You are on page 1of 391


















ΙΝ the preface to Oxyrhynchus Pαpyri, Part Ι, we stated our
intention of adopting a chronological system ίη future volumes. The
present work is accordingly devoted to first century Β. c. or first
century Α. D. papyri, with the exception of the theological and some
of the classical fragments, and the 'Petition of Dionysia' (Νο.
ccxxxvii), which οη account of its great size and importance we
wished to pnblish as soon as possible.
The 193 selected texts ίη this volume do not by any means
exhaust the first century papyri found at Oxyrhynchus; but it is
probable that we have examined all the most important documents
of that period. The bnlk of the papyri of the second and third
centuries, and of the Byzantine period, has not yet been touched.
Ιη editing the new classicaI fragments (ccxi-ccxxiί), we have
once more to acknowledge our great obligations to Professor BLASS,
who again visited us last Easter. Το him we owe a Iarge part of
the restorations of the texts and many suggestions ίη the com-
mentaries. Some help which we have received ση special points
from other scholars is noted ίη connexion with the individual

The last year has been marked by the appearance of two works
of primary importance ίη the field of Greek papyri. Mr. KENYON'S
Pαlaeography of Greek Papyri
for the first time gathers together the
results ίη this department, especially from the point of view of the
British Mu,seum collection. Since that book will long rank as
the standard authority οη the subject, we have taken the opportunity
to notice some palaeographical questions respecting which we differ
from Mr. Kenyon, and οη which the Oxyrhynchus Papyri throw
fresh light. But our points of divergence from his views are of
course inconsiderable ίη comparison with our general agreement with
them. Professor WILCKEN'S Gr'/ech:/sche Ostraka-the elaborate intro-
duction to which is a comprehensive survey of all the evidence
bearing upon the economic and financial aspects of Ptolemaic and
Roman Egypt-reached us when this volume was already ίη type.
We have therefore been obliged to confine to occasional footnotes
our references to that most important work.
The plan of this volume is practically the same as that of its
predecessor, except that we have given more details ίη the descriptions
of the papyri not pubIished ίη fuIl, and have added a grammatical
index, and an index of subjects discussed ίη the introductions and
SejJt. ι ο, 1899.




111. MONTHS AND DAYS · 330
νι SYMBOLS 337
νιι. OFFICIALS. 337

ΙΙ. Νο. CCIX Tofαce pαge 8
111. Νο. CCXI 13
" " 25
ν. Nos. CCXVI, CCXXV, CCXXXVI (α) (b) (c) " "
νι. Nos. CCXX (Col. 7), CCXXI (Co1. 10)
" " 45
" " 196
νιlΙ. Νο. CCLXX
" " 253
" "

CCVIII. St. John ί and χχ 3rd cent. ι
CCIX. Ερ. to Romans ί (Plate 11) 4th cent. 8
CCX. Early Christian fragment . . 3rd cent. 9
CCXI. Menandet·, ΠEpΙI<EIιPOμ€νη (Plate 111) 1st or 2lld cent. . ιι
CCXII. Aristophanes (?) 1st or 2nd cent. . 20
CCXIII. Tragic fragment (Plate IV) 2nd cent. 23
CCXIV. Epic fragment 3rd cent. 27
CCXV. Philosophical fragment 1st cent. B.C. or 1st A.D. 30
CCXVI. Rhetorical exercise (Plate V) ι 8! cent. Β. c. or ι 8t Α. D. 33
CCXVII. Letter to a King of Macedon 3rd cent. 34
CCXVIII. Historical fragment . . 3rd cent. 35
CCXIX. Lament for a pet 1st cent. 39
CCXX. Treatise ση Metres (Plate VI) . 1st or 2nd cent. . 4ι
CCXXI. Scholia ση Iliad χχί (Plate VI) • 2nd cent. 52
CCXXII. List of Olympian Victors . 3rd cent. 85
CCXXIII. Homer, Ill:αd v (Plate I,/ronlisp'iece) . 3rd cent. 96
CCXXIV. Euripides, Ρhoenzssae 3rd cent. 1 14
CCXXV. Thucydides ii (Plate V) 1st cent. 117
CCXXVI. Xenophon, Hellenica νί 1st or 2nd cent.. ι 18
CCXXVII. Xenophon, Oeconomzcus 1st cent. 120
CCXXVIII. Plato, Laches . 2nd cent. 123
CCXXIX. Plato, Phaedo . 2nd or 3rd cent. . 126
CCXXX. Demosthenes, De Corona . 2nd cent. 128
CCXXXI. Demosthenes, De Corona . 1st or 2nd cent. . 130
CCXXXII. Demosthenes, Conlra Timocrαlem (I)late IV) 2nd or 3rd cent. . 132
CCXXXIII. Demosthenes, Conlra Tl:mocralem 3rd cent. 133

CCXXXlY. Medical Prescriptions . 2nd or 3rd cent. . 134
CCXXXY. Horoscope . About 20 137
CCXXXVI (α), (b), (c). Ptolemaic fragments (Plate ν) B.C. 69-51 . 139
CCXXXVII. Petition of Dionysia A.D. 186 141
CCXXXVIII. Official Ν otice 72 180
CCXXXIX. Irregular Contributions 66 183
CCXL. Extortion by a Soldier 37 184
CCXLI. Registration of a Mortgage . About 98 185
CCXLII. Registration of a Sale . 77 186
CCXLIII. Registration of a Mortgage . 79 190
CCXLlY. Transfer of Cattle 23 193
CCXLV. Registration of Cattle . 26 194
CCXLVI. Registration of Cattle (Plate νιι) . 66 195
CCXLVII. Registration of Property 90 197
CCXLVIII. Registration of Property 80 198
CCXLIX. Registration of Property 80 200
CCL. Registration of Property 61 201
CCLI. Notice of Removal 44 203
CCLII. Notice of Removal 19-20 205
CCLIII. Ν otice of Removal 19 206
CCLIV. Census Return About 20 207
CCLV. Census Return 48 215
CCLVI. Census Return 6-35 216
CCLVII. Selection of Boys (έπΙl(pισ,,~) • 94-5 · 217
CCLVIII. Selection of Boys (έπΙl(pισι~) • 86-7 225
CCLIX. Bail for a Prisoner 23 227
CCLX. Promise of Attendance ίn Court 59 229
CCLXI. Appointment of a Representative . 55 230
CCLXII. Notice of Death . 61 232
CCLXIII. Sale of a Slave 77 232
CCLXIV. Sale of a Loom 54 234-
CCLXV. Marriage Contract 81-95 235
CCLXVI. Deed of Divorce 96 238
CCLXVII. Agreement of Marriage 36 243
CCLXVIII. Repayment of a Do,vry 58 247
CCLXIX. Loan of Money 57 250
CCLXX. Indemnification of a Surety.(Plate νιιι) 94 252
CCLXXI. Transfer of a Debt 56 254
CCLXXII. Tt·ansfer of a Debt 66 256
CCLXXIII. Cession of Land . 95 258
CCLXXlY. Register of PI·operty 89-97 259

CCLXXV. Contract of Α pprenticeship . . 66 262
CCLXXVI. Transport of Corn 77 264
CCLXXVII. Lease of Land • B.C. 19 266
CCLXXVIII. Hire of a ΜίΙΙ " A.D. 17 267
CCLXXIX. Lease of Domain Land 44-5 · . 269
CCLXXX. Lease of Land · 88-9· 270
CCLXXXI. Complaint against a Husband 20-50 271
CCLXXXII. Complaint against a Wife (Plate νιι) . 30-35 272
CCLXXXIII. Petition to the Strategus 45 273
CCLXXXIV. Extortion by a Tax-Collector · About 50 275
CCLXXXV. Extortion by a Tax-Collector · About 50 276
CCLXXXVI. Claim of a Creditor 82 277
CCLXXXVII. Payment of Corn 23 279
CCLXXXVIII. Taxation Account 22-5 . 280
CCLXXXIX. Taxation Accounts · 65-83 284
CCXC. Work ση the Embankments . . 83-84 288
CCXCI. Letter of a Strategus . 25-6 290
CCXCII. Letter of Recommendation . . About 25 292
CCXCIII. Letter to a Sister • 27 293
CCXCIV. Lettel" fTom Alexandria 22 294
CCXCV. Letter of a daughter 1st cent. . 296
CCXCVI. Letter concerning Taxation . 1st cent. 296
CCXCVII. Letter concerning a Property Return · 54 297
CCXCVIII. Letter of a Tax-Col1ector 1st cent. 298
CCXCIX. Letter concerning a Mouse-Catcher 1st cent. . 300
CCC. Letter to a Relative 1st cent. • 301
CCCI. ~ίλλυβo~ 1st or 2nd cent. . 303
,CCCII-III. Literary fragments 1st cent. . 303
CCCIV-XXVI. Documents concerning Tryphon . 17-59 . 303
CCCXXVII-XLIX. Notices to the agoranomi 77-100 · 307
CCCL-LXI. )ΑΠΟΥραΦαί • 1st cent. 310
CCCLXII-LXXX. Contracts, Wills, Leases " 6-97 · · 31 Ι
CCCLXXXI-XCII. Taxation and Accounts 1st cent. · 3ι 3
CCCXCIII-CCCC. Petitions and Letters " 1st cent. . 315


ΙΝ the present volume a few slight modifications of the method followed

ίη its predecessor have been introducecl. Of the new literary texts some are
given ίη a double form, an exact transcript of the original being accompanied
by a reconstruction ίη modern style. Ιη other cases, where this more elaborate
system appeared for various reasons to be unnecessary, and ίη the extant 1iterary
fragments, ordinary type alOl1e has been employed. Here words have been
separated from each other, and where possible, supplements of the lacunae
added; but ηο stops, breathings, or other Iection signs have been inserted
which are not found ίιι the original. Corrections, if written ίη a hand different
from that of the body of the papyrus, are printed ίn a smaller type; if not,
ίη the sanle type as the rest of the text.
The non-lίtet·ary texts are given ίη modern form with accents, breathings,
and stops. Abbreviations and symbols are resolved; an index of the Iatter
wi11 be found at the end of the book. Iota adscript is reproduced wherever
it was written; otherwise iota subscript is printed. Additions and corrections
are silnply incorporated into the t~xt, and their occurrence ίΒ recorded ϊη the
critical notes. Faults of orthography are col·rected ίη these notes wherever
they seemed likely to cause any difficulty. Square brackets [] indicate a
lacuna, round brackets ( ) the resolution of an abbreviation or symbol, angular
brackets <) the omission ίη the original of the letters enclosed; double square
brackets [] indicate that the Ietters within them~ have been erased ϊη the
original, braces f }, that the letters so enclosed, though standing ίn the original,
should be omitted. Dots placed inside brackets represent the approximate
numbet· of letters lost or erased. Dots outside bra~kets indicate ml1ti1ated
or otherwise illegible letters. Letters with dots under them are to be considered

Stnal1 Roman numerals refer to the texts of this and the preceding volume ;
large ditto to columns; Arabic numerals by themselves to lines.
Β. G. U = Agyptische U rkunden aus den Koniglichen' Μ useen zu Berlin,
Griechische U rkunden.
Brit. Mus. Pap. Cat.=Greek Papyri ίη the British Museum Catalogue, Vols. Ι
and 11, by F. G. Kenyon.
C. Ρ. R=Corpus Papyrorum Raineri, νοι Ι, by C. Wessely.
G. Ρ. 1= Greek Papyri, Series Ι. Απ Alexandrian Erotic Fragment and other
Greek Papyri, by Β. Ρ. GrenfelI.
G. Ρ. 11 = Greek Papyri, Series 11. New Classical Fragments and other Greek
and Latin Papyri, by Β. Ρ. Grenfell and Α. S. Hunt.
Gr. Ost.=Griechische Ostraka, by U. Wίlcken.
Ο. Ρ. I=The Oxyrhynchus Papyri, Part Ι, by Β. Ρ. Grenfel1 and Α. S. Hunt.
Pap. Par.=Les Papyrus Grecs du Musee du Louvre (Notices et Extraits, tome
xνίiί. 2), by W. Brunet de Presle et Ε. Egger.
Rev. Pap.=Revenue Laws of Ptolemy Philadelphus, by Β. Ρ. <;irenfell, with an
Introduction by the Rev. J. Ρ. Mahaffy.


21'2 χ 7·5 Cl1l.

ΤΗΕ following fragments of 5t. John's Gospel are contained upon a sheet οί
a papyrus codex. Ιn its original P05ition the sheet was folded down the middle,
thus forming two leaves, each of which had οη either side a single column of
writing. The outer edges of the two leaves have been broken away, so that
only the beginnings and ends of Iines remain. The left-hand leaf, wl1ich is the
more complete, having 105t btlt three entire lines at the bottom of either side,
contains verses 23-31 and 33-41 from the first chapter. The right-hand leaf,
which, besides being mot·e defective at the end, has a lacuna ίη the middle, gives
parts of verses 11-] 7 and 19-25 from chapter ΧΧ.
If, then, the original book contained the whole of the Gospel, which is
certainly the most natural supposition, our sheet was vet·y nearly the outermost
of a large quire, and within it were a number of other sheets sufficient to hold
the eighteen interνening chapters. Written upon the same scale as the surviving
fragments, these eighteen chaptet·s would fil1 twenty-two sheets. The whole
book would thus consist of a single quire of twenty-five sheet5, the first leaf
being probably left blank, or giving only the title. Such an arrangement
certainly seems rather awkward, particularly as the margin between the two
columns of writing ίη the flattened sheet ίΒ only about 2 cm. wide. This is not
much to be divided between two leaves at the outside of 50 thick a quire. But
as yet little is known about the composition of these early books; and it ί5 by
ηο means impt·obable that the simpler and more primitive form of a large
number of sheets gathered into a single quire was prevalent before the more

convenient arrangement of several smal1 quil"es placed side by side came into
And this sheet is ίη fact one of the earlίest fragments of a papyrus book
that has been preserνed. Like the Logia and St. Matthew fl"agments (ο. Ρ. Ι.
ί and ίί), it is of the third centnry. The handwriting is a round upright uncial
of medium size, better formed than that of the St. Matthew fl"agment, but, like
it, of an informal semi-literary type. It may ~e assigned with safety to the period
between 200 and 300, but it would be rash to attempt to place it within narrowet·
limits. Ιη two cases corrections, or perhaps alternative readings, have been
added above the line ίη a smaller hand, which, however, is to all appearances
that of the original scribe. The contractions nsual ίη theological MSS., ΘC,
IHC, χc, ΠΝΑ, occur; as these are regularly found ίη the third century, they
must date from a considerably earlίer pel"iod 1. Points are not used; a blank
space, of the width of one ΟΙ" two letters, commonly marks a pause occurring
,within the line. The rough breathing is found twice.
The text is a good one, and appeal"s to have affιnities with that of the
Codex Sinaiticus, with which the papyrus agrees ίη several readings not fonnd
elsewhere. This agreement is unfortunately obscured by lllutilation. But though
ίη the case of slighter νariants the reading of the papyrus, where defective,
sometimes remains donbtful, enough remains to render it possible for the most
part to reconstruct the text with considerabIe confidence. Τη the absence of
positiνe indications, our supplements of the lacunae are taken from Westcott
and Hort's text, with which the papyrus is' usually ίη harmony. Α collation
with Westcott and Hort is given below.
It is commonly asserted (e. g. Kenyon's Pαlαeogrαphy ο/ Greek Pαpyri,
ρ. 24) that the book form is characteristic of the close of the papyrus period,
and that the use of papyrus ίη cod-ices was an experiment which was soon given
up ίη favour of the more durable vellum. But the evidence now avai1able
does not justify either of these generalίzations. When the papyrus book
first made its appearance ίη Egypt it is impossible to say; but at any rate
it was ίη common t1se for theological literatur~ ίη the third century. Indeed
the theological fragments which can be placed ίη that centuryare almost without
exception derived from papyrus codz·ces, not from rol1s. This fact can scarcely
be due to accident; and it points to a prevalence of the book form at that early
date much greater than is frequently supposed. Moreoνer, papyrus ίη the
book form did not run 50 in5ignificant a course. It may fairly claim to have
1 We notice that Mr. Kenyon (Pαlαeogrαpky, ρ. 32) states that these compendia are confined to two
'weΙΙ-wήtten literarypapyri.' Our first Oxyrhynchus volume would alone have supplied four more
instances. Mr. Kenyon's remark (ibz·d. ρ. Ι54) that theyare found 'ίn late theological 'papyri' is therefore
somewhat misleading.

made a good fight, if not to haνe held its own; ίη Egypt against vel1um so long
as Greek MSS. continued to be written there. At OXYl"hynchus it was certainly
the material more general1y employed from the fifth to the seνenth century.
The 1iterary fragments of the Byzantine period which we haνe obtained from
other sources ίη Egypt during the last three or four years, and hope to publish
before long, have as often been papyrus as vellum. Only ίη Coptic MSS.
vellum, for some reason, seems to have been more commonly used.
We should therefore demur to Mr. Kenyon's dictum (Ραlαeogrαphy,
ρ. 112) that 'ίη the sphere of literary papYl"i there is ηο Byzantine period.'
Papyrus remained ίη use ίη Egypt, both for classical and theological 1iterature,
down to the end of that period ; and the types of handwriting w11ich appear upon
it have a continuous history of their own. Though ηο doubt the literary hand,
as practised tlpOn vellum, reacted upon the papyrus script, we should say that
the debt of papyrus to vel1um was unappreciable as compared with that of
vellum to papyrus. The prototype of the handwriting of the great biblical
codices is to be found ίη papyrus MSS. of the second and third centuries. The
broad heavy strokes, supposed to be characteristic of wl"iting υροη νellum, can
be shown ίη literary papyri considerably anterior to the vellum period. The
vellum hands, so far from affording any sure basis for determining the age of
literary papyri of the Byzantine epoch, are rather themselves to be referred to
the papyri for their explanation and date.

Fol. Ι, verso.
[εΥ]Ο> φων[ η J βο[ωIITO~ Εν τη ερημω
(ευ]θυιιατ[ Ε την 080v κυ Kαθω~ ΕΙ
[Π)ΕΙΙ ησα[ια~ ο πpoΦηTη~ και αΠΕσ
[τ)αλμΕΙΙΟΙ [ησαν ΕΚ των φαρισαι
5 ίωJν και ηρω[τησαιι αυτοιι τι συν βα
ΠTΙ(EΙ~ ΕΙ [συ ουκ ει ο x~ oυ8€ ηλια~
ου8ε ο πpo[φηTη~ αΠΕκριθη αυTOΙ~ ο
ϊωaIIII[η~ λΕΥωιι ΕΥω βαπτι(ω Εν υ
8ατι μ[Eσo~ υμιll στηΚΕΙ ον υμEΙ~
10 ουκ oι8α[τ€ ο οπισω μου ερχομΕΙΙΕ

(vJo~ (ο]υ ο(υκ Ειμι aξιo~ ινα λυσω αυ

του τον (ιμαllτa του υπo8ημαTO~
ταυτa ΕΙΙ β[ηθαιιια €YEIIETO 71'Ε
ραν του ϊο[ρ8αιιου οπου ηιι ο ία/αν

ι 5 [ν]η~ βαπτι[(ων τη επαυριον βλε

πει τον ιην [ερχομενον πpo~ αυτον
και λεΥει [ϊ8Ε ο αμllO~ του 'ihJ ο αιρω
την αμαρ[τιαν του κοσμου OVTOr
εστιν ϋπερ [ου εΥω ειπον οπισω μου
20 ερχεται α[νηρ o~ εμπροσθεν μου

ΥεΥον[εν οΤι ΠΡωτοr μου ην καΥω

ουκ η8[ειν αυτον αλλ ινα φανερω
θη [τω ισραηλ 8ια τουτο ηλθον ε

r[ro. · ·

Fol. ι, recto.
[ΙCαyω ουκ η8ειν αυτον] αλλ' ο π[εμ
(tar με βαπτι(ειν εν vJ8aT[t] ε[κει
[νΟΥ μοι Ειπεν εφ ον αν ι]8η~ το (πιια
[καταβαινον και μεν Jov επ αυ[τον
5 [ουΤΟΥ εστιν ο βαπτι(]ων εν π[νι α
[Υιω καΥω εωρακα και μεμ]αρτυρηκα ο
[τι OVTOr Εστιν ο εκλεκτο]r του θυ τη f

[παυριοll ιστηΚΕΙ ο Ια/ανν]η~ ιcαι εκ

[των μαθητων αυτου 8]υο και εμ
10 [βλεψαr τω ιηυ περιπατο]υllΤΙ λεΥε[ι
[ι8ε ο αμνΟΥ του θυ και η κοΊυσαν όι 8υο
[μαθηται λαλουνΤΟΥ και η]κολουθη
[σαν τω ιηυ σΤΡaφειr 8]ε ο ιη~ και θε
[ασαμενo~ αυToυ~ ακ]ολουθουνταΥ
οι 8ε
15 [λεΥει αυΤΟΙΥ τι (ητειJτε ειπαν άύ
[τώ ραββει ο λεΥεται ερ]μηνευομε
[νον 8ι8aσκαλε που μενJEl~ λεΥει
[αυTOΙ~ ΕΡ'χεσθε και οψε]σθε ηλθαν
[συν και ει8αν που μΕνει KJat παρ αυτω
20 [εμειναν την ημεραν] ~~~!r?7!' [&>]
[ρα. ην ror 8εκατη η ν av8Jpea~ ο α

[8ελΦo~ • . . . . . . . . . . 8]υο των

[ακovσαντων παρα ιωαννο]υ και α

FoI. 2, 'I--ec!o.

μνημ[ ειω εξω κλαιουσα ω~ συν εκλαΙΕΊΙ

παρεκυ[ ψεν Elr το μνημειοll και θεω
P~Ι δυο [αΥΥελουr εν λεvκοιr καθΕ(ομε
ν[ OVS' ενα πpo~ τη κεφαλη και ενα πpo~
5 τ[ otS' ποσιν . . .

3 lίnes Ι OSt.

9 μου [και ουκ οι8α που εθηκαν αυτοΊΙ

10 ταυτα [ειπουσα εστραφη ει~ τα ΟΠΙ
σο> και [θεωρει τον ιην εστωτa και ου
κ ηδει [ΟΤΙ ιηS' εστιν λεy€ι αυτη ιηS'
Υυναι [τι κλαιειS' τινα (ητειr εκεινη
δοκου(σα ΟΤΙ ο κηπουροS' εστιν λεΥει
15 αυτω (κε ει συ εβαστασαr αυτον fιπε
μοι π[ου εθηKα~ αυτοιι καΥω αυτοll
αρω (λεΥει αυτη ιηS' μαριαμ στραφει

[σα εκεινη λεΥει aυτω εβραιστι ραβ

β[ουνι • . . • . • . . • . • λεΎει αυτη ιη~
20 μ[η μου απτου ουπφ Υαρ α'ιιαβεβηκα ΠPO~

:[Oll πρα •
F01. Ζ, verso~

ηλθ]~!, [ο
[ιηr και εστη EtS' το μεσο]ν λεϊ'Ε!

[αυTOΙ~ ειρηνη υμιν και rJovr' ειπω

[ε8ειξεν Tar xeLpar και την πλε]υ
5 [ραν αυTOΙ~ εχαρησαν ουν οι μαθητ]αι ϊ
[8oVTEr . . .
3 or 4 lines lost.
9 λαβετε πΊνα α
10 [Ύιον αν τινων αφητε Tα~ αμlαpTια~

[αφεωνται αυTOΙ~ αν τινων] κρατητε

[κεκρατηνται θωμα~ 8ε ει~ εκ: τω]ν 800
[8εκα ο λεyoμEνo~ 8ι8υμo~ ουJK ην
[μετ αυτων οτε ουν ηλθ]εν ιη~
15 [ελεΥον αυτω οι μαθηται εω]ρακα
[μεν τον Κϊi ο 8ε ειπεν αυTOΙ]~ εαν
[μη ι8ω εν Tαι~ χερσι.ν τον τυ]πον

FoI. ι, verso. 3. Either αΠΕσταλμΕΙΙΟΙ (W(estcott)-H(ort) with ~ABCL) or οι αΠΕ-

σταλμΕνοι (T(extus) R(eceptus) with later hands ίn ~AC and other MSS.) may have
been the reading of the papyrus. The length of the line is rather ίn favour of the
omission of οι.
5. There is evidentlΥ πο room ίn this line for και Ειπαιι (or ΕΙΠΟΙΙ) αυτω, which is read
befot-e τι ουν by all MSS. 1t is noticeable that ~ omits και ηρωτησαν αυτον. The papyrus
variant is the correlative of this, and suggests that the common reading is the result of
6. ηλιar (~AC, &c., T.R.) is slightly more probable than ηλEια~ (W-H., with BL) ίn
consideration of the length of the line.
8. ιωαvv[ηr: 'Ιωάvηr W-H., with Β.
10. There can be ΏΟ doubt that thc papyrus agreed with ~BCL ίη omitting αυTO~
Εστιν after οι8αΤΕ. The longer reading would make a line of thirty-four letters, which is
clearly much too long. 1t is more difficult to decide between ο οπισω and οπισω
(~B, W -Η.). The omission of the article reduces the line to twenty-three letters, two of
them being iotas, which is abnormally short. The first line of this column consists of
twenty-three letters only, but ϊι includes four omegas and ηο iota. But, of course,
considerations of space a~e inconclusive for a single letter.
11. ΕΥω was certainly not read by the papyrus before ουκ (so Α and other MSS., T.R.),
and probably not after Ειμι (so Β, &c.), for its insertion would make the line longer than any
other ίη this column. ΕΥω is omitted ίη ~CL, &c., and bracketed by W-H.
17. The first of the two dots over the ι of ϊ~E is visible.
24. The letter at the beginning of this line appears to be 'Υ; the vestiges are ηοΙ
consistent with τ or v. If f\Y[ ω is right here, ισραηλ ίn the previous line must have been
written ίη the uncontracted form.
Reclo. 6. The first α of μΕμαρτυρηκα falls under ω of βαπτιζων; the supplement is
therefore a trifle long, nineteen letters as against seventeen ίη the previous 1ine.

7. Ο Ε κλf/(ΤΟ ]S'. The lacuna here iS larger by the space of one letter than ίη the two
lines preceding. 1t would therefore be hardly filled Up by reading ο υιοJS-. Moreover, ίη
thjs MS., vtOS- would natural1y have been written ίη the shortened form w. There iS indeed
apparent above and rather to the left of the S- a spot of ink which might represent the end
of a stroke of contraction. But ίη other cases of contraction ίη the papyrus the horizontal
stroke projects beyond the letters over which it iS p]aced, which the spot above S- here does
not do. Οη the other hand ο fιcλfΚΤΟS- ~ would be too long for the lacuna, besides being
open to the objection already stated to reading vs: here. ο fκλε/(τοS' has the support of Ν,
and is printed ίη the margin by W-H., who give δ vMS' ίη the text.
8. ιστη/(fΙ (~AF, &c., W-H.) suits the lacuna better than ειστηΙCfΙ (BCE, &c.); cf. ηλιαS'
fo1. ι, verso 6, note.
12. αυτου which is read before οι ~υo μαθηται by Α and other MSS., after ~υo by
CL, &c., and after μαθητaι by ΝΒ, was apparently omitted altogether ίη the papyrus. It
certainly did not stand ίη the first position; and it is impossible to get t\venty-five letters
into the ]acuna of this line, which would be the result of assigning the word to either of
the Iatter positions. Το suppos~ that λαλσvvτοs- was omitted V\'ould make the line too short.
ι 5. σι ~ε, which has been added above the line by the original scribe, is read byall
MSS.; cf. fo1. 2, verso 2. αυ[τω has been cancelled by dots placed over the letters. The
omission of the pronoun has ηο support from other MSS.
16. I~ as is at least probable, τω was written at the beginning of this line, there would
scarcely be room enough for μεθΕρμηνευομενοιι, even supposing that ραββι (ACFGL, &c.)
and not ραββΕΙ (~BE, &c.) stood here. μεθερμηVfvόμΕVΟV is read by W-H. with ABCL and
other MSS.; fΡμ.ηVfvομεvοv ~P, &c.
19. 1t seems οη the whole more pl"obable that the papyrus agreed with the majority
of l\ιISS. ϊn having ουν bere. The size of the lacuna is practically the same as ίη the t\VO
lίnes preceding.
20. The reading is very uncertain. At the end of the line is a mark which resembles
the rough breathing ίη 1. ι ι ; aήd the other vestiges are consistent with fΚfινηv. But the line
ίΒ then abnormally shol"t.
2 Ι. Considerations of space are slightly ίη favour of the addition of 8f after ωρα, but are
insufficient to justify its insertion. There is a strong consensus of manuscript authority
against ίι
22. lt is evident that the ordinar}' text ά~EλΦo~ ~ίμωνo~ Πέτρου EI~ JI( των ~ύo (W-H., T.R.)
is considerably too long for the space ~ere available. The question ίΒ whether this reading
would be sufficiently shortened by the omission (with Ν and C) of των, or whether it is
necessary to suppose a variant peculiar to the papyrus, e. g. the omission of πετρου. The v of
~υo stands slightly to the right of the V of ιωαvvοv ίη the next line, and therefore twenty-two
letters should approximately fill the lacuna ίn 1. 22. This is the number produced by
omitting πετρου; whi1e if ΠΕτρου be retained, and των omitted, the number of letters will
be twenty...five. Probably the latter alternative is the safer.
Fol. 2, reclo. 18. The omission of ε~pa"στι with AEGK, &C., T.R., would make the
line considerably too short.
19. The ordinary reading (Ρα$βσυJlΙ, Α λfΥΕται ~ι~άσl(αλE. λέΥΙΙ αύτΥ [ό1 'Iησoϋ~ produces
a line of at least thil'ty-four lettel"S, which is obviously too long. D has κυριε ~ι~ασKaλε, which
Iooks rather like a conflation of two variants, and suggests that ϊ« alone may have stood here
ίη the papyrus; cf. note οη [01. Ι, verso 5. IJomine is found ίn α (Vercellensis).
Verso. 2. Tbere is ηο authol"ity for the omission of /(αι, which is added above the
lίne by the first hand. The l"eading of the pap)'rus here perhaps points to UTar, with a
variant εστη, ϊη the lacuna.
3. τουτ : τουτο J.\ιISS., W.. H.

4. και Ta~ xειpα~ W-H., with ΑΒ, and this may have been the reading of the papyrus.
aVTotr Tar xειρα~ .•. πλευρaν aVTOV (EGKL, &c., Τ .R.) is excluded.
5 ff. There is a difficulty as to the number of lines l08t after 1. 5. The corresponding
lacuna ίη the reclo consists of three lines, but there would certainly be room for four οη
this side of the leaf if that number seemed more convenient. If all the longer variants are
assigned to the papyrus, namely, ο ιησοvr before παλιν (ΑΒ, &c.) and αποσΤΕλλω in8tead of
πεμπω (DL, one of the later hands ίn Ν, &c.), four lines will be produced, consisting of
twenty-five, twenty-seven, twenty-five, and twenty...four letters respectively. Οη the other
hand the Iacuna can be satisfactot·ily reduced to three lines by keeping the shorter version
of verse 2 Ι and following ίn verse 22 the reading of Ν, which omits the \vords και τουτο
ειπων. Τη view of the general agreement of the papyrus with ~, the latter is slightly the
more probable hypothesis.
12. The letters ίn the lacuna must have been rather cramped if the papyrus had the
ordinary reading here. Perhaps ~E was written above the line, like ι<αι ίn 1. 2 ; it is omitted
ίη a and e.
14, 15. 1t is clear that the papyrus agreed with Ν ίn placing συν before ηλθεν, and
omitting αλλοι before μαθηται. The ordinary reading οlJι< ην μετ) αlJTilJv 8T€ ηλθΙ1J [ό] Ίησοϋr.
1λΕΥον o~ν αύτφ οΙ άλλοι μαθηταΙ would make 1. 14 considerably too short, and Ι. 15 impossibly
17. Here again there can be little doubt of the agreement of the papyrus with Ν ίη the
omission of αυτου, which is read by W-H. after χερσιν with the rest of the MSS. The
Ιacι;ιna of this line and the preceding one are of the same size; and even when aυτον is
omitted the numher of letters 10st ίn this line will be one more than ϊη 1. 16.


Plate 11. 25· ι χ 19·9 cm.

The first seven verses of the first chapter of the Epistle to the Romans, written
ίη a large rude uncial-no doubt a schoolboy's exercise. There are several
mistakes ίη spel1ing, and part of verse 6 is omitted. Below are two lines ία
,a cursive hand which have ηα apparent sense or connexion with what precedes.
The cursive writing can be assigned with certainty to the first half of the fourth
century A.D., and the fact that the papyrus was fonnd tied up with a contract
dated ϊn 316 Α. D., and other documents of the same period, tends to fix the date
more precisely. There is ηο reason to think that the uncial writing is appreci-
ably earlier than the cursive. The contractions usual ίn theological MSS. occur.






2nd hand. ΑίιΡήλιοr Παυλο[S' . .]ιιυΙΙΙιΤιου των παρα Υ€νήματοr

Π€PΙ τωJl Y€JlημάTων [•• •]ου έπι του λΟΥε[αr •• [.] των
χ aι

Οη the verso.
15 ~ '![. · ·~ιT'!1 άπ6στολοr
1st hand. Α

The only variant of any importance is Χριστου Ίησου ίη 10-11, where the
MSS. all have the reverse order; cf. ι, where the papyrus has the same order,
and the MSS. are divided ση the point.


I7'3x8a7 cm.
Fragment of a leaf from a papyrus book containing a theological work, the
nature of which, whether historical Or homiletic, is doubtful. Lines 14-17 of the
verso have an obvious connexion with Matthew νΗ. 17-19 and Luke νί. 43-4,
the saying that a tree is known by its fruits. Ιη the parallel passage ίη the
papyrus the words are also put into the mouth of onr Lord, as ίβ shown by
the following sentence, ίΥώ (Ιμι . . . εΙμΙ εΙκώυ; and this points to the work
having been an apocryphal gospeI, possibly the 'Gospel according to the
Egyptians.) Bnt the passage may of course only be a quotation from such
a work, and the writing ση the recto contains ηο indication that the book
was of a narrative character. Ιη lίne 19 of the verso there is perhaps a reference
to Phil. iί. 6 &s- €υ μορφΉ θεου ύπάρχωυ. Lines ι ι sqq. of the recto begin a little
further out than the preceding four (the beginnings of the first six lines are lost),
an arrangement which, if it is not a mere accident, suggests that the longer 1ines
are a quotation; cf. ccxx and introd. to ccxxi (ρ. 53).
The handwriting is a good-sized, rather irregular uncial, that οη the recto
being somewhat larger than that οη the verso, and may be assigned to the third

century of our et·a. The ordinary compendia for θεό~, 'Iησoυ~, and πατήρ occur,
as is usual ία theological papyri of this period (cf. introd. to ccviίi); lιυθρωπo~ is
contracted by the omission of the ω, and there is another contraction ση line 21
of the verso, of which the meaning is obscure.
Recto. Verso.

[. •]αρτη[. . •]~~ [ ]ll[

[.] • egEL ϊ[ . . .Jva~[ ]ιι[
[• .]ρσιιι ου 8υιιατα[ι ]~,!ελ[
[υ]πομειιιαι ~ε πο[ ] αΎαθο[
5 (.]ταξε αΥΥελοS' πα[ 5 ] ελεΥΕ ~[
[ πε ]eL αΥΥελου λεχ[ ]'! ΠΡS' ϋ[
T![.]r :ιμ~~ν T~ αβ( ]ιι αΎα[ θ
ναται συ[ ]το[
OVTOS' τα[ ]~poι[
10 ΕΤΙ εξει ~[ Ιο αΎα]θοιι το[
τιαπ[ ] ΕνΕΥ'κ?[
80υ[ ] θS' 0[• ••] αλλα [
οπε( ]α ϊη[. K]t:t' ερει τ[
Ζ lines lost. αΎα ]OovS' [εν]εΎ' ΚΕΙ ρ[
16 l!Etr:r[ 15 ε]νεΥ[Κ • α:yaOoS' [
Kap]~OS' 8[εν]8ρου αΥαθου
]υπο[ . . αΊΎαθον εΎω ειμι
]:0 ειμι εικων τηS'
]?S' εν μορφη θυ
20 ]8ια ror εικων αυ
]ι.:ιθω θω τω
Jv του ειιιαι
]ειται ορατα
]ιιτα του α![.
25 ] ϊ8εν ΟΤΙ
]σαν ϊ8ειι
]~vor επ[.
] αvθΡΠl}[.



Plate 111 1. 33·4 χ 13·2 cm.

ΤΗΕ following fragment of a Ισst comedy contains one tolerably well pre-
served column of ηο less than fifty-one lines and the ends of a few lίnes from the
preceding column, written ίη a ronnd uncial hand. The papyrus was found together
with a large number of documents dated ίη the reigns of Vespasian, Domitian,
and Trajan, e.g. ο. Ρ. Ι. xlv, xcvii, clxxiv, and ccclxxίii; and this fact, combined
with the strong resemblance of the handwriting of the papyrus to thaf of many
of the documents of that period, leaves ηο doubt that it dates from the end of
the first or the early part of the second century of onr era.
The elision marks and (with two exceptions) the paragraphi denoting
changes of speakel"s are by the first· hand. There is a tendency to separate
words, and panses are generally indicated by' a short space. The MS. has
been carefully revised by a second person, probably a contemporary, whose
handwriting is general1y cnrsive, and who nses lighter ink. He is responsible
for (ι) the punctuation by dots, of which three sorts are found: the high dot
(στιγμή) denoting a long pause, the low dot (ύποστιγμή, see 32 and 47, and cf.
introd. to ccxxvi) denoting a short pause, and the donble dots denoting a
change of speaker (cf. ccxii and ο. Ρ. Ι. Χί); (2) seνeral corrections and various
readings, together with the occasional addition of letters originally elided, and
frequent alterations ίη the arrangement of speakers indicated by the first hand ;
(3) occasional insertions of the speakers' names (cf. ccxii and ο. Ρ. Ι. Χί);
(4) a few stage directions, for the occurrence of which ίη MSS. of so early
a period there is ηο parallel. The restl1t is a fairly good and carefully arranged
text, though a few mis-spellings, e. g. €YAΓ€ΛIA ίη 18 and the wrong insertion
of two iotas adscript ίη 45, are not corrected. The occurrence of the Attic
forms ποεϊυ (2 and 14) and ύό~ (50) ίη a MS. of the Roma'n period is remarkable.
Concerning the authorship of the fragment there can be ηο doubt, since
lίnes 11-12 of the papyrus coincide with the quotation ό δ' &λάστωρ ~yω και

1 The correct position of the two small fragments photographed ίο the bottom rigbt-hand corner of the
plate was found after the facsimile had been made. The larger of the two joins Col. 11. 29-34, the smaller
goes at the top of CoΙ Ι.

ζηλότυπο!; l1υθρωπο!; ascribed ίη the Etymologicum Magnum and elsewhere to

Menander (l\tlen. ed. Meineke, ρ. 137=Kock, Fr. Inc. 86Ζ). The name of the
play is not given, but Meineke assigned the quotation to the ΠΕΡΙΚΕιρομlυη (' The
Shorn Lady'). The certainly known fragments of that playare of the scantiest ;
Meineke could only cite one, and Kock (who puts the &.λάστωρ quotation among
the unidentified fragments) has but two, neither of which gives any clue to the
plot. This, however, is ΡartΊΥ known from an epigram of Agathias (A1Zth. Ρα!.
v. ZI7):-
Του σΟ,Βαρου Πολlμωυα, του ~υ θυμlλrισι Μευάυδρου
Κε(ραυτa ΥλυΚΕρου!; Tη~ αλ6χου πλοκάμου!;,
COπλόTEΡO~ Πολ'μωυ μιμήσατο, Kα~ τα CPoδάυθη~
Βόστρυχα παυTόλμoι~ χερσιυ fληiσατο·

'Αλλ' lμπη~ ΤΕλlθΕΙ ΜισούμΕυο!;· αυτaρ lΥωΥΙ

ΔύσKoλo~ ουχ όρόωυ τηυ ΠΕρικειρομ'υηυ.

(Ιη 1ine 2. there is a variant yλυKερά~ for yλυKεpoύ~, from which Scaliger
conjectured ΓλυκΙρα!;, which was accepted by Jacobs but not by Stadtmtiller.)
From this epigram it appears that the principal character ίη the play was
Pole~o) a soldier of a violent disposition, who ίη a jealous mood went so far
as to cut off the hair of his mistress, and that she, if ~e accept the emendation of
Scaliger, was called Glycera. Some more details are supplίed by Philostratus,
Ερ. χχνί. ρ. 924 ofιδε- δ του Μευάυδρου ΠολΙμωυ καλου μειράκιου περιέκειρευ, ιlλλ'
αΙχμαλωτου με-υ Epωμέυη~ κατετ6λμησευ 6pyισθE'~, ηυ ουδε (ιυTO~ a'ΠOKείpα~ ηνέσχετο.
κλαίει Υουυ καταπεσωυ και μεταΥΙΥυώσκει τφ φόυφ T~υ τριχωυ. From this we gathet
that Polemo's mistress was a captive, and that he subsequently repented of
his rash deed.
The discovery of the present fragment completelyestablishes tbe correctness
of Meineke's acute conjecture, as well as the emendation of Scaliger ίη the
epigram. Ιη our papyrus we have Polemo, the rude and jealous soIdier who
has been deserted by his mistress Glycera οη account of his ίll treatment of
her, and now wishes to be reconci1ed, together with several references (13 and
47) to a πάροιυου or act of drunken violence committed by Polemo, i. e, the
cutting of Glycera's hair. As Blass remarks, there can be πο doubt that our
fragment belongs to the closing scene of the play, the plot of which can now
to a considerable extent be l·econstructed. Besides Polemo and Glycera, the
characters include Glycera's brother (11 and 50), her father Pataecus (37 sqq.),
Doris, a female slave of Polemo (2, 8, 15), Philinus and his daughter (51).
Glycera, a captive (Philostr. l. c.) living with Polemo the soldier presumably



~- \.~
. '





at Athens, js visited by a man whom Polemo suspects of being her lover but
who is real1y het- brother (10-1 ι). Ιη a fit of violent jealousy Polemo cuts off
Glycera's hair, whereupon she deserts him, and ίη some unexpected manner
comes across her father, Pataecus, presumably a ε'υo~, with whorn she takes
refuge (46-47, note). Polemo οη finding out his error ίΒ fil1ed with remorse,
which is ηο doubt heightened by the discovery that Glycera comes of honourable
pal-entage, and ardently desires to receive her back. This leads to the cIimax
of the play which is fortunately preserved ίη our fi-agment. Polemo and Doris
are engaged ίn dialogue before the house of Pataecus, which \vas οη one side
of the stage, that of Polemo probably being οη the other (cf. note οη 49). Polemo
is ίη the depths of despair and threatens to commit suicide, whi1e Doris comforts
him by offering to go and bring Glycera back. Polemo is overjoyed at this
suggestion and dismisses her (1-8). During Doris' absence, Polemo makes
a short soliloquy οη his mistake and the rashness of his conduct (9-14). Doris
then returns with the good news that Glycera is coming, and suggests that
Polemo should propitiate her by offering a sacrifice to the gods. Polemo is
delighted with the idea and orders hasty preparations to be made (15-26).
Doris then announces that Pataecus also is coming, at which prospect Polemo is
much alarmed and runs off into his own house, followed by Doris (27-30).
Pataecus and Glycera then come out, and Pataecus congratulates his daughter
ση her approaching reconcilίation. Polemo is brought back, and ίη 37 sqq.
Pataecus formally offers him Glycera ίη marriage, accompanying his offer with
some sound advice. Polemo joyful1y accepts Glycera as his wife and ίΒ forgiven
by her (43-48). The fragment closes with the announcement by Pataecus
of the betrothal of his son to Philinus' daughter, whose love affairs ηο doubt
formed a secondary intrigue ία the play. It is improbable that the end of the
comedy was more than twenty or thirty lines off.

Col. Ι. Col. 11.

]",01 ΑΛΛΑΤI[.]ΟΗcωΔωΡΙ· πωCΒlω[
]ςM€NO[.] OTPIC ΚΑΚΟΔΑIΜωΝχωρι cω[
5 €ANnPOeYMHeHC ΑΚ[..]ωc[

]ωΝ yn€P€YA€r€lc· BAΔIZ€· rωCΈ~[


ΚΑΛωcποωΝ· TI€<;Τ_!ΔωPΙΦΙΛ[

15 ~~ε:ι.~ ΑΓΑΘΑ· ΠΟΡ€Υ<;:~Θωcc€: KAT€Γ€Λ[

~ .]€K[•. ]ΝΗC€ΥΤΥΧΗΚΥlηC[
ν ηs

ΠOΛΛωΦAN€IΓOYN: AΓ€T€[ ••• ]~[



~). • AKOr:JTQ<;~. l[.]Η N~[.]FAt:J[

A~[•.••• ]J:'~€ ι τωτι CJ:'[•••••] ΝΑΥΤ[
35 ]~,ι:ι €[.••••••• ]ΛΛ)€ΘYON[.]Π€P€Y[
[••••••• ~ .]~p~YPtI~[·]IANOYC[

U[... ]M~[•.]C : ΟΡΘωCΓΑΡΛ€Γ€1 C[


Δ €M[

-- 11'ολeΕισισι11'ΟιΤΟιΙIC[
]---) '"

For the following restoration we are ίn the main indebted to Professor

(ΠΟλ.) ιν' έμαυτον dποπνlξαιμι. (Δω.) μη 8η [Φληνάφα.
(ΠΟλ.) άλλα τί [π]οήσω', Δωρί; πα/~ βιώ(σομαι
οt ~ ,
τρισκακοοαιμων, '~[
xωρι~ ro:v Tη~
'" '
Φ ι λ TαTη~;

(Δω.) IiTrELatJI ώ~ σέ. (ΠΟλ.) πpo~ θεων οί[ον λέyει~.

(Δω.) έαν πpoθυμηθυ~, άK[6π]ω~ (ιiξω τάχα. 5
(ΠΟλ.) ουκ , 'λ'
εν ()'
ιπο ι μ ~
αν , '
ου θ εν, ευ ';" του τ "'[' ",ισσ.
Δ' (Δ)'
ω. ~
ιοου. ,
(ΠΟλ.) ('
υπερευ λ'
εyει~· , 1\?
β α(}ι~· ' \
εΥΟ> 1\'
ο ε'λ[ ευ θ'

αγριον άφήσω, Δωρί, (σ')· άλΧ 8 8ε[ι λέγειν

ακουσον. ,
εισε λ'λ
η V θ' • ~
οιμοι [Γλ"

ώ~ κ[α]τα KpάTO~ μ' εfληφα~. ε(Ζ8έναι παρην 10

'8ε λΦ'ον,
α "
ουχι μοιχον· , ο(8[' α'λ'
αστωρ , ,

και (ηλ6Tυπo~ ιlνθ[p]ωπo~, α[~ - v -

ευ υ~ επαρφνουν. ΤΟΙΥαρου ν "'[ , λ'ομηll,

lfΙρχε(ται.) Δωρίι Kαλω~ ποων. Tl έστι, Δωρι φιλ(τάτη;

(Δω.) άΥαθά· πορεύσεθ' ώ~ σΙ (ΠΟλ.) κατεΥέλ[α Υέ σου. 15
(Δω.) μα την Άφρ08[ί]την, άλλ' ένε8ύετ[ο στατ6ν,
δ πατηρ έπεξ[ ήτ]α(ε· χρην σε νυν πά(λαι
ευαΥ(Υ)Ελια τω[ν) ΥεΥον6των ποθ[ουμένων
[θύειν], έκ[εt]νη~ εύΤυχη I(υία~ [τ68ε.
(ΠΟλ.) νη τον Δί', όpθω~ Υαρ λέyει~· δ 8[- v - 20
μαyειpo~ "
εν 8 '"
ον εστι· τηll υν
"f' θ['

Δω(ΡIC) κανουν 8Ε που, και τιiλλ' a

8ει; (ΠΟλ.) κα[νουν μΕν ου"
ιl , , t ' α'λλα' ταυτην
υσrεpoν εναΡ6ΕΤ·
, σ

μαλλον 8Ε κάΥα/ (σ)τέφανον άπα βω[μου ποθΕν

άΦΕλα/ν Επιθέσθαι βούλομα[ι]. (Δω.) πιθα[νώτεΡΟΥ
πολλφ φανΕΊ Υουν. ,(ΠΟλ.) dYETE [- ~ - v -

(ω. και , μην , JI
εμε λλ
εν 'l. '
Ef;tElIat 1\( "
ο η χω πατηρ. ,
είσέρχ( ετΟιΙ) [Πολέμων
(ΠΟλ.) αύTό~; τί Υαρ πάθυ TΙ~; (Δω.) α/ τάίλαιν' €yώ.
Ε • • • • • αKOllTO~ . . . lIηll θ(ύ]ραν [
εισειμι καυτη" []
σ υ μποησουσ, , , ["ει τι δ"ει.

(n~Τ~IKOC) πάνυ σου φιλω το "[σ]υllδιαλλαχ[θήσομαι."

lJT' εvτύχηκαr, τότε δε[ δέχθJαι TrJlI δί[ κηll
τεκμήριον TOVT' ~σT[ ΙlI ι/Ελλ ]ηllO~ τρ[ 6που.
dλ[λ' έκκ]αλείτω Tlr α[ . ... . ]11 αύτ[ον u-

ΠO]λ€M(ωN) ε[ί'μ' ένθάδ', ά]λλ' ~θυoll (ύJπερ εύ[πραξίαr, 35

[Γλυκεραll ()πJap Εύρηκ[ υ ]ί'αll oύ~ [ούδ' ειδ' γllαρ
π[υθ6]με[νο]r. Πά,ταιιc(οs) ,όΡθωr Υαρ λεΥειr. [a. δ' ουν έΥα/
[μ]ελλω λεΥειν, dKOve· ταύτην Υν[ ησίων
παίδων έπ' άρ6τφ σοι δίδωμι. (ΠΟλ.) λ( α#βάllω.
(ΠΑΤ.) και προΊκα τρία τάλαντα. (ΠΟλ.) και καλω[r Υ' ~XEΙ.
(Π ~τ. ) 'λ οιπον
το ' ,
επι λ α θ ου ,.. σTpαTιωTη~ , ["ων, ιl

πpoπεTε~ πoιήσυ~ μ[η]δε ~ν [~- u -

ΠOλ€(MωN.) ~πoλλoν, 8~ και νυν άπ[ 6Jλωλα πα[ρ' όλίΥον,

πάλιν τι πράξω πpoπεT[ε]~; ούδε μ[ήποτε,
ΓλυK€pα· διαλλάΥηθι, φιλτάτη, μ6[νον. 45
[rλγ]Κ€(ΡG\.) νυν μεν Ύαρ ήμιlΙ ΥεΥονεν άρχη [πραΥμάτων
άΥαθωll το σον πάΡΟΙ1l0ν. (ΠΟλ.) όρθω[~, νη Δ{α.
(Γλγ.) δια τούτο συΥΥllώμηr τετvχηκα[~ έξ έμοΟ.
(ΠΟλ) σVlΙθυ€ δή, Πάταιχ'. Πολέ(μων) είσ(ε)ισι., llάoTOιLΙC(OS) έTεpoυ~ (η[τητεον

έστιν Ύάμoυ~ μοι· Τψ yb.p ύψ λαμβά[να/ 50

την του' ·Φιλί1l0υ θυΥατερ· (ΓλΥ.) a> Υη [και θεοί.

Polemo. ' •.. that Ι might drown myse]f.

Dorzs. Don't talk nonsense.
Ρο!. But what shall Ι do, Doris? How can Ι, unlucky wretch, live without my
Dor. She will come back to you.
Ρο!. Good heavens Ι Do you reaIIy mean it?
Dor. If you are set οη it, Ι wiIl bring her at once
without any trouble.
Ρο!. There is ηο feal" of my being backward, be sure of that.
Dor. I'm off.
Ρο!. Excellent! Go, Ι will give you your freedom to-morrow, Doris. But listen Ιο
what Ι want you to say. (Dorzs enlers Ihe house if Pαtαecus.) She has gone ίn. Ah me,
little Glycera, how you have taken me by storm! Ι might have known it was a brother, not

a paramour. Ι was the wretch and a jealous [001 ••. ίη a fit of drunken violence. That
was my destruction-and it served me right. (Re-enter Doris from ιΜ house.) What
news, dear Dol·is?
Dor. Good news; she will come to you.
Pol. She was only mocking you.
Dor. Νο, by Aphrodite. She was putting οη a gown, and her father was superνising.
Υ ou onght long ago to have been lllaking a thankoffering [or the attainment ο[ your
desires, since she has had this good fortune.
Ρο!. ΒΥ Zeus, you are right ... the cook is within. Let him sacrifice the sow.
Dor. But where are the basket and the other necessaries ?
Ρο!. Oh, as [or the basket, he can begin the saCΓίfice with that afterwards, but let him
kill the sow now. Ν ay, Ι too want to filch a cro,vn from an altal· sODlewhere and
put it οη.
Dor. You will appear much mot·e persuasive 80.
Ρο!. Come ...
Dor. ΒΥ the way, her father, too, was οη the point of coming ουΙ
Pol. Himself? What will happen Ιο me? (Polemo enlers his house.)
Dor. AJas! . .. l, too, will enter and assist if Ι am ,,,anted. (.Doris jόllows
Po/emo znIo his house. En!er PaIaecus and GlYt~era.)
Ρα!aecus. Ι thank you very much [οι· that word 'reconciled.' When you have been
fortunate, then to be satisfied with the revenge-that is a mark of the Greek character. But
let some one call him out.
Ρο!. (re-eniering). Η ere Ι am; I was only sacrificing for good fortune, having learnt
that Glycera had found ίη reality those of whom she had nοέ even dreamed.
Ρα!. True. But please 1isten to what Ι have to say. This woman Ι give to you [οτ
the procreation of children ίη wedlock-
Ρο!. Ι take her.
Ρα!. With a dowry of three talents.
Ρο!. That is splendid.
Ρα!. Ιη future forget that you are a soldier, and don't ever commit a ι·eckΙeβs
deed again.
Ρο!. ΑροlΙο, Ι, who was but now so appalIingly near destruction, shall Ι do another
reckless act? Never again, Glycera, if only you will make it up, dearest.
G/ycera. Υes; for now your drunken violence has proved a source of blessing to us.
Ρο!. ΒΥ Zeus, it has.
G!y. That is why Ι have pardoned you.
Ρο!. Come, join the sacrifice, Pataecus. (Polemo enIers hzs house.)
Ρα!. Ι have another marriage to arrange; Ι am marrying my son to Philinus' daughter.
G(y. Gracious heavens J '

6. Ί"'he t\"O paragrαphz' above and below this line were inserted by the corrector, being
thicker, shorter, and ίρ lighter ink than the othel·s. Their omission must have been a simple
error ση the part of the first hand. Without them both ]}. 5 and 6 would belong to Polemo,
and ίη that case ύπέp€υ λέγιι~ ίη 7 would have ηο meaning. There is a spot of ink, pel·haps
meant for a dot, under the Ν of OYΘ€N, and ίι is possible that a dot is 10st above the Ν
where the papyrus is rubbed. If so a change of speaker was indfcated after OYΘ€N. But
since there is a space left between the Ν and the € following, we should have expected the
two dots to have been placed after the Ν, as else,vhere, instead of above and below the
letter; and even if the ink spot under Ν means anything, it may be merely a υποσΤΙΥμή.
If, }10wever, the change of speaker took place aftel' OYΘ€N and not ίη the lacuna at the
4Α C

end of ,the line, supply (Δω.) εδ τοϋ[τ' ίσθι υυν, TOVTO referring to Doris' promise ίη 1. 5 ιο
bring the gir1.
8. The reading of the papyrus Δα/ΡΙ· ΑΛΛ involves an impossible hi~tus, which is
removed by the insertion (suggested by Blass) of σ' after Δωρ! and the alteration of σ' to ~'
ίη the previous line.
10. ι<ατα ι<pάTO~ μι' είληΦα~: Polemo's metaphors are natural1y military.
11. For the ~upplement see Menander Fr. 862 (Kock), quoted above.
12. The tip of a letter at the end of the line can only belong to Α or ω, and is much
more like Α.
14~ For ι<αλω~ ποιων with the passive, cf. Ar. Eccl. 804 atαppαyEJ ••• ι<αλωr ποιήσειr.
16. lνεaύετ[ ο στατόν: σTαTό~=XΙTων όρθοσ'fά~ιοr. The meaning appears to be that
Glycera was preparing Ιο come ουΙ
17. ΠΑ[ΛΑΙ is extremely doubtful. The first letter may be τ. The vestiges οί the
second letter suit Α, Δ, or Λ better than anything else.
. 18. The two letters after εΥΑΓεΛIΑ might be read as Π and Ρ instead of Τ and ω, but
Ί)Ρ[οJr~rΟΝοτωΝwould not fi11 the lacuna. The two doubtful gammas might be C or Τ,
and the doubtful € might be ο.
19. The first hand wrote EYTYXHKYIAC, the termination being altered to HC by the
corrector. The form ίη -η~ was the common one ίη the Roman period, e. g. ίη the New
Testament. ΒΥ έ#(είιιη~ is meant Glycera, and εύT1Ixη#(υ{α~ apparently refers to her discovery
of ber father, cf. 32, 46-47 aηd introd.
20. The traces of the paragraphus above this line, though slight owing to the damaged
surface of the papyrus, are clearly discernible. Between 20 and 2 ι there is also a ΡαΥα­
grαphus which has been enclosed by the corrector between two comma-shaped signs.
Apparently the first hand considered that a change of speal"er took place either ίη ΟΤ at the
end of 20 (probablyafter Λ€Γειc, where he leaves a blank space), indicating the change
by the parαgrαphus between 20 aηd 21. The corrector,011 the other haηd, assigned both
20 and 2 Ι to the same speaker (Polemo), and the comma-shaped signs enclosing the
paragrαphus are brackets indicating its removal; while ίη Ol"der ιο make matters clearer, he
added the name of the speaker agaiηst 1. 22. Τη four other cases, betweeη 29-30, 31-32,
33-34, and 49-50, the corrector has insel·ted a similar comma-shaped sign at the conclusioη
of the parαgrαphus, and once (50-5 ι) at t11e beginning of it; bnt as ίη each of these cases
the other end of the paragrαphus is 10st or effaced, it is impossible to be certain that they
were parallel to the bracketing of the parαgraphus between 20 and 21. The probability,
however, that ίn these five instances also the corrector intended to cancel the paragraphz" is
very strong. Whether he was right ίη doing .so, is of course a different question, which
must be decided ϊη each passage separately; but he appears to be, or may be, right except ίη
one instance (49-50), where the bracketed pαragraphus seems certaiηly to be required.
This case might perhaps suggest that our explanation of the comma-shaped signs as
brackets is wrong, and that the corrector did nol meaη to signify by them the omission of
a paragraphus. But the insertion of these signs must have meant something, and if the
corrector wanted to omit a parαgraphus-seeing that he has inserted two (above and
below 6) it is only to be expected that he should wish to do so-the method of enclosing it
ίη small brackets would be the mo~t ηatural course to follow. MOl"eover, the hypothesis that
the pαragraphz" enclosed by the small bl"acl{ets \vere not intended by the corrector to be
removed prevents any satisfactory explanatioη of 20, 2 ι. As we have explained this
passage, the corrector assigned both lines to Polemo; but the first haηd, by inserting
a pαragrαphus between these two lines, intended the division of speaker"s to be as folIows :
(Πσλ.) ιιη ΤΟIl Δί', όpθω~ -γαρ λέΥειr. (Δω.) ό δ'[.••. 1 μάΥfΙΡΟ~ ;ν~oν έστΙ. (ΠΟλ.) την -Ον θ[υέτω.
The second change of speaker is necessitated by the first, for some part at least of 2ι

must be spoken by Polemo, since there is a pαrαgrαphus between 2 Ι and 22 which ίΒ

spoken by Doris. This ίΒ a less satisfactory arrangement than that gained by assigning
both lines to Polemo, though it is perhaps tenable. But if we suppose that the brackets
enclosing the parαgrαphus between 20 and 2 Ι are meaningless, and that the corrector
did not intend any change ίη the arrangement of speakers, we have to suppose that he
t\vice omitted to insert ίη 20 and 2 r the double points which he regalarly uses eIsewhere
to denote a change of speaker. Such an omission is very improbable; and since the
hypothesis that the brackets enclosing the pαrαgrαphus between 20 and 2 Ι indicate its
omission by the corrector is the οηΙΥ legitimate explanation of that passage, we are justified
ίη explaining the other cases whel"e the brackets occur ίη the same way, though, as has
been said, it does not fol1ow that the bracketing was ίn all cases correct.
22. καιιουν: the first ceremony ίη offering a sacrifice was to fill the baskets with sacred
barley whic11 was sprinkled ση the head of the victim and ση the altar. But Polemo
is ίn such a hurry that he ,vishes to proceed to the sacrifice at once and have the
prelίminaries afterwards (ϋσT~ρoν ;νάρξεται). Cf. Eur" Ι. Α. 1471 κανα ~ι Eναρx€σθω TΙ~.
26. The reading of the correctol·, πολλων δν ε'{η~ instead of πολλφ Φαιιει Υουν, is probably
not a cOITection but a variant fl"Om another MS. Cf. ο. Ρ. Τ. introd. to xvi.
28. For ιΙσΕρ)(εται ίη the sense of going into the house off the stage cf. 9 ~lσfλήλvl!.
Polemo must be the subject. Tt is clear that he enters his Ο\Υη house, not that ofPataecus;
cf. 2 Ι and the adscript Πολέ(μων) ~Ίσ(~)ισι ίn 49. Since Pataecus' house ,yas οη the stage
too (cf. 9-15), two houses weIe represented, as ίη the Γεωp'Y6~ (cf. ρ. 19.of our edition).
The correct arrangement of the speakers ίη the next six lines is very difficult to unravel
owing to the Iacunae and the number of aIterations ίη the arrangement made by the
corrector, while any adscripts which he may have made ίn the margin of 29 to 34 are lost.
Ιη any case 30 must belong to Doris, 32 and 33 to Pataecus; and we have fo}]owed what
appears to be the view of the corrector (cf. note οη 20) ίη assigning 29 to Doris, 3 ι and 34
to Pataecus. If however the brackets enclosing the pαrαgrαphz' between 29-30, 31-2, 33-4,
are disregarded, and the arrangement indicated by the first hand is retained, 29 belongs
presumably to Polemo, 31 and 34 certainly to Glycera.
29. The first letter can be € or C; the third is like Η or Ν, the fourth like €, Θ, Ο,
or C; the fifth resembles Ν or Μ, and the sixth Γ, Τ, or Ι. The supposed Ν of AKONTOC
is rather more 1ike Μ; the three letters following ΑΚΟΝΤ can each of them be €, Θ, or C.
The letter erased is perhaps τ. The letter following ΗΝ rnight be ο.
30. ~tCEIMI is corrected from ωC€IΜI.
31. το " [σ]υν~ιαλλαx[θήσομαι ~': Pataecus is repeating a word which Glycera has just
spoken within the house. Cf. το "Υιιωθι σαυτόν" Menand. Fr. 240 (Kock).
32. The dot after EYTYXHKAC here and after ΑΓΑΘωΝ ίη 47 repl"esents a ύποστι.Υμή,
not an illegible letter. ~εδέxθaι την l)ίκηll means 'not to seek for any further revenge.'
35. The adscript at the side cannot be read as Δω(ρίr).
36. ~p might be read ΛΟ, but ηοΙ as ΑΘ or €P.
38. The top of the pαragrαphus above this line is visible before the lacuna.
')'v[ ησΙων] παί~ων Επ' άρότφ: this was the usual formula ίη Athenian mal"riage contracts,
cf. Menander Fr. inc. 185 (Meineke) παί()ων σΠ6ρφ τών Υνησίων ~Ι~ωμι σοί y~ τη" lμαυτου
46-47. The (πράyμαrα) άΥaθά ηο doubt refer to Glyτcel"a's discovery of her father.
Cf. also note οη 32. .
49. εΤεΡΟΥC is corrected from €TAIPOYC. Tt is very difficult to see why the
pαragraphus bet~'een this Hne and the 1ine following should have been deleted, for
a change of person is indicated ίη 49 by the double dots aftel" ΠΑΤΑΙ K€, and the
corrector e]se,vhere (between 22 and 23) aJlo,,,s a paragrαphus Ιο stand where there

is a change of speaker ίη the middle and none at the end of the line. The adscript
πολέ(μων) Είσ(Ε)ισι means that Polemo goes into his own house to sacrifice; cf. note οη 28.
50, 5 ι. The removal of the paragraphus bet\veen these two lίnes by the corrector
seems to be an improvement. If the reading of the first hand is retained, the speaker ίη
5 ι (? Glycera) is made to anticipate ίη a remarkable ,vay the news which Pataecus is
giving. 1t is much more satisfactory ιο assign (with the corrector) την 'Του Φιλίνου θυΥατέρ'
to Pataecus, and suppose that a change of speaker was made after θυΥατέρ'. There may
have been two dots after θυΥατέρ', since the place which would have been occupied by the
lower one is lost. The absence of a paragraphus after 51 may indeed be regarded as an
argument against the supposition that the corrector introduced a change of speaker into
51, for he sometimes inserts pαragrαphi besides removing them (note οη 6). But seeing
that the corl"ector has carefully denoted the changes of speaker by the system of dots, he
may have been inconsistent ίn his use of the inferiol- system of paragraphi which
was employed by the first hand. How inadequately changes of speaker could be indicated
ίη drama by the system of Ρ aragraphz' is sufficiently proved by the present fragment.

21·9 χ 11·6 cm.
Three fragments from a comedy. The use of ηυ (Fr. (α) 11. 2) indicates
that they belong to the Old Comedy (Menander always preferred av
or iάv);
and Fr. (b) 6 ]ΤΑrΑΘω[ coincides, so far as it goes, with a line quoted by
Athenaeus 15, 701 b (Kock, Fr. 599) from Aristophanes, iKΙP'pETE 'ΠεύKα~ κατ'
)ΑΥάθωυα φωσφόpov~. The accentuation makes the reference to Agathon ίη the
fragment certain; and the previous line θυραζ[' υvυ τάxo~ (?) connects very wel1
with the line given by Athenaeus. It is not known from what play of
Aristophanes Athenaeus was qnoting, nor, unfortunately, do these fragments
give any clue to its title. The expression κατ' ΆΥιίθωυα also occurs (but at
the beginning, not, as ίη the papyrus, towards the end of a verse) ίη a line from
Aristophanes' Thesmophoriazusae Secundae (Kock, Fr. 326), and it has been
suggested that the line €KΦ'pεTE 7TεύKα~ κ.τ.λ. was also derived from that play.
This, however, is quite hypothetical; though it is worth noticing that the only
speakers which can be distinguished ίη our fragments are women. Fr. (α)
contains parts of two rather short columns, of the first of which there remain
only the ends of about half the lines. The second column is complete at the
top and bottom, but the ends of the lines are rnissing. Both these columns
are occupied with a dialogue, the speakers ίη which are probably women (cf: Ι. 6
γύοαι, 11. 1 ύβριζ6μευαι); but the subject of their 'conversation is extremely
obscure. Fr. (b) is fronl tl1e bottom of a column, but it cannot be the bottom of
(α) Ι, since the last two lines are Iyrics and belong to the chorus, and will ηοΙ
therefore cotnbine with (α) ΤΙ. Ι. For the same reason this fragment cannot be

from the column preceding (α) Ι. (c) is also a detached fragment, the position
of which is quite uncertain. The script is a large round upright unciaI, not
very regular, but bold and handsotne ίη appearance. It is remarkabIe for the
use of the archaic form of Ζ (ι) which is occasionally found ίη Roman papyri
(cf. G. Ρ. Ι. ίί). The date of the MS. can hardly be later than the middle of
the second century, and it may go back to the end of the first. The hands
of two correctors may be distinguished; cf. note οη 11. 6. The division of
a line between two speakers is marked by a blank space ίη which the usual
double dots are inserted; these, like the marginal paragrαphi which also
denote the alternations of the dialogue, are ηο doubt by the first hand.
High and middle points occur at the' ends of the lines of Col. Ι; and ίη Col. 11
pauses ίη the sense are marked by points placed above the line. ΑΙΙ these
stops have probably been added later, perhaps by the first corrector. The
other occasionaI lection signs are also un1ikely to be originaI]"

Fr. (α).
Col. Ι. Co1. 11,
]rYNAI. αι


10 ]Δ€CΟΙ
ΤQ[. .]ωIΓΑΡωcπ€ΡΤΟICI •[
~y[•• ]Δ€ΚΑΙΤΟΥΤ€CΤΙΝ· €Y[
ΚΑ[.• ]Η NΛ€Γ€ΤAIΓωC€Cθ[
ΑΛΗ[.]IΝωικ[.•.]ΟΥΤΟ: ΝΗΔ[
15 χ ωCΠ€Ρ[.]€ΛΗΝΗΓΗΛιωι· ΤHNM€[

Fr. (b). Fr. (c)•

... ..
] .. [ ]~KAM€τ:r[
]ΙΝΘγΡΑΙ[ ]N€ιχO~[
]ΤΑΠΑlcω'[[ ]γ~I[

ο .......

Fr. (α) Ι. 9. The letter Ο is joined to the previous letter by a low curved stroke which
may very well belong to Λ, Ρ, or C.
. 11. 3. The last letter may be €.
4. The last letter had a vertical stroke; γ, Τ, or Ν, e. g. would suit.
6. Above the C ίη the middle of the line α~ has been written ίη a minute and
probably contemporary haηd. Qver this the missing syllable has been written a second
time ίη larger letters by another hand, which is probably also responsible for the addition
ίη Ι. The insertioη of λ ίη 8 and of χ ίn the margin opposite 15, aηd the additioη of ο as
a variant above the line in (b) 7 seem to be due Ιο the first corrector.
ι ι. The first letter is either € or C; the secoηd is probably Τ or γ; but Ν or Π are
also just possible.
15. The small χ ίη the margin may be the initial of the speaker's name, or the
critical sign known as χι. -
19. €ΠIA: the letter traηscribed as € may equally well be ο. If the third letter is Ι,
as is most probable, the fourth may be Α, Λ, or Δ; but they could perhaps be read as
a single letter, ω. .
20. ΠΙΟΤΕΡΟΝ: or ΠPOT€PON. C at the end of the line is very doubtful; Ρ would
suit the traces rathel· well.
Fr. (b) 6. The doubtful Γ may be Π.
7, 8. These ]yric verses, the ends of which are preserved, are shorter than the pre-
ceding iambic lines by about four syllables.
Fr. (c) Ι. The doubtful Π may be Γ.
5. Ο before the lacuηa may be C.
6. Λ might perhaps be read as Χ.

The suggested restorations ίη the following transcription are for the most
part due to Professor Blass.

Col. 11. 1-20.

Λ. όβρι(6μεναι. Β. μα ΔΙ' άλλ' ΕΎα/ [~- u -

ην νουν ~xωμεν, σκεψ[6μεθα ~-- Hπω~
μη8εν πλέον τούτου σθ(ένωσιll - u -
Λ . τι' l'
• ~/,
α ποκριιιαι
, μαι
, 1\

5 τί έστι τοϋθ' 8 λεΥουσι T[aS' ~ - v -

παΕ(ειν EXOVua~, dντιβολω, [το - v -;
Λ. Φλυαρία και ληρo~ (,βρ€ω[~ ~I<yoνo~ (?)
"λλ ω~
κα ,Ι {\
oνειoo~ ,
και κατ[α'Ίε
' λ ω~ - v -
' ] 'tl "" [ ,,, ,
το[ υτ φ Υαρ ωσπερ τοισι ν φoι~ χρηστεον

10 .... ] '
Τ[ oι~
ανεμιαιoι~, ΟΤΙ
ιl νεοτ τι
( "ουκ
" !ενι.
ευ[χη] 8ε και τουτ' ~σTιν· ευ[~ - v -
έ~ (TovJTO χρήσει· και πoνo(~ - v -

Β• κα[ ι' ]
μ'ην λ'
εΥεται" 'Ί 'θ'
Q)S' εσ
rf [t'ομοιον - u -

άλη[θ]ΙΥφ K[at τ]οΟτο. Λ. νη Δ(ί', ώ φίλη, (?)

15 ιZσπ€ρ [σ]ελήνη Υ' ήλίφ· την με[ν χρόαν
ιl "
ειrι ομοιον εστι,
Δ 'λ Ι? ου'[ oαμω~.
σα πει ο
{\ ,..

" 'αfilOlI
Β · ουκ l " εστι. A.f\
Υαρ • οια, το,,?πον
" [v -
Β. φέρ', εΙ [8Ίε TOΙ~ θεράπουσι κοινωσ[aίμεθα
το πρ[a]Ύμα,- τί ι1ν εfη; λάθΡff ~ - v -

Λ. 20 έ'Ία/ μ[ε]ν οδτε πι6τερον aύTη~ [v-


Plate IV. Fr. (α) 8 χ 11·3, Fr. (δ) 7·8 χ 8 cm.

Part of a speech out of a tragedy, written ίη several columns ση the verso
of an account. The rough unformed hand and the corrupt Greek indicate
that the writer was a schoolboy. The subject of the better preserved portion
is very clearly the fate of Niobe. The scene is laid ίη Lydia, and it is probable
that the speaker both here and throughout the fragments is Niobe's father
'tantalus, who, after lamenting oνer his daughter's petrified form, bewaίIs (fr. δ)
the 10ss of his kingdom and the fickleness of fortune. It is an obvious al1d
tempting supposition that the author is either Aeschylus or Sophocles, both
ο{ whom are recorded to have written tragedies upon the subject of Niobe.
Tantalus certainly figured among the dramatis personae ίη the Niobe of Aeschylus,
and a few fragments are preserved of a speech made by him after the catastrophe
had taken place. Less is known of Sophocles' play; but according to Eustathius
(ρ. 1367, 21: cf. G. Hermann, 0pltSC. 3. 38; Welcker, Griech. Trag. 286 sqq.
takes a different view) he made Niohe herself go to Lydia, while her chίldrert

were slain at Thebes. The question therefore as between the two dramatists
becomes one of style; and Professor Blass, to whom we are to a large extent
indebted for the restoration of the fragment, considers that its diction is
decidedly Sophoclean. The chief grounds for this conclusion are :-Fr. (α) Ι. 2.
ιπεί ίη Aeschylus is never placed ,late ίn the sentence; οη the other hand
this is a favourite construction of Sophocles, e.g. Phl:l. 1343, Tr. 1174 (Επειδή)
ο. R. 801 (δτε). 3. λιθoυpyή~ is only known from l~ter authors ; but compounds
of λίθo~ do not occur ίη Aeschylus, whereas from Sophocles we have λιθOKόλληTO~,
λιθόλευσTO~, λιθoσπαδή~, and λιθ6σTpωTO~. 8. σθΕυειυ with the ίnΕ. is Sophoclean
(A1'tt. 1044, &c.), bnt is not found ίη Aeschylus. 9. ΤΟΙΥαρουυ occurs four
times ίο Sophocles, ίn Aeschylus not at all. Fr. (δ) Ι. 7. σφόδρα is used twice
by Sophocles (ΕΙ. 1053, Ai. 150), never by Aeschylns. 10. κυκλειυ is Sophoclean
(Ai. 19, Ant. 226, &-e.), but does not occur ίη Aeschylus. These considerations
certainly outweigh the few instances of the use of Aeschylean words which
are not found ίη the extant plays of Sophocles :-Fr. (α) Ι. 6. ? δί]υγpo~ (Sept. c.
Th. 985), Fr. (δ) Ι. 3. σκηπτουχία (Pers. 297). There is also to be noted the
occurrence of several words not hitherto included ίη the tragic νocabulary,
εΙκόυισμα (cf. Phalaec. Anth. Ρα!. xiii. 6), είκελος, τειχί(ειυ, and άKάpδιo~ and λιθουυ,
if those words are to be restored ίη Fr. (α) Ι. 8, 9.
The papyrus upon which the piece is wl·itten is ία two separate fragment5,
each containing the ends of ιiήes of bne column and the beginnings of lines of
another. Ιη both cases the bottoms of the columns are preserved; it is therefore
evident that the fragments cannot be placed one above the other 50 as to
form only two columns. If they are to be united at all either the second
cοlμmn of frag. (α) must be combined with the first of frag. (δ), or the second
of frag. (b) with the first of frag. (α). The latter possibility is precluded by
the occurrence ίη the last line of (δ) 11 of the word Kεpαυ[υό~ which cannot be
the beginning of the last line of (α) Ι, where only one foot and a half is
wanting. Οη the other hand there is nothing to invalίdate the combination of
(α) 11 with (δ) Ι. The aspect of the papyrus at the right edge of (α) and th,e
left edge of (δ) 'is νery similar; and the writing ση the recto, of which there
are also three columns, is ίn favoul of this position of the two fragments. The

speech wiIl then have extended over three columns at least; bllt they may
have, been short ones, and the whole speech need not have contained a number
of 1ines greater than is frequently found ίη the pήσει~ of extant tragedies.
With regard to the date of the MS., the docnment ση the recto-a lίst of
names accompanied by amounts ίη money-is decidedly early, and probably
fal1s within the first century. The writing οη the verso is unlίkely to be divided
from that οη the recto by a very wide interval; and though it is difficult to date


hands of this uncultivated type, the present example appears to belong to the
earlier rather tl1an to the latter part of the second century.

Fr. (α).
CoΙ Ι. Co1. Ι Ι.

]~HPωNΠAY[ 12 letters.
]CχONeAMBOCHrAPnN€YM€eA ~ [.]~[
]~!o ΙCΠ€ΤΡΟι C Ι ΝΥ ΜΠΑΛΙ NCe€N€1 [. ·]Τ€[
.•.•.. ]ΤΟΙ J:lrQ(

Fr. (b).
Co1. Ι. Col. 11.

]~[.]ΡΦΑΝΙCΜ€ΘΑ nr·]tI[
[ ];[
s ]9ΝΤ€CΑIΑΝΙ:Ι[.]~€rωl s [
]€ιχΙCΜΑΙΚΑκωΝ [
10 ]. T!CKYKA€ITYX[•.] 10 K€PAY[

(α). Ι. 2. The first letter is probably Π; it could perhaps be read as Υ, hardly as Μ.

5· €INHC: Η has been corrected from Ο or C.
6. The dot above the supposed Υ may represent a diaeresis.
8. The traces of the first letter seem to suit nothing but Δ.
ι ι. There is room for one letter between the Θ (which appears fairly certain) and the
following €.
12. ΑΝΤΙΑΑΖΟΝ[: ΑΝΤΙΛΑΖΟΝ[ΤΑΙ could also be read.
(b). Ι. 9. The nrst letter might be €.
10. The vestiges before TIC would suit Ι or Ν. Υ ίη KYKΛ€I was corrected from Ι.

The letters ΥΧ at the end of this line do not appear ίn the facsimile owing to the -fact
that the small piece of papyrus containing them was turned over when the photograph was
11. Ι. The third letter may be γ.

Fr. (α). Col. Ι. 2-12.

2 [~- v -]πε των8' επει μ6νo~ φ6βων.

[και, μην
, λ]θ
' "
OυpYE~ εικονισμ
,\ ΙaΕιν
'1\ ,... ,

[Tfi μ~ν xp6]~ Kωφα'tσιν ε(ιcελoν πεTpαι~,

5 [μορφην 8' έκJε[νη~ οί8α KώμμαToσTαyεΊ~
[πηyά~· 8ι]ύΥρφ κάλυβι κοιμηθήσεται.
[μεΥιστον ~Juxov θάμβοg· ή Υαρ πνεϋμ' ~νι
[? άκαρ ]8ίoι~ πετροισιν, η 'μπαλιll σθένει
[OeoS' λιθ]ωσαι. ΤΟΙΥαρουν θ(εω]ρουντί μοι
10 [παι8οS' μ]Εν οικτρα συμφορα 8άπτει φρεναS',
[ το 1\'
ιστα ναι μο
λ' θ'
( ,
[θεοισι] Μοιρων άντ[' &(οιι[ται βρο]τοί.

Fr. (6). CoΙ Ι.

[~ - v- ~ - υ]~ [ώ]ρφανίσμεθα.
[που μοι τύραννα σκη]πτρα; που 8όμω1l g8η;
[~ ...;. u - ~ σύ]ντομον σκηπτουχί".
[~ - v - ~ - v ν]iίν ερημ['!ι
5 [~- v - ~ ]ovrES' αΙανη[ν] λΕΥα/
[~ - v - ~ - τετ]εΕχισμαι κακων
[~ - v - ~ - σ]φ68ρ' εύτυχη κρατειν
[~ - \.οι - ~ - u - u 8υ] στvχήS'
[~ - v - ~ πdντ]α Υαρ TPOXOV 8(κη1l
10 ήΥο[υμενη TlS' 8εσπ]6TΙ~ κυκΛεΊ τύχ{η.

(α). Ι. 3-12. 'Lo, there 1nay be seen the stone-wroug'ht image, ίn colour like tQ the
dumb rocks, but with the farniIiar sbape and founts of ,velling tears; a dark abode shall
be -her resting-place. Ι am stricken with amazement Ι Either there is breath ίη the lifeless
stones, ΟΤ. the god has power to ,petrify. Thus as Ι gaze my heart is wrung by my
child's piteous lot; yet to go forth and engage ίn wilful contests with the gods ίn despite
of Fate-that mortals dare not.'
(α). Ι. 2 sqq. Cf. Sophocles, Ant. 823-833-

4. ιcωΦαΙσιιι πέTpaι~; cf. Homer, Ιl. χχίν. 54 KωΦrι" ΥαΙaν.

5· Κ6>μμαToσTαyιί~: the compound is new. ιctfJμ.ματο~ σ1'ά')'α~ is another possible
emendation which would be s1ightly nearer to the original; the form στάΥιr (for στα"όvιr)
is found ίη ΔρσΙ!. Rhod. 4. 626. If this is preferred the next line may begin [8θεν 8ι]ύ"ρφ.
6. κάλυβι: an unknown metapIasm for ιcαλύβy. .
(b). Ι. 2. που 8όμωυ ;~η: the capital of Tantalus was at Μι Sipylus, where a city
called Tanta1is is said to have been destroyed by an earthquake; cf. Arist. Meleor. ίί. 8
"fVOpι;vov σιισμου τα πιρΙ ΣΙπυλον άνιτράπη. The region was known as ή καταιcικαυμίνη, to
which ηο d~ubt 'ρημ,ΙΥ. ίη 4 refers.
9, IQ. For the wheel ofFortune, cf: Sophocles Fr. 713-
άλλ' ούμόr άι1 πότμοr έν πυκνφ θιου
ΤΡΟΧΨ κυκλιίται κα1 μιταλλάσσΕι φύσιν.


11 χ 7·9 cm.
Parts of forty-three hexameter lines, inscribed upon the two sides of a small
fragment of papyrus, presumably a leaf out of a book. What remains of the
lines οη the verso, which is mnch rnbbed and difficult to decipher, is indeter-
minate ίη character, the topic being the dangers of travel by sea. The recto
is occupied with a speech relating to Ί:eΙeΡhus. According to the legends
Telephus was king of Mysia at the time of the Greek expedition against
Troy. He opposed the land'ing of the Greek army ση the Mysian coast, but
was wounded by Achilles. He was then pressed to join the expedition, but
declined οη the ground that his wife was the sister of Priam. Achilles subse-
quently cured~ the wound with the rust of the spear which had infl.icted it;
and ίη return for this service Telephus pointed out to the Greeks their route.
The first five lίnes of the recto clearly refer to the initial stage of the story, and
describe μhο\v narrowly the Greek bost e'scaped destruction at Telephus' hands : -
'The Achaeans would not have come yet alίve to Ilium, but there would have
Menelaus fal1en, and there Agamemnol1 perished, and Telephus would have
slain Achilles, the best warrior among the Argives, before he met HectOl (Ζ-5). 4

The situation is therefore posterior to that ίη the /tl:αd. What follows is obscure.
The speaker, who is a Trojan woman (cf. 11 Δaροάυου ήμεT~POΙO, 14 αtιτή),'cοn­
tinues, and prays for a treaty between "Greeks and Trojans; and a further
reference to Telephus is introduced (16). Α satisfactory hypothesis which will
at once explain the situation disclosed ίη, the recto and correlate this with the
contents of the vers(J (where the speaker is perhaps the same, cf. 5 €TOΙμη) is not
easy to discover. The allusions to Telephus may be accounted for by supposing
that the speaker ίΒ his wife Astyoche; and Prof. Robert, to whom several

restorations ίη the text are due, suggests that the scene is Italy, and that
Astyoche, who with her sisters Aethylla and Medesicaste was among the captive
Trojan women, is exhorting her fellow-slaves to set fire to the Greek ships;
c( Tzetz. ad Lycophr. 921, 1075. This is attractive, if rath_er difficult to
reconcile with recto 12-15. The style indicates the Alexandrian origin of the
The papyrus is written ίη a small, sloping uncial hand which may be referred
with Iittle hesitation to the third century, to which also belong a number of
cursive documents with which this fragment was found. The handwriting is
very similar to that of ccxxxiiί, which is of tl1e same period. Νο stops or
Iection signs occur, with the exception of the diaeresis.

[ε]ΕαπινηS' επε8ησεν ανωϊστρ[ισι κλa80ισι
(ου] /f.EV ΕΤΙ (ωOΙΙl'ε~ ε~ ϊλιον ηλθον (αχaιοι
[ε]νθα δε κεν μενελαo~ εκεκλιτο ε}'[θ αΥαμεμJlfJJV
[ω]λετο και Τ01l αριστον εν aPYELoLS' [αχιληa
5 τηλeφοS' εξεναριξε πριν εκτορ[o~ αντιον ελθειν
αλλ οποσον μοι και τ[ ο] αμυνεμεν ~[
χραισμησαι δε μοι α[ • .. iI .] • α( .
η και απ αΡΥειοι(ο) λαΧΕν YE!,[O~] ηραJCληo~
[τ]ηλεφον Εν θαλαμοιS' πoλ~μων απαν~[υθε
1ό (κλ]!-',.ε μοι αθανaτοι ((]Eυ~ 8[ε Π]~Eoν ον ΥΕνετηρa
8αρ8ανου ημετεροιο και ?7[Ρα]κλ?Ί~S- ακovω
και 'Τουτων φρασσασθε μ[αχω]ν λυσιll ίσα 8ε /fvθοιr
[σ]υνθεσιη τρωεσσι και α[ρί']ειοισι Υε[ν]εσθω
[ο]υ8ε αpyειoυ~ θαν~[ eJfJl [• •]ησομαι αυτη
t 5 ξανθου φoινιEανT~~ ~[. • •. ]ι:ι ε • • x~"!μα /(αι/(ου
τηλεφου ~!φι T~[. ••••••. ου]ΚΕΤΙ θωρηχθεllτεr
[. • .] Τ?7 λ ε~~υετ[· •• ~ ••••.] Ifl!'! • • ρον aχ aιων
(.•••• •]υσ~! εΧΕιν ~[ ••••• •](εσκοll αχaιοι'
[ ••••• iI .]εται μεσσ[• •••••] ~υ~[κ]!o!, ελ~(
20 [ • • • • • • • • • ]roS' μ~ . [ • π]ολvS' ει 8ε με[••.] • (
[••••••• .- •••••• •]0 συ μοl. παρa μη[


[12 letters ] ~tOTOvιrav[.J~~ •• ~~ν ωpαι~

.[ " " ]. ~ "!οντον χθονα Τ rι8 ενοησε
[13 " ]~~ '!ι • J!-a πολυπλαΥΚΤΟΙΟ θαλασ[σηr
[" " ] • Τ[.] • • ~εTO !'?]ϊ θαλασση
5 [ι 7 " ]~αι και ποσσιν ετοιμη
[ι 3 " ]. . επι XBOlIOS' ειθυσαιμι
[ " " ]σ'!ι[ • ••••• ]!' ES' τινα χωρον
[. • • • • • .) • • • •• [. • • • .] . [•• ]~[ • •]T0S' ηχηll
[•••••••] ••• !J •• ν[.] ••• [.]vql![•• ]α ποντου
ΙΟ [.] • [.]ινο • [.]!' .. ~f[ • •] • [. ]TO~ • [.] roK~q.':'OtO
νηπιοS' O[S' .]ελα~[ •..] . [. KJaT( α] ~E[ • •]qv q8evEl
80υρασι π[ον]ΤΟΠΟ[Ρ]qf[ σ]! τ[ ]~[.]. q~ [οJ!Jr~~alIOLU!
πη νυν. [.]~! . [ J/f ρ.Ι i. >:-Ο!, ελοιτq θαλασσα('{
•.• ~[.•]
εμπε80S' [.] •••• ν?][.] • ϊ[. •. •]'!ι[.]~~ • •]. ~~ΙKTo~
15 ιχθυβοτο[S'] If.TCf •••• 8 •• ( •••••• ] peeBf!ov
ποσσιν α[ • .] ••.• [.•••••• 8 • • • • ]Τ l!-JfE~ro/!'
TtS' με8~[ω]!, ••• [••••••.•••.••] ~l!-λασσαll
lIα!ειll του[ • •8]!/f[. π]qλυ [•••• .]rov αllθρωποι[σιν 8

κ[.• ]ΤΙ[.)• [. 8]r!r Eστ~!" [••••• 8]'!18ε!" ~ρ[ηJ'?,ε[ι

20 [8 8] • [••• 8 • 8]~VEllf8 • 8 [••• 8 •]εΙ~E~[ e

[ι ι letters ]σα. • τα[

[ " " ]υθ[.]φ • 8 [

Rec/o. ι. The allusion ίΒ to the vine over which Dion'ysus caused Telephus to stumble
while ,pursuing the Greeks.
10. κλυΤΕ μοι: cf. ccxxiii. 115.
14. The metre may be restored by the insertion of KEV after OVbf.
18. Jvuat: or υσον ~
2 ι. Robert suggests Μη[δΕιΤικάσΤη; cf. introd.
Verso8 Ι. The doubtful σ may be Υ οι· 'Γ. Of the letters transcribed as ~e •• ν~ν, 3 may
be α and the first v may be μ ΟΙ· possibly λι; there may also be only one letter between the
supposed δΕ and 11.
3. The traces between the doubtful α and μ would suit λ. It does not seem possible
to read ι<ϋμα. αι may be read instead of μ.


Parts of three coltlmns from a phίlosophical work, apparent1y couched

ίη the form of a letter, see Ι. 16-17 συ δ' 6) αυθρωπε and Ι Ι. 12 6) np6f) Διό~.
The handwriting is an irregular uncial, the letters varying much ία size;
€ especially tends .to be very large. Ξ is written with three separate strokes
of equal length. Ιη its genet·al appearance the papyrus bears considerable
resemblance to the semi-litet·al"Y hands of the second century Β. C., e. g. that
of the first three columns ίη the papyrus Didot of Euripides (ed. Weil). But
it is a distinctly later example, and was found with documents of the ROfi1an
period, so that it. is not at all likely to have been written before the reign of
Augustus. Οη the other hand it can hardly be later than the middle of the first
century Α. D. Thet·e are a few corrections, some by the original scribe, others
ίη a probably different bnt contemporary hand. 1"he pαrαgrαphi are original,
but the other marks of punctuation with one exception (see note ση 11. 19) have
been added later.,
The principal topic discussed ίη the fragment is the popular idea of reIigion
and especially fear of the gods, which is severely criticized by the writer. The
style and vocabulary (which includes stlch words as συμπεριφορά and σέμυωμα)
are post-classical, but οη accotlnt of the age of the papyrus the work must
have been composed not later than the first century Β. c. The author was
probablyan Epicurean phi1osopher, possibly Epicurus himself who wrote 'Πεp~
θεωυ and 7Tfpl όσι6τητο!» (Diog. Laert. Χ. 27).

Col. Ι. Col. 11.

[. • · · · · ·Jv(. •J!T~[. · . · [ • •JVTlKOV και κεχα[ρισ]με

[.]α Υιν[εJ~[θ]αι ~TlfV κατ[ .. νον εαν ευκαιρηι τι/!-[ω]ν
[..]! Tη~ φυσεω~ ω~. ελεΥΟll αυτην την θεωιριαν σεαυ
[οι JKElov μ η8 οταν Υε του Tαι~ συΎΥενεσιν κατα

,5 [ν]η 8ια ουτωι λεΥηται πα π

5 σαρκα η80ναι[ ~] αι οτ αν

υχ τ καθηκωσιν αλλα ΠΟΤΕ

[λιΊν υπο των τ[π]ον[λ]ων και τη των νομων συμπε

[8]ε80[ι]κα TOVr OEOVS' παν s

[Tar Κ Jf:tL σε(βο ]μαι [κ Jf:tL του ριφορaι χρωμεJlΟ[υ] uov 8EOf

[TOt]S' βο[ υ]λ[ οJμαι παντα κα 8ε μη προσα[Υε] ενταυθα

Ι ο [τJ~OVElJI και TOVTOLS' 10 μη8 υποληψ![ν] χαριστωινει

[αν]ατιθεναι χαριεστε ar θεοι!; ΟΤΙ ταυτα πpaTTει~

[ρο Jv μεν 'γαρ Luror ποτε τι Υαρ ω ΠΡοg 8ιo~ το 8η λε

[ο T]OLOVTOS' αλλων ι8ιω 'γομενον δ[ε]80ΙKα~ πο

[τω]ν εστιν ομωr 8ε ου τερα α8ικει[ιι] EKELvovr

15 [8ε] ταυ1"η πωι το βεβαιον 15 ιιομι(ων' ουκουν 8ηλον

[ευ]σεβειαS' υπαρχει συ ror ελαττο,:,ιι' πωr ου[ ν

[8 ω] ανθρωπε μακαριω ου ταπεινον τι το 8αιμ[ ο

[τα]τον μεν τι νομι(ε το νιον 80ξα(ε[ι]~ ειπερ ~(λαT

[8ιε]ιληφεναι Kαλω~ ο το το[υ]ται πρo~ ~ε: η και χ[ ...

20 [παν]αρισ1"ον εν TOΙ~ ουσι 20 α8[•..•.•• •]~ VΠΕιλ[ηφαr

[8ια]νοηθηναι 8υναμε εα[ν .•••..•] πραΤΤ?Ί[• ••

[θα] κα(ι θ]αυμα(ε ταυτην ~!I
!1!'(••••. • •••] • ToνT~[• .•
[τη)ν 8[ι]αληψιν και σεβού
λογ[ ]r!OLaV!1[• ••
[..Je[.]. ι TO[VJTO εΠ~[Ι]Tα
βλ[ ] ανθΡωfπ ••
25 [•••• ~ ••••••••• •]αυτ[••
25 ~ία]ι Υαρ ο![ον]τ αι 8ειν α(υτου"
[•..••••••...] . (.]ωσπ[ •• 8e80LKEJIlf! [και] τιμαν τ[• .•
[•••] • [.• .]ιιτ[•. ]qTav σε ινα κaτεχο[μειι]οι T~~ φ[οβω

(•• •]80[•• ]~q~tJI αλλα μονο

μη επιτιθίων]ται αυτοι1Υ •.
ειτ opOoor τ[ OV1"JO οιομε[νοι
[•••Jo~[ •. ] ορων τηλικου
30 [του) σεμνωμαTO~ κατα 30 κaθολου μ:η] ~~~βησεσ[θαι

[τη)ν θ[ε]ωριαν ΠΡοr την

[ει)1" ουκ ορθ[ ooS'] το 8υνα[ ..
[εαυ JTOV EV[ 8αιμ Ίονιαν κ[ .. [•.•.• •]ων • [• .~~ν των [
ιcα.ι [ ] . ν8ε[ ]ιιων![ • ••
[.••] 8ια '~~[•.. •]την τη[ιι
[..• ]rE!J~e[•• .]ραν ωσ[ ••

Col. 111.

τaψ[. •Ί~! .. a( TE~ πpo~ το Tη~ βλα[(3ηr υπο


ΊCΟιιη πτευμα και την T[αυTη~

ται το Υαρ κατα[
προΦυλακην ΕΥΙ[
βλαβην εφερεν α!-'[
15 [. .]~Tεoν προσπο[
προσε80κα το ε~[
[.•..] τουτων πρ[
5 και xωpι~ τουτ[
[•.. ,,]ντων υΠΕ![
τουμενοι μη παρ[
[.••] μ[ aJKaplav [
σημεια Tη~ xαpΙT[O~ νομι
[... ] και ου παλι~ [
(oνTε~ αυToυ~ pα[8ιω~ καθ
20 [ ••• • ]ων ο παρα(
EαυToυ~ και ΠΡq?"[
[.•• •]σα 8ηπου [
Ι Ο αΦΙΚΕσθαι και κ[
[•.•. .]rl!TO[
οσουσ8ηποτε Tpo~[oυ~ ....

Ι. 2. γιι{EJu[OJαt: 'γιιιη[τJαt iS aIso possible.

4 sqq. 'Nor, indeed, even when this further statement is made by the ordinary man,
" Ι fear all the gods and worship them, aηd to them Ι wish to make every sacrifice and
offering." lt may perhaps imply more taste οη his part than the average, nevertheless by
this formula he has not γet reached the tl"ustworthy priηciple of religion. But do you, sir,
coηsider that the most blessed state lies ίη the formation of a just conception concerning
the best thing that we can possibly imagine to exist; aηd revereηce and worship this idea.'
6. τυχοντων is cOITected by the first haηd from πολλων.
Ι Ι-Ι 2. χαριιστι[ροJv must be a mistake for χαριέστιΡΟS.
30. σέμνωμα is used by Epicurus αρ. Diog. Laert. ίΧ. 77.
32. Α small fragmeηt with Jαt at the eηd of a line perhaps belongs to the end of this
line, and another fragment with ]ΕΡ to 34, i. e. ωσ[π JfP. .
11. 1-8. Blass coηsiders the meaning of this ObSCUl"e passage to be that the ideal
of the Supreme Being is to be honoured with feastiηg and pleasures like those commonly
enjoyed at the festi vals of the gods, but the wise maη \νίΙΙ also sotnetimes do homage to
received opinions and the established laws relating to the worship of the gods; cf. Plutarch,
conlrα Epicur. beαf. 2 Ι. ρ. Ι 102 b. 1η 8 eithel" xpώμιJl()~ simply or χρωμΕνου σου must be read.
xpώμιιιo~ ου gives ηο satisfactory sense.
8-19. 'But let there be ηο question of fear ίη this, nor any assumption that your
action wj)) buy the favour of the gods. For why, "by Zeus," to use the vulgar
phrase, do you fear them? Is it because you think that you do them an injury?
18 it not plaiη ίn that case that you are making them inferior ? Are you not then regardiηg
the divine power as something mean, if it is infel'ior to you ?'
10. The reading υποληψι[νJ is very doubtful; the termination is more 1ike -Ψη.
χaριστωνία is a new wol·d meaning 'buying of thaηks.' τaυτα πPάTTEΙ~ must refer to
somethiηg 10st at the top of the column, probably fear of the gods, which was the subject
of the first column and to which the speakel' now reverts.
ι 9. σι: the ]ower stop is by the first hand, the higher was added by the person who
inserted the others.
2 ο. There is not room for υπιιλ[η<Ρεναι. .
25-28. The seηse of this passage seems to be that men think it necessaIY to fear aηd
honour the gods ίn ordel· that other men may be restrained by the feal" of the gods




Ν ο. CCXXXVI (α)

from doing them \Vrong. μήΤΕ βλάΠΤΕΙlI μήΤΕ βλάΠΤΕσθαι was the Epicurean forn1ula of justice
(Diog. Laert. Χ. 150). Something like 01. ίlλλoι is wanted as the subject of Επιτίθωπαι, but there
is ηοΙ room for that at the end of 28. The number of letters lost at the ends of 19 to 3 ι
ought not Ιο exceed 3 or 4. των ίn 32 seems to be the end of the line.


Plate V. 17·5.χ 19·4 cm.

I>arts of two columns from a speech by an anti-Macedonian orator upon a

letter of Philip. The florid, Asiatic style of the fragment points to its being
a rhetorical composition.
Palaeographically, the papyrus, which is written ίη a large handsome uncial,
is of considet·able value, since its date can be fixed within narrow limits. 1t was
found with a number of documents dated ίη the reigns of Tiberins and Claudius
(e. g. cc1iii, cclxxxv, ccxcίii) ίη a mound which produced nothing later than about
Α. D. 50. Οη the verso is a letter written ίn a cursive hand of the first half of
the first century, mostly covered up by another document of the same period,
which was gummed over it ίη order to strengtl1en the rol!. The writing οη
the recto, therefore, can hardly be later than Tibel'ius' reign; whi1e the great
scarcity of papyri at Oxyrhynchus before the reign of Augustns, combined with
the resemblance of the handwriting to that of early fitAst century hands which
approximate to a 1iterary type, makes it very improbable that the papyrus
goes back to the Ptolemaic period. Cf. cclxxxii and ccxlvi (both οη Plate νιι),
the former of which presents many points of resen1blance, whi1e the general
appearance of the other is slightly l~ter.
The corrections are appal"ently by the fil"st hand.

Co1. Ι. Co1. 11.

απ-ο μια~ επισToλ[η~ α]πει [..]!' απoλω~~ κα[ .
λην 80υλειαν αντ ε(λ]ευ [τα] τειχηι τηS' πο[λεωS' πε
θερια~ αντικαταλλ[ ασJσε "!τωκεν TlS' αιxμ[αλωTO~
σθαι και που το ΠΕριμαχη ημων ΎΕΎονεν [που] πε(ο
5 τον οιχεται φΡΟllημα) 5 μαχοvντεS' η ιιαυμ[αxo]υντε~
Tη~ η[ΎJεμονια~ επι(ηΤα/Ι λελεΙ/fμεθα εντ(αυ]θα Ύαρ
γαρ ε[ι) μη τι 8ιαμαρτανωι αιιθρωποι πεΡΙΎεΥ[Ρα]μμε

τω λΟ[Ύι]σμωι φησιν ημειν νοι πασα~ Tα~ Eλπι[8α]~ τωι

πολεμ[η]σειν και ημει~ τηr αναΎκηr καιρ[ωι] 80υλευ
10 εκ[εινω •.•..••] •• ων 8
10 σουσιν ημειν [τ] απopθηTO~
[ 13 letters ]l;tY?7 l;t~
εστιν η 8ημοκρατια ομον[ο
[ 13 letters ]8ενει
ουμεν πpo~ αλληλoυ~ TOΙ~ ν[ο
[ 12 letters ] και υπερ
μoι~ Ενμενομεν καρτερει[ν
[ 17 letters ]~ι
ε(ν] TOΙ~ 8εινoι~ επισταμε
2 lίnes lost.
17 17 letters ]ι.ι ε
15 [θ]α την τη r ελευθεpια~ τα
gtv ουκ ενκατ[α]λειπομεν
εν TOtr oπλoι~ νΙKησα~
ε κ
νανιευεσθωι Tαι~ 8 απο
των επιστολων απειλαιr

20 TOυ~ βα[pβ]αρoυ~ εξαπατατω(ι

η 8ε των αθηναιων πoλι~
επιταττειν ουχ υπ[ακ]ουειν

[ ] .. ι<α~ 8[ΙKα]ζ~[ιν

'(Are we) at a threat ίη a single letter to exchange freedom for slavery? Whither
has it vanished, that pride of empire for which we fought? 1 am considering whether
my reasoning is at fault. He says that he will declare war upon us; and so shall we υροη
him ... Have the walls of the city fallen? what Athenian has been taken prisonel'? where
~ither οη land or sea have we fai1ed ίη battle? If men have had all their hopes crushed
ίη ,var, they will be slaves to the necessity of the moment; but our democracy's strong-
hold has not been violated, we live ίn harmony with each other, we abide by the ]aws,
we know how to be steadfast ίη times of peril, we never desert the banner of Freedom.
When his arms are victorious, then let him triumph. Let the threats ίη his letters deceive
barbarians; but the city of Athens is wont to give commands, not to receive them.... '
11. 6. There is often not much difference between η and μ ίn this hand, but the first
word is more like λελειημεθα than λελειμμεθα.


13'1 χ 7·3 cm.

Fragment of a letter addressed to a king, Ωσ doubt Philip or Alexander,

concerning the principles of government. Aristotle \vrote a treatise ση -βασιλεία

for Alexander (Ar. Fr. ed. Rose ρ. 1489), and it is possible that the fragment
beIongs to that or to the simiIar treatise of Theopompus (Cic. Ερ. αd Αιι. ΙΖ, 40).
The papyrus is written ίη an uncial hand resembling that of the Plato
papyrus facsimiled ίη ο. Ρ. Ι. plate VI, and may be ascribed with lίttle hesitation
to the third century Α. D. There is a remarkably high mal·gin (7·2 cm.) at
the top.
κατεχει τα πραΥμα[τα 10 πολι!, αρχουσιν χιρο

πολυ αμεινα/ν απα To[νη]Tα~ αpxα~ «?!~[.

σα/ν των πωποτε ) ϋπο[
Υενομενων η ση βα φωr[
5 σιλεια τον TαυTη~ ΤΡΟ νασ. [
πον και το Τα/ν και ) 15 πομ.[
ρων τουτων ϊ8ιον) των(
νομον ειναι 8ει και σιa(.J" [
μαλιστα TOΙ~ ου κατα ηθ(

'(Since) the rule of your monarchy is far superior to that of all monarcbies that have
ever existed, its system and the characteristic feature of the present times ought to be law,
especially among those who do not enjoy elective offices ίη an organized state.'
ι Ι. οιω[.: οι· possibIy 'Πω[~.


13·6 χ 12·4 cm. (Fr. α).

Parts of three columns from a prose work, apparently a coIlection of Παράοοξα,

or marvello tlS stories. This species of composition was popular at AIexandria ;
cf. Susemihl, Alexαndr. Lz·tterαtur-Gesch. ι. 463 sqq. The upper part of the
second column of the fragment is fairly weIl preserved, and gives a descrip-
tion of two curious local usages. The precise nature of the first is obscured
by the Ioss of the context, but it was a punishment for some kind of con-
jugal infidelity; and for the truth of the story given is cited the authority
of Zopyrtls and Cleitarchus. This is followed by an account of a trial by
ordeal, which, οη the death of a priest of Ares, the person chosen to succeed
him had to undergo. The trial consisted ίη holding the swot·d of the god
underneath the bnrnirtg corpse, and from the manner ίη which this was done
the innocence or guilt of the nominated successor became evident. It is not
stated where these customs obtained. The barbarous nature of the first
Ι) 2

suggests a non-Hellenic background; whίle the mention of the priest of Are;;

shows that the localίty was at least undel· Hellenic inflnence. Combining
the internal evidence of the usages described with the citation of Zopyrus and
Cleitarchus, it may perhaps be inferred that the scene is Asia Minor. Cleitarchus
is presumably the historian of Alexander's Asiatic expedition, whose veracity
was called ία question by Cicero and Quinti1ian, and whose style displeased the
author of the treatise De Sublimitate (§ 3). The identification of Zopyrus
is more difficult. Several scattered references to a writer or writers of this nalue
are found. Α Zopyrus of Colophon or Clazomenae, who was a historian and
geographer, is placed ίη the third century Β. c. (cf. Susemihl, 0/. cit. 11.467 sqq.).
Whether or ηο this is the Zopyrtls quoted ίη our fragment remains a matter of
doubt. The position of his name ίη front of that of Cleitarchus perhaps
imp1ies that he preceded Cleitarchus either ίη date or ίη point of anthot·ity. lt
is possible that two other anthors are quoted ίη connexion with the account of
the trial by ordeal (see note οη Fr. (c), but this is not sufficiently certain to make
their identity worth discussion.
The papyrus is written ίη a small, rather delίcate, sIoping uncial hand, which
may probably be referred to the thilAd century. Αη addition ίη cursive has
be_en _Inade at- the top of Col. 111. Ν ο stops, paragrαphi, or other lection signs
occur.· v at the end of a line is rather frequently written as a stroke above
the pt·eceding νowel. The common )-shaped sign is tlsed to ίΊ11 tιp short lines.

}i~r. (α).

Col. Ι. CoI. 11.

}την ovl[~ [κατ]α φυσιν μ[ο]ρφη παραμενΕΙ
]τρα![.] • [yvv]aLKOS' αλλ?Ί~ πειραν μη λαμ
]ε~~~ •.• [βα]νων εαν 8ε φωραθη των [σΊΡ
]τησιν ~ψ ΟΤΟ> 8
5 ] • K€Ι[ • •. J9 [.. .]!ων παραβαινων αποτεμνε
αν]αμνη σιν 5 [ται] τα μορια αυτου και παρα TOVY
] παΡ?ΊΎΥΕιλ[ε TαΦoυ~ αυτηS' κατακαΙΕται ισ
μ]η προκρινη Τ'!f!C!!Jσι (ωπυpo~ και KλεΙTαρxo~
]oS' oPyισθ€ι~ Tα~ εαν ΙEpευ~ αποθανη του αpεω~ ΠΕ
10 ]λαS' ενεποησΈ ριστελλ(εταJι EVKOuptooS' υπο τώ
]T1]S' xρoνo~ v 10 εΥχωριων και ElS' τηνα τοπον )
] κατα!<~!Jσμω φερεται 8ημοσιον μετα την ΤΡΙ
1. · ~ a1f~KT€lJI~ την ημεραν καιοντων 8€ τώ

]Ktt L μ'!J f!~f!ι · [σ:!JΎΎ~ιιωιι ο χεΙΡΟΤΟllηθεΙΥ υπο

]l! ΠΟΤΕ (TJOV 8ημου (αΚΟΡΟΥ υποτιθη
J~ p~ιιιa[ 15 [σι] τω ιιεκρω το του θεου ξιφo~
λ]EΎOPΤf!ι~ και i!!rηΥ ΥΕιιομΕιιηΥ βff~~ια~
]τατο ~αιι η ιιομιμωΥ λαμβαllΕΙ τάι
Y€ΙllOμE!,~!, εαll 8ε εΥκλημα
;ΟΥ τινΟΥ εχη συlIΕι8ησιιι ~1!!
20 τω τ[ο]ν σ[ι]8ηρον υποβληθη
[lIJat α[ • •.. •JETat και αυTO~ ε(•••]
(. ]~? κα(τηΥ]~pEΙ~~ α Πf!-Ρ ειιομ [ησε]
EΙ~ ΤΟΙΙ ~[εo]!' 8ιηyoυμειιo~ ?..
ε~~ιι8( •• ]ν λΟΥα/ΙΙ [τΊων ι;ιμ[• •]
25 τη κατ[.] .. [.]ροιι![. ..] • ~[•••)
ραν r[
ρπερ Τ[
30 (~!J[

Col. 111. Fr. (b).

μεχ[ πω μEΡ~[ ](ω[ • •.
λωτ[ τησειιε[. Jιr( ]χωσασκ[.]
τω[ 15 την θυΥα(τερa ]11 λοπι(ει την

JI€![ θουΥ αιι~[ ]!' εστι ~ ~rTO

5 πασα[ συμφο[ρ 5 Υ]~r~f.LEVOS' )
λασι~![ ΤΟιια σf!ι [ ]ι.ι~!' T'!J 1!αρ
/(αΙΡ?Ί[ Υιαν. ασ[ ]τοιστο[ • •~ν
αρχ ο{ 20 8 ακουσα[ ]0!Jl.?at T~ΙY
συιιβα( κατηr[ ] ιrΙK~~α/ν και
10 θεα~ r( φιλοτιμ[ 10 ]0. [.•••.••
/(a/(φ[ μ€yε~~[ι ] επει8αν ΤΕ
(ητουσα[ • [·]ΦO~[ 'T]~ 7!Ε8ιω 'T~!,

Fr. (c). Fr. (d).

[•••••• •]εΡΕΙ[ ]ω[

[. • •••• •]O~!1σ[ ]q~[
[•.••••]s- και (ην[ ]?7 Τ [
[•••••.] περιηιΦΟ!l[ ]κτ[
5 [.. •. ]μητιν βιασαIf[ 5 ]σσαι α[
K[α]~EΙ9[η] σίυ]ν Κ'!ι!!' • [ ]μωll[
ΠΙ>f.,ΕΙΡΟ!Jιrf ενκατα!'[

[. • · • .]. • [·]!l!'~X~ • • ![
!'!ιρ! • [• •]ιιτί . .J~ • ••[ Fr. (ε).
10 κρ .•. ~[.] . T!~'!ι[
τω ϊ8[. . ~E •• ~μιllι • [ [.]οτ[
αυτα[. μJETPLOlI Kσλ~~![1I ραν ρ[
'!ιιωs- 8€KTη[ . •]~ οπω[ Εισφ[

[.]!1[. • •Jταθ~[. • .J!'r

15 [.••. . ]σακ[

Col. 11. '. . . so long as the natural form [emains, if he does not intrigue with another
woman. If, howevel", he is caught transgressing [these ordinances], he is mutilated, and the
members are burnt at her tomb. Such is the account of Zopyrus and Cleitarchus. If a
priest of Ares dies he is decently laid out by the natives and carried after the third day
to a public place. While the corpse is being burnt by the relatives, the temple-attendant
who has been elected by the people places beneath it the sword of the god. Α deep
silence is maintained; and if it is rightly done, he receives the customary privίleges. But
if he has any crime υροη his conscience, οη the steel being held under the body ... and
he [is Iiable toJ accusations for his offence against the god ... '
Fr. (α). Ι. Ι Ι. χ"όvοS' could be read ίη place of χρόvοS'. If χρόvοS' is right, τηs- may be
the termination of a \vord like ΤΕτρα~τήS'.
12. ι<ατακλυσμω: the letter after the second α is rather more like ρ than 1<, .and the
traces following could be read as μ; the letter before σ rnaΥ be η.
11. 4. The letter written (by the first hand) over ω at the beginning of this line most
resembles ~, but might be read as α. Possibly the scribe intended to record a variant
τήν •••. ιαν instead of T6>V •••• ιων, but then he ought to have written η above των. Or
uvv Ι [Υ€v]lδωv may be read, with the insertion of (ύπο) before τωv.
5. τα μορια: i. e. τα αE~oΙα.
10. τηvq: Ι 'Γινα.
13. [σ]VΎΥΕvων: [Υ]Ειτονων is a possible alternative..

21. Perhaps ά[μβλύν]Εται or α[ύaΙυ]ιται, sc. τό ΦάσΥaνον. But the corpse or the
operator may also be regarded as the sub.lect of the mutilated verb.
22. The first α of KαTηYOPιια~ and the beginnings of the following lines (23-30), with the
exception of the top of τ of τον ίn 23, are contalned υροη a detached fragment, which
could be placed here with ηο hesitation if it were not for 24 ; there, however, the reading
is not certain.
The doubtful ΕΙ at the beginning of the line may equally well be v, and it is tempting to
read αύτό!ί έ[αυl",Jov κατηΥ()ΡΙΙ ίJσα. But the letter before σα seems clearly to be α and not ο.
πaΡΕυομ[ησΕν: the doubtful α ί8 more like Ε.
28. Possibly there may be an ι 10st between f and λ["
Fr. (δ). 4. εντο: the Ietter transcribed as v may be ω.
Fr. (c). The appearance of the papyrus suggests that this fragment belongs to Co). 11 ;
and ίι could well be placed so tl1at the fiIst line joins 11. 26. 28 might then I"un αΡΧΕλ[ αo]~
και ζην[oδOTO~?, preceded ίη 27 by ιστορουσι; cf. 11. 6, 7. Archelaus could be the xωpoypάΦo~
τη, υπΌ 'Αλεξάνδρου παTηθιίση~ γηςο (Diog. Laert. iί. 4. 17), or the author of the ΊδιοΦυη, who is
included by Susemihl among the Παραδοξογράφοι.
4. τυφου[: ί t does not seem possible to read the second letter as a.
13. δ may be read ίη place of α at the beginning of the line.
Fr. (e). 3. This line was the last of a column.


12'2 χ 18'4 cm. (Fr. α).

Fragment from the end of a lament, apparently for the 1055 of a fighting-
cock. The speaker is a man or YOutll, who professes to be quite disconsolate
ίη hi5 affliction, and intimates his intention of suicide. Whether there is some
allegorical signification nnderlying all this ίΒ doubtful. Of course &λΕκτωρ can
have the wider sense of 'consort J; and 1. 22 is not easy to explain οη the
supposition that the 10ss of a bird is the only allusion. Οη the other hand,
it hardly seerns possibIe Ιο start from the more general meaning of &λ'κτωρ, and
to give tlle lamentation a merely erotic motive. The date of composition is
probably not much earJiet- than that of the actnal papyrus. The piece was of
some length, for there are traces ίη the left-hand margin of the papyrus of a
previons column. lt is written ίη rather flowery and poetical language, and
recalls the 'Alexandrian Erotic Fragment' of G. Ρ. Ι. Perhaps an attempt
will be made to rednce the present composition Ιο a metrical scheme, as has
been effected by some critics ίη the case of the 'Erotic Fragment.' lt is
noticeable that the ends of the lίnes so far as they are preserved correspond
with pauses ίη the sense, and that they are accordingly not quite nniform ίη
length; and that ίη each 1ine the pennltimate syllable is, or may be, short.
Hiatus is freqHent.
The papyrus is written ίn a rough and rather difficult cursive hand of the
earlίel- part of the first century. It was fonnd with a number of documents

dating from the earlίer part of the century (e. g. cclίx, cclxxxv); and though
perhaps scarcely 50 old as the oldest of these it is not lίkely to have been
separated from them by any considerable interval. ι adscript is frequently
added where not reqnired, as is common at this period; and thel·e are two
or three other mis~spellings.
Fr. (α).

[ 1.5 letters J~. ρ[

[ 15 " ]~ ανα[. ..••...] •. [....] . η
[ 13 " ]. ετων νρ[• •] . ~ί.}ι.ι[..•• ]!'
[ 12 " ] • ατην ι8ιω~.] ~αλλoνην

5 [ 12 " J~ ..]. εχ ων εν τrι[ι 0]8ωι

[ 15 " J'!τωσι[ . .Ί~Ύ[. •.] • ~
[ 16 " ]των ~μην ί .. .]ν
[ 17" ]ν και 1fολλα [.•• ~eω!,
[••... ] . σ • [.]!~[.•.....] αλεκτορα μο,! [8]!lvαμεθα
10 [••• • ]τη .. σασ~[•• ]l!?"ω εκ περιπατου

[.•.•..•J • ιθο[• •.. Ίσα! 1fCff? f!ι'>;.!8poσoι~

[•..... .]κουσ[ . •] • [• .]νησα[.]-rlf τον βαΒ[• •• •]~ηι
[•.•.•. π]αι80~ ε[φ]υλασσεν ο φιλo~ μου τρυφων
[ τε]κνον τηίρ]ων εν Taι~ αΎKαλαι~
15 [αΠΟΡΟ]!JJ.!αι που βα8ισω η ναυ~ μου εραΥη
- [τον K]α[T]α[θ]υμι~!, απoλεσα~ ορνιθα μου κλαιωι
[... Φ]ερε το ~P!,lq[v] τροφην αυτου περιλαβωι
'Του μ[αχ]!μου 'Του ε!!~Bασ'Toυ 'Του~ ελληνικου
~αp[ιν τ]ουτου εκαλουμη,;, peyar εν τω βιωι
20 και [ελJεΥομην ι:ιαKαpι[o]~ αν8p~~ εν ΤΟΙ$ φιλοτροφι
ψυχομαχωι ο Ύαρ α[λ]εκτωρ ηστοχηκε μου .
και θαKαθαλπα80~ εpασθει~ εμεν ενκατελιπε
~~~ επιθεΙ$ λιθόν EIf~TOV επι την καρ8ιαν
καθ( η]συχασομαι pμε[ι]~ 8 υΥιαινετε φιλοι

Fr. (b).

]LS' vor~[
5 ]!'αν[
]πολι. [
KaJTa ψυχ[ην

Fr. (α). 15 sqq. ' ... Ι am at a 10ss where to go. ΜΥ ship is shattel"ed. Ι weep for
the 108s of my sweet bird. Come,let me take the chick he nurtures (?), he, my warrior,
my beauty, my Greek cock. For his 8ake was Ι called great ίη my life, and deemed happy,
comrades, ίη my breeding cares. Ι am distraught, for my cock has failed me; he fell ίη
Iove \vith Thacathalpas (?) and deserted me. But Ι shall find rest, having set a stone upon
my heart; so fare ye well, my friends.'
Fr. (α). 2. The last letter of the 1ine may be ", ίη which case the preceding letter
is α or~.
8. ]ρων: 7J might be read ίη place of Ρ, and [στέ]vωv restored.
10. Perhaps Tηpήσa~.
Ι ι. The letters between Jua and ~poσoι~ are very doubtful. Instead of παρ, σ( or Υ or
T)EV or σ(Υ, τ,)ελο might be read. The vestiges follo\ving suit ~ rather better than α. ~a"
or 80υ would be just possible.
15. Ι 'ρράΥη.
17. Possibly there is a reference to some relic of the cock.
20. Ε ίη αιι8PE~ is strangely formed and may be intended for ο. There is a hole ίη the
papyrus above the final ι of ΦιλοτροΦι, where the ο would have been if it was written;
1. φ"λοτροφί[ ο( tS').
2 2. θαι<aθaλπά~ iS conceivably the name of a hen. Or perhaps, as Blass suggests,
θαι<α is for τάχα. Οη 'μιέιι for 'μέ cf. Dieterich, Unlersuch. Ζ. Gesch. d. Gr. Sprαche, 190.
23. εματου is a later form of έμαυτον frequent ίn papyri.
24. vμειS': v is badly formed, and may be meant for η.
Fr. (b). There is a blank space below the remains of the last line οί this fragment.
Either, therefore, the fragment comes from the bottom of a previous column; or, since the
liries ίn Fr. (α) are irregular ίn length, the bl~nk space after line 7 may be accounted for
by supposing that a short line succeeded, ίη which case Fr. (δ) gives the ends of some
lines from the upper part of the column preserved οη Fr. (α). But it is not possible to
combine (α) 2 and (δ) 8.


Plate νι (Col. νιι). Height 16·6 cm.
This papyrus contains ση
the recto fragments of a work οη Prosody, οη the
verso Homeric Scholia (ccxxi). The hand ση the recto is a round well-formed
upright uncial of good size, which may be assigned to the end of the first or

(more probably) the early part of the second century. Some additions and
corrections ϊn the MS. have been made bya different second century hand. The
corrector is aIso responsible for the high points marking a pause which have
been inserted rather plentiful1y, and probably for the single accent that occurs
(νιι. 8). The paragraphz· are by the original scribe, who may also have
inserted the solitary rough breathing ίn ΧΙΙΙ. 5. The scholίa οη the verso
seem to have been written before the end of the second century. Before being
utilized for this second purpose the papyrus, Wllich had ηο doubt become worn,
was cut down, 50 that of the metrical treatise οηlΥ the upper parts of the
columns-perhaps not more than one half of what they original1y were-are
The MS. is a good deal broken, but the approximate position of all but tl1e
smallest fragments can fortnnate1y be determined from the scholίa. The
numbet· of lines of Homer covered by a single co]umn of scholia varies from one
to fourteen, and ίι is therefore impossible to teIl exactly how many columns
a given number o(lίnes may have occnpied. For the purpose of placing the
fragments nine or ten 1ines of Homer at most may be taken as the average
anlount treated ίη a column. Three columns of scholia occupY the same space
ίη the papyrus as two and a half columns of the metrical treatise. With these
premises the gaps between the various colnmns of the latter may be roughly
estilnated. Between Ι and 11, and between ΙΙ and 111, corresponding to ι, 11,
,and 111 ίη _the scholia, as much as four or five colnmns may be missing. ιιι-ιν
(= Schol. ΙΙΙ and IV), and ν-νι (= Schol. V-VII), are continuous, and 1V-V
may be 50. VII-X (= Schol. VIII-XIII) are also continuous, but between
νι and νιι at least one column has been Iost, 'and very possibly more, thongh
measurements indicate that the number missing cannot be two. Between Χ and
ΧΙ two columns probably are wanting; ΧΙ-ΧΙΙ (= Schol. XIV-XV) are
continuous. ΧΙΙ-ΧΙΙΙ are continuous if there is οηlΥ one' column of scholia
lost between χν and XVI; if the gap there extended to two columns, one
column between ΧΙΙ and ΧΙΙΙ is missing. Between ΧΙΙΙ and χιν (= Schol.
χνι and XVII) there is another lacuna of at least a colnmn.
The metres treated of are the Nicarchean (Col. 111), which is not otherwise
known; the Anacreontean, which 1S regarded as an Ionic metre (Col. νιι) and
considered successively ίη its relations to the Phalaecean (Col. νιιι) and
Praxillean metres (Col. ΙΧ), and the iambic dimeter (Col. Χ); the Parthenean,
which is apparently discussed first ίη connexion witl1 the Anacreontean and
derived from the Cyrenaic (CoI. χι), and secon~ly as a logaoedic form (CoI.
ΧΙ Ι) ; and the Asclepiadean metre (Col. XIV), which was about to be discussed
when the papyrus finalIy breaks off. The 5Y5tem expounded ίη connexion with

these different ffietres, though not ίη itself noνel, is here presented ίη a noνel
form. It is that of the 1netra derl:vata (μέτρα παραγωγά), and its essence is the
derivation of all metres either from the dactylίc hexameter or the iambic
trimeter, the two metra prz'ncipαliα (άΡΧ'Υουα), by various forms of manipulation
(αdiectio, detractΖΌ, concz'nnatt:o, permutαtz·o); cf. Rossbach and Westphal, Metrz·k
der Griechen, i. ρ. 119 sqq. Thus, for' example, our author derives the
Anacreontean verse from the Phalaecean by cutting off the :first syllables. This
metrical theory has been hitherto known to us exclusively from Latin writers,
though, as indicated by the use of Greek technical terms, it had certainly
a Greek origin. Westphal traces it back to Varro, and postulates (ορ. cit.
ρ. 173) the existence of a Greek treatise π€p" μ{τρωυ presenting this theory of
derivation. Of such a treatise the following fragments formed part, and they
thus fill up a gap ίη the history of the ars metrica. It may be noted that the
papyrus does not satisfy all the conditions which Westphal considered that
the Greek original would fulfil. One of these was an ignorance of the 'Anti-
spastic' scheme of division, which is certainly to be found ίη our author; cf.
notes οη νιιι. ι, XIV. 13.
The metrical system nροη which this work is founded is of course separated
by a wide interval from the more scientific metrical theory represented by
Aristoxenus and the early metricists, although some survivals of the old and
genuine tradition mayeven here be recognized (cf. notes ση VII!. 9 sqq., ΙΧ. 2).
The period at which this particular treatise was written cannot be very
accurately fixed. The date of composition may have been Β. C., but it must
have been considerably later than Callimacht1s, fl·om whom a quotation is made.
Οη the other hand it cannot have been later than the end of the first
century Α. D. οη the ground of the date of the papyrus. The style is fair,
and shows care ίn the avoidance of hiatus. The treatise ίΒ addressed to a friend
(cf. Ι. 10, 111. 17), who is perhaps also a pupil (cf. χι. 16); and some rather
naive autobiographical details occur (V, VI).
Ν ot the least interesting feature of this MS. are the fragments contained
ίη it of unknown lyric poems which are quoted rather frequently ίη illustration
of the various metres discussed. The poets, citations from whom can be
identified, are Sappho, Anacl'"eon, Aeschylus, Callimachns, and Sotades. Alc-
man, Simonides, and Pindar are also mentioned by name. Of the unknown
quotations one or two are quite possibly from Sappho. Ιη the papyrus, qnotations
are always so written that they project slightly into the left-hand margin.
We are indebted to Professor Blass for much assistance ία the recon-
struction of this text, as well as for a number of valuable suggestions and

Co1. Ι. Col. Ι Ι Ι.

]~[ [π]εφυκοτω(ν ΎΊεινεσθα[ι

(κ)ατα προσθ[εσι]ν και κα
)ρ[. ]~( [τJa αφαιρεσιν [ου]τω 8η )
]TEee[lJ~ Τ[ [λΊον οΤι· και π(ο]σι και σχη

5 ]ι.ι •. ~ν • [ 5 μασι TOΙ~ αυTOΙ~ αμΦθ

]ον TLS' Xa![ [τ]ερa χρηται· 8ιο [και] κallων

]τον ιαμβο[ν [ο J αυTO~ εσται· κ[αι Τ)ουτου
] και τον 8ιβραχ[υν [κΊαι του φαλαικε[ ιο]υ· μο)
] χαριεν εστι [ [ν]η τη τελευταια συλλαβηι
10 ω] φιλτατε 8ια π( 10 [βρ]aχvτεΡΟS'· και Ύαρ κατα
]'!ατων 8ι8aχ[ [τηΊν πρωτην χωραν και
8]ειξω σοι παρα[ (το]υτο το μετροιι ΤΟΙΥ
] επομενην [ [8ισvJλλαβοιS' εναλλασ
τ]ην Χα/ραν τε[ [σεται)- και παντων με
15 ε]ν TOVTOlS'· 15 [τεχει] των τροπων ο
].ιεσ[.] θaκa( [POlroS'] και το νικαρχειοll·
[8ιοπερ] ω φιλτατε και συλ
[λαβ]ι.;t!~ ου Tαι~ 8εκ[α] J1:q
[vat]r χρη σεται [αλλα και
Co1. 11.
20 [πλ]εf[ο]σιιι· ω~ 1<[••1~~[..
] .
Co1. IV.

about 9 letters ]lIαιορ[

" " ]λοvr[

" " ]8εκ[

Co1. v. Col. νι.

'Ι' Jy ,l,O'UTO'U τον αλκμανα ιcα...
ιτον σιμω ]νι8η ιcαιτω

[ωο]μην Ύαρ ποτε πρωτοS' παιιτελωS' ϊιια 80ξ(αιμι τω

[ε]ξευρηκεναι τ08ε το οιιτι τηι πολει κεχα[ρισθαι



μει(ονων εν(. . . .. . .
10 [TO]V πρωτον [8ι]συλλαβον
Ι Ο λαβων ευλΟ'γον [δε παρα
[π]08α' και το καταλειπο )
λαβειν κανονα με [και κα
[μ]ενον πpoφεpoμενo~
ταθεσθαι τουτου ~[pOTε
[πο]ιησει~ τ08ε το μ[εΊ)
ρον τοιουτον·
[TPoJv oυTω~'
15 [.•..] παρθενον κορην·
[ει μ]εν ω φιλτατε σαφεΥ
[σοι] τ08ε το κωλον κα ι 5 το παρθενειο[ν καλου
[ταλ]ειπε· και μη 8ια πλε[ ι μεν ον μετρ[ον.....
[ονΊων σκοπει· μεταβα[ ι πιν8αpo~ κα[. .•.•...
20 [νε 8] ~~[ι] . ε . [. .]τιχον ) την πεμπτ(ην . • . . . . .

Col. ΧΙΙ!. Col. XIV.

] τουτο Ι!.[ . 8 (. .] . ν το 8ω8ε[ κ • . . . . .
τελευτ]αιαν συλλαβ(ην [ ] . . ιν~ . [ .
τ]ωι ΠΡΟΚΕιμ[ενωι [..•.. ~ .]α Toυ~ [..•...
JTl 80μoι~
[ [...•.] τριμετρο[ • •..•.
5 ]μετρωι' b[ 5 [ .•.••• •]qv τουτ[ • ..••.
]τ ο 8[ [.•••. .]α στυ')'εω[ • . . . . .
T]?7~ 'γαρ βρ[ αxεια~ (..... ]~
]~!!,q[ [ ••• ]Eω~ μεν ουν [.•....
~ ]~!Jr ~[ [περι τ]ου ασκληπια8[ειου
10 Ί(εν[ Ι ο [λεΥα/Ίμεν· τον 8ε (κανονα
]•• ωv( [.•• . ]ν η8η τουτο[ν κα
3 lines lost. τq.ΥRαφωμεv·
15 συλλα]βην ω[
]Rav ποιου(
TVJ--V Ι v--v Ι V[ - v-j
βραχεια]ν αντι μα[Kpα~ -1-
ι 4 [του ασ]Kληπ[ια]8~(ιoυ •.
Jf' σθεν κα[ι
4 1ines lost.
J 1!ροε ιεται ιf1ι. ωνη v
19 [.]ω[
20 ]00 8ε λεΥε[
] .. [

Frs. (α) and (b). Fr. (c)" Fr. (/).

JEpov YVOVf [ ]~l![

τεσ[ ]?7 Π [
Fr. (d). ]οχ[
5 τουί ]'!"ει·
8cο[ 5 ]ωί
σιιιί ]νειoι~ [
με[ .
Fr. (g)
Fr. (e)

Fr. (h).

The recto of Frs. (i) to (n) is b1ank.

Ι. There is πο
clue to the subject of this column.
, 10. Φιλτατε: cf. 111. 17, &c. Φιλία τε might be read.
ι ι. The first letter ma Υ be λ 01' μ.
16. T11is is a quotation ίn illustl'ation of what has preceded.
111. '. . . which are naturallJT produced by addition and by subtraction. 1t is thus
evident that both metres employ the same feet and arrangement. Accordingly the scheme
of this rnetre is the same as that of the Phalaecean, only shorter by the last syllable. Fol"
ίπ that metre also the feet of two syllables are interchangable at the beginning of the verse,
and all the variations open to the Nicarchean metre are shared by it. I-Ience, deal' fl"iend,
it ,νίΙΙ employ not only the regular ten syllables, but also a larger nUlnber.'
The Nicarchean metre, which is the subject of discussion ίn this column, is unkno\vn
from any other source. 1t is, ho,vever, Cleal" from the compal"ison with the Phalaecean
(cf. VIIl) that the scheφ.e was ~ v (also u u - ) - - u u - u - u - .
4. The punctuato1' read οvτω ~ηλoνόTΙ, which he took \vith what precedes. 1n the
absence of the context it is impossible to say that this may not be right; but, as the passage
stands, the punctuation fo11owed in the translation seems pl"eferable.
6. [και]: there is bal"ely l"oom for this supplement, but [ό] is not enough.
17. [διοπερ J: the supplement is a 1ittle long fo1' the lacuna, which five letters would
sufficiently fill.
20. [πλJEL[ο]σιν: i.e. eleven, by the resolution of the fi1'st long s)'llable into two short
ones: cf. 10 sqq.
v. 1-7. 'Ι once thought that Ι had been the first to discover this metre, and Ι prided
mγseΙf upon the discovery of a new metre. Ι suhsequently found that it had been used by
Aeschylus, and still earlier by Alcman and Simonides.'
Α t the top of this column an omission ϊn the text has been supplied by the corrector.
The place where the omission had occurred is mal·ked by the sign ίη the right margin
opposite 1ine 8, and the word ανω (' see above ') was ηο doubt written aboνe the line at the
precise point \νhere the additional wOl"ds were to be inserted, corresponding to the κάτω
\vith which they are concluded. This is the regular method ίη such cases; cf. ccxxiii. 83,
note and 126, Ο. Ρ. 1. χνΙ 111. 3"
ι sqq. 1t is impossible to tell what this metre was that the writer supposed himself to
have discovered. For the language cf. the lines of Phel"eCrates οη the invention of the
metre calIed after his name (Hephaest. χ and xv) tfνδριr, πρόσχιτι τδν Jιοϋν Ι Εξιυρήματι καινφ, Ι
συμπτύl<τοιr άναπαίστοιr.
νι. ' ... completely, ίη order to appeal" real1y to have conferred a faνour οη the city,
and to be an innovator as well. As it is, let my good ,,'ίΙΙ be made known ... '
τηι πολιι: Ιe. the town ίη which the ,vriter lived and which expected some noνelties
from its professors and teachel"s.
3. καιυ[οσσ]Φοr? cf. V. The compound is πο! found elsewhere.
νιΙ. 3-17. 'Of the Anacreontean metre this is a specimen : -
ν", - ν - ν - -
"Water bring and wine \vithal, boy."
, Μ any term this Parionic, because it appears to border οη the class of Ionic metres,
especial1y when it has the anapaest standing first and the trochee next, similarly to such
parts of Ionic νerses as these : -
vv - -vv--
"Unto Zeus, wielder of thunder.'"
2. Ιη the metrical scheme there are some slight traces of ink above and below a hole
ϊη the papyrus between the t,vo trochees. But they do not appear to represent a line of
division, \vhich ought to have been carried down to meet the horizontalline below. It may
then be assumed that the writer deriνed the Anacreontean νerse f1"Om the Ionicus α mαΖΌre
(cf. 7 sqq.), by cutting off the first and last two syllables from a series of three feet:
- - Ι u u, - ~ v v, - - Ι v v. For the admissibility of - u instead of v - ίn the
middle of the νerse cf. 12.
5. The quotation is from Anacreon (Bergk, Fr. 62. ι).
10. There is ησΙ room for [Εφ]άΠΤfσθαι.
17. Tbis is the latter part of a Sotadean verse (one of the forms of the Ionicus α mαΖΌre)
quoted by Hephaest. c. χι The complete line is «'Ήρην 'Ποτε φασιv ΔΙα τον τιρπιl<Ιραυνον.
νιιΙ. 'If from the first two feet all the component parts are removed, and on]y a
short syllable and the rest of the verse are left, this dimeter will be effected. For example,
these are Phalaecean verses : -
- - -- v v - v - v
"Lemnos, foremost, ίη olden time, of cities."
"Th~s ~ntr~at~d Ί ail th~ g~ds ~f he~v;n."
Η Fr~m Er~s wings Aphr~dit~ h-οιΎ g~dd;ss."
, Cut off the :first syllabIes from these Phalaecean verses, and the Anacreontean measure
\vill result, thus : -
"m~st, ~ld~n time, ~f cities.'"
'fhe Anacreontean metre, \vhich is the topic of the preceding co]umn, as well as of the
two co]umns fo]]owing, is here considered ίη relation to the Phalaecean..

Ι. Tη~ πρωτη~ διπo~ιας: the division of the Phalaecean verse here indicated is the same
as that of Hephaest. (c. Χ.) who describes the Phalaecean verse as a catalectic trimeter
\ ,
τη" πρωτην
(SC. συ~υΎιαν
)-.'):Ι ,~, \ ~ \ ιξ.... ~'λλ α~ ιαμ
αντισπαστικη" εχον, Tα~ υΕ Ε η~ α
~ β , l.e.
LKar, . -v -v - V,
V - V -, V - -. .

3. The metaphorical sense of πρΙσαι is curious. There is ηο alternative to the reading.

9-14. The source of none of these three quotations is known. The fact that the
third of them, which has twelve instead of eleven syllables, is given as an instance of the
Phalaecean metre, is remarkable. This is possibly due to confusion, which some suppose
to be the explanation of the statement (e. g. Caes. Bass. ρ. 258) that Sappho used the
Phalaecean metre, though ηο example is quoted from her poems. But the citation is rather
to be regarded as a confirmation of the view of Wilamowitz-Mollendorff, who considers
the Phalaecean to be an Ionic metre, and the forms - ~ -, v v - v, - v - - and
v v - -, v v - v, - u - . to be equivalent (MIlanges Wez'l, ρ. 449 sqq.). According to
Caes. Bass. ρ. 261 Varro called the Phalaecean verse Ionzcum /rzmetrum; and Synesius'
sixth Hymn offers an example of the mixture of Phalaecean and Ionic trimeters. Οη the
other hand this analysis does not agree with the scheme given by our author (cf. note οη
νιιΙ. ι), \vho makes ~ σ - v, nοΙ ~ v -, the firβt foot. But the inclusion of the
dodecasyllabic v v - - v v - v - v - - under the Phalaecean metre may be a survival
of older tradition similar to that noticed ίη ΙΧ. 2, note.
12. The. papyrus is damaged where a stop aftel' απασι would have been if it were
ΙΧ. 'Ιη an analogous and similar mannet· if from the Praxillean verse the first two
syllables are cut off, the Anacreontean metre will result; or to make a genel'al rule for this
case also, if all the sylIables of the first foot are removed except one short sylIable, the
metre will be produced ίη the same way. Take these lines, of which the first syllables
have been left behind : -
'" u - u - u-_
"Then appeared the moon uprising."
u u- u _ u-_
"From distress, and health's enjoyment."
uu- u-u - -
"May Ι fly, my comrades; youth's bloom." ,
, lt may be thought that catalectic iambic dimeters produce the same result ... '
Ι. Probably έπομέ]vωr.
2. πραξιλλειου: the scheme of the ΡraχίΙΙean metre is ~ - u v - v - u - - .
Hephaestion describes it (c. χΙ) as τρΙμετρα βραχυκατάληκτα, &τη" μΕν πρώτηυ ΙΧΕΙ ίωνικη" τη" ~E
~flJT;pav τροχαικήυ, and quotes as an example the verse of Sappho πλήΡηr μΕν έΦaΙΡΕΤ' ά σΕλάνα
which is also used as an illustration here (1. 14). Hephaestion's division of the metre is
therefore - - v u, - v - v, - - . Our author divides differently. Ιι is evident from his
description of the way ίη which the Anacreontean verse may be derived from the Praxillean
(11. 7-10) that he regarded the first foot not as ~ - v v, but as ~ - v. His division
therefore is ~ - v, u - v -, v - -. This Blass considers to be the true analysis of the
metre, and a remnant of the older metrical tι-adίtίοn. The same scheme may be applied to
such analogous metres as the προσοδιακόν: ~ - v, u - u - (~ - v v, - v - Hephaest.).
14. The quotation is from Sappho (Bergl\:, Fr. 53). The correct form έΦαίνετ' is found
ίn the better MSS. of Hephaestion (c. χί).
ι 5, 16. The source of these two quotations is unknown; they seem to bc from the
same poem, and are very possibly, like that ίn 14, from Sappho. Ιn 15 κύγίιιαιι must of
course be read for και VYEtaV. Blass suggests that this 1ine maΥ be completed :
[Ε"ρυκ'] &ιιίa" ΤΕ, κύΥίΕια"

and the next; [Υηρα"

[θανοίJσα φύΎοιμι πα'i8~r' ήβα
[κάλλιστον J.
18. ιαμβικων ~ιμεTpων ιcαTαληI<T.: the discussion of the relation of this metre (which is
also called Anacl"eontean, Hephaest. c. ν) to the Anacreontean is continued ίn the next
'-Ι- '" - V - -
Χ. 2-15. ' "Whoever is for fighting."
, If the first foot is made an anapaest the metre will be as folIows ;--
v \φι - ,",- V --

"80 the Lyctian Meneites."

\φι '-Ι- \φι - V - -
"But whoever is for fighting."
, For with an anapaest at the beginning these are equiνaIent to Anacreontean verses; but
when a spondee οτ rather an iambus is placed ίη the first foot they diverge mOI'e from
them ..• '
Ι. ΑΙΙ that remalns οΕ the fil"st letter of the line is a νertical stroke which may belong
Ιο Η 1 Ν ΟΤ Ρ. 1t may be infelTed from what foHo\vs that the quotation fl"om Callimachus,
ό Λύκτιοr Μevείτηr, had just pl'eceded; and ν[ειrηr] might be read here, though it is rather
long for the space. But ο λvκτιο!: μ~ would not fill a line, and it is the practice ίη this MS.
to begin a fresh line for each quotation. η [T6~ε] rnay be conjectured. .
2. The same quotation from Anacreon (Bergk, Fl.. 92. ι) is made by Hephaest. c. v.
6. Quoted from Callim. Epigr. 37, ι (Wilarnowitz, who reads Μεvοίταr). ~; is of
course inserted ίη order to make the first foot an anapaest.
14. πα[λι: the vestiges after π, which resemble a nearly hOl'izontal stroke, may be
the bottom οΕ a smaJl α, but this is quite uncertain.
ΧΙ 'Such as : -
"" '" - - \φι -
"Το endure this you are Eain,"
just as ΑeschγΙus ag-ain has itίn the Prometheus, thus;-
-v \φι _

evilly tongued."
" v v -
, If you would still like to have the case put briefly, cut off from the Cyrenaic measure
the 6rst foot of t,,,o syllables. Βγ producing the remainder you will construct this
metre, thus:-
- "" - v -
maiden still un,ved."
" v u
'lf now, dear friend, you understand this verse leave it and consider it ηο further; but
pass οη ••. '
The metre discussed ίη this column is v v - V ~ v -, which ίn col. ΧΙΙ is called
Parthenean, and is there treated as akin to the ΛOΎαOΙ~ΙKά (cf. Hephaest. c. νϊίί), the
scheme being u v -, \; ~, u -. Ιη this 11th column the same form is apparently con-
sidered under a different aspect, namely as a modification of the Anacreontean metre.
Here then the division wiB be different, v \..ι, - V ~ v, - ; this is the scheme of the
Anacreontean verse minus the final syllable.
ι. 1. TotJoVro.
2. It may be inferred from 3 sqq. that the author of this quotation, as of the next,
was Aeschylus.
3, 4· Εν τω προμηθεl. • . . αισxι{λo~: the quotation is not to be found ίη the Προμ. Δ~σμ.,
and therefore must come from one of the other plays οη Prometheus, the π. Πvρφόρο!:
(ΠVΡκuεύr) or Π. Αv6μενο~.
9. του KVpTJvaLI<OV: the scheme of the Cyl"enaic metre, it may be gathered from this
Ε 2

description, was u u - u v - v - v - ΟΙ" ~ - u v - v - u -, according as the τρισύλ­

λαβου of the corrector or the ~ισύλλαβoν of the first hand is accepted as the correct reading.
This metre is only known from the present passage.
15. u v J παρθενου κορην: this is apparently the latter part of a verse which had already
been quoted as an example of the Cyrenaic, metI-e. The author is not known. The
phrase παρθ;υo~ κ6ρα is used by Euripides of t11e Sphinx, Phoen. 1730 πaρθ'νου Kόpα~ αΊνΙΥμ.'
ασύνετον εύρών.
2 ο. There is not sufficient space for Επ' (Εφ') [lJTfp[ ον σ]τΙχον. The letter before Ε
is probably 'Υ, κ, π, σ, or τ.
ΧΙΙ. 'Α feature common to logaoedic verse. But we must now pass over the
characteristics common to 10gaoedic metres and to this, as they will be explained ίη the
following tl'eatise. Ι ,,"ίΙΙ now l'ather speak of the more important ... Ι may reasonably
first adopt and lay down as the formu1a of this metre the foll0wing: u u -, ~ v, u .~.. The
Parthenean verse as it is cal1ed is used by Pindar ...'
Οη the subject of this column and its relation to what has preceded cf. note οη ΧΙ
ι. 1. KOLJV&V.
XIV. 2. The traces suggest that the scribe wrote ]ωιvaηd then inserted a small σ
between ω and ι.
3. After Ja π was originally written, but the second vertical stroke seems to have
been subsequently crossed out.
6. This line apparently contained a quotation which was ended ίn 1. 7.
10. [κανονα: cf. ΧΙ!. ι Ι.
13. The scheme of the Asclepiadeus here given corresponds with that of Hephaestion
(c. Χ), who classes it under the 'Antispastic' metres, ί. e. those which employ the dipody
ofwhich the pure form IS u - - u. Cf. introd. and note οη VI!I. ι.
Frs. (α) and (6). The combination of these two fragments of which (α) contains
only the letters σ[ and ιc[, is rendered probable by the appearaηce of the papyrus.
Fr. (d), 2. This seems to be part of a quotation.


Plate νι (Col. Χ).

The following scholia οη the twenty-first book of the Ilz·ad are written οη
the verso of the preceding papyrus ίη a small, cratnped, informal uncial hand.
The date of the metrical treatise οη the recto, which is late first or early second
century, gives about Α. D. 100 as the terminus α qtto for the date of the scholia.
Οη the other hand we should not assign them to a later period than the end of
the second century. The writiηg presents much resemblance to that of the
Herondas MS. (Brit. Mus. Pap. CXXXV). Mr. Kenyon now (Palaeography,
ρρ. 94, 95) ascribes that papyrus to the first century or first half of the second.
We, however, are inclined to think a first century date improbable ίη the case
of the Herondas MS. Both it and the scholia are very like some of the semi-
uncial documents of the period from Trajan to Marct1s. The ιι -shaped η which
occurs ίη a correction upon the Herondas MS. (ορ. cit. ρ. 94) does not prove
much, for that form is quite common up to Α. D. 200, e. g. ίη ccxxxvii.
Points, breathings, and accents are sparingly used. Paragraphi (either the
διπλη or a straight line) often mark the conclnsion of a note. ι and V sometimes
have the diaeresis. Qnotations frequently project by the width of one letter
from the beginnings of the lίnes. There are a large number of corrections, many of
which are certainly by the original scribe, some not less ceι-taίnΙΥ are by a second
and probably contemporary hand, whiIe others cannot clearly be distinguished.
Despite these, several blunders (chiefly d ue to the confnsiOl1 of similar letters,
e. g. Η and Π) have been allowed to remain. Α note ίη cursive was added ίη
the margin above Col. XVII; the remarkable signature ίη a semi-cursive hand
between Cols. Χ and ΧΙ wi11 be discussed later.
Excluding the unplaced fragments, there are parts of seventeen columns, of
which four are practically complete while four others are fairly well preserved.
The papyrus is a portion of a ύπόμυημα or con1mentary οη Book χχί, perhaps
ση the whole Iliαd. Instances of a commentary upon a single book are
rare) thot1gh συγγράμματα οη special subjects are known. But considering the
Iength which this commentary οη Book χχί, if it had been complete, would
have reached, it is improbable that this roll at any rate included notes οη
another book besides; and there is, as wil1 be shown) some ι-easοn for supposing
that this commentary did not extend to other books of the Iliαd.
The first question which arises ίη connexion with these scholia) the date
of their compositionJ admits of a fairly definite answer. The date of the MS.
itse]f shows that they cannot have been compiled later than the second century
of our era. Οη the other hand, besides referring to the Alexandrian critics,
such as Aristal"chus, Aristophanes, Zenodotus, and others, our authot· quotes
Didymus and Aristonicus, who were Augustan, and Seleucns; who was probably
contemporary with Tiberius (see note οη XV. 16). But the great Homeric
critic of the second century, Herodian, who lived ίη the time of Marcus Aurelius,
is not mentioned, and it is a fair inference that these scholia are anterior to him.
The last half of tl1e first century Α. D. is therefore the period to wl1ich their
composition can with the greatest probability be ascribed.
The question of authorship is more difficult. It depends ίn the first
instance upon the view taken of the mysterious signature written at right angles
between Cols. Χ and ΧΙ, 'Aμμώυιo~ ' Αμμωυίου γpαμμαTΙKO~ έσημειωσάμην. The
natural meaning of this remal"k nndoubtedly is, ' Ι, Ammonius, son of Ammonius,
grammarian, made these notes'; cf. lVlarcell. vit. Thttcydz·d. § 47 άφ' ου δ
'Πο'λ εμo~ ηρςατο,
~ t ' ""
εσημειουτο \ λ'
τα εγομευα απαυτα
r! και
" τα πραττομευα
, • e. he pu t
( ι. th em

· h·lS
d own ιη ησ tes),"
ου μηυ κα'λλ ου) ε
Ι τηυ
" ι
αρχηυ, l.λλ'''\
α η "ι
του μουου "
σωσαι '"

σημειώσει τα πράγματα. f)στεροv οε ... συυ'ταξε μετα κάλλου) δι ~ξ ltpxfjs μόυου

~σημειoυ~o οια τηυ μυήμηυ, and the use of ύποσημειουσθαι ίη the same sense ία
Diog. ,Laert. ii. 48. If then Ammonius, son of Ammonius, was the author or
compiler of these scholia, can he be identified with any of the known grammarians
called Ammonius? The most famous of these was Ammonius, son of Ammonius,
the head of the university at Alexandria. He wrote a commentary ση the Iliad,
to which several references are made ία Schol. Α, and Snidas states διεο'ξaτο
τηυ σχοληυ 'Αριστ&.ρχου προ του μουαρχησαι του Αvγουστου; cf. Didymus οη IZ,iad Χ.
397. oιεo€ξατo ought to mean that Ammonius directly succeeded Aristarchus, who
died abont 146 Β. C., and thougl1 the phrase προ του μουαρχησαι του Avyovσrov
rather suggests that he may have lived ίη the first century Β. C., it is impossible
to identify him Witll the com?iler of our scholίa, who quot es grammarians
of the Augnstan age. Αη Ammonius who wrote scholίa οη Homer before the
end of the first century Α. D. is also known from the Brit. Mus. Odyssey
papyrus (CCLXXI), where some notes of his are adcled ίη the margin. It is possible
that he is identical with our author (but even the reading of his nam e, which ίΒ
always abbreviated αΡ, 'is not certain), or he may be identical with the successor
of Aristarchus. Α third Ammonius ίΒ the author of the extant lexicon Πεp~
οιαφορα) όμοΙωυ ρημάτωυ, the date of which is nncertain. Valckenaer assigned it
to the first century Α. D., but later critics suppose it to be a wol'"k of the Byzantine
age based οη first centul'"y materials (Cohn αΡ. Pauly E1ZCYCl. s. υ.). Both the
lexicon and our scholia quote the same grammarians, and it is conceivable that
the Ammonius whose name was given to the lexicon was the author of the
scholίa; but this too is the merest conjecture. It ίΒ moreover by ησ means
certain that the anthor of these scholia was called Ammonius. The occurrence
of a signature ίη the middle of a long book has ηο parallel, and ΩΟ obvious
explanation stlggests itself. The use of the first person ~σημειωσάμηυ would lead
us to think that the ιnanuscript, if not the original MS. of Ammonius hin1self, was
at least a copy made directly from the original. Bnt the existence at an Egyptian
country town of such a MS. of a work which, as will be shown, appears to have
played an important part ίη the history of Homeric criticism, would be most
remarkable. Moreover, not only is the signature ίη a style of a handwriting so
different from that of the body of the MS. that, though we are not prepared to deny
the possibility of their having been wl'"itten by one and the same person, appear-
ances are all against that supposition ; but the signature may have been added as
mucl1 as a century later, so far as palaeographical considerations are concel'"ned,
a fact which makes the insertion of a copy of the author's signature still more
inexplicable. One is tempted, therefore, to suppose that the meaning of
ισημειωσάμηυ proposed above is incorrect, and that the explanation of the term
is to be fonnd not ίη literary works or grammarians bnt ίη Egyptian documents.
σημειουυ is frequently found ίη Greek papyri; ίη Byzantine contracts it is "-
sometimes used ίη the signature of the scribe as a mere eqnivalent of iypJιprι
(cf. Β. G. U. 303, 310), but since the signature here is not apparently ίn the hand
of the body of the scholia, Alnmonius cannot be identified with the copyist.
Ιη the Roman period σημειουσθαι is commonly used (nearly al\vays ία the form
σεσημείωμαι, rarely εσημειωσάμηυ) for an official signature signifying appl-oval ; and
if εσημειωσάμηυ here does not mean 'made (these) notes,' it must mean ' signed,'
i. e. 'approved.' There is, ho,veνer, ηο pat-allel for such an imprimatur as
distinct from the signature of a corrector. There wonld be nothing strange
ίη Ammonius stating that he had revised the MS., cf. Reνenne Papyrus
Col. XXXVIII. 2 διωρθωσάμεθα έυ TOί.'~ 'Άπολλωυίου του διοικητου; bnt σημειουσθαι
can hardly be a mere variant for διορθουσθαι, and the identity of handwriting,
which we should expect οη this theory between the signature and the cot-rections
that are not due to the original scribe, is not appat-ent, though owing to the
paucity of the material for' forming a judgetnent it is impossible to speak
definitely. And eνen if ισημειωσάμηυ, means tl1at the mannscl-ipt had been
approved by Ammonius, it is still νery strange that the fact was recorded ίη
the middle of the papyrus.
We have now discussed the possibilities of Ammonius having been the
compiler, the scribe, or the ' approvet-' of the scholia. None ofthese explanations
is altogether satisfactory. There remains the heroic alternative of supposing
that he had nothing to do with it at al1, and that the signature is a mere scribble
without any connexion with the body of the papyrus, like the two lines which
fol1ow the extract from the Epistle to the Romans ίη ccix. Such a theory,
however, is unwarrantable, since fσημειωσάμηυ admits of at any rate two
explanations; and the accidental occurrence of a grammarian's signature ίη
a Homeric commentary, yet withont any reference to it, is very un1ikely. The
choice lies between Ammonius the compiler and Ammonius the approver, and
ίn spite of the difficulties which arise we prefer to suppose that Ammonius was
the compiler. That εσημειωσάμηυ can mean C made (these) notes' is certain, and
seeing that the term would apply to only very few literary compositions, whίle
the approνal of a grammarian might just as well be appended, if it eνer was, to
a manusςrίΡt containing verse or a συγγραμμ.α, the occurrence of ισημειωσάμηυ
ίη the sense of 'approνed' ίη connexion with a lllanuscript itself containing
notes implies an accidental coincidence which is hardly credible.
What is the relation of Ammonius (as we shal1 now call him) to the extant
scholia of the Iliad? These are diνided into two classes :-( J) the more

important, the scholia of the Venetus Α, which, according to the subscriptions,

were compiled from the commentaries of Didymus, Aristonicus, Herodian, and
Nicanor; (2) those of Schol. Β (Ven. 453), Schol. Τ (the Townley, i. e. Brit. Mus.
Burney 86), and Schol. Gen. (Genaνensis 44, edited by Nicole ίη 1891), which
haνe ηο subscriptions and differ material1y from Schol.. Α, especial1y ίη paying
less attention than the latter to qt1estions of reading and more to questions of
exegesis. Ammonius' scholia are earlier than the date of the composition of
Schol. Α, for they do not include, 80 far as we can judge, two out of the four
ingredients of those scholίa, νίΖ. Herodian and Nicanor. They' coincide with
Schol. Α οη some points, especially οη qllestions of reading; bHt this is natural,
since the other two ingredients of Schol. Α, Didymus and Aristonicus, were
known to Ammonius. That An1monius' scholia were a source of the νen. Α
scholia is rendered unlikely by the subscriptions of the Ven. Α; and though
Ammonius, so far as his scholia are complete, seems to have included notices of
the readings which ίη Schol. Α are excerpted from Didymus and Aristoniclls
as Aristarchean, there is not snfficient evidence to show that he was as full as
the compίler of the Ven. Α scholia οη pul·ely critical points. It is, therefore,
extremely improbable that Ammonitls' scholia are either a source or an earliet·
stage of the ν en. Α scholia.
The case is otherwise \vith tl1e second class of scho1ia, Scholl. Β, Τ, and Gen.
These coincide ίn a marked way with Ammonius, and the notes of Β and Τ often
seem to be an abbreviated νersion of our author. The agreement of Ammonius
with Schol. Gen. is even more conspicuous, because it is only ίη the twenty-first
book that the Geneνa scholia are clearly distinguishable, by much new and
valuable information, from Scholl. Β and Τ. Several remarkable notes ίη Schol.
Gen. ση Book χχί, e. g. those οη 195, 256, 282, 363, largely repl·oduce the scholia
of Ammonius. 1t is indeed a question whether the coincidence between Schol.
Gen. and Ammonius is not best explained by the hypothesis that Ammonius'
commentary was confined to Book xxi. Of the second class of scholίa, there-
fore, Ammonius seems to be a real source, though it is curious that he is not
referred to ίη them by name. But we must leaνe the discussion of this topic, as
well as that of the sources of those scholia which our author giνes οη his own
authority: to specialists; and we conclude with a brief summary of the most
important features of the papyrus.
We haνe here for the first time an almost contemporat·y specimen of a first
century commentary οη the Jlz"ad. The MS. of the ν en. Α scholia is eight
centuries later than the matel·ials from which ίι professes to haνe been compiled,
and it is impossible to be certain ho\v far corruptions and interpolations haνe
crept ία. The present papyrus can claim to be exempt at any rate from the
latter, and the statements which it makes concerning Homeric critics do not
admit of controversy.
Secondly, though, as has been said, owing to the elaborateness of the Geneva
scholia, our information concerning Book χχί is fuller than ίη the case of any
other book, and Ammonius' scholia therefore contain fewer novelties than
would have probably been tlle case if a commentary by him οη some other
book had been discovered, there are still a nUlllber of points ίη which he gives us
fresh information about the views of ancient critics and grammarians, or, what
is hardly less important, assigns a definite source to statements which were
previously anonymous. Alllongst these may be mentioned the excerpts from
Hermapias (ΙΙΙ. 17), Didymns (Χ. 12, XVII. 27), Dionysius Sidonius (ΧΙ. ι),
Protagoras (ΧΙΙ. 20), Seleucus (XV. 16), Crates (XVII. 30), the attribution of the
known variant ΠEλάσα~ for Υ' έλάσα~ to Aristophanes (Χ. 36), the notice of the
omission of v. 290 by the Cretan edition (XV. 27), and the new verse after
Book ίi. 848 which was found, if we accept the ingenious conjecture of Blass, ίη
the edition of Euripides (VI. 17).
Thirdly, our author frequently uses illustrations drawn from classical Greek
literature, some of which are new, e. g. the quotations from Hesiod (?) (111. 3), an
unknown epic upon Heracles (ΙΧ. 8), Pindar (VII. 6, ΙΧ. 11), Alcaeus (χι. 9),
Sophocles (ΧΙ. 13), and Aristotle's 'Απορήματα CΟμηΡικd (XIV. 30).
. Lastly, whatever view be taken of the precise relation of Ammonius to the
class of scholia t·epresented by Scholl. Β, Τ, and Gen., the authority of that class
is greatly increased by the pl~esent discovery. Hitherto those scho1ia have been
at a disadvantage compared to Schol. Α, owing to the absence of subscriptions
and the consequent nncertainty attaching to theil· materials and their date. It
is now clear that they are to a considerable extent based upon a compiler, who,
whether he was cal1ed Ammonius or not, lived as early as the first century Α. D.
and had an intimate knowledge of his predecessors ίη Homeric criticism and of
Greek literature ία general. For such statements as they make Scholl. Β Τ Gen.
are henceforth entitled to as much authority as Schol. Α.
The text of the scholia is printed after our nsnal tnethod except that, ior the
sake of clearness, the words or passages commented οη are printed· ίη capitals,
with the number of the line referred to ίη brackets at the side; capitals are also
used for the initialletters of proper names, ,vhich are here particularly frequent.
Owing to the unevenness of the hand, the number of lettet·s lost ίη the lacunae
cannot be gauged so closely as ίη most literary papyri. The schΌιia cover the
first 363 lίnes of the book. There are gaps sometimes extending to several
columns between 1-11, 11-111, VII-VIII, XIII-XIV, XV-XVI, χνι-χνιι.
We have followed ίη the notes the customary practice of referrjng to books

of the Ilt·ad and Odyssey by the Ietters of the Greek alphabet. Ιη the restoration
of the text we have once more to acknowledge our great indebtedness to
Professor Blass. Mr. Allen has also given us help οη various points.

Col. Ι.

]Τ~.ι?!lτ~e[. .'. ]t!~~OO[ (ι)
αναΥ]ινωσκειν Tινα~ οτΕ[8η
λε]ΥονταΥ TO~ δη ΕΠΙ[φερομενον
5 ] τω ·ο.τε χρονικω επι(
ε]rκλεινειν αυτον α[Υνοουσι δε
οτι το] δη ουκ εστιν αλλοιω[ σαι τον τονον
τινaΥ] των προηΥουμενω[ν ΠΟΡΟΝ οι (ι)
μεν τη]ν διαβασιll oμoιω~ τ[ω εν β και
10 Θρυον] Λλφειοιο πορον καθ(
]~ και ΠΟΡευτοr ο Λλφ[ EloS'

]αι Tar 8ί.)l!Τ~~ oιrαι l;t~[

Jev τω Ι!- οικτιστον [δη κε ινο ε

μοιS' ι 80] 11 οΦθαλμοισι παν[ των οσ

σ εμΟΥη Ίσα ΠΟΡουr αλΟΥ εξερε[ εινων
ΟΙ δε το Ρ]ευμα απο του εισ(
]. διαρρουν τουτ?[
ΠτοJλεμαιοr Λριστο[ φανηr ροον
]ρη ν δια του ij Υρα[ φε ι
20 ευρ]ηΟΥ ιν' fj απο ΟΡθηr [
]~y αΥνοει 8' οτι απ.[ Col. 11.
J<r~r και το ανεπτ[ υΥμενον
]ν μεν Υαρ συλλα[ ]σι[ (63)
ε]πι καθαρου του ?7[~ φυσι](ωοr [
] επι ΎΕvικηS' πα( ].eolS' α[
] δΙOTPEφεo~ θυμ[ oS' δε μεΥ(J,S' φυσΊι(ωον ετ[
Εστι 8ιοτρε ]φεοS' βασιληοr [ 5 Δ H]Θ€Λ€ ΘΥΜω [ (65)

περιεσ]πασμενη 8ε( παρατατι JK[ Ο JV ηυξηκ[ ε

]~ων τα 8ε απ[ ]ιν' ευλOϊ'ω~ [
]ενα ευφωνια[ ] και αλλω~ 8Ε(
]ον παρα το ηρ[ JTES' τελΕυται[
8]!0 φησιν ϊφ![ 10 ]τον Ύε χρονο(ν
]8ε το Kλεo~ ~ ] ΣrησΙXOpω [

Col. 111.

[...••. .8ει]λην μεν ώS' οι Λττι[κ]οι

[. . . . . . . . . •].σελαν οθεν 8ΙE~[ο]ν ιkη
[σιν Hσιo80~ εν] ϊ' Mαpε~ οσοι ναιουσι πελα~
[ΠΟΤΙ 8ειελ]ον aVTOS' δΕ 8ειελ~1( Φρυ
5 [vtx0S' ο Tpay]tKOS' εν ΦοινισσαιS' 8ειλη
[. . • . . . . . .]roT1JTL 8εειλην ~~λειo
[. • • • . • . . .]!ων av8per εΚΤΕινοντο
[.••.••.. .]ην ES' 8ιελην TαυTη~ δε
[το μετα μεση]μβριαν καταστημα 8ει
10 [λην πρωια]ν λεΎουσι οι Αττικοι το 8ε
[περι 8υσι]ν ηλιου 8ειλην οψιαν αυTO~
[8ε και 8ειε]~~S' ει~ ο κεν ελθη δειελo~ οψε
[8υων σκιασ]η 8 εριβωλον αρουραν Ι:O~ τήν
[εσπεραν] εσπερον τρισι 8ε 8ια[σ]τημασιν
15 [την ημερΊαν περιωΡΙΚΕ[ν] ηοι μεση ημε

[ρα 8ειλη] ΑΡΗ τω σι8ηρω [οι] 8ε τω !'f!'!U

[.•. .ΕΡμα]πιαS' 8Ε περισπαι ϊν [ηι] #λα
[βη βελουr] η 8opaTor Η Or€ ΔΟΥΡ[Ι ΒΑΛ]ωΝ
[Η ΑΠΟ N€YP]HΦΙN οί'ίcτω πεπεισ[ται Υαρ]
20 [ΟΤΙ συστ]α8ην αυτον oυ8ει~ α[νελε]ι
[ταυθοι Ο epJαtE βαρυτονει το Υαρ [π]ερισπαν
[Tη~ νεωTε]ρα~ Ϊα80~ οι ,δε δια το(υ] ~εK'
[ •• ι ••• • J.TO ΕΚ του εllταυθα [πα]l?α

25 [•••••• •]τηS' ΕΚ του ειιταυθ[ι • •]. την

[••. .πεΡιJσπωμενην ΎΕΎ[ . • .].α!α
[. • • • • • •Ί~ δε Λ ττικον φη[. . . •Ίστον
[.••. ησο] 8ιατριβε εαν δ~ [•••• ]!] εισ (ι 22)

[.•.••...] μεταφραστεο[ν . .•. .]q

30 [. • . • • . . . ]σο Λριστονεικ[οS' ... tJ~Ov
[σι • .. ΙΧΘ]ΥCΙΝ ΟΙ C ωΤ€IΛH[N ••••• ].
[••••••• •J~tS' ΑΙΜ' ΑΠ[Ο]Λ[ΙΧΜΗCΟΝΤΑΙ
[..•.••• α]πολειχε[ιν. .......•.
[••••••• Α]ΚΗΔ€€[C • • • • • • • • • • • •
35 [. . . . . μη Φ]Ροντι(ο[ντεS' •.....•.

Col. IV.

/ σω[ ΘΡωcκωΝ TIC

Ae[tUTapX0S' υπο την φρικα αιξε)! των
!χ[θυων TtS' κατα το κυμα κολυμ]βων
[OS' φαΎΟΙ αν τον AVKaOJIOS' δημον π]αν
10 τ[ωS' Ύαρ ε8ει τον μελλοιιτa του υΊπο
φε[ρομενου νεκρου απτεσθαι ι]χθυν
α~[ω μετεωρον •.. υπο την φρικ]α ελ

θε![ν 22 letters ]τΙ

ι.[ 23 " Ί~πa
15 '[l![ 23" ]r δια
το[ 23" ]ειον
κε[. . .J'Ta[ ]Η " ]πωS'
καθαπερ ε[ 17 " ].l!!
οπισθεν ω[ 17 " Ία
20 τρια λoυT~[ 14 ." εν τ]η 8

τηΥ 08υσσ[ειαΥ ΟΥ κεν ΤΟΙ 8ειξησιν 080Jr

και μετρα [κελευθου εν 8ε Tαι~ Αρισταρ
χεΙΟΙΥ υπ( αϊξει 12 letters ΕΥΕΎρα
πτο και τ[ 20" υπα
25 ϊξει αιcoυί ει 20"
ποτνια [α]ί 13 " ΦιληταΥ
8ε υ(παλυξει . •.•..•.• •φησιιι οτι
ίχθ[υΥ Ο ΦαΥων τον ΛυκιιονΟΥ 8ημον
πεΙJ!{ελωδηΥ Ύειιoμενo~ το ι<ρυ

30 [ε]Υ φε[υξεται αΥιιοει δε οτι το 8ια

νεστ[ηΚ'ΟΥ τηΥ θαλαττηΥ ΕπιποληΥ
ου το κ[ρυΟΥ Φησιν ΟμηΡΟΥ φρικα
ωΥ δ ο[θ υπο φpικo~ βορεου ανα
παλλ(εται ιχθυΥ τηΥ επιτρεχου
35 σηΥ κα[τα την θαλατταν προ τηΥ
του Χ[ ΕιμωνΟΥ εμβοληΥ

Col. v.

] • • • lf,!~f
]!1! [ωc] ΑΡ €ΦH (J3 6) ]. τουτου
ΚΗ]ΡΟ[θΙ] ΜΑΛΛΟΝ 10 ]νaυ8η
]κι[.] μαλι ]KafOY
5 ]~~ ανf!ι~ ]εκα
] ανηρη ]8 η8η
] ιστορου ]αρ
]φανον 15 ] πολ

Col. νι.

[•••••••••••••] • ΙPf[. • • • · • • • • • • •
[. • • . • . • . .]~[. •]ειπη~![. • . . • . . . .
[•••••• ]ι;t ΙΠΠΕυ$ εν τω [.••..•.•

[.. ιστορ]ησεν οτι οι Tα~ r[ .

5 [••....] λεΥου[<!ι]ν αυτο[ν] κα! [ .
[. . . . oπ]~α αυτου 8εικνυουσ[Ι .
[•••• •]f.lero~ απο Tη~ υλη~ τη[. ~ •.•

[.•... .]~!Jnησοv προσω κ[..]η[. •...

10 [€CTH €X]ωN ΔΥΟ Δ[O]YP€ 8ιειλη[πται
[. • • • • •]?1 τα . . rqVOy ωΥ φη[ σι
[••••• €π]€1 K[€]XOΛ[ω]TO ΔΑΙ K[TAM€ (146)
[ΝωΝ ΟΤΙ ε]λλει[π]ει η περι και rι[ . •.•
[•••..• α]νηρημενων ο μεσΟΥ [..•.
15 [. . . . .] ΔΟΛιχ€[r]Χ€ΑC ~ελευKO~ [προπα (155)
[poξυν]~! HΔ€ Δ€ ΜΟΙ ΝΥΝ Ηωc €NΔ[€KATH (ι 55-6)
[ΟΤ €C ΙΛΙΟ]Ν [1:f]€IAHAOyeA εν τη κατ Ε[υρι

[πι8ην και] εν τισιν αλλαι~ και 8ια[κοJιrJ!ιo/ lf

[.•..• A]σTεpOπαιO~ OVTroS' αυ[τα]ρ Πυρaι
20 [χμηΥ] αΥε ΠαιονaΥ αΥκυλοτοξου(Υ] Πηλε
[yovo]5' θ υιo~ ΠΕρι8εξι[ OS'] Αστεροπ[ αι ]05'
[... .]ro~ Υαρ αυΤΟΥ απο του 8ιακ[οσμ]ου
[και ΕΙ] μ'!l παρα8εχοιτο ΤΙΥ τον [8] [ε]ν Βια
[κοσμ]ω περι αυτου στιχ[ον] ου8εν K~~υει
25 [ενα !ω]ν επι μερουΥ ηΥεμονων αυτ[ ον] ~I'

[τα μη] ωνομασ[θ]αι καθαπερ ~[x]txL[oJν %χε

[8ιον ΦοJιvικα Πατροκλον Αρτιλοχον
Τ( ευκρο ]1" ΟΥ και υπ αυτου του Α Υαμεμνο
vo[s' π]ροσηΥορευται καθα κα(ι] lσTpo~
30 φη[σι] ΤευΚΡΕ φιλη /(εφαλη ΤελαμωνΙΕ

Co1. νιι.

[. · · · · · · ~ · · · · · · · · · · · · .Jar[. • · · · ·
[••••••••••. •]~~ι • [•••] • ar[. .. .' ..

[. · . · ...• αμφο]τερα[ ]~ χεο[ .

[••••••••••] • σT~~[ .•J?va[• .•..•
5 το 80ρυ Ovq-[. ]~~! • t;t[. ]~να~[. . . . . .
ε!' Παρθενειοι, πα[ιr 8] Αστερ[οπαιου 'Υε
e v
Υενημαι or π~[.] : ια • [.. ]aS' αμ[φοτεραι
σι [~]εpσι ριπτεν και [• .]~If[ • .•.•..•
f! 8ε χαλκεΟΙΥ ~paU!-'[ . . . . . • . . . . . . . .
10 "!εη[r] χωμοπτqλι[. . , . . . . . . . . . . •
μαχαι θαυμαιιιετ. [. • . . • . . . . • . . . .
λεα/ν ϊεντα ρομ[βον βαλλει 8 αμα αμφο
τεραΙΥ την 8 ασπι[8α απεβαλεν ο
τι 8υσχρησΤΟΥ εν [υ8ασιν . . ... •. . . .
ι 5 και Tαξ~ •• ν ~'!ι! ~[••••••••.•.•••
οθεν και εν τω αΥω[νι . • . . . . το τε
ΙιΦο[r] αυτου τιθησι[ν] [ο ΑχιλλευΥ ....
καλ[ο Jv θρηκιον κ[ αι τον θωρακa . . .
ω π( ε]ρι χευμα φα[ εινου κασσιτεροιο
20 αμφ(ι]8ε8ε[ι]νη[ται .

Col. νιιι.

]~ 5 ]l!! ]
] ]!'ν 10 ]ε

]rvv ]r ]
). ].σ ]

Col. ΙΧ.

σαν τα![ • •.]. ~~[..]. 7!αιr[• •] [.] κατελεξα
Λxε~ω[ιoυ] αΡΥυροδ[ι]νεω ε, ου πασα.
θαλασ[σα κ]αι ΜεΥακλει8ηΥ 8 [eJv ii πε
ρι Ομη[ρο]υ Υραφει ποιον ρειθρο[ν] μει(ον

5 Α χελω[ ι ]ου εξ ουπερ πανTε~ ποτ( α]μοι ο

μεντ[οι Υ] Apισταpxo~ Ομηρικον avr[oJv
αποφ[ αιν]ει τα Υαρ ρευματα ε-ξ ωκεαν[ ο Jv
ειναι [~ελ ]eVKOS' δ εν ε [Ηρ ]ακλειαS' π~[ S'
δ επορ[ ευθ]?7S' ρευμα Α[χ ελω JLOV αΡΥυ[ρο 1
10 8ινα ωκεανου ποταμο[ ιο δι J eVpEOS' υΥ[ρ]α
κελευθα τουτο δε εμφαι[ νει Jv και Πιν
δαρον λεΥοντα τον αυλητικον κ[ α]λα
μον Α χελωιου κ[ρα Jvav τ[ ο Jv υ8ατο[ S'
προσθα μεν !σ Α χελωιου [τ Jov αοιδ[ οτα
15 τον ευρωπια κραναν ελ[ lKO]S' τε π[ οτ]α
μου ροαι τρεφον καλαμ[ ον ε JreproS'
Υουν λεΥειν ωκεανου πε[ δ]~ κρανα[ν
πολλουS' τε προ ΔημητΡΟ[S'] θυειν Α
χελωιωι οτι παντων πο[ τα ]μων ονο
20 μα ο Α χελωιοS' κα[ ι] εξ υδα[ TO]S' καρποS'
ΕφοΡΟS' δ' εν β [φησι] το εν Δωδωνηι μίαν
τιον σχεδον εν απασι ,.,OtS' ΧΡησμοιr
προσταττε[ ι Ίν Α χελ[ ωι Jrot θυειν οθε[ν
TOVS' ΕλληναS' παr[τ]~[.J Πf!r~l!ον
25 νομι(ειν Αχελωιον ΚΑΙ ΦP€IATA ΜΑ (197)
ΚΡΑ NAOYCI Ν ΟΤΙ αντι του ναει ρει μα

κρα δε αντι του βαθεα ΤΟΝ M€N [ΑΡ €Γ (203)

Χ€ΛΥ€C T€ ΚΑΙ ϊΧΘΥ€C ισωS' οτι [μαλι
στα σαρκοφαΥουσιν αι εΥχελvεS' [κατ] ε

30 ξοχην ειρηνται και ελλειπε[ ι J το α[λ

λοι ϊν' ηι και ο[ι] αλλοι ϊχθυ[ eJS' ομοι[ ω]S'
τω τη μεν τ ουδε ποτητα [πα ]ρερχ[ ε
ται ου8ε πε[λ ]εια[ ι] τρη[ρω ]ν[ ES' ισωS'
δ' ΟΤΙ εll ί-λ!J! ε[ι]σι και σαΡΚΟ[S' ανθρωπει
35 ου λιχνευονται η κεχω[ρικεν απο

τ[ω Jv ιχθυων οτ[ ι οJVTE [εξ 0XELaS' Υινον

τα[ι] καθα Φησιν ΑΡ[ι]στ[οτεληS' ουτε
(ωοτοκουσιν ουτε [OopLKovS' ΠΟΡΟVS'

Co1. Χ.

ουτε υσTεPΙKoυ~ εχουσιν αλλ' εκ των

καλουμενων Ύη~ ενTερ[!~]ων η~ α[υ)'το
μαται συνιστανται εν τω πηλω και εν

τη γη τ(η J ενικμωι (ωσι δ[ε κ]αι τρεφον

5 τ[ αι] ομβ[ριω] υ8ατι εν [T]aLS' γουν τελματω
8εσι λιμ[ναι JS' του τε [υ ]aaTOS' παντοS' Ε
~αναλω[θε]νTO~ και του πηλου εξυσθεν
r[O]S' Ύεινονται παλιν οταν υδωρ γενη

ται ομβριον εν TOLS' [λ]υχμοιS' ου Ύει

ι ο 1Ι0ντaι ουδ εν TaLS' atapevovuaLS' λι
μllαιr Εν δε τω ( φησιν αυτον λε
γειν Δ~9!lμοs apaprvpror οτι και αλ
ληλοφαΥΟll εστιν και ΟΤΙ (η ""( και η
ε( τΊη- εστ! δε και μoνoyενε~ παλιν
15 ου το μεν αρσεν το δε θηλυ και εν τω
αΥορανομικω δε νομω Αθηναιων
διεσταλται εΎχελυων τελη και ίχθυ
ων A[M]Φ€Π€N[O]NTO περι αυτον εΥΙ
vo(vJTO evePOYOVVTES' προαllαπεφω
20 lΙηκε δε το τριτη ημερα εσομε1l01l
οτε εμελλεν επιπλειν η τοτε εκει
το εν TatS' appolS' αι εΎχελvεS' ηδη αυ
του ησθιον ενδυουσαι ΔΗΜΟΝ €P€
25 οτι η ΠΕΙ ι]μελη [πε Jpt rovS' νεφροvS' εστι
το 8 ερεπίτ]ομε[νο]ι σ Kληρω~ επι των
ιχ θυων κειται επει γαρ τ[η]ων τη
γλωσση λαμβανοντων απο τηS' epaS'
το ερεπτεσθαι K~LPOlITES' δαπανων
30 TES' M€TA nAIONAC· επι llalovaS' AN€
ρ[ι] €ΙΔΟΜ€ΝΟC κ[αι A]ptUTαpxoS' 8txroS'

Eιδoμενo~ κ[ αι] εισαμε[v]οS' Π€P[I] M€N

KPAT€€IC πεΡ[ι]σσα/S' 8ε [ισ]χυροS' ~? ΑΙ
CΥΛΑ av(oJpa· και π(αρα) καθηκον
35 ~~ [€]M€Θ€N Γ €Λ~CΑ[C συν] Τα/ Ύ· παρα
[8]ε APΙ~Toφανει πελί ασαr] Π€ΔION
[Κ]ΑΤΑ M€PM€PA P€[Z€ τα] μεΡιμνηr

Ιη the margin between Cols. Χ and ΧΙ at right angles

AI+μ.ωp~o~ Αμμωυιου ypαμμαTΙKO~ εσημΕιωσαμηι'

·'Co1. ΧΙ.

αξια κακα €PAT€INA [P€]€ΘPA ο ~L8rovtor (218)

φησιν οτ[ι] Ο πο[Ι ]ητηr εξε[ΠΕΊσεν ELr την
8ιηΥη[μ ]ατικην κατασκ( ευ]ην μι μη
ΤΙΚα/ν OνT~': Τα/ν λΟΥω[ν οι] 8ε τα φυ
5 σει [κα]ι προ Tη~ παpαΠOTαμια~ μαxη~
ερατεινα OYΔ€ ΤΙ ΠΗ ΔΥΝΑΜΑΙ π[ρ]ο
N€[ K]Y€CC Ι στενοχωρουμ[ evo]S' παρα
[τ]Ι:!lΤ[ α] ΑλκαιοS' στενω /f[ αν] 'Ειανθα/ ρ[ ο
ιΟ [OS'] ε~ θαλασσαν ικανε και εν 08υσσεια
α[ ι Jta κε τοι τα θυρετρa και ευρεα περ
μαλ εοντa ΦΕυΎονΤΕS' στεινοιτο ου
Χ roS' ~οφοκληS' στενα(οι νεκυεσσιν υ
πα νεκυων ΑΙΔΗΛω[.]c αφανισΤΙΚα/S'·
15 €ACON αι Αριστaρχιοι ovrroS' ινα Το συ
νηθεS' ημιν ηι οι δε αντι του χορτα
ιr~?ΊTΙ παρα το αιμαrοS' ασαι Αρηα ου
Ι( ~υ αση πλησμονη €KTOPΙ Π€IPH (225)
ΘΗΝΑΙ αντι του EKTOPOS' €Γω Eror περα (226)
20 [α]TOS' εξ evaVTlαS' πολεμησαι ω ΠοΠοl (229-32)
πεΤ€ΛΛ€ τρωcι nAP€CΤAM€NAI ΚΑΙ Α


2.1 αποτεινεται επι τα Koινα/~ ειρημε

να πpo~ πανTα~ αμφοτεροισι 8 αρη

Υεθ' οπη νoo~ εστιν εκαστου ει Υαρ Α
χιλλευr oιo~ επι ΤΡα/εσσι μαχειται
ουδε μινυνθ' εξοvσι π08ωκεα Πη
3") λεία/να [(8ει8ω μη και Tειxo~ υπερ)]
αυξηTΙKω~ συν ειρηκεll σ ΠOTαμo~
η κατα το σΙα/Πα/μενσν σιητεσν

τηίll] ε[.]lΙτί οJληv ΥεΥενησθαι οθεν

/και αυταρ Απολλα/ν OLOs εδυσετο
35 (Ιλ)ιον ιρην βεμβλετο Υαρ οι TEΙXO~
ευ8μητοιο π[οΙ[8]ηοr ειρυσαο πpo~ σε
αυτον εποιη[σ Jw εφυλαgα~' σ~ς' τοι o~
σοι· δειελο!: οψε 8υων 8 ο[ τι αν JTL του

Col. ΧΙΙ.

8ε(ιλη apueVlKroS' roJ~ θυρεον μεΎαν αν

![ ι του θυραν. . . . . J'ro δε ο δειελοr κατα
[. . . . . . . . . • .απο ] Tη~ ( ωpα~ εκεινη
(μ]εχ[ρι της .. δεκα}rης' αυτη δε οψια ΚΡΗ
5 ΜΝΟ[Υ ΑΠΑΙΞΑC αφ]opμησα~ (aJ7TO του κρη
[μΊν(ου Ο Δ €nECCY]TO ΟIΔΜΑΤI ΘΥιωΝ δυ
.[• • 8 ••• , •• Axι]λλευ~ εφορμησαι
-r[ • •••• • , •• •ποJταμου ενθουσιων
~[ •••••••• AAIC αJeporor χεΡCΟΝΔ€ Tovr
Ι ο ~~[. ].!'.ί. .V€KpovrJ ELr το πε8ιον ε
KTOr !αίυτου εξεβ]q,λλεν: ΖωΙΟΥC Δε (Α


NHCI ΒΑ[Θ]€[ΙΗCΙ οιοΊν εν κολπω τ!νι υ8α
TO~ ror επι τ( fJr Τυρ ]oυ~· πορφυρεον 8 α
ι 5 ρα κυμα πε(ριστaθ)η ουρει ϊσον κυρτω

θεν κρυψε[ν 8ε θεον] θνητηll τε Υυναι

κα τρια H~[Ι (011 η κατ α]ν8ρa Toυ~ νεKpoυ~
Εκβαλλει τ[ ovs- (ωνJTa~ σω(ει πpo~ Λ
χιλλεα [μαχεται] Δ€ΙNON Δ Α[Μ]Φ ΑΧΙΛ


Tαyopα~ φησ( ιιι πpo]~ το 8ιαλαβειν την
μαχην το ε(πεισο J8tov ΥεΥονεναι το Ε
ξ?1~ T!Jf Ξα[νθου κα Jt θνητου μαxη~ Ι 11'
ELS' την θεομ[ αχια]ν μεταβη ταχα 8ε
25 ίνα και T~!, [Axιλ]~ε[α] αυξηση και ΠΡf?
κατα των ?1[. • . • • • • .] TOΙ~ κιν8υ
1I0Ι~ τωι ησ~[ . . ~ . . . . ]s- καταλαμ
βανοντα το(. . . . . . επ]η8α 8ε ου
/( εν τω ριθρω [ετι αλλ εν τ]ω πε8ιωι· Ο


8Ε αρματι ο!'[ /( ην χρησθαι] Μη καθαπερ
Εν ικτηι τω [αρματι ΚΙll8]υνευση υπο
συρεντων τω(ν ιππων . . . . ]~ /(αι του πο

35 ταμου θασσ[ ον . . . • ] ηφανι([ον]

το η αΥω!,[ια JEl κιν8υ
νου ο ~y~[ν ] ~II 8ε τω το
νωι ~[• . . . . . . . . . . •]εστησε τον

Col. ΧΙΙΙ.

The first five lines begin ή, ,[, 0[, 8[, ~~. τη~ r(
6 8ε[.]πη~[ αllΕ
8υσετο λι[μνηS' Ε8υ
[ι]σετο πελ(
α/r Ε/( λιμ!'[ ηS'
10 τaι ωr εll .[

η[ Ι]~Eιι ΠΕδ[ΙΟΙΟ ΟΤΙ ΕλλΕΙΠΕΙ η 8ια ποσι

/ κραΙΠJιοισ[Ι ΠΕτεσθαι
μEΙΙO~ κατα τα [ακρα

15 τ[ • ••] τα Υαρ Υα[

Εαλ • σι αφ[ε]α[
τυΦλο[ν] ΕΚ YE[ΙΙETη~
V8αTqf [.] ••• [
20 του κα[τα TOV πολΕμοιι ΕΡΥου Αριστοφα
νηr 8[ Ε ΦΟΙΙΟΙΟ •••••••.• OCON Τ επι
THPOC [ μΕλαναr οφθαλ
25 μoυ~ [ExovTor
8~ι o~[
30 ηται κ[ AρισTOTEλη~
ροιι Φ(
και Ke[ αTισTO~
35 κη K~[. . • . . . . . . καλΕιται 8ε με
λαιι~[ ETOr και λαΥωφονοr εΚΤρΕ
ΦΕΙ 8ε[ μoνo~ τα ΤΕκνα OυTO~ και Εξα
ΎΕΙ Ε[ στι 8ε ωKυβoλo~ και Ευθημων
και α[ φθονοr και αφoβo~ και μαχιμοr.

Col. XIV.
[..•.•••] §ιηρησθαι καθ οιι λΟΥΟΙΙ TQ

[. • • • το μ]~!' Ε 8ασυντεον το 8ε α
[ψιλωτεοJl] απο ταυτου 8' ειρηκεν

[ον ρα τ ειια]υλοr αποερση χειμωιι[or]t

5 [περωντα] και Ηρη 8ε[ι] με αϋσε περι
[8εισασ Αχι ]λληι μη μιιι απορσειε με
[yaS' ΠΟταμΟ]r βαθυ8ινηr και ερσαιι
[καλει 8ροσ]ον και xroptr 8 αυθ' ερσαι ει
[σι Υαρ αι α]παλαι και 8poσω8ει~ ΚρατηS'
10 [8ε ειλθε]ντα ϊιι' ηι ερχθειιτα και την
[εξουληS'] 8ικηιι ειιτευθεν εκτιθη
[σι 8ε και ~]ολωιιοS' εκ € agOlIOS' εξου
[ληS' εαν Tt]S' εξει!λλπι ων εαν 8ικην
[νικηση οσ JOU εαll αξιοll η EtS' 8η μοσι
J5 [ον οΦλε J!lI και τω ϊ8ιωτη εκατερω
[ισον €NAYAJOYC xtpappOVS' roS' Αρισταρ
[X0S' ρεων] ~ιι παραμηκεσι ΤΟΠΟΙS'·
[. • • • • • • • • •]VES' αι εν ΤΟΙS' αυλωσιν
[. . • . . . . . . .] αvλωνεS' οι σΤΕνοι και ε
20 [πιμηκειS' ποτα]μοι ο 8ε Θραιξ τα κοιλω
[ματα εξ ων α]ι EK[.]p[O]VUEtS' των πα
[ταμων πεπλ ]?Ίνται και εμπινπλη
[θι ρεεθ]ρα v8[a]TOr [ ..] εκ πηΥαιων

[παν ]raS' 8 ,οροθυιιειι αυλοvr a!J

25 [λοS'] παν το στΕινον εισ~ ουν '!1
[. . . . . ]εισlf~ ατε στεΙΙ~!Jμεν[.] T'!1f
[••• ].ροισμα χεlρι Δ€ χεlΡΑ [Λ]ΑΒΟΝ (286)
[Τ€C] €πιcτωCΑΝΤ' En€ECI 8ια 8ε
[ξιαS'] πιστιν εποιησαντο τω!' λα
30 [Υω]ν ΛριστοτεληS' 8ε μη βοηθη
[σαι] avrovS' Αχιλλει οτι ΗφαιστοS'
[αντ]εΤΕτακτο τω Ξανθω aτοπον
[•.••] Λινεaν σευεσ~,!-~ προσητ'!1.
[•• •]ν TOICI Δ€ ΜΥΘωΝ Ηρχε πο
35 [C€IΔ]ΑωΝ €[Ν]οclχeωΝ στι Ποσει

Col. XV.
[8Jro[vo~] κa(ι) Aθηνa~ κa[ι] α~[λων
~[η] οντων TOΙ~ ειπεν ω~ K~[ ι
Εν 08υσσΕια ΕΠΙ Kαλυψoυ~ κ( αι
08vuueror τοισι δΕ μυθων η[ΡΧΕ
5 Κaλυψω δια θεαων ΜΗ Τ ΑΡ ΤΙ Λ(Ι
ΗΝ TP€€· μη υποχωρει ZHNOC €ΠA[I
Ν Η αθεΤΕιται ΟΤΙ ονομα ουκ ει
ρηΚΕν ονομα του θεου αλλ ΕΥα/
10 μεTaβεβληKω~ την ϊδεαν
ει~ αν8ρa [κ]αι Υ[α]Ι? ουί<ά8ε κα,τα
την αφο80ν σημεΙα/ επιφaνει
ΤΟIl Λχιλλεa ΕθαρσυνΕν ου8ε '$κα
μαll8po~ εληΥΕ το 011 μΕvοr αλλ ε
15 τι μαλλοll χωετο ΠηλΕιωνι
πpo~ τaυτα λέΥΕΙ '$EλευKO~ εν τω Υ
κατα των Λρισταρχου σημειων ΟΤΙ
αν8ρασιν ωμοιομΕIΙΟΙ oμω~ κατ α
ή ο σι ]ωπωμενοll δια τη r 8εξ ιωσε
20 ω[ r] ΙΧllη του θεου εΙlΙαι παρεχοll
[τ]aι [ε ]πει πωr ειρηκασι r[ οι]ω Υαρ ΤΟΙ
ιιωι θΕωll Επιταρροθω (Ειμ]εν
και (υ)πο Διo~ 8ε κατα το σ(ιω]Πα/με
1Ι0ν επεμφθησαν εν [8]ε τω ~

25 των 8ιορθ[ ε]ΤΙ/(α/ΙΙ ο αυTO~ [α]θετε[ ι

συν Totr Ε~ηr β (or πεpισσ~[ V]f ου
J( Ειναι 8ε ου8 εν τη Κρητικη πα
ΤΑΜω ΤΕ υπο του ποτaμου ΛωΦΗ

CEI εll8ωσει απο των τουΥ λοφουr .

30 TOυ~ Tpαxηλoυ~ υποτιθεντων
(ωΙα/ν TEror Υαρ (υyoμaχoυrι

'Τα Εν8ι8ωσιν (ευχθεντα και

ο Kαλλιμαxo~ ηλθεν. ο βoυ~
v[π α]ροτρον εKoυσιo[ν]~ π[... ]Νωc

Co1. XVI.
καθηρει κα[τεβαλλε και 8aσυνεται
ΠToλεμαιo~ [την παρατελευ'Τον περι
σπαι ΟΤΙ παν[τα τα ει~ ων ληΥοντα

5 ΕΠΙ παρεσχα[τ
~oν φασιν ΟΤ[ ε
τακται το ϊ κ[
κον νυν αλλ[
[.]o~ αυτου ~α[
10 το eιrxa[To1r [. . . . . . . •ορσεο κυλλο
πo8ειo~ βελ[τιον αθετειν 'Τον στιχο"
ου8ετερω Υα[ρ πpεπoνTω~ αλλα

ακ[. .]atroS' τ[ο επιθετον κειται

πpo~ την φι[λανθρωπευομεν7]ν
15 ΟΤΙ υπο μεν [
!,[.]ν χειρουτ[αι
τοιουτο ουν ε[ '$κα
μαν8ρωι θ~[ HICKOM€N ω
μο[ι Ίουμεν ε(νομι(ομεν οτε εσ
2 ο τι [υ8ω]ρ πυρ! [Εναντιον
1!. ?,~~ν πο[
Εν β περι Τ[ων
μενων φη[ σιν ΟΤΙ (εφυΡοr απο εσπε

25 paS' και [η] ~~[ ο 8υσεω~. . . . . . . . κα

λειται παρα [Ομηρω (oφo~ ο 8ε αΡΥε
στηr ΟΤΙ Elr [Τροιαν απο των περι Πε
λοποννησ[ ον τοπων πνει εν olr το

Ap'YO~ ΤΟ 8 εξ [ανεμων δυο κεκραμενον

30 θυελλα €ICO[MAI πορευσομαι καλουσα
αυToυ~ αλλο[ν αλλαχοθεν Ζην080
Tor δε 'Υραφει [ορσασα ωστε το εισομαι
'Υνω[σ]ομαι aV[Tovr Η K€N ΑΠΟ τρωωΝ K€ΦA
ΛAC Tovr Τρω[ ar ΦΛ€ΓMA• • • • • • . • . •
35 ξιν την ΦλΟ[Υα ,καθωr Hσι080~ καυ
μα 8ε θεσπ( εσιον κaτεχεν XaoS'

Col. XVII.

[. . . • • . . . . ]ομ[
[. • ••••• ] HΔ~ ~[YΠ€IPON αι εκ των πο
[λεων η8ε ] ~υπα[ ι]ρ[ον
[••••••• ] '!ΤΙ τα ~[
5 [. . . . . . •] εξηλθq,! [Τ€IPO]N[Τ €]Γx[€
[AY€C T€ K]~I ϊΧΘΥ€C [ο]τι κεχωρισ
[μενοι εΥχ]ελvεr και ϊχθυεr ΠΝΟ[Ι
(Η T€IPOM]€NOI τη αποφορα του π(υ
[por κατα ]πονουμενοι ριπη δε η ~[ ..
10 [ • • • • • • K]AI€TO Δ IC ΠΟΤΑΜΟΙΟ η ϊ[σ
[xvr ο ποτ)αμοr ο[ ι] δε τον και συν
[δεσμον . ]να . • Τ?Ί" δε Ε aντωνυ
[μιαν ιν η] κα[ ι] ~!1Toν τουτο προσει
[πεν Lr πο ]ταμ[ οιο α]ντιμαρτυρει δε
15 [το Φη πυρι] κα[ ιομ ]ElIor και το αυταρ
(επει SavO]q!O 8αμη μενοr 8ια Ύαρ
[. • • • • • •]~qv [ ]Ι!απτεον ΑΝ Α Δ €ΦΛΥ
[€ ΚΑΛΑ P€€]~[P]A η ιΜλ]tιητιr ανα(εσιS'
[. . . • . • . ]Tof [o]~ δ(!] επληθυε KN€I
20 [CHN Μ€ΛΔ]ΟΜ€ΝΟC ΑρισταΡχοr και

[η Καλλιστ]ρaτο!, συν τω jί κνισην

[ιν η συo~] την κιιισaν τηκωιι ομοι
[mS- τωι κ]ιιισην 8 εκ πε8ιου αll€
[μοι ιpepoJv Κllιση 8ε ου μονον ο Ε
25 [πιπλου]S' αλλα παν λιπo~ τα κιιε[ι
[ση 8ε ο]υ8εποτε ειρηκεν ΟμηΡΟ(S­
[KvptroS'] 8 εστι μελ8ειν ror Δι8υ
[μοS' τ]α μΕλη [ε]8ειν ωμοιωσε 8[ε
[την με]ν υπο τω υ8ατι Υην τω λ~
30 (βητι T]~ 8' ϋ8ωρ τω λΙΠΕΙ ΚΡατη[r
[8 Εν • 8]ιορθωτικων Υραφομε
[νου μεJλ80V φησιν αντι του με[λ
[80με]νου 8ια ΤΟ TOvr αpxatovr
[τω Ο Τ]Ο ii μη προστιθεναι αί'ν[ο

Frs. (α) and (b). Fr. (d). Fr. (/).

]![ ]αρ σου κ( ]~[

]S': τι~[ ]ιrιων α~[ ]p~[
]aυτω[ ]~pεTαι ~!ω[ ]!,Ι~(
)εΙI?Εa[ ]Jlι~ ET~ΙH[ ]οτι[
5 ] ί'αρ ο αθη.[ 5 ]υΎεT~ιή 5 ]aι:[
]rανaπαλ[ ]~~.[ •]!'~[ ]V!>~[
]rTt!,a~[ ]τ[ ]r[
]0 αpl(ι~[ ]~[ ]ω!'[
8]!,σχ ερω[ r ]ιr~[
10 ]ησει[
]ισινα[ Fr. (e).
]Jιεν[ Fr. (g).
]ΟΟ"![ ]~~[
]!καν[ ].λε~.[
]~μι(~[ ]ευo~[ ]στακρη[
15 J~ETOtr[ ]ο!, λεr[ ].[.]εν τη[
]~ ί'αρ μ( 5 ]αVΗι[ ]~ι 8ε8υ[
]!ωσ[ ]p~ΙTp[ 5 ].σειΙΤ[

Ίι:ρχιλ [ ]~ιια μεΎαΑί

]τησ.[ ]~'.'ωσyo[
]ρε!'[ ]!,α~ι'!2ί
Fr. (c) blank.

Fr. (k). Fr. (Ζ). Fr. (k).

]~νT[ ]q-fJr[· ] q-( ]r[

]~εΙTαι[ ]~ιξε 8~ r[ ]~![
]υσιa~ eq-[ ]εpι~ και a[ ]ε~
] προσωπ[ ]tKCOS- Ε( ]~[
5 ]Εινεν[ 5 ]λητο 5 εξ[ 5 ]ε~ί
]αμ[ .[ ]ε[
)τωνε[ Jt[
]αρaΦ( ]!l[
]~TOΎ[ •]J!( Ίιτ α[
10 ]~[

Fr. (Ι). Fr. (m). Fr. (n).

]?1(. • J ο]υτο[ ]·tf~[ ]~
]~~p!.[. ι]στοροΥ[ ]tf!n ]αι[
]~μ~[ ]0 εν(
]ΠO~' Ελ( Jαπ[
5 ]αι και (C[ 5 ]σασ(
]~αι ανΕ[ ]ταή
πε Jet TOυ'T~

Ι. Though the beginnings and ends of lines ίη this column are lost, the size of
the lacunae between the end of one line and the beginning of the next can be approxi-
mately determined by the quotations which occur ίη 13-15 and 26-27 and have from
25-30 letters in·a line. Ιη 2-13 about 10-13 letters are 108t between the lines, between
13 and 16, 12-15 letters; ίη ll. 16 to 27, 14-181etters, and ίn 11. 27 to 33,16-20 letters
are required for the lacunae.

1-8. Α scholium οη the accentuation of οτε ~ή ίη v. ι, the general sense of which is

clear. 'Some read όTE~ή, saying that when ~η is added to οτε ίι causes οτε to lose its
accent. But they ignore the fact that ~η cannot change the accent of a \vord preceding.'
Cf: Herodian οη Α 493 ΆpίσTαpxo~ όTε~ή ώ, ~ηλα~ή παpαλόyω~ άναΥΙlIώσκει. Ιη ι ] οτε ~[η
may be read.
3. Of the grave accent over Ε οηlΥ the tip is preserved, but it must have been written.
Oxytone words of three syllables were accentuated at this period either with grave accents
οη the first t\VO syllables (e. g. ίη the Bacchylides papyrus) or with a grave accent οη the
penultimate οηlΥ (e. g. ίη ccxxiii).
5. The meaning, if any, of the dots above and below the ο of ΟΤΕ is not clear. Blass
8uggests Επι[ρρήμaτι.
6. αυτον: ί. e. τον τόllον. Blass suggest8 τφ τ&νψ after OTε[~η ίη 3.
8-18. Οη the different interpretations of πόρον ίη v. Ι. Cf. Schol. Α πόρον [ξον, '1'0"
πορευτοll αύτου τόπον· "και θρύον t Αλφειοίο πόροv." οί ~ε TOll ρουν, οί δε πόρον :εάνθου ιcαTα περί­
φρaσιι ι τον ~άνθoν. ' ΑριστοΦάvη~ γράφει Ρόον. Schol. Β omits the quotation and the reading of
Aristophanes, Schol. Τ omits the quotation. The papyrus was 80mewhat fuller than any
of them. Ιn 8- ι Ι we have the view that π&ρo~ meant a ford, illustrated by the quotation
given ίη Schol. Α (Β 592); ίη 16-18 the view that it meant 'flow,' which is apparently
ascribed to Ptolemaeus (ό 'AσKαλωνίTη~, 'AρισTάρxειo~), and ίn 18 the reading of Aristophanes.
The ροίηι of the quotation, οίκτιστον κ.τ.λ. (μ 258, 259), ίη 13-15 is nοΙ clear owing Ιο
the mutilation of the previous line. It cannot be intended to illustrate the view that πόpo~
meant ford; probably ίι was cited ίη support of the theory that ~άνθoυ πόρον was equivalent
to ~άνθoν.
19-27. Οη the reading and derivation of ~ύρηo~ or εύppείo~ ίη v. Σ. This scholium
is very obscure. If the supplement of 18 is, 80 far as it goes, correct, which hardly
admits of doubt, not more than six letters are 10st before the beginning of 19, and we
should there expect the terminatlon of ευρηo~ or ευρρEιO~ as being the word to be commented
on. Instead of that however, we have quite clearly ίn 19 ]ρην. Perhaps the 8cribe
wrote ευ]ρην for ευJρηο~ because Υράφιι follows. Apparently (ι 9-2 ι) 80me critic wished to
read έϋρηo~, which is found ίη one 1\IS. (L) and ίη a quotation from Strabo ίη place of the
usual εύΡΡΕίοr, deriving it from a nominative εύpεύ~; cf. Schol. Τ εύppείo~, απο του εύpεύ~
(corrected by Maass into εύpύ~) καΙ κατ' έπένθισιν του ι, η άπό του EύPEή~ εύρε(έ)o~ και κράσει.
Το this derivation Ammonius objected ίn 2 Ι sqq., but his objection and his own
theory are nοι clear, owing to the lacunae.
2 Σ. The doubtful v at the beginning of the line (? ευρε]υ~) could equal1y well be read
as η.
24. επι καθαρου του ~: i.e. η~ pl·eceded by a vowel. Ammonius is now discussing
26. θυμo~ κ.τ.λ.: Β 196. The quotation apparently il1ustrates the form 8ΙOTpεφ;o~,
nοΙ βασιληo~.
28-33. These lines are apparently concerned with the accentuation of ευρριιo~ or εVΡηοr.
32 and 33 look like a quotation from Homer, but we have nοΙ been able Ιο identify it.
11. 1-4. Α note ση Υη Φυσί'oo~ ίη 63' perhaps objecting to the epithet as inappro-
priate. Cf. SchoI. Τ.
5-7. Α note οη the form ήθελε. Blass suggests του μέτρου χάρJtv for the lacuna
ίη 6-7. The rest of the column is obscure.
111.· Ι-Ι 6. The first half of this note οη ~ι:Ιλη ίη v. Ι Ι Σ presents many difficulties.
~Eίλ'1ν μΕν ίη Ι corresponds to TαύTη~ ~έ ίη 8, and we should expect ίη ι sqq. an explanation
of the general term ~είλη as equivalent to evening, which would balance 8-1 Σ where ~είλη
is said to be subdivided into ~είλη πρωία and lJΕίλη όψία. Jσελαv ίη 2 seems to be corrupt.
Possibly καλιί τηιι ίσπεραιι should be read, but though an interchange of λ and ρ is easy,
the σ cannot be read as the second half of a π. Or, conceiνably, ελαν οθειι κ.τ.λ. may haνe
something to do with the ancient derivation of ~Elλη, 8ΤΕ ένδεί ή TOV ήλΙου ίλη ( Schol. Α).
3-4. The quotation ίη these lines is assigned with much probability by Blass to Hesiod.
Ιη the third book (των καταλόγων, which is sometimes omitted ίη quoting) that poet treated
of the story of the Argonauts, and the Mares were a tribe οη the shores of the Black Sea
near Colchis (Hdt. νίί. 79).
4. aVTOS': sc. Homer. This remark is repeated ίη ι ι seqq., where the instance
(Φ 232) is quoted. The quotation from Phrynichus is quite obscure and seems to be
corrupt. The form δεεΙλη which occurs ίη it (line 6) is acknowledged by the Etymologicum
Magnum beside the forms ~Eίλη and δείEλo~. .
7. Blass suggests δη]ιωιι and οψι]ηΥι ίη the next line, and thinks that these two lines
are not from Phrynichus but belong to another quotation from an Ιοnίc poet.
8. For the Attic distinction between lJεlλη πρωία and δείλη dtla and the division of
the day into three parts (ι 3-1 6) cf. Schol. Τ, whose language is very close to that
of the papyrus.
13-14. Cf. Scho1. Α οη 232 ή δείλη δεΙελo~ ε1ρηται ώs- ή έσπΕρα ίσ'Πεpo~.
16. On~Apy ίn v. 112. Cf. Scholl. Β Τ, both ofwhich record the variant άρΥ and
its explanation, but without mentioning Hermapias. Ν either of them throws any light
οη what the reading of "01 8έ" ίη 16 was. Α COfl"ector has written an η over the η of
Αρη, apparently being dissatisfied with the form of the letter as written by the first hand,
which resembles 1(.
19, 20. Cf. SchoI. Τ which is verbally the same; Schol. Β is also practically
21-27. Α scholium οη the accentuation of έvταυθoι, which Dionysius Thrax wished
to make properispome οη the ground that the accentuation of ίι as perispome belonged
Ιο the later period of the 10nic dialect. Cf. Cramer, Anecd. ΡαΥ. 111. 291, where it is
stated that Dionysius accented it properispome, and Schol. 1\. το έιιταυθοί περισπαστέον·
[στ! γαρ άπα του έvταϋθα )AΤTΙΙCOυ. The latter part of the scholium is obscure owing to
the lacunae; perhaps the discussion tul"ned οη the rival derivations, ένταυθα and έυταυθΙ.
lt is noteworthy that Ammonius like the other scholiasts gives ησο as the reading
ίη v. 122, though ΚΕισο is found ίη all the MSS. Whether he mentioned the other I"eading
is doubtful. The last word ίη 23 cannot be read as κεισο, though it may well be a
corruption of it; cf. XIV. 13, note. There Is what looks like an acute accent over the
final /(, \vhich is followed by a sign like a maι-k of elision.
26. The letter before α~α ίθ not τ, so ΥεΥ[ραπ]ται cannot be read.
27. The JI of τον is corrected, perhaps from s-. We cannot guess the meaning of the
β written above the line.
32-5. Cf. Schol. Β άπολιxμήσovται, κaταφάγωσιν' άπδ τού λιίΧfLν ~ε εΊληπται τδ λι,χμα".
άισιδέε~ δε ΟΙ μη ι<ηl3όμευοί τινων.
IV. 4. Perhaps a scholium οη εΊσω άλόs- ίη v. 125, €ι]\cω [ΑΛΟC αντι του fLs- αλo~;
cf. Schol. Β.
The rest of this column is taken up with a note οη the various readings ίη vv. 126
and 127. From 27 onwards, the explanation of ύπαλύξΕΙ given by Philetas, the papyrus
agrees with Schol. Β. 7-13 also agree, so far as we can judge, almost verbally with the
exp1anation of the reading V7fαtE~' ascι-ίbed to οί'Αριστάρχιιοι by Schol. Β ίη the sentence
immediately preceding the explanation of Philetas; cf. also Schol. Α, which ascribes the
reading vπαtξει to Aristarchus, and gives the same explanation ίn slightly different terms.
There is, howeνer, the difficulty that another writer ίη Scholl. Β and Τ asserts that
Aristarchus read έπαtξει, and the description of his explanation, ίn 80 far as it runs parallel

with 7-13 of the papyrus and the other note ίη SchoI. Β, differs only by the substitution of
Επι την Φρϊκα for ύπο την Φρiκα, and a few other verbal changes. ΙΙ would, therefore, be
possible to maintain that ϊn 7-13 Ammonius ascribed the reading 'παtξΗ, not vπαtξιι, to
Aristarchus. But such a view is very improbabIe, for ίn 23 he seems to ascribe the reading
vπαtξει to the Aristarchean copies, and the remains of 7- 13 agree with SchoI. Β (2) more
closely than with Scholl. Β Τ ( ι).
6. Possibly AρισToΦανη~] και. Porphyry states that Aristophanes read Vπαtξει.
2 ι. The quotation (~ 389) clearly illustrates the reading 8~ κε ΦάΥΏσι, where Aristo-
phanes read 6,s-. Probably J~ ίη 17 is part of ~ used as an explanation of ώsι.
22. For αί ' Αριστάρχειοι (sc. 'ιcδόσει~) cf. ΧΙ 15.
f, ν. 5. avatf, if correct, recalls Schol: Τ ΙΙλλα 8ια τό τους ,πΙ Υη$ άναιpoυμEνoυ~ εI~ αvrό"
νι. 3. ΙππεvS': better ~ΙππυS', of Rhegium, perhaps a really old writer, but the works
which ίη the Alexandl'jclll age went under his name were not genuine; see Wilamowitz-
Mollendorff ίη Hermes χίχ. ρρ. 442-53.
13. Cf. Schol. Α ;)ΤΙ λfίπει ή περ'ι πρόθεσιS'. αllΙΙΡημέvωv ίη the next line explains
κτaμένων, which is probably 10st ίn the lacuna.
14. Blass suggests ό μέσΟ$ (sc. άόρισTO~) [άιιτι παθητικού].
15. προπaροξυνει: ί. e. ~ολιχέΥΧfαS', cf. Schol. Α ώsι εύει~/α~' παραιτητέοv yap TOVS' 3.λλω~
άναyιυώσKOΙΙTαsι •
16-30. There was an ancient difficulty here that Asteropaeus was not mentioned ίn
the Catalogue, though he states that he has been at Troy eleven days and the Catalogue was
made five days pl"eviously. Ammonius Offel"S two solutions, first, that the edition of
Euripides and others contained after Β 848 (αύτaρ Πυραίχμης κ.τ.λ.) a new verse (ΠηλεΥ&ν()S'
κ.τ.λ.) mentioning Asteropaeus; and secondly, if this new verse be rejected, that Astero-
paeus may have been one of the subordinate leaders, and therefore was omitted ίn the
Catalogue like Stichius, Schedius, Phoenix, Patroclus, Antilochus, and Teucer, who is
addressed by Agamemnon as a leader ίn the verse TEVKpf ΦΙλη ιcεφαλη Tελαμώνι~ [κοίριιιιι
λαων] (θ 281). Cf. Schol. Τ ση v. 140, where the same two explanations are given ίη
different language, and without mentioning by name the authority for the new verse.
Schol. Β gives οη ly the second explanation.
17. τη κατ ε[Ι'Pιπι~ην: besides the addiHon after Β 848 \vhich, if the conjecture is ήght,
is al1uded to here, Eustathius says that after Β 866 there was ίη that edition another new
verse, Τμώλφ -υπό νιφόιντι "Y8η~ πΙονι 8ήμφ. T4e edition of Euripides was pre-Alexandrian.
24. ιcωλυfι: this word must have been intended, but the scribe apparently wrote ~ ίη
place of λ, and over v there are traces resembling σ, or a circumflex accent.
26. The scribe apparently first wrote σχιδιον, altering it Ιο στιχιον.
29. For~IurpoS", the fol1ower of Callimachus, see Susemihl, Alex. Lil. Gesch. i. 622.
He maintain~d that only kings were called ήρωf~, see Schol. Α ση Β ι ι ο (Aristonicus) and
ση τ 34.' Ί'he objection that Teucer is caIled ηpω~ ίη θ 268 Istrus met by referring to the
verse (TfVKpE Φίλη, κ.τ.λ.) quoted here, which showed that Teucer was a ιcoίpανo~ λαών, i.e.
a βασιλεύς. For Ammonius' use of Istrus' argument see note οη 16.
νιΙ. 6. εν ΠapθευHOΙ~: the ν of ε" appears to have been \vritten over something else.
The quotation which fol1ows is probably from the Παpθ€νεια of Pindar, cf. 12 ίέπα ρόμ[βο"
with ΟΙ. xiii. 94 fμε δΙ εύθυ" άΙCόIITων ίέπα Ρι}μβον. Ιη Ι. ι ι Blass suggests ~oύpων άCaJrλέων.
10. Apparently the first hand wrote YfVfJV, which has been altered by the corrector to
πινη. χωμοπτολι[ is for και όμόΠToλι[~ or -ν.
13-14. For the supplements cf. Schol. Β. Ιn 16 Blass suggests ΙΙθλοll στ μόιιο" before το.
18. καλοv θρη(ι)"ιον: Ψ 808. The quotation ίn the next line is from ψ 561-2.
ΙΧ. 1-25. Α discusslon of the question \vhether v. 195 OlJ~f βαθυρρείταο μίΥα σθίνο,;
was to be retained. lt was rejected by Zefl8aotus accol'ding to Schol1. Α Gen.
The consequence of omitting the νerse was to make v. 196, ίξ o~περ πάVΤιt ποταμοΙ, κ..τ.λ.,
dependent upon Άχελώίοs- ίη v. 194, instead of οη 'Ωκεανοϊό; cf. Schol. Gen. ylve'fa, δι
t ΑχελφοS' πηΥη των /;λλων πάντ~ν.
1-3 contain a quotation, obviously imitating the passage under discussion, from some
poet who clearly did not know the doubtful verse since he makes ίξ o~πεp depend οη
3-5. Α second argument ίn favour of rejecting v. 195, that it was η~ read by
l\'1egac1ides; cf. Scho1. Gen. which also quotes Megaclides.
5-8. Ammonius next gives the contrary view. 'Aristarchus, however, shows th~t it
(sc. τον στίχον) is Homeric, οη the ground that the source of streams is the ocean.' ~
8-1 ι. Ammonius now brings forward quotations ίη support of the explanation given
by those who rejected v. 195, namely, that Άχελώίοs- was used as a general name for water.
Cf. Schol. Τ τον γαρ αύτον )Ωκεaνφ Άχελφόν φασιν. The first of these is a quotation from an
unknown epic poem οη Heracles by (? Sel)eucus, ίη which t Αχελφοs- appears tQ be used as
equivalent Ιο 'QKEαvdS-. But there are several difficulties. επορ[ευθ]ης ίη 9 is not satisfactory;
we should expect επερησus-, and though the third letter can be read as ε, the letter before the
final ς- cannot be α or ε, or indeed any vowel except η, 80 that a passive aorist seems
inevitable. aΡΥυροδινα, too, is curious ;,~P'Ύυpoδινεω would be expected.
11-17. 'This (i.e. the identity οfΆχιλφΩS' with 'Ωκεανόs-) is also shown by Pindar, who
says that the flute player's reed (comes from?) the springs of Acheloius, that is to say of
water. "Thee, the most musicaI, afor'etime the broad surface of the springs of Acheloius
and the winding river's streams nι;>urίshed, a reed" (ί. e. once you were reed, now you are
a flute). EIsewhere, however, he says " Child of the springs of ocean." , Here, too, we are
beset by difficulties. lt is not clear why τουτο δι έμφαίνιιν and the following verbs should be
ίn oralzo oblzquα if they represent remarks of Ammonius himself. 1t ίΒ tempting at first
sight to make this a continuation of the ορίηίοn of Aristarchus ίη 5-8, but the argumen ts
ίη 18-25 are certainly directed against the vie\v of Aristarchus, and the quotations from
Seleucus and Pindar, though the point is ίη neiLher case very obvious, appear to support
the same view as 18-25.
14. ισ, if correctly read, is a corruption of σ', but ίι is possible that the supposed Ι
is a stroke crossing out a letter wrongly \\Iritten.
15. ευρωπια: ιυρωπός- as opposed to στενωπό~ is found, but not the abstract substantive
, breadth '; here moreover the sense is very difficult, but there is ηο doubt about the
reading. There is a spot of ink above the ω, which we are unable to explain.
16. For έT'pω~ ίn the sense of ίν έTέpoι~ cf. Schol. Gen. οη Υ. 169, where dλλωs- appears
to be, equivalent to Εν αλλσις-.
17. Πfδα is most probably [or παί~α. The argument drawn from the comparison of
the two passages ίη Pindar seems rather far fetched .
.. 18-20. 'And many sacrifice to Acheloius befol'e Detllt'tel" because Acheloius is a
name of all rivers, and water is the source of fruit.'
21-25. Cf. Macrob. Sal. v. 18 where the quotation fΓοm Ephorus is given more ful1y.
24. Ιn l\Iacrob. l. c. the passage runs ώστε πολλοl νομί'οιιτις- ού τον Π'οταμοιι τοιι l}ta της­
~ιcαρvαvί(lS- βέσπα, αλλα το σύνολον ϋ~ωp 'Αχιλρον ύπο του χρησμου ιcαλιΊυθαι. .Ι t is not easy
to recover the precise reading of 24. The scribe perhaps wrote πaνταs- ιzroTαμoν for παντα
ποταμOl', the mistake being due to the acc. plur. preceding. ποτaμ(Jvr cannot be read.
26-7. Cf. Schol. Β μακρά, (jaeia ώς- το f'vavrlov, κ.τ.λ.
27-Χ. 18. Cf. Schol1. Α Β Τ which together give the substance of this note, but not
80 ful1y. Ammonius suggests three explanations for the conjunction of eels and fishes.
(Ι) 28-33, eeIs are selected as a tγΡe of fishes because they were specialJy fond of eating

flesh, and lxθύε~ is equivalent to ίlλ'oι Ιχθύεr, just as ποτητά ίn μι 62 is equivalent to ιΙλλα
ποτητά: cf. Schol. Α and (for 28-9) Scholl. Β Τ αd fin. (2) eels are selected because they
live ίη mud and eat human flesh; (3) there is a real distinction between eels and fishes,
a view which Ammonius supports by two quotations from Aristotle (the second given οη
the authority of Didymus), and by the distinction made at Athens between taxes οη eels
and those ση :fishes; cf. ScholΙ Β Τ, which give the substance of the quotations from
Aristotle without mentioning 11is name, and Schol. Α w hich briefly alludes to this view.
33. 4(ror υ: "ξ , ~,
SC. κατ ε οχην eιpηνται.
37. καθα Φησιν Αριστοτεληr: Hisl. An. Ζ 16, ρ. 57oa. The quotation varies the order
of the sentences.
38. ζωοτοκουσιν: ψοτοκουσιν Ar.
Χ. 2. γη, έντ'ρων Δ αύτόματα Ar. The second word was corrupt as written by the
first hand; the second hand apparently read εντερων, though it is possible that the stroke
which he drew through the letter before ω is intended for an iota; cf. ΙΧ. 14. The
superfluous η' (ηr?) is, however, not erased.
6, 7. εξαvαλω[θε]vτοs-: έξavτληθέντοr Ar., which is better. εξυσθεντο, = έκξvσθέντοs-.
Most MSS. of Aristotle have ξυσθέντo~, but there is a variant έξοσθ'ντοr or έξοισθ'ντοr, i.e.
ΙΙ. εν ~ε τω ζ: Hzst. An. θ 592a. άμαρτύρωS'='wίthοut quoting him ίη full.' The
passage ίη Aristotle runs ζωσι ~' 1νιαι έΥχέλυS' και ~πτα και όιcτω 1τη. τροΦο ~E και οΙ ποτάμιοι'
χρωνται άλλήλοvr τ' έσθίοvτεr και βOTάνα~ και Ρίζαr, κ.τ.λ. Cf. Scholl. Β Τ φασΙ ~ε &λληλοΦάΥΟVS
αύτα, είναι και ζην έπτο. η όκτω 1τη. SchoΙ Α does not mention this.
14. Cf. Ar. De Gen. An. Β 74 Ia ουτε ~E θήλεα ουτε /J.PPfvα και έν τφ των Ιχθύων 'ΥένΕΙ
έστΙν, οΙον αϊ τ' έΥχέλειS' και YEVoS' τι κεστρ'ων, κ.τ.λ.
Ι 5. και εν τω αΥορανομικω, κ.τ.λ.: So Schol. Τ.
19-23. 'He (sc. the poet) has anticipated what would take place ση the third day
when he (the corpse) would float, or while (τοτε must be cOITected to οτε) he was lying οη
the sand, the eels were alreadΥ pressing ίη to devour him.'
25. Cf. Scholl. Α Β Τ ΠΕρΙ Υαρ Tovr υεΦρotι~ πολλή έστιν ή πιμελή.
26-29. The derivation of 'ρ;πτεσθαι from 1ρα is found ίn Scholl. Α Β Τ, but not the
criticism of the word as inapposite.
31-2. The reading εlσ4μενo~ is found ίn most MSS. Ammonius preferred fΙ~όμιενο~.
Aristarchus, as this passage shows, left the question open. Cf. Schol. Α εlσάμενοS', γράφεται
και εl~όμεvοS' (Didymus).
33. περισσωS': cf. Scholl. Α Β Τ ούκ άνασΤΡfπτέοv ~E την" περί." 1στι Υο.ρ άντι του περισσωs.
35. Cf. Schol. Α (2) OVTroS' ~ια του F έμέθεν "/ JλάσαS'. The variant Πfλάσαr iS known
from SchoI. Τ, where however Aristophanes) name was not given; Mr. Allen iells us that
πελάσα~ is actually found ίη one MS. (Vat. 26, sαec. χίίί).
ΧΙ 1-6. Α discussion of the appositeness οί the epithet έρατειυά ίη v. 2 18. ' The
Sidonjan says that the poet has lapsed ίnιο the narrative form, although the speech is
imitative; but others say that the epithet refers to what was beautiful by nature, before tlle
battle by the river.' ο Iι~ωνιoς is ΔιοvvσιοS' ό Σι~ώνιo~, see Susemihl,op. cz'!. ίί. 176. The point
of his criticism was that the epithet έρατεινά was out of place here ίη a speech ίn which the
poet ought to have imitated the character of the speaker, and described things from the
speaker's point of view, whereas ίη a mere narrative ΕραΤΕινά like any other epithet might be
employed; c( Ar. Poetzcs, c. 3. With the view of Dionysius Sidonius cf. Schol. Α ΟΤΙ.
αΙCαιpOιι το Επίθετον (Aristonicus), and with the other theory cf. Scholl. Β Τ Kaλω~ το έπΙθετον εί~
ιν~ειξιν του οτι το. τοιαυτα ρεύματα μεμίανται.
4. δε: the scribe first wrote τα and then ~ε over ίι
8. σΤfvοχωρουμfνοS': cf. Schol. Α στενοχωρούμενος ••• οί, στενάζων.

9. The σ of ΟΤΕνω has been corrected. The quotation from Alcaeus στέιιω μ[αν] :rάvθω
ρ[όοS'] '~ θάλασσαν ίκανε is new. If Ίκανε is scanned ίκανε, the metre is the same as that of
frag. 15 (Bergk).
11-13. 1. ΦεύΥΟΙΙΤΙ. The quotation is from σ 385-6. Sophocles must have paraphrased
that passage, very likely ϊη the 'Αχαιών ~ύνδειπνoν, and taken στείνοιτο in the sense of σΤΕνάζοι.
15-18. The ancient critics were divided as to the meaning of εασον, .βοme taking it to
be from έάω, 'cease,' others fl-om αω, 'take your- fill,' ίη which case several critics preferred to
read εασον; cf. Scholl. Α Β Τ, and SchoI. Α οη Ω 557, \vhere it is stated that Didymus and
Hermapias wished to read Eασα~ instead of [auar. Ammonius' note is rather obscure;
apparently according to him the Aristarchean copies read ειlσOν "'ith a smooth breathing
(οvτω~, i.e. ψιλωr) as being from έάω (ίνα τΟ σύνηθε~ ήμΊIl n), ,vhile others took lauov (or εασον)
as equivalent to ' take your fill' (χορτάσθητι, is vu]gar Greek for lcορέσθητι), comparing αtματοr
όσαι #fΑρηα (Ε 289, αΙ).
18. Ιί ούκ ε~ is correct, ίι must be a criticism of Ammonius upon the view that
εασον=χορτάσθητι; but then the addition of the t-emark that tlση means πλησμονή seems
very unnecessary.
19, 20. άιιτι του ~E/(Topor is a remark ση the dative ~Eκτopι, but what is ε/,ω? If it is
a quotation of lΥώ ίη v. 226, the note Ιωr πέΡατοr, κ.τ.λ. does not seem very relevant, being
more like an explanation of πειρηθηναι άvτιβlηv. The οηlΥ alternative is to suppose that l/'ώ
I-efers to Ammonius himself. But Ammonius does not elsewhere capeak of himself ίη the
first person, and the construction έΥώ, Ιωr Π€Ρατοr έξ f1lavT{ar πολεμησαι would be very abrupt.
Probably there is a corruption somewhel-e. άντι{3ίην, which ,νe should have expected to be
quoted since /ξ /1IαvTlar explains it, may have been omitted by , homoioarchon' before άντΙ
του ~EKTopor. The scribe does not seem to have understood the passage, for his division
~ωσΠEP Ι aTor (corrected by the second hand to ~ωσπεpα Ι 'Tor) suggests that he was thinking
of l1>σπεΡ.
22. €ΦΡΑCΑΟ: our texts all have ΕΙρύσαο, and ,so Ammonius ίn 36; hence έΦράσαο
seems to be merely a blunder.
25-36. C( Schol. Β, which mentions the first of the two explanations suggested by
Ammonius for v. 230 (that it refel'red to the advice given by Zeus Ιο the gods ίη Υ 25 sqq.
άμφοτΕροισι, κιτ.λ.), and quotes Υ 25-6.
30. The erased words (which have also been bracketed) are the beginning of Υ 30,
vv. 28 and 29 being omitted, though there is ηο tr-ace of their ever having been obelίzed.
Β ut as the line is erased, ηο importance need be attached to the omjssion.
32-36. The second explanation ofv. 230 suggested by Ammonil1s (that the command
to help the Trojans had been given, though not mentioned by Homer, cf. αύτάρ 'Απόλλων,
κιτ.λ., Φ'5Ι5-6) is new.
34ι otor: our texts all have Φο'ί{jοr ίη Φ 5 15, but olor is the better reading.
35. βεμβλετο: i.e. μέμβλετο. Hesychius mentions the form βέμλετο (i.e. βέμβλετο), and
even the infinitives β'βλΕΙ1Ι and β;βλ~σθαι. Cf. the form βάρναμαι for μάρναμαι, Kίihner-Blass
Ι. 13. 155, 259, 5.
36. The η of -ηοr ίΒ corrected, perhaps from π. εtpυσαo: see note ση 22 above.
37. orr ΤοΙ: there is not the least doubt about the reading, Wllich must be a mere
blunder for ο τοι, a quotation from v. 230.
ΧΙΙ. ι. Cf. Scholl. Α Gen. θυρεον μέΥαν is from ι 240.
3. Εκείνη is ή πρωία δείλη; cf. 111. 9-11. The seventh hour is about ι p.m.
4. E"VαJT1JS- or aEKaJTfJr alone ar-e too short for the lacuna, which suits εv8εκατηr or
6. ΘΥιωΝ: this spelling, ,νhίch is found ίη one MS. (Α), is the right one ϊη

10. The first ,vord ίη the line could perhaps be read as 1ΙΕΚΡΟVr, but the vestiges do not
suit very welI, and more pl"obably it is an adjective.
J 4-17. πορφυρΕον, κ.τ.λ.: λ 243-4.
17. μf[ιζ01l η κατ αJ1I~pa: cf. Schol. Τ Bflar f1lEpYElαr Το μι~ όpμfι ToiJr μεν VΕΚΡοvr Ικβάλλειν,
Tovr ~ε ζω1lταr fΎκρύΠΤft1l κολπου1lτα έαυτ&1Ι, τ611 ~ε 'Αχιλλέα ΠΕριίστασθαι. κολπου1Ιτα there recalls
Ot01l 111 κόλπφ ΤΙ1Ιί ίη 13.
19-20. ΑΧΙΛΛΗΑ is mis-spelled as ίn XIV. 6.
20-25. 'Pl"otagoras says that the following episode of the fight between Xanthus and
a mortal ,vas intended to divide the battle, ίη ΟΓder that the poet might make the transition
to the battle of the gods; but perhaps it was also ίη order that he might exalt Achil1es ... '
30-1. Π€ΔIONΔ€: our texts have ΠE~ίoιo, which ,vas the reading of Aristarchus. The
variant πε~ίoνδε is recorded by Scho1. Α. Cf. ΧΙΙΙ. ι ι.
31-34. Cf. Schol. Gen. ση v. 256, whence it appears that Zoi1us had criticized this
passage because Achilles did not use his chariot. Ammonius' note is an answer to this
objection. 'Achilles could not use his chariot lest he should endanger himself, being as it
Wel"e ίη a prison if the horses were tripped up.'
37. The διπλη between this line and the next shows that a change of subject took
place, and we should expect a quotation of the particular word or words ίη vv. 246-7 to be
commented upon. 1t is therefore tempting to read ΠΕδιJοv~ε, but the remains of the letter
before 11 do not suit ο so well as ~ or η.
ΧΙΙ!. 6-7. a1lfJ~VUETO λι[μvηr: cf. SchoI. Τ, where these words (from Ε 337) are quoted
ίη support of λίμvηr, \vhich was an ancient variant for δί1lηr ίn v. 246.
ι Ι. For the restoration cf. Schol. Α (Aristonicus).
13. φέρεσθαι was an ancient variant for πέτεσθαι. Cf. Schol. Α 'πΕτεσθαι, Ιν ίJλλφ φέρεσθαι.
15-18. Thel"e must have been a remark to the effect that I-Iomer could not have
described nature so well if he had been blind from birth. Cf. ScholI. Β Τ άκριβ/στατα ~ε έπ1
τω1l ποτaμων πaΡΕφύλαξεν, κ.τ.λ.
20. Cf. Schol. Τ 'Αριστοφάvηr φ6110ΙΟ, ό ()€ ' AplUTapxor π6110ΙΟ, του κ.ατα Τ611 πόλΕμον Ιργου.
22. Probably μεθ' δΡμηr βοή ίη the lacuna; cf. SchoI. Τ.
25. οφθαλ]μοιιr [εxoνTO~: cf. Scholl. Β Τ Gen. This is clearly an explanation of
the reading μελαν&σσου, which we have therefore proposed ίη 23. There were three other
readings, μελαν&στου, 'black boned,' which is ascribed to Aristotle by Scholl. Β Τ Gen.,
cf. 30 sqq. below; μέλαvόr του, the reading of Aristal"chus; and μfλανοr του, the ordinary
30-39. The quotation from Aristotle is from Hz·st. An. Ι. 618 b § 32. The first five
lines, however, are 110t a verbal quotation; cf. the similar inexactness ίη 1Χ. 37 sqq.
35. Perhaps αΥJκη κa[ι λιμ1lαr, cf. Ar. l. c., 1. 24, but these words do not occur ίn the
description of the black eagle with which the quotation iS particularly cOhcerned.
XIV. 1-16. Α note οη Ερχθέντα ίn v. 282; cf. Schol. Gen., which to a large extent
agrees with this passage. The first nine lines here give the second view of Alexion
ό χωλ6r, who read Ερθlντα or έρθέ1Ιτα, giving νarious examples.
2. Alexion was referring to Ζ 348, 11lθά μ~ ι<υμ' άΠ&Ερσε, which he says ought to be
W'ritten άποέρσε. The pl"actice of retaining the rough breathing of a verb, even when
compounded with a preposition, is common ίn 1iterary papyri; cf. ccxxiii. 164, note.
4-7. These two parallels, 8ν ρά τ' εvαvλοr, κ.τ.λ. (Φ 283) and rΉρη δΕ μέγα, κ.τ.λ. (Φ 328)
are also found ίη Schol. Gen., but as il1ustrations of έρθέ1Ιτα, not, as here, of έρθέντα.
6. απορσΗΕ: a mistake for αποερσειε. .
7. Cf. Schol. Gen. [νιοι ~ασύvοvσι1l έρθΕντα παρα (την Ερσην τουτΕστι) TiJ1l ~p&σoν. There
iS not room for καλει τη1l δροσ J01l ίη 8. Perhaps Ερσαν Ι δε την ~ρoσJ01l should be read.
8. χωΡ'ιr δ' alJB' Ερσαι is from ι 222, where Ιρσαι means the young lambs and kids.

The argument is 'He calls Ιρσα "dew," quoting xωpί~ δ) αδfl Ιρσαι, since the tender are also
de,vy.' ΙΙ ΙΥ ιισι αι α]παλαι might be read, but there is not sufficient space [or ιιΙπιρ ιισι αι
α]παλαι. C:f. Etym. Μ. s. v. Ιρσαι, .•• αί άπαλαι και τιλιΙω~ νίαι μιτaΦopΙKω~, ώs- Άριστόvιl<οs- /1)
Σημιίoι~. [ρση γαρ έστΊν ή ~ρόσοS'. Tlle subject of καλιί, if correct, is presumably Alexion.
9-15. Cf. Schol. Gen., where the reading of Crates ιΙλθίντα and the quotation from
Solon's law are given.
12. ιl< ε αξoνo~: Schol. Gen. has /νJlfάξοvι, clearly a corruption of Εν i llξονι, besides
numerous other mistakes.
13. ιξιι!λλπι: ιξΗλληι is of COUl"se meant; but the scribe has quite clearly written a π
instead of an η, and there is a Ietter which looks like an iota between the fil·st ι and the
first λ.
ων ιαν: Εάν here and ίη the next line ίΒ vuIgar Greek for ίiv.
16-27. Α note οη εναvλοs- ίn ν. 283, which is obscured by the lacunae and the frequent
corrections. Aristarchus (followed by Ammonius) explained it as a torrent I"Unning ίη
a 10ng and narrow channel; cf. Scholl. Β Τ ειιaυλo~, χιιμάρροvS' ~ια στινου τόπου και πιpιμήKoυ~
ποιούμΙlJΟ~ την ρύσιν (but with ηο mention of Aristarchus).
ι 8. σι is corrected from ΟΙ.
19, 20. ι[πιμηKΙΙ~: cf. Schol. Α έναύλoυ~ τoυ~ ΠOTαμoυ~ Toυ~ έπιμήκιιr.
20-24. Dionysius Thrax οη the other hand explained Ινaυλοι as the cavities from
which rivers take their rise, comparing Εμπίμπληθι, κ.τ.λ. (Φ 3 ι ι).
23~ πηΥαιων: a mistake for πηΥΕων.
28-29. Cf. Scholl. Β Τ.
30. sqq. Probably a quotation from Aristotle's 10st book )Απορήματα ΙΟμηρικιί. The
difficulty here 'vvas that Poseidon and Athena did not actively help Achilles, the explanation
of Aristotle being that Hephaestus was the god opposed Ιο Xal1thus. Cf. Scholl. Β Τ οη
v. 288 [καvαι αΙ προσθηκαι ύΠfΡ του θαρσησαι 'Αχιλλέα ..• πpo~ δε Toυ~ (ηToυνTα~ πω~ διαλEyovται
μεν αύτψ ΟΙ θιoί~ ούκ Επιβοηθουσι δi, ρητέον 8τι ;TΙPO~ ην ό τρ 'Σ#(αμάιι~ρφ άνTΙTιταyμEνo~.
32. ίίτοπον apparently refers οηlΥ to ,vhat fol1ows, not to what precedes. If it governed
βοηθησαι as well as σιύfσθαι it \\'ould better account for the μή (which however often supplants
ού at this period); but we should then expect t1τοπον at the beginning of the sentence, and
a comparison of Ammonius' note with the parallel passage ίη SchoIl. Β Τ quoted above
shows that 8τι "HΦαισTO~ άντιτέτακτο is the explanation of the difficulty and an argument
ίη defence of the passage, not a reason for objecting to it.
33. Α reference to Υ 325 Αίllιίαν δ) ίσσιυιν (scil. ό Ποσιιδων), the point of which
is not Cleal". Perhaps' the absurdity of Aeneas being carried off ...' is Aristotle's
criticism of that passage.
34-XV. 5. Α note ση the loose use of τοισι, Achilles being the only person present
besides Poseidon and Athena. The passage of the Odyssey referred to ίn XV. 3 τοισι ~ε
μύθων, κ. τ.λ. is ι 202 (where our texts have TOΙ~ ΙΙριι). Ιη that passage οηΙΥ Calypso and
Odysseus were present. Cf. also η 47, whel"e a simiJal"l)' inexact use of τοισι δε μύθων ηρχι
is found. Ιn fact Homer never uses the dative singular ίη this p11rase.
XV. 6. μη υποχωΡΗ: cf. Scholl. ΒΤ rpff, VποχώΡfΙ.
6-27. Α discussion of the reasons fol' omitting 01· retaining v. 290. Cf. ScholI. Α Τ,
where the question is much more bl"iefly alluded to. The points ίη Ammonius' argument
are (ι) 8- ι ι, Poseidon does not mention his own name, but calls himself έΥώ, though he
had changed his form to that of man, and Achilles would not know who he was (cf.
Schol. Τ); (2) Ι Ι-Ι 5, Poseidon does ηο! οη 1eaving give any clear sign who he was, and
Scamandel· does not abate his anger (ν. 305-6) as he would llave done if he had known
that t\VO such mighty gods as Poseidon and Athena were speaking; (3) 16-22, Seleucus
ίη the third book of ~is \\Iork ι<ατα των Άριστάρχου σημ,εΙων argued ίn defence of the verse

that although Poseidon and Athena had assumed human shape they had already implied
κατα το σιωπώμενον the fact that they were gods, by greeting Achilles as they had done,
especially ίn the line το[ω γάρ τοι,"Κ. Τ. λ. (ν. 289); (4) 23-4, Seleucus met the difficulty that
there was nothing ίη the booI{ to justify Zηνo~ 'παινήσανTO~, which implies that they were sent
by Zeus, by the argument that this too could be explained κατα το σιω7Tώμ~νoν; (5) 24-26,
nevertheless, ίη the fifth book of his Διορθωτικά Seleucus athetized vv. 290-292 as superfluous;
(6) 26-27, those verses were not ίn the Cretan edition. .
8, 9. ονομα is by mistake written twice.
10. Perhaps μETαβEβληxω~. Κ and χ are often hardly distinguishabl~ ίn this MS.
ι ι. The dots over κα signify that these letters were to be omitted, cf. ccviii. 1. oύδ€ κατά.
16. Seleucus was nearly contemporary with Didymus and Aristonicus. He was
probably put to deatl1 by Tiberius; see Maass, de btogrαphis Graecis, and Max Muller, de
Seleuco Homerlco, Gottingen 189 Ι.
2 ο. θεου: 1. θΕΟί.
23. και vπο Διo~: cf. Schol. Τ.
26. Eξη~: η ίθ convel"ted from some othet· letter.
28. T€ is a mistake for Γ€.
29-33. Cf. Schol. Τ, which has briefly λωΦήσΕΙ, κοπ( L )άσΕΙ· ΚUΡlω~ 8ε των VτrΟ(VΥlων.
32. Ενδι8ωσιν: Ι ένδι~όασιν.
33. ηλθεν ο βoυ~ Κ. Τ. λ.: Callim. Epigr. 55, 3.
χνι ι. Cf. Schol. Τ κατα ~' fiρεε, καθπρει, καίέβαλλεν, and Schol. Β κατέβαλλε •••• και
2- Ι ο. Α discussion of the accentuation of Kυλλoπo8ιoiι, which Aristarchus made
proparoxytone (Schol. Α), while Hermapias and Alexion ό xωλό~ made it properispome
(Schol. Gen.). Ptolemaeus (ό Άσκαλωvίτηr),-as this passage shows, was of the same ορίnίοη
as HeImapias, and fOl-mulated the rule about substantives ίn -ων which is ascribed ίn
s1ightly different language to Alexion ίn Schol. Gen. τα εί~ ων λήγοντα όνόμaτa καΙ την πaΡΕσχάτην
ιχοιιτα μακραν ;;ταν κατα κλητικην lκφέρηται πτωσιν ΠΕρισπαται κατ' αύτήν.
10-18. Cf. Schol. Α άθΕΤΕϊται ;;ΓΙ ίf.KαΙpOν το lπΙθετον. ή γαρ φιλανθρωπεvομέvη καΙ λέγοvσα
" 'μον TEKOS " ούκ tJφειλεv άπο του lλασσώμαTO~ προσφωνε'ίν. Schol. Gen., however, has the same
note with the substitution of ' ApισTόνΙKO~ fOl" άθετειται, implying that Aristonicus only blamed
v. 33 ι, which indeed cannot be spared; and Cobet had supposed that the άθετείται of Schol. Α
was due to a mistake of the sCl"ibe.
12. ουδετερω: i. e. neither Hel'a nor Hephaestus.
19-20. Cf. Schol. Τ ήtσκομεv, εΙκόTω~ νομΙ(ομεν ;;ΤΙ EvaVTlov ΕστΊ το ύδωρ τφ πυρΙ
24-26. Cf. SchoΙ Τ (έφυpo~ παρα τον ζόφον, ΕΠΕΙ άπο ~ύσ~ω~ ην (όΦον καλεΙ. As we have
restored the lacunae, ή ίn 25 would refel" to some \vord like μεpί~ or χώρα. But Schol. Β is
slightly diffel"ent, παρα τον (ι)φον, ιcαι ή άπο ~ύσεω!; πνοη ζοφόπνοια καλεΙται. If, starting from this,
we read ή άπ(ο ~ύσ~ω~ πνοή ίn 25, we must supply ζοφόπνοια ίn 26, with some other name ίn
place of CΟμήρφ. (οΦόπνοια is not found ίn any ex tant classical author, and the word ζόΦo~
ought to be introduced somewhere ίn this scholium; the remains ιοο of 27 to 30 are
nearer to Scho1. Τ than to Schol. Β.
27-30. Cf. Schol. Τ άΡΥεστην τον νότον, έπει άπο"Apyoυ~ εί~ την ΤροΙαν πνΕί. χαλΕπήν
θύελλαν, φησ'ι την ΕΙ( β κεκραμένην άvΕμωv.
30-33. Cf. Schol. Α ;;ΤΙ ZηνόδOTO~ ϊ'ράΦει 8ρσασα. ,Κ ~ε τούτου ΦανEρό~ έστι ~E~εyμένo~ τι)
~1σoμαι Υνώσομαι • • . ου βούλfται δε Υνωναι, άλλα 1Τορευθηνaι παρασΚΕυάσοvσα.
33-4. Toυ~ Τρω[α~: cf. ScholJ. Β Τ.
34-6. Cf. Schol. Τ ΦλΕΥμα, τήν φλόΥα 6>~ "καυμα ••• θεσπέσιον" aVTl του K(ιϋσι~. The
quotation is from Hes. Theog. 700.
χνιΙ. The note added ίn the margin at the top is 'ίη cursive; sf. introd. ρ. 53.

2-3. Cf. Scholl. Α Τ.

6-7. Cf. Scholl. Α Τ and ΙΧ. 27, sqq.
9. Possibly η [κρη]τικη. Cf. XV. 27. Schol. Α l" τισι δε pιπiι.
11-14. Cf. Schol. Τ ΠToλεμαίo~ ό Πιν~αpίων το" κω σύ"~εσμo,, καΙ την "i ι1ιιτωvυμίαιι ένόμιζεν.
ι1λλωs-: ΤΙV€S-" καΙ έ Tό~ε " 1,,' U" και αυτοιι Tό~ε εΙπεν t, ποταμοίο."
14-16. The two quotations adduced against the view of Ptolemaeus are from Φ 361
and 383.
18. Cf: Scholl. Β Τ άνa ~) ;Φλυε, άνέζη· tJJefV και 1'0 έκ θερμότητο, άνάστημα φλυκτί" from
which it becomes nearly certain that Φ[λ]υητι, is a corruption of Φλvl<τlS'; cf. XIV. 13, \vhere
an η is corrupted into '/Τ. There is not room for ΕΚ θεΡμοτη]τοS' at the beginning of 19.
. 19-26. The difficulties connected with κιιίσην μελaόμεvοs- are discussed at length ία
all the scholiasts, e4cept Α which is brief; our text, so far as it goes, is nearest to Schol.
Gen. Up to 26 the question is of the reading κνίσην. This Ammonius attributes to
Aristarchus (so SchoI. Α Β Τ) and to Cal1istratus (so Schol. Gen.), and he mentions the
variant κνίση which he rejects as un-Homeric (so ScholI. Β Τ), but he does not refer (so
far as the note is preserved) to the other ancient readings κνίσΥ and κvlσηS'. The quotation
ίη 23-4 κνίσηιι ~) έκ, 1<. 1'. λ. (θ 549) is also found ίη a scholium attributed to POl"phyrius ίη
Schol. Β.
27-8. Cf. Scholl. Β Τ, where ho\:vever Didymus is not mentioned. Schol. Α omits
this remark.
28-30. ωμοιωσε • •• λιπει: this part of the note is new.
30. ΚΡaτη[S': cf. Schol. Gen., where tl1is explanation of the reading μελ~όμflJΟS' as a
corruption of the archaic spelling μελ~oμενo, ί. e. μελaομέvοv, js given at somewhat greater
length, but οη the authority not of Crates but of Pisistratus the Ephesiaη and Hermogenes,
w ho ηο doubt copied their infol·mation from Crates.
32. με]λ~oν is corrupt. 1. μEλ~oμEνo as ίn Schol. Gen.
34. The seηtence may be finished άΥνο[ήσαvτάr TtVaS- προσθείναι 1'0 σ.
From the junctioη of t\VO sel/des and the writing οη the recto of Frs. (α) and (δ) it is
certain that (δ) is to be placed directly underηeath (α), but the extent of the gap between
them, if any, is uncertain.


18 χ 9·5 cm.
THIS fragment from a list of Olympian victors, covering the years Β. C. 480
to 468 and 456 to 448, is written ίη a small semicursive hand upon the verso
of a money account. The latter document, the handwl"iting of which is an
ordinary cursiνe of the latter part of the second or of the beginning of the third
cel1tury, mentions the tenth and fourteenth years of an emperor who is probably
either Marcus Aurelius or Septimius Severus. The list upon the verso does not
appear to have been written very much later; and we can hardly be wrong
ίη assigning it approximately to the middle of the third century.
The names of the winners ίn thirteen events are given for each year, ία
a regulat: order :-στάδιου, δίαvλοs, δ6λιχοs, π'υταθλου, πάλη, πυξ, παΥκράτιου, παίδωυ
,στάδιου, παίδωυ πάλη, παίδωυ πυξ, δπλίτηs, τέθριππου, κ'ληs. This series follows

the traditional order of the date of foundation as given by Pausanias (ν. 8) and
Eusebius, except. that the two races for horses are transferred from their
chl'"onological position between the 'Πύ, and 'ΠαΥκράτιου to the last place. The
explanation of this may perhaps be found ίη the statelnent of Pausanias (ν. 9· 5)
that sincc tlle seventy-seventh Olympiad the hol·se rac~s had been run οη one of
the Iater days of the festival. Τη placing them at the end, therefore, the compiler
of the list reflects this later practice. Precisel Υ the same order is found ίη a list
of victors for the I77th Olympiad derived from Phlegon of Tralles (MHller,
Frαg. Hzst. iiί. ρ. 606), who wrote a work ίη sixteen books οη' the Olympian
festival, and lived ίη the time of Hadrian (Snidas s. v.). The only variation
is that the ό'ΠλίTη~ is mentioned along with the στ&.διου and δίαυλo~, but the
reason of this is that these three races were all won by the same runner; and
the fact that he won the δπλίTη~ is repeated ίη its proper position after the
name of the victor ίη the παΥκράτιου. Hence we may conclude that the order of
the contests ίη the papyrus was the regular order foIlowed ίη such lists of
victors. Tt is noticeable that the απήυη or mule-chariot race, although it was
run during the pet·iod covered by the papyrus (Pans. Υ. 9, Polemo αρ. Scholia
οη Pindar ΟΙ. v. αd Ζ·1ΖίΙ.), and victories ίη it were regarded as a worthy theme
for Pindar's Epinician odes, is not included among the events here recorded.
The identity of the authol'" of the particular compi1ation of which this
fragment formed a part must remain quite uncertain. Ultimately it may be
based upon the work of Hippias of Elίs, who accol'"ding to Plutarch (Numα, c. ι)
was the first to edit the Olympian register, and who, at least for the period to
which the papyrus refers, had the authority of the official lίsts preserved at
Olympia. Α treatise called Όλυμπιάδ€~ is attributed to Phίlochorus, and
Όλυμπιουικαι as wel1 as Πυθιουικαι figure an10ng the titles of Aristotle's works.
The similarity ίη plan to the ft·agment of Phlegon already alluded Ιο is striking.
The lίst might very well be del·ived from any one of these three writers. Its
general trustworthiness is α -prz'orz' probable from its very completeness;. and
its facts are corroborated, wherever they can be tested, by Pausanias. Α few
corruptions ίη the names may be traced, but they are not sufficiently important
to affect the credibi1ity of the list as a whole.
The number of interesting points upon which the papyrus throws new lίght
is very considerable. ΒΥ a fortunate chance its information relates to a period
where it is particularly valuable, the period namely of the composition of the
Odes of Pindar and Bacchylides. The computation of tl1e Pythiads from
Β. c. 582, "'hich is followed by the scholiasts οη Pindal'" ίη dating his poems, is
confil·med (cf. note οη Ι. 37). The dates of three of Pindar's odes (ΟΙ. ίχ, Χ, χί)
which have hitherto been a matter of doubt, and comlnonly, as it now tl1rns qut',

wrongly fixed (see notes ση Ι. 16 and 37), are defίnitely determined. The
chronology of the three victories at Olympia of Hieron of Syracuse, upon which
depends the date of the first Olympian ode of Pindar and the fίfth ode of
Bacchylides, is at length settled (Ι. 19 note). Fresh lίght is thrown upon
a difficulty ίη connexion with the occasion of Pindar 01. ίν and ν, as to which
the testimony of the ancient scholia has been discredited, though again the
solution to which the papyrus points is not ίη favoul'· of modern critics (11. 22
note). The traditional date of Pindar 01. χίν is proved to be erl·oneous
(Ι. 14 note), though we are nοΙ enabled to correct it. The latest definite date
ίη the life of Bacchylides previously known was Β. C. 468,' when the victory
celebrated ίη Ode ίίί was gained; it is now certain that the poet flourished
as late as Β. C. 452 (note οη 11. 18). Hardly less important is the evidence
supplίed by the papyrus for the history of Gl eek plastic art ίη the fifth centUΙ'Ύ.

Polycletus of Argos and Pythagoras of Rheginm are both shown to have been
flourishing ίη the middle of this century. Polycletus can therefore be certainly
placed somewhat earlier, and Pythagoras somewhat later, than was before
possible (notes οη 11. 2, 14, 16). This affects the date of Myron, who οη
one occasion, according to ΡΙίηΥ, was a rival of Pythagoras, and is also described
by the same author as the aequalz"s atque condiscipulus of Polycletus (Ν. Η.
ΧΧχίν. 9). Naucydes of Argos is proved to have been a younger brother of
the elder Polycletus (11. 28 note); and one or two statues of which the pedestals
have been discovered can now be assigned to the latter artist, instead of to his
less famous namesake (notes οη 11. 14, ι6). FinalIy, a long disputed point with
regard to the interpretation of a well.known passage ίn Aristotle's Ethics
(Eth. Nzc. νίί. 4. 2) is cleared up, and the σρίηίοη of ancient commentators is
entirely vindicated against the prevailίng view of modern critics (11. 3 note).
But the νalue of this discovery lies not merely ίη the actual additions made
to our knowledge, the more salient features of which we have summarized. It
has also an important bearing upon the wider question of the credibi1ity of early
scholiasts and commentators upon matters of fact simίlar ίη kind to those
contained ίη this papyrus. The existence during the third century at a some-
what remote and unimportant centre of Hel1enic culture lίke Oxyrhynchus of
so complete and detailed a record indicates how widely diffused and easίly
accessible such information. was. Invention under these circumstances would
be ridiculous. People do not invent when not οηlΥ are they able to tell the
trnth, but failnre to do 50 can easily be recognized. lt follo\vs that when
definite statements υροη qnestions of this character al-e found ίη ancient com-
mentators, they at-e at least entitled to the utmost considet-ation and t-espect.
They are not of conrse free from confusion and corl·uption; but to neglect thern

or to dismiss them as mythical without strong preponderating evidence is incon...

sistent with the principles of sound criticism. It may indeed be said that the
general tendency of the ft·esh evidence gained from recent discoveries has been
to uphold the trustworthiness of tradition, as well with regard to the texts όf
classical authors as to their interpretation.
Ιn the commentary ιιροn this fragment we are indebted for a number of
references and suggestions to Professor Blass, and also to his col1eague Pt·ofessor

CoI. Ι.

[ξε]vοπιθηs- XElOS' παι δ στα8ιον (B.C.4 80)

[.• .]κων apYElOS' παι παλην
[.• •]φαvηS' ηΡα!ΕυS' παιδ πυξ
[αστ]υλοS' συρακοσιοS' οπλΕιτην
5 [.. .JTrov8a και αρσιλοχου θη{jα[ιων τε θ
[αpy]~ιων 8ημοσιοS' κεληS'
[OS' σκα]μαv8ΡΟS' μιτυληιιαιοS' στ[α8ιοll (B.C. 476)
ί8α ]r 8L S' αο[Υ]ει[ O]S' 8ιαυλοll
] •• Υ
[.•••] [ .•] ~[aJ~rov 80λιχοll
ι Ο [. • • • • • • .] TapallTtIIOS' πεντα θ
[•..••. .μα]θ~!,ειτηS' παλην
[ευθυμοS' λοκ]ΡΟS' απ ιταλιαS' πυξ
[θεαΥΕιιηS' θ]ασιοS' παΥκρaτιοιι
[•••••••• λJακωv παιδ στα8ιον
15 [θεΟΥιιητοS' αΙΥΙ ]lιητηS' παι δ παλην
[αΥ]?7 σ![8α]μοS' λοκροS' απ ιταλιαS' παι δ πυξ
[αστ]υροS' συρακοσιοS' οπλει Τ δ κρατισ [.]α
[θηρ:ωvοS' aκραΥαllτιιιου τεθρ"
[tEp]rovoS' συρακοσιου κεληS'
20 [ο( 8all]8tS' apYEloS' στα8ιοll (B.C.47 2 )
[.• .]ΥηS' επι8αυΡΙΟS' 8ιαυλον
[εΡΥ]οτεληS' ιμαιρεοS' 80[.]λιχοll
[.• •]aμοS' μιλησιοS' πενταθλοll
[•• •]μενηS' σαμιοS' παληll
~5 [evOJvpoS' λοκροS' απ ιταλιαS' πυξ

[Kα)~λια~ αθηναιo~, παΥκρατιον

(. • .]Tαν8pι8α~ KOPΙllθιo~ παιδ στα8ιοll
[. . .]KpαTι8α~ TαpαllTΙ1l0~ παιδ παλ ην
[τελ]~α/ν μαΙllαλιo~ παι8ων πυξ
30 [•• •]Ύιας' επι8αμνιo~ οπλειΤ 8ι~
(αΡΥ]ειων 8ημοσιον ΤΕθριππον
[ιερ]ωνo~ συρακο(σιου K]ελη~
[οη π]αρμενει8η[~ ποσει8]ωιιι α'Τ στα8ιοιι (B.C·468 )
[παp]μεllει8η~ ο ίαυTO~] 8ιαυλον
35 [.. .Jμη8η~ λακω[ιι 80Ί λιχ οιι
[. . •JTLOOll ταραll( TΙΙΙO~] ΠΕJιτα θ δ φιλισ
[εφαJρμοστοS' oπo[υllTΙO~ π]αλην
[με]lIαλκηΥ οπου[lΙΤΙΟS' πυ]ξ
[..]TlTLpa8aS' αΡΥ( ELOS' π]αΥκρατιοll
40 (λυκ]οφρωll αθη(lIαιοS' παιδ] στa8ιον
[•• .)?7μος' παppασ~ιo~ παι δ παλ]ηll δ καλλισ
[•• •]~η~ TtpvvOto[S' παι8ων π:υξ
[••• ]λοS' αθηναι[οS' οπλειτη]ν
[•• •]ιιυμου συρακο[σιου τεθρι]ππον

Co1. 11.

[•• ]!,~#O~ [ πενταθλον (B.C.456 )

λεοvτισ[κοS' μεσσηllΙΟS' απο σΙKελια~ παλην
ανθpωπίo~ πυξ
τιμανθ(ηS' Kλεωναιo~ παΥκρατιον

5 ικανων [ παι8 στα8ιον

ΦΡυvιχ[οS' παι 3 παλην
αλκεν(εΤΟΥ λεπρεατηS' παι8 πυξ
~!νασιr[ οπλειτην

8ιακτο[ρι80υ τεθριπποll
10 αΙΎια rα[ κεληS'

πβ λυκω(ν λαρισαιοS' στα8ιον (B.C.45 2)


ευβoυλ~[S' 8ια.,υλοIl
ιπποβο[ TO~ 80λιχοIl
πυθοκλ η[ S' ηλειοS' πεIlταθλοIl
15 λεοντισκ[ OS' μεσσηIlΙO~ απο σΙKελια~ παληIl
αριστων [επι8αυpιo~ πυξ
8αμαΥητ[ OS' po8loS' παΥκρατιοIl
λακωIl K~[ΙO~ παι δ στα8ιοIl
Kλεo8ωpo[~ παι δ παληIl
20 απoλλo8ω[po~ παιδ πυξ
λυKO~ θεσσα[λo~ οπλειτηIl
σαμιου καμ[αριναιου τεθριππον
πυθωνo~ ι[ Kελη~
π,Υ κριτωIl" ΙιfίEpαιo~ στα8ιοIl (Β. c. 448)
25 ευκλει8ηS' .[ 8ιαυλοIl
αιyει8α~ κρη[~ 80λιχοIl
κητων λOKP~OS' πενταθλοIl
κιμωIl αΡΥ[ ElOS' παληIl
αΥησιλαοS' ρ[ o8LoS' πυξ
30 8αμα,,/ητοS' n[ o8toS' πα,,/κρατιοIl
λαχαΡι8αS' ~[ παι δ στα8ιον
πολυIlΙΚΟS' [ παι δ παληIl
αριστων l![ παι δ πυξ
λυκειIlΟS' ~[ οπλειτην

Ι. Ι. 1. 3:fVΟΠΕlθηr Χίοr. The names of the winners ίη the two preceding games, of
which the n1ention in the papyrus is 10st, are l{nown from Pausanias :-θfαΥέvηr eάσιοS' πύξ
(νΙ 6. 5), ΔΡομfvr MαVTLVfvr παΥκράτιοιι (νΙ ι ι. 5).
4. [αστ]υλοr συpαKoσιo~: cf. Paus. νί. 13. ι, where it is said that Astylus, who was
a native of Croton, entered as a Sγracusaη ίη order to please Hieron. Pausanias states
that Astylus was victorious οη thl'ee successive occasions ίη the σTά~ιoιι and δίαυλοr. The
papyrus shows that he should have said δπλlτηr instead of ~ίaυλοS'. He \νοη t11e σTά~ιoν ίη
B.C. 488, 484, and 480, and the όπλlτηr ίη 484, 480, and 476 (1. 17).
5. ? [Δαι]τώιιδα (Paus. νΙ 17. 5), or [Κρα]τώνδα.
7. [σKα]μaιι8po~: Diodor. χι 48 gives the name, πο doubt rIghtly, as 'ΣκaμάνδΡιοr.
8. [~α]υδιS': this is ΡΓσbabΙΥ the CQlTect form of the name. The same man won the
στιίδιον at the next 01ΥιηΡίc festival (cf. 1. 20 below); and the MSS. of Diodorus, who
records the fact (Χί. 53), give the name as ΔάlJ~ηS' (so Vogel), with the exception of Ρ, the
oldest MS., which has Δάv~ιS'. The latter spelling is also found ίη the codex Palαtlnus in
Simonides' epigram ση this athlete (Anth. Ρα!. xiii. 14= Simonides 125 Bel·gk).

9. At the beginning of the line some letters have been crossed out and others added
oνer them. The result is a confused blur, ίη which it is scarcely possible to read any-
10. This Tarentine may perhaps be identified with . . . τίων TapaVTiVOS-, who won
the same event ίη 468 (cf. 36). Α name of about the same length is required [or the
lacuna here.
ι ι. μα]ΡωVfLτηs-: the reading is very doubtful; the traces before ~ suit α (or ι)ρ better
than ν, and υμ or υl< could well be read ίη place of ρω.
12. For EvBVILoS' cf. Paus. νΙ 6. 6. He also won the boxing match ίη 472, cf. 25 below
and Paus. l. c.
13. [θfαγΕvηS' O]autoS': cf. Paus. νΙ ι ι. 4.
14. According to the scholia Asopichus of Orchomenos, to whom Pindar 01. Χίν is
dedicated, won the παίδωιι στάδιον either ίη the 76th or 77th 01ympiad. The papyrus
proνes that this was ηο! the case. The date of 01. Χίν is thel"efore stiIl to seek.
15. Theognetus of Aegina is known from Paus. νί. 9. ι, Simonid. (?)Epigr. 149, Pindar,
Pylh. νΗί. 35. 1t is not, howeνer, stated ίη which γear his victory was obtained. The
supplement given ίη the text is therefore hardly certain, especial1y as it is rather long for
the lacuna, for which ten letters would be sufficient.
16. [α'ΥΙησι[δαJILOS': this ίΒ the victory which was the occasion of Pindar's 10th and
11th 01ympian odes. The traditional date οΙ Agesidamus' success, based ση one set of
scholia, is B.C. 484. Scholiast Vratisl., however, places it ίη B.C. 476, and this statement
(which Bergk, Poetae Lyricz', i. ρ. 6, dismisses as a 'manifestus error ') is now confirmed by
the papyrus. Fennell (Pindar, O{ymp. and Pyth., ρ. 90) had suggested the year 476 as the
date of the comp0sition of the 10th Olympian ode, while retaining the traditional date for
the actual victory of Agesidamus.
17. [αα-τ ]vpos-: 1. [~Λα-T]υλοr; cf. 4 and note.
For the addition at the end of this line cf. 36 and 41, where ό φιλισ and ό καλλισ are
similarly appended after the names of the respective contests. ι<ρατισ, φιλισ, and ι<αλλισ can
only be interpreted as the superlatives κράτισ(ΤΟ$), Φι'λισ(τοs-), and κάλλισ(τοs-); ό, as Blass
suggests, probably stands for O~TO~. The word aiter ι<ρατισ ίη this line (it does not occur
ίn the paralIel cases) is possibly [π]ά(ιιτωιι); it is not clear whether there is a letter οτ
merelya stroke of abbreviation oνer the α. The explanation of these different epithets ίΒ
not obvious. The designation of a famous athlete like Astylus, who had been credited with
several pl"evious victol"ies, as KpάTιστo~ is ηο doubt natural; and that a boy should be
described as ι<άλλισΤΟ$ (ct: Paus. νί. 3. 6) is also appIopriate enough. But why should
a winner ίη the πέπaθλον be called Φlλιστοs- ? And how were these designations assigned?
Is it to be supposed that the judges ίη the games decided which of the competitors was
most conspicuous for ι<ράτοs-, Kάλλo~, and Φιλία ? lt is noticeable that none of the winners
ίn 472 are singled out ίη this manner.
18. This νictory of Theron is celebrated ίη Pindar's 2nd and 31"d Olympian Odes.
The statement of Schol. Vat. that Theron won ίn Β. c. 472 has rightly been discredited
19. Cf. Paus. νΙ ι 2. ι, Pindar, 01. Ι, Bacchylides ν. The conjecture of Bergk, who
placed Hieron's first victory ίη the single horse race at Olympia ίn B.C. 476, correcting
την Ο'Υ' 'ολυμπιάδα ίη Schol. Vι-atίsΙ. to τηιι ος' (Poet. Lyr. i. ρ. 4), and the chronology of
Hieron's victol·ies \vith Pherenicus proposed by Mr. Kenyon (BaccJιyl. ρ-ρ. 35-9), aIe now
confirn1ed. ΗίeΙΌη ,,'οη the KEλη~ at Olympia ίn Β. c. 476 and 472 (Ι 32), and the
τέθριπποιι ίn 468 (Ι 44),
20. [σανJ~Lςo: cf. 8, note.
22. 1. tΙμfΡaίοS'. This victory is celebrated by Pindar, ΟΙ Χίί. According to Paus. νΙ

4. ι 1 and the scholiasts ση Pindar, Ergoteles was a natiνe of CllOSSOS ίη Crete who
settled at Himel·a after being driven from his country by civil disturbances.
25. Οη Euthymus cf. 12, note.
26. [κα]λλιαs-: cf. Paus. v. 9. 3. The base of Micon's statue of Callias, \vhich is
mentioned by Pausanias (νΙ 6. Ι), has been discovered at Olympia; cf. Lowy, Inschr8"
grzech. Bzldhauer 41, Dittenberger-Purgold, Inschr. von O[ympzα 146.
27. ]Ta/)~pt~αS': the doubtful Τ may be Ύ or σ.
29. [ΤΕλ ]λων μαιvαλιοS': Pausanias (νΙ 10. 9) describes Tel10n more precisely as an
Oresthasian, and this name is confirmed by the pedestal of his statue which has been
found at Olympia (Dittenbergel"-Purgold ορ. CZ1. 147, 148) inscribed τέλλων • • • 'ApKaS'
, ΟΡΕσθάσιοS'.
30. JytaS': the vestiges of the first letter are also consistent with τ or λ. Tt not clear
why ~lS' is added at the end of this line. It can hardly mean that this person had,
,νοη the same race ση a previous occasion since (ι) the remal"k is not made ίη other
places where it would be expected, e. g. ίη reference to Astylus ίn 476 or Euthymus ίη ~
472; and (2) we kno\v that this Epidaurian did not win at either of the two preceding
festivals (cf. π. 4 and 17) and so a previous victory could have occurred at the earliest
twelve years before, which, though not impossibIe (cf. note οη 4), is hardly probable. Blass
suggests that ~ί~ means a second victory οη this occasion, and that ]Υηs- Επι~αvριοs-, the
winner of the ~ίαvλοS' (2 Ι), and ]Υιαs- Επι~αμvιοs- may be one and the same person; for ~ί~
ίη this sense cf. Phlegon fr. 12 ίη Mίiller, Frag. HzSt. iii. ρ. 606 (Ει<ατόμvωS' Μιλήσιοs- στά~ΙΟJ)
καΙ δlαυλοv καΙ όπλίτην, TpiS-. ~ls- might also imply that the same tace was for some reason
run twice oyer.
32. Cf. 19, note.
33. Cf. Diodor. χι 65. Parmenides also won the ~lQvλοS', cf. 34.
37. The date of this victory, which was the occasion of Pindar's 9th Olympian Ode,
is thus finaIly determined. The scholia ση Pindar (ΟΙ ix. 17, 18) make two statements : -
(ι) that the Olympian and PythianvictoriesofEpharmostus occurredin the 73rd01ympiad;
(2) that the Pythian victory occurl·ed ίη the 30th (or according to Schol. Vratisl. the 33rd)
Pythiad. Boeckh wished to reduce these conflicting dates to harmony by accepting the
statement of Schol.. Vl"atisl. and correcting by a 'certa coniectUl"a' 73rd Olympiad
to 33rd Pythiad (Β. C. 458), placing the Olympian victory ίη Β. c. 456. G. Hermann, οη
the other hand, adopted the 30th Pythiad as the true date, and harmonized this with the
Olympiad by emending 73rd Ιο 78th-- The papyrus proves that this was the right method.
1t aIso confirms the computation of the Pythiads from B.C. 582 folIowed by the scholiasts
οη Pindar, which was the basis of Hermann's conjectul"e, and which is follo\ved by Bergk
ίη his chronology of Pindar's Pythian Odes (Poet. Lyr. i. ρρ. 6 sqq.). The computation
from 586 proposed by Boeckh and adopted' by some l"ecent editors, which antedates
the Pythian odes by four years as compared with the scholiasts is, ,so far as the chronology
of Pindar is concerned, shown to be false; c( Wilamowitz-Mollendorff, Arzsl. und Athen
iiϊ. ρ. 323 sqq. and Kenyon, Bacchyl. ρ. 37. That some ancient writers reckoned the
Pythiads from 586 B.C. appears from Pausanias Χ. 7. 3 (where he seems to be trying to
reconcile the riνal dates, 586 and 582 B.C.) and from the Parian Chronicle. But the
scholiasts οη Pindar (who are supported by Eusebius and Jerome) reckon the Pythiads
uniformly from 582 B.C. The supposed exception quoted by Boeckh ίη connexion
with Ergoteles of Himera (schol. ad Pind. ΟΙ. xii., cf. Bergk, Ι c.) can be easily explained.
Which of the two dates 586 and 582 B.C. is correct forms too lal"ge a question to be entered
οη here.
39. ]ΤΙ'TLμα~αs-: the first ι was connected with the preceding Ietter \vith a ligature at
the top, which would be consistent \vith ι, Υ, σ, or τ.

42. Tιpυllθιo[~: the fil·st ι is \vήtten over some other letter. It may perhaps be
inferred from the occunoen<ce of the name here that the destruction of Tiryns by Argos
(cf. Paus. ίί. 25. 8, Strabo νίίί. ρ. 373 &c.), which took place at about the same time as
that of Mycenae (B.C. 468, Diodor. χι 65), had not occurred before the Olympian festival
of this year.
44. [.. .]νυμου: the reading of the papyrus, which is quite certain, is a riddle. There
is ηο doubt that Hieron's victory ίη the chariot race occurred this year; cf. the scholia
ση Pindar, ΟΙ i. ι, and the statement of Pausanias (νίίί. 42. 8), who, though giving ηο
dates, says that Hiel·on died before the dedication of his commemorative offering at
Olympia. Two explanations sugg€st themselves. Either [άιιω]νύμου may be read, ση
the hypothesis that the name of Hieron had become 10st at this point ίη the lists. But
it is strange that the name of the \vinner οη so famous an occasion, \vhich had been
celebrated by Bacchy1ides (Ode Ηί), and the date of which was kno\vn to the Pindar
scholiasts, should not have been restored. Or it may be supposed that the scribe Wl·ote
[ς[ιρω]ιιύμου instead of CιέΡωιιοr by a mere blunder. Tf the longer form ΙIEρώνυμo~ had really
appeat·ed ίη the official register, it ought also to have been found here ίn 19 and 32.
11. ι. Six or seven lίnes are 10st at the top of this column and therefore twenty-fouf
or twenty-three at the bottom of Col. Τ.
]ιιομος: the reading is dubious. The filost letter may be κ, and the last ι or 11 or any
similar letter \vith a velotical left-hand stroke.
2. λΙΟllTισ[KOS': cf. Paus. νΙ 4. 3, where however ηο date is given. Leontiscus also won
the πάλη ίn 452 (1. 15). Pausanias tells us (!. c.) that his statue at Olympia \vas the wOlok
of ΡΥthagοι-as of Rhegίuιη. The papyrus theι·efΟΓe supp1ies a new date for the life of
that important statuary, who ,vas not certainly l\.ηο'\\τη to have floul"ished so late as this.
Pliny indeed (Ν. Η. χχχίν. 49) places Pythagoras ίn the ninetieth Olympiad (B.C. 420-
4 17), but this statement has been generally recognized as an elTor, though it is ηο!
perhaps so fal' wrong as has been assumed. The earliest dated work of Pythagoras
is his statue of Astylus (Paus. νΙ 13. ι), ,vho gaineti his fi1"st victory ίη 488, and his
last ίn 476 (cf. Ι. 4 note).
3. aιιθρωπ[ o~ ••• πυξ: the papyrus here disposes of anothet· vexed question of criticism,
with reference to a well-kno"rn passage ίη Aristotle's Nicomachean Ethics (νίί. 4)
TOV~ μΕΙ! o~ν πpo~ ταυτα ••• ύΠfρβάλλοvτα$ ••• άπλα/ς μειι ού λέΥομΕΙΙ ακραΤΕίς, ••• ώ$ έTEpoυ~ καΙ
καθ' όμοιότητα λεyoμEνoυ~, CJσπερ ~Άνθρωπoς ό TtJ 'ολύμπια IIEΙΙΙKηKώ~' έκιίιιφ γαρ ό KOΙΙΙO~ λόΥΟ$ του
Ι~ίoυ μικρφ διέΦεΡΕΙΙ, αλλ' Βμωr lrEpo$ ην. The ancient commentators explain" Aνθpωπo~ here
as a proper name; and Alexander Α phl·odisiensis actuallΥ says that "Αvθρωποr ,vas a
πύK:Γη~ :-avθρωποr' ηll γαρ και ί~ιoν gvομα τουτο του Όλυμπιοιιίκου πύκτου 0.0 έιι Ήθικοις' 'μνημόνΕυσΕ"
(Τορ. 61); cf. Alex. Aph. Τορ. 22, Soph. Elench. 53 a, Suidas s. v. aνθρωπος, Eustath. 11.
χίί. ρ. 847, Mich. Eph. ad Elh. Nzc. Υ. ιnΖΊ. [01. 56 b, Ald. Schol. ad Elh. Nzc. νίί. 4.
1\tlodern critics have with fe\v #exceptions rejected this story, l"egarding aνθpωπo~ as a general
term. The ancient explanation of the passage is now entire]y confirmed. Cf. our note
ϊη the Classical Review for July, 1899.
4. Cf. Paus. νΙ 8. 4. The date of Timanthes' victory was not previouslΥ known.
5. ικανων: Robert suggests that this person may perhaps be identified with the Έμαυτίων
,vho is said by Pausanias (νΙ 17.4) to have won a boys' στάδιοιι at Olympia. That there
\vas some doubt about the spelling of the name is shown by the MSS. of Pausanias, which
vary between Ε and Ι for the initialletter, and V and v for the fourth.
7. Ι. ΆλκαίνΕ[ΤΟ$, fOf whom cf. Paus. νΙ 7. 8. Pausanias says that Alcaenetus \νοη
originally as a boy and subsequently as a man, and that his sons Hel1anicus and Theantus
,von the boys' boxing matcll ίη the eighty-ninth and ninetieth Olympiads respectively. The
Jate supplied by the papyrus for the fil'st victory of Alcaenetus is again a lle\V fact.

8. The scribe seems clearly to have written λ, and not μ, though it is tempting to
read, as Robe1't suggests, Μυασέ[α~ Κvρηvαϊο~, who is known as a victor ίn the όπλίTη~
f1'OIll Paus. νΙ 13. 7, 18. 1. 1t is of course quite possible that λι is a corruption for μ;
the mistake is a very easy one. ε could well be read aftet· σ; a second σ, α, or v would
also suit the vestiges.
9. Διαl<'Τορίaη~ was a name ίn use at Spat·ta (Hdt. νΙ 71) and ίη Thessaly (Hdt. vi. 127).
11. λv/(ω[v: the name is given as Λύ/(Οf; ίn Euseb. Hell. O!Jιmp. ρ. 41. 24, D. Hal. Χ. 53
(Λύ/(o~ θεσσaλo~ άπό ΛαρΙσση~). Possibly some confusion may haνe a1'isen between this
victor and the ΛύΚΟf; θεσσαλό~ who \von the όπλίTη~ οη the same occasion (Ι 2 ι), if
indeed they a1'e nοΙ to be 1'egarded as identical.
14. The statue of Pythocles erected at Olympia by Polycletus ίη commemo1'ation of
this victory is mentioned by Paus.. vi. 7. 10; and the base of the n10nument, inscribed with
the names of both athlete and a1'tist, has been discovered οη the site (Lowy, ορ. CΖΊ. 9 ι,
Dittenbe1'ge1'-Pu1'gold, ορ. cιΊ. 162, 163). The papy1'us by fixing the victo1'Y of Pythocles
ίη Β. c_ 452 pt·oves what was p1'eviously a moot point, that the sta.tue was the wo1'k
of the g1'eat l?olycletus (so Robert), and not his younger namesake, as has been maintained
by Cnrtius, Fu1'twangle1', and LOwy. Αη impo1'tant date fo1' the jlorl/.l" of Polycletus is
also supplied by the papyl'us (~f. 16, note). Accol·ding to Pliny (Ν. Η. ΧΧΧίν. 49) he
flourished ίn ΟΙ 90 (B.C. 420-417), and thjs is gene1'ally accepted as the appl'oximate date
of his famous statue of Ηeι-a (Paus. iί. 17. 4), which was p1'obably completed after
the destl'uction of the old He1'aeum ίn B.C. 423 (Thuc. ίv. 133). Plato (Protαg. ρ. 31 Ι c)
couples Polycletus \\Tith Pheidias as if he was a contemporary of the latte1', and it is now
evident that he was not a ve1'Y much younger contempo1'a1'Y, if he was executing
ilnpol'tant commissions as early as the middle of the century.
15. For Leontiscus cf. 2, note.
16. αριστων: we a1'e told by Pausanias (νϊ. 13. 6) that the1'e was at Olympia a statue
of the boxer ΆριστΙων of Epidaurus by Polycletus of A1'gos. The pedestal of this statue
has been discove1'ed at Olympia, bea1'ing the inscription Άριστίων θ(oΦίλεo~ )ΕπιaαίιΡΙΟ~.
Πολύ/(λΗΤΟS' ΕποίησΕ (Lowy, Oj. CΖΊ. 92, Dittenbel-ger-Purgold, oj. CΖΊ. 165). Οη palaeo..
graphical and o1'thographical g1'ounds epigraphists have had ηο hesitation ίη refer1'ing
this insc1'iption to the fou1'th century Β. C., and have the1'efol'e att1'ibuted the statue to
Polycletus the younger. But of cou1'se if Άριστ[ί]ων is 1'ead hel'e (for a simila1' omission
of ι cf. Ι. 7, note), and the identification with the boxer mentioned by Pausanias is
accepted, the statue must have been by the elde1' Polycletus. The ol'iginal insc1'iption
must the1'efore have become defaced and was 1'eplaced by the one which is preserved.
17. F 01' Δαμά"YηTO~ cf. Paus. νΙ 7. 1. Pausanias does not give the date of his
victo1'ies. Α pedestal bearing the name of Damagetus has been discove1'ed at Olympia
(Dittenberger-Purgold, oj. cz'!. 152).
18. λα/(ων: 1. Λάχων. This victOl'Y was the occasion of two odes of Bacchylides
(νί and νίί), which were accol"dingly composed not ea1'lier than Β. c. 452. The title
of Bacch. νϊ (that of νίi is not pl'esel"ved) is Λάχωνι Κείωι σTα~ΙEί Όλύμπ(ια). 1f Lac}10n
was a boy, παιδΕ ought to have been added as it is ίn the title of Bacch. xi. Mr. Kenyon
the1'efore ve1'γ natul'ally supposed Lachon to be a man, and impugned the vel'acity of
the 01ympic Register, ίn which his name is not given. Wackernagel and Wilamo,vitz,
who al'e folJowed by Blass, showed ground fo1' believing that the victory of Lachon
commemol"ated by Bacchylides was won ίn the στάaιοv fo1' boys; and this view is now
confirmed by the papyrus. The date of the event is a]so a valuable fact for the life
of Bacchylides. The ]atest precise date p1'eviously known ίn the poet's litel"a1'Y caIeer
was Β. c. 468, when the thi1'd ode ,vas w1'itten. ΒΥ the discove1'Y of this papy1'us his
activity obtains a definite extension of sixteen yeal"s.

21. Cf. 11, note.

22. σαμιου καμ[αριναιου ΤΕθριππον: this name reopens the question of the occasion of
Pindar's fOUl·th and fifth 01ympian odes. They are addressed to Psaumis of Camarina,
who according to the scholiast οη 01. ίν had WOll ίn the 82lld Olympiad τεθρίππφ (v. Ι.
ίππoι~); while according to the scholia οη 01. v Psaumis had been victorious ΤΕθρίππφ
καΙ άπήνυ και κέλητι. Internal evidence makes it certain that ΟΙ v at any rate was composed
ίη celebration of a victory ίη the άπήνη or mule-chariot race. The statement of the
scholiast concerning Psaumis' triple victory has accordingly been explained with much
probability as based οη a misunderstanding of line 7; and ΟΙ ίν has usually been
considered to refer to the san1e victory ίη the ιΊπήνη, notwithstanding the testimony of
the scholiast. Now it is evident that this view is at least partially corl"ect, for the ΡaΡγrus
shows that Psaumis did not win the κ'λη~ ίη the 82nd Olympiad. But it· appeal's more
than likely that the scho1iast ση ΟΙ ίν was so far right that Psaumis won the τίθριππον
ίη that year. σαμιου is not far from Ψαύμιo~; and καμ[ can hardly be anything but the first
syllable of Καμ[αριναίου. We have therefore a choice of alternatives. ΟΙ. ίν may actualIy
refel' ιο this victory ίn the τέθριππον, and the victory ίη the ll1ule-chariot race celebrated ίn
ΟΙ. v may have been gained either οη a subsequent Of, less probably, οη a previous
occasion. There is nothing ίn 01. ίν inconsistent with such a theory. όχέων ίη Ι ι ι
is an indecisive word; if ίι had definitely implied the άπήνη the scholiast would obviously
not have said ΤΕθρίππφ. Or both. the fourth and fifth Odes refer to a victo1'Y ίη the άπήυη
\vhich was won befol'e this 82lld Olympiad, possibly ϊn the 8ISt. 1f the names of winners
ίn tllat race were nοΙ usually included ίn lists like tr1e present (cf. intl·od.), the scholiasts
might have ηο means of verifying the date; and after the theory of the three victories
ίη the 82nd 01Jlmpiad had been evolved fl"Om 1. 7, to place the victor)' ίη the άπήνη
and the supposed victory ίn the κέλη~, ίn the same year as the τέθριππον, ~Thich \\'as fixed,
would only be a natural step.
24. κριτων: Diodor. Χίί. 5 gives the name as ΚΡlσωv (Κρίσσων the oldest MS., and so
Euseb.); Κρίσων is also the spelling ίη Plato, Prolαg. 335 Ε, Leg. νίiί. 840 Α.
25. The mutilated letter had a rounded fi1"st strol{e; €, θ, ο, σ, 01' ω are most probable.
28. This κιμων αΡΥ[ΕΙΟ$ is clearly to be identified (so Robert) with the ΧΕίμων of Argos
whose victory ίη the πάλη is mentioned by Pausanias and \vhose two statues by Naucydes
he considered to be amongst the best examples of that aι-tίst's wOl'k (νΙ 9. 3). For a
similar substitution of κ for χ ίη this MS. cf. 18 λακων. 1t has been a doubtful question
,vhether Naucydes was a younger bl'other of the elder, or an eldet· brother of the younger,
Polycletus. ΒΥ placing Cheimon's victor)' ίη Β. C. 452 the papJTrus SllOWS that the former
view is correct.
2 9. α'Yησιλαo~ ρ[o~ιo~ ? ρ before the lacuna is almost certain. Robert suggests
with much probability that this is a variation of the name of Damagetus' bΙΌther, which
is given ίη Paus. νί. 7. ι as 'Ακουσίλαος. The fact that Damagetus also ,,,οη ίn this year
(1. 30) and Acusilaus is desc1'ibed by Pausanias as a boxe1' confirms the identification.
)Al(oυσίλαo~ is mOJ'e Iikely to be the correct [οι·ηι.
30. For Damagetus cf. 17, note.
33. The lette1' after v might be λ 01' μ.
34. The doubtful λ may be χ or perhaps μ. It is knowl1 from Pausanias (νΙ 2. 2)
that a ΛυKί'νo~ Λάκων WOl1 the cha1'iot race about this time. But it is not likely that this
is the victo1'Y to which the paPYl'US refers, for ίn the fil'st place that hypothesis involves
the supposition of the 1088 of a line between 33 and 34, since the δπλΙτη!; alwaJTs follows
παί~ωιι πύξ; and, secondly, if this Lycinus \vas the winner of tlle τΕθριππον and 110t of the
όπλίτης, his name ought to be ίn the genitive case. .




26 χ 209'5 (first ten cols.) cm. Plate Ι (Col. νι!).

THIS fine copy of the fifth book of the llz'αd is written upon the verso of
ccxxxvii, the 'Petition of Dionysia.' Before being utilized for the Homer the
roll had to be patched υρ and stl engthened ίη pla~es by strips of papyrus glued

ση the recto. Ιη its ot·iginal condition it was of great length. Two fragments
of the twenty-ninth colnmn are preserved; and nine more columns would still
haνe been required to complete the book, while each column occupies from 8 to
8! inches of papyrus. Probably other documents than the petition of Dionysia
were nsed ίη the composition of this roll. The writing οη the recto of th~
fragments of the tw~nty-ninth column is not the same as that of the petition;
and a third hand may be distinguished οη the 1~ecto of Col. XV. The MS. is
continuous as far as 1. 278, and the first eight columns, which \vere the core of
the 1·011, are pl'actically perfect. Τη the tenth and eleventh columns the
condition of the papyrus gradually deteriorates, and finalIy becomes fragn1entary.
The handwriting is a bold well-formed uncial of the square sloping type.
Ιη general style it resembles the hand of the fragment of Plato's Laws (Ο. Ρ. Ι.
Plate VI), which was written before A.D. 295, and still more closely that of ο. Ρ.
Ι. xii, with which this papyrus was actually found, and which tnay be placed ίn
the fit·st half of the third century. Other items of evidence are afforded by the
pieces of papyrus glued to the recto, which seem to date from about the beginning
of the third century, and by the few cursiνe entries οη the verso, which are
apparently not νery much latet Οη the other hand a te1~minlts α quo is provided

by the petition οη the 1--ecto, which was written about Α. D. 186. The date of the
Homer, therefore, may be fixed with much certainty ίη the earlier decades
of the third century. Ξ is formed by three separate stt·okes.
The MS. is very full of accents, breathings, and marks pf elision, with \\Thich

not even the Bacchylides papyrus 1S more plentifully supplied 1. The method of
accentnation followed ίη that papyrus reappears, with some modifications, ίη the
present case. Here, too, the acute accent is usually placed upon the first vowel
of a diphthong, and the circumflex (ννhίch ls sometimes of angular shape) over
both vowels. Oxytone words ίη the Bacchylides papyrus are not accented οη
the final syl1able, but all the preceding syl1ables bear the grave accent. Ιη our
papyrus only the penultirnate syl1able (except αΦPEΙo~, ίη 1. 9) has a grave
accent; and when the word is followed by a stop or an enclitic it is usually
accented ίn modern fashion with an acute accent ση the last syl1able, e. g.
41 μΕσσηΥVs·, 9'2 'Πολλά θ'. Monosyllabic oxytone words bear the grave accent,
except when followed byan enclitic, when the accent becomes acute. Words
followed by enclitics are accented ίη the manner now usual, except that ίη
perispome words the natural accent is superseded by the rett·acted accent, e. g.
176 'Πολλώυ ΤΕ, 192 τώυ ΚΕ. There are some cases of mistaken or abnormal
accentuation, e. g. 17 ωρυυτο, 33 κvδοs, 92 αιζηωυ, 196 κρε!, 221 εμωυ, 245 ε~p'.
Breathings are usually acute-angled, not sqnare. The diaeresis is freely used,
and the length of vowels is occasionally marked.
It is difficult to determine whether or ηο the original hand is responsibI~ for
the majority of these lection signs. Οη the whole it seems probable that the
stops, accents, breathings, and marks of length are almost entirely a subsequent
addition. Of the marks of elision sotne are certainly original, but more are
posterior. The diaeresis οη the other hand appear to be mostly by the first
hand. It is not more easy to decide how many correctors of the MS. may be
distinguished, and to which of them individual corrections should be assigned.
The beginnings of the lines of the first column have been broken away and
afterwards restored οη a fresh sheet of papyrus ίη a rough uncultivated hand.
Το this hand may be attributed the occasional insertion ίη the margin of the
names of speakers, the addition after 83, and a few of the other alterations,
including, perhaps, that ίη 132. Αήοther hand, to which most of the corrections
(among them the insertion of 126) are due, is earJier ίη date, as may be partly
infe-rred from the fact that the very ill-written supplements ίη Col. Ι are not
amended. Probably this first corrector was also responsible for the punctuation
and accentuation of the MS.

1 Mr. Kenyon considers (Palaeography, ρρ. 26, 28) that only works intended for the market or large
libraries would be provided to any consid~rable extent with accents &c. ; whίle he also h~ld~ (ibz·d•. ρ. 20)
that works designed ior sale were never wrιtten οη tιle verso. Onr papyrus clearly makes lt xmposslble to
maintain both of these positions; and it may be doubted whethe!' either of them ίΒ really sound. V\Thy
should not works intended for sale have been \\'ritten οη the back of previously used papyrus 1 Such books
could of course only have commanded a lower price; but there must have been a demand for cheap books
as well as dear ones. As for accentuation, that obviously must have been a matter of individual

The text is a fairly good one, tho~gh not of course free from errors. As
usual ίη the case of Homeric papyri of the Roman period, there are few
divergences from our vulgate. Of the peculiar variants τέταυται [or κέχυυται ίη
141 is the most striking. μ'υo~ for β'λo~ ίη 104 is an interesting confirrnation of
the reading of the Geneva MS. Α col1ation with La Roche's text (R.) is given
below. We do not, however, as a rule, notice as variants cases.of the common
spelling ει for ί.

Col. Ι.

Ενθ αυ τυl8ει8η 8ιομη8εϊ παλλα~ αθηνη

8ωκε μει ν()~ και θάpσo~ ιν εK8ηλo~ μΈτα πασιν
αΡ'ΥΕιοισ[ι] Ι Υενοιτο· ϊ8ε κλέo~ Έσθλον άροιτο·
/8αι οι εκ 1 κ6pυθ6~ τε και ασπί80~ ακάματον πυρ
5 αστερ οπlωρεινα/ εναλίΥκιον O~ τε μάλιστα
λαμπρον Ι παμφάινησι λελoυμένo~ ωκεανοιο.
-τ[ω]οιο Ι πυρ δaίεν απο KpliTO~ τε και ωμων
/[~υμ]ε δε μΙιν κατα μεσσον σθι πλειστοι κλΟIlΕΟl1ΤΟ·
ην . δε TΙI~ εν τρωεσσι δάΡηr αφνειo~ αμύμων

10 ϊpευ~ η\αιστοιο· δύω δε οι UteEr ήστην
/Φηyευ~ Ι Eι8αΊό~ ΤΕ μαxη~ Ευ Ει8όΤΕ πάση~
οι 11'0 ν

τω [μεν] Ι aκρινθετε εναντίω ωρμηθήτην

τω μΕ ιφ' ιπποιίν· δ G απ[ο] xθoνo~ ώρνυτο π'Ε(οs·
/οι 8 ΟΤΕ 81η σχΕ80ν ησαν επ αλληλοισιν ίόνTε[~]
15 Φηyευ~ ρlα πpόTεpo~ ΠΡοi~ι 80λιχόσκιο[ν] E[Y]XO~·
τυ8ει8Ε{ω θ' υπερ ωμον αρ[ι]στερον ηλυθ' ακωκη
ΕΥχεΟΥ 1 8 έβαλ' αυτον· ο 8' υσTEPO~ ωρνυτο χαλκω
τυ8ει8η IS· του Κ ουχ' αλιον βελo~ έκφυΥε XEΙPO~
αλλ εβαλΙε σTηθo~ μεταμά(ιοll ωσε 8' αφ ιππων·
20 ει8aι(o)~ Ι απ6ρουσΕ λιπων ΠΕρικαλλέα 8ιφρον·

ου8 ετλη Ι περιβηναι α8Ελφειου κταμενοιο-

ου8ε Υα Ι [0]υ8ε κεν OιVTOr υπεκ'φυΥε κηρα μέλαιναll
αλ(λ) ηφηlστοr ερυτο σάωσΕ δε νυκτι καλύΨαr·
ror 8η οι μ\η παΥχυ yeproll ακαχημεllοr ειη·

Col. 11.
25 ιπποvr 8' εξελασα,r μΕΥαθυμου Tv8Eor ϋιοr
8ωκεν Εταιροισιν καταΥΕιν κοιλαr επι lIηαr-
ΤΡωεr 8ε θ
μεΥα, υμοι επει

τον μεν α,λευάμενον τον 8ε. κτάμεllον παρ 6χΕσφι

πασιν ορίνθη Ovpor- α,ταρ Υλαvκωπιr αθηνη
30 XELpor ελοΟσ' επέεσσι προσηυ8α, θοΟρον αρηα,.
αper aper βροτολΟΙΥε μιαιφ6νε ΤΕιχεσιπλητα
ουκ αν 8η Tproar μεν eaUOpEll και axaLovr
μάρνασθ' οπποτέροισι[ν] πατηρ (ευ~ KD80r ορεξη_
νωι 8Ε χα(ώμΕσθα· 8tor 8ε αλεώμεθα μηνιν-
35 ωr ειποΟσα μάχη, εξήΥαΥε θοΟρον άρηα-
μΕν ε
τον επειτα καθε6σεll επ ηϊ[ο]ιιτι σκαμά1l8Ρωe
τρώαr Κ εκλειναν 8αναο[ι] ελε 8' άνδρα E/(aUTor
ηΥεμονων- nopOJTor 8ε άναξ αν8ρων αΥαμεμνων
aρχον αλι(ώνων 08ίον μΕΥαν έκβαλΕ 8ίφρου
40 πρώτω Υαρ στρεφθέντι μΈταφρεllω Εν 86ρυ πηξε[ν]­
4 ι ώμων μεσσηΥύr- Βια 8Ε στήθεσφιν Ελασσεν /

43 EtBop~vevr Β άρα φαίστον εllήρατο [TEKTollor] vt[o]v

βώρου- ~r εκ τάΡνηr εριβώλακοr ειληλ6υθει-
45 το" με" αρ EL80pEvevr 80υρ/. κλvτοr έΥχεϊ μακρω
νύξ ϊΠΠα/ν επιβησ6μενον κατα 8εξιον ωμον-
ήΡΙ7ΤΕ t εξ οχέων- σTυyΈpo~ 8 άρα μιν UK6ror είλεν·
τον μεν αρ Et80pevfjor εσύλευοιι θεράποvτεr-
/ ϋιον δε στροφίοιο σκαμάν8ριον α'ίμοιια θήρηr
50 aΤΡει8ηr μειιελαοr 'Εκ ΕΥχεϊ οξυ6εντι

Col. 111.
εσθλον θηρητηρα δ[δαξε Υαρ αPTεμι~ αυτη
βάλλειν άΥρια παντα τά τε τρεφει 6υρεσιν υλη·
λ' ,
αλ 6υ οι τ6τε Υε χραισμ' αPTεμι~ ϊοχ[αι]aιρα
ουδε εκηβολίαι ηισιν το πρίν Υ' εκεκαστο·
55 αλλά μιν αTρειδη~ δουρι KλεΙTO~ μενελαo~
56 πρ6σθεν '€θεν φευΥοιιτα μετάφρενον 6υτασε δουρι·
58 ήριπε δε πρη[ν]ή~· αράβησε δε τέυχε' επ αυτωι·
μηρι6νη~ δε φέρεκλον ενήρατο TεKToνo~ ϋιον
60 αρμΟllίδεω O~ χερσιν επ[στατο δάι8αλα παντα
ξ ε
τέυχειν έ[χ]οχα Υάρ μιν εφίλατο παλλαr αθηllη·
O~ και αλεξάνδρω τεκτήllατο νηα~ εεισα~
αpxεKάKoυ~ ά(ι] πασι κακον τρώεσσι ΥενονΤο·
οι τ[ε]' αυτω· επι ου τι θεων εκ θέσπατα ήΒΕΙ·
65 τον μΕν μηρι6νηr οτε δη κατέμαρπτε Βιωκων
βεβλήκει Υλουτον κατα δεξιοιι· η οε δια προ
/( αντικρυ κατα κύστιν ύπ οστεον ήλυθ' ακωκη·
νυξ δ' έριπ' oιμωξα~· θάναTO~ δε μιν αμΦΕκαλυΨεν·
πήδαιον δ αρ επεφνΕ μέyη~ αντήνΟΡοr ϋιον
70 o~ ρα ν6θo~ μεν έην· πύκα 8' ετρεφε δεια θεανω
![ε]ισα φιλοισι τεκεσσι χαρι(ομενη π6σεϊ ω·
τον μεν φυλέι8η~ 80υρι KλΙTO~ εΥΎυθεν ελθων
βεβλήκει KεΦαλη~ κατα ειiιίoν Όξέϊ 80υρι·
74 αντικρυ δ αν oδoνTα~ ϋπο Υλωσσαν τάμε xαλKO~·
76 εV[ΡJύπυλο~ δ' ευαιμΟllί8ηr ϋψήνορα 8ειον

Co1. ΙΥ.

φη[ΡΙ'ΠΕ 8 Εν] ιcoY~[ηs ψuχρ]ον [8 ΕλΕ xα.λιcoν ο]~9'!g'~[

υιον ϋπερθύμου δoλoπέιoνo~ oS' ρα σκαμάνδρου

αρητηρ ετετυκτο· θεo~ 8' ω~ τειετο δήμω-
τον μΕν άρ ευpύπυλo~ Eυάιμoνo~ ayλαo~ ϋιo~

80 προσθειι Έθειι φευΥοιιτα μετα8ρομά8ην Ελασ ωμοιl

-φασΥάιιω αί'ξαr· απο 8' εξεσε χειρα βαρειαιι­
αιματ6εσσα δε χειρ πε8lω πεσε-[ν] τον 8ε κατ 6σσε

J.ιέλλαβε πορφύΡεοr θαιιατοr και μοιρα κραταιη-

/ ωr οι μεll ποιιΕοιιτο κατα κρατερηll ϋσμειιιηιι ·
85 τυ8έι8ην 8' ουκ αιι yιι6ιη~ ποτεροισι μετειη
ηε μετα τρωεσσιll ομειλεοι η μΕΤ axatotr-
θΟlιε Υαρ αν πε8ιον ποταμωι πλήθοιιτι εOΙKα/~
χειμάρρω ~r τ' ωκα ρέων εκε[σ]8ασσε Ύεφυpα~·
τοlι [τ] ουτ άρ τε Υεφυρε εεΡΥμέιιε ϊσχαν6ωσιν·
90 ουτ άρα ερκεα tσχι αλωάων εριθηλέων
ελθοιιτ' εξαπίνη~ στ' επιβρειση 8ιo~ ομβροre
πολλά {j ϋπ αυτου εΡΥα κατήριπε καλ' αι(ηων.
ω~ υπο τυ8ει8η πυκιναι κλονεοντο ΦαλαYΎε~
τρώων ουο άρα μιll μιμιιοιι πoλέε~ περ EOVTEr·
95 τον 8' ωr ουιι ενοησε λυκάοvοr αΥλαοr vιοr
θύνοντ' αμ πε8ίον προ "θεν κλοιιΕοιιτα φαλαΎyα~.
αιψ' επι τυ8εί8η ετιτάιιιετο καμπύλα τοξα ·
και βάλ'[ ε] ETratUUUOVTa TVXroV κατα 8εξιοll ωμον
θώρηκοr Υύαλον · 8ια 8' έπτατο ΠΙΚΡοr oϊσTO~-
100 aντικρυ 8ε 8ιΕσχε- παλάσσετο 8' αίματι θα/ρηξ·

α τω 8' ε[μ] ι μακροll άϋσε λυKάollo~ αΥλαοs- ϋιοr·


Col. v.

-6ρνυσθαι Tproer μ[ε]Υάθυμοι KEIITOpES' ιππων-

βεβληται Υαρ aptUTor αχαιων· ου8έ € φημι

8ηθα σχήσασθαι κρατεροιι pevor ει ετε6ν με

105 ω[σ]ρσεν αιιαξ 8tor ϋιοr απορvύμενοr λυκ(ηθεν·
ω~ έφaτ' Εvχ6μεllΟS'· τοlι 8' ου βελo~ ωκυ 8άμασσεν
αλλ' αιιαχωρησαr ΠΡ6σf! ίπποι ι 11. και 6χεσφιll
έστη και σθειιελοll προσεφη καπαιιήϊοιι ύιον·

όρσο πΕποlι καπαιιηϊά8η καταβήσεο 8ιφροv

ιο σ

110 οφρά μοι εξ ώμο[υ] εpύση~ πικρον οϊστον·

ω~ άρ έφη· σθένελo~ 8ε καθ ίππων αλτο χαμα(ε·
παρ 8ε σTιX~ βελοr ωκυ 8ιαμπ~pε~ εξερυσ ώμου·
αιμα 8' ανηκ6ιιτι[σσ]ε 8ια στρεπτοΊο XΙTωιιo~.
8η ,,6τ' έπειτ' ηρατο βοην αyαθo~ 8ιoμή8η~·
ι 15 κλυθ! μοι αι"/ι6χοιο 8ιo~ TEKO~ ατρυτώιιη
ει ποτΕ μοι και πατρι φιλα φρονέουσα παρεσTη~
8ηΙ'ω εν πολεμω· νυν αυτ εμε φίλαι αθηιιη·
[8]ον 8έ τε ιl αιιδρα ελειν και ε~ ορμην έ,,/xεo~ ελθειll
O~ μ' έβαλε φθάμειιo~ και επέυχεται·· ουδέ με φησιν
120 δηρον έτ' [αιισχησ]εσθαι λαμπρον Φαo~ ηελιοιο·
ω~ έφατ evx6pevor· του 8' Εκλυε παλλα~ αθήιιη·
,,/ϋϊα C εθηκεν ελαφρα π68αr και xειρα~ όπερθεν·
ayxov Κ ισταμένη έπεα πτεροειιτα προσηυ8a·
θαρσα/ν νυν 8topfJ8er επι τρώεσσι μαχεσθαι·
125 'f'ev "/άρ τοι στήθεσσι μενo~ πατρώϊοll ηίκα ΙCαTω
127 αχλυν αυ τοι απ οφθαλμων ελον η πριν επηεν

J 26 'βτρομον οι.ον εΧΕσΚΕ σαΙCEσ1Tα.λOι Ι1Τ1ΤΟΤα. τ"δΕ", ανω

Co]. νι.

ΟΦΡ ευ ,,/εινώσKOΙ~ ειμεν θεον η8ε κε αν8ρα·

τω νυν αι κε θεo~ πειpώμειιo~ ειιθά8' rKfJTat.
130 μη τι σύ Υ' αθαιιατοισι θεoι~ αντικρυ μαχεσθαι
Totr αλλoι~· αταρ Ει κε 8ιo~ θυΥατηρ αφρο8έιτη
χ αλιcω
ελθησ ε~ πολεμοll. την 'γ' ουταμεν οξέϊ Βουρι-
η μεν αρ ιor ειπουσ απέβη 'YλaυKωπι~ αθηιιη­
."υδει8η~ Β εξαυΤΙΥ ίων προμάχοισιν εμΕχθη

135 Τκαι ,
πριν περ θυμω '
μεμαω~ τρωεσσι μαχεσ αι θ
δη τ6τε μιν TPΙ~ τ6σσον Ε'λεν μεJlO~ ω~ τε λεοιιτα

ον ρά τε ποιμην αΥρω επ Eιpoπ6KOΙ~ oteUUL

χράυση μεν i αυλη~ ϋπεράλμενον· ου8Ε 8αμασση·
του με" ΤΕ σθενοr φρσεΥ ' έΠΕιτα 8~ Τ ου προσαμύΙΙΕΙ·
140 αλλα κατα uraBpovr δύεται' τα 8' ερημα φοβεΊται·
/αι . μεν Τ αιιχηστεϊναι επ αλληλησι τΕτα"ται·
Ιαυταρ b Eμμεμaω~ βαθEη~ εξαλλετε αvληr.
ωsι μεμαω~ τρώΕσσι μΙΥη KpaTEpor 8ιoμη8ηsι·
ε εν αστυνοο" και
υπειροιια ποιμενα
λ αωιι

145 τον μεν ϋπερ μα(οίο βαλων χαλκήρεϊ 80υρι·

τον 8 ετερον ξίφεϊ μεΥάλω κληεΊ8α παρ ωμον

,/Ιπλήξ· απο 8 αυXένosι ιι1μο[υ] εεΡΥαθεν η8 απο νώτου·

TOυ~ μεν
v1\' 'β
α αντα
μετωχετο και πο
λ' l'

·ϋιεαsι eVPV8tipaVTor ονειροπ6λοιο yεPOllTO~·


Ι 50 τoιsι ουκ εpχoμένoιsι Ο Υερων Εκρειν[ε]τ' oVELpovr·

αλλά σφεαsι KpaT'€por 8ιoμη8η~ εξειιάριξεν·
~βη l'
οε μετα t.'
6αν θ'ον τε θ"οωνα Τ'Ε Φ'
αινoπo~ .. '"

άμφω τηλυΥΕτω· b 8ε τΕιρετο Υήραί λυΥρω,:

Col. νιι.
υιον [δ]' ου κετ' αλλοll επι κτεάτεσσι λι[π]ε[σ]θαι·
155 ενθ' Ο ΥΕ Tovr ενάρι(ε· φιλον 8' εξα{νυτο θυμον
αμφ[ο]τερω· πατερι δε Υόον και κή8εα λυΥρα
/λειπ' επει ου (ωοντε paXfJr εκ 1Ι0στήσαll.τε
8έξατ[ο) χηρωσται δε δια κτησιlΙ 8ατεοντο'

ενθ' ϋ(ι]αr πριάμοιο δυ[ο] λάβε 8αρ8aιι[8αο

160 ει[ιι] ε(ν]ι 8ιφρω EOVTar εχεμμονά τε χρομίον τε·
ω[sι] ΒίΕ] λέων εν βουσι θορων εξ αυχένα άξη
πόΡτ[ιο]r ηε {300r ξύλοχον κάτα βοσκομενάων.
ror Tovr αμφοτεΡουr εξ ιππωll rv8Eor vtor
β(η]σε κακωr aEKoVTar· επειτα 8ε τευχε εσυλα·
165 ιπ[πο]υr .8 oLr ετάροισι 8Ε80υ μετα VfJαr ελάυνειν·

τοιι 8' t8EII αιllεια~ αλαπά(οllτα σTίxα~ αll8ρωll·

βη δ' ί'μΕΙΙ άll τε μαχην και ανα κλ611011 εΥχειάωll
πάν8αροll αντίθεοll 8ι(ήμενO~ ει που εφευροι-
ευρε λυκάονοr ϋιοll αμυμοιιά τε κραΤΕρ6ν τε-
ι 70 στη δΕ πρ6σθ' αυτοιο Εποr τε μιll αllτίοll ηυ8α·
πάν8αΡΕ π6υ τοι TO,oll [Ε]ι8ε ΠTεpόεllTε~ οϊστοι
και Kλεo~ ω ου Tlr τοι ερίζετε ενθάδε Υ' ανηρ·
oυ[~]ε Tlr ΕΙΙ λυκίη σεο Υ' εύχετε εινaι αμείιιωll·
αλλ άΥΕ τω8' έφε~ αll8ρι βελo~ 8ιϊ Xειpα~ ανασχωll
175 6~ TΙ~ (;8ε KpaTEEfι και δη K(aJKa πολλα ΕΟΡΥε
Tpωα~· επει πολλών ΤΕ και εσθλων Υούνατ' έλυσε-

ει μή TΙ~ θεοr εσ[τ] ι K[O]TEuudpevoS' τρωεσσιν


ειρωll μη",έισαS'· χαλεπη δε θεου [α]π[ο] μηllι~-

Col. νιιι.

τον 8' αυτε προσεε[ ι]πε λυκάονοS' αyλαo~ VLOS'·

186 αιιιεια τρωωιι βουληφ6ρε χαλκοχιτώιιωll­

τυ8έι8η ptll εΥω Υε 8αιφροιιι παντα etUKro
ασπΕδι Υεινώσκωιι αυλωπι8ί τε τρυφαλειη·

ιππoυ~ 8 εισΟρ6ων· σάφα 8 ουκ οι8' ει [θ]εοS' εστιιι-

ει δ' (; Υ' αιιηρ 611 φημι δαtφρωv Tυδεo~ ϋιοS'
185 ουχ 6 Υ' ανευθε θεου [8]ά8ε μαιιιεταΙ 8 αλλα TlS' ά[Υ]ΧΙ
έστηκ' αθαιιατ(ω]ιι ιιεφέλη ειλυμΕΙΙΟS' ropoV[S']·
OS' τ6υτο[ υ] βελοS' α/κυ κιχήμειιοιι έτραπειι άλλ[ η
η8η Υάρ ο", [εφ]ηκα βελοr κάι μιlΙ βαλαιι ωμοll
8εξιοll- αllτικρ[υ [ • ]ε] 8ια θώΡηκο[S' Υ]υάλοιο·

190/ και μιν ΕΥω Υ' εφάμηιι αϊ8ωιιηί προίάψεΙ1l8

έμπηS' 8' ουκ ε8αμασσα - OeoS' ιιύ TLS' εσ(τ]ι κοτήειS'·
ίπποι 8' ου παρέασι και αρματα τώll κ' επιβάιη1l 8
αλλά που εll μΕΥάροισι λυκαοιιοS' Ένδεκα διφροι

καλοι πpωTOπαγ€ι~ ν€OT€υXέ€~· αμφι 8€ π€πλOΙ

195 πεπτανται· παρα 8Ε σφιν εκαστω 8[(υγ€~ ιπποι
εστaσι[ν] κρει λευκον ερεπτ6μενοι K~Ι oλυpα~·
η μΕν μοι μαλα πολλα Υερων αιχμητα λυκαων
ερχομένω επετελλε 80μoι~ ενι ποιητοΊσιν·
ιπποισίll μ' εκελευε και αρμασιν εμβεβαωτα[α]
200 β [αρ]χΕυειν τρωεσσιν ανα KpαTεpα~ υσμεινα~·
α[λ]λ εΥω ου πειθδμην η τ αν πολ[υ] κ[ε]ρ8ιον ηεν
ΙΠΠα/ν φει86μενo~ μή μοι 8ευ6ιατο φopβη~
αν8ρων ειλομένων ειωθ6Tε~ έ8με,!ε ά88ην·

Col. ΙΧ.
'Πα.ν[δ]α.ρ( 05) ω~ λίποιι [αυ]ταρ π[ε](o~ ε~ [ειλι]ον [ειλη]λουθα
πρ(οι) α.ινεια.ν

205 τ6ξοισι(ιι πισ]vν[Q]~ [α] τα 8ε μ ουκ αρ εμελλεν οιιήσε(ιν

ή8η Υα[ρ 80tJotUllI αριστήεσσιν εφηκα
τυ8εί8[ η τε] και 0,[τ]ρει8η· εκ 8 αμφοτέροιϊν
aTpEKE[r] α[ιμ) εσσευα βαλων ήΥειρα 8ε μαλλον·
τώ ρα κα( κ]η άιση απο πασσάλου αγκύλα τοξα
210 ηματι τ[ω] ελδμην οτε εrλιον [Etr ερ]ατεινην
ηΥε6μ[ην] τρώεσσι φερων χ[αριν] εκτορι [8]έιω·
ει 8ε κε ιι[ο]στήσ[ω] και εσ6ψομ[αι οΦ]θαλμοΊσιν
πατρι[τ] εμην αλ(οχ]ον τε κα[ι] v[tepe]rper μεΥα 8ωμα.
αυτίκ έπε[ι]τ απ (ε]μειο καρη (ταμοι) αλλ6ΤΡιοr rproS'
215 ει μη εΥω τά8ε τ6ξα φαεινα/ εν πυρ ι (θέ]ιην
χερσ(ι] 8ιακλάσσαS'· ανεμώλια Υάρ μ[οι] οπη8ει·
τον 8 αυτ αινεια~ τρώων αϊ'O~ αντ[ι]ον ηυ8α φ
α.ινεια.ι α.ι

'Πα.νδα.ρ(φ) μη 8' OVTroS' αΥ6ρευε· παροS' 8' ουκ έσσετ[ ε] αλλωr

πρι[ν] Υ' επι νω τω8' αJl8ρι συν rπποισιν και 6χεσφιν
220 αντιβίην ελθδντε συν έντεσι πειρηθηναι·

αλλ ay' εμων οχεων επιβήσεαι 6φρα (8ηaι

οί οι τρωϊοι iΠπoι επισ(τ]άμενοι πε8ιοιο
κραιίπ]νa μάιλ' ενθα κα(ι] ενθα 8ιωκέμεν η8ε [φ]έ,8εσθαι

τω και νωϊ πόλιν δΕ σαώσΕτον Ει περ αν αυτε

225 (evr ΕΠ(Ι τvJ8έι8η 8ιομή8εί κϋ8( or] ορεξη
αλλ άΥε [νυ)1I μάσΤΕΙΥα και ην[α σΙ[Υ]αλ6εντa
α. ο 0...

8εξαι ΕΥω [8] ιπ(π)φν επιβήσομε όφρa μάχωμαι'

ηε συ 'Τ6ν8ε 8εξο μελήσουσιll 8 έμοι ιΠΠοι·

CoΙ Χ.

[τον] 8 [αυΤΕ] π[ροσεΕιπε λυκαονοr αϊ'λαo~ υιo~

230 αινΕ(ι Ja [συ] μεν [aVTor εχ ηνια και τεω ιππω
μαλλ[ ον v Jπ ην[ιοχω Ειωθοτι καμπυλον αρμα
όισΕτο[ν ει πJep [αν α ]!-'[ τε φεβωμεθα 'Tv8eor υιον
μη τω [μεν] 8e[t]ua[vJT[e ματησετον ου8 εθελ]ητ(ον
εκφερ[ ΕμΕ Jv πολεμο[ ιο τ]ε[ον φθΟΥΥον ποθεον ]Tε~8
235 νωϊ 8 ε[παι]ξα[r] μεΥαθυμο[υ
Tv8eor Vlor
/αυτω ΤΕ [κτ]έινη και ελάσ[ση provvxar ιπ]π[ου]ςι·
/αλλα σύ [Υ aV]Tor ελα[vJνε τΕ' a[ρματα και τ]Εω ιππω
τό,,8ε [δ εΥ]ω" επι6ντα 8[ ε8εξομαι οξ]εϊ Βουρι-
11'Ο(Lητηs) ror αρα φ[ων]ήσαντεr er aρ[ματα Π]OΙKtλα βαντεr
240 εμμεμ[αωτ] ΕΠΙ τυ8έι8η [εχον ro]Klar ιππουr
σθΕν(Ελοι) 'Tovr 8[ε ι8ε] σθένελοr κα[πανηιο]r αΥλαοr vtor·
τu(δEιδη) αίψα 8ε [τυ8)έι8ηι' Επεα [π]τίε]ρ6εντα προσηυ8α·
τυ8έι8(η] 8L6pTJ8ES' εμω κεχαρισ[μ ]ένε θυμω
αν8ρ' bp6ro' (κ) ρατερω επι σοι μεμαωτί eJ μαχεσθαι·
245 ειν' απΕλεθρον exo"Tar· δ μεν τόξων ευ El8ror
πάν8αΡΟS'· VLor δ αυΤΕ λvκάονοr έυχε'Τε ειναι·
alVELar ~ ϋιοS' μ[ ε]ν ap(vJpovo[S' αΥχισαο]
έυχΕται εΚΥΕΥάμερ [μητηρ δε οι ε στ) αφροδειτη8
αλλ άΥε [8]η χα(ωμεθ' (εφ ΙΠΠα/ν μη δε μ)οι ουτω
250 θυνε δι[α] προμαχων μ[η πωr φιλον ητορ ο]λεσσηr
τον δ αρ υ[π)08ρa ιδων πρ[οσεφη KpaTEpor 8]toPTj8Tjr
δ ..ομ.ηδη, μή τι φο[βον) δ αΥορευε 8 ε[πει ov8ε σε πε]ισέμεν όιω·
σν/ .
11'[.J~~C}v θΕ ου 'γαρ μ[οι yJevvtitov (αλυσκα(οντι] μάχεσθαι /

Col. ΧΙ.

[ου8ε καταπτωσσειν ετι μοι με]~or έμπ[ ε80V εστιν

255 (οκνειω 8 ιππων επιβαινεμεν αλJ~~ και tl[VTror] [~JlT[]
[αντιον ειμ αυτων τρειν μ ουκ εa παλλ Jαr αθή[νη
Ε ..
[τουτω δ ου παλιιι αυτι~ αποισετοιι ω]ΚΕ[α]~ ιππο[ vS']
[αμφω αφ ημεΙα/ΙΙ ΕΙ Υ ουιι ETEpor Ύε φ]ύΥη[σ]ιιι
[αλλο 8ε ΤΟΙ ερΕω συ Β ειιι φρεσι βαλλε]ο σηισιll·
260 [αι κεν μοι πoλυβoυλo~ αθηιιη κυ8ο]$' ορεξη
[αμφοτερω κτειναι συ δε τουσ8ε με,,) OOKEaS' ΙΠΠΟVS'
[αυτου ερυκακεειν εξ αιιτυΥΟ$' 1]νια] τΕινα$'·
α[ινειαο 8 επαιξαι μεμllημενo~ ιππω]ιι·
ε(κ δ ελασαι τρωων μετ Εvκνημι8αr] αχαιοϋ$'
265 τ[ηS' Υαρ τοι yEVE1]S' ηS' τρωι περ ΕVΡvοπJα (evS'

8ω~ υ[ Lor ΠΟΙIΙ1]ν Ύανυμη8εο$' OVIIEK] άpισT~Ι

ιππων [οσσοι Εασιν υπ ηω τ ηελιον τε]·
τη$' ΎΕν[εηS' Ειcλεtεν αιιαξ αν8ρο>ιι α]ΥχεισηS'
λάθρη [λαομε80ντο$' υποσχων θ1]λε ]aS' ΙΠΠΟVS'
270 των ό[ι ε, ΕΎενοJl"Ο ενι μεΥaροισι ΎΕιι]έθλη
-rovr μ[εll] τε[σσaΡaS' avror εχωιι aτιταλ]λ' επ[ι] φάτνηι·
τω δε δΙυ] αινεια [Βωκεν μηστωρε φοβ]οι[ο
ε[ι τουτω) κε λάβοι[μεν αροιμεθα ΚΕ κλεοr εσθλον
[mr οι μεν] τοιaυτα [προ$' αλληλοvS' αΥορευ)ον
275 [τω δε ταχ] ΕΥ[Υjvθεv [ηλθον ελαυνοιιτ] ωκέα$' ιππ(ο]v[r)­
[τον προτερ]ο$' [προσεειπε λV]ΚάΌνοr αΥ[λ ]aoS' υιο[ S'

[καρτεροθυμε 8aιφροJl αΥaυου 7v8]EoS' vtoS'

[η μαλα σ ου βελοS' ωκυ 8αpaJu[ua]T[O Π]ΙΚΡο[r] οίΤσ]τό[r

Col. ΧΙΙ.

[βεβληαι] ~~[Jlεωνa διαμπεΡεr ου8ε σ οειω


285 [8]η[ροιι ε]τ ασ[χησεσθαι Εμαι δΕ μεΥ EυXO~ ε8ωKa~

(το]ν 8 ου τaρβ[ησa$ προσεφη KpaTEpor 8ιoμη8η~

[η]μβΡοτε(S'] οvί8 ETVXES' αταρ ου μεν σφωι Υ οειω

[π]ρ[ν Υ απο[παυσεσθαι πριν Υ η ετερον Υε πεσορτa
[at]paTOS' α[σ)α[ι αρηα ταλαυρινον πολεμιστην
1rο(ιητ/s) 290 (roJS' φαμενοr π[ροεηκε βελοS' 8 ιθυνεν αθηνη
[ρι]να παρ οφθ[αλμον λευκουr 8 επερησεν 080VTaS'
τ[ο]υ 8 απο μεν [Υλωσσαν πρυμιιην ταμε χαλκοS' ατεΙΡηr
α[ι]χμη 8' εξελ[υθη] π[αρα νειατον ανθερεωνα
ηριπε 8 εξ οχ[ εω]ν· αραβησ[ε 8ε τευχε επ αυτω
295 α[ι]6λα παμφαν6ωντα· παρε(τ]ρε[σσαν 8ε οι ιπποι
Ύ ωκύπ08εS'· του 8' αυθι λυθη ψυχή τε [pevor τε

/ a[t]V[E]tar 8' απόρουσε συν ασπί8ι 80[υρι τε μακρω

[8]e[tu]ar μή πωS' οι ερυσαιατο νεκρον [αχαιοι
α[μ]φ[ι] 8' aρ αυτωι βαΊνε λέων OJS' αλκ(ι πεποιθωS'
300 [προσ]θε 8ε οι 86ρυ τ' εσχε και ασπ![δα παντοσ εισην
[τον] κτάμεναι peparoS' or Tlr ,[ου] Υ' a[VTlor ελθο!
[σμερ]8αλεα ϊαχων· Ο 8ε χερμ( α8ιο]ν λ( αβε χειρι
[τυ8]ει8ηr μεΥα εΡΥΟll ο ου 8ύο Υ' αίν8ρε φεροιεll

[αιψα 8ε τυ8ει8ην μεθεπε ΚΡα]τεΡώllυχα[S' ιππουr
330 (eppeparoS' ο 8ε κυπριν επωχετο ν]ηλεί χα(λκω
(ΥΙΥνωσκων ο τ αvaλκιr εην Oeor ου J8e θε[ αων

[ΠΡυμνον υπερ θεναροS' ρεε 8 αμβροτον αιμα θε]οίο

340 (ιχωρ Olor περ τε ρεει μακαρεσ]σι θεοισιν·
[ου Υαρ σιτον ε80υσ ου πιν]ουσ' άιθο[π]α οΙνον·
[τουνεκ avatpoVES' εισι και] αθάνατοι καλεορται·
[η δε μεΥα ιαχουσα απο ΕΟ καβ]βαλε[ν υ]ι6ν·
[και τον μεν μετα χερσιν ερ]υσατ(ο] φ[6]ιβοS' απ6λ[λων
345 [κυανεη νεφελη μη TtS' 8αν]αων ταχυπώλω[ν
[χαλκον ενι στηθεσσι βαλων] ΕΚ θυμ[ο]ν [ε]λοιτο
[τη 8 επι μακρον αυσε βοην a]yttO[oS' 8ι]ομή8ηS'
[εικε 8tor θυΥατερ πολεμου και 8ηιο]τητο[ rJ

[η συχ αλι~ σττι ιyυναΙKα~ αναλκι]8α~ ηπεpoπ~υε[ι~

350 [ει 8ε συ 'Υ ε~ πολεμον πωλησεαι η τ]ε σ οειω
[ΡΙΥησειιι πολεμον ιΥε και ει Χ Ε]τερ[ωθι πύθ]?J[αι

Col. XV.
[την μεν αρ l]e![~ ελoυ]~[α πo8ηιιεμo~ εξαΥ ομειλου
(αχθομειιη)!, ~?[υνησ]~ J:l~[λαι]vε[το 8ε χροα καλοιι
355 (ευρεν επειτΊα μαχη[r] επ αριστερ[α θoΊ~[poν αρηα
[ημενον η JEpt 8 Eyxor ε[K]εKλ~ΙTO] και ταχ[ε ιππω
[η 8ε Υιιυξ ερι]πουσα καισΙΥιιητοιο Φ]ιλοισ
[πολλα λισσο]μέιιη ΧΡυ[σ]αμ[π]υκαr ήτεειι [ιππoυ~
[φιλε κασΙΥ]νητε· κ(ο]μ!(σ]αι τε με 80~ 8ε μ~[ι] ι[ππουr
360 [οφρ er ολυμπο]ιι ϊκωμ~[ι] rv αθαιιάτ[ω]ν ε8σ[~ εστι

(λειηιι αχθο]με ε[λ]KO~ [ο] με βΡΟΤ[Ο]S- 6υτασειι [αιιηρ

[Tυ8ει8η~ os- ιι]ύιι [ιΥε και] α[ν 8ιι] πατρι [μΊάχο[ιτο
[ooS- φατο τη 8 αρ]ηr 8[ωκε Χ]Ρ[υ]σιtμπυκα[r ιππoυ~
[η 8 ES- 8ιφρον εβαιιιενJ α[ κη ]χεμ[ ενη φιλοιι ητορ
365 [παρ 8ε οι ιpι~ εβαι]ν[ε και ηιιι Ία λά[(ετο χειρι
[μαστιξεν 8 ελααν] τω 8 ουκ [ακο]lIτε ~ ετεσθην
[αιψα 8 επειθ ικ]οιιτο θεων ε80~ α[ιπ]υν ο[λυμποιι
[ενθ ιππου)r ~σTη[σJe π[οJ8ήνεμο~ ω[ κ Jea [tptr
λυ[σασ εξ oxeJroJI8 παρα 8 [αJμβροσιον βαλεν ε(ί'8αρ
370 η Κ (ειι ιΥουν]ασ[ι] πτε 8[ι]ωνη[r] 8~~ α[~]φ(po]8[ει]ήη
μη[τροr εηr η] ~ o.ΙYKar [ελ)~[(ε]TO θυΥατ(ε]ρα [ην
χε[ιρι τε μιν] κατέρ(εξειι εποr] τ έφατ [εκ] τ [ονομα(ε
;[lr νυ σε τοια]8 έp~ξε φι(λο]ν TEKOr ου(ρανιωνων
μ[ atl8tror ror] ει τι κακοιι ρε(ουσαιι [ενωπη

Col. XVII.
εν [πυλω εν νεκυεσσι βαλων 08υιιησιιι ε8ωΚΕΙΙ
~[υTα]p [ο] f!r.ι [πρo~ 8ωμα 8tor και μακροιι ολυμποll
κηρ' αχέωll [08υνησι πεπαρμενοS' - αυταρ OtUTor
400 ώμω ενι στι[βαρω ηληλατο κη8ε 8ε θυμον

τωι 8 e'!ft] Πl!-[Ι]?7[ων 08υνηφατα Φαρμακα πασσων

ηκέ[σατ ου μεν yap τι καταθνητοr Υε TεrυKTO
σχέτλ[ιοr οβΡιμοεΡΥοr or ουκ οθετ αισvλα ρε(ωll
[oS'] τ6ξοι( σιν ειcη8ε eeovr οι ολυμπον εχουσι
405 [uoJt 8' επ[ι τουτον αιιηΚΕ θεα Υλαυκωπιr αθηνη
(νήJπ[ tor ου8ε το οι8ε κατα φρενα Tv8eor vtor

420 [τοισι 8ε μυθων ηρχε θεα Υλαvκω]πιr αθ(ηνη
[(ευ πατερ η ρα τι μοι κεχολωσεαι] σττι ιc[εν ειπω
3 lines lost.
425 [ΠΡοr χρυσεη περονη ΙCαTαμυξαTO χει]ρα [αραιην
(ror φατο μει8ησεll δε πατηρ αν8ρω]!, ΤΕ θε[ων ΤΕ
[και ρα καλεσσαμεvοr προσεφη χρ]!'[σ]πν (αφρ08ειτην
[ου ΤΟΙ τεκνον εμον 8ε80ται ποJλεμηϊ[ α εΡΥα
(αλλα συ Υ ιμεροεντα μετερχεο] εΡΥα Υα(μοιο
-430 (ταυτα 8 αρηι θοω και αθηνη πα]ντα μελ[ησει
[ror οι μεν τοιαυτα ΠΡοr αλληλουr αΥ]ορευο[ν
[αινεια 8 επορουσε βοην ayaeotJ 8ιο]μή[ 8ηr
[ΥΙΥνωσκων ο οι aVTOr υπειρεχε] XELpar απ( ολλων
[αλλ ο Ύ αρ ου8ε θεον μεΥαν α (ετο) ιετ[ο] ~ αε[ι
435 [αινειαν κτειναι και απο κλυ'Τ]α τέυχεα [8υσαι
(Tptr μεν επει'Τ επορουσΕ κατακ]τάμε[ναι μενεαινων
[Tptr 8Ε οι εστυφελιξε φαεινην ασ]πι8' απο[λλων
[αλλ οτε 8η το τεταρτον επεσσυτο 8ά]ιμονι ε[ισοr
[8εινα 8 ομοκλησαr προσεφη EKa]epyor απ[ολλων
440 [φρα{εο τυ8ει8η και χα{εο μη 8]ε θεοισ[ι]ν
(ισ εθελε φρονεΕιν επει ου πατ]ε φϋ(λ]ον όμ[οιον
(αθανατων τε θεων χαμαι ερχομενω]ν Τ α[νθρωπων


[αφνειοr βι6]το( ιο yevor 8 ην ΕΚ ποταμοιο

545 [αλφειου or τ ευ]ρυ ρ[εει πυλιων 8ια Υαιηr

[or τεκετ ΟΡιΤ)ίλοχ[ον πολεεσσ αν8ρεσσιν ανακτa

[ΟΡσιλοχοS' 8 αρ] ετι[κτε διοκληα μεΥαθυμον
[εκ δε διοκλη ]0$ ~[ι8υμαo"ε παιδε ΥενΕσθην

Col. ΧΧΙΧ.

[ουτε ποτ αντεφεροllΤΟ μαχη αλλ αΙΕII ο]πίσσω

[χα(ονθ mr Επυθοντο μετα τρωεσσι]ν αρη[α]·
[ΕlIθα τινα πρωτοll τινα 8 υστατον εξ]εvάΡ[ι]ξεν
[εκτωρ τε πριαμοιο παιr και χαλκ]eοr αΡ[ηr]·
705 [ανTιθ~oν τευθραllΤ επι 8ε πληζΙΠ]7![ον ορεστηll

1-24. The beginnings of the lίnes of this column, \\,hich have been restored ίη a later
hand (cf. introd.), are marked off ίη the text by a perpendicular line.
4. ~α" οι: ~αί€ ΟΙ R., MSS. (~αΙE ~E ο" Amb.).
8. ωρσΕ: there is ηο known variant here. What was first written seems to have been
a mere blunder, like μι" ίη 12.
12. αποl(ρl."θΙJlΤΕ: πο above the line is written ίn lighter ink than the other additions at
the beginning of this column, and seems to be subsequent to them. The initial α has
been converted from an original ο. The insertion of JJ is due to the second hand.
16. The reading of the first hand τυδιιδΙα/ θ is peculiar to this MS. Tυ~ιίδιω ff R.
23. ηφησΤΟ$: 1. ~HΦαισTO~.
3 ι. τιιχισιπλητα, the reading of the first hand, ίΒ preferred by R. (so ALM): τιιχισιβλητα
Zenodotus. The second ο of βροτολΟΙΥΙ ίΒ wrongly marked long.
32. ιασομιll is a mistake; ίάσαιμεν R.
33. The corre.ction is by the second hand.
39. There is a mark over ι( of εκβα'λι which could be read as 'Υ (ί. e. ε'Υβαλε); but it
maγ be accidental.
40. The accentuator has taken μιταφΡΙllω as t\VO words; so too Genav. μιτά φρέιιφ.
The normal accentuation appears ϊn 56.
42. This line, δοίιπησιll δε πισώll, άράβησΕ ~ε τιύχι) έπ" αιιτφ, is also omitted by AC
To\vnl. Eton, and is bracketed by R.
43. 'TΙl(ToJlO~, the reading of the first hand, is found as a correction ίn Η. .It ηο doubt
came ίn from 59. MnovoS' R., with other MSS.
47. ιιλεll: ιΙλι R. with ACEGMN.
53. The interchange of αι and Ε is fairly frequent ίη this MS., especially before a
following vowel; but Ε more commonly appears for αι than vzce versa; cf. 89, 128, 142,
172, 173, 203, 218, 227,246,361.
54-. Υ' ιl(ι/(αστο: so vulg., ')'Ε Κ€Kαστo R.
57. The papyrus agrees \vith Α and other MSS. ίη omitting the repetition of 41 here.
The line is bracketed by R.

58. πpηνή~': the grave accent was probably placed upon the first syllable before it
was observed that the word was followed by a stop (cf. 13); the acute accent was then added
οη the final syllable, as is usual ίn this papyrus (cf. introd.). Theoretically, of course, all
syllables that do not bear the acute (or circumflex) accent tnay have the grave.
63. αι: the vestiges above α may be the remains of either a breathing or an accent.
64. The correction is by the second hand.
θΕσπατα: 1. θέσΦατα. ηδει: so CMN Harl. ffδlJ L, Ηδη R.
68. vvξ: 1. Υνύξ. αμφΕκaλυ",Εν: αμΦεκάλυψε R. with AEGHMNO.
7ι. The deletion of Ε is due to the corrector.
72. ιcλΙTO~: KλυTO~ R, and so the papyrus ίη 45.
75. The omission of this line, ηΡΙΠΕ δ' έν κοvίn~ ψυχρδν PJ' ελΕ χαλκον ό~oυσιν, is peculίar
to the papyrus; cf. 83.
83. The corrector wished to insert line 75 betweeη 83 aηd 84. He accordiηgly
wrote it out ίη the upper margin, placed a mark of omission ίn front of 83, and wrote
aνω (' see above ') at the end of the same line; cf. 126.
87. αν: ~μ R., and so the papyrus ίη 96.
89. 1. ο/έΦυραι έΕΡΥμέναι. έΕΡΥμέναι MSS., έΕρμένaι Aristarchus, R.
90. Before ουτ has beeη placed a stroke like an iota, which seems to be a critical
sign; cf. 147. ισχι: ίσΧΕΙ R.
92. πολλα θ': πολλα δ' MSS., R.; cf. 16.
κaλ': the first hand wrote τηλ, which has been altered by the corrector. ιcάλ'
R., MSS.
98. The unelided Ε (cf. 252) was deleted by the cOITector, who, however, failed to
notice the trebled σ ίn the following word. ~
102. The reading of the first hand ορνυσθαι may be a genuine variant (inf. for imper.),
οτ merely another case of confusion between αι and f.
104. ~ηθα σχησ(ε)σθαι: or δηθ α(ν}σχησ(ε)σθαι; cf. 120, 285. α1lσχήσεσθαι R. μEνo~:
βE'λo~ MSS. (except Genav., which also has μένo~), R. Didymus says that βέλo~ was
the reading of Aristarchus, οη which R. remarks 'de alia scriptura nihil est tl"aditum.' 1t
has been supposed that the variant rejected by Aristal"chus was Tέλo~. The agreement of
the papyrus with the Genavensis now makes it certain that it was μένo~.
105. απopνυμενo~: άπορνύμευον MSS., R.
115. μοι: so ACDGHL. μΕυ R., with ΝΟ Cant. Hal"l. μου Μ.
ι 17. The first haηd wrote φιλε, which has been converted by the corrector to Φιλαι.
φίλαι R, with ΑΝ. ΦίλΕ D, φίλΕ' CGHLMO, &c. The reading of the first hand may
of course be due to the iηterchange of Ε and αι; cf. 89, 128.
ι ι 8. τον ~ε ΤΕ μ ανδρα: the same reading is recognized by Schol. Α ad loc., and ad
Ιl. xv. ι ι 9. δo~ δέ τέ μ' MSS., R.
119. Φησιν: so ΜΝΟ; φησι R., with ACDGL.
120. ανσχησεσθαι, which was first written, was due to a reminiscence of 285. The
scribe then began to write ovel" the line the whole word οψεσθαι, but, remembering that
this was unnecessary, stopped at θ, and crossed out σθ. He ought to have deleted the
Ε also.
126. The line omitted ίn the text has been supplied ίη cursive ίn the lower margin;
cf. 83. The omission is not suppOIted by other MSS.
127. αxλυrι: αχλV7J δ' MSS., R.
128. yεινωσKOΙ~: yινώσKOΙ~ ACDG, &c.; the optative is also supported by L and
a variant ίn Η. The subjunctive ίΒ Iead ίη ΕΜΝΟ Lucian Χίί. 7, Plato Alcz'b. ίί. Ι50 D.
ιoιιyνώσιcy~ R. ειμΕ1l: ήμεν MSS., R.
Κι: 1. και; cf. 53.

132. χaλκφ is the reading of the MSS. and R. This correction appears to be by a
later hand tban most of the rest; cf. introd.
ι 33. l'λαvκωπι~ is written over an erasure.
ι 40. (jV~Tat: the termination σι has been written by the corrector ovel" ~, as ίn 1 r 7.
141. ανxησT~Ιllαι: so most MSS.; άΎχιστίllαι R., with D. ΤΕτανται is a reading peculiar
to the papyrus; κ'χι,υται MSS., R.
142. 1. ίξάλλΕται.
147. ωμου has been corrected to ωμοι. Φμον MSS., R.
151. ιξΕναριξΕν: the finalv has been added by the corrector. /ξΕνάριξΕ ACGHMNO,
R.; ΕξΕνάριξΕII D.
152. υΕΙΕ: υΤΕ R.; and this is the usual spelling of the papyrus.
164. αεκοvτas-: for the retention οΕ the rough breathing ϊη compound wol"ds cf.
15 προ1ΕΙ, 183 Εισδροων, and ccxxi. XIV. 2, note.
166. The first hand wrote αλαΠΕζοντα, which has been altered by the corrector.
ι 7 Ι. που τοι: πον σοι was original1y written; the correction may be by the first hand.
ι 72. 1. lρl(Εται; cf. 53.
ι 73. oυ~ι: the first hand appears to have made some muddle ίn writing δ: anyhow
the corrector considered the result insufficiently clear. 1. ευχεται.
175. κραΤΕΕΙ has been converted by the corrector from κραΤΕί.
176. ΕλυσΕ: fλυσEν MSS., R.
177. εστι, the reading of the first hand, is col"rect.
ι 78. ΕΠΙ: there seems to be ηο support for the original l"eading απο.
182. ΥΕΙ1Ιωσκω1l: Υινώσκ.ω1l Α, and most of the MSS., ΥΙΥιιώσκων R., \vith CL, &c.
183. ιπποt'~ ~: 80 Μ. The corrector's reading ιππoυ~ τ is Ρrefeιτed by R., \vith the
I"est of the MSS.
189..JE: thel"e are indications that the 8uperfluous word or syllable was struck OUt.
196. εστασι: the deletion of the original final v is probably due to the correctol"
199. The superfluous α at the end of the line was 8truck out by the first hand.
200. τρωεσσιν ανα: ΤρώΕσσι κατα MSS., R.
201. ΠΕιθομη1l: 80 Μ; πιθ6μην R.
203. ΕδμευΕ: 1. εδμευαι. αδδην: 80 m08t MSS.; ί/.δην R.
205. lt ί8 doubtful whether τοξοισι or τοξοισιν was read by the papyrus. The MSS.
are divided οη the point. τόξοισιυ R. The deletion of α before τα ίΒ probably by the first
hand. εμΕλλΕν: 80 ADEO; εμιλλον R., with CGHLMN.
2 05 mg. Ε ίn αινΕισν is corrected from α.
210. The first hand apparently wrote Υ ϊλιον (80 G), Υ being subsequently altered
(probably by the corrector) to Ε. 6ΤΕ "Ιλιον R.
212. οφ]θαλμοισιν: όΦθαλμο'ίσι R., ,vith ACDEGMNO.
218. μη (jΊ: 80 MSS.; μη δη R.
22 Ι. ΕπιβησΕαι: lπιβήσΕΟ MSS", R.
222. οί οΙ: οίοι R., with MSS.
225. κυδ[or]: the termination must have been unusually cramped to have been con-
tained ίn the available space.
227. Επιβησομ(αι ), the reading of the first hand, was preferred by Zenodotus, and
occurs ίη COS Cant. Vrat. c. Mosc. ι. 3. άποβήσομαι R., with Aristarchus and most l\lSS.
231. vJπo: tJq/ R.; ci: 266 ~ωK v[tor.
234. ποθΕονlΤΕς: so DE 557, 31 L; 'ΠοθέΟ'ΙΙΤΕ R.
244. αll8ρ': a mark of elision ,vas first mistakenly inserted between ~ and ρ.
245. eXOVTαr: 80 most MSS.; fX01lTf R., with GMN Har}. Μόsc. ι. Vrat. b. Lesbonax
ΠΕρΊ σχημάτων ρ. 186.

246. 1. ε1Jχεται.
247. μ[ε]ν αμ[υ]μοvο[s-: 80 AGLMNO, &c.; μεΥαλήrοΡΟS- R., with Α sup. DHS schol.
ad 11. χίχ. 291. Rhet. Gr. Ηί. 154, 7.
252. οιω: οειω is written when the word is a trίsγΙΙabΙe, e. g. 350. The marginal
note may perhaps be intel"preted Διομή~ηs- π[ρ(ος)] ~ίoν Σθένε(λου); but ~ίoν is not very
satisfactory, since that epithet is not applied to Sthenelus by Homer, nor are epithets
introduced into the other marginal entries. πρ(ος) τον cannot be read. The letter before
v transcribed as ο might possibly be α/.
255. The scribe began writing line 256 at the end of 1. 255.
257. ωJKEar ιππους, the original reading here, is also found ίη C, where, too, οι is
written above the termination ους. The correction ίη the papyrus is probably not by the
first hand, but there is too little of it left to make it possible to speal{ with certainty.
266. The reading of the fiIst hand \\'as αριστοι. The ο of the termination was altered
to α by the corrector, and above this is written, presumably by a third hand, another letter,
which may be ο or ω. lI.ριστοι R., MSS.
277. υιέ MSS., R.
293. εξελ[υθη]: so ΑΗΜ and other MSS., and Aristarchus; Εξεσύθη R., with
CDEGLNO Vrat. a. Α. Lucian 60, 27, and Zenodotus.
295. Over the first ρ of παρε[τ]ρε[σσαν there is a mark like a heavy gι-aνe accent, which
seems accidental. .
352. 1ι is possible that this line was included ίη Col. XIV, and that Col. χν began
with 353.
359. The overwritten [τ]ε is probably not by the first hand. τε is the reading of C ;
δέ R., with the rest of the MSS.
363. τη ~ αρ]ης: the size of the Iacuna makes it certain that thi.s was the reading of
the papyrιIS; 80 ADLMN. rfi ~> tIp' ~Άpης R., with CGHOS Cant. Vrat. b. Mosc. Ι.
366. [ακο]ρτε: the space is insufficient for [αειcoJVTE, which is read by R., with GO Cant.
Barocc. Rhet. Gr. ίίί. 233, ι 6. ί1κυντ~ is found ίn the majority of the MSS. .
370. δη looks rather as if it had been altered by a later hand fΙ-Οηι an original ~η; or
~ει may have been written and ε subsequently struck out. The papyrus is much rubbed ίη
this part. The superfluous θ (?) follo\ving- may be accounted for by 8upposing that the
scribe began to write ~ία θΕάων.
398. 1f the papyrus agreed with the ordinary text, the columns became rather shorter
at this point, χνιι containing twenty-three lines, and χνι and χνιιι only twenty-
two each.
399. ιcηρ': 80 AC. κηρ R.
425- The letters ρα, which are all that is left of thi8 line, may belong to the word άραιήν.
434. af[t: αΙει R.
703. εξ]ιναρ[ι]ξιν: so DEHLNOS Cram. Αη. Par. iiί. 278, 16; Εζενάριξαν R., with
ACGM l\ιlor. Barocc. Harl. Lips.


23·5 χ 21·3 cm.

Parts of two columns, containing lίnes 1017-1043 and 1064-107 ι of

Euripides' Phoen'lssae, written ίη a large, heavy, formal uncial resembling that of

the great Biblical codices and the Demosthenes fragment facsimίled ίη ο. Ρ. Ι.

Plate 111. Like that fragment the present papyrus was found with documents
belonging to the later Roman period, and the date of both is certainly not
posterior to 300 A.D., while the evidence is at present all against assigning this
style of uncial to an earlier date than the third century. Stops, a few accents,
and the dots apparently denoting a correction ίη 1036 and 1037 have been
inserted afterwards ίn lighter ink, pt·obably by a second hand, which also added
ίη cursive the name of the speaker ίη 1067. The apostrophe separating the Υ
and μ of σTευαyμo~ ίn 1039 α (the use of which makes it pl·obable that the papyrus
is not older than the third century) is by the original scribe.
The papyrus is sometimes superior to the MSS., but shares some of their
blnnders and introdnces others of its own; and the stops are not very accurately
placed. Both the high and the low points occur, and it is possible that some of
those which we haνe printed as high, are ίntendε'd for points ίη the middle
of the line; cf. introd. to ccxxvi. Stops may have been 108t at the ends of lines
1024, 1028, 1029, 1039, ~°41.

Col. Ι.

1017 [πατρι8ι] κακω[ν α]ν α[ι πο]λιs- ελασσοιιωll·

[πειρωμ]ειιαι [1']0 λο[ ιπο]ν ευτvx[ ο]ιεν αll·
[ε]βαS' [εβ]αS'· ω [πτε]ρουσσα yar λοχευμα·
1020 [V]ePT(eJpOV Τ e[Xl]8vαS'.
[κα]8με[ι ]ων α[ρ]παΥα·
[π]ολVWΟΡΟ$ πολvστονοS'·
[μι ]ξοπαρθεll[ ο ]S'.
8αιον TEpaS'
1024 α Φοιτασιll πτ[ ε ]potS'·
1025 χ[ α]λαισι τ ωμ[ο ]UlTOtS'·
8ιρκ.αιω[ ν α π]ΟΤ εκ
[Τ]οπων veovr πε8αιρου
(σ] αλυρο[ν α]μφι μουσαν
[ο]λομεll[αν] τ [epLIlJvll
[ε]φ[εΡ]ε(s- εφερεs- αχεα] πατρι8ι·
[φοιιια ΦΟVΙΟS' εκ] θεα/ΙΙ·
[os-J τα8 ην ο [ΠΡα]ξαS'·
Ι 2

ιαλε8εμοι δε μ[α]τερων· Col. 11.

ιαλ(ε]8ε[μοι) 8ε [παρ]θενων·
1035 εστεναξαν ο[ιJKO( Ι]S-•• ορμη[σασ •••
ιηιηι·ηι·ον βοαν· οθε[ν ..•
[ιη ]Ι1]ι·ηι·ο(ν) μελοS'· [αρπαΥαισι •
[ αλJλοs- αλλον επωτοτυξε· _αΥΥ]ελ(οs) ωη· r[lS' εν .••
8ta8oXats- αι'α [πτ)ολιν · [αΊνΟ[ΙΎετ · • •
βρονται δε στε[ν ]αΥ' μοS' ωη μα(λ ••.
αχα{ τ ην ομοι[ o]S- εξελθ α[κουσον .
οποτε πολεοs- α[Φ]ανισειεν (λη]ξ(ασ •••
a πτερ6υσσα πΙaΡθεvο]S- τιν αν( δρων
χρονωι δ εβα π[υθιαι~ αποστολαισιν

Ι Ο 17. πολιs': Ι e. πόλΕLS-.

1019. ΠΤΕρουσσα: this spelling is correct. The MSS. here and ϊη 1042 have
1022. πολvφΟΡοr appears to be a mistake for πολύΦθΟΡοr, which iS found ίη some MSS.,
most of which place πολύστοvοr first. Other MSS. have πoλVμ.oxθo~.
1023. μιξoπαpθEνo~: the MSS. are divided between this and μιξοπάρθΕ'Ρον.
1024 a. Ψοιτασιν: ψοιτάσι MSS.
1027-8. ΠΕδαιρουl[σ] αλυρον: MSS. ΠΕδαΙρουσ' Ι ίJ.λυpoν. Ιn lyrics the papyrus scribes
felt little difficulty ίn dividing a word between two lines; witness the Bacchylides papyrus
1033, 4. ιαλΕ(JΕμοι: a blunder for ΙάλΕμοι.
1035. ΕσΤΕνaξαν: 'στέναζον MSS. Cf. 1038.
1036, 7. The dots placed ση either side of the third ηι indicates that the letters ία
question were to be omitted. 1t is more usual under these circumstances to put the dots
over the letters to be cancelled. But cf. Ο. Ρ. Ι. χνί ίη which letters to be omitted are placed
bet\veen dots and have a line drawn over them. The revised reading of the papyrus ίη
1036 is therefore ιηιηιον βοαν, the metre of which is correct. The MSS. have Ιήϊον βοάν or
ηϊον βοάν, from which Grotius conjectured Ιήϊον βοάν, βοάν. The same holds good of 1037,
ιηιηιον μΕλος.
1038. αλλον: so the 1\1:58. άλλ' (Valckenaer) is necessary οη metrical grounds.
~πωToτυξ~: ΕπωτότυζΕ MSS. Cf. 1035.
1040. αχαι : i.e. άx~. The MSS. have Ιαχά which wil1 not scan. Musgrave con-
jectured άχά.
1041. πολΕΟS-: sO,Porson corrected the unmetrical πόλ~ωS' of the MSS.
αφανισΕΙΕν: 80 the MSS" corrected by Musgrave to άΨανίσ~ι'.
1042. ΠT~poυσσα: cf. note οη 1019.

ccxxv. THUCYDIDES, 11. 90-91 ..

ι 3 χ 5·4 cm. Plate V.

Ends of fifteen 1ines and beginnings of fifteen more, containing parts of

ch. 90-91 of Thucydides Book 11, written ίη a good-sized and handsome, bnt
not very formal type of uncial, belonging to the middle or latter part of the first
century A.D. It is thus of about the same date as the much larger fragment of
the fourth Book printed ίη ο. Ρ. Ι. xvi. Like that MS. the present papyrus is
a good text and supports the veIIum MSS. οη the whole, whiIe just as the other
papyrus by omitting gTL removed an anacoluthon, so ίη CoI. 11. 9 here a some-
what harsh construction κaτα σύυεσιυ is got rid of by the new reading &μυυουμΕυαι
for άμυυούμευοι. Ιη cases where the MSS. differ, the papyrus does not con-
sistently agree with any one, but is nearest to C, the Laurentian codex.

Col. Ι. Col 11.

[λaS' επικαταλαβοll]τεr την επισ[τροφηll ε~ την
[εξεοοσαll τε ΠΡΟΥ τη ]11) ευρυχοορι[ αν και φθαιιου
[Υηll υποφευΥουσαΥ και] 8ι q-l αυτου(Υ πλην μιaΥ lIε
(εφθειραν αν8ραΥ τε Τ]ΟΟIl Q)r προ[ καταφυΥουσαι

5 [αθηναΙα/1I απεκτει JlIall 5 ΠΡΟΥ τ[ ηll ναυπακτον

[οσοι μη egEIlEvuall] αυ) και σχουσαι ανίτιπρωροι.
(τωιι και τωll ιιεων τ]ιιιαΥ κατα το απολ(λωιιιοll

[ανα80υμενοι ειλκ]οιι) παpεσιcευa{[ οντο αμυ

[KEvar μιαν 8ε aυΤΟΙ]Υ αν ιιουμειιαι ηll [Er τηιι
10 [8ρασιll ειχον η8η τ]αΥ 10 'Ίην επι σφαS' [πλεωσιll
[8ε Tινa~ οι μεσσηllΙ]οι οι 8ε παραΥΕΙΙ[ομειιοι
(παραβοηθησαllτεΥ] και υστερον επαι(α/ιιι(ον

[ΕπεσβαινοllτεΥ ξυιι] ΤΟΙΥ τε αμα πλεοιιτ[εΥ ωΥ νΕ

[οπλοιr εΥ τηll θαλασσ]αιι νΙKηKOTε~ κ(αι την μι

15 [και επιβαιιτεΥ απο τ]ωιι 15 αν ιιαυ/l τ(ωll αθη

Ι. It is possibIe that τηιι Υη]ιι should

3. The supplement is rather long for the lacuna.
be read ίη the previous
line, and that τ~ was omitted.
~ιl[ΕΦθΕιραν J:the
MSS. vary between the aorist and imperfect and between the
simple and compound verb, ιφθΕΙΡΟJl being the commonest reading.

10. η8η, which has been omitted by some editors, must certainly have been read by
the papyrus.
11. Ι. επισ[τροΦην: the MSS. vary between this and ύποστροφην.
2. φθαυου]σι: Φθάvοvσιv MSS. Cf: ο. Ρ. Ι. χνί where ίn five cases v 'φελιcuστιιcόv is
added by the second hand.
5. προ!;: so C; the other MSS. have ,~.
6. σχοvσαι: so Μ and (as a correction) f; the others have 1σχουσαι.
7. το: so C and some others; it is omitted by most MSS.
8. αμv]vοvμευαι: the MSS. have αμυυούμενοι, which since the feminine σχουσαι (sc. νηε~)
has just preceded is a distinctly awkward construction. The removal of grammatical
difficulties here and ίn Book ιν (see introd.) ίn two Thucydides papyri, which are nοΙ
only nine centuries earlier than the oldest vellum MS. of that author, bqt are above the
ordinary standard of classical papyri ίn point of correctness, suggests that the diffi.culties of
Thucydides~ syntax may to some extent be the fault of scribes.

CCXXVI. ΧΕΝΟΡΗΟΝ, Hellen-ica, VI. 5.

14 χ 12 cm.

Three short and narrow columns, of \vhich the first two are nearly complete,
containing parts of Xenophon's Helll!1tzca, νί. 5. 7-9. The papyrus is written ίη
a medium-sized neat uncial of a rather early type, and is not later than the
second century, while it is possible that it even goes back to the end of the first.
The MS. is carefully punctuated, the high stop denoting a longer, the low stop
a shorter pause. The nse of stops is said to have been systematized by Aristo-
phanes of Byzantium who, besides the high and low stops, used a dot ίη the
middle of the line to denote a pause still shorter than the low stop. There is as
yet ηο papyrus ίη which the systematic nse of all three kinds of stops can be
clearly traced, though ccxxxi, so far as it goes, appears to keep the three classes
distinct. But the use of the high and low dots with different values is not
uncommon ίη literary papyri, e. g. the Oxyrhynchus Sappho (ο. Ρ. Ι. Plate ΙΙ),
the long Homer papyrus (ccxxiίi, Plate Ι), and the Phoenissae fragment (ccxxiv).
Mr. Kenyon's statement (Palaeography, ρ. 28) that 'this system (ί. e. that of
Aristophanes) cannot be traced ϊη extant papyri ' must now be modified. What
is really rare is a text ίη which the distinction between the high and low dots is
50 cat·efully and consistently maintained as ίη this Xenophon papyrus.
The variants of the papyrus are not many, nor important.

Col. 11.
[ου]ι< ε8ιω[ κον και
[Υαρ] ο σTα[σιππo~

Col. 1. [ην] ΟΙΟΥ μ[η βουλε

3 or 4 lines lost. σθαι πολ[λουΥ απο
ΠΡ]οgεν[ον και 5 ΚΤΕινυνα[ι των
[καλιβιο]ν εν [TOΙ~ πολιτων· ο[ι 8ε πε
[θεαpoι]~ νομισα[ν μι "ον καλι(βιοll
[τεΥ ει] ΣVνελ θοι ο ανακεχωρ[ηΚΟΤΕr
5 [ 8ημo~]. πολυ αν ϋπο Το προ( r μαν
[τωι] πληθει κρα ι Ο τινΕιαι TE[txor και
[τησα]ι εκφερον) rar πvλα~ (ε]πε(ι ου
[ται τα] ο[πλα ι]80ν ΙCΕΤΙ avrotr οι ε)
[Tε~ 8ε] το[υτο ο]ι π(ε [να]ντιοι επεχει­
10 [Ρι τον] στασιππο[ν ρουν. ησυχιαν ειχοΙ'

[και αυτοι α)νθα/( . 15 ηθpoισμεrιoι· και

[πλισ~ν]TO· και αρ[ι παλαι μεν ΕΠΕπομ

[θμο>Ι] μεν ουκ ελ(ατ .φοσαν επι TOVY)

[Toυ~] εΥενορτο· [ε μαν[τ]ινεa~ κελευ
15 [πει] μεντοι ει~ μ[ α OVTEr βοηθειγ)
[χην] ωρμησαν. τ[ον 20 πpo~ (8Je "oυ~ περι
[μεν] προgεvοv κ(αι . στaσ(ι]ππον 8ΙΕ
[αλλο]υr ολΙΥοvr μ(ΕΤ λΕΥον[τ]ο περι συ"
[αυτ)ου απ[ο]κτει) αλλαΥ[ωJv· εΠΕΙ 8ε
2Ο (νουσ]ι · TOvr 8ε αλ (ΙCaTaιpaJVEtr η(σαν
[λουΥ] τρεψ[a]μενοι 25 [οι μαvτ]ινηιr [προο-

Col. 111.
τον [ιrηr aρτε
τα[ r επι το παλ μ[ι ]8(o~ νεων κα
λαν[τιον φερου ταφυ[ yovTEr και
uar [πvλα~ και φθα Ι ο ΕΎκλ(ΕΙ(/"μενοι η
νο[υσι πριν καταλη συχ[ ιαν ΕΙΧον ο,
5 φθ[ηναι υπο των 8ε μ(Ετα8ιωgaν
8ιω[κορτο>ν ει~

We give a collation with Keller's text.

Ι. 20. 8Ε: ~' K(eller).

11. 2. Ο στα[σιπποS': TOLOVTOS' ό ΣτάσιπποS' Κ.; with the MSS.

4. απο]κτεινυνα[ι : άποl<τιννύναι Κ.
1. καλι[βιον: Καλλlβιοv Κ. -
9. μαν]τινειαι: Μαντίνειαν Κ.
16. επεπομφοσαν: έΠΕπόμΦΕσαν Κ.
18. ΚΕλfv10VΤΕS' βοηθΕιν: βοηθΕίν I<ΕλΕύΟ."ΤΕS' Κ.
25. μαντ]ιυηιS': ΜαVΤΙVΕίS' Κ.
ΙΙΙ. 8. κα] ταΦV[ΥΟVτεS' : καταφΕύΥΟVΤΕS' Κ.

CCXXVII. ΧΕΝΟΡΙ-ΙΟΝ, Oeconom-/cus, νΙΙΙ.Ι7 - ΙΧ.2.

Height 26 C1Jl.

Five incomplete columns, containing most of Xenophon's Oeconomicus νiίΙ

17-ίΧ . 2, written ίη a round uncial hand strongly resembling that of the British
Mtlseum Pap. CCLXXI, which contains the third book of the Odyssey (facsimile
ίη Kenyon, Pαlαeography, Plate χν). Mr. Kenyon, arguing from the 1ikeness of
that papyrus to Brit. Mus. Pap. CCCLIV (ορ. cit., Plate Χίν) dating from about
Β. C. 10, considers that the Odyssey papyrus was written near the beginning of
the first century, though he admits (ορ. cit. ρρ. 83-84) that Pap. CCLXXI has
some Iater characteri~tics. Tal{ing these into consideration, and also the fact
that Pap. CCLXXI is written ίη a formal hand and has scholia which cannot be
older than A.D. 50, we should prefer to admit the likelihood that it belongs to
the latter half of the first century, or even to the first two decades of the second.
Το the same period we should also assign this papyrus of the Oeconomz·cus.
The vel1um MSS. of the Oeconom-icus are bad, and the papyrns too is corrnpt
ίη several places, thongh sometimes it preserves good readings. Α few
corrections (chiefly the insertion of iotas adscript) haνe been made, probably by
a second hand.

CoI. Ι. Co1. 11.

ισxυpω~ [o]μ[ω~ σω λοll 8ε ιματί ια κε .
(ουσι την [Ta]gLlI χωρισμειια [ιδΈιιι
και υπεpφoβ~υ καν οποια η[ι κάλον
(με]νοι oμoιω~ ευ 8Ε στρωμα[τα κα
5 [ρJισκοvσι Το 8εον 5 λοll 8ε χαλκ(ια κα
λαμβανε(ι]ιι ημEΊ~ λοιι 8ε τα αμ[φι τρa
8ε και 8ιειρημ[ε] πε(α~ καλο[ιι 8Ε
lΙωll [ε]KaσTOΙ~ θη και το παιιτω[ ν κα

κων [ε]ν τηΙ ΟΙΚΙ ταΥελασειε μαλι


10 αι μεΥ[α)λων κα[ι] βε 10 στα ουχ ο UEpvor

βηKυ[ια]~ Tη~ ΟΙΚΙ αλλα KOptOr καν
α~ εν 8[απε]8ωι. ΕΙ μη χιeυθραS'[ ••••. ] ε[υ
Ευρησ[ο]μΈιι ι<αλη ν ρυθμοιι φ[αινεσθ]αι
και ευ[ρ]ετον χ[ω]) eUKpLvωr κ[ει]με

15 [pJav EK[α]σTOΙ~ a[vJ) 15 var τα 8ε αλλ απο

[των πω]r ουκ αιι τουτου παντα κα[λ]
[πο]λλ[η η]μωιι α[συν) λιω Φαινεται κα
εσια ει[η] ωr μεν τα κοσμον κειμε

8η αΥαθον τεταχθ[αι] να xopor Υαρ σκευ

20 σκευων κατασΚΕυ 20 ων εκαστα φαινε

[η]ν και ωS' ραι8ιον ται κα[ι] τ[ο) μεσον

χωραν EKaUTOLS' 8ε πα[ν]τ[ων του
αυτων ευρειν εν των καλον φαιν( ε
οικιαι θειναι εκa ται εκπ08ων εκa
25 σTOΙ~ συμφερει 25 στου κειμε[ν ]ου ωσ
ειρητα[ι] OJr 8ε κα ΤΕ και κυκ[λι JoS'
< λον φαινεται εΠΕΙ xopoS' ου μονον
8αν υπ08ηματα aVTOS' καλ[ ον θ]ε
εφεξη[ S'] κεηται αμα εστιν α[λλα] και

30 καν οπ[ο]ια ηι κα 30 το μεσον αυτου

Co1. 111. Co1. IV.

κ[αλον και καθα θονταS' λαβ[ειν ε
ρον [φαινεται ε ι καστα τουτ[ου μεν
8ε [αληθη τ.αυ τοι εφην εΥ[ω ου
τα [λεΥω εξεστιν 8εν αλλο α[ιτιον

5 ω [Υυναι και π]ει 5 εστιν η ΟΤ[Ι εν χω

(ραν' λαμβανει]ν ραι εκaστον κει

[αυτων ουτε (ημ]ιω ται ΤΕταΥμενη

θεν[TaS' ουτε ΤΙ ανθρωπον 8ε Υε

πολ[λα πονησαν 'ητων και ταυ
10 TaS' [αλλα μην ου 10 τα ενιοτε αν TLS'
8ε τ[ ουτο 8ει αθυ (ητουντa πολ

μη[σαι . . . . ω yv λακιr αναπειπτοι

ναι [ . . . . . . . . . TlS πριν ευρειν

χαλ[επον •... · [και] τουτ ου8εν
15 Q)S' Η[αθησομενον 15 [αλλ]ο αιτιον εστιν
τ(ε Tar xωpα~ και [η] το μη ειναι τε
4 1ines lost. [ταΥμενον] οπου
21 πλασ[ια ημων εχει [εκαστον 8ει] αν(α
η πασ[α πoλι~ αλ [μενειν περι μεν δ]η
λ oμω[~ οποιον 3 lines lost.
αν τ[ων οικετων 23 Ι θει~ δοκω με]μνη
25 κελευ[σηr

- Col. v.
3 lines lost.
α[μηχανιαS' ευπο κ[ ι]λμασι πο[ λλoι~
5 ρι[αν τινα ευρη κεκοσμη[ ται ω
κυ[ ια και ε8ειτο σωKραTε~ α[λλα τα
μο( v ω~ ταχιστα 20 οικηματα ω[ικο
ηπε[ρ] ε[λεΥον 8ια 80μηται πρ[o~ αυ
τ[α]ξαι· κα[ι πωS' 8η το εσ/(εμμ[ενα

10 [eyJroy εφ[ην ω ισχο oπω~ αΎΥει[α ω~

μαχε 8ιατ[ αξαS' αυ (σ]υμφορωτ[ατα
τηΙ τι 8 ει μ[ η Tη~ 25 (ηι] τ[Ο]ι~ μελλ[ ουσιν
Υε otKLar τ(ην 8υ. (εν αυ JTOLS' ε[ σεσθαι
ναμιν Ε80[ξε μοι (ωστε] αυτ[α] ε[καλ;ι
15 πρω[τ]ον επ[ι8ει [τα πρ]επον[τα ει
ξαι α[υ]τηΙ ου [Υαρ ποι [ναι ε]ν εκασ[τωι

We give a collation with Dindorf's text (ed. 11, Teubner, 1873).

1. 4. ομοιωr: 8μω~ D., with MSS.
7. ~ιιιpημ[ε]νων: δΙΏρημέιιων D.
14. ιυ[ρ]ιτον: a natural blunder for ιύεύριτοιι.
2 4. ε1(ασTOΙ~: ώr έ/(άσTOΙ~ D., with MSS. The omission of ώr ίη this place is ηο doubt
due to its occurrence ίn 2 Ι.
11. 8, 9. το παντω[ν /(α~Ta')'ιλασιιι: a corruption of the MSS. reading 3 πάντων κατα­
')'Ελάσειεν tJ.v.

Σ Σ. αλλα κομψο,: αλλ' ό Koμψό~ MSS., D.

καν κυθρα, (altered to και xυθp~; the final , was converted from ι), κ:r.λ.: the MSS.
here have 8τι Kal xύτpα~ Φησιν εvρυθμοv φαΙνεσθαι εύKpινω~ Kειμένα~, which makes ΏΟ sense. The
most generally accepted emendation is φημί for φησίν (so D.). Probably the papyrus had
φησιν 1ike the MSS., but it omits 8τι; and this suggests the possibility that the words Φησιν
••• Kειμ;να~ are a gloss which has crept into the text, and that 8τι was inserted subsequently
to save the construction. KtJ.lI for καί is not found ίη prose writers of Xenophon's time.
ι 5, ι 6. τα 8ε αλλ απο τουτου παντα: τα ~ε αλλα η~η που άπό 1'OVTOV ΙΙπαvτα MSS., D., ,vhich
is not satisfactory, and is rendered still more suspicious by the omission of ή8η που ίn the
papyrus. άπό τούτου is omitted by one MS. Probably either it or η8η που is a gloss.
25. ωστε: &σπερ MSS., D.
111. 3. 8ε: ~' D.
4. There is not room for ΖΦην, which is found ίn the MSS. (so D.) after lξεστιν. It is
possible (though not probable) that ίι occurred after άληθη ίη 3.
6, 7. The MSS. have π€ίpαp λαμβάνΕΙ7Ι αύτωJl οΌ1'ε τι ζημιωθέπαr, which is too long for the
lacunae. Either τι was omitted or λαβειν was loead instead of λαμβάιιειν, ίη which case the
final ν of 6 would belong to αυτωJv.
12 sqq. The MSS. have άθυμησαι, φ γύναι, ΙΦην /Υώ, ώs- χaλεπόv εύρείv το" μαθησόμ,ενόν τε
Ta~ χώΡαr, from which the papyrus must have differed considerably.
. 2 Ι. The reading of the 1\1:S8. is 8τι μυριοπλάσια ήμων απαVTα lXfL. lJ.παvτα must have
been omitted ϊη the papyrus, probably with justice.
IV. Σ. ελ]θονταr: έλθόντα MSS., D. lt is impossible to say whether the plural is
a mistake or due to a difference ίη the preceding clause \vhich is lost ίη the lacuna.
10. The l\tISS. have και ταυτα Ενίοτε αιιτιζητουντα πoλλάKΙ~ αν τι, πρότερον ΠΡΙ7Ι εύρείυ άπείποι.
αν TΙ~ CfJTOV1lTQ and αναΠ€ΙΠTOΙ are corruptions of this reading.
14. [και] τουτ ov8EV: καΙ τούτου αδ ου8έν MSS., D. The blunder ίη the papyrus is
a natural scribe's error. Cf. note ση V. 21, 22.
V. 10. [ε)']ωγ εΦ[ην: ;φην lΥώ MSS., D. .
Ι Ι. ~ιaT[αξα,: the MSS. vary between this reading and ~ι'ταξα, (so D.).
Σ 2. ~ εΙ,: ~ε εΙ D. [Τη'J γ€ οικια,: the MSS. have Tη~ οίκία, την ~ύυαμιν, but most modern
editors have agreed with Cobet ίη inserting ')'ε after ~ύναμι7l; the papJTrus reading is probably
17. ποικ[ι]λμ,ασι πο[λλοιS': πoλλoί~ is omitted by the MSS. and D.
2 ι, 22. αvJTO εσιcεμμ[ειια: αύτό τοϋτο M8S. One of these two words was omitted ίη
the papyrus; cf. note ση IV. 14. Considerations of space make it more probable that
αΙτό was written.
28, 29. [τα πμ]επον[τa ειναf, fJv εκασ(1'ωι: τά πρέποντα Etvat έκάσrφ MSS., a reading
which will not cοnstrμe. Dindorfs suggestion ένί for εΙναι has generally been accepted
by modern editors. But Ιν έκάσ1'φ, which was almost certainly the reading of the papyrus
and had been conjectured by Schneider, is probably right.

CCXXVI11. PLATO, Lαches, 197 Α-198 Α.

25'5 χ 15 cm.
The papyrus containing the fol1owing fragment of the Laches, Τ97 Α-Ι98 Α,
includes one practically complete column, with parts of the two immediately
,adjoining it ση either side. There are also two scraps apparently from the

bottom of a fourth successive column. The papyrus is written ίη an upright

square uncial hand of medium size and graceful appearance, which may be
assigned to the second century. The occasional corrections and Iection signs
seem to be due to the original scribe. Changes of speaker are indicated by the
double point, as ίη ccxi and ccxiί. The fragment offers a rather remarkable
number of variations from the ordinary text. Besides several instances of
transposition ίη the order of words, there are a number of small differences of
reading, some of which, e. g. σJ γε- for Ιγωγ€, ϊη Col. 11. 10, may be regarded as

Col. Ι. Col. 11.

(Toυ~ θ€Oυ~ κ Jat Ευ λ[ εΥJEL[ ~ [λοι Ε]ιΥω θ[ρασ Jea καλ[ω αν
(ω σωKpαTε~] και ημιll [8ρει]α 8ε τα [φ]ρονιμα (πε
[ωr αληθωS'] τουτ[ο] αποl<ρι [ρι ω]ν λεΥω: θεασαι ω σ)ω
[oJr K[par]ES' ω~ ε(υ ε]αvτον [ο
[ναι ω νιl<ια πο]Tερ~ σο 5 8~ ω~ ΟΙΕται κοσμε(ι) τω(ι
5 [φωτερα ημω]?, ταυτα λΟ[ΥJωι [t]ovS' 8ε παντε[S' ο
[τα θηρια εΙlΙαι φ]ηS' άπαν μο[λο]Υουσιν av8pElovS' [ει
[TES' ομολΟΥουμε]1Ι αν να[ ι] TOυTOυ~ αποστερε[ ιν
{8ρεια ειναι η πα]σιν Εναν επ( ιχ]ειρει ταvτηS' τη[ ~
[τιουμενοS' τολ ]paS' μη 10 τιμηS': ουκουlΙ σε Υε [ω

ι ο [8ε αν8ρεια αυτα] καλειlΙ : λαχηS' αλλα θαρρει [φη

[ου 'γαρ τι ΕΎωΎε ω] λαxη~ μι Ύαρ σε ειναι σοφο(ν και
[αν8ρεια καλω οJVTE θη αμαχον Ύε ει περ εστ[Ε
(ρια ουτε αλλο] το TaS' 8ει αν8ρειοι και αλλοvS' σ(V
[ν •••.•••••• μ]η φοβου 15 Xllov S' αθηναιων: [ου
15 [μενον αλλ αφοβ]!!v και 8ε1l εροο ΠΡΟS' ταυτα εχω[ν
[μωρον η και τα παι8ια) ειπειll ινα μη με φηS'

[παντα ΟΙΕΙ με α]ν8ρει roS' αληθωS' αιξωνεα ει

[α καλειll α 8ι ayJlIo[t]av ναι: μη8ε Υ ειπηS' ω λα
[ου8εν 8ε80ΙΚΕν α]λ( λ] οιμαι 20 [χ]ηS' και Υαρ μοι 80KELS' ου
20 (το αφοβον και το] q.v8pEL [8]ε ησθησθαι οτι 8η ταυ
[ον ου ταυτον εσ)τιll ε (τη]ν την σοφιαll πα
[Ύω 8ε αll8pεια~ μεν] [ρ]α 8[aJprovo~ του ημετι:
[και πpoμηθεια~ πJανυ ρου εταιρου παρειληφα

[τισιν ολΙΎΟΙS' οιμαι] με 25 ο 8ε 8aμω1l τωι προ8ι


25 [τειναι θρασυτηΤΟ]Υ 8ε κωι τα πολλα πλησια(ει

[και τολμηΥ και TOJv α or 8[η] δοκει των σοφιστων

[φοβου μετα απρομ]ηθίι κα( λ]λιστα τα τοιαυτ ονο
(ar πανυ πολλΟΙΥ κJat αν [ματα 8ιαι ]ρε[ ι Jv : και πρε
[δρων . .. 30 (πε)ι ω σωκΡ[ aJ'TEr σοφιστηf
4 lines lost. τα τοιαυτα μαλλον κομ

ψ[Ε]υεσθαι η ανδρ[έ]Ι ό[ν

Col. 111.
αξ(ιοι η πολΙΥ αυτηΥ προ . [σκο)πει τ[α λεΥομενα: ταυ
εσταν[αι: πρεπει μεντ-οι [τ]α 8η εσ[τω ει 80κει χρη
που ω [μακαριε των με 20 (ν]aι: αλ[λα δΟΚΕΙ συ δε
Υιστω[ν προστατουντι [ν]ικια λ(Ε/'Ε ημιν παλιν
5 μεΎισ[τηΥ φρονησεωr [ εJξ αρχ[ ηr οισθ οτι την
μ[ Ετεχειν 80κει 8ε αν8]1?~![ αν κατ apXar του
μοι νι[ κιαΥ [λο/,ο]υ ε(σκοπουμεν
2 lines lost. 25 [ror μ]~e[οr αΡετηr σκο
ι Ο [τ]ο τιθη[σι την αν8ρει ~[eVVTEr: πανυ /'Ε :
αν: α[υΤΟΥ τοινυν σκο ουκουν [και συ τουτο απε
πει ω σ( roKpaTEr: τουτο κρεινω [ror μοριον ον
μελλω [ποιειν ω αρισ των 8( η και αλλων μερων
τε· μ[ η μεντοι με 30 α συνπ(αντα αρετη ΚΕ
15 [ο]ιου αφ[ ησειν σε τηr κοι κληται: [πωr /,αρ ου :
νωι'(αΥ του λΟΎου αλ αρ ουν α[περ ε/,ω και συ
λα προσ( εχε τον νουν και συ

2 detached fragments from the bottom of Col. ΙV (?).

θαρρ ]~λE~ [δε τ]α μ[ η

Ι. Ι.ft ')'Ι Bek.; the omission of 'ΥΙ is, however, supported by a number of MSS.
3. TOVT[ ο ]: TOυr) Bek.
4. The scribe apparently intended πάτιρα and πότιρον to be taken as alternative readings,
since he has not deleted the α. πότιρο" Bek., with the majority of the MSS.
5, 6. This order of the words is peculiar to the papyrus. σοφώτιρα Φiι~ ήμων ταυΤ" ~Τ"α"
τά θηρία Bek.

6. There is a thin oblique stroke above the α of παν, which is perhaps intended for an
accent. The scribe may have wished to distinguish ιi πάvτεS' from l1.παvτεS'. But the stroke
is possibly accidental.
11, 12. 1t is evident that the usual order ού γάρ τι (ΤΟΙ wf)/6'> Α., εγωγε άιι~pεϊα καλω is not
adapted Ιο the lacunae hel'e, which are of the same size ίn the two lines. The transposition
of εΥωΥε is a simple remedy.
13. ίfλλo oύ~εν (Bel\.., with MSS.) is too much for the lacuna. Οη the other hand the
omission of oυ~;ν leaves scarcely enough to fi11 ίι Perhaps lJ.λλο τι, with ηο τι or with ΤΟΙ
for τι ίn 1. 11, was the reading of the papyrus.
Tar δει[υ •.• : τα δεινa ύπο άΥvοίαS' (αvοίαS' MSS.) μη Bek. 'TaS' may be merely a clerical
eflΌr, but if so it is the only uncorrected one ίn the fragment.
22. av~PEtuS' is more probable than uvδΡιaS' (Bek.), which makes a very short lίne.
27. Α mark above the ε of απρομηθειαS' is probably intended to cancel that letter. Both
spellings aΓe supported by the MSS. άΠΡομηθεlαS' Bek.
11. 3. Only the lower point of the colon remains. Immediately below it is a semi-
circular mark which \ve have taken to be a circumflex accent over Ευ ίη the line below, but
this explanation is a little doubtful.
4, 5. ώS' E~ Bae έαυτον δή, ώS' οίεται Bek. δη (\vhich is omitted ίn some MSS.) might be read
ίη place of [ο]δε ίn the papyrus.
6. The superfluous τ has been crossed out as well as cancelled by a dot placed above
ίι ε ίη ανδρει has been similarly dealt with ίn 32.
10. ουκουν εγωΥε MSS., Bek. The reading of the papyrus seems more pointed.
13. αμαχον : the same reading is found ίη two of Bekker's ΜSS.(eΣ corr.).
Λάμαχον Bek.
19· γ: Υε Bek.
21. ούδε μη Bek. μή is also omitted ίη Ε.
οτι δη: ΟΤΙ 8δε Bekk. ΒδΕ is omitted ίn a large numbel' of l\ιlSS. Cf. 11. 5, note.
24. παρειληφα: παρείληφεν Bek., with the MSS. The ordinary reading is of course
26. τα πολλα: om. τα MSS., Bek.
28. τοιαυτ: τοιαυτα Bek.
29. και: καΙ 'γαρ MSS., Bek.
111. Ι. ή πόλι~ αξιοΊ Bek_
ΠΡΟ]Εσταν[αι: προίστάναι Bek. προεστάνaι is found ίn some MSS.
3. The addition of που is peculiar ιο the papyrus.
14, 15. μΕ oJLOV: so one MS. οΊου με Bek.; severall\1SS. omit μ.ε.
17. The line is a little long; possibly συ was omitted.
19. δη: ~έ Bek., with most MSS. γε corr. Γ.
27. απε]κρεινω: but αποκριναι Ι. 3. άΠΕκρίνω Bek.
30. συνπ[αJlτa: ξύμπαντα Bek.

CCXXIX. PLATO, Phaedo, 109 C, D.

17 χ 4-9 cm.
Thirty lines, of which the beginnings aJ"e lost, containing parts of Plato's
Phaedo 109 C, D, written ίη a small, somewhat cramped uncia1. Ιη the margin
at the top are two lines ίn a cursiνe hand of the second or early third century,

which appear to be a heading. The MS. itself may be ascribed to the second
century. Breathings and accents ι are sparingly used, and a mark of quantity is
found ίη line 8, a rare occurrence ίη prose MSS. Two kinds of stops are used,
the double point marking a Ionger pause, the high point a shorter one. These
seem to have been insel"ted after the writing, but perhaps by the original
scribe. Unlike the Lαches papyrus, the present fragment does not vary from
the MSS.
There are slight traces of the first letter of the twenty-eighth and twenty..
ninth Iines ίη a second column, perhaps ε and α respectiνely, and there is
a critical mark resembling a comma ίη the' margin against the supposed α. Οη
the verso ία second or third century cursive is written Ά[θυ]ρ λ.

δΙ. v8aTos
] ως οι ιχθυες τον ουραν[ον ....
] ημιεις 8ι αερος

[λου]S' των περι τα τοιαυτα ει [σθεν)ειαν μη8επωποτ[ ε ε

[ωθ]οτων λεΥειν: Ευ 8η υπο) [πι τα α]κρa Tη~ θαλαττη[S' α
[στα)θμην ταυτα ειναι και ξυν [ΦΙ'Yμενo]~ μη8ε ΕωρακωΥ [ει
[ρει]ν αει ELS' τα κοιλα τηΥ ΥηS' : [η EK8vS' κ]αι ανακυψαΥ ΕΚ [τη~
5 [ημα:S' ουν OLKOVVTaS' εν TOtS' 20 [θαλαTτη]~ ει~ τον εν(θα8ε
[κοιλ ]ΟΙΥ αυτηΥ· λεληθεναι και [τοπον οσ]οο καθαρ[ωτερα~
[οιεσ ]θαι ανω επι τηS' ΥηS' οι) [και καλλι]ων τυΎΧ[ανει ων
(ΚΕΙ ν] ωσπερ αν ει TlS' εν με­ [του παρα σφ]ισι μη8ε αλ(λου
[σωι τΊωι πυθμενι του πελα [ακηκοωS' ε]ιη του εωρακ[ο
ιΟ [YOVS' Ο]ικων· οιοιτο τε [επι 25 [TOS' ταυτον 8η τουτο] και η)
[τηΥ θαλ]aττηΥ ΟΙΚΕιν και 8ι[α [μα~ ΠΕπονθεναι]· oLKovvrar
[του v8]aroS' όρω", τον ηλι[ ον [Υαρ εν τινι κοιλω] τηS' 'Yη~
[και τ]α αλλα αστρα τη[ν] θα [οιεσθαι Επαvω αυ]Tη~ όικειν
[λαττα]ν ηΥΟΙΤΟ ουρανον ει [και τον αερα ουρα ]νον καλειν·
15 [ναι 8ια] 8ε βρα8υτητα τε κα[ι α 30 [OOS' 8ια τουτου ουραν]ου oνTO~

3. ξυ,{ρει]1I -: ξυρρεϊll Bek.

19. τηs-, which is read by Bek. with tlle MSS., was perhaps omitted.
23. σφ]ισι: σφισιν Bek.
26. The stop was possibly <1 double point, the lower one being lost.

1 F or- the use of accents ίη prose MSS. of the Roman period cf. ccxxxi, and another fragment of the
De Corona (Ο. Ρ. Ι. xxv), which last Mr. Kenyon overlooked ίη stating (Palαeography, ρ. 30) that 'accents
were inserted ..• so far as yet appears only ίη texts of the poets.'

ccxxx. DEMOSTHENES, De C01/0na, §§ 40-47.

28 χ 21 cm.

One nearly complete column, with the ends of the lines of the column
preceding and the beginnings of some lines of the column following, from a rol1
containing the speech De Corona. The MS. is written ίη a round, rather
irregular uncial hand, dating fairly certainIy from the second centnry, and
probably about the middle of it. The text is a careful one, and occasionaIly
shows slight variations from the MSS. 1t is inconsistent with regard to elision,
which is most fl·equent with οΕ and its compounds. Terminations of verbs, so
far as appears, were never elided. Α few corrections have been made by a second
hand, which is also responsible for the rough breathings added ίη 1Ι. 36 and
111. 14. The paragraphus is sometimes used, but ηο other stops. Α horizontal
stroke is frequentJy placed at the end of the shorter lines ίη order to give an
appearance of equalίty ίη length.
We append a collation with the Dindorf-BIass edition (Teubner, 1885).

Co1. Τ. Col. 11.


[πεποιηΚ'α αΚ'οντω]ν αθ[ηναι [ επ]ανειμι δ[η] ~[υν πα]λιν επι

[ων Κ'αι λυπουμΕνων ω]<!! ει­ TaS- απo8ειξει~ α/~ τ[α] τουΤα/ν
[περ ευ φρονειτε ω θηβα]ιοι α8ΙΚ1] ματα των νυν π[α]ρ[οντων
[Κ'αι θετταλοι TOΙΙToυ~] μεν- πραΥματων ΥεΥονεν αιτια

5 [eXOpovs- υπολη]ψεσθε εμοι 5 επει8η Υαρ εξηπατησθε μεν­

[δε πιστευσετε ου τ]oυTOΙ~ TOlS- VpELs- ϋπο του φιλιππου 8ια του
[ρημασιν ypatas- ταυτ]α δε βου των Τα/ν εν rats- π[ρ]εσβ[ ElalS-
[λομενοs- 8ειΚ'νυ]ναι ΤΟΙ­ μισθ(ι)σανT~ν eaVTOVS- [εκει
[Υαρουν εκ τουτων] ωχετο- νω και ουθεν ϋμειν αλη[θε~ α
Ι ο (EKElVOVs- λαβων ε~ το μ]η8 ο 10 παΥΎειλαντων ε~ηπαTη[νTO
[τιουν προοραν των μ]ετα­ 8ε οι ταλαιπωροι Φα/κειs- κ[αι ανη
(ταυτα μη8 αισθανε ]σθ[ αι α]λλ ρηντο αι πoλει~ αυτων [τι εΥενε
(εασαι παντα τα πραΥ]ματα εκει το οι μεν καταπτυστοι θεττα
[νον εφ €αυTω ποιησ]ασθαι- λοι και αllαισ[θ]ητοι θηβα[ιοι] φ[ι]
15 [εξ ων Tatr παρουσαιs-] συμφοραιs­ 15 λον ε[υεJΡ[Υ]ε~τ]ην σωτηρα φι[λJιπ
[κεχρηνται οι ταλαιπωρ]ο[ι] θηβαι πον ηΥουντο παντ EKEtvOS- ...

[οι ο 8ε ταvτηS' τηS' . . • ] . . ~COS' ην aVTOlS' ου8ε φωιιηll ηΚ'ουοιι


[αυτω ΣVν€p'Y0~ και συ]!,~y~ν]! ει τ[ ι]~ αλλο τι βου[λ]οιτο λεΎ[ειν

[στηr και ο 8ευρο απaΥΥ]ειλαr vμειr 8 υφ[ο]ρωμ[ενο]ι τα [πεπρα
20 [τα ψευ8η και φενακι]σαS' ϋμαS' 20 Ύμενα και 8vuxepa[tV]OVTE[S'
[OVTor εστιν ο τα θηβ]αιων o8v- ηΎετε την ειρηνην o[μω~
[Ρομενοr νυν παθη] και 8ιεξι ου 'γαρ η ν ο τι αν εποιειτε [και
[ων ror οικτρα και TovJTωv και σι αλλοι δε ελληνεr ομοιωr-
[των εν φωκευσι Κ]ακων και υμει(ν] πεφενακισμενοι και
25 [οσ αλλα πεπονθασι]ν οι ελλη 25 8ιημ[α]pTηKOTε~ [ων] ηλπισαν
[ver απαντων aVTOS'] ων alTtOS' ηΥο[ν τ]ην ειρηνην aVT[oJt τρο
[8ηλον Υαρ ΟΤΙ συ μ]εν αλΥειr πον τ( ινΊα ΕΚ πολλ( ου] χρον[ο]υ
[[επι TOΙ~ συμβεβηκο]σιν αι- πολε[μο]υμενοι [οτε Υ]αρ περι[ ιωιι
σχινη και TOυ~ θηβαιo]υ~ ελεειS' φιλιπποS' ϊλλυpιoυ~ [κ]αι τριβαλ
30 [κτηματa εχων εν τη βοι]ωτιαι 30 λουS' και Ttvar των ελληνων
[και ΥεωΡΥων τα εκεινω)ν εΎω KαTεσTpεφεT~ο] και 8υ[ν]aμει~ πολ
(8ε χαιρω oS' εξυθvS' εη]τουμην:- λαr και μεΥαλαS' επο(ιε]ιτο ϋΦ Ε-·
[υπο του ταυτα πραξαιιτο ]S'- αυTω~ και TtVES' ΕΚ των πολεων
[αλλα γαρ εμπεπτωκα Et]S' λογοvS' επι τη [T]η~ ElpfJVfJS' εξουσιαι βa8ι
35 [ovS' αυτικα μαλλον αρμο]σει λε[Υ]ειν 35 (OVTES' εκεισε 8ιεφθειροντο-
ων ε( t]S' OVTOS' ην τοτε πα(ν]τε[S'

CoI. 111.
κιν] Ι ο σθησθα( ι αντι Υαρ φιλων και
8υνων [τα εaυτων ασφαλωr σχη ξενων α τοτε ω[νομα(οντο
σειν σταν [βουλωνται ειτ σιμαι ηνικα ε8ωρο80κουν ν(υν κο
[ λαKε~ και θεoιιr[ιν] εχθρο(ι και ταλ
lines lost.
2 λ' lx προσηκει παντα aKOv( ουσιν
6 α[πολωλεκεναι TOLS' 8ε ΠΡΟΕ 15 ov8ElS' Υαρ ω av8pES' αθην[αιοι
στηκοσ[ιν και ταλλα πλην εαυ το του ΠΡ08ι80ντοr συ[μφε
TOVS' oL[opevotS' πωλΕιν πρω ρον (ητων χρημα'Τa αν( αλισΚΕΙ
Tovr ea[VTOVS' πεπρaκοσιν η ου8 επει8aν ων αν πριηται l!'~~

Ι. 9. ωχιτο: c1xET'
13. πραΥ]ματα: πράΥματ' Β.
16. [ΙCEXpηIITαι οι ταλαιπωρ]ο[ι] θηβαι[οι: ΟΙ ταλαίπωροι ΙCέXpηνTαι Β., omitting θηβαϊοι.
17. . .. ] .. ιωs-: the vestiges οη the papyrus are ceι-taίnΙΥ inconsistent with the
ordinary reading π{στιως. The traces immediately before the supposed Ε resemble μι στ
λλ. avv]αμιωs- would suit them very well.

2 Ι. εοτι.ν iS more probable than έσθ' (Β.) owing to the size of the lacuna; it has also
ίη its favour the analogy of ΥέΥονεν, 11. 4.
ο~υ[ΡομεvοS' νυν: νυν ό~υΡόμ€vοS' Β., with Α Hermog. ρ. 242, 346 W. νυν is omitted ίη
Vind. ι.
35. The lacuna is of the same size as ίη the previous line; it is accordingly pretty
clear that the papyrus read μαλλον, not μάλα ίσωS', stillless μαλλον ίσωS'. ίσωS' is omitted ίη
Vind. ι Hermog. ρ. 344 W. μαλλον [ί'σωS'] Β.
11. ι. ν[υιι: the letter tran8cribed as v might be read as 71", but there is room for four
letters bet\veen thi8 and ]λιν. The reading νυν would perhaps also account for the
correction of ~η to ~ε. ~η πάλιν E1S' (Vind. ι) Β.
3. νυν π[α]ρ[οντων: νυνι [παρόντων] Β. νυν is read ίη Hermog. ρ. 416 W., whe,re
παρόντων is omitted; ,
4. ')'ε')'ονεν: ΥΕΎον Β.
8. EaVTOVS': aίITovS' Β.
εκει]νω: om. Β.; alJTovS' τφ Φιλlππφ S and other 1\185.
9. ουθεν υμειν αλη[ BES': oύ~εν άληθεS' ύμίν Β.
Ι Ι. ~ε οΙ. ταλαιπωροι: ~' οί [ταλαίπωροι] Β. ταλαίπωροι is omitted ίη Vind. Ι.
ανη]ρηντο: aνlιρηνθ' Β.
15. φι[λJιπποv : τόν Φίλιππον Β.
23. ~ε: ~' Β.
24. υμιι[ν]: ύμιν Β.
26. ειρηνην αυτ[ο ]1.: 80 S; εΙρήνην ασμεlJΟl. και αύτοι Β.
27. T[ιvJa: τιν' Β.
εκ πολλ[ ου] χρον[ ~]υ : , έκ ,πολλου Β.
30. και TtvaS': TLJIUS' ~ε και Β.
32. επ()[ιε]ιτο: lποιείθ' Β.
33. TΙVES' εκ των: 'nVES' των έκ των Β.
111. About nineteen Jine8 are 108t at the top of this column.
2. οταν: 80 MSS.; οΙ' δ.ν Β., following a conjecture of Weil.
3. συμβεβηΚΕν: συμβΙβηκε Β.
9. η]σθησθα[ι: aΙσθέσθαι Β.
Ι Ι. τοτε: τότ' Β.
12. ηνικa ε~ωρο~οκοvv: omitted ίn Hermog. ρ. 165 and bracketed by Β.
13. BEotS': the corl"ection is probably by the 8econd hand; BEoiS' is the ordinary
reading. •
/(αι ταλ]λ α ΠPOσηK€Ι παvτα: 80 Hermog. ρ. 165; /(α1 πάνθ' Δ προση/(εν Β.
15. ω αν~PE~: l1V~PES' ,Β., with SL.
17. χρηματα: χρηματ Β.
18. αει: 80 apparently the papyrus; the reading is doubtfuI, but the word following
πριηται. was certainly neither Kυpιo~ nor yεJlηTαι. πρίηται κύριuS' ')'ένηται MSS., Β.

CCXXXI. DEMOSTHENES, De Coronα, §§ 227-229.

9'2 χ 7'3 cm.

Eighteen nearly complete lίnes containing §§ Ζ27-9 of the De Corona,
written ίη a medium-sized informal uncial resemblίng the hand of the Thucydides
fragment (Plate V), but having a somewhat later aspect. The papyrus may be

ascribed with confidence to the latter part of the first or the earlier part of the
second century. It 1S remarkable for its careful punctuation, all three kinds of
stops occurring (cf. introd. to CCXXVi), and, so far as can be judged from 50 smal1
a fragment, being accurately used. They are accompanied by short blank
spaces, of about the breadth of a single letter. Both the points and perhaps the
occasional accents that are found are dιte to the original scribe. The fragment
has ηο variants of importance.

οι(κεν εσ)τιν φ[υσει παν οτι αν μη

8lKa[tror] ηί πεπ[ραΥμενον εκ Υαρ

αυτου του σοφου [τουτου παρα8ει
ypaTor ωμολΟΥη[κε νυν Υ ημαr
5 υπαρχ ειν εΎνω[ upevovr εμε μεν
λεΥειν υπερ τηr παTpι80~' εαυ(τον 8ε
υπερ φιλιππου· ου Υαρ αν μET~α
ΠΕιθειν vpar ε(ηΤΕΙ μη το[ιαυ
τηr υπαΡχουσηr υποληψεω[r
10 περι Εκaτερου· και μην ΟΤΙ Υ ο(υ
XL8lKata λεΥΕΙ μετάθεσθαι ταυτ[ην
την 80ξαν αξιων. ΕΥω 8ι8αξ[ω
pat8tror ου τιθειr ΨηφουS'· ου ya[p ε
στιιι ο των πρaΥμaτων oVTor λΟ[ΥΙ
ι 5 σμo~ αλλ αναμιμνησκων Εκα(στα
εν βρaχεσι λΟΥισταιr και μαρτυσ[ ι
TOtr ακουουσιν υμιν ΧΡωμενο[r
[η] Ύαρ Εμη πολΙΤΕια ηr oVTor κατ[η
[yJopel a(VTJt μεν του θ[η]βαι[ουr μετα

ι. εσ JTLV: εατι B(lass).

4. Β. omits νϋν Υ' (80 SL) after ώμoλόΎηιc~(ν) with Α, but νυν is requil*ed ίη the papyrus.
6. Εαυ[τον: αύτον Β.
8, 9. το[ιαv}rηr vπαρχοvσηr: τoιαύτη~ ουσηr τη" Β., with MSS. The omission of οvσηf
Tη~ may be due to homoioteleuton.
10. ο[υ]χι: ου Β.
16. βραx~σι λO'Yισl"αι~: βραχίσιν, λΟl'ισταίs- ί1μα Β.


CCXXXII. DEMOSTHENES, contra ,Tz·mgcratem, §§ 53-54, 56-58.

13 χ 14 cm. Plate ιν (Col. 11).
The latter parts of two columns, containing portions of Demosthenes'
contrα T'Z·mocratem, §§ 53-54 and 56-58, written ίη a medium-sized, sloping uncial.
The verso of the papyrus is covered with parts of two columns of cursive writing
(perhaps a letter) of the end of the second or (more probably) of the first half of
the third century. The Demosthenes οη the recto, therefore, cannot have been
written later than the early part of the third century, and may wel1 be as old as
the latter half of the second. It shotIld be compared with the large Oxyrhynchus
Homer (Plate Ι) and the fragment of Plato's Lαws (ο. ·Ρ. Ι. Plate VI), both
somewhat later specimens of a type of hand which became common ίη the third
centut-y. There are πο breathings or accents, and only one stop occurs.

Col. 11.

οπο[σα 8 επι των τριακοντα επρa

χθη η 8ικη ε8ικασθ[η ι8ια η 8η
μοσια ακ.υρα ειναι [επισχεr εΙΠΕ
μοι τι 8ε[ι]νοτατον πα[νTε~ αν α
5 KOvuaJITEr Φησαιτε κ[αι τι μαλισ
Col. Ι. τ αν αΠΕυξαισθε οvχ(ι ταυτα τα
[π]ραΥματα απερ ην επι Τα/:ν τρια
[εστιν η] που [νομον /' επιτα ΚΟllτα μη ,,/Ενεσθαι ΕΥα/Υ ο[Ι]μα [ι
[,,/μα εχ]οντ[ α] εισφερειν ΕΥω με[ν • Ο γουν νoμo~ ουτοσϊ ευλαβουμε
[ουκ οι]μαι και Υαρ α[ισ]χρον πε ι ο νo~ ror Υ εμοι 80ΚΕΙ το τοιουτον
[ρι ων μη]8ε χαρι(εσθαι 8ειν υπ[ ει αΠΕιπε τα πραχθεντα επ εΚΕινο>ν
5 (ληφατε] περι τουτων ακοντων μη κυρια εΙlΙαι οvτοσι τοινυν την

(υμων εα]ν α Tlver βουλονται πρα αυτην κατεΥνω παρανομιαν των

[χθηναι λ]εΥε τον μΕτα τουτον επι Tη~ 8ημOKpαTια~ πε[πραΥμε ..

[εφεξηs-] poμo~ ι 5 να/ν ηνπερ εκεινων ομο[ιω~ /,ου]ν
[οσων 8ι]κη προτερον εΥΕνετο ακυρα ποιει καιτοι ΤΙ φησομ[εν α/
10 [η Ευθυνα η] 8ια8ικασια περι του alI8per αθηναιοι τουτον κυρι(ον
[εν 8ικασΤ]?Ίf.'~ωf ?Ί (ι)8ιαι η 8ημοσι
[αι η το 8η]μοσιον απε80ΤΟ μη Jv
τ[Ο νομον Εασαllτεr ΥΕνε[ σθαι πο

[εισαΥειν π]ερι τουτωll Elr το 8ι τε[ροΊν τα 8ικαστηρια α 8ημοκρ[α

[καστηριοJl μη]8 επιψηφι(ειν 20 το[vμε]νηr Tη~ πολεωS' εΙ( των ομ[ω
μ(οκο]των πληρουται ταυτα a[8ι

Ι. Ι ι. There ίΒ a difficulty about the reading of the beginning of this. line. The
stroke before ~ιaι might just as well be an iota as the second half of 1Ι, but it is ίω­
possible to read ηpιωηι~ιαι or ηpιωιηι~ιαι or ηριωιι!tιαι.
11. 2. δη]μοσια: the absence of iota adscript is a slight argument ίn favour of
supposing that the scribe meant δημόσια, not ~ημοσlq, for ίη Ι. Ι ι the iota adscript is
written. But lVISS. of this period are not consistent ίn either inserting or omitting ίι
4, 5. αν α]l(ουσανΤΕς ΦησαΙΤΕ: so MSS. άκoύσανTE~ lίv B(laS8).
9. ουτοσί: 80 MSS. O~TO~ Β.
Ι ο. ω~ γ εμοι: om. γΙ Β.
ι Ι. 'IrpaXOE7JTα: πραχθέντ' Β., who also elides the final vowel of κύρια ίη 12 and Tavr'
ίn 2 ι where it ί8 retained ίη the papyrus.
15. ηVΠEp EI(Etvrov: ηvπεp των έπ' έκεΙνων vμfί~ Β. των is omitted by S and some other

CCXXXIII. DEMOSTHENES, contrα Timocra/em, §§ 145, 146, 150.

10·8 χ 9·3 cm.

Parts of two columns from another MS. of Demosthenes' contra Timo-

cratem (§§ 145, 146 and 150), written ίn a smal1 uncial which resembles οη the
one hand that of ccxxxii (Plate IV), and οη the other the fragment of Plato's
Laws (ο. Ρ. ι. Plate νι). Like the epic fragment (ccxiv), the script of which
is almost identical, it may be ascribed with confidence to the third century. The
few corrections are due to a second band, which also inserted probably all the
stops except that after υoμ.oι~ ίη line 16. .
The only variant of note is that ία Iines 10, 11, where the reading of the
papyrus is obscured by the lacuna.

Col. Ι. Col. 11.

[ινα μη 8ι)α το 8[εσθαι χΕιρον α
[ναΥ]κα(οιντ[ο αΥα/lIι(εσθαι
[η και] πανταπ[ασι]ν απα[ρασκευ '
[ΟΙ ΕΙΕ]V· ουτοσι 8ε α ΕΠΙ τ(OLS' ακ.ρι

5 [TOLS'] κιται OOS' περι απα[ιιτων


[ειρ]ημενα μελλει πpo~~ υμα~

[λεΥ]ειν· ooS' 8η σαΦω~ Υν[ωσεσθε
[ο]τι αληθη λεΥω εΥω υμειν ερω· !'[υ8ενα • • • • κατα]
[ουτεJ Υαρ αν ω αιι8pε~ 8ικα[ σ]ται στη[σω • • • • υπευθυ]
10 [τιμα]ν εξην υμιν ο τι χ[ρη] 1fa νον [ • • ) • των]
[.]~σαι η αποτισαι· εν Υ[αρ τω]ι Εννε[α
[π]aθειν και ο 8εσμοS' ε(ιιι ου
[κ α]ν ουν εξην 8εσμο[υ τιμησαι
ουτε οσω[ν εν8ε]ιξι~ εσ[τιιι η
15 απαΥωΥη προσεΥεΥραπτο [αν
[ειι] TOΙ~ νoμoι~· τον 8ε ν 8[ ειχθεν
[τα] η απαχθεντα 8ησαντων
[οι ev8JEKa εν τω ξυλω ει
[περ μη] εξην αλλoυ~ η Toυ~ (ε
20 [πι προ8]οσια Tη~ πολεωS' η επι
[καταλυJUEl του 8ημου συνιον
[Tα~ η TOVS' τα τελη OOllOvJpe

4. ~ε : the papyrus does not elide a final ε, except ίn 16 (corrected).

7. ~η: ~ε B(lass). ΥΙ{ωσεσθε: here and ίn 13 the supplements at the end make the
lines unusually long.
10-1 Ι. ~a[.Jrισαι: the MSS. here have παθείν. Possibly the influence of άποτίσαι
following made the scribe write παθησαι, ία which case it was ησ doubt corrected. The
space between ησαι. and the line above is lost. The doubtful η could equally well be ι.
Ι 6. ~ε ~ειxθενTa is altered by the second hand to ~ εν~ειxθενTa (MSS., Β).


30.6 χ 8·7 cm.

FRAGMENT <?f a treatise containing medical prescriptions. The column which
is preserved is occupied with a classified series of specifics for earache; the first
two or three letters from the beginnings of thirty-two lines of a second column
also remain, but are insufficient to indicate whether the ear was still the subject

of discussion. The medical work was written ση the 'verso of the papyrus.
Οη the recto are parts of five lines from a memorandum concerning a lease made
, ίη the 14th year,' and mentioning 'the present 17th year.' These lines are ίη
an upright cursive hand of the latter half of the second or the beginning of the
third century, so the reign referred to may be that of either Antoninus, Marcus
Aurelίus, or Septimius Severus. The handwriting οη the verso, therefore, which
is a round upright unciaI of medium size, well formed but somewhat heavy, may
date from the end of the second century; it can hardly be later than the first
half of the third.
Paragraphi are used tό mark a pause; the high point also occurs once, after
αυ&.λαβε ϊη 19. Α horizontal dash is sometimes added at the end of the shorter
lines; these are omitted ίη our transcription.

CoI. Ι.

] ροδι­

CoΙ 11.
ιf[λλ ]0. καστορήου και μη­ [αν] Tptta~ 8σον IJpo-
κωllΕου (σοιι φώσa~ [,80]ν ~Jlθε~ el~ το oυ~.
, , [']
ΕΠ "
ο στρακου μα"λ ιστα [ιiλλο). φύλλον πεpσέα~
(μΕ)ιι ~TTΙKoϋ, εί 8Ε (dλ]εtψαS' ενθε~. &λ(λο].
5 μή, ρωϊστικου, και λεά­ 30 [χολ]ηιι βoo~ κροκύ8(ι]
Jlα~ 8ΙEΙ~ ΥλυκεΊ χλιά­ [. • • •]σα~ χρησίμωΥ
ιιa~ ~νσTα(ε. ιiλλο. [και] συσTpEψa~ ~νθε~.
χαλβάνην σουσίνφ [&λλJο. σμύρναν και
, 1\' , t [στυ]πτηρίαν (σα Tpl-
μυρφ oιει~ προσμιbον

10 μέλι καΙ ιJό8ινoν, κα[ι) 35 [ψα~] ~pOer.

κλυσμοι ώΤΟΥ

οισυπηρον εριον πε-

ρ2 μηλωτρΕ8α συστρέ- [ΠΡΟΥ] π6νoυ~.

'Ι' α~ 'λ'
και Χ
ιαινων εν-
JI [λιβ]ανωτον οίνφ
στα(ε. &'λλο. ροων [8ΙEΙ]~ ή8ίστφ κλύ(ε

15 κυTίνoυ~ μΕμυκ6- 40 [το']'Ί'

ο υ~, και
ι! Α

Tα~ Tp[ψa~ και Kp6KOV ]

[τοJίI ~ ΠΡΟΥΕΥραμμέ-
υ '
θ8ια/Ρ Επιστα
'ξ α~ 0-
[νο]ι~ έΥχύμασιν.
ταν pυπω8E~ Υενη- [ιiλ ]λο. πράσου χυλον
ται άνάλαβΕ· πpo~ [θΕ]ρμον ενκλυ(Ε.
20 [8J~ την ΧΡΕίαν ήλ[κον 45 [ιiλ Ιλο. χολΏ TaVpE{lf
[ό]ρ6βφ έν Ι'λυκει 8LELS' [-Λ ]'
η κ αι
, ,
atyEt'f -Λ β
η προ αΤΕΙ'!'
[κ]αι xλιάνα~ ~νσTα(E. [η] '(ινα παΡαπλησ[lf
[Οε ]ρμυ κλύ(Ε. ιiλλο.
~I ' [']
εν θ ετα ElS" Τ ο [ΠE]ύKη~ χυλφ θερμρ
';" , ,
oυ~ πpo~ πoνoυ~. 50 [π]αpαπλησtω~.
25 [στ]υπτηρίαν ΑίΥυπτ[-

11. ι. 1. καστορίου. 2 ι. 1. ~poβoν. 47. Ι" τινι.

'Another,:-Heat an equal quantity of beaver-musk and poppy-juice upon a potsherd,

if possible one of Attic make, but failing that of .•. ; soften by diluting with raisin wine,
warm, and drop ίn.
Another :-Dilute some gum with balsam of li1ies, and add honey and rose-extract.
Twist some wool with the οίι ίη it round a probe, warm, and drop ίη.
Another :-Pound some closed calices οΕ pomegranates, drop οη saffron-water, and
when it becomes discoloured draw the liquor off. When required dilute as much as the
bulk of a pea with raisin wine, warm, and drop ίη.
Stoppings [or the ear against earache.
Pound some Egyptian alum and insert into the ear an amount equal to the size of a pea.
Another :-Anoint a persea leaf and insert. ,
Another : -Thoroughly moisten a flock of wool with the gal1 of an οχ, roll up and insert.
Another :-Pound myrrh and alum ίη equal quantities and insert.
Clysters for the ear against earache.
Dilute frankincense with very sweet wine and syringe the ear; or use for this purpose
the injections described above.
Another :-Rinse with warm onion-juice.
Another :-Syringe with gall of a bull or goat or sheep, or other similar kind of gall,
Another :--The sap of a pine tree, warmed, to be used ίn the same way.'
2. Φώσα~: φ&>ξα~ (φώΥω) is the commoner form.
5. λεάνα~ διει~ ΥλυΚΕί': CL Arist. Problem. 3. ι 3 το μεν Υλυκύ λεαντικ6ν.
8. σούσινον μvροv: the method of preparing this unguent, ' Α ενιοι I<ΡΙ1lινον ι<αλουσι1Ι; is
described by Dioscor. ι. 62.
29. [αλ Jείψα~: [τρ]εΙΨα~ is also a possibility; but the fact that the fragment offers
three other instance~ of the use of this participle, ίη all οΕ which the spelling is ΤΡίψαr,
renders it less probable.
30. [χολ]ήν: cf. 45.
4 Ι. LroJί[~J ΠΡΟΥfΥΡaμμ'[vο Jt~ έΥχύμασιν: i. e. those described ίn the first section (1-22),
'whjch was perhaps originally headed έΥχύματα.

c;cxxxv. HOROSCOPE.

21 χ 13'5 cm. A.D.20-50 •

Horoscope of an individual born about 10 p.m., Sept. z8 J A.D. 15-37.

The first four lίnes are introductory (cf. Pap. Paris 19), and are addressed to
a certain ΤrγΡhοn. The horoscope was found with cclxvii, cclxxv, &c., ίη which
Tryphon, son of Dionysius, is constantly mentioned, and ηο doubt he or his
grandfather (see cclxxxviii. 36) is the person addressed here. The handwriting is
a good-sized semi-uncial, and the papyrus was written probably very soon after
the date mentioned ίη the horoscope, and certainly not later than Α. D. 50.
Four other horoscopes οη papyri are known, Brit. Mus. Papp. XCVIII recto
(date 10st, first or second century), CXXX (A.D. 81), and CX, a duplicate of Pap.
Par. 19 (A.D. 138), and a horoscope for a person born ίη Α. D. 316 (Grenfell, Class.
Rev. νiίί. ρ. 70). The present document is less elaborate than the first three,
ful1er than the last. lt gives the sign of the Zodiac occnpied by the sun, moon,
Saturn, Jupiter, Mars, Venus, Mercury, and the four chief points ίη the
heaνens, with the (φδιου and OiKOS of each. Α unique feature is a diagram below
the text, some lacu.nae ίη which it serves to supplement, illustrating the position
of the heavens at the time when the birth took place. This diagram consists of
a circle divided by two diameters intersecting at right angles and connecting the
zenith with the nadir, and the point ία the heavens which was rising with that
which was setting. The signs of the Zodiac are marked inside the circle, the
sun, moon, planets, and points of the heavens outside it, ίη a line with the sign
to which they belong. Beginning at the top we have (ι) Aquarius (Τδροχόφ,
υδρο being written over an et·asure) at ~he zenith (μεσουράυημα), (Ζ) Pisces, (3)
Aries, (4) Tanrus, containing the moon and the point which was rising (ώpoσKόπo~),
(5) Gemini, (6) Cancer, (7) Leo, at the nadir, (8) Vit·go, (9) Libra, containing
the sun and Mars, (10) Scorpio, containing Mercury, Venus (Ά[φροδίτη]), and the
point which was setting (δύσι~, which is all but obliterated ίη the papyrus),
(ι 1) Sagittarius, containing Saturn and J upiter (ZEύ~ is Iost ίη a lacuna, but
cf. Iiηe 10), (12) Capricornus.
Though the hour, day, and month are preserved) a lacuna renders the year
of Tiberins' reign, to Υν hich the horoscope refers, tlncertain. If all the astro-
nomical obserνations ίη the text of the papyrus were correct, the data would
have sufficed to reconstitute it; but Dr. Α. Α. Rambaut, who has kindly inνesti­
gated ·the question for us, tells us that some of the positions assigned to the five
major planets must be inexact. If Saturn and Jupiter, the slow moving planets,
are taken as the starting-point, Saturn is οηlΥ ίη Sagittarius οη Sept. 28 during
the first four years of Tiberius' reign, and out of these four years Jupiter is ίη

Sagittarius only ίη A.D. 15. But during Tiberius' reign the moon is ία Taurus
οη Sept. 28 only ίη Α. D. 17, 25, 28, and 36" and ίη Α. D. J 5 the positions of Mars,
νenus, and Mercury, do not agree with those assigned to them ίη the papyrus.
As is usual ίη horoscopes, the day of the month is given both οη the fixed
calendar (Phaophi ι) and κατa Toυ~ δ.ρχαίoυ~ xp6υoυ~ (Phaophi 1 Ι); cf. Brit. Μ us.
Pap. CXXX. Co1. 11. 46, CX. Co1. 1.4, and Par. Pap. 19. 9, where ίη place of apxαίoυ~
we have AZyυΠTίoυ~ as opposed to the χρ6υοι 'τωυ (Ελλήυωυ. Α comparison of the
variation, which ίη the reign of Tiber:ius is ten days, with the other two instances,
ίη which the variation is ίη A.D. 81 twenty-five days, and ίη A.D. 138 forty days,
leads to the conclusion that the aρχαιοι χρόυοι gained upon the regular calendar
approximately one day ίη four years. Hence, as Mr. J. G. Smyly remarked to
us" the δ.ρχαΙοι χρ6υοι ίη ROfi1an papyri are to be explained ίη reference to the
ancient Egyptian year of 365 days with ηο leap year, but the starting-point
of the divergence of the αρχαϊοι χρ6υοι from the regular calendar was posteriot·
to the conquest of Egypt by Augustus ίη Β. c. 30. Reckoning back from A.D. 81,
when the variation between the two calendars was twenty-five d"ays, and sub-
tracting one for every four years, we should get about A.D. 21 as the date of ollr
horoscope 1, and about B.C. 20 as the point when the annus vagus indicated by
the lι.pxαΙoι χρ6υοι began to diverge from the fixed calendar. This corresponds
νery well with the date (Β. C. 26-5) general1y assigned to the introduction of the
fixed calendar by Augustus into Egypt. The αρχαϊοι χρ6υοι were of course
a continuation of the old Egyptian system of 365 days without leap year, which
system Ptolemy Euergetes, and after him Augustus, tried to aboIish. But the
recurrence of the year of 365 days ίη Roman papyri shows that if the true year
of 365i- days ordained by Augustus ever gained universal acceptance ίη Egypt,
it only did so for a very short period, and that thongh the correct year of 3651
was observed officiallyand by the Greeks, the native Egyptians soon relapsed
into the year of 365 days. The reckoning by αρχαιοι χρ6υοι is found ίη a papyrus
as late as A.D. 237 (G. Ρ. 11. lxνiί); and Ωσ doubt many of the extant private
documents of the Roman period are really dated ίη the same way, though
it is impossible, ίη the absence of a specific mention of the αρχαιοι χρόνοι, to
distinguish them.
'ΑναΥκαΊον ήΥησάμ[evor]. . .[. . .. ]~~ ..[. . . . . . .
Υενεσειr παρa ' 'σου,
'' Τρυ"φων , " [ε •••••••

. 'Τειρασομαι πpo~ Toυ~ 00 eVTf!ιf ηt[ μιν

~ " . 1 \ θ" ,.. •...
τυlI[ Χ ]α
'[ ] .1\\
ν ουσι οε 1"
ουτοι κατα ,
[ ,

ι This is confirmed by a bilingual inscription referred to by Wilcken (Gr. Osf. Ι. 794), ίη which
Tybi 18, Α. D. 30, corresponds to Mecheir ι ίη the Egyptian calendar, a difference of 13 days.

5 ΙTO~ Τιβερίου μηνι Φαωφι ii, ιcαήα 8ε TOΌ~

άpxαίoυ~ xp6νoυ~ Φαωφι ίίϊ EI~ [ιβ,
t1 ,
νυKTO~· Τυνχανει

Ζ υΥφ
Λ ~~φοιφ
1'" Λ'" Λφ[ρο ΙTη~,
αpσενιιcφ OΙKφ..r.ι.
Ζελήνη Εν Ταύρφ (φ8ίφ θηλυκφ OfKq> ['Λφpo8(Tη~,
10 Kp6νo~ Zευ~ έν Τοξ6τ'!/ ((φ]8ίφ άρσεν[ικφ 01κφ
.Δι6~, "Λρη~ Εν ΖυΥφ 01κφ Άφpo8ίTη~, [ΙEpμη~ 'Λφρο-
, ~ 1'" '"'''[''Αpεω~,
~ κορπιφ ~φoιφ· αρσενικφ οι κφ

ώpoσιcoπει Taυpo~ ••• olKo~ Άφp08ίT[η~, μεσουρά(νημα)

, ~, l'
, "

15 8ύνει ~ιcopπίo~ olKO~ 'ΆpEω~, όπο [Υην Εν Λέο(ιιτι)

olKo~ (Ηλ{ου, οίκο8εσποτει 'Αφροδ[ίτη.

2. 1. ά')'απη'Γέ.

6. fl~ [~: cf. Brit. Mus. Pap. CXXX. 45-48 κατ' άpxαίoυ~ ~E Παχων νιομηνΙιι. ιl~ την afVT/pαV.
It might be conjectured from these two instances that there was a difference between the
fixed calendar aηd the άρχaϊοι χρόνοι with regard to the poiηt at which the νύξ of a particular
day ended. But ίη speaking of a particular night it was customary to describe it ίn
reference to the day following, not to the day preceding j ct Β. G. U. 454. 7, 651. 4, &c.
Ptolemy ίη his Megale Syntaxis, ίη order to avoid confusion, always denotes the·date of an
event occurring at night by the numbers of both the day before aηd the day after the night
ίη question.
7. The lacunae here aηd ίη ι ι, 13, 15 can be filled up with certaint}' from the
diagram (see introd.). The names of the οlκοι 10st ίη 9, 12, and 14 can be restored, since
the sigηs of the Zodiac are given and each sign had a particular 011(0$.
ι Ι. Usually Mercury's position is noted last of the planets, but ίη the diagram also he
is mentioned before Venus.
13. Νο word is wanted between Taνpo~ and oίKO~, but traces of three letters are visible
which, though faiηt, are not more so than some other words ίη the papyrus.
There is scarcely room for lν at the end of the line, unless μεσουρά(νημα) was still
further abbreviated. Ιη the diagram ''Υ.'δροχόφ is dative, all the other signs being ίη the
nominative. Possibly we ought to read Ι'Υ.'δροχόΟ$ here and Λέωιι ίη 15, and supply verbs ίη place
of the substantives μεσουράνημα and -όπο ')'11ν, to correspond to the verbs ώροσκοπιϊ and δύνει.
16. οΙκο8εσποτιϊ: tl1e plaηet which was most often mentioned ίη the οlκοι, and therefore
was the 'ruling' star. Venus ίη this case has four out of the eleven οll(οι.


Plate v. (α) 4·3 χ 6·2, (δ) 4·2 χ 7-1, (c) 5·2 χ 4·6 cm.
The three fragments here gronped together are the earliest dated papyri
found at Oxyrhynchus. Though very smal1 they are interesting, not only as
giving the formula of the royal titles ία the reign of Ptolemy Ν eos Dionysus

(Auletes), whose name has not been found ση a papyrus before, but for palaeo..
graphical reasons, since papyri from the middle of the first century B.C. are
extremely rare. 1η fact the only hitherto pubIished Greek document which
has a date ίη the period from 89-30 Β. c. is G. Ρ. 11. xxxνίίi (with facsimίle ση
Plate IV), belonging to B.C. 81, or, more probably, to B.C. 56, the joint rule of
Berenice and Archelaus. (α) is written ίη an almost uncial hand, (b) and (c) are
much more cursive. They serve to i11ustrate the transition of the Ptolemaic
style to the Roman. (α) and (δ), which have the same date, were found folled
up together, and are probably copies of the same document. We give the text
of (δ), which is the more complete, and of (c).

(b) B.C. 64.

[Βασιλεύον ]ros- Πτολεμ[ at]ov θεου Νεου Δ ιονύσου

[Φιλοπάτο ]po~ Φιλα8[ έ]λφου εToυ~ ό/(TOJ/(aι8€/(ά­
['Του ιτα 8'] ιiλλα ιτων /(οινωll ώ~ έν 'ΛλΕξαν8ρεί­
[~ 'Υράφε]ται μηvοs- Περειτίου /(αι Χο(ακ
5 [ ] έlΙ ΌξυρύΥχωιι π6λει Tη~ Θηβα--
[ ί80~ ..] α. • εισ
.. . ε. • • και
... .• [•.] /([.
. • • . . ....•

2. The supplements at the beginning of lines 2-4 are from (α).

3. τα δ) αλλα κ.τ.λ.: a periphrasis, like μετα τα κοιιιά, to save the trouble of writing the
long list of priesthoods at Alexandria which generally occurs ίη protocols of the second
century B.C. Cf. the formula found ίn papyri frotn Heracleopolis, έΦ~ Ιερέων τωιι lJvTrov '11
ΆλιξαιιΟριίιι. και των ίlλλων τωρ ΥραΦομΕlΙα/lΙ κοινωll, e. g. C. Ρ. R. 6. 2. ..
4. The Macedonian calendar was equated to the Alexandrian towards the end of the
second century Β. c. Ιη (α) the day of the month is given as the twenty-first, but probabIy
here a blank space was left, to be filled ίn afterwards; cf. (c) 5 and ccxxxvίii. 9, note.

(c) Β. c. 69-58 or 55-51.

Bασιλ€ύOIITO~ [Πτολεμαίου θεου ΦιλοπάΤΟ(Jοr
Φιλα8ελφου ~T[oυ~
τά Κ dλλα των [κοινων ώ~ έν 'Λλεξa1l8ρεί,!,
Ύράφεται μηνo~ [
2nd hand έβ86μ[ηs- έν ΌξυρύΥχων
1st hand π6λει Tη~ Θη[βαE80~
α/!-νηf Tη~ [

[.•.• . ]aρ[

ι. Judging by line 3, about letters are l0st at the end of the line; so there
is not room for the insertion of Ν 'ον Διονύσου.
2. FΙΌm Β. c. 79 to 69 Cleopatra Tryphaena was associated with the king ίη the dates
upon demotic contracts (Strack, Dynastze de," P/olemαer, ρ. 67). The length of tl1e lacuna ίη
line 2 is also ίn favour of the number of the year having exceeded 12.


Α. D. 186.

This long and important papyrus, which contains οη the verso most of the
fifth book of the Ilz'ad printed above (ccxxiiί), is a petition addressed by
Dionysia, daughter of Chaeremon an ex-gymnasiarch of Oxyrhynchus, to
Pomponius Faustianus, praefect ίη the 26th year of Commodns (note ση Col. V.
5). The latest date mentioned ίη the papyrus is Epeiph 3 of the 26th year
(VI, 36), when the acting strategus decided that Dionysia should' send
a complete account of her case to the praefect, the result of whicl1 deci~ion was
the composition of the present document. Since it is unlikely that there would
be any delay οη Dionysia's part ίη forwarding her petition, the papyt·us was ηο
doubt written ίη the last two months of the 26th year or at latest ίη the early
part of tl1e 27th year, ί. e. ίη the late summer or antnmn of Α. D. 186.
Few documents offer greater difficulties of decipherment and interpretation
than this petition: Νο less than nine columns, measuring from 28 to 30 cm. ία
t width, can be distinguished; but of these the first three, which correspond to
Cols. ΙΧ-ΧΙΙ of the Homer, and the last column, \vhich contains only the first
halves of Hnes, are too fragmentary to be worth pl·inting. Moreover, when the
roll was re-used for the IIomer, lίttle regard naturally was paid to the writing
οη the recto. The height of the papyrus was reduced, ηο doubt because the
edges had become ragged, and the top of each column is consequently 105t, though
it is improbable that more than two or three lines at most are wanting. More
serions damage was done by glueing strips of papyrus over \veak or ·torn places
οη the recto; for when these have been removed the writing beIow is generally
found to have been oblίterated by the glue, while even ίη those parts which have
not suffered ίη this manner, the ink has often become extremely faint or has dis-
appeared altogether. Following our usual practice, we have not marked a lacuna
by square brackets except where the surface of the papyrus has been destroyed ;

but though ίη some of the passages which have baffled us enough remains to
verify the true conjecture when it is made, only the resources of chemistry can
perhaps some day render legible most of the patches of effaced writing ίη Cols. ιν
and V. Ιη spite of these difficulties however, those parts.of the papyrus \vhich
are well preserved suffice to give -the document a very high rank from both
the historical and the juristic points of view among recent discoveries of Greek
papyri, though we shall confine our commentary chiefly to questions of
interpretation. ·
The complaint of Dionysia, which is directed against her [ather Chaeremon,
falls into two parts. The first five columns narrate the history of the monetary
dispute, while the next two and a half turn upon the right claimed by Chaeremon
to take away his daughter from her hHsband against her will. The last colHmn
and a half revert to the monetary dispute. It is fortHnate that the later part,
which is much the mol·e intel·esting, is also much the better preserved; but
here too we have to bewail the fortune which has deprived us of the conclusion
of the list of cases before magistrates upon which Dionysia relied [οι· support.
The monetary question between Chaeremon and his daughter is chiefly
concerned with the κατοχή of a property (ούσία) which she claimed and he denied.
Owing to the mutilated condition of the earlier columns we have ηο one definite
statement as to what exactly this κατοχή was, and we have to put together an
idea of it from a number of scattered and often imperfect references. For
the rneaning of the term,s κατοχή and κατ'χειυ the most important passage is
VIII. 21 sqq, (especially 22 and 34-36), which shows that these words refer
to a 'claim' or c right of ownership' (KTησι~) as opposed to 'use J (α) upon
the property of the husband, conferred ίη conformity with national Egyptian law
upon the wife, (δ) ιιροη the propel·ty of parents, conferred by them upon their
children; cf. also the Oxyrhynchus papyrus quoted ίη note οη VI!!. 37.
Examples of both kinds of κατοχή are found ία Egyptian marriage contracts of
the Roman period (for reasons which we refer to οη ρ. 240, we prefer to leave
the Ptolemaic marriage contracts alone). The return of the dowry and παράφερυα
brotlght by the wife is uniformly gnaranteed οη the security of the 'lvhole property
of the husband. He obtained the use of the dowry, but ίη the event of his
losing any of it and the repayment becoming necessal·y, the wife had a kind of
first mortgage upon al1 her husband's pt·operty (Β. G. U. 183· 9, 251. 7, C. Ρ. R. 27.
22 and 28. 7). Examples of the second kind of κατοχή, that conferred by parents
upon their chίldren, are naturally rarer, since they wonld only occur where rich
parents were concerned. Α good instance is C. Ρ. R. 24, where a mother gives
~υ φερυ[ι κατa προσφορaυ άυαΦαίρετου to her daughter inter alia half a house (of
which the other half alt·eady belonged to the daughter) and a property of three

arourae, retaining the right to oίKησι~ and Ευοικίωυ αποφορά with regard to the
whole house, and the καρπεία of half the property. Anothet is C. Ρ. R. 28,

a marriage contract between two persons who had already lived some time
together αΎpάΦω~. Ιn line 8 sqq. of that document the husband and wife agree
to settle their property υροη their .children, συγχωροVσι μετa τΎlυ €Kατ'POυ τελευτήv..
Α simίlar provision is found ία Β. G. U. 183. 10 sqq., where the mother of the
bride and bridegroom settles (συυχωρει) certain land and house property upon
the married couple μετa τηυ €αυτη~ τελευτήυ; cf. Β. G. U. 251. 8 sqq., and 252.
Ι Ο sqq. But it is noticeable that Β. G. U. 183, the only one of these five instances
which is very nearly complete, contains towards the end a provision that, 50 long
as the mother who settles the property lives, ~xει.υ αύτηυ τηυ iξοvσίαυ τα/υ ίδίωυ πάυτωυ
πωλειυ ύποτίθεσθαι διαθ~σθαι ols tαv βούληται απαραπoδίσTω~. Whether such a clause
was contained ίη any of the other cases is uncertain; but if, as is most likely,
C. Ρ. R. 26 is the end of C. Ρ. R. 24 (Hunt, GOtt. g"el. Aιzs. 1897, ρ. 463), then
c. Ρ. R. 24 contained ηο such provision reserving the right of the parent to
alter the whole settlement ; under the terms therefore of this contract the children
5eem to have obtained a κατοχή over the property settled upon them by their
parents, ίη the manner described ίη νιιΙ. 35.
Applying this to Dionysia's case, her κατοχή upon her father naturally
comes tInder the second head; c( VI. 23, where it is stated that her δίκαιου
was laid down ίη her marriage contract with her husband, and νι. 14, where
Chaeremon states that he wished to recover what he had given her οη her
marriage (&. προσήυεγκα αύτυ, see note αd loc.). It is possible that her claim also
involved the first kind of κατοχή, if the ουσία ίη question was original1y part of
the dowry. of Diony:sia's mother; cf. νι. 24, note. But ίη any case this point
is of secondary importance compared with her claim based upon her marriage
contract, ίη which the KpάTησι~ of the ουσία was guaranteed.
The step which apparently gave rise to all the dispute between Dionysia
and her father was the mortgaging of this ουσία by Chaeremon for 8 talents,
to which proceeding Dionysia, her mother, and her husband all gave their
consent (VI. 24-5). But the detaίIs of the mortgage and the events which
fol1owed are obscure. It is not stated to whom the property was mortgaged;
but most probably it was to a certain Asclepiades, who is mentioned ίη ιν. 12,
27 as a creditor ίη connexion with a sum of 7 (IV. 14) or 8 (ιν. 25) talents and
the interest. It is clear that Chaeremon got into difficulties about the repay-
ment of the loan (IV. 19, 20), and that Dionysia tried to extricate him. Α series
of agreements, coνering two years, was made between Dionysia and her father
(IV. 6, 13, 26, 35), the object of which appears to have been the repayment of
the loan ; and one of the few fixed points is that Dionysia made herself ίη some

way responsible for part of the debt (IV. 7; 12, 14, 27), apparently οη condition
that she obtained the income of some of Chaeremon's property (ιν. 7-12,27-8,
cf. ν. 21). It is ίη connexion with this last point that her κατοχή perhaps
became involved ίn the dispnte. From 31-33 it seems that she nltimately had
come to an arrangement with her father by which he was eventually to receive
once more the income of the property which had been guaranteed her οη her
marriage, but that ίn the meantime she was to retain (Kαθ~ξω, IV. 33) this incorne
until the repayment of the debt to Asclepiades, probably by instalments of
ι talent a year (cf. ιν.33 with 14), had been completed. Το this retention ofhis
income by Dionysia Chaeremon objected, accusing Dionysia 'Περ';, αν6μου KαToxη~
(νιι. 1 ι), while he attempted to overthrow her position by demanding the
return of all that he had given het· οη her marriage, including the property ίn
question, the title to which had then been guaranteed her.
The scanty information which we can glean about the κατοχή is enough
to show that it was a very cornplίcated affair and apparently involved two
points, (1) Dionysia's right to the KpάTησι;~ of the property conferred by her
marriage contract, (2) het· right to enjoy the income fl~om it until she had paid
off the mortgage. It is tempting to simplify the question by eliminating one or
the other of these two points or by combining them into one. But the great
importance attached ίη the petition to the decl·ee of Mettius Rufns, which
has an obvious bearing upon the first point but not οη the- second, the letter
of Chaeremon ίη νι. ] 2, sqq., and the passage ίη VI. 23-7, al·e onlyexplίcable οη
the supposition that the κατοχή was secured to Dionysia by her marriage
contract; and the anxiety of Dionysia to get the, mortgage paid off accords
very well with the hypothesis that the ownership was vested ίη herself. Οη
the otber hand the various agreements enumerated ίη ιν, culminating ίη her
statement ίη ιν. 33 concerning the πρ6σοδοι of the ουσία, clearly play an
important part ίη the κατοχή question; but it is impossible, if we suppose
that the right to enjoy the income of the ουσία as well as the ownership was
given to Dionysia upon her marriage, to explain the permission given by her
to Chaeremon to mortgage the pl·operty, or her insistence ιιροn the decree
of Mettius Rufus, which draws 80 shaΓΡ a distinction between the χρησιs of
a property WhiCJl was reserved (ΤΕτήρηται) to the pal~ents and the κτfjσιs which
belonged (ΚΕκράτηται, i. e. κατΕσχηται) to the children.
Besides the dispute concerning the κατοχή between Chaeremon and his
daughter, there was also a difference regarding certain χορηγίαι which Dionysia
claimed from him (νιι. 10, 11), and which are perhaps identical with the τροΦαί
of VI. 27. It is not clear whether her claim rested upon her marriage contract
(cf. C. Ρ. R. 24. 18 ίn which a mother agrees to provide (χορηΥε,υ) the newly

married pair with a certain amount of wheat for a year), or arose from one of
the contracts enumerated ίη ιν (cf. IV. 8 where χορηγία" are mentioned). The
question of the χορηγίαι is separate from that of the κατοχή, for though Dionysia was
victorious with regard to the Iatter, she' had, as VI. '16-7 shows, not yet obtained
the former. Ιη νι. 27 Dionysia also complains that she had never received the
dowry which her father had promised her; and possibly this included the
χορηγίαι. But this assertion seems to conflict both with the statement of
Chaeremon and ~he general probabilities of the case. It is more likely that
she had received a dowry besides the κατοχή at the time of her marriage, but
that Chaeremon had tried to take it away, and perhaps succeeded. The
question of the χορηγίαι, however, is ίη any case quite subordinate to that
of the κατοχή.
When we pass from the explanation of the κατοχη itself to the steps which
both parties took to assert their claims, there are much fewer difficulties, since
the useful summary ία VI. 8-11 serves as a key to the narration of events ίη the
preceding colnmns. lt shOt1ld be remembered that Cols. I-V relate to the pro-
ceedings concerning the κατοχή and χορηγίαι, and that Dionysia had been ordered
by the acting-strategus to lay the story before the praefect, ίη order that he might
have a full knowledge of the facts before giving judgement οη the claim of her
father to take her away from her husband (VII. 4-8). But it is this claim which
is the primary subject of the present petition though it is not reached until.
Col. νι.
The first step was apparently taken by Chael-emon, who towards the end
of the 25th year sent a complaint to the praefect, Longaeus Rufus, accnsing
Dionysia of having defrauded him at the instigation of her husband Horion, and
asking for leave to recover what he had given her οη her marriage (VI. 13-15).
Α full account of this was probably given ίη CoI. Ι, of which only a νery small
piece remains, containing a mention of Longaeus Rnfus. Rufus οη Pachon 27
forwarded Chaeremon's complaint to the strategus of the Oxyrhynchite nome,
with a request that he would attend to it (VI. 15, 16, cf. VI. 8). The top part of
the much mutilated Col. 11 contains the conclusion of a letter from one official
to another, dated ίη Pachon of the 25th year (the day is 10st), ίη which the
phrase dυτίΥΡαφου ύπέτα(ξα (cf. νι. 16) occurs; and it is most 1ikely that the letter
which was quoted ίη 11 at length was the letter of Rufus mentioned ίη VI. 8 and
15. Ιη the rest of Col. 11 Dionysia is the speaker, as the expression 'Πpό~ μΕ και
του ~υδpα μου shows. She was ηο doubt much disturbed by the letter which the
praefect had written after having heard only Chaeremon's side of the case
(c( νι 8 τηυ του (Ρούφου επιστοληυ εφ' οτφ ιγράφη, and note), and resolved to appeal
to Rufus herself. Towards the end of Col. 11 a lίne begins Εύθv~ κaτΕφυΥΟΙ}

iπι τ ..•. q,TOV ΛΟΥΥαϊου <ρο[υφου. The catalogue of grievances against Chaeremon
Wllich Dionys~a laid before Rufus occupies Col. IV. 1-34 and probably Col. 111 ;
cf. IV. 35 ταυτα δια του βιβλΕιδίου άPEPEYKoύaη~ μου. lt iS not likely that anything
important happened between the receipt of Rufus' letter by Chaeremon and the
petition of Dionysia to Rufus, since ίη the snmmary of events ίη VI. 8, the
lVTVXla of Dionysia to Rufus follows irnmediately υροη the επιστολη του ιρουφου.
The date of this petition of Dionysia to Rufus is not given; but fl-om the fact
that she had received the answer by Thoth of the 26th year (~. 9) and that the
Ietter of Rufus to Chaeremon which gave rise to it was written οη Pachon 27 of
the 25th year (VI. 15), it may be inferred that the lvrVXla reached Rufus ίη one
of the three intervening months. The position of affairs, therefore, at the end
of the 25th year was that Rufus had received one petition from Chaeremon,
which he had οη Pachon 27 referred to the strategus, and also a counter-
petition from Dionysia. Ιη this she defended herself against the charge lllade
against her, giving a list of grievances against Chaeremon, and citing (IV. 35-9)
both the last agreenlent between herself and her father, and a pl"oclamation
by the late praefect Flavius Sulpicius Simi1is (cf. IV. 36 with VI!!. 21 sqq.)
endorsing an edict of Mettius Rufus, praefect ίη Α. D. 89, which regulated the
registration ίη the public archives of contracts concerning κατοχαι. The bearing
of this edict upon Dionysia's case has already been alluded to (ρ. 144).
Dionysia's array of evidence seems to have impressed the praefect with the
justice of her case; and 'probably being unable to believe that any one after ...
so many contracts had been drawn up through public officials would have dared
Ιο write a letter to the pl"aefect with fraudulent intent,' he forwarded her petition
to the strategus with official instructions (ύΠΟΥραφή, νι.' 9) to examine the
correctness of her statements about the contracts, his object being (if we may
be1ieve Dionysia) to make clear that if the facts were as stated ηο further
decision was necessary (V. 5-8). lt is noticeable that the dispute about the
κατοχή now resolves itself into the question of the existence and precise terms
of the contracts between Dionysia and her father; and therefore the legal right
claimed by ,Chaeremon ίη his letter to Rufus (VI. 12, sqq.) to recover any
presents he had made to his daughter οη her marriage seems to have been
disal10wed by the praefect. At any rate we hear ηο more of the legal aspect of
a father's ~ξoυσία over his married daughter until we come to the second half
of the case dealing with the d7Τόσπασι~.
The next step was that Dionysia appeared before the strategus ίη Thoth
of the 26th year, and requested him to carry out the instructions of the praefect
by obtaining from the keepers of the archives a full account of al1 the contracts
ahd othel" documents which were the subject of the dispute. Το this course

Chaeremon, who also appeared, was unable to offer any objection (ν. 9-14).
The strategus acceded to Dionysia's request, and ίη the same month wrote
a letter to the keepers of the archives, the text of which is quoted, forv.rarding
a copy of Dionysia's petition with the note of the praefect and asking for the
necessary information (V. 14-19). The keepers of the archives returned
a lengthy report, which gave all the evidence bearing apparently not only
011 the disputed κατοχή but οη the monetary claims of Dionysia upon her father.
The results of the inquiry supported her contentions οη both points. Chaeremon
was shown clearly, οη the evidence of an απογραφή ίη his own handwriting, to
have given Dionysia the rights which she claimed, and his attempt to repudiate
them was disal1owed. The strategus accordingly, without recoul#se to a trial,
decided ίη her favour (ν. 20-27). Four months had been occupied by the
examination of the documents, and ίη the meantime Longaeus Rufus had been
succeeded as praefect by Pomponius Faustianus; for it is to the latter that
ίη Tybi of the 26th year (ν. 27, note) the strategus wl#ote announcing the
issue of' the inquiry and forwarding a copy of the report of the βιβλιoφύλαKE~
(v. 27-30). Dionysia, too, herself wrote to Faustianus explaining that the
inquiry which had been ordered had taken place, and entreating him to settle
the dispnte final1y by giving instructions to the strategus that she was to remain
ία undisturbed possession of her rights (Υ. 30-35). Το this petition Pomponius
Faustianus, after examination of the documents forwarded by the strateg1Js,
retnrned a favourable reply (V. 35-38). Lastly, Dionysia appeared once more
before the strategus with the praefect's answer, and requested him to inform the
keepers of the archives that her rights were to be respected, and that ηο further
attempt οη the part of Chaeremon to dispute them was to be·aIlowed. Το this
the strategus agreed, and the necessary instt#uctions were sent (ν. 3 8 -νι . 4;
cf. νι. ι ι). .
The case now appeared to have been finally settled; but Chaeremon
declined to acquiesce ίη his defeat, and renewed his attack, though οη diffet#ent
grounds. This brings us to the second part of Dionysia's petition (νι. 4
to νιιι. 21), which may be subdivided into (α) a narrative ofthe events which
led up to the sending of the present document (νι 4-νιι. 8), (b) a statement
of her claim to remain with her husband (νι!. 8-13), (c) the evidence ίη her
favour (VII. Ι3-νιιι. 21). Appended to the last section is (VIII. 21 sqq.) some
evidence bearing upon the old question of the κατοχή.
Another four months bad elapsed since the letter of the strategtlS was
written to the praefect ίη Tybi (of the 26th year); and within this period fal1
the events narrated ίη \/. 3C:>-νι 4. Ιη Pachon, however, Chaeremon, ignoring
the results of the inquiry and the correspondence \vhich had taken place,

appealed to the praefect ίη a letter of which Dionysia quotes a part. Ιη it

Chaeremon brought vague charges of παραυομία and ασΕβεια against her, and
referred to his previous petition to Longaeus Rufus ίη the year before and to
that praefect's answer, which he accHsed Dionysia of disregarding. He also
accused Dionysia's husband, Horion, of threatening to use violence against him,
and therefore claimed the right of forcibly separating her from her husband,
ίη support of which contention he adduced the Egyptian law οη the subject and
several decisions of Similis, a former praefect, and others (νι. 4-29). Pomponius
Faustianus, however, who had hoped to have heard the last of Chaeremon's
affairs, and like other praefects endeavoured to put some check οη the numerous
private applications for redress sent to him (cf. VI. 6 and 35), declίned to
institute a new inquiry; and οη Pachon 30 ίη a letter quoted ίη full (VI. 32-35)
requested Isidorus, the strategιιs of the Oxyrhynchite nome, to settle the matter
ίη accordance with the instructions already given by Longaeus Rufus. Οη
Epeiph 3 the answer of tl1e praefect was brought by Chaeremon into court
before the acting-strategus Harpocration, and Dionysia argιιed that the instruc-
tions of Rufus had already been carried out by the inquiry which had resulted
ίη her favour (VI. 35-41). The decision of the acting-stJ·ategus was of the
nature of a compromise. Οη the one hand he allowed that so far as the dispute
about the κατοχή was concerned the· ins~ructions of Rufus had been fulfilled; but
since Chaeremon ha9 introduced the ftlrther qttestion of the right to take away
his daughter from her husband, and ηο instructions had been given οη this head
either by Rufus or by Pomponius Faustianus, he refet·red the decision of this
new point back to the praefect, to whom he directed that the contending parties
should appeal, giving a full statement of all the facts (νιι. 1-8). It was ίn
consequence of this judgement of the acting-st[ategus that, as has been said, our
papyrus, which presents Dionysia's whole case, came to be written.
There follow (νιι. 8-13) a br'ief summary of Dionysia's arguments and
a statement of her demands. Chaeremon's claim to take her away from her
husband is rebntted ίn somewhat Hibernian fashion by two arguments:-
(ι) that ηο law permitted wives to be taken away against their will from theil·
husbands; (2) that if there was a law which gave such permission, it at any rate
did not apply to daughters whose parents had been married by contract, and
who were themselves married by contract.
We at length (νιι. 13, sqq.) reach what is the most interesting part of the
papyrus, the evidence produced by Dionysia, consisting -.of decisions of praefects
and other judges, opinions of eminent lawyers, and proclamations. This eνidence
is divided into three sections. That ίη the first bears ιιροη the disputed right
of a father to take away'his married daughter from her husband against her will.

The second section is concerned with the proof that a judgement inνolνing the
payment of money conld not be evaded by bringing a fresh charge, as (according
to Dionysia) had been done by Chaeremon. The third relates to the Iaw
concerning the registration of contracts ίη the archives, to which Dionysia
appealed ίη order that her father might be compel1ed to fnlfil his monetary
engagements to herself.
U nder the fΪrst head three extracts from ύπομυηματισμοί, or official repol'"ts
of legal proceedings, are quoted, besides an ορίηίοη of a υoμΙKό~. One of these
(νιι. 19-29) records a case tried before Flavius Titianus, praefect, ίη Α. D. 128,
ίη which a father had taken away his daughter from her husband with whom
he had had a quarrel. The advocate [οι'" the father maintained that he was
acting within the Egyptian law ίη so doing; nevertheless, the praefect's decision
was that the woman should stay with her husband or her father as she chose.
The second case quoted (VII. Ζ9-3 8 ) took place six years later before the
epistrategus Paconins FeJix, and is very similar to the fΪrst. That the harsh
right" ·of separating his daughter from her husband was conferred οη a father
by the Egyptian Iaw is there very clearly stated ; but the judgement of Titianus
was considered by the epistrategus to be a snfficient precedent for oνerriding the
Egyptian la\v, and the decision was again against the father. The third case
(νιι. 39-VII1. 2) is from a report of a much ear1ier trial which took place ίη
Α. D. 87 before the iur'idt:cus. The inconlpleteness of the extract renders some
points ίη the case obscure; but apparently a father had deprived his married
daughter of her dowry and wished to take her away from her husband, while the
iuridz'cus decided that the dowry must be restored, and probably refnsed to
alIow the separation of the husband and wife. The fourth document quoted
by Dionysia (VIII. 2-7) is an ορίηίοη of Ulpius Dionysodorus, a υoμΙK6~ who
had been consulted by Salvistius Africanus, a military officer exercising judicial
functions. The details of the case are not giνen, but here too there was
a question of a dowry which a father wished to take away from his daughter.
The issue turned οη the point whether the daughter, being born of an fι,γραφo~
yάμo~, was still ίη the lξουσία of her [ather after het'" marriage. The υoμΙKό~
decided that the lγγραφo~ γάμo~ contracted by the daughter annnlled her
previous status of a child born Ιξ αΥράΦωυ γάμωυ, and that therefore she was
ησ longer ίη her father'5 εξουσία. Ιη its bearing upon the case of Dionysia, who
claimed to be lt lγγράφωv γάμωυ (νι!. 12), the ορίηίοn of Ulpius Dionysodot-us
seems to be a kind όf argument α fortioyt:, since if the child of an αγpαφo~ γάμ o~
ceased οη marriage to be ίπ the lξουσ(α of her father, the child of an lΥγραφο~
γάμo~ would still less be 50 after marriage; cf. note οη VIII. 2.
Having concluded her eνidence ίη defence of her claim to remain with her

husband, Dionysia next assumes the offensive, and adduces evidence. to show
that Chaeremon could not escape his liabilities to her by raising the new point
of his right to separate her from her husband. She quotes firstly (VIII. 8-18)
a decree of.. the praefect Valerius :Ι::udaemοn of Α. D. 138, penalizing vexa!ious
accusations designed to postpone monetary liabilities; and secondly (νιι r.
18-21) a very brief report of a trial ίη Α. Ι). 151 before Munatius Felix, praefect,
who οη that occasion refused to allow monetary claims to be affected by
accusations brought by the debtor against the creditor.
Ιn the third and concluding section of her evidence Dionysia reverts to
the old question discussed ίη the earlier portion of the papyrus, the disputed
κατοχή. We have first (νιιι. 21-4.1) the proclamation of the praefect Flavius
SuIpicins Sinlilis ίη Α. D. 182, reaffit-ming the decree of Mettins Rufus ίη
Α. D. 89 of which mention was made ίη IV.36-7. The proclamation of Similis,
which is partly effaced, was designed t9 regnlate the prevailing custom allowed
by. native Egyptian law of giving the wife ίη her marriage contract a claim for
both herself and het- children upon the whole property of the husband. ΒΥ
registering their marriage contracts ίη a βιβλιοθήκη different fronl that which con-
tained the απογραφαί of their property, some persons had apparently concealed
their ΊίabίlίtΥ to their wives ίη order to be free to incur further liabilities. The
praefect pt·oposed to stop this practice by requiring that the claims of a wife
upon ·her husband's property secured her by her marriage contract shonld be
included among the other docnments registering his property and deposited at the
public archives, so that the amount of his assets might be definitely known; this
being ίη accordance with a previous decree of' Mettius Rufus. Α copy of this
decree is appended by Similis, and it is fortunately not only complete but of the
highest interest. lts subject is the better administration of α7Τογραφαί (property
returns) and the official abstracts of them, which had not been accurately brought
up to date. Holders of property are therefore required to register tpe whole of
their property at the pnblic archives, and wives have to add to the statements of
their husbands a declaration of any cIaim υροη the husbands' property, whίle
children have to add a clause to the statements of their parents if their parents
have n1ade over to them the title (KTησι~) of any property, retaining only the use
of it during theil- lifetime. lt is this last point which has a special bearing οη
Dionysia's case (cf. ρ. 144); for she argned ίη connexion \ινίth her own κατοχή that
she had fulfilled aIl the reqnirements of the law (VII. 17, 18).
The concluding words of νιιι give the date of the next piece of evidence,
a ύ7ToμυημαTισμό~ of Petronius Mamertinus, praefect ίη Α. D. 133; and the first
nineteen lines of ΙΧ were occupied with an account of this case. U nfortunately
Ωσ connected idea is attainable. We gather, however, from 1ine 8 that one of

the parties ίη the suit was Claudius Dionysius, and that his advocate was called
Aelίus Justus; and the occurrence of the words δίκαιου &. ΠPOσEυήυεγKα~ τφ υίφ
σου Υαμουυ[τι ίη 7, and of δι&δοχου του παTΡδ~ γεvlσθαL ίη 9, shows that the case, as
rnight be expected, related to some claim of a chi1d upon a parent ίη conηexion
with the rights conferred οη the former by a marriage contract. Line 20 begins
ήΥορα]υομηκότωυ Σαλουιστίφ Άφρικαυφ lπάρχφ στόλου καΙ Ε['ΠΙ κ.τ.λ., cf. νιιι. 3.
Apparently we have here another πpoσφώυησι~ of a υoμΙK()~ addressed to the
official who was the recipient of the first (cf. νιιι. 2-7), and perhaps writ'ten by the
same υομικόs', Ulpius Dioηysodorus. The next foul" lίnes are ,hopeless ; ,but ίη 25
we have a date lTOV~ β r Αδριαυου Με[χείρ or -σορή, and ίη 26 aηother date ]ικωυ
'ΑθvΡ Ύ, which seems to belong to a period of joint rule, ί. e. when Μ. Aurelίus
and Commodus were associated (Α. D. 176-180). .Which, if either, of these two
dates refers to the πpoσφώυησι~ is uncertain, and therefore they are of lίttle use
ίη decidihg the problem concerning the date of Ulpius Dionysodorus' 'Πpoσφώυησι~
(νιι!. 7, note). Line 28 begins 'Αυυίφ Συριακφ τφ κρατίστφ ήΥΕμόυι, ίη the next
line κύριε occurs, and ία 35 Ερρωσθ(αι) Εύχομαι, ήγεμωυ KVpLf. Lines 28-35 therefore
appear to be a petition addressed to Μ. Annins Syriacus, praefect ίη Α. D. 163.
The subject of the petition, howeve.r, and that of the remainirιg six lines of the
column q,re quite obscure.
Whether the papyrns οrίgίηalΙΥ extended to another column or columns
cannot be determined. But we incline to the view that Col. ΙΧ was ,really the
last (though see note οη νιι. 14). If it had been complete, the distance to
which it would have extended suits th.e space that would be required for the
original beginnings of lines ίη the first column of the Homer οη the verso and for
the blank space which would naturally have been left ίη front of them. At any
rate when the roll came to be re-used for the Homer, it did not extend beyond
Col. ΙΧ οη the recto, which corresponds to Col. Ι of the verso; for the writer
of the Holner would not have added fresh papyrus (containing Col. χν
onwards) at the end of the verso if there had been more space available
at the beginning of it. Moreover, out of the three divisions of Dionysia's
evidence (νι!. ]5-18) two have been concluded, and the third already occupies
a column and a half.
Did Dionysia ultimately win hel" case ? That, too, of course is uncertain, and
we must be cautious ίn accepting her ex parte statements about the facts. Νο
doubt Chaeremon had plenty of arguments οη his side. But if Pomponius
Faustianus was guided by the example of Flavius Titianus (VII. 29, 37), his
decision was most probably ία Dionysia's favour.
The papyrus is written ία a flowing but clear cnrsive haiιd which tends
to vary ία size. The y-shaped η is commonly used (cf. ρ. 53). Α certain number


of mistakes ίη grammar and spelling occur. Νο doubt the present docun1ent

is a copy of the original which \vas sent to the praefect.

Col. IV.

[16 letters] . . [
[16 letters] · f;l[
[14 letters]e ar ~ε[36 Ietters] · το XP~[.] • [
[••.. έ]κάστην πρ6τερον Τ[26 letters] . . . . [ηJμισυ ην μοι πe~[
5 [ ] . • . [.]ovq-t α!,θ[ ]~κα .• [14 letters ] ...• f!- κα! λοιπα Tη~ Tιμη~
. ~ιr~ ~~T?Ί[ .] • • [. • • ~ • •J!t?"n
[22 letters] ... όμολ6Υηe~ 8ια 8ημοσίου ΥεΥονέναι τφ κβ (~Tει) μεταξυ ήμα/ν
, , , ~
μητε τον πατερα

..••• e[19 letters ]~~ν ε!' κατα~e'!1ματισμφ οίκονομεΊν εμε 8~eo§q'fqvv τα λοιπα
Tfjr τιμηr
[όφ]ειλ6μενα [....•••.... 80ύλo]!-,~ και άπελε!,[θέΡου]fxopηΎ{α~ ΕκλεΥομένων
[..•] του ΚΥ (~TOVS') TaS' ΠΡοσ680vr τούτων
.. ". [.]!' ύπαρχ[6ντων . ....•...• .]ων lJ,λλων αν . •.. των αότίΡ ύπαΡχ6ν[τJων
πpάσεω~ άπ080θηναι ύπα του παΤΡοr
10 ίt έ8ανείσατο συνΥραΨα[. .••• .]ov π~ππoυ μου • •••) και τούτου του δμολο-
Υημ ατ
or αυτφ
J Λ 8'
επισκοπq!' πaρaτε-

[θέντ]οr αύτον μηΚ &r ~μ(με)μενηK[έ]ναι TOlr EvyeypappEvotr άλλά μη8' Επ[ι]τε-
τροφέναι μοι επι την ΠΡ6!'q!f!ιν
[ .. ] (
τω ν ,
υπαρχοντω ν [ • • . . .J "
/(ατα τα ,
συν/(ειμενα f'
ινα Λ
τφ '811
'Α σΙ(λ ηπια απο
J 8ι 8'0-
ναι 8υνηθε{ην. πάλιν 8έ μοι
[.....] • [•.] . ι νοι 8. . . ι . [. . .]. • . . [. . ]ον όμολ6Υημα ΠΡοr aότον ποιησασθαι
επι του
" Λ /(Υ (~' 1 \ ' 8ημοσι,ου
ETOVS' πα'λ ιν οια
) t "
επι Λ

1}"[. • • • .] 4!,α8εξαμεν[ . •..• .]q!, •• αvτqΡ πατ~eα • [ ] άπο80υιιaι

(τάλαντον) f!- gror t1v ( πλήΡ'!lf E/(Tείσrι
15 '!Ι • • μη άπο8ι8. · .••••..••• ~eqλΟΥουντα ••• ιr[•••... •]ων ΠΡοr τ. ~
· · · · • · · · · • • l!ilTfj r T!J[. .] • • \l![. · .]~
• [.]!' • κε!' .. [.••..•] •.• T06T~!, .••. 8f!ι!,~ίων π[• ••] •• [• •]τω!, ([. ~ ••.•
Tq[r]~ Trf[v ενκ)τήσεων βιβλιο-
φ[ύλ]αξι . [•..•..•••..] ••.. [•..•] . dλλα μήτε. [••] . [••] .•• f!-f!/f ••
πe'f .• [.••] • 8~§~ι:.έναι μήτ' οόσιακα

[θ]έματα [•...•.••...] ...••. (.. ]~ άΡΥύριον τοϋ [όΦλ]ήμαTO~ .•• 'άπο­

8~rT(o]S- l!~To~ κατa τα 8ια 8ημοσίου .••••
. • 1';'.. •
• .] •• μ • •••.•.•. α• • • τι . • flOnroV
• • • .• •• r:..
. [.] •• θε. .. [..•] .. ωνα
•[.]. rι . .. O~T!! κατα την προθ[ε]σμ{αν
20 τα άΡΥύρ!,!, μη d,'ne~rxrι~~Vf!-! • rί ... ν]~μιμα • [•• ] •• α • [.] των κατεχομέ[ν]ων
, . t
Π' ]
'!ι ε
'ff!ι~ παρ
f!'(λ] ~-
yov 'γεΥενησθαι ΤlJΡ 1[αρf!ι • . • • • • . • μo~ [dJ,!atToD[v JTO~ και μη άπολαμ-
β α1l01lTO~ '''Φλ
το ω '
ημα ar'!'YKau "θ αι
μ~ '!f!f!a, τ ου
[",.] "
πaTpo~ τ? προ • •• f!lJlf. [ •] •... f!ι'!oυ •• "
επισταμενου ΟΤΙ ου

'.1, , ,
περιο.." ομαι αποσπωμενα

ν& μοι ~rT{OeuOat ~ • ιrT~'!-!!Π . • • • • ,!~Tα ταϋτα T~ ύπολειπ6μενα μ6να έμοϋ

μΕν τφ 8ικa{ρ χρ. . • • α τφ 8ε
πατρι ! ... lJ[.}1!a!"Ka[.Ja f!ι •• .•.•. π4!"τα όφειλ6μενα λοιπα Tlpijr αύ­
των p~rf!ι K'!-f • • • ~!I • • • ~!-' • • • αλα Πf!~ιr • • •
25 8~α (τάλαντα) ό[/(]T~ μετ α τα/ν T9!C[mv .] ••• ~ •• r~r ~'!~e Tfjr oiJulas- άπο-
80σιν τα ιiλλα αύTO~ ~XΊ] elr 8 βούλεται. και πάλιν
TεT~~!! • [.] • • . • . • • • • • • μετα • . [. ]f!ι'!?1σθαι If~ π por αύτον τφ κ8 (~Tει) 8ια
8ημοσίου r!J!"χρηματισμοϋ αύτφ 8allείσαr
•• τα (τάλαντα) • [.••.• ] •• έξ α[ύ]των άπο80ϋναι μΕν τφ Άσκληπιά8Ί] τα
ο'φει λ' "
ομΕιια και Tovr, , ,εχειν vE
τοκοvr ' ει~
t\" τα λ οιπα ,
Ο τι
, ' [ ]
εαν Τ. • • • •• • • • • • • • • • • • • • ••• f! ,
'8φ Λ

χ 6νΤ α/1Ι παf!f!ι • • • • '!-f 8ημ6σια και 8απάιιαr

~~~! ~lflf~ • [••• .]ου κ'!-! . . • • • [•.] • 8ανειστ[ω]1ι τ6κοι, άπο
vE Λ
Τα/ΙΙ απο
κε εToυ~
( " ) '
ε • • !!~II και κε Φ α"λ αιον ( '

λαντα) (
30 TfjS- 8ε μ'!1Τ(ΡΟr. . • . . .] . . . . . • • [. .] • •• αύτοιι 8ιάΥειll άπο8ι86ντα μοι
μοιιαr τ~~
............... Ίfaρ
, Ι

ίJλω~ (τάλαντα?) •• Υεν[O)J.lEII~!~ αύT~?, μ~ν ~[υp]ιεύ!!ιι πάλιν τα/ν προσ68α/1Ι

Λ ε
'φ' tl
• ~Λ

χρονον μοιιαr
, ' 8 1'''
απο ιοοντα μοι

Tf!ι! ••• €?rT~f έμε 8Ε ύπείλ[ηJ<l>~r •• τ~[ . .] • τα περι Tη~ KαToxη~ 8ίκαια τον
~!~f!'(ωμονο!, • Tl!- και Πf!~~ αύτην τηll όμολΟΥίαν

επισταμεν'!} οτι περι }f!ar
, , d [ • . • ••. προσο'8ων εκαστου
•• ] (, ",
ETovr κα
ε6"α/ εω~

ι111 ~ ά[π6]~~[ uJ!S' έξ άιιάΥκηS' τω" ώΡισμl-

JιΟ>JΙ rΕν[ηΤ]l!! ~R?1μάτωv ~ •••• Jr~ Τ~T!!~μηKενα~ αiιτφ Υράψαι την έfrισToλην
πάν[τα) τα ~!' τρ πράΥματι έψευσμένον

35 παρα[λ]αβει[ιι . . . • • . . . .] Ta[iiT]l! 9f α τ[ ου] βιβλειδίου άJlειιεYKoύση~ μου τφ

CΡούφφ και ύΠOTαξάση~ τ6 τε τελευταΊον ΚΟΙ- .

Jιον όμο[λ6Υημα] πpo~ τον πα[τε]ρα, φ [δ]!~ δημοσίου ΥεJlομεναν άναφορaν

Εχω, K~[2] εί~ τα ~ πρωτα και $ιμίλι80~ του ήΥε-
[μο]νεύσα[ ιιτοΊ~ ΙCαλλίσTOΙ[ ~] παρα[ 8είΥ]μασ[ι ] έπιστολ rJlI KαταΙCOλoυθήσανTO~
Μεττίου <Ρούφου 8ιατάΥματι περι του Tαr τοιαύ-
Tα~ συνypαφα~ μη μ6νον δ[ εϊJιι εΤν[ αι κ]υΡ[ίJα~ άλλα και παρατίθεσθαι δια
του βιβλιοφυλακίου ή ύπο των Υυιιαικα/ν Tαι~ των
t 1'.....
( ,

υπο των
, ..... ...r']
, ι εκ νων ,..,...
Tαι~ των Υονεων
, 1" (, ..... {
oι~ η μεν χρησ ε Ι~

δια δημοσίων τετήρηται χρη- (-ματισμων)

Col. v.

[70 letters] · ~l![

ορ![ 32 lettet·s ]l!q!JT~[ . .] . [.] . [....] . [.• ] . [ 15 letters ]!/!-l![.]~a . [•••.•. ]
(!οσ . ..

[. . • • .]l![ 24 letters]?7[.] · . . · . (ταλαντ .) (- [. · .] . . [.] • . [. ]l!Kl! [. . . . ~ • ~ · .

[. . . . •J/fE!, τα άπο~q~?7[ σ6]Ηε[ ν ]l!
έτήσια Τα/[ ..• ]~!T[.J?7 .. [ ]ξ τ6Κα/[ν] ούκ όλίΥα/ν γνΤα/[ν .]α(~ .
[.JT[ ] . ~ έαυτο[ϋ] του YElIOVfJ άπο8[ι]80[ υ]~ K["&J/fOl
5 Tα~ [ ] .. [.. J~ ..... [... c Po]~φo~ έντυχc?[ν] και τάχα άπιστεύσαr
εί μετα τοσουτο [πληJ~οS' τα/ν ήμεT€pων δικαία/ν και το- ιι:
σαυT~ 1"
f}!~ 8• ΊJl!fJ aLov
' ,
Υραμματα [ ' ]να
Υενομε '
ε'θ αρρησεν >,
αν TtS' ,
επιστο λ'"
ην επι

παραλΟΥισμ[ρ] Υράφειν Tfj ήΥ~μονίlf, ύπΕΥραψεν

τω .•. 0/ . • l!!JT~!" Ύ~!". · ff • [•.] ... τρ βιβλειδίφ τφ στρατηΥφ, "παρα­
θου{ ov}. έξεTάσα[~] Εάν τι TfjS' έμη!; διαΥνώσεα/S' κατα
Ί!'! · · .'. q, • • · • επεμ . . . . ff . . . . . ., " '!'l!oev
, 1'\
rl ';""
οιμαι η
ων οτι

τα άληθη φανείη μη8ε Kpίσεα/~ 8είσθαι το πραΥμα. ταύ-

T'!1f ~~ ~7[qΥf!αΦ9~ TVXq~([a ~[π]~νεYKα το βιβλε{διον έπι τοϋ Κι;" (lTOV~)
Θ ' θ
Ι-( ω ,\
επι ,
παροντι Tlf'"" πατρι , μου Χ'
αιρημονι, ' l "ΤΕ

10 στρατη[Υ]ον έπισT'!~iιν [Υράψαι] T'!f~ τα/ν έρκτήσεα/ν βιβλιοφύλαξι 8 προσ­

φωνήσωσιν α~TP πάντα τα παΡακεlμενα των
του '!T'!Tf![ OS'] • [•• ] • . . . /f"!-T τα/ιι Υενομένα/ν μετο,υ ήμων κατa
xp6ιιoυ~ ΚΟΙJlα/ν όμολΟΥημάΤα/ν και παραθέσεων

μη[.1 • . . . . · · . . · . · · . · • · . '-!~ το μηδεν έμπ68ιον εΙνα[ι] Tfi yενoμενrι

του πpαyμαTO~ υπ
«" αυτου .... ε6ετασει
'ι:.' , [ τα'] ΟΟ6αντa

Tfi [.] ••• ~ να .' .. ο ? ~ε παρων άναyνωσθέντo~ του βιβλειδlοv

προ βήμαTO~ έσιώπησεν, ούδεν άντειπειν δυ-
ιιά[με]νo[~] . . . . . ΠR9~ 4[ληθ]9 γντα τα τφ βιβλειδlφ ένΥεΥραμμένα. ό δΕ
σTpατηγo~ άKoλoύθω~ xpώμενo~ Tfi του
ι 5 « ,
TJr€Jfl!rlJ~ ,~rK~.λ' , [ ]β ['] "λλ'θ
EV<r~! ακρε ι . εστ ε ραν ουκ α ('
αχο εν ηΥησaτο " l :ε6Ετασιν
την .'

~σεσθαι ή έκ Tη~ των βιβλι[οφυ]λάκων

ΠΡοσΦ~r~ιr~ω~ . . . . . . . • . . . ~.If Tη~ έξετάσεω$ των προσφωlιηθΕντων το
πραγμα φανήσεται αι{ . ..] . αιιη~ l1ξιον
και ΠRC!ζf • • • • • T(/ir τφν ~r.lfτ~ιrί εων βι ]βλιοφύλαξι τάδ[ ε. {]σοιι βιβλειδίου
έπιδoθένTO~ μοι ύπο Διoνυσία~ ~i! (πα]ρείλημπται
άνΤ(ΎRlfΡ~r [ ] ~ τφ λαμπροτάτφ ήΥεμ6νι μεθ'
TJr ~
εσχ ειι (
υΠΟΎρα Φ"'" TJr επισΤf! [λ Ε !'τα ') (....
"!μειν ί\'

8TJP~l!{9!J • . . . . . . . . . . . . . . [. .] τα π( αρα]κείμειια και άνήκοντα τφ

πράγματι δηλώσητΕ μοι . . Θα/[θ .]'-!. ταυτα
20 ~[ • • • • • ] ••••.••••••• ~! ~!~~!C!Φ~~f!.If~$ :r άντα προσεφώιιησαν δια
μακρων μηδΕν παΡαλιπ6rΤ~$ [•..] τωιι ήH~-
[τ]~R[ωιι ] . . . . . . . . . . .... τοΡ [Χ]αΙΡήμονοr άλλα μηδε τωιι παραΚΕιμένων
αυτφ , ... 8 '
ανΕιων. οC δ'ε στρατη yo~ [ ' ] 'εντυχων
Klf~ ΙΙRφr 1f?Ί~~!! έψ~[υ]ι:μΕιι'!ΊΙΙ δια του βιβλειδίου άλλα και
μαλλόν τινα παραλιπουσαν τα/ιι ήμετ[ έρω]ιι 8ικαίωιι
Etf ι-
Τ. .] . . . · . . . . . . . προσ . . . . . . . . . . . Υρα,l,
, .. ,,. αντε$ και"Φ'
αΠΟΥρα ην

υπο του
''' '
του κ.
[(~ )] ί\''''
ETOV$ οι ηr παrΤlf ~

Τ'!ι ~.
(] • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • ιrΤ • • ••. '!-τα & aVTOf " " ),
ΕισηνΕΎκειι ELf το

,βιβλιοφυλάκιον περ;' τούτου ύπομ[νη]ματα f!9 ...

25 8[ ι]α το . [. .] . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . rELJI, τον δε πατέρα μη8Ειι ετεροιι
, (
Ey€ιν και
,, ( , . . [ΎΡ J'
τα εαυT~~ '!-Ηματα "!f!!'

.. . . . . . . .. . . . . I!~roov,
81'ικη$ ~ ""θ
οεισ αι το
πραΥμα τ( ο]σούτων χρηματ[ ισμω]ιι 'Περ/, των

!"!? • • • • • • • • • • • • • • ~1[9 τφ!' β![βλΙΟ]Φt.!~if,~ωll ΕπεJlηΎμένων, σοι τφ κυρίφ

~, ."
εΥρα 'Ι' Εν ,
επιστο λ'η ( ν επι
" ].....
τ ~v Κ'; (~;εToυ~) Τ"'β
υ ι

50 letters ΠΒ • • . . . . f!μμάτωιι 'fvp. · · [. · · ] · e .

.If[a]Tlf · . · [.] . . . . . . . . . . . · αν, ούδΕν δΕ ηττον συμ ...
πέμψαr τυ ΕπιστολΏ και άιιτlΥΡaφα [τωρ π)ροσφωνή-

30 σεων .•. . . . . . . . . . . . . . T~ πάλιν ~πι σΕ τον KVplOII κατέφυΥον,

Kα~ ένέτυχον δια βιβλειδίο[υ ....] . τρ κ'[ (~Tει)
• • • '!- . • • • • • • . • • • • • • ν ~ξξTf!ισιν η~!1 Tf!V πράΥμ[ α ]TOS' ΥεΥενησθαι
ύπο TOV στρατηΥου καθα/~ ιr~ [ήθέλησ JaS Tfj Υεν[ 0]-
/f~V'!1 ~~~r4l!~! r!'f!Vuti σε TfjS' έπιστολfjS' Tη~ ΥΡαφείσηS' σοι ύπο Tfjr
σΤΡατηΥίαS' άντίΥραφον [.•.•.] .
· !' Υράψαι τρ τ[ O]V νομου στρατηΥΡ βέβα[ ι]ά μοι μένειν
",..., []
τα εκ τηS' μητρφαS' If . . • . . ... . . ••. . ....

• χρηματισμωιι δηλοvμειια δίκ[ αια], και μη8Εν νεωτερί(εσ-

θαι κατα 'των Τ'!- • • • . [. . .] Iff!ιTro~ . . •
f f , "λ ε[υ 1
35 . • . . . . · ... • Iff!ι.θ ~' If'!-f" παντεS' οι ηΥεμονεS' εκε . σαν. κα[']
ι , tο KVPtOS'
συ ,

έντυχα/ν και αν. . • . • • . . . [. . J~ . . • . κ'!ι:

[..] φ .[ ] T~r έπιστολfjr του στρατηΥου και [T]η~ των
βιβλιοφυλάκων προσφωνήσεωS' Iff!ι~ [. • .] · · · · y~!,,!μE
[ν .] • • • • • [. • • .] • . . . . . • ξ~!,~!, δε6μενον Tfj συνή[ θ]ει σου δικαι[ οJ80σίq,
χρώμενοS' ύπέypαψά~ Ι!'!! T~ [βιβ]~~!~(φ
[..] .. [ ] f δικαίΟΙΥ χρησθαι δύιιασθαι. δ δΕ σΤΡατηΥΟS' τηS' λοιπηΥ
dξιώσεωΥ σου τη!' .• πο .. [••. πρ]~!,oιαν
[•• ] • • . . • . . . • . . . . • προμαντεvσάμενοS' 8τι καΊ τ[ fj]S' ά[πο) του στρατη­
yov βοηθείαS' 8ε6μ!~,!- . . I!~ • [.... ]α!'?1ν
40 [•• ] t? των δικαίων τυχειιι και μη dyvropoveiuOat όπο του
, , t l' , "λ
ε6" ωιι Υαρ ετο μησεν
[ ] • τα ταυτα
• •. ,..
[• . ]α~ ...•.• §ια Tfjr αιΙpέσεω~ TQJ! Iiv8pa. έμου Υα[ρ] το βιβλεί8ιον ~πι
Tfj σΏ ύΠΟΥραΦΏ Πf!ιR~!'~rκ[ οvσηS' ] και dva-
[ο.1\]' ~'1\' " " ,t '
f!Ι;ιr!l~ f?!ff Tq~ avopor μου τφ στρατηΥΡ, αbιωσaση~
1\ , θ' , θ 'λ
Τ! κα ωΥ η ε ησαr

Tfjr λoιπη~ άξιώσεω~ /f[η] •• [. ά]f.l~~ηθfj-

[ναι και] ~7!!l!T~~al TOΙ~ των ένκτήσεων βιβλιοφύλ[ αξ]ι βέβαιά μοι τα 8ίΚ8,ια
τα ύπ6ντα μειιειν καθα [προσε ]φώνησαν

CoI. νι.

[20 letters]lfro~ rq[23 letters]Tro . [.]~~ K~μ[ • •. ]μ[ιι letterS]~Tat ύμείν ~~-
[ι 2 letters] . . • C!'Tqutv ~1§gT'!- και TfjS' ~[ οι ]'!~[ Υ dξιώσεω~ πJ4ση~ καθα
ήθέλησεν ό λαμ[πp6T]αTO~ ή[Υε]μων πρ6νοιαν

[. .] • . [. .] . . • . μη8εν lIEOOTEp[(eq-[ θαι • • . . . • • . 'Το Jr πατέρα μετa τα

....] , ,c: ~" "
το[ σαυ τα Υραμματα την ησυχιαν αΥειν και μη-

ενοχ ειν
, , ''1 ' [ λ ... ]
μητε εμοι ετι qι,,!~ ι ειν.
ο υε πα
'λ ιν 'θ'
, μοι

ούκ Ε'ληξε[ν], άλλ' έπισTάμενo~ Βτι περι

5 Tη~ KaToxijr ούκέτι οΤόν τέ έστιν αύτφ ένκαλειν μεT~ TιX~ τοσαύταΥ έξε-
, , "'" , c:," .1,. ,
Tασει~ και τοσαυτα Υραμματα, ετερφ επετρε",εν την

κατ' έμου έπιβοvλήν, και σου του κυρίου πάλιν καθ' όμοι6τητα τα/ν dλλων
c: ,
, 8ιατα6αμενου
κων ... ~,
~ηTησεων ,
επιστο λ α~ ' σοι "φ
μη Υρα ειν, ο( 1
" μονον " .1,.
εΥρα",εν α'λλ'
α και ,
" , , ...... c: "
παρων ηκρωτηριασεν το πραΥμα ω~ και σε

τον κύριον πλανησαι 8υιιάμενo~. σιωπήσαr γαρ και την του c: Ρούφου έπι­
στολην έφ' 8τφ έΥράφη και την έlΙτυχίαll την
εμην και
" την του
,.. CΡ'φ
ου ου
{ την
} c:
ην και
,,.. του στρατηΥΟV την ε6ετασιν
. . , ,t.'
και των βιβλιοφυλtf,κων την προσφώνησιν
10 και την περι τούτων ΥραφεΊσάll σοι ύπο του στρατηΥου έπιστολην καΙ την
ΠΡοr ταύτην έμου EΙΙTυxoύση~ 80θείσαν
ύπο σου του κυρίου ύΠΟΥραφην και τα έκ ταύτης' TOtS- βιβλιοφύλαξι έπιστάλ­
ματα ψειλω~ σοι 8ια της' EπισToλη~ 8ε8ήλωκεν
τάδε· Χαιρήμων Φανίου Υυμνασιαρχήσαs- TijS- ΌξυρυΥχειτων πόλεω~· TfjS-
θυΥατρ6s- μου Διoνυσία~, ήΥεμ6:Jν κύριε,
πο λλ α ' ,
ELs- εμε" ,
ασε β ως' ,, '
και παρανoμω~ , t. '
πρα6ασηs- "
κατα Υνωμην '
( Ω ptoovos-

Άπ[ωνοs- άν8ροS' αύτηs-, άνέ8ωκα Επιστο-

λ '
' CΡ'φ
ου φ τφ
... λ
, ' tα6ιων
. ""' τοτε
, ~
α προσηνεΥκα
, , ,.. ανα-
q.VT'!J ,
κομ[σασθαι κατα TOVS- v6povS', oi6pevos-
ι 5 ΕΚ
του του
, θ
παυσασ αι αυτην
" των
- , , ,
ELS' εμε υ ρεων·
Ι'β ",
και εΥρα", εν τφ
.,,. .....,..
του νομου
στρατηΥΨ (E'TOVS') κε ll , Παχων κ(, ύπο-
Ta6aS' ,.. c"'" φ' , , 1 Φ t'
των υπ εμου Υρα εντων τα ανΤΙΥρα α οπωS'
'!!r θ'
Ί!q.e ε εμην
φροντισ'!J τα , -Δ
ακο ουσα ,.... t.
πρα6αι. "'"
επει ουν,
T'!J """
,Ι ,
pι~ων μοι,
'f. "
α6ιω του
8ι 8'OJITOS',
' ου
το μεpo~
t. "ιν, '1''''''
, ,
απαΥοντι ""
αυτην ,,....,....
ακ.ουσαν εκ '1\'
Tη~ του avupoS' "
OΙKια~ 1\'
μηυεμιαν μοι β'
, θ
ΥΕινεσ αι
~ oυTινo~
των του
(Ω '
pLCOVoS' .,.,
η αυ-

του του C np[rovos- uvvexroS' έπαΥ'ΥΕλλομενου. άπο 8ε πλειόνων τω(ν] Ί!~PΙ

το[v']των πραχ θ'
εντων ο'λ'
ΙΥα σοι ι , t.
υπετα6α r"
ιν ,

20 "
8VS'. (εTOυ~ ) K"i, Π αχων.
/ θ(μεν
, ,
ταυτην "
την επιστολ ην
\ "ΕΥρa,l,εν,
..'" , 8~μιaν
l!'!. '

μεν \ ""β
v ριν
ουτε ουτε" 'λλ ο'
α ,.1"
αοικημα• ,
ει~ αυτον

ω~ ε'φ' φ
, Φ εται ,.~
~xων, ι'!"επι Φ.θ'C!vιp δ"ε μΡ!"fJ!Ι [λO]!OOPo~μενo~
" ί\' ~~f\
δεινα πάσχων άπ' έμου, λέΥων 8τι δη .
ωτα παρεχω ανοα
-;- ' "
αυτφ, και
Tη~ υπο
".., 4: λ ., "
ειπoμενη~ εμοι
καΤΟΧ!1!' T~~ ούσίαr
ινα μ' "
α-ιιτην ,
αΠOιrT εριη <
~".., ται , ~f!ι!," το Kf!ι!!'9TεpOν, , β'

πάσχειν ~πo του άνδp6~ μου πpoφεp6μενo~ του και μετα {και μ~[τα]} T~!'
πpo~ α~T6ν μου συνΥραφην έν if εΊχεν το δίκαιον
κα θ αρον ' μου προσενηνεΎμενον " "
συνχωρησαvτοr μοι Kf!ιf <)
,Ι ε !Tf!ι
~Ίf ["]
TlJ Ifr]
η ΤΡΙ,

f! •• • !'!'Ο!' ιrυνευ80Kησαι βoυληθείσαι<~) αύτφ ύποτι-

2 5 θ εμεν~
, ,
την " "'λ
ουσιαν ταυτην πpo~ ,
ο α ('λ)
τα αντα fJ, αφ
ου με απ~!-,
. .•. . •. . .
ειδ!1 . Tα<!!ν~!-,K~ του· άνδp6~ με στερησαι έπιχειρων,
έπι μη δύναται Tη~ ούσίαs, ινα μη8' άπ' αύτου xopηy!!€!~,!! [. . ..] .•
!\' , ",.. , ,
[] . . . OΊjνω/!,!! Ύυνη, απο του πατpo~ μητε

ην ύπέσχετο προικα μήτε τι l1λλο ύπάρχ ον λαβουσα άλλα H!J 8e ~'!T~ ~f!ι[ ι ]ρον
Tα~ χορη[ Υηθ]~!crα~' Tpoφα~ άπολαμβάνουσα. ύπέταξεν
δε' "
και Tα~
αυTα~ Kpισει~
' ~[J'λ ιoo~
.ιι:;, ι μι και
'ι,,.., ί\ ,..
υπο του αρχιοικαστου
Λ ~ΎΎ~~~
. '
"Ρούφφ ypαφoμένα~ έτέpα~ όμoία~, μηδε αί8εσθει~ 8τι ούδε
ό "poυφo~ προσέσχεν αύτα[ί]S' άνομοίαιs oγσαι~
eiS παpάδεΙΎμ~ . ~ [..] .
.. f!ι!~ν. άλλα συ ό κύριοs Tfi θεΟΥνώστ![) σου
30 μνήμυ και Tfi άπλανήτφ προαιρέσει άνενεΎκα/ν τη[ν ΥΡαφεισJάv σοι ύπο
του στρατηΎου έπιστολήν, και 8τι φθάνΕΙ το πραΎμα
άKpειβω~ [έξ]ητασμένον, ΠΡ6φασιs δΕ έστιν έπιβουληs TC! .... πα .. ~ ..
!!~!-'~ • • ov κατα , συνΎρα Φ'" "Ι,.'"
ην, αντεΥρα" '"
EV τφ στρατηΎφ

τάδΕ· Πtο]μπώvιοs Φαυστιαvοs Ίσιδώρφ στρατηΎφ [Ό]ξυρυΥχε[ί]τ[ο]υ χαίρειν.

τα \ Υρα Φ'
εντα μοι " 'Χ αιpημ01l0~
υπο ' Υυμνα-

σιαρχησαντοs τη~ ... 'Ο f)vpΊlYXELTCOV
~ ""λ""
πο EroS αιτιομΕνου Ω ρειω '
"]δρα θ vyarpos
' [va αν
αύτου d>S βιαν ύπ αύτου πάσχ[ ο ]JITOS
ύποταχθηναι έκέλευσα, 8πω~ ΦΡοvτίσΊ7S άκ6λουθα πραξαι TOlS π[ ε]ρι το[ ύ]του
πρ6ΤΕρον ΥραΦΕΊσι ύπο ΛΟΎΎαίου "Ρούφο[υ] του 8~α-
35 , []
σημοτατο υ προs , το, μη \ [ ] ' rroV
π ε ρι " ,.....
αυτων πα'λ ιν " ,εντυΥχανειν.
αυτον , '[ ]-
ε Ρ

ρωσθ(αι) Ε tJX ομ(α ι). (lrovs-) KCj/I, Παχα/ν λ. ταύτην

την έπιστολην π'αρ[ εν ]EYK6vros του Χαιρήμοvοs και άναδ6J1ΤO~ έπι TfjS iί τ[ ο]υ
'Επειφ "Αρποκρατ{ωνι βασιλικφ Υραίμ ]ματεΊ
[δι] α8Ε χ ομενφ καΙ τα κατα την στρα(τηΥίαν), παρουσα αύτη δια του άν8p6~
μου προσεκυνησα μΕlI' σο.υ τα Υράμματα και To'ir [Υ]ραφεΊσι

, , []
εμμΕν ε ιν
, f/
t' τε
οτΙ τα
\"λ θ
ακ.ο ου α
ηοη TOΙ~
"" c
, c Ρ ου'φ[]
ου προ-
ΤΕρον ΥραφεΊσι έπράχθη. ό μΕιι Υαρ Χαιρήμωιι
ΠΕρΙ κ[ αT]~X~~ ώ~ ού Be6VTror yενoμένη~ αύτφ ΎεΥράφει, ό δΕ C Poυφo~ [έξ]
1" , , "Ι,. ,.... " t 1" , ,..., ,
ων αντεΥραψΕν αυτρ και ES ωιι Εμου ενTυxoυση~

40 ύπέ[ΥΡJf!ιt~!' έξετασθηναι ήθέλησε[ν] ~! δεόνTω~ ή κατοχη ΥέΥονέ!, /f[ οι] καί

τφ στρατηΥΨ περ! τούτου ύΠ"εθετο. ό δΕ ούκ ήμέ-
λη[σε]ιι άλλ' €[(]ήTησεν άKpειβ[ω]~ '[το πρ]αΥμα Εκ των βιβλιοφ[υ]λάκ[ω]ιι και
T'l/.... ηΥεμονι'!'
( " περι, παντοr
Επιστο η~ αlιηιιεΥ-
(-κειι )

Col. νιΙ.

[30 lettersJf!ι . [19 letters] .. (

[ ι 9 letters]" · [.] · [. • .] . [15 letters ]ου[. .] . !-,σT~[ ι ι letters J~
ωσια[. · · · · .]~!1[. · . . · . ·
χ[ 17 letters] If~ 8!~ T~~ Υενομ[εν'ω]!, ~~[. .]Ι! . · · · !-'[. ]~Ρf!ι[. . .] Εκ των αιr.
[••• ] •• Ε[ • •]ων όp~[ . ... J8 •. oνO~Kα[. ....
σα[• ....•• ]~r τούτου άλλα άκόλο[υ]θα πpαξ~~ τ[ον] Επι[στε]{λαντα TOiS'
βιβ[λ]ιοφύλαgι και ~[ε ]e[t] αύή ου Ύ]ράψαιιτα τ[ α εlΡη Jp[ έ]!'α. ΕΠΕΙ δΕ
5 ό Χ[αιρ]ήμων 8/ η~ και νυν πεπο[ίηJται παρα τρ [λ]αμπροτάτφ ήΥεμ6νι
, , t"

, ~ []
a'f- , ... ,
ου σαν αποσπαν OV-

δε 1[[ ερ]ι τούτου ογτ[ ε 8ι]~ Tη~ του 8ια[ σ]ημοτάτου C Ρούφου ογτε δια Tfjr~ του
λαμπ[ρο JTdTOV ηΥεμόιιοr Πομπωιιίου Φα[ υσ]τ[ ιΊαιιου έπιστολfjr
όρaτa(ι) Ρητα/r Kε~[ ελ ]ευσμενοιι, δύναται περι τούτου Εντευχθηναι ό λαμπρ6-
( \
TaTOS' ηΥεμων ,
των ειι τρ πραΥματι πραχ
θ'[ 1
ε lI -

τω[ιι] παρατιθεμένων αύτφ, ίν' oί~ έαιι προστάξυ άκ6λουθα Υειιητα[ ι]. παν­
ταχ6θεν ovv, ήΥΕμων {ουν} κ[ ύ]pι€, του πράΥματοS'
[ ] 1\'λ ου
πρ ο ιιη ΥειιομΕιιου
' και
τηS' του
,... παTΡO~
, μου
με επηpεια~ ΕντυΥχανα/
σοι και νυν πάιιτα παρατιθεμέιιη τα έιι τφ πράΥματι
10 καθωr και ό βασιλικοS' δια8εx6μενo~ και τηιι στρατηΥίαν ήθέλησεν, καί
8έομαι κελευσαι Υραφηναι Tfj στρ«τηΥίrr Tά~ τε ΧΟΡηΥlαr
, ~~~ θ'
αΠΟaΙaοσ αι
μοι κατα
, ι,
καιρον, επισχειν
ηaη ποτε
\, Ι
επειωιιτα μοι
προτερον μεν
,(, , ωr ανομου KαToxη~, χαριν,

ιιυν οε προ
φ ,
ασει ,,0-

μου ουδΕιι αύτφ πpoσήKoνTO~· ov8ElS' Υαρ ν6μo~ άκούσαr yυναίKα~ άπ;
άνδρων άποσπα.ν έφείησιν, εΙ δε και εστιιι TtS', άλλ' ού ΠΡοr .,..άr

, l 'ενΥρα'
ε6 Φ Υαμων
ων ' 'Yεyενημενα~ και"'φ
ενΥρα ω~ yεyενημEνα~. , , ιι
οΤΙ l' \.
οε ταν\τα ;'1)
O{)Tω~ ~xει, ίνα και TαύTη~ αύτον Tη~ πpoφάσεω~ άπαλλά
600, ι' ~ ,
υπετα6α σοι "λ
απο π ειονω ν ' [] περι " τουτου κρι θ'
εντων ο'λ'
ΙΎα~ ηΎεμονων
t ,

και έπιτρ6πωιι και άρχι8ικαστων Kp{σει~, ~TΙ τε και 110-

15 μικα/ν πpoσφooνήσEΙ~, περι του TιZS' ή8η τελε{αS' YVlJalKaS' yενoμενα~ έαυτα/ν
εΙναι Kυp{α~, ε1τε βούλονται παρα TOtS' άν8ράσιν μένΕιν
ε(τε μή, και ύπ6κεισθαι πατράσιν OtJ μ6νοιι, άλλ' 8τι Oυ~' έφείται
Επι προφάσει έτερων ένκλημάτων φεύΎειν Tα~ xpημαTΙKα~ 8tKaS',
δη και 8τι Tα~ συνΎpαφα~ πα[ρα]τίθεσθαι TOΙ~ βιβλιοφvλακ{οιS' ν6μιμον
και TιXS' έκ τούτων yενoμένα~ KaTOXιZS' πάντεS' ήΎεμ6νε~
και αύTOKpάTopε~ Kυpία~ [είν ]αι και βεβαIα~ τεθελήκασι, και 8τι ούδενι
'φ ,. .
ε ειται
λ '
,,(,.., "
πpo~ τα εαυτου Υραμματα, ινα
[' ] 'εκ
κα ι

ή8η ποτΕ παύσηται περι των αυτων Ενοχλων Tαι~ ήΎεμoνίαι~ Kαθα/~ και συ
Υράφων ήθEλησα~. έξ ύπομνη-
20 ματισμων Φλαουίου Τειτιανου του ήΎεμoνεύσανTO~. (~Toυ~) ιβ θεου
ΙΑ8ριανου, Παυνι η, έπι του Εν Tfi άΎOP~ βήμαTO~. Άντωνίου
του Άπολλωνίου πpoσελθ6νTO~ λέΎoνT6~ τε 8ια 'Ισιδώρου νεωτέρου ιJήTOPO~
$εμπρώνιον πενθερο,,' έαυτο[υ] Εκ μη[ τJpO~ άφορ-
μη~ ' 1 οιαμαχην
ει~ \ ' ε'λ θ[' ] "ακουσαν
ον T~ 'θ
την "
υΥατερα ,
απεσπακεναι, Jloσησαση~ ,
δε EKε{νη~ ύπoλoίπη~ τον ΕπιστράτηΎον J;Jάσσον
μεTflιπαθα/~ άνασΤRflιΦ[ Εν]τα άποφαίιιεται 8τι ov δει αύτον κωλύεσθαι εΙ
συνοικεΊν άλληλoΊ~ θΕλοιεν, άλλα μηδΕν ή κιιυκέραι·
""" Εμπρωνιον , []'
αποσ! ω '1!ησαντα
τουτο και

ηΎεμονι περι
, β'

Εντυχ6ντα έπιστολην παρακεκομικΕναι ίνα οΙ άντί8ι-

25 ΚΟΙ ΕκπεμφθωσΙ 8 aiT~ZuOq-! €!~r Εαν δοκΏ μη άπο(ευχθηναι yυναΙKO~ oΙKείω~
πpo~ αύτον έxoύση~. Δ ίδυμo~ ρήτωρ άπεκρεί-
νατο μη xωp2~ λ6Ύου τον $ Εμπρώνιον κεκεινησθαι· του Υαρ ~νTων[ί]ου
προσενεΎκαμΕνου θ υΎαTpoμεΙ6ια~
~" εΎκα λ"""
ειν, μη ΕνΕΎκαν-

την υ ριν Τ'[/
,. . κατα
, Toυ~
, ,
νoμoυ~ συνκεχωρημενυ
, ,~,
ε60υσιf/ι ΚΕχρησ
~ θ

iιTιασθαι δ' αύτον και περι [.. 8 •••• ]'!~~ ξ[νK]~ημάTων.

, (υπερ
Προβ αTιανo~ " Λ'

προσε ηκεν,

απερι υTO~
ο yαμo~,

πατέρα μήτε Tη~ ΠPOΙKO~ μη8Ε Tη~ παι80~ Tη~ Εκδε80-

,~ ,,,
Ει:;ουσιαν εχειν.
Τ '
l' Φ' ,#,
οια ~pει παρα τινι
ου εται
η Υε-

Υαμημενη. άνΕΎνων 8 σεσημ(είωμαι). έξ ύπομ[νηματισ]μων


30 ΠακωνΕου ΦήλΙKO~ επιστρατήΥου. (~Toυ~) ιη θεου 'Α8ριανοϋ, Φαωφι ι{, ~!'

ΤΊ/ παρα
\ "
~ ε εννυτου,
επιτων κατα
\ Φλ '
'Λμμoύνιo~ Επι παρούσπ Tα~!xήl(ει θυΥατρ2 αύτοϋ ΠΡοr Ι'Ήρωνα ΠεTaήσιo~.
'1' ...t '
ιιητωρ c \
υπερ Φλ'
αvησιοr ε "'!\ιπεν, '''ί''''
Τ!>ν ουν f!ι~T~ιρμενoν

, ,
αποσπασαι β ου λ'
ομενον τ[']
η ν θ υΥατερα ' 'Λ
αυτου συνοικουσαll " τφ αllτι8'
"', ικρ

.1\ l' , θ C , ~"",.. '[ ]. ,

οεοικασ αι υΠΟΥvωr ΠΡυr αυτον επι του ~ πι q"rf!'!TΊJYov

't θ " θ Λ θ'" Λ Λ ' , [ ',1

και VΠεpTε εισ αι την
ινα α1lαΥιιωσ ΊJ
ο των ΙΥυπτιω ν 1IOJpor.
'$εουήρου και C Ήλιο8ώρου ρητ6ρων άποκρειναμέιιων
Τ ειτιaιιοll ' tηΥεμονευσαντα
τον , t'
ομοιαr υπο
C '
θ εσεωr "
ακουσαντα [ε'l]
ΙΥυπτιακων ,..
προσώπων μη ήκολουθηκεναι Tfi του ν6-
35 μου άπαιιθρωπί", άλλα ήΌΊ Επι[νο[]", Tfjr παι86~, εΙ βούλεται παρα τ[φ άν8ρι]
μεν€ιν, Πακώvιοr φηλιξ· άναΥιιωσθητο ό ιι[ 6Jp[ or. dJva-
yllωσθένTO~ ΠαKώνιo~ (Φη]λιξ- άνάΥνωται και τον Τειτιανοϋ όπομ(ν]ημα­
τισμ6ν. ~εoυήpoυ pIιTopor άναΥν[ 6JITor], Επι του !~ (~Tovr) 'Α[8ρια]1Ι0υ
ΚαίσαΡοr του κυρίου, Παυν[ι] 'Ώ, Πακώllιοr φηλι'· KptiTluror Τ[ EtTJt- καθωr ό
avo[r] ~'ff!~!lIEJI, πεύσορται Tfjr YVllatK6r· 'f~! Εκ έλευ[ σε)ν 8/ [έρ]/fY-
J'Eror αυτ,Ιν
ενεχ θ η!, r. α ] ι,
J ,
Tf' β ου'λ εται. ειπουσηr,
" \ τφ'" αν
παρα '8'ρι ,

.Q"[α]Kώνιo~ φηλι, έκέλευσεll fJπoμνη ματι[ σ]θηναι.

έ~ όπομllηματισμων Ούμβρηου] 8ικαιο86του. (~Tovr) ι;- Δομειτιανου, Φαμε­
ν(ωθ .]. Δι8ύμη ηr ~K8tKor ό άνηρ ~πολλώvιοr ΠΡοr ~apεΊνoll
40 ,
Τ01l και'Κασιον, ' ,
εκ Λ
των t θ'(
ρε ε ντω ]v· ~,
~αpαπιωΊJ' μετα'λλ α \
τα ,

ΛΙΥ[ύ]πτια ~!'Ti:!' παρ o'lr IJ,KpaT6~ έστιν ή των ν[6]μων άΠΟΤΟJ;L[~α·

8topt(6pevor Υάρ σοι λ€yω [8]τι 1ΙΎ[ύ]~τ!oι ού μ6110ν του άφελεσθαι τα$
[θυyαT~έp[α~ ιb]ν l8ωκall έξουσίαll, ~xoυσιll 8ε Kal ιbν έα" ~ι:l "'Ι8ια
κτήσωllται μEθέT~pa· ο[γ]μβΡι[οJ~ ~,!βEίιιφ· εΙ ~φθακαr t1πα, προΙΚα 8[ούr
τ θυΥ]aτρί σου, άποκaτάστησον. ~αβεινο[ r· τ]οίίτοιι μι: • • • • • l!r-
τουμαι. ΟΙJμβΡι.οr· Tfj OvyaTp[t] ~~. ~aPElJIor· τούτφ τφ ά,ν8ρι ούθεν
[πpoσ]~~[ ει] συνΙιιαι. oγμβpιo~· χειρ6ν εστι dv8por άφαι[ρε'ίσθαι

Col. νιιι.

άιιτ[ • •••. ]?'~ • [14 letters]r~pe . [. .]ησπα~. [ι Ζ letters] • ΙΚΟ • σι[.] • ~~~'!ι~-
J;L[. • • • • • • .]ι.τ[ • •] • • • • • [. e,.] • · • • • •
Jf?1 V [• • • • • •] .' ••• 8[.]8ω[. e • • • •] άντίΥραφοll ΠΡοσΦ~r[ήσεωr ρομ]ικου. Οδλ-
ΠΙΟf Δ [t]ovvu68[ropor] των ήΥορaνομηκ6-

των νoμΙKO~ ~αλoυισT[/p ΆΦ]ρικανφ έπάρχρ στ6λου και [έπι TιOJv KEKpl;-
μένων τφ τειμιω[τά]τρ χα/ρειν. Δ [ιον]υσ/α
ύπο του πατpo~ έκδοθεισα [πρ]ο,; Υάμον έν τΏ του π[α]τρο,; έξoυσ[(~ ού]κέτι
t ("
Ύαρ ~~ 'YJ μητηl!
,,... '" ""φ
lf'!TΎJS' τφ πατρι αΎρα ω,;

-5 ,
[ ] ,
Κ αι
, 'δ
αυτη οκει
,...,ε6~ αΎρα
"φ" ,.. θ
ων Υαμων ΎεΥενησ αι, ΤΡ
ύπο του πατpo~ αύτην έκ86σθαι ΠΡΟS' ΎάΗ!!ν ούκέτι
1:~bt. '''φ ων
αΎρα ,
Ύαμων '"
εστιν. ΠΡΟS' , ,...',ισωS'
τουτο Ύρα'φ ELS', " []
τειμιωτα τε· και' 1οΙ
' ,

ύπομνηματισμων ήσφdλ[ι]σται περι TfjS' πρ[ OLJKOS' ή πα'iS'

ύπο τοϋ παΤΡ6S', καΙ TOVTO αύτΌ βοηθειν δυναται. (~TOUS') κβ θεου Δ8ριανου,
ΜεχεΊρ Κ. άντίΥραφον 8ιατάΎμ[ a]TOS'. Ούαλέρι-
ο'; Εύδαίμων ~παpxo,; ΑΙΎύπτου λέΥει· και παρα8είΥματι τφ καλλίστρ χρώ.­
μενο,; Ύνώμυ του κρατίστου Μαμερτείνου,
και αύτο,; ίδ{ff πεφωΡακα/S' 8τι πολλοι των χρήματα άπαιτουμέιιων το τα
8ίκαια ποιειν ΤΟΙS' άπαιτουσι άφέντε,;
10 έπαιιατάσει μει(6νων ένκλημάτων παντελω,; 8ιακρούεσθαι ή παρατε(νειν την

άπ680σιν έπιχειρουσι, ΟΙ μΈν κατα-

πλήξ(ε)ιν τοΌ,; 'τάχα ~ν φοβηθέντα,; τον κίνδυνον και 8ια 'Τουτο έπ' έλάτ:τονι
συμβήσεσθαι προσ80κωντεS', ΟΙ 8Ε τΏ { S'} έπανα-
τάσει rfjS' δίκη,; άπαυ8ήσειν TOVS' άντι8ίκου,; οΙ6μενοι, παραΥΎέλλω τη,; τοιαύτη,;
πανoυpyία~ άπέ{ σ} χεσθαι, άποδι86νταS'
ο ει ουσι
"Ο 1\' " , ,... f"
πει ollτα~ του,; οικαιω,; απαΙΤΟVlIταS'· α/'; ει τι~ χρηματικηf

•.•• συσTάση~ 8/κη,; άπαιτηθει,; και μη

παραυτίκα άρνησάμενο,; όφείλειν, τουτ ~στιν, μη παραυτίκα πλαστα εΤναι
' Ύραμματα
τα " '"
~~,,!ων και κα[
τη] "
Υορησειν , "Ι,.
ypa",aS' ει) 'Ειτε
, πλ ασ-

15 των 'Υραμμάτων ή Ρ'fδιοvΡΥίαS' ή πεΡΙΎρaφη,; ένκαλειν έπιχειρΏ,. ή ού8ΕlI αύτφ

Tη~ τ[ οι ]~ύτη~ τέχνη,; tJφελεS' ~σTαι dVaYKaUO~l!ETal [δΕ
dπο80vιιαι εύθέωS' & όφείλει, ή παρακαταθέμεv.6S' τε το άΡΥύριοιι ϊ,ι έiι βεβαίρ
το άr~λαβειν όφειλ6Η[ειια] n, πέρα,; rfjS' χρηματικη,;
άμφισβητήσεω~ λαβούσηS', τ6τ' έαν θαρρfj τοι'; τη,; κατηΎορί~S' έλεΥΧΟΙS',
τον μεί(oιι~ άΥωνα ~[Ι]σελεύσεται, ο[ ύ]~[ Ε] τ6τε άθοο,;
, ,
εσομενοs, α'λλ'
'" TETaYPElIolS'
α "" "ElIExopevoS'.
επιτιμοιS' (Ν)
ETOVS' ε '"
θ εου Α ι'λ"ιου

Άντωνίνου, Έπειφ κ8. (ErovS') ΙΕ ~ΙΙTωνίνoυ

Κα {σαρο,; του κυρίου, Θα/θ Lt;. Kληθείση~ Φλαυ/α~ ..
ΜΥβ{α,; ΠΡΟS'
Φλαυ{αll (Ελένηιι και ύπακουσάσηS', 4~ · · [. ..] .. S' Ρήτ.ω.ρ εΙπεll·
έ!' Tfj

20 τάξει έκκείμεθα, περι του χρηματικου άξιουμεll. MoυllαTΙO~ εΤπεν· ούκ άπ­
έχεται τα χρηματικα δια τούτων των ένκλημάτων· εΙ
δε μή, πάνTε~ έρουσιν 8τι κατηΥορω. και ~ιμίλιδo~ διαTάyμαTO~. ΦλαούΙΟΥ
~oυλπίKΙO~ '$ίμιλι~ gπαΡ[χοr] ΑΙΥύπτου λέΥει· δια(η-
τουιιτί μοι μαθείιι ~K Tίνo~ ύποθέσεωΥ έτελεΊτο Tα~ ΑΖΥυπτιακαΥ yυllαί!<,~~
" ,
, ()
Tl!'' cυπαΡχ~rτ'!'
νομ! σ Ηα

άνδρα/ν δια τωll Υαμικα/ν συνΥρaφων έαυταΊΥ T~ ~~f To'ir T~~voLr πλεισTάK!~
§( ~~!'!!-'Toυ άμφισβ!Jτ~σεων ΥεlIομένων,

επι'! !1ναντο
Ο ΤΟΙΥ γεΥαμηκοσι
, συνα
λλ '
lfrιrOlIT~~ α • • . • •. [•]ω
~!~l!ι • • • ~αTl!ι • • •• • ~!' • • • • • [. • .J'! ..... ~tr Υα ••••
25 δίαT4ξ~! έτέΡΟΙΥ βιβλιοφυλακίΟΙΥ Tα~ συνypαφα~ καταχωρί(εσΟαι, [K]~Kελευ-
~~ναι Mf(T]TlOlI c ρουφον το[ν] ΥΕν6μενον ~1!! .
~ , , , φ'" Φ"''''''''
Επαρχον τα ανΤΙΥρα α των συνΥρα ων Tatr των ανορων υπ~rrlfσεl!!ν1\"" , "

θ~,!~αι και TOVTO 8ιατά[Υ JpaTt ΠΡCJl!r~τq.χ~!,q.! ~~ 1f~1

, ,
Φ ον c'
l. Φ ανερον ,,.. ποιων κατακο
λ·ου θ ειν Tlft~
,.. του
Λ Μ εττιου cp ου-
φου ..••••. (gTov~) ~y<1 Άθυρ !β. MάPKO~ Μέττι-
cp ου"'φ~'
ΟΥ επαpxo~
,. λ'εΎει· Κλ'1\
t , . . 'Ol.
Ο του fiVpvy-
χείτου στρατηγΟΥ [έ]δήλωσέν μοι μήτε τα Ζ[ δι JroTtKtl μ[ ήτε ιι-α
8ημ]9 σια
πραΥμaτα 'θ
την '
κα ηκουσαν ,
λ αμ β ανειν 8ιοικησιν
' l' \
οια "
το εκ Π~ λλ
•• ων ,.. ,
μη κα 9r εοει τροπον φκονομησ αι τα εν Tl1,. .
J'1\ θ' ~ \ , Ι' , ,.. θ ,.. ,
των εν-

30 κτήσεωιι βιβλιοθή Κ l1 δια[ σ]τρώματα, καίτοι πολλάκιr ~e!~~v iιπo τα/ν προ
έμου έπάρχων Tη~ δεούσηΥ αύT~ Tvx~fv έπαιιορθώ-
σεωΥ· 8περ ού καλωr έιιδέχετ,!! εΙ μη l1νωθεν ΥέlΙΟΙΤΟ άντίΎραφα. κελεύω ουν
, " " ,.. ι.'l.' ,
παιιταr τουΥ κτητοραΥ eVTor μηνων Efi αΠΟΎρα-

ψασΟαι TtJlI Ζδίαν κτησιll εZ~ την των ένκτήσεων βιβλιοθήκην και Toυ~
δανεισταr &r έαν ~xωσι ύπoθήKα~ και τουΥ ΙΙλλουΥ
- ,ι
, 1 . , )εχωσι
' 1\'
οικαια, την
οε αΠΟΥρα
ην ποιεισ
, θ ωσαν οη
l' λ "
ovVTEr '0 Εν

,.. c'
κατα. ~. ηκεν εΙΥ

ή κτησ{ Ε }tr. παρατιθέτωσαν δΕ και αΙ yvvaLKEr Tfff~ ύποστάσεσι των άν8ρων

" , 'Ι', ,.., ~ ,
~q.r ιcαTa τινα επιχωριον νομον κρατειται τα υπαρ-

'35 χ οντα , όμoίω~ 8Ε και τα τέκνα Ta'ir τα/ν γονέων o'fr ή μΕν χρησ{ Ε }tr δια
8ημοσίων ΤΕτήρηται χρηματισμων, ή δΕ KTfj...
utr μετα θάνατον Toί~ T€KJIOtr κεκράτηται, (να ol συναλλάσσoνTε~ μη κατ
~ '1\'
l!ιrr~lav ενεΟΡΕυονται.
παραΥΎε ω
και TOΙ~ συνα


yμαToyράφoι~ και Toί~ μνήμοσι μηδεν 8ίχα έπισTάλμαTO~ του βιβλιοφυλακ[(ου

τε '"
λ ειωσαι, Υνουσιν ,.. t
ω~ ,
ουκ "φ ε λ o~
ο '] Tl}!OVTO
το ,.. α'λλ'
α και ,
αύτοι ώ~ παρα τα προστεταΥμΕνα πoιήσoνTε~ 8{κην ύπομΕνουσι την πpoσ~-
If.l}υσαν. "
~'!'!' ο~ "
Εισιν , T'l/,..
Εν β ι βλ ιο θ'
ηΚΏ ,..."επα-

νω ,
χρονων ,
αΠΟΥραΦ αι, , μετa " παση~ ,
εια~ '
Φυ λ ασσεσθ ωσαν t'
opotωr 1'\

και τα 8ιαστρώματα, 1ν' ε! TΙ~ Υειιοιτο (ήτησΙΥ εΙΥ

40 tl
υσΤΕρον περι
των μη
, ,,','
αΠΟΥραταμενωll εΕ;
, l. "
εΚΕινων ε
'λ θ'"
Ε')'Χ ω'!!.

8' [ο]~ν ~[εβ],!,(α ΤΕ και εl~ l1παν 8ιαμΕνυ των 8ιασ-

τρωμάτων- ή χρησ{ ε }ι~ ΠΡΟΥ το μη πάλιν άΠOΎραφη~ 8Εηθηναι, παραΥ'γελ­
λω TOΙ~ β[ι]βλιοφύλαςι 8ια πενταετίαΥ έπανανεουσθαι
τα οιαστρωματα μετα φ '"
εpoμενη~ ει~ τα καινοποιουμενα Tη~ τε λ ευTαια~ εκαστου
ι, ",... '
υπoσTασεω~ κατα
" κωμ'tjν και
, κα-

τ' ε18o~. (~Toυ~) θ Δομειτιανο[ϋ], μηνΟf1 Δομιτ{ τ} ιανου 8. εξ ύπομνημaτισ­

μα/ν Πετρωνίου Μαμερτείνου. (~TOυ~) ιη tA8p(Lαvov), Άθυρ ιε.

ιν. 5. λοιπά Tη~ Tιμ.η~: the τιμή appears to be the sum of 8 talents for which
Chaeremon mortgaged the property settled upon Dionysia, cf. IV. 7, 14 and νι 25.
6. ~ιά ~ημoσΙoυ: a public official or office such as the άΥορανομείοιι or μνημονείον,
cf. note οη νιιΙ. 36. The main verbs throughout CoI. IV, ΥΕΥονέναι, lμμEμEνηιcέναι, &c., are
ίn the infinitive because Dionysia is quoting her previous petition to Longaeus Rufus.
9. Perhaps δια Tη~ τJων ίJ.λλων.
10. Probably συνΥραψα[μένου τJoiJ πάππου.
Ι Ι. Επι την πρόνοιαν: Επί seems superfluous. aη the probable nature of this transaction
see introd. ρ. 144.
12. Asclepiades seems to have been the mortgagee, cf. 27 and introd. ρ. 143.
2 ι. Ι ίίΦλημα. αναyιcασθαι is probably a mistake for ήναyιcάσθαι.
23. For Εντίθεσθαι, if right, cf. νιι!. 26 where it is used of the insertion of a claim ίη
the statement of a man's property deposited ίn the βιβλιoθήιcη των ίyιcτήσEων.
26. ~ανEΙσa~: the letters at the beginning of the next line might conceivably be θαι, ίn
which case αύτφ (Chaeremon) is left without a construction. But ~ανEΙσαι, the subject being
Dion}'sia, would be expected. Ιn any case ~ανείσα~ can hardly be right.
30. τη~ δε μηT[ρό~: the part played by Dionysia's mother ίη these transactions is obscure,
cf. note οη VI. 24.
34. αύτφ must be Longaeus Rufus, and the subject of Υράψαι is Chaeremon, cf. VI. 13
and introd. ρ. 145.
36. For ΥΕνομΕναν 1. 'γΕνομένην or, perhaps better, 'YEνoμέν~, ct: 6.
37-9. The proclamation of Similis reaffirming the decree of Mettius Rufus is given at
fu1l1ength ίn νιιΙ. 22-43, q. v. For ύπoστάσEΙ~ see note ση νιιΙ. 26.
39. Ι χρη/[ματισμων, ή δε ιcτησι~ μΕτά θάνατον Toί~ Tέιcνoι~ ΚΕκράτηται, cf. νιιΙ. 35-6.
v. 5. 'PoυΦo~: Longaeus Rufus, praefect, as the present papyrus shows (introd. ρ. 145), ίη
the summer of Α. D. 185; cf. Β. G. U. 807.10. He was succeeded by Pomponius Faustianus
between Sept. 185 and Jan. 186 (introd. ρ. 147). His probable predecessor was Flavius
Sulpicius Similis, who was praefect ίη Νον. 182 (νιιι. 27, note). Neither Faustianus nor
Simi1is are known from other sources.

7. The ίnroypαφή of the praefect giving instructions to the strategus was appended to
the petition. Ιι was then returned Ιο the applίcant, who had to bring ίι to the notice of the
strategus, cf. 9, 37, and 4 Ι.
παροτΙθισθαι, means to report, cf. νιΙ. 9. The reference ίη 'μη~ ~ιαyνώσιω~ is obscure.
Probably the meaning is that Rufus had given a decision favourable Ιο Chaeremon before
he had received the counter-petition from Dionysia, and now wished to modify it;
cf. introd. ρ. 145.
10. The β"βλιoΦύλαKΙ~ τω" ΙΥκτήσιων were the natural persons to be referred to ίη the
case of a disputed title to real property, since the dΠοΥραΦαΙ of such property were sen t to
them; cf. note οη VIII. 31, and Β. G. U. 11, a πpoσΦώνησι~ of the Arsinoite β"βλιoΦύλαKΙ~
upon the possession of a piece of Iand claimed by two persons of the same name.
12. ΥινομένΥ: there ίΒ ηο trace of there having been a previous inquiry before that
which is referred to ίη line 7; so it is probable that ϊ'flιομίVll is a mistake for Υιvομ'''lI or
'γΙlJησομέIΙΥ. The ρ of πpα'YμαTO~ is corrected from α. .
13. The vestiges after το at the beginning of the line do not suit ήΥιμοvl~,
17. Some verb like προσέταξι is wanted at the beginning of the line.
18. λαμπροτάτφ ήΥfμόv,,: cf. VI. 2, 14, &c. The epithet 8ιaσημόTαTO~ is found ίη νl. 34 and
νιΙ. 6. Th~ ear1ier praefects were called κράτιστοι, see νιΙ. 37, νιιΙ. 8, and introd. ρ. 151,
2 ι. The word after ήμfΙ[τ]έρ[ων] is not ~ικαlωv, but the allusion must be to 'the κατοχή.
Apparently the answer of the βιβλιoφύλαKΙ:~ justified not only Dionysia's οriginaΙκατοχή upon
her father's property (cf. introd. ρ. 143), but also her claims υροη him ϊη connexion with
the transactions narrated ίη IV.
Jvτvχώv: this verb is used both of making and attending to a petition, c( V. 5, 30,
35, VI. 10.
23. This άΠΟΥραφή was probably a declaration by Chaeremon which mentioned Dionysia's
claim upon him (cf. VIII. 35), and was the principal evidence pl·oving the existence of the
κατοχή which Chaeremon denied. The date of Dionysia's marriage contt'act by which she
obtained the κατοχή (νι 23), i8 nowhere stated. Presumably ίι took place ίη οτ before the
22nd year, which is the earliest date mentioned ίn ιν (lίne 6).
27. σοΙ: Pomponius Fau8tianus, who had succeeded Longaeus Rufus as praefect during
the inquiry; cf. νι 32, νιι. 6, and introd. ρ. 147.
33. μηTpφα~: cf. note οη VI. 24.
34. μηδέν νιωτιρΙζισθαι: the subject is Chaeremon, cf. νl. 3.
35. καθα κ.τ.λ.: something lίke μrι~E τφ κυρ'φ 'νοχλιίν is required for the preceding
lacuna, cf: νΙ. 4, 6, 35. The custom of appealing to the highest authority ίη the land οη
quite trivial disputes was inherited from the Ptolemaic period, when similar appeals were
addressed to the king and queen, of \vhich numerous examples are afforded by the papyri.
From νι. 6 it appears that one of the first acts of a new praefect was to issue a proclama-
tion against unnecessary petitions.
38. The λοιπη άξΙωσ,,~ of Dionysia (cf. 42) apparently means her request for the help
of the strategus ίη asserting her rights (33). The strategus considered that the brief answer
of the praefect . . . ~ΙKαΙoι~ χρησθαι ~ύνασθαι justified Ιιίω in acceding to this request.
νι 1-4. These Iines are probably the conclusion of the commands addressed to the
βι,βλιoΦύλαl(ι~ by the strategus, cf. νι. ι ι τα ,κ Tatπη~ TOΙ~ βιβλι,οφύλαξι. lπιστάλματα.
νι. 4-νι!. 8. 'Chaeremon, however, once more renewed his attacks upon me without
cessation, but recognizing the impossibility of accusing me any longer concerηing my l"ights
to possessioη after such elaborate inquiries and so much correspondence had taken place,
tumed his schemes ίη another direction; and though your highness had like your pre-
decessors recently proclaimed that applications concerning private suits were ηο! to be sent
to you, he not only wrote but came ϊη person and mutilated the case, as if he w~re

able to deceive even the lord praefect. Ignoring entirely both the circumstance's tinde~
which the Ietter of Rufus was written, my petition to Rufus, his answer, the' inq uiry held by"
the strategus, the 14eport οΕ the keepers of the archives, the letter written to yon οη the
subject by the strategns, the reply to ίι which you sent to me οη my petition, and the orders
consequently issued Ιο the keepers of the archives, he merely \vrote to you a letter to the
following effect: "From Chaeremon, son of Phanias, ex-gymnasiarch of Oxyrhynchus~
ΜΥ daughter Dionysia, my lord praefect, having committed many implous and illega.l acts
against me at the instigation of her husband Horion, son of Αρίοn, Ι sent to his
exeellency Longaeus Rufus a letter ίn which Ι claimed to recover ίn accordance with the
laws the sums which Ι had made over to her, expecting that this would induce her to stop
her insults. The praefect wrote to the strategus of the nome ίη the 25th year, Pachon
27, enclosing copies of the documents which Ι had submitted, with instructions to
examine my petition and to act accordingly. Since therefore, my lord, she continues her
outrageous behaviour and insultlng conduct towards me, Ι claim to exercise the right given
me by the law, pal"t of which Ι quote below for your information, of taking her away
~gainst her will from her husband's house without exposing myself to violence either ση
the part of aηy ageηt of Horion or of Horion himself, who ίΒ continually threatenlng to use
it. Ι have appended for your information a selection from a large number of cases bearing
υροη this question. 26th year, Pachon." Such was his letter. He could not indeed
·cite a single insult or any other act of injustice against himself with which he charged me,
but malice was the root of his abuse and assertion that he had been shamefully treated by
me, saying that forsooth Ι turned a deaf ear. to him, and a desire to deprive me of the
right which Ι retain over the property. Stranger accusation still, he professes that he is
exposed to violence οη the part ofmy husband, who,.even after my marriage contract with hirp
which stated tl1at Ι brought him this right unimpaired, gave his consent to me and afterwards
to my mother ... when we wished to agree to Chaeremon's mortgaging the property ίn
question for a total sum of 8 talents. Siηce that time (he has continued) attempting Ιο
deprive me of my husband, being unable to deprive me οί my property, ίn order that Ι may
be unable to get provision even from my lawful husband, while from my father Ι have
had neither the dowry which he promised nor any other present, nay more, Ι have never
received at the proper times the aIlowance provided. He also appended the judgements
of Similis as before, and other similar cases quoted by the archidicastes ίn his letter to
Longaeus Rufus, unabashed by the fact that even Rufus had paid ηο attention to them
as a precedent οη account of their dissimilarity (to the present case). . . . But. yoυ~
10rdship exercising your divine memory and unerring judgement took into consideration
the letter \vritten to you by the strategus, and the fact that a searching inquiry into the
affair had already been ,held, and that ... was a pretext for plotting against me; and you
ans\vered the strategus as follows :-" Pomponius Faustianus to Isidorus, strategus of the
Oxyrhynchite nome, greeting. The compIaint which Ι have received from Chaeremon,
ex-gymnasiarch of Oxyrhynchus, accusing Horion, the husband of his daughter, οΕ using
violence against him, has by my orders been appended to this letter. See that the matter
is decided ίη accordance with the previous instructions of his excellency Longaeus Rufus, ία
order that Chaeremon may not send any more petitions οη the same subject. Farewell.
26th year, Pachon 30." Οη the receipt of this letter, Chaeremon b140ught it οη
Epeiph 3 before Harpocration, royal scribe and deputy-strategus; and Ι appeared ίn court
through my husband, and not only weIcotned your orders and desired to abide by them,
but showed that a decision ίn accordance with the previous instructions of Rufus had
already been reached. For- while Chaeremon had written to protest against my claim as
being illegal, Rufus, as was proved both by his answer to Chaeremon and his reply to my
petition, desired that an inquiry should be held to investigate the justness of my claim, and

gave orders to the strategus οη the subject. The strategus did not fail to execute them. He
held a searching inquiry οη the evidence of the keepers of the archives, and wrote to the
praefect a repoI·t οη the whole case.•.. (The decision of the deputy-strategus was) " ... that
the strategus carried out Rufus' instl·uctions by the commands given to the keepel·s of the
archives, and by writing the aforesaid letter οη the subject. But since Chaeremon ίη
the petition which he has no\v sent to his excellency the praefect claimed to take away
his daughter against her will from her husband, and since neither the letter of his late
excellency Rufus nor that of his excellency the praefect Pomponius Faustianus appears
to contain any definite order οη this question, his excellency the praefect can receive
a petition concerning it giving a full account of the facts of the case, ίη order that
judgement may be given ίη accordance with his instructions.",
νι. 5. έτίρφ: έτΕρωσΕ ,vould have been better, for the meaning 'entrusted to some
one else ' is impossible.
8. την τοϋ (Ρούφου Επιστολήν: cf. 15 below; for the details of this summary see introd.
ΡΡ. 146-7·
'Φ' 8τφ έ)'ράφη probably implies that Rufus was under a misapprehension owing to
having heard only one side of the case, when he wrote the comparatively favourable answer
to Chaeremon's petition (15, 16): cf. also ν. 7, note, and introd. ρρ. 145-6.
14. προσήνΕ'Υκα : προσφέΡΕιν is the ,vord regularly used ίη marriage contracts for the
dowry and other presents from her parents brought by the bride.
κατα TOIι~ νόμoυ~: Chaeremon was probably right ίη so far that the native Egyptian law
gave him the power of taking back a do\vry ,vhich he had given, cf. νιΙ. 41.
15. Ε)'ραψΕν: cf. note οη 8 and introd. ρ. 145.
17. του νόμου: cf.. νιι. 27, 34, 4 ι. From those passages ίι is clear that Chaeremon
was quite correct ίη his contention that the native Egyptian ]aw gave him the right to take
away hjs danghter from her husband. But ση the other hand Flavius Titianus had over-
ridden this law (νιι. 29). It is curJous that the native Egyptiaη law, ,vhich has generally
been thought to be much more favourable to women than the Greek or the Roman law,.
should have contained so harsh a provision, and that the rights of fathers should actually
in the second century Α. D. have to be softened by Roman praefects and lawyers. There
is, however, ηο possibility of evading this conclusion. Pαlrzα Poleslαs was certainly foreign'
to Greek law (Mitteis, Rezchsrecht und Volksrechl, ρ. 66); and to the hypothesis that this
right was given to fathers under the Ptolemaic regime there is the further objection that the
νόμo~ is characterized ϊη νιΙ. 34, 40-1 as specifically , Egyptian.' There is ηο trace of
this provision ίη the volumJnous treatises of Μ. Revillout upon Egyptian law relating
to women; but perhaps this is not surprising.
ι 9. των ΠΕΡΙ τούΤα/ΙΙ πραχθέντωιι όλί)'α: i.e. precedents from similar cases; cf. 28 below,
whence it can be inferred what Chaeremon's evidence was. The phrase might mean the
facts bearing οη the dispute between Chaeremon and Dionysia, cf. VII. 7 πάντωιι των έν τφ
πράγματι πραχθ/1ΙΤωιι, 'the history σΕ the affair '; but ChaeIemon \vould ηοΙ be likely to state
that he had οηlΥ selected a few of the facts of the case, nor to fail to draw attention to the
precedents in his favour.
2 ι. ''Πι φθόνφ seems to have the meaning οΕ έπιφθόνως, if indeed the absence of a final
r is not a mere blunder. The seηse ' οη the charge of φΟ6vοr,' even though Εφ' φ μΙμφεται
immediately precedes, is not satisfactory, for Chaeremon had chal·ged Dionysia with much
\vorse offences than φθόνος.
The sentence 21-27 is very involved, and severaI sel'ious corrections appear to be
necessary to obtain a satisfactory construction.
22. Οη the transactions concerning the κατοχή, see introd. ρρ. 142-5. κατοχήν seems
to be a mistake for κατοχης, but the constructIon of this line is very difficult.

24. μ[η]τρΙ: cf. 1V. 30, νιι!. 25, note, and ν. 33, which tends to sho\v that Dionysia's
l'ights came somehow from her mother. Combining this with the present passage, according
to which the consent of Dionysia's mother as well as that of Dionysia seems to have been
necessary for Chaeremon's mortgage of the property, it may be conjectured that the
ούσία ίη question was originaHy part of the dowry of Dionysia's mother. Dionysia, however,
does not seem ever to lay much stress ση rights derived from her mother. The Υράμματα
of her father, including the άΠΟΥρaφή (Υ. 23) and όμολΟΥήματα (1Υ. 6, 36), w.ere the important
evidence concerning the κατοχή.
26. άπα του πaτpα~ κ.τ.λ.: the truth of Dionysia's assertion that she had not I'eceived
her dowry is doubtful, cf. introd. ρ. 145. _
27. χορηΥΕιν is generallΥ. used of the provision made by the husband for his wife, as ίη
26, but it is also used of the parents; cf. C. Ρ. R. 24. 18, and see introd. ρ. 144.
28. '2ιιμίλιδo~: Flavius Sulpicius Similis, praefect ίη Α. D. 182 (cf. νιι!. 27). 1t may
be doubted whether Dionysia was quite ingenuous ίη saying that Rufus paid ησ attention to
the evidence of Chaeremon, for the letter of Rufus seems to have been favourable to him,
cf. note οη VI. 8 and introd. ρ. 145.
3 ι. άvτέyραψEν is a slip for άνTέΎpaΨα~.
35. Possibly σΕ ίΒ 10st after έρρωσθ(αι); but a petition quoted ίη 1Χ (introd. ρ. 151)
addressed appal'ently to Annius Syriacus, praefect ίη Α. D. 163, concludes /ρρωσθ(αι) Εύχομαι,
ήΥΕμων κύΡΙΕ. The pronoun is also omitted ίη Brit. Mus. Pap. CCXIII. verso 13, of the .
third century. But the full phrase, which becomes pI'actically universal ίη the fourth
century, occurs ίn an Oxyrhynchus papyrus as early as the 16th year of Trajan.
νιΙ. 1-7. The judgement of the deputy-strategus, cf. 10 below and introd. ρ. 148.
7. Above the lJ and v of δύναται are two signs like 11, and a similar sign recurs at the
bottom of ΙΧ. 1η all three cases the ink is not that used by the person who wrote the
8-19. 'Οη all points then, my lord praefect, the affair being now clear, and the·
malice of my father towards me being evident, Ι now once more make my petition to you,
giving a full account of the case ίη accordance with the decision of the royal scribe and
deputy-strategus, and beseech you to give orders that written instructions be sent to the
strategus to enforce the payment to me of the provisions at the proper times, and to restrain
at length his attacks upon me, which previously were based υροη the charge of an illegal
claim, but now have the pretext of a law which does not apply to him. For ηο law permits
wives against their will to be separated from their husbands; and if there is any such law,
it does not apply to daughters of a marriage by written contl'act and themselves married by
written contract. 1η proof of my contention, and ίn order to deprive Chaeremon of even
this pretext, Ι have appended a small selection from a large number of decisions ση this
question given by praefects, procurators, and chief justices, together with opinions of lawyers,
all proving that women who have attained maturity are mistresses of their persons, and
remain with their husbands or not as they choose; and not only that theyare not subject to
their fathers, but that the law does not permit persons to escape a suit for the recovery of money
by the subterfuge of counter-accusations; and thirdly that it ίΒ lawful to deposit contracts
ίη the public archives, and the claims arising from these contracts have been recognized by
all praefects and emperors to be valid and secure, and πο one is permitted to contradict his
own written engagements. Ιη this way too he wiIl at length cease from continually troubling
the praefecture with the same demands, as you yourself wished ίη your·letter.'
ΊΟ. xopηyία~: cf. νι 27 and introd. ρρ. 144-5.
ι ι. ΤΕ after έπίσχειν is corrected from ~E.
13. 'J)ΥΡάΦω~ YEYEνημένα~ seems to be a mere repetition of έξ έryράΦωv γάμων γEYEVΗμένα~,
and most probably YEYEνημ;να~ is a mistake for YEΎαμημένα~; cf. νι 23, from \Yhich it appears

that there was a συΙ'ί'ραΦή between Dίοnγsίa and Horion. 1t 1S clear, both from Dionysia's
admission here (εί Tί~ 'στι) and -from the πpoσΦώνησι~ οΕ Ulpius Dionysodorus ϊη νιιι.
2-7, that a distinction had arisen bet\veen the rights of a father over the person of a
daughter Εξ άΥράφων γάμ.ων who was not married Eyypάφω~, and his rights over a daughter
Εξ 'ΎγράΦων γάμων, \vho \vas married EΎΎpάΦω~, and that the freedom of children ίn the former
class was much less than that of children ϊη the latter. Indeed it seems that daughters
;ξ άΥράφωιι γάμων could not claim to have the judgement of Titianus made applicable to
themselves unless they were married EYΎPάΦω~, cf. νιιΙ. 2-7 and VII. 32, note. Α parallel
instance is afforded by C. Ρ. R. 18, which proves that a child by an ίlΎpaΦo~ ί'άμo~ could not
ίη the lifetime of the father make a will ίη favour of any one else. But it may be doubted
whether so far as the national Egyptian law \vas concerned Dionysia's second position, that
ηο law allowed daughters έξ 'πράφων Ι'αμών who were EγypάΦω~ Ι'ΕΥaμημέ7!αι to be taken away
from their husbands, is any more correct than her first statement that ηο law allowed αny
daughters to be taken away, which ίΒ certainly untrue, cf. νΙ1. 32, note. We should haνe
at any rate expected some reference by Dionysia herself or ίη the cases quoted by her ίη
νιΙ. 19-43 to the passage of the law forbidding fathers to take away from their husbands
daughters ίξ 'πράφων Ι'άμων who ,vere έγΥράφωr ΥΕΥαμημέ"αι. But ίn the arguments of the
adνocates ίη the trials before Flaνius Titianus and Paconius Felix nothing is said about
ίΥΥραφοι or 3:Υραφοι γάμοι, and the natural inference from these trials ί8 that the law made ησ
exceptions ίη the right which it conferred upon fathers Ιο take away their daughters. The
strength of Dionysia's case lay not ίη the Egyptian law, which οη al1 points seems Ιο have
been ση the side of Chaeremon, but ίη the judgements of praefects and others oνerriding it.
14. ίπιτρόπων: ίπίτροποι ίη Roman papyri are generally procurαlores Cαesαris who
were concerned with the royaI domains. But ηο judgements of this kind of ίπίτροποι or of
dpXtlJLKαoταt occur ίn VII, VIII, or apparently ίn ΙΧ. Ιη VII. 29-38, however, there ίΒ
a vπομvημαTLσμό~ of an epistrategus, and it ίΒ to this that έΠΙTpόπωrι probably refers; cf.
Β. G. U. 168. ι and 4, where an epistrategus ίΒ addressed as Επιτρόπων μέγιστε. The
absence of any judgements of άρχιlJικaσταl perhaps points to another column having been
108t after ΙΧ, but cf. introd. ρ. ι 5 ι.
16. The construction is difficult. ov μόνον apparently has the sense of' ηο! οηΙΥ not,'
which is assisted by ovlJ' έΦ~ϊTaι following.
19-20. 'Extract from the minutes of Flavius Titianus, sometime praefect. The
12th year of the deified Hadrian, Payni 8, at the court ίη the agora. Antonius, Βοη of
Apollonius, appeared and stated through his advocate, Isidorus the younger, that his father-
in-Iaw Sempronius had been induced by his mother to quarrel with him and to take
away his (Sempronius') daughter against her will, and that, when she fell ίΙΙ οη being
deserted, the epistrategus Bassus, being sympathetically disposed, declared that if they
wished to live together Antonius ought not to be prevented. But Sempronius took ηο
notice, and jgnoring this dec]aration sent a petition to the praefect accusing Antonius of
violence, to which be received an answer ordering the rival parties to appear. Antonius
claimed therefore that, if ίι pleased the praefect, he should not be divorced [1"Om a wife
with whom he was οη good terms. Didymus, advocate of Sempronius, replied that his
client had had good reason for having been provoked. For it was because Antonius had
threatened Ιο charge him with incest, and he refused Ιο submit to the insult, that he had
used the power allowed him by the laws, and had himself brought the action against
Antonius. Probatianus οη behalf of Antonius added that if the marriage \yas not cancelled
the father had ηο power over the dowry any more than over the daughter whom he had
given ίη marriage. Titianus said: 'The decision depends upon the question, with whom.
the wife wishes to live. Ι have read over and signed this judgement.'
2 Ι. ,Ι< μη.,.ρO~ άΦopμη~ probablΥ qualifies άπισπακέιιαι. rnore than Jλθό"τα.

23. άποφαίvιται: φαιν is corrected from φαν. If the indicatiνe is retained, the subject
must be Antonius; but ίn that case (ι) the present tense is curious since the other
verbs, when not ίn the infinitive, are ίη the past, e. g. άπικριίνατο ίn 25 and προσέθηι<.Εν ίη 28,
(2) 81'ι-θέλοιιν will then have ιο depend οη a verb of speaking ιο be supp1ied out of μΕτα­
παθως άνασrραφένTα, (3) the construction after άποφαίνιται will be first a participle and then
an infinitive ήι<.ουκέναι, (4) αποφαίνιται from its position ought to govern 81'Ι, which, since
8τι-θέλοιιν is clearly a declaration by the epistrategus, it cannot do. Οη all these grounds,
therefore, it is better to read άποφαίνισθαι with Bassus as the subject, as ίη our
25. άποζΕυχθηναι: this shows that the dπι)σπασιS' of the daughter by her father was ηο
temporary measure, but intended to be a permanent divorce.
27. ι<.ατα TOVS' νόμοvS': cf. 34-35, which leave ηο doubt about the right conferred by the
national Egyptian laws, and note οη νι 17.
28. άπιρίλvτοS' is used of a cόηtract which is 'not canceIIed'; cf. cclxxi. 2 ι, and the
clause sometimes inserted ίη (Fayum) marriage contracts, e. g. Β. G. U. 183. 10 and
251. 8, μινούσηS' ~E έπι χώραS' τηS' σvγΥραφηS' ταύ1'ηS' άπ~ρlλv1'ΟV ιΙναι. That Antonius and his
wife were married εγΥράφωS' is clear from the use of this word and of έκ8Εδομένη, for which
cf. νιιι. 5 and the Oxyrhynchus marriage contracts which frequently begin with the word
έξέδοτο, e. g. ccclxxii. 1t is almost certain that the wife was aIso Εξ έγγράφων γάμων, cf.
notes οη 32 and νιιι. 4. Probatianus' argument, therefore, ίη so far as it concerns the
person of the daughter, resembles that of Dionysia ίη νιΙ. 12 (εΙ δΕ και εστιν TtS', ιΙλλ' ού, κ.τ.λ.);
and a general survey of Dionysia's evidence leads to the conclusion that that argument, so
far as the Egyptian law was concerned, was unsound; cf. νι 17-8, νιι. 27, 34-5. That
Dionysia should use ίι was, after the judgements of Titianus and Paconius Felix, quite
natural. But ίn the mouth of Probatianus at the trial before Titianus it must have been
an appeal to equity, not Ιο the Egyptian law, which undoubtedly was οη the side of the
father -and had to be overridden by the judge (νι!. 34). But Probatianus was chiefly
concerned with the question of the dowry, the claim to the Jξοvσία over the person of the
daughter having been discussed by Isidorus. Οη the rights of an Egyptian wife over her
dowry, which never became the property of her husband, see Mitteis, Reichsrech/ und
Volksrecht, ρρ. 230 sqq., though the new fact proved by this papyrus that the father had
by native Egyptian law cOl1siderable rIghts over the dowry puts the freedom of the ,voman
ίn a very different light.
Α clause enacting that ίη the case of the wife's death without children the dowry should
return to her family is sometimes found ίn marriage contracts from Oxyrhynchus, e. g.
cclxv. 30, 31. ΒΥ the Theodosian code the husband might ίη this case receive as much as
half the dowry (Mitteis, 0/. cz"l., ρρ. 248-50).
29. άΡΕγνων. σΕσημΕlωμαι: the official sIgnature of the praefect giving IegaI vaIidity to the
vπομνηματισμόS'; cf. Β. G. U. 136. 27, where άνέΥνων alone occurs.
29-38. 'Extract from the minutes of Paconius Felix, epistrategus. The ι 8th
year of the deified Hadrian, Phaophi 17, at the court ίη the upper division of the Sebennyte
nome, ϊη the case of Phlauesis, son of Ammounis, ίη the presence of his daughter Taeichekis,
against Heron, son of Petaesis. Isidorus, advocate for Phlauesis, said that the plaintiff therefore,
wishing to take away his daughter who was Iiving with the defendant, had I'ecently brought
an action against him before the epistrategus and the case had been deferred ίn order that
the Egyptian law might be read. Severus and Heliodorus, advocates (for Heron), replied
that the late praefect Titianus heard a similar plea adνanced by Egyptian witnesses, and
that his judgement was ϊη accordance not with the inhumanity of the law but with the choice
of the daughter, whethel· she wished to remain with her husband. Paconius Felix said,
"Let the law be read." When it had been read Paconius Felix said," Read aJso the minute of

Titianus." Severus the advocate having read "The 12th year of Hadrianus Caesar the lord,
Payni 8 (&c.)," Paconius Felix said, "Ιη accordance with the decision of his highness
Titianus, they shall find out from the woman," and he ordered that she should be asked
through an interpreter what \vas her choice. Οη her replying "Το remain with my
husband," Paconius Felix ordered that the judgement should be entered οη the minutes.'
30. Εν '1'fi παρα l1.vω Σι€β€νvύτου can hardly be right. Perhaps παρά is a corruption of
ά-yop~, cf. 20 above.
3 Ι. OVV: the early part of Isidorus' argument seems to be omitted; cf. the next ύπομ,νη­
μαTισμ()~, 39 sqq., which begins ίη the midtile of the proceedings.
32. συνοικουσαν: the use of this neutral term (cf. νιιΙ. 5 άyράφω~ συνφKησ€) might
suggest that ίη this case \ve have to do with an ίI:ypαφo~ l'άμo~. The precise legal point
ίη these three trials is very complicated because a daughter rnight be (ι) εξ 'γγράΦων γάμ,ων
and married εγΥΡάφωr as Dionysia claimed to be (VI Ι. 13), (2) lξ ΕΥΥράφων Υάμων and
man'ied άΥΡάφωr; (3) Εξ άΥράφων Υάμ.ων and marrίeιΙ Εγ,,/ράφωr, (4) 'ξ άΥράφων γάμων and
married άΥΡάΦωr; and we have to consider ίη each case (α) the native Egyptian law and
(b) the modifications intl'oduced by praefects. As we have said (VII. 13, note), the native
Egyptian law seems to be perfectly general and admit of ηο exceptions. ΒΥ it permission
was given Ιο the father to take away his daughter, to whicheνer of the four classes she
belonged. lt is clear, however, that the modifications introduced by the Romans did not
apply to all four cases ίη the same degree. The προσΦώνησιr of Dionysodorus (νιιι. 2-7)
is concerned with a daughter ίη class (3) and the inference from it is (a) that the cases of
daughters belonging to classes (1) and (2) had already been decided, (b) that to daughters
ίη class (4) the native Egyptian law still applied, as indeed we should expect from Dionysia's
admission ίη νιΙ. 13 €Ι δε καΙ ~σ'1'ιν '1'ιr, κ.τ.λ. It is impossible to suppose that the cases
tried before Titianus, Paconius Fe1ix, and Umb..ius all concerned daughters ϊη classes (3) or
(4), [οι· then we should have Ιο admit that Dionysia cited ηο evidence bearing directly οη
her ο\νη case. Moreover the case of a ,,'oman ίη class (3) had clearly ηοέ been settled at
the time of the πpoσΦώVΗσι~, which is later than the three trials. These, therefore, are con-
cerned with daughters ίη class (Ι) or (2). Ιη the case tried before Titianus the daughter
belongs Ιο class (ι), see note οη νιΙ. 28; and as Titianus' judgement formed a precedent ίη
·the trial before Paconius Felix, it is clear that if the daughter ίη the latter trial belonged to
class (2) the epistrategus was ηο! ίη the least influenced by the fact that, while she was
άyράφω~ yε:yαμ,ημEVΗ, ίn Titianus' case the daughter was έγypάΦω~ ΥΕγαμ,ημ.έυη. 1t is, therefore,
ηο! very likely that the term συνοικείν ίη VII. 32 implies an I1ΥρaΦο~ -Υάμοr, especial1y as ίη
that case we should have expected a much n10re definite statement; cf. note οη cclxvi. ι ι.
If it does, then the case tried before Paconius Felix is, lίke the πpoσΦώνησι~ of Dionysodorus
(νΙΙ1. 2-7), a kind of α /όΥIΖΟΥΖ· argument ίη Dionysia's favour: i. e. if the ΕξουσΙα of a father
did ηο! extend oνer a daughter lξ ίγΥράΦων γάμων and dΥΡάΦωr y€yaμημένη, still less would it
do so ίη the case of one like herself 'ξ ίγΥράΦων Υάμων and έγγράΦωr γEyαμημ,έVΗ. 1f, however,
ίη the trial before Paconius Fe1ix the daughter belongs to class (1) (and the absence of
any argument οη the father's side that his daughter was άγpάΦω~ Υ€γl1μημΙνη is ίη favour of
this view), the second trial simply repeats the judgement of the first which, as we have seen,
bears directly οη Dionysia's own case. The third tria], that before Umbrius, is incomplete,
and probably the daughter belongs to the same class as ίη the second trial. συνείυaι, which
occurs ίη νιΙ. 43, is, like ΣVVOtI(fiv, equally compatible with an ;yypαΦo~ or ίJ.γΡaΦοr yάμo~;
cf. cclxvii. 19 σύν€σμ,€1J άλλήλoι~ άΥράφωr with cclxv. 31 'Φ' Αν εάυ συνωσιν άλλήλoι~ χρόνον, which
occurs ίη a marriage contract.
34. προσώπων: cf. νιΙ. 40, where the word is again used ίn the sense of 'persons,' and
Β. G. U. 323. 12.
35. aναΥνωσθητσ: Ι άναΥνωσθήτω, and ίn the next line άνάyνωT€ for αυαγυω'1'αι.

38. Ενιχθηυaι is ηο doubt a corruption of έλ~yxθηναι, for the daughter ,vas ίη court (3Ι),
and a word meaning 'asked ' is imperatively required by the context.
39-43. 'Extract from the minutes of Umbrius, z·uridzcus. The 6th year of
Domitian, Phamenoth ... DidJ me, defended by her husband Apollonius, against Sabinus

also called Casius: extract from the proceedings. Sarapion :-" Inquire of the witnesses who
are Egyptians, amongst whom the severity of the law is untempered. For Ι declare to you
that the Egyptians have power to deprive their daughters not οηlΥ of what they have
given them, but of whatever these daughters may acquire for themselves besides." Umbrius
said to Sabinus :-" Ifyou have aΙreadγ once given a dowry to your daughter, you must restore
ίι" Sabinus:-" Ι request ... " Umbrius :-" Το your daughter ofcourse." Sabinus :-" She
ought not to live with this man." Umbrius :-" 1t is worse to take away (a wife) from her
husband (than a dowry fron1 a daughter ?)" ••• '
40. Sarapion, who was ηο doubt the adνocate of Sabinus, appears to be addressing the
42. Apparently Sabinus had taken away the dowry which he had given to his daughter.
The dialogue which follows is obscure. The judgement of the ~ικαιo~όTη~ was ηο doubt ίη
favour of the daughtel·, or Dionysia would not have quoted the case.
νιι!. 2-7. 'Copy of a lawyer's ορίηίοη. Ulpius Dionysodorus, ex-agoranomus,
lawyer, to his most esteemed Salvistius Africarius, praefect of a troop and judicial officer,
greeting. Since Dionysia has been given away by her father ίn marriage, she is ηο longer
ίη his power. For even though her mother lived with her father without a marriage contract,
and οη that account she appears to be the child of a marriage without contract, by the fact
of her ha νing been given awaΥ ίη marriage by her father, she is ηο longel the child of

a man·iage \yjthout contract. 1t is about this point probably that you write to me, my good
friend. Moreover, there are minutes of trials which secure the rights of the daughter
against her father ίη respect of the dowry, and this too can help her.'
2. Α 1Ι0μΙΚ6r was frequently appointed to act as assessor where the judge was a
soldier and therefore not a legal expert. Cf. C. Ρ. R. 18, the report of a trial befol·e Blaesius
Marianus, επαρχοr σπεlΡηr ΠΡώτηr Φλαουlαr Kιλίιcωll ίππικηs-, who has the νομικόs- Artemidorus as his
legal assessor. The present προσΦώllησιr is an answer by a llομικός to a technical question
addressed to him by an [παρχο, στόλου acting as judge, and invotves a point of law some..
what different from that of the cases tried before Titianus and Paconius Felix. Ιη them, as
has been pointed out (VI!. 32 note; probably ϊη the case tried befol·e the ~ικαιοaότηS' as
well), the daughters were lξ 'ΥΥράφων Υάμων. But ίη tbe case with which the προσφώιιησι, is
concerned the daughter was 'ξ άΥράΦων Υάμωll, and therefore the decisions of Titianus and
Paconius Felix did not directly apply. Nevertheless the vομιιcόr declares that the fact of
the daughter having herself contracted an εΥΥΡαφοr Υdμοr (cf. 5 τφ vπο του πατρο, αύτήν
έκ8όσθαι with note οη νιΙ. 28) annulled her status as a person 'ξ άΥράφων Υάμων, and
therefore she was freed from the lξουσία of her father and presumablΥ could appeal to
υπομνηματισμοί such as those of Titianus, Paconius Felix, and Umbι-ίus, as precedents for
staying with her husband and keeping her dowry. This προσφώνησιs- is Dionysia's chief
evidence for her statement (VI!. 14) that the law giving fathers the right to take away theil·
daughteι-s did not apply to those who were lγΥΡάφωS' y~yαμημέναι, while the three ύπομνηματισμοί
are intended to justify her statement that the la,v did not apply ιο daughters έξ έΥΥράΦων γάμων.
Οη both grounds therefore, as being herself ηο! only lξ lγΥράφων Υάμων but lγΥράφωs- ΥΕΥαμη­
μένη, Dionysia could claim the support of legal decisions and opinions, though we haνe
seen that the national Egyptian law was much more unfavourable to her than she allows
(VII. 13, note). That Dionysia~ though herself lξ έΥΥράφων γάμων, should appeal to
a decision regarding persons 'ξ αΥράΦων Υάμων, is intelligible, since the rights of children 'ξ
αΥράφων Υάμων wel·e much Dlore restricted than those 9f children έξ Ε-Υ'Υράφων Υάμων, and there-

fore the ορίηίοη of Ulpius Dionysodorus that an ίΎYpaφo~ 'Yάμo~ freed a daughter lξ ά:ΥράΦων
')'dμωv from the lξοvσία of her father α forllori applied with redoubled force to herself, who
had not οηlΥ contracted an lΎΥΡαΦο~ γάμo~ but was not even by birth Εξ αγράφων γάμ.ων.
3. Σαλουισ'Γ[lφ' Αφ]pΙKανιi': another letter addressed Ιο him with the same titles occurs
ίn the muti1ated Col. ΙΧ (see introd. ρ. 151). Of the writer's name and titles only ['Γων
ήΥΟ]ρaνομηκότωιι survives, but ηο! improbably he was Ulpius Dionysodorus (cf. line 2 here).
Δ[ιον]υσία: the identity of ttliS name with the writer of our papyrus may at first sight
appear more than a mere coincidence, especially as the date of this πρυσφώνησι~ is uncertain,
cf. note οη 7. Eut Salvistius Africanus is not mentioned ίη the early columns, and the
Dionysia \vho wrote the papyrus claimed to be lξ l'ΥγράΦων γάμων. Moreover the date of
the πpoσΦώνησι~ probably falls ίη the reigns of Hadrian or Pius.
4. γΙΙΡΕται: the first ι is inserted over the line. There are two transverse lines through
the 'Γι of OVKETL, apparently ίη the same ink as that used by the person who inserted the signs
ίη VII. 7. Probably they are meaningless.
6-8. These lines are very obscul"e. και 81,' ύπομν.-δύνα'Γαι seems to have been put ίη
as an afterthought, and k:ίJπό ίη 7 to be a mistake for από. The νπομιιημα'Γισμοί would be
such triaIs as those before Titianus and Umbrius the ~ικαιοδό'Γηr, ϊn both of which the
question of dowry is discussed. του'ΓΟ ίη 6 n1eans the ορίηίοη of the JJομικόr which has just
been given, while 'Γου'ΓΟ ίη 7 refers to the preceding sentence και ~ι' νπομν. Κ.'Γ.λ.; cf. note
οη 7.
7-18. 'The 22lld year of the deified Hadrian, Mecheir 20. Copy of a decree.
"ProclamatIon of Valerius Eudaemon, praefect of Egypt. Following a most illustrious
precedent, the ορίηίοη of his highness l\ιlamertinus, and having myself from my own
observation discovered that many debtors when pressed for payment refuse to satisfy
the just clairns of their creditors, and by the threat ofbringing a more serious Chal"ge, attempt
either to evade altogether or to postpone payment, some because they expect to terrify their
creditors who perhaps may be induced through fear of the dangel" to accept less than the
full amount, others because they hope that the threat of an action will make their creditors
l"enOUnce their claims, Ι proclaim that such persons shall abstain from this form of
}ζηaverΥ, and shall pay their debts or use pel"SUaSion to meet the just demands of their
creditors. For any person, who, when an action for the recovery of a debt is brought
against him, does not immediately deny the claim, that is to say does not immediately
declare that the contract ί8 forged and write that he will bring an accusation, but
subsequently attempts to make a charge either of forgery or false pretences οτ fraud,
either shall derive ηο advantage from such a device and be compelled at once to paΥ his
debts; or else shall place the money οη deposit ίη order that the recovery of the debts may
be assured, and then, ,vhen the money action has come to an end, if he has confidence
ίη the proofs of his accusation, he shall enter upon the more serious law-suit. And even
80 he shall not escape his liabilities, but shall be subject to the legal penalties. The 5th
year οΕ the deified Ae1ius Antoninus, Epeiph 24.'"
7. The dates at the beginning and end of the ~ιά'Γα'Yμα of Eudaemon COll&titute one of
the greatest difficulties ίn the papyrus. Since the date ίη 18 cannot refer to what follows
(another date comes immediately after it), we should naturally suppose the 5th year of Pius
to refer to the proclamation of Eudaemon and the 22nd year of Hadrian to the
πpoσΦώvησ,,~ of Ulpius Dionysodorus. This however is impossible, for the praefect from the
3rd to the 6th year of Pius is known to have been Avidius Heliodorus (cf. C. Ι. G. 4955
with Β. G. U. 113. 7), while the date ofEudaemon's praefecture had already been assigned
with much probability to the last year or two of Hadrian οη the evidence of Ο. Ρ. Ι. χΙ,
which suits Eudaemon's reference here to Petronius Mamertinus, praefect ίη 134-5 and
ησ doubt his immediate predecessor. The date therefore ίη line 7, the 22nd year οί

Hadrian, must refer to Eudaemon's proclamation, though it is unsatisfactol"y that it comes

before άvτlΥΡaφον ~ιατάyμaτ(}~ instead of after it, for the rule is that the date should either
follow the title, as e.g. ϊη νιΙ. 20, 30, or be placed at the end, as ίη νιιΙ. 27 and 43.
This difficultJT, however, is as nothing compared to the problem which then arises concerning
the date ίn line 18. Unless there is some mistake ίη the papyrus as to these two dates,
the οηlΥ document to which the date ίη 18 can apply is the τrpoσΦώιιησι~ of Dionysodorus.
We should then have to suppose that Dionysodorus enclosed a copy of Eudaemon's pro-
clamation and that the last sentence καΙ τουτο αύτfj (30ηθιίv ~ύναTαι refers to tlle proclamation.
This course has the advantage of supplying a date f01" the προσΦώιιησιs, which has not got
one at the beginning, and cannot claim the date ίη line 7 without Jeaving the proclamation
of Eudaemon undated; but the objections to it are quite insuperable. (ι) We should
expect Tόδ~ ίn place of τουτο ίη 7, and some reference Ιο the proclamation which he had
appended (cf. νι 19, νιιΙ. 27). (2) Though such an alTangement of dates is possible,
ίι is not ίη itself ΡΙΌbabΙe. Ιη νι!ι. 27 where the διάταΥμα of Similis quotes the διάταΥμα of
Mettius Rufus, the date of Similis' edict is put at the end of his own διάταγμα, and the date
of Rufus' at the end of his (νιι!. 43), (3) The proclamation of Eudaemon does not appear
to have the least bearing οη the πpoσΦώνησι~, which is cOl1cel"ned with the rights of a father
over his daughter, while οη t11e other hand there is every reason for Dionysia to quote the
proclamation after the evidence bearing οη the άπ&σπασι~ question, since ίη VII. 16 she
declared her intention of proving firstly the injustice of the άπόσπασιs-, secondly ΟΤΙ ούδ' έφείται
έπΙ πpoΦάσ~ι έτέρων 'Υκλημάτων ΦΕύΥΕιν Tα~ χρηματικαr δίκαr, which is the very subject of
Eudaemon's proclamation and of the following ύπομνημaτισμ6r (VIII. 18-2 ι). We are there-
fol"e Ieduced to the hypothesiS' that something has gone ,vrong ίη the arrangement of dates
ίn 7 and 18. T,vo methods of solving the difficulty may be suggested. The first is Ιο
suppose that the date ίn 18 refers Ιο a ύπoμνηματισμό~ or πρoσΦώνησι~ which [or some reason
has been omitted; but this is open Ιο the objection that the πpoσΦώνησι~ of Dionysodorus
will then be left without a date. The solution which satisfies every requirement except that
of inherent probability is to suppose that the dates ίη 7 and 18 have been wrongly trans-
posed. Then both the πpoσΦώνησι~ and the proclamation will have dates and the date of
th~ proclamation will come ίη a natural place. But though as has been stated the present
papyrus is probably a copy and not the original of the petition, and there are a good many
minor mistakes, such an error is verJ' difficult to explain.
8. Mαμ~PΤEΙνoυ: Petronius Mamertinns, w ho is known from Β. G. U. Ι 14 and 19 to have
been praefect from Feb. 25, 134, to Feb. 11, 135. νιιΙ. 43, where a ύπoμνηματισμό~ of
his js quoted, shows that he \\Tas already praefect οη Νον. ι ι, 133.
10; μ~ιζόνα/ν: i.e. mol"e serious than an action for the recovery of a debt.
12. τηr ~ίKη~ apparently goes ,vith έπανaTάσ~ι, since there is ηο instance of άπaυδaν
governing a genitive. Otherwise it would be more satisfactory to construct it with
άπαυ~ήσEιν ίn the sense of the χρηματικη δίκη, cf. 13 and νιΙ. 16.
14. ~ί ~ίτ~ κ ..,..λ. is perhaps defensible, but the sentence would be much improved by
reading ~lTα or ~lT) ~l.
16. το άναλαβFίν όΦΕιλόμ[ΕναJ 1ί: as it stands, όΦHλόμ~να must mean debts ίη general. τα
όΦ~ίλoμ~να would be an improvement. There is not l·oom for όΦ~ιλόμ[ΕJ1{JvJ.
ι 7-18. oύ~E τόΤΕ κ.τ.λ.: the sense of this is that even if the debtor won his μ~I'ων άΥών it
would not absolve him from the penalties incurred through fai1ure to repay his debt at the
proper time. The usual penalty for non-payment of a debt was enforced payment of the
ήμιόλιον or ι l times the original sum; cf. e. g. Ο. Ρ. ι. ci. 44.
18. (E'TOVS') ~ θΕου κ •.,..λ.: see note οη 7.
18-21. 'The 15th year of Antoninus Caesar the lord, Thoth 16. Flavia
Maevia having been summoned to defend herself against Flavia Helena and having obeyed,
her advocate ... said: "We have been posted ίn the list (of accused persons), we demand
our rights ίη connexion with the money claim." Munatius said: "The money claim is not
barred by these new accusations. Otherwise every one will say that Ι am your accuser.'"
19. This brief account of an application Ιο a magistrate (probably the praefect, cf. note
οη 20) is clearlyan exemplification of Eudaemon's decree. Flavia Maevia had brought
an action against Flavia l-Ielena for the recovery of a debt, to which the latter
responded by herself bringing an accusation against Maevja. The advocate of Maevia
asks that the debt may not be evaded ίη this way, and the magistrate gives a favourable
reply, ίη accordance with the edict of Eudaemon.
20. Μουνάτιος': doubtless L. Munatius Felix, who is known from Brit. Mus. Pap.
CCCL νιιΙ. 17 to have been praefect about Α. D. 150. His date is a matter of some
importance because Justin Martyr mentions him ίη the Apology (Cap. 29) and a lermznus
α quo for the date of that cornposition is thus obtained. The present passage shows that he
was praefect οη Sept. 13, Α. D. Ι 5 Ι.
2 Ι. Ερουσιν: ν above the line.
21-27. 'And (a copy) of a decree of Similis. Proclamation of Flavius Sulpicius
Similίs, praefect of Egypt. When Ι wished to know οη what pretext it came about that
Egyptian wives have by native Egyptian ]aw a claim upon their husbands' property through
theil" marriage contracts both for themselves and for their children ίn very many cases, and
the question was disputed for a year, ... that (because) they deposited their marriage
contracts at different record-offices, l\lettius Rufus sometime praefect Ordel"ed that wives
should insert copies of their marriage contracts ίn the property-statements of their husbands,
and ordained this by a decree, a copy of which Ι have appended to make clear that Ι am
following the commands of Mettius Rufus. The 23rd year, Athyr 12.'
2 Ι sqq. These lines contain, ίη a somewhat imperfect condition, the edict of Similis
referIed to by Dionysia ίη IV. 36, when discussing the disputed κατοχή. But as the main
object of Similis' decree ,,,as to re-inforce the decree of Mettius Rufns, which is giνen ίη
15-43 and is practicall)' cornplete, the partial 10ss of Ιίne 24 is not vel"y serious and the
general sense of Similis' edict is clear, for which see introd. ρ. 150. lt must be remembered
that we are now dealing with the thil"d point οη which Dionysia declared ίη VII. 15-18 hel'
intention of bl"inging eνidence; cf. introd. ρ. 149.
2 Ι. και Ιιμίλι80ς' διaτάΥμαΤΟ$ depends upon αvτίypαφoν understood, cf. νιιΙ. 7. There is
a considerable space left blank before καί, and it is quite impossible to connect 8ιαf'άΥματος'
with κατηΥορω.
δια(ητουντι: the question was apparently addressed to the legal authorities, who could
not agree; so Sirnilis to make rnatters clearer issued this decl"ee reaffirming that of Mettius
Rufus. The dative is goνerned by the verb meaning 'answered ' at the beginning of 24,
which has resisted our efforts.
22. Cf. 34 below ίαν κατά τινα ίπι.χώριον νόμ.ον ΚΡατειται τα ύπάΡΧΟJlτα. Οη κατέΧΕιν, which
here interchanges with κρατεϊν, see introd. ρ. 142. ίπιχώριος' νόμΟ$, ' native Egyptian law, was ίη
the Ptolemaic period contrasted with πoλΙTΙKO~ JιόμΟ$, the ' State (ί. e. Greek) law' introduced
by the Ptolemies (Mitteis, ορ. CΖΊ., ρ. 50). Whether under the Romans the distinction was
maintained is uncertain, but ίπιχώΡΙΟ$ ηο doubt here means ancient Egyptian, like the
"όμος' ίη VI!. 34, 40-41 (cf. note οη VI. 17) and ό των ΑΙΥυπτίων vdpιor ίη C. Ρ. R. 18
(cf. note οη νιι 13).
25. έτέρΟΙ$, i. e. they deposited the marriage contracts which gave their ,vives a κατοχή
over their property, ηοΙ ϊη the archives ,vhich contained the ordinary αΠΟΥραΦαί of their
property and which could be consulted by persons desirous of knowing its exlent before
entering into contracts with them, but ίη another βιβλιοθήκη, where they might hope that the
κατοχή would escape notice, cf. 36. One of the main objects of the decree of Mettius Rufus

was to ensure that the κατοχα! to which real property was liable should be registered
along with the statements of the property.
')'Ενόμ,Ενον: the word which follows is not έπ[τροπονι. •
26. ύποστΙΙσεσιν: cf. 34 and 42. The ύποστάσει, were distinct from the ιίΠΟΥραΦαΖ, which
Wel"e only one class of the documents concerning ownership. ύπόrτTaσ", of which the central
meaning is 'substance,' i. e. p1"operty (cf. e. g. ο. Ρ. ι. cxxxviii κινaύvφ έμφ και τη, έμ,ηr ύπο­
στάσΕω,), iS used here for the whole body of documents bearing οη the ownership of a person's
pl"operty (whether αποl,ραΦαί, sales, mortgages, &c.) deposited ίη the archives, and forming the
evidence of ownership. ΒΥ the edict of Mettius Rufus (VIII. 31-43) all owners of
house or land property were commanded to register it (αΠΟ'Υράφεσθαι) within six months of
the edict, and ίη the ύποστάσειr wives-"and,children had to insert (έντιθΙναι 26, or παρατιθέναι 34)
a statement of their claims, if any. The aιαστρώμ,ατα were the ' digests' or official abstracts of
documents refelTing to ownership of land and houses, and were also evidence for a title to
possession. The necessity ofkeeping the aιαστρώματα up to date is the central ροίηι ίn Mettius
Rufus' decree. For examples of official διαστρώματα of about Α. D. 100 containing
property lists \vith annotations stating subsequent changes, quite ίn accordance with the
commands given ίη 41-42, see cclxxiv and ccclx.
27. (ετου,) ΚΙ': the reading is not quite certain, but there is not much room for error.
Ί-'he absence of the emperor's name points to the decree belonging to the current reign ;
ann though Commodus ίη Egypt counted his regnal years from the date of his father's
accession he does not appear ίη dates upon papyri until Α. D. 176, and his sole reign only
began ίn the middle of his 20th year. The date therefore fcίlls between the 21st year
and the 25th, \vhen Longaeus Rufus appears as praefect.
27-43. 'Proc]amation of Marcus Mettius Rufus, praefect of Egypt. Claudius
Areus, strategus of the Oxrhynchite nome, has informed me that both private and ρπ blic
affairs are ίn a disorganized condition because for a long time the official abstracts ίn the
propel"ty record-office have not been properly kept, ίn spite of the fact that my predecessors
have ση many occasions ordered tl)at these abstracts should I'eceive the due corrections.
This cannot be done adequately unless copies are made from the beginning. Therefore
Ι command all o\vners to register their property at the property record-office within six
months, and all lenders to register their mortagages, and all others having claims upon
property to register them. And \v hen they make the return they shall severaIIy declare the
sources from which the property acquired has come into their possession. Wives shall also
insert copies ίn the property-statements of their husbands, if ίn accordance with any
native Egyptian law they have a claim over their husbands' property, and children shall do
the same ίn the property-statements of their parents, where the usufruct of the property
has been guaranteed to the parents by public contracts but the right of ownership after
their death has been settled upon the children, ίη order that persons entering into
agreements may not be defrauded through igno)"ance. Ι also command al1 scribes and
recorders of contracts not to execute contracts without an order from the record-office, and
warn them that not only wHl failure Ιο observe this order invalidate their proceedings, but
they themselves will suffer the due penalty of t~eil" disobedience. If the record-office
contains any registrations of property of earlier date let them be preserved \vith the utmost
care, and likewise the official abstl"acts of them, ίn order that, if any inquiry is made here-
after concerning false returns, those documents and the abstracts of them may supply the
proofs. Therefore ίn order that the use of the abstracts may become secure and pern1anent,
and prevent the necessity of another registration, Ι command the keepers of the record-offices
to revise the abstracts every five years and to transfer to the new ones the last statement
of property of each person arranged under villages and classes. The 9th year
of Domitian, Domitianus 4.'
30. ~ιαστpώμαTα: see note οη 26.
3 Ι.8πιρ ού Kαλω~ κ.τ.λ.: this iS explained by what follows.
άΠΟΥράψασθαι την Ιδίαν κτησιν: throughout this decree the property ίη question is real
property, i. e. land or houses. ΒΥ a curious chance we have ίn three Oxyrhynchus papyri
(ccxlvii, ccclviii and Ο. Ρ. 1. Ιχχίϊ) examples of άΠΟΥραΦαί sent Ιο the βιβλιοφύλαl(f~ ίη the 9th
year of Domitian ίη accordance with this very decree of Mettius Rufus. Οη the origin and
nature of these άΠΟΎραφαί see the luminous article by Wilcken ίη Hermes χχνίΗ. ρρ. 230 sqq.
The present decree, taken ίη combination with the ne\v facts adduced by the Oxyrhynchus
άΠΟΥραφαί (see below), throws ft·esh light οη the subject, and suggests some modifications of the
views there expressed; cf. Kenyon, CaI. 11. ρ. 150, whose explanation is entirely confirmed
by the present text. Wilcken groups the αΠΟΥραφaί of house and land property together
with the άΠΟΥραφαί of cattle, and considers that άΠΟΥραφαί of Iand, and perhaps those of
houses, were made ΥeaΓΙΥ (cf. subject-index to Β. G. U. ρ. 399, 'alIjahrliche Steuerprofessionen ')1
like άΠΟΥραΦαί of cattle. There at·e, however, two notable differences bet\veen the άΠΟΥραΦαί of
houses or land and those of cattle. Τη the former class \ve uniformly find it recorded that
the άΠΟΥραΦαί are made ίη aCCΟΓdance with the orders of the praefect, while ίη the άΠΟΥραφαί
of cattle there is ηο such statement; and ίn the former class there is never any reference to
an άπογραφή of the same property ίη the previous year (ϊn ccxlviii an άΠΟΥραΦή of the same
property is mentioned, but it took place seventeen years before, see below), while the άΠΟΥραΦαl
of cattle often contain a mention of an άΠΟΎραΦή of the same animals ίη the previous .year.
Moreover the edict of Mettius Rufus, which gave rise e.g. to the άΠ()ΎραΦαί ο. Ρ. Τ.ΙΧΧίί
and ccxlvii, does ηο! apply to property other than land and houses. We must therefore
distinguish the άΠΟΥρaΦαί οΓ cattle, which were made year]y and requίΓed ηο special orders
of the praefect, from the άΠΟΥραΦα[ of houses and land. The latter kind may be further
subdivided into two classes: (a) those which are addressed Ιο the strategus or βaσιλικo~
ypαμμαTιύ~ and repOl"t land property which is unwatered (Ι:βρoxo~), i. e. Β. G. U. 139 and
doubtless 108 (Α. D. 202), 198 (Α. D. 163), G. Ρ. 11. Ινί (Α. D. 163); (b) those addressed ιο
the βιβλιoΦύλαl(~~, which register property ίη land or houses, whether acquil"ed by sa]e στ
inheritance, and the mortgages, if any, υροη it, ίn the manner laid down by the decree
of Mettius Rufus.
The άΠΟΥραφαί ίn class (a) are clearly of an exceptionaI character, and were sent ίη
when,owing to the Nile being low and a faiIure of the water supply having taken place, the
praefect issued an edict that persons whose farms had not been watered should make
a return. The four instances mentioned show that a failure took place ίη the years 162-3
and 201-2; but they contain nothing to prove that such returns were annual. It ί8
significant that they are addressed to the strategus and basilίcogrammateus,the officials who
controlled the taxation, while the other class is addressed to the keepers of the archives, who
\Vel"e concerned not \vith the taxation but with the title-deeds of property (fΥκτήσfΙ~).
Were άπογραΦαί ϊη class (b) sent ίη reguΙaΓΙΥ every year? Αη examination of the
instances ίn the light of Mettius Rufus' decree leads to the conclusion already reached by
Mr. Kenyon (Ι. c.) that this was not the case. Whenever propel-ty changed hands by sale
or cession, or, ηο doubt, by inheritance, the change had to be notified; ίn fact the
notification bad to be sent by the vendor before the sale took place, cf. e. g. Β. G. U. 184,
379, Brit. Mus. Pap. CCXCX1X and CCC, and note ση 36 below. But a general αΠΟΥραΦή
sent ϊη by all owners of property, whether recently obtained or not, such as is ordained by
Mettius Rufus here, which stated not σηΙΥ the source (π()θεν καταβ;βηκιυ 33), but any
ύποθηκαι. υροη the property, and of which Β. G. U. 112, 420, 459, Ο. Ρ. Ι ΙΧΧίί, Ixxv and
ccxlvii-1, ccclviii are examples, is not a prz·ori likely to have been made every year; and

1 50 too Gr. Ostrakα, Τ. 46 ι sqq., though he admits that there is ΩΟ proof ίη the case οί house property.

the tenour of Rufus' decree stl"ongly supports the other view. ]η the first place the general
άπογραφή ordained ίn VIII. 31 is to take place within six months, i. e. of the date of,the
decree, but there js nothing said about another general απογραφή. Οη the contrary it is
distinctly implied ίη 4 ι that if the ~ιoσ'ΓpώμαTα and ύπoσ'TάσEι~ were ΡΙΌΡerΙΥ kept υρ to date
by tlle βιβλιοq.1Jλακες there would be ΩΟ need of another general άπογραφή at all. Secondly,
if it \vas a standing rule that all owners of houses and land had to send ίη an απογραφή
every year, there does not seem much point either ίη this decree of Rufus ordering them to
do 80 within six months, or ίn the Jnsertion ίn the άΠΟΥραφαί themselves that they had been
ordered by a particular praefect. Thirdly, the necessity for the general αΠΟΥραφή is stated
by Mettius Rufus Ιο be due to the absence of a1lωθΕ1l ιlυτΙyραφα (3 ι), i. e. materials for making
a comprehensive list of all title-deeds to property, without which the existing abstl'acts of
documents bearing οη ownership cόuΙd not be revised. But if all owners of property had
to send ίη ιlπoypαφα{ every year, there would at any moment be ίη the archives sufficient
material for forming a general list, without having recouIse to special measures. Lastly,
the evidence of the extant απογραφαί supports the same conclusion. 1t is very difflcult, if
not impossible, οη a theory that yearly άΠΟΥραφαί of real property were made, to account for
the fact that ίη the majority of αΠΟΥραφα' the property Ieturned had certainly been acquired
8everal years previousJy, while ηο reference is n1ade Ιο a preνious άπογραφή ofthe property by
the present owner. Prior to Domitian's reign we have Β. G. U. 112 and ccxlviii-ccl. The
first of these, which is quite clearly a general return of ΡΙΌΡeΓtΥ of the same kind as that
ordered by MettIus Rufus, took place ίη accordance wIth the comma nds of the praefect
Vestinus. 1t records property acquired ίη the 5th and 6th γear of Nero. The docnment
is ηοΙ dated, but was probably written in the 7th year, to which ccl belongs. The date of
the previous άΠΟΥραφή of other property mentioned ίη that papyrus (χωρΙ) &v προαπεγραψάμην
ccl. 4, cf. ccxlix. 7) does not appear; but there IS nothing whatever to ίmρΙΥ tl1at ίι took
place ίη tlle year before the papyrus was \vrItten. ccxlviii. 32 seems to show that another
general αΠΟΥραφή was held three years afterwards ίη the 10th year of Ν ero.
ccxlviii and ccxlix were both wrItten οη Oct. 10, Α. D. 80. ccxlviii is a return of
property bequeatlled ίη Α. D. 75-6 and mentions (1ine 32) that the said ΡrΟΡeΓtΥ had been
registered ίη the απογραφή of the 10th year of Nero (Α. D. 63-4). This is extremely
significant. 1f the property had been regIstered yearly, there is ηο reason for the selectIon
of a date 80 far back as Α. D. 63-4 as the year ϊn \vhich a previous αΠΟΥρuφή took place.
Οη the other hand if general άΠΟΥραφαί only took place from tIme to tIme, t}1e reference ίη
Α. D. 80 to an απογραφή ίη Α. D. 63 is intelligible. Αη inference which may peIhaps be drawn
from this view is that between 63-4 and 80 ηο general άΠΟΥραφή (at any rate for the
Oxyrhynchite nome) had occurIed, and that therefore the previous άΠΟΥραφή mentioned ίn
ccxliX.7 was that held ίη 63. But this is doubtful. The ΡΙΌΡertΥ of which details are given
ίη ccxlix ,,'as devised ίη Α. D. 77-8.
ccxlvii, ccclviii, and ο. Ρ. 1. lxxii which are dated ίη the 9th year of Domitian
all mentIon the very decree of Mettius Rufus that Is preserved ίΙ). our papyrus, though
they do not state when the property registered was acquired. Οη the theory that the αΠΟΥραφaί
were γear1Υ, this coincidence must be explained as purely fortuitous. Οη the other theory,
however, the fact that they were written ίn the 9th and not ίη any of the other years of
Domitian's reign is explained. Β. Q. U. 536 is a similar απογραφή wrItten ίη Domitian's
reign (the' precise year is 10st), and it is specially interesting because it gives a list both of
property καθαρά άπό τε όφειλη~ και ύπoθήKη~ καΙ παυ'ΓO~ ~ΙEyyνήμαTO~, and of property Ευ ύποθήκτι,
quIte ίη accordance with the decree of l\fettius Rufus. 'There is but little doubt that this
papyrus too was written ίη the 9th year of Domitian. Α general άΠΟΎραΦή Is probably
implied by ο. Ρ. I.lxxv (Α. D. 129), which mentions ηο commands of a praefect but ίη
other respects resembles ordinary άΠΟ-ΥρaφαΙ. 1t iS not stated when the property was

acquired, but the will \vhich secured the legacy was made ίη Α. D. 84; and the whole tone of
the papyrus, as well as the reference to the previous άΠΟΥρπφή of the property by the father
of the present o\vner (cf. ccxlviii. 32), shows that the latter had been ίn possession for
some years. Another genel"al άΠΟΎραφή took place soon afterwards Ιη Α. D. Ι 3 ι, as is pl"oved
by Β. G. U. 420 and 459. That Similis ίη Α. D. 182 intended when quoting Mettius Rnfus'
decree to oIder a general ιίΠΟΎραφή is almost certain, though the point with which he was
most concerned was the claims of wives over their husbands' estates, and it is the part of
l~ufus' decree bearing upon that subject that he particularly wished to empllasize. Finally,
there is ο. Ρ. Ι. Ιχχνίίί, which refers to an άΠΟΥραφή made ίη accordance with the ίΎκέλEυσι~
of Marcellus, a third century praefect. Ιn this case the property had been laLely bought
( ι 6 ;ναyxo~ t'ωvημέvο~).
Το summarize the results of the evidence οη άΠΟΥραφαί of houses and land, whenever
property was about to change hands by sale or cession the fact had to be nolified by the
vendor to the βιβλιoφύλαKΙ~, who recorded the change ίn their abstracts. Instructions for
a general ΙΙΠΟΥραφή or fol" a ]-eturn of lJ.βιJΟΧΟ~ γη were issued by the praefects from time to
time, as circumstances required. 50 long as the βιβλιoΦύλακε~ looked after the title deeds
properly (from 41-43 it appeal"S that every five years they had to ·make ont a new con1plete
list of owners of houses and land), theΓe was little need for a general απογραΦή b)' ο\ι"ners.
But when they failed ίη their duties, then a new general άΠΟΥρaΦή was held, ίη which every
owner had to state ho\v he came }Jy his property and what claims there were upon ίι
General αΠΟΥραΦ(![ are known to have taken place ίη Α. D. 61,63-4,80, 90, 129, 13 Ι, 182
and ίη the third century; and ηο doubt several other occasions wil1 be established.
'lJτO~ μηvωv εξ: i. e. from the date of the proclamation, cf. previous note. Το give it
the sense of 'within six... months of the date of acqnisition 1 is contrary to the sρίήt of the
whole decree, the object of which is clearly Ιο proclaim a general άπογραφή of house and
land property and of the claims upon theIll, as a staΓtίηg-Ροίnt "[or a more accurate record of
changes ίn ownership.
32. τoυ~ ~ανιιστά~ : cf. the extract from Β. G. U. 536 quoted ίn note οη the previous line.
33. καταβέβηκιιι : this does not exclude property acquired otherwise than by inheritance ;
cf. ο. Ρ. I.lxxii, which is an άΠΟΥραφή of property acquίΓed by sale, made ίη accordance \vith
this decree of Mettius Rufus.
34-36. Cf. IV. 36-39. This was tlle ροτιίοn of Mettius Rufus' decree which applied
particularly to Dionysia; cf. introd. ρ. 144.
κατά τιιια ίπιχώριο71 νόμοιι: for the absence ίη Egypt of any rights possessed by the
husband over his \vife's dowry cf. note οη νιΙ. 28.
ΚΡΙΙT~ϊTaι: cf: 22, where κατ;χιι.ν ίΒ used as equivalent to κρατιίν.
36. ϊιια ΟΙ συναλλάσσονΤΙ$ κ.τ.λ.: cf. note οη 25.
παρα'γ'γιλλω: one λ is added above the line. fvιδΡ€vοvται: 1. έιιι~p~ύωντaι.
Toϊ~ συναλλαyμ,αToyράφoι~ και Toί~ μνήμοσι: cf. ccxxxviii 2-4, note. Αι Oxyrhynchus
the office of the agoranomus was generally concel"ned with drawing up contracts, though
the μvημοvι'iοv also frequently occurs and more raΓeΙΥ the γραφείον. Ιη the Fayίim the usual
medium was the γραΦfίοv. Ιπ both nomes \ve find the agoranomus acting as μνήμων, cf.
the Oxyrhynchus papyrus mentioned ίπ the next note and Β. G. U. 177. 6. Ιη fact only
ίn the preStnt passage and ίη Brit. Mus. Pap. CCXCIX. 20 (quoted ίn the next note) iS
the μ,vήμωv, as such, found, and perhaps the title iS a general one like συναλλαyμaτoyράΦo~.
37. μη~έν ~ίxa EπισTάλμaTυ~: ίη the case of a contract effecting a change of ownership
of land the scribes were not ιο draw it up without obtaining an order fΙΌm the βιβλιoφύλaιcι~,
who must have first satisfied themselves that the property was ft-ee fΙΌm ύποθηκαι and other
claims. 'Γhere are several examples of applications to the βιβλιoφύλaKΙ~ by persons who
wished to dispose of their property, asking that instructions should be sent to the officials
Ν 2

who would draw υρ the contract, see Β. G. U. 184, 379, and Brit. Mus. Pap. CCXCIX and
CCC. Brit. Mus. Pap. CCXCIX concludes ~ιό €πιδίδωμ,[ι] Bπω~ Ιπισ[τaλfiJ [τ]φ μllήμονι ώ~
Kaθήl(~ι; cf. Β. G. U. 379. 16 διο προσαγγέλλο[μι:lΙ] oπω~ €πισTι:ίληT~ τφ τΟ γpaφ~ίoν Kαpαll[ίδo~J
συνχρημaτίζι[ιν] ήμι:ίν ώ~ ~αθήK~Ι.
Α similal" application ίn an Oxyrhynchus papyrus of the reign of Trajan contains the
foJlowing passage :-/πιδί[δω]μι [τ]ό ύπόμll[η]μα oπω~ έπισ[ΤfίλlJ~] Toί~ Tη~ μηTρoπ6λ~ω~ ιίγορανό­
μο[ιs- ο.οσ,,] και μllήμοσι τι:λι:ιωσαι (\vhence we have restored TEλfιωσαι ίη νιιΙ. 37) τον χρημα­
[τισμον] ώ~ KαθήK~Ι, and concludes with a declaration that the property is /(αθαpa~ a[πο π]άσηs­
l(α'Γoxη~ ~ημ[ο]σίαs- Κ[αι] I~ιωTΙK[η~] (written lδιoδι/(η~) ~l~ την €νι:σTωσαιι ήμΕΡα[vJ. At the end
is the €πίσTαλμα of the βιβλιοφύλαξ :-'Σαραπlωv ό σύv eέωvι 8~ιβλιoφύ(λαξ) aγΟΡavό{μοι~) μητ(ρο)­
'Πόλ(~ωs-) χα(ίΡ~ΙV). εΧΕΙ'Axιλλα,~ έν απογρaφπ rlls- άpoύpa~ Εξ, διο έΠΙΤEλεί1'~ ώ~ καθήκ(ι:ι).
41. πpo~ ΤΟ μη πάλιν κ.τ.λ.: the hopes of Rufus were not realized, for general άΠΟΥρaφaί
were held οη several occasions subsequently, cf. note οη 3 Ι.
43. κατ' είδo~: cf: ο. Ρ. Ι. χχΧίν. verso, Ι. ι 1 [τα ιί]~η των συνβολαίωιι.
μηυό~ Δομιτιaυου: Domitian gave his name to October (Suet. .Dom. 13): probably
therefore Phaophi is meant; cf. Brit. Mus. Pap. CCLIX. 99 and Mr. Kenyon's note. For the
υπομιιηματισμό, of Mamertinus, praefect ίη Α. D. 133-5, see introd. ρρ. 150-1, and cf. note
ση VII!. 8.



19·4 χ 9·5 cm. A.D. 72.

Α NOTICE issued by some official, most probably the strategus, ordering all
persons who had deposited ίη the notarial offices business documents, stIch as
contracts, wills, etc., which documents were stil1 μετlωροι, to appear before the
agoranomi and have the documents completed within a certain time. The point
of the notice depends upon the interpretation of the obscure term μεT'ωpo~ as
applied to contracts. The word aIso occurs ίη Β. G. U. 136. 16 PΙE1loopa 'Πολλα
καταλελοιπ'υαι, and 417. 3 τα μετlωΡα απαλλάξαι ..• απάλλαξου ουυ σεαυτου απο
παvτοs μετει6ρου, Τυα ηδη ποτΕ αμιξριμvοs yEV'[I Kal τα ~μα μετεωρίδια ηδη ποτε rύxηυ
σχηι; cf. ο. Ρ. Ι. cxviί. 4 [)πωs Cιπαρτισθfi το ~y τρ βιβλιοθήκ'[Ι μεΤΕα/ρίδι( ο )υ. The
meaning which seems to suit al1 these instances of μετξωροs best is 'provisional,'
'incompleted '; the contrasted \vord being τελειουυ ίη line 9. Possibly pro-

visional contracts had always to be made valίd (or withdrawn) within the first
month of the year following that ίη which they were drawn up. But the present
papyrus scarcely justi:fies this inference.
The handwriting is a large clear semi-ttncial; as the lines are of unequal
length, the lacunae at the ends of 11-] 8 may be two or three Ietters longer than
we have sttpposed.

Tovr ExollTar με1"εώpoυ~ ΙΟ ,

TαυTα~ ενTO~ " [. . . •
, , JI .....
OΙKopoμια~ εν τε Τα/Ι του ένεστωτ[ o~
, "
αΥοραρομΙα/Ι και μιιη μο- μηνo~ '$εβαστου [...
, και
, Ύρα
, ..
εll Τα/Ι και όφε{λοllτα[~ • • .
5 8ιεληλυθ6τι T€TάpTα/Ι εT€Ι φέρειν [ καταλο-
AύTOKpάTOPO~ Kαίσαpo~ 15 χισμων ε[ ·
Ούεσπασιαιιοϋ '$εβαστοϋ και έιικυκλι[ .
προσερχεσθαι TOΙ~ "
μaτα ΕΤΙ και νυ ν '''[ . . .
, , ....
f.!-I.r • • •
Φ ερειν
' ~,ι
αyopαlloμoι~ και'(λ'"
ΤΕ ειουν η στι TOΙ~

2-4. τωι άΥορανομίωι καΙ μvημΟVflωι και ΥραΦίωι: the proclamation unfortunately has ησ
address. But if the natural supposition, that it refers to the city of Oxyrhynchus, is correct,
the conclusion is inevitable that there were at Oxyrhynchus at this time three offices, or
three branches of one office, bearing differeηt names, through each of which it was possible
to execute οΙκονομίαι. The siηgular άΥσρανομΙωι κ.τ.λ. is an objection to the hypothesis
that the regulation was issued [στ the whole nome, or had a still wider application. The
άΥορανομ.ιΙον occurs frequently ίη the Oxyrhynchus papYl-i; but ίη the Fayftm very rarely.
We have not as yet found other evidence of the existence at Oxyl·hynchus of tlle ΥραΦfιον,
except ίη Ο. Ρ. Ι. χιiν. 23, where, as the name of a tax, lt interchanges with άΥορανομιίον.
lt was, hο\ΙΥever, an institution common ίη the Fayum (cf. Mitteis, Hermes χχχ. 596 sqq.,
and a number of instances ίη Kenyon, Cαl. 11). Οη the other hand the μνημονιιον, which
js unkno,vn ίη the Fayum, is frequeηtly meηtioned ίn the Oxyrhynchus papyri; cf. e. g.
ccxliii. ι ι, cclxx. 12. How far its functions are to be distinguished from those of the
αΥορανομ.εΙον is doubtful. The μvημοvιίοv is most commonly connected with contracts of
loan; testamentary business ση the other hand appears always Ιο be referred to the
ά:Υσρανομfιον; while deeds of cession may be executed ίη either. Ί'he title μvήμωv is coupled
with that of αyoρανόμo~ ίη Β. G. U. 177, 6 τωι άΥορανόμωι gVTL 8ε και μνήμονι, aηd elsewhel·e;
cf. notes οη ccxxxvii. \ΤΙΙΙ. 36 aηd 37. The conclusion to which this comparison leads is
that the functions of the άΥορανομιίον, μιιημονιΊον, and ΥραΦΕιον, to which may be added from
other Oxyrhyηchus papyri (e. g. cclxxi. 7) the καταλΟΥΕιον, were, so far as the execution and
registration of contracts are concerned, very much the same. We are therefore unable to
agree \vith Mittels (Ι. c.), who draws a sharp contrast between the duties of the ΥραφΕίον and
the άΥοριινομ.ιίον. The registration (άναΥραΦή) of contracts, for instance, which was performed
ίn the Fayftm by the ΥραφΕίον, was effected at Oxyrhynchus by the άΥορανομΕί.ον, cf. ccxli-iii.
ΑΙΙ these varlous notarial offices, though they were also repositories of documents (cf. e. g.

ο. Ρ. Ι. cvii), must be distinguished fΓοm the βιβλιοθήκη έYKTήσ~ων, which was especially
concerned with άΠΟΥραφαί; cf. ccxxxvii. νιιΙ. 3 ι, note.
Besides these local record offices ίn the nomes, there were aIso ίη Alexandria a Ναναιον
and, {rotn Hadr ian's time onwards, a ΙA~ριανη βιβλιοθήκη, both of which seem to have received
copies of contracts from the Iocal archίνes (ο. Ρ. 1. Χχχίν). Mitteis (Hermes ΧΧΧίν. 91-8)
has proposed another expIanation of that papyrus, regardinR' the Ναναιον and ΙA~ριανή
βιβλιοθήκη not as single libraries at Alexandria but as record offices ίn the several nomes,
and he identifies the Νανaιον with the γραφΕιον ίη vilIages, and the (Αοριανη βιβλιοθήκη with
the ~ημoσΙα βιβλιοθήκη ίn the μηΤΡοπ()λELSO. This hypothesis has the advantage of reducing
the number of official record offices, \vhich certainly seem to be unnecessarily numerous;
but it is counterbalanced by the enormous difficulty of supposing that by the singular
Νaυαιον (the word is otherwise only known as an epithet of Isis) the praefect meant all the
1'ραφΕία (and, as \\re should now have to add, all the άΥορανομΕία, μυημουεία, καTαλoy~ία, etc.
throughout the towns and vilIages), and by ή «Αδριαιιη βιβλιοθήκη ~ια τουτο κατασκευασθείσα
all the δημοσίαι βιβλιοθηκαι, which, as the Oxyrhynchus papyri, and especial1y the decree
of Mettius Rufus ίn ccxxxvii. νιι1. 27 Rqq., show, were estahlished long before Hadrian's
time ίn the μηTpoπόλει~ thrqughout Egypt. The passage ίη Β. G. U. 578. 19 ίη which an
άρxιδΙKaσTή~ is asked (συγκαταχωρίσαι) ElI τφ ύπομνήματι εI~ άμφOTέpa~ Tά~ βιβλιoθήKα~ ΏΟ doubt,
as Mitteis remarks, refers to the Ναναίον and (A~ριανή βιβλιοθήκη; but so far from this being
an argument ίη favour of identifying them with local record offices, it supports the view that
they were libraries at Alexandria; for the άρχι~ιl(αστήr, though his jurisdiction r extended
beyond Alexandria, rarelJT held hjs court outside that tity, and people came to him from
remote parts of Egypt Ιο register contracts concerning property (G. Ρ. 11. IΧΧί, cf. l\filne,
EgyjI under R01Jlαn Rule, ρ. 196 sqq.).
9. ΤΕ{λειοΙΙν: perhaps η{λΕίιι οτ TE[λειOίJ(σθαι), for tbe co-operation of the officials was
necessary to make the documents ' complete '; cf. the fπίσταλμα of the βιβλιοφύλαξ quoted
ίn note οη ccxxxvii. VIII. 37. Though ΤΕλειουν occurs so frequently ίη papyri ίn connexjon
with contracts, its precise meaning is not easy to gather. SOlnetimes (e. g. ο. Ρ.Ι. ΙχνΗί. 5)
it comes to mean practIcalIy' execute,' referring to the notarial functions of the agoranomus
or other official who drew υρ documents. This meaning is strongly maΓked ίη Byzantine
papyri (e. g. ο. Ρ. Ι cxxxvi. 49), ίn which έτελι:ιώθη ~ια ... is meΓeΙΥ the signature of the
scribe and is equiνalent to έγριιφη, and wil1 cover most instances of the use of the word. But
the meaning 'execute' is hardly applicable ίn the present passage, wheIe the οΙκονομίαι are
already deposited ίη the record offices, although 8ti11 μετέωροι; it is out of pIace ίη cclxxi. 7,
'-"'heIe a συyxώpησι~ is τελειωθΕΊσα ~ια Tη~ έΦημ~ρί~o~ του κατaλΟΥΕίου (cf. ccl~νiii. 10); and its
suitability ίη the case of τελειουν ίn the app1ication to the βιβλιοφύλαξ quoted ϊη the note ση
ccxxxvii. νιι1. 37 is doubtful. The Tελε{ωσι~ ~ια Tη~ έφημfΡί(Jοr suggests, unless we are
pIepared to give iφημεΡίr a new meaning, that ίn the ca8e of the καταλογΕΙΩν at any rate, the
'completion' consisted ίn the entIY of the contract ίn some kind of officiallist. Τ'hίs comes
near Ιο the αναγραφή οτ official registration of contracts (cf. Mitteis, Hermes χχχ. ρ. 599), which
was effected through the άΥορaνομείον οτ γραφείου and was frequently resorted to ίη order to
ser.ure their pernlanence, especially when the contract had been drawn up privately (cf.
introd. to ccxli). But if the ΤΕλΕίωσις ίn the case of the άΥορανομείον οτ Υραφείον irnplied or
included the άυαγραφή we sh0111d expect to find τελΗουυ (δια του άΥορανομείου, μνημονιΙου,
or γραφΕίοιι) interchanging with άναγράφΕιν. This, ho\vever, is not the case; the variants
are τ ίθεσθαι (ο. Ρ. ι. lxxv. 10), ΠΟΙΕίν (ccxIix. 21), or ..,ίνΕσθαι. (ccl. 16); and, putting aside
the καταλΟΥΕίον and its έΦημΙΡίr, ΤΕλfίωσι~ does not appear to have anything to do with
We are therefore brought back to ccxxxviii and the μΕτίωροι οlκου0μlαι, which were
aΙreadγ ίη
the record offices but had to be 'compIeted.' The only explanation which we

can offer ίΒ to refer to the analogy of modern practice, and to suppose that the 'TελEίωσι~ ίη
this instance consisted ίn the insertion of the day of the month and the signatures of the
partie~. Ιι is noteworthy that ίη many Oxyrhynchus contracts (e. g. cclxxiii. 3) the day
of the month has been inserted by a later hand, and sometimes (e. g. cclxi. 3) the space
left for ίι has never been filled ίη. Α corollary of this view would be that contracts unsigned
and without the day of the month were invalid.


ι 587 χ 9·8 cm. Α. D. 66.

Declaration ση
oath addressed to' the scribe of the Oxyrhynchite nome
(ό Υράφωυ του ΌξυρυΥχίτηυ, a new title) by Epimachus, an inhabitant of PsQbthis,
stating that he had not exacted any irregular contributions, and that for the
future he would not be ίn a position to do 50.

Tfj> Υράφοντι τον ΌξυρυΥχίτ[ ην

'Eπίμαxo~ Πaυσίpιo~ τ[ου Π]To~~(μa({oυ)
μηTPO~ ΙHpακλEία~ Tη~ -Επιμάχ[ου
των άπο Kώμη~ ~ώβθEω~
5 Tη~ κάτω Toπαpxία~. όμν6ω
Νέρωνα Κλα68ιον Καίσαρα '$εβ[ a(στοlI)
Γερμανικον Λύτοκράτορα μη-
8εμίαν λΟΥείαν Υf.ΥΟllέναι
( , , ,.., ,... ,,... ,
υπ εμου εν Trι αυTrι κωμυ

10 εΙ~ μη8ένα λ6Ύον τφ καθόλου,

μη8ε μην άπα του νυν προστήσε[σ)~(aι)
κώμη~, ή EllOXO~ εfηll' τρ lJPK(CP)·
(fTov~) ΙΥ ΝέρωνΟΥ Κλαυ8ίου Kα{σapo~
~εβaσToυ Γερμαllικου AύToκpάTOPO~,
ι 5 μη(1I0~) ~€βασToυ κβ.

'Το the scribe of the Oxyrhynchite nome from Epimachus, son of Pausiris, son of
Ptolemaeus, whose mother is Heraclea, daughter of Epimachus, an inhabitant of the
village of Ρsδbthίs ίη the lower toparchy. Ι swear by Ν ero Claudius Caesar Augustus
Germanicus Imperator that Ι have levied ησ contributions {στ any purpose whatever ίη the
said village and that hencefof\Vard 1 shall ηοΙ become -headman of a village; otherwise
let me be liable Ιο the consequences of the oath.' Date.

ι. Cf. ccxlvi. 4 Toί~ Ύράφουσι τον νο(μόν. As that passage shows, ό Υράφωιι is
distinct from the βασιλΙKO~ ΎραμμαTEύ~. Apparently ό 1ιΡάφων τον νομόν is equivalent to
,,()μOΎράΦo~, and ίη that case the latter term has nothing to do with νoμΙKό~ as we supposed ίη
our note οη ο. Ρ. Τ. ΧΧΧίν. Ι 9.
8. λΟ)Εία is used for irregular local contributions as opposed to regular taxes. Cf.
Β. G. Ό. 515, where τα ύπερ λOΎEία~ έπιβληθέντα are contrasted with the σΙΤικα δημόσια, though
both are collected by the 'ΠpάKTOΡE~ σιτικων; and Βτίι Μ us. Pap. CCCXLII. 15 where,
amongst various complaints against a ΠPEσβύTEPO~ of a vil1age, it is stated παρ' Εκαστα λOΎEΙα~
ποιείται 1.
Ι ι. προστήσΕσθαι means Ιο become a προστάτη-; Kώμη~; cf. note ση ccxcix. 4.


12·6 χ 10'5 cm. A.D.37.

Declaration by a village scribe denying any knowledge of extortion by

a certain soldier and his agents ίη the villages for which the writer acted as
scribe. Cf. cclxxxiv and cclxxxv.
[• . . . • . . • . . . . • Κα/JμΟΎΡαμματεv~
[. • . . . . . . . . . . . . . ]τοου Έρήμου.
[όμνύω Τιβέριον Κα)ίσαρa Νέον ~εβασToν Αότοκράτορa
[θεοϋ Διοs- Έλευθε]ρ[[ου] ~εβασToϋ υΙον εΙ μην
5 [μη συνε]ι8έναι με μη8ενί 8ιασεσεισμέ-
[νωι επι Τα/JΙ
προκειμΕνα/ν Κα/μων
,.. t,
, ,,.. J,,..
[• • • • • •] f!s- στρατιωτου και των παρ αυτου.

[ε~opKoυ]νTΙ μέμ μαι ευ ε(η, ~ΦΙOPKoϋνTΙ δε

[τα έναν]τ[a. (lτόvS') κ"/ Τιβερίου ΚαίσαΡΟS- ~εβασToϋ,
10 Μεχ(ειρ) ι(.

3. JιΕον added over the line. 4. 1. η μήν.

3 sqq. ' Ι swear by Tiberius Caesar Ν ovus Augustus Imperator, son of the deified Jupiter
Liberator Augustus, that Ι know of ΏΟ one ίη the viIlage aforesaid from whom extortions
have been made by the soldier ..• or his agents. If Ι s\vear truly, may it be well with me,
but if falsely, the reverse. The 23rd year of Tiberius Caesar Augustus, Mecheir 17.'
2. The village-names were given ίη this line, cf. 6.
3. Νέον ΣΕβαστόν:. this title was also applied to Gaius, cf. cclxvii. 12. The name
Nέo~ ΣιβασTό~ was given to the month Athyr ίη Tiberius' reign; see Β. G. U. 636. 3.
4· θΕοϋ Διό~ ΈλΕυθΕ Jp[ ίου]: cf. ccliii. 17.
1 Οη λΟΎΕία cf. Wilcken, Gr. Os/. Ι. 253 sqq. The instances which he quotes are concerned with a tax
{στ the priests of Isis, and a τrpoστάτη$ του θεου writes the receipts. But though in Β. G. U. 515, as he
remarks, λΟΎΕία may lnean a contribution for religious purposes, in both Brit. Mus. Pap. CCCXLII and our
Oxyrhynchus papyrus the word probably has a wider signification; and the 'ΠpoστάTη~ Tη~ κώμη$ is not to be
identified with th~ lΙροστάτη$ του θεου.


ι 9·3 χ 6·6 cm. About A.D. 98.

The three succeeding papyri are specimens of an interesting group of
documents (cf: cccxxvίi-xl), which fol1ow a formnla not yet found outside
Oxyt-hynchus. They are addressed to the agoranomtls, and contain a notifica-
tion from an official not precisely specified, or his agent, to αυαγράΦειυ οι
καταΥράφειυ a contract of sale or mortgage, the terms of which are cited at
length. The property alienated ίο such sales is sometimes slayes, more often
land or houses. Το this notification is added a banker's certificate that the
~γκvκλιου, or tax οη sales and mortgages (cf. ccxlii. 3] sqq., ccx1iii. 45 sqq.), had
been paid. The signification of the main transaction of course depends ηροη
the meaning to be here attached to αυαγράΦειυ or κατaγράφειυ; but there can be
little doubt that their sense is 'register,' i. e. enter οη the official Iist of such
contracts. That tιυαγράφειυ frequently has this meaning is cel-tain; see Mitteis,
Hermes χχχ. 592 ff., and cf. Brit. Mus. Pap. CCXCIII. 33 etc., and CCCVIII.
26, where the usual αυαγ~γpα7TTαι is replaced by EυT~TαKTαι. It is noticeable that
such registration is ίη hitherto recorded instances referred to the Υραφεϊου, whί1e
ίη the Oxyrhynchus papyri it is always effected through the άγοραυομεϊου.
Evidently at Oxyrhynchus at any rate that institution combined to a large
extent the functions of a record and a notarial office. The agoranomi were
responsible, as the present group of documents shows, for the registration of
contt·acts; they received notice of the transfer and sale of land (ο. Ρ. Ι. xlv-
xlνίίi); and they had the custody of wil1s (ο. Ρ. Ι. cvi, cvii). Cf. ccxxxviίi 2,
note, and Wessely, Die Aeg. Agorαnomen als Notare ίη Mz·tthez·lungen aus
der Sa1n1nlung Ραρ. Erz. Rαin. V. Ft·om the fact that these notifications were
written it may be inferred that the contracts to which they refer had been made
privately, or at any rate not before the agoranomi.
The present document is an authorization from Caeci1ius Clemens (c(
cccxl, dated ίη the second year of Trajan) to the agoranomus to register a loan
of money from a man named Thonis to his brother οη the security of a share
of a house.

Καικίλλι(ο)ι; Κλήμηr ιcαι αύλfjr και εΖ­

τφ άΎ(ο)ραν6μφ χ(αί)ρειν. 20 σώ8ων και έξ68ων
, ιι"\ ,
), ." !\ , και των συ."κυρον-
αllαΥρα 'Ι' ον aανιου

συνΥρaφην Θώνιοr των τω." γιιτων


5 του (Apπαήσιo~ του έπ' άμφ68(ου) 8ρώμου

Π€Tσεp~θώνιO~ Γυμ.νασίου πρo~
μηTPO~ ΠεToσίριo~ 25 τφ' Ωσιρίφ και τφ
Tη~ ι.Apπαήσιo~ Ταμ(εί)ρ, oV ύπεθε­
των άπ' ΌξυρυΥχ(ων) τω aVrfi> ό όμΟΥνή­
10 π6λ(εω~), άpX€ιπαστω­ σιo~ αύτου ά8ελ(Φo~)
φώροv ΘoήpΙ90~ Θoμφυα~ πp6~ ται
και J!Ησιδo~ και ,Ζ[ α- 30 &S' ει.,χρήσΤ!Jσαv
"Ω σι/[ pιo~ αvτφ κaτα χιρ6Υρa­
,,, ,
και των συννα- φον και 8!αιαΥραφην
ι 5 ων θεων μεΥίσ- Tpαπέ(η~ 8pαxμα~
των, ύπoθήKη~ ΤΕτρακοσί[ α~ . . . . .
τρίτου μέpoυ~ 35 και a[ ..
oΙKία~, έν Τι α1θριον,

10. 1. άρχιπαστοφόρου. Ι 2. 1. 'Ίσι~οS'. ι 5. The final 11 of συ1Ιναων corr. fr. θ.

ι 9. Ι. flσό~ωv. 23. 1. δρόμου. 26. Ι. ύπ έθfΤΟ. 29. l. πpό~ ΤΕ. 30. l. ηUχρήστησfV.
32. 1. διαΥραφήν.
'Caecilius Clemens to the agoranomus, greeting. Register a contract of loan from
Thonis, son of Hal·paesis. son of Petserothonis, his mother being Petosiris, daughter of
Harpaesis, of the city of Oxyrhynchus, chief bearer ίη the temple of Thoeris and Isis and
Sarapis and Osiris and the associated most rnighty gods, ση the security of the third part of
a house, ίn which there is a hall, with tlle court and entrances and exits and appurtenances,
situated ίη the Gymnasium square q uarter by the temple of Osiris and the tre~sury, which
was mortgaged to him by his full bΓοther Thomphuas ίη return for an accommodation ία
accordance with a note of hand and a payment through a bank of 400 drachmae ... ,
and •.•'
ι. The status of the persons sending these notifications is ίη ησ case gi"en; probably
they \νere the farmers of the 'Υκύκλιον (ο. Ρ. Ι ΧΙίν. 6) 1. Sometimes they act ση their own
authority, as here; sometimes they are described as συν€σTαμέ"OΙ ύπό a second party, e. g.
ccx1iii. Ι. Occasionally (cccxxνii, cf. cccxxix) the notice is sent by ... και οί μΕτοχ(οι),
a phrase which rather suggests a financial company (cf. Ο. Ρ. Ι. xcvi. 4, xcviii. 8, etc.); but
μέτοχοι άΥο(ραΥι)μοι) occur ίη cccxx. 27.


23·7 χ 11·5 cm. A.D. 77.
Official notification to the agoranomus to register a contract of sale, to which
is appended a banker's receipt for the ;γκύκλιου, or tax ση sales; cf. introd. to
t Οη the έΎιclJ"λιoν see Wilcken, Gr. 0$/. Ι. 182, who points out that this tax was levied chiefly οη the
sale of houses, land, and slaves. This confirms our explanation here, cf. introd. to ccxH.

ccxlί. The vendor is a woman named 1"'hermouthion, who acting \vith her
husband as gt1ardian had agreed to sell to a number of priests some land which
she had acqnired' from a certain Dionysia ία the neighbourhood οΓ the temple
of Sarapis. It is stipulated that the land should remain dedicated to the god
and not be made a source of income or alienated.
Incidentally, this and the next papyrus are of great importance as establίsh­
ing the ratio at this period between silνer and Ptolemaic copper. The price paid
for Thermonthion's land is giνen ίη both metals, the alnount ία si1νer being
692 drachrnae and ίη coppel· 51 talents 5400 dracllmae. That these two sums
are the whole price ίη different forms and not t\VO parts of the price is eνident
from the banker's receipt for the iγκύκλΙΟlJ, the amount of which is exactly
10 per cent.. (the regular proportion ίη the case of sales) of 5 ι talents 5400
drachmae of coppel·. If, therefore, the 692 silver drachmae were an integral part
of the price and not the equiνalent ίη silver of the sum expressed ίη copper, the
treasury would have defrauded itself of ] ο per cent. of 692 si1ver drachmae.
That alternatiνe is obviously ίη the last degl"ee improbable. The ratio of silver
to copper accordingly is ι : 450. The same result is obtained from other
Oxyrhynchus papyri, e g. cccxxxiίί, where the price paid for some property ί5
700 drachmae of silver or 52 talents 3000 drachmae of copper, the amotlnt
of the ιγκύκλιου being 5 talents 1500 drachmae of copper; ccxIiii, where a sum
is simίlarly converted from sίlver to cqpper, and the proportion between them
is expressly stated Ιο be 4 : 1 800, i. e. 1 : 450; cccxxxi, cccxxxvii, cccxxxviίi
and cccxl. The ratio ι : 450 is therefore conclnsively establίshed, but it must
be remembered that the copper drachmae tneant ίη all these cases al·e those
of the Ptolemaic coinage, which ίη the second century Β. c. exchanged with silver
at a ratio of 120 : Ι. Α similar case ίη a Fayum papyrus of tl1e conversion
of Ptolemaic copper into Roman silver occurs ίη Brit. Mt1s. Pap. CCLXVI (first
or second century) where the ratio is ι : 5001.

1 Through treating the copper dracl1mae ίη that case a.s H.oman coins, not as Ptolemaic, the editor
naturally found this papyrιls considerably at variance with Brit. Mus. Pap. CXXXI recto ίη which twenty-
four silver are reckoned as equivalent Ιο twenty-eight or twenty-nine copper dracbmae (cf. Ο. Ρ. Ι. ίχ vers()
Ι sqq.). But t11ere is ίη realίty ηο difficulty ίη reconciling the two statements, for the copper drachmae
ίη Pap. CXXXI are quite different ίτοω the copper drachmae of Pap. CCLX νι and these Oxyrhynchus
papyri. Usually ίη the Roman period, as always ίη the tllird centnry R.C. (Rev. Pap. Αρρ.ΙΙΙ), there is only
one standard and that a silver one. \ίVhen, as ίη Pap. CXXXI, copper drachmae are met with, these are the
nominal equivalent οί the same number of silver drachmae, but when payments are made ίη them they are
subject to a discount of one-seventh. Ν ow it must be noticed with regard to this kind of copper drachmae
that the term drachma has 10st entirely any sIgnification of welght, and ί5 merely αη expression Eor the amount
οί copper nominally equivalent to a silver drachma, just like the copper drachma ίη the third century B.C.;
and that ίη order Ιο find tl1e ratlo οί value between two metals lt is necessary to know what weight οί one
exchanged for what weight οί the other. Ιη the third century B.C. it is probable οη numlsmatic grounds
that one copper drachma (ί. e. tbe amount of copper nominally eqtlivalent to a sίlver drachma) weighed
120 tlmes as much as one silver drachma, and therefore we can infer that the ratio was 120: ι, though
ίη exchanging Jarge sums of copper lnto silver, it was subject to a discount οί about a ninth. Hut since

ίKλαύ8ιo~ ΆΙΙTωιιί'ιιo~ τφ άΎΟΡαιι6μq) χαίρε",.]

[άιιάΥραψον ώιιην ••.

TO~ Tη~ ΦαTpεoυ~ και '~πει ~P7!,!~σιo~ του Λί ....

μηTPO~ '
'Ταυσopαπιo~ "ΙΑθ'
Tη~ Ρ oωνιo~ " [ ••

5 f ,..
Θ' l'
ι-ι oηpιoo~ και
')/1 σιoo~
,~, l'
.r::ι αpαπιoo~
κ'! ι των
θ Λ
εω1l μεΎιστων
" 1\'
t Λ
n.p θ' [
ων ιo~

ΠάεΙTO~ οvσι και στολισταw τωιι α'iJτωιι [θεων, iJJv

τυΎχάνΕΙ ή 8ιαTιθ~H~'!'!1 ~y?[paKυια παρa
Διoνυσ{α~ TfjS και Tααμ6ΙTO~ Tfjs- Δ![ oνυσία~
10 Έπιμάχου τφ μην;' Καισαρείφ του 8ιε[λθ6ΙΙTO~
ενατου ,/ετους' επι
",. . πpo~
του "Ο6υρυΎχων
t' 'λ ει
π[ ο

.r::ιαpαπειoυ " επι , λ'λ
αυ α~ tE ρμαιου
' εκ , β ορρα. . . [. . . . . λ Ε-

λ υπεν η
C Δ ιονυσια ' η
C και'Τ '
ααμoι~ "β[ ορρα,..

του ~αpάπι80~ θεου μεΎίστου περιβόλ( ο J!J [Εκ

for the Roman period the numismatists have not yet told us how much a copper drachma weighs, we
are wholly ίη the dark as to the ratio between the two metals. We know indeed from Brit. Mus.
Pap. CXXX1 that twenty-eight copper drachtilae were equivalent. to twenty-four silver, but until we
know how much twenty-eight copper drachmae weighed we cannot tell what the ratio of copper was
to silver. The fact that there was a disconnt οη copper of one-seventh does not make the ratio vetween
silver and copper 24: 28 (Kenyon, ["at. Ι •.ρ. 167, 11. ρ. 233), any more than the discount of one-ninth
ίη the third century B.C. (Rev. Pap. ρρ. 192,199-200) makes the ratio 24: 27. Such a view involves
a confusion of t11e ratio between the nominal or face value and the real value of copper (WhlCh ratio
ίη the time of Yespasian was abont 24: 28) with the ratio between silver and copper, which is a totally
different qnestion. The monetary system of the Rornan period, as has been stated, reverts to the system
οί a single silver standard found ίη the earlier Ptolemaic period. During the intervening last two
centuries Β. C a different system was ϊη yogue, ίn which there were two standards, silver and copper
(Rev. Pap. Ι. c.). The pre-existing ]'atio of 120 to ι continued to be the ΡrοΡοΓtίοn of value between
the two eqtlal weights of sίlver and copper; btlt sllms ίη copper coins were not calculated ίη terms of
their nominal equivalent ίη silver, but ϊn relation to a purely copper standard. Α copper drachma
meant ηο longer the amount of copper (ι 20 drachmae ίn \veight) which was nominally equivalent
to a silver drachma, but a drachma's weight of copper which was worth τh of a silver drachma. Thus,
the copper coin which ίη the third centlιry B.C. was called an obol or one-sixth of a silver drachma
was ίη the second century B.C. called twenty copper drachmae. T11e restllt of the change was of couIse
that amounts paid ίη copper are enormously high. This kind of copper drachmae which really \veighed
a drachma is still occasionally met with ία the Roman period, and is meant ία Brit. Μ us. Pap. CCLXVI
and ίη some Oxyrhynchus papyri (introd. to ccxlii). The greatly increased difference ία value between
the metals is perhaps surprising, but it must be remembe]Oed (ι) that the ratio of 120 : Ι can only be
traced ιιρ to about 90 Β. c., and there is hardly any evidence for the next seventy years. It is thel'efore
possible that dnring that period the difference ίn value between the two metals was increasing and ίn Β. c. 30
was mnch more than 120: Ι; (2) that Ptolemaic copper would natural1y ίη the Roman period be at
a considerable discount as compared to Roman copper; (3) that under ordinary cίrcumstμηces taxes ίη the
Roman period were paid ίη si1ver, and therefore it was a concession οη the part of the government to
accept CΟΡρer, much more Ptolemaic copper, at alI.
Prof. Wilcken also finds a ratio of 450 : J between Roman si1ver and Ptolemaic copper ίη two second
century ostraca (Gr. Ost. Ι. 723), and is somewhat disturbed thereby, though, as the Oxyrhynchus papyri
show, unnecessarily. There is ηο ~ontradiction between this ratio and the ratio of 120 : ι; for the ratio
of 120 : ι is only known to apply to the third and second centuries Β. c., and we are stil1 ignorant, as ha.;
been said, of the ratio of Roman and Ptolemaic si1ver to Roman copper.

'5 πλάτοvr πήχvοr -ήμίσοvr τ6π(ι)ν έκ μέΡοvr περι­

τετειχισμένων, συν Totr ένουσι φΟΡτ{οιr,
επι T~Ι> εασαι TOVr rovovpevovr TOTrovr τφ κυριρ
'" 1"\ ,..... " , , '" ,

~αράπι8ι 1J'R.0r χρηστ{αν του αύτου θεου και τα λυ­

πα μέρη περιτειχίζειν, TOvr δ' aVTOVr T6Trovr
, εμ
20 ουκ 'Φ' ,
opovr πυησουσι "Ι
ΠΡοr το μενειν "
aVTOVr χρησ-

τήρια του αυτου θεού και του Ιερου, ov8E μη" έ­

ξέσται αύToί~ έτεροιr πωλειν κατ' ουδ( EJva τ[ρ ]6πον,
'f" επριαντο
" επι
,\ Ι
Toυ7ΌΙ~ 'Θ
παρα J-ι ερμ ο υ θ'[]
ιου τη ~ "'(
Διο'llυσ{ου του Θoώνιo~ pfJTpOr TeσoEvptor Tη[~
25 ΠεToσopάπιo~ μετα κυρίου του έαυTη~ άν8po~
Kεφάλω"o~ του ~pθoώνιo~ τού Ευβούλου μηΤΡοr
Θαήσιοr, 1Tάν[T]ε~ των άπ' ΌζυρύΥχων π6λεω~,
τειμηr άΡΥ[υ]ρ[[ο]!, (8ρ αχμων) χqβ χ(αλκου) (ταλάντων) να 'Ευ. ~PΡOJσo.
( ETour ) 8 '
εκατου Α'
υTOKpαTOPO~ , ' Κ
atuapor Ο' ,..

30 Ζεβαστοϋ, Χο{αχ ιβ. 2nd hand. Kλαύ8ιo~ ΆνTωνινo~ χρη(μάτισοιι).

3rd hand 'Αλ-εgα(ν8Ροr) καΙ οΙ μέ(τοχοι) TOί'(~) άΥΟ(Ραν6μοιr) χαί(ρειν). TETaKT'f~
Tfi ιΥ το(υ) Χο(Ιακ) ένκ(υκλίου) ~pθoωνι~ ~pθoώ(νιo~)
, ,,...
t ""()
ιεpει\.~ κα
ο' .,( )
η ν

8ιαγρα(φηll) χα(λκου) Trp(or) dpy(vptOlI) (τάλαντα) ε ΆΡΗ. ~ppω( σθε).

6-7. Ι τφ ~ε 'Αρθα/ν[ΕΙ katJ πάfιΤΙ or l$vτωv ιcαΙ στολιστων. παEΙTO~ corr. from παΕ"ΤΙ (?).
12. 1. λαύρa~ ••• λιΛοιπι:ν. 18. Ι. λοιπά. 20. 1. ποιήσοvσι. 27. 1. πάντων.

ι. Ιη cccxxx Claudius Antoninus is described as ό συυEσTαμένo~ ύπο Σαραπίωνo~, and it is

possible that this may be the reading here. But ίη ccxHii, dated the year after the present
papyrus (cf. cccxxxi, cccxxxiv), Cl. ~J\ntoninus himself has an agent; 80 he may very weIl
be here acting independently.
4. The ,vord 10st at the end of the line gave the number of the purchasers, probably
τΙσσaρσι or πένΤΕ.
8. Α participle is ceι-tainΙΥ required after ~ιαTιθEμένη, and the traces suit ηΥΟ, bnt ηΥο[ρα­
κυία παρά is rather long for the lacuna.
ι ι. ΌξvρύΥχων π[όλΗ: the title ή ΌξυρυΥΧΕιτων π6λι~ does not occur ίη the first century
papyri. The earliest instance of it which we have yet found is ccxxxvii. νι ι 2 (Α. D. 186).
12. λαύρα~ (Ερμαίοv: cf. ccxliii. 14, where an ίJμΦo~oυ (Ερμαίου is mentioned; and cf.
'Ιππέων ΠαΡEμβoλη~, w hich is the name of an ίl.μΦo~oν ίη ccxlvii. 2 Ι and of a λαύρα ίη cccxciii.
The same interchange takes place, e. g. with Μvροβαλάνοv (cf. ccliν. 5 \vith cccxxxviii),
ΠoιμEνιl(η~ (cf. ccIviii. 5 and cccxvi), TEμov€νoύθEω~ (cf. ccli. 9 with ο. Ρ. Ι. Ιχχνίί. 9); and
it is clear that the terms ίι.μφοδον and λαύρα are coextensive. They denote an area larger
than that of a street with the houses fronting it (the term for which is ρύμη; cf. ο. Ρ. 1.

• xcix. 7), but somewhat less than that implied by 'quarter.' Oxyrhynchus had at least
fourteen lfμφοδα, and Arsinoe still more 1.
13-14. The relation of this sentence to the preceding is not quite clear. λυΠΕν if right
-and the letters though faint seem certain-must be the termination of λΕλυΠΕν, i. e.
λΕλΟΙΠΕν or a compound of that ve..b Two intel"pretations seem possible, though neither js
quite satisfactory. (ι) [και . .. λέJλΟΙΠΕV may be read, ίη which case λέλΟΙΠΕlJ is the correlative
of the mutilated participle ίη 8. But ηο compound of λΕίΠΕιν corresponds very well with
ήγορακυια, and οη Hle other hand ηο word meaning 'inherited' appears suitable ίn 8;
moreover, the further specification of the property άπα ,a[ορρα κ.τ.λ. then comes ίη }"ather
awkwaΓdΙΥ' Or (2) we may read [ό>ν κατaλ']λΟΙΠΕΥ, the genitive depending οη βορρα and the
whole clause further defining the position of the land sold.
ι 6. ΦOPTίoι~: cf. ccxliii. 26 συν TOiS- έμΠΕσuvμέvοιs- Φoρτίoι~.
30. xρη(μιίrισo ν): this is the usual form of signature by the official who sent these
notices to t11e agoran<?mus. lη one instance (cccxxxvii) χρη(μάτισον) is replaced by the
mOl"e specific άνάΥρα( Ψου).
32. Εv/(vκλίοv: cf. Ο. Ρ. Ι xcix, introd. The amount of the έΥκύκλιον οη sales was
1 ο per cent of the ΡΓίce. It appears from ccxliii that οη mortgages the tax was 2 per cent.
34. χαλ(κου) πρ(o~) άΡΥ(ύριον): this phrase, which applies only to Ptolemaic copper,
though not yet found ίn Roman papyri fIom other sources, was common ίn the first
centut·y at Oxyrhynchus; e. g. ccxliii. 47, cccxxxiii, and ο. Ρ. 1. xlix. 17,.1. 4, xcix. 19.
The precise ll1eaning of the addition πρα~ άΡΥVΡΙΟlJ is obscure 2.
, Αρμ: μ is rather strangely fOImed and could be read as /(α, but siηce ίn other cases the
amount paid for έΥκύκλιον is an exact propol"tion of the sum changing hands according to the
contract, μ is the safer reading.


23·5?< 11'2 cm. A.D. 79.

Ν otification similar to the two preceding papyri (cf. introd. to ccxli)
authorizing the agolAanomus to register a contract of mortgage. The borrower
is Dionysius, who, οη the security of some house and lal1d property, obtains from
Didymus a loan of 1300 drachmae of silver for twelve months at the usual
interest of ι per cent. a month. The chief interest of this document consists
partly ίη an explίcit statement of the ratio at this period between si1ver and
Ptolemaic copper (cf. introd. to ccxlii), which is given as 4 : 1800; partly ίη
the banker's receipt appended to the provisions of tl1e contract, which shows that
the tax cal1ed εΥκύκλιου was levied υροη mortgages as well as upon sales, and
that its rate was 2 per cent. of the loan, payable by the mortgagee. Tl1e tax
due fl·om purchasers, οη the other hand, was 1 ο per cent. of the price. Ιη the
1 l>rof. Wilcken (Gr. Ost. 1.712) considers that λαύρα means 'quarter,' but identjfies αμφοδον with
ρύμη. This, however, now seems hardly tenable Cf. also tne description of a ψιλo~ τ6ΠΟΥ; at Hermopolis
in Gizeh Pap. Νο. 10259 Επ' άμφ6δου Φρουρ[ου λιβo~ εν pύμrι λΕιΥυμΕν,!/ ΆσυιΥ"ρητι'
2 Cf. Wilcken, Gr. Ost. Ι. 720 sqq., where the question is discussed -at length.

upper and left-hand margins of the papyrus and ίη a blank space below line 43
have been scribbled a few lίnes which have not11ing to do with the main document
nor have any connected sense. Οπ the verso is a good deal of neat·ly effaced
writing, for the most part ίη the hand responsible for the scribbling ση the recto.

Χαιρήμων Xαιpήμωνo~ Mαpωllευ~ ό συllεσ­

Tαμέιlo~ υπα Κ(λα]υ8ίου 'Αιιτονίνου τφ άΎ(ο)ραν6­
μφ χαίρειν. 4r( άγ ]ραψαι συJlΎpαφη~ ύποθήκηf
Διδύμου του ~αpαπίωνo~ του Διδύμου μηTPO~
5 XaplT[of)]Tq~ Tη~ Π~τοqίου των άπ' ΌgVΡύΥχων
πόλεω~, [τΊων ύπαρχόντων τφ ύποτιθεμένφ Διονυ-
σιφ , τφ "" κα ι['] 'Α μοι ' Φ'
ανιου του ,.. και " Λ'
Δμοι ,...
του ,
Φ ανιου

μητρ[ ΟJ~ ? !1ναρ[ ί]ου τη ~ Δ ιονυσίου των άπα τη Υ

, [,..,
αυτ η~ πο'Jλ eros-, και ' μεμερισμενων " αυτφ "" " υπο Tη~ ,. .
10 μη[T]ΡO~ ?[ην]αp~o]υ, όπότε περιην, δι' η~ έθετω περι
κα(τ]α~έσ[εω]~ δια του έν Tfi αύτυ π6λει μνη μονίου
τφ Μεχειρ μηνι του δεκάτου ~Toυ~ ΝέΡω1l0S-
[ό]μ[ ολ ]ογίαs-, άπα Tη~, υπαρχούσηs- αύτΌ Επι του πpλ~
ΌξυρύΥχων πόλει $αραπίου έπ' άμφ680υ <Ερμαίου [οί-
ι 5 ~~α~
, , [Ίlf ' ]
υισΤΕΥΟS- και
λ '

και Ιξώδι[ ον κ Jat ~θpιoν και Kα~~[pα κ]αι rfjs- προσ­

lJ~l!!J~ τφ πύΡΥΡ έκ του άπο βορ(ρ)α μέρουs- αύλη~
Φρεαρ / λ/Ο
ι ινον και
' "ι,. λ""
"ι ων

t Ηρακλείδου τοϋ Φιλοξένου και ΠToλέμα~ Tη~ 'Aq-f-

20 vtos-, Εκ [το]Ο άπα βορρα μέpoυ~ άρξαμένου άπα Tη~
βop(p)ινη[~ Ύω]νίαS' του προπυλωllΟS' έπι ν6τον, βορρα
έπι νότον [έξ] άμΦOτ€pωιι τα/ν {των} μερων πηχών
[8έΊ~[ α εJξ, λιβοS' έπ' άπηλιότην όμoίω~ έξ άμφο­
τέρ[ων] των μερων πηχων τριάκοντα δύο, ωστ' εί-
25 να(ι] έπι τα αύτω έμβ(άτ)ου πήxε[ι]~ φενTαKoσίoυ~
[δέΊκα δύο, συν τ[ o]ί's- έμπεσoυμεllOΙ~ Eί~ TotGTOLS'
[Φ]rιf!τίοιs- πασι, και oλη~ Tη~ έκ του άπο βορ(Ρ)a μέpoυ~
τίο]Ο πύΡΥου αύλfjS' έν iί το φρέαρ, μέτρα και TαύTη~
βορρα έπι ν6τον έξ [άμ Ίφοτέρων τα/ν μερα/ν πήXEΙ~
30 EtKoul Tέσσapo~, λιβοr έ[π:] άπηλι6την όμoίω~ έξ άμιΡο-

τΕρων των μερων πήχειr fv8EKa, l!Jστ' εΙναι

και rfjr avλfjr έμβάτου πήχειr διακοσίουr έξή-
[ J
Ι< Ο ντα '
τεσσαΡοr, συν '' ''
Totr ' Etr
και ' 'ToVTovr
' συνεμ-

πεσoυμEνoι~ ΦΟΡτίοιr πα-σι, &στ είναι έπ! το αvτω

35 έμβάτου πήχειr έΠ(T)αKoσίoυ~ έβδομήκοντα gg,
π[ ιXJVTa δε άκολούθωr rf} δηλουμενυ όμολο-
yείrι: C;>v ύπεθετω avrEp ό πpoyεΎpaμμένo~ Διονυσι-
OS' ο και"Λ'
t " αΡΥυριου
Δμοιr ΠΡοr , και Φ α λ'εου opaxpar
1\ ,

χιλίαr ΤΡιακοσ{aS' T6KOV 8ρaχμια(ου έκάστηr

40 pvαS' του μηvοS' έκάστου Επι χρ6νοll μηναr δέκα
δύο άπα του είσι6ντοr μηνοr Φαρμουθι, d>V τιμη
6Jr τωll 8 (8ραχμων) Άω χα(λκοϋ) (τάλαντα) q( 'Γ. gppro(uo). ((TOVS-)
ια AvroKpdropor
--.!!..α[uapor ουεσ[πα]σιανου ~εβασToυ, Φαμειιώθ.
2nd hand. Χαιρή(μων), χρη(μάτισον).
45 3rd hand. Θέων και ΟΙ μέτοχ(οι) τρa(πε[ίται) τφ άΥο(ραν6μφ) χαί(ρειν).
τΕτακ(ται) Tfi κη του Φαμε(νωθ) έ'!/f-(υκλίου) Δt8υμοr
'$αραπ((ωνοr) καθ' η(ν) ~xει διαΎρα(φην) χαλ(κου) ΠΡοr άΡΥ(ύριοll)
(τάλαντον) α ΈΨ. (4th hand) Θέα/ν σεση(μεία/μαι) χ[ α]~~ου) 'lTpor
4R[ Υ(ύριον)] (τάλαvτον) [α] '1Ρψ.

3. 1. συγΥρaΦή,,· 7. 1. Άμ6ΙTO~.· 1. ;θετο; cf. 37.

10. ι 6. Ι αίθριον. 25. 1. το
αύτό, and so ίn 34. 1. πε",ταt<οσlου~. 26. 1. ToύToυ~. 30. 1. T;σσapα~ and so ίn 33.
38. Ι κεφαλαίου. 46. The name ~ιaυμο~ perhaps by the 4th hand.
'Chaeremon, son ofChaeremon, of the Maronian deme, nominee ofClaudius Antoninus,
to the agoranomus, greeting. Register a contract of mortgage for Didymus, son of
Sarapion, son of Didymus, his mother being Charitous, daughtel" of Petosius, of
Oxyrhynchus, of the property of the mortgager Dionysius also called Arnois, son of Phanias
also called Amois, son of Phanias, his mother being Zenarion, daughter of Dionysius, of the
same city, being a share assigned to him by his mother Zenarion ίn her lifetime by an
agreement of cession executed thΙΌugh the record office of the same city ίη the month of
Mecheir ίη the tenth year of Ν ero, of her house near the Serapeum at Oxyrhynchus
ϊn the quarter of Hermaeus, containing a two-storied tower and a gatewayand passage
and hall and chamber, and of the court adjoining the tower ση the north side and con-
taining a stone well, and of some open plots of land formerly ίη the possession of Heracleides,
son of PhiIoxenus, and Ρtοleιηa, daughter of Asinis, οη the nΟΓth side staι-tίng [I"om the north
angle of the gateway towards the south, meaSUΓίηg from north to south ση both sides
16 cubits, and fΙΌm west to east also οη both sides 32 cubits, making 512 square cubits,
together with all fixtures that may be included ίη them; the measurements of the court
northwards of the tower and containing the well are from north to south οη both sides
24 cubits, and fι-οm west to east also οη bqth sides r ι cubits, malting for the court 264

square cubits, together with all fixtures w\1ich may be included ίη them; total measurements,
776 square cubits, all these particulars being ίη accordance with the aforesaid agreement.
The property has been mortgaged to Didymus by the said Dionysius aIso called Amois for
a sum of 130Ο drachmae of silver at the interest of a drachma for a mina each month for
a term of twelve months from the coming month Pharmuthi; the value of which sum,
reckoned at the rate of 1800 drachmae (οΕ copper) for 4 drachmae (of si1ver), is 97 talents
3000 drachmae of copper. Farewel1. The 11th year of the Emperor Caesar Vespasian
Augustus, Phamenoth.'
There follow the sjgnature of Chaeremon authorizing the registration, and the
receipt of the bank of Theon and company for ι talent 5700 drachmae of copper paid by
Didymus ση account of the tax οη sales and mortgages.
ι. ΜαΡωvιύr: several new names of demes .occur ίη this volume; see cclxi. 6 Αύξιμη­
τόΡειοr ό και Δήvιιοr, cclxiii. 18 ΈπιΦάvειοr, cclxxiii. 9 Φvλαξιθαλάσσι,οr ό καΙ 'Αλθαιεύr,
12 Φvλαζιθαλάσσειοrό και CΗΡάκλειόr; cf. ccclxxiii and ccclxxvii. Probably ίη all cases the
demes are Alexandrian, lil{e ~ωσικόσμιοr ό και' Αλθαιεύr ίη Ο. Ρ. Ι. xcv. 15.
ι ι. δια του • • • μνημονίου: cf. ccxxxviii. 2, note.
25. For έμβάτου or, lDore correctly, έμβάδου cf. Brit. Mus. Pap. CLIV. 6 πήχιιr
έμβαδικοί. The spelling εμβατικόr occurs ίη ΒτίΙ Mus. Pap. CXCI. 19.
27. For Φορτ[α ίη the sense of fixtures cf. ccxlii. 16 and C. Ρ. R. 206, ίη which a μlpo~
Φορτ[ων πλινθικω" καΙ αύλικ.ω" και [ •• .]ητικων is sold for 600 drachmae.
36• .,.fj δηλουμ/νll όμολΟΥίq.: i. e. the δμολΟΥία mentioned ίη 13-
42. The tetradrachm or stater, being the silver coin ίη common use, was the regular
unit ίn a comparison of values; cf: e. g. Rev. Pap. col. LX. 15, and Brit. Mus. pap. CXXXI.
reclo 447 ώr τω(ν) 8 (8ραχμων) ι,βολ(Οl) κη.


28 χ 13·6 cm. A.D. 23.
This and the following papyrus (ccxlv) are both addressed to the
strategus Chaereas, and are concerned with the registration of property ίn cattle.
The present document is a letter from a slave named Cerinthus, who states his
intention of transferring his sheep to the Cynopolite nome, which was οη the
opposite side of the river, and requests that the strategus of that nome may be
notified of the fact. Below is the beginning of the letter written ίη accordance
with this request by Chaereas to Hermias, the strategus of the Cynopo1ite
Απ interesting palaeographical feature is the signature of Cerinthus, which
is one of the earliest examples of Latin cursiνe writing upon papyrus.
[Χ]αιρεαι στρατηΥα/ι
παρα Κηρίνθου :ΛΙΙTωνία~ Δρούσου
80ύλου. βoυλ6μενo~ μεταΥαΥείν
Εκ του ΌξυρυΥχ{του εί~ τον Κvν[ο]πολlτην
5 νομον νο[μωJν χάριν & ~xω έν άΠΟΥρα(ΦΏ)

~π2 του 'Οξ(υρυΥ]χ(του έν τφ ένεστωτι

έ1Ιάτωι ~Tει Τιβερίου Kα(σαpo~ ~εβασToίί
προ τριακ6σια εικοσι
J! '1
και '

[Εκατ ]011 Εξήκον[ τ]α και TOΌ~ έπακολουθ( O~νTα~)

10 lipva~ [κ]αι έpίφoυ~, Επι8ί8ωμι το όπ6μllη(μα)
ίJπω~ ypάΦυ(~) τωι του Κυ1l0πολίτου
[σ]τρατηΥα/[ι] φ[έp]~!!, τα σημαΙlI(6μεν)a ΠΡ~f!q,Τlf
και ~!' • • • q, : [έ1Ι] άΠΟΥραφη! • • • • . ~
. .Υ • • • • • .ν[. • • • • •
• .[. • • • • ].[. ]1ITO~
2ndhand. 15 Ceri[nthus] Antoniae · Drusi · ser(uus)
epid[e]doca · anno · νίiίί · Tib(eri)
Caesaris Aug(usti) · Mechir · di~ • Qι;t(auο)
3rd hand. Xαιpέα~ CΕΡμ{lf [στρα(τηΥΡ) ΚVlIο]πgλ{τοv πλείστα χαίρειν.
Επέ8ωκεν μοι ά[ΠΟΥραφη]ν ,KήpΙ1lθ[o]~ 'AlITro1l(ar Δρούσου
20 80υλοr βου[λ6]μ[ενo~ 22 letters ].. ~!

'Το Chaereas, strategus, from Cerinthus, slave of Antonia, daughter of Drusus. Ι wish
to transfer from the Oxyrhynchite to the Cynopolite nome for the sake of pasturage 320
sheep and 160 goats and the lambs and kids that may be produced, which Ι have οη the
register ίn the Oxyrhynchite nome ίη tlle present ninth year οΡ Tiberius Caesar Augustus.
Ι therefore present this memorandum ίn order that you may write to the strategus of the
Cynopolite nome to register the aforesaid sheep and goats ...
'Ι, Cerinthus, slave of Antonia, daughter of Drusus, have presented this ίn the ninth
year of Tiberius Caesar Augustus, οη the eighth day of Mechir.
, Chaereas to Hermias, strategus of the Cynopolite nome, many greetings. 'Cerinthus,
slaνe of Antonia, daughter of Drusus, has presented to me a return, wishing to ..• '

13. 1t does not seem possible to read αlyα~ here after καΙ, where it is certainly exρected.
17. There are some traces of ink which may indicate another short line below 17, but
are more probably accidental.


37 χ 7 cm. A.D. 26.
Property return addressed to the strategus Chaereas (cf. ccxlίv) by two
persons, who make a statement of the number of sheep ίn their possession ία the
twelfth year of Tiberius. The formula followed ίη this document aIso occurs ίη
cccl-ccclvi ; it is somewhat different from that found ίη the Fayum papyri.

These Oxyrhynchus returns of cattle were usually sent to the strategus or

the toparch; and two (ccxlv and cccli) which are addressed to the former are
signed by the latter. They are also as a rule dated early ίη the month
Mecheir. ccxlvi shows some peculiarities. ccclviί and ο. Ρ. Ι. Ιχχίν state the
present number of the catt]e compared with that of the previous year.
1st hand. ,η

2nd hand. Χαιρέαι στρατηΥωι 15 ΕπιμεμΙΥμέιια Toί~

παρa (Ηρακλείου του ΑΙΟllυσΕου του (Ιππάλου
'Λπίωιιοr και Ν dpL80r 8ια ιιoμEω~ τούτου
του Κολλούθου πρ(ε)σβυ- υιιου ~TpάTωιιo~ νεω­
5 τερου. άΠΟΥραφ6μεθα τέρου λαΟΥραφουμενο(υ)
εΙ~ το έΙΙEσTO~ ιβ (~TOS') 20 εί~ την αiιτην Πέλαο
Τιβερίου Kαίσαpo~ $εβαστου ~ν και Tα~6μεθα το καθη-
τα όπάρχοιιτα ήμεΊιι κον TEλo~. ε~T[ύ]χ(ει).
πρ6β(ατα) έκάστφ Εξ: 3rd hand. ~apα(πίωιι) Toπ(άpxη~) σεση­
10 πρ(6βατa) ι{3, & ιιεμήσεται (μείωμαι) πρ6βατa
συν To(i)r έπαιcoλoυθoo­ 8έκa 860 / ιβ.
σι IiΡιιασι 1[ερι Πέλα Tfjr 2nd hand(?) 25 (~TOVS') ιβ ΤιβερΕου Kaίσapo~
nopor λΕ{3α Toπαpxίa~ ~εβaσToυ, (1st hand?) ΜΕ­
και 8ι' δλου του ιιομου χ(ειρ) ε.

'Το Chaereas, strategus, from Heracleus, son of ΑρίΟΏ, and Naris, son of Colluthus
the elder. We return for the current 12th year of Tiberius Caesar Augustus the sheep
which we own as six each, or twelve sheep ίη all. They will pasture, together with the
lambs that may be produced, ίη the neighbourhood of Pela ίη the western toparchy and
throughout the nome, mixed with those of Dionysius, son of Hippalus, under DiQnysius'
son, Strato the younger, as shepherd, who is registered as an inhabitant of the said Pela.
We wilI aIso pay the proper tax υροη them. Farewel1.
'Ι, Sarapion, toparch, have set my signature to twe1ve sheep, total 12.
'The 12th year of Tiberitls Caesar Augustus, Mecheir 5.'


Plate νιι. 34·3 χ 8 cm. A.D. 66.
Supplementary return addressed to the strategus, the royal scribe, and the
, scribes of the nome.' The sender registers as his property seven lambs, which
he states have been born subsequent to a previous return sent ίη by him for the
current year.
Ο 2

The body of the document is ίη a fine uncial hand of a literary type, whiIe
the signatuI-es of the various officials are very cursively written.

Παπίσκωι KOσμηT€ύιr[α(ντι)
Tfjr π6λεω~ και στρα(τηΥφ) Ό,υ[ρυΥχ((του)
και ΠTOλ€μα(ίφ) βασιλικω[ι ypα(μμαT€Ι)
και TOΙ~ 'φ ουσι τον' νο μον
, , ['
5 'ΙΛ'
παρα pμιυσιo~ ,..
του πε το- [
σίpιo~ του ΠεToσ(pιo~ μ[η­
TPO~ Δι8ύμη~ Tη~ Διoyέ[νoυ~
των ,.. " Kωμη~
απο, Φθ'
ωχ [lor
Tη~ πpo~ άπηλιώτην T9[π(αPx(α~).
10 , ... 111 '
απεΥΡα,l,αμην ""
τωι εν[ εσ-

τωτι ιβ (~Tει) Nεpωνo[~

Κλαυ8{ου Kα(σαpo~
~εβασToυ Γερμανικου
ΛύTOKpάTOPO~ περι την
15 "
αυτην Φθ'"
ωχ ιν " [0-
απο r
νη~ 6JlI ~xω θρεμμάτω[ν
~ 1\' 1\' 'Λ[
αpνα~ οεκα ουο, και Jιυ ν

αΠΟΥρα'Φ ομαι Toυ~" [
επ ΙΥε-

yoνOTα~ , EΙ~ '"την ενεστ ['"


20 ,
8Ευτεραν ,
ην α'['πο

yoνη~ των aiJTfiJll θρεμ[μά-

επτa, Υινον ται
επτα· και
" ομν υω

Νέρωνα Κλαύ8ιον Καίσαρ[α

25 ~εβαστον Γερμανικον
Λύτοκράτορα μη όπεστ4[λθ(αι).
2nd hand. ' ΛπολλώνιοS' δ π(aρα) Παπ((σκου
στρατη,,/ου σεση(με{ωμαι) lipv(α~) (.
30 (~Toυ~) ιβ Nέpωνo~ του κυρ(ηου,
Έπειφ λ.
3rd hand. (Ωρ(ωll ό π(αρα) Πτολ(εμαίου) βα(σιλικου) yP(appaTEror)



<r~!''!J(με (ωμαι ) dp[v( aS') (.

(lTOVS') ιβ ΝέΡωιιοS' Kαίσαρo~
του κυρ(ου, Έπειφ (λ'.
4th hand. 35 Ζήνων ό π(αρα) τ(ωll) τοιι 1Ι0μ(ον) ΥΡ(αφ6νΤα/ν) σεση(μείωμαι)
dplI(aS') (. (~TOVS') ιβ Νέρωll[οJ~ Kαίσαpo~
τ~ρ ~!,I!{~[υ], Έπ[εηφ λ.
, Το Papiscus, ex-kosmetes of the city and strategus of the Oxyrhynchite nome, and
Ptolemaeus, royal scribe, and the scribes of the nome, from Harmiusis, son of Petosiris, son
of Petosiris, his mother being Didyme, daughter of Diogenes, of the village of Phthochis ίη the
eastern toparchy. Ι registered ίη the present 12th γear of Nero Claudius Caesar Augustus
Germanicus Imperator ίn the neighbourhood of the said Phthochis twelve la~bs which
were born from sheep ίη my possession, and Ι now register for the second registration
a further progeny οΕ seven lambs born from the same sheep, total seven lambs; and Ι swear
by Nero Claudius Caesar Augustus Germanicus Impet·ator that Ι haνe not prevaricated.
There follow the signatures of Apollonius, agent of Papiscus, Horion, agent of
Ptolemaeus, and Zenon, agent of the ' scribes of the nome.'
Ι. lcοσμητεύσ(α(ν'Ζ"Ι): cf. Β. G. U. 362,ΙΧ. 6, fr. νίί. 4. Very little ίΒ known concerning
the functions of the lCoσμηTή~, but it appears from other Oxyrhynchus papyri (unpublished)
that one of his duties was the management of public festivals and games. That the office
involved great expense is evident from C. Ρ. R. 20.
4. TOtS- Υράφουσι τό." ιιομόν: cf. ccxxxix. ι, note"


35 χ 8·8 cm. A.D. 90.
Registration of house-property addressed to the keepers of the archives
by Panechotes οη behalf of his younger brother, who is described as not quite
of age. Cf: Ο. Ρ. Ι. lxxii, which is a similar return addressed to the same two
officials ίη the same year, and is ,also written οη behalf of a second party; ccclviii;
and the two following papyri, which show that Epimachus and Theon were the
keepers of the archives ten years earlier. The decree of Mettius Rufus mentioned
ϊn 15 is preserνed ίη ccxxxνii. νιιι; οη the general subject of αΠΟΥρaφαί see note
οη line 31 of that column.

1st hand. ~ ~ Φαμενα/(θ) 1:8. [~]ιι Τψ Κάμπρ τρίτον

~nd hand. θέωιιι και'Επιμάχωι [μέ]ρo~ οίκίαS' 8ιπυΡΥ{·
βιβλιοΦ(ύλαξι) αS', ενII
''l' "
κατα μεσοll αι-

παρa ΠαJlΕχώτου του 25 1θρ]ιοll, και rijS' προσού.


5 Παυσ(ΡΙΟΥ του Πανεχώ­ [ ση~ ] αυ'λ""

η~ και \ ετερων
( '"
του μηΤΡΟΥ Τσεναμμω­
'" και\€ισ-
(Χ ]ρηστηΡΙα/ν ,

lιαΤΟΥ Tη~ 'Πaνεχώτου 680υ και έξ680υ κa2

των άπ ΌξυρύΥχων π6λ(Eω~).
Λ ,
Τα/ν συν κυροντων,

άΠΟΥράφομ[αι τΕρ δμΟΎν]?Ί- 30 κατηντηκαΥ είΥ αύτα"

, ,
10 σ{φ μου ά8Ελ[Φίi> ...... ,~

€6" ονομαΤΟΥ

τηΥ ση-

άπα Tη~ αύTη~ π6λεωs­ μαινομενηΥ και με­

προστρεχοντι Ti7 ένν6­ Tηλλaxυ{a~ άμφοτέ­
μ~ι) ήλΙΚ(ff KaTa τα ύπο Ρα/ν μηΤΡΟΥ Τσεναμ-
του κρaτίστου ήΥΕμ6νΟΥ 35 μωllαTO~ άπα Tη~ av-
15 Μεττ{ου cρουφου προσ­ Tη~ f α} π6λEω~ άκολού­
ΤΕταΥμενα το ύπάρ­ θωΥ oΊ~ ~X€ι 8ικα{ΟΙΥ.
χον αύτφ εlΥ την ένεσ- (lTOUY) ένάτου AίιTOKpάTOPO~
τωσαν ημερχν
'" "
επι του
Ka{σapo~ ΔομιτιαιιοΟ
ΠΡΟΥ 'ΟξυρύΥχωll π6λ(ει) 40 ~εβαστου Γερμανικοϋ,
20 ~ "', , ,
~αpaπιoυ επ αμ
οοου ΦαμΕνωθ ι8.
<ιππεων ΠαρεμβοληΥ

, Το Theon and Epimachus, keepers of the archiνes, from Panechotes, son of Pausiris,
son of Panechotes, his mother being Tsenammonas, daughter of Panechotes, of the city
of Oxyrhynchus. Ι register for my full brother ... of the same city, who is approaching the
legal a'ge, ίη accordance with the commands of his highness the praefect Mettius Rufus, his
property at the present date ίη the Campus near the Serapeum at the cίtγ ofOxyrhynchus ίη
the Knights' Camp quarter, namely a third part of a doubled-towered house, ίη the middle of
which there is a hall, aηd οΕ the court attached and the other fixtures and the entrance and
exit and appurtenances. This has desceηded to him from the property of the aforesaid and
departed Tsenammonas, the mother of us both, ία accordance with his rightful claims.
The ninth year of the Emperor Caesar Domitianus Augustus Germanicus, Phamenoth 14.'
12. προστρΕχοντι Tlι Εννόμ,φ ήλικlg.: cf. cclxxv. 8 ούafπω glJTa των lTiiJV. The' legal age'
was probably fourteen years, when men became liable to the poll-tax.
23. ~ιπυpyΙα~: cf. Brit. Mus. Pap. CCCXLVIII. 12, C:-P. R. 28. 10.
37. From the use of the present tense ίι seems that the subject of Zxet is the legatee ;
but ίη the parallel passage ία ccxlviii. 33-4 the Ο[και.α are those of the testator.


31 χ 11'5 cm. A.D.8Q.

Property..return simίIar to the preceding, sent to the keepers οΕ the archives

by Demetrius ση behalf of his son Amois, who had inherited some property

from his grandfather Sarapion. It is noticeable that Sarapion is stated to

have died ίη the 8th year of Vespasian (75-6), or at least four years earlier
than this registration; cf. ccxlix. 13 and 25, and note ση ά",ογραφαί ση ccxxxvii.
VIII·3 1 •
'Ε πιμaχωι
~ κα ι [' Θ'

παρα Δημητρ(ο[υ Ί$αpαπ(ωιιo~ του Θέωνo~
μηTPO~ llpelpa[S'] τΏ[~ •.•.•...
5 ~αpαπίωνo~ του ~λε[ξάν8poυ . • . • • •
τα/ν άπ ΌξυρύΥχων [π6λ(εωS'). άΠΟΥράφομαι
τωι υιωι μου 'Λμ6ιτι [Δημητρ{ου του
~ ~
~αpαΠΙα/νo~ του
,.. Θ'[
l-f, ~ ωνo~ Τα/ν
απο Tη~ αυ-

Tη~ π6λεα/~ . [. • . . . . . • . • • • . •.
, ~ ,
10 ΠΡα/Τf!;~ ~Kα:ι. •....•....• τα Ka-
τηιιτηκ6τα [εΙ~ α~TOΙΙ ~ξ] όιι[6μαTO~
Λ' "["
μεν πaTpo~ ~If? vqv'] Τ9"!,.. [1"οΕ παππου
~ .
~αpαπίΦlI0~ του Θ ErovoS' [. . . • . . .•
χου τα/ιι άπο TfjS' αύ[Τ(ηS') π6]λεω[~ ΤΕτελευ-
15 τηκ6τ ο r τωι όΥ86ω[ ι ] gTEt θεο[ϋ
Ούεσπασιαιιοϋ, ~ιι μΕιι τηι ΌξυρύΥ[χων
π6λει έπ άμφ6(80)υ ΠλαTε(a[~ . • . . . . .
pEpoS' ήμ(σoυ~ μέpoυ~ κοιιιωνι[ KfjS' oIK(α~
και, αι'θ"
ριου και"λ'"
αυ η~, ,
και ΠΕρΙ'Κερκε [•••
20 Tη~ πpo~ λίβα Toπαpxία~ ~K του [Κτη-

σι~ λ eovS'
~ κλ ηρου ' "
απο κοινα/ΡΙΚα/ν ,. . ['εοα-

φων ημισυ μεροS' KαToι/(ικη~ 'γη$' ά[ρου-

.... 1" ,... ~ " [ .... 'Ε
Ρα/ν οεκa μιa~ τεταρτου, και ΕΚ το υ πι-

, ~
ε α-

25 φων ήμισυ μεpo~ καTOΙKΙKη~ yfjS'

, ,.. 1'~ " ,.. ,,.. , [
αρουρωll ovo, και ειι Tf/ aυΤΊ/ κωμ Ί/

8(μοιρον pEpoS' τετάρτου μερου[ S'

κοιιιο>ιιικη S' ΕπαύλεωS' συνπεπ[ τω-
, , 1', , '[' ,
κυια$ εJl 1/ πovpyoS' και περιστερεα/JΙ κ αι ιιυ-

30 λ αι' και
χρηστηρια παντα
συν π€-

, ~ 1\' ~ , , \ 1\' [ ,..

πτω/(οτα. ο οε ~ αρaπιωιι εστιlΙ οια Ί"ηr

του δεκάτου gTOV~ Νεpωνo~

άπoypαφη~, Επι δΕ πάντω[ν) άκο[λού-
• θω~ TOΙ~ εI~ τον αύτον Σαραπ[ίων]α δ[ικ(αlοι~).
35 (gTOV~) 'Υ AIJTOKpάTOPO~ - Τίτου Καlσ(α]ρ[ OS' ΟΙJεσπασιανου
~εβαστοϋ, ΦαQ\Φι) ιΥ.
2nd hand. '1 ii πε

10. The three letters after πρωτ corrected. 18. The syllable μι ίη ημισoυ~ originally
omitted, and added above the line. 34. TOΙ~ added above the line.
9. Ιη the latter part of the line it was probably stated that Amois was a minor; cf.
ccxlvii. 12.
10. Perhaps κατ[α τά κελεvσθέvτα, but the difficulty at the beginning of the line renders
the supplement doubtful.
20. [ΚτηJσικλέοv~ κλήρου: the names of the κληροι are perhaps those of the first κάτοικοι
who held them, just as the three μεpΙ~ε~ of the Fayftm were probably called after the three
first στρατηΥΟ!.
28. συvπεπ[rωJl(vlα~: 'ίn a state of ruin.'
3 ι. The point of the statement that Sarapion had registered the property ίn the 10th
year of Νero is not easy to understand οη the theory of an annual registration; c[ note ση
ccxxxvii. νιιΙ. 3 ι. Οη the other hand the remark need not necessarily imply that there
had been πο general αΠοΥραφή of property between that date (63-64) and the present year,.
though it rather points ίn that direction.


21 χ 7·2 cm. Α. D. 80.

Supplementary property return, dated ίη, the same year and οη the same
day as ccxlviiί, announcing ίη addition to property registered previously the
possession of a share of a honse devised to the present owner by his brother,
who had died early ίη the year 78. Two years had therefore elapsed between the
decease of the testator and this registration of the property by the heir; cf. introd.
to ccxlviii, and note οη ccxxxνii. VIII. '31.
Έπιμάχωι καΙ ΘΕωνι βιβλιοΦ(ύλαξι) 15 αΙJτυ π6λει Εν τφ Παμμ~­
παρ?ι, ΔΙΟΥατοS' τοϋ TeroTOS' νoυ~ λε'Υομένρ παρα8εί-
του Κενταύρου μηTPO~ Άπί- σου
pepor "
aS' Tη~ ΠPΦTαTO~ ~ων άπ' 'Οξυ­

μεΡουr .KoινωνΙKη~ ΠΡΟS'

'1\ λΦ ,
5 ρύΥχ ων π6λεω~. άΠΟΥράΦο- με
, ,
και Tovr αοε OVS' και,
μαι κaτα τα προστεταΥμε- 20 έτερουS' όlKία~ dκολο6θωr

να χωΡιr Cδν προαπεΥρα .. δ πεποίηται 8ια του f.1I Tfi

, και
,, ..,
νυν το κατηll- αύτΏ π6λει άΥορα1l0μείου

ει~ με

oνoμαTO~ τφ τυβι μηνι του Ι (~TOυ~)
10 του δμΟΥνησΕου μου ά8ελ­ 8ιαθήKΊJ ώ~ περιέχει.
φου Ποπλίου τωll άπα Tη~ 2nd hand. 25 (εToυ~) Ύ AύTOKpάTOPO~ Τίτου
αύTη~ π6λεω~ μ[ε]τηλλα- Kαίσαpo~ Ούεσπασια1l0υ ~ε­
, "
XOTO~ ατεκνου
τωι ι
ετει βαστου
θεου Ούεσπασιανου Ειι T[fi Φαωφι ΙΥ.

16. 1. παΡαaιίσφ. 27. ΙΥ corr. from ιβ.


22·3 χ 10·8 C'UZ. Α. Ώ. 61 (?).

Supplementary property return resembling ccxlix; cf. note οη ccxxxvii.

VIII. 31. The writer, whose name is lost, registers some property derived from
his father, who had died at the end of the 3rd year of Ν ero, ίη the course
of which year the writer's preνious return had pet·haps been sent ίη (cf. note
οη 6). The date of the present document. is missing, but it is approximately
fixed by the mention of the praefect Vestinus, who is known to have been
ίη office ία the 6th, 7th, and 8th years of Nero; and that it should be
assigned to the 7th year is made probable by the fact that there is gummed
to its left margin a mutίlated document which is to al1 appeat·ance a similar
property return and which is dated ίη the month Germaniceus of the 7th year
of an emperor who is almost certainly Nero.

[• . . •. ] • ' ~φ
αΠΟΥρα ομαι κατα
" τα
ι [ ,,..
υπ ο του

[ήΎεμ6110fl] Λευκίου Ίουλ{ου Ούηστείν[ου προστεταΥ'"

[ μενα Χ] '
ωpι~ 'i'
0011 προaΠΕΥρ α .1,.
τ α, μηll [ •••••.•••.• f

[. . • . . . .] . . παρα Άpσιν6η~ rfjr 1;('0[. • . . • • . . • • • •

5 [. . . . . . . . . . Jov έlΙ τωΊ ΠαιταισΙΕίω[ ι • • • . . . . . • . •
[. . . . . • . . • .]υ τωι Υ (~Tει) Ν έροοll[ o~ Κλαυ8/0υ Κα[­
[σαpo~ '$ εβαστοJD Γερμallικου Αύτο[ KpάTOPO~ περι
την '['
α!,τ ην ]'
κ ωμην ,
εκ ,..
του ΝΙKαllOρo~
L [ '
και Δ ριμακου'
κλήρων λεΥομειιωll Δωροθέου άρ[ oύpa~ ....•..

10 ,
τετaρτοιι έ ιιοεκα
1" ( τοιι,
)τα' κατηιιτηκ["
οτα Etr εμε

E, t. ' ,
OlIopaTor \ ,..
του μετη
axoTor Ίf'[ ' μου
Άμμωιιίου του ~αραπίω1l0r Tαι~ [έπαyoμEιιαι~
του αύτου Υ (eTovr) άφ η~ Εθετο ί8ιο[Ι'ράφου όμολΟΥt­
ar τωι ΙΥ (Ετει) θεου Κλαυ8Ι0υ και 8tq, [τη\' πραr την
15 Ι'υιιαικά μου ΤααΥρελλσα ~πελ~[ατοr .
συιιοικεσ(ου συιιl,ραΦfjr Υεl,οιιυία( r 8ια του Ειι
ΌξυρύΥχωιι π6λει άl,οραιιομίου τα/[ι μηιιι
του ι8 (~Tovr) θεου Κλαυ8{ου, Ειι μΕιι Όξυρ[ύΥχωιι π6λει
, τηι
" Λ
Τα/ν '
Λ υκιωll παρεμβ ολ""
Ίl ["
ο ικιαll και"λ'
αυ ην

'tf " , , [
20 και ετερα χρηστηρια, και ΠΕρΙ το ιι. • • • • • • • • • ••
εκ του ,.. '
ΝtKavopor και'Δ' . . . •.•.
ριμακου κλ'
ηρ ου [
ύπάρχο[ιι]TOS' αύτωι έποικΕου το[ . ••......•..
, ..." IJ ....., , [
εκ του απο tJoppa μερουr Etr ο ειι ο ΎΙ~ εται και
,~ , λ ,~

δ άπα βορρα περιστερεα/ιι και τα [• . . . . . . . . .

2 5 Ύoυ~f!ι πρ6τεροll [~π]~rx(ι]~r Α(. . . . . . . . . . . .
ει 8Ε έλαια/ιιι κατa • [22 letters
8ύο ΤΕτάρτου ιJ[ 25 letters
ον καΙ τα του σT~[25 letters

Οη the verso
, ,
30 znd hand. ]Tor του 'ΛμμωllΕου απ ΌξυΡύrχ(OJΙΙ π6λε&>S') μη(τpo~)
~~PO!If( ) (JTιOv) Ι{.
7. ε ίη γερμ,αllικου corr. from α. 8. 1. ,Κ των, or κλήρου λΕγομΕlIου ίη 9; 'cf: 2 Ι.

6. lt is not certain to what this date refers; if to προαΠΕγρaψάμην, then the writer's
previous άΠΟΥραφή was made ίη Α. Ώ. 56-7, ίη which year a general άΠΟΥραφή must have been
held. But the construction of 3-10 is doubtful owing to the lacunae. Possibly ιcal νυν
immediately followed προαΠΙ:Υραψάμηll (cf. ccxlix. 8); the property mentioned ίη 3-10 would
then be part of the current return.
ι ι. Perhaps another name (ending ίn -τo~; cf. the verso) should be supplied ϊn the
lacuna after παTpό~; ΙΑμμώvιοr will then be the name of the writer's granclfather.
13-17. The property ϊη question was secured to its present owner by two agreements,
(ι) the όμ,ολΟΥΙα between himself and his father ίη the 13th year of Claudius, (2) his marriage
contract of the following year, ίn which the provisions of the όμολΟΥία were reaffirmed.
16. συνοικεσίου συV'Υραφη~: cf. cclxvi. ι ι, Pap. Par. 13, 10 (quoted ϊn introd. to
25. Υου και may perhaps be read.

30. (Ετων) ι.ζ:

if, as is the natural interpretation, this is the age of the writer of the
άΠΟΥραφή, the date of which is approximately Α. Ώ. 61, he was only nine or ten years
old when his marriage, which is meηtioned ίn line 18, took place. PossibIy therefore ιζ is
a mistake; but marriage at a very early age was not uncommon ίη Egypt at this period,
cf. Wessely ϊn Wiener Sllzungsbe1-zchte, 1891, ρ. 65. The age at which a boy ceased to be
άφηλιξ appears to be 14, cf. note οη ccxlvii. 12.


32·5 χ 9·5 cm. Α. D. 44.
This papyrus and cclii, and probably cclίii, are addressed to two officials
who combined the functions of the To'ΠoγpαμμαTεύ~ (scribe of the toparchy, see
note οη line 2) and κωμΟΥΡαμματεv~ or vil1age-scribe, and announce (α) the removal
of an individual from the place where he was officially registered (αυaypαφόμευo~
or α'Πoypαφόμευo~, cclii. 4); (δ) the fact that he ηο longer possessed any means
(πόpo~), presumably ία the Oxyrhynchite nome. The truth of the statements
is vouched for by oath. The removal of an inhabitant from his abode was
regarded by the authorities ίη Egypt with much suspicion, being often resorted
to for the purpose of evading λειτουργίαι or taxation. Α decree of Μ. Sempronius
Liberalίs, praefect ίη Α. D. 154, stigmatizing persons Ε'Πι ξ'υη~ as brigands, and
commanding them to return to their proper homes, is preserved ίη Β. G. U. 372.
Ιη Ο. Ρ. Ι. cxxxv we find a lead-worker bound over by surety to remain οη
his holding.
The formula fol1owed ίη these declarations concerning αυαxώpησ,~ resembles
that found ία announcements of death, e. g. cclxii. For their bearing οη the
origin of the census ίη Egypt see introd. to cc1iv.

Δι8ύμωι Kα~ Η[. . . . . . . [άληθη εΙιιαι] τα π[Ρ]οΥεΥρα(μμέιια),

ΤΟΠΟΥρα{μματευσι) K(aJi κωμΟΥρα(μ- κ[αι μη8ένα] π6ρον ό[πά]px(ειrι)
ματευσι) Τ[Ρ αύτφ) Θοώνει ~[ •••••
παρα θαμOύΙΙΙO~ [τJη~ • [.] . reUTp[ αΊτε ••• [•••••
Όιι[ιιώ]φpιo~ των άπ' ΌξυρυΥ- 25 [εΊύορκ[ο]ύσυ [μ]Ε" μ( ο]ι
5 χω[ v Π]6λεωS' μετa κυρ(ου [ε]υ εΥηι, έπιορκού[σ]υ 8Ε τα
~αρa[Π ](rovoS' του ~αpατrEωllo( r). έιιαιιτ(α. ~[ύ]Τ!-'Χ( εΙΤΕ).
ό v16r μου Θoωνι~ ΔιονυσΕου 2nd hand. Θαμουνι(ο)ν Όllνώφp[ιo]~ έπι8έ-
dTE[XVO]~ άναypaφ6μενo~ 8α/κα το όπ[6]μνημα καΙ όμό>-
έπι λαύ(ρ]ΙXS' TepoveJIOtJeEroS' 30 μεκα τον ΠΡΟΥΕΥραμμένον

10 , [ "
~]ρησειι ει~ την
αιιεχ ω lJPKOJI. .. ων '$αραπίωνοr
, ,,.. ,
[ςέ]νην τωι 8ιελθ6ντι
~ ~

εΠΙΥεΥραμμαι αυTη~ Kυpιo~ και

[xJp6vιp. [8ι]0 άςιωι [ά]ναΥράφε(σθαι) Υ[ έ]ΥραΦα ύπερ [α]ύTη~ μη εί8υία~

[τ]ουτον [έ]ν Tόι~ άιιακεχω(ρη κ6σιν) Υράμματ[ α].
[ ']' ~,,,
α πο του εΙΙEσTωTO~ τεταρτου
35 (~TOVS-) 8 Τιβερίου Κλαυ8ίου
15 ~TOυ~ ΤιβεΡlου Κλαυ8ίου Κα[ (]σαpo~ '$ εβαστ[ου] Γ[ε]ρμανικου
Καίσαρ[ o]~ ~εβαστου Aύ[T]OKpάTOPO~, τυβι ιβ.
[Γερ ]μ[ ανικ ]ου Α ύTOKpάTOPO~, 1st hand. [Θα]μούνιον ώs- (έτων) νη μέσ(η)
[και όμ]νύω Tιβ€pΙOν 4,!η(μo~) οφ •. [... ]~ • [••••]
[Κλαύ8ι ]ον Καίσαρα ~εβαστον 40 T?J() [.] • , • [. • • • ·]~x( )
20 [TEppavtJKOV Αύτοκράτορα . • . • ~TE[x(νo~)
29. 1. όμώμοκα.

'Το Didymus and .•. , topogrammateis and komogrammateis, from Thamounion,

daughter of Onnophris, of the city of Oxyrhynchus, with her- guardian Sarapion, son of
Sarapion. ΜΥ son Thoonis, son of Dionysius, who has ηο trade, registered ίη the quarter
of Temouenouthis, some time ago removed abroad. Wherefore Ι ask that his
name be entered ίη the list of persons removed, henceforth from this year which is the
4th of Tiberius Claudius Caesar Augustus Germanicus 1mperator; and Ι swear by
Tiberius Claudius, etc., that the aforesaid statement is correct, and that Thoonis possesses
ηο means ... 1f Ι swear truly may it be well with me, but if falsely the reverse. Farewell.'
Signature of Thamounion, written by her guardian, date, and official description of
Thamounion's age and appearance.
2. Οη ToπoypαμμαTEί~ see_Wilcken, Observa/iones ad hzs/. Aegypll~ ρρ. 23 sqq.l They
were scribes of the toparchies into which the nomes were divided. The Oxyrhynchite nome
contained at least five (indices to ο. Ρ. 1 and 11), and the Heracleopolite nome had several
(Β. G. U. 552, etc.). Other nomes however, e. g. the Latopolite, perhaps ,contained only
two toparchies, an upper and a Iower. The ToπoypαμμαTEί~ appear more frequently ίη the
Ptolemaic than ίη the Roman period, when theil· functions tended to become merged
ίn those of the κωμΟΥραμμαΤΕΙ$ who originally were subordinate to them. Here and ίη
cclii and ccliv both titles are held b)' each of the two officials. Why applications such
as these should be addressed to them b)' persons who were living at Oxyrhynchus itself
is not clear. 1t seems that even ίη the metropolis of the Oxyrhynchite nome there were
Toπol,pαμμαTEί~ and KωμoypαμμαTEί~ who were specially concerned with the revision of the census
lists; cf. ccliv. Ι.
3. θαμούIlΙΟ$: ίn 28 and 38 and cccxxii she is called Thamounion, but ίη cclxxv. 2 her
name is Thamounis, as ίn ο. Ρ. Ι. xcix. 3.
ι ι. ξ/νηρ: cf. note οη cclxxxvi. 15.
24. Possibly Thoonis' deΡaι-ture was due Ιο his having become a soldier.
27. The word at the end of the line is doubtless ΕύτυχείΤΕ (cf. ccliii. 4) but the letters
before χ are a mere scraw1.
3 Ι. The two letters before ων may be πι; ίη any case the name sllould have been
Σαρaπίωll, as ίn 6.
1 Cf. his Gr. O~'I. Ι. 428 sqq. ση τοπαρχία,.


16·5X9·7cm. A.D.I9- 20 •

Notice, similar to ccli, addressed ίη Α. D. 19-20 to Theon and Eutychides

(cf. cc1iv. ι), who lίke the officials ίη ccli combined the functions of To'ΠoγpαμμαTεΙ~
and KωμoypαμμαTEΙ~, by Thoonis, son of Ammonius, stating that his brother
Ammonius, a weaver by trade, had gone away and ηο longer had any means.
The document is incomplete, but the lacunae can be filled up from cclίii, which
is a similar notice written by Thoonis ίη August A.D. 19 and refers to the
departure of the same Ammonius and of another person cal1ed Theon, probably
a third brother. This second document preserves the ()PKO~, which is lost ίη
cclii. Why ίη the case of Ammonius more than one notice was necessary does
ηοΙ appear. Ιι is impossible that these notices had to be sent ίη annually.
Perhaps the fact that his departtIre took place about the same time as the
census (introd. to ccliv) has something to do with it; perhaps ccliii was not
addressed to the same officials as cclίί.
Θ έωνι και [Ε]ύτυχε(8υ ΤΟΠΟΥρα(μματεΟσι) και κομΟΥΡ[α(μματεϋσι)
παρα Θοώνιο[S'] του Άμμωνίου. δ ά8ελφ6S'
μου 'ΑμμώνιοS' 'Αμμωνίου YEp8to[S'
άΠΟΥΡαφ6μενοS' έπι τ( φ lp ]προσθ[Ε]ν
t ' []
5 υπαρχ ο ντι ' ' ' ' μερε
αυτφ ' ' [ι "
OtKtαS' λ'
[ΤευμΕν]ούθεωS' έονη[μενοS' παρα
[Δε?Ίr6τη S'] Ύυναικo~ μ[ ετa κυρ(ου
('$αραπ(ω]voS' άκολούθ[ ωS' TatS' E1S'
" ] ασ
[αυτην 'Φλ' , ,
α ELES', ανεχωρησεν

10 [elS' την J ξένην μη8ενοS' Ετέρου

[αύτρ πόρου] όπάρχονΤΟS'8 [8ιο] έπι­
[8t80VS'] το ύπ6 { μ }μνημα ά~[ι]ΟΟ άνα­
[Ύράφ]εσθαι τουτον έν TOtS' άνακ[ Ε­
[χωρηκ6]σι και π6ρον μ[ η] ~XOVTOS'
15 [άπα του έ]νεστωτο[S'] gΙCTov [~TOVS' Τιβε­
[p(ov Κα (σ ]apoS' '$ εβ[αστου
2nd hand. [. . • . . . . . . 8 οΙ ... ()
• • • •] ••

[(~TOVS') ς Τιβερ(ου Καί]σαΡΟS' ~EβασToυ μ[ . ...

(. . .. ~ . . . . . . . . .. ] . . . .

Ι. 1. ι<ωμΟΥΡ. 6. 1. έωνημένo~. 9. 1. άσΦαλιίaι~. 14. 1. Ιχ ουσι ; the genitive is probably

due to τάξει being used ίη similar returns, e. g. cclxii. 12.
6-8. Cf. ccliii. 3-5.
10. έτέρου, i. e. ηο πόpo~ except the above-mentioned part of a house which he had
purch~ased. T?e , house had ίη some way been disposed of before Ammonius went ~way,
cf. 4 ιμπροσθΕJΙ υπαρχοντι.
15. Cf. cclίii. 12, 24. Any other emperor but Tiberius is οη every ground out of
the question.
18. Perhaps Μ[ισορή, cf. ccliii. 24.


I9·3X I 3 cm . A.D.19·

Α notice similar to the preceding but written ίη the previous year; cf. introd.
to cclii.

[. . • • •]α/τη[ άΠΟΥρa-
[φ6μενοι Επι T]orr ~μπp[ οσθε]ν ύπάρ(χουσ]ι[ν
[avToir μΕρεσιν) olK(ar λαύΡαr Τευμενού[ θ( eror)
' ,
[εωνημεllΟΙ ~'Δ'
'tTapja ,
ε'!ll!οτηr yvvatKor

5 [μετα κυρίου] ~aΡaπ{ωνοr άκολού­

[θω$ "a'ϊr εΖ$ αύ)τΥν άσφαλεlαιr άιιε­
[χώρησαν elr τ]ηιι ξΕνην μη8ενοr
[Ε]τΕρ[ ου αύTOΊr π]6ρου ύπάΡχοντοr.
8ιο [έπι8(8ωμι "]0 ύπ6μνη[μ]α άξιων
10 άναΥρ[άΦεσθαι τ]ούτουr Εν Totr άνaκε-
χωρηκοσι , [και' )
π '
ορον μη"εχοντων
[άJπο του Ενεστ[ω]τοS' ε (~TOVS') Τιβερίου ΚaίσaΡοr
~εβασToυ κ~! ![.]ων όμοίων.

znd hand. 15 [Θoα/νι~ 'Αμμωνίο]υ Επι8έ8ωκa το ύπ6μιι[ η­

[μα Kal όμνύω Τιβέριοιι] Καίσαρα $εβαστοll
Αύτοκράτορα θεου ΔΙdr 'Ελευθερ(ου
~εβαστοϋ υΙον άληθη εΤιιaι τα ΠΡΟΥΕ-
[ Υ]ραμμΕιια, Kal μη8ένα π6[ρ]ον ύπάρχ ειll

20 (τ]φ 'Αμμωρ[']φ και τφ ρεωτερφ

, ,.., , t'

. ~ω"ι μεχρι Tη~ εΡεuτωσηr ημε-

, ,.. , '" Ν
pα~. ευορκουντι μεμ μοι ευ ειη,

[έ]πιορκοϋιιτ[Ι 8ε τ]ά Εναντία.

(~TOVr) Ε ΤιβεΡlοv ΚαίσaΡοr ~εβασToϋ, Μεσορ[η ..
11. 1. Ιχουσι. 18. αληθη Ειιιαι corr. from αληθιlι ηιιαι. 22. First V ιη EυOPΙCOνJlΤIι corr.
fro~ ρ.

13. ? l[τ]ώll. What we have regarded as the second vertical stroke Όf 11 is unusually
long and possibly represents an over-written ι, ϊη which case a contracted word .. ωνι( )
must be read.


13XII·3cm. AboutA.D.20.

One of the most interesting classes of Roman papyri consists of the census
returns (αΠΟΥραφαΙ κατ' οΙκίαν, which must be carefully distingnished frODl αΠΟΥραφαί
of house and land property discussed ίη ccxxxvii. νιιι. 31, note). The earliest
censns ίη Egypt hitherto known is that which was held ίη A.D. 6Ζ (Brit. Mus.
Pap. CCL. 79; Kenyon, Cαt. 11. 19). From that date to A.D. ΖΟΖ the recurrence
of the census at intervals of fourteen years is attested by numerolts examples.
Οη the origin of the cycle a good deal~ of light is tht·own by the papyri pnblished
ίη this volume, which carry it back certainly to the reign of Tiberius and with
al1 probabilίty far into the reίgη of Augustus.
The question of the beginning of the cycle has recently attained an unusual degree of
importance owing to the brilliant attempt made by Prof. Ramsay ίn ' Was Chrisf born al
Belhlehem?' to explain ίη the light of the Egyptian census returns the much disputed passage
ίη 8t. Luke ίί. 1-4 respecting the άπoypαφfι held by Herod. We were able to lay a part
of our results last autumn before Prof. Ramsay ίη time to be utilized ίη his book, but we
can now present them ίn a fuller and more matured form which has undergone some
modifications. It will therefore perhaps not be out of place if, after a survey of the evidence
as it stands at present, we briefly turn aside to examine those of Prof. Ramsay's arguments
which are based οη the Egyptian census lίsts, and consider how far, if at all, his conclusions
are affected by the new facts concerning άΠΟΥραφαί which are adduced ίn this volume.
The nature and purposes of the census ίn Egypt are discussed by Wilcken (Hermes xxviii.
ρρ. 246 sqq.)ι, and more recently by Kenyon (Cal. 11. ΡΡ. 17 sqq.). The returns ίn Fayftm
papyri are addressed to the στpαTηyό~, βασιλικος ΥΡαμ,μaτιvr, κωμ,ΟΥΡaμ,μ,ατιvs, and λαΟΥράφοι, or
to one or more of these officials; and consist of a statement by the householder (ι) of the
house or part of it owned by him or her, (2) of the names and ages of himself and all the
1 And now ϊη G,.. Ost. Ι. 435 sqq.

other residents including chi1dren, sIaves, and tenants. Α notable characteristic is that the
returns always relate to the year before that ίn which they were written. Thus a census
return for 89-90 was sent ίn during 90-91. These returns and the lists drawn up from them,
of which Brit. Mus. Papp. CCLVII-CCLIX are examples, were evidence with regard to
a man's age, address, household property, slaves, etc.; but their chief object undoubtedly
was to be the basis of a list of inhabitants liable to or exempt from. the polI-tax. This is
amply proved by (ι) the use of the term λaΟΥραφία for poll-tax ίn Egypt ίη place of the more
usual έΠΙK€φάλαΙOν (though, as we shall see 11ereafter, at Oxyrhynchus έΠΙK€φάλαιoν sometimes
occurs ίη early Roman papyri, e. g. cclxxxviii), (2) by the three Brit. Mus. papyri ιpentioned
above, (3) by the census returns themselves, ίn which any individuals who for various reasons
were-ιcάτοιιcοι or έΠΙΙC€ΙCPιμένoι (cf. introd. to cclvii), i. e. wholly or partly exempt from the ροιι­
tax, record the fact, e. g. Β. G. U. 116 11. 18.
The three census returns published here, ccliv-vi, are all unfortunately incomplete;
but they show the same general formula, and differ ίn some respects from other known
census returns, which nearly all come from the Faytim. As the differences are a matter of
some importance, ,ve give first the text of a ιcαT' oΙιcΙαν ιlπoyραφή for Α. D. 145-6 from
Oxyrhynchus, which resembles closely the formula of the FayGm census returns and was
briefly described ίη ο. Ρ. Ι. clxxi (cE ccclxi, part of a census return for 75-6).
Διοσκόρφ στρατηΥφ και Ίσχvρlωνι βασιλ(ΙΚΨ) Υραμμa(T€Ι)
\ (Ι'€pαKOς 'Α Kωpιo~
παρα ' . . Ν• • • •[ • • •

άπ' 'ΟξυρύΥχων πο'λΕωs\ ιlπoyράφoμαι κ[ατα

τα /(ΕλΕυσθέντα ύπο Ούαλ€Ρlοv Πpόιcλoυ
5 του ήYEμ6νo~, άΠΟΥράφομαι πρo~
την του ~ΙEλθ&νTO~ θ (€TOVS') , AνTων€Ινoυ
KatuapoS' του Kvplov ιcαT' οΙκίαν άΠΟΥρα-
φην Τ1]ν (corr. from το) ύπάρχο( υσα)ν μοι ,ΠΙ άμ.φ6~oυ δρό-
μ~υ θ οηρι~οs-
' ~ "
οικιαν " Λτοπφ ιcαλ ov-

10 μΕJJ€p Διονυσου ΤΕχνΕιτων,

'φ' η~ άΠΟΥρά(Φομαι)
αύτόs- έΥω μηTΡO~ ΔιονvσlαS' tI.paKos-
\ ,
, χω
) l:.

Ιιέραξ vίόs- μου μητρόS' 'ΑλΕξάvδραS'

15 ιlπ€λ€vθ[έΡαs- • .••
Beginnings of 5 more lines.
cclv is addressed to the στρατηΥ6S', βασιλΙKO~ Υραμματ€ύs-, ΤΟΠΟΥραμματ€ύS' and κωμΟΥΡαμμα'f'ΕtJr,
ccliv to the two last-named officials, whom in ccli-iii we have already seen to be concerned
with the revision of the lists of persons' names and property at Oxyrhynchus. The middle
part of the formula ίη these ear]y Oxyrhynchus census returns differs from that of the later
one and of Faytim returns ίη having ηο reference to the past year, nor do the phrases
άΠΟΥράΦΕσθαι, except perhaps ίη ccl νΙ 15, and κατ' οΖκίαν άΠΟΥραΦή occur ίη them. cclv ίη
fact is called ίη line 18 a ΥραΦή simply. Οη the other hand cclv (and probably ccliv and
cclvi as well) has at the end a declaration οη oath which is not found ίη Iater census returns,
except ίn an incomplete one (unpublished) from Oxyrhynchus written ίη Nov. A.D. 132 and
referring ηο doubt to the census known to have been held for the year 131-2. But the
three Oxyrhynchus papyri ίη question nevertheless contain all the essentials of a census
return, νίΖ. a statement by a householder of his house and of the na.mes and ages of all the
inhabitants; and if any doubt remains, it is removed by an examination of their dates.
cclv is dated ϊη Oct. Α. Ώ. 48. As has been stated, the earliest definitely known census is

1 Cf. introd. to cclvii (ρ. 219).


that for Α. D. 61-2, the returns for \vhich were sent ίη ίη 62-3; but from the supplemen-
tary lists ίη Brit. Mus. Pap. CCLX of persons ίπικεκριμένοι ίη Α. D. 54-5 Mr. Kenyon
justly inferred the existence of a census for 47-8. The date ίn cclv therefore exactly suits
the date of that census, and the return was sent ίη ίη the following year 48-9, as would be
expected from the analogy of other census returns, though, as ίη the similar Oxyrhynchus
return of Α. D. 132, it is noteworthy that the date is near the beginning of the Egyptian
year. For the census of 33-4 we have ηο direct evidence, unless cclvi, which is undated
but ση account of the handwriting and the papyri with which it was found most probably is
of the reign of Tiberius, refers to ίι For the census ίη Α. D. 19-20 there is however good
evidence. The date of ccliv is 10st, but the return is undoubtedly of the time of Tiberius,
and is addressed Ιο Eutychides and Theon who are known from cc1ii to have been ίη o:ffice
during the 6th year of his reign. How long the ToπoyρaμμαTεΙ~ and κωμOϊ'pαμμαTεί~ held
office is uncertain. Α comparison of cc1i with cclv shows that Didymus exercised those
functions from Α. D. 44 to 48; but it is very unlikely that Eutychides and Theon remained
ίη o:ffice from the 6th to the 20th years of Tiberius, and we may therefore safely refer
cc1iv to the census of Α. D. 19-20 ίη the 6th year of Tiberius.
That the fourteen years' cycle was ίη existence as far back as Α. D. 20 cannot reasonably
be disputed. Whether the returns \\'ere then called κατ' οlκίαν άΠΟΥρaφαΙ and whether they
always refer Ιο the year before that ίη which they were written may be doubted. lt is curious
that at Oxyrhynchus as ίη the Fayun1 the term κατ' οll(ίαν άΠΟΥραφή cannot be traced back
beyond the census of Α. D. 61-2 (cclvii. 27); and cclv is called not an άΠΟΥρaφή but a ,,/ραφή.
But the term is a matter of little importance, if the fourteen-year censuses existed at any rate
as far back as Α. D. 20. The differences between ccliv-vi and the later κατ' οlκίaν άΠΟΥραφaΙ
suggest the probability that ίη the former we are nearing the beginning of the cγcΙe.
Earlier than Α. D. 20 the existence of the fourteen years' cycle is not directly attested,
but there is p1enty of indirect evidence. The census, as we have said, is intimately related
Ιο the poll-tax, and lists of names and addresses of persons liable to or exempt from the
poll-tax were being made out in Augustus' reign, a fact which presupposes some kind of
census; cf. cclxxxviii, which contains an extract from an 'πlκρισι~ or list of persons partly
exempt from poll-tax ίη the 41st and 42nd years of Augustus, and cclvii, which twice
mentions a similar lίst of persons άπο Υυμνaσίου made ίη his 34th year. Receipts for
λαογραφία are found οη ostraca of Augustus' reign, the earliest that ,ve have been able to
discover being one belonging to Prof. Sayce, which is dated ίη Β. c. 9, but Prof. Wilcken
kindlyinforms us tbat he has one dated ίη Β. c. 18-17 (ησ. 357 ofhis forthcoming Grzechzsche
Oslrαkα). The Jists of persons liable to or exempt from poll-tax are known, at any
rate from the middle of the first century, to have been based, as is natural, οη census lists;
and it is only reasonable to suppose that the procedure was the same ίη Augustus' time.
Moreover two remarkable άπογρaφαί, G. Ρ. 1. xlv and χΙνί, though presenting some unusual
features and difficulties which are discussed below, are distinct evidence ίη favour of the
existence of a census under Augustus. Granted then that general censuses were held at
this period, how far back can the fourteen years' cycle be pushed ? The interval of fourteen
years has a very definite purpose, because it was at the age of fourteen that persons had Ιο
pay poll-tax, and unless we meet with some obstacle, the presumption is that the cycle
goes back as far as the λαογρα</>Ια and 'πίKpισl'~ can be traced. There is good ground for
believing that censuses were held for Β. c. 10-9 and Α. D. 5-6 ϊη the 21st and 35th years
of Augustus. Prof. Wilcken's ostracon which was written ίη Β. c. 18-17 shows that the
poll-tax was ίη force before the supposed census ίη Β. C. 10-9. But there is some difficulty
ίη placing the fourteen years' cycle earlier than that year. G. Ρ. Ι. xlv and χΙνί are
άΠΟΥραφαί addressed to the KωμoγρaμμαTEύ~ of Theadelphia ία the Fayftm (which last winter
we found to be Rarlt) ίn 19 and 18 Β. c. by a certain ΡneΡherδs, ~ημόσιo~ 1εωP'Yό~. Th~

formula consists of (α) the address and description of the writer, (δ) a statement that h-e
registered himself (άΠΟΥράφομαι) for the year ίη which he was writing, (c) a statement where
he lived (ιr.ατιrylvομαι), (d) the concluding sentence, ~ιo έπι~ί~ωμι. 80 long as these two papyri
were separated by a long distance of time and by material differences ίn the formula from
ordinary /(ατ· οl/(ίαν αΠΟΥρaφαί, they could not be used as evidence bearing οη the census.
The interval of time is now bridged over by the Oxyrhyn~hus papyri; and the fact that
reference is made to the current not to the past year need cause ηο difficulty, since the three
Oxyrhynchus census returns do nοΙ refer Ιο the past year, although cclvi is written early ίη
the year folIowing the periodic year. That the t\VO returns of Pnepheros, though he says
nothing about his family, have to do with a census of some kind can hardly any longer be
disputed; but their precise explanation remains doubtful. 8ince a general census ίη
two successive years is out of the question, one or both of them must be regarded as
exceptiona1. The second άΠΟΥρaφή ίη Β. c. 18 contains nothing to show what the exceptional
circumstance was, but the first suggests a clue by the words θ/λων σύνταξιν which occur ίη
line 8 after άΠΟΥράφομαι ε1~ το ια (;TO~) Kaluapor. Why did Pnepheros 'want a contribution' ?
It may have been due to him as a ~ημόσιo~ ΎEωΡΎό~, though the mention of the writer's pro-
fession ίη these two papyri is rather discounted by the fact that sucl1 mentions are a common
feature of census returns (e. g. ccliv. 2 and Β. G. U. Ι 15. 1. 7); or, possibly, he may have
been claiming exemption from the poll-tax οη the ground of his being over sixty years of
age (ct: Kenyon, CαI. 11. ρ. 20); or, wllat is more likely still, the reference is to something
Neither of these papyri, therefore, proves anything with regard to a general census ίη
Β. C. 20-19 or 19-18 Ι, though their similarity to the early Oxyrhynchus census returns
supports the view that even before Β. c. 10-9 retul"ns were being sent ίn and lists compiled
ίη a manner which, judging by the analogy of subsequent I"eigns, implies a general census.
But ίη the face of these two papyri indirect evidence is ηο longer sufficient for supposing
that the foul"teen years' cycle extends beyond Β. c. 10-9. Some kind of census seems
indeed to have been held ίn Egypt ίn quite early times, cf. Griffith, Lαw Quαrt. Rev. 1898,
ρ. 44; and some critics llave οη the evidence of ancient authors supposed that the poll-tax
and general census existed ίη Egypt ίη the time of the Ptolemies. What is more important,
a third century Β. c. papyrus at Alexandria (Mahaffy, .Bull. corr. Ηεll. χνίίί. ρρ. 145 sqq.)
i s a return by a householder of his household; and άΠΟΥραφαΙ of property, similar ιο those
ordained by Mettius Rufus ίn Α. D. 89 (ccxxxvii. νιιΙ. 31, note), are known to have been
decreed from time to time by the kings (e. g. Brit. Mus. Pap. L; Mahaffy, Petrie Papyri 11.
ρ. 36) 2. But no mention of λαΟ'Υραφία has yet been found ίη the papyri or ostraca of the
Ptolemaic period 3. The passages cited from ancient authors are very inconclusive.
Diodorus (χνίί. 52. 6) mentions άναΥραφαl as the evidence for the number of the citizens at
Alexandria when he was there ίη the reign of Ptolemy Auletes. But there is ηο reference
to the pol1-tax, and without that there is ηο reason for postulating a periodic census. The
author of 111 Maccabees describes (ίί. 28) a general άΠΟΎραφή of the Jews with the view
to a poll-tax held by Philopator. Βυι the statements of this wrlter, who belonged to the
Roman period, are of very doubtful value for the previous existence of λaογραφΙα. Josephus

1 Cf. the discussion of these two papyri by Wilcken (Gr. Osl. ι. 450), who thinks that the fourteen
yeal's' peiiod had not yet been introduced ίη Β. c . .18.
2 Cf. Wilcken, Gr. Osl. ι. 435-8. He considers that the declarations οί persons by hOllseholders,
which seem to have been combined with άΠΟΎραφαί of real property ίη the Ptolemaic period (ojJ. c#. 1.823),
roay have been sent ίη yearly. But we do not think άΠΟΎραφα! of real property were sent ίη yearly under
the Ptolemies any more than under the Romans; cf. note οη ccxxxvii. VIII. 31.
8 Cf. Gr. Osl. Ι. 245 sqq., wh~re the evidence is discussed at length. Wi1cken too thinks that
λαογραφία was probably introduced into Egypt by Atlgustns.

too (Β. Jud. 11. 16. 4) only supplies evidence for the poll-tax ίη Egypt ίη the Roman pel·iod.
Ιη any case there is ηο sort of evidence for the existence of the fourteen years' census
period under the Ptolemies.
The conclusion to which the data from both sides converge is that the fourteen years'
census cycle was instituted by Augustus. That general censuses wet-e held ίη Egypt for
Β. c. 10-9 and Α. D. 5-6 is probable, and one or more censuses_had ίη alllikelihood occurred
before Β. C. 10-9, but ίη what year or years is quite doubtful.
Το turn aside to Prof. Ramsay's book, we quote first the passage (according to the
R. Υ.) ίη St. Luke (ίί. 1-4) the accuracy of which is the subject of dispute; (ι) Now ίl
came 10 pαss zn Ihose days, Ihere went out α decree from Cαesαr Auguslus, thα/ αΖΖ the worZd
should δε enrolled. (2) Thzs wαs Ihe first enroZmenl made 1.vhen Quίr'ι"nius wαs governor of
Syriα. (3) And αΖΙ wenl 10 enrol IhemselzIes, evety one 10 his own cz