The Oxyrhynchus Papyri 15 - 1828 PDF

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
Tremont Temple, Boston,
BERNARD QUARITCH,
11
Grafton Street,
HUMPHREY MILFORD, Amen

KEGAN
13
Tavistock Square, W.C.
Mass., U.S.A.
New Bond
Street,
W.
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
compass of the Byzantine documents intended
to the large
volume,
it
was found advisable
them
to reserve
for a separate
Part (XVI), which will probably be issued in the course of 1922

Parts
present instalment therefore, like
The more
literary texts alone.

1792, 1798, 1800,
1805-, 1808,
XI
the
and XIII, consists of
extensive of these, including 1787-90,
belong mainly to the second large
1810,
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
That unfortunately remains my

the following pages
1919-20.
colleague's chief contribution to
a few of the minor texts were originally copied
him, and he was able to revise
my
copies of a few others
by
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
am
its
its
appearance and for
many
execution.
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
modern form of the

Christian hymn, No. 1786, and to some
Professor H. Stuart Jones for a transcript in
musical notation of the early
other scholars for help on special points, which
is
acknowledged
connexion with the texts concerned.
ARTHUR
Queen's College, Oxford,
December, 192 1
S.
HUNT.
in
CONTENTS
PAGE
Preface
..........
...........
...
List of Plates
Table of Papyri
Note on the Method of Publication and List of Abbreviations
vii
viii
TEXTS
..........
....
....
III.
Theological Fragments
Classical Fragments
Fragments of Extant Classical Authors
172
IV.
Minor Literary Fragments
226
I.
II.
New
26
INDICES
I.
II.
III.
...........
......
...
1787-9 (Sappho and Alcaeus)

Other New Texts
Passages Discussed
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
at the end.
231
235
249
TABLE OF PAPYRI
CENTURY
1778.
Aristides,
1779.
Psalm
Apology (Plate
I)
1780.
St.
John's Gospel
1781.
St.
John's Gospel xvi
1782.
Didache
1783.
Her mas,
1784.
Constantinopolitan Creed
1785.
Homilies?
viii
......
......
Hymn
1786.
Christian
1787.
Sappho, Book
1788.
Alcaeus
31and.
(Plate II)
1791.
Pindar, Paean (Plate III)
Early 4th
15
5th
5th
1792.
Pindar,
Callimachus, Sosibi Victoria
....
....
1806.
Theocritus, Idyll xxii (Plate IV)
1807.
AratUS,
1808.
Plato, Republic
Phaedo
(Plate IV)
98
116
Late 2nd
119
122
Late 2nd or early 3rd
137
ISt
150
.....
viii
86
1st
Early 3rd
....
....
Sophocles, TracAiniae
2nd
Late
1805.
,
....
......
.......
......
.....
'
1804.
84
113
Miscellaneous Biographies
Glossary
73
ISt
2nd
1800.
1803.
ISt B. C.
1799.
Glossary
46
60
Hexameter Poem on Egyptian Botany

Antiphon Sophistes, llepl
i ?
Anonymous work on Alexander the Great
Oratorical Fragment
Glossary
26
Late 2nd
no
1796.
1801.
21
3rd
ISt
Acrostic Epigrams
1802.
18
Late 2nd
Poem
1795.
1798.
...
1794.
1797.
17
ISt
Late 3rd
1793.
Hexameters
....
Alcaeus (Plate III)

Ibycus (Plate III)
12
1790.
in
4th
Late 4th
ix
1789.
(Plate II)
Paean
4th
3rd
with Musical Notation (Plat 5 I)
iv
i-iii
Pastor,
4th
PAGE
2nd
35
Late 2nd or early 3rd
155
6th
163
3rd
166
Late 2nd
Late
172
1st
180
186
2nd
.
184
Late 2nd
1809.
Plato,
Early 2nd
1810.
Demosthenes, Olynth. \-\\\,Phil.\,De Pace (PL telV)
Early 2nd
191
.
194
TABLE OF PAPYRI
IX
CENTURY
....
1811.
Demosthenes, C. Timocratem
1812.
Isocrates,
1813.
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
1814.
1815.
1816.
1817.
1818.
1819.
1820.
1821.
1822.
Ad Demonicum
....
.....
.....
....
.
Hexameters or Elegiacs
Hexameter Poem on Astronomy
1825.
1826.
Romance
1827.
Oratorical Fragment
1828.
Ethical Treatise
1824.
Fragment of a Tragedy
Fragment of a Comedy
Fragment of a Comedy
1823.
....
....
.
.....
.
PAGE
3rd
5th or 6th
Early 6 th
a.d.
529-535
3rd
209
211
214
217
222
3rd
222
6th
222
5th or 6th
2nd
223
224
6th or 7th
3rd
225
226
2nd
226
ISt B.C.
226
3rd
227
5th
228
Late 3rd or 4th
228
3rd
229
3 rd
230
NOTE ON THE METHOD OF PUBLICATION AND

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS
The
general method followed in this volume is the same as in preceding

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

or corrections
by the hand
by a
hand
different
of the
body
of the text are in small thin type, those
Square brackets
in thick type.
[ ]
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
indicate mutilated or otherwise illegible letters.
them are
to
texts of the
numerals to
lines,
small
in this
Roman numerals
when used of vellum fragments
dots outside brackets
Heavy Arabic numerals
be regarded as doubtful.
Oxyrhynchus Papyri
Letters with dots underneath

refer to the
volume and Parts I-XIV
to columns.
refer to the
The terms
ordinary
recto and verso
upper and under sides of the
leaf,
where these are determinable.

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
Amh.
P. Grenf.
P.
P.
P.
A. S. Hunt.
Rylands = Catalogue of the Greek Papyri
A. S. Hunt.
P.S.I.
in the
Papiri della Societa italiana, Vols. I-VI,
Rylands Library, Vol.
by G.
Vitelli
and others.
I,
by
I.
THEOLOGICAL FRAGMENTS
ARISTIDES, Apology.
1778.
12x14-6 cm.
Fourth century.
Plate
(Fols. 1-2, recto).
The following small but
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 S3original
The Apology is a
recent addition to early Christian literature.
made
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
towards
its
at Sinai of
Robinson,
recovery was
a complete version
who had
in
in
Syriac
and shortly afterwards Dr. Armitage
seen Dr. Harris's work in proof, recognized that the Apology
was actually already extant
in
Greek, having been embedded
mediaeval romance, the History of Barlaam and Josaphat.

these fortunate discoveries was the joint edition
Apology of Aristides
in
Texts
and
Studies,
I.
i.
by
in
the early
The outcome
of
the two scholars of the
(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
R. Raabe, in his commentary in Texte
hypothesis.
und Untersuchmigen,
opinion of the accuracy of the Syriac translator.
On
ix. 1,
Again,
has no high
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
With
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
1778.
general
it
position.
of
may be
said that P, as
Though open
advantages claimed
for
might be expected, holds an intermediate

its verbosity, to which much
to criticism especially for
comparative length
its
is
due, the
Syriac has at any rate
some of the
Rendel Harris, in places reproducing the

it by Dr.
than BJ and retaining words and phrases which the
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
original
'
'.
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.
must
critic
'
still
hesitate to
exercise a corresponding caution in
Fol.
1,
Plate
recto.
I.
6 lines lost
7
Plate
Fol. 2, recto.
10
[]
[]
[]
Fol. 2, verso.
I.
[]
[ ] [][ ]
30
[]
.
.[
[
[
[]]
[]
35
[]?
].'.'. [].'
4
[
[y?7]/z[e]iou
lines lost
]
] -
[
[
[] [
- 1

5
I"*'
7 !]
[[*
\
X ei
Kat
[6\
, ,. , ,
,
,
,
.
,
,
. . ,, ?, -'
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
The
included
the
imitators
word
the
again,
Possibly,
human
adjective
cf.
eivai
The
is
reference
Greek gods or
to the
and
tovtovs
and
The
their
As mentioned
in the
Fol. 2 are indeterminate.
extant Greek of this passage

yap
is
as follows
ol
he
'
.
it
in
csWVjuas
introd., the relative positions of Fol.
8 sqq.
is
VUi
ovras
expires
form of one of these phrases may have

nothing in the Syriac suggesting this.
original
though there
was used later
Syriac
is
God, these
to another, since
'
And
sometimes
ceases, according to the
who have
again those
also have erred
their
and
thought concerning the blasts of winds that

evident to us, that these winds are subject
increased and sometimes it is diminished and
this is
blast
is
commandment of him who
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
man
()
'
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:
'
'
'
'
'
'
'
'
pulsion
.'.
Further detailed comparison
is
precluded by the unfortunate mutilation of the
;;
1778.
lower part of this page; but the scanty remains appear to support the fuller version of
the Syriac as against the much shorter extant Greek, though no definite correspondence can
be made
out.
6(eo)v
9.
so also the Syriac,
and elsewhere where the subject

a[i>]f[t
13.
is
'
that
it is
God
The
'.
the identification of the exiguous traces
farther
extant Greek has
both here
feminine.
is
confirmed by the collocation
Whether that is to be regarded as a transposition

in BJ.
doubtful, for the Syriac repeats Since then this wind is sometimes
on
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
.
'
'
,
&C,
[\(
e. g.
is
ovpavos
IV
vi
less suitable, since
of the doubtful
(sc.
and the application of the same phrase
to the
moon and
to
the second
letters before
To
man.
is
read
owiyfioj]
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
is
followed by
or .
doubtful
may be .
1 8. The
26 sqq. The opening sentence of
analogy Of 11. 8IO
this section
,
.
()
,,, , ,
may
eivai
safely
be restored from BJ on the

J continues
6eoi.
rjXiov eivai 6eov,
'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
The
Syriac
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
is
,.
participial construction,
which
),
is
carried
on
in
11.
40-1 by
[]
fô^jra
and though waxing and waning might be interpreted as referring
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. eKkeiêts 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.
, .,
^,
'
'
'
'
, *^.
.
'
'
'
'
'
'
Psalm
1779.
1
15
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.
Recto.
i.
10
1226, &c.
[]
ot
ev
Kpiaec
ovSe a
ay
Verso.
q[v]
6
15
10.
?:
*/3:
<
so the cursive 281 (Laur. v. 18, nth cent.);

?
a and many cursives, including
so N
281.
AR
other
01
MSS.
aee others.
1780.
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.
A pagination
is
absent.
figure, 74,
The
has been
entered (by the original scribe, apparently) in the left-hand corner of the recto ;
a comparison of the capacity of this leaf with the amount of the preceding part of
the Gospel shows that the number refers to the page, not to the leaf, and it will
follow either that the pages were
numbered
alternately in the series
or that they were numbered consecutively at the top
left
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.
well be another
probable
in
1011
[[?
Verso.
]
]
]]
]
]]]]
]
Recto.
viii.
14
7repi
10
15
]]>
]]
]
[
[
30
\\
35
[[.
[\
[
[
[
[
>
16
19
20
[]]
[
/
[]]
[Se
45
)
[
[
25
[]
[
\
[>
[
\
[
[
ev
^
(
[
[
21
22
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$.
j
emcv (fin-.
so BD, W-H;
T-R.
further add
31.
D).
:
W-H
()
[6]
():
()((
,
W-H
34.
36.
W-H
ND
The omission
The
SO B,
42. emev
added
fc$
Têire
]?
unduly
by
short.
^)?,
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
evidently agreed with the best

with inferior authority.
MSS.
in omitting
(}) which
is
T-R
the variant
is
1781.
possible though not probable.
St. John's
Gospel
24-5x6-8 cm.
The
line
later uncials
eXeyev,
The papyrus
after
47.
line is sufficiently filled
by some of the
43.
would make the

N, T-R.
with
of
W-H
xvi.
Third century.
following leaf from a papyrus codex evidently belonged to the same
from which 208 (now
MS.
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
Brit.
1781.
period between A. D. 200 and 300 (Part

tion that attribution, though the codex
second half of the century than the
and there is no reason to quesperhaps more likely to date from the
II, p. 2),
is
With regard
first.
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
additions,
which are
original scribe,
in a small
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
chief uncials the papyrus

in
is
11.
ND
'
47, 48, with
in
usually in harmony.
12,
with tfBD in
11.
Coincidences with
13, 20,
(1.
MA are found
34-5. There
of the
omission
13,
with tfBC in
against the other main authorities
one agreement with
article with
is
1.
11.
31) and BCD (1. 34). An

peculiar to the papyrus, and in 1. 44 there was
12, n.),
cf. 1.
omission of
one with
BD
(1.
in 1. 47 is
apparently another omission which has hitherto depended on slight authority.
The tendency to brevity, especially in omitting unnecessary pronouns, con-
junctions,
&c,
is
an outstanding feature of both 208 and 1781
verso. 5, 10, 11, recto. 12, 22, Fol. 2 recto. 19, verso.
12, 13, 20, 26, 38, 44, 47, 50-1,
2,
208
Fol.
5sqq., 12, 14-15, 17, 1781.
6,
cf.
and nn.
]]
Recto.
[
[
[
[ ]] ]
[
[]
[
[
[
?]] ]
[?
[
[
[
14
15
\
] [)
]
[(
xvi.
17
]
]
[]
[]
1
[
]]\] [[
]
[
[
20
25
[
[ ]]
[
]
]
[
[
][
^^
2
]8
]]
][]
yapav
[
[
[
30
[
[][[
yapav
[]
[][
[[
[]
[[
'[[
[
[
[][]
4
[]
45 [y] a P
[[
>
22
Verso.
[] [] [
35
23
24
25
26
27
"
1781.
[([
[[
29
ev
iSe
[[
ets
[
tw
ev
ff oV
Whether
determined.
W-H)
(BDI*
ews
()^
or
^^^
23
others would overload the lacuna.

(A, T-R) was written cannot be
N and
with
to read euro*
'
3
\eis
r (*>,
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>
of 1. 6 and shorter by only
7'
beginning
the
at
that
as
length
The lacuna is of the same
there was some deletion, eg. the scribe might have
Perhaps
8.
1.
in
that
than
letter
one
There is no authority for
after ,, which is the order of K.
write
, ,*
(,
.
!
^*
begun
to
the insertion of nves before

Q.
\]
ex.
D.
very uncertain there was perhaps a correction.

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

The lacuna would
W-H
W-H
^()
(\jy
Cf.
NBD,
so
was
first
<
%ow>
j:
g j.,
20. i//
i.e.
e.
is
W-H
8e
A,
The
written.
<
.,.. is
nhviouslv excluded.
A Omits
T-R
correction
is
perhaps due to the original scribe.
22
1.
22.
which
cf.
Whether
The
1.
20.
23. <opa
25.
26.
27.
28.
was written cannot be ascertained.
or
spelling, tor
for ot without cancelling the original
corrector has substituted
* D.
0][]
^[7
, *
:
31. apn: so
D.
fc$
places this after

so NBC*D,
:
BD*,
W-H
^.
W-H
33. or. may have been added at the

3. a, rt is the reading of BCD,
end of the
W-H;
T-R.
* wv AC
3
,
* NACD, T-R
line as in
T-R.
WD
,,
-R).
(), some later MSS.,
12
345.
{[
P ov
BC*, VV-H
so
.,
(V
T-R.
AC'D,
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
is
sufficiently
may
([
. .
39 ore
41.
'.
De
NABC*D, W-H
ev
The
and following
Aug.
SO
for the latter
without
been
left after
(AC 3 D 2 )
^.
(,
before
especially as
fc"$*.
423.
44
filled
well have
lacuna here
lines,
and
it
is
Trin.).
is
()
of practically the same length as in the immediately preceding

was omitted, and
or
clear that either
seems
omission there
C 2 T-R.
some authority
adds
after
required.
MSS. bee, Cyril Acta 49,

have been written, though not
(the cursive 36, Itala
and
this
may
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.
[7/#
50-1.
SO
AC T-R;
(],
:
the original reading,
may
is
is
that of
BC*D*, W-H;
DlDACHE
,
Fol.
now making
which has been
5-8x5,
Fol. 2
i-iii.
Late fourth century.
5-7x4-8.
vellum leaves, containing a few verses from the
the
.
,
1782.
Two
D OmitS
added by AC S D 2 T-R.
have been omitted, with A.
inserted above the line,

51. (v
BC*, W-H.
D.
three chapters of
first
supposed by some to be of Egyptian origin and

the first time in an Egyptian manuscript. 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
leaves,
may
the
same contour.
In that case the quire included five sheets at
leaves being required for the matter intervening between Fol.

recto,
and would be more
likely to
least,
eight
verso and Fol. 2
have consisted of the unusual number of eight
3^ verses lost before Fol. 1 recto would occupy only three more
This latter inference would of course be invalidated if the Didache was
sheets, for the

leaves.
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.
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)
century, discovered at Constantinople
of the middle of
by Bryennios and
edited
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.
It
is
recension in the
by
(.
a treatise called
Apostolische Kirchenordnung and by Hilgenfeld
Viae vel Iudicium Petri ', as well as in an old Latin
Bickell, its first editor, the
T. extra Canonem)
translation of
'
Duae
'
'
Didache i-vi (the
both of which Did.
i.
3II.
1 is
'
Two Ways')
explained (Gebhardt, ap. Harnack, Lehre
d.
by
edited in 1900
omitted, though that omission
zwolf Apost.,
J.
Schlecht, in
may be
otherwise
281).
But that
p.
century at any rate the Didache stood practically as found in

was
sufficiently indicated by the Apostolic Constitutions, a compilation generally
in the fourth
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
a comparison of these early Oxyrhynchus fragments with

corresponding passages of the Apostolic Constitutions
is
Separated as they are in date by some eight centuries,

to
find
several
variations
between
, ,
remarkable new readings.
Of
is
welcome, and
and with the
an interesting study.
is hardly surprising
it
and 1782, which
these the most striking
is
offers
one or two
the insertion between
the third and fourth verses of chap,
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
for
in
i.
4 certainly does not
inspire confidence.
On
the other
14
hand the omission of a second adjective in i. 4 renders more

and Const. Apost*, and
strange variation there between
not look like an interpolation.
the two centuries which elapsed between

Apostolic Constitutions
to
may now
its
i.
.,
3,
occurs with
Be 'for be
and
for
cit.
With regard
in the
to the
(Hilgenfeld's
maybe
which
is
two unexpected agreements with the
for
Dnae
Similarly, one coincidence
Viae) against
and Const. Apost.,
correct; a reading which Hilgenfeld ventured
not, however, confirmed.
In the appended collation the texts as given
Texte
(op.
Const. Apost., though in cases of divergence the former has
to adopt from that source
utilized,
does
composition and embodiment
need some qualification.
generally the support of 1782, there are

latter in
Harnack's statement
Perhaps, then,
not the slightest trace of any alteration in the Didache during
p. 172) that there is
relation of
intelligible the
.
by Harnack,
op. cit.,
have been
together with H. Lietzmann's convenient edition of the Didache (Kleine
6), in
which a reprint of Schlecht's Latin version

Fol.
is
added
to the apparatus.
Recto.
Verso.
i.
R9 V
. 4
not
10
[]
?
??
([]
15
Fol.
2.
Recto.
8e
?
[[
25
>>>>>>>>>>>>
70
?
iii.
30
"^
]]
Verso.
?
111.
1782.
2.
instead of
(vii.
1)
,
.
\
Matt. V. 47
yap oi
cf.
have
).
hand Const. Apost.
15
oi
On
and so
Justin, Apol.
the Other
15 (with
i.
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
Cor.
V.
,13.
,
14.
Apost.
.()
.(
.
nvevpa
(\\
'.
eV
The
Const. Apost.
{*)
.,.\
.
present tense
is
expected.
was adopted by Bryennios and preferred by Harnack (pp.
however hesitated to accept
it
in his text
cf.
Titus
ii.
12
,
.
5,
Const.
172) who
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
2
.
.
. .,
..
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.
(
:
28.
SO
SO
,..
,.
8(
'.
the epexegetic clause,
Const. Apost.,
,.
Const. Apost.
so Lat. quia
1783.
. 4.
Const. Apost.
,
.
Const. Apost. omit

duett', otyyu yap
occurs three times in verses 4-6 of this chapter.
.
Hermas,
Pastor,
6x9-3 cm
and
ix.
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
This fragment, the fourth
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.
and
There
is
no trace of
ruling.
One
Kvpios are contracted as usual, but not
instance occurs of a stop in

(1.
5)
1.
4.
6tos
i6
The
direction,
leaf
is
a palimpsest, but the original text, which ran in the reverse

obliterated that its identity has not yet been established.
is
much
so
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
It
\[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.
?
^^
[
??
?
Verso.
Maud.
15
? ?
Mand.
[]
(
(
( ^.
.
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,
[] ?
..)
:
(()
(((
after
(eZy)
6.
ca,
&C
15.
OCCUrS elsewhere Only in Polyb.
12. 5 in a passive sense.
so ca, Hilgenfeld, Gebhardt-Harnack;
Athan. Cod. Paris.
xl.
;'
1783.
eav
17
so Gebhardt-Harnack with Athan. Cod. Paris., the older Latin, and the Aethiopic
ca, Hilgenfeld.
1
6.
17.
ca,
8e
18.
20.
01
Athan. Cod. Paris.
so edd. with Athan. Cod. Paris., the Palatine Latin, and Aethiopic
so ca, Ant.
om.
ca.
Athan. Cod. Paris.

as Athan. Cod. Paris., om. Cod. Guelf.
ovStv
ca,
CONSTANTINOPOLITAN CREED/
1784.
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
of the
fifth
common
century.
In
1.
,,
abbreviation of
contracted, but not
ments of
this period
(cf.
is
e.
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
written in an upright semicursive
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
'
'
[]
4. 6((o)v
first
sight like
"[[e]]?
[]
[[
^^
[] cva
J?
\[]
[] [
[]
Si
ks
[]
eyei>e
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
this
the
\\.
at
i8
Homilies
1785.
Frs. 2
6-6xi38cm.
+3
A fragmentary papyrus leaf, apparently

at
The
present remain anonymous.
Fifth century.
from a collection of discourses which

2-4 recto, concerning con-
style of Frs.
cupiscence, of which a series of Biblical instances
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
now
identified as
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.
to be worth printing, are
all
century date seems to be indicated, more especially by the second hand.
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,
ink throughout
is
of the
where also a high stop
is
once found (Fr.
Fr.
]
]
8]
]
]
]
recto. 7).
recto.
[
. [
[
[
,[
[
aOeos
[,]
][
]
]
1785.
]
] []
Frs.
2-4
19
recto.
]<[[][ ]][][
[][ [
16 letters
]?
? []?
\\\"\
]
]
[][ \
[][ ]
] [],
]#[
1/
]<
[]
[]
[?
?]
[....].
][
18 letters
25
27
15
Fr. 5.
"
][
]vpv[
Fr.
verso.
]
[
[]
,[
] ^_
C 2
\]
>
[
ay
[.
\[
Fr. 4

2nd hand
o[.
,][
]erre/x7r[
Frs. 2-4 verso.
.[..].,*..,
]o
.]
.
([.
.
Fr. 1
7.
The
[.]
[]
.]
[.
That
.]
[.
[.
Se
,]
ev
.
totucl<t\.
,][
this
fragment
is
to be placed
above Fr.
is
shown by
the change of
verso.
must be a,
rough breathing,
first letter
line represent a
;
e[.
[]*[.]
.]
recto.
hand on the
yei/effty
.]
.
.]
.]
KVy
],
[.]
[.
VY
[.]
]ov
ks
, .[]<
.]
[.
[.
[
[]
\ (? []
[
[]
[][
1 7 letters
7[
.]e
.]
otherwise
[]
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.
8.
#(<-o)s is
doubtful, the cross-bar of
Fr.
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
4,
a of
[\[
[]
in
1.
ii, is less clear.
Either
be preferred if
2.
3.
[\(([
or
is right.
so the
LXX in
is
Gen. xxxix.
(cf.
1.
4)
is
probable and the former must
the spelling of
1.
BAQ
rescr.
1785.
][ |
5-6.
in
1.
The
referred
incident
to
is
Judges xix-xx.
related in
very conjectural, especially as there
is
is
barely
21
At the end
room
,[ (.
6.
of
1.
for [Xot] before
(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.
.
Pr. 5. 3.
unconvincing.
Fr. 1 verso.
The
4.
latter part
of
1.
this line
[]([8][
is
possible,
or
some
other sign
2-4
verso. 1-2.
is
though
has apparently been washed out.

after the lacuna belongs to a
Whether part of an oblique stroke immediately
6.
e. g. v,
combination with Frs. 2-4.
letter,
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.
which the
lines
[][
[][,
1786.
Christian
[][.
Hymn with Musical
Late third century.
5 cm.
29-6
Notation.
Plate
1.
This interesting fragment of what is by far the most ancient piece of Church
music extant, and may be placed among the earliest written relics of Christianity,
is contained on the verso of a strip from an account of corn, mentioning several
Oxyrhynchite villages and dating apparently from the first half of the third
century, though later than the Constitutio Antoniniana, since
named
are Aurelii.
The
text on the verso
is
some of the persons
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
whether by the same hand or another
is
more
cursive lettering,
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.
before either P.
Amh.
This
hymn was
2 or Berl. Klassikertexte VI.
vi. 8,
accordingly written
which are both assigned
22
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
Nevertheless the general purport of what remains
lacunae.
Creation at large
upon
is
fairly
clear.
to join in a chorus of praise to Father, Son,
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.
Holy
is
called
Spirit,
'
The
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
the metre, which
is
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
The
musical notation is generally similar to that found in the rather earlier

papyrus published by Schubart in Sitzungsber. preuss. Akad. 191 8, pp. 763 sqq.,
the text of which has been revised and discussed by Th. Reinach in Revue
ArcheOlogique, 1919, pp. n-27, an<^ nas been arranged in modern style by Prof.
A. Thierfelder. 1 The notes which can be recognized with certainty are eight,
e.
These
all
occur in the Diatonic Hypolydian key of Alypius,
to which Reinach assigns also the
Paean of the Berlin papyrus that, however, is

more probably to be regarded as in the Iastian key. As for the mode, there can
be little doubt that it is the Hypophrygian or Iastian, as in the Epitaph of Seikilos
and the Hymn to Nemesis of Mesomedes; cf. Gevaert, La milopie antique, pp. 48 sqq.
With regard to the character of the syllables and the corresponding notes,
Reinach has observed that in the Berlin Paean a barytone syllable is always sung
on a lower note than the succeeding accented final syllable, and that a circumflexed
syllable has two notes at least.
Neither of these observations holds in the case
of 1786, and the former indeed can hardly be maintained of the Paean either.
On the other hand, two notes are assigned to a short syllable in one instance at
least
(1.
4).
In addition to the notes five signs are used,

the Berlin papyrus.
1
Paean and
(1)
Tek??iessa (Leipzig),
horizontal stroke
renewed with
severity
is
all
of
which are found also
in
placed above notes attached to
by Schroder, Berl. Phil. Woch.
xl.
351.
1786.
syllables
(2)
which are long or scanned as such
curved stroke or hyphen, as
are to be regarded as legato.

line with the musical notes,
a sign given
by Bellermann's
(3)
is
in
(for
23
a possible exception see
1.
2, n.).
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
Anonymus 102 and
or rest.
signifying a
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.
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.
are three instances of
a fourth which
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
the vocal notes of the Paean also, and in 1786
among
nothing to do with the
separation of cola.
it
has evidently
According to Thierfelder,
I.e.,
it
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
in
f]
'
,,
(3, 85).
others, e.g.
Blass, Bacchylides, p.
Some
critics
have con-
have become transposed,

too Reinach, p. 6, n.), maintain its
and
sidered that in that passage the terms

(so
Professor Stuart Jones observes, the fact that here, as in the

correctness.
is dotted, looks like a confirmation
Berlin papyrus, the symbol for the
if the metre of 1786 is rightly
however,
this
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
on the problem, a consistent interpretation of the dots there having

Schroder, Berl. Phil. Woch. xl. 352, thinks that in the
found.
be
yet to
Both he and Thierfelder, who
arsis is plainly meant.
fragments
second of the
distinguish
two kinds of dot, a heavy and
profess
to
takes them to denote ictus,
imaginary.
a light, but the distinction is probably
transcription in modern notation has been kindly supplied by Professor
little
light
H. Stuart Jones.
24
31 letters
'
]|
28 letters
:|
'
*
/>]>>77
[7]
]/[
:t|c
:{c
[.]
:gi
'
)!/
OR
i[Tj"
?S
'
?
///
].
-
#=
?[
|>
-- --
--
=t=rff*-*
w%
[(-]4
[] ...
'
=Q=
re
=
:/
I-
8-
p=r-T^^^==^g=^=^
:
-\-
'
=fe
&
&=
m
aeggzg
Utea
>
^-
r
-
-- --
1786.
' --
--
25
H-
g=f=
m^r-
_^^^
as
-r
42=
/xo -
pi
T1J
>.
a
a
this line.
above
visible
are
notation
musical
Only slight vestiges of the
unexpected and the mark of length on the second
?: the word is somewhat
2.
be connected with the fact that the , has been
possibly
may
this
syllable is a difficulty, but
and
The occurrence of for is common. To suppose that
corrected from v.
ya
lJU!
&
:
=
that
or
is
much more
difficult.
the surface above the note
7<t}<U}e<ov
e
damaged, and a dot has probably
is
very doubtful ; the initial letter may be

8* .
in the papyrus,
occurs
example
no other
line ; or if
the
of
end
the
might stand at
andTnother
is
^ >mav belong
dis-
of which
or x and I may be
can be constructed with
is rightly taken as an
.
<
{]
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
this
imnerative
P
m^
3.
Stowed by
iS
a vertical stroke
.I
notes on *, the papyrus haying been

regular
are carried on
to
rm*
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 ^.
,,
.
the . of
Tabove
xxiv.
29
ol
of
ife
rm
in
1.
3) is
than usual and

very uncertain,
the right of the note
g%
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
Ma
fa*,
is
:
cf.
also n.
on 1.
5) and sometimes
gen6
the upper
is very doubtfully deciphered ;
the line of notes the second group
is rathe
one
lower
the
and
disappeared,
have
to
dot of the supposed colon must be supposed
bu
nothing
suggest
they
but
The "vLiges might be regarded as a single letter
farge
the
in
elsewhere
occur
not
does
a father unsatisfactory a, which
and others above
dot may be lost above the mark of length
extraneous to the mode.
is a good deal rubbed
surface
the
of
syllable
and the .over the second
:
t' In
-to
P~
hereabouts
"^^
^j
^^
highly
^ oj/a)j but
the preceding lacuna the
In
doubtful though some such
the last fcree were *n
indicate a loss of seven syllables, of which
metre and it is perhaps just possible
the
for
necessary
more syllable at least, however, seems
surface
where there is a rather broad space and he
that a note is missing between a and r,
^wanted
(or
)
&
vyu
like
Something,
is not well preserved.
*e
W)
morning service
*
word
mut^s
demanded by the
cf
e g. the eleventh prayer in the

rf K al
. *
a,W
Greek
> , AW
line appears to be extra melrutn.
sense.
,
(,
The
double
is
**
.^
at the
end
"?
ot the
26
II.
NEW
CLASSICAL FRAGMENTS
Sappho, Book
1787.
15.9x9.4 cm.
Fr.
iv.
Third century.
(Frs.
Plate
+ 2,
9).
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
distinct
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
Book
ii
containing
^^ ^^:
^^ v^:
cf.
poems
in
Hephaest.
Hephaest.
consisting partly, at
strophes of three lines,
the
Book
42),
iii
of the
Since the
60).
any
fifth
rate, if the Berlin
book was of a
(^ ^ ^ w
<^
ww
<~>
different character,
fragments belonged to
it,
of
poems
in
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
it
of the present papyrus.
metres
Sapph.
But
it is
of course quite possible that
poems
in similar
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.
60, 62)
NEW
1787.
CLASSICAL FRAGMENTS
27
is
together with a quantity of other lyric fragments in an identical hand. There
other
the
or
MS.
one
to
assigned
be
cannot
which
pieces
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
workman
dishonest
a
by
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.
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
Two
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
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
represented
is
the fact that in Fr.
3.
ii
is
succeeded by O, while not definitely excluding

Of the individual
certainly not in favour of it.
an alphabetical arrangement, is
except in one
pieces there is not much to be said, since their severe mutilation,
precision, and
with
followed
or two cases, prevents the line of thought from being
Fr.
success.
1 gives the
restoration cannot be attempted with any real chance of
advance
the
on
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
[),
),
( ).
and beauty
splendour
paniments of delicacy
of six and five
poems,
complete
two
included
The second column of Fr. 3
the poet's
perhaps
persons,
several
which
of
couplets respectively, in the former
mutilated,
tantalizingly
invocation,
an
being
companions, were addressed, the other
Sapph.
as
in
1 and 59
name,
Sappho herself is addressed by
In Fr.
sleep.
4
and Berk Klassikertexte, V.
to
in
Sappho
as
common
xiii. 2.
in Alcaeus.
notable for a political reference, rare

Apparently some one is reproached for
Fr. 6
is
with
having chosen 'friendship with the daughters of the house of Penthilus',
28
which the sweet song, the melody of

following lines, are contrasted.
and
poet's circle,
Fr.
is
3(4
*
eiK
birds,
and the dewy
leaves,
spoken of
member
offender had perhaps been a
warned that she would no longer be welcome
.
][
]
The
(1.
......
][
Frs. i
+ 2.
Plate II.
]
]
]
]va
][.
][
]
]'
][
"\. .]<.
].
]\'>>&'
.
][.][.]
.
])^
]
][
]
][.]
]
}
15
][
20
25
[
[
[
][.)
....
]
[.
.]
.]
a, n.).
in
the
of the
Fr. 6
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[
]
*/"
IK
]rf'
[
.
va
][.]
\
]
]*
][
]
[.
/^
,]
[\[]
\
]
]
ncuSes
.',
pas
kykvo\vro
' []
'
]
]
.
]
]
]
yds
25
[\[
^
]ais
23 letters
,
\ []
]
pcay
Fr. 3.
Col.
Col.
i.
ii.
[
[
~"
].
)v?
[
[
[
-t-f-
[
[
^'^
[
[
]
].
]
1
[.]//[
[.)&
=.
t5
]/
[
>>[
[\'[
'>
7)[
\[
^7)[.
[
1
^;^/[
yetOiTo5e/zoi[
]rjpoa'
L
-ft-
Fr 4
<?7*[
$6 ?
Fr. 5.
.][
[.]6[
[.
[.]'
1787.
NEW
CLASSICAL FRAGMENTS
Fr. 3.
Col.
Col.
i.
yap
*[e
ii.
J77?
]
*
[
\[
[.
...]..[
eiaaiov
'
\
()
[
[](' [
'
['
ay
[
[] '
15 "Ovoipe
' -
yap
[.
ykvovro
]PAte [
]\[
Fr. 4.
[
[
[
Fr. 5.
[.
.]
[]
[] 6[
.
32
[
[.][
[.]po
[
[,][
[
\[
TolfaiTiovovT[
ovSevn6\v[.]e
\A vS '4i
*(>[
[
]'
[
']
Fr. 7.
']'[
Fr. 6.
][
][.
][.
]
]
.][
][.
][.][
.]'[
.]>
][
]''[
.
]\[
]$[.]
] [
][
][
.
][
19
\*
][
]
[.
.][
Fr.
]>[
],[
~]
][
[
]{
]'[
Fr.
Plate II.
][.]6[
]a0eiaev[
][
}[
]ep[
]irape[
NEW
,[
1787.
[.]po
CLASSICAL FRAGMENTS
0[
<
'
'
[][
[
[
6\
[.]e
[6]$
33
[]' [
'[
[
kvv
Fr. 6.
]^ '
]
]e\a[.".
]>
'
] []'' [$
]
[[
'
[]~~[
'
]
][
[
\$
'
\[
['.]
*]'
0iXor[ar]
[]
Fr.
] [
4
]
]'
]
? ]/9[]>
<re[
]aOeiaev[
][
][
][
Fr.
]
]epa
Fr. 8.
<5e
/ \[
34
Fr. 10.
Fr.
][
\
Fr. 12.
3# !?
][
ovav[
][
]
]/[
]
]
]7[
]8v\oyoL$'p[
][
]erep7T[
0[
]7?[
}(4&
][
][
Fr. 13.
Fr. 14.
Fr. 15.
][
]-[[.
][
]/*
]^'[
][
']\[
}
[.}[
)[
][
}[
to
][
]\[
].[
][
][
.*[
]70[
]7<5/[
5
7[
s
}[
ar6/ja[
]\[
}8[
}[
Fr. 17.
Fr. 16.
]//9[
].['
][
]//[
]
NEW
1787.
CLASSICAL FRAGMENTS
Fr. 10.
]
]
)
]
]
i>/)[0
Fr. 12.
[
]
ovSe[
Fr.
ovav[
]>
'
]?
][
a]is
.
'
[
][
]11/
[0
]
?
^
[
[
] 60
0[
aXXoi
eva
35
]?
Fr. 13.
Fr. 14.
][
][
e2/x'
][
']'
4[
]
U7ra[
][[
[
]
]
]?
[
[
.][
[[[
ea[
'
][
'
]ey
[[
]tos
]r<5'
Fr. 15.
Fr. 17.
]re
]
.
Fr. 16.
][
2
][
]
]ev6[
36
Fr. 20.
Fr.
Fr. 19
1 8.
ovSe[
][
][
1 .
]
1
Fr.
[.]'^prt
2.
'
[
[
[
f *
r.[
_[
e]A
Fr. 25.
Fr. 24.
Fr. 23.
Fr. 22.
-7
ii.
'
Col.
i.
]8
]*[
]>
]77'[
]>[
<[
[
Col.
!
Fr. 29.
Fr. 28.
Fr. 27.
Fr. 26.
][
][
]v/uav
~\
][
]<*[
]>[
5
]<[
][
][
][
]/#[
5
]
]/[
][
][.][
][].[
][
][
t/i ei
][
3-4
1787.
NEW
CLASSICAL FRAGMENTS
Fr
Fr. 19.
Fr.
Col.
*[
[
[
VX^DH
<
]
Col.
i.
ii.
""
?[
*""
.
******
Fr. 25.
Fr. 24.
Fr. 23.
Fr.22.
Fr.ai.
...
5
5
2 -
" 67
0
1
)'
[]
37
Fr.2 7
Fr.26.
Fr. 29.
Fr. 28.
][
]/>
] [4>[
.
[[
]*
]}[
]9
][
]ey
\-
]/7[
]77^
>'"'
5 ]'
[
.
][
]*
]/[
]**
].[
]a/xot[
]*
38
Fr. 31
Fr. 30.
Col.
][
]<
Col.
i.
Fr. 32.
ii.
][
]
].
>l
[.]
{[
]irav[
C*i
Fr. 33.
]^[
]<[
I'Afct
5
]'[
Fr. 34.
Fr 35
Col.
'
]<#
Fr. 36.
Col.
i.
ii.
e[
_L
[
5
]#?/?0?[
]>'[
]8[
Fr. 38.
]>[
]'7;[
]ayape>ca[
e{_
37
>
5
>
]A'av#i/ie[
ft
Fr. 39.
Fr. 40.
][
.
"]
NEW
1787.
CLASSICAL FRAGMENTS
Fr. 3 1
Fr. 30.
Col.
][
]
Fr. 32.
Col.
i.
ii.
]>
]e\
].r
)..[
39
jay
[
.
ya/x[
[.]
>f
>r
>
[
]
Fr. 33-
,
,
[ }[
]
Tr\ep6t&\& eparacs
(?)
Fr
Fr. 34.
Col.
i[
^Se*{
Col.
i.
]
?
Fr S8
Fr. 37
]/
][
]
[
4
*[
\& ^ ^ *[
Fr
a5 &
]'
3*
[
5
oS[
k[. .]
ii.
)
[][
]a>v
Fr
35
'
wi/ 5'
ol
Fr
39
]{
40.
]
]
f[
]
][ ...
]
]
THE OXYKHYNCHUS PAPYRI

.
...
If?"'^
]ai>apTe[ii[
}>[
Ff
Fr. 41.
Fr. 43.
42.
][
[.]
.
3*[
][
roA/^[
Fr.
44
]*
'/
[
][
][
Halle a (Dikaiomata, pp. 182
^[
sqq.).
]50//>[
].[
"\'6
]
.
][
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
NEW
[
] [
1787.
CLASSICAL FRAGMENTS
Fr 43
Fr. 42-
Fr. 41.
....
]\[
][
41
)[
[.]8
}.[
}{
]<We[
5
3
Fr.
44
P.
Halle
2.
'
]
]
]
[()
6]
^ [[
] '4
'
][
2[
[\>
with
or
The
division
though perhaps there has been some
is
Fr. 45-
thus suggested, but neither
alteration.
nor []
is
satisfactory,
42
[][] or [][] appears
9.
better of the two.
..
Ale. 35.
2.
11.
ws
is
gen. plur.
inevitable
the latter suits the size of the lacuna the
synonym of
as a
1231. 14.
cf.
has not occurred previously.
For
8, n.
where
should
cf.
now be
Orion
28. 15 (Sapph. 169)
The doubled
restored.
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.
was rather
forgetful, or she did not
13 Cf. Soph. Ant.
14. yova
cf.
mind repeating
Tjji/'
IO92
Ale. 39. 7 yova
is
1231. 10. 6 ;
Either Sappho
in
herself.
Cf.
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
[],
accordingly.
18-19.
the
dawn
(?
].
],
The
idea here
may
well be that old age follows youth as inevitably as night

the participial clause might be applied to
as
:
symbolizing death),
of
was probably the
of the papyrus is damaged.
21. Perhaps
or a superlative, e.g.
doubt.
'.
final letter
].
24-5. These two verses are quoted by Athen. xv. 687
(.
1.
of the
line,
but the surface
,
,'
But the reference remains
A (= Sapph.
)
(?
in
79)
') ],
'
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
[, .
\,
.
, , ' ,,
:
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.
to the
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.
6.
15 C g
NEW
1787.
16. e. g.
1
8.
20.
v[
[]
:
or
[ may
is
more
2i.
Fr. 4.
the tmesis
be read
508
ii.
into connexion with
43
].
indicated in the papyrus by the accentuation.
is
of [.
in place
The
, ,'
suitable than ev or
Possibly
2.
Observes, Aristid.
CLASSICAL FRAGMENTS
>]//[,
at.
accent on yap points to
whose name recurs again

.
in
not
as Lobel
eoi>,
Fr.
7.
might perhaps be brought
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.
of the
at the
11.
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.
9.
The supposed
\[,
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.
seems best taken as a proper name, especially as
attested for the Lesbian poets (Sapph. 34, 1233. 24. 2, 1234. 6. 8).
It
is not infrequent.
Ravennas in Aristoph. Thesm. 760, and
or
is
well
given by the
tempting to regard
is
is
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
name
1234.
'
'
[\
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.
4.
to
the lacuna,
fill
(.),
[:
Fr.
7.
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.
4
5.
For
cf.
Sapph. 41, 58.
a, if it is
ink,
occurs in
44
There are perhaps only two

Not
6.
].
8.
The
12. Probably ]ia or ]va.

added by the original hand.
Fr.
8.
3.
The supposed mark
or
letters, e. g.
overwritten' letters enclosed
of length
may be an
and
between
va,
between dots are variants
acute accent.
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
certain,
of junction are,
](>
1 e\n,
1.
1.
also difficult to interpret.
not more attractive.
]/3[]>
3.
Fr. 10.
5.
\,
puzzling,
is
or
The
1.
\.
more probable than , which is the only alternative and

is right, the
was rather smaller than usual, but ey is
is
If
][].
high stop
is
)
Pr.
(SC
i'p[avTes
ep[wTes
11. 4.
rat
cf.
(cf.
Frs.
1.
3)
.[
not certain, being on the edge of the papyrus;
the vestige of a letter.

1
'
+ 2.
24-5,
n.,
and Himerius
rat
are other possibilities.
i.
it
might be
aya
els
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.
8.
10.
4.
The
[:
The
may be or instead of p.
lacuna was apparently either e or
seems to be excluded.
first letter
letter before the
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.
. ,
may be read in place of .
arepos for iTtpos had already occurred in 424. 9.
the original scribe.
Pr. 15.
The
by
interlinear insertion
may be
Pr. 18.
4.
(e. g.
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.
An
3.
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.
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.
Pr. 21.
came from
4. The right-hand tip of the paragraphus

but the paragraphi are sometimes rather short.
Pr. 23.
line,
Fr. 26.
3.
or
can be read in place of
also
and 23,
is
expected to be visible below this
is
very uncertain.
NEW
1787.
For the
5.
CLASSICAL FRAGMENTS
alteration of accent
cf. e. g.
The second
Fr. 18. 4.
45
acute could be read as
a circumflex.
The supposed mark
7.
of a
of length
is
placed low and
may be
the tip of the cross-bar
.
Fr. 27.
The
6.
There
3.
accent
Fr. 29.
is
is a short blank space after

very doubtful.
4.
]vlav is
1.
The
Fr. 32.
a gen. plur.
letters
cf.
Frs.
a,
+ 2.
which perhaps ended the
line.
11, n.
of this line are distinctly smaller than those of
11.
2-3.
Frs. 33-43. This group of fragments is distinguished by being more discoloured and
rubbed than the rest. Frs. 41-3 have been included on account of their resemblance to
the larger pieces.
Fr. 33. 4-5. The identification of these two verses with Sapph. 78. 1-2, though
probable, is in consequence of the damaged condition of 1. 5 hardly certain ; however, the
remains suit
quite well, and the preceding acute accent is just in the right place if
,,
][
was
written.
:.
.
Fr. 34.
or
'().
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. 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.
Fr. 39.
1.
possibly for
small vestige after
'
is
dark
'
cf. irekeia.
consistent with
4.
Fr. 41.
a column.
5.
44
Fr.
A very
1. The
compound
Fr. 40.
2.
is
doubtful was perhaps the final letter of the

is indicated by the'grave accent, and
There
is
P. Halle
accompanying the
v.
no
2.
trace of ink below this line, which
The
revised text printed
is
line.
by the metre.
was perhaps
the last of
based on the facsimile (Tafel 8)
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.
revision
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
on
Frs.
+ 2.
Moreover,
12 above.
"&, ]
n.
cf.
a deity.
2-6 rather suggest an invocation
11.
to
'
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.
2.
on
and suggests an
,
,]
c is visible,
6.
8.
]
].
^, [. '
.
or
For
(\
Sapph.
cf.
?)
]'
1233.
cf.
who
edd.,
2.
too small and crowded.

.
interlinear
We.
Se
is
Apparently yap
ev,
is
and hardly
The
was meant.
justifies
quite possible, as well as
and the
the letters being
facsimile
in front of
shows
that the
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
(i.
to judge from the facsimile,

perhaps by a broad v.
edd.
edd.
edd., but 5 obviously cannot be correct,
right,
possible.
is
edd., suggesting that
ev
mark stood over the next
If the diaeresis
26-7
in the preceding note
20
ii.
quoted
note that
facsimile indicates the expected circumflex over
1.
\]
7. 3 4j Ale. 77 Ze ^ s
cf. e. g. Sapph. 1.26
9.
after
indicating
7. ]p
edd.
mark
elision
e.
letter
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.
ALCAEUS ?
Fr. 4
18-6x5-8 cm.
Late second century.

Plate II (Fr. 15).
The
as 1787,
following lyric fragments in Aeolic dialect proceed from the
and are
a script which, though smaller,
in
formation of some
letters,
however, notably
cannot be taken for the work of a single

is
is
scribe.
is
same
very similar in type
different,
and the two
find
;
the
MSS.
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
(Fr. 15.
i.
10).
is
made
to the
grammarian Didymus
Accents, breathings, &c, resemble those in 1787, but a stop in
the low position
is
here used in addition to the two other kinds.
extent these adjuncts are original or secondary
is
not clear.
By
coincidence the present text, like the Sappho, was accompanied
many
by
other lyric
an apparently identical hand, and a correct ascription

smaller pieces is hardly attainable. Accordingly the procedure
but not Aeolic fragments

of the
To what
an inconvenient
adopted with 1787
is
in
followed in this case also, and only those fragments which
1788.
are guaranteed
pieces probably
volume
NEW
CLASSICAL FRAGMENTS
by the dialect have

come from the same
they are
much broken and
as a rule
roll
been printed.
as 1604,
47
The non-Aeolic
and are reserved
for a future
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
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.
best piece
Alcaic
Fr.
is
Fr. 15, containing in the second
poem which
are sufficiently well preserved to be
gives a description of a natural scene
picture of cool water running
down from
(cf.
the
Ale. 84, 1233.
hills
3. 8 sqq.)
a pleasant
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
well recur in Fr.
40 consecutive
much
7.
lines, is in
many
The metre
Fr. 4, a long strip containing parts of as
places rubbed and difficult to decipher.
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.
of this
48
[
\\{
Fr. i.
.]Xe|ai>
.][
.][
],>
'
.]>[
....'..
8 letters
.
[
]'[
Fr.
Fr. 3.
2.
][
.
][
][[/)]]
]*
][.][
[.)[
]>)\[
] .
5 ]Xiv0paia^
[
].
'}'*[]
^/.
jcrerai
][
][
[.]
][
]
][
.
]d
[[
1[
1
j
Fr. 4.
].,[
]7?[
]([
NEW
1788.
Fr.
CLASSICAL FRAGMENTS
49
i.
] [ [
\\
[)
[]
([
[
?
[.
e[
]
]
(]*
[.......
[
8 letters
]'[
Fr. 2.
')
[
S
][
r
re
Jt
][
][
*
]aerat
].
/1
\
]
Fr. 3.
yay
(?)
ykvi]ov
[>
]
.
)[
Fr. 4.
]ray
[[
e]Xvdepais a t
]'
[.][
](
?)
YwatKo(s)
cire[l]
[
-
5o
][.
'\<
]'[
.][
]0"[
]
.
.]eo[.
[.
pj ....
.
r[.
][.]
]
7]7
.[
7*[
.]
*?
][
]
[.]^[
15
VL(uKpp[
\][]
[
.
']"[].
.[
]/7^[
'[
][
20
]:'[
.
]'
].[.)'
25
[.]
]\][
] ['][
]
LcrrovTOVKOiSevAvoLij^
][.
.]>[
[
]/[
]\/[
35
']>>
'[.
.]e5[
Fr. 5
]ep<.y[
W^xrt-M
].[]/[
NEW
CLASSICAL FRAGMENTS
][](\[
1788.
'
]Sa[.
.]ey
']\.
]
.]eo[.
]?'
at
a]ty
[[
[
}'
]
.
[.]
kv
] .
.] .
[.
] [[
]?
15
['M.]at<T
ay
o[.]ei>
*>
]y
'
'
707[
\ , />[
]
ty
[] ' 6
'
]
25
]
.
ty
][.
[.]
.
'\
,]
rev
];
]
[[
.
[
.
[]
[
{>
}>[.]
([
'
}epcu,
]
'
35
b\
.
30
[
.
,[
aX[o]y k
'
roty
]5oty,
[.
Fr. 5
.><$[
][
].
.[.].
]\. .]
[,][
^}
52
40
Fr. 6.
]
][].
]$[.][
]<[
']
3
'
}.[..
]
[]
}Sta
.}ac[
]-[
)[
].
68[
]<*4
][
]&"?[
}[
']t\oy[
][
>[
"\{
]cuuS[
Fr. 8.
]*[.]
]
,]
]<[
][
10
Fr. 7.
Vt
]('[.
]{
[
.
}>/[
][
Fr. 9.
][
][
\6[
15
]^
Fr. 10.
Fr. 12.
Fr. 11.
Col.
)6[
]/ZJ>Oi
][
][
]
][
]'$([
][
<
]<^
-[
.
]>
][
.?^*
]6
][
Col.
i.
[
[.
.][
'[
].
ii.
76/ [
.
/[
1788.
NEW
CLASSICAL FRAGMENTS
]/[.][
.
40
Fr. 6.
.][
[
.
]
.
[
.
']
']i\ov
].
]4
[
.
2[
Fr. 9
c]/c
][
^
]
\[
7[
Fr. 13.
Fr. 11.
Fr. 10.
Col.
[
[
'
]*
][
Col.
i.
]/{
&><$[
][
}[
][
]
]
3apie[
/0 1//[
]>'
][
]
] [
ojrny 5e
[
[
<5[
15
[
]
[][
Fr. 8.
>
.
Wpp
][]
[1
[.
][
']
"F^X 09 *
[. ,]
Fr. 7.
3#>[.][
5
aippav[
5 ]epa[
53
3?
]/
]tis
'^W
'
[.
[
.
[
ol ir[
.
[.
][
.3
t[
.}[
aye
tas
ai
a[
//
#17
/>
vo
5
/
ftp
ii.
t7T
/i
r
[
54
Fr. 13.
]
][
Fr. 14.
]voua[
][
][
Fr. 15.
Col.
Plate
i.
II.
]
]
]
]
]
]<
]vieiv
'
]\<.'
]
5
3
3
]'
)[.]
]
3
]70[
][
[
[
NEW
1788.
CLASSICAL FRAGMENTS
]
][
'
]$
~tyovo\
a[
Je
'[
Fr. 14.
Fr. 13.
]
.
Col.
Fr. 15.
][
i.
5
]*3
] ]S
]
]
()
]
]
(
]
()
Ai5u(p.os).
.
() (
]
15
'
]
]
~\
()
]
is
[.]
20
][
55
).
56
Fr. 15
Col.
Plate
ii.
II.
^
[
6[
.
(
|,[
..-
=
-
>
'[
[
[.
7'[
.[
eTJ/[
'[
][
.]/[][
]Bevai>[
^^
[.][.][
[.][.
]>[
.]
'\^[
[']4[
'][']'[
Ka\oi>ya[
20
.]
?*
[.] .
25
?7fy>
><[.]i"oi/&
[.
.]'
.]'\([
.
by
1.
[]
[.
.]r
.]>>*[
.]>
]/)/)07'77[
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
-)
NEW
1788.
CLASSICAL FRAGMENTS
Col.
Fr. 15.
57
ii.
vr
7/[
i^[ef ?
[
6[
.
[][
'
[
?
[
is
\[
'
??
ey[.
}[
}
][.'][
]>['
\ [] [] [] [?,
[]
??
6[}?
[]
[.
[.
[.
./
][,]
.]
-,
[]?
'
(?),
[,
[.
yap
[
[
?
[]
?.
?
'
[
&
......[.]
[][
kX
[6<]?
25
[otf]
[.
[.
2.
3.
4.
The
first
\]
is
[\]>
roi
[] (([
.>[>
.
.]
[.
[.
.][
]
, though rubbed, is practically certain.

being a narrow letter. .
perhaps not too much for the lacuna,
.]av
of length on av
mark
the
by
shown
fem.,
as
plur.
is gen.
,
'.
in
I.
5 was
58
()
^ ^'
(cf.
1.
here is close to that of Sapph. 4

(
but the present passage can hardly have been
The language
another word of the same kind.

6)
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.
i.i.
[](.
Fr.
2.
Not
7.
(cf.
1233.
1.
8).
ii.
[,
The
correction of
to yas may be by the original hand.
be interpreted is open to doubt, but yas is in keeping with
8.
of yanjov
9.
How
27 [^]Xe(?),
the letters should
]5
and
is
unknown.
not very satisfactory, but an alternative that will suit the context
is
is
not
easy to find.
10.
new poem
with a change of metre apparently begins here.
Fr. 3. This fragment is very similar in appearance to Fr. 2, and at first sight a 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
probable reading than
same column.
<{\
The two
).
fragments may, however, well have belonged
to the
'
3. e. g.
Fr. 4.
[\
[.
The second of koXokvvtcus has apparently been converted from

The supposed interlinear
might possibly be a rather large
6.
7.
preceding vestige would remain unaccounted
To
8.
which
v.
circumflex, but the
for.
the right of the cancelled

on the edge of a hole in the papyrus
a vestige of an interlinear letter, or of an apostrophe.
is
a spot of ink
may be
17.
A vestige
19.
]?
]e is
-*,
20.
'
above
is doubtfully interpreted as a circumflex.
rather suggested by the remains, but seems excluded
are possibilities, neither very satisfactory.
by the metre.
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.
[
A
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.
yivt[ is
Fr. 5. The appearance of

to which Fr. 4 belonged.
this
is
fragment suggests that
unexplained
it
is
possibly
it
was
from the bottom of the
column
v[
4.
owing
is
to the
6.
Cf. Fr. 4. 22, n.
Fr.
4.
13.
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.
3.
The
[:
:
but
[]
accent on a
is
doubtful
or ]*r.
cf.
1233.
hardly
i.ii. 12.
fills
it
the lacuna.
might be
e. g.
mark of
length.
NEW
1788.
Pr.
8.
4. Karaypet recurs at the
7.
a correction from
is
Pr. 9. That
Pr.
11.
may
selides,
vertical
fragment
end of a
is
line in
is
is right,
If
t.
Aeolic
is
59
1233. 11. 9; cf. Sapph. 43.

presumably the possessive pronoun.
shown by
the accent in
1.
2.
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.
Pr. 12.
11.
this
CLASSICAL FRAGMENTS
ii.
There
3.
The supposed
is
no paragraphus below
coronis
is
stroke immediately in front of
Pr. 13
this line.
uncertain, being represented

1.
is
included here on account of
i.
4.
its
similarity to Fr.
]epeav
or perhaps
14,
which
is
apparently
Aeolic.
Pr. 15.
only by part of a thin
10.
]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,
10.
ii.
1231.
1.
Didymus
to have written a
#[
here provides a parallel for Powell's admissible suggestion
18.
The
in
[.
The letter following }v may well be o.

accent on a might be taken for a mark of short quantity.
14. ey[: or
oleic c 01
known
'
i.
13. it: or f
16.
is
!-[.
is
possible
v|
person,
cf. 1360. 1. 9, where h is better taken as 3rd
For the (Doric) form ?js for
106,
Sapph.
in
is
read
which
recognized;
to
be
probably
ijs
is
and 1231. 55. 4, where
apparently
may now well be emended. The following word as originally written was
Uyp- is possible), which was amended in some way, perhaps by the substitution
but there has been no deletion.
of a[ep) or
] for at,
^ Halle
and the
14.
cf. e. g. Sapph. 1. 16
in
19. For the doubled
which
parenthetical,
evidently
is
* * Ap
1231. 13. 4 <Mw
fragment
to Eust. 28. 33.
according
form
Aeolic
the
being
(adv.),
written
first
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
addition is supposed.
interlinear
some
if
is possible,
18.
,/
but
conditions
may be part of the preceding letter.
taken for a high stop in front of
but what was intended is hardly determinable
corrected,
been
]v
has
after
letter
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
letter, which had
intervening
the
rightly
read,
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
this to .
converted
e
and
write
began
to
scribe
the
Perhaps then
and next
would be suitable enough. The first visible letter must be either , , , or
else.
anything
than
better
a
of
upper
part
the
suit
remains
slight
the
to this
[}
6o
would
,
.,
sufficiently satisfy the conditions, if that
naturally suggests itself but
is difficult in
be restored on the analogy of 1234.
word seems superfluous
2.
i.
word were
ii.
likely.
Possibly
the context.
7 ovirponc.
.],
8[]
8[] may
The
For
8po<r[oi\<rt
[.
or
high stop after this
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
*'[(
( -,
25.
in
for the correction tpoiye ytvtaBai
26. ]r; or y
27. e. g.
([, ([.
28.
[8]
is
perhaps not too
much
for the lacuna
when allowance
is
made
for the
slope of the column.
1789.
Fr.
ALCAEUS.
11-7
15*2 cm.
Plate III
First century.
(Frs. 1-3, Col.
The
i).
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 cona
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
tinuation in the following column,

tossed ship
is
carried
on
for a further
i.
1234.
2.
i.
6,
remains doubtful.
As
the text stands
its
chief point of interest lies
scheme, which seems clearly to be a stanza of four lines, the

three being lesser Asclepiads and the fourth a Glyconic.
This stanza was
in the metrical
first
used repeatedly by Horace
commonly been
(i.
credited with
6, 15, 24, 33,

its
ii.
12,
iii.
10, 16, iv. 5, 12)
invention, but his debt
That the similar stanza with a Pherecratic
now becomes
for the third verse (e. g.
who has
evident.
Horace
i.
5,
NEW
1789.
14, &c.)
in 1234. 2.
From
i.
which
is
the remaining fragments not
in Alcaics,
a mention of the Pelasgi
The
to be other historical references.

is
indicated
by the occurrence
Myrsilus in a marginal note.

Frs. 24
61
was borrowed from Alcaeus had already been suspected on the ground
another (previously unknown) form of Asclepiad stanza is exemplified
of Ale. 43
Fr. 6,
CLASSICAL FRAGMENTS
and
25.
Fr. 13
of the
much can be
is
noticeable,
extracted.
same metre,
character of Fr. 12, in the
word
as well as
by a
reference to
Alcaics are perhaps also to be recognized
may be
in
In
and there seem
in
the Sapphic stanza, and Fr. 29 possibly in
Asclepiads.
The round
upright script of this text
is
rather smaller and less ornate, but
otherwise very similar to that of 1361 (Bacchylides, Scolia, Part XI, Plate
characteristic letters
e,
, and
being formed in just the same
the centre disconnected from the other strokes.
Of , which
way
3),
the
with a dot in
in the
Bacchylides
has a vertical bar joining the horizontal strokes in the centre, there
is
here no
example, but a similar archaic formation is presumable. 1361 was referred to

the first century, a date which finds some confirmatory evidence in the cursive
annotations of the present papyrus, which are not likely to be far removed in
time from the main text.
Apparently two secondary hands are to be disthe

and
interlinear
tinguished,
alternative readings, which are not infrequent,
may be due sometimes to one and sometimes the other. Stops in two positions
are used (a double dot, of uncertain meaning, is found in Fr. 1. i. 11), and marks
of elision and quantity are fairly plentiful. The diastole employed to divide
words, more usually (cf. e.g. 1787-8) inserted at the base of the letters, is
in this text placed like the sign of elision (e.g. Fr. 1. i. 6, 17), which it also
resembles in shape. A ligature below the line occurs once (Fr. 17). These
additions seem to be largely secondary
the paragraphia however, are most
;
probably original.
62
'
.][
Fr.
.]
Col.
i.
'
.]{.
Plate III.
i.
2 letters
]?
.][.}
.]/[.}[.]
, .
[]
jc ucii^cu,
]1
.][.]^<[.]//6
]<|;0[.
i]jtte[
]'''>[.
10
]77.
.~[[.
.
.]/)
.] 077
.]eiKva[.
]&*
[
[
'[
'[
Fr.
Col.
..
?7
'[
>[
.)
Fr.
[.
2.
.
|
[
Fr. 3.
]'
.]{
.
77
[. .]
.]///[.]6[
15
]>[
.] .
.]
.]:7[.] /
.
Col.
i.
NEW
1789.
CLASSICAL FRAGMENTS
Fr.
Col.
1.
63
i.
]......[
.
ev
?
.
pat?
t[
'^XJJ'
\ .]\.]
] ' ([]
]
[.
\.6\
?
]?
.
?
]
.
]
].
]e*a
Fr. 2.
[.
[][ ')
Fr. 3
[
\?
'
']
7r]e
to*
' ?[[?
Fr.
Col.
ii.
> [>.
/ ?
? "
],
[ ]
](
[]
[.]
15
]t
[]?
[][$
[.
os
atlKea.
] rt [ y ]
12 letters
yap
[.
Col.
).
[
[
>[
64
[.][
&[
Fr. 5.
Fr. 4
>0[
<n/ce[
15
]ort[
.
Fr. 3
Col.
. [
Fr. 7
Fr. 6.
]
}'[
ye[
\
.
;;
}
].[..]'.
[
a-iroXc\ei|x[
]^/'7[
][
]
1
]/^0/?[
]';
Fr. 8.
][
.
][
]e7ror
?/[
[>
Weî
5
];//
]/
*[
NEW
1789.
?'
\['
[.
?]
eovre[s
65
Fr. 4
Fr. 5
raZ[y
15
CLASSICAL FRAGMENTS
] re L
]{
[].[
Fr. 3.
Col.
ii.
Fr. 6.
ye[
Fr. 7.
]
'
]
]
]e
10
&-
[[
6[
.
[
'
~\
"
\'
ein.]Ta5t>s.
].[..]...
Fr.
'
8.
]e
](-
[,]
]
].
}ayjrT
(
japof
.[
66
Fr.
][
][
]'[
.
Fr. 13.
[
][
]
Fr. 14.
Fr. 15.
]-
][
][
Fr. 16.
Fr. 17.
][
]
][
]([
][
.
][
}[
][
]
][
oaove[
][
][
Fr. 12.
3?
Fr. 11.
Fr. 10.
9.
]>>[
[]|*
Fr. 18
].....[.]...[
]
Fr. 19.
Fr. 20.
Fr. 21.
3"
]
]'
([
~\(\
?[
Fr. 22.
][
]-/[
][
JTra/o/iei'f
][
Fr. 23.
] . .
'][
.[
NEW
1789.
Fr. 9.
Fr. 10.
][
Se
]v
) ? ([[
[]
^
[
Fr. 15.
Fr. 14.
}[
][
}.[
)]. [
]
]y
Fr. 13.
] /[
][
'
3[
Fr. 11.
"1
Fr. 12.
]'
]<57>
CLASSICAL FRAGMENTS
Fr. 17.
Fr. 16.
][
[.]
]
]
[.]
8c
.[
Fr.
..
8.
Fr. 19.
]>
Fr. 20.
.
|
ats'
Fr. 23.
Fr. 22.
][
]
]
3
Fr. 21.
][
[[
3*
F 2
[?
>
68
Fr. 24.
]>*'>[
]'[
[
]
][
][
]8[
]76
5
>'[
Fr. 28.
[
[
*&[
KM
Fr. 31.
][
>'
][
Ka li
]aj/5/p[
]5[
Fr. 32.
Wif
.
Fr. 30.
[
][
]/'[
]
Fr. 29
]
][
]aperecr[
][
"
]'
]o/xat[
'
Fr. 27.
Fr. 26.
Fr. 25.
][
3^/4
]<[
]
]/<5
]^
eya)j/[
Fr 33
][
Fr/ 34
][
]aiKoucr[
Fr. 3 5
Fr. 36.
]e/>a>
]*[
Fr. 38.
Fr. 37.
][
Fr. 39.
Fr. 40.
][
Fr. 41.
1789.
'
NEW
Fr. 24.
V
]
Fr. 25.
]
][
][
!>[
CLASSICAL FRAGMENTS
Fr. 27.
)[
]
][
Fr. 26.
].
][
rro[
69
){
.
>
] [
Fr. 29.
Fr. 28.
?
]/
[
[
/cat
"
]]
]et
}[
?
Fr. 32.
Fr. 31.
Fr. 30.
Fr. 36.
Fr. 34.
[
.
Fr. 37-
Fr. 38.
].[
]
Fr. 39
Fr- 33-
]
]
/*]{'6'[1'
ev
]epco
]e/ooi
][
Fr. 35-
]e
]7/[
?[
aV<5/)[
Fr. 40.
][
Fr. 41.
7o
W4%
'
>
]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
The
mentioned.
3.
]vev
note
may have been
or perhaps
continued in a second
line.
vev.
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
4.
The
may be
The
letter after
cross-bar of the
would
either
be.
5.
](,
uWVto,
not return
(([]
for
evil
](?
good';
For
([]
cf.
1788.
the diastole was wrongly placed.

in Ale. 46.
5.
ii.
The
'let them
25, n.
interlinear variant
:
Supports the form

the lacuna is due to the hand which wrote
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
6.
after
[)([
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.
perhaps not absolutely
essential,
and
between
In
is desirable, though
or
can be read.
which either
possibly a stop, such double dots
1.
11 a letter
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
Earlier in the line the
\&
NEW
1789.
CLASSICAL FRAGMENTS
][
71
1r*i
1
]
*.'.
4
,
,-
or
e]îjt
]>; would suit the vestiges.
, ; and
15-18 = Ale.
The
uncertain.
The
'
which
may be , , ,
first letter
are equally possible.

19, from Heraclid. Alkg. Homer. 5
the end of
MSS. of Heraclides give
or
or
'
How
be
1.
'
(SC.
5 should be restored
or (AB)
has been conjectured by Seidler,
)
,
, the second,
-ei
is
still
for
by Bergk,
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.
Hermann,
'
\ ,
is
[,
quite uncertain.
1.
ii.
(),
Perhaps
as
Murray
suggests, but the object
may have
stood in the
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
line
(
4.
may
The
and
this
may
or
v.
be suggested.
seems preferable
1.
alternatively
[ [
is
e. g.
latter
words.
is
highly conjectural
or
8.
'.
cf.
1234.
(([
e. g.
4[
',
;
the clause
as
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.
analogous to
contrast between
than
be regarded as giving the reason for the warning,
Lobel suggests.
5.
to
2.
ii.
on
12
Zovtcs eV
But
maybe
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
23.
The
or
Cf. n.
1.
2.
he proceeds with the column, the movement
es
is
elsewhere only gradual
horizontal stroke projects considerably too far for his usual paragraphus.
hand the supposed figure is closer to the column than would be expected.
Frs. 4-5. These two small fragments were found,
like Fr. 2,
moreover, the
On
the other
with the bulk of Fr.
1.
72
somewhat apart from the

to that
rest,
but
does not of course necessarily follow that they belong
it
column.
,
,
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.
'?
7.
The occurrence
here
of the Doric
strange,
is
as in the v.
1.,
was
1.
63
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
6.
8.
2.
followed by a vertical stroke consistent with
is
p.
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.
e. g.
Pr.
is
preceded and followed by the bases of
variously read.
3.
,, ,
e. g.
y]ap
]<'
or
small curved
vertical strokes
mark above
which can be
appears to be part of
the
a sign of elision.
Pr. 12.
6.
7.
o[
4.
or
.
e is
very doubtful
or
is
equally possible.
t[.
:
or
As
[.
the last letter
u, v,
or
is
probable.
This was no doubt the last verse of the column.

10-11, The ink here is much effaced.
8.
Pr. 13. This fragment

3.
Perhaps
Pr. 17.
\,
The
with
ligature
Fr. 19. That
this
[
may
below the
in the previous line

line
shows
v.
1.
but
that the letters
fragment belongs to 1789
Pr. 22. 2. For the

be y instead of .
well be from the top of a column.
is
is
possible.
belong to a compound word.
not certain.
removing the Aeolic form
cf.
Fr.
1. ii. 3,
n.
The
last letter
may
NEW
1789.
CLASSICAL FRAGMENTS.
Fr. 23. 3. If the dot was a high

by an unusually broad space.
Ft. 25.
6.
The mark
Fr. 26.
2.
The supposed
letter
after
stop, this line
may
stop
73
was separated from the preceding one
signify either elision or division of words.
is
uncertain and
is
perhaps the vestige of another
(?).
Fr. 28. This fragment from the bottom of a column does not come from Fr.
the appearance of Fr. 32
1.
ii,
and
is
also different.
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,
IS
7.
Fr. 31.
2.
Fr. 32.
a gloSS
The
3.
On
\(\.
interlinear
Fr. 33. 2. The dot

belong to an interlinear v.
part of a variant.
(?) is raised a little above the line,

instead of being a stop.
after
1.,
Fr. 40. This fragment

to be connected with Fr.
e is
1 2,
is
and might possibly
probably from the bottom of a column, but
is
apparently not
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.
The
. ]
variant
is
an interlinear
implies
v.
1.
in the text.
1790.
IBYCUS.
Height 20 cm.
First century b. c.
(Frs.
'2
+ 3,
Plate III
Col.
ii).
Remains of three consecutive columns from the end of a roll containing lyric
poetry in Doric dialect, with a few smaller pieces from a preceding column or
columns. The good-sized and ornate but rather crabbed uncials are of a decidedly
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
early type,
B. C.
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
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
argument
is
entirely suitable to Ibycus.
favour of the identification
in
among some
is
provided by the metre,
expected features the dactylic sequences frequent

fragments of both Ibycus and Stesichorus are prominent.
The
less
further
in
which
in the
extant
known fragments of the poet, apart from isolated words and

number a bare thirty, and the longest of them consists of but eleven
previously
references,
lines, so that
it
his,
is
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
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
other
fields.
of which the present
Strophe.
^î
>
, ",
Suidas, s.v.
says
fivei
fact
would
commentators,
v/
v^
eh
'.
"2. -qXOev,
ore
( .,
Maas (Pauly-Wissowa,
rod
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
this visit to Polycrates as uncertain,
main
,''
^
is
unconvincing.
NEW
1790.
CLASSICAL FRAGMENTS
Epode.
w w w w
ww
WW
\j
WW
__
WU WW WW
WW w w
WW
was maintained by Schneidewin
It
75
(Ibyci Reliqu. p. 78)
that Ibycus like
We
Stesichorus used lengthy strophes similar in compass to those of Pindar.
now
see that this
is
poems at any rate, if indeed of any and

Maas (Pauly-Wissowa, Realencycl.) is well
not true of all his
more cautious judgement of

justified.
Of the individual verses employed
the
fragments, scanty as they are.

repeatedly
cf.
Ibyc.
Ibyc. 26.
several have parallels in the existing
dactylic dimeter of the
see Ibyc. 1.5-6, 5. 1-2, 16. 4, and
1. 8, 9. 2, for
1,
The
Epode
cf.
Stesichorus
1-2, Ibyc. 15, 18, 27, Stesich. 10,
copyists.
(1.
which
1 8)
its
3,
and
(1.
Pindar.
Whether
is
47,
is
partly no doubt due to
Pap.) are
metrical
.,
apparently written, and
in
1.
41
is
more than a
No
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
vagary of the papyrus

In
appear also in
noteworthy.
is
,,
(1.
3,
shown by these fragments than by the extant remains of
is
Ibycus and Stesichorus, where the mixture of forms
tXtvaav
strophe occurs
For Strophe 1.
48, and for Ep.
Stesich. 48.
A purer dialect
Ionisms
2.
is
not clear.
(^,
and the Berlin fragments of Corinna
(Berl. Klassikertexte,
possible, but the present state of our
out with
much
confidence.
knowledge
V.
xiv).
The additional
same system
so far as
does not enable this to
be carried
accents supplied in the reconstructed text follow the
76
THE OXYRHYNCHUS
PAPYRI
}<
^
}.
Frs.
+ 2.
Col.
}
^&
][. }
.
]
10
i.
}^\.
^,[.]\^[
.]
]-oeeupai>S[.]aKvwpL8a'
]>[.
<8[
}(
}*<[
.]
]"Hr6vfi7rvXoioa\ooac[.
.]
}[
]< 4[
01
*>([
Frs -2+3peoaeof.
<rape[.
Col.
afanf.
*& .]^[.[.
"*[.]
.]6
i.
.]
.]!,
[.
.]
e&
'
*[
30
}^<<
*,[.
^70
.>
]
[Jr^wjffW
[]{.
,]
]0
/
NEW
1790.
4
5
4
5
CLASSICAL FRAGMENTS
Frs.
15
\y
[]
.[[]]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[],
[] []
[]
'
[]
[][]
[]
[
[,
\
[
[
[]
[]
[] '
'
[]
[]
[]
[]
'
[]
25
30 4
7.
i.
[].
[]
[]
[]
[]
[
[]
, []
'
\
[]
[]*
Col.
o]y
? ['
Frs. 2-3.
i.
[]
20
Col.
]
[]
[
[]
2
+ 2.
77
\6[]
[]
'
<5ie/>o[?]
[1][
[][, ] [].
}
.
.
78
.][.][
.]>[
[
)-
[.][.
[...].
[
35.
[.
][.
.
.]
.
][
]
.]
[]
.][
'[.]>
[.
Frs. 2
+ 3.
Col.
Plate III.
ii.
[.]
[.]
.\
8[.]>'
'(
45
.~\.\.'
" [.
^'
.]./[
5
.]
.]
.].
[.]([
[..].?[.]".
."."'
]T( a
"lata
Fr. 4
Col.
i.
Col.
Fr. 5.
ii.
[
4
[
[
[
!
[
[
[.][
\[
5 3*
[
5
Fr. 6.
NEW
1790.
yie]yay
/cai
....
....].
5
I
15
letters
16
15
14
,
?
'TXXiy
"Apyeos
]s
"IXlov
0(\9
+ 3.
Col.
'
[]
\\
'
.
?
, ()?, ?
/*ei>
/ecu
'
[]<5/
e/zoi'
is
oOs
.]
[]
?.
[]5
[....].
*?,
*[
)()
7.
aikv
tv
[?
[.
^$77
ipo[e]aaau
Tpcoes
2
][]
aVe0ô[r]
50
]?
Frs. 1
45
^4)(iXXei)y
40
79
\ \[
[]9
[]\
]
][]
[]
[.
]$.
35
CLASSICAL FRAGMENTS
.]
]
^-
is
[]*[]
Fr. 4.
Col.
Col.
i.
([
[]*[
[
[
[
Fr. 6.
Fr. 5.
ii.
[*k we
cua
5
aire
8o
]0L(T>
0/3[
ey[
]/[
i>guo[
[,][
Fr. 7.
Fr.
Fr. 9
8.
][
]8'ape[
][
][
]()[
Fr. 10.
][
]"-[
Fr. 11.
5
Fr. 12.
]yoa[
][
Fr.
Fr. 16.
]>[
][
[]
Fr. 15.
I'M
}[
5
Fr. 14.
1 3
][
]/?[
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
'
NEW
1790.
CLASSICAL FRAGMENTS
]ois.
][
}[
vato[
hi
ian[
[.][
Fr.
Fr.
7.
][
]
(] [
\KTV-
}?
]8'
][
npe[
apt[
.
[
Fr.
Fr. 9
8.
Fr.
]pia[
Fr.
Fr. ia.
Fr. 14.
1.3.
Fr. 15.
}[
]<[
][
<
]6[
][
y[
][
[
Fr. 16.
]
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
( 737),
332
14
(Murray)
[]?
.
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.
[^^
The
The
on
],
letters
separated from Fr.

10.
diaeresis
is
Alas
(cf. e. g.
362, 364), 47
/,'
'
5
evidently mistaken
and the vestige
]v,
at the
cf. 11.
18, 31, 44.
end of
1.
14 are in Fr.
2.
i,
which
is
by a short lacuna.
The term
11-12.
14-15.
[(\
Homer A
cf.
1.
yas
34
4 3)
[][]
]
applied to Paris in Eurip. Troad. 866.
is
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
seems
seems wanted here
.
, \,
to
any
in
so e.g. Bacchyl.
[
[]
case.
in Hesiod, Op. 658.

For
Cretan inscriptions, e.g. Collitz-Bechtel, Dialektinschr. 4998. 1. 9-10
18.
an epithet of
is
(<=[
.
cf.
.
in
[]
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
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
:
'].
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.
[>],
The end
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,
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
^/),
read
the plural, however,
[1?[
[\[.
|]-7[$,
;
30.
31.
33. [0'][(] or
(cf.
is less
the
natural.
Homeric
&c.)
suits the
space better than
] Housman.
[][]
is
unconvincing, though palaeographically possible
[fe]e
seems
NEW
1790.
objectionable
on account of
digamma;
1.
cf.
5.
CLASSICAL FRAGMENTS
83
unless this could be excused by
the hiatus,
the
original
],
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
by
522) suitable.
(cf.
by the
In
was
40
1.
originally written,
and was amended
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
44. Cf.
first
"
.
.
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
papyrus need not imply equivalence to

in spite of the intervening
which the poet desired
On
questionable.
).
to
On
this
may
be accounted for by the anastrophe,

of Polycrates would be the quality
commemorate, and
the whole, however,
.()
but
view the
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
it
of the original, which gives a satisfactory

other grounds plausible, to Ibycus.
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
[]$
()[)
.
(,
preceded
5i.
in
52. Possibly
Fr. 4.
8.
dirty
ey[
ii.
:
or
6.
some form seems
inevitable, but the termination is very doubtful.

but a longer word would account better for the vestiges.
is
possible.
r[.
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
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.
Fr.
7.
2.
Fr.
8.
3.
\ ]
4.
.,
The supposed
grave accent
is
possibly the second half of a circumflex.
Pindar, Paean.
1791.
9-9x4-1 cm.
Plate III.
First century.
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
No
recognizable.
is
much damaged and only
responsion can be traced between
11.
isolated
The
or other of these sections presumably belonged to the epode.
scheme, so
far as
it
can be followed,
is fairly
simple; in
words are
1-12 and 13-20, and one
11.
1-12 short
That
to preponderate, and several glyconic verses are included.
metrical
lines
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
rather
later
than
probably
1791.
however,
is
which,
II,
Plate
e. g. 270 (Part
8),
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.
*
.
[^\
[.)
yXvKetat 4ios
Se
(.
[
[
[]>[
NEW
1791.
tls
([
/ceot
15
<5e
12. Cf. Pausan.
av[
[] [
.
r\pov
85
re
.
>[
aeiSov
CLASSICAL FRAGMENTS
'
'
8ei>T(pa
e/c
de is
the papyrus strongly suggests
]ve\[
,-
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
In
1.
essential for the construction.
[(
,
.
(, ,
eneiSev 6
[:
eivai,
/, ?
is
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 lêpff to Schneidewin's l
the word does not occur elsewhere in Pindar.
in 1. 5
;
tus
jjaev
'
IOI2. Cf. Pausan. X.
5^
2 ^ P*l p ov ê
yap is
yrjs
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
or
In
1.
or
rather suggest
read.
may
([]
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
can be
-tat
The
-ev.
latter
seems the more
cf. 01. XIV. 1 9

of course be another adjective,
aykao6povois.
[{
likely here,
e. g.
whether written with a capital or not.

For
and Fr. 1 99
; but
?), for which cf. 01. xiii. 96
[-
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
14.
between
by itself.
is
and
, but
([
86
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.
8[
is
V.
or
32
which Occurs only here,

an epithet of ohos.
par on avian.
&c.
in
Pindar, Paean
1792.
Fr.
The
cf.
16-9
?.
13-7 cm.
Second century.
following fragments, of which only one, itself built up from several
smaller pieces,
is
at all substantial, are written in a good-sized, rather heavy,
semicursive hand which
may
be referred to the
first
half of the second century.
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.
[.
[.
[.
.]oiaiVvve[
.]6[
.](.6[
]ojo^[
][
[.]>[. .]$[
.}\.[
.]>./
.}<[
.'
6[.
[.
[.
[.
' "/
.]
NEW
1792.
That the author
vocabulary seem
CLASSICAL FRAGMENTS
Pindar
is
a remarkable coincidence with a Pindaric collocation, and
is
other linguistic parallels are pointed out in the notes

in Fr.
represented
not definitely ascertained, but style and
is
sufficiently characteristic to justify that ascription.
in Fr. 51
Boeotian
87
47
less certain
is still
the reference to the
The
also not without significance.
is
the passage in Fr.
class of
poem
describing the birth of the
twin offspring of Zeus and Leto would be appropriate in a Paean for the Delians,
in
As
by no means excluded.
but other categories are
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
verses in Fr.
the beginnings are preserved.
The scheme
2-20
of
11.
[.
...J-w-M|.
..
[.
.]**-[
as follows
is
</
]*[...
----[-}-^[-..
5
*j
w w w \j
I
W w
V^l
t\j
V_/
Iq
vy
v_/
*_/
V^
<_/
w^
v^/
20
[-]
Fr.
^^_
[.
yj
1.
]>
[ \
.
'. [
[.
.]
[Aejôy
<5*
ej/
i>e[
[]
[]
\Kv\v6lov
]^[
u4/3re/zi<5[
07[
Spin[.
.]
,]c.
/*
rota[t>r
5e
WW
v_-w
W^lw*
V^l_/
^/
t_;
V_^V_/
[]
v^<
<^l
V*>
<-<
o* w
\^
V_/
V./
IO
V^M
<j w w
U ^/W ^
V./W
W
w ww
^ W W <J ^ w ^
J
w
v_/v>
$[ep
]>
_U
#
[ ]
\J
lw<[W
v^>
\_/
'[
'\['.[
>
<>[.]
[.]\6.[.]([.][
[.
[.
[.
.]>
.]>
]*[.]
[]
]
.
,]]
Fr.
1[
Fr.
>
>
Fr. 4
][
}[
Fr. 10.
Fr. 8.
7.
?[
0[
#[
<[
Fr.
Fr. 6.
Fr. 9
Fr. 3.
2.
[
[
[
Fr. 11.
Fr. 12.
Fr. 13.
>7[
NEW
CLASSICAL FRAGMENTS
89
[
''
[[
,
[] [][] []
1792.
Kolov
'
[]
[.
.]
[]?
'
.[...]
'
[.]
(.
[
[
.
]
]
Fr.
1.
-)
op
Fr. 4.
Fr. 3.
2.
][
]][
[
)[
Fr. 5
Fr.
9.
Fr.
Fr. 6.
.[
[
.
8.
KOl[
[
[
Fr. 10.
Fr.
0[
^/0[/
Fr. 12.
Fr. 11.
oy
6T[
Fr. 13.
][
]6>[
]M
'
][
>
][
Fr. 17.
Fr. 16.
Fr. 15.
Fr. 14.
'
]\>[
][
][
]0[
][
]?[
Fr. 22.
]>ccu
].[
]f oi
\([
Fr. 21.
Fr. 20.
Fr. 19.
*[
][
Fr. 18.
][
Fr. 23.
]>[
]
xK
.
Fr. 24
Fr. 28.
]#
]/3/[
.
j/OOi'OOI'
Fr. 29.
]poi
Fr. 30.
]rtpt[
]/iaCTi/3[
]'[
]<5[
']
Fr. 27.
Fr. 26.
Fr. 25.
].["'
Fr. 31.
][
][
Fr. 32
][
NEW
1792.
CLASSICAL FRAGMENTS
]{
}?
v[
>'
]
]>[
Fr. 17.
Fr. 16.
Fr. 15.
Fr. 14.
[
.
[
][
]
][
~\[
][
][
]y
].o[
Fr. 23.
]^
]{
>xp[
;[
Fr. 22.
Fr. 21.
Fr. 20.
Fr.
]$
Fr. 19
9i
]lcli
]Xetap
][
Fr. 29.
]P0L
][
.
][
]$
Fr. 30.
Fr. 28.
)oPe[
S[
][
]/
Fr. 27.
Fr. 26.
Fr. 25.
Fr. 24.
][
Fr. 31.
][
Fr. 32.
]ta
]repi{
1
]av
7Tt[
92
][
5
Fr. 34.
ft. 33
][
]
.
][
]?/?[
.
]ayo[
}
][
]/'[
Fr. 36.
).
[
[
];
ft 35-
][
][
][
epi[
\[
5
ev6[
]0>[
].[
.
Fr. 39
Fr. 38.
Fr. 37.
Fr. 40.
][
])7[
]\
]^'[
[
]60[
]#
)[
]'
][
]][
]
]a7Tie/Ji5ea[
]>>[
]/3[
.
][
]/[
5
>'[
]
]
]*[
Fr. 41.
]eipaveK
10]. '[.].. [.].[
][
Fr. 42.
Fr. 43
]y a />[
][
]ef0yoa)i/yap[
Fr. 44-
]?
Fr. 45
NEW CLASSICAL FRAGMENTS
1792.
93
][
].
5 ]vap[
Fr
]ov
~\[
]]
Fr. 3 6.
].
Fr. 35-
ipi[
yov[
][
Fr. 38.
][
]re
>[
[
[
Fr. 37.
]>[
re
5
.
]>
][
#e[
Fr. 41
]eipai>eK
10 ].[.].
[.]
[
.
Fr. 42.
Fr. 43.
][
]uaroL
]..[
rep[
Fr. 40.
][
][
[
]
]^[
Fr. 39
]\
tol
]' [
6[
]rev8[
[
[
r[
]eiv
][
Fr. 34.
33
Fr. 44-
]<r
Fr. 45
94
3??y
][
>[
}*[
][
Fr. 47.
Fr. 48.
}[
]</3#1/7[
][
][
][
}[
][
]e0i/oaa<5["
Fr. 46.
]o)ao//ei/y[
]*[
e
Bi[
][
Fr. 49
e<rai>[
]/(5[
]/^[
][
L
[
3r?
]*[
?[
Fr. 50.
00
0
][
Fr. 51.
]/3
Fr. 52.
./.[][
Fr. 53
3f-[
]//0?[
][
)[
'
}yyov[
Fr. 54
]are0[
Fr. DO-
Fr. 5 6.
]/[
][
Fr. 57
lai'af
]ava[
]re<5e[
Fr. 59.
Fr. 60.
Fr. 61.
Fr. 62.
]vev6a[
]vai[
]0Oi[
]l/Of[
]oi/ayu[
]i>7re0[
]?[
Fr. 64.
Fr. 6 5
)oe6[
3M
Fr. 58.
3rt
Fr. 66.
3"
Fr. 63.
3$
][
Fr.
][
6.
CLASSICAL FRAGMENTS
NEW
1792.
]5
][
][
}[
][
][
3-1
]'
-1
Fr. 52.
.[]
)[
.
]/3
][
].[
Fr. S3-
][
Fr. 54.
Fr. 5 6
Fr. 55-
Fr. 57
][
][
][
Fr. 59
Fr. 60.
Fr. 61.
Fr. 62.
][
][
]0[
Fr. 58.
][
]/[
\\
Fr. 51.
P't
00o]yyoy
<
Fr. 50.
]vev
'[
><*/>[
Fr. 49
Fr. 48.
Fr. 47
Fr. 46.
95
Fr. 63.
][
70[
Fr. 64.
Fr. 65.
Fn
66
Fr. 67.
}[
]/XVaVL
][
)[
][
][
Ft. 1. 2. eV
3. Perhaps
eWe[a,
4-5. If the subject
10
in
with
01.
is
.?
single broad letter,
singular,
But the verb
i.
1920
is an adjective
preceding
The remains of the
is not clear.
5-17.
'
]toov[
. {,[) ,. (,
ve[
[], but a
]Tf(TTOy[
]>60[
][
][
viii.
}?
Fr. 68.
][
][
][
][.][
5
in
.
[],
e.
g.
might
or
1.
may
the initial lacuna.
fill
-7[*] seems
cf. Nem.
combined
Whether the word
.,
" a Substantive
first letter
and also brought from Naxos
and
are slight,
likely
which
be
or
(?),
also possible.
is
sheep for
sacrifices of fat
is
the Graces to
all
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.
12.
13.
Asteria).
14.
awkward
at the
For
The
v.
1.
9, is
01. vi.
1.
does not
is
vi.
43-4
(y*
467).
line occurs also

eparas.
43
commend
inversion and the corruption
Homeric
beginning of a
cf.
without a verb.
in
like
15. Cf. e.g. 01.

.
on 1091.
is
'
itself,
in
841.
.
19.
is
hardly surprising, though
e's
22 (meaning
Nem.
i.
it
-a rather
leaves
35 6
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
'
Raised cries of joy'

though it is
inevitable,
is
[]
difficult to
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
satisfactorily
a vertical
19.
first
stroke.
Perhaps
[].
"
),
NEW
1792.
?
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.
Prs. 2-4. That these three small pieces are from the bottom of Fr.
1 is strongly
suggested by their similar appearance, and this position is practically assured for Fr. 4b}'
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.
The
probable but not certain.
Fr.
5.
Fr.
. . [, [ would be
1.
diple is
suitable.
[] []
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.
2.
this
(cf. 01. vii.
and
may be
ov
may be
the end of
quite fortuitous
and
2.
1.
In
e. g.
1.
2 here the
i6p]tyaro
is
an
51) would be suitable.
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.
Frs.
Fr. 31.
4.
Perhaps
Fr. 32.
8.
The
Fr. 35.
3.
Fr. 36.
3.
The
]ov Aio[s
fourth letter
overwritten
8. e]/i/ieXf[,
?]6[
Fr. 41.
e. g.
but the
may
strophic division
Fr. 38. This fragment
is
is
good
]/
can be variously interpreted.

or
denoted by the paragraphus below
may be due
letters
also be
to the
first
this line.
hand.
deal rubbed, as are also Frs. 39, 41, 43.
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.
in Fr. 47,
98
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.
1.
is
][
,
51. 3.
but
The
Fr. 52.
2.
1361.
is
i.
1-2 >
[]
in the following line;
of course possible.
coincidence with 01.
The
]
,
or ]aept[ could be read.

rather suggested by
ai]6tpi[
first letter is
iii.
26 Aarovs
probably
, ,
01.
i.
17
was observed by Lobel.
or
Fr. 55. 2. The supposed mark of quantity

a breathing or a vestige of an interlinear letter.
cf.
is
may
may be .
very doubtful, and
The second
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
Height 10 cm.
first
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
),
,
.
irpbs
'
Kaaavbpov
6
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,
was
Sosibius
is
not
vii. 2, 7, viii. J-5, ix. 4-7, x. 1.
Who
agreed.
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).
Scheer)
The
identification
convenient edition of the
new fragments
is
now
available in Lietzmann's Kleine Texte, 145.
NEW
1793-
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
iv.
poem seemed
'
'
to
whom
Callimachus wrote an
to differentiate that Sosibius from his
homonym
whom
/cos or
Athenaeus elsewhere (iii. 78 c, xi. 493 e) speaks of as
with
regard
to
the second it
(though
enough
For these reasons, which are plausible
grammarian
same
probably
the
may be noted in xv. 690 e Athenaeus mentions
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
quite problematical;
and the
of Philopator
\j/evb
has been suggested that they were father and son,
it
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
case,
if,
to Corinth in
vi.
46.
Zbvov
new
re
Hecker's conjecture that Callim. Fr. 193
was the exordium of this poem is thus consistent with the
evidence, but remains very uncertain.
As now
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
which the
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

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
cited from Callimachus
to the
poem on
attribution,
the
drew attention to the fragment, on the ground that the version of

Schneider evaded the objection by
no corresponding phrase.
shows
Catullus
for
and was simplified
periphrasis
a
that
was
the argument
where
the
passage
is quoted).
iii.
cf. n. on
2,
by Catullus to mihi j(l. 83
what
remains
of
the context of
Unfortunately Col. iii is badly mutilated, and
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
who
first
-,
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
least,
Col.
3
i.
&>*
......[
]
]]
Col.
]r R y
[.]
>
41
....[.
[.}.
'
iii.
.[...]
...
ii.
.[...].. tyar
Col.
Ktt .
[>
[.
.]e
[.
[.]
,][
,]
...[....]
NEW
1793.
queen and her

hypothesis the
Such
father.
roll
CLASSICAL FRAGMENTS
On that
confined to this particular poem, which would
irrelevances are natural in a court poet.
may have been
have extended to some two hundred
The
text
lines or
more.
written in medium-sized -upright uncials,
is
laborious, but not regular
or
The
well-formed.
scribe
somewhat ornate and

was evidently a bad
copyist (see below) and possibly also had difficulties with his archetype
this
was considerably older
that
by an apparent tendency to
viii. 2 and the varying formation
rather suggested
is
archaism, for example, the linking of
to
in
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
ruptions in lines previously extant
combined with the
inaccuracy
(cf.
demonstrated by the corThis textual inferiority
is
1, ix. 7).
viii.
disjointed character of the fragments adds materially to the
difficulty of interpretation.
Col.
i.
Col.
...
]
...
/a?
[.]
]
]
....[....]..[
Col.
]
[>
ii.
.[...]..
[]
.[....].
[.]
iii.
[.]
.>
[. .>
...[....]
.
[.
I02
Col.
}\\{>
.
]//[.
.]
8[
[][
ey\
>
.]8[.]
.]]
[.
...[...
,]
'
[.]
ref
*?
~\vvvaveTL
][.
.][
.]
]@
to
Col.
1.
6?
vi.
''']
.
.^[[]]"77
aevavXovtyti'
\[^4^^.
,<.\. [.]
[.]
.][. .]
.[...].
[.
.] .[]..
Col.
.
Fr.
[.]
]\
,[
.][
[.
."..
[
[.
[.][
iv.
[-]yoi/[.
\[
NEW
1793.
\
]
CLASSICAL FRAGMENTS
Col.
,.
[]
] [.
[.
,]
[]
[.
.] act
[.]
[.
'
with Fr.
]
.
[.]
]
,,
[? ]
[.
.]
.
]
()
,[], [[]
2][\
[]
[][]\]
[
[.
[...]...[
[]] [],
7[
.
'
[]
.][
Col. vi.
...[..
kv
6\.]
[\
eipiTiat.
.]
Col.
[
iv.
103
[?
[ ....]..
9*
Io 4
>\
Col.
vii.
<./>
.
/
[.}
[.
.][.
]/)[
?{
Col.
]^[.
][
.]
.
.]<;
8 letters
viii.
[. .][. .}<[.
[.
.],[
][
.]
]0*[
(>
Col. ix.
>>
>[. .)<[. .]
[.
.]
a>KKf[
23 letters
]^
<?
NEW
1793.
CLASSICAL FRAGMENTS
Col.
{)
5
^
[.
(),
[)]
.
vii.
Kt
?)
['
re
(),
[.
(?)
.][.
][.
?
??, ?
'
.
,,[]
[
[[
.]
.]
? ]
]
viii.
()?'
%.
.]
1 8 letters
or
hpbv
Col.
[,
io=
}.
[],
,[.
.]
? ?' ?,?
? .
()( .
Col. ix.
kv
?
5
?)
\?
()[? ]
[
[..].
23 letters
? ]
}[
[]?
io6
>((>
/6}/
Col. x.
([.]
/>[.]
.
[.
fit-
.]
.][.][.] [.
.
] ?w[
Ka7T i
e(V
tf otters
]r
Fragments.
2.
4.
]<
]y*[
]>6
*
poeei/r[
]7?[
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.
letters
further letters followed.
Col. in.
The fragment
The
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
position of this
itself
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)
quom iunxit lumine iaeda,

non prius unanimis corpora coniugibus
nunc, vos optato
nudantes reiecia veste papillas,

libet onyx,
vesler onyx, casto colitis quae iura cubili.
tradiie,
quam iucunda mihi munera
prius
quam mihi
is
regarded as a translation of
If that is correct,
it
seems
NEW
1793.
CLASSICAL FRAGMENTS
107
,^.
,
'\\ .
?,]
[
Col. x.
k<p'
()
(?}
\]
[]
*-[.
\ ' {<],
.]{]
in
[*0}'
[.
.]
35
letters
Fragments.
]}{
3.
2.
was included
strange that
.[
5-
/36e?
in the citation, in which, as
it
3"1
stands, the natural sense of
npw
rather quondam.
is
4.
The
may be
doubtful
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
hopeful.
not
is
emendation
state
present
in its
in place of
or
(accus.i).
the vocative has been substituted for some other case
4.
and
its
position
is
V W
.
W ^^,
Col. v. This column, like the two preceding,
^7 The original omission of this line, the
is
partly deciphered
place of which
from impressions on
marked by
is
the
&m
at the
began with the same word.

end of 1. 1,
which become smaller
size
reduced
of
letters
The loss was supplied by the original scribe in
there only remains an
which
of
part,
latter
the
and
proceeds,
he
as
and more cursive
n* *> which is suggested by 1. 3, seems unobtainable.
decipher,
was evidently due to the circumstance that
impression,
is difficult
to
11.
and
io8
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
assigned to
][
6,
1.
where
it
seems
suitable.
The
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.
"
'
.
1.
yaijj),
:
/
but the word
'
on
in
4.
1.
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
2.
[]
[]
[
:
so that
e. g.
is
excluded.
{)\
[177
dot slightly above the second

a diaeresis than a high stop.
8.
(?),
or sim.)
(sc.
restored from Schol. Lycophr. Alex. 522 (Scheer)
,]
unless accidental,
is
maybe
ev
more
suitably
fj
likely to represent
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
by Housman of
3~4. For
77()
cf.
means
e. g.
'
'.
Callim.
H.
Del.
168
'
Probably
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

'
'
Melicertes, in
'
1793.
NEW
CLASSICAL FRAGMENTS
109
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.
'
:,' ,:'
Col. viii.
gives
Callim. Fr. 122, from Schol. Pindar,
:,
., with
em. x. 64
i.
instead of which the papyrus mistakenly
end of the second line.

Schneider proposed to assign
Bergk was no happier in suggesting that the source was the
,, '
i. e. probably the daughter of Creon

and wife of Jason, from
spring near Corinth on the road to Sicyon : above it was
3.
named a
Pausan.
3. 6.
ii.
.).
:\
at the
fragment to Aet.
":
this
whom was
cf.
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
:
.,
.
]
:
5.
6.
y.
8.
'
the verb occurs only here.
[(] was suggested by Lobel [ much more probable than [.

does not scan, and the right emendation
not obvious.
] ] or are possible alternatives.
:
: .::
:
:
:
,
:
} ::: ,: : ,:
is
is
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.
:),
fW
'
:
.
:
was not
3.
far
from Nemea.
to
is
evidently an error for
is
also plausible,
are
commonly
called
(sc.
became
but the point in the present passage is not very clear.

near Mycenae, which had ancient statues of the
in its
:
who
though for
or -ov
.
The
may
(Pausan.
ii.
1 7.
be that
4)
and
Lobel's suggested correction of

cf. Callim. Fr. 310
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.
Greece and
in
::
:,
:\
,
.
no
(\
toxjs
a\as
does not exclude a poem, but that the present passage
As Schneider remarks,
the source of the citation
is
is
unlikely.
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
equally well be
Col. x.
is
first
was probably y, , or , and the doubtful
At the end of the line
is not excluded.
before the
o.
cm
2.
clearly corrupt,
and
after
probably an inadvertent anticipation of

which was suggested by both Murray and Lobel, or
after eiSora,
easy alteration.
may
is
an
&
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
7.
The
alternative,
restoration
i.
e.
^]
][]
[],
may be .
3.
2.
The
Fr. 4.
1.
The supposed
Fr.
by what looks
like
grave accent on
or
is
has apparently been cancelled.,
strangely formed, rather like a figure
8.
1794.
Poem
in
This papyrus contains on the recto the ends and beginnings of
columns from an annotated
][.
[.
TOvSeye[.]ey
]([.][.]
.]([
.]
.[.]...
[.]
]]>
].]
]
.]
[.][.]''
.
[][][
)[.
[.
,]]
[.)[.][.
.
[. .^^. .~
.
.]\[.}
[.]>
of two
drawn up
lines
of property-holders,
][. .]
[.]([
.
list
The Oxyrhynchite
perhaps early in the second century.
preceded
Hexameters.
19x12-9 cm.
partially effaced
It is
village
KepKt(vpa)
NEW
1794.
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
of the lines.
circumflex accent
is
once written
other diacritical marks occur except the diaeresis on
author remain unidentified.
woman
to a youth,
whom
The column
she addresses as
of fortune and explains that though
is
8),
(1.
t
left
the
commencement
but apart from this no
and
The poem and
v.
its
occupied by a speech of an elderly
re/cos.
now poor
She
dilates
on the fickleness
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
as the cause of the speaker's misfortunes
rjb'
recalls the story of
Erysichthon as told by Callimachus
in
H. Dem.
31 sqq.
in
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:
1.
but this
may be
a coincidence.
[, ]$, [, ]
.
[][
ol
[.
......
.][.
[]
]
[] []
.]
.[.]...
[]
Ace
]
[,
[][] ?? .
yc[.]i>
.[.......].
,
[]
.[.....
ev
'
[]?
[][][
, []
[]
[]
'
.]
-] []
[,
\[.\8
[.
.].
[.][.
.
[.
.]
[.][.]
.]
.]\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
seems required by the sense.

The restoration of ofpje'fyeti' '], for which
e. g. 7
could equally
well be read, but

3.
4. Kf
o-e.
possible in place of
is
5.
6.
or perhaps
If on- is rightly read there
though the
cf. 1.
16,
was suggested by Housman.
.
must be some
error,
is
an
alternative,
perhaps also
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.
;
3%
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
^(
would be
13.
and
eliminated by writing
14.
be read.
easy.
.
','
are apparently unattested.
[].
must be corrected
to
The
The
or
latter
is
can of course be
broken, but
cannot
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.
1 7
Cf.
9 The
'
'
NEW
1794.
[]
?,[]
[]
8(])
15
[]
'
eV
[]
CLASSICAL FRAGMENTS
7rep[/ar]/oe0erai
'
113
'
[]
eg
[]^ ,
?,
[],
\],
'
,
[] \
2
?
veibs
<5e
[3>]
' [? ]$
.
1795.
Col.
e[.
Acrostic Epigrams.
ii
22-3
7-8 cm.
First century.
Three fragments from two columns, one of which
is
( ),
practically complete,
containing epigrams of precisely the same kind as those in 15, and perhaps
belonging to the same collection.
which the
final foot is
Each epigram
and, as also in 15, each
is
hexameters in
consists of four
an iambus instead of a spondee or trochee

followed by the words avA(e)t
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.
,,
ii
including the letters
[]
to
while 15.
ii
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,
variety of topics without logical sequence.
others contain moral reflections or

in
maxims
the specimen previously discovered;
Some have
of conduct.
cf.
ii.
a hedonistic tendency,
Similar subjects occurred
12-15 with
15.
i.
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),
ii.
in 15 is probably to be regarded as two words, not one, was pointed oat by Wilamowitz,
Anz. 1898, p. 695.
That
Gott. gel.
ii4
more
to the larger and
irregular formation of Col.
If this indication
ii.
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.
mark
doubtful instance of a
quatrain
verso
an
is
made
is
of elision occurs in
by a couple of
to protrude
3.
ii.
The
letters into the left
first
line of
a partially obliterated account in second-century cursive.
each
On
margin.
There
is
the
also
which apparently has nothing to do with the

on the recto above Col. ii.
illegible half line in cursive,
literary text,
[[
Fr.
j
]v
~\
>
3
[
.
][
]
.
][
]?
.]
]
]
??
}[
[i]<5[[Yj]es
[]
[] []
[ []
[
Col.
'
Qavi.iv
2.
Fr.
1.
Col. i?
ii.
[]~
[] []
[]
[]
[]
NEW
1795.
CLASSICAL FRAGMENTS
115
\]
Trc^T^J]
[
1
[]
[]
()
[]
[]
[]
2
opa(iy
[]
[]
[]
25
() 7^5[[
{)
Fr.
1.
M er
'
[
\\\\
*.
], ].
6.
e. g.
g.
This quatrain evidently deals with old age and the approach of death
Fr.
2.
As
cf.
ii.
20-3.
probably from the top

was abnormally short, some
slated in the introduction, this fragment, like Fr.
1, is
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.
'
ii.
Try not
and
to injure,
if
you are
avoid discord, and you will have
injured,
little
do not retaliate ; shun murder, shun strife,

and moreover will not repent. Pipe me
trouble
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
'
a maid.
Pipe me a
Lydian
drum
my
head and
at
my
twelve of
a boy and
tune.
flute
of oxhide.
and night
water, but
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.
serves me,
While
feet
I live I
lyre.
n6
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
'
'
\($
[]
The
}.
reading, however,
well be
Hesych.
far from certain,
cf.
is
v.
3.
6.
1.
The
where there
as an irregular future form
[]
remains are very scanty.

1.
16.
1.
.
:
1.
being especially doubtful
would balance
.
.
[]
the correct form
for
written in
1.
Cf. Eurip. Sllppl.
was
-.
the letter after
may
better than
12.
which has come in from the next
H. F. I055 6
1 8.
for
iv
- 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
first
13.
seem too much
is
14.
Eui'ip.
' .? ..
the remains of the termination are scanty, but
For
2.
2389
For the tmesis
line.
cf.
e.g.
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.
1.
,.
;
Job xxxiv.
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
27.
1796.
be
Hexameter Poem on Egyptian Botany.

21x35
The
may
cm.
Second century.
recto of this papyrus contains remains of three columns, the second of
which
is nearly complete, from a list of abstracts of contracts or other transactions

concerning property, drawn up in the first half of the second century. The verso
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
is
inscribed with
or trees.
Col.
i,
NEW
1796.
at
1.
any
9,
rate the greater part of the preceding
.]
of Col.
ii
1.
( []
CLASSICAL FRAGMENTS
12; the form
in
1.
column
19 deserves to be noticed).
At
1.
the writer turns to the persea tree, to which the rest of the column
12
is
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
is
once used apparently for
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
punctuation at the end of a line in Col.
i,
the
same time
as this papyrus, presents
some analogous
features.
[\
Mi
are
efjViTjoi
ore
5
[]
e
ew[
'
ei;[Ta]l<5p|Tt/|]o
'
*
^^^
at
>#?7[[^|
15
{}
ew
\\oepoia[i
n8
artp
yap
[_
Se
ei/ei<5e[[.]]s
NeiXov
20
^-
eyyvs {ejioeaOai.
veov evre
p[e](ci
.
(\\
5
[.]
<5
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.
in
,
;
5.
6.
perhaps for
IS
that
if
is
..
right
word,
is
for
en\_ (?)
in
the
margin looks
like
a correction of or variant on e-m
1.
9.
oiyvyiov
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
ev
was apparently written
():
'
, ^/,
yap
veos del
.';
this illustrates the
epithet
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.
It
in
Anth. Pal.
vi.
'
culture,' resulting in continual fruitfulness, of
would not be capable (Housman)

zi.
The
between
corrected,
this
and
'
which a wild
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
22.
168.
19.
tree
is
very uncertain.
this substantive
NEW
1797.
CLASSICAL FRAGMENTS
ANTIPHON SOPHISTES,
1797.
22.4
,
,
Uepl
6-3 cm.
119
Early third century.
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
of their columns, the
width
and
length
the
in
and
differences both in handwriting
two papyri were not supposed to be connected. Further investigation, however,

now suggests that they represent the same author, if not actually related them'
The
selves.
of which
new
subject of this
piece
is
the ethics of legal evidence, the justice
controverted in opposition to the current view.
is
when not wronged

even when the evidence
not wronging others
adverse evidence,
oneself, then,
is
true,
is
it
If justice consists in
is
contended, to give
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.
from another definition
starting
Antiphon,
where
is quite in the manner of 1364,
matter of expediency
is
a
this
that
of justice as the observance of law, maintains
may be broken with
law
the
and that, so long as the breach is unobserved,
text recalls 1364
present
the
advantage cf. Part XI, pp. 92 sqq. In style also
in Hermogenes,
found
Antiphon
where the literary estimate of
so convicted
is
injured,
see op.
De
cit., p.
95,
',
ideis,
ii.
11.
17,
and the
stylistic analysis in
E. Jacoby's
De
Antiph. Soph.
Among
to that papyrus.
uepl
pp. 48 sqq., are considered in relation
in
exemplified
is
poetic rhythm
special characteristics the sophist's tendency to
in
64-5.
11.
below, and his partiality for synonyms
11. 10-11, 16-18, 47-9, and 51-3
which seems to have been

worth noting that the expression L
No instance
1364. 272.
in
also
found
is
rather favoured by the author of 1797,
The
in
once
appears
1. 44.
in
1364,
used
the spelling
or
occurs of
and
evidence,
internal
on
likely
sufficiently
ascription to Antiphon thus seems
It
may be
addition to the
of relationship between the two papyri, in
Though the
forthcoming.
also
are
fact that they were found in close proximity,
close in
very
certainly
are
and
type
hands are not identical they are of the same
in
1364,
than
broader
cm.
and
1
The column in 1797 is about 3 cm. longer
date.
accents,
Breathings,
identical..
but the height of the papyrus is approximately
texts, have been occasionally
prose
in
rare
are
which
quantity,
of
marks
and
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
some external marks
the punctuation
of a low dot).
by
The
suggested that the same hand made these

of the
that case 1797 might actually be a later section
possibility
additions in both texts
in
is
I20
same
1364, which
? ' ',
[
[
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.
roll as
is
to the earlier portion of the
]^
Col.
4 ?
15
]
]
]]
]
]
]]
]
]
[]
]].
?]
ye
[[
[
55
[]
[]
6 []
[]
[]
[
[]
[]
25
[[
45
[]
[ [
[]
[
[
[
[]
[]
Col.
i.
&5
KaL
1797.
NEW
CLASSICAL FRAGMENTS
[] '
[] [
[]
[]
[]-
[]
[]
[]
30
[]
[]
[]
[]$
[]
[]
[][
[]
35
121
75
]W[
lvov[
[....].
[
Fr.
time to testify to the truth

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

2
.'
.
is rather more probable than
v,
but
e. g.
[^,
which
is
suggested
.
by Murray, is not impossible.
f
convincing, is fairly satisfactory
20-4. The restoration proposed, if not altogether
of the
half
lower
the
and
21
between 11. 20
It is not quite certain that a line is not lost
was
after the first
dot
in
1. 22 a small
that
clear
quite
column being detached, nor is it
in
24.
space
the
1.
fill
instead of |4> would hardly
intended as a stop.
preceding it seems
but with
is an intelligible expression,
28. avrbv
read.
be
should
more likely than not that avrbv {rbv
,
|]
122
34. eavTov appears to have

56.
i.e.
been
but
[]>[[5]]
written, not
cf.
given, though there perhaps correctly.

16. ii. 3, &c, has anything to do with the accentuation
Fr. That
is
this
1364. 194, where the same accent is

Whether the marginal symbol, for which cf. e.g.
wanted;
is
same
scrap belongs to the
is
doubtful.
text as the preceding piece
seems
likely,
but
not certain.
1798.
Anonymous work on Alexander the Great.

Fr.
These fragments from a
14-3x34-3 cm.
44
historical
work dealing with Alexander the Great
are written in a medium-sized informal hand, probably of the middle or latter

part of the second century
on the verso
1802, an alphabetical lexicon of rare
is
words, also in a semicursive but smaller script.
The
commencement of
copyist, as often happened,
tended gradually to advance the
the lines to the
proceeded, so giving the columns
a slant to the right.
Paragraphs are sparingly
used, but there are
no
hand.
A stichometrical
the original scribe.
Two
stops, or other signs except the diaeresis.
corrections occur (Frs. 10
and
figure
14),
i.
left
as he
small
one clearly, and probably both, by a second
e.
ii, is due to
unknown, but in
all likely to have
2,300, in the margin of Frs. 5-6.
Unfortunately the height of the column
consideration of the size of the handwriting
it
is
not at
is
exceeded 50 lines and may well have been shorter. On the supposition that the
column did not extend beyond that limit, Frs. 5-6. ii was preceded by at least
46 columns which would occupy some 13 feet. Since the fragment concerned
apparently relates to the period of the battle of the Granicus,
it
is
evident that
the scale of the work was very considerable.
The
text on the verso proceeds in the opposite direction to that on the recto,
and did not extend over the whole of the roll, many of the smaller pieces
(Frs. 1-43) having the verso blank.
Since some of these clearly refer to a period
prior to that covered by the fragments of which the verso is inscribed, they have
all been placed in a group before the latter.
Presumably the lexicon, which was
of no small compass, was not completed.
Of this group only two or three pieces
are
sufficiently well preserved to afford
a clear clue to their subject.
Fr.
apparently describes the circumstances of the death of Philip, of which an account

is
given differing somewhat
commentary.
In Fr. 2
from what is found in other sources

cf. the
some hexameter lines are quoted evidently in connexion
;
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.
with the destruction of Thebes, which was

Frs.
'
'.
NEW
1798.
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
is
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.
story
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.
and the expedition into Egypt, to the
Gaza,
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.
The remaining fragments
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
To
with Alexander,
it is
come from one of the many

devoted to the career of that striking personality
a natural assumption that they
chronicles, historical or romantic,
The main Greek authorities for

rather than from a history of wider scope.
Plutarch, and on the battle of
and
Arrian,
Diodorus,
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
i. 8-10, ii. 6 sqq., 15).
Fr.
on
nn.
(see
44.
nerves
was overcome by an attack of
18-19 for abandoning the pursuit of Darius
iii.
reason given in Fr.
44.
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
been
have
sources
Curtius'
Curtius is too improbable to need consideration.
Rufus
Curtius
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
but not elsewhere recorded,
may
also
24
Quellenverhaltnisse in d. Alexaudergesch. des
The
Cur tins.
authority on
whom
Curtius principally depended, according to the current view, was Clitarchus, but
since
the same authority was closely followed
connexion
is
by Diodorus, with whom no
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
the numbers slain in the battle of Issus
this
is
the estimate given of
more than doubles the highest
total
found elsewhere for the Macedonian and approximately halves that for the
Persian side
cf. n. on Fr. 44. iv. 9 sqq.
Whatever may be thought of the
;
historical value of these figures,
they serve, like the description of Alexander's
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.
The fragment
(1) referring
apparently to the death
Macedon shows a marked divergence from the ordinary version

episode, and it is highly unfortunate that more of the narrative is not
of Philip of
of that
preserved.
In form this writer

be is his favourite
absolute
is
clear
and straightforward,
connecting particle, and there
is
a certain partiality to the historic present
Fr. 45. 6).
To
hiatus he
is
indifferent.
Some
if
somewhat monotonous.
but one instance of the genitive

is
noticeable (Fr. 44.
eccentricities like
i.
5, 16,
the poetical
NEW
1798.
may
spelling
CLASSICAL FRAGMENTS
I2 5
be due to copyists, but the form
(Fr. 44.
i.
12)
is
not without significance, suggesting that the date of composition, though
it
may
be posterior to the Augustan age, was at any rate
well
advance of
it.
Fr.
.]rOVS
[.]
][]
[.
.]ov?
Fr.
1.
[.
[-][
\.
[.
[
\ [
]
.]e
.
,]
[[.
][.
[]
.]
10
[.
[.
.]
[...]. (V {.
.]
tc[
re Ae[
.
Fr. 4
m
][
?;
][
]/*[
Frs.
Col.
ev
Fr. 3
.[.
[]
[]
.]
[.
[.]e/cvAiae[i']
7r]ep
[.
10
)?
.]
.[..].
]^
.
[
[] [
[
.
2.
5~ 6
<[
Col.
i.
[
[
[
S
[
...[...].[
little
in
120
2[
[
re
[]
[
[9
[]
[
*[
]
]
77
[
$[
[
0J/T6
15
r/oat
\^
/cat
aj/[
Ma/ce<W[
Fr. 8.
Fr. 7.
7?
e[nreiv ?
Orj[
e|e.\i7r[e
Jov[
'
][
]?[
a<[
][[
5
[
]^
[
fl[
[
][
]>
[.]//[
5
]"[
*[
]^ [
/!6?
[
%
Fr. 13.
Col.
Fr. 12.
Fr. 11.
Fr. 10.
][
vy[
auro[
[
]
]
ltt\ttov ?
Fr. 9.
i.
Col.
ii.
f.[
; e*a[
If
1798.
][
\*][
]yiy[
]apa[
}8[
]?.'
][
]
7
5
]
/[
}
]oy
Aet[
] [
]*
]<[
?[
Fr. 22.
.
]7[
-*
]\iV
]yoy
] .
]
>&?[
yf[
]ooi
Tl[
}u
o\y[
Fr. 26.
][
][
]?[
][
Fr. 25.
Fr. 24.
Fr. 23.
]>ero[
Wsf
e8iai[
.....
Fr. 21.
'
].[
]apa/J.ei[
}[
}
)[
-
>
].[
\a-fiLOV
][.
A]\tav
][
]\? [
]
Fr. 20.
].[
8e
]j>
Fr. 19.
^[
][
].[.]...[
Fr. 17.
][
Fr.
127
Fr. 16.
Seiy[
pav
CLASSICAL FRAGMENTS
Fr. 15.
Fr. 14.
NEW
id
128
Fr. 2'
Fr. 28.
[
[
"7
]."*
3?
]<5[
1
Fr 35
? 7r]aiOca
jpcttf
Fr. 38.
Fr. 39.
][
34
<$[
Fr. 36.
]ra<5[
][
][
Fr. 31.
Fr. 34
Fr. 37.
6-
]fr[
Fr 33-
32.
Fr. 30.
]ei?
[
.
Fr. 29.
]rp ta [
]/?
Fr. 40.
Fr. 41.
3-
k
Fr. 43.
Fr. 42.
]5eia[
Fr. 44.
Col.
[?
Col,
i.
ii.
7]7^
[]
[]
\\
[]77
[]
[] .
5
()
NEW
1798.
CLASSICAL FRAGMENTS
129
10
[]
[
[
Col.
[
[
15
]
[.
[]
[]
Col. iv.
iii.
[]
[]
\]
[]
[]
[]
[]
15
15 []?9
[]
]]
[
[.]
1-
.
15
Col.
[
.[
\~\
[
[.]
[
.
i3
ev
7[
5
lines lost
.[
[
*[
Fr. 45
Fr.
[
}[
\
[
\[
[
Xvaas
.
[.
~>[
]>
3
]?
|[
]?[
[
2 [
]7
3
Fr. 47
Fr. 48.
}}
[
4
]/
" *
/[
?;!/
[
[icjewa
][
.
/[
]/[
]
5
Fr. 49
\[
\
]
3?
.[
? .4Ae|ai>]#/)ou
yS
}[
3[
L7 y.
Fr. 50.
JNL
LLASS1LAL tKAGMKNTS
Fr. 52.
Fr. 51.
The mention
Fr. 54.
3#f
][
4
131
Fr. 53-
][
Fr.
of a theatre in
3?E
][
.]
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,
11.
1.
8-10, leaves
little
room
for
doubt that
1.
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
may be suggested.
]> is not possible, and
on the
basis of
11.
8-10, which can be
][] \[]5 ([\[(
tovs
]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
]tv
5.
6.
neighbours.
The
7.
seems
spelling
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.
The
][
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).
repetition of
10.
first letter is
re,
No compound
n. The
first
was
letters.
Fr. 3. 3.
This fragment
known.
was preceded by one of the same three
-oipoapos (e. g. wSoipoapos) is
letter
, or
, and
If
is
differs in
appearance from Fr.
right,
is
the natural restoration, but

2, but is very similar to Fr.
Frs. 5-6. These fragments were combined

numeration was therefore retained.
after
the text
was
is
possible.
type,
and the
4.
in
32
[8
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.
.
to
Pr. 7. 3.
be understood.
Fr. 10.
nor is
clear,
6.
it
perhaps a reference to Bucephalas, but the fragment
4.
Pr. 17.
4.
has been amended to

by another hand.
If the reading is correct,
certain that the
Fr. 12.
be suitable.
strip,
\]
Some
is
is
suggested by <vav[ in the preceding
eir,
line,
but
but
es is
is
too small
by no means
\]
would
case of c\aTi\vos presumably.
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.
.
also
this
Pr. 21. Like Fr. 18, this piece shows a junction between selides along the right-hand
edge, but the appearance of the two fragments is otherwise not very similar.
Pr. 22.
3.
This was apparently the
Fr. 24.
3.
Perhaps
Fr. 25.
Pr. 36.
0[,
]\
or a round letter like
]: 0
possibly
last line
either as the
e
or
is
of a column.
mother of Alexander or a
probable after
cf. n.
on
Fr.
date.
t.
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
.
NEW
1798.
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
,
.
1.
et*e
some synonym.
or
sc.
6.
11.
by night
rrj
For the confidence of the Persians

(sc.
cf.
Arrian
Alex. 20
Diodor. xvii. 32 describes the effect of the disparity in numbers on the local
Plutarch,
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.
.
'.
cf.
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.
.
'
(this
no doubt
15.
Sacrifice is
25. 2
iii.
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
[]
libations to
vii.
it
was
1-19.
his daily habit.

'
(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
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
point
(xvii. 34.
Arrian
ii.
Plutarch, Alex. 20
CurtlUS
the vestiges do not suggest
II. 20.
),
.,
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
18.
o,
ended the
line.
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
been traced
the straightness of base in the final letter suggests
in other authorities.
rather than
s,
but the
unknown.
The numbers of
masculine form
is
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.
9 sqq.
Diodor.
300;
xvii.
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
seems not
Ft. 45. Cf. Arrian
According
detail.
On
iii.
7.
Perhaps
[.
Fr. 46. Since the verso of
came
subject.
In
1-6, where the crossing of the Euphrates
to Curtius iv. 9. 12 the
the verso of this fragment are

3
its
unlikely.
words beginning with
this
later in the roll than Fr. 45.
is described in more
march from Phoenicia had occupied eleven days.
(1802.
2).
fragment contains words beginning with
(1802.
it
1798.
Fr.
NEW
CLASSICAL FRAGMENTS
Frs 47-54 = 1802. 4-1 1. The character of

50 came from the neighbourhood of Fr. 48, and
Fr. 49.
of
5.
1799.
belongs to 1798
135
on the verso suggests that

from that of Fr. 49.
the writing
Fr. 53
has apparently been converted from
this small piece
Fr. 54. That
is
e.
hardly certain.
Oratorical Fragment.
Second century.
cm.
9.9
unidentified speech,
This fragment, containing remains of two columns of an
between literary
line
border
the
hand which is on
is written in a small sloping
cursive
thoroughly
being
of
a
and cursive, some of the forms, e. g. the ligature of ei,
of
a line
end
the
at
the MS. may fall within the second century,
character
is
No
once written as a stroke above the preceding vowel.
stops or other signs
occur.
Of the
first
column only a few
from the ends of the
letters
lines remain,
but
of %$ nearly complete lines in which

the second includes a continuous passage
The declaration that
vindicated.
is
Demosthenes
apparently the policy of
of that policy points
acceptance
thorough
disaster would have been avoided by a
of the speech
occasion
the
but
Chaeronea,
to a period subsequent to the battle of
besides
30-1,
in
11.
text
the
in
There seems to be a defect
is not made clear.
minor
errors.
Col.
Co1
i.
[
"
y?[.
]va
]
V
'
*"7E
r0T[
]/??
>
[]
[....]..
.[
[.
ei?
tl
[
()
].
y[
[
.
[0'
i3
[][
15
]/
][.
]
.]
Fr[]ir.i
]>
]
2
of 7
7;r]e
/
[]7?
[]
?)
'*
roA[/xa]t
ou5
;//^[
20
]e
]
yap
**
[ ][]
[
35
9~ .
be
[ (]
is
][]
]?
>[ ..].
[.
very uncertain, but seems to suit the construction.
p[
might
e. g. v[eov.
11.
Not
nor, apparently,
[.
2-. A
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
[]
[],
is
\
[
convincing.
at the end of the line has been corrected from

27.
a subsequent hand is difficult to say.
ov,
whether by the original or
NEW
1800.
CLASSICAL FRAGMENTS
137
Miscellaneous Biographies.
1800.
27-1
Fr. 3
Late second or early third
15-4 cm.
century.
The handwriting
of the following fragments, from a
common
roll
containing various
may
be referred to
the latter part of the second century more probably perhaps than the beginning
biographies,
a fine specimen of the
is
oval type, and
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
The
Whether the few small
purpose.
a later
hand
titles
doubtful.
is
corrections
by the
are
original
or
small coronis marks the conclusion of sections.
prefixed to the biographies are sometimes enclosed
by the
short slightly
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.
(cf.
note ad
If,
as
is
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.
not be familiar to many,
is
consorts with like
two
singular
As
of a considerable town.
ii),
Abderus was
at least the
eponymous hero
for the disposition of the Lives,
lyric poets,
like
sometimes
both beginning with the same letter, figure

appropriately placed next to Demosthenes.
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
in Fr. 1,
imagine.
Nor
are the biographies themselves, so
far
as
they go, of much
moment. Concerning Sappho there is nothing new beyond a variant of her

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.
Grammarian Chameleon, the only
Reference
citation in
is
made
1800 of a
in this section to the
definite
authority
138
elsewhere the compiler contents himself with the vague 'some say' or the
like.
mutilated passage referring to Simonides' reputed innovation in the alphabet
apparently has the negative merit of differing from the statement
A. Kirchoff, Gesch. des
(cf.
was a favourite subject
Griech. Alphabets, p.
i).
Of
in
Suidas
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
for
eldest of his father's sons,
which Aeschines himself refutes.

Demosthenes to
also in Plutarch, about the generosity of
An
anecdote, found
his defeated rival is
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
given with greater elaboration in the account of the
are entirely in the dark.
Fr.
i,
[
[[
[[
]
[ \
%\
[
[
\
[[\]]
[
[
[
[\[[
Col.
i.
!]
]
Col.
ii.
13 letters
.
[][
35
>
()
15
[.
} []
&
NEW
1800.
CLASSICAL FRAGMENTS
[][]
[]] ^^
[]
[]
[]
2
45
[][
[]>
[
[
[
[]
[. .]
[]
.[..]..
[.
[.
[][.][.
>
25
[]
[.
.]
$ letters
1 .
Fr.
Col.
2.
Col.
i.
30
]
]
[]
35
[]
[){]
*&
[]
]
[]
[]
]"
\V l
PlV^^vi
[
....
[]\
[]
h
]
Col.
ii.
}*
},
\
]
15
]
]
]covov
75 [
[
45
{)
[
\]
[]
iii.
139
140
]
]]
]]
[?
20
?
]
]
[
25
}ov
8c
eav
avemcv
[]
}c
>
[
[][
55
[]
]
]v L
60
If
8c
[>
[
[-] [][
?
[
[]
[)9
[ ]
[cv
[
[
yejVoy
65
[
[
[
0]
Tcpa
ets
cv
[]
y[
avcypa
[ >
yjrcv
[]
[]
Fr. 3.
Col.
[] [
Col.
i.
25
cv[.
[.
[]
[]
ii.
cc^vw
([]
[c
NEW
1800.
'
[]
[.....
[.
[...
>
3 []
>
>
40
[]
[][][]
]
[[]
[]
[] [
[[
35
[][]
[][]
141
[]
[] [
[] []
[.]
,]v
CLASSICAL FRAGMENTS
45
[
[]
[
.
50
55
I 42
^
]
(
yey
Se
\]
65
]
^]
\
] []
Se]
enrje
70
ev]
75
[]
Frs.
4 + 5
Frs. 6
[
[
Col. .
[
[
[
.}[. .]...[..][...
[]
Xe
5e
[
[
[
* ]([]
[]
[
]
[]
]
.
[]\[\
[
>-
Col.
]
]]
.
+ 7.
?]
}]
]
][
?
*[
15
,]ev
.]$
]
>
(
[
....
NEW
1800.
CLASSICAL FRAGMENTS
Fr.
Col.
8.
i.
]*
]
]
]
]]
25
[]
30
.]
>
,]
]
35
]
]
]>
[
] [
[
[
[
[.
[]-
[]
[
[[]
[]
]<
)
}>
Fr. 10.
]
]
] [
eXf0[epiai>
&
]s
7repi
6/
[
??!'
Fr. 9.
[?
?
[
\
[] [
[]/
][.
[
[
[[[[
,4#?7//[>
/;;?7
15
Col.
77
]
]vs
[.
43
144
Fr. ii.
[]
"?[
[nept
][?
pa
i>
i>
TP (f)[
][
]>[
>[#]
Fr. 14.
Fr. 13.
Fr. 12.
][
7/[
]?&;
Fr. 15.
7*[.]
[[
][
Fr. 16.
][
]
][
][
[\]
]l/yj/0)[
[][
]<V[
>[
Fr. 17.
>[
]>7[
/[
]>[
[ [
][
[\[
15
"^
[
7
[y]ap 0eaaap[ev
[.]
[.]#6/
??
Fr. 18.
Fr. 19.
?;9
Fr. 30.
[
[
]yJ/o[
NEW
1800.
[
eyA[
<M
\.]
]//eucray
Fr. 25.
][
){
Fr. 26.
Fr. 27.
][
37.'[
? .}{.
][
w
5
Fr. 28
<
#4
]
][
ajfflpoojV
Fr. 29.
]?"
]7_<[
]ave[
ev[
]ev
][
<pv
Fr. 24.
&a /
]<:[
ai^f
145
Fr. 23.
][
][
/cai
Fr. 22.
Fr. 21.
eyjerero
][
[[
5
CLASSICAL FRAGMENTS
][
]7[
]{
Fr. 31.
Fr. 30.
][
]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.
35, who
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.
calls
',
146
Inscr. Gr. 191) but
is not attributed to Sappho's father elsewhere.

Charaxus is called the
son of Scamandronymus by Hdt. /. c, and this is one of the several alternatives in Suidas
to Simon, which he considered correct.
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
,
,
:
.]
'
[()], (
.
and
. >:
"
[]
[]
1 5.
Suid.
cf.
Sapph. 85.
1618.
Suid.
Cf.
/.
/.
c,
who
gives
also
C.
as
name
the
'
of Sappho's
mother,
.
.
.,
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.
\,
33
_ 5
Suid.
Cf.
[]
.'
[
[
&
S. V.
The
().
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.
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
'
11.
Iulis,
.
;
invented
39.
40.
.'
1.
cf.
Pindar, Isthm.
ii.
.,
and Schol.
1800.
NEW
,
, ,
oi yap
, , . ..
6(
.,
Athen. 656 d
Schol. AristOph.
405. Cf.
Mami. Par. 54
Pliny,
be
) ,-
CLASSICAL FRAGMENTS
,
Pax
VU. 24,
referred to.
(SC.
691, Suid.
S. V.
&C, and Simonid.

which
Suid.
Fr.
is
147
&C.
S.
V.
.\
., \
'
146
presumably the
epigram
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
ay[.
or
[]
is
possible.
Fr. 2. 1-29. That the remains of these lines

is suggested by 1. 18
(?) ;
uncertain, but
this hypothesis.
31.
may
be either
is
or
[\
relate,
like
11.
30
sqq., to
has been restored in
Aesop
1.
21
is
on
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
:
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
73
About
"
'
679. Cf. the anonymous Life
column.
7 lines are missing at the foot of the
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.
But according
yap
31
authority,
iv
11.
8-9, and the reference of this
, ] \\[
eerl
32 and 55), the tomb was among the

which does not SUlt the deme-name in
passage to Thucydides is therefore very questionable. The
same
to the
17
(cf.
KoiKtj,
or , pointing to
in 1. 8 seems to be
(Thucydides' deme) can certainly not be read.
letter after
suggests
more
itself,
and
suitable than
is
or
In
6
not inconsistent with the scanty remains.
1.
In
1.
7 atoi
or
is
voi.
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
256. Cf. Plutarch,
'
(sc.
Space better than

Oraf.
'
).
,
Vit.
847 a
'
ol
"
\\.
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.
to Plutarch, A' Oral. Vit.

:
}.
"
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
'
NEW
1800.
149
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
his journey
am
" Because I
He
CLASSICAL FRAGMENTS
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
[|3]
46.
Plutarch,
Orat. Vit.
The passage is
'
e,
(peiryoiros
'
eSaxev
'
76.
followed here
]"
840 d
els
[SC.
the story of the reading of the speech against Ctesiphon
cf. e. g.
Plutarch,
I.
given by
)'
-
is
details are quite different.
'.
Murray.
Orat. Vit.
e'/cet
7 2 ~3 [e ^P\ l anc*
74 Cf. Plutarch,
/,
',
though apart from the amount the
845
may
well have
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
may
be any long
letter
t.
re
,.
/os
ev
\.
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
that
evioi
were mentioned
in the
][ 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
(1.
29
cf.
Plutarch,
Orat.
For the loose reference
to
Vit.
849 b
Lamia
cf.
"
Be
e.g. Pausan.
et's
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
1.
32.
i5o
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
'
Fr.
from Fr.
5.
[]|
'
and
16.
contents
the
\, \
but
or
For
cf. 841.
and the Schol.
II.
'']
II.
1-2, n.
after
He
are
Fr. 20.
Fr. 21.
4.
2.
]
:
the
2.
[Natojof
^',
yap
the
to
end of the
line,
as
is
by a short blank space
have ended the
1801,
13
by the
. \]
[#]
'
has been converted from a straight stroke
was probably
seems
killed
suits the context.
13
in size of the three last letters, as well as
Fr. 30.
said to have
is
he had been
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.
still
Conon
][
",
ii.
6-8,
Frs.
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.
only from
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
11.
8.
Fr. 9. This fragment resembles in appearance

somewhat analogous Fr. 10 is also rather similar.
;
known
is
of
birth, of the city
'
'
, '
.
(t
3,
the point of
or ).
indicated by the diminution

after
in
1.
4.
line.
Glossary.
io-6 cm.
First century.
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
hand which
is
rather similar to that of 1087 (Part VIII,
Plate 4) ascribed to the latter part of the

characteristics shared
by 1801 with 1087
is
first
century
B. c.
One
of the early
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.
NEW
180].
CLASSICAL FRAGMENTS
margin, and are also followed by short blank spaces
body
indicate a pause in the
dash
fulfils
151
similar spaces are used to
of the note, and in one instance
(1.
21) an oblique
the same purpose.
Parts of two columns are preserved, broken at the top and bottom, as well
as
down
lacunae in Col.
the break from
1.
at
10
An
the outside of each.
however, afforded by
As
has been roughly estimated in the printed text.
32 to
58
1.
is
nearly vertical, and
if
for Col.
the length of lines
is
is,
initial
ii,
taken
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,
about 30
letters,
index to the original length of the lines
21-2, on the basis of which the extent of the
11.
letters,
the
of the slope
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
On
known about them.

the verso of the papyrus are remains of two columns, written in a small
upright hand dating perhaps from about the end of the first century or the
beginning of the second, from a treatise on grammar. In Col. ii, after referring
to the declension
[]
[
a new section begins
[
1G
18
14
Corr.)
12
Eiept be
(cf.
[
?
Choerob. In Theod. Can.
15
p. 79, Gaisf.),
13
be
19
152
Col.
te
[
[
4]
]y
[
[
[]??
ev
]?
]
Xey]ei
fieXeKcov
?
]...[.
[.]
exavov
]at
[$
ev
Se irepi
eaTiv
.]ey
0"]""*
*]
15 letters
eye
].[
Col.
ev
0VTL
]s
^[][]
ev
](~
[]
8e
[][.]
i]epanes
25
.]
15
][.
i.
>
?[
NEW
1801.
7*[
]?
].
CLASSICAL FRAGMENTS
[?
e[i\?
[.}[.]
35
"[
-)
[1
'
[ [] [[?
[
[...].
[,]
.[..].
[.
ei
.]?
[]
.]0/
][?
[.][.]
[
?
[]
? ^?)[) [
[.
/ ?[']
[?
[...].
45
[] ?[?
.....
? ? [
[
[
[
?
?
?
55
yap
>
vos
[?
[ ^{?
?
[{?)] [
153
154
Fr.
61
There seems
] ft, .]r[
to
have been no other
also be a dash like that in
1.
letter in front of the doubtful
t,
which might
),
.
21.
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).
11.
apparently novel.
is
13. ov
perhaps
]?
]may .
' '. , ', '

.
,' ~: . , ",
'
,
]
1
6.
The
ig.
be
first letter
e. g.
,,
p.
Neither
nor ap
for
is
attractive
in this context,
2I7. Cf. Etym. Magn.
Hesych.
The
papyrus, besides giving the
the play of Aristophanes, confirms the view of earlier editors that
Kock prints
who described the
citation;
writer
34
SCjCj.
Cf.
Hesych.
11.
34-5
at
any
name of
was part of the

Lines 23 sqq. are an excerpt from a prose
only (Fr. 755).
from
(vetch)
is
unattested.
iv
S. V.
re
that
rate are part of a note
on
?,
From
of
whom
Hesych. says
this
s. v.,
it IS
plain
17
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
).
\\
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.
.
{)
[]#.
'.
'
,
(
NEW
1801.
CLASSICAL FRAGMENTS
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
..
'. ,
, '^,'
155
hence B fpya los
,
.
iv
Hesych.
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
the only
and
62. Possibly
of
'.
in
'
,.
Eustath. 1414 2 9
which case the fragment would come from the neighbourhood
34-5.
11.
1802.
Fr 3
Glossary.
M-3 X
34-3
cm
Late second or early
third century.
The
following fragments
of an alphabetical glossary are on the verso

of 1798, a historical work on Alexander the Great.
They are written for the
most part in an irregular but clear simicursive of medium size, but in two or
three fragments the hand
is markedly smaller (cf. n. on Fr. 6) and in a couple of

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
others (Frs* 7-8)
it
the width of three or four
letters,
points or paragraphi are used.
and are
The
also followed
text on the recto
by a blank space
is
but no
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).
As
explained in the introd. to 1798, the two texts proceed in opposite

directions and the glossary did not occupy the entire roll, many of the minor
fragments of 1798 being blank on the verso.

Since those fragments, so 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
some
two
latter
idea of the scope and
of which are sufficiently well preserved to give
method of the compiler,
at whose identity it is hardly

worth while to guess. His alphabetical arrangement is more strict than that of
1801 or of ancient lexica generally, and is indeed remarkably correct, so far as
it can be followed.
He confines himself to uncommon words, or words used in
i 56
an
uncommon
Besides Greek local peculiarities,
sense.
non-Hellenic speech are included

(Fr. 3. 46),
Chaldaean
Persian
(Fr. 3. 45, 64,
(Fr. 3. 63, 6j, 72, Fr. 6. 6),
last instance the authority
quoted
is
Albanian
terms from
several
Fr.
6.
Lydian
13),
,,
(Fr. 3. 65)
a work in two or more books on
in the
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
'
'
that occur to an extant book,
epigraphic evidence
Of
in
is
it is
incorrectly cited (Fr.
appealed to (Fr.
3.
3.
In one place
50, 57).
54-6).
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
known only from Hesychius, whose evidence
generally less explicit
noticeable that in one instance where both cite
it
is
is
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.
evidently such glosses often underwent
little
hardly
is
from one compiler to another.

Fr.
Fr.
1.
Col.
4
[
[.
.
4
[
<5
]\
3
ei/
3*[
[
[
[
[
joy
ii.
e]f
4
4
Col.
]"
4
5
2.
i.
][.
]
7roAeiTet a
less
variation in their descent
1802.
NEW
CLASSICAL FRAGMENTS
*57
10
\\
]
[. [.]
]
[]
] [][]
Fr. 3.
Mapyiavoi
][ \
?
Col.
i.
'5
]] []
.]
20
[.]
[.
25
ep
[
[.]
]&[.
[] [
Col.
[]6[
3
ii.
?]
Hep
{\\
[]
[]
35
[]
158
[
[
45
[
[
ev
]5?['
]$
Col.
[]?7[?
[
[[
[
[
55
[
[
iii.
65
[[
[
[
.
ev
....
~
.
NEW
1802,
75
CLASSICAL FRAGMENTS
>.[.}.
22 letters
Fr. 4
Fr.
]?
re
/[
]es
^T
60[/] 7/?
][.
&
evoi
.[
Fr. 9.
8.
cited
Fr.
\
,
?] [/
Fr. 2.
Herod. 22.
Fr. 8.
Fr.
ois
Fr. 5
[
[
[9
eoLKtv
ois
09
]\?[
][.
??!*
P9[
][
W<
[
[
][
]$
]07[
i/
Fr.
]>
[.
6.
59
Anterior
>
by Harpocration
may be
the historian of Crete referred to
..
e. g.
by Plutarch, Mai.
Cf. Fr. 3. 59.

Aristotle's treatise on the Thessalian constitution
as
; Athen. xi. 499 b omits
s. v.
is

The
10.
doubtful r
is
,\ , , , .
preceded by a horizontal stroke above the
numerals.
",
line like those
above
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
Ctesippus
5.
Which
. [],
perhaps just room for
is
word was possibly
the preceding
6.
{op. cit. v. 2).
There
of the various writers
named
i.
e.,
Asclepiades
presumably, the Athenian historian

is
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
tv;
[^]
19.
'
.] ,
;
]':
Steph. Byz.
27.
s. v.
may
well be part of the
more probably than
29-35.
],
of some treatise.
perhaps.
title
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
book (says) " When bringing to

work of Persephone she first went
:
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
;
'[], [],
'..
)
: .
.
A
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.
Porphyr.
De
antr.
Nymph. 18
its
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
.
'
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,
",
Realencycl.
iv.
2722-3.
NEW
1802.
34-5. Cf. Pindar, Pyth.
CLASSICAL FRAGMENTS
.^.
106
iv.
'
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".'
'
-.
Etym. Magn.
Cf.
,,
('
Zonar.
(similarly
..
,
'
,
'
.),
Hesych.
The Etym. Magn.
IS
especially close tO the
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
attractive.
is
,.
(](
/xeXuy(e)toi>
()
.,
'.
48. This sense of

Dionysius the most suitable in
is
[ .?,
not otherwise attested.
this context
seems
Among
the
many
writers
named
to be, if not the prolific
[
' ,\.
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
tion,
'
-,= -
.
;
^.
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
repetition of
ev.
^'
and
)?
are described
by
Aristotle in
An. Hist.
ix.
41,
. [
i62
pp. 627
b-628
.
' ' ,
An. Gen.
(cf.
citation here as in L 50.
Cf.
10, p. 761 a 6) so that there
iii.
Hesych.
the
is
same mistake
in the
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
.
,;
'
'.
doubtful.
667. Cf. Hesych.
..
In
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.
The
writer's
name must be
as short as possible.
oi
69. Cf. Hesych.
cited should be quite short, since the line
addition, especially
writers of
works on
as
'
if,
>[?
is
Maywfrcs,
would
really
quite possible, ev
rivers, besides
71. Cf. Hesych.

before
72. Either
Callimachus;
,,
cf.
As
be
in
1.
67, the
name
of the author
sufficiently filled with
no
further
stood in the title.

There were many
Schneider, Callimachea, ii, p. 326.
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.
cf.
n.
on
11.
66-7.
'
The blank
Fr. 4.
and
11.
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.
so far as
it
\\
6.
goes.
?
cf.
is less
Suitable.
Fr. 3. 63, 72.
Frs. 7-8. These two fragments are more cursively written than the
Fr.
and
9.
Cf. n.
on
Fr. 6.
In
1.
a narrow
letter
may be
lost
rest.
between the supposed
p.
Fr. 11. Either the beginning of a line or of the explanation of a word.
NEW
1803.
CLASSICAL FRAGMENTS
1803.
16
163
Glossary.
29-7 cm.
Sixth century.
This sheet from a papyrus book was probably the uppermost of a quire,
two pages of the recto, down which the binding string
since the space between the
passed, has an ornamental

of which
still
band of
light purple colour,
adheres to the sheet, showing the knot,
The
is
and the string
itself,
some
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.
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,
however, are commendably frequent
and from these the papyrus largely derives its value. They are taken either
from prose (Demosthenes, Thucydides, Xenophon) or Comedy, both Old and
New, and additions are thus made to the extant fragments of Eupolis
Vivos, Aristophanes Trjpas, Menander
and
name
the poet's
there can be
little
initial letter, is
Fol.
[>]
[>}
l
Menander
doubt that
apart from the
coy
omitted in the case of the
is
>
Fol. 1 recto.
verso.
\\\\>
ur
awayayeiv
8e
_
/
coy
>
[
u. 1
>
rr
last three of these,
(
,
>?
r~
veas
coy
ej/
but
The alphabetical arrangement,
meant.
very negligent.
is
'
too
e\eiy
%
164
>
>
6eos'
Xeyerai
30
]^^
ee
ev
8e
evayyeXeia
35
.
Fol. 2 recto.
Fol. 2 verso.
55
Svveveiv
ev
e[[.]]oWaro
it
45
[]
[}
I.
correct,
Cf.
2-4-
Moeris,
.
The
line
]~
[]
pel
34 2
from the
rfjpas
'
cannotbe
ev
ev
50
ev
'
ev
ev
[]
.
^^^
Tevei
ev
ê
5e
".
correct as quoted, but
after
is
easily
emended,
if
e. g.
NEW
1803.
()
..
.
,.
CLASSICAL FRAGMENTS
{.
or
In place of
. . .
obviously to be read, the copyist lapsed into the non-Attic
noticing the error unintelligently made only a partial correction;
which
is
165
there
but after
no form
is
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.
5-7.
copyist,
'
,
,
'
[
[
:
:'
,
'
'
'.. . . . .
, . ,
II 15.
Cf. e.g. Heraclid. ap. Eustath. 1722.
55
ot
'
'
'
'
,
. .
12.
1.
13.
for
of
1618.
Hesych.
the converse error occurs in
.,
is
1.
written through
Cf.
16.
1.
was
e.
i.
the top of a vertical stroke, so that neither

probable.
19.
Two
279. Cf. Suidas
(AristOph. Eq.
31-4 = Eq. 655-6. The

whence Cobet proposed
35 Perhaps
which
Harpocrat.
followed by what seems tO be
is
(cf.
Eq. 952) nor
first
of
should be short and
is
655
11.
3I-2), Eustath. 647. 28, Hesych.
omits
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
\
.
,
\,
'
,
apart from augmented forms.

36-7. This is no doubt part of a note on
Cf. Suidas
y
cf.
In 1. 29 1
papyrus supports the usual reading
no instance of
play of
to have preceded.
is likely
1.
written.
has been converted from

of Menander presumably.
iambic verses apparently, but the
et
23-6.
and
In
22.
first
PhotlUS
Menander;
\ ',
8, 22,
-.
cf.
11.
nn.
in the sense of
1.
i.
e.
or
most probably the
'
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,
{]/3
illustration
= Thucyd.
of the
,'
VU.
word
., , '
.
'
being also unsuitable.
535
'
'
60
Cf. Photius
preceded
in the papyrus, or
569. Cf. Hesych.
it
and Suidas
was omitted.
.
.,
cited
doubt in
Either
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.
spells the equivalent of
i66
: ,
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.
some doubt.
66. ev
is
very uncertain, but consistent with the meagre vestiges.
1804.
Fr. 4
Fragments of a
roll
Aeeis
'.
i6-6xi3-4cm.
Third century.
containing an alphabetical series of oratorical terms with
notes thereon, the pieces preserved dealing with words which begin with the
,,,
letters
They
medium size,
though perhaps of a somewhat
are written in well-formed sloping uncials of
Rylands 57 (Vol. i, Plate 10),

angular sign, the angle pointing to the
in style recalling P.
later date.
An
instead
left
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
used to
is
fill
,
,,,
',
relations to that standard authority are less close than to the Aeeis
Seguerianae edited by Bekker in Anecd.
i,
pp. 197-318.
This
affinity is evident
not only in the substance of the glosses but also in their order,
terms in Frs.
+ a.
same sequence
additional words
and
Frs. 3 and
Fr. 4. 4-6
).
4 of 1804 with one additional word
Aes
there
by a
few
are successive, corresponding to

in
each fragment (Fr.
3.
5-8
[ ? ],
Material similarities are pointed out in the commentary,
and though such matter
Magnum,
the four
follow the
,,,
(?),
Anecd. pp. 295-6, though separated

similarly in Anecd. pp. 299, 300,
in
e. g.
and
is
often
common
the verbal correspondence
is
to
e. g.
Photius and the Etymologicum
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).
NEW
1804.
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
distinct
ancestor.
[[
Frs.
+ 2.
Col.
][
][][
]?
....
ev
]
[[]
[[)]
]
]
[
[
[
[
[
[]
..]...
[.]
<
]?7^[[e]]iai/
ire
10
[
[]
] [
15 [nop]eiov
[]
Frs.
[]
].[....
+ 1.
Col.
?
?
[
[
[.
.]'[
?
?
[]([
25
i.
?
?
i68
]
[]
[[
]<
[
]
[ ......
]
]
[
[
[
<
]
[]
]
]
Fr. 3.
[]
[]
Fr. 4
[~]
[][[
-
[][[
[
[
[
^^
15
[
[
NEW
1804.
CLASSICAL FRAGMENTS
[
[] [
eiSi
5[e
e*y
Fr.5.
Fr.
]][[
Fr.
Fr. 7.
6.
8.
].cn{
][
]
&0[
]?
]7/>[
.
]ei/y
169
]>
[
.
] .
[
[
][
Frs. 1 + 2.
Anecd. i, p. 295
Magn. 696. 2 2
''
i.
1-8. Apparently a note
,
,
.
.
or an analogous form.
on
Cf.
Bekker,
Etym.
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
(][
*\
{}
.,
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
The
than to
emend
oi
' , .'
.
with Naber.
to
"
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
Bekker, Anecd.
14. Cf.
\.
i,
'
.
.
.
,)
, " .'
(
Harpocrat.
Either
19. Cf. Harpocrat.
18. Cf.
,.
will Suitably
fill
(sc.
the line.
170
,
., ,
.. ,' , ,.
.
'
' /
^"
.
.
,
([
.
), , '
,, ' ' '
'
,
20.
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
occurs in Hesych. s. v.
21. Cf. Harpocrat.
rfj
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,
'
was evidently close
to Photius
p.
'.
299
and Bekker, Anecd., but put the
The papyrus
alternative explanations in
.
.
', , '
{
,.
.
.
' ,
, ,\
,
.
the reverse order.
'
5-8. This gloss, for the form of which

speech of Dinarchus
It is identified with the
g. Cf. Bekker, Anecd. i, p. 299
Photius
..
10-1 1
11.
the reference
Bekker, Anecd.
not
is
room
for
is
perhaps
eVrif
,'
i,
would not
p.
300
., Photius
printed hardly
was
fills
the lacuna,
written.
. ,
),
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.
very scanty but so far as they go

7I3. Cf. Harpocrat.
,
'
',
"
curt
owing
.
'
Tjj
The
,,'.
.
Harpocrat. and defined as
).
The
gloSS in the papyrus
The
Vestiges in the middle of
"
'
'
"...
(11.
3)
1.
4 are
suggested.
Bekker, Anecd.
corf
to compression.
suit the letters

.
Eppflwrtfofid,
Harpocrat. s. v.
to the C. Phorm. 9.
299
p.
i,
Fr. 4. 13. Cf. Bekker, Anecd.
cf. e. g.
The supplement
but there
also Ael. Dionys. ap. Eustath. 927, but this
For
the lacuna so well).

12. Cf.
is
Etym. Magn. 377 3
fill
The
Fr. 4. 14-15, remains unidentified.

cited e. g. by Harpocrat. S. V.
cf.
is
i,
p.
treated
.
,
300
separately by
NEW
1804.
CLASSICAL FRAGMENTS
171
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
(,
,,. .'
.
PhotlUS,
Second sentence in the form
],
seventh Philippic but
'
Fr. 5.
which occurs a
little
Fr. 6.
4.
otherwise dissimilar.
1.
There
is
i.
2 suggests that this
above
+ 2.
Harpocration agrees with the papyrus in referring to the
iv
upper part of Frs.
due
is
in
Etym. Magn., and Suidas give the
(cf.
an appearance
Frs.
may be
+ 2.
i.
part of a note
1-8
n.) in
on
Bekker, Anecd.
i,
a word
p.
295
Harpocrat.
If so, the fragment would probably belong to the
;
cf.
of a colon just in front of
to a correction, e. g. perhaps the scribe
().
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.
of
alteration,
but this
and
it
is
may
be
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
there
a short
6.
line.
Probably
poi or
?).
172
EXTANT CLASSICAL AUTHORS.
III.
Sophocles, Trachiniae.
1805.
Fr. 15
10x9-6 cm.
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
sized
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
than
e. g.
latter part of the
no doubt subsequent additions, due probably to the corrector whose hand

be distinguished here and there.
Textually these fragments
are, in the
main, conservative.
is
few new
readings occur, including one or two which are definite improvements,

1.
136,
unknown
cited.
variants the authority of,
is
confirmed.
the other hand, the papyrus apparently agrees with the
a passage requiring alteration
e. g.
For one of the

probably, Aristophanes of Byzantium is
where a generally accepted correction
On
to
MSS.
on metrical grounds, and occasionally
in
offers
evidence which
is inferior to theirs.
In supplementing lacunae, Jebb's text has
been followed, of course with no implication that the papyrus necessarily agreed
with
it.
Possibly further additions may eventually be made to the remains of

MS., the script of which is with difficulty distinguished from that of numerous
other fragments which accompanied them.
this
[
[
[
[
Fr.
\[
e/c
Se
Suppouvovro
1.
act
\
][
\
1805.
]]]]
EXTANT CLASSICAL AUTHORS
[
[
\[
20
][
Fr.
37
[][
[]
[] [
2.
[
Fr.
275
3.
][
[
]
[
[
]] [
[
[
] []
[
][
[
[] [
[
]
[
][
[
28
290
[
[
Fr. 4.
]] []
]][[]
173
174
Ft. 5.
301
[
]
]
[][
[at
5[e
] ^[
[
,
]
[]
[]
Frs. 6-10.
[
[
[] []] [
[][
[[ []][[
]|
[Set,
360
X_ji[iu>vos
[]
[][^~^
365
[]
5 lines
370
375
lost
[]] \
[
]
[ ]
[
]' [] [
[
[
[
[]
[ ][ ][
[[
[
[] []
]
[] [ [
[
][
[]
]
[
[]]' [
[
[
[
[]
[] [ [
[
] []
]'
380
385
1805.
[
[ ][]][
]
]][[[
Fr. 11.
532
[
[
[
535
&
"] [
[
]
]][[
Frs. 12, 13.
576
580
602
[
[
[
][
7][
[
][
[
*[[
605
[]
Fr. 14.
[
[
Fr. 15
\*
Col.
i.
175
176
744
|f
[
]
[ [ [] [
[]
[
Fr. 16.
763
Fr. 15
Col.
ii.
\
[] \]
[
785
[]
790
795
[[
][
[][ [
. [[
[
[]'
[
[
[
[
]]
[[^
])]]
1805.

Fr. 17.
851
][
[
[ ] [
.
[
[]
[? [
[ ][
?]
Fr. 18.
][
[ ][
]
[
][
[
]
[ ][
[
875
[
[
Xeyeis
Fr. 19.
[
1065
[
[
]] [
] [
[
]
[
] ][
[
[ ] [
[ /)
[
1070
][
[
[
] [
\[
Frs. 20, 21.
177
] [[ ^
[
[
]
[
[
]] [
[
[
[
[
178
[
[
[
11 35
140
]
?
]]][
[
[
[
]
[
[ ] [
[
[
[
][[
[
[
] [[
[
][]
45
[.
][
][
]
Fr. 22.
][
]
2 55
]
[
[ ]][[
Fr. 23.
[
1275
1805.
179
[
[]
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
12. Unfortunately
() ][
the whole
17.
Bergk wished
to reject this line.
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.
would
and
The
and
genitive
spoil the line.
278.
28.
of
e]<
SO
is
directly
&C.
above the
of
first
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
'
>
possible.
360.
(\
so edd. with
,
'4
362-4. These verses have been

1. 364
Others 1. 362
364.
The
perhaps by a
superfluous
hand.
(from
e'x)
much
L.
suspected,
(due to the preceding
infin.
some
critics
bracketing
11.
362-3,
no doubt) has been crossed through,
later
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,
,.

through the
final
word of
the
was
Possibly
line.
similarly cancelled
and
rewritten above.
764.
Why
was written again above the
, ,(
sufficiently well
line is not evident, the original letter
formed.
[<]
being
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.
781.
0oXfj
and
also in Schol. Eurip. Tro. 573.
avev
L,
MSS.
other
11.
IS
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.
:
The
cf.
1.
MSS.
780;
alternative reading otav implies the corresponding
v.
later in the
1.
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
verse
olov
.,
],
as accidental.
1 136.
reading of
1 138. The
instead of with
confirms the correction of Heath, which according to Subkoff was the

LA &c.
Stop after
shows that
was constructed with
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
made by
as in L, since otherwise an acute on the a would be the

possible that both accents were inserted, that on the a being
Fr. 24.
It is
by no means
normal accent.
certain that this small fragment of a
1806.
Theocritus,
title
belongs to 1805.
Late
first
centurv.
(Col.
Remains of
tall
four consecutive columns, of which the
tiny scraps, with a small unplaced fragment.
columns being carefully written
an ornamental type exemplified
first
Plate
IV
i'v).
two are represented
This was a handsome MS., the
in rather large uncials,
in several
however
Idyll xxii.
Height 29 cm.
by
It is
lost.
Homeric papyri
round and upright, of

cf. also e. g. 844 and
1806.
The cross-bar of and

Kenyon, Palaeography, Plate
1375.
is
(cf.
15).
181
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
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).
cedar
The Hymn
critus,
and
to the
is
is
,[
the presence of several

for
it
solves
unknown
1.
is
welcome.
In
originally
the
of Theo40 an obvious
,.
variants of rather neutral character,
6o
for
1.
and
corrector)
side
by
The
e. g.
side with
1.
?
for
jy
694. 34, where

replaces yap
a mixture of dialects similar to that found in the MSS.,
cf.
1.
But the papyrus, in spite of its early date,

no crux, and its distinguishing feature
confirmed.
is
enlightening than 1618
MSS.
not well represented in the
fresh evidence of so early a date
correction of Stephanus
is less
Dioscuri
4.5
;
text shows
(so
my os.
In the transcript below, the supplements follow the edition of Wilamowitz

in the absence of any indication that the papyrus read otherwise
the collation
;
appended
is
derived from the same source, supplemented
Ahrens.
Col.
38
][
[
Col.
[
[
ii.
])[
]
]
[]
[
[]
[
]
[
]
Col.
40
i.
re]
77-[];[]
iii.
by the
edition of
]
]
]
[
[
[ ]
]
[
[
]
[
[
]
i82
[
[
45
]] [
[[
[]
[
[
[
[
]] [
]
]] ~^
]
]]
[
[
[].
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
55
]
]
][
)[
[
[
[
[
65
]]
70
(?)
[[
[
[
[]
Col.
iv.
]]
Plate IV.
1806.
183
[ ?
?? [ ?
? ??
?[?
??[\?
?
&[
?] ^~[[? ?
?
75
?
8
[
[?
[?] [ ?
[?
(?)]
Unidentified Fragment.
]?
]*!
8.
The
Col.
small fragment
probable; Col. ii
that this
fact
identification
with
1.
is
from the bottom of a column makes its

then have been one line longer than
will
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.
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
40.
re is required,
41.
43
/ar
45.
49.
60.
62.
63.
points to
MSS.
fi
ei
(. )
)
'
:
KvKtvftelcav
85,
,-
\(:
MSS.
from
MSS.
MSS.
'.
as originally written, is correct.

MSS. ; the occurrence of
.
.
or
preceding.
with v. 1.
Wilamowitz.
at the
end of the
line
184
64.
66.
of
(.
was converted from a
vertical stroke.
*,
".
for
IS
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,
;
.
WM.
There
68.
breathing
is
69. It
something above the
line,
though whether
it
was intended
for a
rough
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
is
Wilamowitz
i&v
is
rather doubtful.
obelizes,
MD,
(a corr.).
694.
70.
21.
short oblique dash in front of this verse has
77
82.
no evident
significance.
Cf.
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
7*3
18. 6
cm.
Second century.
This fragment contains the lower part of a column, preceded by a broad

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

Paragraphi were employed, and there are two
half of the second century.
instances
occasional
corrector,
So
The latter, and the

be original and are due perhaps to the
of a high stop, inserted well above the line.

accents,
who may
far as
it
are unlikely
also
to
be the author of the marginalia.
goes the papyrus shows a good text, which
is
in substantial
agreement with the Marcianus(M),the oldest and best of the manuscripts. Readings
found in later MSS. have, however, twice been subsequently incorporated, in one
1807.
place as a marginal variant
(1.
897), in another as a correction
parture from accepted tradition in

also
by another
927
is
(1.
930).
letters
is
from the
last
condemned very
14 lines of Col.
is
ii
it is
Col.
]
]
[][]
ii.
] ] 6\[
[][
[
[
[e
915
\] ()
[] [[
[
\ ]~/[
[
Col.
[8]
920
?/
[]
^^
925
\\
[[
\\\ ()
[
s
a\os
1)
The
utilized.
895
901
iii.
editors, but the
i.
897
de-
of course possible that the
was given in
For the accompanying collation the edition of E. Maass has been
alternative lection
v. I.
are preserved.
by the Berlin
positively
worth notice
1807 as a v. 1.
coincidence of ancient testimony
supported by Joh. Philoponus and
early Aratus papyrus at Berlin (Berl. Klassikertexte,
which a few
papyrus reading
in
1.
185
;;
[
[
[
[
i86
or
]]
[[
'
93
,.
]
]
,.,
was added in explanation of

895 Perhaps
of a longer note on a previous line; cf. Schol. 892
897
presumably
901.
. g.
.
.
:
[*lw/**f ww
921.
1.
923.
C.
[
:
928.
AC.
Maass with
Cf. Schol.
ACM
so
A
:
MSS.
and (M) Schol.;
rots
'
Philop.
SO P.
Bei'l.
7503-4 and Philop.
CM {): Maass with A

CM Philop., Maass
A.
so
word may be
el
and Maass
(cf.
(cf.
Homer
'
1.
, ,,
... 6
several later
part
284);
-)
ot
Philoponus, in Aristot. Meteor,,
(or
486)
AM,
p.
100
MSS., MaaSS
Philop.
as originally written here,

', the corrector's reading, is that of
930.
the reading of
CM.
502).
.
so
is
text, as in
.
or the
also possible.
Maass.
Homer
929.
IS
om. C.
(cf.
so
924.
927.
926-31),
v.L,
stood in the
paraphrase of
95
(11.
But
The marginal
,\
1808.
read by Maass with

and Schol.
is
AM
Plato, Republic
C &c,
and Avienus
viii.
Width of column 4*5-5 cm.

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.
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
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
is
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
,.
With regard
followed in the accompanying facsimile (Plate IV).
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
there
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.
Col.
ii.
8.
Col.
Plate IV.
i.
Plate IV.
ii.
]..[.].
]
[
]
[
]
8eoi>
54 6 b
[.
'
[]
[> \
77?[
e]<7
.]
-\\(: _
[.]
[ -
<.
][.]
,j
1"
>
[?
Mevtovi Qe
'
[
[
?!
4
5
54^
88
]
[
[
[
"
J
[
[
[
[
k l ;?
.]
?
|
9
Tpi]a6os"
<5e
II
[]
o"is
[
[
[[\
[[
Col.
[]
[
<[
546 d
^^ [
[
[
[
[
[
Col.
[[
iv.
Col.
'
ape
[[
/3
5
:
7;<["
13
Plate IV.
iii.
[]
]
[]
ku/3o)[i/
[]
12
] 9
'
oe ci/eif [eKaJrof
Tivouaas
L
II
7
8
"
[] a "**7
*'
'
]-^
,*
[]
~_
crr[.]v
\'
[
]
[
]
[]
5
]'
]
[]
#./
[.
12
Lf -tj
"
13
1808.
\
[[
[
8e
avTirtLvov
Se
e<y
]
?
>
[]
[]
[
[
547c
<5e
[;
15
0/[[]]
[]. [*\
4
[\
[
[>]
547 d
ev
..
[]
189
marg. .
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.
i,
The two
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 .
stroke,
in the text,
4.
The
collocation of figures after
above and connected with
by enclosing
,.
is
peculiar.
If
since the
is
written
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,
it
'
() (}
()
\)
(\(}
1,
()()
compound
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
at
the
the
beginnings
{(),
8()
of the
{) {)
lines.
:
,
.^ (
i 9o
note
'
and Dercylides
\oyov
what
( (),
hi Remp.
ap. Proclus,
(. e. 4
expected
is
,A
Alex. Aphrod. In Arisi. Met.
cf.
is
surely
{) '()
')
3)>
8.
ii,
990 a 23
p.
,^/,
of the Pythagorean triangle rei roivw
25 (Kroll)
&
(sic
exspectas
iv
Kroll
but
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
12.
marg.
4.
referring to
in the preceding note.
Aphrod. quoted
'
()
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.
ii.
The
7.
9.
Col.
is
unrecorded.
[]?
ii,
marg.
'
This diameter
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
'
diameter of 5
7.
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
is
of which
AD
Proclus ;
AFD.
so
superscribed by a second hand
with others Burnet.
13.
is
1.
so
1 1,
the top
v.
([
3.
().
[()]
The number 48
[ ,
11.
67,
In marg.
in
()
11.
V 50 {Euclid
is
]
1
\.
and 9 marg.
47), to
which the nearest rational number
of course arrived at by subtracting

marg. 8) from the Square of 7
should be restored, and
before
is
'
()0()
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.
for
3-4).
cf.
marg.
8.
\.
.
()(\
(
;
(6)
()
() .
'()
, ()(. .
()
'
-()
1808.
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.
yvvâiKeico).
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)
'
is
This
().
[)
^) ', (6)
(ii.
6 8e
6 oe,
'
(y(vva)
pvpta, 6 8(
and
by the addition of
Proclus obtains the number
36 sqq.), but whether he is here following Dercylides he does not say.
Col.
lines
eKe'ivov
iii.
makes
10.
'.
()
()
eartv
(?)
8.
[ (][
,](
or perhaps
the vestige before the lacuna and the arrangement of the
the reading practically certain
ey.
(FDM,
MSS.
Burnet) or
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.
above
The
superfluous
AM;
SO
so A, Burnet;
% [):
confirmed by the spacing.
FD.
1809.
The
F.
and a dot was
also placed
vestige of the
is
very slight, but the reading
Plato, Phaedo.
1 1 -3
it
((
it.
is
D,
adscript has been crossed through
the
1 1 -7
cm.
Early second century.
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
goes,
the foot.
The hand
the Trajan-Hadrian
is
a small upright uncial of neat appearance, suggestive of
period.
Vertical
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
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
denote alternations
the dialogue
in
as usual, does not appear.
Possibly the symbols in the margin of Col.
they referred.
the place of other notes which have been
mark
The
with
text
is
the four readings in which the papyrus agrees with
by
B, three are accepted
below) and the fourth

other hand, in
of
BTW,
ii.
and
14
in
ii.
]'
]
]
[|*]
]]
tis fi
] ^]]
].
.[.]..
'
3.
3?
]
ccos
of
B W.
2
[. .J
ii.
102 e
Se
- '[
edeXtiv eivai ere

:
eyco*
<5e
[]
]
3
.
Se
edeXei
[[[
eivai
]
on the
3?
]:
>
against
S 9os
one
BT
Col.
]?">
be right
may
against the inferior
i.
,)
in
li v
1*1 ?[
for
B2
....[.
Col.
]
TW against
the basis of the collation given
is
12 has the preferable ovbi of
13
agrees with
]y[
Burnet (whose edition
(iii.
it
were intended to
a good and interesting one, of the eclectic type frequently met
Of
in papyri.
iii
lost.
1809.

'
^^
ov
15
'
re
*>
[?
]
[ ]] [
*93
[] [[
[[[
[[[
[
[
[[
[
Col.
15
iii.
[][
[
&&&!%% &-
should be recognized between the

5.
. possê, though the vertical stroke before /is rather'
*-
io3c
kmg
^
for T
*"
aud
94
would
better suit e.g.p; but c

j
cannot be
6.
is
same hand.
Col.
[ (]
unlikely, since
is
11.
6-7 indicate a longer
line.
apparently.
crossed through and

very unintelligible collocation
(/
inserted above
it,
probably by the
is left.
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
i.
]/
](
are not easy to identify.
[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.
I.
7.
II.
]?
speaker
cf. int.
ii.
6.
/}]
8. ckciio
BT
so
ov
t[
|
14.
19.
The
17, so that
TW
so
and
v.
I.
\\
[ ] ]
.
first
has been altered, whether by the original or a later hand
the
B 2 Wt.
oi're
a\\a was apparently
filled
B.
13.
kuvos B.
W.
12. yeveauai
1.
W.
B2 T W
soB 2 TW; om.
so
first
of
is
by writing
written.
is
not clear
is under t of
in the line above and
of
in
hardly enough for the lacuna, which may, however, be sufficiently
or
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,
is
11.
short quantity.
14.
16.
unknown
TW
here, too, the
meaning
1810.
SO
The marginal
sign
is
\
is
mark
like the sign for
BTW.
on the broken edge of
the papyrus
and may be incomplete
obscure.
Demosthenes,
Olynth.
i-iii,
Phil,
Width of column 6-6-5 cm.
i,
De
Pace.
Early second century. Plate

{Phil,
These fragments, covering the
first five
i,
IV
Fr. 15).
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,
in
a graceful round hand similar in type to that of the British
(cf.
also
e. g.
1810.
195
and the height of the
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
Phil.
i.
15. 17.
The
text
is
variants {Olynth.
on the whole a good one, of the usual

ii.
Frs. 14-18. 19, 22, Olynth.
are unimportant, and there
MSS.
Of
these S,
iii.
7.
'
eclectic
'
kind.
Peculiar
2-3, Phil. 17. 4-6, 21. 3-5)
no tendency to depart from the tradition of the
is
by common consent the
best, is often supported, in several

places against all other testimony (Olynth. ii. Frs. 9-1
1. i. 3, Frs. 12-13. 5, 12,
Phil. 4. 1, 27. 2, De Pace 2. i. 6, 22)
in Phil. 11-13. ii. 5 a vulgate spelling has
apparently been converted later to that of S. On the other
hand agreements
with the readings of other MSS. against S are not
uncommon (Olynth. ii.
Frs. 2-3. 11 (= YOF), 9-11. i. 2, 14-18. 1, Olynth. iii.
5. ii. 19 (= A), Phil 4. 2
5-6.
(
(= FB), 11-13. i. 10, ii. 4, 14. i, 10, 18-20. 10 (= YO)).
;
In the transcription given below, lines in minor pieces have

been completed
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.
[
[$
[]
ov\l
Fr.
I-
[ ] [[
[] ]? [[
[
][
[ ]*[
Fr. 2.
[^^^
i.
pat
[\ [
[
[ ? ]
Frs. 3-4
8e
7 lines lost
eXet/]0e
]
[
[
23
[\
2
aSecos
]?[[
]
26
196
[
]
[
[][ [
[
[ [
]>
Frs. 5-7.
[[
[] ([
[]
[
[]
[]
25
2
[
]
[
[] ][
][
[][? ]
]
[
[
[[][[
[]
[]
(:
Fr.
8.
identification of this
]?
[
The
25
[?
Fr.
[][
1
[
[? ][
fragment
28
made
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
1.
in place of
though
is
intelligible, is unattested,
speeches.
Frs. 3-4. 11.

the omission of
]o is
only a shade to the right of ] and ] in the preceding

(so Bl(ass) with Liban.) seems probable.
lines,
and
before
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.
Olynth.
[
[
]
[
]
[]
]
[ ] [
[
?]
Fr.
[
]?
ii.
[][
[]
i.
Frs.
[]
[
197
10
7 lines lost
10
2, 3.
Fr. 4.
][] ?
]
[
?
[ ? ][?
13
[
]?
[ ][]
[
[
[
[
[ [
[] ?]
Frs. 5-6.
]?
?]
[]
[]/
[?
[
4
lines lost
?
[
?[
]
]
?
?
[? ] >
]]? ?
[
[
]]
?
[
[
[ ?
[
[
]
[
[]?
[?]
?
[
?>
]
[
[
]
[?
]?
[?
17
][][][][
[]
15
Frs. 7-8.
]?
[?
5 [
7 lines lost
25
[?
19
i 98
Frs. 9-
1 1.
]
]
[
[ ]
Col.
i.
2i
]
[
]
[
]
[
\
[
[
]]
[
[ ]
[ ]
[
[
]
]
]
>
>
7 lines lost
20
22
\[
[
[]
[]
][
[
[] [
Fr. 11.
ii.
[
][
[
] ] [[
[
[
] [[
[
[
[]
][
[][[
[
[]
]
[
[
]
[
[
[
] [
[ ]
[]
[
[]
[]
24
27
Frs. 14-18.
Frs. 12-13.
Col.
25
[
[
'
[]
/]?
26
3 lines lost
[
[
[
]
? [[
[]
]
]
] [
1810.
[]
2 [?
ep
8e
[]
[
[
[] []
25
199
[] ]
[]
[
[ ] [][
[[
Fr. 19.
[]
][
\
[][
[
[]
5
Frs. 2-3. 11.
Pr. 4. This fragment

Frs.
YOF
corr.
other MSS.,
Bl.,
Butcher.
not very certainly identified.
5-. . A
2. ovre]s
Frs. 7-8.
in the papyrus.
stop may be lost before ot.

om. Bl. with Hermog. p. 50, Rh. Gr.
1. Tavbpos,
](
papyrus had
which
SAFBY
SO
16. In estimating the
6.
is
so
ev
[Xei-x/reji
(]
607.
vulg.
:,
vii.
omitted by Bl. and Butcher with SFB, was clearly not
is
of lines lost below this one
number
which
it
has been assumed that the
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
'
(vulg.,
Butcher)
is
indeterminable.
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
21.
lacuna,
Bl. follows S,
Fr.
11.
Butcher the vulg.
ii.
The
identification
is
doubtful
i|8[uu
|[
is
another possibility.
200
Frs. 12-13.
7.
12.
Prs. 1418.
:
so S, Bl., Butcher ;
vulg.
other MSS., Butcher, om. Bl. with Schaefer and Cobet.
5.
so S
SO S, BL, Butcher
:
*]
and
S, Butcher,
Bl. with
[]
Vulg.
SO most MSS.;
Cobet bracketed
only.
12.
19.
22.
is
high stop
:
may be lost after .

MSS.
' MSS. If
quite possible, the asyndeton
were similarly omitted after tovs

would balance those earlier in the sentence.
Olynth.
[
]
[
[
[
]
[ ]'
[repov
[
[ ] [
[]
[e/c]e[i]i'
8[c
\\]
] [
]
[
[] [] ]]
[]
[] ][][
*
[
[]]
[pois
](:\
6\
5 lines lost
[][
[
[]
[ ]
ei
15
[res
[]
[ ][]
[]
Fr. 4
[
[
[]
]
[
]
]
which
Frs. 2-3.
-jYje
20),
(1.
iii.
Fr. 1.
Gebauer
1810.
.
[
Fr.
Col.
]
]
]
[]
]>
[
[]
[
\
i.
3 lines lost
11
>
[]
[]
[]
yap
re
[[[
][
>[] '[[[[
?
>
[]
]] [[
[[
>
Fr. 6.
[
][
[
[] [] ] [
[]
[iiav
[]
[]
Fr.
1.
5.
avay
Fr. 7.
35
14
yap
13
[[
[
[6
Col.
20 1
[]
[] '
][
36
Either ntia]ope6 or
Frs. 2-3. 4-5. Bl. brackets nep)
could be read.
and
inserts
before
with Isidor. x. 126.
202
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 &
Fr. 5.
19.
i.
* MSS.
. ',
is
vulg.
Pr.
read
7.
bracketed by Bl. and Butcher with Cobet.

con: to
S, with
so A suppl. ;
Bl., Butcher.
[:
16.
19.
].
. .
Either
with Dionys.
Bl. brackets
Pr.
Bl.
7.
(S corr. h.
23.
corr.
[
[
]
[
[ \\
[ ]
Fr. 2.
[[[
5 lines lost
15
Fr.
7.
Col.
i.
]
[
]
]>
[
[
[
14
[
[ ] [
][
[
Fr. 4
Frs. 5-6.
10
3.
[\]
i.
[
[
[
MSS.
Fr.
[]
S?B* can be
Butcher), or
'
Phil.
Fr.
AO,
in a late hand,
[
[
[^?
][]
]
Fr.
7.
Col.
18
ii.
[
[
5
?[
[[][
[
15
yap
8.
Fr. 9
[]
Fr.
[]
[[[
[]
[]
[]
[]-
[
[[
Frs.
Col.
33
[
]
[]
[]' [] []
[]
[]'[[]]
[
[]
[]
]
[][]
[]
32
34
i.
23
[] [
[]
Col.
][
[
21
]
]
[
[
[ )]
[ ]]
[
[
]]
[
[ ][
203
(]]
[
[
[
[[
Fr.
1810.
[
[
/[[]]
([
'[
[
[
204
[6
[
[
]
[
[]
[
[] [ ]>
[] [[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[?
[]
'
[]
[]
[]
>
[]
XP[o]f[of
][
][
3 lines lost
7 lines lost
34
25
[] [
[]][[
[]
[
]
[
[
][
[
]
[ ]]
[
]
>
]
[
]
[]
[]
Fr. 14.
Fr. 15.
36
[
[
[
[
to[vtois
35
]
][
[
[
]]]
37
[<]
.
]
[
[]
Fr. 16.
[
[
][
15
38
[[
]
[]
[]
]\ [
[
[
[
[] [
[
]9
Plate IV.
>
>
[
]
1810.
)[
[
[ [
[?]
[??]
]]
,
[
3 lines lost
[
[
[[[[
[]
[
[]
[?
41
[]
[ ][] []
[]
]
\ [?
Frs. 18-20.
Fr. 17
39
25
[] [
[]
[]
[] - [
205
][[
]
] [
]
]
[
[?
[
[?
[
? ] [] [
[
43
3 lines lost
]
[ ][
[? ]? [ ?
[? )[?
[ ?
]
[]? [?
][
Fr. 22.
Fr. 21.
45
[
[? ][
[][
][?
[
[ ][?[
[] ? [? ?
[
[?]
[
]
46
47
Fr. 24
Fr. 23.
?
?
][
[] [?
47
?]] [
[ ? ]? [
[
[
[
26
[]
[[
[]
[]
[][
Fr. 25
[
[
01
>
/jpiOi?
Fr. 26.
[
[]
[ ][
48
7[9
[]
Fr. 27.
[
[
[
[
. The
2.
so
addition of
51
Fr. 4.
[
]
[ ]
[
50
[?
Butcher.
49
Fr. 28.
[oui/re]y
would make
after
the line too long;
om.
S,
BL,
others, BL, Butcher.
((.
Frs. 5-6. 11. Bl. and Butcher write

so FB Prooem. 21, Bl. ; ea>s S,
15. Tfr
:
vulg., Butcher.
Fr. 7. ii. Since no letter can be read with certainty, an identification of these lines
too doubtful to be of any value.
is
Fr. 8. 1. There
rather damaged.
3. Bl.
brackets
is
no
trace of writing
^?, which
is
above
this line,
is
but the surface of the papyrus
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
retained
by
with Wolf.
10. a Xeyo>
ii.
4.
i.
Bl.
-](
The papyrus seems to have had the ordinary reading, which

ttaeade
Butcher obelises
Wat, for which Dindorf reads
1-2.
so vulg., Butcher; om.

S, Bl.
so SAY, Butcher ;
vujg., Bl.
1810.
MSS.
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;
^
:
5.
so
The
deletion of the
\*
([ (
'
][ . '
,
[([]
\
^,
(]* [:
-\(
vulg.
Pr. 14.
10.
Fr. 15. 18.
S Vind.
(S,
(\(.
Butcher;
Bl.,
Fr. 16. 2-3.
tis
SA,
would be very easy
ytyv.,
is
Bl.,
others.
1.
2.
tovs,
and the same order
yiy. most MSS., Bl., Butcher;

equally possible in the papyrus, to which
Either
:
is
apparently peculiar.
Butcher,
YO,
(.
after
] []
Fr. 21.
Butcher.
77
transposes yey. and

the position given to
Frs. 18-20.
Bl.,
with S.
Fr. 17. 3-4.
SAY,
Butcher.
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
SY,
27. ti[s av: so
6.
i, Bl.,
differently divided,
19.
favour
SO Vulg.
eir
so
a]:
was
so vulg.
SO
which
& (
(SAY)
YO
Bl.
or
loss of the syllable ev-
(vulg.) is possible.
F,
The
noieh FB.
S,
omits with Schol. Aristid.
Bl.,
p.
Butcher.
196, was evidently in the
papyrus.
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
[][ . .
and
similarity of
either the dropping or insertion of
Fr. 24.
..
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.
1.
(),
De
Pace.
Fr.
1.
o]v
ov8er)epois
28
Fr.
2.
Col.
Col.
[]
[
[
]]]
]
[
[ ]
][]
[
][
[
\
[
[ ][
[[
[[[[
[
[
[
[
[
[ ][
()
Fr. 1. 2.
course uncertain.
[
[(
i.
2.
6. 8eiv
Either
so S,
not room, vulg.

ii.
7-8.
of Schol. p. 164.
Bl.,
[
[
suits the length
so
[
\[
of the line better than
or tavra>v can be read.

buv
(.)
Butcher
:
25
22.
19
]
[
[
[
[
]
[\ [
] [
]
Fr. 2.
15
op
] [
]
[
]
[
[
[
[
[
5
[
[
[
[]
ii.
MSS.
so S BL, Butcher
Bl.
for
-*,
but remains of
which there
is
evidently
and Butcher bracket, following the indications

other MSS., Isidor.
1811.
1811.
Demosthenes,
16
C.
209
Timocratem.
23 cm.
Third century.
Parts of three consecutive columns, written with a rather coarse pen in well
formed medium-sized uncials of the sloping oval type, for which an approximate
terminus ante quern is provided by remains of three columns of an account
inscribed on the verso in cursive of about the middle or latter half of the third
century.
The hand of the recto, which does not suggest a date before A. D. 200,
may
therefore
Cols,
i-ii
be appropriately referred
to
the
first
half
consisted of 39 lines each, and the height of the
of
the century.
roll, if
the margin at
the bottom was of similar depth to that at the top, was about 27 cm., while the
width of the column was about 6 cm. Another hand, using a thinner pen and
ii. 5 and supplied an
hand may well be responsible for both the dots
three positions) and a few rough breathings, which are no
lighter coloured ink, has inserted a marginal adscript at Col.
omission in Col.
of punctuation
iii.
22,
(in all
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.
[]
[[
[]
]
ov
Col.
ii.
'
()
183
'
[]
15
' [
[[
[]
185
2IO
]
[
]
[
[ ]
]
]
[ [
[
[)
/ e[ivai
'
]
] ([]
184
[[[
[
[[
'
Col.
17
[]
15
Bl(ass) brackets
in
c.
6.
After
Androt. 76
8-9.
F.
most MSS. insert

om. SAY
();
av
so
which words are absent in
MSS.;
c. Androt. 75.
Butcher.
which is read by edd.
in omitting
ts
MSS.
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
[] [
[][
([:
]
The
[][
7.
86
[
[] [
iii.
[]
[
[]
[][
ii.
[][
25
12.
[]
[]
\][]
[
[
i.
eis
20
[]
oiSev vulg.
which
Bl. brackets.
Bl.,
Butcher with
c.
Androt. 77.
is
read
1811.
MSS., Butcher;
12. oiounrcp: so
[];
18-19.
ayovTts.
23.
iii.
Other
-aavras
F and
:
AYO
(/)
r.
crvvepti
.
SO
F.
and Butcher bracket
(S) or
MSS.
[>]
20. Bl.
Androt. 77, Bl.

have ayayovres for
c.
MSS., edd.
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.
[]6
13-16.
19.
Reiske with
<\eos
Whether the papyrus had
3.
4-5.
F;
SO
so
eni-njdevovras
22.
k\cos
211
Xeye(i>
is
epei
;
;
SO
A;
Other
of course quite uncertain.
Dobree, Butcher.
MSS.
following Rh. Gr.
v.
place
1812.
after
581. 16.
/
F.
23.
Xeyeti>
Isocrates,
Ad Deinonicutn.
19-7x13-7 cm.
Fifth or sixth century.
This practically complete leaf from a papyrus codex
is
inscribed in a sloping
uncial hand, similar in character to that of P.
more
Rylands 58 (Plate 3), though rather

no doubNof about the same period. The ink,
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
occur are similar in style of writing and colour of ink to the
must
at
any
body of the
text,
and
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

8th page would
left
blank
(cf. e.
g. P.
Rylands
58). the first line of the
be approximately
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
observes in his edition, p. lxxxii, the hundreds of

of the Teubner text, but page 18 in the papyrus
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
by Drerup
is
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
suggests at
outset an affinity with the so-called vulgate (), but the textual
calculated
The
inconsistency
is
212
position of the papyrus as between that family and
is
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
42
43
[]
is
*
1
^\~
[]
[]
[
[
[
[
20
1812.
[ ] []
[]
[]
25
213
Recto.
>
.-
30
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
40
\\
[]
45
[]
[\]
[][]
[]
eivai
so
om. MSS.
4.
1.
5.
eptiv
8.
SO P. Berl.
Be
have
45
(om. P. Berl.)
rjj
<?
().
Xeyuv P. Berl.
so P. Berl. and most
MSS.
eVet
pr.,
Dr.
/
1
2.
44
."
eêi/ejT
35
Dr(erup).
others, Dr.
214
1
as originally written here
is
also in P. Berl., but this
is
probably a chance
coincidence.
14.
so
A rather
Dr.
8e others,
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
34.
1.
common
.
3.
39 napaXeinetv
read
40.
41.
v.
1.
cf. e. g.
is
35 ?.
..
P. Berl. (erepav)
so P. Berl., but cf.
on
is
added also
(.
ewoias,
-?.
34
1.
line
look
no doubt merely an instance of the
so P. Berl., though placing this word before

before
1.
insert
er.
:
1.
margin above the end of this

can hardly be meant here.
in
which
is
as first written, is the reading of the MSS.

superscribed reading
is that of
yap others, including P. Arg., Dr.
so P. Berl. ;
The
42. yap :
4 * alxa P r
48.
and
confusion of
36.
spelling of the papyrus
KaraXmetv.
also the order of
.
, The
in the
figure
so
om.
P. Berl. P. Arg.
1813.
Dr.
Codex Theodosianus
8 9
vii.
cm.
Early sixth century.

Plate
The hand
of this fragment from a vellum book
uncial writing, the letters, which are of
medium
size,
is
I (recto).
a fine specimen of Latin
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
precision,
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.
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]
stmt ab hospitibus excusari n[unc etiam praecipimus
o]mnes domus ex eodem iure v[enientes in quibuslibet
[tit
[civi\tatibus
sunt constitutae ab [hospitibus excusentur quo
[possVnt conductores facil[ius inveniri si quis igitur con
multa pridem ferietur in

AugH[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
[tra nostr[am fecerit iuss[ionem
:
aa conss-
10
cuiuscumquae iur[is nullus metator (?) accedat si

qu\oquam fiterit destinatti\s licentiam enim domino acto
[trae] vel
[a
\ri ip\siquae plebi serenitas

1
[para}ndi grat[i\a
[lendi]
eum
qui prae
venerit multandi expel
habeat facidtatem n[ec crimen aliquod pertime
[scat c]u[m s]ibi
20
n[ostra conmisit ut
ad possessionem
arbit[rium ultionis suae sciat esse conces
[sum rec\tequae sacrile[gium prior arceat qui primus invene

[rit ad]ministrantem ver[o eiusque officii proceres quo
[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
[obtulisse
[et
pr\aeceptum nostrum probati fu[erint
dat- prid- id- I]un Rave[n]nae post conss- Hon[ori
Theodosii
v-
aa- con\ss-
viii
8. 10
2i6
I
[idem aa- Probo
c-s-l-
post] alia:
de hospitalitate iiidicum
om
e[t
8.
8.
12
[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
praetata
id
iiii
Ian
ad Eutychiami\m
litt]eris
p- urbi
Constantio et Clonstante conss
[idem aa Hadriano ppo
Afric- hoc pyospectum est ut infa\usta Jiospi
praebitio tolleretur nee privatum quis[que a
[talitatis
[domino aeditun postidet
et
cetera
dat- v-
11011
Rav ennae
Mart
[Constantio et Constante co]nss
[idem aa Eustathio ppo
devotissi]mos milites ex procinc[tu
ad
[redeuntes vel proficiscentes]
15
[simae urbis singulae turres
vela
muri novi
8.
13
8.
14
sacr[atis
pedeplanis suis sus\cipiant
in]
[nee aliquis possessorum graviter fe]rat quasi [ill]a d[is
[positione quae super publicis aedificjiis processerat [vio

[lata
cum privatae quoque domus ffrtiam partem
[gratia 'soleant exhibere
20
[Honor io
xiii et
Theod
[impp Theodosius et
[magistro officiorum
dat-
aa conss]
Hadioni
Valentinianus\ aa
:
talis rei
Mart Constant inop-
non
v]
patricio et
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
most
conss
2.
so
this is also the spelling of
con]ss
8.
eiychiarum praef. R.
easily obtained
9.
10.
R.
om. Mommsen-Meyer.
3.
Some
by writing/),
reduction in the
number
of letters
is
required and
is
for praej
'.
Constante vv Tc R.
Hadriano proc. A/ric(ae) R, Hadriano pp. Cod.
What 1813 had
here remains of course uncertain
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).
lust.,
and
cf. vi.
29. 11,
R's abbreviation of Africae
vii. 4.
is
33.
adopted
1814.
217
Index to Codex Iustinianus, First Edition.
1814.
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
we are indebted to Professor de Zulueta, of the divergences

Codex as we have it, accounts so completely for the
of the index from the

facts that
Of
no reasonable doubt can be entertained of
the relation of the two editions of the
its
correctness.
Codex a good account
is
by
given
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
is
much
simpler, approximating to the
and
corresponding one of Cod. Theod.
4, and the two new constitutions of 530
the
but
Justinian
from
emanated
533 are replaced by two others, of which one
would
itself
of
which
other is Cod. Theod. i. 4. 3, of A. D. 426. This evidence,
i.
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
be
sufficiently conclusive,
is
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
from
clear
is
It
Church.
the
with
concerned
both
titles 12 and 13, which are
to
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
titles,
ecclesiastical
the
with
beginning
edition, as in the second, the principle of
=
which in the Codex Theodosianus had been placed at the end (Cod. lust. i. 1-11
only
was
principle
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
powers as
'
laid
more completeness
down by
in the
the constitution
De
emendatione codicis
3 si
quae
2i8
(constitutiones) similes vel contrariae inve7iirentur,circumdticere et a prioris codicis
congregatione separare.
Though
primarily valuable as a relic of he original edition, the papyrus
makes some contributions

with the
MSS.
also to the text of the extant
the omission of Septimio in
in
1.
20,
it
Codex.
While agreeing
name
inserts the
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.
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.
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.
written in
a medial dot often accompanied, in the case of aa,
stroke over the letters
but the scribe
dot and sometimes the stroke

probably due to inadvertence,
extend to a second
marked
both
off
by
in front
line or
is
at the
pp,
&c, by a
horizontal
sometimes the
he writes both impp- and imp-p- but the

bo
-bus in
1.
18.
When
end of each, as
in
latter is
rubrics or inscriptions
more, these are considerably indented.
Rubrics are
them and the letter

is placed
the Verona fragments, whose practice
horizontal dashes above and below
and
cc,
inconsistent, omitting
1814.
is
by Kriiger in his large edition. The prefixed

is accompanied by
number of the rubric, in Greek figures constitutions, with one exception
followed
the
(1.
219
37), are
not numbered.
The
rubric on the recto
first
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]
templis
Cod.
t
lust.
i.
n.
[imp' Const- ? Di\odoto

[imp
5
Constajntin-
[impp- Gratian]
[aaa-
Cyne]gio pp-
Arcadius
t[mpp-
a ad Taurum ppValentin- et Theod-
H\onorius
et
aa
[c\rovio [et Pr\oclian vieid-
10
Ma
proy-
aa- Apollodo[ro pr]oco7is- Africae
imp-p- Honor[- et The\odosius
aa
popido [Carta}geii[ie\nsi
id da
impp
Asclepi\odoto p\p
Valentin et Marcian aa]
Pallad[io
15
pp
()() (/)
^
[]
de legibo
[imp Co]nstan[ti]n-
[a]
et]
[id
[id
25
[id[id
[id
[id
aa
aa
aa
aa
aa
aa
[impp
3
14
et [edictis
[impp- T\heo[dosius
[a]d
e[t eon]stitu[tionidns
principum
20
impp Leo et An[them aa Dioscoro
Basso pu
Valentinian- aa
senatum
ad senatum
ad Volnsian]um
pp-
Florentio p\pFlorentio
pp]
Cyro pp]
ad senatum]
Valentiniaii-
[ladium pp]
et]
Marchian[- aa ad Pal
220
Plate V.
Verso.
(\
7()
\ >[
]*f
.]
1.
14.
IO
impp' Leo et
de mandatis p\rincipum
ty
35
de
impp-
15
ad Eti[signium pp
sins aa
40
1$
Valen[tinian et Theodo
Gratian
imp-p-
8<[
[
serial con\sultis
16.
V[al enl T\heod\osius et

a
ad
A read-
s\enatum~\
[de attctoritate] iuris
17
[prudentium\
[impp
Tkeodosius et
[imp Iusthi]ianus
[fy
Cod. Theod.
se
i.
4.
[M]enae pp
de iu]ris et fact i ignor[an]t\ia]
Anion a
[imp[id
a S\esxt
Julio
Pîlip[p\o\us
[imp-
Max
Cod.
mil
lust.
i.
18.
r
htv[e]n[ali]
[impp] Diocl et
55
ad
[ad] se[natu]m
+5
50
w
V]alent a
[a ltd-
M[aximian- aa
archil-
Itilianae
[id
aa] et cc Ma[rtiali
[id-
aa] et cc Taur et P[olIioni
[id
aa] et
[id-
aa] et cc Dionysyiae
[id
aa
[id
aa] et
c\c]
Zoe
Gaio ft [Anthemio
Amph[iae
Con]stantin a [Vale\riq[no
[imp-
e]t
~cc
9
10
c~c
vie-
11
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.
subject,
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
J'tSt,):
so
\T, ****-<;
that
C d
-
Theod.
Cod.
^-
.5
,o.
xvi.
provincial
om
;
* sutKaXg
^*~^
&3TSSfW=r/JSa.
both
004
1814.
JS, Om
Cod.
than
without further additton.
where the constitution
lust.,
given without
is
name
the
Om
of the
*
-TT it .TS; 23ttZZRSSLZ ~ * ** *>
dr
ecclaiis
^""''""'"^
rf- &****
''""a,.
if
^^Zt
shortened to
MM.
Cod.
is supplied from
through the
passes
stroke
horizontal
the
nomen
the
There would no. be room
Inst.
^"&
^^
].
T2
is
from Nov. .4. 4 as

jd
the papyrus is unin.elljgrble
horizontal
the margin and has a
resto'red
reason
no
for,/
.design.
.
omitted.
TheS
course uncertain
to be
Cod.
et cons. d.
remains do not suggest
is
Per .)
SZ ShSto.?^
Theod
even
why
ta the
fe
in the
MSS.
of
papyrus
is
of
lu^ bm
Cod
? ,*53
f**^*-*^
though thie seems
aoovc f Stlfa numera,;
J"*j
numbered
contrin ^^-1-when
in
'
stroice
others
this.particular
restored.
^*** *
**
under ^ *
Ulpian
d
one
which
^JP^^X^fSult^
oth*****
and Paulus on Papinianus,
*^^not M stood^ much
4~5
corresponds
any case
but
two
lacuna
<^^ct"fj^^^ôn
m^m^te^^ That
than
^
* 4sreferuntur,
rubric
is
with two
fc
Zfc responsis prudentuvi,
of
there are tn ree
placing
are of Constantine,
1.
to 11. 4
in
42,
that of
here.
It is possible
the rubric
of
arf J*.
hat response,
is
lust
shorter
are cuoppeu
constitutions of Cod. lheod.i. 4
....,
46. This constitution
is
.
unknown, but
tv,^
the
;,
of
while the third

in the
the
of
/ef)
Marciano
nn
mP rf
menas, to
ot Menas
name
the
first
adscripta sunt
whom
the constitution
222
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
49.
1.
om. Cod.
Sexflfo)
this
lust.
name, which
is
absent in the MSS., had been rightly restored from
Cod. Greg.
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
50.
of the
line,
//
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.
there
PLM
HOMERIC FRAGMENTS
(The
collations are with
Ludwich's
text.)
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
1815.
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
nearly upright
century.
frvres
345
somewhat
mark
reixeos
irregular uncials of about the middle of the third
of elision in
348 veov
1.
in the papyrus, 1. 389, which is

having been inserted here. The papyrus
cf.
1817.
1.
386.
On
(]-
338 om.
340 ' bios
344
386 In place of this line va[ stands
omitted in its proper place, apparently
340.
is
broken above
389 om.
va[.
the verso a late third-century account.
Fragments of three
leaves,
written
with brown ink
in
a good-sized
sloping and fairly regular hand in which light and heavy strokes are strongly
contrasted.
Probably sixth century.
Accents, breathings, and marks of
elision are frequent,
and apparently
all
due to the
original scribe.
Stops
in
HOMERIC FRAGMENTS
223
the high and middle position are used.
These fragments were found with

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
1818,
574
[
]
[}
$j6 pobaybv
rflj
579 []'[[]],
corr.
Recto
][]4.
6i2
The scribe perhaps
604
603-17 (end of col.).
began 1. 614, being misled by the homoioarchon of 611 and 613. ^[[YQi
615 ^[[]]9. 617 Below this line is a row of angular marks, followed by
the title
[] enclosed in ornamental flourishes.
1818. Parts of five leaves of a papyrus book, written with brown ink in an ugly
sloping hand of the fifth or sixth century, rather similar in type to that of
1618.
Accents, breathings, and marks of elision have been freely inserted,
partly by the original writer, but many being due to a second hand which
has also added some of the stops (high and middle position) and made
6[]?
The method
corrections in the text.
modern
practice,
except with
frequently been written for
at
of accentuation hardly differs from
regard
to
the
accent.
retracted
or vice versa, and
many
has
such misspellings
have been corrected both by the first and second hands these variations,
and the common confusion of and et, are generally not noticed in the
following collation.
few scraps have not been identified.
;
Fol.
16-8x14-7
cm
113
re
0[i]oju.e[jV]]
converted from
corr.
134
116
174 aye
176
followed
109-37 (ends of
]$
vlkos
118
re
121 was included.
164
190-202, 283-93^ 2 3
154
dislocation
[/'^
may have been due
129
163
1^2
171
?
( )
125 [[]]
128
a.
Recto 53~77 (beginnings).
Lines 283-93 are eacn

hand, implying that
first
the verses, which were rewritten in the proper place
The
]-
of
115
14
by a small comma-shaped mark by the
cancelled.
111
lines).
by
Recto
apparently neglecting to delete the
corr. to
Fol.
Verso
(cf.
Fol.
3),
were to be
to a defective archetype, or
224
the scribe's having turned over two leaves in mistake.
195
1 9^
fV/Ai? Taus
from
converted
', /3'[|[]
290
77
200
ovb
Verso 216-43.
226
239
228
AiTCe|]V[]
233
TTr[epoevT ?
2 77
eVx?L ?
[[]],
.\
Fol.
eyX 0S T|
Recto 291-314
[[]]
35
.
33 6 -57
'[[]]
3^3
Verso
347
^7
-^]
345~7
34^
'|]]]
'
}
'{?
a corr.
353
354
388
365
i"'[[es]]
392
275
353
[[]]//
. ,'
^.
'^ '
^ Py as
34
Verso 37 6 ~97
,
^
39 2
39 1
35
a converted from
$$1
355
but a straight stroke was begun after
363
265 ovre
2 9^ eycuy'[J_aT]
Fol. 5
238
corr.
Recto
380
264
274
Corr.
[[]]6[5,
2 ^
255~7^
272
270
312
^^
'
?
Verso
222
^^'^]
Fol.
of
283
220
224
194
. ^6
Xtittovs
Koriry[[t]]
393
367
'
.].
359
eicrav
Recto 383-406.
t
395
yccSzâs 5e
]?
396
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
397
1819.
that of the corrector
who has made
a few alterations in the text.
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.
4-1x2-2 cm.,
244-83, Col.
ii
284-323.
3-12.
259
)
Fr. 2
last line of Fr. 2.
A
New
ii
facsimile of that fragment
Palaeographical Society's
26-4x14-2 cm., Col.
'
The
beginning
285
*^]],
ends of
corr.
HOMERIC FRAGMENTS
..
for
retouched by
of
287
2g2
3 01
opposite this line
3ii ewe [[]],

2
corr.
Fr. 6
(=
2
306
300).
314
'
[
297
Kar[[e]]
302
[]
298
303 In the margin
*>
308
TroAuaJeJiKo?, corr.
309
316
n?/A[[e]]ioi>,
3-5 beginnings of 414-26, 428-32. 418

429 ]5 cm., a few letters from
1-4. Some small fragments
Frs.
[.
is
corr.
225
2-2
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
1820.
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),
and
accents, breathings, and marks of elision and quantity are fairly
frequent a few of these are evidently original, but the majority, which are
more lightly written, are later additions, due probably to one of the correctors,
.of whom two, one using cursive forms, seem to be distinguishable.
Besides
these common signs a comma to separate words, and its converse, the
sub-linear hyphen, occur among the subsequent insertions.
The dimensions
of the complete page may be estimated at about 34
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
101
In
for a
acute substituted for a grave accent.
the
cancelled
Recto
Fol. 2
apparently)
etre
grave accent.
no
by a dot placed above
137-63.
2
[]
Verso 178-205.
lines,
[]
78
it
142 marg.
7.
om.
[][
(not
]\
>0 $
107
On
an
^^',
?).
11.
IpoJvJ]
of
in
in a
b ap'
(H 2
eire
On
96
118
'
or
148-51 there are
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
and a coronis between

2
[\'
109
146 Against this line and
oblique dashes in the
153
'
'
[.
marg. a diagonal dash.

Recto 95-121.
105 In the left marg. a flourished sign
left
102
an acute substituted
Marg.
eiA/ce
of
or
11.
186-7.
185 ypvs
190 marg.
[t'^vl
226
MINOR LITERARY FRAGMENTS
IV.
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
Marks of elision
third century.
[
[.
re
[
[
'
'
[
[
,],.[
1822.
are used.
'
[.
3$$
On
17 cm.
the recto remains of two columns of an account.
On
]\ -\['
the verso ends and beginnings of lines of two columns from a hexameter
poem, apparently
19
relating to astronomy,
21
]
(marginal adscript
end.
The
]
] ^]]
^)
last line of Col.
g.
28
33
ii
opposite
i.
]ei8eTai eibos'
32
lines of Col.
is
18
i.
29
Most of the
Kpovos
e.
22
30
33
Zevs
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
6-6
cm.
x
Strip
from
containing
parts of 28 lines of a tragedy,
1823.
a column
higher point than Col.
11.
7-15 at
being stichomuthic.
least
well-formed uncial hand

of the
first
century
eTC />X[
][
Resolution
evidently early, and
is
*S ^2.
frequent.
may go back
B. c.
[
.] [
]
is
[]
The
?[
[*] [
~\
]#?
upright
to the beginning

5
0o/?or
/[
-[
ye
(?)
0/),
_
,,
1824.
77
[
][
]
[.......].*
25
_[?[
19
? [
X i
]vmviv
jerois
av
20
227
].
(re
y Tp09
[
.
g.gx6-i cm.
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
The
to the other.
being blank)
and one of them

text
betrothing a girl called Pamphile (?)

written across the fibres of the verso (the recto
is
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
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
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
11 the small interlinear dash probably belongs to an abbreviation of
1.
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.
corrector's
hand is apparently
a
but
original
scribe,
frequent, may be by the
ink,
rather
faded and effaced
Brown
to be distinguished in verso 2.
in places.
Recto.
yctf)'
],
\wt
\.]\\
Ljr.u_._u
'
r.y
...
]
]
e
"
"
Verso.
[][
[[]] 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.
%]
[
[
.
[
.
[]
[
[

5
\ [
]^]
]
]
em
?[]
[
.
Tyy
15
ye
.
>[].[. .}.[
[
.
8e eva
\[]
]
]
Tore
Keiva aSe
]f)i
enrev
229
[
.
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.
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
1827.
Fr.
5-6 cm.
10-7
sloping uncials
[.
a high stop in
Fr.
Upper
1.
1.
.]e/>o[.]
[]
[] ?
ov ev
15
[\
11.
[]
[]
.]
.
,]<1
[.
.]
.][
[.
[]
Fr. 2.
[]
[]
[]'
[]
In
still
1.
an
]
.
2 there seems to be barely
less
room
for [], but
is
not attractive,
230
1828.
4-9
2*9
Fragment of a vellum
cm.
small sloping uncials
of,
leaf,
inscribed in well-formed rather
probably, the third century.
point of division
is
Recto or
yap
]
]
]
LKavov
?]
flesh side.
[]
[
[[
.
[
[] [][] [
Verso.
[
.
[]
yap
The
contents are of
Apparently the lines were of no great length, but their

not fixed.
The vellum is thin and rather discoloured.
an ethical character.
]
][,
[.]
INDICES
(1700
before 0-28, such figures referring to
1800
be supplied before 78-99,
is to
papyri; figures in small raised type refer

columns ; sch.
13
]8
37
[]
9
3.
88.
ayava[ 87.
87.
288. .
12
IO.
3.
89.
88. 15 i. 6 sch.
adfiv 88. 3 3 sch.
8
87.
5.
]88.
87.
31
4.
^[
I.
3
87.
U. 2 2.
12
88.
6,
89. x i. 12(F).
23 2.
az[ 89.
88. 8 3.
ai
ii.
15
4,
89.
5.
88. 6 8.
15 ii.
5.
oMe/T 88.
... 89. 6
[
[
[
[
89.
88.
<
18
87.
6.
88.
<W>i[89.
27
4 sch.
i.
6.
3 Sch.
17
87.
3
87. 5 6.
87. 44 5
88. 4 3 2
87. 1+2 2.
l6
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
;
15
89.
89.
87.
24
37
9
2
8.
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.
[
[
'*
{
[
87. 1+2 1 8.
87. U
87. 4
n'
(\
/3<7
89.
'
87. 7
88.
7
3 sch.
89. .
6.
88. 7 7
87. 34 4
0[88.
[87.
87. 1+2
89.
29 6.
3 Sch.
2.#
13 8.
V87. 1+2 5
87.
21.
([{
'\
[
.
?
13
23
4
33
87.
/3[
88.
27
21.
15
"
87.
88.
2,
'
87.
/[ 87.
'
88.
87.
88. 4 34 "
89. * . 5
88. 4 25.
87. 26 6.
/<?[ 88. 4
15
87. 6 7.
89. x i. 6.
aeppui( 88. 5 3.
87. G 9.
$[
[
'87. 1+2 6,
U. 12.
3
87 40 3
88. 3
87. 12 787. 7 4, 32 2
|(
3.
(?) 87.
4 IO.
1787-9 (Sappho and Alcaeus).
IO.
87.
figures to
scholium.)
I.
aa[ 87.
Roman
fragments,
to
yauei 89.
. 7
8.
16
INDICES
232
89.
7 -[ 89.
38 2 sch.
36
yap 87.
^9;
6,
. 7,
19,
2 (?),
31
89. 1 i.
132
2 5;
7,
6, 2, 1
88.
13
2,
2,
3(?)>
>
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.
'
23
1 6.
peal
89.
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
yoW
15
s ch.
89.
[Saure]
89.
(or
88.
41
5,
88.
U.
Si/we.
87.
U. 4
12
88. 1
ii.
36
ii.
Pap.).
.^,
3; 89.
4; 89.
22
2.
i.
26
15,
41
!;
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
87.
fV
14 sch.
88.
87.
II.
i.
3.
3.
i.
87. 3 ii. 18.

fa[87. 31 ii. 1.
89.
fa
ii.
9&
19.
17.
9.
(?).
88.
(eori)
tov 87. 3
87. 1+2 15.
eotoais
3sch.; 89.
89. x
87. **
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.
i.
6 and sch.
* i. 6 Sch.
ii.
fc
88.
89.
4.
89.
1 .
88.
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. *
87.
88.
^
0]
.
29
ta]^ 89.
ieVat,
88.
15
ii.
(' 87.
17.
13 2.
&[ 87.
12
4.
87. 44 6.
ii.
89.
ii.
7.
87. 7
17.
87. 1+2 4.
87. 1+2
87. ** 5.
87. 19 2.
89.
?
17.
89.
<9eW 87. 3
?ei/]8ucws
i.
15
I.
&iXe 87- 44 2.
0/
29
6.
4 10.
6, 17.
ii.
87. 36 5.
87. 1+2 12; 88.
88. 1 6.
0i/i<w
3
. ?
3
5 87.
II.
88.
ii.
44
87.
5.
3.
24.
rf
89.
88.
ii.
18.
14
1; 89. 9 3.
eow[ 88. 6 12.
(
([
6.
88.
^>/3] 89. x
ii.
88. 4 40.
A]Mra[if 89. 20 1.
e\ms 87. 1+2 19.
89.
().
[]
[
/
[]
([
13
?p[pe
5 (. 1.
87.
9.
87.
ia
ii.
ii.
\ev6epais 88.
87.
/[
9
? 87.
I.
87. n 4.
89. l ii. 8.
88. 4 33.
88. 4 31.
In 87. 9 2.
?
ew^ 88.
6.
21.
bevovros
?)
89.
4
"")
?]
2.
7.
36
87.
4 2
7-
87.
25
88.
12.
ii.
ap-
eA/cea
87.
15
1+2
eXqi/, q'Xeo
Sa[
op-
18 sch.; 89.
87. 1+2 26.
/[
[
?
Pap.).
(e's
89.
epot
9
ii.
i.
87.
eiWf[ 89.
? yuj/]-
2.
pot
6.
3,
ii.
16, 12
i.
,e87.
2;
10.
ii.
eh 88.
ii.
[89.
87.
88. 12
eiVe
89.
. 8.
87. 1+2 24, 3 . 23.

12.
87. 44 7; 89. *
par 87. 6 4, 28 2 (?).
89.
13
12,
22.
89. 7 1.
88. 1 ii. 25 (Vo^p.); 89. M. 5.
87. 6 2.
87. 6 2; 88. 4 20, 12
pe 87. 3 11. 19,
,
4
7.
ii.
eirtlradecK
eyo>
88.
6 2.
eWe[ 87.
eW[
89.
88.
[}
67[
16.
ii.
87. 3 . 18.
87 1+2 7
87. 24 3
87. 1+2
89.
15
88.
5.
13
3.
3.
2.
87.
13
3.
3.
3
ii. 12.
l\\e ... 87. 44 10.
ip[f
(?)
SAPPHO AND ALCAEUS
/.
'([
10
87. 10
[]
[
'
/[
\(
3.
88. 5 6
88. 4 3
88. l 1.
7
87.
87. 1+2
20
3, 7,
1*2,
l(?),
9;
18; 89. Mi.
ii.
32
8.
2,
89.
15
1
3i,
3
[^
:
,
25
34
87. 4 7.
89. 31 .
4
89.
87-
15.
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.
.4
87. 1+2 25
89. . 4) V. 1.
12
29
29
87.
8.
87. 1+2 1 6, Mi.

89.
8, 9, 7
K[et/ieiOis 89. * . 8.
88. 15 i. 15 sch.
Kepp]
88 *
88.
87.
1.
#.
KplVfiP,
87.
27
87. 1+2
87.
7[
88.
12
[
12
19.
12
88.
15
45 2
19,
15
7,
87.
12
II.
34
2,
23
20.
2.
/'
24
4; 88.
89. .
87.
30
89.
12
3<t[
]/3
14,
ii.
27,
87.
89.
12
3
.
15
44
4
. 24;
. 12.
TOWj
89. 1 .
89. . 9
5
3
4 2
6.
88.
88. 4 24.
89. 1 . 3
88. 2 12.
1/
87.
87.
89. 9
88.
2.
'
15,
87.
23.
6, Tti^[e ?
88.
87.
25.
4
88.
88.
87. 1+2
88. 2
87. 3 .
19
6,
89.
25.
15
8.
33
3'>
13
rel.)
4
8; 89.
88. 10 2.
;.
89.
12.
88. 15 .
88. 12
6.
88.
88.
15
87.
5,
6,
5 sch.
i.
2.
9,
34
dem.,
(art.,
38
15
88.
8,
87.
87.
34
89.
2.
2.
^/...
6.
38
4,
15
17.
i.
87. 1+2 2 2.
87. 1+2 25,
. 5
5,
8,
87.
(title).
87.
6.
88.
4
21
87.
87. 1+2
88.
89.
87. 1+2 20.
7; 89.
89.
89.
88. 15
87. U
87. 4 9
88.
6.
([
[
]<
87.
/cet/iev
15.
(?) 89.
/cXeor
2,
Meya87.
89.
89. 29 5
87. 3
88. 2 9; 89.
( ^ ^(
[
[
44
87.
"
vij/
87. 3 2 .
89. 6 4
89. . 3, V.
87. 5 4
89. 29 7 Sch.
88. 15 . 8.
88. 12 . 5
87 44 3
,(
/
>[
'
87.
89. 12 4.
89. 29 4
3
/yir 87.
. 9
pvpta 88. 2
89. 12 9 Sch.
. 5
? 89.
5 sch.
89.
89.
ma 88.
>{
0.).
[89. 24 .
[87.
89.
5.
89. J . 2.
88. 2.
88. 2 II.
87.
8.
'?
87.
ii.
87. 1+2 25.

? 87.
87. 1+2 3
87. 13 II.
87. 1+2 II.
2.
. 15.
<50[/
89.
}.
87.
88.
89.
3.
i.
ii.
7,
ii.
2,
34
87.
,
,[
^
>>,
5.
27
2.
W7-[ 87.
?7.
4 2
15
2,
88.
2,
19
>[
87. 1+2 24, 28,

IO,
13
[ 87.
88. 4 25; 89.

88. 6 II.
87. 4 6.
3.
40
89.
87.
6.
233
8.
87. ** 9
INDICES
234
. 2.
88.
15
8() 87.
38
87. 5 3
88. 10 5
88. 4 27
88. 15 . 7
88. 15 . 24.
6[
[
,]
(
89.
88.
'?
]
.
3ms
33,
87.
4,
15
6
&"
88
^)
10
8,
.
5
2,
26,
';
12
88.
2(?),
13, 2
" 2 ,
7;
88.
4 1 1.
15
4,
12
2 4,
. 8.
i.
7r[ai]oas
87. 19 5
ST. 3 ii. 5
88.
89.
29
!3
2.
89.
2.
88.
;.
87. 3
87.
13
7,
4
15
II.
88.
88.
13
15
i.
1 8.
4
15
88.
i.
2,
13
12.
2; 88.
,
^
,
15
Cf.
10
87.
88.
(?),
* 7
87. 1+2
6, 26 4, 34
7, 15 9
'
87. 1+2
7,
?.
[
6.
87.
44
88.
87.
>[
88. 4
88. 12 .
.
87. 1+2
2.
87
6.
'
(title).
89.
8.
87. 43 2.
88. 7 3
89. 31 2.
89. . 12, 22
87. 7 7
]/
[
3
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.
'
13-
]erep7r[
2.
87.
33
II.
87. 3
re\\eapv 87. 44 3
2 1.
II.
88.
15
87.
44
87. 45
88.
87. ,
89. * i. 3
88. 15 . 25.
89. 1 . 5
89. 19 2.
[
,
23
17
89.
tis
).
87. 1+2
. 4
89. . 12.
89. 6
87.
.
89.
88. 4 22, 12 .
89. 6 5
2,
sch
87.
88.
3
15
88.
/Tis
7[
87.
ii.
av]we'xet
Q.
88.
2.
. 9
15
5,
3 sch.,
1+2
9,"
6.
16.
88.
44
[]
88.
88.
87.
87.
25-
/
4
[][] 87.
88.
- [.
',
2j
87. 1+2
87. 1+2 2(?);

89. 24 .
15
7=
89. 6 7 (. 1.
89. 13 2.
89. 1 .
[ [
24,
88.
88. u 3.
87. 9 2.
38
2.
9,
15 SCh.
2; 88. 3 2 sch.
88. *
88.
89.
89.
6'.'
3]?)
[
7[
[
(?);
87.
87. 3 U. 21.
15
i. 10 sch.
88. 15 ii. 21.
]
[
88. 15 . 2 .
88. 15 . 4
88. 15 . 1 5 sch.
^
/^
87.
7 8.
\(
0[
88.
10
. 4
15
88.
88.
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.
18
26,
88.
18
8.
6 87. .
87 1+2
4
20, 25(?).
(or
87.
88. 15
87.
44 2.
6.
8; 88.
2.
as re
15
87. 1+2 14,

21,
Te,
88.
88.
22
&/
(87.
87. 4 8;
87. 44
87. 3 . 4-
16.
i.
89.
89.
6\6
89.
88. 15 . II.
88. 15 . 28.
([
[]
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]
7r]aparaerai
',
87.
8.
^
?
SAPPHO AND ALCAEUS
1.
^[
87.
6.
89. X .
87 1+2 4
,
\
87. 1+2
87. 3 .
87. 1+2 2 2.
**|[
?[87.*5
87. 1+2
87-
2 7-
II.
a 3. 8.
4. 4 5
8.
sch.
i.
94. 12
3. 29.
* 1 4,
#/
93.
vii.
93. VI. 3
92. 65 4 93. viii. 3
1+2
2]; 20. 73 s ch.
86. 4
82. * J5, 20.
;
[4.
95.
ii.
98.
.
95.
29,
22, 3
0.
54;
44 iv.
4 2
]
'*
7],
;
97. 12
97. 63.
96. 1 8.
4. 1+2
66, 72,
1
4*
8
*
7 1J
15
i.
7 sc ^
"' ;
.).
alev
9.
2. 3
?]
3 1 ]
].
86.
93.
0. 3 40, 4 1
20- 64 sch.
1+2
46, 57
4> 5
8
[0.
VI. 2.
27.
90.
2
2 7]
32
2. 3
90. 3 2
94. 12.
97. 43
86. 12.
8.
'
&
ii.
2
;
sch.
.
88.
67-9
1.
27.
93.
(#).
84.
82. 8
6.
83.
91.
37 2 scri
96. 17
80. 46.
/?*
>
4. 1 + 2 4(?),[23];
[.
85.
97. 5 2
69,
Aiyaioj
45
38 2.
27.
[80. 34]
80. 28.
**i. 10.
ii.
^?
14
1
2. 3 55
[5.
89.
4. 4 4
Viii.
27. 13?
27
88.
81.
aipetv
I.
[.
15
a'ipeiv
42,
4. 3 2
36
15
86.
viii.
98.
0.
8.
7,
32
87.
20.
&
. 6?
88.
4,
? 89. .
26. recto 12.

82. 65 3
85. recto 5
A%ai
^'
89. 11
88. 4 2 988. 1 U. 2 4
89. 8 5 ( 1 ]
91. 4
ayriWi 94. 7
95. .
ayos 90. 2 1.
98. 5_6
98. 44 U.
'
89.
6.
V.
[ 2.
3
27. 7
88.
88.
91. 8.
(
8
81.
32-
91. 9; 93.
aet'Seti/
aT0ff
6+ H.
8.
OTHER NEW TEXTS.
92.
90. 20.
92. 12.
0.
^
(
^
93.
[2], 3
',
87.
87. 3
1 6.
93.
86. 5
'
/3&7 0.
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.
^[
;
1 3
87.
I.
88. *
'
[
* 8.
87.
87. 12
89. 19 .
87. 3
[
[
18 sch.
i.
87.
16.
vartpov 88. 15
87. 1+2
89.
88. 4 4.
88. 4 23.
3
( ?[87.. [
:,
87. 1+2 20, 7 2 (?).

87. 39 3; 89. Mi. 8.
88. 15 U. 1 7.
235
43
86. 21.
22. . 7
83. IV. 3
44
i.
7; 3
INDICES
236
\\
2. 3 65.
93.
20
3,
44
2,
90.
vii.
12,
6,
i.
4, 15, v. 2(?),
iii.
98.
15
ii.
6,
4?
"A\ets 1. 50.
.
?5
97.
38; 99.
4, 17,
ii.
32.
12
98.
4?
4. 1+2 5
90. 34.
91.
95.
ii.
60;
31;
2. 3
viii.
27 ; 96. 4 ; 97.
98. 48 4; 99. ii.
7,
41,
93.
69; 3.28;
9. sch.
3 ; 25. recto , verso 4 5

26. verso 3 ; 27. 9.
96.
97. 4 J 7
9oi sch.
90. 13; 93. ix. 4
94. 9, 15; 97. [19], 69;
98.
13
34?];
sch. 11;
6
10.
94.
g,
2.
*6 4
9.
sch.
92.
4 ; 93.
94. 1 8.
90. 4
92. 2 5; 24.
86.
0.
8.
i.
23.
36
'
"
'
22(F);
v.
4,
ii.
27.
92.
16
36
21
"
7
0.
>
31,
'
4.
92. * 4) 1
93. VU. 3,
2.
VI. 4
8.
.22
[
27; 0.
23
2; 94.2;
,'
97.
95.
25
3.
93.
6.
41
96.
15;
8.
92.
g.
[]&
"AW?
2 6.
39
93.
..
1. int. (?)
[
ii.
28; 27.
90. 35
9
24.
90. 1 6.
I.
90. 28, 36.
90.
?].
4
3
43
is,
*.
]apyt>pof
<ipe[
VI.
. 3 65.
3.
2. 3 5
sch. 1 3.
i.
0. 6+7 7
'Atrioxeiiy 2. 6 4
a|ioy 93.
21.
90-3
2. 2 5
0. 3 50
1+2 21
(r),
98.
"
2. 3 49
2. 3 29.
?]
0.
90.
98.
98.
Sch. 8
i.
28. recto
0.
I ?
45
90.
. ,
0.
0. 3 33
2. 3 38.
4. 1+2 2.
8.
8.
[4.
8.
96.
0. 3 1 6.
;
85. 2_4 recto 5 ; 97
'
16,
g,
;
44 iv.
9.
55
94.
94.
52.
1.
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;
4
~7
95. . 23.
95. .
33
2. 3 46.
2
96.
sch. 5.
8.
92.
0.
.
.
'
45
90. 5 1 sc h.
24
85.
verso
78. 29.
avarpenftv 99.
1 8.
99.
23.
1.
23]; 97. 67; 99.

2
3
38;
4 2, [57],
9. sch. 7, 9> 25
().
95.
Viii.
. .
^'
^/
95. .
98. 2 7, u iv. 8
26. verso 9
19.
93.
90. 43
94. II.
95.
(1.
*
?
verso 3; 98. 45
ii.
78. 32
94. 9
5
17; 96. 5; 97. 8;
4, 5
2
eav)
2~4
85.
3; 99.
*J1.
verso 3.
(=
7
4. 4 12.
. 8; .
47
().
i.
an-as
1. int.
96.
93.
7;
4, ix. 6.
6; 97. 62.
1.
58
2. 3 7 1-
[90.
2. 3
0. 8 3
5
30
0.
0. 12 8.
93.
99.
0. 7 I
2. " 33
4. 4
44, 46
3. 3^
2-4
85. recto 3,
recto 6,
8, verso 5, 8 ; 90. 27, 28,
'
96. II.
98. 44 . 12
[99. . 20?].
93. vi. 4.
97 25.
^?
ix. 3
,*
52
14! 0.
98. 44 .
78. 4
97. 15 6.
avatpelv
94. 20.
dX/fcoj/of
avayeiv
90. 48
93.
98. 2 8.
95. ii. 23.
8.
3. 39,
sch. 3, 6.
2. 3 37
92.
24
2.
2. 3
67
8.
'
0.
24.
2. 3 50, 57, 59.
21,
1.
59
(?),
)?
5.
2. 3 63.
"
8. U. Sch. IO.
x
92.
93.
98. 44 1V. 5;
96. 9.
90. 21 ;
v. 5.
45
85. 2-4 verso 2
3.
2.
44
98.
n;
94.
0.
22.
93.
iii.
4. 4 13.
1.
1.
46.
(
"
.
94.
Pap.) 0.
1.
/3*>/3 1.
* 1
7
2.
93.
; 0.
'
46.
0.
l&uW
90. ii.
94. 3
95.
6.
fSt/SXicw (/3/3.)
0.
33
94. 8.
97. 7) 73
78. 3
96.
2 1.
5/
92.
41
3 ; 93.
26. verso 1
viii.
2.
2. 3 40
[
/3
iii.
92.
12,
40
5.
5-6
2, 11, iv.
95.
2.
3;
ii.
7,
50;
4.
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;
;
96.
^ saep.
45
iii.
98.
98.
i.
3
8.
sch. 13.
;
7 2.
yaa 98. 44 iii. 1 5.
1 8.
90. 33(0;
98.'4S 6;
2 8.
90. 27
95.
24.
2 2.
75
8
6.
59,
48, 49
0. 2 35, 6.
2. 3 68, 73
. 3 43
23, 5
1.
94.
6.
45
3. 39
21. 8.
'Attiko's
1.
2,
iii.
1.
94. 2 .
98. 44 iv. 4
26. veiSO 5.
/3/; 90. 4
/35? 93. 3 .
90. 33
8.
90.
57
Bepyatos 1. 50, 5 2
1. 55
90.
39
1.
93.
1 8.
90. 3 1
/eis 1.
s6.
1.
2. 3 48.
I.
56.
2. 6 6.
46.
'Aâtot
21. 4
96. 16.
91. 1 5.
'
7.
.3
4. 1+2 5.
1. int.
86. 2.
90. 2.
92. 16
2 (?), 6 (?),
25. verso 4
42.
por
12.
30.
ii.
[1. 21, 2 2, 27].
93.
63
78. 35
ar>7
22. i. 2 2.
90. 47
96. 7
5.
I.
3
!3> !9>
0. J 31,
17;
sch.
i.
[l. 7]
1."
>
24; 3.21,67;
IV. 7
ii.
8.
26. verso
6.
21. 5
are/)
XI
ii.
9. sch. 6, 8
85.
sch. 12.
i.
2,
46
ii.
(?); 26.
1. int.
78. 4 1
95. ii. 8.
3 9>
8.
viii.
8.
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.
2. 3 IO, 17.
2. 3 62.
^9,
93. viii. 4.
24
85.
recto
93. vi. 1.
99. ii. 28.
96.
93.
4. 4 6.
6; 99.
recto 7
99.
24;
ii.
2. 3 3 2,
38.
2. 3 2.
90.
3. 50.
95.
2;
30;
88. 2-4 recto 1 1 (?), verso 6; 93. ix. 5; 94. 7

16; 95. ii. 5; 97. 14 ^
*#.; 98.8(?), 5 (?), 44
98. 2 9 ?
24. 9.
npi/e?
'
237
78. 13. 3^
8?
94. 8.
96. 1 6.
aos 94.
40
5
94. 3
98. 44 ii. 13; 4. 1+2
(3/
OTHER NEW TEXTS
II.
[45]i 46, 49>

5. 744 sch. ?
13
44
2.
2,
47
6.
ii.
98.
90. 21
98.
19
5_6
J
2.
93.
IV.
3>
~6
ii.
6,
44
18
5,
i.
8,
ii.
99. ii. 21, 29; 0. 1 22,

io; 1. [int.J, 54; 2. 3
INDICES
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(?);
;
27. 11.
90. 4 1
ytiv(a6ai
96.
7yiveiov 2. 3 65.
2_4
yeWis 85.
verso
1 2
90.
51 sch.
x
yivos 0.
41,
93.
93.
65,
3
2.
yevea6ai 0.
35;
9,
24. 3
37],
3,
4+5
12,
63
3. 57-
25.
VI.
3. 36.
99.
31
ii.
9 (?); 3. 16.
96. 17.
0.
2.
>
25. recto 7
27. 9.
recto 8
20,
40;
12
5,
0.
73,
33
ii.
26.
92.
93.
viii. 3.
0.
3
2.
36.
93.
1.
?
'
92.
92.
6.
36
95.
98. 44
3
5; [4.
52;
93.
8.
i.
;1
5;
32
l"J.
ii.
Sch.
yvvaucepaarpia 0. 1 1 8.
85. 2-4 recto 3, 10
35
[]
98.
44
3. 2 5
[4.
7; 3. 39
ii.
()
ii.
7, 33-
59
. 6;
6+7
3
9,
14,
1+2 2 8 */
[4.
99.
.
8
2 8.
ix.
2,
3,
5]
3
5,
G+7
18
94.
. 10 2;
1+2
5,
10;
93.
?
?
24.8.
( )>
7?
[~4
12;
25
3.
2
8.
93.
47
48.
Sell. 5
2.
iii.
17.
20.
2.
1. int.
97- 49
92. *
8.
Speireiv
/ior
90. 6.
Btd 90. 9, 28
98. 44 iv. 6;
[-? Pap.].
4
2. 3 48.
98.
44
5.
iii.
18?
86. 4
99. . 20.
97. 49 > 1 nt > 8.
sch. 9 ; 25. verso 3.
J
97. 23, 29
99.
I;
i.
>'
56, 62,
35
98. 44
97. 2 ;
27. 8,
78.
24.
78. 42.
95.
4. 4
i.
94. 14
"> 3> 37, 55. 6,

3
4
6.
3.45J 4. 9
4; 98.
1.
45
95.
2.
19];
7; 99.
98.
6.
Ui.
viii.
saep.l.
44
4. 4 19.
2.
Sch. 5
94.
07
ii.
7
'? .
93.
32
8.
68.
34, 47
94.
3
97.
3,
44 IV.
12.
93.
/at
4
27; 4. 4 ().
39
8.
i.
4.
IX.
94. 19.
98.
92. * 15.
90. 2 6.
97. 64.
85. recto
58.
98.
7[ 2.
4+5
'
"]
67.
25. recto 7
93. viii. 4.
98. 44 . 4
95. ii. 2.
54-
36.
22
2. 3 39'
4. 4
6+7
0.
/?98.
([
/
*[
/? .
92. * 4
96.
92. 43 .
32.
24.
0.
98.
>
ii.
4.
. 3 5.
28. recto
2.
?
*
35
97. 66.
[
[
. 3 20.
95.
9; .
28. verso 4
98. 45 5
/
'
[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.
Sevrepos
91. 13; 98. 10 6.
^?
44.
1. 7
>[#?
?
[
67, 69.
90. 7
98. 2 3.
95. i. 8.
92. 24 3.
90. 44.
95. ii. 2 2.
95. ii. 22.
1.
>>
?
'?
0.
22
44,
|?
3. 12.
8
15
7i, 7 2 3 l8 49,
6+ "
12
2, 21 3 ;
9
4. 4 15 ; 8. ii. sch.
26, 39,
62,
sch. 13, 15.
i.
... 91. 19.

93. vi. 4
4. 1+2 IO.
recto 2 (?).
AeiVapô? 4. 3
3. 2.
99.
44; 8.
2 (?);
vii.
1.
;;
II.
OTHER NEW TEXTS
239
0.
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
78. 28; [95. ii. 5].

95. i. 4, ii. 10, 25.
0.
3. 2 8.
38
>[ 92.
21.
95.
)? 86.
68
36
sch. 4
ii.
31
36,
24.
2.
4. 4
()
15,
2 2(?),
"
/
[
0.
'
1.
eiy
3. 8.
9.
3.
53;
1.
i.
25,
et
26,
24. 1, 2 j 25. recto

?5p6tf 78.
verso 1.
86. 3; 23. 18; 28.
&.
verso 4.
26. recto
95. ii.
6t
ii.
7.
Cf.
11.
8,
2~4
]
61
sch. 9.
(!
4. 4
90. 5
56; 22.
93.
.ewe 94. 1
'
2. 3
IV.
;
0.
eu/
78.
^
'
2.
i.
49, 57
18.
10,
12, 2 6g,
0.
1.
eV
1.
is
ii.
27.
[^
35
2. 7 6.
elras
[97.
0.
47.
32.
11,
54; 2.
19; 23. 6;
90. 37; 92. 15;
4
3,
85.
26. verso
verso
90. 22
8.
4,
7; 94. 15;
9. sch.
13
98.
ii.
37.,
[43];
31,
4.
38
1. int.
,'
10
1.
3
.
8, 33,
82 6],
et
[34],
2 9>
saep.; 2. 2
4 et saep. ; Z. $ et saep.
4. 1+2 3 et saep. ; 8. i. sch.
9.
5 (?), ii. sch. 4 (?);
8.
sch. 6; 27. 2.
90.
2,
2-4
viii.
85.
verso
4, ix.
2. 3 4 2;
4.
1, 4.
sch.
'
3.
;
97. 23 ; 99. ii. 24, 27

26. verso 6.
85. 2_4 verso 7.
98.
[3], 5;
i.
90. 20
99. ii. 9 (?)>
i
16; 0. 2 4i; 2. 3 38; 4.
'
2.
[59]< 70,
49> 7 1 [74,
33.
93.
4 8
0.
4. 4 5 (a)
14
iv.
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,
0-
90. 45
98. 44 iii. I.
dre 20. 142 sch.
27, 30,
2. 3 4
14,
32,
1+2
44
90. 24
e>os
5, 19
4. 4 7.
9,
ds 0.
98.
i\m[ 92. 36 2.
94. 7
90. 24.
9.
is),
18.
3
96. 3
98. 50
23;
i;4.
20].
(ic)
12
24.
95.
e*ca[
17?
;
3.
'
"
from
4.
34
*?
8;
ii.
0.
0.
36.
corr.
93. x. 2 ; 1. 18;
24. 3.
22. i. 18.
elbivai
2.
verso 3
sch. 4 (a)
verso 5 ; 92. 46 4.
85.
97. 49; 99. ii. 16, 18, 31
8.
27.
*
0.
iii.
4,
4, 5, 7,
;
21.
17
$0.
sch. 11
78. 26, 31 j 90. 53 sch.;

95.
93. ix. 6 (?) ; 94. 1 2
ii.
97. 7 ; 98. 10 6
3
(?
90. 10
93. ix.
95.
94. 8, 18-20.
11
7,
7.
93. viii. 6.
92. x 1 7.
'EXewj 90. 5.
92.
58;
>
47.
saep.;
85.
ii.
9;
5,
4; 26. recto
0. 17 4.
66
8.
35
>
viii.
37.
0. 1 26.
3, 8, iii.
0. 1 3,
32
98.
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.
e?7T
61.
96. I 5.
96. 1 9 ; 7. 901 Sch.
e'yyus
*"i
26.
78. 36
[10]
8,
9. sch.
44
68
12,42,[4 ^8j,8[25],
[37]; 1 2 3> 5*> 55;
4
3 2 55; 3. 6; 4.
4
7,
95. ii. 20.

eap 95. ii. 4.
97. 34,"
eXarqs 2.
3
}
2. 3
e 8.
57
*3. J 7> [37].
8.
62
6 ,
i. 4, ii.
98. 2,
8, 14; 99. ii. 29
9.
52>
3
4.
93.
tcXaii?[
i5>
I.
0.
2. 3 34.
verso
2 (?)
9.
1.
93.
VI.
I.
98. 44 IV. 6.
28. verSO
5.
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.
93. Vll. 5
eVtaurof 22. i. 28.
2.
[78. 39J.
98. 5-6 ii. II
2.
'
0.
* I
1.
41.
INDICES
240
'
evvea [0. * 3].
26. recto 8.
98. 5-6
8.
ii.
/?
85. 1 recto
92. 34 4.
4.
3G
92.
2.
30.
ii.
44
98.
ii.
2. 3
32
4. 4 7(l)
egs 98. 44 iv. 2.
0.
'
8.
0. 2 57.
e<wiaVii> 85.
~4
?[
tnayeiv 2.
29 ?
98.
^/&
2
"
'
[
44 in.
7-
90. 15
hri
93.
1,
I.
2, viii. 3, x.
vi. 3, vii.
94. 15; 96.
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,
i.
(
/
(
(
372 sch.?];
recto
iii.
44
92.
3
24. 9;
26.
6];
(?);
2_4
85.
93.
verso
iv.
7rryp[ 2. 3 6.
0.
0.
*
44,
34
2.
62.
tniSeiKvvvai
2. 3 55
.3
fv<9[
I 9.
24. 5
98. 44 iii. 1 6.
90. II.
98. 44 ii. 9.
26. verso 4.
93. IX. 6.
8.
3;
3.
28. Verso
93. X. 2.
26. verSO
96. 9
94. 13
92. 35 2.
96. 8.
0.
0.
2-4
EtWurl. 15
2.
64;
1+2
6].
viii. 4
40, 41
vi.
98.
90.
95.
1; 0.
5_6
x
6,
8,
ii.
ii.
11,
14,
7,
3;
2. 3 40.
9. sch. 8.
4. 4
90. 24.
17; 8.
8.
sch. 12.
ii.
?)
91. 2
90. 4; 91. 13; 92.
95.
'Z
sch. 13.
ii.
ii.
95.
24
ii.
22.
14,
ii.
10;
33.
22; 98.
44 iv.
9
2. 3 45.
95.
6.
ii.
iros 2. 3 42.
20.
2. 3 50, [57 J.
64
verso 4, 5
3. 57
37
42
[4.
12.
4
Zeis
21.
sch. 4
i.
9, 1
0.
12?
27. 2 ?
85. 2-4 verso
1. int.
12
2.
85.
31
1, iv.
ii.
. 12
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
2. 3 48.
8
93.
37,
eVoy 91.
96.
ii, 18, 27
57
93.
;
95. ii. 2 1.
78. 12; 97. 6; 2. 3
en 93. . 3, vii. 6 (?) ; 95.
8; 96. 9 2 3 4 2
7.
1.
47
33
ii.
90. 19, 22
I.
0.
^[92. 34 5
*" 78. 34,
2 0.
0. 12
IX.
93.
8.
92.
3. II.
44
//.
8, 2 2].
90. 44
94. 21.
90. 29 ;
95. . 27; [2.
58 ; 22. i. 33
93.
96.
39
92.
98.
'E^ctas 22.
96. 14.
eW 78. 33; 94. 17 ; 98. 18
8
8; 99. i. 11
[0. 21?].
eneibr) 82. 28
1. int.
1+2
'Ept'-ytnoy
33.
35
92.
. 4
[4.
i.
20.
. 22 3.
25. verso 6
ew [4.
2]
26. verso 13.
. 3 48.
4
44
3; 98.
95.
sch. 16.
i.
vi.
epyoi/ 2. 3
reCtO II.
7, 2 1.
86.
98.
ros 93.
60.
0.
73
26. verso
eVi0ai'f[
36.
13
i.
0.
96. 20.
96. 5
93.
4
96. II.
96. 3
98. 45 5
92. 41 2.
etirf
6.
97.
3.
99.
iijeXavveiv
> 0.
44
17
IX. 2.
2. 3 23.
21. 7
96.
95.
93.
53.
0. 2 48.
98.
I| 91. 8.
ieiv{
4. 4 15
0.
8.
j?
sch.
ii.
95.
ii.
[61],
1, 9.
97. 27, 28,

;
4. 3 i, [2}; 23.
17
6,
62;
12.
4.
II.
OTHER NEW TEXTS
II.
2. 3 74.
44
98.
19].
iii.
iv. 9.
3
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.
77x10s
(
t/V
96.
4.
1.
3
.
.
51
(?)
85. a-4 recto
55
"
12
{.);
ix.
2.
93.
111.
<Wiaeii/
'
,
"
}> 97.
'
IQJ 0.
6,
i<W
34> 45
91. 4
99. . 3 1
85. 1 recto 2
98. *
?
93.
4
99. . 2 7
'^
13
Cf.
23.
18,
4, 8,
86.
55;
recto
9, [43] J
2_4
verso 7
verso 3>
2
93. ix. 7 ;
;
34,
35!
3.
26. verso 11.

98. 1 9
78. 3
96. int.
sch. 6
95.
2.
[.
98.
44
35
23].
9
ii.
93.
7
?
vii. 5
27
tpoy
6.
95.
ix.
iii-
5, iv.
12, 16.
1
26. recto 6.
sch.
93.
93.
ol
3.
(?)
Sch.
vii.
5,
68,
93.
I.
ix. 2
[4.
42
3
R
3. 45
. 1
. 9(?)>
1
46;
1+2
[.
ix.
92.
8.
KaraXvetv
,
>
3.
8.
. 6+7 3
II.
20. 65 Sch.
28. recto 3
90. 5 Sch.
2].
;
2.
98.
64
733
4
4 6; 4.[ 8], 5
sch. 6 ?
93.
VII. 3
95.
7/' .
int.;
2. 3
'' saep.
99.
2
2. 3 3, 33
ix. 6.
5,
7,
36.
91. ^
7];
5
5-6
(?)
90. 12.
2-4
recto 2,
78. 27 ; 85.
verso 5; 90. 7 48; 92.
64
;
vi. 6.
8.
3
vi.
90. 30.
93.
3"
35;
4,
93.
38.
92.
?
.
^[
. 3
95.
2. 3 74
58
3.
93.
21. 2.
2.
96. 3
90.
98. 7 3?
93. viii. .
20. 142 Sch.
Pap.).
3. 31.
90. 46.
(tepetoi'
44
2. 3 43
6l].
2.
4.+ 2 7
2 J.
98.
2. 2 8.
98. 2 6,
98. 3 2
8.
i.
38
vi.
56.
93.
28. recto
90. 37-
[2.
1.
39
2. 3
iepof 4. 4 2.
[4.
90. 49 sc h
93.
"
edeXeiv.
78.
38.
16; [94. ].
.
.
4.
2.
ii.
iepeiov
tepos-
. 12
61
1. 7
iepeuy
.
.
([ 23.
[tepeija 2. 3 29-
95.
95.ii. 4,
>
92.
Uvai 92.
recto 8.
95. . 23; 97.

( 99. 11. 1 6.
86. 4
97 5
2-4
85.
verso 8 (?),
90. 19 ; 97. 5; 98.
20. 142 Sch.
(.)
98.
96. 19
85. 2+4 recto 12 ; 2.
;
7.
#/-
ix. 5.
(Sigs
Kdifor
[7.. 6.
62.
50.
1.
93.
92.
93. VI. 4
. 2 62.
2_4
85.
3. 35
2. 3 8(?), 66.
8. i. sch. 4.
90.
2.
51
6.
VP 96. 22.
93.
sch. 12.
ii.
32.
1. int.
6+7 6.
7, 8,
tfupoif 2. 10 3
8.
98.
13-
&> 92
64, 65.
. 4+5
14; 2.
92.
90.
[. 34]
<9poW 98. 4
12.
171/ 92.
3
68.
2. 3
10
(.)
.
2.
3, viii.
VI.
44
95. i. 10,
4; 23. 9
90. 2.
94. 5
90. 43; [98.

93.
$
2 .
241
. G+7 4
(?);
>
INDICES
242
2 4
86.
recto 4
97. 25, 32, 36, 45
'
(
93. IX. 5
85. 1 recto
44
98.
25
94.
2_4
85.
1 6.
93.
4,
.,
(
[
93.
Kuos 0.
ix.
0.
97. 65
96. 10.
2. 3 36.
KfXfueiv
98.
44
92.
34
9
6,
i.
ii.
][
0.
0. 3 34
Kf
91.
. 5
96. 21.
27. 5>
?
92.
?
'/
68
&{
2.
8.
/
;
20.
93.
i.
sch. 15.
96. 14.
iii.
23.
0.
0.
?;
0.
93. viii. 7
95. . 6.
92. * 1 1.
4. 1+2 6, 4
0.
46
Pap.).
Aaptôs 0.
92.
24.
8,
1
44
13.
17.
2,
i.
,'
13,
4.
(?).
2.
Awcor
(?)
9
6.
2.
2.
verso
0. 2
2,
44
iii.
2. 3 46.
. 4+5 8.
.
20.
12,
34
91.
1 8.
95.
,
0.
.2 6
ii.
sch.
Mayas 93.
1.
V. 2.
MaywyTes 2. 3 69
92. 36 .
90.
, 3 2,
52.
99.
8.
[1-23]; 4.
2
\wr[ 23. 2.
/i
56.
I.
92.
93. . 590. 5 2 Sch.
78. 35 ; 98.
26. recto 5.
90. 5 5
95. . 12.
24.
23.
92.
34 35
92. *
94. 17.
85.
49,
25. redo
39
Aoytapos 96.
0. 21 4
sch. 2, 8.
XloytKOy 2.
Xai'&Wo-tfai
2 9
>
8;
1 1
(?),
?].
Aoyipor 86.
24
98.
4
.
19
0.
0 ^
8.
2. 3 3 8.
Xt77ep^n$
7>
43-
58.
96.
viii. 5
iv.
95.
25.
0. 2 49
4. 1+2 2 3
42.
1.
1.
54
1+2
[4.
3;
78. 14; 0.
Xqyeti'
2. 3
16,
5
37
25.
1+2
1.
23.
96. 4
iii.
95. . 9
92. 4
1.
36.
96.
22. .
37
86. 2
0.
3-
90.
93.
4. 4 9
*
12
5.
Afoiri's
92. 7 .
90. 17.
95. . 21.
Koto? 92.
24
13;
21.
[4.
12].
0. G+7 14
K/Wy 0. 15.
90. 47j 48.
96. int., 5
98. 2 6.
92. : 8.
90. 9
93. IX. 7
2 4
85.
verso
Xeos
0.
>
3.
42.
93. VUi. 3.
95.
20.
2.
93. ix.
95. i.
1.
'>*95. .
93.
52
90.
98.
91. 7
* '
0. G+7
5.
0.
VI.
3.
93.
3, . 7
97. 48 ; 99.
Lint.
, .
, 3. 2
33
4. 4
KjjXqSdffs 91. 9
kipSwevhi'
0.
93.
4.
>
95. .
(to), [22], 47; 2.
^
(
<*
13.
94. 9
93.
92. * 9
95.
91. 12 (?)
1
?
Xe'yftK
44
Kporos 22.
92.
2 6.
1.
38.
sch.
36.
*ptW 98.
i.
34
92. 8
95. . 3,
PJ7 1"?
8.
86. 4
93. . 4
90. 20.
Kpivetv
2. 3 42.
/cfiiOi
1.
reCtO 2?
viii.
3. 56.
0.
(') 90.
6.
0. "
93.
29.
98.
45
3;
//.
5~6
98.
10,
iii.
4,
18,
ii.
11
iv.
44
ii.
1,
99.
ii.
2.
'
5.
39
0.
3,
6,
l8,
24,
"
0.
>
l3 i.
45 6.
ii. 2 ; 98.
2,
90. 1, 4, 34 93. v. 4
96. 2; 98. 12 2, 15 2; 22.
;
21.
1
0.
23;
26;
1.
9.
sch. 3, 7.
2. 3 39.
28. recto 3.
9. Sch. 5.
0.
95.
ii.
44
98.
27,
vi.
5,
11,
98.
99.
44
[33
?],
97.
19;
int.;
2. 3
O.
13;
37,
65,
[ 35j; 1. int.;
4. 3 5 ; 27. 2.
93.
^93.1.
2.
72
94.
3,
^],
3
22,
12, 41,
2. 3
31
3. 66.
2. 4
43;
Sch. 2, 8.
(.)
33 ; 2.
-6
98.
69
3. 27.
.
;
2. 3 so, [57]
90. 45;
21. 4
26.
93.
19.
V. 4
. 8?
44
98.
i.
3, iv.
15; 8.
sch. 4
93.
95.
2.
8?
.
Mi'Sar
95.
/'
vii. 4.
7, 9
3
34
26.
2
3
'
98.
55;
18
3;
9. sch. 6,
24.
2.
()
1 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.
.
.
98. 44 .
98. 44 .
93. viii. 4.
'7 93. . .
91.
92. 41 .
78. 4 2
97. 5
96. 9,' 97. 77
2. 3 72.
22. . 3 2 sc h.
93.
93. viii. 2
.3
2. 3 7
)
91.
2.
sch. 10.
0/ 92.
2. 3 63.
Mitfpay 2. 3 64.
24;
ii.
2. 3 54
2.
ii.
8.
vaUiv 90.
2. 3 67.
58;
2. 3 69.
91. 3
86. 5; 91. 17 (?); 95.

25 ;
96. 17
;
99. .
1. 19 (?)
;
83. int. ; 97. 40 ; 99. .
97.
sch. 4.
90. 23
2. 8.
3.3{??.).
6,
91.
94.
9;
2. 3 65.
2. 3 46.
37
93.
95. ii. 24.

78. 33.
iii.
24. 4;
95.
92.
7,9
44
12
2. 3 6 1.
V. 4, 6.
98.
5J
78.
ii.
54,
2. 3 62.
3. 4, 65.
2. 3 45.
8.
6.
21. 3
90. 27.
Mei/eXaos
',
30, 71
10, 14
iv.
5,
92.
2. 3 54, 56.
3
2.
57~9
4;
ix.
7,
ii.
2,
43.
iii.
8].
85. 2_4 verso 8 ;

93. . 4, 7
95.
/ieV[78. 13]; 90. 20, 23, 32,

46; 91. 1, 6, 16; 93. v.
2. 3
4+5
41
3
/os
<>
1,
69.
5;
2. 3 36, 39.
3
(-
95. . 1 6, 7
92. 4 5 (?) ; 93. . 4
2
3
96.
56(?),
4 ; 0.
8.
2.
57.
ii.
96.
13, 15; 97. 58; Lint.
78. 4
97. 13, 57
20. 163 sch.
92. * 7; 94. 9
37.
i.
()
verso 5.
86. 2
2. 3 29, 34, 57.

2. 3 32.
23.
>7
2; 23. 15.
8 ; 2. 3 40, 41.
i.
.
.
8.
?).
. 2 43
78. 39
' 95.
95.
36.
7 95.
i.
. 2.
95.
0. 6+7 6.
2. 3 4.
2. 3 74
^/; .
Mapyiavo'i [2. 3 i].
97.
97 3797. 4 1
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.
243
^
'
48, 49.
2. 3 5I
2. 3 39; 25. verso

3. i 3
TEXTS
9. SCh. 5, 6.
3
22;
39
90. 45-
NEW
OTHER
/.
56, 02.
INDICES
244
21.
[ 92.
I.
85. verso 5
26. recto 3
3
2.
95.
. 4);
(93.
30.
90.
. 6;
44
90.
98.
'?
apdos 90. 5
2. 3
"
?
{
24
91.
ieVos
(.); 98.
2. 3 66.
2.
95.
2 (?)
3. 39' 5
24.
93.
;
94. 5
91.
...
4
(- ')
6
3
5 8,
6+7
67],
90.
94. 5
"
4,
8..
47
/?
97
94. 6
96.
85. * recto 7
J
7 (?);
ot/'a
of/coy
/^'
[4.
4-
90.
26
8.
i.
93.
98.
94.;
2.
6.
97-48.
os
90.
8
4,
6 7)
2. 3
69;
95.
98.
96. 8.
at 94.
'
1.
I 2.
vi.
?
1 (?),
iii.
96.
5,
55,
[1.
6+7
3.
27
8.
55.
14; 99.
3
57,
int.];
sch.
ii.
6.
J
20,
[1], 50 sch. ; 92.
2 ; 93. vi. 4, ix. 5,
1 ; 94. 5; 95. ii. 25;

"
97. 29, 45,54,55; 98. 5 6
44
2 (?),
ii. 1 2, hi. 3; 0.
9,
22,71; 2. 3
4,6
25.
2.
3
38.
78. 37
37
5.
69.
42, 48, [6o],
93.
.
93.
78. 1497.
verso
12.
47 I.
92.
3
4,
44 iv.
sch. 16.
44
5 2,
33.
98.
90. 15; 94. 3; 99. .

224, 2 6
oiMs [97. 7]. 2 9; 98. 44 i.
9
14; 0. 4
sch. 6.
i.
i.
1,
94.
;
96. 4;
3;
23. 7; 24. 2; 25.

verso 3; 27.8; 28. verso 4.
sell.
2.
24].
3
4
9 ; 2.
(/ 92. 20
90.
(?);
94, 3 (? )>
90. 4 2
7]/
4;
97. 56
25. verso
. 2
recto 6.
int.
2,
95.
67, 7 2
8.
. 7(...
viii.
3;
97.
28. recto
90. 3
oidy re
19
opveov 2. 3 49.
].
1+2
4. 1+2
2.
8.
95.
optof 8.
2. 3 59
94. 8.
23.
otvoy
),
].
7; 27.
8393.
42
[15], 2 5;
int.
jotîr 2. 3 8.
[4.
int.; 4. 1+2
1.
() 78.
23.
sch. 5(? ),
i.
92. 4
97. 66.
8.
2. 3 34
24.
7;
1+2
[4.
44
3. 25-
obeveiv
45
8.
94. 17
0'
^J
[ 92
verso 5; 93.
2;
0. 2
2. 3 50, 57
()
?
#>
'
94. 3, 1 7.
98. 2 10 ?
95. . 27.
94.
vi. 7.
(rel.)
ote 85.
6.
IX. 3
(dem.)93. . ,3,5; 94. 1 1.

'/ 90. 20, 23, 3 2 4^;
. 7
-2
i ftt ->
3.
93.
3. 59
93.
1
,*
86.
2. 3 65
17;
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
int.
24.
49; 26.
24
92.
90.
93.
1.
93.
(?) ;
44 iii. 3,iv.
99. ii. 8; 2.
verso 4
'
i*i.
i.
3. 24
2 5
25. recto 5
94.
90. 45
44
90. 14
99.
90.
93.
97. 23.
(?).
2
66.
26. verso 13?
26.
6\[ 98.
4. 4
95.
>
/at
5J 96
22. i. 17.
ii.
94. 9,
5
2-4
recto 6; 95.
85.
1.
53
95.
4
i8;
42, 58; 3. i(?); 4.
8. ii. sch. 4, 10 ; 28. verso
/^ 90.
2 2.
>
85
2_4
verso
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;
;
',
97.[],29,
3, 44
//.
OTHER NEW TEXTS

2. 3 31.
98. 44 i. 7; 99. ii.29,

71
2
0. 1 i2, [43], 46;
32;
245
93.
2.
vi.
4.
11
()
27. 17.
5
21
3. 37.
95.
71
ii.
99.
[1. int.]
1 ;
2.
96.
93.
vii.
]
>
2 2.
2.
0.
2.
0.
natni/tei's
'
?
52
13.
54
[4.
"
4. 14 2 20?
1+2 1
noMi[riijs 4.
90. 13, 22
38
6
;
93.
95. ii.
n .
24.
8;
,
94.
66,
* (
42,
recto
92.
vii. 3, ix.
4+
13,
26.
9;
3.
2.
:i
43
ii.
21
93. VUi.
3; 99 ij
3; 3 66
29,
9. sch. 7 ; 21. 9;
93.
[
<
^/'
44 iv.
26. verso
00
3o> 4 1
2.
4.
93.
90.
viii.
22
6(?);
) 90. 46
96. II.
98. 44 iii. 8.
98. 44 iii. 6, iv. 11, 14.
(').
25. recto
Ilf ip[ie is
9J-
93.
(), .
3
[4
4
83. int.
'
0.
vii. 3, viii.
;
],3,45-6,
6
6 3 ,67,7i-2, 6, 13; 4.
11 (1. bnipl\ 13.
95. 11. 20.
1(\
2.
4. 1+2 23.
98. 44
93.
ii.
0.
95.
95.
95.
<
29
2.
ii.
96.
18 2.
'
'
92. 39 3
2 2.
95.
96. 2 ; 98. 44 i.
94. 12 ; 96. 1 5
1 6.
;
98.
1. 25
1.
92.
98.
3>
99.
45, 64,
3. 68.
37 6.
'
0.
6.
;
:j
VI. 6.
. 4, hi.
44
nepa^s 98.
0.
2.
0.
8. . Sch. 7
19.
ii.
^.
33
78.
58.
ii.
58.
1 6.
2. 3 3
1 4.
85. verso 8
96. 12,
II.
94.
96. 12.
95. 11.
95. . 25.
26. recto 9
26. recto
93. .
98. 36 I.
94.
2.
4.
1.
7-7
1-39
ii.
24,[ 4 ];2.
34
][
6.
94. 2 ;
3
15 ; 96. 10; 98.
4; 99. ii. 13 ; 1. 7>
5, ix. 5
95.
6+
32
2 7 (?);3. 2 4 ;21. 7 ;
24.
[4.
"
90.
92.
4].
40.
*;[ 26. recto
98.
91. 3
92.
24.
96. 13.
i.
(=r
24. 8 ?
93. V.
"
0.
44
. 8,
int.,
1.
4. 1+2 24.
?
7!6
//3)
7(-7<'?
]
(?),
4. 1+2 21.
4. 1+2 1 8.
95.
50
98.
0.
Pap.),
. 6}.
{95.
17;
1+2
[4.
92.
91. 4
7?7
98
86.
3. 13.
25.
4?];
7; 99.
2];
2,
4+5
40, [
22; 2. 3 17, 34, 50, 57,

1+2
9; 20.
69; 3. 62; 4.
67 sch.
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.
3].
22, 34,
10,
7,
27-
98.
2.
64,
ii.
17
4, iv.
90.
34.
95. ii. 12.

25. verso 8.
1.
[.
verso 6.
95.
2 (?); 23.
1.
iii.
25, 36,
47
10(f);
5,
i.
ii, 44
?]
4.
1.
49 sch. ; 93. vi. 2

8; 96. 14; 98. " 4,
90.
95.
[28. recto 5
,"
21.
ii.
4. 1+2 2 2.
53*
2.
23. 11.
94. 5
85. * recto
6,
23. 12.
''
;
97. 67.
90. 8.
25. recto 3
ii.
91. 7
98.
23; 2. 32, 39;

5. 372 sch.; 23.
24. 10; 25. recto 4,
1. [int.],
II.
4.
'8.
iv.
15.
45
90. 21.
95.
95.
.
.
96.
27.
12.
28. recto
3-
246
8.
sch.
i.
sch. 6,
1 1, ii.
'
INDICES
4. 1+2
94. 2 1.
5_6
44
Hi. 3.
ii. 12,
98.
96. 2 .
98. 44 iii. 8,14; 1. 48.
83. int.
98.
5
4.
2.
82.
777
78.
^
'
1.
1.
2.
86.
42
3,
38,
2 (?)
53>
27.
28
7,
'
36;
[4],
4. 4
94.
3, 7
6+7
7
?
77
. 2 44;
2.
21,
6.
2.
92.
98.
18
6;
8.
IV.
2.
2.
ii.
3,
25. recto
0.
37
8; 2.
47;
98.
44
. 3 68.
92.
2.
42
27
[4.
.
.
. 5
2.
76;
74
6.
^
$
[4.
12].
. 3 37
4.
3. 56, 59
2, 3
17.
95. . 6.
22. . 3 2
^?
3. 9
^
I,
44 IV. 2
55-
90. 3 2
26. recto
44
4,
verso
12.
96.
9
3.
0.
1. 1 8.
II?
44
23.
3. 8, 9
II, 41,
3]
1.
96. 14.
86.
1.
66.
sch. 6
ii.
0.
4. 1+2 9, [ 3]
/3?
63
7;
96. 2.
98. 44
45
1. 1
48
91. 5
59
21.
98.
6.
/^ .
. .
0.
25.
viii. 6.
2.
18,
p^ror 8.
99. 11. 7
94. 3
92. 37 3
90. 28.
noVros 2.
"
3.
2.
86. 3
92. 2
. 523.
98.
39
2. 3 36.
// 95.
44
17
97.
7 2.
];
'
28. verso
90. 6.
verso
[4.
4. 1+2 4, 6.
1+2
[4.
].
93.
II.
95.
78. 38; 92. 1 6; 94.

ig\ 96. 6
1 6
2
98. 44 iii. 9;
49, 52
1.
98.
49
98.
93.
'?
2. 3 64.
1 8.
('),
&
<9
[
p/ta
25. recto
2.
93.
47
92.
rru]yi7 1.
44
99. 11. II.

20. 1 63 Sch.
'Po'Stos
95.
21.
93.
96.
8,
. .
2.
4.
1.
, 3
. 12
int.
90.
94.
31.
2. 3
1. int.
].
3.
96.
5;
3. 23.
93.
74]
21.
viii.
29, 36,
82.
2.
95.
1 6,
90.
2. 3 46.
99.
ix.
7rpeo-4. 1+2 15
/3/50 [85. 2-4 recto 2].
4. 1+2 12.
90.
93.
"2.
iii.
82. 24.
28. verso
97.
12
( ?)
93.
6.
33
66,
0.
15.
ii.
4. 4
?).
90. 33
4.
28. recto 2, 6.
98. 44 iii. 14
[4.
96-7
90. 47
25. recto
4, 8.
',
37
95. . 6,
94. 21.
82. 9
;
2.
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
95. i. 9.
95. ii. 1 9.
95. ii. 16.
-os
94.
1 5
36.
25. verso
3.
9, II.
^
^
4.
[5],
78. 2 6 ; 3.
93. VI. 2.
aiyav 86. 2.
StSdvios 93.
7
0.
36 7
6.
//.
93. vi. 5.
94. [3], i6; 96. 6
6 2,
3.
0.
4.
\
'
1.
8.
',
?]*
6.
47
recto
6/?()
98.
24
23.
5. 24
0.
5_6
6.
97.
2.
vi.
5.
95.
56; 3. 6 3
>
0.
0.
1 6.
22
90.
99.
?J.
5 2 scri
24
4. 4 4
57
3.
;.
25. verso
3. II.
2.
3. 21, 2 6.
2. 3 38.
37
??
3.
25,
i.
0.
66.
8.
33]
(?), viii. 7, ix. 3,
44 iv.
46,
0.
2
48
3,
1 (?)
69;
4o(?),
2. 3 26, 41,
63,71; 3.56;
4
3 i, 2
[i],
],
10,
[6],
34,
x.
98.
99. ii.
97. 49;
4. 1+2 io,
18; 9. sch.
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,
1 1.
2. 3 58.
.
.
94. 4;
27;
19.
90.
1 3,
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.
3;
3. 7
95.
95.
. 3i, [
. 6+7 .
vii. 1,
25.
98. 44
90.
Sch.
i.
19
3. 12.
95.
90. 47; 93.

iv. 3, viii.
95.
5 ; 94.
. 2 3 ; 3.3; 21. 9 24.,
9,
"Awt
12.
8.
\\
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.
1. int.
74
Sch. 3
sch.
82.
85. 2 4 recto
6; 92. 64 (?); 99. . 8.
5_6
48
ii. 9,
98. 1 8,
3
Vli.
93.
.
3. 1,6.
1.
44
.
44
82.
6.
1
ii.
38-
35
[. 8
3.
8.
95.
0. 3 54
0.
3.
27.8.
15
.41.
U. 7
I,
i.
44
37
Sretpieus 0. 4+5 9
1.
I et
2 6.
98.
98.
22.
92.
reClO
3. 29.
93.
2 4
2. 3 67.
2 3
2 7
85.
0. 2 4
24
1.
8.
saep.
1.
0.
1. 1 8.
6,
30.
sch. 5.
i.
IV. 4
3. 5
0.
/ep-yos
2.
24-
90.
82.
8.
26. recto 14
3
99. . 15;
92. 38 3
93. viii. 6.
92. * 3
U.
3. 35
0.
99.
3. 27, 3
93.
2 1.
45
6.
98.
'^'
2_4
85.
92.
96.
[
<[ .
72
94.
9,
2.* 34-
3 4;
92.
20
90. 34
0. 6+7 2(?); 2.
3. 2
23.
3. 20.
36.
85. 2_4 recto 13.
2. 3 58.
23.
/
//
97. 5 2
85. 2-4 recto
2.
53
2. 3
Sch. 7 ?
i.
96.
II
4. 4
6],
2.
44 Hi.
98.
98.
97. 56;
1 6,
viii.
6.
17
247
4. 4 7, 9
4
4. 4
^' 98.
TEXTS
25
4. 4
3.
66.
0.
3
93.
3 5
??7
NEW
OTHER
,'
13.
90.
78. 28; 86.
1
93.
14, 44J 92, 3; 95. . 14; 96. 1
>
.
1
91. 6
2.
99. . 12.
99. . 2 2.
21 6.
10
INDICES
2 48
93.
59
('.), .
2,
92.
3^
5; 94.2.
78.
98.
96. 3
12
5
9
5-0.
26. verso
5; 23. 6(?);
-*
[5.
95.
rpfis
8.
'
2].
8,
36,38; 98.
7,
44
98.
.
.
3
!5,
36
,
2.
12, 43>
[74
?]
8.
1?]; 4.
90. 14-
4. 4 8.
12.
90. 43 5 95. " 2 ^

98. 44 IV. 1 6.
.
2. 3
8.
4.
44
.
verso
25. verso
(?);
26.
6'4
?/
2.
2;
90.
6,
2. 3
4,
>'
uffep 91.
15
^? 4.
4.
98. 44 IV.
93. iv.
1 1
(?
91.
4.
95. .
44
90. 17.
23.
3
;
95.
Pap.).
ix.
3
55;
}
;.
>
7
25-
92.
5 (?);
.
.
2.
2.
g.
>
4.
6+7
2.
6.
1.
78. 3 1
93. V.
66
90.
3. 4
6.
63, 67, 7 2
90. 3 1
6
>
2.
32.
54
g.
3. 2 2.
4^
4.
98.
9,
44
99.
2. 3 3 2
' 94.
2_4
85.
73]; 27.
recto 6
[.
2.
1.
4.
3.
98.
2.
26. recto
5
1
96. 5 ?
93. vi.
22. i. 2
95. ii.
91.
2.
29.
9
Xoptrej 92.
.
.
.
4 92. 37
U. 21.
90. 43
.
'
97. 43
7
4
i.
91. 6
2.
44
92.
XoXSfuoi 2.
2].
92.
92. 50
2.
5
1.
44
2.
.3
,*
sc h.
22. .
2.
45;
27;
45
93.
>
2. 3 33
10,25;
90 3 1
86. 3
90
97. 46
'
52.
1.
86. 4
8.
90. 3.
95.
93.vii.35 95.
'
78.
95.
96.3, !5>
4. 4 4
98.
895
7.
<P<f><k
25. recto
15;
[4.
90.
92.
3
23. 8 ?
96. 2.
85. 2-4 verso
95. . 3
98.
3. 65.
92.
2.
99.
78. IOJ
23. 24.
95. .
?.
63
; .
90. 4
Tpaes 90. 44
6+7
91.
2 2.
90. 49
94.
2. 6 3
2.
/nt
44 iv.
5
98.
5,
5; 97.
7. 9 01 scri
2.
/3077 8. i. sch. 6 ?
1
1 8.
92. 64 6(?);
3. 3^
28. recto 2, verso 3
4. 3 9
90.
44 iv.
7.
98.
86.
47
25
45
94.
sch. 13.
ii.
(jfmyeii;
().
90. 14.
. 3 59
2. 3 46.
rpis
/30
?
^
Sch. 9
i.
[97.
85.
[
[
^
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.
;
/3[
3. 3
8.
6
44 iv.
[
?
18,
. 3 48.
sch. 13 (7).
i.
recto
97.
26
3
2.
48, 65; 23. 17; 25.
recto 4; 26. recto 10.
92. 46 2.
:
57
85.
verso 6
(?),
. 3 47,
44 2.
15;
[23],
2. 3 43
II.
92.
ii; 96.
44
i.
8.
8, iv.
95. ii. 10.

96. 12.
12.
OTHER NEW TEXTS
//.
37
92.
95.
0.
:i
93.
12
0.
32,
97. 6.
^
[
26
92.
12
91. 3;
46.
3,
85
Athenaeus
v. 687 a
Babrius 115. 4
Bacchylides xvi (xvii). 66
Bekker, Anecd. \, p. 299
Callimachus Fr. 35 d
122
-99
00,
93
209
20
iii.
8.
12.
23.
[4.
9 5
1+2
97 69, 7
Josephus, Ant.
Philostratus, Im.
106-7
oo,
12 3>
25;
2 8(?);
6],
3. 29.
23
no
Diodorus xvii. 33.

Etym. Magn. s. v. peXuyfiov
II.
60
106-7
109
99
108
217
.
),
21. 9
23. 8,
;
(Prep.) 3. 58.
90. 42 93. vi. 2 3. 5.
2 et saep.
Hesych.
154
42
42
96
170
Curtius
5, 8.
71
43
79-83
Authors.
43
165
Fr. 755
Catullus Ixvi.
51
PAGE
Bellermann
Aristides ii. 508
Aristophanes, Eq. 655
Thesm. 760
2 1,
PASSAGES DISCUSSED.
ed.
39
94.
recto 9
(a)
sch. 4
i.
1.
8.
17.
III.
Anonymus
95.
Alcaeus Fr. 19
5
6+7
.
. 3 59
',?/ 85.
92.
^[0.6+7
2.
6,
93. . 8.
28. recto
"~
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.
. 7
}(
]?;
22.
90. 9
90. 42
95.
96. 6.
]-[
ii.
96.
0.
&><9eii>
5~ 6
98.
53
95.
3.
249
93.
92.
2. 3 4 1
3. 23.
8.
3
91. 8 ;
55
TeiOy 3. 57
90. 4
96. II.
78. 32.
92. 1
92. 40 2.
?
'
21. 3
3.
97. 28
2 2.
0.
viii.
"
PhotlUS
S. V.
xii. 2.
ii.
S. V.
Pindar Fr. 53
Pioclus, In Rempub.
.
Sappho
Fr.
39
76
77
ii,
p. 2
1.
74
146
165
82
165
79
106
129
169
Sophocles, Ant. 287
SuidaS S. V.
"
.
133
134
Thucyd.
1.33
Tzetzes, In
161
Xenophon, Anab,
vii.
60
It. p.
68
ii.
99
43
169
165
84-5
190
43
45
45
45
42
59
43
42
112
78. 1-2
5(K roll)
PAGE
165
INDICES
250
(b)
Papyri.
PAGE
PAGE
P. Berl.
98.
6870
Sitztmgsb. Preuss. Akaa.
763
P. Halle 2
P.
Oxy.
I.
15
41,
P. Oxy.
22_ 3
45-6
42
ll 3
II.
208
VII. ion
XI. 1360.
i3 6 4
9
7
1.
59
ti 9
/.,,
.r.,v
.,,;
.4;
14'
$bi,-j.:,;#
'i^Vif ftp "V N U
:;;
ffewSM mi Nil' -f^

'*
;
'-^;^
"I
> :1
';
i&mflk
_,
,,
:.i.*>m,
"^'
: .
fffiii.'w
viuip
'
No. 1778, Fols.
No
1786
1,
2,
recto
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
lis7
I?
/-
V-V^ ".;.--
:;/,
m
U.
fc
oo
t>
>
',
..
S&ll
î
'--,v
r
'-
iC feeTD
-%*.
)<
F-'/- .'
%
ft'
"'
/
~ J
^ !,i
'
---/-
.-^
?,'
,-^
>
'^^
l\m
<s
'
Plate IV
1-1
3 3
?>
<l
* 3
rt
'"'
î
6*7
O
]7
J * 3
. j
_3
3?,
J L
*<;;
Cf
oo
..
<
45
<
'
'-
*.
J i'x I. r
U
00
oo
It: (l!
?*
'"-*
;-
**
\^
-<
s~t
>J
*^ CJ
^*
jN
.*
C<
//
S'^&sf*
^
id (LftkS^S
&*' 2
^
-
'
m.
*
vS m 3 h &
y
Q^
U,
^,
^>
i**
oo
&
-":
Plate
*.
r.
t
I,
""^
>
7 "'
n*
.d u adw
'
','
'Hi-
'<
*îÂ40u^
*'<*
v"
>~ a
No. 1814, verso
The Egypt Exploration Society

GRAECO-ROMAN MEMOIRS.
JV/E EGYPT EXPLORATION SOCIETY, as recently
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
proposes to continue with but slight modifications the
which was founded
in
department, called the
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
the
is
intended that they shall appear annually, as heretofore, under the editorship of Profs.
and Hunt.
Each
will consist of
250 quarto pages or more, with facsimile
plates
Grenfell
the
of
more
important papyri.
All persons
An
Members.
2 j. is
meetings,
interested in the promotion
entrance fee of
due annually on fanuary
and may
1.
introduce friends to
of
the Society's objects are eligible for election as
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
is. is
payable on
Library now
in course offormation 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
tial discount.
London, W.C.
Full particulars maybe obtained from

1,
the Secretary,
13 Tavistock Square,
or from the Secretary of the American Branch, 503 Tre?nont Temple, Boston,
Mass., U.S.A.
PUBLICATIONS OF THE EGYPT EXPLORATION SOCIETY.
I.
EXCAVATION MEMOIRS.
THE STORE CITY OF PITHOM AND THE ROUTE OF THE EXODUS.
By Edouard Naville.
18S8.)
II.
TANIS,
Thirteen Plates and Plans.
{Fourth
and Revised
Part
I.
By W. M. Flinders
{Second Edition, 1889.)
Petrie.
Seventeen Plates and two Plans.
255.
III.
NAUKRATIS,
IV.
GOSHEN AND VhE SHRINE OF SAFT-EL-HENNEH.
Part I.
By W. M. Flinders Petrie. With Chapters by Cecil
Smith, Ernest A. Gardner, and Barclay V. Head. Forty-four Plates and Plans. {Second
Edition, 1888.)
Naville.
V.
25.?.
Eleven Plates and Plans.
Fifty-one Plates and Plans.
NAUKRATIS,
Part
four Plates and Plans.
VII.
{Second Edition, 1888.)
TANIS, Part II; including TELL

and TELL NEBESHEH.
By W. M.
Murray.
VI.
Edition,
25J.
II.
DEFENNEH
(The
Flinders Petrie,
1888.
Biblical
F. Ll.
Antiquities of Tell-el-Yahudiyeh.
six Plates and Plans.
1890.
25^.
XV
Tahpanhes
')
S.
F. Ll. Griffith.
Twenty-
{Out ofprint.)
THE CITY OF ONIAS AND THE MOUND OF THE
VOL.
'
Griffith, and A.
{Out ofprint.)
By Ernest A. Gardner and
1888.
By Edouard
25^.
JEW.
By Edouard Naville and F. Ll. Griffith.
The
Twenty-
VIII.
IX.
BUBASTIS. By Edouard Naville.
TWO HIEROGLYPHIC
PAPYRUS
THE FESTIVAL HALL OF OSORKON

Naville.
Thirty-nine Plates.
1892.
XL AHNAS EL MEDINEH.
Ten
Plates.
XIII.
1894.
DEIR EL BAHARI,
Part
By Edouard Naville.
XVI.
XVIII.
DENDEREH.
(three
Plates
XXV-LV
90 1
1898.
folio.
Plates
Sixty-eight Plates.
1900.
LVI-LXXXVI
30$.
Petrie.
1900,
Thirty-eight Plates.
.)
By W. M. Flinders
25J.
By Edouard Naville.
Part IV.
(two coloured) with Description.
Royal
folio.
1901.
Plates
LXXXVII-
3CW.
By W. M. Flinders Petrie.
Forty-nine
Plates.
Out ofprint.)
THE ROYAL TOMBS OF THE EARLIEST DYNASTIES,

By W. M. Flinders Petrie.
Plates.
(two
Photogravure and thirty-seven
By Edouard Naville.
Royal
By W. M. Flinders
DEIR EL BAHARI,
1
XXIII.
I-XXIV
30J.
Flinders Petrie.
Part III.
XX. DIOSPOLIS PARVA.
XXII.
Plates
THE ROYAL TOMBS OF THE FIRST DYNASTY.

CXVIII
XXI.
1897.
folio.
(Forty extra Plates of Inscriptions,
Petrie.
XIX.
Plates
2 55.
DEIR EL BAHARI,
25..
Fifteen
30J.
By Edouard Naville.
II.
(two coloured) with Description.
XVII.
1895.
folio.
Royal
DESHASHEH. By W. M.
1S98.
J. J.
By Edouard Naville.
Introductory.
Part I.
Royal
DEIR EL BAHARI,
Plates.
By
255.
coloured) with Description.
XV.
Eighteen Plates. And

TvLORând F. Ll. Griffith
By Edouard Naville.
coloured) with Description.
XIV.
By Edouard
'
2 5 s-
1894.
DEIR EL BAHARI,
and Plans.
(BUBASTIS).
II
255.
THE TOMB OF PAHERI AT EL KAB.

XII.
THE
FROM
SIGN
TANIS. Containing
By F. Ll. Griffith. THE GEOGRAPHICAL PAPYRUS
M. Flinders Petrie. With Remarks by Heinrich Brugsch.
(a Syllabary).
By \Y.
(an Almanack).
{Out ofprint.)
1SS9.
X.
Fifty-four Plates. (Seco?id Edition, i%gi.) 25T.
PAPYRI
Sixty-three
Plates.
1901.
25*.
Part
10s.)
ABYDOS,
Part
By W. M.
I.
F. Ll. Griffith.
Part
XXV. ABYDOS,
Eighty-one Plates.
F. Petrie.
EL AMRAH AND ABYDOS.
XXIV. ABYDOS,
Sixty Plates.
1902.
25*.
By D. Randall-MacIver, A. C. Mace, and

1902.
25J.
By W. M. F. Petrie. Sixty-four Plates. 1903. 25*.

III.
By C. T. Currelly, E. R. Ayrton, and A. E.
II.
Part
YVeigall, &c. Sixty-one
Plates.
1904.
Description.
Royal
folio.
1906.
Thirty-one Plates.
Royal
190S.
folio.
30J.
THE ELEVENTH DYNASTY TEMPLE AT DEIR EL BAHARI,

By Edouard Naville and Somers Clarke.
XXXI. PRE-DYNASTIC
and
W.
L. S.
Loat.
Twenty-four Plates.
CEMETERY AT EL MAHASNA.
191
1.
1910.
CEMETERIES OF ABYDOS,
1
914.
XXXIV. CEMETERIES OF ABYDOS,

1
91 3.
Part
Part III.
1913.
255.
E.
Peet,
By T. E. Peet. 19 1 4. 2 5 s.
By T. E. Peet and W.
L. S.
2s.
Part
III.
25..
THE INSCRIPTIONS OF SINAI, Part

Eighty-six Plates and Plans.
XXXVII. BALABISH.
Thirty-six Plates.
By Edouard Naville,
I.
Part II.
XXXV. CEMETERIES OF ABYDOS,

Loat.
II.
By E. R. Ayrton

H. R. Hall and K. Haddon.
Part
25..
255.
By Edouard Naville, H. R. Hall, and C. T. Currelly.
XXXVI.
Part I.
{Out ofprint.)
Plates CLI-CLXXIV
1907.
By Edouard Naville.
Part VI.
(one coloured) with Description.
XXXIII.
with
XXIX. DEIR EL BAHARI,
XXXII.
25*.
30..
By Edouard Naville and H. R. Hall.
XXX.
P.
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
XXVIII.
II.
extra
(Thirty-five
Royal
folio.
By G. A. Wainwright.
I.
1917.
By A. H. Gardiner and
. E. Peet.
35.?.
Twenty-five Plates.
1920.
42s.
ARCHAEOLOGICAL SURVEY.
Edited by F. Ll. Griffith.
I.
BENI HASAN,
III.
EL BERSHEH,
Part
1894.
25J.
EL BERSHEH,
Part
BENI HASAN,
&c,
VI.
By Percy
I.
Part III. By F. Ll. Griffith.

Ten coloured Plates. 1896.
BENI HASAN,
F. Ll.
By
Nine coloured
Griffith.
PTAHHETEP
OF
birds,
AND AKHETHETEP
AT
1900.
F. Ll.
THE ROCK TOMBS OF SHEIKH

1901.
Thirty-one
DEIR EL GEBRAWI,
coloured).
Part
By N. de G. Davies.
SAID.
II.
25.?.
Thirty-
25..
Twenty-seven Plates (two coloured).
Davies.
1901.
Thirty five Plates.
XL THE ROCK TOMBS OF DEIR EL GEBRAWI,
XIII.
Griffith.
25..
By N. DE G. Davies and F. Ll. Griffith.
XII.
255.
THE MASTABA OF PTAHHETEP AND AKHETHETEP,

five Plates.
25..
and
By Norman de G. Davies and

1900.
1898.
Plates.
(Illustrating beasts
F. Ll. Griffith.
Twenty-seven Plates (twenty-one coloured).
&c.)
MASTABA
THE
By
Part IV.
Part I.
Plates (three coloured).
X.
2 55.
HIEROGLYPHS FROM THE COLLECTIONS OF THE EGYPT
SAQQAREH,
IX.
Thirty-four Plates (two
(Hieroglyphs, and manufacture,
of Flint Knives.)
arts, crafts,
VIII.
E. Newberry.
F. Ll. Griffith and Percy E. Newberry.

Twenty-three Plates (two coloured). 1895. 25..
By
II.
EXPLORATION FUND.
VII.
{Out ofprint.)
1893.
Part II. By Percy E. Newberry. With Appendix, Plans, and

Measurements by G. VV. Fraser. Thirty-seven Plates (two coloured). 1894. 253.
With Appendix by G. W. Fraser.
V.
With Plans by G. w.
E. Newberry.
BENI HASAN,
coloured).
IV.
By Percy
I.
Forty-nine Plates (four coloured).
Fraser.
II.
Part
1902.
Part
1902.
Part
By N. de G. Davies.
II.
By N. de G.
I.
25*.
Thirty Plates (two
255.
THE ROCK TOMBS OF EL AMARNA,

Forty-one Plates.
1903.
Part
I.
By N. de G. Davies.
255.
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,
Part
By
I.
F. Ll.
XX. MEROITIC INSCRIPTIONS,

Plates.
191
Griffith.
Part
Thirty-five Plates.
By
II.
191
25..
1.
Forty-eight
F. Ll. Griffith.
25^.
2.
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.
XXIII. MEIR, Part
XXIV. MEIR,
1914.
255.
By A. M. Blackman.
By A. M. Blackman.
II.
Part III.
Thirty-five Plates.
Thirty-nine Plates.
25..
1915.
25^
1915.
GRAECO-ROMAN MEMOIRS.
I.
THE OXYRHYNCHUS
Eight Collotype Plates.
II.
THE OXYRHYNCHUS
III.
THE TEBTUNIS
V.
PAPYRI,
1899.
PAPYRI.
1902.
THE OXYRHYNCHUS
Six Collotype Plates.
1903.
By B.
I.
P.
Grenfell and A.
S.
Hunt.
Part
By
II.
Grenfell and A.
S.
Hunt.
B. P.
25..
Eighteen Plates.
Nine Collotype Plates.
Part
{Out ofprint.)
FAYUM TOWNS AND' THEIR

and D. G. Hogarth.
IV.
PAPYRI,
1898.
By
(Not for
PAPYRI,
25..
PAPYRI.
1900.
B. P.
B. P. Grenfell, A. S.
By
Hunt,
25..
Grenfell, A.
S.
Hunt, and
J.
G. Smyly.
sale.)
Part III.
By
B. P.
Grenfell and A.
S.
Hunt.
VI.
THE OXYRHYNCHUS
VII.
THE HIBEH
PAPYRI,
Collotype Plates.
VIII.
1906.
X.
XII.
XIII.
1911.
XVI.
XVII.
XVIII.
Collotype Plates.
PAPYRI,
Part VIII.
PAPYRI,
Part IX.
PAPYRI,
Grexfell and A.
S.
Hunt.
S.
Hunt.
Six Collotype
By
A. S.
Hunt.
Seven Collo-
By A.
S.
Hunt.
Six Collotype
Bell.
By
B. P.
Grexfell and A.
S.
Hunt.
Part XI.
By
B. P.
Grenfell and A.
S.
Hunt.
Grexfell and A.
S.
Hunt.
PAPYRI,
1919.
1922.
P.
Part XIII.
By
B. P.
Grenfell and A.
S.
By
B. P.
Grexfell and A.
S.
2 55.
PAPYRI,
Part
XIV.
42s.
1920.
THE OXYRHYNCHUS PAPYRI,
THE OXYRHYNCHUS
Part X.
25^.
Three Collotype Plates.
Part
XV. By B.
Grexfell and A.
P.
S.
Hunt.
425.
PAPYRI,
Part
By
XVI.
B. P. Grenfell, A. S. Hunt,
[In preparation^)
ANNUAL ARCHAEOLOGICAL REPORTS.

General Index,
6d. each.
Hunt.
P.
PAPYRI, Part XII. By B.
THE OXYRHYNCHUS
2s.
S.
25J.
I.
Grenfell and A.
By A.
Part VII.
1915.
THE OXYRHYNCHUS
and H.
Ten
25s.
1916.
Five Collotype Plates.
XIX.
B. P.
By B.
Part VI.
PAPYRI,
THE OXYRHYNCHUS
Hunt.
By
Part V.
PAPYRI,
19 14.
THE OXYRHYNCHUS
Hunt.
Hunt.
25s.
1912.
THE OXYRHYNCHUS
Two
S.
25*.
Seven Collotype Plates.
XV.
B. P.
25J.
XIV.
Grexfell and A.
Hunt.
25J.
THE OXYRHYNCHUS
Plates.
I.
PAPYRI,
THE OXYRHYNCHUS
type Plates.
By
S.
Grexfell and A.
B. P.
25.J.
1908.
THE OXYRHYNCHUS
1910.
By
PAPYRI,
1908.
THE OXYRHYNCHUS
Plates.
XI.
Part
THE OXYRHYNCHUS
Part IV.
25s.
45..
Seven Collotype Plates.
IX.
PAPYRI,
1904.
Edited by F. Ll. Griffith.
JOURNAL OF EGYPTIAN ARCHAEOLOGY

quarterly parts 6s.
Vol.
vi,
1892-1912.
4s. net.
quarterly parts
2s.
6d.
(commencing
;
Vol.
vii,
Vols,
19 14).
two double parts,
i-v,
25^. each.
SPECIAL PUBLICATIONS.
:
and A.
S.
'Sayings of
Hunt.
NEW SAYINGS OF
of the
Logia
'
Our Lord/ from an Early Greek Papyrus.
JESUS
1908.
By
B. P.
Grenfell and A.
THE THEBAN TOMB
By W. E. Crum.
SERIES, Vol. I.
By Nina de G. Davies and A. H. Gardiner.

1920.
S.
Hunt.
By
B. P.
1904.
with the text
ij.
net.
Grenfell and A. S
is. net.
COPTIC OSTRACA.
KER.
Grenfell
B. P.
AND FRAGMENT OF A LOST GOSPEL,
discovered in 1897.
FRAGMENT OF AN UNCANONICAL GOSPEL.

Hunt.
By
{Out ofprint.)
1897.
*. 6d. net.
THE TOMB OF AMENEMHET
1902.
1915.
35*.
Vol.11.
(No. 82).
THE TOMB OF ANTEFO
42s.
THE MAYER PAPYRI A
and B.
Offices of the
13
503
By
E. Peet.
Twenty-seven
1920.
Plates.
Egypt Exploration Society:
TAVISTOCK SQUARE, LONDON, W.C.
TREMONT TEMPLE, BOSTON,
1,
and
MASS., U.SA.
Agents
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
AND
50J.
SITjj
BRIGHAM VOKMaUNMgl
3 1197 22884 0200

The Oxyrhynchus Papyri 15 - 1828 PDF

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

The Oxyrhynchus Papyri 15 - 1828 PDF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

LIBRARY

Brigham Young University

Digitized by the Internet Archive

2010 with funding from

Brigham Young University

EGYPT EXPLORATION SOCIETY

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

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

WITH FIVE PLATES

The Offices of the EGYPT EXPLORATION SOCIETY,

Tremont Temple, Boston,

HUMPHREY MILFORD, Amen

Tavistock Square, W.C.

Corner, E.C. 4, and 29 West 32ND Street, New York, U.S.A.

compass of the Byzantine documents intended

was found advisable

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

present instalment therefore, like

literary texts alone.

and XIII, consists of

extensive of these, including 1787-90,

belong mainly to the second large

905-6 others proceed from the work of different

That unfortunately remains my

colleague's chief contribution to

a few of the minor texts were originally copied

him, and he was able to revise

copies of a few others

a fact which accounts for some delay in

appearance and for

again indebted to Mr. E. Lobel for

assistance with the

and especially the fragments of Lesbian poetry.

a few passages in the poetical pieces.

thanks are also due to

modern form of the

Professor H. Stuart Jones for a transcript in

musical notation of the early

other scholars for help on special points, which

connexion with the texts concerned.

Minor Literary Fragments

1787-9 (Sappho and Alcaeus)

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

John's Gospel xvi

Pindar, Paean (Plate III)

Callimachus, Sosibi Victoria

Theocritus, Idyll xxii (Plate IV)

Late 2nd or early 3rd

Hexameter Poem on Egyptian Botany

Alcaeus (Plate III)

with Musical Notation (Plat 5 I)

Late 2nd or early 3rd

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

Codex Theodosianus vii (Plate I)

Late 3rd or 4th

NOTE ON THE METHOD OF PUBLICATION AND

general method followed in this volume is the same as in preceding

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

of the text are in small thin type, those

indicate a lacuna, round

the resolution of a symbol or abbreviation, angular brackets ( )

represent the approximate

indicate mutilated or otherwise illegible letters.