(navigation image)
Home American Libraries | Canadian Libraries | Universal Library | Community Texts | Project Gutenberg | Biodiversity Heritage Library | Children's Library | Advanced Microdevices Manuals | Linear Circuits Manuals | Supertex Manuals | Sundry Manuals | Echelon Manuals | RCA Manuals | National Semiconductor Manuals | Hewlett Packard Manuals | Signetics Manuals | Fluke Manuals | Datel Manuals | Intersil Manuals | Zilog Manuals | Maxim Manuals | Dallas Semiconductor Manuals | Temperature Manuals | SGS Manuals | Quantum Electronics Manuals | STDBus Manuals | Texas Instruments Manuals | IBM Microsoft Manuals | Grammar Analysis | Harris Manuals | Arrow Manuals | Monolithic Memories Manuals | Intel Manuals | Fault Tolerance Manuals | Johns Hopkins University Commencement | PHOIBLE Online | International Rectifier Manuals | Rectifiers scrs Triacs Manuals | Standard Microsystems Manuals | Additional Collections | Control PID Fuzzy Logic Manuals | Densitron Manuals | Philips Manuals | The Andhra Pradesh Legislative Assembly Debates | Linear Technologies Manuals | Cermetek Manuals | Miscellaneous Manuals | Hitachi Manuals | The Video Box | Communication Manuals | Scenix Manuals | Motorola Manuals | Agilent Manuals
Search: Advanced Search
Anonymous User (login or join us)
Upload
See other formats

Full text of "The Oxyrhynchus papyri"

LIBRARY 

Brigham Young University 



a- 196537 

4 No. 



Digitized by the Internet Archive 
in 2010 with funding from 
Brigham Young University 



http://www.archive.org/details/oxyrhynchuspapyr15gren 



THE 

OXYRHYNCHUS PAPYRI 

PART XV 

GRENFELL AND HUNT 



3 "MS 

EGYPT EXPLORATION SOCIETY 

THE 

OXYRHYNCHUS PAPYRI 

PART XV 

EDITED WITH TRANSLATIONS AND NOTES 



BERNARD P. GRENFELL, D.Litt. 

PROFESSOR OF PAPYROLOGY IN THE UNIVERSITY OF OXFORD, AND FELLOW OF QUEEN'S COLLEGE 

FELLOW OF THE BRITISH ACADEMY 



ARTHUR S. HUNT, D.Litt. 

PROFESSOR OF PAPYROLOGY IN THE UNIVERSITY OF OXFORD, AND FELLOW OF QUEEN'S COLLEGE 
FELLOW OF THE BRITISH ACADEMY 



WITH FIVE PLATES 



196537 



LONDON 

SOLD AT 

The Offices of the EGYPT EXPLORATION SOCIETY, 13 Tavistock Square, W.C. ι 
and 503 Tremont Temple, Boston, Mass., U.S.A. 

BERNARD QUARITCH, 11 Grafton Street, New Bond Street, W. ι 
HUMPHREY MILFORD, Amen Corner, E.C. 4, and 29 West 32ND Street, New York, U.S.A. 

C. F. CLAY, Fetter Lane, E.C. 4 
KEGAN PAUL, TRENCH, TRUBNER & CO., 68-74 Carter Lane, E.C. 4 
GEORGE SALBY, 65 Great Russell Street, W.C. 1 

1922 
All rights reserved 



PRINTED IN ENGLAND 

AT THE OXFORD UNIVERSITY PRESS 

BY FREDERICK HALL 



PREFACE 

Owing to the large compass of the Byzantine documents intended 
for this volume, it was found advisable to reserve them for a separate 
Part (XVI), which will probably be issued in the course of 1922 ; the 
present instalment therefore, like Parts XI and XIII, consists of 
literary texts alone. The more extensive of these, including 1787-90, 
1792, 1798, 1800, 1805-β, 1808, 1810, belong mainly to the second large 
literary find of 1 905-6 ; others proceed from the work of different 
seasons, and a few, of which the most important are 1786 and 1793, were 
acquired by purchase on the site of Oxyrhynchus by Professor Grenfell 
during his visit to Egypt in the winter of 1919-20. 

That unfortunately remains my colleague's chief contribution to 
the following pages : a few of the minor texts were originally copied by 
him, and he was able to revise my copies of a few others ; the rest of 
the work involved in the preparation of this book has fallen to myself — 
a fact which accounts for some delay in its appearance and for many 
defects in its execution. 

I am again indebted to Mr. E. Lobel for much assistance with the 
new classical texts, and especially the fragments of Lesbian poetry. 
Valuable suggestions at an early stage were received from Professor 
Gilbert Murray, and Professor A. E. Housman kindly sent notes on 
a few passages in the poetical pieces. My thanks are also due to 
Professor H. Stuart Jones for a transcript in modern form of the 
musical notation of the early Christian hymn, No. 1786, and to some 
other scholars for help on special points, which is acknowledged in 
connexion with the texts concerned. 



ARTHUR S. HUNT. 



Queen's College, Oxford, 
December, 192 1 . 



CONTENTS 



PAGE 

Preface • ν 

List of Plates . .......... vii 

Table of Papyri ........... viii 

Note on the Method of Publication and List of Abbreviations ... χ 

TEXTS 

I. Theological Fragments .......... ι 

II. New Classical Fragments .... .... 26 

III. Fragments of Extant Classical Authors 172 

IV. Minor Literary Fragments 226 

INDICES 

I. 1787-9 (Sappho and Alcaeus) . . . . . . . 231 

II. Other New Texts ........... 235 

III. Passages Discussed ... ...... 249 



LIST OF PLATES 

I. 1778 Fols. 1, 2, recto, 1786, 1813 recto 

II. 1787 Frs. 1, 2, 9, 1788 Fr. 15 

III. 1789 Fr. 1, Col. i, Frs. 2, 3, 1790 Frs. 2 + 3, Col. ii, 1791 . f at the end. 

IV. 1806 Col. iv, 1808 Cols, i-iii, 1810 Phil, i, Fr. 15 
V. 1814 verso 



TABLE OF PAPYRI 







CENTURY 


PAGE 


1778. 


Aristides, Apology (Plate I) . 


. 4th 


I 


1779. 


Psalm i 


. 4th 


6 


1780. 


St. John's Gospel viii . 


. 4th / . 


7 


1781. 


St. John's Gospel xvi . 


. 3rd 


8 


1782. 


Didache i-iii ...... 


. Late 4th 


12 


1783. 


Her mas, Pastor, 31 and. ix . 


. Early 4th 


15 


1784. 


Constantinopolitan Creed . 


. 5th . 


17 


1785. 


Homilies? ...... 


• 5th ... 


18 


1786. 


Christian Hymn with Musical Notation (Plat 


5 I) . Late 3rd 


21 


1787. 


Sappho, Book iv (Plate II) . 


. 3rd 


26 


1788. 


Alcaeus ? (Plate II) 


. Late 2nd 


46 


1789. 


Alcaeus (Plate III) 


ISt 


60 


1790. 


Ibycus (Plate III) .... 


ISt B. C. 


73 


1791. 


Pindar, Paean (Plate III) . 


. ISt 


84 


1792. 


Pindar, Paean ? . 


. 2nd 


86 


1793. 


Callimachus, Sosibi Victoria 


. Late 1st 


98 


1794. 


Poem in Hexameters .... 


. Late 2nd 


no 


1795. 


Acrostic Epigrams .... 


. ISt 


113 


1796. 


Hexameter Poem on Egyptian Botany . 


. 2nd 


116 


1797. 


Antiphon Sophistes, llepl Άληθύας, i ? . 


. Early 3rd 


119 


1798. 


Anonymous work on Alexander the Great 


. Late 2nd 


122 


1799. 


Oratorical Fragment .... 


2nd 


χ 35 


1800. 


Miscellaneous Biographies . 


. Late 2nd or early 3rd 


137 


1801. 


Glossary ...... 


. ISt 


150 


1802. 


Glossary ....... 


. Late 2nd or early 3rd 


155 


1803. 


Glossary ...... 


. 6th 


163 


1804. 


Αίξεις 'Ρητορικαί ..... 


. 3rd 


166 


1805. 


Sophocles, TracAiniae .... 


. Late 2nd 


172 


1806. 


Theocritus, Idyll xxii (Plate IV) . 


. Late 1st 


. 180 


1807. 


AratUS, Διοσημΰα .... 


2nd 


184 


1808. 


Plato, Republic viii (Plate IV) 


. Late 2nd 


. 186 


1809. 


Plato, Phaedo ..... 


. Early 2nd 


191 


1810. 


Demosthenes, Olynth. \-\\\,Phil.\,De Pace (PL• 


telV) Early 2nd . 


• 194 



TABLE OF PAPYRI 



IX 







CENTURY 


PAGE 


1811. 


Demosthenes, C. Timocratem 


. 3rd . * . 


209 


1812. 


Isocrates, Ad Demonicum .... 


. 5th or 6th . 


211 


1813. 


Codex Theodosianus vii (Plate I) 


. Early 6 th . 


214 


1814. 


Index to Codex Iustimanus, First Edition (Plate 


V) a.d. 529-535 


217 


1815. 


Homer, Iliad i . 


. 3rd 


222 


1816. 


Homer, Iliad xv . 


. 3rd 


222 


1817. 


Homer, Iliad xvii, xviii . 


. 6th 


222 


1818. 


Homer, Iliad xxii, xxiii .... 


5th or 6th . 


223 


1819. 


Homer, Odyssey x-xii ..... 


2nd 


224 


1820. 


Homer, Odyssey xviii ..... 


. 6th or 7th . 


225 


1821. 


Hexameters or Elegiacs .... 


3rd 


226 


1822. 


Hexameter Poem on Astronomy . 


. 2nd 


226 


1823. 


Fragment of a Tragedy .... 


ISt B.C. 


226 


1824. 


Fragment of a Comedy .... 


. 3rd 


227 


1825. 


Fragment of a Comedy 


. 5th 


228 


1826. 


Romance ? . . . 


Late 3rd or 4th 


228 


1827. 


Oratorical Fragment . 


. 3rd . 


229 


1828. 


Ethical Treatise ..... 


.• 3 rd 


230 



NOTE ON THE METHOD OF PUBLICATION AND 
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS 

The general method followed in this volume is the same as in preceding 
Parts. 1787-90 and 1792-4 are printed in dual form, a literal transcript being 
accompanied by a reconstruction in modern style. In the remaining texts the 
originals are reproduced except for separation of words, capital initials in proper 
names, some expansions of abbreviations, and supplements of lacunae. Additions 
or corrections by the hand of the body of the text are in small thin type, those 
by a different hand in thick type. Square brackets [ ] indicate a lacuna, round 
brackets ( ) the resolution of a symbol or abbreviation, angular brackets ( ) 
a departure from the text of the original, braces { } a superfluous letter or letters, 
double square brackets [] j] a deletion in the original. Dots 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 regarded as doubtful. Heavy Arabic numerals refer to the 
texts of the Oxyrhynchus Papyri in this volume and Parts I-XIV ; ordinary 
numerals to lines, small Roman numerals to columns. The terms recto and verso 
when used of vellum fragments refer to the upper and under sides of the leaf, 
where these are determinable. 

P. Amh. = The Amherst Papyri, Vols. I-II, by B. P. Grenfell and A. S. Hunt. 

P. Grenf. = Greek Papyri, Series I-II, by B. P. Grenfell and A. S. Hunt. 

P. Halle = Dikaiomata, &c, von der Graeca Halensis. 

P. Oxy. = The Oxyrhynchus Papyri, Parts I-XIV, by B. P. Grenfell and 

A. S. Hunt. 
P. Rylands = Catalogue of the Greek Papyri in the Rylands Library, Vol. I, by 

A. S. Hunt. 
P.S.I. = Papiri della Societa italiana, Vols. I-VI, by G. Vitelli and others. 



I. THEOLOGICAL FRAGMENTS 



1778. ARISTIDES, Apology. 

12x14-6 cm. Fourth century. Plate I 

(Fols. 1-2, recto). 

The following small but valuable fragment of the Apology of Aristides in the 
original Greek is contained on the upper part of a leaf from a papyrus book, 
adjoined by a narrow strip from the other leaf of the sheet. How the sheet was 
folded, i.e. what was the relative order of the two leaves, and what was the 
position of the sheet in the quire cannot be determined ; since, however, the 
strip from the second leaf is inscribed with but a single word, these questions are 
of slight importance. The handwriting is a handsome well-formed uncial, which 
though somewhat smaller and more compact has a decided general resemblance 
to that of 847, a leaf from a vellum MS. of St. John's Gospel, and like that 
specimen may be assigned with probability to the fourth century. No punctua- 
tion occurs. 0eoy is contracted in the usual way, but άνθρωπος and apparently 
ουρανός were written out in full (11. 33, 37). Some inaccuracies may be detected 
in the text, which seems to have been of mediocre quality ; cf. nn. on 11. 26 sqq. 
and S3- 

The Apology is a recent addition to early Christian literature. The first step 
towards its recovery was made in 1878 with the publication of an Armenian 
translation of the first few chapters from two MSS. in the Lazarist monastery at 
Venice. This was followed eleven years later by Dr. Rendel Harris's find 
at Sinai of a complete version in Syriac ; and shortly afterwards Dr. Armitage 
Robinson, who had seen Dr. Harris's work in proof, recognized that the Apology 
was actually already extant in Greek, having been embedded in the early 
mediaeval romance, the History of Barlaam and Josaphat. The outcome of 
these fortunate discoveries was the joint edition by the two scholars of the 
Apology of Aristides in Texts and Studies, I. i. (1891), containing the Syriac 

Β 



2 THE OXYRHYNCHUS PAPYRI 

text with an English translation, Latin and English versions of the Armenian 
fragment, and the Greek text from Barlaam and Josaphat. 

The question then presented itself, how far the Greek of Barlaam and 
Josaphat could be regarded as representing the ipsissima verba of Aristides. 
That certain modifications had been introduced by the author of the romance was 
evident, e. g. a passage near the end in which the Christians were defended from 
certain charges made against them by early enemies was naturally discarded as 
out of date. But there remained considerable divergences which could not 
be easily accounted for. The Syriac has a number of repetitions and details 
not found in the Greek, the difference in total length approximating to the ratio 
of 3 to 2. Was this the result of expansion or compression ? Had the Syriac 
translator amplified the original or the redactor of the Greek cut it down ? The 
latter explanation, as Dr. Armitage Robinson observed in discussing this 
problem {op. cit. pp. 71 sqq.), seemed a priori the more probable, but careful 
consideration of the opening passage in which the testimony of the Armenian 
fragment was also available showed that the faults were by no means all on one 
side. While in the Greek there could here be traced one serious modification with 
a consequent displacement, one considerable abbreviation, and an added phrase 
in a Christological passage, the Syriac was found to be often loose and inaccurate, 
dropping some phrases and inserting others, sometimes with a distorting effect. 
Dr. Robinson's general conclusion was ' that the Greek will, as a rule, give us the 
actual words of Aristides, except in the very few places in which modification 
was obviously needed. Where the Syriac presents us with matter which has no 
counterpart whatever in the Greek, we shall hesitate to pronounce that the Greek 
is defective, unless we are able to suggest a good reason for the omission, or 
to authenticate the Syriac from some external source.' Harnack agreed that the 
Greek was the truer witness, but proposed to account for the variations of the 
Syriac and Armenian by postulating as the basis of these a later Greek 
' Uberarbeitung ', which they in turn had still further transformed {Gesch. der 
altchristlichen Lift. i. 1. 97) — a needlessly complicated hypothesis. Again, 
R. Raabe, in his commentary in Texte und Untersuchmigen, ix. 1, has no high 
opinion of the accuracy of the Syriac translator. On the other hand, Dr. Rendel 
Harris in a recent essay seeks to show that Celsus, in replying to Aristides, used 
a text of the Apology which was in close agreement with the Syriac {Bulletin 
of the John Ry lands Library ', vi, pp. 163 sqq.). 

With the welcome discovery of what is undoubtedly a fragment of the 
original text, the problem now reaches a new phase. The relation of the Greek 
of the fragment (P) to that of Barlaam and Josaphat (BJ) and to the Syriac 
version is discussed in detail in the notes below on 11. 8 sqq. and 26 sqq. In 



1778. THEOLOGICAL FRAGMENTS 3 

general it may be said that P, as might be expected, holds an intermediate 
position. Though open to criticism especially for its verbosity, to which much 
of its comparative length is due, the Syriac has at any rate some of the 
advantages claimed for it by Dr. Rendel Harris, in places reproducing the 
original more faithfully than BJ and retaining words and phrases which the 
Greek redactor discarded. The latter often preserves the language of Aristides 
with much fidelity, but he treats the original with some freedom, making such 
short cuts and readjustments as seemed suitable for his purpose, and not con- 
fining himself to ' necessary modifications '. On the whole then the present 
discovery appears to place the Syriac version, if not in the flattering position 
suggested by Dr. Harris, yet in a more favourable light than that accorded to it 
by Dr. Armitage Robinson and by Raabe {pp. cit., pp. 37-8). If the prudent 
critic must still ' hesitate to pronounce that the Greek is defective ', he should 
exercise a corresponding caution in condemning matter peculiar to the Syriac. 
With Ρ as guide, the task of sifting the wheat from the chaff may now be 
undertaken with a better chance of success. 

Fol. 1, recto. Plate I. 

6 lines lost 
7 ] μιαιροις 



Fol. 2, recto. Plate I. 
ζοντες την τω[ν] α[νε 
μων πνοην θν είναι 

10 [πλανω]νται φανερά 
[γ]αρ εστίν ημιν οτι 
[δο]νλενει ετερω ποτέ 
[μεν γαρ] α[υ]ξε[ι ποτ]ε δε 
λήγει ονκουν αναγ 

1 5 [κα]ζεται ϋπο τίνος 

. [ )Υ ω Υ α • • [•]? 

.[ ]λ.'.'. [•].•' 

4 lines lost 
[ ] - A - - - 1 

[ ]ντων των 



Fol. 2, verso. 
[y?7]/z[e]iou εις σημειον 
καθ ημεραν φέρομε 
νον δννοντα τε και 
ανατέλλοντα τον 

30 θερμαινειν τα βλα 
στα και τα φυτά εις 
την χρησιν των αν 
θρωπων επει και [] με 
ρισμους εχ[οντα μ]ε 

35 τα των λο[ιπων ασ]τε 
ρων και ε[λαττον]α 
οντά τον [ονρανον 
π[ο]λν αν£[ει δε και 
μειονται [και εκλιψις 



νι. 



Β 2 



THE OXYRHYNCHUS PAPYRI 

ϊ5 [ I"®*' 7 !•] • 4° e X ei Kat μ[ηδ*μιαν 

αντοκρα[τ€ΐαν ζχον 
τα διο ου ν\ζνομισται 
[τ6\ν ηλιον [είναι θν 



η. μιαφοις is apparently a misspelling for μιαροις. This word does not occur in the 
extant Greek, and to what context it should be referred is not clear. There are several 
references to pollution in ch. iv and the preceding part of ch. ν in connexion with γη and 

νδωρ, — φνρομενην, αιμασι φυνευομενων μιαινεται, μιαινεται και φθείρεται, αιμασι μολυνόμινον και είς 

πάντων των ακαθάρτων πλΰσιν άγόμενον. The original form of one of these phrases may have 
included the adjective μιαροις, though there is nothing in the Syriac suggesting this. 
Possibly, again, the word was used later in reference to the Greek gods or their 

human imitators J cf. VUi είς ζώα μεταμορφουμενονς έπ\ πονηράϊς κα\ αΙσχραΊς πράξεσιν, and 
τους μη ovras προσαγορευοντες θεούς, κατά τας csWVjuas αυτών τας πονηράς, ινα tovtovs συνηγόρους 
expires της κακίας μοιχευωσιν, άρπάζωσιν, φονεύωσι κα\ τα πάνδεινα ποιώσιν. As mentioned in the 

introd., the relative positions of Fol. ι and Fol. 2 are indeterminate. 

8 sqq. The extant Greek of this passage is as follows : ol he νόμΊζοντες την των άνεμων 

πνοην eivai θεαν πλανώνται. φανερόν yap εστίν οτι δουλεύει ετερω, και χάριν των ανθρώπων κατεσκεύα- 
σται υπό του θεοϋ προς μεταγωγην πλοίων καϊ συγκομιδή τών σιτικών, και είς λοιπά? αυτών χρείας' 
αΰξει τε και λήγει κατ επιταγην θεοΰ. διό ου νενόμισται την τών ανέμων πνοην είναι θεάν, αλλ' έργον 
θεοϋ. 

The Syriac is : ' And again those who have thought concerning the blasts of winds that 
it is God, these also have erred : and this is evident to us, that these winds are subject 
to another, since sometimes their blast is increased and sometimes it is diminished and 
ceases, according to the commandment of him who subjects them. Since for the sake of 
man they were created by God, in order that they might fulfil the needs of trees and fruits 
and seeds, and that they might transport ships upon the sea ; those ships which bring 
to men their necessary things from a place where they are found to a place where they are 
not found ; and furnish the different parts of the world. Since then this wind is sometimes 
increased and sometimes diminished, there is one place in which it does good and another 
where it does harm, according to the nod of him who rules it ; and even men are able by 
means of well-known instruments to catch and coerce it that it may fulfil for them the 
necessities which they demand of it ; and over itself it has no power at all ; wherefore it is 
not possible that winds should be called gods, but a work of God.' 

In 11. 8-12 the agreement with the extant Greek is close, the only discrepancies being 

θ(εό)ν είναι for είναι θεάν, φανερά for φανερόν, and the addition of ήμ'ιν after εστίν. In the 

Syriac the simple directness of the original is obscured by unnecessary verbiage : • con- 
cerning the blast of winds, that it . . . these also . . . and this is evident . . . that these 
winds . . .' On the other hand ί to us ', which the extant Greek has dropped after ' evident ', 
is correctly retained ; and the following clause ' Since sometimes their blast is increased and 
sometimes it is diminished and ceases ' apart from the redundancy of ' their blast ' and ' and 
ceases ', corresponds faithfully to the original, whereas the extant Greek parts company, 
omitting the dependent clause and passing on to the next sentence. At this point, how- 
ever, the Syriac too becomes faulty. After ' and ceases ' it proceeds ' according to the 
commandment of him who subjects them ' (cf. κατ επιταγην θεοΰ in the extant Greek) ; 
whereas the original has an inferential sentence, apparently ' therefore it is under some com- 
pulsion . . .'. Further detailed comparison is precluded by the unfortunate mutilation of the 



1778. THEOLOGICAL FRAGMENTS 5 

lower part of this page; but the scanty remains appear to support the fuller version of 
the Syriac as against the much shorter extant Greek, though no definite correspondence can 
be made out. 

9. 6(eo)v : so also the Syriac, ' that it is God '. The extant Greek has θεάν both here 
and elsewhere where the subject is feminine. 

13. a[i>]£f[t : the identification of the exiguous traces is confirmed by the collocation 
αϋξε ι τε καϊ λήγει farther on in BJ. Whether that is to be regarded as a transposition 
of ποτέ μεν . . . λήγει is doubtful, for the Syriac repeats ' Since then this wind is sometimes 
increased and sometimes diminished ' at the corresponding point, and it is therefore quite 
possible that there was a similar repetition in the original. In that case BJ omitted ποτέ 
μεν . . . λήγει here, and did not merely transfer it to a later position. 

14. ανα•γ[κα\ζ(ται : cf. the references in Β J to ανάγκη in connexion with other elements, 

&C, e. g. IV κινείται δε ovpavos κατ ανάγκην, vi όρώμεν γαρ αυτόν (sc. τον ήλιον) κινούμενον κατ 

ανάγκην, and the application of the same phrase to the moon and to man. To read owiyfioj] 
εσται is less suitable, since of the doubtful letters before ται the second is the taller of the 
two, whereas if they are εσ the reverse would be expected. The top of the supposed 
ζ is not unlike that of ζοντα in 1. 8. 

1 6. The very scanty remains are not inconsistent with αυξει again, though the repetition 
of this word seems unlikely. Of the three letters printed the e is the most probable ; 
the other two are very uncertain. 

17. The first ν is very doubtful. The next letter is apparently ω, e, or η, which 
is followed by ν or κ. 

1 8. The doubtful λ may be μ. 

26 sqq. The opening sentence of this section may safely be restored from BJ on the 

analogy Of 11. 8—IO οι δε νομιζοντες τον ηλιον θ(εο)ν eivai πλανώνται, Β J continues : όρώμεν γαρ 
αυτόν κινοίιμενον κατά ανάγκην κα\ τρεπόμενον καϊ μεταβαίνοντα από σημείου εις σημεΊον, δυνοντα 
κα\ ανατέλλοντα, τοΰ θερμαίνειν τα φυτά και βλαστά εις χρησιν των ανθρώπων, ετι δε καϊ μερισμόν 
έχοντα μετά των λοιπών αστέρων, καϊ ελάττονα οντά του ουρανού πολύ, καϊ έκλειποντα τοΰ φωτός, 
καϊ μηδεμίαν αυτοκράτειαν Έχοντα. διό ου νενόμισται τον rjXiov eivai 6eov, αλλ έργον 6eoi. 

The Syriac is : 'So too those have erred who have thought concerning the sun that he 
is God. For lo ! we see him, that by the necessity of another he is moved and turned and 
runs his course ; and he proceeds from degree to degree, rising and setting every day, 
in order that he may warm the shoots of plants and shrubs and may bring forth in the air 
which is mingled with him every herb which is on the earth. And in calculation the sun 
has a part with the rest of the stars in his course, and although he is one in his nature he is 
mixed with many parts, according to the advantage of the needs of men: and that not 
according to his own will, but according to the will of Him that ruleth him. Wherefore it 
is not possible that the sun should be God but a work of God.' 

Here the Greek of BJ is close to that of the papyrus throughout, especially when one 
or two necessary corrections have been made, φερομενον of 1. 2 has disappeared and is more 
likely to have been simply dropped than to be represented by μεταβαίνοντα, since the Syriac 
has an equivalent for this as well as for φερομενον. καθ ημεραν, which the Syriac connects, 
probably rightly, with δυνοντα τε και ανατέλλοντα, has also been discarded. The article has 
been omitted with βλαστά and χρησιν (confirmed against the v. 1. χρείαν), and βλαστά and 
φυτά are transposed; which was the correct order may be questioned, but the papyrus 
seems on the whole to be supported by the Syriac. μερισμούς (1. 33) was read by Boissonade, 

with some MSS. (μερισμόν W, divisionem Lat. ; cf. Syr.). In 11. 38-40 αυξ[ει δε καΐ\ μειουται 

[και εκλιψεκ (?)] έχει is represented by και εκλείποντα του φωτός, and this or something like it 
is probably to be regarded as the correct text, since the indicatives αυξει, «fee, interrupt the 
participial construction, which is carried on in 11. 40-1 by και μ[ηδεμιαν] αυτοκρα[τειαν f^o^jra ; 



6 THE OXYRHYNCHUS PAPYRI 

and though waxing and waning might be interpreted as referring to varying degrees of heat 
they are not terms ordinarily associated with the sun. It is then likely, as Dr. Rendel 
Harris suggests, that ανξα, κτλ., has been brought in here from the succeeding paragraph 

Concerning the moon, where BJ has αυξανομίνην re κα\ μειονμένην και eKKefyeis αχούσαν. 

The Syriac has preserved (pepopevov and καθ ημ^ραν, but in other respects does not com- 
pare favourably with Β J. ' Shoots of plants and shrubs ' is a pointless change, and ' may 
bring forth . . . earth ' and ' in his course . . . parts ' are gratuitous amplifications. ' en 
is omitted, and the insertion of ' in calculation ' is anything but a gain in clearness. 
' According to the advantage of the needs of men ' is displaced, and is besides a clumsy 
translation of «s την χρησιν των ανθρώπων, though less verbose than ' and that not according 
to his own will ', &c, as an equivalent of και μηδ*μιαν αντοκρατ^ιαν έχοντα. The reference to 
eclipse has disappeared. Raabe, /. c, was rightly critical of this passage. 

33. «wet is obviously an error for en (arising not improbably out of an intermediate 
misspelling erei), and BJ's addition of Se may well be also right. There would be room for 
one letter between και and the following μ, but none seems admissible and perhaps there was 
a flaw in the papyrus. 

38-40. Cf. n. on 11. 26 sqq. eKkei^ets is assured by the parallel there quoted from Β J 
and would not overload the lacuna if εκλι^ις or encXi^t? were written, as is quite possible. 

1779. Psalm i. 
1 1•5 X 7-7 cm. Fourth century. 

A complete leaf from a papyrus codex, containing three verses of the first 
Psalm. The informal hand, which may be assigned to the fourth century, 
is rather large, and disproportionate to the size of the leaf, so that only 17 lines 
are got into the two pages. Stops in the high position are used, and a rough 
breathing occurs in 1. 4. There is no stichometric division of the verses, as there 
was e.g. in 1226, a fragment from a still earlier book. A variant known from an 
eleventh- century cursive receives support ; cf. 1226, &c. 

Recto. Verso. 

ουχ ουτω[ς] i. 4 10 [σ]τησονται a 

ot ασφςις σφζις ev 

ουχ ούτως Kpiaec ovSe a 

αλλ η ay χνονς μαρτωλοι €v 

5 q[v] 6κριπτ€ΐ βουλή δίκαιων 

ο άνεμος 15 οτι γινωσκει 6 

απο πρόσωπον κς οδον δικαί 

της γης• δια 5 <»ν και οδός 

τούτο ουκ αν α 

4• ω? χνον: : so the cursive 281 (Laur. v. 18, nth cent.); ο χνονς other MSS. 
10. ασ*/3«ί: so N ? AR a and many cursives, including 281. 01 aσeβeις others. 



1780. THEOLOGICAL FRAGMENTS 



1780. St. John's Gospel viii. 



25-6x8 cm. 



Fourth century. 



A leaf from a papyrus codex, complete at the top and bottom, but torn 
vertically, so that about half of the lines are missing on both pages. The hand- 
writing, a handsome specimen of the ' biblical ' type, large and upright, is unlikely 
to be later than the fourth century. A pause is sometimes marked by an increase 
of the interval before the following letter, otherwise punctuation is absent. The 
contractions usual in theological texts occur. A pagination figure, 74, has been 
entered (by the original scribe, apparently) in the left-hand corner of the recto ; 
a comparison of the capacity of this leaf with the amount of the preceding part of 
the Gospel shows that the number refers to the page, not to the leaf, and it will 
follow either that the pages were numbered alternately in the series a, 4, 6, &c, 
or that they were numbered consecutively at the top left corner. Here then may 
well be another example of the system of alternate pagination which appeared 
probable in 1011 ; cf. Part VIII, pp. 18-19. The text, like that of 847, shows a 
general agreement with the Codex Vaticanus. 



10 



15 



Verso. 

] 
και ειπεν] αυτοις 

καν εγω μ]αρτνρω 

7repi εμαυ]του η μαρ 

τυριά μου] αληθής 

εστίν οτι ο]ίδα πο 

θεν η\θο\ν και που 

υπάγω υ]μεις δε 

ουκ οιδατ]ε πόθεν 

έρχομαι] η που υπα 

γω υμεις] κατά τη 

σάρκα κρ]ινετε βγω 

ου κριν]ω ουδενα 

και εαν κ]ριι>ω δε 

εγω η κρ]ισις η εμη 

αληθινή ε]στιν ο 

τι μονός] ουκ ει 



Recto. 



οδ 



viii. 14 και μ[αρτυρει περί 

εμού [ο πεμψα? με 
πηρ ε[λεγον ουν 
αυτω [που εστίν ο 
30 πηρ σο[υ απεκριθη 
Ιης ου[τε εμε οιδα 
τε ουτ[ε τον πρα. μου 
ει εμε [ηδειτε και 
τον πρ[α μου αν η 

ι 5 35 δείτε τ\αυτα τα ρη 
ματα ελα[λησεν εν 
τα> γαζο[φυλακιω 

1 6 διδασκω[ν εν τω 

ϊερω κα[ι ουδείς 
4θ επιασε[ν αυτόν ο 
τι ουπ[ω εληλυθει 



19 



20 



8 THE OXYRHYNCHUS PAPYRI 

[μι αλλ €γ]ω και ο η ωρα α[ντον ζιπζν 2 1 

[πςμψας] με πηρ ουν πα\λιν αντοις 

[και €ΐ/ τω] νομω 1 7 «νω νπ[αγα> και ζη 

2θ [Se τω νμ]ίΤ€ρω 45 τηο~€Τ€ μ[ε και ev 

[γίγραπτ]αι οτι δυ τη αμαρτ\ια νμων 

[ο ανων η] μαρτνρι αποθαρ[εισθ€ ο 

[α αληθής) ζστιν e 1 8 που €γω [νπαγω 

[γω €ΐμι] ο μαρτν νμ^ις ου [δύνασθε 

25 [ρων περί] εμαυτου 5° (λθειν ί[λζγον ουν 2 2 

3""5• V μ α ρ[ τν Ρ ια Η- ον ] αληθής [εστίν : this IS the Order of Β. αληθής (στιν η μαρτυρία μου 

W(estcott)-H(ort) and T(extus)-R(eceptus) with most MSS. 
7. Se : so BD, W-H, T-R ; om. N. 
9. η : so BDe r , W-H ; και Ν, T-R. 
1 3• It is clear that the papyrus did not read καν with fc$ for και eav. 

15. Considerations of space are indecisive between αληθινή (BD, W-H) and αληθής (fc$, 
T-R), but in view of the general agreement of the papyrus with Β, αληθινή is the more 
probable reading. 

16. There would be no room for βγω after μονός (D). 

1 8. π(ατ)ηρ : so l$ c B, T-R ; om. N*D. W-H print πατήρ in brackets. 

21. [γ6γραπτ]αι : SO BD, T-R, W-H j γ(γραμμ(νον €στιν fc$. 

31. ΐη(σου)ς: so BD, W-H; ο ι(ησον)ς Ν, T-R. ND further add και emcv (fin-. 

αντοις D). 

34. The omission of μου with Ν would make the line unduly short. 

αν η]δατε : SO B, W-H ; T^eire αν N, T-R. 

36. The line is sufficiently filled without the addition of ο ΐ^σου)?, which is read after 
ελαλησεν by some of the later uncials and T-R ; cf. 1. 43, n. 

42. emev : fc$ eXeyev, which, though unlikely, can hardly be excluded; cf. 1. 15, n. 

43. The papyrus evidently agreed with the best MSS. in omitting ο ΐ(τ}σου)ς which is 
added after αυτοί? by T-R with inferior authority. 

47. ο]που : the variant και οπού is possible though not probable. 

1781. St. John's Gospel xvi. 

24-5x6-8 cm. Third century. 

The following leaf from a papyrus codex evidently belonged to the same MS. 
from which 208 (now Brit. Mus. 782), a sheet containing portions of chaps, i and 
xx of St. John's Gospel, was derived. The character of the hand (both in the 
main text, which is written in an upright rather heavy script of semi-literary type, 
and in the corrections), length of lines and columns, method of punctuation 
by short blank spaces, occasional use of the rough breathing, and internal textual 
evidence, all combine in proving an identical origin. 208 was assigned to the 



1781. THEOLOGICAL FRAGMENTS 9 

period between A. D. 200 and 300 (Part II, p. 2), and there is no reason to ques- 
tion that attribution, though the codex is perhaps more likely to date from the 
second half of the century than the first. With regard to the corrections and 
additions, which are in a small but very similar hand, the further specimens now 
available rather suggest that these are due to a diorthotes rather than to the 
original scribe, though they must in any case be practically contemporary. 

In consideration of the interesting character of the text of 208, the recovery 
of a further fragment of this ancient book, the earliest copy so far known of 
the Gospel, is very fortunate. In 208 a tendency was noted to agreement with 
the Codex Sinaiticus, but this is not apparent in 1781, so far as variants peculiar to 
that MS. are concerned, though where Ν is supported by one or more of the other 
chief uncials the papyrus is usually in harmony. Coincidences with MA are found 
in 11. 47, 48, with ND in 1. 12, with tfBD in 11. 13, 20, with tfBC in 11. 34-5. There 
is one agreement with Β against the other main authorities (1. 13, omission of the 
article with 'ίησσΰς ; cf. 1. 12, n.), one with BD (1. 31) and BCD (1. 34). An 
omission of εγω in 1. 47 is peculiar to the papyrus, and in 1. 44 there was 
apparently another omission which has hitherto depended on slight authority. 
The tendency to brevity, especially in omitting unnecessary pronouns, con- 
junctions, &c, is an outstanding feature of both 208 and 1781 ; cf. 208 Fol. 1 
verso. 5, 10, 11, recto. 12, 22, Fol. 2 recto. 19, verso. 2, 5sqq., 12, 14-15, 17, 1781. 6, 
12, 13, 20, 26, 38, 44, 47, 50-1, and nn. 

Recto. 

[οτι εκ του εμού λημψετ]αι και αναγ [ xvi. 14 

[γελει υμιν πάντα οσ]α έχει ο πρ ε 15 

[μα εστίν δια τοντο ειπο]ν οτι εκ τ\ου 
[(μου λαμβάνει κα]ι αν[α)γγελει ϋμεί 
5 [μεικρον και ουκετι θεωρείτε με κ]αι 1 6 

[πάλιν μεικρον κ]αι οψεσθε [με ειπα]ν 1 7 

[ονν . . . εκ των μ]αθητων αντον 
[προ? αλλήλους τι] εστίν τούτο ο λε 
[γει ημειν μεικρον και ον] θεωρει[τ]ε με 
ίο [και πάλιν μεικρον και οψ]εσθε με και [οτ]ι 

[νπαγω προ? τον] πρα ελεγον ονν 1 8 

[τι εστίν τούτο] μεικρον ουκ οιδα 

[μεν τι λαλεί ε]γνω Ιης οτι ηθελον 1 9 

[αυτόν ερωταν] και ειπεν αυτ[ο]ις 



ίο THE OXYRHYNCHUS PAPYRI 

l 5 [περί τούτου ζητ\ειτε μετ αλληλω[ν 
[οτι απόν μεικρ]ον και ου θεωρει[τε 
[με και πάλιν μεικρό]ν και οψεσθε μ€ [ 
[αμήν αμήν λεγ]ω ϋμειν οτ[ι κ]λα[υ 2 ο 

[σετε και θρηνησ]ετε ϋμεις ο δε 

20 [κόσμος γαρησετ]αι ϋμεις λ^ο^υπηθη 
[σεσθε άλλα η λυπ]η ϋμων εις γαραν 

υ 

[γενησεται η γυν]η όταν τικτη λοι 2 1 

[πην έχει οτι ηλθεν] η ωρα αυτής 
[όταν δε γέννηση το π]αι8ιον ουκε 
25 [τι μνημόνευα της θλ]ειψ[ε]ως δι 
[α την yapav οτι εγενν]ηθη ανθρω 
[πος εις τον κοσμον] και ϋμεις ουν 2 2 

Verso. 

νυν μεν [λυπην έχετε πάλιν δ€ 

οψομαι ϋμ[ας και χαρησεται υμών 
30 η κάρδια [και την yapav υμών ου 

δεις άρει [αφ] υ[μων και €Ρ εκείνη 23 

τη ημερ[α] ε[μ]ε [ουκ ερωτήσετε 

ουδέν αμήν α[μην λέγω υμειν 

αν τι αιτη[σ]ητε [τον πρα δώσει υμειν 
35 β* τω ον[ο]ματ[ι μου αιτείτε και 24 

λημψεσθε ϊ[να η χαρά υμών η 

πεπλη ρω[μ]ε[ν]η [ταύτα εν παροι 25 

μιαις λελ[α]ληκα [υμειν έρχεται 

ωρα οτε ουκετ[ι εν παροιμιαις λα 
4θ λησω ϋμειν αλ[λα παρρησία περί 

του πρς απαγ'γε[λω υμειν εν ε 26 

κείνη τη ήμερα [εν τω ονόματι 

μου αιτησεσθε [και ου λέγω υμειν 

[ο]τι εγω ερωτησ[ω τον πρα αυτός 27 

45 [y] a P ° »»Ϋ> φιλει ϋμ[ας οτι υμεις εμε 

πεφιληκατε και [πεπιστευκατε 



1781. THEOLOGICAL FRAGMENTS " 

οτι πάρα θν ζ£ηλβ[ον ίξηλθον 2δ 

πάρα τον πρϊ και ([ληλνθα ets τον 
κοσμον πάλιν α[φιημι τον κοσμον 

5θ και πορεύομαι προ[ς τον πρα λ€ 2 9 

αυτω 

γονσιν οι μ[αθηται αντου iSe νυν ev 

παρρησία λ[αλ€ΐς και παροιμιαν ου 

βεμιαν λ[€γ«Γ νυν οιδαμζν 3° 

οτι οιδας πα[ντα και ου χρειαν €\eis 

ev tw ονόματι [μου ews άρτι ουκ ητησατβ ουδ«ν «ν 23— 4 

τΓω ονόματι μου αιτβιτβ και 

q « ff oV ' to read euro* υμιλν with N° and others would overload the lacuna. 

% Whether λάμβανα (BDI* W-H) or λ η (μ)^ ται (««»A, T-R) was written cannot be 

determined. ^ ^ ^ ^ preceding and following i ine s, r (ΗΒΜ*>, W-H) suits the 
length of the lacuna better than ου (A, T-R). 

6 T-R with Al b and Others adds ort eyo> νπαγω προς τον Trarepa alter οψεσϋε με. 

7' The lacuna is of the same length as that at the beginning of 1. 6 and shorter by only 
one letter than that in 1. 8. Perhaps there was some deletion, eg. the scribe might have 
begun to write προ, «λλ,λ«* after ου,, which is the order of K. There is no authority for 
the insertion of nves before ex. 

Q. θΐωρ€ΐ\τ]€ : οψ(σθε D. . 

ίο. The reading after Μσθ, is very uncertain ; there was perhaps a correction. 

11 The lacuna would not admit of <γω υπάγω (D, T-R). «Xeyo* συν 13 omitted in D . 

12 τούτο! so tf*D* ; for τούτο ο λ* γ « (N°ABD 2 Ib, W-H, T-R) there is clearly no room. 
That to' was omitted before ] μ^ρον (so B, W-H) is probable but hardly certain. 

iq. Either n λαλ« or ο \eyti (D*) is required in the lacuna ; om. B. 

€ L : so MBD, W-H ; ey*« ου* A, T-R, tyvo oe and K « eyv<* being other variants. 

ι^(σου) Γ : so B, W-H ; ο %ow> NAD, T-R. 

ηθ(\ον : ημελΚον Ν. . < , . j » •. 

jy g j.,— j: — . ™.,•™.. is nhviouslv excluded. A Omits αυτοΐί. 

i.e. λοπηβη was first written. The correction is perhaps due to the original scribe. 



20. i//«« : so NBD, W-H : υ Μ «ί 8e A, T-R 
e. ? 
Cf. 1. 22 



. Whether άλλα or αλλ was written cannot be ascertained. 

22. The corrector has substituted υ for ot without cancelling the original spelling, tor 
which cf. 1. 20. 

23. <opa : ημ*ρ« D. 

25. 0λ]€ΐψ[«]ωΓ : λύπης D. 

26. α^ρω[7Γοϊ : ο άνθρωπος fc$ . 

27. ου, : Ν* places this after νυν μ^. 

28. νυνμνϊΚνπην : so NBC*D, W-H ; Χνπην μ*ν wv AC 3 , T-R. 
31. apn: so BD*, W-H ; «*« NACD», T-R 

33. or. may have been added at the end of the line as in WD Π -R). 
3Ϊ. a, rt is the reading of BCD, W-H; ο « Ν, ο τ, α, Α, οσα («)α, some later MSS., 
T-R. 



12 THE OXYRHYNCHUS PAPYRI 

34—5. δωσα . . . οι{οΊματ[ι P ov • so «BC*, VV-H ; (V τω ονομ. μου, δωσ« υμιν AC'D, 

T-R. 

35. The first sentence of verse 24, ews άρτι . . . ονόματι μου, was originally omitted 
owing to homoeoteleuton. This mistake has been corrected at the foot of the page, where 
1. 35 has been rewritten in a smaller and probably different hand with the missing words in- 
corporated. A symbol calling attention to the correction was presumably entered in the 
right-hand margin. 

38. The line is sufficiently filled without άλλα (AC 3 D 2 ) before (ρχπαι, especially as 
a short blank space may well have been left after υμ^ιν. 

39• ore '. οπού fc"$*. 

41. απαγγ([λω : SO NABC*D, W-H ; αναγγίλω C 2 , T-R. 

42—3. αιτ. ev τω ονομ. μου ςΑ. 

44• The lacuna here is of practically the same length as in the immediately preceding 
and following lines, and it seems clear that either τον π(αη)ρα or περί υμών was omitted, and 
for the latter omission there is some authority (the cursive 36, Itala MSS. bee, Cyril Acta 49, 
Aug. De Trin.). D adds μου after πάτερα, and this may have been written, though not 
required. 

45. Whether epe (ABCD) or με (Ν) was written cannot be decided. 

47. ort: on e -γω MSS. 

β(€ο)υ: so N*A ; του θΐου C 3 and others, T-R ; του πατρός BC*D, W-H. 

48. πάρα : SO «AC 2 , T-R; « BC*, W-H. D OmitS ίξηλθον . . . πατρός. 
ί[λ»7λι/#α : ήλθαν D. 

50-1. λ(]γουσιν, the original reading, is that of «BC*D*, W-H; αυτω, which has been 
inserted above the line, is added by AC S D 2 , T-R. 
51. (v may have been omitted, with A. 

1782. DlDACHE i-iii. 

Fol. 1 5-8x5, Fol. 2 5-7x4-8. Late fourth century. 

Two vellum leaves, containing a few verses from the first three chapters of 
the Διδαχή των δώδεκα αποστόλων, supposed by some to be of Egyptian origin and 
now making its appearance for the first time in an Egyptian manuscript. The 
leaves, which are a good deal worn and discoloured, are detached, but originally 
may well have formed a single sheet, since the two interior edges follow roughly 
the same contour. In that case the quire included five sheets at least, eight 
leaves being required for the matter intervening between Fol. 1 verso and Fol. 2 
recto, and would be more likely to have consisted of the unusual number of eight 
sheets, for the 3^ verses lost before Fol. 1 recto would occupy only three more 
leaves. This latter inference would of course be invalidated if the Didache was 
preceded by some other treatise, but the supposition of a large total number of 
leaves does not well accord with their proportions, which are remarkably small — 
smaller even than in 840. The book to which they belonged was one of the 
miniature volumes which seem to have been often preferred for theological works, 
though not limited to that class of literature (cf. e. g. P. Rylands I. 28). It may 



1782. THEOLOGICAL FRAGMENTS 13 

perhaps date from the fourth century rather than the fifth. The hand is a 
medium-sized informal uncial, at its best somewhat similar to that e.g. of 1618 
and the Cairo Menander ; on Fol. 1 recto it is markedly larger and more irregular 
than on the other three pages. That the writer was a person of no great culture 
is clear also from his spelling and division of words (e. g. επιθυμειων, υμ\ει$). ν at 
the end of a line is commonly represented by a horizontal stroke above the pre- 
ceding vowel, and the usual abbreviation of πνεύμα occurs. There is no punctua- 
tion, but the end of a chapter is marked by a row of wedge-shaped signs followed 
by horizontal dashes. The apparent absence of pagination may be due to the 
poor state of preservation of the upper margins. 

The Didache has been preserved in a single MS. (M) of the middle of 
the eleventh century, discovered at Constantinople by Bryennios and edited 
by him in 1883. It is supposed by Harnack to have taken its present shape 
about the middle of the second century {Lehre der zwolf Apostel, pp. 159 sqq.), 
but to have an older text, based ultimately on Jewish elements, behind it 
(cf. Gesch. d. altchristl. Litt. I. i. 86-7) ; and he finds indications of an earlier 
recension in the Κανόνες εκκλησιαστικοί τών αγίων αποστόλων, a treatise called 
by Bickell, its first editor, the ' Apostolische Kirchenordnung ' and by Hilgenfeld 
(Ν. T. extra Canonem) ' Duae Viae vel Iudicium Petri ', as well as in an old Latin 
translation of Didache i-vi (the ' Two Ways') edited in 1900 by J. Schlecht, in 
both of which Did. i. 3 — II. 1 is omitted, though that omission may be otherwise 
explained (Gebhardt, ap. Harnack, Lehre d. zwolf Apost., p. 281). But that 
in the fourth century at any rate the Didache stood practically as found in Μ was 
sufficiently indicated by the Apostolic Constitutions, a compilation generally 
supposed to have originated in Syria or Palestine between about A. D. 340 and 380, 
in the seventh book of which the Didache has been largely drawn upon. 

In the existing paucity of evidence for the text, any addition is welcome, and 
a comparison of these early Oxyrhynchus fragments with Μ and with the 
corresponding passages of the Apostolic Constitutions is an interesting study. 
Separated as they are in date by some eight centuries, it is hardly surprising 
to find several variations between Μ and 1782, which offers one or two 
remarkable new readings. Of these the most striking is the insertion between 
the third and fourth verses of chap, i of the words άκουε τί σε δα ποιοΰντα σώσαί 
σου το πνεύμα, πρώτον πάντων, which form a transition to the abrupt άπεχου of the 
accepted text. Other noteworthy variants are the omission of και σωματικών (και 
κοσμικών Const. Apost.) in i. 4, and of από παντός in iii. 1, the insertion of πράγματος 
in iii. 1, and the substitution of έπεώη οδηγεί for δδηγεΐ γαρ in iii. 2. How should 
these novelties be appraised ? The two last are not very convincing, and 
άπόσχου for άπεχου in i. 4 certainly does not inspire confidence. On the other 



14 



THE OXYRHYNCHUS PAPYRI 



hand the omission of a second adjective in i. 4 renders more intelligible the 
strange variation there between Μ and Const. Apost*, and άκουε . . . πάντων does 
not look like an interpolation. Perhaps, then, Harnack's statement (op. cit. 
p. 172) that there is not the slightest trace of any alteration in the Didache during 
the two centuries which elapsed between its composition and embodiment in the 
Apostolic Constitutions may now need some qualification. With regard to the 
relation of Μ to Const. Apost., though in cases of divergence the former has 
generally the support of 1782, there are two unexpected agreements with the 
latter in i. 3, τούτο for το αυτό and φιλεΐτε for αγαπάτε. Similarly, one coincidence 
occurs with Καν. έκκλησ. (Hilgenfeld's Dnae Viae) against Μ and Const. Apost., 
ων Be 'for be ων, which maybe correct; a reading which Hilgenfeld ventured 
to adopt from that source is not, however, confirmed. 

In the appended collation the texts as given by Harnack, op. cit., have been 
utilized, together with H. Lietzmann's convenient edition of the Didache (Kleine 
Texte 6), in which a reprint of Schlecht's Latin version is added to the apparatus. 



Recto. 
ουχί και τα ε 
θνη τοντο 
ποιουσιν υ μ 
ει? δε φιλειτ 
5 € του? μισόν 
τα? υμα? και 
ουχ εξετε εχ 



Fol. Ι. 

Verso. 

i. 3 §R9 V ακου 

ε τι σε δει not 

10 ουντα σωσαι 

σου το Ένα π[ρ]ω 
τον παντώ 
αποσχου των 
σαρκ([ι]κων e 

15 πιθυμαων 



ι. 4 



Recto. 

δβ προσευξζΐ ου? 
8e αγαπήσει? 
υπέρ την ψυχή 
2θ σου >>>>>>>>>>>> 



Ί 



τεκνον μου 
φεύγε απο 



Fol. 2. 

Verso. 

ϋ. 7• [[ α7Γ0 ]] "^ αν το? 

πραγματο? 
25 πονηρού και 
ομοίου αυτού 
μη γεινου οργει 
λο? επειδή οδη 
iii. r γει η οργή προ? 

30 τον φονον 



111. 2 



1782. THEOLOGICAL FRAGMENTS 15 

2. τοντο : το αυτό Μ; cf. Matt. V. 47 ουχί κα\ oi εθνικοί το αυτό ποιρΰσιν ; On the Other 

hand Const. Apost. (vii. 1) have και yap oi εθνικοί τοϋτο ποιοϋσιν, and so Justin, Apol. i. 15 (with 
πόρνοι instead of εθνικοί). 

4» φιλίΐτί: so Const. Apost. ; αγαπά™ M, and so also Matt. v. 44, Luke vi. 27, Gospel 
according to the Egyptians, and Justin, Apol. i. 15. 

7. ονχ *£«■* εχθρον is also the order of Μ. ΐχθ. οίχ ίξ. Const. Apost. 

8-12 aKove . . .παντω(ν) : there is nothing corresponding to these words in Μ or Const. 

Apost., which pass abruptly tO άπίχον των σαρκικών κτλ. For σωσαι το πν{*νμ)α cf. e. g. 
I Cor. V. 5 ΐνα το nvevpa σωθη eV τη ήμίρα τοΰ κνρ'ιον. 

,13. αποσχον. άπίχον Μ, Const. Apost. The present tense is expected. 

14. σαρκ(\ϊ\κων (πιθυμίΐων : σαρκικών κα\ σωματικών ΐπιθ. Μ, σαρκ. κα\ κοσμικών ΐπιθ. Const. 

Apost. κοσμικών was adopted by Bryennios and preferred by Harnack (pp. 5, 172) who 
however hesitated to accept it in his text ; cf. Titus ii. 12 άρνησάμΐνοι . . . τάς κοσμικάς 

επιθυμίας, 2 Clem. XVU. 3 μη άντιπαρΐλκώμΐθα άπο τών κοσμικών ΐπιθ. The variation in Μ and 

Const. Apost. as to the second epithet may perhaps be regarded as an argument for its omis- 
sion with 1782, which has also in its favour the analogy of 1 Pet. ii. 11 αγαπητοί, παρακαλώ . . . 
άπίχΐσθαι τών σαρκικών ΐπιθ. 

1 6. fXey£etr : so Μ. The ξ, though little of it remains, is practically certain, and ους 8e 
(λίήσΐΐς, which Hilgenfeld inserted after ΐλεγξΐΐς from Καν. ίκκλ., is therefore excluded. 
Const. Apost. (vii. 5), like M, make no reference to eXeoy, but are here rather compressed. 

16-17. ω { ν ) δ* • SO Καν. έκκλ. : 8e ων Μ. Both Μ and Καν. ίκκλ. have προσΐύξη. 

2 3- ο,πο was inadvertently repeated in turning over the page. There seem to be traces 
of a bracket after the ο and of a horizontal dash underneath the three superfluous letters, but 
this corner is so much discoloured and rubbed that it is difficult to be sure whether or how 
they were cancelled. 

24. πράγματος '. om. M, Const. Apost., Καν. Ικκλ. πράγματος may have been inserted 
to obviate the ambiguity in gender of πονηρού (cf. the opposite rendering of the Latin ad 
homine malo), but on the other hand the homoeoteleuton would make the loss easy. 

25. πονηρού : SO Μ, Καν. ίκκλ. ; κακοΰ Const. Apost. 

26. ομοίου '. άπο παντός ομοίου Μ, Const. Apost., Καν. 4κκλ. 
αυτού : SO Μ, Καν. έκκλ. ; αΰτώ Const. Apost. 

28. (πίΐδη ο8ηγ(ΐ : so Lat. quia . . . duett', otyyu yap Μ, Καν. ΐκκλ. ; Const. Apost. omit 
the epexegetic clause, ΐπΐΐδή ό8ηγΰ occurs three times in verses 4-6 of this chapter. 

1783. Hermas, Pastor, Μ and ix. 

6x9-3 cm • Early fourth century. 

This fragment, the fourth from the Shepherd to be obtained from Oxy- 
rhynchus (cf. 404, 1172, 1599), consists of the lower portion of a vellum leaf 
containing a few verses from Mand ix. Seven lines are missing at the top 
of the verso, and on the assumption that the upper margin was of the same 
depth as the lower the height of the leaf when complete may be estimated 
at 13 cm. The hand is a round upright uncial of medium size and rather 
graceful appearance, which may be referred to the earlier part of the fourth 
century. There is no trace of ruling. One instance occurs of a stop in 1. 4. 6tos 
and Kvpios are contracted as usual, but not άνθρωπος (1. 5)• 



i6 THE OXYRHYNCHUS PAPYRI 

The leaf is a palimpsest, but the original text, which ran in the reverse 
direction, is so much obliterated that its identity has not yet been established. 
It was prose, written apparently in lines of much the same length as those of 
the Shepherd, and in a hand which looks very little earlier in date. Among 
the few words which have been recognized with the aid of a reagent are 
. . . τον περιεσχια\[3η, ου μόνον τω, και πληρώ. 

This fragment is approximately contemporary with 1172 and 1599, and 
shows a text of a somewhat similar type. It is not free from errors (e.g. 
11. 5, 6), but in several places it is superior to the Codex Athous, here the 
only continuous Greek authority, and supports corrections which editors have 
adopted from other sources. For the passage covered by 1783, the testimony 
of the Athous (ca) and the Latin and Aethiopic versions is supplemented by 
a fragment printed from an early MS. by J. E. Grabe, Spicil. ss. Patrutn, i, 
p. 303 (ed. 2), and extracts found in Ps.-Athanasius and Antiochus. In the 
collation below the transcript of the Codex Athous given by K. Lake in Facs. of 
the A thos fragments of the Shepherd of Hennas has been utilized, besides the 
editions of Gebhardt-Harnack and Hilgenfeld. 



Verso. 



Recto. 



. . . πάντων των α[ιτηματων σου Mand. 

πολνσπλ[α]γχνιαν αντου οτι Maud. 15 ανυστερητος εση εαν αδιστα 1Χ * 4 

ου μη σε [εγκαταλείψει άλλα το 1Χ • 2 κτω? αίτηση πάρα του [κ]υ εαν 

αίτημα τη? ψνχη? σου πληρο δε δισταση? εν τη κάρδια σου 

φορησει• ουκ εστίν ο β? ω? οι ου μη λάβεις των αιτημάτων 

5 άνθρωποι μνησικακουντε? σου οι γαρ δισταζοντε? ει? τον 

αλλ αυτό? αμνησικακητο? εστίν 2θ Θν ούτοι εισιν οι διψυχοι και 

Ι. την] πολυσπ^α^γχνιαν : SO recent edd. with Grabe's fragment ; την πολλήν (νσπλαγχνίαν 

ca, Ant(iochus), Athan(asius) Cod. Guelf. (την πολν^υσπλ. Cod. Paris.). 

2. [Ε]νκαταλίΐψει : so Athan. Cod. Guelf., &c. (γκαταλίπη ca ((•γκατάλ(ίπη Grabe's 
fragment). 

4. ίστιν ο θ((ο)ς : ?ση yap ca, omitting 6 6eos, which Hilgenfeld and Gebhardt-Harnack 
add from Grabe's fragment, Ant., Athan., both Latin versions, and the Aethiopic. 

5. 1. οί μνησικ. with ca and Grabe's fragment ; the omission of oi (due no doubt 
to the termination of άνθρωποι) is found also in Ant. and Athan. Grabe's fragment adds 

(eZy) αλλήλους after μνησικ. 

6. αμνησικακητος : άμνησίκακος ca, &C άμνησικάκητος OCCUrS elsewhere Only in Polyb. xl. 

12. 5 in a passive sense. 

15. ανυσπρητο! : so ca, Hilgenfeld, Gebhardt-Harnack; άστΐρητο: Athan. Cod. Paris. 



1783. THEOLOGICAL FRAGMENTS 17 

eav : so Gebhardt-Harnack with Athan. Cod. Paris., the older Latin, and the Aethiopic ; 
δσα αν ca, Hilgenfeld. 

1 6. αίτηση : αίτησες ca, Athan. Cod. Paris. 

17. 8e : so edd. with Athan. Cod. Paris., the Palatine Latin, and Aethiopic ; om. ca. 

18. ου μη λαβίκ : ovStv ού μη λη^τη ca, Athan. Cod. Paris. 

20. 01 : so ca, Ant. ; as Athan. Cod. Paris., om. Cod. Guelf. 

1784. CONSTANTINOPOLITAN CREED/ 

65 X 19-8 cm. Fifth century. 

This copy of the so-called Constantinopolitan Creed, which as being an 
enlargement of the Nicene Creed has commonly passed under the latter name, is 
still older than that of the Nicene Creed published in P. Rylands I. 6. It is 
written in an upright semicursive hand which may be referred to the second half 
of the fifth century. In 1. 3 υ of του is written as a semicircle above the ο and a 
common abbreviation of και is used in 1. 6. Θ(ό$, κύριος, Ίησους, and Χρίστο? are 
contracted, but not πατήρ, υιός, or άνθρωπος, ο and ω, as often happens in docu- 
ments of this period (cf. e. g. 1130, which is approximately contemporary), are 
repeatedly interchanged. 

The origins of this Creed are obscure. According to Nicephorus (Hist. Eccles. 
xii. 13) it was framed by Gregory of Nyssa, but the Acts of the Council of 381, to 
which it is attributed, are not extant, and its first authoritative appearance is in 
the Acts of the Council of Chalcedon (A. D. 451), by which 'the Creed of the 
150 holy Fathers assembled at Constantinople ' was reaffirmed. That the present 
copy was made not very long after that event would be a natural supposition. 
Apart from misspellings it agrees so far as it goes with the ordinary text ; 
unfortunately it breaks off before the eighth article, in which the ' Filioque ' 
was inserted at an uncertain date, is reached, though that addition is not likely to 
have been incorporated here. 



J? πιστενωμςν €ΐ[ς] cva θν πάτερα παντοκράτορα ^τορα^ ποιητην [ο]ννου 
και γης ορατών τ€ πάντων και αωρατων και "[[e]]? €να κν Ιν Χν 
των νϊον τον θυ των μονογενην τον εκ του πατρός γεννηθεν[τα πρ]ο 
πάντων των αιωνον φως εκ φοτως θν α\ηθι[νό]ν εκ θυ [αληθινού 
5 γεννηθέντα ου ποιηθεντα ωμοουσιον τω [π]ατρι Si ου [τα πάντα eyei>e 
τω [τον] δι ημάς τους ανθρω[πο]νς k s δια την ημξτ[€ρ]αν σω[τηριαν 



3• μονογίνην: this form of the ace. is a vulgarism common from the Roman period. 
4. 6((o)v : the ν has been written over an original s, which being in darker ink looks at 
first sight like the later letter, but that this appearance is deceptive is shown by αληθι\νο\ν. 

C 



i8 THE OXYRHYNCHUS PAPYRI 



1785. Homilies ? 

Frs. 2 + 3 6-6xi3»8cm. Fifth century. 

A fragmentary papyrus leaf, apparently from a collection of discourses which 
at present remain anonymous. The style of Frs. 2-4 recto, concerning con- 
cupiscence, of which a series of Biblical instances is cited, recalls that of 1603, 
now identified as (Pseudo-)Chrysostom In decollationem. Ρ recur sorts (Aoy. γ6), but 
efforts to trace 1785 among the works of that voluminous author have so far not 
been successful. Other fragments of homilies cast in a somewhat similar mould 
are 1601-2. That the several fragments, of which a few are too insignificant 
to be worth printing, are all from the same leaf is likely though not certain. 
Frs. 1-5 recto and Fr. 1 verso. 1-6 are written in fairly regular slightly sloping 
uncials of medium size ; at Fr. 1 verso. 7 the hand changes, and from this point 
onwards approximates to cursive. Apparently 11. 5-6 are remains of a heading, 
and 11. 7 sqq., where the second hand begins, are a fresh discourse, which 
is of a hortatory description and relates to reverence and godly fear. A fifth- 
century date seems to be indicated, more especially by the second hand. The 
ink throughout is of the brown colour characteristic of the Byzantine period. 
A mark like an enlarged comma is employed with some freedom to divide 
words, and two or three instances of the rough breathing occur on the recto, 
where also a high stop is once found (Fr. 1 recto. 7). 

Fr. 1 recto. 



] . [ 3 • . [ 

θ]ανατος και [ 
]αντων απο δικαιο[ 
8ικ]αιων εντολών Θν α[ 
5 ]τως aOeos εστίν, οτ[ι 
] κατβφρονησα[ν 
? ο\δον . [,]υ• και α . [ 
] ί~ς κα[ 
ψ]υχησ[ 
ίο ο]ί οφθ[αλμοι ? 



ΙΟ 



15 



1785. THEOLOGICAL FRAGMENTS 19 

Frs. 2-4 recto. 

16 letters ένεκεν σννο]νσι[ασ]μ[ον 

κ]<χτεψεν[σαντο οι πρεσβύτεροι] κατά ζούσαν [ 
ν]α? ένεκεν [σνν]ου[σιασμον η γν]νη του αρ[χι 
μ]αγειρον κα[τ]εψενδομαρτ[νρησεν τον Ιω 
σ•]ηφ ένεκεν [σ]ννονσιασμου [απωλο]ντ[ο πο\ 
λοι] απο τη? φ[υλη]? Βενιαμειν [ο]λιγ[οι δ]ε εσ\ω]θη 
σα]ν ένεκεν \σ\ν\νο"\υσιασμον > οι Χοδομειται 
εν]εκεν σννουσιασμου οι απο τον Κα 

• • •]#[• •] €ν€Κξ1/ ο~ννονσιασμον οι εν τη 

. ε]νεκεν σννονσιασμ[ο]ν, η γννη [το]ν 

]<τ • [•] ε—ζονσιαζει αυ[τη? ?] ay η ρ 

? νπ]ο τον ϊδιον [....]. ον[. . . Fr. 4 

18 letters ]σε[ ]ν σκνθ[ρω 

π 25 „ \ναν χο[ 



27 



Fr. 5. 

β]ασιλ[ 

"μ 

]vpv[ 



Fr. ι verso. 

]οσιν ε£ εναν[τι 

]α ειπ[ε]ν ο θς και δια . [ 

]αι τοντ^_ J [ 

5 κατ\α τονδε νονν λόγος, λογο[ς 

ϊ 

C 2 



2θ THE OXYRHYNCHUS PAPYRI 

2nd hand ] . . ων o[. . ,]σα[ 

]erre/x7r[ 
1 



Frs. 2-4 verso. 

.[..]., *.., [ 

e£ αρχής οσ[ 1 7 letters ]ov γαρ παν[. . . 

.]e 7Γ€ριβο[ ]o . [.] . «y απα[σα]ν ξνλαβ€ΐ[αν . . 

ά\νηρ ξνλαβης k s φ[ο]βονμ€νος . . [. . 

.] . [. .] κν, .[•]••<• [•] (νλαβη? απο ν[.] . . τ . α ΐθνους [. 

.]δα αντων νπο τον ουνον α[. . . .] . α φοβούμενος 

VY 

«[.] . . τον KVy τω Se φοβω τον θυ €κκλίΐσ[ας και 

αναρπαξας απο κ[ακο]υ μη ισθι φρο[νη]μ[ατ 

ζ([. .] . . τω φόβου δε τον κν και ev καλ[ 

. . .] . e£[. . . ,]κον totucl<t\. . . ,]ν[ 

. κ]ακος, €φ[. . .] ει; λβ . . [ 

.] yei/effty [ 

. . .] φ[ο]β*[.] . [ 



Fr. 1 recto. That this fragment is to be placed above Fr. 2 is shown by the change of 
hand on the verso. 

7. The first letter must be a, δ, or λ, and if, as seems probable, the vestiges above the 
line represent a rough breathing, όδοΰ or δλον is indicated, the word following perhaps being 
σου ; otherwise δονλ[ο]υ could well be read. 

8. #(<-o)s is doubtful, the cross-bar of θ being rather indistinct, and the form of the sign 
of abbreviation unusual. Possibly the oblique stroke might be taken as meant for a mark 
of division between ]v and και, but it is rather farther away from the ν than would be expected, 
and with the stop above the line would also be superfluous; cf. however Frs. 2-4 verso. 7, 
where a somewhat similar stroke occurs apparently as a mark of punctuation. 

Frs. 2-4 recto. The position of Fr. 2, giving the ends of 11. 1-3 is certain, but that of 
Fr. 4, which contains the ends of 11. 12-15, with a vestige supposed to belong to the 
a of ανηρ in 1. ii, is less clear. 

2. Either [κ\ατ(ψ(ν[σαντο or [κ\ατΐψεν[οΌμαρτνρησαν (cf. 1. 4) is probable and the former must 
be preferred if οι πρεσβύτεροι is right. Σονσαννα is the spelling of BAQ ; Σωσαννα Β rescr. 

3. αρ[χιμ]αγίΐρον : so the LXX in Gen. xxxix. 1. 



1785. THEOLOGICAL FRAGMENTS 21 

5-6. The incident referred to is related in Judges xix-xx. At the end of 1. 5 
απωλο]ντ[ο πολ|λοι is very conjectural, especially as there is barely room for [Xot] before 
από in 1. 6. 

7. οι Σοδομαται (Gen. xix) and the following nominatives lack a verb, e. g. εφθάρησαν, 
and the angular symbol preceding 01 may be interpreted as referring to this loss, which was 
perhaps supplied in the margin. 

8. Dr. Bartlet suggests that Κα . . . may be Καπερναούμ, referring to Matt. xi. 23, but 
this can only be restored on the assumption of a misspelling. 

11. The explanation of the dash between the e and | of (ξονσιαζει. is not evident. 
There is a hole in the papyrus immediately below it. ν of αν[της may be λ, e. g. a\\\a o]. 

Pr. 5. 3. A combination with Frs. 2-4. 1. 2 [κ]ατ(ψ€ν[8ομαρτ]νρη[σαν is possible, though 
unconvincing. 

Fr. 1 verso. 4. The latter part of this line has apparently been washed out. 

6. Whether part of an oblique stroke immediately after the lacuna belongs to a letter, 
e. g. v, or some other sign is doubtful. 

Frs. 2-4 verso. 1-2. The margin being lost both here and in 11. 7-9, the point at 
which the lines began, though fixed with probability, is not quite certain. 

7. ο of τον has been corrected, perhaps from η. • 

8. φρο[νη]μ[ατ . . . : or possibly φρο[νι]μ[ωδης, a form found in some MSS. of Philostratus 
705, which would suit the space rather better than φρο[νη]μ[. 

10-13. The letters ] . e|[, κ]ακοε «φ[ in 11. io-n, and 11. 12-13 are on Fr. 4 which is 
doubtfully placed; cf. note on Frs. 2-4 recto. In 1. 10 the signs resembling inverted 
commas above ασ (or μ ?) may perhaps be regarded as marks of cancellation. 



1786. Christian Hymn with Musical Notation. 

29-6 χ 5 cm. Late third century. Plate 1. 

This interesting fragment of what is by far the most ancient piece of Church 
music extant, and may be placed among the earliest written relics of Christianity, 
is contained on the verso of a strip from an account of corn, mentioning several 
Oxyrhynchite villages and dating apparently from the first half of the third 
century, though later than the Constitutio Antoniniana, since some of the persons 
named are Aurelii. The text on the verso is written in long lines parallel with 
the fibres in a clear upright hand which approximates to the literary type but 
includes some cursive forms, e. g. the e of [Yjarepa in 1. 4. Above each line of 
text the corresponding vocal notes have been added in a more cursive lettering, 
whether by the same hand or another is not easy to determine. The character 
of both scripts appears to point to a date in the latter part of the third century 
rather than the early decades of the fourth. This hymn was accordingly written 
before either P. Amh. 2 or Berl. Klassikertexte VI. vi. 8, which are both assigned 



22 THE OXYRHYNCHUS PAPYRI 

to the fourth century. Unfortunately only its conclusion is preserved, and that 
very imperfectly, four lines out of the five being disfigured by large initial 
lacunae. Nevertheless the general purport of what remains is fairly clear. 
Creation at large is called upon to join in a chorus of praise to Father, Son, and 
Holy Spirit, and the concluding passage is the usual ascription of power and 
glory to the ' only giver of all good gifts '. The original extent of the hymn 
cannot be gauged from the recto, for though the strip evidently came from the 
latter part of the column of accounts, the breadth of this is unknown, and a second 
column, or more, may of course have followed. 

The early date indicated by the character of the handwriting is reflected in 
the metre, which is purely quantitative and uninfluenced by accent. Owing to 
the mutilation of the fragment the metrical scheme cannot be closely followed, 
but the rhythm was apparently anapaestic and may be analysed as a series of 
dimeters, either acatalectic, catalectic, or brachycatalectic. A short syllable is 
allowed to replace a long at the end of a colon, and the first syllable of αμήν is 
lengthened metri gratia. It is noticeable that the metre of both P. Amh. 2 and 
Berl. Κ lass. VI. vi. 8 is analogous, and the anapaestic measure thus seems to have 
been a favourite one with early Christian hymnologists in Egypt. Perhaps, as 
in the Berlin hymn, pairs of cola formed a system. 

The musical notation is generally similar to that found in the rather earlier 
papyrus published by Schubart in Sitzungsber. preuss. Akad. 191 8, pp. 763 sqq., 
the text of which has been revised and discussed by Th. Reinach in Revue 
ArcheOlogique, 1919, pp. n-27, an< ^ nas been arranged in modern style by Prof. 
A. Thierfelder. 1 The notes which can be recognized with certainty are eight, 
R φ σ ο £ t ζ e. These all occur in the Diatonic Hypolydian key of Alypius, 
to which Reinach assigns also the Paean of the Berlin papyrus ; that, however, is 
more probably to be regarded as in the Iastian key. As for the mode, there can 
be little doubt that it is the Hypophrygian or Iastian, as in the Epitaph of Seikilos 
and the Hymn to Nemesis of Mesomedes; cf. Gevaert, La milopie antique, pp. 48 sqq. 
With regard to the character of the syllables and the corresponding notes, 
Reinach has observed that in the Berlin Paean a barytone syllable is always sung 
on a lower note than the succeeding accented final syllable, and that a circumflexed 
syllable has two notes at least. Neither of these observations holds in the case 
of 1786, and the former indeed can hardly be maintained of the Paean either. 
On the other hand, two notes are assigned to a short syllable in one instance at 
least (1. 4). 

In addition to the notes five signs are used, all of which are found also in 
the Berlin papyrus. (1) A horizontal stroke is placed above notes attached to 

1 Paean and Tek??iessa (Leipzig), renewed with severity by Schroder, Berl. Phil. Woch. xl. 351. 



1786. THEOLOGICAL FRAGMENTS 23 

syllables which are long or scanned as such (for a possible exception see 1. 2, n.). 
(2) A curved stroke or hyphen, as in modern notation, is written below notes that 
are to be regarded as legato. (3) A symbol like a half-circle, written in the same 
line with the musical notes, is to be explained with Reinach as a form of Λ, 
a sign given by Bellermann's Anonymus 102 and signifying a χρόνος κενός or rest. 
According to the same ancient authority the duration of the pause was increased 
by the addition of various marks of length, and in 1786 0, i. e. a double χρόνος, 
is regularly used, whereas in the Berlin text the bare symbol only occurs. There 
are three instances of it (11. 2, 3, 4) corresponding with the metrical divisions ; 
a fourth which is expected at the end of 1. 4 possibly stood at the beginning of 
1. 5. The purpose of (4) the colon (:), which is sometimes placed in front of a note 
or group of notes, is not very clear. Reinach (p. 14) says that this is peculiar to 
the instrumental portions of the Berlin papyrus, and regards it as a diastoli or 
sign of division between two cola. But the same sign is to be recognized more 
than once among the vocal notes of the Paean also, and in 1786 it has evidently 
nothing to do with the separation of cola. According to Thierfelder, I.e., it 
means two beats ; at any rate, it probably affects the time in some way. (5) A 
single dot is frequently placed above the notes, and according to the anonymous 
authority cited above this means arsis : ή μεν ουν Θεσις σημαίνεται, όταν απλώς το 
σημεϊον αστικτον f] . . . η δ' α,ρσις, όταν εστιγμενον (3, 85). Some critics have con- 
sidered that in that passage the terms θεσις and άρσις have become transposed, 
others, e.g. Blass, Bacchylides, p. 1 (so too Reinach, p. 6, n.), maintain its 
correctness. As Professor Stuart Jones observes, the fact that here, as in the 
Berlin papyrus, the symbol for the χρόνος κενός is dotted, looks like a confirmation 
of the latter view. Apart from this however, if the metre of 1786 is rightly 
regarded as anapaestic, the use of the dots seems for the most part to favour the 
hypothesis that they denote thesis, and they were so interpreted* plausibly 
enough, by Wessely in the Orestes fragment at Vienna (Mittheil. Pap. Erz. 
Rainer, v. 65 sqq.). The dot associated with the χρόνος κενός might possibly 
then be accounted for by catalexis. Unfortunately the Berlin papyrus throws 
little light on the problem, a consistent interpretation of the dots there having 
yet to be found. Schroder, Berl. Phil. Woch. xl. 352, thinks that in the 
second of the fragments arsis is plainly meant. Both he and Thierfelder, who 
takes them to denote ictus, profess to distinguish two kinds of dot, a heavy and 
a light, but the distinction is probably imaginary. 

A transcription in modern notation has been kindly supplied by Professor 
H. Stuart Jones. 



24 



THE OXYRHYNCHUS PAPYRI 



Γ 31 letters ] ομού πασαι τ€ θεού λογιμοι 

]| ι| οφσφ^φ :£ιΐ ζ {« ζ 
28 letters ? π/>]ι>ται>77ω σιγατω μηδ' άστρα 

ζ ι Ι Φ L ί 
φα^σφορα λ[«7τ]€ Α _ 

ί I :{c :t£|c ■£ ξι*φ :gi 

ΓσΊβα»' [.] . λβί . [ ]/ο[ ] ποταμών ροθιων πασαι νμνουν- 

φ :ο| R 

τα)!/ δ' ημών 

] σ σ φ OR : φσ φ φξ i[Tj" £ ?S ξφ φ Φ £ ° οοοοϊ δ f : £«ξ 

Γπίατερα χ' υιον χ αγιον πνζυμα πασαι δνναμας ξπιφωνουντων αμήν 
ί ί Οϋ έ? Φ 
α/ζτ/ι/ κράτος αίνος 

]. :σ σ φσκφ σ σο| ξι ΐ ο ξ σ ξι ιξ ο φ σ-φ σοξ : f ιξ οφσφ 

Γ • • •] ?[ β9τ ] ι ϊ|> Λ ] Η•°Υ ω ^ο-ντων a -γαθων αμήν αμήν 



£-£ 



£#=ΐ 



-φ- -β- -β- 



t =t=rff—* -* 






]υ ται> 



γά - τω μ^δ «σ - τρα φα 



Μ 



££Ut- 



£=fe 



£=Q= 



ea - φό - ρα λ[(ΐ-π]4 - [σ]θων ... πο - τα - μων ρο - θί 



w% 



£ 



& 



ΖΐΡΪ 



V = Ι f 



ψ-\—β- 



νμ 



νουν - των 



Μ£ϊξΤ&=£ 



£ 



δ' ή - μών 7Γα - re - ρα ^υί 



ΙΡ=Ε 



=£ 



:£ 



:ί / — I- 



χα - ν' 



μα 



πα - σαι 



8υ- 



να - μας 



-β- -β- 



m 



aeggz g r ι p £= r- T ^ — : ^^=£=£^g=^=^ 



«Γ» - φω - νουν - τωι/ α - μην 



μην κρα - τος αι 



1786. THEOLOGICAL FRAGMENTS 



25 



m^r- 



m 



' -«- -»- £- H«- 



g=f= 



T1J 



pi /xo - νω 



as 



42= 



-r >. 



Ξ§ Ξ_^Ξ^Ξ^ 




W• 



πάν -των ά - ya - θων a - μην . . a ■ 

ι Only slight vestiges of the musical notation are visible above this line. 

2. »lJU! ?: the word is somewhat unexpected and the mark of length on the second 
syllable is a difficulty, but this may possibly be connected with the fact that the , has been 
corrected from v. The occurrence of η for « is common. To suppose that ηω = ™ and 
that ταν = την or -την is much more difficult. 

φΐαφορα: the surface above the note φ is damaged, and a dot has probably dis- 

& ™ e 7<t}<U}e<ov is very doubtful ; the initial letter may be μ or x , and I may be β of which 
no other example occurs in the papyrus, W 8* . . . Φ^σφορα can be constructed with σ<γ«™ 
andTnother ^ Ρ δ> might stand at the end of the line ; or if . . . {σ]Α» is rightly taken as an 
imnerative this mav belong to what follows. .. » 

P 3. Perhaps J] «m^ (sc n^d, or something similar), with a preceding mention of 
the sea, but the uncertainties are too many for a convincing restoration. λ« (or *«?) is 
Stowed by a vertical stroke suggesting y or r, and the doubtful P may be φ or f . po6W 

iS ° V 4 r . A dot is^proSably to be restored above the notes on *™, the papyrus haying been 
rubbed here. The dots on the notes from j rm* to «ηνμα are carried on m regular 
succession to those of the preceding words, as if there were no I« « jtHj"- g% 
dot is most probably lost above the second syllable of the first αμήν. A dot above the α οι 
«MSwSr the . of rm in 1. 3) is ignored in the transcription, since it is more 
ίο the right of the note ξ than usual and would also interrupt the sequence The note 
Tabove f of δν^. is very uncertain, fa*, isused of he avenly bodies (e g. Ma £ 
xxiv. 29 ol δ. ife οΓρα,ώ, : cf. also n. on 1. 5) and sometimes of angels, but may here be quite 

gen6 t' In the line of notes the second group : σ is very doubtfully deciphered ; the upper 
dot of the supposed colon must be supposed to have disappeared, and the lower one is rathe 
farge The "vLiges might be regarded as a single letter but they -to suggest nothing bu 
a father unsatisfactory a, which does not occur elsewhere in the P~ "^«^ 
extraneous to the mode. A dot may be lost above the mark of length and others above 
φσκ and the .over the second syllable of ««; the surface is a good deal rubbed 
hereabouts ^ ^ ^ ^ oj/a)j but ^j is highly 

doubtful though some such word * demanded by the sense. In the preceding lacuna the 
mut^s indicate a loss of seven syllables, of which the last fcree were *n ■«£*»* 
more syllable at least, however, seems necessary for the metre and it is perhaps just possible 
that a note is missing between : a and r, where there is a rather broad space and he surface 
is not well preserved. Something, like vyu «& a,W (or δόξα, «» ««) δ.δο^ ^wanted 
cf e g. the eleventh prayer in the Greek morning service (Ευχολόγιο, το W») « * e ? ι "?Τ 

Πκύμαη rf„ K al «Υ. «*ί Λ τού 5 αΣά>™ τώ, «AW Άρήν. The double w at the end ot the 
line appears to be extra melrutn. 



26 THE OXYRHYNCHUS PAPYRI 



II. NEW CLASSICAL FRAGMENTS 

1787. Sappho, Book iv. 

Fr. ι 15.9x9.4 cm. Third century. Plate Π 

(Frs. i + 2, 9). 

The authorship of the following fragments, being (with P. S. I. 123) the sixth 
distinct papyrus of Sappho so far obtained from Oxyrhynchus, is established by 
one certain and two other probable coincidences with lines previously extant ; 
some isolated words attributed by Grammarians to Sappho also occur. To which 
of the available books among the nine of her lyrics they belonged is uncertain, 
but they may be assigned With some probability to the fourth. The metre is 
apparently the same throughout, a two-line strophe consisting of a repetition of 

the verse ^ — u/w ^^ ^ Vrf _ v ^_^ j which Hephaestion 64 describes as 

an Ionic a maiore tetrameter acatalectic, adding that it was called ΚΙολικόν 
from its frequent use by Sappho, from whom he cites Frs. 76-7 as examples. 
Similar two-line strophes are described by Hephaest. in, 1 16-17, according to 
whom Sappho's second and third books consisted entirely of such systems, 
Book ii containing poems in the Σαπφίκόν τζσσαρζσκαώεκασύλλαβον (^ ^ — ^ w — w 

— ^^ — ^^: cf. Hephaest. 42), Book iii of the εκκαώεκασύλλαβον (— — — <^ <~> ww — 

— ^^ — v^: Hephaest. 60). Since the fifth book was of a different character, 
consisting partly, at any rate, if the Berlin fragments belonged to it, of poems in 
strophes of three lines, it seems that the only book to which the two-line strophes 
of 1787, which are entirely analogous to those of Books ii and iii, can be logically 
referred is Book iv. Perhaps this further resembled the two preceding books in 
the homogeneity of its contents ; that supposition is not excluded by the fact 
that Hephaestion does not refer to Book iv in connexion with two-line strophes, 
and on the other hand accords both with his statement about the Aeolic tetra- 
meter that Sappho ττολλω αντω ϊχρήσατο and with the not inconsiderable remains 
of the present papyrus. But it is of course quite possible that poems in similar 
metres (cf. e. g. Sapph. 60, 62) were also included. 

Like most of the papyri from this find, 1787 has suffered severely, having 
been torn into quite small pieces, which have not fitted together very well. The 
difficulty of the task of reconstruction, in which Mr. Lobel has rendered valuable 
assistance, is much increased by the fact that the remains of this roll were found 



1787. NEW CLASSICAL FRAGMENTS 27 

together with a quantity of other lyric fragments in an identical hand. There is 
a number of smaller pieces which cannot be assigned to one MS. or the other 
with any approach to security, and in these circumstances it seemed advisable to 
print here only such fragments as were shown by dialect or some other special 
indication to belong to the Sappho. A revised text of P. Halle 2, the source of 
which now becomes evident, is included for the sake of convenient reference. 
That fragment was no doubt abstracted and sold by a dishonest workman ; 
script, metre, and date of acquisition all point to this conclusion. 

The hand is a rapidly formed uncial of medium size and with a decided 
slope; that of 1788 is in many respects very similar. Stops in the high 
position occur, and accents, breathings, and marks of elision, quantity, and diaeresis 
have been freely added, as usual in papyri of lyric poets. Acute accents are 
sometimes so horizontal as to be barely distinguishable from marks of length. 
Two rarer symbols are a mark similar in form and position to a comma, to divide 
words (Fr. 8. 2), and the converse of this, a curved ligature below the line, which 
connects the parts of a compound word in Fr. 9. 4. Paragraphi are employed to 
mark offstrophic couplets (cf. 1233. 1. ii) and a coronis to indicate the conclusion 
of a poem. The few interlineations occurring seem all to proceed from the 
original scribe, who may also be credited with at any rate many of the 
diacritical signs. 

Remains of eight poems at least can be distinguished, and the number 
represented is no doubt considerably larger than this. It is noticeable that three 
out of the four poems of which the initial letter has survived begin with E, but 
the fact that in Fr. 3. ii Ε is succeeded by O, while not definitely excluding 
an alphabetical arrangement, is certainly not in favour of it. Of the individual 
pieces there is not much to be said, since their severe mutilation, except in one 
or two cases, prevents the line of thought from being followed with precision, and 
restoration cannot be attempted with any real chance of success. Fr. 1 gives the 
ends of lines of a poem of some length in which Sappho dwells on the advance 
of age and the inevitable approach of death, passing on to a declaration, in two 
verses cited by Athenaeus, that to be desirable life must for her have the^ accom- 
paniments of delicacy [αβροσυνη), splendour (τό λαμττρόν), and beauty (τό καλόν). 
The second column of Fr. 3 included two complete poems, of six and five 
couplets respectively, in the former of which several persons, perhaps the poet's 
companions, were addressed, the other being an invocation, tantalizingly mutilated, 
to sleep. In Fr. 4 Sappho herself is addressed by name, as in Sapph. 1 and 59 
and Berk Klassikertexte, V. xiii. 2. Fr. 6 is notable for a political reference, rare 
in Sappho as common in Alcaeus. Apparently some one is reproached for 
having chosen 'friendship with the daughters of the house of Penthilus', with 



2 8 THE OXYRHYNCHUS PAPYRI 

which the sweet song, the melody of birds, and the dewy leaves, spoken of in the 
following lines, are contrasted. The offender had perhaps been a member of the 
poet's circle, and is warned that she would no longer be welcome (1. a, n.). Fr. 6 



Fr. 3(4 Frs. i + 2. Plate II. 

.•• ...... 

]λβσσα[ ]ιδα[ 

] • ν*Ρί ] 

] . eiK€ . [ ]va 

]ίγοισα[. . .] 
5 ]ιδαχθην 

]αλλ[ ]νταν 

]ατίλ[ ]ασα 

"ψναταν\. . . .]<ζννμόνσ. 
]νίθήταιστ[.]μα[.]πρόκοψίν 
ίο ]πωνκάλαδωραπόίι.δ€σ 

]φι\'άοιδονλιγνραι>χξλνΐΊ>&ΐ' 
]νταχροαγήρασήδη 
]ντοτρί)^€σ€κμ€λαιναν 
]γ•γοναδ[.]υφ€ροισι 
15 ]ησθ'ΐσανςβρίοισιν 

]λλατίκ€νπο€ΐην 
}ουδννατον•γζν£σθαί 
]βροδόπάχννάνων 
]καταγάσφ€ροισα[ 
20 ]οννμωσίμαρψε[ 

]άτάνάκοίτιν 
] . μζναννομισδπ 
]αισοπασδοι 
]τοντοκάιμοι 
25 τολα[ ]λονλ€[.)ογχ€ 

£πϊν[ ] . [. . .]νο . [ 

φίλξΐ . [ .... 

καιν[ 



196537 

1787. NEW CLASSICAL FRAGMENTS 29 

mentions Andromeda, a rival who is alluded to in several already extant fragments. 
In the small Frs. S3 and 34 further coincidences with previously known verses 
are probably to be recognized. 



Fr. 2 (a). Frs. 1 + 2. Plate II. 

]\€<raa[ ]rf' ά[ 

] • *€/" [ ] 

] • €IK€ . [ ] va 

θ]ίγοισα[.] 
5 ]ί£* αχθην 

]αλλ[ ά\ύταν 

]α τί λ[ ]ξΐσα 

]ίνα τάν [. . . ,]αν ύμο . . 
]νι θήται στ[ν\μα[σι] πρόκοψα/ 
ίο ]πων κά\α δώρα ncuSes 

ω] φίλ.', άοιδον λιγύραν χ^Κύνναν 
πα\ντα χρόα γ ή pas ήδη 
λ€νκαί τ kykvo\vro τρίχνε ίκ μέλαιναν 
]ν• γόνα δ' [ο]ύ φίροισι 
1 5 ] ησθ' ϊσα νεβρίοισιν 

ά]λλά τί Κ€ν πούην ; 

] ου δυνατόν γενέσθαι 

] βροδόπαχυν αΰων 

] κατά. yds φίροισα 

2θ ]ον ΰμως βμαρψέ[ν 

]άταν άκοιτιν 

φθ]ιμ£ναν νομίσδα 

]ais όπάσδοι 

[εγω δε φίλημ άβροσύναν ] τοϋτο καί μοι 

25 το \ά[μπρον «pcay άςλίω και το κά\λον λ£[λ]ογχε 
€ττίΐ^ 23 letters ] • [• • Ή • [ 

φίλα , [ 
και ν[ 



3° THE OXYRHYNCHUS PAPYRI 

Fr. 3. 
Col. i. Col. ii. 



] 


έγ€ντ[ 


] 


£ ονγάρκ[ 


] 


~Φ" -t-f- r 

j ςπταξατ€[ 


] 


δαφρασότα[ 


]. 


5 πανδάδιον[ 


)v? 


. ήκήνορ€λρ[ 


]■ 


καιταΐσιμ€να[ 


]•. 




] 


μνγισδζποτ €ΐσαων•ξκλ[ 


1 


ίο ^υχαίαγαπάτασί'^ 


3 


τίαντ[.]νδ€ΐ/νι/€μμ[ 


] 


[.)κ€σ& αγανα[ 


] 


χ €φθατ€•καλαρ[ 


] 


=. τατ €μματακα[ 


1 


t5 J οι>οιρ€μ€λαιι>α[ 


]•/ 


φ[ϊ\ιταισότατ'νπνοσ[ 


] 


γλυκυσ . £οσ'ήδβινοι>ίάσμϊ 


] 


ζαχωρισίχ7)ντανδυναμ[ 


1 


ξλπίσδίμ €χειμ ηπξδεχη[ 


] 


2θ μηδ€νμακαρωρ€\[ 
[ — 1 


1 


ο^γαρκΙονού7θ)[. Γ 


] 


α^ϊ;ρ^ατα/ίαλ[ 


] 


yetOiTo5e/zoi[ 


]rjpoa' 


L• τοιαπαντη 




-ft- — L 



Fr• 4• Fr. 5. 

[ ] • <?7Γ*[ [. .]ωνμακ[ 

[ ]Ρ°Μ [.]αιτοντ'€πικ€ . [ 

[ $ 6λα ?ΐ [.]αιμωνοΧ6φ[ 



1787. NEW CLASSICAL FRAGMENTS 

Fr. 3. 
Col. i. Col. ii. 

ου yap *[e 

] 

] Έπτά£ατ€ [ 

δάφνας οτα [ 
J77? 5 πάν δ* άδιον [ 

] . η κηνον €λθ[ 

] . . και ταισι μ\ν ά[ 

οδοιπόρος άν[. ...]..[ 

μύγις δέ ποτ eiaaiov ίκλ[ 
ίο ψνγα δ' ay απάτα συν[' 
] τίαυτ(α) δ\ νυν ίμμ[ 

] [ί]κ(σθ' άγανα[ 

'έφθατε• κάλαν [ 

τά τ ψματα κα[ 

]• « 

15 "Ovoipe μ€λαινα[ 

φ[ο]ίταις οτα τ ύπνος [ 
] γλυκύς βζος' η δξϊν όνίας μ[ 

ζά χώρις €\ην ταν δύναμ[ 
Ζλπις δ£ μ' ί-χ€ΐ μη πβδ£χη[ν 
2 ο μηδ\ν μα κ άρω ν έλ[ 
J ου yap κ €ον ούτω [. . 

]ηρος• αθύρματα κάλ[ 

ykvovro δύ μοι [ 
τοϊς πάντα[ 

Fr. 4. Fr. 5. 

[ ] • σιτα[ [. .]ων μακ[ 

[ ]P°A te [ [κ]αϊ τοϋτ ίπικ€ . [ 

[ ]δζ\ασ[ [δ]αίμων 6λοφ[ώιος ? 



3ΐ 



32 



THE OXYRHYNCHUS PAPYRI 



[.]po . ήνν€μζ[ 
5 ψαπφοισ€φιλ[ 
κνπρωιβ[.]σίλ[ 
κάιτοιμ€γαδ[ 
[,]σσοισφα€θων[ 
πάνταικλ€οσ[ 
ίο κάισ*νναγ€(>[ 

• β[ Μ 



Fr. 6. 
]σ€μίκα 

]ελα[ ]άσ€γωνκ€άσω 

]νφιλότ[. . .]ηλ€θπ€νΘιλήάν[ 
]δακα[. . .]τροπί'αμμα[ 



]μΐλ[. .]τιγλύκ€ροι> 
]άμζλλιχοφων[ 
]δ€ί'λΐγνράιδ'αη[ 
]δροσ[.]€σσα[ 



Fr. 

]αθαι>α[ 
]€ρα,σί[ 
~]λον [ 
]ζδοισιν[ 
]a0eiaev[ 
]αιγινη[ 



Ι 



ονμαν€φίλησ[ 
5 νυνδ\ννζκα[ 
TolfaiTiovovT[ 
ovSevn6\v[.]e 

\A vS '4i 



Fr. 7. 
]ιγάρμ' απντασ[ 
']μωσδ'[ 
']ίσανθ€θΐσιν [ 
]ασάνα\ίτρα[ 
5 ]$ρομ€δαν[.] . [ 

]τα . . . κα[ 
]ρόπονα[ 
]ορονονκατισ[ 
]τυνδαρ£δαι[ 
19 \γαρί*ντά . [ 

]ηκξτισνν[ 

] . α[. . .]«[ 



Fr. 9• Plate II. 
]οδίρκ€νίπωμοσσ{ 
]ν£τΐ'τανπαΐδαδ€[ 
]βρ[.]τανκανχ€ρρι6[ 

]ep[ ]irape[ 



}νακ[ 



1787. NEW CLASSICAL FRAGMENTS 



[.]po . ήννψζ[ 
5 Ψάπφοι, <Γ€ 0ίλ[ 
Κνπρω β[α]σίλ[ 
καίτοι μέγα 6\ 
[6]σσοι$ Φαέθων [ 
πάντα κλέος [ 
ίο και σ kvv 'Αχέρ[οντος 

• ρ[ Μ 



ού μάν έφίλησ[ 
5 νυν δ' έννζκα [ 
το δ' αίτιον ούτ[ 
ούδίν πόλν [.]e . [ 

[ο]ύδ' ά[ 



33 



Fr. 6. 
] σβ Μίκα 
]e\a[.". άλλ]α σ' ίγω'νκ έάσω 
]ι> 0iXor[ar] ^λεο Πΐνθιλήαν 
]δα κα[κό]τροπ'' αμμα[$ 
] μέλ[ος] τι γλνκερον . [ 
]α μ€λλιχόφων[ος 
ά*ί]δ€ΐ' λίγνραι δ' άη[δοι 
} δροσ[ό]€θ~ο~α[ 



ίο 



Fr. 7• 

? κα]ί γαρ μ' άττυ τά? [ 
ν\μω$ δ' [ 
] ϊσαν θέοισιν 
] ασαν ά\ίτρα[ 
Άν]δρομέδαν ['.] . [ 
]τα . . . κα[ 
τ]ροπον ά[ 
]ορον ού κατίσ[χ 
] Τννδαρίδαι[ς 
] χαρίεντ α . [ 
μ]ηκ€τι σνν[ 

β κη 

] ■ 4• • •]«[ 



Fr. 8. 

]epa <re[ 

]λον 
]είοίσίΐ' [ 
5 ]aOeiaev[ 
]αιγινη[ 

]νακ[ 



Fr. 9• 
]οδίρκ€ν έπώμοσσ[ 
]ρ €Τί• τάρ παΐδα <5e [ 
? ά]/9ρ[ό]ταί> και/ \€ριθ[ 



34 



THE OXYRHYNCHUS PAPYRI 



Fr. 10. 

] . ovav[ 
]ηνουδς[ 
]ησΐμ€ρ[ 
]τάιδάμα[ 
5 ] . ανθοσ\ 
]μερορ[ 
]erep7T[ 



Fr. ιι. 
3ί#• •!?« [ 

]8v\oyoL$'€p[ 
]σαλλοι 
]ϊσζγρισα [ 

]αλλ€ί 
]ασ€€ρσασ[ 



Fr. 12. 

]λΙσ€ί€»/[ 
]π7λελά[ 
] € 0€λω[ 

5 ]«χΐ7?[ 
}(4φ& . [ 

]άλίλ[ 



Fr. 13. 

]αμαλλ[ 
]ναμ[ 
]ν^€Ϊμ'ί[ 
]ρσομίν[ 
; ']\ικυπα[ 
} . . [.}§α[ 
)ο•γαρ€παν[ 
]μανκαπν•γυϊ[ 
}αρμονίασβ[ 
to ]αθηνχοροναα[ 
]δξ\ίγηαν[ 
]ατόνσφι.[ 
]παντ€σσι[ 

Μ].[' 



Fr. 14. 

]/* α .*[ 

]7Γ0ίσαΓ[ 

]ίίλ€ί7<5θΖ/[ 

5 ] . 7τλοκαμ[ 
}€σ8άμα[ 
}ανθρώπ[ 
]λυμαιν . [ 
}τ€καιπ[ 



Fr. 16. 

]ραιμ[ 



Fr. 15. 

]ι-οσ€σ[[. [ 

]παντα[ 

δ 
] . ar6/ja[ 

]\οκα[ 

s η 



Fr. 17. 

] 
] . θ ι . . [ 
]ι/άίσχ/9[ 

] 
5 ]α//οί[ 
]« 

Μ 



1787. NEW CLASSICAL FRAGMENTS 



35 



Fr. 10. 
] . ovav[ 
]ην ovSe[ 

)ης i>€/)[0 

]τα δάμα[ 
] . άνθος• [ 
ΐ]μ€ρον [ 

]€Τ€βπ[ 



Fr. ιι. 



Fr. 12. 



]αι> Άφροδί[τα 

ά]δνλογοι δ' €ρ[ωτες ? 

]? aXXoi 
a]is 'έχρισα 
. eva θαασ[σ 

]άλλεί 

]α? ίίρσας 



]αμπ[ 

]λίσ€1€1/ [ 

]ιη λελα[0 
]€ 0€λω[ 
] Ιχτ^ [ 
]Τ 60α . [ 
] άλίκ[€σσι 



Fr. 13. 



Fr. 14. 



Fr. 15. 



]αμαλλ[ 

]r<5' e2/x' 4[ 
]ρσομέν[ 
5 ']λίκ' U7ra[ 

] • • ΗΜ 

]? γαρ €τταν[ 
]μαν κάπυγνζ[ 
] αρμονίας β[ 
ίο ]άθην χόρον άα[ 
] δε λίγη αν [ 
]ατόν σφι [ 
) πάντεσσι [ 

Μ.]•[ 



]αμμ[ 
]ι και [ 
]ποις αι[ 
] κλ€ηδον[ 
] . πλοκαμ[ 
]ey δ' άμα[ 
] άνθρώπ[ 
] λνμαίν . 
]re και π[ 



Fr. 16. 

] βροδο[ 

]ev6[ 

]ραιμ[ 



]tos ea[ 
] πάντα[ 
] . δ' άτέρα[ 
π]λοκα[μ 



η 



Fr. 17. 

] 
] . θι . . [ 

]ν αίσχρ[ 

) 
5 ]αμοι[ 
]τ€ τι[ 



Ώ 2 



36 



THE OXYRHYNCHUS PAPYRI 









Fr. 


20. 


Fr. 1 8. 




Fr. 19• 


Col. i. 


Col. ii. 


] . ovSe[ 




ι . • - a 


] 


. 


]ταυταλ[ 




] • [.]'^p«rt 


] 




]λαισίμ[ 




] . οιχάλ<επ[ 


] 


c 


]πληοι>ι[ 




]8 € κύ[ 


] 


¥ 


5 ]*μφ[ 




5 ]τοτΓαλ77»'όί[ 


1 


) 


1 . σθξο . [ 




'μ 


]σην 




]£ρα>σ . [ 




. 


• • 


• 


Fr. 2ΐ. 


Fr. 22. 


Fr. 23. 


Fr. 24. 


Fr. 25. 


ίαλΓ 

-β— 7 ' 

Φί 


4 

σι»[ 


e]A 

σβδ[ 


κατ[ 

μν/Α 


Ν_•[ 
κα[ 


5 οπ[ 


4 

5 r.[ 


πα[ 


•f — L 
J * 


ται[ 
τα[ 


«[ 


• • 






• ■• 


!ί 











Fr. 26. 


Fr. 27. 


Μ 


]•[ 


]σ€τα[ 


]μηΤ€[ 


]v/uav . [ 


~\δίαισά [ 


]έτ€χα[.]ρο[ 


]€σ•αλλ[ 


]ιδΐδόισ[ 


5 ]<ΡΡ*[ 


]δ€ναμ€<τ[ 


Π 


]οσσνγά[ 


. 


]άλονα[ 




]ιδαλ[ 





Fr. 28. 

]ι/π€[ 

5 3«« • [ 
]μώ[ 



Fr. 29. 

]••[•].[ 
] . σάδ[ 

Μ 

]ι>ίάν[ 
5 ]λι/#[ 
] t/i ei . [ 
]μάστ€[ 

3-4 



Fr. ιί 



1787. NEW CLASSICAL FRAGMENTS 37 

Fr. 19. Fr • 2 °- 

Col. i. Col. ii. 



] . ούδ*[ )• • ■ ΦΙ 1 

] ταΰτα λ[ ) ■ [•] θύ Ρ αν Ι ] 

]λαισι μ[ )' 0ί Χ" λ67Γ [ ^ 1 r 

] VX^DH [ 1 « ^ ] "Ι" 

5 Τ άμφι 5 ] ™ πάλτρ ο?[ ] 

] . σθ<ο . [ Μ *"»" 

]ίρωσ . [ ****** 

Fr.ai. Fr.22. Fr. 23. Fr. 24. Fr. 25. 



Μ 5 τ . [ 

5 όπ[ 



... Μ 



Fr.26. Fr.2 7 . Fr. 28. Fr. 29. 

]a/xot[ J • • Η • 

] άμμα[ ] • σαδ ί 

]ι/7Γβ[ ]Μ 

]λ77^ [ >'«"' [ 

5 ]Τ€€' . [ 5 ] λύ Ρ{ 

]μονω[ ]ψ* δ • [ 

]/ιώ[ ]μ** τ€ [ 
].[ ]•* 



Η 

]σ€τα[ 




]υ/χαιι> . [ 


? μ€ΐ]δίαισα 


]ί τ€ χο[4>ο[ 
]ι διδοίσ[ 


]ey άλλ[ά 
5 }ΦΡ α \- 


]δ*ν άμεσ[ 


Π 


]θ9 σν γα[ 




]αλον ά[ 




}ιδαλ[ 





38 



THE OXYRHYNCHUS PAPYRI 







Fr. 


31• 






Fr. 30. 


Col. i. 






Col. ii. 


Fr. 32. 


]€ρψνα[ 


]<τθην 
].σ• 

] 






C*i 


]€λ . [.] . €γα{ΐ[ 

]ασαλίτρα[ 
]irav[ 


>l [ 


] 






νΛ 


• 



Fr. 33. 

]απνθ^σθ[ 
]χι<τταλ[ 

I'Afct 

5 ]'[• •]«<# 



Fr. 34. 

' » Γ 

καίτ e[ 

μηβολλ€[ 
5 [• •]#?/?0?[ 



Fr• 35• 



Col. i. 



> 



Col. ii. 



•_L 

r > r 

5 e{_ 
x ft 



Fr. 36. 

] • *«ϊί 
]A'av#i/ie[ 
]ι>ώμςθ'ο[ 
]8ηντ€πιτ[ 

]ayape>ca[ 

Μ 



?«•• 37• 



Fr. 38. 



Fr. 39. 



Fr. 40. 



] τον όνεσ[ 



]πάμ€ΐ>α[ 
]τ'ώστθ7Γ€λτ;[ 



] . οιπλν . [ 
]τζτοκω[ 



"]λβον 



1787. NEW CLASSICAL FRAGMENTS 39 



Fr. 30. 


Col. i. 


Fr. 


3 1 • 


Col. ii. 


Fr. 32. 


μ]ξριμνα[ 
]γην 
)..κο[ 
]αι 


]σθηι> 
].r 

] 
] 








]e\ . [.] . €ya/x[ 
jay άλίτρα[ 

-ι >f > >r 



Fr. 33- 

] άπνθζσθ[αι 
]χιστα λ[ 

[σύ 5έ στίφάνοις, ω Δίκα, Tr\ep6t&\& eparacs φόβαισιν 
[ορπακας άνήτω (?) σνναίρρ}αΐσ [άπάλαισι χβρσιν 



Fr. 34. Fr • 35• Fr • 3*• 

Col. i. Col. ii. . . . 



καί τ i[ • • • • 1 • a M 
^Se*{ ] • [ 1 λ ' a5 & Μ 
wi/ 5' 4 ] oS[ ]νώμ€θ' ό[ 
μ) βδλλζ[ο ]ρ αί•[ ] δηντ *™[ 
5 [€ύ]μορφο[τ€ Ρ α κτλ. ? ] 5 \& ^ ^« *[ 
] Έλ[ ]α γαρ εκά[ 

5 4 Μ 

ϊ 



Fr. 37• Fr • S 8 • Fr • 39• Fr • 40. 

]a>v k[. .] . [ π€]πάμξνα[ί ] • ol πλυ . [ ] . f[ 

]τοι/ δνεσ{ ]τ ωστ 6 πίλη[ος ? ]τίΤθκω{ άνο]λβον 



4θ THE OXYKHYNCHUS PAPYRI 

]άβροίσίπιχα[ ]ολκανβ . [ If?"'^ ]ακονην 

]ai>apTe[ii[ ... ... ]άνταν 

}ι>αβλ[ . . . 



Fr. 41. F f • 42. Fr. 43. 

• m • • • • 

]λαισ[ 3*λα[ [.]δω • [ 

]αικίπ[ ]νσ . [ roA/^[ 

Μ 

1 



Fr. 44 = Ρ• Halle a (Dikaiomata, pp. 182 sqq.). 
]τυχο*σα 
] θελ'ώι/ταπάί σά^[ 
] . €σοννοημμα[ 
]ξτωνκαλημι 
5 ]π€5α0ι//χοι>αΓψτα[ 
]σατνχηνθ€ληση[ 
]ρ€μοιμαχζσθα[ 
]λιδάΐΌ.ιπίθ€ΐσά[ 
"\ί'συδΐϋγαροισ6α 
ίο ]£τίΐταϊλλ€ . . 
]ελασ[ 



Fr. 45- 

• • 

σαπ[ 

Frs. 1 + 2. 8. The end of this line is difficult. Either ]aV or av may be read, and the 
letter following 6v has a rounded base which, if the line is to scan, seems consistent only 



1787. NEW CLASSICAL FRAGMENTS 41 

] άβροις έττιχα[ } 6λκαΡ€ . [ } υπ ά{ ] άκούην 

]αν Άρτ€μι[ ] αϋταν 

5 ]ναβ\[ .... 



Fr. 41. Fr. 42- Fr • 43• 

[.]8ω . [ 
τόλμ[ 



]λαίσ[ 


)κλα[ 


? γνν]αικι ττ[ 


}ύσ.[ 


}ίνα{ 


Μ 


]<We[ 


. . . 


5 Μ 




3 






Fr. 44 = P. Halle 2. 




] τύγοισα 




] θίλ' ων τ άπαίσαν 




τί]λ€σον νόημμα 




]ξτων καΚημί 


5 


] πίδά θνμον αίψα 




6σ]σα τύχην θζλήστι[(ς) 




]ρ '4μοι μάχ€σθα[ι 




χ^Κιδάνα πίθ€ΐσα[ 




]ί• συ δ' ΐύ γαρ οϊσθα 


ΙΟ 


]ίτ€ΐ τα ϊλλί . . 




]«λασ[ 




Fr. 45- 




2απ[φοΰς 




μΐ[\ώι> δ ? 



with σ or θ. The division ? ]άνυμόν σ is thus suggested, but neither σ« nor σο[ι] is satisfactory, 
though perhaps there has been some alteration. 



42 THE OXYRHYNCHUS PAPYRI 

9. στ[ύ]μα[τι] or στ[ύ]μσ[σι] appears inevitable ; the latter suits the size of the lacuna the 
better of the two. πρόκοψις as a synonym of προκοπή has not occurred previously. Cf. 
Ale. 35. 2. 

11. χελΰνναν is gen. plur. ; cf. 1231. 14. 8, n. For χελύννα cf. Orion 28. 15 (Sapph. 169) 
ws παρά. ΣαπφοΊ. χελώνη χελΰνη, where χελύννα should now be restored. The doubled ν is 
perhaps to be recognized also in Babrius 115. 4. 

12. The words χρόα γήρας ήδη occurred at the end of a Sapphic line in 1231. 10. 6 ; 
cf. 1. 17, where there is a similar doublet of 1231. 1. i. 33, and Fr. 7. 3. Either Sappho 
was rather forgetful, or she did not mind repeating herself. 

13• Cf. Soph. Ant. IO92 λευκην εγώ Tjji /δ' e< μέλαινης άμφιβάλλομαι τρίχα. 
14. yova : cf. Ale. 39. 7 yova Σύριος αζει. 

17. Cf. note on 1. 12 above. With regard to the accent of γενέσθαι, the remark of 
Wilamowitz, Sappho u?id Simonides, p. 99, is mistaken, the original edition of 7. 6 being correct, 
and the appearance in the facsimile of an accent on the second syllable being due, as 
stated by Mr. Lobe], who has recollated the original, to a displaced fibre. There is therefore 
no conflict with 1233. 8. 4 λάθε[σθ]αι, and the note on 1231. 1. i. 33-4 is to be amended 
accordingly. 

18-19. The idea here may well be that old age follows youth as inevitably as night 
the dawn (? ννξ] κατά. γάς φίροισα : the participial clause might be applied to νύξ as 
symbolizing death), α of φεροισα was probably the final letter of the line, but the surface 
of the papyrus is damaged. 

21. Perhaps ερ]άταν, or a superlative, e.g. κεδνοτ]άταν. But the reference remains in 
doubt. 

24-5. These two verses are quoted by Athen. xv. 687 A (= Sapph. 79) καίτοι Σαπφώ, 

γννη μεν προς άληθειαν ούσα και ποιήτρια, όμως ήδέσθη το καλόν της άβρότητος άφελεϊν λέγουσα ωδε' 
εγω δε φίλημμ' άβροσΰναν και μοι το λάμπρον ερος (ν. 1. ερις) άελίω και το κόλον λελογχεν, φανερόν 
ποιούσα πάσιν ως ή τοϋ ζην επιθυμία το λαμπρον και τ» καλόν είχεν (? ε'ίληχεν) αυτί], ταΰτα δ' εστίν 

οϊκΰα της άρετης. Various attempts at restoration have been made, but, as is now seen, Blass 
alone was right in marking a lacuna after άβροσΰναν and in taking το λάμπρον . . . λελογχεν 
as a complete verse, in which the only alteration needed is έρως άελίω (so Blass : cf. Fr. n. 
4 dJovXoyot δ* ερ[ωτες (?)) or epos τώ άελίω. In the preceding verse there are five syllables to 
be supplied after άβροσΰναν, of which the two last are τοϋτο. How the lacuna remaining, 
a dactyl of about 6 letters, should be filled is not obvious. If τοϋτο = τό άβρόν, this was 
perhaps preceded by an adverb qualifying φίλημι, e. g. έξοχα, 8η μόλα, πόλλ' ετι, or a predicate 
of τοϋτο, as άδΰ γε. The papyrus may of course have agreed with Athen. in the spelling 
φίλημμ\ but κάλημι is written in Fr. 44. 4. 

That the small fragment containing the beginnings of 11. 25-9 is rightly placed can 
hardly be doubted. The fact that 1. 28 is the last of a column helps to confirm the 
coincidence of the letters τολα[ in I. 25. 

Fr. 2 (a). This fragment has been included on account of its similarity on both sides 
to the upper part of Fr. 1 ; but that it belongs here is not certain. 

Fr. 3. U. 4. δάφνας : or Δάφνας ? 

6. A dot in front of the line seems meaningless and may be accidental. 

11. It does not seem possible to read τεαντα, as demanded by the metre. For the 
spelling with ε, which seems to be the regular form in the papyri when the first syllable 
is short, cf. 1231. 14. 4, 1233. 2. ii. 5, &c. 

13. For the small marginal cross cf. Fr. 35. ii. 6 and 841. introd. 

15• C• g• μελαίνα\ς δια νυκτός ΟΓ μελαίναϊις πτερύγεσσιν. 



1787. NEW CLASSICAL FRAGMENTS 43 

16. e. g. [καταχΐνΐ] βλιφάροισι λάθαν ΟΓ [βλεφαρ αμμιν κατά δη καλίιψτ]. 

1 8. ζα χωρίς ϊχην: the tmesis is indicated in the papyrus by the accentuation. 

20. v[ or χ[ may be read in place of λ[. 

2i. ου is more suitable than ev or at. The accent on yap points to κ eoi>, not κίον. 

Fr. 4. 2. Possibly Άι>δ]ρο//ί[δα, whose name recurs again in Fr. 7. 5 ; as Lobel 

Observes, Aristid. ii. 508 οΐμαι Μ σε και Ί,απφονς άκηκοίναι . . . λΐγονσης, ώς αυτήν αί Μονσαι τω 
οιτι δλβίαν τε κα\ ζηλωτην εποίησαν, κα\ ώς υυδ' άποθανοΰσης εσταί λήθη might perhaps be brought 

into connexion with 11. 5 sqq. 

4. The vestiges of the fourth letter are consistent with ζ, ξ, or τ, but no satisfactory 
restoration suggests itself. 

6. Below the remains of the initial κ there is a spot of ink which might well be the 
extremity of a paragraphus, but this would be out of place unless indeed these lines were in 
a different metre. A paragraphus may have disappeared below 1. 7, as there is little left 
of the κ at the beginning of the line. 

9. The supposed acute accent on the first a is particularly badly formed, the right- 
hand extremity being turned downwards ; but it is difficult to see what else can be meant. 

10. For the doubled ν of ivv cf. e. g. 1233. 2. ii. 8, 1360. ι. ία μίλάθροισιν, . . . 
δόμοισιν or some synonym may be supplied. 

Fr. 5. 3. υ\οφ[ώως, which must be scanned as a quadrisyllable, is suggested as 
accounting more naturally for the correction of the accent than e. g. any part of όλοφνδνός . 
7• e . [ : perhaps e. 

Fr. β. ι. Μίκα seems best taken as a proper name, especially as σμικρός or μίκρος is well 
attested for the Lesbian poets (Sapph. 34, 1233. 24. 2, 1234. 6. 8). Μίκα is given by the 
Ravennas in Aristoph. Thesm. 760, and Μίκκα is not infrequent. It is tempting to regard 
Μίκα as the name of the person addressed, but the accent is against this, since Μίκα would 
be expected on the analogy of Sapph. 1. 1 Άφρόδιτα, 78. ι Αΐκά (cf. Choerob. InHeph. c. 14). 
To disregard the accent in a passage so defective is unjustifiable, and Μίκα may be the name 
of a third party : ' Mica wishes to bring you here, but I will not receive you '. σε can hardly 
be Sappho herself, with a different second person in the next line. 

2. ΐγωνκ is analogous to e.g. 1231. I. i. 23 ΐμνάσθ' α\λλα], 1234. Ι. 1 1 πωσλον. The 

practice of making the written text represent the number of spoken syllables may be 
mistaken, but it is not 'modern' (Wilamowitz, Sappho und Simonides, p. 82). 

3. The mark of length on the α indicates that Πενθιλήαν is fem. gen. plur., in agreement 
with some such word as παίδων; cf. Frs. 1 + 2. 11 n., and for the adj. Πβνθίληος, 
1234. 6. ίο. 

4. κα[κο\τροπ seems probable, though the letters ακυ must have been rather spread out 
to fill the lacuna, λ or χ might be read in place of a. 

6. Cf. AristaenetUS i. IO (Sapph. 129) al μουσικώτεραι των παρθένων και μΐϊΚιχόφωνοι 
(1. μ(λλιχ.), τοΰτο δη Σαπφούς τό ήδιστον φθίγμα. The form μιιλίφωνος ascribed tO Sappho in 

the similar passage Philostr. Im. ii. 1 should now disappear until otherwise attested. _ 

7. αη[δυι: cf. Schol. Soph. Aj. 628 ή άηδω δε κατά Μιτνληναίονς. The form αηδών IS given 

in Sapph. 39. 

Fr. 7. 3• Cf. Sapph. 2. Ι 'ίσος θίοισιν. 

4• άλιτρα : a very small speck on the edge of the papyrus after the second a, if it is ink, 
may be a medial stop, or, possibly, a vestige of e. g. a final v. The fem. άλιτρή occurs in 
Semonides 7. 7, and cf. Fr. 32. 2 below. 

5. For Άν]δρομ€δαν cf. Sapph. 41, 58. 



44 THE OXYRHYNCHUS PAPYRI 

6. There are perhaps only two letters, e. g. μα or va, between τα and κα. 

8. Not ϊμ]ίρον. 

12. Probably ]ia or ]va. The overwritten' letters enclosed between dots are variants 
added by the original hand. 

Fr. 8. 3. The supposed mark of length may be an acute accent. 

Fr. 9. This fragment is composed of two pieces, the combination of which seems 
certain, although 1. 1 is difficult and 1. 3 must be emended in order to scan. The points 
of junction are, 1. 1 e\n, 1. 2 π\α, 1. 3 κα\ν. 

ι. ]οδίρκ(ΐ> is puzzling, ρ is more probable than γ, which is the only alternative and 
also difficult to interpret. If πω is right, the ω was rather smaller than usual, but eyω is 
not more attractive. 

3. ά]/3ρ[ό]ται> : or άμφι]βρ[ό]ταν. 

Fr. 10. 5. The high stop is not certain, being on the edge of the papyrus; it might be 
the vestige of a letter. 

Pr. 11. 4. ep[wTes : cf. Frs. 1 + 2. 24-5, n., and Himerius i. 4 els ννμφίΐον aya 

(SC Σαπφώ) rat Άφροδίτην (cf. 1. 3) ΐφ' αρματί Χαρίτων rat χορον Ερώτων συμπαίστορα. Ζρ[ασται ΟΓ 

i'p[avTes are other possibilities. 

Pr. 12. 6. The remains of the first letter suit £ better than anything else, but σδ would 
be expected, and η or et is perhaps admissible. In the following word it is not clear whether 
the vestige above a represents a mark of short or of long quantity. 

Pr. 13. 4. The first letter may be ο or ω instead of p. 

8. The letter before the lacuna was apparently either e or σ, not a. 

10. έα[: έδ[ seems to be excluded. 

Pr. 14. 4. If (cXe^Soi/f is one word, the fragment must be from near ihe ends of lines ; 
but the division kXc# 8qv[ (δ' 6v[ ?) is possible. 
5. e. g. ]t, ]v. 

Pr. 15. ι. ι, ρ, ν may be read in place of τ. 

3• arepos for iTtpos had already occurred in 424. 9. The interlinear insertion may be 
by the original scribe. 

Pr. 18. 2. λ before the lacuna is only one of several possibilities, e. g. δ, v. 

4. An acute has been substituted for a circumflex accent ; cf. e. g. Frs. 5. 3, 19. 3. 

Pr. 19. 2. The mark like a sign of elision is possibly a diastole, which is sometimes 
(e. g. 1789), though not elsewhere in 1787, placed above the line. 

4. Though the papyrus is partially preserved after κν, all trace of writing has 
disappeared. 

Pr. 21. The width of the space above 1. 1 suggests that this fragment, like 22 and 23, 
came from the top of a column, but is hardly sufficient to prove it. 

Pr. 23. 4. The right-hand tip of the paragraphus is expected to be visible below this 
line, but the paragraphi are sometimes rather short. 

Fr. 26. 3. ι or ρ can be read in place of ν ; ν also is very uncertain. 



1787. NEW CLASSICAL FRAGMENTS 45 

5. For the alteration of accent cf. e. g. Fr. 18. 4. The second acute could be read as 
a circumflex. 

7. The supposed mark of length is placed low and may be the tip of the cross-bar 
of a τ. 

Fr. 27. 3. There is a short blank space after a, which perhaps ended the line. 

6. The accent is very doubtful. 

Fr. 29. 4. ]vlav is a gen. plur. ; cf. Frs. 1 + 2. 11, n. 

Fr. 32. 1. The letters of this line are distinctly smaller than those of 11. 2-3. 

Frs. 33-43. This group of fragments is distinguished by being more discoloured and 
rubbed than the rest. Frs. 41-3 have been included on account of their resemblance to 
the larger pieces. 

Fr. 33. 4-5. The identification of these two verses with Sapph. 78. 1-2, though 
probable, is in consequence of the damaged condition of 1. 5 hardly certain ; however, the 
remains suit ]αισ[ quite well, and the preceding acute accent is just in the right place if 
ίρραισ was written. 

Fr. 34. Ι. και r : or καιτ'(οι). 

5, if rightly read, probably = Sapph. 76, from Hephaest. 64, Έ,νμορφοτίρα Μνα,σώίκα 
τΰς άπάλα: Τνρίννως. Unfortunately the letters are broken, the first and fifth especially being 
doubtful ; the latter might well be e, ο in this hand being generally, though not always, 
smaller. Since the margin is lost it remains possible that, as maintained by Bergk, the line 
was the first of a poem (it is perhaps worth noting that the initial letter is again Ε ; cf. int., 
p. 27). There is also a possibility, so far as the papyrus is concerned, that P. Halle 2. 1, 
which may = Sapph. 77, immediately succeeded. 

Fr. 36. 4. It is not clear whether the accent on δηντ is circumflex or acute, but the 
former is in accordance with 1231. 15. 3. 

5. For ηδί cf. 1233. 4. 2 ; this in conjunction with the accented «• makes t(c) likely. 

6. cko\ : ΟΓ exa[. 

Fr. 38. 2. πέ\η[ο! is possibly for πίλπος, ' dark ' ; cf. irekeia. 

Fr. 39. 1. A very small vestige after ν is consistent with v. 

Fr. 40. 1. The doubtful ι was perhaps the final letter of the line. 

2. A compound is indicated by the'grave accent, and ανο]λβον by the metre. 

4. ανταν ΟΓ τλαίταν. 

Fr. 41. 5. There is no trace of ink below this line, which was perhaps the last of 
a column. 

Fr. 44 = P. Halle 2. The revised text printed is based on the facsimile (Tafel 8) 
accompanying the original edition, but photographs are apt to be deceptive, and a satisfactory 
revision can only be made by means of the actual papyrus. The reprint in Diehl, 
Supplementum lyricum, p. 43, adds nothing material. That the interlinear signs are, of course, 
the ordinary accents, marks of quantity, &c, and have nothing to do with musical notation 
has been pointed out by Hunt, Year's Work, 19 13, p. 78, and Wessely, Wochenschr . f. klass. 
Phil. 30. 669. 

1. This line, which is the first of a column, may possibly, as the edd. say, = Sapph. 77, 
but apart from the doubt as to the reading there, τνχοισα is hardly enough for an identifica- 



46 THE OXYRHYNCHUS PAPYRI 

tion ; cf. n. on Frs. 1 + 2. 12 above. Moreover, 11. 2-6 rather suggest an invocation to 
a deity. 

2. "ψΐλωντ&πάισάν, ]θίλων τα παισάν edd. ; but the facsimile shows clearly an acute accent 
on e and suggests an elision mark after λ. θίλ' thus seems assured, and ώντ can hardly be 
interpreted otherwise than as ων τ, the retracted accent replacing the circumflex, as 
elsewhere in papyri (cf. e. g. 223. int.). Hence the last word will be either απαισαν or 
άπαίσαν, according as the accent or the mark of quantity on the final a is accepted ; άπαίσαν 
ace. fern, would conflict with other evidence. 

3. ]eaov edd. If, however, the facsimile may be trusted, a vestige of the letter preceding 
c is visible, indicating δ or λ. For τί]λΐσον cf. Sapph. 1. 26-7 οσσα Se μοι τέλίσσαι θϋμος 

Ιμφρα τέλεσαν, 7. 3 — 4j Ale. 77 Ze ^ s ™\ίστ] νόημα. 

6. οσ]σα : cf. e. g. Sapph. 1.26 quoted in the preceding note ; ]σα edd. 

7. ]p (γα\ρ ?) : ]' . edd., who note that ρ is possible. 

8. πίθασα : cf. 1233. 2. ii. 20 πίθα[ς. 'πίπισα edd. 

9. ] . σνΒ^νπεφοισθα, σν δ* ev πίφοισθα edd., suggesting that πίποισθα was meant. The 
facsimile indicates the expected circumflex over ev, and hardly justifies πβφ, the letters being 
too small and crowded. Apparently yap οισθα is quite possible, as well as V in front of συ. 

ίο. τά . We. edd., but 5 obviously cannot be correct, and the facsimile shows that the 
interlinear mark stood over the next letter and suggests a diaeresis rather than a circumflex. 
If the diaeresis is right, Ιλλ (i. e. ftXX) seems necessary, but the termination remains in doubt ; 
to judge from the facsimile, Xe was followed by two letters or a letter and a high stop, or 
perhaps by a broad v. 

Fr. 45. That this fragment of a title, which was found in the immediate vicinity of 
1787, belonged to the same roll is not certain ; the hand is not identical, though similar 
in type. 

1788. ALCAEUS ? 

Fr. 4 18-6x5-8 cm. Late second century. 

Plate II (Fr. 15). 

The following lyric fragments in Aeolic dialect proceed from the same find 
as 1787, and are in a script which, though smaller, is very similar in type ; the 
formation of some letters, however, notably μ, is different, and the two MSS. 
cannot be taken for the work of a single scribe. A further distinguishing feature 
is the presence in 1788 of marginalia in a small cursive, attributable to the later 
decades of the second century, and presumably contemporary with the poetical 
text. In one of these notes reference is made to the grammarian Didymus 
(Fr. 15. i. 10). Accents, breathings, &c, resemble those in 1787, but a stop in 
the low position is here used in addition to the two other kinds. To what 
extent these adjuncts are original or secondary is not clear. By an inconvenient 
coincidence the present text, like the Sappho, was accompanied by other lyric 
but not Aeolic fragments in an apparently identical hand, and a correct ascription 
of the many smaller pieces is hardly attainable. Accordingly the procedure 
adopted with 1787 is followed in this case also, and only those fragments which 



1788. NEW CLASSICAL FRAGMENTS 47 

are guaranteed by the dialect have as a rule been printed. The non-Aeolic 
pieces probably come from the same roll as 1604, and are reserved for a future 
volume ; they are much broken and of no great extent. 

No coincidence has been discovered in 1788 with the extant remains either 
of Sappho or Alcaeus, and other clear proofs of authorship are absent. The 
metrical evidence, however, favours Alcaeus, and style, so far as an opinion can 
be formed from fragments so badly mutilated, points also in his direction. The 
best piece is Fr. 15, containing in the second column the first five stanzas of an 
Alcaic poem which are sufficiently well preserved to be more or less intelligible 
and include a few complete or easily completed lines. This poem, addressed to 
a person whose name does not occur, is apparently of a hortatory character, and 
contains an elaborate metaphor from a vine which promised a bountiful crop but 
might yet yield sour grapes. An appeal in the last stanza to past example is 
rather in the manner of Alcaeus; cf. 1234. 2. ii. 12, 1789. 1. ii. 7-8. Frs. 1 
and 3 are in Asclepiads, a metre evidently used by Alcaeus with some frequency. 
Fr. 1 gives a description of a natural scene (cf. Ale. 84, 1233. 3. 8 sqq.) — a pleasant 
picture of cool water running down from the hills to the vineyards and of green 
reeds rustling in the breezes of spring. Fr. 2 may for the most part be in the 
same metre, but 1. 10 ends like a hexameter (cf. e. g. Ale. 45-6), and the beginning 
of a new poem is perhaps to be marked at that point ; the metre of Fr. 2. 10 sqq. 
may well recur in Fr. 7. Fr. 4, a long strip containing parts of as many as 
40 consecutive lines, is in places rubbed and difficult to decipher. The metre of 
much of this was apparently again Asclepiad, but the lower portion shows 
rhythms of a different character. Asclepiads are also likely in Frs. 11 and 14 
and possible in some others. Fr. 12. ii, from the end of a poem, seems to have 
consisted of 4-line stanzas which were neither Alcaic nor Sapphic. 



4 8 



THE OXYRHYNCHUS PAPYRI 



Fr. i. 

.]Xe|ai> θι δοσιππ[ 
] . ιθξσσ ' απυ\ίμνασπο\{ 
. .]αν€Κκορύφάι>οπποθ€ν€[ 
.]άνκάνψνχροννδωραμπξλ[ 
....'.. .]άνκαλαμοσχλώρ[ 

]λάδ€ΐσηρινον,οι> . 

]ηλξφάνηνκαδδ . [ 

1 8 letters ]'[ 



Fr. 2. 



Fr. 3. 



]μωισι[ 
Ύτατε . [ 

]• 

]πν£ιπη[ 

5 ]αδανδρ[ 
]αναιδ€κ[ 

'}τ'•ωμ*[] . . . [.)λαι[ 
σ 
]τώγα[[/£)]]α . οτρώμμζ[ 

]υρτογ€ΐ>τ)ονμ€\αν€μ[ 

ΙΟ ]μνρΐαπαντα αυτηαποτου. [ 

] . [.]€λίτωσ 

]όλβωνδρ[ 

]°Η • Υ 
]τλ»[ 
. . . . • 

Fr. 4. 



1χ«[ 

1 . ενπω ταυτα ^ Γ 

j ■ ^ι/».ι «/ γηκατατο[ 
]d «νδίτωαδίΐγ[ 

jcrerai 
5 ]Xiv0€paia^ 
]μ€ναι* 

]γυνονκίΐτ«[.]οσ[ 



].,€Τϋ[ 

]τασ€7Γί?[ 
]ίμ(ρτονορη[ 



1788. NEW CLASSICAL FRAGMENTS 



49 



Fr. i. 

[. . ? π]λ€ξάνθιδος ίππ[ 
\ορ\νίβΐσσ άπύ Χίμνας ποΧ[ 
[άκρ)αν €κ κορύφαν οππόθζν e[ 
[γΧ]ανκαν ψνχρον νδωρ άμπ(Χ[ 

5 [ ■ • •]αν κάλαμος χΧώρ[ος 

[....... κ(]Χάδ*ις ήρινον ον . [ 

[ τ]ηΧζφάνην καδδ . [ 

[ 1 8 letters ]'[ 



Fr. 2. 



Fr. 3. 



)μω σι[ 




]χ«[ 


Ύ' S r 

Jt τα re . [ 




Ια Ιν δϊ τω αδίΐν [ 


ά]πνείπη[ 




]aerat 


5 ]αδανδρ[ 




5 e]X€vdepais a t 


]αν. αϊ δ\ κ 


[ 


]μ€ρα«' 


/ 1 * * ΓΙ 


. . [.]λαι[ 


] YwatKo(s) cire[l] οσ[ 


] τω yay (?) 


άροτρώμμί[ 


. 


ν\ΰν το ykvi]ov 


μίΧαν €μ[μςναί• 




ίο ] μύρια πάντα αυτή άιτό τοΰ . [ 




] • [•> 


λίτως 

)όΧβων δρ[ 

]τ( ) (ίστί ?) κα[ 





Fr. 4. 



]ray ϊπη[ 
] ϊμζρτον ορη[ 



5o THE OXYRHYNCHUS PAPYRI 

]ονφωδ'νπίησ[ 
5 ]δα[. . • •]€0Ή"[• .]δασαπ[ 
] . αισκολοκννταισνπα[ 

σδ 
'\<ττα . . [. .]eo[. . 7]ισα7ταλΓ 

pj .... «r[. . . .ψυπ[ 
]αναφα . . [ 
ίο ] . σάγαθοσ-τα . [ 
]δάμαπω[.] . [ 
] • «7*«[• .] . *? . . [ 

Μ 

]λιοναιμ[ 

15 ] . VL(uK€pp[ 

]Υ α ϋ\ί]°[] αισ€ • [ 
] . ο[.]€^αστω[ 

']"«[■]. χ•.[ 

]σί/άα7το^[ 
20 ] . ν . ασδ'•ονγαρίγω[ 

]πόνησασκατα[ 
] . ισκαιπολλαχαρισ[ 

]δοίο:τοισδ'νπίσω[ 
]ται.•π[.)σνναιδ' όκ . [ 
25 ]πολίασκνμ' αλ[.]σ€ . . [ 
] . LcrrovTOVKOiSevAvoLij^ 
]αισινομι\λ€ΐταδξτ]νΘ[ 
]άντω . [']οχρήματοσ[ 
]κο[. . .]τωλομέι>[ 
3θ ']τωι>•τ€ΐ> . ηδβ[ 

]κακωι/€σχατ[ Fr. 5• 

]λη\Ι/νχάνακατ[ « 

] . δ'αλλοσ[. . .]e5[ ] 

35 ]ep<«.y«[ Μ 

W^xrt-M ].«•[•]•/[•Μ 



1788. NEW CLASSICAL FRAGMENTS 5Γ 

κ]ονφω δ' νπ(ηο\ιν 
5 ]Sa[. . . .]ey π[αΐ]δας άπ[ 
] . αις κολοκννταις ύπα[ 
']στασδ\. .]eo[. . a]ty άπαλ[ 

] at• [ }δ' ύπ[ 

]αναφα . . [ 
ίο ] . ς αγαθό?' τα . [ 
]δάμα πω [.] . [ 

] . kv με [. .] . η . . [ 

]? C 

]λιον αΙμ[ 
15 ] • νίω Κ€ρρ[ 

] 7«Ρ ['M.]at<T€ . [ 
] . o[.]ei> ay τ' ω[ 
] . τψ] . χ . . [ 
]y *>αα 7Γ0ΐ7[σ 
2θ ] . ν . ασί'• οό γάρ £γω [ 

£\πόνησας κατά, [ 
] . ty και πδλλα χα/>ίσ[ 
]5oty, roty δ' ύπίσω [ 
]ται• π[ι]σύνα δ' 6κ . [ 
25 ] πολιάς κνμ' aX[o]y k . . [ 
] . ty τοντ ουκ οΊδεν, ίνοιπ[ 
]αισιν όμίΧλα τά δζην b\ 
] αντω . [.]ο χρήματος [ 
]κό[. . ,]τ ώλομ£ν[ 
30 '\των rev . ηδ([ 

] κάκων ίσχατ[ Fr. 5• 

]λτ; ψύχαν άκατ[ 

]ν• α δ' ού[κ] €σσ . [ ] 

] . δ' άλλος [. . .><$[ ] 

35 }epcu, γα[ ]λα[ 

] Ψ ΰ ΧΡ{°> [ ]. α .[.]. ι [,]οι[ 

}μμ€ΐ>[.] . [ ]θαο\. .]το δοκ[ 

Ε 2 



52 



THE OXYRHYNCHUS PAPYRI 



40 



] . €λχ€α[ 



] . ναίρραι^ 
5 ](ρα'θν[. . ,]δα . [ 

Μ }ψά 



Fr. 6. 



Fr. 7. 



Fr. 8. 



Vt 


]<•[ 




]•Ε 


]σπ[ 


]•[•]. [•] • [ 




}Sta . [ 


]$€νσ[.]μά[ 


]πντοξω 




]αιγφό[ 


]ΐ<τχοσκα[ 


]καταγρ*[.] 




']t\oy[ 


5 ']ττολλάρ . [ 


5 ] . ροι>άπνσ[ 




]δυ-π[ 


Μ•3λ € ' • [ 


"\ράτρί{ 




)ρφ[ 


Μ 


] . βιάζω 




]β Ρ 68[ 


]cuuS[ 


]ονσαι 




]<*ρ4 


}.[.. .}ac[ 


]&"?[ 




]ολπ[ 


10 }ττισδ€γ[ 


].• 


[ 


]τοκ{ 


] . ρακυμ[ 






. 


}χα>ρίοι/τ[ 








]π€ρσισνφο[ 




Fr. 9. 




)τΜ 




]κβαλα[ 




15 \ι6ν[ 




]πβδιο[ 





]πολι^ 



Fr. 10. 



)6μ€ρ[ 
]ντω[ 
]νκαταη[ 
]τουτομ€ . [ 
5 ]τομαγύ[ 
]αΐ'κα$δ([ 
]άσαν[ 



Fr. 11. 




Fr. 12. 




Col. i. 


Col. ii. 


]/Z€J>Oi [ 




< . 


]<Γ€^ω κτ . [ 
οι-π•[ 




[. .]τ€ταιβ[ 


]αμ€ΐ>ά . [ 


]. 


αγ€δήμ'α[ 


]τισδα[ 


] • ν ασ 


αιτακην . [ 


5 Ί.λί?^* • [ 




5 τασδςνό . [ 


]6ην 




€ί7Γ6/ί [ 


]•[ 




μηύκο . [ 
τοι/τ€γω[ 



1788. NEW CLASSICAL FRAGMENTS 



53 



40 



]ατοι/[.]ά[ 
] . €λιδ[ 
] . €λκ€α [ 



] . ν aippav[ 
5 ]epa- θν[. . ,]δα . [ 

] Wpp Άφ Μ 



Fr. 6. 



Fr. 7. 



Fr. 8. 



χ. • 


Υ Λ 




]•[ 


]σπ[ 


t 3 ■ [•1 •[•]•[ 




]δια . [ 


3#€ΐ>σ[.]μά[ 


ά]πν τό£ω 




3 οιίγιβό[ 


"F^X 09 * α [ 


] κατάγρ€[ι] 




']i\ov [ 


5 '] πόλλαι> . [ 


5 ] • ρον άπνσ[ 


6 


ά]δν• π[ 


Η•] . χ§ . [ 


']ρα τρύ[ 




]ρφ[ 


Η 


3 . βιάζω 




] &>ό<$[ 


] αία <5[ 


]ον σαι 




3apie[ 


] . [. . ; μ 


}δνη[ 




]ολπ[ 


ίο ojrny 5e γ[ 


].• 


[ 


]το4 


3 . /0« Κ1//ί[ 






. 


]χα>ρ' €οντ[ 








]π€ρ 2ίσυφο[ 




Fr. 9• 




]ταμ[ 




c]/c θα\α[ 




15 ]ιόν[ 




] πΙΛο^ 

] 7ΓΟλϋ[ 




Fr. 10. 


Fr. 11. 




Fr. 13. 






Col. i. 


Col. ii. 


]ό/ί«{ 


]μ€Ρθΐ 




. . . . 


]ν τω[ 


Λ * ' [ Γ 




[. . .3 . . t«[ 


]ν καταη[ 


3? €χω κτ . [ 

ol ir[ 




. [. .}πταβ[ 


] τοντο μ€ . [ 


]αμ€ΐ/α . [ 


]• 


aye #17 // a[ 


5 3 Τ ' ομάγν[ρι 


]tis δα[ 


] . tas 


ai τα κ»/ι> . [ 


]αι* καδ δϊ [ 


5 '^W • [ 




5 τάσδί vo . [ 


]άσαν[ 


ftp 




τ / » r 
€t7T€ /i [ 




]•[ 




μηύκ 6 . [ 
τοϋτ βγω [ 



54 





THE 


OXYRHYNCHUS 


PAPYRI 




Fr. 13. 




Fr. 14. 




πόλλακ[ 


]ίοισ . [ 
]μιονα[ 




)σσ€ται ά 
]τατοσ 




ίο πόλλνμ[ 

Ι • 


]voua[ 




] . ττάθην 






]€7Γ0Τα[ 




]άίσομ€ρ[ 






• • • 




]•[ 







Fr. 15. Col. i. Plate II. 



ΙΟ 



] 



3 
3 

3• «■ 

]«σσυνουσιαζοντ€σ 

]υνονσιαξοντ€σσοι« 
]«ρ€ανανγ€ω 
]να•υνξίσ• 
]αγορά 
]ωγυγι° 
]λ<ον 
]vi£eiv 

3 ' 
3 



1 5 ]οντιτουτο\ιτου<τπ.ΧκίΐΚ' 

3 
3 

]»' ο ν €«η)στίρο[.] 

3 

a ο ]σαι 

3 

]τιωφ[ 



1788. NEW CLASSICAL FRAGMENTS 



55 



Fr. 13. 

]ίοισ . [ 
]μιονα[ 
' ~tyovo\ 
Je ποτ a[ 



Fr. 14. 



€|σσ€τοα 



δ[ 



]τατο$• 
] . πάθην 
]αίσομ€ν [ 

5 ]•[ 



Fr. 15. Col. i. 



πόλλα κ[ 
ίο πόλλ' ϋμ[ 



ΙΟ 



15 



20 



] 
] 

]«S συνουσιάξοντ€5 
σ]υνουσιάξοντ*3 σοι €- 
? στ]€ρ€αν αν γ€ω- 
] ναΰν ξβσ- 
] άγορά(ν) 
] ώγυγιο( ) 
]λων 
]νίξ€ΐν 
] οϊ(τω) Ai5u(p.os). 

] 

] 
] . ν«ω( ) κ . € . «λωε €ττάνω. 

]• 

] αντί τούτου τοΰ στίχ(ου) Κ€ΐμ(«ν ). 

] ' 

] 

~\ν άν(τι τοΰ) «is υστ«ρο[ν.] 

1 

]σαι 

) 

]τι ώφ[ 



56 



THE OXYRHYNCHUS PAPYRI 
Fr. 15 Col. ii. Plate II. 



1 5 



20 



25 



Μ 

8μά . [ 

αί^Ιί . [ 

ταναίο[ 

6μπαν[ 



( ..Γ-ί 



|,[•Μ 



= τίστ ωττοΗ 

> - ι 



ίο e«TJ/[ 

παρ£σκζθ'ο[ 
δάιμορ'ανάιτιο[ 

δ€νοντοσονδ€π[ ]ρανοιτ[ 

τασσάσ€γ[. .]ι/σ[Γ]σ[ ]Bevai>[ 



7τανσαΐ'κάκων[ ]όιτα>[ 

άιτιδνΐΌ.ικατ€χ[ ]ο• 

σοιμςν[.]αρή[. .] . περβεβα^αίχ^ 

[.]αικαρττοσοσσ[.]σησσνναιρ€τ[ 

Ka\oi>ya[ 

τοκλάμμαδ'€λπώρά\^παλαον[ 
νκολ[']γαισσταφνλαισβν4ικη[ 

• ']ψ[']'Τθΐαντασγαραπαμπε[ 

. .]υ . . σ [.] . ισ . €πίαμ[ 

1? • ?Α* • ■ ?7fy>° . [. .]σιι>•άι>τα*σ[ 

.]ακασ•ωμοτ€ραισ€Οισαισ> [ 
]τοίγα/)θίταπ/)οσ0€7Γθϊ'77μ[ 
><™[.]i"oi/& . [. .]r . [. . .}ντ[ 

.]ηκ€'καρτ€ . [ ] . . [ 

.]ασιαΐ'παρ€\([ 



Fr. 1. ι. The length of the initial lacuna in this and the following lines is determined 
by 1. 4, where [γλ]αύκαν is evidently to be restored. Neither πΧίξάνθης nor \ςξάνθψ (or -θα) 
occurs elsewhere. 



1788. NEW CLASSICAL FRAGMENTS 57 

Fr. 15. Col. ii. 

» vr 

σ 7/[ 
δμά . [ 

α? i^[ef ? 
5 αίθΐί . [ 
ταναίο[ 
6μπαν[ξ 
ν[ί]κα[ 

Τ is τ, ω πον[ 
ι ο €Ϊπη\ν 

παρύσκεθ' ό{ 

δαίμον άναίτιο[ν 

δζνοντο? ούδ\ π[ }ρανοιτ[ 

τα? σα? ey[. •]υσ[.']σ[ }θ€ν σν { 

1 5 πανσαΐ' κάκων [ ]όιτα>[ί' 

αϊ τι δύνα κατ€χ[ ]ο• 

σοι μ\ν [γ]αρ ή[δη] νπ€ρβίβα[τ]αι χρό[νο?, 

[κ]αϊ κάρπο? 6σσ[ο}? η? σννα[γ€ρ]ρ€τ[αι (?), 

το κλάμμα δ' kX -πώρα, κάλον γά[ρ, 
2θ [ο]ύκ όλ[ί]γαι? σταφνλαι? €ν€ίκη[ν. 

[. . . ο]γ[ί,] τοιαύτα? yap απ άμπ£[λω 

[. . . .]υ . . σ ......[.]• ισ . €τπάμ[ 

[. .Ι/ο . ημ . μη δρόπ[ω]σιν ανται? 
[6μ<ρ]ακα? ώμοτίραι? βοίσαι?. 
25 [otf] roi γαρ οι τά πρόσθ' έπονήμ[€νοι 

[. .>σκ[ο>• σ&δί . [. •]τ . [. . .]ιτ[ 

[. . .]ηΚ€• ΚαρΤ€ . [ ] • • [ ■ 

[διπλ]ασίαν παρ(χ([ 

2. The first σ, though rubbed, is practically certain. 

3. \ακ Ρ ]αν is perhaps not too much for the lacuna, ρ being a narrow letter. , . , 

4. [γ\]αύκαι> is gen. plur. fem., as shown by the mark of length on av ; '. . .]av in I. 5 was 



58 THE OXYRHYNCHUS PAPYRI 

another word of the same kind. The language here is close to that of Sapph. 4 άμφΐ δ( 
(ύδωρ) ψϋχρον κλάδα (cf. 1. 6) δι νσδων μάλίνωρ, but the present passage can hardly have been 
the source of that fragment. 

6. The vestige of the letter after ov suggests e. g. λ, χ. 

7• τ^λΐφάνην : it is unlucky that the initial letter is missing, as in 1231. i.i. 27 [^]Xe(?), 
1233. 4. 10 [τ]ήλοθ(ν. πήλνι rests on the evidence of grammarians. 

Fr. 2. 7. Not δ Μίλά^ππ' (cf. 1233. 1. ii. 8). 

8. The correction of γαρ to yas may be by the original hand. How the letters should 
be interpreted is open to doubt, but yas is in keeping with άροτρωμμ[, and ]τωγά5 is unknown. 

9. η of yanjov is not very satisfactory, but an alternative that will suit the context is not 
easy to find. 

10. A new poem with a change of metre apparently begins here. 

Fr. 3. This fragment is very similar in appearance to Fr. 2, and at first sight a com- 
bination of 1. 6 with Fr. 2. 1. 9 is attractive, but this would create difficulties both in the 
scansion of 1. 8 (if yas is right) and in the marginal note in 1. 10, where yvvai<o{s) is a more 
probable reading than συνα<ο{\υυθ ). The two fragments may, however, well have belonged 
to the same column. 

Fr. 4. 3. e. g. 'ό Ρη [μ\ ορη [ρ. 

6. The second ο of koXokvvtcus has apparently been converted from v. 

7. The supposed interlinear δ might possibly be a rather large circumflex, but the 
preceding vestige would remain unaccounted for. 

8. To the right of the cancelled δ on the edge of a hole in the papyrus is a spot of ink 
which may be a vestige of an interlinear letter, or of an apostrophe. 

17. A vestige above ω is doubtfully interpreted as a circumflex. 

19. ]? : ]e is rather suggested by the remains, but seems excluded by the metre. 

20. συ τάσ-δ*, βΰρασδ' are possibilities, neither very satisfactory. 

22. Three consecutive long syllables are plainly shown here by the papyrus, as 
apparently also in 11. 30 and 32-3 ; cf. the next note. 

25-8. The letters πολ, . ιστού, αισιυ and part of ο, αν at the beginnings of these lines 
are on a small fragment which fits here so well that the combination is almost assured. 
A sequence of four long syllables results in 1. 26, but in view of 11. 22, 30, and 32-3 that 
cartnot be regarded as a fatal objection. 

26. The stop(?) after οιδα, is well below the line. 

27. ηνβ[ : yivt[ is hardly possible. 

28. A mark on the edge of a hole above the doubtful ο is unexplained ; possibly it was 
a grave accent, or there may have been some correction. 

38. Some vestiges above the line point to a correction. 

Fr. 5. The appearance of this fragment suggests that it is from the bottom of the 
column to which Fr. 4 belonged. 

4. v[ is followed by four centimetres of papyrus on which nothing is visible, but 
owing to the rubbed condition of the fragment it is not clear that the line ended here. 

6. Cf. Fr. 4. 22, n. ; but Ιμ[ίρρ]ψ hardly fills the lacuna. 

Fr. β. 3. The accent on a is doubtful ; it might be e. g. a mark of length. 

4. Ίσ : or ]*r. 

13. Σίσνφο[: cf. 1233. i.ii. 12. 



1788. NEW CLASSICAL FRAGMENTS 59 

Pr. 7. 4. Karaypet recurs at the end of a line in 1233. 11. 9; cf. Sapph. 43. 

8. υ is a correction from t. If υ is right, σαι is presumably the possessive pronoun. 

Pr. 9. That this fragment is Aeolic is shown by the accent in 1. 2. 

Pr. 11. This fragment, at the right-hand side of which there is a junction between the 
selides, may come from Fr. 15. i, but does not join on immediately, at any rate. 

Pr. 12. ii. 3. There is no paragraphus below this line. 

11. The supposed coronis is uncertain, being represented only by part of a thin 
vertical stroke immediately in front of 1. 10. 

Pr. 13 is included here on account of its similarity to Fr. 14, which is apparently 
Aeolic. 

Pr. 15. i. 4. ]epeav : or perhaps ]«pc[t]ay. 

10. Didymus is known to have written a book περί λυρικών ποιητών, but this seems to 
have been of a historico-literary nature rather than a critical υπόμνημα of the kind indicated 
by the present passage. It is, however, likely enough that his voluminous commentaries 
included a treatise on the Lesbian poets, as well as on Pindar and Bacchylides. 

ii. 3. Either δμάτ[ or δρά#[ can be read. 

9. As in 1787. 34. 1, τ may represent either re or το». 

ii. παρίσκθ' here provides a parallel for Powell's admissible suggestion π^ρσκίθοισα in 

1231. 1. i. 18. 

13. it: or f . [. 

14. ey[: or «!-[. The letter following }v may well be o. 

16. The accent on a might be taken for a mark of short quantity. λ[ is possible m 

oleic c 01 v|• 

18. For the (Doric) form ?js for ψ cf. 1360. 1. 9, where h is better taken as 3rd person, 
and 1231. 55. 4, where ijs is probably to be recognized; ην, which is read in Sapph. 106, 
may now well be emended. The following word as originally written was apparently 
σνναι Ρ €τ[αι Uyp- is possible), which was amended in some way, perhaps by the substitution 
of a[ep) or α\γΐ Ρ ] for at, but there has been no deletion. ^ 

19. For the doubled μ in κλαμμα cf. e. g. Sapph. 1. 16 κάλημμι, 14. ι and the Halle 
fragment νόημμα, 1231. 13. 4 <Mw»• *« λο * Ap is evidently parenthetical, παλαον which 
was first written = παλαιοί/ (adv.), πάλαοε being the Aeolic form according to Eust. 28. 33. 
Whether the correction is due to the original hand or to a diorthotes is not evident. 

21. Vestiges above the line suggest ψ rather than τ, and e.g. SfyjY) well suits the 
conditions ; but τ is possible, if some interlinear addition is supposed. What has been 
taken for a high stop in front of τοιαύτας may be part of the preceding letter. 

22. The letter after ]v has been corrected, but what was intended is hardly determinable 
as the line stands. Apparently ο was first written, and through this there is a vertical stroke 
(1 ?), with a vestige of ink close by on the edge of a hole in front of σ. Perhaps ]va$ was 
altered to }mo S . Further on, if σ and e are rightly read, the intervening letter, which had 
a vertical stroke, was presumably γ or τ. 

23. For the interpretation of this line much depends on the identity of the letter printed 
as η before δρ. The first stroke of the η has the form of a narrow oval, and it is therefore 
questionable whether 61 should be read instead of η. But the oval is considerably narrower, 
and the cross-stroke longer, than in a normal Θ, and θι is, moreover, intractable metrically. 
Perhaps then the scribe began to write e and converted this to η. If η is right, -ημι μη 
would be suitable enough. The first visible letter must be either β, ο, ρ, or φ, and next 
to this the slight remains suit the upper part of a β better than anything else. [τά}ρβημι 



6o THE OXYRHYNCHUS PAPYRI 

would sufficiently satisfy the conditions, if that word were likely. For δρό . [. .]σιν, 8po<r[oi\<rt» 
naturally suggests itself but is difficult in the context. Possibly 8ρόπ[ω]σιν or 8ρόπ[οι]σιν may 
be restored on the analogy of 1234. 2. i. 9 τρόπψ, ii. 7 ovirponc. The high stop after this 
word seems superfluous in any case. 

25. *'πονήμ[(νοι : cf. 1789. 1. i. 5 (v. 1. ίπονάμ., probably correct) and Ale. 46 πόρασιν 
(μοι γΐ-γίνησθαι, which has been gratuitously altered to έπ ονασιν. There is more to be said 

for the correction tpoiye ytvtaBai . 

26. ]r; or y ΟΓ σ. 

27. e. g. καρτ(ΐ[, καρτ(ρ[. 

28. [8ιπλ]ασίαν is perhaps not too much for the lacuna when allowance is made for the 
slope of the column. 



1789. ALCAEUS. 

Fr. 1 11-7 χ 15*2 cm. First century. Plate III 

(Frs. 1-3, Col. i). 

The authorship of these fragments, consisting of parts of two columns and 
a number of disconnected pieces, would have been sufficiently clear even without 
the occurrence in them of Alcaeus 19, part of an Alcaic stanza cited by 
Heraclides Ponticus, whereby their source is definitely proved. This coincidence 
is found in Fr. 1. i. 15-18, and it becomes plain that the lines quoted by 
Heraclides were the beginning of a poem, of which we now recover the con- 
tinuation in the following column, where Alcaeus' favourite metaphor of a storm- 
tossed ship is carried on for a further two lines. Since the height of the column 
is unknown, the extent of the lacuna between Col. i. 19 and Col. ii. 1 cannot be 
determined, but it may be only one line and is hardly likely to have exceeded 
five lines, which would give three stanzas for the development of the metaphor. 
Six more stanzas at least followed, of which however only one and a half are 
sufficiently well preserved to be intelligible and capable of restoration. In these 
the poet passes from allegory to precept, and urges his fellow-citizens to courage 
and endurance and to emulation of their ancestors. The subject of the preceding 
poem, the conclusion of which survives in a mutilated form in the upper portion 
of Col. i, is obscure. It presumably belonged, like the other, to the class of 
Στασιωτικά ; there are references to marriage (11. 7, 14), but whether these have 
anything to do with the marriage of Pittacus, to which allusion is made in 
1234. 2. i. 6, remains doubtful. As the text stands its chief point of interest lies 
in the metrical scheme, which seems clearly to be a stanza of four lines, the 
first three being lesser Asclepiads and the fourth a Glyconic. This stanza was 
used repeatedly by Horace (i. 6, 15, 24, 33, ii. 12, iii. 10, 16, iv. 5, 12) who has 
commonly been credited with its invention, but his debt now becomes evident. 
That the similar stanza with a Pherecratic for the third verse (e. g. Horace i. 5, 



1789. NEW CLASSICAL FRAGMENTS 61 

14, &c.) was borrowed from Alcaeus had already been suspected on the ground 
of Ale. 43 ; another (previously unknown) form of Asclepiad stanza is exemplified 
in 1234. 2. i. From the remaining fragments not much can be extracted. In 
Fr. 6, which is in Alcaics, a mention of the Pelasgi is noticeable, and there seem 
to be other historical references. The character of Fr. 12, in the same metre, 
is indicated by the occurrence of the word μοναρχία as well as by a reference to 
Myrsilus in a marginal note. Alcaics are perhaps also to be recognized in 
Frs. 24 and 25. Fr. 13 may be in the Sapphic stanza, and Fr. 29 possibly in 
Asclepiads. 

The round upright script of this text is rather smaller and less ornate, but 
otherwise very similar to that of 1361 (Bacchylides, Scolia, Part XI, Plate 3), the 
characteristic letters e, Θ, and ξ being formed in just the same way with a dot in 
the centre disconnected from the other strokes. Of ζ, which in the Bacchylides 
has a vertical bar joining the horizontal strokes in the centre, there is here no 
example, but a similar archaic formation is presumable. 1361 was referred to 
the first century, a date which finds some confirmatory evidence in the cursive 
annotations of the present papyrus, which are not likely to be far removed in 
time from the main text. Apparently two secondary hands are to be dis- 
tinguished, and the interlinear alternative readings, which are not infrequent, 
may be due sometimes to one and sometimes the other. Stops in two positions 
are used (a double dot, of uncertain meaning, is found in Fr. 1. i. 11), and marks 
of elision and quantity are fairly plentiful. The diastole employed to divide 
words, more usually (cf. e.g. 1787-8) inserted at the base of the letters, is 
in this text placed like the sign of elision (e.g. Fr. 1. i. 6, 17), which it also 
resembles in shape. A ligature below the line occurs once (Fr. 17). These 
additions seem to be largely secondary ; the paragraphia however, are most 
probably original. 



62 



THE OXYRHYNCHUS PAPYRI 



Fr. i. Col. i. Plate III. 



10 



15 



.] . . ραΐσεχηί' ' τ[ 1 2 letters ] Τ . . μη 
. .]ζΰπροσκακα[ ]γ«υ? 

.]νον{. .]τοισ[.}θα . οσκ . [ j 

.α• 

.]€ν€τωμηδ€ποι/ήμ€[.}οι[.] 
, .» / [Υ ]τ . . α . . «σ]1 

• jc ucii^cu, ξαμβύόντον ξαμίυίτωσαν 

.]τί[.]^€<ρ[.]/ΐί€ΓΌσγά/Χ6ί 



]<«|ι;στο0ο[. i]jtte[ 



•1 



•]τακ'άυταΐ'γλΐ'κεα>σ[. . . .] •τοντο[. .]ωσ 

. •]σίλ€υσ€χ77Γ. Fr. 2. 

.]€κα:7ΓΟλλασ[.]τΓα | . α/ζ 77 . α[. . | τομ«[ 

. .~[ιμ£νηνα[. .]/)€ | μοιτοτα[ 

. . .]ΐΌίτ 07Γ7τοταλ | .)μ£ . . ρ[ 

.] . ΐ]ίγάμοι>[ ] Fr. 3. Col. i. 

.]τ€Κΐ///ατωπ[.]οτ6[ ] 



.]παρ€ξ€ίδα{ ]ολνΐ' 

. . .]eiK€va[. . ] 

. • • •]&μ*Η ] 



Fr. ι. Col. ϋ. 
φαρ£ωμζθ'ωσωκιστ[ 
€σδ'£χνρονλίμξναδρο[ 

•α• 
καιμητΐνόκνοσμολθ[ 

.β. 
λαχ?7 'προδηλονγαρμ€γ[ 

•ε• 

5 μνασθητ€τωπαροίθαμ[ 
ι>νντισάνηρδοκιμοσγ€[ 



ΙΟ 



15 



1789. NEW CLASSICAL FRAGMENTS 63 



Fr. 1. Col. i. 



]......[ 

[ ] . . pat? '^XJJ' t[ 12 letters ] . . . μη 

, ] ev προ? κάκα [ ]ν«υο( ). 

, \νον [. .]τοιο\.]θα . os κ . [ 

]ξν£τω μηδ' £πονήμ([ν]οι 

\ζαμ.£ν6νΤθ\ν atlKea. £αμ«υόντον ζαμευέτωσαν. 

, ] rt [ y ] Κ€κρ[ί]μ€νο? γάμει 

] κζν ξνστοφο[ρή]με[ΐΌ$ 

]τα κ αϋταν γλνκίω? [••••] ταν τα [• •] ωσ€ ( )• 

[. . . . βα]σίλςν? Ζχην. Fr. 2. 

]e*a πόλλα? πα . αμη . α[. . τομ«[ 

]t μ£νην α[ί γα]ρ ίμοι τότα 

γί]νοιτ οπποτα λ[.]μ€ . . ν 

[ ] . τ) γάμον. 

Fr. 3 Col. i 
Τό δηΰ]τ€ κΰμα τώ π[ρ]οτ£[ρω 'νίμω) 
στ€ί'χ€ί] παρέξβι δ' ά[μμι πόνον ττψΚνν 
άντλην, €7r]e£ Κ€ να\ο? ίμβα 

[ to* Κ 

ΥΛ-ΛΊ 



Fr. ι. Col. ii. 

φαρξώμεθ' ώ? ωκιστ[α — ^ 

€ΐ? ό" ίχυρον λίμ€ΐ>α δρό[μωμ€ΐ>. 
και μή τιν οκνο? μόλθ[ακο? άμμέων ? 
λάβτ], πρόδηλοι/ yap μ£γ[α συμφέρον ? 
5 μνάσθητ€ τώ πάροιθα μ[ώμω• ? 

νυν τι? άνηρ δόκιμο? γξ[ν£σθω. 



64 



THE OXYRHYNCHUS PAPYRI 



καιμηκαταισχννωμ€ΐ>[ 

€σλοιστόκηασγασνπακ[ 

[.]τανδ[ 
ίο τανπο[ 

&ΡΤ€[ Fr. 4• 

τώί>σ0[ 

€<n/ce[ ] 

ται[ ]ort[ 

15 αλλ . [ W 



[ 



Fr. 3• Col. ϋ. ττ[ 

2θ ye[ 

[ 



Fr. 6. 



}'ωφι[ 
]αϊδρίϊα . 
].[..]'. ;; απ 
] . καιμάλ } €ωνα[ 
5 ]^άι/τ'α£δροσ7Γολ[ 
]π€λάσγωναιολ[ 

•τ• 

]ι/α^γλα0ύ/?α[ 
]€'κφσατ;σ• . [ 
ο ]ηαισιν[ 

]σισφάλ[ 



Fr. 5. 
Μ 



Fr. 7• 

Ίταδίωσ- 

Ϊ 

\ν -τανδα• [ 
βαρηαιρουσ[ 

]νον• 

a-iroXc\ei|x[ 
μίνον 

]• 

1 



Fr. 8. 



]e7ror . . 


«?/[ 


)μάδ€ . 


[•> 


1 




We^€i 





5 ]ωΐΊ;/ίθΐ/• 

•α• 



]άροι/ *[ 



1789. NEW CLASSICAL FRAGMENTS 

και μη καταισχύνω μεν [άνανδρία. ? 
ϊσλοις τόκηας γα? ί'πα κλιμένος, 
[οι ?] τάνδ\ς ? 



ίο τάν πό[λιΐ' 

eovre[s 

των σφ[ 

€ΐσικ€ [ 
raZ[y 
15 αλλ . [ 

[■•].[ 



Fr. 4• 



]° re L 
]ιον{ 



Fr. 5 . 



65 



Fr. 3. Col. ii. 4 
2θ ye[ 

[ 
■[ 



Fr. 6. 



] ώ φί[λ 
]α ίδρεΐα . [ 
].[..]... α πάν[ 
] . και μά\' εων ά[ 
5 ]νάντ α ίδρος πόλ[λ 
] Πελασγών Αίολ'ιδ 
] ποτ' €^ ΈπςΓων ? 
α]ναξ γλαφυρά 
]e Κίρσα ησ . [ 
10 ~\ηαισιν [ 

]σι σφάλ' 



Fr. 7. 

? ein.]Ta5€t>s. 

] 

ψ τ&ν δά- 

βάρη αίρουσ" 

άττολ«λ6ΐμ[μ€νον . . - 
μίνον. 



Fr. 8. 

]e ποτ . . αη[ 
]μάδ(- . [,]ν 

] 

]ννίχβι 

5 ]ώννμον. 
}ayjr€T ( 



japof 



α.[ 



66 



Fr. 9. 



THE OXYRHYNCHUS PAPYRI 
Fr. 10. 



Fr. 11. 



]νδ€τωι[ 
]σινποησ[ 
]αρ€σσ€τ'α[ 

] . oaov§e[ 



]δηνού[ 

}•μν[ 



) 

]λίασ[ 
]σκάκοι[ 



Fr. 12. 



Fr. 13. 



Fr. 14. 



Fr. 15. 



]•[ 


] 


3? α Μ•Μ 


] 


]οσμ€νετ[ 


] . νυνμα[ 


]οναρχιανδ([ 


]ρπρινθα[ 


5 ]ηδεδ€κωμ[ 


]άνην 


] . ιδημφο[ 


. . . 


j . οισιτυπο . [ 




]αίΐ>ωι>•€κ[ 




] 

] • [•]|*νρσιλου 




ΙΟ ]...€φ..ν[.].δί..α[ 




] . ο . . ν 





Fr. 18 

] αλ/ ?[ 



]-•Λ 



Fr. 16. 

]ανατ[ 

]αταισ [ 



]ορον[ 
]ονψ[ 



Fr. 17. 



]™[ 



Fr. 19. 

] . νδ€(ροι[ 
~\τίναπρο(ρ\ 



Fr. 20. 
]λλίπω[ 

3" 

] 

]δικωσ' [ 



Fr. 21. 



]κρακαμ[ 
]ταμ€-/αλ[ 
] . αισ•σ . [ 



Fr. 22. 



Fr. 23. 



JTra/o/iei'f ] . . ισ . .•[ 

• € • ']νονταϊ[ 

]τοταδήπ[ 



1789. 



Fr. 9. 



NEW CLASSICAL FRAGMENTS 

Fr. 10. Fr. 11. 

] 

]λιασ[ 

]y κάκον [ 



]v Se τω [ 


] • ρμ°"1 


]σιν ποησ[ 


]<5ϊ7ϊ> ώ[ 


γ)άρ ίσσετ ά[ 


] ■ μν[ 


] . ο? ούδ([ 


' • 



6η 



Fr. 12. 



Fr. 13. 



Fr. 14. 



3•[ 

]δ' άμμ[ι]ν [ 
]ος μίΐ/ΐτ[ 
μλρναργίαν δ\ [ 
5 μ]ηδς δεκωμ^θ 1 
] . ιδημφο[ 


] 
1 

] . νυν μα[ 
γα)ρ πριν θα[ 
]ανην. 




] 
}.ωφ[ 

Fr. 16. 


J . οισι τ υπο . [ 








] αύάτ[αισι 


βαίνων ίκ[ 








] άταις [ 


J 

] . [.] Μυρσίλου 
ΙΟ ] . . . €φ . . «[.] . 8c . 
] . α . .ν. 


.α[ 


Fr. 

]αι>τ 


ι8. 
[ 





Fr. 15. 

}ορον[ 
]ον ψ[ 



Fr. 17. 



]στ€[ 



Fr. 19. 



] . ν δε φοι[ 
] τίνα προφ[ 



Fr. 20. 



€]λλίπω[ν 
]ψ€ και 

3 

] 

3* 



Fr. 21. 



Fr. 22. 



]κρα καμ[ 
]τα μεγαλ[ 
| . ats' σ . [ 



] παρμ£ν[ 

] τότα δί? π [° 



Fr. 23. 
] • •> • • [ 



F 2 



68 



Fr. 24. 



THE OXYRHYNCHUS PAPYRI 
Fr. 25. Fr. 26. 



Fr. 27. 



]ι>πανταδ*'ι>α[ 


Μ 


]φρ°[ 


" ]αλι . [ 


]απολλυταΐ'μ[ 


]o/xat[ 


]αλαΐ' [ 


]λίπ[ 


] . ταιπο[ 


]ιπτονω[ 


]aperecr[ 


Wif 


Μ 


]8ίξ€ταιδ[ 


]φα7Γ6ί . [ 


. 




5 ]ιτακακ[ 


5 KM 






>'ώ[ 


. 





Fr. 28. 

«ι 

κα[ 

Fr. 32. 

*&[ ' 
καιγ[ 

ώτα[ 



Fr. 29• 



] • Ka li 
] . . σπάισ[ 

]5ομονο[ 

]ζΐμοροσαΐστ[ 

5 ]οσοι/ίατοί'[ 

]βρομοσεν<τ[ 

]νιωδη 

]αινομ€ρ[ 



Fr. 30. 

Η 

]aj/5/p[ 

3^/4 



Fr• 33• 

]αι/α<5 . [ 
]α^• . [ 

]••[ 



Fr. 31. 

]κακοσ[ 

>' 
]τοπον[ 

]γαράγη[ 

] . . eya)j/[ 

5 Μ 



Fr/ 34• 

]aiKoucr[ 



Fr. 3 5• 

Μ 

]*ροιν[ 



Fr. 36. 



] • Μ 



Fr. 37. 

]e/>a> . [ 

]•[ 



Fr. 38. 

] 



Fr. 39. 



Fr. 40. 

]νωκ[ 



Fr. 41. 



1789. NEW CLASSICAL FRAGMENTS 
Fr. 24. Fr. 25. Fr. 26. Fr. 27. 



V πάντα δ\ 1 

] άπόλλνταΐ' 

] . ται ι 

Μ 


!>α[ 
rro[ 


5 


] 


Μ 

]ομαί [ 
]ιπτονω[ 
δίδεται δ[ 

]ρτα κακ[ 

]ν ω[ 


)φρο[ 
]αλαί. [ 
]αρ€τεσ[ 
]ιρα πει . [ 

5 > Μ 


]αλί 

]λίπ[ 

ά)μφι{ 









69 



Fr. 28. 



Fr. 29. 



Fr. 30. 



«1 

κα[ 



Fr. 32. 
/cat γ[ 

" r 



] . κατ[ 


}αδ[ 


] . . y παίσ[αν ? 


] aV<5/)[ 


] δόμον ό[ 


]τΐ7/ί[ 


]et μόρο? «?στ[ 


. 


ρ]όσοι/ ϊατον [ 




]βρομος ev σ[ 


Fr- 33- 


μα]νιώδη 




/*]α{Ι'Ομ6Ι'[θ1' 


]αναδ . [ 




]αμψ . [ 




]••[ 



Fr. 31. 

] κάκος [ 

]e τόπον [ 
] γαρ αγη[ 
] . . €γων[ 

Μ 



Fr. 34. 



)σι και σ[ 



Fr. 35- 

Η 

]e/ooi ν[ 



Fr. 36. 
] • W 



Fr. 37- 

]epco . [ 



Fr. 38. 



].αλ[ 



] 



Fr. 39• 



Fr. 40. 

]νωκ[ 



Fr. 41. 

] 



7 o THE OXYRHYNCHUS PAPYRI 

W4% * r 

] ίΙ,€ ' σΤ [ ] . ηπ ίρ1 ιτρο[ ] 

5 > 5 ] • • • Κ ]θ7Γθλλα[ 



] 



5 ]•δήν• 



Pr. 1. i. ι sqq. The length of the initial lacunae is estimated from 11. 15-17; in one 
or two lines the resulting number of letters is rather scanty, e.g. 1. 10, but could be slightly 
increased if one or two narrow letters such as α, ι, λ, ρ be supposed to have occurred. 

1 . The two first and two last letters, of which only the bases remain, were round. 

2. e]xvpats, e. g., would be consistent with the very slight vestiges preceding/). In the 
note opposite this line the horizontal dash possibly distinguishes a syllable separately 
mentioned. The note may have been continued in a second line. 

3. ]vev : or perhaps vev. 

4. The letter after θ may be either α or λ, the papyrus being damaged where the 
cross-bar of the α would be. The following vertical stroke is so close to ο that the choice 
seems limited to ι or p. A small slightly curved stroke starting from near the base of this 
letter on the right-hand side is not easily accounted for and was possibly unintentional. 
[i]6apos could be read but is unconvincing in so doubtful a context, especially as a broader 
letter than ι would be expected. After κ, t or ρ is perhaps most likely. 

5. uWVto, σθ](νίτω, στ](ν€τω? For επονήμ([ν]οι cf. 1788. 1 5. ii. 25, n. : 'let them 
not return evil for good'; the diastole was wrongly placed. The interlinear variant 

(πονάμ([ν]οι Supports the form (πόνασιν in Ale. 46. 

6. ν after the lacuna is due to the hand which wrote ζαμενοντον in the margin ; the 
α following also shows signs of alteration. To judge from 11. 15-17, something rather 
shorter than ζαμΐυοντον originally stood in the text. 

8. ξνστοφο[ρή)μ([νος : the verb was apparently not previously attested. 

9. γλυκίωϊ : if the first letter is 7, which looks probable, the second must be either α or 
λ, and νκ are consistent with the very scanty vestiges in the third and fourth place. The 
question of the reading here is complicated by the marginal annotation, which is no doubt 
a variant, the letters rav and ωσ corresponding with the text ; but there seems to have been 
a considerable divergence otherwise, since γλ[ cannot be read. 

11-13. Fr. 2, which was found with Fr. 1, has been assigned to the ends of these lines 
with considerable hesitation. Its external appearance is favourable to the combination, and 
the resulting reading in 11. 12-13 a I ya\p ίμοι τότα . . . yepaar νπποτα runs well, but the ends 
of 11. n and 13, especially the former, are difficult. In 1. 11 a letter is desirable, though 
perhaps not absolutely essential, between σ and π, after which either α or λ can be read. 
Earlier in the line the small colon before • πόλλασ is possibly a stop, such double dots 
being sometimes used for punctuation, even in company with single dots (cf. e. g. 1809-10) ; 
or it may be connected with the marginal adscript. In Fr. 2 the letter before αμ is 
represented by a mere speck, which is capable of many interpretations ; that before the 
final a was γ, t, p, or r. In the marginal note opposite it is not clear whether the mark 
above the last letter denotes an abbreviation. In 1. 13 on the edge of the papyrus above the 
left-hand upright of μ there is a small semicircular mark which might be e. g. the remains of a 
dot enclosing an over-written letter. In 1. 12 ανθ\ μ&φ may be suggested (cf. 1787. 36. 2). 



1789. NEW CLASSICAL FRAGMENTS 71 

]νοσ[ y ι κ θυ[ 1r«*i 

1 ] ί 

1 Γ 

*.'.•■ ] . η τΓ€ρνπ•ρο[ J 

5 ] δ ή υ 



ΐ4• e]^ijt or λα]χ>;ι would suit the vestiges. The first letter may be α, κ, λ, or χ, the second, 
η, μ, ν, π ; and γόμον, -οι or -ei are equally possible. 

15-18 = Ale. 19, from Heraclid. Alkg. Homer. 5 ομοίως be τα ΰπο τούτου (SC. Μυρσίλου) 

αΐνιττόμινοε (τβρωθί που λίγα' τό κτλ. How the end of 1. 1 5 should be restored is still 
uncertain. The MSS. of Heraclides give τω προτίρω νεομω or (AB) τω προτίρω νέμω, for 
which τών προτέρων ομω has been conjectured by Seidler, των π. ονω by Bergk, τώ π. νίον by 
Hermann, τώ π. ν'μω by Gaisford, and τώ π. 'νέμω by Blass. Of these the last alone is 
consistent with the papyrus, though 'νίμω is not of course necessarily right. Fr. 37, which 
possibly belongs here, does not help. 

16. The v. 1. παρεξηι is abnormal. 

17. ΐμβαίνΐΐ Heraclid., Ζμβα Seidler, ΐμβά νη(ατα), i. e. veiara, Bergk, who also suggests 
€μβαί\νη κάτα, πτραίλικτος Άλμα, a restoration which is now put out of court by the papyrus, 
though the true version of the fourth line of the stanza is not yet within reach. 

19. ]σ: e is equally possible. That a dot further on above the line represents a stop 
is quite uncertain. 

ii. 1. Perhaps ωκιστ[α τοίχους, as Murray suggests, but the object may have stood in the 
preceding line and this one have ended with e. g. vaos (Lobel). 

2. es: cf. 1. 13, 1234. Fr. 1. ro (Part XI, p. 56), and Sapph. 1. 19, where the MSS. 
give es. els is normal for Aeolic, though is is hardly to be avoided in 1232. Fr. 2. 3. 

3. For μαλθακός, which seems to be novel, cf. 1233. i. 2. 10 κόθαρον, &c. ; the super- 
scribed variant would eliminate the Aeolism, as in 1. 5 below and Fr. 22. 2. 6<vos 
μαλθακός is comparable to e. g. χλωρόν 8eos. As an alternative to άμμίων or υμμέων a participle 
like (Ισβάλων or εμπέσων may be suggested. 

4. The v. 1. λαβή seems preferable to λαχη. συμφέρον is highly conjectural ; the clause 
may alternatively be regarded as giving the reason for the warning, e. g. μ4γ[α χύμ' ορψ, as 
Lobel suggests. 

5. πάροιθα is analogous to e. g. ΰπισθα. At the end of the verse μ[ώμω seems to suit the 
contrast between τώ πάροιθα and the emphatic νΰν at the beginning of the next line better 
than e. g. μ[όχθω or μ[ύθω ; the v. 1. τών is however perhaps rather in favour of one of the 
latter words. 

8. ΐσλοις τόκηας '. cf. 1234. 2. ii. 12 ΐσλων Zovtcs eV τοκηων. 

13. e'iaiKe : or (Ισίκ([τ ? Cf. n. on 1. 2. But es maybe the termination of a divided word. 

23. The position of the visible remains suits a stichometrical figure (α ? δ ?) rather than 
an initial letter, for though the scribe has, as usual, a tendency to edge towards the left as 
he proceeds with the column, the movement is elsewhere only gradual ; moreover, the 
horizontal stroke projects considerably too far for his usual paragraphus. On the other 
hand the supposed figure is closer to the column than would be expected. 

Frs. 4-5. These two small fragments were found, like Fr. 2, with the bulk of Fr. 1. 



7 2 THE OXYRHYNCHUS PAPYRI 

somewhat apart from the rest, but it does not of course necessarily follow that they belong 
to that column. 

Fr. 6. 2. Either ]a {diastole") or λ' (elision) can be read. At the end of the line α was 
perhaps followed by a round letter (σ ?) the ink of which has run slightly. 

5. ά'ίδρο? occurs in Ion 34, and cf. Etym. Magn. άώροσίνη, Pindar, Nem. 1. 63 

άώροδίκας. 

7. The occurrence of the Doric ποκα here is strange, ποτά, as in the v. 1., being well 
attested for Aeolic. 

9. The remains of this line are difficult. According to the Etym. Magn. Κίρσα was 
another form of κίρρα, the Phocian coastal town, and a geographical name is not out of 
keeping with the rest of this fragment, especially if y\a<pvpa[ in 1. 8 be taken to imply νηκ. 
But the following letters are awkward. There are slight vestiges round a small hole in the 
papyrus above the a, so that a letter may have been added, but the traces suggest nothing 
suitable. 

Pr. 7. This fragment and the next both show a junction between two selides and 
almost certainly belong to the same column, Fr. 7 being from the top of it ; but there seems 
to be a lacuna between them. There is a similar junction in Fr. 11, but that that fragment 
came from the same column as Frs. 7 and 8 is doubtful. 

ι. «πψ-αδίωΓ, like τάν δα- in 1. 3, is a v. 1., as is indicated by the enclosing dots. 

5. άπο\(λ(ΐμ[μ€νον is a gloss probably referring to the last word of the verse, the 
termination of which corresponds. The question arises whether μενον in the second line of 
the scholium is part of the word anoXeXtippevov or of a second explanatory participle ; it is 
much more cursively written, and on the whole is best regarded as distinct and the writer 
as the author of the more cursive annotations in Fr. 1. i. 

Fr. 8. 2. e is followed by a vertical stroke consistent with e. g. μ, ν, π, p. 

4. ολννίχα, σνλννίχΐΐ ? 

5• e. g. άν]ώννμον, (πώννμον. The corrector wished to double the v. 

6. The variant here seems to be by the original hand. 

8. Some vestiges opposite this line are very doubtfully deciphered. 

Pr. θ. ι. ω is preceded and followed by the bases of vertical strokes which can be 
variously read. 

3. y]ap ΐσσ(τ : or π]αρίσσ<τ' ? A small curved mark above the τ appears to be part of 
a sign of elision. 

Pr. 12. 4. e is very doubtful : ο or ω is equally possible. 

6. o[ : or t[. 

7. ϋπο . [ : or ϋπ 6 . [. As the last letter u, v, or π is probable. 

8. This was no doubt the last verse of the column. 
10-11, The ink here is much effaced. 

Pr. 13. This fragment may well be from the top of a column. 

3. Perhaps ΐ\αίην, with θα[νατ . . in the previous line ; but ]άχην is possible. 

Pr. 17. The ligature below the line shows that the letters belong to a compound word. 

Fr. 19. That this fragment belongs to 1789 is not certain. 

Pr. 22. 2. For the v. 1. removing the Aeolic form cf. Fr. 1. ii. 3, n. The last letter may 
be y instead of π. 



1789. NEW CLASSICAL FRAGMENTS. 73 

Fr. 23. 3. If the dot was a high stop, this line was separated from the preceding one 
by an unusually broad space. 

Ft. 25. 6. The mark after ν may signify either elision or division of words. 

Fr. 26. 2. The supposed stop is uncertain and is perhaps the vestige of another 
letter (σ?). 

Fr. 28. This fragment from the bottom of a column does not come from Fr. 1. ii, and 
the appearance of Fr. 32 is also different. 

Fr. 29. 4. Possibly αστ[οϊ or -ov, as in Aesch. Eum. 565. π may be read instead of 
r, but not t or another vowel, apparently, ats cannot be Ace. Plur. Fem. unless the accent 
was mistaken. 

7. μανιώδη IS a gloSS On μ\αινόμ(ν\ον. 

Fr. 31. 2. The interlinear e is part of a variant. 

Fr. 32. 3. ώ τά[λαΐίί 

Fr. 33. 2. The dot after μη (?) is raised a little above the line, and might possibly 
belong to an interlinear v. 1., instead of being a stop. 

Fr. 40. This fragment is probably from the bottom of a column, but is apparently not 
to be connected with Fr. 1 2, in spite of the similarly placed scholia. 

2. The significance, if any, of the dot on the left of the accent is not evident. 
A corresponding dot on the right cancelling the accent should be visible if written. The 
occurrence of the accent is rather against the supposition that the t was to be deleted. 

Fr. 41. ι. ]λ• is an interlinear v. 1. 

5. The variant δήν implies δαντε in the text. 

1790. IBYCUS. 

Height 20 cm. First century b. c. Plate III 

(Frs. '2 + 3, Col. ii). 

Remains of three consecutive columns from the end of a roll containing lyric 
poetry in Doric dialect, with a few smaller pieces from a preceding column or 
columns. The good-sized and ornate but rather crabbed uncials are of a decidedly 
early type, and seem to belong to the middle or latter half of the first century 
B. C. Stops in two positions (high and middle), marks of diaeresis and quantity, 
breathings and accents have been inserted not infrequently, and many of these 
have the appearance of being subsequent additions, due perhaps to the writer of 
the cursive note at the foot of the third column, whose hand suggests the first 
century A. D. 

The short third column, besides having a blank space below it, is 
succeeded by a complete width of 13 centimetres of papyrus, but unfortunately 
this contains no title and the identification of the poet is left to conjecture. 
Internal evidence, however, so narrows the choice that only one name seems 



74 THE OXYRHYNCHUS PAPYRI 

practically possible, that of Ibycus of Rhegium. In the penultimate line the 
author addresses Polycrates, to whom he ascribes imperishable fame. This can 
hardly be other than the well-known tyrant of Samos, who became a patron of 
the arts, and to whose court went Anacreon and, according to the common accepta- 
tion of a rather confused note in Suidas, also Ibycus. 1 Anacreon is excluded 
at once by the dialect, which however is entirely suitable to Ibycus. A further 
argument in favour of the identification is provided by the metre, in which 
among some less expected features the dactylic sequences frequent in the extant 
fragments of both Ibycus and Stesichorus are prominent. 

The previously known fragments of the poet, apart from isolated words and 
references, number a bare thirty, and the longest of them consists of but eleven 
lines, so that a consecutive piece of about four times that length, assuming that 
it is his, must be reckoned a very substantial gain. It relates to the story of 
Troy, to which several of the extant fragments also refer (Ibyc. 9, 11-13, 
34-8, Bergk). After speaking of the destruction brought down on the city of 
Priam by the beauty of Helen the poet disclaims any intention of celebrating 
the various actors in that great drama, a theme better suited to the art of the 
Muses than to mere human skill. By this negative method he contrives to 
glance at the chief figures and several incidents of the story. The style is simple 
and flowing, and there are repeated Homeric reminiscences in the phraseology. 
While the general effect is pleasing enough, what remains of this poem can 
hardly be said to justify the somewhat arrogant claim of the closing passage, in 
which the author implies that his poetic fame will rival that of his patron in 
other fields. But the recovery of a considerable specimen of his heroic manner, 
of which the present may presumably be taken as a sufficiently representative 
sample, is none the less welcome. 

Metrically the piece is of much interest. Though, as in 1361, the copyist 
contrary to the usual practice has not indicated the main divisions by paragraphi, 
the strophic responsion is evident. A short strophe and antistrophe of four lines 
is followed by an epode of five lines, the scheme being as follows : — 

Strophe. 



W — ^^i 

> 
^ v»/ — v^ 



1 Suidas, s.v. "Ιβυκος, says . . . fivei Ύη•γΐνος' Ινθίνδς eh "2.άμον -qXOev, ore αύτψηρχ( ΠοΚυ.νράτψ, δ rod 
τυράννου πατήρ, χρόνος Si ούτος δ ϊπι Κροίσου, 'Ολυμπιάς νδ'. Maas (Pauly-Wissowa, Realencycl.) regards 
this visit to Polycrates as uncertain, on account of the confused dating — an inadequate reason, since the 
main fact would no doubt be attested by the poems themselves while the dates would be added by the 
commentators, δ του τυράννου πατήρ is a riddle. Schneidewin's suggested solution δ τοΰ τυραννικού or των 
τυράννων πρώτος, is unconvincing. 



1790. NEW CLASSICAL FRAGMENTS 75 

Epode. 



— w w — w w — — 
w w — \j w — 

WW WW __ W 

W WU WW WW 

— WW WW — w w 



It was maintained by Schneidewin (Ibyci Reliqu. p. 78) that Ibycus like 
Stesichorus used lengthy strophes similar in compass to those of Pindar. We 
now see that this is not true of all his poems at any rate, if indeed of any ; and 
the more cautious judgement of Maas (Pauly-Wissowa, Realencycl.) is well 
justified. Of the individual verses employed several have parallels in the existing 
fragments, scanty as they are. The dactylic dimeter of the strophe occurs 
repeatedly ; see Ibyc. 1.5-6, 5. 1-2, 16. 4, and cf. Stesichorus 2. For Strophe 1. 3, 
cf. Ibyc. 1. 8, 9. 2, for Epode 1-2, Ibyc. 15, 18, 27, Stesich. 10, 48, and for Ep. 3, 
Ibyc. 26. 1, Stesich. 48. 

A purer dialect is shown by these fragments than by the extant remains of 
Ibycus and Stesichorus, where the mixture of forms is partly no doubt due to 
copyists. ξαναπατάς (1. ίο) and Πονλνκράτης (1. 47, Πολ. Pap.) are metrical 
Ionisms which appear also in Pindar. ϊσθλός is apparently written, and 
tXtvaav (1. 1 8) is noteworthy. Whether ϊγήνατο in 1. 41 is more than a 
vagary of the papyrus is not clear. No example occurs of the σχήμα Ίβύκζίον. 
In its accentuation the papyrus follows the Doric system (e.g. 1. 2 ηνάρον, 
1 8 ιτολνγόμφοι, 23 μόισαι, 24 (μβάι^ν, 47 e£ets) found also in 8, the Paris Alcman, 
and the Berlin fragments of Corinna (Berl. Klassikertexte, V. xiv). The additional 
accents supplied in the reconstructed text follow the same system so far as 
possible, but the present state of our knowledge does not enable this to be carried 
out with much confidence. 



7 6 



THE OXYRHYNCHUS PAPY RI 

Frs. i + 2. Col. i. 

}αιδαρδανιδ<πΓριαμο 10 μ € 

] .Τ ν ^ρικλ€€σολβιο ν η„άροι{ ] 
}οθενορννμενοι. 

}γοσμξγαλο ω βουλαΐσ 
5 Ινθάσελ^νασπξρύ&ϊ 
]ρινπολνυμνον€χ[. }ντζσ 
}^μονκαταδακρ\. .] €νΤ α[ ] 
^μορδαρ,[.]ατα\απ^ρ ίο [ ] Τα 
]°-oeeupai>S[.]aKvwpL8a' 

]£πιθνμιοι>οντξτανι[. .] νρ [ ] 

]"Hr6vfi7rvXoioa\ooac[. . .] . [ 
χ 5 } α Ρ<ινώνυμονου8ςπ[ 
}(ύωναρςταν 

}*ρα<Ρανονονστςκόιλα[ 
]πολνγόμ<ρ 01 €λ4υσα[ 
}αικακονηρωασξσθ[ 
] • *νκρ€ΐωι>αγαμ([ 

Frs -2+3- Col. i. 

«■peoaeof. • • •] • afanf. . .] σ . 
™<rape[. . . .]μ6 ίσαΐσζσ οφ[. .]!„«, 
*&λικω ν ίδ[. .]ψβάϊ^λογ[. .] 
2 5 θ"*τοσδονκ[.]μανηρ 

* e& ' • f }^«ο<ταπανλίδο<τ 

*ιγαΐοι,δι[. . .>Γ ^7Γαρν €0σ 
νΜΘ*[ ]ν 

30 [Jr^wjffW ]«0ωτ€σ 

[•]αλκασπ{. . . . ,] €σαχαιωι/ 



1790. NEW CLASSICAL FRAGMENTS 



77 



I 

2 

3 

4 

5 r 

2 

3 

4 

5 

ΙΟ ι 

2 

3 
4 
ι 

15 2 

3 
4 



20 3 



Frs. i + 2. Col. i. 
[οι κ]αι Δαρδανίδα Πριάμοιο με- 
\y άσ]τν περικλεες όλβων ήνάρον 
[Άργ]οθεν όρννμενοι 
[Ζη]νος μεγάλοιο βονλαΐς 
[£α]νθας Έλενας περί εΐδει 
[δή]ριν πολννμνον εχ[ο]ντες 
[πό]λεμον κατά δακρ[νό]εντα, 
[Περ]γαμον δ' άνε[β]α ταλαπείριο[ν ά]τα 
[χρυ]σοεθειραν δ[ι]α Κνπρίδα. 
[νν]ν δε μοι ούτε ξειναπάταν Π[άρι]ν 
[ην] επιθνμιον ούτε τανί[σφ]υρ[ον] 
[νμ]νήν Κασσάνδραν 
[Πρι]άμοιό τε παίδας άλλον[ς 
[Τρο]ίας θ' νψιπνλοιο άλωσι[ν, o]y 
[ούκ] άρ άνώννμον ούδ' επ\ανεργομαι ? 
[ήρ]ώων άρετάν 
[νπ]εράφανον ονστε κοίλα[ι 
[νάες] πολνγόμφοι ελενσα[ν 
[Τροί]α κακόν ήρωα? εσθ[λονς' 
[των] μεν κρύων 'Αγαμέμνων 



αντιστρ. 



στρ. 



αντιστρ. 



€7Γ. 



Frs. 2-3. Col. i. 

4 [η]ρχ* Πλεισθ[ενί]δας βασιλ[εν]ς άγος ανδρών 

5 Ατρεος εσ[θλον] παις εκ π[ατρό]ς. 

ι και τα. με[ν αν] Μοίσαι σεσοφ[ισμ]εναι 

2 εν Έλικωνίδ[ες] εμβαίεν •\λ6γ[ω] 

25 3 θνατος δ' ον κ[ε]ν άνηρ 

4 <5ie/>o[?] τα έκαστα εΐποι 

ι ναών, ώ[ς Μεν]ελαος απ Αυλίδος 

2 Αιγαίον δι[ά πο\ντον απ' Άργεος 

3 ήλυθε [Δαρδανία]ν 

30 4 [1]πποτρόφο[ν } ως δ]ε φώτες 
ι [χ]αλκάσπ[ιδες, νΐ]ες Αχα[ι]ών. 



στρ. 



αντιστρ. 



επ. 



7 8 



THE OXYRHYNCHUS PAPYRI 



[.]ωνμ€νπρ[. .]ϊρ€στατοσα[.]χμαι[ 
[...]. ποδ[. . .]κνσαχίλλ€νσ 

[ ]γαστ[. . . .]ωι>ιοσαλκι[ 

35. [ ] • ατ[ )γνροσ- 

[ ]οσαπαργεοσ[ 

[ ]σ€σιλιον 



[• 
4θ [. 



• .] • [•] • 
.]αχρυσοστροφ[ 



45 



Frs. 2 + 3. Col. ii. Plate III. 
νλλισ€γήΐ'ατοτωιδ[.]ρατρωιλοι> 
ωσϊίχρυσονορξί. 
χάλκωιτρίσαπ€φθο[.]ήδη 
τρω€σ8[.]ι>αόιτ' €ρό[.]σσαν 
μορφαν μ.ά\ϊΐσκονομοιον• 
τοίσμζνπϊδακαΧλϊοσαίξν 
καισνπολύκρατεσκλ€οσαφθιτοΐ'€£(ΐσ 
£ ωσκατ[. .~\οι.δανκαΐξμονκ\ξ.οσ' 

"ο 



5° 



.]ιμ.αχοσίντωιπ«ριτίνκρουφησι/τΓα[ ]ν y • 

. ^ντουκ'λαίριττϊτουσουσμίτατον . [ ]°T( a 

.] . τοντηνγίνίσιντίυ . . . αναιτ€•π•λ[ "lat»a 

.]θαιτιαλ . . . τονλοομ«[.]ντοσ(Α«[ ]«στρα 

. .]νκ«. [..].?■[.]■".• ."."' 



Col. i. 



Fr. 4• 



Col. ii. 



Fr. 5. 



Fr. 6. 



σο[ 


δασε[ 


Μ 


4 


[•Μ 


) 


■■! 


[.]χ«α[ 


[ ) 


νυσσον[ 


αιθόια[ 


Η 


ασπιδα[ 


5 αιτ€\ύ[ 


5 3*€ 


τοιδανχα[ 


πα[ 


W 



1790. NEW CLASSICAL FRAGMENTS 



79 



3 

4 

35 5 

I 
2 

3 

4 

40 1 



τ\ων μ\ν πρ[οφ]ερ€στατο9 α[ί]\μά 
βαίν]ί[ι] πόδ[ας ώ]κνς ^4)(iXXei)y 
/cai yie]yay Τ[€λαμ]ώνιος άλκι[μος Αϊας 
....]. ατ[. .... άρ]γνρο$. 

1 5 letters ]ο? απ "Apyeos 

16 „ ]s h "IXlov 
, „ ] 

15 „ ]•[•]• 

14 „ ] ά χρυσ€0στρο(ρ\ο9 



στρ. 



αντιστρ. 



Frs. 1 + 3. Col. Η. 

2 'TXXiy εγήνατο, τω δ' [ά]ρα Τρωίλον 

3 ωσα χρνσον όρα- 

4 χάλκω τρί? aVe0^o[r] ^$77 

ι Tpcoes Δ\α\ναοί τ ipo[e]aaau 
45 2 μορφαν μάλ' ΐΐσκον ομοιον. 

3 τοΓ? /*ei> πβία κάλλβο? aikv 

4 /ecu σύ, Πο(ν)λνκρατ€?, κλεο? άφθιτον €*£«?, 

5 ώ? κατ' [ά]οί<5άι/ καί e/zoi' κλίο?. 



€7Γ. 



[? Καλλίμαχος tv τώ ιτίρι Τίνκρου φησί* ιτα[ ]ν 

50 [ ]ν τοΰ κ οτα)λοβ(€Ϊν) ΐππουβ oOs μ«τά τον . [ Ι^χα- 

[....]. τον την γίνίσιν Τίυκρ . . άνατΓίττλ[ηρω . .]αι is 

[. . . .]θαι τι άλ . . . τοΰ Λαομί[δο]ντο5 μ«[ ] €στρά- 

[τ€υσ«]ν is «•[••]•*•[•] 



Col. i. 



Fr. 4. 



Col. ii. 



Fr. 5. 



σο[ 








δασ([ 


4 








[•]«*[ 


«■[ 








[*k we [ 


ννσσον[ 








cua οια[ 


5 άσπίδα[ 






5 


aire λν[ 


τοι ο αν 


Χ 


«Ε 




πα[ 



Fr. 6. 



] 



8o THE OXYRHYNCHUS PAPYRI 



]0L(T> 




τνπτ[ 




0/3αδ[ 


]ι/οσα[ 


] 




ey[ 




i>guo[ 


Μ 










ίο [,]ατα[ 

















Fr. 7. 




Fr. 8. 




Fr. 9• 


Fr. 10. 


]• 




]••[ 




]8'ape[ 


Μ 


]κτυ 




]σινπ[ 




. 


Μ 


]νητηριγα[ 




]ηοσδ . [ 






]ππ[ 


]λισπ()β[ 


5 




• 


Fr. 11. 

Μ 


]"-•[ 


Fr. 12. 


Fr. 1 


3• 


Fr. 14. 


Fr. 15. 


Fr. 16. 


]yoa[ 


I'M 




] 


]α>σ[ 


]χ λα η 


]■[ 


1 




] 


] 


] 


}μ[ 


] 




]ωτο[ 


Μ 


] 


[] 


]τν• 


C 


. 


]ο• 


. 


5 [ ] 


• 


• 




5 Μ 




]•[ 








]/?χ[ 





' . . . who destroyed the famed great and wealthy town of Priam son of Dardanus, setting 
out from Argos by decree of mighty Zeus and ensuing an oft-sung strife for fair-haired 
Helen's form, in tear-stained war ; and vengeance overtook miserable Pergamon because 
of golden-tressed Cypris. But it is not now my desire to sing of cheating Paris or slender- 
ankled Cassandra and the rest of the children of Priam or the capture of lofty-gated Troy, 
which is no unfamed theme ; nor do I tell again of the supreme prowess of the heroes whom 
the hollow well-nailed ships brought, a freight of noble heroes fatal to Troy ; whose captain 
was lord Agamemnon of the race of Pleisthenes, king and leader of men, the son of noble 
Atreus. Such things might the Muses of Helicon, versed in wisdom, well essay, but 
a living mortal man could not tell all the tale of the ships, how that Menelaus went from 



1790. NEW CLASSICAL FRAGMENTS 



]ois. 



τυπτγον 

hi . 



φραδ[ 

vato[ 

i£an[ 

ι ο [.]ατα[ 



]νοσα[ 
}φά[ 



Fr. 7. 



]• 



\KTV- 



? κνβ(ρ]νητηρί γα[ 
}λι? npe[ 



Fr. 8. 



]σιν π[ 
]ηος S . [ 
]ιλο[ 
] € Μ 



Fr. 9• 

]8' apt[ 

Fr. ιι. 

Μ 

]pia[ 



Fr. ίο. 



λο[ 






•[ 



Fr. ia. 

]ρο<γ[ 

]•[ 

Μ 

[ ] 

5 [ ] 



Fr. 1.3. 



}ιφα[ 



]τν•[ 



Fr. 14. 



]ωτο[ 



Fr. 15. 

] <ή 
] 

]λ6[ 

]ο• 
5 ]οσ[ 

]ρχ[ 



Fr. 16. 



]χλα y[ 



] 



Aulis over the Aegean sea from Argos to Dardania rich in horses, and with him the men of 
brazen shields, sons of the Achaeans. Foremost of them in battle came swift- footed 
Achilles, and great Aias doughty son of Telamon . . . and he whom gold-girt Hyllis bare, 
to whom Trojans and Danai likened Troilus in loveliness of form, even as thrice-refined 
gold to copper. Beauty imperishable is theirs ; and thou too, Polycrates, shall have 
undying glory, such as is my glory in song.' 

ι. [οϊ κ]αί (Murray) is a likely restoration. For Πριάμοιο με[γ ασ]τυ cf. e. g. 
Homer Β 332 άστυ μί-γα Ώριάμοιο. Other Homeric phrases are 1. 7 [πό]\(μον δακρ[νό\ντα 

(Ε 737), 14 [Τρο]ία? υπιψύλοιο (Π 698), 20 κρί'ιων ' Αγαμέμνων (\ 13O&C.), 21 άγος ανδρών (Δ 519 

G 



82 THE OXYRHYNCHUS PAPYRI 

&C.), 33 ττόδ[αί ώ]<νΐί Άχιλλευ?, 34 με yas Ί[(λαμ\ώνιος αλκι[μος Alas (cf. e. g. Μ 362, 364), 47 κλεο$• 
άφθιτον (Ι 4 Χ 3)• 

4• [Ζ^Ι^όί . . . βουλαϊς : cf. Homer A 5 Αιόί δ' εΥελε/,'ετο βουλή. 

5• The diaeresis on «δει is evidently mistaken ; cf. 11. 18, 31, 44. 

8. The letters ]τα, 1. ίο ]v, and the vestige at the end of 1. 14 are in Fr. 2. i, which is 
separated from Fr. 1 by a short lacuna. 

10. The term ξΐναπάτης is applied to Paris in Eurip. Troad. 866. 

11-12. τανί[σφ]νρ[ον] : so e.g. Bacchyl. iii. 60, v. 69. Cassandra occurs also in Ibyc. 9. 

14-15. δ]γ seems to be the easiest connecting link between these two lines, and the 
vestige, though very small and ambiguous, is consistent with γ. [ου y]ap in 1. 15 is excluded 
by the difficulty of completing the preceding verse ; the plural όλώσι[αί] is not at all probable, 
especially with άνώνυμον following. At the end of 1. 15 γ is an alternative to π•; a new verb 
seems wanted here in any case. 

18. πολύγυμφος is an epithet of νψς in Hesiod, Op. 658. For (λ<=ύσα[ν cf. επελεύ^ω in 

Cretan inscriptions, e.g. Collitz-Bechtel, Dialektinschr. 4998. 1. 9-10 αϊ δε . . . μη επελεύσεί 

τό Τίτνακός. 

ig. ΐσβ\Κοίς, which was suggested by Lobel, and makes an effective contrast to [Τροί]α 
κακόν, is a doubtful but quite possible reading, the papyrus at the top of the σ being defective 
so that there is an appearance of two strokes. The form ia&kos is indicated also in 1. 22 
and recurs in Ibyc. 19. ήρωος is read by Ludwich and others in Homer ζ 303. 

2i. n\eia6[evi]8as : cf. Stesichorus 42 βασιλεύς Πλεισθίνίδαε. It would follow from the 
present passage, if Murray's n[arpo]s in 1. 22 is right, that Ibycus regarded Agamemnon as 
the son of Atreus (cf. e. g. Eurip. Hel. 390-2) and Pleisthenes as a more remote ancestor 
(grandfather?). According to Apollodorus iii. 2. 2 Pleisthenes was the father of 
Agamemnon, and it would be possible to make our poet an exponent of that view by 
reading ε'κ γ[έΊ>ου]Γ, which is palaeographically admissible, in place of « π'ατρό]ς. That, 
however, would be questionable on metrical grounds, since the corresponding syllable, as 
Housman observes, is short wherever preserved (11. 9, 35, 45). The statement of Tzetzes in 
II. p. 68 that the sons of Pleisthenes, who died young, were brought up by Atreus represents 
an endeavour to harmonize the conflicting genealogies. 

24. The end of this verse seems to be corrupt, since two short syllables are necessary 
for the metre, and a heteroclite form λόγα is incredible, t or π can be read in place of γ, 
but these do not help. Murray proposes to emend to πόδα, but the pleonasm is not 
attractive in a metaphorical passage. έμβαίνειν is commonly used with the dative or 
a preposition, but Euripides has ίμβαίνουσα κίλ^υθον in Suppl. 989. 

25. ov κ[ε]ι/ is more euphonious than ουκ [ά]ν, with άνήρ following. 

26. For διερό[ί] after θνατος . . . άνηρ cf. e. g. Homer ζ 2οι άνηρ bupbs βροτόί : the vestige 
of the ο is slight but suitable. Unless there was a flaw in the papyrus, something else besides 
biepos must have been originally written, but sense and metre are complete as the verse stands. 
κα]τα for καψ would not nearly fill the space. 

27. A slight vestige after ναών suits a round letter and is inconsistent with a, so that als 
is excluded. 

29. If ηλΰθ€ is right, [Δαρδαιία]ν (Murray) is the natural restoration, but the accent on 
ηλύθΐ must apparently be corrected (cf. Apollon. De Syni. iii. 7. 33 (p. 213 Bekker) and 
Corinna i. 18 (Berl. Klassikertexte, V. ii, p. 20) έμελ^ει/), and e. g. ηλύθο[ν is Τροία]»» might be 
read ; the plural, however, is less natural. 

30. [1?Γποτρόφυ[ν (cf. the Homeric "Ιλιον (ΰπωλον &c.) suits the space better than 

[ι\πποτρόφο[ι. 

31. |χ]αλκάο-7τ[ιδε$•, »ϊ]« Housman. 

33. [0αίΐ']ε[(] or [χωρ]ε[ΐ] is unconvincing, though palaeographically possible ; [f£e]e seems 



1790. NEW CLASSICAL FRAGMENTS 83 

objectionable on account of the hiatus, unless this could be excused by the original 
digamma; cf. 1. 5. 

36. Perhaps Ίνδεος υΐ]ος, as Lobel suggests. There should be a mention hereabouts 
of Teucer, to whom the note at the foot of the column refers. Line 35 would be the natural 
place for him, but αρ]γυρος is a difficulty. 

40-1. The reference in this passage mentioning some hero conspicuous for beauty but 
nevertheless surpassed by Troilus as much as copper by gold, remains obscure. Hyllis is 
unknown, except as a name of the nymph 'Apyeia according to Steph. Byz. s. v. Ύλλεϊς. 
Nireus, whose parentage is stated by Homer Β 672, can hardly be meant, nor is e.g. 
Eurypylus (cf. λ 522) suitable. In 1. 40 χρυσός was originally written, and was amended 
by the insertion, possibly by the first hand, of an ε over the line ; a cursive a seems to have 
been subsequently added rather above the level of the ε by some one who took χρυσεος τροφός 
as separate words, — which is indeed possible, though less likely, μ of τροφ[ was converted 
from, probably, a partially formed o. In 1. 41 the spelling of the papyrus in εγψατο 
has been retained, though whether this is a genuine form is open to doubt. 

42. ορείχαλκος was mentioned by Stesichorus according to Schol. Apoll. Rhod. iv. 973 

op. είδος χαλκού . . . μνημονεύει και "Στησίχορος και Βακχυλίδης. IbyCUS and StesichorUS were 

sometimes confused by grammarians (cf. Schneidewin, Ibyc. Reliqu. p. 41 sqq.), but it would 
be rash to assume that the present passage is the one which the scholiast had in mind. 

44. Cf. Theognis 449 ΐίπεφθον χρυσόν. 

4 6-8. In this passage much depends on the punctuation. A logical sentence would 
result from ihe removal of the stop after aUv, with πεδά as the preposition (the accent in the 
papyrus need not imply equivalence to μίτεστι, but may be accounted for by the anastrophe, 
in spite of the intervening μεν). On this view the κάλλος of Polycrates would be the quality 
which the poet desired to commemorate, and his identity with the tyrant would become 
questionable. On the whole, however, it seems preferable to follow the clear punctuation 
of the original, which gives a satisfactory sense and accords better with the attribution, on 
other grounds plausible, to Ibycus. τόϊς ph . . . aUv is then poetic language for ' they will 
always be remembered for their beauty '. 

Πο(υ)λύκρατίς is necessary if the metre is to correspond ; cf. Pindar, Nem. vi. 70 

ϋουλυτιμίδαν. 

49 sqq. This note relating apparently to Teucer and the horses of Laomedon pre- 
sumably was intended to explain something in 11. 35-40, but at present remains itself 
obscure, though restoration should not be difficult if the right clue were found. In 1. 49 
[Καλλ]ψαχο$• appears the most likely name, and the ilept Τεύκρου may have been included 
among his υπομνήματα but is not otherwise known. The dash between two dots at the end 
of this line seems too large and too far from the rest of the note to be intended as an 
abbreviation of εστί, and is therefore regarded as a symbol corresponding to another in the 
margin of the line to which the note was attached. What has been taken for a dash after 
φησι may possibly be the top of an e. 

50. κ(ατα)λαβ[ΐΙν) is very uncertain, especially as other abbreviations do not occur in 
this note, but is not unsuited to the remains, and an infinitive is apparently wanted. Perhaps 
χάρϊ\ν preceded τοΰ. 

5i. Ύ(ϋκρος in some form seems inevitable, but the termination is very doubtful. 

52. Possibly άλλα, but a longer word would account better for the vestiges. 

Fr. 4. ii. 6. αύχα[ is possible. 
8. ey[ : or «r[. 

Fr. 5. This fragment and Fr. 7 differ rather from the rest in appearance, Fr. 5 being 
dirty and rubbed, and Fr. 7 very dark-coloured. That Fr. 5 contains the beginnings of 

G 2 



84 THE OXYRHYNCHUS PAPYRI 

lines is not certain, since the margin is lost, but if a letter had preceded φ in 1. 7 some 
portion of it should be visible. In 1. 2, if e was the second letter in the line, the first was 
a narrow one. 

4-5. άιθ . . . απ -e apparently correspond, whether μ or at is written. όιμ[ can be read 
in 1. 4. 

Fr. 7. 2. κτν\π . ., δι]κτν . . . ? 

Fr. 8. 3. The supposed grave accent is possibly the second half of a circumflex. 



1791. Pindar, Paean. 

9-9x4-1 cm. First century. Plate III. 

This small but interesting fragment gives the context of two well-known 
lines cited from Pindar by Pausanias (Fr. 53 Schroder), the text of which is now 
finally established. The passage refers to the second and third temples at 
Delphi, and the Delphian story (Pausan. x. 5. 9) that the former of these temples 
was sent to the Hyperboreans is reflected in 11. 1-2, while the latter is described 
at greater length in 11. 3-9. Built by Hephaestus, 'of bronze stood the walls 
and even so of bronze the pillars, and six golden Charmers sang above the 
gable'. Its destruction by a thunderbolt was related in the broken lines 10-12. 
A strophic division is marked at this point and the subject apparently changes, 
but the lower part of the papyrus is much damaged and only isolated words are 
recognizable. No responsion can be traced between 11. 1-12 and 13-20, and one 
or other of these sections presumably belonged to the epode. The metrical 
scheme, so far as it can be followed, is fairly simple; in 11. 1-12 short lines seem 
to preponderate, and several glyconic verses are included. That Fr. 53 came 
from the Paeans is stated by Galen, who also quotes it. 

The text, which is from the top of a column, is in small upright uncials of 
somewhat informal type to which approximations are found among the better- 
written Oxyrhynchite contracts of the late first and early second centuries ; cf. 
e. g. 270 (Part II, Plate 8), which, however, is probably rather later than 1791. 
No stops, accents, or other signs occur except the paragraphus below line 12. 
Decipherment is difficult in places owing to the loss of the upper fibres of the 
papyrus. A junction between two selides runs down the middle of the 
fragment. 

ναον τον μ*ν Ύπξρβορ[ζοις ? κεραννω γθονα νο[ 

λυ . . . σ€ . . μζνησ€μι£[ €κρ[.)ψ . ν . . [•]αντα>[ 

ω μοισαι τον Se παντζγ^νοις yXvKetat 4ios αγλ[α 

Αφαιστον παλαμαις και Αθα\νας ? οτι £(.νο . φ . ννον[ 



1791. NEW CLASSICAL FRAGMENTS 85 

5 tls ο ρυθμός ζφαινζτο . 15 ατζρθεν re . . av[ 

χαλ /ceot μςν τοίχοι χαλκ[ξαι <5e . λο . . . τς μεν φ[ 

ούτω κίονες (στασ[αν μονανα . κημναν[ 

χρνσεαι δ βξ υπζρ αζτον λνσιμβροτον π[ 

aeiSov Κηληδοι>[€ς [α]«ηρατων δαίδα[λ 

ΙΟ άλλα νιν r\pov €τη . [ 2θ [ ]ve\[ 



1—2. Cf. Pausan. Χ. 5• 9 8ei>T(pa δε λβγονσιν ο'ι Δελφοί -γΐνίσθαι ΰπο μελισσών τον ναόν, άπυ 
τον τΐ κηροΰ των μίλισσων και e/c πτερών' πεμφθήναι de is Υπερβορίονς φασιν αυτόν νπο τον Άπόλ- 

λωνοί. In 1. ι the papyrus strongly suggests τον, but the ν is not impossible and seems 
essential for the construction. In 1. 2 ζαμενης ep£[ or ΐζαμενησε μιξ[ could be read, but the 
vestiges between e and μ are extremely slight ; ενμενης, however, appears unsuitable. The 
first letter of the line is either a, 8, or λ, and the third may well be ρ ; the fifth looks at first 
sight like e, but this is not convincing, and a crossed out t might have a similar effect. 
Υπερβορ[(οισιν ev-\ Xvpafctjs εζαμ*νησε μιξ[α: would be consistent with the remains. The subject 
in any case is presumably Apollo. 

3. τον is clear, but του depending on μνθμο? would be easier. Perhaps τον and τον here 
and in 1. 1 were transposed by an oversight ; cf. n. on 11. 1-2. 

4 Sqq. Cf. Pausan. X. 5• II— 12 τα 8e e? τον τρίτον των ναών, otl eyevero etc χαλκοί/, θαΰμα 
ουδίν . . . τα μίντοι αΧλα μι ουκ eneiSev 6 λόγος, η Ίίφαιστου τον ναον τίχνην eivai, η τα is τάς ωδού? 
tus χρνσας, ά δη Πίνδαρος jjaev eV (Κΐίνω τω ναω, xpvaeai κτλ. (11. 8—9, Pindar Fr. 53)• The 

two verses are also quoted by Galen on Hippocr. De artic. 18. i, p. 519 Kiihn. Scholars 
have successfully treated the corruptions found in Pausanias and Galen, and the fragment 
as printed by Schroder corresponds with the text here, except that he has mistakenly 
preferred Bergk's l^epff to Schneidewin's l£ ίιπίρ, which the papyrus now confirms, ρνθμος 
in 1. 5 = σχήμα ; the word does not occur elsewhere in Pindar. 

IO—I2. Cf. Pausan. X. 5• * 2 °^ P*l p ov ^e τρόπον οντινα άφανισθήναι συνίπ^σε τω ναω κατά 
ταύτα είρημενα εύρισκαν' κα\ yap is χάσμα yrjs ΐκπίσΐϊν αυτόν και νπό πνρο5 τακήναι λίγονσιν. 

Pindar's version does not seem to agree closely with either of these, but the reading is 
uncertain in several places. In 1. 10 the letter before ρ looks more like η than anything 
else, though the space is rather narrow, ι is hardly possible, σ could be read in place of 
e before τη. In 1. 1 1 we may divide χθον αν o[ or χθονα vo[, and the last letter may be either 
ο or ω. In 1. 1 2 the space is indecisive between (κρ[ι]ψ and ι?/φ[υ]ψ•, and the termination 
can be -tat or -ev. The following vestiges are ambiguous, but those of the second letter 
rather suggest π or τ, and with the former there need be no letter before the doubtful a, e. g. 
άπάντω[ς is possible; αφαντω[ is clearly excluded. 

13. The slight vestiges are consistent with Ams, after which either aya[ or αγλ[ may be 
read. The latter seems the more likely here, whether written with a capital or not. For 

Αγλαία cf. 01. XIV. 1 9 πότνι Ά. φιλησίμολπί τ Ευφρόσυνα and Fr. 1 99 ΜοΊσα και Ά. ; but άγλ[α- 

may of course be another adjective, e. g. άγλ[αόθρονοι {κόραι ?), for which cf. 01. xiii. 96 

Μοίσαις aykao6povois. 

14. £e is very doubtful ; the first letter is possibly δ. There may be two letters 
between ο and φ, but if so the first of them is probably 1, which might indeed be sufficient 
by itself. The remains after φ suggest e. ΐφ υμνον is inadmissible. 

15. Ttav av[ or τ(χναν[ looks likely. 

16. What has been taken for the upper part of a φ is possibly the base of a letter 



86 THE OXYRHYNCHUS PAPYRI 

following ν at the end of the preceding line, in which case ο {repevo\ys ?) would be probable 
in place of φ. 

1 7. This is another rather puzzling line. Either μον or . ων is possible, and if any 
letter stood between a and κ, it is likely to be ι ; there seems hardly room for σ or 7, and 
ανάγκη would of course be a false form. At the end of the line μναν appears inevitable, μναμ 
being unsuitable. 

18. For λυσιμβροτος, which Occurs only here, cf. όλεσίμβροτος, φθισίμβροτος, &c. ; in 

Tryphiod. 437 λνσήνωρ is an epithet of ohos. 

19. Cf. Pyth. V. 32 άκη par on avian. 
8αιδα[λ : or δ Αιδα ? 

1792. Pindar, Paean ?. 

Fr. 1 16-9 χ 13-7 cm. Second century. 

The following fragments, of which only one, itself built up from several 
smaller pieces, is at all substantial, are written in a good-sized, rather heavy, 
semicursive hand which may be referred to the first half of the second century. 
Stops in two positions are used, and (besides the diaeresis) breathings, accents, and 
marks of elision and quantity have been supplied here and there. Many of these 
have the appearance of being by the original hand, which was no doubt also 
responsible for the occasional diplac in the margin and the interlinear asterisk in 
Fr. 47 ; but some, e.g. the elision-sign in Fr. 1. 14, are in a lighter ink and may 
well proceed from the corrector who altered the termination of the verb in the 
same line and is evidently to be distinguished. 

Fr. 1. 



[ Μ 

[. . . .]oiaiV€vve[ 

[. .]αλαδαρτ6μιδ[ ]ojo^[ 

[. .]χο(τα.μφ6πο[ ]ατόίά[ 

[.]υμι>ησιοσδρεπ[. .]αμα$€φ[ 
[. .}ξοθζν\ι.παροτροφωνθυσι[ 
[. .]λωι>χαριτ€σσιμιγδα.ι/ 
[. .}γθωνπαρακρημνον<ίνΘα[ 
κζλαι.νϊφϊαρ'γιβρςντανλ €γο[ 
ζηνακαθεζομξνον 

κορνφαίσιννπ€ρ6βφνλαξ[. . . .]ονο . [ 
αΐ'ΐκ α"/ανοφρων 



1792. NEW CLASSICAL FRAGMENTS 



87 



That the author is Pindar is not definitely ascertained, but style and 
vocabulary seem sufficiently characteristic to justify that ascription. Ιττ]ποσόα 
θν[γάτηρ in Fr. 51 is a remarkable coincidence with a Pindaric collocation, and 
other linguistic parallels are pointed out in the notes ; the reference to the 
Boeotian Πτωον in Fr. 47 is also not without significance. The class of poem 
represented is still less certain ; the passage in Fr. 1 describing the birth of the 
twin offspring of Zeus and Leto would be appropriate in a Paean for the Delians, 
but other categories are by no means excluded. As for the metre, whether the 
verses in Fr. 1 belong to one or more systems is not clear ; a paragraphus occurs 
in Fr. 35, but no strophic division is marked in Fr. 1 among the few lines of which 
the beginnings are preserved. 

The scheme of 11. 2-20 is as follows : — 



[. ...J-w-M|. .. 

[. .]**-««[ ]«*[... 

Η----[-••}-^[-..• 

5 *j — w I — j w w \j t\j . . . 

V^l W w — V_/ W V^M 

Γ — J — <j w — w 

I — j U — ^/W — ^ — v^/ 

V./ — V./W — — W — I — 

IO — w v^< — w w — 

^ W — V*> W — <J ^ — I — J w «^ 



— </ ο w 

v_/v> — o* w t_; 

\^ <^l V_^V_/ W W \_/ \J 

Iq — <-< vy — w v_/ w v_-w — 

W *_/ V^ W^lw* lw<[W 

V_/ <_/ ^/ V^l_/ — v^> — . . 

w ^ — υ — . . . . 

[••] — —ι 

20 [-] ^ ^ _ yj _ U [ # ] . . , [ 



Fr. 1. 



[• 



•M 



[. . . •]οίσ£ΐ> ej/ i>e[ 

[. .]αλα <5* u4/3re/zi<5[ ]ο^ασ[ 

[Aej^oy άμ0€7τό[λ€ί . ,]c. rota[t>r 
5 [Λυμνήσιος Spin[. .] α/*α 5e $[ep 
[Νά]ξοθβν λιπαροτρόφων θυσί\ας 
[μή]λων Χάρίτ€σσι μίγδαν 
\Kv\v6lov παρά. κρημνον ίνθα 
κελαινίφξ' άρ-γιβρίνταν λ€γο[νσι 
ίο Ζηνα καθζζόμζνον 

κορυφαϊσιν νπερθξ. φνλά£[αι χρ]όνοι> 
άνίκ άγανόφρων 



THE OXYRHYNCHUS PAPYRI 



κοιονθνγατηρλυζτοτϊρπί'άσ 

•α• αν 

> ωδ£ίνοσ'ελαμψ\[ίΠδ'α€λιονδ€μα.σοπο[ 
αγλαονίσφαοσϊονπσδιδυμοι 
παιδ€<τπολνι>ροθ[.] . Ιεσαναποστομ[ 
[.]\ξΐθνιατ6και.λα[.]€σίσ•τ€λ([.]αιδολ[ 
[. .]τ€λαμβαι>ον •[•••] 
[. .]εφθ€γξαι>τοδ€γχώριάι 
[. ]λαοσασαν€ρκ*[.] . . . [ 

]τογαρακ . . ιν . ατοι[ 

] . . ρ . γονατ[ 



,]τ]ρασορ . [ 



Fr. 2. 



Fr. 3. 



Fr. 4• 



1ωλθίσα[ 

i t 



ι 

}δρα[ 
] 



]πολλακίσ[ 

] 
] 



Fr. ς. 



Fr. 6. 



Fr. 7. 



Fr. 8. 



> .« 


?•[ 


ΚΟί[ 


γλ[ 


παι[ 


0α[ 


■•[ 


Ρ#[ 


> €<[ 


πο[ 


• 


ηλνθο 



οσ€τ[ 



Fr. 9• 



Fr. 10. 
1 



Fr. 11. 



Fr. 12. 
• Χ ντα [ 



Fr. 13. 

>7Τ[ 



1792. NEW CLASSICAL FRAGMENTS 

Kolov θυγάτηρ λύετο τερπνάς 

ώδΐνος' 'έλαμψαν δ' άελίον δέμας όπό[τ 

1 5 άγλαον ές φάος ιόντες δίδυμοι 

παΐδες, πολύν βόθ[ο]ν ΐεσαν άπο στομ[άτων 
[Έ]λείθυιά τε και Λά[χ]εσις• τέλε[ι]αι δ' ολ[ 
[κα]τελάμβανον .[...] 
[. .] εφθεγξαντο δ' εγχώριαι 

2θ [άγ]λαό? ας αν ερκε[.] . . . [ 

[ ]το γαρ άκ . . ιν . ατοι[ 

[ ] . . ρ . γονατ[ 

[ ]ηρας (ν. 1. -ες) op . [ 

[ ι ■ • • [ 



89 



Fr. 2. 

]ραι[ 

]ανεν . ει[ 
]ωλοισα[ 

} i 



Fr. 3. 



)δρα[ 
} 



Fr. 4. 



] πολλάκις [ 
} 



]τιν 

]■ 



Fr. 5 . 
■« 

Fr. 9. 



Fr. 6. 

ύ.[ 

θα[ 
πο[ 



Fr. 7• 



Fr. 8. 



Fr. 10. 

1 



Fr. 11. 



KOl[ 


γλ[ 


■ •[ 


μτ) 0[ 


. . 


^λι/0ο[ι/ 




oy 6T[ 

• • • 


Fr. 12. 


Fr. 13. 


] • χν«[ 


]νπ[ 



9° 



THE OXYRHYNCHUS PAPYRI 



> 



]«M 


]τ6σϊ>[ 


Μ 


[ 'Ι 


]ω 


]σφρασ[ 


] 


]μςνοι[ 



Fr. 14. 

] 

] 
]μαισ[ 

]τα0ω[ 



Fr. 15. 



]\αι>[ 



Fr. 16. 



Fr. 17. 



Fr. 18. 



• • • ' 


• 


• • 


] 




*••[ 


]ασωπο[ 




] 


]ζψατοτ[ 


\(ύΙΊθ[ 


Η 


]•[ 


σαισ 


]•?[ 



Fr. 19. 



Fr. 20. 



Fr. 21. 



1 ι χρ[ 


]>ccu 


Μ 


].•[ 


]f oi xK 


Μ 


. 


Μ 


. 



Fr. 22. 



] 
]σίθΓ[ 



Fr. 23. 

]στοι>[ 
] 



Fr. 24• 



]ναριστοπ . [ 
]ατο<5αμ[ 



Fr. 25. 



j/OOi'OOI' 



Fr. 26. 



Fr. 27. 



]ίαί# 


Μ 


]/3ΐ/σο[ 


]poi 


]στω . [ 


]/ia£CTi/3[ 


]αισ'α[ 


].["' 



Fr. 28. 

] 
] 

] 

]ποδ[ 



Fr. 29. 
'] 



Fr. 30. 



Fr. 31. 



]rtpt[ ]αν€πι[ 



Fr. 32• 

]ιαισι[ 



1792. NEW CLASSICAL FRAGMENTS 



9i 



>' 



]σφ{ 


}Τ€? v[ 


Μ 


[ } 


}ω 


. ]ϋ φρασ[ 


} 


]μ£ΐ>οι[ 



} 



} 



Fr. 14. 

1 

1 

~\μαισ[ 
]ταφω[ 



Fr. 15. 



]λαν[ 



Fr. 16. 



] 
] Άσωπο[ 

]ξψατοτ[ 

]•ί 



Fr. 17. 

] 

] 

]σαι$ 



Fr. 1 1 



Κ•;[ 
1 

].o[ 



Fr. 19• 



Fr. 20. 



Fr. 21. 



>xp[ 


]και 


Η 


]••[ 


]y οίχν[ 


Η 


, . 


Μ 


• ■ 



Fr. 22. 



1 

]σίόι{τ 



Fr. 23. 



]στο^ 



Fr. 24. 



Fr. 25. 



Fr. 26. 



Fr. 27. 



Fr. 28. 



] 
]Xetap Όλφιπ 

]ι/ άριστοπ . [ 

]ατο δαμ[ 



} 
]ρόνων 



]lcli S[ 


)oPe[ 


χ]ρνσο[ 


]P0L 


]στω . [ 


]μαίσιρ[ 


]αι$• α[ 


]•[ 



]ποέ[ 



Fr. 29. 

1 



Fr. 30. 



]repi{ 



Fr. 31. 

]av €7Tt[ 



Fr. 32. 

]ta 

]ιαΐσύ 



9 2 



THE OXYRHYNCHUS PAPYRI 



] 




] 


]ωιπ[ 


. 




]ονδω[ 


]ατθ' 






5 ]?«/?[ 


5 ]ορον[ 


ft. 33- 


Fr. 34. 


. . . . 


]ayo[ 


• • • 


. 




}ν α - [ 


]ορ/α'[ 


Μ 


Fr. 36. 


]τ€υδ[ 


ί 


)α. 


• 


Μ 


. 


]καιτο0ίΐ>[ 


μαι[ 


• • • 




]υαλίοι; 


€λπι[ 




ft• 35- 

epi[ 

ev6[ 


5 ]πατροσεχ[ 
]δικαδασ[ 
]ακίλευσι[ 

[ Ί 


α\α[ 

5 γογ[ 




μα[ 


]•.[ 






Κ 


. . . . 







Fr. 37. 

]θ)7Γθ[ 
]6ίΙΌΤ0ίΤί[ 

]προσο#ο . [ 

)τ€χθρθ[ 

]οντα[ 



Fr. 38. 



Fr. 39• 



]ι•δω[ 
]ς\ιναν . [ 
]τ^μ€ν€ί'τ[ 
] . αμ€ναι[ 
5 ]ταίστ€/3[ 
]παίσιτξ . [ 
]ντιαδζ[ 
]μμ€λ*[ 
]eipaveK . [ 
10]. '[.].. [.].«•[ 
]λ••[ 



]οσ€υχο/ζ[ 

]a7Tie/Ji5ea[ 

]ι>α>ίτ[ 



Fr. 40. 

Μ 

]χρνσ[ 

Η 

5 >'«[ 



Fr. 41. 

]νατοινιν . [ 

]ef0yoa)i/yap[ 
]ζβόαμ€ . . [ 



Fr. 42. 



]y a />[ 



Fr. 43• 



]φ«[ 



Fr. 44- 



]?■ ■ ι ή 



Fr. 45• 

Μ 



1792. NEW CLASSICAL FRAGMENTS 



93 



Fr - 33• 



]ov κν[ 



Fr. 35- 

ipi[ 
εύθ[ 
μα[ 

Κ 



]ουδιο[ 
5 ]vap[ 



Fr. 34. 



Μ 


Fr. 3 6. 


]«. 


. 


] καϊ τόθι r[ 


μαι[ 


Έν]ναλίον 


έλπι[ 


] πατρός 6χ[ 


φιι>[ 


]δίκα δασ[ 


όίλα [ 


]α κ€λξνσι[ 


5 yov[ 


[ ] 




]•[ 





]ατο. 
5 ]ορον[ 
~\ανο[ 
]ηα . [ 

]rev8[ 



Fr. 37. 



Fr. 38. 



Fr. 39• 



Fr. 40. 



]ωπο[ 
]eiv tol τι[ 
] πρόσοδο . [ 
]re χορο[ 

} Χ ά Ρ ίν λ [ 
π]ίμπβΐ' λ[ 

]οι>τα[ 



]ί• δω[ 
]ξ\ίναν . [ 
] τεμίνει• τ[ 
] . αμ€^αί[ 
5 ]ταις rep[ 
] παισϊ re . [ 
]ι>Τία #e[ 
]μμ€λε[ 
]eipai>eK . [ 
10 ].[.]. . [.] . α , 
]λ..[ 



]€ΐκερ[ 


Μ 


]οσενχομ[ 


] ΧΡ υσ [ 


]α Πιερίδ€σ[ 


Μ 


]νω τ[ 


] . αισ[ 




5 Μ 



Fr. 41 ■ 



]uaroL νιν . [ 
] (νφρων γαρ [ 
] ίβόα μ€ . . [ 



Fr. 42. 



] 7«Ρ [ 



Fr. 43. 



δ]φα[ 



Fr. 44- 
]<r . ισ[ 



Fr. 45• 

Η 



94 



THE OXYRHYNCHUS PAPYRI 






3??y • [ 


]πβρτατ[ 


Μ 


>οσ[ 


}σ*κ[ 


]•[ 


]••[ 


. 


# # 



Fr. 46. 



Fr. 47. 



Fr. 48. 



Fr. 49• 



}•[ 




]ριαινα[ 


]ιναισ[ 


] . e<rai>[ 


]<ϋ/3#1/7ΓΟΚρ[ 




]€νπτωιω[ 


. }αριντ[ 


]ί/αυλί(5[ 


]o)ao//ei/y[ 




ι Ι ο P 


]μονπ[ 


]ί/€^ά[ 


]e0i/oaa£<5[" 




— 0— [ 

J 00 L 


]••ί[ 


3r? • [ 


5 ]μ*χρ[• •] • ?[ 




]*νσοφ[ 






Fr. 50. 




Fr. 51. 


Fr. 52. • 


Fr. 53 


1 • e Bi[ 


]/3 


./.[•■]•[ 


3f-[ 


]• 


]νμον[ 


]//0ίπολ?ί[ 


] . αραντ[ 


)μαϊ[ 


λσσαλο^ 


]ποσ•όαθυ[ 


Μ ' 


]μ« • Ι 


}yyov[ 











Fr. 54• 



Fr. 



DO- 



Fr. 5 6. 



Fr. 57• 



Fr. 58. 



]are0[ 


]σί/χ[ 


]μαλα[ 


lai'af 


Μ 


]oi/ayu[ 


]ava[ 


]re<5e[ 


3rt 


W 



Fr. 59. 



Fr. 60. 



Fr. 61. 



Fr. 62. 



Fr. 63. 



]vev6a[ 


]vai[ 


]0Oi[ 


]l/Of[ 


3$ 


]i>7re0[ 


]?[ 


• • 


• 


]λα[ 


Fr. 64. 


Fr. 6 5 . 




Fr. 66. 


Fr. 6η. 


)oe6[ 


3M 




3°" € K 


]γρ°[ 



1792. NEW CLASSICAL FRAGMENTS 



95 






Fr. 46. 



3-1 

]ωρθ' ύποκρ[ 
]ωσομεν γ[ 
] 'ίθνος αιδ[ 

><*/>[• -1 • < 

Fr. 50. 



] • «P't 

? πα]σσαλο[ 
00o]yyoy [ 

Fr. 54. 
]οϊόι/ζ[ 

Fr. 59• 
]ν€νθα[ 

]ν 7Γ€0[ 

Fr. 64. 



]5αγ . [ 
]μοσ[ 

Fr. 47• 



ύ]π€ρτατ[ 
}σ€κ[ 



Fr. 48. 



? Όρσοτ]ριαινα[ 

] εν Πτωω [ 

ι [ 



Fr. 51. 



]/3 . • .[••]• [ 
ά)μφιπολ€ί[ 
ίπλποσόα θν[γάτηρ 



Fr. 55- 

]σψ[ 

Fr. 60. 

]ναι[ 

Μ 



Fr. 5 6 • 

]μαλα[ 

Fr. 61. 

]0οι[ 



ιναισ\ 
αριν τ[ 

• η 



Fr. 52. 



]σ.[ 
] . αραντ[ 

Μ 



Fr. 57• 

]ανα[ 

Μ 

Fr. 62. 



Fr. 65. Fn 66 • 






Fr. 49• 

] . €ΐταν[ 
]ν Αύ\ί\ 
]vev α[ 



Fr. S3- 



]•■[ 



Fr. 58. 

Μ 

]σα[ 
Fr. 63. 

]λα[ 

Fr. 67. 



φ 



THE OXYRHYNCHUS PAPYRI 



}ωζω[ 


] α «ί•.Μ 


Fr. 68. 


}?Τί - { 


]οναν[.]€τ[ 


]αθανατ[ 


. . . . 


]•[ 


]/X€VaVL . [ 


]οσάγον[ 


]κινδυν[ 


]Tf(TTOy[ 


5 ]κατα[ 


5 ]τ€ρω[ 


]ι>60ελα[ 


5 ]τ αι ιΊ 


)τροπ[ 


. . 


. κατί[ 


]Κ€Τ[ 


. 




]•••[ 


]toov[ 



Ft. 1. 2. eV ve[ : eWe[a, ερνφΓ . .? 

3. Perhaps [άπ]αλά, but a single broad letter, e. g. κ, μ, might fill the initial lacuna. 



4-5. If the subject is singular, άμφεπό[λει . . . δρεπ[ων] or -7τ[ουσ*] seems likely ; cf. Nem. 
viii. 10 λίκτρον . . . άμήκπόλησαν. But the verb in 1. 4 may be άμφεπειν, which is combined 

with δρεπειν in 01. i. 19—20 άμφεπει σκαπτον . . ., δρέπων μεν κορυφάς. Whether the word 
preceding δρ«π[ is an adjective {Υνμνησιος, πρνμνησιοί) ΟΙ" a Substantive (νμνησις, γύμνησις (?), 

μνήσις) is not clear. The remains of the first letter are slight, and e or σ is also possible. 

5-17. ' . . . and also brought from Naxos sacrifices of fat sheep for all the Graces to 
the Cynthian cliff where they say the cloud-wrapped wielder of the glancing thunder-bolts, 
Zeus, sitting on the peaks watched for the time when the gentle daughter of Coeus was 
delivered of her sweet travail ; and when her twin children came forth to the light of day 
shining like the sun, Eileithyia and Lachesis sent from their throats a great clamour.' 

5. What has been taken for the tail of a φ might be an acute accent on the t of θυσι[, 
which, however, is less likely on account of the infrequency of accents in the papyrus. 

9. άργιβρενταν : the word is novel, but cf. 01. viii. 3 Αώς apyixepavvov. A further con- 
firmation is here provided of the form άναξιβρέντας in Bacchyl. xvi (xvii). 66 ; cf. the n. 
ad loc. on 1091. 

12. άγανόφρων, like κίλαινίφη? in 1. 9, is Homeric (y* 467). 

13. Κοίου θυγάτηρ at the beginning of a line occurs also in 841. 19. 22 (meaning 

Asteria). For τΐρπνάς ωδ'ινος cf. 01. vi. 43 ωδίνος eparas. 

14. The v. 1. (τερπνας) ωδ'ινας does not commend itself, (λαμψαν . , . όπόη is -a rather 
awkward inversion and the corruption έλαμψε is hardly surprising, though it leaves δίδυμοι 
παίδες without a verb. 

15. Cf. e.g. 01. vi. 43-4 ηλθεν δ' υπό σπλάγχνων . . . e's φάυς, Nem. i. 35 - 6 σπλάγχνων 
υπο . . . θαητάν is αϊγλαν . . . μόλεν. 

1 6. ' Raised cries of joy' is evidently the sense, and if ροθ is right πολύν ρόθον ΐεσαν 
becomes inevitable, though it is difficult to reconcile the traces after ροθ[ο] with a v. There 
are also, rather to the right of these, some vestiges above the line which are not very 
satisfactorily regarded as a rough breathing on t. For ρό6[ο]ι> cf. 841. vi. 128 άοιδάν ρόθια. 
θρόον, which might be thought a more natural word here, cannot be read. 

17-18. Either Te'XfjYjat or re'Xem is possible, presumably referring to the two deities (cf. 
e. g. 01. xiii. 115 Z«0 τέλει , Nem. x. 18 "Ηβα τελεία πάρα ματερι), but 6[εαί] is inadmissible in 
1. 18, where the slight remains would be consistent with e. g. an α followed by a letter with 
a vertical first stroke. 

19. Perhaps [άν]εφθ. 



1792. NEW CLASSICAL FRAGMENTS 



97 



? σ]ώζω[ 


]ατί[.]ορ[ 


Fr. 68. 




]στ<=[ 


]ρναρ[.]€τ[ 


] άθανατ[ 


. . . . 




]•[ 


]μ€νανι . [ 


]οσάγον[τ 


] κινδνν[ 




]τ€στορ[ 


] κατα[ 


5 ]™Μ 


] ve(f)£\a[ 


5 


]ταιν[ 


]τροπ[ 


. 


] . κατε[ 




]Κ€Τ[ 

]ιοον[ 



2ΐ. Possibly ακται, but the ι is joined by a ligature which is too low for the normal at 
of this hand, and suggests rather δ, κ, or χ. The preceding letter might well be ν or v, 
besides r. . . 

22. yoi» or τον is certain, and if the ρ is right either pay or pw is likely. ] αμφι is 
unsuitable. Ink is visible above the remains of the first letter, but whether it represents 
a diacritical mark or a correction is quite uncertain. 

23. op was followed by some round letter. 

Prs. 2-4. That these three small pieces are from the bottom of Fr. 1 is strongly 
suggested by their similar appearance, and this position is practically assured for Fr. 4b}' 
the junction of two selides in the syllable «$ of πολλάκις corresponding with a similar 
junction through the π of οπο[ in Fr. 1. 14; but Fr. 4 does not seem to join on 
immediately. 

Fr. 5. 1. The diple is probable but not certain. 

Fr. β. ι. νμ[, υλ[ would be suitable. 

Fr. 10. 2-3. Line 3 apparently ended at ω, and ov may be the end of 1. 2. 

Fr. 16. Cf. 841. vi. 134-6 [ί]π Άσ[ώ]που . . . α[να]ρίψατο παρβένον. In 1. 2 here the 
doubtful τ can be π, but of course this may be quite fortuitous and e. g. i6p]tyaro is an 
obvious alternative. 

Fr. 24. 2. ά Ρ ιστοπο[ν . . (cf. 01. vii. 51) would be suitable. 

Fr. 30. This fragment and Frs. 34-5 are alike in being of a rather dark colour. 
Frs. 31-2 and 36 have a more worn appearance. Cf. Frs. 67-8.^ In Frs. 31 and 34 there 
are junctions of selides, but the pieces cannot be directly combined. 

Fr. 31. 4. Perhaps ]ov Aio[s ; but the letters can be variously interpreted. 

Fr. 32. 8. The fourth letter may also be φ or ω. 

Fr. 35. 3. A strophic division is denoted by the paragraphus below this line. 

Fr. 36. 3. The overwritten ι may be due to the first hand. 

Fr. 38. This fragment is a good deal rubbed, as are also Frs. 39, 41, 43. 

8. e]/i/ieXf[, πλ?ί]μμ6λί[ ? 
Fr. 41. I . e. g. αθάνατοι, ]ι/α τοι. 

Fr. 46. A junction between two selides occurs in this fragment and also in Fr. 47, 
which is otherwise similar in appearance. 

2. θ may be the particle and νποκρ[ may of course be divided υπο κρ[* 

Η 



9 8 THE OXYRHYNCHUS PAPYRI 

Fr. 47. 2. Cf. Pindar Fr. 51 b, d τρικάρανον Ώτωΐου ιανύμωνα. There was a shrine of 
Dionysus here, and a temple of Apollo close by (Pausan. ix. 23. 6). The large asterisk 
below this line apparently takes the place of or supplements a marginal coronis in marking 
the commencement of a new poem. 

Fr. 50. 1. ai]6tpi[ or ]aept[ could be read. 

3. πα]σσαλο[ is rather suggested by φθο]γγον in the following line; cf. 01. i. 17 άπ6 

φόρμιγγα πάσσαλου λάμβαν , 1361. i. 1-2 ο> βάρβιτε, μηκετι πάσσαΚον φυλάσ[σων] έπτάτονον λιγνραν 
κάππαυί γαρνν ; but θε]σσαλο[ is of course possible. 

51. 3. The coincidence with 01. iii. 26 Aarovs Ιπποσόα θνγ. was observed by Lobel. 

Fr. 52. 2. The first letter is probably δ, λ, or μ. 

Fr. 55. 2. The supposed mark of quantity is very doubtful, and may equally well be 
a breathing or a vestige of an interlinear letter. The second a may be δ. 

Fr. 67. Either there is a junction of selides in this fragment, which in appearance 
resembles Frs. 32 and 36, or the papyrus has been strengthened by a strip gummed on the 
back. Fr. 68 is rather similar, though less worn. 

3. It is not clear that any trace of writing is to be recognized in this line. 



1793. CALLIMACHUS, Sosibi Victoria. 

Height 10 cm. Late first century. 

Callimachus after a long period of neglect has latterly been much in evidence 
in the papyri (cf. 1362 int.), 1 and a further considerable addition is made by 
the present papyrus, which introduces us to a poem of which but three words 
were known (see vi. 7, n.), though one or two lines, cited without specification of 
their source and now shown to belong to it, were in fact already extant. This, as 
first perceived by Mr. Lobel, who has contributed much to the elucidation of the 
text, is the elegiac poem in honour of the victory of Sosibius alluded to in Athen. iv, 
p. 144 e Θεόφραστος εν τω irpbs Kaaavbpov περί βασιλείας (ει γνήσιον το σύγγραμμα' 
πολλοί γαρ αυτό φασιν εΧναι Σωσιβίου, εις ον Καλλίμαχος 6 ποιητής εττινίκιον ελεγειακον 
«ποίησε), τους Περσών φησι βασιλείς κτλ. and called in Schol. Lycophr. Alex. 523 (ed. 
Scheer) Σωσιβίου νίκη. The identification seems sufficiently established by the 
occurrence of the name Sosibius in v. 1, and the general tenor of the piece, which 
is full of references to games, prizes, victories, and dedications ; see vi. 1-3, 
vii. 2, 7, viii. J-5, ix. 4-7, x. 1. Who Sosibius was is not agreed. He has 
commonly been thought to be the same as the Lacedaemonian grammarian 
designated λυτικός or επιλύτικος (Athen. xi. 493 c, Suid. s. v.), who was attached to 
the Alexandrian Museum under Philadelphus and wrote treatises on Spartan 
rites, on chronology, the poet Alcman, &c. (so e. g. Hecker, Com. Call. p. 66). 

1 A convenient edition of the new fragments is now available in Lietzmann's Kleine Texte, 145. 



1793- NEW CLASSICAL FRAGMENTS 99 

Schneider (ii, p. 220) questions this view partly on the ground of the a priori 
improbability that such a man would figure as an athletic victor, partly because 
the reference in Athen. iv. 144 to the Sosibius ' to whom Callimachus wrote an 
epinician elegiac poem ' seemed to differentiate that Sosibius from his homonym 
whom Athenaeus elsewhere (iii. 78 c, xi. 493 e) speaks of as δ λυπ /cos or δ Λάκων. 
For these reasons, which are plausible enough (though with regard to the second it 
may be noted in xv. 690 e Athenaeus mentions probably the same grammarian 
with no descriptive epithet), Schneider preferred to regard Sosibius as some 
wealthy Alexandrian, perhaps an ancestor of the well-known minister of 
Philopator. He appears to have overlooked a very suitable person, Sosibius of 
Tarentum, who is mentioned by Josephus, Ant. xii. 2. 2, as one of the captains 
of the bodyguard of Philadelphus and a courtier of some influence. Whether any 
relationship subsisted between that Sosibius and the \j/evb επίτροπος of Philopator 
is quite problematical; it has been suggested that they were father and son, 
but the father of the ψενίςπίτροπος was more probably Dioscurides (Foucart, 
B. C. H. iv, pp. 97-8). In any case, if, as would naturally be supposed, Col. x. 1-5 
of the papyrus refer to the man in whose honour the poem was composed, the 
Laconian is practically put out of court. The wealthy and powerful personage 
there described can scarcely be the grammarian who accepted the royal alimony 
(Athen. xi. 493 c) ; Josephus' captain of the bodyguard has better claims to 
consideration, though the attribution to him of the treatise πρδ$ Kaaavbpov would 
hardly be expected. Sosibius' success seems to have consisted in a double victory 
at the Isthmian and the Nemean games ; cf. vii. 1-4 and nn., and the reference 
to Corinth in vi. 4—6. Hecker's conjecture that Callim. Fr. 193 Ζηνί re και Νβμό; τι 
χαρίσιον Zbvov όφάλω was the exordium of this poem is thus consistent with the 
new evidence, but remains very uncertain. 

As now reconstituted the papyrus consists of the tops of ten columns, of 
which the last eight, and perhaps all ten, were consecutive, the tenth being also 
the last of the roll. A . few small fragments, also from the tops of columns, 
are unplaced ; they presumably belonged to the much broken first two, or to 
an intermediate column, if there was one, between Cols, ii and iii. The roll 
has evidently been subjected to severe pressure, causing the layers sometimes 
to adhere tightly and the ink to leave more or less legible impressions on the 
back of adjacent portions ; by this means the order of some fragments, which 
could otherwise not have been certainly placed, has been fixed, and some 
missing letters have been supplied. With regard to the original compass of the 
roll, and the length of the poem on Sosibius, these are problems which depend 
on the view taken as to the number of poems represented in the present 
remnants. Col. iii happens to include (1. 2) the half line πρίν αστέρι τω Βερενίκης 

Η 2 



ιοο THE OXYRHYNCHUS PAPYRI 

cited from Callimachus by Achilles Statius and assigned by Schneider and others 
to the poem on the Lock of Berenice which was translated by Catullus. That 
attribution, however, is by no means certain ; it was rejected by Valckenaer, 
who first drew attention to the fragment, on the ground that the version of 
Catullus shows no corresponding phrase. Schneider evaded the objection by 
the argument that αστέρι Βερενίκης was a periphrasis for εμοί and was simplified 
by Catullus to mihi j(l. 83 ; cf. n. on iii. 2, where the passage is quoted). 
Unfortunately Col. iii is badly mutilated, and what remains of the context of 
1. 2 is indecisive ; it is, however, noteworthy that the preceding verse ends with 
a feminine plural participle -άμεναι, which might well correspond to nudantes 
in Catullus (1. 81), and that if κλά ... in 1. 3 is κλίνη, that too, though not 
translated literally, could be interpreted in a sense conforming to the Latin. 
A mention of the άστηρ Βερενίκης in an epinician poem to Sosibius is, at the 
least, unexpected ; moreover, there is a second reference to Berenice in v. 6, 
and another to her father, Magas, king of Cyrene, in v. 2. Perhaps, then, 
Col. iii contained the conclusion of the Βερενίκης πλόκαμος, and the poem on 
Sosibius did not begin till after v. 6, being separated from the πλόκαμος 
by a shorter elegiac piece. On the other hand, it may be argued that the 
praises of Sosibius may easily have been coupled with those of more important 
personages, and that if the poem addressed to him included a passage referring 
to the king (viii. 5 sqq.) it may equally have included others relating to the 

Col. i. 

3 /• . &>* 

λ...τ...[ 

] • [■> 



Col. ii. 

]τ]πριναναξ .[...].. tyar . . [ 
]r R y „ . . . [ ] . . [ 

Col. iii. 
. . . Ktt . . ώ ... f .[..•.] 1 . [.]άμεναι 
] . . . μισκλει . . . πριν ....[. ,]ωιβερενικησ[ 
] . . . . ίδαβον[.] . μ. ' π[. .]e . [. . ,]ν 

] . . . [.}τα. . α ...[....] . εθήσειν[ 



- 

• . - > Ι «Ι 41 



1793. NEW CLASSICAL FRAGMENTS 



ΙΟΙ 



queen and her father. Such irrelevances are natural in a court poet. On that 
hypothesis the roll may have been confined to this particular poem, which would 
have extended to some two hundred lines or more. 

The text is written in medium-sized -upright uncials, somewhat ornate and 
laborious, but not regular or well-formed. The scribe was evidently a bad 
copyist (see below) and possibly also had difficulties with his archetype ; that 
this was considerably older is rather suggested by an apparent tendency to 
archaism, for example, the linking of Η to Δ in viii. 2 and the varying formation 
of Ξ which in ix. 1 is written as two strokes with a dot between them. On 
the whole the hand gives an impression of artificiality, and is likely to be of 
a later date than the forms of some letters might suggest ; it may, however, 
fall within the first century. Stops are rarely used (iii. 3, vi. 1), but accents 
breathings, &c, are fairly frequent in the earlier columns ; rarer signs are 
a comma to divide words (vi. 4), and a ligature to connect the parts of 
a compound (ibid.). These additions, which cease after Col. vi, may come from 
the original scribe, who seems to be also responsible for corrections, including 
the insertion in cursive of an omitted line in Col. v. He has, however, left the 
text in a very imperfect state ; its inaccuracy is demonstrated by the cor- 
ruptions in lines previously extant (cf. viii. 1, ix. 7). This textual inferiority 
combined with the disjointed character of the fragments adds materially to the 
difficulty of interpretation. 



Col. i. 



• ξ,νν 

λ ; . 

] • [•> 



Col. ii. 
]η πριν άναξ .[...].. ινατ . . [ 

)τρν ....[....]..[ 

Col. iii. 
] ... κα . . ώ ... e .[....]. . [.]άμ€ναΐ 
] . . . /a? κλεί . . . πριν άστί[ρι τ]ω Βίρξνίκης 
] ίδα βον[.] . μ : π[. .> . [. . .>■ 

] . . . [.]τα . α ...[....] . ζθήσαν 



I02 THE OXYRHYNCHUS PAPYRI 

Col. iv. 

ο 

}ίδιονπο\υπα\τονυπ£{> . βλ . ασνγαμοσητ . . . 
] . τηικαομηρ^ν . . . σ . . . €ΐβΐτι\αι 
] . νηβασιληασε . . πρ . [.] . 8ακρω[ ] 

] . . τταρτωνπα[.]τατ€λ€ίοτατ[ 
5 ]οι//ί€τ[. .] . νου . . [ ]χιστον 

Col. ν. 

2 τοσσαμα."γανβα.σιλ.τιατ . . ey\ [•••]•••[ 

[ ] . τ αν°> 

ι [. .]μμαμ€ναι8[.] . ανταπ ...[... ,]ια 

' ] • *? • • 
[. .]σσατονζνμτ] . [.] . ref . [ ~\vvvaveTL 

φωκα,ζωνμΐχρισκ€μίνη[ ]ινα\ιμνδροσ 

5 [• . .]ριτ€κηπαλλα[ ]αρ[. .]εμιδί 

[. . . .]σα€ΐπαναριστ[ ]@€ρ€νικηι 

Fr. ι, to 1. 6? 

Col. vi. 
αξονοσασβυσ . .^[[ί]]σ"ί7Γ7Γ . aevavXovtyti' 

σημ\ρΙνονδωσ€ΐπςρ[^μονπ4ριγξΐλοσα^γ^στ£ΐ. 
τοντ'ξποσηδβιηιλζχθςΐ'επαγγζλιηί' 
δαΐμον,ΰσαμ<ροτςρωθϊνα.\. ]ωνοιοκαθηται 
5 [.]τέιν€οσαρχαιοισορ .[...]. [.]υφίδαίσ 

[. .]τ .[•].. [-]yoi/[. .]€σπ€λοπη[. .]νΐξρονίσθμορ 
[ \τηντη[ ] . . [ 

[ Μ•Μ[ 



1793. NEW CLASSICAL FRAGMENTS 103 

Col. iv. 
\ίδιον πολύπαλτον ύπ\ρ . αλ . άσου γάμο? ητ . . . 
] . τηκαομην €υ . . . σ . . . eipiTiat. 

] . νη βασιλήα, σ\ . . πρ . [.] . δ' άκρω[. . . . f ] 

] . . πάντων πά[ν]τα τελειότατε. 

]ον μετ[. .] . νου . . [ ]χιστον 



Col. ν, with Fr. ι. 

[ 3• τ 
[. ,]μμα μεν αι6\.] . αυτά π ...[.. . .]ια[ 

τόσσα Μάγαν βασιλήα τ . . εν λ [...]...[ 

[το\σσα τον kv μη . [.] . τευ . [ ]υνναν ετι, 

Φωκαεων μέχρις κε μένη [μύγα? ε]ιν άλι μύδρος, 

[μεχ]ρι τεκη Παλλά[ς κη γάμος] Άρ[τ]εμιδι, 
[. . . .]ς act 7τανάριστ[α με]νεΐν α[. . . .] Βερενίκη 



Col. vi. 
άξονος Άσβύστης ΐττπος εναυλον έχει. 
σημερινον δ' ώσεί περ [? ε]μον περί χείλος άίσσει 

τουτ έπος ηδείη λεχθεν επ άγγελίη• 
ΔαΙμον, ος άμφοτερωθεν ά[λιζ]ώνοιο κάθη(σ)αι 
5 [σ]τείνεος, άρχαίοις ορκ[ιε 2]ι[σ\νφίδαις } 

[δν] τε [γ]εω[ρ]γού\ντ]ες Πελοπή[ιο]ν ιερόν ίσθμον 
[τη μεν Κρωμνί]την τη [δε ....].. [ 

[. • Η9* 4 



Io 4 THE OXYRHYNCHUS PAPYRI 

Col. vii. 

οφρακ€σωσιβωι>τισα\ε£ανδροντ€πνθηται 
τηνεπικαιναιωνκιννφιδιστίφβα 
αμφοτερωπαραπαιδεκασιγνητοοιτελςαρχον 
καιτομνριναιοντωιγαλαθησομβνω 
5 θηλντατοΐΊ<α.ινζΐλωτωι/€ΐ>ιανσιοννδωρ 
ωδ€ΐπ[.}καλαμοί . [. . .]ησ€Τ€ίσε[. . . .] 

ί?Τ{ ]γα/)ττωτ[ ]^[. . . .]α<;θλα 

[ ]φιωντ[ 1 8 letters 1 



Col. viii. 

καλπιδβσουκοσμονσνμβολοναλλαπατησ 
ανδρασοτουδζίσαντζσςδωκαμςνηδνβοησαι 
νηονςπιγλανκησκωμοναγοντιχορωι. 
αρχίλοχουνικαιονξφνμνιονζκδεδιαυΧου 
5 λαγξιδηπαρασοιπρωτοναεθλοφορζΐι/ 

€ΐλαμ€θαπτολ€μ[. .]€τεηιπ[. .}ρηνικ€λ<ζγχ[. .] 

[. . .]τ€τισ€λαι,η[ ]ονκονιηι 

[ ]ωβασιλ[ ]«χ0€*[ 



Col. ix. 

αμφοτ(ρωνο£ζη>οσ€πηβολοσουκξτίγνμνασ 
παιδασενηραιωίστησομςνςυρυρομησ 
ωσφαμενωιδωσξίτισαρηρομοφρονοσαοιδην 
τοντομξνςξαλλωνζκλνονκρονζγω 
5 Κ£ΗΌγ€μηι>ιδοι>αντοσοπαρποδικατθ€τον€ΐλου 
νειταιτωικασιονασίπικωμοσαλα 
κνπροθ€ν€ΐδοι>διο[. .)€<ατηγαγ€Ρ€νθαδ€γα[. .]οσ 

[. .] . a>€KKf[ ΦγΦΊΡ • <? ν 

[ 23 letters ]ψ^ 



1793. NEW CLASSICAL FRAGMENTS io= 

Col. vii. 
δφρα Kt ϋωσίβιον τι? Αλεξάνδρου τ€ πύθηται 

{γ)ήν βπι και ναίων Κίνυφι διστεφέα 
άμφοτέρω πάρα παιδ(Γ), κασιγνήτω re Αεάρχου 
και το Μυριναΐον τω γάλα θησ(α)μ€νω, 
5 θηλύτατον και Νειλωτών ενιαύσιον ΰδωρ 

ώ^ €ΐπ[τ)] κάλαμοι? (?) [. . .]τισ€τεισε[. . . .] 

ιστ[. . . ου] γάρ πω τ[ ]ν[. . . .] άεθλα 

[ )φίων τ[ 1 8 letters ] 

[και παρ' Αθηναίοι? γαρ επι στίγο? hpbv ηνται] 

Col. viii. 

κάλπιδζ?, ου κόσμου συμβολον άλλα πά(λ)η?' 
άνδρα? or ου δείσαντε? ίδώκαμεν ηδύ βοήσαι 

νηον %.πι Γλαυκή? κωμον άγοντι χρρω 
'Αρχιλόχου νικαΐον ζφύμνιον ίκ δε διαύλου, 

Ααγείδη, πάρα. σοι πρώτον άεθλοφορεΐν 
είλάμεθα, Πτολζμ[αΐ]ε } τετ}. π[άτζ]ρ, ήνικ ελεγχ[. .] 

[, . .]τ€ τι? f ελαίη[ ]ου κονίη 

[ }ω βασιλ[ ) α Χ^ €ί [ 



Col. ix. 
αμφοτέρων ό ξεΐνο? ίπήβολο?' ούκίτι γυμνά? 

παΐδα? kv % Ή.ραίω στησομεν Ευρυνόμη?, 
ω? φαμίνω δώσει τι? άνηρ όμόφ(ω)νο(ν ?) άοιδήν. 
τοΰτο μεν εξ άλλων εκλυον ίρον εγώ, 
5 κεΐνό γε μην ϊδον αύτο? ο παρ πόδι κάτθετο Νείλου 
νεΐται τω Κασίου •\ει? επίκωμο? άλα• 
Κύπροθε (Ζ)ιδόνιό[? μ]ε κατήγαγεν ενθάδε γα[ΰλ]ο? 

[..].» εκ κε[ ]ωσα θεών 

23 letters }φν[ 



io6 THE OXYRHYNCHUS PAPYRI 

Col. x. 

καίτοι>ζφουΐΊΚαισινα(ΐδομ(ναρθμιαδημα>ι 

ο 
€ΐδοταονκ€πιμικρωί/ονκ€πιληθωμ6νο}/ 

παυριστοντοκζνανδριπαραφνιωτισϊδοιτο 
ωτινιμηκρ([.]σσωνητινοσσ£ντνχιησ 
5 οντΐτοι/αινησωτοσοι>α£[.]ονοντ€λαθωμαι 
διδιαγαρδηδημουγλωσσανβπαμφοτεροισ 
μ . [. .]ομ€νωιδ[.]πησιν[.] . ουδ€π[. .]σθλονζ . e£(V 

«fit- • •Νΐ•] • ?w[• •] • Ka7T i 1 

[ tf otters ]r 

Fragments. 

2. 3• 4. 5• 

[ ]ο»σα< . [ * ]σμ«>6 . . . [ 

r ι ν r J • • poeei/r[ Ί Γ 

τΆ ]y*™[ • Ί ν r ]•«7?•[ 

] • β • [ 



Λ 



Col. i. This is a puzzling fragment. In 1. ι $ and the circumflex are clear, and the 
letters w, which are faint, are assured by an impression on the back of Col. ii, to which 
Col. i was adhering. The relative order of these two pieces is therefore certain. There is 
no sign of any letter after ξνν either in Col. i itself or in the impression. Lines 2 and 3 
are in a smaller hand and, if ξνν is the end of a verse, may be a marginal entry. No traces 
are visible after τ in 1. 3, but the papyrus is rather rubbed, and it is not impossible that 
further letters followed. 

Col. in. The position of this is shown by a partial impression on the verso of Col. iv. 
The fragment itself has an impression on the back which provides a few letters from the 
earlier portion of the lines. 

2. The end of this line coincides with Callim. Fr. 35 d from Achill. Stat. Isag. in 

Avat. Phaen. p. 134 όταν (sic) μίντοι 6 Καλλίμαχος Πριν αστέρι τω Bepeviiajs im τον πΧοκάμον 
φησίν, os £ξ έπτα καταφανών σύγκειται, (ήμάρτηται ?) ; cf. int. p. I OO. The passage in Catullus 

to which Schneider supposes the fragment to correspond is (Ixvi. 79-83) 

nunc, vos optato quom iunxit lumine iaeda, 

non prius unanimis corpora coniugibus 
tradiie, nudantes reiecia veste papillas, 

quam iucunda mihi munera libet onyx, 
vesler onyx, casto colitis quae iura cubili. 

prius quam mihi is regarded as a translation of πρ\ν αστέρι τψ Β. If that is correct, it seems 



2. 



1793. NEW CLASSICAL FRAGMENTS 107 

Col. x. 
και τον k<p' ου νίκαισιν άείδομεν, άρθμια δήμω 

ΐίδότα (και) μικρών ουκ ίπιληθόμ^νον. 
παύριστον το κ\ν άνδρϊ παρ άφνειω τι? ιδοιτο 
ωτινι μη κρϊ\ι\σσων y (νέο?} εύτυχίης. 
5 οϋτ€ τον α'ινήσω τόσον άξ\ι]ον οΰτε λάθωμαι, 
δάδια γαρ δήμου γλώσσαν in αμφότεροι?, 
μη [τ]ο μ\ν ωδ' {<εϊ]πησιν, [*0}δ' ούδίτΓ[οτ έ]σθλον ϊλφν 

*-ρ[. . .]ψ{€]υδης α[. .] ■ καπ[ ] 

35 letters ]ν 



Fragments. 

3. 4• 5- 

]ουσα κ .[ } • . /36e? ϊντ[ ]ο•μ€νε . 



τα[ }γέ™{ Υ•Ρ•[ 3•«Υ"•1 

α 



strange that πριν was included in the citation, in which, as it stands, the natural sense of npw 
is rather quondam. 

4. The doubtful θ may be σ or e, hardly p. 

Col. iv. The suggested combination of two pieces in 11. 1 and 2 (the point of junction 
is indicated by vertical lines) remains uncertain in the absence of a satisfactory restoration 
of the word after Wip. If the combination is incorrect, Col. ν will become Col. vi and 
1 . άσου γόμοι ψ . . . ftc. will become Col. v, with a possible lacuna between it and Col. iv. 
The small fragment }χιστον assigned to 1. 5 was adhering to the back of Col. v, opposite 
πανα Ρ ίστ[. and its position is thus indicated with probability. 

ι. πολύπαθο* is a novel compound; the epithet would suit e. g. [ξυστ]ιΒιον. 

2. Perhaps V B W ff W or κα^κάί^μψ, as Housman suggests, but with the context 
in its present state emendation is not hopeful. Further on π could be read in place of ψ and 
ρ or ω in place of αι. 

4. τβλίΐότατί: the vocative has been substituted for some other case (accus.i). 

Col. v. This column, like the two preceding, is partly deciphered from impressions on 

^7 The original omission of this line, the place of which is marked by the &m at the 
end of 1. 1, was evidently due to the circumstance that 11. 2 and 3 began with the same word. 
The loss was supplied by the original scribe in letters of reduced size which become smaller 
and more cursive as he proceeds, and the latter part, of which there only remains an 
impression, is difficult to decipher, n* *> which is suggested by 1. 3, seems unobtainable. 



io8 THE OXYRHYNCHUS PAPYRI 

Magas, whose enmity to Philadelphus terminated with the betrothal of his daughter to the 
Egyptian crown prince, is commonly supposed to have died in or about b.c. 258. 

3. Ί ννναν, to which the insertion above the line apparently refers, remains obscure. hi 
may be sound, though ετη would give a suitable substantive for the repeated τόσσα. 

4 = Callim. Fr. 209, from Schol. Soph. Antig. 264. Valckenaer's correction of 
Φωκείων to Φωκαίων is confirmed. The various conjectures as to the source of the verse 
prove to have been worthless. 

5. -γάμος seems more likely than πόσις on account of the space. 

6. Fr. 1, containing the letters ]νεινα[ (a very uncertain : δ, λ, μ, χ are equally possible), 
was adhering to the lower part of the verso of a fragment which higher up has impressions 
of the middles of 11. 1 and 3-4. It will not combine readily with 1. 5 and so has been 
assigned to 1. 6, where it seems suitable. 

Col. vi. 1. The Άσβύσται belonged to the Cyrenaica (cf. Callim. Hymn. Apoll. 76 
Άσβυστίδι . . . yaijj), but the word may be loosely used as an equivalent of Αίβυς, as in Fr. 13 
Τρίτωνος ίφ' ΖΒασιν Άσβύσταο. Libyan horses were noted for their speed (Ael. Nat. An. 

ill. 2, XIV. 10), and according to Hdt. iv. 189 τέσσερα: Ίππους συζευγνΰναι πάρα Αιβΰων οι 

"Ελληνας μεμαθηκασι : cf. e. g. Soph. El. 702, 727. δαυλοί/ έχει is capable of two interpreta- 
tions, either * is in its stall ', Άξονος depending on some phrase equivalent to λυθείς άπό, or 
' has fresh in its ears ', sc. the sound of the wheels. The letters σε are derived from an 
impression which also gives the doubtful μ in 1. 2, and the rough breathing (also doubtful) 
on α in 1. 4. 

2. At the end of the line αγστει seems to have been corrected to αίσσει, the γ (or τ?) 
being cancelled by a dot above and below it. The letters στ are fairly clear in an impression 
on the back of the next column, which also makes the overwritten σει certain. Of the two 
accents on περί the acute is slightly the darker and larger. [ε]μόν looks probable, but is not 
satisfactory after ώσεί περ (?) ; nor can [ό]μόν be regarded as an improvement. 

3. The TjSeia άγγελίη is presumably the news of the victory of Sosibius. 

4. δαϊμον : i. e. Poseidon ; cf. n. on 11. 6-7. 

5. κ of ορκ[ιε is not very satisfactory ; the vertical stroke must be supposed to have 
become entirely obliterated, and to have been written close to the p. Σισυφίδαις was 
suggested, no doubt rightly, by both Murray and Lobel. 

6-7. [-y]eco[p]yoi)[i>T]fs is very doubtful, but the letter before ov, if not y, can only be ξ or 
τ, so that e. g. οϊκοΰντες is excluded. [177 μεν Κρωμν{ε)ί\την (sc. καλοΰσι or sim.) maybe suitably 

restored from Schol. Lycophr. Alex. 522 (Scheer) Κρώμνα . . . Παφλαγονίας πόλις ev fj Ποσειδώνος 
ιερόν εστίν, εστί δε καϊ Κορίνθου τόπος, ώς καλ Καλλίμαχος εν Σωσιβίου νίκη, τΐ] μεν Κρ. 

8. A dot slightly above the second t (?), unless accidental, is more likely to represent 
a diaeresis than a high stop. 

Col. vii. 1-2. This couplet is rendered intelligible by the slight alteration suggested 
by Housman of τ to γ at the beginning of 1. 2 : ' that even one dwelling on the Cinyps may 
learn that Sosibius and Alexandria have won a double crown '. For γη instead of πόλις cf. 
e. g. Eurip. Tro. 868 γη δορϊ πεσοΰσα, and for the order inl. 2 Callim. Fr. 530 επϊτρύγα δ'εϊχεν 



3~4. For άμφοτερω 77αιδ(ί) cf. e. g. Callim. H. Del. 168 άμφοτερη μεσόγεια. Probably 
' the brother of Learchus ' means Melicertes, in whose honour the Isthmian games are 
said to have been founded (cf. Pausan. i. 44. 8, Plutarch, Theseus 25, &c), and the other 
child ' who was suckled on Myrina' s milk ' is Opheltes-Archemorus, who was commemorated 
by the games of Nemea and was the foster-child of Hypsipyle, daughter of Myrina after 
whom the Lemnian town Myrina was supposed to be named. 

5. For θηλΰτατον cf. Eustath. ad Hom. θ p. 1599. 25 θήλυς εερση, η τοΰ ευκαρπεΐν κα\ 



1793. NEW CLASSICAL FRAGMENTS 



109 



πολυφορείν αιτία, όθεν κα\ Καλλίμαχος θηλύτατον πεδίον λέγει, το Ttdhvyovov (Fr. 296). ενιαύσιον of 

course refers to the annual inundation. What has been regarded as the top of the τ in 
ve /λωτων may belong to the o>, which is sometimes written in this hand with a little hook at 
the top of the first stroke. 

6. A vestige of the letter after 01 would suit e. g. σ, and possibly [oVjrts (er είσε . . . ?) 
followed, though a rather longer supplement is desirable. Or was the Nile personified ? 

9. This line is given by Callim. Fr. 122 ; cf. the next note. The traditional order of 
■παρ and yap, which are transposed by Schneider following Meineke, is retained (? 1. Παναθ.). 

Col. viii. 1 = Callim. Fr. 122, from Schol. Pindar, Ν em. x. 64 δια τοίτον σημαίνε τού: 

τα Παναθήναια νενικηκάτα:' τίθενται γαρ εν Αθήναις εν επάθλου τάξει υδρίαι πλήρεις ελαίου. διό κα\ 

Καλλίμαχο:, και παρ' Αθηναίοι: κτλ., with άλλα πάλη:, instead of which the papyrus mistakenly 
gives άλλ' άπάτψ, at the end of the second line. Schneider proposed to assign this 
fragment to Aet. i. 6 ; Bergk was no happier in suggesting that the source was the "Αργού: 
οικισμοί. 

3. Γλαυκής : i. e. probably the daughter of Creon and wife of Jason, from whom was 
named a spring near Corinth on the road to Sicyon : above it was τ6 καλούμενο» ωδεΐον • cf. 
Pausan. ii. 3. 6. 

4. Αρχιλόχου νικαΊον ίφύμνιον : i.e. τήνελλα καλλίνικε, the conventional salutation of 
a victor in the games; cf. Archil. Fr. 106 τήνελλα, 2> καλλίνικε χαίρε κτλ., Schol. Pindar, 
01. ix. 1. There is a somewhat similar allusion to φροίμιον 'Αρχιλόχου in Callim. Fr. 223. 
i< δίαυλου is perhaps metaphorical, ' we have retraced our steps/ as e. g. in Aesch. Ag. 344 

κάμψαι δίαυλου θάτερον κώλον. 

5. άεθλοφορεϊν : the verb occurs only here. 

6. π[άτ(]ρ was suggested by Lobel : π[ is much more probable than το[. 
y. ελαιη does not scan, and the right emendation is not obvious. 

8. ]ω : ]οι or ]ωι are possible alternatives. 

Col. ix. 1-2. The παϊδε: Ευρυνόμη: are no doubt the Graces, who are commonly called 

her children by Zeus; cf. Callim. Fr. 471 οι δ* fW Ευρυνόμη Ύιτηνιά: εΐπον έτικτε (sc. τά: 
Χάριτα:), and for γυμνά: Callim. Fr. 266 άσταλίων Χαρίτων λόφον. αί Χάριτε: γυμναί became 
a proverbial expression, as in Aristaen. ii. 2 I ai yap χάριτε: σου . . . άληθώ: κατά τήν παροιμίαν 
γυμναί ; cf. Suidas S. V. και παροιμία αί χάριτε: γυμναί, ήτοι οτι δει άφελώ: και φανερώ: χαρίζεσθαι, 
η οτι α'ι χάριτες τον εαυτών κόσμον άφτ}ρηνται . . . χάριτα: γυμνά: ίστοροϋσι, διότι δωρεάν δει χάριτα: 

τίθεσθαι : but the point in the present passage is not very clear. The Ήραϊον may be that 
near Mycenae, which had ancient statues of the Χάριτε: in its πρόναο: (Pausan. ii. 1 7. 4) and 
was not far from Nemea. 

3. ομοφρονο: is evidently an error for ομόφωνο: or -ov ; Lobel's suggested correction of 

αοιδήν to άμοιβήν is also plausible, though for δώσει . . . άοιδήν cf. Callim. Fr. 310 άλάλαγμα 
νόμαιον δούναι. 

5. κάτθετο: sc. probably Sosibius, who made commemorative dedications both in 
Greece and in Egypt ; the former were only known to the poet by hearsay (εξ Άλλων εκλυον, 
1. 4), the latter he had seen. The λ of ι^ιλου seems to have been corrected from o, the base 
of which gives the letter the appearance of a δ. 

6. This verse, in which apparently the πού: Νείλου was more closely defined, is obscured 
by corruption, fir is open to suspicion on account of the hiatus. The Κάσιου 'όρο: was 
near Pelusium and the Serbonian Lake, παρ ψ δή το Κ. 'όρο: τείνει ε: θάλασσαν (Hdt. iii. 5), 
and there was a temple of Zeus there, κασωυει: might conceal Κάσιον Ζεύ:, but the rest of 
the line is incongruous. νεΊται rfj Κασία ναυ: would give a possible sense, but is far 
from being convincing. With regard to the concluding words, a similar collocation is 
noticeable in Callim. Fr. 373 (TzetZ. ad Lycophr. 139) εθος εΐχον oi παλαιοί, ω: κα\ Καλλίμαχο: 



no THE OXYRHYNCHUS PAPYRI 

Ίστορΰ, μίτα κιθάρας π(ρ\ toxjs a\as ϊίναι καΐ άννμνβΐν και ίγκωμιάζειν. As Schneider remarks, 

Ίστορΰ. does not exclude a poem, but that the present passage is the source of the citation is 
unlikely. 

7 = Callim. Fr. 217, the various guesses as to the source of which were, as usual in 
the absence of a substantial clue, futile. This line is intelligible as the first verse of the 
dedicatory inscription of Sosibius. 

8. The letter before the first ω was probably y, π, or τ, and the doubtful e after κ may 
equally well be o. At the end of the line βίων is not excluded. 

Col. x. 2. ουκ cm after eiSora, probably an inadvertent anticipation of ουκ ίπιληθόμΐνον 
is clearly corrupt, and καί, which was suggested by both Murray and Lobel, or τόν, is an 
easy alteration. 

7. The restoration suggested gives a suitable sense, [τ]ό μ& referring to the first 
alternative, i. e. ίάν αϊνήσω : but μη [μ] or μη^] ό μίν would also serve. At the end of the 
line the very slight remains are consistent with either cXefei» or ept&v. A vestige in front 
of the base of ο of ov8 is quite in keeping with a δ. 

8. ^[e]uS)7s or α]ψ[ί]υδήρ accords with the context, but is very doubtfully read, the ^ being 
represented only by the top of a stroke above the line equally consistent with φ ; λ is 
possible in place of δ. The next word is perhaps α[ντ]ίκα, as Lobel suggests ; the first 
α may be δ. 

Fr. 3. 2. The grave accent on e has apparently been cancelled., 

Fr. 4. 1. The supposed β is strangely formed, rather like a figure 8. It is preceded 
by what looks like π or . γ. 

1794. Poem in Hexameters. 

19x12-9 cm. Late second century. 

This papyrus contains on the recto the ends and beginnings of lines of two 
partially effaced columns from an annotated list of property-holders, drawn up 
perhaps early in the second century. The Oxyrhynchite village KepKt(vpa) 

φηδϊθΐασσον[ ]κοστ€κο[. .] . σίξοικβ 

δζυομςνοντ . [ ]τοσονπαρ[. .]αιδαν€€σθαι 

τωιουχ£ΐρο[.]([ ]αρκ€([.]ου[.]€μ€νανδη 

οι . . αν[. . .]([ ]μο .[.]... τ[.]κ€δοιησ 

5 TOvSeye[.]ey . [ ] . ομενθανενοσμινεφυ . [.]ι> 

€νμ€νοιτ€ν . [ ]τ]ρπρωιζοι>οδ€νων 

αυτηδον . [•]μ[•]ρ[ ]ςλπωραι.δ€αγτ]σαν 

τ)μ€Τ€ρησβιοτη[. . . .]ονδ€μοΐοικοσαντ€Ϊ 
αλλοτζγαραλλο[.]σολβ[.]υλαχοσαΐ'θρωποισιΐ' 
ίο οιητοιπ€σσοιοδικητο[. ,]τ]δ€καίθλβου 

π€σσ[.)σαμςιβομενοσ[.]οτ€μ€ντο[. . .]\λοτ€Τθΐσι[.} 
€ΐσαγαθονπιπ[. .^καίαφνζοναιψατι^. .~Μησι 



1794. NEW CLASSICAL FRAGMENTS in 

is mentioned. On the verso is a nearly complete column of 21 lines from 
a hexameter poem, written in a medium-sized semicursive hand which dates 
probably from the latter part of the same century. The column has a slant to 
the right owing to the writer's tendency to advance to the left the commencement 
of the lines. A circumflex accent is once written (1. 8), but apart from this no 
other diacritical marks occur except the diaeresis on t and v. The poem and its 
author remain unidentified. The column is occupied by a speech of an elderly 
woman to a youth, whom she addresses as re/cos. She dilates on the fickleness 
of fortune and explains that though now poor she had formerly been prosperous 
and had often entertained guests. This situation resembles that of the Hecale of 
Callimachus, who, moreover, puts into the mouth of Hecale the same adjective, 
Xnrepvijris, which is used of herself by the speaker here ; cf. 1. 17, n. But 11. 2—6, 
so far as they can be made out, do not seem to suit the Hecale, still less 11. 20-1, in 
which the woman describes herself as a needy vagrant in a city, whereas Hecale 
when visited by Theseus was living in the country near Marathon. An identifica- 
tion must, therefore, be sought elsewhere, and some less polished poet of the 
Alexandrian school is more likely to be the author than Callimachus. The 
mention in 1. 20 of rjb' όλοη βονβρωστις as the cause of the speaker's misfortunes 
recalls the story of Erysichthon as told by Callimachus in H. Dem. 31 sqq. ; in 
1. 102 there the ravenous hunger of Erysichthon is described as κακά βονβρωστις, 
and some further resemblance may be found between the following lines 105-6 
χηραι μεν μάνίραι, κενεαϊ hi μοι avkus ΐβη τετραπόδων and 11. 1 8- 1 9 of the papyrus: 
but this may be a coincidence. 



φή δε οι άσσον [ίοΰσα, τε]κο$, τεκο[ς, ο]ν σε εοικε 

δευόμενον τ . [ ] τόσον παρ[α π]αΐδα νεεσθαι, 

τω ου χειρ ό[ρ]ε[γειν ? σΐτ] άρκεε[ι] ού[δ]ε μεν αύδη 
ol . . αν[. . .]§[. ...... .]μο .[.]... τ[ί] Ace δοίης 

5 τον δε yc[.]€i> .[..•.....]. ό μ\ν θάνζν δ? μιν ίφυσ[ζ]ν 

ev μενόντων .[..... άν]ηρ πρωιζον όδζύων 

αύτη δ' ου . [•]μ[•]ρ[ .] έλπωραΐ ο' έάγησαν 

ημέτερης βιοτή[ς, αύ]ον δί μοι οίκο? άϋτεΐ. 
άλλοτ€ γαρ αλλο[φ ολβ[ο]υ λάχο? άνθρώποισιν 
ίο οΐη τοι πεσσοΐο δίκη, το[ι]ήδζ και όλβου- 

π€σσ[ο]? αμειβόμενος [π]οτε μεν το[ΐς, ά]λλοτε τοΐσι[ν] 
εις αγαθόν πίπ[τει] και άφνεον αιψα τίθησι 



τΐ2 THE OXYRHYNCHUS PAPYRI 

προσθζνανο\βζΐοντίνηφζνζοντ[.\8ανολβον 

τοιοσδ€ίρωτησπΓ€ρ[. . .]ρζψξταιππρυγ€.σσιν 
1 5 [.]λβοσ€πανθρωπονσ[. .]\ov8ega\[. .]vo(pe\\ei 

τ]$αν[.]ηπολ€€σσιπ[. . .]γκαίσ€ΐτοΐΌρ€ξα 

τηνορααισ€πιοντιλιπ[. .]νητίσπαροσηα 

€σκ€δ€μοιν€ΐοσβαθνλ[.]ϊοσ€σκ€να[.]ωηι 

πολλαδ£μοιμηλξσκ€[.]αμ€ΐ/διαπαι>τακ€δασσ€ΐ' 
2θ τ)δολοηβονβρωστισ(γωδακομιστο[. .]λητισ 

[.] . ζποθι.πληθονσαναναπτολινζ[. . . ,]ρπωι 

ι-2 1. ' She went up to him and said " My son, my son, being so much in want of . . . 
you should not go to a child, whose hand cannot proffer food, nor his voice ... I myself am not 
. . ., but the hopes of my life are broken, and my house gives a dry sound. Sometimes 
to one man, sometimes to another falls the lot of wealth. The way of wealth is as the way 
of a die, which in turn brings a lucky throw now to one now to another, suddenly making 
rich the man who was before poor, and making poor the man who was enriched. Even so 
on wheeling wings goes wealth up and down among men, prospering first one, and then 
another. I whom you see have given drink and food to many, for formerly I was no 
outcast, nay, I had fields where the crops stood deep, I had a threshing-floor, and sheep 
in plenty ; but they were all made havoc of by this baneful famine (?), and I, an uncared for 
wanderer, creep thus about the crowded city ".' 

i. Of the letter before ae there is only a very small vestige, and e. g. 7 could equally 
well be read, but ου seems required by the sense. 

3. The restoration of ofpje'fyeti' σΐτ'], for which cf. 1. 16, was suggested by Housman. 

4. Kf : or perhaps o-e. 

5. του is possible in place of τον. 

6. If on- is rightly read there must be some error, σιτ is an alternative, perhaps also 
ση though the latter is less suitable. 

7. There may have been only one letter (v?) between ου and/a ; at any rate there is 
no room for ουκ [«]μ\ t, φ, or ψ may be read in place of the following doubtful p. 

8. av]ov . . . avTfl : the Homeric phrase, which is used of metallic sounds, has here 
a rather different but quite intelligible sense. There is not room for Keve]ov. 

9. yap might be altered to τ3ρ% but the α is perhaps lengthened as e.g. in Homer Β 39 

θησΐΐν yap er' epeWev, H. Dem. 57 φωνψγάρ ήκονσα. Cf. 1. 12, where και acpveov, as Housman 

observes, also has Homeric analogy (e.g. Ω 641, Η. Dem. 424), though the loss of re after 
πίπτει would be easy. 

13. άνολβΰν and ΐνηφΐνΰν are apparently unattested. The latter can of course be 
eliminated by writing (νηήχνί οντ[α]. 

14. δ^ινωτησι must be corrected to ΰινψησι or διρψσσι. The ω is broken, but η cannot 
be read. 

1 7• Cf. Calhm. Fl". 66 e ού yap μοι πεν'ιη πατρώιοί, ουδ' άπο πάππων elpi Χιπερνητις. 

Ι9• The verb presumably refers to the substantives of 1 the preceding line as well as to 
ιχηλα, to which it is more strictly suitable. Cf. Soph. Anlig. 287, where Jebb's assertion that 
διασκΐδάν ' could not possibly be joined with yijv ' is unconvincing. 



1794. NEW CLASSICAL FRAGMENTS 113 

πρόσθεν άνολββίοντ , €υηφςνεοντ[α] δ' άνολβον 

τοΐος 8ιν(τ])τήσΐ 7rep[/ar]/oe0erai πτξρνγ€σσιν 
15 [ο]λβος eV άνθρωπου?, [άλ]λον δ' eg άλ[λο]υ όφέλλα. 

ή δ' αν[τ]η πολβεσσι π[οτο]ν καϊ σΐτον ορεξα 

την όράα?, ίπά ούτι λιπ[€ρ]νήτις πάρος ηι, 

εσκ€ δ£ μοι veibs βαθνλ[ή]ιος, ίσκ^ν ά\λ]ωή, 

πολλά <5e μοι μήλ' ζσκξ, [τ]ά μ\ν δια πάντα κεδασσεν 
2θ ηδ όλοη βούβρωστι? } £γω δ' άκόμίστο[? ά]λήτι$ 

[3>]δ£ ποθί πλήθουσαν άνα. πτολιν e[. . . ίλρποα 

1795. Acrostic Epigrams. 

Col. ii 22-3 χ 1 7-8 cm. First century. 

Three fragments from two columns, one of which is practically complete, 
containing epigrams of precisely the same kind as those in 15, and perhaps 
belonging to the same collection. Each epigram consists of four hexameters in 
which the final foot is an iambus instead of a spondee or trochee (ϊζάμςτροι μάονροι), 
and, as also in 15, each is followed by the words avA(e)t μοι. 1 Another feature 
common to the two papyri escaped notice when 15 was edited, and seems not 
to have been observed since. The initial letters of the successive quatrains are 
in alphabetical order, Col. ii including the letters [Θ] to Ξ, while 15. ii includes 
Χ, Φ, 12, and so terminates the series. Whether the two papyri preserve different 
portions of the same collection is an open question. The absence of any 
coincidence in 15. i with 1795. ii is no argument against identity, since 3.5 lines 
would intervene between 1795. ii. 27 and 15. ii. 1, so that, unless the column in 
15 exceeded 40 lines, no overlapping would occur. But of course the number of 
such collections current at Oxyrhynchus need not be limited to one. The 
epigrams, which are well turned and include some memorable lines, are on a 
variety of topics without logical sequence. Some have a hedonistic tendency, 
others contain moral reflections or maxims of conduct. Similar subjects occurred 
in the specimen previously discovered; cf. ii. 12-15 with 15. i. 7-10, ii. 1-4 
(music), ii. 24—7 with 15. ii. 6-9 (instability of wealth). 

The two minor fragments, of which one certainly, and probably the other 
also, is from the top of a column, are regarded as preceding rather than following 
the main piece on account of the handwriting, which in the upper part of Fr. 1 is 
distinctly smaller and neater than towards the end, where it begins to approximate 

1 That ανλαμοι in 15 is probably to be regarded as two words, not one, was pointed oat by Wilamowitz, 
Gott. gel. Anz. 1898, p. 695. 

I 



ii4 THE OXYRHYNCHUS PAPYRI 

to the larger and more irregular formation of Col. ii. If this indication is not 
deceptive, the three stanzas of Fr. ι began respectively with the letters Α, Β, Γ. 
The script is an upright informal uncial of an early type, with some tendency to 
cursive forms, notably in e ; it may be assigned to the first century. One rather 
doubtful instance of a mark of elision occurs in ii. 3. The first line of each 
quatrain is made to protrude by a couple of letters into the left margin. On the 
verso is a partially obliterated account in second-century cursive. There is also 
an illegible half line in cursive, which apparently has nothing to do with the 
literary text, on the recto above Col. ii. 



Col. i? 



Fr. 1. 
j κεφαλή στεφανω[ 
]v μετά του μελαν[ος 
~\κω και κλωνιά [ 
]ω μετά μου δυο κ[ 
5 }οις φανερω γαρ ε . [ 
] . οι και σισατε τω[ 
]κωρ άνεμων ι . [ 
]? περί δακτυλον [ 
π]λοκαμους λευκ[ους 
χ ο ] Qavi.iv οτι πα[ 

]ε γουνατα ν . [ 
}σσοθε[ 





Fr. 2. 






> 






3 






λνω 






}υς 


αυλι μο[ι 


5 Μ• • • 


.]ον 




]•[•• 


] 

]εσας 






Ι 1 ?? 


ανλι μο[ι 



Col. ii. 



μηδ αδικιν ζητεί μηδ αν αδι[κη πρ]οσερισης 

φεύγε φόνου? και φεύγε μαχας φ[ι]ο~αι διαφρονε[ι]ν [ 

εις δ' ολίγον πονέσεις και δεύτερον ου μεταμελη αυ[λι μοι 

[i]<5[[Yj]es εαρ χειμώνα θέρος ταυτ €στι διόλου 
ήλιος αυτός [εδυ] και νυ£ τα τεταγμεν απεγει 
μη κοπιά ζητειν πόθεν ήλιος η ποθ€[ν] υδνρ 
άλλα π[ο]θεν τ[ο] μυρον και τους στ€φανου[ς] αγορασης αυλι μο[ι] 

κρηνας αυτορυ[το]υς μελ[ιτ]ος τρις ηθελον εγειν 



1795. NEW CLASSICAL FRAGMENTS 115 

Trc^T^J] γαλακτορυτους οίνου δέκα δ\ωδε]κα μύρου 

χ ο και δυο πηγαίων υδάτων και τρις χιονεψνΠων 

παιδα κατά κρηνην και παρθενον ηθελον εχειν αυλι μο[ί 
Λύδιος αυλός εμοι τα δε Λυδία παιγματα λύρας 

κα[ι] Φρυγ[ιο]ς κάλαμος τα δε ταυρεα τύμπανα πον€ΐ 
ταύτα ζων ασαι τ ερομαι και όταν αποθάνω 

1 5 αυλον υπέρ κεφαλής θέτε μοι πάρα ποσ(σ)ι δε λυρη[ν αυλι μοι 
μέτρα τι[ς] αν πλούτου πάλι ανευρατο μέτρα πενίας 
η τις εν ανθρωποις χρυσού πάλιν ευρατο μετρον 
νυν γαρ ο χρηματ έχων ετι πλε[ι]ονα χρήματα θέλει 
πλούσιος ων δ ° ταλας βασανισ[δ]εται ωσπερ ο πένης αυλ[ι μοι 

2θ νεκρον εαν ποθ ιδης και μνήματα κωφά παραγης 

κοινον εσοπτρον opa(iy ο θανών ούτως προσεδοκα 
ο χρο[ν]ος εστί δανός το ζην πικρός εσθ ο δανισας 
καν τοτ απαιτησαι σε θελη κλαίων [α]ποδιδοις αυλι μοι 
Έερξης ην βασιλε[υ]ς ο λέγων Διϊ πάντα μερισαι 

25 o s δυσ(ι) 7Γ^5αλ[φ[φ μονός εσχισε Λημνιον ύδωρ 

ολβι{ο)ς ην ο Μίδας τρις δ όλβιος ην ο \Κ\ινυρ\α\ς 

άλλα τις εις Αϊδα οβολου πλέον ηλυθεν έχων αυλι μοι 

Fr. 1. 4• 1• M er ' *μον. 

6. e. g. ]λοι, ]μοι. 

g. This quatrain evidently deals with old age and the approach of death ; cf. ii. 20-3. 

Fr. 2. As slated in the introduction, this fragment, like Fr. 1, is probably from the top 
of the column, since otherwise, unless the line preceding 1. 1 was abnormally short, some 
part of αυλι μοι should be visible. The spacing of the lines is also suitable. 

Col. ii. 

' Try not to injure, and if you are injured, do not retaliate ; shun murder, shun strife, 
avoid discord, and you will have little trouble and moreover will not repent. Pipe me 
a tune. 

' You see spring, winter, summer : these are general. The sun himself sets and night 
takes her appointed place. Toil not to seek whence comes the sun or whence the water, but 
where you may buy perfume and garlands. Pipe me a tune. 

1 1 should like three welling founts of honey, five of milk, ten of wine, twelve of 
perfume, and two of spring water and three of snow ; I should like at each fount a boy and 
a maid. Pipe me a tune. 

Ά Lydian flute serves me, and Lydian strains of the lyre, and Phrygian pipe, and 
drum of oxhide. While I live I long for these to play, and when I die, put a flute above 
my head and at my feet a lyre. Pipe me a tune. 

I 2 



n6 THE OXYRHYNCHUS PAPYRI 

' Who has found the limits of wealth, who the limits of poverty, or who has found the 
limit of gold among men? For now he who has money wishes for still more money, and 
the rich man, poor wretch, is tormented like the poor. Pipe me a tune. 

' If ever you see a corpse or pass a silent tomb, you are looking at a common mirror ; 
the dead man's expectation was as yours. Life is a loan : the lender of life is stern, and 
when he wants to demand it back, in sorrow you will repay. Pipe me a tune. 

' Xerxes was a king who said that he shared the sovereignty of Zeus, and he sailed 
over the water of Lemnos with but two boats. Rich was Midas, trebly-rich was Cinyras, 
but who went down to Hades with more than an obol ? Pipe me α tune.' 

ι. πρ\οσ(ριση$ : the remains of the termination are scanty, but seem too much for -σαι. 

2. For διαφρονε[ι]ν cf. Hesych. διαφρονεων' διανοούμενος. και ό iv διαφορά τινι γεγονώς. 

The reading, however, is far from certain, α being especially doubtful ; the letter after δ may 
well be v. 

3. μεταμελί} as an irregular future form would balance πονέσει? better than μεταμελη. 

6. 1. ύδωρ. 

7• The first ο- of στεφανον[ς] is a correction, perhaps from a partially formed τ. Cf. 1. 15, 
where there is an unnoticed lipography. 

13. τανρεία is a drum or something of the kind in Geop. xv. 25. 3. 

14. ζων provides a good antithesis, but the ζ is not altogether satisfactory and the other 
remains are very scanty. 1. εραμαι. 

ί5• 1. λύραν : the correct form was written in 1. 12. 

16. 1. τίς for πάλι, which has come in from the next line. For the tmesis cf. e.g. 

Eui'ip. H. F. I055 — 6 άπολεΐ πόλιν } άπο δε πάτερα. 

1 8. Cf. Eurip. Sllppl. 238—9 οι μεν όλβιοι . . . πλειόνων τ ερωσ αεί. 

19. 1. βασανίζεται. Perhaps βασανισ[ζ]εται was written. 

20. 1. ποτ. ΙδεΊν is one of the words often wrongly aspirated, being influenced no 
doubt by opciv, e. g. Philipp. ii. 23 εως &v άφίδω ; cf. Mayser, Grammatik, p. 201. 

22. Cf. Anth. Pal. App. 252 πνεΰμα λαβών δάνος ουρανόθεν τέλεσης χρόνον άνταπεδωκα, and 
for δανισας e. g. Anth. Pal. xi. 309 φεισάμενος δανίσας. 

23. 1. κάν ποτ. The (Ionic) forms διδοίς, διδοϊ occur e.g. in the LXX, Ps. xxxvi. 21, 
Job xxxiv. 11. 

26. s of ολβις was converted from o. -is for -toy is a common vulgarism. 

27. τις seems inevitable here, but the remains suggest ε rather than ς. This may be 
deceptive, but possibly ε was written twice by mistake instead of σε. 

1796. Hexameter Poem on Egyptian Botany. 

21x35 cm. Second century. 

The recto of this papyrus contains remains of three columns, the second of 
which is nearly complete, from a list of abstracts of contracts or other transactions 
concerning property, drawn up in the first half of the second century. The verso 
is inscribed with two columns of a hexameter poem dealing with Egyptian plants 
or trees. Col. i, besides lacking fhe beginnings of lines, is in bad condition, and 
does not seem worth reproduction ; the second column, which is in much better 
case, is printed, and will probably be found a sufficient sample. Apparently the 
upper half of the column relates to the cyclamen, which was also the subject of 



1796. NEW CLASSICAL FRAGMENTS τι 7 

at any rate the greater part of the preceding column (πολυγλαγέων κυκ[λα]μείνων 
1. 9, κνκ.λά]μ€ΐνοί 1. 12; the form θερμεται in 1. 19 deserves to be noticed). At 1. 12 
of Col. ii the writer turns to the persea tree, to which the rest of the column is 
devoted. The style is diffuse, and the poem must have been of considerable 
length if many subjects were treated on a similar scale. Its author is hardly 
likely to be identified, nor need the loss of his name be regretted ; his work 
seems to have been of small merit, whether from the literary or scientific point 
of view. , 

The text is written in a heavy upright semicursive with no diacritical marks 
other than the diaeresis. A short oblique dash is once used apparently for 
punctuation at the end of a line in Col. i, and paragraphi were also employed. 
Corrections in the body of the text are frequent, and there are also some 
marginalia in a closely similar if not identical hand : 1822, which was found at 
the same time as this papyrus, presents some analogous features. 

Mi 

εσθανετα[ί\ ποταμού γαρ επηλυσιν ην δ απολειπηι 

ι 

ριζησιν μεγαλησιν are φρονεοντι λογισμωι 
πλειον ύδωρ efjViTjoi /σα πολυπληθι τότε καρπω 

σ 

αλλ ουκ εσθ ore καρπον εφεδρευουσι λαβεσθαι 
5 άνθρωποι χαοντες ε[υ]τραφεων κυκλάμινων 

e 

πολλή γαρ Νειλοιο χυσις πολλή δ επι σιτω ew[ 

αφθονιη τετανυσται εποιεεν δε γελωσα 
ευθενιην ου καρπός επί γθονα πασαν οδεύει 
ωγυγιος νομός ούτος απ αρχαίων ετ ανακτων 



δαλ[ 



ίο θεσθαι δενδρεα κείνα παρ αλληλοισι κολωναις 

υ οι 

χώματος ei;[Ta]l<5p|Tt/|]o πεδην αλκτηρα τε λειμου ew 

* ' δροιο 

ισι των 

π'ερσιη δ ακμητος υπο χλοεροΚυν^ πετηλοις 

at 

ευφορεοι καρπω περικαλλεϊ μηδέ πεπ^ειΊ^νοι 

ω 

μέχρις €παι>#?7σ[[ο^Τ|σί κλάδοι πρότεροι {δε} περί καρπον 

σ 
15 πειπτοι μηδ αρα νυκτός οτ ενγυθεν ορνυται νδωρ 



\\oepoia[i 



n8 THE OXYRHYNCHUS PAPYRI 

πβρσίη? απο καρπός artp βαρνηχεος ανρης ψ ^- 

συμφ€ρ€ται μουνη yap αθωπβυτωί Se γεγηθεν ™ριη[_ 

αδροσιη καρπον γαρ νπ αδροσιησι πζπαινξ,ι 

ο 

σήμα και ημβριης ei/ei<5e[[.]]s eyyvs {ejioeaOai. 
20 NeiXov πΧημνροντος ύδωρ veov evre πιονσα 

καρπον απ οφαλμοιο p[e](ci συνανηκατο βλαστω ϊΓ 

ι 

ηερος ακρισιησι προσ . φι . [.]« <5 ζπι κηπωι 
ι. There is not enough lo show whether the initial e written by a common confusion 

in (σθανετα\ϊ\ was deleted. The Subject of απολΐίπηι is ό ποταμός. 

2. In the margin in front of this line is a δ or a having the third stroke protracted 
downwards ; the meaning of this is obscure. 

5. χαοντ€5 IS perhaps for χατέοντες. 

6. σίιτω, if that is right word, is for σίτου. en\_ (?) in the margin looks like 
a correction of or variant on e-m σιιτω. 

η. 1. ΐποίησΐν? ev . might be read instead of en-, but seems no easier. 

9. oiyvyiov was apparently written originally. To what δαλ[ in the margin refers is not 
clear; the letters are slightly above 1. 9, but nearer to it than to 1. 8. 

10. SevSpea is unexpected, since the subject under discussion both here and in the 
previous column appears to be the κικλάμινος ; cf. int. Perhaps, however, this was 
a digression ; Dioscorides describes one variety of κνκλάμινοε as growing in shady places, 

μάλιστα 8e ΰπο τα δένδρα, and another as having κανλονς παχύς, ^/ονατώδεις, ττερκίΚισσομίνονς 

τοΐϊ τταρακΐΐμίνοις ΰίνορΐσιν ελίκοαδώί (π. 1 93-4)• The cyclamen then may have been brought 
in here in connexion with some tree, to which Sevdpea κάνα goes back. The tree, as 
Housman remarks, might be the άκανθα, which is planted on modern embankments because 
the roots bind the soil. 

12. ττίρσ(ί)ιη: cf. e.g. Nicander, Al. 99 περσείης κάρυα, 53. 7. The persea, which was 
an exclusively Egyptian tree (Strabo xvii, p. 823, includes it among the Ιδιάζοντα of the 
country), is described at length by Theophrastus, H. P. iv. 2-5, who says that it κάρπον φίρΐΐ 

ποΚνν κα\ πάσαν ωραν' περικαταλαμβάνει yap 6 veos del τον.'ίνον; this illustrates the epithet 

ακμητο: here. It seems to have become a rarity by the fourth century (53 ; cf. Wilcken, 
Archiv i, p. 127) and was protected by an edict of Arcadius (Cod. lust. xi. 77). 

The interlinear insertion is difficult both to decipher and to explain ; χλοεροισι, as 
written in the margin, must in any case be read. The first ο of the marginal lection has 
been corrected. 

13-14. According to Theophrastus, I.e., the fruit πίττει νπο τους ετήσιας. 1. πρότερο»? 

τ 5• k ΐγγνθεν. σ was written over ν by mistake for y. 

17. Both this and the preceding marginal note are obscure, αθωπευτωι = ' harsh ', as 
in Anth. Pal. vi. 168. 

19. ημεριης = ήμερότητος, ' culture,' resulting in continual fruitfulness, of which a wild 
tree would not be capable (Housman) : this substantive does not occur elsewhere. 

zi. The interpretation of the abbreviation in the margin is doubtful. 

22. ακρισιησι = 'fluctuations'? The next word is puzzling. If φ is right, the letter 
between this and σ was quite narrow (? t). The penultimate letter seems to have been 
corrected, and « is very uncertain. 



1797. NEW CLASSICAL FRAGMENTS 119 

1797. ANTIPHON SOPHISTES, Uepl Άληθύας, Ί ? _ 

22.4 χ 1 6-3 cm. Early third century. 

These two columns of a philosophical work belonged to the same find as 
1364, the fragments of the sophist Antiphon Ylept Άληθάας, but owing to obvious 
differences both in handwriting and in the length and width of their columns, the 
two papyri were not supposed to be connected. Further investigation, however, 
now suggests that they represent the same author, if not actually related them- 
selves. ' The subject of this new piece is the ethics of legal evidence, the justice 
of which is controverted in opposition to the current view. If justice consists in 
not wronging others when not wronged oneself, then, it is contended, to give 
adverse evidence, even when the evidence is true, is essentially unjust. A person 
so convicted is injured, and his resentment may result in further injury to the 
giver of the evidence. Legal procedure in general, which benefits one man at 
the expense of another, is vitiated by similar injustice. This sophistical argument 
is quite in the manner of 1364, where Antiphon, starting from another definition 
of justice as the observance of law, maintains that this is a matter of expediency 
and that, so long as the breach is unobserved, the law may be broken with 
advantage ; cf. Part XI, pp. 92 sqq. In style also the present text recalls 1364 ; 
see op. cit., p. 95, where the literary estimate # of Antiphon found in Hermogenes, 
De ideis, ii. 11. 17, and the stylistic analysis in E. Jacoby's De Antiph. Soph. 
uepl 'Ομονοίας, pp. 48 sqq., are considered in relation to that papyrus. Among 
special characteristics the sophist's tendency to poetic rhythm is exemplified in 
11. 10-11, 16-18, 47-9, and 51-3 below, and his partiality for synonyms in 11. 64-5. 
It may be worth noting that the expression L• τούτω, which seems to have been 
rather favoured by the author of 1797, is found also in 1364. 272. No instance 
occurs of ξόν or σύν ; the spelling ττ, used in 1364, appears once in 1. 44. The 
ascription to Antiphon thus seems sufficiently likely on internal evidence, and 
some external marks of relationship between the two papyri, in addition to the 
fact that they were found in close proximity, are also forthcoming. Though the 
hands are not identical they are of the same type and are certainly very close in 
date. The column in 1797 is about 3 cm. longer and 1 cm. broader than in 1364, 
but the height of the papyrus is approximately identical.. Breathings, accents, 
and marks of quantity, which are rare in prose texts, have been occasionally 
inserted in both papyri, apparently by a second hand, to which may be also due 
the punctuation by means of high or medial dots (in 1364 one instance occurred 
of a low dot). The possibility is suggested that the same hand made these 
additions in both texts ; in that case 1797 might actually be a later section of the 



I20 



THE OXYRHYNCHUS PAPYRI 



same roll as 1364, which is shown by a stichometrical figure to have belonged 
to the earlier portion of the book ; or alternatively 1797 may be supposed to be 
from another treatise of Antiphon, the Πολιτικό? or the riepi 'Ομονοίας, this copy 
being more or less uniform with that of the Ilept 'Αληθείας (1364) and belonging 
to the same owner. 



Col. i. 

] τον δίκαιον 

σπονδ]αιον δοκονν 
τος το] μαρτνρειν 
εν αλ^ηλοις ταληθη 
δικαιο]ν νομίζεται 
είναι] και χρησιμον 
ονδεν] ήττον εις 
τα των] ανθρώπων 
επιτ]ηδενματα• 
τοντο] τοιννν ον δι 
καιος] εσται ο ποιων• 
και γα]ρ το μη αδικειν 
μηδ]ενα μη αδι 
κον]μενον αντον 
15 [δικ]αιον εστίν αναγ 
κη] γαρ τον μαρτν 
ρον]ντα καν αλη 

ι 

θη μ]αρτνρη. όμως 
[άλλον] πως αδικειν 
[εικός δε ?] αντον α [ 
[δι]κεισθαι [εις νστε 
[ρο]ν• ενε[στι ye 
[ε]ν ωι δια τ[α νπ εκεί 
[ν]ον μα ρτ[ν ρηθέν 
25 τα αλισκ[ε]ται ο κα 
ταμαρτνρονμενος• 
και απολλνσιν η 



Col. ϋ. 
λήθη μαρτνρ[η 

4θ σα?• και ον μον[ον 
τωι μισεί• άλλα κ[αι 
οτι δει αντον το[ν 
αιώνα πάντα φν 
λαττεσθαι τοντο[ν 

45 ον κατε μαρτν ρ[η 
σεν ως νπαρχε[ι 
γ αντωι εγθρος τοιο[ν 
τος οίος και λέγειν [ 
και δράν ει τι δνν[αι 

5ο το κακόν αντον κα[ι 
τοι ταντα φαίνεται 
ον σμικρά οντά τα 
δικηματα• οντε 
α αντος αδικείται- 

55 οντε α αδικεί• ον γαρ 
Χ οίον τ€ ταντα τε δι 
καια είναι και το μη 
[δ]εν αδικειν μη 
[δε] αντον αδικεισθαι• 

6ο [αλ]λ ανάγκη εστίν 
[η] τα έτερα αν των 
[δ]ικαια είναι• η αμ 
φοτερα άδικα• φαι 
νεται δε και το δικά 

&5 ζ €ίν KaL το κριν€ΐν 
και το διαταν όπως 



1797. NEW CLASSICAL FRAGMENTS 



121 



χρήματα η αυτόν 
[δ]ια τούτον ον ουδέν 

30 [α]δικει- εν μεν ονν 
τοντωι τον κατά 
[μ]αρτυρουμενον 
[α]δικει οτι ουκ αδι 
[κο]υντα εαυτόν α 

35 [δι]κει• αυτός δ αδικεί 
[ταί υ]πο του καταμαρ 
[τυρηθ]εντος οτι μι 
[σειται] νπ αυτόν τα [α 



αν περαινηται ον 
[δ]ικαια οντά' το γαρ 
[α]λλους ωφελούν αλ 
7θ [λο]υ$• βλάπτει- εν δε 
[τον]τωι οι μεν ωφελον 
[μενο]ι ουκ αδικου[ν 
[ται οι] δε βλαπτομε[νοι 
[αδικο]υντα[ι 

75 [ ]W[ 

[....]. lvov[ 



Fr. 



τους νομ[ους 



justice is regarded as virtuous and at the same time to testify to the truth 
concerning one another is considered just and equally useful for human pursuits. The man 
who does so however is not just. For it is just to wrong no one when one is not oneself 
wronged ; and he who gives testimony, even if it is true, cannot help to some extent doing 
a wron* : and there is a probability that he may himself subsequently be wronged: this is 
at any rate possible, in so far as the man against whom he testifies is convicted in conse- 
quence of his testimony, and loses either money or life owing to a person whom he is in no 
way wronging. Herein therefore he wrongs the man against whom testimony is given, that 
he wrongs some one who is not wronging him ; and he is himself wronged by such a person 
because he is hated by him although he testified to the truth, and wronged not by his hatred 
only but also because he must always be on his guard against this man against whom he 
testified, regarding him as an enemy prepared to do what damage he can, either in word 01 
deed These wrongs do not seem inconsiderable, either those received or those inflicted. 
For it is not possible that these acts should be just and that not to do or receive a wrong 
should also be just, but either one of them must be just or both must be unjust. Con- 
demnation, judgement, and arbitration, whatever their upshot, are therefore seen not to be 
just; for what benefits some injures others; and in this those who are benefitted are not 
wronged, but those who are injured . . .' 

2 . [σπονδών : « is rather more probable than v, but e. g. [αξκπα^ον, which is suggested 
by Murray, is not impossible. , . . . . f 

20-4. The restoration proposed, if not altogether convincing, is fairly satisfactory . 
It is not quite certain that a line is not lost between 11. 20 and 21 the lower half of the 
column being detached, nor is it quite clear that in 1. 22 a small dot after the first ν was 
intended as a stop. αυ|τ]ον instead of ««|4>υ would hardly fill the space in 1. 24. 

28. avrbv άπολλίναί is an intelligible expression, but with χρήματα preceding it seems 
more likely than not that avrbv {rbv βίον) should be read. 



122 THE OXYRHYNCHUS PAPYRI 

34. eavTov appears to have been written, not αδι[κο]υι>τα[[5]] αυτόν. 

56. ταντα : i.e. ταντά, but ταϋτμ is wanted; cf. 1364. 194, where the same accent is 
given, though there perhaps correctly. Whether the marginal symbol, for which cf. e.g. 
16. ii. 3, &c, has anything to do with the accentuation is doubtful. 

Fr. That this scrap belongs to the same text as the preceding piece seems likely, but 
is not certain. 



1798. Anonymous work on Alexander the Great. 

Fr. 44 14-3x34-3 cm. Late second century. 

These fragments from a historical work dealing with Alexander the Great 
are written in a medium-sized informal hand, probably of the middle or latter 
part of the second century ; on the verso is 1802, an alphabetical lexicon of rare 
words, also in a semicursive but smaller script. The copyist, as often happened, 
tended gradually to advance the commencement of the lines to the left as he 
proceeded, so giving the columns a slant to the right. Paragraphs are sparingly 
used, but there are no stops, or other signs except the diaeresis. Two small 
corrections occur (Frs. 10 and 14), one clearly, and probably both, by a second 
hand. A stichometrical figure ψ, i. e. 2,300, in the margin of Frs. 5-6. ii, is due to 
the original scribe. Unfortunately the height of the column is unknown, but in 
consideration of the size of the handwriting it is not at all likely to have 
exceeded 50 lines and may well have been shorter. On the supposition that the 
column did not extend beyond that limit, Frs. 5-6. ii was preceded by at least 
46 columns which would occupy some 13 feet. Since the fragment concerned 
apparently relates to the period of the battle of the Granicus, it is evident that 
the scale of the work was very considerable. 

The text on the verso proceeds in the opposite direction to that on the recto, 
and did not extend over the whole of the roll, many of the smaller pieces 
(Frs. 1-43) having the verso blank. Since some of these clearly refer to a period 
prior to that covered by the fragments of which the verso is inscribed, they have 
all been placed in a group before the latter. Presumably the lexicon, which was 
of no small compass, was not completed. Of this group only two or three pieces 
are sufficiently well preserved to afford a clear clue to their subject. Fr. 1 
apparently describes the circumstances of the death of Philip, of which an account 
is given differing somewhat from what is found in other sources ; cf. the 
commentary. In Fr. 2 some hexameter lines are quoted evidently in connexion 
with the destruction of Thebes, which was ' left without a habitation among men '. 
Frs. 5-6 mention Spithridates, who was one of the Persian satraps opposed to 
Alexander in the battle of the Granicus. 



1798. NEW CLASSICAL FRAGMENTS 123 

The main fragment is No. 44, in which are preserved the upper parts of five 
successive columns, the fifth, however, represented by the beginnings of the 
lines only ; on the verso of this fragment are two columns of the lexicon, 
containing words beginning with Μ (1802. 3). Col. i repeats the well-known 
story of the physician Philip who, after having undertaken to prescribe for 
Alexander when suffering from fever at Tarsus in the summer of B. C. S33> was 
accused by Parmenion in a letter to the king of being in the pay of Darius. 
Cols, ii-iv are concerned with the battle of Issus, which took place in the autumn 
of the same year. A large lacuna intervenes between this and Fr. 45, which 
mentions Alexander's passage of the Euphrates preparatory to the battle of 
Arbela in September, 331 B.C. In the interval occurred the capture of 
Damascus, the sieges of Tyre and Gaza, and the expedition into Egypt, to the 
last three of which twelve chapters were given by Diodorus ; an allowance of as 
many columns in the papyrus would certainly not be disproportionately large. 
The remaining fragments are insignificant. 

To the identity of the writer a clue remains to be found. Since these 
fragments, so far as their contents are recognizable, are all directly concerned 
with Alexander, it is a natural assumption that they come from one of the many 
chronicles, historical or romantic, devoted to the career of that striking personality 
rather than from a history of wider scope. The main Greek authorities for 
Alexander are of course Diodorus, Arrian, and Plutarch, and on the battle of 
Issus, with which the principal fragment of the papyrus is mostly concerned, we 
have also the statements of Callisthenes which are criticized by Polybius xii. 
j 7 sqq. ; but with none of these are any marks of affinity discoverable. On the 
other hand, there are two clear coincidences with the Roman Quintus Curtius 
Rufus, an obscure personality whose monograph on Alexander is commonly 
attributed to the first century A. D. The papyrus agrees precisely with Curtius 
against Arrian and Plutarch as to the terms of the bribe said to have been offered 
to the physician Philip by Darius, and, what is more interesting, reaffirms more 
circumstantially the statement that Alexander on the eve of the battle of Issus 
was overcome by an attack of nerves (see nn. on Fr. 44. i. 8-10, ii. 6 sqq., 15). 
A reason given in Fr. 44. iii. 18-19 for abandoning the pursuit of Darius 
but not elsewhere recorded, may also be glanced at by Curtius ; cf. n. ad loc. 
These coincidences imply either that our author was known to Curtius or 
that they had a common source; the supposition that the papyrus drew on 
Curtius is too improbable to need consideration. Curtius' sources have been 
discussed at length by J. Kaerst in Beilr. z. Quellenkritik des Q. Curtius Rufus 
and Forschungen z. Gesch. Alexanders, and more recently by E. Schwartz in 
Pauly-Wissowa, Realencycl. iv. 1 871 sqq., and Ruegg, Beitr. z. Erforschung dcr 



Γ24 THE OXYRHYNCHUS PAPYRI 

Quellenverhaltnisse in d. Alexaudergesch. des Cur tins. The authority on whom 
Curtius principally depended, according to the current view, was Clitarchus, but 
since the same authority was closely followed by Diodorus, with whom no 
connexion is traceable in 1798, this clearly cannot be the connecting link between 
1798 and Curtius. It is. however, recognized that Curtius employed other 
sources, which as distinguished from those of Arrian and Plutarch are considered 
to be secondary and comparatively late (cf. Schwartz, op. cit. 1876) ; but what 
precisely they were is not known. 

Curtius, then, is not rated as high-class company, and agreement with him 
against others will not establish a prejudice in favour of such statements as are 
peculiar to the papyrus. Of these the most significant is the estimate given of 
the numbers slain in the battle of Issus ; this more than doubles the highest total 
found elsewhere for the Macedonian and approximately halves that for the 
Persian side ; cf. n. on Fr. 44. iv. 9 sqq. Whatever may be thought of the 
historical value of these figures, they serve, like the description of Alexander's 
state of mind before the battle,to throw some light on the author's standpoint : 
the tendency to depreciate Alexander is less definitely affirmable than of Curtius, 
but evidently the aim was not glorification. Their claim to attention, however, 
is increased by the fact that the papyrus, alone among ancient authorities, 
estimates separately the loss of the mercenaries in the Persian service. It has 
been suggested by Kaerst (Cesch. des Hellenismus, i, p. 522), in agreement with 
Ranke, that the sources of Diodorus included information derived from Darius' 
Greek mercenaries. That theory now finds in 1798, which might here have the 
same source behind it, a certain support. Other points elsewhere unrecorded 
in connexion with the battle are the preliminary prayers and sacrifices to 
Poseidon, Thetis, Nereus, and the Nereids (Fr. 44. ii ; see n. on 11. 9-1 1), and 
the anecdote about the slice of bread with which the conqueror had to satisfy his 
hunger next day (ibid. iv). The story of Philip the physician follows familiar 
lines, but no other account attributes to the incriminating letter of Parmenion 
the unworthy motive of private hostility, a statement pointing to an anti- 
Parmenion bias, which is traceable also in Diodorus and Curtius and goes back 
not improbably to Clitarchus. The fragment (1) referring apparently to the death 
of Philip of Macedon shows a marked divergence from the ordinary version 
of that episode, and it is highly unfortunate that more of the narrative is not 
preserved. 

In form this writer is clear and straightforward, if somewhat monotonous. 
be is his favourite connecting particle, and there is but one instance of the genitive 
absolute ; a certain partiality to the historic present is noticeable (Fr. 44. i. 5, 16, 
Fr. 45. 6). To hiatus he is indifferent. Some eccentricities like the poetical 



1798. NEW CLASSICAL FRAGMENTS 



I2 5 



spelling άποτυπανίζαν may be due to copyists, but the form άνελά (Fr. 44. i. 12) 
is not without significance, suggesting that the date of composition, though 
it may well be posterior to the Augustan age, was at any rate little in 
advance of it. 



10 



Fr. 1. 

.]rOVS μ[.] . [. . 
θ]€ατ[ρ]ωι κα\. . 
.]ov? απζ[. . . 
.]e πςρι θρον[ον 
. . ,]ιρ τοις [ΐ[. . 
. π]αρ€δωκ€ [ 
. .] απετνπαν[ι 
σαν αντό\ν το δξ σωμ[α 
τον Φιλ]ιππον θερα [ 
πούσι θαψ]αι παρεδωκ^ 

7r]ep£ την [. . 

]σκλ[. . . . 



Fr. 3• 



Fr. 2. 

[•-•]•[ 

[• • •)? οι { 

[. .] δακρνσ . { 

[Καλβμον .[..]. β .[. . 

5 [το]σουτο κακόν δι[. . 

[.]e/cvAiae[i'] Θηβα[ις 

[κ]αι δη Θηβ[α]ι ev αν 

[θρ]ωποισιν αοικοι [ 

[. . .]δικον τ αρνας tc[ 

10 [. . .]οιμ οαρου? re Ae[ 

[...]. (V μ{. .] . δρη . { 



Fr. 4• 



νουμ[ 

€ΐσιν [ ? Θ?; 

βαίων [ 



Col. i. 



Frs. 5~ 6 • 





ι • m 




]ομην Τ€[ 




] δημοσ[ 




]τονργο[ 




5 ]/*ον[ 




] δι<χ[ 




Col. ϋ. 


κατ 


α την [ 


ης 


€βασ[ιλίν€ ? 


ου 


και α[ 


στ[ 




S δ. 


...[...].[ 



120 



Fr. 7. 

€7το? e[nreiv ? 
e|e.\i7r[e 
τον ltt\ttov ? 
πρωτο[ 

5 δ auro[ 

ί• • -Μ 



THE OXYRHYNCHUS PAPYRI 

re και 2πιθα[ραδατ . 
βάρβαροι κα[ 
[ε]νοπλοι πρ[ 
[τ]ην τον σωμ[ατο9 . . 
ίο λα γαρ μον[ 

]οι των *ιχο[ν €κ ? 

]ί ττληξιν [ πλ77 Γ 

] θος τ[ 

]σ παρει[ 

) 15 0J/T6 [ 

r/oat /cat aj/[ a ? 

\^ γωνα$ βχ[ 
Ma/ce<W[ 

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

αι[ ]ττί[ ]λλτ?[ 

Orj[ ] . a<[ ] π*ριο[ 

κλ[ ]μονμ[ πε]πτωκ[ 

vy[ } . ι παρατ[ ]τωι αλ[ 

5 Jov[ 5 ]γτων ον[ 5 ]τ€ρο^ τ[ 

Η ' «[ ]^ ολ «[ / % Γ 

!6? γλνκ[ 



Fr. 11. 

[•Μ 

χοι» fl[ 

[.]/οοι/[ 



Fr. 12. 



Fr. 13. 



]αι κναν[ 
? αλη]θιΐΌν[ 
5 ]•"[ 



Col. i. 
]λοί> 

If 



Col. ii. 

f.[ 

τ; e*a[ 
αλλοί[ 



1798. NEW CLASSICAL FRAGMENTS 127 

Fr. 14. Fr. 15. Fr. 16. Fr. 17. 



κ . μ[ 
Seiy[ 

pav . [ 
5 [■ •] • [ 



] • Μ 


]••[ 


] • ντ ^[ 


μ€]γαλη[ 


Μ 


σκς]ναζ€[ 


Α\*]£ανδρ[ 


]y€iy[ 


]νης 8e 


]apa[ 


}τα8[ 


]j> ςλατι 



Fr. ι Η. 



ίο 



] • Η-* ν Ί[ 



Fr. 19. 



Fr. 20. 



].[.]...[ 




]•.[ 




]ολ[. . 


] Π€ρσικ[ 




]•[ 




A]\t£av 


} μ ζίκ ρ[ 




]?.' • [ 


β> 


}λον 


πολ]\ακί? λ[ 




].[ 




]ι παρα)[ 


]λλα γα[ρ 


5 


1«Μ 


δ 


μ- ■ 


] • α Η 




] € στ€/[ 




Μ • 


? δ]ικαιως [ 




]oy Aet[ 


. . . . 


..... 


] €7Γ€ί κ[ 




}ταισυ . [ 






\a-fiLOV [ 




}οσα[ 


Fr. 21. 


Fr. 22. 


) ]γον κ€ΐ[ 


ΙΟ 


]£* γ?[ 


. . . 


. . . . 


]apa/J.ei[ 




]ον.[ 


]€7ΛΓΤ[ 


1 • • • id 


]ομ<ζγα[ 




. 


Wsf 


]>ero[ 


] . e8iai[ 




' 


Μ 


]ναιω[ 



]\iV π[ 



Fr. 23. 



Fr. 24. 



Fr. 25. 



Fr. 26. 



Μ 


Μ 


]yoy ϊ 


■[ 


]••[ 


] . ου , [ 


]ooi Tl[ 


Μ 




]τασ[ 


] • ™ yf[ 


}u o\y[ 


]?°[ 




Μ 


>&?[ 


. 


• • 


• • 


• • 



128 



Fr. 2' 



THE OXYRHYNCHUS PAPYRI 
Fr. 28. Fr. 29. Fr. 30. 



Fr. 31. 



λιπ[ 


Μ 


]ei? σ[ 


Μ 


]<5ακ[ 


τομ[ 


1 ■ "7Ϊ 


3? 6σ-τ [ 


W 


1 • «<$[ 


[Μ 


]."* ■ [ 


]fr[ 


Η . [ 


]ra<5[ 


Ύ. 32. 


Fr • 33- 


Fr. 34• 


Fr • 35• 


Fr. 36. 


Η 


]••«[ 


]θνπ[ 


jpcttf 


? 7r]aiOca 






]αμ . [ 


]rp ta [ 


]ωι/ο? 



Fr. 37. 

Ί • k 



Fr. 38. 

]υσα[ 



Fr. 39. 
34 



Fr. 40. 

] • «c 



Fr. 41. 
3- 



Fr. 42. 
]5eia[ 



Fr. 43. 

η 



Col. i. 
[? €7Γίχ€φ]ί7σ€£^ αυτόν φαρ 
[μα]κωι μέλλοντος δ 
[αντ]ον διδοναι Παρμε 
\νϊ\ων διάφορος ων τωι 
[Φί]λί7Γ7τωί γραφεί προς 
[Αλ]εξανδρον κελευων 
φυλαξασθαι τούτον α 
κονειν γαρ χείλια τα 
λαντα Δαρειον αντωι 



Fr. 44. 



Col, ii. 
είχε τους Μακεδόνας 
εξηκοντα γαρ των βαρ 
βαρών μυριαδε[ς] ήσαν 
οι δε Περσαι των Μα.κε 
5 δόνων κατεφρονουν 
Αλέξανδρος δε πλησι 
ον ορών την κρίσιν 
εν αγωνι(αι) ην και προς 
ευχας ετραπη Θετιν 



1798. NEW CLASSICAL FRAGMENTS 



129 



10 διδοναι και την αδελ 
φην γυναίκα εφ ωι αυ 
τον ανελει Αλεξαν 
δρος δε λαβών την ε 
πιστολην και ουδενι 

1 5 προσποιησαμ[ε]νος 

πειν[ει ] . 

τια[ 



ίο και Νηρηίδας και Νηρέα 
και Ποσειδώνα επικά 
λουμενος ωι και τετρω 
ρον άρμα εκελευσεν 
εις το πέλαγος ανα[γα 

15 γοντας ρειψαι εσφ[αγια 
ζετο δε και νυκτι κ[. . . 



Col. iii. 
σαν οι Περσαι είτα το 
λοιπόν των βάρβαρων 
πλήθος μεθ ους οι ξένοι 
οι δε περί τον Αλεξαν 
5 δρον ιππείς μεν ιππεν 
σιν πεζοί δε πεζοις 
επηκολουθονν και το 
πεδίον πλήρες ην νε 
κρων πολν δε μέρος 

ίο των Μακεδόνων επι 
τας σκηνας των βαρβα 
[ρ]ων ωρμησεν εις δι 
[α]ρπαγην των εν αυταις 
[π]ληρεις δ ήσαν ποικι 

15 [λ]»?9 γαζης Αλέξανδρος 
[δ] επιθνμων λαβείν 
\Δαρ~\ειον εδιωκεν με 
[τα δρ]ομου πνθομε 
[νος δε η δη α]υτον α[.] . [ 



Col. iv. 
εγοντι υπ αθεραπ[ε]υ 
σιας τηι έξης προσ[η] 
νεγκε τις των υπασπ[ι] 
στων λαβών πάρα [βου] 
5 κολου άρτου τρυφος [ο] 
δε δια την ενδ\εια]ν 
φαγων ασμένως παν 
τες αρα ειπεν ανθρω 
ποι ζωσιν ηδεως α 

ίο πεθανον δε των μεν 
Μακεδόνων πεζοί 
χειλιοι και ιππείς δια 
κοσιοι των δε βαρβα 
ρων πεζοί μεν ουκ ε 

15 λαττους πέντε μύρια 
δων ιππείς δε τρισγι 
λιο[ι των δε ξ]ενων π ε 

[Ρ 1 - ]« • V 





Col. ν. 




λα[ 




15 ρο- και [ 


».[ 


? Αλεξαν 


κοι[.]α . [ 


δρο[ 




επο[ 



Κ 



i3° 



THE OXYRHYNCHUS PAPYRI 



και [ 
5 λοι^ 

€7Γί[ 

5 lines lost 
«.[ 
ναθ[ 
σ*σθ[αι 



ev ϊ[ 

βολ[ 
2θ παιδ[ 

αλλο[ 

σι πα[ 



Fr. 45• 

• • • • • 

[ ]?[ 

C } ασκ [ 

Xvaas απαντάς α[. . . e 
. βαινζν ςπι Δαρς\ιον 
5 διαβας τον Ενφρ[ατην 
και μαγτ\ν αντω[ι συν 
απτζι δευτεραν [ 

[ 3 • Λ- • •]?« • [• ■ 



ΙΟ 



Fr. φ. 

Μ 

οσμ[ 

}ντοτ[ 
~>ντοι[ 

]>•ή 
3 • «[ 

|εσα[ 

]λ€7Γ . 

3•ί 



Fr. 47• 



Fr. 48. 



Fr. 49• 



μ[ 


}μηθτ} τι π[ 


]•[ 


4 


]σα»/ [icjewa . /ο[ 


Μ 


φα[ 


τ]ο σώμα [ 


]ι/σα[ 


και ομ[ 


]ν άλλα τ[ 


? .4Ae|ai>]#/)ou [ 


5 "°ϊ *ΐ 


5 \θ€ν αλ[ 


5 ] y S το[ 


Τ€/ί[ 


\βαλων [ 


}Φ[ 


τ?;!/ [ 


)αι πνθο[μ€ν 


3•[ 


Ρψ[ 


]ντων [ 




• 


3? οτ ί.[ 







L7 


y«. JNL• w 


LLASS1LAL 


tKAGMKNTS 


131 


Fr. 50. 




Fr. 51. 


Fr. 52. 


Fr. 53- 


Fr. 54. 


]••[ 




w 


Μ 


3#f 


3«?E 


Ελ]λαδα π[ 




]θΐη[ 


Μ 


] . αν 


]πτο[ 


] πάλιν 


4 


m 


Μ 


} ω ? 


. 



Fr. 1. The mention of a theatre in 1. 2, in conjunction with the burial of .]ιπττου in 
11. 8-10, leaves little room for doubt that this fragment refers to the death of Philip, but the 
details are unfamiliar. Philip's assassin was Pausanias (Diodor. xvi. 94, Justin ix. 6), for 
whose name there seems to be here no place ; moreover, according to Diodorus he was 
pursued and killed forthwith by ot nep\ τον Πίρδίκκαν who συγκεντήσαντίς aveiKov. Apparently, 
then, the object of απ€τνπαν[ισαν is some other person, whose identity is obscure; cf. Justin xi. 2. 1 
Prima Mi cura paternarum exsequiarum fuit ; in quibus ante omnia caedis conscios ad 
tumulum pain's occidi iussit. 

1 sqq. The length of the lacunae is estimated on the basis of 11. 8-10, which can be 

restored with probability. In 11. 1-4 tovs μ[ήν | [ev τωι θ]εατ[ρ]ωι κα\[θημεν]ου5 απ([λν\[σ( tovs 

(or Tots) 8]e may be suggested. 

5. ]tv : ]ωι> is not possible, and ]av is unlikely. The doubtful μ may be λ. 

6. Both this line and 1. 9 look as if they were complete at the end, but there is not 
margin enough to be certain. If 1. 6 ended with -ice, it was rather shorter than its 
neighbours. 

7. The spelling άποτυπανίζω seems to be novel ; τύπανον is a poetic form. 

Fr. 2. This fragment, like the preceding, has lost both margins, but the point ot 
division of the lines is fixed by 11. 7-8, where the restoration is certain, and on that basis 
the other lacunae have been estimated. Most of the fragment, if not all of it, is occupied 
by a quotation in hexameters referring to Thebes, brought in no doubt in connexion with 
Alexander's destruction of the city. Owing to the aorist in 1. 6 it is not likely to be 
oracular; Kv\iae[i] would not fill the lacuna. 

3. The vestige after σ is indecisive ; ι or e would be suitable, but other vowels are not 
excluded. 

4. β is preceded by a vertical stroke consistent with η, t, v, and is followed by the base 
of another short vertical stroke ; θ]ηβη[ would be quite suitable. 

6. Cf. Homer Ρ 688 πήμα &os ΔαναοΊσι κυλίνδΐΐ, C. I. G. 62 80 A 35 arvyeprjv Be κυΚινδήσίΐ 
κακότητα. 

p. The first letter is more probably δ than β. τ apvas is recommended by the apparent 
repetition of re, but whether apvas or Apvas should be written is not clear ; cf. Homer Β 507 
(τάρνην ap. Strabo 413). 

10. No compound -oipoapos (e. g. wSoipoapos) is known. 

n. The first letter was η, ι, or ν, and δρη was preceded by one of the same three 
letters. 

Fr. 3. 3. If βαιων is right, θη\βαιων is the natural restoration, but θαι ων is possible. 
This fragment differs in appearance from Fr. 2, but is very similar to Fr. 4. 

Frs. 5-6. These fragments were combined after the text was in type, and the 
numeration was therefore retained. 

Κ 2 



i 3 2 THE OXYRHYNCHUS PAPYRI 

ii. 6. Σπιθα[ρα8ατ . . : this is evidently the son-in-law of Darius and satrap of 
Lydia (or Ionia) whose name is spelled Σπιθροβάτης by Diodor. xvii. 19, 20, Σπιθρώάτης by 
Arrian i. 15, 16 and Plutarch, Alex. 16. 

9. μ[ is represented by a very slight vestige which, however, well suits that letter. 

17. •ψ• = 2,300; cf. 852. 25 n. For other instances of stichometry in prose papyri 
cf. e.g. 1364. 188, P. Grenf. II. 11. ii. 4. 

Pr. 7. 3. τον ιτήπον : perhaps a reference to Bucephalas, but the fragment is too small 
to be understood. 

Fr. 10. 6. If the reading is correct, « has been amended to eir, but es is by no means 
clear, nor is it certain that the t is by another hand. 

Fr. 12. 4. ά\η]θινον is suggested by <vav[ in the preceding line, but \ι]θινον would also 
be suitable. 

Pr. 17. 4. Some case of c\aTi\vos presumably. 

Pr. 18. There was a junction between two selides near the right-hand edge of this 
strip, the surface of which is worn, as also is that of Frs. 19, 20, and 22. 

6. Αλέ^ανδρ . . is one of many possibilities. 

Pr. 21. Like Fr. 18, this piece shows a junction between selides along the right-hand 
edge, but the appearance of the two fragments is otherwise not very similar. 

Pr. 22. 3. This was apparently the last line of a column. 

Fr. 24. 3. Perhaps 0λν[μπιαΒα, either as the mother of Alexander or a date. 

Fr. 25. ι. α or a round letter like e or σ is probable after t. 

Pr. 36. Ι. π]ανσα: 0Γ possibly π]ανσα\νιας ; cf. n. on Fr. I. 

Fr. 44. i. 1-16. '(Philip was induced?) to try a medicine. When he was about to 
give it, Parmenion, who had a quarrel with Philip, wrote to Alexander bidding him beware 
of Philip to whom he heard Darius was offering a thousand talents and his own sister in 
marriage as the price of the king's destruction. Alexander received the letter, and suppressing 
it drank the medicine . . .' 

1 sqq. Cf. Plutarch, Alex. 19, Arrian ii. 4. 12, Curtius iii. 6, Justin xi. 8 ; Diodorus 
xvii. 31 is more concise and does not mention the letter of Parmenion. For [επιχ€ΐρ]ησΐΐν cf. 
Plutarch, /. c. επιχείρησε φαρμακεία, but αυτόν may mean Alexander (cf. Arrian, /. c. καθηραι 
edeXeiv Άλίξανδρον φαρμάκω), in which case another infinitive rriay have preceded, e. g. 

(Tn)yyet\aro θίραπενσαι (πιχειρ]ησειν, or ]ησαν may be differently restored, e. g. ωφελ\ησ(ΐν. 

4. διάφορο: ων : this detail is not given by the other authorities. 

7. φνλαξασθαι is the word used also by Plutarch and Arrian, //. cc. 

8-10. χείλια τάλαντα ... «at την αδελφην : so Curt, mille taleniis . . . et spe nupiiarum 
sororis eius. Plutarch says δωρεαΐς μεγάλαις κάϊ γάμω θνγατρόί, Arrian χρημασιν only. 

12. The form £KS» occurs in Aristoph. Eq. 290 (περκλω), but otherwise belongs to 
a much later period, e. g. D. Hal. xi. 18. 

14-15. ovbevi seems to be an error for ovSev, the meaning being similar to e.g. that in 

Polyb. V. 25. 7 σαφώς el8<i>s . . ., oi> προσποιηθάς 8e. A use of προσποιΰσθαι with the dative in 

the sense of κοινωνών does not occur. 

ii. 1-16. '. . . The Macedonians were seized by dismay, for there were 600,000 of the 
barbarians, while the Persians held the Macedonians in contempt. When he saw that 
the decision was imminent Alexander was in a torment of suspense and had recourse 



1798. NEW CLASSICAL FRAGMENTS 133 

to prayer, calling on Thetis and the Nereids and Nereus and Poseidon, for the last of whom 
he ordered that a four-horse chariot should be brought and cast into the sea; and he offered 
sacrifices by night 

1. et*e : sc. φόβος or some synonym. For the confidence of the Persians cf. Arrian 

11. 6. 8 καταπατησειν τε rrj ϊππω των Μακεδόνων την στρατών άλλος αλλοθεν αυτω (sc. Ααρείωί) επαίροντες 
ελεγον, Plutarch, Alex. 20 άποκριναμενου δε Δαρείου δεδιεναι μη φθάσωσιν αυτόν άποδράντες οι 

πολέμιοι. Diodor. xvii. 32 describes the effect of the disparity in numbers on the local 

population, της μεν των Μακβδ. όλιγότητος καταφρονήσαντες, τό δε πλήθος της των ΤΙερσ. στρατιάς 

καταπεπληγμίνοι. Panic is not, however, attributed to the Macedonians in other Greek 
sources; as Kaerst remarks (Gesch. des Hellenismus, p. 364^, it cannot be inferred from 
Arrian ii. 7. 5 παρεκαλεϊ θαρρεΊν, though it may be hinted at by Diodor. xvii. 33. ι των δε 

κατάσκοπων απαγγειλάντων . . . τον Ααρεΐον . . . ττ/ δυνάμει προσιεναι καταπληκτικώς '. cf. Justin XI. Ο. 3 
periculosius dijferre bellum raius, ne desperatio suis cresceret. 

2-3. εξηκοντα . . . μυριαδε[ς] : so Arrian ii. 8. 9, Plutarch, Alex. 18. Diodor. xvii. 31. 2 
puts the Persian infantry at over 400,000, the cavalry at 100,000 at least, and Justin gives 
similar figures at this point (xi. 9. 1). though he had shortly before (6. 11) stated the number 
of the Persian army as 600,000. 

4-5. See n. on 1. 1 above. 

6 sqq. Cf. Curt. iii. 8. 20 Ceterum, ut solet fieri cum ultimi discriminis tempus adven/af, 
in sollicitudinem versa fidiccia est. Illam ipsam fortunam, qua adspirante res tam prospere 
gesseral, verebaiur . . . ipse in iugum editi montis escendit multisque conlucentibus facibus patrio 
more sacrificium dis praesidibus loci fecit. Kaerst, /. c, pronounces the statement of Curtius 
to be worthless, and that of Diodor. xvii. 33. 1 that Alexander regarded the approach of the 
enemy as a heaven-sent opportunity to be ' an sich angemessener ' ; cf. Plutarch, Alex. 20. 
But the one does not necessarily exclude the other, and some anxiety on the eve of this 
critical battle would be only natural. Justin goes further in speaking of actual fear (metum 
xi. 9. 3), which is not involved in sollicitudo nor αγωνία, the latter being attributed to 
Alexander on several occasions by Diodorus ; cf. xvii. 31. 4, 56. 3, 116. 4 (we owe these 
references to Mr. W. W. Tarn). 

9— II. Cf. e.g. Plutarch, Alex. 33 παρεκάλει τους θεούς, ως Καλλισθένης φησίν, επευχόμενος 

. . . άμΰναι. The choice of deities on the present occasion is somewhat surprising, even when 
allowance is made for the proximity of the sea (cf. Curt. /. c. dis praesidibus loci) and the 
legendary descent of Alexander from Thetis and Nereus. As Mr. Tarn observes, this story 
looks like an adaptation from another occasion when the invocation of marine gods is 
recorded in a more appropriate setting; cf. Nearchus ap. Arrian, Ind. 18. 11, where when 
starting down the Hydaspes Alexander sacrifices to Poseidon, Amphitrite, the Nereids, &c. 
(this no doubt is a genuine instance), and Anab. i. 11. 10, where he is said to have made 
libations to Poseidon and the Nereids when crossing the Hellespont. 

15. εσφ[αγια]ζετο δε και νυκτι : cf. the passage of Curtius cited in the n. on 11. 6 sqq. 
Sacrifice is repeatedly mentioned by the historians of Alexander, and according to Arrian 
vii. 25. 2 it was his daily habit. 

iii. 1-19. ' . . . (first) the Persians took to flight, then the rest of the barbarian host 
and after them the mercenaries. The cavalry were pursued by Alexander's cavalry and the 
infantry by his infantry, and the plain was filled with corpses. A large number of the 
Macedonians fell on the barbarian camp, which was full of treasure of all kinds, in order to 
plunder the contents. But Alexander desiring to capture Darius pursued him at full speed ; 
when he learned, however, that he . . .' 

1-3. 1. e. g. εις φυγην ωρμη]σαν, which happens to be the phrase of Diodorus at this 



!34 



THE OXYRHYNCHUS PAPYRI 



point (xvii. 34. 7). The statement here is in substantial agreement with the account of 
Arrian ii. 10-11, who says that Darius fled as soon as he saw his left wing giving way, but 
that the Greek mercenaries in the centre stood their ground and fought well until attacked 
on their exposed left flank. 

7-8. Cf. Diodor. xvii. 34. 9 πας 6 συνεχής τόπος νεκρών νπληρωθη, but this was a con- 
ventional phrase which reappears e.g. xvii. 61. 2. 

Q— T5. Cf. Diodor. xvii. 35. I—2 oi δε Μακεδόνες παυσάμενοι τοΰ διωγμού προς άρπαγην 
ωρμησαν και μάλιστα περί τας βασιλικας σκηνας δια το πλήθος της πολυτελείας ησχολοΰντο, κτλ., 
Plutarch, Alex. 20 κατέλαβε τους Μακεδόνας τον μεν άλλον πλοΰτον εκ τοΰ βαρβαρικοί) στρατοπέδου 
φέροντας και άγοντος υπερβάλλοντα πληθει, CurtlUS ϋΐ. II. 20. 

18. δρ]ομου : the vestiges do not suggest o, but are not inconsistent with the irregular 
formation of that letter as sometimes found in this text. με\χρι .] . λλου could be read. 

18-19. According to Diodor. xvii. 35. 1, Arrian ii. 11. 8, Curtius iii. 12. 1 the pursuit 
was cut short by nightfall. Apparently another or a further reason was here stated, e. g. 
that Darius was beyond reach ; cf. Curtius, /. c, postquam et nox adpetebat et consequendi spes 
noti era/. At the end of 1. 19 the - broken letter might be e, ο, ρ, σ, and this may well have 
ended the line. 

iv. 1-17. ' On the next day when he was suffering from want of attention one of the . 
Guards brought him a piece of bread which he had taken from a herdsman. In his hunger 
he ate it readily, remarking " Every one likes to live ". There were killed of the Macedonians 
1,000 infantry and 200 cavalry, and of the barbarians not less than 50,000 infantry and 
3,000 cavalry, and about . . . of the mercenaries.' 

1-9. This somewhat insignificant anecdote has not been traced in other authorities. 

βαρέως is to be supplied before εχοντι. 

5• τρυφος : the straightness of base in the final letter suggests ν rather than s, but the 
masculine form is unknown. 

9 sqq. The numbers of the slain in this battle as reported by other authorities are : 
Diodor. xvii. 36. 6, Persians: infantry, 100,000; cavalry. 10,000. Macedonians : infantry, 
300; cavalry, 150. Arrian ii. 11. 11, Persians: as Diodor. Plutarch, Alex. 20, Persians : 
110,000. Curtius ii. 11. 27, Persians: as Diodor. Macedonians: infantry, 32(?); 
cavalry, 150. Justin xi. 9. 10, Persians : infantry, 61,000 ; cavalry, 10,000. Macedonians: 
infantry, 130; cavalry, 150. Compared with these estimates, our author largely reduces 
the Persian and increases the Macedonian loss, and he also stands alone, if the restoration 
in L 17 is right, in giving a separate figure for the mercenaries in the Persian service. Of 
these 30,000 took part in the battle (Callisthenes, ap. Polyb. xii. 18. 2, Arrian ii. 8. 9), and 
8,000 are said to have escaped with Amyntas (Arrian ii. 13. 2 ; 4,000 according to Diodor. 
xvii. 48. 2), 8,000 to have been subsequently got together by Agis (Diodor. xvii. 48. 1), and 
a few others to have been included in the 4,000 fugitives collected by Darius (Arrian 
ii. 13. 1). The number slain can hardly have exceeded a few thousand. At the end of 
1. 18 εξη\κοντα is not impossible, though not very satisfactory. 

v. The remains of this column are insufficient to afford a clear clue to its subject. In 
1. 19 εν ΐ[σσω seems not unlikely. 

Ft. 45. Cf. Arrian iii. 7. 1-6, where the crossing of the Euphrates is described in more 
detail. According to Curtius iv. 9. 12 the march from Phoenicia had occupied eleven days. 
On the verso of this fragment are words beginning with λ (1802. 2). 

3• Perhaps α[νω. 

Fr. 46. Since the verso of this fragment contains words beginning with κ (1802. ι) it 
came later in the roll than Fr. 45. 



1798. NEW CLASSICAL FRAGMENTS . 135 

Frs 47-54 = 1802. 4-1 1. The character of the writing on the verso suggests that 
Fr. 50 came from the neighbourhood of Fr. 48, and Fr. 53 from that of Fr. 49. 
Fr. 49. 5. ο of το has apparently been converted from e. 
Fr. 54. That this small piece belongs to 1798 is hardly certain. 

1799. Oratorical Fragment. 

9.9 χ 9 cm. Second century. 

This fragment, containing remains of two columns of an unidentified speech, 
is written in a small sloping hand which is on the border line between literary 
and cursive, some of the forms, e. g. the ligature of ei, being of a thoroughly cursive 
character ; the MS. may fall within the second century, ν at the end of a line 
is once written as a stroke above the preceding vowel. No stops or other signs 

occur. 

Of the first column only a few letters from the ends of the lines remain, but 
the second includes a continuous passage of %$ nearly complete lines in which 
apparently the policy of Demosthenes is vindicated. The declaration that 
disaster would have been avoided by a thorough acceptance of that policy points 
to a period subsequent to the battle of Chaeronea, but the occasion of the speech 
is not made clear. There seems to be a defect in the text in 11. 30-1, besides 



minor errors. 



Col. i. Co1 • "• 

[ Μ• • • 



[ ] • y?[. 

[ ]« ■ t 



5 



[ Μ 

] 5 [• • ' ] « *"7«E 

1 , [ ]/?? τα r0T [ ■ 

]va [ > 8η τα πρ .[ 

]ασ [....].. ei? όπερ το[. . . . 

V [Δημ]οσθενης tl δει κ[αθ €κα 

ι € ίο στον λέγειν των y[ 

1 α προαρη μένων η . [ 

? απ]α.£ τετολμημενων [επειδή ? 

ι €ί τα μεν παρ α(υ)τον λ[€χ0€»' 

ι α τα αληθή και σνμ[φεροντα 



i 3 6 THE OXYRHYNCHUS PAPYRI 

ίο ]τον 15 δια τέλους φαιν[ε]τ[αι τη 
] επει πολει καν ει καθ εκα[στον 

]ει/χι . αντω μονω προσεσγομε 

]ο[. .] παντ αν εσωζετο ει δ αν α 

] . . . τετ ροφό { ν } τες άπαντα και 

1 5 ]ο 20 λελι;/ζασ/ζ€^[θί 7;r]e (αναίτιος ?) 

]ι> °Fr[°]i r . i of 7 α /° ••[•••] τβλ'* 1 Λ 

]τα [λί]7τπο? ουδ αί roA[/xa]t Μακε 

] . δόνων ou5 ανδραγαθια 

των εκείνου στρατηγών ου 
2θ ]e 2ζ δ η των ημέτερων ολιγωρι 

)το α ονδ ως τ; δυναμις η των 

εκείνου θαυμαστή τις η 
]ν δε της πόλεως ασθενής 

αυτή yap εστίν η και τον Περ 
• . . . 3° σΎ Ι ν *£*λεσασα βασιλέα 

γης και θαλαττης αλλ ει δει 
[το α]ληθ[ες] ειπείν το παν τ[ου 
[τ ε]γειν[ετ]ο δη μόνον τ . [. . 

[■ •1τ • [■ ■ •>χ[• •..]•. Ψ • • 

35 [• •]? • [ 



9~ι ο. κ[αθ (κα]στον is very uncertain, but seems to suit the construction. p[ might 
be e. g. v[eov. 

11. Not η τ ων nor, apparently, η κ[αι. 

2θ-ι. A blank space sufficient for four or five letters has been left at the end of 1. 20, 
and the sentence is apparently incomplete. If ουτ[ο]σι ov γαρ is right, the apodosis may be 
completed in some such way as suggested in the text ; but there is barely room for the 
second ο of οντ[ο]σι, which, however, is sometimes written very small in this hand. At the 
end of 1. 21 φι is not satisfactory, since more of the vertical stroke of φ would be expected 
to be visible, though the surface of the papyrus is damaged here ; moreover, λι can barely 
be got into the lacuna at the beginning of the following line (the division ΦϊΚ\ιππος would be 
contrary to rule). But acfivov in 11. 24 and 27 clearly point to a mention of the Macedonian 
king earlier in the context. With regard to the word after γαρ, the ink in the first letter has 
run somewhat and the reading is doubtful ; τρ[ is perhaps more suitable than υμ[ but neither 
is convincing. 

27. η at the end of the line has been corrected from ov, whether by the original or 
a subsequent hand is difficult to say. 



1800. NEW CLASSICAL FRAGMENTS 137 

1800. Miscellaneous Biographies. 

Fr. 3 27-1 X 15-4 cm. Late second or early third 

century. 

The handwriting of the following fragments, from a roll containing various 
biographies, is a fine specimen of the common oval type, and may be referred to 
the latter part of the second century more probably perhaps than the beginning 
of the third. The columns as usual are inclined slightly to the right. One 
apparent instance of a high stop, probably a later insertion, occurs in Fr. 1. 40. 
Short lines are filled up by means of the angular sign commonly used for 
that purpose. Whether the few small corrections are by the original or 
a later hand is doubtful. A small coronis marks the conclusion of sections. 
The titles prefixed to the biographies are sometimes enclosed by the short slightly 
curved strokes often employed in the colophons of literary papyri. 

As at present reconstituted the papyrus consists of 30 fragments, of which 
a few are fairly substantial, but their relative position, except in a few instances, 
is uncertain. If, as is possible, the top of Fr. 3. i is concerned with Thucydides 
(cf. note ad loc), that fragment must have followed Fr. 2, and there is no doubt 
about the order of Frs. 4-7 ; but otherwise the arrangement adopted is often more 
or less arbitrary. The biographies which can be identified are of Sappho 
(Fr. 1. i, ii), Simonides (Fr. 1. ii), Aesop (Fr. a. i, ii), Thucydides (Fr. 1. ii, Fr. 3. i ?), 
Demosthenes (Fr. 3. i, ii), Aeschines (Fr. 3. ii), Thrasybulus (Frs. 4-7), Hyperides 
(Fr.' 8. ii), Leucocomas (Fr. 8. ii), and Abderus (Fr. 1 1). This is a strange medley, 
and no intelligible principle seems to have guided the compiler either in the choice 
of his characters or their grouping. They are mainly literary, but the soldier- 
politician Thrasybulus does not come under that category, and Leucocomas and 
Abderus are entirely mythical. The inclusion of the former, whose name will 
not be familiar to many, is singular ; Abderus was at least the eponymous hero 
of a considerable town. As for the disposition of the Lives, like sometimes 
consorts with like : two lyric poets, both beginning with the same letter, figure 
in Fr. 1, and in Fr. 3 Aeschines is appropriately placed next to Demosthenes. 
But a reason why Thucydides should have been sandwiched between Demosthenes 
and Aesop, or Leucocomas should rub shoulders with Hyperides, is not easy to 
imagine. Nor are the biographies themselves, so far as they go, of much 
moment. Concerning Sappho there is nothing new beyond a variant of her 
father's name, and the statement that Charaxus was her eldest brother. The 
aspersion on her character, mentioned also, among Greek authorities, by Suidas, 
reappears here at a much earlier date. Reference is made in this section to the 
Grammarian Chameleon, the only citation in 1800 of a definite authority ; 



138 



THE OXYRHYNCHUS PAPYRI 



elsewhere the compiler contents himself with the vague 'some say' or the like. 
A mutilated passage referring to Simonides' reputed innovation in the alphabet 
apparently has the negative merit of differing from the statement in Suidas 
(cf. A. Kirchoff, Gesch. des Griech. Alphabets, p. i). Of the death of Aesop, who 
was a favourite subject for biography (fragments of three Lives of Aesop have 
already been found in papyri, of the 4th-jth centuries ; cf. Collart, Rev. dePhilol. 
xliii, pp. 38 sqq.), there is a circumstantial account, including some new but not 
very valuable details. The Lives of Thucydides and of Hyperides are too frag- 
mentary to be informative ; of Demosthenes little that is fresh could be expected, and 
the only novelty is a blunder, on a par with the statement that Aeschines was the 
eldest of his father's sons, which Aeschines himself refutes. An anecdote, found 
also in Plutarch, about the generosity of Demosthenes to his defeated rival is 
given with greater elaboration in the account of the latter. One would gladly 
have had more of the section concerning Thrasybulus, which included some 
details not otherwise known, although errors like those just noticed do not give 
a good impression of the accuracy of the writer, — regarding whose identity we 
are entirely in the dark. 



Col. i. 



Fr. i, 



Col. ii. 



περί ΐ!απφ]ους 
[Σαπφώ το μεν γένος] ην Αε 
[σβια πόλεως δε Μιτ]υληνης 
5 [πατρός δε Χκαμ\ανδρου κα 
[τα δε τινας %κά\μανδρωνυ 
[μου αδελφούς δ] εσχε τρεις 
[Ε ρ]ι[γυιον και Αα\ριγον πρε 
σβυ[τατον δε Χαρ]αξον ος πλεν 

ίο σας ε[ις Αιγυπτον] Δωριγαι τι 
νι προσο[μιλητ\ης κατεδα 
πανησεν εις ταντην πλει 
στα τον δε Ααριγον (νέον) οντά μαλ 
λον ηγαπησεν θυγατέρα δ ε 

15 σχε Κλειν ομωννμον τηι ε 
αντης μτ}τρι κ[α]τηγορηται 



περιτ[ 13 letters ωσ ? 

περ Χαμαιλεω[ν . . , 

3θ τιος επλανηθ[η 

απ αυτόν λέγει [. . . Αιολιδι ? 

διαλεκτωι κεχρ[η γε 

γραφεν δε βυβλ[ια εννέα μεν 
λυρικά ελεγειω[ν δε και άλλων ? 

35 & 
> 

περί Χιμ[ωνιδοΰ 

Χιμωνιδης το μεν [γένος ην 
Κειος πόλεως δε Ιου[λιδος 
πατρός δε Αεοπρεπο[υς γεγο 
4θ νεν δε φιλάργυρος• τ[ινες 
δ αυτωι την των μν[ημο 
νικών ευρεσιν προσ\τιθεα 



1800. NEW CLASSICAL FRAGMENTS 



139 



δ υπ εν[ι]ω[ν] ως άτακτος ου 
[σα] τον τρόπον και γνναικ€ 
[ρασ]τρια την δε μορφην 

2θ [ευ]καταφρονητος δοκβί γε 

[γον]ενα[ι κα]ι δυσειδεστατη^ν^ 
[τ]ην μεν γαρ όψιν φαιωδης 
[ν]πηρχεν το δε μέγεθος > 
μεικρα παντελώς το δ αυτό 

25 [συ]μβεβηκε και περί τον 

[ )ν ελαττω [. .] γεγονα 

ι$ letters 1 . -ην 



σιν και αυτός δε που [τούτο 
φαίνει δια των επιγ[ραμ 
45 μα[τ]α>ν προσευρει[ν δε φα 
σιν [αυ]τον τίνες και δ . [. . . 
κε[. . .]οστον των κδ απ[. . 
τ .[..].. ευ . [•]ησασ[.]εν[. . 



ίο 



15 



Fr. 2. 
Col. i. Col. ii. 

30 [ ] των Δελ[φων .... 

[ ] ευωνυμ . [ ] . 

[εστ]ιν δ αίτια τοια[υτη){ι] ει 
h PlV^^vi 1 } *π& ν [€ΐσε]λθηι 

]ν [ τ[ις] τωι θεωι θυσιαο\ων ο]ι Δε\ 

]° ν [ 35 φ[ο]ί περ[ι]εστηκασι τον βω 
] . ων μ[ο]ν υφ εαυτοις μάχαιρας 

]" ρ κ[ο]μιζοντες σφάγιασα 

\V €l * μενού δε του ϊερειου και 

}ρ €υ δειραντος το ιερέων και 

]υρον 4° τα σπλάγχνα περιεξελο 

}μ*ν μενού οι περιεστωτες ε 

}σ,νο καστος ην αν ισχυσηι 

£\ίναι μοιραν αποτεμνομενος 

]μων απεισιν ως πολλάκις τον 

]ριτος 45 Ουσιασαντα αυτόν αμοι 
] • λ« ρ[ο]ν απι{ε)ναι τούτο ουν Αι 

]covov [«τφτΜί Δελφούς ονιο\ι]ζων 

]υς λαμ επεσκωψεν εφ οις διοργι 



Col. iii. 



75 •[ 

•[ 



140 



THE OXYRHYNCHUS PAPYRI 



]υτοις 
}ov μν 
[θ? ]υσας 8c 

20 λ]ογων 

? αποκρι]ματων 
] eav 
[τ ]μενοι 

σ]οφι 
25 }c φιλοσο 

[φ } . προς 

]σ€ν 

]v L 

If 



σθβντες οι πολλοί λιθοις 

5ο αυτόν βάλλοντας κατά 

κρημνού €ωσαν μ€τ ον 

πολύ δε λοιμικον πάθος 

επεσκηψε τηι πολςι χρη 

στηριαζομενοις δ αυτοις 

55 ο θ€ος avemcv ον προτ€> 

η 
ρον [λη£]ξΐν τον νοσ[ον με 

χρις [αν Α]ισωπον εξι[λασ 

[κωντ]αι οι 8c περιτει [> 

[χισ)αντ€9 τον τόπον [cv 

60 [ωι κ]ατ€πξσ€ν βωμο[ν θ ι 

δ[ρνο-α]μ€νοι λυτηρ[ι]ο[υς 

τη? νόσου ως ηρωι θ[υσιας 

προ[σ]ην€γκαν 



πβρι θουκυδι[δου 
65 Θουκυδίδης το μΐν yejVoy 
ην Αθηναίος παι[ς δ 0]λο 
ρου διαβαλλουσι δc τον πα 
Tcpa αυτού Θραικα οντά 
ets Αθήνας μ€τοικισθη 
7ο ναι δυνατός δε cv λογοις α 

ο 

νηρ γ[ζν]αμ€νος avcypa 
yjrcv το[ν] γενομςνον Αθη 
ναιοις [και] Π€λοποννη> 
[σιοις πολζμον 



σθ[ 

αν[ 

κα[ 

8ο θ . 



y[ 
μ[ 



Col. i. 



Fr. 3. 



. cv[. . 
€των [. 



Col. ii. 
25 [γε]υσαμενος του φ[αρμα » 
[κ]ου συντόμως c£c^vw 
[σβ] μέχρι τ(λ[ο]υς το της [c 



1800. NEW CLASSICAL FRAGMENTS 



141 



υπ\ 



ί• 



[ 1 ' 

5 [ ]™ . • [.] 

[..... ,]v επι της a . , [. . 
[Αθη]γαιοι κενοταφίων εστη 
σαν δημοσία εν Α ••[... . 
σι των δήμων 



> 

ίο 



περί Δημοσθεν[ο]υ[ς] 
Δημοσθένης ο ρητωρ Αθη 
ναιος μεν ην το γένος 
παις δε Δημοσθενου[ς Παι 
ανιενς δε των δήμων 

1 5 κομιδη δε νηπιος νπο> 
του πατρός απελειφθη υ 
πο επιτροπ[οις] Ονητορι 
και Αφοβωι γεν[ομεν]ος 
δ εφ ηλικίας επε[δε]ι[ξ]ατ[ό] 

2θ την εν λογοις δεινότητα 
κρινα[ς του]ς επιτροπ[ονς 
ων ε[νοσφισ]αντο χρήμα [ 
των [αυτού ε]ις δε το βη [ 
μα [παρελθών] αριστ[α 



[λε]υθεριας [α£]ιωμα δ[ια 
[φ]υλαξας ΑΘ[η]ναιοι δε πα [ 

3θ [λι]ν την ελευθεριαν α 
νακτησαμενοι ετιμη 
σαν αυτού εικόνα γαλκη[ν 
αναστησαντες εν Κέρα [ 
μικωι επίγραμμα τε [εν 

35 στηληι ενεκολαψαν το[ι 
ονδε ειπερ ϊσαν γνωμα[ι 
ρωμαν Δημοσθενες εσχες 
ουποτ αν Ελλήνων ηρ > 
ξεν Αρης Μακεδών 

40 περί Αισχινου 

Αισχίνης ο ρητωρ το μεν γε 
νος ην [ΑΘ]ηναιος παις δε 
Ατρόμητου και μητρός 
Γλαυκοθεας πρεσβυτατος 
45 των αδελφών Φιλοχαρους 

και Ααοφο[β]ου κατ αρχάς δε 
ετριταγωνιστει τραγωιδοις 
. ϋποκρινομενος ευφυής 

δ εν λογοις γενόμενος 

50 αντί της σκηνής το των 
Αθηναίων βήμα διεδε 
£ατο γραφομενος δε Κτη 
σιφωντα παράνομων 
οτι μη δεόντως έστεφα 

55 νωσε Δημοσθένη χρυ 
σωι στεφανωι καινοις 
τραγωιδοις ου μεταλα 
βων δε το πέμπτον με 
ρος των ψήφων φυγάς 

6ο εξηει των Αθηνών 

Δημοσθένης δε ου μνη 



I 4 2 



THE OXYRHYNCHUS PAPYRI 



65 



70 



75 



σικακησας (πι τοις yey€ 
νημ€νοις το Se αστατον 
της τύχης ΐυλαβηθ^ις e 
φοδ]ιον αυτωι αργυρίου 
τα\]αντον προσεπβμψβν 
ο Se] ου δεξαμζνος ΐδα 
κρυ]σ€ν πυνθανομζνου 
δε τ]ινος €7Γί τινι δακρυοι 
enrje οτι τοιαύτης πόλεως 
απα]λλαττομαι €ν ηι και 
ζγβρό\ι συνπαθ^σ]τβροι 
φιλω]ν βυρισκ[οντα]ι γ€νο 
μςνος δ€ ev] Ρ[οδωι] σγοΧην 

] Αττικον 

1 Ροδιοις 



Frs. 4 + 5• 

ναιοι[ 
μητ[ 
δβ τ[ 

κτο[ 

5 λ€ί[ 

οπε[ ] . α[ 

[περί] θρασυβ[ου\ου 
θ ρ[ασυβο]υ\ος παι[ς μ€ν ην Λύκου 
[το δ* γ](ν[ο]ς Αθη[ναιος 2τ€ΐ 

ίο [ρΐ€υς] δβ των δ[ημων 

[ ] . Xe πατ[ 



>- 



ΙΟ 



15 



Frs. 6 + 7. 
Col. ϊ. 



. . . .}ρα[. .]...[..]•[... 
. . . ? συ\ν αυτωι απο Φυλής 
? καταγο]υσι τον δημον ως 
5e κατξ]λυθησαν οι τρία 
κοντά] ζγραψεν ψήφισμα 
Θρασυβ]ουΧος μΐταδιδους 
αυτοις ?] της πολιτείας α 
[προβου]Χευτου δβ του ψη 
φισματος] γζναμςνου ου 
κ ζτυγον} τ]ης τιμής ο δε παν 

] . νας αγάπη 

σα]ς *Χη[• . ,]ev τοις δικα> 
στ]ηριο[ις . .]$ κίνδυνου 

] . , . [ ] ως δ (κωλυ 

θη? Υψηφ[ .... 



Col. ϋ. 



4 



1800. NEW CLASSICAL FRAGMENTS 



J 43 



Fr. 8. 



Col. i. 

]σθ*τα 
]οισιν 
5 ] απο 

]οσχα 
]τονς 
]σπερ αν 
τω]ν Αθήναι 
ίο [ων ] αναχθε[ι]ς 

]ιαν προσ 
] μετά τον 
θ]ανατον 
απ]ωλεσ[. .] 
15 ,]ροσ 

]γ 

]τα 

]« 

]> 



Col. ϋ. 
2θ αθεως [ 

ενγενεια[ επεί & ? 

77 ,4#?7ΐ/α/[ωι> στρατεια ? 7repi 
Ααμιαν της [Θεσσαλία? 

συι/τ;τι;χ?7 σ [ 6ι/ ω? σννερ 
25 γο? τωί Αημο[σθενει ων 

νπο Αντιπατ[ρον εν τοις 

δέκα ρητορσι [ητηθη και παν ? 

των ατνχησ[ας 

αντος εν Μακ[εδονιαι α 
30 πωλετο Αθη[ναιοι δε πα 

[λ]ίΐ/ τ??!' eX€f0[epiai> ανακο 

μισαμενοι κα[ αν 

[τ]ον ανδριασιν ε[τιμησαν 
> — - 

[περί] Αενκοκ\ομα 

35 Αενκ[οκομ]ας το γε[νος μεν 

ην Κρη[ς] πολεω[ς δε Κνω 

σου μιρ[ακισ]κος [δε ων εν 

πρεπη[ς 



Fr. 9. 

λ]ογος αν[. . . 

[ ] πολιτενσ[α 

[ ]νσι και ϊδι[ω 

[των ον]δενι της ελεν[θε 
5 [ριας . . . •]<ττη ως δε τότε 
[ )ανα 

[ }> 



Fr. 10. 



]εδιδον 
]ανον της 
]s θανών 
5 ]ς πάρα 

]vs ν . [. 



144 



Fr. 12. 



THE OXYRHYNCHUS PAPYRI 

Fr. ii. 

[•] • "?[ 

[nept Αβδηρον 

Α]βδη[ρο? €i> Θ pa ? 

κηι τ[ 

5 €i> Ιω[νιαι 

καμ . [ 

ανα[ 

T P €(f)[ 

γης α[ 

Fr. 13. 



γ€ΐ>€σ[#α]ί απ[ 
«χοίτωι/ 7Γ/οα[ 
ρωτησιν αυτός [ 

7Γ€*[.] . [ 

τω* [.]α#6ίΐ/ [ 

Τ Ρ?Μ? ΧΡ 7 ? "^ 
μαρπν σεσ[ 

ίο [y]ap 0eaaap[ev 
[.]ν προβατο[ 
[έ\ν£αμ€νο[ 
[\]θρον καθη[ 
παι μη σαλ[ 

15 • ντη[ 

ΟύΙ>€[ 

[•Μ 

Fr. 17. 

[•]••[ 
πνλ[ 



]σ€ΐ>ια[ 
]οτατο[ 



Fr. 15. 

]πα[ 
]θον[ 
]γ€το[ 
]αρτ . [ 
]νσιασ[ 
]λωι>[ 

]ΐ>€7Γ€[ 

]κωι ι[ 



Fr. 18. 
σαντ[ 



Fr. 19. 

. ιταν[ 
ων και μ[ 



Fr. 14. 



]νσια[ 
]?«&; . [ 
5 ] • ζσων [ 

Μ 



Fr. 16. 

]•[ 

1 ω Ρ/[ 

]ομ€νο . [ 

>■[ 
5 ]<V[ 

]l/yj/0)[ 

] . ?;σα9 ον[ 
Fr. 30. 



]y€J/o[• 



1800. NEW CLASSICAL FRAGMENTS 



145 



γζΐσ[ 


ματ[ 


νο? τονσ[ 


σ]υμφοραι[ 


eyA[ 


των φ[ 


θ αν t το α[ 


]σ€ί τας δε\ 


. 


5 <M 


5 \.]ησαν [ 


5 ]ev τω ev[ 



Fr. 21. 



Fr. 22. 



Fr. 23. 







]•[•• 


]•[ 




3ί 


πα 


.ραδζ 




]//eucray [ 


] . y &a τωί/ [ 




]α 


και 


ποσι 


eyjerero 


/cai 


ai^f 


€]£υμνησ<:[ 




]?" £ ?ΐ• 


.}το{. 


}λαβων 


<pv 


]τιν[ 










Fr. 24. 




Fr. 25. 


Fr. 26. 


Fr. 27. 






Fr. 28 


]•[ 




W 


]ολ«[ 


37.'λ[ 






Μ 


)υγα{ 




]ΐ7λοΰ_<[ 


Μ 


Μ 






] • <κ 


]ave[ 




ajfflpoojV 


]«λ[ 


3Η 






#4 


Μ 




w 


]τασ[ 


]7Γ€ρ[ 






]ματ[ 


Μ 


5 


Μ 


5 ]σ•σι{ 


r 






5 Μ 



Fr. 29. 



Fr. 30. 



Fr. 31. 



]€ία[ 






]7T6ty . [ 

]αι €αυ[τ 



Fr. 1. 2-26. 'Concerning Sappho. Sappho was a Lesbian by birih, of the city of 
Mitylene, and daughter of Scamandrus, or, as some say, of Scamandronymus. She had 
three brothers, Erigyius, Larichus, and Charaxus, the eldest, who sailed to Egypt and 
associating with one Doricha expended large sums on her ; but Sappho preferred Larichus, 
who was younger. She had a daughter Clei's, so named after her own mother. She has 
been accused by some of immorality and of being a lover of women. In appearance she 
seems to have been insignificant and ugly, being of dark complexion and of very small 
stature ; and the same happens to be true also of . . ., who was undersized . . .' 

4. Μιτ]υλψης : cf. Hdt. ii. 1 35, who calls her brother Charaxus a Mitylenean, Strab. xiii. 
617, &c. According to Suidas and others her birthplace was Eresus. 

5-6. Σκαμάνδρου ', this is known as a Lesbian name (cf. Dion. Hal. ix. 18, Lebas, 

L 



146 THE OXYRHYNCHUS PAPYRI 

Inscr. Gr. 191) but is not attributed to Sappho's father elsewhere. Charaxus is called the 
son of Scamandronymus by Hdt. /. c, and this is one of the several alternatives in Suidas 
to Simon, which he considered correct. 

8. [Ep]t[yvtoi/ : in Suidas s. v. Σαπφώ, where alone this brother is mentioned, the name 
is spelled Έΰρύγιος, and [E]u[p. could equally well be read here, but cf. Arrian iii. 6. 8 
Έρίγυιοχ 6 Ααρίχου, Diod. xvii. 81, 83; moreover in Suidas, I.e., the name of Sappho's 
father was according to some authorities 'Hepiyuor, which is no doubt a corruption 
of Έρίγ. 

Λα]ριχον : cf. Suidas, /. c, Athen. x. 424 f. 

8-9. That Charaxus was the eldest is not elsewhere stated ; Suidas puts the sons in 
the order Larichus, Charaxus, Erigyius. 

10. Αιγνπτον suits the space better than Ναυκραηι/ (Strab. xvii. 808, Athen. 596 b). 

Δωρίχα OCCUrS in 1231. I. II ; cf. Strab. I.e. της εταίρας . . . ην "Σαπφώ μεν . . , καλεί Δωρίχαν 

. . . άλλοι δ' όνομάζονσι 'Ροδώπιν (Άλλοι include Hdt. ii. 135 j cf• Athen. 596 c). 

11. προσο[μ(ΐ)ιλησ]ας, which would be expected, cannot be read, the letter preceding s 
having a vertical stroke consistent with η or t, but neither προσο[μιλητ]ης nor προς ο[μιλια]ις is 
satisfactory with the dative Δωριχαι. Possibly a verb has dropped out, or προσομιλησης may 
have been written in error. 

13. An adjective is evidently missing ; the loss of νέον would be easy between Λαριχον 
and οντά. 

1 5. Κλβιι>: cf. Suid. /. c, who also gives Κλ. as the name of Sappho's mother, 
Sapph. 85. 

16—18. Cf. Suid. /. C. ετάϊραι δε αυτής κα\ φιλαι γεγόνασι γ' . . ., προς ας καϊ διαβολην εσχεν 
αΐσχρας φιλίας. 

19-24. Cf. Max. Tyr. 24. ΙΟ Σαπφώ . . . καίτοι μικράν και μέλαιναν. 

26. Perhaps [Αλκαίο]^ which would give some point to the coincidence, but shortness 
of stature does not seem to be attributed to Alcaeus elsewhere. 

yeyova is probably for γεγονότα, since there is not room for ελαττω[ν γαρ] γεγον(ε). Perhaps 
re stood in the lacuna. 

27. 77 is preceded by the top of a vertical stroke, which would suit ι or ν ; λι may be 
read in place of ν at the end of the line. 

28-35. Probably Sappho is still the subject, for though the columns are long her 
biography would naturally occupy a considerable space and there would hardly have been 
room for another; moreover, the mention of Chamaeleon, whose treatise on Sappho is 
known from Athen. 599 c, suits the view that she is concerned here. 

29-30. Perhaps Πον\τως, since Chamaeleon was a native of Heraclea, but Ποντικός 
would rather be expected, as e. g. Athen. 273 c Χαμ. ό Ποντικός. The doubtful θ in 1. 30 
may equally well be σ. 

33 _ 5• Cf. Suid. S. V. Σαπφώ' έγραψε δε μελών λυρικών βιβλία & . . . καϊ επιγράμματα καϊ 

ελεγεία κα\ Ιάμβους καϊ μονωδίας. The suggested restoration assumes what is quite uncertain, 
that the non-lyrical poems were included in a single book, ω of ελεγειω[ν is very doubtful, 
only a very small vestige remaining which would also suit a, but ελεγεια[κον δε would not fill 
the line, and the epigrams &c. ought not to have been ignored. 

11. 36-46. ' Concerning Simonides. Simonides was a Ceian by birth, of the city of 
Iulis, and son of Leoprepes. He was an avaricious man. Some ascribe to him the invention 
of mnemonics ; and he himself declares this in an epigram. Some say that he further 
invented . . .' 

39. 1. Αεωπρ. 

40. φιλάργυρος : cf. Pindar, Isthm. ii. 6 ά Μοίσα γαρ ου φιλοκερδής κτλ., and Schol. νυν, 



1800. NEW CLASSICAL FRAGMENTS 147 

φησί, μισθού συντάττουσι τους επινικίους πρώτον Σιμωνίδου προκαταρζαμένου . . . ένθεν κα\ Καλλίμαχος, 
oi yap έργάτιν τρέφω την Μοΰσαν, ώς ό ΚεΙος Ύλλίχου νέπους. λέγει δε (SC. ΐΐίνδαρος) ταΰτα προς 
Σιμ., ως φιλάργνρον διασΰρων τον άνδρα, Athen. 656 d όντως ην ως αληθώς κίμβιζ 6 Σιμ. κα\ αισχρο- 
κερδής, ως Χαμαιλέων φησίν, Schol. AristOph. Pax 691, Suid. S. V. Σιμ. &C. 

40—5. Cf. Mami. Par. 54 Σιμ. . . . ό το μνημονικον ευρών, Suid. S. V. Σιμ., κα\ την μνημονικήν 
be τέχνην ευρεν ούτος, Pliny, Η. Ν. VU. 24, &C, and Simonid. Fr. 146 μνήμην δ' οϋτινά φημι 

Σιμωνίδη Ισοφαρίζΐΐν 6γδωκονταζΤ(ΐ παιδί Αεωπρέπεος, which is presumably the epigram 
referred to. 

45 sqq. From the number 24 in 1. 47 it is evident that this passage describes an 
invention concerning the alphabet, which is also attributed to Simonides by Suidas, /. c. 
προσεξεΰρε δέ καΐ τά μακρά τών στοιχείων καΐ διπλά, but the statement in the papyrus does not 
coincide and a suitable restoration remains to be found. At the beginning of 1. 47 either 
κ([ or χ([ may be read, and στοι\χ([ια suggests itself, but δι[πλα στοι\χεια would be too long 
and does not well accord with the rest of the line. The letter before στ is either ο or ω, 
and απ[ may be ay[. 

48. (υ : or σν ; σνσ[τ]ησας is possible. 

Fr. 2. 1-29. That the remains of these lines relate, like 11. 30 sqq., to Aesop is 
uncertain, but is suggested by 1. 18 μν[θ . . . (?) ; αποκρι]ματων has been restored in 1. 21 on 
this hypothesis. 

31. (υωννμ . . is apparently meant, in spite of the unusual diaeresis; the letter after μ 
may be either ο or ω, and the vestige at the end of the line is consistent with ι or v. 

32-63. 'The cause is said to be this : whenever a man comes to offer sacrifice to the 
god the Delphians bringing their knives with them stand round the altar, and when the priest 
has slaughtered and flayed the victim and taken the inwards each of the bystanders cuts off 
whatever portion he can and goes away with it, so that the man who offers the sacrifice 
often goes off with nothing at all. Aesop taunted and mocked at the Delphians for this, 
which enraged the populace and they pelted him with stones and threw him over a cliff. 
Not long after a plague fell upon the city, and w r hen they consulted the oracle the god told 
them that the pestilence would not cease until they propitiated Aesop. So they inclosed 
the place where he fell and set up an altar, and brought sacrifices to him as if he were a hero 
to avert the pestilence.' 

33 sqq. Cf. Schol. AristOph. Vesp. I446 ov φασιν έλθόντα ποτέ us τους Δελφούς άποσκώψαι 
αυτούς, οτι μη Ζγοίΐν γην αφ ης εργαζόμενοι διατρίφοιντο αλλά περιμενοιεν άπο τών θεοΰ θυμιαμάτων 
διαζην. 

38. 1. ιερέως : ιερειου has come in from the next line. 

48-9. According to Aristoph. Vesp. 1446-7 Aesop was accused of having stolen 
a cup, which the Schol. adds they concealed among his belongings, a story also found in 
Heraclid. Pont. Respub. Magn. 2. Plutarch in De sera numinis vind. 556 has a differenc 
version w : hich represents Aesop as coming to Delphi with offerings from Croesus and brings 
in Iadmon, as in Hdt. ii. 134. 

51. κρημνού: the πέτρα Ύάμπ£ΐα according to Plutarch, I.e. 

56. Whether the interlinear insertion here and in 1. 71 is by a different hand is 
uncertain. 

64-74. ' Concerning Thucydides. Thucydides was by birth an Athenian, and the 
son of Olorus; his father is maligned as being a Thracian who migrated to Athens. 
Having literary skill he wrote the history of the war between the Athenians and Pelopon- 
nesians.' 

L 2 



148 THE OXYRHYNCHUS PAPYRI 

67—9. Cf. the anonymous Life Ι θράκιον δε αυτώ το γένος' και γάρ ό πατήρ αιτώ "Ολορος εκ 
Θράκη! είχε τοννομα. 

73• About 7 lines are missing at the foot of the column. 

Fr. 3. 1-9. If these lines relate to Thucydides, Fr. 3. i may be supposed to follow 
immediately Fr. 2. iii. Those two columns cannot be combined into one on account of the 
vestiges in Fr. 2. 75-6, which do not suit the beginnings of Fr. 3. 8-9. Whether the 
historian died abroad or at Athens was disputed. For the tradition of a cenotaph cf. 

MarcellinuS, Vita. ThllC. 31 ϊκριον yap eerl τοΰ τάφου κείσθαι, τον κενοταφίου δε τοΰτο γνώρισμα 

είναι. But according to the same authority, 17 (cf. 32 and 55), the tomb was among the 

Κιμώνια μνήματα προς ταΐς Μελιτίσι πνλαις iv KoiKtj, which does not SUlt the deme-name in 

11. 8-9, and the reference of this passage to Thucydides is therefore very questionable. The 
letter after α in 1. 8 seems to be μ or λ, pointing to Άμαξαντεΰσι, Άλαιεΰσι or \\λωπεκεΰσι : 
Αλιμουντι (Thucydides' deme) can certainly not be read. In 1. 6 αυτο]υ επι της Αττ[ικης 
suggests itself, and Αττ[ικης is not inconsistent with the scanty remains. In 1. 7 atoi or λιοι is 
more suitable than voi. 

10-39. ' Concerning Demosthenes. Demosthenes the orator was an Athenian by 
birth, the son of Demosthenes, and of the Paeaniean deme. When quite a child he was 
left by his father under the guardianship of Onetor and Aphobus ; and when he came of age 
he displayed his skill in speaking by bringing his guardians to trial on account of the money 
belonging to him which they had appropriated. Coming forward to the tribune (he 
acquitted himself) excellently . . . and when he had taken some of the poison he im- 
mediately breathed his last, having maintained to the end the claim to freedom. The 
Athenians, when they regained their liberty, honoured him by setting up a bronze statue of 
him in the Ceramicus, and carved on a tablet the following epigram. "Had your strength 
been equal to your will, Demosthenes, the arms of Macedon would never have ruled 
Greece ".' 

17. Ονητορι: this is an error. The guardians were Aphobus, Demophon, and 
Therippides (In Aphob. 4) ; Onetor was a brother-in-law of Aphobus and acted in collusion 
with him against Demosthenes (cf. the C. 0?iet.). 

22. ε\νοσφισ\αυτο '. cf. Plutarch, Dem. 4 τα μεν νοσφισαμένων, τα. δ' άμελησάντων. 

24• παρελθών suits the Space better than αναστας. 

25—6. Cf. Plutarch, X Oraf. Vit. 847 a άποθανείν δ' αΐτον Φιλόχορος μεν φησι φάρμακον 
πιόντα. Σάτυρος δ' ό συγγραφείς τον κάλαμον πεφαρμάχθαι . . . ου γενσάμενον άποθανείν, Ερατοσθένης 
δε . . . περ\ τω βραχίονι κρ'ικον περικείσθαι πεφαρμαγμενον. , . » ol δ" ειπον τοΰ κατά την σφραγίδα 
φαρμάκου γευσάμενον (sc. άποθανείν). 

32—3. Cf. Plutarch. Dem. 30 ό των \\θ. δήμος . . . εϊκόνα τε χαλκήν άνεστησε. According 
to Plutarch, A' Oral. Vit. 847 a, the Statue was πλησίον τοΰ περισχοινίσματος και τοΰ βωμοΰ των 

δώδεκα θεών : Snidas says εν αγορά, αυτόν rather than αυτού is expected. 

34-9• The epigram is quoted also by Plutarch, //. cc, and Suidas, who rightly give "σην 
ρώμην γνώμτ}. Plutarch, Dem. 30, and Suidas say that it was on the base of the statue. 

40—74. ' Concerning Aeschines. Aeschines the orator was an Athenian by birth, the 
son of Atrometus and Glaucothea, and the eldest of the family, his brothers being 
Philochares and Laophobus. At first he was a tragic actor in minor parts, but being 
a naturally clever speaker exchanged the stage for the tribune at Athens. He indicted 
Ctesiphon for unconstitutional action in wrongly crowning Demosthenes with a gold crown 
when the new tragedies were brought out, but failing to get a fifth part of the votes he left 
Athens as an exile. Demosthenes, however, bearing no malice for what had taken place 
and taking heed of the fickleness of fortune sent him a talent of silver for the expenses of 



1800. NEW CLASSICAL FRAGMENTS 149 

his journey ; but he refused it and wept. When he was asked why he wept he said 
" Because I am leaving a city where even enemies are found more sympathetic than friends ". 
He went to Rhodes and kept a school . . .' 

44-5. Aeschines, Fals. Leg. 149, says that Philochares was the eldest. 
46. Λαοφο[|3]ου : 1. Αφοβητον ; cf. Aeschin. /. c. 
56—7. καινοις Tpuycuidois : i. e. at the Dionysia. 

61-73. This story is not mentioned in the biographies of Aeschines, but is given by 
Plutarch, X Orat. Vit. 845 e, though apart from the amount the details are quite different. 

The passage is : — (peiryoiros δ' Αίσχίνον μΐτα την καταδ'ικην, Ίππω κατεδίωζεν αυτόν [SC. Δημοσθένης)' 
τοΰ δ' οίηθεντος αυτόν συλλαμβάνεσθαι και προσπΐσόντος και σν/καλυψαμένου, άναστησας αίτον παρεμυ- 
θησατο κάί τάλαντον eSaxev αργυρίου. 

7 2 ~3• [ e ^P°\ l anc * [Φ ίλω ]" Murray. 

74• Cf. Plutarch, Χ Orat. Vit. 840 d άπάρας els την 'Ρόδον ενταϋθα σχολην καταστησάμενος 
εδίδασκεν . . . σχολην τ e'/cet προσκατελιπε το Ροδιακον διδασκαλεϊον κληθεν. 

76. 'Ροδίου : the story of the reading of the speech against Ctesiphon may well have 
followed here ; cf. e. g. Plutarch, I. c. 

Frs. 6 + 7. Whether these pieces are from the same column as Frs. 4 + 5 or 
a succeeding one is doubtful ; the dissimilarity 'of the versos rather favours the latter 
alternative. 

1. Possibly Uei]pa[i . ., but the doubtful ρ may be any long letter — υ, ψ, ψ. 

2. συ]ν : the doubtful ν may equally be t. 

5 Sqq. Cf. Aristotle, Ath. Pol. 40. 2 και δοκεΐ τοΰτό re πόλιτΐύσασθαι καλώς Άρ^ίί /os κα\ μίτο. 
ταΰτα γραψάμενος το ψήφισμα το Θρασυβούλου παρανόμων, ev ώ μίτιδίδου της πολιτείας πασι τοις ίκ 
Πίΐραύως συγκαηλθονσι, ων evioi φανερώς ήσαν δοϋλοι. A comparison of that passage Suggests 

that δοϋλοι were mentioned in the lacuna preceding 1. 2 αυτωι ano Φυλής, and that αυτοις or 
πασιν should be restored in 1. 7 ; but 11. 11-15 are more difficult. 

10. There is not room in the lacuna for μετισχον : a slightly shorter supplement than 
that suggested would be preferable. 

11. νας is preceded by the base of a vertical stroke (η or t). 

12-14. The position of the small detached fragment containing the letters V (λη[ and 
]ηριο[ with vestiges of a third line is made practically certain by the similarity of the fibres of 
the papyrus. In 1. 12 the η is quite uncertain, and e.g. eXey[ei/] would be possible. In 
1. 14 the vestige of the first letter suits ι and the following have rounded tops like σσ, 

σι, ΟΓ (σ. 

Fr. 8. ii. 20-33. The references in this passage indicate that the subject is 
Hyperides, who took an active part in the Lamian war (1. 23 ; cf. Plutarch, X Orat. Vit. 
849 f, Phocion 23), was one of the orators whose surrender was demanded by Antipater 
after the battle of Crannon (1. 26), and according to some accounts was put to death in 

Macedonia (1. 29 ; cf. Plutarch, X Orat. Vit. 849 b "Ερμιππος Be φησιν αυτόν γλωττοτομηθηναι et's• 
Μακεδονίαν ϊλθόντα). 

2 2-3• For the loose reference to Lamia cf. e.g. Pausan. vii. 10. 4 «rel 8e τ6 iv Ααμία 

πταίσμα eyevero. 

26-7. That the surrender of as many as ten orators was demanded by Antipater is 
apparently novel ; that was the number, according to some authorities, asked for ten years 
before by Alexander (cf. Plutarch, Demosih. 23, Diod. xvii. 15), and possibly the two 
occasions are here confused. 

30-3. Cf. Fr. 3. 29-31. Perhaps κα[λλιστοις in 1. 32. 



i5o THE OXYRHYNCHUS PAPYRI 

34-8. ' Concerning Leucocomas. Leucocomas was a Cretan by birth, of the city of 
Cnosos. Being a comely youth (he was beloved by Promachus . . .).' 

34 sqq. The story of Leucocomas and Promachus is known only from Conon 16. 

The passage is : τα περ\ Προμάχου καϊ Αευκοκόμα των Τνωσσ'ιων . . . διέξεισιν' ως ήρα ΤΙρόμαχος 
νεανίου κάλου του Αευκοκόμα' ως άθλα αΰτω μεγάλα προϋτεινε και κινδύνων μεστά' ως πάντα ΰπίστη 
Πρόμαχος ελπίδι του τυχεΊν' ως δε ουχ ούτω τυγχάνει, καϊ άντιλυπεϊ Αευκοκόμαν το τελευταϊον των 
άθλων (κράνος δ' ην περιβόητον) εν ετερω καλώ νεαν'ια όρώντος περιθε\ς του Αευκοκόμα' κα\ ως ουκ 
ενεγκων την ζηλοτυπ'ιαν ξίφει εαυτόν διεχρησατο. 

Fr. 9. This fragment resembles in appearance Frs. 6-8, and the contents are 
somewhat analogous ; Fr. 10 is also rather similar. 

Fr. 11. 3 sqq. No other name than Α]βδη[ρος seems at all likely, especially as it is clear 
from Fr. 8. ii. 34 sqq. that this collection of biographies included mythical persons. For 
Abderus cf. Steph. Byz. s. v. "Αβδηρα, Apollodor. ii. 5. 8, 841. II. 1-2, n. He is said to have 
been loved by Heracles, who founded Abdera in his honour after he had been killed by the 
horses of the Thracian king Diomedes. 

4. κηι : or ληι, but θρα\κηι suits the context. 

5. For Ιω\νιαι cf. 841. II. 1—3 [Natojof θρονίας'Άβδηρε . . . [σ€#]ίν Ίάονι τόνδε λαω \παι]άνα 
[δι]ώ|ω and the Schol. άποικοι yap είσιν οι Άβδηρ'ιται ^Ύη'ιων, Τέως] δ' εστί της Ιωνίας πόλις. 

Fr. 18. This small piece possibly formed part of a third column of Fr. 3, the point of 
junction being opposite 11. 37-9 ; but the combination is unconvincing. 

Fr. 20. 4. δε : the ε has been converted from a straight stroke (t or η). 

Fr. 21. 2. ? δη]μευσας was probably the end of the line, as is indicated by the diminution 
in size of the three last letters, as well as by a short blank space after φυ in 1. 4. 

Fr. 30. 2. ] . ν seems to have ended the line. 



1801, Glossary. 

13 χ io-6 cm. First century. 

This and the three following texts form a group of fragments of glossaries, 
still something of a novelty in papyri, and are an interesting sample of the work of 
early lexicographers. 1801 is the most ancient of the group, being written in 
a small semicursive hand which is rather similar to that of 1087 (Part VIII, 
Plate 4) ascribed to the latter part of the first century B. c. One of the early 
characteristics shared by 1801 with 1087 is a tendency to link letters at the top, 
e.g. 7Γ and the uncial form of κ; in 1801 £ is similarly linked, which is unusual. 
On the other hand the y-shaped η, commonly regarded as characteristic of the 
Roman period, occurs in an abbreviation in 1. 46, while the general aspect of the 
hand is less archaic than that of 1087 ; a date about the middle of the first 
century A. D. seems, on the whole, most likely. Paragraphi are used to mark off 
the various notes, and the words to be explained project slightly into the left 



180]. NEW CLASSICAL FRAGMENTS 151 

margin, and are also followed by short blank spaces ; similar spaces are used to 
indicate a pause in the body of the note, and in one instance (1. 21) an oblique 
dash fulfils the same purpose. 

Parts of two columns are preserved, broken at the top and bottom, as well 
as down the outside of each. An index to the original length of the lines is, 
however, afforded by 11. 21-2, on the basis of which the extent of the initial 
lacunae in Col. i has been roughly estimated in the printed text. As for Col. ii, 
the break from 1. 32 to 1. 58 is nearly vertical, and if the length of lines is taken 
at about 30 letters, the loss in the central part of the column will be about 
10 letters, the number slightly increasing above and diminishing below on account 
of the slope of the column to the right ; but the loss cannot be accurately gauged, 
since in texts of this kind no great care was taken to keep the ends of lines even, 
and Col. i shows that 1801 was no exception in this regard. 

Both columns relate to rarer words beginning with the letter B, and the 
alphabetical arrangement may have been strictly observed up to the second 
letter, but certainly did not extend to the third, e. g. βξβυσμένον follows βέλος. 
All the words, so far as identified, appear in Hesychius, except one, which is in 
Suidas. But the treatment is fuller than in Hesychius, especially in the wealth 
of citation, to which there is more approximation in the Etymologicum Magnum 
(cf. 11. 21-7 n.), a feature which would have made this glossary, had much of it 
been preserved, peculiarly valuable. Most of the citations are from Comedy or 
Satyric drama, the authors quoted including Eupolis, Cratinus, Hermippus, 
Aristophanes, Alexis, and Sophocles. The only prose writer whose name occurs 
is the historian Phylarchus (1. 44). This glossary thus seems to have followed 
lines similar to those of the Συναγωγή of Artemidorus (cf. Schol. Aristoph. Vesp- 
1 169, &c), though whether it was confined to the Comedians and Satyric 
dramatists can hardly be determined from the present specimen. That this is 
actually a fragment of the work of Artemidorus is hardly likely ; the makers of 
Lexica were many (cf. Susemihl, Alex. Lit.-Gesch. ii, pp. 185 sqq.), and very 
little is known about them. 

On the verso of the papyrus are remains of two columns, written in a small 
upright hand dating perhaps from about the end of the first century or the 
beginning of the second, from a treatise on grammar. In Col. ii, after referring 
to the declension [Α]ρακωνος Αρακωνι (cf. Choerob. In Theod. Can. p. 79, Gaisf.), 
a new section begins 12 Eiept be τον αστήρ βατηρ κ[αι των ομοι 13 ων επιλαμβάνεται 

Κ[ 14 λίγων μη εσταναι [τον τοντων αριθ 15 μον μηbe ΰυνασθαι τ[ 

1G της (η Corr.) αναλογίας Κλλην[ισμον ? ουκ ορ 1Ί θως εττεώη τα όμοια ον[τα ο 

18 μοιως σχηματίζεται [ούτω γαρ αν 19 λεγοιτο ττρωτον μεν οτι . . . 



152 THE OXYRHYNCHUS PAPYRI 

Col. i. 

[ te« • [ 

[ )«» i 

[ ]υτον λ[ 

[ ] Τ€τταρα[. . .]τα ι 

5 [ ] . ωλιβαμ . [•]κεντ[.] 

[ ] 
[βίΐρακζς i]epanes αι γλαυκές) πάρα 

[ } 

[β ]«y και στρατον π[•] . 

ίο [ 4θφοκ]λης 8e ev ^αλ[μ]ω[ν€ΐ] 

[ ] . προστασιμον της 

[ ] σνμπ . . . . ν πα[.] 

[ ] • [•]?? λ0 • [ 

[ ] 

15 [β ] κολ Ενπολις ev 

[ ](~ α * 0VTL πον π °λ 

[λ ] ev ϋατυροις αλλ όταν 

[ ]s σαψ ίστ€ και σοφοις 

[ ] . exavov αρσ€μονον 

2θ [ ]at 

[β€λ€κο$ Αριστοφάνη]? ev Πολνιδωι / και 
[των fieXeKcov Xey]ei Se irepi αυτών 

[ ? λογον] τούτον eaTiv 

[ ]...[. .]ey πάρα τοις την 

25 [ ] • [• ω 0"]""*Ρ ° πίσο? και λα 

[θνρος όμοιος ? ]ι κριωπωι το μeye 

[θος 15 letters β€λ*]κον καλονσιν 

[ ].[••■• 



Col. ϋ. 



[ > ι?[ 

3° [ Μ 



1801. NEW CLASSICAL FRAGMENTS 153 

[ ] • 7*λω[ 

[ ]ντο? e[i\? την γνα\θον ? 

[ ]. τα . [.}μενου[.] εχο . [ 

[ λα ι και τον Κρατι[νον εν Θραιτται? 

35 [ ] • • διλογχον θεον ην . [ ' 

[ Ιψν"β[• • -) - [•1 ί7Γ€ /° • [ 

[...]. ον ποδηρη . ομικα . [ 

€.[..]. [,]ραντινα . ei και φ[ 

α[. • . .]? ω βέλτιστε πειστε[ον 

4θ β[εμβιξ ] περιστρ[ο]φη Αρ[ιστοφανη? ? . . 

. [. . . .]0ωι/ €Ι/ί ?['] δε σ Χνμ[ 

Βελ[βιν]α κώμη τ[η? Αα]κων[ικη? 

[...]. στις ακριδασ[.]ρ[.] . ατρα[ 

και Φυλαρχο? εν τηι δ [ 

45 [Β]ερεσχετοι ανοητο[ι) ττεπ[λασται παρ Αριστοφ(ανεή 
βέλο? Αριστοφάνη^?) εν Αχαρ[νευσι ..... 



παρην λέγειν ζγχο? δι . Γ 

βεβυσμ[ε]νον πλήρες τηι [ 

γη βεβνσμενη Αριστοφ[ανη? εν . . . 
βθ Βεργαιο? Αλεξι? εν Ησιον[ηι 

€στι και κομπασματα . [ 

Βεργαιον αποδειξειν νθλο[ν 

αυτοί σκοπείτε νυν εγω δ[ 

vos yap ω? πεπαικεν ει? τ[ 

55 €στιν δ η Βεργη τη? Θρα[ικη? 

Βελλερον τον Βελλεροφοντ[ην 

βερβινιων Ερμιππο? εν ^{τρατιωται? ? 

ων τα? ληκύθου? κατη[ 

> 

βηρηκε? Αριστοφαν[η{?)] [εν 

6ο [ ] βηρη[κ •] φυρα[ματα 



154 THE OXYRHYNCHUS PAPYRI 

Fr. 
61 ] ft, .]r[ 



4• There seems to have been no other letter in front of the doubtful t, which might 
also be a dash like that in 1. 21. 

7. Cf. Hesych. βείρακες• iepaices. It is not possible to read η or και before γλαυκή), 
though one of those words should perhaps be restored, ο could well be read in place of at 
but would be unintelligible. The similar gloss of Hesychius βάραξ• Ίίραξ παρά. Αίβνσι 
suggests that Αίβνσι may be the name in the lacuna after πάρα ; but the name may also have 
been that of the author who used the form. 

10. Σαλ[/ι]ω[ι>«] is consistent with the remains, which do not suit Σατνροις (cf. 1. 17). 

11. προστασιμον is apparently novel. 
13. ov : perhaps σω. 

1 6. ]μα? οντι: ΟΓ ]μα σον τι. 

ig. The first letter may be e. g. β, δ, p. Neither αρσε for αρσαι nor ap σε is attractive 
in this context, 

2I—7. Cf. Etym. Magn. βελεκκοι' όσπρια' και τών βελίκκων, 'Αριστοφάνης, Hesych. βίλεκος' 

οσπριόν τι εμφ^ρές λαθύρω μέγεθος ερεβίνθον έχον. The papyrus, besides giving the name of 
the play of Aristophanes, confirms the view of earlier editors that κα\ των was part of the 
citation; Kock prints βελεκκων only (Fr. 755). Lines 23 sqq. are an excerpt from a prose 
writer who described the βελεκος. κριωπός from κριός (vetch) is unattested. 

34 SCjCj. Cf. Hesych. S. V. δίλογχον, την Βενδϊν οντω Κρατίνο: iv θράτταις εκάλεσεν, ητοιδτι δύο 
τιμάς εκληρώσατο, ονραν'ιαν re καΐ χθον'ιαν . . . η οτι δύο ~λόγχας φέρει κτλ. From this it IS plain 

that 11. 34-5 at any rate are part of a note on Βεοδί?, of whom Hesych. says s. v., 17 "Αρτεμις, 
θρακιστί• πάρα δε Άθηναίοις ίορτη RevoiSeia. How many of the preceding lines were included 
in the note (to which the small fragment, 11. 61-3, perhaps belongs) is, however, uncertain, 
nor is it clear whether 11. 36-9 are all part of the same excerpt from Cratinus. ]ψην in 
1. 36 is possibly τ\μψ (cf. Hesych. δύο τιμάς). In 1. 37 κωμικαι[ is apparently not to be 
read, unless ω was here written differently from those elsewhere. In 1. 38 τινασ\σ\ΐΐ is 
not impossible. 

40. Cf. Hesych. βίμβιξ . . . δίνη. If, however, ap[ is Αριστοφάνης, as is natural to 
suppose, the name of the play seems to have been omitted, contrary to the compiler's usual 
practice, βεμβικες eyjy[e vetr\6m> ( Vesp. 1 5 30) suggests itself, and might not be too long if 
Αριστοφ{ανης) were written ; π«|ρ[ί ορνϊψων (Λζ>. 146 1) is a not very satisfactory alternative. 

42. Cf. Hesych. BeX/3<W κώμη Αακωνικη. 

43~4• This seems to be a separate gloss, but it remains obscure. Phylarchus was the 
author of a history of Pyrrhus and other works. 

45. 1. [Β]ερεσχε#οι. Cf. Schol. Aristoph. Eq. 635 Β. δε ol ανόητοι' πίπΚασται δε η λίξις, 

and the similar note in Suidas. 
46-7. Ach. 345. 

48-9. Cf. Hesych. βφνσμίνον' πλήρες. Suidas Cites Aristoph. Ach. 463, but γη (πνγη ?) 

βφνσμίνη is from a non-extant play. 



1801. NEW CLASSICAL FRAGMENTS 155 

50-5. Antiphanes of Berga was a byword for his mendacity, and hence B fpya los 
acquired a similar connotation ; cf. e. g. Strabo ii. 100 ™ Se ΒεργαΊον διήγημα τούτο iv πίστεως 
μέρα. τιθΐίς. Steph. Byz. says that a verb βεργαΐζειν was also coined. 

55• Be Pyn' so Strabo vii. 331, Steph. Byz. ; Βέργα Ptol. iii. 13, &c. 

56. Cf. Eustath. 632. 8 iv be ρητορικω Αεξικω εύρψαι και Βίλλερος λεγόμενος, Hesych. 
Βελλερος• ΰπο Βελλεροφόντου κτανθείς. η ό Βελλεροφόντης. 

57~8. Cf. Hesych. βερβίνια' ξύλα καθηλωμένα, εξ ων τας ληκύθους εκρέμων. The Στρατιώται 

is the only known play of Hermippus beginning with Σ. As to the following words, the 
restoration depends on whether they are taken as a quotation (e. g. βερβινάων τας λ. κατΛγαγον) 
or as explanatory (e. g. ξύλα εξ | ων, on the lines of Hesych.). 

59-60. Cf. Hesych. βηρηκες' μάζαι ορθα'ι. οί δε άπλως μάζας. άλλοι μάζας άνωθεν κέρατα 
έχουσας, and βάραξ' . . . κα\ φύραμα στρογγύλον αφ* ου α'ι μαζαι, Eustath. 1414• 2 9• 

62. Possibly Βεφδο^, in which case the fragment would come from the neighbourhood 
of 11. 34-5. 

1802. Glossary. 

Fr • 3 M-3 X 34-3 cm • Late second or early 

third century. 

The following fragments of an alphabetical glossary are on the verso 
of 1798, a historical work on Alexander the Great. They are written for the 
most part in an irregular but clear simicursive of medium size, but in two or 
three fragments the hand is markedly smaller (cf. n. on Fr. 6) and in a couple of 
others (Frs* 7-8) it becomes more cursive, ν at the end of a line is sometimes 
written as a horizontal stroke above the preceding vowel, but otherwise there is 
no abbreviation. As in 1801, the several glosses project into the left margin by 
the width of three or four letters, and are also followed by a blank space ; but no 
points or paragraphi are used. The text on the recto is assigned to the middle 
or latter part of the second century, and that on the verso may date from the end 
of the same century or the beginning of the third. Some rather unintelligent 
mistakes, which have been left uncorrected, are noticeable (11. 49, 61, 63). 

As explained in the introd. to 1798, the two texts proceed in opposite 
directions and the glossary did not occupy the entire roll, many of the minor 
fragments of 1798 being blank on the verso. Since those fragments, so fat- 
as their contents are recognizable, are not separated from the rest by any wide 
interval, and the remains of the lexicon, which was on a considerable scale, include 
words beginning with κ to μ, the copy of this seems not to have been finished. 
Fr. 3 is the only substantial piece, containing the upper portions of three con- 
secutive columns, the two latter of which are sufficiently well preserved to give 
some idea of the scope and method of the compiler, at whose identity it is hardly 
worth while to guess. His alphabetical arrangement is more strict than that of 
1801 or of ancient lexica generally, and is indeed remarkably correct, so far as 
it can be followed. He confines himself to uncommon words, or words used in 



i 5 6 THE OXYRHYNCHUS PAPYRI 

an uncommon sense. Besides Greek local peculiarities, several terms from 
non-Hellenic speech are included — Persian (Fr. 3. 45, 64, Fr. 6. 13), Lydian 
(Fr. 3. 46), Chaldaean (Fr. 3. 63, 6j, 72, Fr. 6. 6), Albanian (Fr. 3. 65) ; in the 
last instance the authority quoted is a work in two or more books on Έ,ίνη φωνή, 
by a certain Heraclides. The writer's interest in foreign countries is further 
shown by references to e.g. writers on Scythia (Fr. 3. 1), Asia (Fr. 3. io, 17), and 
Babylon (Fr. 3. 67, 72), to Glaucus on the region West of the Euxine (Fr. 3. 36), 
to Andron on ' the war with the barbarians ' (Fr. 3. 46). In contrast with 1801, 
most at any rate of the authorities cited are prose works, and are often com- 
paratively obscure. Sometimes a considerable excerpt is given (Fr. 3. 29-35 
37-42), but more commonly only a brief mention is made of author and work. 
How far these references can be trusted is somewhat problematical ; in the two 
that occur to an extant book, it is incorrectly cited (Fr. 3. 50, 57). In one place 
epigraphic evidence is appealed to (Fr. 3. 54-6). 

Of the words and uses reported in this papyrus about one half are not found 
in the existing lexica, but a large proportion of the novelties are non-Hellenic. 
Several terms are otherwise known only from Hesychius, whose evidence is 
generally less explicit ; it is noticeable that in one instance where both cite 
an authority, this is not the same (Fr. 3. 58-9, n.). A striking coincidence of 
phraseology between the papyrus and the Etymologicum Magnum and Zonaras 
occurs in Fr. 3. 40-1, and no doubt the passage there cited is their common 
ultimate source. The parallel with Photius noted in Fr. 3. 61, n. is hardly less 
close ; evidently such glosses often underwent little variation in their descent 
from one compiler to another. 

Fr. 1. Fr. 2. 

Col. i. Col. ii. 



4 








] . ν «[. . . 




[ 








? φί]λοποΐΊα[. . . 


• 


4 








]" 


λα[ 


5 [ 








e]f πολξίτεια 


t 


4 


5 






joy Αντηνωρ 


λα[ 


4 








} 


<5 [ 


[ 








3 


λα[ 


4 




ei/ 


τη 


Θ€ττ]α\ων 7roAeiTet a 


λα[ 


° [ 








3«ί*[ 


. 



1802. NEW CLASSICAL FRAGMENTS 



*57 



10 



π 
Μ 



Fr. 3. Col. i. 



Mapyiavoi ? εν\ γ Χκυ\θικ\ων 

]νων αρχη[. .] . ητρ[.] 
]α ποιουντε[ς ε\νθουσια 



ίο 



]ιλοι Α ντικλε[ιδη]ς 
Ασκλ]ηπιαδης εν [.] επιγ[ρ]α 

} 
]οικουσιν Ηρακ[λειδη]ς 

] 
κα\τα Ασιαν α 

] 
ep υ]πομνημασϊ 

] ο Ιτυκαιος 



'5 ] 

] 

] εν τω περί του κατά Ασι 



■παρ ετ]εροις Μαρδοι κ[α]λουνται αν \ 



] ονομασιών 



20 



25 



κη πολειτεια 

ις 

σω ευρυχωρία [. 

δικην ατ[ 



? Πα]ρθοι πρ[.] 
]ισ&€[. . . 



Col. ii. 
[μ]6[λίσσαι ] αι της Αημητ[ρος ιερει]αι η αντη Απολλ[ωνια ?] εν τη α επ[αγου ] 
3θ σαν δε τον καλαθον ταις Νυνφαις συν τω ιστω και τοις εργοις της Hep 

σεφονης α μεν παραγενεσθαι εις Παρόν και ξενιστεισαν πάρα 
τω βασιλει Μελισσω χαρισασθαι ταις τούτου θυγατρασι ουσαις ς£η 
κοντά τον της Φερσεφονης ιστον και πρωταις αυταις αναδουναι 
τα περί αυτήν πάθη τε και μυστήρια όθεν και μέλισσας έκτοτε 
35 κληθηναι τας θεσμοφοριαζουσας {κ\ηθηναι\ γυναίκας 

μελυγιον ποματιον τι Χκυτικον Γλαύκος εν α εξηγησεως τόπων των κει [ 
μένων επ αριστερά του Πόντου μέρη συνκαταθεμ[ε]νων δε των ελα 
των έλυσε τον συλλογον και απολυθέντες εκαστο[ς] επι τα ϊδια παρ 
εσκευαζον το μελυγιον τούτο δε το πομα μεθυσκει μάλλον του 
4θ οίνου γεινεται δε εψομενου του μέλιτος μεθ ϋδατος και βοτα 

νη[ς] τίνος εμβαλλομενης φέρει γαρ αυτών η χωρά πολύ το με 



158 THE OXYRHYNCHUS PAPYRI 

λι ετι δε και το ζντος ο ποιονσιν εκ της κεγχρον 
μελωδία η τραγωδία το παλαιοί/ ελεγετο ως Καλλίμαχος εν νπο 

μνημασιν 

45 μενεμανι το ύδωρ πάρα τοις Περσαις Ζεινων ε[ν ] . ων 

μερμναδαι οι τριορχοι πάρα Ανδοις Ανδρών ε[ν . τον Πόλε 

μον τον προς τον ς βαρβ«.ρονς 

μεροπες οι άφρονες νπο Ενβοεων Διοννσιος εν [ 

μερον είδος ορνεον όπερ αντεκτρεφει τονς κ[ 

5ο Αριστοτέλης ev η περί των εν τοις ζωοις μοριω[ν 
μεσοτελεστον το ημιτελεστον Αιτωλονς . [ 

[ ]μασιν 

[ ]ί5?[' • •Μ •]$όισα . [ 

Col. iii. 
[Μ]?7[τί? ] η Αθήνα και εν τω ναω της Χαλκ[ιοικον Αακεδαιμονι ? 
55 ψ» εστί μεικρον Αθηναδιον και επιγε[γραφθαι φασιν αντω ? 

την Μητιν 
μητραι είδος μελισσών Αριστοτέλης εν η περ[ι των ev τοις ζωοις μοριώ 
μητραι εν Ταρσω και 2ολοις τας δβλτονς εν αις αν[αγραφονσι ? τας 

οικίας μήτρας προσαγορενεσθαι α . . και δημ[ Αριστοτε 

6ο λης εν τη Πόλεων πολειτεια 

μιεστηρ ο ειδως εαντον μη καθαρον αιματο[ς και ελθων ινα μη 
δει και μιαινων Αντοκλειδης εν τω επιγρα[μματι ? 

μιθοργ γένος τι αρχονιας πάρα Χαλδαιοις περ[ 

Μίθρας ο Προμηθενς κατά δ αλλονς ο ήλιος πάρα Περσ[αις 

65 μΐ-ληχ γενειον νπο Αλβανιων των ομορονντω[ν 

ως Ηρακλείδης εν α αενης φωνής 
μινοδολοεσσα αριθμών σννταξις πάρα Χαλδαιο[ις . , . . εν - των 

κατά Β αβνλωνα 
Μινναι ον μόνον Ορχομενιοι άλλα και οι Μαγνη[τες . . . εν τω πε 
7 ο ρι ποταμών 

μινωδες άμπελοι τίνες οντω λέγονται πάρα Ροδ[ιοις .... 

μισαι ο πάρα Χαλδαιοις η των μελλόντων προγνωσι[ς . . . . εν ~ 

των κατά Βαβνλωνα 
Μιτνληναιοι καπηλοι απ[ ] . ως Ηγησανδρος [εν νπομνημασι ? 



1802, NEW CLASSICAL FRAGMENTS 



Σ 59 



75 >.[.•}.• ι μ£ 



22 letters 



] . οριακ[. 



Fr. 4• 

] 

]? £ r e • [ 

]Γ07Γ[ 

]es οι/τ[ 

W< 
5 π€ριστ[ 

π€ρ το[ 

]σ€ΐν τ[ 

] ^ T P9[ 

]α Χι .[ 



ΙΟ 



Fr. 5• 



Fr. 6. 

] του βασιλέως [ 

λ]ογ£κωι> 
] €i/ τω Τρούίκω 
]δρο$ ο Αντωχβνς [ 

] 
] βλ60α[/οα] 7τα/?α Χα[λ 
]ανθισ[. . . •]νπλ[. 
• • ? ΗΦ& 

κατά τ??!* μ[ 

evoi τρο . [ 

09 

αρα Πξρ[σαΐ9 . . . 



ίο 



Fr. ίο. 



Fr. η. 

]•[ 

]•λ[ 

]ό\ί?[ 

ζναισ . [ 
eoLKtv [ 
ois φιλ[ 
υν και[ 
ois λ[ 
λίΐ/ [ 

Μ 



Fr. 8. 

] . . πα\ 



Fr. 9. 



] • «Μ 

?τικ]χονϊ τ€θνρ[ωμ€ΐ/ους ? 



Μ 



Fr. ιι, 



Fr. 2. 5• Anterior may be the historian of Crete referred to e. g. by Plutarch, Mai. 
Herod. 22. 

8. Αριστοκλής «> ? Cf. Fr. 3. 59. Aristotle's treatise on the Thessalian constitution is 
cited by Harpocration s. v. τετραρχία as ή κοινή θίττ. πολ. ; Athen. xi. 499 b omits κοινή. 



τ6ο THE OXYRHYNCHUS PAPYRI 

10. The doubtful r is preceded by a horizontal stroke above the line like those above 
numerals. 

Fr. 3. 1-4. These lines seem to form a connected note on the Μαργιανοί ; cf. 
Strabo xi. 510-1, where the "Αμαρδοι, Μαργιανοί, and Έκύθαι are mentioned in close connexion ; 
possibly Μαργια]νων is to be restored in 1. 2. ενθουσια\ζουσι (?) in 1. 3 suggests that the name 

may have been connected with μάργος ; cf. Hesych. μαρ -ya- μαργαίνει, υβρίζει, ενθουσιά, μαίνεται. 

Several writers of Σκυθικά are known, e. g. Agathon of Samos (Plutarch, Fluv. iv. 5) and 
Ctesippus {op. cit. v. 2). 

5. There is perhaps just room for ΑρηκΚε[ώη]ς, i. e., presumably, the Athenian historian ; 
the preceding word was possibly δ] η λοι. 

6. Which of the various writers named Asclepiades is meant is not clear. A relative 
perhaps followed tv; a numeral and επιγραμμάτων is less likely. 

8. Ηρακ[λ«δ^]ϊ : perhaps the author of the Βένη φωνή mentioned in 1. 66, or e. g. 
Heraclides Lembus, who was probably the compiler of a work on Πολιτείαι (cf. Fr. 2. 4, 8, 
Fr. 3. 21) among other treatises (cf. 1367 int.). 

10. κα]τα λσιαν ; cf. 1. 1 7 ; but the division ] τα Ασιανα is of course possible. 

13. Possibly Διονύσιος] ο Ιτυκαιος, the writer of a 'Ριζοτομικά who is mentioned by 
Steph. Byz. s. v. Ίτΰκη. 

19. ονομασιών may well be part of the title of some treatise. 

27. Πα]ρθοι more probably than ο]οθοι, perhaps. 

29-35. 'μίλισσαι: the priestesses of Demeter. The same Apollonia(?) in -the first 
book (says) : " When bringing to the Nymphs the basket together with the loom and the 
work of Persephone she first went to Paros, and having been entertained in the palace of 
the king Melissus she presented to his daughters, who were 60 in number, the loom of 
Persephone, and delivered first to them her sufferings and mysteries ; whence the women 
who took part in the Thesmophoria were thereafter called Melissae ".' 

1. 29. A spot of ink in the margin is very doubtfully identified as e, but its position 
points to a projecting word, so that a new paragraph is indicated. Cf. Hesych. μελισσαι- αϊ 

της Δημητρος μύστιδες, Porphyr. De antr. Nymph. 18 τάς Δημητρος ίερείας ώς της χθόνιας θεάς 

μυστ'ώας μέλισσας οί παλαιοί εκάλουν, Schol. Pind. Pyth. iv. 106. Though the letters at the 
beginning of the line are mostly broken, the remains well suit the reading adopted, with 
which Απολλ[ωνια] or Απολλ[ωνις] seems unavoidable. 

30. For the κάλαθος cf. e.g. Callim. H. Cer. 1 sqq., 121 sqq., and Schol. H. Cer. 1 

ό Φιλι'ώελφος Πτολεμαίος κατά μίμησιν των Αθηναίων εθη τίνα ΐδρυσεν εν Αλεξάνδρεια, εν οις κα\ την 
τοΰ κάλαθου πρόοδον. εθος yap ην εν Αθήναις εν ώρισμέντ) ήμερα επ\ οχήματος φερεσθαι κάλαθον ες 

τιμήν της Δημητρος. The κάλαθος worn on the head is a common emblem both of Demeter 
and Persephone. References to the ίστός of the latter do not seem to occur. 

rats Νυνφαις: cf. Schol. Pindar, Pyth. iv. 106 on οε κα\ τας περ\ τα ιερά νΰμφας μέλισσας 
ελεγον Μνασέας ό Ώαταρεύς αφηγείται λέγων . . . άνευ γάρ Νυμφών οϋτε Δημητρος 'ιερόν τιμάται . . . 
οϋτε γάμος ουδείς άνευ Νυμφών συντελείται. 

31-2. α = πρώτον. 1. ξενισθεΊσαν. Melissus king of Paros and his 60 daughters are 
apparently not elsewhere mentioned. Paros, however, was prominent in the worship of 
Demeter; cf. e.g. Homer, H. Demet. 491, where Paros is mentioned next to Eleusis, 
Nicanor, ap. Steph. Byz. s. v. "Πάρος, who says that the name Δημητριάς was applied to the 
island, and the statement in Schol. Aristoph. Av. 1764 that Archilochus wrote a hymn to 
Demeter at Paros. According to Pausan. x. 28. 3 the οργιά της Δημητρος were said to have 
been brought to Thasos from Paros ; other references are collected in Pauly-Wissowa, 
Realencycl. iv. 2722-3. 



1802. NEW CLASSICAL FRAGMENTS 161 

34-5. Cf. Pindar, Pyth. iv. 106 μέλισσας Δ^λφίδοί. of the prophetess, and Callim. H. Apoll. 
no Δηοϊ δ' ουκ άπο παντός ύδωρ φορίουσι μέλισσαι. κληθηναι has been inadvertently repeated. 

36-42. ' MeXCyiov : a Scythian beverage. Glaucus in the 1st book of the description 
of places lying towards the left of the Black Sea (says) " when the drivers agreed, he 
dismissed the assembly and dispersing each to his home they prepared the μέλύ-γιον. This 
drink is more intoxicating than wine and is made of honey boiled with water, with the 
addition of a certain herb ; for their country produces much honey and also beer, which 
they make out of millet".' 

Cf. Etym. Magn. μ(λυγ€ΐον' πομάτιον Ί,κυθικόν, -γινόμενον έκ μόνου μέλιτος μεθ' ύδατος, βοτάνης 
τίνος έμβαλλομένης (similarly Zonar. μΐλίγυον πόμα τι Σκ. κτλ.), Hesych. μελίτιον' πόμα τι 
Σκνθικόν μέλιτος έψομένου συν υδατι και πόα. τινί. The Etym. Magn. IS especially close tO the 

papyrus, and the spelling /xeXuy(e)toi> is confirmed as well as πομάτιον, which Dindorf 
wished to emend to πόμα τι from Hesych. ; a more probable alteration would be to write 
έψομένον for έκ μόνου. In 1. 36 1. Έ,κυθικόν. The treatise of Glaucus is unknown and his 
identity doubtful. Of the recorded writers of that name, the author of a work on Arabia 
often referred to by Steph. Byz. appears the most suitable, ελάτης (1. 37) = έλατηρ in Eurip. 
Fr. 773. 28 ποίμνας έλάται ; Έλατ(έ)ων is hardly likely in this context. 

43-4. This is a new piece of information, apparently. The term μελωδία may have 
been applied to tragedy in its germinal dithyrambic stage. 

45. 1. Ζήνων, i. e. not improbably the grammarian of Myndus, who is cited e. g. in 
Etym. Magn. 590. 44 s. v. μορίαν. The vestiges before ων are consistent with e. g. δ, λ, μ, 
but Α(ξ](ων is unsuitable. As for μενεμανι, Mr. R. Levy tells us that maya, the Aramaic word 
for water, was used in Pehlevi, and a reduplicated form of this might produce something 
sufficiently close to the papyrus. Dr. Sayce notes the similarity of amnis. 

46. Cf. Hesych. μίρμνης' τρίορχος. The family name of Gyges was Μςρμνάδαι according 
to Herodotus i. 7. 14. Ανδρών is perhaps more likely to be the historian from Halicarnassus 
than the Alexandrian who wrote Χρονικά (Athen. iv. 184 b), though a work by him with the 
title here given is not elsewhere cited. To read Ανδρωνι[κος for Ανδρον. is possible but not 
attractive. 

48. This sense of μέροπ^ς is not otherwise attested. Among the many writers named 
Dionysius the most suitable in this context seems to be, if not the prolific Διονύσιο? ό θράξ, 
Διονύσιος ό Ίρύφωνος, whose extensive treatise πΐρ\ ονομάτων is cited by Athenaeus, Harpocra- 
tion, and Steph. Byz. 

49-50. 1. pepoyp-. e of 07rep has been corrected from α or o. The word beginning with 
κ should mean • parents ' or something analogous ; κ[ηδεμονας is hardly satisfactory. The 
μίροψ is mentioned by Aristotle in A?i. Hist. ix. 13, p. 615 b 25 φασ\ Seruws τους μ. . . . 

άντ€κτρέφΐσθαι υπό των έκγόνων : cf. Hesych. μέροπες' . . . και opvea τίνα, ως Αριστοτέλης. It IS 

strange that the reference given in 1. 50 is mistaken both as to the treatise and the number 
of the book (there is no eighth book of the De part, anim.) ; cf. 1. 57, n. 

51. μΐσοτέλεστον ι σο is doubtfully read and the σ may be p: also the space between 
the supposed ο and τ is rather wide and another letter may have intervened ; but a compound 
of μέρος does not seem very likely. For μέσο- = ημι- cf. Hesych. μίσύψηρον• ήμίξηρον. A few 
Aetolian forms are given in Hesych., e.g. κίββα, aepla, θιαγόν^ς. 

54. Χαλκ[ιοικου was restored by Lobel, no doubt rightly. The identification of Μί)π? 
and Athena is apparently novel ; Apollodor. i. 3. 6 puts them in the relation of mother and 

daughter. Cf. Hesych. Mijris• σΰν^σις' . . . κα\ η θΐός. 

57• τοι was originally written after ev, i. e. the writer began to write τοις owing to the 
repetition of ev. μητραι σφηκών and άνθρηνων are described by Aristotle in An. Hist. ix. 41, 

Μ 



i62 THE OXYRHYNCHUS PAPYRI 

pp. 627 b-628 a (cf. An. Gen. iii. 10, p. 761 a 6) so that there is the same mistake in the 
citation here as in L 50. Cf. Hesych. μήτρα' είδος σφηκός. 

58—60. Cf. Hesych. μήτρα' . . . και 6 κλήρος υπο Σολεων, ώς Κλείταρχος. In 1. 58 απ[ογραφουσι 

would also be possible, or the letter after a might well be t. In 1. 59 neither as και nor ais 
και suits the remains ; perhaps there was a correction and at και was intended. That Σόλοι 
was included among Aristotle's collection of constitutions was unknown. 

61. μιεστηρ is presumably a copyist's error for μιαστωρ; cf. Photius μιάστωρ• όταν τις 

αυτόν μη καθαρον είδως παρερχηται Ινα μη δε'ι, μεμιασμενος, whence the Supplement in the latter 

part of the line has been derived. The identity of Αύτοκλείδης is doubtful ; he is not likely 
to be the writer of εξηγητικά mentioned by Plutarch, Ntc. 23. 

63. 1. αρμονίας. Hesych. gives several Chaldaean words, but μιθοργ is not one of them. 
It is conjectured by Sayce to be the opening of a Sumerian hymn, possibly = me ta-ra-ga, 
from some Tammuz dirge, as Prof. Langdon suggests. 

64. The equation of Mithras to Prometheus, though not unnatural, is apparently 
unusual. For the latter part of the line cf. Hesych. μίθρας' 6 ήλιος πάρα. Πέρσαις, and the 
similar but longer notes in Suidas and Photius. 

65-6. At the end of the line e. g. τοις Ιβηρσι or Αρμενιοις would be suitable ; cf. Strabo xi, 
p. 501. The work on Ξένη φωνή is apparently not mentioned elsewhere, and with which, 
if any, of the known grammarians named Heraclides the author is to be identified is 
doubtful. 

66—7. Cf. Hesych. μινδαλόεσσας' αριθμός. κα\ τα περ\ ουράνια σννταξις. Βαβυλώνιοι. In 

consideration of this compiler's fondness for giving authority it is preferable to treat κατά 
Βαβυλώνα as part of a title rather than to read e. g. Χαλδακ>[ι? τοις ουσι ; cf. 11. 72-3, where των 
κατά Βαβ. is most easily explained in the same sense and as a citation of the same treatise. 
The writer's name must be as short as possible. 

69. Cf. Hesych. Μινύαι• oi Όρχομίνιοι, κα\ Maywfrcs, As in 1. 67, the name of the author 
cited should be quite short, since the line would really be sufficiently filled with no further 
addition, especially if, as is quite possible, ev τοις stood in the title. There were many 
writers of works on rivers, besides Callimachus; cf. Schneider, Callimachea, ii, p. 326. 

71. Cf. Hesych. μινωα' είδος αμπέλου. 

72. Either ο before πάρα is superfluous or something has dropped out. For the citation 
cf. n. on 11. 66-7. μισαι according to Sayce = Sumerian me-zu, ' to divine '. 

74. The lexica throw no light on this entry, which seems to have no connexion with 

Hesych. μυττιλανός• άπόπληκτος, the latter word being too long for απ[ ] ., as well as 

otherwise incongruous. Ηγησανδρος is presumably Hegesandrus of Delphi, the author of 
a collection of anecdotes called Υπομνήματα, in several books, cited by Hesych. s. v. άπόφαρσις 
and Suidas s. v. αλκυονίδες as well as by Athenaeus. 

Fr. 4. The blank spaces in 11. 7 and 9 indicate that the preceding words were 
γλώσσαι, and 11. 5-6 are no doubt complete at the beginning. The fragment may be from 
the top of a column. 

Fr. 6. The writing in this fragment containing the ends of lines from the top of 
a column, is considerably smaller than in Frs. 2 and 3 ; that of Fr. 9 is similar and so is 
that of Fr. 1 so far as it goes. 

Ι. βασιλέως : ΟΓ βασιν ως ? βασιλικοί ΟΓ -κου is less Suitable. 
6. πάρα Χα\λ\δαιοις : cf. Fr. 3. 63, 72. 

Frs. 7-8. These two fragments are more cursively written than the rest. 

Fr. 9. Cf. n. on Fr. 6. In 1. 1 a narrow letter may be lost between the supposed 
β and p. 

Fr. 11. Either the beginning of a line or of the explanation of a word. 



1803. NEW CLASSICAL FRAGMENTS 163 

1803. Glossary. 

16 χ 29-7 cm. Sixth century. 

This sheet from a papyrus book was probably the uppermost of a quire, 
since the space between the two pages of the recto, down which the binding string 
passed, has an ornamental band of light purple colour, and the string itself, some 
of which still adheres to the sheet, showing the knot, is partially coated with the 
same colour. The style of the rather heavy sloping uncials points to a date in 
the sixth century perhaps rather than the fifth ; the ink is of the brown shade 
characteristic of the Byzantine period. As usual, the words of the glossary, which 
all begin with σ, are made to protrude slightly into the margin ; and the 
conclusion of the notes is marked by paragraphi, accompanied here and there by 
stops in the high or medial position. Quotations are sometimes indicated by the 
angular signs commonly employed for that purpose, but they are often omitted. 
Marks of elision are used, and there is one instance of a rough breathing (1. 42) ; 
all these additions are due to the original scribe, who was apparently a person of 
small intelligence, though he need not of course be the originator of all the 
slips that occur. 

1803 is of a less interesting character than 1801—2 and the purpose suggested 
is rather scholastic than scientific ; citations, however, are commendably frequent 
and from these the papyrus largely derives its value. They are taken either 
from prose (Demosthenes, Thucydides, Xenophon) or Comedy, both Old and 
New, and additions are thus made to the extant fragments of Eupolis Χρυσοΰν 
Vivos, Aristophanes Trjpas, Menander Σνναριστώσαι, Έγχ^ιρίδιον, Φιλάδελφοι, and 
Φανίον ; the poet's name is omitted in the case of the last three of these, but 
there can be little doubt that Menander is meant. The alphabetical arrangement, 
apart from the initial letter, is very negligent. 

Fol. 1 verso. Fol. 1 recto. 

στιφρον ο οι πολλοί στριφνο πολλακεις• 

[>] coy Αριστοφάνη? Γηραι και 2θ awayayeiv το συναθροι 

1 _ σαι και συλλξξαι 8e το αυτό 

[>} μη νποστρ\\ι\\φι>ον σε τη , . « . . 

l j r ι πι ur / τούτο coy €ΐ> Φιλαϋελφοις 

> ώωνην €Υ€ί? και Μζνά « 

τ Λ γωριόιον πριω συνα 

5 > δρος €u Χυναριστωσαις ωσ Δ , 

r r γαγων πανϋ οσα e\eiy 

* [Γ α Τ1 €ί ο-τεφρας €σομ€ΐ>α? - »' ί % 

u. μ rr r~ 2 ζ too ξγω οωσ(ο σχολή 



και veas ταλαντατος 
Χαραπιν οια του α coy ej/ Εγ 



μοι συλλζγξ 



Μ 2 



164 



THE OXYRHYNCHUS PAPYRI 



> χιριδιωι ως σεμνός ο Χαρά 
ίο > πις 6eos' 

συγγιγν€σθαι Xeyerai κατ e 
πζνθεσιν του τ και γιγνω 
σκβιν μαλι]^ον^στα οι πάλαι 
οι αξιουσιν 8e και χωρίς 
ι 5 αυτού 

σημιον γην σφραγίδα και 
σημηνασθαι το σφραγισαι 
ως . [ 



συμφοραν ου μόνον την 
δυστυχιαν άλλα και την 
συντυγίαν ωστ€ και α 

30 γαθων συμφοραν λeγeϊ 
ως ev Ιππ^υσιν επι συ μ 
φοραις αγαθαισιν €ΐσηγ 
γξλμ€ναις evayyeXeia 
θυξίν 

35 συνξθιζβσθαι δια του ϊ και 



Fol. 2 recto. 

ωργωι ως σχολή πορΐυ 

€ται ουτοσι 
σιτον και την τροφην απλώς 

ως Έζνοφων ev β Ανα 
4θ βάσεως το £e στρατού 

μα €ποριζ(το σιτον όπως 

e[[.]]oWaro €κ των it 

ποζυγιων κόπτοντας 

βους και όνους και τον 
45 καρπον ομοίως ως Δη 

μοσθβνης ev τω κατά 

Διονυσοδωρου• πάλιν 

καπηλΐυων και συνι 

στας [τ]ας τιμα[ς] του σίτου 
50 και τον αρτον αυτόν σίτο 

καλουσιν ως Έζνοφων 

ev τη Αν[α}βασι . [ 



Fol. 2 verso. 
των επιτηδιων ως ταχι 
στα βουλομ€νους διακιν 

55 Svveveiv 

σαβυττους κούρας ξίδος τι 
Ευπολις ev Χρυσω Tevei 
και κάρα. . . ης ως μ' ηλθξς 
^ξ^ί^υρημζνος σαβυττους 

6ο σιωπησομαι αντί του σιω 
πησω και σιωπήσει και 
σιωπησζται ως ev τω πε 
ρι του στέφανου καγω στ€ρ 

ω 

ζω και σιωπησ]Χο~Πμαι και 
6 ζ Μένανδρος ev Φανιωι 

σιωπησι πάλιν ev τω ^e 
pel κατά τ[α]υτα 5e και α 
κουσομαι και ακουσ€ΐ και 
ακουσ€ται και πηδησομαι 



I. Cf. Moeris, ρ. 34 2 οτιφρον Άττικώς' στριφρον "Έλλψίς. ο after στιφρον, if 

correct, = δ. 

2-4- The line from the rfjpas cannotbe correct as quoted, but is easily emended, e. g. 



1803. NEW CLASSICAL FRAGMENTS 165 

και μη(ν) υπόστιφρον συ . . . or υπόστιφρον σε . . . εχειν. In place of υπόστιφρον {άπαξ. εϊρημ.Υ 

which is obviously to be read, the copyist lapsed into the non-Attic υποστριφνον, but after 
noticing the error unintelligently made only a partial correction; there is no form 

στιρφνός. 

5-7. 1. στιφρας. If the a at the beginning of 1. 6 has been correctly cancelled by the 
copyist, something has dropped out either before or after στιφρας. The final s of εσομενας 
was converted from t. 

8. Instances of the shortening of the second a in Σάραπις are found only in Latin 
(e. g. Prudent. Adv. Symm. ii. 531). The Έγχειρίδων is no doubt that of Menander, who 
was the last author to be mentioned. 

II— 15. Cf. e.g. Heraclid. ap. Eustath. 1722. 55 ot μεν παλαιοί i» δυσϊ γάμμα εχρώντο, 
γίγνομαι λέγοντες. 

12. 1. γ for ΐ: the converse error occurs in 1. 16. 

13. t of μάλιστα is written through λ, i. e. μάλλον was first written. 

16—18. 1. την. Cf. PhotlUS σημεων' την σφραγίδα' κα\ σημαίνεσθαι' το σφραγίζεσβαι, 
Hesych. σημΰον' τέρας, η σφραγίς, and σημήνασθαι' σφραγίσασθαι, Harpocrat. σημεία' ούτω λεγουσι 
τάς σφραγίδας. Δημοσθένης εν τω προς Φαίνιππον. In 1. 1 8 ως is followed by what seems tO be 

the top of a vertical stroke, so that neither Α[ριστοφανης (cf. Eq. 952) nor Α[ημοσθενης i s 
probable. 

19. πολλακεις: et has been converted from ισ. 

22. Φιλαδελφοις: of Menander presumably. 

23-6. Two iambic verses apparently, but the first ι of χωρίδιον should be short and τό 
is likely to have preceded. 

27—9. Cf. Suidas συμφορά' των μέσων εστί . . . δηλοΐ δε η συμφορά και τό καλόν καϊ το κακόν, 
διό λέγει επ\ σνμφορα'ισιν άγαθα'ις (AristOph. Eq. 655 J cf. 11. 3I-2), Eustath. 647. 28, Hesych. 
συμφορά' συντυχία. σΰμπτωτα. ατυχία. In 1. 29 1• αγαθην. 

31-4 = Eq. 655-6. The papyrus supports the usual reading εϊσηγγελμεναις. R omits 

εισ, whence Cobet proposed αγαθάϊσι τοις ήγγελμ. 

35• Perhaps και \ χωρίς αυτού, as in 11. 14-15. δια του I presumably refers to the spelling 
είθίζειν, which is used meiri graiia, e.g. in Pythag. Carm. aur. 35, but there seems to be 
no instance of συνειθ. apart from augmented forms. 

36-7. This is no doubt part of a note on σχολή in the sense of βραδέως or ουδαμώς. 

Cf. Suidas σχολή y αν άντ\ του οϋδ' όλως, βραδέως, ουδαμώς. 1. Τε\ωργωι, i. e. most probably the 

play of Menander; cf. 11. 8, 22, nn. 

38 Sqq. Cf. Harpocrat., and Suid. σίτος' πάς δ σιτικός καρπός, ουχ ό πυρός μόνον' και αυτά 

τά σιτία, Hesych. σίτος- τροφή. The references in 11. 39 an d 45~7 are to Xen. Anab. ii. 1.6 
and Dem. In Dionysod. 7. In 1. 41 the papyrus correctly agrees with the ' deteriores ' 
against CBAE in omitting κα\ πότον after σιτον. In 1. 52 the reference may be to 
Anab. v. 4. 29 and σ[ιτω can be read ; but Αι{α]/3ασι is not very satisfactory, though τη, which 
seems to be right, points to that work or the Cyrop., which is irreconcilable with the remains, 
τη αυτή being also unsuitable. 

53—5 = Thucyd. VU. 60 δίά τήν των επιτηδείων σπάνιν ως τάχιστα κτλ., cited ΠΟ doubt in 

illustration of the word σπάνις. Cf. Photius and Suidas σπάνις• ένδεια. Either σπάνιν 
preceded των ίπιτ. in the papyrus, or it was omitted. 

56—9. Cf. Hesych. σάβυττος' είδος ξυρήσεως εϊς καλλωπισμόν' πότερον δε τοΰ πώγωνος η της 
κεφαλής, άδηλον' τίνες δε τό γυναικεϊον. PhotlUS gives the latter meaning only to σάβυττος and 

spells the equivalent of ξυρήσεως είδος, σαβύττης, but Hesych. is confirmed by the papyrus. 
11. 58-9 look like a pair of trochaic acatalectic dimeters (cf. e.g. Aristoph. Av. 1478-80), 
but if so, there is apparently some corruption in 1. 58, where, though it would be easy 
to write ως (#)/*, the preceding word remains a difficulty. The doubtful κ after και can. be 



i66 THE OXYRHYNCHUS PAPYRI 

χ or ζ ; ησ is probable, but o>s very uncertain. There is a reference to a icovpeCs in an already 
extant fragment of the Xp. Γίν. (Kock 278). 

61. σιώπησα: e has been converted from t. 

62-4. De Cor. 112. 1. σιωπησομαι, as originally written. 

65. Φανιωι : the papyrus confirms the spelling of this title, as to which there has been 
some doubt. 

66. ev τω is very uncertain, but consistent with the meagre vestiges. 



1804. Ae£eis 'Ρητορικαί. 
Fr. 4 i6-6xi3-4cm. Third century. 

Fragments of a roll containing an alphabetical series of oratorical terms with 
notes thereon, the pieces preserved dealing with words which begin with the 
letters Π, Ρ, Σ, They are written in well-formed sloping uncials of medium size, 
in style recalling P. Rylands 57 (Vol. i, Plate 10), though perhaps of a somewhat 
later date. An angular sign, the angle pointing to the left instead of, as usual, 
to the right, is used to fill up short lines. As in 1801-2, the terms to be 
explained are given prominence by a slight protrusion into the margin and by the 
short blank spaces which follow them. A second hand, using ink of a different 
shade, has introduced one or two alterations. 

Many of the words included in this glossary occur also in Harpocration, but 
its relations to that standard authority are less close than to the Ae£eis 'Ρητορι,καί 
Seguerianae edited by Bekker in Anecd. i, pp. 197-318. This affinity is evident 
not only in the substance of the glosses but also in their order, e. g. the four 
terms in Frs. 1 + a. i ΤΙυθαιός (?), προστρόπαως, ■πζρίστατοι and πορέιον follow the 
same sequence in Anecd. pp. 295-6, though separated there by a few 
additional words ; similarly in Anecd. pp. 299, 300, ρητορική γραφή, ρωττος, βυτήρ, 
and σκζιραφύα, συμμορία, συμμορίτης, σύμβολου are successive, corresponding to 
Frs. 3 and 4 of 1804 with one additional word in each fragment (Fr. 3. 5-8 [ ? ], 
Fr. 4. 4-6 στρατηγοί). Material similarities are pointed out in the commentary, 
and though such matter is often common to e. g. Photius and the Etymologicum 
Magnum, the verbal correspondence is generally greatest with the Seguerian 
Ae£«s ; see for instance Fr. 4. 14, n. (on the other hand, for a coincidence with 
Photius, Frs. 1+2. 9-13, n.). Points of difference between the Ae£eiy of the 
papyrus and the Cod. Seg. are the omission in the latter, with a single exception, 
of the series of proper names in Frs. 1 + 2. ii, most of which, on the other hand, 
figure in Harpocration, and the disappearance of citations of authorities, to which 
1804 occasionally refers (Demosthenes Fr. 4. 16, Aeschines Frs. 1 + 2. 9, 
Hyperides Fr. 4. 5, Dinarchus Fr. 3. 7). The relationship is nevertheless 



1804. NEW CLASSICAL FRAGMENTS 167 

distinct enough, and if the papyrus Ae'£eis were not among the more or less im- 
mediate sources of the Seguerian, the two compilations must have had a common 
ancestor. 

Frs. r + 2. Col. i. 

[Πνθαιος ? όνομα ε]ορ[της Αθηνη 

[σιν αγομένης τον Α]πολ[λ]ω[νος .... 

[ ]σα? ev τοις εις ισ . [ 

[ ] οτι Πνθαζις Αθη 

5 [ρ ..]... [ }ι άρματος άστρα < 

[π]τοντος [ ? κοιμίζοντας ΤΙνθα 

€ΐ τας τ[ ]?7^[[e]]iai/ καλονσιν 

. α[.]ταισ . [ ] 

προστροπ[αιος Αι]σχινης ϊρ τωι ire 
10 ρι της πα[ραπρβσβξΐα]ς δαίμων τις € 

πι των α[λιτηριων ? ω]νομασθησαν δξ 

οι μζτα το [σταθηναι τροπαιον] πολεμι 

ους λαβοντ[€ς προστροπαιοι) 
[π]€ριστατοι [ οι π€ριβλεπτο]ι 
15 [nop]eiov [το διδομβνον τοι]ς πρ€[σβυ 

[ται]ς ω[σπ€ρ εφοδιον ].[.... 



Frs. ι + 1. Col. ϋ. 

[•] • ■ [ 

Παμβ[ωταδαι δήμος της Ερεχθηιδος ? 

Παιο[νιδαι ? δήμος της Αεοντιδος ? 
2θ Παιω[νζς ? 

Παλλ[ην€ΐς δήμος της Αντιοχιδος ? 

Π€ργα[ση δήμος της Ερεχθηίδος ? 

Π€ΐρα[ΐ€νς ? λιμην Αθηνησιν ? 

[Π](ριθ[οιδαι δήμος της Οινηιδος ? 
25 [. .]••'[ 



i68 THE OXYRHYNCHUS PAPYRI 

Fr. 3. 
[ρος πραξαντος τι η γραψαντ]ος η ε[ι 
[πόντος τι φαυλον η ην] ηγ[ω]νιζον [ 
[το οι ρήτορες εγρ]αψαντο < 

[ ] 

5 [ρ ...... . ? σημαίνει] μεν τον της πα 

[ ]δας σημαίνει 

[δε ? ]κον Δείναρχος 

[εν τωι κατά Πολνενκτ]ον [δ]ωροδοκιας 

[ρωπος ο παντοδαπος φ]ορτος Δημο< 
ίο [σθενης εν τωι προς τη]ν Φορμίωνος 
[παραγραφην 

[ρυτηρ ο ιμας κυρίως δ]ε αι ηνιαι 



Fr. 4• 

σκει[ραφιον οίκημα τι ? κυψεντικον παρ[α 
ϊε[ρον Αθήνας ε£ω πολε]ως ένθα οι 
κνβε[νται επαιζον 

στρατ[ηγοι] ι η[ο~α]ν ηρ[η]μενοι φυλ[ης 
5 εκασ[τ]ης ά Υπερείδης εν τω κα[τα 
Λυτοκλεονς 

συνμοριαι συνμοριαι ήσαν κξ- ξ [ 
ανδρών ε£ ων ήσαν οι τριηρα[ρ]χ[αι 
σνμμορειτης δε ο της συμμορίας κ[οι 
ίο νωνος και φνλετης και δημότης [ήσαν 
δε τούτων και ηγεμόνες οι παρ αντω[ν 
τα αναλωματα ποιούμενοι ύστερον [δε 
πάρα των αυτών κομιζομενοι 

αι 

σύμβολα σημ^αι^νει και τον λογον τον 
15 δια της φήμης γεινομενον επ[ισημαι 
νει και τα συμβόλαια Δημοσθενη[ς εν 



1804. NEW CLASSICAL FRAGMENTS 



169 



Φιλιππικων ζ συμβολαιον 5[e eiSi 
κω? γραμματαον τι ο βλαμβανβν [των 
δικαστών έκαστος πσίω[ν] e*y τ[ο δι\καστηριον 



Fr.5. 



Fr. 6. 



Fr. 7. 



] 




].cn{ 




Μ 


]λοντο[ 




] . ια &α0[ 




]ί7Γ€/>[ 


π]λινθοις [ 




]? οι δε την . [ 




]ωι> . [ 


] . ιδεσμ[ 




]ei/y απηζι [ 






]βαλλο[ν 


5 


] αποκτ . . [ 


5 


] . τη . [ 

3 • β° • [ 

]σκ€ΐ[ 



Fr. 8. 

Μ 

Η 



Frs. 1 + 2. i. 1-8. Apparently a note on Πνθαέα or an analogous form. Cf. Bekker, 

Anecd. i, p. 295 Πνθαϊος' όνομα εορτής Άθήνησιν αγομένης τοΰ Απόλλωνος, από του ΥΙνθωνος, Etym. 
Magn. 696. 2 2 ΤΙυθαα και ΤΙνθαΐος' όνομα iop -της αγομένης τω Άπολλωνι. HarpOCrat. gives 

a reference for UvOaea to Hyperides προς Άπίλλαΐον. In 1. ι ο of (]ορ[της is very insecure 
and the initial supplement a little short, otherwise the restoration suggested suits well 
enough, and in view of other correspondences with this Anecd. is not improbable. In 1. 5, 
if the word before άρματος was (πι, part of the π should be visible. In 1. 7 the € is blotted 
and seems to have been cancelled. The first letter of 1. 8 was either κ or χ. 

9-13. Cf. Harpocrat. προστρόπαιον Αισχίνης π*ρ\ της πρεσβείας κτλ., PhotlUS προστρόπαιος• 
δαίμων τις ότί των ενάγων (so too Bekker, Anecd. i, p. 296, and Etym. Magn. 700. 10), Orel 6Ί 

μετά το σταθηναι ήδη το τρόπαιον {οί} άναιροΐιντες τίνα των πολεμίων πρόστροποι και ενάγεις εισιν. 

The reference in 1. 9 is to Aesch. Fals. Leg. 158. In 1. 11 α after των is clear, so that 
ενάγων must be replaced by some synonym like άλιτηρίων or ακαθάρτων. In 1. 13 προστροπαιοι 
seems preferable to the πρόστροποι of Photius, which is perhaps an error. The verbal 
correspondence in 1. 12 with Photius makes it preferable to omit ol before άναιροΰντες rather 
than to emend έπε\ oi to επειδή with Naber. 

14. Cf. Bekker, Anecd. i, p. 296 περίστατοι' oi περίβλεπτοι, εφ" οϊς αν τις στα'ιη βονλόμενος 

θεάσθαι and the similar gloss in Etym. Magn. 665. 13. Harpocrat. s. v. refers to Isocrates 

περ\ άντιδ. 269 with the explanation άντ'ι τοΰ περί ας κίικλω ΐστανται οι θεώμενοι. 

15-16. Cf. Bekker, Anecd. i, p. 296, and Etym. Magn. 684. 8 πορείον το διδόμενον τοίς 

πρεσβενταΊς υπέρ (περί Etym. Magn.) τοΰ πορενθήναι εις την πρεσβείαν ωσπερ εφόδων. The 

papyrus apparently had practically the same note, but the vestige of a letter or two at the 
end of the line is too slight to indicate what stood after εφοδιον. 

18. Cf. Harpocrat. Παμβωτάδης• Δημοσθένης εν τω προς Νικόστρατον. Παμβωτάδαι της 
Έρεχθηΐδος δήμος. Either δήμος της Έ,ρεχθ. ΟΓ δημ. των Αθηναίων will Suitably fill the line. 

19. Cf. Harpocrat. ΙΙαιανιείς κα\ Ώαιονίδαι' . . . διαφέρονσι δε οντοι (sc. οί Παιανιεϊς) των 
Ώαιονιδών, ως "Ιστρος εν Άτάκτω ίιποσημαίνει. μνημονεύονσι δε καΐ τούτων οι ρήτορες, ωσπερ και 
Δείναρχος . . . δημυς δέ εστίν οντος της Αεοντίδος . . . 



170 THE OXYRHYNCHUS PAPYRI 

20. παιωνίσας occurs in Dem. De Cor. 287, but in this series of proper names, a mis- 
spelling of Uaioves is perhaps more likely than a derivative of Παιών. The form Ώ,αίωσιν 
occurs in Hesych. s. v. Δίαλος. 

21. Cf. Harpocrat. ΈΙάλληνεύς' Υπερείδης εν rfj υπέρ Χαιρεφιλου απολογία. ΤΙοΧληνη δήμος 
της Αντιοχίδος. το δέ εκ τόπον επίρρημα Δείναρχος εν τω κατά Στεφάνου Ώ,αλλήνηθέν φησιν, ό δέ 
δημότης ΏαΧληνεύς. 

22. Cf. Harpocrat. Ώ,εργασήθεν' Ισαίος εν τω κατά θουτίμου. Ώεργασή δήμος της Έρεχθηΐδος' 
τον μεντοι δημότην δίχως λέγεσθαί φασι } Ώ,εργασέα τε κα\ Ώ,εργασήθεν. 

23. Ίίειραιεύς' λιμην Άθηντ/σιν is a gloss in Bekker, Anecd. i, p. 288. 

24. Cf. Harpocrat. Περι^οΐδαι" Δημοσθένης εν τω προς Ώολυκλέα. δήμος εστί της Οινηιδος. 

Fr. 3. 1-4. These lines are evidently part of a note on ρητορική γραφή, beginning 
probably in the last line of the preceding column ([ρητορική γραφή η κατά ρητό]) for which 
cf. e. g. Harpocrat., who after referring to Isaeus' speech against Euclides says : coikc 

ρητορική γραφή καλεϊσθαι ή κατά. ρήτορας γράψαντός τι η εϊπόντος η πράξαντος παράνομον . . . ίσως δε 
και . . . οτι κατά διαφόρους νόμους αι κατά των ρητόρων γραφα) εισάγονται, ως Αντιφών . . . ΰποση- 
μαίνει, PhotlUS 'Ρητ. γραφή' ην ήγωνίζοντο ο'ι ρήτορες' ου γάρ πάσας ήγωνίζοντο τάς δίκας το παλαιον 
οι ρήτορες, αλλ' ένίας' άλλοι δε ρητορικήν γραφήν είναι λεγουσι την κατά ρήτορας γινομενην, γράψαντός 
τι η ειπόντος ή πράξαντος παράνομον, Bekker, Anecd. i, p. 299 'Ρητ. γραφήν και ρητορικήν γραψάμενος' 
ην ο'ι ρήτορες ήγωνίζοντο γραφόμενοι ρήτορας ( ) εϊποϋσί τι ή πράξασι φανλον. The papyrus 

was evidently close to Photius and Bekker, Anecd., but put the alternative explanations in 
the reverse order. 

5-8. This gloss, for the form of which cf. Fr. 4. 14-15, remains unidentified. The 

speech of Dinarchus κατά Πολύευκτου δωροδοκίας is cited e. g. by Harpocrat. S. V. δώρων γραφή. 
It is identified with the κατά Π. εκφυλλοφορηθεντος ενδειξις. 

g. Cf. Bekker, Anecd. i, p. 299 ρωπος' ό παιτοδαπ-όί φόρτος, Photius ρωπος' μίγματα . . . 
τίνες δε και τον παντοδαπόν φόρτον ρώπον είρήκασιν, Etym. Magn. 377• 3° s • ν • Eppflwrtfofid», ρωπος 

γάρ ό ποικίλος κα\ λεπτός φόρτος {ποικίλος also Ael. Dionys. ap. Eustath. 927, but this would not 
fill the lacuna so well). For 11. 10-1 1 cf. e. g. Harpocrat. s. v. επιθετους ίορτάς, Δημ. εν τω νπερ 
Χρυσίππου προς τήν Φ. π. ; the reference is to the C. Phorm. 9. 

12. Cf. Bekker, Anecd. i, p. 299 βυτήρ τί εστίν ό Ίμάς. κυρίως δέ τά ηνία κτλ., Photius 
ρντήρ' απλώς μέν ό Ιμάς, κυρίως δε ηνία κτλ. The supplement printed hardly fills the lacuna, 
but there is not room for απλώς μεν : perhaps ρυτηρες οι ιμάντες was written. 

Fr. 4. 1—3. Cf. Bekker, Anecd. i, p. 300 σκειραφεια' σκειραφείά εστί τά κυβεία, ήτοι επε\ 
σκείραφός τις eVrif όργανον κυβευτικόν, . . . ή οτι εν τω της Σκειράδος Αθηνάς Ίερω οι κυβευταϊ επαιζον, 

εξω τής πόλεως οντι. Photius and Etym. Magn. 717. 27 have similar notes but omit εξω . . . 
οντι. Harpocrat. citing Dinarchus, In Proxen. says σκιράφια ίλεγον τά κυβευτήρια, επειδή 

διετριβον εν Έ,κίρω οι κυβεύοντες, ως θεόπομπος εν τη ν* ΰποσημαίνει. The gloSS in the papyrus 

seems to have lost in clearness owing to compression. 

4—6. Cf. Harpocrat. στρατηγοί' . . . οι καθ' εκαστον ενιαυτόν χειροτονούμενοι στρατηγό) ι ήσαν, 
ώς μαθείν εστίν εκ τε των Υπερείδου κατ Αυτοκλεους . . . The Vestiges in the middle of 1. 4 are 

very scanty but so far as they go suit the letters suggested. 

7—I3. Cf. Harpocrat. συμμορία' . . . ό γοϋν Δημοσθένης εν τω περί τών συμμοριών φησι, περί 
των χιλίων κα\ διακοσίων ανδρών λέγων τών πλουσιωτάτων, " εκ τούτων τοίνυν οιμαι δεΐν ποιήσαι 
συμμορίας κ', ωσπερ νυν είσί, σώματα ζ εκάστην εχουσαν . Υπερείδης δε εν τω προς Ώολνευκτόν 
φησιν " curt γάρ εν Tjj συμμορία εκάστη ιε' άνδρες "... συμμορ'ιται δε εισιν ο'ι της αυτής αυτοίς 
μετέχοντες συμμορίας, ως εν τω αντω λόγω Υπερείδης δείκννσι, Bekker, Anecd. i, p. 300 συμμορία τί 
corf τά συντάγματα τών πλουσίων τών επιτηδείων προς τριηραρχίας. είσι δέ χίλιοι διακόσιοι. 

συμμορίτης' σημαίνει ( ). The ήγεμών συμμορίας (11. ιι— 1 3) is treated separately by 

Harpocrat. and defined as ό προέχων τω πλοΰτω «u δια τοΰτο τών άλλων ήγεμονεΰειν επεΐλημμένος, 



1804. NEW CLASSICAL FRAGMENTS 171 

ως υποφαίνμ Υπερείδης iv τω κατά Πολϋεύκτου. The financial responsibility described by the 
papyrus is apparently not elsewhere stated. At the end of 1. 7 κς, which is clear, is an 
error for κ (cf. e. g. Dem. De Symm. 1 7), perhaps arising from the ambiguity of an original 
είκοσι εξ (ξηκοντα, where εξ should have been read as εξ not εξ. The ξ is very uncertain, 
but the scanty remains are sufficiently suitable. In 1. 11 παρ αντων may be interpreted παρ 
αυτών, but more probably παρ is a mistake for imcp, or υπέρ by a common misspelling 
became οιπερ and then οι παρ. 

14. Cf. Bekker, Anecd. i, p. 300 σΰμβολον' σημαίνει μεν τα σημεία, σημαίνει δε και τα 
συμβόλαια και τα γραμματεία, ειδικώς δε το σΰμβολον δηλοΐ γραμματεΐόν τι, 6 ελάμβανε των δικαστών 
έκαστος εϊσιων εϊς το δικαστήριον, ο εστί πινάκων. PhotlUS, Etym. Magn., and Suidas give the 
Second sentence in the form σύμβολον b ελάμβαναν οι δικασται εις το δικαστήριον εισιόντες, είτα 

τοΰτο δόντες τ6 δικαστικον εκομίζοντο. Harpocration agrees with the papyrus in referring to the 
seventh Philippic but is otherwise dissimilar. 

Fr. 5. π]λινθοις in 1. 2 suggests that this may be part of a note on πλινθεΐον, a word 
which occurs a little above Πυθαιός (cf. Frs. 1 + 2. i. 1-8 n.) in Bekker, Anecd. i, p. 295 
πλινθεΐον το πλίνθου ργεϊον, οπού πλίνθοι γίνονται ; cf. Harpocrat. πλινθεΐον ό τόπος εν ω πλίνθος 
πλάττεται' Αυσίας iv τω κατά Αυσίθεου. If so, the fragment would probably belong to the 
upper part of Frs. 1 + 2. i. 

Fr. 6. 4. There is an appearance of a colon just in front of ε of απηει, but this may be 
due to a correction, e. g. perhaps the scribe began to write ατιηλ(θε). 

5• At the end of this line the second hand has made an alteration, and it is not clear 
what was originally written or what was intended to stand. 

Fr. 7. That this fragment comes from the ends of lines is indicated both by 1. 6, where 
there is a narrow margin after the remains of the final letter, and in 1. 8 by the lengthening 
of the cross-bar of the supposed ε, which might also be read as the dash used for filling 
a short line. 

6. Probably poi or ρος (προς ?). 



172 THE OXYRHYNCHUS PAPYRI 



III. EXTANT CLASSICAL AUTHORS. 



1805. Sophocles, Trachiniae. 

Fr. 15 10x9-6 cm. Late second century. 

These scattered fragments from a roll of the Trachiniae are in a medium- 
sized hand of the common sloping type, of which it is a fair specimen, though 
less regular than e. g. 1800. Some annotations in cursive point to a date in the 
latter part of the second century rather than the beginning of the third. Stops 
in all three positions occur, and accents, breathings, and marks of elision and 
quantity have been introduced not infrequently, some at any rate of these being 
no doubt subsequent additions, due probably to the corrector whose hand is to 
be distinguished here and there. 

Textually these fragments are, in the main, conservative. A few new 
readings occur, including one or two which are definite improvements, e. g. 
1. 1 136, where a generally accepted correction is confirmed. For one of the 
unknown variants the authority of, probably, Aristophanes of Byzantium is 
cited. On the other hand, the papyrus apparently agrees with the MSS. in 
a passage requiring alteration on metrical grounds, and occasionally offers 
evidence which is inferior to theirs. In supplementing lacunae, Jebb's text has 
been followed, of course with no implication that the papyrus necessarily agreed 
with it. 

Possibly further additions may eventually be made to the remains of 
this MS., the script of which is with difficulty distinguished from that of numerous 
other fragments which accompanied them. 

Fr. 1. 

[Βρακών ελικτος αλλοτ ανδρειω τύ\π[ω 
[βονκρανος e/c Se δασκιον γ€ν€ΐαδ]ος 
[κρουνοί Suppouvovro κρηναιου πό\του 
1 5 [τοιονδ €γω μνηστήρα προσδ€θ€γμ]ε[νη 
[δνστηνος act κατθανειν €ΐτ€νχομ\ηρ [ 



1805. EXTANT CLASSICAL AUTHORS 173 

[πριν τησδε κοίτης εμπελασθην]αί π\οτε 
[χρονω δε εν υστερώ μεν ασμενη] δε μ[οί 
[ο κλεινός ήλθε Ζηνος Αλκμη]νης τ[ε παις 
20 [ος εις αγώνα τωδε συμπεσων μ]ανης [ 
[εκλύεται με και τρόπον μεν αν π]ονω[ν 



Fr. 2. 

37 [εν]τα[υθα δη μάλιστα ταρβησασ εχω 
[εξ ο]υ γαρ ε[κτα κείνος Ιφιτου βιαν 
[ημε]ις μ[εν εν Τραχινι τηδ ανάστατοι 



Fr. 3. 

275 [ο των απάντων Ζευς πατήρ Ολυ]μπι•ων[• 
[πρατον νιν εξεπεμψε]ν• ουδ ηνεσχετ[ο 
[οθουνεκ αυτόν μουνον] ανθρώπων δο[λω 
[εκτεινεν ει γαρ εμφανές] ημόνατο 
[Ζευς ταν συνεγνω ξυν] δίκη χειρ[ο]υμενω [ 

28ο [υβριν γαρ ου στεργουσιν ουδέ δ]αιμονε[ς 
[κείνοι δ υπερχλιοντες ε]κ [γ]λωσσης κα[κης 
[αυτοί μεν Αιδου πάντες] εισι οικητορες 
[πολις δε δούλη τασδε δ ασπε]ρ εΙσορα[ς 



Fr. 4. 

[φρονεί νιν ως ηξοντα τούτο] γαρ λο[γ]ου 
290 [πολλού καλώς λεχθέντος ηδισ]τον κλυειν 
[ανασσα νυν σοι τερψις εμφαν]ης κυρε[ι] 
[των μεν παρόντων τα δε π]επυσμ[ενη λόγω 



174 THE OXYRHYNCHUS PAPYRI 

Ft. 5. 

301 [at πριν με]ν ησα[ν εξ ελευθέρων ίσως 
[ανδρών τα]νΰν 5[e δουλον ισχουσιν βιον 
[ω Ζευ τροπαιε] μ[ηποτ εισιδοιμι σε 



Frs. 6-10. 

αγο]οα συν€^[ηκουον 

λ€ΐ]|ΐωνι ταυτ[ο 

αγο]ραι νοησαι, [Set, το ίπι X_ji[iu>vos [άθροισμα ? 

360 [τη]ν παιδα [δούναι] κρυφών ως €χο[ι λεχος 
[εγ]κλημα [μικρόν] αιτιαν θ* ετο[ιμασας 
[επι]στρατε[υει πατριδ]α την ταυ[της εν η 
[το]ν Ευρντο[ν τονδ είπε] δεσποζ[ειν θρόνων 
[κτε]ινει[^ν~^ τ [ανακτά πατερ]α τησδ[ε και πολιν 

365 [επε]ρσε• κ[αι νυν ως οράς ηκει δόμους 
5 lines lost 

370 [δεσποι]ν α τουδ\ε τυγχάνω μαθών πάρα 
[και ταυ]τα πολλ[οι προς μέση Τραχινιων 
[αγορά] συνε£η[κου]ον ωσα[υτως εμοι 
[ωστ ε£]ελεγχειν [ει δ]ε μη λεγ[ω φίλα 
[ουχ ηδ]ομαΐ' το δ [ορθ]ον ζ£ε[ιρηχ όμως 

375 [οψοι τ]αλαινα [πο]υ ποτ ειμ[ι πράγματος 
[τιν εισ]δεδεγμα[ι π]ημονη[ν υποστεγον 

• [λαθρα]ιον• ω δυ[στηνος α]ρ' α[νωνυμος 
[πεφυ]κεν ωσπ[ερ ουπαγ]ω[ν διωμνυτο 
[η καρτ]α λαμπρ[α και κατ όνομα και φυσιν 

380 [πατρο]ς μεν ούσα [γενεσιν Ευρυτου ποτέ 
[Ιόλη κα]λειτθ' της εκειν[ος ουδαμα 
[βλαστας] εφωνει δήθεν [ουδέν ιστορων 
[ολοίντο] μή τι πάντες ο[ι κακοί τα δε 
[λαθραι ο]ς άσκε[ι μ]η πρεπ[ονθ αυτω κακά 

385 [τι χρη ποε]ιν γ[υ]ναικες ω[ς εγω λογοις 



1805. EXTANT CLASSICAL AUTHORS 175 

[τοις νυν π]α[ρουσ]ιν €κπ[επληγμ€νη κυρω 
[πευθου μολονσα τα]νδρο[ς ως ταχ αν σαφή 



Fr. 11. 

532 [ταις αιχμαλω]τοις [παισιν ως επ ίξοδω 
[τημος θυραι]ος ηλ[θον ως υμάς λάθρα 
[τα μεν φρασο]νσα χ[ερσιν ατεγνησαμην 

535 [ τα & οια ττασ"χ]ω [συν κατοικτιου μένη 



Frs. 12, 13. 

576 [της Ηράκλειας ώστε μ]ητιν ει[σιδων 

[στερξει γυναίκα κει]νος αν[τι σου πλέον 
[τουτ εννοησασ ω φιλ]α[ι δομοις γαρ ην 

ι 

[κείνου θανόντος εγκε]κλημε[νον καλώς 
580 [χιτώνα τονδ έβαψα 7τ]ροσβαλ[ουσ οσα 
[ζων κείνος είπε και] πεπειρ[ανται τάδε 



Fr. 14. 

602 όπως φερη[ς μοι τονδε ταναυφη πεπλον 
δώρημ* εκκινώ τανδρι της εμης \*ρος 
διδους δε τ[ονδε φραζ όπως μηδεις βροτωι 

605 κείνου παρ[οιθεν αμφιδυσεται χροι 

μη[δ]ε ο[ψεται νιν μήτε φέγγος ήλιου 



Fr. 15 Col. i. 



176 THE OXYRHYNCHUS PAPYRI 

|f θ 

744 [πως ειπας ω παι του παρ ανθ ρωπων] Νπαρων ανβρωιτου]] 

[[Αρ^στοφανηβ ])]] 
] 

3 

Ί 
ι 
ι 

ι 

ι 

Fr. 16. 
763 [και πρώτα] μεν [δείλαιος ίλεω φρενι 

α 

[κοσμώ τε] γαι[ρων και στολή κατηυ-χετο 



Fr. 15 Col. ii. 
[κ]ομη δε λ[ευκον μυελον εκραινει μέσου 

[κ]ράτος διασπαρεντος [αίματος θ ομού 

δ 
άπας ανευφημησεν ο[ιμωγη λεως 

του μεν νοσουντος• το[υ δε διαπεπραγμένου 

785 κουδεις ετολμα τάνδ\ρος αντιον μολειν 

[εσ]πατο γαρ πεδονδ\ε] κα[ι μεταρσιος 

[βο]ων ϊυζων αμφι [δ ε]κτ[υπουν πετραι 

Αοκρων ορειοι πρω[ν]ες Ε[υβοιας τ ακραι 

επει δ απειπε πολλά με[ν ταλας γθονι 

790 ρίπτων εαυτόν πολλά δ [οιμωγή βοών 

το δύσπάρευνον λεκτρον [ενδατουμενος 

σου της ταλαινης. και τον [Οινεως γαμον 

α ι 

οιον καταστησαιτο λυμ[αντην βίου 
τότ εκ προσεδρου λιγνυος δ[ιαστροφον 
795 οφθαλμον αράς εΐδε μ εν [πολλω στρατω 
δακρυροονντα• και με πρ[οσβλεψας καλεί 
ω παι προσελ[θε]' μη φυγη[ς τουμον κακόν 



1805. EXTANT CLASSICAL AUTHORS 177 

Fr. 17. 

851 [μοίρα προ]φαι[ν€ΐ δολιαν 
[και μ€γα]λαν [αταν 
[βρρωγεν] παγα. [δακρύων κεχυται ? 
[νόσο? ?] ω ποπ[οι οίον αναρσιων 
[ονπω αγα]κλε[ιτον 

Fr. 18. 

[τι δ ω γεραια κ]αινο[ποιηθζν Xeyeis 
[βζβηκβ Αηι]αν€ΐρ[α την πανυστατην 
875 [οδών απασω]ν e£ ακ[ινητου ποδός 
[ου δη ποθ ω? θα]νον[σα 
[παντ ακηκοας] 
[τίθνηκ€ν η τα]λαι[να 

Fr. 19. 

[ω παι γβνου μοι παις €τ]ητυ[μος γζγως 
1065 [και μη το μητρός ονο]μα πρέσβευσης πλέον 

[δος μοι γεροιν σαιν αυ]τος e£ ο[ικου λαβών 

[ες χβί/)α την τ€Κονσα]ν ω? ειδω [σαφα 

[ει τονμον αλγεις μαλλο]ν η κε[ινης ορών 

[λωβητον είδος εν δίκη] κακου[μενον 
1070 [ιθ ω τ€κνον τολμησον οικ]τει[ρον τε με 

[πολλοισιν οικτρον οστι]ς ώστε [παρθένος 

[βεβρυγα κλαίων και τοδ ον]δ αν [εις ποτέ 

[τονδ άνδρα φαιή προσθ ϊ\δε[ιν δεδρακοτα 

Frs. 20, 21. 

[προς τον τέρας τοι δια κακω\ν εθεσπ[ισας 

Ν 



178 THE OXYRHYNCHUS PAPYRI 

[αντη προς αυτής ουδε]νος προς εκτο[που 

[οιμοι πριν ως χρην σφ ε]ξ εμης θανε[ιν χ^ρος 

[καν σου στραφειη θυμός ? ει]ς το παν μαθ[οις 

11 35 [δεινού λογού κατηρ£α]ς• είπε δ η νοε[ις 
[άπαν το χρημ ημαρτε] χρηστά μωμ[ενη 
[χρηστ ω κάκιστε πατερ]α σον κτεινασ[α δρα 
[στεργημα γαρ δοκουσα π]ροσβαλειν σε[θεν 
[απημπλαχ ως προσει]δε τους €νδ[ον γάμους 

1 140 [και τις τοσούτος φ]αρμακευς Τραχινι[ων 

€ 

[Νέσσος πάλαι Κεν]ταυρ[ο]ς [. ξεπεισε νιν 
[τοιωδε φιλτρω τον σον εκμηναι ποθον] 
[ιου ιου δυστηνος οιχομαι τα]λας• 
[ολωλ ολωλα φέγγος ουκετ ε]στι μο[ι 
1 1 45 [οιμοι φρονώ δη συμφοράς] ιν εστα[μεν 
[ιθ ω τεκνον πατήρ γαρ ου]κε[τ εστί σοι 
[καλεί το παν μοι σπέρμα σ]ων [ομαιμονων 



Fr. 22. 

[ταχειαν ω παι προσθες ως π]ριν εμ[πεσειν 
[σπαραγμον η τιν οιστρον ε]ς πύρα[ν με θης 
Ι2 55 [ α Ύ εγκονειτ αιρεσθε παύλα τ]οι κακ[ων 
[αυτή τελευτη τούδε τ ανδρός] υστα[τη 
[αλλ ουδέν ειργει σοι τελειουσθ]αι τα[δε 



Fr. 23. 

[τω τηνδ ατην υπεχον]τι 
1275 [λειπου μηδέ συ] παρθε[ν επ οίκων 

[μεγάλους μεν ιδο]υσα [νέους θανάτους 



1805. EXTANT CLASSICAL AUTHORS 179 

Fr. 24. 
2 οφ[οκλ€ονς 
[Τραχινιαϊ] 

12. Unfortunately it is not clear whether the papyrus agreed with the MSS. in having 
τνπω(ι) βονκρανος, or supported Strabo's nurse βαύπρωρος, which is generally preferred. On 
the whole τυ]π[ω seems a more satisfactory reading than κυΓτά, 

17. Bergk wished to reject this line. 

275. Apparently ολυμπίων was originally written, but a dot between t and ω and 
a vestige of ink above the line point to the insertion of -os as an alternative. The genitive 
would spoil the line. 

278. ημννατο \ SO L &C. ; ημΰιχτο Β. 

28ι. κ of e]< is directly above the first ι of «σι in 1. 282, so that with νπΐρχλιοντΐς 
(L first hand and lemma of Schol.) the number of letters in the respective lacunae coincides. 
But νπΐρχλώωντίϊ (L corr. ι A &c.) cannot be excluded. 

292. Since the initial lacuna is of the same length as in the three preceding lines, 
it is likely enough that the papyrus agreed with LA in reading των 8e. 

Frs. 6-10. The cursive note at the top of this column refers to 1. 372, and evidently 
explains the apparent inconsistency of αγορά here with h βονθ(ρύ λειμώνι in 1. 188, the 
inconsistency vanishing if αγορά is taken in the sense of assembly or gathering ; cf. Schol. 
αγορά' άθροίσματι. The reading suggested in the latter part of the third line is, however, 
highly doubtful, the μ being rather cramped and the s very insecure, λωι> or των is 
possible. 

360. (χο\ί : so edd. with Α; '4χη (from e'x«) L. 

362-4. These verses have been much suspected, some critics bracketing 11. 362-3, 

Others 1. 362 την ταύτη! 1. 364 πάτερα, 

364. The superfluous ν (due to the preceding infin. no doubt) has been crossed through, 
perhaps by a later hand. 

370. α : ο MSS., which is required by the preceding τό πάν. 

372. Cf. η. on Frs. 6-10 above. 

379. Whether the papyrus had κάρτα or και τα cannot be determined. 

534. So far as considerations of space are concerned, there is nothing to choose between 

φραζονσα (L) and φρασονσα (A). 

576. μ)ητιν : η suits the remains, which are inconsistent with ov. 

579. ΐγκ(]κληιμ([νον : a better spelling than that of L (-κλ«μ-) or Α (-κλ«σμ-), and already 
restored by Dindorf. The ι was probably added by a corrector, but the colour of the ink 
is indistinguishable. 

602. Opposite this line on the edge of the papyrus, at a distance of 6 cm., are the tips 
of two horizontal strokes, one 3 cm. above the other. They may either come from 
a marginal note referring to the previous column, or perhaps be the remains of a 
stichometrical figure, i. e. ζ, standing for 600 ; such figures are not always quite accurately 
placed. 

744. πάρων, which was inadvertently written originally, has been amended to μαθών by 
the second hand, which also inserted in the margin the (unknown) v. 1. άνθρωπου, attributing 
it to Ap( ), who is more probably Aristophanes than Aristarchus ; cf. 1174. vi. 5, where 
Ap( ) seems to be used side by side with Aptv( ) as an abbreviation of Αριστοφάνης. 
Subsequently the pen was drawn through this marginal note and also, rather unaccountably, 

Ν 2 



ιδο THE OXYRHYNCHUS PAPYRI 

through the final word of the line. Possibly ανθρώπων was similarly cancelled and άνθρωπου 
μαθών rewritten above. 

764. Why α was written again above the line is not evident, the original letter being 
sufficiently well formed. 

781. [<]ομη : κόμης MSS., a reading retained by Jebb but often suspected, κόρσης, 
κόγχης, κοπή, 0oXfj have been conjectured in its place, κόμη is unacceptable, but the papyrus 
reading might be used as an argument in favour of a dative like Hense's κοπή. 

783. αν(νφημησ€ν : this reading had been restored by Brunck from Hesych. s. v. 

άνενφημήσίΐ and IS also in Schol. Eurip. Tro. 573. avev φωνής € ν L, άν€νφώνησ€ν ΟΓ άνΐφωνησΐν 

other MSS. 

788. Jebb following Porson accepts τ after Αοκρών from Diog. Laert. x. 137, where 
11. 787-8 are quoted with several other variations from the MSS. reading, which the papyrus 
supports. 

790. ρίπτων: cf. 1. 780; ρίπτων MSS. 

793. The alternative reading otav implies the corresponding v. 1. λνμαντιν later in the 
verse ; olov . . . λυμαντψ only MSS. 

796. δακρυροονντα : analogous spellings are not infrequent in the papyri. 

852-4. Unfortunately the papyrus brings no light here. In 1. 854 the MSS. reading 
ονπω άγάκλατον suits the space. What stood in the lacuna at the beginning of 1. 853 is more 
doubtful, κίχνται νόσος, if that was read, must have been divided between 11. 852—3, and 
κεχυται would fill the space better than νόσος, but there is no evidence for that order. 

1071. ωστ€•. L mistakenly has ωστις. 

1 134. το is preceded by something that looks like σ surmounted by a rather thick dot; 
perhaps et? was inadvertently written and the superfluous ς subsequently cancelled; or the 
dot might be explained as a high stop after θνμο]ς, a being omitted. 

1 1 35. A spot of ink on the edge of a hole above η may represent a rough breathing or 
circumflex accent, but since there are other ink-marks above vo, they are all best regarded 
as accidental. 

1 136. μωμ[ςνη confirms the correction of Heath, which according to Subkoff was the 
reading of L 2 ; μνωμίνη LA &c. 

1 138. The Stop after π]ροσβαλειν shows that σί.θζν was constructed with άπήμπλακε 

instead of with στίργημα. 

1 141. Some other letter than e was originally written before ξ; that the alteration was 
made by the first hand is possible, but uncertain. 

1254. nvpa\y : the accent is a probable indication that μΐθης was regarded as one word, 
as in L, since otherwise an acute on the a would be the normal accent. It is however 
possible that both accents were inserted, that on the a being lost. 

Fr. 24. It is by no means certain that this small fragment of a title belongs to 1805. 

1806. Theocritus, Idyll xxii. 

Height 29 cm. Late first centurv. Plate IV 

(Col. i'v). 

Remains of four consecutive columns, of which the first two are represented 
by tiny scraps, with a small unplaced fragment. This was a handsome MS., the 
tall columns being carefully written in rather large uncials, round and upright, of 
an ornamental type exemplified in several Homeric papyri ; cf. also e. g. 844 and 



1806. EXTANT CLASSICAL AUTHORS 181 

1375. The cross-bar of ε and Θ is placed rather high, as in P. Brit. Mus. 271 
(cf. Kenyon, Palaeography, Plate 15). On the whole a date rather before than 
after the close of the first century seems appropriate. One stop occurs in the 
middle position (1. 68), and there is also a doubtful rough breathing in the same 
line, and a circumflex accent in the unidentified fragment. A few corrections are 
from a second hand. An unusual feature in this roll is that the upper and 
lower margins are strongly tinged on the recto with yellow, probably due to 
cedar oil, which was used as a preservative against insects and gave a yellow 
tint (Vitruv. ii. 9. 13, Ovid, Trist. iii. 1. 13). 

The Hymn to the Dioscuri is not well represented in the MSS. of Theo- 
critus, and fresh evidence of so early a date is welcome. In 1. 40 an obvious 
correction of Stephanus is confirmed. But the papyrus, in spite of its early date, 
is less enlightening than 1618 ; it solves no crux, and its distinguishing feature 
is the presence of several unknown variants of rather neutral character, 1. 4.5 
τεθρανμενος for τεθλασμένος, 1. 6o άπελθοις for Ικάνοις, 1. jy κόγγον for κόχλον ; 
cf. 694. 34, where σφιν ττα[ρεκειτο replaces yap σφιν εκείτο. The text shows 
a mixture of dialects similar to that found in the MSS., e. g. άπατοι? (so 
originally ; άπελθοις the corrector) and πύκτας side by side with Μαγνήσσης 
από my os. 

In the transcript below, the supplements follow the edition of Wilamowitz 
in the absence of any indication that the papyrus read otherwise ; the collation 
appended is derived from the same source, supplemented by the edition of 
Ahrens. 

Col. i. 

8 [νηων θ αι δυνοντα και ουρανον εισ]ανιο[ντα 

Col. ii. 

38 [νδατι ττεπληθυιαν ακ]τ)ρ[ατω αι δ υπενερθεν 
[λαλλαι κρνσταλλω η]δ αρ[γνρω ινδαλλοντο 

Col. iii. 
40 [εκ βυθού] νψηλα[ι] δε πεφυκεσαν αγχοθι πενκαι 

[λενκαι re] 77-λα[τα]ι;[ο]£ . κ[αι α]κροκομοί κυπάρισσοι 
[ανθζα τ ευώδη λασιαις φιλ]α έργα μελισσαις 
[οσσ έαρος λήγοντος επιβ]ρυει αν λειμώνα 



i82 THE OXYRHYNCHUS PAPYRI 

α 

[ένθα δ ανηρ υπεροπλος ε]νημενος ενδιασκεν 

45 [δεινός ιδειν σκληρησι τε]θραυμενος ουατα πυγμαις 
[στηθεα δ εσφαιρωτο πελ]ωρια και πλατύ νω[τον 
[σαρκι σιδηρειηι σφυρηλατο]ς οια κολοσσός 
[εν δε μύες στερεοισι βραχιο]σιν άκρον υπ ωμον [ 
[εστασαν ηυτε πετροι ολοιτρο]χοι ουστε κνλινδε[ων 

5θ [χείμαρρους ποταμός μεγαλαις περ]ιεζεσε διν[α]ις 
[αυταρ υπέρ νωτοιο και αυχενος] ηωρειτο 
[άκρων δέρμα λέοντος αφημμε]νον εκ ποδεω[νων 
[τον πρότερος προσεειπεν αεθλ]οφορος Πολυδ[ευκης 
[χαίρε ξειν οτις εσσι τίνες βροτοι ω]ν οδε χοίρος 

55 [χ αί Ρ ω πω ? 0Τ€ τ άνδρας ορω τους μ]η πριν οπωπ[α 
[θαρσει μητ άδικους μητ εξ άδικων φ]αθι λε[υσσειν 
[θαρσεω κουκ εκ σευ με διδασκεσθ]αι τοδ [εοικεν 
[άγριος ει προς πάντα παλιγκοτο]ς τ)[δ υπερόπτης 
[τοιοσδ οίον οράς της σης γε μεν] ουκ ε[πιβαινω 

λ 

6ο [ελθοις και ξένιων κε τυχών πάλιν] οικαδ απεΝν~^θοις 

[μήτε συ με ξεινιζε τα δ εξ εμευ ουκ] εν ετοιμω 

ω 

[δαιμονι ουδ αν τούδε πιειν υδατο]ς συγε δοιης 

ο 

[γνωσεαι ει σευ διψος ανειμ]ενα χειλεα τερσει 
[άργυρος η τις ο μισθός ερεις ω κ]εν σε πιθοιμεν 
65 [εις ενι χείρας αειρον ενάντιος ανδρι] καταστας 

[πυγμάχος η και ποσσι θενων σκελ]ος όμματα δ ορθοί 
[πυξ διατειναμενος σφετερης μη φει]δεο τέχνης 
[τις γαρ οτω χείρας και εμους συνερεισ]ω [ί]μαντας. 
[εγγύς οράς ου γυννις εων (?) κεκλησε]θ ο πυκτας 

Col. iv. Plate IV. 

70 / η και α[εθ]λον ετο[ιμον εφ ω δηρισομεθ αμφω 

σος μεν εγω συ δ [εμος κεκλησεαι αι κε κρατήσω 
ορνίθων φοινικ[ολοφων τοιοιδε κυδοιμοι 
ειτ ουν ορνιθεσ[σιν εοικοτες είτε λεουσι 



1806. EXTANT CLASSICAL AUTHORS 183 

€ 

γινομεθ ουκ αλΚω [κε μαχεσσαιμεσθ επ αεθλω 
75 η ρ Λμνκο? και κοχλ[ον ελών μνκησατο κοίλην 

ι 

οΠνΠ δε θοω? σνναγερθ[εν νπο σκιερά? πλατανιστον? 
κονγρυ φνσηθεν[το? αει Βεβρνκε? κομοωντε? 
ω? δ αντω? ήρωα? ιω[ν εκαΧεσσατο πάντα? 
Μαγνησση? απο νηο? \υπειρογο? εν δαι Καστωρ 
8ο οι δ επι ουν &πειραισ[ιν εκαρτνναντο βοειαι? 
χείρα? και περί γνια [μακρόν? ειλιξαν ιμάντα? 

ϊ 

[ε? μεσσο]ν ^σ~Πυναγο[ν φονον αλληλοισί πνεοντε? 

[ένθα πολυ(?)] σφισι μο[χθο? επειγομενοισιν ετνχθη 
[οπποτερο?] κατά [νώτα λαβοι φαο? ηελιοιο 

Unidentified Fragment. 

]?Η 

]οΰ τ[ 
]*Ρ! • t 



8. The fact that this small fragment is from the bottom of a column makes its 
identification with 1. 8 probable; Col. ii will then have been one line longer than 
Col. iii. 

39. That the papyrus had Ruhnken's λάλλαι in place of the αλλαι of the MSS. is of 
course quite uncertain, but there would apparently be plenty cf room for it. 

40. πεφνκεσαν : SO Stephanus ; πεφυκασιν MTr. 

41. πλάτανοι re is required, but cannot be read. The supposed ι (which is not o) is 
followed by another vertical stroke, after which there is a blank space of about two letters' 
width. It looks as if the scribe had begun to write και immediately after πλάτανοι and then 
changed his mind and left a space for the missing syllable. The loss of re may have been 
caused by a misunderstanding of λεΰααι,- which was taken for λευκοί. 

43» \(ΐμωνα: λείμωι /ar MSS. 

45. τελθρανμενος : τεθλασμένος (τεθλαγμ. Μ) MSS. 

49. KvKtvftelcav : κυλίνδων MSS. 

60. απελθοις (Η 2 from απενθοις) '. Ίκάνοις MSS. 

62. 8οιη5, as originally written, is correct. 

63. fi σον . . . τε'ρσει MSS. ; the occurrence of τερσει with v. 1. -σοι at the end of the line 
points to ei σου or σεν preceding. ευτε σε . . . τίρσηι Wilamowitz. 



184 THE OXYRHYNCHUS PAPYRI 

64. ( of πιθοιμ( ν was converted from a vertical stroke. 

66. θενων . . . ορθοί. : βίων . . . ορθός Μ, θίνων . . . ορθά Τΐ". ορθοί for ορθοί IS ΠΟ 

improvement, but is consistent with θ*νων, which also suits the space better than a shorter 
reading, the lacuna being of the same length as in the next four lines, θίνω σκίλος ; . . . 
ορθά WM. 

68. There is something above the line, though whether it was intended for a rough 
breathing is rather doubtful. 

69. It is unfortunate that this line is not better preserved, though ο πνκτας, which 
Wilamowitz obelizes, is at any rate something, ου σύ pe apos Tr., ου yvvvis (71W M) 
i&v MD, ου yvvvis εκών Meineke, ου yvvvis apos Haupt. The spelling πνκτας is that of D 
(a corr.). 

70. A short oblique dash in front of this verse has no evident significance. Cf. 
694. 21. 

77• κονχον : κόχλον MSS. 

82. σνναγον is the spelling of the MSS., as originally written here. Whether the 
termination is rightly read as -yo\y is not clear ; the penultimate letter looks more like τ 
than y, but the writer is apt to make the horizontal stroke project to the left, and this may 
be an extreme instance ; moreover there is a suggestion of e in the remains of the supposed 
ο. ξννατ([ would however be meaningless. 

83. Consistency with the ordinary reading seems only to be obtained by the 
supposition of an original lipography of s, which may of course have been supplied 
subsequently. 

Unidentified fragment. This small piece is apparently in the same hand as the other 
fragments, though there is no instance in them of an accent (1. 2). 



1807. ARATUS, Δωσημίΐα. 

1 7*3 χ 18. 6 cm. Second century. 

This fragment contains the lower part of a column, preceded by a broad 
margin in which some cursive notes, both textual and explanatory, referring to 
the preceding column are entered. The notes on 11. 895 and 901 are in smaller 
and more lightly formed lettering than the v. 1. on 1. 897, but whether they really 
proceeded from a different writer the evidence is hardly sufficient to determine. 
The text of the Aratus is well written in a rather large hand, round and upright, 
somewhat similar to that of B. Berl. 6845 (Schubart, Pap. Gr., Plate 19, c), though 
less heavy ; it may be assigned with probability, like the Berlin papyrus, to the 
first half of the second century. Paragraphi were employed, and there are two 
instances of a high stop, inserted well above the line. The latter, and the 
occasional accents, are unlikely to be original and are due perhaps to the 
corrector, who may also be the author of the marginalia. 

So far as it goes the papyrus shows a good text, which is in substantial 
agreement with the Marcianus(M),the oldest and best of the manuscripts. Readings 
found in later MSS. have, however, twice been subsequently incorporated, in one 



1807. EXTANT CLASSICAL AUTHORS 185 

place as a marginal variant (1. 897), in another as a correction (1. 930). A de- 
parture from accepted tradition in 1. 927 is supported by Joh. Philoponus and 
also by another early Aratus papyrus at Berlin (Berl. Klassikertexte, v. I. iii. 1) 
in which a few letters from the last 14 lines of Col. ii are preserved. The 
papyrus reading is condemned very positively by the Berlin editors, but the 
coincidence of ancient testimony is worth notice ; it is of course possible that the 
alternative lection was given in 1807 as a v. 1. 

For the accompanying collation the edition of E. Maass has been utilized. 

Col. i. 

895 ϊφαίτνηβ 

897 νο]τω δ «ιτικ€κλιται 

] 



901 ] «γγυε αλλήλων φαιν[ο]ν[ται] 



Col. ii. 

[e£ αλοί] ερ\χηται φωνηι πζριπολλα λεληκως 
915 [κε]ίννμε[νου κε] 6α\ασ[σαν νπερ φορεοιτ ανόμοιο 
και ποτέ κ[αι κε]πφοι οπο[τ ενδιοι ποτε(ω)νται 
αντια μελ[λοντ]ων ανεμ[ων €ΐληδα φέρονται 
πολλακι δ [αγρια8]ες νησσα[ι η ειναλιδιναι 

ο 

αιθνιαι γερσ\αια τ]ινασαΝω~Πι/ται πτ[ερνγεσσιν 
920 ?/ νεφέλη ορε[ος] μηκυνεται εν κορ[νφησιν 
ηδη και παμποι λενκης γήρειον ακ[ανθης 

s 
σημ εγενοντ άνεμου κωφη^τπ^ a\os ο[πποτε πολλοί 

άκρον επιπλωωσι τα μεν παρος αλ[λα δ οπισσω 
και θερεος βρονται τε και αστραπαι \ε\ν\θεν (ε)ωσιν 
925 ένθεν επεργομ\ε\νοιο περισκοπε[ειν ανεμοιο 



i86 THE OXYRHYNCHUS PAPYRI 

και δια νύκτα μέλαιναν or αστε[ρες αισσωσι 

ταρφεα• τοι δ οπιθεν ρνμοι επι[λενκαινονται 

δειδεχθαι κεινοις αντην οδον ε[ργομενοιο 

πνεύματος• ην δε κεν άλλοι εναν[τιον αισσωσιν 
δ' 
93° αλλοίΓΓί]] εξ άλλων μερεων τότε δ[η πεφνλαξο 

παντοίων άνεμων οι τ ακριτο[ι εισι» μάλιστα 

άκριτα δε πνειουσιν επ ανδρα[σι τεκμηρασθαι 

ανταρ οτ εξ ενροιο και εκ νότου [αστραπτησιν 

895• Perhaps της φα]τνης was added in explanation of εγγύς, or the word may be part 
of a longer note on a previous line; cf. Schol. 892 εϊσι δε κα\ παρ εκάτερα της φάτνης δύο 

αστέρες, κτλ. But β. g. ]ανης ΟΓ ]ε νης IS also possible. 

897• The marginal v.L, νο]τω δ επικεκλιται, is the reading of A and Maass (cf. 1. 486) ; 
presumably επιερχεται stood in the text, as in CM. 

901. A paraphrase of αλλήλων . . . Ινδάλλονται. Cf. Schol. ... 6 δε νους, εάν,φησίν, ot μεν 
αστέρες εγγύς αλλήλων φαίνωνται } αφανής δε ή φάτνη, τηνικαντα βραγύν χειμώνα προσδοκά . . . 

9ΐ5• [*l«w/**f ww ; κινονμ. AC. 
921. 1. πάπποι. 

923. επιπλωωσι: so Maass with several later MSS. (cf. Homer ε 284); -όωσι AM, 

-είωσι C. 

924. τε : om. C. 

927. τοι δ: so ACM and (M) Schol.; rots δ' Philoponus, in Aristot. Meteor,, p. 100 
(11. 926-31), τοϊς Maass. 

οπιθεν : όπισθεν A Philop. 

επι[λενκαινονται : SO P. Bei'l. 7503-4 and Philop. νπολευκα'ινονται (or -ωνται) MSS., MaaSS 

(cf. Homer Ε 502). 

928. κείνης Α. 

•929. ήν. so CM {ην): el Maass with A Philop. 
κεν : so CM Philop., Maass ; και A. 

930. άλλοις, as originally written here, is read by Maass with C &c, and Avienus ; 
άλλοι δ', the corrector's reading, is that of AM and Schol. 



1808. Plato, Republic viii. 

Width of column 4*5-5 cm. Late second century. 

Plate IV (Cols, i-iii). 

Remains of the upper parts of five narrow columns which are successive but 
for the loss of one column between the third and fourth ; the original length of 
the columns was approximately double the amount preserved. The text is well 
written in good-sized uncials of the sloping oval type, in which the smallness of 
e, θ, ο, σ is in marked contrast to the breadth of the square letters η, μ, ν, π; their 



1808. EXTANT CLASSICAL AUTHORS 187 

date is more probably second century than third. Single points in the high and 
middle position are used as stops, as well as a colon, which serves both for 
punctuation (iv. 5) and to mark a change of speaker, in combination with 
paragraphi (v. 13) ; a short blank space is sometimes employed instead for 
the same purposes (iii. io, v. 14). One instance occurs of a rough breathing, due 
very likely to the corrector whose hand is in evidence here and there and who 
may also have been the author of at any rate most of the marginalia, which are 
the interesting feature of this papyrus. Cols, i-ii covered the famous passage 
546 b-c describing the Platonic Number, and the margins contain a quantity of 
explanatory annotations, for the most part well preserved, but rendered 
difficult by the frequent use of tachygraphic symbols, the interpretation of which 
is not always clear. The writer is strangely inconsistent and seems sometimes to 
have dropped into short-hand almost unawares, e. g. in Col. i, marg. 8 it is not 
easy to see what was gained by a tachygraphic η in Ο,στησιν. In the existing 
scarcity of material for the study of early Greek tachygraphy this well-dated 
specimen, exiguous though it is, has a value. The two columns have been 
printed, so far as exigencies of type permit, as they stand, and a reconstruction 
is attempted in the commentary ; the exact forms of the symbols can be better 
followed in the accompanying facsimile (Plate IV). With regard to the matter 
of the notes, to the elucidation of which Prof. A. E. Taylor has kindly contributed, 
there is a noteworthy coincidence with Dercylides, the earliest writer whose view 
about the numbers reached is given by Proclus in his commentary on the 
Republic; see Col. ii, marg. 12-13, n. The annotator's interpretation of the 
mathematics would therefore appear to be based, directly or indirectly, upon 
Dercylides, and thus gains considerably in interest ; cf. Col. i, marg. 9-10, n., 
where a further small point of contact with ol irepl Αζρκνλβην is observed. 

In its testimony for the text of Plato the papyrus is undistinguished ; some 
inaccuracies have been corrected by the second hand, which has introduced 
a novel variant in Col. ii. 8. 



Col. i. Plate IV. Col. ii. Plate IV. 

] • <•. μη [ ] ν σ °μη[ κ * 

> 

]ηδί[.] . [. . .]ω ληττίσβ μο[ναδι? 2 

]..[.]. [.] . «χ«ι τ€τρογων° αριθμοβ [ 3 

] . ϊ ου το ο-χημα\\(: _ ,j Mevtovi «Qe [ 4 

τ]ο διπλασιον απο δ'μί 1 " γ' Γ?! 5 

γ€ν]νη 54 6 b [Μ ΚΊ Ί Η-Λ ν 77 ?[ ί 54^ c 

[σονσι παιδα]ς πρ[ομηκη] δ[€ 

[ποτ€ ου 8eoi> e]<7 €κατ[οι> μέ\ν αρι 



ι88 



THE OXYRHYNCHUS PAPYRI 



[τι δε θειωι με]ν 
5 [γεννητωι περί 
[οδός ην αριθμός 
[περιλαμβάνει 
[τέλειος ανθρω 
[πειωι δε εν ωι 

ίο [πρωτωι αυξήσεις 
[δνναμεναι τε και 
[δυναστευομενα]ι 
[τρεις αποστάσεις] 
[τετταρας δε ορ]ονς 

1 5 [λαβονσαι ομοιο]ν 



"Ι κοσμώ . [. .] 
J ]μ' αν A crr[.]v ο 



w 
J Ηρακλ€ΐτ ίτη μ 
] τίλη\ οτ' *' | 
]ω k l τ;? ο θ 5 ωρ 
] οτι σ' •) ττλανητα? 
]ο-τχσχν 

] δυναμβν-^ ί ϋπο 
] T€ivouaas 



Ί αλλι ιτλίυρι 
ορθην \ βασιν 

δ• η- 
ν ορ° γ αποστα 

o"€is €χουσι ο ον 

δ κηονίς τ° 

οριΓ°] €ΐτιφ€ρ9 



6 

7 

8 

9 
ίο 

II 

12 

13 

Ι 5 
ι6 



#μ.ωι/ αίπο δ]ια 

ρη τ αρι,θ*» ο πλ«υ 

5 μέτρων [ρη]των ραν «χ•" 
πεμπαδ[ος] δεο 
μ~_ [ο•]ι «a £"**£7 Β 

ου α ΡΡ 1 1 τ £ ν ου L 

oe ci/eif [eKaJrof 'Ζφ Lf -tj ν υ " 

Tpi]a6os" 
ίο <5e ku/3o)[i/ ] ξνμ 

πα[ς] δε ον[τ]ος 6 αρι 

θμος γ[ε]ωμετρι 

ι 

κος τουουτον κυ 
ριος [αμεινονων 
1 5 τε κ[αι χειρονων 



9 

ΙΟ 

II 
12 

13 



Col. iii. Plate IV. 
[λ]ειν [φυλακές ον 
τες π[αρ ελαττον 
του δε[οντος ηγη 
σαμενο[ι τα μου 
5 σικης δ\ευτερον 
δε τα γυ[μναστι 
κης όθεν [αμου 

ι 
σοτερο^ν^ ν[μιν γε 

νησον[ται οι νε 
ίο οι εκ [δε τούτων αρ 



546 d 



χον[τες ου πάνυ 
<ρυλ[ακικοι κα 
ταστ[ησονται 
προς τ[ο δόκιμα 
χ 5 £ (ίν [ τα Ησίοδου 
τε κα[ι παρ υμιν 
γένη [χρυσονν τε 
και [αργυρουν και 
χαλ[κουν και σιδη 



Col. iv. 
7τλοζ;σ<ω[Γί"Π τας ψν 
χάς' επι την ape 

τ 

χην και την αρ 
κατά 

χαιαν αποστα 
5 σιν ηγετην : βι 



Col. ν. 
νυ μεν ο[υν : με 
ταβησετα[ι μεν 
δη ούτως [μετά 
/3ασα δε πως [οι 
5 κησει• η φαν[ε 
ρον οτι τα μ[εν 



1808. EXTANT CLASSICAL AUTHORS 189 

αζομζνων 8e μιμησεται τ\ην 

και avTirtLvov προτεραν π[ολι 

των αλληλοις e<y τειαν τα Se τ[ην 547 d 

μέσον ωμολογη ίο ολιγαρχιαν [α 

ίο σαν γην μζν τ ev μ€σω[ι ούσα 

και Όικ]ιας κατά το δξ τι [κ]αι αυτής 

Μ? .. φι [ιδιλον; ου [ 
ι>€ΐμανους Ιδιω 



[σασθ]αι• τον[ς <5e 547c 

[πρι]ν φυλατ[το 
1 5 [μ£ΐ>ο]υς νπ [αν 



τω? €0τ/[[ί]] ονκο\υν 
15 [τω]. 4 [μ*\ ν τιμα[ν 



Col. i, marg. ι. Perhaps κοσμωι, the word in any case being explanatory of θαωι 
γεννητωι. The two following lines, at the beginnings of which, to judge from the notes 
below, two or three letters may be lost, are obscure, //, if right, should = με» or -μ€ν, and 
the next word may be a form of αυτός, perhaps αυτόν : tachygraphic τ becomes a vertical 
stroke, and \ = ov, and the combination of these might produce something like the symbol 
in the text, though different from that e. g. in Wessely, Ein System der altgr. Tachygraphie, 
Plate II. 9. 5. Further on, ν is surmounted by a small semicircle (perhaps incomplete), 
which may represent ο or ω. 

4. The collocation of figures after (τη is peculiar. If μ = μυριάς, since the ώ is written 
above and connected with ά by enclosing dots, it would seem natural to suppose that the 
number meant is 1,800 χ ιο,οοο. On the other hand « ought to mean 1, not 1,000, and 
seeing that, as Prof. Taylor observes, the value 10,800 is assigned by some writers to the 
' great year' of Heraclitus (cf. Censorinus 18. n), there is a probability that μ ω should have 
been written. 

5-8. These four lines, which appear to be in a different hand from that of the rest of 
the marginalia, are an explanation of τελαος αριθμός, but are not easy to interpret. Perhaps 

re'X(et)(oy) οτ(ι) e\v) [airjo) κα(τα) τρ(οπήν} 6 θ((ο)ς ωρι\Κ€ν) on σ(ΰν\π(αντας} πλανήτης \α77θκ(αθ\ί- 

στησι,ν may approximate to the sense, though there are several points here which are 
unsatisfactory. At the end of 1. 5 a short vertical stroke, which might be read as 1, remains 
unaccounted for. Can ((ν)ι[αυτ]ω be meant ? But the order is not in favour of this. In 
1. 7 σ is a recognized abbreviation of σΰν, and σ(ΰν)π(αντας) would be unobjectionable but 
for the occurrence in 1. 14 of a similar curved symbol which remains unexplained. In 1. 8 
άποκαθίστησιν is the compound expected, but this will presuppose considerable irregularity 
at the beginnings of the lines. Taylor suggests that οτ e' may stand for 6 τέλειος) 
{(νιαυτός), followed by ί(ν) ω : such drastic abbreviation, however, seems hardly possible, 
especially as the word eWurds does not actually occur in the text. 

9-10. δνναμίν{ας) {τας) ΰποτεινοΰσας ? : a similar sign represents ας in Wessely, op.cz/. 
Plates I. 2. ii. 2, III. 10. 1. That the same symbol should stand for both -as• and τάς is 
not a serious objection, since there are analogies for this in tachygraphy, and the alternative 
8υνάμΐν(αι) (αί) not only necessitates the alteration of υποτ^ινουσας but also involves a similar 
incongruity in 11. 11-12, where the same sign occurs in conjunction with accusatives. Why, 
however, that case was used in these two places remains obscure. For the substance of the 



i 9 o THE OXYRHYNCHUS PAPYRI 

note cf. Alex. Aphrod. In Arisi. Met. A 8. 990 a 23 of the Pythagorean triangle «rei roivw 

η υποτίίνουσα 'ίσον δύναται άμφοτίραις αμα, δια τοΰτο η μΐν δυναμένη καλείται, αϊ δε δνναστίυόμεναι, 

and Dercylides ap. Proclus, hi Remp. ii, p. 25 (Kroll) των μχρ π^ρκχονσών τον πρώτον iv 

συμφωνία \oyov (χουσών (ί. e. 4 : 3)> τ ^ ς & υποτεινοΰσης η (sic : exspectas διπλάσιοι/, Kroll J but 

what is expected is surely 'ίσον) δυναμένης άμφυϊν. 

ιι— 12. {τας) ά'λλ(αϊ) πλευρ(άί), referring to δυναστίνόμ^ναι ; cf. the passage from Alex. 
Aphrod. quoted in the preceding note. In the next line the αλλαι πλ(υραί are more closely 
defined as the ορθή and the βάσις, the perpendicular and the base of the triangle. For the 
symbol interpreted as as or τάς cf. n. on 11. 9-10 above. The sign \ ordinarily means «rat, 
and also represents ov, but these would be out of place here, where και is desirable. Cf. ii, 
marg. 4. 

13—16. δ δρο(ι) y αποστάσεις 'ίχονσι ... δ ic(ei)ovfs τύ δρι[ο(ι/)] έπιφέρ(ουσι ?). For the 

high dot at the end of the first word of the note cf. Col. ii, marg. 8, where a similar mark 
occurs above λει'π(ει). Possibly there was a corresponding mark in the text. The latter 
part of the note is obscure. In 1. 14 the symbol before ov is like that in 1. 7 above, which 
may represent π. ov seems to be a termination rather than the relative, which would lack 
an antecedent, and also a governing verb, if το δρι[ο(ν)] is the object of έπιφέρ(ουσι). With 
regard to this verb, the plural termination is demanded by κίονα, and the symbol at the 
end has a smaller and more rounded top than that standing for «. The introduction of 
κίονας, as a synonym apparently of Spot, is hardly helpful. 

. Col. ii. 3. (κατ[ον : so A 2 M Proclus ; Ικαστον AFD. 
7. The v. 1. «αστού superscribed by a second hand is unrecorded. 
9. δνΐΐν : so AD ; δνοϊν with others Burnet. 

1 1, ο after ου[τ]ο? has been cancelled by a dot placed above ; ούτος αριθμός MSS. 
13. ν, which was originally written in place of t, was presumably cancelled, but only 
the top is preserved ; the correction may be by the original hand or the corrector. 

Col. ii, marg. 1-5. This mutilated note refers to 11. 4-8 of the text, the value of 
αριθμών άπ6 διαμέτρων ρψών πΐμπάδος being explained by the aid of diagrams. The ' rational 
diameter of 5 ' means the rational number nearest to the diameter of a square, the side 
of which is 5. This diameter is V 50 {Euclid \. 47), to which the nearest rational number 
is 7. The number 48 in 11. 1 and 9 marg. is of course arrived at by subtracting 1 

(δ(ομένων ενός 11. 6—7, λείπ(ει) μονάδι marg. 8) from the Square of 7 (αριθμών από διαμέτρων 

11. 3-4). In marg. 2 perhaps προμήκ]η δε' should be restored, and τ]ώ before λ(εί)π•εσ0(αί) : 
for μο[νάδι cf. marg. 8. In marg. 4 something like ώς iv τω Μίνωνι seems required, and the 
symbol before Μίνωνι, which recurs in marg. 12-13, no doubt represents τω ; cf. e. g. Wessely, 
op. cit. Plate II. 7. 2, where the sign for τω is analogous, though the straight stroke is 
diagonal instead of being horizontal. Whether the preceding curved sign, which resembles 
a sigma (cf. ii, marg. 10), could represent h is doubtful; at any rate the previous group is 
not in the least like the tachygraphic symbol for ώς. The passage of the Meno referred to 

is 85 b απο της διαμέτρου . . . yiyvovr αν το διπ\άσιον χωρίον. In 1. 5 1• άπο δ(ια)μέτ(ρου\ yi(ytTai). 

Of the following diagram only a small part is preserved, and its nature is not clear ; there 
seems to have been more than a square with a diagonal. 

6-7. It would be natural to expand this note βητ(6ς) άριθμ(ος) 6 πλευραν εχω(Α but 
as this is an obviously incorrect definition of a finite number, Taylor suggests that 
ρητ(ών)• άριθμ(ός) κτλ. is meant. ' the square of a " rational diameter " is a square number ', 
which is less tautologous in Greek than in English, but might have been more clearly 

expressed as αριθμός άπο ρητών 6 πλ(υραν ΐχων. Cf. marg. ΙΟ— II. 

8-9- λει'π(εί) μονάδι, εί πλευρ(ά) μη. These words seem intelligible only if π-λευρ(ά) here 



1808. EXTANT CLASSICAL AUTHORS 191 

is taken as referring to the side of the oblong ; ' it is less by a unit, if the side = 48 ( χ ioo) '. 
This is certainly not very satisfactory, and there is something to be said for Taylor's 
proposal to insert e before μη: * it is less by a unit ; i. e. if the side is 5, the number will be 
(49— 1 =) 48 '. But emendation of this kind is better avoided, if possible. Cf. marg. 1-2, 
where there was a somewhat similar note. 

10-11. άρρητ(ων ?) (Se ?)• ν, ov [οϋκ) eiVi πλ(«υραί). It seems simplest on the whole to 
regard the first two words of this note as a lemma from the Platonic text; cf. βητ(ων?) in 
marg. 6. The curved symbol is rather like that in marg. 4, but some part may be lost in 
a hole in the papyrus, and at any rate the head differs in having a downward bend. With 
regard to {ουκ), the usual tachygraphic equivalent of ov is an upward curve, but this sometimes 
degenerates into ajstraight stroke, as e. g L in Wessely, op. cit. Plate III. 10. 1. 

I2—I3. ( r< ?) K C yi{yovTai) ημίρ^αι) 'Ζφ, άκ(6λοΰθωςϊ) (τω) yvv^aiKeico). In this note the 

number 27 appears to have been connected with the female μηνιαϊον. For the symbol for 
τω cf. marg. 4 above and n. ad loc. ; if that is right, the group next to the figures in 1. 13 
must govern the dative, and hence άκ(ολονθως) is suggested. In the number 'ζφ the first 
figure might be taken for Ά, but is no doubt 'z, since, as Taylor points out, 7,500 is 
given as the value of one of the άρμονίαι by Dercylides ap. Proclus, hi Remp. ii. 25 (Kroll) 

ό μίν eartv όμοιότητι φίλοί, ό ρ, 6 8e άνομοιότητι, 6 oe, και 6 μίν (y(vva) τοιοντυρ άλλον τον pvpta, 6 8( 

άνόμοιον μ(τ eKe'ivov τον 'Ζφ. Proclus obtains the number δ? by the addition of κζ and μη 
(ii. 36 sqq.), but whether he is here following Dercylides he does not say. 

Col. iii. 8. ν[μιν γ(]νησον[ται : the vestige before the lacuna and the arrangement of the 
lines makes the reading practically certain ; γςνήο-ονται υμΖν (FDM, Burnet) or ήμϊν MSS. 
10. (κ : or perhaps ey. 

Col. iv. 2. αρχήν was first written (no doubt owing to the following αρχαιαν) the 
€ having been inserted at the same time as the τ over χ, which has not been deleted. 
4. καταστασιν, as amended, is the ordinary reading. 
12. To which hand the insertion of the missing syllable is due is uncertain. 

Col. V. Ι. μΐ]ταβησ(ται : SO AM; μεταβηθησπαι D, μ(ταθησ(ται F. 

14. The superfluous ι adscript has been crossed through and a dot was also placed 
above it. 

ΐ5 % [τω): so A, Burnet; τό FD. The vestige of the t is very slight, but the reading 
is confirmed by the spacing. 



1809. Plato, Phaedo. 

1 1 -3 χ 1 1 -7 cm. Early second century. 

This fragment contains parts of three columns, of which the second, so far as 
it goes, is in fair preservation, but rather more than half the lines are missing at 
the foot. The hand is a small upright uncial of neat appearance, suggestive of 
the Trajan-Hadrian period. Vertical strokes are often finished at the base 
with a small hook or flourish which sometimes curves back to the perpendicular, 
e. g. in 1. 13 the τ of ενάντιων has the peculiar form J". Besides stops in the high 
and middle positions a colon, as in 1808, is used for punctuation, this latter and 
perhaps the others also being apparently by the original hand. Paragraph! 



192 



THE OXYRHYNCHUS PAPYRI 



denote alternations in the dialogue ; whether they were accompanied by a colon, 
as usual, does not appear. Accents and breathings have been inserted here and 
there, more probably than not after the text was written ; they may be due to 
the hand which has added some notes in a small second-century cursive in the 
upper margin. Though the general purport of these annotations is clear they 
are obscured by mutilation, and it is a matter of doubt to which lines precisely 
they referred. Possibly the symbols in the margin of Col. iii were intended to 
mark the place of other notes which have been lost. 

The text is a good and interesting one, of the eclectic type frequently met 
with in papyri. Of the four readings in which the papyrus agrees with TW against 
B, three are accepted by Burnet (whose edition is the basis of the collation given 
below) and the fourth (iii. 13 ίφη, ω Κίβης for ω Κέβης, ίφη) may be right ; on the 
other hand, in ii. 14 it agrees with B 2 in καίτοι ούτι against the inferior και τοιούτο 
τι of BTW, and in ii. 12 has the preferable ovbi of BT against ούτί of B 2 W. 

1 ]«y[ ]αι «κ των «ναντ[ιων 



3 ]' • • [|*] € Ύ € ?° 1*1 ?[ li v α λλα 

4 ] άλλα τα ....[. . α]λλ. τ ' τα «κ S 9os αντου ccos αν μ . [. .J 

5 ] . . ιων μέσος tis fi : τ .[.].. . μειξων 9 €ςτ ] μικρόν 
]αι μικρόν του τ«/ > 

6 ] . τουτι]] το «γ αυτωι μ«σου και μικρόν 



S 
7 ]τητα μικρο^ν]] αν €ΐη και ιταλιν μ«γ€ 

Col. ii. 
απολωλεναι ; υπομζνον Se 102 e 

και δζξαμενον την σμικρό 
τητα• ουκ edeXtiv eivai ere 
ρον η one ρ ην : ωσπερ eyco* <5e 
5 ξαμενος και υπομςινας την 
σμικρότητα- και ετι ων οσπ[ςρ] 
ζιμι ούτος ο αυτός' σμικρός 
€ΐμι• *Κ€ΐνο Se ου τβτολμ[η 
κεν μέγα όν σμικρόν €ΐν[αι 
ίο ] . ι ο ως δ αυτως και το σμικρόν [το 

€ν ημιν• ουκ edeXei ποτ€ μ[ε 
γα γίγνεσθαι ουδέ eivai• ου[δ 



Col. i. 


] 


• V 


] 


- • 


] 


. 




]?"> 




3- 


] 


. οσ 




3? 




] 




3? 




3• 




]■: 




] 



1809. EXTANT CLASSICAL AUTHORS 

J αλλ ουδέν των ενάντιων ετ\ι 

1 ' + 

ov όπερ ην αμα τουναντίον 

15 3 * χ 5 γίγ^βσ^αι re καί € ί*>αί : αλλ τ/ [ 

* ' ΤΟί απέρχεται- η απολλυται [ 

€ν τοντωι τωι παθηματ[ι 

[πανταπ]ασιν εφη ο Κεβ[ης 

[ούτω? φα]ινεται μ[οι και 

2θ [τις είπε τ]ων παρο[ντων α 

[κουσας οστι]ς δ ην [ου σα 



Col. iii. 
[των εχόντων τα ενάντια ε] 
λε[γομεν επονομάζοντας 
αυτά τη[ι εκείνων επωνυμι 
αι» νυ[ν 8ε περί εκείνων αυτών 
5 ωι/ [ενόντων έχει την επω 
νυμια[ν τα ονομαζόμενα αυ 
τα δ εκε[ινα ουκ αν ποτέ φαμεν 
εθελησ[αι γενεσιν αλλήλων 
δε£ασθα[ι και αμα βλεψας προς 

•. τον Κεβη[τα ειπεν αρα μη που 
εφη ω Κεβης κ[αι σε τι τούτων 
εταραξεν [ων οδε ειπεν ου 

ν δ αυ εφη ο Κεβ[ης ούτως εχω 
καίτοι όυτι [λ]εγ[ω ως ου πολλά 

1 5 μ[ε ταραττει συνωμολογη 

» κα[μεν 



ίο 



*93 



ιο3 



io3c 



should be recognized between the &&&£!£%£% ££&- * ^ *" 
5. Η*- . poss^e, though the vertical stroke before /is rather' kmg for T aud 



i 9 4 THE OXYRHYNCHUS PAPYRI 

would better suit e.g.p; but «c j [των (να]νηων is unlikely, since 11. 6-7 indicate a longer line. 
a : τ cannot be αη apparently. 

6. . τοντι is crossed through and ]αι μικρόν τον τ( / inserted above it, probably by the 
same hand. A very unintelligible collocation is left. 

Col. i. This column would be expected to begin about 102 b 5, but the scanty remains 
are not easy to identify. The best point of departure is 1. 6 ] . os, followed by ]a (or ]λ) in 

I. 7. Φαιδω]ι/οί I [8e eXaTTo» Xeyeis• ταυτ]α (Τ for roV(e)) could here be read, but the vestiges of 

II. 1—4 do not seem to bear out this identification, b 6 ptyc ]θος and b 8 η] 8 os are unsuitable, 
and though c 4 π]ρο? is possible, ] π|λ^^ would give too short a line. The double dot in 
1. 11 is not of much assistance, since this may represent either a stop or a change of 
speaker ; cf. int. 

ii. 6. οσπΓί/}] : ωσπερ W. 

8. ckciio : so B 2 T W ; £kuvos B. 
ου: soB 2 TW; om. B. 
ΙΟ. ωσαύτως Τ. 

12. yeveauai W. 

ουδ€ : so BT ; oi're B 2 Wt. 

13. €t[« | ov : so TW ; αίτιον Β, and W v. I. 

14. αμα : the μ has been altered, whether by the original or a later hand is not clear ; 
a\\a was apparently first written. 

19. The first « of φα]ιν€ται is under t of \πανταπ\ασιν in the line above and τ of τωι in 
1. 17, so that [ούτω φα] is hardly enough for the lacuna, which may, however, be sufficiently 
filled by writing οντωί or οντωι. 

iii. 9. Whether the papyrus had wpos or eis is of course not determinable ; the same 
remark applies to ov\8 or ο | δ in 1. 12. 

10. The meaning of the marginal symbol, consisting of three heavy dots in the form 
pyramid, is unknown ; it may refer to a lost marginal note. 

11. ΐφη ω Κφηε: so TW ; ω κίβηε ΐφη Β, Burnet. 

13. In the margin opposite this line there is a small circular mark like the sign for 
short quantity. 

14. καίτοι ούτι: SO Β 2 ; κα\ τοιούτα τι BTW. 

16. The marginal sign is on the broken edge of the papyrus and may be incomplete ; 
here, too, the meaning is obscure. 



1810. Demosthenes, Olynth. i-iii, Phil, i, De Pace. 

Width of column 6-6-5 cm. Early second century. Plate IV 

{Phil, i, Fr. 15). 

These fragments, covering the first five speeches of Demosthenes, are written 
in a graceful round hand similar in type to that of the British Museum Hyperides 
(cf. also e. g. 220), though more ornate and regular ; it may go back to the end of 
the first century, but more probably is to be assigned, like the Hyperides, to the 
earlier decades of the second. None of the columns is complete, but they 
consisted of about 33 lines apiece, with a broad margin both at the top and bottom, 



1810. EXTANT CLASSICAL AUTHORS 195 

and the height of the roll must have approximated to 30 cm. Short lines are 
filled by the common angular sign. Paragraph! are used for purposes of 
punctuation, and the letter following the pause is sometimes slightly postponed ; 
points in the high and medial position are also employed, though some of these 
look like later additions. A later hand is also responsible for one or two small 
corrections, for the coronis at Olynth. iii. Fr. 5. ii. 10 and the mark of elision in 
Phil. i. 15. 17. 

The text is on the whole a good one, of the usual ' eclectic ' kind. Peculiar 
variants {Olynth. ii. Frs. 14-18. 19, 22, Olynth. iii. 7. 2-3, Phil. 17. 4-6, 21. 3-5) 
are unimportant, and there is no tendency to depart from the tradition of the 
MSS. Of these S, by common consent the best, is often supported, in several 
places against all other testimony (Olynth. ii. Frs. 9-1 1. i. 3, Frs. 12-13. 5, 12, 
Phil. 4. 1, 27. 2, De Pace 2. i. 6, 22) ; in Phil. 11-13. ii. 5 a vulgate spelling has 
apparently been converted later to that of S. On the other hand agreements 
with the readings of other MSS. against S are not uncommon (Olynth. ii. 
Frs. 2-3. 11 (= YOF), 9-11. i. 2, 14-18. 1, Olynth. iii. 5. ii. 19 (= A), Phil 4. 2 
( = γ λ 5-6. ιό (= FB), 11-13. i. 10, ii. 4, 14. i, 10, 18-20. 10 (= YO)). 

In the transcription given below, lines in minor pieces have been completed 
for the sake of convenience in reading, but in such cases the division of lines 
adopted is often quite hypothetical. In consequence of the fragments being so 
widely scattered over five speeches identification of small scraps is difficult, and 
a number of these have not been printed. 

Olynth. i. 

Fr. I- Fr. 2. 

[βονλον εγω] δ ουκ αγν[οω § 1 6 

[τ]ε τ[ουτων ενι τωι πρωτωι § 9 [μεν ω άνδρες] Αθηναω[ι τοντο 

πρ[οθυμω$ και ω? προση [οτι πολλάκις] υμει? ου τ[ους 

κογ [φοηθησαμ^ν αυτοί pat [αιτωυς άλλα τους] υ[στατους 
ov\l και πολύ ταπ^ινοτ^ρωι 
5 νυν [αν €χρωμξθα τωι Φιλιπ 

Frs. 3-4• [χουσαν και την ο]ικζια[ν ταυ 

[λιππον λαμβά\νζιν €i 8e το[υ ίο [την aSecos καρ]πουμ*ν[οι 

7 lines lost [αν δ εκείνα Φιλι]ππο? λα[βηι 

[μους ηδιον αν και eXet/]0e § 23 τις αυτόν κωλύσει δευρ[ο βαδι 

ίο [ρους η δούλου? είναι και] γαρ ζει[ν\ Θηβαίοι μη] λει[αν πι § 2 6 

Ο 2 



196 



THE OXYRHYNCHUS PAPYRI 



[αηθεις κατακουειν τιν]ος 



Frs. 5-7. 

ναιοι μ[η]δε του[θ νμας λανθα § 25 
νετω οτι νυν αιρ[εσις εστίν 
νμιν πο[τ]ερ υμάς ([κει χρη 
πολεμε[ιν] η παρ νμ[ιν εκεί 
5 [νον]• εα[ν μ]εν γαρ α[ντεχηι 
[τα των Ολυ]νθιων υ[μεις εκ(:ΐ 
[πολεμήσετε] και την [εκείνου 
[κακω? ποιήσετε την νπαρ] 



κρον [ει]πει[ν ηι και] συνει[σ 
1 5 βαλουσιν [ετοιμω? α]λλ[α Φω 
κεις οι τη[ν οικειαν ουχ] οίοι 
τε οντε[ς φυλαττειν α]ι> μη 
[βο]ηθη[σηθ υμεις η άλλος 
τις αλλ ω [ταν ονχι βουλησε 
2 ο ται• των α[τοπωτατων μεν 

ταν ειη ει [α νυν ανοιαν οφλι 
σκανων [όμως ε]κ[λαλει ταυ 
τα δυνη[θ]εΐ[? μη] πρα[ξει αλ 
λα μη[ν] ηλικ[α ε]στιν [τα δια 
25 φορά ενθα[δ η] εκεί π[ολεμειν 
ουδέ λογού π[ρο]σδε[ιν ηγου 



Fr. 8. 

] 7Γθλ § 28 

[λων ων καλώς ποιουν]τε? 



Fr. 1. The identification of this fragment is made with hesitation, since the reading 
προσήκον in place of προσήκον, though intelligible, is unattested, and it is not clear that any 
letter preceded e in 1. 1 ; on the other hand, the fact that 1. 5 is apparently the last of 
a column affords some confirmation, since the end of a column is expected at about this 
point, and no other suitable position for the fragment has been found in these five 
speeches. 

Frs. 3-4. 11. ]o is only a shade to the right of ]γ and ]θ in the preceding lines, and 
the omission of του before κατακανην (so Bl(ass) with Liban.) seems probable. 

Frs. 5-7. 12. /3αδι]£«[ι>] : so MSS., Liban. ; βαδίζοντα Bl. with Rh. Gr. ii. 679 &c. 

13-14. The papyrus seems to have had the ordinary reading. Dindorf read 01 (so 
Baiter) el (so two MSS.) μη, omitting fj with Rh. Gr. ii. 679 &c. Bl. similarly omits §, 
inserting a sign of interrogation after etireiv. 

15. Bl. brackets ετοίμω? following Rh. Gr. v. 36, vii. 941. 

17. ovres is bracketed by Bl. following Rh. Gr. iv. 739. 

24. γ seems to have been omitted after ηλικα, as in u (Coisl. 324). 

Fr. 8. The length of 1. 2 appears to suit this passage better than § 15 πολΙλάη φανωμεν 
(:'ρραιθνμηκό]τα, but the identification is not certain. 



1810. EXTANT CLASSICAL AUTHORS 
Olynth. ii. 



Fr. i. 
[επι] πολλών μ[εν αν τι? ιδειν § ι 
[ω ανδ]ρε? [Αθηναίοι 



Fr. 4. 

] • • L § 13 

[ταντ εθελη]σ[ηθ] ω? π[ροσηκει 
[και δη περαιν]ειν ου μ[ονον 
[ω ανδρε? ΑΘ]ηναιοι τ[α 



Frs. 2, 3. 
[καπιο]ρκονντ[α και ψευδό 
[μενον] δυνα[μιν βεβαιαν 
7 lines lost 
10 [και πλοι]ου κα[ι των άλλων 
[των τοι]ουτων [τα κάτωθεν ισ 
[χυροτε]ρα €ΐν[αι δει ούτω 
[και των] πράτων τα? αρχάς 
[και τα? υ]ποθε[σει? 



197 



§ 10 



Frs. 5-6. 

[σκεψαιτ ου χαλεπω]? οι δ[ε § 17 
[δη περί αυτόν οντε]? ξένοι 
[και πεζεται]ρο[ι] δοξαν μεν 
[εγουσιν ω?] ε[ι]σίΐ/ θαυμαστ[οι 
5 [και σ]υγ[κεκ]ροτ[η]μ[ε]ν[οι τα 
[του] πολέμου• ω? δ εγω τω[ν 
[εν] αυτηι τηι χωραι γεγενη [ 
[μένων τινο]? ηκουο[ν αν 

4 lines lost 
λεμ[ου και αγώνων τούτους § 1 8 
μεν [φιλοτιμιαι πάντα? απω 
15 θειν [αυτόν εφη βουλομε 
νον [πανθ αυτού δοκειν ει 
ναι τα[ργα προ? γαρ αυ τοι? 
άλλοι? [και την φιλοτιμιαν 



Frs. 7-8. 
[ανυπέρβλητων ειν[αι ει 
[δε τι? σωφρ]ων η δίκαιο? 
[αλλω? την κα]θ ημεραν άκρα 
[σιαν του βίου και μ]εθην και 
5 [κορδακισμου]? ου δυναμε 
[νο? φερειν π]αρεωσθαι και 
[εν ουδενο? ει]ναι μέρει 
[τον τοιουτο]ν λοιπού? δη § 19 

[περί αυτόν ει]ναι ληιστα?> 

ίο [και κόλακα? κα]ι τοιούτου? 
[άνθρωπου? οιο]υ? μεθυσθεν 
[τα? οργεισθαι τοι]αυτα οια> 
[εγω νυν οκν]ω προ? υμα? 
[ονομασαι δηλ]ον δ οτι ταυ 

ΐ5 [τ εστίν αληθή] και γαρ ου? 
[ενθενδε παντε? απ]ηλαυ 

7 lines lost 
ποιου[σιν ένεκα του γελασθη 

25 ναι το[υτου? 



i 9 8 THE OXYRHYNCHUS PAPYRI 

Frs. 9- 1 1. Col. i. 



το]ις σωμασιν § 2i 

[ημών τεω]ς μεν αν ερρω[με 
[νος ηι τις] ουδέν επαισθα 
[νεται επα]ν δ αρρωστημα 
5 [τι σνμβηι π]αντα κεινειται• 
[καν ρήγμα κ]αν στρέμμα [καν 
[άλλο τι των υπ]αρχοντων > 
[σαθρών ηι ου]τω και των πο 
\λεων και των] τυράννων 

ίο [εως μεν αν ε£ω] πολεμώ > 

7 lines lost § 22 

νομ[ιζει σώφρονος μεν 
ανθ[ρωπου λογισ]μωι χρη 

20 ται• μ[εγαλη γαρ ρο]πη μαλ 
λον [δ όλον η τύχη] πάρα παν 
τ ε[στι τα των ανθρ]ωπων 

Frs. 12-13. 

[ει μηδεις υμω]ν ω α[νδρες Α § 25 
[θηναιοι] δύναται λο[γισασθαι 
[ποσόν π]ολεμειτε χρ[ονον Φι 
[λιππω]ι και τι ποιό[υντων 
5 [υμών] ο χρόνος διε[ληλυθεν ου 
[τος ισ]τε γαρ δηπο[υ τουθ οτι 
[μελλο]ντων υμών [έτερους 
[τ ίνας] ελπιζοντ[ων πραξειν 
[αιτιωμ]ενων αλ[ληλους 
ίο [κρινόντων πάλιν ελπιζον] 
[των σχεδόν ταυθ απερ] νυγ[ι 
[ποιουντων άπας ο χ]ρονος 
[διεληλυθεν ειθ οι/τω]? αγνω § 26 
[μονως εχετ ω ανδρε]ς Αθη 



Fr. 11. Col. ii. 

δ\ικαιων αντηρατε και πολ § 24 

λ ι[διαι 

Frs. 14-18. 
[γεγον]εν δ[ια των αυτών του 
[των ελ]πιζ[ετε πράξεων 
[εκ φαυλ]ων [αυτά χρηστά γε 
[νησε]σθαι• αλλ ου[τ ευλογον 
5 ου[τ εχο]ν εστίν [φυσιν τούτο 
γε' π[ολυ γαρ] ρα[ιον έχοντας 
φνλα[ττειν η κτησασθαι παν 
τα π[εφυκεν νυν δ ο τι μεν 
φυ[λαξομ]ε[ν ουδέν εστί 
ίο [υπ ο] του πολεμο[υ λοιπόν 
των προτερον κτ[ησασθαι 
δε δει αυτών ου[ν ημών ερ 
γον τουτ η[δη φημι δη δειν § 27 
εισφερε[ιν χρήματα αυτούς 
3 lines lost 



1810. EXTANT CLASSICAL AUTHORS 199 

1 5 [ναιοι ωστ€ δι ων €K χρ]ηστων [καυτά] 8e απ αυτ[ων των ep 

[φαύλα τα πράγματα της] πόλεως [γων κρι]νοντας του? [μεν 

2θ [άξιου? έ]παινου τιμαν του[ς 
[δ αδικουν]τας κολαζζιν τα[ς 
[προφάσεις αφέλειν και τ[α 
[καθ υμάς] ελλείμματα• ου γ[αρ 
[ε]στι πι[κρ]ως εξετασαι τ[ι πε 

25 [πρα]κται [τοι]ς άλλοις αν μη [πα 
[ρ υμών αυτω]ν πρώτον υ[παρ 
[ξηι τα δεον]τα• τ[ι]ν[ος γαρ ει 



Fr. 19. 

[μηδέ] οτιουν [συμπονειν ου § 3° 

[χι γενη]σετα[ι των δεόντων 
[ημιν] ουδ\εν ev καιρωι το γαρ 
[ηδικ]ημεν[ον αει μέρος ελ 
5 [Xei-x/reji ειθ υ[μιν 



Frs. 2-3. 11. ισχυροτ(]ρα : so YOF corr. ; Ισχυρότατα other MSS., Bl., Butcher. 
Pr. 4. This fragment is not very certainly identified. 

Frs. 5-β. ι. A stop may be lost before ot. 

2. ovre]s : om. Bl. with Hermog. p. 50, Rh. Gr. vii. 607. 

Frs. 7-8. 1. Tavbpos, which is omitted by Bl. and Butcher with SFB, was clearly not 
in the papyrus. 

6. π]αρ(ωσθαι : SO SAFBY : παρΐωράσθαι vulg. 

16. In estimating the number of lines lost below this one it has been assumed that the 
papyrus had και τοιούτους άνθρωπου:, which Bl. brackets. 

Pre. 9-11. i. 2. ημών ι so FOPQ; om. SY, Bl., Butcher. 

3. The papyrus agrees with S 1 (so Bl., Butcher) in omitting των καθ' Ζκαστα σαθρών 
which is commonly added after brauruwerm, 

8. Whether the papyrus had σαθρών (S 1 &c, Bl.) or σαθρον (vulg., Butcher) is 
indeterminable. 

21. Judged by the preceding and following lines there should be eleven letters in the 
lacuna, and the omission of το before o\ov with S and Dion. Hal. 1089 is therefore probable. 
Bl. follows S, Butcher the vulg. 

Fr. 11. ii. The identification is doubtful ; i|8[uu . . . πολ|λα[κ« is another possibility. 



200 



THE OXYRHYNCHUS PAPYRI 



Frs. 12-13. 5. χρόνος : so S, Bl., Butcher ; χρόνος άπας vulg. 

7. υμών : so S ; αντων other MSS., Butcher, om. Bl. with Schaefer and Cobet. 

12. άπας ο χ]ρονος : SO S, BL, Butcher ; ό χρόνος άπας Vulg. 

Prs. 14— 18. Ι. των αντων . . . πράξεων I SO most MSS.; τούτων ίΚπίζίΤί των αυτών 

πράξεων S, Butcher, and Bl. with [πράξεων] Cobet bracketed των αντων πράξεων, Gebauer 
πράξεων only. 

12. A high stop may be lost after δ«. 

19. κρίνοντας: κρίνοντας MSS. 

22. προφασ*]ις : προφάσεις δ' MSS. If δ were similarly omitted after tovs (1. 20), which 
is quite possible, the asyndeton would balance those earlier in the sentence. 



Olynth. iii. 



Fr. 1. 



Frs. 2-3. 



τιμ[ωρη 
[σασθαι Φιλιπ]πον ορω γιγρο 
[μένους τα δέ\ πράγματα €ΐς 
[τούτο προηκ]ορτα' ωσ -jYje [ 
[όπως μη π€ΐσ]ομζθ αυτοί π[ρο 
[repov κακώς σ]κζψασθαι 8[c 
[ον ουδέν ουν α\\ο] μοι δο[κον 
[σιν οι τα τοιαύτα] λέγοντας η 
[την υποθεσιν π€ρ]ι ης βον [ 



Fr. 4• 



§ ι [σαι] γαλεπωτατον [ηγούμαι αλλ § 3 
[e/c]e[i]i' απορώ τι[να χρη τρο 
[πον ω α]νδρες Αθηνα[ιοι προς 
[υμα]ς περί αντων €ΐπ[ίΐν 
5 [π€π€ΐ]σμαι γαρ e£ ων [πάρων 
[και α]κ[ο]νων συνοι6\α τα πλΐΐω 

5 lines lost 
[λο]γονς υπομενειν τούτο 0€ 
[ωρ]ουν[τας ei ταληθη λ€ 
[γω] και δι[α τούτο ινα τα λοι 
15 [πα β€]λτιω [ 



[pois αυτόν βο]ηθ€ΐν οτι γαρ 
[εις τούτο π]εριστησ€ται τα π[ρα 
[γματα €αν τα] παρόντα προω 
[μέθα σχ](:θ\ον ι]σμεν άπαν 

5 [res δ]ηπον αλ[λ ο]τι μεν δη δει § ίο 
[βοηθ]ειν ειποι τις αν πάντες 
[εγνωκαμ]εν και [βο]ηθησομ[εν 
[το δ όπως του]το λέγε* μη 
[τοιννν ω ανδρε]ς Αθηναίοι 

ίο [θανμασητ€ αν π]αραδο£ον 



1810. EXTANT CLASSICAL AUTHORS 



20 1 



Fr. 

Col. i. 

3 lines lost §11 

αθ]ωι 
5 [ονς καθιστασιν είτα και τ]ονς 
[τα δέοντα ποιει]ν βονλομε> 
[νους αθνμ]οτερονς ποιονσιν 
[επειδα]ν δε ταύτα λνσητε και 
[την τον τ]α βέλτιστα λέγειν ο8ον 
ίο [παρασχ]ητε ασφαλή τηνικαυ 

t 
τα τον γραψοντα α παντας ιστέ 

•Τί• 

οτι συμφέρει ζητειν πριν § 1 2 

δε ταύτα π[ρ]α£αι μη σκοπείτε 
τι? ειπω[ν] τα βέλτιστα νπερ ν 

1 5 μα>ν νφ [ν]μων απολεσθαι> 
βονλησεται• ου yap εν[ρ]ησετε 
άλλως re και τούτον μόνον 
περιγιγνεσθαι μέλλοντος > 
τον παθειν αδίκως [τι κα\κον 

2θ [τον ταντα ει]ποντα και γραψαν 



Col. π. 

πρα[£αιμεν τωι νυν τα βέλτιστα. §13 

ειπ\οντι ζημιαν γενέσθαι πριν 

δε ταντ εν[τρεπισαι μηδαμως 

ω άνδρες Α[6ηναιοι μηδενα 

5 αξιοντε μη τ[ηλικοντον ει 

ναι παρ νμιν ωσ[τε τονς νομονς 

τοντονς παραβαϊντα μη δούναι 

δικην μηδέ ον[τως ανοητον 

ώστε εις προνπτ[ον κακόν 

ίο αντον εμβαλειν [ον μην ον § 14 
> — 
δ εκείνο γ νμας αγ[νοειν δει 

ω άνδρες Αθήνα] ιοι οτι ψηφί 

σμ[α] ονδενος αξ[ιον εστίν 

αν μη προσγενη[ται το ποι 

ΐ5 *ιν εθελειν τα δοξ[αντα προ 

θνμως νμας' ει yap α[νταρκη 

τα ψηφίσματα ην η [υμάς avay 

καζειν α προσηκε[ι πραττειν 

η περί ων αν γραφ[ηι διαπρα 



Fr. 6. 

[θεις πλην μικρ]ων [εις ατα § 35 
[iiav ανελων εις] ταξ[ιν ηγα 
[γον την πολιν τ]ην α[ντην 
[λαβει]ν [τ]ον στρατενεσ[θαι τον 
5 [δικαζ]ειν τον ποιειν τ[ονθ ο 
[τι καθ η]λικιαν εκαστο[ς εχοι 
[και οτον] καιρός ειη τα£[ιν ποι 
[ησας ου]κ εστίν οπον μ[ηδεν 



Fr. 7. 

ο]τι [και § 36 
[τηι πολει και] απασιν νμ[ιν 
[σννοισειν] μέλλει' 



] 



Fr. 1. 5. Either ntia]ope6 or πασ]ωμίθ could be read. 

Frs. 2-3. 4-5. Bl. brackets nep) αυτών and inserts καί before παρών with Isidor. x. 126. 



202 



THE OXYRHYNCHUS PAPYRI 



Fr. 5. i. 11-12. The interlineated readings are those of the ordinary text. 

19. τον: so MSS. except S, Isidor.; om. Bl., Butcher with S. 

ii. 5. μη has been cancelled by dots placed above. 

12. Bl. brackets & άνδρα Αθηναίοι. 

Ι ζ. τα', τα γ* MSS. 

16. υμάς is bracketed by Bl. and Butcher with Cobet. 

19. αν γραφ[ηι: so A suppl. ; γραφήη con: to γραφή S, with αν γραφή in a late hand, 

γράφΐΐ vulg. γραφΐίη Bl., Butcher. 

Pr. β. ι. Either μικρ]ων (S corr. h. ι Β corr. AO, Butcher), or μικράν S?B* can be 
read ; μικρά Bl. with Dionys. 

7. Bl. brackets τάξιν ποιήσας. 

Pr. 7. 2—3. απασιν νμ[ιν σννοισειν : απασι σννοίσειν νμ'ιν MSS. 



Fr. ι. 



Phil. i. 



Fr. 3. 



] κακώς τ[α] πράγματα 
Fr. 2. 



. §2 



[σκοπών το τε] πλήθος τ[ης νπαρ § 4 
[χονσης αντ]ωι δυνάμεως [ 
[και το τα \ω\ρια πάντα απο [ 
[λωλεναι τηι πολει ορθώς] μεν [ 



[δρες Αθην]α[ιοι και νμεις § 7 

€πι της τοιαυτη[ς εθελησητε 
γενέσθαι γνώμης νυν ε[πει 
[δηπερ ον προτε]ρον• και [ 



Fr. 4• 

δοκ[ονντων οικειως εγειν § 8 

και π[ανθ οσα περ καν άλλοις 
τισιν [ανθρωποις ενι 



Frs. 5-6. 

τοσο[ντον επειδαν απαντ α §14 

κονσητ[€ κρίνατε μη προτερον 
προλαμ[βανετε μηδ αν εξ αρ 
[\η]ς δοκ[ω τινι καινην πάρα 
5 lines lost 
10 μένα τηι ν[ννι βοηθειαι 

κωλνσαι δν[νηθειημεν αλ § 15 



Fr. 7. Col. i. Fr. 7. 
Col. ii. 

[νητον εστίν ιν η δια τ]ον φο § 1 8 . 

[βον ειδως εντρεπει]ς νμας . [ 

[εισεται γαρ ακριβώς] εισιν . [ 

[γαρ εισιν οι παντ ε£]αγγελ> σ[ 

5 [λοϊ^? εκεινωι παρ ημ]ω[ν] τ[ 

[αυτών πλειονς τον δ]εοντος• 5 ?[ 

[ησνχιαν εχηι η παριδ]ων τ αν τ[ 



1810. EXTANT CLASSICAL AUTHORS 



λ οσ αν δει[ξηι τις πορισθει 
σα παρα[σκευη και πόση και 
ποθ[εν διαμειναι δυνησεται 
1 5 τέως [αν η δ]ιαλυσ[ωμεθα πει 
σθεντες τον πο[λεμον η πε 
ριγενωμεθα τω[ν έχθρων 
ούτω yap ουκετ[ι του λοι 



[τ αφύλακτος ληφθη]ι μηδέ 
[νος οντος (μποδω]ν πλειν 
ίο [επι την εκείνου χωρ]αν νμιν 
[αν ενδωι καιρόν τα]ντα μεν 
[εστίν α πασιν δεδοχθα]ι φημι 



203 



π 



Fr. 8. 
[μακρόν τούτον αλλ) όσον 
[αν δοκηι καλώς εχ]εΐν εκ δια 
[δοχης αλληλοις το]υς δ αλ 
[λους ξένους €ΐναι κε]λευω 
5 [και μετά τούτων ιππε]ας δια 
[κοσιους και τούτων π]εντη 
[κοντά Αθηναίους του]λαχι[σ 



§ 21 



Fr. 9• 

π]αντελω[ς 
[ταπ€ΐνην] είναι δει πολιτα[ς 



Fr. ίο. 

[ναι]μεθ [εκεισ αφικεσθαι δει 

[τ]οινυν [ 



§ 2 3 



§ 32 



Frs. ι 
Col. i. 

εμπορίων στομασι[ν ραιδι 
ως [ε]σται α μεν ουν χ[ρησε § 33 
[ται κα]ι ποτέ τη ι δυνα[μει πα 
[ρα το]ν καιρόν ο τούτων [κυ 
5 [ριο]ς καταστας νφ υμ[ω]ν βου 
[λε]υσεται- α δ υπαρξ[αι δ]ει πα 
[ρ υ]μων [τα]υτ εστίν α εγω γε [ 
[γρα]φα' αν [τ]αυτ ω ανδ[ρ]ες Α 
[θη]ναιοι πορισ[η]τε [τα χρ]ημα 
ίο [τα πρλωτον α λέγω' [ειτ]α και 
[ταλ]λα παρασκευασα[ντε]ς τους 
[σ]τρατιωτας τας τριήρεις του[ς] 



Col. π. 
θοντα χρονον εις Αημν[ον § 34 

και Ιμβρον εμβ[αλων αιχμα 
λωτούς πόλιτας [υμετέρους 
ωιχετ έχων και προς τωι [ 
5 Γ€/οα[[ί]]στωί τα πλ[οια συλλάβων 
αμύθητα χρη[ματα εξέλεξε 
τα τελευται[α εις Μαραθώνα 
απέβη και [την ιεραν απο 
της χ(ο[ρας ωιχετ έχων τρι 
ίο ηρη' υμ[εις δ ούτε ταύτα δυ 
νασθε κω[λυειν ουτ εις 
τους χρο[νους ους αν προ 



204 



THE OXYRHYNCHUS PAPYRI 



[ιππ]εας εντελή πασαν την 
[δυνα]μιν ΐ'ομωι κατακλειση 

1 5 [τε επ]ι τωι πολεμάει] μενειν 
[των] μεν χρηματω[ν] αυτοί > 
[τ]αμιαι και ποριστα[ι γιγν]ομε> 
[ν]οι• των δε πραξ[εων πάρα του 
[στρατηγού τον λ]ο[γον ζητούν 

2θ [τες παυσεσθε αεί περί] 
[των α]υτ[ων βονλενομενοι 

7 lines lost 
μα[χων άγων και φέρων τους 
3θ πλεον[τας την θαλατταν ε 
[π]είτα τ[ι προ? τοντωι τον 



θησθε βοη[6ειν καίτοι τι δη 
ποτέ ω ανδ[ρες Αθηναίοι νο 

1 5 μιζετε την [μεν των Παν 
αθηναίων ε[ορτην και την 
των Δωννσι[ων αει τον καθη 
κοντός XP[o]f[of γίγνεσθαι 
αν τε δει[νοι λαχωσιν αν τε 

2 ο ϊδιωτ[αι 

3 lines lost 
§ 34 [ οσ °νδ ει]ς ενα [των αποστο 

25 [λων και] τοσοντ[ον 



35 



Fr. 14. 

[άτακτα α]οριστα• α[διορθω § 36 

[τα απαντ]α τοιγαρον[ν αμα 
[ακηκοαμεν] τι και τρι[ηραρ 
[χους καθισταμε]ν• και to[vtois 
5 [αντιδοσεις ποιον]μεθ[α και 
[περί χρημάτων] πορον σκο 
[πονμεν και με]τα ταντα εμ 
[βαινειν τους μ]ετοικονς 
[εδο£ε και τονς χ]ωρ£9 οικονν 
ίο [τας ειτ αυτούς παλ]ιν αντεμ 

[βιβαζειν ειτ εν οσω]ι ταυ[τα § 37 



. Fr. 16. 

]••[ §4θ 

[γης εχετα]ι• καν ε[τέρωσε πάτα 
[ξηΐ τις] εκεισε εισ[ιν αι χει 



15 



Fr. 15. Plate IV. 
[τουθ υβ]ρεως εληλυθεν ωσ 
[τ επιστ]ελλειν Ενβοευσιν 
[ηδη το]ιαυτας επιστολας> 
[επιστολής α]ναγνωσις 
[τούτων ω άνδρες] Αθηναίοι § 38 
[των ανεγνωσμενω]ν αληθή 
[μεν εστί τα πολλά ω]ς ουκ έδει ο[ν 
[μην αλλ ίσως ο]νχ ηδέα ακ[ου 
[ειν αλλ ει μεν] οσα αν τις υ > 
[περβηι τωι λογ]ωι ινα μη λυ > 
[π η ση ι και τα πρ]αγματα υπέρ 
[βησεται] δει προς ηδονην 
[δημη]γορειν ει δ η των λο 
[γ<ο]ν χάρις αν ηι μη προσηκου 
[σα εργωι] ζημία γιγνετα[ι 
[αισχρον ε\στι φενακιζειν [εαυ 
[τους και] απαντ αναβαλλ[ο 
[μένους α] αν η δυσχ[ερη παν 
[των υστερι]ζειν τω[ν έργων 



1810. EXTANT CLASSICAL AUTHORS 



[ρε?] π ροβαλλεσθα[ι δε η βλε 
[πειν εν)αντιο[ν οντ οιδεν 
5 [οντ εθελει] κα[ι 



3 lines lost 
[λονθειν τοι? πραγμασ]ιν [αλ] 
[λ αντον? έμπροσθεν] είναι 
25 [των πραγμάτων, και τ]ον αν 
[τον τρόπον ωσπερ τ]ων στρα 
[τενματων α£ιωσει\ε τι[? αν 



205 

§ 39 



Fr. 17 



[περί] τον πολ[εμον ονδε προ § 4 1 
[τω]ν πραγματ[ων προορατε 
[ο]νδεν πριν [αν η γεγενη 
[μ]ενον τι η γ[ιγνομενον 
5 [πνθη]σθε [τ]αντα δ [ίσως προ 
[τερο]ν μεν ην- νν[ν δ €π αν 
[την η]κε[ί] τη[ν] ακμ[ην 



Fr. 21. 

[χοι τ]εθνασι [τωι δεει τον? § 45 
[τοιο]ντον? α[ποστολον? ον 
[γαρ ε]στιν ο[νκ εστίν ω αν 
[δρε? Α]θην[αιοι εν άνδρα δν 
5 [νηθη]να[ι ποτέ τανθ νμιν 

Fr. 23. 

[γματ αισ]χν[νη? ωστ€ των στρα § 47 
[τηγων ε]καστο[? δις και τρις 
[κρίνεται παρ ν[μιν περί θα 
[νατον] προ? δε [τον? εχθρον? 
5 [ουδεί?] ονδ απα[ξ αντων α 



Frs. 18-20. 

[δει? νμων μητ ε]νθν[μειται § 43 

[μητ οργίζεται ορ]ων ω α[ν 
[δρε? Αθηναίοι τ]ην μεν α[ρ 

3 lines lost 
[σαν ηδη νπερ τον μη π]αθειν 
[κακω? νπο Φιλιππο]ν• άλλα 
[μην οτι γ ον στησετα]ι δηλον 
ίο [ει μη τι? αντ]ον [κωλνσ]ει ε[ιτα 
[τοντ ανα]μενο[νμεν και τρι 
[ηρει? κ]ενα? κ[αι τα? πάρα τον 
[δεινό? ε)λπιδα[? αν αποστειλη 

Fr. 22. 



π]ραξη[ι προ? νμα? 
[ψενδομε]νοι ραιδ[ιω? 



§ 46 



Fr. 24• 

[τον προσηκοντο?] κακο[νργον 
[μεν γαρ εστί κρι]θεντα α[πο 
[θανειν στρατη]γον δε μ[αχο 
[μενον τοι? πολ]εμιοι? [ 



§ 47 



2θ6 



THE OXYRHYNCHUS PAPYRI 



[γωνισασ]θαι περ[ι θάνατον 
[τολμαι] άλλα τον τ[ων ανδραπο 
[διστων] και λωπο[δντων θα 
[νατον μαλ]λον [αιροννται 



Fr. 25• 



Fr. 26. 



[βεις πεπομψε\ν ω? βασιλ[ε § 48 

[α 01 δε €ί> Ιλλΐ /jpiOi? 7Γ[θλ€ί9 



[πραγ]μενων [και πολλά τοι 
[αυτά ονε]ιροπ[ολειν εν τη ι 
[γνωμη]ι την [ 



§ 49 



Fr. 27. 

[oui/re]y αλ[λ αν αφέντες 
ταντ εκει[ν ειδωμεν οτι 
εχθρός αν[θρωπος και τα η 
μετερα ημ[α? αποστερεί 
5 και χρονο[ν πολύν νβρικε 



Fr. 28. 
§ 50 [σθαι λεγει]ν αιρονμαι ν[ι § 5 1 

[κωιη δ οτι πα]σι μέλλει σ\υν 
[οισειν 

κατά ] Φίλιππου 
} « 



Fr. 4. ι. The addition of αυτωι after ίχαν would make the line too long; om. S, BL, 
Butcher. 

2. π\ανθ : so Υ ; άπανθ* others, BL, Butcher. 

Frs. 5-6. 11. Bl. and Butcher write δννηθ(ϊμ(ν. 

15. Tf«r : so FB Prooem. 21, Bl. ; ea>s S, vulg., Butcher. 

Fr. 7. ii. Since no letter can be read with certainty, an identification of these lines is 
too doubtful to be of any value. 

Fr. 8. 1. There is no trace of writing above this line, but the surface of the papyrus 
is rather damaged. 

3. Bl. brackets άλλ^λοι?, which is omitted by Dionys. and Liban. 

Fr. 10. A spot of ink on the edge of the papyrus is doubtfully identified as a para- 
graphs, which would however be quite in place. Whether -ναϊ\β(θ or -νω]μ(θ was written 
cannot in any case be determined. 

Frs. 11-13. i. 1-2. The papyrus seems to have had the ordinary reading, which 
is retained by Bl. Butcher obelises βαδίω: «Wat, for which Dindorf reads βαδίως ttaeade 
with Wolf. 

10. a Xeyo> : so vulg., Butcher; om. α S, Bl. 

ii. 4. ΐχων : so SAY, Butcher ; άγων vujg., Bl. 



1810. EXTANT CLASSICAL AUTHORS 207 

και : so MSS. except S, which omits καί : om. Bl., Butcher. 

5. The deletion of the first t of Γίραιστωι seems to have been intended. There 
is a dot just above and slightly to the left of the 1, and on the line between a and t something 
like a comma, both marks being in rather lighter ink. Γβραστώ SBO, Bl. ; re ραϊστώ vul"•. 
Butcher. ' 

^ 12. Either προ\θησθ* (SFB, Bl., Butcher) or προο-\θησθ( (A) might have been written; 
προέλησθε vulg. 

Pr. 14. Ι. α]οριστα α[διορθωτα : SO Vulg. ; αδιόρθωτα άόρισθ' SAY, Bl., Butcher. 

10. αντ(μ[βιβ α ζ(ΐν : so vulg. eir άντΐμβ. S Vind. i, Bl., Butcher. 

Fr. 15. 18. a]: so S; other MSS. have οσα, but for this there is not room unless 
αναβαλλ[ομ(νονί was differently divided, which is improbable. 

19. νσΛ[ρ]ίΐρ (S, Bl., Butcher) is possible as a reading, but considerations of space 

favour νστ(ρι\ζ(ΐν. 

27. ti[s av: so SY, Bl., Butcher; αν τ« others. 

Fr. 16. 2-3. πατα\ξηι tis : ΟΓ πα^ταξηκ, with S. 

Fr. 17. 3-4. γΐγ(νημ]*νον τι η γ[ιγνομΐνον: 7«7• η yiy. « most MSS., Bl., Butcher; 
Υ transposes yey. and •ytyv., and the same order is equally possible in the papyrus, to which 
the position given to τι is apparently peculiar. 

6. ψ : ενην SA, Bl., Butcher, £»ηρ ποκΐν YO, ην noieh FB. The loss of the syllable ev- 
would be very easy after μ(ν. 

Frs. 18-20. 2. Either οργι&ται (SAY) or λογιζ(ται (vulg.) is possible. 

Ι Ο. αυτ]ον [κωλυσ]α : SO YO ; αυτόν κωλύσηι F, κωλύσηι S, κωλύσίΐ Bl., Butcher. 

Fr. 21. 1. tovs, which Bl. omits with Schol. Aristid. p. 196, was evidently in the 
papyrus. 

3-5. There is apparently no authority for the insertion of S> Άνδρπ ΆΘ. after «π-ικ here, 
but this seems the easiest explanation of the clear ]va[ in 1. 5, which cannot be Suva unless 
there was a considerable omission ; moreover if [δυνη]θην[αι be read in 1. 4, the supplement 
at the end of 1. 3 becomes rather long. Cf. 01. 2. 10, where & Ζνδ. ΆΘ. follows ού γαρ ΐστιν, 
ουκ ϊστιν. The similarity of άνδρα δυνηθψαι and ανδρ^ Αθηναίοι might help to account for 
either the dropping or insertion of δ ανδ. ΆΘ. 

Fr. 24. 1. This line was probably the first of a new column, which is expected about 
this point. The margin above it, like that below Fr. 23. 9, is broken, but that the two 
fragments belonged to different columns is indicated by their dissimilar appearance. 

Fr. 28. 2. πα]σι : so S (πάσιν), BL, Butcher; πάσιν υ μ Ίν other MSS. 



De Pace. 
Fr. 1. 

o]v συν § 1 6 

[ςπιστρατΐναν ov8er)epois• 



2θ8 



THE OXYRHYNCHUS PAPYRI 
Fr. 2. 



Col. 



Col. ii. 



περί [των ίδιων έκαστος op § 19 
γιζομε[νος Κοινον εφ ημάς 
αγαγω[σ]ι [τον πολεμον τα των 
Αμφικ[τνονων δόγματα προ 
5 στη[σαμενοι είτα επισπα 
σθωσ[ιν έκαστοι πέρα τον 
συμφέροντος εαντοις ημιν 
πολε[μησαι ωσπερ και περί 
Φωκ[εας ιστέ γαρ δηπου τον § 2 ο 

ίο θ οτι [ννν Θηβαωι και Φιλιπ 
πος κ[αι Θετταλοι ονχι ταντα 
εκαστ[οι μάλιστα εσπονδακο 
τες ταν[τα πάντες έπραξαν 
οίον Θ[ηβαιοι τον μεν Φιλιπ 

1 5 πον πα[ρελθειν και λαβείν 
τα? παρο[δονς ονκ εδνναντο 
κωλν[σαι ονδε γε των αντοις 
πεπ[ονημενων νστατον 
ελθο[ντα την δοξαν εγειν 

2θ νυνι γ[αρ Θηβαιοις προς μεν § 2 1 
το [την χωράν κεκομισθαι 
π[επρακται τι προς δε τιμήν 
κ[αι δοξαν αισχιστα ει γαρ μη 
. . . . . π[αρηλθε Φίλιππος ονδεν αν 

25 α\ντοις εδοκει είναι ταντα 
δ [ονκ εβονλοντο άλλα τωι 

Fr. 1. 2. επιστράτευαν (Ο) suits the length of the line better than -σ*ιν, but remains of 
course uncertain. 

Fr. 2. i. 2. Either αντων or tavra>v can be read. 

6. 8eiv ημάς : so S, Bl., Butcher ; φημι buv ημάς (ΰμ.) όπως, for which there is evidently 
not room, vulg. 

ii. 7-8. ημιν] πολε[μησαι : so MSS. ; Bl. and Butcher bracket, following the indications 
of Schol. p. 164. 

22. π[(πρακται τι : so S BL, Butcher ; κάλλιστα πίπρακται other MSS., Isidor. 



[πάντες αν βονλοινθ εν]εκα § 1 7 
[αντων κρατησαντα]ς δε τονς ε 
[τερονς δεσποτα]ς νπαρ[χ]ειν 
[αντων ουδέ εις] τι ονν ηγον 
5 [μαι φοβερον και] τι φνλαξα 
[σθαι δειν ημάς] μη κοινην 
[προφασιν και κο]ινον εγ 
[κλήμα ο μέλλων] πόλεμος 
[προς απαντάς λα]βηι• ει γαρ § 1 8 

ίο [Αργειοι μεν και Με]σσηνι[ο]ι 
[και Μεγαλοπολιτ]αι και τίνες 
[των λοιπών Πε]λοπον[νη 
[σιων όσοι ταντα τό\ντοις φρο 
[νονσι δια την πρ]ος Λακ[ε 

15 [δαιμονιονς ημιν επικ]ηρν 
[κειαν εχθρως σχησονσι και] 
[το δοκειν ενδεχ\εσθαι [τι 
[των εκεινοις πεπραγμένων] 
[Θηβαίοι δε εχο]νσι με[ν ως 

2θ [λεγονσιν απεχ]θ[ως 



1811. EXTANT CLASSICAL AUTHORS 



209 



1811. Demosthenes, C. Timocratem. 
16 χ 23 cm. 



Third century. 



Parts of three consecutive columns, written with a rather coarse pen in well 
formed medium-sized uncials of the sloping oval type, for which an approximate 
terminus ante quern is provided by remains of three columns of an account 
inscribed on the verso in cursive of about the middle or latter half of the third 
century. The hand of the recto, which does not suggest a date before A. D. 200, 
may therefore be appropriately referred to the first half of the century. 
Cols, i-ii consisted of 39 lines each, and the height of the roll, if the margin at 
the bottom was of similar depth to that at the top, was about 27 cm., while the 
width of the column was about 6 cm. Another hand, using a thinner pen and 
lighter coloured ink, has inserted a marginal adscript at Col. ii. 5 and supplied an 
omission in Col. iii. 22, and this hand may well be responsible for both the dots 
of punctuation (in all three positions) and a few rough breathings, which are no 
doubt secondary. 

Though, as usual, inconsistent in its support, 1811 shows some affinity with 
F (Marcianus 416), with which it agrees four times against the other MSS. 
Coincidences with A (iii. 13-16) and SAY (ii. 7) are also noticeable. 



Col. 



] σημ[ει § 183 
ov φιαλαι δε και τα τοια[υ 
τα πλούτου και σ[τεφα]νος μεν 
αττα^ καν μικρός η την [ϊ 
5 σην φιλοτιμιαν έχει τωι μ[ε 
γαλωι εκπωματα δε η θυ 
μιατηρια η τα τοιαύτα κ[τ]η 
ματα• εαν μεν υπερβαλ 
λη τωι πληθει πλούτου τι 
ίο να δοξαν προσετριψατο 
τοις κεκτημένοι' εαν δ ε 



Col. ii. 
των τ[ω]ν επ εκείνοι? 
σταβέντων το κάλλος προ 
πυλαία ταύτα ο παρθένων 
στοαι• νεωσοικοί' ουκ αμφο 
5 ρισκοι δυο ουδέ χρυσιδες φιαλ(αι) 

τετταρες η τρεις άγουσα ε 
καστη μναν ου γαρ εαυτούς § 185 
δεκατευοντες ουδέ α. κα 
ταρασαιντ αν οι εχθροί ποι 

ίο ουντες δίπλας πραττον 
τες τας εισφοράς ταύτα α 
νεθεσαν ουδ οιοισπερ συ 
χρωμενοι συμβουλοις επο 
λιτευοντο' άλλα τους εγθρου[ς 

15 κρατούντες και α. πας [τις 
[α]ν ευ φρονων ευ£αιτ[ο 



2IO 



THE OXYRHYNCHUS PAPYRI 



πι μικρ[οις τις] σςμνυνη 

[ται τοσοντ απςγζι το]υ τιμής 

[τίνος δια ταύτα τυχ]ςιν 

1 5 [ω)στ [απειροκαΧος πρ]ος εδο 
£«/ e[ivai ούτος τοι]ννν 
αναΧ[ων τα] τη[ς δο£]ης κτη 
[ματα τον π\]οντο[ν] πβποιη 
[ται μικρά κ]αι ουχ υμών α 

20 [ξια αλλ ονδ] €Κ([ι]ν €ΐδζν §184 
[οτι προς μεν χρημα]των 



[τ]ην ποΧιν eis ομονοιαν 

άγοντες αθανατον αυ[τ]ων 

κΧεος ΧβΧοιπασιν τ[ους] επι 
2θ τηδευοντας οια σοι βεβιω 

ται της αγοράς ειργοντες' 

υμεις δε εις τούτο ω άνδρες § 1 86 

Αθηναίοι προηγθητε ευ 

ηθιας και ραιθυμιας ώστε 
2 5 [ο]ν[δε 



ναι τοιούτων επιτη[δευ 
ματων οια τοντωι βε[βιω 
ται' και περί μεν τουτ[ον § ι 
κατά σγοΧην α δε Τιμ[οκρα 
5 τει συνερει ποΧΧα Χεγ[ειν ε 
τι προς τούτοις έχων π[ανσο 
μαι• οιδα δ οτι ως μεν [ουκ 
ασύμφορος υμιν €σθ ο ν[ο 
• μος και π[α]ρα παντας τ[ους 
ίο νομούς εισενη[ν]εγμεν[ος 
και κατά πάντα αδίκως [ε 
χων ουχ ε£ει Χεγειν [ακου 



Col. iii. 

ω δ αυτόν ως εκτετιστ[αΐ 
τα χ[ρ]ηματα Λνδροτ[ιωνι 

17 15 κ[αι] ΤΧαυκετη και ΜεΧα[νω 
πωι Χεγειν και οτι [δε]ιν[ο 
τα[τα] αν παθοι παντ[ω]ν α[ν 
θρωπων ει πεπο[ι]ηκοτω[ν 
εκείνων τα δίκαια υπέρ 
2θ ων αυτός αιτιαν έχει θε[ι 
ναι τον νομον. μηδέν η[τ 

αυτοβ 

τον αΧισκοιτο• εγω δε το[ν 
Χογον ηγούμαι τούτον 
[ο]υ[δε 



i. 7• Bl(ass) brackets ή . . . κτήματα, which words are absent in c. Androt. 75. 
12. τις] σ(μνννη[ται: so F and c. Androt. 75; σεμνΰνψαί t«s• Bl., Butcher. 

18. The papyrus apparently agreed with the MSS. in omitting τα which is read by edd. 
before τον with c. Androt. 75. 

19. ουκ νμων α[ξια : so F and c. Androt. 75. 

20. dhiv : so Bl. and Butcher with SLFYO ; oiSev vulg. 

ii. 6. άγουσα : άγουσαι F. 

7. After μναν most MSS. insert ας, όταν σοι δοκη, πάλιν γράφεις καταχωνεύειν, which is read 

in c. Androt. 76 (γράψεις); om. SAY 1 ; Bl. brackets. 

8-9. α καταρασαιντ av : so MSS.; αν καταράσαινθ' Bl., Butcher with c. Androt. 77. 



1811. EXTANT CLASSICAL AUTHORS 211 

12. oiounrcp: so MSS., Butcher; οΐόσπερ Reiske with c. Androt. 77, Bl. 

18-19. αυ[τ]ωι; k\cos : SO F; <\eos αΰτων Other MSS., edd. ; AYO have ayayovres for 
ayovTts. 

eni-njdevovras : -aavras F COrr., A Androt. 77, Bl. 

22. τούτο : so F and r. Androt. 78; τοσοντο(ι/) other MSS. and v. 1. F, BL, Butcher. 

23. προήχθη™ : so vulg. and r. Androt. 78 ; πρόηχθ€ S, προήχθε Weil, Bl., Butcher. 

iii. 3. Whether the papyrus had τούτου (S) or τοντων is of course quite uncertain. 

4-5. Ύιμ[οκρα]τ6ΐ crvvepti : SO MSS. ; Ίιμοκράτης νυν epei Dobree, Butcher. 
13-16. αντον . . . Μίλα[ι>ω]π•ωι Xeye(i> ; SO A; Other MSS. place Xeyeti> after αυτόν. 

19. e κείνων : τούτων F. 

20. Bl. and Butcher bracket αυτός, following Rh. Gr. v. 581. 16. 

23. τούτον ηγούμαι F. 



/ 



1812. Isocrates, Ad Deinonicutn. 

19-7x13-7 cm. Fifth or sixth century. 

This practically complete leaf from a papyrus codex is inscribed in a sloping 
uncial hand, similar in character to that of P. Rylands 58 (Plate 3), though rather 
more careful and regular, and is no doubNof about the same period. The ink, 
at the bottom of the verso partially obliterated, is of the characteristic reddish- 
brown shade. Stops in the middle position only are used. Whether a second 
hand can be distinguished is doubtful. The few alterations and insertions which 
occur are similar in style of writing and colour of ink to the body of the text, and 
must at any rate be practically contemporary. 

The pages are numbered 17 and 18 respectively, the numbers being placed 
as in a modern book in the top outside corners. In the corner opposite to that 
containing the figure 18 is a δ, which seems to be a stichometrical figure marking 
the 400th line. With about 25 lines to the page, if the outer page at the 
beginning of the book was left blank (cf. e. g. P. Rylands 58). the first line of the 
1 8th page would be approximately 1. 400. Survivals of the application of 
stichometry to the speeches of Isocrates are to be found in the Codex Urbinas 
(Γ), but the unit there is rather larger than that indicated by 1812. As Drerup 
observes in his edition, p. lxxxii, the hundreds of Γ correspond to about 93 lines 
of the Teubner text, but page 18 in the papyrus is preceded by only 316 such 
lines, or more than 50 short of what would on that proportion be expected. On 
the other hand, the length of the stichometrical line on the system of Γ is 
calculated by Drerup at 37 letters, which is precisely the length of line in 1812. 
The inconsistency is due to his estimating the Teubner line at 40 letters, whereas 
in the Ylpbs Αημόνικον, at any rate, that number is usually exceeded. 

The fact that the Upds Αημόνικον stood at the beginning of the codex 
suggests at the outset an affinity with the so-called vulgate (ΛΠ), but the textual 

Ρ 2 



212 THE OXYRHYNCHUS PAPYRI 

position of the papyrus as between that family and Γ is a neutral one, the agree- 
ments and disagreements being fairly equally balanced. In one place a vulgate 
reading has been inserted as an alternative (1. 41). No support is given to the 
peculiar readings of ΣΤ. Besides the mediaeval MSS. there are available for 
comparison the eccentric second-century Berlin papyrus No. 8935, with which, 
among many natural discrepancies, two agreements on minor points are 
noticeable (11. 36, 42), and also for a few lines another papyrus fragment, of the 
third century, at Strasbourg, with which 1812 differs twice (11. 42, 48). Readings 
not otherwise attested are found in 11. 2 and 40, but they are unimportant. 



Verso. 

μάτι• πειρω το μεν σώμα είναι φιλόπονος 
την δε ψνχην είναι φιλόσοφος ινα τω μεν 
επιτελειν δύνη τα δοζαντα τη δε προοραν 

επέστη τα συμφέροντα παν ο τι αν μελλης § 41 

5 ερειν προτερον επισκοπεί τη γνώμη πολλοίς 
γαρ η γλωττα προτρεχει της διάνοιας νομι 
ζε μηδέν €ΐναι των ανθρωπίνων βέβαιον όντως 
γαρ οντ€ ευτυχών εση περίχαρης ούτε δυστυ 
χων περίλυπος δυο ποιου καιρούς του λεγει[ν] § 42 

ίο η περί ων οισθα σαφώς η περί ων αναγκαιον ειπείν 

is • 

εν τούτοις γαρ μονο^\ν~Π ο λόγος της σιωπής κρειτ 

των* εν δε τοις άλλοις αμεινον σιγαν η λέγειν 

χαίρε μεν επι τοις συμβαινουσιν των αγαθών 

και λυπου μετρίως επι τοις γιγνομε[νοις] των 
1 5 κακών γίνου δε τοις άλλοις μηδέ εν ετεροις 

ων κατάδηλος ατοπο[ν γ]αρ την μεν ουσιαν 

εν τοις οικειαις αποκρυπτειν την δε διανοιαν 

φανεραν έχοντα περιπατειν μάλλον ευλαβου [ § 43 

ψογον η κινδυνον δει γαρ είναι φοβεραν τοις με[ν 
20 φαυλοις την του βίου τελευτην τοις δε σπουδα[ι 

οις την εν τω ζην αδοξιαν μάλιστα μεν πειρ[ω 

ζην κατά την ασφαλειαν εαν δε ποτέ σοι συμβη 

κινδυνενειν ζητεί την εκ του [πολέμου σωτη 



1812. EXTANT CLASSICAL AUTHORS 213 

ριαν μετά καλής δόξης άλλα μ[η με]τ αισχρ[ας] 
25 φήμης το μεν τελευτησαι παν[τω]ν η [π]επρω 

Recto. 
Τη δ 

μένη κατέκριναν το δε καλώς αποθα 
νειν> ϊδιον τοις σπονδαιοις η φύσις απενει 

.μεν- και μη θανμασης ει πολλά των ειρη § 44 

μάνων ου πρέπει σοι προς την νυν παρου 
30 σαν ηλικιαν• ουδέ γαρ εμε τούτο διελαθεν 
άλλα προειλομην δια της αυτής πράγμα 
τιας αμα του τε παρόντος βίου συμβουλιαν 

e^ei/ejT α ."Π και του μέλλοντος χρόνου 

παράγγελμα καταλειπειν την μεν γαρ του 
35 τον χρ€ΐαν ραδειως ειδήσεις τον δε μετ ευ 
νοιας συμβουλευσοντα χαλεπός ευρησεις• όπως 
ουν μη παρ έτερου τα λοιπά ζητης- αλλ εν 
τε[υθεν ω]σπερ εκ ταμ[ει]ου προφερης ωηθην δειν 
μηδέν παραλειπειν ω[ν] αν εχω σοι συμβουλευειν 

δίΐ/ 

40 πολλην δ α[ν] τοις θεοι[ς χα]ριν σχοιην ει μη διαμαρ § 45 

ν 

τοιμι της δόξης ης \ζχ\ων περί σου τυγχανω^ν 1 ^ 
των γαρ άλλων τους πλείστους ευρησομεν 
ωσπερ των σιτιων τοις ηδιστοις μάλλον η τοις 
[υ]γιαινοτατοις χαίροντας ούτω και των φίλων 
45 [τ]οις συνεξαμαρτανουσι πλησιάζοντας αλλ ου 
τοις νου[θ]ετ[ουσι] σε δε νομι[ζω] τουναντίον του 
των εγνω[κεναι τ]εκμηριω χρωμενος τη περί τη[ν 
αλλην σο\υ παϊ\διαν φιλοπονία τον γαρ αυτω 

Λ . το μεν σώμα : SO P. Berl. ΛΠΣΥ ; τω σώματι μ£ν Γθ, Dr(erup). 

2. τηι/ Be ψυχην : so ΠΣΥ (om. P. Berl.) ; rjj δ<? ψυχΐ) others, Dr. 
eivai : om. MSS. 

4. 1. επίοττ; : ΣΥ have (πιστήστ). 

5. eptiv : Xeyuv P. Berl. ΛΠ. 

8. (ση : so P. Berl. and most MSS. ; eVet Γ pr., Dr. 



214 THE OXYRHYNCHUS PAPYRI 

1 1 . μόνον as originally written here is also in P. Berl., but this is probably a chance 
coincidence. 

14. και λνπου : so Λ ; λνποΰ 8e others, Dr. 

26. A rather tall hooked top makes the δ in the margin above the end of this line look 
something like the symbol for 4,000, but that figure can hardly be meant here. 

27. η φύσις I SO ΠΣΥ ; om. Γ, Dr. 

29. vw : om. P. Berl. ΣΥ. 

32. αμα\ om. ΣΥ, which have σνμβονΚην. 

34. 1. KaraXmetv. The spelling of the papyrus is no doubt merely an instance of the 
common confusion of ι and e ι ; cf. e. g. 1. 35 ραδ«ω?. 

36. σνμβονλΐυσοντα : so P. Berl., though placing this word before μςτ ewoias, which is 
also the order of λπ. ΣΥ insert σοι before σνμβ. 1. χαλεπ-ω?. 

3 γ. τα Χ. μη παρ er. P. Berl. (erepav) ΛΠ. 

39• napaXeinetv : so P. Berl., but cf. η. on 1. 34• αν is added also in ΛΠΣΥ. 

40. ΛΠ read τω θ(ω. 

μη, v. 1. μηδ€ν : μη, as first written, is the reading of the MSS. 

41. The superscribed reading ην is that of ΛΠ. 

42. yap : so P. Berl. ; μεν yap others, including P. Arg., Dr. 

4δ• *£ a l xa P r • ΣΥ. 

48. σο[ν : so λπςυ • om. P. Berl. P. Arg. Γ, Dr. 



1813. Codex Theodosianus vii. 

ι8•ι Χ9•ι cm. Early sixth century. 

Plate I (recto). 

The hand of this fragment from a vellum book is a fine specimen of Latin 
uncial writing, the letters, which are of medium size, being executed with much 
precision, and distinguished by both breadth and delicacy. If it belongs to the 
sixth century rather than the fifth, it is to be placed not later than the first third 
of the century, not only on the evidence of the hand but also because of the 
unlikelihood that after its supersession by Justinian's Codex of 529, the Codex 
of Theodosius would remain in demand. The fragment is thus approximately 
a contemporary of Paris. 9643 (R), on which the text of Book vii, the part of 
the Codex here concerned, principally depends. Eight lines are lost at the 
bottom of the recto, and if the margin below these corresponded to the deep 
margin at the top, the height of the page was approximately 29 cm. ; its breadth, 
on the supposition that the lateral margins were half as liberal as the upper one, 
would be something like 22«5 cm., a little broader than in 1097, from a papyrus 
codex of Cicero, which in height practically coincided. Beginnings and ends of 
the lines are missing throughout, and the precise point of division is obscured 
by the uncertainty whether or how much the first lines of paragraphs protruded 
into the left margin ; in the transcription below a protrusion of not more than 
one or two letters has been assumed. Double dots mark off the addresses and 



1813. EXTANT CLASSICAL AUTHORS 215 

dates of the rescripts from their texts. Abbreviations and numerals are usually 
accompanied by a medial dot ;p(rae/ectus) p(raetori)o, in the one place where it 
occurs, is written, with a horizontal line above, and a similar stroke was placed 
above numerals. There is no instance of punctuation, but the evidence is 
insufficient to infer that this was neglected. 

The text of 1813 is close to that of R. In vii. 8. 11 the name Eutyckiamwt, 
over which R blunders, is correctly given, but some other misspellings are 
common to both; in vii. 8. 12 they agree on vela, where bella is restored from 
Cod. lust., and at the end of vii. 8. 10 in the insertion of conss. 

Recto. Plate I. 
[seri[mtts quinque librarnm auri co[ndemnatione proposi vii. 8. 9 

[tap]raedia quae ex Gildonis bonis a[d nostrum aer avium de 
[lata] stmt ab hospitibus excusari n[unc etiam praecipimus 
[tit o]mnes domus ex eodem iure v[enientes in quibuslibet 
5 [civi\tatibus sunt constitutae ab [hospitibus excusentur quo 
[possVnt conductores facil[ius inveniri si quis igitur con , 
[tra nostr[am fecerit iuss[ionem multa pridem ferietur in 
[flicta : pp- K\arthag• vnt- id- Aug- H[onorio viii- et Theodosio Hi- aa• conss- 
[idem aa- Ioha)nni pp[p\ : devotum p[ossessorem ab omni inqui 8. 10 

10 [etudine} liberamus primo ig\itur omnium ad nullum 

[predium] per Africam vel public[um vel privatum domus 110s 
[trae] vel cuiuscumquae iur[is nullus metator (?) accedat si 
[a qu\oquam f iter it destinatti\s licentiam enim domino acto 
\ri ip\siquae plebi serenitas n[ostra conmisit ut eum qui prae 

1 5 [para}ndi grat[i\a ad possessionem venerit multandi expel 
[lendi] habeat facidtatem n[ec crimen aliquod pertime 
[scat c]u[m s]ibi arbit[rium ultionis suae sciat esse conces 
[sum rec\tequae sacrile[gium prior arceat qui primus invene 
[rit ad]ministrantem ver[o eiusque officii proceres quo 

20 [rum pr]aecepto i?ihibitam [personam ad agrum aliquem de 
[stinarit] in tempore pros[cribi debere censemus solam sane 
[hospitalitatem sub h[ac observatione concedimus ut ni 
[hil ab hospite qii\od v[el homimim vel animalium pastui ne 

Verso. 

[vel sponte contra pr\aeceptum nostrum probati fu[erint 

[obtulisse : dat- prid- id- I]un• Rave[n]nae post conss- Hon[ori viii• 

[et Theodosii v- aa- con\ss- 



2i6 THE OXYRHYNCHUS PAPYRI 

I 

[idem aa- Probo c-s-l- post] alia: de hospitalitate iiidicum e[t om 8. n 

δ [nium personarum quid si\bi etiam ipse possessor pr\ae 

[sumere debeat quare censura] omnia quae ad su[i d\isp[endium 
[pertinebunt submota sint ia\m missa super h\ac re auctoritas 
[declaravit : pr aetata litt]eris ad Eutychiami\m p- urbi 
[die iiii• id• Ian• Constantio et Clonstante conss• 
ι ο [idem aa• Hadriano ppo : Afric- hoc pyospectum est ut infa\usta Jiospi 8. 12 
[talitatis praebitio tolleretur nee privatum quis[que a 
[domino aeditun postidet et cetera : dat- v- 11011• Mart• Rav ennae 
[Constantio et Const ante co]nss• 

[idem aa• Eustathio ppo : devotissi]mos milites ex procinc[tu 8. 13 

15 [redeuntes vel proficiscentes] ad vela muri novi sacr[atis 
[simae urbis singulae turres in] pedeplanis suis sus\cipiant 
[nee aliquis possessorum graviter fe]rat quasi [ill]a d[is 
[positione quae super publicis aedificjiis processerat [vio 
[lata cum privatae quoque domus ffrtiam partem talis rei 
20 [gratia 'soleant exhibere : dat- v•] non• Mart• Constant inop- 
[Honor io xiii• et Theod• χ• aa• conss•] 
[impp• Theodosius et Valentinianus\ aa• Hadioni patricio et 8. 14 

[magistro officiorum : univcrsi cui\usli[bet 



Recto 11. predium is written for the sake of shortening the supplement, which still- 
seems a trifle long, though dium alone would be insufficient. 

14. 1. ip\sique; cf. 1. 18, where quae is again written for que. 

18. The omission of prior, which is absent in R but appears here in Cod. lust., would 
make the line rather short. 

Verso 2. conss• : this is also the spelling of R. 
3. con]ss : so R ; om. Mommsen-Meyer. 

8. eiychiarum praef. R. Some reduction in the number of letters is required and is 
most easily obtained by writing/), for praej '. 

9. Const ante vv Tc R. 

10. Hadriano proc. A/ric(ae) R, Hadriano pp. Cod. lust., and cf. vi. 29. 11, vii. 4. 33. 
What 1813 had here remains of course uncertain ; R's abbreviation of Africae is adopted 
as suitable to the space. 

15. vela : so R; delta Cod. lust. 
20. Const{aniino)p{pli) R. 

22. Haelioni is also the spelling of R (1. HeL). 



1814. EXTANT CLASSICAL AUTHORS 217 

1814. Index to Codex Iustinianus, First Edition. 

ν 34.3 χ 22-4 cm. a. d. 529-535. Plate V (verso). 

This mutilated leaf from a papyrus book proves to be both from the juristic 
and the palaeographical point of view exceptionally interesting. It contains 
part of an index of rubrics and inscriptions of Justinian's Codex, not, however, 
of the extant second edition, but as originally issued in the year 529. This 
explanation, for which we are indebted to Professor de Zulueta, of the divergences 
of the index from the Codex as we have it, accounts so completely for the 
facts that no reasonable doubt can be entertained of its correctness. 

Of the relation of the two editions of the Codex a good account is given by 

Rotondi in Bull, delt Istituto di diritto romano, 1918, pp. 153 sqq. The second 

edition, which was five years later than the first, was a thorough revision designed, 

as stated in the prefatory constitution of Dec. 534 De emendatione codicis, 

to embody and co-ordinate the many new decisions and constitutions issued in 

the interval. It is precisely the absence of later matter of this kind that 

distinguishes our index. The most significant passage is 11. 42-6. Here the 

ordinary text of the Cod. lust. i. 17 gives two constitutions of the years 530 and 533 

under the rubric De veteri iure enucleando et auctoritate iuris prudentium qui in 

digestis referuntur. In 1814 the rubric is much simpler, approximating to the 

corresponding one of Cod. Theod. i. 4, and the two new constitutions of 530 and 

533 are replaced by two others, of which one emanated from Justinian but the 

other is Cod. Theod. i. 4. 3, of A. D. 426. This evidence, which of itself would 

be sufficiently conclusive, is supported by analogous indications elsewhere. Thus 

the papyrus omits i. 14. 12, of Nov. 529, and the anti-Manichaean i. 11. 10, the 

exact date of which is unknown but which, as Kriiger states, is probably posterior 

to i. 5. 18, being connected in substance with i. 5. 19-21 of 529-3 1 • Its 

absence in the first edition of the Codex would therefore be expected. Again, 

the papyrus index passes directly from Cod. lust. i. 11 to i. 14, omitting the two 

titles 12 and 13, which are both concerned with the Church. It is clear from 

the numbering of the rubrics preserved on the verso of the leaf that in this 

edition, as in the second, the principle of beginning with the ecclesiastical titles, 

which in the Codex Theodosianus had been placed at the end (Cod. lust. i. 1-11 = 

Cod. Theod. xvi. i-io), had already been adopted. That principle was only 

carried out with more completeness in the second edition by the insertion after 

i. 11 of two other titles connected with ecclesiastical matters from other parts of 

the Codex. In this procedure the revisors were acting quite in accordance with their 

powers ' as laid down by the constitution De emendatione codicis § 3 si quae 



2i8 THE OXYRHYNCHUS PAPYRI 

(constitutiones) similes vel contrariae inve7iirentur,circumdticere et a prioris codicis 
congregatione separare. 

Though primarily valuable as a relic of £he original edition, the papyrus 
makes some contributions also to the text of the extant Codex. While agreeing 
with the MSS. in the omission of Septimio in 1. 20, it inserts the name Sext{io) 
in 1. 49 (with Cod. Theod.), Julio in 1. 48, and apparently M(arco) before Palladio 
in 1. 13 ; it adds ν prov{inciarum) (again with Cod. Theod.) after vic{ario) in I. 8, 
but omits et constdi designate in l. 27 and nobilissimi in l. 52. Evidently in the 
inscriptions of the constitutions little reliance can be placed upon the evidence of 
the MSS. on such matters ; the tendency to abbreviate was not to be resisted, 
and Kruger's rule (cf. ed. mai. pp. xv, xxiii sqq.) of supplying a full inscription 
from any available source is justified. Thus he had already adopted Sextio in 
i. 18. 2, and at any rate Tulio can now be added in 18. 1 : consistency would 
suggest the acceptance also of quinqite provinciarum in i. 11. 3. There is further 
some useful evidence on individual points of detail. Lines 16-17 show that 
Cod. i. 11. 9, the inscription of which was missing, is to be attributed to 
Anastasius, and 11. 31-2 confirm the attribution of i. 14. 10 to Leo and 
Anthemius ; the name of the addressee is in both cases lost. After 1. 41 there is 
nothing corresponding to the supposed Greek constitution to which a place 
is assigned by Kruger at i. 16. 2, and the existence of that constitution, though 
not disproved, becomes more questionable. 

Palaeographically the fragment is of importance, since there are few 
examples of early Latin uncials that can be so precisely dated with equal security. 
It is highly improbable that the first edition of the Codex would continue to be 
copied in Egypt after being superseded by the second, especially in view of the 
express prohibition in the constitution De emendatione codicis § 5 ex prima lustiniani 
codicis editione aliquid recitare. The date of this manuscript may therefore be 
placed with small risk of error in the six years following April 529. The letters, 
written in brown ink, are of medium size and well formed, but the pen was 
rather coarse and the papyrus not of the best quality, so that, especially on the 
verso, the effect is not elegant. In rounded letters the separate strokes are not 
always closely joined. As in 1813, abbreviations are commonly followed by 
a medial dot often accompanied, in the case of aa, cc, pp, &c, by a horizontal 
stroke over the letters ; but the scribe is inconsistent, omitting sometimes the 
dot and sometimes the stroke ; he writes both impp- and imp-p- but the latter is 
probably due to inadvertence, bo = -bus in 1. 18. When rubrics or inscriptions 
extend to a second line or more, these are considerably indented. Rubrics are 
marked off by horizontal dashes above and below them and the letter ψ is placed 
both in front and at the end of each, as in the Verona fragments, whose practice 



1814. EXTANT CLASSICAL AUTHORS 219 

is followed by Kriiger in his large edition. The prefixed ψ is accompanied by 
the number of the rubric, in Greek figures ; constitutions, with one exception 
(1. 37), are not numbered. The first rubric on the recto is written in enlarged 
uncial letters. Apparent remains of pagination are visible in the top right-hand 
corner of the verso, probably [ ]«: or[ }κθ, which are higher figures than would 
be expected unless the index was preceded by other matter. 

Recto. 



^ [ia] d[e p]agaui[s} sacrificiis Cod. lust. i. n. 

[et] templis t ^ 

[imp' Const- ? Di\odoto 
[imp• Constajntin- a• ad Taurum pp- 
5 [impp- Gratian•] Valentin- et Theod- 
[aaa- Cyne]gio pp- 
t[mpp- Arcadius et H\onorius aa• Ma 

[c\rovio [et Pr\oclian• vie- ν proy- 
id- aa- Apollodo[ro pr]oco7is- Africae 
10 imp-p- Honor[- et The\odosius aa 
popido [Carta}geii[ie\nsi 
id• da• Asclepi\odoto p\p 
impp• Valentin• et Marcian• aa] Μ 
Pallad[io pp ] 

15 impp• Leo et An[them• aa Dioscoro ~ρρ• 

αντοκρ(ατωρ) Αναστα[σιος a 

€παρχ(ώ) πρ(αιτωριωι/) [ 



^ [φ] de legibo e[t eon]stitu[tionidns 
principum et [edictis 



14• 



20 [imp• Co]nstan[ti]n- [a] Basso pu 

[impp- T\heo[dosius et] Valentinian- aa 

[a]d senatum 
[id• aa ad senatum 
[id• aa ad Volnsian]um pp- 

25 [id- aa Florentio p\p- 

[id• aa Florentio pp] 6 

[id• aa Cyro pp] 7 

[id• aa ad senatum] g 

[impp• Valentiniaii- et] Marchian[- aa ad Pal 9 

3° [ladium pp] 



220 



THE OXYRHYNCHUS PAPYRI 



35 



40 



Verso. Plate V. 

[ ]*f 

Αυτοκράτορα Λ(\ων κ\αι Αι>θ[ζμιος αα . . .] . 

€7ταρχ(ω) 
impp' Leo et Ζηηο αα 
ty ιγ de mandatis p\rincipum 1$ί 
imp-p- Gratian• Valen[tinian• et Theodo 

sins aa• ad Eti[signium pp 
β η δια τον τον 8ξ<τπ[οτον Ιονστινου και Ιονσ 

τινιανου [αα 
ψ ώ de serial• con\sultis ψ 

impp- V[al enl• T\heod\osius et A read- 

a• ad s\enatum~\ 



+5 



50 



1. 14. IO 



15• 



55 



[impp 



[de attctoritate] iuris 
[prudentium\ 



w 



Tkeodosius et V]alent• a ad se 

[ad] se[natu]m 
[imp• Iusthi]ianus [M]enae pp 
[fy ις- de iu]ris et fact i ignor[an]t\ia] ψ 
[imp- Anion• a Julio Max• mil• 
[id• a S\esxt htv[e]n[ali] 
[imp- P^ilip[p\o\us [a ltd- f Μ archil- [ 
[impp]• Diocl• et M[aximian- aa Itilianae 
[id• aa] et cc Ma[rtiali 
[id- aa] et cc Taur• et P[olIioni 
[id• aa] et c\c] Zoe 
[id- aa] et cc Dionysyiae 
[id• aa e]t ~cc Gaio ft [Anthemio 
[id• aa] et c~c Amph[iae 
[imp- Con]stantin• a [Vale\riq[no vie- 



16. 



17• 



Cod. Theod. i. 4. 3 



Cod. lust. i. 18. 



r 
2 
3 
4 
5 
6 

7 
8 

9 

10 
11 



_ 3. This constitution is absent in Cod. lust. Since a pagan emperor is excluded by the 
subject, and the first constitution should be older than the second, the choice of the emperor 
is limited to Constantine or Constantius, and the name in either case must have been 
considerably abbreviated. As the scribe uses the form Constantin- (11. 4, 20, 58), it 
is perhaps better to suppose that Const- here = Constantius ; cf. 1. 5, where Theodosius is 
shortened to Theod. Di]odoto is preferred to The\odoto as the shorter. 

4. Constantin{iis) : 1. Constantius. The same error is found in SCR. 



1814. EXTANT CLASSICAL AUTHORS ^ 

J'tSt,): so Cod. Theod. xvi. ,o. .5 Ρ^Ψ- provincial ; om 

C ° d - \T, £***«*-<; that ^*~^ *»£ sutKaXg than , . . 
both Ϊ &3TSSfW=r/J£Sa. without further additton. O m . 
004 JS, Om Cod. lust., where the constitution is given without the name of the 

-TT it dr .TS; £23tt£ZZRSSLZ ~ .» * ** *> * 

ecclaiis ^«""''""'"^ ^^Zt Per .) ; the nomen «MM. is supplied from Cod. 
Theod°• SZ ShSto.?^ Λ the horizontal stroke passes through the 
''""a,. Ο•» rf«-« &**** Cod. Inst. There would no. be room for,/ . . .design. 
even if shortened to et cons. d. 

remains do not suggest ]». T2 is omitted. 

9 ^»"& TheS ί ΆΊ- in the papyrus is of 
course uncertain ^ ^ ^^ fe ta the MSS. of Cod lu^ bm 

is resto'red from Nov. Ϊ.4. 4 as f•**^*-*^ ££? ' Γ,*5ϊϊ£3 in 

the papyrus is unin.elljgrble j«d J"*j£ f Stlfa numera,; though thie seems 
the margin and has a horizontal stroice aoovc » c / numbered when others 

to be n°o reason why this .particular c—on trin ^ £^-££1- restored. 

* 4s£referuntur, with two «■»**«£££ «ο £™^Ε£*** « *« of 

rubric is Zfc responsis prudentuvi, under ^ fc * there are tn ree d , /ef) of Ulpian 

which are of Constantine, one placing ^JP^^X^fSult^ while the third 
and Paulus on Papinianus, the oth «*£**** *^^not ««M stood in the 
corresponds to 11. 4 4~5 here. It is possible hat response, ^ much 

lacuna of 1. 42, but in any case the rubric is "fj^^^^on That the first two 
shorter than that of ^ lust ■• <^™^ct » m^m^te^^ ^ ^ 

constitutions of Cod. lheod.i. 4 are cuoppeu * Ρλ . ;,„ „„„ Marciano adscripta sunt . . . 

of arf J*. ..••.., ι „«. tv,^ nn mP r»f Menas to whom the constitution 

46. This constitution is unknown, but the name ot menas, ιυ 



222 THE OXYRHYNCHUS PAPYRI 

of a.d. 529 Zte codice confirmando, prefixed no doubt to the first edition, was addressed, may 
be restored with great probability. § 3 of that constitution relates to former codices and to 
veteres iuris inierpretatores, but it i* unlikely that that section, still less the entire constitution, 
stood in this position, where some other rescript to Menas, superseded subsequently, like 
Cod. Theod. i. 4. 3, by Cod. lust. i. 17. 1-2, would be more appropriate. 

48. Iulio : om. Cod. lust. 

49. 1. Sexflfo) ; this name, which is absent in the MSS., had been rightly restored from 
Cod. Greg. 

50. That the superfluous was cancelled is not certain. A difficulty arises at the end 
of the line, where with the reading Marcellae the letters lae are expected, in place of which 
there is something that may be read as ] . Ii . [ or perhaps as ] . //• This constitution is 
apparently to be connected with iii. 44. 8, issued on the same date and addressed to Iuliae, 
and some variation here in the name of the addressee is therefore not surprising ; but 
whether the insertion of Iul. is correct remains very doubtful. 

52. et cc (= Caesares): so PLM ; et centum S, om. C, et Maximianus nobiles cesares R, 
et Consiantius et Maximianus nobilissimi CC. Kramer. 



HOMERIC FRAGMENTS 

(The collations are with Ludwich's text.) 



1815. 14-5x19-1 cm. Parts of two columns, written in an informal sloping 
hand on the verso of a fragment of a second-century taxing-account. Col. i 
contains A 33-50, Col. ii. A 59-75. 44 ωο of χωομ€νος corr. from 0. 
45 €χων added above the line, φαρβτρης 65 ου was written for y, but the 
third stroke of the ν is blurred and y may be intended. 67 αντισας 
71 νη(σ ηγασατ. Third century. 

1816. 25-7 x 7-7 cm. Fragment containing ends of Ο 332-70 (complete 
column) and 386-409 (end of col., the upper part of Col. ii being lost), in 
nearly upright somewhat irregular uncials of about the middle of the third 

century. A mark of elision in 1. 340. 338 om. 340 δ' bios 344 (]νιττρη- 
frvres 345 reixeos 348 veov (θελοντα 386 In place of this line va[ stands 
in the papyrus, 1. 389, which is omitted in its proper place, apparently 
having been inserted here. The papyrus is broken above va[. 389 om. ; 
cf. 1. 386. On the verso a late third-century account. 

1817. Fragments of three leaves, written with brown ink in a good-sized 
sloping and fairly regular hand in which light and heavy strokes are strongly 
contrasted. Probably sixth century. Accents, breathings, and marks of 
elision are frequent, and apparently all due to the original scribe. Stops in 



HOMERIC FRAGMENTS 223 

the high and middle position are used. These fragments were found with 
1818, and possibly belonged to the same codex or corpus, but the scripts, 
though they may be contemporary, are quite distinct. 

Fol. 1 4•ι χ 2-5 cm. Verso ends of Ρ 379-84, recto beginnings of 
4 f 8-24. 

Foi. 2 1*5x2 cm. Verso a few letters from Σ 412-14, recto do. from 

455- 6 • 

Fol. 3 14-4 χ 13-8 cm. Verso Σ 564-81 (end of col.). 571 ομα[ρτη 

t I 

574 τζ[τ€ν}χ€το $j6 pobaybv rflj χρ[ύσ€οι 579 [δ]ύ'[[ω]], corr. Η 1 ? Recto 

καλ]ην δ 

603-17 (end of col.). 604 δυώ 6i2 ]αι[δαλ]4ην. The scribe perhaps 

began 1. 614, being misled by the homoioarchon of 611 and 613. ^[[YQi 
615 Αχιλλ^[[ι]]ο9. 617 Below this line is a row of angular marks, followed by 
the title Ιλ6αδ[ο]? ι[η] enclosed in ornamental flourishes. 
1818. Parts of five leaves of a papyrus book, written with brown ink in an ugly 
sloping hand of the fifth or sixth century, rather similar in type to that of 
1618. Accents, breathings, and marks of elision have been freely inserted, 
partly by the original writer, but many being due to a second hand which 
has also added some of the stops (high and middle position) and made 
corrections in the text. The method of accentuation hardly differs from 
modern practice, except with regard to the retracted accent. e has 
frequently been written for at or vice versa, and many such misspellings 
have been corrected both by the first and second hands ; these variations, 
and the common confusion of ι and et, are generally not noticed in the 
following collation. A few scraps have not been identified. 

Fol. 1 16-8x14-7 cm • Verso X 109-37 (ends of lines). 111 κατα]- 

αι 

0[i]oju.e[jV]] οπλά re πάντα 113 α]μννονο$ 1 14 κτηματ 115 η of νηυσίν 

€ e 

converted from e 116 vlkos 118 οσά re 121 was included. 125 κα[[ι]] 

α 

απο, corr. Η 2 , apparently neglecting to delete the a. 128 λληλοισι 129 οφρα 
τάχιστα 134 αντψ. Recto Ι53~77 (beginnings). 154 [/φιλαί'ι^οι 163 τρω- 
ν ι ι 
χώσ6 corr. to τρβχοΰσι by Η 2 164 τρί-πος 171 κορνφήσι 1^2 ακρότατη 

δη ι 

174 aye 176 ΥΙηλςίΰη. 

Fol. 2 Recto Χ 190-202, 283-93^ 2 °3 ( ? )• Lines 283-93 are eacn 
followed by a small comma-shaped mark by the first hand, implying that 
the verses, which were rewritten in the proper place (cf. Fol. 3), were to be 
cancelled. The dislocation may have been due to a defective archetype, or 



224 THE OXYRHYNCHUS PAPYRI 

a 

the scribe's having turned over two leaves in mistake. 194 Δαρδανώων 

τ 

195 fV/ Ai ? Taus 1 9^ αλάλ'κοι,ίν• /3ελε'εσσι[|ν[] 200 ovb δ 283 ει of πη£ευ 

λ π 

converted from 77 290 ουδέ. Verso 216-43. 220 πολά 222 άμννς 

e € 
224 έφατ 226 AiTCe|]V[] 228 Ιστάμενη TTr[epoevT ? 233 Δ^ίφο^'^εΤ] 238 ττροσ- 

€ λ 

εΐττε 239 πολά. 

s δ 

Fol. 3 Verso Χ 255~7^• 2 ^° Αχιλλευ 264 αλλήλοισι 265 ovre 

σί φαιδιμος Ε[κτωρ 

270 δε ται 272 θνίων 274 ηλ-ένατο ^χάλκ^ον eyX 0S T| 275 μζίλινον 

ποιμένα \αων • 

e Vx?L ? 2 77 Ε'κτορα διοζν. Recto 291-314• 2 9^ eycuy'[J_aT] 3°4 Μ αν 

ασπουδ[[ε]]ί, Corr. Η 2 3°5 [[μάλα]] μέγα ^°7 λαττάρη? 3 ί0 α[[μ]]αλτ/ι/ 

312 Αχιλ[[λ]]6[υ5, corr. Η 2 . 

Fol. 4 Recto Χ 33 6 -57• 347 ^Ή ^ Py as 353 αυτη^. Verso 37 6 ~97• 

ου ν ι 

380 ερδεσκεν δσ'[[α]] 3^3 κοταλειψ-ωσί^] 39 1 Η υ 39 2 γλαψνρήσί. 

α € t 

Fol. 5 Verso Ψ 345~7°• 34^ έτρεφαν 35° πίρατ'^α 1 ^ ε'επτεν $$1 ωττλσαθ,' 

S 

a corr. 353 κλήρο 354 τόνδ'|]Υ]] έλαχε, a converted from ε. 355 οΌυρίκλυτος, 

δ ύστατος αντΐ e 

but a straight stroke was begun after λ. ^6 ελανν^μεν Xtittovs 359 eicrav 

ι 
363 ομο}κλησαν i"'[[es]] επε'εσσι 365 Koriry[[t]] 367 πνοι.]ης. Recto 383-406. 

t 
388 ελ'αφηράμει{ο? 392 α£ε . . . οι δε 393 δδ'ου 395 «yccSz^as• 5e 396 θρνλχθη 

ί π 

397 δακρνόφιν 4 01 Ατρεδτ]? (ε from ι ?) δουρι k[Kvtos 4°5 ΐτοισι. 
1819. Fragments of a roll containing κ, λ, μ, well written in small upright 
uncials which may be assigned to the second century. Two marks of length 
and many accents (acute-angled), breathings, marks of elision, diaereses, and 
stops in the high position have been inserted by a later hand, probably 
that of the corrector who has made a few alterations in the text. The 
columns had a marked slope to the right, the last line of Fr. 2. ii beginning 
about 6 letters in advance of the first line. A facsimile of that fragment 
with a transcript of the text was given in the New Palaeographical Society's 
Series II, Plate 76. 

Fr. 1 4-1x2-2 cm., κ 3-12. Fr. 2 26-4x14-2 cm., Col. i ends of 
λ 244-83, Col. ii 284-323. 259 Αμνθαον)α τ' 285 βασίλευε*^]], corr. Η 2 



HOMERIC FRAGMENTS 225 

α 

287 ρ of Πηρω retouched by Η 2 2g2 Kar[[e]] 297 θεσφατ απαντ' 298 κα 

ζω 

for και.. Τννδάρεω 3 01 αμφω ου? • 302 ττα[ρ] Ζηνο[ς 303 In the margin 

τ 

opposite this line is y (= 300). 306 Ποσώα[ωπ 308 Ωγο*> 309 θρέψει• 
3ii ewe [[ο]]ωροι, corr. Η 2 ? 314 TroAuaJeJiKo?, corr. Η 2 316 n?/A[[e]]ioi>, 

ο 

corr. Η 2 . Frs. 3-5 beginnings of λ 414-26, 428-32. 418 κει]να 429 κ]α- 
κί[ίνη. Fr. 6 2-2 χ ι «5 cm., a few letters from μ 1-4. Some small fragments 
remain unidentified. 
1820. 17-8 χ 38-5 cm. Lower portion of a sheet, which was the uppermost of 
a quire, from a papyrus codex. The hand is a good example of the formal 
upright type commonly designated ' Coptic ', .resembling e.g. P. Grenf. II. 
112, and is of the sixth or seventh century. Stops in two positions (high 
and medial), accents, breathings, and marks of elision and quantity are fairly 
frequent ; a few of these are evidently original, but the majority, which are 
more lightly written, are later additions, due probably to one of the correctors, 
.of whom two, one using cursive forms, seem to be distinguishable. Besides 
these common signs a comma to separate words, and its converse, the 
sub-linear hyphen, occur among the subsequent insertions. The dimensions 
of the complete page may be estimated at about 34 χ 19 cm. 

Fol. 1 Verso σ 55-8o. 63 πλεοι^σσψ 64 βασι,ληες. In marg. αινον[σι. 
Η 2 6$ Έ,νρνμαχος re κ[αι Avtl]voos. Marg. καταειρω[ Η 2 6j marg. x 7re/n 

or τ' 

e . [ 2 τ . . . [ Η 2 7θ ήλδανς η$ ειιίσ-κατον. Marg. αξ[ξΐ. Η 2 78 εφαθ' 4κ τ 
o[£e S ο 

ονόμΎ}[νς 8ο In left marg. a diagonal dash. Recto 95-121. 96 IpoJvJ] 

101 eiA/ce 102 αιθονσσης 105 In the left marg. a flourished sign 7. 107 On 

ω of (ων an acute substituted for a grave accent. 109 On η of αορτηρ an 

acute substituted for a grave accent. no [α\ψ' b ap' in εδ^^κανοωντ', 

the e cancelled by a dot placed above it (H 2 ?). in a om. 118 επι 

γαστέρα. 

Fol. 2 Recto σ 137-63. 142 marg. eire κ[α]λω[ί (not κα]\ον or -λα 

apparently) | etre κακ[ως Η 2 146 Against this line and 11. 148-51 there are 

oblique dashes in the left margin. 149 διακρίι>εσ0αι 152 δ of bi-nas corr. 

153 κατά δω[μ]α 163 In the margin below this line μηδ€νο$ προκείμενου' Η 2 . 

Verso 178-205. 185-7 Oblique dashes in the left margin against these 

ν 
lines, and a coronis between 11. 186-7. 185 ypvs 190 marg. το [t'^vl• 

κα[ν]τα Η 2 . 



226 THE OXYRHYNCHUS PAPYRI 



IV. MINOR LITERARY FRAGMENTS 

1821. 6-8x4 cm. Beginnings of 9 verses, hexameters or elegiacs, from the 
bottom of a column, written in a rather small, informal, upright hand of the 
third century. Marks of elision are used. 

και το£ω μνη[ 
νόστοι re . [ πάντα ο' επιστα[μ€ν 

ζνθα καμων πι . [ €ΐην ατρεκεως [ 

μηνιν γωομενο[ ω? σε πάλιν μ[ 

μοχθησας ο' ατελ . [ [ 

5 ασπασιω[. ,]€,.[ 

1822. 3$•$ χ 17 cm. On the recto remains of two columns of an account. On 
the verso ends and beginnings of lines of two columns from a hexameter 
poem, apparently relating to astronomy, e. g. i. π α]κροθι νυκτός 18 ]ei8eTai eibos' 
19 ]λα φημιξαντο' 21 ] μέγα χαμα 22 ]ον ανχμον 28 ]ι ενιαυτω• 29 \νσι κομηται- 32 ] σελήνη' 

s 
(marginal adscript μισ^ησι) 33 ]ν ηλιο^]] ελθη Η. 30 άστατα γαρ στοι\α[ι 33 Zevs 

Kpovos Ερμ[ειας. Most of the lines of Col. i have a high or medial stop at the 

end. The last line of Col. ii is opposite i. 30, but the column begins at a 

higher point than Col. i and the lines are rather closer together, so that the 

number of the lines was probably the same in both. This papyrus was 

found with 1796, and is in much the same condition ; the texts on the verso 

are apparently in the same hand, and the marginalia, too, are similar. But 

the height of 1822 is quite different from that of 1796, and there is no 

connexion in subject ; the hands and contents of the rectos also differ, so 

that it is clear that two distinct rolls are represented. Second century. 

1823. 2θ•8 x 6-6 cm. Strip from a column containing parts of 28 lines of a tragedy, 
11. 7-15 at least being stichomuthic. Resolution is frequent. The upright 
well-formed uncial hand is evidently early, and may go back to the beginning 
of the first century B. c. 

[ ] eTC />X[ *S ^2.• [•] ■ μ[*]λαινηι λ[ 

[ ]το λνπ[ πάτερα φονβνσα? τοτ€ [ 

[ .]σις πα[ [ ~\ρν νπο ρητη[ 

[ ]ωσ[ [ ]#? τα Τΐμ ων e • [ 



MINOR LITERARY FRAGMENTS 227 

5 L [ jerois av . . [ 

«9 0o/?or απω . [ 20 [ ]vmviv 77 . [ 

και ουκ ι-γγ€κρυψα[ (?) [ ] γαρ ητ19 g [ 

ωρ τωι ye μβλλβίΐ/ 0/)«, . [ [ ] . σα ντησ[ 

τςθνηκε των σων σπζρ[μα [ ]ςτοντα[ 

ίο οιμοι προς άλλων και τοδ[ [...•....].* τύμβου . [ 

οντω? e X €i ταύτα ω? π[ 25 [ ]παισ . [ 

ποτζρον δξ παρζλυσ η τ[ Γ 1 . Μ . Γ 

η_παρθβ[νο? [ ]. ρων (re . [ 

ω_τλημον εθψι[ [ y Tp09 ο γι . [ 

1824. g.gx6-i cm. Fragment of a (Menandrian ?) comedy, from the top of 
a column. Alternations of the dialogue are indicated by double dots, and 
the names of speakers in abbreviated form have been entered above the line 
in cursive, as e. g. in 211. The speakers are Λάχης and Mt£( ), a name 
which does not occur in comedy but may stand e. g. for Μιξίδημος, Mt£ias, 
Μίξων, or Μιξωνίδης, and one of them is betrothing a girl called Pamphile (?) 
to the other. The text is written across the fibres of the verso (the recto 
being blank) in medium-sized sloping uncials, probably of the third century. 
Besides the double dots a high stop is used ; a mark of elision (H 2 ?) occurs 
in 1. 10. Several lines are evidently nearly complete at the ends. 

Ααχ 
f pa]tveis €19 μ€ : εμοι Seo[ 

e]ya> Se σοι Λαχης• ουκ εστ[ # 

Μι£' 
]v οιδα δηπουθζν : γεν[ 

]ί• μη ποτ €£7Γ77? ωομη[ν 
Λαχ 
5 ε]πιδωσ€ΐν ; πόθεν λα[βων ? 

] . . ομολογώ σοι λαμ[βανειν ? 

] αμα πανθ e£ei . [ 

]ϊ* διδωμι Παμ[φιλην ? 

παιδώ\ν επ αροτω γνησιωϊν 

Γ0 ] αρεστά [ταν]τα σ[ο]ι [ 

]' 
λα]μβαν[. . .]χομ . [ 

J" • [ Ά 

Q2 



228 THE OXYRHYNCHUS PAPYRI 

In 1. 3 there is a small mark after Mi£' on the edge of the papyrus, but it 
does not suggest any letter. For 1. 9 cf. e. g. 211. 38-9 ; it may be inferred 
with some probability that the fragment is from the conclusion of the play. 
In 1. 11 the small interlinear dash probably belongs to an abbreviation of 
one of the speakers' names. 
1825. 1 1-9 χ 13-1 cm. Fragment from the top of a leaf of a papyrus codex, 
containing on the recto ends of 8 lines, and on the verso beginnings of 
10 lines, from a comedy. The hand is a round upright uncial of medium 
size, dating perhaps from the fifth century. Accents, &c, which are fairly 
frequent, may be by the original scribe, but a corrector's hand is apparently 
to be distinguished in verso 2. Brown ink, rather faded and effaced 
in places. 

Recto. Verso. 

], ν πόνους yctf)' άλλα που τύχη• εγω πολύ μάλλον ενεος [ 

? δ]ει δε πεΐραν λαμβάνειν e 

Λ „ " ' " τι ονν εν\.]φα\\ ι \w€t : τα το το . [ 

] παρακολονθων εξομαι Ljr.u_._u ^ . . 



ουκ αν δυναιτο φησϊν . [ 
αυτή άλλα πορίσατε •[•]••[ 
5 μαλακώς εχ«[[ί]] yap α . . [ 
και παρελθοΰσ ώχετο e£co . [ 



] ... ων γαρ υπ ο ταύτης €γω 

5 ]τ ολουμαι προαπολω ταύτην εγ[ω 

] . . . ωτ(ον τι γαρ e . . . r.y 

Βιατλριβη γίνεται μου τοις γάμοις 

, . % , σοι κατ . . άλ . . . ση αίνε . € . Γ 

] . . . λον κ . . αι " • ' • • ■ ' *■ 

πορισω παιδίω τιθθας π . . λε . [ 

α . τε . . τε . . . . [ 

ίο ε[ 

Verso 2. εν [ά]φανεϊ? But the correction is unexplained. 6. Trochaic 

tetrameters begin here, but 1. 8, where 1. τίτθας, is irregular. 

1826. 9 x 7*3 cm. Fragment, in places rubbed and faded, of a leaf of a papyrus 

codex containing a romantic prose narrative concerning King Sesonchosis. 

The hand is a medium-sized upright uncial of late third-fourth century type 

Recto. Verso. 

]νη . . [ %εσ]ογχωσις . [ 

] περικρατη . [ ] και τυγχανου[ 

] τον παιδα ν[ο]υν . [ ] . πάντως αλλ εχου[σι 

] Χεσογγωσις ανήλθε [ ] όπερ επεκλωσαν του[ 



MINOR LITERARY FRAGMENTS 



229 



5 ] . ια λοιπόν μετά τω[ν 

] ιππομαγων και οπλομ[αγων 
€ΐω]θοτα βασιλευσιν em τ[ης 
εν\νομον ηλικίας γεν[ομ€νοις 
τω] πατρι enrev κ[ 
ΙΟ ] νπο των πατρωω[ν 
Κ€]χα^ι]σθαι την ο . [ 

} - λ[• •] • ?[•] αΎ )δ ω ? • [ 

>[]οσ.[. .}θν.[ 
τέ]λ€ΐονσθαι ο\ 



5 ] μη βουλομζνος τα τ . [ 
]αιν όταν €Keiva aSe . [ 
1 Tore αυτός €πιφανε . [ 
]f)i 8e eva των μορ . [ 
] ανθρώπους π . . . [ 
ίο ευ]δαιμονιαν Tyy δω[ 

] τον θίον βοηθον . [ 
Ζζ\σογχω[σι]ς . . χω . [ 
]ρτων €$ω ye όλον . [ 
]ντα δο . . που . . . . [ 
15 3« • • Τ • [ 



The length of line seems to have been greater than that suggested by 
recto 7-8 ; in 11. 6-7, where the lacuna is approximately the same, some- 
thing like κατά τα €ΐω]θοτα is required. In verso 10 the final ν of ζνΰαψονιαν 
is corrected. 
1827. Fr. 1 10-7 χ 5-6 cm. Upper part of a narrow column, with a small 
detached fragment, containing a few nearly complete lines of prose, perhaps 
an oration, mentioning Phormio. Third century, written in medium-sized 
sloping uncials ; a high stop in 1. 11. 



Fr. 1. 
[. . .]e/>o[.] τούτοις 
μεν €υ[κ]τον ov ev 
[τ]ωι τη? πόλεως α 
[ξ\ιωματι και αγω 

5 νιζεσθαι και κη 
[ρ]υττεσθαι τηι δε 
[π]ολει τον τούτων 
[στ]€φανον ον δο 
[£]ης γεγονότα αλ 

ίο [λ] αισχύνης an ι 
[ον]' αμα γ εκηρυτ 
[τε]το Φορμιων . . 



[• 
[• 
15 [. 
[■ 
■ [■ 
[• 



.]α οτι Αθην[αι . 

. ,]<€1 φΐλθ[. . . . 

.]τος €ΐ . [ 

. .]οσδο[ 

• •] α Μ 

• •)ηνΑ 



Fr. 2. 

Μ 
Μ•] • [ 



In 1. 2 there seems to be barely room for [κ], but ευτονον is not attractive, 
still less ενγονον. 



230 THE OXYRHYNCHUS PAPYRI 

1828. 4-9 x 2*9 cm. Fragment of a vellum leaf, inscribed in well-formed rather 
small sloping uncials of, probably, the third century. The contents are of 
an ethical character. Apparently the lines were of no great length, but their 
point of division is not fixed. The vellum is thin and rather discoloured. 

Recto or flesh side. 

] και yap οξνχολ[ο]ς . [ 
] ο LKavov ποιων τρυφ[ηι 
κα]ι ο μέθυσος και ο καταλα[λος 
και ο ψί]υστης και ο πλίονζκτης [και 

ι 

5 ο αποστε]ρητης και ο τοιούτος τα [πάρα 
πλησια ?] ποιων [τ]ηι δι[α]νο[ιαι] τον[ 

Verso. 

3 • ν [ 

]νριον ξπιλανθανεται [ 
] πραξιν η yap τρυφη και . [ 
] ημάς ου[κ] εχβί δια την α . [ 
5 ? η]ν ενδξδνται η δε τειμ[ωρια ? 

]ω[, ο]ταν πολλά . [.] . τω[ 



INDICES 



(1700 is to be supplied before 78-99, 1800 before 0-28, such figures referring to 
papyri; figures in small raised type refer to fragments, Roman figures to 
columns ; sch. = scholium.) 



I. 1787-9 (Sappho and Alcaeus). 



aa[ 87. 13 IO. 
δβροις 87. 37 3. 
ά]8ρόταν (?) 87. 9 3. 
αγαθός 88. 4 IO. 
ayava[ 87. 3 U. 12. 
άγαπάτα 87. 3 Η. IO. 
2γβ88. 12 ϋ. 3. ( V L 89. 31 3• 
άγοράν 88. 15 i. 6 sch. 
adfiv 88. 3 3 sch. 
έ]δν88. 8 5. ίδιο» 87. 3 ϋ•5• 

αδυλογοι 87. U 4. 
άίφι 87. 6 7. 
ά«'«α 89. x i. 6. 
aeppui( 88. 5 3. 
α^[δοι 87. G 9. 
άθανατ[ 87. 8 I. 
αθύρματα 87. 3 U. 2 2. 

ai 88. 2 6, 12 ii. 4, 15 ϋ• l6 J 

89. x i. 12(F). 
az[ 89. 23 2. 
αιγι/3ό[ 88. 8 3. 
ίιδροϊ 89. 6 5. 
αϊ« 88. 6 8. 
oMe/T 88. 15 ii. 5. 
Αιολ[ιδ ... 89. 6 6. 
αιρουσ[ 89. 7 3 Sch. 
αίσχος 88. 4• 
αϊσχρ[ 87. 17 3• 
αίτιον 87. 5 6. 
αϊψα 87. 44 5• 
ακατ[ 88. 4 3 2 • 
ακοιτιν 87. 1+2 2Ι. 



άκοίψ 87• 40 3• 
[Αφ]» 88. Ύ 3• 
άλίκ|εσ(η 87. 12 7- 
αλίτραΓ 87. 7 4, 32 2 • 
«λλα'87. 1+2 ι6, 6 2, 27 4 • 
ίλλο$ 88. 4 34• " λλο < 87. η 6. 

αλλ[ 89. * π. ΐ5• 
αλοί 88. 4 25. 
άμεσ[ 87. 26 6. 
«/χπ<?λ[ 88. χ 4• άμπελοι 88. 

15 Π. 21. 

α/χφ[ 87. 18 5 • <W>i[89. 27 3• 
αϊ* 88. 15 i. 4 sch. 
άι/αιτιον 88. 1δ ϋ. 12. 
«Va£ 89. G 8. 

' Ανδρομέδας 87. 7 5• 
άνψω 89. Χ ΐ. 15 (?)' 
ίίνηρ 89. Χ ϋ. 6. 

«V0os 87. 10 5• 

άνθ Ρ ώτι[ 87. 14 7• 
&/|ολ/3ο* 87. 40 2. 

αιτί 88. 15 Ϊ. 15 Sch. άν(τ\ του) 

88. 15 i. 18 sch. 
ΛΌιδοκ 87. 1+2 ιι. 

άπαίσαν 87. 44 2. 

ατταλ[ 88. 4 7• 

αϊτό 88. 2 Ι Ο Sch. άπυ 87. 7 

ι ; 88. 2 2, 7 3• α7Γ ' 88. 

15 ϋ. 21. 
άπολελΐίμμίνον 89. 7 3 Sch. 
ίζπόλλυται 89. 24 2. # 
άπυγν([{ή 87. 13 8. 



άπνείπη[ 88. " 4• 
άπΰθεσθαι 87. 33 Ι. 
αρμονίας 87. 13 9• 
ι'ιροτρώμμ\ 88. 2 8. 

Άρτ«μι[ 87. 37 4• 
α? 88. 15 ϋ. 4• 

ασαν 87. 7 4• 
^στ[θ9? 89. 29 4• 
αταΐϊ 89. 16 2 Sch. 
άτίρα[ 87. 15 3• 
πύάτ[αισι 89. 16 Ι. 
αδθι 87. 36 2. 

αύ'τα* 87. 1+2 6, 40 4; 89. Μ. 

9• αΰτΐ7 88. 2 ΙΟ Sch. αντω 
88. 4 2 8. aft-air 88. 15 ϋ. 

23• 
αΰων 87. 1+2 1 8. 
Άφροδί{τα 87. U 3• 
Άχΐρ[οντος 87. 4 ΙΟ. 

n' x V87. 1+2 5• 

/3<ίρ»7 89. 7 3 sch. 

βασιλεύς 89. χ ϊ. ΙΟ. βασιλ[ 

87. 4 6. 
βιάζω 88. 7 7• 
βόλλεο 87. 34 4• 
0ροδ[88. 8 7• βροδο[87. 16 ι. 

βροδόπαχνν 87. 1+2 ΐ8. 
ψρομος 89. 29 6. 

yauei 89. Χ ί. 7• 



232 

γάμα» 89. Μ. Ι4• 7 α Η-[ 89. 

38 2 sch. 
yap 87. 3 π. 2, 2ΐ, 7 ι, 13 7, 

36 6, ^9; 88. 4 ι6, 2θ, 1δ 

π. ΐ7, 19, 2Ι , 2 5; 89. 1 i. 

ι 2 (?), π. 4 , 9 3(?)> 132 > 

31 ο 

γαϊ 87. 1+2 19; 88. 2 8(?). 

γη 88. 3 2 sch. 
γίνίσβαι 87. 1+2 Ι7• «V 6 »' ] 1 "" 

87. 1+2 Ι3• eyevro 87. 3 ϋ. 

Ι. Ίΐΐ>ίσθω 89. χ ϋ. 1 6. 

γένοιτο 87. 3 η. 23 ; 89. 

Η. ι 3 ? 

γίνηον 88. 2 9• 

γ?ω[ 88. 15 i. 4 sch. 

yijpas 87. 1+2 12. 

γληίίκαΐ' 88. 1 4• 

γλαφύρα[ 89. 6 8. 

ykvuepov 87. 6 5• 

γλυκύ? 87. 3 Ι7• γλυκεωϊ 89. 

Μ. 9 . 

yoW 87. 1+2 Ι4• 
γυναικόί 88. 3 7 s ch. ? yuj/]- 
αικι 87. 41 2. 



Sa[ 89. 7 3• 

δαίμων 87. 5 3• δαίμονα 88. 

15 ii. 12. 
[Saure] 89. 41 5, ν • 1• Si/we. 
δάφναϊ (or Δάφνας ?) 87. 3 U. 4• 
δ«ν 88. 4 2 7- 
δεΓί/α 87. 3 U. Ι 7• 
δΐκώμΐθα 89. 12 5• δέεται 89. 

25 4• 
bevovros 88. 1δ ii. 3• 
δι, 88. ia ii. 3; 89. 22 2. 
δ^τε 87. 36 4; 89. χ i. 15, 41 

5 (ν. 1. δ(ΐϋτΐ). 
διδο/σ[ 87. 26 5• 
Δίδυροί 88. 1δ i. 10 sch. 

[διπλ]ασίαν 88. 15 ii. 28. 

δ μ ά[ 88. 15 ii. 3• 
δοκ[ 88. 5 3• 
δόκιμος 89. 1 ii. 6. 
δό/χον 89. 29 3• 

δρόμωμΐν 89. 1 U. 2. 
δροπ[ω]σίν 88. 15 U. 23. 
δροσό(σσα[ 87. 6 8 



INDICES 

δννα 88. 15 ii. 16. 
δύναμ[ 87. 3 Π. 18. 
δυνατόν 87• 1+2 Ι 7• 

δώ[ 87. 24 3• 

δώρα 87. 1+2 ΙΟ. 

«ασω 87. 6 2. 

eyo> 87. 6 2; 88. 4 20, 12 Π. 8. 



pe 87. 3 11. 19, ι, 



2; 



88. 4 12, 13 ii. 3, 6. pot 
87. 1+2 24, 3 ϋ. 23. epot 

87. 44 7; 89. * Ι 12. op- 
par 87. 6 4, 28 2 (?). ap- 
peal» [89. χ ii. 3 ?]• "μΜ") 

89. * i. 16, 12 2. 

ΐίρσαί 87. η 9• 

eiVe 88. 12 ii. 6. ew^» 88. 

15 ii. 10. 
eh 88. 1δ i. 18 sch.; 89. x ii. 

2 (e's Pap.). 
ΐΐσάιον 87. 3 ii. 9. 
eiWf[ 89. x ii. 13 ? («τ Pap.). 
«,e£87. 1+2 i 3 ; δδ.^, 9 !; 

89. 6 7. 
™ά[ 87. 36 6. 

€\ev6epais 88. 3 5. 
eXqi/, q'Xeo 87. 6 3. 
eA/cea 88. 4 40. 

A]Mra[if 89. 20 1. 

e\ms 87. 1+2 19. 
ΐλπώρα 88. 1δ ii. 19. 
^>/3ά] 89. x i. 17. 

€μμ[ 87. 3 II. 

?p[pe ναι 88. 2 9. (eori) 88. 

2 14 sch. (?). tov 87. 3 ii. 

21. ησθα 87. 1+2 15. fc 

88. 1δ ii. 18. Ζσσεται 88. 

14 1; 89. 9 3. ίων 89. 6 4. 
eow[ 88. 6 12. ίοντΐί 89. 
1 ii. II. eotoais 88. 1δ Π. 
24. 

fV 88. 3 3sch.; 89. 29 6. κάν 

87. 9 3. m> 87. 4 10. 
?ei/]8ucws 89. 20 5. 
ακίκην 88. 1δ ii. 20. 
€Ki/e/ca 87. δ 5• 
eWr[ 88. 4 26. 
e£o[ 89. 40 2. 
ΐπάνω 88. 1δ i. 1 3 sch. 

«m 88. 3 7 sch.; 89. * i. 17. 



Έπύ[ων} 89. 6 7. 
67Γΐάμ[ 88. 1δ ii. 22. 
eWe[ 87. 6 2. 
eW[ 87. 1+2 26. 
eirtlradecK 89. 7 1. 
ϊπονάμίνοι 88. 1δ ii. 25 («Vo- 
^p.); 89. M. 5. 

/πωροσσ[ ? 87. 9 I. 

«ρ[ωτίί ? 87. n 4. 

€σλοι? 89. l ii. 8. 

«τσ[ 88. 4 33. 

(σχατ[ 88. 4 31. 

In 87. 9 2. 

rf 87. 44 9 ; 89. x i. 3. 

(Ιμορφοτίρα 87. ** 5• 

ΗΨ 87. 1+2 i8, 12 5; 89. x i. 

ΙΟ. ?χω 88. n 2. e^€t 

87. 3 ii. 19. %χα 89. * i. 2. 
ΐχοισα 87. u 6. 
εχνρον 89. * ii. 2. 

fa 87. 3 ii. 18. 

fa[87. 31 ii. 1. 

ζαμίνόντον 89. x i. 6 and sch. 

ζαμενίτωσαν 89. * i. 6 Sch. 

5 87. 3 ii. 6, 17. 

9& 87. 36 5. 

ηδ η 87. 1+2 12; 88. 15 ii. 17. 

ήρινον 88. 1 6. 

βαάσ[σ . . 87. n 7. 

βαλα[ 88. 9 I. 

ία[«τ . . ? 89. 13 2. 

&iXe 87- 44 2. &λω[ 87. 12 4. 

Λλήσ^ 87. 44 6. 
<9eW 87. 3 ii. 17. θίοισιν 87. 7 3. 
0]ίγωσα 87. 1+2 4. 

βρίξ,τρίχπ 87. 1+2 ΐ3• 
0i/i<w 87. ** 5. 

0υρα«/ 87. 19 2. 

ϊατον 89. 29 5. 

? ta]^ 89. 13 3. 

Ιδρΐΐα 89. 6 2. 

ieVat, (ΐμι 87. 13 3. ip[f (?) 

88. 15 ii. 3. 

Ικ(σθ' 87. 3 ii. 12. 
l\\e ... 87. 44 10. 



/. SAPPHO AND ALCAEUS 



2 33 



'ίμ(ρ[ο 87. 10 3. ΐ\μ(ρον 87. 

10 6. 
Ιμ[ίρρ]ψ 88. 5 6 ? 

Ίμΐρτον 88. 4 3 

Ιππ[ 88. l 1. 

'ίσαν 87. 7 3. ισα 87. 1+2 I 5. 

ίχΛ/[ 89. 40 3• 

και 87. 1+2 24, 28, 3 ii. 7, 4 

IO, 5 2, 7 l(?), 1*2, 9; 

88. 4 2 2, 15 ii. 18; 89. Mi. 
3, 7, 20 2, 32 2, 34 ι. και 

r 87. 34 Ι. κάπνγυίΓ? 87- 

13 8. 
καίτοι 87. 4 7. 
κακοί 89. 31 Ι. κάκυν 89. U 2. 

κόκα 89. * i. 3. κάκων 88. 

4 3i, 15 ii. 15. κάκ[ 89. 



25 



3 1 , 
5• 



κα[κο^τροπΐ 87• 6 4. 

κάλαμο: 88. * 5• 

κάλαν 87. 3 ϋ. 13• κόλον 87. 

1+2 25; 88. 15 ϋ. ΐ9• κόλα 
87. 1+2 ιο. κάλ[87. 3 ϋ.22. 

καλίίΐ', κάλημι 87. 44 4• 
καμ[ 89. 21 Ι. 
κάμπος 88. 15 ϋ. 1 8. 
/capri[ 88. 15 ϋ. 27- 

κατά 87. 1+2 19; 88. 3 2 sch., 

4 21. κάδ 88. 10 6. καδδ[ 

88. χ 7. 

Karaypfi 88. 7 4• 
καταη[ 88. 10 3• 
καταισχννωμ(ν 89. ϋ. 7• 
κατίσ[χ . . 87. 7 8. 

κφ) 87. 1+2 1 6, Mi. 2, 2ΐ ; 

89. Μ. 8, 9, ΐ7• 

K[et/ieiOis 89. * ϋ. 8. /cet/iev . . 

88. 15 i. 15 sch. 

«λάδ«ί 88 * 6. 
Kepp] 88. 2 15. 
κψον 87. 3 ϋ. 6. «Π7»[ 88. 12 

ϋ. 4• 
Κίρσα(?) 89. 6 9• 
κλαμμα 88. 15 Π. 19. 
κλ(ηδον[ 87. U 4• 

/cXeor 87. 4 9• 
κολοκύνταίί 88. 4 6. 
κ]ούφω 88. 4 4• 
KplVfiP, Μκμίμςνος 89. Μ. 7• 



κυ[ 87. 19 4• 

κίμα 88. 4 25; 89. ι ί. 15. 

κι>μ[ 88. 6 II. 
Κνπρω 87. 4 6. 

λαγχάι>€»>, λά^ 89. * ϋ. 4ι ν • 1• 
λάβ?7. λίλογχε 87. 1+2 25• 

λάμβαναν, Χάβη 89. Χ ϋ. 4) V. 1. 
λάχΐ}. 

λάμπρον 87. 1+2 25. 

λανθάνον, λελά[θ ? 87. 12 3• 

λίΰκαι 87. 1+2 Ι3• 

λίγ^αν 87. 13 II. 

λνγνραν 87. 1+2 II. λίγνραι 

87. 6 7• 

λίμβνα 89. J ϋ. 2. 
λίμνας 88. χ 2. 
λι'τω? 88. 2 II. 
λυμαι>{ 87. Μ 8. 
λυρ[87. 29 5• 

μαινόμΐνον 89. 29 7• 

μακ[ 87. 5 Ι. 

μακάρων 87. 3 2 Ο. 

μάλα 89. 6 4• 

μαλθακοί; 89. τ ϋ. 3, V. 1. μόλ#. 

μάι/ 87. 5 4• 

μανιώδη 89. 29 7 Sch. 

μάρπτςιν, εμαρψ(ν 87. 1+2 20. 

μάχεσβαι 87. 44 7• 

Meya87. 4 7; 89. * ϋ. 4, 38 2. 

μ«γαλ[ 89. 21 2. 
μ«]δία£σ<ι 87. 27 3• 
μ€λαινα[ 87. 3 ϋ. Ι5• μ(λαίναν 

87. 1+2 Ι3• 
μβλλιχόφω^οί 87. 6 6. 

μβλοί 87. 6 5• μ^λών 87. 45 2 

(title). 
μίν 87. 3 ϋ. 7 ; 88. 15 ϋ. ΐ7• 

μίνην 89. Μ. 12. μβνετΓ 89. 

12 3• 

μεριμνα[ 87. 30 Ι. 

μή 87. 3 ϋ. 19, 24 2, 34 4; 88. 

12 ϋ. 7, 15 ϋ• 23 ; 89. χ π. 

3 7• 
μ^δ/δθ.Μ. 5, 12 5• 

μηδΐν 87. 3 ϋ. 20. μηδεν[ 87. 

34 2. 
μί/κί'τί 87. 7 II. 



W7-€[ 87. 27 2. 

Μίκα 87. 6 Ι. 

μιμνησκΐσθαι, μνάσθητΐ 89. * 

ii. 5. 

μ<5λ0[οκοι/ 89. Χ ϋ. 3 ( ν • ί• 

μάλ0.). 
μοναρχίαν 89. 12 4. 
μόρο? 89. 29 4• 
μι /yir 87. 3 ϋ. 9• 
pvpta 88. 2 ΙΟ. 
Μυρσίλου 89. 12 9 Sch. 
μ[ώμω ? 89. Χ ϋ. 5• 

να[89. 24 Ι. 

ma 88. 4 Ι9• ναί" 88. 15 ί. 

5 sch. ναός 89. * i. 17. 
νφρ'ιοισιν 87. 1+2 ΐ5• 
ί>ίκα[ 88. 15 ϋ. 8. 
4 88. 12 ϋ. 5• 

νόημμα 87• 44 3• 
νομίσδΐΐ 87. 1+2 2 2. 
^όσον 89. 29 5• 
vij/ 87. 3 ϋ. ιι, 5 5, 34 3'> 
88. 2 9; 89. α ϋ. 6, 13 ι. 

£βσ[ 88. 15 i. 5 sch. 

ξνστοφορήμΐνος 89. 1 ί. 8. 

ο, ο (art., dem., rel.) 87. 1+2 

8, 38 2. α 88. 4 33• ™ 
87. 1+2 25, 5 6, 19 5 ; 88. 2 

9, 15 ϋ. ΐ9• τάν 87. 3 π. 
ι8, 9 2 ; 89. Ύ ϋ. ίο. τώ 
88. 2 8; 89. Μ. 15, ϋ. 5• 
τώ[ 88. 10 2. τάς 87. 7 ι ; 
88. 15 ϋ. Ι4• τω 89. 9 ι. 
τα 88. 12 ϋ. 2. Όί 88. 15 
η. 25. τά 87. 3 ii. 14, 44 
ίο; 88. 2 ι, 4 27, 12 ϋ. 4» 
15 ϋ. 25. τοι'ί 87. 3 ϋ. 24; 
88. 4 23. των 89. χ ϋ. 12. 
ται» 89. 7 3• TOWj ταΐσί 
87. 3 ϋ. 7 ; 89. 1 ϋ. Ι4• 

οδ6, Tti^[e ? 89. Χ ϋ. 9• τάσδβ 

88. 12 ϋ. 5• 

οδοιπόρος 87. 3 ϋ. 8. 

οιδί 1/ 88. 4 2 6. οισβα 87. ** 9• 

3<t[ 88. 4 24. 

ΟΚΙΌΓ 89. 1 ϋ. 3• 

]δλ/3ων 88. 2 12. 



234 



INDICES 



όλίγαις 88. 15 ϋ. 2 Ο. 
8Κκα(ν) 87. 38 3• 
όλοφ[ώιοί ? 87. 5 3• 
6μάγν[ρ . . 88. 10 5• 
δμιΚλει 88. 4 27• 
ομπαυε 88. 15 ϋ. 7• 
[ομφ]ακας 88. 15 ϋ. 24. 
δ» 88. * 6. 

oi/ea[ 87. 37 2. 
ovlas 87. 3 ϋ. Ι7• 

? 6]νν(χ(ΐ 89. 8 4• 
ovoipe 87. 3 η. ι5• 
όπάσδοι 87. 1+2 23. 
οπποθεν 88. 1 3• 
οπποτα 89. Μ. 13• 

3/4 88. 4 3. 

6ρ\νί6ΐσσι 88. Χ 2. 

os [1789. * ϋ. 9]• ο? Te, as re 

88. 4 ΐ7• αντ(87. 44 2. 
ό'σσο? 87. 4 8; 88. 15 ϋ. 1 8. 

δσ]σα 87. 44 6. 
δτα 87. 3 ϋ. 4- &" Τ6 87. 3 Π. 

ιό. 
3ms 88. 6 ίο. 

ου, ουκ 87. 1+2 14, Ι 7; 3 "• 2 , 

21, 5 4, 7 8; 88. 4 2θ, 26, 
33, 15 ϋ• 20, 25(?). «γω'ι;κ 
87. 6 2. μηνκ 88. 12 ϋ. 7• 

? ουψάμα (or α^δάμα) 88. 4 1 1. 

ουδέ 87. 5 8, 10 2(?), 18 ι (?); 
88. 15 ϋ. 13, 2 6'.' 

ουδέν 87. 5 7• 

ουτοί, τοίτο 87• 1+2 2 4, 5 2j 
88 4 26, 10 4, 12 Π. 8. τού- 
του 88. 15 i. 15 SCh. ταύτα 

87. 18 2; 88. 3 2 sch. 

οντω 87. 3 U. 21. υΰτω 88. 

15 i. 10 sch. 
3]Μ?) 88. 15 ii. 21. 

ττά^ν 88. u 3. 

παίδα 87. 9 2. παίδίΓ 87. 1+2 

ΙΟ. 7r[ai]oas 88. 4 5• 
πάλην 87. 19 5• 

πάν ST. 3 ii. 5• ™ν[ 89. 6 3• 

παίσ[αν ? 89. 29 2. πάντα 

87. 1+2 Ι2(?); 88. 2 ίο; 
89. 24 Ι. πάντα[ 87. 3 ϋ. 
24, 15 2. πάντΐσσι 87. 13 
!3• 



πάντα 87. 4 9• 

παρίμμΐναι, ? 7r]aparaerai 89. 9 

3• 

παρίσκεθί 88. 15 ϊί. II. 
παρεχ([ 88. 15 ϋ. 28. παρίξ(ΐ 
89. * i. 16. 

παρμίν[ 89. 22 Ι. 
πάροιβα 89. * ϋ. 5• 
πάσασθαι, πε]πάμΐναι 87. 38 Ι. 
παύσαι 88. l5 ϋ. Ig. 
πεδά 87. 44 5• 
π(δίχην 87. 3 ϋ. Ι9• 
πεδίον 88. 9 2. 
ϊ〫[ 89. 2G 4• 
IIeXaVya>i> 89. 6 6. 

7Τ€λϊ?[θϊ 87- 38 2. 

Πβν&λήαι/ 87. G 3• 
περθίσβαι 87. 33 4• 
ττί0«σα[ 87. 44 8. 
πισίνα 88. 4 24. 
? π]λΐξάνθώος 88. 1 Γ. 
πλήονι 87. 18 4• 

ττλοκαμ[ 87. 14 5, 15 4• 

πλυ[ 87. 39 Ι. 

ποΐ7σ[ 88. 4 Ι9• ποησ[ 89. 9 2. 

71-OflV 87. 1+2 1 6. 
πολ[ 88. * 2. 
πολίαϊ 88. 4 25- 
ϊτό[λ«ι 89. χ ϋ. ίο. 
πόλνν 89. Μ. 16. πόλν 87. 

5 7= ττόλι( 88. 9 3• πόλλαν 

88. 6 5• πόλλας 89. Χ ΐ. 
II. πόλλα 88. 4 22, 12 ϋ. 

9, ίο. 7τόλλ[ 89. 6 5• 
πον[ 88. 15 ϋ. 9• 
πονΐ'ιν, επόνησαί 88. 2 1. 

ττοτά 87. 3 ϋ. 9 ; 88. 13 4 ; 

89. 6 7 (ν. 1. ποκά). 
ττρίι/ 89. 13 2. 
πρόδηλον 89. 1 ϋ. 4• 
πρόκοψιν 87. 1+2 9• 
προ? 89. * i. 3• 
πρόσβα 88. 15 ϋ. 25. 
προτίρω 89. 1 ΐ. Ι5• 
προφ[ 89. 19 2. 

πτήσσειν, επτάξατί 87. 3 ϋ. 3• 
πω 88. 4 II. 

Σαπφοϋί 87. 45 ι (title). 
Σίσυφο[ 88. 6 13- 



σο'ρ, σα? 88. 15 ϋ. Ι4• σά ΟΓ 

σαι 88. 7 8. 
σταφύλαις 88. 15 ϋ. 2 Ο. 
στ\ερ(άν 88. 15 ΐ. 4• 
στίχου 88. 15 ΐ. 1 5 sch. 
στ[ί]μα[σι] 87. 1+2 Q. 
συ87. 26 7, 44 9," 88. 15 η. ΐ4• 

σ€ 87. 4 5, ίο, β ι, 2, 23 3 5 

88. 15 ϋ. 2. σοι 88. 15 i. 

3 sch., ii. 17• 
σννα[γερ]ρίται 88. 15 ϋ. 1 8. 
? συναίρρ^αισα 87. 33 5• 
? av]we'xet 89. 8 4• 
συι/ουσιά^οι /Tis 88. 15 i. 2, 3 

sch 
σφ[ 89. ι ϋ. 12. 
σφαλ[ 89. 6 ιι. 
σφι 87. 13 12. 

τε87. 3 ϋ• Μ, ι6, 26 4, 34 ι(?), 
44 2; 88. 4 ΐ7, 15 ϋ• 9 (ή 

τσάντα 87. 3 ϋ• II. Cf. τοιαύτας. 
re\\eapv 87. 44 3• 

τίρπίΐν, ]erep7r[ 87. 10 7• 
τ^ηΚεφάνην 88. * 7• 
τιθίναι, θηται 87. 1+2 9• 

τίί 88. 15 ϋ. 9• «' 87. 1+2 7, 

ι6. 
tis 87. 6 5 ; 89. χ ϋ. 6. ]τι[ς] 

89. 1 i. 7• " 88. 15 ϋ. 1 6. 

τινά 89. 1 ϋ. 3, 19 2 • 
τ 01 88. 15 ϋ. 2 5- Cf. 87. 34 ι; 

88. 15 ϋ. 9• 

τοιαύτα? 88. 15 ϋ. 2 1. Cf. 

τίαυτα. 
τόκηας 89. Χ ϋ. 8. 
τολμ[ 87. 43 2. 
τό£ω 88. 7 3• 
τόπον 89. 31 2. 
τότα 89. χ ί. 12, 22 2. 
τ]ρόττοι/ 87. 7 7• 
τρυ[ 88. 7 6. 
Ίννδαρ'ώαις 87. 7 9• 
τΰχην 87. 44 6. τύχοισα 87 



ύ'δωρ 88. χ 4• 
ύ>[ 88. 12 ϋ. ίο. 



ύρο . . 87. 1+2 8. 



1. SAPPHO AND ALCAEUS 



235 



νμως 87. 1+2 20, 7 2 (?). 

νπά 87. 39 3; 89. Mi. 8. 

υπ^ρβέβαται 88. 15 U. 1 7. 
νπίί^σ[ι 88. 4 4. 
οπίσω 88. 4 23. 
ύπνο? 87. 3 Π. 16. 
vartpov 88. 15 i. 18 sch. 

Φαέθων 87. * 8. 
ίφα[ 87. 12 6. 
φαρξώμίθα 89. X Η. I. 
φίροισι 87• 1+2 Ι4• φίροισα 
87. 1+2 ΐ9• 

φθάνειν, ίφθατα 87. 3 ϋ. 1 3• 

φθ\μίναν 87. 1+2 2 2. 

φίλα 87. 1+2 2 7- *φ*λΐ|σ[ 87- 

5 4 . ?φιλ[87.*5• 



φίλο:, φίλ( 87. 1+2 ιι. φί[λ 

89. 6 ι. ?φίλ[87. 4 5• 
φιλότατα 87. 6 3• 
φοι[ 89. 19 ι. 
φοίταις 87. 3 ϋ. 1 6. 

χαιρο[ 87. 26 4• 
χάλεπ[ 87. 19 3• 
χαρίεντ' 87. ' ΙΟ. 
χαρισ[ 88. 4 2 2. 
χίλνρναν 87. II. 
Χ φ4 87. 9 3 ("ΡΡ- Pap.). 

χλιδάνα 87. Μ 8. 
^λώρ[οΓ 88. 1 5• 
χάροι; 87. 13 ΙΟ. 
χρήματος 88. 4 28. 
χρόα 87. 1+2 Ι2. 



Ι χρόνος 88. *® ϋ Ι7• 
| χώρις 87. 3 Π. 1 8. 

Ψάπφοι 87. 4 5• 

ψυχα 87. 3 ϋ. ΙΟ. ψΰχαν 88. 

4 32- 

^χρον 88. χ 4, 4 3 6 • 

ώ 88. 2 7, 15 ϋ• 9ί 89. 6 ι. 
ώ89. 32 3• 

ώγνγιος 88. 15 i. 7 sc ^• 
ωκιστα 89. 11• Ι• 
ώλομεϊ( 88. 4 2 9- 
ωμοτίραις 88. 1δ U. 2 4• 
^νυμβ» 89. 8 5 ( ν •1• ] ωι "' ι; ρ.). 
ώ? 89. α η. ΐ• 
ώστε 87. 38 2. 



II. OTHER NEW TEXTS. 



άγλ[ 



a 3. 8. = εκ 4. 4 5 ; 8. i. sch. 

4• 
■Ά/3&7ροί 0. η [2], 3• 
αγαθοί 86. 5 ', 94. 12 ; 3. 29. 
Αγαμέμνων 90. 20. 
άγανόφρων 92. 12. 
αγαπάν 0. * 1 4, 6+Τ H. 
άγγίλίη 93. VI. 3• 

αγειν 92. 65 4 ; 93. viii. 3 ; [4. 
1+2 2]; 20. 73 s ch. 

άγιος 86. 4• 

άγλαός 82. * J5, 20. 

81. Ι3• 

αγν[ 27. Ι7• 

ayriWi 94. 7• 

αγορά^ειΐ' 95. Π. 7• 

ayos 90. 2 1. 

άγων 98. 5_6 Π. ΐ6? 

αγωνία 98. 44 U. 8. 

άγων'ιζεσθαι 4. 3 2 ; 27 

αδειν 95. ii. 14• 

άδίλφή 98. **i. 10. 

αδελφοί Ο. Ι 1 7], 3 45• 

αδικείς 95. ii. ι ; 97. 12 ί/ 

αδίκημα 97. 5 2 • 
άδικοι 97. 63. 
άδροσίη 96. 1 8. 



4• 



αε#λοι/ 93. vii. 7• 

άίθλοφορίϊν 93. viii. 15• 

αεί 93. V. 6. 

aet'Seti/ 91. 9; 93. Χ. I. 

άίλιος 92. l Ι4• 

a€T0ff 91. 8. 

άηδως 26. recto 12. 

αθάνατος 82. 65 3• 

αθ(ος 85. Χ recto 5• αθίως 0. 

8 20. 
άθΐραπΐνσία 98. 44 iv. Ι. 
Άθηνά2. 3 54; [ 4 • 4 2 ]• '*θάνα 

91. 4• 
Άβηνά&σ» 2. 3 55• 
A%ai 0. 2 69, 3 6ο ; 4. 1+2 ι. 
Αθηναίος Ο. 2 66, 72, 3 7» 1J > 

29, 42, 5 1 * 4 - +δ *» 9. 8 9» 

22, 3 ο; 4. 1 + 2 4(?),[23]; 

27. 13? 

άθροισμα [5. 37 2 scri • ?]• 
ά^ώπευτο? 96. 17• 
Αΐας [80. 34]• 
Aiyaioj 80. 28. 
Αίγυπτος [θ. * Ιθ]. 
Άίδης 85. Π. 27. 
alev 80. 46. 
αίμα 2. 3 6ΐ. 

αιι/ε?* 83. χ. 5 ; 20- 64 sch. 



αίνος 86. 4• 

Αιολίί [Ο. 1 3 1 ]• 

a'ipeiv 81. ΙΟ. 

aipetv 4. 4 4• αίρεϊσθαι 93. 

Viii. 6 (είλάρε#α). 
αϊσθάνεσθαι 86. Ι. 
άίσσειι» 93. VI. 2. 
Αίσχίνης 0. 3 40, 4 1 i 4 • 1+2 9 
αίσχννη 27. ΙΟ. 
Αίσωπο? Ο. 2 46, 57• 

αιτε 90. δ 4> 5• 

αιτείς [0. 8 2 7]• 

αιτία Ο. 2 3 2 • 

αίτιος 27. ΙΟ. 

Αιτωλό? 2. 3 5Ι• 

αιχμά 90. 3 2 • 

αΐψα 94. 12. 

αιών 97. 43• 

ακήρατος 91. Ι9• 

άκμητος 86. 12. 

ακολούθως 8. ii. sch. 1 3 ? 

ακό/χιστοί 84. 2 Ο. 

άκουαν 82. 8 ; 88. 44 i. 7; 3 
67-9• 

άκρίς 1. 43• 
άκρισ'ιη 86. 21. 

ώφό& 22. ϊ. ΐ7• 

ακρω[ 83. IV. 3• 



236 



INDICES 



\\λβάνιος 2. 3 65. 

Αλέξανδρος 93. vii. ι ; 98. 15 
3, 20 2, 44 i. 6, 12, ii. 6, 
iii. 4, 15, v. 2(?), «4? 

"A\e£ts 1. 50. 

άληθψ 97. 4, 17, 38; 99. ii. 
Μ. 32. 

αληθινός 98. 12 4? 
άλ?5τΐί 94. 20. 

dX/fcoj/of 93. vi. 4. 
άλισκεσθαι 97• 25. 
άλίτ^ρίο? 4. 1+2 5 ? 
αλκιμος 90. 34. 
άλκτήρ 96. II. 

αλλά 91. ίο; 93. viii. ι ; 

95. ii. 7, 27 ; 96. 4 ; 97. 

41, 60; 98. 48 4; 99. ii. 

31; 2. 3 69; 3.28; 9. sch. 

3 ; 25. recto ι, verso 4 5 

26. verso 3 ; 27. 9. 
αλλήλων 96. ίο; 97. 4 J 7• 

9oi sch. 
αλλοί 90. 13; 93. ix. 4 ; 

94. 9, 15; 97. [19], 69; 

98. 13 ii. 4, v. 22(F); Ο. 

Ρ 34?]; 2. *6 4 ; 8. i. 

sch. 11; 9. sch. 4 ; 23. 

10. 
αλλοτ6 94. g, ιι. 
αλί 92. 36 4 ; 93. ν. 4, ix. 6. 

άλωή 94. 1 8. 
άλωσις 90. Ι4• 

άμα 92. 2 5; 24. 7 ; 27. ιι. 

άμαρτάνειν 0. 12 8. 

άμε'ιβεσθαι 94. II. 

αμν" 86. 4, 5• 

άμοιρος 0. 2 45• 

άμπελος 2. 3 7 1- 

άμφιπολε'ιν 92. * 4) δ1 2. 

άμφότερος 93. VU. 3, ΪΧ• Ι, Χ• 

6; 97. 62. 

άμφοτερωθεν 93. VI. 4• 

αν [90. 23]; 97. 67; 99. 
ϋ. ι8; Ο. 2 4 2, [57], 3 38; 
1. 47 ; 9. sch. 7, 9> 25 • 
verso 3. 

αν (= eav) 95. ϋ. Ι, 23 ,' 97. 

ΐ7• 
ανά 92. χ 2ο; 94.2ΐ; 95. ϋ. 
1 6 (άν). 



ανάβαιναν 90. 8. 

Άνάβασις 3. 39, 5 2 • 

avayeiv 98. 44 ϋ. 14! 0. 8 ΙΟ. 

άναγκάζειν 78. Ι4• 

ανάγκη 97. 15» χ 6. 

ανάγραφαν 0. 2 7 I J 2. 3 58 ? 

άναδιδόνα» 2. " 33• 

avatpelv 98. 44 ϊ. 12 (άνίλίί). 

αναίτιος [99. ϋ. 20?]. 

άνακόμιζεσθαι 0. 8 3 1 • 

άνακτάσθαι Ο. 5 30• 

άναλ,ογία 1. int. 

άνάλωμα 4. 4 12. 

ά'να£ 96. 9• 

άνα£[ 93. ϋ. Ι. 

άναπλ^ροΰΐ' 90. 5 1 sc h. 

άναρπά^ιι/ 85. 2— 4 verso 8. 

άνατελλειν 78. 29. 

avarpenftv 99. ϋ. 1 8. 

άνδραγαθία 99. ϋ. 23. 

άνδριάς Ο. 8 33• 

"Ανδρών 2. 3 46. 

άν«7Γίίν Ο. 2 55• 

ανΐμος 78. 8 ; 95. i. 7• 

άνε'ρχεσθαι 26. rectO 4• 

ανεύρισκαν 95. ϋ. 1 6. 

afijp 85. 2-4 recto 11, verso 

4 ; 90. 21, 25 ; 93. viii. 

2, ix. 3, χ. 3; 94. 6; Ο. 2 

7ο; 4. 4 8. 

άνθρωπος 78. 32 ) 94. 9» χ 5» 

95. ϋ. 17; 96. 5; 97. 8; 
98. 2 7, u iv. 8 ; 0. 25 3 ; 

26. verso 9• 
άνίστάναι 0. 3 33• 
ανόητος 1. 45• 
άνολβε'ιν 94. Ι3• 
ανολβος 94. Ι3• 
άντεκτροφεΐν 2. 3 49• 
Άντήνωρ 2. 2 5• 
ανπ' 0. 3 50• άιτι τοϋ 3. 6θ. 

Άντικλίίδ^ί 2. 3 5• 

'Atrioxeiiy 2. 6 4• 
Άντιοχίς [4. 1+2 21 ?]. 
Αντίπατρος 0. 8 2 6. 
άνώνυροϊ 90. Ι5• 
a|ioy 93. Χ. 5• 
αξιοΰν 3. Ι4• 
ά£ίωμα Ο. 3 28; 27. 4• 
α|ων 93. VI. I. 



άοώη 90. 48 ,* 93. ix. 3• 

Ζοικος 98. 2 8. 
άπαιτείν 95. ii. 23. 
άπαλλάττεσθαι 0. 3 *J1. 
άπαξ 99. i. 7 •? 

an-as 85. 2 ~ 4 verso 3; 98. 45 
3; 99. ii. 19. 

απάτη (1. πάλη) 93. Viii. Ι. 
απεφθος 90. 43• 
άπίχειν 95. ϋ. 5• 
άπιενα* 0. 2 44, 46 J 4. 6 4• 
άπλώ? 3. 3^• 

άπό 85. χ recto 3, 2-4 recto 6, 
8, verso 5, 8 ; 90. 27, 28, 
36 ; 92. > ιό; 96. g, 16, 
21 ; 0. χ 31, 6 ~ 7 2 ; 8. π. 
sch. 5. 

άποδεικννναι 1. 52. 
άποδιδόναι 95. ϋ. 23. 
απόθνησκαν 95. ϋ. Ι4 J 98. 

44 iv. 9. 
άποκαθιστάναι 8. i. Sch. 8 ? 
άπόκριμα Ο. 2 2 I ? 
άπόλείπειν 96. Ι ; 0. 3 1 6. 
άπολλύναι 85. 2_4 recto 5 ; 97• 

27; 0. 8 i 4 (r), 21. 
άπολνειν 2. 3 38. 
Απόλλων 4. 1+2 2. 
Άπολλ[ωνια ?] 2. 3 29. 
άπόστασις 8. i. sch. 1 3. 
άποστιρητής 28. recto 5• 

άποτεμνειν 0. 2 43• 
άποτυπανίζαν 98. * 7• 
άπροβονλεντος 0. 6+7 7• 

«ρα 90. is, 4 1 » 96. 15; 
98. *Μν. 8. 

άργιβρεντας 92. 1 g. 

"Αργός 90. 28, 36. [Άργ]ό&ν 

90-3• 

άργνριον Ο. 3 65. 
]apyt>pof 90. 35• 
<ipe[ 90. 9 . 
αρεστός 24. ΙΟ. 
αρετή 90. 1 6. 
"A W? Ο. 3 39• 
άρθμιος 93. Χ. Ι. 

αριθμός 1. int. (?) ; 2. 3 67 ; 8. 
ii. sch. 3, 6. 

αριστερός 2. 3 37• 
άριστοπ[ 92. 24 2. 



II. OTHER NEW TEXTS 



άριστος 0. 3 24. 
Αριστοτέλης 2. 3 50, 57, 59. 
'Αριστοφάνης 1. 21, 40 (?), 
[45]i 46, 49> 59 5 3• 2 J 

5. 744 sch. ? 
άρκίϊν 94. 3• 
(3ρ/χα 98. 44 ii. 13; 4. 1+2 5. 

αρμονία 2. 3 63. 

npi/e? 98. 2 9 ? 

αροτος 24. 9. 

άρρητος 8. U. Sch. IO. 

"Αρτεμις 92. x 3 ; 93. v. 5. 

άρτος 98. 44 1V. 5; 3. 50. 

αρχαίος 96. 9. 

αρχίΐν 90. 21 ; Ο. 3 38. 

άρχη 85. 2-4 verso 2 ; Ο. 3 46 ; 

2. 3 2. 

Αρχίλοχο? 93. viii. 4. 

αρχιμάγειρας 85. 2— 4 recto 3. 

Άσβνστψ 93. vi. 1. 

ασθενής 99. ii. 28. 

Ασία 2. 3 IO, 17. 

Άσκληπιάδης 2. J 6. 

ασμένως 98. 44 IV. 7• 

άσττάσίΟί 21. 5• 

ασπ«• 90. 4 ii. 5. 

ασσον 94. I. 

άστατος 0. 3 63 ; 22. ii. 30. 

άστψ 78. 35 ; 93. iii. 2 ; 
1. int. 

άστράπτειν 4. 1+2 5. 

αστρον 86. 2. 

άστυ 90. 2. 

Άσωπόί 92. 16 I. 

άτακτος Ο. * 1 7• 

ατε 96. 2. 

ατίλ[ 21. 4 • 

are/) 96. 16. 

ατερθεν 91. 1 5. 

ar>7 90. 8. 

άτρεκέως 21. 8. 

Άτρεύς 90. 2 2. 

'Ατρόμητος Ο. 3 43• 

'Attiko's Ο. δ 75• 

άτνχεϊν 0. 8 2 8. 

αυ 90. 4 ii. 6. 

αύδι? 94. 3 • 

αυλεϊν 95. i. 4 ^ saep. 

Αυλ'ις 90. 27 ; 92. 40 2. 

αυλός 95. ΐί. 12, 1 5. 



αϋξειν 78. 13. 3^• 
a£os 94. 8? 
άντε'ιν 94. 8. 
αύρα 96. 1 6. 
Αυτοκλείδης 2. 3 62. 
Αύτοκλί)? 4. 4 6. 
αύτοκράτεια 78. 4 1 • 
αΰτόρυτο? 95. ii. 8. 

αυτός 88. 2-4 recto 1 1 (?), ver- 
so 6; 93. ix. 5; 94. 7» 
16; 95. ii. 5; 97. 14 ^ 
*«#.; 98.ΐ8(?),τ 5 (?), 44 
ΐ• h 3» 9> XI > ηί • !3> !9> 
45 6; 99. ii. 17; 0. J 31, 

41, 43» 46, 2 45» 5°, 54, 
68, 3 [2 3 ], 32, 65, ™2, 
7(F). ^9, [32], W 4 ; 1. 
22, 53; 2. 3 29, 33, 34, 
41, [55]; 3. 15, 50; 4. 4 
n; 8. i. sch. 2 (?), 6 (?), 
9. sch. 6, 8 ; 25. verso 4 ; 
26. verso 7. ό αυτός Ο. 1 
24; 3.21,67; 4. 4 13. 

αυχμός 22. i. 2 2. 

αφθιτος 90. 47• 

αφθονία 96. 7 • 

άφνειός 93. Χ. 3• άφνεός 94. 

12. 
Άφόβητος (Ααόφοβος Pap.) 0. 

3 46. 
"Αφοβος Ο. 3 1 8. 
άφρων 2. 3 48. 
'A^atot 90. 3 1 • 
Άχαρι /eis 1. 46. 

Α^ιλλβνϊ 90. 33• 



β 3. 39• 

Βαβυλών 2. 3 68, 73• 
βαθυληιος 94. 1 8. 

l&uW 90. 33(0; 98. 45 3; 

24. ι ? 
βάλλειν 98.' 4S 6; Ο. 2 50; 4. 

5 4• 
βάρβαρος 98. 5-6 ii. 7, 44 ϋ• 2, 
iii. 2, 11, iv. 13 ; 2. 3 47• 

βαρυηχής 96. 1 6. 
βασάνιζαν 95. ii. 19• 
βασιλεύειν 98. 5_6 2. 
βασιλεύς 90. 21 J 93. IV. 3> 



237 

ν. 2; 95. ii. 24; 99. ii. 

30; 2. 3 3 2, 6 ΐ(?); 26. 

recto 7• βασιλ[ 85. 5 ι ; 

93. viii. 8. 
βάσις 8. i. sch. 12. 
βατηρ 1. int. 
βείρακες [l. 7]• 
Βελβίνα 1." 42. 
βέλεκος [1. 21, 2 2, 27]. 
Βελλε por 1. 56. 
Βελλεροφόντης 1. s6. 
βελοί 1. 46. 
βέλτιστος 1. 39• 
/3*>/3ι£ 1. 4 ο ? 
βερβίνια 1. 57• 
Bepyatos 1. 50, 5 2 • 
Βέργη 1. 55• 
Βερενίκη 93. iii. 2, ν. 6. 
Βερεσχεθοι 1. 45• 
β»;ρα 0. 3 23, 5 1 • 
βήρηκες 1. 59, 6θ. 
fSt/SXicw (/3ι•/3λ.) 0. * 33• 
βιοιτ; 94. 8. 
βλάπτειν 97. 7°) 73• 
βλαστόν 78. 3° J 96. 2 1. 
βλέφαρον 2. 6 6. 
βο5ί/ 92. 41 3 ; 93. viii. 2. 
βοηθός 26. verso 1 1 . 

βοτάνη 2. 3 40• 

βου[ 93. iii. 3• 
βοΰβρωστις 94. 2 Ο. 
/3ουκόλοί 98. 44 iv. 4• 
βοΰλεσθαι 26. veiSO 5. 
/3οι/λτ; 90. 4• 
/3οί5? 93. 3 ι. 
βύαν 1. 48, 49• 
βωμός 0. 2 35, 6θ. 

7 2. 3 ι ; 8. ι sch. 13. 

ya£a 98. 44 iii. 1 5. 

γαλακτόρυτοί 95. ii. g. 

γάμος 93. iv. ι ; 25. recto 7. 

γάρ 78. ii, [i 3 ]; 85. 2 " 4 
verso 2 ; 92. x 21. 41 2, 
42 1 ; 93. vii. 7, x. 6 ; 95. 
i. 5, ii. 18; 96. 1, 6, 17, 
18; 97. 12, 16, 55, 68; 
98. 5 ~ 6 ii. 6, 18 5, 44 i. 8, ii. 
2 ; 99. ii. 21, 29; 0. 1 22, 
w io; 1. [int.J, 54; 2. 3 



2 3 8 



INDICES 



41 ; 22. ii. 30 ; 23. 21 ; 

25. recto 1, 4, 6, verso 5 ; 
28. recto 1, verso 3. 
yavkos 93. IX. 7. 

ye 93. ix. 5 ; 97. [22?], 47; 

23. 8; 26. verso i3(?); 
27. 11. 

ytiv(a6ai 90. 4 1 • 

γελάν 96. 7- 

yiveiov 2. 3 65. 

yeWis 85. 2_4 verso 1 2 : 90. 

51 sch. 
yivos 0. [ x 3, 37], 2 65, 3 12, 

41, 4+5 9, 8 35; 2. 3 6 3 ; 

24. 3 ? Χμνσυνν Γ. 3. 57- 
yevea6ai 0. 3 25. 

γεωργεά» 93. VI. 6 ? 
Γεωργό? 3. 36. 

γί? 93. vii. 2 (?); 99. ii. 31 ; 
0. n 9 (?); 3. 16. 

γηθάν 96. 17. 

Τηράς 3. 2. 

γίγν€σθαι 99. ii. 33 ; 0. α 20, 

26, 39, 2 7i, 7 2 , 3 l8 > 49, 

62, 73, 6+ " 9 , 1 2 2, 21 3 ; 

2. s 40; 4. 4 15 ; 8. ii. sch. 

5, 12 ; 25. recto 7 ; 26. 

recto 8 ; 27. 9. 
γίγνώσκε ιν 3. 12. 
γλ[ 92. 8 1. 
Τλαύκη 93. viii. 3. 
Γλαι>κοέ>εα 0. 44. 
Γλαύκο? 2. 3 36. 
γλαύξ 1. 7• 

γλυκύ? 91. 13; 98. 10 6. 
γλώσσα 93. Χ. 6. 
γι>ά[#ο? 1. 32. 
γι^σιο? 24. 9• 
γνώμη 0. 3 36. 
γο*[ 92. 36 5• 

γαία; 92. α 22 ; 95. i. ιι. 

γραμματ€Ϊον 4. 4 1 8. 

γράφων 98. 44 i. 5; ;1 3 2 j 

6+7 5; [4. 3 l"J. γράφ(σθαι 

Ο. 3 52; 4. 3 3 . 

γυμι/όί 93. IX. Ι. 
■γυναικάος 8. ii. Sch. 1 3 ? 
yvvaucepaarpia 0. 1 1 8. 

γυνή 85. 2-4 recto 3, 10 ; 98. 
35• 



δ 1. 44; 8. i. sch. 13, 15. 

δαιδαλ ... 91. 19. 

δαίμων 93. vi. 4 ; 4. 1+2 IO. 

δακρύαν 0. 3 67, 69. 

δακρυο'βί? 90. 7• 

δακρυσΓ 98. 2 3. 

δάκτυλο? 95. i. 8. 

δαμ[ 92. 24 3. 

Δαναοί 90. 44. 

δανίζΐΐν 95. ii. 2 2. 

δάνο? 95. ii. 22. 

Δαρδανία [90. 29]. 

Δαρδανίδας 90. Ι. 

Δαρείο? 98. 44 i. 9, Ui. 1 7) 4δ 4• 

δασ[ 92. 34 6. 

δασε[ 90. 5 Ι. 

δΐδύναι 93. viii. 2, χ. 6. 

Sea» 82. 9 ; 97. 42; 93. 14 
2 (?); 99. ii. 9, 3 1 > 2 • 3 
62 ; [5. 37 2 sch.?] ; 25. 
recto 2 (?). δίόι/Γω? Ο. 3 54- 

AeiVap^o? 4. 3 "] • 
δεινότης Ο. 3 20. 

δέκα 95. ii. 9; Ο. s 27; 4. 4 4 (ϊ). 

δελτυ? 2. 3 58. 

ΔΛφο* 0. 2 3θ, 34, 47• 

δέμα? 92. * Ι4• 

δί'νδρ€ον 96. ΙΟ. 

δε|ιό? 92. 43 Ι. 

δέρειν Ο. 2 39• 

δΐίςσθαι 94. 2. 

δέχΐσθαι Ο. 3 07• 

Sevrepos 98. 45 7; 3. 39 (£)• 

δΐΰτ€ρον 95. ii. 3• 
δ/?98. 2 7; 99. ii. 7, 33- 
δΊ7μ[ 2. 3 59• 

Δημήτηρ 2. 3 39' 

δήμος 93. χ. ι. 6; Ο. 3 9, 14, 

4+5 ίο, 6+7 3 ; [4. 1+2 2 8 */ 
saep.l. 

δημοσ[ 98. 4 3• 

Δημοσθένης 99. ίΐ. 9 5 Ο. 3 ΙΟ, 

"> ΐ3> 37, 55. 6ι, 8 25 ; 
3.45J 4. 3 9 , 4 ι6. 

δημοσία Ο. 3 8. 
δημότης 4. 4 ΙΟ. 
δήπονθεν 24. 3• 
[δη]θΚ 90. 6. 

Btd 90. 9, 28 ; 97. 23, 29 ; 



98. 44 iv. 6; 99. 



Π. I; 



Ο.ι 44, 



22 



3• 35 ; 4. 



15 ; 28. verso 4• 

διάβαιναν 98. 45 5• 
διαβάλλίΐν Ο. 2 67. 
διαδέχε τθαι Ο. 3 5 Ι. 
δίαΐΓπι/ 97. 66. 
διακεδανννναι 94. 19. 
διακο'σιοι 98. 44 IV. 12. 
διάλεκτο? Ο. * 3 2 • 
διάμ€τρος 8. ii. Sch. 5• 

διάνοια 28. recto 6. 

διαρπαγη 98. 44 Ui. Ι 2. 

διατριβή 25. recto 7• 

δίαυλος 93. viii. 4. 
διάφορος 98. 44 ί. 4• 
διαφρονΰν 95. ii. 2. 
διαφύλασσαν Ο. 3 2 8. 
διδο'ί /at 93. viii. 2, ix. 3 ; 94. 

4; 98. 44 i. 3, 10; Ο. 10 2; 

3. 2 5 ; [4. 1+2 ι 5 ] ; 24.8. 

δίδυμος 92. * 15. 
δκρός 90. 2 6. 
δίκαζαν 97. 64. 
δίκαιος 85. χ recto 3 (• ? )> 4 >' 
97. ι, 5, ίο, ι 5 , 56, 62, 

68. δικαίως 93. 18 7? 
δικαστήριον Ο. G+7 12; [~4 4 

19]; 

δικαστής 4. 4 19. 

δίκ7 94. ίο. 

δί'λογχο? 1. 35• 

δινητός 94. 14 [-ωτο? Pap.]. 

διό 78. 42. 

διόλου 95. ϋ. 4• 

Διονύσιο? 2. 3 48. 

Διονυσόδωρος 3. 47• 

διοργίζαν Ο. 2 48. 

διπλάσίο? 8. ϋ. Sell. 5• 
διστεφής 93. νϋ. 2. 
διώκαν 98. 44 iii. 17. 
δοικΐν 97. 2 ; Ο. 1 20. 
δόξα 27. 8, 
δουλεύεις 78. Ι 2. 
Δράκων 1. int. 
δράν 97- 49• 
Speireiv 92. * 5. 
θρό /ior 98. 44 iii. 18? 

δύνιιμις 86. 4 J 99. ϋ. 20. 
δύνασθαι 97. 49 > 1• i nt • > 8. 
i. sch. 9 ; 25. verso 3. 



II. OTHER NEW TEXTS 



239 



δυνατός 0. 7°• 

δΰνειν 78. 28; [95. ii. 5]. 

δύο 95. i. 4, ii. 10, 25. 

δυσειδεστατος 0. 21. 

δυστυχ/α 3. 2 8. 

δα>[ 92. 38 I. 

δώδεκα 95. ϋ. 9. 

Δωρίχα Ο. 1 ΙΟ. 

δωροδοκία 4. 8. 

δωτ)?ρ 86. 5 ? 



e 8. ii. sch. 4• 
ίάν 95. ii. 20. 
eap 95. ii. 4. 

εαυτοί) 97. 34," Ο. 1 15, 2 2 2(?), 

36, 31 2 ; 2. 3 61. 

έβδομος (β) 4. 4 Ι7• 

εγγΰθεν 96. I 5. 

e'yyus 96. 1 9 ; 7. 901 Sch. 

«γκολάπτίΐι/ 0. 3 35• 

εγλ[ 0. 17 4. 

"Εγχειρίδων 3. 8. 

έγχοϊ 1. 47. 

εγχώριος 92. 1 I 9. 

εγώ 90. 10 ; 93. ix. 4, 7 ; 
94. 8, 18-20. 95. i. 4 et 
saep.; 1. 53; 3. 25, 26, 
58; 24. 1, 2 j 25. recto 
4, 5, 7, verso 1. ?5p6tf 78. 
11 ; 86. 3; 23. 18; 28. 
verso 4. 

εθειν 26. recto 7. 

έ&λαν 95. ii. 8, 11. Cf. 
θελειν. 

έθνος 85. 2 ~ 4 verso 5 ; 92. 46 4. 
6t 97. 49; 99. ii. 16, 18, 31 ; 

8. ii. sch. 9. 
elbivai 93. x. 2 ; 1. 18; 2. 3 

61 ; 24. 3. 
]ειδεσθαι 22. i. 18. 
(Ιδικώ! 4. 4 17? 
είδος 90. 5 ; 2. 3 49, 57 j 

3. 56; 22. i. 18. 

εΐκάζείν 93. IV. 2 ? 

.ewe» 94. 1 ; 2. 7 6. elras [97. 

20]. 
ε'ίκοσι (ic) 4. 4 7. κδ 0. * 47. 
είκών 0. 32. 
eu/« 78. 9, 11, 37., [43]; 



85. l recto 5, 2 ~ 4 verso 8 ; 
90. 11 (?); 93. x. 4; 94. 
17 (ηα), 1 8, -19 («rice); 

95. ii. 4, 19, 22, 24, 26 ; 

96. 4; 97. [6], 11 ; 97. 

i5> 5 2 > 57» 6 °, 62 • 68 ; 
98. 3 2, 44 i. 4, ii. 3, 8, iii. 

8, 14; 99. ii. 29 ; 0. 1 3, 
*3. J 7> [37]. *"i 3 2 > 66 > 

68 } 3 12,42,[ 4 ^8j,8[25], 

3 6 - [37]; 1• 2 3> 5*> 55; 
2. 3 3 2 , 55; 3. 6; 4. 4 4 , 
7, 8, [10] • 8. ii. sch. 11 ; 

9. sch. 5, 7, 9; 21. 8; 
24. 2 ; 27. 2. 

e?7T«» 85. * verso 3 ; 90. 26 ; 
93. vii. 6, x. 7 ; 98. 7 1 (?), 
44 iv. 8 ; 99. ii. 32 ; 0. 2 
32,[ 3 7 o]; 4. 3 i(?); 24. 
4; 26. recto 9. 

ε'ίπερ 0. 36. 

eiy 78. 26, 31 j 90. 53 sch.; 
93. ix. 6 (?) ; 94. 1 2 ; 95. 
ii. 3 ; 97. 7 ; 98. 10 6 
(? corr. from is), u ii. 14, 
iii. 12 ; 0. x 10, 12, 2 6g, 

3 23; 1. 32, 54; 2. 3 
3 i;4. 1+2 3, 4 19; 23. 6; 
24. 1. is 90. 37; 92. 15; 
95. ii. 27. 

ds 0. 1 35 ; 4. 4 5 (a) ; 8. i. 

sch. 4 (a) ; 26. verso 8. 
[είσ^ρχεσθαι Ο. 2 33. 
εϊσκειν 90. 45• 
είτα 98. 44 iii. I. 
dre 20. 142 sch. 
εκ, εξ 85. τ verso 2, 2-4 verso 

2 ; 90. 22 ; 93. viii. 4, ix. 

4, 7; 94. 15; 2. 3 4 2; 4. 

4 8 ; 9. sch. 1, 4. 

e*ca[ 98. 13 ii. 3. 
€καστο5 90. 20 ; 99. ii. 9 (?)> 
16; 0. 2 4i; 2. 3 38; 4. i 

5, 19• 

εκείνος 97. 23 ; 99. ii. 24, 27 ; 

26. verso 6. 
εκκλείειν 85. 2_4 verso 7. 

εκλείπειν 98. ' 2. 
εκλειψις [78. 39J. 
εκπληξις 98. 5-6 ii. II ? 



εκπνεΰειν 0. 3 26. 

έκτοτε 2. 3 34. 

tcXaii?[ 93. viii. 7. 

eXarqs 2. 3 37. 

ελάτινος 98. 17 4. 

ελάτταν 78. 36 ; 98. 44 iv. 14 ; 

0. 1 26. 
ελεγεΊον 0. 34• 
ελεγχ[ 93. viii. 6. 
Έλείθυια 92. x 1 7. 
'EXewj 90. 5. 
ελεΰθειν$0. 18. 
ελευθερία 0. 3 27, 30, 8 31, 9 4. 
Έλικωκίδ*? 90. 24• 
ελκειν 96. 3• 
'Ελλόί 98. 50 2. 
"Ελληνες 0. 3 38• 
Έλλι^ίσμόί 1. int. ? 
i\m[ 92. 36 2. 
ελπωρη 94. 7• 
ε'μβαίνειν 90. 24. 
εμβάλλειν 2. 3 4 1 • 

e>os 90. 48 ; 93. vi. 2 ? 
eV 85. 2-4 recto 9 ,' 90• 49 
sch.; 92. 47 2; 93. v. 3, 

4 (fii/), ix. 2 ; 95. ii. 17 ; 
97. [4], 23,30, 70; 98. 2 
7, 11, 44 ii. 8, iii. 13, v. 18; 
0- 2 [59]< 70, 3 . 8, 33, [34], 
49> 7 1 , [74, 82 6], 2 9> U 
[3], 5; 1. 10 et saep.; 2. 2 
4 et saep. ; Z. $ et saep. ; 
4. 1+2 3 et saep. ; 8. i. sch. 
5 (?), ii. sch. 4 (?); 9. 
sch. 6; 27. 2. 

εναίρειν 90. 2. 

ενάντιος 85. a verso 2 (?) ; 9. 

sch. 1. 
ε ναύλος 93. VI. I. 
'ένδεια 98. 44 IV. 6. 
ενδνεσθαι 28. verSO 5. 
ενεΐναι 97. 2 2 ; 4. 4 1 9. 

eKfice^ 85. 2_4 recto [_i]et saep. 

ενεός 25. verso I. 

ένθα 92. * 8 ; 4. 4 2 : 21. 2. 

eV0aoe 93. IX. 7. 
eV#ouaia[ 2. 3 3. 
ενιαύσιος 93. Vll. 5• 
eVtaurof 22. i. 28. 
έ'νιοι 0. * I 7 ; 1. 41. 



240 



INDICES 



evvea [0. * 3]. 

ΐννομος 26. recto 8. 

ένοπλος 98. 5-6 ii. 8. 

εντολή 85. 1 recto 4. 

Έι/υάλίο? 92. 34 4. 

I| 91. 8. 

i§eiv{ 92. 3G 3. 

iijeXavveiv 99. ii. 30. 

έξήγησις 2. 3 36. 

ίζήκοντα 98. 44 ii. 2 ; 2. 3 32 ; 

4. 4 7(l)• 
e£gs 98. 44 iv. 2. 

(ξύναι 0. 3 60. 
€ξιλάσκ€σθαι 0. 2 57. 
e£<wia£Vii> 85. 2 ~ 4 reCtO II. 
έξνμνάν Ο. 22 3. 

e£w [4. 4 2] ; 25. verso 6 ; 
26. verso 13. 

tnayeiv 2. 3 29 ? 
ΙπακολουθίΙν 98. 44 in. 7- 
«τάι> 0. 2 33. 
όϊ^αί/ερχεσ&η ? 90. 15• 
(πανθίΐν 96. 14. 
eW 78. 33; 94. 17 ; 98. 18 
8; 99. i. 11 ; [0. 8 21?]. 

eneibr) 82. 28 ; 1. int. 

έπίνθίσις 3. II. 

(πήβολος 93. IX. I. 

έπήλυσις 96. I. 

hri 93. vi. 3, vii. 2, viii. 3, x. 

1, 6 ; 94. 15; 96. 8, 21 ; 

98. 44 i. 11, iii. io, 45 4; 

0. 2 48, 3 6, 19, 62, 69; 

2. 3 37, 38; 4. 1+2 io; [5. 

372 sch.?]; 24. 9; 26. 

recto 7. 
€7rryp«[ 2. 3 6. 
(πίγραμμα 0. * 44, 3 34 5 2. 3 

62. 
ΐπιγράφΐΐν 2. 3 55• 
tniSeiKvvvai Ο. 3 I 9. 
«Γίδιδόι/αί 24. 5• 
(πιθυμΐϊν 98. 44 iii. 1 6. 
έπιθΰμιος 90. II. 
έπικαλΰν 98. 44 ii. 9. 
(πικλώθΐΐν 26. verso 4. 

έπίκωμος 93. IX. 6. 
ΐπϊλαμβάναν 1. int. 
επιΚανθάνΐσθαι 28. Verso 2. 
(πιλήθεσβαι 93. X. 2. 



επισήμαιναν 4. 4 15• 
ίπισκήπταν 0. 2 53. 
ΐπισκώπταν 0. 2 48. 
ίπ'ιστασθαι 21. 7• 
επιστολή 98. 44 i. 13• 
έπιτανύειν 96. 6. 
επιτήδευμα 97. 9• 
επίτροπος 0. 3 Ι 7, 2 1. 

eVi0ai'f[ 26. verso 7• 
επιφερειν 8. i. sch. 16. 
επιφωνε'ιν 86. 4• 
επιχειρε'ιν 98. 44 i. Ι ? 
«ros 93. vi. 3; 98. 7 ι. 
ερασθαι 95. ϋ. Ι4• 
epyoi/ 2. 3 20. 
Έρεχθηίς [4. 1+2 1 8, 2 2]. 
?ρι[ 92. 35 Ι. 
'Ept'-ytnoy Ο. 8. 

ερκε[ 92. χ 2 0. 
'E^ctas 22. ii. 33• 

"Ερμιππος 1. 57• 
ε'ρόεις 90. 44• 
ερπειν 94. 21. 

ερχεσβαι 90. 29 ; 92. 8 3; 
95. ϋ. 27; [2. 3 6ι]; 3. 
j 58 ; 22. i. 33• 

ερώτησις 0. 12 3• 

έσθλός 90. 19, 22 ; 93. Χ. 7• 

ΐσοπτρον 95. ii. 2 1. 

έτερος 78. 12; 97. 6ι; 2. 3 4• 

en 93. ν. 3, vii. 6 (?) ; 95. ϋ. 

ι8; 96. 9 5 2 • 3 4 2 • 
eVoy 91. ιο(?); 8. i. sch. 4• 
εν 85. 2_4 verso 9, 1 1 ; 90. 24. 
εν[ 93. iv. 2. 
Εϋβοεϊς 2. 3 48. 
ευγένεια 0. 8 21. 
ευδαιμονία 26. verSO ΙΟ. 
εύειδής 96. Ι9• 
εϋηφενεϊν 94. 13• 
fv<9[ 92. 35 2. 
ευθενία 96. 8. 
ευκαταφρόνητος 0. 20. 
ευκτός 27. 2 ? 

ευλάβεια 85. 2-4 verso 3• 

εΰλαβεΐσθαι Ο. 3 64• 
ευλαβής 85. 2-4 verso 4, 5• 
EtWurl. 15 ; 3. 57• 
ευπρεπής 0. 8 37• 
ευρεσις 0. * 4 2 • 



εύρισκαν 95. η. 17 ; 0. 3 73• 

Ευρυνόμη 93. IX. 2. 

ευρυχωρία 2. 3 23. 

etirf 96. 20. 

ευτραφής 96. 5• 

ευτυχίη 93. Χ. 4• 

ένυδρος 96. II. 

εύφορείν 96. Ι3• 

Ευφράτης 98. 45 5• 

εϋφρων 92. 41 2. 

ενφνής Ο. 3 48. 

εϋχεσθαι 92. 39 2 ; Ο. 12 12? 

«νχΐ7 98. 44 η. 9• 

ευώνυμος- 0. 2 3 1 • 
εφεδρεΰειν 96. 4• 

/φόδίοι/Ο. 3 64; [4. 1+2 1 6]. 

ϊφΰμνιον 93. viii. 4• 

^[92. 34 5• 

*Χ«" 78. 34, 40, 41 5 90. 6, 
47 J 93. vi. i ; 95. ii. 8, 
ii, 18, 27 ; 98. 5_6 ii. 11, 
44 ii. 1, iv. 1; 0. x 7, 14, 3 
37, 12 3; 1• 33; 3.4, 24; 
8. i. sch. 14, ii. sch. 3 ; 23. 
11 ; 24. 7 ; 25. recto 3, 
verso 5; 26. verso 3; 28. 
verso 4. 

εχθρός 97. 47; 0. [ 3 72], 12 
12. 

εψειν 2. 3 40. 

«W 9. sch. 8. 



ζ 4. 4 17; 8. ii. sch. 12. 'Z 
8. ii. sch. 13. 

ζαμενεϊν (ζαμενής ?) 91. 2 ? 
Zeis 90. 4; 91. 13; 92. x 10; 

95. ii. 24 ; 22. ii. 33. 
ζην 95. ii. 14, 22; 98. 44 iv. 

9• 

Ζήνων 2. 3 45. 
ζητεΐν 95. ii. 6. 
£iros 2. 3 42. 
φοι; 2. 3 50, [57 J. 

1 ή 8. ii. sch. 1, 9. 
j? 95. ii. 6, 17 ; 97. 27, 28, 
[61], 62; 4. 3 i, [2}; 23. 
12. 

ήγεμών 4. II. 



II. OTHER NEW TEXTS 



241 



111. 



Ήγήσανδρος 2. 3 74. 

ήδη 90. 43; [98. 44 iii. 19]. 

ηδύς 93. VI. 3, viii. 2. ήδέως 

98. 44 iv. 9. 
ηλικία Ο. 3 19 ; 26. recto 8. 
77x10s 78. 43 ; 95. ii. 5, 6 ; 

2. 3 64 ; 22. i. 33. 

ημέρα 78. 27 ) 8• U. Sch. 12. 
qpepiq 96. 19. 
ημέτερος 94. 8 ; 99. ϋ. 25. 
ήμιτέλ(στος 2. 3 5 1 • 

t/V 96. 1. 

ή κ ία 4. 3 12. 

171/ίκα 92. * 12 {άν.); 93. ν 

6. 

VP 96. 22. 
Ήραϊον 93. ix. 2. 
' Ηρακλή 2. 3 8(?), 66. 

ΉράκλΕίτοί 8. i. sch. 4. 

ήρως 90. 1 6, IQJ 0. 2 62. 
Ή,σιόνη 1. 50. 
τ}ττοι> 97. 7. 
"Ηφαίστου (Άφ.) 91. 4• 

0άλαττα 99. ϋ. 3 1 • 

θάνατος 85. 1 recto 2 ; Ο. 8 13• 

θάπτΐΐν 98. * ΙΟ ? 
θάσθαι 93. νϋ. 4• 
' #αυ/χαστ-όί 99. ϋ. 2 7• 
ώάσβια Ο. 12 ΙΟ. 
θέατρον 98. Χ 2. 

θίλαν 95. ii. 18, 23. Cf. 

edeXeiv. 
θ(μι[ 23. Ι4• 
θεός 78. 9, [43] J 8δ • * recto 

4, 8, verso 3> 2_4 verso 7 ; 
86. ι ; 93. ix. 7 ; Ο. 2 34, 
55; 1• 35! 3. ίο; 8. i. 
sch. 6 ; 26. verso 11. 

θιράπων 98. 1 9• 
θερμαίνει 78. 3°• 
θέρμειν 96. int. 
θέρος 95. ϋ. 4• 
βίσμοφοριάζαν 2. 35• 
θρσσαλία [θ. s 23]. 
θέτις 98. 44 ii. 9• 
θΐτταλοί 2. 2 8. 
θί/βαι 98. 2 6, 7• 
Θηβαίοι 98. 3 2 ? 
θηλύτατος 93. vii. 5• 



θιη$σκ€ΐν 94. 5 ; 95. i. 10, π. 
2ΐ ; Ο. 10 4; 23. 9• 

θνητός (θνατ.) 90. 2ζ. . 

Θουκυδίδης Ο. 2 64, 65. 

Θράκη Ο. η 3 (?) ; 1• 55• 

θράξ Ο. 2 68. 

Θρασύβουλος Ο. 4+5 7, 8, 6+7 6. 

θράτται [ΐ. 34]• 

<9poW 98. χ 4• 

θνγάτηρ 92. Χ 13- 51 3 ί °• * 

14; 2. 3 32. 

tfupoif 2. 10 3• 

&>σία 92 * 6 ; Ο. 2 62. 

<Wia£eii/ Ο. 2 34> 45• 

« 3. 35• 

Ιδύν 93. ix. 5. χ • 3 > 95.ii. 4, 

2θ (Sigs ; 96. 19• 
i<W 85. 2+4 recto 12 ; 2. 3 38. 

ιδίώ[ττ7Γ Ο. 9 3• 

ίδρΰίΐν Ο. 2 6θ. 

ϊέναι 92. 1 Ι ζ. 

Uvai 92. χ 16; [94. ΐ]. 

ίί'ρα^ 1. 7• 

[tepeija 2. 3 29- 

iepeiov Ο. 39• 

iepeuy Ο. 2 38 (tepetoi' Pap.). 

tepos- 93. vi. 6. tpoy 95. ix. 

4. iepof 4. 4 2. 

ίκαιόί 28. recto 2. 
"Ιλίοκ 90. 37- 

Ίμάς [4. 3 1 2 J. 

Ινα [2. 3 6l]. 

Ίουλίί Ο. 1 38. 

ιππείς 98. 44 iii- 5, iv. 12, 16. 

Ίππ^Ίς 3. 31. 
Ίππομάχος 26. recto 6. 
ΐ7τποί 90. 5θ sch. ; 93. vi. 1 ; 

98. 7 3? 

Ίπποσόα 92. ol 3. 
Ίπποτρόφος 90. 30. 
Ισθμός 93. vi. 6. 
Ισομήκης 8. Π. Sch. I. 
ίσο? Ο. 3 36. 
^τ[ 93. vii. 7• 

ίστάι-αι 91. ^ ; 93. ix. 2 ; [θ. 
3 7]; Ι- int.; [4. 1+2 ι 2 ]. 

Ιστός 2. 3 3°, 33• 
ίσχύΐΐν Ο. 2 4 2 • 
Ίτυκαίο? 2. 3 Ι3• 
R 



ΐχνιον 90. 5 3• 
Ιωνία Ο. η 5• 

Ιωσήφ 85. a-4 recto 4• 

κ 8. ii. sch. 12. 

Κ" 1. int. 

Κα . . . 85. 2_4 recto 8. 

Κάδμος 98. 2 4• 

καθαρός 2. 3 6 1 . 

καθΐζΐσθαι 92. χ ΙΟ. 

καθησθαι 93. VI. 4• 

Kdifor Ο. 3 56. 

και, καν 95. Η. 23; 97. Ι7• 

καν (ϊ 99. 11. 1 6. χ υίόν χ 

αγιον 86. 4• 
καίτοι 97• 5°• 
κακοί 85. 2-4 verso 8 (?), 1 1 ; 

90. 19 ; 97. 5°; 98. 2 5• 

κακώς 20. 142 Sch. 
κάλαθος 2. ° 3°• 
κάλαμος 93. νϋ. 6 ; 95. ϋ. Ι3• 

κολάν 1. 27 ; 2. 3 4, 35; 3•" 
5ΐ ; 4.ι+ 2 7 . 

Καλλίμαχος 90. 49 sc h• (?) ; 

2. 3 43• 

κάλλος 90. 46. 
κάλπίί 93. viii. ι. 
καλώς 20. 142 Sch. 
κάμνΐΐν 21. 2. 
κάπηλος 2. 3 74• 
κάρα 3. 58 ? 

καρπός 96. 3 '' saep. ; 3. 45• 

κασίγνητος 93. VII. 3• 
Κύσιοϊ 93. ix. 6. 
Κασσάνδρα 90. 12. 

κατά 78. 27 ; 85. 2-4 recto 2, 
1 verso 5; 90. 7 : 48; 92. 
64 5 (?) ; 95. ϋ. 1 1 ; 98. 
5-6 ι ; 99. ϋ. 9(?)> ι6 > 
Ο. * 5, 2 5°, 3 46; 2. 3 ιο, 
ι 7 , 6 4 , 68, 73- 6 ίο; 3. 
ιι, 4 6; 4.[ 3 8], 4 5 ; 8. κ 
sch. 6 ? 

κατάγΐΐν 93. ix. 7 ; Ο. 6+7 3 ? 

καΓαδα7Γίΐι/άΐ' Ο. II. 

καταείρΐΐν 20. 65 Sch. 

κατάλαλος 28. recto 3• 

καταλάμβαναν 90. 5© Sch. (?); 

92. 1 ι8. 

KaraXvetv Ο. G+7 4• 



242 

καταμαρτυρύν 86. 2— 4 recto 4 ) 

97. 25, 32, 36, 45• 
καταπίπταν 0. " 6θ. 
κατατιθίναι 93. IX. 5• 

κατηφρονΐ'ιν 85. 1 recto 6 ; 
98. 44 ϋ 5• 

καταψ(ύδίσθαι 85. 2_4 reCtO 2? 
κατηγοράν 0. 1 6. 

κε(ι') 90. 25 ; 93. ν. 4, νϋ. ι, 
χ. 3 J 94. 4• 

κίγχρος 2. 3 42. 

/cfiiOi 93. ix. 5 J 96. 10. 
Kuos 0. * 38. 

κύσθαι 2. 3 36. 
Κΐλαιν(φής 92. 1 9• 

KfXfueiv 98. 44 i. 6, ii. 13. 

Κίλίυσι[ 92. 34 7• 
κΐνοτάφιον 0. 7• 
Kf ραμακός 0. 3 34• 
κιραυνός 91. Ι > . 
Κίφαλή 95. ί. Ι ; ϋ. Ι5• 

KjjXqSdffs• 91. 9• 
κήπος 96. 21. 
κήρυτταν 27. 5> * '• 
kipSwevhi' 0. G+7 1 3• κιν&νι{ 

92. 68 ι. 
Κινύρα? ©5. ϊϊ. 20. 
Κίννψ 93. νϋ. 2. 
κι'ωι/ 91. 7 ; 8. i. sch. 15. 
κλάδο? 96. 14. 
κλαι'αι>*95. ϋ. 23. 

κλίί[ 93. iii. 2. 

K/Wy 0. Χ 15. 
«Xeos 90. 47j 48. 
κλΰΐΐν 93. ix. 4• 
κλωιίον 95. i. 3• 
Κνωσόί 0. 8 36. 

κοι[ 92. 7 ι. 
κοίλος 90. 17. 

κοινοϊ 95. ϋ. 21. 

κοινωνός 4. 4 9• 

Koto? 92. * Ι3• 

κολωνός 96. ΙΟ. 

κομήτης 22. ΐ. 2 9• 

κομώή 0. 3 Ι5• 

κόμιζαν 0. 2 37 > 4. 1+2 6, 4 Ι3• 

κόμπασμα 1. g Ι . 

κονίη 93. viii. 7• 

κοπιάν 95. ϋ. 6. 
κορυφή 92. * 1 1. 



INDICES 

κόσμος 93. viii. ι ; 8. i. sch. ι. 

κουρά 3. 56. 

ΚρατίίΌί 1. 34• 

κρότο? 86. 4• 

κράσσων 93. Χ. 4• 

κρύων 90. 20. 

κρημνός 92. χ 8 ; Ο. 2 5 Ι • 

«PJ7 1 "? 95. ϋ. 3, ιι. 

Κρτ^ί 0. 8 36. 

Kpivetv 97. 65 ; 0. 3 21. 

*ptW 98. 44 ϋ. 7• 

κριωπός 1. 2 6. 

Kporos 22. ϋ. 33• 

κρΰπταν 91. 12 (?) ; 23. 7• 

Κρωμνίτης 93. VI. 7• 
Κτησιφών 0. 3 5 2 • 
]κπ[τγ . . 90. 7 2 ? 
κυαν[ 98. 12 3- 
κυβςρ^νητηρ 90. 7 3 ? 
κυβςυτής 4. 4 3• 
κυβ(υτικός 4. 4 Ι. 
κυκλάμιν<*ς 96. int., 5• 
κυλίνδαν 98. 2 6. 
Κύνθως 92. : 8. 
Κυπρίϊ 90. 9• 
Κυττρόίε 93. IX. 7• 

κύρίοϊ 85. 2— 4 verso 7> 9• 

κυρίως [4. 3 12]. 
κωλύίΐι/ 0. G+7 14• 
κώρτ; 1. 42. 
κώμος 93. VUi. 3. 
κωφός 95. ΐϊ. 20. 

Ααγείδης 93. viii. 5• 

Χάθυρος 1. 25. 

Λακεδαιμόνιοι 2. 3 54 ? 

Λακωνίκ?; 1. 42. 

λάμβαναν 96. 4 ί 98. 44 i. 13, 

iii. 16, iv. 4 ; 0. 21 4 ,' 4. 

1+2 ι 3 . 4 ι8; 24. 5 (?). 

6 (?), 1 1 ; 25. redo 2. 

Ααμία 0. 8 23. 
λάμπαν 92. * Ι4• 
Xai'&Wo-tfai 93. Χ. 5- 
Ααομέδων 90. 5 2 Sch. 
λαόφοβος 0. 3 46 (Άφόβητος 

Pap.). 
Aapt^os 0. ι 8, 13. 
Λάχβσίί 92. 1 17. 

Αάχης 24. Ι , 2, 5• 



λόγο? 94. 9• 
Αναρχος 93. νϋ. 3. 

Xe'yftK 92. * 9 ; 93. νί. 3, χ. 7 > 
95. ϋ. 24 ; 97. 48 ; 99. 
ϋ. ίο, 13; Ο. χ 3ΐ; Lint. 
(to), [22], 47; 2. 3 43- 7ΐ ; 
3. ιι, 3θ. 

λίιμώι> 5. 37 2— 3 δ0 ^• 

λάπαν 86. 2 ; 8. ϋ. sch. 2, 8. 

Afoiri's• [4. 1+2 19 ?]. 
Αίσβως 0. 1 3• 
Α€υκοκόμας Ο. 8 34» 35• 
λβυκότ 95. ί. 9• 
λ/χοϊ 92. χ 4• 
Α€ωπρίπης Ο. χ 39• 
Xqyeti' 78. 14; 0. 2 56. 
λήκυθος 1. 58. 
Αημνιος 95. ϋ. 25. 
λι^οί 0. 2 49• 
λιμήν 4. 1+2 2 3• 

λιρόί 96. ιι. 

λιπαρότροφος 92. * 6. 
Xt77ep^n$• 94. 17. 
XloytKOy 2. 6 2. 
Aoyipor 86. I. 
Aoytapos 96. 2. 

λόγοϊ 85. * verso 5 5 90. 
24 (?) ; 0. 2 2θ, 7 ο, 3 2θ, 
49, 9 ι; [1-23]; 4. 4 ι 4 • 

λοιμικός 0. 2 52. 

λοιπός 78. 35 ; 98. 44 iii. 2 ; 

26. recto 5. 
λυ[ 90. 5 5• 
Λύδιοί 95. ϋ. 12. 
Λυδο* 2. 3 46. 
λύαν 92. χ ΐ3 ; 98. 45 3; 

2. 3 3 8. 
Awcor Ο. 4+5 8. 
λυμαίναν 99. ϋ. 20. 
\wr[ 23. 2. 
λύρα 95. ϋ. 12, Ι5• 
λυρικός 0. * 34• 
λυσίμβροτο•, 91. 1 8. 
λυτήριος Ο. 2 6 1. 

/i 8. ii. sch. ι, 9• 

Mayas 93. V. 2. 
MaywyTes 2. 3 69• 

μαι[ 92. 36 Ι. 
ΜακβδοΐΊα Ο. 8 29. 



//. OTHER NEW TEXTS 



243 



Μακρών 98. 5 ~ 6 ii. 18, 44 ii. 1, 

4, iii. 10, iv. 11 ; 99. ii. 
22; Ο. 3 39• 

μάλα 90. 45- μάλλον Ο. 1 1 3 ; 

2. 3 39; 25. verso ι. μάλιστα 

3. i 3 . 

μαλακώς 25. verso 5. 

Mapyiavo'i [2. 3 i]. 

Μάρδοι 2. 3 4. 

μαρτνρε'ιν 97. 3, 1 6, l8, 24, 

, 39 " 
μάχαιρα 0. 2 36. 

μάχ»7 95. ii. 2 ; 98. l3 i. 2, 45 6. 
με>ί 90. 1, 4, 34 ; 93. v. 4 ; 

96. 2; 98. 12 2, 15 2; 22. 

i. 21. 

μέγεθος 0. 1 23; 1. 26; 9. 

sch. 3, 7. 

μεθύσκειν 2. 3 39. 

μέθυσος 28. recto 3. 

μείζων 9. Sch. 5. 
μεωΰν 78. 39• 
μειρακίσκος 0. 8 37. 
με'λ«ϊ 95. i. 2; 23. 15. 
μίλι 95. ii. 8 ; 2. 3 40, 41. 

μέλισσα 2. 3 29, 34, 57. 
Μέλισσος 2. 3 32. 
μέλλειν 98. 44 i. 2 ; 2. 72 ; 
23. 8. 

μελνγιον 2. 3 36, 39. 
μελωδία 2. 3 43. 

/ieV[78. 13]; 90. 20, 23, 32, 
46; 91. 1, 6, 16; 93. v. 
1, vi. 7, ix. 4; 94. 3, 

5, 11, 19; 97. 30, 71 ; 

98. 44 iii. 5, iv. 10, 14 ; 

99. ii. 13; O. 1 ^], 22, 
[33 ?], 37, 2 65, 3 12, 41, 
[ 8 35j; 1. int.; 2. 3 31 ; 

4. 3 5 ; 27. 2. 

Μένανδρος 3. 4, 65. 
μένειν 93. V. 4, 6. 
Mei/eXaos 90. 27. 
μενεμανί 2. 3 45. 
Μένων 8. ii. sch. 4. 
μερίζειν 95. ii. 24. 
μερισμός 78. 33. 
μερμνάδης 2. 3 46. 

μεροί 98. 44 iii. 9; Ο. 3 58; 
2. 3 37 ; 3. 66. 



μεροψ 2. 3 48, 49. 
μέσος 9. SCh. 5, 6. 
μεσοτέλεστος 2. 3 5I• 

μετά 78. 34 ; 90. 5o sch. ; 
95. i. 2, 4 ; 98. 44 iii. 3, 
i7(?); 0. 2 5i, 8 i2; 2. 3 
40; 4. 1+2 1 2 ; 26. recto 5. 

μεταδιδόναι 0. 6+7 6. 
μεταλαμβάνειν 0. 3 57. 
μεταμέλεσθαι 95. ii. 3 (μετπ- 

μελ,ν ?). 
μετοικίζειν Ο. 2 69. 
μέτρον 95. ϋ. 1 6, Ι7• 

μεχρι(ί) 92. 4 <> 5 (?) ; 93. ν. 4 , 
5; 96. ι 4 ; 0. 2 56(?), 3 
27, [ 4+5 8]. 

μη 85. 2_4 verso 8 ; 92. 8 2 ; 
93. χ. 4, 7 ; 95. ϋ. 6 ; 97. 

ΐ2, ι 3 ; ο. 3 54, 12 μ; Ι- 

int.; 2. 3 6ι ; 24. 4; 26. 
verso 5. 
μ>7δε 86. 2 ; 95. ϋ. ι ; 96. 
13, 15; 97. 58; Lint. 

μηδείς 78. 4° ] 97. 13, 57 ', 

20. 163 sch. 

μήλον 92. * 7; 94. Ι9• 
μ^93.1Χ. 5J 3.3{?μη?Άρ.). 
μήνις 21. 3• 

μήτηρ Ο. 2 ι6, 3 43; 2. 4 8? 

Μήτις 2. 3 54, 56. 

μήτρα 2. 3 57~9• 

μιαίνειν 2. 3 62. 

μιαρός 78. 7• 

μιάστωρ 2. 3 6 1. 

μίγδαι/ 92. χ 7• 

μιγνυναι 91. 2. 

Mi'Sar 95. ii. 26. 

.μιθόργ 2. 3 63. 

Mitfpay 2. 3 64. 

μικροί 93. χ. 2 ; 98. 18 3; Ο. 
J 24; 2. 3 55; 9. sch. 6, 
7,9• 

μιλήχ 2. 3 65. 
μιν 94. 5• 

μινοδολόεσσα 2. 3 67. 
Μινύαι 2. 3 69. 
μίνωδες 2. 3 7 Ι • 

Μ•Κ ) 24. 3• 

μισα'ι 2. 3 72. 
μίσγειν 22. ϊ. 3 2 sc h. 
R 2 



μισε'ιν 97• 37- 
μΐσοί 97. 4 1 • 
Μιτυλ^πίοι 2. 3 74• 
Μιτυλ^ι/τ; Ο. 1 4• 
μνήμα 95. Π. 2 Ο. 
μνημονικός Ο. 1 4 1 • 
μνησικακειν Ο. 3 6ΐ. 
μοίρα Ο. 2 43• 
Μοίσα 90. 23 ; 91. 3• 
μοι Χ [ 2. • 8. 
μονάς 8. ϋ. Sch. 2, 8. 

μόι /os 86. 5; 91. 17 (?); 95. 

ϋ. 2 5 ; 96. 17 (μοϋν.) ; 

99. ϋ. ΐ7 ; 1. 19 (?)• μ°νορ 

83. int. ; 97. 40 ; 99. ϋ. 

33 ; 2. 3 6 9 ; 3. 27. μον[ 

98. ° -6 ϋ. ίο. 
μόρων 2. 3 so, [57]• 
μορφή 90. 45; Ο. 1 19. 

μοχθεϊν 21. 4 • 
μύδρος 93. V. 4• 
μν[θ . . Ο. 2 ΐ8? 
μνριάς 98. 44 ϋ. 3, iv. 15; 8. 
i. sch. 4• 

ΜνριναΊος 93. vii. 4. 
μίιρον 95. ϋ. 7, 9• 
μυστήριον 2. 3 34• 

ί 8. ii. sch. 10. 
vaUiv 90. 5 8 ; 93. νϋ. 2. 
ι/αο'ί 91. ι ; 93. viii. 2 (νηός) ; 
2. 3 54• 

Να£ό0ει/ 92. 1 6. 
ναϊις 90. 1 8, 2 7- 

νέεσθαι 93. ix. 6(?); 94. 2. 
Νείλος 93. ix. 5 ; 96. 6, 20. 

Νειλώτ^ϊ 93. νϋ. 5• 
νειός 94. 1 8. 

νεκρός 95. ϋ. 2ο; 98. 44 iii. 8. 
νέος 96. 2θ ; (Ο. 1 13); 3. 7• 

νεφέλη 92. 68 2. 
νήπιος Ο. 3 Ι5• 
Νηρεύς 98. 44 ϋ. ΙΟ. 
Νηρηίς 98. 44 Π. ΙΟ. 
νικαϊος 93. viii. 4. 
ιί'κτ7 93. Χ. Ι. 

νιν 91. ίο; 92. 41 ι. 
ναμίζην 78. 4 2 ; 97. 5• 
ι/όμοΓ 96. 9,' 97. 77• 

νόσος Ο. 2 56, 02. 



244 



INDICES 



νόστος 21. I. 
νοσφίζαν Ο. 3 2 2. 
νους 85. χ verso 5 ; (93. χ. 4); 
26. recto 3• 

Νυμφαι 2. 3 30. 

νυν 90. ίο; 95. ϋ. ι8 ; 1. 

53• 
νύξ 95. ii. 5J 96• χ 5Ι 98. 

44 ϋ. ι6; 22. i. 17. 
ννσσειν 90. 4 ϋ. 4• 

Ϊ4. 4 7• 
£apdos 90. 5 

£ειι απάτα? 90. ΙΟ. 
Ην'ιζαν 2. 3 3Ι• 

ieVos 91. 1 4 (?) ; 93. νίϋ. ι 
(£««.); 98. 44 iii. 3,iv. 17; 
2. 3 66. 

Ξενοφών 2. 9 2 (?) ; 3. 39' 5 1 • 

Ξέρξης 95. ϋ. 24. 

ξυρΐϊν 3. 59• 

ό (dem.)93. χ. ι,3,5; 94. 1 1. 

ό με'ι/ 90. 20, 23, 3 2 5 4^; 

93. Χ. 7• ° μεν . . . ό δε 
91. ι-2 ; 93. vi. 7. ° μ«" 
... δε 94. 5• ° δε' 90. 4ΐ, 
4 ϋ. 6 (τ-οί δε') ; 94. 5 ; 0. 2 
5 8, [ 3 67], 6+7 ιο. 

ό (rel.) 94. 3, 1 7. χ 9• 
όαρος 98. 2 10 ? 
όβολός 95. ϋ. 27. 
όγδοος (η) 2. 3 50, 57• 

ote 85. χ verso 5; 93. χ. 7 (?); 

94. 2ο; 3. 25- 

obeveiv 94. 6 J 96. 8. 
οδό? 85. * recto 7• 
δ#ει> 2. 3 34• 
οίςσθαι 24. 4- 

jot^ir 2. 3 8. 

οίκημα [4. 4 ΐ]. 
ot/«'a 2. 3 59• 
of/coy 94. 8. 
οϊμοι 23. ΙΟ. 

οίι/^ί'ϊ [4. 1+2 24]. 
otvoy 95. ϋ. 9 ; 2. 3 4°• 
οΓοϊ90. 5 4; 94.ιο; 97-48. 

oidy re 97. 56• 

οϊχεσθαι 25. verso 6. 
(ηγι/εΰ» 92. 20 2. 



ολ[ 92. ] ΐ7• 

δλ/^ιοϊ 90. 2 ; 95. ϋ. 26. 

όλβος 94. 9, ΙΟ > χ 5• 

ολίγος 85. 2-4 recto 6; 95. ϋ. 

3• 

ολιγωρία 99. ϋ. 2 5• 

ολλυι /at 25. recto 5• 

δλοδί 94. 2 Ο. 

"Ολορος Ο. 2 66. 

όλο? 26. verso 13? 

6\ν[ 98. 24 3• 

Όλι{μπ . . 92. 24 ι. 

ομοιοί 90. 45 ; 1• i ftt -> [ 2 ^J• 

ομοίως 1. int. ,* 3. 45• 
ομολογείς 24. 6. 
όμορίΐν 2. 3 65• 
όμοϋ 86. Ι. 
ομόφωνος 93. IX. 3• 
ομώνυμος Ο. Ι5• 
δ/χω? 97• Ι 8. 
όν€ΐ8ίζαν Ο. 47• 
Όνητωρ Ο. 3 Ι7• 
δνομα [4. 1+2 ΐ]. 
όνομάζίΐν 4. 1+2 1 1 . 
ονομασία 2. 19• 
δξύχολο! 28. recto ι. 
όπλομάχοί 26 recto 6. 

οπότε 92. χ Ι4• 
όπως 97. 66. 

ορ[ 92 χ 23. 

όραν 94. 17 ; 95. ϋ. 2ΐ ; 98. 

44 ϋ. 7• 
όρίγειν 94, 3 (• ? )> χ 6• 
όρΐίχάλκος 90. 4 2 • 
ομ^όί 8. i. sell. I 2. όρψώς 1. 

int. 

όριζαν 8. i. sch. 6. 

optof 8. i. sch. 16. 

ορκιος 93. vi. 5 ? 

όρμα\ν 98. 44 iii. 1 (?), 12. 

opveov 2. 3 49. 

όρννσθαι 90. 3 J 96. 1 5. 

Όρσο7•]ριαιι/α 92. 47 I. 

Όρχομενιοι 2. 3 69. 

os 90. [1], 50 sch. ; 92. J 20, 
8 4, 37 2 ; 93. vi. 4, ix. 5, 
χ. 1 ; 94. 5; 95. ii. 25; 
97. 29, 45,54,55; 98. 5 " 6 
2 (?), 44 ii. 1 2, hi. 3; 0. χ 9, 
42, 48, [6o], 3 22,71; 2. 3 



42, 58; 3. i(?); 4. 4 i8; 
8. ii. sch. 4, 10 ; 28. verso 

5 (?). «V ω 97. 23. εφ' ώ 

93. 44 i. i*i. 
οσγΐ 90. 14 ? 
όσος 3. 24• 

δσττερ 99. ii. 8; 2. 3 49; 26. 

verso 4• 
ύστε 90. ι7• 
όστις 93. Χ. 4• 
όταν 95. ϋ. 14 ; 1. 17 ; 26. 

verso 6 ; 28. verso 6. 
δτε 93. viii. 2 ; 96. 15- έσ0' 

ore 96. 4• 
δη 78. 1 1 ; 85. * recto 5 ; 

91. 14; 95.110; 97. 33» 

37, 42; 98. 48 9 ; Ο. 3 54, 

7ο; 1. int.; 4. 1+2 4 ; 8. 

i. sch. 5(• ? ), 7; 27. ΐ3• 
ου(κ) 78. 4 2 ; 83- int. ; 90. 

[15], 2 5; 93. νϋ. 7(ού... 

πω), viii. ι, 2, χ. 2 ; 94. 

ι, 3; 95. ϋ. 3; 96. 4; 

97. ίο, 33. 4°, 5 2 , 55. 

67, 7 2 ; 98. 44 iv. 14; 99. 

ϋ. 2ΐ ; Ο. 2 5ΐ, 55, 3 57, 

6 1, 6 7) 6+7 9 ; [1. int.]; 

2. 3 69; 3. 27 ; 8. ii. sch. 

ιο(?); 23. 7; 24. 2; 25. 

verso 3; 27.8; 28. verso 4. 
ου 96. 8. 
ου, at 94. Ι. 

ούδε' 90. 15; 94. 3; 99. η. 

22—4, 2 6• 

oiMs [97. 7]. 2 9; 98. 44 i. 

14; 0. 9 4• 
ουδέποτε 93. Χ. 7• 
ουκίτι 93. ΪΧ. Ι. 
οϋκοΰν 78. 14- 
ουν 97. 3° J °• 2 4,6 ; 25. 

verso 2. 

οϋποτΐ Ο. 3 38. 

ουρανός 78. 37 > 85 • 2_4 verso 

6. 
οϋτι 90. ίο, ιι ; 93. χ. 5; 

97. 53. 55• 
οϋτι 94. 17 ; 1• 1 6. 

ουτυς 85. * vei'SO 4 ', 93. VI. 3 

ix. 4; 95. ϋ. 4, 14; 96. 9; 

97.[ιο],29, 3», 44» δ 1 ^ 



//. OTHER NEW TEXTS 



245 



71 ; 98. 44 i. 7; 99. ii.29, 
32; 0. 1 i2, [43], 2 46; 
1. [int.], 23; 2. 3 32, 39; 
4. 4 n ; 5. 372 sch.; 23. 
11 ; 24. 10; 25. recto 4, 
5 ; 27. 17. ούτ-οσί 99. ii. 
21 ; 3. 37. οντω(ς) 91. 7 ," 

95. ii. 2 1 ; [1. int.] ; 2. 3 
71 ; 23. 11. 

ύφί'λλίΐΐ' 94. ΐ5• 

οφθαλμός 85. * recto 10(f); 

96. ii. 21. 
οφρα 93. vii. 1. 
οψις Ο. 1 2 2. 

πάθος 0. 2 52 ; 2. 3 34. 
natni/tei's 0. 3 13. 
παΊγμα 95. ii. 12. 

παιδιού 25. verso 8. 
παίζων 1. 54 ; [4. 4 3]. 

ΠαιΌί'ίΓ 4. 14 " 2 20? 

noMi[ri«ijs 4. 1+2 1 9 ? 

τταί? 90. 13, 22 ; 92. 1 ιό, 

38 6 ; 93. vii. 3, ix. 2 ; 94. 

2 ; 95. ii. n ; Ο. 2 66, 3 13, 

42, 4+δ 8; 24. 9; 26. 

recto 3. 
παλαιό* 2. :i 43 ; 3. 13. 
παλάμη 91. 4• 

7τάλ?7 93. VUi. Ι (άπατη Pap.), 
πάλι {95. ϋ. ΐ6}. πάλιν 95. 

ii. 17; 98. 50 3; 99• ij • 

21 ; Ο. 3 29, 8 3°; 3 • 66 5 

9. sch. 7 ; 21. 9- 
Παλλάί 93. ν. 5• 
Παλλ^ι/ίΐ'ϊ 4. 1+2 21. 
Πα/χ/3ωτίίδ»)Γ 4. 1+2 1 8. 
Παμ[φίλη 24. 8 ? 
πανάριστος 93. V. 6. 
παι<τ€λώϊ Ο. 24. 
πάντεχνος 91. 3• 
7Γ(ΐμτ-οδα7Γ<'? [4. " 9J- 

τταρά 92. χ 8 ; 93. vii. 3, viii. 
5, ix. 5 (™ρ), χ. 3 ; 94. 2 ; 
95. ii. 15 ; 96. 10; 98. 
44 iv. 4; 99. ii. 13 ; 1. 7> 
24,[ 4 δ];2. 3 [ 4 ],3ΐ,45-6, 
6 3 ,67,7i-2, 6 6, 13; 4. 4 ι, 
11 (1. bnipl\ 13. 

παράγειν 95. 11. 20. 



παραγίγνεσθυι 2. 3 31. 
παραγραφή 4. II. 
παραδίδομαι 98. ! 6, ΙΟ. 

παρακόλονβΐϊν 25. recto 3• 

παραλύειν 23. 12. 

παράνομος Ο. 53* 

παραπλήσιος [28. recto 5 ?]• 

παραπρεσβεία 4. ΙΟ. 

παρασκενάζειν 2. 3°• 

παρεΐναι 1. 47• 

παρελθεΊν [θ. 3 2 4?]; 25. 

verso 6. 

παρθένος 95. ii. n ; 98 

2 (?); 23. 1 3 . 
Πά]ρίΌι 2. 3 27- 
Πάρΐί 90. ίο. 
Παρρ«•ίωι> 98. 44 i. 3• 
Πάρος 2. 3 3Ι• 
πόρος 94. ι 7• 
πΰ? 82. 12 ; 85. 2 ~ 4 verso 

2 (?); 86. ι, 3-5; 93. i ν. 

4 ; 94. 19 ; 95. ϋ. 24 ; 

96. 8 ; 97.43; 98. 44 iv. 

7; 99. ϋ. ι8, 3 2 ; °• 6+Τ 

ιο(?), 8 2 7 (?);3. 2 4 ;21. 7 ; 

24. 7• πάντως 26. verso 3• 

ττά]σσαλος 92. 00 3 • ? 

Πατήρ 86. 4• 7τατ-ΐ7ρ 90. 2 2 ; 

92. 34 5 5 93. viii. 6(?); 

ιό ; 26. recto 9• 
πατρώος 26. recto ίο. 

παύριστος 93. Χ. 3• 

π]αυσ«[ 98. 36 I. 

πεδα (=r μέτιστι ί) 90. 46• 

πβδί? 96. II. 

7!6διΌν 98. 44 iii. 8. 

π(ζάς 98. 44 iii. 6, iv. 11, 14. 

πείθειν 1-39 (παστεοί'). 

πείρα 25. recto 2. 

Ilf ip«[ie is 4. 1+2 23. 

πέλαγος 98. 44 ii. 1 4. 

Πελυπήιος 93. VI. 6. 



Τ1(\οπονιησιοι 0. 



περ 93. vi. 2. 
πε ραίνε ιν 97. 67. 
Πέργαμον 90. 8. 
Περγασή 4. 1+2 2 2. 

πρρί 90. 5, 49 sch. ; 93. vi. 2 ; 
95. i. 8; 96. 14; 98. " 4, 
ii, 44 iii. 4, iv. 17 ; Ο. l 2, 
25, 36, 2 64, 3 10, 40, [ 4+5 
7, 8 22, 34, n 2]; 1. int., 
22; 2. 3 17, 34, 50, 57, 
69; 3. 62; 4. 1+2 9; 20. 
67 sch. 



πέμπειν 85. verso 8 ; 92. 37 6. 

πέμπτος 0. 3 58. 

πει^Β 95. ii. 19. 

πενία 95. ii. 1 6. 

πέντε 95. ii. 9 ; 98. u iv. 15. 

π<παίναν 96. I 3> '8. 



ϋ. περίβλεπτος [4. 1+2 1 4]. 
περιεξαιρεΊσθαι 0. 2 40. 
Περιθοΐδης 4. 1+2 24. 
περιιστάναι 0. " 3o> 4 1 • 
περικαλλής 96. 13. 
περικλεής 90. 2. 
π*ρικρατ»;[ 26. recto 2. 
περίστατος 4. 2 1 4. 
περιστρέφεσθαι 94. Ι4• 
περιστροφή 1. 4°• 
περισχίζειν 83. int. 
περιτείχιζαν 0. 2 58. 
περσε'ιη 96. 12, 1 6. 
Περσεφόνη 2. 3 3°• Φ^ρσ. 2. 

3 33• 

nepa^s 98. 44 ϋ. 4, hi. ι ; 99. 

ϋ. 2 9 ; 2. :j 45, 64, 6 ΐ3• 

Περσικός 98. 18 2. 
πεσσοί 94. ΙΟ, II. 
πέτηλον 96. 12. 
πηγαίος 95. 11. ΙΟ. 
π^δάλιον 95. ϋ. 25. 
πηδάν 3. 68. 
Ώιερίδες 92. 39 3• 
πικρός 95. ϋ. 2 2. 
π'ινειν 96. 2 ο ; 98. 44 i. 1 6. 
πίπτειν 94. 12 ; 96. 1 5 ; 98. 
ίο 3 . 

π'ισος 1. 25• 

πλανάσθαι 78. ΙΟ ; 0. 1 3°• 

πλανήτης 8. ϊ. Sch. 7• 

πλάσσαμ 1. 45• 

πλεΊν 0. χ 9• 

Πλεισθενίδος 90. 21. 

πλε'ιων 95. ϋ. 1 8 ; 



96. 3- 

πλέον 95. ϋ. 27. πλεΊστος 
Ο. 4 12. 
πλεονεκτης 28. recto 4• 



246 

πλευρά 8. i. sch. 1 1, ii. sch. 6, 

9, II. 
πλήθειν 94. 2 1. 
πλήθος 98. 5_6 ii. 12, 44 Hi. 3. 
πλημύρειν 96. 2 Ο. 
πλήρ^Γ 98. 44 iii. 8,14; 1. 48. 
πληρούν 83. int. 



πλ^ 



98. 



74] ; 



πλίνθος 4. 5 2. 

πλόκαμος 95. i. 9. 

πλούσιος 95. ii. 1 9. 

πλοθτ -os 95. ii. 16. 

πνεϋμα82. 1 1. αγίοιΊΤρ. 86. 4. 

7ΠΌ77 78. 9• 

ποδήρης 1. 37• 

πο^ν 95. ϋ. 6, 7 ; 25. recto ι. 

ποθί 94. 21. 

ποιε'ιν 82. 9 i 96-7 ( ? ) ϊ 97. 

ιι ; 2. 3 3, 4 2 ; 4. 4 12 ; 

28. recto 2, 6. 
ποικίλος 98. 44 iii. 14• 

πολέμιος 4. 1+2 12. 
πόλε/χοΓ 90. 7 s [°• 

2. 3 46. 

πολύ 99. η. 1 6, 28 ; Ο. ' [4], 
38, 2 53> 3 7ο, 8 36; 4. 4 
2 (?) ; 27. 3, 7• πτόλυ 94. 

21. 

πολιτεία Ο. 6+7 7 5 2. 3 21, 6θ. 

πολιτίύεσθαι Ο. 2. 

πολλάκις 92. 4 ι ; 98. 18 4 5 

Ο. 2 44; 3. ψ 
πολνγλαγης 96. int. 
πολύγομφος 90. 1 8. 
Πολύευκτο? 4. ό 8. 
Πολύιδοί 1. 21. 
7Γθλύ7ταλτοί 93. IV. Ι. 
πολυπληθής 96. 3• 
πολύς 78. 38; 92. 1 ι6; 94. 

1 6 (πολε'εσσί), ig\ 96. 6 ; 

98. 44 iii. 9; Ο. 2 49, 52 ; 

1. ι6; 2. 3 4ΐ 5 3. ι ; 25. 

verso ι ; 28. verso 6. 

πολύνμνος 90. 6. 
πόμα 2. 3 39• 
πομάτιον 2. 3 36. 
ποι/βΐι/ 95. ii. 3, ι 3• 
πόνος 25. recto ι. 

πόντος 90. 28. 

noVros 2. 3 37• 



INDICES 

πορε'ιον 4. 1+2 1 5• 
πορεύεσθαι 3. 36. 

πορίζΐΐν 25. verso 4, 8. 
Ποσειδών 98. 44 ii. II. 
ποταμός 86. 3 ', 96. Ι ; 2. 3 7θ. 

ποτ/ 78. 12, 15; 94. ιι ; 

95. ϋ. 20, 23 (rare Pap.). 
πότερον 23. 12. 
ποτόν 94. 1 6. 
που 0. 1 43 ; 1• ι6 ; 25. recto 

Ι (που ?). 
ΐΐουλνκράτης 90. 47• 
πους 90. 33 ; 93. ix. 5 ί 95. 

ii. 15. 

πράγμα 82. 24. 

πράξις 28. verso 3• 

πράσσειν [4. 3 ΐ]. 

πρεσβΰτης 4. 1+2 15• 7rpeo-- 

/3ύτ•ε/50ί [85. 2-4 recto 2]. 

πρεσβύτατυς Ο. 8, 3 44• 
Πρίαμος 90. Ι, Ι3• 
πρίασθαι 3. 23. 
πριν 93. ϋ. Ι. 
προαπολλνναι 25. recto 5• 
πρόβατον Ο. 12 II. 
πρόγνωσι? 2. 3 7 2. 
προειπεΐν 99. 11. II. 
προκεϊσθαι 20. 1 63 Sch. 
Προμηθεύς 2. 3 64. 

προ? 98. 44 ί. 5- ϋ. 8; 2. 3 47; 
[4. 3 ίο]; 23. ίο. 

προσαγορεύειν 2. " 59• 
προσδοκαν 95. ϋ. 21. 
προσερίζειν 95. ϋ. Ι. 
προσευρίσκειν 0. 45• 
προσεχειν 99. 11. Ι7• 
πρόσθεν 94. Ι3• 
προ'σοδοί 92. 37 3• 
προσομϊλητής Ο. 1 II? 
προσπεμπειν 0. 66. 
προσποιεϊσθαι 98. 44 ϊ. Ι5• 
προστάσιμον 1. 1 1 . 
π ροστιθεναι Ο. 1 4 2 ? 
προστρόπαιος 4. 1+2 9, [ Ι 3]• 
προσφερειν 98. 44 IV. 2 ; Ο. 2 

63• 
πρότερος 96. 14. πμότερον 0. 

2 55- 

προφερεστατος 90. 3 2 • 
πρυτάνεων 86. 2 ? 



πρωιζόν 94. 6. 

πρώτος 2. 3 33• "2. 3 29, 36, 

66, 9 2. πρώτον 82. ιι ; 
93. viii. 5; 1. int. ά 2. 3 
31. πρωτ•ο[ 98. 7 4• 

πτερυξ 94. Ι4• 

Πτολεραίοί 93. viii. 6. 

Πτώοί/ 92. 47 2. 

rru]yi7 1. 49 ? 

Πν&κύρ 4. 1+2 4, 6. 

Πν<9αίοί [4. 1+2 ί]. 

πνλ[ 0. 17 2. 

πυνθάνεσθαι 93. νϋ. I J 98. 44 

iii. 18, 48 7; Ο. 3 68. 

πω 93. νϋ. 7• πω[ 92. G 2. 
7τωϊ 97. Ι9• 

p^ror 8. ii. sch. 6 ; 23. ι 7• 

/ί^τωρ Ο. 3 II, 41, 8 2 7 5 [4. 3 

ι, 3]• 

p/ta 96. 2. 

ρίπτειν 98. 44 ϋ. Ι5• 

'Po'Stos Ο. 3 76; 2. 3 7ΐ• 
'Ρόδο? Ο. 3 74• 

ρόθιος 86. 3 • 
ρόθως 92. 2 Ι 6. 
ρυθμός 91. 5• 
ρυτήρ [4. 3 12]. 
ρώρ^ Ο. 3 37• 
ρώπο$• 4. 9• 

Ρ 
σά/3υττο? 3. 56, 59• 
Σαλμωνευς 1. ΙΟ. 
Σαπφώ 0. χ 2, 3• 
Σάραπίί 3. 8, 9• 
Σάτυροι 1. 17. 
σάφα 1. 1 8. 
σείειν 95. ί. 6. 
σελήνη 22. ϊ. 3 2 • 
σεμνός 3. 9• 

Σ^σογχώσι? 26. recto 4, verso 

I, 12. 

σ^ρα 96. Ι9• 

σημαίνειν 3. 1 7 ; 4. 3 [5], 6 

44 Ι 4 • 
σημεϊον 78. 2 6 ; 3. 1 6. 
σημερινός 93. VI. 2. 
aiyav 86. 2. 
StSdvios 93. ΪΧ. 7• 
Σιμωνίδης 0. * 36— 7• 



//. OTHER NEW TEXTS 



247 



Σισυφίδης 93. vi. 5. 
σΐτος 94. [3], i6; 96. 6 3 3. 
3» 5°• 

σιωπάν 3. 6θ— 2, 66. 
Σκάμανδρος 0. * 5• 
Σκαμανδρώνυμος Ο. 6. 
σκειράφιον 4. 4 Ι. 
σκ€υά^€ίΐ' 98. 17 2. 
Σκ??γί7 98. 44 Hi. II ', Ο. 3 5°• 
σκοπών 1. 53• 
Σκυθικός 2. 3 Ι, 36. 
σκνθρωπ\ 85. 2_4 recto 13. 
σμικρός 97. 5 2 • 
Σοδομε'ιτης 85. 2-4 recto 7• 
Σολ€υ? 2. 3 6θ. 

Σόλοι 2. 3 58. 
σόί 23. 9• 

Σονσάννα 85. 2_4 recto 2. 

σοφ[ 92. 47 4• 

σο<μι[ Ο. 2 24- 

σοφίζειν 90. 2 3• 

Σοφοκλής 1. ΙΟ ; 5. 24 Ι. 

σοφός 1. 1 8. 

σπέρμα 23. 9• 

Σπιθραδάτης 98. 5_6 ϋ. 6. 

σπλάγχνα 0. 2 4°• 

[σπουδίαΰκ 97. 2. 

στεΊνος 93. vi. 5. 

Sretpieus 0. 4+5 9• 

στέφανος 95. i. I, U. 7 > 0. 3 

56; 3. 6 3 ; 27.8. 

στεφανούν 0. 3 54• 

στήλη 0. 3 35• 

στιφρός 3. 1,6. 

στοιχεΐν 22. ϋ. 3° ? 

στόμα 92. χ 1 6. 

στρατί ία [θ. 8 2 2 ?J. 

στρατεύειν 90. 5 2 scri • 

στρατηγός 99. ϊΐ. 24 J 4. 4 4• 

Στρατίώται 1. 57• 

στρατός 1. ρ. 

στριφνός 3. Ι. 

συ 82. 9, ιϊ; 90. 47; 93. 
iv. 3, viii. 5 ; 94. ι ; 95. 
ϋ. 2 3 ; 3.3; 21. 9 ; 24.ι, 
6, ίο; 25. verso 7• 

συγγίγνεσθαι 3. II. 
συγκατατίθεσθαι 2. 3 37• 
συλλέγειν 3. 21, 2 6. 
σύλλογος 2. 3 38. 



συμβαίνειν 0. 25• 
συμβόλαιον 4. 4 1 6, Ι7• 
σΰμβολον 93. viii. ι ; 4. 4 Ι4• 
συμμορία 4. 4 7, 9• 
συμμορίτης 4. 4 9• 
συμπαθέστερος Ο. 3 7 2 • 
συμπάς 8. i. Sch. 7 ? 
συμφέρειν 96. Ι7ί 99. U. Ι4• 
συμφορά Ο. 20 3 J 3. 27, 3°• 
συι/ 0. 6+7 2(?); 2. 3 30. 
σι/νάγίίΐ/ 3. 2 Ο, 23. 
συναθροιζειν 3. 20. 
συνανίεσθαι 96. 2 1. 
σϊ»?]βπτ«* 98. 45 6. 
Συναριστωσαι 3. 5• 
συΐ'ατιι^βϊΐ' 0. 8 24• 
συνεθίζεσθαι 3. 35• 
συζ /ep-yos 0. 24 ? 
συνουσιασμός 85. 2— 4 reClO I et 

saep. 
σύνταξις 2. 3 67. 
συντόμως 0. 2 6. 
συντνχία 3. 29. 
σφαγιάζεσθαι 98. 44 Π. 15 5 0. 

2 37• 
σφράγιζαν 3. Ι7• 

σφραγίς 3. 1 6. 

σχτ}μα 8. ii. sch. 4• "Awt 

Ι.41. 
σχηματίζειν 1. int. 
σχίζειν 95. Π. 25. 
σχολή 0. 3 74• σ Χ°λ?? 3. 25, 

38- 
σώζειν 82. ίο; 85. 2 ~ 4 recto 

6; 92. 64 ι(?); 99. π. ι8. 
σώμα 98. 1 8, 5_6 ii. 9, 48 3• 

Σωσίβιος 93. Vli. Ι. 

τ 3. 12. 

Γαλανοί/ 98. 44 i. 8 ; 0. 3 66. 

ταλαπείριος 90. 8. 

ταλας 95. ϋ. 19. ταλάντατος 

3. 7• 
τανίσφυρος 90. 1 1. 
Ταρσό? 2. 3 58. 
τάσσειν 95. ϋ. 5• 
ταύρΐος 95. ίϊ. 13. 

τε 78. 28; 86. ι; 90. ι β, 
14, 44J 92- χ 1 Τ> 93. νϋ. 
ι, 3; 95. ϋ. 14; 96. 1 1 ; 



97. 56; 98. 2 9, ίο; Ο. 

[ 2 6ο], 3 3 4; 2.* 34- 
τόκος 94. Ι . 
Τελαμωνιος 90. 34• 

τέλειος 92. * ΐ7 ; 8. i. sch. 5. 

τελειότατος 93. IV. 4• 

τέλειοι ν 26. recto 14• 
τέλος 99. ϋ. 15; Ο. 3 2 7• 
τέμενος 92. 38 3• 

τεός 93. viii. 6. 
τερπνός 92. * Ι3• 
τέταρτος (δ) 1. 44• 
Τ6τράγωι/ο? 8. ϋ. Sch. 3• 
τέτρωρος 98. 44 Π. 12. 
τέτταρες L \\ 8. i. Sch. 1 3, 

15 (δ)• 
Τεύκρος 90. 49; 5 1 scn • 

τη 93. vi. 7. 

τηνικαύτα 20. 19Ο Sch. 

TttfeVu 93. iii. 4(?); 94. 12 ; 

95. ii. 15; 96. 10. 
τίκτειν 93. V. 5. 
τιμάν Ο. 3 3i, [ 8 33]• 

τιμή Ο. 6+7 ΙΟ. 
τιμ[ωρία 28. VerSO 5 • 

τις 82. 9 ; 91. 5 ; 95. ii. 

16, 17, 27 ; 99. ii. 9; Ο. 

3 69 ; 25. recto 6, verso 2. 
τις 78. 15 ; 90. 52 sch.; 93. 

vii. 1, 6 (?), viii. 7, ix. 3, x. 

3; 94. 4; 97. 49; 98. 

44 iv. 3, 48 1 (?) ; 99. ii. 

27; 0. 1 [6], 10, 4o(?), 

46, 2 34, 69; 2. 3 26, 41, 

63,71; 3.56; 4. 1+2 io, 

[ 3 i, 2 ], 4 [i], 18; 9. sch. 

5; 25. recto 6. 
τίτθη 25. verso 8. 

τλήμων 23. 14• 

τόθι 92. 34 3. 

Tot 92. 37 2; 94. 10. 

τοίνυν 97. ΙΟ. 

τοϊος 94. 14. 

τοιόσδε 94. ίο; 0. 3 35• 

τοιούτος 92. * 4 ,' 97. 47 ί °• 2 

32, 3 7ο; 28. recto 5• 
τοίχος 91. 6 ; 2. 10 3 ? 

τολμάν 99. Π. 12. 
τόλρ; 99. ϋ. 2 2. 
τόξον 21• 6. 



2 4 8 

τόπος Ο. 2 59 Ι 2• 3 3^• 

τόσος 93. ν. 2, 3 (το'σσ.), χ. 

5; 94.2. 

τοσούτος 98. 5• 

τόπ 96. 3 5-0. 9 5; 23. ι6(?); 
26. verso 7• 

τραγωδία 2. 3 43• 
Γραγωδόί Ο. 3 47, 57• 
Ύραχιηαι [5. -* 2]. 
rpfis 95. ϋ. 8, ίο; Ο. λ 7 \ 
8. i. sch. 13 (7). 

τρίπειν 98. 44 ϋ. 9• 

τρεφειν Ο. 8. 

τριάκοντα Ο. 6 4• 

τριήραρχος 4. 4 8. 

τρίορχος 2. 3 46. 

rpis 90. 43 5 95. "■ 2 ^• 

τρισχίλιοι 98. 44 IV. 1 6. 

τριταγωνιστεϊν Ο. u 47• 

τρίτος 2. 3 Ι (γ). 

Τροία 90. 14. Ι9• 

τρόπαιον 4. *■• Ι 2. 

Τ/307Π7 8. i. sch. 6 ? 

τρόποί 92. 64 6(?); Ο. 1 1 8. 

τροφή 3. 3^• 

τρυφι? 28. recto 2, verso 3• 
τρύφος 98. 44 iv. 5• 
Τρωικοί 2. 6 3• 
Ύρωίλος 90. 4Ι• 
Tpaes 90. 44• 

τυγχάνειν Ο. 6+7 ιο(?); 26. 
verso 2. 

τύμβος 23. 24. 

τύμπανυν 95. ϋ. Ι3• 

τύπτειν 90. 4 Π. 7 ■ 

τύχϊ? Ο. 3 6'4 ; 25. recto ι. 

ύδωρ 93.vii.35 95. ϋ. 6, 10,25; 
96.3, !5> 2ο; 2. 3 4θ, 45• 

ΰθλος 1. 52. 

Υΐος 86. 4• ««« 90• 3 1 • 

Ύλλίς 90. 4ΐ• 

υμκΐρ 86. 3 >' 90• Ι2 • 

ύπάρχειν 97. 46 ί Ο. Χ 23. 
υπασπιστής 98. 44 IV. 3• 

uffep 91. 8 ; 93. iv. ι ; 95. ϋ. 

15 ; 4. 4 1 1 (? οι παρ Pap.). 
Ύπερβάρεοι 91. Ι. 
Υπερείδης 4. 4 5• 
υπερήφανος 90. 17. 



INDICES 

υπερβζ 92. ι II. 
υπέρτατος 92. 44 2. 

νττό 78. 15; 85. ^ recto 
12 (?), verso 6 ; 97. 18, 
[23], 36,38; 98. 44 iv. ι; 
Ο. : ΐ7, 2 3 6 , 3 !5, ι6 , 8 26 ! 
2. 3 48, 65; 23. 17; 25. 
' recto 4; 26. recto 10. 

ίποκρ[ 92. 46 2. 
ΰποκρίνειν Ο. 3 48. 
υπόμνημα 2. 3 12, 43> [74 ?]• 
ύποστιφρος 3. 3• 
ύποτείνειν 8. i. Sch. 9• 
ύστερον [97. 2 1?]; 4. 4 12. 
υψίπολος 90. 14- 

φ 8. ii. sch. 13. 

(jfmyeii; 98. 44 iv. 7. 
φαεοφορος 86. 2. 
φαίνεινΟ•44• φαίνεσθαι 91. 

5; 97. 5ΐ, 6 3 ; 99. ϋ. 15; 

7. 9 01 scri • 

φαιώδης Ο. χ 2 2. 

φάι /nt 90. 49 δ0 ' Ί • > 93. ix. 3 ; 
94. ι; Ο. 1 45; 2. 3 55; 
25. verso 3• 

φανερός 78. IOJ 95. ί. 5• 
Φανίον 3. 65. 

φαο? 92. 1 Ι5• 

φάρμακον 98. 44 ί. Ι ,* Ο. 3 25- 

φά™?/ 7. 895 sc h. ? 

φαύλος [4. 3 2]. 
φείδεπθαι 95. ϋ. 2. 

<P<f><k 78. 27; 92. ι 5 (?); 
2. 3 4 1 ' ■ 

Φερσεφόνη 2. 3 33• Π • 2. 3 3°• 
φεύγειν 95. ϋ. 2. 
φ^μι? 4. 4 Ι β. 
φημίζεσθαι 22. ϊ. I g. 
φθέγγεσθαι 92. ! I g. 
φθόνος 92. 50 4• 

φιλ[ 2. 7 7• 

Φιλάδελφοι 3. 2 2. 
φιλάργυρος Ο. ι 4^• 
Φιλιτ.πικά 4. Ι 7• 

Φι'λιτΓττοί 98. * 9, 44 ί• 5 ; 99. 

U. 21. 
φιλοπονία 2. 2. 

φίλο? 85. 2_4 recto 6 ; [Ο. 3 
73]; 27. Μ? 



φιλοσο[φ . . Ο. 2 25• 
Φιλοχάρη? Ο. 45• 

φο/3β[ 85. 2-4 verso 13• 
φοβεϊσθαι 85. 2_4 verso 4, 6. 
φό/3 0ί 85. 2_4 verso 7, 9 ; 23. 6. 

φονευειν 23. 1 6. 

φόνος 95. ϋ. 2. 

Φορμίων 4. 3 ΙΟ ; 27. Ι 2. 

φόρτος 4. 3 9• 

φραδ[ 90. 5 7• 

φρασ[ 92. Π 3• 

φρ^ 23. 8 ? 

φρονεΐν 96. 2. 

φρόνημα 85. 2-4 verso 8. 
Φρύγιο? 95. ϋ. Ι3• 
φυγάς Ο. 3 59• 

φύΕΐ^ 94. 5• 

Φυλαρχο? 1. 44• 

φυλάσσειν 92. * Ι Ι ; 97. 43 > 

98. 44 i. 7• 

φυλετης 4. 4 ΙΟ. 
Φυλί} Ο. 6+7 2. 
φυλτ; 4. 4 4• 
φύραμα 1. 6θ. 
φυΓόΊ> 78. 3 1 • 
Φωκίΐβϊϊ 93. V. 4• 

φωιΐ7 2. 3 66 ; 3. 4• 

φως 90. 3°. 

χα[ 90. 4 ϋ. 6. 

XoXSfuoi 2. 3 63, 67, 7 2 > 6 6 • 

χάλκασπι? 90. 3 1 • 

χάλκεος 91. 6 ; Ο. 3 32. 

Χαλκίοικος 2. 54• 

χπλκόί 90. 43• 

Χαμοιλέων Ο. 29. 
Χάρα£οί Ο. Χ 9• 

χαρίζισθαι 2. 3 3 2 ; 26. recto 

Ι Ι. 

χάρ 4ί 92. 37 5• 

Xoptrej 92. 1 7• 
χάπι» 96. 5 ? 
χβίλοϊ 93. vi. 2. 
χβΐρα 22. i. 2 1. 
χίΐμών 95. ii. 4. 
λ α'ρ 94. 3. 
χθων 91. ii; 96. 8. 
χίλιοι 98. 44 i. 8, iv. 12. 
χιόνιος 95. ii. 10. 
χλοερός 96. 12. 



//. OTHER NEW TEXTS 



249 



χοροί 92. 37 4 ; 93. viii. 3. 
χρήμα 95. Η. 1 8 ; 97. 28 ; 
0. :i 2 2. 

χρήσθαι 0. 1 32, 12 8. 
χρήσιμος 97. 6. 
χρί}σίί 78. 32. 
χρηστημιάζεσθαι 0. 53• 

χρόνος 92. χ 1 1 ; 95. ii. 22. 

χρνσ[ 92. 40 2. 

χρύσεοί 91. 8 ; Ο. 3 55• Χ Ρ"~ 

σοΟμ TeiOy 3. 57• 
χρνσ^όστ ροφός 90. 4°• 
χρκσο[ 92. 26 2. 
χρνσοέθΐίρα 90. 9• 

χρυσό? 90. 42 ; 95. ϋ. 17. 
χύσυ 96. 6. 
]χυτ-α[ 92. 12 Ι. 



χάχσθαι 21. 3• 
χώρα 96. II. 
χώρα 2. 3 4 1 • 
χωρίδιον 3. 23. 
χωρ/ί 3. Ι4• 

ψ 98. 5 ~ 6 ϋ. ΐ7• 

}ψ(υδής 93. χ. 8. 
ψ•ί]ύστ?;ϊ 28. recto 4• 

^φ[0.6+7 ι5 . 
ψήφισμα Ο. 6+7 5, 8. 
ψήφος Ο. 3 59• 

ψ'υ,γ?/ 85. 1 recto 9• 



ω 8. i. sch. 4• 

δ 91. 3; 1• 39 5 23. ι 4 . 



ώγυγίο? 96. 9• 

ώδε 93. νϋ. 6, χ. 7 ; 94. 2 1, 
ώδι'ϊ 92. ! Ι4• 
&><9eii> 0. 2 5 1 • 

ωκνς 90. 33• " 

ώϊ 90. 27, [3°] 5 48, 5ΐ sch.; 
93. ix. 3 ; 97. 46 ; 99. ii. 
26; Ο. 1 17, 2 44 (= ώστί), 
62,6+73,14, [8 24 ], 9 5 ; 

I. 54; 2.<>43> 66, 74; 3. 
2 et saep. ; 21. 9 ; 23. 8, 

II. (Prep.) 3. 58. 

ώσύ 90. 42 ; 93. vi. 2 ; 3. 5. 

ωσπερ 95. ϋ. 1 9 5 Ο. α 2 8(?); 

1. 25; [4. 1+2 ι6], 

ώστε 3. 29. 
ώφΐλςϊν 97• 69, 7 1 • 



III. PASSAGES DISCUSSED. 



(a) Authors. 



Alcaeus Fr. 19 . 
46. 

Anonymus ed. Bellermann 3, 85 
Aristides ii. 508 
Aristophanes, Eq. 655 

Thesm. 760 

Fr. 755 
Athenaeus χ v. 687 a . 
Babrius 115. 4 . 
Bacchylides xvi (xvii). 66 
Bekker, Anecd. \, p. 299 
Callimachus Fr. 35 d -99 

122 

x 93 
209 
217 

Catullus Ixvi. 79-83 . 
Curtius iii. 8. 20 

12. 1 
Diodorus xvii. 33. ι . 
Etym. Magn. s. v. peXuyfiov 



« 


PAGE 








PAGE 




• 71 


Hesych. S. V. σάβνττος . 165 




60 


Josephus, Ant. xii. 2. 2 






99 




2 3 


Philostratus, Im. ii. 1 






43 




• 43 


PhotlUS S. V. προστρόπαιος 






169 




• 165 


σαβυττης 






• 165 




• 43 


Pindar Fr. 53 . 






• 84-5 




• 154 


Pioclus, In Rempub. ii, p. 


2 5(K 


roll) 


190 




42 


Sappho Fr. 39 . 






43 




42 


76 . 






45 




. 96 


77 • 






45 




170 


78. 1-2 . 






45 


00, 


106-7 


79 • 






42 




109 


106 . 






59 




• 99 


129 . 






43 




. 108 


169 . 






42 




no 


Sophocles, Ant. 287 . 






112 


oo, 


106-7 


SuidaS S. V. "ίβυκος 






74 




133 


Σαπφώ 






146 


12 


3> 134 


Thucyd. vii. 60 






165 




■ 1.33 


Tzetzes, In It. p. 68 . 






82 




. 161 


Xenophon, Anab, ii. 1. 6 






165 



250 INDICES 




(b) Papyri. 




PAGE 

P. Berl. 6870 Sitztmgsb. Preuss. Akaa. 

Ι9ϊ8. 7 6 3 22_ 3 

P. Halle 2 . . . 41, 45-6 

P. Oxy. I. 7 6 42 

15 ll 3 


P. Oxy. II. 208 
VII. ion 
XI. 1360. 1. 
i3 6 4 


9 



PAGE 

9 

7 

59 

ti 9 









/ΐι.οΓ,, 1 



14' 



.r., v . .•,,; .4; $bi,-j.:,;# 
■■'i^Vif ftp "V N U 



i :;; 



ffewSM mi Nil' -f^ 

'•* ] •> :1ι Ή'; 

ιΙ ; '-^;•^ Γ "I i&mflk 




_, „ ,, :.i.*>m, • — ■"^' : . 



fffiii.'w i 



viuip 









No 1786 



¥' 





No. 1778, Fols. 1, 2, recto 




;CL'j 




If 

i.VTbifrSs-uMi 

'N "'MiMU- 

.o-m.vccUhU 






• 




' ?■•"!£ 





Plate II 










m 



co 

00 



d 
2 



^ & 



^*£c' 



< i 1 δ 



i 



s»4 



On 
fa 






1U* 




oo 



ο 
2 



V t Ν Φ 



fa 



Plate 111 






V-V^ ".•;••.-- ύ/- :;££/, 









lis 



, Μ 7 



I? 



JS « 






J 















U. χ fc u ι 



■m 



> 






V 






00 



oo 
t> 



ο 






', <s 



.. t 



S&ll 



- 



^i ώ , 



'--,v 






r 5 ■'-•• ? 



Ε* iC feeTD -%*. )< • «3— - ■] • - ---/- .-^ Γ ?,' ,-^ ^ 









F-'/- .'■Λ•• 5 "' / •~ J ■■•■■ ^ !,i ' ίί> 







ο 
ι Ζ 



ι 









1 ; 






V % 



•ft' 



'^^ 



l\m . 



I 



It: : (l! ' 



Τ 



■ 



Plate IV 

3 3 ?> <l « * 3 



Ζ 6*7 ■ 






rt '"' ^i 

O ]7 J Τ* 3 J L I 

ρ . j 3?, _3 Ό ν *<;; .. 



1-1 



Cf 

oo 

Μ 

6 
2 



<α 



I 45 Τ < 







Λ J £ i'x I. r - 



ί 



*. '■■ '- 



?■■*■ 



ο 
U 

00 

ο 
oo 



ο 



'"-τ* • ;- 




ν ; \^ (Μ ( >J .Τ* C< ; // 
•** s~t ΓΝ -< *^ CJ 




S'^&sf* 



Ο ^* ^ id - (LftkS^S Η 
jN ^Γ ; ' β &*' 2 Ο 

m. vS m 3 h & ν & Μ £ - 

ι * y Q^ U«, ^, ^>» «i** -•"•»■: 

■ A 






ο 

U 

Ο 

oo 



ο 



Plate V 






*.■ 















t I, 






«■""■•^ .d u adw f ι 



> 7 "••' S ' 



■n* 









r. 



ΛΓ * 



■',' '»< 



Λ , 'Hi- κ 



*^i^A40u^ 






«*'<* 



v" 












Λ >~ a 1 

No. 1814, verso 



The Egypt Exploration Society 



GRAECO-ROMAN MEMOIRS. 
JV/E EGYPT EXPLORATION SOCIETY, as recently reconstituted and renamed, 

proposes to continue with but slight modifications the work of the Egypt Exploration Fund, 
which was founded in 1882 to conduct archaeological researches in Egypt. In 1897 a special 
department, called the Graeco-Roman Branch, was initiated for the discovery and public alion 
of remains of classical antiquity and early Christianity in Egypt. The volumes published by 
the Graeco-Roma?i Branch are to be continued under the name of Graeco-Roman Memoirs. It 
is intended that they shall appear annually, as heretofore, under the editorship of Profs. Grenfell 
and Hunt. Each will consist of 250 quarto pages or more, with facsimile plates of the more 
important papyri. 

All persons interested in the promotion of the Society's objects are eligible for election as 
Members. An entrance fee of £1 is. is payable on election, and an annual subscription of 
£2 2 j. is due annually on fanuary 1. Members have the right of attendance and voting at all 
meetings, and may introduce friends to the Lectures and Exhibitions of the Society, and have 
access to the Library now in course of formation at the Society's Rooms. 

The fournal of Egyptian Archaeology or, if preferred, a Graeco-Roman Memoir is 
presented gratis to all Members, and other publications may be purchased by the?n at a substan- 
tial discount. Full particulars maybe obtained from the Secretary, 13 Tavistock Square, 
London, W.C. 1, or from the Secretary of the American Branch, 503 Tre?nont Temple, Boston, 
Mass., U.S.A. 

PUBLICATIONS OF THE EGYPT EXPLORATION SOCIETY. 



EXCAVATION MEMOIRS. 

I. THE STORE CITY OF PITHOM AND THE ROUTE OF THE EXODUS. 

By Edouard Naville. Thirteen Plates and Plans. {Fourth and Revised Edition, 
18S8.) 25J. 

II. TANIS, Part I. By W. M. Flinders Petrie. Seventeen Plates and two Plans. 
{Second Edition, 1889.) 255. 

III. NAUKRATIS, Part I. By W. M. Flinders Petrie. With Chapters by Cecil 

Smith, Ernest A. Gardner, and Barclay V. Head. Forty-four Plates and Plans. {Second 
Edition, 1888.) 25.?. 

IV. GOSHEN AND VhE SHRINE OF SAFT-EL-HENNEH. By Edouard 

Naville. Eleven Plates and Plans. {Second Edition, 1888.) 25^. 
V. TANIS, Part II; including TELL DEFENNEH (The Biblical ' Tahpanhes ') 
and TELL NEBESHEH. By W. M. Flinders Petrie, F. Ll. Griffith, and A. S. 
Murray. Fifty-one Plates and Plans. 1888. {Out of print.) 

VI. NAUKRATIS, Part II. By Ernest A. Gardner and F. Ll. Griffith. Twenty- 
four Plates and Plans. 1888. {Out of print.) 

VII. THE CITY OF ONIAS AND THE MOUND OF THE JEW. The 

Antiquities of Tell-el-Yahudiyeh. By Edouard Naville and F. Ll. Griffith. Twenty- 
six Plates and Plans. 1890. 25^. 

VOL. XV 



VIII. BUBASTIS. By Edouard Naville. Fifty-four Plates. (Seco?id Edition, i%gi.) 25T. 

IX. TWO HIEROGLYPHIC PAPYRI FROM TANIS. Containing THE SIGN 
PAPYRUS (a Syllabary). By F. Ll. Griffith. THE GEOGRAPHICAL PAPYRUS 
(an Almanack). By \Y. M. Flinders Petrie. With Remarks by Heinrich Brugsch. 
1SS9. {Out of print.) 

X. THE FESTIVAL HALL OF OSORKON II (BUBASTIS). ' By Edouard 

Naville. Thirty-nine Plates. 1892. 255. 

XL AHNAS EL MEDINEH. By Edouard Naville. Eighteen Plates. And 
THE TOMB OF PAHERI AT EL KAB. By J. J. TvLOR^and F. Ll. Griffith 
Ten Plates. 1894. 2 5 s - 

XII. DEIR EL BAHARI, Introductory. By Edouard Naville. Fifteen Plates 
and Plans. 1894. 255. 

XIII. DEIR EL BAHARI, Part I. By Edouard Naville. Plates I-XXIV (three 

coloured) with Description. Royal folio. 1895. 30J. 

XIV. DEIR EL BAHARI, Part II. By Edouard Naville. Plates XXV-LV (two 

coloured) with Description. Royal folio. 1897. 30J•. 

XV. DESHASHEH. By W. M. Flinders Petrie. Photogravure and thirty-seven 

Plates. 1S98. 2 55. 

XVI. DEIR EL BAHARI, Part III. By Edouard Naville. Plates LVI-LXXXVI 
(two coloured) with Description. Royal folio. 1898. 30$. 

XVII. DENDEREH. By W. M. Flinders Petrie. Thirty-eight Plates. 1900, 

25.Γ. (Forty extra Plates of Inscriptions, ιοί.) 

XVIII. THE ROYAL TOMBS OF THE FIRST DYNASTY. By W. M. Flinders 
Petrie. Sixty-eight Plates. 1900. 25J. 

XIX. DEIR EL BAHARI, Part IV. By Edouard Naville. Plates LXXXVII- 
CXVIII (two coloured) with Description. Royal folio. 1901. 3CW. 

XX. DIOSPOLIS PARVA. By W. M. Flinders Petrie. Forty-nine Plates. 
1 90 1 . ( Out of print.) 

XXI. THE ROYAL TOMBS OF THE EARLIEST DYNASTIES, Part II. 
By W. M. Flinders Petrie. Sixty-three Plates. 1901. 25*. (Thirty-five extra 
Plates. 10s.) 

XXII. ABYDOS, Part I. By W. M. F. Petrie. Eighty-one Plates. 1902. 25*. 

XXIII. EL AMRAH AND ABYDOS. By D. Randall-MacIver, A. C. Mace, and 

F. Ll. Griffith. Sixty Plates. 1902. 25J. 

XXIV. ABYDOS, Part II. By W. M. F. Petrie. Sixty-four Plates. 1903. 25*. 

XXV. ABYDOS, Part III. By C. T. Currelly, E. R. Ayrton, and A. E. P. 
YVeigall, &c. Sixty-one Plates. 1904. 2 55•. 
XXVI. EHNASYA. By W. M. Flinders Petrie. Forty -three Plates. 1905. 25*. 
(ROxMAN EHNASYA. Thirty-two extra Plates. 10s.) 
XXVII. DEIR EL BAHARI, Part V. By Edouard Naville. Plates CXIX-CL with 

Description. Royal folio. 1906. 30.Γ. 

XXVIII. THE ELEVENTH DYNASTY TEMPLE AT DEIR EL BAHARI, Part I. 
By Edouard Naville and H. R. Hall. Thirty-one Plates. 1907. {Out of print.) 
XXIX. DEIR EL BAHARI, Part VI. By Edouard Naville. Plates CLI-CLXXIV 
(one coloured) with Description. Royal folio. 190S. 30J. 

XXX. THE ELEVENTH DYNASTY TEMPLE AT DEIR EL BAHARI, Part II. 
By Edouard Naville and Somers Clarke. Twenty-four Plates. 1910. 25.Γ. 
XXXI. PRE-DYNASTIC CEMETERY AT EL MAHASNA. By E. R. Ayrton 

and W. L. S. Loat. 191 1. 255. 

XXXII. THE ELEVENTH DYNASTY TEMPLE AT DEIR EL BAHARI, Part III. 

By Edouard Naville, H. R. Hall, and C. T. Currelly. Thirty-six Plates. 1913. 255. 

XXXIII. CEMETERIES OF ABYDOS, Part I. By Edouard Naville, Τ. E. Peet, 

H. R. Hall and K. Haddon. 1 914. 2§s. 

XXXIV. CEMETERIES OF ABYDOS, Part II. By T. E. Peet. 19 1 4. 2 5 s. 

XXXV. CEMETERIES OF ABYDOS, Part III. By T. E. Peet and W. L. S. 
Loat. 1 91 3. 25.Γ. 

XXXVI. THE INSCRIPTIONS OF SINAI, Part I. By A. H. Gardiner and Τ. E. Peet. 

Eighty-six Plates and Plans. Royal folio. 1917. 35.?. 

XXXVII. BALABISH. By G. A. Wainwright. Twenty-five Plates. 1920. 42s. 



ARCHAEOLOGICAL SURVEY. 



I. 

II. 

III. 

IV. 

V. 

VI. 

VII. 

VIII. 

IX. 

X. 

XL 

XII. 

XIII. 

XIV. 

XV. 

XVI. 

XVII. 

XVIII. 

XIX. 

XX. 

XXL 
XXII. 

XXIII. 
XXIV. 



w. 



Edited by F. Ll. Griffith. 

BENI HASAN, Part I. By Percy E. Newberry. With Plans by G. 

Fraser. Forty-nine Plates (four coloured). 1893. {Out of print.) 
BENI HASAN, Part II. By Percy E. Newberry. With Appendix, Plans, and 

Measurements by G. VV. Fraser. Thirty-seven Plates (two coloured). 1894. 253•. 
EL BERSHEH, Part I. By Percy E. Newberry. Thirty-four Plates (two 

coloured). 1894. 25J. 
EL BERSHEH, Part II. By F. Ll. Griffith and Percy E. Newberry. 

With Appendix by G. W. Fraser. Twenty-three Plates (two coloured). 1895. 25.Γ. 
BENI HASAN, Part III. By F. Ll. Griffith. (Hieroglyphs, and manufacture, 

&c, of Flint Knives.) Ten coloured Plates. 1896. 2 55. 

HIEROGLYPHS FROM THE COLLECTIONS OF THE EGYPT 
EXPLORATION FUND. By F. Ll. Griffith. Nine coloured Plates. 1898. 25.Γ. 

BENI HASAN, Part IV. By F. Ll. Griffith. (Illustrating beasts and birds, 
arts, crafts, &c.) Twenty-seven Plates (twenty-one coloured). 1900. 255. 

THE MASTABA OF PTAHHETEP AND AKHETHETEP AT 
SAQQAREH, Part I. By Norman de G. Davies and F. Ll. Griffith. Thirty-one 
Plates (three coloured). 1900. 25.Γ. 
THE MASTABA OF PTAHHETEP AND AKHETHETEP, Part II. 

By N. DE G. Davies and F. Ll. Griffith. Thirty• five Plates. 1901. 25.?. 
THE ROCK TOMBS OF SHEIKH SAID. By N. de G. Davies. Thirty- 

five Plates. 1901. 25.Γ. 
THE ROCK TOMBS OF DEIR EL GEBRAWI, Part I. By N. de G. 

Davies. Twenty-seven Plates (two coloured). 1902. 25*. 
DEIR EL GEBRAWI, Part II. By N. de G. Davies. Thirty Plates (two 

coloured). 1902. 255. 
THE ROCK TOMBS OF EL AMARNA, Part I. By N. de G. Davies. 

Forty-one Plates. 1903. 255. 
EL AMARNA, Part II. By N. de G. Davies. 

By N. de G. Davies. 
By N. de G. Davies. 
By N. de G. Davies. 
By N. de G. Davies. 

THE ISLAND OF MEROE. By J. W. 
INSCRIPTIONS, Part I. By F. Ll. Griffith. Thirty-five Plates. 191 1. 25.Γ. 

MEROITIC INSCRIPTIONS, Part II. By F. Ll. Griffith. Forty-eight 
Plates. 191 2. 25^•. 

FIVE THEBAN TOMBS. By N. de G. Davies. Forty-three Plates. 1913. 25^. 

THE ROCK TOMBS OF MEIR, Part I. By A. M. Blackman. Thirty- 
three Plates. 1914. 255. 

MEIR, Part II. By A. M. Blackman. Thirty-five Plates. 1915. 25.Γ. 

MEIR, Part III. By A. M. Blackman. Thirty-nine Plates. 1915. 25^ 



EL AMARNA, Part III. 
EL AMARNA, Part IV. 
EL AMARNA, Part V. 
EL AMARNA, Part VI. 



Forty-seven Plates. 1905. 25.Γ. 
Forty Plates. 1905. 25^. 
Forty-five Plates. 1906. 25.5•. 
Forty-four Plates. 1908. 25.Γ. 
Forty-four Plates. 1908. 25.Γ. 
Crowfoot, and MEROITIC 



GRAECO-ROMAN MEMOIRS. 

I. THE OXYRHYNCHUS PAPYRI, Part I. By B. P. Grenfell and A. S. Hunt. 
Eight Collotype Plates. 1898. {Out of print.) 
II. THE OXYRHYNCHUS PAPYRI, Part II. By B. P. Grenfell and A. S. Hunt. 
Eight Collotype Plates. 1899. 25.Γ. 

III. FAYUM TOWNS AND' THEIR PAPYRI. By B. P. Grenfell, A. S. Hunt, 

and D. G. Hogarth. Eighteen Plates. 1900. 25.Γ. 

IV. THE TEBTUNIS PAPYRI. By B. P. Grenfell, A. S. Hunt, and J. G. Smyly. 

Nine Collotype Plates. 1902. (Not for sale.) 
V. THE OXYRHYNCHUS PAPYRI, Part III. By B. P. Grenfell and A. S. Hunt. 
Six Collotype Plates. 1903. 25.Γ. 



VI. THE OXYRHYNCHUS PAPYRI, Part IV. By B. P. Grexfell and A. S. Hunt. 
Eight Collotype Plates. 1904. 25s. 
VII. THE HIBEH PAPYRI, Part I. By B. P. Grexfell and A. S. Hunt. Ten 
Collotype Plates. 1906. 45.Γ. 
VIII. THE OXYRHYNCHUS PAPYRI, Part V. By B. P. Grenfell and A. S. Hunt. 
Seven Collotype Plates. 1908. 25.J. 

IX. THE OXYRHYNCHUS PAPYRI, Part VI. By B. P. Grexfell and A. S. Hunt. 

Six Collotype Plates. 1908. 25J. 

X. THE OXYRHYNCHUS PAPYRI, Part VII. By A. S. Hunt. Six Collotype 

Plates. 1910. 25J. 
XI. THE OXYRHYNCHUS PAPYRI, Part VIII. By A. S. Hunt. Seven Collo- 
type Plates. 1911. 25*. 
XII. THE OXYRHYNCHUS PAPYRI, Part IX. By A. S. Hunt. Six Collotype 
Plates. 1912. 25s. 

XIII. THE OXYRHYNCHUS PAPYRI, Part X. By B. P. Grexfell and A. S. Hunt. 

Six Collotype Plates. 19 14. 25s. 

XIV. THE OXYRHYNCHUS PAPYRI, Part XI. By B. P. Grenfell and A. S. Hunt. 

Seven Collotype Plates. 1915. 25J. 
XV. THE OXYRHYNCHUS PAPYRI, Part XII. By B. P. Grexfell and A. S. Hunt. 
Two Collotype Plates. 1916. 25^. 

XVI. THE OXYRHYNCHUS PAPYRI, Part XIII. By B. P. Grenfell and A. S. 

Hunt. Six Collotype Plates. 1919. 2 55. 

XVII. THE OXYRHYNCHUS PAPYRI, Part XIV. By B. P. Grexfell and A. S. 

Hunt. Three Collotype Plates. 1920. 42s. 

XVIII. THE OXYRHYNCHUS PAPYRI, Part XV. By B. P. Grexfell and A. S. Hunt. 
Five Collotype Plates. 1922. 425. 

XIX. THE OXYRHYNCHUS PAPYRI, Part XVI. By B. P. Grenfell, A. S. Hunt, 
and H. I. Bell. [In preparation^) 

ANNUAL ARCHAEOLOGICAL REPORTS. Edited by F. Ll. Griffith. 1892-1912. 
2s. 6d. each. General Index, 4s. net. 

JOURNAL OF EGYPTIAN ARCHAEOLOGY (commencing 19 14). Vols, i-v, 
quarterly parts 6s. Vol. vi, quarterly parts 1 2s. 6d. ; Vol. vii, two double parts, 25^. each. 

SPECIAL PUBLICATIONS. 

ΛΟΓΙΑ ΙΗΣΟΥ : 'Sayings of Our Lord/ from an Early Greek Papyrus. By B. P. Grenfell 
and A. S. Hunt. 1897. {Out of print.) 

NEW SAYINGS OF JESUS AND FRAGMENT OF A LOST GOSPEL, with the text 
of the • Logia ' discovered in 1897. By B. P. Grenfell and A. S. Hunt. 1904. ij•. net. 

FRAGMENT OF AN UNCANONICAL GOSPEL. By B. P. Grenfell and A. S 
Hunt. 1908. is. net. 

COPTIC OSTRACA. By W. E. Crum. 1902. ία*. 6d. net. 

THE THEBAN TOMB SERIES, Vol. I. THE TOMB OF AMENEMHET (No. 82). 

By Nina de G. Davies and A. H. Gardiner. 1915. 35*. Vol.11. THE TOMB OF ANTEFO • 
KER. 1920. 42s. 

THE MAYER PAPYRI A and B. By Τ. E. Peet. Twenty-seven Plates. 1920. 50J. 



Offices of the Egypt Exploration Society: 

13 TAVISTOCK SQUARE, LONDON, W.C. 1, and 
503 TREMONT TEMPLE, BOSTON, MASS., U.SA. 

Agents : 

BERNARD QUARITCH, n GRAFTON STREET, NEW BOND STREET, W. 1 

HUMPHREY MILFORD, OXFORD UNIVERSITY PRESS, AMEN CORNER, E.C. 4 AND 

29 WEST 32SD STREET, NEW YORK, U.S.A. 

C. F. CLAY, CAMBRIDGE UNIVERSITY PRESS, FETTER LANE, E.C. 4 

KEGAN PAUL, TRENCH, TRUBXER & Co., 6^-74 CARTER LANE, E.C 4 

GEORGE SALBY, 65 GREAT RUSSELL STREET, W.C. 1 



BRIGHAM VOKMaUNMgl SITjj 

3 1197 22884 0200