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 begνη[
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 particulaΒ 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. Eacg 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] μέχρια 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 Αευκοκnd 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
additionalf 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/ θαrface 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
TVNews
OpenLibrary