηι κἸολαζου
go [ot παλιν την βουλὴν tous πεν͵τα
ἱκοσιους υπευθυνον πεποιη]κεν 0 vo
poberns| Kat ουτίως ἰσχυρως] atic 21
ι
[Tec τοις ὑπ]ευθυνοις ware εὐθυς ap
ἰχομενος] τῶν νομῶν λεγει" ἀρχὴν
95 ἰυπευθυνον μὴ απο]δηϊμει]ῖν ὦ Ηρακλεις
[υπολαβοι av τις οτι ἡρξα μὴ αἸποδη
[ἰμησω wa γε μὴ προλαβὼν τηΪ]ς πο
[Aews χρήματα ἡ πράξεις δρασΊμωι
[xenon παλιν υπευθυνον ουἹκ ε
[αι τὴν ουσιαν καθιερουν ουδὲ ανα]θη
[ma αναθειναι ovde εκποιητον) γε
ἵνεσθαι ovde διαθεσθαι Ta eavjrov
προφασιουνΐται μεχρι Sevpo ειρησθω
μοι" [οἦτι δίε οντως nv υὑπευθυνος o An
μοσθενΐης οτε ovTos εἰσήνεγκε TO
ψηφιίσμα ἀρχων μὲν THY ἀρχὴν THY?
145 ἐπι Toll θεωρικωι apyov δὲ τὴν
P 2
IIo
212
ovTe avadwkle προσηλθε δὲ προς
τι τῶν κοινωΐν καὶ τουτον ἀποφερειν
κελευει Aoylov προς τοὺς λογίστας
Ε
και πως ὃ γε μίηδεν λαβων μηδὲ ava
115
υποβαλλει Kale διδασκίει ο vouos a χρη
γραφειν" κελείνει] yap auto τίουτο] ey|ypa
φειν ore οὐἷτε εἰλᾳβίον ουθ]εν των της
πολεως ἴουτε αἸναλωσα ανυπευθυ
[vjov [dle και αζητητον καὶ ανεξετα[σἹ
τον] ουθεν ἐστιν των εν [τη]: πολει" ὁ
τι δε adnOn λεγω αὐτων ακουσατε
120 τῶν vopor|:|
125
130
Vvopot
oTav τοινυν podrlijora θρασυνηται
Anpooberns deylwly ws dia την emido
σιν ἰου]κ ἐστιν υπευϊθυνος) εκεινο av
ταῦ! υπ]οβαλλετε" ov[k ovly expny ce
wo Anpocbeves εασΐαι τον] tlw λογισ
τῶν Knpuka κηρίυξαίι το πἸαΐτρ)ιον Kat
ἐννομὸν κηρυγμα τίουτο] τις βουλε
ται κατηγορειν" εασΐον αμ]φισβητησαι
σοι Tov βουλομίενον των] πίολ]ιτων
ὡς οὐκ επιδείδωκας αλλ ἀπο] πολ
λων wv εχειί[ς εἰς THY τῶν τειχω]ν
οἰκοδομίιαν μικρα κατέθηκας δεκα τα
λαντία εἰς TavTa εκ TNS πολεως ELAN
135 φως" μὴ ἰαρπαζε την φιλοτιμιαν .. ....
Aouv: μηΐδε εξαιρου των δικαστων τας Wn
gous εκ τίων χειρων μηδὲ ἐμπροσθεν
τῶν νομίων adda vaoTEpos πολιτευου"
'ταυτα yalp ορθοι την δημοκρατιαν" προς 24
140 μεν ουν Tlas Kevas? προφασεις as οὔτοι
THE OXYRHYNCHUS PAPYRI
των τει[χοποιων ovderepas δὲ TH
των apx|@v τουτων λογον ὑμιν ov
6 εὐθυνΐας δεδωκως tavt ηδὴ πει
ρασομαι [vpas διδασκειν εκ τῶν On
λωσας αποισΐει Aoyor] τηι πίολει" αὑτος 150 μοσίων γίραμματων: καὶ μοι ἀναγνὼω
θι ἐπι τινος [apxovTos καὶ ποιοῦ μῆνος
και εν τινι ἷημεραι και εν ποιαι EKKAN
σιαι εχειροίῖτονηθη 4ημοσθενης
την ἀρχην [τὴν emt τῶι θεωρικωι
Col. iv.
28 lines lost
Walt στεφανωσαι' ws τοινυν καὶ THY 27
τωῖν τειχοποίωὼν ἀρχὴν ἤρχεν 08 ov
23 185 τοῖς To Ψηφισμα εἐγραψε και Ta δημο
σιᾳ [χρήματα διεχειριζε Kat επιβο
λας ἐπεβαλλε καθαπερ οι αλλοι
αρχίοντες και δικαστηριων ἡγεμο
18 lines lost
3. 9 νομοθέτης, which must have stood in the lacuna, was bracketed by Weidner
1625. AESCHINES, IN CTESIPHONTEM 213
and Blass. Whether 1625 had προ[σειπων with most MSS. and edd., or προειπὼν with dngq, is
uncertain. Cf. ὃ 17, where BC have προσειπεῖν, A rightly προειπεῖν.
3-4. anlacas | [apyas: ἀρχὰς ἁπάσας MSS. Probably 1625 is right, and the reading of
the MSS. is due to the influence of ἀρχὰς ἁπάσας in 1]. 1-2.
6-7. [Δημοσθενης was bracketed by Schanz and Blass, while after τειχοποιός Halm
inserted ὦν, for which there is not room here.
8. παἰν]ταΐς : so most MSS. and edd. ; but πα[ν]τεῖς could be read with e.
18. και εὐυθυΐνας was bracketed by Dobree and Blass.
19. προς τους [i.]] Aoyo[ras: πρὸς τὸν γραμματέα καὶ τοὺς λογιστὰς MSS.; cf. Schol. B (on
the margin of a printed book; source unknown) γραμματέα λέγει τὸν εἰωθότα ἐν τῷ κοινῷ τὰ TOU
δήμου γράμματα ἀναγινώσκειν, and Schol. gm Vat. Laur. λογιστὴς ἑκάστης φυλῆς εἷς. γραμματέα δὲ
ἕκαστοι εἶχον, λέγει οὖν νῦν τὸν τῶν λογιστῶν. ἄλλως" ἄρχοντες ἦσαν δέκα ἡρημένοι καλούμενοι
λογισταί... The omission of τὸν γραμματέα καί in 1625 brings this passage into line with
ll. 79-80 ylypap [et] προς τους |Aoyotas and 109-10 arroepew] κελευει λογίον προς τους λογιστας,
where the MSS. equally ignore the γραμματεύς. The scholia do not really support the
longer reading. The logistae no doubt had γραμματεῖς, 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. B is not at all convincing, for the γραμματεύς who read the laws, &c., in the assembly
was quite a different kind of official from the λογισταί, and not likely to have been specially
concerned with εὐθῦναι. A comparison of 1]. 22 ἀναγνώσεται (sc. ὁ γραμματεύς) with ὃ 124,
where most MSS, have ἀναγνώσεται ὑμῖν ὁ γραμματεύς (ἀνάγνωθι Blass with e), indicates that
Schol. B has been misplaced, and really refers to 1. 22, while τὸν γραμματέα καί in the MSS.
at |. 19 is a corruption arising out. of this very scholium or one like it owing to a mistaken
idea that τὸν γραμματέα occurred in the text about this point, the accusative case suggesting
1. rg 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, τὸ of these
officials ; but it is unlikely that a second-century scribe would place a diaeresis instead of a
stroke above «(which is fairly certain), if it meant ro, and he seems to have written or begun to
write another letter after i, though it is not clear how much ink belongs to a stroke of deletion.
21. κέλευει, which must have stood here, is deleted by several editors, but not by
Blass.
αληθη : of the supposed ἡ 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. αὕτους v|uw: So ΒΟ ; ὑμῖν αὐτοὺς A, Blass.
ἀναγνώσεται : SO BC, Blass; ἀναγνῶτε A. CF. 1. 19, Π.
23. νομΊοι : so most MSS, and edd.; νόμος a; om. ep Vat.
24. avdpe|s: so A, Blass; om. BC.
25. as o νομοθετης apxas| ονομαζει [[ουτοι : so AC, Blass ; 6 μὲν νομοῦ. ἀρχὰς ὀνομάζῃ οὗτοι
δὲ B, Schultz.
52. v: εὖ kl.
5.3. apxaiar: SO MSS. ; ἀρχαίᾳ (τ᾽) Blass, to avoid hiatus.
τηλικαυτη[ι : so BC, Blass; τοσαύτῃ A.
55- Καὶ : om. Ip Vat. προς: εἰς p.
57+ οἷον : ois p. ἵερεις : so MSS.; ἱερέας edd.
58-. 0 vopos kedever: κελ. 6vou, MSS. Cf. ll. 66-7, n.
59. παντας : ἅπαντας MSS.
60. και τους : om. καὶ MSS.
61. ijejpa: so Hamaker ; γέρα MSS., Blass. The top of the « is lost, but one of the
two dots is visible. ἱερά is no doubt right, the point being that priests got no public money.
214 THE OXYRHYNCHUS PAPYRI
The confusion was easy; cf. the spellings Ieun and Γεμὴ for the same Oxyrhynchite village
(1285. 98 and 1444. 34) and evyepoy for τερον in P. Weil vi. 6.
povov: so most MSS., Blass; μόνα ag Vat., Laur.
62. tas: om. MSS. ημων: so a; ὑμῶν the rest, Blass.
64. ta: so most MSS., Blass; κατὰ hm yp.
65-6. παλιν: καὶ πάλιν 6.
66-7. εἰναι κέλευει : κελεύει εἶναι p Vat. Cf. Il. 58-9, n.
67-8. διαχειρισαντας : the last a is corr. from ε. διαχειρίζοντας some edd., but cf,
ll. 69-70, ἢ.
69. προσοδων was bracketed by Bake and Blass.
69-70. υφηρημενους .. . καταθεντας : ὑφαιρουμένους .. . καταθέντας AC; ὑφαιρουμένους. ..
κατατιθέντας B, Blass. Probably 1625 is right, and the reading of B is an emendation of
that of AC, which is a corruption of the papyrus text.
70-1. emdidova [ὃ]: so MSS.; οὐδ᾽ ἐπιδιδόναι μὲν Blass.
73. tas πα τ[ρωι]ας : so B, Blass; for τοὺς τὰς war. (AC, except d) there is not room.
77. d«lactrov: so kl; δικαστηρίων the rest, Blass.
78. την: so AB, Blass; om. Ὁ.
81. διδοναι, which must have stood here, was deleted by Cobet, but not by Blass.
81--2. καὶ Tov εκ[εἰ] σκυθρωΐπον και των] μεγιστων [κυριο]ν ayet: SO Orelli, Baiter and
Sauppe, Simcox (τὸν... σκυθρωπὸν Lambinus and marg. Bern.; ἄγει Wolf); x. τῶν ἐκεῖ
σκυθρωπῶν κ. τ. pey. κύριον ἄγειν Β ; om. AC; x, τὴν ἐκ. σκυθρωπὸν... . κυρίαν ἄγει Wolf, Reiske,
Bekker, and, with ἄγων instead of ἄγει to avoid hiatus, Β]458 ; οἵ, int. There 5 not room for
[kupa]y in]. 82, even if τον in 1. 81 did not require [κυριοῆν.
84. ἡ βουλη εξ Apevolv παγου was bracketed by Blass to avoid hiatus.
92-3. απισΐτει τοις υπ͵]ευθυνοις : so Cahkl Vat. yp., edd. ἀπαιτεῖ τοὺς ὑπευθύνους egmnp
Laur. Vat.
93. evdus: so A, Blass; εὐθέως BC.
94. λέγει: this was deleted by Cobet, the MSS. having after ὑπεύθυνον in ]. 95 φησί,
which was clearly omitted in 1625 and is not necessary.
apxnv: this was deleted by Hamaker, while Dobree preferred ἀρχῆς.
97-8. The MSS. have προλαβὼν χρήματα τῆς πόλεως ἢ πράξεις, from which 1625 clearly
varied in regard to the position of τῆς πόλεως and χρήματα, and possibly by the insertion of ra
after προλαβών.
103-4. eve |xupace|c : so B; ἐνεχυριάζει A; ἐνεχειράζει or -ρίζει C,
104. 0] vlopoderns ras ουσιας των: SO Α ; τὰς οὐσίας ὁ νομοθέτης τὰς τῶν BC, Blass; om.
ὁ νομοθέτης Cobet. τίας ουσιας can be read in place of ο] νζομοθετης, but the insertion of τας
before των would make the line too long, while the omission of o vopoderns 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 ἀποδίδωσιν with c;
ἀποδῶσι most MSS., Blass ; ἀποδώσῃ hq Bern., ἀποδώσει Vat. Laur.
113-14. 0 νομος a χρη] γραφειν was bracketed by Hamaker and Blass.
116. ανυπευθυν]ον : so Α ; ἀνεύθυνον BC, Blass.
117. αζητητον και ἀνεξετα[ στον) : so AC, Blass; ἀνεξ. καὶ ἀζήτ. Β.
120. τῶν νομων : so BC, Blass; τῶν ἐν τῇ πόλει A.
121. νόμοι: so most MSS. ; νόμος 1; om. agp Vat.
124-5. αὐταί! : so most MSS. ; αὐτὸ glm; om. Blass on account of hiatus.
127. κηρυκα: κύριον g.
131. επιδεΐδωκας : SO g; ἀπέδωκας 4; ἐπέδωκας the rest, Blass. azo, which must have
stood in the lacuna, is omitted by ek.
1025. AESCHINES, IN CTESIPHONTEM 215
132. exes: So MSS., Blass ; εἶχες (Bake) is inadmissible.
134. εἰς ταυτα ek τῆς πολεως is restored from most MSS., but C omits εἰς and el have
πολιτείας for πόλεως, while Blass omits ἐκ, and Bekker reads ἐκ τῶν τῆς, The length of the
lacuna favours the presence of both es and ex, but not των as well.
155-6....... Ιλου : aand μ are the only alternatives to A, and the lacuna may be 2 or
3 letters shorter than as printed, but hardly any longer. The MSS. have nothing between
φιλοτιμίαν and μηδέ. An imperative either preceded by μή or governing ἁρπάζειν (instead of
ἅρπαζε) seems most likely, but ἑϊλοῦ is not satisfactory.
140. Whether 1625 had κοινας with the MSS. or xevas, the generally accepted correction
of Stephanus, is uncertain.
144-5. την apxny την ἢ] | emt tole θεωρικωι : τὴν ἐπὶ τῷ θ. ἀρχήν (MSS., except ἢ ἐπὶ τῶν
θεωρικῶν) does not suit. την before ἀρχην can be omitted from the restoration, but cf. ]. 154.
Blass proposed ἐπὶ τὸ θεωρικόν in both places, comparing ὃ 25 and avoiding hiatus in 1]. 145;
most MSS. in 1. 154 have τῶν θεωρικῶν (which may of course have been the reading of 1625
in both places), but cdq have τῷ θεωρικῷ.
146. de 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 o may be
inserted before Δημοσθενης. The loss of it would be easy owing to the hiatus.
154. After τῶι θεωρικωι (or TOV θεωρικων ; ef, IL 144-5, n.) BC proceed ὅτι μεσοῦντα τὴν
ἀρχὴν ἔγραψεν αὐτὸν στεφανοῦν ἀναγίνωσκε (ἀναγινώσκετε SOME MSS.) διαλογισμὸς τῶν ἡμερῶν.
(dad. τ. jp. om. B), while of the A group e has only ψήφισμα (so Blass) and kl omit the
title as well as the preceding sentence. ὅτι. . . dvayivwoxe was deleted by Bekker and
subsequent editors as a gloss, but some retain διαλογισμὸς τῶν ἡμερῶν 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 οἱ add with C, but is unlikely to have
omitted αλλοι with A.
ce | Ya Ged oad Z - > "
“] it Υὰ LE.
" apes Maes ee ENC a ΑΝ oa)
5 it. 3. A eee an ji
Ἶ Ὁ Ἐπὴν 5 fs) y a fy A ki Ἷ
] ἐν ἢ Di “+ ry) Ae "i ines Ἷ
i : bh kas a Ν A:
‘ x 2 aed εν ΡΨ ἢ
Ν ἢ ὦ ‘ ᾽ A
Γ ; aa “ihe
a } Le
᾿ aa
‘
ἵ ez
.
( ak
ν᾽
-
.
.
y ~
ὦ ε
-
ἱ
» .
-
Mj ᾿
I NEW
᾿Αβέλ 1600. 22.
ἄγγελος 1603. 12.
ἄγειν 1600. 57-
ἅγιος [160]. 4.|
ἀδελφός 1600. 22? ; 1602. 29.
ἀθεράπευτος 1608. 21.
αἰδεῖσθαι 1608. 17.
αἷμα 1600. 38.
αἰώνιος 1602. 29.
ἀκούειν 1602. I.
ἀλλά 1600. τό.
ἄλλος [1600. 31.]
ἀλλόφυλοι 1602. 9, 15.
a 1602. 31.
ἀναβαίνειν 1601. hail: 8.
ἀναιδής 1608. 15.
ἀναιρεῖν 1602. 24-5.
ἀναρίθμητος 1601. τι.
ἀνδριώτατος 1609. 4.
ἄνευ [160]. 9.|
ἀνήρ 1601. 24.
ἀνομία 1602. 27.
ἄνομος 1602. 2, 7.
ἀνοσιώτερος 1602. 8.
ἀντί 1601. 34.
ἀντίδικος 1601. 13.
ἄνυδρος 1602. τῇ.
ἀπό 1602. 5.
ἀποβλέπειν 1600. 17, 21, 33.
ἀπολλύναι 1601. το.
ἀποτέμνειν 1608. τι.
ἀπώλεια [160]. 5. |
᾿Αράδ (adap ΠῚ 1602. 9.
ἀριθμός 1601. 9.
ἀρνίον 1600. 56.
ἀτιμάζειν 1608. 14?
αὐτός 1601. [8], 19, 24;
1602. 5, ε΄ saep.; [1608.
19.|
PN BICES
(Π = the papyrus in question.)
THEOLOGICAL FRAGMENTS.
ἀφιστάναι 1602. 5, 25:
βασιλεύς 1602. ὃ.
βούλεσθαι 1600. το.
γάρ 1600. 12, [41]; 1601.
4, τι; 1602. 6; 1603.
ἘΠΕ
γῆ 1601. 3; 1602. 13, 37:
γινώσκειν 1600. 21.
γράφειν 1601. 32.
γραφή [1600. 39.
γυνή 1601. 29; 1603. 1, ef
sacp.
Aaveid [1600. 48. |
δέ 1600. 6; 1601. [12], 20,
27; 1603. II, 19.
δεσμεύειν 1603. 9.
δή 1600. 4.
δηλοῦν 1600. 7°; 1601. 21.
διά 1600. 6, 18, 22°, 39;
16038. 2, ef saep.
διάβολος 1601. 14.
διδόναι 1602. τι.
δίκαιος 1601. 26.
δισσός 1603. 20.
διώκειν 1608. 8.
δόσις 1600. 19?
δύναμις 1602. 39.
ἐάν 1600. 16; 1601. 32;
1603. 19. .
ἑαυτοῦ 1602. 36.
eyo 1601. 23, 30. ἥμεις
[16000. 8; 1601. ῃ];
1602. 20, 36.
ἐδαφίζειν 1608. 6.
ἐθνικός 160]. 34.
ἔθνος 1601. [ 2], 6, [rakes
εἰ 1600. 19.
εἶναι [1600. 12; 1601. 77;
1602. 7, 317.
εἰς 1600. 17, 22-34, [47
56 |.
ἐκ, ἐξ 1600. 3, 5; 1601. 33;
1602. 2, 6, 12.
ἐκκλησία 1601. 33.
ἐκπέμπειν 1602. 19.
ἐκτιθέναι 1600. 29.
ἔμπροσθεν 1600. 44.
ἐν 1600. [8], 34; 1601. 21,
26; 1602. 16; 1603. 9.
ἐξουσία 1601. 6.
ἐπαγγέλλειν 1602. 13.
ἐπεί 1602. το.
ἐπί 1601. 3, 24-5, 30; 1602.
18, 39.
ἐπιθυμί. ) 1601. 33.
ἐρεῖν [1608. EPs
ἔρημος 1602. τό.
ἔσχατος 1602. 39.
ἔτι 1602. τι.
εὐδοκία 1602. .34.
ἔχειν 16038. το.
ἕως 1602. 31.
ζῆν 1602. 26.
ζητεῖν 1601. 15.
ζωή 1600. [43]; 48.
Ἠλεί 16038. 6.
ἡμέρα (1600. 46. |
Ἠσαΐας [1600. 34. |
θεός 1600. 18; 1601.
1602. 3, το.
273
218
θρηνεῖν 1601. 23, 25, 27.
θρηνεύειν 1601. 28.
iepevs 1608. 6, 16.
Ἰησοῦς 1602. 21, 35.
Ἰσραήλ 1602. 3.
ἰσχυρός 1601. (i; 8.
ἰσχύς 1602. 12.
Ἰωάννης 1608. 11.
Ἰωσήφ 1600. 26; 1608. 9.
καθῆσθαι [1601. 30. |
καινός 1600. Το, 12, 15, 18.
καιρός 1602. 40.
κάκιστος 1608. 18.
κακόν 1608. 20.
κακοπαθεῖν 1602. 23.
κακῶς [1600. 32. |
καρπός 1602. 12.
κατά 1600. 14, 16; 1601.
It 5; 1602. 21, 26.
καταβάλλειν 1608. 12.
καταπίνειν 160]. 15.
κεραυνεῖν 160]. 18.
κηρύσσειν 1602. 20.
κληρονομία 1602. 28.
κλῆρος 1602. 22.
κόσμος [160]. 6. |
κρεμαννύναι 1600. 44.
κύριος 1600. [5], 13, 20,
40; [160]. 3]; 1602. 4,
20, 33.
κυροῦν 1602. 32.
λαμβάνειν 1602. 22, 35.
λαός 1602. 24.
λέγειν 1600. 49; 160]. 11,
25, 29.
Λευίτης 1608. τό.
λέων 1601. 13.
λογίζεσθαι 1600. 58.
Adyos 1602. 38,
μακρός 1600. 3, 5.
μέν 1600. 14, [41]; 1601.
31.
μένειν 1602. 30-1.
μερισμός 1602. 22.
μετά 1601. 22 ; 1602. 9, τό.
μέχρι 1602. 3:
INDICES
μή 1601. 30, 34.
μυστήριον 1600. 13, 20, 40.
Mavons 1600. 28, 42; 1601.
32.
νηστεύειν 160]. 28.
νικητής 1602. 30.
νομίζειν 1600. 11.
νόμος 1600. 15.
νοῦς 1601. 2.
νῦν 1602. 29.
νύξ 1600. 46.
Evpetv 1608. 5.
ὀδούς 1601. 13.
ὁμοίως 1600. 24-32.
ὅπλον 1602. 34.
ὁρᾶν 1600. 18, 43.
és 160]. το, 25; 1602. 4.
ὅσος 1602. τό.
ὅσπερ 1601. 21.
ὅστις 1602. 21.
ὅτι 1594. 15; 1600. 1;
1601. [2; 13]; 28, 1301,
31-2; 1602. 39.
ov, οὐκ 1600. 47; 1602. 5;
1603. τό, 17. οὐ μή 1601.
30. οὐχ ὅτι 1594. 15.
οὐδείς 1608. 15.
οὐρανός 1608. 7.
Οὔριος 1608. 1?
οὗτος 1601]. 6, 11--12, 22, 34;
1602. τ8.
οὕτω(ς) 1600. 4; 1602. 37.
ὀφθαλμός 1600. 45.
πάθος 1600. 5.
παλαιός 1600. 10, 12, 14.
πάλη 1601. 8.
mavrom|aéns? 1608. το.
παράβασις 1608. 3.
παράγειν (1608. 3. |
παραλαμβάνειν 1602. 38.
παρέχειν 1602. 18.
mas 1608. 13-14, 17-18.
πάσχειν 1600. 32.
πατάσσειν 1600. 36.
περί 1600. 38.
περιπατεῖν [1601]. 14. |
περιτιθέναι 1601. 20.
πιπράσκειν 1600. 27.
πιστεύειν 1600. 47.
πίστις 1600. 2.
πλοῦτος 1608. 19.
πνεῦμα 1602. 23, 26, 39.
πνευματικός 160]. 7.
πολύς [1600. 37. |
πονηρία 1608. 19.
πονηρός 1608. 18.
πορνεύειν 1601. 29, 30.
ποσάκις 1602. I.
πρόβατον 1600. 35.
πρός 1600. 3; 1601. 23;
1602. 4, το, 33; 1608. 3.
προσέλευσις 1602. 32.
προφητεύειν 1600. 42.
προφήτης 1602. 19;
1.
προφητικός 1600. 30.
πρῶτον 1601. 531.
16038.
ῥίπτειν 1601. 18.
ῥύεσθαι 1602. 3.
σάκκος 1601. 24.
Σαμψών [1608. 4. |
σήμερον 1600. 7.
Σολομών 1608. 3.
σοφώτατος [16038. 2. |
στρατιώτης 1602. 1.
σύ. ὑμεῖς 1600. 43, 45, 48:
1601. 14; [1608. τ1.}
σύμφυτος 1602. 33.
συνεργεῖν 1608. 20.
σφαγή [1600. 56. |
opdge 1600. 35.
σφάλλειν 1602. 27.
σώζειν.1600. 37 ; 1602. 6.
τάξις 1602. 21.
ταπεινοφροσύνη 1599. 42.
τελειοῦν 1600. 8 ἢ
τέταρτος 1601]. το.
τηρεῖν 1602. 4, 11.
τιμᾶν 1608. τό.
τίς 1603. 11.
τοίνυν 1600. 19.
τυγχάνειν 1600. 8; 1601. 9.
1. NEW THEOLOGICAL FRAGMENTS
τύπος 1600. 6, 17.
τυφλοῦν 16038. 5-
vids 1601. 5; 16038. 6.
ὑπέρ 1602. 36.
ὑπό 1602. 24.
ὑπομένειν 1602. 31.
ὑποτάσσειν 1602. 14.
φάναι 1601. 4.
Φαραώ 1602. 6.
φείδεσθαι 1603. 15?
φονεύειν 1600. 23; 1608. 14.
φύειν 1602. 36.
φυλακή 1608. 9.
Χαναναῖοι 1602. 14.
χάρις 1600. 1, τό.
χείρ 1602. 2, 6.
Χριστός 1602. I, 21, 23: 35:
219
ψυχή 1601. 4, 5.
Ωγ 1602. 8.
ὡς 1600. [34], 56; 1601. 34;
1602. 37.
‘Qone 1601. 29.
| . 6Gew 1600. 25.
Il NEW CLASSICAL FRAGMENTS.
(2) 1604 (PINDAR, Dithyrambs).
(Large Roman numerals refer to the different poems ; sch. = scholium.)
“ABas I. 9.
ἄγειν [II. 28 9]
ἀγέλα 11. 23.
ἀγνοεῖν I. 6; sch.
ayporepos II. 21?
ἀέξειν 1. 14.
αἰγίς II. 17.
αἰθόμενος 11. το.
ἀκναμπτεί 11], 12.
ἀκούειν 11. 20.
ἀλαλά II. 13.
ἀλκάεις IT. 17.
ἅλμα 1. τό.
ἀμπνεῖν II, 15.
ἄναξ 1. 3.
ἄνθρωπος 11. [3], 30.
ἀνιστάναι II, 25.
ἀν(τὶ τοῦ) III. 7 sch.
ἀντιστροφή 1. 20 sch.
ἀοιδά I, 14; [I]. 1]; Ill. 17.
ἀπό I. τ; [1]. 3.]
ἀπ... ο( ) 1. 20 ε(ἢ.
ἄρα 1. 6?
*Apyos I. 7.
“Appovia 11. 27.
"Aptepis 11. το.
ἀσπασίως I, 31?
αὐτός I. 6 sch.
αὐχήν 11]. 14.
Βάκχιος II, 21.
βλώσκειν I. 19.
βρισάρματος 11. 26.
βρομιάς I. 11.
Βρόμιος 1]. 6, [ 21 |.
βροτός I, 15.
yapera II. 27.
yap I. 15.
γείτων III. το.
γενεά [II. 30. |
Γοργόνες I. 5.
Δαναΐ Pn
das II. 11.
dé 1. 6 and sch., 15; IJ. [4],
10, 12, 15, 19, 22-3, 29.
δή III. 9?
διαπετάννυσθαι 1]. 4.
διθύραμβος 1]. 2.
Διονυσιακόν I, το sch.
Διόνυσος II. 31.
διοί _—) I. 6 sch.
δόμος 1. 8.
δράκων II. 18.
é J. 6 and sch.
ἔγχος 1]. 17.
ἐγώ II. 23.
εἰδέναι 11. 5.
εἶναι 1. 6 sch.
eis I. 6 sch.
“Ἑλλάς 1]. 25.
ἐν 1. 1 1]. 5, 10, 12)15, 20;
ἔνθα II. 27.
Ἐνυάλιος 11. τό.
éés I. 20 and sch., 34.
ἐξ 1. 20 sch.
ἐξαίρετος 11. 23.
ἐπί 1. 23 sch.
ἐπιδορατίς III. 13 sch.
ἐπίμαχος I, 23 sch.
ἔπος 1]. 24.
ἐρατός 1. ὃ.
ἐρίγδουπος II. 12.
ἔρκος 1. τό.
ἕρπειν II. 1.
ἔρχεσθαι III. 9, 25?
ἔτι I. τ4.
εὐάμπυξ 1. 13.
εὐδαίμων I, 11.
εὔδοξος 11. 30.
εὔχεσθαι I. 15; 11. 26.
Cevyviva I. ὃ ; II. 20.
Ζεύς Il. 7, 29.
7 II title.
Ἡρακλῆς II title.
npwos III. το ὃ
θάλος 1. 14.
θάνατος 1. 46.
220
Θῆβαι [II. 26. |
Θηβαῖοι II title.
Onp 11. 22.
θοίνα 1. τι.
θρασύς II title.
ἰέναι (‘go’) 11, το.
ἱρός [1]. 4.]
ἱστάναι 1]. 8.
Κάδμος 11. 28.
καί 1. τό ; 11. 3, 7) 22, 30;
Livan.
καλλίχορος I], 25?
kapvé II, 24.
κατάρχειν 1]. 8.
κεδνός II, 28?
κεν 1. [34] and sch.
κεραυνός 1]. 15.
Κέρβερος II title.
κεχλαδέναι 1]. το.
κηλεῖν 11. 22.
κίβδαλος [Π. 5:
κινεῖν 11. τό.
κίσσινος III. 7.
κλαγγά 1]. 18.
κλόνος I]. 14.
κόρη I. 17 sch.
κορυφά 1. 12.
κούρη [1. τη.]
κρεμαννύναι IIT, 12.
κρόταλα 1]. το.
κρόταφος 11]. 8.
κυανοχίτων III, 5.
κύκλος 1]. 4.
Κύκλωψ I. 6, το sch. |
λαγχάνειν [ II. 28 ? |
λέγειν I. 2, 15, 23 sch.
λείβεσθαι 1. 4.
λέων II. 21.
μανία II. 13.
μάτηρ 11. 9, 32.
μέγαρα II. 8.
μέγας I. 7; II. 9.
μέλας 1. τό.
μελίζειν III. 6. 4
μέν IL. [x], 8; III. 3.
μεταγράφειν I. 6 sch.
INDICES
Μοῖσα II. 25.
μυρίος 11. 18,
Μοῖσαι 1. 14.
Naiddes II. 12.
ναίειν I. 35.
νέος II. 5.
νιν I, τό.
νῦν [1]. 4.1}
ξανθός II, 11.
ξενίζεσθαι I, to sch.
ὁ I. [10] and sch., 34 sch.;
11: 5: τῷ, [τὸ]; 22.
6 I. 6 sch.
οἰοπόλος 11. 19 and schol.
οἷος II. 6.
ὄλβος 11. 26?
ὀμφά 1]. 29.
ὀργή 11. 2ο.
ὀρίνεσθαι II. 13.
Ovpavida 11. 7.
οὗτος I. 6 sch.
οὕτως I, 6 sch.
ὄφις II. 18 sch.
maykparns II. 15.
Παλλάς 1]. 17.
πάρ II. 9. παρά II. 7, [30].
πατήρ if 5, 17.
πέλειν 11]. 15.
περισσός I. 34 sch. περισσῶς
I. 20 sch.
πέταλον III, το.
πεύκη II. τι.
πλεκτός III. 7 sch.?
πλόκος III. 7.
πόλις. πολέα III. 9. πτόλις
Ι. 6.
πόνος 11]. τό.
ποτέ II, 27.
πούς 11]. 4.
πραπίδες 11. 28.
πρέπειν Perr:
πρίν II. τ.
προσάγειν I, 20 sch.?
πρύτανις 11]. το.
πτόλις I. 6. Cf. πόλις.
πύλη II. 4.
πῦρ 11. τ6.
ῥίμφα 11. το.
(ῥι)ψαύχην 11. 13.
ῥόμβος II, ο.
ῥύεσθαι IIT. τ4.
σάν II, 3.
σεμνός II. 8.
σκᾶπτον 11. 7.
σκόπελος 11]. το.
σολοικισμός I. 6 sch.
σοφός 1]. 24.
στάσις 11]. 5.
στέφανος III. 7.
στολ᾽ ΠῚ. 24.
στόμα [1I. 8:
στοναχά 1]. 12.
στρατιά 11]. τι.
σύ. μμι [1]. 15. |
σύγγονος Τὰ Te
σύν 1]. 14.
σχοινοτενής per 1
ταμίας III. 23.
ve I, 19; 1|. [x] τοῦτ
[16], τη, [26]; 111... το,
12--13, 17.
τελετά I. 33; 11. 6; Π]|Ι. 6.
reds III. 6.
τιθέναι 1. 13.
τίκτειν 11. 30.
TU {p}mava If: 9-
ὑπό II. 11.
ὑψαύχην 11. 13.
ὑψηλός 11. 28.
φάμα II, 27.
φεύγειν 1. τό.
φθογγάζεσθαι II. 18.
φίλος III. 9.
Φόρκος I. 17.
φῦλον II. 21; III. 18
χάρμα 1Π|. 13.
χορεύειν II. 22.
χορός 11]. τό.
ὡς I. 6 sch.
Hf.
NEW CLASSICAL FRAGMENTS
221
(6) OTHER CLASSICAL FRAGMENTS.
(1600 7s 20 be supplied before the figures in thick type.
The extant portion
of 1608 7s not indexed, except the proper names.)
ἀγαθός 5. 48.
᾿Αγαμήστωρ 18. 2.
ἀγανακτεῖν 6. 507, 543-
ἁγνός 11. 163.
ἄγονος 11. 95.
ἀγορά [11. 73.]
ἀδελφή 7. 283.
ἀδελφιδοῦς 10. 86.
ἀδελφός 6. 7, [161]; 10. 143?
ἀδικεῖν 6. 115, Ε17.
ἀδίκως 6. 429.
ἀδύνατος 7. 59.
ἀθανασία 12, 31.
᾿Αθηναῖοι 6. 176; 10. 73, 201;
“Avons 11. 271.
αἱρεῖν 10. 45, 75, 267?
Αἰσιμίδης 18. 7.
Αἰσχύλος 18. 3.
, αἰτιᾶσθαι 11. 225.
ἀκόντιον 11. 72.
ἀκούειν 5. 46; 6. 129, 136,
496; ἤ. 250; 9. 15-
᾿Ακουσίλαος 11. 52.
ἀκρόπολις. Περὶ ἀκ. 11. 103.
ἀλγηδών 11. 247?
ἀληθῶς 11. 43.
ἁλίσκεσθαι 10. 106 ; 11. 67.
᾿Αλκιβιάδης 8. 50.
᾿Αλκμέων (4) 11. 87, 91; (2) 18. 5.
ἀλλά 6. 83, [233], 245, 502, 7953 7. 44;
126, [161], 164; 8.36; 9.11; 10. 163;
11. 198 ; 12. 14.
ἄλλος 6. 223, 259, 535; 1]. 60.
ἀλλότριος 6. 179.
dpa 6. 352; 10. [123], 125.
ἁμαρτάνειν 6. 544.
ἁμάρτημα 6. 180.
ἁμαρτηΪ 8. 81.
ἄμουσος 8. 9, 14.
ἀμφισβητεῖν 6. 547, 604.
ἀμφότερος 7. 115.
ἄν 6. [114], 118, 123, [234], 235, 260, 504,
530; 7. 40, 63, 228; 8. 37, (48); 9. 18;
10. 242}: 11. 240; 12. TO; 24, 26.
ἄν = ἐάν 6. 340?
12. 2
143, 147, 379,
| ἀνήρ 6. 987, 935; 10. 75, 2689;
ἀνάγειν 5. 34.
ἀναγκάζειν 6. 254, 352.
ἀναγκαῖος 8. 8, 12; 10. 4.
ἀνάγκη 6. 181, 293, 295, 482.
ἀναγράφϊειν 11. 105.
ἀναίσχυντος 6. 736.
ἀνάκλασις 9. τι.
| ἀνακοινοῦσθαι 10. 128.
| ἀναλαμβάνειν 7. 87.
ἀναμιμνήσκειν (αναμνημισκειν ΠῚ 6. 178.
᾿Ανάσχετος Te. 518:
ἄνειν 11. ἐπ
Il. 62.
ὦ avd, δικασταί 6. 77, 114, 220, 368, 377,
859; 7. 221. ἀνδράσι 6. 330.
ἄνθρωπος 6. 225; 7. 16, 42, 195; 8. 8, 29,
52; 11. 64: 12. τό.
ἀνιέναι 12. 28?
ἀνόητος 6. 357.
ἄνοια 8. 41.
ἀνόμως 6. 159.
ἀντέχεσθαι 7. 172.
ἀντί 6, 171; 11. 29?
ἀντίδικος 6. 133.
ἀντιπράττειν 7. 90.
ἄνωθεν 11. 81.
ἄξιος 6. 659.
ἀξιοῦν 6. 11, 78, 320, 326; 7. 193; 10. 24;
11. 46.
ἀπαιτεῖν 6. 264.
ἀπαίτησις Θ. 273.
ἀπειλεῖν 11. 77.
ἀπιέναι 9. 18.
ἀπό 5. 35; 9. 19; 10. 94.
ἀπογιγνώσκειν 8. 29.
ἀποδεικνύναι 6. 533.
ἀποδημεῖν 7. 285.
ἀποδιδόναι 6. 14, 31-2, 46--Ἶ, 370, 381--2.
ἀποθνήσκειν 10, 104; 11. 83.
ἀποικίζειν 10. 59.
ἀποκηρύττειν 8. 30.
ἄπο 11. 01.
ἀποκομίζεσθαι 11. 222?
| ἀποκτείνειν 6. 9; 11. 228.
| ἀπολαμβάνειν 6. 217.
| ἀπολέγειν 7. 28, 58?
222
᾿Απολλόδωρος 8. 34.
ἀπολλύναι 6. 83.
ἀπολογεῖσθαι 8. 36.
ἀπολογία 8. 28.
ἀπολύειν 11. 54.
ἀπορία 6. 317; 10. 1τοο.
ἀπορροή 9. 18.
ἀποστερεῖν 6. 117, 162, 253, 508, 949.
ἀποφέρεσθαι 6. 12?
ἀποψηφίζεσθαι 6. 221.
ἄπρατος 6. 41.
ἀπρεπής 7. 180.
᾿Αργεῖος 11. 52.
ἀργύριον 6. 264, 283, 296, 341, 345.
ἄριστα 6, 210; 11. 231?
᾿Α[ριστό Ῥ]δημος 11. 223.
᾿Αριστοφάνης 11. 174.
᾿Αρίφρων 18. 1.
᾿Αρκτῖνος 11. 148?
᾿Αρταξέρξης 10. 122.
ἀρχαῖος 12. 58.
ἄρχειν 11. 84.
ἀρχή 11. 122; 12. 12.
ἀσεβεῖν 12. 23, 25?
ἀσθενῶς 7. 82.
"Agia 8. 99.
ἀσπίς 6. 20, 66.
᾿ΑσσηΪ 11, 247.
ἄτεκνος 11. 00.
ἀτιμάζειν 10. 20.
ἄτρωτος 11, 62.
αὐτός 6. 8, 85, 90, 148, 169, 182, 191, 202,
227, 232, [268], [272], 294-5, 299, 326,
S70, 5032; 532, 534,590; 7. 20, 26, 61,
99, 103, 192, 206, 394; 8. 79, 82; 10.
9, 74, 85, 96, 100, 116?, 123; 11. 59, 61,
65, 76, 79, 128, 149; 12. 13, 23, 27.
αὐτοῦ 10. 49?
ἀφαιρεῖν 6. το; 12. 30.
ἀφανίζειν 6. 32.
ἀφηγεῖσθαι 11. τότ.
ἄφιππος 8. 11, 15.
ἄφρων 6. 360.
᾿Αχαρνεύς 6. 80.
“Awavdpos 18. 11.
ἁψιμαχία 7. 26.
Βάκχαι 11. 35.
βαρβαρικός 10. 72.
βασιλεία 10. 124; 11. 40.
INDICES
βασιλεύειν 11. 44.
βασιλεύς 10. 51, 87, 132; 11. 50, 69.
βέβαιος (βεβαιοῦν ἢ) 6. 493, 602.
βελτίων 6. 132, 141, 148, 204.
Bia 6. 227.
Bios 6. 353.
βόρειος 11. 123, 126.
βούλεσθαι 6. 138, 441; 10. 33, 125°; 12,
10, 22.
βουλεύεσθαι 6. 498?
βοῦς, ὁ 6. 336.
βραχύς 10. 135.
Βυζάντιον 10. 41.
γάρ Θ. 17, τ13. ἢ, 122, 152, 157, 1955. 515
329, 538, 553. 595; 7.19, 42, 63, 73, 98,
187, 224, 228; 8. 21, 40, 151; Bator
[10. 507]; 11. 46, [51], 55, 58, 84, 166,
239, 389; 12. 12, 28, 35.
ye 7. 59, 162; 8. 42, 1007; 11]. 190.
Té(ras) 5. 35 marg.
γέφυρα 10. 11?
γῆ 6. 435 11.-81.
γίγνεσθαι 6.156], 205, 262, 359, 378; 7. 25, °
63; 8. 2?, το; 10. 30, 96; 11. 69, 90.
γιγνώσκειν 6. 535; 8. 82.
yovets 8. 2, 5, 45, 50.
γυνή 11. 146.
δαμάσιππος 11. 164.
δανείζεσθαι 6. 320, 327, 444.
δέ 6. [7], 13, 41, 47, 85, ττὸ, Τὴ τοῦ
[163], 175, 181, 186, 189, [216], 224,
246, 251-2, 255; 257; 261, 266, 295, 319,
324-5, 336, 494, 505, 558; 7. [72], 80,
84, 186, 288, 4555; 8. 7, 34, 37, 49, 573
9. 9,14, 31-2, [34], 37; 10. 8,[12], τό,
[32], 38, 70, 74, 106, 125, [237], 2497};
11. 34-5, 56, 75, 86, 92, 107, 109, 111,
127-8, 137, 151; [175], 213, 215, 223,
220, 232, 247, 276, 2805 15. te
18, 30.
δεδιώς 10. 126?
δεῖν 6. 249, 361; [7. 100]; 9. 14; 12. 17.
δεινός 6. 113°, 422?
δεῖσθαι 6. 143, 219, 318, 335.
Δεκέλεια 6. 186.
δέσποινα [ 7. 102. |
δεύτερος 11. 39, (figure) 329.
δή 6. 4175 7-102; 8. 48; 10. τοι.
I. NEW CLASSICAL FRAGMENTS
δῆλος 6. 152, 193, 8033 11. 32.
δηλοῦν 7. 24.
Δημήτηρ 12. 25.
Δημόκριτος 9. 16.
δῆμος [6. 217. |
διά 6. 56 ?, 203, 239; 8.28; 10.[16?], 21,
108; 11. 86, 88, 96.
διαβάλλεσθαι 8. 51?
διαβολή 7. 211.
διαγανακτεῖν 6. 8 4.
διάγεσθαι 6. 559.
διακεῖσθαι 7. 82.
διακόσιοι 5. 32; 10. 66.
διαλέγεσθαι 7. 91.
διαλύειν 6. 333, 500; 11. 128.
διαπορεῖν 11. 166.
διαπράττεσθαι 8. 25.
διαρρήδην 7. 128.
διατελεῖν 10. 93.
διατιθέναι 6. 242?
διαφέρεσθαι . 23, 62, 100.
διαφθείρειν 7. 194; 10. 73.
διαφορά 6. 262; 8. 42.
διδόναι 5. 37; 6. 25?, 228, 248, 252, 271,
273,474; 7.1072; 10. 213.
δίδυμος 11. 92.
δικάζειν 6. 17, 254, 871; 7. 159.
δίκαιος 6. 553? δικαιότατος 10. 28?
6. 118, 506, 536.
δικαι[ 6. 416, 495.
δικαστήριον 11, 226.
δικαστής 6. 77, I14, 221, 369, 378, 384,
850; 7. 222.
δίκη 6. 103 ἢ, 184, 248.
Διονύσια 6. 330.
διορύττειν 7. 14, 23, 30, 40, 92.
Διώξιππος 7. 285.
δοκεῖν 6. 144, 479}, 510; 8. 7,13; 9.9.
δολιχός 10. 134?
δόξα 12. 31.
δόρυ 11. 41, 45, 48, 84.
δραχμή 6. 23, 167, 332; (symbol) 9. 31,
[37-8]. |
dvew 6. 250, 355.
δύναμις 6. 348.
δύνασθαι 6. τό, 34, 5383; 11. 51, 85.
δύο 6. 169, 297, 440; 11. 31, 116.
δυστυχέστερος 6. 226.
δυστυχία 6. 158,
δωρεά 6. 172.
δικαίως
δικαιότερον 6. 130.
223
ἐάν G. 477; Ἴ. τότ; 11. 94; 12. 32.
ἑαυτοῦ (αὑτοῦ) 6. 16, 80, 168, 177; 345, 3583
8. 5; 45.
ἑβδομήκοντα 6. 30.
ἕβδομος (figure) 11. 232.
ἔγγονος 11. 146.
ἐγώ 6. 256, 260, 269, 296, 315}, 335?, 337;
419, 442, 495. 510; 8. 13, 49, [82]; 11.
go; [12. 32]. ἡμεῖς 6. 261; 11. 30?;
12. 13.
ἐθέλειν 6. 552; 12. 28.
ἔθνος. [᾿ Εθνῶν] κτίσεις 11. 213.
εἰ 6. [115], 123, 224, 226, 230, 250, 296,
301, 351, 355, 494, 502; 7.[73], 187,
1945 8. 57; 11. 1905 12. 22.
εἰδέναι 7. 46.
εἴδωλον 9. 14.
εἰκός Θ. 252, 322, 344.
εἶναι 6. [114], 124, 141, 145, 149, 154, 168,
174, 194, 201, 244, 246, 251, 256, 277,
284, 327}; 337, 344, 356, 426, 480,
562; 7. 18, 54, 72, 221, 236, 341, 465:
8. 9, 49, 53, 573 9. 32; 10. 5» 59; 87, 93;
100; 11. 31, 43, 58, 75, 83, 96, 147,
170, 188; 12. 15, 17.
εἴπερ 10. 33.
cis 5. 31; 6. 93}, 165, [234], 260, [330],
346, 354, 489; 7. 284; 8. 42; 9. 13;
10. 6; 11. 224, 226.
εἷς 7. 191; [10. 238. ]
εἰσάγειν 11. 227.
εἰσιέναι 6. 234.
εἶτα 6. 201?
εἰωθέναι 7. 95.
ἐκ, ἐξ 6. 186, 285; 7.194; 10. 41, 58; 11.
59, 60; 12. 12.
ἕκαστος 6. 476; 9. 19.
ἑκατόν 10. 74.
ἔκγονος (eyyovos ΠῚ 11. 146.
ἐκδιδόναι 10. 34?
ἐκεῖ 9.9; 10. 103.
ἐκεῖνος 6. 63°, 704; 7. 27, 45, 68, 80, 228,
396; 8.36; 9. 10; 10. 18, 21, 31, 194?;
11. 59, 79; 12. 18-19. Cf. κεῖνος.
ἐκεῖσε 12. 27.
ἐκπλεῖν 5. 47 ἢ; 10. 40.
ἐκτίθεσθαι 11. 148.
ἐκτίνειν 6. 249, 300.
ἔκτισις 6. 490.
ἐκφεύγειν 6. 7.
224
"Enartos 11. 57.
ἐλάχιστος 6. 157.
ἐλευθεῖρ 7. 344.
᾿Ἐλευσίνια 12. 21.
Ἑλλάνικος 11. 212.
Ἑλλάς 10. 59.
Ἕλληνες 8. 127; 10. 24, 108, 192.
ἐλπίς 6. 198.
ἐμός 6. 258, 322.
᾿Ἐμπεδοκλῆς 9. 17.
ἐν 6. 11, 120, [370]; 9.13; 10. [88], 105;
11. 34, 36, 39, [73], 87, 103, 114, 120-1,
129, 213, [219], 229, 232, 280, [302].
ἐναντίος 6. 274, 534.
ἕνεκα 7. 71. ἕνεκεν 7. 17, 98.
ἐνθάδε 12. 26.
ἐνοχλεῖν 6. 263.
ἐντεῦθεν 6. 343.
ἐξαίφνης 6. 351; 10. 111?
ἐξελαύνειν 11. 125.
ἐξετάζειν [6. 343]; 7. 223.
ἑξης 11. 147.
ἐξουσία 7. 45.
ἐπαινεῖν 8. 20.
ἐπεί [6. 163. |
ἐπειδή 6. 13, 34, 1553 7. 419.
ἔπειτα 11. 58, 72.
ἐπί 6. 82, 146, 184, 188, 199, 337, 508;
7. 20,50; 9. 10-115 10. 43; 11. 236,
ἐπιδεικνύναι 6. 348.
ἐπίκουρος [6. 164. |
’Erixoupos 9. τό.
ἐπιμένειν 6. 156.
ἐπιπίπτειν 10. III?
ἐπιπλεῖν 6. 372.
ἐπιστολή 7. 289, 337.
ἐπιτήδειος 6. 658.
ἐπιτιθέναι 10. 14473 11. 82.
ἐπιτρέπειν 6. 135, 350.
ἐπιτροπή 6. 267.
ἐπίτροπος 6. 244.
ἐπιτυγχάνειν 8. 52?
ἐργάζεσθαι 6. 207, 719?
epyov 5. 31; 10. 17.
ἐρεῖν 6. 224, 329; 7. 66-7; 9. 14; 10. 36;
12. 34.
Ἑρμῆς 11. 126.
Ἕρμιππος 11. 119.
ἐρυθρός 11. 255.
ἔρχεσθαι 6. 60, 547.
ne SS ee
INDICES
ἔσχατος 6. 346; 1]. 245.
ἑταῖρος 6. 246, 257.
ἕτερος 6. 297-8, 302, 313, 322, 327, 338;
-.253Ὁ
ἔτος 6. 440; 18. passim.
εὐδαιμονεῖν 6, 153.
εὐδαιμονέστερος 6. 229.
εὐεργεσία 6, 178, 217.
evepyle 10. 255.
εὐλαβεῖσθαι 8. 47.
εὐνοῦχος [10. 130. |
Εὐριπίδης 11. 87.
εὑρίσκειν 6. 83; 8. 48; 12. 12.
εὐσεβής 12. 6.
εὐτυχία 6. 200.
εὐφημεῖν 8. 6.
εὔχεσθαι 11. 147.
ἔφοδος 10. οὔ.
ἐφορμᾶν 11. 78.
ἔχειν 6. 41, 198, 232, 207, 504, 553; 7. 44,
59,177, 221; 8. 79, [83]; 9. 31?, [37];
10. 44; 11. 63; 12. 5:
ἔχθρα 7. 71; 8. 43.
ἐχθρός 6. [190], 258, 320, 349, 359.
ἕως 6. [10], 152.
Ζεύς 5. 33; 7. 108, 216; 11. 76, [163 ].
ζηλότυπος 5. 29. ζηλοτύπως 8. 83.
ὧν 10. 106.
ζητεῖν 11. 94.
ζωγρεῖν 10. 75.
ἤ 6.[τ96], 228, 298--9,[360],362; 7. 65, 68;
8. 10, 12; 9. τ6-ἰὖ;; 11. 67, 170, [246].
ἡγεῖσθαι 6. 276, 506.
ἡγεμονία 10. 26?, 34?
ἤδη 6. 982; 11. 125.
ἡδονή 11. 246.
᾿ϊών 10. 43.
ἥκειν 6. 13}; 8. 41.
᾿Ηλεῖος 6. 168.
ἡλικία 6. 204.
ἥλιος 6. 250, 355-
ἡμέρα 6. 33, 93?
ἡμέτερος 6. 142.
ἥμισυς 6. 78, 822; (symbol) 9. 36.
ἦν (‘I said’) 8. 37, 49.
ἤπειρος 10. 95.
Ἡρακλῆς 11. 123.
ἡσυχία 7. 248.
II, NEW CLASSICAL FRAGMENTS
θάνατος 11. 150.
θαρσεῖν 11. 141.
Θεμιστοκλῆς 8. 3. 38, 84-5; 10. 7
Θεοδέκτης 11. 280?
Θεοζοτίδης (θεοδοτιδης ΠῚ 6. 249, 300.
Θεόμνηστος (a) 6. 240, 247, 255, 3421;
(ὁ) 7. 219.
θεός 11. 89, 95. θεοί 11. 74} ; 12. 30.
θεράπαινα 6. 238; 7. 60, τ i
Θεσπιεύς 18. 2.
θησαυρός 6. 81.
Θουκυδίδης 11. 115.
Θρᾷκες 11. 221.
θρασύς 7. 64.
Θρασωνίδης 5. 25.
θύειν [11. 74.}
᾿Ιαπετός 11. 120.
ἴδιος 7. 70.
ἱερεύς 12. 73, 81?
ἱερός 11. 59.
Ἰίεσθαι 7. 181.
wa [6. 144 |
ἱππικός 8. 12.
ἹἹπποθέρσης 6. 74?, 137, 147, 237-
immod 11. 346.
‘Inroperns 18. 9.
ἵππος 11. 124, 127.
ἱστάναι 7. 241; 11. 72.
ἱστορία 11. 54.
ἰσχύς 11. 63.
ἰσχυΐ 6. 886.
ἴσως 11. 84.
Ἴων 11, 121, 277?
καθαιρεῖν 6. 197.
καθάπερ 7. 95, 336?; 11. 45, 49, 167.
καθιστάναι 8. 46; 12. 15.
κάθοδος 6. 165.
καί. κ' =xai 11. 216,
12. 12. καὶ μήν 7. 58.
Καινεύς 11. 41, 46--", 55, 85.
Καινή 11. 56.
καίπερ 11. 171.
Καῖσαρ 12. 9, 11, 24, 32.
καίτοι 6. 118, 321.
κακός 5. 17.
καλεῖν 6. 483; 10. 57; 11. 107.
καλῶς 5, 27, 50; 7. 220; 8. 34; 12. 13.
Kapxndov 6. 370.
καὶ γάρ J. 187;
225
κατά 7. 81, 171, 192; 9. 16; 11. 80, 122.
κατάγειν 6. Igo.
καταγιγνώσκειν 7. 160.
καταδικάζειν 7, 215.
κατακοιμιστής 10. 131.
κατακόπτειν 11. 70.
καταλέγειν 11. 53.
καταλείπειν 10. 102.
κατασκευάζειν 6. 268 ; 7. 397.
καταφρονεῖν 6. 419; 7. 109.
καταφυγή 10. 230?
κατεπείγεσθαι 7. 30, 43.
κατέρχεσθαι 6. 12, 38, 42, 45, 118, 175-
κατέχειν 10. 123?
κατηγορία Ἴ. 224.
κατοπτρίζειν 9.19.
κάτοπτρον ϑ. ΤΟ.
κεῖνος 11. gt.
κελεύειν 6. 38, 235 3 7. 21, 214; (11. 74.]
Κένταυροι Li. 73, 78.
κεντεῖν 11, 66.
κηδεστής 7, 217.
Κίμων 10. 38, [62].
κινδυνεύειν 10. 71.
κίνδυνος 6. 346; 7. 72..
Κλείδικος (creodixos ΠῚ 18. 8.
κλήζειν 11. 162 a.
κλῆρος 6. 487, 491.
Κοάλεμος 1]. 107.
κόγχη 9. 30.
κοινωνός 6. 379.
κομίζεσθαι 6. 16?, 43, 173.
Κόρινθος 11. 88.
κρατεῖν 11. 47.
Κρατῖνος 11. 36.
κρίσις [6. 139.]
κριτής 11, 32.
Κρίτων 7. 220.
κτᾶσθαι 6. 44.
κτίσις 11. 214.
κύαθος 9. 27-8, 33-4.
Κύπρος [10. 65. |
κυριεύειν 7. 85.
κύριος J. 119?
Λακεδαιμόνιοι 8. 103.
λαμβάνειν 6. 79, 227, 298, [302], 339; 11.
266.
Λαμπροκλῆς 11. 170, 172.
Λαπίθαι 11. 70
226
λέγειν 5. 30?, 41}, 43-43; 6. 79, 131, 182,
340; 7. 47, 95, 193, 290, 3307; 8. 4,
[84]; 10. 7; 11. 37, 39, 55, 89, [120],
122, 175, 240; 12. 10, 17.
λειτουργεῖν 7. 20.
Λεωκράτης 18. 10.
λόγος 7. 335.
λογχοφόρος 10. 120 ἢ
λοιπός 6. 146, 149.
Λυκί[ 11. 251.
Λυκομήδης 10. 50.
Λυκόφρων 7. 28, 106, 160, 287.
λυπεῖν 6. 176.
Λυσίας 6. 36, 79, 136, 150, 211, 216?, 222.
Λύσιππος 11. 34, 301.
μαθητής 11. 172?
μάλιστα 11. 67.
μαρτυρεῖν 6. 371.
μαρτυρία 7. 217.
μάρτυς 6. 253, 272, 367, 374, 376, 380, 436,
[438 |, 477, 700-1, 828, 850.
μέγας 6. 328; 8.78; 9. 29, 30, 33; 10. 25,
269?; 11. 138,164. μέγιστος 6. 218; 8.
445-10. 23; 11. 63.
μεθιέναι 11. 222.
μεῖξις 11. 95.
μείων 6. 194?
Μελησίας (a) 11. 106; (ὁ) 11. 117.
μέλλειν 7. 85.
μεμνῆσθαι 6. 222.
μέν 6. ΤΙ, 39, 115, 122, 149, 152, 174; 184,
[227], 256, 301, 322, 338, 377, 502, 554:
7. 73, 80, 176?, 183, 194, 288; 9. 12;
10. 8, 19, 58, 71, 84, 102, 123; IL go,
[109], 112, 124; 12. 16.
Μένων 11. 114.
μέρος 6. 157; 9. 35-
μετά 6. 18, 35-6, 76, 187, 206; 10. 42;
12. 4, 7?
μεταίχμιον 11. 219?
μεταμέλησαν 6. 203.
μέτοικος 6, 154.
μή 6. 124, 225, 230, 243, 251, 296, 311,
487; 7..88, 163, 222, 445; 10. 126.
μηδέ 7. 447.
μηδείς 6. 5453 7. 43.
μηκέτι 7. 31.
μήν 7. 58.
μηνύειν 6. 319.
INDICES
Μίδων [11. 173 ?|
Μιθριδάτης 10. 130.
μικρός 9.34. Cf. μείων.
Μιλτιάδης 10. 39.
μίσγεσθαι 11. 57.
μισθός 6. 332?
μνᾶ 6. 248; 9. 36.
Mvaoeas 11. 128.
μόνος 10. 137; 12. 20. μόνον 6. 230, 243,
255 530; 7. 163; 11 το:
μουσικός 8. το.
Μύσιος 15. 699.
vai 5. 45.
Νάξιοι 11. 219?
ναυμαχία 10. ΤΟ, 13.
vais 6. 369, 387; 10. 73, 98, 267?
véos 12. I.
νὴ Δία 5. 33; 7. 108, 216.
νῆσος 10. 46.
Nixaevs 12. 14.
Νικόστρατος 6. 17.
νομίζειν 8. 49; 10. 94.
νόμος 6. 128.
νῦν 5. 30; 6. 181; 7. 80; 11. γο; 12. 9).
νυνί 6. 13, 194, 233, 257, 804.
νύξ 10. 105, 115?
Ξενοκ[λῆς] 6. 18.
ξένος 6. 168; 11. 236.
6. τὰ eis τὸν Τίμαιον 9. 13. πρὸ τοῦ 6. 256.
ὄγδοος 9. 35.
ὁδός 11. 127.
᾿οΟδυσσεύς 11. 272.
ὅθεν 7. 28; [10. 36.]
οἴεσθαι 6. 193; 8. 37; 12. 69?
οἰκεῖος 6. 337.
οἰκία 6. 44; 7.57, 84.
οἰκοδομεῖν Θ. 195.
οἷος 6. 430; 9. 15; 10. 26. οἷός περ 8. 3.
οἴχεσθαι 6. τι, 36, 61, 163, 185.
ὀκνεῖν 6. 317, 335-
ὀλίγος 6. 361; 11. 166.
Ὅλορος 11. 110.
ὅλος 7. 224; 11. 149.
᾽οΟλυμπία 7. 284.
ὁμιλία ἢ. τό.
ὅμοιος 6. 198. ὁμοίως 7. 33 11. 35.
7. NEW CLASSICAL FRAGMENTS
ὁμολογεῖν 6.95, 685; 7. 186.
᾿ομφάλη 11. 121.
ὀνειδίζειν 6. 180.
ὁποῖος 12. τό.
ὁπότερος 6. 138, 140.
ὅπου 10.’ 109.
ὅπως 7. 247.
ὁρᾶν 6. 266: 7. 81; 9. 11-12; 10. 197511. γ6.
ὀργή 6. 870.
ὀργίζεσθαι [6. 119. |
*Opéorns 11. 280.
ὄρθιος (ορειος ΠῚ 11. 80.
ὁρμᾶσθαι 6. τ86.
ὅρος 11. 124.
ὅς 5. 30; 6. 31, [45], 184, 207, 233, (536);
7. 00, 1847, 220, 334; 8. 46; 10. [9],
25, 46. 120; 12.11. (ΟἿ, οὗ.
ὅς, ἢ δ᾽ ὅς 8. 37.
ὅσιος 12, 7.
ὅσος 6. 234; 10. 58; 11. 184.
ὅσπερ 7. 79.
ὅστις 6. 357, 300, 363; 7.21; 8. 42.
ὁστισοῦν 6. 260. Cf. οὐδοτιοῦν.
ὅτε 6. 271, 329; 7. 230; 11. 65.
ὅτι 6. 149, 194, 481; 7. 24: 8. 83; 10. 8,
[33]; 11. 38,101, [115]; [12. 30. ]
οὐ, οὐκ, οὐχ 5. 28, 40; 6. 83, 325, 378, 801,
* 504, 552-3, 603; 7. 40; 8. 37; 9. 9,
614; 11. 45, 50, 58, ΤΟΙ, 166, 197, 239};
12. 5, 12, 17, 28, 30.
οὗ 10. rol.
ovykia (symbol) 9. 37.
οὐδαμῶς 7. 17.
οὐδέ 6. 14, [157], 172, 198, 203, 264, 294,
919; [12. 6?]
οὐδείς 6. [123], 171, 175; 7- 465; 11.
12. 29, 37.
οὐδέποτε 7. 54, 56, 112.
οὐδεπώποτε 6. 202.
οὐδέτερος 7. 1153 8. 20.
οὐδοτιοῦν 8. 22.
οὐκέτι 5. 24.
οὔκουν 7. 91.
οὐκοῦν 8. 15.
οὖν G. 220, 475, 403; 7. 212, 341: 8. 82;
9. 33. δ᾽ οὖν 12. 18. μὲν οὖν 6. 149?,
338; 9.12; 11: 112.
οὐσία 6. [9], 29, 245, 268.
οὔτε 6. 32, 43-4, 177, 179, 263; 7. 18, 24,
ΟΖ, 04: 237, 230; 8. 21, 27; 11. "Ὁ, 60:
60 ;
227
οὗτος 6. 5, 32, 43, 76, 81, 135, 140, 144, 171,
223, 225, 229, 259, | 261], 340, 354. 383,
489, 555, 558, 596?, 848; 7.14, 56, 62,
65, 67, 69, 79, 83, 89, 93, 99, 125, 214,
230; 8.53; 9.13; 11. 42, 69,[73], 76, 83,
86, [108], 118, 167, 225; 12. 2, 3,9, 377:
71. οὕτω(ς) 5. 39; 6. 242, 349, 357, 360,
418; 7%. 63; 8. 48; 11. 33, 5ύ, 115, 124,
165, 302.
οὐχί 11. 48.
ὀφθαλμός 7. 86.
παιδάριον 8. 46.
παιδεύειν 11. 118.
παιδίσκη 6. 492.
παῖς 5. ἡδὺ; 1]. 59, 163.
πάλιν 6. 568.
Παλλάς 11. 162, [176].
παντελῶς 6. ΤΡ1Ὁ
παρά 6. 79, 173, 216, 296, 298, 302, 315,
318, 327, [338], 5373 7. 45, 47, 65-8,
205; 10. 2703 11. 28, 87;.12. το, 20.
παραΐ 6. 21, 532; 10. 211.
παράδειγμα 12. 53.
παραθαλάττιος 10. 56.
παραλαμβάνειν 6. 91.
παράνομα 6. 458?
παραποιεῖν 11. 165 ἢ, 175.
παρασιωπᾶν 7. 69.
παρασκευάζειν 6. 358.
παρατάσσειν 10. 69.
παραχρῆμα 10. 60.
παρεῖναι 5, 22?
παρεκβαίνειν 10. 37.
παρέργως Ἴ. 223.
παρέχειν 6. 166, 170, 464.
παρθένος 11. 93.
Πάριοι 11, 226.
παριστάναι 6, 473?
παροίμιον 11. 243?
παροινεῖν Ἴ. 413?
Πάρος 11. 224?
πᾶς 6. 193, 241, [299?]; 7. 21, 421.
πάσχειν 6. 351, 3543 7. 88.
Παταρεύς 11. 129.
πατήρ 8. 39; 11. 108, 113.
πάτριος 6. 508.
πατρίς 6. 188.
πείθειν 6. τόρ, 257; 12. 33.
Πειραιεύς 6. 11.
Q2
228
Πελασγοί 10. 228.
Πέλοψ 11. 125.
πέμπειν [6. 165]; 7. 289.
πέμπτος 11. 152.
πενθεῖ 11. 139.
mevre 11. 35.
πεντήκοντα 6. 22; 10. 66.
περ. οἷός περ 8. 3.
περί 6. 140-1, 177, 179, 182, 230, 233,
334, 336, 352,649; 7. 401, 451; 8.[τ|,
4; 9. 12; 10. 6, το, 12, 64; 11, 40-1,
58, [103], 112, [130], 167, 215 7%, 225,
248, [281].
περιεῖναι 9, 21.
περίεργος 6. 276.
περιιστάναι 6. 947?
περιορᾶν 6. 345.
περιπίπτειν 10, 107.
Πέρσαι 10. 44, [64].
-«περσέπολις 11. 162, 176.
πέρυσι 6. 690?
πέτρη 11. 81.
πιθανός 7. 18, 94, 173; 236.
πιπράσκειν 6. 40.
πίστις 6. 472?
Πλάτων 11. 113...
πλῆθος 6. 37.
mrnoy 6. 823.
πλουσιώτατος 6. 153, 725-
Πλοῦτοι 11. 36.
πόθεν ‘J. 41.
ποιεῖν 6. 64, 192, 219, 275°, 287, 442; 1.
49, 392; 11. 61, 77; 12. 8, 14.
ποιητής 11. 119.
πολεμαδόκος 11. 162 ἃ.
Πολέμαρχος [ 6. 8. |
πολεμεῖν 11, 71.
πολέμιος 6. 187, 503; 10. 97.
Πολέμων [11. 102. |
πόλις 6. 142, 189; 7. 287; 8. 58; 10. 19,
21, [57].
πολίτης 6. 101, 201.
πολύς 6. 33, 71, [162], 206, 265, 544; 7:
86; 10. 7o-1, 101, 106; 11.49. πλείων
6. 470.
πόρρω 8. 40.
Ποσειδέων 11. 57, 61.
nore 8. 858; 10. 2; 11. 169.
πότερον 8, 7, 11; 11. 168.
πρᾶγμα 6. 139, 286, 433; 10. 126?
INDICES
πρᾶξις 6. 851; 10. 22, 194.
πράττειν 6. 137, 231, 259; 7. 230, 242.
πρίασθαι 6. 511.
πρίν 6. 250, 261.
πρό 6. 256; 7. 86.
προαγγέλλειν 10. 12.
προαιρεῖσθαι 7. 405?
mponkew 6. 354.
προθυμεῖσθαι 6, 145.
προθύμως Ἴ. 22.
προκεῖσθαι 11. 96.
πρός 6. 86, 23]. [241], 338, [389], 457,
460, 563; 7. 15, (19), 25» 61, 59, [98],
[209], 394; 8. 45; [83]; 10. 31, 50, 67,
98, 129; 11. 51?
ΡΥ ΑΙ ΕΙΣ ΠῚ δ. 38.
προσήκοντα 6, 148?
προσνέμειν 11. 173.
προσφέρεσθαι 7. 103.
πρότερον 7. 19; 8. ΤΟ, Τά.
προτίθεσθαι 7. 79?
πρόχειρος 7. 71
πρῶτος 12.15. πρῶτον 6. 121;
Πτολεμαῖος 11. 370?
πυνθάνεσθαι (10. 62. |
πῦρ 11. 195, 306.
πυρσός 10. 116?
πωλεῖν 6. 19, 123.
πώποτε 6. 175. *
πῶς 5. 41; 6. 321,
11, 94.
11. 265.
344, 538; 7. 173;
ῥῆμα 5. 42.
σαφής 5. 49?
σεαυτοῦ 8. 2.
σεμνύνειν 12. 9.
σῆμα 11. 82.
σίδηρος 11. 66.
σκηνή 10. 88.
σκῆπτρον 11. 44, 48.
σκοπεῖν 6. 384.
Σκῦρος 10. 46.
σοφώτατος 10. 27?
σπεύδειν 7. 238?
σπουδάζειν 10. 15.
Στέφανος 11. 106, 112, tai
στεφανοῦν 7. 286.
Στησίχορος 11. 169.
στόλος 10. 64.
Lf.
στρατεία 6. 574.
στρατεύειν 6. 189; 11. 248.
στρατηγεῖν 10. 39.
στρατηγός 10. 85.
στρατιώτης 10. 114?
otpar| 10. 136.
Στρυμών 10. 44.
συγγνώμη 6. 231.
συγγραφεύς 11. 109.
συγκεῖσθαι 6. 94.
συκοφαντεῖν 6. 53, 205; 7.331?
συλλαμϑάνειν 6. 28.
συμβάλλειν 6. 486?
σύμμαχος 10. 42.
συμπείθειν 10. 61.
συμπολιτεύεσθαι 7, 210.
ov 8.8; 11. 146; 12. τ. ὑμεῖς 6. 35, 134,
143-4, 150, 152, 173, 207, 220, 228, 234,
241, 328, 342, 371, 373}; 537) 554) 9233
7. τρο > 12. 34.
συμφορά 6. 80, 121, 155, 200.
συνειδέναι 6. 316?
συνεκδιδόναι 6. 323.
᾿ συνθήκη 6. 39, 45, 127.
συνοιϊκ 7, 118.
συντάσσειν 10. 65.
σφάλλειν [11. 50. |
σφόδρα 6. 349, 419.
σχεδόν 6. 241.
Σωκράτης 8. 6, 93, 156.
σῶμα 6. 352; 7. 32, 76?
Σωσιάἄδης 6. 923, 737?, 781?
σωφρονεῖν 7. 162, 185.
τάλαντον 6. 30, 170.
τάξις 7. 60.
τάχα 6. 475.
τε 6. [167], 259; 7. 110; 10. το.
τεῖχος 6. 195.
τεκμήριον 6. 328; 7. 212.
τέκνον 11. 93.
τελεῖν 12. 11, 19, 26, 36.
τέλεος 6. 201?
τελετή 12. 27.
τελευτί 6. 577-
τέλος 6. 170.
τετ(άρτη) 9. 31.
τετρακόσιοι. οἱ τετ. 6. 184.
τετταράκοντα 10. 68 ; 11. 33.
τέτταρες 11. 31.
NEW CLASSICAL FRAGMENTS
229
| τέως 7. 288.
| τηλικοῦτος 7. 53.
τίκτειν 11. 59 (rexev), 92.
Τίμαιος 9. 13.
τιμή 6. 14, 78; 10. 23.
τιμωρία 7. 80.
tis 5. 262; 6. 225, 228, (349), 357; 360,
362, 417; 7. 63, 97—-8?, 105, 212; [10.
τό, 2317]; 11. τ46.
τις 6. 351, 477, 494, 499, 694; 7. 89, 187;
10. 229; 11. 65, 84, 94.
τοίνυν 6. 34, 76, 301, 368, 377, 383.
τοιοῦτος 6. 120, 174, 183, 505; 8. 28, 42-3,
173; 9.15; 12. 29.
τοῖχος 7. 15, 30, 41, 93.
τόκος 6. 312, 314.
τολμᾶν 6. 260, 432.
τόπος 10. 135, 138.
τοσοῦτος 6. 347; 10. τό.
τότε 6. 10, 231; 10. 6; 11. 65.
τουτέστι 8. 53.
τρέπεσθαι 10. ττο.
τρέφειν 11. ττό.
τριάκοντα 6. 247.
τριακόσιοι 6. 164.
τριηραρχὶ 6. 724.
τρίτος 11. τιοῦ
τρόπος 6. 506.
oi tp. 6. 82, 122, 160.
| τυγχάνειν 6. 142, 681; 10. 121, 178.
τύχη 6. 350.
vids 11. [ 106], 110, [116].
ὑμέτερος 6. 37, 120, 158, 192, 199, 510.
ὑπέρ 6. 238, 555; 7- 184, 333; 8. 353
11. 389.
ὑπερβολή 7. 81, 171}.
ὑπερήμερος 6. 251, 356.
ὑπέχειν 7, 90.
ὑπό 6. [160], 182, 258, 313, [358]; 7. 412;
8. 38; 10. 19, 23, 102; 11. [52], 80,
282.
ὑπολαμβάνειν 7. 111; 10. 32, 99.
ὑπομένειν 7, 22.
ὑπομιμνήσκειν 10. 8.
φαίνεσθαι 5. 36; 6. 239; 9. 9.
φάναι 5. 45; 6. 302, 493-47; 8.6; 9.18;
11. 110, 114, '3762, 281; 12. 11. ;
φανερός 7. 330.
Φαρσάλιος 11. III.
230
φάσκειν 6. 298, 339,
φαῦλος 8. 35, 40, 56.
φέρειν 6. 86, 537.
Φερενδάτης 10. 86.
φεύγειν 6. 35, 163, 174, 183, 185, 427;
10. 98.
φίλιος 10. τοι.
φίλος 6. 256.
φιλοφρονέστερον 7. LOL?
φόβος 10. 112?
φρονεῖν 6. 195.
dporr| 6. 546.
Φρύνιχος 11, 160, 171.
φύλαξ 10. 104.
φωνεῖν 6. 660.
χαλεπῶς 6. 86.
χαλεπώτατος 10. 30.
χαλκός 11. 67.
Χαμαιλέων 11, 168.
Xdpurmos 7. 283.
χάρις 6. 172, [216].
Χάροψ (χαιος ΠῚ 18. 6.
χίλιοι 6. 331.
III.
Abas 30, 38.
abbreviations 22,95,97, 129—
30, 147, 189.
Academic school 94.
Achaeus 146.
Acrocorinthus 32.
Acusilaus 127-8, 141-3.
Aeschines 209-10.
Aeschines Socraticus 88—90,
118.
Agatharchides 111, 142.
Alcibiades 88-90.
Alcmaeon, archon 154.
Alexandria 151.
Alexandrian librarians 130-1.
Alexion 132.
amnesty in 403 B.C. 50.
440 ?, 466, 561, 703.
INDICES
χρεία 7. 27.
Χρέμης 7.57?
xen 6. 343.
χορηγεῖν 6. 32 9.
χρῆμα 6. 161, [167], 488; 11. 68.
χρῆσθαι 7. 213, 215.
χρ(ῆσις) 11..56 marg.
χρησμός 11. 130.
χρηστός 6. 145.
χρόνος 10. 70.
xpor| 6. 762.
χώρα 10. 214.
ψηφίζεσθαι 6. 139, 235, 388.
ψηφί 6. 791.
ὦ 6.77, [114], 220, ἼΩΝ 3171, 383, [859];
Flo VAGdi ee
8. 6, [50
ὠνεῖσθαι 8. 15, 40, 73, 119, 123?
os 6.
11g; 1147, 325, 360, [377], agen
7. το, 339; 9.17; 11. 43, 148.
ὥσπερ 6. 81, 252;
ὥστε 6. 193, 243, 355, 420;
10. 94; 11. 1874
8. 24, 51;
NOTES.
(The numbers refer to pages.)
(a) ENGLISH AND LATIN.
Anaschetus 78, 87.
Andreas 109.
Apollo 128, 143.
Apollodorus 90, 93.
Arad 25,
archons 154.
Arctinus 128, 145-6.
Argives 27, 30, 102.
Aristarchus 129, 131.
Aristides 151.
Aristodemus ror,
118-19, 122.
Aristophanes 1 28-9,1 46,165.
Aristophanes of Byzantium
130-1.
Artabanus
124-5.
1O7, 112,
102, 112, 118,
12. 20, 24.
7. 64, 463;
SUBJECTS DISCUSSED IN THE INTRODUCTIONS AND
Artaxerxes 99, 102,
118-19, 124-5.
Asclepiades of Myrlea 130.
Athenians 107, 126.
Augustus 150-1.
106,
Bacchylides 27-9.
Barbari Excerpta Latina
I --
Bellerophon 45.
Bithynia 150-1.
Boges 120,
book-form in papyri 6, 8, 10,
12,15, 19, 21, 155- le 162,
165, 168.
Boreas 145.°
Bucolic poets 169.
11. 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 100-1.
Carthage 51.
Cerberus 28, 31.
Chamaeleon 129, 147.
Charippus 75, 87.
Charon of Lampsacus 99.
Cimon 99-102, 107-8, 110,
112, 120-1, 126.
Clidicus, archon 155.
Clitarchus 105, 118.
comedy 127, 130-2, 140-1.
contractions 1, 3, 7, 8, 10,15,
19, 22, 24-5.
Corinth 27, 32, 45.
Crantor 95.
Cratea 46.
Cratinus, Πλοῦτοι 127, 141.
Cratippus 105, 109, I12.
critical marks 90, 129, 167,
187, 190.
Criton 78, 87.
Ctesias 105, 112, 125.
Cyprus 100, 102, 104, 106-7, |
115; 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 ὁ μουσικός 132.
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 (1)
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 94-6.
Eratosthenes 129-32, 146.
Euboea 100-1, 126.
Eudorus 95.
Euripides, ᾿Αλκμέων 6 διὰ
Κορίνθου 128, 143; Orestes
163-4.
Eurymedon 100-2,
110-12, 122.
Eusebius 154.
106,
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.
Ffellenica Oxyrhynchia 109-
£3:
Helots 102.
Heracles 28, 40, 145.
Heraclides 105, 107, 118.
Hermas papyri 15.
Hermippus, Japetus
130, 145.
Herodicus 132.
Herodotus 100, 109, 112-13,
I1g—20, 181-2.
hiatus 107, 120, 179, 210,
213-15.
Hippocrates 97.
Hippolytus 19.
Hippotherses 48-50.
homilies 21-5.
homoioteleuton 7, 15, 18.
horse-worship 151.
Hyperides 75-8.
128,
Ion, Omphale 128-9, 145.
Isocrates 108.
Jerome 154. f
judges at contests 127, 141.
Julius Caesar 150-1.
Justin 102, 107, 109, 112,
120, 124.
Lamprocles 129, 131, 146-7.
Lasus 27, 41-2.
Latin versions 2, 4, 6, 10-12,
ΤῈ,
liquid measures 95, 97-ὃ.
loan, action concerning 51.
logaoedic metre 28, 30.
Lycia 129.
Lycomedes 100, 121.
Lycophron 75-7, 86.
Lycurgus 75-6, τοι.
Lysias 48-50.
Lysippus, 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, 97-8.
Miltiades 108.
mina 95, 98.
ΤῊΪΓΓΟΙΒ 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
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.
Pentecontaétia 98-113.
Penthesilea 128, 145-6.
Perseus 30, 38-9.
Persians 99-102,
121-5.
Phanias 118.
Phanodemus ΤΟΙ, 105.
Pherendates ror, 106, 123.
Phorcys 30, 38.
Phrynichus 129, 131, 146.
Pindar, Dithyrambs 24-32;
Olympian odes 155-7. °
Plato 88, 90, 94-5, 199-201.
Plutarch 43, 89, 99, 100-1,
105-7, 100, 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.
105-6,
ἀθανασία 154.
ἀκναμπτεί 28, 45.
ἀναλαμβάνειν 86.
ἀναμνημίσκων 70.
ἀνεῖναι 154.
ἀνέχειν IOI.
ἀπείπασθαι 76.
ἀπολελυμένα 28, 31.
ἀφεῖκεν 147.
γραμματεύς 213.
διαγόμενος 74.
διαλέγεσθαι 77.
διορυχή 86.
INDICES
recensions, Tobit 1-6; Acts
10; Plato Ig9—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--00.
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, I10-II, I18—20,
125-6.
Theocritus 169-70.
(4) GREEK.
ἔγγονος 145.
ἐγενήθη 76, 86.
ἐδικαιεῦντο 182, 187.
εἴδωλα 94-6.
| εἰσαγγελία 75-6.
ἐκκολλᾶν 18.
ἔρκος ἅλμας 39.
ἐτηροῦσαν 25.
εὐάμπυξ 28, 39.
| Καινή 142.
| Καμβύσην 182, 188.
κάρυον 98.
κατοπτριζομένων 96.
Theodectes, Orestes 129,147.
Theomnestus (1) 48, 50-1,
735 (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 (1) the historian
g8-I00, 102, 106-7, 109—
13, 118-22, 128, 144-5,
Ig0-I, 194, 196-8; (2)
the politician 128, 144-5;-
(3) the Pharsalian 128,
144-5.
Tithraustes 123.
Tobit 1-4.
vellum codices 1, 23, 163,
194, 107.
women 25.
Xenophon 113.
Xerxes 99, 102, 106—7, 118—
19, 126.
Zeno of Citium 131.
| κεντοίη 143.
| κεραυνεῖν 23.
κίβδαλος 41.
Κοάλεμος 144.
κόγχη 95, 97-
κοχλιάριον 97.
κύαθος 91.
λογισταί 213.
μεθ(εγῖκαν 147.
μεταμέλησαν 71.
Μύσια ὀρχήματα 163.
μύστρον 98.
WI, SUBJECTS DISCUSSED IN INTRODUCTIONS AND NOTES 233
6 179. | πρῆχμα 182,
oi, of 38. πύλαι 42.
ὀπτάνεσθαι 4.
οὐχ ὅτι 3. ῥιψαύχην 43.
παρανόμων 73. σάν 41-2.
παρασιωπᾶν 76. στάσις 44.
Παταρεύς 145. σύμμικτα 132.
πατέρων 40.
περαιώσειν 107.
πλόκος 44--.5.
πολέα 45-
σῶμα 76-7.
ταπεινοφροσύνη 109.
τεκέν 143.
τετάρτη 91.
τύπανον 43.
φάμα (ἐστί) 44.
φύντα 25.
φύοντι 177.
| Φόρκος 38.
σχοινοτένεια 28, 41.
| χάρμα 45.
| χρῆμα 143.
χρῆσις 142.
Ιν. PASSAGES DISCUSSED:
PAGE
Acts xxvi. 7-8, 20 = 1597.
Aelian, Var. hist. ii. 12 4 Bir 05
Aeschines Jn Cis. 14-27 = 1625.
Aeschines Socrat. Fr. τ Krauss =
1608. 84 sqq.
Fr. 2 ΞΞ 1608. 82-4.
Frs. 3; 4 88, go
Agatharchides, De mare Eryth. 7 142
Anecd, Bekker p. 97. ‘ ; SESE 5)
Anecd. Oxon. ii. 452 142
Anecd. Parisinum de notts 142
Apollodorus 11]. 7. 4,7] . 143
Aristides i..325 Dindorf . a, 94
li. 292 88-90, 94
ii. 369 . 88-9
Aristodemus 10 118-19
Τὰ 2 122
Aristophanes, Clouds 967 = = 1611. 176,
Plutus 1-56 = 1617.
Athenaeus v. 220 b . 144
vi. 234d. : 144
Vill. 331 ἃ, &c. τ Τὴ
x. 448ς, 455 ὕπο. et ἢ
ΧΙ. 467 ἃ. ὃ i ee a
Bacchylides xiv : 28
Barbari Excerpta Latina (Schéne,
Euseb. Chron. App. 6) . 154-5
Catullus, dzys 9 42-3
Censorinus 9 . : : : Nahe.
Cicero, Brut. 204 : 107-8
Flortens. Fr. 12. 107
Ctesias Frs. 29-30 . 125
PAGE
Deuteronomy xxviil. 66 = 1600. 43-8.
Dio Cass. li. 20 : : . 149
lil. 36 a 154
Dio Chrys. xviii, p. 283 108
Diodorus iii. 12-48 . Sc) ii
Wel Esc : : * 107, 110
ἘΠ ΤΠ 119
19. 5 . 119
20. 4-. ᾿ . (eg, ae
54: 4 127
56. 7 126
56. 8 118
57: 3 125
iyi eae 126
58. 4-59 11Ὶ
δο. Shane 126
59. 2 99, 103, 119, 125-6
59-3. 99, 102-3, I19g—20, 125
59. 4 99-100, 103, 120
60. I-2 gg—100, 103, 120, 126
60. 4 IOI, 103, 121
60. 5-6 100-3, 121-2
61. 1--2 123, 126
61.3. . ΙΟΙ,108, 106,126
61. 4-6 IOI—2, 104, 123-4
62. 1 : 121
62. 3 . IOI—2, 122, 126
63.7 126
65. 4 126
68 ᾿ Ὲ : . 108
102, 104, 124-5
124-5
234
PAGE
Diodorus xi. 71. 1 124
ΧΙΙ-Χῖν 11
XIV. 9 109
EX (ie . - £08
Exc. Vat. viil. 24 109
Dionysius Halic., De comp. verb. ΤΑ 4g
Ecclesiasticus 1. I-9 = 1595.
Ephesians vi. 12. 23
Ephorus Frs. 107, τ eal rape 108
115 99, 106, 118
τι. . IOI, 106, 121-3
FHG iv. 642 108
Euripides, Orestes 53-61, 89-97 = 1616.
Eusebius, Chron. i. 188 Schéne 154-5
Eustathius, Homer A 264 142
1335: 52 - ; LA τι
Frontinus, S¢rateg. iv. ΠΣ 45 IOI, 122
Genesis vi. I. : 50
Hebrews xi. oth ae
Hermas, Shepherd, Sim. viii. 6. 4-8. 3
= 1599.
Herodian ii. 2 . : εἰν. Ὁ
Herodotus iii. 26-- τι = 1619.
vii. 107 5 100, 120
Vill. 75, I10 119
Hesychius, πέντε κριταί [41
Homer A 264. 142
Y 221 sqq. . . 2 45
Horace, Odes iv. 2. τὸ . 3 bis) vee
Hosea iii. 3 21. 25
Hyperides, ὑπὲρ Λυκόφρονος : 15, 795 86- -7
συνηγορικός - : . 77
Fr. 171 Blass . : - ΡΝ
Inscriptions, Brit. Mus. G.I. 1004, 1074 25
C.LA. ii. 804, 807. 78, 87
OG 55.6 147
Ion, Omphale Fr. 24 Nauck 145
Isaiah ΠΗ. a 21
Jerome (Schone, Euseb. Chron. App. 18)
54-5
joel 4.6, 8.."-- 25,23
John vi. 8-22 = 1596.
Justin iii. τ : 124
ix. I s ‘ 100
Lucretius ii. 611 : ’ 163
Lycurgus, Contra Leocratem 72 122
Lysias xii. τῇ. : : S 7g
Gs. ς ὲ : . 7O-I
XXvili ; d : eS
INDICES
PAGE
Lysias Fr. 122 Sauppe 48, 69
123 . - 48, 69, 73
310 51, 73
περὶ τῶν ἰδίων εὐεργεσιῶν. 70
Marcellinus, ΚΓ. Thuc. 16-17 .« 144
28 144
Menander, Μισούμενος 26 . 47
Fr. τι Koerte. 46
4. ΟΝ 41
Περικειρομένη 408-ο. AT
P. Berlin Ῥ 46
MetrologiciScriptores (Hultsch)i. 75-6,
_ 235, 238, 256 97
1. 234,243. 98
il. 198-9 . 98
Nepos, Zhemist. 1 ; ν 93
9 118
Cimon 2 122
Nonnus, Dionys. iv. 28 saa 44
Numbers xxi. 1-3. 25
Papyri, P. Brit. Mus. 128 . 180
P.-Oxy..120 106
1012 132
1076 I-4
1241. il. 15 .) 25
1376 109-11, 113
Mirek d. Berl. Akad. ΓΟ 46
1 Peter v. 8 23
2 Peterii.4 . : « 3 τ
Phlegethon ΕἾ. 34 142
Photius, Πύθου 145
Pindar, Οἱ. i-ii, vi-vii — 1614,
Py. αἰ. 85. 3) ΟΣ «Ὁ 36
Fr. 71 Schroeder . ὌΠ
74b - ‘ ΡΞ
18 - 27-8, 40, 42
79a = 1604. II. 1-3.
aba II, 8-1.
80. : ; > ae
81. : : : 31, 40
167 142
168-9 . ς . 30
208 = 1604. II. 13- 11:
249 31; 40
254 39
284 : 38
Plato, Hipp. maior 283d . : 93
Meno 74c = 1611. 115-19.
Philebus 624. ς 86
IV. PASSAGES DISCUSSED 235
PAGE | PAGE
Plato, Profag. 337 b-357 a = 1624. Schol. Pindar, Οἱ. ii. 43. ὃ . 161
Με. 3386. : ΠΕ: ο΄. : ΜΕ
Timaeus τ Ὁ, 72. : - 96 ve Ae : . I61
Pliny, Wat. Hist. viii. 155 : τ ἢ Py. ii. 80 : ον 8Ὁ
Plutarch, Zhemzs/. 2 P ᾿ π 93 Plato, «4 τό. i. 48). ‘ . 147
12 : 5 119. | Sophocles, Ajax 694-705, 753-64=
27 - ; oo LEDS 1615.
28 : ὃ - 110 | Stobaeus, ZZ. ii. 46 ¢ : Ea | Y=
Cimon 4. : ᾿ 144 | Strabo x. 466. : : : . 568
eae : . 120, 126 469. Σ ξΞ . . 41-2
Ste A - 121, 141 | Suetonius, /v/. 61 . Ε Υ eae
ΤΡ. ἢ ὲ IOI, 121-3 Aug. 52. ‘ : . 149
eae : : 123-4 | Suidas, Mvacéas Σ : : . 1380
X ογαί. 835e . : τ (δ Nvou . : : : . 163
SSB his. ἐν 69-70 Πολέμων ἢ : : . 130
84,4. : a ae Σέλευκος : 132
2) πα. τὸ. : - .28 | Syncellus i. 368, 399 Dindorf . ρας 5
Polemon (FHG. iii) Fr. 4. . . 144 | Tacitus, Azz. iv. 37 . 149
47-8. - 131 | Theocritus, /d. v, vii, xv — 1618.
78 : Bae | Theopompus Fr. 28 Grenfell- Hunt? [11
Polyaenus, S¢raveg. 1. 34. I a. POs, 122 go ὃ Pee eis
Polybius iii. 113 : : : τ (FOF 217, 283 : « tee
xii. 28 : . 107 | 1 Thessal.iv. 13-2 Thess. i. 2 = 1598.
Psalm ii. 1 = 1600. 49- 55. Thucydides i. 11-14 = 1620.
mili. 22). : pia bag 08. ἡ. «οὐ FOF, 120, 126
Schol. Aeschines, De fals. ke. τὴ ον ἢ Ιοο. : : . 122
75 ἴδε τ τ. B13 ey τς : : 118-19
Apollon, Rhod.i. 59 3. [28,142 Tests ae ὃ 50
Aristides 217 Dindorf . 128, 146 1 BE, 9a = 1621.
Arist. Birds 445. 141 65, 67 = 1622.
Clouds 967 . _128, “146-4 lil. 7-9 = 1628.
Hesiod, Zheog. 117 : . 145 | Tobit xii. 14-19 = 1594.
Homer A 264 : - 128,142 | Virg. Aen.ix. 619 . : : = he
Lucian, Gall. το. : . 142 | Zenobius, Cenz, iii. 64 3 ὃ τ
᾿ΡΙηάδτ, O11. 115. . : τ FOS
PLaTE |
oj9a4 FOSI ὋΝ
wy d
ae, 12 5 «2 53 .
yet ahead dette
IN Ine εν τς
OS pel γι sideg Le
ety at irle ANE
ra AF 42.772,
i elit a kk ας στ
MH oc
{ΠῚ
ν
eh δὰ
No. 1606, Fr. 6, Cols. i-ii
PuaTE III
No. 1610. Fr. 15
No. 1610. Fr. No. 1610. Fr. 6 i
>
“"
a
4
ms
PLaTe FV
x
1618. Col.
5
.
No
No. 1615 recto
ili
ii-
Cols.
No 1622.
oe
!
TEKECNY?
a ~« Tere
Aine a _ TRIE ATE
“ner N Jad
ἘΣ x {ΡῈ teal
δ) π {πὲ ore
“ὦ τοῦ τὸν senate wc Ar TWH eek ἣν
Te cAI Ont PEt ico MENOCTHLGL
No. 1621 verso
ae ει ae cAAAB CHA
͵ ALG
Piate VI
No. 1624. Cols. Lxill-iv a ves
EGYPT EXPLORATION FUND
GRAECO-ROMAN BRANCH.
WE EGYPT EXPLORATION FUND, which has conducted Archaeological research
in Egypt since 1882, in 1897 started a spectal department, called the Graeco-Roman
Branch, for the discovery and publication of remains of classical antiquity and early
Christianity in Egypt.
The Graeco-Roman Branch issues annual volumes, cach of about 250 quarto pages, with
facsimile plates of the more important papyrt, under the editorship of Prors. GRENFELL and
Hunt.
A subscription of One Guinea to the Graeco-Roman Branch entitles subscribers to the annual
volume, and to attendance at the Fund's lectures in London and elsewhere. A donation of L25
constitutes life membership. Subscriptions may be sent to the Honorary Treasurers—for
England, Mr. J. Grarton Mine, 13 Tavistock Square, London, W.C. 1; and for America,
Mr. Cuester I. Camppett, 503 Zremont 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 EpouARD NAVILLE. ‘Thirteen Plates and Plans. (Fourth and Revised
Edition.) 255.
Il. TANIS, Part I. For 1884-5. By W. M. Frinpers Petri. Eighteen Plates
and two Plans. (Second Edition.) 255.
III. NAUKRATIS, Part I. For 1885-6. By W. M. Frinvers ΡΕΤΕΙΕ. With
Chapters by CecIL SMITH, ERNEST A. GARDNER, and BARCLAY V.HEAD. Forty-four Plates
and Plans. (Second Edition.) 255.
IV..GOSHEN AND THE SHRINE OF SAFT-EL-HENNEH. For 1886-7.
By EpouarpD NaVILLE. Eleven Plates and Plans. (Second Edition.) 255.
V. TANIS, Part Il; including TELL DEFENNEH (The Biblical ‘ Tahpanhes ’)
and TELL NEBESHEH. For 1887-8. By W.M. FLINDERS PETRIE, F. Li. GRIFFITH,
and A.S. Murray. Fifty-one Plates and Plans. 25s.
VI. NAUKRATIS, Part II. For 1888-9. By Ernest A. Garpner and F. Lt.
GRIFFITH. Twenty-four Plates and Plans. 255.
VII. THE CITY OF ONIAS AND THE MOUND OF “THE "JEW... The
Antiquities of Tell-el-Yahidiyeh. Ax Zxtra Volume. By Epovarp NAVILLE and
F. Lt. GRIFFITH. Twenty-six Plates and Plans. 255.
R
VIII.
XIII.
XIV.
XV.
XVI.
XVII.
XVIII.
XIX.
XX.
ΧΧΙ.
XXII.
XXIII.
XXIV.
XXV.
XXVI.
XXVII.
XXVIII.
XXIX.
XXX.
XXXI.
XXXII.
XXXII
XXXIV.
XXXV
XXXVI.
BUBASTIS. For 1889-90. By Epovarp Navitie. Fifty-four Plates. 255.
. TWO HIEROGLYPHIC PAPYRI FROM TANIS. Ax Exira Volume.
Containing THE SIGN PAPYRUS (a Syllabary). By F. Li. GrirrirH. THE
GEOGRAPHICAL PAPYRUS (an Almanac). By W. M. FLINDERS PETRIE. With
Remarks by HEINRICH BRUGSCH. (Out of print.)
. THE FESTIVAL HALL OF OSORKON II (BUBASTIS). For 1890-1.
By EpouarD NAVILLE. Thirty-nine Plates. 255.
. AHNAS EL MEDINEH. For 1891-2. By Epovarp Navitz. Eighteen
Plates. And THE TOMB OF PAHERI AT EL ΚΑΒ. By J. J. Tytor and F. Lt.
GRIFFITH. Ten Plates, 255.
. DEIR EL BAHARI, Introductory. For 1892-3. By Epovarp Navixte.
Fifteen Plates and Plans. 255.
DEIR EL BAHARI, Part I. For 1893-4. By Epovarp Navitie. Plates
I-XXIV (three coloured) with Description. Royal folio. 30s.
DEIR EL BAHARI, Part II. For 1894-5. By Epouarp Navitte. Plates
XXV-LV (two coloured) with Description. Royal folio. 30s.
DESHASHEH. For 1895-6. By W.M.Fiinpers Petriz. Photogravure and
other Plates. 255.
DEIR EL BAHARI, Part III. For 1896-7. By Epnovarp Navirre. Plates
LVI-LXXXVI (two coloured) with Description. Royal folio. 30s.
DENDEREH. For 1897-8. By W. M. Friinpers Petrie. Thirty-eight Plates.
25s. (Extra Plates of Inscriptions. Forty Plates. ios.)
ROYAL TOMBS OF THE FIRST DYNASTY. For 1898-9. By W. M.
FLINDERS PETRIE. Sixty-eight Plates. 255.
DEIR EL BAHARI, Part IV. For 1899-1900. By Epovarp Navitte.
Plates LXXXVII-CXVIII (two coloured) with Description. Royal folio. 305.
DIOSPOLIS PARVA. An Extra Volume. By W. M. Fiinpers Peretz.
Forty-nine Plates. (μέ of print.)
THE ROYAL TOMBS OF THE EARLIEST DYNASTIES, Part II. For
1900-1. By W. M. FLINDERS PETRIE. Sixty-three Plates. 255. (Thirty-five extra
Plates, Ios.)
ABYDOS, Part I. For 1901-2. By W.M.F. Perris. Eighty-one Plates. 255.
EL AMRAH AND ABYDOS. 45 Extra Volume. By Ὁ. Ranpatu-Maclver,
A. C. MAcE, and F. LL. GRIFFITH. Sixty Plates. 255.
ABYDOS, Part II. For 1902-3. By W.M.F. Petrie. Sixty-four Plates. 255.
ABYDOS, Part III. An Extra Volume. By C. T. Curretty, E. R. Ayrton,
and A. E. P. WEIGALL, &c. Sixty-one Plates. 255.
EHNASYA. For 1903-4. By W. M.Firypers Perriz. Forty-three Plates, 255.
(ROMAN EHNASYA. Thirty-two extra Plates. 10s.)
DEIR EL BAHARI, Part V. For 1904-5. By Epouvarp Navitte. Plates
CXIX-CL with Description. Royal folio. 3os.
THE ELEVENTH DYNASTY TEMPLE AT DEIR EL BAHARI, Part I.
For 1905-6. By Epouarp NAVILLE and H. R. HALL. Thirty-one Plates. 255.
DEIR EL BAHARI, Part VI. For 1906-7. By Epovarp Navitte. Plates
CLI-CLXXIV (one coloured) with Description. Royal folio. 30s.
THE ELEVENTH DYNASTY TEMPLE AT DEIR EL BAHARI, Part IL.
For 1907-8. By EDOUARD NAVILLE. Twenty-four Plates. 255.
PRE-DYNASTIC CEMETERY AT EL MAHASNA. For 1908-9. By
E. R. AyRTON and W.L.S. LoatT. 25s. ‘
THE ELEVENTH DYNASTY TEMPLE AT DEIR EL BAHARI, Part III.
For 1909-10. By EpouARD NAVILLE, H.R. HALu, and C, T. CURRELLY. Thirty-six
Plates. 255.
. CEMETERIES OF ABYDOS, Part I. For 1910-11. By Epovarp NavittE,
T. E. PEET, and H.R. HALL. 25s.
CEMETERIES OF ABYDOS, Part II. For 1911-12. By T. E. Perr. 255.
. CEMETERIES OF ABYDOS, Part III. For 1912-13. By T. E. Peer
and W.L.S. LoaT. 25s.
INSCRIPTIONS FROM SINAI, Part I. For 1913-14. By A. H. Garpiner
and T. E. PEET. 355.
ARCHAEOLOGICAL SURVEY.
Edited by F. Li. GRIFFITH.
I. BENI HASAN, Part I. For 1890-1. By Percy E. Newserry. With Plans
by G. W. FRASER. Forty-nine Plates (four coloured). (Ozt of print.)
II. BENI HASAN, Part Il. For 1891-2. By Percy E. Newperry. With Appendix,
Plans, and Measurements by G. W. FRASER. Thirty-seven Plates (two coloured). 255.
11. EL BERSHEH, Part I. For 1892-3. By Percy E. Newserry. Thirty-four
Plates (two coloured). 255.
IV. EL BERSHEH, Part II. For 1893-4. By F. Lu. Grirrity and Percy E.
NEWBERRY. With Appendix by G. W. FRASER. Twenty-three Plates (two coloured). 255.
V. BENI HASAN, Part II. For 1894-5. By F. Lu. Grirrirn. (Hieroglyphs,
and manufacture, &c., of Flint Knives.) Ten coloured Plates. 255.
VI. HIEROGLYPHS FROM THE COLLECTIONS OF THE EGYPT
EXPLORATION FUND. For 1895-6. By F. LL. GRIFFITH. Nine coloured Plates. 255.
VII. BENI HASAN, Part IV. For 1896-7. By F. Li. Grirriru, (Illustrating
beasts and birds, arts, crafts, &c.) Twenty-seven Plates (twenty-one coloured). 255.
ΝΠΙ. THE MASTABA OF" PrAHHETEP AND AKHETHETEP AT
SAQQAREH, Part I. For 1897-8. By NoRMAN DE G. Davies and F. Lu. GRIFFITH.
Thirty-one Plates (three coloured). 255.
IX. THE MASTABA OF PTAHHETEP AND AKHETHETEP, Part II.
For 1898-9. By N. DE G. DaviEs and F. Lu. GRIFFITH. Thirty-five Plates. 255.
X. THE ROCK TOMBS OF SHEIKH SAID. For 1899-1900. By N. pEG.
DaviEs. Thirty-five Plates. 255.
XI. THE ROCK TOMBS OF DEIR EL GEBRAWI, Part I. For 1900-1. By
N. DE G. Davigs. ‘Twenty-seven Plates (two coloured). 255.
XII. DEIR EL GEBRAWI, Part II. For 1901-2. By N. pe G. Davies. Thirty
Plates (two coloured). 265s.
XIII. THE ROCK TOMBS OF EL AMARNA, Part I. For 1902-3. By N. veG.
Davies. Forty-one Plates. 255.
XIV. EL AMARNA, Part II. For 1903-4. By N. pz G. Davis. Forty-seven Plates. 25s.
XV. EL AMARNA, Part III. For 1904-5. By N.peG.Daviss. Forty Plates. 255.
XVI. ELAMARNA, Part IV. For 1905-6. By N. pe G. Daviss. Forty-five Plates. 255.
XVII. EL AMARNA, Part V. For 1906-7. By N. pe G. Davirs. Forty-four Plates. 255.
XVIII. EL AMARNA, Part VI. For 1907-8. By N. pe G. Davirs. Forty-four Plates. 25s.
XIX. THE ISLAND OF MEROE. By J. W. Crowroot, and MEROITIC
INSCRIPTIONS, Part I. For 1908-9. By F. Lt. GrirFiTH. Thirty-five Plates. 255.
XX. MEROITIC INSCRIPTIONS, Part II. For 1909-10. By F. Ly. Grirritn.
Forty-eight Plates. 255.
XXI. FIVE THEBAN TOMBS. For 1910-11. By N. pEG. Davirs. Forty-three
Plates. 25s.
XXII. THE ROCK TOMBS OF MEIR, Part I. For 1911-12. By A. M. Bracx-
MAN. Thirty-three Plates. 255.
XXIII. MEIR, Part 11. For 1912-13. By A. M. Bracxman. Thirty-five Plates. 255. _
XXIV. MEIR, Part III. For 1913-14. By A. M.Bracxman. Thirty-nine Plates. 25s.
XXV. MEIR, Part IV. For 1914-15. (Jn preparation.)
GRAECO-ROMAN BRANCH.
THE OXYRHYNCHUS PAPYRI, Part I. For 1897-8. By B. P. Grenrety
and Α. 5. Hunt. Eight Collotype Plates. (Ομέ of print.) ᾿
. THE OXYRHYNCHUS PAPYRI, Part 11. For 1898-9. By B. Ρ. GRENFELL
and A. 5. Hunt. Eight Collotype Plates. 255.
. FAYUM TOWNS AND THEIR PAPYRI. For 1899-1900. By B. P. GRENFELL,
A. 5. Hunt, and Ὁ. G. HoGartuH. Eighteen Plates. 255.
. THE TEBTUNIS PAPYRI. Double Volume for 1900-1 and 1go1-2. By B. P.
GRENFELL, A. S. Hunt, and J. G. SMyLy. Nine Collotype Plates. (ot for sale.)
THE OXYRHYNCHUS PAPYRI, Part III. For 1902-3. By B. P. Grenrey
and A.S. Hunt. Six Collotype Plates. 25s.
VI. THE OXYRHYNCHUS PAPYRI, Part IV. For 1903-4. By B. P. GRENFELL
and A.S. Hunt. Eight Collotype Plates. 25s.
VII. THE HIBEH PAPYRI, Part I. Double Volume for 1904—5 and 1905-6. By
B. P. GRENFELL and Α. 5. Hunt. Ten Collotype Plates. 45s.
VIII. THE OXYRHYNCHUS PAPYRI, Part V. For 1906-7. By B. P. Grenretr
and Α. 5. Hunt. Seven Collotype Plates. 255.
IX. THE OXYRHYNCHUS PAPYRI, Part VI. For 1907-8. By B. P. GRENFELL
and A.S. Hunt. Six Collotype Plates. 255.
X. THE OXYRHYNCHUS PAPYRI, Part VII: . For rg08-9. By A. S. Hunt.
Six Collotype Plates. 255.
XI. THE OXYRHYNCHUS PAPYRI, Part VIII. For rg09-10. By A.S. Hunt.
Seven Collotype Plates. 255.
XII. THE OXYRHYNCHUS PAPYRI, Part IX. For 1910-11. By A. 5. Hunt.
Six Collotype Plates. 255.
XIII. THE OXYRHYNCHUS PAPYRI, Part X. For 1911-1τ2. By B. P. GRENFELL
and Α. 5. Hunt. Six Collotype Plates. 255.
XIV. THE OXYRHYNCHUS PAPYRI, Part XI. For 1912-13. By B. P. GREnFELy
and A. 5. Hunt. Seven Collotype Plates. 255.
XV. THE OXYRHYNCHUS PAPYRI, Part XII. For 1913-14. By B. P. GRENFELL
and Α. 5. Hunt. Two Collotype Plates. 255.
XVI. THE OXYRHYNCHUS PAPYRI, Part XIII. For 1914-15. By B. P. GRenrett
and A.S. Hunt. Six Collotype Plates. 255.
XVII. THE OXYRHYNCHUS PAPYRI, Part XIV. (Jn preparation.)
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 meat By E. NavILte, P. E. NEWBERRY, and G. W. FRASER. 25. 6d.
For 1892-3 and 1893-4.- 25. 6d. each
» 1894-5. 35. 6d. Containing Report of Ὁ. G. HoGarTH’s Excavations in Alexandria.
», 1895-6. 3s. With Illustrated Article on the Transport of Obelisks by EDOUARD NAVILLE.
», 1896-7. 25. 6d. With Article on Oxyrhynchus and its Papyri by B. P. GRENFELL.
», 1897-8. 25.6d. With Illustrated Article on Excavations at Hierakonpolis by W. M. F. PETRIE.
1898-9. 25. 6«. With Article on the Position of Lake Moeris by B. P. GRENFELL and A. 5, Hunt.
And thirteen successive years, 25. 6d. each.
A JOURNAL OF EGYPTIAN ARCHAEOLOGY (issued Quarterly) commenced
January, 1914. 6s.a part, or £I 15. a year to Subscribers.
SPECIAL PUBLICATIONS.
ΛΟΓΊΑ ΙΗΣΟΥ : ‘Sayings of Our Lord,’ from an Early Greek Papyrus. By B. P. GRENFELL
and Α. 5. Hunt. 25. (with Collotypes) and 6d. net.
NEW SAYINGS OF JESUS AND FRAGMENT OF A LOST GOSPEL. By
B. P. GRENFELL and A. 5. HunT. 15. net.
FRAGMENT OF AN UNCANONICAL GOSPEL. By B. P. Grenret and A. 5.
HUunrT. Is. net.
COPTIC OSTRACA. By W. E. Crum. τος. 6d. net.
THE THEBAN TOMB SERIES, Vol. 1. THE TOMB OF AMENEMHET (No. 82).
By Nina DE G. DAvies and A. H. GARDINER. 305.
Slides from Fund Photographs may be obtained through Messrs. Newton & Co., 37 King Street,
Covent Garden, W.C. 2.
Offices of the Egypt Exploration Fund:
13 TAVISTOCK SQUARE, LONDON, W.C. 1, AND
503 TREMONT TEMPLE, BOSTON, MASS., U.S.A.
Agents:
BERNARD QUARITCH, 11 GRAFTON STREET, NEW BOND STREET, W. 1
HUMPHREY Rees OXFORD UNIVERSITY PRESS, REEL CORNER, "EC. 4 AND
5’ WEST 32ND STREET, NEW YORK, U.S.A.
C. F. CLAY, ‘CAMBRIDGE UNIVERSITY PRESS, FETTER LANE, E.C. 4
KEGAN PAUL, TRENCH, TRUBNER & Co., 68-74 CARTER rane E.C. 4
GEORGE SALBY, 65 GREAT RUSSELL STREET, W.C.
. on
ἢ
a ? 4
RN
mer,
te e
yj Fes
beens
=< ioe
» 4
ΩΣ ΤΎτς.
earns
|
|
—
Mit
4 0184
I
|
in
iit
ll
᾿
UNI
2288
3 1197
”
i
{ -
; .
A
‘ .
i
Pie
ke
νὰ ers :
ἢ
τ
» ᾿ rs -
Γι , Ὁ
ν .
Ῥ ν᾿ 5
Σ ry . ὦ
‘ ΠῚ « #
, 5 io at
i he "
> ~ .
: : wry
is ~ e
Z
‘
7 τ 2
‘ £3
, < 4 - Li w
, . a
1
.
‘ 2
,
2
΄
Ν᾽ -
Live Music Archive
Librivox Free Audio
Metropolitan Museum
Cleveland Museum of Art
Internet Arcade
Console Living Room
Books to Borrow
Open Library
TV News
Understanding 9/11