LIBRARY

Brigham Young University

a4
No.

196537

Digitized by the Internet Archive

in

2010 with funding from

Brigham Young University

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

THE

OXYRHYNCHUS PAPYRI
PART XV
GRENFELL AND HUNT

3 "MS

EGYPT EXPLORATION SOCIETY

THE

OXYRHYNCHUS PAPYRI
PART XV
EDITED WITH TRANSLATIONS AND NOTES

BERNARD

P.

GRENFELL,

D.Litt.

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

ARTHUR

S.

HUNT,

D.Litt.

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

WITH FIVE PLATES

196537
LONDON
SOLD AT

The Offices of the EGYPT EXPLORATION SOCIETY,

and
503

13

Tavistock Square, W.C.

Tremont Temple, Boston,

11

Mass., U.S.A.

BERNARD QUARITCH,

Grafton Street,

New Bond

Street,

W.

HUMPHREY MILFORD, Amen

KEGAN

Corner, E.C. 4, and 29 West 32ND Street, New York, U.S.A. C. F. CLAY, Fetter Lane, E.C. 4 PAUL, TRENCH, TRUBNER & CO., 68-74 Carter Lane, E.C. 4 GEORGE SALBY, 65 Great Russell Street, W.C. 1

1922
All rights reserved

PRINTED IN ENGLAND AT THE OXFORD UNIVERSITY PRESS BY FREDERICK HALL

PREFACE
Owing
for this

to the large
it

compass of the Byzantine documents intended

to reserve

volume,

was found advisable

them

for a separate
;

Part (XVI), which will probably be issued in the course of 1922

present instalment therefore, like
literary texts alone.
1792, 1798, 1800,

the

Parts

XI

and XIII, consists of

The more
;

extensive of these, including 1787-90,

1805-, 1808,
1

1810,

belong mainly to the second large

905-6 others proceed from the work of different seasons, and a few, of which the most important are 1786 and 1793, were acquired by purchase on the site of Oxyrhynchus by Professor Grenfell
literary find of

during his

visit to

Egypt

in the winter of

1919-20.

That unfortunately remains my

the following pages
:

colleague's chief contribution to

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

defects in
I

its

appearance and for

many

its

execution.

am

again indebted to Mr. E. Lobel for

much

assistance with the

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

new

classical texts,

a few passages in the poetical pieces.

My

thanks are also due to

Professor H. Stuart Jones for a transcript in

musical notation of the early

modern form of the Christian hymn, No. 1786, and to some

is

other scholars for help on special points, which

acknowledged

in

connexion with the texts concerned.

ARTHUR
Queen's College, Oxford,

S.

HUNT.

December, 192 1

CONTENTS
PAGE

Preface
List of Plates
.

Table of Papyri Note on the Method of Publication and List of Abbreviations

.......... ........... ...

.......... .... ....
INDICES
. . . . . . .

vii
viii

TEXTS

I.

II.

III.

Theological Fragments Classical Fragments Fragments of Extant Classical Authors

New

26

172

IV.

Minor Literary Fragments

226

I.

II.

1787-9 (Sappho and Alcaeus) Other New Texts

Passages Discussed

III.

........... ...... ...

at the end.
f

231

235

249

LIST OF PLATES
I.

II.

III.

IV.

V.

1778 Fols. 1, 2, recto, 1786, 1813 recto 1787 Frs. 1, 2, 9, 1788 Fr. 15 1789 Fr. 1, Col. i, Frs. 2, 3, 1790 Frs. 2 + 3, Col. ii, 1791 1806 Col. iv, 1808 Cols, i-iii, 1810 Phil, i, Fr. 15 1814 verso

TABLE OF PAPYRI
CENTURY
1778.
Aristides,

PAGE
I

Apology (Plate

I)

4th 4th

1779.

Psalm
St.
St.

6
/
.

1780.
1781.

John's Gospel

viii

4th

John's Gospel xvi

i-iii

1782. 1783.

Didache

Her mas,

Pastor,

1784.
1785.

Constantinopolitan Creed

Homilies?
Christian

...... ......
.

3rd

Late 4th
Early 4th
5th
.

12

31and.

ix

15
17

5th

...

18
21

1786.
1787.

Hymn
iv

with Musical Notation (Plat 5 I)

(Plate II)
.

Late 3rd
3rd

Sappho, Book
Alcaeus
?

26

1788. 1789.

(Plate II)

Late 2nd
ISt
ISt B. C.

Alcaeus (Plate III)

Ibycus (Plate III)

1790.
1791.

....
.

46 60
73

Pindar, Paean (Plate III)

Pindar,

ISt

84
86
1st

1792.
1793.

Paean

2nd
Late
Late 2nd
ISt

Callimachus, Sosibi Victoria

1794.
1795.

Poem

in

Hexameters

Acrostic Epigrams

.... ....
.

98

1796.

1797.

1798.
1799.

Hexameter Poem on Egyptian Botany Antiphon Sophistes, llepl i ? Anonymous work on Alexander the Great Oratorical Fragment
.

1800.
1801.

Miscellaneous Biographies
Glossary

1802.

Glossary

1803.
1804. 1805.
1806.

Glossary

Sophocles, TracAiniae

'
Phaedo

...... ....... ...... .....

.... ....
.

, ....

no
113 116 119 122 35

2nd
Early 3rd

Late 2nd

2nd
.

Late 2nd or early 3rd

ISt

137

150
155
163

Late 2nd or early 3rd

6th

3rd

166
172
.

Late 2nd Late

1st

Theocritus, Idyll xxii (Plate IV)

AratUS,
Plato, Republic
viii

180
184 186
191

1807. 1808.

2nd
.

1809.
1810.

Plato,

.....
(Plate IV)

Late 2nd
Early 2nd

Demosthenes, Olynth. \-\\\,Phil.\,De Pace (PL telV)

Early 2nd

194

TABLE OF PAPYRI
CENTURY
1811.

IX

PAGE
.

Demosthenes, C. Timocratem
Isocrates,

1812.
1813.

Ad Demonicum

....
.

3rd
5th or 6th

209
211

1814.
1815. 1816. 1817.

1818.

1819.

1820.
1821.

Codex Theodosianus vii (Plate I) Index to Codex Iustimanus, First Edition (Plate V) Homer, Iliad i Homer, Iliad xv Homer, Iliad xvii, xviii Homer, Iliad xxii, xxiii Homer, Odyssey x-xii Homer, Odyssey xviii
.

Early 6 th
a.d.

214
217
222
222

529-535

3rd 3rd
6th
5th or 6th
.

1822. 1823. 1824.

1825.

Hexameters or Elegiacs Hexameter Poem on Astronomy

.... ..... ..... ....

.... ....
.

222

223
224

2nd
6th or 7th
.

3rd
.

225 226

2nd
ISt B.C.

226
226 227

Fragment of a Tragedy Fragment of a Comedy Fragment of a Comedy

3rd
5th

228

1826. 1827.

Romance

Late 3rd or 4th

.

228 229 230

Oratorical Fragment
Ethical Treatise

1828.

.....
.

3rd
3 rd

NOTE ON THE METHOD OF PUBLICATION AND

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS
general method followed in this volume is the same as in preceding 1787-90 and 1792-4 are printed in dual form, a literal transcript being Parts. accompanied by a reconstruction in modern style. In the remaining texts the
originals are reproduced except for separation of words, capital initials in proper

The

names, some expansions of abbreviations, and supplements of lacunae. Additions

or corrections

by the hand
hand

of the

body

of the text are in small thin type, those

[ ]

by a

different
)

in thick type.

Square brackets

indicate a lacuna, round

the resolution of a symbol or abbreviation, angular brackets ( ) ( a departure from the text of the original, braces { } a superfluous letter or letters, Dots within brackets a deletion in the original. double square brackets j]

brackets

[]

represent the approximate

number of letters

lost or deleted

dots outside brackets

indicate mutilated or otherwise illegible letters.

Letters with dots underneath

refer to the
;

them are

to

be regarded as doubtful.

Heavy Arabic numerals

to columns.

texts of the

Oxyrhynchus Papyri
small

in this

volume and Parts I-XIV

ordinary

numerals to

lines,

Roman numerals

The terms

recto and verso

leaf,

when used of vellum fragments

where these are determinable.
P.

refer to the

upper and under sides of the

Amh.

P. Grenf.
P.

P.

= The Amherst Papyri, Vols. I-II, by B. P. Grenfell and A. S. Hunt. = Greek Papyri, Series I-II, by B. P. Grenfell and A. S. Hunt. Halle = Dikaiomata, &c, von der Graeca Halensis. Oxy. = The Oxyrhynchus Papyri, Parts I-XIV, by B. P. Grenfell and
A. S. Hunt. Rylands = Catalogue of the Greek Papyri A. S. Hunt.
in the

P.

Rylands Library, Vol.

Vitelli

I,

by

P.S.I.

Papiri della Societa italiana, Vols. I-VI,

by G.

and others.

I.

THEOLOGICAL FRAGMENTS
1778.

ARISTIDES, Apology.
12x14-6 cm.
Fourth century.
Plate
I

(Fols. 1-2, recto).

The following small but

original

valuable fragment of the Apology of Aristides in the

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 since, however, the position of the sheet in the quire cannot be determined 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 punctua0eoy is contracted in the usual way, but and apparently tion occurs. were written out in full (11. 33, 37). Some inaccuracies may be detected in the text, which seems to have been of mediocre quality cf. nn. on 11. 26 sqq. and S3;

The Apology is a
towards
its

recent addition to early Christian literature.

The

first

step

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
recovery was
in

made

at Sinai of

a complete version

in

Syriac

and shortly afterwards Dr. Armitage

in

Robinson,

who had

seen Dr. Harris's work in proof, recognized that the Apology

in

was actually already extant

Greek, having been embedded

the early
of

mediaeval romance, the History of Barlaam and Josaphat.

these fortunate discoveries was the joint edition

The outcome

by

the two scholars of the

Apology of Aristides

in

Texts

and

Studies,

I.

i.

(1891), containing the Syriac

THE OXYRHYNCHUS PAPYRI

Armenian Barlaam and Josaphat. The question then presented itself, how far the Greek of Barlaam and

text with an English translation, Latin and English versions of the

fragment, and the Greek text from

Josaphat could be regarded as representing the ipsissima verba of Aristides. 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 But there remained considerable divergences which could not out of date. 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 Was this the result of expansion or compression ? Had the Syriac of 3 to 2.

That

'

Greek cut it down ? The Armitage Robinson observed in discussing this latter explanation, problem {op. cit. pp. 71 sqq.), seemed a priori the more probable, but careful consideration of the opening passage in which the testimony of the Armenian fragment was also available showed that the faults were by no means all on one side. While in the Greek there could here be traced one serious modification with a consequent displacement, one considerable abbreviation, and an added phrase in a Christological passage, the Syriac was found to be often loose and inaccurate, dropping some phrases and inserting others, sometimes with a distorting effect. Dr. Robinson's general conclusion was that the Greek will, as a rule, give us the actual words of Aristides, except in the very few places in which modification Where the Syriac presents us with matter which has no was obviously needed. 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 Harnack agreed that the to authenticate the Syriac from some external source.' 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 which they in turn had still further transformed {Gesch. der Uberarbeitung
translator amplified the original or the redactor of the

as

Dr.

'

',

altchristlichen

Lift.

i.

1.

97)

needlessly complicated

hypothesis.
ix. 1,

Again,

R. Raabe, in his commentary in Texte

und Untersuchmigen,

has no high

opinion of the accuracy of the Syriac translator.

On

the other hand, Dr. Rendel

Harris in a recent essay seeks to show that Celsus, in replying to Aristides, used

a text of the Apology which was in close agreement with the Syriac {Bulletin

of the John

Rylands

Library

',

vi,

pp. 163 sqq.).

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

With

1778.
general
position.
it

THEOLOGICAL FRAGMENTS
to criticism especially for
is

may be

said that P, as

Though open
for

might be expected, holds an intermediate its verbosity, to which much

Syriac has at any rate

of

its

comparative length

due, the

some of the

advantages claimed
original

more faithfully 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 confining himself to On the whole then the present necessary modifications
'

Rendel Harris, in places reproducing the it by Dr. than BJ and retaining words and phrases which the

'.

discovery appears to place the Syriac version,

if

not in the flattering position

suggested by Dr. Harris, yet in a more favourable light than that accorded to it by Dr. Armitage Robinson and by Raabe {pp. cit., pp. 37-8). If the prudent

pronounce that the Greek is defective ', he should condemning matter peculiar to the Syriac. With as guide, the task of sifting the wheat from the chaff may now be undertaken with a better chance of success.
critic

must

still

'

hesitate to

exercise a corresponding caution in

Fol.

1,

recto.

Plate

I.

6 lines lost
7
]

Fol. 2, recto.

Plate

10

[] []
[]
.

[]

I.

Fol. 2, verso.
[y?7]/z[e]iou

[] [ ] [][ ]
[

30

)
4

[]?

35

.[

].'.'. [].'
lines lost

[] [ []
]
[]

]
] -

- 1

[] [
2

[ [

THE OXYRHYNCHUS PAPYRI

5
[

I"*'

7 !]

[6\

[* [ \
e

X ei

Kat

,
human
expires

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

included
Possibly,

imitators
ovras

introd., the relative positions of Fol.

8 sqq.
eivai

.
The
it

, ,, , . , , , ,, , . .. , ?, '
The
original
is

the

adjective

again,

the
cf.

word

though there was used later

form of one of these phrases may have nothing in the Syriac suggesting this.
reference

in

VUi

to the

\
he

Greek gods or
tovtovs

their

and

csWVjuas

As mentioned

in the

and

Fol. 2 are indeterminate.

is

The

extant Greek of this passage yap

as follows

ol

'

Syriac

is

'

And

again those
:

who have
this is
is

is

God, these

also have erred

and
blast

to another, since

sometimes

their

thought concerning the blasts of winds that evident to us, that these winds are subject increased and sometimes it is diminished and

for after for and the addition of In the Syriac the simple directness of the original is obscured by unnecessary verbiage concerning the blast of winds, that it that these these also this is evident . and 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 increased and sometimes it is diminished and ceases apart from the redundancy of their blast and ' and ceases ', corresponds faithfully to the original, whereas the extant Greek parts company, omitting the dependent clause and passing on to the next sentence. At this point, however, the Syriac too becomes faulty. according to the After ' and ceases it proceeds commandment of him who subjects them ' (cf. in the extant Greek) whereas the original has an inferential sentence, apparently therefore it is under some com: .

()

subjects them. Since for the sake of they were created by God, in order that they might fulfil the needs of trees and fruits and seeds, and that they might transport ships upon the sea ; those ships which bring to men their necessary things from a place where they are found to a place where they are not found ; and furnish the different parts of the world. Since then this wind is sometimes increased and sometimes diminished, there is one place in which it does good and another where it does harm, according to the nod of him who rules it and even men are able by means of well-known instruments to catch and coerce it that it may fulfil for them the necessities which they demand of it ; and over itself it has no power at all ; wherefore it is not possible that winds should be called gods, but a work of God.' In 11. 8-12 the agreement with the extant Greek is close, the only discrepancies being

ceases, according to the

commandment of him who

man

,
.
.

'
'

.
. . ' '

'

'

'

'

'

pulsion

.'.

Further detailed comparison

is

precluded by the unfortunate mutilation of the

;;

1778.

THEOLOGICAL FRAGMENTS

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
9.

out.
:

6(eo)v

so also the Syriac,

is

'

that

it is

God

'.

The

extant Greek has

is

both here

and elsewhere where the subject

13.
a[i>]f[t
:

feminine.

the identification of the exiguous traces

farther

confirmed by the collocation

is of increased and sometimes diminished at the corresponding point, and it is therefore quite In that case BJ omitted possible that there was a similar repetition in the original. here, and did not merely transfer it to a later position. . cf. the references in in connexion with other elements, 14. J to
. .
.

Whether that is to be regarded as a transposition in BJ. doubtful, for the Syriac repeats Since then this wind is sometimes

on

'

'

,
&C,
is

[\(
IV

e. g.

ovpavos

and the application of the same phrase

less suitable, since

vi

(sc.

to the

moon and

to

man.

)
is

To

read

owiyfioj]

is

of the doubtful

letters before

the second

the taller of the

The top of the supposed the reverse would be expected. two, whereas if they are in 1. 8. is not unlike that of again, though the repetition 1 6. The very scanty remains are not inconsistent with Of the three letters printed the e is the most probable of this word seems unlikely. the other two are very uncertain. e, or , which is very doubtful. The next letter is apparently 17. The first

followed by

may be . 1 8. The 26 sqq. The opening sentence of analogy Of 11. 8IO

,
The

or . doubtful

this section

'So too those have erred who have thought concerning the sun that he For lo we see him, that by the necessity of another he is moved and turned and is God. 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
Syriac
is
:

, .

()

may

eivai

,,, , ,
safely

be restored from BJ on the

J continues
:

rjXiov eivai 6eov,

6eoi.

is

Wherefore it according to his own will, but according to the will of Him that ruleth him. 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 of 1. 2 has disappeared and is more or two necessary corrections have been made, since the Syriac likely to have been simply dropped than to be represented by which the Syriac connects, has an equivalent for this as well as for has also been discarded. The article has probably rightly, with and and (confirmed against the v. 1. and been omitted with are transposed; which was the correct order may be questioned, but the papyrus seems on the whole to be supported by the Syriac. (1. 33) was read by Boissonade, W, divisionem Lat. ; cf. Syr.). In 11. 38-40 with some MSS. and this or something like it is represented by (?)] fee, interrupt the is probably to be regarded as the correct text, since the indicatives

. ,
on
in
11.

participial construction,

which

is

carried

40-1 by

, [ , , [
,
),

[]

f^o^jra

THE OXYRHYNCHUS PAPYRI

to varying degrees of heat It is then likely, as Dr. Rendel they are not terms ordinarily associated with the sun. has been brought in here from the succeeding paragraph Harris suggests, that re eKKefyeis Concerning the moon, where BJ has but in other respects does not comThe Syriac has preserved (pepopevov and pare favourably with J. ' Shoots of plants and shrubs is a pointless change, and may parts are gratuitous amplifications. earth and in his course bring forth en is anything but a gain in clearness. insertion of ' in calculation is omitted, and the According to the advantage of the needs of men is displaced, and is besides a clumsy though less verbose than and that not according translation of s The reference to to his own will ', &c, as an equivalent of Raabe, /. c, was rightly critical of this passage. eclipse has disappeared. 33. wet is obviously an error for en (arising not improbably out of an intermediate There would be room for misspelling erei), and BJ's addition of Se may well be also right. and the following , but none seems admissible and perhaps there was one letter between a flaw in the papyrus. 38-40. Cf. n. on 11. 26 sqq. eKkei^ets is assured by the parallel there quoted from J and would not overload the lacuna if or encXi^t? were written, as is quite possible.

and though waxing and waning might be interpreted as referring

, .,
'
'

^,
' '

'

'

'

, *^.
. .

'

'

'

^
1

1779.
15

Psalm
X
7-7

i.

cm.

Fourth century.

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

eleventh- century cursive receives support

cf.

1226, &c.

[]
ot

Recto.
i.

10

[]
ev

Verso.

Kpiaec

ovSe a
v

q[v]

6
15
5

ay

?:

<

10.

*/3:

so the cursive 281 (Laur. v. 18, nth cent.); ? a and many cursives, including so N 281.

AR

01

aee others.

other

MSS.

1780.

THEOLOGICAL FRAGMENTS
1780.

St. John's

Gospel

viii.

25-6x8 cm.

Fourth century.

from a papyrus codex, complete at the top and bottom, but torn about half of the lines are missing on both pages. The handwriting, a handsome specimen of the biblical type, large and upright, is unlikely to be later than the fourth century. pause is sometimes marked by an increase
leaf
vertically, so that
' '

of the interval before the following letter, otherwise punctuation contractions usual in theological texts occur.

is

absent.

The

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
well be another
in

numbered

alternately in the series

left

or that they were numbered consecutively at the top

corner.

a, 4, 6, &c, Here then may

example of the system of alternate pagination which appeared cf. Part VIII, pp. 18-19. The text, like that of 847, shows a general agreement with the Codex Vaticanus.
probable
1011
;

Verso.

7repi

10

] ] ]] ] ] ]] ]
]
]

viii.

14

[ ? [
[
30

Recto.

\\

15

]]> ] ] ]

35

16

[ [ [ [
>

[[. [ \
[

[ [

19

20

THE OXYRHYNCHUS PAPYRI

[] [ ]
/
[Se

]
1

] []
[

45

25

[]
:

) [
[

]
e
1

this IS the Order of 3""5 V - ] [ W(estcott)-H(ort) and T(extus)-R(eceptus) with most MSS. so BD, W-H, T-R ; om. N. 7. Se : so BDer , T-R. 9. ; eav. with fc$ for 1 3 It is clear that the papyrus did not read (BD, W-H) and 15. Considerations of space are indecisive between (fc$, T-R), but in view of the general agreement of the papyrus with is the more probable reading. 16. There would be no room for after (D). 1 8. in brackets. so l$ c B, T-R ; om. N*D. print 21. SO BD, T-R, fc$. j emcv (fin-. so BD, W-H; T-R. further add 31. D).
:

^ (

[ \ [> [ \[ [
.

21

ev

[ [
,
short.

22

W-H

() [6] ():
:

W-H

(( () ,
W-H
line

ND

34.

The omission
:

of
;

with
T^eire

SO B,

W-H

would make the N, T-R.

unduly

36.

The

line is sufficiently filled

later uncials

by some of the
42. emev
43.

The papyrus
by
:

added

after

47.

? ]

fc$

eXeyev,

without the addition of which is read and T-R ; cf. 1. 43, n. which, though unlikely, can hardly be excluded; cf. 1. 15, n.

^)?,

after

T-R

evidently agreed with the best with inferior authority.

is

MSS.

in omitting

(}) which

is

the variant

possible though not probable.

1781.

St. John's

Gospel

xvi.

24-5x6-8 cm.

Third century.

The

following leaf from a papyrus codex evidently belonged to the same

Brit.

MS.

from which 208 (now

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

1781.

THEOLOGICAL FRAGMENTS
II, p. 2),
is

period between A. D. 200 and 300 (Part

tion that attribution, though the codex

and there is no reason to quesperhaps more likely to date from the

second half of the century than the

additions,

first.

With regard

to the corrections

and

but very similar hand, the further specimens now available rather suggest that these are due to a diorthotes rather than to the

which are

in a small

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
that

Codex Sinaiticus, but this is not apparent in 1781, so far as variants peculiar to MS. are concerned, though where is supported by one or more of the other
is

chief uncials the papyrus

in
is
11.

usually in harmony.

Coincidences with

MA are found

47, 48, with

one agreement with

;

article with

'
is

ND

in

1.

12,

with tfBD in

11.

13, 20,

with tfBC in
(1.

against the other main authorities

12, n.),

34-5. There omission of the 13,

11.

cf. 1.

omission of

in 1. 47 is apparently another omission which has hitherto depended on slight authority. The tendency to brevity, especially in omitting unnecessary pronouns, con-

31) and BCD (1. 34). An peculiar to the papyrus, and in 1. 44 there was

one with

BD

(1.

junctions,

&c,

an outstanding feature of both 208 and 1781

2,

cf.

208

Fol.

1 6,

verso. 5, 10, 11, recto. 12, 22, Fol. 2 recto. 19, verso.
12, 13, 20, 26, 38, 44, 47, 50-1,

5sqq., 12, 14-15, 17, 1781.

and nn.

[ [
5

[
[(
.
. .

[ ] ] [ ] [ [] [ [ [?] ] ]
[
[?
[
]

\ ] [) ]
]
[]

] ]
Recto.

xvi.

14

15

17

[ [

] ]

[]

[
20

[] ] [ [
[
[

[ [

THE OXYRHYNCHUS PAPYRI

[] [ ]
yapav

\ [ ] [[ ] ] ]
]]
Verso.

][

^^
2
1

25

][]
22

]8

30

[] [] [
35

[ [ [][
[]

[ [
[

yapav

23

[][]
4

[]
45 [y] a P

[][ [ [[ '[ [ [ [

>

[][

24

25

26

[[

27

1781.

THEOLOGICAL FRAGMENTS

"

[ ([
5

[
ev

tw

[ [
with

[
W-H)

[[
ews

2
ets

iSe

29

ev

3
\eis

23

ff oV

'

to read euro*

N and
or

Whether

(BDI*

others would overload the lacuna. (A, T-R) was written cannot be

determined.

W-H) suits the preceding and following i ine s, T-R). (A, length of the lacuna better than Trarepa alter 6 T-R with Al b and Others adds ort eyo> 7' length as that at the beginning of 1. 6 and shorter by only The lacuna is of the same have Perhaps there was some deletion, eg. the scribe might one letter than that in 1. 8. There is no authority for after ,, which is the order of K. write

^^^
:

()^

r (*>,

begun

the insertion of nves before

Q.

very uncertain there was perhaps a correction. 13 omitted in (D, T-R). Xeyo* not admit of 11 (NABD 2 Ib, W-H, T-R) there is clearly no room. so tf*D* ; for 12 (so B, W-H) is probable but hardly certain. That to' was omitted before ] B. \eyti (D*) is required in the lacuna ; om. or iq. Either n A, T-R, tyvo oe and K eyv<* being other variants. ey* so MBD, NAD, T-R. so B,

(, . ! ^*
to
ex.

, ,*

\]

D.

The reading after The lacuna would

is

<

^()
?

L
22
.

(\ jy
22.

W-H W-H

%ow>

j: g j.,
:

W-H
:

<

.,.. is

nhviouslv excluded.
is

A Omits

20. i//
i.e. e.

so

NBD,
first

8e

A,

T-R
perhaps due to the original scribe.

was

written.

The

correction

Cf.

1.

Whether

or

was written cannot be ascertained.

spelling, tor for ot without cancelling the original

The
1.

corrector has substituted

which

cf.

20.
:

23. <opa 25.

26.

* D.
:

0][]

27. 28.

^[7 , *
:

D.
fc$
.

places this after so NBC*D,

:

^. W-H

* wv AC
,
,

3
,

T-R.

31. apn: so

BD*,

W-H

* NACD, T-R
end of the
line as in

33. or. may have been added at the 3. a, rt is the reading of BCD,

W-H;

,,

WD

-R).

(), some later MSS.,

T-R.

12
345.
. .

THE OXYRHYNCHUS PAPYRI

.

{[

P ov

so

BC*, VV-H
.

(V

.,
before

AC'D,

T-R.
.

was originally omitted . 35. The first sentence of verse 24, ews 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 incorporated. symbol calling attention to the correction was presumably entered in the

owing

right-hand margin.
38. The line a short blank space 39 ore 41.
'.

is

sufficiently

filled

without
left after

423.
44

([ . .
fc"$*.
:

may
SO

well have

been

^.
,

(AC 3 D 2 )

(,

especially as

NABC*D, W-H

ev

C 2 T-R.

The

lacuna here
lines,

is

and following
for the latter

and

it

seems
is

of practically the same length as in the immediately preceding was omitted, and or clear that either

omission there

some authority
after

Aug.

De

Trin.).

adds

required.

,
()
,

()
may

(the cursive 36, Itala

and

this

MSS. bee, Cyril Acta 49, have been written, though not

was written cannot be decided. 45. Whether epe (ABCD) or MSS. 47. ort: on e BC*D, W-H. (): so N*A ; C 3 and others, T-R ;

48.

SO

AC T-R;
2
,

BC*, W-H.
is

D OmitS

[7/#
50-1.
51. (v

(],
:

D.
the original reading,
is

that of

BC*D*, W-H;

inserted above the line,

may

added by AC S D 2 T-R. have been omitted, with A.

. ,

which has been

1782.

DlDACHE
Fol. 2

i-iii.

Two
the

vellum leaves, containing a few verses from the

now making
leaves,

may
the

its appearance for which are a good deal worn and discoloured, are detached, but originally well have formed a single sheet, since the two interior edges follow roughly

,
Fol.
1

5-8x5,

5-7x4-8.

Late fourth century.

first

three chapters of

supposed by some to be of Egyptian origin and the first time in an Egyptian manuscript. The

same contour.

In that case the quire included five sheets at

1

least,

eight

leaves being required for the matter intervening between Fol.

recto,

verso and Fol. 2

and would be more

likely to

have consisted of the unusual number of eight

sheets, for the leaves.

3^ verses lost before Fol. 1 recto would occupy only three more This latter inference would of course be invalidated if the Didache was

preceded by some other treatise, but the supposition of a large total number of leaves does not well accord with their proportions, which are remarkably small
smaller even than in 840.

The book

to which they belonged was one of the

miniature volumes which seem to have been often preferred for theological works,

though not limited to that

class of literature

(cf. e. g.

P.

Rylands

I.

28).

It

may

1782.

THEOLOGICAL FRAGMENTS

13

perhaps date from the fourth century rather than the fifth. The hand is a medium-sized informal uncial, at its best somewhat similar to that e.g. of 1618 and the Cairo Menander on Fol. 1 recto it is markedly larger and more irregular
;

than on the other three pages. That the writer was a person of no great culture is clear also from his spelling and division of words (e. g. at \$). the end of a line is commonly represented by a horizontal stroke above the preceding vowel, and the usual abbreviation of occurs. There is no punctuabut 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
tion,

,
'

poor state of preservation of the upper margins. The Didache has been preserved in a single
the eleventh

MS. (M)

of the middle of
edited

century, discovered at Constantinople

It
is

by Bryennios and

supposed by Harnack to have taken its present shape about the middle of the second century {Lehre der zwolf Apostel, pp. 159 sqq.), but to have an older text, based ultimately on Jewish elements, behind it (cf. Gesch. d. altchristl. Litt. I. i. 86-7) and he finds indications of an earlier

by him

in

1883.

recension in the

by

Bickell, its first editor, the

(.

T. extra Canonem)

'

Duae

a treatise called Apostolische Kirchenordnung and by Hilgenfeld Viae vel Iudicium Petri ', as well as in an old Latin
' '

,
is
it is

translation of

Didache i-vi (the

i.

Two Ways')
d.

edited in 1900

by

J.

Schlecht, in

both of which Did.

in the fourth

3II.

1 is

omitted, though that omission

may be
281).

otherwise

explained (Gebhardt, ap. Harnack, Lehre

zwolf Apost.,

p.

But that

century at any rate the Didache stood practically as found in was sufficiently indicated by the Apostolic Constitutions, a compilation generally

supposed to have originated in Syria or Palestine between about A. D. 340 and 380, in the seventh book of which the Didache has been largely drawn upon.
In the existing paucity of evidence for the text, any addition
is

a comparison of these early Oxyrhynchus fragments with

corresponding passages of the Apostolic Constitutions
to
find

welcome, and and with the

Separated as they are in date by some eight centuries,

several

an interesting study. is hardly surprising

offers

variations

between

and 1782, which

one or two

remarkable new readings.

i of the words which form a transition to the abrupt of the Other noteworthy variants are the omission of accepted text. Const. Apost.) in i. 4, and of in iii. 1, the insertion of in iii. 1, and the substitution of for in iii. 2. How should these novelties be appraised ? The two last are not very convincing, and

the third and fourth verses of chap,

, ,
for
in
i.

Of

these the most striking

the insertion between

4 certainly does not

inspire confidence.

On

the other

14

THE OXYRHYNCHUS PAPYRI

intelligible the
.
. .

strange variation there between

hand the omission of a second adjective in i. 4 renders more and Const. Apost*, and
Perhaps, then,

does
(op.
cit.

not look like an interpolation.

p. 172) that there is

Harnack's statement

not the slightest trace of any alteration in the Didache during

its

the two centuries which elapsed between

Apostolic Constitutions
relation of

composition and embodiment

in the

may now

need some qualification.

to

Const. Apost., though in cases of divergence the former has

generally the support of 1782, there are

latter in
i.

3,

occurs with

Be 'for be

. ,

.
for

two unexpected agreements with the

Similarly, one coincidence
Viae) against

and
(Hilgenfeld's

for

Dnae

.
R9 V

With regard

to the

and Const. Apost.,

which

maybe
is

correct; a reading which Hilgenfeld ventured

to adopt from that source

not, however, confirmed.

In the appended collation the texts as given

utilized,

by Harnack,
is

op. cit.,

have been

together with H. Lietzmann's convenient edition of the Didache (Kleine

Texte

6), in

which a reprint of Schlecht's Latin version

Fol.

added

to the apparatus.

.
Verso.
. 4

Recto.
i.

not
10

? ??
15 Fol.
2.

[]

([]
?
.
7

8e

Recto.

25

?
[[

Verso.

70

"^

]]

?
111.

>>>>>>>>>>>>

?
iii.

30

1782.
2.

THEOLOGICAL FRAGMENTS
cf.

hand Const. Apost.

instead of

M, and so also Matt. v. 44, Luke vi. 27, Gospel so Const. Apost. ; 4 according to the Egyptians, and Justin, Apol. i. 15. Const. Apost. ** is also the order of 7. there is nothing corresponding to these words in or Const. 8-12 aKove . : For cf. e. g. Apost., which pass abruptly tO
I

:
5
2

).
(vii.
.

1)

have

Matt. V. 47 yap oi

Cor.

V.

,13.

,
14.

Apost.

.(
nvevpa

.()

, .
\
oi

15
;

On
i.

the Other

and so

Justin, Apol.

15 (with

(\\

eV

'.
The
;

{*)
5,

Const. Apost.
:

present tense

was adopted by Bryennios and preferred by Harnack (pp.

it

however hesitated to accept

in his text

cf.

Titus

The variation in and Clem. XVU. 3 Const. Apost. as to the second epithet may perhaps be regarded as an argument for its omission with 1782, which has also in its favour the analogy of 1 Pet. ii. 11

.,.\ .
is
ii.

expected.

.
.
.

Const.

172) who

12

(,

8e fXeyetr The , though little of it remains, is practically certain, and so from is therefore excluded. which Hilgenfeld inserted after Const. Apost. (vii. 5), like M, make no reference to eXeoy, but are here rather compressed. Both and 8e have 16-17. { ) * SO was inadvertently repeated in turning over the page. There seem to be traces 2 3of a bracket after the 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. may have been inserted om. M, Const. Apost., 24. (cf. the opposite rendering of the Latin ad to obviate the ambiguity in gender of homine malo), but on the other hand the homoeoteleuton would make the loss easy.
1 6.
:

. .

..

. ., ..

'.

..

25.
26.

SO

,..

28.

(
:

SO

,. 8(
'.

,
.

Const. Apost.

Const. Apost.,

. 4.
,.
and
ix.

so Lat. quia

the epexegetic clause,

Const. Apost.
.
.

Const. Apost. omit duett', otyyu yap occurs three times in verses 4-6 of this chapter.
;

1783.

Hermas,

Pastor,

6x9-3 cm
This fragment, the fourth

Early fourth century.

from the Shepherd to be obtained from Oxyrhynchus (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 The hand is a round upright uncial of medium size and rather at 13 cm. 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.

1.

4.

6tos

and

Kvpios are contracted as usual, but not

5)

i6

THE OXYRHYNCHUS PAPYRI

The
leaf
is is

direction,
It

so

much

a palimpsest, but the original text, which ran in the reverse obliterated that its identity has not yet been established.

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
.

\[3,

approximately contemporary with 1172 and 1599, and It is not free from errors (e.g. shows a text of a somewhat similar type. in several places it is superior to the Codex Athous, here the 11. 5, 6), but 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
This fragment
is

a fragment printed from an early MS. by J. E. Grabe, Spicil. ss. Patrutn, i, In the p. 303 (ed. 2), and extracts found in Ps.-Athanasius and Antiochus.

below the transcript of the Codex Athous given by K. Lake in Facs. of the A thos fragments of the Shepherd of Hennas has been utilized, besides the editions of Gebhardt-Harnack and Hilgenfeld.
collation

[] [ ?
Recto.
.

?
]
6.

. SO recent edd. with Grabe's fragment ; Ant(iochus), Athan(asius) Cod. Guelf. Cod. Paris.). so Athan. Cod. Guelf., &c. 2. ca Grabe's fragment). yap ca, omitting 6 6eos, which Hilgenfeld and Gebhardt-Harnack 4. add from Grabe's fragment, Ant., Athan., both Latin versions, and the Aethiopic. with ca and Grabe's fragment the omission of oi (due no doubt 5. 1. to the termination of is found also in Ant. and Athan. Grabe's fragment adds
ca,
(eZy)

[] ? .. )
:
:

? ^^
?
(()
:

Maud.

15

? ?

[ ?? ?
Verso.
;

Mand.

[]

( ^.

( (
(((
OCCUrS elsewhere Only in Polyb.

12. 5 in a passive sense.

15.

!
after

ca,

&C

so ca, Hilgenfeld, Gebhardt-Harnack;

xl.

Athan. Cod. Paris.

; '

1783.
eav
:

THEOLOGICAL FRAGMENTS

17
;

so Gebhardt-Harnack with Athan. Cod. Paris., the older Latin, and the Aethiopic
ca,

ca, Hilgenfeld.
1

6.

Athan. Cod. Paris.

17.

8e

so edd. with Athan. Cod. Paris., the Palatine Latin, and Aethiopic
:

18.

ovStv
;

20.

01

so ca, Ant.

Athan. Cod. Paris. as Athan. Cod. Paris., om. Cod. Guelf.

ca,

om.

ca.

1784.

CONSTANTINOPOLITAN CREED/
65 X
19-8 cm.
Fifth century.

This copy of the so-called Constantinopolitan Creed, which as being an enlargement of the Nicene Creed has commonly passed under the latter name, is published in P. Rylands I. 6. It is still older than that of the Nicene Creed
written in an upright semicursive

of the

fifth

century.

common
ments of

abbreviation of
this period

contracted, but not

,,
(cf. e.

In

1.

is

g.

hand which may be referred to the second half and a is written as a semicircle above the and are used in 1. 6. ($, and , as often happens in docuor 1130, which is approximately contemporary), are
of

,,

?
'

repeatedly interchanged.

Creed are obscure. According to Nicephorus (Hist. Eccles. 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.

The

origins of this

xii. 13) it

'

J?

[] cva

"[[e]]?

^^

4. 6((o)v
first

:
:

[]

[]
this

ks

\[] [] [ []
Si

[ [

[]
eyei>e

sight like

form of the ace. is a vulgarism common from the Roman period. has been written over an original s, which being in darker ink looks the later letter, but that this appearance is deceptive is shown by
the

\\.

at

i8

THE OXYRHYNCHUS PAPYRI

Homilies

1785.
Frs. 2

+3
The

6-6xi38cm.

Fifth century.

A fragmentary papyrus leaf, apparently

at

present remain anonymous.

style of Frs.

from a collection of discourses which 2-4 recto, concerning con-

is cited, recalls that of 1603, (Pseudo-)Chrysostom In decollationem. recursorts (Aoy. 6), but efforts to trace 1785 among the works of that voluminous author have so far not been successful. Other fragments of homilies cast in a somewhat similar mould are 1601-2. That the several fragments, of which a few are too insignificant

cupiscence, of which a series of Biblical instances

identified as

now

to be worth printing, are

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 at Fr. 1 verso. 7 the hand changes, and from this point uncials of medium size onwards approximates to cursive. Apparently 11. 5-6 are remains of a heading, and 11. 7 sqq., where the second hand begins, are a fresh discourse, which fifthis of a hortatory description and relates to reverence and godly fear.
all
;

century date seems to be indicated, more especially by the second hand.

ink throughout
is

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,
of the

where also a high stop

is

once found (Fr.

recto. 7).

Fr.

recto.

] ] 8]
]
.

]
]

[
[

aOeos

,[
[
[,]
]

[
. [

][ ]

[
[

1785.

THEOLOGICAL FRAGMENTS
Frs.

19

] ] []
2-4
16 letters

recto.

][][ ]<[ [][ [][] [

[

]?

]
.

] ]

? []? \\\"\
]

] [],
]#[

1/
]<

[]

~
>

[][ \
[?
[]

[][ ]

\]
ay

?]

[....].

18 letters

][

25
15

\[

[
[.
.

Fr. 4

27

Fr. 5.

][
Fr.

"
]vpv[

verso.

] ^_

][ []
C 2

,[
[

THE OXYRHYNCHUS PAPYRI

2nd hand
]
.

o[.

,][

]erre/x7r[

Frs. 2-4 verso.

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

7[
.

.]

[.

.]

, .[]<
KVy

.]
VY
[.]
.
.

[] \ (? [] [ [ [] [][
1 7 letters
]o
.

]ov

[.
. .

[.]

ks

[.

[]

[.]

[.

[.

.]

Se

([.
.

.]

ev
. .

],
.

.]

e[.

,]
.

totucl<t\.
.
.

,][

[.
[

.]

.]
.

yei/effty
.]

[]*[.]

Fr. 1
7.

recto.

That

this

fragment

is

to be placed

above Fr.

is

shown by

the change of

hand on the

verso.
first letter

The

line represent a
;

otherwise
8.
#(<-o)s is

[]

must be a, rough breathing,

or , and if, as seems probable, the vestiges above the or is indicated, the word following perhaps being

could well be read.

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 but it is rather farther away from the than would be expected, and with the stop above the line would also be superfluous; cf. however Frs. 2-4 verso. 7, where a somewhat similar stroke occurs apparently as a mark of punctuation.
doubtful, the cross-bar of

Fr.

4,

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

a of

Either be preferred if
3.

[\[ []
in
1.

ii, is less clear.

[\(([
:

or

(cf.

1.

4)

is

probable and the former must

is right.

is

the spelling of
1.

BAQ

rescr.

so the

LXX in

Gen. xxxix.

1785.

THEOLOGICAL FRAGMENTS
to
is

21
At the end

][ |
5-6.

The

incident
is

referred

related in

Judges xix-xx.
is

very conjectural, especially as there

barely

room

for [Xot] before

in

1.

6.

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

perhaps supplied in the margin. referring to Matt. xi. 23, but may be 8. Dr. Bartlet suggests that . . this can only be restored on the assumption of a misspelling. is not evident. 11. The explanation of the dash between the e and | of may be , e. g. a\\\a o]. of There is a hole in the papyrus immediately below it.
.

,[ (.
[]([8][
is

,
of
1.

Pr. 5. 3. unconvincing.

combination with Frs. 2-4.

1.

possible,

though

Fr. 1 verso.
6. e. g. v,

4.

The

latter part

of

this line

Whether part of an oblique stroke immediately

or

has apparently been washed out. after the lacuna belongs to a

letter,

some

other sign
verso. 1-2.

is

doubtful.

The margin being lost both here and in 11. 7-9, the point at began, though fixed with probability, is not quite certain. of has been corrected, perhaps from . 7. a form found in some MSS. of Philostratus 8. or possibly 705, which would suit the space rather better than 10-13. The letters ] e|[, [ in 11. io-n, and 11. 12-13 are on Fr. 4 which is In 1. 10 the signs resembling inverted doubtfully placed; cf. note on Frs. 2-4 recto. commas above (or ?) may perhaps be regarded as marks of cancellation.
Frs.

2-4

which the

lines

[][

[][,

[][.

1786.

Christian

Hymn with Musical

29-6
5 cm.

Notation.
Plate
1.

Late third century.

This interesting fragment of what is by far the most ancient piece of Church music extant, and may be placed among the earliest written relics of Christianity, is contained on the verso of a strip from an account of corn, mentioning several Oxyrhynchite villages and dating apparently from the first half of the third
century, though later than the Constitutio Antoniniana, since

some of the persons

named

are Aurelii.

The

text on the verso

is

written in long lines parallel with

the fibres in a clear upright hand which approximates to the literary type but includes some cursive forms, e. g. the e of [Yjarepa in 1. 4. Above each line of
text the corresponding vocal notes have been added in a

more

cursive lettering,

whether by the same hand or another

is

not easy to determine.

The

character

of both scripts appears to point to a date in the latter part of the third century

rather than the early decades of the fourth.

This

hymn was
vi. 8,

accordingly written

before either P.

Amh.

2 or Berl. Klassikertexte VI.

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

is

fairly

clear.

and 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.
called

Creation at large
Spirit,

upon

to join in a chorus of praise to Father, Son,

Holy

'

by the character of the handwriting is reflected in purely quantitative and uninfluenced by accent. Owing to the mutilation of the fragment the metrical scheme cannot be closely followed,
early date indicated
is

The

the metre, which

but the rhythm was apparently anapaestic and

may

be analysed as a series of

dimeters, either acatalectic, catalectic, or brachycatalectic.

short syllable

is

allowed to replace a long at the end of a colon, and the first syllable of is lengthened metri gratia. It is noticeable that the metre of both P. Amh. 2 and Berl. lass. VI. vi. 8 is analogous, and the anapaestic measure thus seems to have

been a favourite one with early Christian hymnologists in the Berlin hymn, pairs of cola formed a system.

in

Egypt.

Perhaps, as

musical notation is generally similar to that found in the rather earlier papyrus published by Schubart in Sitzungsber. preuss. Akad. 191 8, pp. 763 sqq., the text of which has been revised and discussed by Th. Reinach in Revue ArcheOlogique, 1919, pp. n-27, an<^ nas been arranged in modern style by Prof. A. Thierfelder. 1 The notes which can be recognized with certainty are eight,

The

e.

These

all

occur in the Diatonic Hypolydian key of Alypius,

;

to which Reinach assigns also the

Paean of the Berlin papyrus that, however, is more probably to be regarded as in the Iastian key. As for the mode, there can be little doubt that it is the Hypophrygian or Iastian, as in the Epitaph of Seikilos and the Hymn to Nemesis of Mesomedes; cf. Gevaert, La milopie antique, pp. 48 sqq. With regard to the character of the syllables and the corresponding notes, Reinach has observed that in the Berlin Paean a barytone syllable is always sung on a lower note than the succeeding accented final syllable, and that a circumflexed syllable has two notes at least. Neither of these observations holds in the case of 1786, and the former indeed can hardly be maintained of the Paean either. On the other hand, two notes are assigned to a short syllable in one instance at
least
(1.

4).
all

In addition to the notes five signs are used,

the Berlin papyrus.
1

of

which are found also

in

(1)

horizontal stroke
renewed with
severity

is

placed above notes attached to

xl.

Paean and

Tek??iessa (Leipzig),

by Schroder, Berl. Phil. Woch.

351.

1786.
syllables
(2)

THEOLOGICAL FRAGMENTS
(for

23
1.

which are long or scanned as such

in
(3)
is

a possible exception see

2, n.).

curved stroke or hyphen, as

are to be regarded as legato.

line with the musical notes,

modern notation, is written below notes that symbol like a half-circle, written in the same

to be explained with Reinach as a form of

signifying a

a sign given

by Bellermann's

Anonymus 102 and

or rest.

According to the same ancient authority the duration of the pause was increased by the addition of various marks of length, and in 1786 0, i. e. a double There is regularly used, whereas in the Berlin text the bare symbol only occurs.
are three instances of

,
I.e.,

a fourth which

it (11. 2, 3, 4) corresponding with the metrical divisions expected at the end of 1. 4 possibly stood at the beginning of The purpose of (4) the colon (:), which is sometimes placed in front of a note 1. 5. Reinach (p. 14) says that this is peculiar to or group of notes, is not very clear.
;

is

the instrumental portions of the Berlin papyrus, and regards it as a diastoli or But the same sign is to be recognized more sign of division between two cola.

than once

among
;

the vocal notes of the Paean also, and in 1786

separation of cola.
in

it

has evidently
it

nothing to do with the

According to Thierfelder,

some way. (5) A means two beats at any rate, it probably affects the time single dot is frequently placed above the notes, and according to the anonymous authority cited above this means arsis
:

f]

'

,,

(3, 85).

,
Some

critics

have con-

sidered that in that passage the terms

others, e.g.
Blass, Bacchylides, p.
1

(so

have become transposed, too Reinach, p. 6, n.), maintain its

and

Professor Stuart Jones observes, the fact that here, as in the correctness. is dotted, looks like a confirmation Berlin papyrus, the symbol for the this however, if the metre of 1786 is rightly of the latter view. Apart from

As

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. might possibly Rainer, v. 65 sqq.). The dot associated with the then be accounted for by catalexis. Unfortunately the Berlin papyrus throws
little

on the problem, a consistent interpretation of the dots there having Schroder, Berl. Phil. Woch. xl. 352, thinks that in the be found. yet to fragments arsis is plainly meant. Both he and Thierfelder, who second of the takes them to denote ictus, profess to distinguish two kinds of dot, a heavy and a light, but the distinction is probably imaginary. transcription in modern notation has been kindly supplied by Professor
light

H. Stuart Jones.

24

THE OXYRHYNCHUS PAPYRI

31 letters
]

'
]

^
[.]
.

]|

28 letters
L

/>]>>77

^
:{c

[7]
I

:t|c

' *

]/[

_
:gi
f
:

:|

)!/

'
OR
:

i[Tj"

?S

'
? ///
].

?[

|>

^-- --

- #=
]

=t=rff*-*

--

>
Ut-

^
-

=fe

=Q=

ea

[(-]4

[] ...
-\-

w%

&

'

7
:/
-

re

^
=
8-

&=
-

=
I-

'

aeggzg

r
-

p=r-T^^^==^g=^=^
-- --

1786.

THEOLOGICAL FRAGMENTS
' ---

25

H-

m^r-

m
T1J

g=f=
pi
/xo -

as
=

42=

a a musical notation are visible above this line. Only slight vestiges of the unexpected and the mark of length on the second ?: the word is somewhat 2. the fact that the , has been this may possibly be connected with syllable is a difficulty, but and common. To suppose that The occurrence of for is corrected from v.
-

_^^^ -r

>.

ya

that

&

very doubtful ; the initial letter may be 8* . example occurs in the papyrus, no other the end of the line ; or if might stand at andTnother
is

7<t}<U}e<ov
e
3.

:
r

lJU!

or

is

much more

difficult.
is

the surface above the note

damaged, and a dot has probably

imnerative this P

to what follows. .. preceding mention of (sc n^d, or something similar), with a Perhaps J] (or *?) is for a convincing restoration. the sea, but the uncertainties are too many po6W or f. suggesting y or r, and the doubtful P may be

^ > belong mav

^
.

dis-

of which or x and I may be can be constructed with is rightly taken as an .

,

<

{]

m^

Stowed by
iS

a vertical stroke

notes on *, the papyrus haying been regular are carried on rm* to j rubbed here. no if there were jtHj"succession to those of the preceding words, as A dot above the syllable of the first dot is most probably lost above the second

A dot is^proSably to be restored above the

The dots on the notes from

MSwSr f ^. ,, .
Tabove
xxiv.

the . of
is
:

rm

in

1.

3) is

the right of the note

29

ol

of ife

than usual and very uncertain,

cf.

fa*,
:

also n.

on 1.

5) and sometimes

more ignored in the transcription, since it is The note would also interrupt the sequence isused of he avenly bodies (e g. of angels, but may here be quite

. I

g%
Ma

gen6

the upper is very doubtfully deciphered ; the line of notes the second group is rathe to have disappeared, and the lower one dot of the supposed colon must be supposed suggest nothing bu but they The "vLiges might be regarded as a single letter farge occur elsewhere in the a father unsatisfactory a, which does not and others above dot may be lost above the mark of length extraneous to the mode. the surface is a good deal rubbed syllable of and the .over the second

t' In

-to

P~

"^^
is

;
^

hereabouts

^ oj/a)j but In the preceding lacuna the doubtful though some such the last fcree were *n indicate a loss of seven syllables, of which just possible necessary for the metre and it is perhaps more syllable at least, however, seems rather broad space and he surface where there is a that a note is missing between a and r, ^wanted (or ) Something, like vyu & is not well preserved. *e service W) morning

mut^s
cf

* word

^^

^j

highly

demanded by the

sense.

a,W

e g. the eleventh prayer in the

rf K al

Greek

. *

> , AW

, (,
double

** .^
?
at the

"?

The

end

ot the

line appears to be extra melrutn.

26

THE OXYRHYNCHUS PAPYRI

II.

NEW

CLASSICAL FRAGMENTS
1787.
Fr.

Sappho, Book
15.9x9.4 cm.

iv.

Third century.
(Frs.
i

Plate
9).

+ 2,

distinct

The authorship of the following fragments, being (with P. S. I. 123) the sixth papyrus of Sappho so far obtained from Oxyrhynchus, is established by

one certain and two other probable coincidences with lines previously extant some isolated words attributed by Grammarians to Sappho also occur. To which
of the available books among the nine of her lyrics they belonged is uncertain, but they may be assigned With some probability to the fourth. The metre is apparently the same throughout, a two-line strophe consisting of a repetition of
the verse ^ u/w ^^ ^ _ ^_^ which Hephaestion 64 describes as an Ionic a maiore tetrameter acatalectic, adding that it was called from its frequent use by Sappho, from whom he cites Frs. 76-7 as examples. Similar two-line strophes are described by Hephaest. in, 1 16-17, according to whom Sappho's second and third books consisted entirely of such systems,
Vrf
v

Book

ii

containing
cf.

poems

in

the

^^ ^^: ^^ v^:

Hephaest.

42),

Book

iii

of the
fifth

(^ ^ ^ w <^ ww
<~>

w
in

Hephaest.

60).

Since the

book was of a

different character,
it,

consisting partly, at

any
it

rate, if the Berlin

fragments belonged to

of

poems

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 tetrameter that Sappho and with the not inconsiderable remains
;

strophes of three lines,

of the present papyrus.

But

it is

of course quite possible that

poems

in similar

metres

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
(cf. e.

g.

Sapph.

60, 62)

1787.

NEW

CLASSICAL FRAGMENTS

27

is together with a quantity of other lyric fragments in an identical hand. There pieces which cannot be assigned to one MS. or the other a number of smaller 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.

revised text of P. Halle 2, the source of

reference. which now becomes evident, is included for the sake of convenient by a dishonest workman That fragment was no doubt abstracted and sold 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 Stops in the high slope; that of 1788 is in many respects very similar. diaeresis position occur, and accents, breathings, and marks of elision, quantity, and 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

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 to connects the parts of a compound word in Fr. 9. 4. Paragraphi are employed
rarer

and a coronis to indicate the conclusion The few interlineations occurring seem all to proceed from the of a poem. many of the original scribe, who may also be credited with at any rate

mark

offstrophic couplets

(cf.

1233.

1. ii)

diacritical signs.

Remains of
represented
is

eight

poems

at least

can be distinguished, and the number

no doubt considerably larger than this. It is noticeable that three with E, but out of the four poems of which the initial letter has survived begin
the fact that in Fr.
3.
ii

is

an alphabetical arrangement, is except in one pieces there is not much to be said, since their severe mutilation, followed with precision, and or two cases, prevents the line of thought from being Fr. 1 gives the restoration cannot be attempted with any real chance of success. on the advance ends of lines of a poem of some length in which Sappho dwells declaration, in two of age and the inevitable approach of death, passing on to a have the^ accomverses cited by Athenaeus, that to be desirable life must for her

succeeded by O, while not definitely excluding Of the individual certainly not in favour of it.

and beauty splendour paniments of delicacy included two complete poems, of six and five The second column of Fr. 3 the poet's couplets respectively, in the former of which several persons, perhaps being an invocation, tantalizingly mutilated, companions, were addressed, the other Sappho herself is addressed by name, as in Sapph. 1 and 59 In Fr. sleep.

[),

),

( ).

4 and Berk Klassikertexte, V.

to
in

xiii. 2.

Fr. 6

Sappho

as

common

in Alcaeus.

notable for a political reference, rare Apparently some one is reproached for
is

with having chosen 'friendship with the daughters of the house of Penthilus',

28

THE OXYRHYNCHUS PAPYRI

birds,

which the sweet song, the melody of

following lines, are contrasted.
poet's circle,

and the dewy

leaves,

spoken of

in

the

The

offender had perhaps been a

member
(1.

of the
Fr. 6

and

is

warned that she would no longer be welcome

a, n.).

. ][
]
]

Fr.

3(4

*
eiK

...... ][
Frs. i

+ 2.

Plate II.

]
[

][.][.]
.

]. ]\'>>&'
.

15

] }
]

] ]'
][.]
][.)

][ "\. .]<.

][

] ] ]
]va

][.

.]

])^

][

20

] ][ ]
]
.

25

[ [
[
.

....
]
.

[.

.]

196537
1787.

NEW

CLASSICAL FRAGMENTS

29

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

Fr. 2 (a).

Frs.

+ 2.

Plate II.

]\<raa[
]

]rf'
[
.

*/"
IK

va

][
]

[
[.
.
.

\ ]
]*

][.]

,]

\
]
]

]\ ]
.',
]

[\[]
pas

ncuSes

/ ^
.
.

kykvo\vro

' ]
] ]

' []
;

. ] ] ]
]ais
] ]

yds

25

[\[
^
,

pcay

\ []
[

23 letters
[

THE OXYRHYNCHUS PAPYRI

Fr. 3.

Col.

i.

Col.

ii.

~"
j

].

5
.

)v?

]
].
]
1

[.)&

=.

t5

]/
]

2
1

^;^/[
yetOiTo5e/zoi[
L
-ft-

^7)[.
L

[ >>[ [\'[ '> 7)[ \[

.

[ [ ^'^ [ [
[.]//[

[ [ [
-t-f-

[ [
r

]rjpoa'

Fr 4

Fr. 5.

<?7*[

$6 ?

.][ [.]6[
[.

[.]'

1787.

NEW

CLASSICAL FRAGMENTS
Fr. 3.

Col.

i.

Col.

ii.

yap
]

*[e

J77?
]
.

*
[

[
.

\[
...]..[
eiaaiov

[.
'
ay

\ ()[ [ []('

['

'

15 "Ovoipe

[ [] '
\

' -

]
Fr. 4.

yap

ykvovro

[
[
[.

[ [
[

[.

Fr. 5.

.]

]PAte [

]\[

[] 6[
.

[]

32
[.]po
.

THE OXYRHYNCHUS PAPYRI

5

[
[
*(>[

[ [,][
[

[ [.][

[ \[
ovSevn6\v[.]e
\A vS '4i

TolfaiTiovovT[

]'

][.
][.
][.

][

.]> ][ ]''[
.

.]'[

] ] .][

Fr. 6.

][
19

][.][
Fr.

\* ][
]
.

]\[ ]$[.] ] [ ][ ][
.
.

[ ']
Fr. 7.

']'[

[.

.][

]>[

~]

],[

][
[

][.]6[
]ep[

]{ ]'[
Fr.
9

Plate II.

]a0eiaev[

][
}[

]irape[

[.]po

,[
1787.
.

NEW
0[

CLASSICAL FRAGMENTS

<

[][
6\
[

' '
[]' [

[
[
[

33

[.]e
[

[6]$
kvv

'[
?

]e\a[.".
]>

0iXor[ar]

] []'' [$
]

] ' ^
]

Fr. 6.

Fr.

'

'

[]
}

*]'

[[
'

[]~~[

][ ] [
\$
]

'

\[
['.]
.

]
]

]
]

] [
]

][

Fr. 8.

]
]epa

Fr.

] ]'
][

<re[

] ? ]/9[]>
[

[
9

/ \[

<5e

]aOeiaev[

][

34

THE OXYRHYNCHUS PAPYRI

Fr. 10. Fr.

.
[

Fr. 12.

][
]
.

ovav[

][ \
.

][

3# !?

]/[

][
]erep7T[

] ]
]
Fr. 14.
]/*
.*[

]7[
]

]8v\oyoL$'p[

0[
.

5
[

]7?[

}(4&

][

][
Fr. 15.

Fr. 13.

][
][
;

][ ']\[
}
. .

]^'[

]70[
]7<5/[
5
]
.

][
]
.

]-[[.

7[
s
.

ar6/ja[

]\[

to

][ ]\[
][
].['

][ }[
].[

)[

[.}[

}8[

}[
Fr. 16.

}[
[

Fr. 17.

]
.

]//9[
]

]//[
]

][

1787.

NEW

CLASSICAL FRAGMENTS
Fr.

35

Fr. 10.

Fr. 12.

] ) ]
]
.

ovav[
ovSe[
i>/)[0

[ ]
]>
]?

][
]11/

aXXoi

][
.

a]is

eva

]
]

' [
][

'

]
?
]
]

[0
[
[
.

] 60
]

^ [
[

0[

]?

Fr. 13.

Fr. 14.

Fr. 15.

][
]r<5'

]tos
[

][ ']'
]

e2/x'

4[
]

][ [
.

]
.

U7ra[

]
]?
] ]
)

[ ]

]ey
]

[
[

[[ [
'
.

[ [
ea[

][
Fr. 17.

'

[
[ [ [

]re

[
]
.

Fr. 16.

.][

[
2

]
)

[
.

][
]

]ev6[

][

36

THE OXYRHYNCHUS PAPYRI

Fr. 20.

Fr.

1 8.

Fr. 19

Col.

i.

Col.

ii.

][ ][
.

ovSe[

a
]

]>[
]*[
1 .

]8 5
.

<[ [

[.]'^prt

]
1

]77'[

'

[
.

]>
Fr.

2.
'

Fr. 22.

Fr. 23.

Fr. 24.

Fr. 25.

-7

4
[

[
[

e]A

/
f *

_[
L

[
[

4
5

r.[

[ [ [

!
Fr. 29.

Fr. 26.

Fr. 27.

Fr. 28.

][

][].[
]
.

][
]v/uav
. [

~\
5
.

][
[

[
.

]/[

][.][

][

][
]<*[
5

]>[
3

5
]

]/#[
t/i ei
[

]<[

][ ][
][

][

][
3-4

1787.

NEW

CLASSICAL FRAGMENTS
Fr. 19.
Col.
i.

37

Fr

2 -

Fr.

Col.

ii.

]
]
.

*[
[ [
[

)
)
[]

1
]

)'

0
1

" 67

^ ]

VX^DH

< ]
.

5
.

^
?[

""

*""
[ [

******
Fr.22.
Fr. 23.

Fr.ai.

Fr. 24.

Fr. 25.

5
5

...
.

[
Fr. 29.

Fr.26.

Fr.2 7

Fr. 28.

]a/xot[

][ ]/> ] [4>[
]

]*
]9

] }[

[ [
[

][
]ey

[
[
.

J ]

]/7[
]77^
5 ]'

]
[
]

>'"'
[

\-

][
]/[

]*
]**

[ [

].[

]*

38

THE OXYRHYNCHUS PAPYRI

Fr. 31 Fr. 30.

Col.

i.

Col.

ii.

Fr. 32.

][
>l
[

]<
].
]

][
]
.

[.]

{[

C*i

]irav[

Fr. 33.

]^[
]<[
5
]'[

I'Afct
]<#

Fr. 34.
Col.
'

Fr 35
i.

Fr. 36.
Col.
ii.

e[

_L

]A'av#i/ie[

[
5
[

]>'[
r

>

]8[
]ayape>ca[

]#?/?0?[

>
5

e{_

ft

37

Fr. 38.

Fr. 39.

Fr. 40.

]>[ ]'7;[

][
.

"]

1787.

NEW
Col.

CLASSICAL FRAGMENTS
Fr. 3 1
i.

39
Fr. 32.

Fr. 30.

Col.

ii.

][ ]
]

]>
].r
]

]e\

jay

)..[

[
.

[.]

ya/x[

>f

>

>r

Fr. 33-

, , }[ [
]

[ ]
[
Col.

Tr\ep6t&\& eparacs

(?)

Fr. 34.
Col.
i[

Fr
i.

35
ii.
.

Fr
.

3*
.

1
'

M
[

^Se*{

wi/ 5'

) [][

[
4
k[. .]

a5 &

oS[

]'
]

]
?
] ]

[
5

[ 4
Fr

*[ \& ^ ^ *[

[
40.

Fr. 37

Fr S8

39

Fr

]a>v

]/

][
]
6

ol

]{

]
]
.

f[

] ][ ...
.

THE OXYKHYNCHUS PAPYRI

[

]ai>apTe[ii[

...
If?"'^

}>[
Fr. 41.

] ]
. .
.

Ff

42.

Fr. 43.

][

][
1

3*[

[.]
.

roA/^[

Fr.

44

Halle a (Dikaiomata, pp. 182

].[ "\'6 ]
.
.

]* '/ [ ][ ][

]
.

sqq.).

^[

]50//>[

][

Fr. 45

Frs. 1 + 2.

8.

The end

letter following 6v

of this line is difficult. Either ]aV or av may be read, and the has a rounded base which, if the line is to scan, seems consistent only

[ ] [
]\[
Fr. 41.
?

1787.

NEW
}

CLASSICAL FRAGMENTS
.

41
]

....
Fr. 42-

Fr 43

]
3

][
[

)[
}.[
.

[.]8

}{
. .

]<We[
5

Fr.
]

44

P.

Halle

2.

] ]
]

'
]

[ ^ [
] '4 '
]

6]

[()

]
][

with

or

The

division

though perhaps there has been some

2[ [\>
is

Fr. 45-

thus suggested, but neither

nor []

is

satisfactory,

alteration.

42
9.

THE OXYRHYNCHUS PAPYRI

[][] or [][] appears

as a
2.
is

inevitable

the latter suits the size of the lacuna the

better of the two.

synonym of
1231. 14.
8, n.

has not occurred previously.

Cf.

Ale. 35.

ws

perhaps to be recognized also in Babrius 115. 4. 12. The words occurred at the end of a Sapphic line cf. 1. 17, where there is a similar doublet of 1231. 1. i. 33, and Fr. 7. 3.

..
11.

gen. plur.

,
IO92

cf.

For

cf.

Orion

28. 15 (Sapph. 169)

where

should

now be

restored.

The doubled
in

is

was rather

forgetful, or she did not

mind repeating
Tjji/'

herself.

13 Cf. Soph. Ant.

14. yova

cf.

Ale. 39. 7 yova

e<

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

,
line,

1231. 10. 6 ; Either Sappho

[],
may
:

accordingly.

18-19.
the

The

dawn

(?

symbolizing death), of was probably the of the papyrus is damaged. 21. Perhaps or a superlative, e.g. doubt.

]. ],

idea here

well be that old age follows youth as inevitably as night the participial clause might be applied to as

24-5. These two verses are quoted by Athen. xv. 687

Various attempts at restoration have been made, but, as is now seen, Blass alone was right in marking a lacuna after and in taking as a complete verse, in which the only alteration needed is (so Blass cf. Fr. n. In the preceding verse there are five syllables to 4 dJovXoyot * (?)) or epos be supplied after of which the two last are How the lacuna remaining, a dactyl of about 6 letters, should be filled is not obvious. If this was perhaps preceded by an adverb qualifying e. g. or a predicate of as The papyrus may of course have agreed with Athen. in the spelling

' .

].
1.

final letter

of the

but the surface

in

But the reference remains

79)

A (= Sapph.
(?

(.

') ],
=

, ,'
'
.
.

, \
to the
6.

[, .
.

. , , ' ,,
:

but is written in Fr. 44. 4. That the small fragment containing the beginnings of 11. 25-9 is rightly placed can hardly be doubted. The fact that 1. 28 is the last of a column helps to confirm the coincidence of the letters in I. 25.

Fr. 2 (a). This fragment has been included on account of its similarity on both sides upper part of Fr. 1 ; but that it belongs here is not certain. Fr. 3. U.
:

or ? 4. dot in front of the line seems meaningless and may be accidental. 11. It does not seem possible to read For the as demanded by the metre. spelling with , which seems to be the regular form in the papyri when the first syllable is short, cf. 1231. 14. 4, 1233. 2. ii. 5, &c. 13. For the small marginal cross cf. Fr. 35. ii. 6 and 841. introd.

15 C g

1787.
16. e. g.
1

NEW
is

CLASSICAL FRAGMENTS
indicated in the papyrus by the accentuation.

8.
v[

[] :
[ may
more
ii.

the tmesis

[
The

43

].
.

20.

or
is

be read

in place

of [.
at.

2i.

suitable than ev or

Fr. 4.

2.

Possibly

Observes, Aristid.

508
11.

into connexion with

5 sqq. 4. The vestiges of the fourth letter are consistent with , , or , but no satisfactory restoration suggests itself. there is a spot of ink which might well be the 6. Below the remains of the initial extremity of a paragraphus, but this would be out of place unless indeed these lines were in A paragraphus may have disappeared below 1. 7, as there is little left a different metre.

' , ,
>]//[,

accent on yap points to

in

whose name recurs again

. .

eoi>,

not 5
;

.
as Lobel

Fr.

7.

might perhaps be brought

of the
9.

at the

beginning of the

line.

acute accent on the first a is particularly badly formed, the righthand extremity being turned downwards ; but it is difficult to see what else can be meant. . . of ivv cf. e. g. 1233. 2. ii. 8, 1360. . 10. For the doubled or some synonym may be supplied.

The supposed

,
or
is

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

\[,

Fr.

. .
name

seems best taken as a proper name, especially as

is

well

attested for the Lesbian poets (Sapph. 34, 1233. 24. 2, 1234. 6. 8). It is not infrequent. Ravennas in Aristoph. Thesm. 760, and

would of the person addressed, but the accent is against this, since (cf. Choerob. InHeph. c. 14). 78. be expected on the analogy of Sapph. 1. 1 may be the name To disregard the accent in a passage so defective is unjustifiable, and can hardly Mica wishes to bring you here, but I will not receive you '. of a third party be Sappho herself, with a different second person in the next line. The 1234. . 1 1 is analogous to e.g. 1231. I. i. 23 2. 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). is fem. gen. plur., in agreement indicates that 3. The mark of length on the cf. Frs. 1 + 2. 11 n., and for the adj. with some such word as
as the
:

is

given by the tempting to regard

'

'

\],

.
_

1234.
4.

6.

must have been rather spread out seems probable, though the letters might be read in place of a. or 6. Cf. AristaenetUS i. IO (Sapph. 129) al ascribed tO Sappho in The form (1. the similar passage Philostr. Im. ii. 1 should now disappear until otherwise attested. IS given The form cf. Schol. Soph. Aj. 628 7. in Sapph. 39.
to
fill

[\
7.
3
:

;
'

,
ink,

the lacuna,

(.),

[:

Fr.
4

Cf.

Sapph.

2.

a very small speck on the edge of the papyrus after the second may be a medial stop, or, possibly, a vestige of e. g. a final v. The fem. Semonides 7. 7, and cf. Fr. 32. 2 below.
5.

a, if it is

For

occurs in

cf.

Sapph. 41, 58.

44
6.
8.

THE OXYRHYNCHUS PAPYRI

There are perhaps only two Not

].
3.

letters, e. g.

or

va,

between

and

12. Probably ]ia or ]va. added by the original hand.

The

overwritten' letters enclosed

between dots are variants

Fr.

8.

The supposed mark

of length

may be an

acute accent.

certain,

Fr. 9. This fragment is composed of two pieces, the combination of which seems although 1. 1 is difficult and 1. 3 must be emended in order to scan. The points

of junction are,

](>

1.

1 e\n,

1.

\,
If

1.

\.

is

puzzling,

is

also difficult to interpret.

more probable than , which is the only alternative and is right, the was rather smaller than usual, but ey is

not more attractive.

3.

]/3[]>
5.

or

][].
high stop
is

Fr. 10.

The

not certain, being on the edge of the papyrus;

the vestige of a letter.

(SC

i'p[avTes

)
Pr.
8.

11. 4.
rat

ep[wTes

cf.

Frs.
1.

(cf.

3)

'

+ 2.

24-5,

n.,

and Himerius

rat

are other possibilities.

.[
it
i.

might be

els

aya

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

Pr. 13.

4.

The

The

letter before the

10.

[:

may be or instead of p. lacuna was apparently either e or seems to be excluded.

first letter

not

a.

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

by

. , may be read in place of . arepos for iTtpos had already occurred in 424. 9. the original scribe.
Pr. 15.
3

The

interlinear insertion

may be

Pr. 18.
4.

An

2. before the lacuna is only one of several possibilities, e. g. , v. acute has been substituted for a circumflex accent ; cf. e. g. Frs. 5. 3, 19.

3.

(e. g.

Pr. 19. 2. The mark like a sign of elision is possibly a diastole, which is sometimes 1789), though not elsewhere in 1787, placed above the line. 4. Though the papyrus is partially preserved after all trace of writing has

disappeared.

Pr. 21.

came from

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

and 23,

Pr. 23.
line,

4. The right-hand tip of the paragraphus but the paragraphi are sometimes rather short.

expected to be visible below this

Fr. 26.

3.

or

can be read in place of

also

is

very uncertain.

1787.
5.

NEW

CLASSICAL FRAGMENTS
cf. e. g.

45

For the

alteration of accent

Fr. 18. 4.

The second

acute could be read as

the tip of the cross-bar

a circumflex.
7.

The supposed mark

3.

of length

is

placed low and

may be

of a

.
Fr. 27.
6.

There
is

The

accent
4.
1.

is a short blank space after very doubtful.

a,

which perhaps ended the

line.

Fr. 29.
Fr. 32.

]vlav is

a gen. plur.

cf.

Frs.

+ 2.

11, n.
11.

The

letters

of this line are distinctly smaller than those of

2-3.

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

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

][
.

was

written.

probably = Sapph. 76, from Hephaest. 64, Unfortunately the letters are broken, the first and fifth especially being doubtful the latter might well be e, 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 cf. int., ; There is also a possibility, so far as the papyrus is concerned, that P. Halle 2. 1, p. 27). which may Sapph. 77, immediately succeeded.
5, if rightly read,
;

:.
Fr. 34.

or

'().

,,

Fr. 36. 4. It is not clear whether the accent on is circumflex or acute, but the former is in accordance with 1231. 15. 3. cf. 1233. 4. 2 ; this in conjunction with the accented makes t(c) likely. 5. For
6. cko\
:

exa[.

Fr. 38.

2.
1.

\[!
A very

is

possibly for

'

dark

'

cf. irekeia.

Fr. 39.
Fr. 40.
2.

small vestige after

is

consistent with

1. The compound

4.

.
There

doubtful was perhaps the final letter of the is indicated by the'grave accent, and

]
v.

line.

by the metre.

Fr. 41. a column.

Fr.
revision

5.

is

no

trace of ink below this line, which

was perhaps

the last of

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

can only be made by means of the actual papyrus. The reprint in Diehl, Supplementum lyricum, p. 43, adds nothing material. That the interlinear signs are, of course, the ordinary accents, marks of quantity, &c, and have nothing to do with musical notation has been pointed out by Hunt, Year's Work, 19 13, p. 78, and Wessely, Wochenschr f. klass.
.

Phil. 30. 669.

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

46
tion
;

THE OXYRHYNCHUS PAPYRI

cf.

a deity.
2.

but the facsimile shows clearly an acute accent thus seems assured, and can hardly be the retracted accent replacing the circumflex, as interpreted otherwise than as Hence the last word will be either elsewhere in papyri (cf. e. g. 223. int.). or according as the accent or the mark of quantity on the final a is accepted ; ace. fern, would conflict with other evidence. If, however, the facsimile may be trusted, a vestige of the letter preceding 3. ]eaov edd.
edd.
;

c is visible,

, , ]
6.

on

and suggests an

"&, ]
n.
1

on

Frs.

+ 2.

12 above.

Moreover,

11.

2-6 rather suggest an invocation

to

elision

mark

after

'
cf.

7. ]p 8. 9.
]
.

(\

facsimile indicates the expected circumflex over

]. ^, [. '
indicating

or

For

Sapph.

1.

26-7
;

Se

7. 3 4j Ale. 77 Ze ^ s cf. e. g. Sapph. 1.26

?)
:

\]

quoted

in the preceding note

is

edd.

]'

edd.,

who
ii.

note that

possible.

cf.

1233.

2.

20

edd.

ev

edd., suggesting that

ev,

and hardly

justifies

was meant.

The

the letters being

too small and crowded.

Apparently yap
letter

is

quite possible, as well as

in front of

We.
is

edd., but 5 obviously cannot be correct,

and the

facsimile

shows

that the

interlinear

mark stood over the next

right,
(i.

If the diaeresis

to judge from the facsimile, perhaps by a broad v.

and suggests a diaeresis rather than a circumflex. seems necessary, but the termination remains in doubt Xe was followed by two letters or a letter and a high stop, or
e.

ftXX)

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.
Fr. 4

ALCAEUS ?
18-6x5-8 cm.
Late second century.
Plate II (Fr. 15).

The
as 1787,

following lyric fragments in Aeolic dialect proceed from the

same
;

find

and are

in

a script which, though smaller,

letters,

is

very similar in type

the

formation of some

however, notably

is

different,

and the two

MSS.

cannot be taken for the work of a single

is

scribe.

further distinguishing feature

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

i.

is

made

to the

grammarian Didymus

(Fr. 15.

10).

Accents, breathings, &c, resemble those in 1787, but a stop in

is

the low position

here used in addition to the two other kinds.

is

To what
other lyric

extent these adjuncts are original or secondary

not clear.

By

an inconvenient

coincidence the present text, like the Sappho, was accompanied

by

but not Aeolic fragments

of the

many

an apparently identical hand, and a correct ascription smaller pieces is hardly attainable. Accordingly the procedure
in
is

adopted with 1787

followed in this case also, and only those fragments which

1788.
are guaranteed

NEW

CLASSICAL FRAGMENTS
as a rule
roll

47

pieces probably

by the dialect have come from the same

been printed.

The non-Aeolic
for a future

as 1604,

and are reserved

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

column the first five stanzas of an more or less intelligible and include a few complete or easily completed lines. This poem, addressed to a person whose name does not occur, is apparently of a hortatory character, and contains an elaborate metaphor from a vine which promised a bountiful crop but might yet yield sour grapes. An appeal in the last stanza to past example is rather in the manner of Alcaeus; cf. 1234. 2. ii. 12, 1789. 1. ii. 7-8. Frs. 1 and 3 are in Asclepiads, a metre evidently used by Alcaeus with some frequency.
is

Fr. 15, containing in the second

Alcaic

poem which

are sufficiently well preserved to be

Fr.

gives a description of a natural scene

(cf.

Ale. 84, 1233.

3. 8 sqq.)

a pleasant

picture of cool water running

down from

the

hills

to the vineyards and of green

Fr. 2 may for the most part be in the same metre, but 1. 10 ends like a hexameter (cf. e. g. Ale. 45-6), and the beginning of a new poem is perhaps to be marked at that point the metre of Fr. 2. 10 sqq.

reeds rustling in the breezes of spring.

may
much

well recur in Fr.

7.

Fr. 4, a long strip containing parts of as

40 consecutive
of this

lines, is in

places rubbed and difficult to decipher.

many The metre

as

of

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

Fr. i.

.]Xe|ai>
'

.][ .][ ],>

.]>[
....'..
]
.

[ \\{
]'[

8 letters

]
Fr.
2.
[
. .
.

.
[

Fr. 3.

][
.

1 j

^/.

]d

][ ][
'}'*[]
] .

][

[ [
1[
/

jcrerai

5 ]Xiv0paia^

][[/)]]

]>)\[
[.]

[ ].
[.)[
.

]* ][.][

][
]

][
.

Fr. 4.

].,[

]([

]7?[

1788.

NEW
Fr.
i.

CLASSICAL FRAGMENTS

49

] \\ [ [ [) [] ([ [
[.
.

e[

[.......
[

8 letters

]
]

(]*

]'[

Fr. 2.

Fr. 3.

) '
Jt

[
S

][
r
.

re

][ ][
].
/1
*

]aerat

\
*

\
] ]

yay

(?)

ykvi]ov

[
.

e]Xvdepais a t

]'
]
.

[.][

YwatKo(s)

cire[l]

[
.

[>

)[
](
)

?)

Fr. 4.

]ray
]

[[

5o

5
]

][.
.

'\<

pj ....
.

]
.
.

][.]
]

[ .

]0"[

]'[ .][
.]eo[.
.

THE OXYRHYNCHUS PAPYRI

[.

r[.
[

7]7 .[
. .
.

[
.

7*[

.]

*?

15

][ ] [.]^[
]
.

VL(uKpp[

\][]

20

'[ ][
]
. .

25
]

]'
.

].[.)'
[.]

]:'[
.
. . .

[
]
.

']"[].

.[ ]/7^[

]\][ ] ['][
.

LcrrovTOVKOiSevAvoLij^

][.

[ ]/[ ]\/[
']>>
. .

.]>[

Fr. 5

'[.
W^xrt-M

.]e5[

35

]ep<.y[

].[]/[

1788.

5
]

]Sa[.
.

][](\ [
'
.]ey
.]eo[.
[
.

NEW

CLASSICAL FRAGMENTS

']\.
]

]
.

] ?'
at
. .

a]ty

[ [
[
.

}'

[
.

[.]

[ .] .
.

] .

kv ]?
C

[.

15
]

][ [

7
]
.

['M.]at<T

o[.]ei>
]
.

]y

*>

]
'

ay

'
.

[
.

\ , />[
]
. .

'

707[

[
.

ty

]5oty,

]
25
]

]
.

[] ' ' 6
aX[o]y k
.

roty

[
.

ty

,[
b\

[.]
.

30

'\
]

][.

,]
rev

];
]
]
.

'

[ [
.

[
([

Fr. 5

[]
[.

.><$[

'

35

}epcu,
]

[
{>
.

][
[

].

.[.].

}>[.]

]\. .]
2

[,][

52

THE OXYRHYNCHUS PAPYRI

]
.

]('[.

40

[
Fr. 7.

^}
.

,]

Fr. 6.

Fr. 8.

Vt
][
]$[.][
5

']
3
}.[..
.

]<[
.

]
]<[
][].
5
[
]
.

]
[]

]*[.]
]
.

][
']t\oy[

}Sta

'

>[ "\{

]-[

]cuuS[

]
]&"?[

)[
]
68[

]<*4

10

}[
]

}>/[

[
)
\6[

.}ac[

][
[
.

].

]{

][
15

][
Fr. 11.

][
]^
Fr. 12.
Col.
i.

Fr. 9.

Fr. 10.

Col.
<

ii.

)6[

]/ZJ>Oi

][ ] ][
]'$([

][

]<^
.

-[
[

[
[.

][
5

]>

].
]

'[
.
.

.][
[

][

.?^*

]6
][

76/ [
.

/[

1788.

NEW

CLASSICAL FRAGMENTS
]
.

53

]/[.][
]
.

aippav[

40

[
[

5 ]epa]

[. ,]
.

Wpp
Fr. 8.

Fr. 6.

Fr. 7.

. ][
5
']
]

3#>[.][

"F^X 09 *
.

]
]
.

>
[.
.

[
.

][]
3 [1
t

[][
3

[
.

5
[

']
3
.

[ [
]
}[
].
[

[
]
.

][

']i\ov

] [

][
]

&><$[
3apie[

<5[

ojrny 5e
3
.

][
]4
.

/0 1//[

]>'

]
15

][
][

2[
]

Fr. 9
c]/c

^
] ]
.

\[ 7[
Fr. 13.

Fr. 10.

Fr. 11.

Col.

i.

Col.
.
.

ii.

]/{

] ]
]

[
[
'

]
3?

]*

*
.

'

[
.

[.

[ ol ir[

[.

.}[
#17

.3

t[

]/
]tis

]
tas

aye
ai
5
/

//

a[
.

/>
vo

][

'^W
ftp
][

t7T

/i

r [

54
Fr. 13.

THE OXYRHYNCHUS PAPYRI

Fr. 14.

] ][
]voua[

]
.

[ [

]70[

][
][

Fr. 15.

Col.

i.

Plate

II.

] ] ]

] ]
]<
'

]vieiv

5
3

]\<.'
]
3
]'

)[.]

]
3

][

1788.
Fr. 13.

NEW

CLASSICAL FRAGMENTS
Fr. 14.

55

] ][
'

|
[

'[
[

]$
]

~tyovo\
Je

a[ 5

]
.

][

Fr. 15.

Col.

i.

5 ]*3 ]
]S
?

] ]

(
]

() ] ]

()

Ai5u(p.os).

15
] ]

]
'

. () (
]

).

~\

20

() ]
1
)

is

[.]

][

56

THE OXYRHYNCHUS PAPYRI

Fr. 15

Col.

ii.

Plate

II.

8
..-

^ [ 6[
.

( |,[

=
>
-

'[ [ [. 7'[ .[
eTJ/[

'[

][
]Bevai>[

.]/[][
]

20

'\^[ [']4[ '][']'[

Ka\oi>ya[

^^ [.][.][
]>[

[.][.

.]

.]

[.] .
.

1?

25

.]> ]/)/)07'77[

?*

?7fy>

[.

.]>>*[
[

><[.]i"oi/&

[.

.]r

[.

.}[
]
.

.]' .]'\([
.

by

1.

Fr. 1. . The length of the initial lacuna in this and the following lines is evidently to be restored. 4, where Neither nor

[]

occurs elsewhere.

\
is

determined
(or

-)

1788.

NEW
Fr. 15.

CLASSICAL FRAGMENTS
Col.
ii.

57

vr
7/[

[ 6[
.

i^[ef ?
[

[][

'[ ?
is

[
{

??
[]

'
[.
.
.

\[
ey[.

}[
}
]>['
]
{

][.'][

\ [] [] [] [?,

?
.
. .

2
[.
.

[]
.

-, []?
'
kX

][,]
.]
.

[.

./

[6<]?
25
[otf]

roi

[.

.>[>
.

[.

[] (([
.

? []?. ? [ ' &

......[.]
.

??
6[}?

[][
[,
[.

(?),

yap

[ [

[.

[.

.][
]

.]

2.

The

3. 4.

\]

first
is

[\]>

, though rubbed, is practically certain. being a narrow letter. . perhaps not too much for the lacuna, .]av plur. fem., as shown by the mark of length on av is gen.
,

'.

in

I.

5 was

58

THE OXYRHYNCHUS PAPYRI

another word of the same kind.

()

the source of that fragment. 6. The vestige of the letter after ov suggests e. g. . it is unlucky that the initial letter is missing, as in 1231. : 7 1233. 4. 10 rests on the evidence of grammarians.

Fr.
8.

^ ^'
(cf.
1.

The language

6)

,
1.

here is close to that of Sapph. 4 ( but the present passage can hardly have been

i.i.

[](.
7.

27 [^]Xe(?),

2.

Not

(cf.

1233.

ii.

8).

correction of to yas may be by the original hand. be interpreted is open to doubt, but yas is in keeping with
9.

The

of yanjov

is

not very satisfactory, but an alternative that will suit the context
with a change of metre apparently begins here.

[,

How
and

]5

the letters should

is

unknown.
is

not

easy to find.
10.

new poem

Fr. 3. This fragment is very similar in appearance to Fr. 2, and at first sight a combination of 1. 6 with Fr. 2. 1. 9 is attractive, but this would create difficulties both in the scansion of 1. 8 (if yas is right) and in the marginal note in 1. 10, where yvvai<o{s) is a more
to the

probable reading than same column.

<{\
[\
[.

).

The two

fragments may, however, well have belonged

Fr. 4.
6. 7.

' 3. e. g.

The second of koXokvvtcus has apparently been converted from The supposed interlinear might possibly be a rather large
for.

v.

circumflex, but the

is

preceding vestige would remain unaccounted

8.

To

which

may be
]?
:

the right of the cancelled on the edge of a hole in the papyrus a vestige of an interlinear letter, or of an apostrophe.
]e is

a spot of ink

17.
19.

A vestige -*,

20.

above is doubtfully interpreted as a circumflex. rather suggested by the remains, but seems excluded are possibilities, neither very satisfactory.

22. Three consecutive long syllables are plainly shown here by the papyrus, as apparently also in 11. 30 and 32-3 ; cf. the next note. 25-8. The letters and part of , at the beginnings of these lines are on a small fragment which fits here so well that the combination is almost assured. sequence of four long syllables results in 1. 26, but in view of 11. 22, 30, and 32-3 that cartnot be regarded as a fatal objection. 26. The stop(?) after is well below the line.

'

by the metre.

hardly possible. mark on the edge of a hole above the doubtful a grave accent, or there may have been some correction. 38. Some vestiges above the line point to a correction.
27. 28.
:

[ A
is

yivt[ is

is

unexplained

possibly

it

was

column
4.

Fr. 5. The appearance of to which Fr. 4 belonged.

v[

this

fragment suggests that

it

is

from the bottom of the

owing
6.

to the

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

Cf. Fr. 4. 22, n.

but

[]
is

hardly
;

fills

the lacuna.
e. g.

Fr.
4.

.
:

3.

The

accent on a

doubtful

it

might be

mark of

length.

13.

[:

or ]*r.
cf.

1233.

i.ii. 12.

1788.
Pr.
8.

NEW
t.

CLASSICAL FRAGMENTS
end of a
is right,
is

59

7.
is

4. Karaypet recurs at the

line in
is

a correction from
this

If
is

1233. 11. 9; cf. Sapph. 43. presumably the possessive pronoun.

the accent in
1.

Pr. 9. That Pr.

selides,

fragment

Aeolic

shown by

2.

11.

may

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

Pr. 12.
11.
vertical

3.

There

is

no paragraphus below
is
1.

this line.

The supposed
is

coronis

uncertain, being represented

10.
its

only by part of a thin

stroke immediately in front of

Pr. 13
Aeolic.

included here on account of

similarity to Fr.

14,

which

is

apparently

Pr. 15.
10.

i.

4.

]epeav
is

or perhaps

]pc[t]ay.

but this seems to book of the kind indicated have been of a historico-literary nature rather than a critical commentaries by the present passage. It is, however, likely enough that his voluminous included a treatise on the Lesbian poets, as well as on Pindar and Bacchylides. can be read. or ii. 3. Either may represent either re or . 9. As in 1787. 34. 1,

Didymus

known

to have written a

ii.

1231.

1.

'
18.

[
[.

#[

here provides a parallel for Powell's admissible suggestion

^
is

in

i.

13. it: or f

14. ey[: or

16.
oleic c 01

The
v|

The letter following }v may well be o. accent on a might be taken for a mark of short quantity.
!-[.

possible

person, cf. 1360. 1. 9, where h is better taken as 3rd For the (Doric) form ?js for which is read in Sapph. 106, ijs is probably to be recognized; and 1231. 55. 4, where apparently may now well be emended. The following word as originally written was substitution possible), which was amended in some way, perhaps by the Uyp- is but there has been no deletion. of a[ep) or ] for at, ^ and the Halle 14. cf. e. g. Sapph. 1. 16 in 19. For the doubled which is evidently parenthetical, * * Ap 1231. 13. 4 <Mw fragment being the Aeolic form according to Eust. 28. 33. (adv.), first written was Whether the correction is due to the original hand or to a diorthotes is not evident. rather than , and e.g. SfyjY) well suits the 21. Vestiges above the line suggest What has been if some interlinear addition is supposed. is possible,
18.

,/
=
; .

but conditions may be part of the preceding letter. taken for a high stop in front of determinable letter after ]v has been corrected, but what was intended is hardly 22. The Apparently was first written, and through this there is a vertical stroke as the line stands. Perhaps ]va$ was the edge of a hole in front of . (1 ?), with a vestige of ink close by on rightly read, the intervening letter, which had and e are Further on, if altered to }mo S
or . a vertical stroke, was presumably the identity of the letter printed 23. For the interpretation of this line much depends on The first stroke of the has the form of a narrow oval, and it is therefore before as But the oval is considerably narrower, questionable whether 61 should be read instead of . is, moreover, intractable metrically. and the cross-stroke longer, than in a normal , and is right, If the scribe began to write e and converted this to . Perhaps then and next would be suitable enough. The first visible letter must be either , , , or better than anything else. the slight remains suit the upper part of a to this

[}

6o
would

THE OXYRHYNCHUS PAPYRI

sufficiently satisfy the conditions, if that
is difficult in

naturally suggests itself but

the context.

be restored on the analogy of 1234.

2.

i.

word seems superfluous

*'[( ( -,
25.
26. ]r; or y 27. e. g.
28.

any case. probably correct) and Ale. 46 cf. 1789. 1. i. 5 (v. 1. which has been gratuitously altered to There is more to be said
in
:

, .,

word were
ii.

likely.

Possibly
7 ovirponc.

8[] .], may 8[] The

For
.

[.

8po<r[oi\<rt

or high stop after this

for the correction tpoiye ytvtaBai

[8]

([, ([.
is

perhaps not too

much

for the lacuna

when allowance

is

made

for the

slope of the column.

1789.
Fr.
1

ALCAEUS.
11-7

15*2 cm.

First century.

Plate III
i).

(Frs. 1-3, Col.

The
a

authorship of these fragments, consisting of parts of two columns and

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 continuation in the following column, tossed ship
is

where Alcaeus' favourite metaphor of a stormtwo lines. Since the height of the column is unknown, the extent of the lacuna between Col. 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 there are references to marriage (11. 7, 14), but whether these have anything to do with the marriage of Pittacus, to which allusion is made in
carried

on

for a further

i.

1234.

2.

i.

6,

remains doubtful.

As

the text stands

its

chief point of interest lies

in the metrical
first

scheme, which seems clearly to be a stanza of four lines, the three being lesser Asclepiads and the fourth a Glyconic. This stanza was
(i.

used repeatedly by Horace

6, 15, 24, 33,

its

ii.

12,

iii.

10, 16, iv. 5, 12)

who has
evident.
i.

commonly been

credited with

invention, but his debt

now becomes

That the similar stanza with a Pherecratic

for the third verse (e. g.

Horace

5,

1789.
14, &c.)

NEW

CLASSICAL FRAGMENTS

61

of Ale. 43
Fr. 6,

was borrowed from Alcaeus had already been suspected on the ground another (previously unknown) form of Asclepiad stanza is exemplified
;

in 1234. 2.

i.

From
is

the remaining fragments not

much can be
is

extracted.

In

which

in Alcaics,

a mention of the Pelasgi

noticeable,

and there seem

to be other historical references.

is

The

character of Fr. 12, in the

as well as

same metre,
reference to
in

indicated

by the occurrence
25.

of the

word

by a

Myrsilus in a marginal note.

Frs. 24

Alcaics are perhaps also to be recognized

in

and

Fr. 13

may be

the Sapphic stanza, and Fr. 29 possibly in

is

Asclepiads.

The round

upright script of this text

rather smaller and less ornate, but

3),

otherwise very similar to that of 1361 (Bacchylides, Scolia, Part XI, Plate
characteristic letters
e,

the

, and

being formed in just the same

way

with a dot in

the centre disconnected from the other strokes.

Of , which

in the

Bacchylides
is

has a vertical bar joining the horizontal strokes in the centre, there

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 disand the interlinear alternative readings, which are not infrequent, tinguished, may be due sometimes to one and sometimes the other. Stops in two positions are used (a double dot, of uncertain meaning, is found in Fr. 1. i. 11), and marks of elision and quantity are fairly plentiful. The diastole employed to divide words, more usually (cf. e.g. 1787-8) inserted at the base of the letters, is in this text placed like the sign of elision (e.g. Fr. 1. i. 6, 17), which it also resembles in shape. A ligature below the line occurs once (Fr. 17). These additions seem to be largely secondary the paragraphia however, are most
;

probably original.

62

THE OXYRHYNCHUS PAPYRI

.]

' .][
Fr.
i.

Col.

i.

Plate III.

'

[
.

2 letters

]?
.

.]{.

.][.}
.

.]/[.}[.]
, .

jc ucii^cu,

[]

]1

.][.]^<[.]//6
]<|;0[.
i]jtte[
1

]'''>[.
10
.

.]

[. .]
Fr.
2.
.
|

]77.
.~[[.
.

.]:7[.] /
.
|

.] 077

.]/)

[
77
.

[.

[
Col.
i.

.)

.] .

]>[

[
]

Fr. 3.

15

.]///[.]6[

.]{
. .

]'
.

.]eiKva[.

]&*

[ [
'[ '[
Fr.

Col.

?7

..

>[

'[

1789.

NEW

CLASSICAL FRAGMENTS
Fr.
1.

63

Col.

i.

]......[
[ ]
.

\.6\
,

\ .]\.] ] ' ([]

] [

ev

?
.

pat?

'^XJJ'

t[

12 letters

[.

os

atlKea.

]
[.
.

]e*a
]t

] ].
.

? ]? . ?
] rt [ y ] ]

[]? [][$
[]
Fr. 2.
.

.
[ ]

](

).

[.

[.]

15

']
[

]
7r]e

to*

Col.
ii.

'

[ \?

[][ ')

Fr. 3

Col.

' ?[[?
Fr.

],

/ ?
? "
yap

> [>.
?
?

[.

64

>[
[.][

[ [
&[
<n/ce[

THE OXYRHYNCHUS PAPYRI

Fr. 4

Fr. 5.

>0[

]ort[
.

15

Fr. 3

Col.

. [
ye[

Fr. 6.

]
}'[
].[..]'.

\
.

Fr. 7

[ ]
.

;;
}

]
]
1

[
-
[
.
.

a-iroXc\ei|x[

]^/'7[

][
][
.

]/^0/?[

]';

Fr. 8.
[

][
5

]e7ror

?/[

)
1

[>

We^i

];//

]/

*[

1789.

NEW

CLASSICAL FRAGMENTS

?]

\ ['
?

?'

[.

,
[[
.

65

eovre[s

15
.

[
[
[

Fr. 4

Fr. 5

raZ[y

] re L

]{
Fr. 6.

[].[
Fr. 3.

Col.

ii.

4
ye[
]

Fr. 7.
?

[
[

ein.]Ta5t>s.

]
[

&-

].[..]...

"
. .

[
5

] ' ]
]
.

\'
^

[ '
?
.

6[ .
Fr.

]e

10

~\

'
[

8.

]e

] ].
(

](-

[,]

}ayjrT

japof

.[

66
Fr.
9.

THE OXYRHYNCHUS PAPYRI

Fr. 10.

Fr. 11.

][ ]'[
]
.

][

][
}[

][

][
Fr. 15.

oaove[

Fr. 12.

Fr. 13.

Fr. 14.

][
3?

]([ ][
]
. j
.

][

[
.

[ ][ ]
] ]
. . . .

]-
Fr. 16.

][ ][
Fr. 17.

]>>[
]

][ ]
Fr. 18

][
[

[]|*
Fr. 19.
.
.

].....[.]...[
]
.

?[

~\(\
Fr. 22.

([

Fr. 20.

Fr. 21.

Fr. 23.

][
3"
] ]

][ ]-/[
.

JTra/o/iei'f

][

'][

] . .

.[

]'

1789.
Fr. 9.

NEW

CLASSICAL FRAGMENTS
Fr. 10.
Fr. 11.

) ? ([[
]
.

][
]v

Se

"1

]<57>
]

[
'

][
]y
[

Fr. 12.

Fr. 13.

Fr. 14.

Fr. 15.

3[
]'

] /[
5

[]

]
]
.

^ [
\

1
]
.

)]. [
.

}.[
Fr. 16.

}[ ][
Fr. 17.

[
J

[
[
]
.

][

]
] ]
.

[.]
.

..

[.]

8c

.[

Fr.

8.

Fr. 19.

]>

[ [
Fr. 23.
]

Fr. 20.

Fr. 21.

Fr. 22.

][
]
3
|

][ ]
.

[
.

[ ?

>

ats'

3*

F 2

68
Fr. 24.

THE OXYRHYNCHUS PAPYRI

Fr. 25. Fr. 26.

Fr. 27.

]>*'>[
]
.

]'[ [
5

][ ]8[
>'[
Fr. 29

]o/xat[

]'
5

][
[

"

]
][
Wif
.

]aperecr[

][

]76

KM
.

Fr. 28.

Fr. 30.

Fr. 31.

[
Fr. 32.
'

[ [
*&[
Fr. 3 5

]<[ ]
][

[ ][ ]/'[
]

Ka li
]aj/5/p[

]5[

3^/4

][
]
. .

][ >' ][

eya)j/[

Fr 33

]/<5

]^
][

Fr/ 34
[

]aiKoucr[

Fr. 36.

Fr. 37.

Fr. 38.

]e/>a>

]*[

][
]

Fr. 39.

Fr. 40.

Fr. 41.

][

1789.

NEW

CLASSICAL FRAGMENTS
Fr. 26.
Fr. 27.

69

V
]

'
Fr. 24.

Fr. 25.

!>[

rro[

] ][ ][
[

]. ][
[

)[

]
){
.

][

]
>

] [

Fr. 28.

Fr. 29.

Fr. 30.

Fr. 31.

[
Fr. 32.
]et

/cat

[
r

] ]
]

? ]/
]

[
[
[
[

}[
?
]

aV<5/)[

]e

]7/[
.

]
. .

?[
ev

Fr- 33-

"

/*]{'6'[1'

] ]
][
Fr. 37]epco
.

[
.

Fr. 34.

)
Fr. 38.

Fr. 35-

Fr. 36.

]e/ooi

W
Fr. 40.

].[
]

Fr. 39

Fr. 41.

][

7o

THE OXYRHYNCHUS PAPYRI

W4%
]

*
r

'
[

1
]

>
]

[
5

]7[
]

sqq. The length of the initial lacunae is estimated from 11. 15-17; in one Pr. 1. i. or two lines the resulting number of letters is rather scanty, e.g. 1. 10, but could be slightly be supposed to have occurred. increased if one or two narrow letters such as , , , The two first and two last letters, of which only the bases remain, were round. 1 In the preceding/). 2. e]xvpats, e. g., would be consistent with the very slight vestiges note opposite this line the horizontal dash possibly distinguishes a syllable separately

mentioned.
3. 4.
]vev
:

The

note

may have been

vev.

continued in a second

line.

or perhaps
letter after

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

The

cross-bar of the

would

be.

may be The

either

5.

uWVto,
evil

](,
for

](?

not return

(([]
6.

good';

in the margin ; the To judge from 11. 15-17, something rather following also shows signs of alteration. originally stood in the text. shorter than the verb was apparently not previously attested. 8. or if the first letter is 7, which looks probable, the second must be either 9. The are consistent with the very scanty vestiges in the third and fourth place. , and question of the reading here is complicated by the marginal annotation, which is no doubt
after

Supports the form the lacuna is due to the hand which wrote

For

([]

cf.

1788.

5.

ii.

the diastole was wrongly placed. in Ale. 46.

The

'let them 25, n. interlinear variant

:

[)([
:

corresponding with the text ; but there seems to have been a variant, the letters rav and cannot be read. a considerable divergence otherwise, since 11-13. Fr. 2, which was found with Fr. 1, has been assigned to the ends of these lines Its external appearance is favourable to the combination, and with considerable hesitation. runs well, but the ends yepaar the resulting reading in 11. 12-13 a I ya\p

of

11.

and

13, especially the former, are difficult.

essential,

In

perhaps not absolutely

Earlier in the line the

between

and

after

is small colon before being sometimes used for punctuation, even in company with single dots (cf. e. g. 1809-10) is In Fr. 2 the letter before or it may be connected with the marginal adscript. represented by a mere speck, which is capable of many interpretations ; that before the In the marginal note opposite it is not clear whether the mark final a was , t, p, or r. 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 may be suggested (cf. 1787. 36. 2). dot enclosing an over-written letter. In 1. 12

is desirable, though or can be read. which either possibly a stop, such double dots
1.

11 a letter

\&

1789.

NEW

CLASSICAL FRAGMENTS

71

][
1
1

y
]

[
[
5

1r*i

*.'.

4 ,

e]^ijt

or

, ; and 15-18 = Ale.

uncertain.

(
The

,'

]>; would suit the vestiges.

The

first letter

may be , , ,
be

or

, the second,
(SC.
is

are equally possible. 19, from Heraclid. Alkg. Homer. 5 the end of MSS. of Heraclides give

'

or

-ei

How

1.

by by Gaisford, and . by Blass. Of these the last alone is is not of course necessarily right. consistent with the papyrus, though Fr. 37, which possibly belongs here, does not help. is abnormal. 16. The v. 1. Seidler, Heraclid., i. e. veiara, Bergk, who also suggests 17. 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. That a dot further on above the line represents a stop 19. ]: e is equally possible.

which

has been conjectured by Seidler,

Hermann,

'

'

5 should be restored or (AB)

by Bergk,

) ,
still

for

\ ,
is

(),

quite uncertain.
ii.

1.

Perhaps
line

one have ended with e. g. vaos (Lobel). 2. es: cf. 1. 13, 1234. Fr. 1. ro (Part XI, p. 56), and Sapph. 1. 19, where the MSS. els is normal for Aeolic, though is is hardly to be avoided in 1232. Fr. 2. 3. give es. which seems to be novel, cf. 1233. i. 2. 10 &c. the super3. For 6<vos scribed variant would eliminate the Aeolism, as in 1. 5 below and Fr. 22. 2. 8eos. As an alternative to is comparable to e. g. or a participle
preceding

like

(
4.

,
and
or
v.
1.

this

[,
may

as

Murray

suggests, but the object

may have

stood in the

,
[
e. g.

be suggested.
to

The

seems preferable

may

alternatively

be regarded as giving the reason for the warning,

analogous to
or
;

Lobel suggests.
5.

contrast between

than
latter

e. g.

words.
8.

[ [
is
'.

At the end of the verse e. g. seems to suit the and the emphatic at the beginning of the next line better is however perhaps rather in favour of one of the the v. 1.
2.
ii.

.
12
1.

is

highly conjectural

4[

',
;

the clause
as

cf.

the termination of a divided word. position of the visible remains suits a stichometrical figure ? ?) rather than an initial letter, for though the scribe has, as usual, a tendency to edge towards the left as
13.
e'iaiKe
:

or

(([

1234.
?

Zovtcs eV
2.

Cf. n.

on

But

es

maybe

23.

The

he proceeds with the column, the movement

is

elsewhere only gradual

moreover, the

horizontal stroke projects considerably too far for his usual paragraphus. hand the supposed figure is closer to the column than would be expected.

On

the other

Frs. 4-5. These two small fragments were found,

like Fr. 2,

with the bulk of Fr.

1.

72

THE OXYRHYNCHUS PAPYRI

rest,

somewhat apart from the

to that

but

it

does not of course necessarily follow that they belong

column.

.
7.

Fr. 6. 2. Either ]a {diastole") or ' (elision) can be read. At the end of the line perhaps followed by a round letter ?) the ink of which has run slightly. Pindar, Nem. occurs in Ion 34, and cf. Etym. Magn. 5.

'?

The occurrence

of the Doric

here

is

strange,

, ,

was
1.

63

as in the v.

1.,

being well

attested for Aeolic.

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

suitable.

Pr. 7. This fragment and the next both show a junction between two selides and almost certainly belong to the same column, Fr. 7 being from the top of it ; but there seems There is a similar junction in Fr. 11, but that that fragment to be a lacuna between them. came from the same column as Frs. 7 and 8 is doubtful. like in 1. 3, is a v. 1., as is indicated by the enclosing dots. . is a gloss probably referring to the last word of the verse, the 5. in the second line of The question arises whether termination of which corresponds. the scholium is part of the word anoXeXtippevov or of a second explanatory participle ; it is much more cursively written, and on the whole is best regarded as distinct and the writer as the author of the more cursive annotations in Fr. 1. i.

\(([

-,

Fr. 8.
4.
5

,], (.
2.
e

is

followed by a vertical stroke consistent with

?

e. g.

,, ,

p.

e. g.

6.

8.

The corrector wished to double the v. The variant here seems to be by the original hand. Some vestiges opposite this line are very doubtfully deciphered.

Pr.
3.

variously read.
y]ap

(
4.
t[.
:

is

preceded and followed by the bases of

or

vertical strokes

which can be

]<'
6
.

A
:

small curved

mark above

the

appears to be part of

a sign of elision.

Pr. 12.
6.
7. o[
: .

e is

very doubtful

or

is

equally possible.
u, v,

or
[

or

[.

As

the last letter

or

is

probable.

8.

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

Pr. 13. This fragment

3.

Perhaps

\,

with

[
may

well be from the top of a column.

. .

in the previous line

line

but

is

possible.

Pr. 17.

The

ligature
this

below the

shows

that the letters

is

belong to a compound word.

Fr. 19. That

fragment belongs to 1789

v.
1.

not certain.
cf.

Pr. 22. 2. For the be y instead of .

removing the Aeolic form

Fr.

1. ii. 3,

n.

The

last letter

may

1789.

NEW
after

CLASSICAL FRAGMENTS.
stop, this line

73

Fr. 23. 3. If the dot was a high by an unusually broad space. Ft. 25.
6.
2.

was separated from the preceding one

The mark

may
stop

signify either elision or division of words.

Fr. 26.
letter

The supposed

is

uncertain and

is

perhaps the vestige of another

(?).
1.
ii,

Fr. 28. This fragment from the bottom of a column does not come from Fr.
the appearance of Fr. 32
is

and

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

[
On
after
1.,

also different.

7.

IS

a gloSS

Fr. 31. Fr. 32.

2.

The

3.

[
is

\(\.
e is

interlinear

part of a variant.

Fr. 33. 2. The dot belong to an interlinear v.

(?) is raised a little above the line, instead of being a stop.

and might possibly

apparently not

Fr. 40. This fragment

to be connected with Fr.
1 2,

is

probably from the bottom of a column, but

is

in spite of the similarly placed scholia.

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

Fr. 41.
5.

. ]
variant

an interlinear
implies

v.

1.

The

in the text.

1790.

IBYCUS.
First century b. c.
(Frs.
'2

Height 20 cm.

Plate III
Col.
ii).

+ 3,

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,
B. C.

and seem to belong to the middle or latter half of the first century 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
Stops
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 acceptation of a rather confused note in Suidas, also Ibycus. 1 Anacreon is excluded
at

once by the dialect, which however

in
less

is

entirely suitable to Ibycus.

is

A
in

further

argument

favour of the identification

provided by the metre,

which
extant

among some
The

expected features the dactylic sequences frequent fragments of both Ibycus and Stesichorus are prominent.
previously
references,

in the

known fragments of the poet, apart from isolated words and number a bare thirty, and the longest of them consists of but eleven

lines, so that
it

is

his,

Troy, to

a consecutive piece of about four times that length, assuming that must be reckoned a very substantial gain. It relates to the story of 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

of which the present

But the recovery of a considerable specimen of his heroic manner, may presumably be taken as a sufficiently representative sample, is none the less welcome. Metrically the piece is of much interest. Though, as in 1361, the copyist contrary to the usual practice has not indicated the main divisions by paragraphi, the strophic responsion is evident. A short strophe and antistrophe of four lines is followed by an epode of five lines, the scheme being as follows
fields.
:

Strophe.

W
eh

^^i

Suidas, s.v.

this visit to Polycrates as uncertain,

, ",

says

fivei

main

fact

commentators,

would

Realencycl.) regards on account of the confused dating an inadequate reason, since the no doubt be attested by the poems themselves while the dates would be added by the or is a riddle. Schneidewin's suggested solution
Si

' ,'
^
v/

>

v^

"2. -qXOev,

ore

'.

Maas (Pauly-Wissowa,

( .,

rod

is

unconvincing.

1790.

NEW

CLASSICAL FRAGMENTS
Epode.

75

WW
W

w w w w ww
\j

__

WW

WW
It

WU WW WW WW w w
(Ibyci Reliqu. p. 78)

was maintained by Schneidewin

is

that Ibycus like

Stesichorus used lengthy strophes similar in compass to those of Pindar.

We
;

now
the

see that this

not true of all his

more cautious judgement of justified. Of the individual verses employed

fragments, scanty as they are.
repeatedly
cf.
;

poems at any rate, if indeed of any and Maas (Pauly-Wissowa, Realencycl.) is well
several have parallels in the existing

The

dactylic dimeter of the

cf.

strophe occurs
3,

see Ibyc. 1.5-6, 5. 1-2, 16. 4, and

Stesichorus

2.

Ibyc.

1. 8, 9. 2, for 1,

Epode

1-2, Ibyc. 15, 18, 27, Stesich. 10,

For Strophe 1. 48, and for Ep.

3,

Ibyc. 26.

Stesich. 48.
is

A purer dialect
copyists.

shown by these fragments than by the extant remains of

(1.

Ibycus and Stesichorus, where the mixture of forms

is

and
Pindar.

(1.

47,
is

.
1.

partly no doubt due to

Pap.) are

Ionisms
tXtvaav

vagary of the papyrus

In
1

and the Berlin fragments of Corinna

possible, but the present state of our

,,
(1.

which
1 8)

appear also in noteworthy. is

is

apparently written, and

41
is

Whether

in

more than a

its

example occurs of the accentuation the papyrus follows the Doric system (e.g. 1. 2 24 47 eets) found also in 8, the Paris Alcman, 23
not clear.

No

(^,

. ,

metrical

(Berl. Klassikertexte,

V.

xiv).

The additional
so far as

accents supplied in the reconstructed text follow the

same system

knowledge

does not enable this to

be carried

out with

much

confidence.

76

}^\. [ ^,[.]\^
.]

}} ^& ][.
10

}< ^ }.
Frs.
i

THE OXYRHYNCHUS PAPYRI

+ 2.
Col.

i.

.
]

{
]

]-oeeupai>S[.]aKvwpL8a'

]>[.
5

.]

<8[ }( }*<[
}

]"Hr6vfi7rvXoioa\ooac[.

.]

}[
01
]

]< 4[
*>([
Frs -2+3Col.
i.

peoaeof.
<rape[.
.

afanf.

.]

[. *& .]^[. "*[.]

.

.]6

.]!,

[.

.]

e&

'

*[
30

*,[.

}^<<
.

.> ]
.
.

^70

[Jr^wjffW

[]{.

,]

]0 /

1790.

NEW

CLASSICAL FRAGMENTS
Frs.
i

77

] []
[
\y

+ 2.

Col.

i.

.
.

4 5
r

[]

[]

4
5

[] [] [] [] [] [],
[]

[]
[]
[]
[]

'

[]

[] '
[]
[]

[]

15

[]
[]*

[] []
.

? ['
Frs. 2-3.

20

4
5

25

30 4

[][, ] [].
}

[1][

[] [] [] [] [ [] , [] ' \ []
Col.
i.

'
]

\ [ [
'
o]y

[][]

[ . []]
[ [,
?

.
7.

[].

\6[]

'

[]

<5ie/>o[?]

.
.

78

THE OXYRHYNCHUS PAPYRI

[.][.
[...].
[

[. ][.
.

35.

.][.][ .]>[ [ )-

.]
.

][ ]

.
[.

[.] [.]
8[.]>'
45

.][ '[.]>
Frs. 2

.]

[]

+ 3.

Col.

ii.

Plate III.

.~\.\.' " [.

5
.

'(
.]./[
.

.\
.
.

.]
.]
. .

^'
.
.

[.]([
."."'

]T( a

.].

]
Fr. 6.

"lata

[..].?[.]".

Fr. 4

Col.

i.

Col.

ii.

Fr. 5.

[ [ [
!

[
5

[ [

[.][

\[

5 3*

1790.

NEW

CLASSICAL FRAGMENTS

35

5
I

\ \ [ ] []\ []9 ][] [] [. ]$.

^4)(iXXei)y
/cai

79

yie]yay

....].
15

....

[
"Apyeos

letters

]?
]s
]

16
,

"IXlov

15

][]

40

14

0(\9
.

.
7.

'TXXiy

Tpcoes

45

4
5

/ecu

\\ . ' ? , ()?, ?
^$77
/*ei>

,?
Frs. 1

+ 3.

Col.

'

[]

aVe0^o[r]

ipo[e]aaau

aikv

'

*?,

[]<5/

e/zoi'

?.
]
.

[?

tv

50

]
.
.

)()
.
.

[....].
[.

.]
is

[]
Fr. 4.
Col.
i.

[]5
.
.

[
* [
oOs

^-

.]
]

is

Fr. 6.

[]*[]

Col.

ii.

Fr. 5.

[
5

([
[]*[

[ [
[

[*k we
cua
5

[
[

aire

8o
]0L(T>

THE OXYRHYNCHUS PAPYRI

[
Fr.

0/3[
i>guo[

]/[

ey[

[,][

Fr. 7.

8.

Fr. 9

Fr. 10.

][
]()[
5
Fr. 12.

]
Fr.
1 3

][
.

][

]8'ape[
.

][
Fr. 11.

]"-[

Fr. 14.

Fr. 15.

Fr. 16.

]yoa[

I'M
1 ]

]>[
]

]
]
]
.

][
}[
[]

][
C

]
5

][

]/?[

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 slenderankled Cassandra and the rest of the children of Priam or the capture of lofty-gated Troy, which is no unfamed theme ; nor do I tell again of the supreme prowess of the heroes whom the hollow well-nailed ships brought, a freight of noble heroes fatal to Troy ; whose captain was lord Agamemnon of the race of Pleisthenes, king and leader of men, the son of noble Atreus. Such things might the Muses of Helicon, versed in wisdom, well essay, but a living mortal man could not tell all the tale of the ships, how that Menelaus went from
' . . . ;

1790.
]ois.

NEW
hi
.

CLASSICAL FRAGMENTS

[
vato[

][
}[

ian[

[.][

Fr.

7.

Fr.

8.

Fr. 9

Fr.

(] [
\KTV-

][ ]
S

]8'

apt[

. [
[

}?

npe[

][
]

Fr.

]pia[

Fr. ia.

Fr.

1.3.

Fr. 14.

Fr. 15.

Fr. 16.

]<[
][

}[

<

]
]

y[

][
[

]6[
]
5

][

][

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

.
Homer

[
14

]
332

(Murray)

( 737),

[]?

.
is

For restoration. Other Homeric phrases are 1. 7 ' (\ 13O&C.), 21 698), 20

likely

'

[ ][\ []\(
cf.
e.

g.

519

82
&C.), 33
4

(
5
8.

[ ]< ?,
4 3)
.
.

THE OXYRHYNCHUS PAPYRI

34
yas

[(\

[^^
The The

diaeresis
letters

on
1.

:
:

cf.

Homer A

is

' 5 evidently mistaken

/,'
;

[.
Alas
cf. 11.

(cf. e. g.

362, 364), 47

$
is

18, 31, 44.

1.

],
1

]v,

and the vestige

at the

end of

14 are in Fr.

2.

i,

which

separated from Fr.

10.

by a short lacuna.
is

The term

iii. 60, v. 69. Cassandra occurs also in Ibyc. 9. be the easiest connecting link between these two lines, and the vestige, though very small and ambiguous, is consistent with . y]ap in 1. 15 is excluded by the difficulty of completing the preceding verse ; the plural is not at all probable, especially with is an alternative to ; a new verb following. At the end of 1. 15

11-12. 14-15.

[][] ]
seems
in
is

applied to Paris in Eurip. Troad. 866.

so e.g. Bacchyl.

to

[ []

which was suggested by Lobel, and makes an effective contrast to 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 ia&kos is indicated also in 1. 22 and recurs in Ibyc. 19. is read by Ludwich and others in Homer 303.
ig.
is

.\, ,
18.

seems wanted here

any

case.

in Hesiod, Op. 658. For Cretan inscriptions, e.g. Collitz-Bechtel, Dialektinschr. 4998. 1. 9-10

an epithet of

(<=[
.

cf.
.
.

in

reading ' which is palaeographically admissible, in place of That, however, would be questionable on metrical grounds, since the corresponding syllable, as Housman observes, is short wherever preserved (11. 9, 35, 45). The statement of Tzetzes in II. p. 68 that the sons of Pleisthenes, who died young, were brought up by Atreus represents an endeavour to harmonize the conflicting genealogies.

2i. n\eia6[evi]8as cf. Stesichorus 42 It would follow from the present passage, if Murray's n[arpo]s in 1. 22 is right, that Ibycus regarded Agamemnon as the son of Atreus (cf. e. g. Eurip. Hel. 390-2) and Pleisthenes as a more remote ancestor (grandfather?). According to Apollodorus iii. 2. 2 Pleisthenes was the father of Agamemnon, and it would be possible to make our poet an exponent of that view by
:

.
2

[]

[>],

'].

of this verse seems to be corrupt, since two short syllables are necessary heteroclite form t or is incredible, can be read in place of , but these do not help. Murray proposes to emend to but the pleonasm is not attractive in a metaphorical passage. is commonly used with the dative or a preposition, but Euripides has in Suppl. 989. 25. ov []/ is more euphonious than following. [], with 26. For after . bupbs cf. e. g. Homer the vestige of the is slight but suitable. Unless there was a flaw in the papyrus, something else besides biepos must have been originally written, but sense and metre are complete as the verse stands. for would not nearly fill the space. slight vestige after 27. suits a round letter and is inconsistent with a, so that als is excluded.
24.
for the metre,

The end

and a

[]

is right, (Murray) is the natural restoration, but the accent on must apparently be corrected (cf. Apollon. De Syni. iii. 7. 33 (p. 213 Bekker) and Corinna i. 18 (Berl. Klassikertexte, V. ii, p. 20) might be and e. g. is

29. If

[]
is less

[1?[ [\[. |]-7[$,

;

read

the plural, however,

(cf.

natural.

30.

the

Homeric

[ "(
^/),
&c.)
suits the

space better than

31.

] Housman.
is

33. [0'][(] or

[][]

unconvincing, though palaeographically possible

[fe]e

seems

1790.
objectionable

NEW
],

CLASSICAL FRAGMENTS
unless this could be excused by the

83
original

on account of
1.

the hiatus,

digamma;

cf.

5.

as Lobel suggests. There should be a mention hereabouts 36. Perhaps of Teucer, to whom the note at the foot of the column refers. Line 35 would be the natural is a difficulty. place for him, but 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. Nireus, whose parentage is stated by Homer 672, can hardly be meant, nor is e.g.

]
.

Eurypylus

(cf.

522) suitable.

In

1.

40

was

originally written,

and was amended

by

hand, of an over the line ; a cursive a seems to have been subsequently added rather above the level of the by some one who took which is indeed possible, though less likely, as separate words, of was converted from, probably, a partially formed o. In 1. 41 the spelling of the papyrus in has been retained, though whether this is a genuine form is open to doubt. was mentioned by Stesichorus according to Schol. Apoll. Rhod. iv. 973 42. op. IbyCUS and StesichorUS were sometimes confused by grammarians (cf. Schneidewin, Ibyc. Reliqu. p. 41 sqq.), but it would be rash to assume that the present passage is the one which the scholiast had in mind.
the insertion, possibly
first

by the

44. Cf.

Theognis 449

logical sentence would 4 6-8. In this passage much depends on the punctuation. result from ihe removal of the stop after aUv, with as the preposition (the accent in the

". .
this

papyrus need not imply equivalence to

in spite of the intervening

).

On

,
it

but view the

may

be accounted for by the anastrophe, of Polycrates would be the quality

which the poet desired

questionable.

to

commemorate, and

of the original, which gives a satisfactory other grounds plausible, to Ibycus.

() .
[]$

On

the whole, however,

his identity with the tyrant would become seems preferable to follow the clear punctuation sense and accords better with the attribution, on aUv is then poetic language for they will ph
.
.

'

always be remembered for their beauty '. is necessary if the metre

is

to correspond

cf.

Pindar,

Nem.

vi.

70

49 sqq. This note relating apparently to Teucer and the horses of Laomedon presumably was intended to explain something in 11. 35-40, but at present remains itself obscure, though restoration should not be difficult if the right clue were found. In 1. 49 appears the most likely name, and the ilept may have been included among his 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 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 may possibly be the top of an e. is very uncertain, especially as other abbreviations do not occur in 50. this note, but is not unsuited to the remains, and an infinitive is apparently wanted. Perhaps

,
in

\
dirty

preceded

()[) .
ii.
:

5i.

52. Possibly

(,
6.
r[.

some form seems

possible.

Fr. 4.
8.
ey[

inevitable, but the termination is very doubtful. but a longer word would account better for the vestiges.
is

or

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

84

THE OXYRHYNCHUS PAPYRI

in 1. 7 some lines is not certain, since the margin is lost, but if a letter had preceded In 1. 2, if e was the second letter in the line, the first was portion of it should be visible. a narrow one. can be read or at is written. -e apparently correspond, whether . 4-5.
. .

in

1.

4.

Fr.
Fr.

7. 8.

2.

\ ]
.

.,

3.

The supposed

grave accent

is

possibly the second half of a circumflex.

1791.

Pindar, Paean.
9-9x4-1 cm.
First century.

Plate III.

This small but interesting fragment gives the context of two well-known

from Pindar by Pausanias (Fr. 53 Schroder), the text of which is now The passage refers to the second and third temples at Delphi, and the Delphian story (Pausan. x. 5. 9) that the former of these temples was sent to the Hyperboreans is reflected in 11. 1-2, while the latter is described Built by Hephaestus, 'of bronze stood the walls at greater length in 11. 3-9. pillars, and six golden Charmers sang above the and even so of bronze the gable'. Its destruction by a thunderbolt was related in the broken lines 10-12. strophic division is marked at this point and the subject apparently changes,
lines cited

finally

established.

but the lower part of the papyrus

recognizable.

is

much damaged and only

11.

isolated

words are
metrical

No
it

responsion can be traced between

1-12 and 13-20, and one

or other of these sections presumably belonged to the epode.

The

scheme, so

far as

can be followed,

is fairly

simple; in

11.

1-12 short

lines

to preponderate, and several glyconic verses are included.

That

Fr. 53

seem came

from the Paeans is stated by Galen, who also quotes it. The text, which is from the top of a column, is in small upright uncials of somewhat informal type to which approximations are found among the bettercf. written Oxyrhynchite contracts of the late first and early second centuries II, Plate 8), which, however, is probably rather later than 1791. e. g. 270 (Part 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. junction between two selides runs down the middle of the
;

fragment.

*
. . .

[
Se

[\ ^
?

[
[.)
?
. .

[]>[
.

yXvKetat 4ios

(.

[ [

1791.
5 tls
/ceot

NEW

([
r\pov

[
[

CLASSICAL FRAGMENTS
.

85
av[

15
. .
.

re
.

<5e

aeiSov

>[
.

2
'
de is

but the is not impossible and seems ep[ or In 1. 2 could be read, but the are extremely slight ; however, appears unsuitable. The vestiges between e and the fifth looks at first first letter of the line is either a, 8, or , and the third may well be ; might have a similar effect. sight like e, but this is not convincing, and a crossed out ev-\ Xvpafctjs would be consistent with the remains. The subject in any case is presumably Apollo. would be easier. Perhaps depending on is clear, but and here 3. and in 1. 1 were transposed by an oversight ; cf. n. on 11. 1-2. 8e e? otl eyevero etc 4 Sqq. Cf. Pausan. X. 5 II 12

12. Cf. Pausan.

9
e/c

In

1.

the papyrus strongly suggests

'

8ei>T(pa

essential for the construction.

[( ,
. .

*
5
*

[] [ .

[
. .

]ve\[

, -

[:

eneiSev 6
jjaev

eV xpvaeai The (11. 89, Pindar Fr. 53) two verses are also quoted by Galen on Hippocr. De artic. 18. i, p. 519 Kiihn. Scholars have successfully treated the corruptions found in Pausanias and Galen, and the fragment as printed by Schroder corresponds with the text here, except that he has mistakenly which the papyrus now confirms, preferred Bergk's l^epff to Schneidewin's l the word does not occur elsewhere in Pindar. in 1. 5 ;
tus

(, ,
yrjs

eivai,

/, ?
is

IOI2. Cf. Pausan. X.

Pindar's version does not seem to agree closely with either of these, but the reading is looks more like than anything uncertain in several places. In 1. 10 the letter before is hardly possible, could be read in place of else, though the space is rather narrow, vo[, and the last letter may be either o[ or e before In 1. 1 1 we may divide

'
1

2 ^ P*l p ov ^e

yap is

^ 5

.
[-

[
can be
read.

or

or rather suggest
-tat

and ?/[], and the termination the space is indecisive between The following vestiges are ambiguous, but those of the second letter or , and with the former there need be no letter before the doubtful a, e. g. is possible; is clearly excluded. may be 13. The slight vestiges are consistent with Ams, after which either aya[ or
In
1.

-ev.

([]

The

latter

seems the more

may

cf. 01. XIV. 1 9 of course be another adjective,

likely here,

e. g.

aykao6povois.
14.
e
is

[{

whether written with a capital or not. For and Fr. 1 99 ; but ?), for which cf. 01. xiii. 96

between by itself.

There may be two letters very doubtful ; the first letter is possibly . if so the first of them is probably 1, which might indeed be sufficient is inadmissible. The remains after suggest e. looks likely. 15. Ttav av[ or is possibly the base of a letter 16. What has been taken for the upper part of a
and

, but

([

86

THE OXYRHYNCHUS PAPYRI

.

following at the end of the preceding line, in which case {repevo\ys ?) would be probable in place of 1 7. This is another rather puzzling line. Either or . is possible, and if any letter stood between a and , it is likely to be there seems hardly room for or 7, and ; would of course be a false form. At the end of the line appears inevitable,

being unsuitable.
18.

For

Tryphiod. 437 19. Cf. Pyth.

,
is

8[

V.

32
?

which Occurs only here, an epithet of ohos. par on avian.

cf.

,,
?.

&c.

in

or

1792.
Fr.
1

Pindar, Paean
16-9
13-7 cm.

Second century.

The

following fragments, of which only one, itself built up from several

is

smaller pieces,

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.

two positions are used, and (besides the diaeresis) breathings, accents, and marks of elision and quantity have been supplied here and there. Many of these have the appearance of being by the original hand, which was no doubt also responsible for the occasional diplac in the margin and the interlinear asterisk in Fr. 47 but some, e.g. the elision-sign in Fr. 1. 14, are in a lighter ink and may well proceed from the corrector who altered the termination of the verb in the same line and is evidently to be distinguished.
Stops
in
;

Fr. 1.

[.

[.

.]6[
.](.6[

.]oiaiVvve[

[.

[.]>[. .]$[
[.

][

]ojo^[

[.

.}<[ .' 6[.

[.

.}\.[ .]>./
[
.
.

' "/

.]

1792.

NEW
is

CLASSICAL FRAGMENTS
is

vocabulary seem
in Fr. 51

[
[.

That the author

is

Pindar

not definitely ascertained, but style and

sufficiently characteristic to justify that ascription.

a remarkable coincidence with a Pindaric collocation, and

;

]
poem

87

other linguistic parallels are pointed out in the notes

the reference to the

Boeotian
represented

in Fr.
is still

47

is

also not without significance.

;

The

class of

less certain

the passage in Fr.

describing the birth of the

twin offspring of Zeus and Leto would be appropriate in a Paean for the Delians,

but other categories are

verses in Fr.
in
1

by no means excluded.

As

for the metre,

;

whether the

belong to one or more systems is not clear a paragraphus occurs Fr. 35, but no strophic division is marked in Fr. 1 among the few lines of which

the beginnings are preserved.

The scheme

of

11.

2-20

is

as follows

...J-w-M|.

..

</
]*[...
t\j
.

w
v_/v>
\^
<^l

[.

.]**-[
*j
V^l

o* w
v_/

t_;

----[-}-^[-..
5

V_^V_/

WW
v_-w

\_/

\J

w w w \j
I

Iq

V_/

<-<

vy

w
*_/

w
V^l_/

lw<[W

W w

V_/

V^M

W
<_/

V^

W^lw*

V./

IO

<j w w U ^/W ^ V./W W w ww ^ W W <J ^ w ^

J
v^/
j I

^/

v^>

w^
[]

v^<

20

[-]

^^_

yj

_U

# [ ]

V*>

Fr.

1.

M
. .

[.

[] []
\Kv\v6lov

[ \ . '. [
ej/

]>
<5*

i>e[

[.

.]

u4/3re/zi<5[

]^[

[Aej^oy

07[
Spin[.

,]c.

rota[t>r

.]

/*

5e

$[ep

]>

THE OXYRHYNCHUS PAPYRI

>

'\['.[

<>[.]
[.

'[
.

[.]\6.[.]([.][

.]>

[.

[.

.]> ]*[.]
[]

]
.

[
.

[ [
.

,]]
Fr.
2.

Fr. 3.

Fr. 4

1[
i
t

}[
]

][
] ]

Fr.

Fr. 6.

Fr.

7.

Fr. 8.

>
>

[
<[

?[

[
[

[
#[

[
Fr. 10.

0[

[
Fr. 11.
Fr. 12.

Fr. 9

Fr. 13.

>7[

1792.

Kolov

[ '' [ , [][] [] [ []
'

NEW

CLASSICAL FRAGMENTS

89

[]
[.

'

.[...]

.]

'

[]?
[

[.]
]
.

[
[

]
.

[ [
.

(.

1.

-)

op

Fr.

2.

Fr. 3.

Fr. 4.

][ ][ ][
.

)[
}

]
]
Fr.
Fr.
8.

Fr. 5

Fr. 6.

.[

KOl[

[ [

[
.
.

)
oy

[
0[

^/0[/
6T[

Fr.

9.

Fr. 10.

Fr. 11.

Fr. 12.

Fr. 13.

][

THE OXYRHYNCHUS PAPYRI

]M
>

]6>[
[

]
]

][

][
Fr. 16.

'

Fr. 14.

Fr. 15.

Fr. 17.
'

Fr. 18.

][
]0[
Fr. 19.

]\>[

][
][
Fr. 21.
]

][
]

*[
]

\([
]?[

Fr. 20.

Fr. 22.

Fr. 23.

]>[
]

]>ccu

][
.

].[
.

]f oi

xK

Fr. 24

Fr. 25.

Fr. 26.

Fr. 27.

Fr. 28.

]<5[

]
']

]#
]/3/[
.

j/OOi'OOI'

]'[

]poi
[

]/iaCTi/3[
]

].["'

][

Fr. 29.

Fr. 30.

Fr. 31.

Fr. 32

]rtpt[

][

][

1792.

NEW

CLASSICAL FRAGMENTS
}?
[

9i

]{
>'

v[

}
}

] ]>[

[
}

Fr. 14.

Fr. 15.

Fr. 16.

Fr. 17.

Fr.

][

~\[

][
Fr. 20.

[ ][
]

;[
1

]
Fr. 21.

]$
Fr. 22.

].o[

Fr. 23.

Fr. 19

>xp[
][
, .

]
]y

]{
Fr. 27.

]^

Fr. 24.

Fr. 25.

Fr. 26.

Fr. 28.

]Xetap

][
]/

]
}

][
]$

]lcli

S[

)oPe[
]P0L

][
.

][
][

][

Fr. 29.

Fr. 30.

Fr. 31.

Fr. 32.

]ta

]repi{
1

]av

7Tt[

92
]
.

THE OXYRHYNCHUS PAPYRI

]

][
5
]?/?[
.
.
.

][
]'
5
.

][
]ayo[

ft. 33

Fr. 34.

]/'[
).
.

Fr. 36.

} ][

];
5
epi[

]0>[

ft 35-

][
[
. .

][ ][
5 ].[
. .

[ [

\[

ev6[

[
Fr. 37.

Fr. 38.

Fr. 39

Fr. 40.

])7[

]60[

]# )[

][

] ][
]
.

]\ ]^'[ [
.

][

]/[
]a7Tie/Ji5ea[

][
5

]>>[
>'[

]/3[
.

]*[
]eipaveK
.

10]. '[.].. [.].[

][

] ]
Fr. 41.
.

]ef0yoa)i/yap[
.

Fr. 42.

Fr. 43

Fr. 44-

Fr. 45

]y a />[

][

]?

1792.

NEW CLASSICAL FRAGMENTS

93

][
5 ]vap[ 5

].

][
~\[

Fr

33

Fr. 34.

]ov

Fr. 35-

] ]
]

Fr. 3 6.
].

]rev8[

r[

[ [
.

ipi[

]
[

[ [
]

6[
5

>[
[

yov[

][

Fr. 37.

Fr. 38.

Fr. 39

Fr. 40.

][
]eiv
]

tol

[
.

]\
]
]
.

]re
}

[
]>[

]' [

5
]

]^[
rep[

][ ][ [ ]
]
[
5

[
Fr. 41

re

]> ][
10 ].[.].
.

#e[

]eipai>eK

[
.

[.]

]uaroL
]

]..[

Fr. 42.

Fr. 43.

Fr. 44-

Fr. 45

][

]<r

94

THE OXYRHYNCHUS PAPYRI

3??y

>[
][
Fr. 46.

][
}*[
.

][
#
#

Fr. 47.

Fr. 48.

Fr. 49

}[ ]</3#1/7[
]o)ao//ei/y[
]e0i/oaa<5["

][
J

][
]*[

00 0

][ }[ ][
][

e<rai>[

]/(5[
]/^[
3r?

L [

]*[

?[

Fr. 50.

Fr. 51.

Fr. 52.

Fr. 53

^
1

][

e Bi[

]/3

./.[][
]
.

][
Fr. DO-

]//0?[

[
'

3f-[

)[
]

}yyov[

Fr. 54

Fr. 5 6.

Fr. 57

Fr. 58.

]are0[
]oi/ayu[

]/[
]ava[

][
]re<5e[

lai'af 3rt

W
Fr. 63.

Fr. 59.

Fr. 60.

Fr. 61.

Fr. 62.

]vev6a[
]i>7re0[

]vai[
]?[

]0Oi[

]l/Of[

3$

][
Fr.

Fr. 64.

Fr. 6 5

Fr. 66.

6.

)oe6[

3M

3"

][

1792.

NEW
]5

CLASSICAL FRAGMENTS
.

95

][
}[
Fr. 48. Fr. 49

][

]'
]

][ ][
Fr. 46.
Fr. 47

3-1

\
[

[
[

\\

'[
[

]vev
[

><*/>[

-1

<
Fr. 51.

Fr. 52.

Fr. S3-

Fr. 50.

P't

][
[

)[
]/3
.

.[]

[
[

].[

][

00o]yyoy

Fr. 54.

Fr. 55-

Fr. 5 6

Fr. 57

Fr. 58.

][
]/[
Fr. 59

][
Fr. 61.

][
][
Fr. 62.

Fr. 63.

Fr. 60.

][
]
70[

][

]0[

][
Fn
66

Fr. 67.

Fr. 64.

Fr. 65.

THE OXYRHYNCHUS PAPYRI

}[
][.][
]/XVaVL
.

][ )[
.

][ ][ ][
]
.
.

.
.

Fr. 68.

}?
.

][
.
.

][
]Tf(TTOy[

]>60[
][

[
or

]
][
]toov[

Ft. 1. 2. eV 3. Perhaps
viii.

ve[

[], but a
is
.

4-5. If the subject

10
in

)
with

01.

is an adjective preceding The remains of the is not clear.

[
'
.

[ . . {, ) ,(,
:

eWe[a,

.?

single broad letter,

. .

e.

singular,

[],
g.

might

fill

the initial lacuna.

-7[*] seems

But the verb

in
.

1.

may

be

which

i.

1920

.,

" a Substantive
and
e

cf. Nem. combined Whether the word

likely
is

(?),

first letter

are slight,

or

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.'

might be an acute accent on the t of 5. What has been taken for the tail of a which, however, is less likely on account of the infrequency of accents in the papyrus. apyixepavvov. the word is novel, but cf. 01. viii. 3 further con9. in Bacchyl. xvi (xvii). 66 cf. the n. firmation is here provided of the form

[,

ad

loc.

on 1091.

12.

13.
Asteria).
14.

,()? ''
:

like

in

1.

9, is

Homeric

(y*

467).

at the

beginning of a
01. vi.

line occurs also

eparas.

For

cf.

43
is

The

v.

1.

does not

commend

itself,

awkward

inversion and the corruption

vi.
.

hardly surprising, though

.

(
in

841.
.

19.

22 (meaning
is

-a rather

without a verb.
15. Cf. e.g. 01.
.
.

43-4
.
.

is
'

is right evidently the sense, and if with a v. reconcile the traces after There are also, rather to the right of these, some vestiges above the line which are not very
1 6.

becomes

inevitable,

Raised cries of joy' though it is

'

e's

it

leaves

Nem.

i.

35 6

is

difficult to

[]

satisfactorily

e.
1.

For 6[]> cf. 841. vi. 128 regarded as a rough breathing on t. which might be thought a more natural word here, cannot be read. 17-18. Either Te'XfjYjat or re'Xem is possible, presumably referring to the two deities (cf. but 6[] is inadmissible in Nem. x. 18 g. 01. xiii. 115 Z0 followed by a letter with 18, where the slight remains would be consistent with e. g. an
,

"

),

a vertical
19.

first

stroke.

Perhaps

[].

1792.
?

NEW
]

][

]
]

][.][

[ ][
.
.

[ ][
][.][

CLASSICAL FRAGMENTS
Fr. 68.
. . .

97
]<=[

]
.

[
ve(f)\a[

]
.

][ ][
][

][

][

but the is joined by a ligature which is too low for the normal at 2. Possibly The preceding letter might well be or v, of this hand, and suggests rather , , or besides r. is is right either pay or pw is likely. ] is certain, and if the 22. yoi or Ink is visible above the remains of the first letter, but whether it represents unsuitable. a diacritical mark or a correction is quite uncertain.

23. op

was followed by some round

letter.

1 is strongly suggested by their similar appearance, and this position is practically assured for Fr. 4b}' corresponding with a similar the junction of two selides in the syllable $ of in Fr. 1. 14; but Fr. 4 does not seem to join on of junction through the immediately.

Prs. 2-4. That these three small pieces are from the bottom of Fr.

Fr.
Fr.

5.

1.

The

diple is

probable but not certain.

suitable.

. . [, [ would be

Fr. 10. 2-3. Line 3 apparently ended at

Fr. 16. Cf. 841. vi. 134-6 [] can be , but of course doubtful obvious alternative.

Fr. 24.
Frs.

2.

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

[] []
,
and
.

ov

may be

this

may be

quite fortuitous

.
and

the end of

1.

2.
1.

In

2 here the
is

e. g.

i6p]tyaro

an

(cf. 01. vii.

51) would be suitable.

Fr. 31.
Fr. 32.

4.
8. 3. 3.

Perhaps

]ov Aio[s

but the

letters

can be variously interpreted.

or

The

fourth letter

may
is

also be

.
this line.
first

Fr. 35.

strophic division

denoted by the paragraphus below

to the

Fr. 36.

The

overwritten

may be due
good

hand.

Fr. 38. This fragment

8. e]/i/ieXf[,

?]6[
e. g.

Fr. 41.

Fr. 46. A junction between two selides occurs in this fragment and also which is otherwise similar in appearance. [* may of course be divided may be the particle and 2.

,
?

is

deal rubbed, as are also Frs. 39, 41, 43.

]/

in Fr. 47,

98

THE OXYRHYNCHUS PAPYRI

There was a shrine of Fr. 47. 2. Cf. Pindar Fr. 51 b, d 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.
3.

.
.
a

][
1.
;

ai]6tpi[
is

or ]aept[ could be read. rather suggested by

,

but

][

1361.
is

i.

1-2 >

of course possible.
iii.

] ,
, ,

in the following line;

[]

cf.

01.

i.

17

51. 3.

The
2.

coincidence with 01.

26 Aarovs
or
is

was observed by Lobel.

Fr. 52.

The

first letter is

probably

.
very doubtful, and

Fr. 55. 2. The supposed mark of quantity a breathing or a vestige of an interlinear letter.

The second

may may be .

equally well be

Fr. 67. Either there is a junction of selides in this fragment, which in appearance resembles Frs. 32 and 36, or the papyrus has been strengthened by a strip gummed on the Fr. 68 is rather similar, though less worn. back. 3. It is not clear that any trace of writing is to be recognized in this line.

1793.

CALLIMACHUS,

Sosibi Victoria.
Late
first

Height 10 cm.

century.

Callimachus after a long period of neglect has latterly been much in evidence 1 in the papyri (cf. 1362 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 This, as their source and now shown to belong to it, were in fact already extant. first perceived by Mr. Lobel, who has contributed much to the elucidation of the text, is the elegiac poem in honour of the victory of Sosibius alluded to in Athen. iv,
p.

144 e

),
Scheer)

and called in Schol. Lycophr. Alex. 523 (ed. 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, Sosibius was is not agreed. vii. 2, 7, viii. J-5, ix. 4-7, x. 1. Who He has commonly been thought to be the same as the Lacedaemonian grammarian designated or (Athen. xi. 493 c, Suid. s. v.), who was attached to the Alexandrian Museum under Philadelphus and wrote treatises on Spartan rites, on chronology, the poet Alcman, &c. (so e. g. Hecker, Com. Call. p. 66).

, .
irpbs

Kaaavbpov

(
6

'

The

identification

convenient edition of the

new fragments

is

now

available in Lietzmann's Kleine Texte, 145.

1793-

NEW
iv.

CLASSICAL FRAGMENTS

99

Schneider (ii, p. 220) questions this view partly on the ground of the a priori improbability that such a man would figure as an athletic victor, partly because
the reference in Athen.
epinician elegiac
'

144 to the Sosibius

'

to

whom

Callimachus wrote an

poem seemed

to differentiate that Sosibius from his

homonym

whom

/cos or Athenaeus elsewhere (iii. 78 c, xi. 493 e) speaks of as enough (though with regard to the second it For these reasons, which are plausible may be noted in xv. 690 e Athenaeus mentions probably the same grammarian with no descriptive epithet), Schneider preferred to regard Sosibius as some wealthy Alexandrian, perhaps an ancestor of the well-known minister of Philopator. He appears to have overlooked a very suitable person, Sosibius of Tarentum, who is mentioned by Josephus, Ant. xii. 2. 2, as one of the captains of the bodyguard of Philadelphus and a courtier of some influence. Whether any

relationship subsisted between that Sosibius

is

and the

\j/evb

of Philopator

quite problematical;

it

has been suggested that they were father and son,

case,

was more probably Dioscurides (Foucart, as would naturally be supposed, Col. x. 1-5 B. C. H. iv, pp. 97-8). In any of the papyrus refer to the man in whose honour the poem was composed, the Laconian is practically put out of court. The wealthy and powerful personage there described can scarcely be the grammarian who accepted the royal alimony (Athen. xi. 493 c) Josephus' captain of the bodyguard has better claims to Kaaavbpov would consideration, though the attribution to him of the treatise hardly be expected. Sosibius' success seems to have consisted in a double victory cf. vii. 1-4 and nn., and the reference at the Isthmian and the Nemean games
but the father of the
if,
;

to Corinth in

vi.

46.

Zbvov

re Hecker's conjecture that Callim. Fr. 193 was the exordium of this poem is thus consistent with the

new

evidence, but remains very uncertain.

As now
which the

reconstituted the papyrus consists of the tops of ten columns, of

were consecutive, the tenth being also few small fragments, also from the tops of columns, the last of the roll. 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
last eight,

and perhaps

all

ten,

on the view taken as to the number of poems represented remnants. Col. iii happens to include (1. 2) the half line
2

in

the

present

THE OXYRHYNCHUS PAPYRI

cited from Callimachus

to the

poem on

attribution,

by Achilles Statius and assigned by Schneider and others Lock of Berenice which was translated by Catullus. That it was rejected by Valckenaer, however, is by no means certain
the
;

who

drew attention to the fragment, on the ground that the version of Schneider evaded the objection by shows no corresponding phrase. Catullus and was simplified that was a periphrasis for the argument where the passage is quoted). iii. cf. n. on 2, by Catullus to mihi j(l. 83 Unfortunately Col. iii is badly mutilated, and what remains of the context of it is, however, noteworthy that the preceding verse ends with 1. 2 is indecisive which might well correspond to nudantes a feminine plural participle that too, though not ... in 1. 3 is in Catullus (1. 81), and that if translated literally, could be interpreted in a sense conforming to the Latin. in an epinician poem to Sosibius is, at the A mention of the
first
; ;

-,

least,

unexpected moreover, there is a second reference to Berenice in v. 6, Perhaps, then, and another to her father, Magas, king of Cyrene, in v. 2. and the poem on Col. iii contained the conclusion of the Sosibius did not begin till after v. 6, being separated from the by a shorter elegiac piece. On the other hand, it may be argued that the praises of Sosibius may easily have been coupled with those of more important personages, and that if the poem addressed to him included a passage referring to the king (viii. 5 sqq.) it may equally have included others relating to the
;

,
.

Col.
3

i.

&>*

......[
]

[>

]]
]r R y
. .

Col.

ii.

.[...].. tyar
.

Col.
.
.

iii.

Ktt .
.

...
.

f
.

.[...]

[.]
.

....[.

[.]
]
.
.

,][
,]
.

'

[.

.]e

[.

[.}.

...[....]

>

41

1793.

NEW
Such

CLASSICAL FRAGMENTS
On that confined to this particular poem, which would
lines or

queen and her

hypothesis the

father.
roll

irrelevances are natural in a court poet.

may have been

have extended to some two hundred

more.

The

text

is

written in medium-sized -upright uncials,

or

laborious, but not regular

well-formed.

The

scribe

somewhat ornate and was evidently a bad

;

copyist (see below) and possibly also had difficulties with his archetype
this

that

was considerably older

is

rather suggested
to
in

archaism, for example, the linking of

by an apparent tendency to viii. 2 and the varying formation

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
of
;

text in a very imperfect

state

its

inaccuracy
viii.

is

ruptions in lines previously extant

(cf.

1, ix. 7).

demonstrated by the corThis textual inferiority

combined with the

disjointed character of the fragments adds materially to the

difficulty of interpretation.

Col.

i.

,
;

[>

Col.

ii.

)
.
.

.[...]..

....[....]..[

Col.
]

...
] .
. .

...
.

e
.

.[....].

/a?

]
]
.

[.]
.
.

:
.

[.]

.> [. .> ...[....]

.

[]
.

iii.

[.]
.

[.

I02

THE OXYRHYNCHUS PAPYRI

}\\{>
]
.

^
.

Col.

iv.

\
.

[.]

[.][
]//[.
.]
. . .

8[

]
>
]

."..
[
]
.

Col.
.
.

.
[][

ey\

[.

[.

,[ ]\ .][
.]]
.
. .
'

.]8[.]

...[...
[.]
.

,]
*?

ref

~\vvvaveTL

[.

.][

][.

.]

]@

Fr.

to

1.

6?

[.

\[^4^^. ,<.\. [.] [.].][. .]

.[...].

''' ]
.

Col.

vi.

.^[[]]"77

aevavXovtyti'

.] .[]..

[-]yoi/[.

\[

1793.

NEW

CLASSICAL FRAGMENTS

103

\
]
.

,.
.
.

\
.
.
.
.

Col.

iv.

?
'

eipiTiat.
.

] [.

[]
.]

[.]

[.

]
. .

Col.

with Fr.

.
.

[.

,]

3
.

6\.]

...[..
.

.][

[\
[]
[.
. .

.] act

[ 7[ ]] [],
kv
.

[.]

[? ]
[.
.

], ,

[...]...[

.]

Col. vi.

[]
[.

[] () , [ 2][\ [], [][]\] []

[?

'

. ]

9*

[ ....]..
4

Io 4

THE OXYRHYNCHUS PAPYRI

>\
Col.
vii.

[.

. /
[.}
.

<./>
[.
.

.][.
1

.]
.

?{
[

]/)[

][

]^[.

.]<;
1

8 letters

Col.

viii.

[. .][. .}<[.
.

.],[

][

.]

]0*[

(>
Col. ix.
5

>>
>[. .)<[. .]
[.

.]

a>KKf[

<?

23 letters

]^

1793.

NEW
Kt

CLASSICAL FRAGMENTS
Col.
vii.

io=

re

{)
5

^
[.
[
.

[)]
.

['

?
?
f

? )

(),
(?)
[.
.

(),
.][.
][.
. .

.]

.]

? ]
]

1 8 letters

hpbv

'[] , ,.
or

?, ? ? ?
Col.

viii.

()?'

%.

[,

.]

[ [
%

}.

[],

,[.
]
)

.]

?
5

? ?, ? . ?'()(?.
Col. ix.
kv

\?

()[? ] [ [..].
23 letters

? ]

?)

[]?

}[

io6

([.] />[.]
.

>((> /6}/
Col. x.
[.

THE OXYRHYNCHUS PAPYRI

.][.][.] [.
.

.]

e(V

fit[

] ?w[

Ka7T i

tf otters

]r

Fragments.
2.
[
r

4.
.

]<
r

]y*[

* poeei/r[

]>6
r

]7?[

letters

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

Col. in.

The

position of this

The fragment

itself

is shown by a partial impression on the verso of Col. iv. has an impression on the back which provides a few letters from the

earlier portion of the lines.

2. The end of this line coincides with Callim. Fr. 35 d from Achill. Stat. Isag. in Avat. Phaen. p. 134 6 Bepeviiajs im (sic) os cf. int. p. I OO. The passage in Catullus ?) to which Schneider supposes the fragment to correspond is (Ixvi. 79-83)

,
prius

,(

nunc, vos optato

tradiie,

quom iunxit lumine iaeda, non prius unanimis corpora coniugibus

nudantes reiecia veste papillas, libet onyx, vesler onyx, casto colitis quae iura cubili.

quam iucunda mihi munera

quam mihi

is

regarded as a translation of

If that is correct,

it

seems

1793.

NEW
k<p'

[]
*-[.
.

\ ' {<],
.]{]
[. 35
.]

, ^. \\ . ,] ' ?, [
Col. x.

CLASSICAL FRAGMENTS

107

()

\]

(?}

in

[*0}'

letters

Fragments.
2.

[
strange that
is

] }{
3.

.[

/36e?

5-

3"1

was included
doubtful

in the citation, in which, as

it

stands, the natural sense of

npw

rather quondam.
4.

The

may be

or

e,

hardly

p.

(the point of junction Col. iv. The suggested combination of two pieces in 11. 1 and 2 the absence of a satisfactory restoration is indicated by vertical lines) remains uncertain in will become Col. vi and If the combination is incorrect, Col. of the word after Wip. a possible lacuna between it and Col. iv. 1 . . . ftc. will become Col. v, with opposite assigned to 1. 5 was adhering to the back of Col. v, fragment
.

The

small

is thus indicated with probability. a novel compound; the epithet would suit e. g. as Housman suggests, but with the context or ff 2. Perhaps B and Further on could be read in place of present state emendation is not hopeful. in its in place of or (accus.i). the vocative has been substituted for some other case

[.
.

*
and
its

position
is

4.

V W .

W ^^,

[].

Col. v. This column, like the two preceding,

is

partly deciphered
is

from impressions on
the

began with the same word. end of 1. 1, smaller letters of reduced size which become The loss was supplied by the original scribe in which there only remains an as he proceeds, and the latter part, of and more cursive n* *> which is suggested by 1. 3, seems unobtainable. decipher,

^7 The original omission of this line, the

place of which
11.

marked by
3

&m

at the

was evidently due to the circumstance that

and

impression,

is difficult

to

io8

THE OXYRHYNCHUS PAPYRI

Magas, whose enmity to Philadelphus terminated with the betrothal of his daughter to the Egyptian crown prince, is commonly supposed to have died in or about b.c. 258. hi to which the insertion above the line apparently refers, remains obscure. 3. may be sound, though would give a suitable substantive for the repeated Valckenaer's correction of Callim. Fr. 209, from Schol. Soph. Antig. 264. 4

to is confirmed. The various conjectures as to the source of the verse prove to have been worthless. on account of the space. seems more likely than 5. 6. Fr. 1, containing the letters (a very uncertain : , , , are equally possible), was adhering to the lower part of the verso of a fragment which higher up has impressions of the middles of 11. 1 and 3-4. It will not combine readily with 1. 5 and so has been

, 1.

][

assigned to

6, 1.

where

"
'

belonged to the Cyrenaica (cf. Callim. Hymn. Apoll. 76 may be loosely used as an equivalent of as in Fr. 13 Libyan horses were noted for their speed (Ael. Nat. An. ill. 2, XIV. 10), and according to Hdt. iv. 189 cf. e. g. Soph. El. 702, 727. is capable of two interpretations, either is in its stall ', depending on some phrase equivalent to or has fresh in its ears ', sc. the sound of the wheels. The letters are derived from an impression which also gives the doubtful in 1. 2, and the rough breathing (also doubtful)
Col. vi.

The

'
.

yaijj),

.
it

seems

suitable.

but the word

: /

on

in
2.

1.

4.

At the end of the line seems to have been corrected to the (or ?) being cancelled by a dot above and below it. The letters are fairly clear in an impression on the back of the next column, which also makes the overwritten certain. Of the two accents on the acute is slightly the darker and larger. looks probable, but is not satisfactory after be regarded as an improvement. (?) ; nor can is presumably the news of the victory of Sosibius. 3. The TjSeia i. e. Poseidon ; cf. n. on 11. 6-7. 4. of is not very satisfactory the vertical stroke must be supposed to have 5. become entirely obliterated, and to have been written close to the p. was suggested, no doubt rightly, by both Murray and Lobel. 6-7. [-y]eco[p]yoi)[i>T]fs is very doubtful, but the letter before ov, if not y, can only be or

[]
;

[]

[
:

so that

restored from Schol. Lycophr. Alex. 522 (Scheer)

,
8.

e. g.

is

excluded.

dot slightly above the second a diaeresis than a high stop.

,
cf.

[177

{)\
:
'

(sc.
.

or sim.)
.

maybe

suitably

,]
is

ev

fj

(?),

unless accidental,

more

likely to represent

by Housman of

Col. vii. 1-2. This couplet is rendered intelligible by the slight alteration suggested to at the beginning of 1. 2 that even one dwelling on the Cinyps may learn that Sosibius and Alexandria have won a double crown For cf. instead of e. g. Eurip. Tro. 868 and for the order inl. 2 Callim. Fr. 530

'.

3~4. For
'

77()
'

e. g.

Callim.

H.

Del.

168

whose honour the Isthmian games are said to have been founded (cf. Pausan. i. 44. 8, Plutarch, Theseus 25, &c), and the other child who was suckled on Myrina' s milk is Opheltes-Archemorus, who was commemorated by the games of Nemea and was the foster-child of Hypsipyle, daughter of Myrina after whom the Lemnian town Myrina was supposed to be named. cf. Eustath. ad Hom. 5. For p. 1599. 25
the brother of Learchus
'

means

Melicertes, in

'

Probably

'

Ttdhvyovov (Fr. 296). of course refers to the annual inundation. What has been regarded as the top of the in ve may belong to the o>, which is sometimes written in this hand with a little hook at the top of the first stroke. vestige of the letter after 01 would suit e. g. 6. and possibly [oVjrts (er ?) 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 and yap, which are transposed by Schneider following Meineke, is retained (? 1.

1793.

NEW

CLASSICAL FRAGMENTS

109

.
gives
3.
5.

fragment to Aet.

:' :, , ' '

Col. viii.
1

at the

:
6
;

Callim. Fr. 122, from Schol. Pindar,

em. x. 64

., with

:,

instead of which the papyrus mistakenly

.). : \

i.

end of the second line. Schneider proposed to assign Bergk was no happier in suggesting that the source was the

named a
Pausan.

i. e. probably the daughter of Creon and wife of Jason, from spring near Corinth on the road to Sicyon : above it was
:

ii.

3. 6.
:

i.e. the conventional salutation of 4. 2> a victor in the games; cf. Archil. Fr. 106 Schol. Pindar, There is a somewhat similar allusion to 01. ix. 1. in Callim. Fr. 223. is perhaps metaphorical, i< we have retraced our steps/ as e. g. in Aesch. Ag. 344

6.
y.

8.

[(] was suggested by Lobel [ much more probable than [. does not scan, and the right emendation not obvious. ] ] or are possible alternatives.
:

Col. ix. 1-2. The are no doubt the Graces, * her children by Zeus; cf. Callim. Fr. 471 and for Callim. Fr. 266 a proverbial expression, as in Aristaen. ii. 2 I ai yap . ; cf. Suidas S. V.

. ] :
:

'

, , '
6

":
this

whom was
cf.

.,

the verb occurs only here.

:),
'
was not
3.

but the point in the present passage is not very clear. near Mycenae, which had ancient statues of the in its
:

to

Greece and

sc. probably Sosibius, who made commemorative dedications both in Egypt the former were only known to the poet by hearsay 1. 4), the latter he had seen. The of seems to have been corrected from o, the base of which gives the letter the appearance of a . 6. This verse, in which apparently the was more closely defined, is obscured by corruption, fir is open to suspicion on account of the hiatus. The ': was near Pelusium and the Serbonian Lake, . ': : (Hdt. iii. 5), and there was a temple of Zeus there, might conceal but the rest of the line is incongruous. would give a possible sense, but is far rfj from being convincing. With regard to the concluding words, a similar collocation is noticeable in Callim. Fr. 373 (TzetZ. ad Lycophr. 139) oi

5.

: . :
far

from Nemea.
is is

: .:: : , : ,:: , : } :: : : :
is is

fW

who

are

commonly

called

(sc.

became

evidently an error for

also plausible,

though for

:
:

The

may

be that
4)

(Pausan.

ii.

1 7.

and

or -ov
. .

Lobel's suggested correction of cf. Callim. Fr. 310

in

: :

:,

:\

unlikely.

, .

no

THE OXYRHYNCHUS PAPYRI

(\
toxjs

a\as

does not exclude a poem, but that the present passage

.
is

As Schneider remarks,
is

the source of the citation

Callim. Fr. 217, the various guesses as to the source of which were, as usual in 7 This line is intelligible as the first verse of the the absence of a substantial clue, futile. dedicatory inscription of Sosibius.
8.

The

letter
o.

before the

equally well be

first was probably y, , or , and the doubtful At the end of the line is not excluded.

after

may

Col. x.
is

2.

cm
and

clearly corrupt,

after eiSora,

probably an inadvertent anticipation of which was suggested by both Murray and Lobel, or

is

an

easy alteration.
7.

suggested gives a suitable sense, [] referring to the first but would also serve. At the end of the [] or A vestige in front line the very slight remains are consistent with either cXefei or ept&v. of ov8 is quite in keeping with a . of the base of accords with the context, but is very doubtfully read, the ^ being 8. ^[e]uS)7s or is represented only by the top of a stroke above the line equally consistent with ; The next word is perhaps the first possible in place of . as Lobel suggests

The

restoration

alternative,

i.

e.

^]

&

][]

[],

may be .
Fr.
3.
2.
1.

The
like

grave accent on
is

has apparently been cancelled.,

8.

Fr. 4.

The supposed
or
.

strangely formed, rather like a figure

It is

preceded

by what looks

.
1794.

Poem

in

Hexameters.
Late second century.
lines

19x12-9 cm.

This papyrus contains on the recto the ends and beginnings of

partially effaced

perhaps early in the second century.

[
. .

columns from an annotated

list

of property-holders,
village

of two drawn up
KepKt(vpa)

The Oxyrhynchite
.]
.

][. .]
]([.][.]

][.

[.]([
.

[.

.]([
.

.[.]...

[.]
.

TOvSeye[.]ey

[. ,]] [.)[.][.
. . .

.] [.][.]''
)[.
[][][

]]> ].]
]
.

[.]>

[. .^^. .~

.]\[.}

1794.

NEW

CLASSICAL FRAGMENTS

in

is mentioned. On the verso is a nearly complete column of 21 lines from a hexameter poem, written in a medium-sized semicursive hand which dates probably from the latter part of the same century. The column has a slant to

the right owing to the writer's tendency to advance to the

left

the

commencement
its

of the lines.

circumflex accent

is

once written

(1.
t

8),

but apart from this no

v.

other diacritical marks occur except the diaeresis on

and

The poem and

author remain unidentified.

The column

is

occupied by a speech of an elderly

woman

to a youth,

whom

she addresses as

re/cos.

She

dilates

on the fickleness

of fortune and explains that though

now poor

she had formerly been prosperous

and had often entertained guests. This situation resembles that of the Hecale of Callimachus, who, moreover, puts into the mouth of Hecale the same adjective, Xnrepvijris, which is used of herself by the speaker here But 11. 26, cf. 1. 17, n. so far as they can be made out, do not seem to suit the Hecale, still less 11. 20-1, in which the woman describes herself as a needy vagrant in a city, whereas Hecale when visited by Theseus was living in the country near Marathon. An identification must, therefore, be sought elsewhere, and some less polished poet of the Alexandrian school is more likely to be the author than Callimachus. The
;

mention

in

1.

20 of

rjb'

as the cause of the speaker's misfortunes

in

recalls the story of

1.

Erysichthon as told by Callimachus

H. Dem.

31 sqq.

102 there the ravenous hunger of Erysichthon is described as and some further resemblance may be found between the following lines 105-6 avkus hi and 11. 1 8- 1 9 of the papyrus:
but this

may be

,
ol
.

,
;

in

a coincidence.

[, ]$, [, ]
.

[][
.

[.

.][.

......

[ [] ] []] .]
.[.]...

,
[]

5 ev

yc[.]i>

'

] [, ] ? . [ [] ?
.[.......].

[]

Ace

.[.....
.

[][][

.]

'

[]?

[]

, [] []

[,

- [] ]

2
1

[. .]. [.][.
.

\[.\8
.

THE OXYRHYNCHUS PAPYRI

2
'

[.]

[.]/>' )([. .] .[.

.
. .

[. .] [.][.]
]$[.][.

.]

.]\ov8ega\[. .]vo(pe\\ei

,]

-2 1. She went up to him and said " My son, my son, being so much in want of you should not go to a child, whose hand cannot proffer food, nor his voice ... I myself am not are broken, and my house gives a dry sound. ., but the hopes of my life 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 I whom you see have given drink and food to many, for formerly I was no another. outcast, nay, I had fields where the crops stood deep, I had a threshing-floor, and sheep in plenty but they were all made havoc of by this baneful famine (?), and I, an uncared for wanderer, creep thus about the crowded city ".'
.

i.

Of the

letter

before ae there

is

only a very small vestige, and

cf. 1.

e. g. 7

could equally

well be read, but

3.

seems required by the sense. The restoration of ofpje'fyeti' '], for which
:

16,

was suggested by Housman.

4. Kf 5. 6.

or perhaps
is

o-e.

possible in place of

.
must be some
error,
is

If on- is rightly read there

an

alternative,

perhaps also

though the

latter is less suitable.

;

and/a at any rate there is 7. There may have been only one letter (v?) between no room for may be read in place of the following doubtful p. []\ t, , or avTfl 8. av]ov the Homeric phrase, which is used of metallic sounds, has here a rather different but quite intelligible sense. There is not room for Keve]ov.
. .
. :

might be altered to but the is perhaps lengthened as e.g. in Homer 39 yap er' epeWev, H. Dem. 57 acpveov, as Housman Cf. 1. 12, where observes, also has Homeric analogy (e.g. Dem. 424), though the loss of re after 641,
9. yap

3%

.
or
'

would be
13.

eliminated by writing
14.

be read.

^(
easy.

and

are apparently unattested.

[].
to

must be corrected

1 7

9 The
'

Calhm. Fl". 66 e yap elpi verb presumably refers to the substantives of the preceding line as well as to to which it is more strictly suitable. Cf. Soph. Anlig. 287, where Jebb's assertion that could not possibly be joined with yijv is unconvincing.
Cf.
1

. ','

The The

latter

is

broken, but

can of course be
cannot

1794.

NEW
,

CLASSICAL FRAGMENTS

15

[]
'

8(])
eV

[] , ?, '[], ^ \], , [] \ 2
<5e

[]

?,[] []
veibs
}

[]
'

7rep[/ar]/oe0erai

.
'
eg

113

[]

[3>]

?
1795.
is
ii

' [? ]$ .
e[.
.

Acrostic Epigrams.
ii

Col.

22-3

7-8 cm.
is

First century.

Three fragments from two columns, one of which

belonging to the same collection.

practically complete,

containing epigrams of precisely the same kind as those in 15, and perhaps

Each epigram

consists of four

which the

final foot is

an iambus instead of a spondee or trochee

followed by the words avA(e)t

and, as also in 15, each

( ),
hexameters in
ii

Another feature

common to the two papyri escaped notice when 15 was edited, and seems not The initial letters of the successive quatrains are to have been observed since.
in alphabetical order, Col.

including the letters

[]

to

while 15.

includes

,,

and so terminates the series. Whether the two papyri preserve different portions of the same collection is an open question. The absence of any with 1795. ii is no argument against identity, since 3.5 lines coincidence in 15. would intervene between 1795. ii. 27 and 15. ii. 1, so that, unless the column in But of course the number of 15 exceeded 40 lines, no overlapping would occur. 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
12,
i

variety of topics without logical sequence.

Some have
ii.

a hedonistic tendency,

others contain moral reflections or

in

maxims

of conduct.
cf.

Similar subjects occurred

15.
i.

the specimen previously discovered;

ii.

12-15 with

7-10,

ii.

1-4

247 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
(music),
1

That

Gott. gel.

in 15 is probably to be regarded as two words, not one, was pointed oat by Wilamowitz, Anz. 1898, p. 695.
I

ii4
to the larger and

THE OXYRHYNCHUS PAPYRI

more
irregular formation of Col.
ii.

If this indication

is

not

began respectively with the letters , , . The script is an upright informal uncial of an early type, with some tendency to it may be assigned to the first century. cursive forms, notably in e One rather
deceptive, the three stanzas of Fr.
;

doubtful instance of a
quatrain
verso
is
is

mark

of elision occurs in

ii.

3.

The

first

line of

each
the
also

made

to protrude

by a couple of

letters into the left

margin.

On
is

a partially obliterated account in second-century cursive.

There

an

illegible half line in cursive,

literary text,

which apparently has nothing to do with the on the recto above Col. ii.

Fr.
j

]v

~\
5
]

[ [
1.
[

Col. i?

Fr.

2.

>
3

}
.

[
.

][
]
]?
]
.

[
[

.]
]

][

]
1

??

Qavi.iv

}[

'
[i]<5[[Yj]es

?
[]

[ [] [
Col.
ii.

[]~

[] []

[] []

[]

[]

[]

1795.

NEW

CLASSICAL FRAGMENTS

115

Trc^T^J]

\]
[

[]
1

[]
()
[]

[] []
opa(iy

[
[

[]
25
o

{)
4
1

() 7^5[[
M er
'

[]
*.

[]
\\\\
20-3.

Fr.
6.
g.

1.

e. g.

], ].
;

This quatrain evidently deals with old age and the approach of death
2.

cf.

ii.

Fr.

As

slated in the introduction, this fragment, like Fr.

of the column, since otherwise, unless the line preceding 1. 1 The spacing of the lines is also suitable. should be visible. part of Col.
'

probably from the top was abnormally short, some

1, is

ii.

Try not

to injure,

and

if

you are

injured,

avoid discord, and you will have

little

trouble

do not retaliate ; shun murder, shun strife, and moreover will not repent. Pipe me

tune.
'
:

You see spring, winter, summer these are general. The sun himself sets takes her appointed place. Toil not to seek whence comes the sun or whence the where you may buy perfume and garlands. Pipe me a tune. 1 should like three welling founts of honey, five of milk, ten of wine, perfume, and two of spring water and three of snow ; I should like at each fount
1

and night
water, but

twelve of a boy and

a maid.

Pipe me a

tune.

Lydian

flute

serves me,
I live I
lyre.

drum

of oxhide.
at

While
feet

my

head and

my

and Lydian strains of the lyre, and Phrygian pipe, and long for these to play, and when I die, put a flute above Pipe me a tune.
I

n6
'

THE OXYRHYNCHUS PAPYRI

Who

has found the limits of wealth, who the limits of poverty, or who has found the gold among men? For now he who has money wishes for still more money, and the rich man, poor wretch, is tormented like the poor. Pipe me a tune. If ever you see a corpse or pass a silent tomb, you are looking at a common mirror the dead man's expectation was as yours. Life is a loan the lender of life is stern, and when he wants to demand it back, in sorrow you will repay. Pipe me a tune. Xerxes was a king who said that he shared the sovereignty of Zeus, and he sailed over the water of Lemnos with but two boats. Rich was Midas, trebly-rich was Cinyras, but who went down to Hades with more than an obol ? Pipe me tune.'
limit of
'
:

'

.
2.

The

reading, however,
v.

\($ []
:

the remains of the termination are scanty, but

cf.
is

well be
3.
6.

1.

The

} .
is
1.
1.

For

Hesych. far from certain,

as an irregular future form

first

where there
13.

14.

- of is a correction, perhaps from a partially formed . Cf. 1. 15, an unnoticed lipography. is a drum or something of the kind in Geop. xv. 25. 3. provides a good antithesis, but the is not altogether satisfactory and the other
1.
:

[]

' .? ..
seem too much
iv
;

for

-.

being especially doubtful

the letter after

may

would balance

better than

remains are very scanty.

5
16.
Eui'ip.

H. F. I055 6
1.

1 8.

Cf. Eurip. Sllppl.

Perhaps was written. 20. 1. is one of the words often wrongly aspirated, being influenced no doubt by opciv, e. g. Philipp. ii. 23 &v cf. Mayser, Grammatik, p. 201. 22. Cf. Anth. Pal. App. 252 and for e. g. Anth. Pal. xi. 309 The (Ionic) forms 23. 1. occur e.g. in the LXX, Ps. xxxvi. 21,
19.

.
for

the correct form

which has come in from the next

}

2389

. . []
was
.

written in

1.

12.
line.

For the tmesis

cf.

e.g.

Job xxxiv.
27.

,.
;

11.

was converted from o. -is for -toy is a common vulgarism. seems inevitable here, but the remains suggest rather than . This deceptive, but possibly was written twice by mistake instead of
26. s of

may

be

1796.

Hexameter Poem on Egyptian Botany.

21x35
cm.

Second century.

The
which
is

recto of this papyrus contains remains of three columns, the second of

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

two columns of a hexameter poem dealing with Egyptian plants 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
inscribed with
Col.

or trees.

i,

1796.
at
1.

NEW

CLASSICAL FRAGMENTS
column
in
1.

any
9,

.]
ii

rate the greater part of the preceding

1.

12; the form

19 deserves to be noticed).

( []
At
1.
;

12
is

of Col.

the writer turns to the persea tree, to which the rest of the column

and the poem must have been of considerable length if many subjects were treated on a similar scale. Its author is hardly likely to be identified, nor need the loss of his name be regretted his work seems to have been of small merit, whether from the literary or scientific point
devoted.

The

style

is

diffuse,

of view.

The

text

is

written in a heavy upright semicursive with no diacritical marks

other than the diaeresis.

short oblique dash

i,

is

once used apparently for

punctuation at the end of a line in Col.

and paragraphi were also employed. Corrections in the body of the text are frequent, and there are also some marginalia in a closely similar if not identical hand 1822, which was found at
:

the

same time

as this papyrus, presents

some analogous

features.

[\
Mi
are
efjViTjoi

/
e

ore
5

[]
ew[

'
15

ei;[Ta]l<5p|Tt/|]o '
*

^^^
at

ew

\\oepoia[i

>#?7[[^|

{}

n8

?
20

THE OXYRHYNCHUS PAPYRI

artp

yap

Se

,
in

^-

[_

ei/ei<5e[[.]]s

eyyvs {ejioeaOai.

NeiXov
p[e](ci

veov evre

[.]

<5

in

There is not enough lo show whether the initial e written by a common confusion is was deleted. The Subject of 2. In the margin in front of this line is a or a having the third stroke protracted downwards the meaning of this is obscure.
5.

. (\\ 5
6.

a correction of or variant on e-m

,
;

might be read instead of en-, but seems no easier. originally. To what in the margin refers is not clear; the letters are slightly above 1. 9, but nearer to it than to 1. 8. 10. SevSpea is unexpected, since the subject under discussion both here and in the int. Perhaps, however, this was previous column appears to be the cf. a digression Dioscorides describes one variety of as growing in shady places, 8e and another as having (. 1 93-4) The cyclamen then may have been brought in here in connexion with some tree, to which Sevdpea goes back. The tree, as which is planted on modern embankments because Housman remarks, might be the the roots bind the soil. 12. cf. e.g. Nicander, Al. 99 The persea, which was 53. 7. an exclusively Egyptian tree (Strabo xvii, p. 823, includes it among the of the country), is described at length by Theophrastus, H. P. iv. 2-5, who says that it
1.

9.

oiyvyiov

?
IS if
;

perhaps for
that
is

right

. .
word,

.
en\_ (?)

is

for

.
;

the

margin looks

like

ev

was apparently written

, ^/,

():
It

:
in

'

yap

veos del

.';

this illustrates the

;

seems to have become a rarity by the fourth century (53 cf. Wilcken, Archiv i, p. 127) and was protected by an edict of Arcadius (Cod. lust. xi. 77). The interlinear insertion is difficult both to decipher and to explain ; as written in the margin, must in any case be read. The first of the marginal lection has been corrected. 13-14. According to Theophrastus, I.e., the fruit 1. was written over by mistake for y. 5 k harsh ', as 17. Both this and the preceding marginal note are obscure,
here.

.
vi.

Anth. Pal.
19.

168.

=
The
this

tree

would not be capable (Housman)

zi. 22.

between
corrected,

does not occur elsewhere. interpretation of the abbreviation in the margin is doubtful. 'fluctuations'? The next word is puzzling. If is right, the letter and was quite narrow (? t). The penultimate letter seems to have been
:

,
'

epithet

'

culture,' resulting in continual fruitfulness, of

this substantive

which a wild

and

is

very uncertain.

1797.

NEW

CLASSICAL FRAGMENTS
Uepl

1797.

ANTIPHON SOPHISTES,
22.4
1

6-3 cm.

These two columns of a philosophical work belonged to the same find as but owing to obvious 1364, the fragments of the sophist Antiphon Ylept and in the length and width of their columns, the differences both in handwriting

, ,
it

119

Early third century.

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
is

subject of this

new

piece

is

the ethics of legal evidence, the justice

If justice consists in
is

of which

controverted in opposition to the current view.

not wronging others

adverse evidence,
so convicted
is

when not wronged even when the evidence

oneself, then,
is

contended, to give

true,

is

essentially unjust.

person

and his resentment may result in further injury to the Legal procedure in general, which benefits one man at giver of the evidence. This sophistical argument the expense of another, is vitiated by similar injustice. where Antiphon, starting from another definition is quite in the manner of 1364, matter of expediency of justice as the observance of law, maintains that this is a the law may be broken with and that, so long as the breach is unobserved, text recalls 1364 advantage cf. Part XI, pp. 92 sqq. In style also the present Antiphon found in Hermogenes, where the literary estimate of
injured,
; ;

see op.

cit., p.
ii.

95,

De

Among to that papyrus. uepl pp. 48 sqq., are considered in relation is exemplified in poetic rhythm special characteristics the sophist's tendency to and 51-3 below, and his partiality for synonyms in 11. 64-5. 11. 10-11, 16-18, 47-9,
which seems to have been worth noting that the expression L No instance is found also in 1364. 272. rather favoured by the author of 1797, used in 1364, appears once in 1. 44. The the spelling or occurs of likely on internal evidence, and ascription to Antiphon thus seems sufficiently
It

ideis,

',

11.

17,

and the

stylistic analysis in

E. Jacoby's

De

Antiph. Soph.

may be

some external marks

addition to the of relationship between the two papyri, in Though the are also forthcoming. fact that they were found in close proximity, type and are certainly very close in hands are not identical they are of the same The column in 1797 is about 3 cm. longer and 1 cm. broader than in 1364, date. identical.. Breathings, accents, but the height of the papyrus is approximately been occasionally and marks of quantity, which are rare in prose texts, have to which may be also due inserted in both papyri, apparently by a second hand, means of high or medial dots (in 1364 one instance occurred

the punctuation
of a low dot).

by

The

possibility
;

additions in both texts

in

suggested that the same hand made these of the that case 1797 might actually be a later section
is

I20

THE OXYRHYNCHUS PAPYRI

roll as

shown by a stichometrical figure to have belonged book or alternatively 1797 may be supposed to be from another treatise of Antiphon, the or the riepi this copy being more or less uniform with that of the Ilept (1364) and belonging to the same owner.
is

same

1364, which

to the earlier portion of the

15

] ] ] ] ] ] ]] ] ] [] ] ].
]

] ^
Col.
]

i.

? ' ', [[
Col.

4 ?

45

[[
[

[ [

55

[ [
[

25

[] []
ye

[ [] [ [
?]

[]

[]
[

[]

6 []
[]

[]

[ []

[]
&5

KaL

1797.

NEW

CLASSICAL FRAGMENTS

121

30

[]-

[]

[] '

[] [] []
[]

[]
[]$

[] [
[]
[]
[

35

[] []

[]
justice

[][

75

]W[
lvov[

[....].

[
Fr.

time to testify to the truth is regarded as virtuous and at the same The man pursuits. another is considered just and equally useful for human concerning one wrong no one when one is not oneself who does so however is not just. For it is just to to some extent doing wronged and he who gives testimony, even if it is true, cannot help this is that he may himself subsequently be wronged: and there is a probability a wron* whom he testifies is convicted in conseat any rate possible, in so far as the man against person whom he is in no quence of his testimony, and loses either money or life owing to a testimony is given, that way wronging. Herein therefore he wrongs the man against whom wronged by such a person is not wronging him ; and he is himself he wrongs some one who and wronged not by his hatred because he is hated by him although he testified to the truth, against whom he he must always be on his guard against this man only but also because do what damage he can, either in word 01 testified, regarding him as an enemy prepared to or those inflicted. These wrongs do not seem inconsiderable, either those received deed should be just and that not to do or receive a wrong For it is not possible that these acts Conor both must be unjust. should also be just, but either one of them must be just whatever their upshot, are therefore seen not to be demnation, judgement, and arbitration, this those who are benefitted are not just; for what benefits some injures others; and in
;

wronged, but those who are injured

2
. :

. by Murray, is not impossible. f convincing, is fairly satisfactory 20-4. The restoration proposed, if not altogether and 21 the lower half of the between 11. 20 It is not quite certain that a line is not lost was small dot after the first column being detached, nor is it quite clear that in 1. 22 a fill the space in 1. 24. instead of |4> would hardly intended as a stop. preceding it seems but with is an intelligible expression, 28. avrbv be read. should more likely than not that avrbv {rbv
, . .
.

.'
. .

is rather more probable than

v,

but

e. g.

[^,

which

is

suggested

|]

122

THE OXYRHYNCHUS PAPYRI

34. eavTov appears to have 56.
:

i.e.

given, though there perhaps correctly. 16. ii. 3, &c, has anything to do with the accentuation

been

written, not
is

[]>[[5]]
cf.

but

wanted;

1364. 194, where the same accent is Whether the marginal symbol, for which cf. e.g.
is

doubtful.

Fr. That
is

this

scrap belongs to the

same

text as the preceding piece

seems

likely,

but

not certain.

1798.

Anonymous work on Alexander the Great.

Fr.

44

14-3x34-3 cm.

Late second century.

These fragments from a

part of the second century

historical

work dealing with Alexander the Great

is

are written in a medium-sized informal hand, probably of the middle or latter

;

on the verso

1802, an alphabetical lexicon of rare

copyist, as often happened,

words, also in a semicursive but smaller script.

tended gradually to advance the

proceeded, so giving the columns
used, but there are

The commencement of

the lines to the

left

as he

a slant to the right.

Paragraphs are sparingly

no

stops, or other signs except the diaeresis.

Two

small

corrections occur (Frs. 10

and

14),

one clearly, and probably both, by a second

2,300, in the margin of Frs. 5-6.
is
ii, is due to unknown, but in all likely to have

hand.

A stichometrical

figure

i.

e.

the original scribe.

Unfortunately the height of the column

it

consideration of the size of the handwriting

is

not at

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,
the scale of the work was very considerable.
it

is

evident that

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.

apparently describes the circumstances of the death of Philip, of which an account

is

given differing somewhat

In Fr. 2

commentary.
Frs.

from what is found in other sources cf. the some hexameter lines are quoted evidently in connexion
;
'

with the destruction of Thebes, which was

left without a habitation among men 5-6 mention Spithridates, who was one of the Persian satraps opposed to Alexander in the battle of the Granicus.
'.

1798.

NEW
is

CLASSICAL FRAGMENTS

123

No. 44, in which are preserved the upper parts of five successive columns, the fifth, however, represented by the beginnings of the on the verso of this fragment are two columns of the lexicon, lines only Col. i repeats the well-known (1802. 3). containing words beginning with

The main fragment

;

story

of the physician Philip who, after having undertaken to prescribe for Alexander when suffering from fever at Tarsus in the summer of B. C. S33> was accused by Parmenion in a letter to the king of being in the pay of Darius. Cols, ii-iv are concerned with the battle of Issus, which took place in the autumn A large lacuna intervenes between this and Fr. 45, which of the same year.

mentions Alexander's passage of the Euphrates preparatory to the battle of In the interval occurred the capture of Arbela in September, 331 B.C. Gaza, and the expedition into Egypt, to the Damascus, the sieges of Tyre and an allowance of as last three of which twelve chapters were given by Diodorus
;

many columns

in the

papyrus would certainly not be disproportionately

large.

are insignificant. Since these the identity of the writer a clue remains to be found. fragments, so far as their contents are recognizable, are all directly concerned

The remaining fragments

To

with Alexander,

it is

a natural assumption that they

chronicles, historical or romantic,

come from one of the many devoted to the career of that striking personality

The main Greek authorities for rather than from a history of wider scope. Diodorus, Arrian, and Plutarch, and on the battle of Alexander are of course
with which the principal fragment of the papyrus is mostly concerned, we have also the statements of Callisthenes which are criticized by Polybius xii.
Issus,

but with none of these are any marks of affinity discoverable. On the Curtius other hand, there are two clear coincidences with the Roman Quintus
j

7 sqq.

Rufus, an obscure personality whose monograph on Alexander is commonly The papyrus agrees precisely with Curtius attributed to the first century A. D.
offered against Arrian and Plutarch as to the terms of the bribe said to have been
to the physician Philip

by

Darius, and, what

is

more

interesting, reaffirms

more

Issus circumstantially the statement that Alexander on the eve of the battle of nerves (see nn. on Fr. 44. i. 8-10, ii. 6 sqq., 15). was overcome by an attack of 18-19 for abandoning the pursuit of Darius iii. reason given in Fr.

44.

but not elsewhere recorded,

be glanced at by Curtius cf. n. ad loc. These coincidences imply either that our author was known to Curtius or drew on that they had a common source; the supposition that the papyrus Curtius' sources have been Curtius is too improbable to need consideration. Curtius Rufus discussed at length by J. Kaerst in Beilr. z. Quellenkritik des Q. in and Forschungen z. Gesch. Alexanders, and more recently by E. Schwartz dcr Pauly-Wissowa, Realencycl. iv. 1 871 sqq., and Ruegg, Beitr. z. Erforschung

may

also

24

THE OXYRHYNCHUS PAPYRI

Cur tins.

Quellenverhaltnisse in d. Alexaudergesch. des

The

authority on

whom

Curtius principally depended, according to the current view, was Clitarchus, but
since

the same authority was closely followed

is

by Diodorus, with whom no

connexion

traceable in 1798, this clearly cannot be the connecting link between

1798 and Curtius. It is. however, recognized that Curtius employed other sources, which as distinguished from those of Arrian and Plutarch are considered to be secondary and comparatively late (cf. Schwartz, op. cit. 1876) but what precisely they were is not known. Curtius, then, is not rated as high-class company, and agreement with him
;

against others will not establish a prejudice in favour of such statements as are
peculiar to the papyrus.

Of

these the most significant

;

is

the estimate given of

total

the numbers slain in the battle of Issus

this

more than doubles the highest

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

mind before the battle,to throw some light on the author's standpoint the tendency to depreciate Alexander is less definitely affirmable than of Curtius, but evidently the aim was not glorification. Their claim to attention, however, is increased by the fact that the papyrus, alone among ancient authorities,
state of

estimates separately the loss of the mercenaries in the Persian service.

It

has

been suggested by Kaerst (Cesch. des Hellenismus, i, p. 522), in agreement with Ranke, that the sources of Diodorus included information derived from Darius'

Greek mercenaries. That theory now finds in 1798, which might here have the same source behind it, a certain support. Other points elsewhere unrecorded in connexion with the battle are the preliminary prayers and sacrifices to Poseidon, Thetis, Nereus, and the Nereids (Fr. 44. ii see n. on 11. 9-1 1), and the anecdote about the slice of bread with which the conqueror had to satisfy his hunger next day (ibid. iv). The story of Philip the physician follows familiar lines, but no other account attributes to the incriminating letter of Parmenion the unworthy motive of private hostility, a statement pointing to an antiParmenion bias, which is traceable also in Diodorus and Curtius and goes back
;

not improbably to Clitarchus.

of Philip of

The fragment

(1) referring

apparently to the death

of that

Macedon shows a marked divergence from the ordinary version episode, and it is highly unfortunate that more of the narrative is not
is

preserved.

In form this writer

be is his favourite

clear

and straightforward,
is
is

if

somewhat monotonous.
i.

connecting particle, and there

hiatus he
indifferent.

but one instance of the genitive

noticeable (Fr. 44.
5, 16,

absolute

a certain partiality to the historic present

Fr. 45. 6).

To

is

Some

eccentricities like

the poetical

1798.
spelling
is
it

NEW
may

CLASSICAL FRAGMENTS
(Fr. 44.
i.

I2 5
12)

be due to copyists, but the form

not without significance, suggesting that the date of composition, though

may

well
it.

be posterior to the Augustan age, was at any rate

little

in

advance of

Fr.

1.

Fr.

2.

.]rOVS

[.]

[.

[-][
.

.]ov?
.]e
.

][] [.
.

10

[[ \ ]
.

]
.]

,]

[
.
.

\.

[.

[[.

[[ []
[

)?

.]

.[..].

.[.
.

[.

[.]e/cvAiae[i']

]^
.

[]
[.
.

[] .]
.

[]
.]
.

ev
[

10

[.

.]

tc[

re Ae[
.

7r]ep

[.

[...]. (V {.

][.
Fr. 3

Fr. 4

?;

m ][
[
]

][
]/*[
]

<[

Frs.

5~ 6

Col.

i.

Col.
[

.
?

[
[
S

[
...[...].[

120

THE OXYRHYNCHUS PAPYRI

re

[] [ [9 []
]
]
]

2[ [
.

[ *[
[

]
)

15

r/oat \^

[ $[
[
0J/T6
[

77

/cat

aj/[

Ma/ce<W[

Fr. 7.

Fr. 8.

Fr. 9.

Fr. 10.

7?

e[nreiv ?

[
Orj[

][

]?[
]

[
5

e|e.\i7r[e

ltt\ttov ?

[
vy[
5

][
}
.

auro[

Jov[
'

Fr. 11.

5
[

[ ]
]

a<[

[
[

][[
5

*[

]^ [
/ !6?
%

]^

[
ii.

Fr. 12.

Fr. 13.

Col.

i.

Col.

fl[

[.]//[
5

[ ][
]
]"[

]>

f.[

If

; e*a[

1798.

NEW

CLASSICAL FRAGMENTS
Fr. 16.

127
Fr. 17.

Fr. 14.

Fr. 15.

Seiy[

][
\*][
]apa[
]yiy[

][

][

^[

8e

}8[

]j>

pav
5

Fr.

Fr. 19.

Fr. 20.

].[.]...[
]

[
}

].[

][.
A]\tav

][
]?.'

]\? [
?

[
5
]

>
.

]
]

][
[ ]

].[

} )[ ]
. . .

7
[

}
]oy

/[

Aet[
.

.....
Fr. 22.
.

\a-fiLOV
)

] [
]apa/J.ei[

}[
]*

Fr. 21.
.

?[

].[
.

]7[

id

]<[
]
.

Wsf
'

]>ero[

e8iai[

][
[
Fr. 26.

-*

]\iV

Fr. 23.

Fr. 24.

Fr. 25.

]yoy
] .
]

][

]ooi

Tl[

][
]?[

yf[

}u
.

o\y[

>&?[

128
Fr. 2'

THE OXYRHYNCHUS PAPYRI

Fr. 28. Fr. 29. Fr. 30.

Fr. 31.

[
.
32.

[ [

]ei?
1

[
[

"7
]."*
[

3?

6-

W
.

]<5[
1

<$[

]fr[

]ra<5[

Fr 33

Fr. 34

Fr 35

Fr. 36.

][

][
.

jpcttf
[

? 7r]aiOca

]rp ta [

]/?

Fr. 37.

Fr. 38.

Fr. 39.

Fr. 40.

Fr. 41.

][

34

3-

k
Fr. 42. Fr. 43.

]5eia[

Fr. 44.

Col.

i.

Col,

ii.

\\ []77

[] []

[?

7]7^

[]

[] .
5

()

1798.
10

NEW

CLASSICAL FRAGMENTS

129

[] [
[
Col.
iii.

15
]
.

[ [
[.
.

Col. iv.

[] []

[] [] \]
[]

[] [] []
15 []?9
15

[]

\~\ [

]]
[
.[

[
[
[.]
.

]
]

1 -

Col.

.
15

[.]

[
.

i3

THE OXYRHYNCHUS PAPYRI

5

^
7[
5

[ 2 [

ev

lines lost

.[

[ *[
Fr. 45

[
[
Fr.

]?[

Xvaas
.

\ [ \[
}

[.

[ }[
~>[

]>
3

[
.

|[
]7

]?

3
Fr. 47
Fr. 48.

Fr. 49

[ 4

}}
]/

[
[icjewa
.

][
/[
[

[
5
[

]
]

]/[
? .4Ae|ai>]#/)ou

" *
/[

?;!/

\ [
\

[
[

yS

[
3[

]
3?

}[

.[

L7 y.
Fr. 50.

JNL

LLASS1LAL tKAGMKNTS
Fr. 52. Fr. 53-

131
Fr. 54.

Fr. 51.

]
]

][

[
4

][

w
]

3#f
.

3?E

m
of a theatre in
1.

][
?
.

2, in conjunction with the burial of in fragment refers to the death of Philip, but the details are unfamiliar. Philip's assassin was Pausanias (Diodor. xvi. 94, Justin ix. 6), for whose name there seems to be here no place ; moreover, according to Diodorus he was pursued and killed forthwith by ot nep\ who aveiKov. Apparently,

Fr.

1.

The mention
little

.]

11.

8-10, leaves

room

for

doubt that

this

then, the object of is some other person, whose identity is obscure; cf. Justin xi. 2. Prima Mi cura paternarum exsequiarum fuit ; in quibus ante omnia caedis conscios ad

tumulum pain's

occidi iussit.

1 sqq. The length of the lacunae is estimated restored with probability. In 11. 1-4 tovs [ev

(or Tots) 8]e

5.
]tv
:

]av is unlikely. The doubtful may be . Both this line and 1. 9 look as if they were complete at the end, but there is not margin enough to be certain. If 1. 6 ended with -ice, it was rather shorter than its

may be suggested. ]> is not possible, and

on the

][] \[]5 ([\[(

basis of

11.

8-10, which can be

tovs

6.

neighbours.
7.

The

spelling

seems

to

be novel

is

a poetic form.

Fr. 2. This fragment, like the preceding, has lost both margins, but the point ot division of the lines is fixed by 11. 7-8, where the restoration is certain, and on that basis the other lacunae have been estimated. Most of the fragment, if not all of it, is occupied by a quotation in hexameters referring to Thebes, brought in no doubt in connexion with Alexander's destruction of the city. Owing to the aorist in 1. 6 it is not likely to be oracular; Kv\iae[i] would not fill the lacuna. is indecisive ; 3. The vestige after or e would be suitable, but other vowels are not excluded. is preceded by a vertical stroke consistent with , t, v, and is followed by the base 4. of another short vertical stroke would be quite suitable. 6. Cf. Homer 688 &os C. I. G. 62 80 A 35 arvyeprjv Be

.
(
p.

][

,
.
2

repetition of
10.

more probably than apvas is recommended by the apparent but whether apvas or Apvas should be written is not clear ; cf. Homer 507 ap. Strabo 413).
first letter is

The

re,

No compound
first

-oipoapos (e. g. wSoipoapos) is

n. The
letters.

letter

was

, or

Fr. 3. 3. This fragment

If
differs in

is

right,

appearance from Fr.

, and
is

known. was preceded by one of the same three

possible.

the natural restoration, but 2, but is very similar to Fr.

after

is

4.

Frs. 5-6. These fragments were combined numeration was therefore retained.

the text

was

in

type,

and the

32

this is evidently the son-in-law of Darius and satrap of ii. 6. by by Diodor. xvii. 19, 20, Lydia (or Ionia) whose name is spelled Arrian i. 15, 16 and Plutarch, Alex. 16. 9. [ is represented by a very slight vestige which, however, well suits that letter. 17. 2,300; cf. 852. 25 n. For other instances of stichometry in prose papyri cf. e.g. 1364. 188, P. Grenf. II. 11. ii. 4.
.

[8
=
6.
it

THE OXYRHYNCHUS PAPYRI

. :

to

Pr. 7. 3. be understood.
Fr. 10. nor is

perhaps a reference to Bucephalas, but the fragment

is

too small

If the reading is correct,

clear,

certain that the

Fr. 12. be suitable.

4.

\]
Some
.
.

is

has been amended to by another hand.

eir,

but

es is

by no means

is

suggested by <vav[ in the preceding

line,

but

\]

would

also

Pr. 17.

strip,

Pr. 18. There was a junction between two selides near the right-hand edge of the surface of which is worn, as also is that of Frs. 19, 20, and 22. 6. is one of many possibilities.

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

^
3. 3.

4.

case of c\aTi\vos presumably.

this

Pr. 22.
Fr. 24.

This was apparently the

Perhaps

0[,
possibly

last line

of a column.

either as the

mother of Alexander or a
probable after
cf. n.
t.

date.

Fr. 25.
Pr. 36.

. .

]: 0
. .

or a round letter like

]\
e

or

is

on

Fr.

I.

Fr. 44. i. 1-16. '(Philip was induced?) to try a medicine. When he was about to give it, Parmenion, who had a quarrel with Philip, wrote to Alexander bidding him beware of Philip to whom he heard Darius was offering a thousand talents and his own sister in marriage as the price of the king's destruction. Alexander received the letter, and suppressing .' it drank the medicine Diodorus 1 sqq. Cf. Plutarch, Alex. 19, Arrian ii. 4. 12, Curtius iii. 6, Justin xi. 8 cf. For xvii. 31 is more concise and does not mention the letter of Parmenion. may mean Alexander (cf. Arrian, /. c. but Plutarch, /. c. in which case another infinitive rriay have preceded, e. g. edeXeiv may be differently restored, e. g. or (Tn)yyet\aro this detail is not given by the other authorities. 4. is the word used also by Plutarch and Arrian, //. cc. 7. et spe nupiiarum so Curt, mille taleniis 8-10. ... at Arrian only. Plutarch says sororis eius. but otherwise belongs to 12. The form KS occurs in Aristoph. Eq. 290 a much later period, e. g. D. Hal. xi. 18. 14-15. ovbevi seems to be an error for ovSev, the meaning being similar to e.g. that in 8e. A use of with the dative in el8<i>s Polyb. V. 25. 7 ., oi> does not occur. the sense of

, :
:
.

), ] (],
.

[]
;

\(.

(),

The Macedonians were seized by dismay, for there were 600,000 of the ii. 1-16. '. When he saw that barbarians, while the Persians held the Macedonians in contempt. the decision was imminent Alexander was in a torment of suspense and had recourse
. .

1798.

NEW

CLASSICAL FRAGMENTS

133

to prayer, calling on Thetis and the Nereids and Nereus and Poseidon, for the last of whom he ordered that a four-horse chariot should be brought and cast into the sea; and he offered
sacrifices

by night
:

, .
1.
11.

.
et*e 6.

sc.
rrj

or

some synonym.

Plutarch,

Alex. 20 Diodor. xvii. 32 describes the effect of the disparity in numbers on the local

population,

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 though it may be hinted at by Diodor. xvii. 33.
.
.

.
.

,
/
'

For the confidence of the Persians

(sc.

)
cf.

cf.

Arrian

'.

Justin

XI.

periculosius dijferre bellum raius, ne desperatio suis cresceret.

2-3. : so Arrian ii. 8. 9, Plutarch, Alex. 18. Diodor. xvii. 31. 2 . puts the Persian infantry at over 400,000, the cavalry at 100,000 at least, and Justin gives similar figures at this point (xi. 9. 1). though he had shortly before (6. 11) stated the number of the Persian army as 600,000. 4-5. See n. on 1. 1 above. 6 sqq. Cf. Curt. iii. 8. 20 Ceterum, ut solet fieri cum ultimi discriminis tempus adven/af, in sollicitudinem versa fidiccia est. Illam ipsam fortunam, qua adspirante res tam prospere gesseral, verebaiur ipse in iugum editi montis escendit multisque conlucentibus facibus patrio more sacrificium dis praesidibus locifecit. Kaerst, /. c, pronounces the statement of Curtius to be worthless, and that of Diodor. xvii. 33. 1 that Alexander regarded the approach of the enemy as a heaven-sent opportunity to be an sich angemessener ' ; cf. Plutarch, Alex. 20. But the one does not necessarily exclude the other, and some anxiety on the eve of this critical battle would be only natural. Justin goes further in speaking of actual fear (metum xi. 9. 3), which is not involved in sollicitudo nor the latter being attributed to Alexander on several occasions by Diodorus ; cf. xvii. 31. 4, 56. 3, 116. 4 (we owe these references to Mr. W. W. Tarn). 9 II. Cf. e.g. Plutarch, Alex. 33 The choice of deities on the present occasion is somewhat surprising, even when . allowance is made for the proximity of the sea (cf. Curt. /. c. dis praesidibus loci) and the legendary descent of Alexander from Thetis and Nereus. As Mr. Tarn observes, this story looks like an adaptation from another occasion when the invocation of marine gods is recorded in a more appropriate setting; cf. Nearchus ap. Arrian, Ind. 18. 11, where when starting down the Hydaspes Alexander sacrifices to Poseidon, Amphitrite, the Nereids, &c.
. . . . .

[]

.
15.

(this

no doubt

libations to

Sacrifice is
vii.

[]
it

is a genuine instance), and Anab. i. 11. 10, where he is said to have made Poseidon and the Nereids when crossing the Hellespont. cf. the passage of Curtius cited in the n. on 11. 6 sqq. repeatedly mentioned by the historians of Alexander, and according to Arrian
:

25. 2
iii.

was

his daily habit.

'
. .
.

1-19.

(first)

the Persians took to

flight,

then the rest of the barbarian host

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
and
after

1-3.

1.

e. g.

],
.

.'

which happens to be the phrase of Diodorus at

this

!34
point
(xvii. 34.
ii.

THE OXYRHYNCHUS PAPYRI

The statement here is in substantial agreement with the account of 7). 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. 6 but this was a con7-8. Cf. Diodor. xvii. 34. 9 ventional phrase which reappears e.g. xvii. 61. 2. Q T5. Cf. Diodor. xvii. 35. I2 oi
Arrian

,
.

Plutarch, Alex. 20
18.

but are not inconsistent with the irregular could be read. formation of that letter as sometimes found in this text. .] 18-19. According to Diodor. xvii. 35. 1, Arrian ii. 11. 8, Curtius iii. 12. 1 the pursuit was cut short by nightfall. Apparently another or a further reason was here stated, e. g. that Darius was beyond reach ; cf. Curtius, /. c, postquam et nox adpetebat et consequendi spes noti era/. At the end of 1. 19 the broken letter might be e, , , , and this may well have
:

]
line.

CurtlUS the vestiges do not suggest

,
-

.
o,

II. 20.

, )
s,

.,

ended the

On the next day when he was suffering from want of attention one of the iv. 1-17. 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 of the mercenaries.' 3,000 cavalry, and about
' . .

1-9. This
is

somewhat

insignificant anecdote has not

to be supplied before
:

the straightness of base in the final letter suggests

is

been traced

in other authorities.

rather than

but the

masculine form
9 sqq.

Diodor.

300;

the slain in this battle as reported by other authorities are Macedonians infantry, 36. 6, Persians: infantry, 100,000; cavalry. 10,000. Arrian ii. 11. 11, Persians: as Diodor. Plutarch, Alex. 20, Persians cavalry, 150.
xvii.
:

unknown. The numbers of

Persians: as Diodor. Macedonians: infantry, 32(?); infantry, 61,000 ; cavalry, 10,000. Macedonians: cavalry, 150. Justin xi. 9. 10, Persians Compared with these estimates, our author largely reduces infantry, 130; cavalry, 150. the Persian and increases the Macedonian loss, and he also stands alone, if the restoration in L 17 is right, in giving a separate figure for the mercenaries in the Persian service. Of these 30,000 took part in the battle (Callisthenes, ap. Polyb. xii. 18. 2, Arrian ii. 8. 9), and 8,000 are said to have escaped with Amyntas (Arrian ii. 13. 2 ; 4,000 according to Diodor. xvii. 48. 2), 8,000 to have been subsequently got together by Agis (Diodor. xvii. 48. 1), and a few others to have been included in the 4,000 fugitives collected by Darius (Arrian The number slain can hardly have exceeded a few thousand. At the end of ii. 13. 1). is not impossible, though not very satisfactory. 1. 18

110,000.

Curtius

ii.

11.

27,

v.
1.

19

\ [

The remains

of this column are insufficient to afford a clear clue to

unlikely.
iii.

its

subject.

In

seems not

Ft. 45. Cf. Arrian

detail.

7.

1-6, where the crossing of the Euphrates

According
Perhaps

to Curtius iv. 9. 12 the

is described in more march from Phoenicia had occupied eleven days.

On

the verso of this fragment are

3

[.

words beginning with

(1802.

2).

Fr. 46. Since the verso of

this

fragment contains words beginning with

(1802.

it

came

later in the roll than Fr. 45.

1798.

NEW

CLASSICAL FRAGMENTS
the writing Fr. 53

135

Fr.

Frs 47-54 = 1802. 4-1 1. The character of 50 came from the neighbourhood of Fr. 48, and
Fr. 49.
5.

on the verso suggests that from that of Fr. 49.

e.

of

has apparently been converted from

Fr. 54. That

this small piece

belongs to 1798

is

hardly certain.

1799.

Oratorical Fragment.
9.9 9

cm.

Second century.

unidentified speech, This fragment, containing remains of two columns of an the border line between literary hand which is on is written in a small sloping ei, being of a thoroughly cursive cursive, some of the forms, e. g. the ligature of and at the end of a line the MS. may fall within the second century,

character
is

once written as a stroke above the preceding vowel.

No

stops or other signs

lines remain,

occur.

Of the

first

column only a few

letters

from the ends of the

but

of %$ nearly complete lines in which the second includes a continuous passage The declaration that Demosthenes is vindicated. apparently the policy of thorough acceptance of that policy points disaster would have been avoided by a Chaeronea, but the occasion of the speech to a period subsequent to the battle of There seems to be a defect in the text in 11. 30-1, besides is not made clear.

minor

errors.

Col.

i. [

'

Co1

"

y?[.

]
1

*"7E

]/??

r0T[

]va

]
V

[....]..

[]
ei?

>

8
tl

.[

[.

[
.

].

[ ()
y[
[
.

[
?

[0'

i3

THE OXYRHYNCHUS PAPYRI

]
]

15

[][
{
}

]/
][.
]
. .

.]
.

]
]>

20

;//^[
Fr[]ir.i

7;r]e
/

]
]
.

of 7

[]

'*

?)
1

[]7?
ou5

roA[/xa]t

]e

2
;

)
]

**
[ ][]
[
[

yap

][]

[
.

[.

1
]?

>[ ..].

35

9~ .
be
11.

[ (]
[],

is

very uncertain, but seems to suit the construction.

p[

might

e. g. v[eov.

Not

nor, apparently,

[.

blank space sufficient for four or five letters has been left at the end of 1. 20, ov is right, the apodosis may be and the sentence is apparently incomplete. If completed in some such way as suggested in the text but there is barely room for the At the which, however, is sometimes written very small in this hand. second of would be expected is not satisfactory, since more of the vertical stroke of end of 1. 21 can barely to be visible, though the surface of the papyrus is damaged here ; moreover, would be be got into the lacuna at the beginning of the following line (the division But acfivov in 11. 24 and 27 clearly point to a mention of the Macedonian contrary to rule). the ink in the first letter has With regard to the word after king earlier in the context. is perhaps more suitable than but neither run somewhat and the reading is doubtful

2-. A

[]

\
[

is

convincing.
ov,

at the end of the line has been corrected from 27. a subsequent hand is difficult to say.

whether by the original or

1800.

NEW

CLASSICAL FRAGMENTS

137

1800.

Miscellaneous Biographies.
Fr. 3

27-1

15-4 cm.

Late second or early third

century.

The handwriting
biographies,
is

of the following fragments, from a

roll

containing various

be referred to the latter part of the second century more probably perhaps than the beginning
a fine specimen of the
oval type, and

common

may

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
of the third.
that

purpose.

Whether the few small

is

corrections

are

by the
by the

original

or

a later

hand

doubtful.

small coronis marks the conclusion of sections.

short slightly

The

titles

prefixed to the biographies are sometimes enclosed

curved strokes often employed in the colophons 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,
of literary papyri.
possible, the top of Fr. 3. i is concerned with Thucydides fragment must have followed Fr. 2, and there is no doubt about the order of Frs. 4-7 but otherwise the arrangement adopted is often more or less arbitrary. The biographies which can be identified are of Sappho (Fr. 1. i, ii), Simonides (Fr. 1. ii), Aesop (Fr. a. i, ii), Thucydides (Fr. 1. ii, Fr. 3. i ?), Demosthenes (Fr. 3. i, ii), Aeschines (Fr. 3. ii), Thrasybulus (Frs. 4-7), Hyperides
is

uncertain.

If,

as

is

(cf.

note ad

loc), that

and Abderus (Fr. 1 1). This is a strange medley, and no intelligible principle seems to have guided the compiler either in the choice of his characters or their grouping. They are mainly literary, but the soldierpolitician Thrasybulus does not come under that category, and Leucocomas and Abderus are entirely mythical. The inclusion of the former, whose name will
(Fr.' 8.
ii),

Leucocomas

(Fr. 8.

ii),

not be familiar to many,

of a considerable town.
consorts with like
in Fr. 1,
:

is

singular

Abderus was

at least the

eponymous hero
like

As

for the disposition of the Lives,

sometimes

two

lyric poets,

and in Fr. 3 Aeschines is 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.

both beginning with the same letter, figure appropriately placed next to Demosthenes.

Nor

are the biographies themselves, so

far

as

they go, of much

moment. Concerning Sappho there is nothing new beyond a variant of her name, and the statement that Charaxus was her eldest brother. The aspersion on her character, mentioned also, among Greek authorities, by Suidas,
father's

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

like.

elsewhere the compiler contents himself with the vague 'some say' or the

mutilated passage referring to Simonides' reputed innovation in the alphabet

in

apparently has the negative merit of differing from the statement

(cf.

Suidas

A. Kirchoff, Gesch. des

for

Griech. Alphabets, p.

i).

Of
;

the death of Aesop,

who

biography (fragments of three Lives of Aesop have already been found in papyri, of the 4th-jth centuries cf. Collart, Rev. dePhilol. xliii, pp. 38 sqq.), there is a circumstantial account, including some new but not very valuable details. The Lives of Thucydides and of Hyperides are too fragmentary 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
;

was a favourite subject

eldest of his father's sons,

also in Plutarch, about the generosity of

which Aeschines himself refutes. Demosthenes to

An

anecdote, found

his defeated rival is

given with greater elaboration in the account of the

One would gladly latter. 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.

Fr.

i,

15

[ [ \ ] [[ [ [ %\ [ [ \ [] ] [ [ [\ [ [[ [ \
Col.
i.

!] ]
]

[
&

Col.

ii.

13 letters
.

[.

[
[

[ ][
[

35

>

()

} []

1800.

NEW

[][]

[] 2
[][
[]
25
[

[]^^ ] []
[]
>

CLASSICAL FRAGMENTS

45

[]>
.

[] [. .]
.[..]..

[[ [
.

139

[.

[.
.

[][.][.

[]
)
Col.

[.

.]

$ letters

1 .

Fr.
i.

2.

Col.

30

[
ii.
.

Col.

iii.

....
]
.

[]
h ]
]
]
.

PlV^^vi
[

[]
35

[]

]"
\V l
*

[] []

\ []
]
[
1

[){]

*&

[]
]

\
75 [ [

}* },

\
]

] ]

45

[]

15

]covov

{) \] [

140

[?
20
?

]
}ov
]

[
25

] ] ] ] ]
eav
.

THE OXYRHYNCHUS PAPYRI

5
8c

[]

55

}c

]
]v L
If

[]
60

[ [][
avemcv
8c
[>

>
[cv

[)9 [ ]

[ [-] [][ ? [ []
Tcpa

65

ets

7
yjrcv

c
cv

[ [
avcypa

yejVoy

0]
8

[ [ [
.

y[

[ >
[] []
Fr. 3.
25

[]

Col.

i.

cv[.

[]
[]

[] [
Col.
ii.

cc^vw

[.

([]

[c

1800.
'

NEW
1

CLASSICAL FRAGMENTS

]
,]v

[.]

[]
[.....

[.

3 []

[] [] [ [] []

141

[...

[
[ [
>

>

[
[] [] []

[][]

35

[][]
2

>

40

[] [

[][][]
45
[

[]

[]

[
.

50

55

I 42

THE OXYRHYNCHUS PAPYRI

65

^ ]
(
Se

yey

\]
]
Se]

70

] ^] \ [] ]
]

7
enrje

ev]

[]

75

Frs.

4 + 5

Frs. 6

+ 7.
Col.

[ [
5
>-

Col. .

[ [ [

[
[

[\ []\ [
]
.

[]

* ]([]
]
.

[]
Xe

[ [ [

] [] ]
. . .

] ] ]
. .
.

\
?]

.}[. .]...[..][...

5e

}]
]
.

15

] ][ ?
]
.
,

*[
. .

,]ev
.]$
]

( [

>

....

1800.

NEW

CLASSICAL FRAGMENTS
Fr.
8.

43

Col.

i.

] ] ] ] ]
] ]

]*

[
[
77

Col.

,4#?7//[>

/;;?7
25

][.
15

]
]

[]
30

[]/

.]

,]

>

[] -

]
]

35

[ \ [] [
??!'

[ [[ [ [ [
6/ [

[?
?

&
7repi

eXf0[epiai>

]>

[ [] [
[]
Fr. 10.

[]

[ [
[

[ ] [
Fr. 9.

]
]

[.

] [

] ]
]s

]<

)
}>

]
]vs
.

[.

144

THE OXYRHYNCHUS PAPYRI

Fr. ii.
[]

"?[

][?
[
.

[nept
i>

i>

[
[

pa

[
Fr. 12.

TP (f)[

[
Fr. 13.

Fr. 14.

>[#]

/
.

[
[

]>[

][
Fr. 15.
5

][
]?&;
.

7/[

7*[.]

*
[.]

[.]#6/

??

[y]ap 0eaaap[ev

[\[

[\]
15

[ [
Fr. 17.

[ [

[
7 ?

"^

][

][
][ ] ][
.

Fr. 16.

][

]>[

]
5
]
.

/[
.

]
Fr. 18.

]>7[

>[
]<V[
]l/yj/0)[

>[

[
Fr. 19.

?;9

Fr. 30.

[][

[
[
]yJ/o[

1800.

[
eyA[
.

NEW

CLASSICAL FRAGMENTS

[[
5

?
t

[
[

][
]
]ev

145

[
5

<M

\.]

ev[

Fr. 21.

Fr. 22.

Fr. 23.

][

eyjerero

]//eucray

&a /

][

3
[

.
? .}{.
Fr. 28

]
]?"

/cai

ai^f
<pv

]<:[

][
Fr. 25.
Fr. 26.
Fr. 27.

Fr. 24.

][

){
]ave[
5

W
]7_<[
ajfflpoojV

][

37.'[

][

w
5

][
]{

3
]7[
r

< #4
]

][

Fr. 29.

Fr. 30.

Fr. 31.

][

]7T6ty

] [
Sappho was a Lesbian by birih, of the city of Fr. 1. 2-26. 'Concerning Sappho. She had Mitylene, and daughter of Scamandrus, or, as some say, of Scamandronymus. three brothers, Erigyius, Larichus, and Charaxus, the eldest, who sailed to Egypt and associating with one Doricha expended large sums on her ; but Sappho preferred Larichus, who was younger. She had a daughter Clei's, so named after her own mother. She has been accused by some of immorality and of being a lover of women. In appearance she seems to have been insignificant and ugly, being of dark complexion and of very small .' and the same happens to be true also of . . ., who was undersized stature
;

4.

617, &c. 5-6.

her brother Charaxus a Mitylenean, Strab. xiii. According to Suidas and others her birthplace was Eresus. this is known as a Lesbian name (cf. Dion. Hal. ix. 18, Lebas,
:

cf.

Hdt.

ii.

35, who

calls

',

146
Inscr. Gr. 191) but

THE OXYRHYNCHUS PAPYRI

is not attributed to Sappho's father elsewhere. Charaxus is called the son of Scamandronymus by Hdt. /. c, and this is one of the several alternatives in Suidas to Simon, which he considered correct. in Suidas s. v. where alone this brother is mentioned, the name 8. [Ep]t[yvtoi/ is spelled and [E]u[p. could equally well be read here, but cf. Arrian iii. 6. 8 Diod. xvii. 81, 83; moreover in Suidas, I.e., the name of Sappho's 6 father was according to some authorities 'Hepiyuor, which is no doubt a corruption of cf. Suidas, /. c, Athen. x. 424 f. 8-9. That Charaxus was the eldest is not elsewhere stated ; Suidas puts the sons in the order Larichus, Charaxus, Erigyius. 10. suits the space better than (Strab. xvii. 808, Athen. 596 b). OCCUrS in 1231. I. II ; cf. Strab. I.e. ' include Hdt. ii. 135 . cf Athen. 596 c). 11. which would be expected, cannot be read, the letter preceding s having a vertical stroke consistent with or t, but neither nor is satisfactory with the dative Possibly a verb has dropped out, or may have been written in error. the loss of 13. An adjective is evidently missing would be easy between

. ]
.

, ,
: :

' [()], ( .
cf.

/
.

[]
the

"
name
.

[]

and

. >:
1 5.

Suid.

/.

c,

who

also

gives

as

of Sappho's

mother,

Sapph. 85. 1618.

19-24. Cf. Max. Tyr. 24. Perhaps 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 since there is not room for Perhaps re stood in the lacuna. 27. 77 is preceded by the top of a vertical stroke, which would suit may be or ; 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 since Chamaeleon was a native of Heraclea, but would rather be expected, as e. g. Athen. 273 c The doubtful in 1. 30 may equally well be .
26.

Cf.

Suid.

/.

C.

'
.

[]^

.
.

.,

[]
&
.
.

().

33

_ 5

suggested restoration assumes what that the non-lyrical poems were included in a single book, of only a very small vestige remaining which would also suit a, but the line, and the epigrams &c. ought not to have been ignored.
11.
'

Cf.

Suid.

S. V.

' .

\,

The

[ [
.

is

quite uncertain,

is

very doubtful, would not fill

36-46. Concerning Simonides. Simonides was a Ceian by birth, of the city of 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
Iulis,

invented
39. 40.

1.

.
;

.'

cf.

Pindar, Isthm.

ii.

.,

and Schol.

1800.

,
.,
be

oi yap

referred to.

, , .. . 6(
405. Cf.

Mami. Par. 54
Pliny,

,, ,
\([
is

NEW

CLASSICAL FRAGMENTS

Athen. 656 d

Schol. AristOph.
.

VU. 24,

,
Pax

.
,
S. V.

(SC.

691, Suid.

&C.
S.

), \
6

147

.\

Suid.
Fr.
is

V.

., \
epigram

&C, and Simonid.

which

' 146 presumably the

45 sqq. From the number 24 in 1. 47 it is evident that this passage describes an invention concerning the alphabet, which is also attributed to Simonides by Suidas, /. c. but the statement in the papyrus does not At the beginning of 1. 47 either coincide and a suitable restoration remains to be found. suggests itself, but would be too long ([ or ([ may be read, and or is either and does not well accord with the rest of the line. The letter before

,
.

and

[ may (
48.

be
or

ay[.
;

[]

possible.

uncertain, but

Fr. 2. 1-29. That the remains of these lines is suggested by 1. 18 (?) ;

31.

this hypothesis.

may

be either

]
relate,

[\
like
11.

30

sqq., to

Aesop
1.

is

has been restored in

21

on

is

or

apparently meant, in spite of the unusual diaeresis; the letter after and the vestige at the end of the line is consistent with or v.
:

32-63. 'The cause is said to be this whenever a man comes to offer sacrifice to the god the Delphians bringing their knives with them stand round the altar, and when the priest has slaughtered and flayed the victim and taken the inwards each of the bystanders cuts off whatever portion he can and goes away with it, so that the man who offers the sacrifice often goes off with nothing at all. Aesop taunted and mocked at the Delphians for this, which enraged the populace and they pelted him with stones and threw him over a cliff. Not long after a plague fell upon the city, and w hen they consulted the oracle the god told them that the pestilence would not cease until they propitiated Aesop. So they inclosed the place where he fell and set up an altar, and brought sacrifices to him as if he were a hero
r

to avert the pestilence.'

, .

33 sqq. Cf. Schol. AristOph. Vesp. I446

ov

us

has come in from the next line. 38. 1. 48-9. According to Aristoph. Vesp. 1446-7 Aesop was accused of having stolen a cup, which the Schol. adds they concealed among his belongings, a story also found in Heraclid. Pont. Respub. Magn. 2. Plutarch in De sera numinis vind. 556 has a differenc version w hich represents Aesop as coming to Delphi with offerings from Croesus and brings in Iadmon, as in Hdt. ii. 134. the according to Plutarch, I.e. 51. 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 Peloponnesians.'

148

!
.
11.

679. Cf. the anonymous Life

73

About

THE OXYRHYNCHUS PAPYRI

'

"
or
:

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 Whether the vestiges in Fr. 2. 75-6, which do not suit the beginnings of Fr. 3. 8-9. For the tradition of a cenotaph cf. historian died abroad or at Athens was disputed.
MarcellinuS,
Vita. ThllC.

31

yap

eerl

But according

to the

same

8-9, and the reference of this

letter after

or , pointing to in 1. 8 seems to be (Thucydides' deme) can certainly not be read.

suggests

itself,

and

more

suitable than
'

voi.

32 and 55), the tomb was among the which does not SUlt the deme-name in passage to Thucydides is therefore very questionable. The
authority,
iv

17

(cf.

KoiKtj,

is

6 not inconsistent with the scanty remains.

1.

, ] \\ [
In
In
1.

7 atoi

or

is

Demosthenes the orator was an Athenian by 10-39. Concerning Demosthenes. 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 immediately 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
birth, the
;
. .
.

Greece

".'

an error. The guardians were Aphobus, Demophon, and Onetor was a brother-in-law of Aphobus and acted in collusion with him against Demosthenes (cf. the C. 0?iet.). .' 22. cf. Plutarch, Dem. 4
17.
this
is

Therippides (In Aphob. 4)

'.

.\
24
. . .

\\
'
:

suits the

Space better than

Oraf.
Vit.

256. Cf. Plutarch,

(sc.

to Plutarch, A' Oral. Vit.

\\. According 323. Cf. Plutarch. Dem. 30 847 a, the Statue was Snidas says rather than is expected. 34-9 The epigram is quoted also by Plutarch, //. cc, and Suidas, who rightly give Plutarch, Dem. 30, and Suidas say that it was on the base of the statue.
. .
.

' ). ,

847 a

,. . ,
.
'
. ,
.

ol

"

}.

"

4074. 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.
his journey
;

NEW

CLASSICAL FRAGMENTS

149

" Because I

He

When he was asked why he wept he said but he refused it and wept. leaving a city where even enemies are found more sympathetic than friends ". .' went to Rhodes and kept a school
am
.

44-5. Aeschines, Fals. Leg. 149, says that Philochares was the eldest. cf. Aeschin. /. c. 1. ; Tpuycuidois i. e. at the Dionysia. 567. 61-73. This story is not mentioned in the biographies of Aeschines, but
46.

[|3]
X
:

Plutarch,

Orat. Vit.

The passage is '

845

(peiryoiros

eSaxev
7 2 ~3 [e ^P\ l anc* 74 Cf. Plutarch,
.

76.

followed here

'
.

.
'
]" evioi

e,

though apart from the amount the

',
els

/,
'.
re

is

details are quite different.

[SC.

)' well have

given by

Murray.

Orat. Vit.
e'/cet

840 d

the story of the reading of the speech against Ctesiphon

may

cf. e. g.

Plutarch,

I.

c.

Frs. 6 + 7. Whether these pieces are from the same column as Frs. 4 + 5 or a succeeding one is doubtful ; the dissimilarity 'of the versos rather favours the latter
alternative.
1.

2.

Possibly Uei]pa[i ., but the doubtful the doubtful may equally be

.
:

5 Sqq. Cf. Aristotle, Ath. Pol. 40. 2

that

A comparison of that passage Suggests or ano and that lacuna preceding 1. 2 should be restored in 1. 7 ; but 11. 11-15 are more difficult. a slightly shorter supplement than 10. There is not room in the lacuna for that suggested would be preferable. 11. is preceded by the base of a vertical stroke ( or t). 12-14. The position of the small detached fragment containing the letters V ([ and
were mentioned
in the
:

,
).
(1.

, .
may
t.

be any long

letter

,.

/os

\.

ev

][ with

vestiges of a third line is made practically certain by the similarity of the fibres of In In 1. 12 the is quite uncertain, and e.g. eXey[ei/] would be possible. the papyrus. and the following have rounded tops like 1. 14 the vestige of the first letter suits

(.

Fr. 8. ii. 20-33. The references in this passage indicate that the subject is Orat. Vit. cf. Plutarch, Hyperides, who took an active part in the Lamian war (1. 23 849 f, Phocion 23), was one of the orators whose surrender was demanded by Antipater after the battle of Crannon (1. 26), and according to some accounts was put to death in

Macedonia
2 2-3

29

cf.

Plutarch,

Orat.
to

Vit.

849 b
cf.

"
1.

Be

et's

For the loose reference

Lamia

e.g. Pausan.

vii.

10. 4 rel 8e

iv

eyevero.

26-7. That the surrender of as many as ten orators was demanded by Antipater is apparently novel ; that was the number, according to some authorities, asked for ten years before by Alexander (cf. Plutarch, Demosih. 23, Diod. xvii. 15), and possibly the two occasions are here confused.
30-3. Cf. Fr.
3.

29-31.

Perhaps

in

32.

i5o
'

THE OXYRHYNCHUS PAPYRI

Leucocomas was a Cretan by 34-8. Concerning Leucocomas. .).' Cnosos. Being a comely youth (he was beloved by Promachus

The

34 sqq. The story of Leucocomas and Promachus passage is

:

' .' ' (')

\
'
;

' ' , '

. .

birth, of the city

of

is

known
. . .

only from

\
II.

'
the

Conon

16.

\
are

Fr. 9. This fragment resembles in appearance somewhat analogous Fr. 10 is also rather similar.
Fr. from Fr.
11.
8.

Frs.

6-8,

and

contents

ii.

seems at all likely, especially as it is clear 3 sqq. No other name than 34 sqq. that this collection of biographies included mythical persons. For

Abderus cf. Steph. Byz. s. v. Apollodor. ii. 5. 8, 841. been loved by Heracles, who founded Abdera in his honour horses of the Thracian king Diomedes.
4.
5.
:

[]|

For cf. 841. and the Schol.

, \ \
or

",
13
yap

but

suits the context.

II.

[Natojof

' ' ]
.

][

1-2, n.

He

is

said to have
killed

after

he had been

by the

^',

[#]
'
3,

. \]
the point of
(t

Fr. 18. This small piece possibly formed part of a third column of Fr. junction being opposite 11. 37-9 ; but the combination is unconvincing.
Fr. 20.
4.
2.
?

Fr. 21.

in size of the three last letters, as well as

]
:

the

has been converted from a straight stroke

or ).

was probably

the

end of the

line,

as

is

indicated by the diminution

after

by a short blank space

line.

in

1.

4.

Fr. 30.

2.

seems

to

have ended the

1801,
13

Glossary.
io-6 cm.
First century.

still

This and the three following texts form a group of fragments of glossaries, something of a novelty in papyri, and are an interesting sample of the work of

early lexicographers.
a small semicursive

1801

is

the most ancient of the group, being written in

is

hand which

rather similar to that of 1087 (Part VIII,

first

Plate 4) ascribed to the latter part of the

characteristics shared

century

B. c.

One

of the early

by 1801 with 1087

is

a tendency to link letters at the top,

7 and the uncial form of ; in 1801 is similarly linked, which is unusual. the other hand the y-shaped , commonly regarded as characteristic of the On Roman period, occurs in an abbreviation in 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
e.g.
1.
;

180].

NEW
body

CLASSICAL FRAGMENTS
;

151

margin, and are also followed by short blank spaces

indicate a pause in the

similar spaces are used to

(1.

of the note, and in one instance

21) an oblique

dash
as

fulfils

the same purpose.

Parts of two columns are preserved, broken at the top and bottom, as well

down

the outside of each.

11.

An

index to the original length of the lines

is,

however, afforded by
lacunae in Col.
the break from
at
i

21-2, on the basis of which the extent of the

initial
ii,

has been roughly estimated in the printed text.

As

for Col.
is

1.

32 to

1.

58

is

nearly vertical, and

if

the length of lines

taken

about 30
letters,

10

the

of the slope

the loss in the central part of the column will be about number slightly increasing above and diminishing below on account of the column to the right but the loss cannot be accurately gauged,
letters,
;

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 follows letter, but certainly did not extend to the third, e. g. 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 This glossary thus seems to have followed is the historian Phylarchus (1. 44). of Artemidorus (cf. Schol. Aristoph. Vesplines similar to those of the 1 169, &c), though whether it was confined to the Comedians and Satyric dramatists can hardly be determined from the present specimen. That this is actually a fragment of the work of Artemidorus is hardly likely the makers of Lexica were many (cf. Susemihl, Alex. Lit.-Gesch. ii, pp. 185 sqq.), and very
since in texts of this kind

little is

known about them.

the verso of the papyrus are remains of two columns, written in a small

On

upright hand dating perhaps from about the end of the first century or the beginning of the second, from a treatise on grammar. In Col. ii, after referring
to the declension

a new section begins

[
1G
18

14

Corr.)

[] [
12

[
Eiept be
19

(cf.

Choerob. In Theod. Can.

[
?

p. 79, Gaisf.),

13

15

be
.

1
.
.

152

THE OXYRHYNCHUS PAPYRI

Col.
i.

te

[
[ [ [

] [.
)

.]

[][.]

i]epanes
}

)
[]
.

[
[ [

4]
]
.

]y
8e
ev

^[][]
.

[.]

[]??

15

[
[

ev
*

](~
]

0VTL

[
[ [

ev

]s

ev

[$

]?
]
.

exavov

]at

/
eaTiv

fieXeKcov
?

Xey]ei

Se irepi

25

[
[
[

[
>
[

]...[.
]
[

.]ey

0"]""*

?
eye
].[

15 letters

*]
.

Col.
?[

1801.

NEW
]

CLASSICAL FRAGMENTS

7*[
e[i\?
.

]?
].
]

[.}[.]

35

[?
?
[
.

\
.

153

'

45

[] ?[?
.

[ ?[) [ [] ? ^?)
.

[? [ [] [ [
[...].

"[

-)

[1

.[..].
.

[,]

ei

[.

.]?
]

[]
[.
. .

.]0/

[...].

][? [.][.]
[?
.

/ ?[']

.....

55

[ ? ? ?
[

??[ [
[
.

vos

yap

>

[{?)] [
]

[? [ ^{?
?

154

THE OXYRHYNCHUS PAPYRI

Fr.

61

] ft, .]r[

There seems

also be a dash like that in

iepaices. It is not possible to read 7. Cf. Hesych. or before though one of those words should perhaps be restored, could well be read in place of at but would be unintelligible. The similar gloss of Hesychius suggests that may be the name in the lacuna after but the name may also have ; been that of the author who used the form. 10. [/][>] is consistent with the remains, which do not suit (cf. 1. 17).

to
1.

have been no other

21.

letter in front of the doubtful

t,

which might

), .
is

11.
13. ov
1
:

is

perhaps

in this context,

the play of Aristophanes, confirms the view of earlier editors that

citation;

writer

that

RevoiSeia. How many of the preceding lines were included note (to which the small fragment, 11. 61-3, perhaps belongs) is, however, uncertain, nor is it clear whether 11. 36-9 are all part of the same excerpt from Cratinus. in 1. (cf. Hesych. In 1. 37 is apparently not to be 36 is possibly read, unless was here written differently from those elsewhere. In 1. 38 is not impossible.

in the

' '. , ', ' ., ~ . , , ' ' : ", ]

6.

]?

ig.

The

apparently novel.

first letter

]may .

be

e. g.

2I7. Cf. Etym. Magn.

^
Cf.
at

,,

p.

Neither

for

nor ap

attractive

Hesych.

The

papyrus, besides giving the

name of

Kock prints who described the

SCjCj.

only (Fr. 755).

was part of the Lines 23 sqq. are an excerpt from a prose

(vetch)
is

from
.

unattested.

34

Hesych.

S. V.

iv

re

11.

34-5

any

rate are part of a note

on

?,

From

this

it IS

plain

of

whom

Hesych. says

s. v.,

17

).

If, however, ap[ is 40. Cf. Hesych. as is natural to suppose, the name of the play seems to have been omitted, contrary to the compiler's usual practice, eyjy[e vetr\6m> Vesp. 1 5 30) suggests itself, and might not be too long if ( were written ; |[ (>. 146 1) is a not very satisfactory alternative. 42. Cf. Hesych. BeX/3<W 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. ol Cf. Schol. Aristoph. Eq. 635 45. 1. and the similar note in Suidas. 46-7. Ach. 345. Suidas Cites Aristoph. Ach. 463, but 48-9. Cf. Hesych. ?) is from a non-extant play.
.
.

{)

,
'

\\

[]#.

'.

, (

1801.

NEW
;

CLASSICAL FRAGMENTS

155
hence B fpya los
iv

57~8. Cf. Hesych. The known play of Hermippus beginning with . As to the following words, the restoration depends on whether they are taken as a quotation (e. . g. or as explanatory (e. g. on the lines of Hesych.). 59-60. Cf. Hesych.
is

of

. ' , , '^,'
the only
|

11.

..

50-5. Antiphanes of Berga was a byword for his mendacity, and acquired a similar connotation cf. e. g. Strabo ii. 100 Se Steph. Byz. says that a verb was also coined. 55 BePyn' so Strabo vii. 331, Steph. Byz. ; Ptol. iii. 13, &c. 56. Cf. Eustath. 632. 8 iv be

.
*
'
M-3 X
34-3

, .

and

'.

62. Possibly

in

which case the fragment would come from the neighbourhood

,.

Hesych.

Eustath. 1414 2 9

34-5.

1802.
Fr 3

Glossary.
cm
Late second or early
third century.

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
is markedly smaller (cf. n. on Fr. 6) and in a couple of becomes more cursive, 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

following fragments

three fragments the hand

it

others (Frs* 7-8)

the width of three or four

letters,

and are

also followed

by a blank space
is

but no

points or paragraphi are used.

The

text on the recto

assigned to the middle

or latter part of the second century, and that on the verso may date from the end of the same century or the beginning of the third. Some rather unintelligent mistakes, which have been left uncorrected, are noticeable (11. 61,
49,
63).

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

As

fragments of 1798 being blank on the verso. Since those fragments, so fatas their contents are recognizable, are not separated from the rest by any wide interval, and the remains of the lexicon, which was on a considerable scale, include words beginning with to , the copy of this seems not to have been finished. Fr. 3 is the only substantial piece, containing the upper portions of three consecutive columns, the

two

latter

of which are sufficiently well preserved to give

some

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

idea of the scope and

method of the compiler,

i 56

THE OXYRHYNCHUS PAPYRI

uncommon
sense.

an

Besides Greek local peculiarities,

several
Fr.
6.

terms from
13),

non-Hellenic speech are included

(Fr. 3. 46),

Persian
is

(Fr. 3. 45, 64,

Lydian
;

Chaldaean

(Fr. 3. 63, 6j, 72, Fr. 6. 6),

Albanian

(Fr. 3. 65)

last instance the authority

quoted

a work in two or more books on

by a certain Heraclides. The writer's interest in foreign countries is further shown by references to e.g. writers on Scythia (Fr. 3. 1), Asia (Fr. 3. io, 17), and Babylon (Fr. 3. 67, 72), to Glaucus on the region West of the Euxine (Fr. 3. 36), In contrast with 1801, to Andron on the war with the barbarians (Fr. 3. 46). most at any rate of the authorities cited are prose works, and are often comSometimes a considerable excerpt is given (Fr. 3. 29-35 paratively obscure. 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
'
'

,,

in the

that occur to an extant book,

it is

incorrectly cited (Fr.

3.

3.

50, 57).

In one place

epigraphic evidence

is

appealed to (Fr.

54-6).

Of
in

the words and uses reported in this papyrus about one half are not found

the existing lexica, but a large proportion of the novelties are non-Hellenic.

Several terms are otherwise

generally less explicit
;

known only from Hesychius, whose evidence

is

it

is

noticeable that in one instance where both cite

an authority, this is not the same (Fr. 3. 58-9, n.). striking coincidence of phraseology between the papyrus and the Etymologicum Magnum and Zonaras occurs in Fr. 3. 40-1, and no doubt the passage there cited is their common
ultimate source.
close
;

The

parallel with Photius noted in Fr. 3. 61, n.

little

is

hardly

less

evidently such glosses often underwent

variation in their descent

from one compiler to another.

Fr.
1.

Fr.

2.

Col.

i.

Col.

ii.

4
[

][.
]
.

[.
.

4
5
[

]"

e]f

4 4
[

joy
}

<5

ei/

]\
3

7roAeiTet a

[ [ [ [
[
.

3*[

1802.

NEW
10

CLASSICAL FRAGMENTS

*57

Mapyiavoi

] [] ]
.]
.

][ \
?

\\ ] [. [.] ] [] ] [] []
Fr. 3.

Col.

i.

'5

[.]

20

\
]

ep

]
]
]

[.

25

[
[.]
.

]&[.

[]6[
3

[] [
Col.
ii.

?]

Hep

35

{\\

[] []

[]

158

THE OXYRHYNCHUS PAPYRI

45

.
[

[ [
.

5
[

ev

]
]5?['

[
[

]$
Col.

iii.

[]?7[?
55

2
6
65

[ [ [[ [
[
.

[ [
[

ev

[ [ [ [
.

....
~
.
.

1802,
75

NEW

CLASSICAL FRAGMENTS
22 letters
]
.

59

>.[.}.

[.
Fr.

Fr. 4
]

Fr.

6.
[

]>
i/

][

]?

re

]07[
]es

]$
]

][
[

]\?[

/[
]

]
]

W< [ [
[
P9[

60[/] 7/?

][.

[
ois

&
.

][.

eoLKtv

^T

[ [
[
[

??!*

[
[

.[

evoi

/
. .

ois

09

[9
Fr.

Fr. 5

Fr. 8.

\
,

Fr. 9.

Fr.

?] [/
Fr. 2. Herod. 22.
8.
5

Anterior
>
?

may be

the historian of Crete referred to

e. g.

by Plutarch, Mai.

cited

by Harpocration

s. v.

Cf. Fr. 3. 59. Aristotle's treatise on the Thessalian constitution as ; Athen. xi. 499 b omits

..

is

6
10.

THE OXYRHYNCHUS PAPYRI

The
doubtful r
is

preceded by a horizontal stroke above the

numerals.

cf. Fr. 3. 1-4. These lines seem to form a connected note on the are mentioned in close connexion and Strabo xi. 510-1, where the (?) in 1. 3 suggests that the name is to be restored in 1. 2. possibly -yacf. Hesych. may have been connected with are known, e. g. Agathon of Samos (Plutarch, Fluv. iv. 5) and Several writers of
;

]
is

",
]

,\ , , , .
line like those
;

above

Ctesippus
5.

{op. cit. v. 2).

There

perhaps just room for

the preceding
6.

word was possibly

tv;

. [],
named

i.

e.,

presumably, the Athenian historian

is

Which

of the various writers

Asclepiades

meant

is

not clear.

relative

is less likely. a numeral and mentioned in 1. 66, or e. g. perhaps the author of the 8. (cf. Fr. 2. 4, 8, Heraclides Lembus, who was probably the compiler of a work on Fr. 3. 21) among other treatises (cf. 1367 int.). is of course possible. cf. 1. 1 7 ; but the division ] 10. who is mentioned by the writer of a 13. Possibly

perhaps followed

[^]

]
:

Steph. Byz.
19. 27.

29-35.

book (says) " When bringing to work of Persephone she first went

] ':
s. v.

] . ,
;

'

may

well be part of the

more probably than

],

title

of some treatise. perhaps.

The same Apollonia(?) in -the first the priestesses of Demeter. the Nymphs the basket together with the loom and the 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

Melissus king of Paros and his 60 daughters are 1. 31-2. Paros, however, was prominent in the worship of apparently not elsewhere mentioned. Demeter; cf. e.g. Homer, H. Demet. 491, where Paros is mentioned next to Eleusis, was applied to the who says that the name Nicanor, ap. Steph. Byz. s. v. island, and the statement in Schol. Aristoph. Av. 1764 that Archilochus wrote a hymn to were said to have Demeter at Paros. According to Pausan. x. 28. 3 the been brought to Thasos from Paros ; other references are collected in Pauly-Wissowa,

, , '[] [] '. ) . : . .
A
Porphyr.

spot of ink in the margin is very doubtfully identified as e, but 1. 29. Cf. Hesych. points to a projecting word, so that a new paragraph is indicated.

its

De

antr.

Nymph. 18

\
.

position

Though the letters at the Schol. Pind. Pyth. iv. 106. beginning of the line are mostly broken, the remains well suit the reading adopted, with seems unavoidable. or which cf. e.g. Callim. H. Cer. 1 sqq., 121 sqq., and Schol. H. Cer. 1 30. For the
yap

\
\

and Persephone.
rats

worn on the head is a common emblem both of Demeter The of the latter do not seem to occur. References to the cf. Schol. Pindar, Pyth. iv. 106 on

'

",

Realencycl.

iv.

2722-3.

1802.

NEW
iv.

CLASSICAL FRAGMENTS

34-5. Cf. Pindar, Pyth.

106

no

'
'
:

^. .
,,

161

of the prophetess, and Callim. H. Apoll. has been inadvertently repeated.

36-42. MeXCyiov a Scythian beverage. Glaucus in the 1st book of the description of places lying towards the left of the Black Sea (says) " when the drivers agreed, he This dismissed the assembly and dispersing each to his home they prepared the drink is more intoxicating than wine and is made of honey boiled with water, with the addition of a certain herb for their country produces much honey and also beer, which they make out of millet".'

-.

Cf.

Etym. Magn.

('
Zonar.
/xeXuy(e)toi>
is

(similarly

..
;

.),

Hesych.
IS

The Etym. Magn.

which Dindorf confirmed as well as from Hesych. a more probable alteration would be to write wished to emend to The treatise of Glaucus is unknown and his In 1. 36 1. for identity doubtful. Of the recorded writers of that name, the author of a work on Arabia in Eurip. often referred to by Steph. Byz. appears the most suitable, (1. 37) is hardly likely in this context. Fr. 773. 28 may have The term 43-4. This is a new piece of information, apparently. been applied to tragedy in its germinal dithyrambic stage. i. e. not improbably the grammarian of Myndus, who is cited e. g. in 45. 1. are consistent with e. g. , , , The vestiges before Etym. Magn. 590. 44 s. v. Mr. R. Levy tells us that maya, the Aramaic word but is unsuitable. As for for water, was used in Pehlevi, and a reduplicated form of this might produce something sufficiently close to the papyrus. Dr. Sayce notes the similarity of amnis. according The family name of Gyges was 46. Cf. Hesych. is perhaps more likely to be the historian from Halicarnassus to Herodotus i. 7. 14. (Athen. iv. 184 b), though a work by him with the than the Alexandrian who wrote is possible but not for To read title here given is not elsewhere cited.
papyrus, and
the

spelling

,.

, ' ,
'
=

especially close tO the

()

(](

'.
^
'
:

.,
is

attractive.

48. This sense of Dionysius the most suitable in

tion,

is cited by Athenaeus, Harpocrawhose extensive treatise and Steph. Byz. The word beginning with or o. 49-50. 1. pepoyp-. e of 07rep has been corrected from The is hardly satisfactory. should mean parents or something analogous Seruws .. is mentioned by Aristotle in A?i. Hist. ix. 13, p. 615 b 25 opvea It IS cf. Hesych. strange that the reference given in 1. 50 is mistaken both as to the treatise and the number of the book (there is no eighth book of the De part, anim.) ; cf. 1. 57, n. may be p: also the space between is doubtfully read and the 51. the supposed and is rather wide and another letter may have intervened but a compound A few cf. Hesych. of does not seem very likely. For

,
ev.

not otherwise attested.

this context

seems

[ ,\. '
;
.

[ .?,
Among
the

many

writers

named

to be, if not the prolific

aepla, Aetolian forms are given in Hesych., e.g. was restored by Lobel, no doubt rightly. The identification of 54. and Athena is apparently novel ; Apollodor. i. 3. 6 puts them in the relation of mother and daughter. Cf. Hesych. Mijris owing to the was originally written after ev, i. e. the writer began to write 57

-=,
.

^.
by

.
;

)?
41,

^'
and

repetition of

are described

Aristotle in

An. Hist.

ix.

i62
pp. 627

THE OXYRHYNCHUS PAPYRI

b-628
a
(cf.

An. Gen.
Cf.

citation here as in L 50.

6 In 1. 58 5860. Cf. Hesych. nor ais would also be possible, or the letter after a might well be t. In 1. 59 neither as was intended. That suits the remains ; perhaps there was a correction and at was included among Aristotle's collection of constitutions was unknown. cf. Photius 61. is presumably a copyist's error for ', whence the Supplement in the latter The identity of part of the line has been derived. is doubtful ; he is not likely mentioned by Plutarch, Ntc. 23. to be the writer of Hesych. gives several Chaldaean words, but is not one of them. 63. 1. It is conjectured by Sayce to be the opening of a Sumerian hymn, possibly me ta-ra-ga, from some Tammuz dirge, as Prof. Langdon suggests. 64. The equation of Mithras to Prometheus, though not unnatural, is apparently unusual. For the latter part of the line cf. Hesych. and the 6 similar but longer notes in Suidas and Photius. 65-6. At the end of the line e. g. or would be suitable ; cf. Strabo xi, The work on is apparently not mentioned elsewhere, and with which, p. 501. if any, of the known grammarians named Heraclides the author is to be identified is
. . .

. ' ' ,
iii.

10, p. 761 a 6) so that there

Hesych.

,;
'
As
be

. [
is

the

same mistake

in the

doubtful.

667. Cf. Hesych.

consideration of this compiler's fondness for giving authority it is preferable to treat as part of a title rather than to read e. g. cf. 11. 72-3, where ; is most easily explained in the same sense and as a citation of the same treatise.

'.
,
.
\
is

\
>[?
in
1.

..
name
no

In

The

writer's

name must be

oi 69. Cf. Hesych. cited should be quite short, since the line

as

as short as possible.
Maywfrcs,
really

67, the

of the author
further

would

sufficiently filled with

addition, especially

if,

writers of

works on

rivers, besides

cf.

is superfluous or something has dropped out. For the citation 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. the latter word being too long for ] ., as well as otherwise incongruous. is presumably Hegesandrus of Delphi, the author of a collection of anecdotes called in several books, cited by Hesych. s. v. and Suidas s. v. as well as by Athenaeus.

71. Cf. Hesych. before 72. Either

n.

on

11.

,
.
6.

,,
66-7.

'

quite possible, ev

Callimachus;

cf.

stood in the title. There were many Schneider, Callimachea, ii, p. 326.

'

Fr. 4.

The blank
11.

and

spaces in 11. 7 and 9 indicate that the preceding words were 5-6 are no doubt complete at the beginning. The fragment may be from

the top of a column.

Fr. 6. The writing in this fragment containing the ends of lines from the top of a column, is considerably smaller than in Frs. 2 and 3 ; that of Fr. 9 is similar and so is
that of Fr.
1

\\
:

so far as

it

goes.
?

In
1.

is less

Suitable.

cf.

Fr. 3. 63, 72.

rest.

Frs. 7-8. These two fragments are more cursively written than the

Fr.

9.

Cf. n.

on

Fr. 6.

a narrow

letter

may be

lost

between the supposed

and

p.

Fr. 11. Either the beginning of a line or of the explanation of a word.

1803.

NEW

CLASSICAL FRAGMENTS
1803.
16

163

Glossary.
29-7 cm.
Sixth century.

since the space between the

This sheet from a papyrus book was probably the uppermost of a quire, two pages of the recto, down which the binding string

passed, has an ornamental

of which
still

band of

light purple colour,

is

and the string

itself,

some

adheres to the sheet, showing the knot,

partially coated with the

heavy sloping uncials points to a date in the sixth century perhaps rather than the fifth the ink is of the brown shade As usual, the words of the glossary, which characteristic of the Byzantine period. all begin with , are made to protrude slightly into the margin and the conclusion of the notes is marked by paragraphi, accompanied here and there by Quotations are sometimes indicated by the stops in the high or medial position. angular signs commonly employed for that purpose, but they are often omitted. Marks of elision are used, and there is one instance of a rough breathing (1. 42) all these additions are due to the original scribe, who was apparently a person of small intelligence, though he need not of course be the originator of all the

same

colour.

The

style of the rather

slips that occur.

1803
is

is

of a less interesting character than 18012 and the purpose suggested

;

rather scholastic than scientific

citations,

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 Vivos, Aristophanes Trjpas, Menander and
;

the poet's
little

name

is

omitted in the case of the

, ^, ,
is

however, are commendably frequent

last three of these,

but

there can be

doubt that

Menander

meant.

apart from the

[>]

coy

?
Fol.
1
1

initial letter, is

very negligent.

verso.

2
_
/

awayayeiv

coy

'

The alphabetical arrangement,

Fol. 1 recto.

[>} l
j

\\\\> ur
u

8e >
,
.

>

>

[ 1 u.

?
rr
r

>?
r~

too

veas
coy
ej/

(
,

e\eiy
%

164
>

>

6eos'
.

THE OXYRHYNCHUS PAPYRI

Xeyerai

]^^
8e

30

^
ee
ev

evayyeXeia

35
[

Fol. 2 recto.

55
ev

Svveveiv

ev
.

Fol. 2 verso.

e[[.]]oWaro

(
ev

it

45

[]
ev
I.

. ^^^
.

Tevei

'

ev

[]
.

50

[}
Moeris,
line

pel

Cf.

correct,

34 2
rfjpas

2-4-

. The

'
cannotbe

]~ []
ev

^e

ev

5e

".
is

after

if

from the

correct as quoted, but

easily

emended,

e. g.

1803.

NEW
.

CLASSICAL FRAGMENTS

1. If the a at the beginning of 1. 6 has been correctly cancelled by the something has dropped out either before or after The final s of was converted from t. 8. Instances of the shortening of the second a in are found only in Latin (e. g. Prudent. Adv. Symm. ii. 531). The is no doubt that of Menander, who was the last author to be mentioned.

the top of a vertical stroke, so that neither probable.

19.
et

is likely

, , ''[ [ : :' ' '. . . . , '.. , . ,

II 15.
1.
t

.. .
which
is

or In place of . . . obviously to be read, the copyist lapsed into the non-Attic noticing the error unintelligently made only a partial correction;
. .

()

5-7.

copyist,

.
\
is

,.
{.
is

165

there

but after no form

Cf. e.g. Heraclid. ap. Eustath. 1722.

55

ot

1618. Hesych.

' ,' ' ' . .

12. for

,
i

the converse error occurs in

is

1.

16.

13.

of

1.

. ,

written through

i.

e.

was

first

written.

Cf.

PhotlUS

and

Harpocrat.

In

1.

followed by what seems tO be

(cf.

Eq. 952) nor

22.

23-6.

Two

has been converted from of Menander presumably. iambic verses apparently, but the
. . .

first

of

should be short and

to have preceded.

279. Cf. Suidas

(AristOph. Eq.

655

cf.

11.

3I-2), Eustath. 647. 28, Hesych.

31-4 = Eq. 655-6. The whence Cobet proposed

35 Perhaps
\

In 1. 29 1 papyrus supports the usual reading

omits

which

is

as in 11. 14-15. I presumably refers to the spelling used meiri graiia, e.g. in Pythag. Carm. aur. 35, but there seems to be

no instance of

apart from augmented forms. 36-7. This is no doubt part of a note on Cf. Suidas y

play of

38 Sqq. Cf. Harpocrat., and Suid. Hesych. The references in 11. 39 an d 45~7 are to Xen. Anab. ii. 1.6 and Dem. In Dionysod. 7. In 1. 41 the papyrus correctly agrees with the deteriores against CBAE in omitting after In 1. 52 the reference may be to Anab. v. 4. 29 and can be read ; but is not very satisfactory, though which seems to be right, points to that work or the Cyrop., which is irreconcilable with the remains,

Menander;

\ ',
11.

-.
cf.

8, 22,

nn.

,. , \, '
1.

in the sense of
i.

or

e.

most probably the

'
'

.
'

{]/3

being also unsuitable.

535
illustration

= Thucyd.
of the

VU.

preceded in the papyrus, or 569. Cf. Hesych.

spells the equivalent of

PhotlUS gives the latter meaning only to and but Hesych. is confirmed by the papyrus. 11. 58-9 look like a pair of trochaic acatalectic dimeters (cf. e.g. Aristoph. Av. 1478-80), but if so, there is apparently some corruption in 1. 58, where, though it would be easy to write The doubtful after can. be (#)/*, the preceding word remains a difficulty.

,'

word

. '
60

., , '
Cf. Photius
it

and Suidas

was omitted.

.
.,

cited

doubt in
Either

i66

THE OXYRHYNCHUS PAPYRI

There is a reference to a icovpeCs in an already is probable, but o>s very uncertain. or ; (Kock 278). extant fragment of the Xp. e has been converted from t. 61. as originally written. 62-4. De Cor. 112. 1. the papyrus confirms the spelling of this title, as to which there has been : 65.

: ,
.
is

some doubt.
66. ev

very uncertain, but consistent with the meagre vestiges.

1804.
Fr. 4

Aeeis

'.
Third century.

i6-6xi3-4cm.

Fragments of a
letters

roll

containing an alphabetical series of oratorical terms with

notes thereon, the pieces preserved dealing with words which begin with the

,,,
An
is

They

are written in well-formed sloping uncials of

in style recalling P.
later date.

Rylands 57 (Vol. i, Plate 10), angular sign, the angle pointing to the
used to
fill

medium size, though perhaps of a somewhat

left

instead

of,

as usual,

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 A second hand, using ink of a different short blank spaces which follow them. shade, has introduced one or two alterations. Many of the words included in this glossary occur also in Harpocration, but
to the right,
its

relations to that standard authority are less close than to the Aeeis
i,

Seguerianae edited by Bekker in Anecd.

not only in the substance of the glosses but also in their order,

terms in Frs.

same sequence
and

additional words

Frs. 3 and Fr. 4. 4-6

, ,,,
1

',
the four

pp. 197-318.

This

affinity is evident
e. g.

+ a.
in
;

(?),

and

Anecd. pp. 295-6, though separated similarly in Anecd. pp. 299, 300,
in

are successive, corresponding to

,,,
there

follow the

by a

few

).

4 of 1804 with one additional word

is

each fragment (Fr.

3.

5-8

[ ? ],

Material similarities are pointed out in the commentary,

often

and though such matter

common
is

to

e. g.

Photius and the Etymologicum

Magnum,
Aes
;

the verbal correspondence

generally greatest with the Seguerian

see for instance Fr. 4. 14, n. (on the other hand, for a coincidence with

Photius, Frs.

1+2. 9-13,

n.).

Points of difference between the Aeeiy of the

papyrus and the Cod. Seg. are the omission in the latter, with a single exception, of the series of proper names in Frs. 1 + 2. ii, most of which, on the other hand, figure in Harpocration, and the disappearance of citations of authorities, to which 1804 occasionally refers (Demosthenes Fr. 4. 16, Aeschines Frs. 1 + 2. 9, The relationship is nevertheless Hyperides Fr. 4. 5, Dinarchus Fr. 3. 7).

1804.
distinct

NEW

CLASSICAL FRAGMENTS

167

enough, and if the papyrus Ae'eis were not among the more or less immediate sources of the Seguerian, the two compilations must have had a common

ancestor.

[ [
[ [

Frs.

+ 2.

Col.

i.

][
]

][][
]?
ev

....
.

10

15 [nop]eiov

] [[]] [) [] ] [ [ [ [
[

[]

..]...

<

]?7^[[e]]iai/
]

[.]

ire

[ []
[

[]

] [
].[....
Col.

Frs.

+ 1.

[]

? ?

[ [
[.

?
?

[]([
.]'[

? ?

25

i68

THE OXYRHYNCHUS PAPYRI

[
[
[

[
.

]][] [ < [ [
]

[ ......
[

] [] ] ]
Fr. 3.

[
[

<

] ]

[] []

[ [ [

Fr. 4

]
?

[
[

[~]

[][ [
[][ [

[ [
[

^^
15

[ [

1804.

NEW

CLASSICAL FRAGMENTS

?
Fr.5.
Fr.
6.

[ [] [
5[e
eiSi

e*y

\
Fr.
8.
[
[

169

Fr. 7.

][ ][
][
]
[

].cn{
]
.

&0[
.

]7/>[
[

]?
]ei/y
[
. .

]>
5
] .

][

Frs. 1 + 2. Anecd. i, p. 295 Magn. 696. 2 2

HarpOCrat. gives is very insecure of In 1. a reference for UvOaea to Hyperides and the initial supplement a little short, otherwise the restoration suggested suits well enough, and in view of other correspondences with this Anecd. is not improbable. In 1. 5, should be visible. In 1. 7 the is blotted was (, part of the if the word before and seems to have been cancelled. The first letter of 1. 8 was either or . PhotlUS 9-13. Cf. Harpocrat. (so too Bekker, Anecd. i, p. 296, and Etym. Magn. 700. 10), Orel 6
iop

''
i.

1-8. Apparently a note

, , . .
on
or an analogous form.
Cf.

Bekker,

Etym.

(][

*\

{}
The

is clear, so that after In 1. 11 reference in 1. 9 is to Aesch. Fals. Leg. 158. In 1. 13 or must be replaced by some synonym like The verbal of Photius, which is perhaps an error. seems preferable to the rather correspondence in 1. 12 with Photius makes it preferable to omit ol before

than to

emend

oi

to
i,

with Naber.

\.

oi p. 296 and the similar gloss in Etym. Magn. 665. 13. Harpocrat. s. v. refers to Isocrates 269 with the explanation 15-16. Cf. Bekker, Anecd. i, p. 296, and Etym. Magn. 684. 8 The Etym. Magn.) 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

14. Cf.

Bekker, Anecd.

' ..,) . ," .

(
Harpocrat. Either 19. Cf. Harpocrat.
18. Cf.
.

'

' , .' .
"

.,

,.

.
.

will Suitably

fill

the line.

(sc.

, . ,' , ,. . ' . / . ,, ' ^" . ,. ([ . ' ) , ,' , ''' , ,

20.

170

THE OXYRHYNCHUS PAPYRI

spelling of Uaioves

occurs in Dem. De Cor. 287, but in this series of proper names, a misis perhaps more likely than a derivative of The form
rfj

occurs in Hesych. s. v. 21. Cf. Harpocrat.

. '

22. Cf. Harpocrat.

23.

is

a gloss in Bekker, Anecd.

i,

p. 288.

24. Cf. Harpocrat.

beginning Fr. 3. 1-4. These lines are evidently part of a note on for which probably in the last line of the preceding column coikc cf. e. g. Harpocrat., who after referring to Isaeus' speech against Euclides says

])

PhotlUS

'.

'

Bekker, Anecd.
(

i,

p.

299

'.

'

was evidently close

the reverse order.

to Photius

and Bekker, Anecd., but put the

alternative explanations in

.
s

The papyrus

5-8. This gloss, for the form of which speech of Dinarchus It is identified with the g. Cf. Bekker, Anecd. i, p. 299

., ' . ' {, ,. . . ' , \ ,, , .

.

also Ael. Dionys. ap. Eustath. 927, but this

is

fill

the lacuna so well).

12. Cf.

For

11.

10-1 1
p.

cf. e. g.

..

the reference
i,

Harpocrat. s. v. to the C. Phorm. 9.

Bekker, Anecd.

299

The supplement
300

but there

is

not

room

for

perhaps
i,
.

Fr. 4. 13. Cf. Bekker, Anecd.

eVrif

Photius and Etym. Magn. 717. 27 have similar notes but omit Harpocrat. citing Dinarchus, In Proxen. says

seems to have

lost in clearness

46. Cf. Harpocrat.

, '
(
).

p.

'
cf.

is

Fr. 4. 14-15, remains unidentified. cited e. g. by Harpocrat. S. V.

The

Photius

Etym. Magn. 377 3

Eppflwrtfofid,

would not

., Photius
the lacuna,

printed hardly

fills

was

written.

*
. . .

owing

to compression.

very scanty but so far as they go 7I3. Cf. Harpocrat.

corf

, '
',

"

' ,
The

'

suit the letters

.
.

curt

Tjj

'

,' ,.
.

. ,, )
.
.

The

gloSS in the papyrus

The

Vestiges in the middle of

1.

suggested.

"

,
'
i,

4 are

"...

Bekker, Anecd.

p.

300

(11.

3)

is

treated

separately by

Harpocrat. and defined as

. ,

1804.

NEW

iv The financial responsibility described by the apparently not elsewhere stated. At the end of 1. 7 which is clear, is an error for (cf. e. g. Dem. De Symm. 1 7), perhaps arising from the ambiguity of an original where should have been read as not The is very uncertain, but the scanty remains are sufficiently suitable. In 1. 11 may be interpreted but more probably is a mistake for imcp, or by a common misspelling became and then 14. Cf. Bekker, Anecd. i, p. 300

papyrus

is

.
b
(cf.

CLASSICAL FRAGMENTS

171

(,

Second sentence in the form

seventh Philippic but

upper part of Frs.

Fr. 6.
4.

'
6.

Fr. 5. which occurs a

],
is

' ,. . ,
.
otherwise dissimilar.
1.

,
6

PhotlUS,

Etym. Magn., and Suidas give the

Harpocration agrees with the papyrus in referring to the

in

2 suggests that this

little

above

iv

+ 2.
is

i.

.
?).

may be

part of a note
n.) in

on

Frs.
;

+ 2.

i.

1-8

Bekker, Anecd.

,
it

,
i,

a word
p.

295

Harpocrat. If so, the fragment would probably belong to the

cf.

There

an appearance

of a colon just in front of

began to write 5 At the end of this line the second hand has made an what was originally written or what was intended to stand.
there

due

to a correction, e. g. perhaps the scribe

().

of

but this
is

may

be

alteration,

and

not clear

Fr. 7. That this fragment comes from the ends of lines is indicated both by 1. 6, where 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 , which might also be read as the dash used for filling
a short
line.

Probably

poi or

172

THE OXYRHYNCHUS PAPYRI

III.

EXTANT CLASSICAL AUTHORS.

1805.

Sophocles, Trachiniae.
Fr. 15

10x9-6 cm.

Late second century.

sized

These scattered fragments from a roll of the Trachiniae are in a mediumhand of the common sloping type, of which it is a fair specimen, though
than
e. g.

1800. Some annotations in cursive point to a date in 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
less regular

latter part of the

no doubt subsequent additions, due probably to the corrector whose hand be distinguished here and there.
Textually these fragments
1

is

to

are, in the

main, conservative.
confirmed.

few new
e. g.

readings occur, including one or two which are definite improvements,

1.

136,

where a generally accepted correction

variants the authority of,

unknown
cited.

For one of the probably, Aristophanes of Byzantium is

is

On

the other hand, the papyrus apparently agrees with the

MSS.

in

a passage requiring alteration

evidence which

on metrical grounds, and occasionally

offers

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.

this

Possibly further additions may eventually be made to the remains of MS., the script of which is with difficulty distinguished from that of numerous other fragments which accompanied them.

[ [ [ [

Fr.

1.

e/c

Se

Suppouvovro

\ ][
\
[

\[

act

1805.

20

[
[

[ [
[

EXTANT CLASSICAL AUTHORS

]] ] ]
[
2.

\[
[

173

][

Fr.

37

[][ [] [] [

[
Fr.
3.

275

28

][ [ ] [ [ ] [ [ ] [] [ ] [ ][ [ ] [] [ [ [ ][
[

290

[ [

Fr. 4.

] [] ] [] ] ][

174

THE OXYRHYNCHUS PAPYRI

Ft. 5.

301

[][
[at 5[e

][ ]

360

] ^[ [ ] , [] []
]|
[Set,

365

[]

[ [ [] [] [ [][ ] [ [ []] [ [
X_ji[iu>vos
?

Frs. 6-10.

[]

[][^~^

370

[ [] []

375

[] \ ] [ ]' [ [] [ ] ] [ [ [][[] [ [ ][

5 lines

lost

380

385

][ [ [] [] [ ][ ] [[ [] [ ]' [ [ [] [] [ ][[][
]'

[[

1805.

[ ][] [ ][

EXTANT CLASSICAL AUTHORS

175

[
[ [
[
[

532

535

&

][[ ] [ ]
Fr. 11.

"] [

Frs. 12, 13.

576

580

[ [ [ ][ [ ] 7][ [ [
*[[
[]
Fr. 14.

][ ][ ][

602

605

[ [
Fr. 15
Col.
i.

\*

176

THE OXYRHYNCHUS PAPYRI

744

|f

]] [[^

])]]

763

][[ [ [] [ [] [
Fr. 16.

Fr. 15

Col.

ii.

785

[ \ [] \]
[
[]
[ [][

790

795

[ . [[
[

][

[ [

[]'

[ [ [

1805.

EXTANT CLASSICAL AUTHORS

Fr. 17.

177

851

][ [] [ [ [] . [ [? [ [ ][
?]

][ [ ][
875

Fr. 18.

[ [
[

] ][ [ [] [ ][
[
e

Xeyeis

Fr. 19.

1065

[ [
[

1070

[ [
[

[ ][ [ ] ][[ [ ]
e

[ /)

] [ ] [ ]
?

][

\[
Frs. 20, 21.

] [

178

11 35

140

45

2 55

[ ]] ][ [ [ ] [ ] [ [ [ [ [ [ [ ]][[ [ [
[
[
[

] [^ [[ [ ] [ [ [ ] [ [ ] [ [
[ [ [
THE OXYRHYNCHUS PAPYRI

]
?

][]

[.

][ ][ ]
]

Fr. 22.

[
[
1275

][
]

] [ ]] [ [ [
Fr. 23.

1805.

EXTANT CLASSICAL AUTHORS

179

() ][
the whole
17.

12. Unfortunately

,
of

[ []
Fr. 24.

it is not clear whether the papyrus agreed with the MSS. in having or supported Strabo's nurse which is generally preferred. On seems a more satisfactory reading than

Bergk wished

to reject this line.

,,
of

was originally written, but a dot between 275. Apparently a vestige of ink above the line point to the insertion of -os as an alternative.

and

and
genitive

The

would

spoil the line.

\

278.

SO
is

&C.

.
above the
first

28.

e]<

directly

in

1.

282, so that with

(L first hand and lemma of Schol.) the number of letters in the respective lacunae coincides. A &c.) cannot be excluded. But (L corr. 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 8e.
Frs. 6-10. The cursive note at the top of this column refers to 1. 372, and evidently explains the apparent inconsistency of here with h in 1. 188, the inconsistency vanishing if is taken in the sense of assembly or gathering ; cf. Schol. The reading suggested in the latter part of the third line is, however, highly doubtful, the being rather cramped and the s very insecure, or is

'

.
(\
The
:

(
critics

>

possible.

360.

362-4. These verses have been 1. 364 Others 1. 362

364.

perhaps by a

later

superfluous hand.

so edd. with

(due to the preceding

,
'4

(from

e'x)

L.

much

suspected,
infin.

some

bracketing

11.

362-3,

no doubt) has been crossed through,

MSS., which is required by the preceding 370. 372. Cf. . on Frs. 6-10 above. or cannot be determined. 379. Whether the papyrus had 534. So far as considerations of space are concerned, there is nothing to choose between (L) and (A). suits the remains, which are inconsistent with ov. 576. a better spelling than that of L (--) or (--), and already 579. 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 come from a marginal note referring to the previous column, or perhaps be the remains of a stichometrical figure, i. e. , standing for 600 such figures are not always quite accurately placed. which was inadvertently written originally, has been amended to by 744. the second hand, which also inserted in the margin the (unknown) v. 1. attributing it to Ap( ), who is more probably Aristophanes than Aristarchus ; cf. 1174. vi. 5, where Ap( ) seems to be used side by side with Aptv( ) as an abbreviation of Subsequently the pen was drawn through this marginal note and also, rather unaccountably,

,.

THE OXYRHYNCHUS PAPYRI

through the
764.
781.
final

word of

the

line.

Possibly

was

similarly cancelled

and

rewritten above.

Why

was written again above the

formed.
:

line is not evident, the original letter

, ,(
sufficiently well

MSS., a reading retained by Jebb but often suspected, have been conjectured in its place, is unacceptable, but the papyrus reading might be used as an argument in favour of a dative like Hense's this reading had been restored by Brunck from Hesych. s. v. 783.
0oXfj
:

[<]

and

IS

also in Schol. Eurip. Tro. 573.

avev

L,

other
11.

MSS.

1.

being

after from Diog. Laert. x. 137, where 788. Jebb following Porson accepts 787-8 are quoted with several other variations from the MSS. reading, which the papyrus

supports.

790.

793.
verse
;

:
The
. .

cf.

1.

780;

MSS.
v.

alternative reading otav implies the corresponding

later in the

only MSS. analogous spellings are not infrequent in the papyri. 796. 852-4. Unfortunately the papyrus brings no light here. In 1. 854 the MSS. reading suits the space. What stood in the lacuna at the beginning of 1. 853 is more doubtful, if that was read, must have been divided between 11. 8523, and would fill the space better than but there is no evidence for that order. L mistakenly has 1071. 1 134. is preceded by something that looks like surmounted by a rather thick dot; perhaps et? was inadvertently written and the superfluous subsequently cancelled; or the dot might be explained as a high stop after a being omitted. 1 1 35. spot of ink on the edge of a hole above may represent a rough breathing or circumflex accent, but since there are other ink-marks above vo, they are all best regarded
olov
.
:

, .

],

as accidental.
1 136. reading of

[
2
;

1 138. The instead of with 1

made by

141. Some other letter than e was originally written before that the alteration was the first hand is possible, but uncertain. was regarded as one word, 1254. nvpa\y the accent is a probable indication that
:

confirms the correction of Heath, which according to Subkoff was the LA &c. Stop after shows that was constructed with

as in L, since otherwise an acute on the a would be the possible that both accents were inserted, that on the a being

normal accent.
lost.
title

It is

however

Fr. 24.

It is

by no means

certain that this small fragment of a

belongs to 1805.

1806.

Theocritus,

Idyll xxii.
Late
first

Height 29 cm.

centurv.
(Col.
i'v).

Plate

IV

Remains of

four consecutive columns, of which the

first

two are represented

by
tall

tiny scraps, with a small unplaced fragment.

This was a handsome MS., the

columns being carefully written

in rather large uncials,

an ornamental type exemplified

in several

Homeric papyri

round and upright, of cf. also e. g. 844 and

1806.
1375.
(cf.

EXTANT CLASSICAL AUTHORS

is

181

The cross-bar of and Kenyon, Palaeography, Plate

15).

placed rather high, as in P. Brit. Mus. 271 On the whole a date rather before than

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. few corrections are from a second hand. An unusual feature in this roll is that the upper and
after the close of the first century

cedar

lower margins are strongly tinged on the recto with yellow, probably due to oil, which was used as a preservative against insects and gave a yellow tint (Vitruv. ii. 9. 13, Ovid, Trist. iii. 1. 13).

The Hymn
critus,

to the

Dioscuri

is

not well represented in the

is

MSS.
1.

and

fresh evidence of so early a date

correction of Stephanus
is less
is

enlightening than 1618

the presence of several

for

cf.

694. 34, where replaces yap a mixture of dialects similar to that found in the MSS.,
originally
my os.
;

,[
is
;

welcome.

In

of Theo40 an obvious

confirmed.
it

solves

But the papyrus, in spite of its early date, no crux, and its distinguishing feature
for

unknown
1.

variants of rather neutral character,

1.

6o

,.
jy
side

1.

The
e. g.

the

corrector)

and

by

side with

?
for

4.5
;

text shows
(so

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
Ahrens.

is

derived from the same source, supplemented

by the

edition of

Col.

i.

][
Col.
ii.

38

[ [
[
re]

])[
]
Col.

[
iii.

40

] [] [ ] [ [ ] [ ]
77-[];[]
.

i82

45

[ [
[
[

] [ ] ] [ ] [ ]][ [ ] [ [
THE OXYRHYNCHUS PAPYRI

[ [

55

[ [ [ [ [ [
[

][ ][ [
[]
] ]
)[

65

[ [
[ [

[ [
[

[ ] ][ ] ]] ~^ ] ]]
][
(?)

] ]

] ]

[].

70

[]

[ [
Col.

[ [
iv.

Plate IV.

1806.

EXTANT CLASSICAL AUTHORS

183

75

?
8

? [ ? ? [? [ ? ? ? ?? \? ? ? &[ ? ^~[[? ? ? ]
[

?
[?
that this
1.

[ ?
Unidentified Fragment.

[ [? [?] [ ?
(?)]

]?

]*!

8.

The

fact

identification

with

small fragment probable; Col. ii

is

will

from the bottom of a column makes its then have been one line longer than

Col.

iii.

of the in place of the 39. That the papyrus had Ruhnken's course quite uncertain, but there would apparently be plenty cf room for it.
40.
:

MSS.

is

of

MTr. SO Stephanus ; The supposed (which is not o) is but cannot be read. followed by another vertical stroke, after which there is a blank space of about two letters' and then immediately after It looks as if the scribe had begun to write width. changed his mind and left a space for the missing syllable. The loss of re may have been which was taken for caused by a misunderstanding of
41.
re is required,

43 45.
49. 60.
62.

\(:
85,
fi
ei

,'.

KvKtvftelcav

(
.

63. points to

as originally written, is correct. MSS. ; the occurrence of .

.

) '
:

/ar

MSS.

MSS.

(. )
.
. .

MSS.

from

MSS.
with v. 1. Wilamowitz.

at the

end of the

line

or

preceding.

184
64. 66.
(

of

(.
.

THE OXYRHYNCHUS PAPYRI

vertical stroke.
:

was converted from a

.
.

which also suits the space better than a shorter improvement, but is consistent with reading, the lacuna being of the same length as in the next four lines, ;
.

*,

".

for

IS

WM.
68.

There
is is

is

something above the

line,

though whether

it

was intended

breathing

rather doubtful.
obelizes,

69. It

Wilamowitz
i&v

MD,
70. 21.
77 82.

which unfortunate that this line is not better preserved, though yvvvis (71W M) pe apos Tr., is at any rate something, yvvvis apos Haupt. is that of Meineke, The spelling yvvvis

,
for a

rough

(a corr.).

short oblique dash in front of this verse has

no evident

significance.

Cf.

694.

MSS.
is

the spelling of the

MSS., as

originally written

here.

Whether

the

termination is rightly read as -yo\y is not clear ; the penultimate letter looks more like than y, but the writer is apt to make the horizontal stroke project to the left, and this may be an extreme instance ; moreover there is a suggestion of e in the remains of the supposed . 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.

([

This small piece is apparently in the same hand as the other Unidentified fragment. fragments, though there is no instance in them of an accent (1. 2).

1807.

ARATUS,
1

.
cm.

7*3

18. 6

Second century.

This fragment contains the lower part of a column, preceded by a broad margin in which some cursive notes, both textual and explanatory, referring to the preceding column are entered. The notes on 11. 895 and 901 are in smaller and more lightly formed lettering than the v. 1. on 1. 897, but whether they really proceeded from a different writer the evidence is hardly sufficient to determine. The text of the Aratus is well written in a rather large hand, round and upright, somewhat similar to that of B. Berl. 6845 (Schubart, Pap. Gr., Plate 19, c), though
less
first

heavy

it

may

half of the second century.

be assigned with probability, like the Berlin papyrus, to the Paragraphi were employed, and there are two
are unlikely
also

instances

of a high stop, inserted well above the line.

accents,
to

occasional
corrector,

The latter, and the be original and are due perhaps to the
is

who may
it

be the author of the marginalia.

in substantial

So

far as

goes the papyrus shows a good text, which

agreement with the Marcianus(M),the oldest and best of the manuscripts. Readings found in later MSS. have, however, twice been subsequently incorporated, in one

1807.

EXTANT CLASSICAL AUTHORS

(1.

185
930).

place as a marginal variant

897), in another as a correction

1.

(1.

de-

parture from accepted tradition in

also
in

927

is

supported by Joh. Philoponus and

v. I.
iii.

by another

early Aratus papyrus at Berlin (Berl. Klassikertexte,

letters
is

1)

which a few papyrus reading

from the

last

14 lines of Col.
positively
;

ii

are preserved.

The

condemned very
is

by the Berlin
it is

editors, but the

coincidence of ancient testimony

alternative lection

was given in For the accompanying collation the edition of E. Maass has been
Col.
i.

worth notice 1807 as a v. 1.

of course possible that the

utilized.

895
897

]
]

901

[][]

[e

915

] [][ ] 6\[ [ [
[8]
[]

920

?/

\ () ] [] [ [[ \ ]~/[ [
Col.
ii.

925

\\

[
s

^^

a\os

[[ () \\\

; ;

i86

93

THE OXYRHYNCHUS PAPYRI

or

[ [
[
is

]]
'

[ [
]
]
AC.
IS

[ [
, \
the reading of
Cf. Schol.

,.
897

was added in explanation of 895 Perhaps of a longer note on a previous line; cf. Schol. 892 But

. g.

The marginal

] ]
v.L,

presumably
901.

A
1.

95

[*lw/**f ww

(11.

921. 923. C.

924. 927. 926-31),

:

(cf.

Homer
928.
929.
:

[
:

. . :
;

stood in the paraphrase of

}

text, as in
. . .

, . ,
CM.
rots
is

[
or the

word may be

part

also possible.

and Maass

(cf.

1.

... 6

, ,,
.

486)
ot

so

Maass with

several later

MSS.

(cf.

Homer

284);

om. C.
so

ACM
A
:

and (M) Schol.;

'

Philoponus, in Aristot. Meteor,,

Maass.
Philop.
Bei'l.

SO P.

7503-4 and Philop.

502).

.
so

'
viii.
;

p.

AM,
100

(or

-)

MSS., MaaSS

930.

as originally written here, ', the corrector's reading, is that of

CM {): Maass with A CM Philop., Maass A.

so
el
;

Philop.

AM

read by Maass with and Schol.

C &c,

and Avienus

1808.

Plato, Republic

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 one column between the third and fourth the original length of the columns was approximately double the amount preserved. The text is well
for the loss of

written in good-sized uncials of the sloping oval type, in which the smallness of
e,

,,

is

in

marked contrast

to the breadth of the square letters

,,,

their

1808.

EXTANT CLASSICAL AUTHORS

187

Single points in the high and is more probably second century than third. middle position are used as stops, as well as a colon, which serves both for punctuation (iv. 5) and to mark a change of speaker, in combination with paragraphi (v. 13) a short blank space is sometimes employed instead for

date

the

same purposes

(iii.

io, v. 14).

One

instance occurs of a rough breathing, due

is

evidence here and there and who 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 The writer is strangely inconsistent and seems sometimes to is not always clear.

very likely to the corrector whose hand may also have been the author of at any

in

rate

have dropped into short-hand almost unawares, e. g. in Col. i, marg. 8 it is not In the existing in easy to see what was gained by a tachygraphic 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 the exact forms of the symbols can be better is attempted in the commentary

,.

followed in the accompanying facsimile (Plate IV).

there

With regard

to the matter

of the notes, to the elucidation of which Prof. A. E. Taylor has kindly contributed,
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
cf. Col. i, marg. 9-10, n., Dercylides, and thus gains considerably in interest is observed. where a further small point of contact with ol irepl In its testimony for the text of Plato the papyrus is undistinguished some inaccuracies have been corrected by the second hand, which has introduced
; ;

a novel variant in Col.

ii.

8.

Col.

i.

Plate IV.

Col.

ii.

Plate IV.

<.

][.]
]..[.].
[.]
.

[.

[] [
8eoi>

]
e]<7

54 6 b

[]\ [>

[ -

-\\(: _

>

.]
,j

[?
[
[

'

Mevtovi Qe

1"

'

4
5

?!

77?[

54^

88

[] [] []
5

[ [ [ [

[] [ [
[
" J
.

THE OXYRHYNCHUS PAPYRI

#./
[.

.]

]'

crr[.]v

' ]-^
)

]
] ]

\'
k l ;?

?
*'
|

[] ~_
<5e

] []

,*
"

[] a "**7
1
1

6
7 8

L
II 12

oe ci/eif [eKaJrof
Tpi]a6os"
ku/3o)[i/

'
6

Lf -tj

"

13

Tivouaas
II

[]
Col.
iii.

o"is

12

[]

13
5

] 9

6
1

[
[
[

[]

[]
]

[ [ [ [\ [ [
[]

Plate IV.

546 d

[
5

[ <[
[

^^ [
[
iv.

[ [ [
[ [
/3

Col.

'
5

7;<["
ape

[[
Col.

5
:

1808.
8e

EXTANT CLASSICAL AUTHORS

189

avTirtLvov
e<y

Se

[]
[]
i,

] ? >
[>]
The two

ev

\ [ [ [

547 d

[
[
..

<5e

547c
15

?
4

[;

[]

0/[[]]

[]. [*\

[\
[

.
stroke,
4.
'

Perhaps the word in any case being explanatory of following lines, at the beginnings of which, to judge from the notes below, two or three letters may be lost, are obscure, or -, and //, if right, should the next word may be a form of perhaps tachygraphic becomes a vertical
Col.
in the text,

marg. .

and \ = ov, and the combination of these might produce something like the symbol though different from that e. g. in Wessely, Ein System der altgr. Tachygraphie, Plate II. 9. 5. Further on, is surmounted by a small semicircle (perhaps incomplete), which may represent or .

The

collocation of figures after

is

peculiar.
it

If

above and connected with

would seem natural to suppose that the number meant is 1,800 On the other hand ought to mean 1, not 1,000, and seeing that, as Prof. Taylor observes, the value 10,800 is assigned by some writers to the great year' of Heraclitus (cf. Censorinus 18. n), there is a probability that 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 but are not easy to interpret. Perhaps re'X(et)(oy) e\v) [airjo) 6 (() on \77(\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 remains unaccounted for. Can (()[] be meant ? But the order is not in favour of this. In 1. 7 is a recognized abbreviation of and would be unobjectionable but for the occurrence in 1. 14 of a similar curved symbol which remains unexplained. In 1. 8
dots,

,.

by enclosing

since the

is

written

,
at

()

() (}

\)

(\(}

1,

()()

{(),

expected, but this will presuppose considerable irregularity e' may stand for 6 Taylor suggests that followed by () such drastic abbreviation, however, seems hardly possible, especially as the word eWurds does not actually occur in the text. 9-10. in Wessely, op.cz/. ? a similar sign represents is Plates I. 2. ii. 2, III. 10. 1. That the same symbol should stand for both -as and not a serious objection, since there are analogies for this in tachygraphy, and the alternative but also involves a similar () not only necessitates the alteration of incongruity in 11. 11-12, where the same sign occurs in conjunction with accusatives. Why, however, that case was used in these two places remains obscure. For the substance of the
is

the

compound
:

the

beginnings

of the

lines.

{) {)

8()

i 9o

THE OXYRHYNCHUS PAPYRI

cf.

note

Alex. Aphrod. In Arisi. Met.

'

and Dercylides
\oyov

what

cf. the passage from Alex. ; In the next line the are more closely and the the perpendicular and the base of the triangle. For the defined as the cf. n. on 11. 9-10 above. The sign \ ordinarily means rat, symbol interpreted as as or is desirable. Cf. ii, and also represents ov, but these would be out of place here, where

is

expected
12.

{) '()

( (),
ap. Proclus,

A ,
^

hi Remp.
:

(. e. 4

is

surely

')

3)>

&

Aphrod. quoted

in the preceding note.

referring to

, .^ (
8.

990 a 23

of the Pythagorean triangle rei roivw

iv

ii,

p.

25 (Kroll)

(sic

exspectas

,/, ^

Kroll

but

marg.

4.

,
.

ic(ei)ovfs ... 1316. For the y ?). [(/)] high dot at the end of the first word of the note cf. Col. ii, marg. 8, where a similar mark Possibly there was a corresponding mark in the text. The latter occurs above In 1. 14 the symbol before ov is like that in 1. 7 above, which part of the note is obscure. ov seems to be a termination rather than the relative, which would lack may represent is the object of With an antecedent, and also a governing verb, if and the symbol at the regard to this verb, the plural termination is demanded by end has a smaller and more rounded top than that standing for . The introduction of as a synonym apparently of Spot, is hardly helpful.

()
.

'

'().

[()]

,
;

().

Col.
7.

ii.

3.
v.
:

([
1.

The

9.
1 1,

so

AD
;

Proclus ; AFD. so superscribed by a second hand with others Burnet.

2

is

unrecorded.

13.

the top

is

has been cancelled by a dot placed above MSS. which was originally written in place of t, was presumably cancelled, but only preserved the correction may be by the original hand or the corrector.
after
ii,

[]?

Col.

marg.
'

diameter of 5
of which
is 5.

1-5. This mutilated note refers to 11. 4-8 of the text, the value of being explained by the aid of diagrams. The rational means the rational number nearest to the diameter of a square, the side
'

This diameter
11.

is

((
is

7.

The number 48
67,
2

()

perhaps iv In marg. 4 something like seems required, and the which recurs in marg. 12-13, no doubt represents symbol before ; cf. e. g. Wessely, is analogous, though the straight stroke is op. cit. Plate II. 7. 2, where the sign for diagonal instead of being horizontal. Whether the preceding curved sign, which resembles a sigma (cf. ii, marg. 10), could represent h is doubtful; at any rate the previous group is The passage of the Meno referred to not in the least like the tachygraphic symbol for yiyvovr In 1. 5 1 is 85 b yi(ytTai). Of the following diagram only a small part is preserved, and its nature is not clear there seems to have been more than a square with a diagonal. 6-7. It would be natural to expand this note 6 but as this is an obviously incorrect definition of a finite number, Taylor suggests that 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 6 expressed as Cf. marg. II. 8-9These words seem intelligible only if here
11.

3-4).

for

[ ,
In marg.
cf.

()

in

11.

marg.

8.

]
1
'

V 50 {Euclid
'

\.

47), to
is

which the nearest rational number

1

and 9 marg.

of course arrived at by subtracting marg. 8) from the Square of 7 should be restored, and before

()0()

\.
.

()(\

(6)

() .
'()

()

(
;

( , () . .

-()

1808.
is

EXTANT CLASSICAL AUTHORS

'

191

taken as referring to the side of the oblong ; it is less by a unit, if the side 48 ( ioo) '. is certainly not very satisfactory, and there is something to be said for Taylor's it is less by a unit ; i. e. if the side is 5, the number will be proposal to insert e before (49 1 =) 48 '. But emendation of this kind is better avoided, if possible. Cf. marg. 1-2, where there was a somewhat similar note. 10-11. eiVi It seems simplest on the whole to ?) (Se ?) , ov in regard the first two words of this note as a lemma from the Platonic text; cf. marg. 6. The curved symbol is rather like that in marg. 4, but some part may be lost in With a hole in the papyrus, and at any rate the head differs in having a downward bend. regard to {), the usual tachygraphic equivalent of ov is an upward curve, but this sometimes degenerates into ajstraight stroke, as e. gL in Wessely, op. cit. Plate III. 10. 1. yvv^aiKeico). In this note the I2I3. ( r<?) K C yi{yovTai) For the symbol for number 27 appears to have been connected with the female cf. marg. 4 above and n. ad loc. ; if that is right, the group next to the figures in 1. 13 is suggested. In the number the first must govern the dative, and hence figure might be taken for but is no doubt 'z, since, as Taylor points out, 7,500 is given as the value of one of the by Dercylides ap. Proclus, hi Remp. ii. 25 (Kroll)

This

(
eKe'ivov

[)

().

(?)

^) ', (6)

()

eartv

(ii.

by the addition of Proclus obtains the number 36 sqq.), but whether he is here following Dercylides he does not say.
Col.
iii.

(
(

'.

6 8e

,
;

()

'

6 oe,

(y(vva)

pvpta, 6 8(

8.

lines

makes
10.
:

[ (][
ey.

the vestige before the lacuna and the arrangement of the

the reading practically certain

was first written (no doubt owing to the following Col. iv. 2. having been inserted at the same time as the over , which has not been deleted. as amended, is the ordinary reading. 4. 12. To which hand the insertion of the missing syllable is due is uncertain.
Col. V.
14.

,](
or perhaps

1 1 -7

and

(FDM,

Burnet) or

MSS.
the

SO

AM;
FD.

D,

The

((
t

F.
also placed

superfluous

adscript has been crossed through

and a dot was

above
is

it.

so A, Burnet; % [): confirmed by the spacing.

The

vestige of the

is

very slight, but the reading

1809.

Plato, Phaedo.
1 1 -3

cm.

Early second century.

it

goes,

This fragment contains parts of three columns, of which the second, so far as 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

Vertical

the Trajan-Hadrian

period.

strokes are

often finished

at the base

with a small hook or flourish which sometimes curves back to the perpendicular, of Besides stops in the high has the peculiar form J". e. g. in 1. 13 the

and middle positions a colon, as in 1808, is used for punctuation, this latter and Paragraph! perhaps the others also being apparently by the original hand.

192
denote alternations
in

THE OXYRHYNCHUS PAPYRI

the dialogue
;

whether they were accompanied by a colon, Accents and breathings have been inserted here and they may be due to there, more probably than not after the text was written 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
as usual, does not appear.
;

they referred.

Possibly the symbols in the margin of Col.

lost.

iii

were intended to

mark The
with

the place of other notes which have been

text

is

a good and interesting one, of the eclectic type frequently met

the four readings in which the papyrus agrees with

in papyri.

Of

B, three are accepted

by

Burnet (whose edition

13

below) and the fourth

other hand, in
of
ii.

(iii.

is

for

14
ii.

it

agrees with

B2

,)
BT
S 9os

TW against
;

the basis of the collation given

may

be right
of
2

on the

in

against the inferior

BTW,
1

and

in

12 has the preferable ovbi of

against

B W.

]y[

]
li v
.

[
'

]'

[|*]

1*1 ?[

4
5

....[.
. .

].
.

ccos

]
]
.

tis fi

] ^]]
S
i.

]]

.[.]..

>

[. .J

Col.
;

Col.
]

ii.

Se

102 e

]?">

3.

3?
]

- '[
one
:

edeXtiv eivai ere

eyco*
<5e

[]

Se

3?
] 3
.

]:
]

edeXei

eivai

[[ [

1809.

EXTANT CLASSICAL AUTHORS

*93

15
3
*

5
'

][ ] []

[?

-[ [] [
^^
ov
'

\
/
[
[

re

*>

[[ [ [ [[ [ [ [[
[
Col.

iii.

io3c

15

[][

[
*

[
&&&!%% &-

should be recognized between the 5. . poss^e, though the vertical stroke before /is rather'

*-

^
for T

*"
aud

kmg

94
cannot be
6.
.

THE OXYRHYNCHUS PAPYRI

better suit e.g.p; but c
j

would

[ (]
]

is

unlikely, since

11.

6-7 indicate a longer

it,

line.

apparently.
is

same hand.
Col.
I.

crossed through and very unintelligible collocation

(/
is left.

inserted above

probably by the

i.

are not easy to identify.

7.
I

II.

[8e eXaTTo Xeyeis for roV(e)) could here be read, but the vestiges of 14 do not seem to bear out this identification, b 6 ptyc and b 8 ] 8 os are unsuitable, and though c 4 is possible, ] |^^ would give too short a line. The double dot in 11 is not of much assistance, since this may represent either a stop or a change of 1.

]/
;

This column would be expected to begin about 102 b 5, but the scanty remains The best point of departure is 1. 6 ] . os, followed by ]a (or ]) in

](

]?
:

speaker
ii.

cf. int.

6.

/}]
:

8. ckciio

so

B2 T W

W.
;

kuvos B.

.
13.

soB 2 TW; om.

.
;

B.

14.
19.
1.

12. yeveauai
:

W.
oi're
:

so
|

BT
ov
:

t[

so

TW
first
is

B 2 Wt.
;

and

v.

I.

the
first

has been altered, whether by the original or a later hand

written.

a\\a was apparently

The

17, so that

filled

by writing

[ ] ] .
of
or
|

is under t of in the line above and of in hardly enough for the lacuna, which may, however, be sufficiently

\\
,

is

not clear

iii. 9. Whether the papyrus had wpos or eis is of course not determinable ; the same remark applies to ov\8 or in 1. 12. 10. The meaning of the marginal symbol, consisting of three heavy dots in the form
it may refer to a lost marginal note. ; so Burnet. ; 13. In the margin opposite this line there is a small circular

pyramid,
11.

is

:
:

unknown

TW
;

mark

like the sign for

short quantity.
14.
16.

SO
is

\
is

BTW.
on the broken edge of
the papyrus

The marginal
meaning

sign

and may be incomplete

here, too, the

obscure.

1810.

Demosthenes,

Olynth.

i-iii,

Phil,

i,

De

Pace.

Width of column 6-6-5 cm.

Early second century. Plate

{Phil,
i,

IV

Fr. 15).

These fragments, covering the

in
(cf.

first five

speeches of Demosthenes, are written

Museum Hyperides though more ornate and regular it may go back to the end of 220), 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,
a graceful round hand similar in type to that of the British
also
e. g.
;

1810.

EXTANT CLASSICAL AUTHORS

195

roll must have approximated to 30 cm. Short lines are by the common angular sign. Paragraph! are used for purposes of punctuation, and the letter following the pause is sometimes slightly postponed points in the high and medial position are also employed, though some of these look like later additions. A later hand is also responsible for one or two small corrections, for the coronis at Olynth. iii. Fr. 5. ii. 10 and the mark of elision in
filled
;

and the height of the

Phil.

i.

15. 17.

The

text

is

on the whole a good one, of the usual

ii.

'

eclectic

'

kind.

Peculiar

variants {Olynth.

Frs. 14-18. 19, 22, Olynth.

is

iii.

7.

2-3, Phil. 17. 4-6, 21. 3-5)

are unimportant, and there

best, is often supported, in several places against all other testimony (Olynth. ii. Frs. 9-1 1. i. 3, Frs. 12-13. 5, 12, Phil. 4. 1, 27. 2, De Pace 2. i. 6, 22) in Phil. 11-13. ii. 5 a vulgate spelling has apparently been converted later to that of S. On the other hand agreements with the readings of other MSS. against S are not uncommon (Olynth. ii. Frs. 2-3. 11 (= YOF), 9-11. i. 2, 14-18. 1, Olynth. iii. 5. ii. 19 (= A), Phil 4. 2 5-6. ( (= FB), 11-13. i. 10, ii. 4, 14. i, 10, 18-20. 10 (= YO)).
;

MSS.

no tendency to depart from the tradition of the

Of

these S,

by common consent the

In the transcription given below, lines in minor pieces have been completed 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.
for the

Olynth.

i.

[]

[ [$
[

Fr.

I-

ov\l

[\ [ [ ? ] [
Frs. 3-4
i

[^ ^^

pat

8e

7 lines lost

[] [ [ ]? [ [ ][ [ ]*[ ][ [
[ ] [
Fr. 2.
aSecos

eXet/]0e

23

[\
2

]? [ [
]

26

196

[
[]
[]

THE OXYRHYNCHUS PAPYRI

[][
1

Frs. 5-7.

[ [([ [] [] ] [ [
[

25
2

[ ] [ [][ [
]>

[ [? ][
]
[

[ ] [[ [] ]
[?

][ [][? ]
[]
25

(:

[ ][ [ [[][
]

[[ [
28

Fr.

8.

[
Fr.
1.

]?
]

with hesitation, since the reading and it is not clear that any letter preceded e in 1. 1 ; on the other hand, the fact that 1. 5 is apparently the last of a column affords some confirmation, since the end of a column is expected at about this point, and no other suitable position for the fragment has been found in these five
is

The

identification of this

in place of

,
?
,

fragment

made

though

intelligible, is unattested,

speeches.

Frs. 3-4. 11.

the omission of

]o is

before

only a shade to the right of ] and ] in the preceding (so Bl(ass) with Liban.) seems probable.
:

lines,

and

Bl. with Rh. Gr. ii. 679 &c. Frs. 5-7. 12. /3][>] so MSS., Liban. ; 13-14. The papyrus seems to have had the ordinary reading. Dindorf read 01 (so Baiter) el (so two MSS.) omitting fj with Rh. Gr. ii. 679 &c. Bl. similarly omits , inserting a sign of interrogation after etireiv. following Rh. Gr. v. 36, vii. 941. 15. Bl. brackets 17. ovres is bracketed by Bl. following Rh. Gr. iv. 739. seems to have been omitted after as in u (Coisl. 324). 24.

(:'],

Fr. 8.

The

length of 1. 2 appears to suit this passage better than but the identification is not certain.

15

1810.

EXTANT CLASSICAL AUTHORS

Olynth.
ii.

197

[] [

[
[

[ [ [] ] [] ] [ ] [ [ ?]
[ ]?
]

Fr.

i.

[][ []
[

Frs.

2, 3.

10

7 lines lost

10

Fr. 4.

][] ?

13

[ ? [ ? ][?

[ ]? [ ][] [ [ [ [ [ [
Frs. 5-6.

]?

17

?]

[]/

][][][][
?

[]
[]

15

[ ? [ [
4
lines lost

]?

[? ?[

5 [

? ]> ? [? [ ]?? [? ] ] [] [
]?
[?
7 lines lost

[ ] []? [?] ? [ [ ] ?> [ ]

[?
[?

[?

[? ]]
Frs. 7-8.

] ]

19

25

[?

i 98

THE OXYRHYNCHUS PAPYRI

Frs. 91 1.

Col.

i.

]] [
[ ]
5

[ ]] [

[
>
>

2i

20

[ ] \ [ [] [ ]] [ [ ]
[ [
] ] ]
]
7 lines lost

[
22

[] [ [] []
[
[

[ ] [ ][ [ ] [ [ [ [ ] [ [[ [] [ ][ [][ [] [ [ ][ [ ] [ [ ]] [ [
Frs. 12-13.

25

\ [ [] [ [] [ ][ [] [
Fr. 11.

Col.

ii.

24

Frs. 14-18.

'

[]

/]?

27

26

3 lines lost

[ [

1810.

EXTANT CLASSICAL AUTHORS

K

] [ ][[[ ] ]? [ ]
[] 2 [?
[
8e

199

ep

[ ]
[ [] []
[

25

[] ] []

[ ] [][
3

[[

Fr. 19.

[ []
5

][ \ [][
[Xei-x/reji
:

[]

[
;

ev

[
other MSS.,
Bl.,

Frs. 2-3. 11.

(]
is

so

YOF

corr.

Butcher.

Pr. 4. This fragment

Frs.

not very certainly identified.

5-. . A
:

2. ovre]s

stop may be lost before ot. om. Bl. with Hermog. p. 50, Rh. Gr.
1. Tavbpos,

vii.

607.

Frs. 7-8. in the papyrus.

6.

SO 16. In estimating the

:

](

which
:

is

omitted by Bl. and Butcher with SFB, was clearly not

vulg.

SAFBY

papyrus had

:,

number

of lines lost below this one

it

has been assumed that the

which

Bl. brackets.

so FOPQ; om. SY, Bl., Butcher. Pre. 9-11. i. 2. 1 3. The papyrus agrees with S (so Bl., Butcher) in omitting which is commonly added after brauruwerm, (S 1 &c, Bl.) or 8. Whether the papyrus had indeterminable.
21.

'
(vulg.,

Butcher)

is

lacuna,

Judged by the preceding and following lines there should be eleven letters in the before o\ov with S and Dion. Hal. 1089 is therefore probable. and the omission of
Butcher the vulg.
11.

Bl. follows S,

Fr.

ii.

The

identification

is

doubtful

i|8[uu

|[

is

another possibility.

200
Frs. 12-13.
7.
:

THE OXYRHYNCHUS PAPYRI

so S

12.

]
5.
;

: so S, Bl., Butcher ; vulg. other MSS., Butcher, om. Bl. with Schaefer and Cobet.

SO S, BL, Butcher
.
.

Vulg.
I

Prs. 1418.
only.

S, Butcher,

12.
19. 22.
is

quite possible, the asyndeton

: *]
A

.
and

Bl. with

[]
.

SO most MSS.; Cobet bracketed

,
(1.

Gebauer

high stop
:

may be lost after . MSS. ' MSS. If

were similarly omitted after tovs would balance those earlier in the sentence.

20),

which

Olynth.

iii.

[] [ [
Fr. 1.

Frs. 2-3.

[e/c]e[i]i'

[ ]' [ ]
\
[repov

[
[
[pois

][ ]
-jYje
[

[
[

[ [ ] [ []
[] [ ][]

[]

[ [
e

8[c

6\

[
0

\\]

[]
15

5 lines lost

[][ [ [] [ ]

ei

Fr. 4

] ] [ [ ]] [] [ ] [] [][ [] ] * [ ]] [
](:\
[res

1810.

EXTANT CLASSICAL AUTHORS

Fr.
i.

20 1

Col.

[
?

] []
[ []
[

3 lines lost

]>
t

] ]

11

[ \
5

. [
Col.

13

[6
[

>

[[ > ' [[ []
2

>

[]
re

[]

[ [[

[ [
yap

[]

[]

] [
Fr. 7.

14

yap

]
Fr. 6.

\
>

[ [
]
]

avay

[ [] ] [ [] []
[iiav

[] []
Fr.
1.

[ ][
[
Either ntia]ope6 or

][ [ ]

35

[] '
before

][

36

5.

Frs. 2-3. 4-5. Bl. brackets nep)

[ ]

could be read.

and

inserts

with Isidor. x. 126.

202
Fr. 5.
19.

THE OXYRHYNCHUS PAPYRI

11-12. The interlineated readings are those of the ordinary text. so MSS. except S, Isidor.; om. Bl., Butcher with S. has been cancelled by dots placed above. ii. 5. 12. Bl. brackets &

i.

. ',
16. 19.
vulg.
is

* MSS.

.
:

[:
. .
Bl.

bracketed by Bl. and Butcher with Cobet. con: to S, with so A suppl. ; Bl., Butcher.

Pr. read
;

7.

Either with Dionys. Bl. brackets

7.

] .
[
.

in a late hand,

(S corr. h.

corr.

AO,

Butcher), or

S?B* can be

Pr.

23.

'
Phil.
i.

MSS.

Fr.

[]
Fr. 2.

[] [ [ \\ [ [ ]
]

[[ [ ]
[ ][
[

Fr.

3.

[ [ [
[ [
5

Fr. 4

[ [ [
[\]
10

Frs. 5-6.

14

[
[

5 lines lost

15

[ [
[^?

[ ]]> ] [
]

Fr.

7.

Col.

i.

Fr.

7.
ii.

Col.
18
.

[
[
5
?[

][] ]

15

[ [ ][
[
1810.

EXTANT CLASSICAL AUTHORS

yap

[ [ [
Fr.

[ [

[ [

(] ]

203

] ]
Fr. 9

[ ) ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ][ ] [
8.

21

[]
Fr.

][ [
.

23

[]
[]

[] [
[

32

] [] [ []' [] [] [] [] [[] ' ] [ []

[] ]
[

[] [] [] []-

[[ [
Col.
i.

Frs.

Col.

33

/[[]]

[
([

[ [
[

[ [ [
.
[

34

[] []

'[

[]

[ [

204

THE OXYRHYNCHUS PAPYRI

[]

[ ] ]> [ [ [] [] [ [ [] [[ [ [ [ [ [ [?
[]
[]

[] ' []
[
][

[6 [
XP[o]f[of

35

>

][

7 lines lost

34

3 lines lost

25

[] [

[ ] [ ][ [] [ ] [ [ ][ [] [ ] [ ]
Fr. 14.

[]

36

to[vtois

[
[

]9

][ ]

[ [ [ [
[

]]> ]] [ [
Fr. 15.

Plate IV.

]
]
]

38

37

Fr. 16.

15

] [] [

][

[ [

] [] [] ] [ [\ [ [ [] [
[
[<]

]] ]

[[
>
>

[ )[ [ [
[?]

[ ]
1810.
Fr. 17

EXTANT CLASSICAL AUTHORS

25

[ ?] ] ? ]
[

205

[ [

, [

3 lines lost

39

[]

] \ [?

Frs. 18-20.

[]
[]
5

[] [ [] [] [] - [

[ [[ [ [] [
[ ][] []
[
Fr. 21.

[?

41

[ [? [ [? [ ? ] [] [ [

] [ ][
[? ]? [ ? [? )[?
Fr. 22.
Fr. 24

3 lines lost

][ ] [ ] [ ] ]

43

[ ][? ? []? ][

45

[ ][ [?
[][

? ][[? ? []
[ [

46

Fr. 23.

[ ][? [ ][?[ [] ? [? ? [ [?]

47

?]] [ [ [ ? ]? [
[

[ ]

47

26

[] [ [ [] [] [ []

[
?
/jpiOi?

THE OXYRHYNCHUS PAPYRI

[ [

01

\
>

Fr. 25

48

7[9

[] [ [ ][
[]
[

Fr. 26.

49

Fr. 27.

[oui/re]y

[ [
[?
. The
:

[ [

50

[ ]] [ [
] }

Fr. 28.

\
om.

51

S,

Fr. 4.
Butcher.
2.

addition of

so

*
is

after

would make

the line too long;

BL,

others, BL, Butcher.

Frs. 5-6. 11. Bl. and Butcher write so FB Prooem. 21, Bl. ; ea>s S, 15. Tfr
:

((.
vulg., Butcher.
is

Fr. 7. ii. Since no letter can be read with certainty, an identification of these lines too doubtful to be of any value.
Fr. 8. 1. There rather damaged.
3. Bl.

no

trace of writing

above

this line,

but the surface of the papyrus

is

brackets

^?, which

is

omitted by Dionys. and Liban.

Fr. 10. A spot of ink on the edge of the papyrus is doubtfully identified as a paragraphs, which would however be quite in place. Whether or was written cannot in any case be determined.

-\(

-](

Frs. 11-13.
is

i.

1-2.

retained

by

Bl.

The papyrus seems to have had the ordinary reading, which ttaeade Butcher obelises Wat, for which Dindorf reads

with Wolf. 10. a Xeyo>

ii.

4.

so vulg., Butcher; om. S, Bl. so SAY, Butcher ; vujg., Bl.

1810.
:

EXTANT CLASSICAL AUTHORS

:

207

except S, which omits om. Bl., Butcher. first t of seems to have been intended. There is a dot just above and slightly to the left of the 1, and on the line between a and t something like a comma, both marks being in rather lighter ink. SBO, Bl. ; re vul". Butcher. 12. Either (SFB, Bl., Butcher) or (A) might have been written; ^
so
5.

MSS.

The

deletion of the

][ . ' , [( [] \ ^, (]* [:
-\(
vulg.

Pr. 14.
10.

\* ([ (
.
:

'

SO Vulg.

SAY,

Bl.,

Butcher.

so vulg.

eir

S Vind.

i, Bl.,

Butcher.

Fr. 15. 18.

19.

a]:

so

was

differently divided,

favour

(\(.

(S,

S; other MSS. have but for this there is not room unless which is improbable. Bl., Butcher) is possible as a reading, but considerations of space
Bl.,

27. ti[s av: so

SY,

Butcher;
:

others.

Fr. 16. 2-3. Fr. 17. 3-4.

tis

with S.

77

transposes yey. and the position given to

6.
:

ytyv.,

and the same order

is

yiy. most MSS., Bl., Butcher; equally possible in the papyrus, to which
noieh FB.

is

SA,

Bl.,

apparently peculiar. Butcher, YO,

would be very easy

Frs. 18-20.

after

(.
:

.
papyrus.

] []
2.
1.

Either SO

& (
(SAY)
or

The

loss of the syllable ev-

(vulg.) is possible.
S,
p.
Bl.,

YO
Bl.

F,

Butcher.

Fr. 21.

tovs,

which

omits with Schol. Aristid.

196, was evidently in the

3-5. There is apparently no authority for the insertion of S> after here, but this seems the easiest explanation of the clear ]va[ in 1. 5, which cannot be Suva unless there was a considerable omission ; moreover if be read in 1. 4, the supplement at the end of 1. 3 becomes rather long. Cf. 01. 2. 10, where & follows

The
1.

similarity of

either the dropping or insertion of

..

and

[][ . .

might help

to account for

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. so S BL, Butcher; other MSS.

Fr. 24.

(),

[
Fr.

De

Pace.
1.

o]v

ov8er)epois

28
Col.

THE OXYRHYNCHUS PAPYRI

Fr.
2.

]] [ [ [] [ [
[ [

] [ [ ]] [] [ ] ][] [ [ ][ \ [ ][ [

[
[
[ [
.

[]

[ [ [] [

Col.

ii.

op

19

15

]] [ [ [ [ [\ [ ] [ ]

[[ [ [[ [
?

[ [ ][ [ [
. . .

25

[ \ [

[ [

Fr. 1. 2. course uncertain.

Fr. 2.
i.

()
Either so S,
Bl.,

suits the length

of the line better than

-*,

but remains of

6. 8eiv

not room, vulg. ii. 7-8. of Schol. p. 164.

22.

[ [(
2.
:

Butcher
:

or tavra>v can be read. buv (.)

;

for

which there

is

evidently

so

MSS.

Bl.

and Butcher bracket, following the indications

other MSS., Isidor.

so S BL, Butcher

1811.

EXTANT CLASSICAL AUTHORS

Demosthenes,
16
C.

209

1811.

Timocratem.
Third century.

23 cm.

Parts of three consecutive columns, written with a rather coarse pen in well formed medium-sized uncials of the sloping oval type, for which an approximate terminus ante quern is provided by remains of three columns of an account inscribed on the verso in cursive of about the middle or latter half of the third century. The hand of the recto, which does not suggest a date before A. D. 200,

may
Cols,

therefore
i-ii

be appropriately referred

to

the

first

half

of

the century.
the margin at

consisted of 39 lines each, and the height of the

roll, if

the bottom was of similar depth to that at the top, was about 27 cm., while the width of the column was about 6 cm. Another hand, using a thinner pen and
lighter coloured ink, has inserted a marginal adscript at Col.

omission in Col.
of punctuation

iii.

22,

(in all

ii. 5 and supplied an hand may well be responsible for both the dots three positions) and a few rough breathings, which are no

and

this

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.

[]

ov

^
5

[ [ []
]

'

?
ii.

()

183 185

'

[]
15

' [
.

[]

[[

2IO

[] ] [ [ ] ] ] [ [ [
[)
/ e[ivai

THE OXYRHYNCHUS PAPYRI

[
]

[]
2

eis

20

[ [
[

] ] ([]

\][]

'
[]
[][

[]

86

184

25

'
5

[ [ [ [ [ [

Col.

iii.

17

15

[]

[ [] [
[][

[]
2

[] [][ [

[
[

[] [][ [
[

i.

[
.
.

[][
ts

.
Bl.,

so F and c. Androt. 75; papyrus apparently agreed with the 18. with c. Androt. 75. before so F and c. Androt. 75. 19. so Bl. and Butcher with SLFYO 20. dhiv
12.

] ([: The

Bl(ass) brackets

,
,
1

which words are absent in

MSS.

c. Androt. 75. Butcher. which is read by edd. in omitting

[
:

ii.

6.

F.

7.

After

in

c.

Androt. 76 8-9.

();
av

most MSS. insert om. SAY

:

Bl. brackets.

so

MSS.;

, '
;

oiSev vulg.

which

is

read

Bl.,

Butcher with

c.

Androt. 77.

1811.
12. oiounrcp: so

EXTANT CLASSICAL AUTHORS

Reiske with
Other
c.
:

211

MSS., Butcher;
SO

18-19.
ayovTts.

[];
: :

k\cos

F;

<\eos

MSS., edd.

Androt. 77, Bl. have ayayovres for

;

AYO

eni-njdevovras

22. 23.
iii.

3.
e
:

-aavras

so
:

F and

COrr., A Androt. 77, Bl. Androt. 78; other MSS. and v. 1. F, BL, Butcher. so vulg. and r. Androt. 78 ; S, Weil, Bl., Butcher.
r.

(/)
SO

Other

4-5.
19.

[]6
.
.

Whether the papyrus had

crvvepti
.

(S) or
;
;

is

of course quite uncertain.

place
Xeyeti>

13-16.
20. Bl.

[>]
:

SO

MSS.

epei

Dobree, Butcher.
after

F.
F.

and Butcher bracket

Xeye(i>

A;

MSS.
v.

.
/

following Rh. Gr.

581. 16.

23.

1812.

Isocrates,

Ad Deinonicutn.
Fifth or sixth century.
is

19-7x13-7 cm.

This practically complete leaf from a papyrus codex

uncial hand, similar in character to that of P.

inscribed in a sloping

and regular, and is bottom of the verso partially obliterated, is of the characteristic reddishbrown shade. Stops in the middle position only are used. Whether a second hand can be distinguished is doubtful. The few alterations and insertions which
careful
at the

more

Rylands 58 (Plate 3), though rather no doubNof about the same period. The ink,

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 modern book in the top outside corners. In the corner opposite to that containing the figure 18 is a , which seems to be a stichometrical figure marking the 400th line. With about 25 lines to the page, if the outer page at the
as in a

beginning of the book was

1

left

blank

(cf. e.

g. P.

Rylands

58). the first line of the

1. Survivals of the application of 400. stichometry to the speeches of Isocrates are to be found in the Codex Urbinas (), but the unit there is rather larger than that indicated by 1812. As Drerup

8th page would

be approximately

correspond to about 93 lines 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 is
is

observes in his edition, p. lxxxii, the hundreds of of the Teubner text, but page 18 in the papyrus

at 37 letters, which is precisely the length of line in 1812. due to his estimating the Teubner line at 40 letters, whereas in the Ylpbs at any rate, that number is usually exceeded. The fact that the Upds stood at the beginning of the codex the outset an affinity with the so-called vulgate (), but the textual suggests at

calculated

by Drerup
is

The

inconsistency

212

THE OXYRHYNCHUS PAPYRI

is

position of the papyrus as between that family and

a neutral one, the agree-

ments and disagreements being fairly equally balanced. In one place a vulgate No support is given to the reading has been inserted as an alternative (1. 41). Besides the mediaeval MSS. there are available for peculiar readings of comparison the eccentric second-century Berlin papyrus No. 8935, with which, among many natural discrepancies, two agreements on minor points are noticeable (11. 36, 42), and also for a few lines another papyrus fragment, of the third century, at Strasbourg, with which 1812 differs twice (11. 42, 48). Readings not otherwise attested are found in 11. 2 and 40, but they are unimportant.

Verso.

41

[]
^\~
is

42

*
1

[]

[]

20

[[ [
[

43

1812.

EXTANT CLASSICAL AUTHORS

25

[ [] [] ][]

213

Recto.

> .30

."

44

35

[]
[]

e^ei/ejT

40

[] []
[]

\\

[]
45

45

[]

[\ ]
[][]

[]
,
<?

[
Dr(erup).
others, Dr.

2.

/
:

SO P. Berl.
:

eivai

4.
5.
8.

1.

;
:

Be

so

(om. P. Berl.)

rjj

om. MSS.
:

)
Dr.

have

().

eptiv

Xeyuv P. Berl. so P. Berl. and most

MSS.

eVet

pr.,

214
1
.

THE OXYRHYNCHUS PAPYRI

as originally written here
is

also in P. Berl., but this

is

probably a chance

coincidence.
14.
:

so

8e others,

Dr.
in the

hooked top makes the something like the symbol for 4,000, but that om. , Dr. SO 27. om. P. Berl. 29. vw which have om. 32.
26.
tall
I

A rather

\
:

34.

1.

KaraXmetv.

. , The
;

spelling of the papyrus

e
;

.
1.

figure

margin above the end of this can hardly be meant here.

line

look

common
36.

confusion of

and
:

cf. e. g.

also the order of

.
er.
:

so P. Berl., though placing this word before before 1. insert

. 3. 39 napaXeinetv read 40.

v.
1.

41.

The

P. Berl. (erepav) so P. Berl., but cf.

. .
on
1.

35 ?.

is

no doubt merely an instance of the

ewoias,

-?.
is

which

is

34

added also

in

42. yap : 4 * alxa P r 48.

as first written, is the reading of the MSS. superscribed reading is that of yap others, including P. Arg., Dr. so P. Berl. ;
:

(.

so

om.

P. Berl. P. Arg.

Dr.

1813.

Codex Theodosianus

vii.

8 9
The hand
precision,

cm.

Early sixth century.

Plate
I (recto).

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

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

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 225 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
of Theodosius would remain in
; ;

1813.

EXTANT CLASSICAL AUTHORS

215

Abbreviations and numerals are usually dates of the rescripts from their texts. accompanied by a medial dot ;p(rae/ectus) p(raetori)o, in the one place where it occurs, is written, with a horizontal line above, and a similar stroke was placed above numerals. There is no instance of punctuation, but the evidence is insufficient to infer that this was neglected. The text of 1813 is close to that of R. In vii. 8. 11 the name Eutyckiamwt, over which R blunders, is correctly given, but some other misspellings are common to both; in vii. 8. 12 they agree on vela, where bella is restored from Cod. lust., and at the end of vii. 8. 10 in the insertion of conss.
Recto.
[seri[mtts quinque

Plate

I.

librarnm auri co[ndemnatione proposi

vii. 8.

[tap]raedia quae ex Gildonis bonis a[d nostrum aer avium de

[lata]
[tit

stmt ab hospitibus excusari n[unc etiam praecipimus sunt constitutae ab [hospitibus excusentur quo
,

o]mnes domus ex eodem iure v[enientes in quibuslibet

[civi\tatibus

[possVnt conductores facil[ius inveniri si quis igitur con

[tra nostr[am fecerit iuss[ionem
:

10

multa pridem ferietur in Aug- H[onorio viii- et Theodosio Hi[flicta pp- K\arthag vnt- id[idem aa- Ioha)nni pp[p\ devotum p[ossessorem ab omni inqui [etudine} liberamus primo ig\itur omnium ad nullum [predium] per Africam vel public[um vel privatum domus 110s
:

aa conss8. 10

[trae] vel
[a

cuiuscumquae iur[is nullus metator (?) accedat si qu\oquam fiterit destinatti\s licentiam enim domino acto
n[ostra conmisit ut

\ri ip\siquae plebi serenitas

1

eum

qui prae

[para}ndi grat[i\a
[lendi]

ad possessionem

venerit multandi expel

habeat facidtatem n[ec crimen aliquod pertime

arbit[rium ultionis suae sciat esse conces

[scat c]u[m s]ibi

20

[sum rec\tequae sacrile[gium prior arceat qui primus invene [rit ad]ministrantem ver[o eiusque officii proceres quo [rum pr]aecepto i?ihibitam [personam ad agrum aliquem de [stinarit] in tempore pros[cribi debere censemus solam sane
[hospitalitatem sub h[ac observatione concedimus ut ni
[hil

ab hospite

qii\od v[el

homimim

vel

animalium pastui ne

Verso.
[vel sponte contra

pr\aeceptum nostrum probati fu[erint

viii

[obtulisse
[et

dat- prid- id- I]un Rave[n]nae post conss- Hon[ori

v-

Theodosii

aa- con\ss-

2i6
I

THE OXYRHYNCHUS PAPYRI

[idem aa- Probo
c-s-l-

post] alia:

de hospitalitate iiidicum

e[t

om

8.

[nium personarum quid si\bi etiam ipse possessor pr\ae [sumere debeat quare censura] omnia quae ad su[i d\isp[endium [pertinebunt submota sint ia\m missa super h\ac re auctoritas
[declaravit
[die
iiii
:

praetata
Ian

litt]eris

ad Eutychiami\m

p- urbi

id

Constantio et Clonstante conss

:

[idem aa Hadriano ppo

[talitatis

Afric- hoc pyospectum est ut infa\usta Jiospi

8.

12

praebitio tolleretur nee privatum quis[que a

et

[domino aeditun postidet

[idem aa Eustathio ppo
15

cetera

dat- v-

11011

Mart

Rav ennae
8.

[Constantio et Constante co]nss

:

devotissi]mos milites ex procinc[tu

13

[redeuntes vel proficiscentes]

ad
in]

vela

muri novi

sacr[atis

[simae urbis singulae turres

pedeplanis suis sus\cipiant

[nee aliquis possessorum graviter fe]rat quasi [ill]a d[is

[positione quae super publicis aedificjiis processerat [vio

[lata
20

cum privatae quoque domus ffrtiam partem

:

talis rei

[gratia 'soleant exhibere

dat-

v]

non

Mart Constant inop-

[Honor io

xiii et

Theod

aa conss]

[impp Theodosius et

Valentinianus\ aa
:

Hadioni

patricio et

8.

14

[magistro officiorum

univcrsi cui\usli[bet

Recto 11. predium is written for the sake of shortening the supplement, which stillseems a trifle long, though dium alone would be insufficient. 14. 1. ip\sique; cf. 1. 18, where quae is again written for que. 18. The omission of prior, which is absent in R but appears here in Cod. lust., would

make

the line rather short.

Verso
3.

2.
:

conss

this is also the spelling of

;

R.

con]ss

so

om. Mommsen-Meyer.

8.

eiychiarum praef. R.

Some

reduction in the
'.

number

of letters

is

required and

is

most

easily obtained
9.

by writing/),

for praej

Constante vv Tc R.

10.

Hadriano proc. A/ric(ae) R, Hadriano pp. Cod.

here remains of course uncertain
;

lust.,

and

cf. vi.

29. 11,

vii. 4.
is

33.

What 1813 had

:

R's abbreviation of Africae

adopted

as suitable to the space.

so R; delta Cod. lust. 15. vela 20. Const{aniino)p{pli) R.

22. Haelioni
is

also the spelling of

(1.

HeL).

1814.

EXTANT CLASSICAL AUTHORS

217

1814.

Index to Codex Iustinianus, First Edition.

34.3
22-4 cm.
a. d.

529-535.

Plate

V (verso).

This mutilated leaf from a papyrus book proves to be both from the juristic It contains and the palaeographical point of view exceptionally interesting. part of an index of rubrics and inscriptions of Justinian's Codex, not, however, This of the extant second edition, but as originally issued in the year 529.
explanation, for which
of the index from the
facts that

we are indebted to Professor de Zulueta, of the divergences Codex as we have it, accounts so completely for the
its

no reasonable doubt can be entertained of

correctness.
is

Of

the relation of the two editions of the

Codex a good account

given

by

Rotondi in Bull, delt Istituto di diritto romano, 1918, pp. 153 sqq. The second edition, which was five years later than the first, was a thorough revision designed, as stated in the prefatory constitution of Dec. 534 De emendatione codicis,
to

embody and

co-ordinate the

many new

decisions

and constitutions issued

in

that the interval. It is precisely the absence of later matter of this kind The most significant passage is 11. 42-6. Here the distinguishes our index. ordinary text of the Cod. lust. i. 17 gives two constitutions of the years 530 and 533 under the rubric De veteri iure enucleando et auctoritate iuris prudentium qui in
digestis referuntur.

In 1814 the rubric

i.

is

much

simpler, approximating to the

and corresponding one of Cod. Theod. 4, and the two new constitutions of 530 emanated from Justinian but the 533 are replaced by two others, of which one other is Cod. Theod. i. 4. 3, of A. D. 426. This evidence, which of itself would
be
supported by analogous indications elsewhere. Thus the papyrus omits i. 14. 12, of Nov. 529, and the anti-Manichaean i. 11. 10, the posterior exact date of which is unknown but which, as Kriiger states, is probably
sufficiently conclusive,
is

to

Its 19-21 of 529-3 1 absence in the first edition of the Codex would therefore be expected. Again, two the papyrus index passes directly from Cod. lust. i. 11 to i. 14, omitting the both concerned with the Church. It is clear from titles 12 and 13, which are
i.

5.

18,

being connected

in

substance with

i.

5.

this the numbering of the rubrics preserved on the verso of the leaf that in beginning with the ecclesiastical titles, edition, as in the second, the principle of = which in the Codex Theodosianus had been placed at the end (Cod. lust. i. 1-11 principle was only Cod. Theod. xvi. i-io), had already been adopted. That

second edition by the insertion after matters from other parts of i. 11 of two other titles connected with ecclesiastical the Codex. In this procedure the revisors were acting quite in accordance with their
carried out with

more completeness

in the

powers as
'

laid

down by

the constitution

De

emendatione codicis

3 si

quae

2i8

THE OXYRHYNCHUS PAPYRI

(constitutiones) similes vel contrariae inve7iirentur,circumdticere et a prioris codicis

congregatione separare.

Though
with the
in
1.

primarily valuable as a relic of he original edition, the papyrus

also to the text of the extant
1.

makes some contributions

Codex.

While agreeing

MSS.

in

the omission of Septimio in

20,

it

inserts the

name

Sext{io)

49 (with Cod. Theod.), Julio in 1. 48, and apparently M(arco) before Palladio prov{inciarum) (again with Cod. Theod.) after vic{ario) in I. 8, 13 it adds but omits et constdi designate in l. 27 and nobilissimi in l. 52. Evidently in the inscriptions of the constitutions little reliance can be placed upon the evidence of
in
1.
;
;

MSS. on such matters the tendency to abbreviate was not to be resisted, and Kruger's rule (cf. ed. mai. pp. xv, xxiii sqq.) of supplying a full inscription from any available source is justified. Thus he had already adopted Sextio in 18. 2, and at any rate Tulio can now be added in 18. 1 i. consistency would suggest the acceptance also of quinqite provinciarum in i. 11. 3. There is further some useful evidence on individual points of detail. Lines 16-17 show that Cod. i. 11. 9, the inscription of which was missing, is to be attributed to Anastasius, and 11. 31-2 confirm the attribution of i. 14. 10 to Leo and Anthemius the name of the addressee is in both cases lost. After 1. 41 there is nothing corresponding to the supposed Greek constitution to which a place is assigned by Kruger at i. 16. 2, and the existence of that constitution, though not disproved, becomes more questionable. Palaeographically the fragment is of importance, since there are few examples of early Latin uncials that can be so precisely dated with equal security. It is highly improbable that the first edition of the Codex would continue to be copied in Egypt after being superseded by the second, especially in view of the
the
:

express prohibition in the constitution De emendatione codicis 5 ex prima lustiniani codicis editione aliquid recitare. The date of this manuscript may therefore be
placed with small risk of error in the six years following April 529.
written in

The

letters,

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 As in 1813, abbreviations are commonly followed by always closely joined.
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
latter is

dot and sometimes the stroke probably due to inadvertence,

he writes both impp- and imp-p- but the

bo

-bus in

1.

18.

When

rubrics or inscriptions

extend to a second

line or

more, these are considerably indented.

in

Rubrics are

marked
both

off

by

horizontal dashes above and below

at the

in front

and

end of each, as

them and the letter is placed the Verona fragments, whose practice

1814.
is

EXTANT CLASSICAL AUTHORS

;

219

followed

the
(1.

by Kriiger in his large edition. The prefixed is accompanied by number of the rubric, in Greek figures constitutions, with one exception
not numbered.

37), are

The
[

first

rubric on the recto

is

written in enlarged

Apparent remains of pagination are visible in the top right-hand corner of the verso, probably ]: or[ }, which are higher figures than would be expected unless the index was preceded by other matter.
uncial letters.

Recto.

[ia]

d[e p]agaui[s} sacrificiis

[et]

Cod.
t

lust.

i.

n.

templis

[imp' Const- ? Di\odoto [imp

5

Constajntin-

[impp- Gratian]
[aaa-

a ad Taurum ppValentin- et Theod-

Cyne]gio ppet

t[mpp-

Arcadius

H\onorius

aa

Ma
proy-

[c\rovio [et Pr\oclian vieid-

aa- Apollodo[ro pr]oco7is- Africae

10

imp-p- Honor[- et The\odosius

aa

popido [Carta}geii[ie\nsi
id da

Asclepi\odoto p\p

impp

Valentin et Marcian aa]

15

() (/) ()
a

Pallad[io

impp Leo et An[them aa Dioscoro

[
pp
[a]
et] et]

^
20

[]

de legibo

e[t eon]stitu[tionidns

14

principum

et [edictis

[imp Co]nstan[ti]n-

Basso pu
Valentinian- aa

[impp- T\heo[dosius
[a]d
[id
[id

senatum
pp-

25

[id[id

[id
[id

aa aa aa aa aa aa

ad senatum ad Volnsian]um
Florentio p\pFlorentio pp]

6
7

Cyro pp] ad senatum]

Valentiniaii-

[impp
3

Marchian[- aa ad Pal

[ladium pp]

220

THE OXYRHYNCHUS PAPYRI

Verso.
Plate V.
[

(\
7()
impp' Leo et
ty
35

\ >[
1$

]*f

.]

1.

14.

IO

de mandatis p\rincipum
Gratian
sins aa

15

imp-p-

Valen[tinian et Theodo

ad Eti[signium pp

8<[ [

de
40

serial con\sultis

16.

impp-

V[al enl T\heod\osius et

a

A read17

ad

s\enatum~\

[de attctoritate] iuris

[prudentium\
[impp
+5

w
V]alent a

Tkeodosius et
[ad] se[natu]m

ad

se

Cod. Theod.

i.

4.

[imp Iusthi]ianus
[fy

[M]enae pp

de iu]ris et fact i ignor[an]t\ia]

Cod.

lust.

i.

18.
r

[imp[id

Anion a

Julio

Max
[a ltd-

mil

a S\esxt

htv[e]n[ali]

50

[imp-

P^ilip[p\o\us

archil-

[impp] Diocl et
[id

M[aximian- aa

Itilianae

4
5

aa] et cc Ma[rtiali
aa] et cc Taur et P[olIioni

[id[id

6
7

aa] et

c\c]

Zoe

55

[id-

aa] et cc Dionysyiae

[id
[id

aa

aa] et

[imp-

Gaio ft [Anthemio Amph[iae Con]stantin a [Vale\riq[no

e]t
~cc
c~c

9 10
vie11

subject,

This constitution is absent in Cod. lust. Since a pagan emperor is excluded by the and the first constitution should be older than the second, the choice of the emperor is limited to Constantine or Constantius, and the name in either case must have been considerably abbreviated. As the scribe uses the form Constantin- (11. 4, 20, 58), it is perhaps better to suppose that Const- here Constantius ; cf. 1. 5, where Theodosius is
3.
_

shortened to Theod.
4.

Di]odoto
:

Constantin{iis)

1.

preferred to The\odoto as the shorter. Constantius. The same error is found in SCR.
is

1814.

EXTANT CLASSICAL AUTHORS

so

^
om
;

J'tSt,):
C d
-

Cod.

Theod.

xvi.

,o.

.5

^-

provincial

\T, ****-<;

both

^*~^ * sutKaXg &3TSSfW=r/JSa.

that

than without further additton.

the

Om

.
.

004

* -TT it .TS; 23ttZZRSSLZ ~ * ** *>

dr

JS, Om

Cod.

lust.,

where the constitution

is

given without

name

of the

ecclaiis

^""''""'"^

Theod
''""a,.
even
if

SZ ShSto.?^

^^Zt

Per .)

the

Cod. is supplied from the horizontal stroke passes through the

nomen

MM.

rf- &****
et cons. d.

Cod.

Inst.

There would no. be room

for,/

.design.
.

shortened to

remains do not suggest

9
is

course uncertain
resto'red

^"& ^^
].

T2

is

omitted.
in the

TheS

papyrus

is

of

from Nov. .4. 4 as jd the papyrus is unin.elljgrble horizontal the margin and has a
to be
no

reason

why

this.particular

f**^*-*^ ? ,*53 Stlfa numera,; though thie seems aoovc J"*j ftrin numbered when con ^^-1' in
stroice

fe

ta the

MSS.

of

Cod

lu^ bm

others

restored.

* 4sreferuntur,
rubric
is

** ^*** * under ^ * Ulpian d one which ^JP^^X^fSult^ stood oth***** and Paulus on Papinianus, *^^not M ^ much 4~5 corresponds any case but two lacuna "fj^^^^on <^^ct m^m^te^^ That than ^
with two
Zfc responsis prudentuvi,
fc

there are tn ree

of

/ef)

of

are of Constantine,
to 11. 4 in 42, that of

placing

the

of

1.

shorter are cuoppeu constitutions of Cod. lheod.i. 4

here.

It is possible
is

hat response,

while the third in the

the
first

the rubric

lust

;,

Marciano

adscripta sunt

of

arf J*.

....,
is

46. This constitution

. unknown, but

tv,^ the

nn mP rf Menas to name ot menas,

whom

the constitution

222

THE OXYRHYNCHUS PAPYRI

of a.d. 529 Zte codice confirmando, prefixed no doubt to the first edition, was addressed, may be restored with great probability. 3 of that constitution relates to former codices and to veteres iuris inierpretatores, but it i* unlikely that that section, still less the entire constitution, stood in this position, where some other rescript to Menas, superseded subsequently, like Cod. Theod. i. 4. 3, by Cod. lust. i. 17. 1-2, would be more appropriate.
48. Iulio
:

om. Cod.
;

lust.
is

49.
50.

1.

Sexflfo)

this

name, which

absent in the MSS., had been rightly restored from

Cod. Greg.
of the
there
line,

That the superfluous was cancelled is not certain. A difficulty arises at the end where with the reading Marcellae the letters lae are expected, in place of which
.
.
.

// is something that may be read as ] Ii This constitution is [ or perhaps as ] apparently to be connected with iii. 44. 8, issued on the same date and addressed to Iuliae, and some variation here in the name of the addressee is therefore not surprising ; but whether the insertion of Iul. is correct remains very doubtful. et centum S, om. C, et Maximianus nobiles cesares R, 52. et cc (= Caesares): so ; et Consiantius et Maximianus nobilissimi CC. Kramer.

PLM

HOMERIC FRAGMENTS
(The
collations are with

Ludwich's

text.)

1815.

14-5x19-1 cm. Parts of two columns, written in an informal sloping hand on the verso of a fragment of a second-century taxing-account. Col. contains A 33-50, Col. ii. A 59-75. of corr. from 0. 44 added above the line, was written for y, but the 65 45

is blurred and y may be intended. 67 Third century. Fragment containing ends of 1816. 25-7 x 7-7 cm. 332-70 (complete column) and 386-409 (end of col., the upper part of Col. ii being lost), in

third stroke of the

71

.
A
On

nearly upright
century.
frvres

somewhat

irregular uncials of about the middle of the third

1.

mark
reixeos

of elision in

345

348 veov

in the papyrus, 1. 389, which is having been inserted here. The papyrus
cf.
1.

(
340.
all

338 om. 340 ' bios 344 386 In place of this line va[ stands omitted in its proper place, apparently
is

(];

broken above

va[.

389 om.

386.

the verso a late third-century account.

leaves,

1817.

Fragments of three

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

due to the

original scribe.

Stops

in

HOMERIC FRAGMENTS
the high and middle position are used.
1818,

223

These fragments were found with and possibly belonged to the same codex or corpus, but the scripts, though they may be contemporary, are quite distinct. Fol. 1 4 2-5 cm. Verso ends of 379-84, recto beginnings of 4 8-24. Foi. 2 1*5x2 cm. Verso a few letters from 412-14, recto do. from 455- 6 Fol. 3 13-8 cm. Verso 14-4 564-81 (end of col.). 571
f

574

[}

$j6 pobaybv

rflj

6i2 The scribe perhaps 604 603-17 (end of col.). began 1. 614, being misled by the homoioarchon of 611 and 613. ^[[YQi 615 ^[[]]9. 617 Below this line is a row of angular marks, followed by the title [] 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

[ ]
t

579 []'[[]],

corr.

Recto

][]4.

6[]?

corrections in the text.

The method
regard
at

of accentuation hardly differs from to

modern

practice,

except with

the

retracted

accent.

has

frequently been written for

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 et, are generally not noticed in the following collation. few scraps have not been identified.

Fol.

16-8x14-7
re

cm

Verso
113

0[i]oju.e[jV]]

]$
118

109-37 (ends of
1

lines).

111
of

]-

14

115

converted from

116

vlkos

re

121 was included.

a.

125 [[]]
129

corr.

2
,

apparently neglecting to delete the

134
corr. to

128 154

Recto 53~77 (beginnings).

174 aye
Fol.

176
2

Recto

by

164

[/'^
1^2

163

171

190-202, 283-93^ 2 3

? ( )

followed

by a small comma-shaped mark by the

first

Lines 283-93 are eacn hand, implying that

(cf.

the verses, which were rewritten in the proper place

cancelled.

Fol.

3),

were to be

The

dislocation

may have been due

to a defective archetype, or

224

THE OXYRHYNCHUS PAPYRI

a

the scribe's having turned over two leaves in mistake.

194

195

fV/Ai? Taus

1 9^

', /3'[|[]
290

converted

from

77

200

ovb

283

of

Verso 216-43.
TTr[epoevT ?

220
233

222 238

224

239
Fol.

.
272

226

AiTCe|]V[]

228

^^'^]

Verso

270
e Vx?L ?

2 77

[[]],
312
Fol.

Corr.

[[]]6[5,
4

- ^^ ' ?
255~7^
2 ^

264

.\
274
35
.

eyX 0S T|

[
3

265 ovre 275

Recto 291-314

2 9^ eycuy'[J_aT]

34

[[]]
347

^7

corr.

Recto

33 6 -57

380
Fol. 5

'[[]]
Verso
S

3^3

-^]
34^

^ Py as
39 1

345~7

a corr.

but a straight stroke was begun after

363
388
397

} ' '{?
353

354

'|]]]

35

a converted from

. ^6

, ^
39 2
1

^. '^ '
353
^

. ,'
$$1

[[]]//

Verso 37 6 ~97

355

Xtittovs

359

eicrav

i"'[[es]]

365
. .

Koriry[[t]]

392

393

'

367

.].

Recto 383-406.
t

395

yccSz^as 5e

1819.

k[Kvtos ( from ?) 45 4 01 Fragments of a roll containing , , , 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

]?

.
ii

396

that of the corrector

who has made

a few alterations in the text.

last line of Fr. 2.

The

columns had a marked slope to the right, the about 6 letters in advance of the first line. with a transcript of the text was given in the
Series II, Plate 76.
Fr.
1

beginning

A
New

facsimile of that fragment

4-1x2-2 cm.,
ii

3-12.

244-83, Col.

284-323.

259

)
Fr. 2

Palaeographical Society's

26-4x14-2 cm., Col.

ends of
corr.
2

'

285

*^]],

HOMERIC FRAGMENTS
287
for

of

retouched by
3 01
is

2g2

..

?
300).

302

opposite this line

(=
2

306

3ii ewe [[]],

corr.
2
.

corr.

314

TroAuaJeJiKo?, corr.

[
Kar[[e]]

297

[]

' [
298

225

303 In the margin

308

*>

309

[.
1820.

Frs.

Fr. 6

2-2

3-5 beginnings of 414-26, 428-32. 418 429 ]5 cm., a few letters from 1-4. Some small fragments

316

n?/A[[e]]ioi>,

remain unidentified.
17-8 Lower portion of a sheet, which was the uppermost of 38-5 cm. 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 medial), accents, breathings, and marks of elision and quantity are fairly and 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 19 cm. Fol. 1 Verso 55-8o. 63 In marg. 64 2 2 re Avtl]voos. Marg. 6$ 6j marg. x 7re/n
;

2
.

}[
o[e

^[ ,. , -.
[
2
.

[.
'

or

Marg.

[.

78

'

4
S

In

left

101

eiA/ce

of
the

.
e

102 an acute substituted

marg. a diagonal dash. Recto 95-121. 105 In the left marg. a flourished sign
for a

96
7.

IpoJvJ]

107

On
an

grave accent.

109

On

acute substituted for a grave accent.

cancelled

no

[\'
it

b ap'
?).

by a dot placed above

(H 2

in in a
(not
11.

^^',
118
or

of

om.

Fol. 2

Recto
|

apparently)

etre

137-63.
2

142 marg.

146 Against this line and

oblique dashes in the

153

[]
.

Verso 178-205.

left margin. of bi-nas corr. 149 152 2 163 In the margin below this line 185-7 Oblique dashes in the left margin against these

>0 $
185 ypvs

eire

[][

148-51 there are

'

]\

[]

lines,

and a coronis between

2

11.

186-7.

190 marg.

[t'^vl

226

THE OXYRHYNCHUS PAPYRI

IV.

MINOR LITERARY FRAGMENTS

Marks of elision
are used.

Beginnings of 9 verses, hexameters or elegiacs, from the 1821. 6-8x4 cm. bottom of a column, written in a rather small, informal, upright hand of the
third century.

[ [.
re
.

?
.

[ [
'
[

[
[

'

,],.[

1822.

3$$

the verso ends and beginnings of lines of two columns from a hexameter

poem, apparently
19

(marginal adscript
Kpovos
end.

' [.
The
first
]

17 cm.

On

the recto remains of two columns of an account.

18

relating to astronomy,
22
]

e.
28

21

^)
i

33

] ] ^]]
s

g.

] \- ' \[
i.

On

]ei8eTai eibos'
32
]

29

30

33

Zevs

Most of the
ii

lines of Col.
is

last line of Col.

opposite

i.

have a high or medial stop at the 30, but the column begins at a

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. 28 x 6-6 cm. Strip from a column containing parts of 28 lines of a tragedy, 1823.
higher point than Col.
; ;

11.

7-15 at

least

being stichomuthic.
is

Resolution

is

frequent.

The

upright

well-formed uncial hand

of the

evidently early, and

may go back

to the beginning

century

B. c.

[ .] [
]
eTC />X[

*S ^2.

[]

~\

][

?[
[*] [
e

]#?

MINOR LITERARY FRAGMENTS

5
L
[

227
av
77
.
.

jerois

[
.

0o/?or

-[
.

ye

1824.

Fragment of a (Menandrian ?) comedy, from the top of 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 and Mt( ), a name which does not occur in comedy but may stand e. g. for Mtias,
a column.
or

to the other.

_ ,,
g.gx6-i cm.

/[
[

20

]vmviv
]

(?)

0/),

X i

? [

[
25

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

_[?[

[
[

[ ][ ]
19
.

[
.

].

(re

[
.

y Tp09

and one of them

text
is

The

betrothing a girl called Pamphile (?) written across the fibres of the verso (the recto
is

medium-sized sloping uncials, probably of the third century. Besides the double dots a high stop is used a mark of elision (H 2 ?) occurs
in
;

being blank)

in

1.

10.

Several lines are evidently nearly complete at the ends.

pa]tveis 19
e]ya>

[[ [ ] [ [ \ [ []

Seo[

Se

'

]v

777?

eei

]*

[]

][.
J"

]'

.]

Q2

228

THE OXYRHYNCHUS PAPYRI

In 1. 3 there is a small mark after Mi' on the edge of the papyrus, but it does not suggest any letter. For 1. 9 cf. e. g. 211. 38-9 it may be inferred with some probability that the fragment is from the conclusion of the play.
;

In

1.

11 the small interlinear dash probably belongs to an abbreviation of

one of the speakers' names. 1825. 1 1-9 13-1 cm. Fragment from the top of a leaf of a papyrus codex, containing on the recto ends of 8 lines, and on the verso beginnings of 10 lines, from a comedy. The hand is a round upright uncial of medium Accents, &c, which are fairly size, dating perhaps from the fifth century. original scribe, but a corrector's hand is apparently frequent, may be by the Brown ink, rather faded and effaced to be distinguished in verso 2.
in places.

Recto.

]
] ]

],

yctf)'

"

Verso.
[

e
"
'

\.]\\ \wt Ljr.u_._u

.
^
.

...

]
]
. .
.

(
,
]
.

[
e
. .

5
,
.
"

[][

r.y

[[]] yap
.

[
.

eco
.
.

[
.

%
.
.

'

'

*
.

But the correction is unexplained. 6. Trochaic is irregular. 1. 8, where 1. 1826. 9 x 7*3 cm. Fragment, in places rubbed and faded, of a leaf of a papyrus codex containing a romantic prose narrative concerning King Sesonchosis. The hand is a medium-sized upright uncial of late third-fourth century type Verso
2.

[]?

tetrameters begin here, but

Recto.

]
] ] ]

[
.

[]

%] [
.

Verso.

[
]

[
[

MINOR LITERARY FRAGMENTS

5
]
.

]
]

\ [ ]^]
]
}
-

[ [
[
em

229

]
1

Keiva aSe

enrev

[
.

]
10-7

?[]

\[]
]

>[].[. .}.[

] ]
Tore
]f)i
]

.
.

[
.

8e eva
.

Tyy

[
.

[
.

\
15

$
.

ye
.

[
.

length of line seems to have been greater than that suggested by recto 7-8 ; in 11. 6-7, where the lacuna is approximately the same, someof In verso 10 the final is required. thing like

The

is

corrected.

1827.

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
Fr.
1

5-6 cm.

Upper

sloping uncials

a high stop in
1.

1.

11.
[

Fr.
[.
.

.]
.

.]e/>o[.]

,]<1

[.
.

[
.

[] ?

[]

ov ev

15

[.

[\
[]
[] []'

[
[
[

.] .][
.

[] []
[]
[]
an
. .

)
Fr. 2.

]
room
for [], but

In
still

1.

2 there seems to be barely

less

is

not attractive,

230
1828.
4-9

THE OXYRHYNCHUS PAPYRI

x
2*9

cm.

Fragment of a vellum
of,

leaf,

inscribed in well-formed rather

small sloping uncials

probably, the third century.

The

contents are of

an ethical character.
point of division
is

Apparently the lines were of no great length, but their not fixed. The vellum is thin and rather discoloured.

Recto or

flesh side.

yap
LKavov

] ] ]
]

[] [
.

?]

[ [] [][] [
Verso.
3
[

[ [
[
[
.

]
]

yap

[]

]
][,

[
.

[.]

INDICES
(1700
is to

be supplied before 78-99,

1800

before 0-28, such figures referring to

to

papyri; figures in small raised type refer columns ; sch.

fragments,

Roman

figures to

scholium.)

I.

1787-9 (Sappho and Alcaeus).

87 40 3 88. 3 87. 12 787. 7 4, 32 2
6

aa[ 87.

13

IO.
37
3.
9

]8

87.

[]
3.

88.
ayava[ 87.
12

(?) 87. 4 IO.

3

|(

[
[ [
'*
23
n'

88.
87.

"

4
33

87.

.
8.

U. 12.
3

87.

IO.
(

288. .

3.

88. 15 i. 6 sch. adfiv 88. 3 3 sch. 8 87. 5.

89.

31

]88.
'

87.

4.

$ [ [
15

'87. 1+2 6,

2,

27
<

88. 4 34 " 89. * . 5 88. 4 25. 87. 26 6. /<?[ 88. 4

87.

6.

'\ [ . ?
7

13

9
2

88.
37

87.

88.
27 3

21.
18
i.

87. 6 7. 89. x i. 6. aeppui( 88. 5 3. 87. G 9.

/[ 87.
*
'

^[
ai

[
/3[

/
88.

<W>i[89.

15

87.
2

I.
3

87.

U. 2 2.
15
ii.

88. 6, 89. x i. 12(F). 23 2. az[ 89. 88. 8 3.

12

4,

l6

89.

5.

88. 6 8. 15 ii. 5. oMe/T 88. ... 89. 6

[ [ [
[

6.

89. 88.

3 Sch.

87. 3 87. 5 6. 87. 44 5 88. 4 3 2 87. 1+2 2.

17

88. 1 . 12. Va 89. G 8. 87. 7 5 89. . 15 (?)' 89. . 6. V0os 87. 10 5 87. 14 7 &/|/3* 87. 40 2. 88. 15 . 15 Sch. 88. 15 i. 18 sch. 87. 1+2 87. 44 2. 88. 4 7 Sch. 88. 2 88. 2 2, 7 3 ;

4 sch.

88. 15 4 87. 7 4 ^[9? 89. 29 4 89. 16 2 Sch. 87. 15 3 89. 16 . 87. 36 2. 87. 1+2 6, 40 4; 89. Sch. 88. 2 9 15 aft-air 88. 88. 4 2 8.

.
.

{ [
x
/3<7

87. 1+2 1 8. 87. U 87. 4

.
.
8.

V87. 1+2 5
89.
4
7 3 sch. 89. .

(\

[
15

[
16

87.

6.

'

87. 7 88.

88. 7 7 87. 34 4

0[88.

[87.

87. 1+2

21.

89.

89.
3 Sch.
yauei 89.

29 6.

([{

89.
87.

24

2.#

13 8.

. 7


36

232

INDICES
89.
3

.
.
2,

4 2,
4
,

7 -[ 89.
7

38 2 sch.

yap 87.
6,

^9;
19,

88.

. 7,
2 (?), 31

2
4
,

6, 2, 1
89. 1 i. 132
>

13
7,

[
[
eyo>

88.

15

ii.

16.

2 5;
9

87. 3 . 18. 87 1+2 7 87. 24 3 87. 1+2

[} 67[
eW[

89.

6
ii.

88.

7.

22.

eWe[ 87.
eirtlradecK

6 2.

3(?)>

87. 1+2 26.

87. 1+2 19; 88. 2 8(?). 88. 3 2 sch. "" 87. 1+2 7 V 6 ] eyevro 87. 3 87. 1+2 3

>
87.
2

87. 6 2. 87. 6 2; 88. 4 20, 12 pe 87. 3 11. 19, ,

. 8.
2;
pot
epot

'

88.

12,

13

ii.

3,

6.

/[ [ ?
?

89. 7 1. 88. 1 ii. 25 (Vo^p.); 89. M. 5.

89.
3

.
23
;

1 6.

.
?[

89.

87. 1+2 24, 3 . 23. 12. 87. 44 7; 89. * par 87. 6 4, 28 2 (?).
peal

op-

ap-

9 ? 87. I. 87. n 4. 89. l ii. 8. 88. 4 33. 88. 4 31. In 87. 9 2.

[
rf

[89.
i.

ii.

3
2.

?]

"")

' [
? .
yoW
Sa[
15
.

88. 9 88. 15 i. 4 sch. yijpas 87. 1+2 12. 88. 1 4 89. 6 8. ykvuepov 87. 6 5 87. 3 7 9 87. 1+2 88. 87. 41

89.
eiVe
15

16, 12
9
ii.

87. 88. 12
ii.

(
([
87.
44

89. x 87. **

i.

3.

6.

ew^ 88.
x
ii.

eh 88.
2
(e's

10.
i.

18 sch.; 89.
3
ii.

Pap.).
9.
x

87. 1+2 i8, 12 5; 89. x i. e^t 88. n 2. 3 ii. 87. 89. * i. 2. 19. 87. u 6. 89. * ii. 2.

. ?

89.

87. eiWf[ 89.

ii.

13
3
;

4
3

,e87.
s ch.
? yuj/]-

1+2

.^,

Pap.).
9

fa

!;

89.

7.
36

2.

87. 3 ii. 18. fa[87. 31 ii. 1. 89.

i.

87.

6.
3
6

89.
5.
3.
3 5 87.
ii.

6 and sch. * i. 6 Sch.

\ev6epais 88.
eXqi/, q'Xeo

87.

89.
ii.

3
5

87.
12.
[Saure]

88.

88. 4 40. A]Mra[if 89. 20 1. e\ms 87. 1+2 19.

eA/cea

6, 17.

9&

89.
(or

41
5,

Si/we.
3

/
25

?)

87.

U. 4

88. ^>/3] 89. x

ii.

19.

i.

17.

88.
87.

4 2 73

[
7

87.

II.
2

U.
12

?p[pe

88. 14 sch.

9.

(eori)

88.
ii.

89.
4

89.
3

(?).

tov 87. 3

[ [ [
0i/i<w

87. 36 5. 87. 1+2 12; 88. 88. 1 6.

87.
9
?

15

ii.

17.

7.

88.
.
.

I.

21.

bevovros

88. 1
ii.

ii.

^
,
[

88.

ia

87.

36

/[

[] [ / [] ([

5 (. 1. 87.

().
26

3; 89. 4; 89.
5

22

2.

i.

15,

41

88. ii. 18. 14 1; 89. 9 3. eow[ 88. 6 12.

1
ii.

87. 1+2 15. 89.

6

fc

88.
4.

<9eW 87. 3

II.
3
9

eotoais

88.
29 6. 4 10.

1 .

89.

^ 0]
0/
89.
ieVat,

89.

13 2.

&iXe 87- 44 2.

88. 1 i. 10 sch. 88. 15 ii. 28. 88. 15 ii. 3 88. 5 3 89. 1 ii. 6. 89. 29 3 89. 1 U. 2. 88. 15 U. 23. 87. 6 8

24.
fV

,
(
15

&[ 87.
3

12

4.

87. 44 6.
17.

ii.

87. 7

3.

88. 87.

3sch.; 89.
3.

87. 1+2 4. 87. 1+2 87. ** 5. 87. 19 2.

29

m> 87.

89. 20 5. 88. 1 ii. 20. Ki/e/ca 87. 5 eWr[ 88. 4 26. eo[ 89. 40 2. 88. 1 i. 1 3 sch. m 88. 3 7 sch.; 89. *
?ei/]8ucws

ta]^ 89.
89.
6

5. 13
2.

3. 13

87.
3.

3.

ip[f

(?)

(' 87.
i.

88.

ii.

17.

3 ii. 12. l\\e ... 87. 44 10.

/.

SAPPHO AND ALCAEUS

'([
10
6.

87. 10

3.

\(
?

87.

[ 87.
>[

19

27 2. W7-[ 87.

[] [ ' /[
87.
IO,

88. 5 6 88. 4 3 88. l 1.

7

88. 4 25; 89. 88. 6 II. 87. 4 6.

. 15.

3.

87. 1+2
3
3

5.

>>,
?7.

89.

40

87. 1+2 24, 28,

5

ii.

7,

2, 20

l(?),
ii.

88.
r
13

4 2 15 2,
2,

3, 7,

32

87.
8.

34

?
2,

9; 18; 89. Mi.

34

1*2,

,[ ,
^
}.

,
87.
5.
6
ii.

233

.
89.
*

<50[/
*

89.

89.

.4

87. 1+2 25 89. . 4) V. 1.

87-

^
'?

87. 1+2 25. ? 87. 87. 1+2 3 87. 13 II. 87. 1+2 II.
6

12

89. 12 4. 89. 29 4 3 /yir 87. . 9 pvpta 88. 2 89. 12 9 Sch. . 5 ? 89.

0.).

[
>[

[89. 24 .

87. 4 7. 89. 31 .

89.
3.

87.
2.

89.
4
25

i.

[^ :
,

3i, 31
5

15

ii.

15.

88. 89.

>{

89. J . 2. 88. 2. 88. 2 II. 87. 8.

29

'
ma 88.
5 sch.

"
89.
*

88.
i.

15

17.

87. 1+2

( ^ ^( [
87.
44
7

[
)
.

87 6 4. 88. * 5 87. 3 . 13 87. 1+2 25; 88. 15 . 9 3 87. 1+2 .22. 87. 44 4 89. 21 . 88. 15 . 1 8. /capri[ 88. 15 . 2787. 1+2 19; 88. 3 2 sch., 4 21. 88. 10 6. 88. 7. Karaypfi 88. 7 4 88. 10 3 89. 7

[87.
87.

4
7

5
29

',

[87.

[
/

89.
5

[
2
.

,(
4

;
(title).

^
vij/
1.

88. 15 . 8. 88. 12 . 5 87 44 3
87. 1+2 2 2.

87. 3 2 . 89. 6 4 89. . 3, V. 87. 5 4 89. 29 7 Sch.

89. 29 5 87. 3 88. 2 9; 89.

.
i.

,
89.

34
5,

3'>

.
1

6,

13

#.

[
,
8,

88.

15

5 sch. .
8.

87. 1+2 20.

(art., 38

dem.,
5

2.

88.
6,

rel.) 4

87. 1+2
33

87. 1+2 25,

9,
15
9

19

Meya87.

87.

8.

87. 1+2 1 6, Mi. 89. 8, 9, 7 K[et/ieiOis 89. * . 8. 88. 15 i. 15 sch.

[ ]<

7; 89.
21 27

38

4,

2.

.
2
;

9
89.

88. 2 87. 3 .
;

89.
87.
3

2.

8,

87.

. 5
87.
6

2,

87. 1+2
87.
3

[
.
15

88.

8; 89. 88. 10 2.

.
2.

15,

.
7

5
;

87.

3
5

6.

88. 15 . 88. 12

.
2

89. 9 88.
3
ii.

.
15

/cet/iev

87.

45 2

88 *
2

6.

Kepp]

88. 87.

15.

.
6

6.

7[

88.

12

(?) 89.

[
12
3

87.

89.

.
15

88.

15

7
89.

; .

25.

87.

14,
12

44 4

88.
25.
4

'
3

27,

12.

88.

1/

23.
7

87. 89.

. 24; . 12.
4

89.
3

TOWj

87.

30

.
24

87.
2,
;

.
.

87.

.
7,

19,

34

([

]
/cXeor

88. 15 87. U 87. 4 9

.
4
4

19.

12

.
7

5,

23
12

4; 88. 89. .

6, Tti^[e ?
88.
12

89. 1 . 89. . 9
;

5
3

88.
88.
4 4

6.

^/...
87.
3

20.

34

87.
87.
3<t[

8.

KplVfiP,

89.

/'

2.

87.

II.

]/3

88. 88. 4 24. 89. 1 . 3 88. 2 12.

4 2 6.

87. ** 9

234

8() 87.

6[

[
.

88.
?

15

. 2.
3

38

88. * 6. 37 oi/ea[ 87. 2. ovlas 87. 3 . 7 8 ? 6](( 89. 4 ovoipe 87. 3 . 5 87. 1+2 23. 88. 1 3 89. 13 4 3/4 88. 3. 88. 2. os [1789. * 9]

[]

87. 5 3 88. 10 5 88. 4 27 88. 15 . 7 88. 15 . 24.

.

,
87.
3

INDICES
4

9
?

',
89.
9

88.

15

. 4

7r]aparaerai

88.

7 8.

([
89.

[] , (
*
i.

88. 15 . II. 88. 15 . 28.

16.
22
*

(
38

\(
88.

[][] 87.
87. 87.
26

88. 15 . 2 . 88. 15 . 4 88. 15 . 1 5 sch.

1+2
9,"

Q.

89. 89.

44
7, 4

87.

.
.

6\6
'?
3ms
88.
4

]
.
21,
5

(87.
88.
6.
15

Te,

as re
8.

44 2.

87. 4 8; 87. 44 87. 3 . 4-

&"

6 87. .
3 3
7;

,
?

88.

.
" 2 ,
7

87. 1+2 14,

4,

8; 88.

2,
12

26,

88. l5 . Ig. 87. 44 5 87. 3 . 9 88. 9 2. [ 89. 2G 4 IIeXaVya>i> 89. 6 6. 7?[ 87- 38 2. 87. G 3 87. 33 4 87. 44 8. 88. 4 24. 88. 1 . ? 18 87. 4 87. 14 5, 15 4 87. 39 . 88. 4 9 89. 1+2 1 6. 71-OflV 87.

^ /^
5,

,
88.
87.
8

88.

15

. 4
23

,
15

2,

[]
3 sch.,
ii.

15

2.

88.

15

i.

17

.
5
i.

1 8.

33

av]we'xet

89.

4
15
2,

/Tis

88.

&/
[ 7[ [
5

0[

] [
[
88. * 88. 89. 89.
6
2.

[
44

sch

89. . 12. 89. 6

.
4

87.

13

12.

87. ,
3

[
9

2.

33,

15
6

2.

20, 25(?).

';
.
7

, ^ ,
88.
15

2; 88.

6, 26 4, 34 7, 15 9
Cf.
10

II. 87. 3 re\\eapv 87. 44 3

]erep7r[

.
(?),

87.
* 7

88.

87. 1+2

87.

(or

87. 88. 15 87.

^)
10

88.

25-

.
;

'

87. 1+2

7,

88.
18

4 1 1. (?);

8,

2(?),
6'.'

.
5

13, 2

7=

(
5
15
3

.
87.
3

6.
tis

16.

88.

88.
87 1+2
2 4,
5

88

26,

10
15
i.

4,

12

. 8.

88.
18

3]?)

87. 87. 3 U. 21. 15 i. 10 sch. 88. 15 ii. 21.

15 SCh. 2; 88. 3 2 sch.

- [. ',
2j
II.
9,

7[
. 9
.

. 89. 88. 4 22, 12 . 89. 6 5

88.

88.

2 1.

? .
[
'
]/ [
88.

87. 6 5 6. 89. ][] " 88. 15 . 1 6. 89. 1 i. 7 19 2 89. 1 3, 15 01 88. . 2 5- Cf. 87. 34 88. 15 . 9 Cf. 88. 15 . 2 1.

88.

87.

/
87. 1+2
4 5
6

[ [
?

88. u 3. 87. 9 2.

89. 6 7 (. 1. 89. 13 2. 89. 1 .

87. 1+2

).
;

88.

13

4
9

7r[ai]oas 87. 19 5 ST. 3 ii. 5

88.

[
2.

89.
2

89.

29

87. 1+2 2(?); 89. 24 .

24,
!3
15
2.

88.

87. 3 87.

; .
13

[ ,

89. * i. 3 88. 15 . 25. 89. 1 . 5 89. 19 2.

87.
II.
3

'
7

89. 8. 87. 43 2. 88. 7 3 89. 31 2. 89. . 12, 22 87. 7 7

6.

2.

87.
6.

87.

44

87

88.

87. 45

(title).

>[

88.

13-

88. 4 88. 12 . . 87. 1+2

.

.
8.

^ ?
^[
87.
3

1.

SAPPHO AND ALCAEUS

235
88. *

87. 1+2 20, 7 2 (?). 87. 39 3; 89. Mi. 8. 88. 15 U. 1 7.

:,
89.

. ( ?[87. [
87. 1+2
6

7
1

87.

.
4

8.

88. 4 4. 88. 4 23.

87.

16.
i.

vartpov 88. 15

18 sch.

[
5

87. 87. 12

* 8.

[ [
4
87-

89. 19 . 87. 3

1 6.

6.
I.

, \
4
.

89. X . 87 1+2 4

' [
#/

87. 1+2

9
1 3

87. 3 . 87. 1+2 2 2.

2 7-

87. 1+2

**|[ ?[87.*5

^[ ;
II.

87. 26 4 87. 19 3 87. 88. 4 2 2. 87. II. 87. 9 3 ("- Pap.). 8. 87. 88. 1 5 87. 13 88. 4 28. 87. 1+2 2.
'

^ ( ^
4

87. 87. 3

.
4

88.
36

32-

88.
15

4,

88.

7,
3

i.

89.

89.

32

88.

15

7 sc ^

? 89. .
87.

89. 11 88. 4 2 988. 1 U. 2 4 89. 8 5 ( 1 ]

"' ;

.).

38 2.

OTHER NEW TEXTS.

93.
V.
vii.

a 3. 8.
4

=
86. 5

4. 4 5

8.

i.

sch.

7
viii.

86.
15
a'ipeiv

4
1

93.
[2], 3
',

[.
81.
aipetv

/3&7 0.

93.
;

6.

3 1 ]

94. 12

3. 29.

aet'Seti/

91. 9; 93.

I.

4. 4 4

93.

90. 20. 92. 12.

0.
* 1 4,

92.
aT0ff

91. 8.

6+ H.
;

93. VI. 3 92. 65 4 93. viii. 3 1+2 2]; 20. 73 s ch. 86. 4 82. * J5, 20.
;

[4.

(
8

26. recto 12. 82. 65 3 85. recto 5

Viii.

(#).
86.

.
i

0.

20.

[ 2.
A%ai
29, 22, 3
4

98.
3

44 iv.

?
?
.

93. 27.

VI. 2.

0. 3 40, 4 1

.
8

1+2

46, 57

81.

3 27. 7
7

ayriWi 94. 7 95. . ayos 90. 2 1. 98. 5_6 98. 44 U.

^'

&
91. 4
0.

54;

4 2 ]

'*
.
>

90.
[0.
2

4> 5

2 7]

32

2. 3 55
2

27.

69,
2
1

6
+

.
5

4. 1+2
3 8 *

2. 3

'
95.

.
42,

66, 72,
4*

7 1J
9.

90. 3 2

. 6?
8.
;

4. 1 + 2 4(?),[23];
?]

94. 12. 97. 43

4. 3 2 14

27

ii.

^?
Aiyaioj

27. 13?
[5.

37 2 scri 96. 17

98.

**i. 10.
1
3

.
95.

7],
;

45

[80. 34] 80. 28.

/
[

91.
8.

9
ii.

86. 12.
sch.
1

3
i.

84. 82. 8
43

2
;

.
88.
44

7; 3

ii.

97. 12

/
alev

[.
85.

].

27.

97. 5 2

80. 46.
2. 3

97. 63. 96. 1 8.

6.

/?*

83.

' &

67-9
1.

20- 64 sch.

86. 21. 22. . 7 83. IV. 3

236

INDICES
2. 3 65.

\\
3,
iii.

90.
;

8.

93.
20
2,

vii.

98.
ii.

15 6,

3. 39,

44

i.

6,

12,

avayeiv

4, 15, v. 2(?),

4?
ii.

"A\ets 1. 50.

. ?5

97.
32.

4, 17, 12

38; 99.

98.

4?

avatpelv

98. 44 . 78. 4 97. 15 6.

0. 7 I 2. " 33
2

52 14! 0.

.
?

90. 48 93. 98. 2 8. 95. ii. 23.

,*

ix. 3

0.

3
*J1.

99.
2. 3

i.

58

an-as

94. 20.

dX/fcoj/of

^?
95.
41,

93. vi. 4. 97 25.

4. 1+2 5
?

90. 34.
96. II.
91.
ii.

,
viii.
;

98. 44 . 12 [99. . 20?].

().

85. 3; 99.
(1.

2~4

.
9

0. 8 3 5 30

1. int.

4. 4 12.

* ?
36
21
8.

93. 90. 43

)
ii.

verso 3; 98. 45
19.
Viii.

.
6

95.
0.
2

5
J

93.

'

7,

60;
2. 3

27 ; 96. 4 ; 97. 98. 48 4; 99. ii.

9. sch.

^' ^/

96. 93.

4. 4 44, 46 3. 3^ 2-4 85. recto 3, recto 6, 8, verso 5, 8 ; 90. 27, 28,

;

. .

92.
0.

>

31;

69; 3.28;

3 ; 25. recto , verso 4 5 26. verso 3 ; 27. 9. 96. 97. 4 J 7

;
v.

9oi sch. 90. 13; 93. ix. 4 94. 9, 15; 97. [19], 69;
98.
13
ii.

" 7
;

90. 5 1 sc h. 24 85. verso 78. 29. avarpenftv 99. 1 8. 99. 23.

31,
1.

~7

96.
2
;

g,

16,

8.

sch. 5.

52.

. .

95. . 23. 95. .

44 iv. 9.

4,

22(F);
;

.
i.

6
10.

34?]; sch. 11;

94.
36
g,

2. 9.

*6 4
sch.

8.

'
7;
4.

98.
?

33 2. 3 46.
2

8.

i.

Sch. 8

55
;

.22

I ?

23.

.
.
4, ix. 6.
7
;

95. i. 7 78. 8 26. rectO 4 95. 1 6. 2-4 afijp 85. recto 11, verso 4 90. 21, 25 ; 93. viii. 2 2, ix. 3, 3; 94. 6;

' " '

86.
0.

92. 4 ; 93. 94. 1 8.

8.
)

[
27; 0.

96. 0. 3 1 6. ; 85. 2_4 recto 5 ; 97

8

(r),

21.

2. 3 38. 4. 1+2 2.
?]

2. 3 29.
i.

8.

sch. 1 3.
5

90. 4 92. 2 5; 24.

0. 12 8.

27.

94. II.
45
2.

4, 5 2

2. 3 7 1-

'

95. . 98. 2 7, u iv. 8 26. verso 9

0. 3 33
1.

78. 32 94. 9 5 17; 96. 5; 97. 8;

;

28. recto
0.
2

43
*

0.

25

98.

0. 6+7 7

45

92. * 4) 1 93. VU. 3,

6; 97. 62.
93.
[90.
1.
VI. 4

'

. 8; .
47
;

23]; 97. 67; 99. 2 3 38; 4 2, [57], 9. sch. 7, 9> 25

'Atrioxeiiy 2. 6 4

^
3.

94. 94.

3
2. 3 49

"
3.

90. 98.

*.

is,
8.

41
1

96.

15;

92.

g.

90. 28, 36.

[]&

90-3

2. 2 5 0. 3 50

. 3 65.
6.
]apyt>pof
<ipe[

90. 35
9
.

2. 3 5

90.

[4.

1+2 21
8

?].

24. 90. 1 6.
"AW?

.
;

0.

2 6.

39

verso 3.

90.
95.

5
5
ii.

93.

..
2. 3

(= 7
16

eav)

. ,

23

,'

97.

a|ioy 93.

92.

2; 94.2;

95.

().

.
4
3
VI.

28; 27.
I.

93.

1. int. (?)

67

8.

sch. 3, 6.
2. 3 37

92.

24

2.

'
0.
3

II.

OTHER NEW TEXTS

aos 94.

237

24.
2. 3 50, 57, 59.
1.

21,

40
5

(?),

'

[45]i 46, 49> 5. 744 sch. ?

59

78. 13. 3^ 8? 94. 8. 96. 1 6.

2. 3 62.

2;

95.

30;
93.

2. 3 3 2,
viii.

recto 7
8.

[
ii.

24;

99.
85.
5

ii.

(?); 26.
;

(3/
npi/e?

94. 3 98. 44 ii. 13; 4. 1+2

2. 3 63.

)?
5.

"

98. 2 9 ? 24. 9.
8. U. Sch. IO.

45

8.

i.

sch. 12.

4. 4 6.

1. int.

78. 4 1 95. ii. 8.

[l. 7]
1."

42.
56.
1.

92.

93.

v. 5.

88. 2-4 recto 1 1 (?), verso 6; 93. ix. 5; 94. 7 16; 95. ii. 5; 97. 14 ^ *#.; 98.8(?), 5 (?), 44

[1. 21, 2 2, 27].

por

1.

s6.

1.

46.
1.

?
2. 3 2.

98. 44 1V. 5; 96. 9. 90. 21 ;

3. 50.
3

3 9>

XI
ii.

>

6; 99.

17;
2

!3> !9> 0. J 31,

39
?

/3*>/3 1.

38.
;

85. 2-4 verso 2

46

93. viii. 4. 24 85. recto 93. vi. 1. 99. ii. 28.

2.
J

3.

41, 43 46, 45 5, 54, 68, 3 [2 3 ], 32, 65, 7(F). [32], 4 ; 1. 3 22, 53; 2. 29, 33, 34, 4 41, [55]; 3. 15, 50; 4.

1.

57

2,

^9,
i.

Bepyatos 1. 50, 5 2 1. 55

93.
1.

iii.

2,

6.

n;

8.

sch.
;

9. sch. 6, 8

2 (?), 6 (?), 25. verso 4

; 0.

45
1

23, 5

1.

2. 3 IO, 17.
6.

26. verso

7.

24; 3.21,67;
22. i. 2 2. 90. 47 96. 7

4. 4 13.

98.

44

;
5/

59,

6.
0.
*

fSt/SXicw (/3/3.)

33

IV. 7

90.
1. int.

21. 5
4
ii.

5.

94. 0.

63 78. 35

I. 3

22.

ii.

30.
iii.

93.

4. 1+2 5.

86. 2. 90. 2. 92. 16

( "
93.

94. 8. 97. 7) 73 78. 3 96.

J

2 1.

2. 6 6.

94.
Pap.) 0.

92.

12.

3 ; 93. 26. verso 1

2. 3 40
iii.

41

viii.
.

2.

46.

.3

1 8.

'A^atot
I.

[
are/)
ar>7

.
2.

* 1 7

96.

^
3. 39

2. 3 48.

[ /3
1.

93.

90. 3 1

/eis 1.

46.

90. 33

94. 2 . 98. 44 iv. 4 26. veiSO 5. /3/; 90. 4 /35? 93. 3 .

48, 49 0. 2 35, 6.

'Attiko's

'
90.
0.

21. 4 96. 16. 91. 1 5.

2. 3 68, 73

8.

94.

1 8.

3 8. sch. 13. ; 7 2. yaa 98. 44 iii. 1 5.

21. 8.
2 2.

l&uW
24.
5

90. 33(0;
?

98.
2

45

3;
4.

90.

.
8

. 3 43
75
2 8.
6.

98.'4S 6;
4

.
ii.
;

50;
44

98.
iii.

5-6

7,

2,
47

'

90. ii. 94. 3

95. 95.

2, 11, iv.

13

2.

96.

6.
ii.

95. ii. g. 93. iv. 25. recto 7. ; " 78. ii, [i 3 ]; 85. 2 4 verso 2 92. x 21. 41 2, 42 1 ; 93. vii. 7, x. 6 ; 95. i. 5, ii. 18; 96. 1, 6, 17, 18; 97. 12, 16, 55, 68;
;

i.

4
;

^ saep.
92.
1

95.
2.

19
2.

98.
IV.

~6

ii.

6,

18

44
5,

i.

8,

ii.

90. 27

40

12,

5.

98. 90. 21

5_6
J

93.

3>

99. ii. 21, 29; 0. 1 22, io; 1. [int.J, 54; 2. 3

2 38
22. ii. 30 ; 23. 21 ; 41 25. recto 1, 4, 6, verso 5 28. recto 1, verso 3. yavkos 93. IX. 7. ye 93. ix. 5 ; 97. [22?], 47; 23. 8; 26. verso i3(?);
;

INDICES
1.

44; 8.

i.

sch. 13, 15.

.
15
;

44,

22

35

4.

27. 11.
ytiv(a6ai

90. 4 1

? [
[ [

'?

... 91. 19. 93. vi. 4 4. 1+2 IO.

;

28. verso 4 98. 45 5

0.

67, 69.

7yiveiov 2. 3 65.

96.

yeWis 85.
51 sch.
yivos 0.
x [

2_4

verso
2

1 2

90.
3

3,

37],
8

65,
2.
3

12,

?
93.
0.

41,

4+5
9,
?

35;

24. 3

63

3. 57-

yevea6ai 0.

25.
VI.

93.

3. 36. 2 (?);

vii.

62,
2.
5,
s

99.

ii.

31

9 (?); 3. 16. 96. 17.

[90. 29]. 90. . 98. 44 i. 9, Ui. 1 7) 4 4 92. 34 6. 90. 5 . 93. viii. 2, 6. Sea 82. 9 97. 42; 93. 14 2 (?); 99. ii. 9, 3 1 2 3 62 ; [5. 37 2 sch.?] 25.

90. 7 98. 2 3. 95. i. 8. 92. 24 3. 90. 44. 95. ii. 2 2. 95. ii. 22.

?
.

/ '
/at

67.

. 3 5.
94. 19.

97. 66.

98.

44 IV. 12.

.
8.

32

ii.

Sch. 5
6.
2.

28. recto

98.

44

Ui.

25. recto 7 93. viii. 4. 98. 44 . 4 95. ii. 2.

'

.
93.
viii.

2 8.
ix.

2,

94.

>

4; 98.
3. 2 5
;

44
i.

3,

10;
5]
;

. 10 2;
24.8.

3. 2.

recto 2 (?). AeiVap^o? 4. 3

;

/? .
;

[4.

1+2

54-

"]

99.
2

ii.

33
,
,

0.
>

20,

26, 39, 73,

40;
12
;

7i, 7 2 3 l8 49, 6+ " 12 2, 21 3 ; 9 4. 4 15 ; 8. ii. sch.

;

recto 8

25. recto 7 27. 9.

26.

? '
|?
Sevrepos

? *

. 3 20. 95. 9; .
ii.

4 27; 4. 4 ().

92. * 15. 90. 2 6. 97. 64. 85. recto

97.

2.

58.
2

5,

3
5,
18

( )>

>'

56, 62,

0.

3,

34, 47

68.

93.

3. 12.

92. * 4 96. 92. 43 .

.
2.

.
19];

7?
[~4

G+7

12;

?
*[

>> ?
1.

92.

1.
viii. 3.

39
3

93.
2.
3

0.

44.

36.

1. 7

91. 13; 98. 10 6.

/?98.

2 3

94.

7 . '?
94.
1.

4. 4 19.

35

07
45

98.

7; 3. 39
ii.

()

95.

93.

.
9

7; 99.
59
2. 3 39'

ii.

7, 33-

6.

>[#?

7[ 2.
4+5

([ /
0.
3

^?
6+7

32.
36.
5

24.
36

93.

,
98.

.
6+7
4

. 6;
3
3
;

9,

14,

[4.

1+2 2 8 */

? ?
Speireiv
/ior
i.

94. 14

[-? Pap.].

78. 42. 95.

4 2. 3 48.

3.

.
8.

47
Sell. 5

48.
2.

93.

.
iii.

92. 92.

22

95.
1

i.

saep.l.

4. 4

8.

99.

.
,

98. 44 3 5; [4.

.
8

,
25
;

i.

5;

;1

32

l"J.

"> 3> 37, 55. 6, 3 4 6. 3.45J 4. 9

98. 44 97. 2 ; 27. 8, 78.

1. int.

17.
1

.
2.

20.

52;

4.

93.

IX.

4. 4

.
3
;

8.

97- 49 92. *

5.
iii.

8.

ii.

Sch.

yvvaucepaarpia 0. 1 1 8. 85. 2-4 recto 3, 10

[]
98.

24.

98.

44

18?
i

35

90. 6. Btd 90. 9, 28 98. 44 iv. 6;

97. 23, 29

99.

I;

86. 4 99. . 20. 97. 49 > 1 nt > 8. sch. 9 ; 25. verso 3.

J

; ;

II.

OTHER NEW TEXTS

85. l recto 5, 2 4 verso 8 ; 90. 11 (?); 93. x. 4; 94. 17 (), 1 8, -19 (rice); 95. ii. 4, 19, 22, 24, 26 ; 97. 96. 4; 97. [6], 11
;

239
0.
3

0.

26.

/
>[ 92.
e 8.
ii.

78. 28; [95. ii. 5]. 95. i. 4, ii. 10, 25.

0.
3. 2 8.
I.

2. 3 34.
tcXaii?[

93.
3

viii.

7.

21.

eXarqs 2.

37.
17

98.

4.
;

38

i5>

52>
3

57
44

6 ,

62

68

78. 36

98.

44

iv.

14

95.

.
1

.
?

9.

i. 4, ii. 98. 2, 8, 14; 99. ii. 29

3, 8, iii. 0. 1 3,

)? 86.

4. 5

8.

*3. J 7> [37].

*"i

32

>

66

>

68
36

3
}
-

2. 3

12,42,[4 ^8j,8[25], [37]; 1 2 3> 5*> 55; 4 3 2 55; 3. 6; 4. 4

,
,

93. viii. 6. 92. x 1 7. 'EXewj 90. 5.

0. 1 26.
0.
34

$0.

sch. 4

7,

8,

[10]
5,
;

8.
7,
2.

ii.

sch. 11

95. ii. 20. eap 95. ii. 4. 97. 34,"

)
e'yyus

9. sch.

9;
;

21.

8;

24.

27.
*

.
3

15,

2 2(?),

e?7T

36,

31

2. 4. 4

61.

()

/ [
1.

"
saep.;

96. I 5. 96. 1 9 ; 7. 901 Sch.

0.
3

35

'
eiy
(?

90. 26 93. vii. 6, x. 7 ; 98. 7 1 (?), 44 iv. 99. ii. 32 0. 2 8 3 3 32,[ 7 o]; 4. i(?); 24.
verso 3
;

85.

' "
e>os
eV

*?

18.
3

0.

27, 30,

31,

4.

4; 26. recto
0.
36.

9.

0. 17 4.
3. 8.

47.

78. 26, 31 j 90. 53 sch.; 95. 93. ix. 6 (?) ; 94. 1 2 ii. 97. 7 ; 98. 10 6 3
; ;

^ '
0.
02
,

90. 24
2.

96. 3 98. 50
3

38
?

1. int.

i\m[ 92. 36 2. 94. 7 90. 24.

2. 3 4
;

92.
;

9. 4,
i.

corr.

from
;

is),

ii.

14,
3

90. 10 93. ix. 95. 94. 8, 18-20.

1.

iii.

12

0.
1.

10,
4

12, 2 6g,

et

53;

3.

25,

26,

23; i;4.
1.
ii.

1+2
is

58;
11
;

4, 5, 7,

24. 1, 2 j 25. recto ?5p6tf 78. verso 1. 86. 3; 23. 18; 28.
7. 8,

24. 95.

54; 2. 19; 23. 6; 90. 37; 92. 15;

32,
3,
;

90. 48 93. vi. 2 ? 85. 2-4 recto 9 90 49 sch.; 92. 47 2; 93. v. 3, 4 (fii/), ix. 2 ; 95. ii. 17 ; 2 97. [4], 23,30, 70; 98. 44 ii. 8, iii. 13, v. 18; 7, 11,
,'

27.
;

[59]< 70, 49> 7 1 [74,

[3], 5;
1.

3
.

8, 33,

[34],
2 9>

82 6],
et

& .
6t

verso 4. 26. recto 95. ii.

2~4

11.

Cf.

[^
35

ds 0.

4. 4 5 (a)
;

8.
8.

i.

10

saep.; 2. 2

sch. 4 (a)

26. verso
2

33.

verso 5 ; 92. 46 4. 85. 97. 49; 99. ii. 16, 18, 31

8.
ii.

90. 45 98. 44 iii. I. dre 20. 142 sch.

4 et saep. ; Z. $ et saep. 4. 1+2 3 et saep. ; 8. i. sch. 9. 5 (?), ii. sch. 4 (?);

sch. 6; 27. 2.

90.
2,

2.
a

85.
2
;

verso
;

2-4
viii.

verso
4, ix.

85.

verso
I.

2 (?)

9.

elbivai

]
61
;

sch. 9.
2. 3

90. 22
;

93.
1, 4.

(!
3.

93. x. 2 ; 1. 18; 24. 3. 22. i. 18.

4. 4

4,

7; 94. 15;
9. sch.
13
ii.

2. 3 4 2;

4.

4 8
e*ca[

'
'

sch.

1.

93.

VI.

17?
;

98.

3.
;

98. 44 IV. 6. 28. verSO

;

5.

90. 5 56; 22.

IV.
;

2.
i.

49, 57

90. 20 99. ii. 9 (?)> i 16; 0. 2 4i; 2. 3 38; 4.

;

18.
?

5, 19

93. .ewe 94. 1

'
eu/

2. 7 6.

elras

[97.
47.

20].
(ic)

97. 23 ; 99. ii. 24, 27 26. verso 6. 85. 2_4 verso 7.

4. 4 1 9. 97. 2 2 2_4 recto [_i]et saep. eKfice^ 85. 25. verso I. 21. 2. 92. * 8 4. 4 2 eV0aoe 93. IX. 7.
;
:

eV#ouaia[ 2.

3.

4. 4 7.

0.

98.

'

2.

0.

32.
9,

78.

11,

37.,

[43];

[78. 39J. 98. 5-6 ii. II

93. Vll. 5 eVtaurof 22. i. 28.

?

0.

* I

1.

41.

240
evvea [0. * 3].

INDICES
26. recto 8.

98. 5-6

ii.

8.

/?
ieiv{

85. 1 recto 92. 34 4.

3G
3.
ii.

4.

'
2. 3

4. 4 15 0.
53. 0. 2 48.
etirf

95. 93.

17

0.

73

IX. 2.

2. 3 23.

21. 7
44
i.

98.

13

I| 91. 8.

96.

6.

92.

97.
30.
2

9
7, 2 1.

iijeXavveiv

99.
3

2.

36.
44
ii.
;

98.

32

(
0.
3

4. 4 7(l) egs 98. 44 iv. 2.

60. 0. 2 57.
2

'
eVi0ai'f[

0.

26. verso
8.
i.

sch. 16.
4 44

96. 20. 96. 5 93. 4 96. II. 96. 3 98. 45 5 92. 41 2.

86. 98.
vi.

i.

ros 93.

3; 98.

e<wiaVii> 85.
4

~4

95.
epyoi/ 2. 3

. 4
1+2
1

reCtO II.

20.
[4.
8, 2 2].

7
47
44
J

. 3 48.
92.
44
39 2
;

. 12

12?

98.

.
2

0.
3

31

. 22 3.
25. verso 6 ew [4. 2] 26. verso 13.
;

//.

96.

64;

[4.

1+2

6].

?[

92.

35

.
8.
2 0.
ii.

93.

viii. 4

tnayeiv 2.

(
> 0.
hri

29 ? 98.
?

44 in. 7-

^/&
2

33.

90. 15

" '
'Ept'-ytnoy

.
1.

92.

^[92. 34 5 *" 78. 34,

33

40, 41
i
;

90.
ii. ii.

6,

'E^ctas 22.

93.
1, iv.

vi.
;

95.
5_6
x

8,

57

ii, 18, 27
ii.

98.

11,
3

96. 14. eW 78. 33; 94. 17 ; 98. 18 8 8; 99. i. 11 [0. 21?]. eneibr) 82. 28 1. int.

(
93.
1,

90. 44 94. 21. 90. 29 ; 95. . 27; [2. 58 ; 22. i. 33

0. 12
3

1; 0.
1

7,

14,

92.
3

3;
3.

6];

3. II.

93. 96.

IX.
I.

I.

vi. 3, vii.
;

2, viii. 3, x.

94. 15; 96.

i.

8,

21

io, 45 4; 2 3 0. 6, 19, 62, 69; 48, 1+2 io; 2. 3 37, 38; 4. [5.

98.

44

11,

iii.

93. ; 95. ii. 2 1. 78. 12; 97. 6; 2. 3 en 93. . 3, vii. 6 (?) ; 95. 8; 96. 9 2 3 4 2
5

90. 19, 22

33; 3.4, 24; 8. i. sch. 14, ii. sch. 3 ; 23. 11 ; 24. 7 25. recto 3, verso 5; 26. verso 3; 28. verso 4. 97. 47; 0. [ 3 72], 12
37,

12

3;

12.
4

2. 3 40.

9. sch. 8.

eVoy 91.

(?);
verso
2.
iv.

8.
9, 1

i.

sch. 4
;

7rryp[ 2. 3 6.

( / ( (
recto
62.

372 sch.?];
7.

24. 9;

26.

85. 93.

2_4

4. 4
8.

90. 24.

17; 8.
ii.

2. 3 48.

0.
*

Zeis

21.

90. 4; 91. 13; 92.

ii.

(
24
;

ii.

sch. 12.

'Z

sch. 13.
?)

91. 2

10;

0.

44,

34

2.

2. 3 55

tniSeiKvvvai

.3

I 9.

fv<9[

24. 5 98. 44 iii. 1 6. 90. II. 98. 44 ii. 9. 26. verso 4. 93. IX. 6.
1. int.

26. verSO 96. 9 94. 13 92. 35 2. 96. 8.

0.

95.
9

22.

ii.

33.
44 iv.

95.

ii.

14,

22; 98.

2. 3 45.

95.

ii.

6.

20.

27. 2 ? 85. 2-4 verso

;
3
1

iros 2. 3 42.
2. 3 50, [57 J.

.
85.
2.

2-4
;

EtWurl. 15
0. 0.
*

64 verso 4, 5 3. 57

8.
j?

ii.

sch.
ii.

1, 9.

95.
12.

6,

17

[61],

62;

97. 27, 28, ; 4. 3 i, [2}; 23.

28. Verso 93. X. 2.

37

42

4.

II.

II.
2. 3 74. 44
3, viii.

OTHER NEW TEXTS

241
90.
5
3

90. 43; [98.

93.
VI.

iii.

19].

$ . 2
; ;

94. 5
10

2.

98.
77x10s

44

19 ; 26. recto 8. 78. 43 95. ii. 5, 6 3 2. 64 ; 22. i. 33. 78. 27 ) 8 U. Sch. 12. qpepiq 96. 19. 94. 8 99. . 25.
;

iv. 9. 3

(.) .
2

95. i. 10, 4; 23. 9 90. 2.

;
.

.
"
8.
ii.

5 4

85. a-4 recto

sch. 12.

64, 65.
;

. .

3 68.

(?)

55
6+7 6.

1. int.
. .
.

(
t/V

. 4+5
92.
13-

7, 8,

85.

2_4
2

recto 8.

[. 34] <9poW 98. 4

51

98.
2.
3

4
.

61

2. 3

51

14; 2.

32.
Kdifor
;

92. 93. VI. 4

.
7

96.

4.
6.

1. 3

tfupoif 2. 10 3

12.
*

&> 92
{.);
93.
111.

6
2

. 2 62.

171/ 92.

12

<Wiaeii/

56.

34> 45

VP 96. 22.

3. 35

93.
'

ix.

2.

, "
90.

2. 3 8(?), 66. 8. i. sch. 4.

1

2
i<W

93.

ix. 5.
;

>

95.ii. 4,
3

6,

IQJ 0.

62.

}> 97.

1.

50.
7.

[7.. 6.
9

96. 19 85. 2+4 recto 12 ; 2.

(Sigs

38.

95. . 23; 97. ( 99. 11. 1 6. 86. 4 97 5 2-4 85. verso 8 (?), 90. 19 ; 97. 5; 98. 20. 142 Sch.
2. 3

93.
1.

.
;
.

95.
4,

. 3
3"

0
86.

(.)

91. 4

92. Uvai 92.

.
16; [94. ].

'^
tepos-

27

2.

4.+ 2 7
90. 46.

35;

1. 7

90. 49 sc h
2. 3 43

(?)

'

#/([ 23.
78.
4, 8,

99. . 3 1 85. 1 recto 2 98. * ? 93. 4 99. . 2 7

[tepeija 2. 3 29;

13

iepeiov

. 12

. .
2.
ii.

iepeuy

. .

39
2

38
vi.

(tepetoi'

Pap.).

93.

6.

tpoy

95.

ix.

93. viii. . 20. 142 Sch.

21. 2.
2. 3 74

98.
95.
edeXeiv.

"
23. Cf.

4.

iepof 4. 4 2.

28. recto 90. 373

1

2.

3.

58

?
'' saep.
VII. 3
;

18,

[4. [2.
3

2 J.

96. 3
93.
5, iv.

3. 45

6l].
1

93.
12, 16.
1
vi.

9, [43] J 2_4 verso 7 verso 3> 2 93. ix. 7 ; ; 34,

1
;

recto
;

55;

35!

3.

8.

i.

^
3

38.
44
iii-

ix. 6.

98.

3. 31.

26. recto 6.

sch. 6

26. verso 11. 98. 1 9 78. 3 96. int.

90. 98. 7 3?

90. 12. 2-4 recto 2, 78. 27 ; 85. verso 5; 90. 7 48; 92.
:

sch.

93.

64
;

5 5-6

(?)
;

95.

99.
2
,

. 1 . 9(?)>
1

98.

6
3
8.

92.

ol

3.

.
I.

5,

90. 30.
93.
vi. 6.

95.

.
[.
44

2.
s

35

23].
9

?. ^[

8.

Sch.

64 733 4 4 6; 4.[ 8], 5 sch. 6 ?

7,

5, 68,

46;
6

;
2.
;

,
>

3.

98.

ii.

2. 2 8.

36.
vii.

93.

7
;

7/' .
93.

ix.

. 6+7 3

II.

91. ^

93.

ix. 2

[.
2].
1

98. 2 6, 98. 3 2
93.

7
?

vii. 5

7];

int.;

[4.

1+2

2. 3 3, 33

20. 65 Sch. 28. recto 3 90. 5 Sch.

92.

(?);

42

8.

2. 3

3 R

KaraXvetv

. G+7 4

>

242

INDICES
)

' (
98.
44

2 4 86. recto 4 97. 25, 32, 36, 45

0. "

93.

viii.

8.

i.

sch.

?
Xe'yftK

6.
6
;

93. IX. 5 85. 1 recto

5

?
PJ7 1"?

3. 56.
1.

34

94. 9 93. 92. * 9

.
; ;

3.

86. 4 93. . 4 90. 20.

95.

.
2

85.
1 6.
;

2_4

reCtO 2?

0.

(') 90.

.
/cfiiOi

25 94.
ix.

93.
4

4,

.,

92. 8 95. . 3,
0.
8

.
0.
7

.
3

>
3.
7
Xqyeti'

(to), [22], 47; 2.

5.

36.
;

Kpivetv

97. 65
44
1.

21.

( [
93.
*

2. 3 42.

*ptW 98.
J

96. 10.

2 6.

Kuos 0.

38.

Kporos 22.
1
i.

.
93.
3

33
;

2. 3 36.

91. 12 (?)
9 6,
ii.

23.

92.
44 34

KfXfueiv

98.
92.

13.

0.

Kf

0. 3 34

91.

>

95. .
KjjXqSdffs 91. 9

. 5
* '
1

^ ( <*
][

VI.

0.

52
7

/
Afoiri's

, . , 3. 2
37 86. 2
[4.

24 13;

93. 3, . 7 97. 48 ; 99. Lint.

.
3

3;

43-

0 ^
.
?].

8.

sch. 2, 8.

1+2
1

19

0.

3
8

34 35

95. . 9 92. 4

.
58.

39
2

78. 14; 0.
1.

56.

90.
12

98.

3-

90.
4

^
9

4.

95. 25. 0. 2 49 4. 1+2 2 3 96.

4. 4

.
6

96. 21. 27. 5>

'>*95. .

?
'/

?
92.

kipSwevhi'
68

0. G+7

&{

5.
;

93.

.
8.

20.
2.
i.

91. 7

sch. 15.

96. 14.
23.
iii.

/ ;
iii.

96. int., 5 98. 2 6. 92. : 8. 90. 9 93. IX. 7 2 4 85. verso

[4. 12]. 0. G+7 14
3

Xt77ep^n$

92. * 94. 17.

2.
I.

6.

XloytKOy 2.

Aoyipor 86.

Aoytapos 96.
7>

2.

85.

verso

5
7

90.
4

24
49,

(?)
9

0. 2
2

;
0.

2,

, 3 2,
4

[1-23]; 4.
52.
44

1.

93.

2.

42. 93. VUi. 3. 95. 20.

Xeos

K/Wy 0. 15. 90. 47j 48.

93. ix. 95. i.
4
3

93.
1.

viii. 5

25.
2. 3

0.

36.

92. 7 . 90. 17. 95. . 21.

4. 4 9
*

?;
1+2
3

*
?

78. 35 ; 98. 26. recto 5. 90. 5 5 95. . 12.

2. 3 46.

iii.

54

92.
2. 3 3 8.
44
i.
,'

3
.

98.

45

3;

1.

42.

96. 4
16,
.

98.
;

iv.

0. 21 4

13, 4.
(?).

Awcor

. 4+5 8.
99.
20.

4
;

8;
*

24.

5
2.

\wr[ 23. 2.

(?),

1 1

25. redo

Koto? 92.

96. 22. .
0.
0.
3 2

.
2 9
>

0.

23.

92.
Xai'&Wo-tfai

4
3

5
37
g
4. 1+2 6, 4

93. . 590. 5 2 Sch.

0.

3
Pap.).

46
13.

1.

,
0.
/i

95.

.
*

12,

5
1 8.

34 91.
1.

.2 6

8.

ii.

sch.

Mayas 93.

V. 2.

93. viii. 7 95. . 6. 92. * 1 1.

Aapt^os 0.

8,
1

92. 24.

17.
2,

MaywyTes 2. 3 69 92. 36 .

29.

//.

OTHER
2.
3

NEW

TEXTS

98.
4,
iii.

5~6

ii.

18,

44

ii.

1,
ii.

48, 49.
2. 3 5I

10,

iv.

11

99.

9. SCh. 5, 6.

3 22; 39 90. 45-

.
.

.
.
5.

2. 3 39; 25. verso

3. i 3

'
39
"

25. verso

78. 34 ; 90. 5o sch. ; 95. i. 2, 4 98. 44 iii. 3, i7(?); 0. 2 5i, 8 i2; 2. 3 40; 4. 1+2 1 2 26. recto 5.
; ;

^/; .
95.

^
'
[

243

97 3797. 4 1

2. 3 74
1

4
1

. 2.

. .
. 2 43
2. 8.

41
3

6.
91. 3

Mapyiavo'i [2. 3 i].

2. 3 4.

0. 6+7 6.
0.
3

57.
ii.

97.
2

3,

6,

l8,

24,

,
5;
27,

95.
?).

(,

90. 23
8.

>
i.

0.

36.

7 95.
21.

Sch. 2, 8.

69.

/os

l3 i. 45 6. ii. 2 ; 98. 2, 90. 1, 4, 34 93. v. 4 96. 2; 98. 12 2, 15 2; 22.

;
;

()
2,
int.;

95. . 1 6, 7 92. 4 5 (?) ; 93. . 4 2 3 96. 56(?), 4 ; 0.

<>

86. 5; 91. 17 (?); 95. 25 ; 96. 17 ; 99. . 1. 19 (?) ; 83. int. ; 97. 40 ; 99. .

7
3

(.)

4+5
[

8].

0.

23;

1.

26;

9.

sch. 3, 7. 2. 3 39. 28. recto 3. 9. Sch. 5.

85. 2_4 verso 8 ; 93. . 4, 7 95.

;

92.

33 ; 2. -6 98.

69

.
12

.
;

3. 27.

3
;

2. 3

54,

;
; ;

97.

2. 3 so, [57]

26.

24. 4;

90. 45; 21. 4

19.

78. 39

>7
8

verso 5. 86. 2

' 95.
95.

0.
i.

37.

ii.

2; 23. 15. 8 ; 2. 3 40, 41.

2. 3 29, 34, 57. 2. 3 32.

96. 13, 15; 97. 58; Lint. 78. 4 97. 13, 57 20. 163 sch. 92. * 7; 94. 9
;

95.

[
i.

93.
. .

V. 4
2

. 8?
44

98.

3, iv.

15; 8.

',

sch. 4

93.
95.

vii. 4.

.
2.

^93.1.
72
;

5J

3.3{??.).
3

7, 9 3

34

98.
23.
8.

44

i.

2.

21. 3

.
2. 3 36, 39.
3

6,

43;

2. 4

8?

8.

ii.

sch. 10.
5
;

2.

43.

2. 3 54, 56. 3 2. 57~9 2. 3 62.

vaUiv 90.

/'

91.

93. 93. viii. 2

;

()

2.

/ieV[78. 13]; 90. 20, 23, 32, 46; 91. 1, 6, 16; 93. v.
1,
vi.

7,

ix.

4;
iv.

94.

3,
;

5,

11,
44
ii.

19;
iii.

97.
5,
2

98. 99.

30, 71 10, 14

13;
37,

O. 65,

^],
3

22,

[33
8

?],

12, 41,
2. 3

[ 35j; 1. int.; 4. 3 5 ; 27. 2.

3. 4, 65.

31

.
Mi'Sar
J

78.
92.

0/ 92.

2. 3 54

1 6.

2. 3 6 1.
7 2.

91.

95.

ii.

26.

2. 3 63. Mitfpay 2. 3 64.

^
98.
18

93.

.
3

3;

24;

2.

55;

9. sch. 6,

90. 1 8, 2 793. ix. 6(?); 94. 2. 93. ix. 5 96. 6, 20. 93. 5 94. 1 8. 95. . 2; 98. 44 iii. 8. 96. (. 1 13); 3. 7 92. 68 2.

93.
Mei/eXaos

V. 4, 6.

7,9
2. 3 65.

.3
5

90. 27.
2. 3 45.
ii.

94.

8.

sch. 4.

2. 3 67.
2. 3 69.

95. ii. 24. 78. 33.

2. 3 46.

98.
2. 3

44
;

iii.

9;

58;

'

2. 3 7
)

24.

2. 3 72.

98. 44 . 98. 44 . 93. viii. 4. '7 93. . . 91. 92. 41 . 78. 4 2 97. 5 96. 9,' 97. 77

. .

37

3. 66.

22. . 3 2 sc h.

/.

;
2

56, 02.

244
21.
I.

INDICES

.
2.
3

[ 92.
2 2.
;

/^ 90.
(93.

7
2
;

95.
>

26.

4 i8; 42, 58; 3. i(?); 4. 8. ii. sch. 4, 10 ; 28. verso

85. verso 5 26. recto 3

. 4);
3
;

94. 9, 5 2-4 recto 6; 95. 85.

(?).

V
i.

97. 23.
i*i.
?

'

93.

44

90.
53

;
4

30.

90. 14
99.

95.

8 5

1.

95.
44

ii.

. 6;
90.
7

5J 96 22. i. 17.

98.

? '

ieVos

4. 4

apdos 90. 5

" ? {
/at

2 5

3. 24

25. recto 5
2

94.

99. ii. 8; 2. verso 4

49; 26.

2 66. 26. verso 13?

.
.

90. 93.

.
;

4
;

6\[ 98.

24
.

92.
int.

24
;

.
1
i ftt ->

90.

90. 45
1.

^J

,*

3.

45

2. 3
1

3
4

91.

(.); 98. 2. 3 66.

2.
9

93. (?) ; 44 iii. 3,iv.

.
17;
1

24.
86.

6.

2. 3 65

.
93.
IX. 3

95. . 14 1. 17 ; 26. verso 6 28. verso 6. 93. viii. 2 ; 96. 15ore 96. 4 85. * recto 5 78. 1 1 91. 14; 95.110; 97. 33 48 3 37, 42; 98. 54, 9
;
;

0'

.
;

7;
i.

1.

int.; 4. 1+2

8.

2 (?)

95.

3. 39' 5

24.

/?

.
97
8.
3

5
47

3. 59

8..
5

() 78.
),
,
.

sch. 5(? ),

7; 27.
int.

3
90.

42

[15], 2 5;
viii.

8393.
2,

. 7(...
.
3;
2

7
].
1

,
33.

(dem.)93. . ,3,5; 94. 1 1. '/ 90. 20, 23, 3 2 4^;

93.
91.

. 7 -2
6
3

...
4

93. ; 94. 5
;

vi. 7.

'

90.
;

" 4,
0. 2

!
[ 92
44

[4.

1+2

3;

4. 1+2
2.

97.

,
; ;

95.

.
2

94. ; 96. 4;
55.
3

4,
44 iv.

5 2,
55,
[1.

19

28. recto

. 2
6
1,

67, 7 2

98.

.
3.

14; 99.
57,
int.];
ii.

5,
9
;
;

26

recto 6.

6 7)

6+7

(- ')
67],
6+7

5 8,
(rel.)

94. 5
9

92. 4 97. 66.

23.
;

2. 3

69;

27

8.

sch.

94. 3, 1 7. 98. 2 10 ? 95. . 27.

23. 7; 24. 2; 25. verso 3; 27.8; 28. verso 4.

(?);

94. 17

95.

.
6

98.

.
8.

()
ote 85.

2. 3 50, 57

verso 5; 93.

7 (?);

94.

2;

3. 25J

? #>

^
int.

94, 3 (? )> 90. 4 2

i.

'
1.

96. 8. at 94.

sell.

I 2.

obeveiv

94. 6 96. 85. * recto 7

24.
[4.
4

8.

90. 15; 94. 3; 99. . 224, 2 6 oiMs [97. 7]. 2 9; 98. 44 i. 9 14; 0. 4
93. . 93. 78. 14-

8.
optof 8.

i.

sch. 6.

2. 3 34
4-

jot^ir 2. 3 8.

\
os
8

i.

sch. 16.
vi.

93. 98.

? 1 (?),

44

iii.

12.

].

opveov 2. 3 49.

97. verso

3
2.
3

4,6

25.

ot/'a

of/coy

2. 3 59 94. 8.

23.

/^'
otvoy

.
1+2
24]. 3 4 9 ; 2.

7]/
90.
4,
37

90. 3
2.
3

96.
47 I.

5.

.
6.
J

38.
>

92.

78. 37

85
;

2_4

verso

69.

[4.
5

90.

95.

20, [1], 50 sch. ; 92. 2 ; 93. vi. 4, ix. 5,

oidy re

4; 97. 56 25. verso

2.

94.;
6.

97-48.

(/ 92. 20

1 ; 94. 5; 95. ii. 25; " 97. 29, 45,54,55; 98. 5 6 44 2 (?), ii. 1 2, hi. 3; 0. 9,

93. 90. 5; 97. 53. 55 94. 17 1 1 6. 93. VI. 3 85. * vei'SO 4 ix. 4; 95. . 4, 14; 96. 9;
;
',

42, 48, [6o],

22,71; 2. 3

97.[],29,

3, 44

//.

OTHER NEW TEXTS

2. 3 31.

245
93.
vi.

98. 44 i. 7; 99. ii.29, 71 2 0. 1 i2, [43], 46; 32;

;

2.

4.

II.
!

1. [int.],

4.
11

4
;

23; 2. 32, 39; 5. 372 sch.; 23. 24. 10; 25. recto 4,
;

98.

6,

.
90.
95.
i.

97. 67. 90. 8.

4. 1+2 2 2.
5,

5 21

27. 17.
;

3. 37.
ii.

()
2.
3

25. recto 3

23. 12.

99.

ii.
,"

53*

49 sch. ; 93. vi. 2 8; 96. 14; 98. " 4,

;

91. 7
;

[28. recto 5
4.
2.
1.

''
;

95. 71

1 ;

[1. int.]

2.

?]

ii, 44
8

iii.

4, iv.

17
10,

2,

25, 36,
7,

64,

23. 11. 94. 5 85. * recto

21.
vii.

3
2

22, 34,

40, [
1.

4+5

2];

int.,

47

10(f);

[.

4?];
;

25.

96. 93.

ii.

1.

2 2.
2

0.
natni/tei's

52
3

34.

0.

13.

] >
2.

verso 6. 95. 2 (?); 23.

2.
3

22; 2. 3 17, 34, 50, 57, 1+2 9; 20. 69; 3. 62; 4. 67 sch.
[4.

ii.

n
.

98

1+2
0.
2

4].

40.

90.
3

.
;

2744

4. 1+2 24.
0.
i.

"

3o> 4 1

98.

96. 13.

' ?
38

95. ii. 12. 25. verso 8.

1.

54

[4.

3].

?
1

" 4. 14 2 20? 1+2 1 noMi[riijs 4.

9
;

90. 13, 22
93. 95. ii.
;

92.
2
;

,
94.
13,

6
;

* (
42, recto

4+
2.

n .
;

vii. 3, ix.

66,

8;

24.

9;

26.

3.

:i

43

3. 13.

]
(?),
7

94. 7 ~ 85. 2 4 verso 82. 12 2 (?); 86. , 3-5; 93. . 95. . 24 ; 4 ; 94. 19 96. 8 97.43; 98. 44 iv.
i ; ;

*;[ 26. recto

4.
2
1

90.

2.
2.

4.

94.

7; 99.
8

6+ 32 2 7 (?);3. 2 4 ;21. 7 ;

. 8,
00

24.

26. verso

'
3

4 83. int.
1.

0.

58.

96. 12,

1 6. 2. 3 3

^.
;

2.

92.
4
5

33
44
:j

86.
34

7-7
93.

90.

22

nepa^s 98.

. 4, hi.
45, 64,
6

99.

91. 4

92.
Pap.),

viii.

6(?);

29

2.

7?7
ii.

93. VUi.

98.
;

{95. 17;
;

. 6}.
98.
8

95.

50

29, 9. sch. 7 ; 21. 9-

21

3; 99 ij 3; 3 66

26. recto 9 26. recto

][

93. . 98. 36 I.

^/'

[ <
95.
44 iv.

93.

//3)
.

4. 1+2 21. 4. 1+2 1 8.

? 7!6

24. 8 ? 93. V.
24.
"

) 90. 46 96. II. 98. 44 iii. 8. 98. 44 iii. 6, iv. 11, 14.
(=r

^
' '
.
3
.

II. 94. 96. 12. 95. 11. 95. . 25.

18 2.

3. 68.

6.

1-39
Ilf ip[ie is

(').
2.
ii.

92. 39 3 2 2. 95. 96. 2 ; 98. 44 i. 94. 12 ; 96. 1 5

1 6.
;

98.

25. recto

91. 3

4. 1+2 23.
1 4. VI. 6.

1. 25

7(-7<'?
92.
5, ix. 5
ii.

[4.

9Jvii. 3, viii.
;

93.

94. 2 ; 3 15 ; 96. 10; 98. 4; 99. ii. 13 ; 1. 7>

3 [4

(), .

1(\

98. 44 93.

78.
1.

0.

8. . Sch. 7

0.
;

45

24,[ 4 ];2.

],3,45-6,
4

85. verso 8
0.
3
ii.

92.

37 6.

58.
19.
1

6 6 3 ,67,7i-2, 6, 13; 4. 11 (1. bnipl\ 13. 95. 11. 20.

<

95. 95. 95.

'

0.

90. 21.
95. 95.
12.

ii.
ii.

6.
;

. .

96.

3-

27.

98.
3>

iv.

15.

96.

'8.

28. recto

246
8.
9, II.
i.

sch.

1 1, ii.

sch. 6,

'
/

INDICES
4. 1+2
3.
1 5

94.
2.
4, 8.
3

6.

^ ^
^ '

94. 2 1. 5_6 44 Hi. 3. ii. 12, 98. 96. 2 . 98. 44 iii. 8,14; 1. 48. 83. int. 98.
4.
5

36. 25. verso

33

"2.
1. int.

29, 36,
;

66,

2.

82.

2.

82. 777
-os

95. i. 9. 95. ii. 1 9. 95. ii. 16.

1

1.

78.

.
7
;

98. 44 ii. II. 2. 3 7. 86. 3 96. 78. 12, 15; 94. 95. . 20, 23 (rare Pap.). 23. 12. 94. 1 6. 25. recto 0. 1 43 1
',

93.
31.

viii.

[
4
93.
47
?

5;

2. 3
4

98.

(
15.

?).

90. 47
86.
4.
ii.

& <9 [
0.
iii.

94.

viii. 6.

92.

2.

rru]yi7 1.

49

4. 1+2 4, 6. 1+2 [4. ].

17

2.

90. 33

93.

ix.

95.
18,
48

93.

1.

37

95. . 6, 94. 21. 82. 9

i

25. recto

82. 24. 28. verso

[4.
3

7
8,
3

93. 97.

.
9
ii.

7;
7

[
;

. 3 68.
92.
G

98.
2.

44

].
p^ror 8.

96-7
42
;

( ?)

2.

3,

4. 4

97. 12
;

7rpeo-4. 1+2 15 /3/50 [85. 2-4 recto 2].

/
38,
2 (?)

28. recto 2, 6. 98. 44 iii. 14

4. 1+2 12.

.
90.
74]

/^ .
,
p/ta
3]

sch. 6
II, 41,

23.
8

27

[4.

44

, 3
25. recto
II.
7 2.

3. 23.

96. 2. 98. 44

. 5
2.
3

90.

2. 3 46.

99.
2
;

.
27.

1 6,

28

.
36;

'

53>

7,

[4], 4. 4

3, 7
3

94.
2.

?
93.

. .
5

'?

'Po'Stos

. .

76;
74
6.

. 12
2.
3

86. 3 92. 2
91. 5

21.

99. 11. II. 20. 1 63 Sch.

2. 3 64.

6+7

21,
18

6.
4
5

2.
;

98.
3

44

? 77
1.

92.
3.

98.

[4.

];

. 523.
2.

.
"

.
45

8; 2.

47;

^ $

[4.
4.

12].

. 3 37
9

. 2 44;

96.

int.
1 8.

95.

.
0.

59 21.

/3?
0.

3. 56, 59
1.

90.
4.

95.

. .

2, 3

8.

1.

21.

93. 96.

IV.

78. 38; 92. 1 6; 94. ig\ 96. 6 1 6 2 98. 44 iii. 9; 49, 52

'
63
2

3. 8, 9
1.

99. 11. 7 94. 3 92. 37 3

17.

1. 1 8.

('),
2.
;

.
0.
1. 1

II?
66.
44
.

6;
2.
3

.
5

98.

^?
^
I,

95. . 6. 22. . 3 2
3. 9

26. recto

4,

verso

3.

25.

12.

verso

28. verso 90. 6.

39 2. 3 36.
ii.

6.

42

96.

9
3.
1

4. 1+2 9, [ 3]

98.
3

44 IV. 2

4.

[5],
6.

44

// 95.
noVros 2.

3,

96. 14.
55-

0.

25. recto

90. 28.
3

90. 3 2
86.
2
?

78. 2 6 ; 3. 93. VI. 2. aiyav 86. 2. StSdvios 93. 7

.
*

37

0.

36 7

//. 93. vi. 5. 94. [3], i6; 96. 6

3 5

OTHER
0. 4. 4

NEW
25
1 6,

TEXTS
97. 56;

247
98.
3 4;
.

9,

3.

7
;

2
[

6],
94.

;
i.

2.* 34-

93.

viii.

4. 4

3.

6 2,
0.
*

66.

4. 4 7, 9 4
4.
9
6.

90. 34
92.
72

.
4. 4

.
8.
i.

8.

sch. 5.

93.
U.

IV. 4

.
2.

Sch. 7 ?
20

^' 98.

17

96.
',

\ '
1.

??7

98.

44 Hi.

II

53 36. 85. 2_4 recto 13.

2. 3

/ //

7
J

99.
3

3. 27, 3

0. 6+7 2(?); 2. 3. 2 23. 3. 20.

30.

26. recto 14 3 99. . 15; 92. 38 3 93. viii. 6. 92. * 3

2 7

97. 5 2 85. 2-4 recto

3

96.
7

?]*

98.
0.
8

2 1. 45 6.

() 6/?

1.

44

8.

.
44

Sch. 3

98.

.
8.

12.
i.

2.

6.
2_4

2. 3 58.

'^'
recto
2.
/ep-yos

3. 5

\\

Sch.

1 3,

24

23.

3. 35

[. <[

85.
47
2

0.

24
85.

92.

2 4

reClO

I et

242 3
;

saep.
2. 3 67. 5. 24

90.
1.

.
2

0.

2 6.
44

15 () 90. 49; 5 1 scn 93. vi. 7. Sch. 20. TttfeVu 93. iii. 4(?); 94. 12 95. ii. 15; 96. 10. 93. V. 5.

19

[
0.
3 1.

1. 1 8.

3. 29.

23.

98.
5_6

15

0.

98.
97.
vi.

6.

37
3. 3.
1
ii.

0. 2 4
2.

93.

5.
3

Sretpieus 0. 4+5 9

}
U. 7
>

7
6.

[
82.
3;

. 3i, [ . 6+7 .
3

33]

8.

sch.

"Awt

.41.
1. int.

28. VerSO 5 95. ii. 9 ; 91. 5 16, 17, 27 ; 99. ii. 9; 3 69 ; 25. recto 6, verso 2. 78. 15 ; 90. 52 sch.; 93.
;

.
x.

95. 56; 3. 6 3
35

i.

I,

0.

vii. 1,

(?), viii. 7, ix. 3,

27.8.
38-

95.
0.
3

.
74

25.

94. 4;
3, 48
1

97. 49;
1 (?)
;

0. 3 54
3. 1,6.

??
~

3.

25,

44 iv.

98. 99. ii.

4o(?),

22. 92.

.
1 6.

[. 8

22

90. 99.
1.

?J. 5 2 scri

24

4. 4 4

57

.
. ;

/
3. 12.

82. 85. 2 4 recto 6; 92. 64 (?); 99. . 8. 5_6 48 ii. 9, 98. 1 8, 3 Vli. . 93.

27;
46,
2

0.

[6],

10,

34,

69;

2. 3 26, 41,

63,71; 3.56;
[
4 3 i, 2 [i], ],

4. 1+2 io,

18; 9. sch.

98. 44 90.

i.

0.

66.

8.

3.

95.

19.

90. 47; 93. iv. 3, viii. 95. 5 ; 94. . 2 3 ; 3.3; 21. 9 24.,
82.
9,
;

6,

25. verso
3. II. 2.
3

3. 7

90.
2. 3 58.

1 1.

95. 95.

. .

5; 25. recto 6. 25. verso 8. 23. 14 92. 34 3. Tot 92. 37 2; 94. 10. 97. 94. 14. 0. 3 35 94. 97. 47 92. * 4 3 7; 28. recto 5 32,

;
;

,'

13.

37

3. 21, 2 6. 2. 3 38.

90. 78. 28; 86. 1 93. 14, 44J 92, 3; 95. . 14; 96. 1

>

.
1
;

91. 6

2.

10

99. . 12. 99. . 2 2.

21 6.

2 48

INDICES

59

2
2,

3^

92.
78.

II.
44 2.

93.

('.), .
12
(?),

92.

5; 94.2.

15;

85.
;

^
6
,

recto
18,

[ ?
/3[

25

45

98.
96. 3
5-0.

5
9

verso 6
2

97.
44 iv.
8

5; 23. 6(?);

[23],

36,38; 98.
3 !5, 36
,

;
!

/30

26. verso

.
57
'

2. 3 43
[5.
rpfis
-* 8,

. 3 47,
.
44

2].

95.
i.

;
9

[
7
\

26 3 2. 48, 65; 23. 17; 25. recto 4; 26. recto 10. 92. 46 2.
:

7,

. 3 48.
2.
3

8.

sch. 13 (7).

12, 43>

[74

?]

98.

3. 3 8.
i.

. .
rpis

[ [ ^

2-4 verso 13 85. 2_4 verso 4, 6. 2_4 verso 7, 9 23. 6. 85. 23. 1 6. 95. . 2. 4. 3 27. 2. ;

85.

4. 3 9

90.

8.
6

Sch. 9
4

[97.

4. 4 8.
2. 3 46.

1?]; 4. 90. 142

12.

90. 43 5 95. " 2 ^ 98. 44 IV. 1 6.

8.

ii.

sch. 13.
44 iv. 7.

? ^
98.

(jfmyeii;

98.

.
2. 3

47

().

44
5; 97.

86.

2.

?
44

92. 3 23. 8 ? 96. 2. 85. 2-4 verso 95. . 3

8.

. 3 59
5
1.

94.

44
*
;

92.
i.

97. 43

>

91. 63
;

90. 14.
4.
*

9
2.

5,

99.

15;

7. 9 01 scri

/3077 8. i. sch. 6 ? 1 1 8. 92. 64 6(?); 3. 3^ 28. recto 2, verso 3

2 2.

90. 49 94.
/nt

0
1

'

>

93.
2.

; .
3
1

45;

ix. 3

55;

25. verso

98.

44 iv. 5

78. IOJ

95. .

2. 6 3

90. 4 Tpaes 90. 44

?
(?);
3
7

}. ; > 7
[
90.

4.

7 4

6+7

2.

4. 4 4
1.

6.
4

78. 3 1 93. V.
3

2.

66

3. 4

3. 65.

90. 3.
44

92.
7.

5
.
?
,*

.
verso
2.

6+7

26.

?/
<P<f><k

98. 895
3

.3

25-

sc h.

[4.

2].

23. 24. 95. .

95.
78.
4
1
'

.
27;

2.

?
4

.
3

6.

XoXSfuoi 2.

63, 67, 7 2

6
>

90. 3 1
;

91. 6
2.

.
54
29.

32.

92.

5 (?);
2.
3

?.
1.

90.
3

.
;

2.

6'4

25. recto
6, 2. 3

2. 3 33

95.
93.vii.35 95.

10,25;
45

^? 4.

. .

2.

90. 43

. .
9

2. 3 3 2

26. recto

96.3, !5>
52.

2;

4,

22. .

g.

86. 4

90 3 1

90.

4
>'

86. 3 90 97. 46
uffep 91.

2
.

[
.

92. 92. 50
2.
7

!
I

g.

. 4 92. 37

5
1

Xoptrej 92.

23.
3
;

98. 44 IV. 93. iv.

1 1

95.

15

4.

(?

Pap.).

. '
?
U. 21.

3. 2 2.

.
4.

4^
7
*

98.
2.

9,

44

99.

' 94.

96. 5 ? 93. vi. 22. i. 2 95. ii.

3.

2.
1.

4.

91.
2.

ii; 96.
44
i.

8.

91.
4.
4

98.
;

8, iv.

12.

90. 17.

85. 73]; 27.

2_4

recto 6

[.

95. ii. 10. 96. 12.

"

//.

OTHER NEW TEXTS

21. 3

92. 95.
0.
:i

37

93.
1

viii.

3.
;

.
1

8
12

97. 28

96. II.

2 2.

}
[

0.

32, 97. 6.

8.

78. 32.
0.

/
ii.

2. 3 4 1 3. 23.

? '
II.

249
96.

93. 92.
0.

.
!

9 6,

94.

2 1,

4
51

&><9eii>

3.

53
22.

^ [
?
]-[

92. 1 92. 40 2.

95.

3 91. 8 ; 55 TeiOy 3. 57 90. 4

}( ]?;

98.

5~ 6

. 7

93. . 8. 28. recto

"~

^[0.6+7
',?/ 85.
1

. . 3 59
17.
8.
i.

5 6+7

90. 33 90. 27, [3] 48, sch.; 93. ix. 3 ; 97. 46 99. ii. 1 2 26; 17, 44 (= 62,6+73,14, [8 24 ], 9 5 I. 54; 2.<>43> 66, 74; 3.
5

5
;

),
;

5, 8.

2 et saep.

92.

26

2.

recto 9
1.

21. 9 23. 8, ; (Prep.) 3. 58. 90. 42 93. vi. 2 3. 5.

;

90. 9 90. 42 95. 96. 6.

;

95.

.
[4.

25;

9 5 1+2

2 8(?);

6],
1

sch. 4
1

3. 29.
5

92.

12

91. 3;

39

23.

97 69, 7

III.

PASSAGES DISCUSSED.
(a)

Authors.
Hesych.

PAGE

Alcaeus Fr. 19

71

S. V.

PAGE 165
99 43 169 165 84-5 190 43 45 45 45 42 59 43 42 112 74 146 165 82 165

46.

60
3,

Josephus, Ant.
PhotlUS
S. V.

xii. 2.
ii.

Anonymus

Bellermann Aristides ii. 508 Aristophanes, Eq. 655 Thesm. 760

ed.

85

23

Philostratus, Im.

43 165

43
154 42 42 96 170

Fr. 755

Pindar Fr. 53 Pioclus, In Rempub.

.

ii,

p. 2

5(K roll)

Athenaeus

v. 687 a Babrius 115. 4 Bacchylides xvi (xvii). 66 Bekker, Anecd. \, p. 299 Callimachus Fr. 35 d 122
.

Sappho

Fr.

39 76
77

78. 1-2

-99

00,

93

209
217
Catullus Ixvi.

106-7 109 99 108

no
.

79-83
20
1

oo,

106-7
133 134
1.33
.

79 106 129 169 Sophocles, Ant. 287 SuidaS S. V.

.

Curtius

"
.

iii.

8.

12.

12 3>
.

Thucyd.

vii.

60
It. p.

Diodorus xvii. 33. Etym. Magn. s. v. peXuyfiov

Tzetzes, In

68
ii.

161

Xenophon, Anab,

1.

250

INDICES
(b)

Papyri.
PAGE
P. Oxy.
II.

PAGE
P. Berl.

6870
763

Sitztmgsb. Preuss. Akaa.

41,

208
1.

9
7

98.
P.

P. Halle 2

22_ 3 45-6
42
ll 3

Oxy.

I.

VII. ion XI. 1360. i3 6 4

59
ti 9

15

/.,,

14'

'i^Vif ftp "V N U

.r.,v

.,,;

.4;

$bi,-j.:,;#

:;;

ffewSM mi Nil' -f^

'*
;

]
"I

> :1

'-^;^

i&mflk

';

_,

,,

:.i.*>m,

"^'
: .

fffiii.'w

viuip

'

No. 1778, Fols.

1,

2,

recto

No

1786

If

i.VTbifrSs-uMi

'N

"'MiMU.o-m.vccUhU

;CL'j

'

?"!

Plate

II

co 00

s4

On

fa

^ &
<

i
^*c'

1U*
oo

V t

fa

Plate

111

JS
,

J
00

lis 7
I?

V-V^ ".;.--

/-

:;/,

m
U.
fc

>

oo t>

',

<s

..

S&ll
^i
r
5
,

'--,v
'-
?

iC feeTD

-%*.

)<

---/-

.-^

?,'

,-^

F-'/- .'

"'
/

~ J

^ !,i

'

>

'^^

%
ft'

l\m

'

Plate IV

1-1

3 3

?>

<l

* 3

rt

'"'

^i

6*7
O
]7
. j

J * 3
3?,

J L
*<;;

Cf

_3

..

oo

<

45

<

'
*.

'-

J i'x I. r

U
00

It: (l!

oo

?*

'"-*

;-

\^
-<

(
jN

>J

.*

C<

//

**

s~t

*^ CJ ^*

S'^&sf* ^ id (LftkS^S &*' 2 ^

-

'

m.
* A

vS m 3 h &
y

oo

&
-":

Q^

U,

^,

^>

i**

Plate

*.

r.
t
I,

""^

.d u adw

n*

>

7 "'

'

'Hi-

','

'<

*^i^A40u^
*'<*
v"

>~ a

No. 1814, verso

The Egypt Exploration Society

GRAECO-ROMAN MEMOIRS. JV/E EGYPT EXPLORATION SOCIETY, as recently
proposes to continue with but slight modifications the
reconstituted and renamed, work of the Egypt Exploration Fund, 1882 to conduct archaeological researches in Egypt. In 1897 a special Graeco-Roman Branch, was initiated for the discovery and public alion

which was founded

in

department, called the

the
is

The volumes published by of remains of classical antiquity and early Christianity in Egypt. Graeco-Roma?i Branch are to be continued under the name of Graeco-Roman Memoirs. It
intended that they shall appear annually, as heretofore, under the editorship of Profs.

Grenfell
the

and Hunt.

Each

will consist of

250 quarto pages or more, with facsimile

of

plates

of

more

important papyri.

All persons

interested in the promotion

the Society's objects are eligible for election as

Members.

An

entrance fee of

is. is
1.

2 j. is

due annually on fanuary

meetings,

and may

introduce friends to

election, and an annual subscription of Members have the right of attendance and voting at all the Lectures and Exhibitions of the Society, and have

payable on

in course of formation at the Society's Rooms. The fournal of Egyptian Archaeology or, if preferred, a Graeco-Roman Memoir is presented gratis to all Members, and other publications may be purchased by the?n at a substan-

access to the

Library now

tial discount.

Full particulars maybe obtained from

1,

the Secretary,

13 Tavistock Square,

London, W.C.
Mass., U.S.A.

or from the Secretary of the American Branch, 503 Tre?nont Temple, Boston,

PUBLICATIONS OF THE EGYPT EXPLORATION SOCIETY.

I.

EXCAVATION MEMOIRS. THE STORE CITY OF PITHOM AND THE ROUTE OF THE EXODUS.
By Edouard Naville.
18S8.)
25J.

Thirteen Plates and Plans.

{Fourth

and Revised

Edition,

II.

TANIS,

Part

I.

By W. M. Flinders
255.

Petrie.

Seventeen Plates and two Plans.

{Second Edition, 1889.)

III.

NAUKRATIS,
Edition, 1888.)

Part I. By W. M. Flinders Petrie. With Chapters by Cecil Smith, Ernest A. Gardner, and Barclay V. Head. Forty-four Plates and Plans. {Second
25.?.

IV.

GOSHEN AND VhE SHRINE OF SAFT-EL-HENNEH.

Naville.
Eleven Plates and Plans.
{Second Edition, 1888.)
25^.

By Edouard
'

V.

TANIS, Part II; including TELL and TELL NEBESHEH. By W. M.

Murray.
Fifty-one Plates and Plans.

DEFENNEH
1888.

(The

Biblical

Tahpanhes

')

Flinders Petrie,
{Out ofprint.)

F. Ll.

Griffith, and A.

S.

VI.
VII.

NAUKRATIS,

Part

II.

By Ernest A. Gardner and

{Out ofprint.)

F. Ll. Griffith.

Twenty-

four Plates and Plans.

1888.

THE CITY OF ONIAS AND THE MOUND OF THE

Antiquities of Tell-el-Yahudiyeh. six Plates and Plans. 1890. 25^.

JEW.

The
Twenty-

By Edouard Naville and F. Ll. Griffith.

VOL.

XV

VIII.

BUBASTIS. By Edouard Naville.

Fifty-four Plates. (Seco?id Edition, i%gi.) 25T.

IX.

TWO HIEROGLYPHIC
PAPYRUS
(a Syllabary).

By \Y. (an Almanack). {Out ofprint.) 1SS9. X.

Naville.

SIGN TANIS. Containing By F. Ll. Griffith. THE GEOGRAPHICAL PAPYRUS M. Flinders Petrie. With Remarks by Heinrich Brugsch.
II

PAPYRI

FROM

THE

THE FESTIVAL HALL OF OSORKON

Thirty-nine Plates.
1892.
255.

(BUBASTIS).

'

By Edouard

XL AHNAS EL MEDINEH.
Ten
XII.
XIII.
Plates.

By Edouard Naville.
By
J. J.

THE TOMB OF PAHERI AT EL KAB.

1894.
2 5 s-

Eighteen Plates. And TvLOR^and F. Ll. Griffith

Fifteen
Plates
(three

DEIR EL BAHARI,
and Plans.
1894.
255.

Introductory.

By Edouard Naville.
Plates Plates

DEIR EL BAHARI,
DEIR EL BAHARI,
Plates.

coloured) with Description.

Part I. Royal
II.

By Edouard Naville.
folio.

I-XXIV

1895.

30J.

XIV.

Part

By Edouard Naville.
folio.

XXV-LV

(two

coloured) with Description.

Royal

1897.

30J.

XV.
XVI.
XVII.
XVIII.

DESHASHEH. By W. M.
1S98.
2 55.

Flinders Petrie.

Photogravure and thirty-seven

Plates

DEIR EL BAHARI,

Part III.

By Edouard Naville.
Royal
folio.

LVI-LXXXVI
1900,

(two coloured) with Description.

1898.

30$.

DENDEREH.
25..

By W. M. Flinders

(Forty extra Plates of Inscriptions,

.)

Petrie.

Thirty-eight Plates.

THE ROYAL TOMBS OF THE FIRST DYNASTY.

Petrie.
Sixty-eight Plates.

By W. M. Flinders
Plates
3CW.

1900.

25J.

XIX.

DEIR EL BAHARI,
CXVIII
1

Part IV.

By Edouard Naville.
Royal
folio.

LXXXVIIPlates.

(two coloured) with Description.

1901.

XX. DIOSPOLIS PARVA.

90 1
.

By W. M. Flinders Petrie.

Forty-nine

Out ofprint.)
Part
II.

XXI.

THE ROYAL TOMBS OF THE EARLIEST DYNASTIES,

By W. M. Flinders Petrie.
Plates.
10s.)

Sixty-three

Plates.

1901.

25*.

(Thirty-five

extra

XXII.
XXIII.

ABYDOS,

Part

I.

By W. M.
Sixty Plates.

F. Petrie.

Eighty-one Plates.

1902.

25*.

EL AMRAH AND ABYDOS.

F. Ll. Griffith.

By D. Randall-MacIver, A. C. Mace, and

1902.
25J.

XXIV. ABYDOS,

Part

II.

XXV. ABYDOS,

Part YVeigall, &c. Sixty-one

By W. M. F. Petrie. Sixty-four Plates. 1903. 25*. III. By C. T. Currelly, E. R. Ayrton, and A. E.

Plates.

P.
25*.

1904.

2 55.

XXVI. EHNASYA. By W. M. Flinders Petrie. Forty -three Plates. 1905. (ROxMAN EHNASYA. Thirty-two extra Plates. 10s.) XXVII. DEIR EL BAHARI, Part V. By Edouard Naville. Plates CXIX-CL
Description.

with

Royal

folio.

1906.

30..

XXVIII.

THE ELEVENTH DYNASTY TEMPLE AT DEIR EL BAHARI,

By Edouard Naville and H. R. Hall.
Thirty-one Plates.
1907.

XXIX. DEIR EL BAHARI,

Part VI.

By Edouard Naville.
Royal
folio.

Part I. {Out ofprint.) Plates CLI-CLXXIV

(one coloured) with Description.

190S.

30J.

XXX.

THE ELEVENTH DYNASTY TEMPLE AT DEIR EL BAHARI,

By Edouard Naville and Somers Clarke.
Twenty-four Plates.
1910.
25..

Part

II.

XXXI. PRE-DYNASTIC
and

CEMETERY AT EL MAHASNA.
191
1.

By E. R. Ayrton
Part III.
1913.
255.

W.

L. S.

Loat.

255.

XXXII.
XXXIII.

THE ELEVENTH DYNASTY TEMPLE AT DEIR EL BAHARI,

By Edouard Naville, H. R. Hall, and C. T. Currelly.
Thirty-six Plates.

CEMETERIES OF ABYDOS,
H. R. Hall and K. Haddon.
1

Part
2s.

I.

By Edouard Naville,

E.

Peet,

914.

XXXIV. CEMETERIES OF ABYDOS,

Loat.
1

Part II.

XXXV. CEMETERIES OF ABYDOS,

91 3.
25..

Part

III.

By T. E. Peet. 19 1 4. 2 5 s. By T. E. Peet and W.

L. S.

XXXVI.

THE INSCRIPTIONS OF SINAI, Part

Eighty-six Plates and Plans.

I.

By A. H. Gardiner and
35.?.

. E. Peet.
42s.

Royal

folio.

1917.

XXXVII. BALABISH.

By G. A. Wainwright.

Twenty-five Plates.

1920.

ARCHAEOLOGICAL SURVEY.
Edited by F. Ll. Griffith.
I.

BENI HASAN,
Fraser.

Part

I.

By Percy

E. Newberry.
1893.

With Plans by G. w.

Forty-nine Plates (four coloured).

{Out ofprint.)

II.

BENI HASAN,
coloured).

Part II. By Percy E. Newberry. With Appendix, Plans, and Measurements by G. VV. Fraser. Thirty-seven Plates (two coloured). 1894. 253. Part
25J.
I.

III.

EL BERSHEH,
1894.

By Percy
By

E. Newberry.

Thirty-four Plates (two

IV.

EL BERSHEH,
BENI HASAN,
&c,

Part

II.

With Appendix by G. W. Fraser.

F. Ll. Griffith and Percy E. Newberry. Twenty-three Plates (two coloured). 1895. 25..

V.
VI.
VII.
VIII.

of Flint Knives.)

Part III. By F. Ll. Griffith. Ten coloured Plates. 1896.

(Hieroglyphs, and manufacture,

2 55.

HIEROGLYPHS FROM THE COLLECTIONS OF THE EGYPT

EXPLORATION FUND.
By
F. Ll.

Griffith.

Nine coloured

Plates.

1898.

25..

BENI HASAN,
arts, crafts,

Part IV.

By

F. Ll. Griffith.

(Illustrating beasts
1900.
255.

and

birds,

&c.)

Twenty-seven Plates (twenty-one coloured).

THE

MASTABA

OF
1900.

PTAHHETEP
25..

AND AKHETHETEP
F. Ll.

AT
II.

SAQQAREH,
IX.

Part I. Plates (three coloured).

By Norman de G. Davies and

Griffith.

Thirty-one

THE MASTABA OF PTAHHETEP AND AKHETHETEP,

By N. DE G. Davies and F. Ll. Griffith.
Thirty five Plates.

Part

1901.

25.?.

X.

THE ROCK TOMBS OF SHEIKH

five Plates.

SAID.

By N. de G. Davies.
Part
I.

Thirty-

1901.

25..

XL THE ROCK TOMBS OF DEIR EL GEBRAWI,

Davies.
Twenty-seven Plates (two coloured).
1902.
25*.

By N. de G.

XII.
XIII.

DEIR EL GEBRAWI,
coloured).

Part

II.

By N. de G. Davies.
Part
I.

Thirty Plates (two

1902.

255.

THE ROCK TOMBS OF EL AMARNA,

Forty-one Plates.
1903.
255.

By N. de G. Davies.

EL AMARNA, Part II. By N. de G. Davies. Forty-seven Plates. 1905. 25.. XV. EL AMARNA, Part III. By N. de G. Davies. Forty Plates. 1905. 25^. XVI. EL AMARNA, Part IV. By N. de G. Davies. Forty-five Plates. 1906. XVII. EL AMARNA, Part V. By N. de G. Davies. Forty-four Plates. 1908. 25.. XVIII. EL AMARNA, Part VI. By N. de G. Davies. Forty-four Plates. 1908. 25.. By J. W. Crowfoot, and MEROITIC XIX. THE ISLAND OF MEROE.
XIV.
25.5.

INSCRIPTIONS,
Plates.

Part

I.

By

F. Ll.

Griffith.
Part
II.

Thirty-five Plates.

191

1.

25..

XX. MEROITIC INSCRIPTIONS,

191
2.
25^.

By

F. Ll. Griffith.

Forty-eight

XXL FIVE THEBAN TOMBS. By N. de G. Davies. Forty-three Plates. 1913. 25^. By A. M. Blackman. ThirtyXXII. THE ROCK TOMBS OF MEIR, Part
I.

three Plates.

1914.
II.

255.

XXIII. MEIR, Part

XXIV. MEIR,

Part III.

By A. M. Blackman. By A. M. Blackman.

Thirty-five Plates.

1915.
1915.

25..

Thirty-nine Plates.

25^

GRAECO-ROMAN MEMOIRS.
I.

THE OXYRHYNCHUS
Eight Collotype Plates.

PAPYRI, PAPYRI,
25..

Part
Part

I.

By B.

P.

Grenfell and A.
Grenfell and A.

S.

Hunt. Hunt.

1898.

{Out ofprint.)
II.

II.

THE OXYRHYNCHUS
Eight Collotype Plates.

By

B. P.

S.

1899.

III.

FAYUM TOWNS AND' THEIR

and D. G. Hogarth.
Eighteen Plates.

PAPYRI.
1900.
25..

By

B. P. Grenfell, A. S.
S.

Hunt,

IV. V.

THE TEBTUNIS
Six Collotype Plates.

PAPYRI.
1902.

By

B. P.
sale.)

Grenfell, A.

Hunt, and

J.

G. Smyly.
S.

Nine Collotype Plates.

(Not for
25..

THE OXYRHYNCHUS
1903.

PAPYRI,

Part III.

By

B. P.

Grenfell and A.

Hunt.

VI.
VII.

THE OXYRHYNCHUS
Eight Collotype Plates.

PAPYRI,
25s.
I.

Part IV.

By

B. P.

Grexfell and A.
S.

S.

Hunt.

1904.

THE HIBEH
Collotype Plates.

PAPYRI,
1906.

Part

By

B. P.

Grexfell and A.

Hunt.
S.

Ten
Hunt. Hunt.

45..

VIII.

THE OXYRHYNCHUS
Seven Collotype Plates.

PAPYRI,
25.J.

Part V.
Part VI.

By

B. P.
P.

Grenfell and A.

1908.

IX.

THE OXYRHYNCHUS
Six Collotype Plates.
1908.

PAPYRI,
25J.

By B.

Grexfell and A.
S.

S.

X.
XI.
XII.
XIII.

THE OXYRHYNCHUS
Plates.

PAPYRI,
PAPYRI, PAPYRI, PAPYRI,
25s.

Part VII.
Part VIII.

By A.

Hunt.

Six Collotype

1910.

25J.

THE OXYRHYNCHUS
type Plates.
1911.
25*.

By By A.

A. S.
S.

Hunt.

Seven ColloSix Collotype

S.

THE OXYRHYNCHUS
Plates.

Part IX.
Part X.

Hunt.

1912.

25s.

THE OXYRHYNCHUS
Six Collotype Plates.
19 14.

By
By

B. P. B. P.
P.

Grexfell and A.

Hunt.

XIV.

THE OXYRHYNCHUS
Seven Collotype Plates.

PAPYRI,
25J.

Part XI.

Grenfell and A.
Grexfell and A.

S.

Hunt. Hunt.
S.

1915.

XV.
XVI.
XVII.
XVIII.

THE OXYRHYNCHUS
Two
Collotype Plates.

PAPYRI, Part XII. By B.

25^.

S.

1916.

THE OXYRHYNCHUS
Hunt.
Six Collotype Plates.

PAPYRI,
1919.

Part XIII. Part

42s.

By
By
P.

B. P.
B. P.

Grenfell and A.
Grexfell and A.
S.

2 55.

THE OXYRHYNCHUS
Hunt.
Five Collotype Plates.
1922.

PAPYRI,
1920.

XIV.

S.

Three Collotype Plates.

THE OXYRHYNCHUS PAPYRI,

425.

Part
Part

XV. By B.
XVI.

Grexfell and A.

Hunt.

XIX.

THE OXYRHYNCHUS
and H.
I.

PAPYRI,

By

B. P. Grenfell, A. S. Hunt,

Bell.

[In preparation^)

ANNUAL ARCHAEOLOGICAL REPORTS.

2s.

Edited by F. Ll. Griffith.

1892-1912.
Vols,
25^. each.

6d. each.

General Index,
Vol.

4s. net.

JOURNAL OF EGYPTIAN ARCHAEOLOGY

quarterly parts 6s.
vi,

(commencing
;

quarterly parts

2s.

6d.

Vol.

vii,

19 14). two double parts,

i-v,

SPECIAL PUBLICATIONS.
:

'Sayings of
1897.

Our Lord/ from an Early Greek Papyrus.

{Out ofprint.)

By

B. P.

Grenfell

and A.
of the

S.

Hunt.
'

NEW SAYINGS OF
Logia

JESUS

AND FRAGMENT OF A LOST GOSPEL,

By
B. P.

with the text

net.

discovered in 1897.

Grenfell and A.

S.

Hunt.
B. P.

1904.

ij.

FRAGMENT OF AN UNCANONICAL GOSPEL.

Hunt.
1908.
is. net.

By

Grenfell and A. S

COPTIC OSTRACA.

THE THEBAN TOMB

KER.
1920.
42s.

By W. E. Crum. SERIES, Vol. I.

and B.

1902.

*. 6d. net. THE TOMB OF AMENEMHET

1915.
35*.

(No. 82).

By Nina de G. Davies and A. H. Gardiner.

Vol.11.

THE TOMB OF ANTEFO

Plates.

THE MAYER PAPYRI A

By

E. Peet.

Twenty-seven

1920.

50J.

Offices of the
13

Egypt Exploration Society:

1,

TAVISTOCK SQUARE, LONDON, W.C.

and

503

TREMONT TEMPLE, BOSTON,

Agents

MASS., U.SA.

BERNARD QUARITCH, n GRAFTON STREET, NEW BOND STREET, W. HUMPHREY MILFORD, OXFORD UNIVERSITY PRESS, AMEN CORNER, E.C. 4 29 WEST 32SD STREET, NEW YORK, U.S.A. C. F. CLAY, CAMBRIDGE UNIVERSITY PRESS, FETTER LANE, E.C. 4 KEGAN PAUL, TRENCH, TRUBXER & Co., 6^-74 CARTER LANE, E.C 4 GEORGE SALBY, 65 GREAT RUSSELL STREET, W.C.
1
1

AND

SITjj BRIGHAM VOKMaUNMgl

3 1197 22884 0200