neste

ee sos, sSapctaes .:

a

teria Fee

SSIES

Bickers a

Bicone ser aetcte

nop ‘ i I ' ‘ ! ¢ 7 t ¢ ie ‘ _ ‘ . ‘ ' 1 ry = \ . ' , ‘ . t . , y wv ie ” w i ¢ 7 > e - ; = r ‘ ‘ 1 * a . 2 + ‘ t ’ ‘ . 1 ¥ ? J ; { Ls . ? ‘ = ‘ ¥ : - ‘ i > * os Fi i i = 4 ’ - ‘ i 1 ‘ = hy x ? b i . 5 " ; ‘ , i i v i y ; ae / af f P f be x bs a a * 2 ; a 1a a é * 7 75

y. S| i ae . F ’ . : - vai ' a - : - oye re ae | ar , 60 3 to Sees tn

i oe

CATALOGUE

THE GREEK PAPYRI

VOLUME I

BERNARD QUARITCH 1z1 GRAFTON STREET, NEW BOND STREET, LONDON, W. SHERRATT AND HUGHES PUBLISHERS TO THE VICTORIA UNIVERSITY OF MANCHESTER

34 CROSS STREET, MANCHESTER, AND SOHO SQUARE, LONDON, W.

CATALOGUE \enaonies

a ALL

OF

THE GREEK PAPYRI

IN THE

JOHN RYLANDS LIBRARY MANCHESTER

VoLuME I

LITERARY TEXTS (Nos. 1—61)

EDITED BY RCE Rao eeeLON DE Debit

HON. PH.D. KOENIGSBERG, HON. LITT.D. DUBLIN, HON, IUR.D. GRAZ LECTURER IN PAPYROLOGY IN THE UNIVERSITY OF OXFORD, AND FELLOW OF QUEEN’S COLLEGE CORRESPONDING MEMBER OF THE ROYAL BAVARIAN ACADEMY OF SCIENCES

WITH TEN PLATES

MANCHESTER: AT THE UNIVERSITY PRESS LONDON: BERNARD QUARITCH, AND SHERRATT AND HUGHES

IgII

OXFORD LETTERPRESS AND PLATES PRINTED AT THE UNIVERSITY PRESS BY HORACE HART

INTRODUCTORY NOTE

HE present volume forms the first part of the third issue in the series of descriptive catalogues or guides to the collection of Oriental and Western manuscripts in the John Rylands Library.

Although the manuscripts described in the present catalogue are not of greater importance than those which furnished the material for the preceding issues in the same series—the Demotic and Coptic Papyri—they are certainly of more general interest, and therefore a much wider circulation will be given to the volume.

For that reason it has been thought advisable to indicate, in a few words, something of the range and character of the collection to which they belong, for the information of those scholars who are yet either unaware, or have but a vague idea of its importance.

The manuscripts number at the present time about 7,000, and constitute one of the principal attractions of the library. The nucleus of the collection consisted of the manu- scripts contained in the Althorp Library, which was acquired by Mrs. Rylands in 1892 from the late Earl Spencer, to form part of the equipment of the present building, which was at that time in course of construction. This was added to from time to time by other purchases. But the present magnificence and special character of the collection were given to it by the purchase, in 1901, of the manuscripts of the Earl of Crawford, consisting of nearly six thousand rolls, tablets, and codices. It is of considerable importance, illus- trating as it does the history of writing and illumination in the principal languages and characters, and at the same time offering to students, in many departments of literary research, original sources of great interest.

Beginning with the Eastern section, it must be said at once that the wealth of Oriental manuscripts, of all ages, and in a variety of languages, can only be indicated in the briefest manner. Armenian, Ethiopic, Sanskrit, Pali, Panjabi, Hindustani, Marathi, Parsi, Burmese, Canarese, Singhalese, Tamil, Chinese, Japanese, Malay, Javanese, Achinese, Mongolian, Balinese, Tibetan, Bugi, Kawi, Madurese, Makassar, and Mexican manuscripts are well represented. There are examples of those curious and rare productions the ‘medicine books’ of the Battas, inscribed on the bark of the alim-tree, or on bamboo poles. Of more general interest are the Persian, Arabic, and Turkish manuscripts, numbering nearly two thousand volumes. The examples of the ‘Koran’, dating from the eighth and ninth centuries, are, in many cases, of extraordinary beauty and value.

Of papyrus rolls and fragments there are examples of the ‘Book of the Dead’ in Egyptian Hieroglyphic and Hieratic. The Demotic papyri, the catalogue of which, compiled by Mr. F. LI. Griffith, M.A., Reader in Egyptology in the University of Oxford, appeared last year, after about ten years of persistent labour, form probably the most important collection of documents in this script at present extant. There are a large number of

vi INTRODUGTORY NOFE

Greek papyri, the literary portion of which is described in the present volume; and a con- siderable collection of Arabic papyri, the result of the examination of which is awaited with interest.

In Coptic the papyri and the codices, ranging from the sixth to the sixteenth century, have been described by Mr. W. E. Crum, M.A., in the catalogue which also appeared last year. In Samaritan there is an interesting, though not large, group of Biblical and liturgical texts, including an important vellum codex of the ‘Pentateuch ’, written in a.p. 1211. In Syriac there is a vellum codex of the ‘Gospels’ of the sixth century, and what is probably the earliest known complete Syriac ‘New Testament’, written about a.p. tooo. The Hebrew manuscripts comprise many ‘ Rolls of the Law’, and several illuminated codices of the ‘Haggadah’. Among the Greek manuscripts there are several beautiful Gospel books, but the most important member of the group is a considerable fragment of a vellum codex of the ‘Odyssey’, possibly of the third century ; this is published in the present volume (No. 58) along with the papyri, with which its date and Egyptian provenance naturally associate it.

Of the Latin manuscripts, whether produced in Italy, Spain, France, Germany, Flanders, or England, there are some hundreds, including several known to have issued from famous writing schools of the Middle Ages. The English, French, and Italian manuscripts, though not numerous, will fittingly bear comparison with the Latin.

If the manuscripts themselves excite interest and admiration, not less striking are many of the jewelled bindings in metal and ivory, dating from the tenth to the thirteenth centuries, which impart to them a character and a value of a very special kind.

While it is the primary duty of a library to preserve its books and manuscripts, yet the importance of such an institution rests not upon the mere custodianship, nor upon the number of works assembled upon its shelves, but upon the use to which they are put. It is essential, therefore, that the value and importance of such a collection should be made known, and it is with this object that the Governors have undertaken the publication of the series of descriptive catalogues of which the present volume forms a part.

A number of recognized scholars have kindly undertaken to deal with the manu- scripts in their own special line of research, with the result that work upon several other groups of documents is in an advanced state of progress.

Mr. H. W. Hogg, M.A., B.Lit., Professor of Semitic Languages in the University of Manchester, has undertaken the Arabic manuscripts, a large group of upwards of a thousand volumes. Dr. Montague Rhodes James, Provost of King’s College, Cam- bridge, is dealing with the Western section. Dr. A. E. Cowley, Sub-Librarian of the Bodleian, Oxford, is engaged upon the Samaritan group. Dr. R. A. Nicholson, M.A., Lecturer in Persian in the University of Cambridge, has undertaken to catalogue the Persian collection; Dr. D. S. Margoliouth, Laudian Professor of Arabic in the University of Oxford, has undertaken to describe the Arabic papyri; and Dr. Rendel Harris the Syriac manuscripts.

HENRY GUPPY, MANCHESTER, Librarian. December, 1910.

Tole le Beate

HE great majority of the texts here published, which constitute the literary por-

tion of the Greek papyri belonging to the John Rylands Library, were purchased by myself in Egypt on behalf of Lord Crawford or the late Mrs. Rylands. The locality from which some of them proceeded was ascertained with tolerable clearness, and the origin of one or two more is fixed by internal evidence. Wherever the provenance seemed sufficiently assured this is specified; when no locality is named, it is to be inferred that satisfactory testimony was not forthcoming.

My thanks are due to several scholars who have kindly assisted me on special points, more particularly to Mr. T. W. Allen, whom I have consulted on matters pertaining to Homer, to Prof. J. Ilberg, who has made some valuable suggestions on Nos. 21, 29, and 29 (a), to Prof. Gilbert Murray, who has seen some of the proof-sheets and contributed a reconstruction of No. 15, and to Prof. Smyly in connexion with No. 27. Dr. Schubart was good enough to verify for me certain points in papyri preserved at the Berlin Museum.

The non-literary section of the Rylands papyri, which is naturally much more extensive, will occupy at least two volumes, of which the first is already in hand and will, it is hoped, be issued early in 1912. A chronological arrangement will be adopted, and the next Part of this Catalogue will accordingly contain documents of the Ptolemaic and Roman epochs, those of the Byzantine period being reserved until later.

ARTHUR S. HUNT.

QuEEN’s CoLLEGE, OXFORD. December, 1910.

.

ae ee | Milk Bi ve aril 1 J 7 Potion i ole Lust at ul cul a ae’, nt ay Anh a3 an ae. ey V4 Oe

Pa | od ll % y a ny) ne fa.

uf

7 tie aegis tase ae ie Lye & " ieuvt 4 : Ry se i est mee Ce te ie bo al

4 P ay iy o Uh iv (

— ’

Yen: ty "att uf me i} 1 aha ve ps Ba, ‘ie a sg ; as re, 9

ne

eine bee a aie Ua ae vLnattelie

.

With TeaS brie IF 0) Oe aicas

GOIN TeEsN dS

INTRODUCTORY NOTE . BREEACE TABLE OF PAPYRI

NOTE ON THE METHOD OF PUBLICATION AND LIST OF ABBRE- VIATIONS

TEXTS

I. THEOLOGICAL FRAGMENTS f II. New CrassicaL Texts . III]. Extant CrassicaL AUTHORS .

INDICES J. Inp—Ex To New Literary Texts . IJ. InpEx or Passaces DiscussED

EISTRORSPLATLES

2 Frag. 1 recto, 5 verso, 10 ged; 1S . 6, 58 Fol. 4 ay ol! 5 recto.

: 16, 29, 28 Fol. 2 verso, Fol. 7 verso .

mol ;

. 24, 26, 42, 61 recto . : . 58 Fol. 76 verso, Fol. 89 verso, Erol Q2 verso . . 55 Frag. 3, 57,60 . : ;

Xi1

195 202

I. 2 5 4 PeRIRRIOt20 30 seme Se a PT) at the end: 7 8 9 oO

OPI AKO Do

TABLE OF PAPYRI

Job i, v, vi

Psalm xc (xci)

Epistle to the Romans xii . Epistle to Titus i, i . Nicene Creed

Hymn

Liturgical Preomente Liturgical Fragment . Hagiographical Fragment . Christian Fragment . Certificate of Pagan Sacrifice Epic Fragment .

Lyric Fragment

Lament for a Lover . Comedy

16 (a). Comedy

29.

Epithalamium Historical Fragment .

Epitome of Theopompus, Philippic inf :

Political Treatise

Treatise on Physiology Mythological Fragment Epitome of the Odyssey Scholia on Homer, /Zad iv Lexicon to Homer, Jad xviii Apion, TAdooat “‘Opnpixat . Astronomical Treatise

Tlept tadpov pavtiky . Medical Receipts

29 (2). Medical Receipts . 29 (6). Medical Receipts . 30-41. Miscellaneous Minor Fragments

42.

Latin Fragment

Fourth century Sixth or seventh century

Fifth or early sixth century . Late sixth or seventh century

Third century Sixth century Sixth century Fifth century Fifth or sixth century Sixth century Fifth or sixth century A.D. 250 Second century Second or third century Second century Late second century Third century B.c. Fourth century Second century B. c. Second century First century B.C. First century B. Cc. First century Second century First century Second century First century Third century Fourth century Third century Second century Second century Third century century A. D. Fourth century

B.c.—sixth

69

75

TABLE OF PAPYRI

Homer, /Hadi .

Homer, Jad i .

Homer, /Zad ii.

Homer, Jad iv

Homer, /iad v .

Homer, /had v .

Homer, liad xvi

Homer, /Had xviii

Homer, //ad xxiv

Homer, Odyssey xi

Homer, Odyssey xii-xv, xvili-xxiv

Hesiod, 7heogonia

Herodotus ii i

Hippocrates, IHept Siairys NPs Demosthenes, Ve Corona .

Demosthenes, De Corona . , Writing Exercise : Demosthenes, De Corona Polybius xi

Cicero, /u CLMOn li

Early third century First century B.c.. Second century

First century

Second century

Third century

Third century B. c. Third century

First century B. Cc. Second or third century Third or fourth century First century B.C. or A. D. Second century

Second century

Late second or early a cent.

Fifth or sixth century Third century

Late second century Fifth century

XI

PAGE 76 81 82 82 83 85 87 87 88 go gI

179 180 181 183 184 189 190 193

NOTE ON THE METHOD OF PUBLICATION AND LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS

In this volume the originals are: generally reproduced so far as possible except for division of words, capital initials in proper names, and supplements of lacunae. Accen- tuation and punctuation, &c., has however for the sake of greater clearness been intro- duced in Nos. 27 and 29-29 (4). Additions or corrections by the same hand as the body of a text are throughout in small thin type, those by a different hand in thick type. Square brackets [ ] indicate a lacuna, round brackets ( ) the resolution of a symbol or abbreviation, angular brackets ¢ ) a mistaken omission in the original, braces { } a superfluous letter or letters, double square brackets [[ ]] a deletion in the original. Dots placed within brackets represent the approximate number of letters lost or deleted; dots outside brackets indicate mutilated or otherwise illegible letters. Letters with dots underneath them are to be con- sidered doubtful. Heavy Arabic numerals refer to the texts in this volume, ordinary numerals to lines, small Roman numerals to columns.

The abbreviations used in referring to papyrological publications are as follows :—

P. Amh. = The Amherst Papyri (Greek), Vols. I-II, by B. P. Grenfell and A. S. Hunt.

Archiv = Archiv fiir Papyrusforschung.

B.G.U. = Aeg. Urkunden aus den K. Museen zu Berlin, Griechische Urkunden.

P. Brit. Mus. = Greek Papyri in the British Museum, Vols. I-II, by F. G. Kenyon; Vol. III, by F. G. Kenyon and H. I. Bell.

P. Fay.=Faydm Towns and their Papyri, by B. P. Grenfell, A. S. Hunt, and D. G. Hogarth.

P. Flor.=Papiri Fiorentini, Vol. I, by G. Vitelli.

P. Grenf.= Greek Papyri, Series I, by B. P. Grenfell, and Series II, by B. P. Grenfell and A. S. Hunt.

P. Hibeh= The Hibeh Papyri, Part I, by B. P. Grenfell and A. S. Hunt.

P. Oxy.= The Oxyrhynchus Papyri, Parts I-VI, by B. P. Grenfell and A. S. Hunt; Part VII, by A. S. Hunt. |

P. Par.=Les Papyrus grecs du Musée du Louvre, WVoéices e¢ Extraits, t. xviii. 2, by W. Brunet de Presle and E. Egger.

P. Reinach = Papyrus grecs et démotiques, by Th. Reinach, W. Spiegelberg, and S. de Ricci.

P. Tebt.= The Tebtunis Papyri, Part I, by B. P. Grenfell, A. S. Hunt, and J. G. Smyly; and Part II, by B. P. Grenfell, A. S. Hunt, and E. J. Goodspeed.

Peete OLOGICAL BEXES

10*3 X II-5 cm. Fourth century.

These few verses from the second and third chapters of Deuteronomy in the Septuagint version are inscribed on the lower part of a leaf out of a papyrus book. It was not a showy volume, for the leaf is made up of a sheet of which the recto had been previously used, the two pieces being stuck together face to face; hence the literary writing in both pages is on the verso. This makeshift material is well matched by the unornamental character of the script. The text is in two (or possibly more) columns, written in rather large and roughly formed round uncials. Hands of this class are difficult to date, but a ¢erminus a quo is fortunately provided by the cursive document of the recto, where the month Phaophi in the roth year of Diocletian, which = the 9th of Maximian, i. e. A.D. 293, is mentioned. A fourth-century date for the copy of Deuteronomy is therefore very suitable, and to that period it is most probably to be assigned; it is not likely to be later than the end of the century.

This fragment may thus claim to be not inferior in point of antiquity to the Codex Vaticanus (B), and to surpass the Codex Alexandrinus (A), the other principal authority (commonly ascribed to the fifth century) for Deuteronomy ; and in spite of its unattractive appearance it presents a text which is not without interest. This, as is so often the case with early papyri, cannot be readily classified. Noticeable agreements with B against A and F (the Ambrosianus, of the seventh century) occur at ll. 4, 7-8, 29, and 39, with AF against B at ll. 9, 14, 37, and 43. There is also one variant (1. 26) which is not shared with any of the uncial MSS., but reappears in several of the cursives; while two more (Il. 10-11 and 37) are the peculiar property of the papyrus, and not otherwise recorded. In the former of these two cases the ordinary reading has been supplied in the margin as’an alternative. Accents and breathings have been added with what in a prose manuscript is a surprising frequency; another sign rarely met with outside poetical texts is the small marginal cross which occurs opposite ll. 48-9. An apostrophe usually accompanies the final letter of a proper name ending with a mute, a practice exemplified also in P. Oxy. 2, &c. Punctuation is effected by a stop in the middle position. All these adjuncts are presumably due to the original scribe, at any rate if, as is likely, he was responsible for the correction of Il. 10-11.

References in the collation below to the uncial MSS. are taken from Swete’s Cambridge edition, to the cursives from Holmes and Parsons.

B

Page 1. Col. i.

leyyvs viwly Apple

THEOLOGICAL EX

Nag] [ov mpolonOapev- mel [wavra] Ta ovvKupovy oer . "ene ae tov [wn Katal\urew av iii. 3 (oa abaya mov OTTEpp.a- ae lexpa 4 [zt everjeuXaTo KS 0 Elche d hahah 140 (hes aay aries mo\ewVv avTov [ev [kar emijotpadpev iii. 1 peste a ay Bate nt to [res am}jpapen ave phi RIND Ae - Bapev wap avz[wv e Bnuev odov] Tyv ets Bay Ka p Enkovta moles Trav [evs oulvavtnow Ta Ta TEptywpa [ApyoB [nuty alvtos Kau Tas 25 Baowews Oy ev Ba [efndev Gy’ Baorrelus rps cay Taca. au modeus 5 15 [Bacay jb oxvpat Telyn [uyra Page 2. Col. ii. Col. i. [exeu|ynv [empovo iii, 12 : 40 pevoaplev Ev TH I] iii. 8 Katpo|v]] Kewva [opdavolu amo tov [x]et ato Aponp [n eoruv [wappolv Apvav Kau ews Tapa To x\elhos xet 30 [Aeppjov ov Powixes € 9 pappov Aplvwv Kat [rovolualovow o Aep 45 TO nuLov [opous [ww] Lavidp- Kat o Apop Takaad kav tas 70 [pa.os| emovopacev av Nets avrolv eowKa [To Lalvetp- macat Todeus 10 x7Tw PovBylv Kar Tw

35 [Mec]op kar tava Ta [\aad] Kar taca Bacay [ews] EXyd kau ews E [Spacltv modes Bacr

1. The supplements are taken from B; but the papyrus may of course have had evs ynv woly Aupla as

x Td’: kat 7[o Karahor 13 50 mov tov [ladaad Kat

Tacav Ty\v Bacay

Baovreiay (Oy

in AF and 0, the Freer MS. of the fifth century just published by H. A. Sanders. 2. TpolrnOauev : SoA; tpoondOopev BOF. 3. A horizontal stroke above the third v of cvvkvpovy is crossed through. 4. xetluappov: so BF; yxemappo AO, xemappov apparently F*. © has Japor’.

6. olpwn: so AOF ; opewn B.

7-8. ks... naw: so B*; nuw KS 0 Os nuwy BY™-OF, om. nuw A.

9. ent|otpapevtes, which is required by the size of the lacuna, is the reading of BY*AOF; orpadevtes B*. The stroke above v at the end of the line is superfluous, since v was written out ; cf. note on l. 3.

IO-II. az|npauev: aveBnuev MSS., a reading which has been inserted in the margin of the papyrus.

THEOLOGIGALS TEXTS 3

For drapat dev cf. e.g. Numbers xxi. 4 amdpavres €€ “Qp tod dpovs dddv emt Odraccay épvdpdv. e&|npapev is also possible ; cf. Numbers x. 33 é£jpav ék Tod dpovs Kuplov 6d0v rpidv jepGv. The marginal variant and the letters ac omitted in the name Bacay may have been supplied by the first hand.

11. tnv: tys A. The omission of cat... Bacay was caused by the repetition of the name Bacay. A hand perhaps not to be distinguished from that of the original scribe subsequently added the missing words, writing «ai at the end of |. 11 and the rest below the column (Il. 14-15); the corresponding symbols at the ends of ll. 11 and 15 are those usually employed in supplying an omission, e. g. P. Oxy. 223. 125.

14. The lectional signs accompanying Qy are visible. Qy (B°°AOF) not [wy (B*) was no doubt written, as in 1. 25. tns before Bacay is also found in B®AO©; om. B*F.

21. eAaBapuev: cf. 1. 2 mpolonAPapev. cdrAaBonev BAOF.

24. Ta Teptxwpa: SO A@F; B has ta ovvxvpovrta z., the words ta ovvevpovrra being, however, cancelled by dots placed above the letters.

25. Baotrews: not Bactdeas, as in © and the cursives 19, 108, 118, and some others.

ev Baloav: or perhaps ¢{v tn B., with F.

26, at: so a number of cursives, including the ‘Lucianic’ 108 and 118 (Holmes and Parsons), which, however, have twryvpa in place of oxupar; om. BAOF.

29. kat ews: SO BO; ews A, ews opovs F.

30. emovo|uafovow : emwvoxacay B*** over an erasure, and 0.

31. o: 1. ro: but the papyrus is damaged, and there is a trace of ink near the top of the preceding », so perhaps r was interlineated ; cf. 1. 11.

33. emovopacey: SO BYAF ; ezav. BO.

34. modes: SOBAF; at todas ©. Cf. 1. 26.

37. ews E[dpae|iv: om. ews MSS. Edpaew is also the spelling of AOF ; Edpacp B.

39. [empovoluevoaufev : so B* and the cursives 108 and 118; exAnpovoynoayev B*AOF.

43. Tapa To x\erAos: So BAF ; em tov xedovs B*,

45. It is impossible to be sure whether the papyrus read [opovs with B* or [rov opovs with BYAF. The line without rov would not be shorter than 1. 41, nor longer than ll. 49 and 50 with it. © has rov opovs rov.

48-9. For the sign in the margin opposite these lines cf. e.g. P. Oxy. 841; its meaning remains uncertain. For other cases of critical signs in papyrus MSS. of prose works cf. e. g, 52. 33, P. Oxy. 16 and 442.

52. Bacikecay: om. F*. The papyrus no doubt read Qy with B?°AOF (cf. note on 1.14); Twy B*.

2. JOB i, v, vi. Frag. 3 17-2 x 10-2 cm. Sixth or seventh century. Plate 1 (Frag. 1 recto).

The following portions of the chapters i, v, and vi of the book of Job are contained on the remains of two leaves from a papyrus book, doubtless the same as that to which P. Amh. 4 once belonged. Not only is the arrangement of the lines identical and the hand of the same type, but the verso at the top of the first page of P. Amh. 4 (i. 21) is the correct continuation of that at the bottom of one of the pages of 2, which cannot be a fortuitous coincidence ; these two leaves were therefore contiguous in the codex. Several other instances will be noticed in this volume where Rylands papyri prove to be parts of texts already published, illustrating the unfortunate way in which the finds made by natives tend to become divided and scattered.

The hand is rather large upright uncial, which may be assigned to the sixth or seventh century. A light brown ink was employed which is sometimes very difficult to distinguish on the discoloured and rubbed surface. The verses are as usual stichometrically arranged,

B2

4

THEOLOGICAL ATER TS

a fresh line being normally begun for each successive ovixos, the initial letter of which is somewhat enlarged. Textually the papyrus possesses some slight interest, having two readings otherwise recorded only in later cursives (cf. notes on Il. 7-8 and 29) and two or

three others which are peculiar to itself (Il. 19, 78, 82).

Of the three chief uncials, BNA,

which are collated below, it is much nearest to B, and incorporates none of the longer variants of the Codex Alexandrinus.

Frs. I, 2 recto. Plate 1.

on

2

fe}

Frs.

25

30

Tov amay year oor

€Tl TovToOv Aadovvros ydOlev ETEPOS ay yedhos Kal Eve mpos lw’

Tup emEecEV EK TOV OVVOV Kat Katekavoev Ta TpoBata Kale Tous Trouslevlas opmoves Kalrledlayev

[xat] owes eyw povos n\Oov

3 lines lost. [pols IwB [ov ermes exounoay Inuly Kelparas

[kav] exv[k|Ao[oary tas Kapndovs. kat y[xluadlwrevoay avTas

kat Tov[s] maSas amextevav pay|alipats

[o]wOels] Se yw povos nr [lov [rlov almayyear oor

[e]re [tourlov [Aadovvtos addos ayyelhos epxerau Neywv Tw [IwB

1, 2 verso.

Tov viwv gov Kar Tay [Ovya TEepwv cov ec bovti(wv KQL TLWOVT@V

Tapa To adehpw avtwv tlw tpeo Butep|a]

e€eduns ara] peya e&n[\ev ex THs [ep|nnov

kat nWaztlo Tov tecoaplov ylo

4 or 5 lines lost.

[Oov tov alray|[yeuar coe

[ovrws avac}rals IwB dvep

[enéev ra parila avrolv

Leal 5 16

17

18

=)

20

THEOLOGICAL TEXTS

[Kau exepato Tylv Klolunv ys 40 [kepahy|s avirjov [kat Teowv xalyalt| mpooex(v [ynoey Kae eulrev [avros yupvols [End]Oo[v ex [KouWlas jepos] pov [| 45 [yupvos Kat azredelvoope [exer

Fr. 3 recto.

[evra yvwon ott elipnvevoet [xov o oltxos [In de Staitja tys oKNVNS cov lov pn] apaprn yroon de [ore 50 ~— [wroA]u To omeppa g[ov] [ra de Texva cov eotar [wolrep To [wapBotlavov tov [aypov [eXevon de] ev tadw worep ale [Tos wlpynos Kata Katpov 55 [Bepiljowevos [In womep Oelyuwria adwvos [kal wpav olvvKopic bea [dou ravra ovTjws e€ixviacaplev [ravrja eor[tly a axynKoapev 60 [ov de yoda olavirw mu empagals ] vrokaBwv Se IwB’ deyee lee yap tls toto [ornoal. polv ed eirnina: bee A [ras de odjuvas pov [apae ev] Luylo 65 [ono \upal[djoy [kar dy apluov [rapad}as Blaply [

[Tepa eorau

Fr. 3 verso.

ahd ws eoukey Ta pynwaTa pov ect davria [Behn yap 70 KU ev TW GwpatlL pov EoTW av o Ovpos avtaly exre ver ov TO altlula orav ap&oplale Aadwy Kevt[ovor pe

Te yap] pn ova Kawyl[s Kexpagerar

75 ovos ayptos [a\X 9 tla oeura Cyzlov

21

V. 24

25

26

27

vi. I

THEGLOGICAL APES

[elu Se Kav py&er for{nv Bovs emu darvnv exov [ra Bpopara ev Bpwbynoerar aptols avev ados 6 80 et de Kau [eloriy] yelvpa ev pynpa [uly [klerous ov durar[ar] ravioale Gale - - - 7 .. + 1 Wuxn pov Bpopov yap olplw ta oeiia pov 85 alotlep oopnv eor{tos ev yap [Sw)n Klar] ed[Aou pov 8 atlrnloes Kale Tyv [elAq[ud]a pov [dan o KS [ap|faplevos o ks tplwcarw pe 9

Lem bach Gch oe Aas &

1. At the end of the line there is an appearance of traces of ink, but it is probably deceptive. 3. ayyedos mpos IwB8 A, with avrw after ever. 5. ovpavov em. thy ynv A.

6. Katexavoeyv: katehayey A.

4-8. opowws xalrlep[ayev : so the cursive 147 ; xatehayev (xateprefev N*, xarexavoev A) opowws other MSS.

g. Either [ow]6jes d¢ (B) or [kar] o[wOers (8) or [kar] owOnv (A) may be read.

13. zpos lof is omitted in N*; A has epxerat mpos IwB kar Aeyet avrw (cf. note on |. 3). For the neglect of the stichometric division after Iw8 cf. 1. 72 and P. Amh. I. 4 recto 3.

14. 17;

ke[padas : So BN*; apxas Ne*A., ev may have followed amexrewav as in SA (atwdccay for amexrewav N*) ; but the line is long enough

without it.

19.

[o]wOer{s| de: cf. verses 15 and 16; ecwOny de or kat ecwOnv MSS.

21-2. EpxeTat ETEpos ayyedos N. 22-3. deyv| rw [Iw8: or possibly zpos Iw8 de||yw[v as in A.

27. 29. 37: 38. 40.

Tov (sic) vw cov Tw adeAdw A.

e€n[AOev: so the cursives 157, 254, 257: emnddev other MSS. (ndAOev 249). e&eduns is for eEarpuns. axovoas Iw avactas A.

avtov: so NA ; there seems to be scarcely room for war{ta] eavro[v (B), but the reading is uncertain. avtjov: so N°*A, om. BN. A adds further kat karenacaro ynv emt THs Kepadns avrov.

41-2. mpocexvvnoev Tw K@ NA, and this may have been in the papyrus if the division was tpocexvvy|cev.

45. 50.

amede|voope: Cf. 1. 29 efepvns. Though the papyrus is partially preserved where the ov of cov would have stood, there is no sign of

those letters, and the supposed trace of the o is very uncertain; possibly the word was omitted.

53: 54. 58. 60. 61.

amehevon (A) would be too long.

Katpov avrov A.

efixviaca N*.

Tt: SO BP NFA; ec te B¥N*C. A has erooas for etpagas.

The first line of the new chapter is begun further to the right than the rest, and in 1. 62 also the

supplement is rather shorter than would be expected. Perhaps the number of the chapter preceded; but, as the verso shows, the arrangement of the lines was not very regular.

63.

The apparent traces of ink are more than enough to account for rnv opynv, which should follow pov:

the cursive 161 has a marginal variant rijv 4@uulav, which is perhaps possible here, though unconvincing.

70.

Twat: crouate XN.

THEOLOGICAL TEXTS 7

91. avrwy: om. A.

72, Cf. note on 1. 13.

78. parvnv: |. parvns.

79. «6... ados om. N*.

81. [kJevfors: kawvors NA. It is impossible really to say what the reading of the papyrus was.

82-3. The papyrus here had a peculiar variant, though what it exactly was is unfortunately doubtful. The ordinary reading is ov dvvarar yap (Se A) mavoacbar pov (uov tavo. AC) n opyn (so BN*; Woyn NA, evxn C). In the papyrus pov is clear at the end of the sentence, preceded apparently by n Wuxn; the connecting particle after dvvarat seems to have been omitted, and on the other hand some word not found elsewhere to have been inserted between ravoacOa and n Wrxn. The vestiges of the first two letters of 1. 83 rather suggest vw, and perhaps 7o|ywv would be possible: op|yns is unsuitable, and @v|yov unsatisfactory.

84. There is barely room for ov before yap.

85. oopn N*,

3. PSALM xc (xci).

Behnesa. 10-4 X 10cm. Fifth or early sixth century.

The latter part of the 90th Psalm, badly copied in an irregular semi-cursive hand of medium size, probably in the fifth or early sixth century. The verses are written con- tinuously without division, and punctuation is also lacking. From the appearance of the sheet, which at the ends of the lines is unbroken, as well as the character of the hand and of the orthography, it may be surmised that this fragment was not part of an extensive manuscript, and perhaps the papyrus when complete included no more than this single Psalm, which was transcribed as an amulet; cf. the wax-tablet published by Nicole in Textes grecs de la Collection papyrologique de Genéve, 1909, pp. 43 sqq., Where part of the same Psalm is copied at the end of an account. For textual purposes a document of this kind is unlikely to be of much independent value, and the chief point of interest is to observe its affinities, which are with the Codex Alexandrinus, the Turin Psalter, and the second corrector of the Codex Sinaiticus, as against the Vaticanus; cf. notes on Il. 3, 14, 21,23.

[ov doByOnoyn ato doBov vux[repwov XC. 5 [aro Bed]ous meTopevous nuepas [azo mpaylp[alros ev oxlolrer Svamropev 6 oplevou amlo olupmrwplajros Kar dep 5 oviov pleonp|Bpulov meceitjov ex Tov k 7 pitov oolv plupias Kau puptals ex] Sevéiov o ous ™po oe Se ovK evyeres ANY ToLs Od 8 Oadpois ov KaTavonoets Kal avTatro Soow apaptwrov [ohn ot ov Ke 7H € 9 10 mis prov Twyv visiotov efov Katadu ylnv] cov ov mpoce[dere] mpols] we Kaka Kat 10

8 THEOLOGICAL SERS

[paloreE ov ovk evyeet] TOV oKWopaTL o ov o7t Tols ayyedoltls atou evTeetTE TE II pt gov tov dwadviake oe avTw ev Tacns

15 Tals OOOLS TOV ETL XELPwWY apovoUY CE 12 Pn Tote TpooKoT|T}\ys mpos Gov tov 7 odov [cov] em aom{[ijda Kar BaciuoKov 13 emBylon Kale KatamaTnoets eovTa Kat Opalkov|ra oT. er ewe nATLTEY KaL pU 14

20 [copa] avTwy oKelTaow avTwY OTL €

yvw tio ovopa [..] pov Kukpakere pu k 15

[

[

[at elrakovoo|pjat avTov peT atov wpe

[ev Orluber e€eXovupar avtwv kali] du€o 16 [

auT]® TO TwTYPLOV pov De ee [

2. 1. meropevov.

3. ev oxfolrer dvamropevoplelvov: so NT ; d:aTopevopevov ev cxoret BAR.

4. 1. daporov; cf. 1. 13 evredeire, 1. 14 diadpvda€e, 1. 21 Kixpagere.

5. The scribe seems to have written weoevrov for meoevtas owing to confusion with the rov following. kpirov is for xAitov: AT similarly have xAvtrov cov, R* kAurov (cov R?) ; 1. kAvrovs with BN. For the omission of one of two sigmas cf. ll. 7 and 8.

6. 1. be€twy cov.

7. 1. apos.

8. 1. cov for ov.

9g. ov: so BNAT; over R.

10. 1. tov for tov. ys of pov is corrected, perhaps from rt.

11. There is not room for zpocedevoerat, and since there is no known variant it is likely that there was a lipography of the letters vee.

12. ov is repeated by mistake. 1. tw oxnveparu.

13. Lavrov: cil 22.

14. avro: om. MSS. aons is for tacats, which is also found in A(-ces)T ; taow R, om. BN.

15. emu: Kat ewe N* (om. N%*). 1. apovow.

16. mpockon|r|ns : so Eusebius, Dem. Evang. p. 248 ; mpocxowns MSS. But there is barely room for the [7], and possibly there was some correction, though the remains as they stand are inconsistent with tpooxowns.

20. |. avroy ... avrov.

21. There would be room for two letters between ovoya and pov. Probably there was some graphical error, or else a defect in the papyrus.

kuxpagere vu: 1. xexpagerar por. Kexpagerar mpos pe SA(kark.)T, emuxadeoerar we BR.

22. Either e|raxovoopa: (N“*AT) or €lucaxovcopat (BN*R) can be read, but the former seems the more likely in view of the tendency of the papyrus to agree with N°**AT against R. 1. avrov for arov.

23. e€ehovpar: So N*RT ; car efeAouuat BN*A. avrov is for avtov, which is read here also by N°*AT (om. BN*R), and 6:40 for dev£w, if o is rightly read ; but possibly € ended the line and followed in 1. 24. After avr(o)v the writer has omitted kai dogacw avroy. pakpornt. nuepwv eurAnow avrov, the loss being probably caused by the repetition of avrov.

24. After ov there seems to be a chrism or a p followed by two or three more letters. It is not certain that this line was the last of the sheet.

PH EOLOGIGAPS TESS 9

4. EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS xii.

14:8 X 22-1 cm. Late sixth or seventh century.

An extract from the twelfth chapter of the Epistle to the Romans, written with a dark brown ink in long lines across the fibres of the recto of the papyrus. The medium-sized sloping letters are of the uncial type for the most part, but 6 is regularly provided with a diagonal loop, and other tendencies towards cursive occasionally manifest themselves ; the style indicates a date about the end of the sixth or the beginning of the seventh century. There is a loss of some lines at the top, and the extract, which ends at verse 8, presumably began with verse 1 of the chapter. It seems to have been copied out for reading in church, and there are some comma-like marks (others have perhaps disappeared), inserted above the line between certain words and syllables, which may have been intended to guide the reader’s eye ; but since the verso is blank it is unlikely, though the inference is not certain, that this was a leaf from a formal lectionary. Textually the fragment is of slight value, though an agreement with the Codex Sinaiticus against the other chief MSS. is observable in Ll. 9.

dpovew tap o [dele dporiey ada dpovew [els TO cwppovery xil. 3 exaoT|@] ws [o] 0s eplelpioey milojrea|s] Kafamlelp yap ev] eu cwpate 4 ToNAla pedn exopev ta Sle] pedn malaria olu tyv avtyy mpakiw exer

outws o[t] wohhou ev copia eolwev ev Xw To Se Kal ev adXy|Aov pery 5 exortes Se x[alplicpara Kara typ yapiy tyv| d[ofeacar] nuw 6 Siadlolpa [etre tpodnytleilav xara] Ty avadoylialy ty\s muoTEw|s

ete Suakonav] ev Ty [Stalklolvua eure [o] S[ujSackwv ev ty SvdacKkahea 7 ere 0 Trapaxialdwv [ely Ty TapakAnoeL o preradudous €v] amhoryTe 8

0 Tpoeoravopevos Ev GTOVON oO Ekewy EV ihapoTyTe TE- ( ) y X( ) at

sS

. [o] Os eule]puoev: epepioer o Oeos A. mio|rew[s|: jetpov muctrews MSS. xadanlelp: so BRAC ; womep DEFG. 3. moAlAla weAn: SOBNDEFG ; pedn moAAa ALP. peAn maria: mavra pedn F. mpagw exec: SOF ; exer mpagw the better MSS. 4. eoev is omitted in FG. To d¢€ Kad ev: To de Kad ets BRAD*FGP, 0 d¢ Kad ers DEL. - [0] d{cJdacxwv: ddacKadreav A. . etre: SO BNA, &c.: om. DEFG. g. Mpoetotavomevos : SO N (mpoiot.) ; mpoictayevos other MSS.

How the more cursive letters following sAapotnt: should be explained is uncertain. An overwritten letter above the doubtful ¢ looks like a xy, but may possibly be meant for \ ; the supposed « is a vertical stroke in continuation of the cross-bar of «, through which stroke there is a diagonal dash. Perhaps nothing more than a chrism follows, the appearance of an a at the top of it being delusive. reA(evra) n em(oToAn) is a con- ceivable interpretation, but that is not a usual formula.

coowy

10 THEOLOGICAL BEX tS

5. EPISTLE TO TITUS i, ii. 10:6 X 4-9 cm. Third century. Plate 1 (verso).

This fragment, containing parts of a few verses from the first and second chapters of the Epistle to Titus, comes from the bottom of a leaf out of a papyrus book which appears to have been of a decidedly early date. The round and rather large uncial hand is very similar to that of the Oxyrhynchus Genesis (Part IV, No. 656; cf. Plate II), which we assigned to the third century, and it no doubt belongs to about the same period as that papyrus, though the present fragment is perhaps the later of the two. A slight tendency towards division of words may be observed. The usual contractions of #e0d and, probably, avOpémwv are employed.

Though too small to be of much value textually, the fragment preserves one interesting reading, afOoviay for adfOopiay in 11. 7, which is recorded as a variant in two ninth-century manuscripts, but has apparently not previously been found in any actual text. But the correctness of a¢0oviav does not of course follow from its now established antiquity.

Recto.

ew ourlwwes odovs otkous avarpe AEE movot dualaKovtTes a pin Sev ato-xypov Kepdous xalpu eurev Tis €€ avTwy 12 idvos avtaly mpodytns Kpyres acu

5 WevoTar Klaka Onpia yaorepes apyat n paptupila avtTn eotw adnOns du 13 nv atiay [eheyxe avTovs amroTosws wa vyaw|wow ev TH TLOTEL pH 14 mpolajexor[res Iovdarxois puOous

10 Kal evTo\lals ava atooTpEepo pevov Try[v anbaav mavta Ka 15 fapa tows [Kafapots rows Se pepiap

PEVOls Kale ATLOTOLS ovodev KaQapov

Verso. Plate 1.

dedolvAw pes

15 [wevas KadodwacKal\ous iva 4 [capporlwor tas vieas pirav

[Spous evar piotex|vous cwdpo 5 vas ayvas oikoupyovu|s ayalas vToTagaopevas Tots] LOvois av

[

[ 20 [Spacw wa pn o doyols tov Ov Bra

[odynpntar Tous velwrepous 6 [

woauvTws TapaKkad|er cwdppo

TOEOLOGIGAB TEXTS IT

[vey Tepe TavtTa oeav|rov Tape , [yomevos TuTov Kahlwy Eepyov

25 [ev Ty didacKadia adjOomay oe [mvotnta oyov vyty] akatayvw 8 [

oTov wa o €€ evavtijas evtpa

3. It is impossible to say whether the papyrus had 6¢ after emev with N*FG, &c.; ACD and most other MSS. omit ée.

8. The omission of ev with 8* would produce an unusually short line ; W(estcott)-H(ort) place ev within brackets. A diaeresis has probably disappeared above the v of vytaw[wou.

10, evroA{ais: so most MSS. ; evraAwaow FG and Theodoret. The abbreviation of avOpwrwy seems likely,

but is not certain.

11. The line is sufficiently long without ev, which is added after mavra by KL and correctors of NDE, the r of ryv being under the A of evroAlais ; but the omission of wev in the papyrus cannot be considered certain.

12. peutappevors is the spelling of the best MSS. ; vv. ll. peysapevors and peptacpevors.

18. To attempt to decide between orxovpyous (N*ACD*E, &c., W-H.) and orxovpovs (R°D*HK, &c.) is precarious. The lacuna is of just the same size as those of the next two lines, where in the one case 17, and in the other 16, letters are lost.

23. mape|xouevos tuTov : so NCACDE, &c.;. rumov mapex. N*.

25. ap|Oovav: the papyrus is considerably the oldest authority for this reading, which occurs as a v.1. in FG. addopiayv N*ACD*E*, &c., W-H., adiapdopray N°D°E**, &c. ayverav is added after ap@opiay by C and ap@apovay after ceuvornta by D°E**, &c,

6. NICENE CREED. 12-4 X 12-9 cm. Sixth century. Plate 3.

This papyrus has the distinction of preserving what is, apparently, considerably the oldest copy extant of the Nicene Creed. It is, unluckily, mutilated, the left-hand half of the sheet, on which the text was inscribed in long lines across the fibres, having disappeared entirely, as well as the corner at the top of the opposite side. In these circum- stances it is difficult to measure the length of the lacunae with much accuracy, especially where, as in the case of the first ten lines, the precise point of division between the lines is not absolutely certain. With which of the slightly varying versions of the Creed this early Egyptian copy had most affinity is therefore uncertain ; so far as can be judged it did not quite coincide with any one of them. The main authorities for the text are: (1) a letter of Eusebius which was written to his diocese at the time of the Nicene Council and is extant in three chief recensions, viz. Appendix to Athanasius, De decret. synod. Nc. (E*), Socrates, Fist. Eccl. i. 8 (Es), and Theodoret, Hist. Eccl. i. 12 (Et) ; (2) Athanasius, Epzst. ad Tovianum 3 (A); (3) Socrates, Hist. Eccl. i. 8 (S); (4) Basil, Epist. 125 (B); (5) Cyril of Alexandria, Epist. 3 ad Nestorium(C) and Epist. ad Anastasium (Migne No. 55). A collation with these versions is appended in the notes below.

C2

12 THEOLOGICAL SITEXTS

The text of the Creed proper is preceded and followed by certain formulae which are unfamiliar from other sources. That at the end isa personal profession of faith couched in the first person singular: ‘ This is my creed, with this language [I shall approach without fear (?)| the terrible judgement-seat of the Lord Christ in that dread day when He shall come again in His own glory to judge the quick and the dead and to reign with the saints for ever and ever. Amen.’ Of the introductory matter only a few words remain, but they suffice to indicate that its tenor was a statement of the authority on which the Creed rested ; there is an ambiguous reference in the third line to Rome.

The papyrus is a good deal rubbed, and the brown ink is sometimes difficult to distinguish against the dark surface. The handwriting is a sloping uncial, small in the first three lines, but from that point onward of a medium size which tends gradually to increase; it seems to be of about the sixth century. A soft breathing occurs twice in ]. 12, and a stop in the middle position in |. rr. The usual theological contractions are found, besides one or two other abbreviations, including «, for kai; ov is written as a monogram above the line in pov and 7ov in Il. 14 and 15.

On the other side of the sheet are a few, for the most part illegible, lines of what looks like some sort of account, ending with the name of the month Xotax. Whether this is the recto or the verso is questionable, but on the whole it appears probable that the Creed is on the recto and was the first to be written of the two documents.

[+av7y n mors 23 letters adbOlapros ws k, . [ 15 letters

[ 32 55 wpio lev n arte exK\[nota.. «2+. 22-2

[ 33.» ™\s Popns apyoupe(v ) [ino - 7 eee TLOTEV [opev eis eva Ov TPa TavToKpatopa TavTwY op|aTwY TE Kat aoplaTwY ToLNTHY kK, ELS

5 [eva kv Inv Xv rov vv Tov Ov yervynfevta ex Tlov TaTpos polvolylern TOUTEOTLV [ex Tys ovovas Tov Tpos Ov ex Ov dws ex dwros] Ov ahnOewov ex [Av adnOuvov [yervnfevra ov roberta opoovoroy Tw mlpe du ov ta Tava elyevero Ta TE &

T@® OUVPGAVW K; TAH EV TH YY) TOV du HEaS To|us [avouls Ky dia THV npelTEpav TWTYPLav

il gt feel. cokers | patents kateMovta K, capkwobevta evavOpwrn|car7|a] malovra K, avalaravra Ty NpEpa

[ 10 [avehfovta evs Tous ouvpavous epxo\evlov] Kpivat Cwvras [K, veKpous k,

[eus To ayiov TVA Tous Se deyor]ras- [nly moTE oTE ovK yV [K,] Tp yervnOyvale

[ovk nv k, ott €€ ovK ovTwV eyeve|ro 1 e€ ETEpas UTogT|al\oEews 7 OVTLAS

[packovras ewat TpemTov n addoLlwrov Tov VP Tov Ov TovToUS avabenarile

[n Kafodikyn K, atoaTohiKy pert AUTH POV Y TLOTLS META TaUTHS THS ovopla 15 [owas 21 letters TO ppixto Bypate tov deo7o(rov) Xv ev ™7 poBepa [nmepa exewwn n Tadw edevoerar i ™ tdva So€y Kpwat Cwvras K, vEeKpous [K,

Baotrevoat Ovv aylols Els TOUS aw |\vas TMV ALWYWV anv +

I. avtn n miotis : Cf. Epiphanius, Ancorate, c. 120 abrn pev 4 rloris mapeddOn ard Tov aylov atooroAwv KTA. ; or perhaps 7 Oya Se as in the introductory words to the so-called Remedi Putas Creed, 7 ayla Bris iv pracaae ot Gytou HES pv’ «tA. Cf. also adsl Ep. ad Nest. 3 Bp) yap ths KaboduKhs Kal dmooroAuKkhs éxxAnolas i) TioTLs, 7) cvvawvodow aravtes of te Kata Thy éomépay Kal Kata Thy Edav bp0ddoko1 emioxomo. micTedoper KTA.

2. For wpwer cf. e.g. the Definitio Fidei of the Council of Chalcedon, 4 ayla... avvodos... @pive Ta dmoreraypéva. ayte is a slip for ayza.

THEOLOGIGARS TEXTS 3

3. A reference to Rome here is hardly expected, since the Roman bishop Silvester seems to have taken no prominent part in convening the council, which he did not attend, nor to have presided at it through his deputies. But it is unnecessary to assume any such implication in the present passage.

5. Eust. places povoyern before Oecv instead of after marpds.

6. pws: xal BGs ES. Perhaps the doubtful € of adndewov is really a 6 and some other letter was deleted between it and 7.

8. ev tn yn: ent tis yns A, and room could be found in the papyrus for this variant, either by supposing that ov(pa)vo was written, or by omitting rov before 6 nuwas, with S. The uncontracted form of ovpavds is, however, rather more suitable in 1. 10, and the assumption of an agreement here with S is not very satisfactory. That the writer was inconsistent in the matter of contraction is shown by 1. 5, where zarpos is written out.

g. The omission of car before evavOpwrn|cavt{a (so ESAB) is desirable in order to reduce the length of the initial supplement, which even so has two or three letters more than those of the lines immediately preceding and following. But the restoration of this passage is complicated by the doubt as to the meaning of the illegible insertion above the line. Possibly the termination is -@ovra or -Oevra, but there is no known variant to which it could belong. A more tempting interpretation would be to suppose that the addition represented ék Tlvevparos “Aylov cal Mapias tis Tlap0évov, a phrase which first appears in the Creed preserved by Epiphanius, Ancorate, c. 120, and was incorporated in the Nicene Creed as confirmed by the Council of Chalcedon in A.D. 451. x]at Malpias zlapOevov might be read, but there is no room for 77s.

10. epxouevoy: or K(at) epxouevov (E*), which could be read if tovs were omitted (so E* Clem. /. 55) or if ovpavovs were abbreviated ovvovs.

II. To aywov mv(evj)a: Or To mv(evp)a To aytov, with ESAC. E'S add or after Aeyovras.

13. Considerations of space make it practically certain that » xricrov, which in most of the authorities precedes tpenrov but is omitted by E‘C, did not stand in the papyrus.

toutovs: om. E*S ; rovs rovovrovs B.

14. The papyrus apparently agreed with E*C in omitting ayia before xafoducn. E* omits kau amo- otokuxn. At the end of the line rns ovoplactas is very uncertain: the doubtful » may be o: or ov, and yp or wo could be read in place of vy; but neither trys ouodo[yias nor mpocorcoplar are suitable.

15. Bnyart: cf. Rom. xiv. 10 mapactynodueba TS Byyart tod Geos, 2 Cor. v. 10 pavepwOjvar det Eunpoobev Tod Byparos Tod xpiorod, and 11. 7.

16-17. The supplements are added erempli gratia. The last line may also be a doxology, e.g. © ovv m(ar)pt (ar) ays mv(evpar)e 7 do€a evs Tovs arwlvas, or du ov n doa Kat To Kparos ets KTA, (cf. e.g. P. Oxy. 407. 6).

7. HYMN. 17-8 x 12-9 cm. Sixth century. Plate 2.

A Christian hymn to the Saviour, well preserved after the first few lines. There is a break at the top of the papyrus, but the extent of the loss can be accurately determined from the fact that the composition is an acrostic, the lines commencing with the letters of the alphabet in their order from a to . The acrostic method, of which there is an instance on papyrus as early as the first century (P. Tebt. 278), was very common in the Byzantine period ; cf. 41, Krumbacher, Gesch. d. Byz. Lit. pp. 697 sqq., and, for another example of its use inahymn, P. Amh. 2. The lines are furthermore divided off into stanzas by a kind of refrain introduced at every fourth verse, in which the first word only is varied. Apart from this strophic arrangement there is no attempt at metre. The subject of the hymn, which may have been intended for the Christmas festival, is the birth of Christ and its attendant

14 THEOLOGICADS TEATS

blessings. Some parallels in language are cited from the Greek liturgy for Christmas in the notes below.

The text is written across the fibres of the papyrus in fairly good sloping uncials of medium size, dating from about the sixth century. It is rather inaccurate, and a number of small alterations are necessary; it may of course be removed several stages from the archetype. There are signs of another line below the conclusion of the hymn, which therefore was perhaps followed by another; but the papyrus seems to have been an isolated sheet, not part of an extensive MS.

Dm &

[ [ ly---J-[ do[Elacor[res avrov evropev Ke Sola colt] 5 €K TVEU|LATOS ayLouv eyevun On ] Xs Conv npily xapioopevos ] n&iworas pe) nuav ocvvavactpadynvar Gavpalovres avrov evropev KE SoEa cot woov » maplevos erexev Tov Eypavound 10 KatehOwv €€ ovpavous haov mremhavynpevov ek yns Avyvmtov Siacwolas feeyadvvovtes avtov euopev Ke Sofa cor vikev Kat €xOpov eBovheTro Tapacyov nut K\s Eevotoyeitn Tapa thy Mapbav 15 Opatos €v OapKEL AOpaTos TpoomeiTTovTEs avTov evmopev KE Sola] ofole pnpata ahynfea avererdfev] yyw ks capKoles ex tapOevov tolv almrepoyapous vTepeyiourtes avtov europlev] Ke Sofa cor 20 das eK dwrtos avererhey nululy KS Xs 0 Baotdevs uxas nmetepas ex yns Avyumrov dat woas

@S TATA TVON ELTOMEV KE dofa ao. +

eee kis bt

ll. 4-24. *... let us glorify Him, singing, Glory to Thee, O Lord.

Of the Holy Ghost was Christ incarnate, to bestow upon us life: Thou didst deign to dwell with us. Let us reverence Him and say, Glory to Thee, O Lord.

Lo the Virgin has born Emmanuel: He came down from heaven, and saved from the land of Egypt the people that was astray. Let us magnify Him and say, Glory to Thee, O Lord.

The Lord desired to give us victory over our enemies: He abode with Mary, the unseen was seen in the flesh. Let us worship Him and say, Glory to Thee, O Lord.

The Lord has risen for us, the Word of truth, incarnate of the unwedded virgin. Let us extol Him, and say, Glory to Thee, O Lord.

THEOLOGICAL I EATS 15

The Lord has risen for us, Light of Light, Christ the King, having saved our souls from the land of Egypt. As one voice let us say, Glory to Thee, O Lord.’

4. d0[€]ja oo | might be read, but the line is no doubt to be restored on the analogy of Il. 8,12, 16, and 19, do Elavor[res being a misspelling for dofa¢ovres. ermopuev here and in |. 8, &c., is of course for ermwpev.

6. xapicouevos is added only exempli gratia; cf. Romans vi. 23 xdpicpa rod Ocod (wH aidnos.

10-11. l. ovpavov. The participles careAOwyv and d:acwolas are loosely constructed with what precedes ; dvecwolas cannot be read, but perhaps should be restored. Avyvzrov is used in the common metaphorical sense,

for which cf. Etym. Magn. Atyumros ... onyalver mapa to Oeordy Thy dpaptiav, as “Evredbev Alyurrov pedyopuev THY oKvOpwTHY Kal didKTpray Guapriav (Greg. Naz. Orat. 42, p. 686 c). 13. |. vuxny. .. mapacyev.

14. 1. €evodoxerrat, and Maprav for Map@av, who would obviously be out of place here.

15. Cf. the Menaea for Dec. 25 (p. 223, ed. Ven.) onuepov dparar capxl 6 dice: ddpatos... bia Todro Kal nuets d0€orAoyotvres Bonooper atta... Larnp judav, dd£a cor.

17. pnwara adnOe.a is apparently for pnua rns adndevas in apposition to xs like gws in 1. 20, The metaphor of averewAler| (cf. 1. 20) in the Christmas liturgy needs no illustration.

18. 1. capxwOes . . . THs awetpoyayov. The r line which should intervene between Il. 18 and 1g is missing, and perhaps has dropped out ; but it may be easily supplied by writing rns ameipoyayov as a separate line. ' Immediately below the initial o of capxodes there is a mark resembling a paragraphus, but probably this is an accidental smudge and has nothing to do with the dislocation of the acrostic at this point.

19. l. vmepvwourtes.

20. Cf. the Nicene Creed (6. 6) and the quotation from the Menaea in the next note.

24. Cf. Ps. cl. 6 maca mvon aiverdtw tov xtpiov and the Menaea for Dec. 25, p. 218...6 capxwOels éx TIvedparos “Aylov cai éx rhs devmapOévov Mdpias évarOpwrjoas, pas juiy EAampas... Pos ek Pwrds... Tava TvOH

aivet oe...

8. LITURGICAL FRAGMENT.

6:2 x 8-7 cm. Fifth century.

A small fragment of papyrus inscribed on both sides with a series of sentences based mainly upon the Psalms, but including one citation from the New Testament. A free use is made of the scriptural texts, suggesting that the quotations were from memory, and possibly the leaf, which is inaccurately written in a medium-sized clear semi-cursive, of, perhaps, the fifth century, was not designed for more than private devotional purposes ; 9, however, which contains a composition of similar character, has the appearance of part of a regular service-book.

Recto. Verso. 5. (Pa. Teh see he he ete i ee t+adfelrar ta madia epyer Oar TOs [teeters eters ] oop dvragov m|[pos] we Twv Siovtwy eat [y [He] Kle ws Kolpnv offadpov

Bactiea Tov ovpavev + py ey|klalra[Aliris pe ws didav

] 5 +oou vreneva olny tHv 7 [Opla[zjo[s]+[u]y aropufis pe

16 THEOLOGICAL Eats

pepav prnoOynt Twv ovK [a}ro tolv mlpoowmw cov x\ap [Tu]pl|u@v cov] KE apaptias veo 15 dvayv KlalOapav diiavOpare TNTOS Kat ayviotjas ov py pyyneT exTio[elv em ewe Kal owlov pe [Ans

ll. 2-9. ‘Suffer the little children to come unto Me, of such is the kingdom of heaven. On Thee do I wait all the day. Remember Thy tender mercies, O Lord ; remember not the sins of my youth nor my ignorances.’

ll. 10-16. ‘... Saviour. Keep me, O Lord, as the apple of the eyes; forsake me not in Thy graciousness. Cast me not away from Thy presence ; create in me a clean heart, gracious God, and save me.’

2-4. Cf. Matt. xix. 14, Luke xviii. 16, Mark x. 14. The papyrus takes épxeo0a from Mark and Luke (eddeciv, Matt.), rév odpavay from Matthew (rod Oeod, Mark, Luke). adfelra: is for agfejre and dtovrwy for Tovovrwy.

5-8. Cf. Ps. xxiv. 5-7. cou in 1.5 should be ce. In adding x(vpie after cov in 1. 7 the papyrus agrees with NARU against B. It is peculiar in omitting pov after veornros and in having ov yn for wy in |. 8, where pov pn (N“*@ARU) cannot be read. The x of cai has been corrected perhaps from a p.

10-11. = Ps, xvi. 8. xolpnv: so BYN*ARU; xopay B. of@adwov is for opOatpov, but the MSS. have opOadpuov. S°* inserts xupre after pe.

12. The scanty vestiges suit yn e€y|x[alra[Alimis, which will be for eyxaradimns like amopufis for -ns in 1. 13 ;

cf. Ps. xxvi. 9, xxxvii. 21, Ixx. 9, 18, cxviii. 8, cxxxix. 9. Neither qiddvOpwros nor gidavOp@mla occurs in the Psalms.

13. The supposed chrism before [un is very doubtful, being represented only by part of the cross-bar which might equally well belong to e.g. € or s; but ¢1Aaz[Op|@z[o]s would not fill the space.

13-14. = Ps. 1.13. amopiis is for amop(p)upns and t\poowre for -ov.

14-16. Cf. Ps. 1.12 xapdtav xadapdy xrioov év uot, 6 Oeds, Either extioley or extio[o|y may have been written, xtiooy being intended in either case ; and 1. cwooy for owov.

9. LITURGICAL FRAGMENT. Q1-I X 25-3 cm. Fifth or sixth century.

The contents of this papyrus, the upper part of a large leaf from a book, resemble those of 8, consisting of a number of sentences which incorporate more or less exactly scriptural phraseology, derived in this case from Isaiah as well as the Psalms ; as before, however, the latter are especially prominent. The surface of the papyrus is in places much damaged, and the consequent difficulty of decipherment is augmented by the illiterate corruption of the text. This is written with brown ink in rather large and thick sloping uncials, which may be assigned to the fifth or sixth century. The common contractions are employed, and xa is written x, An abbreviation which perhaps stands for a\\n\oua (cf. note on Il. to-11) usually marks the close of the different versicles.

Recto. [.-Jar--€-L].-- 0. nokKra.. [ ote he teers [..-] EE -5 a ty hoecta OU- |... 6

THEOLOGIGARSTEX TS 17

Felowsesse. Ve Sekatars [oe geen aa. 0+» ppakl. -|rou papaly phere eae cere) ©

5 N-- olar[.].0-.-5 amol......+.-ees VAOV KU Ky @-eeees ododv&e [....+.- Ks Aupipaco. [J]. +- tagTn-- [++] ras Kap dias nuov + of...-- ]. oy [...].-[- -] alvjro Kpatwp peyadn 7» Sofa Tov[.]..-.. ov

10 Kj a-hN-.-- Gol-] Expnvynv THY Eunv kK; evdoyyla]w zlov] Aaov pov ets Tov awva ad(Andovwa ?) + peyas KS K, eveTo opodpa ev Toe TOU Ou neloly [ely oper ayww avrov evpiow ayadhia

patie tlalolns tTys yns Kalatep ovkovoapev geo.[....-]..c0ve.. . cwoov daov gov pidavOpwre

15 ovrals vjoaple|y [vjrehaBopev os add e€ 2..9..A[.]. yoo... ]opevos mileTw Kpivov dikatorvvn cot e€opo

Aoyoupat cou eis Tov awa a.[...]-

o.-Kkacar.[..jvntav tov ai... .Jo

Verso.

++ [--]oov pov tv capxa T+-. vy o-[..].

20 [..... Jov euou ovopevor KaKwW €... ait es. Js ov adXov ov yryvwoKopev ogemeorsn Joo ...-aa..-v ad(Andoua) +

[.--]-.-[-Jov nuas a-. is yipas exOplor] [nulov adda BonPynoov yuas ad{(Andoura)] a evexev Tov ovolula[ros] cov uv. ev yuas KE ott Tapa [clot povw ..€... [.] ad(Andouwa) + eyw Oe ov mopar [elu[A]olywl oe [ke] pera waltynpiw tacas Tas npepals] ty[s] Cons pou Katevav7|[t] Tov ovKoly cov a[A(Andovia)] +

30 ot ofOadpo[t] mavrwy evs ofe] eAmulw haBev

NO ou

Tpodnv mapa cov Ke ott Trav Cwwy evooKia emimdas t[ols ayafos avvgov THv xipa cov KE ad(Anrouia) + ev Tors of[Faldpous - -]- Mage -+-v o7|. -Joo...[-J-€ €kg0-.-6...0€

35 w--jrov B---++-[]----[--]--[-]- [...]-a-ad(AnAovia) +

oy dare go. oKaie~ O giahets Tele

1. exkAno[va might be read at the end of the line. 2. Possibly xs ewe cwoer: cf. Ps. cxxxvii. 7 cal éowcdy pe 7 deEid cov. 3. The doubtful r after dexa may be a chrism as in 1. 8.

D

18 *THEOLOGICALFIEXRTS

5. Possibly 7 ovova, not nuova. The doubtful o may be «.

6. It is uncertain whether x; a or simply xa should be read.

7. dupa seems clear, but the meaning is obscure; perhaps Aauwas or Anuw . . . was intended. The word before ras xapd.as is possibly ornpucov (cf. Ps. 1. 14 otipiody pe, cxi. 8 eornpixtat 7 Kapdla, &c.).

g. Cf. Ps. cxxxvii. 5 peyddn if) d0€a Kuplov (N°*ART). avroxparwp occurs only in 4 Maccabees (adroxp. maddy, adynddovev).

to-11. Cf. Ps. xxviii. 11 Kvpuos edAoyqoer tov Aadv adrod év elpyvn. awva, not ai- nor e-, was apparently written. Whether the letters before the chrism are rightly interpreted as aA(AnAoua) is doubtful. The a is quite clear at 1, 22 (it is unlikely that a there should be connected with what precedes), and this is followed by what seems to be A joined by an oblique stroke of abbreviation. GAAnAowd is commonly used as a title in the Psalms, but occurs also at the end of Ps. cl; cf. Berl. Klass. vi. vi. 4.5. In 1. 8 a chrism only is used.

12-14. ="Ps. xlvii. 1-2. 1. awetos opodpa(A similarly has here awwero cpodpa) .. . evpt(o. Something apparently stood in the papyrus between yywv and ope, and probably ev was read as in N°*RT. B*RART all have evpr(wrv, and A reads zaca tn yn.

14-15. xadamep...tjdaplelv is from Ps, xlvii. 9. 1. nkovoawev: wdapev for evdouer is also the spelling of A*RT, the two latter MSS. as well as N°* prefixing kau.

15. Where the insertion placed above this line, and continued also over |, 16, was intended to come in is not clear. [v}meAaBopuev (cf. Ps. xlvii. 10 treAdBopev, 6 Oeds, Td EAeds gov) ... em’Merw makes no sense, and the interlineation is presumably to be connected with those words; the identity of the termination |ouevos and v|reAaBouev os is noticeable, but may be accidental. odcov tov Aady cov occurs in Ps. xxvii. 9. For piravOpwre cf. 8. 12 and 15.

16. oot is for cov: cf. Ps. xxxiv. 24 kpivdy pe, Kipie, xara tiv dixarocvyyny cov.

16-17. Cf. Ps. li. 11 €€ouodroyjoopual cou eis Tov aldva.

19. |oov if right will be an imperative such as cwoovp.

a1. Cf. Isaiah xxvi. 13 xrijcar jas, Kupue’ éxtds ood GAAov ovk oldayev. Perhaps on this analogy exro® o(o)v should be restored: | cov cannot be read.

23-4. Perhaps ws (e)is: els xelpas €xOpGyv or €xOpod is common in the Psalms and elsewhere, e. g. Ps. xxx. 8, x]. 2, Ixxvii. 61. The apparent horizontal stroke above « may be meant for a mark of diaeresis.

24-5. Cfie. g. Ps. Ixxviii. 9 BonOnoov jyiv, 6 Oeds 6 cwrnp Nuar, Evexa Ths Sd€ns Tod dvdpards cov. In]. 24 l. nutv for nuas. In 1. 25 the first letter of the verb if not v must be w; possibly there is some corruption of tywoor.

26. Some word like owrnpia is wanted at the end of the line; cf. e.g. Ps. xxxvi. 39 cwrnpla 8% Tév dixalov mapa Kuplo.

27-9. From Isaiah xxxviii. 20 xal od mavcouar eddoydv ce pera Wadrtnplov mdoas Tas Huépas THs CwAs pov KaTévayvtt Tod olkov Tod Oeod.

30-3. Cf. Ps. cxliv. 15-16 of dpOadpol mdvtwv eis o& eAniCovow ... dvolyers ob Tas xeipds (THY XElpa N°*RT) cov kal eumimAds may (Gov eddoxias. In 1. 32 tos ayafos seems to have been written for rows ayadois ; cf. e. g. Ps. cxxiv. 4 dydOvvov, Kipte, tots ayabots kai rots ev0or 77 Kapdia.

36. It is doubtful whether any letter intervenes between a and aA(AnAova). The rest of this line is blank.

10. HAGIOGRAPHICAL FRAGMENT.

18-3 X 21-4 cm. Sixth century. Plate 1.

The following fragment, which is evidently part of a description of the adventures of some Christian saint, is apparently not extant. What remains of the narrative is for the most part a discourse by the saint, who had been condemned to death by starvation (I. 6) and already been twenty or more days without food or drink (1. 3). M. H. Delehaye,

DHEOLOGICAL, TEXTS 19

to whom the text has been submitted, suggests that it may possibly come from an early redaction of the martyrdom of Lucian, who was similarly subjected to the torture of starvation, but is not credited in the extant account (Migne, Patres Graect, 114. 397) with the language found in the papyrus.

Both the beginnings and ends of the lines are lost, but the extent of the lacunae is determined by ll. 7-8, where a quotation from the First Epistle to the Corinthians shows that the gap at that point extends to 25 letters. On this basis the loss elsewhere is roughly calculated, though of course it is quite uncertain how the lines are to be divided, and the arrangement adopted below is purely arbitrary. The hand, a large sloping uncial, but including a minuscule p, may be assigned to the sixth century; the writing is at right angles to the fibres, and the mk of the brown colour common in the Byzantine period. For punctuation, besides the ordinary dots, which occur in three positions, a comma is sometimes used, but this seems to have indicated division of words rather than a true pause. On the verso is a seventh-century Coptic account giving a list of names with payments in artabae of otros.

ety sake, Jov, ovtact. kar hacker’ yiye-seeee]-[ 2 letters t aececes Jas, vnyorevoat mpofeuevos. exdvow, va » 9»

Sper erahe.-0,'¢ ] + P@V Kal idov ONMEPOV, WS LOTE. ELKOOL [nmepau €LOLY AS ACOLTW

pydevo|s yevoapevos pte aptov. pyre Toparos. Kall. +e sere sere Kara. 5 npepav elkaoTnv, exOiav Kar twwv. dia Tv Tapal 19 letters ete sa syralle Ww. oe OV THV AGLTLAV KatekpiOnv: n yap e 16 ” Ta 1 Toipac|weva tows SuKavors ayaba-. a opOadpos ovK eldev Kat OVS OVK HKOVTEY kat emt] Kapdvay aviov| ovk aveBy. rns Tpos od 21 letters SPR He ov ovyKexwopynKer’ ev olvyw yap KexplatnKa 16 ,, 10 .... aylwvas: Kal TeMeLwow THY Kahynv oTpaTeLay kl Saas +++ Tavjra avtov deyovros: eOavpalov mavtes akolvovres avTov......-- wOatee ete dlovn Svadeyopevov pera TooavTny acitiay {| 18 letters --+Tahiy tyv hovylr| ernpe- leywv' petavoeire [ » oo» Pocket shesare ]. amedevoopar mpos Tov emov Seomorny [ 20 ,, A fragment. ol

1. Perhaps yw[woxere. ;

3. The first letter may be «¢, i.e. nulepwv. A high stop has possibly disappeared between the v and kau. The vestige of the final letter suggests « rather than 7.

6. wy was originally written, but the » seems to have been altered to o.

7-8. The quotation is from 1 Cor. ii. 9. oA[ at the end of 1. 8 is perhaps: oA{yov.

10, If Jovas is right, aylwvas seems to suit the context better than at|ovas : but the first letter may be o. For the succeeding words cf. 1 Tim. i. 18 tva OTpaTEvy .. . THY KAaANY orpareiav.

20 THEOLOGICALSTE MTS

1]. CHRISTIAN FRAGMENT.

15:1 X 13-6 cm. Fifth or sixth century.

Whether this fragment should be classed as literary is very doubtful. It is written across the fibres of the papyrus in a large uncial hand of the fifth or sixth century, and the widely spaced lines, of which the ends are preserved, may have been of con- siderable length. The first and second persons plural are used, and there is a reference to the ‘terrible judgement-seat of Christ our God’. Perhaps the fragment belongs to a hortatory composition of some kind; but it may be only from a letter, though the style of the writing suggests that the contents were not intended simply for private perusal, and would suit an epistle of some dignitary of the Church.

task b> Jaypadny vw Kata pepos ]. avrns edevdepwon avt - ]- e ovy emotapefa thy 5 Jeu mpovoayv mrovovpery Jarnpn wows Tpos Tw doBeljpo Bnuat. Xv tov Ov nye If -]-

3. Perhaps | ravrns. 7. Cf. 6. 15 and the passages quoted in the note ad loc.

12. CERTIFICATE OF PAGAN SACRIFICE.

Faytim. 22X 12-4 cm. A.D. 250, Plate 2.

This papyrus, though not literary, may conveniently be included in the theological section. It is another example of the /dell or declarations of conformity to the pagan worship exacted during the Decian persecution of the Christians. As in the case of four out of the five instances hitherto known (B. G. U. 287; Sztzungsb. Wien. Akad. 1894; P. Oxy. 658; Bulletin de la Société Archéol. d Alexandrie, No. 9, p. 88; Patrol. Orient. iv. 2), its provenance is the Fayim, and its phraseology corresponds almost exactly with that of B. G. U. 287. The present declaration, however, which was made by a woman (cf. 1. 2 and note), has this advantage over its predecessors that it is practically quite com- plete, including the official signature in 1. 11, which closely resembles that of the /ibellus

THEOLOGICAL TEXTS 21

published by Wessely in Patrol. Orient. iv. 2 and confirms Wilcken’s restoration of the corresponding mutilated passage in the Berlin papyrus; cf. Archiv v, pp. 277-8.

Tlolts ert trav Ovoidy ypypévois mapa Atpydias Anparos dmrdropos pyntpos “Edévns yur) Avpydiov Eipnvaiov amd appddov “Eddnveiov. Kal det Ovovca Tots 5 Oeois SuetéXMeoa Kal viv emt mapotou dpiv KaTa Ta Tpooter[alyyeva Kal eOvoa Kal eom- oa Kal TOV lepeiwy eyevodpnvy Kal abed vas vroonuidcacbat por. duevTvyetrar. and hand. Avpydia Anuds émdédwxa. Advpyd(tos) 10 Elijpnvatos eypaba iméep aitys aypalpparov). 3rd hand. Ad[py|A(vos) SaBetvos mpvr(avs) etjs[dv ce Ovovoav.

ist hand. (€rovs) a Avtoxpdtopos Katoapos Taiov Meooiov Kvivrov Tpatavod Aexiov EvaeBovs Evrvyots

S[elBacrov Tat k. 3. 1. yuvaikds.

‘To the commissioners of sacrifices from Aurelia Demos, who has no father, daughter of Helene and wife of Aurelius Irenaeus, of the Quarter of the Helleneum. It has ever been my habit to sacrifice to the gods, and now also I have in your presence, in accordance with the command, made sacrifice and libation and tasted ’ the offering, and I beg you to certify my statement. Farewell. I, Aurelia Demos, have presented this declaration. I, Aurelius Irenaeus, wrote for her, as she is illiterate. I, Aurelius Sabinus, prytanis, saw you sacrificing. The ist year of the Emperor Caesar Gaius Messius Quintus Trajanus Decius Pius Felix Augustus, Pauni 20.’

I. Tlolis ... pnuevors: so Wessely’s and the Alexandria /del//us ; in the other three examples the name of the particular district is added (kéyuns ’AdreEdvdpov Nijoov, PiradeAdlas, téAEws, sc. OFvpvxitdr).

2-3. It is noticeable that although the husband of Aurelia Demos was living, and signed on her behalf, she here acts independently, whereas in the Vienna /del/us the two men who make the declaration are associated with their wives. In Wessely’s papyrus the declaring party is again a woman, but there is no reference to her husband.

4. dypddov ‘EAAnvetov: at Arsinoitonpolis ; cf. e.g. P. Fay. 108. 4.

II. mpvr(avis): or mpur(avevoas); there is no corresponding statement of rank in the other examples.

* An announcement has just been made that the library of Hamburg possesses a group of /bel/z, which will be edited shortly by P. M. Meyer in Bd. i, Heft 2 of the Hamburger gr. Urkunden ; see his preliminary publication in Adh. Berl. Akad., Phil.-hist. Kl., 1910, Anhang, Abh. v.

Il. NEW CEASSIGA lo iia Sirs

13. EPIC FRAGMENT.

Behnesa. 12-5 X 7-4. Cm. Second century. Plate 4.

A strip of papyrus containing on the verso the beginnings of the last sixteen lines of a column, with vestiges of the column preceding, from an apparently non-extant hexameter or elegiac poem. A clue to the subject of the passage is probably to be found in |. 2 apyndac{. According to the statement of Clearchus ap. Aelian, Nat. Anim. xii. 34, apvnis was the name of the Argive festival held in honour of Linus: év 6€ rats yuépats as Kahovow apvnidas ot avroi (Sc. “Apyetou)... Several other words occur which support the hypo- thesis that the lines refer to the legend of Linus. apveuos in |. 1 (so rather than Apyetos) con- firms the reading apvydao{ in the following verse, while Argosis mentioned in 1. 21. tadodovw in |. 16 is a suitable epithet of the king Crotopus, who is said by Conon c. 19 (cf. Ovid, Ib. 573-4) to have put to death his daughter Psamathe, the mother (unrepa, |. 19) of Linus. mhayktvv in 1, 12, a word unknown to the lexica, may well refer to the wanderings of Crotopus, who as a punishment had to leave his kingdom and founded Tripodiscium. Pausanias says (1. 43. 7; cf. Ovid, 76. 575-6) that it was Coroebus who was driven from Argos ; but raidofovw indicates that the version of the myth found in Conon, /. ¢., was here reproduced. On the recto are parts of a few lines from the top of a column of accounts concerning land, written probably towards the end of the first or early in the second century. The literary text on the verso, which is in an irregular uncial hand of medium size, does not appear to be much posterior, and may be referred to the first half of the second century. A high stop is apparently used at the end of 1. 3.

Col. i. Col. ii.

apvevos pl apyndaot Kat Oave . [ Tov pev al IO Kal TOV em avepes é mhayktuv [| NVEKES aol ovdepeval

15 vupdnys aul

NEW: CLASSICAL? TEXTS 23

Tadopove [

|p nKev etrapl n odeay | pnTepa o| ] 20 ovX ovTal 5 ] Apyos aval

6. apvetos: cf. Conon c. 19 pid re @vdpacay apvetov Ort apydor Aivos cvvaverpadn. 12, mAaytvs, ‘wandering, is an Ionic form like dwwxrds, dpynords, &c. 14. ovd ewerfar or ovde pep af.

14. LYRIC FRAGMENT. Behnesa. 6-9 X 4-5 cm. Second or third century. Plate 4.

The following small fragment of a lyric poem appears to be novel. Only the ends of a few lines are preserved, written in well-formed uncials of the oval type, and dating from the latter part of the second century perhaps more probably than from the third. A high stop is the only lection sign which occurs.

jrov otparov [ lo papayor Jadaov avdpos Xf lus 5 jacvar ppeve j dlaperpav tar uTJeparovoy © Wau 10 = Jats" ov . [. - . Jap ] rex alar-tene|

2. Compounds of o¢dpayos were rather affected by Pindar, Pyth. ix. 5 dveuoopapdywr, /sthm. viii. 23 Bapvodpapay, Fr. 14, 15 épiepdpayov. The last is also used by Bacchyl. v. 20.

3. o after ada is very doubtful: the letter may be t.

5. Perhaps Alacra; cf. Alexis af. Athen. 699 c Adovar ppéves.

7. tav| is probably an adjective rava- or ravv- agreeing with dlaperpav.

8. tmepatlowos is cited in Bekker, Axecd. p. 359. 32, and Etym. Magn. p. 39. 21, but has not been found in any author ; cf. the Homeric inép aicav. The « is not quite satisfactory, having lost its cross-bar, but no other letter seems possible.

24 NEW CLASSICAL TEXTS

15. LAMENT FOR A LOVER.

Faytim. 20:1 X 13:8 cm. Second century.

Remains of two columns containing lyric stanzas. In the first column two groups of four verses, distinguished by a space left below the fourth line as well as by a horri- zontal stroke under the final word, are followed by another group of five lines, the last of which is considerably shorter than the rest; while Col. ii begins with a series of ten verses. Lines 3-4 are put into the mouth of a woman, who complains of having been deserted ; and probably the whole of the first column at least is a monody of the same kind as the ‘Maiden’s Lament’ in P. Grenf. I. 1, described by Wilamowitz as a Hilarodia (Gott. Nachr. 1896, p. 230). In the present case the lover has been carried off to fight as a gladiator (ll. 1, 7), a plight from which the forlorn girl apparently proposes to release him by means of bribes. Whether Col. ii is the continuation of the same theme is uncertain, though likely, Col. i being the commencement of the piece. The metre seems to be Ionic, as in the erotic poem from Marisa discussed by Croénert and Witnsch in Rhezn. Museum, lxiv, pp. 433 sqq., and perhaps also in P. Oxy. 219, the singular lament for a lost cock. Wilamowitz has emphasized the fact that Ionia was the home of this class of poetry (/. c. pp. 227 sqq.). The date of composition can be fixed fairly closely, on the one hand by the occurrence of the word popBi\d\wv (mirmillo) which points to the Imperial period, on the other by palaeographical considerations. The text is written on the verso of the papyrus in a cursive hand, upright and rather large, which appears to belong to the earlier part of the second century. A correction from a different pen occurs in |. 1. The recto is occupied by a taxing-account relating to the Arsinoite nome.

I add below the transcript a restoration of ll. 1-12 kindly supplied exempli gratia by Prof. Gilbert Murray, to whom I am otherwise indebted in connexion with this papyrus.

, Col. ii. Col. i. = Bis a Jovvats popBiiov cenvouv 15 Kuval |v apa kparov eu adapais pete ]- Kparepats Expos omdov ator npal lus povnv p edutres do . [ ey ede 5 oTepavolus podivous muKalns oe - 20 ak| Jue-Jy mad. Kupt KaKots ed . [ = kv. [ | povopaxery apereurav ahe

460 4% vou pnde habou

Jons yap exels Xpvoov mat 10 Klap|tlepoPpovv Bprap . |. «Je al Jopernv tropduplejoly « « - -] 25 al

NEW COASSICARS TEXTS 25

\rhy|-] deeper. jal él fs XP: ol. -|0a

’Avépos edynpolavvais poppithov dav wepvov [SuxtuBorouot|y awa Kparav ev taddpats [BéBnxas oioly kpatepats Ethos omhor,

" 7, A 27 > A ls Ue 4 ava [退, KAY KaKOl’s OoVyVY jm EduTrES.

5 [tt otedpavolvs podivous muKaller)s; o€, [oe Kaho’ Seiv’ nluety madi Kupet: Kaxots

[Anptows viv] povopayynoew avereoar.

[

Zev, o tol? y yalplis pov pnde AdOor.

xn? > , A \ ¥ , A AN’ WH’ &, Kupias| ons yap EXELS YPVTOV, TAL,

[a 10 [red twa Kjap|tjepdOpovy Baga tle [par’ IMA Si Toppupléjaly @ adxs] [

papéwy, kat Sirdq[v] hépery] xaltopooov

‘At the command of a proud man, as a mirmillo among the retiariz you are gone, gripping in strong hands a sword for your only weapon, ah me! and you left me alone in misery. (Zo attendant) Why do you weave garlands of roses? You, it is you I call! Terrible things are happening to our boy. They have persuaded him to fight alone with evil beasts. O Zeus, may my voice reach thee and not be unheard! Go, my servant, you have your mistress’s gold, a power of persuasion to deter a loud-voiced violent man, and abundance of purple robes. And swear to bring twice as much.’

I. oeuvov is far from certain, but gives a good sense; yuyvov is unlikely.

5. otepavolys: orépavor podwor occurs in Anacreon, Frag. 83 (95); cf. Anacreont. 42. 15-16 fodtvoior orepavioxots menvxacpévos. The vestige before the s would suit v, a, or «. oe at the end of the line may be -0e.

7. sovouaxnoery seems to be the word intended ; but it is possible that the last letter is » not v, and that the interlineated «. was intended to explain or replace this: cf. xvps in]. 6. For the fut. infin. after averewoay cf. Thuc. ii. 29. 5, where several MSS. have meioew ... méuew (v.1. wéurrew).

8. The remains suggest vov rather than pov, but . . . vs wou seems possible, and on this Murray has based his suggested restoration tkov|@ 7 yi[pjés wov, which is otherwise sufficiently consistent with the visible traces.

14. This line is higher up than the first line of Col. i, and perhaps the columns should not be regarded as complete at the top ; the recto, however, suits though it does not necessitate this view.

15. xwva followed at a short interval by npal suggests a possible reference in these lines to Heracles and Cerberus,

16. COMEDY. Harit. 26-4 x 8-5 cm, Late second century. Plate 5.

A strip of papyrus containing the ends of a column of iambic lines evidently from a comedy, though neither the play nor its author seems to be determinable. From a palaeo- graphical point of view, however, the fragment has some importance. The manuscript was an unusually sumptuous one, both in its scale and calligraphy. There is a very

E

26 NEW, CLASSICAL STR S

broad margin of from 7-5 to 8 cm. both above and below the column, which numbers twenty lines, written in large and fine upright uncials. The hand is extremely similar to that of P. Oxy. 661 (IV, Plate V), and like it can fortunately be dated with some accuracy, since the verso is inscribed with a letter to Heroninus (cf. e.g. P. Flor. 9, introd.), written in the third year (of Gallienus), 1. e. A.D. 255-256. A manuscript so elaborate would probably not be quickly destroyed, and hence the text on the recto can hardly be later than about the year 215 and may well belong, as there was reason to suppose that P. Oxy. 661 belonged, to the latter part of the second century. Other examples of this so-called biblical type on papyrus may be seen in P. Oxy. 25 (I, Plate III) and 867 (VI, Plate I); it is indeed not uncommon, and that it came into vogue so early as, at any rate, the beginning of the third century is noteworthy. Two accents, a mark of elision, and a high stop occur, all of which are perhaps more likely to be due to the corrector to whom is attributed the marginal insertion opposite 1. 1, than to the original scribe. The occurrence in the letter on the verso of the name Heroninus as addressee shows that this papyrus, like 57, came from Harit (Theadelphia) in the Paya ciate haya 3340cc:

Joas aodadws > avras 18° T poo dloxwpevov lepe ] epew Tu oe jurat peva | avrika ] oou 8 ere | ToTeE 5 Ins povear 15 |pov Tuva (?) AlImper Supe Ine peeve dlros @ apa Jevov trodv' jov Tivos |r ere Juav ov Troe ]pev ovo” odws 10 (?) cuvTo|uwrepov 20 jwov Buov

1. In the marginal adscript the is written rather above the line, probably indicating wdw(v). The curved mark preceding avras is a sign used in supplying an omission (cf. e. g. P. Oxy. 16, iii. 3, 656. 139), or making a rectification (cf. e.g. P. Oxy. 844. 495), in the text; the words adras idév were presumably intended to be the commencement of the Verse.

4. Several other divisions of the letters are of course possible.

8. Or ] ovrwos.

17. Or Jev ov modu,

16 (a). COMEDY.

Hibeh. Frag. I 5:6 x 8-8 cm. Third century B.C.

These small fragments from the cartonnage of a mummy are no doubt to be recognized as belonging to the same MS. as P. Hibeh 5 and P. Grenf. II. 8 (6). Like those two papyri, they contain remains of a comedy, and are written in a hand of just the same kind;

NE WeClASSlIGki LEX TS 27

moreover on the verso of Frag. 2 occur a few lines of explanations of epic words or phrases, like those on the verso of P. Hibeh 5 Frag. (a). But no satisfactory combination has resulted, and the fragments are too small to throw fresh light upon the disputed question of the character and authorship of the play (Leo, Hermes, xli, pp. 629 sqq. ; Blass, Rheum. Mus. \xii, pp. t0o2 sqq.). Frag. 2, and apparently Frag. 1, both come from . tops of columns, while Frag. 3 is from the bottom of a column.

Frag. 1,

].7e pe wavra Ta . |

Jas w [4] tpodipe Tovovror a Joas aavtTov evex Epwmerys

|]. ets tAXapos ye vy Tov ndrov

5 lapsae.-. w adda . [ Neral S ioe. | lt +++ Frag. 2. Frag. 3. \vOevup « « | ; ; : : Jopny [ Per lel le | Je kedva . [ ]-- epymia--r.. [ lone « | ]- evfolvs eax. - [ 5 ]. adoveevo[.jr . . [ ].-.. 0s tavra [ xaro[.].... [ 5 jus Tus nKwv Kl Jras nur | lua tperoy ev - | a : Frag. 4. Frag. 5. Io ] NEW Ka. + [ 5 e eat iby a Ie «| lv yap o-[ _ la devo

Jer + | pul

On the verso of Frag. 2

ovre xalpe vy|ijauve ovk aheyw ov dpovtilla] ove oferalt] ov dlpolyr[eCler

Page les Ledeen od cae

Frag. 1. 2. tpopme: cf. P. Hibeh 5.52. The letters rpodip are written over something else which has been washed out.

Frag. 3. The visible letters in this fragment are in each line preceded by about 14 cm. of blank papyrus ; possibly two selides were joined at this point.

Frag. 2 verso. It is noticeable that the three lemmata all begin with the letter 0, and that in P. Hibeh 5

E2

28 NEW CLASsSICATS ESTs

one also begins with 0, the other with 7. Perhaps then these entries belong to an alphabetical lexicon; in that case Frag. 2 verso preceded P. Hibeh 5 (a) verso, and Frag. 2 recto would follow P. Hibeh 5 (a) recto.

1. w 402. Cf. Hesych. otde° tylauve. 2. ov Ppovti¢(w|: so Schol. Didymi A 389. 3. Cf. Schol. Didymi E 403 ovk dOerau’ ovd« éemuorpeperat, amapede?, Appovtiote.

17. EPITHALAMIUM.

Eshmunén. 10-3 X 15:1 cm. Fourth century.

A small complete sheet of papyrus containing six hexameter lines addressed to a newly wedded couple. The verses are written across the fibres in an irregular semi-uncial hand of medium size, dating probably from the latter half of the fourth century; the papyrus was bought together with several cursive documents from Eshmunén (Hermopolis), some of which are dated in the year a.p. 397, and is not likely to be very far removed from them in date. A single high stop occurs in 1. 3; below the last line is drawn an interlacing border.

To what period the composition of these verses is to be assigned is less closely determinable. Epithalamia can be traced back as far as Sappho, to whom Catullus seems to have been indebted in his well-known sixty-first and sixty-second poems. For a complete Greek specimen, however, it is necessary to come down as far as the ‘Edévys *Exvfaddpros of Theocritus (xviii), in which, according to the scholia, use was made of a poem by Stesichorus on the same subject. The lines before us may have been extracted from some similar product of the Hellenistic or even the Roman epoch. The sentiment as well as the phraseology, in which Homeric echoes are noticeable, is of a conventional character. Some metrical laxity is seen in the scansion of xai as a long syllable before a vowel in l. 6.

vuppue ov Xapures yAvKepar Kar Kvdos omyolele Appovin Xxapieroa yapows yepas eyyvaduée vuppa pin peya xatpe Suapmepes: afvov evpes vuppiov a€ov evpes opodpoovrny & oma ee 5 On Tov Beos appu Kat avtixa Texva yeveo Bar

Kav Talvjowy maidas Kar es Baby yynpas tker Oar

‘Bridegroom, the sweet Graces and glory attend thee: gracious Harmonia has bestowed honour on thy nuptials. Dear bride, great and abiding joy be thine! A worthy, yea a worthy husband hast thou found ; may heaven now give you concord, and that ye may presently have children, and children’s children, and reach a ripe old age.’

I. ov is of course for oor. xKvdos omnde is Homeric, P 251. 2. “Appovin: cf. Aesch. Suppl. 1041-2 dora: 8 ‘Apyorta poip’ Adpodiras Webdvpal rpiBorr’ épdrwv. Possibly eyyvadtée is to be interpreted as éyyvad(fa, with omnd{o} in the previous line.

NEW CEASSICARS LETS 29

3. sqq. For the following salutation cf. the conclusion of Theocritus’ ‘Edévns ’EmOadduios, xviii. 49-53 :-— xaipors @ wba, yxalpors edrévOepe yauBpé. Aar® pev doin, Aata xouporpdpos typuy evtexviay, Kimpis d€, Oca Kurpis ioov épacba adAdAdov, Zeds 5€, Kpovidas Zebts apOirov ddABor, ws @& ebmarpiday els ebratpldas madw evOn. The reiteration of the names too is reproduced in that of aftov evpes. vuyda dtdn is as old as Homer (T 130, 8 743). 4. onoppoovrny omace(telv: cf. ¢ 181. The final vy was apparently written above the line on account of absence of space.

~

5. oppo: 1. upp.

18. HISTORICAL FRAGMENT.

8-8 x 10-2 cm, Second century B.c. Plate 6.

A small fragment containing the upper parts of two columns, written in a good- sized clear semi-cursive hand which can be assigned with security to the second century B.c., and with probability to about the middle of the century; the hand is very similar for instance to that of P. Brit. Mus. 1200, of either 192 or 168 B.c., and may also be com- pared with those of P. Brit. Mus. 44 of 161 B.c. and 879 of 123 B.c. (see the Plates). Sentences are divided off by a paragraphus, which in |. 21 is accompanied by a short blank space within the line to mark the position of the pause.

Of the two columns partially remaining, the first, which has only a few letters from the ends of the lines, is practically useless, but the second, so far as it goes, is in a fair state of preservation, and is of an interesting, if tantalizing, nature. After an imperfect sentence (ll. 12-15) referring to the colonization of a tract of country, of doubtful identity, mention is made (Il. 16-21) of the Spartan ephor Chilon and the king Anaxandrides in connexion with the suppression of the Greek tyrannies, among which those of Aeschines at Sicyon and Hippias at Athens are named (ll. 21-3). Unluckily the reading of this important passage is not quite certain ; a detailed discussion of the possibilities is given in the notes below. No manipulation of the text, however, can remove the novelty of the statement ; our meagre information has not hitherto credited either Chilon or Anaxandrides with any active part in the expulsion of tyrants. Chilon especially is a very shadowy figure. Herodotus makes him a contemporary of the father of Pisistratus (i. 59), and he was perhaps the grandfather of the Chilon mentioned in vi. 65. That this latter, who is not known to have been ephor, is the person here meant seems improbable, though that hypothesis might harmonize better with the chronology of ll. 21 sqq. (see below). Diogenes Laertius (i. 3. 1) puts Chilon’s ephorate in the 55th Olympiad (560-557 B.c.), adding that Pamphila and Sosicrates assigned it to the year of the archonship of Euthydemus, i.e. 556 B.c. If so, it coincided with the beginning of the reign of Anaxandrides, which is placed on satisfactory evidence about 560 B.c. But Dum (Entstehung des Spartan. Ephorats) expresses much scepticism regarding these dates, and holds (p. 25) that Chilon’s floruit cannot be

30 NEW, CLASSICATIO GESTS

fixed within a period of fifty years. According to Diogenes, again, Chilon zpéros eio- nyyjoato éddpovs Tots Baciedou wapalevyrvivar’ Sdrvpos S€ Aveotpyov. This is interpreted by some as meaning that he raised the power of the ephors to the level of that of the kings (Dum, of. cit.; Busolt, Gr. Gesch. i, p. 147), by others that the ephorate was actually held to be his institution (Niese in Pauly-Wissowa, Real-Encycl. s.v. Chilon). In any case it seems that Chilon’s period of office was an important landmark in Lacedaemonian history ; and if Meyer is right in attributing to him a large share in shaping the policy of Sparta in the sixth century (Gesch. des Altertums, ii, p. 766), there is no reason why its anti-tyrant tendency should not have been inaugurated by him. The story told by Herodotus of his advice to the father of Pisistratus either not to marry or, if he had a son, to disown him, may thus acquire a fresh significance.

The relation of the following clause (Il. 21-3) to what precedes is not quite clear, owing to the loss of its conclusion; the natural view is that the tyrants mentioned were among those whose suppression was due to Chilon or Anaxandrides. But in the case of Hippias, at any rate, this would be incorrect, since he was expelled by Cleomenes, the son and successor of Anaxandrides (Hdt. v. 64); and if our author held a different opinion, he was doubtless mistaken. Perhaps, however, the sentence was continued in a way that would avoid such a discrepancy from the accepted chronology. A more impor- tant point is the reference to Aeschines, tyrant of Sicyon. The sole authority for this ultimate successor to the rule of Cleisthenes has hitherto been the well-known passage in Plutarch’s De Herodoti Malignitate, c. 21, in which a list is given of the tyrants who were put down by Sparta: Kuwbedidas pev e€€Badrov éx KopivOov Kal ’Apmpaxias, éx d€ Na€ov AvySapw, &€€ “APnvav dé rods Iewvetparov matdas, ek dé Luxvavos Aicyivnyv «7th. In the absence of other evidence this statement of Plutarch has been regarded with a certain amount of suspicion (cf. e.g. E. Meyer, Gesch. des Altertums, ii, p. 629); it is now seen to represent a tradition at least two centuries earlier, though whether the work of which the papyrus is a fragment was Plutarch’s actual source is of course uncertain.

Of the character of this work it is hazardous to say much more than that it was historical ; and even that statement needs to be made with some circumspection. Among the papyri published by M. Th. Reinach is a small fragment (No. 5) which contains a few lines relating to x.@apiors,! and which, judged from the facsimile, is in the same handwriting as 18; since, moreover, another of Reinach’s literary fragments is certainly to be connected with a Rylands papyrus (cf. 21 introd.), it is at first sight obvious, in spite of the diversity of subject, to assume that P. Reinach 5 and 18 are also from asingle MS. That hypothesis, however, becomes much less attractive when it is added that, according to information kindly supplied by Dr. Schubart, P. Reinach 5 is in the same hand as the two pieces pub- lished in Berl. Klasstkertexte, ii. 3 (= P. Berlin 9869), which evidently deal with a similar topic. That the Berlin and Reinach fragments have a common origin is therefore clear ; but it becomes increasingly difficult to establish any connexion between them and 18, and it appears preferable to suppose that the latter, though written by the same scribe, belongs to a different treatise. Additional colour is lent to this theory by a further similarity of the

1 The facsimile indicates that not mapecay but madecav, which is a much more suitable word, is to be read in l. 5. Lines 3-5 may be restored xaraxeweOqvat [es | t]pv xOapiow mpayplal|ra ws madeay twa |.

NEW: CCASSIGAISSCEXCTS 31

script of P. Berlin 9869 to that of Berl. Klassikertexte, v. 11. 20, which contains part of a poetical florilegium, the resemblance being so marked that Schubart would explain it by referring the two texts to the same writer. Apparently, then, a singular chance has pre- served parts of three distinct manuscripts from the pen of one copyist.

Col. i. Goleit. jomrots (element - 17a) Old: | ] ro de Bas evs Tyv nretpov | Jev [wo|AAnv THs tapadu joTov 15 [as v\rwpeas extiolev 5 oluk ovoev ‘Xttov Se o Aakwv

€QUTWV p epopevoas Kav orar|nyn

] KOLVOV cas Avatavdpidy|s te ]

Ta woe I eee ss Tas ev tors EdXnolw 20 tTlupalyyidas KaTedv pie) ] Lap es a [7 alctues oaly] ev XuKver{t] ev

Adoxlwyy Immay Se [A@nvynoww)] Tevovort| pa [r

I. jomous: or lwzous. g. The letter before eis is probably e, 0, 0, or o. 10, Snapir is a very uncertain reading.

12-22. ‘... crossed over to the mainland and colonized much of the seaboard below the hills. Chilon

the Lacedaemonian having become ephor and general, and also Anaxandrides, put down the tyrannies among the Hellenes: at Sicyon Aeschines and at Athens Hippias the successor (?) of Pisistratus .. .’

12. Perhaps era dtaBas: ye may be read in place of z.

12-15. It is unfortunate that the person and locality referred to in this passage are not more clearly indicated. What follows rather suggests that the person was some tyrant or his agent, otherwise a connecting link seems difficult to obtain. Polycrates of Samos made acquisitions on the mainland (cf. Hdt. iii. 39 ovxvas bev 8) TOv viowy apaipyKee, TOAAA dé Kal THs Hrelpov dorea), but exticlev is not the word that would be expected of his operations. Can the scene be the coast of Acarnania or Epirus? This, however, is not very suitable from a chronological point of view, for the Corinthian colonization of that region was mainly effected by the illegitimate sons of Cypselus, long before the time of Anaxandrides (I. 18); though it is noticeable that Plutarch, in the important passage from the De Herodoti Malignitate quoted in the introduction above, mentions the expulsion of the Cypselids from Ambracia.

In 1. 15 the z of vjrwpeias is not above suspicion, and that reading makes the first four letters of the line somewhat cramped ; it is also not quite clear whether the word was spelled with or without an e.

17. The overwritten p is small and its tail faint, but to suppose that it is no letter but merely a blot is not a very satisfactory hypothesis; moreover, if the p be rejected, apparently the only word practically possible is orac{talras, and though this would give a good sense with Avafavdpidn[i in place of Avagavépidy[s re, the vestige following ora is inconsistent with o but well suits the cross-bar of ar. It may be added that Avagavép.dy{t would give a rather short line; the termination of the verb in 1. 21 is too doubtful to found any argument upon. Hence ortpar{nyn|oas or otpari[evicas is the most suitable reading: it may be connected either with XiAwy, as in the text, or, if re be dropped, with Avagavépidy|s.

20. The second v of t[vpalyyidas seems to have been corrected from 6; the scribe perhaps still had Avagaydpiins in his head.

32 NEW. CLASSICALREEX TS

21. Either calv] or oev] might be read: cf. note on 1. 17.

22. The letters are none of them absolutely certain, but their remains suit Aijoy|ivnv so well that the name is almost assured ; cf. introd.

23. Perhaps Ilewotorpalrov diade€apevov or Tetororpalrov wor or dvadoxor. On the relation of this clause to that preceding it cf. introd.

19. EPITOME OF THEOPOMPUS, PHILIPPICA XLVII.

7-2 x 10-8 cm. Second century. Plate 6.

This small but interesting fragment, of which the text has already been printed in the Oxford edition of Theopompus and Cratippus, belongs to an epitome of the 47th Book of the former’s Philippica, as is expressly stated in the heading of the first column ; the name of Theopompus was also written as a title by a second hand upon the back. Though the figure 4o is a restoration the number of the book is certain, being not only suited to the contents as given in the papyrus, but also directly confirmed by the occurrence in 1. 10 of the Thracian city Angissus, which according to Stephanus of Byzantium was mentioned in the 47th Book (s. v. "Aynoods : cf. note on |. 10). Concerning the contents of that book of the Philippica the explicit evidence has hitherto been confined to three bare geographical references, the Thracian Angissus already cited, Astacus as a Byzantine dis. trict, for which the authority is again Stephanus, and Cabyle, another Thracian town spoken of by Harpocration ; see Theopompus, Frag. 211 (a), Oxford edition. From these data it could be inferred that the book dealt with Macedonian operations in Thrace (cf. Miller, /. H. G. i, p. 319), while the allusion to Byzantium might suggest that the year in question was 340 B.c., which witnessed Philip’s unsuccessful sieges of Byzantium and Perinthus. That this was in fact the period to which thé 47th Book related is now definitely proved by the papyrus. Column i begins by mentioning the outbreak of war between the Macedonian king and Athens, and its immediate cause, the sieges of the two great Hellenic cities on the northern shore of the Propontis. The remainder of this column is unfortunately broken away, and what is left of the next reports operations carried on in the north-west of Thrace by the Macedonian generals Antipater and Parmenion. They were, apparently, actively engaged with the Terpaywptra, a Bessic people living in the neighbourhood of Philip’s recent foundation Philippopolis ; and Angissus, a city probably in the vicinity, was captured. Of these facts the latter is novel; the former has to be brought into con- nexion with Polyaenus, Strateg. iv. 4. 1, where a stratagem of Antipater against the Terpaywpirar is described,—an anecdote of which the source is now sufficiently evident ; cf. note on ll. 8-9. This activity on the part of the Macedonians in the interior of Thrace seems significant. Frontinus (S¢rateg. i. 4. 13) has described a device by which Philip, after his ill success at Byzantium, opened the way from the Black Sea for his fleet: he wrote a fictitious letter, we are told, to Antipater that Thrace was in rebellion and his military posts there were surrounded, and contrived that this should fall into the hands of the

NEW CLASSICAL TEXTS 33

Athenians, who thereupon retired to the Chersonese. Perhaps the statements of this sup- posed letter possessed a speciousness in being not so very far removed from the truth. It is likely enough that the unwonted reverses sustained by the Macedonian army in 340 B.c. encouraged the newly subjugated Thracian tribes to hostile movements ; and Philip may possibly have found it necessary to take measures for their suppression even while the sieges of Perinthus and Byzantium were still in progress.

This epitome is precisely of the same kind as the P. Oxy. 665, a summary of events in Sicily, and no doubt both papyri represent tables of contents prefixed to the detailed his- torical work, like those which precede the several books of Diodorus. As in P. Oxy. 665, the successive items are distinguished by the slight protrusion of their first lines into the left margin ; paragraphi, however, are not employed. The script, a well-formed round uncial of medium size and somewhat ornate character, may be assigned to about the middle of the second century. Vertical strokes are commonly finished off with small apices, and the broad base with which the v-shaped upsilon is supplied is also noticeable. No stops or other lection signs occur. One correction has been introduced by a second hand, perhaps the same as that which wrote in cursive the title on the back of Col. i,—an indication that that column was, as would be expected, the first of the roll.

Coli Col. ii. [rade eveotiy ev ty EBdopuln Kar Opakav tov Terplaxwpitov [rexoapakojaTyn Twv Oeclo\rou Kahoupevov [arov Pidum|riKwv 10 Avytooov Opaxias [Tohews v [rov mpos Pudtlrrov mrodeov a Avturatpov Kalta Kpatos a 5 [A@nvator|s apyn Kau Tepuv hwots [Oov Kat Bulalyrvo[y modtolp Avturatpw Kali] Taplpeviave [Kua vio PidumTrov :

wept Tov Terpaywplitas -- - 1H [---«-|~[.-| Dedura....--.-

On the verso Ocotropmov [Pidummov pf

‘ The following is the content of the forty-seventh Book of the Phzlippica of Theopompus :—

Origin of the war of the Athenians against Philip, and the siege by Philip of Perinthus and Byzantium... (Revolt?) of the Thracians called Tetrachoritae.

Capture by storm of Angissus, a city of Thrace, by Antipater.

... by Philip to Antipater and Parmenion in the territory of the Tetrachoritae.. .’

1. [rade eveoti|y: this is the formula regularly used in the summaries of, for instance, the books of Diodorus, e.g. Tdde Eveotiy ev TH TpdTH TOV Awoddpov BiBrwy. |v, however, might also represent rw|y, preceded by some substantive like eAeyxos. ;

4-7. The supplement [A@nvatoi]s scarcely admits of doubt, though there is a slight looseness of statement : the outbreak of war with Athens followed the investment of Perinthus and Byzantium, and there was no formal rupture till the siege of the latter had been begun (Philochorus frag. 135, Diodorus xvi. 77). The occurrence, however, was an outstanding event which may well have been given a prominence in the opening

Fr

34 NEW “CLASSICAL SIT EXIS

chapters of this book, before its causes and circumstances were narrated in detail. Hence ‘origin’ seems a better translation of apyn than commencement. It is noticeable that there is no mention of Selymbria, though this absence will of course not justify the inference that the assault on that town, mentioned in some documents of very doubtful authenticity in the De Corona, did not take place.

For the dative [A@nvauou]s cf. e.g. the abstract of Diod. xi wéAeyos “Pwpalors zpos AixoAavods. In 1. 6 only the tips remain of the letters |yrio[, but rt are fairly secure, and the following letter was a round one. The supplement [vzoAvo] is a trifle long for the lacuna, in which a letter less would suffice; there are, however, considerable variations elsewhere in the size of the writing.

8-9. Cf. ll. 13sqq. The genitive not improbably depends on some such substantive as adzdéoracis. Only two other mentions of the Terpaywpira: appear to be found, Steph. Byz. Terpaxwpirau’ of Beoool, as UtpaBwv €Bddpun. odrou A€yovrae kal Terpdkwpor, and Polyaen. Strateg. iv. 4. 1, where the following passage occurs :—Avtimarpos ev TH Tetpaxwpitev orpatevwn erage Tov xdprov Tov lama eunpioar Tov Tepl TH oKNVI Ol pev everpynoar, 6 5& cadrTLyKTIs eonpatver, of 5¢ Maxeddves mepl tiv oxnviy nOpoiCovro, peréwpa Exovtes Ta Sdpara. Tadra iddvres of Tetpaxwpirar katamhayévtes e€ékimov TO xwplov, duaxel 5€ "Avtizatpos éxpatnoev. This stratagem was presumably employed during the campaign to which the papyrus refers, and there can be little doubt that the authority for it was Theopompus. The passage of the seventh Book of Strabo cited by Steph. Byz. is lost.

10. Avytooov: cf. Steph. Byz. ’Aynoods’ méAts Opadns, @s Oeadtoumos ev tecoapaxooty EBdoun. Td eOviKdy "Aynoows os ’Aconooros Tapricotos. Whether the spelling of the papyrus, ’Ayyioods (’Avy.), or that of the MSS. of Stephanus, ’Aynoods, is correct it is impossible to determine; the confusion of PI and H is one of the easiest of errors. Livy, who describes the town as Macedonian, has Agassae (xliv. 7, xlv. 27), which favours the spelling of Stephanus ; but pending further evidence it is safer to follow the earlier authority and adopt ’Ayytoods.

II. kalra kparos: cf. e.g. Epit. Diodor. xiii @s Kapynddviot . . . SeAwodvta cal ‘Imépay xara Kparos efdov. Kale ee is less likely, since there is certainly not room for Happyeviwvos, whose name, if any one’s (cf. 1. 13), would be expected.

13 sqq. The datives in 1. 13 appear to indicate either a junction between Philip and his two generals or the dispatch to them of orders or reinforcements. Terpayep|tras was no doubt followed by a participle, e.g. ovo. Or dtarplBovor.

16-17. Perhaps [Tetpaywpt|rwrv, and v|7 Av|turarpov in the line below.

20. POLITICAL TREATISE.

Eragso ae <i geud. First century B.C. Plate 6.

The hand in which these fragments of a prose work are written is a good-sized and rather ornamental uncial, which may be dated to about the end of the Ptolemaic period ; it has a general similarity to that of P. Oxy. 659, but is characterized by superior finish and regularity. Short blank spaces, in one instance probably accompanied by a medial point, mark a pause ; a rough breathing is apparently inserted in ]. 19. The sign for filling up a short line takes the form of a short-topped z. Some supporting strips, which the thinness of the papyrus rendered desirable, adhere to the verso.

The relation of the three pieces surviving is doubtful. Frag. 2, containing the first letters of a few lines, may well be the continuation of the second column of Frag. 1; but whether Frag. 3 belongs to the same or to the preceding column, or is unconnected with either, is quite uncertain. This last fragment gives a connected passage which serves to define to some extent the nature and date of the treatise. Its subject is, broadly, of

NEW CLASSICAL TEXTS 35

a political nature, and the use of the second person points to a dialogue or an epistolary composition. The person addressed is advised to be warned by the example of the Persians not to deplete the treasury by providing for military forces out of revenue, the alternative presumably being to support them by local levies. Since the Persian empire is spoken of as a thing of the past, the treatise must be at least subsequent to the conquests of Alexander. Who then is the ruler here introduced, and who can the author be? The conditions might be satisfied by such a work as the IIro\euatos of Demetrius Phalereus, which in Ostermann’s opinion (De Demetrit Phal. vita, ii, p. 21) was more probably a dialogue than a life of the first Ptolemy ; though there would be difficulties in crediting a well-informed writer with the novel view taken concerning the Persian military administration and its financial effects.

Frag. 1. Cont: . Col. ii. ] amapyat evTroptal ]. oa = ou ] + ous prot] as wf Jevovaw z 20 €&np| 5 ] tnv Tpo Tepa d| }Oau ws ony ex| Jvots ako ov pev [ [Aov8 ea de z ] pa is krov Frag. 2. ‘ Jaw oH o|upBn 25 el ].mEp Tew TE [0 leony ot 15 lo Sued z nl \e- ; Frag. 3.

-v.--. ee yap KalJa 30 wep o Ilepons ato tlwv MpoOoLovTwvy eEmy(et pynoes Sdwouxey ‘Tolus oTpatiwtas odvya |7ap [ra|racw eotat cole Ta 35 melptlyevopeva Tlwv Xpynpatav ws caldws Kkatapabew ato [Tw vio Tov Ilepoov [ka F 2

36 NEW CLASSICATR TEX ES

tareplervtwy evi 70 40 pwv ovTw yap modvy fev xXpovov avtou TyIS Aovas erapEavres a [ Tavtwv de KpaTy|oav TES TwV xpy{plaTolv 45 Tov vio Mndlwy te Kau Supav ovy|\ex Pevtwv Tous [ Kee Tl zl

29-46. ‘ For if you try like the Persian king to provide for the soldiers out of revenues, your surplus of the wealth will be quite small, as may be clearly perceived from the sums left by the Persians ; for in this way, though they were for a long period rulers of Asia and possessed themselves of all the wealth amassed by the Medes and Assyrians...’

29 sqq. It is strange that an example should be found in Persia of needless expenditure of revenue upon military forces. This is not at all the ordinary view of Persian administration: ‘ Man sieht,’ says E. Meyer, Gesch. _des Altertums, iii, p. 89, ‘wie wenig Geld verhaltnismassig fiir Reichszwecke gebraucht wurde. Fast nur in Kriegszeiten wird es zu grdésseren Geldausgaben gekommen sein’; cf. Heeren, Aszatzc Nations, i, p. 266, Grote x, p. 121. Perhaps, however, it was the periods of actual war which the writer had in view. His implication that the treasure which fell into the hands of the Macedonians was comparatively small is also remarkable ; according to the statements of Diodorus and others the spoil amounted to upwards of 180,000 talents, or some 60 millions sterling (cf. Meyer, of. cz¢. pp. 89-90).

39. «(vt suits the space better than ¢orv.

40. ovrw: i.e. by maintaining armies 476 rév mpooidytwy. ovro. cannot be read.

46. Svpov: the use of Svpo. for ’Avovpior is frequent in Xenophon’s Cyropaedia, e.g. v. 4. 51 Ta weOdpia Tv Svpwyv kal Mydv: cf. Hdt. vii. 63, Strabo xvi, p. 737.

21. TREATISE ON PHYSIOLOGY. Frag, I 9-9 X 7-1 cm. First century B.c. Plate 7,

These five fragments from a treatise on the nervous system of the human body belong to the same papyrus as P. Berlin 9770, which was edited by Kalbfleisch in Berliner Klasstkertexte, iii, pp. 10 sqq. This identification was first suggested to me by Prof. Ilberg, and a reference to the facsimile at once established it. An additional proof, if it were wanting, is supplied by the verso, which, as in the Berlin papyrus, contains some ill-preserved medical receipts,—though I cannot agree with the editor (/. ¢., p. 10) that the hand in which these are written is much like that of the recto. The latter is a small and neat though not very formal uncial, which is, I think, rightly referred to the first century B.c.; and it may perhaps be placed early rather than late in that century.

NEW + CEASSICABS TESS 37

Yet another fragment from the same treatise has recently been recognized by Kalbfleisch in P. Reinach 2, which he combines with P. Berlin 9770 A. vi. M. Reinach acquired that small piece at Gizeh; 21, on the other hand, was purchased in the Fayim; where the Berlin fragments were obtained is not stated. The ultimate source of the papyrus remains quite uncertain.

The previously published fragments consist for the most part of the tops and central portions of columns, while 21 includes several bottoms, which ought to be some of the missing bases of the columns at Berlin. Probably they actually are; but attempts at combination have so far proved disappointing. One factor which might assist in this task has hardly been made the most of by the Berlin editor. In the left margin opposite l. 3 of P. 9770 A. vi the numeral © occurs, and at B. iv. 15 there is a T ina similar position. These must be stichometrical figures (1800 and 1900; cf. P. Oxy. 852. Frag. 25, note), and if they have been rightly read, A. vi would be the top of either B. ii or B. ii. I am informed by Dr. Schubart, who examined the original at my request, that the former of these alternatives is excluded by the writing on the verso. Apparently then A. vi should be combined with B. ii. That hypothesis involves a rather tall column, though, since the writing is small and the lines are closely set, the height would not exceed reasonable limits.

In two respects especially the new fragments throw some further light upon the nature of this treatise. The first three lines of Frag. 2. ii are divided off from what follows by a short blank space, which suggests that they formed some kind of heading; and this view is confirmed by the occurrence in P. 9770 B. vi. 4 of a title, mpdodvois. The significant words dzopia and dmopetra: in Frag, 2. ii. 2 and 6 serve to indicate that the heading formulated some disputable question concerning the functions of the motor and sensory nerves, which question the writer proceeded to discuss. It is thus clear that the treatise was subdivided into several definite sections, distinguished by particular titles. Secondly, in Frag. 5 the writer has passed from the domain of physiology proper to that of psychology, and speaks of some view involving the Platonic distinction between dAoyiopJds, Ovpos, and émOvpia. No such transition is found in the fragments at Berlin.

The problem of the identity of the author does not seem to be brought much nearer toa solution. His period, at any rate, is fixed within fairly narrow limits, on the one hand by the date of the papyrus, on the other by the recognition of a distinction between motor and sensory nerves which, as Kalbfleisch has pointed out, shows that he cannot be older than Herophilus. Wellmann in Pauly-Wissowa, Real-Encycl. vi. 904, suggests that the treatise is by Eudemus, a younger contemporary of Herophilus and Erasistratus. In that circle of famous anatomists the writer is most naturally sought; but at present there appears to be little reason for selecting one name rather than another.

Frag. I. Col. i. Col. ii.

ieroetane ]. war. .[ -[-].¢€-[]- col-Jowro evod

] ‘ovo fares Fria} a < EKo TPs wee ne IE

33 NEW CLASSICAL TEXTS ] pukKoTA Kal Els ETEP 5 wepuKota priwjon 7[.++-- +++ pn|rry pwdn ] Kal EV TWL KATA TploaLpETLY KLVEL le o0a Ta ToLavta orl ] . wt.) . evTa eore 5 J. ev To. avecoOar mem)\€ \ra TO peva eurep pn T - | Jaus exa, avTois veupwoyn Kat O| ] tov arcbavolpevjov . [ } vev Kuiveitar [To vlevpoly : Twv exTos eTep|:]- - [ 15 evrewerar Ta Oe yap -[.] Twv opyavely Vov €TEpwV TO opo| yivopevov €Kk Tw| dl Bscet 5 ]- + pov ror 20] fe elsctskel eh ateeaee ae Frag. 2. Col. i. Col. ii. . : . Ba eA ae vo|riatoll. +++ ++ [-s ees }-[ [eetiepe asta teketa oem ] amopual..:--- [- sree Jo- [- - -Jol We at ase deh mpoaliperrBar. [..--- [ J Livkn cote poelam ] [ [2% -Javopades Su] BP eves | oh these viseees es Rea Tpoatper, Fs Cheieae 5 [relpukacw d{AJeBels] Kat apry|prar rere ens lav amopeurau meplt.+--- [roles aro[plous tows emiteTpyplevors eater ] teow avoOyricns -[.-+--- [. Jal. jp Kav EK TwY OOTWY EKTE [...] d{e vor pev to aobalverOar a [puKoot Klar ere Tooov Te mepltlreul [pluxverrali] d: erepwr Se to [mpoar (eth oe eae ]- + Tous avrOyrn[prows 10 pero Oau evapferar Kat [Kara ho Sold oS OE J. rlouls ras paxews oorz|ous] “you 6. wv To Tpoatpeto|Pau poy (?) Eee Aolmiokk ws erpytat yeyey yeurau du exewov kal...+-+. s+. Cie oe le e€ avrwy ov povov vevpia — yas amine ee ae Frag. 3 Col. i Col. ii. Col. iii. tepaces: ]. Twa ex Tov eyKepadou x [Siamepulkora vevpa ta 6 ert Tov pl [ros mpoce|yopeva eoy[alra de me eu ] duKora ek Tov vweTiatov Sdvameu Tol

NEW: CLASSICAL, TEXTS

de 5 Ke Sia TwY TpNMaTwY TwY EV TwL xe |we LEPWL OTTWL oyxedov mEov y TpiTA 5 Kal ] KOL QUTA T@L TaYEL ad wy Ets TE dca ] To avdouoly Kat Els THY KYOTW KaL Tal 5 | els THY pyTpav Kat em odvyov ELS Kal ] 10 Tous Sidvpous Kau THY edpay Kat p.[ Ja els] Tomov THs oodvos Twa Sialze |o duKe duvapl Frag. 4. Frag. 5. |# - too « | ev .[....... Jexa[... .]. [ere

T\a oKedn redluK Ovplav Aloyropor [Klar ovfer

|s exatepov [ SoKwv TapnAaKkevat OvodE

elmu TouTwy 7 VOOELY TOV OUTwW SLavooUpE

5 | Kowevr 71 5 vov av te Ovpwrar av 7 emu

Jes Ta puxpla Jau opada 7 |. a wepumdf ] d[eJouposs Kel 10 | mhevpas zo . [ lop - tal Jou[

Frag. 1. i. 1. pny: cf. P. Berlin 9770 A. iii. 1, vi. 1, &c. In the former passage an abbreviation would be expected to take the form pyviyy; but, as Schubart informs me, pnrryylos should be read.

ii. 3. If the sentence ended at cov, part of the space between v and the following |z was probably blank, extw| here and in 1, 18 might be taken for some form of exr(e).vew, contrasting with evrewera:, which occurs in

1. 15; but since the spelling with an « is there used (cf. however |. 18), ex ri{os or tu[wv is perhaps preferable ; cf. e.g. P. Berlin 9770 B. ii. 15 azo rwo[v] powder.

6. Cf. P. Berlin A. ii. 3-4 aioaveralt kat Kata mpolaipeow kiveirar.

g. memAlexrat, or some similar form, probably stood here; cf. P. Berlin A.i. 1, B. iii. 10,14,iv.16. But the doubtful A could also be a.

18. ywopevoy: or Twopevor. 19. Possibly |repov (e]repov ?), hardly vjevpov.

Frag. 2. i. 4. awowades is difficult, and apparently there is some corruption. The fourth letter is con-

ceivably a ¢, and if so amopvades might be the original word. There is no possibility of reading azopua. g. atcOnrn{piots: cf. P. Berlin B. iv. 19.

10. Cf. P. Berlin B. ii. 10-11 oorwy roy Te Aottwv Kat Tw THS pay|Elws.

II. yeyer|nvrat or yeyer|nuevor seems unavoidable, though the division is contrary to rule. yeyev[vy . hardly suits the context.

ii. 1-3. On the character of these three lines cf. introd.

8-9. The distinction between the motor and sensory nerves is here clearly stated ; cf. the passage of the Berlin papyrus quoted in the note on Frag. 1. ii. 6.

39

40 NEW; CLASSIGAT SIE Sis

Frag. 3. ii. 1-2. The nerves of the brain are not expressly mentioned in the Berlin fragments, and this passage confirms Kalbfleisch’s remark (/. c. p. 10) that the writer ‘kennt ... doch wohl die Hirnnerven’; cf. P. Reinach 2, ii. 8 evxe[padrd...

5. Cf. P. Berl. A. iv. 1-2 1a Te Twr] ev TwL Lepwt ooTwHL TpNMaTwY Kal dia TWY KOLAWY TwY EV TH OTHUI.

6. tpira, which is clearly written, gives no sense, and some such word as rpitAaova seems required ; tpit(r)a, as Ilberg suggests, would be the gentlest remedy. In explanation of xa: avra in the next line he further conjectures that the thickness of the lower vertebrae had just been referred to.

7 sqq. Cf. P. Berlin A. ii. 1-2 dvatediulcer evs asdoufov pn|rpav kvotiv didvpovs ktA. The d:dvyor are mentioned again in Frag. 4. 9.

11. tomoy Ilberg.

Frag. 4.2. tla cxedn sich. P. Berl As sivas xe 1:

11. A slight mark above the line between p and s may belong to a tall letter like ¢ or represent an inter- lineation or an accent (cf. e.g. P. Berlin B. iii. 15) or, most probably perhaps, be due to accident. There is another faint trace further to the right.

Frag. 5. 3. Whose is the opinion referred to is obscure. Ilberg compares the divergent views of Poseidonius and Chrysippus with regard to the vécos ths Woyns set forth in Galen, De Placit. Hipp. et Plat. v, while remarking that neither of those philosophers is likely to be meant here.

5. emOv|ane.

22. MYTHOLOGICAL FRAGMENT.

Behnesa. 19-2 X 7-4 cm. First century. Plate 5.

The following fragment gives a brief narrative of events at Troy subsequent to the death of Achilles. Both the beginnings and ends of the lines are lost throughout, but the extent of the lacunae, which are evidently considerable, can be fairly gauged from a comparison of Il. 7-9 and 10-14, where a minimum loss of from 14 to 16 letters is indicated for the first 13 lines; in the lines following the gaps are still larger. It is desirable not to exceed the minimum in order to avoid increasing the breadth of the column, which, in any case, will be rather broader than is usual. How the supple- ments are to be divided between the lines is of course uncertain; the arrangement adopted below is quite arbitrary, and several of the restorations are only made exempli gratia.

The events described in the papyrus are as follows :—t. (ll. 1-10) Expedition of Odysseus and Diomedes to the Trojan citadel in quest of the Palladium, the removal of which had been declared by Helenus to be one of the conditions of the fall of Troy ; they kill among others Corybus (Coroebus), son of Mygdon, who had come to assist the Trojans, and return to the camp with the Palladium. Joy of the Greeks and dis- comfiture of the Trojans. 2. (ll. 11-14) Voyage of Odysseus and Phoenix to Scyros to fetch Neoptolemus, who returns with them and receives from Odysseus the arms of Achilles. 3. (ll. 16 sqq.) Arrival of Eurypylus, son of Telephus, from Mysia, bringing aid to the Trojans. These subjects were all treated in the Lzttle [tad of Lesches or Lescheos, though not apparently in the same order. According to the summary of

iE Wi CRASSI@ ALS T EXOES 4I

Proclus (cf. note on |. 1) the capture of the Palladium by Odysseus and Diomedes occurred after the arrival and death of Eurypylus; and that Proclus is correctly presenting the sequence of the Little [liad is evident from the close agreement with him of the Epz:tome of Apollodorus, who, though he had other sources than the Little I[had, was at this point obviously summarizing that work (cf. note on |. 1). Another peculiarity of the fragment is the time and occasion of the death of Coroebus, who according to Virgil, Aen. il. 341, 425, and Quintus Smyrnaeus xiii. 168 sqq. was slain during the sack of Troy. But we know from Pausan. x. 27. 1 (cf. note on |. 4) that the author of the Lzttle Iliad differed from the common account in attributing the death of Coroebus to Diomedes instead of to Neoptolemus (Virgil assigns it to Peneleus), and it is possible that he also connected it, as the papyrus does, with the seizure of the Palladium. The real divergence lies in the precedence of the latter event, apart from which the new text is nearly allied in matter, as it is also in manner, to the summaries of Proclus and Apollodorus. There are, however, other traces of a version in which the capture of the Palladium was put earlier. Ovid, Metamorph. xiii. 1-381, makes it precede the dispute between Odysseus and Ajax for the arms of Achilles; in Tzetzes, Post-Hom. 509-17, it follows on the death of Ajax, and in Dictys v. 14 Ajax and Odysseus quarrel over the Palladium instead of the armour. Their chronology is thus analogous to that of the papyrus; but what is the ultimate source of this form of the story is quite obscure.

The text is written in rather large uncials upon the verso of an account dating probably from the latter part of the first century B.c. Early characteristics are evident also in the uncial hand, which is unlikely to be posterior to the first few decades of the century following. No lection signs occur. A pause is denoted by a short blank space in |. 14; the other intervals are less clearly marked.

Odvaocevs Kar Avopndy|s evoehOovtes evs Evdtfov oTws exkhewow] To THs AOnvas ovparifov ayaa Touro EXjevov waduv avto.s eurar|tos amoKtewovotly KopuBov tov Mvyde[vos 5 tov ek Dpvytas] eAnrvoora emi ovvpalye av tos Tpwoty| Kat addovs autouv etepolus ee Ee OE ] kav ow@lovrat mpos Tovls EX Anvas exovTes] TO TahNad.ioy eta yelwe Tat Tovtois per] yapa Twv de Tpwor |... icy) NP ae ee ee ee ] Tpomn Em TOLS yeyer|n pevois Odvaocer]s de Kar PowwE mrev oapevot es THY] LKUpov ayovat Tov Nieo mTodELov Ndyn Kal aTodwwow avtTw [Odvc oevs TA oa Tov watpo|s avTov al-.-.-- TR 6 veh cd i) Oo eh ayaa? oc ied oc as jrat Tapa T - ig ies . Kal KaTa Tov avjrov Katpov [EvpuTu hos o Tndehou wos] ex THs Mulovas 7a payewerar Bonfav] ros Tpwolt.---- G

42 NEW CLASSICAL TEXTS

Wet Anite IIpuajuw evra ..[...- 2OMVe lary > * “l) Gabgee ateieieemeee yewelrar payyn [.-..--

1 sqq. Cf. Apollodorus, Zfzt. 5. 11-12 rovrwy (sc. the prophecy of Helenus) dkxovoavres "EAAnves Ta pev TléAom0s 607 petaxoulovor, Odvocdéa 5€ kal Polvixa mpds Avkoundny méutovow eis UKdpov, of 5€ el(Oovor NeonmTddAeuov mpoécOat. mapayevdpuevos d& ovTos els TO oTpatdmedoy Kal AaBoy Tap ExdvTos "Odvecews THY Tod TaTpds TavoTAlay moAAovs TGV Tpdwv avaipel. Adikvetrar 68 Vorepov Tpwol cippaxos Evpiavaos 6 Tnrepov ToAA}v Muody dvvayty aywv" Tobdrov dpiotevoavta Neonrddemos aréxtewvey, "Odvoceds d€ pera Arouydovs tapayevdpuevos vixtwp els THY TAL... Ov éxeivys (sc. Helen) rd raddddvov éxxdépas kal woddods krelvas Tév Prdraccdvtwy emt Tas vats pera Aroundovs Kopier, and the analysis of the Lzttle [lad in Proclus, Chrest. (Kinkel, Epic. Graec. Frag. p. 36) cat Neonmrddepnov ‘Odvoceds ex Ukvpov dyayay ra Stra didwor ta Tod marpds* kal AyiAdAeds adt@ pavtacerat. Evpimvados be 6 Tyr€pov éxlxoupos tots Tpwol mapaylverat kal dpiotevovta adtov amoxrelver NeomToAeyuos.... Kal pera Tadra ov Arownder 7rd madAdd.ov éxxoulcer (sc. Odysseus) ex tis “IAlov.

3. EAlevov xtA.: cf. Apollod. Zgit, 5. 10 kal dvayxa¢duevos 6 “Edevos héyer 7Gs dy aipebeln 7d “IAtov, mpdrov pev ef ta Ilédomos dota Kxoptcbeln map’ adrovs, émerra ef NeomtoAeuos ovppaxoln, tplrov ei Td dumeTteés madAdd.ov €xkAatreln.

4. KopvBov: cf. Pausan. x. 27. 1 ddixero pev 6n emt tov Kaocavidpas 6 KéporBos yapyov, anédave b€, as pev 6 mAelwv Adyos, tnd Neonrod€uov, Agoxews 5€ I7d Atopydovs érolnoev. The name is sometimes spelled KépvBos elsewhere, e.g. Etym. Mag. 577. 33, but Képo.8os is no doubt the correct form. Muvyddvos not Mvydévos is moreover the genitive of Muyédar, e.g. Homer, I 186.

6. erepolvs = eraipolus ; cf. the analogous interchange of v and o: in |. 4.

13. Phoenix is named in this connexion also in Soph. PAz/. 343 and Philostr. iun. Zag. 2, as well as by Apollodorus in the passage quoted on 1. 1. According to Quintus Smyrn. vii. 169-417 and Tzetzes, Post-Hom. 531, Diomedes was the companion of Odysseus on this occasion. In Proclus’ argument of the Little Iliad cited above, as in Homer, A 508, only Odysseus is mentioned ; but it would be too much to infer from the silence of Proclus that Phoenix was not coupled with Odysseus in the Lzttle Iliad.

14-15. Perhaps A[xiAAevs d€ avrw .... pavracelrar mapa Tw [ruuBw; cf. the passage from Proclus quoted in the note on 1. 1, Eurip. Hecuba 37 sqq. 6 UIndéws yap mais inéep rip Bov pavels, xrA., Quintus Smyrn. xiv. 179 sqq., and Westermann, Mythogr. Gr. p. 382.

19. Iptajuw: or rod€]uo ?

23. EPITOME OF THE ODYSSEY.

6-5 xX 15-4 cm. Second century.

This fragment contains the ends of two columns from an epitome of the Odyssey, written in round upright uncials which appear to date from about the middle of the second century. A stop in the central position in |. 10 and a rough breathing in 1. 11 may well be original, but the supplement of an omitted word at the end of the latter line looks like a subsequent addition. What remains of Col. i relates to the third book, of Col. ii to the sixth ; hence it is probable that Col. i was actually the first of the epitome, which, if the space devoted to the successive books was fairly constant, could have been completed in eight columns. The books were treated separately, and at the head of the several abstracts stood the first verse of the book concerned (see ll. 9-10), preceded no doubt by the book’s number. There is little in common between the wording of these abstracts and that of the troféces in the extant scholia.

NEW) CPASSIGATS TEXTS 43

Col. i. Col. ii. [ 14 letters Waa ws o pev evOa Kabevde modu [vootoly tns €€ Iduov avapeur(y] 10 Tas dios Odvacevs: TERK Onv[a eae UyNveY. Kat Tay ws Tapiotata, Ka vmvous Nalu [row] plylnornpow divampacco oiKaa Kehevovoea ap HEPA ETL

5 [pevoly ere Se ta mepe tv - - [.] Tous mvvous tropever Oar Kale

[uuaria Kafapar Navo.xaas z{nv

Haxlov es Aakedayova mpos 15 [ojuewkuay pos Tov matepa AX [rwv IIv]Avwv

Grr « vy kat tpotropmav Tyre€ [

KLVOOV UTEP THY ATYNVYNV a a

ll. 2-8. ‘... makes mention of the return of the Greeks from Ilium and the deeds of the suitors ; and further the events concerning .. ., and the dispatch of Telemachus to Lacedaemon by the Pylians.’

2. avapeuv[n|rac is not a very satisfactory reading, chiefly because the 7 must be supposed to have been written either very small or above the line in order to be got into the space. This supposition is, however, less objectionable than to assume the division avapeyr|[n}rar. The subject of the verb is presumably Nestor, the reference being to y 102 sqq.

5. ett de: sc. meprexer; cf. Il. 10 and 14-15. At the end of the line the second letter after rnv is a round one and the preceding vestiges suit a. Aé6[n| could well be read, and a mention of Athena would be most appropriate (cf. y 331 sqq.), but A@{m|valy does not fill the lacuna, and with A@n|vas the difficulty is to find another substantive short enough. It is not at all likely that A@{n|vacaly was written or that Aé@énvas was abbreviated.

6. 1. mpotoumny or mpoToumarv. Cf. y 475 sqq.

Geta Gil.

10-16, ‘The contents are, how Athena appears in sleep to Nausicaa bidding her to go at daybreak to the washing-tanks and cleanse the linen; the conversation between Nausicaa and her father about the wagon...

16, umep tnv annvnv for vmep tys amnvys is a remarkable construction.

24. SCHOLIA ON HOMER, JLIAD IV.

Behnesa. 11x 7-7 cm. First century. Plate 8.

Remains of two columns of a Homeric commentary, written in a medium-sized semi-uncial hand which is probably not later than about the middle of the first century A.D. A single high stop occurs in 1. 16, and a pause before a quotation is marked by a short blank space in 1. 28. On the verso is part of a demotic account.

The book to which the commentary relates is doubtless A, what survives being for the most part a discussion of the interpretation of Il. 306-7 ds 5€ kK avijp amo dv byéwv erep appa intra, éyye dpeédoOw, eret 4 Todd déprepov ovrw. In Col. i an eccentric explanation of that passage, noticed without reference to an author in Schol. A and Eustathius ad /oc., is cited, and is followed by an allusion to Apollonius and another person, though whether as supporters of the preceding view or of a different opinion is uncertain. The same passage is still under consideration in the upper part of Col. ii.

G2

44 NEW CLASSICAL TEXTS

The commentary was thus on an extensive scale, pointing, like the palaeographical evidence, to a comparatively early period; and in view of the verbal coincidences in Il. 12— 16 with Schol. A it seems not improbable that the writer may have been Aristonicus or Didymus. As for the Apollonius who is quoted as an authority in |. 17, Dyscolus is excluded by the date of the papyrus, the compiler of the Lexicon may be dismissed on similar grounds, while the son of Molon was perhaps hardly of sufficient importance to be given so much space. There remains Apollonius of Rhodes, who is known to have interested himself in the criticism of Homer and Hesiod, and is supposed to be referred to in the extant scholia at A 4, 97,7177. Mr. Allen remarks that exegesis of the fanciful character described would be more natural in one of the older grammarians.

Col. i. Col. ii.

A 4 : : < . if 18 letters

[ 17 letters eck 20 poe Toor,

[eesrist a Setete tc erat: Ss ] €vKoTws mapevoalyer Avoundn 7a

[lee Ferg one: syle ee 8 wks lus Tv Ta padeyoper[ov tov Neoropa

fs: ees a \nv Tov wo dno. yap Neo|rwp 5 ev yeper 5 [Netw .... UlknTar Tye ot haB nya olvyadoevta .. .

[rie teysticne etek Mate |rov EOTLV 25 yap ayavel| Wee eee ere eee cs

Se eo oc Jav TQ €AUTOV aI. an .Jovvol ae, ee hie aoa

[arohwrwv| appara y urmov xpnal. -|rad[... ++ eee eee

[B\nPevtlos 7 addov twos pevy|-] adlAa oe ynpas Teper 10 latvyn|watos yevopevov opo.uov ws [odehev Tis av

leh erepwv em|Bnvar Braly 30 Splwly addos [exew ov de Kou

[raw mata€|arwe Tis avTov potepotot plerewar....-.

leyyer evjrehes yap Kpuver [. -]- Tuwy ov y[l....-...-,

[ro reOvavjar Tov TovovTov [. -]- pada "14 letters

15 [kar un Cyv alvtov ovyyxeov

[ra tyv takw} eydexovrat [Senuieer kale Azro\Novt LOS ps}. es Sues ee ee ].. avrov

3-7. Mr. Allen suggests elis ryv raléw ixopevos r]nv twv mol[Aeutoy diapalynrar, Tywluevos Kara Tovlroy eorw. [kat addovs 8 os] av xth., supposing that Il. 1-6 contain the ordinary interpretation of A 306-7, ll. 7-18 that of Apollonius (Il. 16-17 eydexovra [de ovr ka], which is hardly long enough), and ll. 19-28 the refutation of the latter. This may be on the right lines, but it is also possible to complete rip as e. g. rysw[pnreos and to regard ll. 1-16 as all belonging to the same explanation, to which that of Apollonius is afterwards opposed. In 1. 5 the doubtful x may be x, but x seems rather more suitable ; jes in 1, 3 is perhaps rus.

7-1 6. ‘If he leave his own chariot, whether on account of a horse being stricken or the occurrence of some other disaster, and force his way on to another, let some one smite him with his spear ; for Nestor judges it a thing of small account that such a man should perish and not live when disturbing the ranks.’

of lal > n ; 7 sqq. Cf. Schol. A 307 4 ditAH apds 7d onpauvdpevor, Sri ex Tod éyxer dpeEdoOw eorly éyxer Tatagdrw tis adrdv, \ 4 > / A lal hore maparelmer 70 tis Kal rd adrdy. Kal rd émdreysuevor rodTo cvvicrnow, ened 7) TOAD eprepov ovTw Td eva TeOvdvar

NEW CLASSICAL TEXTS 45

7} thy oAnv rdw ovyxvOjvar, and Eustath. 475. 40 kata de Erépous exeivos 6 Erepos SuoeOvys 6 Td Appa éxwy eyxos exteivas matagdtw tov To.odrov, iva dydrad7 pydels 7d tdioy adn Appa PdBw Tod b7d Tod ouvudvdérov TpwOjvat kal teceiv.

18. Mr. Allen proposes kat 0 padnr}ns or ddacKadlos avrov, but the former would not fill the space, and though the vestiges of the letters are extremely scanty, they do not well suit o.

21. mapevoalyer: Sc. 6 mountys, which perhaps immediately preceded in 1. 20.

23-4. The quotation is from © 116.

24-8. The following restoration of these lines is suggested by Mr. Allen: nv] yap aywvi[opevos..... m[adw| ov o [momtns.... alxpno[ra] ra AfenWava ooa av] pevn.

28-31 = A 315-16, apparently a fresh lemma.

32-3. t|mmov might be read in 1. 32 and ypadel[y is possible in the line below.

25. LEXICON TO HOMER, /LIAD XVIII.

Behnesa. 16-1 X 3-5 cm. Second century.

This fragment of a Homeric lexicon is contained on the verso of a narrow strip from the bottom of a column, and is written in well-formed upright uncials of the oval type, dating probably from the latter half of the second century; on the recto there are some scanty remains of a cursive document belonging to the reign of Trajan. The lexicon is of the same class as P. Amh. 18, and is arranged in just the same way, the lemmata being made to protrude slightly into the left margin. It is somewhat fuller than the so-called Scholia Didymi, to which, like P. Amh. 18, it stands in close relationship ; cf. also P. Amh. 19. So far as it goes the text is confined to the bare equivalent of the less obvious words and phrases, but the fragment is too short to justify the inference that other explanatory matter was entirely absent.

o7re(voovTa. 373 CTOVIELT Oe eks «tas oe 380 trovo[v] - [ mpoplohovoa mpoed 382 Tal 15 Oolvoa KukKha .- [ 375 ural poxpyndenvos 382 5 Oaov dvolaat ayw 376 aplrpov exovaa Kpn [vja [-| ra tlwv Oewv dey [vov abplolo[para ...- oTue [eyeyapnker 383 Vote. pl 20 avooun [ade pos 386 VEQULTOR (etoile <6 1! 377 ov TL [Olalpulers ov mu 386 10 nptve [KaTeaKeva 379 KUO Sine cathel'e Sasneqayo arms Ce [ ‘ ovdlapws Seopovls nous 379

2, Either zovo[v|v[ra or rovo{vlu[evoyv: the remaining vestige is equally consistent with y or v. 4. Schol. A B Townl. cite the variant izdxvxAa, but that is hardly likely to have been referred to here.

46 NEW* CLASSICAL REE eo

6-8. Cf. Schol. Did. Oefov 8. dy. els Ta rGv OeGy Karedevoovrat TEenévn Kal GOpotcpara. There is not room for es in front of ra, and very likely there is nothing lost there. vo in 1. 8 may be reyelvos, but the vestiges do not well suit, e. g., rewelvos mplootovorw.

10, [xareoxeval¢e: so Schol. Did. [nrowmal¢e (Schol. B Townl.) would not suit the space so well.

12. ndovs: or AaBas. Cf. Schol. B decpods de ras AaBds, 7} Tods HAovs ... HAovs Kad cvpBdAdovor KTA.

13. Perhaps evnpye; cf. Schol. Did. I 12.

14. mpoeA|Oovea: so Schol. Did.

17-18. Cf. Schol. Did. jrou Aaumpa éxovoa repiBdraa TH Kepady, e€ ob edotadrs Kal koopula, 7) Aumapa amo Tod édalov, Schol. Townl. cat ddAaxod ‘ Autapa Kpydeuva’ TA Aapmrpa.

19. Cf. Schol. Did. IT 178 xara vopov ovvdxer, EyeyaprKet.

20. Cf. Schol. Did. Z 210 aidods agia, aldéowpos.

21-3. Cf. Schol. A B Townl. dvti rod otdapGs ... od yap tuKvGs elwOas juty ie, and Schol. Did. rvxvés ov mapeyevor.

26. APION, TAQSSAI OMHPIKAT.

Behnesa. II X 9:9 cm. First.century. Plate 8.

The following fragment of a Homeric glossary is written in an upright and clear cursive hand which may be assigned with confidence to the first century a.p. The text is arranged in paragraphs, a new line being begun at each new Homeric word ; and these words, as is usual in such cases, are made to project by two or three letters into the left margin. No lectional signs of any kind occur. On the verso is part of an account, which may itself fall within the first century.

Itis not so rash as it may at first sight perhaps appear to attribute such a small fragment as the present to a work so shadowy as the glossary of Apion. There is extant a short alphabetical vocabulary, bearing the name of Apion, which was printed by Sturz from a Darmstadt MS. in his edition of the Etymologicum Gudianum (pp. 601-10). Its genuine- ness was denied by Lehrs (Quaest. E/. p. 33) and others ; in 1885, however, A. Kopp (Hermes, XX, pp. 161 sqq.) maintained that though greatly altered by epitomizing processes it never- theless represented an authentic work. Kopp’s acute criticism failed to convince L. Cohn (Pauly-Wissowa, Real-Encycl. s.v. Apion), but is now thoroughly vindicated. The essential and peculiar principle of the Darmstadt glossary (D) is an enumeration of the meaning of Homeric words which are used in more than one sense, with illustrative quotations. In the earlier portion this method is to be clearly recognized ; later on it is obscured by the omission of the quotations and by other compressions. Now the principle of D is precisely that of the fragment before us.- In the latter the successive words are regularly followed (1) by a figure indicating the number of meanings borne by the word in the Homeric poems, (2) a specification of the meanings, (3) illustrative quotations from the Ihad and Odyssey; e. g. [dveipols B- tov Oedv Kat 75 Sv adrod Oéalua: drav pev tov Oedr, Back (H, odde "Overpe, dray dé 7d Sv adrod Oana, ws ot evaplyes dvetpov emléoovro (Il. 7-10). Let us compare a couple of articles in D: ddamd&ar dv0. 7d exropOjoa, as “IMov éfada- mate Tow, 7 exkevOoat, ws véewy & addamake darayya ...+ apelBopevos y onpatve 7d dro-

la A 4 ‘ 5 > /, , \ \ my , A c \ KPLVOMEVOS TH oye, TOV aTraperBomevos Tpocepn, Kal TO KAaTQ MLKpovV TL TOLEW, Ob BEV

NEW: CRASSIGAISIEXTS 47

fam}ape.Bopevor pvAaKas €xov, Kal 70 évahddooew, ws (I. bs) mpdos Tvdeidnv Avopydea tevye apeBe. The similarity is striking: practically the only difference is that the illustrations here follow immediately the meaning, an alteration readily explained as due to the desire for brevity; occasionally the arrangement of D is actually the same as that of the papyrus, e.g. apyvpuov 8 zHv vAnv, Kai Td Kaddv KTh. . . . THY pev VAHY, apytpeov ypv- céourw aopTyperow apnpds: 7d Kady, KhvGi pev x7. Had the papyrus contained words beginning with a instead of o the affinity might have been still more evident. Of the three which occur, 6udadéds, dverpos, and 6mdov, only the last is represented in D, the other two having been omitted probably as of minor importance. The article dvepos, it may be observed, is quite in the manner of D, where there are ten instances of such names, e.g. darn tHv Saipova, kal tHv BraBnv. y 8 "Arn oOevapy «7h. With regard to dmhov, D leaves out the quotations, but the same meanings are distinguished as in the papyrus, though in rather different language (cf. note on Il. 11-18).

The so-called *Ariwvos TAOooa “Opyprxai have fared ill at the hand of the epitomizer, as the lexicon of Apollonius, to a less degree, is plainly shown by the Bodleian fragment (Class. Rev., Nov. 1897, pp. 390 sqq.) to have done; but so far from being /ofo colore recen- tiores, as Lehrs held, they are proved to be based on a scheme identical with that of a glossary current in the first century. That glossary may be earlier than Apion; it can hardly be later. In these circumstances a strong presumption arises in favour of the reputed authorship of D. The common-sense view is that tradition is once more up- held, and that the mediaeval glossary is ultimately, what it professes to be, the work of Apion, of which the papyrus offers a specimen in its original form.

opdlados B Kuptas Tov ev avOpwrrois Kal Tous ev Tals aomow yrorfs [J]... -]] [WaethereVer-ceroPttrsie « ]] orav pev [rlov ev] av Opwrrows yaorepa yap pw Tupe Tap om 5 dadov orav Se Tovs ev Tals amo yAoUS ev d€ ot opdlalAfol noar ¢eluKoor Kaoourepoilo oveipols B tov Oeov Kat 70 i avtov Ocala orav pev tov Oeov Back Ot ovre Ovei[pe orav Se [Tlo du avrov Oeapa ws cou evaplyes overpov 10 lerleaouto omhov] y To TE DXOWOY Kat Taloay THY Ka [rac |keunv Klar ta Tlokewrornpl{t|ja oma [orav] pev To o[xorloly] vO eye pev Ka [rednoav eviooledpo) eve [yye olmd[w] evotpe 15 [der oray Se Tacav tTHyv Kalrack{elunv [eva Se vnwy oda pedat|pov orav Se [ra mokeuioTynpia oTha pytep| enn Ta [wev oma Oeos ropev ] [ 30 letters ] orav

48 NEW, CLASSIGAT RIESE

I. kvpiws is similarly used in the Darmstadt glossary, e.g. ptdos* xuplws 6 épdv. The last two letters of avOpamos are over a deletion.

2-3. The letters originally written between mAov[s and oray have been so effectively deleted as to be quite illegible.

4-6. The quotations are from ® 180 and A 34.

8-10. From B 8 and 6 841. ws cou in |. 9 is a mistake for ws ou.

11-12. The Darmstadt glossary has 8zAa’ cxowla, kal Ta ToAEuLKa epyadeia, Kal Ta TeKTOVLKA 7) XAAKEUTLKG. Apollonius is very similar: ma" rd todeptxd A€yet, Kal TA Tijs Vews TxXoW!a, Kal TA XaAKEUTLKA Epyadeta.

13-18. The quotations are from £ 345, ¢ 268, and T 21. In 1. 16 peAawwy was apparently written for peAatvawy.

19. The Homeric word and its explanations must have been short if oray, as would be expected, introduces the citations.

27. ASTRONOMICAL TREATISE.

20:8 x 36-4 cm. Third century.

Three columns, inscribed on the verso of 48 in a legible cursive hand of the latter part of the third century. The columns are imperfect at the bottom, but the loss is no doubt trifling, since in 48, where the lines are closer together, the lacunae at the ends of the columns amount to only three lines. Column i, which is preceded by a broad margin and surmounted by the symbol for the moon, was evidently the first of the treatise, and it appears not unlikely that Col. iii was the last, though on this side the margin is quite narrow. That column terminates with a table of the Roman em- perors from Commodus, with their regnal years, the last name before the break being that of Gallus (4.D. 251-3), and the palaeographical evidence indicates that the table was not carried down much further. A slight compression of the lines in this table also suggests that the scribe was concerned to include the whole of it within the limits of the column. There "is a considerable use of abbreviation; the more noticeable forms are « for kai (in 1. 53 «), zp (to which s is sometimes added) in the form of a monogram, with the z either square or semicircular, for tpéa0es, wp also as a monogram for #pa and its cases, f (o small and low down between the tops of the ,) for potpa and cases, and */ for éori. v at the end of a line is occasionally represented by a horizontal stroke above the preceding vowel. An isolated instance of an elision-mark is found in 1. 48, but no accents or breathings occur. Horizontal lines are placed over numerals, the stroke covering the entire number when composed of more than one figure; for convenience of printing, these lines are omitted in the text given below. The copyist makes a number of mistakes, and clearly failed in places to comprehend what he was writing; there is also reason to call in question the accuracy of his figures in several passages.

The contents of the three columns are somewhat heterogeneous. Col. i and the greater part of Col. ii (Il. 1-50) are occupied with mathematical formulae for the calculation, after a given number of years, of (a) the day, according to the Egyptian calendar, on which a certain éroxy occurred, and (4) the corresponding longitude and latitude. émoy7

NEW? CEASSICALRT TEXTS 49

is the general term for a position occupied by a heavenly body; the particular éoyy here meant is that of the moon in, apparently, its anomalistic revolution from perigee to perigee. For the solution of the problem two distinct formulae are given, a longer (ll. r-31) and a shorter (Il. 32-50), but in neither case is the method quite clear. Apart from minor obscurities it is not evident why at the outset 2 years and 61 days are added in the first process (Il. t and 3) or 92 years in the second (1. 33). Presumably the initial divergence is to be explained by the use of different eras as starting-points, and Prof. Smyly, upon whose valuable annotations on this papyrus the present com- mentary largely depends, suggests that the era used in the first formula is that of Philip, the era in the second being the end of the reign of Commodus; cf. note on 1. 33.

In 1. 51 begins a new section, which is headed wepi cvvdéopov. ovvderpor. mean the moon’s nodes, i. e. the points where the planet’s orbit intersects the ecliptic, to which it is inclined at a,small angle. These points are not constant, but have a retrograde motion along the ecliptic ; and Il. 52 sqq. describe a method for determining the change of position.

Col. iii gives the formula for finding the date of the solstices and equinoxes on the Egyptian calendar, starting from the observations of Ptolemy; the observations corre- spond closely with those of the Syntaxis Mathematica, though they are somewhat differently stated. This is followed by a section of the chronological Canon, which differs from the ordinary form in counting the years from the beginning of the reign of Augustus instead of from the death of Alexander, and in combining the reigns of associated emperors. The number of years required to produce the longer era is written at the side of the first row of figures

On the other side of the papyrus in the margin between two columns of the Homeric text is endorsed the title ‘Yzdéurynpa Irodkepaiov. Can this title be accepted literally? It is sufficiently evident that Ptolemy did not actually write Col. iii; and in the two pre- ceding columns there are some suspicious discrepancies from the Syntaxis Mathematica (cf. note on Il. 14-24), as well as the anachronism of a reference to Commodus in I. 33. When to these difficulties there is added the consideration that little affinity of style is to be recognized between this treatise and the other works of the writer whose name it claims, some doubt of its authenticity will not appear groundless. Perhaps the attribu- tion to Ptolemy merely rests upon the use made of his observations in Col. ii, though it is possible that the processes set forth in Cols. i-ii were originally formulated by him. But ‘A treatise of Ptolemy’ cannot be regarded as a strictly accurate description, and therefore his name has not been placed at the head of this article.

Col. i. C Ta wANPH ern, TpOabes) B, apov ava xe, ‘\ XN oN ‘\ , Ta Nowra emt TEE, TOUS KUKAOUS Tovs ava Ke emt AB, eira mp(dobes) Ea: iz / A > ‘\ 7s 5 ovr{r}déas mavra Tov apiOpov ap(or), av éyns, ava Tra, Kat) tas Aoum(as) { alae H

10

20

iS) OL

NEW. CLASSICAL BT Hers

ava on, Kal) Tas vroladpbeioas Gpov éml ey Tov cvvdérpov amd Ty, emt dé TaY pH ovV- déopeov amd) apn, Kat) Tas Now-{a{as)} mas SuekBadre amd) O@O veopnvia Kal) yi(vera.) NwEepa THS ETOYS {v]

cat Alyumriovs, ot dé [lov.. wy]} ovvde- opor yilvovrar) to E Kat?) Kd Ky. 7 de po(tpa) ovTws evpioKera. Tovs KUKAOUS Tovs ava KE €ml pev pyHK(oVS) ToincoV emi po(ipas) og8 Ay vl Ka, emt de

Tov m\dtous emt po(ipas) ¢ Ay va

KO pe, Tovs dé ava Ta emt

pev pyxKoris] emt polipas) TAC ha f

C émi dé mddrovs emi 0 1B py

pn le, Kal Tovs ava K pn emt pev penk(ous) emt polipas) Kl py Kd ve

émt d€ mrAdTovs B py Ky AO 9, K(al)

av adédys ard opn, mpoodaBe e€-

mi pev pykous addas po(ipas) Kl py

KO vs emt O€ mrdtovs B py Kn dO 9, €av O€ amd Ty, emt prKous dy [..].

[.]- é[t de wAdrovs .. .] vy Phe ies

° . ° . ° . .

7. First ¢ of vroActpOevoas corr. from t. 10. Aow’ Pap. 16. mouod Pap. 22. pé Pap.

oe)

40

Col. ii.

avr(@v ?) pyK(ovs) pl] - € Ay v wAdrous iB oB O LO ve, etra duéxBlade) ad Aéovtos. GANws TvVTOMdTEpoy amd apyys’ KE > ‘ / , ‘ ¥ , > amd Koppddov mavra 7a rn, mp(dc0es) 9B, dpov > ‘ S ‘ A ‘ , ava K, elta owr(a) ern TEE. TOds Kv- KXous Tovs ava Ke emt AB. ouvatas

, \ b \ Ss » ¥ kde mavta{s} Tov apifuov apov, av eyns, ava Tra. tas owr(as) ava k pn. Kal) ovTws Ecvor-

c9) NX. la / /

TAL al Ewe TEAEL TEpLAELTOpMEVAL TOTAL heE- mTovow eis aay, Kal TavTas amddvE

> ‘\ ‘\ x 4 e e , lal > lal ard OH) a Kat) yiverar) Hepa THS emoyHs Ka- tT Aiyumriovs. at dé potpat ovtws KaTa- apBavovrat- rods KUKous Tods ava Tra

Mg tye} A , \ eed’ , Toinoov emt pey pnkous emt poltpas) TAC

So

45

NEW CLASSICAL TEXTS

ha oh € émi Sé€ marovs 6 8 py Hy te, Tovs S€ ava Ke pyKous) emt polipas) 48 ta KO pe, TOS S€ ava OLY pHK(oOUs) émi po(ipas) Kl ry Kd ve mharous B py Kn dO, er aépos AdBe pyjKovs po(ipas) 1B d8 ft hyn mrdrouvs dpov o Ka KB & te, cira amddve amd Aéovtos. TEpt TUVOET MOV. TEept ouvdeopov: Ta TANPYH ETH, Gpov ava un, Ta howm(a) ert 10, Kal) Tods Kar Aiyvarious

ial 5 \ ‘ e , > \ pnvas emi a he, tas npléplas emt o y &

55 ouvdkas tmavra Tov apiO[pov ... .Jwcov eis

...+[+-, Tovs] KUKou[s Tods ava iy Toinoov 37. e060 Pap. 48. en’ Pap. 56. mounoo Pap. Col. iii.

60

Tpom|ai Kal) ionmepiar as érHpinoev rodepnatos (€ret) uy [ard rHs “AAleEdvdpov TedeuTHS.

Oepuwn tpomy [Meloopy va eis 1B apla) €

vuxr[dols: mp(dobes) jpélpas] 48 A. autn apyy (éo71) Tov THpHoEwY. [plerorwpwy [[Tporn]|

ionpepia “AOvp [0] pera a wpav eyyiora

TS TOD (Hrlov) avalro|\ns: mpdabes nucpas wy C YX.

65

70

75 OKa TLS Ov ofy ofs>

aoB

‘ X N 9 € , xXeyepivy) TpoTn Meyxelp € dpa 5 jpépals:)

, e , > \ ¥ / .Y mp(dabe)s nyép(as) ge A. eapivyn tonpepia Hayov C peta ap(av) a eyyvota THS meonpBptas: wpdcbe)s jpE- pas go X.

(€ort) 5€ 7d (eros) y Aidlov “Avrwvivov. amd ovv 5 (€rous) péxpt Tod evert@ros eviavTov ha- ‘ ‘\ , ‘\ te , ‘\ > ‘ Bov kat tovtwv 76 8 Toinoov Kat amd Tov cuvaxfecav nuepav apov E- KaoTOV eviavTOD ava o oO Lf, Kal

A ne » ; . ; A Tas Teyevas mpoolOles ExdoTy To

TNPHTEWD.

Noura: ern Aidiov ’Avrwvivov 5] Kopodov . AB [ola (ert ?) pa oo Leouypov KE oa oxB *Avootou 3) ova opel "AeEavd pou vy oa ova Ma€wpivov Y oa afd Topdvavod 5 oa o&l

52 NEW CLASSIGALST HAMS con | Pidirrav 5 oa ooy o[7] | Aextov B oa aol [B oa ona

[o7B]| Tadd[ov]

On the recto, between Cols. iii and iv vToprnpa ITokepatov.

62. ey yiota Pap.; so also in |. 66. 65. tonpepia Pap. 76. 4 of pq corr. 82. pidumm@ Pap.

2-11. The operations prescribed are :—Add 2 to the complete number of years, divide the result by 25, multiply the remainder by 365 and the quotient by 32, then add 61; add together the numbers so obtained and divide the total, if possible, by 3031 and the remainder by 248, subtract the remainder from 303 or 248, and number off the final remainder from Thoth 1.

Division by 25 is a device for eliminating multiples of 3031, for if the number of Egyptian years be 25 x+y (x being the quotient and y the remainder) the number of days will be 365 (254+) = 9125 4+ 365y = (9093+ 32) ++ 3657. Rejecting 9093 4%, which is a multiple of 3031, we have the remainder 32 ++ 3657, corresponding to the rule in ll. 3-4. The elimination of 3031 and its multiple 9093 implies that these numbers of days were treated as lunar cycles, and as a matter of fact the moon would be in the same position approximately in its orbit at the beginning and end of those periods. 3031 days are equivalent to 8 years 3 months and 21 days of the Egyptian calendar. The corresponding anomalistic numbers in the tables of Ptolemy, Syxt. Math. (ed. Heiberg, pp. 286 sqq.), are:—

8 years 349. 44 =» 59° 49 « 29 7 51 eo 3 months 95° 50 54 26 47 58 30 21 days 274. aI 52 42 15 II 39 Total 719° 57 46 58 33 I 29

This total differs by less than 24 minutes from 720° or two complete revolutions. Again, with regard to the third divisor 248 (1. 7), which, like 9093 and 3031, recurs in the shorter method of Col. ii, a comparison with Ptolemy’s tables gives an analogous result. This cycle is equivalent to 8 months and 8 days, for which the anomalistic numbers are :—

8 months 255. 35 Ane 1d 29 56 fe) 8 days 104 31 Lt 30 22, 55 52 Total 360° 6 56 41 50 51 52

The sum thus obtained is not quite 7 minutes in excess of one complete revolution.

5. ovvagas, not ovvragas, is the usual word; cf. e.g. ll. 35, 55, and 71.

6. The figure T at the end of this line is meaningless. Perhaps it is a mistake for dp(ov).

8-10. This part of the rule is obscure. odvdeou01 must mean, as usual, the moon’s nodes, but it is not evident why ‘in the case of nodes’, i.e., apparently, when the given éwoyy is a node, the subtraction is to be from 303, and otherwise from 248. It should be noted that the difference between the two numbers, 55 days,

‘is almost exactly two anomalistic months, the month consisting of 27-5545995 days. Another difficult reference to ovvdecpor occurs in ll. 13-14.

IO-II. Aoizas was written in the abbreviated form dov at the end of 1. 10, but the second syllable was repeated at the beginning of ]. 11. 8vex8adAew means to measure off a given number of divisions from a fixed point on a graduated scale; cf. e.g. Ptolemy, Introd. to [pdxeipo. Kavdves, p. 8 (Halma) rov... dvexBadAovtes ent TOD emixd’KAov.

13-14. The meaning of this mention of the otvdeopor (cf. Il. 8-10) is again doubtful, and the question is complicated by an uncertainty as to the reading. The supposed r might be taken fora zero (cf. Il. 24 and 27), or some other symbol, a dot with a stroke above it, resembling the common sign for dprdé8n. w£ would then be a number; but & again, is not written as it is elsewhere in this papyrus, being here of the cursive shape with a tail. Possibly then this also is a symbol, though it has a stroke over it like those of the other figures.

ap.Oov

NEW .GEASSICAL. TEXTS 53

The letters rwf are placed close together and the stroke above the € covers part of the w. This group is followed by «’ which in this text is the regular abbreviation of xai. The deleted letters in 1. 13 seem to represent a misreading of ctvdeopor.

14-24. Statement of the corrections for longitude and latitude, corresponding to the three lunar cycles employed in the formula. The figures of these corrections are repeated in Col. ii in connexion with the shorter method there described. For the cycle of 248 days the longitude given is (ll. 23, 26, and 47) 27° 43 24 56. According to the tables of the Syxtaxis Mathematica, p. 290, the sum of the longitudinal values for 8 months and 8 days is 387° 44 34 2 30 4 0,i.e. with deduction of 360°, 27° 44 34 2 30 4. This differs slightly from the amount given in the papyrus, implying a small divergence in the quantity taken to represent the mean diurnal motion. Similarly in the case of the 3031 days’ cycle, the values for longitude in Ptolemy’s tables, pp. 286 and 290, are :—

8 years 315, b} 9 5O 44 20 O 3 months TO5e 5 52 29 50 15 45 fo) 21 days 276° 42 14 29 43 40 30 Total Cop ees 52 IC 43-00 545° 30

This less 360° is 337° 36 52 10 43 45 30, which again slightly exceeds the figures of the papyrus, 337° 31 1g 7 (ll. 20-1 and 43-4), but the amount of the mean diurnal motion implied is not exactly the same as that implied for the cycle of 248 days. The amount for the 9093 days’ cycle (1. 17; cf. Il. 45-6, note) is obtained by multiplying that for 3031 days by 3 and subtracting 720°.

The calculations of the argument of latitude in each case are less easily understood. The amounts given differ greatly from those obtained from Ptolemy’s tables, and the divergence can hardly be due merely to errors of the copyist.

18-19. The amount must be thrice that of Il. 21-2, hence the first number ought to have been x, instead of which a single figure, which looks more like ¢ than anything else, was written. Owing to a flaw in the papyrus 7 in the number Ay stands rather apart from the A.

22. 1. oun for « pn; cf. 1. 7, &c. In the papyrus the « is separated from py and only the « has the horizontal stroke which distinguishes figures. The mistake recurs in l. 37, with the difference that there the « is written «, like the abbreviation of x(a‘).

24. 8: or possibly 18, but there is certainly no. in 1. 47 and probably none in 1. 27, and in the present place the doubtful appearance of an 1 may well be caused by a dark fibre in the papyrus. The quantity differs so largely from that given by Ptolemy’s tables (40° 52 44 34 18 0 56), that so far as the latter are concerned 10° more or less is a matter of indifference.

25-9. Cf. ll, 8-10 and note.

27. B: cf. note.on |. 24.

30. The first word is written avr’, which usually represents airév.

p{.]: or perhaps plo(tpas) .]; there is no trace of either a horizontal stroke or of an o above the p.

31. amd Agovros: i.e. from Regulus. In the Syxzaxis longitudes are measured from the first point of Aries but in the Kavdéves apparently from Regulus; cf. Introd. p. 2 ds det cvvrnpotor pds Tov emt rhs Kapdlas Tod Agovtos. Regulus being a star of the first magnitude and lying very close to the ecliptic was a convenient starting-point ; and at the time of Augustus it was situated approximately at the first point of Leo.

32-50. ‘Another shorter way, starting from the beginning. Sum up/(?) all the years from Commodus, add 92, divide by 25, multiply the remainder by 365, multiply by 32 the number of cycles obtained from the division by 25, add up the whole number and divide, it you can, by 3031, divide the remainder by 248 and the final remainder will be the amount by which the number so gained falls short of 293 ; count the remainder off from Thoth 1, and the day on which the position took place according to the Egyptian calendar will result. The degrees are determined as follows :—multiply the number of cycles obtained from the division by 3031, for longitude by 337° 31 19 7, and for latitude by 9° 12 43 48 15, the number obtained from the division by 25, for longitude by 292° (33 57 21, and for latitude by 27° 38) 11 24 45, and the number obtained from the division by 248, for longitude by 27° 43 24 57, for latitude by 2° 43 28 34; then add for longitude 12° 34 40 38, subtract for latitude o° 21 22 14 15, and count off the degrees from Leo.’

54 NEW? GCLASSIGAL Bra

32. ad apxfis is more easily connected with what precedes than with what follows. What xe means is uncertain. The two letters have a horizontal stroke above them like that placed over numbers, but a number at this point appears meaningless. Prof. Smyly suggests that they may be interpreted as an abbreviation of kepadatwoov: keparaloya means ‘sum total’ in Herod. iii. 159, and ovyxepadavody is commonly used in this sense. It is, however, to be observed that in ll. 2 and 52 there is no corresponding verb.

33. ad Koppddov probably means from the end of the reign of Commodus. Assuming the era used in the first formula to be that of Philip, Prof. Smyly points out that if + be the number of years ‘from Com- modus’, 515+ will be the number from the era of Philip, and that this applied to the first process gives Dien or 20+ = es while if it be applied to the second the result is ae or 24+ ena as 25 X 365 (= 91 25) is the first multiple of 365 which is greater than 9093 (= 3 xX 3031), so 17 x 365 (= 6205) is the first multiple of 365 which is greater than 6062 (= 2X 3031). These curious coincidences perhaps justify the hypothesis that in the one case the years were reckoned from the era of Philip, in the other from what may be called the era of Septimius Severus.

34. 1. dvd ke, Ta Aovn(a) ext rée; cf. ll. 2-3. The writer is rather apt to confuse r and m7: cf. 1. 38 Aerrovow for Ae(wovow, and |. 48 exa for eira. Some blurred marks above the line between Aoin(a) and ery are probably accidental.

37. 1. opm; cf. note on 1. 22.

38-9. 1. Aelmovow. Why subtraction from 293 is employed is not clear.

42. tha is a mistake for Tha.

45-6. The statement of the latitude is wanting here, and a comparison with Il. 17-19 shows that the writer has omitted a line or most of one, running on the last three sexagesimals of the latitude to the degrees of the longitude. Hence the passage is to be restored prjx(ovs) emt po((pas) 48 (Ay v¢ xa, mAdTovus ext K¢ (cf. note on I], 18-19) Ay) ta kd pe.

48. 1. eira mpdcdafe for én’ dépos AdBe; cf. 1. 34, note.

20—3 = 17; and

52-5. ‘Concerning the node. Take the complete number of years, divide by 18, multiply the remainder by 19, the Egyptian months by 1° 35’, and the days by 0° 3" 10”; add all the number together . . .’

52 sqq. For the term ovviecpos cf. Cleomedes 114 doe obtws exwv (sc. 6 Tijs cedjvns KUKAos) Tdv da peoov (i.e. the ecliptic) cata 800 onpeta réuver dvaykaiws. tavtas ody Tas Topas of ev ovvadas of b€ cvvdécpors Kahodow. The moon’s nodes have a retrograde motion along the ecliptic at the rate of approximately 19° annually. Hence if the number of years be multiplied by 19 and multiples of 360 be subtracted the change in the position of the nodes is obtained. Division by 18 is employed in order to avoid the subtraction of 360 and its multiples, just as multiples of 3031 were eliminated through the division by 25; cf. note on ll. 2-11. If the number of years be 18 «+ y the number of degrees traversed by the nodes will be 19 (18 x+y) = (360—18)x +19. Hence the rule follows: Divide the number of years by 18, multiply the remainder by 19 and subtract from the result 18 times the quotient. The direction for this last process was contained in ll. 56 sq. The Egyptian months are multiplied by 1° 35’ and the days by o° 3” 10” because those quantities respectively represent the mean monthly and daily retrogression of the nodes (1° 35 x12 = 19°, 0° 3 10”x30=1° 35’).

53. k(af) is here written x, like a numeral.

55-6. What intervenes between dpi6[udv and rods] K’xAovs is obscure. In 1. 56 there is a horizontal stroke above the vestiges of the first letters (or letter), which were therefore probably a number. The next word may have been x(al). After wolncoy there came something like éai im kal Gpoy amd Tod cvvayOévtos apiOu0d; cf. note on |. 52.

56-74. ‘The solstices and equinoxes observed by Ptolemy in the 463rd year from the death of Alexander. The summer solstice is at the 7th hour of the night of Mesore 11 to 12; this is the starting-point of the observations. Add 92 days 30. The autumnal equinox is on Hathur g, one hour approximately after sunrise. Add 38 days 7 30. The winter solstice is Mecheir 7, the fourth hour in the day. Add 95 days 30. The vernal equinox is Pachon 7, one hour approximately after noon. Add 94 days 30.

‘ The year is the third of Aelius Antoninus: starting then from the fourth year down to the present year take the quarter of this number and from the total of days so obtained subtract for each year 0° o’ 12” and add the remainder to each of the observations.’

NiEW. (CEASSICALs TEATS 55

57-60. Cf. Ptol. Synt. Math. i, pp. 205-6 pets d& tiv év TS TpoKetwevm vEy Erer amd tis "ANeavdpov redevrijs (sc. Oepwiy rpomv) dopadGs éredoyiodueda yeyovévat 7 ta To} Meoopy peta B dpas eyyvs rod eis rHv 1B pecovuxtiov. Since the night at the summer solstice contained 10 hours (cf. ibid. i, p. 198 and P. Hibeh 27. 115-17), the seventh hour of the night corresponded to the second after midnight.

60-1. The words airy (I. atrn) . . . tnpioewv are misplaced and should be transposed before mp(do«s). For the number 92 30 cf. Synt. Math. i, p. 234 éreidijmep, os paper, 7) wey peToTwpwi lonuepla yéyoven Ti 6 rod ‘AOip peta thy jAlov dvarodjv, 7 5& eapwh tH ¢ Tod Tlaxov pera tiv peonuBplay, as cvvdyecOar Thy didoracw HhuepGv pon 8, tiv b& Oepwiy tpoTiy TH ta To} Mecopy pera TO els THY 1B pecoviKtioy, os Kal radrnv Ti didoracw ... Huepas ovvdyew 99 2, katadrelmecOar 8 els THY ard Tis Oepwis tponHs emt riy éLijs perorwpwiy lonpeplav Tas Notas els Tov eviavovoy xpdvov HpEepas eyytota 98 z. The doubtful A is suspiciously like an a, but A in any case must be read; there is a stroke above the line rather suggesting an interlinear A, so perhaps a was first written and then corrected.

61. After writing perotwpivn tpomn the copyist saw his error and cancelled the two words by the common expedient of a line drawn above them (cf. e.g. P. Oxy. 843. 142). He then realized that perotwpivn should stand and so distinguished tpomn by enclosing that word within brackets, not troubling to erase the line over MeTOTIWpLYN.

62. For “Aévp [6] cf. the passage quoted in the note on Il. 60-1, and Syu¢. Math. i, p. 204 (Heiberg) r@ y éret ’Avrwvivov, 6 éotw véy and rijs "Ade€dvipov Tedevrijs, juets ernpjoapev dopadréotara mdAw Thy peToTHpIIy lonueplay yeyernperny TH O Tod “AOdp peta play Spav éyy.ota tis Tod HAlov avarodijs.

63. nAlov is represented by the common symbol, for which cf. e. g. P. Oxy. 886. 11. For the numbers zy ¢X (the divisions are of course the usual sexagesimals) cf. Syut. Math. i, pp. 237-8 rhv pev TA repipépecar, iris éorly amd peromwpiys lonpeptas emt yeepwiy tpomnv, paricerar dvepxopuevos 6 HAuos ev Huepars my Kal 1, Tiy de AA, Aris éorly amd xepepivijs tpomjs eal thy eapwyv lonueplay, év jpépats 4 Kal y’ éyywora. Hence inl. 65 4 ¢A must be read for Qe A.

65-6. 1. 4 ¢ for ge; cf. the preceding note. For éapivi tonuepla xrd. cf. Synt. Math, i, p. 205 76 vby ere amd rhs “Adedvdpov redreutis eapiiy lonpepiav ebploxomev yeyernuevny tr ¢ Tod Tlayov pera piav dpav eyyiota Tis eon plas.

68-74. Since the Egyptian year contained 365 days, and the true length of the tropical year is 365 14’ 48” days (Synz. Math. i, p. 208), that is, is less than 3654 days by o° o’ 12”, in order to arrive at the days of the solstices and equinoxes we must divide the number of years by 4, then, treating the quotient as days (hence a6 tév cvvayPeoGv jyepdv), subtract from it o° o’ 12” days for each year, and add the remainder to each of Ptolemy’s observations. After an interval of 300 years, e.g., the number of days to be added would be 302_ 300 (0° o' 12”) = 75—I.

69. The first syllable of wexpe has been corrected ; apparently the writer blundered over the « and so made another.

71. There is a hole in the papyrus between ovvaydetowy and nyepwv in which there would be room for one or two letters.

73. Teysevas is corrected to AeAetwpevas, but the r is not cancelled and it is singular that a considerable gap is left between the over-written Ae and A.

75. s]: though the surface of the papyrus shows slight signs of damage the ¢ which must have been written is not to be recognized.

76-84. In this table the first row of numbers, which is enclosed by vertical lines, represents the years of the era of Augustus, the year being in each case the last of the emperor whose name is placed opposite. The number in the last row is that of the first year of the reign according to the same era, and the number immediately following the name gives the length of the reign. oa, which regularly precedes the final number, seems meaningless as a numeral, and is probably a mistake on the part of the copyist for 2 (= éros) a, referring to the number following. This probability would be still stronger if it were certain that (éor() in 1. 76 is rightly read. The number 294 at the end of that line is that of the years from the death of Alexander to the accession of Augustus, and is to be added to the figures of the first row in order to obtain the number of years according to the era of Philip, which is used in the ordinary form of the Canon.

76. 48: the years of Antoninus (19) are combined with those of Commodus (13), who counted his regnal years from his father’s accession; cf. P. Oxy. 35 verso 13. In the Canon the two reigns are distinguished.

56 NEW CLASSICAL ST ExTS

77, Seovnpov: i.e. Caracalla, whose years were reckoned, like those of Commodus, from the accession of his predecessor with whom he had been associated ; cf. P. Oxy. 35 verso 14 Seounpov (ern) ke. In the Canon the reigns of Septimius Severus and Caracalla are separately given (18 and 7 years respectively).

+8. ’Avootov: i. e. Elagabalus, who is for example ranked by the author of the Vzta among the prodigiosos tyrannos ... quorum nec nomina libet dicere.

82-3. The Canon as given by Halma assigns 7 years to Philip and 1 to Decius, which is incorrect. Philip died some time between Sept. 1 and Oct. 16 of his 7th year, and since in reckoning the length of the reigns the odd months after the last Thoth 1 are neglected (the interval between the death of an emperor and the next Thoth 1 counting as his successor’s first year), Philip should be given 6 years only. Decius on the other hand reached his third year, and therefore on similar grounds his reign should be reckoned at two years, not one. In P. Oxy. 35 verso 18-19 the arrangement is the same as that of this papyrus.

28. ILEPI TIAAMQN MANTIKH.

Page about 7-5x6-6 cm. Fourth century. Plate 5 (fol. 2 verso,

fol. 7 verso).

A well-preserved quire of eight papyrus leaves, the string with which they were bound together being still in its place. The sheets were so arranged that when the quire is opened in the middle the verso of each sheet is uppermost; hence in the first four leaves the recto, in the last four the verso, was first written upon. The leaves are nearly square and very small, the book being apparently intended for the pocket like the copy of the Oxyrhynchus uncanonical gospel (P. Oxy. 840), the dimensions of which were very similar. In the present case, however, the character of the writing is less in keeping with that of the page. The script is a medium-sized upright uncial, well formed if some- what heavy, of the so-called biblical type, and dating from the fourth century perhaps more probably than the third. A certain amount of variation both in the size and con- figuration of the letters is observable, and the writing is decidedly more careful in the first two pages than in those which follow. <A peculiarity is to be noticed in the formation of w, in which the central stroke is commonly carried well above the line. Other round letters, 0, 0, o (usually), and often «, are disproportionately small; € is of the cursive shape. It is remarkable that these characteristic forms are also conspicuous in the marginalia of the Codex Sinaiticus of the Bible, and a new argument may here be found for the Egyptian origin of that MS. Ina few places v at the end ofa line has been written as a horizontal dash over the preceding vowel. Short lines are sometimes filled by the small angular sign usually employed for the purpose. Punctuation is exceptional (see below), and there are no other lectional signs beyond an occasional diaeresis. A second hand has introduced one or two alterations.

The subject of the book is the prognostications to be derived from the involuntary movement—adheoOar or wdddewv, 1. e€. quivering or twitching—of various parts of the body. That such movements portended certain events was a popular belief which finds ex- pression in both Greek and Latin classical literature. It is as old at any rate as Theocritus : adrerat 6pOahpds prev 6 Sekids: apa y idyo@ adray; (iii. 37-8); cf. Plautus, Pseudol. i. 1. 107

NEW CLASSICAL TEXTS 57

nist quia futurum est: wa supercilium salt, &c. Suidas, s.v. otwverixy (Nonnus in Greg. Naz. 72), defines the process thus: wadpixov S€ 7d dia THS Ta\cEws TOD TaHpaTos yywprldpevor, otov ei emadOn 6 Seftds 7) apiorepds dpOarpos 7 Gpos } pnpds, KYNopLds ev THO Tod 7 Tpds TO ods Hxos eyeveTo, TH5e€ TupBaiverr 6 ouvéypae Tloceddéros. This with similar forms of divination was repudiated by the Christian Church; it is expressly forbidden in the Apostolic Constitutions, viii. 32, and condemned in the Responsa ad quaest. Aeg. episcopi (Justin], Quaest. ad Orthodoxos, 19): 6 S€ mahpds taB0s €ott copatixdyv ex THs Siadpopys TOU pvo.Kovd TrEevpaTos ev TO CHpatt VpioTapevov TavTwv TaV C@wv' did avdkioy Expwoy ol ayLoL elvat KplTy) pov TOV pedNovTwy TO TOLOUTOV TWPLATLKOV KiVyELG. ; chi Augustine, De Doctr. Christ. li. 31. Our papyrus is prior to the general Christianization of Egypt; but in any case it is not to be supposed that the Church succeeded in effectually eradicating such popular superstitions.

Suidas, in the citation above (see also s.v. Moaedeévos), attributes a work on omens of this sort to a certain Posidonius, apparently the Stoic Posidonius of Apamea (second to first century B.c.), who was interested in divination and wrote five books zept pavrixjs. But a regular treatise on the subject is still extant entitled Meddpyodos icpoypapparéws TEpt Tadpav pavTikyn mpos Itoheuatov Baowréa, and professing to have been composed in obedience to a royal command. According to Fabricius, B7b/. Gr. i, p. 116, the Ptolemy was Philadelphus; but modern criticism has declined to take the title and preface seriously, and the author is commonly described as the Pseudo-Melampus ; cf. Susemihl, Gesch. d. Gr. Lit. t.d. Alexandrinerzett, i, pp. 300, 873. The wept rarpav pavrixy exists in more than one form; besides the longer version (A) there are three more or less reduced epitomes, of which the chief is known from a fourteenth-century manuscript at Paris (P). These versions have recently been edited and discussed by Diels in his Betrage z. Zuckungslitt. des Okzidents u. Orients in the Abhandl. d. k. Preuss. Akad. d. Wrssensch., Phil.-Hist. Kl., 1907-1908. Diels considers that the body of writings bearing the name of Melampus, which were known to Artemidorus (Onezr. iii. 28), and of which the wept makuev represents one section, was composed at about the beginning of the Imperial period or even rather earlier ; and he plausibly explains the divergences between A and P, &c., as due to an accretion of adscripts derived from other authorities and treated by the various redactors in different ways. The problem has lately been further complicated by Vitelli’s publication (Azene e Roma, 61-2, pp. 32 sqq., 1904; reprinted by Diels, Joc. cit., 1908) of a papyrus purchased by him in the Fayam and attributed to the third century, containing part of a similar yet distinct treatise (P. Vit.) ; and to this there is now added the present text, which, though having much in common with both A and P. Vit., by no means coincides with either. These three treatises, like the shorter compendia, all follow the same scheme; the various members of the body are taken one after the other, starting from the head downwards, and the omens associated with their movement are concisely enumerated. There is often a close correspondence in the names of the various bodily parts, 28 and P. Vit. being especially harmonious in this respect; A shows more variation (cf. notes on Il. 1-3, 14 sqq., 86, 118-22, 180-91). Resemblances in vocabulary are strongly marked throughout; and as the obscure word ovpBovdry (A to, &c.) was elucidated by cvpBod} ydmov of P. Vit. 17, so

I

58 NEW, CLASSICAL MIS

28. 58 sqq. supply a satisfactory emendation of another corruption in A. Certain other formal characteristics, however, introduce divisions. (1) In 28 frequently, in P. Vit. regularly, after the prognostications, directions are given to pray to or propitiate appro- priate divinities, which, though they do not correspond in the two authorities, agree in this, that they are all Greek, with no Egyptian admixture ; in A no such advice occurs. (2) Although in 28 slaves and women are frequently specified, the favourite triad of A, Sovdos, tapbévos, yypa (cf. e.g. the note on Il. 201-12: it is very prominent earlier in the treatise), does not figure. P. Vit. here sides with A, only the triad becomes by the addition of orparudrys a tetrad, which is repeated with wearisome regularity. In style 28 has advan- tages over the other two, being distinctly less monotonous and bald. (3) A fondness for alternative predictions (év aAdous, addws, &c. : cf. e. g. notes on Il. 4-8, 75-85) is a peculiarity of A. With regard to the character of the predictions there are curious coincidences and divergences. For example, each has a different interpretation for the yaorpoxvynpia evdévupos (28. 156 sqq.), whereas all three agree closely respecting the Kepxis de&ia and dpuotepa just above. Plainly, then, there is a substantial common element; but on the other hand the discrepancies of interpretation not less plainly point to the early currency of independent authorities, which were differently combined by the authors of the three versions. The question of the relation of A to the shorter forms thus assumes a new aspect. It is no longer necessary to assume that they are actually compendia of A: they may be the descendants of other parallel versions such as those the existence of which the papyri have now revealed.

The text of 28, as of P. Vit., is broken up into paragraphs, a new paragraph commencing with each new mention of a member or part of one. In two places where the scribe inadvertently neglected to make the usual distinction a dash has been inserted after the final word of the clause, and is accompanied by a marginal coronis (ll. 52 and 63). This system of paragraphs rendered the book easier of reference, enabling the inquirer to find readily the portent of which he might be in search.

In the commentary below, the parallel passages from A, which for purposes of comparison are cited throughout along with those of P. Vit., are taken from the edition of Diels.

Fol. 1 recto. Fol. I verso. UTOyaoTpLov Eav EK KOTWV addntar ayafov zu oopvos EVWVYU{LOV MEPOS Sydow pet addo[voly oyou eav adhyrar ev trodXots [elu urxLov To deEwov pe 20 Bnoerar Kar Cypas pexpt 5 pos eav addnrar AvTN Katploly Tivos Kal EK TwY On tov TapovTa Ka.po KaKOV avaKkuer eta evdpavOn d.a avd oovos TO pecov eav addy n prov tat doOnvat TL avTw vio LTXLOV Ta appoTepa pepn 25 TwVv oLKLwY haprploly 10 €av ahdwvTar oTNoETAL Kepdos Kat Soviw Kat edev TOANA 0 ToLoUTOS EV OL bepw

Tous KoToLs EXoMEVOS Bn eav addnTar evoxyn

I

3

4

4

on

5

°

on

65

7

eo}

on

NEW CLASSICAL TEXTS

evyou Nein

oadvos Seftov pepos cay ahdytat peyatws evropy gew Kalt] Sovhos Kau Tevys

Fol. 2 recto.

dpuyzavoy Sovriw Se pera otacw Tns Sovdvas y TO Tous ws Bynpacaos eye: ev you Aw

Lepov oaTouy eav addy

TOL ETLKTNOW Syrou

Toh\hwv ayabov paver be aiotov eay addnTat od ha amoBadder o ToLovTos exov Se texva ynpoBo aoxnOy ev Sano de VTApXoV atrodwcet

Badavos n emdeppus eav addy evppaciay

dydou YUVALKL de [Ke] KEp Sos peta Woyou dydou

Fol. 3 recto.

eav ahdAnTar is KEvov Tl Tpaypa avahwoat mpoon ot

n €dpa Saxrudtos de v To TWwv KadovpEeryn eav addntar Suypar(t] opovs Kat owopias Kal Kpudiarwy mpa

t ypatwv emupavay

dy ou

kotudis defva eayv ad AynTtat o Kadoupevos yAoutos aKuApous Kau Tovous. Sydow

12

fovngeL 0 TOLOUVTOS ayapw

30 de yapov dndou viroTtaupos eav adhynrae SerypaticOnoerat o ToL outio|s amoheo Oar Te Kpu

Fol. 2 verso. Plate 5.

5° opxis evwvupollv]] eav ad AnTat ayalov TL ONAL

vel amo KoTTwy’ opxis

7 ot Ovo eav ad\wvrar

euppacias Snhovow

55 yever Oar eK yuvarKe ov Tpoowrouv yane > mov de Saviarais TvyN defia eav ad Anta Tw pev Emde

60 dpiw exovTe epyace av Se ampayiay dy hou exdnunoa Se adv Tov TO onpov’ Tuyns

7, TO EVWVULOV MEPOS

Fol. 3 verso.

Els EKONMLaY To pevo > 80 peva ayafov KOTUAELS EVWVUM eav addnTar oKud pLous Kat Tovous dy hou kaxoTabnoavra 85 de evdpavOnvar pnpos de&os eav ad Anrat emikTnow EK VEWTEPOV TPOTW tov yeverOar Sydow 9° opowws Se Kau yuvae KL Kat OoVw

HNpoOSs EVMVULOS

59

60

Fol. 4 recto. eav addAnTar evppa

o.av Sndou Kau KEp >

95 Sos ex OnduKov mpo

owiTrov yovu Se€vov eav add? Ta evppavOnoerar o

TOLOUTOS EK diALaKOU

100 Tpoawmov evxov Tv

105

125

130

150

xX”

yovuv Eevwvupov ear

ahrAnTar peTaoTacet

as Kat andtas Sydor ato @yhuKwv

Kynpn Seta eav ad

Fol. 5 verso. €K yuvatkos peya has Sydow mpakers Kar amroonpuas avruxvnpuov Sek. ov eav addytat Sydow aUTOV EvTOpHoaL pe yahws evyov Epper AVTLKVNLLOV €V wvupov eav adn Tat Sydow avrov a ToBahew mpoow TOV VITOTAKTL>

Kov Sovdov de ov

Fol. 6 verso. av addwvrar ayalov drow evxolv] Tvyy yaotpokvnpia Sefia eav addnrar €€ amtpoo Soxntov mpoodnupe

Tat TL KaTa Tov Buov>

NEW CLASSICAL

KQL e&eu TOV KQLPOU EU

otabiav Sovros Se Kat TEVNS EVTOPHT EL YAOTPOKYHLLA EVWVU

pa €eav adnrat emt

ie ahs}

115

13

cn

140

145

165

170

Fol. 4 verso. AnTaL Onpae av> tov yeverbar evdo fov yuvauku Oe € Tappodetctay On hou evyxov Adpodety Kau Ove KVNLLN EVWVULOS € av adAnTar onpacve yuvatkt oyov ek > potxyeras Sovdous Se amrevdar Kat oxOor KUNAL appore >

pau eav addwvrar

Fol. 5 recto. Ta ev Sovdta Koude ow ek Tys SovAtas Kepkeis Sella eav ad Antat AuTnOyoe Tat O ToLovTos Sia gu Lov yernoera Se ev emnpia evxyov Nee oeL KEpKis apioTepa eav ad Anta odov pakpav TopevoreTat ampoodo KnTov eh n Kat AuTH Onoerat 0 ToLovTos

aykvdar apporepar €

Fol. 6 recto. onpawe ampoodoKy TOV odupov evavupor € av anTat ev Kpioet BapnlOles extra kau ex ev&erau aotpayados defiov Todos eav ahynta dv anv Snrou yever Oar exOnuntn Se Kako maQvav ovr. evyou Net

NEW CLASSICAL TEXTS

yuvarxe utn[Oln pu Aw evyouv Tvxn

KN) aoTpayados EVWVV

prov moldos eav ahy

160 oduplo Sefvov eav ad 175 Ayntat alylyekvay avTw Fol. 7 verso. Plate 5. Fol. 7 recto. Tat avwpadiay on 190 evmodicOyvat ev Nou evyou Nepewer you Eppet TTEpvat adhopevat SakxTvdos peErKpos ayafov Sndovow SeEvov modos eav ad 180 mous de€tos eav addy Anat evTropiay av Tat SeoToTYNS EoTaL> 195 T@ Ondo EK VEWTE Toh\hov ayafav Kat pov mplo|lowmov evxov KTnpatwv Sovdos Tv xI] de eXevfepos eorat o de pletla Tov peuxpo 185 Tous aploTEpos eav aX eav [aj\AnTar To av> AyTar onpaive av 200 To Ondo evyou Tvxy Tov emt hoyw Kal TL €av 0 TpiTos ahyTat ort tAavnOnvalt] Kau andvay onpaive Kat odov Topevopeva > paxas efer dia Ondv Fol. 8 verso. Fol. 8 recto. KOV TpOOWTTOV ETEL exe Sydou ewetta> 205 Ta evppavOnvat > xXapas evyou Aw

evyov Avovycw

eav dle] o Exopevos ME

61

eav S€ o peyas adn> 220 piyuvars modAals TE

TAL ONPaWL avTov pumeweitau Kau KaKO Sovrov ovra dSeo7ro mabuars evyou Aw

eav de o TeTapT[o|s TON

duns atrad\ayn Lov xpyplalrol[y] Kv

vat 225 pos eoTat Kal oolpalro

210 TEVOAL KAL TAOS

Sovdos de av[rov Khy

[plovopynoer eav Se 0 TELTTOS OfL0L

Saxtudos perKpos

EVWVULOV 7000S 215 eav adytar ppovre

Sa ov mepe [tjduav ws Ova mpoowrov On> 230 [A]ukoy evropyoet

_ 1-30. ‘If the abdomen quiver, it denotes something good with adverse talk. If the right part of the hips quiver, the person will have grief for the time being and afterwards gladness on his own account or that of a friend. If both parts of the hips quiver, a person so affected will stand in the grip of a twofold trouble. Pray to Victory. If the right part of the loin quiver, a slave or poor man will prosper greatly after distress. If the left part of the loin quiver, the person will engage upon many things and will suffer loss for a time, and will emerge again from his troubles. Ifthe middle part of the loin quiver, it means that a notable profit will be received from his kindred by the person, whether a slave or free. If the groin quiver, a person so affected will make a graceful appearance ; to one unmarried it denotes marriage.’

62 NEW CLASSICAGSTEXAS

1-3. The szoydorpioy is not noticed in A, the parts in this region which there appear being yaornp, xo.Ala, Aaydv, trevpd, ondjv, and jap; P has similar entries, in a different order. For adAo{toly Aoyov cf. 1. 48 Kepdos peta Yoyov. '

4-8. Cf. A 121-2 loylov b@ rd debvdv pépos GAACpeEvov oikelwv Kai Pirwy (axaptotiav). év GAAw ayaddy dndroi. loxlov rd eddvepov pépos GdAASuevov AbTas Sndot. ev GAAw dxatacraclay dydrot. In Il. 5 and 7 of the papyrus AvmnOy and evdpav6n have to be corrected either to AvmnOnoerat and evppavOnoerar or AvTNOnvat and evppavOnvas (cf. €. g. 1. 24 d00yvar). A similar mistake occurs in Il. 43 and 158. Between ll. 8 and g a sentence relating to icxéou 76 evovupov pépos may have dropped out; cf. ll. 50-7, note. Other omissions, however, occur which may not be accidental, e. g. 1. 146, where there is no mention of dyxvAn de£id and dpicrepd but only of ai dyxvAat, or 1. 207, where ddxrvdos péyas follows ddxrvdos tpiros.

9-13. No separate prognostication for a simultaneous affection of both parts of the icxfoy is given in A.

14 sqq. There is a wide divergence here between the papyrus and A; in the latter the only entries between those concerning icxfov and Bddavos (cf. 1. 46 below) relate to paxews ra defia and varos defids and eddvvpos. P, however, 96-105, offers some coincidences: ola defid “aobeverav onpuaiver. evévupos kdyatov onualver. dois eloévupos Tapexew mpaypata vp’ Sv evppavOjvat onuatver. <dsodtos Td pécov Képdos onuatver. Bn maAdAovoea ayaa mapa Twos onpaiver. PBovBav evdvupos mopiopov onpaiver, tmdravpos Woyov dndol. oiyKtip Képdos alvld.oy SydAoi, aidotov madAov TeEpt réxvwv E€v xapav onpalver, tepdv dctody émixtnow onyatver.

19-20. For ev moddous [e]uBnoerat cf. e. g. Demosth. De Cor. 248 év adrois rots dewols kal poPepois euBeBnkas. After (yyas some verb like efe. has been omitted.

31. umotavpos: cf. P quoted in the note on Il. 14 sqq. The word is found elsewhere only in Schol. on Lucian, Lexiph. 2 ad v. thy tpdpw: of pev To tphya Ths Spas, of b€ TO amo ToOUTOV MexpL THs Apxijs TOD Baddvov xwplor, 0 kal troradpov Kadodow. Valckenaer, Anximadv. ad Ammon. p. 40, needlessly proposed to read there troravpiov.

33. The first two letters of amoAeo@at are a correction, probably by the second hand.

35. tomous: |. rozov.

36. Bnpacoos: 1. Bynpwooos. The eminence of Berosus as an astrologer is referred to e.g. by Pliny, HN. vii. 37, who says that the Athenians put up a statue of him with a gilt tongue ob divinas praedictiones ; but it was not known that he made prognostications of the kind indicated in the text. Similar references to other authorities are found in A 17 kata Pnpovdny, 18 xara Pnyovdny kal Alyumtiovs kal "AvtipGrta, 19 Kata dé ’Avripdvra.

38. A mark like a grave accent above the v of eay appears to be meaningless.

40. Probably the a of yeveoOar was written above the line for lack of space, and not accidentally omitted ; Cla 7:

43. ynpoBooknOn : 1. ynpoBooknOnoera ; cf. note on Il. 4-8.

46-9. Cf. A 127 BdAavos GAAdpevos (I. -n) SovA@ eis "Apodirny edOety SnAoi.

46. Cf. P 106, where the original hand has written 7) émidepua above BdAavos. emdepuis = pracputium, a sense attested for the cognate form émdepparis in Theophilus Protosp. p. 902 émud. Hris dvoudcerar md0On.

47. tat was added above the line by a second hand.

50-7. Cf. A 128-9 dpyis defids GAAGuEvos Biov kal réxvwv enixrnow dndo?. dpxis eddvvpos GAASuEVOS edwxlav kal yuvaikds @peAccav dndot. An entry concerning dpyxis defiuds has perhaps been omitted in the papyrus ; cf. note on ll. 4-8.

58-67. Cf. A 130-1 muy?) be€1d GAAopevyn eridiapOopay to éxovtt mpaypatelay Kal épyactay dndol. mvyi) evdvepos GdAopevn TAovoel@ dvadepata Torfoat dSndot, rots 5 Aoutois dyabdv. ev GAdAows’ peddACvT@Y Kuplevow. For émdtapOopav Struve conjectured én’ idfa pOopa, which Diels accepts, but this hardly mends the passage, to which the papyrus, though itself requiring some alteration, now supplies the key. In 1. 59 emédippiw might pass, but most probably is a mistake for emé:ppiov referring to epyaciay (cf. Artemid. Oncir. ii. 14 émdigppiov THY €pyaciay éxdvTwv), and é¢ in |. 61 is then superfluous; the proper antithesis to rw pev.. . is exdnunoavti de in 1. 62. Turning now to the text of A, émd.apOopay is evidently a corruption of émd/ppiov and the sentence is apparently to be restored on the analogy of the papyrus 1@ émdippioy (or possibly Sale Tw) €xovTe mpayparelay Kal épyactay (ampaylav) dndoi.

62. exdnunoa: 1. exdnunocarte.

68-74. A 132 here differs considerably: daxrvAvos (so Sylburg rightly for ddxrvdos) GAAduevos Képdos anpooddxnrov dndot. In 1. 69 it is doubtful whether kaAovumevn or kadovpevols is the reading of the papyrus.

NEW CCASSICADTEXIS 63

75-85. xorvAn and yAovtos are treated separately in A 133-6 but with points of resemblance to the papyrus: xorvAn def1d GAAopevyn klvnow emt mpoKomiy Syndot mavri. ev dAdows dyabdy onyalver. KotdAn eddvupos &dAouévn Adays Tiwds atadrAayhv Syrot. ev GAdors andlav onpatver. ‘yAourds defids GAACpevos edtropiay bydo?. Kal 6 eddvvpos Td adrd. P. Vit. begins with the yAourds edavupos, which edppaciay dndrot* SovAw Kaddy, Tapbévw dyor, xhoa pdxas, otpariétn Tpoxomny. tdAdoxov “Exarny. The form xorvdls found in the papyrus used to be read in Hippocrates Mochi. and De morbis ii, but is now replaced by xorvAndév, though xorvAls was apparently recognized by Galen.

86-159. ‘If the right thigh quiver, it denotes that there will be an acquisition from a young person, and similarly for a woman or a slave. If the left thigh quiver, it denotes happiness and gain from a female. If the right knee quiver, a person so affected will be made happy by a friendly-disposed person: pray to Fortune. If the left knee quiver, it denotes changes and troubles from females. Ifthe right leg quiver, it signifies that the man will be honoured ; for a woman it denotes loveliness: pray and sacrifice to Aphrodite. If the left leg quiver, it signifies for a woman censure in consequence of adultery, and for slaves, threats and labour. If both legs quiver, it denotes great achievements and travel. If the right shin quiver, it denotes that he will be very wealthy: pray to Hermes. If the left shin quiver, it denotes that he will lose a subordinate person; for a slave in servitude it means an alleviation of his servitude. If the right leg-bone quiver, the person so affected will have pain on account of a friend and will be involved in ill-treatment: pray to Nemesis. If the left leg-bone quiver, the person so affected will go on a long and unexpected journey in which he will have pain. If both houghs quiver, it denotes something good: pray to Fortune. If the right calf quiver, the person will unexpectedly acquire something in his life and will have prosperity; a slave or a poor man will become rich. If the left calf quiver, he will have pain over a woman or a friend: pray to Fortune.’

86. The arrangement is the same as in P. Vit. In A there occurs an entry concerning BovBév between yAourés and pnpds. BovBdr is placed earlier in P; cf. note on 1. 14.

86-96. Cf. A 139-40 pnpos deEids GAASuEvos @peAlav Syndot. ev GAAors be CxOpGv Kparnow dSndot. pypds evovupos GAAGpevos emtBovdynv kal dddov dSnroi. ev AAAs bddv eroeAH SnArol wopevOqvat. This is followed by prognostica- tions from the émicAopypiov, which does not figure either here or in P. Vit., which has pypos defids maAAwv AVTyVY dnrot SovAw edevdeplav, Tapbevp yauov, xnpa opedlav, orpatidrn PdBov. idAdocxov Ala. fmpds edvdvupos TaAdWY peyadny aklay dndot* dovrA@ olxovoplay, mapOévm d.aBornvy, xnpa vwbpiav, otpatidtyn anodnulay. thdoKov “HAroy.

97-105. Cf. A 143-4 yovu defdv GAACpEvo edoxlav SnAoi TavTi, GAXAows Se edTopiav. ydvu EvvYpov GAACpEVOV andlay peydAny dndAoi, P. Vit. 12-18 ydvv de€idv (av) TaAAn, KaxoTwaderay dnAo SotAm SpeXlav, Tapbevw d.aBodrny, xnpa evppactav, otpatidrn evropiay. idkdoxov Kpdvorv. ydvy evevuyov dv madAn, andiav dndrot dovAw edevdepiar, Tap0éve ovvBodiy yapor, x1pq evoxlav, otpatidtn mpoxomyy. trAdoxov Anuntpa.

97. n was written above the line owing to want of space ; ef. 1. 40.

103. peracracta for peracracis is apparently a new form.

106. After yévv A and P both deal with dyxvAn, which in 28 is treated after xepxis, 1.146. In P. Vit. xvnpn follows yévv, as here.

106-17. Cf. A 147-8 kijun defia Gddouévn emlonuov Sndot 7) 6ddv paxpav TropevOfvar’ 7 de eddvpos avdpdor Adm, yovarsl BF Woyor, GdAois dppworiay dndoi, P. Vit. 19-23 Kyjun Seka edv TAAAN, onualver enldogov yevécOat" dotAw d1aBorjy, rapbévy yapov, xhpa edppactay, otpatidtn ebmoplav. tAdoKxov Neyeow. Kvhun eddvvpos mdddAovoa AUTnY Tact SynAol. [tAdoKov Ala.

117. 1. ametAas Kar poxOovs.

118-22, There is no corresponding entry in A, P, or P. Vit.

123-34. Cf. A 149-50 dvrixvypiov defidv GAASuevov edtoplav Snroi. 7d de edsvvpor aToBoAnY indpLerOar 7} movnpdv te dndot, P. Vit. 24-31 dvtixvyiov de€iov mdAdov onpatver év ayabois yervécOar’ SovA® deoToTiKdy OdvaTor, mapbévy yapov, xIpa d{taBodry,| otpatidtyn mpoxomy. id[doxov ...] avtixyhuiov evevepoy TA4ArOV onuatver dm(dK)dLTOV Blov' S0vrAw apeAlay, Tapbéve voOplav, yijpa TBpw, stpati6rn vwOplav. iddoxov Ala.

128. 1. adAntat, The word is frequently written with one A from this point onwards ; cf. ll. 165, 169, 175, 201, 207, 215.

133. xovdiow probably = xovdicew : cf. for the intransitive use e. g. Soph. Phil. 735 dpri couple d0x6. This seems simpler than to suppose that xovg.ow was intended, supplying e. g. éfev ; cf., however, ll. 19-20, note.

64 NEW CLASSICAL TEXTS

135. In A yaotpoxvyj.ov (sic) intervenes between dvtixvypiov and xepxis, while in P xepxis is preceded by yaotpoxyyjp.ov ; in P. Vit. the order is dvrixvyjp.oy, ayxvAn, yaotpoxvnpta, KepKls.

135-45. Cf. A 153-4 kepxis defi GAAopevn AVY dydroi, 7) SE edadvUpos 6ddv emkepdh SnAot. P. Vit. is closer to 28, kepkis dei eav TAAAN, AvTNOHoEeTar emt Hlrwy! cvyyevdv mpordrar’ dSotAw edroplay, TapIévm Woyor, xhpa apedlar, otpatidty dnodnpiav. tAdoKov “Exdrnv. kepkls edévupos dy TaAAg, dd0v paxpav Anpooddxytov Sydot* SovAw tapaxds, napbéve oyou, xnpa UBpw, orpatidtyn evmoplay. tAdoKov ‘Epyuiv.

146-8. Cf. note onl. 106. A 145-6 has dyxtAn debra GAAomevy andlay Synrot. 7 5é eddvpos edppaciay Sydror: cf. P. Vit. 32-4 dyxddAn deéid TddAAOveA edroplay SnAoi* SovA@ d1aBodyy, Tapbévm yapor, xjpqg dpedlav, orpatiary [65d|v. iAdoxov ‘Epyqv. The particulars for the dyxtAy edévumos are imperfect. It is likely enough that entries for the dyxvAa separately have been erroneously omitted in 28; cf. note on Il. 4-8.

149-59. Cf. A 151-2 yaorpoxynov defvdv GAACpuEvov ampooddkynta aya0a Tact Sndrot. 1d dE eddvYpoV eumddLOV Tijs Tpoxemevns 6000, P. Vit. 39-44 yaortpoxvynula dea éay TadAN, onuatver evropov yevérOar’ SovAw vdcov, Tapbévo yapov, xpa epedlav, otpatidtn mpoxonmnv. trAdoxov “Exdrny. yaotpoxvnula eddvvmos édy maddy, edppactay dndAot" dovrA@ eAevdeplay, TapOevw traplav, xijpa BAGBHv, oTpatidryn edToplav. tAdoKov “Hoy.

156. 1. evwyrvpos.

158. 1, Aum O|noera 3 cf. note on Il. 4-8.

160-230. ‘If the right ankle quiver, it signifies that the person will have unexpected news. If the left ankle quiver, he will be burdened with a trial, and will be acquitted. Ifthe ankle-joint of the right foot quiver, it denotes the approach of grief; to a traveller it will bring distress: pray to Victory. If the ankle-joint of the left foot quiver, it denotes chequered fortune: pray to Nemesis. A quivering of the heels denotes something good. If the right foot quiver, the man will be master of many blessings and possessions, and a slave will become free. If the left foot quiver, it signifies that a man will be deceived over a promise and pledge ; for a traveller on a journey it means hindrance: pray to Hermes. If the little toe of the right foot quiver, it denotes riches: pray to Fortune. If the toe next to the little one quiver, it has the same meaning: pray to Fortune. If the third toe quiver, it signifies trouble, and the man will have strife on account of a female and afterwards gladness: pray to Dionysus. If the great toe quiver, it signifies for a slave that he will become a master and be freed from all pain. If the little toe of the left foot quiver, it denotes that the man will have care concerning another’s affairs, and afterwards joy: pray to Zeus. If the next one quiver, he will be involved in much anxiety and distress: pray to Zeus. If the fourth toe, he will be lord of much wealth and many slaves, and a slave will be his heir. If the fifth toe similarly quiver, he will have wealth on account of a female.’

160-7. Cf. A 155-6 ogvpdv defidv GdACpevov aéderav Synrol. 7d SF edSvUpov vikjoar ev KpiTNplo SndAoi, P. Vit. 53-5 opupdv de€idv madrAov wpedrlav kal eippaciay Syrot SovAw Spedrlar, TapOeévw edvernplay, xnpa Weyor, otparidtn @pediav. tddcxov “HAwy. At this point P. Vit. becomes defective. Papy[Oleus eorar is not a satisfactory reading, but (Se)Bapyyevos would be still less suitable; perhaps BapynOyoerar stood in the original text.

168-77. Cf. A 157-8 dorpdyados defo} mobdds GAASpevos pepysvay Sndot 7) andiav. kal rd (? 6) Tod edwrtpov TO auto.

178-9. Cf. A 159-60 mrépva defid GAXopevy €d TopevOfvat dnAroi. Kal 4 (rd MSS.) rod edwvdpov 76 aire.

180-91. Both A 161 sqq. and P 134 sqq. vary considerably here, not mentioning the feet as wholes, but instead treating of the xoiAov réy TodGv, 7d dve, tapods, TéAua, and TAdyLov Tod Bhwatos. doi (cf. 1. 189) comes in both in connexion with rd xotAov Tod Se€v08 Todds and wéAua, but there is no further resemblance.

187. Some ink-marks in the left margin just below this line could be read as . v or kat, but their significance, if they had any, is obscure.

192-200. Cf. A 170-1 daxrvAos puxpds Tod deki0d Todds GAACpEvOs @pedreLav SyAol. 6 SevTEpos Epyaciay SyAoi.

201-12. There is little resemblance hereabouts with A, which has (172-4) 6 tpiros kal péoos dyabov onpaiver dovAw arodnulav, Tmapbévm UBpiy, xypa edwxiav. Kal 6 per adroy arodnulay SnAot SovA@ Kal mapOevw BAGByv, xnpa

* It does not seem at all probable that the marks in the papyrus above @ of gio» are to be interpreted with Diels as a x representing x(/acov), i.e. dele. I would suggest that the scribe first wrote Ao for pov and that then either he or another added the final » and deleted the horizontal stroke; cf. e.g. 1. 3 and 9, notes.

NEW CLASSICAL ‘TEXTS 65

vooov. év adAois @Pédrerav. 6 péyas amodnplay dndrot* dovAw KatdoTacv, Tapbévw ydpor, xnpa tdapiav. The dvoyes «£108 odds, which do not figure in the papyrus, are then treated collectively and individually.

213-30. A has (181-5) ddxrvdos puxpds edwvtpov Todds GAAOuevos ayabdy onpaiver’ SovAw GAdAayiy deondrov, mapbeve tBpw, xipa evoxlav. 6 devrepos amodnulav ayabiy dynroi sotvdAm edppocdyny, Taplévw ocrpBo{v}Anv, xrpa brorayyv. 6 pécos andiay byrot dovAW apéArcLav, TapIévw vwOpelay, xjpa andiav (airiay or dmopiay coni. Franz). 6 réraptos @peAcayv ard Pirdov dndrot? S0vAw vdcor, Tapbévw yapor, yNpa diaBodyjy. 6 péyas ayaba onpatver peyiora’ dovA@ evroplay, TapIévw yduov, xnpa apederay. The dvvyes are then mentioned, as in the case of the right foot, and finally éAov 76 cépa, with which the treatise concludes.

29. MEDICAL RECEIPTS. 7°5 X73 cm, Third century.

A small fragment of vellum inscribed on the verso (hair-side) with a series of medical receipts in a cursive hand of, probably, about the middle of the third century. The other side is blank, and the fragment is thus unlikely to have been part of a leaf from a book ; it perhaps belonged to a short roll, and the letters in the left margin opposite ll. 9-10 may be the remains of a preceding column, though in that case the lines were very uneven in length. Directions are given for the production and use of tpoxioxou, lozenges or pastilles, for certain ailments, e.g., in ll. 8 sqq., fluxes of various kinds; the ingredients appear to be arranged alphabetically. Prof. Ilberg, to whom I owe a number of sug- gestions on 29 and 29 (a), points out analogous prescriptions in Galen and Paulus Aegineta.

datos Kval@

TpoXiokos pos O[-. 6.02 .2se:--

ev Térapr(ov) (Spaypat) 6, KyKido[s .]. uf...

vos (tpidBodov), pavyyns uiBavov (rpidBodov), Vdalros Kva- 5 for B. avardpBave tpoxiaikous . .

peta olvov Mevdnoiov oe ese

els KOiTHY a Kal Tpwel TyI..-+----

TpoxlaKos Tmpos perma o7louayou eu LYTpas mvevpovos KadXloTOs Ode 10 ].y.( ) dkpws met: eoTw dé apeas.-..- omépp(aros) (Spaypat) B, dvvjoov oéppal[r(os)..-..-- oméppatos (Spaxpy) a (tprdBodrov) (nprwBédov), papddov [amépp(aros) - - [Nev]kod pujkovos .. Tapl.....-.- ie cated J]. pacouro[, . -lov[...... at

1. Bbaros xvalO..: cf. 1. 4. 3. The weight indicated seems to be the pvaciov, but rerdpr(nv) is unlikely with no following figure. 7. Perhaps mpwet r7 [é€ijs.

K

66 NEW (‘CLASSICAL TEXDS

8.sqq. Cf. Galen xiii, p. 90 (Kiihn) ddAn dvédvvos 7 61a omepudrwr, in which various quantities of oeAtrov oméppa, dupews, avicov, papdOpov, dmiov, kacolas peAatvys are to be made up into rpoxicxor civ téart. The source of this receipt is stated to be Andromachus. In Paulus Aegin. vii. 12 a tpoxloxos 61a omepudtwy is composed of dvvyjcov, dupews, papdOpov omépyaros ava (dpaxmas) 5, ceAivov orépparos, drlov, torxvduov om€éppatos ava (dpaxpas) B. Bdare: cf. Aetius, ix. 48.

9-10. kdAdt[oros is rather tautologous with dxpws mvei (rovet), but there is no doubt about the reading and kxowAl[as is quite impossible. Cf. e. g. Galen xiii, p. 95 wove? kal mpos rods ALOidvras ... Kal rots dn ameipyKdoL... diay kaddv. For duelws cf. the parallels quoted in the note on 1. 8; the remains of the third letter suit « better than another ». On the writing in the left margin here cf. introd.

13. [Aev|kod, whichis suggested by II|berg, is quite doubtful, the vestige of the supposed «x being very slight, and the initial lacuna being sufficiently filled by two letters, if this line was accurately ranged with the preceding one. jnxovos (1. jKwvos) was presumably followed by a figure or symbol; ozépyaros cannot be read.

29. (a2) MEDICAL RECEIPTS.

Frag. I 11-2 7-7 cm. Second century.

The following fragments from a series of medical receipts are written in medium-sized cursive of probably the second century. Frag. ris the bottom ofa column, and Frags, 2and 3, which appear to join, form the bottom of a second ; but the relation of these two columns to each other is uncertain. Prof. Ilberg thinks that the prescriptions in Frag. 1 were intended for the eyes, and for this reason the fragment is placed first, since it was usual in receipt-books of this kind to work down the body, starting from the top (cf. 28). The eyes are certainly the subject of the verso of Frag. 1, where some further receipts have been added by another hand. Frags. 2-3, the verso of which is blank, deal with the mouth, and contain a receipt for a tooth-powder (ddovrérpizpa), and specifics for the uvula and for thrush. The width of the columns on the recto is not clearly determined; the lines were at any rate considerably longer than those on the verso of Frag. 1.

Frag. 1. | is vlrvotrovet Kal 7 meT|épeos, Kadpmias [ cu|kdpwov Kat ded[v\as) ype [.]. [ (?) dpluwr(vakod) 1, memépeos [AevKod ef 5 }. oxovv, addo- ontéas da[tpdxov NlevKod (Spaypal) y. oh mlept tav ep Eavtd Expy TO x -[ Japov, méAtTos a, Karyi{tov (?) wv 7d [orléap eyidrvns ary - [ 10 ly FETED xoAy - [ ral. -Jov toa. ad[do

NEW GEASSIGAT LEGS 67

pédTols "AttiKod tadatov Kvabol oKkappjovéeas Botravns Sax[pvdiov ]. €Xatov madatov Kvabio ]- pawa era ap - | GppwviaKkov Kulpnvatcov (Spaypuy) a, pe « [ uf]. tplolén Kat [

Frags. 2 and 3.

Inoov. Tpos Tas €v oTO- [mare Jpas ovat tadaar evader Klolr(vd ) 20 ydu|xuTarou S[ralcuc dpevos ]- ous mpo +. pnodpevos Jaoas Stakdvlov. mpods atladis aypia, timep hev[Koly, ] ddor[rd6]rpimpa 25 Kud]juous Alilyumriovs etous ] paplnivns, oxiorHs ava (Spaxpas) B, Js. mpos kiovidas palrla- ue (?) locuhSldity al.) soot sees. Frag. 3 (?) palyns toa deta [.] [ 30 Jas Xpto[uJevos NY RA Face ] dxaxktas, ae aria (Spaypas) +. - ] mpos adb[a] [Jeyyovol.] - [ Frag. 4. ae ] rags og| 35 ] pera peAuros ] €apwor af ] mpos dure - [ tny “ Kpoxov [ jroo| Frag. I verso. Frag. 4 verso.

40 hurapa- [+ + Jel wlynvOiov [ xXyTae 7 \ufapyvpov | Tapa 7 otvov KoT(UAn) a, 60 povap| €Xalov HpLKOTUALOLY, pr . [

45 \Bavov [la] (Spaypy) a. Seo|

68 NEW GLASSICAD SESS

§ xfo\]\ovpiov 7.. npl[--- dal [. .]. movet mpos Ta Tpl e[7]t TOY Teh€wv Tpa- . °

xéa Prépapa kat Bef[po- 50 pévous KavOovs Kal pev- pa tadauv kai y.[.-]--v Kal Tas TUABOELS ‘Sta- Oéces péeya, movele Kal mpos Ta plelyalra 55 Tpaxepara - |. va ; [-\puwmir per. As

2. men|épeos is very doubtful; the first ¢ is unsatisfactory, and there may be a letter lost after the supposed p.

5. For éo[rpdxov (Ilberg) cf. e.g. Galen xii, p. 347, where onzlas dotpaxoy is recommended both for the eyes and mouth.

8. a, which is not easily combined with the following letters, is probably the numeral, the measure being unexpressed, as in l. 4.

9-10. For oréap éxéévns Ilberg compares Galen xii, p. 331, and for xapaid€ovros xody, Marcell. De Medic. 8. 67; these were both used for diseases of the eye.

13. The supplements were suggested by Ilberg ; cf. Diosc. iv. 170 (ed. Wellmann), Alex. Trall. i, p. 381 (ed. Puschmann).

16. Ilberg is probably right in restoring dypoviaxod (cf. Diosc. iii. 84 dads éore vdpOnKos yeryvopévov ev TH kara Kupivnv AiBin), but it is unlikely that au. [in 1.15 is the beginning of the word since this would imply a narrower column than what seems to be indicated elsewhere in the fragments. Another possibility is o.Adiov (or 6706) which was used for the eyes (Diosc. iii. 80) among other things.

18. Probably not xA}voov.

19. Perhaps écyd|pas, as Ilberg proposes ; but the doubtful p may possibly be & e.g. pilfas. dwcwdllas is less likely. The iota adscript of otyw: was added above the line.

21. Tpod|tlaunoduevos for rpod{tjau(ac)noduevos could be read ; it is noticeable, as Ilberg remarks, that this verb occurs several times in the prescriptions for the mouth in Ps.-Galen xiv, pp. 424 sqq.

23. mimeo here has the Latin form, as in Berliner Klasstkertexte, iii, p. 32, 1.6, 10. For oragis aypia cf. Diosc. iv. 152, where we are told ddovtadylas Opedei ... Kal Abbas Tas ev orduari Oeparredver.

24-6. Various ddovrorp(ypara are specified in Ps.-Galen xiv, pp. 426-7, but the ingredients do not correspond with those here given. kxvd|uovs is due to Ilberg, who compares Diosc. ii. 106 and Galen xii, p. 876 xadds dvarnpel . . . TOUS dddvTaS, €av KUapov Alyimrioy dlxa Tod évTds TiKpOd Aclov TOLGY TapaTpiBns Tovs dddvTas Kal Ta OvAA ima€ rod Erovs.

28 sqq. It is likely that Frags. 2 and 3 belong to the same column, but that they directly join is uncertain. Of the letters in 1. 28 the first « and part of the supposed A belong to Frag. 2. For ceuidadus in specifics for the mouth cf. Ps.-Galen xiv, p. 124 (dvegopor dcpat).

29. palyyns is suggested by Ilberg.

31. Cf. e.g. Galen xii, p. 973 oxLoTI per GAdns Tod Huloeos Kal dAlyns dxaxias, for affections of the xiwv. sxoTH is also recommended zpés xiovtdas in Ps.-Galen xiv, p. 434.

37. Not zpos drcyplovds.

45. If [al] is rightly read, the figure was at first misplaced.

46. Either x{oA}Aovprov or x[o]AAvpuov could be read. What follows may perhaps be 76 rnp[nruxdly, as Ilberg suggests, though this is not particularly satisfactory. The initial Jetter can be 7. A