The Oxyrhynchus papyri

We NE ΟΣ 2

Brigham Young University

Digitized by the Internet Archive _
in 2010 with funding from

Brigham Young University ~~

~

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

ἐν
τ Vai
Wieck: x
SL tds ἐδ
he vel

ἅν πὴ;

vi | OAVEREYNCHUS ““PAPYRI

va
4
ve

By aut FART «XV

Ἂν

GRENFELL AND HUNT

CANCAGAT ZC

«» thos
PA

Bais

OF?

EGYPT EXPLORATION SOCIETY

THE |
MmAYRHYNCHUS PAPYRI
PART. ky

EDITED WITH TRANSLATIONS AND NOTES
BY

BERNARD P. GRENFELL, D.Luirrt.

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

AND

ee ltHuUR Ss. HUNT, ‘D.Lir

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

WITH FIVE PLATES -
496537

LONDON
SOLD AT
THE OFFICES OF THE EGYPT EXPLORATION SOCIETY, 13 TAvisTocK SQUARE, W.C. 1
AND 503 TREMONT TEMPLE, BosToN, Mass., U.S.A.

BERNARD QUARITCH, 11 GRAFTON STREET, NEW BOND STREET, W. I
HUMPHREY MILFORD, AMEN CorRNER, 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. I

1922

All rights reserved

*
oe
f,
¢
a
υ
μ

τῶν κῶς ΟΕ λιν ΤΥ ΡΥ ΡΥ
δ ᾿ meta hy ΔΑ itis mn ᾿ ᾿ rt
. SNe I yy ee en

j Rea Nis oR τ ἐς Aes UE
ὃ f ΣΝ ΤΥ « π᾿
x " 4 ve et ᾿)
* δ “ ν᾿
Ps
= =
.
)
«
i oe ee ae “ < >
. a Ee : ὩΣ
.
7". rys
Ln
ἐ
“
- won eet -- = --
ΕἸ ΠΥ τ
% γα F : ¢ 2
᾿ | ie | ae ¢
a } .-:-.
CU}
> .
ἊΝ "»
.
PRINTED IN ENGLAND
AT THE OXFORD UNIVERSITY PRESS
BY FREDERICK HALL
aa %
.
«.
ve 9 - ΓῚ 459
ΕΠ] “0 ὁ. 8
a9 o3 900
4. 7 > °o 4G
aloo 4-9. 9 929 -
͵
© δη90ο ° 6? eec ὦ ῳ
$99 4.9 (29 ee 7 3
20° 738 9 © δὴ 29% © ῳ
a ve θυ ὃ 2. ἡ 4 -
3, 7 49 ῶ“ ὁ 43 96909
ἃ ane 9 oy 2 a "Ὁ, 49 «ὧν
ὦ ὦ Φ 1... ὁ per Saito et see
ea J ἃ 9 3 Φ "νυ Ὁ q a%“ad?
Fas A 8 TF 5 Gd AP oeyrara 2 =
v ao dey 70 é ora 4 ; τ
ἵ
ΚΣ τ
ὲ ‘
> ὃ
.
“ ΄
. ᾿ ἊΝ
9...
τὸ ‘ va
-
= ’
y ? ~ ἣ
Ν τ: χὴν
pi Δ δι Ὁ
“Ἐς ae τα, ὡς ees

PREFACE

Owr1nc 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, 1805-6, 1808, 1810, belong mainly to the second large
literary find of 1905-6; 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: Si HUNT:

QuEEn’s CoLLEGE, OxrorD,
DECEMBER, 1021.

‘on

PREFACE

CO) No BN

List ΟΕ PLATES
TaBLE oF Papyri : :
Note on THE METHOD oF aces AND wes OF ee

III.

TEXTS

THEOLOGICAL FRAGMENTS.

New C rassicaAL FRAGMENTS i
FRAGMENTS OF ExtantT CLassicaL AUTHORS
Minor LITERARY FRAGMENTS .

INDICES
1787-9 (SappHo AND ALCAEUS)

OtHer New Texts.
Passaces DiscussEeD

Mish OR PLATES

1778 Fols. 1, 2, recto, 1786, 1813 recto E : : si)
1787 Frs. 1, 2, 9, 1788 Fr. 15

1789 Fr. 1, Col. i, Frs. 2, 3, 1790 Frs. Say Col. ii, 1791 . | at the end.

1806 Col. iv, 1808 Cols. i-iii, 1810 2 111. i, Fr. 15
1814 verso . Ξ -

235
249

1778.
1779.
1780.
1781.
1782.
1783.
1784.
1785.

1786.

1787.

1788.
1789.
1790.

1791.

1792.
1793.
1794.

1795.
1796.
1797.

1798.
1799.
1800.
1801.
1802.
1803.
1804.
1805.
1806.
1807.
1808.
1809.

1810.

TABLE’ OF. “PAPYRI

Aristides, Apology eis Π.
Psalm i :
St. John’s eospal viii .

St. John’s Gospel xvi .
Didache i-iii :
Hermas, Pasvor, Mand. 1
Constantinopolitan Creed
Homilies? .

Christian Hymn with Musical ΝΟ σὴ, (Plate ΤΣ

Sappho, Book iv (Plate II) .

Alcaeus? (Plate IT)

Alcaeus (Plate III)

Ibycus (Plate ITI)

Pindar, Paean (Plate II)

Pindar, Paean? .

Callimachus, Soszb7 Victoria

Poem in Hexameters .

Acrostic Epigrams d
Hexameter Poem on Egy ae Barats
Antiphon Sophistes, Περὶ ᾿Αληθείας, i? .
Anonymous work on Alexander the Great
Oratorical Fragment .

Miscellaneous Biographies .

Glossary

Glossary

Glossary

Λέξεις “Pyropixai

Sophocles, Tene.

Theocritus, /dy// xxii (Plate IV).

Aratus, Atoonpeia 4 ‘ ; é
Plato, Republic viii (Plate IV) : Svan
Plato, Phaedo

Demosthenes, Olynth. i-iii, Phil. a De δ Plats IV)

CENTURY
4th

4th

4th

3rd

Late 4th
Early 4th
5th

5th

Late 3rd

3rd

Late 2nd

Ist

Ist B.C.

Ist

2nd

Late Ist
Late 2nd

Ist

POG.
Early 3rd
Late 2nd
2nd

Late 2nd or cal 3rd
Ist :
Late 2nd or early Be
6th s = : :
3rd

Late 2nd
Late 1st

2nd

Late 2nd
Early 2nd
Early 2nd

IIo
113
116
110
122
135
137
150
155
163
166
172
180
184
186
01
194

TABLE OF PAPYRI ΙΧ

CENTURY PAGE
1811. Demosthenes, C. Zimocratem 5 ᾿ . ἘΠ cc RS ΠΟ naae BianeFe 0
1812. Isocrates, Ad Demonicum . : i ether 61. . ἐν ORF
1813. Codex Theodosianus vii (Plate 1) : Early 6th . pat
1814, Index to Codex Lustinianus, First Edition (Plate v) A.D. 529-535 ΣΕΥ
1815. Ἡοχηεσ, ἤϊααὶϊὶ. . ‘ : é f Ἐς (0 aaa : eas
1816. Homer, Ziad xv. ὲ ; : : ; xe (a ens : : haze
1817. Homer, //zad xvii, xviii ‘ Σ . . Gt : ἶ : . 222
1818. Homer, /iad xxii, xxiii. sae pany OR AGEN: & : es.
1819. Homer, Odyssey x-xii. f : : : ἘΣ ΠΟ μος 3 : ΤΡ 215 ἡ,
1820. Homer, Odyssey xviii . ΟΠ ΟΕ ΕΝ a: - + yaa
1821. Hexameters or Elegiacs : : d Wise 10 ops : ἰ ὙΠ HO
1822. Hexameter Poem on Astronomy . ie. ea : ; οι 226
1823. Fragment οἵα Tragedy . : : τ TSE BSC. \ : - | 5236
1824. Fragment ofa Comedy . : : Saudi aah : eee
1825. Fragment of a Comedy : Eis ida : : ΖΘ
1826. Romance?. F ᾿ ‘ ' Late 3rd or 4th inh BIG
1827. Oratorical Fragment . ὶ : ee aya bit } 4 - “225

1828. Ethical Treatise. : ὶ : : noma δ ΤΕΣ : : 1230

“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 [] ]] 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, Afology.

12 X 14:6 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. θεός is contracted in the usual way, but ἄνθρωπος and apparently
οὐρανός were written out in full (Il. 32, 37). Some inaccuracies may be detected
in the text, which seems to have been of mediocre quality ; cf. nn. on Il. 26 sqq.
and 33. . .
' The Afology 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 Afology
was actually already extant in Greek, having been embedded in the early
mediaeval romance, the History of Barlaam and Fosaphat. The outcome of
these fortunate discoveries was the joint edition by the two scholars of the
Apology of Aristides in Texts and Studies, 1. 1. (1891), containing the Syriac
B

2 THE OXYRHYNCHUS PAPYRI

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

The question then presented itself, how far the Greek of Barlaam and
Fosaphat could be regarded as representing the zpsisstma 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 3to 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 (of. cit. pp. 71 sqq.), seemed ὦ griorz 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
alichristlichen Litt. i. 1. 97)—a needlessly complicated hypothesis. Again,
R. Raabe, in his commentary in Texte und Untersuchungen, ix. 1, has no high
opinion of the accuracy of the Syriac translator. On the other hand, Dr. Rendel
Harris in ἃ recent essay seeks to show that Celsus, in replying to Aristides, used
a text of the Agology which was in close agreement with the Syriac (Bulletin
of the Fohn Rylands 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 Fosaphat (BJ) and to the Syriac
version is discussed in detail in the notes below on Il. ὃ 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 (op. ciz., 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 P 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. Fol. 2, verso.
ζοντες τὴν των) αἰνε ν. [σηἹμίε]ιου εἰς σημεῖον Vi.
pov πνοὴν Oy εἰναι καθ nuepav φερομε
10 [πλανω]νται φανερα νον δυνοντὰα τε Καὶ
[γ]αρ ἐστιν ημιν οτι ανατελλοντὰα τοῦ
[δοϊυλευει ἐτερω ποτε 30 θερμαινειν τα Bra
[μεν yap] αἰυἸξείε ποτε δὲ στα και Ta φυτα εις
ληγει οὐυκουν ἀναγ THY Xpnolv τῶν ay
15 [kalferar ὕπο τινος θρωπων επει και [} με
. Alot -]-[.-].- ge ρίσμους εχίοντα ple
\ eee ova... [.]α 35 Ta τῶν λοίζιπων aclre
ts ire Wee oe 7 ὲ pov και εἰλαττον)α
4 lines lost ovTa Tou ἰουρανου
λύσις: Peek 32 πίοϊλυ αὐξίει de και
[... ...|vT@Y τῶν μειουται [και εκλιψις

4 - THE OXYRHYNCHUS PAPYRI

Ah eae Ue. or. 40 €xel Kat μίηδεμιαν
αυτοκραίΐτειαν €xov

τα διο ov νἱενομισται
[ἰτο]ν ἡλιον ἴειναι θν

7, μιαιροις is apparently a misspelling for μίαροις, 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. v in connexion with γῇ and
ὕδωρ, ----- φυρομένην, αἵμασι φονευομένων puaiverat, μιαίνεται καὶ φθείρεται, αἵμασι μολυνόμενον καὶ εἰς
πάντων τῶν ἀκαθάρτων πλύσιν ἀγόμενον. The original form of one of these phrases may have
included the adjective paps, 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 ; ; cf. vili εἰς ζῷα μεταμορφουμένους ἐπὶ πονηραῖς καὶ αἰσχραῖς πράξεσιν, and
Tous μὴ ὄντας προσαγορεύοντες θεούς, κατὰ τὰς ἐπιθυμίας αὐτῶν τὰς πονηράς, ἵνα τούτους συνηγόρους
ἔχοντες τῆς κακίας μοιχεύωσιν, ἁρπάζωσιν, φονεύωσι καὶ τὰ πάνδεινα ποιῶσιν. As mentioned in the
introd., the relative positions of Fol. 1 and Fol. 2 are indeterminate.

8 sqq. The extant Greek of this passage is as follows: of δὲ νομίζοντες τὴν τῶν ἀνέμων
πνοὴν εἶναι θεὰν πλανῶνται. φανερὸν γάρ ἐστιν ὅτι δουλεύει ἑτέρῳ, καὶ χάριν τῶν ἀνθρώπων κατεσκεύα-
σται ὑπὸ τοῦ θεοῦ πρὸς μεταγωγὴν πλοίων καὶ συγκομιδὰς τῶν σιτικῶν, καὶ εἰς λοιπὰς αὐτῶν χρείας"
αὔξει τε καὶ λήγει κατ᾽ ἐπιταγὴν θεοῦ. διὸ οὐ νενόμισται τὴν τῶν ἀνέμων πνοὴν εἶναι θεάν, ἀλλ᾽ ἔργον
θεοῦ.

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 sometimés 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 ll. 8-12 the agreement with the extant Greek is close, the only discrepancies. being
θ(εὸ)ν εἶναι for εἶναι θεάν, φανερά for φανερόν, and the addition of ἡμῖν after ἐστιν. 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 ‘to us’, which the extant Greek has dropped after ‘ evident’,
is correctly retained ; and the following clause ‘ Since sometimes their blast is inereased 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 Greck 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᾽ ἐπιταγὴν θεοῦ 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(co)v: so also the Syriac, ‘that itis God’. The extant Greek has θεάν both here
and elsewhere where the subject is feminine.

13. α[υ͵ξε[ε : the identification of the exiguous traces is confirmed by the collocation
αὔξει τε καὶ λήγει farther on-in BJ. Whether that is to be regarded as a transposition
of more 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 ποτὲ
μὲν... λήγει here, and did not merely transfer it to a later position.

14. avay|xalferac: cf. the references in BJ to ἀνάγκη in connexion with other elements,
&c., 6. δ. iv κινεῖται δὲ οὐρανὸς κατ᾽ ἀνάγκην, Vi ὁρῶμεν yap αὐτὸν (sc. τὸν ἥλιον) κινούμενον κατ᾽
ἀνάγκην, and the application of the same phrase to the moon and to man. To read αναγ[κη]
εσται is less suitable, since of the doubtful letters before ταὶ the second is the taller of the
two, whereas if they are eo the reverse would be expected. The top of the supposed
ζ is not unlike that of ζοντες in ]. 8.

16. The very scanty remains are not inconsistent with avée: again, though the repetition
of this word seems unlikely. Of the three letters printed the ε is the most probable;
the other two are very uncertain.

17. The first ν is very doubtful. The next letter is apparently , «, or 7, which
is followed by » or x.

18, The doubtful A may be pz. :

26 sqq. The opening sentence of this section may safely be restored from BJ on the
analogy of ll. 8-10 οἱ δὲ νομιζοντες τον nAtov θ(εοὴν εἰναι πλανωνται, BJ continues: ὁρῶμεν yap
αὐτὸν κινούμενον κατὰ ἀνάγκην καὶ τρεπόμενον καὶ μεταβαίνοντα ἀπὸ σημείου eis σημεῖον, δύνοντα
καὶ ἀνατέλλοντα, τοῦ θερμαίνειν τὰ φυτὰ καὶ βλαστὰ εἰς χρῆσιν τῶν ἀνθρώπων, ἔτι δὲ καὶ μερισμὸν
ἔχοντα μετὰ τῶν λοιπῶν ἀστέρων, καὶ ἐλάττονα ὄντα τοῦ οὐρανοῦ πολύ, καὶ ἐκλείποντα τοῦ φωτός,
καὶ μηδεμίαν αὐτοκράτειαν ἔχοντα. διὸ οὐ νενόμισται τὸν ἥλιον εἶναι θεόν, GAN ἔργον θεοῦ.

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. gepopevoy of ]. 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 nuepav, which the Syriac connects,
probably rightly, with 8vvovra te καὶ ἀνατέλλοντα, has also been discarded. . The article has
been omitted with βλαστά and χρῆσιν (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. μερισμους (1. 33) was read by Boissonade,
with some MSS. (μερισμόν W, divisionem Lat.; cf. Syr.). In Il. 38-40 αὐξ[ει δε Kar] μειουται
[και εκλιψεὶς (?)] exer is represented by καὶ ἐκλείποντα τοῦ φωτός, and this or something like it
is probably to be regarded as the correct text, since the indicatives avée, &c., interrupt the
participial construction, which is carried on in 1]. 40-1 by καὶ μ[ηδεμιαν] αυτοκραΐτειαν exov]ra ;

6 THE OXYRHYNCAUS 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 avée, κτλ., has been brought in here from the succeeding paragraph
concerning the moon, where BJ has αὐξανομένην τε καὶ μειουμένην καὶ ἐκλείψεις ἔχουσαν.

_ The Syriac has preserved φερομενον and καθ ἡμεραν, but in other respects does not com-
pare favourably with BJ. ‘Shoots of plants and shrubs’ is a pointless change, and ‘ may
bring forth ... earth’ and ‘in his course ... parts’ are gratuitous amplifications. ' ἔτι
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 εἰς τὴν xpyow τῶν ανθρωπων, though less verbose than ‘and that not according
to his own will’, &c., as an equivalent of και μηδεμιαν avroxparecay exovra, The reference to
éclipse has disappeared. Raabe, /.c., was rightly critical of this passage.

33. ewe is obviously an error for er (arising not improbably out of an intermediate
misspelling ere), and BJ’s addition of δέ may well be also right. There would be room for
one letter between καὶ and the following μ, but none seems admissible and perhaps there was
a flaw in the papyrus,

38-40. Cf. n. on Il. 26 sqq. εκλειψεις is assured by the parallel there quoted from BJ
and would not overload the lacuna if exAteus or ἐκλιψὶς Were written, as is quite possible.

1719. PSALM 4,
11:5 Χ 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 inl. 4. There is no stichometric division of the verses, as there
was e.g. in 1226, a fragment from a still earlierbook. A variant known from an
eleventh-century cursive receives support; cf. 1226, &c.

Recto. Verso.
ουχ᾽ ουταϊς] i. 4 το [στησονται a
οἱ ἀσεβεις : σεβεις εν
ουχ᾽ οὑυτως κρισει: οὐδὲ a
αλλ ἡ ὡς χνους μαρτωλοι εν
5 οἷν] εκριπτει βουλη δικαιων
ο ἄνεμος 15 OTL γινωσκει 6
απὸ προσωπου KS odov δικαι
τῆς yns: δια δ wv και odos

TOUTO OUK ava

4. ὡς xvous: 80 the cursive 281 (Laur. v. 18, 11th cent.); ὁ xvovs other MSS.
10. ασεβεις : so δ᾿ ΑΒ δ and many cursives, including 281. ot aveBes others.

1780. THEOLOGICAL FRAGMENTS 7

1780. ST. JOHN’S GOSPEL viii.

25°6x 8 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 fourthcentury. 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 2, 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.

Verso. Recto.
08
[Kat εἰπεν] autos Vili. 14 και μίαρτυρει περι
[Kav eyo μ]αρτυρω ἐμου [o πεμψας με
[wept ἐμαυΐτου ἡ pap mp ἐεἴΐλεγον ουν 19
ἰτυρια μου] αληθης αὐὑτω [mov εστιν o
5 ἰεστιν οτι ο]ιδα πὸ 30 Wp cov απεκριθη
[θεν ηλθοὴν και που Ins ουἶτε ene οιδα
[υπαγω υμεις de τε οὐτίε τον πρᾶ μου
[ovx οιδατῆε ποθεν εἰ ene [ηδειτε και
ἰερχομαι]ὴ ἡ που uma τον πρία μου av ἡ
10 [γω vpes] κατα τῆ [5 35 δειτε τίαυτα Ta pn 20
ἰσαρκα κρ͵ινετε eyo ματα ελαΐλησεν ev
[ov κρινΊω ovdeva To γαζοζἰφυλακιω
[kar εαν κ]ρινω de 16 διδασκωΐν ev Tw
[eyo ἡ Kpliots ἡ enn ἵερω Kale ovdes
15 [adAnOwn εἾστιν o 40 επιασεῖν αὑτὸν o

ἴτι povos] οὐκ εἰ τι ουπίω εληλύθει

8 THE OXYRHYNCHUS PAPYRI |

[μι αλλ ey]@ και o ἢ @pa αἴἰντου εἰπεν 21
[πεμψας] με πῆρ ouvv παλιν αὕὔτοις
[Και ev τω] νομω τι} ἢ eyo νπίαγω και <n
20 [de τω υμ]ετερω 45 τησετε μ[ε και εν
[γεγραπτΊαι οτι du τη αμαρτΐια υμὼν
[ο ἀνὼν ἡ) μαρτυρι αποθανΐεισθε o
[a αληθης] ἐστιν ε 18 που eyo [ὑυπαγω
[γὼ expt) o μαρτυ υμεις ov ἰδυνασθε
25 [ρων περι] ἐμαυτοῦ 50 ελθεν εἰλεγον ουν 22

3-5. ἢ μαμΐτυρια μου] αληθης [eorw: this is the order of B. αληθης eorw ἡ μαρτυρια μου
Weestcott)-H(ort) and T(extus)-R(eceptus) with most MSS.

ἡ. δε: so BD, W-H, T-R; om. ®.

9. η: so ΒΡ ες, W-H; ca, T-R.

13. It is clear that the papyrus did not read καν with δὲ for καὶ eav.

15. Considerations of space are indecisive between αληθινη (BD, W-H) and αληθης (&,
T-R), but in view of the general agreement of the papyrus with B, αληθινη is the more
probable reading.

16. There would be no room for eyw after povos (D).

18. π(ατ)ηρ: so NCB, T-R; om. N*D. W-H print πατήρ in brackets,

21. [γεγραπτΊαι : so BD, T-R, W-H ; γεγραμμενον εστιν δ.

31. In(cov)s: so BD, W-H; ο Ἰ(ησου)ὴς δὲ, T-R. SD further add καὶ εἰπεν (er.
αὐτοις D).

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

av ηἼδειτε: 50 B, W-H; ηδειτε av δὲ, T-R.

36. The line is sufficiently filled without the addition of ο Ι(ησου)ς, which is read after
ἐλάλησεν by some of the later uncials and T-R; cf. 1]. 43, n.

42. εἰπεν : δὲ edeyev, which, though unlikely, can hardly be excluded; cf. 1. 15, ἢ.

43. The papyrus evidently agreed with the best MSS. in omitting o Ι(ησουὴς which is
added after avros by T-R with inferior authority.

47. olwov: the variant καὶ orov is possible though not probable.

1781. ST. JOHN’S GOSPEL xvi.

24:5 Χ 6-8 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 harid (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 dzorthotes 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 § is supported by one or more of the other
chief uncials the papyrus is usually in harmony. Coincidences with NA are found
in 11. 47, 48, with ND in 1. 12, with SBD in ll. 13, 20, with SBC in Il. 34-5. There
is one agreement with B against the other main authorities (1. 13, omission of the
article with Ἰησοῦς ; cf. 1. 12, n.), one with BD (l. 31) and BCD (I. 34). An
omission of eyw 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.
[ore εκ Tov ἐμου λημψετΊαι kat avay [ xvi. 14
[γελεε υμιν παντα ocla Exel O ΠΡ € 15

[ya ἐστιν δια Touro εἰποὴν οτι εκ τίου
[εμου λαμβανει Kalk αν[α͵γγελει vpel

5 [μεικρον και OUKETL θεωρειτε με kat ᾿ 16
[παλιν μεικρον klat οψεσθε με ειπαῚν 17
[ουν ... εκ των μ]αθητων αὐτου
προς αλληλοὺυς τι] ἐστιν τουτο ὁ dE
[yee ἡμειν μεικρον Kat ov] θεωρει[τ]ε με

το [καὶ παλιν petkpov καὶ οψἼεσθε με και [οτῆι
[υπαγω προς τον] πρὰ ελεγον ουν 18
[τι ἐστιν Touro] μεικρον οὐκ oda
[μεν τι λαλεῖ εἤγνω Ins ore ηθελν - 19
ίαυτον epwray] Kat εἰπεν αὐὑυτίο]ις

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

THE OXYRHYNCHUS PAPYRI

[wept τουτου ζητΊειτε μετ αλληλαῖν

[ore εἰπὸν petkpjov και ov θεωρει[τε

[με και παλιν μεικροὴν και οψεσθε pe Ϊ
[αμην αμην λεγω ὕμειν οτίι κἸλα[υ
[vere καὶ θρηνησΊετε ὕμεις oo δε
ίκοσμος χαρησετῖαι ὕμεις Δ[ ο]νπηθη
ἰσεσθε adda ἡ λυπη ὕμων εἰς χαραν

υ

[γενησεται υν]ὴ οταν τικτη λοι
yevn 1 Y

[πην exer ort ηλθενῚ ἢ wpa avTns
foray δὲ γεννηση To πΊαιδιον οὐκε
[τι μνημονεύει της θλ]ειψ[εως δὲ

[a την χαραν οτι εγενν]ηθη ἀνθρω
[

πος εἰς Tov Koopov| Kat ὕμεις ουν

Verso.

νυν μὲν ἰλυπὴν exeTe παλιν de
οψομαι ὕμ[ας Kat χαρήσεται υμων

ἡ καρδια [kat τὴν χαραν ὑμων ov
δεις ἀρει [ad] υἱμων και εν exewn
τη ἤμερία] εἶμ]ε [οὐκ ερωτησετε
ουδεν ἀμὴν alunv λεγω υμειν

αν τι αἰτηϊσητε [tov πρα δωσει ὑμειν
εν τω ονἱοἸματῖι μου αἰτειτε και
λημψεσθε ἵΐνα ἡ χαρα ὑυμων 7
πεπληρωα[μ]εϊν]η ἵταυτα εν παροι
μιαις λελ[αήληκα ἰυμειν ερχεται

ὥρα OTE οὐκετῖι εν παροιμιαις λα
λησω ὕμειν αλ͵Ίλα παρρησιὰ περι
του πρς απαγ γεΐλω vpew ev ε

Kelvyn τὴ ἤμερα [ev τῶ ονοματι

μου αιτησεσθε [kar ov Aeyw ὑυμειν
[ο]τι ἐγω ερωτησΐω τον πρᾶ avros.
[γ]αρ o mp φιλει ὕμ[ας οτι vets ἐεμε
πεφιληκατε και [πεπιστευκατε

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

1781. THEOLOGICAL FRAGMENTS II

ort παρα θυ εξηλθίον εξηλθον 28
παρα του πρς καὶ εληλυθα εἰς Tov
κοσμον παλιν αἰφιημι τον κοσμον
50 καὶ πορεύομαι προῖς τον πρᾶ λε 29
αντω

γουσιν οἱ μίαθηται αὐτου ιδὲ νυν ev
παρρήησια λίαλεις και παροιμιαν ou
δεμιαν λίεγεις νυν οἰδαμεν 30

oTt oldas παΐντα καὶ ov χρειὰν ἐχείς

ev τω ονοματι [μου ews ἀαρτι οὐκ ἡτησατε οὐδεν ἐν 23-ά
τίω ονοματι μου αἰτεῖτε καὶ

3. εἰπο]ν : to read εἰπὸν Hiss with δῆ and others would overload the lacuna.

4. Whether AapBavec (BDI , W-H) or λη(μγψεται (RCA, T-R) was written cannot be
determined.

5. On the basis of the preceding and following lines, ovxers (SBD2tI>, W-H) suits the
length of the lacuna better than ov (A, T-R).

6. T-R with Alb and others adds ors eyo ὑπαγω προς τὸν πάτερα after οψεσθε pe.

7. The lacuna is of the same length as that at the beginning of |. 6 and shorter by only
one letter than that ἰπ 1. 8. Perhaps there was some deletion, 6. g. the scribe might have
begun to write προς adAn\ous after ov, which is the order of K. There is no authority for
the insertion of τινες before εκ. ͵

9. θεωρειίτ]ε : οψεσθε 1). "

το. The reading after οψεσθε is very uncertain ; there was perhaps a correction.

τι. The lacuna would not admit of eyo vrayo (Ὁ, T-R).__ deyov ουν is omitted in D*.

12. τουτο] 50 N*D*; for rouro o λέγει (ScABD*I>, W-H, T-R) there is clearly no room.
That ro was omitted before ] pexpov (so B, W-H) is probable but hardly certain.

13. Either τι Aadec or o λεγει (D*) is required in the lacuna ; om. B.

ely: so SBD, W-H; eyvo ow A, T-R, eyvo be and καὶ eyyw being other variants.

In(cov)s : so B, W-H; o I(noov)s NAD, T-R.

ηθελον : ἡμελλον δὰ. '

14. D’s reading ἐπερωτησαι περι τούτου is obviously excluded. A omits avrovs.
_ 20. ves: So NBD, W-H: υμεις δε A, T-R. v of λυπηθη has been converted from an
t, ἵ. 6. λοιπηθη was first written. The correction is perhaps due to the original scribe.
Gil, 22,
21. Whether adda or αλλ was written cannot be ascertained.
a2. The corrector has substituted v for o without cancelling the original spelling, for
‘which cf. 1. 20. .
23. wpa: ἡμέρα D.
25. θλ]ειψ[εως : λυπης D.
26. avOpa| mos : o avOparos ΝΠ,
27. ουν : δὰ" places this after νυν μεν.
28. vuv μεν ἵλυπην : SO NBC*D, W-H ; λυπην μεν νυν ACS, T-R.
31. ape: 80 BD*, W-H ; αιρει SACD?, T-R.
33. ors may have been added at the end of the line as in 8D? (T-R).
34. avy τι is the reading of BCD, W-H; o ay δὲ, ο τι αν A, ova (ε)αν some later MSS.,

12 .. THE OXYRHYNCHUS PAPYRI

34-5. dwoe... ofoluar[e μου: so ΒΟΟΣ, W-H; ev τω ovop, pov, δωσει vpw ACD,
Ε.

35. The first sentence of verse 24, ews αρτι.. .. ovoyart 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 adda (AC*D?) before epxera:, especially as
a short blank space may well have been left after upew.

39. ore: vou N*,

41. απαγγέζλω : so NABC*D, W-H ; ἀναγγελω (5, T-R.

42-3. att, εν τῷ ονομ. pov BN.

44. The lacuna here is of practically the same length as in the immediately preceding
and following lines, and it seems clear that either τὸν x(are)pa or περι ὑμων was omitted, and
for the latter omission there is some authority (the cursive 36, Zéala MSS. bce, Cyril Acia 49,
Aug. De Trin.). D adds pov after matepa, and this may have been written, though not
required.

45. Whether eve (ABCD) or με ($8) was written cannot be decided.

47- OTL: οτι Eyw MSS.

θ(εο)υ: 50 N*A; του θεοὺ (5 and others, T-R; του πατρος BC*D, W-H.
48. παρα: so NAC, T-R; εκ ΒΟ", W-H. D omits εξηλθον . . . πατρος.
εἴληλυθα : ηλθον Ὁ.

50-1. λεἤγουσιν, the original reading, is that of ΣΕ ΒΟ Ὁ", W-H; αὐτω, which has been
inserted above the line, is added by AC*D?, T-R.
51. ev may have been omitted, with A.

1782. DIDACHE 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 Διδαχὴ τῶν δώδεκα ἀποστόλων, 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 33 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 céntury 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[εις). ν at
the end of a line is commonly represented by a horizontal stroke above the pre-
ceding vowel, and the usual abbreviation of πνεῦμα 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 zwilf Apostel, pp. 159 sqq.),
but to have an older text, based ultimately on Jewish elements, behind it
(cf. Gesch. d. altchristl. Litt, 1. i. 86-7); and he finds indications of an earlier
recension in the Κανόνες ἐκκλησιαστικοὶ τῶν ἁγίων ἀποστόλων, a treatise called
by Bickell, its first editor, the ‘ Apostolische Kirchenordnung’ and by Hilgenfeld
(NV. 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 Dzd. 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 M 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 Dzdache 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 M and with the
corresponding passages of the Afostolic Constitutions is an interesting study.
_ Separated as they are in date by some eight centuries, it is hardly surprising

to find several variations between M 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 ἄκουε ri σε δεῖ ποιοῦντα σῶσαί
σου τὸ πνεῦμα. πρῶτον πάντων, which form a transition to the abrupt ἀπέχου of the
accepted text. Other noteworthy variants are the omission of καὶ σωματικῶν (Kal
κοσμικῶν Const. Apost.) in i. 4, and of ἀπὸ παντός in iii. 1, the insertion of πράγματος
in iii. 1, and the substitution of ἐπειδὴ ὁδηγεῖ for ὁδηγεῖ γάρ in iii. 2. How should
these novelties be appraised? The two last are not very convincing, and
ἀπόσχου for ἀπέχου in i. 4 certainly.does not inspire confidence.. On the other

14 THE OXYRHYNCAHUS. PAPYRI

hand the. omission of a second adjective in i. 4 renders more intelligible the
strange variation there between M and Const. Apost., and ἄκουε... πάντων does
not look like an interpolation. Perhaps, then, Harnack’s statement (of. εΖΖ.
p- 172) that there is not the slightest trace of any alteration in the Dzdache 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 M to Const. Afost., though in cases of divergence the former has
generally the support of 1782, there are two unexpected agreements with the
latter in i. 3, τοῦτο for τὸ αὐτό and φιλεῖτε for ἀγαπᾶτε. Similarly, one coincidence
occurs with Kav. ἐκκλησ. (Hilgenfeld’s Duae Viae) against M and Const. Apost.,
ὧν δέ ἴον δὲ ὧν, which may be 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, of. 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.

Fol. 1.

Recto. Verso.
ουχι και TA ε ΠΗ θρον ακου ia
θνη τουτο ε τι σε δει ποι
ποιουσιν up IO οὐντὰ σῶσαι
εἰς de φιλειτ σου 70 πνα π[ρ])ω

5 € τοὺς μισοῦ τον παντῶ

τας υμας Kal αποσχου των
οὐχ ἐξετε εχ σαρκε[ζικων ε

15 πιθυμειων

Fol. 2.

Recto. Verso.
ἐλεγξεις περι ὦ i, 7. [lao] παντος
de προσευξει ous πραγματος
δὲ αγαπήησεις 25 πονηρου Kat
ὑπερ την ψυχῆ ομοιου αὐτου

20 GOV >>>>>>>>>>>> μη γεινου opyet ili, 2

— 1S dos επειδηὴ οδη
TEKVOV μου iil, I yet ἢ οργὴ προς

φευγε απο 30 τὸν govoy

1782. THEOLOGICAL FRAGMENTS 15

ον 2,. τοῦτο: Τὸ αὐτό M; cf. Matt. v. 47 οὐχὶ καὶ of ἐθνικοὶ τὸ αὐτὸ ποιρῦσιν ; On the other
hand Const. Apost. (νἱϊ.. 1). Πᾶνα καὶ γὰρ οἱ ἐθνικοὶ τοῦτο ποιοῦσιν, and 50 Justin, Apol. i. 15 (with
πόρνοι instead of ἐθνικοῖ). :
ον 4, φιλειτε: so Const, Apost.; ἀγαπᾶτε M, and so also Matt. v. 44, Luke vi. 27, Gospel
according to the Egyptians, and Justin, Afo/. i. 15.

ἡ. ovx εξετε ἐχθρὸν is also the order of M. ἐχθ. οὐχ ἕξ. Const. Apost.

8-12 akove . .. παντω(ν) : there is nothing corresponding to these words in M or Const.
Apost., which pass abruptly to ἀπέχου τῶν σαρκικῶν «rh, For σωσαι ro πιζευμ)α cf. e.g.
1 Cor. ν. 5 ἵνα τὸ πνεῦμα σωθῇ ἐν τῇ ἡμέρᾳ τοῦ κυρίου.

13. αποσχου: ἀπέχου M, Const. Apost. The present tense is expected.

14. σαρκεεἼκων ἐπιθυμειων : σαρκικῶν καὶ σωματικῶν ἐπιθ. M, σαρκ. καὶ κοσμικῶν ἐπιθ. Const.
Apost. κοσμικῶν was adopted by Bryennios and preferred by Harnack (pp. 5, 172) who
however hesitated to accept it in his text; cf. Titus ii. 12 ἀρνησάμενοι... τὰς κοσμικὰς
ἐπιθυμίας, 2 Clem. xvii. 3 μὴ ἀντιπαρελκώμεθα ἀπὸ τῶν κοσμικῶν ἐπιθ. The variation in M and
Const. Apost. asto the second epithet may perhaps be regarded as an argument for its omis-
sion with 1'782, which has also in its favour the analogy of 1 Pet. ii. 11 ἀγαπητοί, παρακαλῶ...
ἀπέχεσθαι τῶν σαρκικῶν ἐπιθ.

16. εἐλεγξεις: soM. The é, though little of it remains, is practically certain, and ods δὲ
ἐλεήσεις, which Hilgenfeld inserted after ἐλεγξεις from Kav. éxkd., is therefore excluded.
Const, Apost, (vii. 5), like M, make no reference to ἔλεος, but are here rather compressed.

16-17. o(v) δὲ : So Kay. eked. : δὲ ὧν M. Both M and Ka». ἐκκλ. have προσεύξῃ.

23. amo was inadvertently repeated in turning over the page. There seem to be traces
of a bracket after the o 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. πραγματος : om. M, Const. Apost., Kav. ἐκκλ. mpaypatos may have been inserted
to obviate the ambiguity in gender of πονηρου (cf. the opposite rendering of the Latin αὖ
homine malo), but on the other hand the homoeoteleuton would make the loss easy.

25. movnpov: SO M, Kap. éxkA. ; κακοῦ Const. A post.

26. ομοιου : ἀπὸ παντὸς ὁμοίου M, Const. Apost., Kav, ἐκκλ,

αὐτου: so M, Καν. ἐκκλ. ; αὐτῷ Const. Apost.

28. επειδὴ οδηγει : 50 Lat. guza... ductt; ὁδηγεῖ γάρ M, Kav, ἐκκλ. ; Const. Apost. omit
the epexegetic clause. ἐπειδὴ ὁδηγεῖ occurs three times in verses 4—6 of this chapter.

1788. HERMAS, Pastor, Mand ix.
6X 9-3 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. θεός͵
and κύριος are contracted 45 504], but not ἄνθρωπος (1. 5).

16 . THE OXYRHYNCHUS PAPYRT:

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

εν Tov περιεσχισίίθη, ov povoy τω, Kat πληρῳ.

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.
ll. 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, Spzczl. ss. Patrum, 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 Athos fragments of the Shepherd of Hermas has been utilized, besides the
editions of Gebhardt-Harnack and Hilgenfeld.

Verso.
Recto. 7
TavToy Tov αἰιτηματων σον Zand.

πολυσπλ[αγχνιαν αὐτου οτι Mand. 15 ανυστερητος eon εαν adiota ἴδ 4

ov pn σε [εἸνκαταλειψει αλλα το ix, 2 KT@S αἰτηση Tapa Tov |klv ea
αιἰτημα της Ψυχῆς σου mAnpo δὲ διστασης εν TH καρδια σου
φορησει: οὐκ ἐστιν o θς ὡς οι ov μη λαβεις των αἰτηματων
5 ἀνθρωποι μνησικακουντες σου οἱ γαρ δισταζοντες εἰς τον
αλλ avTos αμνησικακῆτος εστιν 20 Oy οὔτοι εἰσιν οι διψυχοι και

I. την] πολυσπλ[αἤγχνιαν : so recent edd. with Grabe’s fragment ; τὴν πολλὴν εὐσπλαγχνίαν
ca, Ant(iochus), Athan(asius) Cod. Guelf. (τὴν πολυευσπλ. Cod. Paris.).

2. [εἸνκαταλειψει : so Athan. Cod. Guelf., &c. ἐγκαταλίπῃ Ca (ἐγκαταλείπῃ Grabe’s
fragment). /

4. ἐστιν ο θ(εοὴς : ἔστι γάρ Ca, omitting ὁ θεός, which Hilgenfeld and Gebhardt-Harnack
add from Grabe’s fragment, Ant., Athan., both Latin versions, and the Aethiopic.

5. 1.. of μνησικ, with ca and Grabe’s fragment; the omission of of (due no doubt
to the termination of ἄνθρωποι) is found also in Ant. and Athan, Grabe’s fragment adds
(eis) ἀλλήλους after μνησικ.

6. ἀαμνησικακητος : ἀμνησίκακος ca, &C. ἀμνησικάκητος- occurs elsewhere only in Polyb. xl.
12. 5 in a passive sense. eRe

15. avvotepnros: So ca, Hilgenfeld, Gebhardt-Harnack ; ἀστέρητος Athan. Cod. Paris.

1783. THEOLOGICAL FRAGMENTS 17

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

16. argon: airnons ca, Athan. Cod. Paris.

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

18. ov μὴ λαβεις : οὐδὲν od μὴ λήψῃ ca, Athan. Cod. Paris.

20. οἱ: so ca, Ant.; ὡς Athan. Cod. Paris., om. Cod. Guelf.

1784. CONSTANTINOPOLITAN CREED.”
6:5 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 v of του is written as a semicircle above the o and a
common abbreviation of καὶ is used in 1. 6. θεός, κύριος, Ἰησοῦς, and Χριστός are
contracted, but not πατήρ, vids, or ἄνθρωπος. ο and w,: as often happens in docu-
ments of this period (cf. e. g. 1180, which is approximately contemporary), are
repeatedly interchanged.

The origins of this Creed are obscure. According to Nicephorus (7152. 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. ;

P πιστευωμεν els] eva Ov πατερα παντοκρατορα [[Topa]| ποιητὴν [olvvov
Και YNS ορατῶν TE παντὼν Καὶ αὠρατῶν Kal εἰ ε]]ς eva kv Ivy Xv
των viov του Ov των povoyeyny Tov εκ Tov πατρος γεννηθενῖτα πρ]ο
παντων τῶν αἰωνον ῴως εκ φοτως Ov αληθι[νοὴν ex θυ [αληθινου

5 γεννηθεντα ov ποιηθεντα ὠμοοῦυσιον τω [π͵]ατρι δι ov [Ta παντα evyeve
τω [τον] δι ἡμας τοὺς ἀνθρωϊπο]υς K, δια τὴν ημετίερ]αν σωϊτηριαν
3. μονογενὴν : this form of the acc. is ἃ vulgarism common from the Roman period.

4. θ(εο)ν : 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 αληθάνο]ν.

ς

18 THE OXYRHYNCHUS PAPYRI

1785. HOMILIES?

Frs.2+3 6-6 13-8 cm. 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 1608,
now identified as (Pseudo-)Chrysostom 75 decollationem Precursoris (hoy. G8), but
efforts to trace 1785 among the works of that voluminous author have so far ποῖ
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 ll. 5-6 are remains of a heading,
and ll. 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. I recto.

θ]ανατος και [
Ἰαντων απὸ δικαιοΐ
δικ]αιων ἐντολων bv αἱ
5 ros αθεος ἐστιν, δτίι
7 κατεφρονησαῖν
? oldov . [Jue καὶ α.ἶ
] ὃς καὶ
ψ)νχησί
Ιο οἿ. οφθίαλμοι ?

1785. THEOLOGICAL FRAGMENTS
Frs. ale recto.

16 letters ενεκεν συνο]υσιϊ acyl ov
κ]ατεψευίΐσαντο οἱ πρεσβυτεροι] κατὰ Sovoay Ϊ
[ν]ας ἕνεκεν ἰσυν]ουϊσιασμου ἡ γυνη του aplxe
[ἀ]αγειρου κα[ζτ]εψευδομαρτίυρησεν του Iw
5 [σ]ηφ ενεκεν [σ]υνουσιασμου [απωλο]ντίο πολ
[λοι] ἀπὸ τῆς φίυλη)ς Βενιαμειν [οἸλιγίοι dle εσ[ω]θὴ

[σαὴ]ν ενεκεν [σ]υϊνο]υσιασμου᾽ οἱ Yodoperra
[evlexey συνουσιασμου ot απὸ τοῦ Κα ΟΘ΄
estas lel. -] evexev συνουσιασμου οἱ ev TH
το [ Η ενεκεν συνουσιασμίο]υ, ἡ γυνὴ [Tov
| SUS εν το ae τον Jo .[.] ε--ξουσιαζει av[rns ?| avnp
amen a ier sheet date ? umjo του ἴδιου [....]. ov...
[ 18 letters TOs aia catia a Ἰν σκυθίρω
lw ΠῚ: war χοῖ
15] 7 Ve fee sas
Ετ. 5
βἸασιλί
Ἰοσὶ
Ἰνρηΐ

Fr. I verso,

hel
Joow εξ εναυΐτι
Ja εἰπίεῖν ο Os και δια. [
Jae rou7[l.....-> ἀν}
5 Κατα τονδὲ νουν Aoyos, λογοῖς
γ

C2

20 THE OXYRHYNCHUS PAPYRI

and hand 1. «ὧν οΪ- - ‘a lore
Ἰεπεμπὶ

]

Frs. 2—4 verso.

εξ ἀρχης oof 17 letters: ov yap πανΐ...
le wepiBol........-Jo.[.]. εἰς amalcaly ευλαβειΐαν ..
Ἔν ΕΟ ΟΝ he αἸνηρ evraBns kK, φ[οήβουμενος .. Ϊ..

5. .1. [-.-] ΚΡ, [-Jece. [.] εὐλαβὴς απὸ ν[.].. τ΄. α εθνους [...
.1δὰ avtwv ὑπὸ Tov ουνον al....]. a φοβουμεῖνος

hy ἘΠῚ
εἰ]... Tov Kv, τῶ de φοβω του Ou εκκλεισίας και

αναρπαξας απὸ κίακοὴν μη tobe φροϊνη]μίατ. .. .. ..

ἀεἶ. .]. . τῶ φοβου δὲ τον Kv Kat εὖ KaA[.... 1...
TOs» .7. εξ... κου τοτει'ασΐ. . « οἿν

. Kjaxos, εφΐ. . .] εὐ Ae... [

.]1 γένεσις [

ον ἢ φίο]βε..} - [

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

4. The first letter must be a, 6, or A, and if, as seems probable, the vestiges above the
line represent a rough breathing, ὁδοῦ or ὅλου is indicated, the word following perhaps being
gov; Otherwise δουλ[ο]υ could well be read.

8. θ(εο)ς is doubtful, the cross-bar of 6 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 xa, but it is rather farther away from the v than would be expected,
and with the stop above the line would also be superfluous; cf. however Frs. 2-4 verso. ἢ;
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 ll. 1-3 is certain, but that of
Fr. 4, which contains the ends of ll. 12-15, with a vestige supposed to belong to the
a of avnp in |. 11, is less clear.

2. Either [«Jareyevjcavro or [κ]ατεψευδομαρτυρησαν (cf. 1. 4) is probable and the former must
be preferred if οι πρεσβυτεροι is right. Σουσαννα is the spelling of BAQ; Σωσαννα B rescr.

3. αρ[χιμ]αγειρου : so the ΤΙ ΧΧ in Gen, xxxix. 1.

1785. THEOLOGICAL FRAGMENTS 21

5-6. The incident referred to is related in Judges xix-xx. At the end of |. 5
απωλο]ντο πολίλοι is very conjectural, especially as there is barely room for [λοι] ‘before
απο in ]. 6.

7. ot Σοδομειται (Gen, xix) and the following nominatives lack a verb, 6. g. διεφθαρησαν,
and the angular symbol preceding οἱ may be interpreted as referring to this loss, which was
perhaps supplied in the margin.

8. Dr. Bartlet suggests that Ka... 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 ε and & of εξουσιαζει is not evident.
There is a hole in the papyrus immediately below it. ὃ of av[rys may be J, 6. g. αλίλα οἿ.

Fr. 5. 3. A combination with ΕἾ. 2-4. 1. 2 [κ]ατεψευ[δομαρτ]υρησαν 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,
6. 9. v, Or some other sign is doubtful.

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

ἡ. 0 of τον has been corrected, perhaps from 7. .

8. φρο[νηἼμίατ᾽ .. .: or possibly φρο[νιμίωδης, a form found in some MSS. of Philostratus
705, which would suit the space rather better than φροἤνη μί.

10-13. The letters ] . εξ, κακος ἐφ in ll. ro—11, and 1]. 12-13 are on Fr. 4 which is
doubtfully placed; cf. note on Frs. 2-4 recto. In 1. ro the signs resembling inverted
commas above ag (or »?) may perhaps be regarded as marks of cancellation.

1786. CHRISTIAN HYMN WITH MUSICAL NOTATION.

29:6 Χ5 cm. Late third century. Plate I.

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

22 THE OXYRHYNCHUS PAPYRI

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

The early date indicated by the character of the handwriting is reflected in
the metre, which is purely quantitative and uninfluenced by accent. Owing to
the mutilation of the fragment the metrical scheme cannot be closely followed,
but the rhythm was apparently anapaestic and may be analysed as a series of
dimeters, either acatalectic, catalectic, or brachycatalectic. A short syllable is
allowed to replace a long at the end of a colon, and the first syllable of ἀμήν is
lengthened meri gratia. It is noticeable that the metre of both P. Amh. 2 and
Berl. Klass. V1. vi. ὃ is analogous, and the anapaestic measure thus seems to have
been a favourite one with early Christian hymnologists in Egypt. Perhaps, as
in the Berlin hymn, pairs of cola formed a system.

The musical notation is generally similar to that found in the rather earlier
papyrus published by Schubart in Sztzwngsber. preuss. Akad. 1918, pp. 763 sqq.,
the text of which has been revised and discussed by Th. Reinach in Revue
Archéologique, 1919, pp. 11-27, and has been arranged in modern style by Prof.
A. Thierfelder The notes which can be recognized with certainty are eight,
Ro@ooéuce. These all occur in the Diatonic Hypolydian key of Alypius,
to which Reinach assigns also the Paean of the Berlin papyrus; that, however, is
more probably to be regarded as in the Iastian key. As for the mode, there can
be little doubt that it is the Hypophrygian or Iastian, as in the Epitaph of Seikilos
-and the Hymn to Nemesis of Mesomedes; cf. Gevaert, La mélopée antique, pp. 48 546.
With regard to the character of the syllables and the corresponding notes,
Reinach has observed that in the Berlin Paean a barytone syllable is always sung
on a lower note than the succeeding accented fina] syllable, and that a circumflexed
syllable has two notes at least. Neither of these observations holds in the case
of 1786, and the former indeed can hardly be maintained of the Paean either.
On the other hand, two notes are assigned to a short syllable in one instance at
least (1. 4).

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

1 Paean and Tekmessa (Leipzig), reviewed with severity by Schréder, Berd. Phil. Woch. xl. 351.

1786. THEOLOGICAL FRAGMENTS 23

syllables which are long or scanned.as such (for.a possible exception see |. 2,.n.).
(2) A curved stroke or hyphen, as in modern notation, is written below notes that
are to be regarded as gato. (3) A symbol like a half-circle, written in the same
line with the musical notes, is to be explained with Reinach as a form of A,
a sign given by Bellermann’s Anonymus 102 and signifying a χρόνος κενός or rest.
According to the same ancient authority the duration of the pause was increased
by the addition of various marks of length, and in 1786 a, i.e. a double χρόνος,
is regularly used, whereas in the Berlin text the bare symbol only occurs. There
are three instances of it (11. 2, 3, 4) corresponding with the metrical divisions ;
a fourth which is expected at the end of 1. 4 possibly stood at the beginning of
1.5. The purpose of (4) the colon (:), which is sometimes placed in front of a note
or group of notes, is not very clear. Reinach (p. 14) says that this is peculiar to
the instrumental portions of the Berlin papyrus, and regards it as a dzastolé or
sign of division between two cola. But the same sign is to be recognized more
than once among the vocal notes of the Paean also, and in 1786 it has evidently
nothing to do with the separation of cola. According to Thierfelder, /.c., it
means two beats; at any rate, it probably affects the time in some way. (5) A
single dot is frequently placed above the notes, and according to the anonymous
authority cited above this means arsis: 7) μὲν οὖν θέσις σημαίνεται, ὅταν ἁπλῶς TO
σημεῖον ἄστικτον 7}... ἡ δ᾽ ἄρσις, ὅταν ἐστιγμένον (3, 85). Some critics have con-
sidered that in that passage the terms θέσις and ἄρσις have become transposed,
others, e.g. Blass, Bacchylides, p. 1 (so too Reinach, p. 6, n.), maintain its
correctness. As Professor Stuart Jones observes, the fact that here, as in the
Berlin papyrus, the symbol for the χρόνος κενός is dotted, looks like a confirmation
of the latter view. Apart from this however, if the metre of 1786 is rightly
regarded as anapaestic, the use of the dots seems for the most part to favour the
hypothesis that they denote thesis, and they were so interpreted; plausibly
enough, by Wessely in the Orestes fragment at Vienna (Mittheil. Pap. Erz.
Rainer, v. 65 sqq.). The dot associated with the χρόνος κενός might possibly
then be accounted for by catalexis. Unfortunately the Berlin papyrus throws
little light on the problem, a consistent interpretation of the dots there having
yet to be found. Schréder, Berl, Phil. Woch. xl. 352, thinks that in the
second of the fragments arsis is plainly meant. Both he and Thierfelder, who
takes them to denote ictus, profess to distinguish two kinds of dot, a heavy and
a light, but the distinction is probably imaginary.

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

24 THE OXYRHYNCHUS PAPYRI

Φ e . . . 4 . . . . ~ .

af 31 letters . 7 opov πᾶσαι τε θεου λογιμο:
ad Re fora Pee 7? aera τον Πὰν CO a
ἢ Ἐςφοξ τῷ cht ὦ k f
2 [ 28 letters ἡ πρ)υτανηω σιγατω pnd αστρα
bre μα
φαεσῴορα λΛ[ειπε ὁ ὁ ὁ ὁ ὁ
fick uth ἃ Kad :
3 [αἸθων [:] .λεῖ «Ὁ ἃν ν «1ρ{502 ee eee ee eee ] ποταμων ροθιων πασαι υμνουν-
φ :0f R
των δ᾽ ἡμῶν
16 σ ᾧ σε : φδ ᾧφξ ) tA fo GES ood αὶ GF Fike
4 [wlarepa χ᾽ voy χ᾽ aylov πνευμα πασαι δυνάμεις ἐπιφωνουντων ἀμὴν
ho EL]EL] Eo ¢
apnv KpaTos atvos
].:8F Fors o oof Ht o EF HR E o φ σῷ δοξ:ξιξ oh σῷ
es SE Es SL ee ais 2+] δίωτΊ]ηρι] pov mavtav ayaboy ἀμὴν ἀμὴν

> ΄ 2 ΄ ΄ 7
ἐπι - φω - νοὺύν - των aq - μὴν aq - μήν κρά-τος αἱ -

1786. THEOLOGICAL FRAGMENTS 25

πάν - Tov a - γα - θῶν a - μὴν . - ἀ - μήν.

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

2. mplvtavno: the word is somewhat unexpected and the mark of length on the second
syllable is a difficulty, but this may possibly be connected with the fact that the 7 has been
corrected from v. The occurrence of 7 for εἰ is common. To suppose that no = ἕω and
that ταν = τήν or -τὴν is much more difficult.

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

λ[ειπ]ε[σθων is very doubtful ; the initial letter may be p or x, and 6 may be 8, of which
no other example occurs in the papyrus. pnd’... φαεσῴφορα can be constructed with ovyaro,
and another μ[ηδ]ε might stand at the end of the line; or if. . . ἐσήθων is rightly taken as an
imperative, this may belong to what follows.

3. Perhaps και] ποταμων (80. πηγαί, OF something similar), with a preceding mention of
the sea, but the uncertainties are too many for a convincing restoration. Ae (or χει ἢ) is
followed by a vertical stroke suggesting y or τ, and the doubtful p may be ¢ or Ψ. ροθιων
is over an expunction.

4. A dot is probably to be restored above the notes on mvev, the papyrus having been
rubbed here. The dots on the notes from χ᾽ voy to πνεῦμα are carried on in regular
succession to those of the preceding words, as if there were no pause at [π]ατερᾳ. Another
dot is most probably lost above the second syllable of the first αμην. A dot above the a of
kparos (a little below the ν of τῶν in ]. 3) is ignored in the transcription, since it is more
to the right of the note é than usual and would also interrupt the sequence. The note
é above a of dvvapes is very uncertain, δυνάμεις is used of heavenly bodies (e. g. Matt.
Xxiv. 29 ai 8, τῶν οὐρανῶν : cf. also n.on 1. 5) and sometimes of angels, but may here be quite
general.

5. In the line of notes the second group : o is very doubtfully deciphered ; the upper
dot of the supposed colon must be supposed to have disappeared, and the lower one is rather
large. The vestiges might be regarded as a single letter, but they then suggest nothing but
a rather unsatisfactory a, which does not occur elsewhere in the piece and would be
extraneous to the mode. A dot may be lost above the mark of length and others above
gor and the « over the second syllable of δίωτ]η[ρι] ; the surface is a good deal rubbed
hereabouts.

With regard to the text of l. 5, the scanty vestiges well suit μονω, but δ[ωτΊἼ [ρι] is highly
doubtful, though some such word is demanded by the sense. In the preceding lacuna the
musical notes indicate a loss of seven syllables, of which the last three were an anapaest. One
more syllable at least, however, seems necessary for the metre, and it is perhaps just possible
that a note is missing between : o and a, where there is a rather broad space and the surface
is not well preserved. Something. like νῦν κεὶς αἰῶνας (or δόξαν viv del) δίδομεν is wanted ;
cf. e.g. the eleventh prayer in the Greek morning service (Εὐχολόγιον τὸ μέγα) ὅτι σε αἰνοῦσι

᾿πάσαι αἱ Δυνάμεις τῶν οὐρανῶν καὶ σοὶ τὴν δόξαν ἀναπέμπομεν τῷ Πατρὶ καὶ τῷ Υἱῷ καὶ τῷ ἁγίῳ
Πνεύματι νῦν καὶ ἀεὶ καὶ εἰς τοὺς αἰῶνας τῶν αἰώνων. ᾿Αμήν. The double ἀμήν at the end of the
line appears to be extra metrum.

26 THE. ΟΧΥ̓ΔΗΥΝΟΗΟΘΒ .PAPYRI

MT NE WiC DAS SiC αι. FRAGMENTS ©

1787. SAPPHO, BOOK iv.

Fr.t 15:9 X 9-4 cm. Third century. Plate II
(Frs. 1+ 2, 9).

The authorship of the following fragments, being (with P. S. 1. 123) the sixth
distinct papyrus of Sappho so far obtained from Oxyrhynchus, is established by
one certain and two other probable coincidences with lines previously extant ;
some isolated words attributed by Grammarians to Sappho also occur. To which
of the available books among the nine of her lyrics they belonged is uncertain,
but they may be assigned with some probability to the fourth. The metre is
apparently the same throughout, a two-line strophe consisting of a repetition of
the verse 4-Uuu——uu——-vuv—v-¥, which Hephaestion 64 describes as
an Ionic a maiore tetrameter acatalectic, adding that it was called Αἰολικόν
from its frequent use by Sappho, from whom he cites Frs. 76-7 as examples.
Similar two-line strophes are described by Hephaest. 111, 116-17, according to
whom Sappho’s second and third books consisted entirely of such systems,
Book ii ee poems in the Σαπφικὸν τεσσαρεσκαιδεκασύλλαβον (Y¥¥—Yvu— te
—vvu—v*: cf. Hephaest. 42), Book iii of the ἑκκαιδεκασύλλαβον (ΞΖ -- αὐ -- ττ ὺ ae
—vu-v*: Hephaest. 60). Since the fifth book was of a different character,
consisting partly, at any rate, if the Berlin fragments belonged to it, of poems in
strophes of three lines, it seems that the only book to which the two-line strophes
of 1787, which are entirely analogous to those of Books ii and iii, can be logically
referred is Book iv. Perhaps this further resembled the two preceding books in
the homogeneity of its contents; that supposition is not excluded by the fact
that Hephaestion does not refer to Book iv in connexion with two-line strophes,
and on the other hand accords both with his statement about the Aeolic tetra-
meter that Sappho πολλῷ αὐτῷ ἐχρήσατο and with the not inconsiderable remains
of the present papyrus. But it is of course quite possible that poems in similar
metres (cf. e.g. Sapph. 60, 62) were also included.

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

1787. NEW CLASSICAL FRAGMENTS 27

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

The hand is a rapidly formed uncial of medium size and with a decided
slope; that of 1788 is in many respects very similar. Stops in the high
position occur, and accents, breathings, and marks of elision, quantity, and diaeresis
have been freely added, as usual in papyri of lyric poets. Acute accents are
sometimes so horizontal as to be barely distinguishable from marks of length.
Two rarer symbols are a mark similar in form and position to a comma, to divide
words (Fr. 8. 2), and the converse of this, a curved ligature below the line, which
connects the parts of a compound word in Fr. 9. 4. Paragraphi are employed to
mark off strophic couplets (cf. 1283. 1. ii) and a coronis to indicate the conclusion
of a poem. The few interlineations occurring seem all to proceed from the
original scribe, who may also be credited with at any rate many of the
diacritical signs.

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

28

THE OXYRHYNCHUS PAPYRI

which the sweet song, the melody of birds, and the dewy leaves, spoken of in the
following lines, are contrasted. The offender had perhaps been a member of the
poet’s circle, and is warned that she would no longer be welcome (I. 2,n.). Fr. 6

i fe)

15

20

25

Fr. 2 (a).

leooa|

}. πέρι
71. exe .[

τολαί
ἐπινΐ
φίλει. [

καινΐ

Frs. 1+ 2: Plate II.

Ἰέναταν. . . ἀνυμόνσ.
Ἰνιθῆταιστί.Ἱμα[.Ἱπρόκοψιν
ἹἸπωνκάλαδωραπᾶιδεσ
|r’ ἀοιδονλιγύρανχελύννᾶν
Ἰνταχροαγῆρασήδη
Ἰντοτρίχεσεκμελαιναν
Ἰν'γοναδῖ Ἰνφεροισι
Ἰησθ᾽ ἰσανεβρίοισιν
Ἰλλατίκενποέιην
Ἰουδυνατονγενεσθαι
Ἰβροδόπαχυνάνων
Ἰκαταγᾶσφεροισαϊ
Ἰονύμωσέμαρψεϊ
Ἰάτανάκοιτιν
71. μέναννομισδει
Ἰαισοπασδοι
Ἰτοῦτοκάιμοι
Ἰλονλέγογχε
7... .ὄ «ἱνό 1

a EE ον Ὅτι

4 S¢ ΤΟΣ

1787. NEW CLASSICAL FRAGMENTS 29

mentions Andromeda, a rival who is alluded to in several already extant fragments.

In the small Frs. 33 and 34 further coincidences with previously known verses
are probably to be recognized.

Fr. 2 (a). ΕἾΘ. 1+ 2. Plate II.
Ἱλεσσί Τιδ᾽ af
]. πέρι [ ]
]- εἰκε .Ϊ Ἰνα
: - , θ]ίγοισα[.]
5 eo ἄχθην
NARAL η εν τος αἸύταν
Were AL πὰς Jetoa
Ἰένα τὰν [....Jav ὑμο..
Ἰνε θῆται στ[ύ]μα[σι] πρόκοψιν
10 Ἰπὼων κάλα δῶρα παῖδες

ὦ] φίλ᾽, ἄοιδον λιγύραν χελύνναν
πάϊντα χρόα γῆρας ἤδη
λεῦκαί τ᾽ ἐγένο]ντο τρίχες ἐκ μελαίναν
jw γόνα δ᾽ [old φέροισι
15 1 ἦσθ᾽ ἴσα νεβρίοισιν
ἀλλὰ τί κεν ποείην ;
] οὐ δύνατον γένεσθαι
] βροδόπαχυν αὔων
; ] κατὰ γᾶς φέροισα
20 Jov ὄμως ἔμαρψεϊν
Ἰάταν ἄκοιτιν
φθ)ιμέναν νομίσδει
Jats ὀπάσδοι

[ἔγω δὲ φίλημ᾽ ἀβροσύναν ... ... ] τοῦτο καί μοι

25. τὸ λάϊμπρον ἔρως ἀελίω καὶ τὸ κάΪλον λέλ]ογχε
ἐπι 23 letters ] “ [. : .|vd . [
φίλει. [

καὶ yf

30

THE OXYRHYNCHUS. PAPYRI.

Col. i.

ee Ce LC
.
9.

Fr. 4
[-+-. J. σιταῖ
[5 ++» -|popel

| fe)

15

20

“nicb

Pasig.

Col. fi,

ἔγεντί

2 ovydpx{

Ξ επτάξατεϊ
δαφνασόταί
πᾶνδάδιον

. κηνονελὴϊ

καιταίσιμεναϊ

odcimopocar[....]..[

μύγισδεποτ' εἰσαιον"εκλί

ψύχαδαγαπάτασυνί'

τέαυτί Ἰνδενθνἕμμί

[-Ἰκεσθ᾿ ayaval
x ἐφθατε"καλαν!

£ 2
Ξτατ μματακαΐ

5 ονοιρεμελαιναΐ

φ[ Πιταισότατ' ὕπνοσ]

yAukuo . éoo-ndew ονίασμί

ζἀχῶρισέχηντανδυναμῖί

ελπισδέμ᾽ ἐχειμηπεδέχη
μηδενμακαρωνελί
[- 1

4 2 4 7
ουγάρκεονούτα!. -

αθύρματακαλ!

γενοιτοδεμοίΪ

6
Ξ τοισπαντεῖ

[
[
[

Fr, 5.
ωνμακ
Ἰαιτοῦτ᾽ἐπικε « [
Ἰαιμωνὸὀλόφ!

1787.

ἐῶ ὦ

ee Ps Ly τ...»

npos:

Pe 4.

ρος Ἰ. otra

[.. + + Ἱρομεί
[.... .]δελασί

NEW CLASSICAL FRAGMENTS

Io

20

Pryig.
Col. ii.
éyevT|o

ov γάρ κίε

᾿Επτάξατε [

δάφνας dra [

πὰν δ᾽ ἄδιον [

ἢ κῆνον ἐλο

καὶ ταῖσι μὲν ἀΪ
ὀδοίπορος ἄν... .1..[
μύγις δέ ποτ᾽ εἰσάιον: ἐκλί
ψύχα δ᾽ ἀγαπάτα συν΄
τέαυτ(α» δὲ νῦν ἔμμί
[ἤκεσθ᾽ ἀγαναΐ

ἔφθατε: κάλαν [

, > +»
τά τ᾽ ἔμματα Kal

"Ovotpe μελαιναΐ

>»

plolirais ora τ᾽ ὄπνος [
γλύκυς Oéos- 7 δεῖν’ dvias pf
(4 χῶρις ἔχην τὰν δύναμ
ἔλπις δέ μ᾽ ἔχει μὴ πεδέχηϊν
μηδὲν μακάρων ἐλί

οὐ γάρ κ᾽ ἔον οὔτω |[. !
ἀθύρματα Karl

γένοιτο δέ μοι [

"ἢ ΤΩΝ
τοὶς πάνταϊ

Fr. 5;

[. (ων pax[

[κ]αὶ τοῦτ᾽ ἐπικε.

[

[ἰδ]αίμων ὀλοφ[ώιος ὃ

3!

32 THE OXYRHYNCHUS: PAPYRI

[.|po . ήννεμεί
5 Ψαπφοισεφιλί
κύπρωιβι .]σίλί
κάιτοιμεγαδί
[-Ἰσσοισφαεθωνΐ
πάνταικλεοσί
10 κάισενναχερί

Fr. 6.
Ἰσεμίκα
Ἰελαί. . . «. Ἰάσ᾽ εγωυκεᾶσω

5 weal. -JreyAdKepor . Ϊ
]j&@pedrAtyogor|
Ἰδει"λιγυρᾶιδ᾽ ἄη

Ἰδροσί.Ἰεσσαΐ

Ετ. 8.

Ἰαθαναΐ
Ἰερα,σεῖ
lor Ϊ
Ἰεδοισιν

5 Ἰαθεισενί
Ἰαιγινηΐ
Ἰνακῖ

ουμανεφίλησί

5 νυνδ᾽εννεκα[.
τοδ᾽ ἀιτιονουτί
ουδενπόλυϊ.]ε. [

[νδ᾽ (1

Εν. 7.

Ἰιγάρμ᾽ απυτασί
μωσδῖ
ἰσανθεοισιν [
Ἰασᾶναλίτρα!

5 \Spopedar|.] . [
\re ss wma
Ἰρόποναί
Ἰορονουκατισί
Ἰτυνδαρίδαι[
19 Ἰχαρίεντ᾽ ἅ . [
Ἰηκέτισυνϊ

.βι «κη:
]- af. .Jaf

Fr. 9. Plate II.
Ἰοδέρκενεπωμοσσί
Ἱνέτι"τανπαϊδαδεῖ
Ἰ8ρ[.Ἰτανκἂνχὲρρὶθί

sae
Ἰεν[. . . .« ἡπαρεί

5

1787.

[-]po . ήννεμεϊ

5 Pardo, σὲ dirl
Κύπρῳ β[α]σίλί
καίτοι μέγα δῖ
[ὄσσοις Φαέθων |
πάντᾳ κλέος [

to Kai σ᾽ ἐνν ᾿Αχέρ[οντος

Fr. 6.
] ve Mixa
Ἰελαί[.᾽. ἀλλ] σ᾽ ἔγω᾽υκ ἐάσω
Ἰν φιλότίατ᾽ ἤλεο Πενθιλήαν
Ιδὰ κα[κό]τροπ᾽. ἄμμαϊς
] μέλ[ος] τι γλύκερον .Ϊ
Ja μελλιχόφων[ος
ἀείδει: λίγυραι δ᾽ ἄηϊδοι
1 δροσ[ό]εσσαί

Fr. 8.
] ἀθαναϊίτ
Ἰέρα σεῖ
λον
Ἰέδοισιν [
5 Ἰαθεισενΐ
Ἰαιγινηῖ
Ἰνακί

NEW CLASSICAL FRAGMENTS 33

ov μὰν ἐφίλησϊ

5 νῦν δ᾽ ἔννεκα Ϊ
τὸ δ᾽ αἴτιον οὐτὶ
οὐδὲν πόλυ [.]ε. [

[οὐδ᾽ af

Bri7.
ἢ Kali γάρ wo ἀπὺ τᾶς [
ὔγμμως δ᾽ |
1 ἔσαν θέοισιν
] ἄσαν ἀλίτραϊ
5 Ἀν]δρομέδαν [.]. Ϊ
fra... Καὶ
τ]ρόπον aj
Ἰορον οὐ κατίσίχ
1 Τυνδαρίδαι[ς
10 ] χαρίεντ᾽ a. [
μ]ηκέτι ovr{
B kn
]- a. . .Jaf

Fr. 9;
Ἰοδέρκεν ἐπώμοσσϊ
Ἰν ἔτι: τὰν παῖδα δὲ [
ἢ ἀἸβρ[όϊταν κἀν χεριθὶ

34

Io

Fr. 10.
Ἰ. ovav[
Ἰηνουδεῖ
Inotpep|
Ἰταιδάμα
Ἰ. ανθοσΐ
Ἱμερον
Ἰετερπί

Pr 12.

Ἰαμᾳλλί
Ἵναμί
Ἰνδ᾽ εἴμ᾽ εἰ
pooner)
Ἵλικ vrraf
1- «θαι
Ἰσγαρεπαυΐ
Ἱμανκαπυγυεῖ
Ἰαρμονίασβ[

JaOnvxXopov-aaf

Ἰδελίγηαν!
Ἰατόνσφι
Ἱπαντεσσι

]επ|.} . [

THE OXYRHYNCHUS PAPYRI

Fr. 12.

Ἰαμπί

Ja Ἰλέσειεν
Ἰαναφροδι Ἰηλελάϊ
Ἰδυλογοιδ᾽ ερ Ἰεθελαωΐ
δ Ἰσαλλοι 5 Ἰεχηνΐ
Ἰφεχοισα | Pepa «|
Ἰ. εναθαᾶσὶ Ἰᾶλέκ!
Ἰαλλεει [
Ἰασεερσασί
ΕΥ, 14. Fr. 15.
Ἰαμμῖ Ἰτοσεσί. [
Ἰικαι Ἱπανταί
Ἱποισαϊ[ ᾿ς
Ἰκλεηδον] ] . arépaf
5 ]- πλοκαμί : Ἰλοκαί
Ἰεσδᾶμα 5 ΤΊ
ἸανθρώπΙ ἴ
ot ᾿
ΐ ]
ΤΡ ΟῚ
Fr. τό.
fic : Ἰνάισχρ
: J
Ἰβροδοῖ
5 Ἰαμοι
Jer sith
Ἰραιμῖ Ἰτι

1787.

Ετ. τὸ.
Ἰ. οναυΐ
lv οὐδεΪ
Ἰης ἔμερίο
Ire δάμαϊ
roy. ἄνθος" [᾿
ἵμερον [
Ἰετερπί

Pr. 10:
Ἰαμαλλί
Ἰναμῖ
Wo? εἶμ᾽ ἐ
Ἰρσομένϊ
5 “tk” ὑπα
J.» [18αϊ
Ἰς. γὰρ ἐπαυΐ
Ἱμαν κἀπυγυεῖ
71: ἁρμονίας Bl

10 Ἰάθην χόρον: da
71 δὲ; λίγηαν [

Ἰατόν σφι [
1 πάντεσσι Ϊ

1επ|.}.1

NEW CLASSICAL FRAGMENTS 35

ΕΥ. 11.

Bl. «Ἱραι [
Ja

av "Adpodi[ra

|
ἀἸδύλογοι δ᾽ eplwres ?

5 15 ἄλλοι
als ἔχοισα
|]. va θαάσ[σ
Ἰάλλει

+7
Jas ἐέρσας

Paka.
Ἰαμμῖ
ye καὶ [
Ἰποις αἰ
1 κλεηδον
5 |. πλοκαμί
jes δ᾽ dual
] ἀνθρώπί
] Avpauy . [
7τε καὶ a

le Er, τό.
1 βροδοῖ

Ἰενθ]
Ἰραιμῖ

Er. 12.
Japa
Ἰλέσειεν [
Jin λελάθ
Je θέλα!
5 | ἔχην [
Ie ea. |

] ἀλίκζεσσι

THE OXYRHYNCAHUS

56
Fr. 18. Ετ. το.
7. ουδεῖ Ὁ]
Ἰταυταλί ]- [7θύρανΐ
Ἰλαισιμί ys οιχάλἔπί
Ἰπλῆονι Ἰδεκύϊ
5. Ταμφί 5 Ἰτοπάληνόι
]. σθεο.Ϊ
Ἰέρωσ .[
Er, 21. Fr. 22 Fr. 23.
Sad αἱ ou|
φί. oul σεδὶ
ie d τα
5 οπὶ 5 τοί
ήλί Bs
τί
Fr, 26. Fr. 27.
Jae{ 1}
Ἰσεταὶ Ἰωητε
Ἰνμαιν . | Ἰδίαισᾶ [
Jerexal, Jpol re
5 Ἰιδίδόισί 5 Ἰφραὶ
Joevapeo| I
Jocovyal ha Mig
JaAoval

᾿ λιδαλὶ

PAPYRI

Fr, 20.
Col. i. Col. ii.
]
]
J ¢
ΕἾ
] 5
Ἰσην
Fr. 24. Fr, 25.
καί Ee
μήμϊ καὶ
£66 . [ ταί
τ. ταί
Fr. 28, Fr. 29.
Ἰαμοιΐ 1.11.1
Jappal ]. oad,
Ἱνπεῖ Wal
Any |viar[
5 reé - [ 5. ἰλυρῖ
Ἱμονωῖ Ἰιμεὸ. [
Ἰμάϊ \uaore|
1.1 ] - κί

1787. NEW CLASSICAL FRAGMENTS
Fr. 18. Fr. 19. Fr. 20,
Col. i. Col. ii.
i οὐδεῖ 1. 3 41 ]
] ταῦτα λί 1.{[1 θύραν | ]
aor pl 3 1. οἱ χάλεπί ] ὃ
] πλήονι [ 1 δὲ Kv ] +4 |
5 | ἀμφὶ 5 | 7d πάλην οἴϊ ] :
1. cbeo . [ ie . Ἰσην
Ἱέρωσ . [ alae gee Ga eye
Fr, 21. Fr. 22. Fr. 23. Fr. 24. Fr. 25.

a af otf

Eyl συ Εν μή μ᾽ καὶ
of Sa Tal 66. [ Tall
gal en | ar ΚΣ hat Tal
5 on oe Stile
an
τ

Fr. 26. Fr. 27. Fr. 28. Fr. 29.

Jaul lel Ἰαμοί eae

Ἰσεταῖ | pore, 1 ἄμμαῖ 1. σαδ
Ἰυμαιν . | ὃ petldiaica pre Val
Ἰέ τε χα[ἡροΐ Jes ἀλλ[ὰ Ἰλην | iar [
5 |e διδοίσΊί͵ ὁ Ἰφραΐ 5 Ἰτεέ [ 5 | Avpl
δεν ἀμεσί TI Ἱμοναΐ γιμεδ..[
Jos σύ yal AYIA ΠΕ ΜΈΝ, of Ἱμας τεῖ
Ἰαλον af {-[ Tar
dal RUA Aid at alee

of

38

THE OXYRHYNCHUS PAPYRI
Fr, 31.
Fr. 30. Col. i.
Ἰεριμναΐ
lyn
2

Col. ii.
Ἰσθην
[ 1: σ΄
. Kol J
jee | ]

Fr. 32.

JeA . [.] . eval
: Ἰασαλίτραϊ
¢al Ἱέτ᾽ αυἱ
n-|
Pr 33:
Ἰαπύθεσθι
Ἰχισταλί
᾽1:. μ{{ε|π|
Ἰερθεσὶ
5 J “Ἰαισὶ
Fr. 34. Fr. 35. Fr, 36.
Col. i. Col. ii. ae
KaLT εἶ 1. ἀιτί .
μηδενῖ : ae Ἰλ᾽ αυθιμεῖ
νυνδ᾽ αἱ ] 60] Ἰνώμεθ᾽ of
μηβολλεῖ 5 aitd = αἱ [ Ἰδηῦτ᾽ ἐπιτί
5 [- -Ἱμορφοῖ Ἰν ag AL 5 Ἰέντηδεκΐ
eae ] δὺς of Ἰαγαρεκάϊ
x ἢ
Fr. 27. Fr.i98.
Jon. 1.1 Ἱπάμεναϊ
Ἰτονόνεσϊ

lef
Fr, 39.
]. οἰπλυ.Ϊ
|r’ ὠστοπέληϊ

Fr. 40.

Ἰτετοκωΐ

ee
Ἶλβον

1787. NEW CLASSICAL FRAGMENTS 39

Fr. 30. ΕῪ, 91: Fr. 22.
Col. i. Coli:
μ]εριμναί Ἰσθην ' Ἰελ . [.] - evap
lyn SMe τὰ yas Jas ἀλίτραϊ
7... Kol ] (al 7 ἔτ᾽ αὖ
αι ] A> | OLE. ON Beatie
Fr. 33.

1 ἀπύθεσθϊ]αι

Ἰχιστα Al

1: μπὶ

[σὺ δὲ στεφάνοις, ὦ Δίκα, πἹερθέσ[θ᾽ ἐράταις φόβαισιν

3 ἰὄρπακας ἀνήτω (9) συναέρρ]αισ᾽’ [ἀπάλαισι χέρσιν

Fr. 34. Fr. 235. Fr. 36.

eae Col. 4. Col. ii.
καί T ἔ ΣΉΝ Cen ]. aéz[
μηδενί ] τ W αὖθι pel
vov & af ] oo} Ἰνώμεθ᾽ of
μὴ βόλλεϊο Ἰν ai. [ 1 δηῦτ᾽ ἐπιτί
] 5 je τ᾽ ἠδὲ κί

5 [εὐϊμορφοϊτέρα κτλ. ?
SS OS RONEN τως ] "EX Ja yap ἐκάϊ
5 σὶ Jer|

Ετ. 927. Fr 28. Brigg. Fr. 40.

Ἴων x.) -[ πεϊπάμεναϊι 7. οἱ πλυ. . 1.4
τον ὄνεσξ͵ . |r ὥστ᾽ ὁ πέληϊος ? Ἰγετοκωΐ divo|\ Bov

40 THE OXYRHYNCHUS PAPYRI:

Ἰάβροισεπιχαί Ἰολκανε . [Ὁ jun’ Ἰακούην
Javapre pil . . : : . - Ἰάυταν
Ἰναβλί οὐ δῷ

Fr, 41. Pr,-42. Fr. 423.
Ἰλαισῖ Ἰκλᾳῖ fo. [
Ἰαικιπὶ Wo . [ τόλμί
Ἰίναΐ Jeol
Ἰδοσεῖ .
5. Ἰομί

|

Fr. 44 = P. Halle 2 (Dikaiomata, pp. 182 sqq.).
Ἰτυχοισα
Ἰθέλ᾽ ὠντάπάισᾶν
7. ἐσοννοημμα -
Ἰετωνκαλημι
5. Ϊπεδαθυμοναῖψα!
Ἰσατυχηνθελησηϊ
Ἰρεμοιμαχεσθαΐ
Ἰλιδάναιπίθεισαί
Ἰσυδεῦγαροισθα
10 Ἰέτειταΐλλε :

Ἰελασί

Ετ. 45.

can|

ΜῈ
Frs.1+42. 8. The end of this line is difficult. Either Ἰάν or ἂν may be read, and the
letter following ὄν has a rounded base which, if the line is to scan, seems consistent only

1787. NEW CLASSICAL FRAGMENTS 41

7 ἄβροις ἐπιχαΐ ] ὄλκανε..Ϊ 7 ὑπ’ a ] ἀκούην
Ἰαν Aprepii SE gy) wien he ΠΗ Sigh eR eS Pentel fe ] αὔταν
5 abr

Fr. 41. Fr. 42. Fr. 43.
Ἰλαισί Ἰκλαί [δὼ . [
ἢ γύν]αικι πί Wo . [ τόλμ[
jival Ἰέσί
Ἰδοσεῖ utes et
5 Jor

|

Fr. 44 = Ῥ. Halle 2.

] τύχοισα
1 θέλ’ ὦν τ’ ἀπαίσαν
τέϊλεσον νόημμα
Ἰετων κάλημι
5 1 πεδὰ θῦμον αἶψα
ὄσ]σα τύχην θελήσῃ[(5)
Jo ἔμοι -μάχεσθαζι
. χ]λιδάνᾳ πίθεισαϊΪ
je σύ δ᾽ εὖ γὰρ οἶσθα
10 Ἰέτει τὰ ἴλλε..
Ἰελασί

Fr. 45.
San| pois
μείλῶν δὃ

with ¢ or 6. The division ? Ἰάνυμόν σ is thus suggested, but neither σε nor σοι] is satisfactory,
though perhaps there has been some alteration.

42 THE OXYRHYNCHUS PAPYRI

9. στ[ὐ]μα[τι] or στ[ύ]μα[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.
Alc. 35. 2.

11. χελύνναν is gen. plur. ; cf.1231.14.8,n, For χελύννα cf. Orion 28. 15 (Sapph. 169)
ὡς παρὰ Σαπφοῖ χελώνη χελύνη, Where χελύννα should now be restored. The doubled » is
perhaps to be recognized also in Babrius 115. 4.

12. The words χρόα γῆρας ἤδη occurred at the end of a Sapphic line in 1281. το. 6;
cf. 1. 17, where there is a similar doublet of 1281. 1. i. 33, and Fr. 7.3. . Either Sappho
was rather forgetful, or she did not mind repeating herself.

13. Cf. Soph. Azz. 1092 λευκὴν ἐγὼ τήνδ᾽ ἐκ μελαίνης ἀμφιβάλλομαι τρίχα.

14. γόνα: cf. Alc. 39. 7 γόνα Σείριος ager.

17. Cf. note on 1. 12 above. With regard to the accent of γένεσθαι, the remark of
Wilamowitz, Sappho und Simonides, p.gg, 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. Lobel, who has recollated the original, to a displaced fibre. There is therefore
no conflict with 1288. 8. 4 λάθεϊ σθαι, and the note on 1281. 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 (ἢ νὺξ] κατὰ yas φέροισα: the participial clause might be applied to νύξ as
symbolizing death). a of φεροισα was probably the final letter of the line, but the surface
of the papyrus is damaged.

21. Perhaps ἐρ]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 Sama,
γυνὴ μὲν πρὸς ἀλήθειαν οὖσα καὶ ποιήτρια, ὅμως ἠδέσθη τὸ καλὸν τῆς ἁβρότητος ἀφελεῖν λέγουσα Bde"
ἐγὼ δὲ φίλημμ᾽ ἀβροσύναν καί μοι τὸ λάμπρον ἔρος (v.1. ἔρις) ἀελίω καὶ τὸ κάλον λέλογχεν, φανερὸν
ποιοῦσα πᾶσιν ὡς ἡ τοῦ ζῆν ἐπιθυμία τὸ λαμπρὸν καὶ τὸ καλὸν εἶχεν (ἢ εἴληχεν) αὐτῇ. ταῦτα δ᾽ ἐστὶν
οἰκεῖα τῆς ἀρετῆς. Various attempts at restoration have been made, but, as is now seen, Blass
alone was right in marking a lacuna after ἀβροσύναν and in taking τὸ λάμπρον . . . λέλογχεν
as a complete verse, in which the only alteration needed is ἔρως deAiw (so Blass: cf. Fr. 11.
4 ἀϊἸδύλογοι δ᾽ ἔρίωτες (?)) or ἔρος τῶ ἀελίω. In the preceding verse there are five syllables to
be supplied after ἀβροσύναν, of which the two last are τοῦτο. How the lacuna remaining,
a dactyl of about 6 letters, should be filled is not obvious. If τοῦτο = τὸ ἁβρόν, this was
perhaps preceded by an adverb qualifying pian, e. g. ἔξοχα, δὴ μάλα, πόλλ᾽ ἔτι, OF a predicate
of τοῦτο, as ἁδύ ye. 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 Il. 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 τολαί in ]. 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. ii. 4. δάφνας : or Δάφνας ἢ

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

11. It does not seem possible to read réavra, as demanded by the metre. For the
spelling with «, which seems to be the regular form in the papyri when the first syllable
is short, cf. 1281. 14. 4, 12838. 2. ii. 5, &c.

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

15. 8. δ΄. μελαίναϊς διὰ νύκτος OF μελαίνα[ις πτερύγεσσιν.

1787.. NEW CLASSICAL FRAGMENTS 43

τό. e.g. [καταχεύῃ βλεφάροισι λάθαν OF [βλέφαρ᾽ ἄμμιν κατὰ δὴ καλύψῃ.

18. (a χῶρις ἔχην: the tmesis is indicated in the papyrus by the accentuation.

20. νἱ or χί may be.read in place of Af.

21. ov is more suitable than ev or a. The accent on γάρ points to κ᾽ ἔον, not κέον.

Fr. 4. 2. Possibly ᾿Ανδ]ρομέζδα, whose name recurs again in Fr. 7. 5; as Lobel
observes, Aristid. ii. 508 οἶμαι δέ σε καὶ Σαπφοῦς ἀκηκοέναι... λεγούσης, ὡς αὐτὴν ai Μοῦσαι τῷ
ὄντι ὀλβίαν τε καὶ ζηλωτὴν ἐποίησαν, καὶ ὡς οὐδ᾽ ἀποθανούσης ἔσται λήθη might perhaps be brought
into connexion with ll. 5 546.

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

6. Below the remains of the initial « 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 « 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 é cf. e.g. 1283. 2. ii. 8, 1860. 1. 10. μελάθροισιν,.
δόμοισιν Or Some synonym may be supplied.

Fr. 5. 3. ὀλοφίώιος, 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 ὀλοφυδνός.
7..¢.[: perhaps ¢. .

Fr. 6. 1. Mixa seems best taken as a proper name, especially as opixpos or pixpos is well
attested for the Lesbian poets (Sapph. 34, 1238. 24. 2,1284. 6. 8). Mixa is given by the
Ravennas in Aristoph. Zhesm. 760, and Μίκκα is not infrequent. It is tempting to regard
Mixa as the name of the person addressed, but the accent is against this, since Mixa would
be expected on the analogy of Sapph. 1. 1 ᾿Αφρόδιτα, 78. 1 Δίκᾶ (cf. Choerob: Zn Heph. c. 14).
To disregard the accent in a passage so defective is unjustifiable, and Mixa may be the name
of athird party: ‘ Mica wishes to bring you here, but I will not receive you’. oe can hardly
be Sappho herself, with a different second person in the next line.

2. eyovk is analogous to e.g. 1281. 1. i. 23 εμνάσθ᾽ αἶλλα], 1284. 1. 11 πῶσλον. 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 a 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. Πενθίληος,
1234. 6. το. }

4. ka[ké]rpor’ seems probable, though the letters aco must have been rather spread out
to fill the lacuna. A or x might be read in place of a.

6. Cf. Aristaenetus i. 10 (Sapph. 129) ai μουσικώτεραι τῶν παρθένων καὶ μειλιχύφωνοι
(I. μελλιχ.), τοῦτο δὴ Σαπφοῦς τὸ ἥδιστον φθέγμα. The form μελίφωνος ascribed to Sappho in
the similar passage Philostr. Zm. ii. 1 should now disappear until otherwise attested. _

7. ἄηζδοι : cf. Schol. Soph. A7. 628 ἡ ἀηδὼ δὲ κατὰ Μιτυληναίους. The form ἀήδων is given
-in Sapph. 39.

Fr. 7. 3. Cf. Sapph. 2. 1 ἴσος θέοισιν.

4. adirpa:-a very small speck on the edge of the papyrus after the second a, if itis ink,
may be a medial stop, or, possibly, a vestige of e.g. a final νυ. The fem. ἀλιτρή occurs in
Semonides 7. 7, and cf. Fr. 32. 2 below. .

5. For ᾿Αν]δρομέδαν cf. Sapph. 41, 58.

44 THE OXYRHYNCAHUS PAPYRI

6. There are perhaps only two letters, 6. g. μα or va, between ra and κα.
8. Not ἔμἼερον.

12. Probably }a or Ja. 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 εἰπ, 1. 2 π|α, 1. 3 καὶν.

1. Ἰοδέρκεν is puzzling. p is more probable than y, which is the only alternative and
also difficult to interpret. If ex is right, the ὦ was rather smaller than usual, but eye is
not more attractive.

3. ἀἸβρ[όἾταν : or ἀμφι]βρ[όἾταν.

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

Fr. 11. 4. éplwres: cf. Frs. 1+2. 24-5, n., and Himerius i. 4 cis νυμφεῖον ἄγει
(sc. Σαπφὼ) καὶ ᾿Αφροδίτην (cf. 1. 3) ἐφ᾽ ἅρματι Χαρίτων καὶ χορὸν Ἐρώτων συμπαίστορα. ἔρζασται OF
ἔρ[αντες are other possibilities.

Fr. 12. 6. The remains of the first letter suit ¢ better than anything else, but #8 would
be expected, and ἡ or εἰ 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.

Fr. 13. 4. The first letter may be o or o instead of p.
8. The letter before the lacuna was apparently either ε or σ, not a.
10. dal: ἄδ[ seems to be excluded.

Fr. 14. 4. If κλεηδον is one word, the fragment must be from near the ends of lines;
but the division κλέῃ δονΐ (δ᾽ ὀν ?) is possible.
5. 6. 5. ft, jv

Fr. 15. 1. 1, p, v may be read in place of τ.
3+ ἄτερος for ἕτερος had already occurred in 424. 9. The interlinear insertion may be
by the original scribe.

Fr. 18. 2. λ before the lacuna is only one of several possibilities, e. δ. 8, ν.
4. An acute has been substituted for a circumflex accent ; cf. 6. 5. Frs. 5. 3, 19. 3.

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

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

Fr. 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.

Fr. 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. « or p can be read in place of v; » 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.

ἡ. The supposed mark of length is τ low and may be the tip of the cross-bar
of ἃ τ.

Fr. 27. 3. There is a short blank space after ἅ, which perhaps ended the line.
6. The accent is very doubtful.

Fr. 29. 4. |viav is a gen. plur.; cf. Frs. 1 -Ἑ 2. 11, n.
Fr. 32. 1. The letters of this line are distinctly smaller than those of ll. 2-3.

Frs. 83-43. 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 Jao[ quite well, and the preceding acute accent is just in the right place if
€ppaio’ was written.

Fr. 34. τ. καί τ᾽ : or καίτ᾽ (οι).

5, if rightly read, probably = Sapph. 76, from Hephaest. 64, Εὐμορφοτέρα Μνασιδίκα
tas ἀπάλας Τυρίννως. Unfortunately the letters are broken, the first and fifth especially being
doubtful ; the latter might well be «, o 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 E; cf. int.,
Ρ- 27). There is also a possibility, so far as the papyrus is concerned, that P. Halle 2. i,
which may = Sapph. 77, immediately succeeded.

Fr. 36. 4. It is not clear whether the accent on δηυτ᾽ is circumflex or acute, but the
former is in accordance with 1281. 15. 3.
5. For ἠδέ cf. 1288. 4. 2; this in conjunction with the accented e makes r(e) likely.

6. εκάΐ : or εκαΐ.
Fr. 38. 2. πέληϊος is possibly for πέλειος, ‘ dark’ ; cf. πέλεια.
Fr. 39. 1. A very small vestige after υ is consistent with ν.

Fr. 40. 1. The doubtful « was perhaps the final letter of the line.
2. A compound is indicated by the’grave accent, and ἄνο]λβον by the metre.
4. αὔταν Or τ]αύταν.

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, 1913, 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, τύχοισα is hardly enough for an identifica-

46 THE OXYRHYNCHUS PAPYRI

tion; cf. n. on Frs. 14+2. 12 above. Moreover, ll. 2-6 rather suggest an invocation to
a deity.

2. Ἰθέλὠώντἄπάισᾶν, Ἰθέλων τὰ παισᾶν edd. ; but the facsimile shows clearly an acute accent
on ε and suggests an elision mark after A. θέλ᾽ thus seems assured, and ovr can hardly be
interpreted otherwise than as ὧν τ᾽, the retracted accent replacing the circumflex, as
elsewhere in papyri (cf. e.g. 228. int.). Hence the last word will be either ἄπαισαν or
ἀπαίσαν, according as the accent or the mark of quantity on the final a is accepted; ἀπαίσαν
acc. fem. would conflict with other evidence.

3. Ἰεσον edd. If, however, the facsimile may be trusted, a vestige of the letter preceding
e is visible, indicating ὃ or A. For τέλεσον cf. Sapph. 1. 26-7 ὄσσα δέ por τελέσσαι θῦμος
ἰμέρρει τέλεσον, 7. 3-4, Alc. 77 Ζεὺς τελέσῃ νόημα. :

6. ὄσ]σα : cf. e. 5. Sapph. 1. 26 quoted in the preceding note; σα edd.

7. lp (yalp?): 7. edd., who note that p is possible.

8, πίθεισα: cf. 1288. 2. ii. 20 πίθει[ς. ᾿πιθεῖσα edd.

9. |. cvdeurepocba, σὺ δ᾽ εὖ πέφοισθα edd., suggesting that πέποισθα was meant. The
facsimile indicates the expected circumflex over ev, and hardly justifies πεῴ, the letters being
too small and crowded. Apparently yap οισθα is quite possible, as well as |: in front of ov.

1ο. τᾶ. Ade. edd., but ἃ 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, ἰλλ (i. e. FAA) seems necessary, but the termination remains in doubt ;
to judge from the facsimile, Ae was followed by two letters or a letter and a high stop, or
perhaps by a broad ν.

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 18-6 x 5-8 cm. Late second century.
Plate II (Fr. 15).

The following lyric fragments in Aeolic dialect proceed from the same find
as 1787, and are ina 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. I. ii. 7-8. Frs. 1
and 3 are in Asclepiads, a metre evidently used by Alcaeus with some frequency.
Fr. I gives a description of a natural scene (cf. Alc. 84,1283. 3. 8 sqq.)—a pleasant
picture of cool water running down from the hills to the vineyards and of green
reeds rustling in the breezés of spring. Fr. 2 may for the most part be in the
same metre, but |. τὸ ends like a hexameter (cf. e. g. Alc. 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.

48

THE OXYRHYNCHUS PAPYRI
Pre:

» + ἡλεξάνθιδοσιππί

]- eco’ amvripvacmon|
«Ἰανεκκορύφανοπποθενεί
«Ἰάυκανψῦχρονύδωραμπελί

5 [...-. + ἡΠανκαλαμοσχλῶρί
ΠΕ ea Ἰλάδεισηρινον,ον . |
ΠΕ tints te Te Ἰηλεφάνην'καδδ .Ϊ

[ 18 letters I

Pr. 2. Prez

Ἱμωισί Ἰχεί
‘Yirare . [ ]. ever@ Habits 4
| Ja ενδετωαδειν[
Ἰπυέιπηΐ Ἰσεται

5 Ἰαδανδρί 5 Ἰλευθεραισ “ἶ
Jav-atdex[ Ἱμεναι"
τ ωμε.] « « .« [λα Ἰγυναιξεπεί.Ἰοσ΄

σ
Ἰτῶγα[ ρα. οτρώμμεϊ
Ἰυντογενηονμελανεμῖ
1ο Ἰμυριαπαντα αυτηαποτου. [
1. [1ελίΐτωσ
Ἰόλβῶνδρὶ

10|.] - »

]r/«al

Fr. 4.

1υετυΐ

Ἰτασεπηΐ
Ἱμερτονορηΐ

1788. NEW CLASSICAL FRAGMENTS 49
Fr. 1.

[. . ἢ π]λεξάνθιδος ἱππὶ
[ὀρ]νίθεσσ᾽ ἀπὺ λίμνας πολί
[ἄκρ]αν ἐκ κορύφαν ὀππόθεν ἔ
[γλ]αύκαν ψῦχρον ὕδωρ ἀμπελί

4 Ππλύλ τον “νὰν κάλαμος χλῶρ|ος
ΠΡ ες; oo κεϊλάδεις ἤρινον dv . [
πες, τ]ηλεφάνην: καδδ.[
[ 18 letters iT
Free). Fr. 3.
ἵμῳ σι xed
era τε. | 1. ευέτω ἀρ ΑΝ
| ja ἐν δὲ τῷ ddav [
a \rvetrrn| Ἰσεται
5 Ἰαδανδρί 5 ἐϊλευθέραις ol
Ἰαν. ai δὲ ki Ἱμεναι"
‘Wr: ὦ μεί[.] Som) [-Ἰλαι 7 γυναικὸ(9). ἐπεὶ] oo[
] τῶ γᾶς (?) ἀροτρώμμεΪ "

ν]ῦν τὸ yévnov μέλαν ep[pevar
10 1 μύρια πάντα αὐτὴ ἀπὸ τοῦ.[
1. [-Je λίτως
Ἰόλβων Spf
᾿ς 70[.}..0ν

τί ) (ἐστὶ 1) κα
‘Pr. 4.
i ]. éruf

‘ras ἐπη
] tpeprov ᾿ ὄρη

50

5
|

΄

1o |.

25

Ἰ.

THE ΟΧΥ̓ΚΗΥΔΝΟΗΌΞ ΡΑ͂ΡΥΚΙ

Joupad’ ὑπίησί
Jel... -Jeon[. Ἰδασαπί
e αἰσκολοκύνταισυπαϊ

σὃ
Ἴστα ... [. Jeol. . “Πισαπαλί
We] . « - + ae... «δ υπί
Ἰαναφᾳ. οἷ
σάγαθοσ'τα . [
Ἰδάμαπα[1..1
1. ἐνμέΐ. ol aay ..1
Jae
Ἰλιοναιμῖ
Ἰ.- γιωκερρί
Ἰγαρί]σ[.Ἰαισε. [
]- ο[.Ἰενάστῶϊ
ΘΠ ste rel
Ἰσνᾶαποήϊ
71. ν΄. ασδ᾽"ουγαρέγωϊ
Ἰπόνησασκαταϊ
]Ἰ. ἰσκαιπολλαχαρισῖ
Ἰδοισ.τοισδ᾽ υπίσωϊ
Ἰται"πί.Ἰσυναιδ᾽ dx . [
Ἰπολίασκυμ᾽ αλ[.Ἴσε. . [

ἐστουτ’ ουὐκοιδεν.ἐνοιπί

Ἰαισινομιλλειταδεηνθῖ

30

35

Ἰάυτω.. [Ἰοχρήματοσὶ

Ko. . «Ἰτ᾽ Auer

“|rov-rev . ηδεῖ
]kakwveoyar| Fr. 5.

Ἰληψύχανακατί : : :
Ἰν᾿αδ᾽ ου[εσσ΄. [ Ἵ]

1. δ᾽ ἀλλοσί. . Jed] |
Ἰεραι.γαῖ λα

Ἰψυχρί Ἰνῖ J. aL]. 410

juert«[ Ἰθαδί. «Ἰτοδοκί

΄

5

15

20

30

35

1788. NEW CLASSICAL FRAGMENTS

κ]ούφω δ᾽ ὑπίησ|ιν
δα. .. Jes π[αξ]δας ἀπὶ
7. ats κολοκύνταις Ural
“Joracd. .]εοΐ. . als ἀπαλί
ἢ το αν MER δ᾽ ὐπὶ
Ἰαναφα..Ϊ
1. ς ἄγαθος: τα .[
Ἰδάμα πω [.]. 1
᾽. ἐν με [. .]. ἡ...
Ie [
roy αἰμ[
7. vio κερρῖ
] γὰρ [‘Jo[.Jaiwe . [
1. of.Jev ἄς τ’ af
]. 7&-]-x--[
|s vaa ποήσ
]. uv. acd: οὐ yap ἔγω
ἐϊπόνησας κατὰ [
]. ἐς καὶ πόλλα χαρισὶ
Sos, τοὶς δ᾽ ὑπίσω Ϊ
1σαι: πίι]σύνᾳ δ᾽ ok. [
] πολίας κῦμ’ ἄλ[ο]ς ἐ. .1
]- ἐς τοῦτ’ οὐκ οἶδεν, ἔνοιπί
Ἰαισιν ὀμίλλει τὰ δέην 6]
] αὔτω. [.10 χρήματος Ϊ
kd. . .Jr ὠλομέν
Ἴτων: tev . nde
] κάκων ἐσχατί
Ἰλη ψύχαν ἀκατί

[

jw: ὦ δ᾽ οὐκ] ἐσσ΄.]

71. δ’ ἄλλος [.. .]εδί
Ἰεραι, yal

1 ψῦχρίο]ν |
nerf]. [

Wal

1. α.[. ..¢ [-Jod
Ἰθαδῖ. .Jro Sox):

51

THE OXYRHYNCHUS PAPYRI

Ἰατον[.14]
Ἰ. ελιδὶ
40 ]. ελκεαΐ

Fr. 6.

“ine
Ἰσπί
Ἰδευσί.Ἱμάϊ
Ἰίσχοσκα
5 “Ἰπολλᾶν .
Ἰαι[λέ . [
oj
Ἰαιειδῖ
1.- «Jag
10 Ἰττισδεγί
1. ρεικυμῖ
Ἰχωρέοντί
Ἱπερσισυφοῖ
Ἰγαμὶ
15 Ἰιόν!

Fr. 10.

Joper|
rol
|vKaran|
Ἰτουτομε .Ϊ
5 ἸΓομάγυϊ.
jauxadde

Ἰάσανῃ.

5

1. γαέρραϊ
5 Ἱερα"θυΐ. . δὰ. -
Vole .. Jove

Fr. 7.

ke. [

1.61.1}

Ἰπυτοξω
Ἰκαταγρεΐ.]
1. ρονὰπυσὶ
Ἵρᾶτρύϊ
We Brageo
Ἰουσαι
Ἰδνηΐ
{τ
Ετ. 9.
Ἰκθαλαΐ
Ἰπέδιοί
Ἰπολυΐ
Fr. 11
are Col. i.
Ἱμενοι Ϊ
Ἰσέχω κτ.Γ
Ἰαμενᾶ . [ 1:
Ἰτισδα 7.τὰσ
Ἰλην.

[- + J++ ἐσέ
[. «]Ἰτετὰιβ
ᾳγεδήμ᾽ αἱ

" ἄϊτακην . |

5 τᾶἄσδενό.

εἰπέμ
μηῦκο.Ϊ
TOUT ἐγωΐ

1788. NEW CLASSICAL FRAGMENTS 53

Ἰατονἤ 14] ]-v ἀέρρανή
1. ελιεδί 5 Jepa: θυΐ.. .,δα. [
40. —s«). ἕλκεα [ ] ἐμϊέρρ ϑ]ην wl
Fr. 6. ts ΝΣ Fr. 8.

“ind. Bit ii
Jon Te plates Joca . [

JOevo[. Jud ἀϊπὺ τόξω ] αἰγιβόϊ
alicxos kal 1 κατάγρει] δον [
5 Ἴ πόλλαν . [ 5 |. ρὸν ἀπυσὶ 5 alu: πὶ
]α{.] λές [ Ίρα τρύΐ Ἰρεξεῖ
Zot ]- Bidgw 1 βρόδι
] αἴει δὶ Jov σαι Ἰαριεῖ
1.1: «1. Ἰδνηῖ Ἰολπί
το ὄϊττις δέ γί 10 feel το Ἰτοκί
Τ. ρει κυμί
Ἰχωρ᾽ ἔοντί
Ἱπερ Σίσυφοϊ Fr. 9.
Ἰγαμῖ ἐϊκ Baral
15 }eon[ ] πέδιοϊν
] πόλυϊ
Fr. το. Fr. 11. Br, 12.
oo OE νοῦς git Col. i. Col. ii.
Ἰόμεν Ἱμενοι : ΡΛ, ὩΣ ana
Ἰν τῶϊ Ἰ ἔχω ΠῚ πη" ἐσ!
Ἰν καταη Χ οἵ πί ἀνα Wek: ἀρ rs fencer: Fee pa
1 τοῦτο pe. [ Ἰαμενα . | Ἷ: aye δή p af
5 |r’ ὀμάγυίρι Jes dal 7. sas ai τὰ Knv.{
Jar κὰδ δὲ [ Bon Napee hs 8) Ὁ 5 τᾶσδε VO. [
|éoar| Ἰθην εἶπέ pe Ϊ
1.1 μηὐκ o.[

τοῦτ᾽ ἔγω Ϊ

54

THE OXYRHYNCHUS PAPYRI

Fr.) 132. Fr. 14,
Ἰίοισ . [ Ἰσσεται δ
Ἱἱμιοναῖ Ἰτατοσ
Ἴνοναί i πάθην
Ἰέποτ᾽ af Ἰἄίσομεν

1.1

Pes 15. Col. Plated:

10

sty

J
|

-ὺ..ς. ..ιὄ...

- €&
Ἰεσσυνουσιαζοντεσ
Ἰυνουσιαζοντεσσοιε
Jepeavavyew
Ἰναυνξεσ
Ἰαγορᾶ
Jory?
Ἴλων
wife
Ἰοῦδιδὺ

J
J

].ve@K . € . eAwoeTray®

15 ἸαντιτουτουτουστιΧκειβ'

J
]

|v ανεισυστεροί.1

|

20 Ἰσαι

]
7πιωφ

Io

΄ς

satp

πόλλακ[
TOAAD ML,

1788. NEW CLASSICAL FRAGMENTS

BG, 12. Fr. 14. TOAAG κἶ
aks ses ay “ το πόλλ᾽ byl
lio « [ ἔσσεται yp ΓΟ πῇ
Ἰμιοναῖ Ἰτατος
΄Ἰνοναΐ 1. πάθην
Ἰέ ποτ᾽ af Ἰαίσομεν |

5 1.1

By, 25h Colt

e

Jes συνουσιάζοντες
σ]υνουσιάζοντές σοι €-
Ἰστ]ερεὰν ἂν γεω-
5 Ἴ ναῦν ξεσ-
1 ἀγορὰ(ν)
1 ὠγυγιοί )
Ἴλων
ἽἹνίζειν

[ο 7 οὕ(τω) Δίδυ(μοΞ).
|
|

].vew( ) Kk. €. eAws ἐπάνω.

Τ᾿

15 Ἴ ἀντὶ τούτου τοῦ στίχ(ου) κειμίεν ).

Ἷν ἀν(τὶ τοῦ) εἰς ὕστεροϊν.]

|

20 joa

τι ὠφί

56

λ
σή
ὃμά. [
aoipl

5 aber . [
Tavaio|
όμπαυϊΐ

4 yt kal
τ,

10 εἴπηϊ
παρέσκεθ᾽ of
δάιμον᾽ ανάιτιοῖ
δευνοντοσουδεπί ΤΩΝ τς Ἰρανοιτί
τασσᾶσεγί. -Ἰυσ[:]σί. ..... Ἰθενσὺϊ

15 παυσαι'κάκων] asters tale ὡς Jovrol
ditidbvaikaTeyx[...... Jo
σοιμεν.Ἰαρήϊ. .] . περβέβᾳ Ἰαιχροΐ
ἔτ τ ames a mem

κάλονγα[

τοκλᾶμμαδ᾽ ελπώρα[[παλαονΐ |]

20 [Ἰυκολ[γαισσταφυλαισενέικηϊ
leer. ἽΨΙ.1τοιαυτασγαραπαμπεϊ
[ οἶνον δον Le στ email
- lo. μ᾿. ηδρό.. [. «]σιν"άυταισί
[- - «Ἰακασωμοτέραισεόισαισ.

25 . Ἰτοιγαροιταπροσθεπονήμ]

THE OXYRHYNCHUS PAPYRI

Fr.15 Col. ii. Plate 11.

» «(NKEKapTe .[.. sd acs cee:
. ]Ϊασιανπαρεχεί

[
[
[- -Jeox[.Jyrovd€é . [. .Jr. [. . οἹντί
[
[

Fr. 1. 1. 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.

occurs elsewhere.

Neither πλεξάνθης nor λεξάνθης (or -és)

2. The first σ, though rubbed, is practically certain.
bate is perhaps not too much for the lacuna, p

3.
4. ἰγλ]αύκαν is gen, plur. fem., as shown by the mark of length on αν ; ote

1788. NEW CLASSICAL FRAGMENTS

Pr, 15. Col, ii:

2?
Tavaio|
ὄμπαυϊε

ν[ καί

Τίς τ᾽, ὦ πονί
10 εἴπηϊν
᾽ ᾽ 2Γ
παρέσκεθ᾽ ὁ
ὃδ 7 > 2 pA
aipoy’ avaitiolv

δεύοντος οὐδὲ πὶ... .. Ἰρανοιτὶ
τᾶς σᾶς ἐγ. .lvol-Jo[....-- 1θεν σὺ |
- ’ ΄ v4
15 παύσαι: κάκων [......- Ἰόντωϊν
αἴ τι δύνᾳ κατεχί. . .- « .«- Jo:

σοὶ μὲν [γ]ὰρ ἤδη] ὑπερβέβαϊτ)αι χρόϊνος,
[κ]αὶ κάρπος ὄσσϊο]ς Hs συναϊγέρ]ρετῖαι (3),
τὸ κλᾶμμα δ᾽ ἐλπώρα, κάλον γάϊρ,
20 [ο]ὐκ ὀλ[ί]γαις σταφύλαις ἐνείκηϊν.
[- « - ὄγψ[ι,7 τοιαύτας γὰρ ἀπ’ ἀμπέϊλω
feidere atlas satel ἐν σεν fel xi Aoi. Ἐπιάμὶ
[. Jo. ne. μὴ δρόπίω]σιν αὔταις
[ὄμφ]ακας ὠμοτέραις ἐοίσαις.
25 [ov] τοι yap οἱ τὰ πρόσθ' ἐπονήμϊενοι
[. .Jeox[oly> οὐδέ. [. .1τ΄. [. « ε]ντί
[- « .]ηκε᾽ Kapre.[....--- ΤΑΙ

ἰδιπλ]ασίαν παρεχεὶ

57

being a narrow letter,, .

.Jav in 1. 5 was

58 THE OXYRHYNCHUS PAPYRI

another word of the same kind. The language here is close to that of Sapph. 4 ἀμφὶ δὲ

(ὕδωρ) ψῦχρον κελάδει (cf. 1. 6) δι᾿ ὄσδων μαλίνων, but the present passage can hardly have been
the source of that fragment.

6. The vestige of the letter after ov suggests 6. g. A, x.
7- τ]ηλεφάνην : it is unlucky that the initial letter is missing, as in 1281. 1.i. 27 [rj Ae (?),
1238. 4. 10 [τ]ήλοθεν. πήλυι rests on the evidence of grammarians.

Fr. 2. 7. Not ὦ Μελάνιππ᾽ (cf. 1288. 1. ii. 8). } ᾿

8. The correction of yap to yas may be by the original hand. How the letters should
be interpreted is open to doubt, but γᾶς is in keeping with ἀροτρωμμΐ, and Ἰτῶγᾶς is unknown.

9. ἡ Of γενηον is not very satisfactory, but an alternative that will suit the context is not
easy to find.

ro. 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 οὗ]. 6 with Fr. 2.1.9 is attractive, but this would create difficulties both in the
scansion of |. 8 (if yas is right) and in the marginal note in 1. 10, where γυναικο(ς) is a more

probable reading than cvvaxo(Aovd ), The two fragments may, however, well have belonged
to the same column.

Fr. 4. 3. 6. 5. ὄρη[μ᾽, ὄρη[ν.

6. The second o of κολοκυνταις has apparently been converted from v.

7. The supposed interlinear 6 might possibly be a rather large circumflex, but the
preceding vestige would remain unaccounted for.

8. To the right of the cancelled ὃ 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 is doubtfully interpreted as a circumflex.

19. Js: Je is rather suggested by the remains, but seems excluded by the metre.

20. σὺ τάσδ᾽, θύρασδ᾽ are possibilities, neither very Satisfactory.

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

25-8. The letters mod, . ἰστου, aiow and part of o, av 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 1]. 22, 30, and 32-3 that
carinot be regarded as a fatal objection.

26. The stop (Ὁ) after odev is well below the line.

27. nv6[: γινεῖ is hardly possible.

28. A mark on the edge of a hole above the doubtful o 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 ig from the bottom of the
column to which Fr. 4 belonged,

4. »[ 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 ἐμ[έρρ]ην hardly fills the lacuna.

Fr. 6. 3. The accent on a is doubtful; it might be e. g. a mark of length.
4. to: or fic.
13. Σίσυφο! : cf. 1238. 1. ii. 12.

1788. NEW CLASSICAL FRAGMENTS 59

Fr. 7. 4. κατάγρει recurs at the end of a line in 1283. 11. 9 ; cf. Sapph. 43.
8. v isa correction from». If v is right, oa is presumably the possessive pronoun.

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

Fr. 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.

Fr. 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. το.

Fr. 18 is included here on account of its similarity to Fr. 14, which is apparently
Aeolic.

Fr. 15. i. 4. Ἶερεαν : or perhaps Ἰερεζι]αν.

το. Didymus is known to have written a book περὶ λυρικῶν ποιητῶν, but this seems to
have been of a historico-literary nature rather than a critical ὑπόμνημα 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 δμάτί or p46 can be read.

g. As in 1787. 34. 1, 7 may represent either re or rou.

II. παρέσκεθ᾽ here provides a parallel for Powell’s admissible suggestion περσκέθοισα in
1281. 1.1. 18.

13. wr: Ore. [.

14. εγ[: or επί. The letter following |» may well be o.

16. The accent on a might be taken for a mark of short quantity. λί is possible in
place of χί. ;

18. For the (Doric) form ἧς for ἦν οἴ. 1860. 1. 9, where js is better taken as 3rd person,
and 1281. 55. 4, where ἧς is probably to be recognized; ἦν, which is read in Sapph. 106,
may now well be emended. The following word as originally written was apparently
συναιρετῖαι (-ayp- is possible), which was amended in some way, perhaps by the substitution
of a{ep] or αἴ γερ] for αι, but there has been no deletion.

19. For the doubled μ in κλᾶμμα cf. 6. 5. Sapph. 1. 16 κάλημμι, 14. 1 and the Halle
fragment νόημμα, 1231. 13. 4 ἐϊπόημμεν. κάλον yalp is evidently parenthetical. παλαον which
was first written = πάλαιον (adv.), πάλαος being the Aeolic form according to Eust. 28. 33.
Whether the correction is due to the original hand or to a dzortholes is not evident.

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

22. The letter after Jv has been corrected, but what was intended is hardly determinable
as the line stands. Apparently o was first written, and through this there is a vertical stroke
(ε ἢ), with a vestige of ink close by on the edge of a hole in front of σι. Perhaps vos was
altered to Jwos, Further on, if o and « are rightly read, the intervening letter, which had
a vertical stroke, was presumably y or τ.

23. For the interpretation of this line much depends on the identity of the letter printed
as n before 8p. The first stroke of the 7 has the form of a narrow oval, and it is therefore
questionable whether θὲ should be read instead οἴη. But the oval is considerably narrower,
and the cross-stroke longer, than in a normal 6, and @ is, moreover, intractable metrically.
Perhaps then the scribe began to write « and converted this to 7. If 7 is right, -npe μὴ
would be suitable enough. The first visible letter must be either 8, 0, p, or 9, and next
to this the slight remains suit the upper part of a @ better than anything else. [ra pBnpe

60 THE OXYRHYNCHUS PAPYRI

would sufficiently satisfy the conditions, if that word were likely. For 86. ἶ. «Ἶσιν, 8pda{orjow
naturally suggests itself but is difficult in the context. Possibly dpén[wjow or δρόπ[οιἾσιν may
be restored on the analogy of 1284. 2. i. 9 τρόπην, ii. 7 ὀνέτροπε. The high stop after this
word seems superfluous in any case.

25. ἐπονήμΪενοι: cf. 1789. 1. i. 5 (v.1. ἐπονάμ., probably correct) and Alc. 46 ἐπόνασιν
ἔμοι γεγένησθαι, which has been gratuitously altered to ἐπ᾿ dvaow. There is more to be said
for the correction ἔμοιγε yéver Oar.

26. jr: or yore.

27. 6. δ. καρτείΐ, καρτερΐ.

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

1789. ALCAEUS.

Fr. t 11-7 X15°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 (ll. 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 Alc. 43 ; another (previously unknown) form of Asclepiad stanza is exemplified
in 1284. 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 1861 (Bacchylides, Scola, Part XI, Plate 3), the
characteristic letters ε, 0, and ¢ being formed in just the same way with a dot in
the centre disconnected from the other strokes. Of ¢ 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 dzasto/é 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 paragraphi, however, are most
probably original. 7

62

THE OXYRHYNCHUS PAPYRI

Fe). Col. 43 ῬΙΔΕ6 1:
ΠΣ ΓΝ ᾿ teat [

[ ρα ἀν ] .. βαισεχηι" τί τ letters 1-.. μὴ

fave tanene slate Ἰεῦπροσκακαὶ Ἴνευϑ

ΠΣ ΚΝ Ἰνονΐ. «Ἰτοισί.1θα . ook . [ ]

effin satiate ree Ἱενέτωμηδεπονήμεϊ.Ἰοἶ
[6 eee Ἰν ᾿αέικεα: fapevovrov pee
Dae urea |re[. |Kexp|. uevorydper
“Ve

ΤῸΝ ἸἹκεξυστοφοῖ. ‘uci... -- ]

ἈΡΘ ΝΟΣ Ἰγακ᾽ ἀυτανγλυκεωσί. . . .1 «τανταῖ. ὭΣ
τοις [εγ πο το: Ἰσίλευσεχην. Fr. 2.

[a ieigeiarts Jexa:méAXaol.jra |. apn. af. . | rape

(aves seo Ἰιμένην"α[. .lpe μοιτοταί

rages Ἰνοιτ᾽όπποταλ μέ... νἱ

Bee ]. ηιγάμονϊ o> Bri 4.” (Cola
Ty Ua shisha |rexupaton|.joTel. . . . .. ]

“Ἢ:

Pavia etre Ἱπαρεξειδαΐ.΄. «.....ὦ Ἰολυν

[aie ek aie oaroit ἤει κείνα a oes erin! he me ]

Ge otras saath Ἰόμεθεϊ ]

Brae Cola
φαρξωμεθ᾽ ὡσωκιστί
ead ἐχυρονλίμεναδροϊ

“α-
καιμητινόκνοσμολθ᾽

..
λαχη προδηλονγαρμεγί
“Ἢ

5 μνασθητετὼὡπαροιθαμί
νυντισάνηρδοκιμοσγεῖ

1789. NEW CLASSICAL FRAGMENTS

[ eeieke Sieh stis ] - + pals ἔχῃ" τὶ 12 letters ΤῸΝ

. μη
fos ares eins ] εὖ πρὸς κάκα [ ΩΝ ).
ΡΣ Wor [. «Ἰτοισί.]θα. os κ |

Ἐπ: Ἰενέτω μηδ᾽ ἐπονήμεϊν]οι
[ζαμευόντο]ν ἀείκεα. ζαμευόντον ζαμευέτωσαν.
Piece. say |rds] κεκρ[ἤμενος γάμει
υ -.- | κεν ξυστοφο[ρή]μεϊνος
πο ἦς |ra κ᾿ αὔταν γλυκέως Ϊ. . . .] ταν ταί. «Ἰωσεί ).

το [---- βα]σίλευς ἔχην. Fr, 2.
ae re Ἰεκα πόλλας πα. apn. αἷ.. ταμεῖ
Grr |e μένην" αἰἰ γὰ]ρ ἔμοι τότα
Peet). γέ]νοιτ᾽ ὄπποτα X.ue.. ν

Panes: ]-n γάμον.
ἘΣ Col.t

15 [Τὸ δηῦ)]τε κῦμα τῶ πἰρ]οτέζρω ᾿νέμω)
[στείχει] παρέξει δ᾽ ἄϊμμι πόνον πἸόλυν

[ἄντλην, ἐπεί κε vajos ἐμβᾷ

Br. τ΄ Coli
φαρξώμεθ᾽ ὡς ὥκιστία —Y
εἰς δ᾽ ἔχυρον λίμενα δρόϊμωμεν.
καὶ μή τιν᾽ ὄκνος μόλθίακος ἀμμέων ?
λάβῃ, πρόδηλον γὰρ μέγα συμφέρον" ?
5 μνάσθητε τῶ πάροιθα μίώμω" ὃ
νῦν τις ἄνηρ δόκιμος γεϊνέσθω.

63

64 THE OXYRHYNCHUS PAPYRI

καιμηκαταισχυνωμενὶ
ἐσλοιστόκηασγᾶσὔπακϊ
[Ἰγανδὶ

το τανποί

ἐοντεΐ Fr. 4. Fr. 5.
τῶνσφί | Ba
εἐσικεῖ .} | Jere

ταὶ! Ἰοτεῖ vy ea

15 add. [ |eor,

Pry στ Cols i147 ες ἜΥ, 6. Ετ. 7.
μ᾿ 3, (ear eu seitetan pats Ἰταδεωσ-
a ΤΕ Ἰωφί ]
: ᾿δρεῖ. «τἂνδᾶ.
a ja’ tdpeta . | Ἰν Deon
[ VAN os [ae ae mn DA \vov-
if 1. Katpan éwval on
5 Ἰνάντ᾽ ἀιδροσπολ a
\rerdoywvatorl |
ἸἹποκ᾽ εξεπειΐ |
Ἰναξγλαφύραϊ ᾿

sas Fr. ὃ.
Ἰεκίρσαησ . [

HY Nike

pee jewor . . ἄηϊ

Ἱμάδε . [.|v
|
Ἰννέχει
5 Ἰωνυμον.

ὙΠ Ὁ

]
Ἰάρον μ᾿
i oles

Pees.) Col. ii.

20

1789. NEW. CLASSICAL FRAGMENTS

4 ἈΝ 7 ’ ὃ ΄ |
Kal μὴ καταισχύνωμεν [ἀνανδρίᾳ :
» la ~ » r 4
ἔσλοις τόκηας yas Uma κειμένοις,
[οἱ ?] τάνδε ἢ

τὰν πόϊλιν

ἔοντεϊς Fr. 4. ΕἾ. 5.

τῶν off

εἴσικε Ϊ ] Jerd,
Tals Ἰοτεῖ

ἀλλ. Πιονΐ

a Fr. 6. Pr...
pl Wit Teer ΤΉ ta. ? πιταδέως.
γέ τ ὦ gan ]
if Ja ἰδρεία. [ τ Flaps cit

[ Peb }| τὰ πάν] -μεῖνον.
Py ] . καὶ μάλ᾽ ἔων ἀΐ ero a oe

5 vdvr’ ἄιδρος πόλ[λ 8
] Πελάσγων Αἰολ[ιὃ ]

] ποτ’ ἐξ ᾿Επεῖων

ἄϊναξ γλαφύρα; ᾿

Je Κύσα no .[ (| eh Ge
10 Jnacow Ϊ
Jot opar Je ποτ... an
Ἱμάδε. [.]v
]
Ἰννέχει

Fr. 9.

Ἰνδετωι
Ἰσινποησί
Ἰαρεσσετ᾽ af

iy

οσουδεῖ

Pr. 02;
el
appl. |
Ἰοσμενετί
οναρχίιανδε
Ἰοναρχιανδε
5 Ἰηδεδεκωμί
1. ἐδημφοῖ
1. οισϊτ᾽ ύπο. [
Ἰαινων"εκΐ
|
7. [-Πμυρσιλου
7..«εΦ..ὑ[.1.δε.. αἱ

ἡπίανν ἂν

10

THE OXYRHYNCHUS PAPYRI

Br. 10. Fr, τι.
J+ ρματί ]
Ἰδην᾽ ὦ! Ἰλιασί
71. μη Ἰσκάκοι
Fr. 14.

ΒΕ Be

a τ... ed 9

. νυνμαῖ

ρπρινθαΐ

Ἰάνην- Fr. 16. Praag
Ἰαυατί Ἱστεῖ

Ἰαταισ [ ]
Fr. 18. Fr. 19
Joe . [ Ἰ. vdepor
Ἰαντί Ἰτίναπροφί
Fr, 21. Fr, 22. Fr. 25:
Ἰκρακαμί Ἱπαρμέν τ ὰσ-
Ἰσαμεγαλί = “Ἰνοντ᾽ ail
1. aoe .[ eset ra Th

1789.

Fr, 9.

y δὲ τῷ [
Jow ποησΐ
γ]ὰρ ἔσσετ᾽ af
Ἰ. os οὐδεί

Pr. 12.

el
δ᾽ ἀμμ[ἡν [
jos μενετί
μ]οναρχίαν δὲ [
5 μ]ηδὲ δεκώμζεθ᾽
7. ἐδημφοί

]- οισί τ᾽ ὕπο. Ϊ

NEW CLASSICAL FRAGMENTS 67

Fr. Το.

1. ρματί
Ἰδὴν of
Ἰ. μη

Prog Fr. 14.

| ]

1. aff

]. viv pal pee
γὰ]ρ πρὶν θα

Ἰαύην Ετ, τό.

] αὐάτϊαισι

Ἰαίνων: ἐκί 1 ἄταις [
|
7. [-] Μυρσίλου
10 j...€>..u[.]. δε... af Fr. 18.
ἤτον. 5
Joe . [
Ἰαντί
Fr. 20, Fr. 21. Ετ, 22.
ἐϊλλίπαϊν Ἰκρα καμί ] παρμέν

Wwe καὶ
]
|

5 Pev|dixas: [

Ἰς

]ra μεγαλί | τότα δή πίο

1. αι σ΄.[

Fr. 11.
]
Ἰλιασί

Ἰς κάκον Ϊ

Fr. 19.

j. uv δὲ god

| τινα προφί
Fr, 223.
|. περ το]
Ἴνοντ᾽ ail

il

68

Ἐπ 24.

Ἰνπανταδε᾽ναΐ
Ἰαπολλυται"νΐ
71. ταιποῖ

ref

Fr. 25;

lol
Ἰομαι
\erroval
Ἰδεξεταιδὶ
5 |vTakaK|

Ἰν᾿

Fr. 20.

]Ἰ. κατὶ
Ἰ. - odio
Ἰδομονοἷ
Ἰειμοροσαΐστί
5 Ἰοσονΐατονΐ

Ἰβρομοσενσί
Ἰνιωδὴ
Ἰαινομενΐ

THE OXYRHYNCHUS PAPYRI

Fr, 26.
\ppol
Ἰαλαι- [
Ἰαρετεσὶ

Πιραπει. [

5 Je μέ

FrJ 34.

Ἰσικαισὶ

ἘΣ. 35:
J. orl
Ἰμεγα-. Be

]

Fe, 4a:

1789.

Fr, 24.

w πάντα δὲ val
] ἀπόλλυται" rf
]-. ται ποῖ

rdf

5

NEW CLASSICAL FRAGMENTS

Ετ. 25.

lof
Ἰομαι [
Jerrove[

] δέξεται δὶ

5 Ἰντα Kak{[

Ἰν af

Fr. 20.

7. κατί

1. . ς παίσϊαν ὃ

1 δόμον of

Jet μόρος αἶστί

ν]όσον ἴατον Ϊ

Ἰβρομος ἐν of
μανιώδη
μ]αινόμενζον

Fr. 26.

Ἰφροΐ
Ἰαλαι. [

apeTeo|

|
Ἰρα me.

5. je μέ

. Φ

[

Ετ. 428,
]. aA

2 σοί
] μέγα. yap
J
Fr. 41

70 _. THE OXYRHYNCHUS PAPYRI

> iy ee iy
ool he Ἰναπεῖ
}
Ἰινέστί 7. ἡπεριπροΐ ]
Shah ig pee eae ob Ἰοπόλλαϊ

5. 1 δῆν.

Fr. 1. i. 1.344. The length of the initial lacunae is estimated from ll. 15-17; in one
or two lines the resulting number of letters is rather scanty, e.g. l. 10, but could be slightly
increased if one or two narrow letters such as a, «, A, p be supposed to have occurred.

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

2. εἴχυραις, 6. g., would be consistent with the very slight vestiges preceding p. 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. Ἶνευ : or perhaps vev.

4. The letter after 6 may be either a or A, the papyrus being damaged where the
cross-bar of the a would be. The following vertical stroke is so close to o that the choice
seems limited to. 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.
[θαρος could be read but is unconvincing in so doubtful a context, especially as a broader
letter than « would be expected. After «, « or p is perhaps most likely.

5. plevero, σθ]ενέτω, στ]ενέτω ? For ἐπονήμεἰνἾοι cf. 1788. 15. ii. 25, 0.: “let them
not return evil for good’; the dias/olé was wrongly placed. The interlinear variant
ἐπονάμεἰνἾοι Supports the form ἐπόνασιν in Alc. 46.

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

8. ξυστοφο[ρήμεἶῖνος : the verb was apparently not previously attested.

9. yAvxeas : if the first letter is y, which looks probable, the second must be either a or
A, and υκ 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 τὰν and wo corresponding with the text ; but there seems to have been
a considerable divergence otherwise, since yA{ 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 Il. 12-13 ai γὰ]ρ ἔμοι téra . . . γένοιτ᾽ ὄπποτα runs well, but the ends
of ll. 11 and 13, especially the former, are difficult. In |. 11 a letter is desirable, though
perhaps not absolutely essential, between o and x, after which either a or \ can be read.
Earlier in the line the small colon before'édAao is possibly a stop, such double dots
being sometimes used for punctuation, even in company with single dots (cf. 6. ξ΄. 1809-10) ;
or it may be connected with the marginal adscript. In Fr. 2 the letter before ap is
represented by a mere speck, which is capable of many interpretations; that before the
final a was y, «, p, ort. 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 » there is a small semicircular mark which might be e. g. the remains of a
dot enclosing an over-written letter. In 1. 12 αὖθι μένην may be suggested (cf. 1787. 36. 2).

1789. NEW CLASSICAL FRAGMENTS 71

i | ge
yp ἐχθυ bend
ev ἔστί ]
. Ἢ περιπροί
Ὅν ἡ 15 5 J... ννῖ Jo πόλλαϊ

wl ἘΠ ἢ

14. εἴχηι ΟΥ̓ λαΐχηι would suit the vestiges. The first letter may be a, κ, A, or x, the second,
ἡ, Py ¥, πὶ; and γόμον, -οι or -e are equally possible.

15-18 = Alc. 19, from Heraclid. Adleg. Homer. 5 ὁμοίως δὲ τὰ ὑπὸ τούτου (sc. Μυρσίλου)
αἰνιττόμενος ἑτέρωθί που λέγει. Td κτλ. How the end of ]. 15 should be restored is still
uncertain. The MSS. of Heraclides give τῷ προτέρῳ veouw or (AB) τω προτέρω νέμω, for
which τῶν προτέρων ὅμω has been conjectured by Seidler, τῶν +. ὄνω by Bergk, τῷ π. νέον by
Hermann, τῷ 7. *véum by Gaisford, and τῶ π. ’véuw by Blass. Of these the last alone is
consistent with the papyrus, though ᾽νέμω is not of course necessarily right. Fr. 37, which
possibly belongs here, does not help.

16. The ν. ]. παρεξηι is abnormal.

17. ἐμβαίνει Heraclid., ἔμβᾳ Seidler, ἐμβᾷ νή(ατα), i.e. νείατα, Bergk, who also suggests
ἐμβαί]νῃ κάτα, τετραέλικτος ἄλμα, 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. |r: € is equally possible. ‘That a dot further on above the line represents a stop
is quite uncertain.

ii. 1. Perhaps ὠκιστία 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, 1284. Fr. τ. ro (Part XI, p. 56), and Sapph. 1. 19, where the MSS.
give és. eis is normal for Aeolic, though és is hardly to be avoided in 1282. Fr. 2. 3.

3. For μόλθακος, which seems to be novel, cf. 1238. i. 2. 10 κόθαρον, &c.; the super-
scribed variant would eliminate the Aeolism, as in 1. 5 below and Fr. 22. 2. ὄκνος
μόλθακος is comparable to 6. g. χλωρὸν δέος. Asan alternative to ἀμμέων or ὑμμέων a participle
like εἰσβάλων or ἐμπέσων may be suggested.

4. Thev. ]. λαβη seems preferable to λαχη. συμφέρον is highly conjectural; the clause
may alternatively be regarded as giving the reason for the warning, 6. g. péyla χεῖμ᾽ ὄρην, as
Lobel suggests.

5. πάροιθα is analogous to e.g. ὔὕπισθα. At the end of the verse μίζώμω seems to suit the
contrast between τῶ πάροιθα and the emphatic νῦν at the beginning of the next line better
than e.g. μίόχθω or μ[ύθω ; the v. l. τῶν is however perhaps rather in favour of one of the
latter words.

8. ἔσλοις τόκηας : οἷ. 1284. 2. 1]. 12 ἔσλων Eovres ἐκ τοκήων.

13. εἴσικε : or εἰσίκετ᾽ ἡ Cf.n.on ]. 2. But es may be the termination of a divided word.

23. The position of the visible remains suits a stichometrical figure (a? 8?) 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.

72 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 ja’ (dzastolé) or λ᾽ (elision) can be read. At the end of the line a was
perhaps followed by a round letter (σ ?) the ink of which has run slightly.

5. ἄιδρος occurs in Ion 34, and cf. Etym. Magn. ἀιδροσύνη, Pindar, Nem. 1. 63
ἀιδροδίκας.

4. The occurrence of the Doric ποκα here is strange, ποτα, as in the ν, ]., being well
attested for Aeolic.

9. The remains of this line are difficult. According to the Etym. Magn. Kipoa was
another form of Kippa, the Phocian coastal town, and a geographical name is not out of
keeping with the rest of this fragment, especially if γλαφύραϊ in 1. 8 be taken to imply νῆες.
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.

Fr. 7. This fragment and the next both show a junction between two selzdes 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.

I. ἐπιϊταδέως, like τᾶν δα- in ]. 3, is a ν.]., as is indicated by the enclosing dots.

5. ἀπολελειμμένον 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 απολελειμμενον 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. « is followed by a vertical stroke consistent with e. g. μ, v, 7, p.
4. ὀἸυνέχει, συ]ννέχει ?

5. 6. 5. ἀνώνυμον, ἐπώνυμον. ‘The corrector wished to double the ν.

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

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

Fr. 9. 1. » is preceded and followed by the bases of vertical strokes which can be
variously read.

3. ylap ἔσσετ᾽ : or π]αρέσσετ᾽ ? A small curved mark above the τ appears to be part of
a sign of elision.

Fr. 12. 4. « is very doubtful: o or ὦ is equally possible.
6. οἷ : or εἶ. f
7. ὕπο .[: or ὕπ᾽ ὁ .[. As the last letter μ, », or π᾿ is probable.

8. This was no doubt the last verse of the column.
1o—11, The ink here is much effaced.

Fr. 18. This fragment may well be from the top of a column,
3. Perhaps ἰ]αύην, with éalvar . . in the previous line ; but Ἰάχην is possible.

Fr. 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.

Fr. 22. 2. For the v.], removing the Aeolic form cf. Fr. 1. ii. 3, ἢ, The last etter may
be y instead of 7.

1789. NEW CLASSICAL FRAGMENTS. 73

Fr. 28. 3. If the dot was a high stop, this line was separated from the preceding one
by an unusually broad space.

Fr. 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 ὃ).

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 doz[os or -ov, as in Aesch. Zum. 565. π may be read instead of
τ, but not « or another vowel, apparently. as cannot be Acc. Plur, Fem. unless the accent
was mistaken.

7. μανιώδη is a gloss on μ]αινόμειον.

Fr. 81. 2. The interlinear ε is part of a variant.
Fr. 32. 3. ὦ rajAas?

Fr. 33. 2. The dot after μη (?) is raised a little above the line, and might possibly
belong to an interlinear v.|., 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. 12, 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 « was to be deleted.

Fr. 41. 1. JA- is an interlinear v. 1.
5. The variant δῆυ implies davre 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.!_ 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 1861, 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.

dS eye a es

1 Suidas, s.v. Ἴβυκος, says... γένει Ῥηγῖνος" ἐνθένδε εἰς Σάμον ἦλθεν, ὅτε αὐτῆς ἦρχε Πολυκράτης, ὃ Tod
τυράννου πατήρ. χρόνος δὲ οὗτος ὁ ἐπὶ Κροίσου, ᾿Ολυμπιάς vi’. Maas (Pauly-Wissowa, Realencyct.) τε gards
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. ὁ τοῦ τυράννου πατήρ is a riddle. Schneidewin’s suggested solution ὁ τοῦ τυραννικοῦ or τῶν
τυράννων πρῶτος, is unconvincing.

1790. NEW CLASSICAL FRAGMENTS 75

Epode.

π-υυ-τ-υυ---
ῳ VY
ΣΞ--- ὺυ--

pom τ, rn PONS me RE a nee

5 -- OS tet OM © it ORS,

It was maintained by Schneidewin (/bycz Religu. 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, ealencycl.) 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 |. 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. ξειναπάτας (1. 10) and Πουλυκράτης (1. 47, Πολ. Pap.) are metrical
Ionisms which appear also in Pindar. ἐσθλός is apparently written, and
ἐλεύσαν (1. 18) is noteworthy. Whether éyjvaro in 1. 41 is more than a
vagary of the papyrus is not clear. No example occurs of the σχῆμα Ἰβύκειον.
In its accentuation the papyrus follows the Doric system (e.g. 1. 2 ηνάρον,
18 πολυγόμφοι, 23 μόισαι, 24 εμβάιεν, 47 εξεῖς) found also in 8, the Paris Alcman,
and the Berlin fragments of Corinna (Berl. Klasstkertexte, 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.

76

To

15

20

25

30

THE OXYRH YNCHUS PAPYyRI

Εἴς. 1 4 2. Col. i.

Ἰαιδαρδανιδαπριαμοιομε
“Τυπερικλεεσολβιονηνάρον ]
Ἰοθενορνυμενοι
Ἰνοσμεγαλοιοβουλαισ.
Ἰνθᾶσελενασπεριέιδεϊ
Ἰρινπολυυμνονεχ[.Ἱντεσ
Ἰλεμονκαταδακρί. Ἴενταῖ ]
ἰγαμονδανεῖ. Ἰαταλαπειριοῖ ]ra
᾿Ἰσοεθειρανδ!.Ἰακυπριδὰ.
νδεμοιόυτεξειναπάτανπ Ἰν
Ἰεπιθυμιονουτετανί. ]υρῖ ]
Ἰἱνῆνκασσανδραν
Ἰαμοιοτεπαιδασαλλου]
Πασθυψιπυλοιοαλωσί. - |.)
Ἰαρανώνυμον:ουδεπί
Ἰωωναρεταν
Ἱεραφανονδυστεκόιλα!
ἰπολυγόμφοιελέυσα
Ἰδικακονηρωασεσθ
1< ἐνκρειωναγαμεῖ

Frs.'9 - 3. Col, i.
[“lpxemrcro Gf. - Ἰδασβασιλί. Ἰσαγοσανδρω;
aTpeoced|... .), αἵσεκπί... .1σ-
KaTape. . . "Ϊμόισαισεσοφί. «Ἱέναι
εθέλικωνίδι. "Ἰεμβάϊενλογί. .]
θνατοσδουκί.Ἰνανηρ ᾿
Otepof... 2. Ἰταεκασταειποι
PURO 2. Ne aa Ἰελαοσαπαυλίδοσ
αιγαΐονδι.. “Ἱντοναπαργεοσ.
ADO. 2... |v
[-Ἱπποτροφοί ee hae Ἰεφωτεσ
[-Ἰαλκαστί. “6. εσαχαίων

ΙΟ

15

20

30

1790. NEW CLASSICAL FRAGMENTS

=“ A wo Ny Ls ἢ w

NS

4
5

μ᾿

Pts: 1.--Ὁ 2. Colo.

[οἱ κ]αὶ Δαρδανίδα Πριάμοιο μέ-

[γ᾽ ἄσ]τυ περικλεὲς ὄλβιον ἠνάρον

[4ργ]οθεν ὀρνυμένοι

[Ζη]νὸς. μεγάλοιο βουλαῖς

[ξα]νθᾶς Ἑλένας περὶ εἴδει

[δῆριν πολύυμνον ἔχ[ο]ντες

[πόϊλεμον κατὰ δακρ[υό]εντα,

[Πέργαμον δ᾽ ἀνέβ]α ταλαπείριοϊν ἄτα

[χρυ]σοέθειραν δ[ι]ὰ Κυπρίδα.

[voy δέ μοι οὔτε ξειναπάταν Πίάρι]ν
ἢν ἐπιθύμιον οὔτε τανί[σφ)]υρ[ονἹ
ὑμ]νῆν Κασσάνδραν

IIpijépors τε παίδας ἄλλουΪς

[Tpolias θ᾽ ὑψιπύλοιο ἅλωσιν, δ]γ᾽

[οὐκ] ἄρ᾽ ἀνώνυμον" οὐδ᾽ ἐπίανέρχομαι ?

[ἡρ]ώων ἀρετὰν

[ὑπ]εράφανον οὕστε κοίλαι

[vdes] πολυγόμφοι ἐλεύσαϊν

Τροί]α κακὸν ἥρωας ἐσθ]λούς"

τῶν] μὲν κρείων ᾿Αγαμέϊμνων

Ετ5. 2-ῷώ. (οἱ. 1. ;
[ἦ]Ἰρχε Πλεισθίενῆδας βασιλ[εὺ]ς ἄγος ἀνδρῶν
‘Arpéos ἐσ[θλοῦ] πάις ἐκ π[ατρό]ς.
καὶ τὰ μὲϊν ἂν] Μοίσαι σεσοφ[ισμΊ]έναι
εὖ ‘Edixovidtes] ἐμβαίεν λόγῳ]
θνατὸς δ᾽ οὔ κ[εῖν ἀνὴρ
depos] τὰ ἕκαστα εἴποι
ναῶν, ws Μεν)έλαος am’ Αὐλίδος
Αἰγαῖον διὰ πόΪϊντον ἀπ’ Ἄργεος
ἤλυθε [Δαρδανία]ν Νὴ
[Ππποτρόφοϊν, ὡς δ]ὲ φώτες
ἰχ]αλκάσπ[ιδες, υἷ]ες ᾿Α χα[ι]ῶν.

77
>
ἄντιστρ.
BJ
ἐπ.
στρ.
ΠΡ:
QVTLOTP.
>
ἐπ.
στρ.
QvTLOTp.
>
ἐπ.

78

35.

40

45

THE OXYRHYNCHUS PAPYRI

[-Ἰωνμενπρί. "Ἱερεστατοσαϊ Ἰχμαιΐ

i.

.|. ποδί. . Ἰκυσαχιλλεὺσ

Frs. 2+ 3. Col. ii.

. ἡωνιοσαλκι

Ἰσεσιλιον

εα

Plate ITI.

vAALoeyHVvaToT@L6|. Ἰρατρωιλον

ὠσειχρυσονὸρὲι

χάλκωιτρισάπεφθοϊ.]ήδη

τρωεσδϊ Ἰναόιτ᾽ ερό[ Ἴσσαν

μορφανμάλεϊσκονομοιον-

τοισμενπέδακαλλεοσαιεν-

Ἰοσαπαργεοσί

Ἰαχρυσοστροφί

\ =
καισυπολύκρατεσκλεοσαφθιτονεξεῖσ

ζ
= ὠὡσκατΐ. .]Ἰοιδανκαιεμονκὰ

εοσ’

Ἰιμαχοσεντωιπεριτευκρουφησιπαί.. ..
ΤΕΣ Ἱντουκὶλαβιππουσουσμετατον. [.....

1. τουτηνγενεσιντευ... ἀαγαπεπλί..... .7

amioee eae {3..] eu 1 2:

σι

Col. ii.

νυσσονΐ
ασπιδα

τοιδαῦχαί

Ber. G2

dace

[. Jer Of

[-xvea

ἄἀιθόια!
5 αιτελυΐ

Tal

35

40

45

50

1790. NEW CLASSICAL FRAGMENTS

be

[τ]ῶν μὲν πρ[οφ]ερέστατος α[χμᾷ
[11 πόδας ὠϊκὺς Ἀχιλλεὺς

qe)
=
=>

.--ὦ
[εν

cay

ΞΕ
=

mr

[
[ yas Τ[ελαμ]ώνιος ἄλκιϊμος Αἴας
[atheist a ἡ 7 τὴ: ἄργυρος.
[ 15 letters Jos ἀπ᾽ Ἄργεος
2 16... Ἰς ἐς Ἴλιον
[ Nae ]

[ Bt 3s 1.11].

[

Daren ] & χρυσεόστροφϊος

Frs. 2+ 3. Col. ii.
2 ‘TAAis ἐγήνατο, τῷ δ᾽ [ἄρα Τρωίλον
3 ὥσει χρυσὸν ὀρει-
4 χάλκῳ τρὶς ἀπεφθο[ν)] ἤδη
1 Τρώες Δαναοί τ’ ἐρόϊε]σσαν
xX ey ΣᾺ “

2 poppav μάλ ἐισκον ὁμοῖον.

“ XN 2 , +7
3 τοῖς μὲν méda κάλλεος αἰέν"
4 καὶ σύ, Ποί(υλ)λύκρατες, κλέος ἄφθιτον ἑξεῖς,

« ᾽ ) δ᾿ Ν 3 Ν ’
5 ὡς κατ᾽ [ἀ]οιδὰν καὶ ἐμὸν κλέος.

[:Καλλ᾽μαχος ἐν τῷ περὶ Τεύκρου φησί" παί...... Ἵν

τα: Ἵν τοῦ κιατα)λαβ(εἶν) ἵππους ots μετὰ Tov. [....-..- Ἴσχα-
[....]. Tov τὴν γένεσιν Τευκρ. . ἀναπεπλίηρω.. . Jar ὡς
[....JOar τι GA... τοῦ Λαομέδοντος pel... .. Ἴ ἐστρά-
[τευσεὴν is ε. [..}].ε.[.7..««-ἰ

Fr. 4.

79

στρ.

ἀντιστρ.

ἐπ.

Col. ii. Fr. 5. Fr, 6:

ol | dace Jou

al [Jer 6

νυσσονΐ αἴθ᾽ οἵα

]
re [}ΊΙΧνια [ [3

]

|

5 ἀσπίδα 5 aire λυ 5

i
τοὶ δ᾽ αὖ yal 7: πα Ἰνηΐ

80 THE OXYRHYNCHUS PAPYRI
Joc. TUNT| ppad| Ἰνοσαΐ
] εγί ᾿ ναιοΐ Ἰφάϊΐ
Wate τ dea St εξὰπὶ Sots:

το [.Jaza[
; [1:1
Le Aaa Fr. 3. Fr. 9. Fr. Io.
i. 1 eee | Ἰδ᾽ αρεί Ἰλο
Ἰκτυ Ἰσινπί ΤΣ ΣΡ Ἰστί
Ἰνητηριγαῖ Ihood . [ Ἱππί
Ἰλισπρεῖ Aol Fr. 11. 1.
δ jel
ουΐ
Ἰρέα
Fr. 12. By, 12 Ετ, 14 ΕΥ 15 Fr. τό
Ἰνοσί Ἰιφαί ] Ἰὼσί Ἰχλαγῖ
1.1 ] ] ] |
lel ] Jord rg J
Ἧι 1πι .1 Jo:
5[] Kae δ Joo
1.1 Ἰοχί

‘. . . 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 1 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 81

Joes. TUTT| OV ppad, Ἰνοσαὶ
| ἐγί ναιοΐ Ἰφά!
. ee ἐξαπί ad
10 [.Jara[
(1.
iy ἢ Fr. 8 Fr. 9 Pr. iio.
|. ὯΝ 18” dpe Dol
Ἰκτυ- Jow πὶ ἜΣ Aa, Ἰστί
? κυβερ]νητῆρι yal ηος ὃ. Ἱππί
Aus pel Aol Fr. II. hs aah
Ἰ εὐμί :
1ουΐ
Ἰρέαὶ
Fr. 12. Br; 12. ΕΥ, τ4. Εν. 15 Be τό.
Ἰνοσί Ἰιφαὶ ] Ἰ of Ιχλα yl
be | ] ] J
lel ] Ἰωτοὶ Ire ]
[] In - 1 Jo: :
5 [| 5 ool
17 Ἰρχί

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.’

1. [ot κ]αί (Murray) is a likely restoration. For Πριάμοιο μέϊγ᾽ ἄσ]τυ cf. e.g.
Homer B 332 ἄστυ μέγα Πριάμοιο. Other Homeric phrases are 1. 7 [πόΪλεμον δακρ[υό]εντα
(E 737), 14 [Tpolias ὑπιψύλοιο (Π 698), 20 κρείων ᾽Αγαμέμνων (A 130 &c.), 21 ἄγος ἀνδρῶν (A 519

G

82 THE OXYRHYNCHUS PAPYRI

&C.), 33 πόδας ὠἸκὺς ᾿Αχιλλεύς, 34 ME yas Ἰ[ελαμ]ώνιος ἄλκι[μος Αἴας (cf, e. g. Μ 362, 364), 47 κλέος
ἄφθιτον (I 413).

4. [Ζηνὸς . . . βουλαῖς : cf. Homer A 5 Διὸς δ᾽ ἐτελείετο βουλή.

5. Lhe diaeresis on ede is evidently mistaken ; cf. ll. 18, 31, 44.

8. The letters |ra,]. 10 |v, and the vestige at the end οὔ]. 14 are in Fr, 2. i, which is
separated from Fr. 1 by a short lacuna.

10. The term ξεναπάτης is applied to Paris in Eurip. Zroad. 866.

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

14-15. 6|y seems to be the easiest connecting link between these two lines, and the
vestige, though very small and ambiguous, is consistent with y. [οὐ γ]άρ in 1. 15 is excluded
by the difficulty of completing the preceding verse ; the plural ἁλώσιζας] is not at all probable,
especially with ἀνώνυμον following. At the end of ]. 15 y is an alternative to 7; a new verb
seems wanted here in any case.

18. πολύγομφος is an epithet of νῆες in Hesiod, Op. 658. For ἐλεύσαΪν cf. ἐπελεύθω in
Cretan inscriptions, 6. g. Collitz-Bechtel, Dialektinschr. 4998. τ. 9-10 ai δὲ. . . μὴ ἐπελεύσει
TO τετνακος, =

19. éc6[Aovs, which was suggested by Lobel, and makes an effective contrast to [Τροίᾳ
κακόν, is a doubtful but quite possible reading, the papyrus at the top of the « being defective
so that there is an appearance of two strokes. The form ἐσθλός is indicated also in 1]. 22
and recurs in Ibyc. 19. ἥρῶος is read by Ludwich and others in Homer ¢ 303.

21. ΠλεισέἼενίϊδας : cf. Stesichorus 42 βασιλεὺς Πλεισθενίδας. It would follow from the
present passage, if Murray’s π[ατρόΐς in |. 22 is right, that Ibycus regarded Agamemnon as
the son of Atreus (cf. e. g. Eurip. He/. 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 ἐκ γ[ένου]ς, which is palaeographically admissible, in place of ἐκ πίατρόϊς. That,
however, would be questionable on metrical grounds, since the corresponding syllable, as
Housman observes, is short wherever preserved (Il. 9, 35, 45). The statement of Tzetzes 2”
fi, 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. « or 7 can be read in place of y,
but these do not help. Murray proposes to emend to πόδα, but the pleonasm is not
attractive in a metaphorical passage. ἐμβαίνειν is commonly used with the dative or
a preposition, but Euripides has ἐμβαίνουσα κέλευθον in Suppl. 989.

25. οὔ κ[εὴν is more euphonious than οὐκ [ἄ]ν, with ἀνήρ following.

26. For διερός] after 6varés ... ἀνήρ cf. e.g. Homer ¢ 201 ἀνὴρ διερὸς βροτός : the vestige
of the o is slight but suitable. Unless there was a flaw in the papyrus, something else besides
depos must have been originally written, but sense and metre are complete as the verse stands.
κα͵τα for κα]θ᾽ would not nearly fill the space.

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

29. If ἢλύθε is right, [Δαρδανίαν (Murray) is the natural restoration, but the accent on
ἠλύθε must apparently be corrected (cf. Apollon. De Synt. iii. 7. 33 (p. 213 Bekker) and
Corinna i. 18 (Berl, Klassihertexte, V. ii, p. 20) ἐμελψεν), and e. g. ἠλύθοϊν ἐς Tpoialy might be
read; the plural, however, is less natural.

30. [ἱπποτρόφον (cf. the Homeric Ἴλιον εὔπωλον &c.) suits the space better than
[Ππποτρόφεϊι.

31, [χ]αλκάσπἠιδες, υἷες Housman.

33. [βαίν]ε.] or [χωρ]ε[1] is unconvincing, though palaeographically possible ; [ξεῖν 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 Τυδέος υἷ]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 ap|yupos 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. Ὑλλεῖς.
Nireus, whose parentage is stated by Homer B 672, can hardly be meant, nor is e.g.
Eurypylus (cf. A 522) suitable. In 1]. 40 xpvoos was originally written, and was amended
by the insertion, possibly by the first hand, of an e over the line; a cursive a seems to have
been subsequently added rather above the level of the ε by some one who took χρυσέος τροφός
as separate words,—which is indeed possible, though less likely. p of τροφΐ was converted
from, probably, a partially formed o In 1]. 41 the spelling of the papyrus in ¢ynvaro
has been retained, though whether this is a genuine form is open to doubt.

42. ὀρείχαλκος was mentioned by Stesichorus according to Schol. Apoll. Rhod. iv. 973
dp. εἶδος χαλκοῦ. . . μνημονεύει καὶ Στησίχορος καὶ Βακχυλίδης. Ibycus and Stesichorus were
sometimes confused by grammarians (cf. Schneidewin, Jéyc. Relzgu. 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 ἄπεφθον χρυσόν.

46-8. In this passage much depends on the punctuation, A logical sentence would
result from the removal of the stop after αἰέν, with πεδά as the preposition (the accent in the
papyrus need not imply equivalence to μέτεστι, but may be accounted for by the anastrophe,
in spite of the intervening μέν). 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. τοῖς μὲν... αἰέν is then poetic language for ‘ they will
always be remembered for their beauty’.

Ποζυ)λύκρατες is necessary if the metre is to correspond; cf. Pindar, Wem. vi. 70
Πουλυτιμίδαν.

49 344. This note relating apparently to Teucer and the horses of Laomedon pre-
sumably was intended to explain something in Il. 35-40, but at present remains itself
obscure, though restoration should not be difficult if the right clue were found. In 1. 49
[Ka\A|izaxos appears the most likely name, and the Περὶ Τεύκρου may have, been included
among his ὑπομνήματα 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 ἐστί, 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(εῖν) 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
χάριν preceded rod,

51. Τεῦκρος in some form seems inevitable, but the termination is very doubtful.

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

Fr. 4. ii, 6. αὐχαί ἴ5 possible.

8. εγί : or επί.

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 ¢ 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. a... are apparently correspond, whether ai or αἴ is written. ὀιμί can be read
10 1: ἃ.

ἘΠῚ 7. 2. xrujr.., dujeru,. .?

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

1791. PINDAR, Paean.
9:0 X 4-1 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 Schrdder), 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 1]. 1-2, while the latter is described
- at greater length in Il. 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 1]. 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 ll. 1-12 short lines seem
to preponderate, and several glyconic verses are included. That Fr. 53 came
from the Pacans 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.

vaov tov μεν Ὑπερβορίεοις ? Kepavvw χθονα νοΐ
Av... σε... μενησεμιξὶ ἐκρίψ .ν . . [}1αντοἱ
@ μοισαι Tov δὲ παντεχΐνοις γλυκειαι 4ιτος αγλία

Αφαιστου παλαμαις και Αθαϊνας ? οτι ξενο. φ. υνονΐ

1791. NEW CLASSICAL FRAGMENTS 85

5 τις ὁ ρυθμος εφαινετο . 15 ατερῦθεν τε... αν
χάλκεοι μεν τοίχοι χαλκίεαι δὲ .λο....Ττε μὲν Of
οὕτω κιονες εστασίαν μονανα. κημναν[
χρυσεαι ὃ e€ ὑπερ aeTou λυσιμβροτον πὶ
αειδον ΚηληδοιΊες [αἸκηρατων δαιδα[λ

10 ἀλλα νιν ρον ετὴ .Ϊ ao) Pera ἐκ Ἰνελί

1-2. Cf, Pausan. x. 5. 9 δεύτερα δὲ λέγουσιν οἱ Δελφοὶ γενέσθαι ὑπὸ μελισσῶν τὸν. ναόν, ἀπὸ
τοῦ τε κηροῦ τῶν μελισσῶν καὶ ἐκ πτερῶν" πεμφθῆναι δὲ ἐς Ὑπερβορέους φασὶν αὐτὸν ὑπὸ τοῦ ᾿Απόλ-
Awvos. In ]. 1 the papyrus strongly suggests του, but the ν is not impossible and seems
essential for the construction. In ]. 2 ζαμενης εμιξ or εζαμενησε μιξί could be read, but the
vestiges between ε and p are extremely slight ; evjevys, however, appears unsuitable. The
first letter of the line is either a, δ, or A, and the third may well be p; the fifth looks at first
sight like ε, but this is not convincing, and a crossed out « might have a similar effect.
YrrepBop| eotow ev-| Avpalles εζαμενησε peg[as would be consistent with the remains. The subject
in any case is presumably Apollo.

3. τὸν is clear, but του depending on ρυθμος would be easier. Perhaps τὸν and rov here
and in ]. 1 were transposed by an oversight ; cf. ἢ. on ll. 1-2.

4sqq. Cf. Pausan. x. 5. 11-12 τὰ δὲ ἐς τὸν τρίτον τῶν ναῶν, ὅτι ἐγένετο ἐκ χαλκοῦ, θαῦμα
. οὐδέν... τὰ μέντοι ἄλλα με οὐκ ἔπειθεν ὁ λόγος, ἢ Ἡφαίστου τὸν ναὸν τέχνην εἶναι, ἢ τὰ ἐς τὰς δοὺς
τὰς χρυσᾶς, ἃ δὴ [Πίνδαρος ἦσεν ἐπ᾽ ἐκείνῳ τῷ ναῷ, χρύσεαι κτλ. (Il. 8-9, Pindar Fr. 53). The
two verses are also quoted by Galen on Hippocr. De artic. 18. 1, p. 519 Kiihn. Scholars
have successfully treated the corruptions found in Pausanias and Galen, and the fragment
as printed by Schréder corresponds with the text here, except that he has mistakenly
preferred Bergk’s ἐξυπερθ᾽ to Schneidewin’s ἐξ ὑπέρ, which the papyrus now confirms, ρυθμος
in ]. 5 = σχῆμα; the word does not occur elsewhere in Pindar.

to-12. Cf. Pausan. x. 5. 12 οὐ μὴν οὐδὲ τρόπον ὅντινα ἀφανισθῆναι συνέπεσε τῷ ναῷ κατὰ
ταὐτὰ εἰρημένα εὕρισκον' καὶ yap ἐς χάσμα γῆς ἐκπεσεῖν αὐτὸν καὶ ὑπὸ πυρὸς τακῆναι λέγουσιν.
Pindar’s version does not seem to agree closely with either of these, but the reading is
uncertain in several places. In]. τὸ the letter before p looks more like ἡ than anything
else, though the space is rather narrow. « is hardly possible. o could be read in place of
ε before τη. In ]. 11 we may divide χθον ay οἷ or χθονα vol, and the last letter may be either
o or w. In |. 12 the space is indecisive between exp|«|y and ἐκρίυψ, and the termination
can be -αν 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.
ἁπάνταΪς is possible; αφαντωί is clearly excluded.

13. The slight vestiges are consistent with Avs, after which either aya{ or αγλί may be
read. ‘The latter seems the more likely here, whether written with a capital or not. For
Αγλαΐα cf. Ol. xiv. 19 πότνι᾽ ᾽Α. φιλησίμολπέ τ᾽ Εὐφροσύνα and Fr. 199 Μοῖσα καὶ ᾽Α. ; but ἀγλα-
may of course be another adjective, e. g. ἀγλ[αόθρονοι (κόραι ἢ), for which cf. OJ. xiii. 96
Moicats ἀγλαοθρόνοις.

14. € is very doubtful; the first letter is possibly 6. There may be two letters
between o and φ, but if so the first of them is probably +, which might indeed be sufficient
by itself. The remains after @ suggest «. ed υμνον is inadmissible.

15. teav αν or rexvar| looks likely.

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

86 THE OXYRHYNCAHUS PAPYRI

following ν at the end of the preceding line, in which case o (repevo[us?) would be probable
in place of φ.

17. This is another rather puzzling line. Either μὸν or. ων is possible, and if any
letter stood between a and κ, it is likely to be +; there seems hardly room for o or y, and
- avaykn would of course be a false form. At the end of the line μναν appears inevitable, pvap
being unsuitable.

18. For AvowBporos, which occurs only here, cf. ὀλεσίμβροτος, φθισίμβροτος, &c.; in
Tryphiod. 437 λυσήνωρ is an epithet of οἶνος,

19. Cf. Pyth. v. 32 ἀκηράτοις dvias.

δαιδαΐλ : or 6 Adda?

1792, PINDAR, Paean?.
Fr.t 16-9 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 dzp/ae 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.

Bea,

[. . . «]Ἱοισινεννεῖ
[. .JaAadaprepidl..... Ἰονασί
[- .|xooaugemo..... Jarod]
5 {[:Ἰυμνησιοσδρεπί. .Ἰαμαδεφ]
[: «Ἰξοθενλιπαροτροφωνθυσι
[. λωνχαριτεσσιμιγδαν
[. -Ἰνθιονπαρακρημνονενθαῖ
κελαινεφεαργιβρεντανλεγοΐ
Ιο ζἀηνακαθεζομενον
κορυφαισινυπερθεφυλαξΐ. .. .Jovo . Ϊ

᾽
ανικ ayavoppov

1799: NEW CLASSICAL FRAGMENTS

That the author is Pindar is not definitely ascertained, but style and

vocabulary seem sufficiently characteristic to justify that ascription.

θυϊγάτηρ 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 Πτῴῷον 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 Il. 2-20 is as follows :—

ποτ ne
υἱύ-τυυ {- eS =
5 —-v-vul-juvuuly..

.
SOS NSS τ σς

a oe NIRS I π Ἐ-Ξ
προ ae rarer Whit NA mms NEI RE

15 --.͵ω᾽υ-τ-υυυ---- νυ --

YU r
-υ-πτυυξυ-ουῦυ ;!}- ΞΘ NS A --ς

[πἸπυυ-ου ---- υ- -πωυ-πτυυ-πυ---νς.

ἱ--- τ πυυπτυπῶυ vu-—u™./[...|

vrvu—¥—-v-[- |---v--v-|
Ιο-κὧἱἱυ-τ-ῦυ -- 20 [-ἰΙἸυυ--υ--ὦ [1]...

Pr i:

[... -Jourw ἐν νεῖ

[. Jada δ᾽ Apréwidl..... Jovaol

[Aé]xos ἀμφεπόϊλει. .1α τοια[ύτ

5 [ἰυμνήσιος δρέπί. .] ἅμα δὲ dlep
[Νάϊξοθεν λιπαροτρόφων θυσίας
[μή]λων Χαρίτεσσι μίγδαν
[Κύνθιον παρὰ κρημνὸν ἔνθα
κελαινέφε᾽ ἀργιβρένταν λέγοϊυσι

10 Ζῆνα καθεζόμενον
κορυφαῖσιν ὕπερθε φυλάξαι χρ]όνον

δι ee) 2 ’
avik ἀγανοῴρων

88 THE OXYRHYNCHUS PAPYRI

κοιουθυγατηρλυετοτερπνᾶσ

+a. av
> ὠδεινοσ'ελαμψ € ||’ αελιουδεμασοποῖ
αγλαονεσφαοσϊοντεσδιδυμοι

15
παιδεσπολυνροθῖ.] . ἰεσαναποστομῖ
[λειθυιατεκαιλα[.Ἰεσισ'τελεί[.]αιδολί
[- 1τελαμβανον .[.. .|
[- εφθεγξαντοδεγχώριᾶι

20 [: λαοσασανερκεῖ.] . . . [

ἸΕ προ ὡν ΟΣ jroyapak..w. ατοιΐ
ΣΟ πο ee coee cele Pe γονατί
Be cae ie Leer ee Ἰηρασορ. Ϊ
ΠΡ τ τέντοςς προ Bee Loney
iy ee Pits
Ἰραι ]
Ἰανεὺ . εἰ Teale} ec
Ἰωλοισα[᾿ Ἰδραί

1 ]

Pr: 5 Fr. 6 Fr. 7-
>. Bl vl κοί
Tel bal [
> εκ ποῖ
Fr. 9. Fr. ro. Be. Ws Pr, 42:
Ἱμεν ] ] 1. χυταῖ

Fr, 4.

|

Ἰπολλακισί

1792. NEW CLASSICAL FRAGMENTS 89

Κοίου θυγάτηρ λύετο τερπνᾶς
ὠδῖνος: ἔλαμψαν δ᾽ ἀελίου δέμας ὁπότ᾽

15 ἀγλαὸν ἐς φάος ἰόντες δίδυμοι
παῖδες, πολὺν ῥόθ]οῆν ἵεσαν ἀπὸ στομ[άτων
[Ἰλείθυιά τε καὶ Λάϊχ]εσις" τέλεζε]αι δ᾽ ολί
[κα]τελάμβανον.. [. . .]
[. .] ἐφθέγξαντο δ᾽ ἐγχώριαι

20 [ἀγ]λαὸς ἃς ἀν᾽ épxe.]...[

aS ea Oe Ay το yap ak... ατοιΐ
Baraat an ote ee Sade token 9! of γονατί
[πα ey k's |npas (v.1. -es) op . [
cg, : Pe Gal he RS |

Fr. 2. Fr. 2. Fr. 4.

Jpael ] |

Javev . εἰ Teak 1 πολλάκις Ϊ
Ἰωλοισαί : Ἰδραΐ |
il | ]
Ea gar |rev

7:

Fr. 5 Er. 6. Ἐπ: Fr. 8
Bi Deal κοι γλί
raf dal mi λνενι μὴ ot
ἐκί Tol ἤλυθον
ὃς ετί
Fr. 9. Ἐν ΟΣ τὼς Ετ. 11. Brij, 12. Fr.iv3.

ies , ] 7. xual jal

go

Fr. 24.

Ἰλειανολυΐ

Ἱναριστοπ.

Ἰατοδαμί

THE OXYRHYNCHUS PAPYRI

Ἰσεβι
Ἰονΐ
Jo

J

|reou|

aia
Joppas|
Ἰμενοι

Fr. 16.
]
Ἰασωποῖ

Ἰεψατοτί

Fr. Ζῇ:

Ἰονεῖ
Ἰνοι

Ἱμαισιρῖ

1.1

rod]

Fr, 32;

lea

Πμιαισι

1792.

Fr. 24.
]
Ἰλειαν On| per

\ ἀριστοπ .« [
Jaro δαμὶ

Ἰσεβι
Ἰονΐ

Fr. 20.

Ἰκαι
Ἰς οἰχνΐ
Jez

Fr. 25.

τες υἱ

RP ge

|e φρασὶ

Ἱμενοι

Fr. τὸ :
]
᾽᾿Δσωποῖ

Ἰεψατοτί
1.1
Fr. 21.
1
ol
Ἰνοὶ

Fr. 26.
Jeae δὶ

χρυσοῖ

Ἴστω. |

jase αἱ:

NEW CLASSICAL FRAGMENTS

]

Ἰσιόνϊτ

Fr, 27.
Ἰον εἰ
lvoe

Ἱμαισιρ
pal

Fr. 32.

. ja

Jarod,

92

pal
έ

yeas HF
Ἰωποί

Ἰεινοτοιτιῖ

Ἰπροσοδο. Ϊ

Ἰτεχοροΐ
5 ἸΧαρινλί

Ἰεμπειλί

Ἰονταί

Fr. 42.

Ἰγαρὶ

THE OXYRHYNCHUS PAPYRI

]
Ἰουδιοί

5 |vapl

Fr. 34,
lel Hr. 96.
Ja- :
|xarroOur[ μαι
Ἰναλιου ελπιΐ
5 Ἰπατροσεχῖ :
Ἰδικαδασί ΕἾΕΝ ἰ
Ἰακέλευσι ane
cae nae
1..
ΒῚ. 25: Fr. 39.

}e-daol Ἰεικερί

γελιναν.«[ Ἰοσευχομῖ
“Ἴτεμενει" 1 Ἰαπιεριδεσὶ
Τ᾽. ἀμεναι[ Ἰνωιτί
5 Ἰταιστερῖ
Ἰπαισιτε.Ϊ
Ἱντιαδεῖ
Ἰμμελεῖ
Ἰεερανεκ . [
10 le [os] ΠῚ
[eee |
Fr...43. Fr. 44.
Ἰεξιαί Ἰσ-. tol

Ἰωιπί
Ἰατο-

5 Ἰορονῖ
Ἰανοί
Ine «1
Ἰτευδί
Ἰνμί

Fr. 40.
Ἰρυΐ
Ἰχρυσί
vol
71. aol

5 peal
Fr. 41.
Ἰνατοινιν . [
Jevgpovyap|
Ἰεβόαμε.. [
Fr. 45.

Ἰοτί

5

Pr. 37,

Jozro|
Ἰειν 6 τοι τι
] προσοδο.Ϊ
7τε χοροΐ
| χάριν λί
πἸέμπει" XL

Ἰονταί

]α.
] καὶ τόθι vf
᾿Εν)ναλίου
iB ] πατρὸς ἐχί
Ἰδίκα δασὶ
Ja κέλευσι
[ ]
1.1

ibe 38.

Jer δα
jeAuvar . [

] τεμένει" τί
1. αμεναι

5 |ras τερί
] παισὶ τε. [

Ἱντια de

Ἰμμελεῖ
Ἰειρανεκ. Ϊ

]
Ἰουδιοΐ

5 Ἰναρὶ
Fr, 36.
μαι
ἐλπί
εξειν

ἅλα Ϊ
5. γον

ΕΥτ. 50.
Ἰεικερί
᾿“Ἰοσευχομ
Ja Πιερίδεσί
Ἰνῳ τί

1792. NEW CLASSICAL FRAGMENTS 93

Fr. 41.
Ἰνατοι wy. [
] εὔφρων yap |
] ἐβόα pe..[

Fr. 45.

Ἰοτί

94

Fr. 46.
[ἢ
Ἰωρθυποκρῖ
Ἰωσο μενγὶ
Ἰεθνοσαιδί
ὦ

hd J. εἰ

THE OXYRHYNCHUS PAPYRI

Ἰδαγ.
Ἱμοσί

ΤΣ

Fr. 47.

Ἰριαιναΐ

Ἰενπτώιαΐ

Ἰμφιπολει
ἸποσόαθυΪ

Ἱπερτατί

Joex{

Pro 52.
lo. [
1. ἀραντ
lof
Fr. 56. Be, 57:
Ἰμαλαί Ἰαναΐ
Ἰτεδεί yal
Fr. 61 Fr. 62
Ἰφοι 'νονΐ
Fr. 66
Ἰσενί

Fr. 49.

]- εἰτανΐ
JwavaArd|
weve

we. [

NEW CLASSICAL FRAGMENTS

1792.
v.-[ Jéay - | ὑἸπερτατί Ἰεμί
}-[ Ἱμοσί Ἰσεκί 1.1
Fr. 46. Fr. 47. Fr. 48. Fr. 49.
Pak ?’Opaor|pratval Ἰιναισὶ 1. εἰτανΐ
Ἰωρθ’ ὑποκρί. 1 & Πτῴῳ [ Ἰαριν τί w Αὐλίδι
Ἰωσομεν γί Ι [ow πί per αἱ
] ἔθνος αιδὶ Ἰεν σοφΐ ere we. [
Ἱμεχρί. -Ἰ - εἰ i ba κω Ἢ Peer a
Fr. 50. Fr. 51. Fr. 52. Fr. 53
1. pif eee he | 1σ. 7:1
Ἰυμονΐ ἀγμφιπολεῖϊ 1. αραντὶ Ἱμᾶν [
? παϊσσαλοΐ ἱπ]ποσόα θυϊγάτηρ lof ye . [
pbolyyov | : ide
Fr. 54- Fr. 55- Fr. 56. Fr. 57. Fr. 58.
Ἰατεφί Ἰσιμῖ Ἱμαλαΐ Ἰαναῖ wl
Ἰοναμΐ jan af rede el jal
Fr. 59- Fr. 60 Fr. 61 Fr. 62. Fr. 63
Ἰνενθαΐ aul παν ΠΟΙ Ἰνονΐ 18,
Ἰν πεφί jol we ee Shean Ἰλαί
Fr. 64. Fr. 65. Fr. 66. Fr. 67.
Ἰοεθῖ Ἰδρῖ Ἰσεν Ἱπροῖ

96 THE OXYRHYNCHUS PAPYRI

Jogal Jara Jopl saa lore. [
Ἰοναν.]ετί Ἰαθανατί πα MES ἢ τ
Ἱμενανι . [ Jord you| Ἰκινδυν ᾿ Ἰτεστονΐ
5 kara 5 Ἰτεραΐ Ἰνεφελαί 5 Ἰταιωΐ
Ἰγροπὶ Mots Ee . Kare Ἰκετί

ΝΣ | en Ἰιων

Peek 2: ἐν vel : ἐννέα, ἐννεῖπ εν

3. Perhaps [ἀπ|αλά, but a single broad letter, e. g. κ, μι might fill the initial lacuna.

4-5. If the subject is singular, dupend[Ae . . . δρέπων] or -πίουσ᾽] seems likely; cf. Vem.
Vili. 10 λέκτρον. .. tenia But the verb in 1. 4 may be ἀμφέπειν, which is combined
with δρέπειν in Οἷ. i. 19-20 ἀμφέπει σκᾶπτον . . ., δρέπων μὲν κορυφάς. Whether the word
preceding dpen{ is an adjective (Γυμνήσιος, aan or a substantive (ὕμνησις, γύμνησις (9),
μνῆσις) is not clear. The remains of the first letter are slight, and ε 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 @ might be an acute accent on the « of θυσί,
which, however, is less likely on account of the infrequency of accents in the papyrus.

9. ἀργιβρένταν : the word is novel, but cf. Οἱ, vili. 3 Διὸς ἀργικεραύνου. A further con-
firmation is here provided of the form ἀναξιβρέντας in Bacchyl. xvi (xvii). 66; cf. the n.
ad loc. on 1091.

12. ἀγανόφρων, like κελαινέφης in |. 9, is Homeric (Υ 467).

13. Κοίου θυγάτηρ at the beginning of a line occurs also in 841. 19. 22 (meaning
Asteria). For τερπνᾶς ὠδῖνος cf. Ol, vi. 43 ὠδῖνος ἐρατᾶς.

14. The v. 1. (τερπνὰς) ὠδῖνας does not commend itself. ἔλαμψαν... ὁπότε is-a rather
awkward inversion and the corruption ἔλαμψε is hardly surprising, though it leaves δίδυμοι
παῖδες Without a verb.

15. Cfe.g. Οἱ vi. 43-4 ἦλθεν 8 ὑπὸ σπλάγχνων. . . ἐς φάος, Wem. i. 35-6 σπλάγχνων
ὕπο . . -. θαητὰν ἐς αἴγλαν ... poder,

‘Raised cries of joy’ is evidently the sense, and if ροθ is right πολὺν ῥόθον ἵεσαν
becomes inevitable, though it is difficult to reconcile the traces after poé[o| witha». There
are also, rather to the right of these, some vestiges above the line which are not very
satisfactorily regarded as a rough breathing ons For pdéloly cf. 841. vi. 128 ἀοιδᾶν ῥόθια.
θρόον, which might be thought a more natural word here, cannot be read.

17-18. Either τέλει Jae or τέλεαι is possible, presumably referring to the two deities (cf.

σ. Ol. xiii, 115 Zed τέλει, Nem. x. 18 Ἥβα τελείᾳ παρὰ ματέρι), but θεαί] is inadmissible in
᾿ 8, where the slight remains would be consistent with e. g. an a followed by a letter with
a vertical first stroke.

19. Perhaps [ἀν]εφθ.

1792. NEW CLASSICAL FRAGMENTS 97

ὃ σϊώζωϊ Ἰατι[.]ορί Fr. 68. Jorel
Ἰονανί.]ετί 1 ἀθανατί Pee heal ts (ea
Ἰμενανι . [ Ἰοσάγονϊτ ] κινδυνΐ Ἰτεστονΐ

5 ] καταΐ 5. Ἰτεραΐ ] νεφέλαϊ 5 7Ἰταινΐ
Ἰτροπὶ ate ]. Karel Ἰκετί

Po Ἰωνΐ

21. Possibly axra, but the « is joined by a ligature which is too low for the normal a
of this hand, and suggests rather ὃ, κ, or x. The preceding letter might well be ν or v,
besides τ...

22. γον or τὸν is certain, and if the p is right either pay or pir 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.

Frs. 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. 4 by
the junction of two selides in the syllable κις of πολλακις corresponding with a similar
junction through the π of omo in Fr. 1. 14; but Fr. 4 does not seem to join on
immediately.

Fr. 5. 1. The d7p/é is probable but not certain.
Fr. 6. 1. υμί», υλ would be suitable. _
Fr. 10. 2-3. Line 3 apparently ended at ω, and ον may be the end of 1. 2.

Fr. 16. Cf. 841. vi. 134-6 [ἐ]π’ ᾿Ασζώϊπου . . . alvalpeato παρθένον. In 1. 2 here the
doubtful τ΄ can be z, but of course this may be quite fortuitous and e.g. ἐθρ]έψατο is an
obvious alternative.

Fr. 24. 2. ἀριστοποῖν . . (cf. Ol. 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 lave a more worn appearance. Cf. Frs. 67-8. In Frs. 31 and 34 there
are junctions of se/des, but the pieces cannot be directly combined.

Fr. 31. 4. Perhaps Jou Διόϊς ; but the letters can be variously interpreted.

Fr. 32. 8. The fourth letter may also be ¢ or o.

Fr. 35. 3. A strophic division is denoted by the paragraphus below this line.
Fr. 36. 3. The overwritten « may be due to the first hand.

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

8. ἐἸμμελεί, πλη]μμελε[ ?

Fr. 41. 1. e.g. ἀθάνατοι, Ἶνα τοι.

Fr. 46. A junction between two se/des occurs in this fragment and also in Fr. 47,
which is otherwise similar in appearance.
2. 6 may be the particle and ὑποκρὶ may of course be divided ὑπὸ κρῖ.
Η

98 THE OXYRHYNCHUS PAPYRI |

Fr. 47. 2. Cf. Pindar Fr. 51 Ὁ, ἃ τρικάρανον Urwiov κευθμῶνα. 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. αἰθερι[ or |aep:| could be read.

3. πα]σσαλοῖ is rather suggested by φθο]γγον in the following line; cf. Οἱ. i. 17 ἀπὸ
φόρμιγγα πασσάλου λάμβαν᾽, 1861. i. 1-2 ὦ βάρβιτε, μηκέτι πάσσαλον φυλάσ[ cor] ἑπτάτονον λιγυρὰν
κάππαυε γᾶρυν ; but Θε]σσαλοΐ is of course possible.

51. 3. The coincidence with Ol. iii. 26 Λατοῦς ἱπποσόα θυγ. was observed by Lobel.

Fr. 52. 2. The first letter is probably 6, A, 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 ὃ.

Fr. 67. Either there is a junction of sedzdes in this fragment, which in appearance
resembles ΕἼΘ. 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.

1798. CALLIMACHUS, Soszbt Victoria.

Height το cm. Late first century,

Callimachus after a long period of neglect has latterly been much in evidence
in the papyri (cf. 1862 int.),’ 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,
Pp. 144 € Θεόφραστος ἐν τῷ πρὸς Κάσανδρον περὶ βασιλείας (εἰ γνήσιον τὸ σύγγραμμα"
πολλοὶ γὰρ αὐτό φασιν εἶναι Σωσιβίου, εἰς ὃν Καλλίμαχος ὁ ποιητὴς ἐπινίκιον ἐλεγειακὸν
ἐποίησε), τοὺς Περσῶν φησὶ βασιλεῖς κτλ. and called in Schol. Lycophr. Alex. 522 (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. 7-5, ix. 4-7, x. I. Who Sosibius was is not agreed: He has
commonly been thought to be the same as the Lacedaemonian grammarian
designated λυτικός or ἐπιλύτικος (Athen. xi. 493 Cc, Suid. s. v.), who was attached to
the Alexandrian Museum under Philadelphus and wrote treatises on Spartan
rites, on chronology, the poet Aleman, &c. (so e.g. Hecker, Com. Call. p. 66).

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

1798. NEW CLASSICAL FRAGMENTS 99

Schneider (ii, p. 220) questions this view partly on the ground of the ὦ 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 difterentiate that Sosibius from his homonym
whom Athenaeus elsewhere (iii. 78 c, xi. 493 e) speaks of as 6 λυτικός or 6 Λάκων.
For these reasons, which are plausible enough (though with regard to the second it
may be noted in xv. 690e 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, Azz. 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 ψευδεπίτροπος of Philopator
is quite problematical; it has been suggested that they were father and son,
but the father of the ψευδεπίτροπος was more probably Dioscurides (Foucart,
8. 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. 493c); Josephus’ captain of the bodyguard has better claims to
consideration, though the attribution to him of the treatise πρὸς Κάσανδρον 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 Znvi τε καὶ Νεμέῃ τι
χαρίσιον ἕδνον ὀφείλω 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 πρὶν ἀστέρι τῷ Βερενίκης

H 2

100 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 ἀστέρι Βερενίκης was a periphrasis for ἐμοί and was simplified
by Catullus to mhz 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 cA ... 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 ἀστὴρ 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. 5 544.) it may equally have included others relating to the

(οι. 1.
gen ns

A ΧΟ sul

1-Le

Col. ii.
Ἰηπριναναξ . [...J>.war..|

TERY να athena. ohn es)

Col. iii.
7: KE OG ales {Ὁ τιν -Πμεναιὶ
Ἰ--- μισκλέι. .. πριν... [. ωιβερενικησί

]. . ε᾿« ἐδαβουϊ.] . wi a. je. [. « .]ν"
OS Oa arate Gee aate iaeel se eern,

1798. NEW CLASSICAL FRAGMENTS IOI

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

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

Col. i.
(eee τον
λυ EL
1.1...
Col. it.
1η πρὶν avag.[...]..war..[
Col. iii.

΄ 2

ἡ κα PO ese Ea = 5 ον PEER
]... pls κλεί.... πρὶν ἀστέϊρι τ]ἢῷ Βερενίκης
{ema βου]. μ.: af. le. fot

Pa. ef fre ay ns fa a) = ἐθήσεὴν

102 THE OXYRHYNCHUS PAPYRI.

Col. iv.

ο
Ἰιδιονπολυπαλτονυπερ.. an| . αἀσυγαμοσητ. ..

1. Tyikaopnvev... σ΄. « « εἰριτιαι

]. Ψηβασιλήασει . mp.[.]. ϑακραϊ! νον τ οΣ Ι
εἴ
].. παντωνπαἰ Ἰτατελειοτατὶ
5 Ἰουμετί. .]. νου. .Ϊ Ἰχίστον
Col. v
2 τοσσαμαγανβασιλῃατ .. ἐνὰ ....«-- Ἐ Siete ue
bere τ av”
t [. (Ἰμμαμεναιδῖ.]. avrar...[... .jea
7. με.-
[- σσατονενμη.. [.]. τευ. [-«....Ὁ Ἰυννανετι
φωκαεωνμεχρισκεμενηΐϊ. . .-. « Πιναλιμυδροσ
5 [. . -|pirexnmaddal.......- Japl. .Ἰεμιδι
[- -- σαειπαναριστί. .« « «-«.«...-ὖς Ἰβερενικηι

στ toil, 67?

Ἰνεινᾳὶ

Col. vi.
agovoracBue . aft lloumm . σέναυλονεχει:
erifdptron theres ropa imme ney erate eee
τοῦτ᾿ ἐποσηδειηιλεχθενεπαγγελιηι"
δαῖμον, σαμφοτερωθενάϊ. Ἰωνοιοκαθηται
5 [ἸΛέινεοσαρχαιοισορ.. Ϊ. . 4 . [-upidaco
[- 7 . [-1. - [-]you[. .Ἰεσπελοπηΐ. “νιερονισθμον

5

5

1798. NEW CLASSICAL FRAGMENTS

Col. iv.
Ἰίδιον πολύπαλτον ὑπὲρ. ad. ασου γάμος nT...
1. τῃκαομην εὐ... σ΄. -. εἰριτιαι
[rp Βασιληῆδι, σὲ «ἀρ τ] 8 KPO. δ pres es
1. . πάντων πάϊν)τα τελειότατε.

Jou μετῖ...7].. ποὺ. 0 0 Ἰχίστον

Col. ν, with Fr. 1.

[ qe
[. .Jupa μὲν ad.].avTra mw... [... jal
τόσσα Μάγαν βασιλῆα τ..εν d...... ΕΘΝ
]-He..
[τόϊασα τὸν ev μὴ .[.). Tev.[..-.... Ἰυνναν ἔτι,

Φωκαέων μέχρις κε μένῃ ἱμέγας εΐν ἁλὶ μύδρος,
[μέχ]ρι τέκῃ Παλλὰϊς xp γάμος] ᾿Αρ[τ]έμιδι,
[....]s ἀεὶ πανάριστία με]νεῖν af... .1 Βερενίκῃ

Col. vi.
ἄξονος ᾿Ασβύστης ἵππος ἔναυλον ἔχει.
σημερινὸν δ᾽ ὡσεί περ [Ὁ ἐϊμὸν περὶ χεῖλος ἀΐίσσει
τοῦτ᾽ ἔπος ἡδείῃ λεχθὲν ἐπ᾽ ayyedin-
Δαῖμον, ὃς ἀμφοτέρωθεν ἁἰλιζώνοιο κάθη(σ)αι
[σ]τείνεος, ἀρχαίοις ὅρκ[ιε Σ᾿ [σ]υφίδαις,
[ὅν] τε [γ]εω[ρ]γοῦϊντ]ες Πελοπή[ιο]ν ἱερὸν ἰσθμὸν
[τῇ μὲν Κρωμνίτην τῇ ἰδὲ... 1...
τ ἘΠ το τος ace τὺ Jee{.Jos {

105

To4

Ou

THE OXYRHYNCHUS PAPYRI

Col. vii.
οφρακεσωσιβιοντισαλεξανδρουτεπυθηται
τηνεπικαιναιωνκινυφιδιστεφεα
αμφοτερωπαραπαιδεκασιγνητωιτελεαρχου
καιτομυριναιοντωιγαλαθησομενω

θηλυτατονκαινειλωτωνενιαυσιονυδωρ

ὡδειπί.Ἰκαλαμοι.. [.. «Ἰτισετεισε. . . .

ἐσ Be Ἰγαρπῶπ!: - 28s See yf... «]1αεθλα

[λους Rua eee Ἰφιωντί 18 letters ]
Col. viii.

καλπιδεσουκοσμουσυμβολοναλλαπατησ.
ανδρασοτουδεισαντεσεδωκαμενηδυβοησαι
νηονεπιγλαυκησκωμοναγοντιχορωι
ἀρχιλοχουνικαιονεφυμνιονεκδεδιαυλου
λαγειδηπαρασοιπρωτοναεθλοφορειν
εἰλαμεθαπτολεμί. "Ἰετεηιπί. .Jpnvixereyyl. .|
ΠΤ αεον ΡΤ Na Ἰουκονιηι

Col. ix.
ἀμφοτερωνοξεινοσεπηβολοσουκετιγυμνασ
παιδασενηραιωιστησομενευρυνομησ
ὠσφαμενωιδωσειτισανηρομοφρονοσαοιδην
τουτομενεξαλλωνεκλυονιερονεγω
κεινογεμηνιδοναυτοσοπαρποδικατθετονειλου
νειταιτωικασιουεισεπικωμοσαλα .
κυπροθενειδονδιο. -lexarnyayevevOadeyal. .1οσ
ἴ-.7. mene. λον Sa Ἰωσαν]}θ. wr
[ 23 letters Ἰῴν

1798. NEW CLASSICAL FRAGMENTS 105

Col. vii.
ὄφρα κε Σωσίβιον τις ᾿Αλεξάνδρου τε πύθηται
(γγ)νῆν ἐπὶ καὶ ναίων Κίνυφι διστεφέα
ἀμφοτέρῳ παρὰ madi), κασιγνήτῳ τε Aedpxou
καὶ τὸ Μυριναῖον τῷ γάλα θησ(α)μένῳ,
5 θηλύτατον καὶ Νειλωτῶν ἐνιαύσιον ὕδωρ
ὧϑ᾽ εἴπῃ] καλάμοις (?) [. . «Ἰτισετεισεί. . . .]
CET cu Ὁ 00] VG eID) τ τ en! are Ἰν[. . . .1 ἄεθλα
ΕΠ ΕΝ νον ΑἾΤῸΣ Ἰφίων τί 18 letters ]

‘ ae 7 x 2S 2 ee. ca
[καὶ παρ᾽ A@nvaios yap ἐπὶ στέγος ἱερὸν ἧνται)

Col. viii.

κάλπιδες, οὐ κόσμου σύμβολον ἀλλὰ Ta(A)ns-
ἄνδρας ὅτ᾽ οὐ δείσαντες ἐδώκαμεν ἡδὺ βοῆσαι

νηὸν ἔπι Γλαύκης κῶμον ἄγοντι χορῷ
Ἀρχιλόχου νικαῖον ἐφύμνιον: ἐκ δὲ διαύλου,

Aayeidn, παρὰ σοὶ πρῶτον ἀεθλοφορεῖν
εἱλάμεθα, Πτολεμαΐ]ε, ten, πίάτε]ρ, ἡνικ᾽ ἐλεγχί- .]

Ἐπ Ἰπεῖ dR Λα A. 5) Slave Jo wee lov xovin

Col. ix.
ἀμφοτέρων ὁ ξεῖνος ἐπήβολος" οὐκέτι γυμνὰς
παῖδας ἐν Ἡραίῳ στήσομεν Εἰὐρυνόμης.
ἐἑ
ὡς φαμένῳ δώσει τις ἀνὴρ ὁμόφ(ωγνο(ν ὃ) ἀοιδήν.
τοῦτο μὲν ἐξ ἄλλων ἔκλυον ἱρὸν ἐγώ,
5 κεῖνό γε μὴν ἴδον αὐτὸς ὃ πὰρ ποδὶ κάτθετο Νείλου
νεῖται τῷ Κασίου tes ἐπίκωμος ἅλα-
Κύπροθε (Σ)ιδόνιόϊς ple κατήγαγεν ἐνθάδε γα[ῦλ]ος
Πα ἐν RE Sr ae Se ΟΝ Ἰωσα θεῶν
ἷ 23 letters |p»

106 THE OXYRHYNCHUS PAPYRI

(οι. χ.

καιτονεφουνικαισιναειδομεναρθμιαδημωι
ο
ειἰδοταουκεπιμικρωνουκεπιληθωμενον

παυριστοντοκενανδριπαραφνιωτισΐδοιτο
ὠτινιμηκρε[.Ἰσσωνητινοσσευτυχιησ

5 ουτετοναινησωτοσοναξ .Ἰονουτελαθωμαι
διδιαγαρδηδημουγλωσσανεπαμφοτεροισ
μ. [- «ἸΤομενωιδὶ Ἰπησιν.]. ουδεπί. .JoOAove . εξεν

ερῖ- « ΨΙῚ - δησαὶ: le καπ|. - 2218s! τ ahs ]
[ 35 letters Ἰν

. . . «

Fragments.

Col. i. This is a puzzling fragment. In 1.1 € and the circumflex are clear, and the
letters vv, which are faint, are assured by an impression on the back of Col. ii, to which
Col. i was adhering. The relative order of these two pieces is therefore certain. There is
no sign of any letter after éd» either in Col. i itself or in the impression. Lines 2 and 3
are in a smaller hand and, if ξὺν is the end of a verse, may be a marginal entry. No traces
are visible after τ in ]. 3, but the papyrus. is rather rubbed, and it is not impossible that
further letters followed.

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

2. The end of this line coincides with Callim. Fr. 35 ἃ from Achill. Stat. Zsag. i
Arat. Phaen. p. 134 ὅταν (stc) μέντοι ὁ Καλλίμαχος Πρὶν ἀστέρι τῷ Βερενίκης ἐπὶ τοῦ πλοκάμου
φησίν, ὃς ἐξ ἑπτὰ καταφανῶν σύγκειται, (ἡμάρτηται ὃ); cf. int. p. 100, The passage in Catullus
to which Schneider supposes the fragment to correspond is (Ixvi. 79--83)

nunc, vos optato quom wunxit lumine faeda,
non prius unanimis corpora contugibus

tradite, nudantes retecta veste papillas,
quam tucunda mtht munera libet onyx,

vester onyx, casto colitis quae tura cubilt.

prius quam mihi is regarded as a translation of πρὶν ἀστέρι τῷ B. If that is correct, it seems

1793. “NEW CLASSICAL FRAGMENTS 107

Col. x.

8 x td CA »» es ν ΄
καὶ τὸν ἐφ᾽ οὗ νίκαισιν ἀείδομεν, ἄρθμια δήμῳ

307 Ν ~ 3 3 7

εἰδότα (kai) μικρῶν οὐκ ἐπιληθόμενον.

cA Ν 4 ᾽ Ν ᾽ ’ “ » .
παύριστον τὸ Kev ἀνδρὶ παρ᾽ ἀφνειῷ τις ἴδοιτο

Li = (| > Ζ » ? ΄

ὥτινι μὴ κρεϊῆσσων ἢ (νόος) εὐτυχίης.

5 οὔτε τὸν αἰνήσω τόσον ἄξιον οὔτε λάθωμαι,

δείδια γὰρ δήμου γλῶσσαν ἐπ᾽ ἀμφοτέροις,

μὴ [τ]ὸ μὲν ὧδ᾽ [εἴππησιν, [“ ΟἹ δ᾽ οὐδέποτ᾽ ἐ]σθλὸν ἔλεξεν

ερῖ. . ἡψ[εἸνδὴς af. .] - καπῖ. « «« «ἀντ ]
35 letters y
, =
Fragments.
2. 2. 4. ἢ:
; Jovoa κ.ἷ 1. . βόες ἔντί Ἰσμενε.. «ἷ
Tal Ἰγέπαϊ ΠΡ] 1. eyv-[

{

strange that πρίν was included in the citation, in which, as it stands, the natural sense of πρίν
is rather guondam.
4. The doubtful 6 may be σ or e, hardly p.

Col. iv. The suggested combination of two pieces in ll. 1 and 2 (the point of junction
is indicated by vertical lines) remains uncertain in the absence of a satisfactory restoration
of the word after ὑπέρ. If the combination is incorrect, Col. v will become Col. vi and
7. avov γάμος nr .. . &c. will become Col. v, with a possible lacuna between it and Col. iv.
The small fragment ]x:orov assigned to 1. 5 was adhering to the back of Col. v, opposite
παναριστῖ, and its position is thus indicated with probability.

I. πολύπαλτος is a novel compound; the epithet would suit e. g. [ξυστΊίδιον.

2. Perhaps [γ᾿ ἠκάζσγμην or καϊτῃκά(σγμην, as Housman suggests, but with the context
in its present state emendation is not hopeful. Further on π᾿ could be read in place of «p and
v or ὦ ἴῃ place of a.

4. τελειότατε: the vocative has been substituted for some other case (accus. ὃ).

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

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

108 THE OXYRHYNCHUS PAPYRI

Magas, whose enmity to Philadelphus terminated with the betrothal of his daughter to the
Egyptian crown prince, is commonly supposed to have died in or about B.c. 258.

3. Ἶυνναν, to which the insertion above the line apparently refers, remains obscure. ἔτι
may be sound, though ἔτη would give a suitable substantive for the repeated τόσσα.

4 = Callim. Fr. 209, from Schol. Soph. “πῆρ. 264. Valckenaer’s correction of
Φωκείων tO Φωκαέων is confirmed. The various conjectures as to the source of the verse
prove to have been worthless.

5. γάμος seems more likely than πόσις on account of the space.

6. Fr. 1, containing the letters |vewal (a very uncertain: ὃ, A, μι, x are equally possible),
was adhering to the lower part of the verso of a fragment which higher up has impressions
of the middles of ll. 1 and 3-4. It will not combine readily with 1. 5 and so has been
assigned to |. 6, where it seems suitable.

Col. vi. 1. The ’Ac8icra belonged to the Cyrenaica (cf. Callim. Hymn. Apoll. 76
᾿Ασβυστίδι.. . . γαίῃ), but the word may be loosely used as an equivalent of Λίβυς, asin Fr. 13
Τρίτωνος ἐφ᾽ ὕδασιν ᾿Ασβύσταο. Libyan horses were noted for their speed (Ael. Wat. An.
iii. 2, xiv. ro), and according to Hdt. iv. 189 τέσσερας ἵππους συζευγνύναι παρὰ Λιβύων οἱ
Ἕλληνες μεμαθήκασι : cf. e.g. Soph. £7. 702,727. ἔναυλον ἔχει is capable of two interpreta-
tions, either ‘is in its stal]’, ἄξονος depending on some phrase equivalent to λυθεὶς ἀπό, OF
‘has fresh in its ears’, sc. the sound of the wheels. The letters σέ are derived from an
impression which also gives the doubtful » in ]. 2, and the rough breathing (also. a
ona inl. 4.

2. At the end of the line ἀγστει seems to have been corrected to αίσσει, the y (or 7?)
being cancelled by a dot above and below it. The letters or are fairly clear in an impression
on the back of the next column, which also makes the overwritten oe certain. Of the two
accents on περι the acute is slightly the darker and larger. ἐμόν looks probable, but is not
satisfactory after ὡσεί περ (?) ; nor can [4]ud» be regarded as an improvement.

3.) ne ἡδεῖα ἀγγελίη is presumably the news of the victory of Sosibius.

4. δαῖμον : 1. 6. Poseidon; cf. n. on ll. 6-7.

5. κ Of opx{ce is not very satisfactory ; the vertical stroke must be supposed to have
become entirely obliterated, and to have been written close to the p. Σισυφίδαις was
suggested, no doubt rightly, by both Murray and Lobel.

6-7. [γ]εω[ρ]γοῦ[ντἾες is very doubtful, but the letter before ov, if not y, can only be é or
τ, SO that e. g. οἰκοῦντες is excluded. [τῇ μὲν Κρωμν(ε)ίτην (sc. καλοῦσι or sim.) may be suitably
restored from Schol. Lycophr. Alex. 522 (Scheer) Κρῶμνα ὍΠΩΣ Παφλαγονίας πόλις ἐν ἧ Ποσειδῶνος
ἱερόν ἐστιν. ἔστι δὲ καὶ Κορίνθου τόπος, ὡς καὶ Καλλίμαχος ἐν Σωσιβίου νίκῃ, τῇ μὲν Κρ.

8. A dot slightly above the second ε (?), unless accidental, is more likely to represent
a diaeresis than a high stop.

Col. vii. 1-2. This couplet is rendered intelligible by the slight alteration suggested
by Housman of τ to y at the beginning οὗ]. 2: ‘ that even one dwelling on the Cinyps may
learn that Sosibius and Alexandria have won a double crown’. For instead of πόλις cf.
e. g. Eurip. 770. 868 γῆ δορὶ πεσοῦσα, and for the order in]. 2 Callim. Fr. 530 ἐπὶ τρύγα δ᾽ εἶχεν
ἐδωδῆ.

3-4. For ἀμφοτέρῳ maud(i) cf. e.g. Callim. H. Del. 168 ἀμφοτέρη μεσύγεια. Probably
‘the brother of Learchus’ means Melicertes, in whose honour the Isthmian games are
said to have been founded (cf. Pausan. i. 44. 8, Plutarch, Zheseus 25, &c.), and the other
child ‘who was suckled on Myrina’s milk’ is Opheltes-Archemorus, who was commemorated
by the games of Nemea and was the foster-child of Hypsipyle, daughter of Myrina after
whom the Lemnian town Myrina was supposed to be named.

5. For θηλύτατον cf, Eustath. ad Hom. @ p. 1599. 25 θῆλυς ἐέρση, ἡ τοῦ εὐκαρπεῖν καὶ

.

1798. NEW CLASSICAL FRAGMENTS 109

πολυφορεῖν αἰτία. ὅθεν καὶ Καλλίμαχος θηλύτατον πεδίον λέγει, τὸ πολύγονον (Fr. 296). ἐνιαύσιον of
course refers to the annual inundation. What has been regarded as the top of the r in
νείλωτων may belong to the ὠ, which is sometimes written in this hand with a little hook at
the top of the first stroke.
_ 6. A vestige of the letter after οἱ would suit e.g. σ, and possibly [ὅστις (ἔτ᾽ ice. . ay
followed, though a rather longer supplement is desirable. Or was the Nile personified ?
9. This line is given by Callim. Fr. 122; cf. the next note. The traditional order of
map and ydp, which are transposed by Schneider following Meineke, is retained (? 1. Παναθ.).

Col. viii. 1 = Callim, Fr. 122, from Schol. Pindar, Wem. x. 64 διὰ τούτου σημαίνει τοὺς
τὰ Παναθήναια νενικηκότας" τίθενται yap ἐν ᾿Αθήναις ἐν ἐπάθλου τάξει ὑδρίαι πλήρεις ἐλαίου. διὸ καὶ
Καλλίμαχος, καὶ map’ ᾿Αθηναίοις κτὰ., With ἀλλὰ πάλης, instead of which the papyrus mistakenly
gives ἀλλ᾽ ἀπάτης, at the end of the second line. Schneider proposed to assign this
fragment to Ae/. i. 6 ; Bergk was no happier in suggesting that the source was the “Apyous
οἰκισμοί. '

3. Γλαύκης : i.e. probably the daughter of Creon and wife of Jason, from whom was
named a spring near Corinth on the road to Sicyon: above it was τὸ καλούμενον φδεῖον ; cf.
Pausan. ii. 3. 6. |

4. ᾿Αρχιλόχου νικαῖον ἐφύμνιον : i.e, τήνελλα καλλίνικε, the conventional salutation of
a victor in the games; cf. Archil. Fr. 106 τήνελλα, ὦ καλλίνικε χαῖρε κτὰ., Schol. Pindar,
Ol. ix. 1. There is a somewhat similar allusion to φροίμιον ᾿Αρχιλόχου in Callim. Fr. 223.
ἐκ διαύλου is perhaps metaphorical, ‘ we have retraced our steps, as 6. 5. in Aesch. Ag. 344
κάμψαι διαύλου θάτερον κῶλον.

5. ἀεθλοφορεῖν : the verb occurs only here.

6. n[drelp was suggested by Lobel: πί is much more probable than τοί.

7. «hay does not scan, and the right emendation is not obvious.

8. Jo: Jo. or |e are possible alternatives.

Col. ix. 1-2. The παῖδες Evpurduns are no doubt the Graces, who are commonly called
her children by Zeus; cf. Callim. Fr. 471 of δ᾽ ἕνεκ᾽ Εὐρυνόμη Τιτηνιὰς εἶπον ἔτικτε (sc. τὰς
Χάριτας), and for γυμνάς Callim. Fr. 266 ἀσταλέων Χαρίτων λόφον. ai Χάριτες yupvat became
a proverbial expression, as in Aristaen. ii. 21 ai yap ydpirés σου... ἀληθῶς κατὰ τὴν παροιμίαν
γυμναί ; Cf. Suidas 5, ν. καὶ παροιμία ai χάριτες γυμναί, ἤτοι ὅτι δεῖ ἀφελῶς καὶ φανερῶς χαρίζεσθαι,
ἢ ὅτι αἱ χάριτες τὸν ἑαυτῶν κόσμον ἀφήρηνται.... χάριτας γυμνὰς ἱστοροῦσι, διότι δωρεὰν δεῖ χάριτας
τίθεσθαι : but the point in the present passage is not very clear. The Ἡραῖον may be that
near Mycenae, which had ancient statues of the Χάριτες in its mpovaos (Pausan. ii. 17. 4) and
was not far from Nemea.

3. ομοῴρονος is evidently an error for ὁμόφωνος or -ον ; Lobel’s suggested correction of
ἀοιδήν to ἀμοιβήν is also plausible, though for δώσει... ἀοιδήν cf. Callim. Fr. 310 ἀλάλαγμα
νόμαιον δοῦναι.

5. κάτθετο: sc. probably Sosibius, who made commemorative dedications both in
Greece and in Egypt; the former were only known to the poet by hearsay (ἐξ ἄλλων ἔκλυον,
1. 4), the latter he had seen. The δ of νείλου seems to have been corrected from o, the base
of which gives the letter the appearance of a 6.

6. ‘This verse, in which apparently the ποὺς Νείλου was more closely defined, is obscured
by corruption. εἰς is open to suspicion on account of the hiatus. The Κάσιον ὄρος was
near Pelusium and the Serbonian Lake, παρ᾽ ἣν δὴ τὸ K. ὄρος τείνει ἐς θάλασσαν (Hat. iii. 5),
and there was a temple of Zeus there. xaovovers might conceal Kdowos Ζεύς, but the rest of
the line is incongruous. νεῖται τῇ Κασία vais would give a possible sense, but is far
from being convincing. With regard to the concluding words, a similar collocation is
noticeable in Callim, Fr. 373 (Tzetz. ad Lycophr. 139) ἔθος εἶχον οἱ παλαιοί, ὡς καὶ Καλλίμαχος

110 THE OXYRHYNCHUS PAPYRI

ἱστορεῖ, μετὰ κιθάρας περὶ τοὺς ἅλας ἰέναι καὶ avupveiv καὶ ἐγκωμιάζει. As Schneider remarks,
ἱστορεῖ does not exclude a poem, but that the present passage is the source of the citation is
unlikely.

4 = Callim. Fr. 217, the various guesses as to the source of which were, as usual in
the absence of a substantial clue, futile. This line is intelligible as the first verse of the
dedicatory inscription of Sosibius.

8. The letter before the first ὦ was probably y, π, or τ, and the doubtful ε after « may
equally well be o. At the end of tlie line θέων is not excluded.

Col. x. 2. οὐκ em after εἰδοτα, probably an inadvertent anticipation of οὐκ ἐπιληθόμενον
is’ clearly corrupt, and καί, which was suggested by both Murray and Lobel, or τόν, is an
easy alteration.

7. The restoration suggested gives a suitable sense, [τ]δ μὲν referring to the first
alternative, i.e. ἐὰν αἰνήσω : but μή [μ᾽ or pnd] ὁ μέν would also serve. At the end of the
line the very slight remains are consistent with either ἔλεξεν or ἔρεξεν. A vestige in front
of the base of o of ουδ is quite in keeping with a 6.

8. ψ[εἸυδής or ἀϊψ[ε]υδής accords with the context, but is very doubtfully read, the y being
represented only by the top of a stroke above the line equally consistent with @; A is
possible in place of 6. The next word is perhaps α[ὐτ]ίκα, as Lobel suggests ; the first
a may be 6.

Fr. 8. 2. The grave accent on e has apparently been cancelled. ,

Fr. 4. 1. The supposed β is strangely formed, rather like a figure 8. It is preceded
by what looks like π᾿ or. γ.

1794. POEM IN HEXAMETERS.
19 X 12-9 cm. Late second century.

This papyrus contains on the recto the ends and beginnings of lines of two
partially effaced columns from an annotated list of property-holders, drawn up
perhaps early in the second century. The Oxyrhynchite village Kepxe(dpa)

φηδεοιασσουΐ. . .. .. Ἱκοστεκοΐ. .] . TEEOLKE
δευομενοντ. Ϊ. - - -- Ἰτοσονπαρί. .]Ἰαιδανεέσθαι
τωιουχειροΐ.]εἶ. . - .«- Ἰαρκεεῖ.]ου[.]Ἰεμεναυδη
OE WHEN Sel. wee ὁπ ena uo. [.].. - τ[ Ἱκεδοιησ

5 Τονδεγεῖ.]εν - [. - - ««. - 7. ομενθανενοσμινεφυ.. [.ν
evpevoitey .{. 2.55%. Ἰηρπρωιζονοδευων
aurnoov . [.|u[.Jp[....-- Ἰελπωραιδεαγῆσαν
ἡμετερησβιοτή. . . «Ἰονδεμοιοικοσαῦτεϊ

αλλοτεγᾳραλλοῖ.Ἰσολβὶ.Ἰυλαχοσανθρωποισιν

Ιο οιητοιπεσσοιοδικητοΐ. .]Ἰηδεκαιολβου
πεσσ[.Ἰσαμειβομενοσί. Ἰοτεμεντοῖ. . «Ἰλλοτετοισ .]
εἰσαγᾳθονπιπί. Ἰκαιαφνεοναιψατι[. .]θησι

1704. NEW CLASSICAL FRAGMENTS III

is mentioned. On the verso is a nearly complete column of 21 lines from
a hexameter poem, written in a medium-sized semicursive hand which dates
. probably from the latter part of the same century. The column has a slant to
the right owing to the writer’s tendency to advance to the left the commencement
of the lines. A circumflex accent is once written (1. 8), but apart from this no.
other diacritical marks occur except the diaeresis on: and v. The poem and its
author remain unidentified. The column is occupied by a speech of an elderly
woman to a youth, whom she addresses as réxos. She dilates on the fickleness
of fortune and explains that though now poor she had formerly been prosperous
and had often entertained guests. This situation resembles that of the Hecale of
Callimachus, who, moreover, puts into the mouth of Hecale the same adjective,
λιπερνῆτις, which is used of herself by the speaker here; cf. 1. 17, n. But ll. 2-6,
so far as they can be made out, do not seem to suit the Hecale, still less ll. 20-1, in
which the woman describes herself as a needy vagrant in a city, whereas Hecale
when visited by Theseus was living in the country near Marathon. An identifica-
tion must, therefore, be sought elsewhere, and some less polished poet of the
Alexandrian school is more likely to be the author than Callimachus. The
mention in 1. 20 of ἥδ᾽ ὀλοὴ βούβρωστις as the cause of the speaker’s misfortunes
recalls the story of Erysichthon as told by Callimachus in A. Dem. 31 sqq.; in
Ἰ. 102 there the ravenous hunger of Erysichthon is described as κακὰ βούβρωστις,
and some further resemblance may be found between the following lines 105-6
χῆραι μὲν μάνδραι, κενεαὶ δέ μοι αὔλιες ἤδη τετραπόδων and 1]. 18-19 of the papyrus:
but this may be ἃ coincidence.

4

φῆ δέ of ἄσσον [ἰοῦσα, τέϊκος, τέκοϊς, ο]ὔ σε ἔοικε

δευόμενον T.[....- ] τόσον παρ[ὰ maida νέεσθαι,
τῷ οὐ χεὶρ ὀϊρ]έγειν ἢ ofr] ἀρκέει] οὐϊδ]ὴὲ μὲν αὐδὴ
ΒΡ BU ats ΠΕ ρτΩ pir ἢ ὁ Ἱμο. [.1. . - τ] κε δοίης
5 τὸν δὲ ye.jev.[.....-. 1. ὁ μὲν θάνεν ὅς μιν ἔφυσϊ εν
εν μενοιτεν .[..... ἀν]ὴρ πρωιζὸν ὁδεύων"
ἀ τὴ δ. ov 9.1. }μ[.}ρ[.:ὲ..Ὁ... | ἐλπωραὶ δ᾽ ἐάγησαν

ἡμετέρης βιοτῆϊς, αὖον δέ μοι οἶκος ἀῦτεῖ.
ἄλλοτε γὰρ ἄλλο[ζι]ς ὄλβ[οϊν λάχος ἀνθρώποισιν"
10 οἵη τοι πεσσοῖο δίκη, το[ήδε καὶ ὄλβου"
πεσσ[ὸ]ς ἀμειβόμενος [π]οτὲ μὲν τοῖς, ἀλλοτε τοῖσ[ν]
εἰς ἀγαθὸν πίπ[τει] καὶ ἀφνεὸν αἶψα τίθησι

T12 - TRE \ONYRAYNCHUS: PARYVRE

προσθενανολβειοντευη φενεοντί. Ἰδανολβον
τοιοσδεινωτησιπερῖ. . ρεφεταιπτερυγεσσιν
15 [-λβοσεπανθρωπουσί. εΙἸλονδεξαλί. “Ἰνοφελλει
ηδαυ.Ἰηπολεεσσιπί. . Ὡνκαισειτονορεξᾳ
τηνορααισεπιουτιλιπί. (Ἰνητισπαροσηα
εσκεδεμοινειοσβαθυλ] .Ἰοσεσκενᾳ.Ἰωηι
πολλαδεμοιμηλεσκεί.Ἰαμενδιαπαντακεδασσεν
20 ηδολοηβουβρωστισεγωδακομιστοῖ. «Ἰλητισ
[-] . ἐποθιπληθουσαναναπτολινεΐ. . . (Ἱρπωι

1-21. ‘She went up to him and said “ My son, my son, being so much in want of...
you should not go to a child, whose hand cannot proffer food, nor his voice .. . I myself am not
. . ., but the hopes of my life are broken, and my house gives a dry sound. Sometimes
to one man, sometimes to another falls the lot of wealth. The way of wealth is as the way
of a die, which in turn brings a lucky throw now to one now to another, suddenly making
rich the man who was before poor, and making poor the man who was enriched. Even so
on wheeling wings goes wealth up and down. among men, prospering first one, and’ then
another. I whom you see have given drink and food to many, for formerly I was no
outcast, nay, I had fields where the crops stood deep, I had a threshing-floor, and sheep
in plenty; but they were all made havoc of by this baneful famine (?), and I, an uncared for

77

wanderer, creep thus about the crowded city”.

>

1. Of the letter before ce there is only a very small vestige, and e.g. ἦ could equally
well be read, but od seems required by the sense.

3. The restoration of ὀρέγειν σῖτ᾽], for which cf. 1. τό, was suggested by Housman.

4. Kes OF perhaps σε. >

5. Tov is possible in place of τον.

6. If or is rightly read there must be some error. our is an alternative, perhaps also
on though the latter is less suitable.

7. There may have been only one letter (ν ὃ) between ov andy; at any rate there is
no room for οὐκ [εἴ]μ, +, @, or Ψ may be read in place of the following doubtful p.

8. adjov . . . drei: the Homeric phrase, which is used of metallic sounds, has here
a rather different but quite intelligible sense. There is not room for xeve|év.

9. γάρ might be altered to rap’, but the a is perhaps lengthened as 6. g. in Homer B 39
θήσειν yap ἔτ᾽ ἔμελλεν, H. Dem. 57 φωνῆς yap ἤκουσα. Cf. 1. 12, where καὶ ἀφνεόν, as Housman
observes, also has Homeric analogy (e.g. 2 641, H. Dem. 424), though the loss of re after
πίπτει would be easy.

13. ἀνολβεῖν and εὐηφενεῖν are apparently unattested. The latter can of course be
eliminated by writing εὐηφενέ᾽ ὄντ[α]. ᾿

14. δεινωτησι must be corrected to δινητῆσι or δινήεσσι. The ὦ is broken, but 7 cannot
be read. :

17. Cf. Callim. Fr. 66 ε οὐ γάρ μοι πενίη πατρώιος, οὐδ᾽ ἀπὸ πάππων εἰμὶ λιπερνῆτις.

19. The verb presumably refers to the substantives of the preceding line as well as to
υῆλα, to which it is more strictly suitable. Cf. Soph. Az. 287, where Jebb’s assertion that
διασκεδᾶν ‘ could not possibly be joined with γῆν is unconvincing.

1794. NEW CLASSICAL FRAGMENTS 113

πρόσθεν ἀνολβείοντ᾽, εὐηφενέοντ[ α] δ᾽ ἄνολβον'

τοῖος διν(η)γτῆσι περ[ιστ]ρέφεται πτερύγεσσιν
15 [ὄϊλβος ἐπ’ ἀνθρώπους, [ἄλ]λον δ᾽ ἐξ ἄλ[λο]ν ὀφέλλει.

ἡ δ᾽ αὐ[τ]ὴ πολέεσσι πίοτὸ]ν καὶ σῖτον ὄρεξα

τὴν ὁράας, ἐπεὶ οὔτι λιπερ]νῆτις πάρος ἦα,

ἔσκε δέ μοι νειὸς βαθυλ[ή)ιος, ἔσκεν ἀϊλ]ωή,

πολλὰ δέ μοι μῆλ᾽ ἔσκε, [τ]ὰ μὲν διὰ πάντα κέδασσεν
20 ἥδ᾽ ὀλοὴ βούβρωστις͵ ἐγὼ δ᾽ ἀκόμιστοϊς ἀϊ]λῆτις

[ὡ]δέ ποθι πλήθουσαν ἀνὰ πτόλιν εἶ... ἕρπω

1795. ACROSTIC EPIGRAMS.
Col. ii 22-3 17-8 cm. First century.

Three fragments from two columns, one of which is practically complete,
containing epigrams of precisely the same kind as those in 15, and perhaps
belonging to the same collection. Each epigram consists of four hexameters in
which the final foot is an iambus instead of a spondee or trochee (ἑξάμετροι μείουροι),
and, as also in 15, each is followed by the words αὔλ(ε)ι wor. Another feature
common to the two papyri escaped notice when 15 was edited, and seems not
to have been observed since. The initial letters of the successive quatrains are
in alphabetical order, Col. ii including the letters [Θ] to Z, while 15. ii includes
X, ¥, ©, and so terminates the series. Whether the two papyri preserve different
portions of the same collection is an open question. The absence of any
coincidence in 15. i with 1795. ii is no argument against identity, since 35 lines
would intervene between 1795. ii. 27 and 15. ii. 1, 50 that, unless the column in
15 exceeded 40 lines, no overlapping would occur. But of course the number of
such collections current at Oxyrhynchus need not be limited to one. The
epigrams, which are well turned and include some memorable lines, are on a
variety of topics without logical sequence. Some have a hedonistic tendency,
others contain moral reflections or maxims of conduct. Similar subjects occurred
in the specimen previously discovered; cf. ii. 12-15 with 15. i. 7-10, 11. 1-4
(music), ii. 24—7 with 15. ii. 6-9 (instability of wealth).

The two minor fragments, of which one certainly, and probably the other |
also, is from the top of a column, are regarded as preceding rather than following
the main piece on account of the handwriting, which in the upper part of Fr. 1 is
distinctly smaller and neater than towards the end, where it begins to approximate

1 That avAepo in 15 is probably to be regarded as two words, not one, was pointed ont by Wilamowitz,
Gott. gel. Anz. 1898, p. 695.
I

14 THE OXYRHYNCHUS PAPYRI

to the larger and more irregular formation of Col. ii. If this indication is not
deceptive, the three stanzas of Fr. I began respectively with the letters A, B, I.
The script is an upright informal uncial of an early type, with some tendency to
cursive forms, notably in ε; it may be assigned to the first century. One rather
doubtful instance of a mark of elision occurs in ii. 3. The first line of each
quatrain is made to protrude by a couple of letters into the left margin. On the ~
verso is a partially obliterated account in second-century cursive. There is also
an illegible half line in cursive, which apparently has nothing to do with the
literary text, on the recto above Col. ii.

Col. i?
Ἐὺπ: 0. Pee:
| κεφαλη στεφαναΐ Ἰν
jv μετα Tov pedavios ]
Ἰκω και κλωνια Ϊ Ἰνω
jo μετα pov δυο κὶ ws αὖλι pofe
5 lows φανερω yap e. [ 5 Jol... .Jou
71. οἱ Kat σισατε ταί isa deaths ]
κων avepov tc. [ Ἰεσας
]s περι δακτυλον [ Ἰης αὖὑλι pole
πἸλοκαμοὺυς λευκΐους
10 ] Oavew οτι ral
je youvara v .[
Ἰσσοθεῖ
ΤῊ
Col. 11.

μηδ αδικιν ζητει μηδ αν αδιίκη πρ)οσερισης
gevye φονους καὶ φευγε μαχας φ[ι]σαι διαφρονε[ε]ν [
εἰς δ᾽ ολιγον πονεσεις και δευτερον ov μεταμελη αὖἱΐλι μοι
[δ] {Πὲς cap χειμωνα θερος tavt εστι διολου
58 ἥλιος autos ἰεδυ] και νυξ Ta τεταγμεν απεχει
μη κοπια (nrev ποθεν. ἡλιος ἡ ποθεῖν] υδυρ ᾿
adda πῖἴο]θεν το] μυρον Kat τοὺς στεφανουΐς] αγορασης αυὖυλι μοι]
κρηνᾶας avropuirolus μελ[ιτῆος τρις ἡθελον εχειν

1795. NEW CLASSICAL FRAGMENTS 115

ε
mev7||]| γαλακτορυτους ovov δεκα δίωδεϊῖκα μυρου
10 και δυο πηγαιὼων vdaT@y και τρις χιονεῖν ων
mala κατα κρηνὴν Kat πάρθενον nOedov exe avr pole
Avdios avdos evo ta de Avdia παιγματα λυρας
ka[t] Ppvyliols καλαμος ta de Tavpea τυμπανα Tove
TAaUTA (oy σαι τ ἐρομαι Kal οταν ἀποθανω
15 avdov ὑπερ κεφαλης θετε μοι παρα ποσίσδι de λυρην avr μοι
μετρα τι["] αν mAovTov παλι ἀνευρατο μετρα πενίας
ἢ τις εν ανθρωποις χρυσον παλιν evpato μετρον
νυν yap 0 χρήματ εχὼν ετι πλει]ΐονα χρηματα θελει
πλουσιος ὧν ὃ ° Taras βασανισίδ]εται ὡσπερ ο πενης avaAlt μοι
20 νεκρὸν εαν ποθ LOns καὶ μνηματα κωφα Tapayns
κοινον ἐσοπτρον opacs) ο θανων ουτῶς προσεδοκα
0 xpolvjos ἐστι δανος το ζην πικρὸς εσθ o δανισας
kav ToT απαιτησαι σε θελη κλαιων [αἸποδιδος αυλι μοι
Ξερξης nv βασιλείυ]ς o λεγων Ati παντα μερισαι
25 οὗ δυσζ) πηδαλ|ι]ο[ ]ς μονος ἐσχισε Δημνιον υδωρ
ολβι(οὴς nv o Midas τρις ὃ ολβιος nv ο [ΚἸινυρ[α]ς
adda τις εἰς Aida οβολου πλεον ηλυθεν exwv αὖλι μοι

Fr. 1. 4. ]. per ἐμοῦ.
6. e.g. Ἶλοι, Ἰμοι.
9. This quatrain evidently deals with old age and the approach of death ; cf. ii. 20-3.

Fr. 2. As stated in the introduction, this fragment, like Fr, 1, is probably from the top
of the column, since otherwise, unless the line preceding 1. 1 was abnormally short, some
part of αυλι μοι should be visible. The spacing of the lines is also suitable.

Col. ii.

‘Try not to injure, and if you are injured, do not retaliate ; shun murder, shun strife,
avoid discord, and you will have little trouble and moreover will not repent. Pzpe me
@ tune.

‘ You see spring, winter, summer: these are general. The sun himself sets and night
takes her appointed place. Toil not to seek whence comes the sun or whence the water, but
where you may buy perfume and garlands. Puzpe me a tune.

‘I should like three welling founts of honey, five of milk, ten of wine, twelve of
perfume, and two of spring water and three of snow ; I should like at each fount a boy and
amaid. 126 me a tune.

‘A Lydian flute serves me, and Lydian strains of the lyre, and Phrygian pipe, and
drum of oxhide. While I live I long for these to play, and when I die, put a flute above
my head and at my feet a lyre. Pzpe me a tune.

I 2

116 THE, OXYRAYNCHUS PAPYRI

‘Who has found the limits of wealth, who the limits of poverty, or who has found the
limit of gold among men? For now he who has money wishes for still more money, and
the rich man, poor wretch, is tormented like the poor. Puzpe me a tune.

‘If ever you see a corpse or pass a silent tomb, you are looking at a common mirror ;
the dead man’s expectation was as yours. Life is a loan: the lender of life is stern, and
when he wants to demand it back, in sorrow you will repay. Pzfe me a tune.

‘ Xerxes was a king who said that he shared the sovereignty of Zeus, and he sailed
over the water of Lemnos with but two boats. Rich was Midas, trebly-rich was Cinyras,
but who went down to Hades with more than an obol? 0726 me a tune.’

1. πρίοσερισης : the remains of the termination are scanty, but seem too much for -ca.

2. For d:appove[ty cf. Hesych. διαφρονέων" διανοούμενος. καὶ ὁ ἐν διαφορᾷ τινι γεγονώς.
The reading, however, is far from certain, a being especially doubtful; the letter after ὃ may
well be v.

3. μεταμελῇ as an irregular future form would balance πονέσεις better than μεταμέλῃ.

6. 1. ὕδωρ.

7. The first σ of στεφανουΐ-] is a correction, perhaps from a partially formed. Cf. 1. 15,
where there is an unnoticed lipography.

13. tavpeia is a drum or something of the kind in Geop. xv. 25. 3. .

14. ζων provides a good antithesis, but the ¢is not altogether satisfactory and the other
remains are very scanty. 1. ἔραμαι.

15. |. λύραν : the correct form was written in 1]. 12.

16. 1. τίς for mad, which has come in from the next line. For the tmesis cf. e.g.
Eurip. H. 25. 1055-6 ἀπολεῖ πόλιν, ἀπὸ δὲ πατέρα.

18. Cf. Eurip. Suppl. 238-9 οἱ μὲν ὄλβιοι... πλειόνων τ᾽ ἐρῶσ᾽ ἀεί.

19. ]. βασανίζεται. Perhaps Bacano| ζεται was written.

20, 1]. ποτ΄. ἰδεῖν is one of the words often wrongly aspirated, being influenced no
doubt by ὁρᾶν, 6. g. Philipp. ii. 23 és ἂν ἀφίδω ; cf. Mayser, Grammatih, p. 201.

22. Cf. Anth. Pal. App. 252 πνεῦμα λαβὼν ddvos οὐρανόθεν τελέσας χρόνον ἀνταπέδωκα, and
for δανισας e.g. Anth. Pal. xi. 309 φεισάμενος δανίσας.

23. 1. κἄν wor’. The (Ionic) forms διδοῖς, διδοῖ occur e.g. in the LXX, Ps. xxxvi. 21,
Job xxxiv. 11.

26. s of ολβις was converted from o. -ἰς for -ἰος is a common vulgarism.

27. τις seems inevitable here, but the remains suggest ε rather than s. This may be
deceptive, but possibly « was written twice by mistake instead of σε.

1796. HEXAMETER POEM ON EGYPTIAN BOTANY.
21X35 cm. Second century.

The recto of this papyrus contains remains of three columns, the second of
which is nearly complete, from a list of abstracts of contracts or other transactions
concerning property, drawn up in the first half of the second century. The verso
is inscribed with two columns of a hexameter poem dealing with Egyptian plants
or trees. Col. i, besides lacking fhe beginnings of lines, is in bad condition, and
does not seem worth reproduction ; the second column, which is in much better
case, is printed, and will probably be found a sufficient sample. Apparently the
upper half of the column relates to the cyclamen, which was also the subject of

1796. NEW CLASSICAL FRAGMENTS 117

at any rate the greater part of the preceding column (πολυγλαγέων κυκ[λαϊμείνων
1. 9, κυκλάϊμεινος 1. 12; the form θέρμεται in 1. 19 deserves to benoticed). At 1.12
of Col. ii the writer turns to the persea tree, to which the rest of the column is
devoted. The style is diffuse, and the poem must have been of considerable
length if many subjects were treated ona similar scale. Its author is hardly
likely to be identified, nor need the loss of his name be regretted ; his work
seems to have been of small merit, whether from the literary or scientific point
of view. ᾿

The text is written in a heavy upright semicursive with no diacritical marks
other than the diaeresis. A short oblique dash is once used apparently for
punctuation at the end of a line in Col. i, and paragraphi were also employed.
Corrections in the body of the text are frequent, and there are also some
marginalia in a closely similar if not identical hand: 1822, which was found at
the same time as this papyrus, presents some-analogous features.

[ae
εσθανετα[ι] ποταμου yap επηλυσιν ny ὃ απολειπηι
ι
ριζησιν μεγαλησιν ate φρονεοντι λογίισμωι
Ak €
πλεῖον vdwp εἶ νι]]ουσα πολυπληθι τοτε καρπω
σ
αλλ οὐκ εσθ ore καρπον εφεδρευουσι λαβεσθαι

5 ἀνθρωποι χαοντες εἰυ]γτραφεων κυκλαμεινων

ε
πολλη yap Νειλοιο χυσις πολλὴ ὃ emt σιτω επί
αφθονιη τετανυσται εποιεεν δὲ γελωσὰα

ευθενιην ov καρπος emt χθονα πασαν οδευει δαλ
α

ὠγυγιος νομὸς oVTOS am apxXalwy ετ ἀνάκτων
ο
10 θεσθαι δενδρεα κεινα παρ αλληλοισι κολωναις

ἐλ οι '
χώματος ευ] αἸ)δρ[[ υ]}0 wedny αλκτηρα τε λειμου evy
ἔα τ᾿ ioe Tow δροιο
mepoin ὃ ἀκμητος ὑπὸ χλοερο[ υν]] πετηλοις
αι χλοεροισίι
εὐῴορεοι καρπω περικαλλεῖ μηδε πεπί εἰ νοι

ω
μέχρις επανθησΐ ουὐ]σι κλαδοι προτεροι {de} περι καρπὸν
σ
Ι5 πειπτοι μηδ apa vuKtos oT ἐνγυθεν ορνυται ὕδωρ

118 THE OXYRHYNCHUS PAPYRI

ME€polns amo Kapmos atep Bapunyxeos avpns Aol
συμφερεται μουνὴ yap αθωπευτωι de yeynbev περιηΐ
αδροσιη καρπὸν yap um αδροσιησι πεπαίνει aii
ο
σημα και ημεριης ευειδὲ!. 5 eyyus {ε}ιδεσθαι
20 Νειλου πλημύυροντος vdwp νεὸν εὐτε πιουσα
καρπον am οφαλμοιο ὑ͵εΐωι συνανηκατο βλαστω ae

t
ἡερος ακρισιησι προσ. gd: . [.jec ὃ ἐπι κηπῶι

1. There is not enough to show whether the initial ε written by a common confusion
in <a Oavera{ ¢| was deleted. The subject of ἀπολειπηι is 6 ποταμός.

2. In the margin in front of this line is a ὃ or a having the third stroke protracted
downwards; the meaning of this is obscure.

5. xaovres is perhaps for χατέοντες.

6. cero, if that is right word, is for σίτου. en|(?) in the margin looks like
a correction of or variant on em cero.

7. 1. ἐποίησεν" ev. might be read instead of ex, but seems no easier.

9. ὠγυγιον Was apparently written originally. ‘To what δαλί in the margin refers is not
clear; the letters are slightly above 1. 9, but nearer to it than to 1. 8.

10. devSpea is unexpected, since the subject under discussion both here and in the
previous column appears to be the κυκλάμινος; cf. int. Perhaps, however, this was
a digression; Dioscorides describes one variety of κυκλάμινος as growing in shady places,
μάλιστα δὲ ὑπὸ τὰ δένδρα, and another as having καυλοὺς παχεῖς, γονατώδεις, περιειλισσομένους
τοῖς παρακειμένοις δένδρεσιν ἑλικοειδῶς (ii. 193-4). The cyclamen then may have been brought
in here in connexion with some tree, to which δένδρεα κεῖνα goes back. The tree, as
Housman remarks, might be the ἄκανθα, which is planted on modern embankments because
the roots bind the soil.

12. περσ(ελιη : cf. e.g. Nicander, Al. 99 περσείης κάρυα, 58.7. The persea, which was
an exclusively Egyptian tree (Strabo xvii, p. 823, includes it among the ἰδιάζοντα of the
country), is described at length by Theophrastus, H. P. iv. 2-5, who says that it κάρπον φέρει
πολὺν καὶ πᾶσαν pay" περικαταλαμβάνει yap ὁ νέος ἀεὶ τὸν ἔνον : this illustrates the epithet
ἄκμητος here. It seems to have become a rarity by the fourth century (58; cf. Wilcken,
Archiv i, p. 127) and was protected by an edict of Arcadius (Cod. Iust. xi. 77).

The interlinear insertion is difficult both to decipher and to explain; χλοεροισι, as
written in the margin, must in any case be read. The first o of the marginal lection has
been corrected.

13-14. According to Theophrastus, 1. ο., the fruit πέττει ὑπὸ τοὺς ἐτησιάς. 1. πρότερον ὃ

15. 1. ἔγγυθεν. σ was written over v by mistake for γ.

17. Both this and the preceding marginal note are obscure. αθωπευτωι = ‘ harsh’, as
in Anth. Pal. vi. 168.

19. ἡμεριης = ἡμερότητος, ‘culture, resulting in continual fruitfulness, of which a wild
tree would not be capable (Housman) : this substantive does not occur elsewhere.

21. The interpretation of the abbreviation in the margin is doubtful.

22. ακρισιησι = ‘fluctuations’? The next word is puzzling. If ¢ is right, the letter
between this and o was quite narrow (? +). The penultimate letter seems to have been
corrected, and ε is very uncertain.

1797. NEW CLASSICAL »\ FRAGMENTS 119

1797. ANTIPHON SOPHISTES, Περὶ ᾿Αληθείας, i?
22:4 X 16-3 cm. Early third century.

These two columns of a philosophical work belonged to the same find as
1364, the fragments of the sophist Antiphon Περὶ ᾿Αληθείας, but owing to obvious
differences both in handwriting and in the length and width of their columns, the
two papyri were not supposed to be connected. Further investigation, however,
now suggests that they represent the same author, if not actually related them-
selves. The subject of this new piece is the ethics of legal evidence, the justice
of which is controverted in opposition to the current view. If justice consists in
not wronging others when not wronged oneself, then, it is contended, to give
adverse evidence, even when the evidence is true, is essentially unjust. A person
so convicted is injured, and his resentment may result in further injury to the
giver of the evidence. Legal procedure in general, which benefits one man at
the expense of another, is vitiated by similar injustice. This sophistical argument
is quite in the manner of 1864, where Antiphon, starting from another definition
of justice as the observance of law, maintains that this is a matter of expediency
and that, so long as the breach is unobserved, the law may be broken with
advantage; cf. Part XI, pp. 92sqq. In style also the present text recalls 1364 ;
see op. cit., Ὁ. 95, where the literary estimate of Antiphon found in Hermogenes,
De ideis, ii. 11. 17, and the stylistic analysis in E. Jacoby’s De Antiph. Soph.
Περὶ Ὁμονοίας, pp. 48 sqq., are considered in relation to that papyrus. Among
special characteristics the sophist’s tendency to poetic rhythm is exemplified in
11. 10-11, 16-18, 47-9, and 51-3 below, and his partiality for synonyms in ll. 64-5.
It may be worth noting that the expression ἐν τούτῳ, which seems to have been
rather favoured by the author of 1797, is found also in 1864. 272. No instance
occurs of ξύν or σύν ; the spelling rr, used in 1864, appears once 1π|1.. 52... The
ascription to Antiphon thus seems sufficiently likely on internal evidence, and
some external marks of relationship between the two papyri, in addition to the
fact that they were found in close proximity, are also forthcoming. Though the
hands are not identical they are of the same type and are certainly very close in
date. The column in 1797 isabout 3 cm. longer and 1 cm. broader than in 1864,
but the height of the papyrus is approximately identical.. Breathings, accents.
and marks of quantity, which are rare in prose texts, have been occasionally
inserted in both papyri, apparently by a second hand, to which may be also due
the punctuation by means of high or medial dots (in 1864 one instance occurred
of a low dot). The possibility is suggested that the same hand made these
additions in both texts; in that case 1797 might actually be a later section of the

[20

same roll as 1864, which is shown by a stichometrical figure to have belonged
to the earlier portion of the book ; or alternatively 1797 may be supposed to be
from another treatise of Antiphon, the Πολιτικός or the Περὶ Ὁμονοίας, this copy
being more or less uniform with that of the Περὶ ᾿Αληθείας (1864) and belonging -

THE OXYRHYNCHUS PAPYRI

to the same owner.

Io

15

20

Col. 1.
Fie, deena oe ] του δικαιου
ἰσπουδ]αιου δοκουν
τος τοὶ μαρτυρειν
εν αλ]ληλοις ταληθη

[

[

[δικαιοὴν νομιζεται
[εἰναι] και χρησιμον
[ουδεν] ἡττον εἰς
[τα των] ανθρωπων
[emiT|ndevpara:

τουτο] τοινυν ov δι

Kalos| €oTaL O ποίων.

kat yalp To μὴ αδικειν

[

[

[

[mndleva μη αδι
ἰκουμενον autor
[δικαιον ἐστιν: avay
[kn] yap Tov μαρτυ
ἰρουντα Kav adn
θη μ)]αρτυρη- opes
αλλον] πως αδικειν-
εἰκὸς δὲ ἢ] avtov a [

poly: ενεῖστι γε

[
[
[
[δικεισθαι [εἰς vote
[
[

ely wt δια τία um εκει

[vjov μαρτίυρηθεν
Ta αλισκίζεῖται o κα
ταμαρτυρουμενος"

Kat απολλυσιν ἢ

Col. ii.
ληθη μαρτυρίη
40 σας" και ov μοιΊον
τωι μίσει: αλλα και
οτι det αυτον τοῖν
alwva TavTa gu
λαττεσθαι τουτοῖν
45 60 κατεμαρτυρίη
σεν" ws ὕπαρχέεΪι
y aut εχθρος τοιοΐυ
Tos οιος και λεγειν [
και δρᾶν e τι δυνΐαι
50 Τὸ κακον auTov: Kale
τοι ταῦτα φαίνεται
OU σμικρὰ ovTa τα
δικηματα" οὔτε
ἃ autos αδικειται:
55 OUTE α αδικει" ov yap
Ζοιον τε τὰυτα τε δι
Kala εἰναι Καὶ TO μὴ
[Oley αδικειν μη
[de] avrov αδικεισθαι"
60 [αλ]λ avayKn εστιν
[η] Ta ετερα αὐτων
[δ]ικαια εἰναι: ἢ ap
φοτερα αδικα" φαι
νεται δὲ και το δικα
65 ely καὶ το κρινειν

και το διαταν οπως

1797.

χρήματα ἡ αὑτον
[Ola τουτον ον ουδεν

30 [αἸ]δικει: ev μὲν ουν
τουτωι τον κατὰ 70
μ]αρτυρουμενον
α

Ἰδικει. οτι οὐκ αδι

NEW CLASSICAL FRAGMENTS

121

αν περαινηται ov
[δ]ήικαια οντα" To yap
[αἸλλους ὠφελουν adr
[λους βλαπτει' ev δὲ
[rov|r@e οἱ μεν ὠφελου
[μενοῖ. οὐκ αδικουΐν
[

ται ot] de βλαπτομεῖνοι

[
l
[κο]υντα eavTov ἃ
[
[
[

35 [διίκει: αὐτος ὃ αδικει [αδικοΊυνταῖι . . . « --
ται υἱπο Tov καταμαρ Ee eee pre a ale a os
[rupnOlevtos οτι μι [ ον οἠ ttle ieee
[σειται] ὕπ αὐτου Ta [a
Br:
1 τους νομίους
‘, . , justice is regarded as virtuous and at the same time to testify to the truth

concerning one another is considered just and equally useful for human pursuits. The man
who does so however is not just. For it is just to wrong no one when one is not oneself
wronged ; and he who gives testimony, even if it is true, cannot help to some extent doing
a wrong ; and there is a probability that he may himself subsequently be wronged: this is
at any rate possible, in so far as the man against whom he testifies is convicted in conse-
quence of his testimony, and loses either money or life owing to a person whom he is in no
way wronging. Herein therefore he wrongs the man against whom testimony is given, that
he wrongs some one who is not wronging him ; and he is himself wronged by such a person,
because he is hated by him although he testified to the truth, and wronged not by his hatred
only but also because he must always be on his guard against this man against whom he
testified, regarding him as an enemy prepared to do what damage he can, either in word or
deed. These wrongs do not seem inconsiderable, either those received or those inflicted.
For it is not possible that these acts should be just and that not to do or receive a wrong
should also be just, but either one of them must be just or both must be unjust. Con-
demnation, judgement, and arbitration, whatever their upshot, are therefore seen not to be
just ; for what benefits some injures others ; and in this those who are benefitted are not
wronged, but those who are injured .. .”

2. [ἰσπουδΊαιου : ais rather more probable than », but e. g. [αξιεπαιίνου, which is suggested
by Murray, is not impossible.

20-4. The restoration proposed, if not altogether convincing, is fairly satisfactory.
It is not quite certain that a line is not lost between ll. 20 and 21, the lower half of the
column being detached, nor is it quite clear that in], 22 ἃ small dot after the first » was
intended as a stop. _av|rjov instead of εκειίν]ου would hardly fill the space in 1. 24.

28. αὑτὸν ἀπολλύναι is an intelligible expression, but with χρήματα preceding it seems
more likely than not that αὐτὸν (τὸν βίον) should be read.

122 THE OAVYRAYNCHUS ΡΑΡΥΔΙ]

34. eavrov appears to have been written, not adi[xolyvra[[s] avrov.

56. ravra: i.e, ταὐτά, bul ταῦτα is wanted; cf. 1864. 194, where the same accent is
given, though there perhaps correctly. Whether the marginal symbol, for which cf. e.g.
16. ii. 3, &c., has anything to do with the accentuation is doubtful.

Fr. That this scrap belongs to the same text as the preceding piece seems likely, but
is not certain.

1798. ANONYMOUS WORK ON ALEXANDER THE GREAT.

ΕΤ. 44 14:3 S4-6/em: Late second century.

These fragments from a historical work dealing with Alexander the Great
are written in a medium-sized informal hand, probably of the middle or latter
part of the second century ; on the verso is 1802, an alphabetical lexicon of rare
words, also in a semicursive but smaller script. - The copyist, as often happened,
tended gradually to advance the commencement of the lines to the left as he
proceeded, so giving the columns a slant to the right. Paragraphi are sparingly
used, but there are no stops, or other signs except the diaeresis. Two small
corrections occur (Frs, 10 and 14), one clearly, and probably both, by a second
hand. A stichometrical figure , i.e. 2,300, in the margin of Frs. 5-6. ii, is due to
the original scribe. Unfortunately the height of the column is unknown, but in
consideration of the size of the handwriting it is not at all likely to have
exceeded 50 lines and may well have been shorter. On the supposition that the
column did not extend beyond that limit, Frs. 5-6. ii was preceded by at least
46 columns which would occupy some 13 feet. Since the fragment concerned
apparently relates to the period of the battle of the Granicus, it is evident that
the scale of the work was very considerable.

The text on the verso proceeds in the opposite direction to that on the recto,
and did not extend over the whole of the roll, many of the smaller pieces
(Frs. 1-43) having the verso blank. Since some of these clearly refer to a period
prior to that covered by the fragments of which the verso is inscribed, they have
all been placed in a group before the latter. Presumably the lexicon, which was
of no small compass, was not completed. Of this group only two or three pieces
are sufficiently well preserved to afford a clear clue to their subject. Fr. 1
apparently describes the circumstances of the death of Philip, of which an account
is given differing somewhat from what is found in other sources; cf. the
commentary. In Fr. 2 some hexameter lines are quoted evidently in connexion
with the destruction of Thebes, which was ‘left without a habitation among men’.
Frs. 5-6 mention Spithridates, who was one of the Persian satraps opposed to
Alexander in the battle of the Granicus.

1798. NEW CLASSICAL FRAGMENTS 123

The main fragment is No. 44, in which are preserved the upper parts of five
successive columns, the fifth, however, represented by the beginnings of the
lines only; on the verso of this fragment are two columns of the lexicon,
containing words beginning with M (1802. 3). Col. i repeats the well-known
story of the physician Philip who, after having undertaken to prescribe for
Alexander when suffering from fever at Tarsus in the summer of B.C. 333, was
accused by Parmenion in a letter to the king of being in the pay of Darius.
Cols. ii-iv are concerned with the battle of Issus, which took place in the autumn
of the same year. A large lacuna intervenes between this and Fr. 45, which
mentions Alexander's passage of the Euphrates preparatory to the battle of
Arbela in September, 331 B.C. In the interval occurred the capture of
Damascus, the sieges of Tyre and Gaza, and the expedition into Egypt, to the
last three of which twelve chapters were given by Diodorus ; an allowance of as
many columns in the papyrus would certainly not be disproportionately large.
The remaining fragments are insignificant.

To the identity of the writer a clue remains to be found. Since these
fragments, so far as their contents are recognizable, are all directly concerned
with Alexander, it is a natural assumption that they come from one of the many
chronicles, historical or romantic, devoted to the career of that striking personality
rather than from a history of wider scope. The main Greek authorities for
Alexander are of course Diodorus, Arrian, and Plutarch, and on the battle of
Issus, with which the principal fragment of the papyrus is mostly concerned, we
have also the statements of Callisthenes which are criticized by Polybius xii.
17 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-Io, 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 Beitr. 5. Quellenkriuik des Q. Curtius Rufus
and Forschungen 5. Gesch. Alexanders, and more recently. by E. Schwartz in
Pauly-Wissowa, Realencycl. iv. 1871 sqq., and Riiegg, Beitr. 5. Erforschung der

'

124 THE OXYRHYNCHUS PAPYRI

Quellenverhalinisse in a. Alexandergesch. des Curtius. 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, of. 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 affrmable 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 (Gesch. 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 ll. 9-11), 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.
δέ 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, τό,
Fr. 45. 6). To hiatus he is indifferent. Some eccentricities like the poetical

1798, NEW CLASSICAL ‘FRAGMENTS 125

spelling amotumavifeww may be due to copyists, but the form ἀνελεῖ (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.

LRG ἘΣ
Ne λον Ἰτοὺυς μ[.]. [-. ΓΚ ΤΉ ΟΝ fas ee cee seit ch Sy rete
ae θ]εατίρ]ωι καὶ... Hesse! ROBY ΘΝ ΡΝ Δ τ δον
(2 λτ ο Ἰους ane... το κρυσι 2) feed ch rel τὴ:
ae Je περι Opoviov (Male μοῦ s,s.) Bales
Ξ ΕΣ Jw rors pi. . 5 [το]σουτο κακον δι...
_ ὧν π]αρεδωκε Ϊ [Ἰεκυλισ εἰν] Θηβαΐις
ποῦν: ] απετυπανῆι [κ]Ίαι δὴ OnBlak εν αν Ϊ
σαν αὑτοὴν το de copia [θρ]ωποισιν αοικοι |
[rou Φιλ)ππου θερα | [.. «Ἰδίκον 7 apvas τεῖ
10 [mover Bajar παρεδωκῖε το [.. .Jou οαρους τε Ae
δος: πΊερι τὴν ἷ.. ΡΟ] en: ple Se Spay uf
DRESS Se Ἰσκλί.
ΒΥ Ὁ: ΐ Prod
νουμί ee
εἰσιν | 2 On Jonny τέ
βαιων 1 Ἰ δημοσί
αἱ Ἰτουργοῖ
δ... alert
Ἰ διαί
Frs. 5-6.
(Ὁ. Col. ii.

κατα την [
ns εβασίιλευε ὃ
ov και αἱ

στί

126 THE OXYRHYNCHUS PAPYRI

τε και Σπιθα[ραδατ.
βαρβαροι καὶ
[εἸνοπλοι πρὶ

[τ]ην του σωμίατος ..

10 Ae yap poyl
joe των ELXO[Y τ ποτ εκ ?
Ἰι DARL ΠΑ cee TANF
θος τί
|e παρειΪ
] 15 οντεῖ
TPAi 'καὶ GMs). See a?
Ψ yovas εχΐ
Μακεδον
Fre 7: Fe. 9: Pr.g- Fr. τος
eros ἐϊπειν ἢ aul Ime Dart
εξελιπίε θη Τ. ακί ]Ἰ περιοῖ
τον ιπῖπον ? KA Ἰμουμῖ πεϊπτωκί
πρωτοΐ νηΐ Τ᾽. ε παρατί Ἰσωι αλί
5 0 αὐτοί 5 Tou 5 Ἰντων ουΪ 5 jrepov τὶ
[- - -Irl []- εἶ poral Ἐ yrued
Fr,: 11. Pye FE ig:
Col, it. Col. ii.
[pri jay)
xov pl ] peyal ἷλον τ
περιδῖ Jat κυανΐ ] paxns παρθεῖν
[“Ἰρονΐ ? αληἸθινουΐ Ἰπη n εκαΪ

1795. NEW CLASSICAL FRAGMENTS 127

Ετ. 1.4. ΕΥς 15. Fre ΠΩΣ ἘΠῚ i

εὐ κα 1. ραΐ see 1. νταῖ

δεινΐ με]γαληΐ jew σκε]να ζεῖ
μ ΑλεἸξανδρὶ Ἰγεινΐ νης δε

bellows “Japa Ἰταδ Ἰν ελατι

ραν οἴ |

Br. 18. Fr. 10. Fr. 20.
Pe... 1 Jarl. «
1 Περσικί Del Alregar
Ἰ μεικρῖ Jaz - [ [Sp JAov
πολΊλακις AL aah ke rape
5 Aa yalp 5 Ἰιμοῖ δ ἸΦι..
]. aac Ἰεστε Ἰκνί.
ἢ δικαίως [ Jos λει
1 emer κἴ Ἰταισυ οἷ
Ἰαμιον ἰ Ἰοσαί ΘῈ 21: Fr. 22.
το 7Ἶγου κει 10 = |e rol pyres 8 τὴ ea anes
Ἰαραμειῖ jou .1 Ἰευστί Ἰ. εὐ ex
Ἰομενᾳί a ee Jede{ Ἰγενοῖ
1. εδια Ἰημῖ Ἰναιωΐ
Ἰ. μεντί Ἶλιν πὶ
iy. Ὅς Fr. 24. Fr. 25. Fr. 26.
lope | Ἰειδὶ lyos ἵ.1 1.01
J. auf Jou τῇ jue] Ἱγασί
1. 70 y¢ Ἰν ολυΐ Ἰδοί Boul

THE OXYRHAYNCHUS ΡΑΡβΥββ)

Pray Fr. 28.
λιπὶ Ἰησὶ
τομῖ ]. νπὶ

Fr. 32 Fr 33
Ἰουΐ ici
Je. | Ἰευηΐ

ζι

Col:

ἢ ἐπιχειρ]ησειν avtov dap

μαΐκωι μελλοντος ὃ

avtjov διδοναι Παρμε

[

[

[

[νων διαῴορος wy τωι
[Φιίίλιππωι γραφει προς
[

AdjeEavdpov κελευων
φυλαξασθαι τουτον a
κουειν γαρ χείλια τα

λαντα Ζ4ᾳαρειον αὐὔτωι

Pe. 20:
Jes ol

Je ἐστί

Jeez]

Fr. 44.

σι

Fr. 520. ΕΣ

Ἰδακί
Ἱμενί 1. cdf

Ινθ. Ἰγαδί
Fr. 35 Fr. 36.
Ἰναι ? πίαυσα
Ἰτριαὶ Jovos
Hi, 40 Fr. 41
1. σι ]

Bel JaBou

(οἱ. 11.

ειἰχε τους Μακεδονας
εξηκοντα yap των βαρ
βαρων μυριαδε[ς] noav
οἱ δε Περσαι των Μοκε
δονων κατεφρονουν
Αλεξανδρος de πλησι

ον ορων τὴν κρισιν

εν αγωνι(αι) ἣν καὶ προς
evxas εἐτραπὴη Θετιν

1798. NEW CLASSICAL FRAGMENTS 129

10 διδοναι Kat την αδελ
φην γυναικα ε wt av
τον avedker Αλεξαν
δρος de λαβων τὴν ε
πιστολην και ovdevi

15 προσποιησαμίεϊνος
MEWACL 32> + Ss 2's Tes
Teal

Col. iii.
σαν ot Περσαι eta To
λοιπον των βαρβαρων
πληθος μεθ ovs οι ἕενοι
οἱ δε περι τον Ade€av
5 δρον ἱππεις μεν ἱππεὺ
σιν. πεζοι δὲ πεζοις
επηκολουθουν Kat το
πεδιον πληρες ἣν νε
κρων πολυ δὲ μερος
το των Μακεδονων emt
τας σκηνας τῶν βαρβα
[ρων wpunoev εἰς δι
[αἹἸρπαγην Tov εν avTa.s
[πληρεις ὃ ησαν ποικι
15 [λ]ης γαζης AdcEavdpos
[δ] ἐπιθυμων λαβειν
[Maplevov ἐδιωκεν pe
[ra δρομου πυθομε
[vos δὲ ηδὴ αἰυτον α[.]. ]

wo. [ ? Ade~av

Io

15

kat Nnpnidas και Nnpea
Kat Ποσειδωνα επικα
λουμενος ὧι Και TETPH
ρον αρμα εκελευσεν

εἰς To πελαγος avalya

γοντας ρειψαι εσφίαγια
ζετο δὲ και νυκτι kl...

Col. iv.
exovtTe um abepanielv
alas τηι εξης προσ[η]
νεγκε τις των υὑπασπίι]
στῶν λαβων παρα [βου]

5 Κολου aptov τρυφος [0]

| fe)

15

de δια την ενδίεια]ν
φαγὼν acpeves Trav
τες apa εἰπεν avOpw
ποι (wow noews a
πεθανον δὲ των μεν
Μακεδονων πεζοι
χειίλιοι και umes δια
κοσιοι Tov δε βαρβα
pov πεζοι μεν οὐκ ε
λαττοὺυς πέντε μυρια
δων ἱππεῖς δὲ τρισχι
λιοῖι τῶν δὲ ἕενων πε

15 pa και [

κοι.]α «οἷ

emo

130 THE OXYRHYNCHUS PAPYRI

και [ ev i
5 λουΐ βολί
επί 20 παιδὶ
5 lines lost κεδί
a.[ αλλοί
vab[ emre|
ceo fat σι tral
Fr. 45. Fr. 46.

babs fern Sale Joe seiva γὴν Ἰονΐ

κά ΤΑ Ὡς: Ἰασίκῇς 402%.’ Ἰοσμί
λυσας απαντας al... ε Ἰυτοτί
. βαινεν emt 4Δαρέιον Ἰντοιΐ
5 διαβας τον Ἐνφρίατην 5 τ τί
και μαχὴν αὐταῖι συν Ἰ. Kul
ante. δευτεραν [..... Ἰεσαί
[teow ow. θα ὡς : Aer . [
: Ξ ν ξ : |pooz|
ΤΡ ἦς A
Fr. 47. Fr. 48. Fr. 49.
μῖ Ἱμηθη τι πὶ 1.1
πὶ Ἰσαν [klara . pf Ἰανΐ
gal Tlo copa [ Ἰυσαΐ
και opi ΐ Ἰν αλλα τί ? Ade~av|dpov [
5 vos ki 5 1θεν αλ 5 jus Tol
τεμῖ Ἰβαλων [ Ἰεξι
την | jaz πυθοῖμεν 7.» |
pep juror [ el

1798. NEW CLASSICAL FRAGMENTS 131

ΕΥ. 50. Pri 51. Fr. 52. ΕΥ. 52. Fr; 54.
ἀπο νἀ 1} pol wf με Jeol
Ed)Aada ‘x Ἰοιηΐ Ἰκοῖ |. αὖ Ἱπτοῖ
| παλιν εἶ tle yf jos

Fr. 1. The mention of a theatre in 1]. 2, in conjunction with the burial of (Ἶιππου in
ll. 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 of περὶ τὸν Περδίκκαν who συγκεντήσαντες ἀνεῖλον. Apparently,
then, the object of ἀπετυπανζισαν is some other person, whose identity is obscure; cf. Justin xi. 2. 1
Prima illi cura paternarum exsequiarum full; in quibus ante omnia caedis consctos ad
tumulum patris occid? tusstt. :

1 sqq. The length of the lacunae is estimated on the basis of ll. 8-10, which can be
restored with probability. In Il. 1-4 τους μ[εῖν | [ev τωι θ]εατίρ]ωι κα[[θημενους ame[du|[oe τους
(or ros) δ]ε may be suggested.

Ἰιν : Ἰων is not possible, and jay is unlikely. The doubtful μ may be A.

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 l, 6 ended with -xe, it was rather shorter than its
neighbours.

7. The spelling ἀποτυπανίζω 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 ll. 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 ; κυλισε[ι] would not fill the lacuna. ;

3. The vestige after o is indecisive ; « or « would be suitable, but other vowels are not
excluded.

4. β is preceded by a vertical stroke consistent with ἡ, 1, ν, and is followed by the base
of another short vertical stroke ; Θ]ηβηί would be quite suitable.

6. Cf. Homer P 688 πῆμα θεὸς Δαναοῖσι κυλίνδει, C. 1. G. 6280 A 35 στυγερὴν δὲ κυλινδήσει
κακότητα.

9. The first letter is more probably ὃ than 8. τ apvas is recommended by the apparent
repetition of re, but whether apvas or Αρνας should be written is not clear; cf. Homer B 507
(Tdpynv ap. Strabo 413).

10. No compound -οιμοαρος (e. g. κυδοιμόαρος) is known.

11. The first letter was ἡ, 1, or ν, and δρη was preceded by one of the same three
letters.

Fr. 3. 3. If βαιων is right, Θηβαίων is the natural restoration, but θαι wy 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.

K 2

132 THE OXYRHYNCAHUS PAPYRI

ii. 6. Σπιθαΐραδατ. .: 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, Σπιθριδάτης by
Arrian i. 15, 16 and Plutarch, A/ex. 16,

9. ul 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. 1864. 188, P. Grenf. 11. 11. il. 4.

Fr, 7. 3. tov ἱπῖπον : perhaps a reference to Bucephalas, but the fragment is too small
to be understood.

Fr. 10. 6. If the reading is correct, es has been amended to es, but es is by no means
clear, nor is it certain that the « is by another hand.

Fr. 12. 4. αληθινου is suggested by κυανΐ in the preceding line, but λιήθινου would also
be suitable.

Fr. 17. 4. Some case of eAari|vos presumably.

Fr. 18. There was a junction between two se/ides 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. Ade avdp . . is one of many possibilities.

Fr. 21. Like Fr. 18, this piece shows a junction between se/zdes along the right-hand
edge, but the appearance of the two fragments is otherwise not very similar.

Fr. 22. 3. This was apparently the last line of a column.

Fr. 24. 3. Perhaps Odv[umaéda, either as the mother of Alexander or a date.
Fr, 25, 1. a or a round letter like « or o is probable after i.

Fr. 36. τ. πἼαυσα: or possibly ΠΊαυσαίνιας ; cf. n. on Fr. 1.

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...’

1sqq. 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 [επιχειρησειν cf.
Plutarch, 7. c. ἐπεχείρησε φαρμακείᾳ, but αὐτὸν may mean Alexander (cf. Arrian, 2. ς. καθῆραι
ἐθέλειν ᾿Αλέξανδρον φαρμάκῳ), in which case another infinitive may have preceded, e.g.
ἐπηγγείλατο θεραπευσαι επιχειρΊησειν, or Ἰησειν may be differently restored, e. g. ὠφελΊησειν.

4. διαφορος wv: this detail 15 not given by the other authorities.

4. φυλαξασθαι is the word used also by Plutarch and Arrian, J. cc.

8-10. χείλια τάλαντα. . . Kat τὴν αδελφην : 50 Curt. mile falentis .. . οἱ spe nupitarum
sororis eius. Plutarch says δωρεαῖς μεγάλαις καὶ γάμῳ θυγατρός, Arrian χρήμασιν only.

12. The form ἑλῶ occurs in Aristoph. £7. 290 (περιελῶ), but otherwise belongs to
a much later period, e.g. Ὁ. Hal. xi. 18.

I4-I5. ovdex seems to be an error for οὐδεν, the meaning being similar to 6. g. that in
Polyb. ν. 25. 7 σαφῶς εἰδὼς . . ., οὐ προσποιηθεὶς δέ, A use οἵ προσποιεῖσθαι with the dative in
the sense of κοινωνεῖν 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...’

I. etye: SC. φόβος Or Some synonym. For the confidence of the Persians cf. Arrian
li. 6. 8 καταπατήσειν τε τῇ ἵππῳ τῶν Μακεδόνων τὴν στρατιὰν ἄλλος ἄλλοθεν αὐτῷ (SC. Δαρείῳ) ἐπαίροντες
ἔλεγον,. Plutarch, Alex. 20 ἀποκριναμένου δὲ Δαρείου δεδιέναι μὴ φθάσωσιν αὐτὸν ἀποδράντες οἱ
πολέμιοι, Diodor. xvii. 32 describes the effect of the disparity in numbers on the local
population, τῆς μὲν τῶν Μακεδ. ὀλιγότητος καταφρονήσαντες, τὸ δὲ πλῆθος τῆς τῶν Περσ. στρατιᾶς
καταπεπληγμένο. 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 παρεκαλεῖ θαρρεῖν, though it may be hinted at by Diodor. xvii. 33. 1 τῶν δὲ
κατασκόπων ἀπαγγειλάντων... τὸν Aapeiov ... τῇ δυνάμει προσιέναι καταπληκτικῶς : Cf. Justin xi. 9. 3
periculosius differre bellum ratus, ne desperatio suds cresceret.

2-3. εξηκοντα ... prptade[s]: so Arrian ii. 8. 9, Plutarch, A/ex. 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 ἢ. on ]. 1 above.

6 544. Cf. Curt. iii. 8. 20 Celerum, ut solet fiert cum ultimt discriminis tempus adventat,
im sollicttudinem versa fiducta est. Illam ipsam fortunam, qua adsptrante res tam prospere
gesseral, verebatur ... 1256 tn tugum editt montis escendit multisque conlucentibus facibus patrio
more sacrifictum dis praestdibus loci fectt. Kaerst, δ. δ.) 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 soll¢ctfudo nor ἀγωνία, 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).

g-11. Cf. e.g. Plutarch, Alex. 33 παρεκάλει τοὺς θεούς, ὡς Καλλισθένης φησίν, ἐπευχόμενος

.. ἀμῦναι. ‘The choice of deities on the present occasion is somewhat surprising, even when
allowance is made for the proximity of the sea (cf. Curt. Zc. ds praeszdibus loc’) 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 af. Arrian, Jud. 18. 11, where when
starting down the Hydaspes Alexander sacrifices to Poseidon, Amphitrite, the Nereids, &c.
(this no doubt is a genuine instance), and Azad. i. 11. 10, where he is said to have made
libations to Poseidon and the Nereids when crossing the Hellespont.

15. eoglayalfero δὲ καὶ vere: cf. the passage of Curtius cited in the ἢ. on ll. 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. εἰς φυγην ὡρμηΐσαν, which happens to be the phrase of Diodorus at this

134 THE OXYRHYNCHUS PAPYRI

point (xvii. 34. 7). The statement here is in substantial agreement with the account of
Arrian ij. 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 πᾶς ὁ συνεχὴς τόπος νεκρῶν ἐπληρώθη, but this was a con-
ventional phrase which reappears 6. g. xvii. 61. 2.

9-15. Cf. Diodor. xvii. 35. 1--2 of δὲ Μακεδόνες παυσάμενοι τοῦ διωγμοῦ πρὸς ἁρπαγὴν
ὥρμησαν καὶ μάλιστα περὶ τὰς βασιλικὰς σκηνὰς διὰ τὸ πλῆθος τῆς πολυτελείας ἠσχολοῦντο, κτλ.
Plutarch, Alex. 20 κατέλαβε τοὺς Μακεδόνας τὸν μὲν ἄλλον πλοῦτον ἐκ τοῦ βαρβαρικοῦ στρατοπέδου
φέροντας καὶ ἄγοντας ὑπερβάλλοντα πλήθει, Curtius ili. 11. 20.

18. δρίομου : the vestiges do not suggest o, but are not inconsistent with the irregular
formation of that letter as sometimes found in this text. μείχρι .] . 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., postguam et nox adpetebat et consequendt spes
non erat, At the end of 1. 19 the: broken letter might be «, ο, p, 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.
Bapews is to be supplied before εχοντι.

5. tpugos: the straightness of base in the final letter suggests ν rather than s, but the
masculine form is unknown.

9g 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, A/ex. 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 1, 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, af. 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 εξηΐκοντα is not impossible, though not very satisfactory.

v. The remains of this column are insufficient to afford a clear clue to its subject. In
l. το ev σσω seems not unlikely.

Fr. 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 A (1802. 2).

3. Perhaps αἶνω.

Fr. 46. Since the verso of this fragment contains words beginning with « (1802. 1) it
came later in the roll than Fr. 45.

1798. NEW CLASSICAL FRAGMENTS 835

Frs. 47-54 = 1802. 4-11. The character of the writing on the verso suggests that
Fr. 0 came from the neighbourhood of Fr. 48, and Fr. 53 from that of Fr. 49.

Fr, 49. 5. ο of ro has apparently been converted from ε.

Fr. 54, That this small piece belongs to 1798 is hardly certain.

1799. ORATORICAL FRAGMENT.

9-9 X9 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 ει, being of a thoroughly cursive
character; the MS. may fall within the second century. v at the end of a line |
#5 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 25’ 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 ll. 20-1, besides
minor errors. fai:

Col. i. Col. ii.
[let pretre'a σῖς Jeol. - eee eens
Yea Ἰ. γαῖ" .«...τοὖ
Popes ae Paavo
Net la δι |wpl.-- ee eee
] Ca ot ean ]- noe...
] . Ἰρετα τοτί. . . . ..
va ae ee |s On τα mp.[...
jac | [..-.]- + εἰς ὁπὲρ TO..--
Ἰν [Δημ]οσθενης τι δει καθ εκα
5 Je 10 στὸν λέγειν τῶν νἷ. - - - « -
Je προειρημενων n.[...--
ὃ amlag τετολμημένων [επειδη ?
ee Ta μὲν παρ a(v)rov Alex dev

.α τα αληθη και συμίφεροντα

136 THE OXYRHYNCHUS PAPYRI

10 jrov 15 δια TeAovs φαιν[ε]τίαι Ty
] emer πολει Kav εἰ καθ ekaloTov
Ἰεεμι.. αὐτὼ povw προσεσχομε
70[. -] TavT av εσωζετο εἰ ὃ ava
ie TeTpopo{v}TEs amavTa Kat
15 0 20 AeAvpacper[or nT]e Cavaitios ὃν
Ἰν ουτίο)σι ov yap..[...| παλιν Φι
|ra ἰλήππος ουδ au τολίμα]ι. Μακε
ΠΣ δονων ovd avdpayabia
1 TOV EKELVOU στρατηγων OU
20 le 25 0 η τῶν ἡμετερὼν ολιγωρι
1το a ovd ὡς ἡ δυναμις ἡ των
] exetvou θαυμαστὴ τις 7
de της πολεως ασθενης
] αὑτὴ yap εστιν ἡ και τον IIep
Ξ ; 30 σὴν εἐξελεσασα βασιλεα

yns και θαλαττης αλλ εἰ de
[το αἸληθες] εἰπεῖν το παν τίου
7 εἸγεινίετῖο δὴ μονον τ΄...

εἾγε «ἴ- . ε]αχί- « «61... εἶν.

--Je-[

[
[
35 [

g-10. «[a6 exaloroy is very uncertain, but seems to suit the construction. νἱ might
be e. 8. p[ cov.

11. Not ἡ τίων nor, apparently, ἡ και.

20-1. 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 ουτζο]σι ov yap is right, the apodosis may be
completed in some such way as suggested in the text; but there is barely room for the
second o of ουτζοϊσι, which, however, is sometimes written very small in this hand. At the
end of 1. 21 qu is not satisfactory, since more of the vertical stroke of ¢ would be expected
to be visible, though the surface of the papyrus is damaged here; moreover, λὲ can barely
be got into the lacuna at the beginning of the following line (the division Φιλίιππος would be
contrary to rule). But εκεινου in Il. 24 and 27 clearly point to a mention of the Macedonian
king earlier in the context. With regard to the word after yap, the ink in the first letter has
run somewhat and the reading is doubtful ; ηνΐ is perhaps more suitable than υμί but neither
is convincing.

27. 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. 3 271 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 /oc.), 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. 2. i, ii), Thucydides (Fr. 2. 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.11). 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. 1). 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—7th centuries ; cf. Collart, Rev. de Philol.
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.

ΕΥ, 1.
Col. i. Col. ii.
ΠΣ περιτὶ 13 letters ωσ ὃ
περι. Σ᾽ απφ])ους περ Χαμαιλεωΐν ...- -««-
[Σαπῴω το μεν yevos] nv Ae 80 TLos emAavnO[n......--
[oBia πολεως Se Μιτ]υληνης am αὐτου Aeye: [... Διολιδι ὃ
5 [warpos de Σ᾽ καμ]ανδρου κα διαλεκτωι KEexp[n...-- γε
[ra δε τινας Σ᾽ καἹμανδρωνυ γραφεν δὲ βυβλίια evvea μεν
ἵμου αδελῴφους ὃῚ εσχε τρεις λυρικα ελεγειωῖν de Kat αλλων ἡ
[Ερ]γνιον και Aalptyov πρε 35 εν
σβυίτατον de Xaplagov os dev >
10 σᾶς ¢fis Atyumroy] Ζωριχαι τι περι Σιμ[ωνιδοῦ
νι προσοϊμιλητ]ης κατεδα Σιμωνιδὴς To μεν [yevos ἣν
πανησὲν εἰς ταυτην πλει Kewos modews δὲ [ουΐλιδος
στα τον de Λαριχον (veov) οντα par πατρος δὲ Acomperrolus γεγο
λον nyanmnoey θυγατερα ὃ ε 40 νεν δὲ φιλαργυρος" τινες
15 σχε Κλειν ομωνυμον τῆι ε δ avtw τὴν τῶν μνίημο

αυτης μητρι κ[α]τηγορηται νικων εὑρεσιν προσίτιθεα

1800. NEW CLASSICAL FRAGMENTS 139

δ um ev{tja[v] ws ατακτος ov σιν" Kat autos de mov [Touro
[oa] τον τροπον Kat yuvatKe φαινει dia tov επιγίραμ
[pac|rpia την de μορφην 45 μα[τ]ων προσευρειν. δὲ φα
20 [ευ]καταφρονητος δοκει γε σιν [avjrov τινὲς και O.[...
[yovleva[e καὶ. δυσειδεστατή[[ν]} Κεῖ. . .loorov τῶν xd} απί..
[Tlnv μεν yap οψιν φαιωδης T.[.-].. ev. [1ησασἰ.ενΐ..

[υἱπηρχεν to δὲ peyebos >
μεικρα παντελως To ὃ αὐτο
25 ἰσυ]μβεβηκε και περι τον

ε-: |v ἐλαττω [. .] yeyova
[ 15 letters ]. np
Fr. 2.
Col. i. Col. ii. Col. iii.
BO. 13. φρο] τῶν Δελίφων....
ΕΣ Ὁ ] ευωνὺμ. [.... 1.
’ ; : : [early 8 atria τοιαϊυτη] 1} εἰ
|> Plnluevn {1} επαν [εισείλθηι
vf Tis] Tot θεωι θυσιασίων ol Aer
lov [ 35 Plok περ[Πεστηκασι τον Bo
]. ov plo vd €avTols μαχαιρας
Ε ο ἢν _ kKlolucgovres σφαγιασα 754+.)
jue > μένου de Tov ἵερειου και -[
Ἰρευ δειραντος To ἵερειον Kat
Ἰνυρου 40 Ta σπλαγχνα περιεξελο
Ἱμεν μενου οἱ περιεστωτες ε
19 Ἰανο KaoTos ἣν av ισχύσηι
€levan μοιραν αποτεμνομενος ᾿
Ἰμων αἀπεισιν ws πολλακις Tov
Ἰριτος 45 θυσιασαντα avrov ἀμοι
]. λει ploly απιί(ε)ναι τουτο ovy Αι
15 Ἰωνον [σ]ωπίο]ς Δελῴους ονιδ Πζων

Ἰυς λαμ ἐπεσκωψεν ed os διοργι

140

THE

Ἰντοις
Ἰον pv
? Ἰυσας δε

λ]ογων
? αποκριματων
] €av

Ἰμενοι

σΊοφι
le φιλοσο

1. προς

Ἰσεν

Int

4

50

60

=

65

0

OXYRHYNCHUS PAPYRI

σθεντες οἱ πολλοι λιθοις
autov βαλλοντες κατα
Κρημνου εωσαν μετ ov
πολυ δε λοιμικον παθος
ἐπεσκήψε τηι πολει χρὴ
στηριαζομενοις ὃ avTas
o θεος ανειπεν ov προτε»

pov ἰληξ]ειν τῷ νοσΐον με
Χχρις [av ΑΠισωπον εξιϊλασ
[κωντΊαι οἱ δὲ περιτει [>
[χισίαντες Tov τόπον [ev
[wr κατεπεσεν βωμοῖν θ ι
δίρυσαἸμενοι λυτηρι]οῖυς
της vorov ὡς ἡρῶι [ἤυσιας
T polo |nveyKkay

περι Θουκυδιΐδου
Θουκυδιδὴς το μεν γεῖνος
nv Αθηναιος mais ὃ ΟἾλο
ρου διαβαλλουσι δὲ τον πα
τερα αὐτου Θραικα οντα
εἰς A@nvas μετοικισθη
ναι δυνατος δὲ εν λογοις a

vnp (jesse aveypa
Wer τοῖν] γενομενον Abn
ναιοις [και] Πελοποννὴη»
ἰσιοις πολεμον

ἘΠ: 5.

80

25

Col. ii.
[yelvoapevos του φίαρμα »
[κου ovvTopws εξείπνευ
[σε] μέχρι τελ[ο]υς το της [ε

1800. NEW CLASSICAL FRAGMENTS 141

[-
5 [
[. .
[

Α4θηναιοι ᾿κενοταφίιον earn

σαν δημοσια εν A..f....

σι των Snpov

> °
Te) περι Δημοσθειο]υ[ 9]

Δημοσθενης ο ρητωρ Abn
valos μὲν ἣν Τὸ γενος
mais δε Δημοσθενουΐς Παι
avievs δε των Snpov
15 Κομιδηὴ δε νηπιος ὑπο»
Tov πατρος απελειῴφθη υ
mo επιτροπίοις] Ονητορι
και Αφοβωι γενίομενἾος
ὃ ep ηλικιας ee δε] [ξ]ατί ο]
20 τὴν εν λογοις δεινοτητα
κριναΐς τουῚς επιτροπίους
ὧν ενοσφισίαντο χρημα |
Tov [avrov εἾἶις δὲ το Bn [
μα [παρελθων] αἀριστία

Bsa Saab MAEES hime

cee oY ἐπὶ τῆς α. .Ϊ..

30

38

=>

40

[AclvOepras [αξ]ιωμα ὅϊια
[φ]υλαξας Αθηναιοι δὲ πα [
[λιν την ελευθεριαν a
νακτησαμενοι ετιμη

σαν avTov εικονα χαλκηΐν
αναστησαντες εν Κερα Ϊ
μικωι emlypappa τε [ev
στηληι ενεκολαψαν τοΐι
ovde εἰπερ ἴσαν yvopale
popav Anpoobeves εσχες
ουποτ av Ελληνων np>
ξεν Apns Μακεδων

περι Αισχινου

Αισχινης ο ρητωρ To μὲν γε *

45

5°

55

60

vos nv [44θ]ηναιος mats de
Ατρομητου Kat μητρος
Γλαυκοθεας πρεσβυτατος
tov αδελῴφων Φιλοχαρους
και Λαοφοίβ]ου κατ ἀρχας δε
ετριταγωνιστει τραγωιδοις
ὕποκρινομενος εὐφυης

ὃ ev λογοις γενόμενος
αντι TNS σκηνῆς TO τῶν
Αθηναιων βημα διεδε
ξατο γραφομενος de Krn
σιφωντα παρανομὼν

οτι μη δεοντως εστεῴφα
νωσε Anpoobevn χρυ

co: στεφανωι καίνοις
τραγωιδοις ov μεταλα
βων δὲ To πεμπτον με
pos των ψήφων φυγας
εἕξηει των Αθηνων
Δημοσθενης δε ov μνὴ

142 THE OXYRHYNCHUS PAPYRI

σικακησας ἐπι τοις γεγε
νημενοις To δε. αστατον
Tns τυχης ευὐλαβηθεις ε
65 [φοδΊιον αυὐτωι ἀργυριου
[ταλΊαντον προσέεπεμψεν
[ο de] ον δεξαμενος da
[κρυ]σεν πυνθανομενου
[δε τῆινος ἐπι τινι δακρυοι
70 [εἰπ]ε οτι τοιαυτης πολεως
[απαλλαττομαι εν ne Kat
[exOpok συνπαθε[στεροι
[φιλω]ν ευρισκίοντα)ι γενο
μενος δὲ ev] Ploda] ᾿σχολην

“δ᾽ lio οἰ ἀπο eee ae | Arrtkoy
[ie tego ress eae | Ῥοδιοις
Frs. 4+ 5. Frs. 6+ 7.
Col. i. Col. ii.
ναιοι : : : : - ᾿
μητί ΣΌΝ Ρ Ἰραΐς ἡ. acs seu
de τί [...? συὶν αυτωι απο Φυλης
κτοῖ [ἢ καταγοΐυσι τον δημον ὡς
5 λει [δε κατεϊλυθησαν οἱ τρια
ome... ++]. af 5 [kovTa] eypawer Wndicpa
rept] Θρασυβϊουλου [ΘρασυβΊουλος μεταδιδους
[αυτοις ἢ] τῆς πολιτειας a

OplacvBolvros trails μεν nv Δυκου
[ro de ylev[ols 4θηναιος Fre

10 [ptevs] de των δίημων. ..... [
PR eae 7. Ae πατὶ 10 [κ ετυχον ὃ της τιμης ὁ δὲ παν

ἱπροβουλευτου δὲ του ψη
gioparos| yevapevov ov

[

ΣΟ ΠΥ ΚΣ |. vas ayarn

[cals εληΐ. . .]1εν tos δικα» δ᾽
[

oT|nptois . .|js Kivduvev al
[τον ] ως ὃ εκωλυ

1 θην τι wale Ἱιψήφί ....

1800. NEW CLASSICAL FRAGMENTS 143

Fr. 8.
Col. i. | Col. ii.
Ἰμηι 20 abews [
Inde ευγενειαΐ ἐπει Oe ?
Ἰσθετα ἡ AOnvailwv στρατεια ? περι
Ἰοισιν Aapiav της [Θεσσαλιας
5 | απο συνητυχησίεν ὡς συνερ
Ἰοσχα 25 γος τῶι Δημοίσθενει wy
Ἰτους ὕπο Αντιπατίρου εν τοις
Ἴσπερ av dexa ρητορσι [ητηθὴ και παν ἢ
toy Αθηναι των ατυχησίας .....-
το [ων ] αναχθειῆς avros εν Μακίεδονιαι a
lav προσ 30 πωλετὸ Αθηΐναιοι de πα
Ἰ μετα τον ' [λιν την ελευθεριαν ανακο
θ]ανατον μίσαμενοι Kal... ++. av
am |odea[. .| [τον ανδριασιν ἐἰτιμησαν
15 por [περι] Λευκοκίομα ᾿
\ 35 Aevkloxop|as ro yelvos μεν
1τὰ nv Kpn{s] πολεωΐς δὲ Kya
Jre σου μιρζακισῖκος [de wy ev
1» ; πρεπηΪς
Fr, 9. τ. το.
Se Aloyos av... hee eee
ΚΟ ste) 05 ] πολιτευσία Ἰεδιδου
Ἐπ: Jot καὶ ἵἴδιζω Ἰανον τῆς
[των ουΐδενι τὴς ελειυῖθε Ἰς θανων
5 ἰριᾶς ««. στὴ ὡς de tore 5 |s παρα
[ Java jus v. [.

[

[44 THE OXYRHYNCHUS. PAPYRI

Fr. I1.

[1 - val

[περι 4βδηρου

ΑἸβδηΐρος —
κηι τὶ

5 εν ἴαωϊνιαι

εν Opa ?

καμ.Ϊ
αναΐ
τρεφί
yas αἱ
Fr. 12. Fr. 13. Fr. 14
[- -Jof Joevial Ἰυσιαΐ
γενεσίθα); απὶ Ἰρτατοῖ Ἰρμεν
ἐχόντων Tpal ε Ἰητηι. [
ρωτησιν αὑτος Ϊ Jo de την [
5 Waple|vol Fr. 15. 5 ]- ecor [
πενΪ.] . 1 Ἰντί
τωι [.Ἰαθειν Ϊ , prof ΤΡ τ
Tpolt|s xpnoal 7 \ral
μαρτεν ceo| Ἰθουΐ Fr, τό.
10 [γ]αρ θεασαμίεν Ἰγετοῖ ες he
[-1ν mpoBarol δ Japr . [ }-[
[εἸνξαμενοί ε Ἰυσιασί Ἰωρι
[Χ]θρον καθηΐ Aor] Ἰομενο . [
παι μη σαλί Ἰνεπεί Ἰν «1
15 - urn Ἰκωι of 5 1Ἰδημί
ove Ἰνγναῖ
LM |. neas οι
Pe. a7; Fr, τ. Fr, 19. Fr, 20.
5]... {] tree esl
πυλί σαντί ων και pl Ἰγενοῖ»

1800. NEW CLASSICAL FRAGMENTS 145

yeto| par vos τουσὶ σ)]υμφοραιΐ
εγλί των | θανε το al Ἰσει τας δεῖ
5 δικί 5 []ησαν Ϊ 5 lev τω εὐυἱ
Pit. οἷς Fr. 22. Fr. 23.
lity oe P|. |e mapade
Ἰμευσας [ 1. s δια των Ϊ ]α και ποσι
eyleveTo Kat avn εἸἰξυμνησ εἶ Ἰσισί. .7τοί.
Ἰλαβων φυ Ἰτινΐ
Br, 24. Fr, 25. eG. 1 ey a Fr. 28.
1 Ἰννχρὶ exe) freA ΤῊ
Ἰνγαὶ Ἰηλωι Ἰετηὶ Ἰξαμί το]
Ἰανεῖ αἸνθραΐπ Ἰκελ Ἰραΐ Ἰεξαί
a jrao| Ἱπερῖ Ἱματί
5 lel 5 lol 5 Ἰσσυΐ - 5 μια
ΒΤ 29. Fr. 20. Pr. τὸ
jedal Ἰκοι Ἰπειγ .Ϊ

wv Av ]-v Jar eav[t

Fr. 1. 2-26. ‘Concerning Sappho. Sappho was a Lesbian by birth, of the city of
Mitylene, and daughter of Scamandrus, or, as some say, of Scamandronymus. She had
three brothers, Erigyius, Larichus, and Charaxus, the eldest, who sailed to Egypt and
associating with one Doricha expended large sums on her ; but Sappho preferred Larichus,
who was younger. She had a daughter Cleis, so named after her own mother. She has
been accused by some of immorality and of being a lover of women. In appearance she
seems to have been insignificant and ugly, being of dark complexion and of very small
stature ; and the same happens to be true also of ..., who was undersized .. .’

4. Μιτ]υληνης : cf. Hdt. ii. 135, who calls her brother Charaxus a Mitylenean, Strab. xiii.

617, &c. According to Suidas and others her birthplace was Eresus.
5-6. Σκαμανδρου : this is known as a Lesbian name (cf. Dion. Hal. ix. 18, Lebas,

L

146 THE OXYRHYNCHUS PAPYRI

Inscr. Gr. 191) but is not attributed to Sappho’s father elsewhere. Charaxus is called the
son of Scamandronymus by Hdt. 7. ¢c., and this is one of the several alternatives in Suidas
to Simon, which he considered correct.

8. [Ep|[yuioy : in Suidas s.v. Σαπφώ, where alone this brother is mentioned, the name
is spelled Evptyos, and [E]v[p. could equally well be read here, but cf. Arrian iii. 6. 8
᾿Ερίγυιος 6 Aapixov, Diod. xvil. 81, 83; moreover in Suidas, Zc. the name of Sappho’s
father was according to some authorities "Hepiyvos, which is no doubt a corruption
of Ἐρίγ.

Aalpixov: cf. Suidas, 2 c., Athen. x. 424 f.

8-9. That Charaxus was the eldest is not elsewhere stated; Suidas puts the sons in
the order Larichus, Charaxus, Erigyius.

10. Αἰγυπτον suits the space better than Navkparw (Strab. xvii. 808, Athen. 596 Ὁ).
Awpixa occurs in 1231. 1. 11; cf. Strab, Zc. τῆς ἑταίρας... ἣν Σαπφὼ μὲν. . , καλεῖ Δωρίχαν
εὐνὴν ἄλλοι δ᾽ ὀνομάζουσι “Poddmy (ἄλλοι include Hdt. ii. 135; cf. Athen. 596 c).

II. προσοΪμ(ε)ιλησ]ας, which would be expected, cannot be read, the letter preceding s
having a vertical stroke consistent with 7 or «, but neither προσο μιλητ]ης nor προς ο[μιλιαῆις is
satisfactory with the dative Δωριχαι. Possibly a verb has dropped out, or προσομιλησὴς may
have been written in error.

13. An adjective is evidently missing; the loss of veov would be easy between Aapixov
and οντα.

15. Kkew: cf. Suid. 2 ¢, who also gives KA. as the name of Sappho’s mother,
Sapph. 85.

16-18. Cf. Suid. Δ ς. ἑταῖραι δὲ αὐτῆς καὶ φίλαι γεγόνασι γ΄... ., πρὸς ἃς καὶ διαβολὴν ἔσχεν
αἰσχρᾶς φιλίας. ᾿

190-24. Cf. Max. Tyr. 24. 10 Σαπφὼ... καίτοι μικρὰν καὶ μέλαιναν.

26. Perhaps [Αλκαιοΐν, which would give some point to the coincidence, but shortness
of stature does not seem to be attributed to Alcaeus elsewhere.

yeyova is probably for yeyovora, since there is not room for ἐλαττωΐν yap] yeyoxXe). Perhaps
τε stood in the lacuna.

27. ἡ is preceded by the top ofa vertical stroke, which would suit « or »; λὲ may be
read in place of » at the end of the line.

28-35. Probably Sappho is still the subject, for though the columns are long her
biography would naturally occupy a considerable space and there would hardly have been
room for another; moreover, the mention of Chamaeleon, whose treatise on Sappho is
known from Athen. 599 c, suits the view that she is concerned here.

29-30. Perhaps Πουίτιος, since Chamaeleon was a native of Heraclea, but Ποντικός
would rather be expected, as e. g. Athen. 273 c Xap. 6 Ποντικόςξ. The doubtful 6 in 1. 30
may equally well be σ.

33-5- Cf. Suid. s.v. Sampo: ἔγραψε δὲ μελῶν λυρικῶν βιβλία θ΄. . . καὶ ἐπιγράμματα καὶ
ἐλεγεῖα καὶ ἰάμβους καὶ μονῳδίας. The suggested restoration assumes what is quite uncertain,
that the non-lyrical poems were included in a single book. ὦ of ελεγειων is very doubtful,
only a very small vestige remaining which would also suit a, but ελεγειακον δὲ would not fill
the line, and the epigrams &c. ought not to have been ignored.

ll. 36-46. ‘Concerning Simonides. Simonides was a Ceian by birth, of the city of
lulis, and son of Leoprepes. He was an avaricious man. Some ascribe to him the invention

of mnemonics’; and he himself declares this in an epigram. Some say that he further
invented |...

39. 1. Δεωπρ.
40. φιλάργυρος : cf. Pindar, Jsthm. 11, 6 ἁ Μοῖσα γὰρ οὐ φιλοκερδής κτὰ,, and Schol. νῦν,

1800. NEW CLASSICAL FRAGMENTS 147

φησί, μισθοῦ συντάττουσι τοὺς ἐπινικίους πρώτου Σιμωνίδου προκαταρξαμένου.. .. ἔνθεν καὶ Καλλίμαχος.
οὐ γὰρ ἐργάτιν τρέφω τὴν Μοῦσαν, ὡς ὁ Κεῖος Ὑλλίχου νέπους. λέγει δὲ (Sc. Πίνδαρος) ταῦτα πρὸς
Σιμ., ὡς φιλάργυρον διασύρων τὸν ἄνδρα, Athen. 656d ὄντως ἦν ὡς ἀληθῶς κίμβιξ 6 Σιμ. καὶ αἰσχρο-
κερδής, ὡς Χαμαιλέων φησίν, Schol. Aristoph. Pax 691, Suid. 5. ν. Su. &c.

40-5. Cf. Marm. Par. 54 up... . 6 τὸ μνημονικὸν εὑρών, Suid. 5. ν. Σιμ., καὶ τὴν μνημονικὴν
δὲ τέχνην ἐὗρεν οὗτος, Pliny, A. WV. vii. 24, &c., and Simonid. Fr. 146 μνήμην δ᾽ οὔτινά φημι
Σιμωνίδῃ ἰσοφαρίζειν ὀγδωκονταέτει παιδὶ Λεωπρέπεος, which is presumably the epigram
referred to.

45sqq. From the number 24 in 1. 47 it is evident that this passage describes an
invention concerning the alphabet, which is also attributed to Simonides by Suidas, 2. c.
προσεξεῦρε δὲ καὶ τὰ μακρὰ τῶν στοιχείων καὶ διπλᾶ, but the statement in the papyrus does not
coincide and a suitable restoration remains to be found. At the beginning of |. 47 either
ke| Or xe| may be read, and στοι[ἰχείια suggests itself, but διίίπλα στοιίχεια would be too long
and does not well accord with the rest of the line. The letter before στ is either o or ὦ,
and an| may be αγί.

48. εὐ: Or συ; ovol[r}yoas is possible.

Fr. 2. 1-29. That the remains of these lines relate, like ll. 30sqq., to Aesop is
uncertain, but is suggested by 1]. 18 μυ[θ. .. (?) ; αποκριματων has been restored in |. 21 on
this hypothesis.

31. evovup .. is apparently meant, in spite of the unusual diaeresis; the letter after μ
may be either o or o, and the vestige at the end of the line is consistent with « or ν.

32-63. ‘The cause is said to be this: whenever a man comes to offer sacrifice to the
god the Delphians bringing their knives with them stand round the altar, and when the priest
has slaughtered and flayed the victim and taken the inwards each of the bystanders cuts off
whatever portion he can and goes away with it, so that the man who offers the sacrifice
often goes off with nothing at all. Aesop taunted and mocked at the Delphians for this,
which enraged the populace and they pelted him with stones and threw him over a cliff.
Not long after a plague fell upon the city, and when they consulted the oracle the god told
them that the pestilence would not cease until they propitiated Aesop. So they inclosed
the place where he fell and set up an altar, and brought sacrifices to him as ifhe were a hero
to avert the pestilence.’

33 sqq. Cf. Schol. Aristoph. Vesf. 1446 ὅν φασιν ἐλθόντα ποτὲ εἰς τους Δελφοὺς ἀποσκῶψαι
αὐτούς, ὅτι μὴ ἔχοιεν γῆν ἀφ᾽ ἧς ἐργαζόμενοι διατρέφοιντο ἀλλὰ περιμένοιεν ἀπὸ τῶν θεοῦ θυμιαμάτων
διαζῆν.

38. 1. tepews : ἱερειου has come in from the next line.

48-9. According to Aristoph. Vesf. 1446-7 Aesop was accused of having stolen
a cup, which the Schol. adds they concealed among his belongings, a story also found in
Heraclid. Pont. Respub. Magn. 2. Plutarch in De sera numinis vind. 556 has a different
version which represents Aesop as coming to Delphi with offerings from Croesus and brings
in Iadmon, as in Hdt. ii. 134.

51. kpnuvov: the πέτρα Ὕάμπεια according to Plutarch, /. c.

56. Whether the interlinear insertion here and in 1. 71 is by a different hand is
uncertain.

64-74. ‘Concerning Thucydides. Thucydides was by birth an Athenian, and the
son of Olorus; his father is maligned as being a Thracian who migrated to Athens.
Having literary skill he wrote the history of the war between the Athenians and Pelopon-
nesians.’

L2

148 THE OXYRAYNCHUS: PAPYRI

67-9. Cf. the anonymous Life 1 Θρᾷκιον δὲ αὐτῷ τὸ γένος" καὶ yap 6 πατὴρ αὐτῷ “Oopos ἐκ
Θράκης εἶχε τοὔνομα.
73. About 7 lines are missing at the foot of the column.

Fr. 3. 1-9. If these lines relate to Thucydides, Fr. 3. i may be supposed to follow
immediately Fr. 2. iii. Those two columns cannot be combined into one on account of the
vestiges in Fr. 2. 75-6, which do not suit the beginnings of Fr. 3. 8-9. Whether the
historian died abroad or at Athens was disputed. For the tradition of a cenotaph cf.
Marcellinus, Vita Thuc. 31 ixptov yap ἐπὶ τοῦ τάφου κεῖσθαι, τοῦ κενοταφίου δὲ τοῦτο γνώρισμα
εἶναι. But according to the same authority, 17 (cf. 32 and 55), the tomb was among the
Κιμώνια μνήματα πρὸς ταῖς Μελιτίσι πύλαις ἐν Κοίλῃ, which does not suit the deme-name in
ll. 8-9, and the reference of this passage to Thucydides is therefore very questionable. The
letter after a in 1. 8 seems to be » or A, pointing to ᾿Αμαξαντεῦσι, ᾿Αλαιεῦσι OF ᾿Αλωπεκεῦσι:
Αλιμουντι (Thucydides’ deme) can certainly not be read. In 1. 6 avroly ἐπὶ τῆς Arz|txns
suggests itself, and Αττ[ικης is not inconsistent with the scanty remains. [ἢ]. 7 ao or Aco is
more suitable than vo.

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

37)

Greece”.

17. Ovnrop: this is an error. The guardians were Aphobus, Demophon, and
Therippides (Zz Aphod. 4); Onetor was a brother-in-law of Aphobus and acted in collusion
with him against Demosthenes (cf. the C. One?.).

22. εἶνοσφισῆΊαντο: cf. Plutarch, Dem. 4 τὰ μὲν νοσφισαμένων, τὰ δ᾽ ἀμελησάντων.

24. παρελθων suits the space better than avacras.

25-6. Cf. Plutarch, X Orat. Vit. 847 a ἀποθανεῖν δ᾽ αὐτὸν Φιλόχορος μέν φησι φάρμακον
πιόντα, Σάτυρος δ᾽ ὁ συγγραφεὺς τὸν κάλαμον πεφαρμάχθαι.... οὗ γευσάμενον ἀποθανεῖν, ᾿Ερατοσθένης
δὲ... περὶ τῷ βραχίονι κρίκον περικεῖσθαι πεφαρμαγμένον.. .. οἱ δ᾽ εἶπον τοῦ κατὰ τὴν σφραγῖδα
φαρμάκου γευσάμενον (sc. ἀποθανεῖν).

32-3. Cf. Plutarch, Dem. 30 6 τῶν AO. δῆμος... εἰκόνα τε χαλκῆν ἀνέστησε. According
to Plutarch, X Ογαί. Vit. 847 a, the statue was πλησίον τοῦ περισχοινίσματος καὶ τοῦ βωμοῦ τῶν
δώδεκα θεῶν : Suidas says ἐν ἀγορᾷ. avrov rather than αὐτου is expected.

34-9. The epigram is quoted also by Plutarch, //. cc., and Suidas, who rightly give ἴσην
ῥώμην γνώμῃ. 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, Fa/s. Leg. 149, says that Philochares was the eldest.

46. Λαοφο[βΊἼου : 1. Αφοβητου ; cf. Aeschin. Zc.

56-7. καινοις τραγωιδοις : i.e. at the Dionysia.

61-73. This story is not mentioned in the biographies of Aeschines, but is given by
Plutarch, X Oraz. Vit. 845 e, though apart from the amount the details are quite different.
The passage is :--- φεύγοντος δ᾽ Αἰσχίνου μετὰ τὴν καταδίκην, ἵππῳ κατεδίωξεν αὐτόν (Sc. Δημοσθένης)"
τοῦ δ᾽ οἰηθέντος αὐτὸν συλλαμβάνεσθαι καὶ προσπεσόντος καὶ συγκαλυψαμένον, ἀναστήσας αὐτὸν παρεμυ-
θήσατο καὶ τάλαντον ἔδωκεν ἀργυρίου.

72--3. [ex@po| and [φιλω]ν Murray.

74. Cf. Plutarch, X Orat. Vit. 840d ἀπάρας eis τὴν Ῥόδον ἐνταῦθα σχολὴν καταστησάμενος
ἐδίδασκεν... σχολήν τ᾽ ἐκεῖ προσκατέλιπε TO ‘Podiaxdy διδασκαλεῖον κληθέν.

76. Ῥοδίοις : the story of the reading of the speech against Ctesiphon may well have
followed here ; cf. e.g. Plutarch, ἃ ¢.

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 Πειίραζε.. ., but the doubtful p may be any long letter—yv, φ, Ψ.

2. συΐν : the doubtful ν may equally be «.

5 sqq. Cf. Aristotle, Ath. Pol. 40. 2 καὶ δοκεῖ τοῦτό τε πολιτεύσασθαι καλῶς ᾿Αρχῖνος καὶ μετὰ
ταῦτα γραψάμενος τὸ ψήφισμα τὸ Θρασυβούλου παρανόμων, ἐν ᾧ μετεδίδου τῆς πολιτείας πᾶσι τοῖς ἐκ
Πειραιέως συγκατελθοῦσι, ὧν ἔνιοι φανερῶς ἦσαν δοῦλοι. A comparison of that passage suggests
that δοῦλοι were mentioned in the lacuna preceding |. 2 αὑτῶι απο Φυλης, and that αὐτοῖς OF
naow should be restored in 1. 7; but ll. 11-15 are more difficult.

το. There is not room in the lacuna for μετέσχον : a slightly shorter supplement than
that suggested would be preferable.

{1. vas is preceded by the base of a vertical stroke (y or ¢).

12-14. The position of the small detached fragment containing the letters ᾿ς ελη and
Ἰηριοῖ with vestiges of a third line is made practically certain by the similarity of the fibres of
the papyrus. In]. 12 the ἡ is quite uncertain, and e.g. edey[ev] would be possible. In
]. 14 the vestige of the first letter suits « and the following have rounded tops like oo,
σε, OF €0.

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 Oraz. Vii.
849 f, Phocion 23), was one of the orators whose surrender was demanded by Antipater
after the battle of Crannon (I. 26), and according to some accounts was put to death in
Macedonia (I. 29; cf. Plutarch, X Ογαί. Vit. 849 Ὁ Ἕρμιππος δέ φησιν αὐτὸν γλωττοτομηθῆναι εἰς
Μακεδονίαν ἐλθόντα).

22-3. For the loose reference to Lamia cf. e.g. Pausan. vil. 10. 4 ἐπεὶ δὲ τὸ ἐν Λαμίᾳ
πταῖσμα ἐγένετο.

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, Demosth. 23, Diod. xvii. 15), and possibly the two
occasions are here confused.

30-3. Cf. Fr. 3. 29-31. Perhaps καζλλιστοις in |. 32.

150 THE OXYRAYNCHUS: PAPY RI

34-8. ‘Concerning Leucocomas. Leucocomas was a Cretan by birth, of the nies of
Cnosos. Being a comely youth (he was beloved by Promachus .. .).’

34sqq. The story of Leucocomas and Promachus is known only from Conon τό.
The passage is: ra περὶ Προμάχου καὶ Λευκοκόμα τῶν Τνωσσίων . . . διέξεισιν" ὡς ἦρα Πρόμαχος
νεανίου καλοῦ τοῦ Λευκοκόμα' ὡς ἄθλα αὐτῷ μεγάλα προὔτεινε καὶ κινδύνων μεστά; ὡς πάντα ὑπέστη
Πρόμαχος ἐλπίδι τοῦ τυχεῖν: ὡς δὲ οὐχ οὕτω τυγχάνει, καὶ ἀντιλυπεῖ Λευκοκόμαν τὸ τελευταῖον τῶν
ἄθλων (κράνος δ᾽ ἦν περιβόητον) ἐν ἑτέρῳ καλῷ νεανίᾳ ὁρῶντος περιθεὶς τοῦ Λευκοκόμα" καὶ ὡς οὐκ
ἐνεγκὼν τὴν ζηλοτυπίαν ξίφει ἑαυτὸν διεχρήσατο.

Fr. 9. This fragment resembles in appearance Frs. 6-8, and the contents are
somewhat analogous ; Fr. ro is also rather similar. :

Fr. 11. 3 sqq. No other name than ΑἸβδηΐρος seems at all likely, especially as it is clear
from Fr. 8. ii. 34 sqq. that this collection of biographies included mythical persons. For
Abderus cf. Steph. Byz. 8. v.”A84ypa, Apollodor. ii. 5.8, 841. 11. 1-2,n. He is said to have
been loved by Heracles, who founded Abdera in his honour after he had been killed by the
horses of the Thracian king Diomedes.

4. κηι : OF Ane, but Θραϊίκηι suits the context.

5. For Ια[νιαι cf. 841. II. 1- 3 [Naié Jos Θρονίας "ABSnpe . . - [σέθ]εν Ἰάονι τόνδε λαῷ [παι]ᾶνα
[διώξω and the Schol. ἄποικοι γάρ εἰσιν οἱ ᾿Αβδηρῖται [Τηίων, Téos] δ᾽ ἐστὶ τῆς ᾿Ιωνίας ΤῸΝ

Fr. 18. This small piece possibly formed part of a third column of Fr. 3, the point of
junction being opposite Il. 37-9 ; but the combination is unconvincing.

Fr. 20. 4. de: the e has been converted from a straight stroke (c or 7).

Fr. 21. 2. ? δημευσας was probably the end of the line, as is indicated by the diminution
in size of the three last letters, as well as by a short blank space after φυ in |. 4.

Fr. 80. 2. |.» seems to have ended the line.

1801, GLOSSARY.
13 X 10-6 cm. First century.

This and the three following texts form a group of fragments of glossaries,
still something of a novelty in papyri, and are an interesting sample of the work of
early lexicographers, 1801 is the most ancient of the group, being written in
a small semicursive hand which is rather similar to that of 1087 (Part VIII,
Plate 4) ascribed to the latter part of the first century B.C. One of the early
characteristics shared by 1801 with 1087 is a tendency to link letters at the top,
e.g. 7 and the uncial form of κ; in 1801 ξ is similarly linked, which is unusual.
On the other hand the y-shaped n, commonly regarded as characteristic of the
Roman period, occurs in an abbreviation in 1. 46, while the general aspect of the
hand is less archaic than that of 1087; a date about the middle of the first
century A.D. seems, on the whole, most likely. Paragraphi are used to mark off
the various notes, and the words to be explained project slightly into the left

1801. NEW, CLASSICAL FRAGMENTS 151

margin, and are also followed by short blank spaces; similar spaces are used to
indicate a pause in the body of the note, and in one instance (1. 21) an oblique
dash fulfils the same purpose.

Parts of two columns are preserved, broken at the top and bottom, as well
as down the outside of each. An index to the original length of the lines is,
however, afforded by ll. 21-2, on the basis of which the extent of the initial
lacunae in Col. i has been roughly estimated in the printed text. As for Coll. ii,
the break from 1. 32 to |. 58 is nearly vertical, and if the length of lines is taken
at about 30 letters, the loss in the central part of the column will be about
10 letters, the number slightly increasing above and diminishing below on account
of the slope of the column to the right ; but the loss cannot be accurately gauged,
since in texts of this kind no great care was taken to keep the ends of lines even,
and Col. i shows that 1801 was no exception in this regard.

Both columns relate to rarer words beginning with the letter B, and the
alphabetical arrangement may have been strictly observed up to the second
letter, but certainly did not extend to the third, e. g. βεβυσμένον follows βέλος.
All the words, so far as identified, appear in Hesychius, except one, which is in
Suidas. But the treatment is fuller than in Hesychius, especially in the wealth
of citation, to which there is more approximation in the Etymologicum Magnum
(cf. 11. 21-7 n.), a feature which would have made this glossary, had much of it
been preserved, peculiarly valuable. Most of the citations are from Comedy or
Satyric drama, the authors quoted including Eupolis, Cratinus, Hermippus,
Aristophanes, Alexis, and Sophocles. The only prose writer whose name occurs
is the historian Phylarchus (]. 44). This glossary thus seems to have followed
lines similar to those of the Συναγωγή of Artemidorus (cf. Schol. Aristoph. Vesp-
1169, &c.), though whether it was confined to the Comedians and Satyric
dramatists can hardly be determined from the present specimen. That this is
actually a fragment of the work of Artemidorus is hardly likely ; the makers of
Lexica were many (cf. Susemihl, Alex. Lit.-Gesch. ii, pp. 185 sqq.), and very
little is known about them.

On the verso of the papyrus are remains of two columns, written in a small
upright hand dating perhaps from about the end of the first century or the
beginning of the second, from a treatise on grammar. In Col. 11, after referring
to the declension [A]paxevos Δρακωνι (cf. Choerob. Jz Theod. Can. p. 79, Gaisf.),
a new section begins 15 Περι δὲ tov ἀστὴρ Barnp και των ομοι wy επιλαμβανεται
ae err 14 λεγων μη eotavat [Tov τουτων αριθ 15 μον μηδε δυνασθαι 7[.......---
16 τῆς (η Corr.) αναλογιας ΕἙλληνίζισμον ὃ οὐκ op ἶ θως ἐπειδὴ Ta ομοια ονἶτα... - «-. ο
18 μοιως σχηματιζεται [ουτω yap av \* λέγοιτο πρωτον μεν OTL...

152 , THE OXYRAYNCHUS: FAPERI

Col. i.
Par cau rey cane na ine]
Ret invent eee ce Ἰαν εἰ
ΤῸΝ Ἰυτον Al
ΒΡΕΝ mae hatte ety ἡ ΓΝ 1 τετταραΐ.. τα t
ΤΑΝ Paar sh Maco we Ste ite 1. ὠλιβαμ.. [{Ἰκευτί.]
[ |
᾿βείρακες, M's ie Llepakes at yAavKes) παρα
[ |
suka anes Bi ai airy woe ee ate Ἰεις Kat στρατον π|.] . .|
TOY ΣΎ eins sal ΤΣ Σοφοκίλης de ev Σ᾿ αλ[ μ]αίνει]
foe Set Magatichion ΤΟ Με ον |. προστασιμον τῆς
[abe Re teties Siete arte: Litre doce ] oupw....v πα}
τς: Pie ἘΕἸοΡ Nos Nesta s ate
[ |
Lt We ee Ww retanaye, αν (oie | kat Ἐυπολις ev
[stances i bes ΡΣ i oat Ἱμας ουτι που πολ
λα ties Bete coe ] ev Σατυροις αλλ οταν
Re SSRN Sse Ὁ ΣΎ |s cap tote Kat σοφοις
ΟΝ teen < Ge enim tA 1. ἐεκανον αρσεμονον
BO Κα ΡΣ Τα abe be bales verte Jae

[βελεκος αἋἀἀριστοφανη)ς ev Πολυιδωι 7 και

[των βελεκων λεγ͵Ίει δὲ περι αυὐτων

AL Reka ΚΝ ? Aoyor] τουτον εστιν
fe ye he eins tone |]... [--Jes mapa τοις τὴν

Bing (Me ΠΡ ana |. [. ὠὡσπερ o πίσος και ra
[@vpos opoos?..... lt κριώπωι To peye
[θος 15 letters βελεῖκον καλουσιν

[ ; les

Col. ii.

35

50

55

60

1801. NEW CLASSICAL FRAGMENTS

TONG tie ]

. γελαί

πος ἡ 09; ἐν ΤΉ yaral Gowen ΠΗ

ΤΩΣ ἊΣ i.

τα. [.|uevov[.] exo.

ee sonie tary

lat καὶ tov ρατιϊνον ev Opa:trats

pala Relies

[.--..-].. διλογχον θεον ny .
Perit ἤθη \eenvo[...].[-lerep.[..
Pe aha Be GON pH. Ofte OP. Ὁ ον aay tan

Jpavtiva . εἰ και Of. .

ee © © © © © © es ὦ

βίεμβιξ 1 περιστρίοἰφη — Aplioropavns? . .
ἈΠ on eyeolil Oe OWI. sw. es
Βελ[βιν]α κωμη τίης Aalkarfixns......

᾿Ξ σας

και Φυλαρχος ev τηι 6 [
[ΒἸερεσχετοι

ακριδασί .1ρ[.] - ατραΐ.

δ αἰῶ shies

avontot| πεπίλασται παρ Αριστοφί(ανει)

βελος Apistoparvn(s) εν Ayaplvevot.....

αν

παᾶρην λεγειν εγχος δι.

βεβυσμίεῖνον mAnpes τῆι [.

yn BeBuopern Αριστοφίανη

Bepyatos

εστι Και

ἄλεξις εν Ησιονίηι

κομπασματα. Ϊ....

Βεργαιον αποδειξειν υθλοῖν...

αυτοι σκοόπειτε νυν εγω Of...

νος γαρ

ὡς πεπαικεν εἰς τ|..

13) ΕΣ ays

oe ee δ᾽ ὦ

ἐστιν ὃ ἢ Bepyn της Opalixns

Βελλερον τον Beddepogov7inv......

βερβινιων Eppinmes εν Σΐτρατιωταις ?
ὧν tas ληκυθους κατηΐ........

»--

βηρηκες «ἀριστοφανη(ς} [ev........

1 βηρηῖκ .] φυραίματα

154 THE OXYRHYNCHUS: PAPYRI

4. There seems to have been no other letter in front of the doubtful «, which might
also be a dash like that in |. 21.

7. Cf. Hesych. βείρακες" ἱέρακες. It is not possible to read ἡ or και before yAauke(s),
though one of those words should perhaps be restored. ο could well be read in place of a
but would be unintelligible. The similar gloss of Hesychius βάραξ' ἱέραξ παρὰ Λίβυσι
suggests that Λίβυσι may be the name in the lacuna after mapa; but the name may also have
been that of the author who used the form.

IO. Σαλ[μ]αἤνει] is consistent with the remains, which do not suit Σατυροις (cf. " 17).

11. προστασιμον 15 apparently novel.

13. ov: perhaps oo.

16. Ἱμας ovre: OF ἿΪμα σοὺ τι.

19. The first letter may be 6. g. 8, 6, p. Neither apoe for apoa nor ἄρ σε is attractive
in this context.

21-7. Cf. Etym. Magn, βελέκκοι" dompia’ καὶ τῶν βελέκκων, ᾿Αριστοφάνης, Hesych. βέλεκος"
ὄσπριόν τι ἐμφερὲς λαθύρῳ μέγεθος ἐρεβίνθου ἔχον. The papyrus, besides giving the name of
the play of Aristophanes, confirms the view of earlier editors that καὶ τῶν was part of the
citation; Kock prints βελέκκων only (ΕἾ... 755). Lines 23 sqq. are an excerpt from a prose
writer who described the βέλεκος. κριωπός from κριός (vetch) is unattested.

34 sqq. Cf. Hesych. 8. v. δίλογχον, τὴν Βενδῖν οὕτω Κρατῖνος ἐν Θράτταις exadecer, ἤτοι ὅτι δύο
τιμὰς ἐκληρώσατο, οὐρανίαν τε καὶ χθονίαν... . ἢ ὅτι δύο λόγχας φέρει κτλ. From this it is plain
that ll. 34-5 at any rate are part of a note on Βενδῖς, of whom Hesych. says 5. v., ἡ "Ἄρτεμις,
Opakioti: παρὰ δὲ ᾿Αθηναίοις ἑορτὴ Βενδίδεια. How many of the preceding lines were included
in the note (to which the small fragment, ll. 61-3, perhaps belongs) is, however, uncertain,
nor is it clear whether Il. 36-9 are all part of the same excerpt from Cratinus. 7ιμην in
1. 36 is possibly τή]μην (cf. Hesych. δύο τιμάς). In 1. 37 κωμικαι[ is apparently not to be
read, unless ὦ was here written differently from those elsewhere. In 1. 38 rwao[o]e is
not impossible.

40. Cf. Hesych. βέμβιξ. . . δίνη. If, however, ap| is ᾿Αρ[ιστοφάνης, as is natural to
suppose, the name of the play seems to have been omitted, contrary to the compiler’s usual
practice. βεμβικες ey|y[ever Gar (Vesp. 1530) suggests itself, and might not be too long if
Apiorop(arns) were written ; πείρ[ε ορνιίίθων (Av. 1461) is a not very satisfactory alternative.

42. Cf. Hesych. BeABiva’ κώμη Λακωνική.

43-4. This seems to be a separate gloss, but it remains obscure. Phylarchus was the
author of a history of Pyrrhus and other works.

45. 1. [Β]ερεσχεθοι. Cf. Schol. Aristoph. £7. 635 B. δὲ of ἀνόητοι" πέπλασται δὲ ἡ λέξις,
and the similar note in Suidas.

46-7. Ach. 345.

48-9. Cf. Hesych. βεβυσμένον' πλῆρες. Suidas cites Aristoph. Ach. 463, but yn (πυγή ?)
βεβυσμένη is from a non-extant play.

1801. NEW CLASSICAL FRAGMENTS 155

50-5. Antiphanes of Berga was a byword for his mendacity, and hence Bepyaios
acquired a similar connotation ; cf. e.g. Strabo ii. 100 τὸ δὲ Βεργαῖον διήγημα τοῦτο ἐν πίστεως
μέρει τιθείς. Steph. Byz. says that a verb βεργαΐζειν was also coined.

55+ Bepyn: so Strabo vii. 331, Steph. Byz.; Βέργα Ptol. iii. 13, &c.

56. Cf. Eustath. 632. 8 ἐν δὲ ῥητορικῷ Λεξικῷ εὕρηται καὶ Βέλλερος λεγόμενος, Hesych,
Βέλλερος" ὑπὸ Βελλεροφόντου κτανθείς. ἢ ὁ Βελλεροφόντης. }

57-8. Cf. Hesych. βερβίνια: ξύλα καθηλωμένα, ἐξ ὧν τὰς ληκύθους ἐκρέμων. The Στρατιῶται
is the only known play of Hermippus beginning with Σ. As to the following words, the
restoration depends on whether they are taken as a quotation (e. g. βερβινιων ras Δ. κατηγαγον)
or as explanatory (e. g. ξυλα εξ | wy, on the lines of Hesych.).

59-60. Cf. Hesych. βήρηκες" pata ὀρθαί. of δὲ ἁπλῶς μάζας. ἄλλοι μάζας ἄνωθεν κέρατα
ἐχούσας, and βάραξ".... καὶ φύραμα στρογγύλον ἀφ᾽ οὗ αἱ μᾶζαι, Eustath. 1414. 29.

62. Possibly Βεν]διδο[ς, in which case the fragment would come from the neighbourhood
of ll. 34-5.

1802. GLOSSARY.

Fr. 3 143% 34-3 cm. Late second or early
third century.

The following fragments of an alphabetical glossary are on the verso
of 1798, a historical work on Alexander the Great. They are written for the
most part in an irregular but clear simicursive of medium size, but in two or
three fragments the hand is markedly smaller (cf. n. on Fr. 6) and in a couple of
others (Frs. 7-8) it becomes more cursive. v at the end of a line is sometimes
written as a horizontal stroke above the preceding vowel, but otherwise there is
no abbreviation. As in 1801, the several glosses project into the left margin by
the width of three or four letters, and are also followed by a blank space; but no
points or paragraphi are used. The text on the recto is assigned to the middle
or latter part of the second century, and that on the verso may date from the end
of the same century or the beginning of the third. Some rather unintelligent
mistakes, which have been left uncorrected, are noticeable (Il. 49, 61, 63).

As explained in the introd. to 1798, the two texts proceed in opposite
directions and the glossary did not occupy the entire roll, many of the minor
fragments of 1798 being blank on the verso. Since those fragments, so far
as their contents are recognizable, are not separated from the rest by any wide
interval, and the remains of the lexicon, which was ona considerable scale, include
words beginning with « to μ, the copy of this seems not to have been finished.
Fr. 3 is the only substantial piece, containing the upper portions of three con-
secutive columns, the two latter of which are sufficiently well preserved to give
some idea of the scope and method of the compiler, at whose identity it is hardly
worth while to guess. His alphabetical arrangement is more strict than that of
1801 or of ancient lexica generally, and is indeed remarkably correct, so far as
it can be followed. He confines himself to uncommon words, or words used in

156 THE OXYRAYNCHUS PAPYRI,

an uncommon sense. Besides Greek local peculiarities, several terms from
non-Hellenic speech are included—Persian (Fr. 3. 45, 64, Fr. 6. 13), Lydian
(Fr. 3. 46), Chaldaean (Fr. 3. 63, 67, 72, Fr. 6. 6), Albanian (Fr. 3. 65); in the
last instance the authority quoted is a work in two or more books on Ξένη φωνή,
by a certain Heraclides. The writer’s interest in foreign countries is further
shown by references to e.g. writers on Scythia (Fr. 3. 1), Asia (Fr. 3. 10, 17), and
Babylon (Fr. 3. 67, 72), to Glaucus on the region West of the Euxine (Fr. 3. 36),
to Andron on ‘the war with the barbarians’ (Fr. 3. 46). In contrast with 1801,
most at any rate of the authorities cited are prose works, and are often com-
paratively obscure. Sometimes a considerable excerpt is given (Fr. 3. 29-35
37-42), but more commonly only a brief mention is made of author and work.
How far these references can be trusted is somewhat problematical ; in the two
that occur to an extant book, it is incorrectly cited (Fr. 3. 50, 57). In one place
epigraphic evidence is appealed to (Fr. 3. 54-6).

Of the words and uses reported in this papyrus about one half are not found
in the existing lexica, but a large proportion of the novelties are non-Hellenic.
Several terms are otherwise known only from Hesychius, whose evidence is
generally less explicit; it is noticeable that in one instance where both cite
an authority, this is not the same (Fr. 3. 58-9, n.). A striking coincidence of
phraseology between the papyrus and the Etymologicum Magnum and Zonaras
occurs in Fr. 3. 40-1, atid no doubt the passage there cited is their common
ultimate source. The parallel with Photius noted in Fr, 3. 61, ἢ. is hardly less
close ; evidently such glosses often underwent little variation in their descent
from one compiler to another,

Pia. Pr.) 2:
shat Col. 1. Col. ii.
ἱ
κί |. v-o¢...
ἢ φιϊλοπονιᾳΐ. . . :
κί ] ἌΡΕΙ
ἘΝ] - εἰν πολειτεια [
κί 5 jos AvTnvewp λαί
κὶ | 15 [
[ ] λαί
κί εν τη. Θεττίαλων πολειτειᾶ λαί

ro [ Ἰαικῖ

1802. NEW CLASSICAL FRAGMENTS 157

1 ΤῊΝ,
Po
Be σε Golis.
Μαργιανοι ὃ εν] Ὑ Σ᾿ κυϊθικων 15 |
ov ἀρχηϊ: -Ἰ - ητρί.] J
Ja ποιουντεῖς εἸνθουσια ] εν τῶ περι Tov κατα Aat
map ετΊεροις αρδοι κζαλουνται αν ]
5 Ao Αντικλε[ιδη]ς ] ονομασιων
AckA|nmadns ev [1] επιγίρ]α 20
] Ἰκη πολειτεια
Ἰοικουσιν Τρακ[λειδη]ς les
low evpvx@pla Ἶ.. ..
10 κα͵τα ἄσιαν a ]
hit 25 δικὴν. αἴ... - τ τ
εν υἹπομνημασῖ ]

10 ἵτυκαιος Ὁ ΠΙαῖρθοι. Π8.].. [ νν τς
] Weretacats(a pa mouse tas

Col} 11.
[μ]είλισσαι Jar της Anunripos ἱερει]αι ἡ αὐτὴ Απολλίωνια 9] ev τη ἃ en[ayou |
30 σαν δε τον καλαθον ταις Nuvgas συν τω toTw και τοις εργοις της Περ"
σεφονης ἃ μεν παραγενεσθαι εἰς Παρον και ξενιστεισαν Tapa
τω βασιλει Μελισσω χαρισασθαι ταις τουτου θυγατρασι ovoas εξη
κοντα tov της Φερσεφονης toTov Kat πρωταις avTats αναδουναι
Ta περι αὑτην παθὴ τε και μυστηρια οθεν και μελισσας EKTOTE
35 κληθηναι τας θεσμοφοριαζουσας {KAnOnvar} γυναικας
μελυγιον ποματιον τι Σ᾽κυτικον Γλαυκος εν ἃ εξηγησεως τοπὼν τῶν κειΪ
μενὼν ἐπ aptotepa tov ΙΠοντου μερὴ συνκαταθεμ[ζείνων de των eda
Tov ελυσε τον συλλογον καὶ ἀπολυθεντες EKaoTO[S] ἐπι Ta ἴδια παρ
ἐσκευαζον To μελυγιον τουτο δὲ TO Tropa μεθυσκει μαλλον Tou
40 οἰνου γεινεται δὲ ἐεψομενου tov pedttos μεθ ὕδατος Kat Bora

νη[5] τινος εμβαλλομενης φερει yap αὐτῶν ἡ χώρα modu TO με

158

45

5Ο

55

60

65

709

THE: OXYRHYNCHUS PAPYRI

At ert δὲ και TO ζυτος O ποιουσιν εκ τῆς κεγχρου
μελωδιὰ η τραγωδια το παλαιον ἐλέγετο ὡς Καλλιμακος εν ὑπο
μνημασιν
μενεμανι To vdwp παρα τοις Περσαις Ζεινων εἶν... . .. ov
μερμναδαι οι τριορχοι παρα Δύδοις ἄνδρων εἶν. τον Πολε
μου του προς τους βαρβαρους
μέροπες οἱ αῴρονες vio Ευβοεων Διονυσιος εν [.........
μεροῦυ εἰιδος ορνεοῦ οπερ ἀντεκτρεφει τοὺς Kl... ....-.
Δριστοτελης εν ἢ περι τῶν εν τοις ζώοις μοριωΐν
μεσοτελεστον το ηἡμιτέλεστον AltwAous .Ϊ.. ........{ς

(Οἱ. iti.
[ΜΊηϊτις 1 η AOnva και εν tw vaw της Χαλκίιοικου Λακεδαιμονι ?
wy εστι μεικρον Αθηναδιον και επιγεγραφθαι φασιν αὐτω ?
την Μητιν
μητραι εἰιδος μελισσων Αριστοτελὴς εν ἡ περῖι των εν τοις ζωοις μοριῶ
pntpat εν Ταρσω και Soros τας δελτοὺυς ev aus ανἰαγραφουσι ἢ τας
οἰκιᾶς μητρας προσαγορεύεσθαι a.. και δημί..... Αριστοτε
Ans εν τὴ Σολεων πολειτεια
μιεστηθρ ο εἰδως eavTov μὴ καθαρον αιματοῖς και ελθων wa μὴ
det και μιαινων Αυτοκλειδὴς ev τω επιγραίμματι ?

μιθοργ γενος τι apxovias παρα Χαλδαιοις wepl.......-.-.-
Μιθρας ο Προμηθευς κατα ὃ addovs ο ἡλιος παρα Περσῖαις ......«.ο
μιλὴηχ γένειον ὕπο AdBaviov των ojopovvtaly........

ὡς Ἡρακλειδὴς εν ἃ Ἐενης φωνης

μινοδολοεσσα αριθμων συνταξις παρα Xadddatois.... εν > τῶν
κατα Βαβυλωνα

Μινυαι ου μονον Ορχομενιοι adda Kar οἱ Μαγνηΐτες.. . εν τω πε
pl ποταμων

μινωδες ἀμπελοι τινες ovTw λεγονται παρα Ροδίιοις ....

μισαι ο παρα Χαλδαιοις ἡ τῶν μελλοντων προγνωσιΐς..... εν 1
τῶν κατα Βαβυλωνα

Μιτυληναῖοι καπηλοι ᾳπί.. .... ὡς Hynoavdpos [ev ὑπομνημασι ?

— 2 a ee

a

1802. NEW CLASSICAL FRAGMENTS 159

Εν 5.1... με 22 letters πε | tiie.

Fr, 4. Fr. 6; Brig,
REE Ris ] τον βασιλεως [ tyes Jas $
] λ]ογικων deaf
jetye . [ ] ev to Τρωικω ]- Al

Jron| Ἰδρος 0 ἀντιοχευς | [Ber
Jes ουτί 5 ] Ἰ. αδιτί
Ἰρεφε | βλεφαρα] πᾳρᾳ Χᾷλ 5 Jevaio . [

5 περιστί Ἰανθισί. . . ΟἾνπλ. ] εοικεν Ϊ

περ Tol fins το ΜΟΙ tp 55% Ὁ Ἰοις. φιλί

σεν τί "ἃ Ἰυν και

1 μητροῖ ΤῸ | KGT EF Ν᾿ Ὁ an Jos Al

ea λὲν | fetots Tpe frien. = : 10 λιν [

IO Ἰηει Jos je

: παρα Περῖσαις. ..

. ὶ Ι 5

es δ. ᾿ Fr. δὲ

ΠΕ sf ].. maf

lel. lel Fr. 10. ]repl

lew

Fr. 9. Fr, 11

}- «βρῖ Ἰ αἱ

? Ξενοίφων ev a.[

? τοιχους τεθυρζωμενους ?

1.16.1

Fr. 2. 5. Antenor may be the historian of Crete referred to 6. g. by Plutarch, AZa/.
Herod. 22.

8. Αριστοτελης ev? Cf. Fr. 3.59. Aristotle’s treatise on the Thessalian constitution is
cited by Harpocration 8. v. terpapyia as ἡ κοινὴ Θεττ. πολ. ; Athen. xi. 499 Ὁ omits κοινή.

160 THE ‘OXYRAYNCHUS: PAPY RA

το. The doubtful τ is preceded by a horizontal stroke above the line like those above

numerals.

Fr. 3. 1-4. These lines seem to form a connected note on the Mapyavoi; cf.
Strabo xi. 510-1, where the ἔΑμαρδοι, Mapyavoi, and Σκύθαι are mentioned in close connexion ;
possibly Μαργιαῆνων is to be restored in ]. 2. evOovora|fovor(?) in 1. 3 suggests that the name
may have been connected with papyos ; cf. Hesych. papya’ papyaiver, ὑβρίζει, ἐνθουσιᾷ, μαίνεται.
Several writers of Σκυθικά are known, e.g. Agathon of Samos (Plutarch, /’7Zuv. iv. 5) and

Ctesippus (op. cit. -v. 2).
5. There is perhaps just room for Αντικλεζιδη]ς, i. €., presumably, the Athenian historian ;

the preceding word was possibly δ]ηλοι.

6. Which of the various writers named Asclepiades is meant is not clear. A relative
perhaps followed ev; a numeral and επιγραίμματων is less likely.

8. Hpak{Aedy|s: perhaps the author of the Zé φωνή mentioned in 1]. 66, or e.g.
Heraclides Lembus, who was probably the compiler of a work on Πολιτείαι (cf. Fr. 2. 4, 8,
Fr. 3. 21) among other treatises (cf. 1867 int.).

10. κα͵ΐτα Ασιαν : cf. 1. 173 but the division | ra ἄσιανα is of course possible,

13. Possibly Διονυσιος] o Irvkavos, the writer Of a Ῥιζοτομικά who is mentioned by
Steph. Byz. 8. v. Ἰτύκη. ᾿

19. ovopacwwy may well be part of the title of some treatise.

27. Παῆρθοι more probably. than οἾρθοι, perhaps.

29-35. “μέλισσαι : the priestesses of Demeter. The same Apollonia (?) in the first
book (says): ‘“‘ When bringing to the Nymphs the basket together with the loom and the
work of Persephone she first went to Paros, and having been entertained in the palace of
the king Melissus she presented to his daughters, who were 60 in number, the loom of
Persephone, and delivered first to them her sufferings and mysteries ; whence the women
who took part in the Thesmophoria were thereafter called Melissae ”.’

1, 29. A spot of ink in the margin is very doubtfully identified as ¢, but its position
points to a projecting word, so that a new paragraph is indicated. Cf. Hesych. μέλισσαι" ai
τῆς Δήμητρος μύστιδες, Porphyr. De antr. Nymph. 18 ras Δήμητρος ἱερείας ὡς τῆς χθονίας θεᾶς
μυστίδας μελίσσας οἱ παλαιοὶ ἐκάλουν, Schol. Pind. Pyth. iv. 106. Though the letters at the
beginning of the line are mostly broken, the remains well suit the reading adopted, with
which Απολλ[ωνια] or Απολλ[ωνις] Seems unavoidable.

30. For the κάλαθος cf. e.g. Callim. A. Cer. 1sqq., 121 sqq., and Schol. 27. Cer. 1
ὁ Φιλάδελφος Πτολεμαῖος κατὰ μίμησιν τῶν ᾿Αθηναίων ἔθη τινα ἵδρυσεν ἐν ᾿Αλεξανδρείᾳ, ἐν οἷς καὶ τὴν
τοῦ καλάθου πρόοδον. ἔθος γὰρ ἦν ἐν ᾿Αθήναις ἐν ὡρισμένῃ ἡμέρᾳ ἐπὶ ὀχήματος φέρεσθαι κάλαθον ἐς
τιμὴν τῆς Δήμητρος. The κάλαθος worn on the head is a common emblem both of Demeter
and Persephone. References to the ἱστός of the latter do not seem to occur.

ras Nuypas: cf. Schol. Pindar, Pyth. iv. τοῦ ὅτι δὲ καὶ τὰς περὶ τὰ ἱερὰ νύμφας μελίσσας
ἔλεγον Μνασέας 6 Παταρεὺς ἀφηγεῖται λέγων... ἄνευ γὰρ Νυμφῶν οὔτε Δήμητρος ἱερὸν τιμᾶται...
οὔτε γάμος οὐδεὶς ἄνευ Νυμφῶν συντελεῖται.

31--2. ἃ = πρῶτον: 1. ξενισθεῖσαν. Melissus king of Paros and his 60 daughters are
apparently not elsewhere mentioned. Paros, however, was prominent in the worship of
Demeter; cf. e.g. Homer, H. Demet. 491, where Paros is mentioned next to Eleusis,
Nicanor, ap. Steph. Byz. s.v. Πάρος, who says that the name Δημητριάς was applied to the
island, and the statement in Schol. Aristoph. Av. 1764 that Archilochus wrote a hymn to
Demeter at Paros. According to Pausan. x. 28. 3 the ὄργια τῆς Δήμητρος were said to have
been brought to Thasos from Paros; other references are collected in Pauly-Wissowa,

Realencycl. iv. 2722-3.

1802. NEW CLASSICAL FRAGMENTS 161

34-5. Cf. Pindar, PyZh. iv. 106 μελίσσας Δελφίδος, of the prophetess, and Callim. 7. Apoll.
110 Δηοῖ δ᾽ οὐκ ἀπὸ παντὸς ὕδωρ φορέουσι μέλισσαι. κληθηναι has been inadvertently repeated.

536--42. “ Μελύγιον : a Scythian beverage. Glaucus in the rst book of the description
of places lying towards the left of the Black Sea (says) “when the drivers agreed, he
dismissed the assembly and dispersing each to his home they prepared the μελύγιον. This
drink is more intoxicating than wine and is made of honey boiled with water, with the
addition of a certain herb; for their country produces much honey and also beer, which

29?

they make out of millet”.

Cf. Etym. Magn. μελύγειον" πομάτιον Σκυθικόν, γινόμενον ἐκ μόνου μέλιτος μεθ᾽ ὕδατος, βοτάνης
τινὸς ἐμβαλλομένης (similarly Zonar. μελίγυον᾽ πόμα τι Σκ. κτλ.), Hesych. μελίτιον" πόμα τι
Σκυθικὸν μέλιτος ἑψομένου σὺν ὕδατι καὶ πόᾳ τινί. The Etym. Magn. is especially close to the
papyrus, and the spelling μελύγ(ε)ιον is confirmed as well as πομάτιον, which Dindorf
wished to emend to πόμα τι from Hesych.; a more probable alteration would be to write
ἑψομένου for ἐκ μόνου. In ]. 36 1. Σκυθικόν... The treatise of Glaucus is unknown and his
identity doubtful. Of the recorded writers of that name, the author of a work on Arabia
often referred to by Steph. Byz. appears the most suitable. ἐλάτης (1. 37) = éAarnp in Eurip.
Fr. 773. 28 ποίμνας ἐλάται ; ᾿Ελατ(έδων is hardly likely in this context.

43-4. This is a new piece of information, apparently. The term μελῳδία may have
been applied to tragedy in its germinal dithyrambic stage.

45. |. Ζηνων, i.e. not improbably the grammarian of Myndus, who is cited e.g. in
Etym. Magn. 590. 44 8. v. μορίαν. The vestiges before wy are consistent with e.g. 4, A, μ,
but ΛεξἼεων is unsuitable. As for μένεμανι, Mr. R. Levy tells us that maya, the Aramaic word
for water, was used in Pehlevi, and a reduplicated form of this might produce something
sufficiently close to the papyrus. Dr. Sayce notes the similarity of ammzs.

46. Cf. Hesych. μέρμνης" rpiopxyos. The family name of Gyges was Meppvada according
to Herodotus i. 7. 14. Ανδρων is perhaps more likely to be the historian from Halicarnassus
than the Alexandrian who wrote Χρονικά (Athen. iv. 184 Ὁ), though a work by him with the
title here given is not elsewhere cited. To read Avdpwr{xos for Ανδρον. is possible but not
attractive.

48. This sense of μέροπες is not otherwise attested. Among the many writers named
Dionysius the most suitable in this context seems to be, if not the prolific Διονύσιος ὁ Θράξ,
Διονύσιος ὁ Τρύφωνος, whose extensive treatise περὶ ὀνομάτων is cited by Athenaeus, Harpocra-
tion, and Steph. Byz.

49-50. |. pepo. of οπερ has been corrected from a or 0, The word beginning with
« should mean ‘parents’ or something analogous; κίηδεμονας is hardly satisfactory. The
μέροψ is mentioned by Aristotle in An. Hist. ix. 13, p. 615 Ὁ 25 φασὶ δέ τινες τοὺς pw... .
ἀντεκτρέφεσθαι ὑπὸ τῶν ἐκγόνων : cf. Hesych. μέροπες". . . καὶ ὄρνεά twa, ὡς ᾿Αριστοτέλης. It is
strange that the reference given in |. 50 is mistaken both as to the treatise and the number
of the book (there is no eighth book of the De part. anim.) ; cf. 1. 57, n.

51. μεσοτελεστον : oo is doubtfully read and the o may be p: also the space between
the supposed o and τ is rather wide and another letter may have intervened ; but a compound
of μέρος does not seem very likely. For μεσο- = ἡμι- cf. Hesych. μεσόψηρον" ἡμίξηρον. A few
Aetolian forms are given in Hesych., e. g. κίββα, depia, θιαγόνες.

54. Χαλκ[ιοικου was restored by Lobel, no doubt rightly. The identification of Mars
and Athena is apparently novel; Apollodor. i. 3. 6 puts them in the relation of mother and
daughter. Cf. Hesych. Maris’ σύνεσις". .. καὶ ἡ θεός.

57. τοι was originally written after εν, i.e. the writer began to write τοῖς owing to the
repetition of εν. μῆτραι σφηκῶν and ἀνθρηνῶν are described by Aristotle in Az. 7151. ix. 41,

M

162 THE. OXYRHYNCAHUS PAPYRI

pp. 627 b-628 a (cf. Az. Gen. iii. 10, p. 761 6) so that there is the same mistake in the
citation here as in]. 50. Cf. Hesych. μήτρα" εἶδος σφηκός.

58—60. Cf. Hesych. μήτρα". .. καὶ ὁ κλῆρος ὑπὸ Σολέων, ὡς Κλείταρχος. In 1. 58 απίογραφουσι
would also be possible, or the letter after a might well be. In |. 59 neither as καὶ nor as
και suits the remains; perhaps there was a correction and a xa was intended. That Σόλοι
was included among Aristotle’s collection of constitutions was unknown.

61, μιεστὴρ is presumably a copyist’s error for μιαστωρ; cf. Photius μιάστωρ᾽ ὅταν τις
αὑτὸν μὴ καθαρὸν εἰδὼς παρέρχηται iva μὴ δεῖ, μεμιασμένος, whence the supplement in the latter
part of the line has been derived. The identity of Αὐτοκλείδης is doubtful ; he is not likely
to be the writer of ἐξηγητικά mentioned by Plutarch, /Vic. 23.

63. 1. αρμονιας. Hesych. gives several Chaldaean words, but μιθοργ is not one of them.
It is conjectured by Sayce to be the opening of a Sumerian hymn, possibly =me fa-ra-ga,
from some Tammuz dirge, as Prof. Langdon suggests.

64. The equation of Mithras to Prometheus, though not unnatural, is apparently
unusual. For the latter part of the line cf. Hesych. μέθες ὁ ἥλιος παρὰ Πέρσαις, and the
similar but longer notes in Suidas and Photius.

65-6. At the end of the line e. g. rors Ιβηρσι or Αρμενιοις would be suitable ; cf. Strabo xi,
p. 501. The work on Zé 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" ἀριθμός. καὶ ra περὶ οὐράνια σύνταξις. Βαβυλώνιοι. In
consideration of this compiler’s fondness for giving authority it is preferable to treat xara
Βαβυλωνα as part of a title rather than to read e. g. Χαλδαιοζις τοις over; cf. Il. 72-3, where τῶν
κατα 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’ οἱ ᾿Ορχομένιοι, καὶ Μάγνητες. As in |. 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 ros stood in the title. There were many
writers of works on rivers, besides Callimachus; cf. Schneider, Ca//machea, ii, p. 326.

71. Cf, Hesych. μινῴα" εἶδος ἀμπέλου.

72. Either o before παρα is superfluous or something has dropped out. For the citation
cf. n. on ll. 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" ἀπόπληκτος, the latter word being too long for az[..... 7., as well as
otherwise incongruous. Hyycavipos is presumably Hegesandrus of Delphi, the author of
a collection of anecdotes called Ὑπομνήματα, in several books, cited by Hesych. s. v. ἀπόφαρσις
and Suidas s. v. ἁλκυονίδες as well as by Athenaeus.

Fr. 4. The blank spaces in ll. 7 and 9. indicate that the preceding words were
γλῶσσαι, and ll. 5-6 are no doubt complete at ἔπε 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. g is similar and so is
that of Fr. 1 so far as it goes.

I. βασιλεως : OF βασιν ws? βασιλικοι OF -κου is less suitable.
6. παρα Χαϊΐλίδαιοις : 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.

at

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 co, 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 (]. 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 Χρυσοῦν
Γένος, Aristophanes Γῆρας, Menander Συναριστῶσαι, ᾿Εγχειρίδιον, 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. I verso. Fol. 1 recto.
στιῴρον ὁ οἱ πολλοι oTpipvo πολλακεις-
[>] ὡς Apioropavyns Γηραι και 20 συναγαγειν To συναθροι

σαι Kat συλλεξαι δὲ To αὐτο
Touro ὡς ev Φιλαδελῴφοις
χωριδιον πριω συνα

[>] μη ΠΗ ἤρου σε τὴ
> φωνὴν exes και Μενᾶ

5 » Opos εν Συναριστωσαις wo
> [[a]lec oreppas εἐσομενας
[>] Kal veas ταλαντατος

yayov πανθ᾽ οσα exes
25 Tod eyw dwow σχολη

pee μοι συλλεγε
Σαραπιν δια του ἃ ws εν Ey τ

M 2

164 THE OXYRHYNCHUS PAPYRI

> χιριδιωι ws σεμνος ο Sapa
Ιο 5» ms Oeos:
συγγιγνεσθαι λεγεται κατ ε
πενθεσιν του Τ και γιγνω
σκειν μαλιἤονῆ)στα οἱ παλαι
οἱ ἀξιουσιν δὲ Kat χωρις
15 αὐτου
onp.ov γην σφραγιδα και
σημηνασθαι το σφραγισαι
ως .[

Fol. 2 recto.

ὥργωι ὡς σχολὴ Tropev
εται ουτοσι

σιτον καὶ τὴν Tpodnyv ἀπλως
ὡς Ξενοφων εν βὶ Ava
40 βασεως to de orparev
μα εποριζετο σιτον ows
εἰ. δυνατὸ ex των ὑ
ποζυγιων κοπτοντες
βους και ονους καὶ τον
45 Καρπον ομοίως ws An
μοσθενης ev τω κατα
Διονυσοδωρου: παλιν
καπηλεύυὼων καὶ συνι
στας ἰτ]ας τιμα[ς] του σιτου
80 καὶ τὸν apToy αὕὑτον σιτο
καλουσιν ὡς Ξενοῴφων
ev τὴ ᾿Ανίαίβασι .ω..- «Ὁ.

συμῴοραν ov μονον τὴν
δυστυχιαν αλλα και τὴν
συντυχιαν WOTE και α
30 γαθων συμῴφοραν λεγεῖ
ws εν Inmmevow em συμ
φοραις αγαθαισιν eony
γέλμεναις ευαγγελεια
θυειν
35 συνεθιξεσθαι δια του τ και

Fol. 2 verso.
TOV επιτηδιων ὡς TAXL
στα βουλομενους διακιν
55 δυνεῦυειν
σαβυττους κουρας εἰδος τι
Ευπολις εν Χρυσω Dever
και καρᾳ... ἧς ὡς p ηλθες
εξ εἴνρημενος σαβυττοὺυς
60 σιωπήσομαι αντι TOV σιω
TOW και σιωπήσει και
σιωπήσεται WS εν τῶ πε

ρι του στεφανου Kayw στερ

ω
ἕω και σιωπησΐ οἶμαι και
65 Μενανδρος εν Φανιωι
σιωπησι παλιν ev τω με
ρει κατα τία]υτα δε και a
κουσομαι και ἀκούσει και
ακουσεται Kat πηδησομαι

1. Cf. Moeris, p. 342 στιφρὸν ᾿Αττικῶς" στριῴνὸν Ἕλληνες, ο after στιῴρον, if

correct, ΞΞ ὅ.

2-4. The line from the Τῆρας cannot be correct as quoted, but is easily emended, e. g.

1808. NEW CLASSICAL FRAGMENTS 165

καὶ piv) ὑπόστιφρον σὺ... OF ὑπόστιφρόν ce... ἔχειν. In place of υποστιῴρον (ἅπαξ. eipny.),
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. στιῴρας. If the a at the beginning of ], 6 has been correctly cancelled by the
copyist, something has dropped out either before or after στιῴρας. The final s of ecopevas
was converted from «.

8. Instances of the shortening of the second a in Sdpams are found only in Latin
(6. g. Prudent. Adv. Symm. ii. 531). The ᾿Ἐγχειρίδιον is no doubt that of Menander, who
was the last author to be mentioned.

11-15. Cf. e.g. Heraclid. ag. Eustath. 1722. 55 of μὲν παλαιοὶ ἐν δυσὶ γάμμα ἐχρῶντο,
γίγνομαι λέγοντες.

12. 1. y for τ: the converse error occurs in ]. τό.

13. ι Of μαλιστα is written through A, i.e. μαλλον was first written.

16-18. 1. την. Cf. Photius σημεῖον’ τὴν σφραγῖδα" καὶ σημαίνεσθαι: τὸ σφραγίζεσθαι,
Hesych, σημεῖον᾽ τέρας. ἢ σφραγίς, and σημήνασθαι' σφραγίσασθαι, Harpocrat. σημεῖα" οὕτω λεγουσι
τὰς σφραγῖδας. Δημοσθένης ἐν τῷ πρὸς Φαίνιππον. In |]. 18 ὡς is followed by what seems to be
the top of a vertical stroke, so that neither Α[ριστοφανης (cf. Lg. 952) nor Δίημοσθενης ἰ 5
probable.

Ig. πολλακεις : et has been converted from wo.

22. Φιλαδελῴοις : of Menander presumably.

- 23-6. Two iambic verses apparently, but the first « of χωρίδιον should be short and τό
is likely to have preceded.

27-9. Cf. Suidas συμφορά᾽ τῶν μέσων ἐστί... . δηλοῖ δὲ ἡ συμφορὰ καὶ τὸ καλὸν καὶ τὸ κακόν,
διὸ λέγει ἐπὶ συμφοραῖσιν ἀγαθαῖς (Aristoph. £g. 655; cf. ll. 31-2), Eustath. 647. 28, Hesych.
συμφορά" συντυχία. σύμπτωτα. ἀτυχία. In]. 29 1. ἀαγαθην.

31-4 = £7. 655-6. The papyrus supports the usual reading εἰσηγγελμέναις. R omits
et, whence Cobet proposed ἀγαθαῖσι ταῖς ἤγγελμ.

35- Perhaps και | χωρις αὐτου, asin Il.14-15. δια τοῦ i presumably refers to the spelling
εἰθίζειν, which is used mefrz gratia, 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 σχολῇ in the sense of βραδέως or οὐδαμῶς.
Cf. Suidas σχολῇ γ᾽ ἄν ἀντὶ τοῦ οὐδ᾽ ὅλως, βραδέως, οὐδαμῶς. 1. Τείωργωι, i.e. most probably the
play of Menander; cf. ll. 8, 22, nn.

38 sqq. Cf. Harpocrat., and Suid. otros: πᾶς 6 σιτικὸς καρπός, οὐχ ὁ πυρὸς μόνον" καὶ αὐτὰ
τὰ σιτία, Hesych, σῖτος" τροφή. The references in Il. 39 and 45-7 are to Xen. Anad. ii. 1. 6
and Dem. /n Dionysod. 7. In 1. 41 the papyrus correctly agrees with the ‘ deteriores ’
against CBAE in omitting καὶ πότον after σιτον. In 1. 52 the reference may be to
Anab, v. 4. 29 and o[tro can be read ; but Ανζα]βασι is not very.satisfactory, though rn, which
seems to be right, points to that work or the Cyrop., which is irreconcilable with the remains,
tn αὐτὴ being also unsuitable.

53-5 = Thucyd. vii. 60 διὰ τὴν τῶν ἐπιτηδείων σπάνιν ὡς τάχιστα κτλ., cited no doubt in
illustration of the word σπάνις. Cf. Photius and Suidas σπάνις" ἔνδεια. Ejither σπάνιν
preceded τῶν ἐπιτ. in the papyrus, or it was omitted.

56-9. Cf. Hesych. σάβυττος" εἶδος ξυρήσεως eis καλλωπισμόν" πότερον δὲ τοῦ πώγωνος ἢ τῆς
κεφαλῆς, ἄδηλον" τινὲς δὲ τὸ γυναικεῖον. Photius gives the latter meaning only to σάβυττος and
spells the equivalent of ξυρήσεως εἶδος, σαβύττης, but Hesych. is confirmed by the papyrus.
ll. 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 ws (e)y’, the preceding word remains a difficulty. The doubtful « after καὶ can. be

166 THE OXYRHYNCHUS PAPYRI

x or ¢;. no is probable, but ws very uncertain. .There is a reference to a κουρεύς in an already
extant fragment of the Xp. Τέν. (Kock 278).

61. σιωπησει: ε has been converted from ε.

62-4. De Cor. 112. 1. σιωπήσομαι, as originally written.

‘65. Savor: the papyrus confirms the spelling of this title, as to which there has been
some doubt.

66. εν τω is very uncertain, but consistent with the meagre vestiges.

1804. λΛέξεις “Ρητορικαί.
Fr. 4 16-6 13-4 cm. 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 IT, P, 3. 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 Aefers “Ρητορικαί
Seguerianae edited by Bekker in Axecd. 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- 2. i Πυθαιός (Ὁ), προστρόπαιος, περίστατοι and πορεῖον follow the
same sequence in Azecd. pp. 295-6, though separated there by a few
additional words; similarly in Axecd. pp. 299, 300, ῥητορικὴ γραφή, ῥῶπος, ῥυτήρ,
and σκειραφεῖα, συμμορία, συμμορίτης, σύμβολον are successive, corresponding to
Frs. 3 and 4 of 1804 with one additional word in each fragment (Fr. 3. 5-8 [ ? ],
Fr. 4. 4-6 στρατηγοῦ. Material similarities are pointed out in the commentary,
and though such matter is often common to e.g. Photius and the Etymologicum
Magnum, the verbal correspondence is generally greatest with the Seguerian
Λέξεις ; see for instance Fr. 4. 14, ἢ. (on the other hand, for a coincidence with
Photius, Frs. 1+2. 9-13, n.). Points of difference between the Aces of the
papyrus and the Cod. Seg. are the omission in the latter, with a single exception,
of the series of proper names in Frs. 1 Ὁ 2. ii, most of which, on the other hand,
figure in Harpocration, and the disappearance of citations of authorities, to which
1804 occasionally refers (Demosthenes Fr. 4. 16, Aeschines Frs. 1+2. Ὁ,
Hyperides Fr. 4. 5, Dinarchus Fr. 3. 7). The relationship is nevertheless

1804. NEW CLASSICAL FRAGMENTS 167

distinct enough, and if the papyrus Λέξεις were not among the more or less im-
mediate sources of the Seguerian, the two compilations must have had a common

ancestor.
Frs. 1+2. Col. i.

[Πυθαιος ? ονομα εἸορίτης AOnun
[σιν ἀγομενης του «ΑἀἸπολίλ᾽ωϊνος . . ..

ἔπ ΕΝ alae Ἰσας ev τοις εἰς to. [

ἘΥ acta Νὰ ΣΉ ΤΣ ] ote Πυθαείς Α4θη
Bere lars ΕΑΝ δ ἔρος SH pice al lt appatos acTpa<

[rlrovros [.. +... - ? Kolucgovras Πυθα

ἘΠ ΠΩΣ ΠΡ ore ie % \nplleleav καλουσιν

ἘΠ ταῖσι, Pe Pace ]

προστροπίαιος Arloxivns ev τῶι πε
το ρι της πα[ραπρεσβειαὶς δαιμὼν τις ε
πι των αἰλιτηριων ἢ ωἸνομασθησαν de
οἱ μετα το ἴσταθηναι τροπαιον) πολεμι
ous λαβοντίες προστροπαιοι]
[πἸερίστατοι [ οι περιβλεπτοὴι
15 [πορ]ειον [ro διδομενον τοιΐς πρεΐσβυ

ἰταιῖς αἷσπερ epodiov ..... | Pe pe ee

Frs.1+2. Col. it.

fie

Παμβίωταδαι δημος της Epex@ntdos ὃ

Παιοΐνιδαι ? δημος της Δεοντιδος ἡ
292 ΠΠαιαϊΐνες ?

Παλλίηνεις δημος της Αντιοχιδος ?

Περγα[ση δημος τῆς Ερεχθηιδος ?

Πειραίιευς ? λιμην Αθηνησιν ?

[ΠἸεριθ[οιδαι δημος της Ouvnidos ?

me Sibel tanerdh

168 THE OXYRHYNCHUS PAPYRI-

Br. 5:

pos πραξαντος Tt ἡ ypawavTjos ἡ εἰ!
ποντοὸς τι φαυλον ἡ nv] ηἡγ[ω]νιζον [

[
|

[To οἱ pytopes..... eyplawarTo<
:

Bi [piece nie ? σημαινει] μεν Tov της Ta

Sle Wiese teeta Sete be eis δας σημαινει
OED 5 ρον κεν ΣΤ προ θυ ας Ὁ κον. Aevapyxos

ΡΧ

[ev τῶι κάτα ΠΠολυευκτΊου [δ]ωροδοκιας

ίρωπος ο παντοδαπος φΊορτος Anpo<
10 ἴἰσθενης ev τῶι προς τὴ]ν Φορμιωνος

[wapaypapny |

[puTnp 0 twas Kupiws dle αἱ ηνιαι

Fr. 4.

oKelpadiov οικημα 72? κυ βευτικον παρία

ἵεῖρον ἄθηνας εξω modelos ενθα ox

κυβείυται ἐπαιζον ᾿ 1]

στρατίηγοι] ι nloaly nplnluevor φυλ[ης
5 εκασ[τ]ης ἃ ὕπερειδης εν τῶ κατα

«Αυτοκλεους

συνμοριαι συνμοριαι ησαν κξ ἕ Ϊ

ανδρων εὖ ὧν ησαν οι τριηρα[ρἸχίαι

συμμορειτης δε 0 της συμμοριας κοι
10 vevos Kat φυλετης και δημοτης [σαν

de τουτων και ἡγέμονες οἱ Tap avTaly

τα αναλωματα ποιουμενοι ὑστερον δε

Tapa τῶν αὐὑτων κομιζομενοι

αι
συμβολὰ σημ[αιΐνει και τον λογον τον
15 δια τῆς φημης γεινομενον επίισημαι
νει καὶ Ta συμβολαια Anpooberr[s ev

1804, NEW CLASSICAL FRAGMENTS 169

Φιλιππικων ¢ συμβολαιον δῖε ειδι
κως γραμματεῖον τι o ἐλαμβανεν [Tov
δικαστων εκαστος εἰσιωϊν] εἰς τίο διίκαστηριον

Fr. 5. Peo, Er. Fr. 8.

] Ἰ. ἐπὶ lef Yat

Ἰλοντοῖ 7. τα drag] ler ep ial
πΊλινθοις Ϊ Js oc δὲ την .Ϊ Jor . [
7. ἐδεσμί Ἰευς amne [ ]
Ἴβαλλοϊν 5 | amoxt.. Bs Taye |
ον ae a Lo yet Lerpecerecs ἢ
Ἰσκει

Frs.1+42. i. 1-8. Apparently a note on Πυθαέα or an analogous form. Cf. Bekker,
Anecd. i, p. 295 Πυθαῖος" ὄνομα ἑυρτῆς ᾿Αθήνῃσιν ἀγομένης τοῦ ᾿Απόλλωνος, ἀπὸ τοῦ Πύθωνος, Etym.
Magn. 696. 22 Πύθεια καὶ Πυθαῖος" ὄνομα ἑορτῆς ἀγομένης τῷ ᾿Απόλλωνι. Harpocrat. gives
a reference for Πυθαέα to Hyperides πρὸς ᾿Απελλαῖον. In 1. 1 o of εἸορίτης is very insecure
and the initial supplement a little short, otherwise the restoration suggested suits well
enough, and in view of ‘other correspondences with this Azecd. is not improbable. In 1. 5,
if the word before apparos was em, part of the + should be visible. In]. 7 the ε is blotted
and seems to have been cancelled. The first letter of 1. 8 was either « or x.

9-13. Cf. Harpocrat. προστρόπαιον' Αἰσχίνης περὶ τῆς πρεσβείας κτὰ., Photius προστρόπαιος"
ιδαίμων τις ἐπὶ τῶν ἐναγῶν (so too Bekker, “΄πεεά. i, p. 296, and Etym. Magn. 700. 10), ἐπεὶ οἱ
μετὰ τὸ σταθῆναι ἤδη TO τρόπαιον {oi} ἀναιροῦντές τινα τῶν πολεμίων πρόστροποι καὶ ἐναγεῖς εἰσίν.
The reference in l. 9 is to Αββοῦ, Fads. Ζερ. 158. In 1. 11 a after των is clear, so that
évayav must be replaced by some synonym like ἀλιτηρίων or ἀκαθάρτων. In 1. 13 προστροπαιοι
seems preferable to the πρόστροποι of Photius, which is perhaps an error. The verbal
correspondence in ]. 12 with Photius makes it preferable to omit of before ἀναιροῦντες rather
than to emend ἐπεὶ of to ἐπειδή with Naber.

14. Cf. Bekker, Avecd. i, p. 296 mepiotaror’ οἱ περίβλεπτοι, ἐφ᾽ ois ἄν τις σταίη βουλόμενος
θεᾶσθαι and the similar gloss in Etym. Magn. 665. 13. Harpocrat. 8. v. refers to Isocrates
περὶ ἀντιδ. 269 with the explanation ἀντὶ τοῦ περὶ ds κύκλῳ ἵστανται οἱ θεώμενοι.

15-16. Cf. Bekker, Azecd. i, p. 296, and Etym. Magn, 684. 8 πορεῖον" τὸ διδόμενον τοῖς
πρεσβευταῖς ὑπὲρ (περὶ Etym. Magn.) τοῦ πορευθῆναι εἰς τὴν πρεσβείαν ὥσπερ ἐφόδιον. The
papyrus apparently had practically the same note, but the vestige of a letter or two at the
end of the line is too slight to indicate what stood after εφοδιον.

18. Cf. Harpocrat. Παμβωτάδης: Δημοσθένης ἐν τῷ πρὸς Νικόστρατον. Παμβωτάδαι τῆς
Ἐρεχθηΐδος δῆμος. Either δημος rns Ἐρεχθ. or dnp. των Αθηναίων will suitably fill the line.
᾿ 19. Cf. Harpocrat.. Παιανιεῖς καὶ Παιονίδαι᾽. .. διαφέρουσι δὲ οὗτοι (sc. ot Tacaneis) τῶν
Παιονιδῶν, ὡς Ἴστρος ἐν ᾿Ατάκτῳ ὑποσημαίνει. μνημονεύουσι δὲ καὶ τούτων οἱ ῥήτορες, ὥσπερ καὶ
Δείναρχος.. . . δῆμος δέ ἐστιν οὗτος τῆς Λεοντίδος...

170 THE OXYRHYNCHUS PAPYRI

20. παιωνίσας occurs in Dem. De Cor. 287, but in this series of proper names, a mis-
spelling of Παίονες is perhaps more likely than a derivative of Παιών. The form Παίωσιν
occurs in Hesych. 8. v. Avados.

ar. Ch. Harpocrat. Παλληνεύς" Ὑπερείδης ἐν τῇ ὑπὲρ Χαιρεφίλου ἀπολογίᾳ. Παλλήνη δῆμος
τῆς ᾿Αντιοχίδος. τὸ δὲ ἐκ τόπου ἐπίρρημα Δείναρχος ἐν τῷ κατὰ Στεφάνου ‘Taher φησιν, ὁ δὲ
δημότης Παλληνεύς.

22. Cf. Harpocrat. Περγασῆθεν" ᾿Ισαῖος ἐν τῷ κατὰ Θουτίμου. Περγασὴ δῆμος τῆς Ἐρεχθηΐδος"
τὸν μέντοι δημότην διχῶς λέγεσθαί φασι, ΠΠεργασέα τε καὶ ἸΤεργασῆθεν.

23. Πειραιεύς" λιμὴν ᾿Αθήνῃσιν is a gloss in Bekker, Avecd. i, p. 288.

24. Cf. Harpocrat. Περιθοῖδαι: Δημοσθένης ἐν τῷ πρὸς ΠΠολυκλέα. δῆμός ἐστι τῆς Οἰνηΐδος.

Fr. 8. τ- 4. These lines are evidently part of a note on ῥητορικὴ γραφή, beginning
probably in the last line of the preceding column ([ρητορικη γραφη ἡ κατα ρητο]) for which
cf. e.g. Harpocrat., who after referring to Isaeus’ speech against Euclides says: ἔοικε
ῥητορικὴ γραφὴ καλεῖσθαι ἡ κατὰ ῥήτορος γράψαντός τι ἢ εἰπόντος ἢ neeome παράνομον ... ἴσως δὲ
kat... ὅτι κατὰ διαφόρους νόμους ai κατὰ τῶν ῥητόρων γραφαὶ εἰσάγονται, ὡς ᾿Αντιφῶν... . ὑποση-
μαίνει, Photius Ῥητ. γραφή" ἣν ἠγωνίζοντο οἱ ῥήτορες" οὐ γὰρ πάσας ἤγωνίζοντο τὰς δίκας τὸ παλαιὸν
οἱ ῥήτορες, ἀλλ᾽ ἐνίας" ἄλλοι δὲ ῥητορικὴν γραφὴν εἶναι λέγουσι τὴν κατὰ ῥήτορος γινομένην, γράψαντός
τι ἢ εἰπόντος ἢ πράξαντος παράνομον, Bekker, Azecd.i, p. 299 “Pyt. γραφὴν καὶ ῥητορικὴν γραψάμενος"
ἣν οἱ ῥήτορες ἤγωνίζοντο γραφόμενοι ῥήτορας ( ) εἰποῦσί τι ἢ πράξασι φαῦλον. The papyrus
was evidently close to Photius and Bekker, Avecd., but put the alternative explanations in
the reverse order.

5-8. This gloss, for the form of which cf. Fr. 4. 14-15, remains unidentified. The
speéch of Dinarchus κατὰ Πολυεύκτου δωροδοκίας is cited e.g. by Harpocrat. 5. ν. δώρων γραφή.
It is identified with the xara Il. ἐκφυλλοφορηθέντος ἔνδειξις.

9. Cf. Bekker, A zecd. i, p. 299 ῥῶπος" ὁ παντοδαπὸς φόρτος, Photius ῥῶπος" μίγματα . ..
τινὲς δὲ καὶ τὸν παντοδαπὸν ἜΘ ΗΣ: ῥῶπον εἰρήκασιν, Etym. Magn. 377. 30 8.ν. ἐρρωπίζομεν, ῥῶπος
γὰρ ὁ ποικίλος καὶ λεπτὸς φόρτος (ποικίλος also Ael. Dionys. ap. Eustath. 92 7; but this would not
fill the lacuna so well). For Il. ro—11 cf. 6. g. Harpocrat. 8. v. ἐπιθέτους ἑορτάς, Anu. ἐν τῷ ὑπὲρ
Χρυσίππου πρὸς τὴν Φ. π. ; the reference is to the C. Phorm, 9.

12. Cf. Bekker, Avecd. i, p. 299 ῥυτὴρ τί ἐστιν ὁ ἱμάς. κυρίως δὲ τὰ ἡνία κτὰ., Photius
ῥυτήρ' ἁπλῶς μὲν ὁ ἱμάς, κυρίως δὲ ἡνία κτλ. The supplement printed hardly fills the lacuna,
but there is not room for amAws μεν: perhaps ρυτηρες οἱ ἐμαντες Was written.

Fr. 4. 1-3. Cf. Bekker, Axecd. i, P. 300 σκειραφεῖα" σκειραφεῖά ἐστι τὰ κυβεῖα, ἤτοι ἐπεὶ
σκείραφός τίς ἐστιν ὄργανον κυβευτικόν, . .. ἢ ὅτι ἐν τῷ τῆς Σκειράδος ᾿Αθηνᾶς ἱερῷ οἱ κυβευταὶ ἔπαιζον,
ἔξω τῆς πόλεως ὄντι. Photius and Etym. Magn. 717. 27 have similar notes but omit ἔξω. ..
ὄντι. Harpocrat. citing Dinarchus, Jz Proxen. says σκιράφια ἔλεγον τὰ κυβευτήρια, ἐπειδὴ
διέτριβον ἐν Σκίρῳ οἱ κυβεύοντες, ὡς Θεόπομπος ἐν τῇ ν΄ ὑποσημαίνε. The gloss in the papyrus
seems to have lost in clearness owing to compression.

4-6. Cf. Harpocrat. στρατηγοί"... of καθ᾽ ἕκαστον ἐνιαυτὸν χειροτονούμενοι στρατηγοὶ ( ἦσαν,
ὡς μαθεῖν ἐστιν ἔκ τε τῶν Ὑπερείδου κατ᾽ Αὐτοκλέου;... The vestiges in the middle of 1. 4 are
very scanty but so far as they go suit the letters suggested.

7-13. Cf. Harpocrat. συμμορία" ok γοῦν Seo. ev τῷ περὶ τῶν Uso PAE φησι, περὶ
τῶν χιλίων καὶ διακοσίων ἀνδρῶν λέγων τῶν πλουσιωτάτων, “ἐκ τούτων τοίνυν οἶμαι δεῖν ποιῆσαι
συμμορίας κ’, ὥσπερ νῦν εἰσί, σώματα ξ ἑκάστην ἔχουσαν ” Ὑπερείδης δὲ ἐν τῷ πρὸς Πολύευκτόν
φησιν “ἐ εἰσὶ γὰρ ἐν τῇ συμμορίᾳ ἑκάστῃ ιε΄ ἄνδρες". .. συμμορῖται δέ εἶσιν οἱ τῆς αὐτῆς αὑτοῖς
μετέχοντες συμμορίας, ὡς ἐν τῷ αὐτῷ λόγῳ Ὑπερείδης δείκνυσι, Bekker, Anecd. i, p. 300 συμμορία τί
ἐστι τὰ συντάγματα τῶν πλουσίων τῶν ἐπιτηδείων πρὸς τριηραρχίας. εἰσὶ δὲ χίλιοι διακόσιοι.
συμμορίτης" σημαίνει ( ) The ἡγεμὼν συμμορίας (ll. II-13) is treated separately by
Harpocrat. and defined as ὁ προέχων τῷ πλούτῳ καὶ διὰ τοῦτο τῶν ἄλλων ἡγεμονεύειν ἐπειλημμένος,

ey

1804. NEW CLASSICAL FRAGMENTS 171

ὡς ὑποφαίνει Ὑπερείδης ἐν τῷ κατὰ Πολυεύκτου. The financial responsibility described by the
papyrus is apparently not elsewhere stated. At the end of |. 7 «s, which is clear, is an
error for κ (cf. e.g. Dem. De Symm. 17), perhaps arising from the ambiguity of an original
εἰκοσι εξ εξηκοντα, where εξ should have been read as ἐξ not ἕξ, The € is very uncertain,
but the scanty remains are sufficiently suitable. In ], 11 παρ αὐτῶν may be interpreted παρ᾽
αὑτῶν, but more probably παρ is a mistake for ὑπέρ, or ὑπέρ by a common misspelling
became ourep and then οἱ παρ.

14. Cf. Bekker, Avecd. i, p. 300 σύμβολον" σημαίνει μὲν τὰ σημεῖα, σημαίνει δὲ καὶ τὰ
συμβόλαια καὶ τὰ γραμματεῖα. εἰδικῶς δὲ τὸ σύμβολον δηλοῖ γραμματεῖόν τι, ὃ ἐλάμβανε τῶν δικαστῶν
ἕκαστος εἰσιὼν εἰς τὸ δικαστήριον, ὅ ἐστι πινάκιον. Photius, Etym. Magn., and Suidas give the
second sentence in the form σύμβολον ὃ ἐλάμβανον of δικασταὶ εἰς τὸ δικαστήριον εἰσιόντες, εἶτα
τοῦτο δόντες τὸ δικαστικὸν ἐκομίζοντο. Harpocration agrees with the papyrus in referring to the
seventh Phiizppic but is otherwise dissimilar.

. Fr. 5. πἼλινθοις in 1. 2 suggests that this may be part of a note on πλινθεῖον, a word
which occurs a little above Πυθαιός (cf. Frs. 1+ 2. i. 1-8 n.) in Bekker, Anecd. i, Pp. 295
πλινθεῖον" τὸ πλινθουργεῖον, ὅπου πλίνθοι γίνονται; cf. Harpocrat. πλινθεῖον: 6 τόπος ἐν ᾧ πλίνθος
πλάττεται" Λυσίας ἐν τῷ κατὰ Λυσίθεου. If so, the fragment would probably belong to the
upper part of Frs, 1 -Ἐ 2. i.

Fr. 6. 4. There is an appearance of a colon just in front of ε of annex, but this may be
due to a correction, 6. g. perhaps the scribe began to write απηλ(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 po: or pos (προς ἢ).

172 THE OXYRHYNCHUS PAPYRI

11. EXTANT: CLASSICAL ‘AUTHORS:

1805. SOPHOCLES, 7rachiniae.
Fr.15 10X9-6 cm. Late second century.

These scattered fragments from a roll of the Zrachiniae 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, 1136, 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.

ἰδρακων ελικτος addAoT avdpew τυ]πίω
[βουκρανος εκ de δασκιον yeverad|os
ἴκρουνοι διερραινοντο κρηναίου ποΊτου
15 ἰτοιονδ eyw μνηστηρα προσδεδεγμ]είνη
ἰδυστηνος ae κατθανειν επευχομΊην [

180, EXTANT CLASSICAL AUTHORS

πριν τησδε κοιτης εμπελασθην]αΐ more
[χρονω de εν υστερω μεν acpevn] de μῖίοι
[o κλεινος ηλθε Ζηνος Αλκμηνης τίε παις
20 [os εἰς aywva τωδὲ συμπέσων playns [
[exAveTat μὲ καὶ TpOTTOV μεν av πΊονωϊν

Fr. 2.

37 [εν]ταίυθα δὴ μαλιστα ταρβησασ exw
[εξ οἷν γαρ εἶκτα κεινος Ιφιτου βιαν
[npels μίεν εν Τραχινι τηδ αναστατοι

Fr a.

275 [0 τῶν ἀπαντων Zevs πατὴρ Ολυ)μπι-ωνΐ:
ἵπρατον viv εξεπεμψεῖν: ovd ἠἡνεσχετῖο
[οθουνεκ αὐτον μουνον] ανθρωπὼων δοΐλω
ἱεκτεινεν εἰ yap εμφαν]ως] ημὔνατο
[Zevs ταν συνεγνω ξυν] δίκη χειρ[ο]Ἱυμένω [

280 ἰυβριν yap ov στεργουσιν οὐδε δ]αιμονεῖς
ίκεινοι ὃ υπερχλιίιοντες elk [γ]λωσσης κα[ζκης
ίαυτοι μεν Ardov παντες] εἰσι οἰκητορες
πολις δὲ δουλη τασδε ὃ ἀασπεῖρ eloopals

Fr. 4.

[ppover νιν ws ngov7a τουτο] yap λογ]ου
290 [πολλοῦ καλως λεχθεντος ηδισΊτον κλυειν

ἰανασσα νυν σοι τερψις εμφανης κυρε[

[Tov μεν παροντῶν τὰ de πἸεπυσμίενη λογω

173

174

THE OXYRAYNCHUS | PAPYRI
ΕΥ. 5.

301 [ae mpty pely noaly εξ ελευθερων tows
ἰανδρων τα]νῦν dfe δουλον ἰσχουσιν Brov

ἰω Zev τροπαιε] μίηποτ εἰσιδοιμι σε

Ετ5, 6--το.
ayo|pa συνεξ[ηκονον
λειήμωνι ταυτία
αγοῆραι νοησαι [Set το em λ]ειμωνος [αθροισμα ?

360 [τη]ῆν mada ἰδουναι] κρυφιον ws εχοΐι λεχος
[εγκλημα [μικρον] atiay θ᾽ ετοϊιμασας
[ἐπι]στρατεΐυει πατριδῆα τὴν ταυΐτης εν ἢ
[roy Ευρυτοῖν τονδ εἰπε] δεσποΐειν θρονων

[kre|ve|v]] 7 [avaxra πατερ]α τησδῖε και πολιν

365 [ἐπεῖρσε: κίαι νυν ws opas ἥκει δομους
5 lines lost

370 [deca & Tovdle τυγχανω μαθων παρα

[kat ταυ]τα πολλίοι προς μεση Tpayxiviov
[ayopa] συνεξηΐκουΐον woaluTws εμοι
[wor εξ]ελεγχειν [εἰ dle μη λεγίω Gira
ἰουχ ηδΊομαι: το δ᾽ [ορθ]ον εξεϊιρηχ opws
375 ἴοιμοι τ]αλαινα ἵπο]ν ποτ᾽ ἐιμ[ι πραγματος
[rw εισ]δεδεγμα[ι π]ημονηῖν ὑποστεγον
¢ [λαθραιον' ὦ δυΐστηνος alp αἷνωνυμος
[πεφυ]κεν wonlep ουπαγ͵]αΐν διωμνυτο

[η καρτῆα λαμπρία καὶ κατ ονομα Kat φυσιν

380 [πατροὶς μεν ovoa [yeveoty Ευρυτου ποτε
[1ολη καλειτο' τῆς εκεινίος ovdapa
[βλαστας] εφωνει δῆθεν [ovdey ἱἰστορωὼν
ἰολοιντο] μή τι παντες οἷι κακοι Ta δε
[λαθραι ols ἄσκεϊζ μη πρεπίονθ αὐτω Kaka

385 [Te χρὴ ποεῖιν γ[υ]ναικες als eyw λογοις

΄
πεν, οὐδ ΒΒ κῶν

1805. EXTANT CLASSICAL AUTHORS

[ros νυν πἸα[ρουσ)ιν εκπίεπληγμενη 'κυρω
[πευθου μολουσα ταἸνδροῖς ws Tax αν σαφη

ΒΕ τι:

532 [Tals αἰχμαλωτοις ἱπαίσιν ὡς ἐπ᾿ εξοδω
[typos Ovpatlos ἡλίθον ὡς υμας λαθρα
[Ta μεν ppacolvoa χίερσιν ατεχνησαμὴν

535 [Ta ὃ οια πασχἼω [συνκατοικτιουμενὴ

Frs. 12, 13.

576 [rns Ἡρακλειας wore μῖητιν εἰ σιδων
[orepger γυναικα κειῖνος ανἷτι σον πλεον
ἴτουτ ἐννοησασ ὦ φιλΊ]αϊε δομοις yap nv

ι
[ketvou θανοντος εγκεϊκλημεῖνον καλως
580 [xiTwva τονδ εβαψα π]ροσβαλίουσ οσα
[ζων κεινος εἰπε και] πεπειρίανται ταδε

Fr. 14.

602 omws φερηΐς μοι tovde ταναυφη πεπλον
δώρημ᾽ εκ[είνω τανδρι τῆς εμης χέρος
διδους δὲ τίονδε φραζ omas μηδεις βροτων

605 κεινου παρίοιθεν αμφιδυσεται χροι
μη[δ]ε οἴψεται νιν μητε φεγγος ηλιου

Εἰ. 15. (Οἱ. 1.

175

THE’ OXYRHYNCHUS PAPYRI

p 8
[taper avipwrrov |}

744 [πως elas ὦ παι Tov παρ ανθρωπων]
Ι [Αρ(ιστοφανης 2) ]
]
|

Pr τό.

763 [kat πρωτα] μεν ἰδειλαιος ew φρενι
α
ἰκοσμω τε] χαίρων και στολὴ κατηύχετο

ΕΥ. 15 Cols it
[kJoun δὲ λίευκον μυελον εκραινει μεσου

[κἸρᾶτος διασπαρεντος [αιματος 6 ομου
ὃ
απας ανευφημῆσεν οἰιμωγη ews

Tov μεν νοσουντος" Tolu δὲ διαπεπραγμενου
785 Κούυδεις ετολμα τἀνδῖρος αντιον μολεῖν

[εσπατο yap medovdle| και μεταρσιος

[(βοἸων ἴυζων" apde [6 εἸἰκτίυπουν πετραι

Aoxpwv ορειοι πραΪν]ες Εἰυβοιας τ ἀακραι

ἐπεὶ ὃ απειπε πολλα μεῖν Taras χθονι
790 ριπτῶν εαὐυτον' πολλα ὃ [οιμωγὴ βοων

To δὺσπάρευνον λεκτρον [ενδατουμενος

σου της ταλαινῆς. και τον [Θινεως γαμον

α ι
οιἱον καταστησαιτο λυμίαντην βιου

τότ᾽ εκ προσέδρου λιγνυος διαστροῴον

795 οφθαλμον apas εἴδέ p εν [πολλω στρατω
δακρυροουντα' Kat με πρίοσβλεψας καλει
© Tat προσελ[θε)" μη φυγηΐς Tovpoy κακον

1805. EXTANT CLASSICAL AUTHORS
Pr τῇ:

851 [μὸδιρα mpolpadver δολιαν
[και μεγα͵λαν [ἰαταν
[eppwyer] maya ἰδακρυὼων κεχυται ὃ
[vooos Ὁ] ὦ ποπῖοι οιἱον αναρσιὼν

[ουπω αγαϊκλείιτον

Fr. 18.

[τι δ ὦ yepata κἸαινοϊποιηθεν λεγεις

[βεβηκε Δηϊανειρία την πανυστατην
875 ἰοδων απασωὴν εξ ακ[ινητου ποδὸς

[ov δὴ ποθ ws θα͵νουϊσα

TavT aknkoas|

[τεθνηκεν ἡ ταλαιίνα

Ἐν. το.

ἰω παι γενου μοι tras ετ]ητυΐμος yeyws

1065 [kat μη TO μητρος ονο]μα πρεϊσβευσης πλεον
[δος μοι χεροιν σαιν αὐἾτος εξ οἰικου λαβων
[es χειρα την τεκουσαὴν ὡς εἰδω [cada
[εἰ τουμον ἀλγεις μαλλοὴν ἡ κείνης opwy
[λωβητον εἰδος ev δικη] κακουΐμενον

1070 [10 w τεκνον τολμησον οικίτειί[ρον τε μὲ
[πολλοισιν οἰκτρον οστιῖς wate [παρθενος
[βεβρυχα κλαιων Kat Tod ου]δ ay [εἰς ποτε

[rovd ανδρα φαιη προσθ ἰδεῖιν δεδρακοτα

Frs. 20, 21:

προς του τερας τοι δια κακωὴν eeon[icas
Ν

[77

178 THE OXYRHYNCHUS PAPYRI

[av7n προς αὑτῆς ovdelvos προς εκτοῖπου

ἴοιμοι πριν ὡς xpnv od εξ euns θανέειν χερος

[kav σου στραφειη θυμος Peels ro παν pablos
1135 [devov λογου κατηρξα]ς" ἐιπε ὃ ἡ νοέΪις

ἰαπαν To χρὴημ ἡμαρτε) χρηστὰ μωμενη

ἰχρηστ ὦ κακιστε πατερ]α σον κτεινασία Spa

ἰστεργημα yap δοκουσα π]ροσβαλειν" σεῖθεν

ἰαπημπλαχ ὡς προσει]δε τους ενδίον γαμους
1140 [Kat τις τοσουτος φ]αρμακευς Tpaywifwy

ε
[Νέεσσος παλαι Κεν])ταυρζοὶς [. ξεπεισέ νιν

: [Torwde φιλτρω Tov gov εἐκμηναι ποθον
[tov ov δυστηνος οἰχομαι ταΪλας.
ἰολωλ ολωλα ῴεγγος οὐκετ εἶστι pole
1145 [οἱμοι φρονω δὴ συμφορας] iv’ ἐσταῖμεν
ιθ ὦ τεκνον πατὴρ yap ουἸκέϊτ ἐστι σοι

[
ἰκαλει τὸ παν μοι σπερμα σῆων [ομαιμονων

Fr. 22.

[ταχειὰᾶν w παι προσθες ὡς πῆριν εμίπεσειν
ἱσπαραγμον ἡ τιν οἰστρον els mdpaly με Ons
1255 [ay εγκονειτ αἱἰρεσθε παυλα τῆοι κακίων

[
[αὐτὴ τελευτὴ Tovde Tavdpos| voralrn
[αλλ ovdey εἰργει σοι τελειουσθῆαι τα[δε

Pr. 22.

[to τηνδ arnv υπεχονἾτι
1275 ἰλείπου μηδὲ συ] παρθεῖν ex οἰκων
[Meyadous μεν ιδο]υσα [veovs θανατους

1805. EXTANT CLASSICAL AUTHORS 179

Fr. 24,
Σ᾿ οφ[οκλεουξ
[Τραχινιαῖ]

12. Unfortunately it is not clear whether the papyrus agreed with the MSS. in having
τυπω(ι) βουκρανος, or supported Strabo’s κύτεε βούπρῳρος, which is generally preferred. On
the whole τυ͵πίω seems a more satisfactory reading than κιΐτει.

17. Bergk wished to reject this line.

275- Apparently OAvumwy was originally written, but a dot between « and o and
a vestige of ink above the line point to the insertion of -os as an alternative. The genitive
would spoil the line.

278. ημὔνατο : so L &c.3; ἠμύνετο Β.

281. « of e|« is directly above the first « of eo in 1. 282, so that with vmepyAsovres
(L first hand and lemma of Schol.) the number of letters in the respective lacunae coincides.
But ὑπερχλιδωντες (L corr. 1 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 de.

Frs. 6-10. The cursive note at the top of this column refers to |. 372, and evidently
explains the apparent inconsistency of ἀγορᾷ here with ἐν βουθερεῖ λειμῶνι in 1, 188, the
inconsistency vanishing if ἀγορᾷ is taken in the sense of assembly or gathering; cf. Schol.
dyopa* ἀθροίσματι. The reading suggested in the latter part of the third line is, however,
highly doubtful, the » being rather cramped and the s very insecure. λων or τῶν is
possible.

360. exo[e: so edd. with A; ἔχη (from ἔχει) L.

362-4. These verses have been much suspected, some critics bracketing ll. 362-3,
others 1. 362 τὴν ravrns—l. 364 πατέρα.

364. The superfluous ν (due to the preceding infin. no doubt) has been crossed through,
perhaps by a later hand.

370. a: 6 MSS., which is required by the preceding τὸ πᾶν.

372. Cf. n. on Frs. 6-10 above.

379. Whether the papyrus had xapra or καὶ τα cannot be determined.

534. So far as considerations of space are concerned, there is nothing to choose between
φραζουσα (L) and φρασουσα (A).

576. w\|nrw: ἡ Suits the remains, which are inconsistent with ov.

579- εγκεΪκληιμένον : a better spelling than that of L (-κλειμ-) or A (τκλεισμ-), and already
restored by Dindorf. The. 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 comé 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. παρων, which was inadvertently written originally, has been amended to μαθὼν by
the second hand, which also inserted in the margin the (unknown) v. 1. ἀνθρωπου, attributing
it to ἀρί ), who is more probably Aristophanes than Aristarchus ; cf. 1174. vi. 5, where
Αρί ) seems to be used side by side with Αρινί ) as an abbreviation of ᾿Αριστοφάνης.
Subsequently the pen was drawn through this marginal note and also, rather unaccountably,

N 2

180 THE OX¥YRAYNCAUS: PAPYRI

through the final word of the line. Possibly ανθρωπὼν was similarly cancelled and ἀνθρωπου
μαθων rewritten above.

764. Why awas written again above the line is not evident, the original letter being
sufficiently well formed.

781. [κ]ομη: κόμης MSS., a reading retained by Jebb but often suspected. κόρσης,
κόγχης, κοπῇ, βολῇ 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 κοπῇ. --

783. ανευφημησεν: this reading had been restored by Brunck from Hesych. s. v.
ἀνευφημήσει and is also in Schol. Eurip. 770. 573. ἄνευ φωνῆς ἐν L, ἀνευφώνησεν ΟΥ ἀνεφώνησεν
other MSS.

788. Jebb following Porson accepts τ᾽ after Λοκρῶν from Diog. Laert. x. 137, where
ll. 787-8 are quoted with several other variations from the MSS. reading, which the papyrus
supports.

790. ριπτῶν: cf. 1. 7803; ῥίπτων MSS.

793. The alternative reading oav implies the corresponding v. 1]. λυμαντιν later in the
verse ; οἷον. .. λυμαντήν only MSS.

796. Sai ponobe- analogous spellings are not infrequent in the papyri.

852-4. Unfortunately the papyrus brings no light here. In 1. 854 the MSS. reading
οὔπω ἀγάκλειτον Suits the space. What stood ‘in the lacuna at the beginning of 1. 853 is more
doubtful. κεχυται vooos, if that was read, must have been divided between Il. 852-3, and
κεχυται would fill the space better than vocos, but there is no evidence for that order.

1071. wore: L mistakenly has ὥστις.

1134. ro is preceded by something that looks like o surmounted by a rather thick dot;
perhaps εἰς was inadvertently written and the superfluous s subsequently cancelled; or the
dot might be explained as a high stop after θυμοῖς, εἰ being omitted.

1135. A spot of ink on the edge of a hole above ἡ may represent a rough breathing or
circumflex accent, but since there are other ink-marks above vo, they are all best regarded
as accidental.

1136. μωμίενη confirms the correction of Heath, which according to Subkoff was the
reading of L?; μνωμένη LA &c.

1138. The Stop after π]ροσβαλειν shows that σέθεν was constructed with ἀπήμπλακε
instead of with στέργημα.

1141. Some other letter than ε was originally written before €; that the alteration was
made by the first hand is possible, but uncertain.

1254. πὺραΐν: the accent is a probable indication that pens 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, /dyll xxii.

Height 29 cm. Late first century. Plate IV
: (Col. iv).

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

1875. The cross-bar of « and @ is placed rather high, as in P. Brit. Mus. 271
(cf. Kenyon, Palacography, 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, 7vzs¢. 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. 45
τεθραυμένος for τεθλασμένος, 1. 60 ἀπέλθοις for ἱκάνοις, 1. 77 κόγχου for κόχλου;
cf. 694. 34, where σῴιν πα[ρέκειτο replaces γάρ σφιν ἔκειτο. The text shows
a mixture of dialects similar to that found in the MSS., e.g. ἀπένθοις (so
originally ; ἀπέλθοις the corrector) and πύκτας side by side with Μαγνήσσης
ἀπὸ νηός.

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.

Colt:
8 [νηων θ at δυνοντα Kat ovpavoy εἰισ]ανιοἶῖντα
Col. ii.

38 ἰυδατι πεπληθυιαν ax|nplarw ae ὃ υπενερθεν
[λαλλαι κρυσταλλω η]δ αρίγυρω ινδαλλοντο

Col. iii.

409 [εκ | βυθου] υψηλα[ι)] de πεφυκεσαν αγχοθι πευκαι
[Aevkae τε] πλαϊταν[ο].. κ[αι αἴκροκομοι κυπαρισσοι
[ανθεα τ evwdn λασιαις φιλ]α εργα μελισσαις

ίοσσ eapos ληγοντος επιβΊήρυει αν λειμωνα

182

45

5°

60

65

THE. -OXYRAYNCHUS FPAPYRI

a
evOa ὃ ἀνὴρ ὑπεροπλος εἸνημενος ενδιασκεν

|

[Secvos ἰδειν σκληρησι τε]θραυμενος ovata πυγμαις
ἰστηθεα ὃ ἐσφαιρωτὸ πελ]ωρια και πλατὺ ναῖτον
[σαρκι σιδηρειηι σφυρηλατοῆς ova κολοσσος

[ev δὲ μυες στερεοισι βραχιοΊσιν akpov ὑπ ὠμον Ϊ
ἰεστασαν nuTe πετροι ολοιτροΐχοι ουστε κυλινδεζων
[χειμάρρους ποταμὸς μεγαλαις περἸιεζεσε 'δινζαἾις
[avrap ὑπερ νωτοιο και αὐχενος] ηωρεῖτο

ἰακρων δερμα λεοντος αφημμε͵ῖνον εκ ποδεωΐνων
[Tov προτερος προσεειπεν αεθλ]οῴορος ΠΙολυδίευκης
ἴχαιρε ἕξειν οτις ἐσσι τινες βροτοι οἷν ode χαΐρος
[xalpo πὼς οτε τ ἀνδρας opw τοὺς μη πριν οπωπία
[θαρσει pnt αδικους pnt εξ αδικων φΊ]αθι λεζυσσειν
[θαρσεω κουκ εκ σευ με διδασκεσθ]αι Tod ἴεοικεν
ἰαγριος εἰ προς mavta παλιγκοτοὶς ηδὃ ὑπεροπτης
[

τοιοσδὃ οιἱον opas της ons ye μεν] οὐκ εἶπιβαινω

λ
ἰελθοις και ξενιων κε τυχὼν παλιν] οικαὃ απε[ϊνἤθοις

μητε ov με ξεινιζει τα ὃ εξ εμεὺυ οὐκ] εν ετοιμω

w
ἰδαιμονι ovd av tovde mew vodatols συγε dons

ο
ἰγνωσεαι εἰ σευ διψος ανειμενα χειλεα τερσει

ἰαργυρος ἡ τις o μισθος ερεις ὦ κἹεν σε πιθοιμεν
[els Eve χειρας αειρον ἐναντίος ανδρι] καταστας
ἰπυγμαχος ἡ Kat ποσσι θενων σκελΊ]ος ομματα ὃ ορθοι
ἱπυξ διατεινάμενος σφετερης μὴ φειδεο τεχνης

[Tis yap οτῶω χειρας και εμοὺυς συνερεισω [μαντας.
ἰεγγυς opas ov γυννις εν (Ὁ) κεκλησεῖθ ο πυκτας

Col. iv. Plate IV.

yo 4 Kat aleOlAoy. ετοίιμον ef w δηρισομεθ appa

gos μεν eym ov ὃ ἴεμος κεκλησεαι al κε κρατησω
ορνιθων φοινικ[ολοφων τοιοιδε κυδοιμοι

εἰτ ovv ορνιθεσΐσιν εοἰκοτες εἰτε λεουσι

1806. EXTANT CLASSICAL AUTHORS 183

E
γινομεθ οὐκ αλλω [κε μαχεσσαιμεσθ ex αεθλω
75 1 p ἅμυκος και κοχλίον ἐλων μυκησατο κοιλην

17
of[v]] de ows συναγερθῖεν ὑπο σκιερας πλατανιστοὺυς
κονχου φυσηθενῖτος aet Βεβρυκες κομοωντες
ὡς ὃ avTws npwas ιαΐν εκαλεσσατο TavTas
Μαγνησσης απὸ νηος [ὑπειροχος ev dat Καστωρ
80 οἱ ὃ em ovy δπειραισῖιν εκαρτυναντο βοειαις

χειρας και περι γυια ἱμακρους ειλιξαν ἱμαντας

E
[es μεσσοὴν [[olwvayoly φονον αλληλοισι mveovTes
[evOa πολυ(ς}] σφισι μοῖχθος επειγομενοισιν ετυχθη
ἰοπποτερος] κατα νῶτα λαβοι ῴφαος ηελιοιο

Unidentified Fragment.

e e

Ἰομυΐ
Ἰοῦ τί

Ἶκρι - [
tak

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 ἄλλαι of the MSS. is of
course quite uncertain, but there would apparently be plenty cf room for it.

40. πεφυκεσαν : so Stephanus; πεφύκασιν ΜΙ ΤΥ.

41. πλάτανοι τε is required, but cannot be read. The supposed « (which is not ο) 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 καὶ 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 Aedkar,which was taken for λευκαί.

43. λειμωνα: λειμῶνας MSS. ἷ

45. τεήθραυμενος : τεθλασμένος (τεθλαγμ. M) MSS.

49. κυλινδέζων : κυλίνδων MSS.

60. απελθοις (H? from απενθοις) : ἱκάνοις MSS,

62. δοιης, as originally written, is correct,

63. €l gov... τέρσει MSS. ; the occurrence of repoet with v. 1. -co: at the end of the line
points to εἰ cov or σευ preceding. εὖτέ σε... . τέρσηι Wilamowitz.

184 THE OXYRHYNCHUS PAPYRI

64. ε Of πιθοιμεν was converted from a vertical stroke.

66. Oevov . . . ορθοι: θέων... ὀρθός M, θένων. . . ὀρθά Tr. ορθοι for ὀρθός is no
improvement, but is consistent with θενων, which also suits the space better than a shorter
reading, the lacuna being of the same length as in the next four lines. θένω σκέλος ;. ..
ὀρθά 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 o πυκτας, which
Wilamowitz obelizes, is at any rate something. οὐ σύ pe ἀμός Tr., οὐ γύννις (γύνις M)
ἐών MD, οὐ γύννις ἑκών Meineke, οὐ γύννις ἀμός Haupt. The spelling πύκτας is that of Ὁ
(a corr.).

70. A short oblique dash in front of this verse has no evident significance. Cf.
694. 21.

77. κονχου: κόχλου MSS.

82. συναγον is the spelling of the MSS., as originally written here. Whether the
termination is rightly read as -γοῖν 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 ¢ in the remains of the supposed
o. ξυνατεῖ 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 (I. 2).

1807. ARATUS, Διοσημεῖα.

17-3 X 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 Il. 895 and gol are in smaller
and more lightly formed lettering than the v. |. 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 το, 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 andbest 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. Klasstkertexte, v. 1. 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 asa v. l.
For the accompanying collation the edition of E. Maass has been utilized.

Col, 1.
895 1 φατνης
|
897 vo|tw ὃ επικεκλιται
]
]
|
gol 7 eyyus αλληλων φαιν[οἼν[ ται]
|
|
Coli.

[εξ ados] ερίχηται φωνηι περιπολλα λεληκως
915 [Κε]!ινυμείνου κε] θαλασίσαν ὑπερ φορεοιτ ἀνέμοιο
Kal ποτε και κεπῴφοι οποῖτ εὑδιοι ποτε(ωννται
avTia μελ[ίλοντίων ἀνεμίων εἰληδα φερονται

πολλακι ὃ [aypiadles νησσαΐι ἡ ειναλιδιναι

ο
αιθυιαι xepolaa Thvacallel|yra: πτίερυγεσσιν
920 ἡ νεφελη ορεῖος] μηκυνεται εν κορίυφησιν
On καὶ παμποι λευκης γήρειον ακζανθης

5
one eyevovT ἀνεμου κωφηΪ π|] αλος οἴπποτε πολλοι
ακρον επιπλωωσι Ta μὲν Tapos αλλα ὃ οπισσω
kat θερεος βρονται τε Kat αστραπαι [εἾνθεν (€)worr

925 evOev εἐπερχομ[ενοιο περισκοπέειν ἀνέμοιο

186 THE OXYRHYNCHUS PAPYRI

kat Ola vuKTa μελαιναν or ἀστεῖρες αἰσσωσι
Tappea τοι ὃ οπιθεν ρυμοι emi[AevKavovTat
δειδεχθαι κεινοις αὐτὴν odov εἴρχομενοιο

πνευματος" ἣν δὲ κεν αλλοι ενανΐτιον αἰσσωσιν
δ᾽
930 αλλοίς]} εξ adAwv μερεων τοτε ὅΐη πεφυλαξο
παντοίων ἀνεμὼν οἱ T ἀκριτόϊι εἰσι "μαλιστα
ἄκριτα δὲ πνειουσιν ἐπ᾿ ἀνδρασι τεκμηρασθαι

αὐτὰρ oT εξ evpolo Kal εκ νοτου Ϊαστραπτησιν

895. Perhaps τῆς φατνης was added in explanation of ἐγγύς, or the word may be part
of a longer note on a previous line; cf. Schol. 892 εἰσὶ δὲ καὶ παρ᾽ ἑκάτερα τῆς φάτνης δύο
ἀστέρες, kth. But e.g. Ἰανης or |evns is also possible.

897. The marginal v. 1, νοΐτω ὃ επικεκλιται, is the reading of A and Maass (cf. 1. 486) ;
presumably emepyera: stood in the text, as in ΟΜ.

gor. A paraphrase of ἀλλήλων... ἰνδάλλονται. Cf. Schol. ... ὁ δὲ νοῦς, ἐάν, φησίν, οἱ μὲν
ἀστέρες ἐγγὺς ἀλλήλων φαίνωνται, ἀφανὴς, δὲ ἡ φάτνη, τηνικαῦτα βραχὺν χειμῶνα προσδόκα...

9165. [κ]εινυμέΐνου : κινουμ. AC.

921. |. παπποι.

-εἰωσι OF

924. τε: om. C,

927. ro δ: so ACM and (Μὴ Schol.; τοῖς δ᾽ Philoponus, 2 Arzstot. Meteor., p. 100
(ll. 926-31), τοῖς Maass.

οπιθεν : ὄπισθεν A Philop.

επι[λευκαινονται : sO P. Berl. 7503-4 and Philop. ὑπολευκαίνονται (or -ωνται) MSS., Maass
(cf. Homer E 502).

928. κείνης re

‘929. ἡν: soCM (ἢν): εἰ Maass with A Philop.

κεν : SO CM Philop., Maass ; και A.

930. αλλοις, as originally written here, is read by Maass with C &c., and Avienus ;
αλλοι 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
ε, 0,0, σ is in marked contrast to the breadth of the square letters n, μ, ν, 7; their

923. ἐπιπλωωσι: so Maass with several later MSS, (cf. Homer ε 284); -όωσι AM,

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 charge of speaker, in combination with
paragraphi (v. 13); a short blank space is sometimes employed instead for
the same purposes (iii. το, 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 ἡ in ιἰστησιν. 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 ot περὶ Δερκυλίδην 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.

ort Plate 1V. Col. ii. Plate IV.
jJ-tpal----- J ἐσομη[κ
7ηδε[.1. [-.-«ῳ λΊπεσθ μο[ναδι 2

7..[.7. [0]. exer τετραγων“ αριθμος [ 5

1. ov το oxnparc π) Μένωνι Je ΡΣ
τΊ]ο διπλασιον απο δὶμεῖ γ' fe

yev yn 546b [enkn pely THe 546 ς

[cover παιδας πρίομηκη] δῖε

[ποτε ov δεον ele εκατίον μεν apt

188

[te de θειωι μεν
5 [γεννητωι περι | Weer ee dey Ors
[odos ἣν αριθμος ja
ἱπεριλαμβανει
[TeAELos ανθρω

TEL@L δὲ εν @L teeny

τεινουσας

duvacrevopevale

[
[
[Ouvapevar τε και ]
[ ορθην \ Bact
[

lp’ ava ἐπί. wa

] Ἡρακλειτ Ἔτη μ
7 τελὴν οτ' εἰ]
jo Kt Tp ο 95 wp
7 ot o 9 πλανητας

10 [πρώτωι av€noes 1 Svvapev4 4 ὕπο

be

Φ.

ao-

OO ONT Qu

μι

4 αλλ πλευρΊ 11

τρεις αἀποστασεις] 5° op° Ὑ atoota 13

σεις Ree Ov I
[TeTTapas de ορ]ους § κΊονες 7° 4 τ
15 ἱλαβουσαι ομοιοὴν UE aes Ὁ
Col, dil, > PlateLV:
[A]eew [φυλακες ov 546d

Tes map ελαττον
του delovTos nyn
capevolt Ta μου
5 σικης dlevrepov
de Ta γυΐμναστι

κης οθεν [apou

ἘΠΕ of [μιν γε
νησονΐται οἱ νε

10 οἱ κ [de τουτων ap

Col. iv.
πλουσία} τας ψυ
xas
oT,

ἐπι τὴν ape

χὴν Kat τὴν ap
κατα
χαιαν αποστὰα

5 σιν ἡγετην: Bu

Io

THE. OXYRHYNCHUS PAPYRI

θμων αἶπο Ola py™ ap.€# o πλευ
μέτρων [ρητῶν ραν εχ"
πεμπαδ[ος] deo

λειπ ® μόναι

δι Ἴ πλευρ’ μη
ου αρρηῖ 2° νουι.

μενων [evols exa

2 εἰσι πὰ
στῶν ἀρρήτοις κξ γ' pe?
δε δυεῖν [εκα͵]τον zg LE —, γυ"
τρι]αδος"
de kuBoly ] ἕυμ

ma[s| de ου[τ]ος ὁ apt
θμος γ[εϊωμετρι

ι
KOS τουουτοῦυ κυ

ριος [αμεινονῶν

15 TE κίαι χειρονων

ονἶτες ov πανυ —
φυλίακικοι κα
ταστίησονται

προς τῖο δοκιμα

15 ζειν [τα Ἡσιοδου

5 Κησει:

τε Kall παρ υμιν
yevn [xpucovy τε
και ἰαργυρουν Kat

χαλίκουν και σιδη

Col. v.
vu μεν oluv: pe
ταβησεταίι μεν
δὴ ovrws [wera
Baca de πως [oi
ἢ parle

pov ott Ta plev

|
i
|
4
7

1808. EXTANT CLASSICAL AUTHORS 189

αζομενων δε μίμησεται τίην
και αντιτεινον προτεραν πῖολι
Tov αλληλοις εἰς τειαν Ta δε τίην 541 ἃ
μεσον ὡμολογη 10 ολιγαρχιαν" [a
10 σαν" γὴν μεν τ ἐν μεσαΐι ουσα
και ἰοικ]ιας κατα to δὲ τι [κ]αι αὑτης
με εξει [ἐδι]ον : ov Ϊ

νειμανοὺυς ἴδιω =
B tas εφη1}] ουκοίυν

ἰσασθ]αι: τουΐς de 5476. 15 [role [wep τιμαῖν

ἱπρι]ν φυλατίτο
15 ἱμενο]υς vm [av

Col. i, marg.1. Perhaps cooper, the word in any case being explanatory of θειωι
γεννήτωι. The two following lines, at the beginnings of which, to judge from the notes
below, two or three letters may be lost, are obscure. μ΄, if right, should = μέν or -μεν, and
the next word may be a form of αὐτός, perhaps αὐτόν: tachygraphic +r 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, Zz System der altgr. Tachygraphie,
Plate 11. 9. 5. Further on, ν is surmounted by a small semicircle (perhaps incomplete),
which may represent o or ὦ.

4. The collocation of figures after ery is peculiar. If » = pupids, since the ὦ is written
above and connected with a by enclosing dots, it would seem natural to suppose that the
number meant is 1,800 x 10,000, On the other hand ἃ 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. 11), there is a probability that ἃ ὦ 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 τέλειος ἀριθμός, but are not easy to interpret. Perhaps
τέλ(ει)(ος) Sr(t) €(v) [αὐτ]ῷ κα(τὰ) τρ(οπὴν) ὁ O(cd)s ὥρι(κεν) ὅτι o(tv)m(avras) πλανητὰς [ἀποκ(αθ)ί-
στησιν 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 ε, remains
unaccounted for. Can ἐ(νλ{αυτ]ῷ be meant? But the order is not in favour of this. In
Ἰ. 7 σ΄ is a recognized abbreviation of σύν, and σ(ύν)π(αντας) would be unobjectionable but
for the occurrence in |. 14 of a similar curved symbol which remains unexplained. In 1. 8
ἀποκαθίστησιν is the compound expected, but this will presuppose considerable irregularity
at the beginnings of the lines. Taylor suggests that or’ ε΄ may stand for ὁ τ(έλειος)
ἐ(νιαυτός), followed by é(v) ᾧ: such drastic abbreviation, however, seems hardly possible,
especially as the word ἐνιαυτός does not actually occur in the text.

g—10. δυναμέν(ας) (ras) ὑποτεινούσας ὃ : a similar sign represents as in Wessely, of. c7?.
Plates I. 2. ii. 2, II]. το. 1. .That the same symbol should stand for both -as and ras is
not a serious objection, since there are analogies for this in tachygraphy, and the alternative
δυνάμεν(αι) (ai) not only necessitates the alteration of υὑποτεινουσας but also involves a similar
incongruity in 1]. 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

190 THE OXVRAYNCHUOS ΡΑΡΥΚΙ

note cf. Alex. Aphrod. Jz Arist. Met. A 8. 9904 23 of the Pythagorean triangle ἐπεὶ τοίνυν
ἡ ὑποτείνουσα ἴσον δύναται ἀμφοτέραις ἅμα, διὰ τοῦτο ἡ μὲν δυναμένη καλεῖται, ai δὲ δυναστευόμεναι,
and Dercylides af. Proclus, Jn Remp. ii, p. 25 (Kroll) τῶν μὲν περιεχουσῶν τὸν πρῶτον ἐν
συμφωνίᾳ λόγον ἐχουσῶν (i. 6. 4:3), τῆς δ᾽ ὑποτεινούσης ἣ (515 : exspectas διπλάσιον, Kroll; but
what is expected is surely ἴσον) δυναμένης ἀμφοῖν.

11--12. (ras) ἄλλ(ας) πλευρ(άς), referring to δυναστευόμεναι ; cf. the passage from Alex.
Aphrod. quoted in the preceding note. In the next line the ἄλλαι πλευραί are more closely
defined as the ὀρθή and the βάσις, the perpendicular and the base of the triangle. For the
symbol interpreted as as or rds cf. ἢ. on ll. 090-10 above. The sign \ ordinarily means εἶναι,
and also represents ov, but these would be out of place here, where καί is desirable. Cf. ii,
Mare ge |) r

13-16. ὃ ὅρο(ι) γ ἀποστάσεις ἔχουσι. . . ὃ K(et)oves τὸ ὅρι[ο(ν}] ἐπιφέρ(ουσι ὃ), 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 λείπ(ει). Possibly there was a corresponding mark in the text. The latter
part of the note is obscure. In]. 14 the symbol before ov is like that in 1. 7 above, which
may represent 7. ov seems to be a termination rather than the relative, which would lack
an antecedent, and also a governing verb, if τὸ épio(v)] is the object of empép(over). With
regard to this verb, the plural termination is demanded by κίονες, and the symbol at the
end has a smaller and more rounded top than that standing for εἰ. The introduction of
κίονες, AS a Synonym apparently of ὅροι, is hardly helpful.

fe, © 2) bk ae exar| ov : so A?M Proclus; ἕκαστον AFD.
4. The v. 1. exaorov superscribed by a second hand is unrecorded.
9. dvew: so AD ; δυοῖν with others Burnet.
11. ὁ after ov[rjos has been cancelled by a dot placed above ; οὗτος ἀριθμός MSS.
13. Ὁ, which was originally written in place of «4, 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 ll. 4-8 of the text, the value of
ἀριθμῶν ἀπὸ διαμέτρων ῥητῶν πεμπάδος 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 50 (Zucid i. 47), to which the nearest rational number
is 7. The number 48 in ll. 1 and g marg. is of course arrived at by subtracting 1
(δεομένων ἑνός ll. 6--, λείπ(ει) μονάδι Marg. 8) from the square of 7 (ἀριθμῶν ἀπὸ διαμέτρων
ll. 3-4). In marg. 2 perhaps προμήκ]η δέ should be restored, and τ]ῷ before A(ci)mecO(ar) :
for μονάδι cf. marg. 8. In marg. 4 something like ὡς ἐν τῷ Μένωνι seems required, and the
symbol before Μενωνι, which recurs in marg. 12-13, no doubt represents τῷ ; cf. e. g. Wessely,
op. cit. Plate 11. 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. li, marg. 10), could represent ἐν is doubtful; at any rate the previous group is
not in the least like the tachygraphic symbol for as. The passage of the Jeno referred to
is 85 Ὁ ἀπὸ τῆς Staperpov . . . γίγνοιτ᾽ ἂν τὸ διπλάσιον χωρίον. ΤῊ ]. 5 1. ἀπὸ δ(ιαγμέτ(ρου) yi(verar).
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 ῥητ(ὸς) ἀριθμ(ὸς) ὁ πλευρὰν ἔχω(ν), but
as this is an obviously incorrect definition of a finite number, Taylor suggests that
ῥητ(ῶν) ἀριθμ(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 ἀριθμὸς ἀπὸ ῥητῶν ὁ πλευρὰν ἔχων. Cf. marg. Io-11.

8—g. λείπ(ει) μονάδι, εἰ πλευρ(ὰ) μη. These words seem intelligible only if πλευρ(ά) here

1808. EXTANT CLASSICAL AUTHORS ΙΟΙ

is taken as referring to the side of the oblong ; ‘it is less by a unit, if the side = 48 (Χ 100)’.
This is certainly not very satisfactory, and there is something to be said for Taylor’s
proposal to insert € 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.

IO-I1. ἀρρητ(ῶν ?) (δέ ))" Ρ, οὗ (οὔκ) εἰσι πλευραί). It seems simplest on the whole to
regard the first two words of this note as a lemma from the Platonic text; cf. ῥητ(ῶν ἢ) 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 (οὐκ), the usual tachygraphic equivalent of ov is an upward curve, but this sometimes
degenerates into a straight stroke, as e.g. in Wessely, of. ce#. Plate III. το. 1.

12-13. (τῷ) KC yi(vovrar) ἡμέρ(αι) "Zp, ax(odovdws?) (τῷ) γυν(αικείῳ). In this note the
number 27 appears to have been connected with the female pymaiov. For the symbol for
to cf. marg. 4 above and ἢ. ad /oc.; if that is right, the group next to the figures in |. 13
must govern the dative, and hence ἀκ(ολούθως) is ‘suggested. In the number ΖΦ the first
figure might be taken for ’A, but is no doubt ᾽Ζ, since, as Taylor points out, 7,500 is
given as the value of one of the ἁρμονίαι by Dercylides op. Proclus, Jz Remp. ii. 2 5 (Kroll)
ὁ μέν ἐστιν ὁμοιότητι φίλος, ὁ 6 py ὁ δὲ ἀνομοιότητι, ὁ o€, καὶ ὁ μὲν (γεννᾷν τοιοῦτον ἄλλον τὸν μύρια, ὁ δὲ
ἀνόμοιον μετ᾽ ἐκείνου τὸν Zp. Proclus obtains the number oe by the addition of κζ and μῆ
(ii. 36 sqq.), but whether he is here following Dercylides he does not say.

Col. iii. 8. υἱμιν γεἤνησουζται : the vestige before the lacuna and the arrangement of the *
lines makes the reading practically certain ; γενήσονται ὑμῖν (FDM, Burnet) or ἡμῖν MSS.
10. ex: or perhaps ey.

Col. iv. 2. αρχην was first written (no doubt owing to the following apxaay) the
_ e having been inserted at the same time as the r over x, 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. 1. μεΪγαβησεται: so AM; μεταβηθήσεται 1), μεταθήσεται F.
14. The superfluous « adscript has been crossed through and a dot was also placed
above it.

15. ἰτωἾι: so A, Burnet; τό FD. The vestige of the ε is very slight, but the reading
is confirmed by the spacing.

1

1809. PLATO, Phaedo.

11:3 X 11-7 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 evavtiwy has the peculiar form δ. 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. Paragraphi

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 ἔφη, ὦ Κέβης for ὦ Κέβης, ἔφη) may be right ; on the
other hand, in ii. 14 it agrees with B? in καίτοι οὔτι against the inferior καὶ τοιοῦτό
τι of BTW, and in ii. 12 has the preferable οὐδέ of BT against οὔτε of B*W.

I Ἴεν[ 6 Jav εκ των εναντίιων
2 7:
4. See {μμ]εγεθο. μηδ. --- <<. Ἴιν αλλα
4h dk Patan αλλα ta....[..a]AA? τα εκ 8 Qos αὐτου ews αν .[..]....
5 7. «τῶν pesos tes εἰ :T.[.]... μειζων 9 εἴη μικρον
jau μικρον tou τε =

°
6 Ἴ. τουτι]} To ev avTw μεσον και μικρον

ς
7 Ἰτητα μικρο[ν]] αν evn και παλιν peye

(Ὁ]- 1: Col. ii.
Wey AaTOAWAEVAL: UTTopevoy OE ΙΟ26
Ake και δεξαμενον την ΄σμικρο
Po τητα- οὐκ εθελειν εἰναι ETE
Je> pov ἢ ὕπερ nv: womep eyo: de
a Ae 5 ἕαμενος και ὑπομεινας τὴν
]. oc σμικροτητα: Kat ετι ὦν ὀσπῖίερ]
Ja εἰμι OUTOS ὃ αὑτος- σμικρος
] ell: εκεινο δὲ ov τετολμίη

στ; κεν peya ὄν σμικρον εἰναι
ΤΟΥ ἢ 10 ὡς ὃ avTws καὶ το σμικρον [To
hee ev nyiv- οὐκ εθελει ποτε ple

ya γιγνεσθαι οὐδε εἰναι: ov[d

1809. EXTANT CLASSICAL AUTHORS 193

] ; οὐ αλλ οὐδὲν τῶν εναντιων ετίε
ΠΕ όν ὅπερ ἢν: ἅμα τουναντίον
cea ἢ 15 γίγνεσθαι τε και evar: αλλ η [ 103
Tol ἀπέρχεται. ἡ ἀπολλυται.Ϊ
εν τούτωι τωι παθηματίι
[πανταπΊασιν εφη ο Κεβίης
[ovrws galiverar plor και
20 [TIS εἰπε των παροΐϊντων a

[
[kovoas οστι]ς ὃ nv [ov oa

Col. iii.
[Tov ἐχοντων Ta εναντια €]
λείγομεν επονομαζοντες
αὑτὰ τηΐι εκεινων εἐπωνυμι
αι. νυΐν δὲ περι εκεινων αὐτων
5 ὧν [evovTwy exer τὴν ew
νυμιαῖν τὰ ονομαζομενα av 103c
Ta ὃ εκεΐινα οὐκ av ποτε φαμεν
εθελησίαι γενεσιν αλληλων
ἕ δεξασθαΐι Kat apa βλεψας προς
TO οἷς τὸν ΚεβηΪτα εἰπεν apa μὴ που
edn @ KeBns x(a. σε τι τουτων
eTapagev [wy ode εἰπεν ov
υ ὃ αν εῴη ο Κεβίης ουτως ἔχω
Καιτοι ὄυτι [λ]εγίω ws ov πολλα
15 ple ταραττει συνωμολογη

I

Ν᾿ 'καῖμεν

_ Marginal note. 1. The letters Je[ are on a-small detached fragment which seems to
belong to this line, though whether it precedes or follows Ja ex ray evavr[ tov is doubtful.

4. It is not clear whether the interlinear 7 signifies an abbreviation (ἀλλή(λ.. .)?) or was
added by way of correction ; possibly there is a second letter (s?) ; and perhaps a double dot
should be recognized between the PA (or Aa)’and 7, as apparently also in I, 5.

. 5» ἐναντίων is possible, though the vertical stroke before iis rather long for τ and

O

194 THE OXYRHYNCHUS PAPYRI

would better suit e. g.p; but ex [τῶν ενα]ντιων is unlikely, since ll. 6-7 indicate a longer line.
ev: τ cannot be em apparently.

6. . τουτι is crossed through and Ja: μικρον του re / 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 1. os, followed by Ja (or JA) in
1.7. Φαιδωῆνος | [δε ἐλαττω Aeyers ταυτ]α (T for τότ(ε)) could here be read, but the vestiges of
I]. 1-4 do not seem to bear out this identification. Ὁ 6 μεγεῖθος and Ὁ 8 η] ὃ os are unsuitable,
and though c 4 zpos is possible, αἰληθη would give too short a line. The double dot in
], τι is not of much assistance, since this may represent either a stop or a change of
speaker ; cf. int.

ii. 6. οσπίερ] : ὥσπερ W.

8. exevo: So B°TW3 ἐκεῖνος Β.

ov: so BTW; om. B.

10. ὡσαύτως T.

12. γενέσθαι W.

ovde: SO BT ; οὔτε B?Wt.

13. er[e | ov: so TW3 αἴτιον B, and W 2. 2.

14. aya: the uw has been altered, whether by the original or a later hand is not clear;
αλλα was apparently first written.

19. The first « of φαινεται is under « of [πανταπΊασιν in the line above and τ of ra in

1, 17, So that [ουτω ga] is hardly enough for the lacuna, which may, however, be sufficiently
filled by writing ovres or ovrau.

iii. 9. Whether the papyrus had zpos or εἰς is of course not determinable; the same
remark applies to ov|é or o | 6 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. εφη ὦ KeBns: so TW; ὦ Κέβης ἔφη B, Burnet. ΄

13. In the margin opposite this line there is a small circular mark like the sign for
short quantity.

14. καιτοι ovtt: SO Β΄; καὶ τοιοῦτότι 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 secondcentury. 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. Paragraphi 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
PHL. τοὶ τη.

The text is on the whole a good one, of the usual‘ eclectic’ kind. Peculiar
variants (Olynzh. 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. 9-11. 1, 3, Frs. 12-13. 5, 12,
Phil. 4.1, 27. 2, De Pace 2. i. 6, 22) ; in Phil. II-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.
ποτ τε (= YOF), 9-11. i. 2, 14-18. 1, Olynth. iii. 5. ii. 19 (= A), Phil. 4. 2
(= Y), 5-6. 15 (= FB), II-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.
TA yd Braz
P : Ὶ Ξ [βουλου εγω] ὃ οὐκ αγνίοω § 16
[τ|ε τίουτων en τωι πρωτωι § 9 [Mev ὦ avdpes] Αθηναιοῖι τουτο
πρίοθυμως Kat ws προση {ore πολλακις] vpets ov τίους
κον [εβοηθησαμεν avtot pac ο΄ [αἰτίους adda τους] υἱστατους
ονΐε Kat πολυ ταπεινοτερωι : : Ξ 3 : .

5 νυν [av εχρωμεθα τωι Didi

Frs. 3-4. ἰχουσαν kat την οἰικειαῖν ταῦ
ίλιππον AapBalvew- εἰ δὲ τοῖυ 10 την adews καρἸπουμευζοι
7 lines lost [αν ὃ exeva Φιλιΐππος λαίβηι
[Hous ηδιον av καὶ ελευΐθε § 23 τις αὑτὸν Kwdvoe devplo βαδι
10 [ρους ἡ δουλους εἰναι και] yap {ει[ν] Θηβαιίζοι μη] λείαν πι § 26

Ο 2

196 THE OXYRHYNCHUS PAPYRI °°

[αηθεις κατακουειν τινος Ai κρον [et}re[y ne Kat] συνει[σ
ἢ Bey i : ie 4 3hR slp tim ἰετοιμως αἴλλία Ow
κεις οἱ τηῖν οἰκείαν οὐχ] oLoL

Frs. 5-7. Te οντεῖς φυλαττειν aly μη

᾿ : : : : ; [Δο]ηθηϊσηθ vues ἡ αλλος
vaio. μίη]δε τουίθ vuas λανθα § 25 τις αλλ ὦ [Tay οὐχι βουλησε

VET® OTL νὺυν αἰρίεσις ἐστιν 20 ται: των αἰτοπωτατῶν μεν
υμιν ποτ]ερ. υμας εἴκει χρη ταν en εἰ [a νυν ανοιαν οφλι
πολεμέειν] ἡ παρ υμῖιν εκει σκανων [ops εἸκίλαλει Tav

5 [voy]: ealy plev yap αἰντεχηι τα Ouvn[Ole[s μη] mpalger ad
[τα των Ολυνθιων υ͵μεις exer Aa μην] ηλικία εἶστιν [τα δια.
[πολεμήσετε] καὶ τὴν ἰεκεινου 28 φορα ενθα[δ ἡ] εκει πίολεμειν
[Kakws ποιήσετε τὴν vTap] ovde Aoyou πἰρο]σδεῖιν you

Fr. ὃ
|] πολ § 28

[Amy ὧν Kadws ποιουνἾτες

Fr. 1. The identification of this fragment is made with hesitation, since the reading
προσῆκον in place of προσῆκεν, though intelligible, is unattested, and it is not clear that any
letter preceded ε 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 ΠΝ five
speeches.

Frs. 8-4. 11. ]o is only a shade to the right of ]y and ]@ in the preceding re and
the omission of του before κατακουειν (so Bl(ass) with Liban.) seems probable.

Frs. 5-7. 12. βαδι]ζει[ν]: so MSS., Liban. ; βαδίζοντα Bl. with Rh. Gr. ii. 679 ke:

13-14. The papyrus seems to have had the ordinary reading. Dindorf read ot (so
Baiter) εἰ (so two MSS.) μή, omitting 7 with Rh. Gr. ii, 679 &c. BI. similarly omits 9,
inserting a sign of interrogation after εἰπεῖν.

15. Bl. brackets ἑτοίμως following Rh. Gr. v. 36, vii. 941.

17. ὄντες is bracketed by Bl. following Rh. Gr. iv. 739.

24. y seems to have been omitted after ἡλίκα, as in u (Coisl. 324).

Fr. 8. The length of |. 2 appears to suit this passage better than ὃ 15 πολλῶι φανῶμεν
oes but the identification is not certain.

S
πε |

σι

15

1810. EXTANT CLASSICAL AUTHORS

lg τ:
[em] πολλων μίεν av τις ἰδειν ὃ τ
[ω ανδὴρες [44θηναιοι

[rTavr εθελη]σ[η0] ὡς πίροσηκει
[και δη περαιν͵ειν ov μίονον

[o ανδρες Α{θ]ηναιοι τα

Frs. 5-6.

[σκεψαιτ ov χαλεπωΐ]ς οἱ dle ὃ 17
[dn περι avtov οντεῆς ἕενοι
[και πεζεται]ρο[)] δοξαν μεν
[εχουσιν ws] εἰι]σιν θαυμαστῖοι
[και olvy[Kex|po7|[n]ule|y[or τα
[του] πολεμου- ws ὃ eyo ταῇν
[ev] autne τηι χωραι yeyern [
ἱμενων Τινοὶς nKovoly av

4 lines lost
λεμίου. Kal aywvwv TovTovs ὃ 18
pev [φιλοτιμιαι mavras ame
θειν [avrov «εφη βουλομε
νον πανθ αὐτου δοκειν εἰ
vat Talpya προς yap av τοις
ἄλλοις [kat την φιλοτιμιαν

Olynth. ii.

ΤΟΣ

Brs.2, “Ὡς
[καπιοϊρκουντία καὶ ψευδο § 10
[μενον δυναΐμιν βεβαιαν
7 lines lost
10 [Kat πλοι]ου Kaft τῶν add\ov -
[tev tollouTwy [ra κατωθεν ic
[χυροτε]ρα εἰναι dec ουτω
[και των] πραξίεων τας ἀρχας
[και τας υἹποθεσεις

Ετ5, 7-8.
[ανυπερβλητ]ον εἰναι εἰ
[δε τις σωῴφρ]ων ἡ δικαιος
[αἀλλως τὴν κα]θ ἡμεραν axpa
ἰσιαν του βιου και μ]εθην και
5 ἰκορδακισμου)ς ov δύναμε
[vos φερειν π]αρεωσθαι Kau
[εν ovdevos εἰναι μερει
[roy τοιουτοὴν λοιποὺς δὴ δ 19
περι αὑτον εἰναι ληϊστας»
10 [Kat κολακας και τοιουτους
[ανθρωπους οιο]υς μεθυσθεν
[τας ορχεισθαι τοιαυτὰ o1a>
[eyo νὺν οκνω προς υὑμας
[ονομασαὶ δηλ]ον ὃ om ταῦ
15 [τ ἐστιν ἀληθη] Kat yap ovs
[evOevde παντες am|ndav
7 lines lost
ποιουΐσιν evexa Tov γελασθη

25 vat TolvTous

198 THE OXYRHYNCHUS PAPYRI

Frs. 9-11. Col. i.

Tolls σωμασιν § 21
[nov τεωὶς μεν av eppalpe
[vos ne Tis] ovder ἐπαισθα
νεται emaly ὃ appwornpa
5 [re συμβηι πΊαντα κεινειται"
[kav ρηγμα κ͵Ἶαν στρεμμα [Kay
[αλλο τι τῶν υπ͵]αρχοντῶν >
ἰσαθρων ne οὐτω και τῶν πὸ
[λεων και των] τυραννῶν
10 [ews μὲν αν εξω] πολεμω»
7 lines lost § 22
νομίιζει σωῴφρονος μεν
ανθίρωπου λογισμωι χρὴ Fr. τι. Colt
20 Tat pleyadn yap ροπη par
λον [6 ολον ἡ TUX] Tapa παν δικαίων ἀντηρατε καὶ πολ § 24
τ €or τα Tov ανθρ]ωπων A (drat

Frs, 12-13. Frs. 14-18.
: ‘ , : : ; [yeyovley dlia των αὐτῶν Tov
[εἰ μηδεὶς υμωὴν ὦ alydpes A ὃ 25 των ελ]πιζετε πραξεων

[θηναιοι] δυναται λοίγισασθαι [ex φαυλίων [αυτα χρηστα γε
ποσον πΊολεμειτε χρίονον Φι ἱνησεῖσθαι: αλλ ov[r ευλογον
[Aummo|e Kat τι ποιοίυντων 5 οὐἷτ εχοὶν ἐστιν ἰῴφυσιν τουτο

5 ἰυμων] ο xpovos διείληλυθεν ov ye’ m[oAv yap| ραίιον ἐχοντας
[ros στε yap δηποῖυ τουθ ort φυλαίττειν ἡ κτησασθαι παν
[μελλοίντων ὑμῶν [eTEpous Ta πίεφυκεν νυν ὃ 0 τι μεν
[τινα9] ελπιζοντίων mpage φυϊλαξομ]εῖν ovdev’ εστι
[αιτιωμ]ενων αλίληλους 10 [ὑπο] Tov πολεμοῖν λοιπον

10 [κρινοντων παλιν ελπιζον] τῶν προτερον κτίησασθαι
[των σχεδον ταυθ απερ) νυνΐι de δει αὐτων ουἷν ἡμῶν ep
ἱποιουντὼν amas o x|\povos γον τοῦτ [on φημι δὴ δεν § 27
[ἰδιεληλυθεν εἰθ ουτωὴς ayvw ὃ 26 εἰσφερεῖιν χρηματα avrous
[wovws exeT @ ανδρεῖς AOn 3 lines lost

ee ee ee eee ee ἀκ νωτς,

: 6 nl
ae Se ee

1810. EXTANT CLASSICAL AUTHORS 199

15 [vato wore δι ὧν εκ χρίηστων ᾿ ἰκαυτα] de απ αὐτίων τῶν ερ
[φαυλα τα πραγματὰ της] πολεως [yov κρινοντας Tous [per
. 20 [agcous εἸπαινου τιμαν τουΐς
[δ᾽ αδικουνΊτας κολαζειν ταῖς
᾿ἱπροφασεῖις αφελειν και τα
[καθ υμας] ελλειμματα" ov γίαρ
ἰε]στι milkplws εξετασαι τίι πε
25 ἱπραΐκται [rols adAols αν μὴ [πα
ἱρ ὑυμων avTw|y πρωτον υἱἷπαρ
[ξηι ta δεον͵τα" τίι]νίος yap εἰ

oF

Fr. τὸ:
[μηδὲ] οτιουν ἰσυμπονειν ov § 30
[χε yevnloerale των δεοντων

[ημιν] ουδῖεν ev καίρωι To yap
[ηδικ]ημενζον αει μερος er .

5 [λειψεῖε «8 υἱμιν

Frs. 2-3. 11. ἰσχυροτεῖρα: so YOF corr. ; ἰσχυρότατα other MSS., ΒΙ., Butcher.
Fr. 4. This fragment is not very certainly identified.

Frs. 5-6. 1. A stop may be lost before οι.
2. ovre|s: om. BI. with Hermog. p. 50, Rh. Gr. vii. 607.

Frs. 7-8. 1. τἀνδρός, which is omitted by Bl. and Butcher with SFB, was clearly not
in the papyrus.

6. mlapewoOar: so SAFBY: παρεωρᾶσθαι vulg.

16. In estimating the number of lines lost below this one it has been assumed that the
papyrus had kai τοιούτους ἀνθρώπους, which Bl. brackets.

Frs. 9-11. i. 2. ἡμων; so FOPQ; om. SY, BI., Butcher.

3. The papyrus agrees with S! (so Bl., Butcher) in omitting τῶν καθ᾽ ἕκαστα σαθρῶν
which is commonly added after ἐπαισθάνεται.

8. Whether the papyrus had σαθρων (S' &c., Bl.) or σαθρον (vulg., Butcher) is
indeterminable.

21. Judged by the preceding and following lines there should be eleven letters in the
lacuna, and the omission of το before odov with S and Dion. Hal. 1089 is therefore probable.
Bl. follows S, Butcher the vulg.

Fr. 11. ii. The identification is doubtful ; «|8{va ... πολίλαζκις is another possibility.

200 THE OXYRHYNCHUS PAPYRI

Frs. 12--18. 5. Xpovos : so S, Bl., Butcher ; χρόνος ἅπας vulg.
7. vpov: 80 S; αὐτῶν other MSS., Butcher, om. Bl. with Schaefer and Cobet.
12. amas 0 x |povos : so ΕΙΣ ΒΙ., Butcher ; ; “ὁ χῤόνος ἅπας. vulg.

Frs. 14-18. 1. των avrov . . . πραξεων: so most MSS.; τούτων ἐλπίζετε τῶν αὐτῶν
πράξεων S, Butcher, and Bl. with [πράξεων] Cobet bracketed τῶν αὐτῶν πράξεων, Gebauer
πράξεων only.

12. A high stop may be lost after dec.

Ig. kpt|vovras : κρίναντας MSS.

22. προφασεῖις : προφάσεις & MSS. If 8 were similarly omitted after τοὺς (1. 20), which
is quite possible, the asyndeton would balance those earlier in the sentence.

Olynth. iii.
Beary Ἢ: Frs. 2-3.

τιμ[ωρη § 1 [σαι] χαλεπωτατον [ηγουμαι αλλ ὃ 3

[σασθαι Φιλιπῖπον opw γιγνο ὁ [εκ]ε[]ν ἀπορω τινα χρη τρο
[mevous Ta δε] πραγματα εἰς [πον w alvdpes Αθηναίιοι προς
[τουτο προηκΊοντα" ὠσίτ]ε Ϊ [υμα]ς περι avtwy ειπίειν

5 [ors μη πεισίομεθ avo. [po 5 [πεπειΐϊσμαι yap εξ wv [παρων
[τερον κακως o|kevracOa de [kat αἸἰκ[οἸνων συνοιδία τα πλειω
[ov οὐδὲν ovy αλλο] μοι δοίκου 5 lines lost
[σιν οἱ Ta τοιαυτα] λεγοντεῖς ἢ [Ao]yous ὑπομένειν τοῦτο θε
[την υποθεσιν περι. ns βου [ [ωρ]ουνῖτας εἰ ταληθη λε

[yo] καὶ δίία τουτο wa ta λοι
15 [ma BelArw |

. . Ων v

Priva,

[pots avrov. βοηθειν ort yap
[εἰς TovTo ᾿'π]εριστήσεται Ta πίρα
[γματα εαν ταὶ mapovTa mpow
[μεθα σχ)Ἰεδίον ἧσμεν απαν

5 [res δηπου" αλίλ olre μεν On dex $10
[βοηθ]ειν εἰποι τις av πᾶντες
[εγνωκαμ]εν και [βο]ηθησομῖεν
[το ὃ omws του]το λεγε" μη
[τοινυν w ανδρεῖς Αθηναιοι

το [θαυμασητε αν π]αραδοξον

2 εν. ἐς σας δι

“ 5

B fe)

15

20

1810.

Col. i.
3 lines lost

ab jor
[ovs. καθιστασιν εἰτα Kat τῆους
[τα δεοντα ποιειῆν βουλομε:
[νους αθυμ]οτερους ποιουσιν
[ἰεπειδαὴν de ταυτα λυσητε και
την του tla βελτιστα λεγειν odov

[παρασχητε ἀασφαλη τηνίκαυ
ε
τα Tov γραψοντα a παντας ιστε
«τε:
OTL συμῴφερει ἕητειν πριν

de ταυτα πίρ]αξαι μη σκοπειτε
τις εἰπωΐν] τα βελτιστα ὕπερ v
μὼν ud [υἹμων ἀπολεσθαι >
βουλησεται- ov yap ευ[ρησετε
ἄλλως TE Kal τουτου μονοῦυ
περιγιγνεσθαι μελλοντος >

του παθειν αδικως ἵτι καῖκον

[Tov ταυτα εἰποντα και γραψαν

ἘΥ. ὅ:
[θεις πλην μικρίων [εἰς ata κᾧἢἢ 35
ἰξιαν avehoy εἰς] ταξίιν nya
[γον τὴν πολιν τἼην αἰυτην
ἰλαβειὴν [τ]ου στρατευεσῖθαι του
ἰδικαζῆειν: του ποιειν" τίουθ o
[7+ καθ ηἸλικιαν εκαστοῖς exor
[kat οτου] καιρος en ταξίιν ποι
ἴησας ουὐἹκ ἐστιν οπου μίηδεν

EXTANT CLASSICAL AUTHORS
Fr, 5.

§ 11

το αὐτὸν εμβαλειν [ov μὴν ov
ee

§ 12

201

Col. ii.
πραΐξαιμεν τωι νυν Ta βελτιστα. ὃ 13
εἰπίοντι ζημίαν. γένεσθαι πριν.
δὲ ταῦτ ev[rpemica: μηδαμως
@ avdpes Α[θηναιοι μηδενα

5 ἀξιουτε μὴ τίηλικουτον. εἰ

val παρ ὑμιν ὠσῖτε τοὺς νομοὺς
τουτοὺς παραβαῖντα μη δουναι
δικην μηδὲ οὔτως ἀνοῆτον

ὥστε εἰς προυπτίον κακον

δ 14
δ exewo y υὑμας αγΐίνοειν de

wo avdpes Αθηναΐιοι ore ψηφι
σμ[α)] ovdevos αἕϊιον εστιν

av μὴ προσγενήηϊται To ποι

15 ew εθελειν ta δοξίαντα προ

θυμως υμας" εἰ yap αἰυταρκη ἡ
τα Ψψηφισματα nv ἡ [vpas avay
καζειν α προσηκεῖι πραττειν

ἡ περι ὧν av γραφίηι διαπρα

BE.>7-
ol7s [kat καὶ 36
[7t πολει και] απασιν ὕμιν

ἰσυνοισειν} μελλει"

]

Fr. 1. 5. Either πεισομεθ or πεισ͵ωμεθ could be read. .
Frs. 2-3. 4-5. Bl. brackets περὶ αὐτῶν and inserts καί before παρών with Isidor. x. 126.

202 THE OXYRHYNCHUS PAPYRI

Fr. 5. i. 11-12. The interlineated readings are those of the ordinary text. ‘
19. του: so MSS. except S, Isidor.; om. Bl., Butcher with S.
ii, 5. μη has been cancelled by dots placed above. τ
12. Bl. brackets ὦ ἄνδρες ᾿Αθηναῖοι. Ἢ
15. τα: ταγε MSS.
16. υμας is bracketed by Bl. and Butcher with Cobet.

19. av γραφἴηι : so A suppl.; ypadein corr. to γραφῇ S, with ἂν γραφῇ in a late hand,

γράφει vulg. γραφείη BI., Butcher.

Fr. 6. 1. Either μικρίων (S corr. ἢ. τ B corr. AO, Butcher), or pixpjov S'Bt can be
read ; μικρῷ Bl. with Dionys.
4. Bl. brackets τάξιν ποιήσας. .

Fr. 7. 2-3. anaow υμζιν συνοισειν : ἅπασι συνοίσειν ὑμῖν MSS.

Phil. i.
PE. Pr 2.

] κακως tla] mpalypara .§ 2 [dpes «Α4θην]αίιοι και ves § 7

emt της ToLavTr[s εθελησητε
Fr, 2. γενεσθαι γνωμης νυν" εἶπει
APA ected Ν ἰδηπερ ov προτεῖρον" και [

ἰσκοπων το τε] πληθος τίης vTap § 4

[χουσης αὐυτΊωι δυναμεως [

[και To Ta χω]ρια παντα απο Ϊ Fr. 4.

[AwAevar Tye trode ορθως] μεν Ϊ
δοκίουντων οἰκείως ἐεχειν § 8
kat πίανθ οσα περ Kav αλλοις
τισιν [ανθρωποις eve ἢ

ον es ee ee eS nd

Frs. 5-6. ie. 7o | Gola Fr. 7.
- ; : areata te 3 : : ἷ : : ὲ Col. ii.
τοσοΐυτον ἐπειδὰν amavT a §14 [vntov ἐστιν w ἡ δια tlov go § 18
κουσητίε Κρινατε μὴ προτερον [βον εἰδως ευτρεπειῖς υμας - «ff

προλαμίβανετε μηὃ av εξ ap
[χη]ς δοκίω τινι καινην παρα

εἰσεται yap ακριβως] εἰσιν

[
[

[

yap εἰσιν οἱ παντ εξ]αγγελ» σὶ

5 lines lost 5 [Aovres εκεινωι παρ nplo[y] τ
εἰ

τὶ

ro peva τῆι νἷυνι βοηθειαι αὑτων πλειοὺς Tov δΊεοντο'. . 85

[
κωλυσαι δυϊνηθειημεν ad δ 1 ἰ[ησυχιαν exnt ἡ παριδΊων ταῦ

aes να, .. τς

15

1810. EXTANT CLASSICAL AUTHORS

A og av de{Ene τις πορισθει
oa παρα[ζσκευη και Toon και
ποὔϊεν διαμειναι δυνησεται
Tews [av ἡ δ)ιαλυσίωμεθα me
σθεντες Tov ποίλεμον ἢ πε
ριγενωμεθα 'τωῖν εχθρων

ovTm yap οὐκετῖι του λοι

Fr. 8.

ἵμακρον τοῦτον αλλ] οσον

[av δοκηι καλως εχειν εκ δια
[Soxns αλληλοις τοῆυς ὃ ad

λους ξενους εἰναι κελευω

5 [Kat μετα τουτων ἱππεῖας δια

ἱκοσιους Kat τουτων πἸεντη

κοντα AOnvaiovs τουἹλαχίσ

Col. i.

εμποριων στομασιίν ραιδι

ὡς [εἶσται a μεν ovy χίρησε

[Tat Kale ποτε tHe δυναΐμει πα

[pa τοὴν καιρον o τουτῶν [κυ
5 [pto|s καταστας ud υμίω]ν βου

[τ αφυλακτος ληφθη): μηδε
[vos οντος ἐμποδω]ν πλειν

to [ἐπὶ τὴν εκεινοῦ χωρ͵)αν ὑμιν

§ 21

§ 33

[λε]ϊυσεται" a ὃ υὑπαρξίαι Slee πα

ρ υἹμων [ralur ἐστιν a εγω ye [

[γρα]ϊῴφα" av [τ]αυτ w ανδίρ]ες A

[θηἸναιοι πορισίη]τε [ra χρΊημα
10 [Ta πρίωτον a λεγω" [ειτ]α Kat
[TaA]Aa παρασκευασαϊντεῚῆς Tous
[clrpatiwras τας τριήρεις τους]

[av εἐνδωι καιρὸν ταῖυτα μεν
ίεστιν a πασὶν δεδοχθα]ι φημι

Fr. 9.

πἸ]αντελαίς
ἰταπεινην] εἰναι δει πολιταῖς

Fr. to,

[vat]ucO [exer αφικεσθαι dex

[τ]οινυν Ϊ

Frs. 11-13.

Col. ii.
θοντα xpovoy εἰς Anprjoy

kat IpBpov εμβίαλων αἰχμα

λωτοὺυς πολιτας [υμετερους

@LXET ἐχὼν καὶ προς τωι [|

§ 23

. § 32

§ 34

5 Tepal[i]jorar ta πλίοια συλλαβὼν

αμυθητα χρηΐματα εξελεξε

τα τελευταία εἰς Μαραθωνα

ameBn και [τὴν ιεραν απὸ

τῆς χωΐρας wtxeT ἐχὼν τρι
10 ἡρὴ" ὑμίεις ὃ ovre ταυτα du

νασθε καΐλυειν οὐτ εἰς
τοὺς χροΐνους ovs αν προ

204 τ THE. ΟΧΥΚΗΥΝΟΗΟΒ ῬΑΡΥΚΒΙ..

[urmleas ἐντελῆ πασᾶν τὴν
[δυναῖμιν νομωι κατακλειση
15 [τε emt τῶι. πόλεμα[ι] pevery ᾿
[των] μεν xpnpato|y] αὕὔτοι» ᾿
[Tlapeat Kat πορισταῖι γιγνΊομε»
[vjou των δὲ πραξεων παρα Tov
ἰστρατηγου τον λ]οΐγον ζητουν
20 [τες παύσεσθε αει περι]

[των αἸυτίων βουλενυομενοι

7 lines lost ὁ 34

Halxov ayov Kat φερὼων τοὺς
30 πλεονΐτας τὴν θαλατταν ε

[wlecra τε προς τουτωι Tov

Fr. 14;

[ατακτα. alopiota: αἰδιορθω § 36

[τα amavT|a τοιγαρουΐν apa
[aknkoapev| τι kat Tpllnpap
[χους καθισταμεἶἷν: και Tolvrois
5 [αντιδοσεις ποιουμεθΐα και
[περι χρηματων] πόρου σκο
[πουμεν και μεῖτα TavTa ep
[Barve rovs μ]ετοικοὺυς
[edoge καὶ τους yx|wpis οἰκουν
[

10 [Tas «LT avTovs maAlv ἀντεμ

[BiBagew ar ev oowl ταῦτα ὃ 37

-oFr. τό.

on ae | . ὃ 40

[γης εχετα]ι" Kav εἰτέρωσε Tata

[Eye tes] εκεισε εἰσίιν au χει

I

5
|. [τῶν ἀνεγνωσμενω]ν αληθη

σι

θησθε βοηίθειν καιτοι τι δὴ ὃ 35
ποτε ὦ ανδίρες Αθηναιοι vo

ε μιζετε την [μεν tov Παν

αθηναιων εἶορτην καὶ τὴν τ
των Διονυσίων αει του καθη
κοντος χρ[ο]νίου γιγνέαθαι
av τε δειίνοι λαχωώσιν αν TE
ἰδιωτίαι

3 lines lost
[oo ovd els eva [των ἀποστο

ίλων και] τοσουτίον

Fr. 15. Plate IV.
[τουθ vB]pews εληλυθεν wo
[τ επιστῆελλειν EvBoevow
[ηδὴ roltavras εἥιστολας >
[ἐπιστολης αἸναγνωσις
[rovrwy ὦ avdpes| 4θηναιι ὃ 38

[μεν εστι Ta πολλὰ als οὐκ cede οἷν
μην αλλ tows olvx ηδεα ακ[ουν
[εν αλλ εἰ μεν] οσα αν τις U>
[περβη: τωι λογωι wa μὴ λυ»
[πησηι και Ta πρ)]αγματα uTEp
[βησεται]

[δημηγορειν: εἰ ὃ ἡ των do
[γω]ν xapis ἂν ne μὴ προσηκου
ἴσα ἐργωι!] ζημία γιγνεταῖι ᾿
[αισχρον εἶστι φενακιζειν [eav

de προς ἡδονὴν

[τους Kat] amav7’ αναβαλλΙο
[μενους a] αν ἡ δυσχίερη παν.

[Tov υστεριἸζειν ταῖν epyov

᾿
7
;
:

..1810.0. EXTANT.CLASSICAL AUTHORS 205
[pes] mpoBarreobale de ἡ Bre 3 lines lost «ὃ 39
[mew εν]αντιοῖν ovr οιδὲν [Aovdew τοις πραγμασἾιν [ad] ᾿
5 [our εθελει] Kale [A avrous εμπροσθεν) eva
25 [Tey πραγματων. Kat Tlov av
[Tov τρόπον ὠσπερ των στρα
[τευματων αξιωσει]ε τιϊς av
ΕΥ. 17. Frs. 18-20.
ἰδεις υμων pnt εἸνθυϊμειται § 43

[περι] του πολίεμου ουδὲ προ § 41
[τω]ν πραγματίων προορατε
[ο]υδὲν πριν [αν ἡ yeyevn

[μενον τι ἡ γίιγνομενον

5 [πυθη]σθε [τ]αυτα ὃ [tows προ

[τερο]ν μεν nv. νυΐϊν ὃ ἐπ αὖ

[την ηἸκε[] τη[ν] ακμίην

Fr. 21.
[χοι τ]εθνασι [roe δεει τοὺς ὃ 45
[ἰτοιο]υτοὺυς αἰποστολους ou
[yap εἸστιν ουκ ἐστιν ὦ αν

[δρες ΑἸθηνίαιοι ev avdpa dv

— 5 [νηθηναῖι more ταυθ. υμιν

Fr. 23.

τ lypar αἰσἸχυΐνης wate Tov στρα ὃ 41

[τηγων εἸκαστοῖς. dis. καὶ “τρις
| [κρινεῖται παρ υἱμιν περι θα

[varov] προς δὲ [τους exOpous
5 [ovdes] ovd απαϊξ αὐτων a

[ent οργιζεται oplov ὦ aly

[δρες Αθηναιοι τ]ην μεν alp
3 lines lost

σαν On ὑπερ του μη πΊαθειν

[κακως ὑπὸ ΦιλιπποΊ]υ" αλλὰ

[μὴν ore y ov στήησετα]ι δηλον

ο [e μη τις avtljov [κωλυσἾει εἶτα
[

TOUT avaluevolupey και τρι
[npets Klevas κίαι Tas Tapa Tov
[Servos elAmidals av αποστειλη

Fr, 22.

mlpagn[e προς vpas § 46
[ψευδομεῖνοι ραιδίιως
Fr. 24.

[του προσήκοντος κακοΐυργου ἃὃ 47

[wey yap εστι κριίθεντα afro
[θανειν στρατη]γου de plaxo
μενον τοῖς. πολ]εμίιοις, [

206 THE OXYRHYNCHUS PAPYRI

[γωνισασ͵θαι περι θανατου
. [roApat] adda Tov τίων ανδραπο
[διστων] καὶ λωποίδυτων θα

ίνατον μαλῖλον [αἱρουνται

Fr. 25. Fr. 26.

[Bets πεπομφεὶν ws βασιλίε § 48 ἰ[πραγμενων [kat πολλα τι ὃ 49
[a o de ev Ϊλλυ]ριοις πίολεις [αυτα ονε]ιροπίολειν ev TL
[youn τὴν [

Fr, 27.
: : : : : Fr. 28.
[ouvte]s αλίλ av αφεντες § 50 [cOa λεγειν- atpovpar νι § 51
ταὺυτ ekelly εἰδωμεν οτι [korn ὃ οτι πα͵ῖσι μελλει σίυν
εχθρος ανζθρωπος καὶ τα ἢ [owner ]
μετερα nulas αποστερει
5 Καὶ χρονοῖν πολυν υβρικε Κατα | Φιλιπποῦ

J@

Fr. 4. τ. The addition of αὐτῶι after exyew would make the line too long; om. S, BL.,
Butcher.

2. πίανθ: so Y; ἅπανθ᾽ others, BI., Butcher.
Frs. 5-6. 11. Bl. and Butcher write δυνηθεῖμεν.
15. teas: SO FB Provem. 21, Bl.; ἕως S, vulg., Butcher.

Fr. 7. ii. Since no letter can be read with certainty, an identification of these lines is
too doubtful to be of any value.

Fr. 8. 1. There is no trace of writing above this line, but the surface of the papyrus
is rather damaged.

3. Bl. brackets ἀλλήλοις, 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-
graphus, which would however be quite in place. Whether -va:]ue@ or -νω]μεθ 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 ῥᾳδίως ἔσται, for which Dindorf reads ῥᾳδίως εἴσεσθε
with Wolf.

10. a Aeyw: 50 vulg., Butcher; om. a S, Bl.

ii. 4. exov: So SAY, Butcher; ἄγων vulg., Bl.

1810. EXTANT CLASSICAL AUTHORS 207

καὶ: SO MSS. except S, which omits καί : om. Β]., Butcher.

5. The deletion of the first « of Γεραιστωι seems to have been intended. There
is a dot just above and slightly to the left of the «, and on the line between a andt something
like a comma, both marks being in rather lighter ink. Γεραστῷ SBO, Bl.; Τεραιστῷ vulc.,
Butcher.

12. Either προίθησθε (SFB, Bl., Butcher) or προσίθησθε (A) might have been written ;
προέλησθε vulg.

Fr. 14. 1. αἴοριστα αἰδιορθωτα : so vulg.; ἀδιόρθωτα ἀόρισθ᾽ SAY, BI., Butcher.
10. αντεμ[βιβαζειν : so vulg. εἶτ᾽ ἀντεμβ. S Vind. 1, Β]., Butcher.

Fr. 15. 18. a]: so S; other MSS. have ova, but for this there is not room unless
αναβαλλ[ομενους was differently divided, which is improbable.

19. υστΊ]ερ]ειν (S, ΒΙ., Butcher) is possible as a reading, but considerations of space
favour υστεριΐζειν.

27. τις av: so SY, BI., Butcher; ἄν τις others.
Fr. 16. 2-3. παταίξηι τις : or παίταξηις, with S.

Fr.17. 3-4. γεγενημΊενον τι ἢ γ[ιγνομενον: γεγ. ἢ γιγν. τι most MSS., BL, Butcher ;
Y transposes yey. and γιγν., and the same order is equally possible in the papyrus, to which
the position given to τι is apparently peculiar.

6. nv: ἐνῆν SA, BI., Butcher, ἐνῆν ποιεῖν YO, ἢν ποιεῖν FB. The loss of the syllable ev-
would be very easy after μεν. .

Frs. 18-20. 2. Either οργιζεται (SAY) or λογιζεται (vulg.) is possible.
10. αὐτῖον [κωλυσῆει : so YO; αὐτὸν κωλύσηι F, κωλύσηι 5, κωλύσει Β]., Butcher.

Fr. 21. 1. τους, which Bl. omits with Schol. Aristid. p. 196, was evidently in the
papyrus.

3-5. There is apparently no authority for the insertion of ὦ ἄνδρες AO. after ἔστιν here,
but this seems the easiest explanation of the clear }a{ in 1. 5, which cannot be δεῖνα unless
there was a considerable omission ; moreover if [δυνη]θηνζαι be read in 1]. 4, the supplement
at the end of ]. 3 becomes rather long. Cf. ΟἿ. 2. 10, where ὦ avd. ᾽ΑΘ. follows οὐ yap ἔστιν,
οὐκ ἔστιν. The similarity of ἄνδρα δυνηθῆναι and ἄνδρες ᾿Αθηναῖοι might help to account for
either the dropping or insertion of ὦ dvd. ᾽Αθ.

Fr. 24. τ. 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 (πᾶσι), Β]., Butcher; πᾶσιν ὑμῖν other MSS.

De Pace.
Ετ. 1.

oly συν § 16
[ἐπιστρατευειν ovder]epots-

208 THE OXYRHYNCHUS PAPYRI

Fr. :2.
Col. i. ᾿ Col. ii.
περι [των wWiwy εκαστος op § 19
γιζομεῖνος Κοινον eb nas”
‘ : : Sheers : αγαγωα[σΊι [Tov πόλεμον Ta των
ἴπαντες αν βουλοινθ evjexa ὃ τ Αμφικίτυονων δογματα προ
[αυτων κρατησαντας δὲ τοὺς ε 5 στηΐσαμενοι εἰτὰα ἐπισπα
[τερους δεσποτα]ς υὑπαρίχΊειν σθωσίιν εκαστοι mEpa Tov
[αυὐτων οὐδε ets] τι ουν ἡγοῦ ᾿ συμῴίεροντος ἐαυτοις nly
5 [μαι φοβερον και] τι φυλαξα | πολείμησαι ὠσπερ και περι
ἴσθαι dev ἡμας] μη κοινὴν ' Φωκίεας wate yap δηπου τοῦ § 20
[mpopaciv Kat κοινον ey τὸ 6 ott Ϊνυν Θηβαιοι και Φιλιπ
ίκλημα ο μελλων) πολεμος πος k[at Θετταλοι ουχι TavTa
προς amavras dalBy εἰ yap § 18 εκαστΐίοι μαλιστα εσπουδακο
10 [Apyeor μεν και Μεῖσσην [ο]ι τες ταυΐτα παντες ἐπραξαν
[και ΜεγαλοπολιτΊαι και τινες οιἱον Θ[ηβαιοι τον μεν Φιλιπ -
των. λοιπὼων ΠεἸλοπονίνη 15 Tov παίρελθειν και λαβειν
ἰσιων οσοι TavTa το͵υτοις φρο ο΄ τὰς παροΐδους οὐκ εδυναντο
[vovor δια τὴν πρὶος Δακίε κωλυΐσαι ουδὲ γε των αὕτοις
15 [δαιμονιους μιν επικηρυ πεπίονημενων υστατον
κειαν exOpws σχησοῦυσι Kat] ελθοΐντα τὴν δοξαν εχειν
[ro δοκειν ενδεχἼεσθαι {τι 20 γυνι γίαρ Θηβαιοις προς μεν ὃ 21
[Twy εκεινοις πεπραγμενων] το ἰτην. χώραν κεκομισθαι
[Θηβαιοι de exolvor pely ὡς πίεπρακται τι προς δε. τιμὴν
20 ἰλεγουσιν απεχΊθως και δοξαν αἰσχιστα εἰ yap μη

πίαρηλθε Φιλιππος οὐδὲν av
25 aluTos εδοκει εἰναι TavTa

δ [ουκ εβουλοντο adAa τωι

Fr. 1. 2. επιστρατευειν (O) suits the length of the line better than -cew, but remains of
course uncertain.

Fr. 2. i. 2. Either αὐτῶν or eavtwy can be read.

6. dew nuas: 80 S, Bl., Butcher; φημι δεῖν ἡμᾶς (ὑμ.) ὅπως, for which there is evidently
not room, vulg.

ii, 7-8. μιν] πολέζμησαι : so MSS.; Bl. and Butcher bracket, following the indications
of Schol. p. 164.

22. πίεπρακται τι: SOS Β]., Butcher; κάλλιστα πέπρακται other MSS., Isidor.

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 quem 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 6cm. 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... Col. ii.
Tov τίω]ν em εκεινοις
σταθεντων To καλλος προ
πυλαια TavTa ο παρθενων
στοαι: VEWTOLKOL- οὐκ αμῴο
5 ρίσκοι δυο ovde χρυσιδες φιαλ(αι)
] σημῖει § 183 TETTAPES ἡ TPELS ayoUTA ε

ov φιαλαι de καὶ Ta τοιαῖυ KaoTN pvav ov yap εαὐτους § 185
Ta πλουτοῦυ και στεφαῖνος μεν δεκατεύυοντες ovde & κα
amas Kav μικρος ἡ τὴν [tL ταρασαιντ av οἱ εχθροι ποι
5 σὴν φιλοτιμιαν exer τῶι ple 10 οὐντες διπλας πραττον
γάλωι εκπωματα de ἡ θυ τες Tas εἰσῴφορας TavTa a
μιατηρια ἡ Ta TolavTa κΙτ]η νεθεσαν ουδ οἰοισπερ συ
ματα: εαν μεν υπερβαλ χρώμενοι συμβουλοις επο
An τῶι πληθει πλουτοῦυ τι λιτευοντο adda Tous εχθρουΐς
10 va δοξαν προσετριψατο 15 Κρατουντες Kat ἃ tras [TIS
τοις κεκτημενοις" εαν ὃ ε [aly ev φρονων ευξαιτίο

P

210

15

20

THE OXYRHYNCHUS PAPYRI

πι μικρίοις Tis] σεμνυνὴ
[ται τοσουτ amexel τοῖν τιμης
[τινος δια TavTa τυχΊειν
[w]o7 [απειροκαλος mplos «do
fev e[ivat ovtos τοιΐνυν
ἀνελίων ta] ty[s dog]ns κτη
[ματα Tov πλ]ουτο[υ] πεποιη
[ται μικρα Klat οὐχ ὑμων a
ἰξια αλλ ουδὴ exe[ily εἰδὲν
[o7e προς μεν χρημα͵των

ναι τοιουτῶν επιτηΐδευν

ματων ola τουτωι βείβιω
Tal’ και περι μεν τουτίου
κατα oxodnv: ἃ δε Τιμίοκρα
TEL συνερει πολλα λεγίειν ε
τι προς τούτοις ἐχὼν πίαυσο
parr oda δ οτι ὡς μεν [οὐκ

ασυμφορος ὑμιν εσθ o vo

» pos Kat πία]ρα παντας τίους

10

νομους εἰσενηἰν]εγμενΐος
και κατα TavTa αδικως [ε

χων οὐχ εξει λεγειν [akou

§ 184

§ 187

20

25

Col. iii.

15

20

[τ]ην πολιν εἰς ομονοίαν
αγοντες αθανατον αυΪτ]ων
κλεος λελοιπασιν τίους] em
τηδευοντας ota σοι βεβιω
ται TNS ayopas εἰργοντες"
υμεις δὲ εἰς τουτο w ανδρες
Αθηναιοι προηχθητε εὖ
ἡθιας και ραιθυμιας ware

[ο]υ[δε

@ ὃ avTov ὡς εκτετιστίαι

τα χ[ρίηματα «Αἀνδροτίιωνι
κ[αι] Γλαυκετὴ και Μελαίνω
mot λεγειν" Kat οτι [δε]ιν[ο
τα[τα] av παθοι παντίω]ν aly
θρωπων εἰ πεποι]ηκοτωΐν
εκεινων Ta δικαια ὑπερ

ὧν avTos altiay exe θέι

vat Tov νομον. μηδὲν n[T
αυτος
τον αλισκοιτο" eyw de τοΐν

Aoyov ἡγουμαι τουτον

[ον δε

i. 7. Bl(ass) brackets ἢ . .. κτήματα, which words are absent in ς. Andro. 75.
12. τις] σεμνυνηται: so F and c. Androt. 75; σεμνύνηταί τις Β]., Butcher.

18. The papyrus apparently agreed with the MSS. in omitting ra which is read by edd.

before του with c. Androt. 75.
19. οὐκ υμων al Eta : so F and c. Androt. 75.
20. edev: so Bl. and Butcher with SLFYO; οἶδεν vulg.

li. 6. ayovoa: ἄγουσαι F.

7. After μναν most MSS. insert ds, ὅταν σοι δοκῇ, πάλιν γράφεις καταχωνεύειν, Which is read ἡ

in c. Androt. 76 (γράψεις) ; om. SAY'; Bl. brackets.

8—9. a xarapacawr av: so MSS.; ἂν καταράσαινθ᾽ Β]., Butcher with c. Androt. 77.

§ 186

]
'

ee ee ee νὸν

a ΔΨ

τ ΡΣ ὙΕΤΌΝ

1811. EXTANT CLASSICAL AUTHORS 21τ

12. οιοισπερ: SO MSS., Butcher ; οἷόσπερ Reiske with c. Androt. 77, Bl.

18-19. αὐτων κλεος : so F; κλέος αὑτῶν other MSS., edd.; AYO have ἀγαγόντες for
ἄγοντες.

επιτηδευοντας : -σαντας F corr., c. Androt. 77, Bl.

22. rovro: 80 F and ¢c. Androt. 78; τοσοῦτο(ν) other MSS. and v. 1. F, Bl., Butcher.

23. mponxOnre : so vulg. and c. Androt. 78; πρόηχθε S, προῆχθε Weil, Β]., Butcher.

iii. 3. Whether the papyrus had rovrov (S) or τουτων is of course quite uncertain.
4-5. Τιμ[οκραΐτει συνερει: SO MSS. ; Τιμοκράτης νῦν ἐρεῖ Dobree, Butcher.

13-16. avrov .. . Μελα[νωΐπωι Aeyew; so A; other MSS. place λεγειν after avrov.
19. exewov: τούτων F, ;

20. Bl. and Butcher bracket avros, following Rh. Gr. v. 581. 16. ᾿

23. τοῦτον ἡγοῦμαι F.

1812. ISOCRATES, Ad Demonicum.
19-7 X 13-7 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 doubt»of 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 ὃ, which seems to be a stichometrical figure marking
the 4ooth 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
18th 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
(I), but the unit there is rather larger than that indicated by 1812. As Drerup
observes in his edition, p. 1xxxii, 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 I 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 Πρὸς Δημόνικον, at any rate, that number is usually exceeded.

The fact that the Πρὸς Δημόνικον stood at the beginning of the codex
suggests at the outset an affinity with the so-called vulgate (ΛΠ), but the textual

P2

212 THE. ΟΧΥΚΔΗΥΝΟΗΌΒ PAPYRI

position of the papyrus as between that family and I 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 =Y. 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 (ll. 36, 42), and also for a few lines another papyrus fragment, of the
third century, at Strasbourg, with which 1812 differs twice (Ill. 42, 48). Readings
not otherwise attested are found in ll. 2 and 40, but they are unimportant.

Verso.
i

ματι: πειρω TO μεν copa etvat φιλοπονος

τὴν δὲ ψυχὴν eat φιλοσοῴφος wa To μεν

ἐπιτελεῖν δυνη Ta δοξαντα tn δὲ προοραν

ἐπεστὴ TA συμφεροντὰ παν o τι αν μελλης § 41
5 €pely προτερὸον επισκοπει TH γνωμὴ πολλοις

yap ἡ γλωττα προτρεχει της διανοιας νομι

ζε μηδὲν evar tov ανθρωπινων βεβαιον ουτως

yap ovTe evTvxwv eon περιχαρης ουτε δυστυ

x@v περιλυπος δυο ποιοὺυ καιρους του λεγει[ν) § 42

το ἢ περι ὧν οισθα σαῴφως ἡ περι wy avayKaloy εἰπεῖν
‘ iSc5
ev τούτοις yap povolv|] o Aoyos τῆς σιωπὴης Κρειτ

Tov. ev δε τοις αλλοις apeltvov σιγαν ἡ λεγειν
χαιρε μεν em τοις συμβαινουσιν των ayabov
και λυπου μετριως ETL τοις γιγνομεῖνοις) των
15 κάκων γινοῦ δὲ τοις ἀλλοις μηδε εν ετεροις
ὧν καταδηλος ατοποῖν γ]αρ τὴν μεν ουσιαν
εν τοις οἰκείαις ἀποκρυπτειν τὴν δὲ διανοιαν
φανεραν εχοντα περιπατεῖν μαλλον ευλαβου Ϊ § 43
Woyov ἡ κινδυνον da yap evar φοβεραν τοις μεῖν
20 φαύλοις τὴν του βιου τελευτὴν τοις δὲ σπουδαίι
ois τὴν εν τῶ (nv ἀδοξιαν μαλιστα μεν πειρίω
(nv κατα τὴν ασφαλειαν εαν δὲ ποτε σοι συμβη

κινδυνεύειν ζητει τὴν εκ τοῦ [πολ]εμου σωτήη

1812. EXTANT CLASSICAL AUTHORS 213

play peta καλης Oo€ns αλλα pln pelt atoxplas]
25 nuns To μεν τελευτησαι παν͵τωϊν ἡ [π͵]έπρω

Recto.
im ὃ
μενη κατεκρινεν τὸ δε καλως αποθα
νειν. ἴδιον τοις σπουδαιοις ἡ φύσις απενει
μεν: καὶ pn θαυμασης εἰ πολλὰ τῶν εἰρη § 44
μενων: ov πρέπει σοι προς THY νὺν Tapou
30 σαν ηλικιαν. οὐδὲ yap εμε TouvTo διελαθεν
αλλα προειλομὴν δια τῆς avTnsS πραγμα
τιας apa του τε παροντος βιου συμβουλιαν

yew
e€evel]...... @.]| Kat Tov peddovTOS χρονοῦυ

παραγγελμα καταλείπειν τὴν μὲν yap του
35 τῶν χρειαν ραδειως ειδησεις τον δὲ μετ εὖ
νοιᾶς συμβουλευσοντα χαλεπος εὑρήσεις. οπως
ovy μὴ map ετερου τα λοιπα ζητης- αλλ εν
τεῖυθεν wlomep εκ Tapletlov προφερης ὠηθην dev

μηδεν παραλειπειν aly] av exo σοι συμβουλευειν
dev

40 πολλην ὃ αἱν) τοις θεοι[ς χα]ριν σχοιὴν εἰ py διαμαρ § 45

ν

τοιμι τῆς δοξης ns [ex]ov περι σου τυγχαναΐ 7]

τῶν yap addwy τοὺς πλειστοὺυς ευρησομεν

ὠσπερ τῶν σιτίων τοις ἡδιστοις μάλλον ἡ τοις

[υ]γιαινοτατοις χαιροντας ovTw Kat Tov φιλων
45 [τ]οις συνεξαμαρτανουσι πλησιαζοντας αλλ ou

τοις νου[θ]ετίουσι] σε δὲ νομι[ζω] τουναντιον τον

Tov εγνωΐκεναι τ]εκμηρίω χρώμενος τὴ περι τηΐῖν

ἄλλην oofv παιϊδιαν φιλοπονια Tov yap αὐτω

1. τὸ μεν σώμα: 80 Ρ. Berl. ANSY; τῷ σώματι μέν TO, Dr(erup).
2. την de ψυχην : so ΠΣῪ (om. P. Βε1].}; τῇ δὲ ψυχῇ others, Dr.
ειναι : om. MSS.

[ 4. 1. ἐπίστῃ : SY have ἐπιστήσῃ.
5. epew: λεγειν P. Berl. ΛΠ.
8. eon: So P. Berl. and most MSS. ; ἔσει Τ' pr., Dr.

214 THE OXYRHYNCHUS PAPYRI

II. povoy as originally written here is also in P. Berl., but this is probably a chance
coincidence.

14. και λυπου: SO Δ; λυποῦ δέ 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. ἡ puow: so ΠΣΥ ; om. I, Dr.

29. vv: om. P. Berl. SY.

32. apa: om. SY, which have συμβουλήν.

34. 1. καταλιπειν. The spelling of the papyrus is no doubt merely an instance of the
common confusion of: and εἰ; cf. e.g. 1. 35 ραδειως.

36. συμβουλευσοντα: so P. Berl., though placing this word before μετ εὐνοίας, which is
also the order of ΛΠ. ΣῪ insert σοι before συμβ. 1. χαλεπως.

37. ta X. μη παρ er. P. Berl. (erepwv) ATI.

39. παραλειπειν : SO P. Berl., but cf. ἢ. on 1. 34. av is added also in ΛΗΣΥ.

40. ΛΠ read τῷ θεῷ.

μη, V.1. μηδὲν : μη, as first written, is the reading of the MSS.

41. The superscribed reading yy is that of ATI.

42. yap: so P. Berl.; μὲν γάρ others, including P. Arg., Dr.

45. ἐξαμαρτ. SY.
48. σοΐυ : so AIIZY ; om. P. Berl. P. Arg. r, Dr.

1813. CODEX THEODOSIANUS vii.

18-1 X 9-I 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

pe. —-— <= ss eee ee ee

1815. EXTANT CLASSICAL AUTHORS 215

dates of the rescripts from their texts. Abbreviations and numerals are usually
accompanied by a medial dot ; p(raefectus) 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 Eutychianum,
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. Iust., and at the end of vii. 8. 10 in the insertion of covss.

Recto. » Plate I.
[sert|mus guinque librarum auri colndemnatione propost Vii. 8. 9
(ta piraedia quae ex Gildonis bonis ald nostrum aerarium de
(lata\ sunt ab hospitibus excusari n\unc etiam praecipimus
[ut omnes domus ex eodem iure vienientes in quibuslibet
5 czviltatibus sunt constitutae ab \hospitibus excusentur quo
[poss\ent conductores facil|ius inventri 51 quis igitur con
[tra nostr\am fecerit tuss\ionem multa pridem ferietur in
[fucta : 22. K\arthag: viit- id. Aug. H\onorio viit- et Theodosto 1771: aa- conss-
[idem aa: Iohalnni pplo\: devotum plossessorem ab omni ingui 8. 10
10 © [etudine| liberamus primo igittur omnium ad niullum
[predinm| per Africam vel publicjum vel privatum domus nos
[2746] vel cuiuscumquae tur\is nullus metator (2) accedat st
[a guloquam fuerit destinatuls licentiam enim domino acto
(vi ip\stquae plebi serenitas n\ostra conmisit ut eum qui prae
15 |para\ndi graiiiia ad possessioinem venerit multandi expel
[lendi| habeat facultatem n\ec crimen aliquod pertime
[scat clujm sbt arbit\rium ultionis suae sciat esse conces
[sum rec\tequae sacrile|gium prior arceat quit primus invene
(ret ad\ministrantem verlo etusque officit proceres quo
20 [rum priaecepto inhibitam |personam ad agrum aliquem de
[st¢narit| 1x tempore pros\cribi debere censemus solam sane
(hospitalitate\im sub h\ac observatione concedimus ut ni
[hel ab hospite quiod viel hominum vel animahum pastur ne

Verso.
(vel sponte contra priaeceptum nostrum probati fu\erint
[obtulisse : dat prid: id. I\un. Rave|n\nae post conss- Honlori vitt
[et Theodosit v aa: con\ss-

216 i THE OXYRHYNCHUS PAPYRI

(dem aa. Probo c-s-l. post| alia: de hospitalitate iudicum e\t om 8. 11
5 |uium personarum quid si\bt etiam ipse possessor priae (
[seemere debeat quare censura\ omnia quae ad στ εἶ 15 67161724772
[ pertinebunt submota sint ta\m missa super h\ac re auctoritas
[declaravit: praelata litt\eris ad Eutychianum 2. urbi
[die 22. zd» Lan. Constantio et Clonstante conss:
10 [7dem aa Hadriano ppo: Afric. hoc plrospectum est ut infa\usta hospi 8, 12
(talitatis pracbitio tolleret\jur nec privatum quis\que a
[domino aedium postulet et cet\era:dat. v- non. Mart. Rav ennae
[Constantio et Constante co\uss:
[¢dem aa- Eustathio 20 : devotissi\mos milites ex procinc\tu 8. 13
15 [vedeuntes vel proficiscentes| ad vela muri novi sacratis
|stmae urbis singulae turres 171) pedeplanis suis sus\cipiant
(nec aliquis possessorum graviter feat quasi {ill\a dis
[posttione quae super publicis aedific\iis processerat \vio
[lata cum privatae quogue domus tertiam pariem talis ret
20 [gratia ‘soleant exhibere: dat. τ] non. Mart: Constant inop.
|Honorio xitt- οἱ Theod: x- aa: conss-|
[empp- Theodosius et Valentinianus\| aa. Haelioni patricio et 8. 14
[magistro officiorum : universt cut \usli bet

Recto 11. predium is written for the sake of shortening the supplement, which still

-

seems a trifle long, though dzwm alone would be insufficient.
14. 1. cplsigue; cf. 1. 18, where guae is again written for gue.
18. The omission of frzor, 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. elychiarum praef. R. Some reduction in the number of letters is required and is
most easily obtained by writing 2. for praf.

9. Constante vv cc R.

10. Hadriano proc. Afric(ae) R, Hadriano pp. Cod. Lust., and cf, vi. 29. ΤΣ vil. 4. 93)
What 1818 had here remains of course uncertain ; R’s abbreviation of Africae is adopted
as suitable to the space.

15. vela: so R; bella Cod. Lust.

20. Const(antino)p(olr) R.

22. Haelionz is also the spelling of R (1. He/.).

Ss See

%

4
}
:
|
!
|
;

1814. EXTANT CLASSICAL AUTHORS | 217

1814. INDEX TO CODEX IUSTINIANUS, FIRST EDITION.
& 34-3X22-4cMm. 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. dell’ Istituto di diritto romano, 1918, pp. 1538qq- 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 codtcts,
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 Il. 42-6. Here the
ordinary text of the Cod. Iust. i. 17 gives two constitutions of the years 530 and 533
under the rubric De veteri iure enucleando et auctoritate iuris prudentium qui im
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 529-31. Its
absence in the first edition of the Codex would therefore be expected. Again,
the papyrus index passes directly from Cod. Iust. 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. Iust. i. I-11 =
Cod. Theod. xvi. 1-10), 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 st quae

218 THE OXYRHYNCHUS PAPYRI

(constitutiones) similes vel contrariae inventrentur, circumducere et a prioris codicis
congregatione separare.

Though primarily valuable as a relic of the original edition, the papyrus
makes some contributions also to the text of the extant Codex. While agreeing
with the MSS. in the omission of Septzmzo in 1. 20, it inserts the name Sex¢(zo)
in 1. 49 (with Cod. Theod.), /#/io in 1. 48, and apparently (arco) before Palladio
in 1.13; it adds Ὁ prov(iuctarum) (again with Cod. Theod.) after vzc(arzo) in 1. 8,
but omits e¢ consuli designato in 1. 27 and nobilisstmz in 1. 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 Kriiger’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 Sextzo in
i. 18. 2, and at any rate /u/zo can now be added in 18. 1: consistency would
suggest the acceptance also of guinque provinciarum in i. 11.3. There is further
some useful evidence on individual points of detail. Lines 16-17 show that
Cod. i. 31. 9, the inscription of which was missing, is to be attributed to
Anastasius, and ll. 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 Kriger 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 codicts § 5 ex prima Lustiniant
codicts 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 1818, 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 zp. and zmp-p- but the latter is
probably due to inadvertence. ὦ = -dus in]. 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 ΒΖ 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 Kriger in his large edition. The prefixed ® is accompanied by
the number of the rubric, in Greek figures; constitutions, with one exception
(I. 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 [ ]ke οὐ |x0, which are higher figures than would
be expected unless the index was preceded by other matter.

Recto.
ΚΒ [ra] dle plagani[s) sacrtfictis Cod. Iust. i. rz.
[27] temples 2R
[emp- Const. ? Dilodoto
[¢mp- Consta\ntin- a- ad Taurum pp- I
5 [empp- Gratzan-| Valentin. et Theod. ’ 2
(aaa. Cynelgio pp-
i|mpp- Arcadius et Hjonorius aa. Ma 3
[elrovto [et Prjochan- vic. v prov.
24. aa: Apollodoro priocons. Africae 4
10 6 imp-p- Honor|. et Thelodosius aa 5
populo | Cartalgen{ie\nsi
id aa. Asclepi\odoto p\p . 6
wmpp- Valentin. et Marcian- aa) M 7
Pallad{io pp ]
15 wmpp: Leo et An{them. aa Dioscoro pp- 8
avtokp(aTwp) Ανασταΐσιος a......... 9
ETaPX(@) πρ(αιτωριωνὴ [
R [18] de legibo et ‘con\stitu\ tionibus 14.
principum et \edictis
20 [zmp- Co\nstan{tilp- [a] Basso pu τ
ἰζη,- T \reoldosius et Valentinian: aa 2

[ald sematum
α΄. aa ad senatum
[24. aa ad Volusian\um pp.
25 (2d: aa Florentio 21:

[ed aa Florentio 2]

[éd- aa Cyro 2]
(¢d: aa ad senatum|

[empp- Valentinian. et| Marchian|- aa ad Pal

30 (ladium 29]

Φ ON δ᾽ σι ph ὦ

220

40

45

50

Ἴ

3. This constitution is absent in Cod. lust.

Avroxparopes Aciwy klar Ανθίεμιος aa...) .

THE OXYRHYNCHUS PAPYRI

Verso. Plate V.

[ ke

enapy(a)
tmpp- Leo et Zyno aa

Rw de mandatis plrincipum R
imp-p- Gratian. Valen\tinian. et Theodo
sius aa ad Eulsignium pp

ἡ δια tov tov δεσπίοτου Iovativov και Tove

τινιανου [aa
Βὲ ιὸ de senjat- con|sultis R

impp- Vial ent: T\heod\osius et Arcad:

a ad s\enatum|

Bove [de auctoritate) iuris
| prudentium| R

[cmpp- Theodosius et V\alent- a ad se
[αὐ se\natu\m

[emp Iustin\anus |Menae pp

[Ris de wuts et facti ignorian|tiia| B

[2mp- Anton. a Iulio Max: mil.

(ed: a S\esxt Luvie\njali]

[emp P\hilipl p\lolyes [a Lul ? Marcell: [

(zmpp\ Diocl. et M\aximian. aa Iulianae

(7d. aa| et ες Ma\rtiali

[a | et cc Taur. et Piolliont

[

[

[2«. aa| et cc Dionysiiae

aa et cc Gato gt |Anthemio

td: 44] et cc Amphiiae

tmp: Con\stantin- a |Valelrialno vie-

zd:
id:
td: aa| et cc| Zoe
24.
zd:

1. 14. τὸ

It

15.

17.

Cod. Theod. i. 4. 3

Cod. Iust. i. 18.

eo ost ner Ὁ WwW ν

κι
ο

ee
Lal

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. (ll. 4, 20, 58), it
is perhaps better to suppose that Cons/. here = Constantius; cf. 1. 5, where Theodosius is
shortened to Zheod. Dr\odoo is preferred to Thelodo/o as the shorter.

4. Constantin(us): |. Constantius.

The same error is found in SCR.

1814. EXTANT CLASSICAL AUTHORS 221

4. 1. Malc\robz0.

8. υ prov(inciarum): 80 Cod. Theod. xvi. 10. 15 guinque provinciarum ; om
Cod. Lust.

rr. 1. Carthagin{iensi; that the 4 was omitted (so SCRM) is hardly certain.

13. MV, representing the praenomen of Palladius, is a more suitable reading than |: 0
both in itself and because the lacuna is sufficiently filled without further addition. Om.
Cod. Iust. .

16-17. Om. Cod. Iust., where the constitution is given without the name of the
emperor or addressee. The papyrus omits the anti-pagan Const. 10.

18. Titles 12 De his qui ad eccleszas confugiunt vel thi exclamant, and 13 De his qui in
ecclestis manumittuntur, are here omitted.

20. Basso: so MSS. and S(umma Per.) ; the nomen Seplimio is supplied from Cod.
Theod. In the abbreviation of pracfecto urbi the horizontal stroke passes through the
letters.

24. Cyro pp. et consult designato Cod. Lust. There would not be room foré?.. - design.
even if shortened to ef cous.d.

29. 1. Marcian.

31-2. Om. Cod. Iust., but the names of the emperors could be restored from the date.
The name of the addressee must have been very short, unless it was abbreviated: the
remains do not suggest Ἰω.

_ The Greek ἡ in Znno was an oversight. Const, 12 is omitted.

36. pp. Cod. Lust., proconsulem Africae Cod. Theod. ; what stood in the papyrus is of
course uncertain.

37-8. The inscription of this constitution is deficient in the MSS. of Cod. Iust., but
is restored from δου. 124. 4 as Αὐτοκράτορες ᾿Ιουστῖνος καὶ Ἰουστινιανὸς aa. The reading of
the papyrus is unintelligible and it is not clear what was intended. which is placed in
the margin and has a horizontal stroke above is evidently a numeral, though there seems
to be no reason why this particular constitution should have been numbered when others
are not. Possibly δια is the survival of διάταξις, and ὃ. τῶν δεσποτῶν κτλ. should be restored.

41. Below this constitution Kriiger marks the place of a lost second one, following
indications in MSS. of P. Pithou. If it had any existence, that constitution was presumably
issued by Justinian between, the dates of the first and second codices.

42-3. Cod. Iust. here has De velert iure enucleando et auctoritate turts prudentium gut
in digestis referuntur, with two constitutions of a.p. 530 and 533- In Cod. Theod. i. 4 the
rubric is De responsis prudenium, under which there are three constitutions, the first two of
which are of Constantine; one placing a ban upon the commentaries (xo/as) of Ulpian
and Paulus on Papinianus, the other upholding the authority of Paulus, while the third
corresponds to Il. 44-5 here. It is possible that responsis, not auctortiate, stood in the
lacuna of |. 42, but in any case the rubric is not the same as in Cod. Theod. and is much
shorter than that of Cod. Iust., occupying ἴῃ fact an intermediate position. That the first two
constitutions of Cod. Theod.i. 4 are dropped is an anticipation of Cod. lust. i. 17. τ § 6 ea,
quae antea in nolts Aemilii Papiniant ex Ulprano et Paulo nec non Marciano adscripia sunt...
non statim respuere, &C. On the other hand Cod. Theod. i. 4. 3, the law of citations,
is retained pending the enucleation of the zws vefus in the Digest. Cod. Theod. i. 4. 2,
which is virtually repeated in 3, may well have been regarded as superfluous.

44-5. Impp. Theod. et Valentin. aa. ad senatum urbis Rom. Cod. Theod. In.1. 44 the
scribe wrote Valenti and then inserted the dot between 7 and z a was written for aa,
probably owing to confusion with the a of ad, and there was apparently a dittography
of ad se. ;

46. This constitution is unknown, but the name of Menas, to whom the constitution

222 THE OXYRHYNCHUS PAPYRI

of a.D. 529 De 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 turts interpretatores, but it iy 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. Iust. i. 17. 1-2, would be more appropriate.

48. Lulio: om, Cod. Lust.

49. 1. Sext(zo); this name, which is absent in the MSS., had been rightly restored from
Cod. Greg.

50. That the superfluous o was cancelled is not certain. A difficulty arises at the end
of the line, where with the reading Marcellae the letters /ae are expected, in place of which
there is something that may be read as 1. 27. [ or perhaps as ].Z- This constitution is
apparently to be connected with iii. 44. 8, issued on the same date and addressed to Luliae,
and some variation here in the name of the addressee is therefore not surprising ; but
whether the insertion of Ju/. is correct'remains very doubtful.

52. ef cc (= Caesares): so PLM ; ef centum S, om. C, e¢ Maximianus nobiles cesares R,
et Constantius et Maximianus nobilissimi CC. Kriiger.

HOMERIC FRAGMENTS

(The collations are with Ludwich’s text.)

1815. 14:5 Χ19Ὶ 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 wo Of xwouevos corr. from o.
45 exov added above the line. gapetpns 65 ov was written for o y, but the
third stroke of the ν is blurred and oy’ may be intended. 67 αντισας

71 vyneo nyacat. Third century.
1816. 25:7 Χ7:7 cm. Fragment containing ends of O 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
ελε

century. A mark of elisionin 1. 340. 348 ογη. 3408 διος 344 εἸνιπρη-
€avtes 345 τειχεος 348 νεων ἐθέλοντα 386 In place of this line ναί stands
in the papyrus, 1. 389, which is omitted in its proper place, apparently
having been inserted here. The papyrus is broken above val. 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

Bh bee ὦ

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 4:1x2:5 cm. Verso ends of P 379-84, recto beginnings of
418-24,

Foi.2 1:-5x2cm._ Verso a few letters from Σ 412-14, recto do. from
455-6.

Fol.3 14:4x13:8cm. Verso = 564-81 (end of col.). 571 opalptn

574 τε[τευιχετο 576 podavoy 577 χρύσεοι 579 [dV], corr. Ht? Recto
Kad |nv ὃ
603-17 (end of col.). 604 dv® 612 Ἰαιδαλ)έην. The scribe perhaps

began 1. 614, being misled by the homoioarchon of 611 and 613. επε]}:
615 Αχιλλῆϊι}ς. 617 Below this line isa row of angular marks, followed by
the title Ιλιαδ[ο]ς u[n] 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. ε has
frequently been written for a: or vice versa, and many such misspellings
have been corrected both by the first and second hands ; these variations,
and the common confusion of « and εἰ, 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 ,
O[tlouel|v]] οπλά τε πάντα 113 aludvovos 114 κτήματ᾽ 115 ἡ Of νηυσὶν
εε
converted frome [16 νίκος 118 οσάτε [21 wasincluded. 125 cal] c]]

απο, corr. H?, apparently neglecting todelete theo, 128 λληλοισι 129 Opa
τάχιστα 134 αὐτῆι. Recto 153-77 (beginnings). 154 [κ]οιλαΐνεοι 163 τρω-
υ ι ι
χῶσι corr. to τρεχοῦσι by ΗΣ ᾿ 164 τρίποςρ 171 κορυφῆσι 172 ακροτάτη
Sy u
174 aye 176 Πηλείδη.

Fol. 2 Recto X 190-202, 283-93, 203(?). Lines 283-93 are each
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 OXYRHYNCRUS \PAPYRI

y

the scribe’s having turned over two leaves in mistake. 194 Δαῤδανιδων

Τ
195 εὐμήτους 196 αλάλ᾽ κοιεν: βελέεσσι [ν]} 200 005 ὁ 482 εἰ οἵ πηξεις
᾿ λ π
converted from ἢ 290 οὐδὲν Verso 216-43. 220 moda 222 ἄμνυςε

cic
224 épar 226 λιπεν]] 228 ἱσταμένη mr[epoevt? 233 ΔηϊφοβἾ ε] 238 προσ-
€ A
εἶπε 239 πολὰ.

5 ὃ
Fol. 3 Verso X 255-78. 260 Αχιλλέσρ 464 αλλήλοισι 265 οὗτε

σε φαιδιμος ΕἸ κτωρ
270 δέ ται 272 θυΐων- 274 ηλέυατο [ χάλκεον έγχος 275 μείλινον
ποιμενα λαων
éyxos 277 E’kropa διον. Recto 291-314. 298 ἐγωγἾ4}] 304 wav

aorovdlfe||, corr. H? 405 [[μάλα}] peya 4307 λαπάρης 8310 ἀΠμΠρλὴν
312 Αχιλ[ λ]εύς, corr. Η“.

Fol. 4 Recto X 336-57. 347 μἾ[ ε]] ἔοργας 353 avryl|t]|. Verso 376-97.
380 έρδεσκεν ὅσ ΠΗ͂Ι 383 egies ade (vy) 391 [v " 392 γνλάφορ ἢ

Fol. 5 Verso Ψ 345-70. 348 NG 350 πὰ ἢ ἔειπεν 251 wine
acorr. 353 a 3.54 τόνδ᾽ [[e]] ἐλαχε, a converted frome. 355 Wi)
but a straight stroke was begun after A. 356 Suds ararbne ee 359 eloap .
463 oun κκή σι τ [ες πε τϑεσον, 146s woxinhell), age menial 383-406.
388 ελ᾿ αφηράμειϊος 392 ake...015€ 39350 0v 395 αγκῶνας ἢ 406 θρυλχθὴ

t
397 δακρυόφιν 401 Arpedys (ε from ι 9) δουρι κίλυτος 405 ἵποισι.

1819. Fragments of a roll containing κ, A, 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°0X 2-2 cm., « 3-12...) Fr.y2. .26:4:x.14-.2.em.,,Col, 1 ends
A 244-83, Col. ii 284-323. 259 Αμυθαον]ατ’᾽ 285 βασιλευεΐϊν]), corr. H?

HOMERIC FRAGMENTS 225

287 p of Πηρῶ retouched by Η 292 κατε] 297 θεσφατ᾽ ἅπαντ᾽ 298 κα
ζω

for kat. Τυνδάρεω 401 αμῴφω ovs “302 παΐρ) Ζηνος 402 In the margin

Σ
opposite this line is 7 (= 300). 206 Ποσιδαίωνις 408 Qrov 409 θρέψεν
311 evréllollopo, corr, H2? 314 πολυάΪ εἤικος, corr. H? 516 Πήλ[εἤιον,

ο
corr. H®. Frs. 3-5 beginnings of A 414-26, 428-32. 418 xelva 429 κὶα-
ken. Fr. 6 2-2x1°5 cm., a fewletters from » 1-4. Some small fragments
remain unidentified,

1820. 17-8 x 38-5cm. 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 x 19 cm.
Fol.1 Verso o 55-80. 63 mArcoveroi 64 βασιληες. In marg. αινουΐσι
H* 65 Evpupaxos re klar Avtilvoos. Marg. καταειρωῖ H? 67 marg. ἵ περι

>

. σ Ἐν
ε.[ ?7...[ H® 70 ἤλδανε 73 επίσπατον. Marg. αξίει H? 78 ἐφαθ᾽ ἐκ τ’

α[ζε $9
ονόμῃϊνε 80 In left marg. a diagonal dash. Recto 95-121. 96 Ipol]v||
101 εἴλκε 102 αἰθοῦσσης 105 In the left marg.a flourished sign 7. 107 On
ω Of ewy an acute substituted for a grave accent. 109 On 7 of aoprnp an

acute substituted for a grave accent. 110 [aly dap’ 111 εὃ[ε]ικανόωντ᾽,
the ε cancelled by a dot placed above it (H*?). 1117 om, 118 em
γαστέρα.

Fol. 2 Recto σ 137-63. 142 marg. ere κίαϊλωίς (not κίαϊλον or -λα
apparently) | ere κακίως H* 146 Against this line and 1]. 148-51 there are
oblique dashes in the left margin. 149 διακρίνεσθαι 152 ὃ of δέπας corr.
153 κατα δωίμᾳα 163 In the margin below this line μηδενος προκειμενου H?.
Verso 178-205. 185-7 Oblique dashes in the left margin against these

η
lines, and a coronis between ll. 186-7. 185 ypvs Igo marg. τὸ ἱτ]ηνι-
ka{vjra Η".

226 THE OXYRHYNCAHUS PAPYRI

IV. MINOR LITERARY FRAGMENTS

1821. 68x4cm. 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.

kat Togo μνηΐ

vooTo TE. [| mavra δ᾽ επισταῖμεν
ενθα καμὼν πι.Ϊ Elnv ατρεκεως |
Envy χωομενοῖ ws σε παλιν pl

μοχθησας δ᾽ ater . [

[

5 ἀσπασιαΐ. .je.. |

1822. 35:-3x17cm. 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. 1” αἰκροθι νυκτὸς 1° Ἰειδεται ειδος"
19 la φημιξαντο᾽ 71] peya χειμα ™ joy avypov 78 |. ενιαυτω" 7° Ἰυσι κομηται- * | σεληνη"

Ss
(marginal adscript μισγησι) * Jv nrLol[v]] ελθη ii. 2° ἀστατα yap στοιχέι 38 Zeus
Kpovos Ερμίειας. 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. 20°8x6-6cm. Strip from a column containing parts of 28 lines ofa tragedy,
ll. 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.

Katee: Shs Ἰετερχί 15..«- [-] . μί[ελαινηι AL
bss Seale bebe ]ro λυπί πατερα povevoas Tore [
[ete eas Ἰσις traf eset airs ie jav ὑπο ρητηΐ

[Ose ie des oa Joo ΕΣ Ἱματα mee ε.[

5

1824.

MINOR LITERARY FRAGMENTS 227

[ ΠΩΣ JeTors av... [
εἰς φοβον ame . [ ZO) [errs ΤῊ: Ἰνωνιν ἡ.

καὶ οὐκ εγγεκρυψαῖ (?) [ΡΥ πες ] yap ητις .[
ὡς τῶι γε μελλειν φρεν.Ϊ uae Ἰ. caurno[
τεθνηκε των cor σπερίμα Vitus Waa uatate oe Ἰετονταῖ
olor προς αλλων και Tod] [---%...].¢ TupBou . [
ουτως ἐχει TavTa ws πί BBL te. seen ena Ἰπαισ. [
πότερον Se παρελυσ ἢ τί PS Tee ae ies Oe pacalic'
ἢ παρθεῖνος Patek 1. pov oe. [
ὦ τλημον εθεμι to dosemeters Ἰατρος o ye. [

996-1 cm. Fragment of a (Menandrian ?) comedy, from the top of

acolumn. 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 Μιξί ), a name
which does not occur in comedy but may stand 6. g. for Μιξίδημος, Μιξίας,
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? ?) occurs
inl. το. Several lines are evidently nearly complete at the ends.

Aax
? Balivers εἰς pe: enor deol

ely de σοι Aaxns: οὐκ εστί
Mi?’
oda δηπουθεν : γεν

Je μη ποτ εἰπῆς ὡομηΐν

Aax
5 εἸπιδωσειν : ποθεν λαίβων ἢ
].. ὁμολογὼ σοι λαμίβανειν ?
] apa πανθ εξει.
15" διδωμι Παμ[φιλην ἢ
παιδωὴν er ἀροτω γνησιαΐν
Ic Τ᾽ apeora [ravjra ofol [
]

228 THE OXYRHYNCHUS PAPYRI

In 1. 3 there is a small mark after Μιξ' 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. 11-9x13:1cm. 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 isa 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.
]. v πονοὺς yap’ ἀλλα ποὺ τυχη" €y® πολὺ μαλλον eveos Ϊ
ἢ δ]ει δὲ πεῖραν λαμβάνειν

? δ] ε
παρακολουθῶν εξομαι τε ow εὐ Ἰφα {ΠΞνει: τα τὸ Te. [
Ἧι πων yap jet aes. οὐκ av δυναιτο φησὶν. Ϊ
5 |r ολουμαι προαπολῶ ταύτην εγίω ἐξ
7...«ὠτεὸον τι yap ε... τις 5 μαλακῶς exell[s|] yap a. ο[
¢ spageite ;
διατ]ριβη ywerat pov τοις γάμοις και παρελθοῦσ᾽ ώχετο efw . [

Ἰ. 7. λον" Κ τ ae

avtn αλλα πορίσατε. [.].. [

uA rg
σοι kKaT..GA...0n aive.€.[
4 4
πορισω παιδίω τίθθας m.. re. [

(A or Ὁ]

10 ¢

Verso 2. ἐν [ἀϊφανεῖν But the correction is unexplained. 6. Trochaic
tetrameters begin here, but 1. 8, where 1. rir@as, is irregular.

1826. 9x7:3cm. 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.
Ἰνη. .1 ΣεσΊογχωσις . Ϊ
] περικρατη . [ ] και τυγχανουΐ
] tov maida υ[ο]υν.. [ ]+ πάντως αλλ εχουΐσι

1 Σεσογχωσις ανηλθεῖ ] οπερ εἐπεκλωσαν τουΐ

MINOR LITERARY FRAGMENTS 229

5 ]+ ta λοιπὸν pera Taly 5 | μη BovAopevos τα 7. [
] emmopaxwv Kat omdoplaxov Ἰειν οταν exeva ade .[
ειἰω]θοτα βασιλευσιν ἐπι 7/78 | tore avros επιφανε.Ϊ
ενίνομου ηλικιας γενίομενοις Ἰρι δὲ eva των μορ.Ϊ
τω] πατρι εἰπεν k[ ] ανθρωπους π΄.-- .Ϊ
Ιο 7υπὸ τῶν TaTpwoly το ευἸδαιμονιαν τὴν dol

κεϊχαρ[ι]σθαι την 0. [ 1 tov θεον βοηθον . [
]- Af. .]. of] αηδως . [ ΣεἸσογχαϊσι]ς . . Xo. |
PL oo « [bu «| prov εξῳ γε orev . [
τεἸ]λειουσθαι of ra δο.. που... .Ϊἷ
" eae

The length of line seems to have been greater than that suggested by
recto 7-8 ; in ll. 6-7, where the lacuna is approximately the same, some-
thing like κατα ra ειωἼθοτα is required. In verso 1o the final ν of εὐυδαιμονιαν
is corrected.

1827. Fr. 1 10-7x56cm. 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]. 11.

Fr 1. [. Ja ore ἄθηνίαι.
[. . -Jepo[.] τουτοις | [. . κει Gtdof....
μεν εὐἰκ͵τον ov ev 15 [..Jros εἰ. [. ee eee
[τωι της πολεὼς a [- . .(]οσδοί. . «......
[ξ]ιωματι Kat ἀγὼ fe ee] Gyre scie e's a
5 νιζεσθαι και KN ty Mnyals 24s o>
[ρἸυττεσθαι τηι δε
[πολει Tov τουτων ,
[στ]εφανον ov do Pr. 2
[Els yeyovora ad :
10 [A] atoxuyys atte woh
[ον] apa y εκηρὺυτ ΐ Ἰναί.} «1
[τε]το Φορμιων . . Ἰρ[-Ἰνγί

In 1. 2 there seems to be barely room for [κ], but evrovoy is not attractive,
still less evyovov.

230 THE OXYRHYNCHUS PAPYRI

1828. 4-9x2:9 cm. Fragment ofa 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.
] Kas yap οξυχολ[οὴς . [
] 0 tkavoy ποιων τρυφηι
Καὶ. ο μεθυσος Kat ο καταλαῖλος

Kat o Ψεϊυστης καὶ o πλεονεκτης [και
t
5 0 αποστε]ρητης Kat o τοιουτος Ta [παρα

πλησια ?| ποιων [τΊηι δι[αἸνο[ιαι] τουΐ

Ore ee Ro aa” [
luptov επιλανθανεται Ϊ
] πραξιν ἡ yap τρυφη xa . [
] nHas ov[k] exe δια την a. [
5 Pn evdeduta ἡ de τειμίωρια ?
\tol. οταν πολλα.. [.] . ταί

ΠΟ ES

(1700 is to be supplied before 118-99, 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 ALCcAEUs).

dal 81. 15 το.

ἄβροις 871. “Ἷ 3.

ἀἸβρόταν (?) 87.° 3.

ἄγαθος 88. * 10.

ayava| 871. 3.11. 12.

ἀγαπάτα 87.° ii. το.

aye 88.121}. 3. ἄγηΐ 89. Ἵ 3.

ἀγοράν 88. 15 i. 6 sch.

ἄδειν 88.° 3 sch.

ἀ]δυ 88. 8 5.

ἀδύλογοι 87.11 4.

ἀίε]δει 87. yi

deixea 89.1 1. 6.

aéppar| 88.° 3.

ἀήϊδοι 8'7.° 9.

ἀθανατί 87. ee

ἀθύρματα 87.° il, 22.

αἱ 88. 2 6, 12 ii. 4, 1° il, 163
89.1 i. 12 (?).

ai, 89. “ὅ 2.

αἰγιβόϊ. 88. 3.

ἄιδρος 89. © 5.

αἴει 88. ὃ 8.

aideil 88. 15 11. 5.

Aiod[td .. . 89. 6.

aipovo| 89.7 3 sch.

αἶσχος 88. ° 4.

αἴσχρὶ 81.113.

αἴτιον 81. 6.

αἶψα 87.** 5.

ἀκατί 88. ei

ἄκοιτιν 87.147 21,

ἄδιον 8'7.° ii. 5.

ἀκούην 87. *° 3.

[dxplav 88. rea

ἀλίκ εσσι 87. τος

ἀλίτραί 87.7 4, 332.

ἀλλά 87.112 16, © 2, 3.4.

ἄλλος 88.434. ἄλλοι 87.116.
ἀλλί 89.1 il. 15.

ἄλος 88.4 25.

dpeo| 81. 7° 6.

ἀμπελί 88.1 4.
15 i. 2%,

ἀμφί 87.185. dup 89.77 3.

ἄν 88.1 i. 4 sch.

ἀναίτιον 88. 15 ii. 12.

ἄναξ 89. 5 8.

᾿Ανδρομέδαν 87.7 5.

ἀνέμω 89.1 i. 15 (?).

ἄνηρ 89. ii. 6.

ἄνθος 87.1° 5.

avépon| 87. 1* 7.

ἄν]ολβον 87. poe

ἀντί 88.151. 13 sch. dv(ri τοῦ)
88. 151. 18 sch.

ἄοιδον 87.132 11,

ἀπαίσαν 8'7.** 2.

ἀπαλ] 88.* 7.

ἀπό 88.210 sch.
$s 58:1 ey a,
Bevis) ΖῈ.

ἀπολελειμμένον 89. ἴ 3 sch.

ἀπόλλυται 89. 74 2.,

ἀπυγυέεΐ (?) 81. 15 8.

ἀμπέλω 88.

ἀπύ 81.
ἀπ᾿ 88.

ἀπυείπη] 88.74.

ἀπύθεσθαι 87. °° τ.

dppovias 87.13 g.

ἀροτρώμμ! 88.28.

᾿Δρτεμι 87.°7 4.

ἂς 88. 511. 4.

ἄσαν 87.7 4.

ἀστίος ἢ 89. 29 4.

dras 89. 16 2 sch.

drépal 87.1 3.

αὐάτἰαισι 89.151.

αὖθι 81. 582.

αὔταν 87.1*2 6, 494; 89. 1
9. αὐτή 88.7 το sch. αὔτω
88.428. αὔταις 88. 15 ii.
23.

αὔων 87.112 18,

᾿Αφροδῖτα 87.11 3.

"Axéplovros 87. * το.

ax Onv 87,112 5.

βάρη 89.7 3 sch.
βασίλευς 89.11. TO.
87.46.
βιάζω 88.77.
βόλλεο 81. 33 4.
Bpdd| 88. ὃ 7. Bpoddo| 87.151.
βροδόπαχυν 81. 12 18.
Ἴβρομος 89. 29 6.

βασιλ

γάμει 89.1 1. 7.

232

γάμον 89.11, 14. γαμί 89.
38 2 sch.

yep 87.° ti. 5; ΣῊ £,\2° 7,
366, 449; 88.416, 20, 15
i τῶ 20; 215.255 Gee
Late), “i. 4,,? sity tes
31

yas 87.172 19; 88. 7 8(?).
γῆ 88. 3.2 sch.

γένεσθαι 87.142 τ. eyevolvro
87.17213. ἔγεντο 87. “11.
I. γενέσθω 89. 3 ii. 16.
γένοιτο 87, 3.11. 23; 89.
ict Τα 8

yevnov 88.7 9.

yeo| 88.15 i. 4 sch,

γῆρας 87.147 12.

γλαύκαν 88.1 4.

γλαφύρα 89. © 8.

γλύκερον 871. ° 5.

γλύκυς 871. 3 τῇ.
ρ αν τὰ

γόνα 817. 1514.

γυναικός 88. 3. 7 sch.
axe 87, Ὁ 2,

γλυκέως 89.

ἢ γύν]-

dal 89.7 3.
δαίμων 87. ὅ 3.
it, 2:

[Satire] 89. 51 5, ν.]. δηῦτε.

δάφνας (or Δάφνας ἢ) 87. ὃ ii. 4.

δέην 88.4 27.

δεῖνα: 87. ? ii. 17.

δεκώμεθα 89.12 5. δέξεται 89.

35 4.

δεύοντος 8.8. 15 ii. 3.

58: ΔῊ 59 590. 2,

dnire Βὴ.. 4; 89.11. 15, 41
(v. 1. δαῦτε).

διδοίσί 87. 29 5.

Δίδυμος 88. 151. To sch.

ἰδιπλ]ασίαν 88. 15 ii. 28.

dual 88. 15 ii. 3.

Sox] 88. ° 3.

δόκιμος 89. 1 ii. 6.

δόμον 89. 29 5.

δρόμωμεν 89. ii. 2.

δρόπἰ ω]σιν 88. 15 11. 23.

δροσόεσσαΪ 81. ὃ ὃ

δαίμονα 88.

INDICES

diva 8.8. 15 ii. 16.
δύναμ 817." ii. 18.
δύνατον 87.172 1 ip
δώ 87. 2 3.

δῶρα 87. 112 το,

ἐάσω 871. 9 2.
ἔγω 87.62; 88.420, 1511. 8.
pe B79 Tag, 2;

58. 52." 1109.6. pee
5:7: ἘΓΣΊΣΑ 2 iL ag. vepoe
87.447; 89.li.12. dp-
μας 87." 4, 38.2 (). ἀμ-

μέων [89. ae 9 ?|. ἄμμι(ν)
89.}1. 16, 122.

ἐέρσας 87.11 9.

εἶπε 88. 12 ii. 6. εἴπηϊν 88.
0 i) 20,

εἰς 88.15 i, 18 sch.; 89. ?} ii.
2 (ἐς Pap.).

εἰσάιον 87. 3.1]. 9.

εἰσικεῖ 89.1 ii. 13? (eo Pap.).

ex, ἐξ 87.142 13; 88.13, 91;
89. ° 7.

éxd| 87. °° 6.

ἐλευθέραις 88. 3 5.

Any, ἤλεο 87. 3.

ἔλκεα 88. * 40.

ἐλ]λίπωϊν 89. 2 1x.

ἔλπις 87.142 το.

ἐλπώρα 88. 15 ii. 19.

[ἐμβᾷ)] 89. 11. 17.

ἐμμί S72 τι:

ἔμϊμεναι 88. 29.
* ¥4 βοπὶ (ὃ).
21. ἦσθα 87.
88.) ii. 18.
147; 89.°.3. gov 89.° 4.
ἔοντί 88.912. ἔοντες 89.
1 ἢ, 11. ἐοίσαις 88. 15 ii.
24.

ἐν 88. 5.3 sch.; 89. 256. κἀν
87.93. ἐνν 87.4 το.

? ἐν]δίκως 89. 39 5.

ἐνείκην 88. 15 ii, 20.

ἔννεκα 81. ὃ 5.

ἐνοιπὶ 88. 2 26.

ἐξίοί 89. 30 2.

ἐπάνω 88. 151. 13 sch.

ἐπεί 88. 5.7 sch.; 89.1 i. 17.

(ἐστί) 88.
ἔον 87. ® ii.
14245. Fe
ἔσσεται 88.

Ἐπείζων ἢ 89. © 7.

La 88.15 ii, 22.

ἐπικεῖ 817. 2,

ἐπιν 87.142 26.

ἐπι]ταδέως 89.7 τ.

ἐπονάμενοι 88. 15 ii, 25 (ἐπο-
mp.); 89."}. 5.

ἐπωμοσσ[ ἡ 87.9 τ.

ἔρωτες ἢ 87.11 4.

ἔσλοις 89. 111. 8.

ἐσσί 88. * 33.

ἐσχατί 88.4 31.

ἔτι 817. 9 2.

εὖ 87. 30; 89.1]. 3.

εὐμορφοτέρα 87, *4 5.

ἔχην 81. 112 18,12 5; 89.111.
Io. ἔχω 88.}1} 2, ἔχει
87.311. 19. ἔχῃ 89. 1]. 2.
ἔχοισα 87.11 6.

ἔχυρον 89.7 ii. 2.

87. * ii, 18.

Cal 87. 21 ii. 1,

ζαμευόντον 89.11. 6 and sch.
ζαμευέτωσαν 89. 11, 6 sch.

ἡ 87." ii. 6; τῆς

ἠδέ 87. 35 5.

ἤδη 817. 112 12; 88. 1511, 17.
ἤρινον 88. 16.

θαάσίσ . . 87.114,

oy 88.°1.

6al var ..? 89.82,

θέλε 87.442. θέλαΪ] 81. 1? 4,
θελήσῃϊ 81. 35 6.

θέος 87.7 11. 17. θέοισιν 87.7 3.

θ]ίγοισα 81.113 4,

θρίξ, τρίχες 81.115 13.

θῦμον 87. ** 5.

θύραν 81. 192.

ἴατον 89. 29 5.

? ἰα]ύην 89. 15 3.

ἰδρεΐα 89. ὅ 2.

ἰέναι, εἶμι 81.15.3.
88. 1511. 3.

ἵκεσθ᾽ 87. ii. 12.

Ode . τν 8.2: 0s

ἴμ[εν ie)

Ll, SAPPHG AND, ALCAEUS

ipep[o 81. 19 3,
10 6,

ἱμ[έρρηην 88.° 6?

ἴμερτον 88.43

inn| 88.11.

ἴσαν 87.7 3.

ἰχθυΐ 89. 4° 3.

ἵμερον 87.

ἴσα 87.142 16.

καὶ 87. **2 24, 28, 3:1}. 7, *
10, °2, 71(?), #2, 9;
88.422, Mii. 18; 89.2 ii.
Segue 2, 8a. PE γον καί
τ᾽ 87.°41. κἀπυγυεῖ ? 87.
189.

καίτοι 87.4 1.

κάκος 89.°1 1. κάκον 89. 11} 2.

κάκα 89. 11. 32. κάκων 88.
mam)? ti. E52) κάκ! 89.
25 αὶ

κα[ xd |rpore 87.9.,.

κάλαμος 88.15.

κάλαν 87. 31]. 12. κάλον 87.

14295; 88. 1511, 19. κάλα
87.142 το, κάλ᾽ 87. 311. 22.

καλεῖν, κάλημι 87. “5 4.

καμ[ 89.321 1.

κάρπος 88. 1511. 18.

καρτεῖ 88. 1511, 27.

κατά 87.142 19; 88. 2 sch.,
421. «dd 88. 10 6. καδδί
88.17.

κατάγρει 88.7 4.

katan| 88. 10 5.

καταισχύνωμεν 89. 11]. 7.

κατισΐχ .. 87.7 8.

κε(ν) 81.112 16, 2 ii, 2, 21;
89.}1. 8, 9, 17.

κειμένοις 89. 1 ii. 8.

κείμεν...
88. 151. 15 sch.

κελάδεις 8816.

κερρ] 88.115.

κῆνον 81. ii. 6. κηνί 88. 12

ll. 4.
Kipoa(?) 89. ὅ 9.
κλᾶμμα 88. 151], 19.
κλεηδονΐ 87.7* 4.
κλέος 87. 4 0.
κολοκύνταις 88. * 6.
κ]ούφω 88.1.4.
κρίνειν, κεκρίμενος 89. 1]. ἡ.

κυΐ $7.19 2.

κῦμα 88.425; 89.1 i. 15.
kup[ 88. ° 11.

Κύπρῳ 87. * 6.

λαγχάνειν, λάχῃ 89. 111. 4, ν.].
λάβῃ. λέλογχε 87.14? 25.

λαμβάνειν, λάβῃ 89. 11]. 4, ν. ].
λάχῃ.

λάμπρον 81.132 25.

λανθάνειν, λελά[θ}} 87. 12 3.

λεῦκαι 817. 142 13.

λίγηαν 87.135 11,

λυγύραν 87. 142 τι]
87.5η.

λίμενα 89.1 ii. 2.

λίμνας 88. 1 2.

λίτως 88.211,

λυμαινί 87. 14 8.

λύρ[ 81. 3 5.

λίγυραι

μαινόμενον 89. 329 7,

pax, 87. τ.

μακάρων 87. 3. 20.

μάλα 89. 4.

μάλθ]ακον 89. 1 11. 3, v. 1. μόλθ.

μάν 87. 4.

μανιώδη 89. 29 7 sch.

μάρπτειν, ἔμαρψεν 87. 1*2 20,

μάχεσθαι 87. 44 7.

pel 89.76 5.

μέγα 87.47; 89.1 ii. 4, 382.
μεγαλί 89. 71 2.

pet|Siacu 87. 27 3.

μελαιναΐ 87. 311. 15.
Sir 5.

μελλιχόφωιζος 87. 5 6.

μέλος 87.°5. μελῶν 87.4 2
(title).

pe 81. 311. 7; 88.) 1]. 17.

μένην 89. 11. 12. pever[ 89.
12

μελαίναν

μεριμναί 87. 89 τ,

μή 81." 11. 19,22 2, * 4: 88.
Pits, 12 inh 23s) BOL” ai.
ay 7:

μηδέ 89. 11. 5, 15 5.

μηδέν 87.° ii, 20. μηδενί 87.
34 2.

μηκέτι 87.7 τι.

233

μητεῖ 81. 27 2,

Mixa 87. © 1.

μιμνήσκεσθαι, μνάσθητε 89. 1
roe

μόλθακον 89. 1 ii. 3. (v1
μάλθ.).

μοναρχίαν 89, 12 4,

μόρος 89. 29 4,

μύγις 81. 311. 9.

μύρια 88. 3 το.

Μυρσίλου 89. 12 9 sch.

μ[ώμω κὶ 89. 1 ii. 5.

val 89. 3:1.

vaa 88.619. ναῦν 88.151,
5 sch. νᾶος 89.1 i, 17.

νεβρίοισιν 817. 142 τ.

vical 88. 15 ii, 8.

νό 88. 12 ii. 5.

νόημμα 87. “5 5.

νομίσδει 87.142 22,

ν]όσον 89. 29 5.

WOM Skane We τι, ΒΡ;
88.359; - G2. Si. 6, 151.

feo[ 88. 151. 5 sch.
ξυστοφορήμενος 89.1 i. 8.

ὁ, 8 (art., dem., rel.) 87, 1+?
8) 58:2. ἀ SG 532: τῷ
87.1227, 56,19». 8s. 2
0; Ὁ 11. TOC τῶν 81. ἢ:
18,92; 89.111. 10. τῶ

88.78; 89.11. 15, ii. 5.
τῶ 88. 2° 2. τᾶς 87. τ;
88.156 ἢ. 14. τῷ 89.91.
τᾷ 88. 12 ii, 2. οἱ 88. 1
ay) τῷ ST) ik 4) ς
16: 85: 5% 27, 34 ig,
ROU 25. τος 87. “11. 24;
88. 23. τῶν 89. ii. 12.
τᾶν 89. ἴ 3. ταῖς, ταῖσι
87.7 ii. 7; 89.1 ii. 14.

ὄδε, τάνδ εὐ 89.111.9. τᾶσδε
88. 1211. 5.

ὀδοίπορος 81. 3.1]. 8.

οἷδεν 88.4 26. οἶσθα 81.359.

ox] 88. * 24.

ὄκνος 89. 1 ii. 3.

Ἰόλβων 88.512.

234

ὀλίγαις 88. 15 ii. 20.

ὄλκα(ν) 87. °8 3,

ὀλοφ[ώιος ἢ 8'7.° 3.

"ὀμάγυρ ἘΣ ΘΒ. a

ὀμίλλει 88. * 27.

ὄμπαυε 88. 15 ii. 7.

[ὄμφ]ακας 88. 1511. 24.

ov 88.1 6.

dveo| Sieh 2.

évias 87. ° ii. 17.

ἡ ὀήννεχει 89. ὃ 4.

ὄνοιρε 87. ὃ il. 15.

ὀπάσδοι 871. 113.25.

ὄπποθεν 88.1 3.

ὄπποτα 89.1 i, 13.

ὄρη] 88. * 3.

ὀρ]νίθεσσι 88. 1 2.

és [1789. 11]. 9]. és τε, ἄς τε
88.417. ὧν τε 87. ** 2.

ὄσσος 87.48; 88.1511. 18.
ὄσ]σα 87. ** 6.

dra 87. 311. 4. dra τε 87. 51.
16.

ὄττις 88. ® Io.

οὐ, οὐκ ST. te) Lay te, i, 2,
2ι,ὅ.4,18; 88.’ 2a, 26,
33, 1511. 20, 25 (9). ἔγωυκ
87. 5 2. μηὺκ 88.121]. 7

? οὐ]δάμα (or μη]δάμα) 88.4 11.

οὐδέ 87.°8, 10 2(?), 18 1 (?);
88. 1511. 15, 26.

οὐδέν 817. 5 7.

οὗτος, τοῦτο 87. 112 24, 5 2
88426, 1° 4, 1211, 8. rov-
του 88. 151. 15 sch. ταῦτα
87.18 2; 88.32 sch.

οὔτω 87.° ii. 21. οὕτω 88.
19 10 SCH,

ὄψι (?) 88. 1511. 21.

πάθην 88.14 3.

παῖδα 87.92. παῖδες 87. 1t2
10. παῖΪδας 88. ἢ 5.

πάλην 87, 19 5.

πᾶν 81.311. 5. marl 89. 9 3.
παίσ]αν 89.29.2. πάντα

δ. res 3 58:5 τὸ;

89. 2: τ. πάντα 87. 3 ii.
24,12. πάντεσσι 87. 15
13.

INDICES

πάντᾳ 87.49.
mapéupevat, ὃ π]αρέσσεται 89. °

παρέσκεθε 88." ii, 11.

mapexe| 88.15 ii, 28,
89.1i. 16.

mapper, 89. 22 1.

πάροιθα 89. 1 ii. 5.

πάσασθαι, πεϊπάμεναι 87. 38 τ.

παύσαι 88. 1511. 15.

πεδά 87. 44 5.

πεδέχην 871. 211. 19.

πέδιον 88. 2.

πειΐ 89.320 4.

Πελάσγων 89. 5 6.

πέλη[ος 81. 35 2.

Πενθιλήαν 87. ὃ 3.

περθέσθαι 87. 33 4.

πίθεισαί 81. ** 8.

πισύνᾳ 88.* 24.

ἡ πἸλεξάνθιδος 88. 1 τ.

πλήονι 87. 18 4.

πλοκαμί 87.145, 15.4.

πλυί 817. 2° 1.

ποήσ᾽ 88. 19. ποησί 89. ὃ 2.
ποείην 87.142 τό.

πολί 88.1 2.

πολίας 88. + 25.

πόϊλιν 89. 1 ii. το.

πόλυν 89. 11. τό. πόλυ 87.
54. πόλι! 88.93. πόλλαν
88. 6 5. πόλλας 89. 11.
II. πόλλα 88. 22, 13 ii.
9, 10. πόλλ᾽ 89. ὃ 5.

πον] 88. 151]. 0.

πονεῖν, ἐπόνησας 88. 421,

ποτά 81. 511. 9; 88.1% 4;
89. 7 (v. 1. ποκά).

πρίν 89. 15 2.

πρόδηλον 89. 11]. 4.

πρόκοψιν 87.142 9,

πρός 89.1 i. 3.

πρόσθα 88. 1511. 25.

προτέρω 89. 1]. 15.

προφί 89.19 2.

πτήσσειν, ἐπτάξατε 87.° il. 3.

πω 88.511.

παρέξει

Σαπφοῦς 87.45 1 (title).
Σίσυφοί 88. © 13.

σός, σᾶς 88. 15 ii. 14.
σαί 88.78.

σταφύλαις 88. 1511. 20.

στ]ερεάν 88.5 i. 4.

στίχου 88. 151. 15, sch.

στ[ὑ]μα[σι] 817. 113 9.

σύ 87.26 ἡ, 410; 88. ii. 14.
σέ 87.* 5, 10, ὅτ ee
88. 1511. 2. σοί 88. 151.
3 sch., il. 17.

συναϊγέρ]ρεται 88. ii. 18.

? συναέρρ]αισα 87. * 5.

ἢ συ]ννέχει 89. ὃ 4.

συνουσιάζοντες 88. 151. 2, 3
sch

σφί 89. 1 11. 12.

σφαλί 89.11.

σφι 87.13 12,

oa Or

re 87.° ii. 14, 16,326... ee
442. 88. πὸ, 1 ΟἿ)

τέαυτα 811." ii. 11. Cf. τοιαύτας.

τέϊλεσον 87. 33 3.

τέρπειν, |erepn| 81. 19 7.

τ]ηλεφάνην 88. 17.

τιθέναι, θῆται 817. 113 0.

τίς 88.15 ii, 9. τί 87.1777,
16,

τις 87.°5; 89.111. 6. |ris}
89.111. 7. τι 88.151. τό.
τινά 89. 111]. 3, 19 2.

τοι 88. 1511. 25. Cf. 87.8ὅ: τ;
88. 1511. 9.

τοιαύτας 88. 15 ii. 21. Cf.
τέαυτα.

τόκηας 89. 11]. 8.

τόλμ 81. * 2.

τόξω 88. 3.

τόπον 89. 2! 2.

τότα 89.11.12, 22 2.

τ]ρόπον 81. ἴ 7.

tpl 88.7 6.

Tuvdapidas 87.7 9.

τύχην 87.446. τύχοισα 87
441

ὕδωρ 88.1 4.
tpl 88.1? ii. το.
ὖμο.. 87. 112 8.

J.

ὕμως 87. 113 20, 7 2 (?).
ind 87.°9 3; 89.?ii. 8.
ὑπερβέβαται 88. pak th ar
ὐπίησί! 88. * 4.
drive 88. + 23.

ὕπνος 87.° ii, τό.
ὕστερον 88. 151. 18 sch.
Φαέθων 87. “ 8.
ἔφαί 81. 13 6.
φαρξώμεθα 89. 11]. 1.
φέροισι 87.142 14. φέροισα

5.1. τ 210.
φθάνειν, ἔφθατε 8711. 511. 13.
φθ)ιμέναν 81. 113 22.
φίλει 87.142 27. ἐφίλησί 87.
54. ? perl 81." 5.

II.

a8.8. = cis 4.45; 8. i. sch.

4.

ἔΑβδηρος O. 13 [2], 25

ἀγαθός 86.5; 94.12; 8. 29.

᾿Αγαμέμνων 90. 20.

ἀγανόφρων 92.1 12.

ἀγαπᾶν Ο. 1 14, OF χα:

ἀγγελίη 93. vi. 3.

ἄγειν 92. © 4; 98. viii. 3 ; [4.
ἘΠ 2); 20. 73 sch.

ἅγιος 86. 4.

ἀγλαός 92.115, 20.
91. 13.

αγνΐ 27. 17.

ἀγνύναι 94. 7.

ἀγοράζειν 98. il. 7.

ἄγος 90. 21.

ἄγων 98.585 ii. 16?

ἀγωνία 98. * ii. 8.

ἀγωνίζεσθαι 4. 3.2; 27. 4.

ἅδειν 95. ii. 14.

ἀδελφή 98. 5521. το.

ἀδελφός Ο. [1 7], ὅ 45.

ἀδικεῖν 95. il. τ; 97. 12 ef
δαέῤ.

ἀδίκημα 97. 52.

ἄδικος 97. 63.

ἀδροσίη 96. 18.

ἀγὰ [

| φίλος, φίλε

SAPPHO AND ALCAEUS

87.1*211. φήλ
89.61. ? Al 87.*5.

φιλότατα 87. 5.

gol 89.19 1.

goiras 87, * ii. 16.

xaupol 87.74
χάλεπὶ | 87. ἣν 3.
χαρίεντ᾽ 87." το.
χαρισΐ 88. 422.
χέλυνναν ee ἘΣ γα,
χεριθὶ 81." 3 Cor Pap.).
χλιδάνᾳ 87. #4

χλῶρος 88.1 5.
χόρον 87.1% ie
χρήματος 88. * 28.
χρόα 81. 1312.

ἄεθλον 98. Vil. 7.

ἀεθλοφορεῖν 98. Vili. 15.

ἀεί 98. ν. 6.

ἀείδειν 91. 9; 98. Χ. 1.

ἀέλιος 92.} 14.

ἀετός 91. ὃ.

ἀηδῶς 26. recto 12.

ἀθάνατος 92. 55 3.

ἄθεος 85.1 recto 5.
8.20.

ἀθεραπευσία 98. * iv. τ.

᾽Αθηνᾶ ὃ. 5 54; [4. - 2]. ᾿Αθάνα
91. 4.

᾿Αθηνάδιον 2. ὃ. 55-

Ἀθῆναι Ο. +00 3 60 ; i no

᾿Αθηναῖος O. 3 ty A =
29, 42, 51, ats I, 9; 59,
22,30; 4.142 4(?), [23];
27. 13?

ἄθροισμα Ἴδ. 372 sch. 9].

ἀθώπευτος 96. τῇ.

Αἴας [90. 34.

Αἰγαῖος 90. 28.

Αἴγυπτος [0.1 το].

᾿Αἴδης 95. il. 27.

αἰέν 90. 46.

αἷμα 2.3 61.

αἰνεῖν 98. Xx. 5; 20. 64 Sch.

ἀθέως O.

235
χρόνος 88. 15 ii. 17.
χῶρις 87. 511. 18.
Vargo. 871. 5 5.
ψύχα 81.311. το. ψύχαν 88.

ἘΣ.
ψῦχρον 88.14, * 36.

ὦ 88.27, 151. 9; 89. 1.
ὦ 89. 335.

ὠγύγιος 88.151. 7 sch.
ὥκιστα 89. hii. I.

dhoper| 88.4 29.

ὠμοτέραις 88. 19 it. Ane
Ἰώνυμον 89. ὃ 5 (v.1. Ἰωννυμ.).
ὡς 89.} ii. τ.

dare 81. 38 2.

OTHER NEW TEXTS.

aivos 86. 4.

Aionis [0.1 31].

αἴρειν 91. το.

αἱρεῖν 4. * 4. αἱρεῖσθαι 98.
Vili. 6 (εἱϊλάμεθα).

αἰσθάνεσθαι 96. τ.

ἀΐσσειν 98. Vi. 2.

Αἰσχίνης Ο. ὅ 40, 41;

αἰσχύνη 27. το.

Αἴσωπος Ο. 3 46, 57.

aire 90. ὅ 4, 5.

αἰτεῖν [0. ὃ 2711.

αἰτία Ο. 3532.

αἴτιος 27. τὸ

Αἰτωλός 2. 5.51.

αἰχμά 90. 32.

αἶψα 94. 12.

αἰών 97. 43.

ἀκήρατος 91. 19.

ἄκμητος 96. 12.

ἀκολούθως 8. ii. sch. 13 ὃ

ἀκόμιστος 94. 20.

ἀκούειν 82.8; 98. 1.7; 3
67-9.

ἀκρίς 1. 43.

ἀκρισίη 96. 21.

ἀκρόθι 22. i. 17.

ἀκρωΐ 98. iv. 3.

4. 142 9,

236

᾿Αλβάνιος 2. ὃ 65.

᾿Αλέξανδρος 98. vii. 1; 98. 1ὅ
ΠΣ, ΑΜ ΟΝ ΤΩ 11. Ὁ
lil. 4, 15, v. 2(?), 49 4?

ἔΑλλεξις 1. 50.

ἀληθής 97. 4,17, 58; 99. ii.
14, 32.

ἀληθινός 98. 12 4 ?

ἀλῆτις 94. 20.

ἁλίζωνος 98. Vi. 4.

ἁλίσκεσθαι 97. 25.

ἀλιτήριος 4, 142 5 ?

ἄλκιμος 90. 34.

ἀλκτήρ 96. II.

ἀλλά 91. το; 98. viii. 1;
95. ii. 7, 27; 96. 4; 97.
41, 60; 98.484; 99. ii.
31; 2.769; 8. 28; 9. sch.
3; 25..recto 1, verso 4;
26. verso 3; 27. 9.

ἀλλήλων 96. το; 97. 4; 7.
901 sch.

ἄλλος 90. 13; 98. ix. 4;
94. 9,15; 97. [19], 69;
98.15.1. 4. ν᾿ 22(); 0.
Pours) συ δι θις 8) <2
seh; Σὰ τ 9. ΞΟΠ ae 29.
10.

ἄλλοτε 94. 9, 11.

Gs 92.3% 4; 98. ν. 4, ix. 6.

ἀλωή 94. 18.

ἅλωσις 90. 14.

ἅμα 92.15; 24.7; 27.11.

ἁμαρτάνειν Ο. 12 8,

ἀμείβεσθαι 94. τι.

ἀμήν 86. 4, 5.

ἄμοιρος Ο. 3 45.

ἄμπελος 2.° 71.

ἀμφιπολεῖν 92.1 4, Ἵ 2,

ἀμφότερος 98. Vii. 3, ix. 1, X.
6; 97. 62.

ἀμφοτέρωθεν 98. Vi. 4.

ἄν [90. 23]; 97. 67; 99.
Ἰ 18. 0.792557 1 > 38's
δ. Bi sch;. ¥.95 26.
verso 3.

ἄν (= ἐάν) 95. ii. 1, 23; 97.
17.

ἀνά 92.120; 94.21; 985. ii.
16 (ἀν).

,

INDICES

ἀναβαίνειν 90. 8.

᾿Ανάβασις 8. 39, 52.

ἀνάγειν 98. 5511. 14; O.8 το.

ἀναγκάζειν 78, 14.

ἀνάγκη 97. 15, τό.

ἀναγράφειν 0.271; 2.258?

ἀναδιδόναι 2. * 33.

ἀναιρεῖν 98. * i, 12 (ἀνελεῖ).

ἀναίτιος [99. iil. 20 ἯΙ

ἀνακόμιζεσθαι Ο.8.31.

ἀνακτᾶσθαι Ο. ὅ 30.

ἀναλογία 1, int.

ἀνάλωμα 4, * 12.

ἄναξ 96. 9.

dvag| 98. ii. τ.

ἀναπληροῦν 90. 51 sch.

ἀναρπάζειν 85. 2~* verso 8.

ἀνατέλλειν 78. 29.

ἀνατρέπειν 99. ii. 18.

avdpayabia 99. li. 23.

ἀνδριάς Ο. ® 33.

“Avopav 2. 3.46.

ἀνειπεῖν Ο. 2 55.

ἄνεμος 78.8; 95.1. 7.

ἀνέρχεσθαι 26. recto 4.

ἀνευρίσκειν 98. li. 16.

ἀνήρ 85.2-*recto 11, verso
4; 90. 21, 25; 98. viii.
2. Ik, ki ge 4.16 5 ΟἿΣ
70; 4." 8.

ἄνθρωπος 78. 32; 94. 9, 15,
95. 11. 17; 96. 5; 97. 8:
98." ἡ Ἔν. 8: 0.359;
26. verso 9.

ἀνιστάναι Ο. * 33.

ἀνόητος 1, 45.

avo\Bew 94. 13.

ἄνολβος 94. 13.

ἀντεκτροφεῖν 2.° 49.

᾿Αντήνωρ 2. 25.

ἀντί 0.2 50. ἀντὶ τοῦ 8. 60.

᾿Αντικλείδης 2. ὃ. 5.

᾿Αντιοχεύς 2. © 4.

᾿Αντιοχίς [4.142 21 Ὁ].

᾿Αντίπατρος Ο. ὃ 26.

ἀνώνυμος 90. 15.

ἄξιος 98. Χ. 5.

ἀξιοῦν 8. τ4.

ἀξίωμα Ο. 35 28; 27. 4.

ἄξων 98. Vi. I.

ἀοιδή 90. 48; 93. ΙΧ. 3.
ἄοικος 98. 3 8.
ἀπαιτεῖν 95. il. 23.
ἀπαλλάττεσθαι Ο. 3 71.
ἅπαξ 99.1.7?
ἅπας 85.7~* verso 3; 98. “5
3; 99. ii. 19.
ἀπάτη (1. πάλη) 98. viii. I.
ἄπεφθος 90. 43.
ἀπέχειν 95. ii. 5.
ἀπιέναι O.2 44, 46; 4.5 4.
ἁπλῶς 8. 38.
ἀπό 85.1 recto 5, 2 “ recto 6,
8, verso 5, 8; 90. 27, 28,
36; 92.116; 96. 9, 16,
23; 0,1 31, © (ae
sch. 5.
ἀποδεικνύναι 1. 52.
ἀποδιδόναι 98. il. 23.
ἀποθνήσκειν 95. ii.
Ἔν: ἢ:
ἀποκαθιστάναι 8. 1. sch. 8?
ἀπόκριμα Ο.32 21?
ἀπολείπειν 96. 1; O.° τό.
ἀπολλύναι 85. 2.“ ξ recto 5; 97.
27; 0.514 (}. om
ἀπολύειν 2.° 38.
᾿Απόλλων 4,142 2,
᾿Απολλ[ωνία ?| 2.3 29.
ἀπόστασις 8. i. sch. 13.
ἀποστερητής 28. recto 5.
drorépvew Ο. 7 43.
ἀποτυπανίζειν 98.1 7.
ἀπροβούλευτος Ο. 511 7,
ἄρα 90. 15, 41; 96.
98. *4 iv. 8.
ἀργιβρέντας 92.1 9.
“Apyos 90. 28,36. [᾿Αργ]όθεν

14; 98.

15;

ἀρεστός 24. το.

ἀρετή 90. τό.

“Apns Ο. 5.30.

ἄρθμιος 98. Χ. 1.

ἀριθμός 1. int.(?); 2. ὃ. 67; 8.
ii. sch. 3, 6.

ἀριστερός 2.3 37.

ἀριστοπὶ 92, 7 2.

11.

ἄριστος Ο. 3.24.

᾿Αριστοτέλης 2. 5. 50, 57, 59.

᾿Αριστοφάνης 1. 21, 40(?),
[45}, 46, 49, 89; 8. 2]
5. 744 sch.?

ἀρκεῖν 94, 5.

ἅρμα 98. * ii. 13; 4.112 5,

ἁρμονία 2.° 63.

ἄρνες 98.2 9?

Gporos 24. 9.

dppnros 8. ii. sch. το.

ἤλρτεμις 92.13; 98. ν. 5.

ἄρτος 98. ““ἷν. 5; 8. 50.

ἀρχαῖος 96. 9.

ἄρχειν 90. 21; 0.° 38.

ἀρχή 85. 2~4 verso 2; Ο. * 46;

2.32.
᾿Αρχίλοχος 98. Vili. 4.
ἀρχιμάγειρος 85. 2~* recto 3.
᾿Ασβύστης 93. Vi. I.
ἀσθενής 99. ii. 28.
"Agia 2.2 10, 17.
᾿Ασκληπιάδης 2." 6.
ἀσμένως 98. 55 iv. 7.
ἀσπάσιος 21. 5.
ἀσπίς 90. * ii. 5.
ἄσσον 94, τ.
ἄστατος 0.263; 22. ii. 30,
ἀστήρ 78. 35; 98. ili. 2;
1. int.
ἀστράπτειν 4,142 5,
ἄστρον 86. 2.
ἄστυ 90. 2.
"Agonds 92. 16 1,
ἄτακτος Ο. ἷ 17.

ἅτε 96. 2.
ἀτελί 21. 4.

ἄτερ 96. τό.

ἄτερθεν 91. 15.

ἄτη 90. 8.

ἀτρεκέως 21. ὃ.
᾿Ατρεύς 90. 22.
᾿Ατρόμητος Ο. 43.
᾿Αττικός Ο. ὅ 75.
ἀτυχεῖν Ο. ὃ 28.

αὖ 90. * ii. 6.

avdn 94. 3.

αὐλεῖν 95. i. 4 ef saep.
Addis 90. 27; 92.49 2,
αὐλός 95. ii. 12, 15.

OTHER NEW TEXTS

αὔξειν 78. 13, 38.

αὖος 94, 8?

avrewv 94. 8.

αὔρα 96. τό.

Αὐτοκλείδης Ὡ. 3 62.

Αὐτοκλῆς 4.* 6.

αὐτοκράτεια 78. 41.

abrépuras 95. 11. 8.

αὐτός 88. 7~* recto 11 (9), ver-

so 6; Oe Ix. 53 94. 7,
16; 95. 5; 97. 14 εἰ
saep. ; 98.18(2),7 (2), +

ON iis HC) Sak eRe aM Re Ya 10.
456; 99. ii.17; 0.1 31,
41, 43, 46, 2 45, 50, 54,
68, 3[23], 32, 65, ®t 2,
ἢ (Ὁ) ize, 152} Ὁ 4is
22, 53; 2. 2.29, 33, 34,
41τ,[55]; 8.15, 50; 4.4
11; 8. 1. seh. 2 (9), 6 (9),
9. sch. 6, 8; 25. verso 4;
26. verso 7. ὁ αὐτός O.1
24; 8.21 »ὅῃ; 4.5 13.

αὐχμός 22. i. 22.

ἄφθιτος 90. 47.

ἀφθονία 96. 7.

ἀφνειός 98. Χ. 3.
12.

᾿Αφόβητος (AadgoBos Pap.) Ο.
5.46.

“AdoBos Ο. ὃ 18.

ἄφρων 2.° 48.

᾿Αχαιοί 90. 31.

᾿Αχαρνεῖς 1. 46.

Αχιλλεύς 90. 33.

ἀφνεός 94.

Β 8. 39.

Βαβυλών 2. ὃ 68, 73.

βαθυλήιος 94. 18.

βαίνειν 90. 33 (?); 98.* 3;
24,1?

βάλλειν 98.426; 0.250; 4.
5

βάρβαρος 98. 55 ii. 7, * ii. 2,
HG) 2, Τῷ, ἵν es) 8.5 an

Bapunxns 96. τό.

βασανίζειν 95. 11. 19.

βασιλεύειν 98. 5 ὃ 2.

βασιλεύς 90. 21; 98. iv. 3,

237

v. 2; 95. ul, 245 99. ii.
SOs 52. ν᾿ (2) 968.
recto 7. βασιλ] Soir:
98. viii. 8.

βάσις 8. 1. sch. 12.

βατήρ 1. int,

βείρακες (1. 1].

Βελβίνα 1. 42.

βέλεκος [1. 21, 22, 27].
Βέλλερος 1. 56.
Βελλεροφόντης 1. 56.
βέλος 1. 46.

βέλτιστος 1. 30.

βέμβιξ 1. 40?

BepBina 1. 57.

Bepyaios 1. 50, 52.
Bépyn 1. 55.

Βερενίκη 98. iil. 2, v. 6.
Βερέσχεθοι 1. 45.

βῆμα O.? 23, 51.
βήρηκες 1. 59, 60.
βιβλίον (βυβλ.) ο.1 33.
βιοτή 94. ὃ.

βλάπτειν 97. 70, 73.
βλαστόν 78. 30; 96. 21.
βλέφαρον 2. ° 6.

βοᾶν 92.443; 98. viii. 2.
βοηθός 26. verso II,
βοτάνη 2.* 40.

Boul, 93. ili. 3.
BovBpworts 94. 20.
βουκόλος 98. * iv. 4.
βούλεσθαι 26. verso 5.
βουλή 90. 4.

βοῦς 98. 5.τ.

βύειν 1. 48, 49.

βωμός Ο. 2.35, 60.

γ 2.51; 8. 1 sch, 13.
γάζα 98. ** iii. 15.
γαλακτόρυτος 95. ii. 9.
γάμος 98. iv. 1; 25. recto 7.
γάρ $B. τι, [13]; 85. 27%
verso 2; 92. 1 21, 41 2,
421; 98. vii. 7, x. 6; 95.
155 11, BS 3; 96. 1, 6, 1ῇ,
18; 97. 12,16, 55, 68;
98: Ὑπθ 1. 6.15.5, ἘΞ}. A ii.
2; 99.11.21, 29; 0.122,
ro; 1. [int. | ΒΔ. Ὁ

238

405 22. iis 305) 28. 21;
25. recto 1, 4, 6, verso 5;
28. recto I, verso 3.

γαῦλος 98. ΙΧ. 7.

ye 98. ix. 5; 97. [223], 47;
28, 8; 26. verso 18 (3);
ai. Pi.

γείνεσθαι 90. 4I.

γελᾶν 98. 7.

γένειον 2.7 65.

γένεσις 85.7-4 verso 12; 90.

24.3? Χρυσυῦν T. 8. 57.

γεύεσθαι O. 3. 25.

γεωργεῖν 93. vi. 6?

Γεωργός 3. 36.

γῆ 98. vii. 2 (ἢ) ; 99. 11. 31;
0.119(?); 3. 16

γηθεῖν 96. 17.

Γῆρας 3. 2.

γίγνεσθαι 99. il. 333, 0.1 20,
26, 39,771, 72, ° 18, 49,
62, 73, 8t79, 12 2, 21 3:
2.°4o >; (4. τὰν Ὁ 1 ἘΝῚ
5, ΤΩΣ 26. recto 7 2,96:
recto 8; 27. 9.

γιγνώσκειν 3. 12.

yr 92.8% 1.

Ῥλαύκη 98. viii. 3.

Γλαυκοθέα Ο. 3.44.

Γλαῦκος 2.5 56.

γλαύξ 1. 7.

γλυκύς 91. 13; 98. 10 6.

γλῶσσα 98. Χ. 6.

γνάθος 1. 32.

γνήσιος 24, 9.

γνώμη O.° 36.

γον 92. 26 5.

γόνυ 92.122; 95. i. 11.

γραμματεῖον 4.3 18,

γράφειν 98.441. 5; Ο.152,
Batis [4. 3 a γράφεσθαι
0.352; 4.33,

γυμνός 98. ix. I.

γυναικεῖος 8. ii. sch. 13?

γυναικεράστρια Ο. 1 18.

γυνή 85. ΖΓ recto 3, 10; 98.
at Oe ee Se: Ye

INDICES

δ1. 44; 8. i sch. 13, a5)

δαιδαλ.,. 9]. 10.

δαίμων 98. vi. 4; 4.142 1ο.

δακρύειν O.? 67, 69.

δακρυόεις 90. 7.

δακρυσΐ 98. 35.

δάκτυλος 95. i. 8.

δαμί 95... 3.

Δαναοί 90. 44.

δανίζειν 95. ii. 22.

δάνος Θ85. ii. 22.

Δαρδανία [90. 29].

Δαρδανίδας 90. 1.

Δαρεῖος 98. 541. 9, iii. 17, 4 4

δασί 92. 34 6.

δασεῖ ΘΟ, Ὁ τὶ

δεδιέναι Θ8. Vill. 2, Χ. 6.

δεῖ» 82. 9; 97. 42; 98.14
2(?)}s OO i. οἱ \gn7'2, 2

a> 5.992) sch. | ¢

recto 2(?). δεόντως 0.3 54.

Δείναρχος 4. 51.

δεινότης Ο. 3 20.

δέκα 95. il. ο; Ο. 5.27; 4. 4 (ἡ.

δέλτος 2. ὃ 58,

Δελφοί Ο. 330, 34, 47.

δέμας 92.1 14.

devdpeov 96. Io.

δεξιός 92. 15 τὶ

δέρειν 0. 3 39.

δεύεσθαι 94, 2.

δέχεσθαι Ο. 5. 67. 4

δεύτερος 98.497; 8. 39 (8).
δεύτερον 95. il. 3.

δή 98.27; 99. ἢ 7, 33.

δημί 2. ὃ 59:

Δημήτηρ ἅ. 3.30.

δῆμος 98. x. 1, 6; ον 14,

4+5 10, ΒΗ 4: [4. 142 58 of |

saep. |.

δημοσί 98. 5.

Δημοσθένης 99. li. 9; Ο. 5 10
II, 13, 37> 55. 61, * 25
3.453 4.79, 716.

δημοσίᾳ Ο. 3 8.

δημότης 4.4 το.

δήπουθεν 24. 5.

[di Joes 90. 6.

but 9O. 9, 28; 97. 23, 29;
98.*tiv. 6; 99. ii. 15;

'δοκεῖν 97. 2;

0.1 44, 22; 8. 5 ἘΠ"
15; 28. verso 4.

διαβαίνειν 98. 5 5. ©

διαβάλλειν Ο. 2 67.

διαδέχετέξαι Ο. ὃ 51.

διαιτᾶν 97. 66.

διακεδαννύναι 94. το.

διακόσιοι 98. #4 iv, 12.

διάλεκτος Ο. 1 32.

διάμετρος 8. ii. sch. 5.

διάνοια 28. recto 6.

διαρπαγή 98. *4 iii. 12.

διατριβή 25. recto 7.

diavros 98. viii. 4.

διάφορος 98. * i. 4.

διαφρονεῖν 985. ii, 2.

διαφυλάσσειν Ο. 8 28.

διδόναι 98. viii. 2, ix. 3; 94.
4; 98. 1 3,10; 0.2:
3.25; [4.44215]; 24. 8.

δίδυμος 92.115.

διερός BO. 26.

δικάζειν 97. 64.

δίκαιος 85. 1 recto 3(?), 4;
97.. 1,5, τὸῦ mae 59, 62,
68. uicidese 93.18 7?

δικαστήριον Ο. “11 12; [4. -
IQ |.

δικαστής 4.* το.

δίκη 94. το.

δίλογχος 1. 35.

δινητός 94. 14 [-wros Pap.].

διό 78. 42.

διόλου 95. ii. 4.

Διονύσιος 2. 3.48.

Διονυσόδωρος 8. 47.

διοργίζειν Ο. 2 48.

διπλάσιος 8. ii. Sch. 5

διστεφῆς 98. vii. 2.

διώκειν 98. * iii. 17.

0.) Zo.

δόξα 27. 8,

| δουλεύειν 78. 12.

Δράκων 1. int.

δρᾶν 97. 49.

δρέπειν 92.1 5.

δρόμος 98. 15 iii. 18?

δύναμις 86. 4; 99. ii. 26.

δύνασθαι 97. 49; 1. int.; 8.
i. sch. 9; 25. verso 3.

11.

δυνατός Ο. 23 70.

δύνειν 78. 28; [95. ii. 5].
δύο 95. 1. 4, ll. 10, 25.
δυσειδέστατος O.1 21.
δυστυχία 8. 28.

dal 92.381.

δώδεκα 98. ii. 9.

Δωρίχα 0.1 το.

δωροδοκία 4. 3 8.

δωτήρ 86. 5?

ε 8. ii. sch. 4.

ἐάν 985. ii. 20.

ἔαρ 95. il. 4.

ἑαυτοῦ 97.34; 0.1 15, 2 22 (ἢ),
θην 2... ὦ. 561.

ἕβδομος (β) 4.41 uP

ἐγγύθεν 96. 15.

ἐγγύς 96. 19; 7. gor sch.

ἐγκολάπτειν Ο. 3 35.

éyr{ 0. 17 4.

᾿Εγχειρίδιον 3. 8.

eyxos 1. 47.

ἐγχώριος 92.1 19.

ἐγώ 90. το; 938. ix. 4, 7;
94. 8, 18-20. 95.1. 4 61]
ὙΠΕΡ. 1.05353. 25, 26,
58; 24 1, 2; 25. recto
4, 5,7, Verso 1. ἡμεῖς 78.
11; 86. 3; 28.18; 28.
verso 4.

ἔθειν 26. recto 7.

ἐθέλειν 95. ii. 8, 11. Cf.
θέλειν.

ἔθνος 85. 2-4 verso 5; 92. 464.

εἰ 97.49; 99.11. 16, 18, 31;
8. 11. sch. 9.

εἰδέναι 93. X. 2; 1.18; 2.3
61; 24. 3.

Ἰειδεσθαι 22.1, 18.

εἰδικῶς 4.417?

Eames, 5,. 2. 2 40, δῇ;
8. 56; 22.1. 18.

εἰκάζειν Θ8. iv. 2?

"εἴκειν 94.1; 2.76. εἰκός [97.
20 |.

εἴκοσι (x) 4. * 7. κὃ 0.1 47.

εἰκών Ο. 3.32.

εἶναι 78. 9, τι, 37, [43];

OTHER NEW TEXTS

85.1 recto 5, 7-* verso 8;
90. 11(?); 93. x. 4; 94
17 (fa), 18,+19 (ἔσκε) ;
95. 11. 4, 19, 22, 24, 26;
96.4; 97.[6], 11; 97.
15, 52, 51, 60, 62, 68;
ΒΕ, 4.4 ibe oS, li,
8,14; 99. ii. 29; 0.1 3,
13, 17, [37], 711, 32, 66,
68,3 12,42, [519 8], [25],
36, [31]; 1. 23, 51, 58;
2.3 32,55; 8.6; 4.4 4,
7, 8, [10]; 8. ii. sch. 11;
9; ‘sch. 537.75. g3° 21: 8:
24, 2; 27. 2.

εἴπειν 85.) verso 3; 90. 26;
98. vii. 6, χ. 7; 98.71 (?),
AP iv: 8... OO%. 135 32°" 0.5
32,[370]; 4.31(?); 24.
4; 26. recto 9.

εἴπερ Ο. ὃ 36.

εἰς 78. 26, 31; 90. 53 Sch.;
93. ix. 6(?); 94.12; 95.
ty Be OF Fe 985. ὃν G
(Ὁ corr. from és), 44 ii. 14,
ithe: Toi) Qe? Toye e 2, 7
sat ane es
5.1 Δ. 12 5. Ὁ τὸ; 2a: 6;
24.1. ἐς 90.37; 92.15;
95. 11. 27.

eis 0.135; 4.45 (a); 8.1.
sch. 4 (@); 26. verso 8.

[eto έρχεσθαι O. 2 33.

ἐΐσκειν 9O. 45.

εἶτα 98. * iii. 1.

etre 20. 142 sch.

ἐκ, εξ 85.1} verso 2, 2 * verso
2; 90. 22; 98. Vili. 4, ix.
4,75 94% 197 22425 Αἱ
£8; 9.sch. 1, 4.

ἑκαΐ 98. 1 ii. 3.

ἕκαστος 90. 26; 99. ii. 9 (?),
τό; Ο.241; 2.548; 44%
5, 19.

ἐκεῖνος 97. 23; 99. il. 24, 275
26. verso 6.

ἐκκλείειν 85. 2. ὁ verso 7.

ἐκλείπειν 98.7 2.

ἔκλειψις [78. 39 |.

ἔκπληξις 98. °F il. 11?

559

ἐκπνεύειν Ο. ὃ 26,

ἔκτοτε 2. 5.34.

tédain| 98. viii. 7.

ἐλάτης 2. 3 37.

ἐλάτινος 98. 11 4.

ἐλάττων 78. 36; 98. iv. 14;
0.1 26.

ἐλεγεῖον Ο. 1 34.

ἐλεγχί 98. viii. 6.

᾿Ελείθυια 92.} 17.

“Ἑλένη 90. 5.

ἐλεύθειν 90. 18.

ἐλευθερία Ο. 3.27, 30, § 31,9 4.

‘EXixovides 90. 24.

ἕλκειν 96. 3.

Ἕλλάς 98. ὅ9 2.

Ἕλληνες Ο. ὃ. 38.

“λληνισμός 1. int. ?

ἐλπιί 92. 36 2.

ἐλπωρή 94. 7.

ἐμβαίνειν 90. 24.

ἐμβάλλειν 2. 2 41.

ἐμός 90. 48; 98. Vi. 2?

ev 85.7 * recto 9; 90. 49
sch. 5.92.47 2; 98. ν. 3,
4 (civ), ix. 2; 985. 11. 175
97. [4], 23, 30; 70; 98.?
a ray AS, 8, ἀπ 15} vena
0.7 [59], 79, °8, 33, [34],
49; 71, [74, ἢ 26], 29,™
[3], 53 1.10 ef saep.; 2.7
4 et saep.; 3. 5 ef Sacp.3
4.142 5 οἱ saep.; 8. i. sch.
δἰ} ti, seh: ¢ 4:@) 570 9:
sch. 6; 27. 2.

evaipew ΘΟ. 2.

ἐναντίος 85.1 verso 2(?); 9.
80ῃ. 1.

ἔναυλος 98. νἱ. 1.

ἔνδεια 98. * iv. 6.

ἐνδύεσθαι 28. verso 5.

ἐνεῖναι 97. 22; 4.4 το.

ἔνεκεν 85. 2* recto [1 | ef saep.

ἐνεός 25. Verso I.

ἔνθα 92.18; 4.42: 21. 2.

ἐνθάδε 98. ix. 7.

ἐνθουσιαΐ 2. 3.3.

ἐνιαύσιος 98. Vil. 5.

ἐνιαυτός 22. 1. 28.

ἔνιοι Ο.1 17; 1. 41.

240

ἐννέα [0. Ἐ5}:

ἔννομος 26. recto 8.

ἔνοπλος 98. 5 ii. 8.

ἐντολή 85. 1 recto 4.

᾿Ενυάλιος 92. *4 4.

ἔξ 91. 8.

ἐξειν 92. °° 5.

ἐξελαύνειν 99. Ii. 30.

ἐξήγησις 2. 3. 36.

ἑξήκοντα 98. 44 ii, 2; 2.5 32;
4.9 ἡ (é).

ἑξῆς 98. 35 iv. 2.

ἐξιέναι Ο. ὃ 60.

ἐξιλάσκεσθαι Ο. 23 51.

ἐξουσιάζειν 85. 5“ recto 11.

ἐξυμνεῖν O. 7? 3.

ἔξω [4.4 2]; 25. verso 6;
26. verso 13.

ἐπάγειν 2.° 29?

ἐπακολουθεῖν 98. * 11]. 7.

ἐπάν Ο. 3.32.

ἐπανέρχεσθαι ὃ 90. 15.

ἐπανθεῖν 96. 14.

ἐπεί 78. 33; 94.17; 98.38
8; 99, i, 115 [0.8 212].

ἐπειδή 82. 28 ; 1. int.

ἐπένθεσις 8. τι.

ἐπήβολος 98. ΙΧ. 1.

ἐπήλυσις 96. 1.

ἐπί 98. Vi. 3, Vil. 2, Vili. 3, X.
1,6; 94.15; 96. 8, 21;
98. 44 i. 11, iii, 10, 49 4;
0.7 48, 5 6, 19, 62, 69;
2.2 347,38; 4.11210; [δ.
372 sch.?]; 24. 9; 26.
recto 7.

ἐπιγραΐ 2.36.

ἐπίγραμμα Ο.1 44, 34; 2.°
62.

ἐπιγράφειν 2.° 55.

ἐπιδεικνύναι Ο. 3.19.

ἐπιδιδόναι 24. 5.

ἐπιθυμεῖν 98. * 11]. τό.

ἐπιθύμιος 9Ο, II.

ἐπικαλεῖν 98. * ii. 9.

ἐπικλώθειν ΔΘ. Verso 4.

ἐπίκωμος 99. ix. 6.

ἐπιλαμβάνειν 1. int.

ἐπιλανθάνεσθαι 28. Verso 2.

ἐπιλήθεσθαι 98. X. 2.

INDICES

ἐπισημαίνειν 4,415,

ἐπισκήπτειν O.? 53.

ἐπισκώπτειν Ο. 2 48.

ἐπίστασθαι 21. 7.

ἐπιστολή 98. 44 i, 13.

ἐπιτανύειν 96. 6.

ἐπιτήδευμα 97. 9.

ἐπίτροπος Ο. ὃ 1, 21.

ἐπιφανεῖ 26. verso 7.

ἐπιφέρειν 8. 1. sch. τό.

ἐπιφωνεῖν 86. 4.

ἐπιχειρεῖν 98. 44 1, 1?

ἔπος 93. Vi. 3; 98.71.

ἔρασθαι 98. il. 14.

ἔργον 2.° 20.

"Epex Onis [4. ate 8 22 |.

ἔρι 92. °° 1.

Ἐρίγυιος O.1 8.

ἑρκεῖ 92.1 20.

‘Eppleias 22. ii. 33.

Ἕρμιππος 1. 57.

ἐρόεις 90. 44.

ἕρπειν 94. 21.

ἔρχεσθαι 90. 29; 92. ὃ 3;
95. ii. 27; [2. 5 61]; 8.
58; 22. 1. 33.

ἐρώτησις O. 12 3.

ἐσθλύς 9O. 19, 22; 98. Χ, 7.

ἔσοπτρον 95. 11. 21.

ἕτερος 78.12; 97.61; 2.5 4.

ἔτι 98. ν. 3, vil. 6(?); 95. il.
18; 96. 9; 2.5 42.

ἔτος 91. το (9); 8. i. sch. 4.

εὖ 85. 2-4 verso 9,11; 90. 24.

εὐ 98. iv. 2.

Εὐβοεῖς 2.° 48.

εὐγένεια Ο. ὃ 21.

εὐδαιμονία 26. verso 1Ο.

εὐειδής 96. 19.

εὐηφενεῖν 94. 13.

εὐθ] 92. Ἔθος

εὐθενία 96. ὃ.

εὐκαταφρόνητος Ο. ' 20.

εὐκτός 27. 2?

εὐλάβεια 85. 7-4 verso 3.

εὐλαβεῖσθαι O.* 64.

εὐλαβής 85.2~* verso 4, 5.

Εὔπολις 1. 15 ; 8. 57-

εὐπρεπής Ο. ὃ 37.

εὕρεσις O.} 42.

εὑρίσκειν 95. ii. 17; O.° 73.

Εὐρυνόμη 98. ΙΧ. 2.

εὐρυχωρία 2, 8.23.

εὔτε 96. 20.

εὐτραφής 96. 5.

εὐτυχίη 98. X. 4.

εὔυδρος 96. II.

εὐφορεῖν 96. 13.

Εὐφράτης 98.4 5.

εὔφρων 92.41 2.

εὐφυής Ο. 3.48.

εὔχεσθαι 92. 33.2.. Ο.12 12?

εὐχή 98.511. 9.

εὐώνυμος Ο. 2 31.

ἐφεδρεύειν 96. 4.

ἐφόδιον Ο. 364; [4. 113 16].

ἐφύμνιον 98. viii. 4.

ἐχί 92. 533 5.

ἔχειν 78. 34, 40, 41; 90. 6,
41; 98. vi. 1; 95. ii. 8,
11, 18, 2]: OS. τ 1 τι]
44 ii, 1, iv, 15 Οὐ, τ}
37, 1733 1.333 8.4, 243
8. i. sch. 14, li. sch. 3; 28.
11; 24.7; 25. recto 3,
verso 5; 26. verso 3; 28.
verso 4.

ἐχθρός 97. 473 Ο. [9 12], 13
12.

ἕψειν 2.3 40.

ἕως 9. sch. 8.

(4.417; 8, 1. sthy meena
8:2. Sch. 232 em

Capeveiv (Capevns?) 91. 2?

Ζεύς 90. 4; 91. 13; 92.110;
95. ii. 24; 22. ii. 33.

Civ 95. ii. 14, 22: 98. * iv.

Q.
Ζήνων 2.° 45.
(nreiv 95. ii. 6.
ζῦτος ἃ. 3 42.
ζῷον 2. ὃ 50, [57]:

7 8. ii. sch. 1, 9.

ἢ 985. ii. 6, 17; 97. 27, 28,
[61], 62; 4.51, [2]; 28.
12: ΄

ἡγεμών 4.411.

Hl.

᾿Ἡγήσανδρος 2. 374.

ἤδη 90. 43; [98. * iii. τ9].

ἡδύς 98. Vi. 3, Vill. 2. ἡδέως
98. *iv. 9.

ἡλικία Ο. ὅτ ; 26. recto 8.

ἥλιος 78. 43; 95. li. 5, 6;
Ξε 5 0... 2B. 1. 33.

ἡμέρα 78. 273 8. ii. sch. 12.

ἡμερίη 96. το.

ἡμέτερος 94. 8; 99. il. 25.

ἡμιτέλεστος 2. 3 51.

ἤν 96. τ.

ἡνία 4.5 12.

ἡνίκα 92.1 12 (ἁν.); 98. vill.
6

ἦρ 96. 22.

Ἡραῖον 98. ix. 2.
Ἡρακλείδης 2. 3 8 (?), 66.
Ἡράκλειτος 8. 1. sch. 4.
ἥρως 90. τό, 19; Ο. 2562.
Ἡσιόνη 1. 50.

ἧττον 97. 7.

Ἥφαιστος (‘Ad.) 91. 4.

θάλαττα 99. ii. 31.

θάνατος 85.1 recto 2; Ο. 813.

θάπτειν 98.110?

θᾶσθαι 98. vii. 4.

* θαυμαστός 99. 11. 27.

θεᾶσθαι Ο. 132 το.

θέατρον 98.1 2.

θέλειν 95. ii.
ἐθέλειν.

θεμι[ 23. 14.

θεός 78. 9, | 43]; 85. 1 recto
4, 8, verso 3, 2 * verso 7 ;
86.1; 93. ix.7; 0.734,
96. 9: τὸ .8.-:1.
sch. 6; 26. verso II.

θεράπων 98.19.

θερμαίνειν 8. 30.

θέρμειν 96. int.

θέρος 95. il. 4.

θεσμοφοριάζειν 2. Sale.

Θεσσαλία [ο. 2 23 |.

Θέτις 98. * ii. 9.

Θετταλοί 2, 2 ὃ.

Θῆβαι 98. “6, 1.

Θηβαῖοι 98. 2?

θηλύτατος 98. Vil. 5.

τϑν τσ. ΟἿΟΣ

OTHER NEW TEXTS

θνήσκειν 94. 5; 95. i. το, il.
πὶ: Ὁ 4: Bip:

θνητός (θνατ.) 9O. 25. .

Θουκυδίδης Ο. 364, 65.

Opin 0.13 (2) ἐν σαὶ

Θρᾷξ Ο. 3 68.

Θρασύβουλος Ο. 4F5 7, 8, 6171 6.

Θρᾷτται [1. 34.

θρόνος 98. 4.

θυγάτηρ 92.113, 3: Ο. 1
E455 5.5 38:

θυροῦν 2. 1° 5.

| θυσία 92 16; O.762.

θυσιάζειν Ο. 2 34, 45.

ι ὃ. 35--

ἰδεῖν. 93. ix. 5, Χ. 3; 95.1.4,
20 (ἴδης τ; 96. 19.

ἴδιος 85. 515 recto 12; 2.2 38.

ἰδιώτης 0.

ἱδρύειν Ο. 3 60.

ἰέναι 92.115.

ἱέναι 92.116; [94. 1].

ἱέραξ 1. 7.

[ἱέρεια 2.3 29.

ἱερεῖον Ο. 2 39.

ἱερεύς O. 38 (ἱερεῖον Pap.).

ἱερός 98. vi. 6. ἱρός 95. ix.
4. ἱερόν 4. 42.

ἱκανός 28. recto 2.

Ἴλιον 90. 37.

ἱμάς [4.3 12].

ἵνα [2. 56 1].

᾿Ιουλίς O. } 38.

ἱππεύς 98. * ili. 5, iv. 12, 16.
Ἱππεῖς 8. 31.

ἱππομάχος 26. recto 6.

ἵππος 90.50 sch.; 98. vi. I;
98.73?

ἱπποσόα 92. 51 3.

ἱπποτρόφος 90. 30.

ἰσθμός 98. vi. 6.

ἰσομήκης 8. il. sch. 1.

ἴσος Ο. ὃ 36.

ἐστί 98. vii. 7.

ἱστάναι 91. 7; 98. ix. 2; [0.
Slee Me Inte [4.102 za ||:

ἱστός 2. 3.30, 33.

ἰσχύειν Ο. 2 42.

᾿ἸΙτυκαῖος 2.° 13.
R

241

ἴχνιον 90. ὃ 3.
Ἰωνία Ο. 1} 5.
Ἰωσήφ 85. 7-4 recto 4.

κ 8. li. sch. 12.

ΚΙ 1. int.

Ka... 85. 7-4 recto 8.

Κάδμος 98. 34.

καθαρός ἃ.“ 61.

καθέζεσθαι 92.1 το.

καθῆσθαι 98. Vi. 4.

καινός Ο. ὃ 56.

καί, κἄν 95. il. 23; 97. 17.
κἂν εἰ 99. ii. 16. χ᾽ υἱὸν χ᾽
ἅγιον 86. 4.

καίτοι 97. 50.

κακός 85.7 ~* verso 8(?), 11;
90. τῳ; 97. 555 BEAK
κακῶς 20. 142 Sch.

κάλαθυς 2. 3.30.

κάλαμος 98. νἱϊ. 6 ; 95. il. 13.

καλεῖν 1. 27; 2.°4, 35; 3
ΒΕ ἈΠ 5:

Καλλίμαχος 90. 49 sch. ὯΝ:
2.5 43.

κάλλος 90. 46.

κάλπις 98. vill. I.

καλῶς 20. 142 sch.

κάμνειν 2]. 2.

κάπηλος 2. 3 74.

κάρα 8. 58?

καρπός 96. 3 ef Sacp.; 3. 45.

κασίγνητος 98. Vil. 3.

Κάσιος 93. ix. 6.

Κάσσανδρα 90. 12.

κατά 8. 27; 885. 5 * recto 2,
lverso 5; 90. 7, 48; 92.
all 14 (3) Vee emt Cone a 98.
oF Og Ss OGLE), τον;
0.045 soy 46 ee fae,
47,64, 68,. 3; δ τος.
τι, 16: 4. [3.87.5 53 Be
sch. 6?

κατάγειν 93. ix. 7; 0. 511 3?

καταδαπανᾶν Ο. ἢ 11.

καταείρειν 20. 65 sch.

κατάλαλος 28. recto 3.

καταλαμβάνειν 90. 50 sch, (?);
92.118.

καταλύειν Ο. ®t7 4,

242

καταμαρτυρεῖν 85. 2 4 recto 4;
97. 28» 32, 36, 48:

καταπίπτειν Q. 2 60.

κατατιθέναι 98. ΙΧ. 5.

καταφρονεῖν 85. 1 recto 6;
98.*4ii 5

καταψεύδεσθαι 85. 2 recto 2?

κατηγορεῖν Ο. ἷ τό.

κε(ν) 90. 253; 98. ν. 4, Vii. 1,
x. 3; 94. 4.

κέγχρος 2.° 42.

κεῖνος 93. ix. 5; 96. 10.

Κεῖος Ο. 1 38.

κεῖσθαι 2.° 36.

κελαινεφής 92.1 9.

κελεύειν 98. 341. 6, ii. 13.

κελευσι 92. 34 4.

κενοτάφιον OQ. 3 7.

Κεραμεικός O. ? 34.

κεραυνός 91. IT.

κεφαλή 95. i. α ; il, 15.

Κηληδόνες 91. 9.

κῆπος 96. 21.

κηρύττειν 27. 5, ΤΙ.

κινδυνεύειν Ο. 17 19,
92. ὅδ 1.

Κινύρας 95. li. 26.

Κίνυψ 98. vii. 2.

κίων 91. 7; 8. i. sch. 15.

κλάδος 96. 14.

κλαίειν "95, il, 23.

κλεί[ 98. lil. 2.

Kreis Ο. 1 15.

κλέος 90. 47: 48.

κλύειν 98. ΙΧ. 4.

κλωνίον 95. i. 3.

Κνωσός Ο. ὃ 36.

κοι 92,71,

κοῖλος 90. 17.

κοινός 95. il. 21.

κοινωνός 4,4 0.

Κοῖος 92.113.

κολωνός 96. το.

κομήτης 22. i. 29.

κομιδὴ Ο. 515.

κομίζειν 0.2 37; 4.}}356,.4.153.

κόμπασμα 1. 51.

κονίη 93. Vill. 7.

κοπιᾶν 95, il. 6.

κορυφή 92.1 τι.

κινδυν]

INDICES

κόσμος 98. Vill. 1; 8. i. sch. 1.

κουρά 3. 56.

Kparivos 1. 34.

κράτος 86. 4.

κρείσσων 98. X. 4.

κρείων 90. 20.

κρημνός 92.18; O.2 51.

κρήνη 95. ii. 8, 11.

Κρής Ο. ὃ 36.

κρίνειν ΘΊ. 65; Ο. 5 21.

κρίσις 98. ** ii. η.

κριωπός 1. 26.

Κρόνος 22. il. 33.

κρύπτειν 91. 12 (?); 28. 7.

Kpwpvitns 98. vi. 7.

Κτησίφων O.* 52.

Ἰκτι[π.. 90.7 2?

κυαν] 98. 129.

κυβερ]νητήρ 90. 3?

κυβευτής 4. 1.5.

κυβευτικός 4. 4 1,

κυκλάμινος 96. int., 5.

κυλίνδειν 98. 3 6.

Κύνθιος 92.18.

Κυπρίς 90. 9.

Κυπρόθε 98. ix. 7.

κύριος 85." 2 verso 7, 9.
κυρίως [4..312].

κωλύειν Ο. δ171 14,

κώμη 1. 42.

κῶμος 98. vill. 3.

κωφός 95. li. 20.

Aayetdns 98. Vill. 5.

λάθυρος 1. 25.

Λακεδαιμόνιοι 2, ὃ 54 ?

Λακωνική 1. 42.

λαμβάνειν 96. 4; 98. 441. 13,
111. τό, ἵν. 4; OE 4; 4.
18 1g. F085) ἐσ ον 0)
6 (?), 11; 25. recto 2.

Aapia Ο. 8 23.

λάμπειν 92. 1 14.

λανθάνεσθαι 98. Χ. 5.

Λαομέδων 90. 52 Sch.

Λαόφοβος Ο. ὃ 46 (᾿Αφόβητος
Pap.).

Adptyos Ο. 1 8, 13.

Adxeots 92.! τῇ.

Λάχης 24. 1, 2, 5.

λάχος 94. 9.

Λέαρχος 98. Vil. 3.

λέγειν 92.19; 98. vi. 3,Χ. 7;
95. il. 24; 97. 48; 99.
ii. 10, 12; Ὁ. 51 Σ 1 πὴ
(22s), [22], 473 2.° 43, 715
3. II, 30.

λειμών 5. 372-3 sch,

λείπειν 86. 2 ; 8. ii. sch. 2, 8.

Acovris [4.142 19 rh

AéaBas Ο. 1 3.

Λευκοκόμας Ο. ὃ 34, 35.

λευκός 985. i. 9.

λέχος 92. 1 4.

Λεωπρέπης Ο. ἷ 39.

λήγειν 78. 14; 0.256.

λήκυθος 1. 58.

Λήμνιος 95. ii. 25.

λίθος O. 2 49.

λιμήν 4, 142 92,

λιμός 9B. τι.

λιπαρότροφος 92. 1 6.

λιπερνῆτις 94. 17.

λ]ογικός 2. 5 2.

λόγιμος 86. I.

λογισμός 96. 2.

λόγος 85. 1 verso 5; 90.
24(?); 0. 3 20, 70,3 20,
49,°r; [1.23]; 4.414.

λοιμικός Ο. 2 52.

λοιπός 78. 35; 98. 4 iii. 2;
26. recto 5.

λυί 90.° 5.

Λύδιος 95. 1]. 12.

Λυδοί 2. 3 46.

λύειν 92. 1 13; 98. 48 5:
ai 228.)

Λύκος Ο. 115 8.

λυμαίνειν 99. li. 20.

λυπί 28. 2.

λύρα QB. il. 12, 15.

λυρικός Ο. 1 34.

λυσίμβροτος 91. 18,

λυτήριος O.? 61.

pi 8. li. sch. 1, 9.
Μάγας 93. ν. 2.
Μάγνητες 2. 3 69.
μαι 92. ὅθ τὶ
Μακεδονία Ο. ὃ 29.

HT.

Μακεδών 98. °~6 ij. 18, 4:11. 1,
4, lil. το, iv. τι; 99. il.
22; 0. 5.39.

μάλα 90. 45. μᾶλλον 0.1 13;
2.339; 25.verso I. μάλιστα
3. 13.

μαλακῶς 25. Verso 5.

Mapytavoi [2. 5 1.

Μάρδοι 2.3 4.

μαρτυρεῖν 97. 3, 16, 18, 24,

39:

μάχαιρα Ο. 556.

μάχη 95. 1]. 2; 98.151. 2, 48 6.

μέγας 90. 1, 4, 34; 98. ν. 4;
96. 2; 98.12 2,152; 22.
ion.

μέγεθος O.1 23; 1. 26; 9.
sch. 3, 7.

μεθύσκειν 2.° 39.

μέθυσος 28. recto 3.

μείζων 9. sch. 5.

μειοῦν 78. 30.

μειρακίσκος Ο. ὃ 37.

μέλας 95.1. 2; 28. 15.

μέλι 95. ii. 8; 2. 5.40, 41.

μέλισσα 2.3 29, 34, 57-

Μέλισσος 2. 3.32.

μέλλειν 98. 44 i. 2; 2.
28. ὃ.

μελύγιον 2.° 36, 39.

μελῳδία 2.° 43.

pev|'78. 13]; 90. 20, 23, 32,
46; 91.1, 6,16; 98. v.
mews 7, 1k! 4; 94. 3,
5, 11, 19; 97. 30, 71;
98. AM. 5, ἷν. το, 14;

12;

Μένανδρος 8. 4, 65.

μένειν 98. ν. 4, 6.

Μενέλαος 90. 27.

μενεμανί 2.° 45.

Μένων 8. ii. sch. 4.

μερίζειν 95. 11]. 24.

μερισμός 78. 33.

peppvadys 2.° 46.

μέρος 98. *4 iii. g; Ο. 58;
2.3 37; 8. 66.

OTHER NEW TEXTS

μέροψ 2.° 48, 49.

μέσος 9. sch. 5, 6.

μεσοτέλεστος 2.2 51.

μετά 78. 34; 90. 50 sch.;
O55 1 2,)'4 G6: bi 4,
Τῇ (Ὁ: Aga. Fras Be
40; 4, 112 142; 96. recto 5.

μεταδιδόναι Ο. &*7 6.

μεταλαμβάνειν Ο. ὃ 57.

μεταμέλεσθαι 95. li. 3. (μετα-
μελῇ ?).

μετοικίζειν O. 2 69.

μέτρον 95. ii. 16, 17.

μέχρι(ς) 92. 4% 5 (?); 98. ν. 4,
5; 96. 14; 0.7 56(?), >
24, [en 91.

μή 85. 2-4 verso 8; 92.8ὃ 2;
98. x. 4, 7; 95.11.6; 97.
£2, 135 0.* 54, 14; 1.
int.; 2.261; 24. 45 36.
verso 5.

μηδέ 86. 2; 95. ii. τ; 96.
13, 15; 97. 58; 1. int.

μηδείς 78. 40; 97. 13, 57;
20. 163 sch.

μῆλον 92.17; 94. το.

μήν 98. iX. 5; 3.3 (? μη Pap.).

μῆνις 21. 3.

μήτηρ O.1 τό, 543; 2.48?

Μῆτις 2. ὃ 54, 56. [

μήτρα 2. 3 57-9.

μιαίνειν ἢ. ὃ 62.

μιαρός 78. 7.

μιάστωρ 2. 5 61.

μίγδαν 92.1 7.

μιγνύναι 9]. 2.

Μίδας 95. li. 26.

μιθόργ 2. 3. 63.

Μίθρας 2.° 64.

μικρός 98. x. 2; 98.153; O.
124.; 2.3 55; Ov 50}. 6,
7, 9-

μιλήχ 2. 8 65.

μιν 94. 5.

μινοδολόεσσα 2.3 67.

Μινύαι 2. * 69.

μίνωδες 2.2 71.

Μιξί ) 24. 3.

μισαί ἃ. 3.12.

μίσγειν 22, i. 32 sch.

R2

243

| μισεῖν 97. 37.

μῖσος 97. 41.

Μιτυληναῖοι 2.° 74.

Μιτυλήνη Ο. 3} 4.

μνῆμα 98. il. 20.

μνημονικός O.1 41.

μνησικακεῖν O. ° 61.

μοῖρα Ο.3 43.

Μοῖσα 90. 23; 91. 3.

μοιχί 2. ὃ 8.

μονάς 8. ii. sch. 2, 8.

μόνος 86.5; 91. 17 (0); 95.
iy -25 5° 96... ἢ (μοῦν.) :
99.ii.17; 1. το (0). μόνον
88. int.; 97.40; 99. ii.
335.2.°69; 8. 27. μον]
98. °° ii. To.

μόριον 2. 50, [57 |.

μορφή 90. 45; 0.1 19.

μοχθεῖν 21. 4.

μύδρος 98. ν. 4.

μυῖθ τ Οὐ nae

μυριάς 98. * il. 3, iv. 15; 8.
1 50}. 4.

Μυριναῖος 98. Vil. 4.

μύρον 98. il. 7, 9.

μυστήριον 2.° 34.

v 8. ii. sch. το.

ναίειν 90.58; 98. vii. 2.

ναός 91. 1; 99. vill. 2° (νηός) ;
2.5. "Ὡς:

Ναξόθεν 92. 16.

ναῦς 90. 18, 27.

νέεσθαι 98. ix. 6(?); 94. 2:

Νεῖλος 93. ix. 5; 96. 6, 20.

Νειλώτης 98. Vil. 5.

νειός 94. 18.

νεκρός 95.11. 20; 98.* iii. 8.

νέος 96. 20; (0.1 13); 8. 7.

νεφέλη 92. 58 2.

νήπιος Ο. 3 15.

Νηρεύς 98. * ii. το.

Νηρηίς 98. * ii, το.

νικαῖος 98. Vill. 4.

νίκη 98. x. 1.

| vy 91. το; 92. 41 τ.

νομίζειν 78. 42; 97. 5.
νόμος 96.9; 97. 77.
νόσος Ο. 2 56, 62.

244

νόστος Zl. I.

voo pice Ο. 3. 22.

νοῦς 85.1 verso 5; (93. x. 4);
26. recto 3.

Νύμφαι 2. 3 30.

νῦν 90. το;
53:

νύξ 95. il.
ἘΠῚ δ᾽ ΘΙ 1. 1:

νύσσειν 90. 5 il. 4.

95. ii.

ξ 4.47.

ξανθός 90. 5

ξειιαπάτας 9O. 10.

fevicew 2.° 31.

ξένος 91. 14(?); 98. vill.
(ξεῖν); 98. *4 ili. 3, iv. a
2.° 66.

Ξενόφων 2.9 2(?); 8. 39, 51.

Ξέρξης 985. il. 24.

ξυρεῖν 8. 59.

ὁ (dem.) 98. Χ.1,3,5; 94. 11.
ὁ μέν ΘΟ. 20, 23, 32, 46;
58: πον μὲν γι. δ δὲ
91. 1-2; 98. vi. 7. ὁ μὲν
... δέ 94.5. ὁ δέ 90. 41,
4 ii, 6 (roi δέ); 94.5; 0.2
53; [> 67), “re:

6 (rel.) 94. 3, 17, 19.

dapos 98.7 τοῦ

ὀβολός 95. ii. 27.

ὄγδοος (7) 2.° 50, 57.

ὅδε 85.1 verso 5; 93. x. 7(?);
94. 20; 3. 25.

ὁδεύειν 94.6; 96. 8.

ὁδός 85.1 recto 7.

ὅθεν 2.° 34.

οἴεσθαι 24, 4.

]Ἰοικεῖν 2. ὃ 8,

οἴκημα [4.4 1].

οἰκία ἃ. 5 59.

οἶκος 94. 8.

οἴμοι 23. 10.

Oivnis [4. 12.2.4.

οἶνος 95. ii. ο; 2. 5.40

οἷος 90.5 4; 94.10; 97. 48.

οἷός τε 97. 50.
οἴχεσθαι 25. verso 6.
oixvety 92, 29 2

xe) od ks

5; 96. 15; 98.

INDICES

ὀλ 92.1 17.

ὄλβιος 90. 2; 9. 1]. 26.
ὄλβος 94. 9, το, 15.

ὀλίγος 85. 5 ὁ recto 6 :.95. il.

3:
ὀλιγωρία 99. il. 25.
ὀλλύναι 5. recto 5.
ὀλοός 94. 20

Ὄλορος Ο. 266.

ὅλος 26. verso 13?

ὀλυ 98.» Ὁ:

Ὄλυ[μπ θυ ταὶ

ὅμοιος ΘΟ. 45; 1. int. τ: 6}.
ὁμοίως 1. int.; 3. 45.

ὁμολογεῖν 24. εἰ

ὁμορεῖν 2. 5. 65.

ὁμοῦ 86. I.

ὁμόφωνος 98. 1X. 3.

ὁμώνυμος Ο. 15.

ὅμως 97. 18.

ὀνειδίζειν Ο. 2 47.

᾿᾽Ονήτωρ Ο. 3 17.

ὄνομα [4..1}3 1].

ὀνομάζειν 4,142 11.

ὀνομασία 2. ° 19.

ὀξύχολος 28. recto I.

ὁπλομάχος 26. recto 6.

ὁπότε 92.1 14.

ὅπως 97. 66.

ορί 92123.

ὁρᾶν 94. 17; 95.11. 21 ; 98.
a ey

ὀρέγειν 94, 3 (0), τό.

ὀρείχαλκος 90. 42.

ὀρθός 8. i, sch. 12.
int.

ὁρίζειν 8. i. sch, 6.

ὅριον 8. i. sch. τό.

ὅρκιος 98. Vi. 5?

ὁρμᾶν 98. **iii, 1 (?), 12.

ὄρνεον 2.° 49.

ὄρνυσθαι 90. 3; 96. 15.

‘Opsor|piawa 92. 47 1.

᾿Ορχομένιοι 2.° 69.

és 90. [1], 50 sch.; 92.1 20
Sg) 808s ΘΑ αν Roe:
Χ. 1; 94. 5; 95. ii. 25;
97.29, 45, 54.558; 98."
2.(2},, 11: 1.2} 11} 2 ;.0. Ὁ]
42, 48, [60], Pion Ὁ; 2.8

ὀρ]θῶς 1.

42, 5853, τ ΦῚ τὸν
8. ii. sch. 4, το; 28. verso

5(). ἡ δ 07. af) a
95. 1 τῇ:

ὅσγε 90. 14?

ὅσος 8. 24.

ὅσπερ 99. li. 8; 2.549; 26.
verso 4.

ὅστε 90. 17.

ὅστις 98. X. 4.

ὅταν 95. ii. 14; 1. 175 26.
verso 6; 28. verso 6.

ὅτε 98. vill. 2; 96.15. ἔσθ᾽
ὅτε 96. 4.

ὅτι 18. τι; 85. τεοίο δ:
91.14; 95.1.10; 97. 33,
37, 423.
70-5 1, antes
i. sch. (2),

οὐ(κ) 78. 42; 88. int.; 90.
[15], 25; 98. vil. 7 (ob chy
mo), Vili. 1, 2, X. 2; 94.
I, 3; 95. 1.5. 96. Ὁ
97. το, 33, 40, 52, 58,
67,72; 98.44iv.143 99.
ii, 21; 0.2.51, boo
61, 67, °F 95 ΠΡ ΠΣ
2.269; 3. 27; 8. 11. 50ῃ.
το (9); 28. 7; 24. 2; 25.
verso 3; 27.8; 28. verso 4.

οὗ 96. 8.

ov, oi 94. I.

οὐδέ 90. 15; 94. 33. 99. il.
22-4, 20.

οὐδείς [97. 11], 20; 98. 44 i.
14; 0.° 4.

οὐδέποτε 98. X. 7.

οὐκέτι 98. ΙΧ. I.

οὐκοῦν 78. 14.

οὖν 97. 30;
verso 2.

οὔποτε Ο. ὃ 38.

οὐρανός 78. 57; 85.74 verso

0.2465; 25.

οὔτε 90. 10, 11; 93. X. 55

97. 53: 55:

οὔτι 94. 173; 1. 16.

οὗτος 85. } verso 4; 98. Vi. 3.
ix. 4; 95. li. 4,14; 96. 9.
97.[10],29, 31, 44,51,56,

Tl.

71; 98. ὍΝ 7; 99. ii. 29,
32; 0.112, [43],* 463
1, [int.], Pe 2.9 32, 393

4.411; 5. 372 sch.; 28.
11; 24. το; 25. recto 4:

τ 27. τῇ. οὑτοσί 99. 11

5S. ἢ οὕτω(-) 91. τ
ες joan; [1 int.|;-2.°
PE 93. 11.

ὀφέλλειν 94. 15.

ὀφθαλμός 85. 1γροίο το ();
96. 11. 21.

ὄφρα 98. Vii. τ

ὄψις O.1 22.

πάθος 0.252; 2. 5 34.

Παιανιεύς O.* 13.

παῖγμα 95. li. 12.

παιδίον 25. verso 8.

παίζειν 1.54; [4.4 ey?

Παίονες 4. 113 20?

Παιο[νίδης 4. 147 19?

mais 9O. 13, 22; 92. 1'r6,
i 93. vii. 3, ix.2; 94.

; 95. msn; 0: 60,13,

"ἢ ‘cane ‘2A. 9; 26.
recto 3.

παλαιός 2.° 43; 8. 13.

παλάμη 91. 4.

πάλη 93. viii. I (απατη Pap.).

πάλι {95. ii. 16}. πάλιν 95.
il. τ 98. 50 gis a ii.
ene 0...» 2g, * 30; 3.665
9. a ΠΣ Ab. 9.

Παλλάς 98. ν. 5.

Παλληνεύς 4. 142 21.

Παμβωτάδης 4. 113 18.

Παμφίλη 24. 8?

πανάριστος 98. ν. 6.

παντελῶς O.! 24.

πάντεχνος Θ]. 3.

τὸς [4.59].

παρά 92.18; 98. Vii. 3, viii.

Bo. i. 25> 96. 10; 98.
iy, 4; 99. ii. 13:1. vie
24,[45]52."[4], 31, 45, 6,
63,67, 71- 2,°6, 139; 4.41
II (1. ὑπέρ: ἢ), 13.

παράγειν 98. 1 20.

OTHER NEW TEXTS

παραγίγνεσθαι 2. 31.
παραγραφή 4. ° τι.
παραδιδόναι 98. ἷ 6, το.
παρακολουθεῖν 25. recto 3.
παραλύειν 28. 12.
παράνομος Ο. “ 53.
παραπλήσιος (28, recto 5].
παραπρεσβεία 4. 142 To,
παρασκευάζειν 2. °'26.
παρεῖναι 1. 47.

παρελθεῖν [0. ὅ. 247]; 25.
verso 6.

παρθένος 95. ii. 11; 98. 1511.
2(?); 28. 13.

Πάρθοι 2. Bai

Πάρις 90. το.

Παρμενίων. 98. 44 i. a.

Πάρος 2.3 31.

πάρος 94. 17.

mas 82. 12; 85. 2~* verso
2(?); 86. 1, 3-5; 93.1v.
ar 94.103 9G Ny 24's
96. 8; 97.43; 98. 44 iv.
ΠΣ 99. ie NB ae FE

το (?),° 27(?); 8. 24; 21.7;
24. 7. πάντως 26. verso 3.
πά]σσαλος 92. ce
Πατήρ 86. 4. πατήρ 9O. 22 ;
92.%45; 93. viii. 6(?);
ΟΥ̓ ΗΠ} τ. ὁη. 165/45.
16 ; 26. recto 9.

| πατρῷος 26. recto 10.
| παύριστος 98. X. 3

O°

π]αυσιή 9s. 26 1.

πέδα (= μέτεστι ?) 90. 46.
πέδη 96. IT.
πεδίον 98. * iii. 8.

| πεζός 98. ** iii. 6, iv. 11, 14.

πείθειν 1. 39 (πειστέον).
πεῖρα 25. recto 2.

Πειρα[ιεύς BANA a5:
| πέλαγος 98. ** ii. 14.
| Πελοπήιος 98. Vi. 6.

ao 5 (np) x 3: 94.2; |

| πεπαίνειν 96. ΠΕΣ

Πελοποννήσιοι Ο. 3.75.

πέμπειν 85. verso 8; 92. 6.
πέμπτος Ο. ὃ 58.

πένης 95. il. 19.

πενία 985. ii. 16.

πέντε 95. 11.9; 98. iv. 15.
18,

245

περ 98. Vi. 2.

περαίνειν 97. 67.

Πέργαμον 90. 8.

Περγασή 4. 13 22.

περί 90. 5, 49 Sch. ; 98. = 2;
95. ἰ. 8; 98. τ4; 98.14,
II, 44 jij, 4510 BE? Os. 2,
28, 36, Τρ" 10, 40, [st
9,922; 34,0) 2.50) Be ine,

22; 2.217, 34, 50, 57,
69; 3. 62; 4. ΠΕΡ 20.
67 sch. ;

περίβλεπτος [4. 1:2 14].
περιεξαιρεῖσθαι Ο. 2 40.
Περιθοΐδης 4. 113 24.
περιιστάναι Ο. 3.35, 41.
περικαλλής 96. 13.
περικλεής 90. 2.
περικρατηΐ 26. recto 2.
repioratos 4, 113 τά.
περιστρέφεσθαι 94. 14.
περιστροφή 1. 40.
περισχίζειν 88. int.
περιτειχίζειν Ο. 3 58.
περσείη 96. 12, τό.

Περσεφόνη 2. 3.30. Φερσ. 2.

3
Πέρσης 98. ** ii. 4, ili. 1; 99.
ii. 29 ; 2. " 45, 64, 13.

Περσικός 98. 18 2.
πεσσός 94. το, II.
πέτηλον 96. 12.
πηγαῖος 95. ii. 10.
πηδάλιον 95. 11. 25.
πηδᾶν 3. 68.
Πιερίδες 92. cage
πικρός 98. ll. 22.
πίνειν 96. 20; 98. “1. τό.
πίπτειν 94.12; 96.15; 98.
10
3.
πίσος 1. 25.
πλανᾶσθαι 18. 10; O.! 30.
πλανήτης 8. 1. Sch. 7.
πλάσσειν 1. 45.
πλεῖν Ο. 19.
Πλεισθενίδας 90. 21.

πλείων 95. il. 18; 96. 3.
πλέον 95.11. 27. πλεῖστος

0:12:
πλεονέκτης 28. recto 4.

246

πλευρά 8. 1. Sch. 11, ii, sch. 6,
9, 11. :

πλήθειν θ4. 21.

πλῆθος 98. 5 ii, 12, *iii. 3.

πλημύρειν 96. 20.

πλήρης 98. * iii. 8,14; 1. 48.

πληροῦν 88. int.

πλησίον 98. ** ii. 6.

πλίνθος 4. ° 2.

πλόκαμος 95. 1. 9.

πλούσιος 985. ll. 19.

πλοῦτος 95. ii. τό.

πνεῦμαϑ2.11. ἅγιον ᾿ν. 86. 4.

πνοή 78. 9.

ποδήρης 1. 37.

πόθεν 985. li. 6, 7 ; 25. recto 1.

ποθί 94. 21.

ποιεῖν 82. 9; 96. 7(?); 97.
1; . 9.5.2. 4) 4.92
28. recto 2, 6.

ποικίλος 98. * 11]. 14.

πολέμιος 4. 142 12.

πόλεμος 90. 73 [0. 2 14];
2.3 46.

πόλις 99. ii. 16, 28; Ο. 1[4],
48, 253, 3 70,836; 4.4
2(?); 27.3, 7. πτόλις 94.
21.

πολιτεία Ο. 8t7 7; 2.3 21, 60.

πολιτεύεσθαι Ο. 3 2.

πολλάκις 92. τ; 98.18 4;
0.7 445-3. 19.

πολυγλαγής 96. int.

πολύγομφος 90. 18.

Πολύευκτος 4. * 8,

Πολύιδος 1. 21.

πολύπαλτος 98. iv. I.

πολυπληθής 96. 3.

πολύς 78. 38; 92.116; 94.
τό (πολέεσσι), 19; 96. 6;
98. “iii. 9; 0.7 49, 52;
1. τ6; 2.341; 8. τ; 25.
verso I; 28. verso 6.

πολύυμνος 90. 6.

πόμα 2. 3.30.

πομάτιον 2. 3.36.

πονεῖν 95. li. 3, 13.

πόνος 25. recto I.

πόντος 90. 28.

Πόντος . ° 37.

INDICES

mopeiov 4, 1+2 το,

πορεύεσθαι 3. 36.

πορίζειν 25. verso 4, 8.

Ποσειδῶν 98. * ii. 11.

ποταμός 86. 3; 96.13; 2.° 70.

ποτέ 78. 12, 153 94 τι;
95. ii. 20, 23 (τότε Pap.).

πότερον 23. 12.

ποτόν 94, τό.

που Ο.143; 1.16; 25. recto
I (ποῦ ?).

| Πουλυκράτης 90. 47.

πούς 90. 33; 98. ἴχ. 5; 95.
if: ἘΠ:

πρᾶγμα 82. 24.

πρᾶξις 28. Verso 3.

πράσσειν [4.3 τ].

πρεσβύτης 4.142 15. πρεσ-
βύτερος [85. 2-4 recto ai,
πρεσβύτατος Ο. 1 8, ὃ. 44.

Πρίαμος ΘΟ.Ι, 13.

πρίασθαι 8. 23.

πρίν 98. il. I.

προαπολλύναι 25. recto 5.

πρόβατον O. 12 rr,

πρόγνωσις 2.° 72.

προειπεῖν OQ. 11. 11.

προκεῖσθαι 20. 163 sch.

Προμηθεύς 2.8 64.

πρός 98. 441.5, 11.8; 2.° 47;
[4.5 10]; 28. το.

προσαγορεύειν Ὡ. “ 59.

προσδοκᾶν 95. ii. 21.

προσερίζειν 98. 11. 1.

προσευρίσκειν Ο. ἷ 45.

προσέχειν 99. il. 17.

πρόσθεν 94. 13.

πρόσοδος 92. 51 3,

προσομιλητής O.1 11?

προσπέμπειν Ο. ὃ 66.

προσποιεῖσθαι 98. ** i. 15.

προστάσιμον 1. ΤΙ.

προστιθέναι Ο. 1 42}

προστρόπαιος 4. 139, [13].

προσφέρειν 98. 4 iv. 2: Ο.3
63.

πρότερος 96. 14. πρότερον Ο.
2

προφερέστατος 90. 32.

πρυτανεῖον 86. 2?

πρωιζόν. 94. 6.

πρῶτος ἃ.5 33. ἃ 2.8 29, 36,
66, 92. πρῶτον 82. τι;
98. vill. 5; 1. ἴηῖ, α 2."
31. πρωτοΐ 98. 7 4.

πτέρυξ 94. 14.

Πτολεμαῖος 98. vill. 6.

Πτῷον 92. *7 2.

πυ]γή 1. 49?

Πυθαεύς 4.142 4, 6.

Πυθαῖος [4. ἐπ 1].

πυλί 0.1% 2.

πυνθάνεσθαι 98. vii. 1; 98. *4
iii, 18, 5 = Ὁ ee

πω 98. vii. 7. mol 92.° 2.

πως 97. το.

ῥητός 8. ii. sch. 6; 28. 17.

ῥήτωρ Ο.3 ττ, 41,827; [4.3
1, 1}

ῥίζα 96. 2.

ῥίπτειν 98. 15 ii. 15.

“Ῥόδιος O.? 76; 2.° 71.

“Ῥόδος O.? 74.

ῥόθιος 86. 3.

ῥόθως 92.1 τό.

ῥυθμός 91. 5.

ῥυτήρ [4.512].

ῥώμη Ο. 37.

ῥῶπος 4. 0.

σάβυττος 8. 56, 59.

Σαλμωνεύς 1. Το.

Σαπφώ O.1 2, 3.

Σάραπις 8. 8, 9.

Σάτυροι 1. τῇ.

σάφα 1. 18.

σείειν 95. 1. 6.

σελήνη 22. i. 32.

σεμνός 3. 9.

Σεσογχῶσις 26. recto 4, verso
Ι, 12.

σῆμα 96. το.

σημαίνειν 8. 17; 4.3 [5], 6
4474,

σημεῖον 78. 26; 8, τό.

σημερινός 98. Vi. 2.

σιγᾶν 86. 2.

Σιδόνιος 98. ΙΧ. 7.

Σιμωνίδης Ο. 1 36--".

11].

Σισυφίδης 98. Vi. 5.

σῖτος 94. [39 16; 96.6; 8.
3; 5°.

σιωπᾶν 8. 60-2, 66.

Σκάμανδρος 0.1 5.

Σκαμανδρώνυμος Ο. ἷ 6.

σκειράφιον 4. * τ.

σκευάζειν 98. 17 2.

Σκηνή 98. * iii. 11; Ο. 5 50.

σκοπεῖν 1. 53.

Σκυθικός 2.5 1, 36.

σκυθρωπὶ 85. 2.5 recto 13.

σμικρός 97. 52.

Σοδομείτης 85. 5 2 recto 7.

Σολεύς 2. 3 60.

Σόλοι 2. 3 58.

σός 23. 9.

Σουσάννα 88. 2 Ὁ recto 2.

σοφί 92.47 4.

σοφιΐ Ο. 3 24.

σοφίζειν 90. 23.

Σοφοκλῆς 1. 10; 5.3: 1.

σοφός 1. 18.

σπέρμα 23. 9.

Σπιθραδάτης 98. °° ii. 6.

σπλάγχνα O. 2 40.

[σπουδ]αῖος 97. 2.

στεῖνος 98. Vi. 5.

Στειριεύς O. #9 9.

στέφανος 95. i. 1, ii. 7; 0.
56; 3. 63; 27. 8.

στεφανοῦν Ο. ὃ 54,

στήλη Ο. 3.35.

στιφρός 8. τ, 6.

στοιχεῖν 22. ii. 30?

στόμα 92.116,

στρατεία [0. ὃ 22 ?].

στρατεύειν 90. 52 Sch.

στρατηγός 99. ii. 24; 4.4 4.

Στρατιῶται 1. 57.

στρατός 1. 9.

στριφνός 8. 1.

σύ 82. 9, τι; 90. 473 98.
iv. 3, Vili, 5; 94. 1; 95.
11,23; 8.3; 21.9; 24. 1,
6, το; 25. verso 7.

συγγίγνεσθαι 8. τι.

συγκατατίθεσθαι 2. 5.37.

συλλέγειν 8, 21, 26.

σύλλογος 2. 8.38.

OTHER NEW TEXTS

συμβαίνειν Ο. 1 25.

᾿ συμβόλαιον 4.4 τό, 17.

σύμβολον 98. viii. 1; 4.4 τ4.

συμμορία 4. 7, 9.

συμμορίτης 4.* 9.

συμπαθέστερος Ο. 372.

σύμπας 8. 1. Sch. 7?

συμφέρειν 96. 17; 99. il. 14.

συμφορά Ο. 39 3; 8. 27, 30.

σὺν Ὁ. 8 ae) eR B30,

συνάγειν 3. 20, 23.

συναθροίζειν 3. 20.

συνανίεσθαι 96. 21.

συν]άπτειν 98. *° 6.

Συναριστῶσαι 8. 5.

συνατυχεῖν Ο. 8 24.

συνεθίζεσθαι 8. 55.

συνεργός Ο. 8 24?

συνουσιασμός 85. 2-4 recto 1 ef
Sacp.

σύνταξις 2. ὃ 67.

συντόμως Ο. ὃ 26.

συντυχία 8. 20.

σφαγιάζεσθαι 98. “11. 15; Ο.
2.21.

σφραγίζειν 3. 17.

σφραγίς 8. τό.

σχῆμα 8. ii. sch. 4.
1. 41.

σχηματίζειν 1. int.

σχίζειν 985. ii, 25.

σχολή Ο. 5.74. σχολῇ 8. 25,
38.

σώζειν 82. 10; 85.24 recto
6; 92. *1(?); 99. ii. 18.

σῶμα 98.18, °° ii, g, 4 3.

Σωσίβιος 98. Vil. 1.

σχημΐ

ros 12.
τάλαντον 98. 551. 8; 0. ὃ 66.
ταλαπείριος 90. 8.
τάλας 985. ii. 19.
3. 7.
τανίσφυρος 90. II.
Ταρσός 2. 3 58.
τάσσειν 985. ii. 5.
ταύρεος 95. li. 13.
τε 78. 28; 86.1; 90. 13,
14, 44; 92.117; 98. vii.
1,3) 95.11.14; 96. 11;

LA
ταλάντατος

247

97. 56; 98.29, 10; O.
[2 60); * 345 2.5.34.

τόκος 94, I.

Τελαμώνιος 90. 34.

τέλειος 92.117; 8. i. sch. 5.
τελειότατος 98. Iv. 4.

τελειοῦν 26. recto 14.

τέλος 99. ii. 15; 0. 3 27.

τέμενος 92. 38 2;

reds 98. Vill. 6.

τερπνός 92.1 13.

τέταρτος (8) 1. 44.

τετράγωνος 8. ii. sch. 3.

τέτρωρος 98. * ii. 12.

τέτταρες 1. 43 8. i. Sch. 13,
15 (δ).

Τεῦκρος 90. 49, 51 Sch.

τῇ 93. Vi. ἢ.

τηνικαῦτα 20, 190 sch.

τιθέναι 98. iii. 4(?); 94. 12;
95. ii. 15; 96. το.

τίκτειν 98. V. 5.

τιμᾶν Ο. 3 31, [8 33].

τιμή Ο. 6171 το.

τιμωρία 28. verso 5?

τίς 82. 9; 91. 5; 95. ii.
16, 17, 27; 99. 11. ο; 0.
369; 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.
δον 5, ἀπ Πρ Θ Θέ τ
27; 0.: [6], το, 40(?),
46,734, 69; 2. 26, 41,
63, 71; 3.56; 4. 115 το,
[ἢ 2,2], 115 18; 8. seh:
5; 25. recto 6.

τίτθη 25. verso 8.

τλήμων 28. 14.

τόθι 92. 535.

τοι 92. 31. 2; 94. το.

τοίνυν 97. LO.

τοῖος 94. 14.

τοιόσδε 94. το; Ο.3 35.

τοιοῦτος 92.1 4; 97.47; 0.3
32,270; 28. recto 5.

τοῖχος 91. 6; 2.19 3?

τολμᾶν 99. il. 12.

τόλμη 99. li. 22.

τόξον 21. 6.

248

τόπος 0.259; 2.3 36.

τόσος 98. ν. 2, 3 (τόσσ.), x.
5; 94.2.

τοσοῦτος 98.2 5.

τότε 96. 3 :0. 3.6. θυ τό (?);
26. verso 7.

τραγῳδία 2. 8.43.

τραγῳδός Ο. 8 47, 57-

Τραχινίαι [5. -- 2 |.

τρεῖς, 95. ii. 8, 10; 0.1 7;
8. i. sch. 13 (7).

τρέπειν 98. * ii. 9.

τρέφειν Ο. 11 8.

τριάκοντα Ο. 5174.

τριήραρχος 4.* 8.

rptopxos 2. 3 46.

τρίς 90. 43; 95. li. 26.

τρισχίλιοι 98. * iv. τό.

τριταγωνιστεῖν O.° 47.

τρίτος 2. ὃ τ (7).

Τροία 90. 14, 19.

τρόπαιον 4. 1.13.12.

τροπή 8. 1. sch. 6?

τρόπος 92. 5: 6 (?); Ο. 1 18.

τρυφή 8. 38.

τρυφή 28. recto 2, verso 3.

τρύφος 98. ** iv. 5.

Τρωικός 2.8 3.

Tpwiros 90. 41.

Τρῶες 90.4..

τυγχάνειν Ο. δ11 το(); 26.
verso 2.

τύμβος 23. 24.

τύμπανον 95, il. 13.

τύπτειν 90. * ii. 7.

τύχη Ο. " 64; 25. recto 1.

ὕδωρ 98. vil. 3; 95.11.6, 1ο,25;
96.3, 15, 20; 3.5 20; 4:5.

ὕθλος 1. 52.

Yios 86. 4. υἷες 90. 31.

“λλίς 90. 41.

ὑμνεῖν 86. 3; 90. 12.

ὑπάρχειν 97. 46; Ο. 3 23.

ὑπασπιστής 98. *iv. 3.

ὑπέρ 91.8; 98. iv.1; 95.1].
15; 4.411 (? παρ Pap.).

Ὑπερβόρεοι 91. I.

Ὑπερείδης 4.4 5.

ὑπερήφανος 90. 17.

INDICES

ὕπερθε 92.1 τι.

ὑπέρτατος 92. * 2.

ὑπό 8. 153 885. 5.“ recto

12(?), verso 6; 97. 18,

20 20,38; O8:** Ivor;
Ὁ: 575236)? 25; 26; * 26;
5.5 485..6 Ὁ} 55: 27,526.

‘recto 4; 26. recto Io.

ὑποκρί 92. 48 2.

ὑποκρίνειν O.3 48,

ὑπόμνημα 2.3 12, 43,[74 ? |.

ὑπόστιφρος 8. 3.

ὑποτείνειν 8. 1. sch. 9.

ὕστερον [97. 21 Pils 4.4 12.

ὑψίπολος 90. 14.

φ 8. ii. sch. 13.

φαγεῖν 98. * iv. 7.

φαεο φόρος 86. 2.

φαίνειν 0.144. φαίνεσθαι 91.
5397: 61, 6392 99ri res
7. gor sch.

φαιώδης O. 1 22.

φάναι 90. 49 sch.; 938. 1x. 3;

94. ἃ 0-1 455. oe
25. Verso 3.
φανερός 78. το; 95.1. 5.

Φανίον 3. 65.

φάος 92.115.

φάρμακον 98. 15:1. 1; Ο. 3. 25.

φάτνη 7. 895 sch.?

φαῦλος [4. Ὁ 2 |.

φείδεσθαι 985. il. 2.

φέρειν 78. 27;
23-40:

Φερσεφόνη 2.° 33. II. 2. 3 30.

φεύγειν 985. li. 2. ;

φήμη 4.415.

φημίζεσθαι 22. 1. 19.

pbeyyerOar 92.1! 19.

φθόγγος 92.59 4.

φιλί a. 7.

Φιλάδελφοι 3. 22.

φιλάργυρος O.! 40,

Φιλιππικά 4.4 τῇ.

Φίλιππος 98. 19, “1. 5:
i. 21.

φιλοπονία 2.7 2.

φίλος 85.24 recto 6; [0.
73]; 27.14?

92.15 (°);

99.

φιλοσοῖφ.. 0.7 25.

Φιλοχάρης 0.2 45. .

φοβεῖ 85.74 versor3.

φοβεῖσθαι 85. 24 verso 4, 6.

φόβος 85. 2~* verso 7,9; 28.6.

φονεύειν 23. τό.

φόνος 95. il. 2.

Φορμίων 4.2 10; 27. 12.

φόρτος 4.3 0.

φραδί 90. ὅ 7.

φρασὶ 92. 11 5.

φρήν 23. 8?

φρονεῖν 96. 2.

φρόνημα 85. 2~* verso 8.

Φρύγιος 98. il. 13.

φυγάς Ο. ὃ 59.

φύειν 94. 5.

Φύλαρχος 1. 44.

φυλάσσειν 92.111; 97. 43;
98.7077.

φυλέτης 4.* το.

Φυλή Ο. 171 2,

φυλή 4. 14.

φύραμα 1. 6ο.

φυτόν 8. 31.

Φωκαεῖς 93. ν. 4.

φωνή ἃ.5 66; 8. 4.

φώς 90. 30.

χαΐ 90. 111. 6.

Χαλδαῖοι 2. 5 63, 67, 72, 5 6.

χάλκασπις 90. 31.

χάλκεος 91.6; Ο. 5.32.

Χαλκίοικος 2.° 54.

χαλκός 90. 43.

Χαμαιλέων O.1 29.

Χάραξος Ο. 19.

χαρίζεσθαι 2.° 32; 26. recto
11.

χάρις 92. °7 5.

Χάριτες 92.27.

χατεῖν 96. 5?

χεῖλος 98. Vi. 2.

χεῖμα 22.1, 21.

χειμών 95. il. 4.

χείρ 94. 3. ν

χθών 91. 11; 96. 8.

χίλιοι 98. 51. 8, iv. 12.

χιόνεος 95. ii. IO.

χλοερός 96. 12.

NG

χορός 92. 51 4; 98. viii. 3.

χρῆμα 95. il. 18; 97. 28;
Ο. 3 22.

χρῆσθαι Ο. 1 32, 13 8.

χρήσιμος 97. 6.

χρῆσις 78. 32.

χρηστηριάζεσθαι Ο. 3.53.

χρόνος 92.111; 98. ii. 22.

χρυσί 92. 49 2,

χρύσεος 91.8; Ο." 55.
σοῦν Τένος 8. 57.

χρυσεόστροφος 90. 40.

χρυσοί 92. 30 2.

χρυσοέθειρα 90. 9.

χρυσός 90. 42; 95. ii. 17.

χύσις 96. 6.

|xura, 92. 131.

Χρυ-

χώεσθαι 21. 5.
χῶμα 96. τι.
χώρα Ὡ. 3 41.

χωρίδιον 8. 23.

χωρίς 8. 14.

Vv 98.561]. 17.
Ἰψευδής 98. x. 8.
vo 28. recto 4.
6+7 15.

ΤΡ μὰ Oy oor 8.

ψηφί 0.

ψῆφος Ο. ὅ 59.

ψυχή 85.1 recto 9.

ὦ 8. 1. sch. 4.

ὦ 91. 3; 1.39; 28. 14.

OTHER NEW TEXTS

249

ὠγύγιος 96. 9.

ὧδε 98. vil. 6, χ. 7; 94. 21.

ὠδίς 92. 14,

ὠθεῖν Ο. 5 51.

ὠκύς 90. 523."

ὡς 90. 27, [30], 48, 51 sch. 5
93. ix. 33 97.46; 99. ii.
20.5007 1732 a (= ὥστε),
62, OT 5, 14, [7 24}. 8;
1.545 2.° 43, 66, 74; 8.

2 6} saep. 21. οἱ; 238. 8,
(Prep.) 8. 58.
ὡσεί 90. 42; 98. i 2; 3.5.

ὥσπερ 95. 1]. 193 1 ἀ80):
1 Plate [4. 1+2 “πὶ
ὥστε 8. 20.

ὠφελεῖν 97. 69, 71.

IIl.

Alcaeus Fr. το.
46.

Anonymus ed. Bellermann 3, 85

Aristides ii. 508 J
Aristophanes, £7. όσα.
Thesm. 460 .
Fr. 755
Athenaeus xv. 6878.
Babrius 115. 4. :
Bacchylides xvi (xvii). 66.
Bekker, Avnecd. i, p. 299
Callimachus Fr. 35d
122
193
209
21
Catullus Ixvi. 79-83 .
Curtius iii. 8. 20
£2.
Diodorus xvii. 33. 1.
Etym. Magn. 8. ν. μελύγειον

PASSAGES ΙΞΟῦΘΒΘΕΡ.

(α) AUTHORS.

4 PAGE
ve

60

253

43

τόρ

unten
99, 100, 106—7
: 109
99

108

: 110
. 100, 106-7
133

123, 134
133

161

PAGE

Hesych. 5. v. σάβυττος 165
Josephus, Azz. xii. 2. 2 99
Philostratus, Zm. ii. τ 43
Photius s. v. mpoorpdématos 169
τ τὶ 165

Pindar Fr) 59. . 84-5
Proclus, Zz Rempub. ἢ il, Dp: 25 (Kroll. Igo
Sappho ΕῚ. 39. ᾿ : ὙΠ τ δίς:
"6. 45

aK 45

78. I-2 45

79 42

106 . 59

129 . 43

169. 42
Sophocles, Azz. 287. 112
Suidas 5. v. Ἴβυκος 74
Samra 146

Thucyd. vii. 60 Ξ 165
Tzetzes, Jn 72, p. 68. 82
Xenophon, Azad, ii. 1. 6 165

250 INDICES

(ὁ) PAPYRI.

PAGE PAGE

P. Berl. 6870 Se/zungsb. Preuss. Akad. P. Oxy. II. 208 : : 5 : 9
TOUS, 763, |. ἃ . 22-3 VII. ror : Ἵ Σ 7
P. Halle’ 2 : : ι » 41, 45-6 L360. 1.9. . ΝΠ ΡΠ
ῬυΌ συ. Toy 6. A ; : Ἐν ΙΖ 1364 « : : . X59

ΤΠ αὐτῇ Ne : ; ὃ ΠΤ Ὁ

Δ

1813, recto

fs

os
2 eee

fr wad
eek

No. 1778, Fols. 1,°2, recto

Ῥιατε |

Biss
Arp rus
“heey

No, 1778, Fols. 1, 2 recto

Prater i]

Sr ‘rq ‘ggl1 ‘ON

ΖΡ a SSE
—_ Ἐς =

᾿ ΕΣ he ες, atte ΕΞ ΕΞ ΕΣ ἕως;
MING CL pee κυρ Ot eis,

τος iv ”
\

δ ἐς τ be θ Vara
is 2

.
’
.
αὖ:
*
’
2
¥
“ - ty
Ν (Ἢ ΕΝ
͵ οἰ
A ” .
' ae
+ a
γὶ
᾿ .
τοὶ "
ν TT
,

"

E IIl

BEAT

Stet Sea
ji, π

~

Wyo) +e ‘siy

‘o6L1

Yaka

Pirate IV

Sr “aq “I “ug ΟἿΟΣ “ON

III "S[OD 8091

ὋΝ

*

Al ‘[OZ) ‘QOgI ὋΝ

7 ι ς
ν᾿ ἃ inn F as
' "
A+ *
a ‘
ἔτι.
° ca)

PLATE V

No. 1814, verso
Ἴων ἐν» 2 EY δε ας BO θα υξειασ διε σα OE) κὰν ἡ ee SP κ΄ ΤΠ

The Egypt Exploration Society

GRAECO-ROMAN MEMOIRS.

WE 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 publication
of remains of classical antiquity and early Christianity in Egypt. The volumes published by
the Graeco-Roman Branch are to be continued under the name of Graeco-Roman Memoirs. It
zs intended that they shall appear annually, as heretofore, under the editorship of Prors. GRENFELL
and Hunt. Lach will consist of 250 quarto pages or more, with facsimile plates of the more
important papyrt.

All persons interested in the promotion of the Soctety’s objects are eligible for election as
Members. An entrance fee of £1 το. ἐς payable on election, and an annual subscription of
Ἐπ 25. 15 due annually on January 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 Journal of Egyptian Archaeology or, of preferred, a Graeco-Roman Memoir is
presented gratts to all Members, and other publications may be purchased by them at a substan-
tial discount, Full particulars may be obtained from the Secretary, 13 Tavistock Square,
London, W.C.1, or from the Secretary of the American Branch, 503 Tremont Temple, Boston,
Mass., U.S.A.

PUBLICATIONS OF THE EGYPT EXPLORATION SOCIETY.

en

EXCAVATION MEMOIRS.
I. THE STORE CITY OF PITHOM AND THE ROUTE OF THE EXODUS.

By EpovarbD NAVILLE. Thirteen Plates and Plans. (Fourth and Revised Edition,
1888.) 255.

II, TANIS, Part I. By W. M. Fuinpers Perriz. Seventeen Plates and two Plans.
(Second Edition, 1889.) 255.

III. NAUKRATIS, Part I. By W. M. Frinpers Petrie. With Chapters by Crcir
SMITH, ERNEST A. GARDNER, and BARCLAY V.HEAD. Forty-four Plates and Plans. (Second
Edition, 1888.) 255.

IV. GOSHEN AND THE SHRINE OF SAFT-EL-HENNEH. By Epovarp
NAVILLE. Eleven Plates and Plans. (Second Edition, 1888.) 255.

V. TANIS, Part Il; including TELL DEFENNEH (The Biblical ‘ Tahpanhes ’)
and TELL NEBESHEH. By W. M. FLINDERS PETRIE, F. Lit. GRIFFITH, and A. S.
Murray. Fifty-one Plates and Plans. 1888. (Ozt of print.)

VI. NAUKRATIS, Part Il. By Ernest A. Garpner and F. Lu. Grirritn. Twenty-
four Plates and Plans. 1888. (Out of print.)

Vil) THEY Cry ΟΕ ONIAS AND ‘THE MOUND’ OF ΤῊΞ JEW.) The
Antiquities of Tell-el-Yahfidiyeh. By EpovarpD NAVILLE end F. Lt. GRIFFITH. Twenty-
six Plates and Plans. 1890. 255.

VOL. XV

VIII.

XII.
XIII.
XIV.

XV.
XVI.

XVII.
XVIII.
XIX.

XX.

XXI.
XXII.
XXIII.

XXIV.
XXV.

XXVI.
XXVII.
XXVIII.
ΧΧΙΧ.
ΧΧΧΙ.
XXXII.
XXXII.

XXXIV.
XXXV.

XXXVI.

XXXVII.

BUBASTIS. By Epovarp Navitte. Fifty-four Plates. (Second Edition, 1891.) 25s.

TWO HIEROGLYPHIC PAPYRI FROM TANIS. Containing THE SIGN
PAPYRUS (a Syllabary). By F. Lt. GrirrirH. THE GEOGRAPHICAL PAPYRUS
(an Almanack). By W.M. FLINDERS PETRIE. With Remarks by HEINRICH BRUGSCH.
1889. (Out of print.)

. THE FESTIVAL HALL OF OSORKON II (BUBASTIS).* By Epovarp

NAVILLE. Thirty-nine Plates. 1892. 255.

. AHNAS EL MEDINEH. By Epovarp Navittz. Eighteen Plates. And

THE TOMB OF PAHERI AT EL ΚΑΒ. By J. J. TyLor and F. Li. GRIFFITH
Ten Plates. 1894. 255.

DEIR EL BAHARI, Introductory. By Epouarp Navitte. Fifteen Plates

and Plans. 1894. 255.

DEIR EL BAHARI, Part I. By Epovarp Navitie. Plates I-XXIV (three
coloured) with Description. Royal folio. 1895. 30s.

DEIR EL BAHARI, Part II. By Epovarp Navititr. Plates XXV—LV (two
coloured) with Description. Royal folio. 1897. 30s.

DESHASHEH. By W. M. Fiinpers Perrie. Photogravure and thirty-seven
Plates. 1898. 255.

DEIR EL BAHARI, Part ΠῚ. By Epovarp Navirte. Plates LVI-LXXXVI
(two coloured) with Description. Royal folio. 1898. 30s.
DENDEREH. By W. M. Fiinpers Petriz. Thirty-eight Plates. 1900.

255. (Forty extra Plates of Inscriptions. Ios.)

THE ROYAL TOMBS OF THE FIRST DYNASTY. By W. M. Fiinpers

PETRIE. Sixty-eight Plates. 1g00. 25s.

DEIR EL BAHARI, Part IV. By Epovarp Navirite. Plates LXXXVII-
CXVITI (two coloured) with Description. Royal folio. IgoI. 30s.

DIOSPOLIS PARVA. By W. M. Fiinpers Perris. Forty-nine Plates.
1001. (Out of print.)

THE ROYAL TOMBS OF THE EARLIEST DYNASTIES, Part IL.

By W. M. FLINDERS PETRIE. Sixty-three Plates. 1901. 255. (Thirty-five extra
Plates. τος.)

ABYDOS, Part 1. By W.M.F. Perri. Eighty-one Plates. 1902. 255.

EL AMRAH AND ABYDOS. By D. Ranpatt-Maclver, A. C. Macg, and
F. LL. GRIFFITH. Sixty Plates. 1902. 255.

ABYDOS, Part II. By W. M. F. Petrie. Sixty-four Plates. 1903. 259.

ABYDOS, Part III. By C. T. Curretry, E. R. Ayrron, and A. EL P:
WEIGALL, &c. Sixty-one Plates. 1904. 255.

EHNASYA. By W. M. Frinpers Perri. Forty-three Plates. 1905. 255.
(ROMAN EHNASYA. Thirty-two extra Plates. 105.)

DEIR EL BAHARI, Part V. By Epovarp Navittz. Plates CXIX-CL with
Description. Royal folio. 1906. 30s.

THE ELEVENTH DYNASTY TEMPLE AT DEIR EL BAHARI, Part 1.
By Epouarp NaVILLE and H.R. Hate. Thirty-one Plates. 1907. (Out of print.)

DEIR EL BAHARI, Part VI. By Epovarp Navittr. Plates CLI-CLXXIV
(one coloured) with Description. Royal folio. 1908. 30s.

THE ELEVENTH DYNASTY TEMPLE AT DEIR EL BAHARI, Part IL
By Epouarp NAVILLE and SOMERS CLARKE. Twenty-four Plates. 1910. 255.

PRE-DYNASTIC CEMETERY AT EL MAHASNA. By E. R. Ayrton
and W.L.S. LOAT. Ig11. 255.

THE ELEVENTH DYNASTY TEMPLE AT DEIR EL BAHARI, Part III.

By Epouarp NavVILLE, H.R. Hatt, and Ο. Τὶ Curretiy. Thirty-six Plates. 1913. 255.

CEMETERIES OF ABYDOS, Part I. By Epovarp Navitzz, T. E. Pret,
H.R. HALL and K. HADDON. 1914. 255.

CEMETERIES OF ABYDOS, Part II. By T.E. Peet. 1914. 255.

CEMETERIES OF ABYDOS, Part IJ]. By Τὶ E. Peer and W. L. S.

LOAT. 1913. 25s.

THE INSCRIPTIONS OF SINAI, Part I. By A. H. Garpiner and T. E. Peet.
Eighty-six Flates and Plans. Royal folio. 1917. 35s.

BALABISH. By G, A. Warnwricnt. Twenty-five Plates. 1920. 42s.

ARCHAEOLOGICAL SURVEY.
Edited by F. Li. GRIFFITH.

I. BENI HASAN, Part I. By Percy E. Newperry. With Plans by G. W.
FRASER. Forty-nine Plates (four coloured). 1893. (Out of print.)

II. BENI HASAN, Part II. By Percy E. Newperry. With Appendix, Plans, and

Measurements by G. W. FRASER. Thirty-seven Plates (two coloured). 1894. 255.

III. EL BERSHEH, Part I. By Percy E. Newserry. Thirty-four Plates (two

coloured). 1894. 255.

IV. EL BERSHEH, Part II. By F. Lx. Grirrirn and Percy E. Newserry.

With Appendix by G. W. FRASER. Twenty-three Plates (two coloured). 1895. 255.

V. BENI HASAN, Part III. By F.Li.Grirritu. (Hieroglyphs, and manufacture,

&c., of Flint Knives.) Ten coloured Plates. 1896. 255.

ΥΙ. ΗΙΕΕΟΘΟΙΧΡΗΒ “FROM THE ‘COLLECTIONS OF THE: EGYPT

EXPLORATION FUND. By F. Lu. GrirFirH. Nine coloured Plates. 1898. 255.

VII. BENI HASAN, Part IV. By F. Li. Grirriru. (Illustrating beasts and birds,

arts, crafts, &c.) Twenty-seven Plates (twenty-one coloured). 1900. 255.

Vil. THE MASTABA OF PTAHHETEP AND AKHETHETEP AT

SAQQAREH, Part I. By ΝΌΚΜΑΝ ΡῈ G. Davies and F. Li. GrirFirH. Thirty-one
Plates (three coloured). 1900. 255.

IX. THE MASTABA OF PTAHHETEP AND AKHETHETEP, Part IL.

By N. ΡῈ G. Davirs and F. Lu. GRIFFITH. Thirty-five Plates. IgoI. 25s.

X. THE ROCK TOMBS OF SHEIKH SAID. By N. pe G. Davies. Thirty-

five Plates. 1901. 255.

XI. THE ROCK TOMBS OF DEIR EL GEBRAWI, Part I. By N. vz G.

Davies. Twenty-seven Plates (two coloured). 1902. 25s.

XII. DEIR EL GEBRAWI, Part II. By N. pe G. Davies. Thirty Plates (two

coloured). 1902. 255.

XIII. THE ROCK TOMBS OF EL AMARNA, Part I. By N. pe G. Daviess.

Forty-one Plates. 1903. 255.

XIV. EL AMARNA, Part II. By N. pe G. Davies. Forty-seven Plates. 1905. 255.

XV. EL AMARNA, Part III. By N. p—E G. Davies. Forty Plates. 1905. 255.

XVI. EL AMARNA, Part IV. By N. pe G. Davies. Forty-five Plates. 1906. 25s.
XVII. EL AMARNA, Part V. By N. pe G. Davies. Forty-four Plates. 1908. 255.
XVIII. EL AMARNA, Part Vi. By N. pz G. Davirs. Forty-four Plates. 1908. 255.
XIX. THE ISLAND OF MEROE. By J. W. Crowroot, and MEROITIC

INSCRIPTIONS, Part I. By F. Lut. GrirFitH. Thirty-five Plates. 1011. 25s.

XX. MEROITIC INSCRIPTIONS, Part Il. By F. Lr. Grirritu. Forty-eight

Plates! 1912. 255.

5
XXI. FIVE THEBAN TOMBS. By N.peG. Davies. Forty-three Plates. 1913. 2585.
XXII. THE ROCK TOMBS OF MEIR, Part I. By A. M. Bracxman. Thirty-

three Plates. 1914. 255.

XXIII. MEIR, Part II. By A. M. Bracxman. Thirty-five Plates. 1915. 255.
XXIV. MEIR, Part III. By A. M. Bracxman. Thirty-nine Plates. 1915. 255.

GRAECO-ROMAN MEMOIRS.

THE OXYRHYNCHUS PAPYRI, Part 1. By B. P. Grenrevi and A. 5. Hunt.
Eight Collotype Plates. 1898. (Ovt of print.)

THE OXYRHYNCHUS PAPYRI, Part II. By B. P. Grenrett and A. 5. Hunt,
Hight Collotype Plates. 1899. 255.

. FAYUM OWNS AND THEIR PAPYRI. By B. P. Grenrett, A. S. Hunt,

and 1). G. HocGartH. Eighteen Plates. 1900. 255.

THE TEBTUNIS PAPYRI. By B. P. Grenrett, A. 5. Hunt, and J. G. Suyry.
Nine Collotype Plates. 1902. (JVot for sale.)

THE OXYRHYNCHUS PAPYRI, Part IJ. By B. P. Grenrett and A. 5. Hunt.
Six Collotype Plates. 1903. 255.

VI. THE OXYRHYNCHUS PAPYRI, Part1V. By B. P. Οσβξχεει, and A. 5. Hunt,
Eight Collotype Plates. 1904. 25s.

VII. THE HIBEH PAPYRI, Part I. By B. P. Grenrett and A. 5, Hunt. Ten
Collotype Plates. 1906. 455.

VIII. THE OXYRHYNCHUS PAPYRI, Part V. By B. P. Grenrect and A. 5. Hunt.
Seven Collotype Plates. 1908. 25s.

IX. THE OXYRHYNCHUS PAPYRI, Part VI. By B. P. Grenrext and A. 5. Hunt.
Six Collotype Plates. 1908. 255.

x; THE ere ae PAPYRI, Part VII. By A.S. Hunt. Six Collotype
Plates. IgIo.

XI. THE OXYRHYNCHUS PAPYRI, Part VIII. By A.S. Hunt. Seven Collo-
type Plates. 1911. 255.

XII. THE OXYRHYNCHUS PAPYRI, Part IX. By A. S. Hunt. Six Collotype

Plates. IgI2. 255.

XIII. THE OXYRHYNCHUS PAPYRI, Part X. By B. P. Grenrett and A. 5, Hunt.
Six Collotype Plates. 1914. 25s.

XIV. THE OXYRHYNCHUS PAPYRI, Part XI. By B. P. Grenretrand A, 5. Hunr.
Seven Collotype Plates. 1915. 255.

XV. THE OXYRHYNCHUS PAPYRI, Part XII. By B. P. Grenretr and A. 5. Hunt.
Two Collotype Plates. 1916. 25s.

XVI. THE OXYRHYNCHUS PAPYRI, Part XIII. By B. P. Grenrett and A. 5.
- Hunt. Six Collotype Plates. 1919. 255.

XVII. THE OXYRHYNCHUS PAPYRI, Part XIV. By B. P. Grenrett and A. 5.
Hunt. Three Collotype Plates. 1920. 42s.

XVII. THE OXYRHYNCHUS PAPYRI, Part XV. By B. P. Grenrext and A. S. Hunt.
Five Collotype Plates. 1922. 42s.

XIX. THE OXYRHYNCHUS PAPYRI, Part XVI. By B. P. Grenre it, A. 5. Hunt,
and H. 1. BELL. (lz preparation.)

ANNUAL ARCHAEOLOGICAL REPORTS. Edited by F. Lt. GrirrirH. 1892-1912.

2s. 6d. each. General Index, 45. net.

JOURNAL OF EGYPTIAN ARCHAEOLOGY (commencing 1914). Vols. i-v,
quarterly parts 6s. Vol. vi, quarterly parts 125. 6d.; Vol. vii, two double parts, 25s. each.

SPECIAL PUBLICATIONS.
ΛΟΓΊΑ ΙΗΣΟΥ͂ : ‘Sayings of Our Lord,’ from an Early Greek Papyrus. By B. P. βενεει.
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. Is. net.
FRAGMENT OF AN UNCANONICAL aE By B. P. Grenrett and A. 5.

HunT. 1go8. Is. net.
COPTIC OSTRACA. By W.E. Crum. 1902. τος. 6d. net.
THE THEBAN TOMB SERIES, Vol. I. THE TOMB OF AMENEMHET (No. 82).

RER. tg DE G. ee Irs and A. H. GARDINER. 1915. 355. Vol. II. THE TOMB OF ANTEFO-
1920. 5

THE MAYER PAPYRI AandB. By T. E. Peer. Twenty-seven Plates. 1920. 50s.

Offices of the Egypt Exploration Society:

13 TAVISTOCK SQUARE, LONDON, W.C. 1, AND
503 TREMONT TEMPLE, BOSTON, MASS., U.S.A.

Agents:

BERNARD QUARITCH, 11 GRAFTON STREET, NEW BOND STREET, W. 1
HUMPHREY MILFORD, OXFORD UNIVERSITY PRESS, AMEN CORNER, E.C. 4 AND
29 WEST 32np STREET, NEW YORK, U.S.A.
C. F. CLAY, CAMBRIDGE UNIVERSITY PRESS, FETTER LANE, ΕΟ. 4
KEGAN PAUL, TRENCH, TRUBNER & Co., 68-74 CARTER LANE, E.C. 4
GEORGE SALBY, 6; GREAT RUSSELL STREET, W.C. 1

BRIGHAM YOUNG UNIVERS|

΄ MMV

—————