Oxyrhynchus Papyri Collection

Full text of "Oxyrhynchus Papyri Collection"

Digitized by the Internet Archive in 2019 with funding from Kahle/Austin Foundation
https://archive.org/details/oxyrhynchuspapyr0076unse

THE OXYRHYNCHUS PAPYRI

VOLUME LXXVI

THE OXYRHYNCHUS PAPYRI
VOLUME LXXVI

EDITED WITH TRANSLATIONS AND NOTES BY
D. COLOMO and J. CHAPA
WITH CONTRIBUTIONS BY
J. BARTON
A. K. BOWMAN
W. B. HENRY
F. M ONTANARI
M. PERALE
M. SALEMENOU
G. S. SMITH
A. BENAISS A
H. ESSLER
A. KOENIG
D. OBBINK
O. RANNER
A. SCHATZMANN
S. TREPANIER
G. XENIS
A. E. BERNHARD
E. W. HANDLEY
M. KONSTANTINIDOU
M. C. D. PAGANINI
D./W, . RATH BONE
S. SCHORN
B. H WEAVER

Graeco-Roman Memoirs, No. 97

PUBLISHED BY
THE EGYPT EXPLORATION SOCIETY
WITH THE SUPPORT OF THE
ARTS AND HUMANITIES RESEARCH COUNCIL
AND
THE BRITISH ACADEMY

2011

TYPESET BY

THE STINGRAY OFFICE, MANCHESTER
PRINTED IN GREAT BRITAIN BY
CHARLESWORTH PRESS, WAKEFIELD
AND PUBLISHED BY
THE EGYPT EXPLORATION SOCIETY
(REGISTERED CHARITY NO. 212384)
3 DOUGHTY MEWS, LONDON WGIN 2PG
Graeco-Roman Memoirs issn 0306-9222 isbn 978 o 85698 203 3
©EGYPT EXPLORATION SOCIETY 2011
N. GONIS
D. OBBINK
P. J. PARSONS

General editors
A. K. BOWMAN
J. D. THOMAS
G. B. D’ALESSIO

Advisory editors
PREFACE

This volume publishes the texts presented at the colloquium ‘New Greek Texts from Oxyrhynchus’ and related finds. This daytime workshop for 17 scholars from around the world, followed by a packed evening public discussion, took place in June 2009, convened by Professor Eric Handley (FBA) and Dirk Obbink. The workshop allowed the scholars to examine some of these texts, and then to present them to a wider audience in the evening, considering questions of the language, content, and reconstruction of the texts (‘Did Euripides write two versions of his play Medea?), and how modern methods of imaging work to recover unknown classical texts. A display of papyri, photographs, and other relevant material was also on view (see British Academy Review 14 (Nov. 2009) 28-31).

Included are new texts of Greek drama: one (5075) a dialogue in lyric metre (probably from a tragedy); the other (5076) a play of Old Gomedy that contrasted a never-never land of good government and prosperous market-places with political denunciations of financial mismanagement.
5077 heralds a widely circulating collection of letters (known in antiquity to Gicero, Seneca, and the Herculaneum Library) by the Athenian philosopher Epicurus, with instructions for the circulation of his own writings.

Another is a previously unknown gospel (5072) — or at any rate one offering new sayings of Jesus, together with the story of the casting out of demons at Gadara by Jesus, but omitting the curious but essential element of the swine; there is also a jumbo amulet bearing the opening of the Gospel of Mark (5073). 5074 offers a presentation-grade copy of Cyril of Alexandria’s Festal Letters that truncates the text. A series of Platonic dialogues (5078-5092) constitute the remains of the first part of the Thrasyllan tetralogic division identified so far in the Oxyrhynchus collection. Included are a series of calligraphic copies of Meno and Politicus penned by scribes notable for having copied other works of classical literature at Oxyrhynchus (5088-5090). In 5093 a rhetorician of the imperial period similarly showcases his knowledge of classical literature and tragic poetics, declaiming on Medea’s killing of her children. 5094 charts a discussion of Greek mythology under the pedigree of Apollodorus of Athens, citing (among other works) the lost epics Cypria and Naupactia. 5095 shows the emergence of the authoritative mediaeval commentary on the Iliad , still travelling in a self-standing codex volume.

The working party at the British Academy considered a group of important public documents, among them two that collect prefectural rulings or edicts (5096, 5097). The former harks back to Ptolemaic rule and attests the early formation of collections of Roman legal proclamations; on its back, an advocate appears to prepare his brief, perhaps for delivery at court (5098). Two private letters detail respectively the affairs of a sister’s ill-health (5099), and instructions for transmission of a letter to Theon a strategos , through the intermediary of an ‘Ethiopian' slave as messenger (5100).

We are grateful to Dr James Brusuelas, who compiled the indexes with customary industry, and to Drs Daniela Colomo and W. Benjamin Henry for editorial acumen in the checking and verification of texts and the proofs. Dr Jeffrey Dean provided copy-editing, typesetting, and invaluable advice regarding production, while the Charlesworth Group printed the volume to exacting specifications notwithstanding delays. As a result of the long-standing support of the Aits and Humanities Research Council and the British Academy, the papyri from Oxyrhynchus are made available to an ever-widening audience.

August 2011

D. OBBINK

CONTENTS

Preface v
Table of Papyri Lx
List of Plates xi
Numbers and Plates xi
Note on the Method of Publication and Abbreviations xii
TEXTS

I. THEOLOGICAL TEXTS (5072-5074) i
II. NEW LITERARY TEXTS (5075-5077) 28
III. KNOWN LITERARY TEXTS (5078-5092) 51
IV. SUBLITERARY TEXTS (5093-5095) 84
V. DOCUMENTARY TEXTS (5096-5100) 193

INDEXES
I. Theological, New Literary, and Subliterary Texts 207
II. Rulers and Consuls 212
III. Months 212
IV. Dates 212
V. Personal Names 212
VI. Geographical 212
VII. Official and Military Terms and Titles 212
VIII. Professions and Occupations 212
IX. General Index of Words 213

TABLE OF PAPYRI

I. THEOLOGICAL TEXTS

5072
Uncanonical Gospel?

End of second / beginning of
1
third century
5073

Mark i 1-2: Amulet
GSS/AEB

Late third / fourth century
[9

5074

Cyril of Alexandria, Festal
MK

Late sixth / early seventh
23

Letters 28, 77.944C-949A
century
II. NEW LITERARY TEXTS

5075

Lyric Dialogue from Drama
EWH

First/ second century
28

5076

Old Comedy
EWH

Second/ third century
31

5077

Epicurus (et al), Epistulae ad
DO/SS

Late first / early second
37
familiares century
III. KNOWN LITERARY TEXTS

5078-92

Plato
5078

Alcibiades 1 105 c-D

MCDP

Later second / early third
5 1
century
5079

Alcibiades / 109 a b, iog b
ST

Mid-late second century
53

5080

[Plato], Alcibiades II 146 b-c
AS

Early third century
54

5081

Charmides 166 c, 167 a
HE

Second/ third century
56

5082

Charmides 172 c-d, 173 a-b
MS

Third century
58

5083

Cratylus 423 e
JB

Third / early fourth century
60

5084

Crito 43 b, 45 b e, 45 E -

Second century
61

46 A, 46 C-D

5085

Euthydemus 286 d, 286 e
JB

Third century
64

5086

Laches 179 c-D, 180 a-b
MS

Third century
66

5087

Laches 180 e, 182 b-c (more
BHW

Late second century
68
of LI1 3671)

5088

Meno 72 e, 73 a-b
MK

Second century
70

5089

Politicus 257 b-c, 257 d - 258 A

Second century
72

(more of XXVII 2468)

5090

Politicus 270 d-e
MK

Second century
74

5091

Politicus 299 e, 300 A-B, 300 c
OR

Second/ third century
76

5092

Politicus 305 d - 306 b (more
GX

Early second century
80
of PSI XV 1 484)

TABLE OF PAPYRI

IV. SUBLITERARY TEXTS

5093

Rhetorical Epideixeis
DC

Second half of first century
84

5094

Mythography
MP/WBH

Late second / early third
1 72
century
5095

Commentary on Iliad XII

Fifth/sixth century
•77
and XV

V. DOCUMENTARY

TEXTS

5096

Roman Collection of
DWR

Early first century
•93

Ptolemaic Rulings
5097

Prefectorial Edict
AKB

27 February 62

•97

5098

Advocate’s Speech (?)

DWR

First century
201

5099

Letter of Heras to Theon
AK

Late first / early second
202
and Sarapous century
5100

Letter of Hymenaeus to
AK/MS

18 May 0136

204

Dionysius

JB =J. Barton AKB = A. K. Bowman HE = H. Essler AK = A. Koenig DO = D. Obbink OR = O Ranner AS = A. Schatzman ST = S. Trepan ier

AB = A. Benaissa JC = J. Chapa EWH = E. VV. Handley MK = M. Konstantinidou MCDP = M. C. D. Paganini DWR = D. W. Rathbone SS = S. Schorn BHW = B. H. Weaver

AEB = A. E. Bernhard DC = D. Colomo WBH = W. B. Henry FM = F. Montanari MP = M. Perale MS = M. Salemenou GSS = G. S. Smith GX = G. Xenis

LIST OF PLATES

5073, 5084

VIII.

5093

II.

5072, 5098

IX.

5093

III.

5075,

5076

5089

5077

XI.

5090, 5094

5077

XII.

5088, 5097

VI.

5093

XIII.

5074

VII.

5093

XIV

5096, 5099

NUMBERS AND PLATES

5072

5089

5073

5090

5074

XIII

5093

VI-IX

5075

III

5094

5076

III

5096

XIV

5077

IV v
5097

XII

5084
i
5098

5088

XII

5099

XIV

NOTE ON THE METHOD OF
PUBLICATION AND ABBREVIATIONS

The basis of the method is the Leiden system of punctuation; see CE 7 (1932)
262-9. It may be summarized as follows:
afiy The letters are doubtful, either because of damage or because they are otherwise difficult to read
Approximately three letters remain unread by the editor [a /3y] The letters are lost, but restored from a parallel or by conjecture
Approximately three letters are lost
( ) Round brackets indicate the resolution of an abbreviation or a symbol,
e.g. (apTafirf) represents the symbol crp(arrjy6c) represents the abbreviation crp|

HajSyl The letters are deleted in the papyrus ajS y The letters are added above the line
(ajS y) The letters are added by the editor
{a/3y} The letters are regarded as mistaken and rejected by the editor
Bold arabic numerals refer to papyri printed in the volumes of The Oxyrhynchus Papyri.

The abbreviations used are in the main identical with those in J. F. Oates et aL,
Checklist of Editions of Greek Papyri and Ostraca [BASP Suppl. no. 9, 52ooi); for a more up-to-date version of the Checklist , see http :// scriptorium.lib.duke.edu/ papyrus/ texts/clist.html.

I. THEOLOGICAL TEXTS

5072. Uncanonical Gospel?

29 4B.48/F(i— 4)d 7 x 7 cm End of second / beginning of third century
Plate II

Fragment of a papyrus codex containing part of a non-canonical narrative of the casting out of a demon by Jesus (-*) and some apparently miscellaneous sayings addressed by Jesus to unspecified persons (J). It has become conventional to label and treat most such fragments (e.g. Van Haelst 585-91, 1147, 1151, P. Stras. Cop. 5 and 6, P. Berol. 22220) as ‘unknown’ or ‘uncanonical’ gospels, although it can be difficult to tell what is a gospel (cf. the observations by Th. J. Kraus in the introduction to Th.J. Kraus, M.J. Kruger, T. Nicklas, Gospel Fragments { 2009) 1—6). 5072 can be regarded as an ‘unknown’ or ‘non-canonical’ gospel to the extent that it presents similarities with Synoptic narratives and sayings (and not because it is part of any otherwise known non-canonical gospel). It might have been an abridged version, combining more than one gospel, or an account of gospel stories and sayings recounted from memory.

The hand is a small semi-cursive, upright, with many ligatures, not particularly elegant; it is noticeably rougher across the fibres. The size of the letters is not regular: o and, most of the time, e and c are small, but the rest of the letters can be found in various sizes. There is no decoration and no contrast between thin and thick strokes. Space between letters is usually regular. The script is bilinear on the whole, except for (j) and p, less prominendy 2, and sometimes 1 and y, but the base line is not kept regularly even, r and e are always ligatured, e is sometimes written in two strokes as a semicircle with the horizontal stroke in the middle, extending to the following letter; on other occasions it is written cursively, as a lunate sigma with the horizontal dropping from the upper end and ligatured to the next letter. ©, T,
Tt, and c are usually linked to the following letter; o is floating, and occasionally triangular in shape ; flat 00 is cursively written and hangs from the previous letter.
T and p sometimes have a right-curving serif at the bottom of the vertical; a less prominent serif is also visible at the bottom of 1, y, and the right vertical of tt. The vertical of p often begins almost from the bottom centre of the loop, u is cursively written with a low saddle in the middle and 2 with a rather long horizontal end. k is wide, with the arms extending from the middle of the vertical, although the descending arm occasionally starts from the ascending one. n is written in three strokes, with the oblique prolonged upwards and the final vertical overlying it. B is narrow, with the descending stroke crossing the vertical in the shape of an S. In J4 the left vertical of h curves, as a result of the ligature with the previous letter, y

THEOLOGICAL TEXTS

is written with a more or less vertical upright touching the left arm at a fairly high point; sometimes it is written in one stroke. A is written with the first stroke at a 450 angle, z and, probably, J' are not attested.

The hand shows some features (h, k, it, hanging 00, sometimes y) that could suggest a relatively early date in the second century. However, the y in one movement and cursive ligatured e are better paralleled in documentary texts of the late second century and the beginning of the third century such as LX 4068 (March-
April ad 200) or P. Flor. II 278 ( Scrivere libri e documenti nel mondo antico, tav. cxix) (ad 203-4; see also L 3536, dated by the editors to the third century). 5072 can be placed between V 842 Hellenica Oxyrhynchia (second half of the second century) (Roberts, GLH 17b) and P. Ryl. Ill 463, Gospel of Mary (middle of the third century) (Roberts 20c). A date in the late second century7 / beginning of the third century thus seems probable for 5072.
ye for vie occurs in ->3. The nomen sacrum for vloc is first attested at the end of the second century / beginning of the third century7 (P. Bodmer II = ybG). At the start of — >g, a horizontal bar over sigma suggests another nomen sacrum , perhaps ffc, less likely Ffc (for k would have probably left some traces). Another bar is also visible after ye in —>3 (see 3 n.). 'IepocoXvfxa (f 8) occurs in full, following the usual practice of only contracting LepovcaXrjp, and never lepocoXupua (A. H. R. E. Paap,
Nomina sacra (1959) 106).

I BaciAeia in fg is abbreviated (jSaAeia). This word is not listed among nomina sacra in modern repertoria (cf. K. Aland, Repertorium der griechischen christlichen Papyri, i 420-26) and is very rarely contracted: j8c (for fiaciAeuc) occurs in XVII 2068, perhaps a liturgical fragment dated to the fourth century, and fiAevc and fiAeiav at John 1 :5i and 3:3 in the added portion of the Freer Gospels (W) (seventh or eighth century); cf. jSacAc in a Greek-Coptic bilingual gospel of the sixth century (Aland 070; Paap 1 14). However, it is interesting that, besides the familiar compendia, in P. Egerton 2, an early unknown gospel from the second century which shares with our papyrus some other similarities (see below), we find j3aAev[civ for ^aciXevciv, together with fuo (= Mwvcrjc), rj[cac (= Hcatac), TTpop>ac (= irpoprjTac) and err po<j>evcev (= eirpo(f)r]Tevcev). Note that fiaAeia (5072) and j8aAeu[ct v (P. Egerton 2) follow the same pattern of abbreviating the word (through the omission of the second syllable), which differs from the later examples quoted above. This could point to a common period and may also favour a date for 5072 in the second century.
iepocoXvjia is written with diaeresis (f8). Diaereses are visible over initial v and t in J5, 6, and 10, the last being inorganic. This sign is not common before the second century ad: Z. Aly, L. Koenen, Three Rolls of the Early Septuagint (1980) 7;
Turner, GMAW 2 10 n. 46.

A small oblique stroke above the line must have been used as punctuation in ~ *7> ^4> % 7 > the ink of these strokes seems different (at least in ->7, J4, 7), which suggests that they have been added later by the scribe or by another hand (see

5072. UNCAMONICAL GOSPEL?

Turner, GA'LAW2 9— 10). In 4-4, 5, 7 there seems to be also some space between letters, but, given that the writer is rather clumsy, it is difficult to tell whether here or elsewhere (e.g. ->3) spacing is intended or accidental.

There are no orthographic mistakes. The use of movable nu is correct (see Karepprjccev in — >2 and ei Terlpcrjcev in —>5, and aveKpa^e in — >3), and iota adscript is written where required in ->5.

The loss of margins makes it impossible to determine the size of the page and the amount of text that is missing at the ends and beginnings of lines. Assuming that the restoration suggested in ->5-6 n. and in 4-5-7 n- is correct, we would expect an average of 033-4 letters to the line: this would give a written area width of 012 cm, if the papyrus kept regular margins. Obviously, this should be taken cautiously because it depends on a hypothetical restoration. Line divisions, of course, remain uncertain. Codices with similar written widths show written heights of anything between 15 and 25 cm (cf. Turner, Typology 20-22), i.e. 24 and 40 lines in this script.
Thus, at best 5072 represents only half a page of a codex.

It is clear that in -* the text recounts an episode of the driving out of a demon or unclean spirit. This is proved by the presence of the verb iTrerlpbrjcev (5) in close context with the command e£]eA#e auo tou avdpumov (6), and the expressions rjXjdfc 77 po Kaipov (4) and aveKpa^c Aeyivv ve (3), which are characteristic of Synoptic accounts of healing demoniacs. Although the name of the one who performs the miracle is not clearly attested in 5072, it is almost certain that it must be Jesus (additionally, we should probably read ffc in ->9).

The narrative is mostly reported using words that Matthew and Luke employ in their accounts, but with no exact parallelism and showing no clear dependence upon either, which makes it difficult to restore the text. Some of the expressions are also found in Mark, but not exclusively (except perhaps on one occasion: ->3).
Words such as eKadicev (7) and ev&v [ (10), are reminiscent of the narratives of the healing of the demoniac(s) of Gadara/ Gerasa (and Gergesa) according to the versions of Matthew (8:28-34) and Luke (8:26-39). (The name Gadara will be used in reference to Matthew’s account and Gerasa in reference to Mark’s and Luke’s, following the Nestle-Aland text.) The connection with this episode gains support from the expression npo Koupov (4), which only occurs twice in the New Testament, one of them precisely in Matthew’s account of the exorcism at Gadara (8:29).
However, the narrative of 5072 lacks an essential element of the miracle, the expulsion and drowning of the swine in the lake, for, if the restored text in lines 5-6 is correct, there is no room for this to be supplied in lines 6-7. Other expressions, such as av€Kpa^€ Xeycov (3) and the partially restored €TT€Tip,r)cev avrcoi Ae[ya>v and e'lJtAfle d.770 tov avdpajTTov (5-6), are similar to those found in the episode at the lake, according to Matthew, but have even closer similarities to the description of the healing of a man with an unclean spirit at the synagogue of Gapharnaum in the version of Luke: kcli e-n-erLpcrjcev avrtp 6 Tqcovc Aeycuv, (j)ip,d>dT]ri Kal e^eXde

THEOLOGICAL TEXTS

an’ avrov (4:35 || Mark 1:25). Likewise, the verb eneripL^ccv and the reference to the exit of the demon are also found in the episode of the healing of the lunatic boy in the account of the Synoptics, according to Matthew and Mark: Kal encrLp-rjcev avrcp 6 Trjcovc Kal e^rjAdev an’ avrov to SacpLOVLOV (Matt. 17:18); encrLpLrjccv . . .
Aeycov . . . eyaj cniracca) col, e^cAOe e£ avrov (Mark 9:25); cf. also Luke 9:42-

This lack of a direct connection with any single Synoptic episode makes it difficult to ascertain what precedes and follows Karcpprjcccv (2). This verb does not occur in the New Testament, although in the Gospel of Luke we find Siappijcco) in the healing of the demoniac of Gerasa (8:29) and p-rjccco in the healing of the lunatic boy (9:42); the verb prjcc to also occurs in the parallel passage in Mark (9:18). All things considered, it seems reasonable to conclude that in -»■ we are dealing with a narrative that was inspired by accounts of exorcism recorded in the New Testament, and specifically by the three most developed episodes: the possessed man at the synagogue of Gapharnaum, the demoniac(s) at the lake of Gennesaret, and the healing of the lunatic boy. (Of the three other miracles in the Synoptic gospels that tell of the healing of people possessed by an evil spirit, two are just brief accounts with no dialogue involved — Matt. 9:32-4 and 12:22 1 1 Luke 11:14 — and the third reports the driving out of the demon done from a distance, in
response to the intercession of the mother of the possessed girl: Mark 7:24—30 |j Matt. 15:21—8.) Thus, the text in 5072 appears to be a retelling or summary of the exorcisms which Jesus performed, as they are known to us through the Synoptic gospels. The supposition that the text of the papyrus contained an independent narrative, or even the original story upon which the Synoptic gospels elaborated some of their own accounts, would be difficult to prove. The similarities of language with the first three canonical gospels point to dependence upon the Synoptic story. The damaged state of the papyrus prevents us from knowing whether the aftermath of the exorcism is related to any particular passage in the Synoptics or tells a different story.

In J the affinities of phraseology with the canonical gospels suggest that the papyrus contained a dialogue of Jesus with someone who wanted to follow him or was already a disciple, and sayings that Jesus addresses to various people. In these, the Master lays down some demands in relation to his person, perhaps in connection with the coming of the Kingdom (9). The change of addressees is implied by the presence of ce and ecrj in lines 3-4, and the use of' vpuv in line 5, which vaguely evokes the end of the encounter of Jesus with the rich young man in Matt. 19:21—3, a passage in which there is also a change from second person singular to second person plural in close context. However, in the Gospel of Matthew this change only occurs after some transitional sentences, whereas in the papyrus these are absent and the shift of addressees is abrupt. This apparent lack of logical transition may suggest that the words of Jesus transmitted here were collected from various sayings on related subjects and gathered together out of their original context.

5072. UN CA NOMICA L GOSPEL?

Obviously, it cannot be excluded that the papyrus refers to an encounter of Jesus with an individual in the presence of other people. The sayings probably ended in lines ii— 12, where the narrator seems to resume his account, as p] aOrjTac au[ (12) suggests.

At the beginning of the extant text in J, Jesus seems to ask somebody to confess him and recognize him, perhaps as teacher (see SJSdocaAov in 3). This is suggested
by opoAf (2) and an[apvrjcopLai (3), which are parallel to Matt. 10:32-3 7rdc ovv octlc op.oXoyr}cei ev epcol ep.npoc9ev tojv avdpojnojv, opioXoyrjcoj Kayou ev avTpj epunpocdev tov TTaTpoc p.ov tov ev [tout] ovpavoic- ocTtc S’ dr apvrjcrjTa'i pe ep.npoc8ev tojv avBpojnojv apvrjcopLai Kayo. 1 avTOv, and Luke 12:8—9 ^dc oc dr opLoXoyrjcr) ev epoi epinpocSev tojv avBptonojv , Kal 6 vloc tov avBpwnov opLoXoyrjcei ev avTOJ epvnpocdev tojv ayyeXojv tov 0eov. 6 Se apviqcapLevoc pe evojniov tojv avBpojnojv anapvrjBrjce-
Tai evoj-nLov tojv ayyeXojv tov Qeov. Lhe use of eyou (3) brings the text of 5072 closer to the Gospel of Matthew, but note that the verb a.7Tapveop.ai occurs in Luke.
Jesus’ demands are underlined by expressing the shame that the person who fails to recognize him will experience (e'er} atc[yuro/xeroc, 4), perhaps forever (ec]yara,
5). The verb atcyiiro/xcu has its parallel in Luke 9:26, a saying of Jesus that states negatively, and also by means of a similar contrast, the idea expressed in the sayings previously mentioned: oc yap dr erraicyw 9fj p.e Kal roue ep,ovc Xoyovc, tovtov 6 vloc tov avBpojirov eTraLcyvvBpceTai. (The parallel saying in Mark 8:38 has er rj yevea rauri) t fj pLOLyaXlSi Kal d/xapraiAd) after Xoyovc .)

The text continues with another saying in which Jesus demands a complete detachment from earthly bonds in order to become a worthy disciple of his. This is implied by 9 (£[iAd>r (5) together with vnep ep.e ovk cct[lv (6) and p.a8\r)TT]c (7), which are reminiscent of Matt. 10:37 0 (fjiXdjv rrarepu ij pLTjTepa vnep eye ovk eertr p.ov ol^loc, and Luke 14:26—27 ei tic epyeTai npoc pie Kal ov pucel tov naTepa eavTov Kal ttjv pLT)Tepa Kal tt/v yvvaiKa Kal ra tckv a Kal tov c a8eX<f>ovc Kal rac aSeX<jjac ctl re Kal ttjv ifjvyrjv eavTov ov Surarai eival pLov pLa9r)Tr]c (cl. also John 12:25 o (jjiXojv ttjv ipvyrjv avTov anoXXvei avTrjv).

1'he expression rat Xeyoj up.tr (5) occurs once in Matthew (1 1 :g) but three times in Luke (7:26, 11:51, 12:5).

The rest of the lines are too damaged for any clear parallelism to the Synoptic gospels or any other known text to emerge. But the words el ovv ypappaTi/J (7) in close context with lepocoXvp.a and el co(f>[ (8) point to an extracanon ical saying of Jesus, unless the author of our papyrus rephrased in a completely new way some words later found transmitted in the canonical gospels. In f there are no exclusive parallels to the Gospel of Mark.

All in all, it seems that the language of 5072 is slightly closer to that of Luke than to that of any other canonical gospel, although its laconic way of recounting the story and formulating the words of Jesus has more in common with the way Matthew presents the narratives and transmits the sayings of Jesus than with that

THEOLOGICAL TEXTS

of Luke and Mark. The papyrus also contains some expressions that are exclusive to Matthew. Additionally the sequence of the Synoptic parallels of 5072 may follow the order of the First Gospel (Matt. 8:28-34; 10:32-3, 37 — 8), which might suggest that — > preceded X.

5072 is not related to other fragmentary non-canonical gospels preserved on papyrus (see the list at the beginning of the introd.), except perhaps to two that exhibit a similar mixture of new and familiar elements in relation to the narratives and sayings found in the Synoptics: the previously mentioned P. Egerton 2 (LDAB
4736) and X 1224 (LDAB 5727).

5072 and a section of P. Egerton 2 share the way of telling a story which also has a parallel account in the first three canonical gospels. P. Egerton 2, i— ►, 11—23 recounts the healing of a leper as referred to in Matt. 8:2—4, Mark 1:40—44, and Luke 5:12—14. However, in P. Egerton 2, apart from the words of Jesus and the leper, the story is conveyed differently and its language shows no special dependence upon any one of the Synoptics; besides, some features that are present in all three Synoptics (the leper did obeisance to Jesus; Jesus stretched out his hand and touched him; Jesus ordered him to tell no-one) are lacking in the papyrus. Something analogous can be said of the way in which 5072 ->-2-7 relates to its Synoptic parallels. The core of the narrative in 5072 is a healing of a man possessed by a demon in the language of the first three canonical gospels, but there is no clear influence of any particular Synoptic account. 5072 also lacks some of the elements recorded in the canonical gospels that are central for the story, such as the sending of the demon somewhere else or the departure of the demon amid the convulsions of the possessed man. Other similarities between the two papyri are the use of an uncommon abbreviation (ig and P. Egerton 2, ii— ►, 7 ; see above) and of the word SiSa ckclXoc to refer to Jesus (J3 and P. Egerton 2, i-», 12; ii — 4). Nonetheless, the comparison cannot be pressed too far: P. Egerton 2 is related to one single episode of healing, whereas 5072 might be related to three different ones; besides,
P. Egerton 2 has strong affinities to the language and theology of the Gospel of John, which are not clearly attested in 5072 (although it is also true that P. Egerton 2 does not present Johannine elements in the account of the healing of the leper).

5072 also shows some similarities with X 1224, especially at the level of the sayings (for a recent study on this text, see Th. J. Kraus, ‘Other Gospel Fragments’, in Gospel Fragments 264-80). X 1224, a text that may come from an uncanonical gospel, is dated to the beginning of the fourth century. It preserves the remains of six mutilated columns in two fragments, which may have belonged either to a single-column codex or a double-column book. As in 5072, the poor condition of the remains makes it difficult to reach a clear understanding of the passage. Fr. 2 -»■ ii seems to describe an appearance in a vision of Jesus, who responds to a person’s behaviour and addresses some words of exhortation to him or her; fr. 2 J ii refers to the reaction of Jesus to the offence taken by scribes, Pharisees, and priests at seeing

5072. UNCANONICAL GOSPEL?

him dealing with sinners. Apparently in this context, Jesus replies to his opponents with three sayings (fr. 2 -> i), two that are parallel to Matt. 5:44 and Luke 9:50
(though both are recorded in their respective gospels in a different context), and a third one that is unrecorded: 'He who today is far off, tomorrow will be near to you’ (4—5). The tendency towards abridgement in relation to the Synoptic accounts and the way of linking and combining recorded and unrecorded sayings of Jesus are common to X 1224 and 5072. In addition, according to the editors of 1224, the papyrus shows more affinities with the Gospel of Luke than with any other gospel, a feature that (as has been mentioned) also seems to characterize 5072, at least as regards the language (but note that in 5072 we find ypapLp,arLi<[oc (?), perhaps as synonym of ypapcpLarevc, and in 1224 fr. 2 J ii, 1 we find the word ypa/x/xareu:; see J7-9 n.).

The question of a possible literary dependence of 5072 on other texts known to us remains open. But as often in the case of the apocryphal writings, memory may have played an important role in the making of our papyrus. P. Egerton 2 likely represents the recounting of stories from the Gospel of John and the Synoptics from memory (T. Nicklas, ‘The “Unknown Gospel” on Papyrus Egerton 2
[+ Papyrus Cologne 255]’, in Gospel Fragments 9-120, esp. 107 and 113; see alsoj. K.
Elliott, The Apocryphal New Testament (1993) 38; D. Ltihrmann, E. Schlarb, Flagmen te apokryph gewordener Evangelien in griechischer und lateinischer Sprache (2000) 142—53).
Something similar might be said of the text to which X 1224 belongs, which may have taken shape from oral traditions common to the Synoptic gospels and from some extracanonical material (see Kraus, ‘Other Gospel Fragments’, 278). Thus, if 5072 was not composed (i.e. more or less directly paraphrased) from the canonical gospels themselves, it may have originated from gospel stories orally transmitted which were familiar to the author, based on the accounts (i.e. the narratives of exorcisms) of Matthew, Luke, and, less obviously, Mark, and perhaps on other non- canonical writings or traditions of sayings of Jesus.

We are indebted to Dr R. A. Coles and Professors AnneMarie Luijendijk and J. K. Elliott for their valuable corrections and suggestions.

8 THEOLOGICAL TEXTS

— y

] . vavTLO . [ J . . . Jou [

] aXXaKarepprjcce voca ] yaveKpa^eXeyoov ve ”[

4 ecTrpoKatpovrjjjiacTT *

5 ]€7T€TtpL7]C€VaVTa)iX [ 5

Xdeairorovavd pooTro 'eXdu )V€Kadicev ] . TO)VTT€ . [ J .

]c7T€piCC

10 ] OVCvSu [ 10

]€tTicaura>[

« • « • •

• ♦ ♦ « •

].[

] fit ] OVOpLO

] 8acKaXoveyu)8ecea7r[
]oypiadr]Tr]VK/at€cr]aL
5 ] arav'atXeycovpavo t [ 5

OVVTT€p€pLeOVK€CT\

] 'V)C€' LOVVypapLpLCLTLK[

] L€ pOCoXvpLOLKCUe LCO(f)[

]. ra J . 8e^aXeta[

10 ] evii/x [ 10

] rcovaire ] adrjrac
].[

] ivavrlov .] ovk [
aAAa Karepprjccev oca Jy aveKpa^e Xey oov ve ”[

TjX]deC 7 Tpo KGLLpOV Tptldc 7T

€7T€Tifir]C€v clvt(jl)i Ac[ya>y e£\eX6e oltto tov dvdpoorroy \

] 4 • iXdtDV €KadiC€V ' [ a\\)T(j)y 7 rep[ j l{rjco\ 3)]c 7 reptec J ov cvSu ]ci rtc aura)[

Id j /xcr[ ] . ou op,oA[

8i]8ac/caAov eyd> Se ce oltt[ apvrjcopLCu pi]ov pLadrjrrjv Kal ecrj alc[xvv6j.ievoc cc]ya ra* vat Acyco vpitv 0 <J)[lXu)v av\rov virep epee ovk ecr[tv piad]r]Tr]c- el ovv ypapcpcartKl | lepocoXvpca Kal el c o<f)\

J . Ta V ^ ]8a(ci)Aeia[
c/X77poJc#ev vpLO)[v cvv] erepv ai Tet<[pvifce pi]adr]Tdc a
].[

1 ] . , cross-bar of e, e [, foot of upright and then another foot with tiny curl to the right (similar to the second foot of previous v) and blotted ink between them at line level ] [, visible only the back of i fibres, then upper part of circle on the edge, followed by lower part of upright; lower part of upright [, curved upright as of k, kl 2 [, foot of upright rising from left to right as in n, 1, r, k? ; left-hand part of a horizontal trace below the line level belonging probably to the following line 3 ~[ , left-hand tip of high horizontal bar, almost touching below it the upper part of oblique descending from left to right; foot of oblique sloping from left 4 ]

5072. UNCANONICAL GOSPEL?

cross-bar on projecting fibre 4 [, oblique hanging to the left from the horizontal of tt and over it the start of a descending oblique 5 above ]e on the edge, a trace suggesting right-hand edge of cross-stroke or ascending oblique [, left-hand corner of rhombus 6 ] # , speck linked to cross-bar 4 [, left-hand end of high horizontal 7 ] . ? curved upright with junction at middle top-height # [, left-hand side of semicircle made of two strokes (o, c, e?) 8 ] # , vertical with foot slightly curved to right; right-hand part of horizontal below the line level belonging to nomen sacrum in 9 [3 vertical and more ink on displaced fibres; space for one letter; high horizontal on edge (tt, t?); speck; space for two or three letters; upper right-hand curve of semicircle; vertical capped by high horizontal and foot of upright serifed to right (tt?) 9 second c of ncpicc m [ written over o _ [, left-hand part of a horizontal and traces of vertical (t, tt ?) io ] ,
upright with foot curv ed to right [, left-hand part of semicircle of o, c, e
I

1 ] . [ > foot of oblique rising to right 2 ] . > perhaps right-hand side of kk [ . . . ] . ,
space for three letters; traces at line level of horizontal slightly inclined upwards, bottom of a small loop and oblique descending left to right with foot of a vertical; upright; half semicircle or foot of vertical serifed to right [, lower part of oblique rising to right 4 [, semicircle as of c or e
5 ] , right-hand side of k or x [, foot of a vertical below line level 6 ] , right-hand part of a horizontal at upper line level and vertical with hook to the right hanging from it (t, tt?); trema over v in lighter ink 7 ] . . 5 horizontal linked to vertical topped by another horizontal (t, r?)

9 ] , traces of ends of curves at upper and lower line level (c?) 5 two semicircles overlap ping each other; upper part of vertical joining an oblique descending to right; specks; space for one or two letters; vertical 10 ] , semicircle ligatured with a loop to the cross-bar of following letter # [, loop at upper line level 1 1 ] , semicircle linked to following letter (e, c ?) [,
traces of vertical 12 [, upper part of rather thick oblique rising from left to right, capped by descending oblique, then tip of oblique parallel to it 13 ] [, horizontal at upper line level,
perhaps from a nomen sacrum
— ►

1 J cvavrloy ovk [. After ] vavrto # , where the papyrus breaks off, only the bottom traces of the line remain. The context of an exorcism suggests that the possessed man comes to meet Jesus or is brought in front of him: see for example Luke 8:27-8 VTrpvrpccv avrjp tic . . . ISebv Sc top Irjcovv avaKpa^ac Trpoccircccv avrep] Matt. 8:28 vrrrjvrr]cav avrep S vo 8 ou^iov i^opbcvoi (Mark 5*6 reads /cat tScov rov 'Irjcovv a7To puaKpoOcv eSpa/xcv /cat irpoccKvvrjCcv avrep). Cf. also the healing ol the lunatic boy in Mark 9:20 /cat rjvcy /cav avrov rrpoc avrov (in Matthew and Luke’s parallel accounts, it is Jesus who asks the father to bring the boy before him) and Luke 5:19 KaOrjKav avrov cvv rep /cAtvtStaj etc to puccov cpuTTpocdcv tov ! 'Irjcov . Tentatively, we could think of cvavrloy \r]gy m [.

After ov there is a curve similar to the beginning of kk in 4, but k cannot be ruled out. ovk might be supported by the presence of aAAa in 2 (cf. Blass— Debrunner §448.1).

2-3 Karcpprjccev oca [. o is somewhat separated from the previous and following letter. If the restoration in 5-6 n. is correct and we assume a more or less regular margin, the missing text cannot be very long. We have space for about fourteen letters, which makes it difficult to supply a complement for Karcpprjccev and an appropriate beginning for the next sentence.

The verb Karapprjccejo does not occur in the New Testament. The later use of Karapprjccev for Karapprjyvvpu is little attested (although the use of prjccexj for prjyvvpu is common; sec Bauer s.v. rrpocprjccex), and Blass-Debrunner § 101.72). The normal meaning of Karapprjyvvp,L in active and middle voice is ‘break down’, ‘tear in pieces’. Its use is related to destruction of things (cf. LSJ s.v. 1). This might find its parallel in the episode of the healing of the demoniac in the territory of the Gerasenes, in

THEOLOGICAL TEXTS

which, according to Mark and Luke, the possessed man broke any fastening with which he was tied up.
Specifically, Luke 8:29 says that the demoniac was bound with chains and fetters, which he broke: /cat cSccjjlcvcto clXvccclv kcll ttcSolc (f)vXaccopL€VOC, kcll 8iapprjccwv ra 8ccp.a (cf. Mark 5:4 /cat SiecTracOai vi t' avrov rac olXvcclc /cat rac TrcSac cwrcrpt^O at). This would be the closest parallel for our text, suggesting for example oca §[ccp,a iSccpLcvov avrw. This supplement, however, is probably too long The reference to crSiy [ in 10 might suggest the idea of the demoniac tearing his garments: aAAa Karcpprjcccv oca tf/xaTta ivcSvcaro. Luke mentions that the possessed man was not wearing clothes: ovk ivcSvcaro IpLartov (8:27; this is also implied by Mark and Matthew wrhen they report that the man was properly dressed after being healed, as Luke also does). In this case ovk [cycov cvSvfxa could also be an appropriate supplement in the previous line (cf. Matt. 3:4, 22:12, and Or. Horn, i-jg in Lc. 23.142 tic 8c ccTiv 6 pLT](8c cv) cvSvpca c'ywv TTcpl rov xp^xa). Again, this is speculative, and the supplemented text might be too long.

Another restoration, which in this case suits the requirements of space, would be oca lX^Xve-
I he use of Icyvw as ‘be able’ is common (cf. Bauer s.v. 2. a; Lampe s.v.): Ps.-Just. Confut. 145. c. 6 ovk apa ttolcl 6 Ococ oca ovXcrai, aAA' oca IcyvcL ; Thdt. Com. in Is. 12.217 “rravra* ’ yap cj) rjcLv "oca rjBcXrjccv 6 Kvptoc CTTOirjccv”, oi )y oca i'eyveev aAA’ oca rjdcXrjccv. The use of oca in absolute sense (cas many’, ‘as much5) is also wfell attested in the Newr Testament (cf. Bauer s.v. ococ 2; see for example Matt. 17:12 aAAa cttoItjcov cv avrw oca rjOcXrj car). Note that the verb Icyvw occurs in the episode of the demoniac(s) of Gadara/Gerasa according to Matthew and Mark, used in the sense of ‘being able5: were perj IcyvcLV tlvcl irapcXOciv 8lcl rrjc o8ov ckclvtjc (Matt. 8:28); ov8clc Lcyvcv avrov SapcacaL
(Mark 5:4). Acts 19:16 uses the verb Icxvco to express the powrer of the demons to control other people:
KaraKvpicvcac aptefyorepwv lcxvccv Kar* avrwv were yvpcvovc /cat rerpavfaaTLCpLevovc cK(f)vycLv ck rov olkov ckclvov. In any case, the proposal still remains very speculative.

Taking into account the synthetic way in wTich 5072 seems to recount a story that is also contained in the Synoptic gospels, I have also considered the possibility of understanding Karapprjccw as intransitive, with the meaning Tall to the ground5, close to the meaning of prjyvvpu (‘break forth5, cf.
LSJ s.v. c) or of Karappaccw (‘to fall down’), which might be easily confused with Karapprjccw (cf. LSJ s.v. Karappaccw). The verb prjcccL occurs in the healing of the lunatic boy according to Mark 9:18 in the sense of ‘throwing to the ground : /cat ottov cav avrov KaraXaprj prjccci avrov, /cat a</>pt£ct /cat rpl^CL rove oSovrac /cat £ rjpaivcraL . The parallel passage of Luke 9:39 has crrapacccL in the sense of throwing into convulsions : /cat lSov TrvcvpLa XapcfiavcL avrov /cat i^alcfyvrjc KpaCcL Kal crrapaccei avrov p.cra acfypov (D and a Latin MS (e) read prjcccL /cat crrapacccL). But further down, when Jesus meets the boy, Luke uses prjccw: cVt 8c npoccpyopievov avrov cpprj^cv avrov to SaLpcoviov Kal cvvccrrapa^cv (Lk. 9:42). Here Mark’s parallel passage shows certain variation: /cat 18 wv avrov to TrvcvpLa cvOvc cvvccTrapa^cv avrov, Kal ttccwv cttl rrjc yrjc ckvXlcto a^pi^wv (Mk. 9:20). Matthew’s narrative (17:15) is more synthetic and departs from Mark and Luke. The boy’s convulsions are mentioned by the pleading father : KvpLc, cXcrjcov pLov rov vl ov, bn ceXrjv Lateral Kal /ca/ctoc Tracer ttoXXclklc yap ttltttcl etc to rrvp Kal ttoXXclklc etc to v8wp.

Finally, it must be said that the traces of ink exclude 0 Caravdc (and most likely 6 Captapclnjc) and that the transitive use of Karapprjccw and spacing do not suggest reading ocolk[lc cav avrov KaraXafirj , as a parallel to the passage of the healing of the lunatic boy according to Mark 9:18: /cat ottov cav avrov KaraXafirj prjcccL avrov.

3 Before aveKpatje Xcywv we expect something like 18 wv 8c avro]v or I8wv 8c rov T\v. We find a similar expression at the exorcism at Gerasa in Luke 8:28: I8wv 8c rov 7 rjcovv avaKpagac rrpoccTrcccv avrw Kal (jywvfj pLcyaXrj clttcv (cf. also Mark 9:20: /cat 18 wv avrov to TrvcvpLa cvOvc cvvccTrapa^cv avrov). Space favours 18 wv 8c rov t]F, but the expected traces of the horizontal bar of the nomen sacrum are not visible.

The verb avaKpa^w occurs in the episode of the exorcism at the synagogue of Capharnaum—

5072. UNCANON1CAL GOSPEL?

the only case in which Mark offers the best parallel! Kal evSvc rjv iv rfj cvvaycoyfj a vtqjv avOpconoc iv TTvevfxan aKaOaprco Kal a veKpa^ev Xeycvv (Mark 1 123-4). the same account Luke says, rjv dvdpcorroc eycAV TTvevpua Saip^ovlov aKadaprov Kal aveKpa^ev <f>a)vfj pieya Ap (Luke 4:33). In the exorcism of Ger- asa, Luke reports that the possessed man avaKpa^ac rrpocerrecev avrep (Luke 8:28; cf. 23:18 aveKpayov . . . Xeyovrec). The parallel passage of Matthew (8:29) reads Kal ISov eKpa^av X eyovrec. This combination ol Kpal, to with A eyoj is more frequent in the First Gospel (cf 14:30, 15:22, 20:30, 20:31, 21:9, and 27:23), but it also occurs in Mark 3:11, John 7:37, and Acts 16:17 and 19:28.

3—4 ve 7[- Some faint stains before the papyrus breaks might be remains of blotted ink. In the exorcism at the lake the versions of Mark (5:7) and Luke (8:28) say, rl epiol Kal col, Irjcov, vie rov 8eov rov viplcrov; opKi^co ce rov deov (Luke: Scoptal cov), perj pie ft acavlcpc . The parallel passage of Matthew (8 :2g) reads tl rjpiv Kal col, vie rov 8eov; rjX9ec <L8e tt po Kaipov fiacavlcai 17/xac. At the synagogue of Gapharnaum the possessed man shouts, rl rjpiv Kal col, Irjcov Na^aprjve; fjXdec arroXecai rfpidc (Luke 4:34 / / Mark 1 *.24). The closeness of the text to the two episodes of driving out demons suggests the restoration ve \ , rl epiol Kal col, rjX]8ec , since it occurs in both contexts, at the lake and at the synagogue of Capharnaum.
ve occurs abbreviated in this form in Didym. Caec. In ^achanam 2.205 (Van Haelst 647) with overline and in Actajuliani (Mem. Miss. arch. fr. IX 1892/3, 333 and 146, 68.1; Van Haelst 707; Pa- nopolis, 5th/ 6th century) in profane use without being overlined. As a nomen sacrum vie is attested in P. Chester Beatty I (S)T5). Cronert, Mem. graec. here. 123 n. 5, notes inter alia ve in cod. Alexandrinus in LXX, 'Q&al 14.13.

The traces are difficult to match with any expected reading. The blotted ink might belong to a deleted word, which could explain the wider space between ve ~[ and the following nomen sacrum.
The papyrus might have just read ve 8[v , which is the closest parallel to the Synoptic texts (without article in Eus. in Ps. 67 \PG 23.684], Or. in Matt. [GCS 16.13]), but the traces are difficult to match with 0.

I have also tried i7[ for ve v[ipicrov , because vie rov vifjlcrov is the reading of D 892 i424
2542 pc 1 vgrn in Luke 8:28 (see also Luke 1 132 vloc vifilcrov KXrjdrjceraL and Sir. 4:10; Protev. 24) but the traces are not very encouraging. Besides, vifncroc is not attested as nomen sacrum elsewhere (to suggest that the scribe abbreviated it, as he did with fiactXela in ^9, is too speculative). The reading ve S[aS for vie AavlS (cf Matt. 9:27, 15:22, 20:30, and parallels in Mark 10:47, 48) does not seem to match the traces either. v[ may match the traces, but, again, a nomen sacrum beginning with v is not attested.
The reading W[ cannot be completely excluded, which would suggest 7r[pc. However, we would have to assume that Jesus is addressed with a rather surprising title in a gospel story. ‘Son of the Father' is obviously a common early title for Christ, mostly with article, but it is not found with this wording in the New Testament. With no article it is occasionally attested in Christian writers (e.g. Ign. Rom. 1 acrrdi^opLaL ev ovopban Irjcov Xpccrov , vlov rrarpoc).

4 rjX\8ec rrpo Kaipov. The words are similar to the exorcism at the lake according to Matthew: rjXdec c oSe rrpo Kaipov fiacavlcat rjpiac (Matt. 8:29). Matthew is also the only one of the Synoptic gospels to use the expression 77po Kaipov (which occurs once more in the New Testament, in 1 Cor.
4:5). A similar complaint of the demoniacs about Jesus but with no temporal reference occurs in the exorcism at the synagogue of Capharnaum narrated by Mark and Luke: fjXdec arroXecai rpaac (Mark 1 :24 // Luke 4:34).

77 [. After the clear tt the remains suit a. We would expect a synonym of fiacavlcai (cf. Matt.
8:29) or a77oAeccu (cf. Mark 1:24, Luke 4:34). A good option would be to restore 77a[pa7roAecai. The verb TraparroXXvpu, which also has the meaning ‘destroy’, does not occur in the New Testament or in the Septuagint, but it is not uncommon in documentary papyri from the second/third century (IV
705 73; XXXIV 2709 20; BGU II 388 11 10; see also Bauer s.v.). It is, however, mostly used in the middle or passive voice, and rarely in the active (Eus. d.e. 4.13; [Cyr.] coll IT [PG 77.1289]).

5—6 Out of the fourteen occasions in which err erlpirjcev occurs in the Synoptics, eight are in

THEOLOGICAL TEXTS

episodes of exorcisms or healings (including the calming of the storm at the lake and the healing of Peter’s mother-in-law). The elosest parallel to 5072 would be the words of the exorcism at the synagogue of Capharnaum: /cat enertptrjeev avreo 6 Irjcovc Xeycov, cj. ^tptcodrjrt /cat e^eXBe an' avrov (Luke 4:35 and Mark 1:25; ef. also the exorcism of the lunatic boy in Matt. 17:18 /cat enertptr]eev avreo 6 hrjcovc /cat e^fjXBev an' avrov ro 8atptovtov). The language is also characteristic of aneient rituals of exorcism (for instance, PGM IV 1243—4 e£eX Be, 8atptov, . . . /cat anoerrjBt ano rov 8etva’, see also IV
3013, V 125-6, 129-31, 158, and G. H. Twelftree, Jesus the Exorcist: A Contribution to the Study of the Historical Jesus (1993) 38-9). Thus, the papyrus might have read o Sc tc] enertptrjeev avreo t Xe [ycov ptpteoBi]rt /cat c£]eA Be an 6 rov avBpconov.

7 ] / eXBcbv eKaBteev . At the beginning of the line, the traces suggest Y rather than 1, which is normally more vertical.

At this point we do not have parallels for a good restoration. Between avBpconov (6) and eXBeov , we should expect a description of the demon leaving his vietim amid convulsions and shouting as in other New Testament exorcisms (Mark 1:26, 9:26, Luke 4:35), but punetuation and the expected spacing allow for only a few words. We might restore [6 Sc anrjXBev \ e^rjXBev an’ avro]y (ef. Matt.
8:32, the exorcism at the lake: ot [sc. S atptovee] Sc e^eXBovree anrjXBov etc rove x°'L pove] Matt. 17:18, the healing of the lunatic boy: /cat e^rjXBev an ’ avrov ro S atptovtov', and Luke 5:13 (|( Mark 1 :42): /cat evde coc rj Xenpa anrjXBev an' avrov). A restoration based on the parallels of the healing of the lunatic boy, sueh as [/cat ovroe eBepanevB\r] (ef. Matt. 17:18) or [/cat o tc iaearo avro\v (ef. Luke 9:42), does not seem very promising and is difficult to match with spacing and traees.

For the wording of eXBeov in combination with eKaBteev, see Chrys. Horn. 1—55 in Ac. 3 (PG
60.354) °Pa> evdeeoc eXBeov eKaBteev ini rov firjptaroe.

Although biblical Greek does not follow fixed rules in the use of the movable v, and MSS almost invariably write it (Blass-Debrunner § 20), its presence in eKaBteev suggest that the traees following it might belong to o rather than e, for Karepprjeeev and enertptrjeev in 2 and 5 and aveKpa^e in 3 show that the scribe is consistent in following the classical norm. Thus, a supplement beginning with c seems unlikely, although a word sueh as fcoppovtov would not be inappropriate, bearing in mind that a reference to the healing is needed and the passages of Mark and Luke on the exorcism at Gerasa reeount how the people of the town came to see what the herdsmen had told them and found the man from whom the demons had gone sitting at the feet of Jesus, elothed and in his right mind: /cat evpov Kadrjptevov rov avBpconov a<p’ ov ra 8atptovta e^rjXBev Iptarteptevov /cat ecoppovovvra napa rove no8ae rov 7 rjeov (Luke 8:35* ef. Mark 5: 15 Becopovetv rov 8atptovt£>optevov KaBrjptevov Iptarteptevov /cat etoppo- vovvra). Punctuation and, probably, the need of a subject might favour restoring just 9 [avBpconoe.

8 a]yrd)y. There are several possibilities of restoration, ev pteeco a\yrcby would suit the context (ef. Luke 2:46 KaBe^optevov ev pteeco rcbv StSac/caAeotg Jer 46:14 /cat eKaBteev ev pteeco rov Xaov ; Ev.
Barth. 3.1 /cat anrjXBev peer’ avrebv etc to opoe teal eKaBteev ev pteeco avrebv). This would be favoured by the expression etc ro pteeov in the exorcism at the synagogue in Luke 4:35. But peer’ a]vra>v would be equally possible, and perhaps more appropriate for the space, if a subject is needed after eKaBteev (ef. Judges (A) 19:4 /cat eKaBteev pter ’ avrov).
uep[ ] . J At this point the papyrus is much damaged. The exorcism of Gerasa accord ing to Luke refers to the healed man seated at the feet of Jesus: /cat evpov Kadrjptevov rov avBpconov . . . napa rove no8ae rov Irjeov (Luke 8:35; ef. Mark 5:15). This might favour restoring nep[t\-
7rr[uca]c ro[ac nohae Tv, whieh would suit the traces (the reading 7rep\t]nr[v^a]e n[o8ae Tv eannot be ruled out), neptnrveeco does not occur in the New Testament or the Septuagint, but it is attested with the meaning of embracing somebody’s feet. See Chr. pat. 1225 8 ’ evBve /cat neptnrveeet no8ae ; Mich. Psell. Theo. 73 at Sc 8vo rove noSae neptenrveeovro ; P. Berk Sariseh. 17,3—4 (7th cent.) neptnrveeop^at rove no8ae rov Beo<pv[XaKrov p,ov ] Seenorov 8ta rov pterptov ptov ypaptptaroe. Spacing would also suggest the omission of the article before Irjeov in the restored line (in Luke 8:35 the

5072. UMCANONICAL GOSPEL?

article before Fqcov is omitted by SJ>75 and B; see also Or. Fr. 1-112 in Lc. [GCS 9.113] ; Schol. in Lc. 8,39
\PG 1 7*33^1 jj°- D. Parall 10. 1 [TG 96.56]). However, ^e/?[i]7rT[u£a]c may not make sense, if the healed man was already seated; besides, the use of the participle is more common before the verb. So perhaps we should relate 7T€p[ to ircptcc [ in the following line.

9 For l(r]cov c) see introd.

7T€pt€c ' [. Where the papyrus breaks, the traces are closer to ctt in 4 than ct in J6. If we read tt€ pi€C7T [, this could lead to restoring Tr€pt€CTr\ac€ or 77€ptec7r[acaTo. The verb ircpiciraw occurs in the passive in the Gospel of Luke in the sense of 'being distracted or busy' (Luke 10:40). In the active it can mean ‘to strip off5 (cf. LSJ s.v. 1.1; D.S. l9-9 Kat ravTa Xiywv to piiv apivStov a vrov Trcpiiciracc, to S’ IfiaTLov {i€Ta\afi(bv aTTjj€L \ see also Plu. Me. 8.6 irepicTracac to IpiaTiov ), which allows for a certain relation to cvSiy [ in the following line and a connection with the exorcism at the lake. But in Luke’s narrative of the exorcism in Gerasa, at the beginning of the episode, the possessed man is presented as wearing no clothes: ovk ivcSvcaTo IpiaTiov (Luke 8:27; similarly, Mark 5:15 recounts towards the end of the episode that the villagers found the man sitting there clothed). The reading TT€pL€cir[ac€ would be possible if we assume that the possessed man wns wearing old clothes, which Jesus removes before covering him with new ones. The use of the verb Trcptcnaw with this meaning might also be favoured by the use of Siacnaw in Mark 5:4, in which we are told wiiat the possessed man did with the chains he had on him, for the papyrus seems to like using words of similar root to those of the Synoptic narratives (see the use of KaTapprjccw above). But there is no close Synoptic text that might offer a parallel for a good restoration.

7T€pi€cir[acaTo in the middle sense could also be understood as ‘removing oneself' from someone or something, so that one could posit that according to 5072 Jesus did not want the man to touch him (a reminiscence perhaps of pi-q piov oltttov in John 20:17, where the embracing of Jesus’ feet might be implied; see also Matt. 28:9). Thus, wo might expect something like 7T€pi€CTj[acaTo air ’ avTov and assume that Jesus would then order him to be covered with some clothes or something similar.

A reading of r instead of tt would suggest 7TcpiicT[ciXcv. The use of ircpicTcXXw is not attested in the Newr Testament, though its use in the Old Testament and early Christian literature with the meaning of wrapping something in either a literal or a metaphorical sense is common (Bauer s.v.).
The presence of evSv [ in the following line would suggest a relation between the two words. But nepicTcXXw can also mean ‘totake care’, ‘to defend', 'to protect' (cf. LSJ s.v: ncpicTcXXw, 111.2), which multiplies the number of possible senses of the text.

10 ] ov erSty [. Before the break, both c and o suit the traces. So erSuc[cu or another infinitive as woll as a participle such as iv8vo[pi€vov are possible. In any case, this recalls the story of the exorcism at the lake according to Luke 8:35 and Mark 5:15, in which the people of the town who went to see wiiat had happened to the man who had been possessed by the devil found him sitting down and IpiaTicpiivov.

Very speculatively, it might be possible to posit an order of Jesus with the verb kcXcvw (c.g. Matt.
8:18, Luke 18:40): o Se rfc 7 T€pi€CT\eiXev avTov Kal ipiaT]iov erSiic[ou €K€ Xevcev (cf. Acts of Paul and Theda, 38 Kal rafra aKOVcac 6 rjyepicov tKeXevcev eveyOrjvat ijiana Kal eirrev evhvcai ra IpiaTia).
But there is nothing in the text to support it.

11 ]et tic avTO)[. Although the first two letters are damaged, ei seems quite likely. The text admits several supplements, but none of them has a good gospel parallel.

i
2-5 For parallels to these lines wo refer to the following sayings of Jesus in the Synoptic gospels :

A(l) Luke 12:8—9. Xcyoj Se vpi lv3 1 lac oc av ofioXoyrjcrj iv ipiol cpiirpocdcv twv avdpwirwv , Kal 6 uloc tov avdptoTTOV opLoXoyrjccL iv avTpj cpnr poedev twv ayycXcov tov Qcov. o 8e apvrjcaptcvoc p,c ivojiTiov twv avdpwirwv aTrapvrjdrjccTai ivwiriov twv ayyiXwv tov Qcov.

THEOLOGICAL TEXTS

A(2) Matt. 10:32—3. 77-ac ovv oct tc optoXoyrjcet iv iptol cptnpocdcv tcov avdpdmcov, opoXoyTjcco Kayd> iv qlvtu) cptrrpocdcv rod irarpoc ptov tov iv [rote] ovpavotc • 33 oeTte 8 av apvrjcrjrai pc eptirpocdev tcov avOpconcov apvr)COf.iai Kayo) avrov eptrrpocOcv tov iraTpoc pov tov cv [toic] ovpavotc .

B(i) Luke 9:26. oc yap av iiraicywOf) ptc Kal tovc ipovc Xoyovc, tovtov o vtoc tov av6pa>7rov iTraLcyvvdrjccTat, orav eA 6rj iv Tjj 86^7] a vtov Kal tov iraTpoc k at tcov ayttov ayycXcov .

B(2) Mark 8:38. oc yap iav inatcyvvdfj pte Kal tovc iptovc Xoyovc iv tt] yeved tovtt] tt\ pot- yaXtSt Kal apapTcoXco, Kal 6 vtoc tov avOpconov iTratcywOrjccTat ai>TOv , orav cXOtj iv Trj 86£j) tov rraTpoc a vtov pCTCi tcov ayycXcov tcov dyicov.

2-3 ] ct[ J t ov optoX[. The first traces may belong to u. After cr[# # J the remains suit A or w, linked to the bottom of another letter, perhaps A (as in SJSac/caAov in the following line or ypaptptaTtK[6c in J7); k is also possible but less likely. After that, there is the foot of a vertical and a curve. ] # # icoo is perhaps the most likely reading, but ] ijov cannot be completely ruled out. After opto there is a small oblique suitable for either a or ka.

If optoX[ is correct, the presence of cc in the following line suggests that Jesus is here telling somebody (or uttering a general statement but addressed to a single person) that if hc(?) does not confess him as master, Jesus will not recognize him as his disciple. This would be reminiscent of Luke 12:8-9 (cf. Matt. 10:32-3; see also John 13:13 vptclc c^covcltc ptc 6 8t8dcKaXoc). But it is difficult to guess what the papyrus read before this, although we would expect some negative conditional statement.

This context also suggests the restoration of drr\apvr]coptat in 3 (cf. Luke 12:9 drrapv^d’pccTat quoted above). I have not found parallels for the verb arrapvcoptat expressing the rejection of somebody as disciple, but air\apvr}coptai ctvat pt]ov ptad^Trjv would not be impossible; see also Luke 22:34 r ptc ptc a.7 Tapvrjcr] ctScvat.

4 oue[, A is almost certain. alc[xvvoptcvoc fits the context of the previous lines: Jesus would be telling his addressee that if he does not recognize him as master, Jesus will not accept him as disciple, and he will be ashamed. This is parallel to Luke 9:26 and Mark 8:38, quoted above. The wording ccrj alcywoptcvoc is found in [Chrys.] Fug. spec. (PG 48.1074) rj^ct Katpoc otc to TTpoctxnrciov tovto ptpac yvptvoc cvpcdrjcr] , Kal totc cc r] a tcywoptcvoc ocf)drjvat tco Trpocdmco tov 0cov.

5 Jxaro. At the beginning of the line there is a trace of an oblique ascending from left to right beyond the normal height of the letters, which does not fit the upper oblique of k. We can think of x, but there is not another visible x in the text to confirm how the scribe wrote it.

If we allow for x, we could restore etc ra ecj^ara, perhaps as a way of expressing that the shame that the disciple will have to endure for not recognizing Jesus will last forever. Jesus’s words in the texts of Luke 9:26 and 12:8-9 quoted above are in fact said in an eschatological context and also suit this restoration. As referring to time, clc to ccx^tov in absolute sense is common (see LSJ s.v. 1.4 and Bauer s.v. 3); the plural is unusual but occurs in LXX 2 Sam. 2:26 ovk ofSac otl utKpd ccTat etc ra ccxaTa] see also Didym. Trin. {PG 39.920) o roue icoptcvovc clc ra eexetra ifjevSoTTpoprjTac TTpocrjptavac.

At the end of the line, only the foot of a vertical that seems to extend below the line is visible.
What follows in the next line makes it likely that we should read (j), as in 8.

5-7 For a possible restoration of the text, the following parallels from the Synoptic gospels and the Gospel of Thomas are relevant:

Matt. 10:37—8. o ptXcov TraTCpa 7) ptirjTepa vircp ep,e ovk cctlv ptov a£toc Kal 6 (f>tXd)v vtov t) ovyaTCpa vircp cptc ovk ccTtv ptov a gtocm Kat oc ov Aaptpavct to v CTavpov a vtov Kat aKoAovoct orrtcco ptov, OVK CCTLV ptov Ot^LOC.

Luke 14:26—7. ct tlc cpxer at irpoc ptc Kal oi) ptcct tov iraTCpa cavTov Kal ttjv ptTjTcpa Kal tt)v yvvatKa Kal ra tckv a Kal tovc a8cXcf)ovc Kal rac a8cX(j)dc ct t tc Kal ttjv pvxf’ cavTov, ov SvvaTat

5072. UNCANONICAL GOSPEL?

clvat jxov p^adrjrrjc. 27 octlc ov j8 acrdi^ci rov cravpov cavrov fiov pLadr)rrjc.

Kdl €pX€TdL OTTLCO) piOV , OV SvvaTCLL CLVdl

Luke 14:33. ovrcoc ovv rrdc vpid)v oc dvva rat ctval pbov pLadrjrrjC.

ovk arroraccerat 7ractv rote cavrov vi rapyovciv ov

Gospel of Thomas 55. nenMecTe neqeicDT an mn TBqMAAy qNAcy pmaohthc an nasi Ayco n q m bctb NBqcNHy mn NeqccoNe Nqqei MTTBqeJ’oe nta£B qNAtyamB an eqo na^ioc nabi

Gospel of Thomas 101. obtambctb nBqB[Bia)T a]n mn TBq m AAy nta£b q n Acy p m [a—
©HTH]c [na]B! AN Aya) TTBTAM p pB TTB[q B I CUT AN MN t] Bq M AAy NTA£B qNAO)pM[A-
0HTHC NA]b) AN

6 (f)[i\d)v --- au]rou vrrep epic ovk cct[lv — pLa0]r)Tr)c. The lacunae can be restored according to the line of reasoning expressed in the texts quoted above, but space probably allows for only one word as the object of <f>iXd)v. It does not seem very likely that 5072 read Wpa rj JTpa , abbreviated as nomina sacra , as sometimes occurs in profane use (see Paap 103-4, 113). Perhaps the text read 9 <£[iA wv rrjv ifivxrjv a v\rov (cf. Luke 14:26, above, and perhaps John 12:25 6 piXcbv rrjv ifivy^p avrov dr toXXvcl avTjjv).

In 6—7 we could restore ovk cct[lv piov a|toc clvat pLad^rpc from the Synoptic parallels. The supplemented text is a combination of ovk cctlv piov d£toc of Matt. 10:38 and ov Svvarat clvat piov pLadrjrrjc in Luke 14:27 (see also Luke 14:33, above). For the restored wording, see Or. Jo. 32.32.398
(be 8r)X ol to oc av per) app) rov cravpov avrov Kal aKoXovOpcci ottlcoj piov, ovk cctlv piov a^ioc civai pi aOrjrrjc . Dr Henry observes that this resotration exceeds the corresponding area of writing on ->5-6
(assuming the supplements proposed are correct), but that ovk cct[lv cpcov d£ioc pLad]p]rrjc would fit.

7-9 I cannot find any parallels for these lines. Sentences beginning with cl ovv are found among the sayings of Jesus in Matthew and Luke (Matt. 6:23, 7:11 || Luke 11:13, Matt. 22:45, Luke 11:36, 12:26, 16:11; see also John 13:14, 18:8). The text suggests a certain parallelism between the sentence continuing with ypapLpLarLt<\ and that continuing with co<f>[.

The word ypapcpuarLKoc does not occur in the New Testament; however, it does occur in the Septuagint, in Isaiah 33:18 (7rot5 clccv ol ypapLjuariKoi ; MS 86 reads 6 y pa pt fiarc vc), a text that is quoted by Paul in 1 Corinthians 1 :2o with some variants, and in Daniel 1 :q (vcavlcKovc . . . ypapi- fiariKOvc Kal evverov c Kal co<f>ovc). In the first case ypapipbariKoi translates the word 1DD ( sofer ), in the singular in the Masoretic Text, to refer to those who do the counting or to learned men in general; in the second ypapupbartKovc translates nsn 'Vf ( yodety da6at) with the meaning of ‘people well informed5,
‘endowed with knowledge’ (Theodotion’s version reads yiyvwcKovrac yvcdcLv instead of ypapipLan- kovc). The sofer , the Jewish interpreter of the Law; who wras a grammarian and editor of the Bible, had a similar function to that of the ypapcpLartKoc , the Greek literary critic and grammarian (see S.
Lieberman, ‘Rabinic Interpretation of the Scripture5, in Hellenism in Jewish Palestine (1962) 38-46; for ypapipiarcKoc , as teacher of grammar, see R. Cribiore, Gymnastics of the Mind (2001) 53-5; Writing,
Teachers, and Students in Graeco- Roman Egypt (1996) 167-9). But sofer is normally translated into Greek as ypapipiareve, ‘scribe5, a term that came to be used for a wide range of occupations ^interpreters of the Law; teachers, secretaries, local officials, bailiffs, etc.: see R. Schwartz, “‘Scribes and Pharisees, Hypocrites”: Who are the “Scribes55 in the Newr Testament?’, in Studies in the Jewish Background of Christianity (1992) 89-101; C. Schams , Jewish Scribes in the Second-Temple Period (1998) esp. 274-327). Therefore, it is possible that ypafipiarcvc and ypapifianKoc wrere sometimes confused, since both could be employed to indicate a similar function (see also M. Goodman, ‘Texts, Scribes and Power in Roman Judaea’, in A. K. Bowman and G. Woolf, Literacy and Power in the Ancient World (1994) 103).

In our papyrus, the connections with the canonical gospels and the reference to Jerusalem in the

THEOLOGICAL TEXTS

next line might suggest identifying ypappartKoc with ypappcarevc. Matthew mentions some scribes coming to talk with Jesus from the Holy City (15:1; cf Mark 3:22, 7:1, 11:27) and te^s bow Jesus announced his sufferings in Jerusalem at the hands of the elders and scribes (Matt. 16:21, 20:18 || Mark 10:33). The identification could also be supported by Paul’s use of ypapp^arevc instead of ypap^pariKOL when quoting Is. 33:18 (LXX) in I Cor. 1:20 {rrov co<poc; rrov ypapparevc; rrov cvt.rjrrjrrjc rov aldovoc tovtov;) and by the presence of c ocf)[ in the following line, for ypappcaretc and cocf>ovc occur together in Matt. 23:34: iy<l> a7TocriXXaj irpoc vpcac irpo^rfrac Kal co<povc /cat ypappareic (but see below).

The writer of the text of our papyrus might have used the unusual ypa/.t/xart/c6c(-ot) instead of the habitual New Testament term ypappar€vc(-€k) to refer to a Jewish scribe because he was not well informed concerning the specific historical details reported by the Synoptic gospels, or because he was aware of the difference between the two words and wanted to use ypappariKoc accurately to designate the experts in the Law in Jesus' time. Note also that P. Egerton 2, if, 2 uses the term vofiKoi instead of ypapcparetc. As an explanation, it has been suggested that its author lacked interest in the concrete historical circumstances of the Palestinian background to Jesus' life or did not have adequate knowledge of them (cf. Nicklas, ‘The “Unknown Gospel’" 26, 112). In any case, the writer of 5072 might have used ypapcpcariKoc to refer in a loose sense to learned and wise Jewish people (see the commentary on cocf>[ below).
c o<f>[. The natural association between ‘grammarians’ and ‘masters of rhetoric’ would suggest supplying here cof^tcral rather than c o(f>\ol'. see Plu. Aem. 6.9 ov yap povov ypappartKol Kal coifucral /cat pi]Topcc\ Clemen. 51.21 ( tlom . 4-1?) rtvec ypappartKol Kal ccxfncrai a^iovvrec elvai rac rotavrac rrpa^CLc \6ecov] a^lac €tvat /8e/3atouctr. The word co^lcttjc, like ypappariKoc , does not occur in the New Testament. It occurs, however, in the Greek Old Testament, once in the book of Exodus (Ex 7:11) and eight times in the book of Daniel (1:20, 2:14, 2:18, 2:24 (twice), 2:48, 4:18, 4:37), mainly to refer to sages of a non-Israelite background (T. Muraoka, A Greeh-English Lexicon of the Septuagint , s.v.).
Like ypappariKoc^ cofiicrrjc might have also been used in a loose sense to designate ‘wise men’, and not with its technical meaning of ‘teachers of rhetoric' (for this use, Cribiore, Gymnastics of the Mind 56—9; Writing , Teachers , and Students 169 -70). But it also might have been used with the negative meaning of ‘quibblers’ or ‘charlatans’ (see e.g. J. Ap. 2.236; for the use of co^tcrat in Josephus’ writings and its unlikely identification with scribes, cf. Schams, Jewish Scribes 252-7; see also H. G. Snyder, Teachers and Texts in the Ancient World (2000) 184-5).

Nevertheless, the supplement co<£[oc(-ot) cannot be excluded. On the one hand, c ocfioc might be used as a synonym of ypappariKoc, and the two appear together in Dan 1 :y. On the other hand, as has been said, ypappariKoc may have been used in the sense of ypappare vc, which would connect the text of the papyrus with the texts of Matt. 23:34 and 1 Cor. 1:20 quoted above, where co<povc and ypapparek occur together.

The reference to Jerusalem, the remains in lines 9-12 and some passages from the canonical gospels might suggest seeing ypappariKoc and co^tcrr/c/ co^oc as designating people who are unable to recognize the presence of the Kingdom (see lines 9-12). In the canonical gospels not only do the ‘scribes’ belong to the group of people who oppose Jesus (with few exceptions: Matt. 8:19, 13:52,
Mark 12 .*32), but also the ‘wise’ are among those who do not accept his revelation (Matt. 11:25 II Luke 10:21; see below 11-12 n.; the ‘wise’ also refers in the New Testament to those who have a wisdom that does not come from God: cf. Rom. 1:22, 1 Cor. 1:19, 3:20, etc.; see Bauer s.v. 2). Consequendy; the text invites to interpret ypapiptariKoc and co^tcr^c/co^oc as stereotypes of the Jewish and Greek worlds of wisdom (see Thdt. 1 Cor. 1.20: /caAef p,ev co(f>ov rov rfj (EXXt]vlk7] crajpLvXta Kocpcovpievov ypap,p,area Sf tov toav lovSalwv StSac/caAov), representing those who refused to believe in Jesus’ message, in opposition to the ‘little children’, the humble and simple people who accept it (Matt. 1 1 .-25 1 1
Luke 10:21).

J LepocoXop^a. Of the 37 times that the word occurs in the New Testament, 35 are in combina-

5072. UNCANONICAL GOSPEL?

tion with etc, which seems to be the natural supplement for the text (in the other two instances 7c- pocoXvfAa is the subject ol the clause: Matt. 2:3 and 3:5). On 15 occasions etc 7 epocoXv^ia is combined with avaflatvaj (two in Matthew, two in Mark, one in Luke, three in John). O11 all other occasions the clause occurs with a77cpyop.ai, cyyt^co, ciccpyop,ai, epyop, at, cvvavafialvco , arayco, iropeiav 7rotea>. (In Acts and Galatians it occurs combined with vnocrpefjxjj , iropevopiai, yerecSat, cm/Sairco, dvep^oftat.)

We would therefore expect here a verb for the conditional clause and a verb of motion before etc] 7epocoAup.a. Again, if the restored text in the preceding lines is correct, wre would only have room for about fifteen or sixteen letters. The previous lines might suggest that Jesus continues his direct speech. Thus, we could consider el ovv ypapLpLaTu<[dc cf, followed by a verb of movement such as dvaflalvco, Tropevoficu, i57rdyco, or the like. What it is not clear is if we should understand it as a negative or positive command: i.e. dra/3airc etc] 7cpocoAup,a or ptrj ard/Satrc etc] 7 epocoXvpui. In the imperative, TTopevov etc occurs in Matt. 2:20, Luke 5:24, 7:50, and Acts 22:10, and in several passages of the Septuagint; dVayc etc in Matt. 9:6, Mark 2:11, 5:19, 5:34, John 7:3, 9:11; dvdflrjOi etc only in the Septuagint (Gen. 35:1, Num. 27:12, etc.)

Ta. At this point the traces on the edge of the papyrus are scanty. After the clear ta,
the scribe may have written first e and then wrote most likely c (although o cannot be excluded) over the e.

The connection between ypa/xfxari/c[ and lepocoXvfia points to a certain parallelism between co<j>[ and ] < ra [ ]. Thus, if we read co</> fierce, we may be invited to restore el\c rac A Orjv[ac], preceded by a verb of motion in the imperative ( rropevov , dVayc, etc.). (I owe this suggestion to J.
Kerkhecker.) Assuming this reading, Jesus would be saying that the sophist must (or must not) go to Athens — the place naturally associated with a sophist or a wise man from the Greek world — to seek wisdom, as the scribe must (or must not) go to Jerusalem. However, the restoration can only be tentative, for, although the traces do not rule it out, it must be admitted that the space for the missing a c is probably too narrow.

A restoration that also suits the traces wrould be el |c rac auA[dc], although, again, there is not much room for the missing ac, and I have not found a good example of a relationship between cohered or co</>oi and adAcu. In the New Testament a vXr) is found to refer to a courtyard or to the court of a house, palace, or temple (Bauer s.v.); in the Septuagint it also refers to the abodes of God; in Ps 95:8 we find elcir o peveeQ e etc rac avXdc adrou.

The reading el]c rdc oSov[c] would not be impossible according to the traces. dSoc with e^epyo- pLcu occurs in Luke 14:23: e^eXOe etc rdc oSodc. On the supposition that the text is stressing the presence of the Kingdom wherever Jesus is (see 10 below), 5072 would be saying that, il the scribe should not go to Jerusalem, the wise man should not go out to the ‘ways’: perj c£cA dye el\c rdc oSotJc] (as in the previous case, this could also be stated in a positive sense, e£eX9e et]c rdc oSod[c], but it makes the text even more difficult to understand). Even though the phrase ways of wisdom1 (oSot costae) is not unknown in the Bible (Bar 3:20, 23; Prov 4.11), the saying does not seem to make much sense and renders the reading suspicious. To assume a reference to itinerant teachers, who would exercise their
profession on their way from town to town, is too speculative.

I have also tried restoring el]c ra oik€l[o]. The expression rd oUeia is used to mean ‘one’s own affairs’ (Lampe, s.v., 5). etc rd otVcfa is well attested (e.g.,J. AJ 8.260 xal tovto Trocrjcac dveerpe^ev etc rd OLKela; [Luc.] Asin. 20 xal -npo r-pc eciripac 7]X0opL€v Ac ra oiWa; cf.John 19:27 cXaficv 6 p.ad-qrqc avTrp’ Ac ra 181a; see Bauer, s.v., 1). The exhortation to go back to one’s own affairs would be a way of underlining the opposition of human wisdom (cf. LXX Sir. 37:22 cctiv co<f>oc T17 I8la if>uxfj) to the
wisdom of God. But, once again, the traces present several difficulties to support this reading.

9-10 For the abbreviation jSaAet a, see introd. The use of this uncommon abbreviation, as in P. Egerton 2, might be explained because the limits of the nomina sacra system were not yet clearly- established, though the most basic words were (see C. H. Roberts, Manuscript, Society and Belief in

THEOLOGICAL TEXTS

Early Christian Egypt (1979) 39)5 but also because the scribe might have just wanted to emphasize some particular words by using the supralincar bar and some form of abbreviation (see Nicklas, ‘The “L n- known Gospel”1 16—19, with recent bibliography on nornina sacra ; see also M. Choat, Belief and Cult in Fourth- Century Papyri (2006) 119-25).

]c#cr. After the break the traces allow for c or e. The following letter is written in a wray Uiat is not attested elsewhere in the fragment, but it is most likely that we should read ©. It seems that the scribe first ligated the final stroke of the previous letter with the lower left-hand arc and the cross-bar of © in one single movement and then added the right-hand side. This way of writing 8 is close to the one in pja^rac in 12.

efinpo]c9ev vfj.<2)\v makes sense. This expression may again be parallelled in several Synoptic texts. A relationship between fiaccXela and epn poc9ev is found in Matt. 23:13, but in a context that is not strictly linked to the text of our papyrus (though it is an invective against scribes): oval 8c VfiLV, ypayiyiareic Kal papicaloL vnoKpcrac, on kXclctc ttjv fiaciXeiav rcov ovpavojv epinpocdev rcov av9pcona>v. The adverb if 7 rpocdev is often used in Matthew; it is less common in Luke and does not occur at all in Mark. Governing a personal pronoun, ep,npoc8ev occurs in Matt. 11:26 || Luke 10:21 on ovtojc cvSoKca iyivero epLnpoc9iv cov (see also Matt. 18:14 ipnpoc9ev rov narpoc vpi cor), a text that is not conceptually linked to our papyrus but could be in the background of lines 10-11.

Given the parallel of Luke 17:21, the restoration evro}c8ev vpia)[v is not very promising, since evrocdev seems to occur only in earlier poetry and in rather literary prose of the Roman period (cf.
LSJ s.v.).

The style of the text points to a short sentence of the type of Luke 17:21 l8ov yap p fiaciXela rov 9eov ivroc vpahv icnv , but the fragmentary condition of the papyrus allows for several possible restorations. One w^ould be rj Sc fiaXeta [rov 9v [rcov ovpavcov) icnv ifnpo\c8ev vpLco\v. (Spacing might favour [tojv ovpavwv instead of [rov 8v\ the term ovpavcov could have been written in full, for it is not attested as a nomen sacrum , owcov , before c.ad 220 and is rare before the fifth century: see LXV 4446 f 1— 2 n.) Another possible reading w^ould be rj Sc jSaActa [rov 9v (tojv ovpavcov ) ecrrjKcv i'pinpo]c9€v vfjLcp[v, which could be understood as a reminiscence of Luke 11:20 || Matt. 12:28 el . . . c/cjSaAAco ra Saifiovta, apa ep9acev ip' vfiac rj fiaaXeia rov 9eov (cf. Acts 4:10 TrapecnqKev ivajirtov vficov, and Matt. 27m 6 Sc Irjcovc icra9rj epnTpoc9ev rov r)ye(.iovoc).

If the text identified the presence of the Kingdom with the presence of the person of Jesus, and bearing in mind the assumed verbs of motion in the previous lines, it would also be possible to restore rj Sc fiaXeta [rov 9v TropeveraL ep,TTpo]c8ev vp,o)[v. This evokes Luke 19:28 Kal elrrojv ravra iiropevero ep,TTpoc8ev ava^atvoov etc 'IepocoXvyia. For epnrpoc9ev with the verbs aTrocreXXoj and rropevo- f.iaL7 see Bauer s.v. e, and Matt. 11:10 and Luke 7*27 tSoi> aTrocreXXoj rov ayycAov pcov 7 rpo TTpocajirov cov, oc KaracKevacei rrjv oSov cov ep,TTpoc8ev cou (cf. Ex. 23:20; see also Ex. 32:34 o ayycAoc fxov tt pOTTO pever at tt po rrpocojTrov p,ov).

A remote possibility would be to read rj Sc jSaActa [cVroc vp,djv icnv Kal €pL7Tpo]c8ev vp,a>[v. This wrould find its parallel in Gospel of Thomas 3, a saying of Jesus that reads tm NTepcu c m rreTN 2oyN
Ayco CMneTNBAA (‘The kingdom is within you and outside you5), and is partially preserved in Greek: rj Pac[iXela . . .] cVroc vfachv [i]cn[v (l\ 654 15-16). The rest of the Greek saying might have just said, Kal cktoc vp.djv icnv , but the sense conveyed by cmttgtn baa is not too distant from the meaning of ep,7rpoc9ev. See for instance Gospel of Thomas 5 coycu n ttgtm ttmto MTTeK-20 gboa Aycu rreeHTT epoK qNAbcuArr gboa nak mnaaay r^P cq2Hrr eqNAoyo>N2 ^boa an. which has also been preserved in Greek: [. . . eytTrpoc] 9ev rrjc opedjc cov Kal [to KCKpvp,pL€vov] an 6 cov anoKaXvp(9)rjCCT\aL col. ov yap ic\nv Kpvnrov 0 ov <pave\pov yevrjcerai (I\ 654 27—30; cf. Matt.
10:26, Mark 4:22, Luke 12:2, and for the Greek text of the Gospel of Thomas , see H. W. Attridge, ‘The Greek Fragments', in B. Layton (ed.), jVag Hammadi Codex II, 2-7, i. 112-18). But again the restoration is very speculative (and probably too long) and does not help to make the sense of the text clearer.

5072. UNCANONICAL GOSPEL?

1 1— 12 ]fTtov clit€k[. The way in which the scribe ligates e with t or r shows that we should read erco and not eyco (as in I3 or 5). At the line-end k is damaged but recognizable. The closeness of ^frcov to a7rey[ recalls as parallel the text of Luke 10121 || IMatt. 11:25^26 i^op,oXoyovpial col, narep,
Kvpie rov ovpavov kcll tt)c yrjc, on aneKpvpac (Matt. eKpvpac) ravra an 6 co</>o> v Kal cvveroov Kal aneKaXvpac avra vrjnloic. val 6 narrjp, on ovreve evSoKia iyevero efnpocdev cov. The restoration of the lacunae can again only be tentative: there is no space for the whole sentence of Luke/Matthew, and the style of the saying calls for a subject of anoKpvnroo in the first or third person. Judged from Synoptic parallels, the expected reading would have the Father as the subject: 6 np p,ov ano co<f>ajv Kal car] erwv aneK[pvpe ravra. But the first part of the supplement may be short for the space, and we do not know whether in this text Jesus may have been the subject of the verb, so that he himself is the one who has hidden the Kingdom from prudent and wise men. On the revelation of hidden things in the Gospel of Thomas 5, see 11 -12 n. above. In any case, the restoration in the following line suggests a short sentence (see 12 11.).

On the occurrence of evverove with ypafip,anKovc and copovc in Dan 1 :4, see 9 n. above.

12 pi}adr]ra<: a [. At line-end, the traces suggest ay or Sa. The words p]a6rjrac ay[rov occur several times in the Synoptics with reference to the disciples of Jesus. We should probably assume a change in the subject of the discourse and read perhaps something like elnev Sc npoc rove ^tja^rac ay\rov (cf. Luke 5:30, 9:14, 9:43, 12:1, 12:22, 16:1, 17:1).

J. CHAPA

5073. Mark I 1-2: Amulet
25 3B.58/E(c) 25.2 x 4.5 cm Late third / fourth century
Plate I

The text of 5073 is written against the fibers on a strip of papyrus, which currently measures 25.2 x 4.5 cm but originally extended to about 26 cm. A small fragment of the right edge remains, though it cannot be placed with absolute confidence. The strip narrows noticeably as it moves from left to right; the vertical measurement of the left side is about 0.5 cm greater than that of the right side, suggesting that this strip of papyrus was either recycled from a pile of scraps or cut without strict aesthetics in mind. Unlike lines 2-5, the indentation of line 1 is unusual. Line 1 begins 6.2 cm from the left edge, whereas a more conventional margin of about 1 cm offsets lines 2-5. Though odd, the effect is clear: line 1, the imperative urging one to 'Read the beginning of the gospel . . 5, is visually set apart from the quoted gospel text as a sort of heading. For other examples of biblical amulets in a narrow format, see LXXIII 4932 introd.

Given its format and content, 5073 fits well among the host of known biblical amulets. The absence of crease marks and the presence of five regularly spaced insect holes on the top edge suggest that 5073 was not folded, but rolled up from left to right, and worn on a cord around the neck. Rolled amulets were often placed in capsules. For an image of such a container, see W. M. Flinders Petrie, Amulets (1914, repr. 1972), plate xix no. 133. In addition to the Psalms and the Lord’s Prayer,

THEOLOGICAL TEXTS

incipits from the gospels were frequently made into amulets. See for example PSI
VI 719, which includes, among other biblical excerpts, the opening lines of each of the four gospels. PSI VI 719 also makes explicit what is implicit in 5073. At the close of two of its citations, Psalm 90:1 (LXX Ps 91:1) and Matthew 6:9 (the beginning of the Pater noster ), PSI VI 719 stops short of quoting the entire passage and adds ‘and the rest’ (kcli ra egrjc) as a stand-in for the remainder. It may be that the same ‘and so on and so forth’ is implied after the four gospel incipits.

The opening lines of Mark lend themselves to a 'magical’ reading. Consider the quotation from the prophets in verse 2: 'Behold, I will send my angel before you . . — this phrase serves as a guarantee of angelic protection, an assurance worth keeping close to the body. Ancient Christians often sought assistance from beneficent angels. A similar text preserved in the Christian magical papyri asks Jesus Christ to ‘send down’ his ‘holy arch-angels,’ so that they might dwell 'in his presence’ for protection (PGM vol. II, Christliches 21). See also PGM VII. 278 -9 and P Koln VIII 340 for similar parallels. Consider also the final phrase ‘who will prepare . . .’: preparation also frequently appears in the magical papyri. See for example PGM III. 291, VII. 866, XII. 15, XII. 210, and XIII. 1027. It often describes a prescribed set of actions — setting up of materials, inscription or recitation of magic formulae, etc. — which stand as a precondition of divine or angelic action.
Without the preparation, the charm is ineffective. The angel in Mark 1 :2 will handle all this himself, if not actually, then figuratively, greatly lessening the burden on the supplicant, who might otherwise need to collect obscure and often expensive materials as part of the preparation.

In addition to the exaggerated margin of line 1, certain characteristics of the hand in this opening line distinguish it from lines 2—5. In general the hand of line 1 stands about 5 degrees more upright. Letter strokes are also slightly thicker, so that they suggest a different pen. Other noteworthy differences include the 00, which has a higher middle bar in line 1 than other examples in lines 2—5. The re combination also may vary. In line 1 the top stroke of the r loops around and becomes the top bar of the e. In lines 2, 3 and possibly 4, the top bar of the r drops at a right angle and forms the back bar of the e. The dieresis also differs slightly from line 1 to line 3. These features might suggest that the hand of line 1 is not the hand responsible for lines 2-5. However, the degree of variation in letter forms in lines 2—5 alone (see for example H and o) indicates that our scribe was inconsistent and, given the chance to copy more text, would eventually reintroduce the letter forms peculiar to line 1. Still, the differences in margin, letter angle, and stroke thickness suggest that a single scribe copied this text in two stages, perhaps with a stylus change in between. It is not impossible that line 1 is a later addition.

On the i side about 13 cm from the left edge, one can see a stroke emerge from the bottom edge at about a 450 angle. Another ink trace, this one a triangleshaped blotch, is visible on top edge of the -» side about 3 cm from the right side.

5073. MARK I 1 2: AMULET

Similar but less conspicuous marks are visible on the 4* side, one on the top edge 0.6 cm oil of the damaged end, and another on the left edge 0.5 cm from the bottom.
These marks could indicate that the areas immediately surrounding 5073 were already inscribed at the time our strip was cut. We know of at least one instance in which a scribe copied multiple magical texts prior to cutting them. XVI 1926 and P. Rendel Harris 54, Christian oracular responses stated in the affirmative and the negative respectively, were first inscribed on one sheet and then cut. It became the task of modern editors to reunite them. See H. Youtie, 'Questions to a Christian Oracle’, /(PE 18 (1975) 253-7. On the other hand, these marks could be little more than ink smears and splatters.

The hand of 5073 is roughly bilinear. The mixture of broad/narrow and angular/curved letter forms places this hand within Turner’s Formal Mixed category and, in particular, alongside a cluster of hands within this class that slope right without losing the roundness of their narrow letters (Turner, GMAW 2 22). VII
1015, an anonymous encomium on Theon (Turner, GMAW2 , plate 50; later 111) and P. Herm. Rees 4, the Letter to Theophanes (Turner, GMAW 2, plate 70; c.325), provide datable parallels to 5073. Note the following parallels: A is often formed with a rounded or wedge-shaped loop and a long arched tail, t, p, y, and <f> frequently extend below the bottom line. Two-stroke y, formed by attaching a small stroke descending left to right to a long forward slash, high-bar H, and go with a ripple in place of a middle bar are paralleled only in VII 1015. Thus, a date from the late third to the fourth century is appropriate.

An apostrophe is used to separate doubled consonants three times in 5073
(evay’yeAiov twice and ay’yeAov once), a feature consonant with our assigned date (Turner, GMAW1 19). Diaeresis appears twice in 5073, inorganic in line 1, i'Se, and organic in line 3, rjcaia. 5073 does not contain iota adscripts, irjcov and yptcrou in line 2 are written as nomina sacra. In both instances three-letter abbreviations are used, and the supralinear stroke sits atop the second and third letters.

5073 should be regarded as an auspicious addition to the manuscript tradition of Mark for at least three reasons. First, thus far only five other Greek papyri preserve portions of Mark’s gospel: PSI VI 79 b P Vindob. inv. G. 348 (= R. W.
Daniel, Vigiliae Christianae 37 (1983) 400-404; Rahlfs-Fraenkel 2173, p. 392), Gregory— Aland SP*5 (P. Chest. B. Pap. g. 31974)? S.P84 (P A. M. Kh. Mird 4, 11), and (P
(CU, Milan inv. 69.24). Among these, the first two preserve Mark’s openings lines, although they do so within a string ol biblical quotations. Second, 5073 is roughly contemporaneous with, il not earlier than, Sinaiticus (X) and Vaticanus (B), until now the earliest witnesses to Mark’s first two verses. Finally, 5073 is the first ma
nuscript of Mark found at Oxyrhynchus. (The reference to ‘beloved son’ in VIII
1162 is too general to be considered an allusion to Mark: see E. Epp, Perspectives on
New Testament Criticism 1962-2004 (2005) 768 n. 96).

The notes below present a collation following the manuscript abbreviations

THEOLOGICAL TEXTS

used in the 27th edition of Nestle-AIand, Novum Testamentum Graece (hereafter NA27) — abbreviations that are explained in the introduction to that edition. The text of NA27 is also inlcuded in the collation in parentheses and in final position, abbreviated as follows: (NA27). For c oc and airocrcXco we have consulted New Testament Manuscripts : Mark, ed. R. Swanson, which is more accurate in these two instances.
5073 differs from the printed text of NA27 in each of the four known variation units. Also noteworthy is the agreement in three of the four variation units, excluding the singular reading trj{co)v rov XP\LCT °)ty between 5073 and Codex Koridethi (0), a ninth-century manuscript of the gospels, which in Mark resembles the type of text used by Eusebius and Origen in Caesarea. See B. Metzger and B. Ehrman,
The Text of the New Testament (2005) 83.
i avayvcoTi rrjv apyr/v rov eva y’ycXiov Kai iSe aPXV rov £vay ycXcov irjv rov y) ov toe ycypairrat cv rjcaia rto TTpofrjrrj tSov airocrcXco top ay’ycXov fiov
5 7TpO TTpOCCOTTOV COV OC KOLTaCKCVaCCL

'Read the beginning of the gospel, and see:

“The beginning of the gospel of Jesus the Christ.

As it is written in Isaiah the prophet:

‘Behold, I will send my angel before you, who will prepare . .

1 avayveon: read avayvoodi. For other examples of interchange between 9 and r in the papyri, see Gignac, Grammar i 92.
rrjv apxr)v T0V cvay’yeAiov: In addition to Mark 1:1 and Philippians 4:15, where Paul employs it to refer to his early preaching in Philippi (for a similar usage, see 1 Clement 47:2), this expression is found in PSI IX 1041, a Christian letter from Oxyrhynchus dated to the third/fourth centuries, in which a certain Leon is called ca catechumen in the begining of the gospel' (Aewva Ka9rjxovp.evov iv a pxrj rov evayyeXlov). M. Naldini, II Cristianesimo in Egitto (1968) 155, suggests that the expression denotes a catechumen in the first stage of preparation for baptism. Noting the parallel expression in Mark 1:1, others have found in this designation evidence for the reading of Mark and perhaps other gospels in catechetical programs. See Macquarie University’s Papyri from the Rise of Christianity project at www.anchist.mq.edu.au/doccentre/PCE67.pdf. More in keeping with the sense here, however, are the many instances in which this expression is used to introduce a quote from the beginning of a gospel (see e.g. Eusebius, Against Marcellus 2.2.11; Ecc. Theology 1.18.1, 1.20.48, 2.11.3, 2.25.1; Athanasius,
Oration IV Against the Arians 19.4; Marcellus, On the Incarnation and Against the Arians 1005.34; Origen,
Commentary on John 1.3. 17; John Chrysostom, Commentary on Matthew 58.631.57).

Kai tSe: This second imperative accords with the Marcan style (rather than ISov in parallel passages in the other synoptics), and might suggest that the scribe of 5073 knew the gospel text well.
Mark regularly uses iSe to draw attention to something (Mk 2:24, 11 :2i, 13:1, 13:21, 16:6), even at the expense of its fundamental meaning (15:4). In 5073, the imperative introduces the biblical quotation in dramatic fashion.

Mk I. 1
2

5073. MARK I 1-2: AMULET 23

2 it] (co)v tov xp(icto)v: iTjcov xpicTov N* © 28. / 221 1 pc sa'"s; Or \ i . xp ■ vl0v ®eov BDLW
2427 pc (but tov deov in A T • 13 33 -^) tatt sy co; Ir1" (NA27) | 1. xp ■ viov tov Kvpiov 1241.
iy(co)v tov xp{iCTo)v: The genitive definite article tov is inserted before xp(lCTO)v- The article transforms ‘Jesus Christ’, a proper name into Jesus, the Christ1, an assertion of messianie identity, and better captures the sense of the Hebrew and Aramaic used among the earliest Jesus followers.
But despite several predicate constructions in which Jesus’ is identified as ‘the Christ’ (John 20:31,
1 John 2:22, 5:1), Jesus, the Christ’ is never used in the New Testament, though a similar variant appears in several manuscripts (X2 C D \V SR lat syh sams mae bo) at Matthew 16:20, whieh reads . . . avToc icTtv Irjcovc 6 xptcroc. Only in the seeond and third centuries, among writers such as Ignatius,
Justin Martyr, and Origen, does the article appear. In these sources it serves as a reminder of Jesus’ messianic identity, a reminder that functioned both as a eontentious claim to Jewish interlocutors who remained uneonvinced that Jesus was indeed the Christ (e.g. Justin Martyr, 1 Apol. 63; Ignatius, Ep.
Eph. 18), and as a doctrinal distinction that helped Christianity articulate its ‘complicated1 relationship with Judaism to pagan onlookers (e.g. Origen, Contra Celsum 1.26). The title flourishes in the writings of Eusebius in the early fourth century, about the time our manuscript was copied (e.g. EH 1.5.2,
1.10.1). In summary, we should not regard this singular reading as a newiy discovered candidate for the ‘original’ text of Mark 1:1, but as a rich expression of later Christian nomenclature born out of struggles for self-definition.

"3 o>c: so A D Gsupp M U W IT ii8/‘3 2 28 579 1424 SR j xadajc all other MSS (NA27).

€V rjcaia tqj 7Tpop>rjTrj\ so D 0 fl JOO. / 844. / 2211 pc\ Ir OrpI Epiph | ev tco rjcaia tco 7Tpo<f>7]Trj X B L A 33. 565. 892. 1241. 2427 al syp*hmg co; Orpr (NA27) ] ev tolc TTpocfrrjTcuc A W SR vgms syh (bomss); Irlat.

4 anocTeXoj: so © | <17 toctcAAco B D 28*. 565. 2427. / 2211 pc lat co; IrIat (NA27) | eyco anocTeAco X | eyco aTrocTeAAaj A Gsupp K L M P U W A II/L13 33 SR vgcl syh sams boms; Or Eus.

5 KdTacKevacei : The text stops short of the expected phrase, tt\v o§or cou, and the enlarged final l indicates that the scribe intended to end his text at this point. This abrupt ending probably results from eopying the first few lines from Mark, just enough of the ‘beginning of the gospel’ for phylacteric purposes, and should not be considered a variation unit. The final phrase also would have extended beyond the end of the relatively uniform column formed by lines 2-5.

G. S. SMITH
A. E. BERNHARD

5074. Cyril of Alexandria, Festal Letters 28, PG 77.944C-949A

115/97 22.6 x 14. i cm Late sixth / early seventh century
Plate XIII

A fragment from a papyrus roll with the lower part of two columns and bottom margin. The writing runs along the fibres on the back of an unidentified text, also written along the fibres at an angle of 90° to the front. The roll was cut along the kollesis, which survives (col. i), to form a sheet for the text on the back. The right part of 11 lines from col. i and the left part of 12 lines from col. ii are preserved, with an intercolumnium of 2.5 cm and a bottom margin of 3.9 cm. The average line length in col. i is 36 letters or 24 cm and in col. ii 34 letters or 22.5 cm. The column height cannot be reconstructed, owing to a problem with the continuity of the text, possibly suggesting an abbreviated version of the homily. The considerable length

THEOLOGICAL TEXTS

of lines points to tall columns (Johnson, Bookrolls and Scribes 125). Luxurious rolls from this period as large as 45 cm x 5 m survive {GBEBP 52a— b and R Col. VIII T92> the latter probably exceeding 52.5 cm in height, considering that it is broken at the top). If 5074 was of similar dimensions, the column could be up to 55 lines or 49 cm in height, but was probably less than this. Depending on the column height, the roll contained one or two homilies and was 3-4 m long. On the use of a roll rather than codex, see ii 1—2 n.

The text is written in a fully developed sloping majuscule in brown ink. Letters are large, drawn by a competent scribe. A number of features indicate a date as late as the sixth/ seventh century. There is marked contrast between the thick and thinner strokes; the verticals of p and y extend below the base line, a feature more prominent in col. i; t and r have decorative dots on their horizontals.
These features are found, for example, in GBEBP 39a, though decoration is not as pronounced in 5074. The narrow letters e e o c are pointed at the bottom left, a practice starting in the fifth but typical throughout the sixth and into the seventh century ( GBEBP 17a, 28a, 45a, 46b). The oversized <J>, breaking bilinearity, is prominent in the seventh century (cf. GBEBP ^ b-c). Letters are slanting to the right, but col. ii (and probably col. i judging from the right margin) is tilting to the left.

High point in i 9 and rough breathing in i 11 by the same hand. Diaereses and acute accent in i 1 1 are all due to the same hand as the text proper. Diaereses are written over all initial upsilons (ii 9, 10, 11, and 12). Elision occurs but is not marked in i 5. The only nomen sacrum is kv in ii 5. Iota adscript is not written in i 3, 5 and 10. Quotations are marked with a diple in the margin at the beginning of ii 2—5 and 7-1 1, and possibly also ii 1, 3.

Festal Letter 28 is not preserved on any other papyrus. The lack of a modern critical edition impedes the task of collation with the medieval manuscripts. The text may be compared with AuberFs 1634 edition (vol. 2 11), reprinted in Migne’s Patrologia Graeca. The papyrus disagrees with the printed text in the one instance where Aubert reports a variant reading (i 10-1 1). The testimony of the papyrus is of particular value because we are otherwise dependent for the text on A (Ottobianus gr. 448, twelfth century), from which all other copies derive. We are most grateful to M. Bernard Meunier for making available to us the apparatus criticus prepared by the late W. H. Burns for the Sources chretiennes series. For Burns’s account of the history of the text, see P. Evieux et al., Cyrille d’Alexandne: Lettres Festales I V I (1991)
1 1 9-33. The supplements printed are taken from Burns’s reports of A except where noted, and the sigla are his. A minor divergence in this copy at i 6 and a major divergence at ii 1-2 are mentioned in the commentary, together with further possible divergences in the lost portions of i 6 and 9.

5074. CYRIL OF ALEXANDRIA, FESTAL LETTERS 28

Col. i
c- 25 ] V [ YaP 944G

Tcov a^v/juxjv eoprrj irpo<j>dctv tcjov e[£ at pLCLTOC L7]X T7]V AvTpOOCtV OT€ /Cat e]v TOO TTpOo[rOO
Ka9 efipouovc ptrjvt tov a ptvov tep\evcdVTec etc 5 tvttov xv /cat d^vptovc aprovc ecdt o\vrec err avroo TTjc CKatOTTjTOc toov dtyvTTTtoov aTreAJ ycavro r[o] yov /cat tyjc a cvvrjdovc dr/retac J to uttcpov /c[at Svcolctov a^@oc a7T07repuf)apievoL] toov 7rept yrjv /cat TrAtvOetdv anrjAAaTTOVTO ttov^oov /cat Typav
10 VLKTjC 00 pLOTYJTOC CL7TOT pCyOVTC^ C eAevdepOO (j>pO
vy]pLaTL deoo AaTpeve tv ec7rou§a£]oiv rj 8e ye tco[v 4-5 At line-end, offsets in blacker ink.

6 For r[o], Migne prints tov , and Burns notes no variation in the manuscripts. Of £, a crossbar level with the tops of the letters is preserved. The transmitted text of the portion lost at die linebeginning is given above but seems too long for the space available by about two average letter-widths, and one may wonder whether (e.g.) the preverb of aneXvca vro was omitted in this copy.

9 To judge by the space, the papyrus probably had the correct reading anTjAXaTTovro , with Burns’s b family and modern editors, where A gives aTrrjXXarro (sic).

10— 11 (f)po[v(.iari : so A. Editors have adopted OeXrjpLari, the reading of I, in which <f)povr)p,ari is a marginal variant.

11 The breathing hangs from the upsilon, and the accent appears to grow' out of the shank of the first rho in the line above.

Col. ii
> . E.[

77-avrf C. 15 ovkovv xaQa <f>r)CLV

> o 0ec7r[ect]oc [p,eAa>8oc avhpi^ecQe xai xparai
> ovedeo rj |/c]ap8ia [vjxcov tto.vt€c 01 eXviyovrec
5 > 677i xv • riva Se r[p07T0v xai tovto xaropuooco fiev SiaSei^ei X[eya>v 0 yv p.adr)TT)C 8 10 ava£co
> capievoi rac oc(j)y[ac rr)c Siavoiac vp.cov vr)

> (j>ovT€c re Aeia>c eApicare em tt/v </>epop.e
> vtiv vpuv ^[apiv €v aTTo]xa\\vilj€L lv yv 10c xe
10 > xva imaxor)c[ \ per) cvcyr)pi[aTiI,op.€voi rate
> TT pOT€pOV €V TT) ayVOlCL ijp.\a)V €TTlVV)XiaiC
aAAa xara tov xaXecayra v[p,ac ay tov xai avroi

945A(?)

948D/949A

THEOLOGICAL TEXTS

1 ^ . /T [: Trace in the left margin compatible with a diple as in the following lines, but not certain to be ink. An upright and trace from a connecting horizontal resting on the line, at a 90° angle with each other, somewhat pointed, and therefore compatible with e 0 o c. The right upright of kk connects to the left upright of the next letter, which could be e, H, 1, M, n, o, or tt.

1-2 The letters and traces preserved here do not agree with the text preceding 948D in the medieval tradition. There is also a problem of space: 140 lines are required between i 1 1 and ii 3 to fit the text between 944c and 948D. Assuming a maximum number of 55 lines per column, 5074 is short by 100-120 lines, perhaps transmitting an abbreviated version of the homily or involving a very large lacuna. In either case, the missing lines in ii probably contain part or parts of the text known from the medieval manuscripts. The possibilities can be narrowed down by eliminating the cases wThere a clause would not have been completed shortly after rr avr[ in ii 2. Assuming that ovkovv KaOa prjcLv, i.e. the beginning of the clause in ii 3, was copied intact in ii 2 and that no alteration took place to smooth the transition, 20 letters are needed to complete ii 2. The only suitable text is that of 945A, and ii 1-2 can be restored as:

7raAat
CfjLw[8r}(ji€va [xercjLKexwpyKev etc aX rjdetav 77arr[a yap ev Xoj /cairn* ovkovv Kada prjciv
(For K€xpr]cpLw8r}pi€va, A has - xpyp* ~ (at the end of a page), but I (mg.) and M have the correct spell- ing, as in Migne.) I he causal clause 6776187) 7rap(pxrlK€v V T°v vopiov cKia, /cat ra tvttlkwc tolc rraXat KexprjCfxwS^fxeva p^eraKeydipyKev etc aX^Oeiav, iravra yap iv Xpicra) Kaiva is then to be taken with wrhat precedes and not (as in Migne’s text) as the beginning of a new sentence in asyndeton. In terms of meaning, this would represent a suitable breaking point, because it is the last sentence before introducing a new discussion on tvttos ■ d he beginning of ii 1 also marks a new topic, following (in the medieval tradition) the discussion on gender. If this conjecture holds and the text runs uninterrupted from i 11 to ii 1, then there are 22 lines in between, resulting in a column of 34 lines and a roll 38-40 cm high and 3.2 m in length, if it contained a single homily.

I here are other possibilities raised by the hypothesis of an abbreviated version: perhaps there are several small portions of text omitted rather than a single large chunk, or ii 1-2 (or part thereof) is a paraphrase of a portion of text, serving as a transitional phrase connecting the two excerpts and therefore not found in the tradition of the full text. Alternatively, ii 1-2 could be transmitting a new reading, always within the hypothesis of an abbreviated version. If this is the case, it is not possible to reconstruct ii 1-2.

A hypothesis explaining the discontinuity in the text is that the papyrus has a sizeable lacuna due to its scribe or its exemplar, but the text involved is far longer than an accidental omission could justify. One may also consider the possibility of a missing folio in the exemplar, since the amount of text missing is roughly the equivalent of a large codex folio, or a bifolio from a codex of a smaller format. This hypothesis requires a scribe to have copied from a codex onto a roll, and there is no evidence for such a practice. However, it would not be surprising if the exemplar was a codex. This would have been the norm for a patristic text in the sixth century. Aland- Rosenbaum, Repertorium II p. cxvi, report that the only patristic texts that are certain to have been written on papyrus rolls in all centuries are Paschal Letters. All other known manuscripts of homilies copied after the fifth century are certain to be codices, and only one from the fourth/fifth century is possibly a roll. In all periods, the vast majority ol homilies are copied on codices. If the surviving evidence reflects reality at all, then it would not be surprising for the scribe to be copying from a codex. Copying from a codex to a roll is probably unusual, but a late patristic papyrus roll is a rarity in its own right, regardless of the exemplar. Perhaps the Festal Letter of 5074 was not intended for private use but for delivery on a special occasion, in this case at Easter. In the period concerned, the roll was possibly used to convey a grand, archaizing impression of formality, as in Easter letters typically written on luxurious rolls.

5074. CYRIL OF ALEXANDRIA, FESTAL LETTERS 28

3-5 avSpt^ecde . . . K[vpLo)v. The quotation from Psalm 30:25 agrees with the majority of the Septuagint manuscripts against S, which has tov kv.

3 The trace in the margin may be offset rather than part of a diple .

6-12 810 . . . u[pac. For this quotation from I Peter 1:13-16 the papyrus text corresponds to that of A. However, there are variants in the New7 Testament tradition at 1:14 in our text at 11 ev rrj ayvota v(a[cov\ 8 i and 1243PC omit the article, 1241 the wiiole phrase, and SJ>72 has only ayvoia vpLajv.
10 The letter-space before per) may have held a mark of punctuation, as at i 9, 11.

M. KONSTANTINIDOU

II. NEW LITERARY TEXTS

5075. Lyric Dialogue from Drama i 8 2B.66/F(6)c 6.8 x n.r. cm First/second century
Plate III

A single fragment with the ends of eleven lines of verse written across the fibres. On the other side is what E. G. Turner, who first examined the text, described as 'a register of money payments, tiny quick hand, parts of two columns’; the verses are in 'medium sized, round, upright mannered capitals’ which he assigned provisionally to the late first or early second century ad. A useful comparison for the handwriting is VIII 1083 + XXVII 2453 (Turner— Parsons, GAIA W2 no. 28),
Sophocles, assigned to the second century. There, the contrast between heavy and light strokes, the oblique pen angle, and the prominent serifs that are seen in our fragment are noticeably accentuated, the rounded curves having developed into ovals, with characteristically narrow e e o c. A closer parallel is the tragic fragment first published by Lobel in Essays in Honour of Gilbert Murray (1936), with a plate (M— P* 1710), assigned by Lobel to the first century; probably earlier still, and assigned by Turner to the first half of the first century, is the main hand of XXXIII
2654, Menander, Karchedonios, GMAW 2 no. 41, with signs of similar calligraphic trends. Unlike that hand, and judging by the upright of his p, curved or serifed and strictly on line, our copyist affects a bilinear style (there is no cf) or 'p present), though he tends to favour the upper diagonals of A and A, which sometimes project slightly. Punctuation is by single high point, written at the stage of copying, with dicolon in mid-line and at the end in 4 to mark change of speaker (there are no line-beginnings to show paragraphi). Elision in 8 (perhaps in 5) is unmarked. 10 has a marginal note to show that a reading has been checked. In a space left below that line, in a similar small sloping hand, and apparently marked off from the text by horizontal lines, is what I take to be the remains of xopoy ueAOC. indicating a lyric not preserved with the text. Below this heading, at the right, there is a strip of blank papyrus about 2 cm wide x 4 cm, most likely indicating a lavish lower margin in keeping with the calligraphic quality of the script. Lines as long as 2, 4,
6, 8, and 9-1 1 would be expected to show ends in it of 2-3 letters; either therefore a system of shorter lines followed, or what survives represents the foot of a column.
rfhe signs are of a carefully written professional copy of a fourth-century bc play that had survived, or been revived, to be part of the cultural repertory at the end of the first century or the early second ad. With the lack (so far as I can find) of any external evidence to help us, its nature and identity remain open to conjecture.

The language is compatible with tragedy, though an elevated mode of comedy

5075. LYRIC DIALOGUE FROM DRAMA

is perhaps not ruled out a prion. In line 4, a father says goodbye to his son, who says goodbye in return. A he part-marking at line-end suggests that the son has no more to say, and departs. If so, either the father speaks the remaining lines, or else he too departs, possibly going inside, and the lines are spoken by a third party who has been witness to the scene. 1 here is no sign of any more elaborate subdivision. The reference to ovtoc 6 rrafc (9) seems more likely to be said by the father of his son, now ofistage, than by anyone else. The reference to some kind to death (if it is that) in 7 would be consistent with a departure for battle. One looks, in other words, for a plot that features the motif of the soldier’s farewell, recalling, however distantly, the parting of Hector and Andromache in Iliad 6; but also enough in the mind of audiences to be deployed for comic effect by Menander at Sarnia 687 IT. In our piece, nothing of the general tone or the detail points positively towards comedy, and it is therefore to post-classical tragedy that we should look. That is, for all we know, where a lyric dialogue such as the present one would be most likely at home.

As to metre, the surviving line-ends show an apparently uniform double-short pattern (line 3 is much shorter, for whatever reason, than the rest); see the more detailed analysis below.

This heading [xopoy] ue aoc following line 11 (and set off by decorative strokes) is of literary interest as a sign that the play is post-classical (hence the dating to the fourth century bc above). It also bears on the reconstruction of the text. If the heading was centred, as we should expect, the central vertical axis of the column should come approximately at ov|ov in 10. That would suggest a column of some 8 cm breadth, perhaps more if the words xopoy Me-xoc were widely spaced apart, and — without prejudice to consideration of possible metrical patterns — a loss of about ten letters, give or take, before the longer endings that survive.

No overlap with a previously known text has so far been observed. It is perhaps useful to recall the Hector of the younger Astydamas, which is represented in papyrus fragments, for which see TrGF i2 60 F **ih, **ii, **2a, and, it seems, by the Hector proficiscens of Naevius, which may have been based on it: see further O.
Touchefeu, in LIMC 4.1 (1988) 482-98.

The present edition, with certain revisions made since, was presented to the Working Party on New Greek Texts from Oxyrhynchus held at the British Academy on 24 June 2009.

ME W L I TERA R Y TEX TS

].[

].[
apacor cv'.KaLCVTrarep:

*ccoc8cAcyc ] o 1 8 cv • a KTj k o cy ap varovSrjapa pLOVTTOLpepLOV

]pL0L0VT0C07T0LLC

IcfivTCpOC'SeOpLCLL
ovovcoii.Laxoi.iai’ ov
] _
cAoC

].[

].[ ].*[..]$. .d
] irapa cor yafp]e cv. (. B ) /cat cv, irarcp.
- ]y *• cc oc Sc Acyct otScv* aKTjKoe yap

-javarov St) apa “].Pt0V Trap’ cpt ov’
]pLOi OVTOC 6 TTaiC
7rpe]cj3vTepoc’ Scopcai ovov cbi jitayo/Ltar
' ]

[. XOPOY ] MEAOC

ov(tcoc)

Metre: At first sight, the metrical pattern might be taken as anapaestic dimeters, as in ii, for example, ~ ~ ^ ^ -] ovov <L fidyo^ai. Against that is the laek of the normal median diaeresis appar ent in 4, 6, and io, together with the eorreption in both 7 and 9, given that conception, cso frequent in the Homerie hexameter, is more eommon in dactyls than in any other lyrie metre’ (A. M. Dale, Lyric Metres of Greek Drama (hg68) 25-6). In fact, in so far as they are extant or credibly restorable, all the line-ends either present, or would fit, the pattern of a daetylie hemiepes; and this time, at any rate in 4-1 1, a word break before that pattern is either present (4, 6, 10) or possible. Accordingly, line 3, abnormally short, may eoneeivably have been a single hemiepes on its own, with the remaining lines having a first half of matching metrical as well as physical length. It should be borne in mind that a shorter line might be inset (and a longer line than the norm correspondingly outset) by a measure of about one or two letters.

1 — 1 1 beginnings: I have not found parallels in surviving drama that would determine what the first half of these lines was, and the use of them stiehically for a lyrie dialogue may therefore be the author’s own innovation. Continuous elegiae pentameters, with the first half equivalent to the seeond, would be a challenge to the restorer, in view of the limited space available for supplements (assuming our approximation from the presumed xopoy ucaoc is valid) as well as from the varying requirements of the different endings. It may therefore be (though this suggestion is not without its difficulties) that the eomposer adopted a shorter metrical unit, such as the daetylie tetrameter eataleetie, as in A. Eum . 1042 Xaparaht Tcprropicvai Kad' oSov (= 1046) or Ar. Frogs 879, eA Oct’ irroipofAcvaL hvvapuv, and 881 (L. P. E. Parker, Songs of Aristophanes 48—55, makes a survey of daetylie lvries in tragedy and eomedy). This might lead to such restorations as 4 tt at, 7rou, xa9°lf 7 Svcdavarov 9]avaTov and,
9-10 i-w S’ arroXcoXc] fxoi ovroc o 77cuc / [01410c o 7Tpc]cfivT€poc. Here, however, we enter the realm of what Denys Page, in Greek Literary Papyri (1950) viii, well describes as private poetry.

2 A dot of ink above }tt in 3 may be from a deseendcr, <\> or f, in 2. At the end, -cir, perhaps e[77i]Scrr, can be thought of.

4 Kai cv responding to as at Menander, Dis Ex. 104: see ad loe. in LXIV 4407 ; but here, near the end of an episode, xaLP€ ls a word of farewell, as for instance at Eur. Hipp. 1453, not a greeting.

5 ] traces of a vertical and of a high horizontal (? r, p). After the stop, apparently e (like that

5075. LYRIC DIALOGUE FROM DRAMA

of Se) rather than c. At the end, traces of a vertical on twisted fibres, presumably t; probably not enough ink for N, to verify S' eXeyev.

7 Upper part of down-sloping diagonal suggests A, as for davarov , or a derivative: adavarov , with its regular long first syllable; or Sue davarov, ev8a varov.

Srj apa with corrcption, as possibly in Homeric St) eWira, for example at II. 15.163, Od. 17.185; but in the collocation St) apa in Homer, as at Od. 7.18 and elsewhere, the long quantity of St) is maintained, just as it appears in the metrical variant St) pa.

9 ]m, not c or 1, is given by a descender with curving foot; whence pLot or e]/xoi, with conception.

11 J # , trace of a high ink: (?)r or t (but does not join o); possibly tt; hardly kk. The marginal note, equivalent to sic , indicates that a doubtful reading has been checked against a master copy or a commentary and found to conform: see Turner— Parsons GAIA ( I 2 15 and n. 78; for more, and more elaborate, examples of collation, see William A. Johnson, The Ancient Book’, in R. S. Bagnall (ed.),
The Oxford Handbook of Papyrology (2009) 256-81 at 274-5.

After 11, with its high stop at the end, another line of text may possibly have followed (a short one, if so). I assume, rather, a blank space; then, in a hand smaller and less formal than the text hand, there appear letters representing /xeAoc, with a line above (and, very likely, from parallels, another line below, where the papyrus is broken away), xopoy ucaoc, as restored here, is a heading for choral perfomance not recorded as part of the text, as in P. Hib. II 174.10 (? Astydamas, Hector): see the editor's note, and with it Handley, ‘ XOPOY in the Plutns\ C{) n.s. 3 (1953) 58 n. 3 (since that note was written, many more examples of the simple xopoy of Comedy are available from papyri of Dyskolos ,
Misoumenos , Sikyonios , and other rediscovered Menander).

E. W. HANDLEY

5076. Old G OMEDY

10 iB.i69/F(d-e) fr. i 6.5 x 7 cm Second/tliird century
Plate III

Fragment 1 is a scrap from the foot of a column, with a preserved lower margin of 2.5 cm. It has the beginnings of lines of verse; frr. 2 and 4 have a few letters from mid-line; fr. 3 gives more beginnings, one with a paragraphus to indicate change of speaker in or after the line ; nowhere do there seem to be possible joins.
In all, 25 verses are represented (9 + 5 + 249), written in a medium-sized Biblical Majuscule, very like that of the fragments of New Comedy published together as LXII 4302. As there, a minor variation can be seen in the breadth of stroke, frr.
2, 3, and 4 being written with a slightly finer pen than fr. 1 : the difference seems hardly enough to suggest that the group does not belong together. See further on this style G. Cavallo, Ricerche sulla maiuscola biblica (1967) and P. Orsini, Manoscritti in maiuscola biblica (2005). Punctuation by a single high point is present in fr. 4.3; elision is marked by diastole in fr. 1.4 and 9 and fr. 4.8; fr. 3 has a paragraphus for change of speaker, and another lectional aid to be noted there.

The text is identified as Comedy by the appearance of two slave names, Sosias and Parmenon (the latter incomplete) in fr. 1.8. The mixture of metrical patterns points to a lyric passage of Old Comedy, rather than to Later Comedy; and though

NEW LITERARY TEX T S

Sosias and Parmenon might seem most at home in the age of Menander, they are present in Aristophanes too: see Wasps 78 and 136, and Eccl. 868. Fr. 4 is in a singleshort metre, iambic trimeter or possibly trochaic tetrameter; nothing certain can be said about the metre of the two smaller scraps. In fr. 1, double-short patterns are present in lines 2, 5, and 9 — clearest in 9, with cvtoc ercov S’ oXly\a)V, in spite of more damage, 5 appears to correspond, less certainly 2. Single-short is guaranteed by 8, Cajciav, ktX., and, given an element of conjecture, is recognizable elsewhere, as in 6, where [xa [ror] deov tov [ looks unarguable. In 3, there is blank papyrus at the end of a line that is shorter than its neighbours. All this suggests what might be described as a comic version of dactylo-epitrites, written out in short units in such a way that the surviving lines may not be far from complete. A sketch for a restoration can be proposed on that basis. With more detailed comments to follow below,
I refer here to the choral odes in Aristophanes, Wasps 273 fT., and other passages considered by L. P. E. Parker, The Songs of Aristophanes (1997) 85-90, and in her following detailed analyses.

The chorus (for such it should be) is here singing of a spacious place, [e]3[/>] v-
Xopov, fr. 1.1-2, possibly (though there are other ways to restore) 'a great city’, n[6Xiv . . . ix€ya[Xrjv. The place is in some sense connected with prosperity, unless -oA/3- in 3 can be explained away; and the speakers themselves are involved, as witness rnxco[v in 4, where a recognizable future infinitive accompanied by ttotU) shows that they are referring to something that will happen one day, and not to the here and now. Going on, the essence appears to be that the chorus swears not to convey X there (X being ‘the Akamantid’ of 5) but Sosias, son of Parmenon; ‘and within a few years . . .’. This is, then, a chorus expressing its power to favour a friend and disfavour an enemy, as fifth-century choruses commonly do; and the favour will consist of a passage to an ideally prosperous place with a future to it. That would put the play in the class of Ideal World comedies, as represented in different forms by Aristophanes’ Birds and by a number of lost plays, of which there is recent discussion and helpful bibliography in two successive papers in David Harvey and John Wilkins (edd.), The Rivals of Aristophanes (2000), namely Paola Ceccarelli, ‘Life among the Savages and Escape from the City in Old Comedy' at 453-71, and Ian Ruffell, ‘The World Turned Upside Down: Utopia and Utopianism in the Fragments of Old Comedy’ at 473-506; see also M. Farioli, Mundus alter: Utopie e distopie nella commedia antica (Milan 2001), reviewed by Wilkins in CR 58 (2008) 28-9. It is for consideration whether scrutiny of the detail will allow one to go that far or any way further in classifying this new text. The vocabulary of fr. 4, so far as it can be made out, is that of a political denunciation. Line 6 refers to voting; line 8, probably, to the office of strategos; lines 2 and 4 to outrageous and ostentatious behavior; and line 8 to theft, the ever-recurrent accusation of financial misdealing. One thinks above all of Aristophanes' portrayal of Cleon in Knights and elsewhere: though there is no visible clue to the victim’s identity, he is one of those who must qualify.

5076. OLD COMEDY

If the allusion in ‘the AkamanticT is to Pericles, perhaps without rival as the outstanding member of that phyle, the play should date from before his death in 429 bc; and so Cratinus’ Ploutoi comes into question, with its chorus of Sai/xovec ttXovtoSotcu , as we hear of them from Hesiod, Works and Days i2iff. This is a play already known from papyrus fragments as well as from quotations; on the basis of a reference in Athenaeus (6. 267E, quoted under fr. 176 KA) it is commonly held to be the earliest of the ‘Ideal World’ comedies, and is assigned to one of the festivals of Winter/Spring 429. The chorus visits Athens to inspect the state of the democracy (fr. 171.22—6 KA); and there survive, in trochaic tetrameters, the preliminaries of an enquiry into Hagnon and Nicias (essentially, fr. 171.60-76 KA). The kinship of motif, and perhaps of metre with our fr. 2 is striking. Nonetheless, Cratinus’
Ploutoi offers no direct link with the present text; nor (so far as I can discover) do the other remains of fifth-century comedy. In any case, the chronology of the end of Pericles’ career and the production date of Ploutoi remain debatable. See, in general, W. R. Connor, The Mew Politicians of Fifth-Century Athens (1971), especially 161-98 and 205, with the recent discussions by M. Wright, ‘The Art of Comedy and the Trojan War’, 6(^57 (2007) 412-31 and E. Bakola, Cratinus and the Art of Comedy (2010), especially 208-20, with a text of the papyrus fragments of Ploutoi (171
KA) at Appendix 3.

A shorter version of this edition was presented at the Archimedes Palimpsest Colloquium in Budapest, 18-22 September 2007; it is published in Acta Antiqua Academiae Hungaricae 48 (2008) 49-54.

Fr. 1

L . ]. .x. .[. .]. .[

[.]v[.]uxo8oiTey«L

[.].o^q-[.]yva>

8ap£e[ ] t od 'rj/jLcol
5 tovt[ \KapcavTi8\ 5

Ha[ ^ ] €ovtov[

TO ' [ ^€7TOp9pL€Vc[ cwcLavTovTrap/Jiel €VTOC€TCl>v8 }oXiy\

L . ]. .X. . M/? ^j[oXiv
[e]v[p]vx°p°^ jJL€ya\\rjV
[YJuoAjSa [k]€ivo>(i)

8' ap£e[i]v Tjod y rjpLO)[v rra povToov TOV t[} A\KapL<XVTl8[oC OV pea [top ] deov TOV \lv9a8i
7TOp6pL€Vc[aj ttot' aXXa Coociav TOV llappi€[vcovoc •

? ' 5 S y ’ \ f f"
cvtoc ctojv o oAiylojv
i ] x [? a l°w trace °f then down-sloping diagonal, followed, apparently, by crossing- diagonal for x ; then trace of a leftward curve and foot of an upright : perhaps therefore Aax4»f ] . . [> a long descender, p, y, <)>, -p; then two verticals with horizontal over, as for tt: (?) [ya]p tt[ or [ira] p tj[ 3 [ ] , traces of a vertical, hardly y, possibly [i]v a narrow gap after oA/3, [i] possible ] , particles of high and low ink would suit e or c 4 first, probably A, with a trace of a horizontal on the line, not t t ] , first a vertical, then top of a \ ei tical and I101 izontal as tor uppe r corner of tt, the rest of' it damaged

ME W LITER A R Y TEX TS

Fr.

]A<?§e [
wi..[

M.M

].ewTP[

* ]..[

? aA]Ao SeiJVoy
? ]t av[a]|i[-

♦

? yla/<]ajr[t]/<:[-
? ] id) rp[-

Tic[
tclk[-

Fr. 2
i # [, remains of a vertical 2 alternatively -]taF €f[- 3 alternatively -]cov ck[-

5 [, a particle of ink on the line
Fr. 4

]eAycuvcuv[
ac]eAyaivam[
evocStarf
Kopcovia
KOpcovta ' [

]TTcoytyv
5

]eipOTOvr][
x\eipoTOvr][

]uctvSe/ca[ t rjyrjc’ov '
]/<Ae77Tam[
kXztttojv
1 ]m m[, obscured by encrustation, the second perhaps an upright 3 ] . 5 the edge of an upright 4 ] . j an upright # [, a speck on the edge level with the tops of the letters 5 # [,
e or o 7 core 8 ] . , the end of a cross-bar level with the tops of the letters # [, specks on the edge, suggesting an upright
Fr. 1

. . broad . . . great . . . prosperous, so to rule one day in our presence. And the man of Aka- mantis, by the god present here, 1 shall never bring there, but Sosias, son of Parmenon. And within a few years . .

Metre: Like the reconstruction itself, the following description must be taken as tentative.

1 At line-end, the scansion may have been either ~ - or ~ — before the double-short unit that follows; the latter is presented in 3, and assumed here in 4 and 8.

2 See above: two dactyls, presumably from a hemiepes with the last element missing, here taken as the metrical unit D of dactylocpitrite, as in 9; and also in 5, where the last two elements are lost, but the sense appears to continue plausibly into 6.

3 -S(e) of cSS(e) is written at the beginning of 4.

5076. OLD COMEDY

4 As restored, - e e
6 As restored, w E (= ia. dim).

7-8 As restored, E - twice (- 2 troch. dim.), 7 ending with short open syllable, 8 with short closed syllable; presumably composed as one long unit, with period-end marked by brevis in longo at sense pause.

9 D = dactylic hemiepes.

1-4 Reconstruction involves guesswork. Missing are nouns for evyopoic , as read in 2, as well as for the other adjectives represented by pLeya- and by oA/3iguciv, 3; further, a construction is needed for the future infinitive ap^eiv in 4. Just possibly, that construction is provided if we read Xaydjv in 1
(‘bound ... to rule one day'), with the accompanying phrases giving the circumstances. rjpLcov may then be absolute, supplemented by Trapovrcov (or perhaps SiSovrcor, Trapeprojv). evpvyopocj ^ueyac, and oAjStoc are all praise-words of prestigious places (see LSJ sw); a guess to account for them might be [77a] p TrfAaretouc] | [e]p[p]t»yopotc, /ueyaJAaic t’ dyopaic] | [e]r oA/3[ t]a[i]cir, ‘amongst wide ways and grand, prosperous market-places'. The subject should be Sosias, son of Parmenon (8), or if not, another hero. One recalls that Peisetairos, in Aristophanes’ Birds, ended up as ruler of the City of the Sky, and husband of Basileia, daughter of Zeus: he is heralded as rvpawoc (1708).

2 evpvyopoc is, according to LSJ, ‘Prop, with broad dancing places, cf. yopoc; then a conventional epithet, perh. connected by poets with ycopoc’: of cities, e.g. Lacedaimon, and places, e.g.
Hellas, from Homer onwards: note epecially Pindar, Pyth. 8.54k acj)l^era 1 . . . Afiavroc evpvyopovc ayvtac. pL€ya[\aic . . . 6Xj3[i]a[i}ctp assumes two adjectives on one noun, as, for instance, Pindar, OL i.iof. i c d<pvedv lko^uvovc pcaKaipav lepcovoc ecrtav. Note also Horn. Epigr. 14.5 7ioAAa pcev elv ayopfj 7Toj\€vpL€va> ttoXXol S ’ dyvtatc. The place in question may well be entirely imaginary, but it is possible to wonder if it does not in some way allude to Thurii, founded on the site of Sybaris in South Italy with strong Athenian sponsorship in 444/ 3 bc, and with an ambitious town plan by Hippodamus of Miletus.

5 People are sometimes alluded to by the name of their nation, city, or (if Athenian) deme, as with Hagnon, son of Nicias, of Steiria, in Cratinus, Ploutoi 171.678 KA rov CreipuAc yap evKra rov [j Slop ckottciv ] / oV KaXovc’ Aypcopa vvv; there is a similar reference to ‘the man from Steiria’ (this time someone not named) at Lysias 16.15, quoted by KA. If, as it appears, a man is being designated here by the name of his tribe, there may have been a special reason: if so, it is not made clear. Pericles, as was remarked in the prefatory note, is outstandingly prominent as a member of the phyle Akamantis, and this may have been one of his nicknames, like ‘the Olympian (Ar. Adi. 53°), or 'the squill-headed Zeus5 (Cratinus, Thrattai 73 KA). If that is so, since the person in question is evidently supposed to be alive, the play must have been produced before Pericles’ death in 429 bc. That enhances the possibility that die author was Cratinus, since Eupolis had barely begun then, and Aristophanes not yet, while the fine copy from which the scrap comes suggests a major dramatist, one of the canonical three.

One might try to escape from finding a personal allusion by taking ‘the Akamantid5 as a general reference to ‘the citizen’, as opposed to Sosias (8) representing ‘the slave’; but il so, it is not obvious why membership of a phyle (or this particular phyle) rather than a deme should stand for citizenship, nor why a comic chorus such as this should exclude citizens generally, or those of this phyle, from the benefits it offers. It is true that ‘world turned upside down’ comedies do fantasize on situations in which slaves no longer do their work (Crates, Thena 16 KA; Pherecrates, Agrioi 10 KA); but that is another matter.

6-7 The designation of the god is lost and open to speculation. The supplement given presumes that the reference is to Dionysus, present at the edge of the orchestra in the person of his statue, and so to the chorus, top Se. This speculation is perhaps more likely than assuming that the rorSe refers back to the .Akamantid of 5, who would then, by the normal usage of this pronoun in drama, be supposed to be physically present rather than vividly present to mind: see Fraenkel on A.

NEW LI TER A R T TEX T S

Ag. 160-62 and Sandbach on M. Dysk. 125. The presence of Apollo at the house door in the form of his altar or emblem is sometimes alluded to in drama, as in the oath vrj tov AttoAAoj tovtovI, for which see iVl . Dysk. 659 and commentators ad loc.; so, in front of his temple, Pan is ovtoc ... 6 Ilav, ibid.
311. TovSe here, it seems, is more intimate: at Ar. Clouds 319 the chorus swears an oath by tov Aiovvcov tov cKBpeipavra fie.

7 7t opdpe dc[co, first person singular (not in itsell unambiguous; it could, if complete, represent the noun or, if not, another part of the verb), could be taken as a statement by the chorus in spite of first person plural rjpwv in 4, for the reference readily shifts, as at An Ach. 312 from . . . irpoc rjp.de to eir} iyw cov (fyelcopcu;

8 Restoring the genitive provides the slave with a mock patronymic. Both - wvoc and -ovtoc forms are attested, IJappievovfa) at Men. Sam. 281. For the patronymic, note the slave’s boastful declaration in Plautus, Amph. 365, Sosiam uocant Thebani, Dauo prognatum patre; here it is part of the fantasy of the situation that the chorus presents, in a mood more euphoric than satirical. A Sosias son of Parmenon is known to a learned scholiast on Aristophanes, Wasps 78, as David Whitehead pointed out to me in discussion: see AAxiH 48 (2008), above. It is open to question whether he was a real person or a prosopographical derivative from the present passage, as I incline to think. The coincidence, however interpreted, is remarkable.

Fr. 2

Metre: undetermined; fr. 4, like fr. 2, is from mid-line in a single short metre; fr. 3, from a dialogue scene, most likely gives the beginnings of iambic trimeters.

Too few letters are preserved to allow unambiguous reading and articulation, and other possibilities than those offered are not hard to find.

Fr. 3

1 tic [, alternatively no [, the last a trace at the edge, mid-line to low-line; over die iota, the lower part of a small circle, followed by the lower end of a sloping oblique, taken here as an aid to the reader, in the shape of a sign of short quantity and, perhaps, an acute accent: this rather than o as a correction and the tail of a stroke from the line above. Possibly tic i[c8\

2 The paragraphus marks a change of speaker at the end of the line, within it, or both.

Fr. 4

1 Ambiguous: e.g. encav, -ar[r5; -jc tlcclv[t}] ctlc’ av\ : from ‘pay' (a penalty, a sum of money).

2 accXyalvcov , of licentious or other outrageous behavior, only here in Comedy; but Ar. Wasps 61 has dvaceXycuvopevoc ‘being abused’ (cV- Hermann); aceXyrjc and accXycbc are recurrent in the vocabulary of abuse, as well as the verb -alvco: e.g. Andocides, Against Alcibiades (4). 7.

3 (?) cvoc, yevoc, -/xevoc, etc. Std r[aura seems likely enough after the stop, but if the metre is troch. tetr., the long syllabic would give a second example within a few lines of the 'dactylic5 resolution that is found only in a handful of isolated examples throughout Attic Comedy In line 6, the pattern is inevitable, but can be defended from examples contained within a word or word-group, as in TTopvlhiov, Men. Perik. 150 or rrjv KtcfxxXrjv, Ar. Ach. 318; but in 3 the pattern is broken by a stop, and would depend for a possible parallel on Men. Sik. 135 (itself disputed) Crparo^dvrj, Kara cvpifioXa.

Restorations that avoid this difficulty are nonetheless available: e.g. Sia r[t . or St ’ arfu^/ar. See further White, Verse of Greek Comedy §205, 250, 264; and Sandbach on Men. Dysk. 774 vrj Ala, 7tXovcloc y ' avrjp , with further references.

4 The circumflex accent, no doubt added for clarification, marks the rare verb Kopcovidcu ; it is unclear whether third person singular or another part was written. It apparently describes exuberant behavior, not unlike dvaxatrt^co (LSJ under 1.1) or Kepovnaoj (Ar. Ach. 1344); it is used of a lively

5076. OLD COMEDY

bronze horse by Lysippus in an epigram by Philip (AP 9.777, 2 = 3059 G.-P.); of human ambition (Polybius 27.15.6); and coupled with yavpiwvra Dio Chrysostomos 78.33. I nless it is to be found at Hesiod Sc. 289 or Semoniclcs 18 W. (both doubtful), this is the earliest recorded instance.

5 One can think of ov}ttw or ouSe]77co, according to metrical position, followed by a suitable part of ylyvojjLai.

6 Part of x^pororeo), inevitably: but what part? Possibly aorist or perfect participle passive, of election to office rather than appointment by lot, as in x^Lporovr)dcic rj Xa ycov (Plato, Politicus 300A, quoted with Aeschines 1.106 by LSJ). As elsewhere in this fragment, there is more than one metrical possibility; for the resolution, if troch. tetr. and not ia. trim., see on 3 above.

7 Perhaps, in iambics, 7T€p]vciv 8c /<*aft rue - w - (vvv re /cat jrcpvciv , Xen. HG 3.2,7), but the quantity of v is undetermined, and -civ may rather be -civ. Otherwise, at line-end, the same letters admit various possibilities, among them (with long v or diphthong) -vciv 8c Ka or 8c Ka[l, (with short v) -vciv 8ck<i[kic or S6/ca[roc with w - to follow.

8 ccrpa]rrjyr]c \ of being or becoming a crparr]y6c , is attractive, giving a welcome third person and sense suitable to the apparent context of political attack.

9 k\citt<jjv: hardly a compound. MacDowell on Ar. Wasps 758-9 notes that 'the present tense of kXctttu), as of aSiKcco, can have a perfect sense: “being guilty of theft’”. The verb, and its related nouns kXottt) and kXctttt]c , are used of financial misdemeanours of various kinds by holders of public offices, and an action for kXottti could be brought against them. See, for instance, Ar. Knights 1224-6,
1252, and passim, of Cleon; Lys. 490, of Peisanclros.

E. W. HANDLEY

5077. Epicurus (et al.)5 Epistukae ad familiares
100/ 117(a) fr. 1 5.4 x 13.5 cm Late first / early second century
7 iB-3/J(e) fr. 2 13.5 x 16.4 cm Plates IV-V

38 3B.8i/C(i-3)c1 fr. 33.1 x 10.5 cm
Tvvo ensembles and a single fragment, together preserving parts of 4-5 columns written along the fibres of a papyrus roll. On the back of fr. 1 and across the fibres, the same way up, are accounts of building materials in a documentary cursive of roughly contemporary date, scheduled for publication in a later volume.
The back of frr. 2 and 3 is blank. There is a single trace of a line-end of a column preceding fr. 1 col. i (upper right arm of k, y, x?) at the level of line 4. Location of detached pieces in frr. 1—2 has been determined though the identification ol continuities of writing, fibres, and surface quality on both fronts and backs. (Where single rows of dots appear separating detached pieces in the transcript ol fr. 1 col. i, vertical alignment is assured, but their exact level is a matter of conjecture.) That frr. 1-3 belong to one and the same papyrus roll depends on the identity ol handwriting, format, layout, size of letters, interlinear space, line-lengths, and shared graphic traits (see below). The colour and surface quality of the far right side of fr.
1 is visibly closer to that of fr. 2 than elsewhere in fr. 1 . Extant intercolumnar space between the columns in frr. 1-3 is identical (c.1.8 cm). Placement of fr. 3 relative to the other two is uncertain. Line-beginnings in fr. 1 col. ii and in fr. 3 and the line- ends of fr. 2 col. i may, but need not, be from one and the same column.

MEW LITERARY TEXTS

The script is a medium-large, confident, fluid capital of the Formal Round type known from the end of the first and beginning of the second century. Its main feature is an upright, bilinear rotundity in which o, e, and © are built on the same perfectly round shape (only <f) is slightly compressed vertically into an oval shape, normally not quite closed at top). KA and go are similarly rounded, though wider. H, n, and tt, although not rounded, occupy an almost square space, with only slight vertical extension. Although the script is relatively undecorated, slight finials sometimes appear on the tops and bottoms of uprights. The handwriting bears some resemblance to II 246 (Roberts, GLH ioc, Return of Sheep a.d. 66), although more confident and stylized and somewhat later: the mid-stroke of e is often attached to the inside of the bowl, but is occasionally detached and almost never extends beyond it (cf. fr. 2 ii n).

Lectional signs are in part to be attributed to the original scribe : circumflex accent (fr. i i io), apostrophe (9), punctuation by low stop (2) and by paragraphus (fr. 1 i 1, 7, 18, 25; ii 2; fr. 2 ii 24). The high stops (fr. 1 i 7, 9) and the inorganic diaeresis on initial 1 (fr. 1 i 3, 6) were written using a darker hue of ink and may well have been added by a second hand or pen. Frr. 1 and 3 show a coronis (at the level of 12-13). There is one correction (fr. 1 i 25). The writer inconsistently elides final vowels before vowel-initial words (once marked by apostrophe: fr. 1 i 9), sometimes writing scriptio plena, lota adscript is sometimes written, sometimes omitted (in fr. 2; no certain opportunity to observe in fr. 1); crasis, apparently, at least twice (fr. 1 i 3,
14). An even right-hand edge is aimed for by the elision (marked by apostrophe: fr.
1 i 9) or diminution, suspension, and crowding of the final letters at end of the line (fr. 1 i 2, 7, 8; fr. 2 ii 27, 29, 32), or by the omission of final nu signalled by a stroke above the preceding vowel at line-end (fr. 1 i 5, 6; fr. 2 ii 17). Maas’s law may be observed in both fragments.

The manner of address (direct address in fr. 1 ; first person plural in both frr.) is epistolary. In the context of a bookhand and bookroll this would normally imply a collection of letters. The marginal coronides after fr. 3.12 and fr. 1 ii 10 presumably marked the end of one letter and the beginning of the next (unless the latter was the last letter in the collection, in which case it also marked the end of the roll). Neither writer nor addressee is named, except perhaps in fr. 3; the writer in fr. i hails from Athens or Attica (see on i 8). However, mention of other known persons (including Epicurus: fr. 3.13), places, and books, together with a strikingly stylized phrase (at fr. 1 i 10-12) and the philosophical content of fr. 2, identify 5077 as belonging to the widely circulating collection of the letters of Epicurus and his earliest followers, dating from the first quarter or so of the third century bc (Epic. frr. 40-133 Arrighetti"). The collection was known from the second century bg (Philodemus, Bloc <Pi\a>vi8ov (P. Here. 1044) fr. 14,3-10 Gallo ncTro-qicey \ Se vcoic apyoic to</>eAt/xofc /rat | [r]ac €TnTO[xac r[atv] | cttlctoXcov) through to late antiquity. Philodemus, Cicero, Seneca, Porphyry, Marcus Aurelius, Dionysius the

5077. EPICURUS ( ETAL .), AD FAMILI ARES

Areopagite, and Didymus the Blind all refer to these letters and quote from them; formally, they could be cited by addressee in the form npoc + accusative (for the addressee), together with the year of the Athenian archon in which they were written (or copied), and which provided a chronological framework for the ordering of the letters in the collection: so Seneca, Epist. 18.9 in his epistolis ait , quas scripsit Charino magistratu ad Polyaenum. 5077 shows no overlap with any quotation from previously- known Epicurean letters. But the concern voiced over the time of safe sea travel (fr. 1 i 8-10) alludes to a well-known event recounted in one of them, viz. the oft- mentioned shipwreck Epicurus suffered while traveling from Athens to Asia Minor to visit his friends (see fr. 1 i 9 n.). The incident, together with concerns over safety in traveling by sea and resulting reflections on the self-sufficiency of happiness, became a familiar topos in Epicurean writing and commentary on it.

Like Cicero’s letters ad familiares, Epicurus’ collection also contained some of the addressees’ corresponding letters to Epicurus, together with others from the recipients of his. By far the greater number, however, will have been authored by Epicurus himself. So while it is possible that the letter or letters preserved in 5077 could be by an Epicurean other than Epicurus, the number of candidates is diminished for fr. 1 by the mention of associates of Epicurus for whom letters are attested but who are here named: these include Leonteus (fr. 1 i 3) and perhaps also Mithres (fr. 1 i 21, ii 2). This leaves Idomeneus, Polyaenus, Metrodorus, and Pythocles as possible authors (the last famously lamented as having died perhaps too young to have left many letters; however, the evidence for his early death has been challenged by D. Sedley, CErc 6 (1976), while the opening of Epicurus’ Letter to Pythocles actually mentions a letter from him). (Similarly, a new fragment of P. Here.
1589 quotes from an archon-dated letter mentioning Themista and addressed to Leonteus: G. del Mastro, CErc 38 (2008) 225.) The confident address and assertive tone of the instructions in fr. 1 and the distinctively stylized formula of well-wishing (i 1 1 —12), together with the subject matter and satirical language in fr. 2, may be added to the argument from statistical probability for the authorship of Epicurus himself. Fr. 3.13 is the beginning of a letter that can be seen from its epistolary opening formula to be by Epicurus.

For Epicurus’ later reputation (on the basis of the circulating collection) as an avid letter writer, and for the range of his addressees and the contents and tone of his letters, see Plut. De lat. viv. 1128F-1129A (Epic. fr. 98 [Arrighetti2]) /cat /xi)r €l ye role xp-qcToie Xavdaveiv /cat ayvoeicdai napaiveic . . . /cat ceavrca npwTOv,
Eni-Kovpe • p,rj ypde/se rote ev Ada (fsiXoic, i-ir)8e rove an’ Acyvnrov £evoXoye 1, f-L-qSe tovc Aap,ifjaK7]vdjv ecf)r)f3ovc Sopvcpopei, p,~qbe bianej-rne fliflXovc naci /cat nacaic, eniheiKvvp,evoc nqv cottar, p.rj8e Stara ccov nepl raprjc, ‘If it is to good men that you aim this advice to go unnoticed and unknown, then you are telling Epaminon- das not to be a general. Lycurgus not to frame laws, 1 hrasybulus to slay no tyrants,
Pythagoras not to teach, Socrates not to converse, and yourself to begin with,

NEW LITERARY TEXTS

Epicurus, not to write to your friends in Asia, not to enlist recruits from Egypt, not to cultivate the youths of Lampsacus, not to circulate books to every man and every woman in which you advertise your wisdom, and not to leave instructions for your funeral.’ (Gf. the remarks of G. Roskam, Live Unnoticed ( Add e fiiajoas): On the Vicissitudes of an Epicurean Doctrine (2007) 101-28). Apart from cultivating <f>t,\la, the letters’ primary purpose was to give support and guidance to pupils and followers, thus encouraging and synchronizing philosophical efforts (see M. Erler, ‘Epikur’ in H. Flashar (ed.), Die Philosophic der Antike iv. 1 (1994) 48-51). Most prominent were the ‘didactic’ letters to Herodotus, Pythocles, and Menoeceus quoted at length (in the form of treatises in a flimsy epistolary frame) by D. L. io-35-83> 84-116, 122-35.
Other letters are known to have contained more personal, programmatic, propa- gandistic, or even trivial material (P. Here. 176 fr. 5 col. 23 Angeli, for example, gives the text of a letter to an unknown child, perhaps by Batis sister of Metrodorus =
Epic. fr. 261 Arrighetti2 = Herinarchus fr. 2 Longo Auricchio). See F. Javier Campos Daroca and M. de la Paz Lopez Martinez, ‘Communaute epicurienne et communication epistolaire: Lettres de femmes selon le PHerc. 176; la correspondance de Batis’, and A. Tepedino Guerra, ‘Le lettere private del Kijiroc: Metrodoro, i maestri e gli amici epicurei (PHerc. 176 e PHerc. 1418)’ in A. Antoni, G. Arrighetti et al. (eds.), Miscellanea papyrologica her culanensia I (2010) 21-36 and 37-62 respectively.

5077 seems to fall into the latter category, as it augments the modest but growing number of Epicurean texts to surface on papyri from Egypt: P. Getty Mus. acc. 76.A1.27 (CPF I* 5; cf. E. Puglia, fPE 117 (1997) 42-4); LI 3643 (CPF I* 50 2
T); P. Berol. inv. 16369 (CPF 51 4 T; 70 1 T; 70 2 T); P. Berol. inv. 21312 + P. Schu- bart 27, fr. a.2-6 (CPF I* 51 5 T); P. Grenf. II 7a (CPF 51 10?); II 215 (CPF 51 11);
XFVII 3318 (CPF 58 2 T); PSI VII 851b (= M-P3 2599, letter of Epicurus? cf. M.
Gronewald, fPE 36 (1979) 53-4); P Heid. inv. 1740 (= M-P3 2577); cf. LV 3724).
But it is so far the first identifiably from a corpus that achieved something like canonical status, both inside and outside the Epicurean school. The second-century bc Epicurean Philonides composed an epitome of the letters by Epicurus and his earliest authoritative followers, the Kadrjyef-Lovec, and other letters, following the order Kara yevoc. The anonymous author of P. Here. 176 and Philodemus in various treatises had one or even several collections of letters by the early Epicureans at their disposal (cf. A. Angeli, CErc 23 (1993) 11-12). Seneca can cite letters by Epicurus (Ep. 18.8; 22.5; 79.15; 7.1 1 ; 25.6, 9.1) and Metrodorus ( Ep . 79.16; 98.9; 99.25), while Cicero cites a letter by Epicurus (De fin. 2.30,96) that is elsewhere attributed to Hermarchus. Diotimus the Stoic mentioned 50 letters allegedly written by Epicurus that showed him in a dubious moral light (D. L. 10.3). All of this points to the emergence of an authoritative collection of letters attributed to Epicurus and his early associates, genuine and spurious alike. It is a reasonable probability that 5077 was part of this collection.

5077. EPICURUS (ET AL.), AD FAMILIARES 41

Fr. i col. i

C-4 ] a[ c. 13
c.\ ] a[ Cl 3
c6e.CL7TOCT€ \ ]r€/Cat77pO
cde, a,770CT6t[ Aa]rc /cat irpoc
Acovrcatva [ ] /cctvoc
/lcovrea tva /c[a] /cctvoc aTTOypai/jTjra kclltoclv aTToypai/jrjTau /cat to av-

5
nypacjyovKeXeveccx)^ t
5

Ttypa(f)0v KeXeve ca>£et(v)
tVa/CatOtAot770tCya4jLt?
tVa /Cat O t Xo L7TOL 6y04jLtc(v)

Xprjcdai'€Ti8eyivcjocK6

XpTjcdau €Tl Sc ylvcocKe
OTLTOV€Xa(f)rifioXLa)voc otl tov 5 EXacf)rjj8oXia)voc apovpLevSiavrjccov^co . r ’
apovpLcv Sta VTjCQJV' (Lct*

10
a7TaVTaV€7TLCapLOUKCL

OLTTCLVTaV C77t CapLOV /CO-

XcocKaLrjSeajcKCLLpLaKa
Aa>c /cat r/Secoc /cat pcaKa-
pLCOCVTTapXCLCOLKaLTTaV
pLOJc U77apyct cot /cat 77av-

TIT pOVVTIT

Tt TOOL €VKOUpOVVTL TOW
pLCVCOVapL

Ta/x[a Sc]yop,cvcov a/xa
15

Sta [ ] [ ]v [ \kclct a
15

Sta#[ca4]p[ou]vra [c^j/cacra o)v{ 1 yye cokcl.
a>v [cyco aJyayycAAa; /cat
V [ ] TjXoVQJCCV
auT[otc ajcVpAov a>c ci/A-

Ao [ ] [ ] 677 LCTO

Aoy[t^cr]at. ac |S’] Ittlcto-

Xa f ] T€7TpOc\

Aac [cAa/3]crc 77poc[0e]'c/, [tt)v
20
re [ ]aAp,cv
20
tc a[77CCT]aAp,cv77[v irapa
. .[. . .]p°ccl c/x[o? 3 77 ) poc MjA^pV/v, tv* t-

♦ ♦ ♦ ♦

]M... ]....[

Sa;[ctv] /cat c[77t tolc at-

]rtaca[ ] 7rpoc\
rtac a[c /ca]t 77poc [ NN

]ypa0.[.
ypcufjco [rojtc </>tAotc [crc-

25
pov 'cot [ 1 10.7704 [

25
pOV COt f ] ta77CL)[

1™. . .[ . ].[.].tv.[

TO /3t/3[AtOV ] [ ] tv [

♦ • • ♦

] vat8oc[

• ♦ • •

]vatSoc[

] 6Tour [

] e tovt\

] /cat[

KOL t[

].[

. . • ♦

].[

]o4TOc[
oorac[

]Kace[

/cacc[

. .].“*[

NEW LITERARY TEXTS

Fr. i col. ii

35 . .].<?*[

«.[

Mtd[P
o«.[

770 [

5 jUo[
ecr_[
077a [
aAA [

677 [

>0 ,[.].[

4-t ? [

[

Col. i i ] , short horizontal finial as from the foot of an upright, spaced sufficiently far to the left of A for t, r more likely 9 # , top of a round letter as of e, c 15 [, left side of round letter with horizontal protruding from the middle : e or © ] # [, descender _ # , upright centred under high horizontal (clearly visible at left), followed by two traces at the level of the line 19 supralinear correction, perhaps o or c 22-6 although no surface survives to the left, these letters seem to align themselves as line-beginnings (as confirmed by the paragraphus after 25) 25 # , ostensibly c or perhaps e, but inked over in a blunter pen, and there is also ink spread over the interlinear space above, as though an interlinear correction had been inked out 26 , small high circlet with descender on left, top of upright, small high circlet with descender on left, as of pip or bib
Col. ii
3 [, foot of diagonal rising from left to right at line of writing as of A or A, not e 6 4 [,
foot of diagonal rising from left to right at line of writing as of A or A, not 1 8 [, upper left quadrant of round letter

5077. EPICURUS ( ETAL .), AD FAMILIARES

Fr. 2 col. i

C. 12

]/cacTO §

C.II
e]/CaCTO [

C.II

]vaa/coua>

C.I I

]va OLKOVCO
c.13

€T7]V

C. 12
a]p€T7)V
c.8

].raP. [.]«A
c.8 ]c yap [ t jetSe c. io
]Sevt. # [

C.IO

JScvt eA[

C.I I
avatpta
C.I I

]vavatpta
C.II

, on
C.I I

] on
C.4 ]77/)o[ .

]/cat?7 ^ etc
C.4 ]77/)o[

J/catr/ €tC
fi4 ] .

[ ^9
fi4 ] .

[ c-9
c.4 Jvoouv
. [ . . . ]atjaa>

10
c.2 ayjvoouvT[cc /c]at ptco-
c.14

J 0 77 0 T [
pot C.II

] 0770t[

]...[

Fr. 2 col. ii

Trepxi c.14
varo [
c.13

StKatocwr/l fig
TO€7T LT COVC .

C.IO
yrj > > a>C7rc[
c.g c.4 \vovcy c-5

] TLKatrjro ' [

..].

/cataAA[ > ] crtcyr) t ara . [ avrr] [ > ]oopoc ' (f)Ld7To\ C. 2
10 povKaracvv Oetavrl c. 2 c f>covr] avrr) avptev > [

7TTJTLCTOT€ . [ C.g uariccoi [ C. Q
fill
15 t[c.3]AAo[ . ].TOc[
c.4 J yco[ c.5 ]SeAetiKO c.4 ]/? . [ c.6 ] nrajfxe c.ii ]x7?iLtar.

C.17 ]ro
20 i u[ c.J ]a[ c.8 ].u

T° [^-3 j T°[ C.6 ]vKOC

7T€px[ C. I4
varo [ c. 13

St/catocui^ c.g to C7U tow cx[77juara>iA ivap- yy]/aay d)CTT€[p iirl rov re- rpayoj\vov c^7y[fxaroc €c]rt, /cat 77 rou [St]/c[atou /cat aAA[a] ccrt cy^fxaT a rf^t avrrjt [pi\ojpoco(j)ia{i) , 7t6[t€- pov Kara cvvr/detav r[ rjc (fxjovrjc avrrjc . av fxcv et-

7T7](i ) TtC TO T€T^)[aya>VOV Cy?)-
pLa rj ccofxa [ c.9

. .[fi2].[.i.t c-n t[# > a]AAo[u cy-)7/it]aToc r[e-
T/oay]ya>[Vou c.2]§€ Aeu/co c.4 [ c.6 ] S’ et7ra>jU€(V)

C.IO cjy^/itaTt c.17 ]to ja[ cq ]a[ C.8 ] > v
T°[c-3].T°[ CA Ac]u/coc

NEW LITERARY TEXTS

77[c.3]§a a A[ c.J ]ro 8 \c. 3] ova Aovo jju^o fx[ c.6 JurcoA^yov 25 rco[ c. 5 JAcu/coraAAa
cvv[ c-5 ] . . .
oAfJyctyaA
yov[c.2]rr]CTr]c8iaX€KTOV

C. 12

Ja/coAou
6[ c.io
] rerpayto-
l J
bo
]cXWaTL

]co[ £. 10

* 0 VT€C

.].[ ^-I0

]cv/ratro
£.12

\aetvat
£.14
an
£.16

’].[

£.15
j Kat
£.15

]..[

77[^.3]Sa aAA[ £.7 ]ro 8l[c.$]t°v aAAo vo/ju^o- fi[ £. 5 o]ur<x> Acyovrofc 25 rco\ c. 5 J Acu/cov aAAa cvv[ c. 5 ] t o X[e]yetv aA- you[^.2jr^c rrjc SiaAe/crou

£.12
a/coAou-

£.10
rerpayw-
v] ov
[ £.8

] cXWaTl
>[

£.7 Xe\yovT€C

.].[

£.10

]ev Kat to
£.12
ja eivat
£.n cxv]^aTi
£.16

].[

£.15

]/CGU

£.15

]..[

Col. i
1 . ^ upright, as of 1 3 # , top are of a tiny bowl, as of p 4 ] , upper right-hand are of eirele 8 , before S upright, after S lower left-hand are of circle 5 , lower left-hand are of eirele, then oblique rising from the line to the right 6 ] , upright with finial at top, as of n
7 . , lower left-hand arc of eirele, bottom of upright, tops and bottoms of three round letters, the middle one with horizontal ink at mid-level, perhaps e 8 # # , top of upright, followed by upright
9 . , bottoms of two uprights, indistinct traces 10 [, horizontal at letter-height extending left, suggesting t 12 indistinct traces letter-top height

Col. ii
2 _, lower left arc of eirele, eeocco 5 y, high horizontal with no centred upright three successive apexes 7 < , bottom of upright ] [, upright 8 ] # , curved cap as of e, c , saddle and curved right-hand part of e.g. aa [, left-hand half of horizontal at letter-top height 9 # [, upright , right-hand half of circle 10 _ , upright with faint horizontal protruding right at mid-level 11 first . , prima facie c, but with slight diagonal stroke in centre not attached to the inside of the bowl, connection stroke rather than mid-stroke of e? second , middle-part of left-hand are of eirele # , are of back and top of round letter as e or c. followed by gently rising diagonal connection stroke to top of upright 12 , left-hand half of hori zontal letter-top intersecting with top of upright as T, then diagonal rising from bottom-line as A, a 13 ... .5 upright and two apexes followed by indistinct traces of two letters 14 indistinct traces
J5 . [> left-hand end of horizontal letter-top 16 , bottom of round letter 21 , left-hand part of horizontal letter-top intersecting with top of upright 22 0 . , trace at line-level followed by top of upright 31 [, horizontal at letter-top level

5077. EPICURUS (ET AL.), AD FAMILI ARES

Fr.

. .] v.[

./*.[
z.R[

Ka[ ]°[.M
i oreeypl
(vac.)

’ €TUK0[]_[
xai.[
roy '

. .].v[

.c.i
&9f>\

.[.].[

K(l[ ]o[ J*[

i ore iyp\aijj
-§- (vac.)

’ Ett Ik o M/?[ oc

XaiR\ €LV

TOY..[

1-2 indistinct traces 3 indistinct trace followed by upright 4 _ [, left-hand half of horizontal at letter-top level intersecting with top of upright as t 5 [, indistinct trace, left-
hand half of horizontal at letter-top level, possibly followed by trace of foot of upright 7 . .
indistinct traces 8 [, upright 9 [, upper right-hand arc of round letter, too proximate to S to be 00, o suggested p[, lower left-hand arc of tiny bowl high in the letter-space n [ ],
space for narrow letter, e.g. 1 13 ] . [, descending upright as of tail of p 14 see note; _ [,
trace close in to t at bottom-line, compatible with p 15 indistinct traces at letter-top level

Fr. 1 col. i
‘(For when you have made yourself a copy ?), send it to Leonteus in turn, in order that he too may make a copy for himself. Tell him to conserve it, in order that the rest of us may use it too. Furthermore, know that we shall depart during the month of Elaphebolium travelling via the islands. Therefore it is possible for you and everyone sparing the time who is following my teachings to meet each other on Samos, “virtuously, pleasandy, and blessedly”, to contemplate together each of the things that I instruct and that it is unclear to them how they are understood (or collected?). Send the letters that you have received, and the one that was sent from me to Mithres, in order that they know, and for the reasons that I will WTite also to NN for the friends and a different one for you . . . the book . . .'

1-2 The paragraphus implies that a sentence ended somewhere in this line, so a minimum of several letters is needed for this at the beginning of the line. On the other hand, the low point indicating weak pause after 2 ]c0e indicates that line 1 must have also contained the protasis or opening clause of the following sentence. Thus perhaps to (or rac?)] ya[p ore aTreypaifia\\cde, kt\. Presumably this was a text (or texts) of some importance, whose identity, title, and perhaps content were made clear in the preceding column: thus a treatise or lettcr(s) (to warrant copying and conserving by the addressee)? If of a treatise (i.e. a book, cf. fr. 1 i 26 to /Sij3[Ai'or), it might well have been part of

NEW LITERARY TEXTS

Epicurus' magnum opus Efepl pvcecoc, whose 36 books were produced serially between 306 bc and Epicurus’ death, here seen being distributed in Asia Minor for reproduction there by faithful followers.
For copies of Epicurus' books circulating at Athens in the third century bc, see G. Cavallo, Scrittura et civilta 8 (1984) 5-12, and, according to D. Clay, in the Athenian Metroon (‘Epicurus in the Archives of Athens’, Studies . . . presented to Eugene Vanderpool 1982) 17-26 [= Paradosis and Survival (1998) chap. 3,
40-54]). If the copy is of another letter, this new letter in 5077 could be foundational and aetiological for the formation of the corpus of Epicurus’ letters, instructing as it does to make and conserve copies and facilitate copying by other Epicureans, and as such it might be expected to have stood in a prominent position in the collection of letters itself, e.g. as a kind Of' preface (this was suggested by Professor Most; parallels with the activities of St Paul and early Christian groups spring to mind). A private document seems less likely, though not perhaps impossible (for example Epicurus’ will transmitted at D. L. 10.16-21, or papers relating to ownership of the Kepos?).

2 a7Tocr€L[Xa]re . Whatever the significance of the aorist, the verb at least implies that the addressee and Leonteus and the sender are not in the same place at the time of writing (the same goes for the sender), though of course they may be together in the future. Presuming that the Leonteus is in Lampsacus (see below), and the sender in Athens, the recipient(s) could belong to an Epicurean community in some city or other in Asia Minor (e.g. Mytilene), to whom Epicurus wrote letters. For aTTocreWcLv used of shipments of books, cf. Basilius Ep. 9.2 and 135. 1 Courtonne.

3 Aeovre a. Of plausible candidates, this could be Leonteus of Taras (Iambi. Vit. Pyth . 36, no.
267 in a catalogue of' Pythagoreans ; Pythagoras himself was a native of Samos, and fr. 2 ii 1 fF. shows possible interest in Pythagorean mathematics, but 5077 has no Doric, as is characteristic of Pythagorean writings) or the disciple of the Academic philosopher Lacydes mentioned by Philod. Ind. Acad. col. M,n Dorandi, Suda H 1707,26 s.v. lAXarrcov, or he might be unknown. But the first-generation Epicurean scholarch (Strab. 13.1,19; D. L.10.25, 26; H. Usener, Epicurea (Leipzig 1887) 4106 s.v.; T.
Dorandi in CPF I*, 54 s.v.) is by far the most prominent individual by this name, and most likely here:
Epicurus is known to have sent letters to him several times: P. Here. 176 fr. 5 col. 24,12-16 Vogliano (Epic. fr. 67 = Polyaenus fr. 15 Tepedino Guerra); Philod. Pragm. (P Here. 1418) col. 15 Militello; cf. A.
Angeli, ‘Leonteo' p. 66; Philod. Ad [—] (P. Here. 1005) fr. 38,9-16 Angeli; Philod. De lib. die. (P. Here.
1471) fr. 6,5-13 Olivieri (Epic. fr. 69); Philod. Pragm , (P. Here. 1418) col. 32,15-16 Militello. Cf. the quotation of an archon-dated letter to Leonteus mentioning Themista, recently identified in P. Here.
1589: G. del Mastro, CErc 38 (2008) 225. For obvious reasons the present text cannot be a letter to Leonteus (he is referred to by name). But he is also referred to by name in letters sent by Epicurus to others: P Here. 176 fr. 5 col. 9,13 Angeli (Epic. fr. 70); Philod. Pragm. (P. Here. 1418) col. 7,7 Militello.
He spent his life at Lampsacus, where he served as head of the Epicurean school there after Epicurus’ departure for Athens in 306, and seems to have visited Epicurus in Athens at least once: R Here. 176 fr. 5 col. 12,10-13 Angeli; fr. 5 col. 9,1-14 Angeli (Polyaenus fr. 56 Tepedino Guerra). For R Here. 176, see A. Angeli, CErc 18 (1988) 27-51 and A. Vogliano, Epicuri et Epicureorum Scripta (1928) 23—75; and Philodemus’ Ilpay^areia in C. Militello, Filodemo : Memorie epicuree (PHerc. 1418 e 310) (1997). On Le
onteus see further A. Angeli, ‘Verso un’ edizione dei frammenti di Leonteo di Lampsaco’, in M. Ca- passo (ed.), Miscellanea papirologica in occasione del bicentenario deW edizione della Charta Borgiana (1990) 59-69.
yfaj/cetroc: sc. Leonteus, in addition to the addressee; both are expected to make a copy of the a vrlypcKpov.

4-5 to avrlypapov (cf. I aTr6y]pa[(f>ov?). Whether a book, letter, or some other document, is this the original, the recipient’s own copy, or Leonteus’ copy? The primary meaning is of course ‘copy’ as opposed to ‘the original’; later it came to refer to an authoritative copy of a literary work, i.e. an edition or master example / exemplar. For avrlypapov in this sense in this period, see XXIV 2387
(Aleman Parthen . 2) (a) fr. 1, top marginal note, with Parsons’s n. 25 to GMAW2 p. 42. Even without meaning that here, it could still signify the ‘manuscript’ sent to the addressee. Leonteus was instructed

5077. EPICURUS (ETAL.), AD FAMILI ARES

to make a copy and take good care of the original he received (i.e. his model-manuscript). It is this book the sender wants to be returned into his copy (‘in order that we, the others, may use it, too’).
Although the return is not explicitly mentioned, it seems to be implied by ‘the rest of us’, and in any case the written work in question has been referred to in the preceding lines, so that the addressee must know well what work is referred to and to whom it belongs. The terminology has some bearing on the correct textual constitution of the colophon to Epicurus, JAepl pvcecoc book 28 subscriptio, fr.
13 XIII Sedley, CErc 3 (1973):

Ett[lk]oupov lie pi cf)vc€ojc
KT}'

€k] t (jov apx ollojv [avr ly pacfxuv (?)

€y[p]a</>?7 C77 l Nlklov tov ^ferja Av\ ri]0ar^r

[i.e. 296/5 bc]

Whereas Clay (op. cit.) had restored [ck] tcvv apyalcov \avToypa(f>ojv, D. Sedley maintained [rrepl] rwv apxcutur, ‘concerning his early works’ (‘Philosophical Allegiance in the Greco-Roman World’ in M. Griffin and J. Barnes (eds.), Philosophia Togata (1989) 107; cf. id., Lucretius and the Transformation of Greek Wisdom (1998) 128-9). According to G. Cavallo, the oldest of the Herculaneum papyri (books of Epicurus’ lie pi pvceojc dating back to the second and even the third century bc) were acquired in Athens and later imported into Italy, and these copies were derived directly from the manuscripts kept as ‘official model manuscripts’ in Epicurus’ school in Athens (S&C 8 (1984) 5-12). Given that the sender of the letter in 5077 fr. 1 was in Athens at the time of writing (see 8 n.), and the likely didactic purpose for which the book was sent away, it cannot be ruled out that the work in question belonged to these ‘model manuscripts’ kept at Athens.

5 K€ Acue: The change of numbers in the imperatives is paralleled in Epicurus’ farewell letter to Idomeneus and his letter to Themista (fr. 5 Arrighetti2). Presumably here a group of like-minded followers addressed as ‘you’ is supposed to copy the book and pass it on; the recipient of the letter,

however, is told to issue the order that the copy be kept.
ctu£a(r): commonly in the passive of works of literature that have been 'preserved’ over time i.e. transmitted: cf. Galen De ven. sect. 1.5 (p. 221 Kuhn); Athen. 15.698AB. Here there are more literal and practical considerations, i.e. to ‘conserve’ or 'keep a close eye on’ the copy, so that it may not be destroyed. The express instruction to see to the conservation of the copy implies a certain value of the work in question (whether for study, further copying, or other purposes).

6 «al ol XolttoI: so also in the letter to the child, P. Here. 176 fr. 5 col. 23 Angcli (= Epic. fr. 261
Arrighetti2) 12—13 iyto kclI o[t] XolttoI ttclvt€c ce peya <piX ovpev.

8 'EXacfrrifioXiLovoc (about March) is typical of the Attic calendar. Outside Attica, usage is attested for Apollonia on Chalcidice (Athen. 8.334E) and Iasus in Garia (GIG 2675) only; cf. A. E.
Samuel, Greek and Roman Chronology (1972) 57 f., 86, 114. Hence the writer is probably in Athens or Attica at the time of writing. In classical antiquity the sailing season typically lasted from 27 May to 14

September. Under normal circumstances no ship left port between 10 November and 10 March (cf.
Vegetius, De re mil. 4.39); of. L. Casson, Ships and Seamanship in the 'Ancient World (1971) 270-73. We may conclude that the author is planning to undertake his sea voyage as soon as weather conditions allow.

9 Sta vrjcwv (without die article), a technical term referring to an ‘island-hopping’ course from the Greek mainland to Asia Minor. Thus the vrjeot are the Sporades or the Cyclades (cf. Herod. 6.95.2 dAA’ €K CapLOV oppcopevoL Trapa re T«apov Kal Sta vr)ca>v tov 7tAoov inoLeOvro (sc. Datis and Arta- phernes on their way to Euboea); id. 8.108; 9.3.1. Mardonius intended to signal capture of Athens to the King in Sardis by a chain of beacons Sta vrjc ojv (Xen. Hell . 4.8.7; Diod. 20.37.1; 100.5; hi. 35

Hippol. Chron. 537; Aesch. Again. 281-316).

NEW LITERARY TEXTS

The author had reason to be concerned about the first time in the year when one could be relatively confident about safe passage across the Aegean by sea: Epicurus recounted his own experience of shipwreck in a letter, the content of which is closely paraphrased by Diog. Ocn. fr. 72 Smith and Plut. Non posse suav. 1090E, on which account, and its reminiscences of the Odyssey (5.41 112;
12.235-8), see D. Clay, 'Sailing to Lampsacus: Diogenes of Oenoanda, New Fragment 7’, ORBS 14
(1973) 49-59 [= Paradosis and Survival (1998) chap, n, 189-210]. Epicurus escaped within an inch of his life, holding onto ‘rocks from which the sea could no longer draw him down and dash him back again. He was lacerated, as you might expect, and he took down a great mouthful of sea water. He was badly skinned when he crashed onto the sea-caten rocks. But then he managed to swim gradually out to open water. And it was at this moment that he was carried along by the waves to the plank that saved him. He barely reached safety, and flayed almost to an inch, he barely escaped with his life.
Now he spent the next day in this state upon a high promontory and the following night and the next day until nightfall, exhausted by hunger and his injuries. We now understand that events which lay beyond our control are benefits despite appearances — the very doctrine he commends to you as reasonable. For your herald who brought you to safety has died; for afterwards chance . . .’ (Diog. Ocn. fr. 72 Smith). Plutarch at Non posse suav. iioib makes it clear that Diogenes' description comes from a letter of Epicurus, and that E. referred to it more than once in his letters. The topos recurs at Non posse suav. iioib, and often (Epic. Ad Pyth. ap. Diog. Lacrt. 10. 6 (fr. 89); Vergil, Catalepton 8-10; Philod.
Epigr. 27.5-6 Sider). According to Plut. Non posse suav. 1091B the moral of the story was: to yap noiovv ,
(jyrjclv, avv7T€pf}\rjTov yfjdoc to nap ’ avro nc<f)vyf.iivov jaeya /ca/cor. ‘For what produces unsurpassed jubilation is the contrast with the evil escaped’, as is expressed by the expectant /ca|Atoc /cat rjSicoc /cat fiaKa\plcoc (10-12, where see note).

10 in l Ca/xou. Epicurus was traveling to Lampascus (Non posse suav. 1090E) when he was shipwrecked, whereas 5077 predicts a voyage to Samos; of course, the author may have intended to continue on to Lampsacus. After founding his school at Athens in 307/6, Epicurus travelled to Asia Minor two or three times (D. L. 10. 10). According to Diog. Laert. 10. 10 /cat yaXcncoTCLTojv 8c Katpcov

KaracyovTOJv rrjVLKaSe rrjv EXXaSa a vtoOl /cara/3tcorat, Stc rj rplc etc rove nept rrjv ‘/cor tar ronovc npoc to vc <ptXovc StaSpa/xorra, ‘[Epicurus] spent his whole life in Greece, in spite of the calamities it suffered in those days; when he did once or twice happen to take a trip to Ionia, it was to visit friends there.’ Apart from a stay on Samos indicated for Epicurus by Philod. Pragm. (P. Here. 1418) col. 25.8—9 Militello = Epic. fr. 119 Arrighettr, that the letter n[cpl] rcor a[c]yo[A]tcor was sent e/c {C)dp.ov (Cronert: capcov apogr.), Epicurus had grown up on the island, before the Attic kleruchs were expelled during the Larnian War, and Epicurus may well have had acquaintances there (apart from its
significance as a cultural, scientific, and religious centre).

10-12 /ca|Acoc /cat rjSccoc /cat p,a/ca|ptcoc. A rising tricolon in a rhetorical flourish. For the jubilation, see below on 8—9, and cf. VS 52 r) <piXla ncpiyopeva ttjv olKOVfiivrjv K7)pvTTovca 8rj naciv rjp.Lv iyclpccOat ini tov pxx/captqaor , ‘Friendship dances round the whole civilized world, in very truth heralding to all of us to awake and call each other blessed.’ Similar jubilation and makarismos by Epicurus in a letter from his deathbed: Epic. Ad Idomenea ap. Diog. Laert. 10.22 (fr. 52).

12-13 7rar|Tt: cf. Plut. De lot. viv. 1128F-1129A (Epic. fr. 98 Arrighetti2) Sinincpcne fttfiXovc ndci
\

/cat 7racatc.

!3 fvKaipovvTL: ‘who have the time for it’; see fr. 1 ii 2 n. for the significance of this phrase for the location.

14 TW[a Se]y?pivcov was suggested by Professor D’Alessio, noting that raA[Aa seems too wide for the available space.

15 8ia6[cto]p[ei\v or 8ia6[eco]p[ou]vTa was suggested by Professor Hammerstaedt. For the accusative after the datives, sec I hue. 4*20 c^cctlv vpuv (fyiXovc ycvccOat.

16 The supplement is due to Professor Handley.

5077. EPICURUS (ETAL.), AD FAMILIARES

17-18 a] SrjXov coc ct;A|Aoy[i£eT]cu (‘how they should understand or collect’ them) was suggested by Professor \V. Furlcy.

19 7Tpoc[ ]'/[: irpoc [Ac] Ko\vrea would fill the space nicely here, and is not incompatible with the scanty traces after irpoc (note that the third letter here has a supralinear correction over it). If so, then there is a distinction between orders to send the letters to Leontcus here, and orders to send him the work to be copied in 1-5, which would make it clear that a treatise was referred to there (see on 1-2). But would Leonteus’ name bear restating here, when it has been mentioned already in 3? In this case, reading irpoc [aA]r[ov, referring anaphorically to Leonteus, might also be possible (though less good for the supralinear correction over the third letter- space).

20 a[ir€cr]aXfji€vr][v irpoc NN was suggested simultaneously by Professors D'Alessio and Parsons ("perhaps a list of names i.e. titles?’).

21 77]poc M\idpfjv\ see on fr. 1 ii 2.

23-4 e]| ypaxjie was suggested by Professor Carey, which might seem to require Epicurus as subject, with the implication that the present must have been written by someone else. But in this case we might have expected abroc (‘the Master’) to have been expressed here as subject. Therefore we might look instead to one of the other early Epicureans who wrote extensively as the subject of e]\ypapc. Professor \V. Furlcy, however, suggests ypai/jco of Epicurus himself; the trace, the left side of a round letter, would suit eidier e or 00. (Alternatively, we could have the imperative, parallel to the commands in 2-5).

Fr. 1 col. ii
1 ck [. The first preserved line of this column, at the level of line 2 of col. i. I hus at least one line has been lost before this line (at the level of line 1 of col. i).

2 Mid\p~. Mithres, the Syrian-born Epicurean, SiopKrjTrjc of Lysirnachus, whom Epicurus exhorted in numerous letters (frr. 72-84 Arrighetti2) to resign from politics, which he finally did after the battle of Curopedium (281): see further C. Militello (cd.), Memorie Epicuree (PHerc 1418 e 4410) (1997 )
250-54; P. Scholz, Der Philosoph und die Politik (1998) 298-301 ; Philod. Pragni. (P. Here. 1418) col. 32a Militello, with ead. CErc 20 (1990) 75 and 82; C. Habicht, Athens from Alexander to Antony (1997) 125. Mention of Mithres would date the present letter in 5077 to somewhere between 290 and 270. Philode- mus’ Pragmateia (P. Here. 1418) makes it clear that Epicurus’ letter ir[ept] tojv a[cJxoA]icov, sent from Samos, was to or about Mithres (col. 25.7-9 XP^co av8[pi] | irpoc ov rj 7 r[epi] rwv ajyJxoAJufT

(C)afiov imcToXr] eypa^rj). The letter dealt with ‘things that prevent 011c from studying philoso-

€K

phy’ and discussed persons who could not devote their life to philosophy because of engagement in other affairs such as politics, and Mithres served as an example of this kind of person. A parallel may be observed between 12—13 above, where iravrl rcot evKaipovvrt , ‘everyone sparing the time appears to distinguish between those who have time for such philosophical activities as the planned excursion to Samos in 5077 fr. 1. This may be the same as that period on Samos referred to in the letter Tifepi] rd)v a[c]xoA]ta>v and in which Epicurus likewise discussed Mithres.

Fr. 2 col. i
3 a]p€TT)v was suggested by Professor W. Clarysse.

10 ‘. . . virtue . . . ignorant and foolish people . . .’.

Fr. 2 col. ii
‘How could there be a shape of justice owing to the vividness in the figures, just as there is in the figure of a square — and that of the just and the rest of the figures is through this same ridiculous “wisdom”. Whether through the habit of voicing it, one could say that the square was a figure or a body . . .’.

ME W LITER ART TEX TS

This column could contain a critique (presumably from an Epicurean perspective) of mathematical teachings or the assignment of certain figures to virtue (3 Slkcuocvvt}, repeated occurrence of the term c^/aa, and terms for geometrical shapes) — all polemically characterized as [/x]o>poco</>ta (9) i.e. ridiculous pseudo-wisdom (rather than, say half-wisdom or intuitive wisdom). Although Epicurus wTote certain treadses about mathematics, it is uncertain whether there was a genuine Epicurean mathematics as a basis of the theory of minimal parts (i.e. atoms), against other mathematicians W'ho proclaimed the division of numbers, lines, and other geometrical shapes ad infinitum. The Pythagoreans had identified the tetrad Tour’, as the perfect number, with justice (cf. similar relations claimed to exist between numbers and abstract virtues in Plato’s Timaeus). Saying so does not make it so: ‘one could say that the square was a figure or a body’, although in reality there are no perfect squares. It is further possible that the mathematical terms occur only to demonstrate principles of Epicurean ‘Canonic’ (which might be more appropriate to the general reading context of a letter than to a technical discussion of mathematics): i.e. language (or voice) is not appropriate to express sensory perception and reality; the voice uses the term ‘square’, although there are not any perfect squares in the real world. Our senses can comprehend and see the world, but the voice or the repertoire of language is unable to describe it in an appropriate wray, and therefore we should trust more to the senses than to words and ‘dialectic’. (We are grateful to Kilian Fleischer for this suggestion.)

1 7 T€px[: Either v]\7T€p x[ or a]|77€px[o/x-, the latter perhaps in the sense ‘deviating’, ‘departing from’; cf. fr. 2 i 10— 11 /xa>| [pot and 9 \p,\ajpoco(j>La below.

4-5 ivaply/qiia: suggested by Professor Hammerstaedt.

9 [p~\ojpoco(j)La{C)\ apparently a lexicis addendum , although the adjectival form is attested, suggesting a term from popular discourse suitable to a philosophical letter; cf. Lucian, Alexander 40 yevop.evrjc irore ^rjrrjcecoc 8vo tlcl rd>v piQjpoco(f)Qjv virkp avrov, etre flvdayopov rrjv i/jvyrjv tyoi Sta i-ov xpvx °vv fjirjpov ; Schol. Aristoph. Nub. \^]^1 ccnKpariKovc pLadrjrac Stai tclI^cov kcll to t<Av
VZOJV pLOjpOCOffcoV OVTOJC €LpT)K€l.

13 c<£/xa: This reading was suggested by Professor D’Alcssio, who compares Elias in Ar. Cat.
2354 rptycovov yap Xeyerat /cat to a^p, a /cat to cdjfia €yov to Tpiyajvov opLOicoc /cat to T€Tpayovov.

16, 21, 25 XevKo-. The reference to the colour term is not clear, or why they should be associated with mathematical figures (for the discussion of the latter continues throughout the fragment). It is difficult to connect with the tradition that Py thagoras used to wear white clothes. However, Aristotle De sensu 3 discusses harmony between colours and numbers. Perhaps the point was that the shapes associated with mathematical figures do not inhere in objects as qualities or accidents, as in the case of colours like ‘wrhite’.

27 ttjc SiaXeKTov. Presumably a reference to the use of language by other philosophers to describe mathematical entities.

Fr. 3

1 his fragment was identified as the same hand and belonging to the same roll as frr. 1-2 on the basis of graphic features and content by Dr W. B. Henry. It is written along a kollesis, with an inter- columnium of 1.8 cm. as in frr. 1-2. A bottom margin is visible, to a depth of at least 1.7 cm. There arc traces of two letters from a preceding column suit on or con at the level of 1. 14, and a coronis following 1. 12, with blank space of almost a line before the start of the next letter (for a centred title or oration date?).

Presumably the standard epistolary opening: 5i?m/co[u]p[oc to NN (and NN or son/ daughter of NN?),] | xa9?[ €IV.

D. OBBINK
S. SCHORN

III. KNOWN LITERARY TEXTS

5078. Plato, Alcibiades 1 105 c-d
35 4-B.ioi/G(i-3)b 4 x7.8 cm Later second / early third century
Seventeen lines from the central part of a column of a papyrus roll written along the fibres. No margins are preserved. The back is blank.

For a recent discussion and defence of the dialogue’s authenticity, against most modern consensus since Schleiermacher p. 15, see N. Denyer, Plato : Alcibiades (2001) 14—26; also A. Carlini, Platone: Alcibiade; Alcibiade secondo; Ipparco; Rivali (1964)
47—56. The dialogue was never considered spurious in antiquity (unlike Alcibiades IF). It was frequently read (see also Carlini, ‘Congiunzione e separazione di fram- menti di tradizione diretta (su papiro) e di tradizione indiretta’, in Paideia Cristiana:
Studi in onore di Mario Naldini (1994) 213-15) and cited as the work of Plato (cf. Index testimoniorum in Carlini 401-3) and suggested as a compendium and propaedeutic reading for Platonic philosophy. The text was the subject of study, hence giving birth to numerous commentaries (cf. for instance CPF III 5, from the end of the second century). Proclus’ and Olympiodorus' are the only commentaries preserved to a considerable extent. On the medieval glosses to the Platonic texts, see D. Cu- falo, ‘Note sulla tradizione degli scoli platonici’, Studi classici e orientali 47/3 (2001
[pub. 2004J) 529-68 (esp. 544-51 for Alcibiades I ). It was ultimately transmitted as a Platonic text by the medieval manuscript tradition, which developed trom the organization of the dialogues established in the ninth century, but going back to an archetype stemming from the fourth to the sixth century (see Carlini 7-46 and, for the Platonic manuscript tradition in general, J. Irigoin, Tradition et critique des textes grecs (1997) 151-67, who also suggests an archetype from the second century).
On the later medieval manuscripts and on the use and (discontinuous) study of Platonic texts in Byzantine times, cf. I. Perez Martin, ‘Estetica e ideologia nei ma- noscritti bizantini di Platone’, in RSB.N n.s. 42 (2005) 113-35 (with bibliography for studies on Platonic codices vetustiores).

The text is written in a neat, rather small, upright example of the ‘Formal Mixed’ style. A good parallel is GLH 19b (first half of the third century) which could be contemporary or slightly posterior to 5078, which can therefore be assigned to the late second or more probably to the early third century. The strokes are generally thin, and there is no particular attempt to contrast. No reading marks or punctuation occur.

Considering that each line should probably contain an average of 20 letters (for a column width of c. 7 cm) and that there are f.3,240 letters in the Alcibiades 1 before the present passage, and supposing that each column is composed of c 30-34

KJVO WN LITERARY TEX TS

lines for an estimated column height of c. 20 cm (cf. Johnson, Bookrolls and Scribes in Oxyrhynchus 189—91 and 284), the text preserved by 5078 could be the middle or second half of col. v of the roll.

Alcibiades I is preserved by two other papyri apart from this one and 5079:
P. Harr. 12 and LII 3666 (= CPF I.i*** Plato 1 and 2 respectively), initially thought to be part of the same roll, but probably by the same scribe but from different rolls (see LII 3666 introd., Johnson, Bookrolls 284; Carlini, ‘Congiunzione e separazione di frammenti’ 209—12, argued against a common scribe).

The papyrus transmits a new reading in 1. 11. In 1. 10 the word order agrees with the BCD reading.

The text was collated with the OCT and Carlini. The line division is exempli gratia.

« ♦ ♦ •

CcuJ/cpafYcc tout ecn cot (105 c)

77 poc Aoyojv ov e^>rj\c9a epeiv Slo zpio\v ovk ai t[olAA(xt rif] eyco 8e c]oi ye epoj [oj fitAe D

5 irai KAeivt\ov /cat A\

]c TOVTCoy [yap cot a 7tolvt]<jl>v tco[v SiCLvorjpLa T(x)V T JcAoc eTTLT^edrjvaL avev cj/xou a8vv[arov rocav 10 rrjv] eyco Svvaju[iv oquai cyct]v €tt l ra ca 7j[paypLaTa /cat et]c cc Sto 8rj /cat [VaAat oto fiat pb]e t[o]h Oeoy ovk [eav 8ta Aey\ec9ai cot ov eyoj [rrepi 15 epLe\yov OTrrjVLKa [cacct ojC7r]ep yap cv cA7rtSa[c [T77 ^oAet

1 7 Tpoc Aoyo]p; irpoc top Xoyov Veil. Marc. gr. 186 after correction (from which Ven. Marc, gr. 184). The line is already longer than the average, and spacing does not allow the insertion of the article.

2 ov with MSS: oc conjectured by G. G. Cobet, Tlatonica: Ad Platonis qui fertur Alcibiadem priorem’, Mnemosyne n.s. 2 (1874) 375, where he corrected the text based on B and linking oc with the previous cot and translating as tibi, qui te dicturum aiebas quamobrem a me non discederes. He argues that ov was due to a misunderstanding of the scribe, who therefore thought that irpoc Xoyov was to be explained with a subsequent relative clause. The reading oc was accepted by M. Schanz in his edition.

5078. PLATO, ALCIBI ADES I

2-4 ov €<j>ri\c6a epeiv \ 8to epcojv ovk a7r[aAAar|T7y deleted by Burnet as interpolation. The sentence has the appearance of an explanatory note, but Carlini prints it in his text (supported by Denyer, Plato : Alcibiades 97) and, in fact, it seems somehow necessary.

3 [810] restored from the OCT with BT Prod, and Olymp. : 81 'ov in the margin of Par. gr. 1808.

4 8e BCD: 8r/ PT Procl. and Olvmp.

5-6 A[ | ]c. A civopaxpc DTW and Olymp.: Aeivop-rp'-qc BC PTW and Procl. There is no evidence as to which of the two readings the papyrus had.

8 cniT[e0T]vai with BCDPTW: imddvai Procl.

9 aSw[aroi\ Olympiodorus attests aSuvarov icTiv against all MSS. There is no space in the lacuna for the unnecessary Ictlv.

10 eyui Swa/u.[tv oipai with BCD: iydi oipai Svvapiv PTW Procl.

11 cm: etc MSS. The use of in i avoids the unnecessary repetition of etc and produces a vari- atio in the passage. T he expression ini ra (Scivoc) npaypaTa occurs five times in Plato (Cm. 41585,
42404, 433a8; Grg. 51588; R. 49489), whereas etc ra (Seivoc) npaypaTa is only found in Grg. 4gibi and 491C7, and in 80th cases it is dependent on the adjective ij>pbvipoc (no variants are recorded 8y the manuscript tradition for those passages). Conversely, in the Greek authors etc (ra) npaypaTa is far commoner than ini [to) n pay par a — moreover, in documentary papyri ini (ra) npaypaTa is never found. A passage similar to the Platonic one is found in Andocides De mystniis 50 (written in 400/ 399 bc, before Alcibiades /), although the orator does not repeat the preposition: npodvp.oTa.Toc etc ce /cat to. ca npaypaTa dpi.

M. C. D. PAGANINI

5079. Plato, Alcibiades I 109 a-b, 109 b
38 3B.8o/K(i-2)a 9.5 x 8.5 cm Mid-late second century
A fragment of a roll (the back is blank) containing parts of two columns from Plato’s Alcibiades I. Both columns are quite narrow, 9-1 1 letters across (5.5-6 cm), with 3 mm between each line, while the intercolumnium measures a little more than 2.5 cm. Because i 5 to ii 8 comprises c. 232 letters, the original column height is estimated at 23 lines (e.17 cm). It can be calculated that 11 lines are missing between col. i and col. ii. For such a format, cf. P. Gen. 264-7 or XI 1364 (all of Antiphon).

The script is formal round capital, with serifs, consistently executed. The Ha- wara Homer = GMAW2 13, assigned to the later half of the second century, where dating is also discussed, is an excellent parallel. No $ or 4 are preserved, but otherwise strict bilinearity is maintained. The letters are large, upright, and symmetrical, and except for 1, written in a 5-mm square. Shading contrasts are visible between downward and horizontal strokes, or again between left-to-right downward strokes, versus those down and to the left; cf. k and A. u always touches the bottom, and the horizontal stroke in e and © always touches the bowl, rarely crossing over it.

Punctuation is by middle stop at i 6 to mark a weak break. In the same line, a change of interlocutor is marked by a blank letter space. The elision of the final alpha in ipxo/Jieda at i 2 is effected but not marked. There is no opportunity' to

KJSfO WN LITERARY TEX TS

determine the scribe’s practice regarding iota adscript. Col. ii observes Maas’s law, leaning slightly to the right. A line-filler at i 7 is rather cursively drawn.

The text has been collated with Carlini’s edition (1964). The two other published papyrus fragments of this dialogue, P. Harr. 1 12 (=CPF I.i*** Plato 1) and LII 3666 (=CPF I.i*** Plato 2) do not overlap with the papyrus. XIII 1609, a published commentary on Alcibiades /, does not involve the portion of the dialogue surviving here. The papyrus does not offer any new readings.

Col. i Col. ii

770)077 ^. [a epX

(109 a)
a[uTO tovto aX
o\[iedeic to 7 to
Xa \jJLT]V TOVTO

X]€jJ,€LV KCU OTL
ye [ 8iCL(j)epei o a]uTO OVOpLCL

Ao[V Te KCU TTCLV

QoVT€C epxo
5 tl ov \v adrjvcu pce]6a eycoye'

OLC c[v TTpOC 770
on ye €^a]7ra>

Tepo[vc CVpL

TCOjjLeVOL]
fiovX[evceiC

•

7ToX[epieLV TOVC

10 clSlko C vvt clc
7] To[vC

Col. i
7 LH- Spacing cannot determine whether the papyrus agrees with PTW against BCD omitting the word. If ye is written, the line is average in length. If it is omitted, then 7 will be the shortest line in the column by one letter, for which the space-filler compensates.

Col ii
4—5 oAo[v re kcu 7rav\\rL with MSS: oAan Kal navrl in Proclus' paraphrase.

S. TREPANIER

5080. [Plato], Alcibiades II 146 b-c
72.7(e) 5.1 x 3.6 cm Early third century
Ten fragmentary lines from a column of a papyrus roll; left and right part missing. They probably come from the top of the column, since there are 4 mm of papyrus without letter trace (surface not damaged) above the top surviving line, slightly larger than the 3 mm interlinear space. The average line length is 23 letters (c, 6.7 cm). No left or right margins are preserved. The back is blank.

5080. PLATO, ALCIBI ADES II

The pseudo-Platonic Alcibiades II was regularly included in Plato’s corpus, both in the medieval tradition (although it is omitted from the important manuscript W, which contains all the other dialogues from tetralogies i-vii) and by modern editors. Although the work was included in Thrasyllus’ tetralogies, it was already suspected in antiquity as spurious; Athenaeus reports that it was attributed to Xenophon (Athen. xi.i 14.17-21). The dialogue was considered authentic by Diogenes Laertius (D. L. 3.51).

The script is in the 'Severe Style’, sloping slightly to the right. The writing looks fluid and experienced and is very tiny (the average height of the letters being only 2 mm), and the strokes are very thin, e e o c are noticeably small-sized, while there is a slight tendency to broaden other letters (not always to the same extent).
Good examples are: h (3), k (4), n (at 2 and 3 it is nearly as broad as u), and tt (8).
Very restrained ornamentation may be recognized in the forms of A and A, showing a curved foot in their right end in most of the cases. The spacing between the letters is very regular; in the lower part of the column, however, the letters seem to be closer together.

The writing shows some similarities with LXII 4311 and XVII 2098 = GLH
19b, for which the mid third century is a terminus ante quem from the text on the back, but 5080 seems slightly earlier. Note kk, with its low belly, which however does not reach the bottom completely, as well as 00, whose middle upright seems to come up to a remarkable height, in contrast to the more flattened forms generally seen in the third century.

Change of speaker is marked by dicolon in 5, where the line-beginning is missing and the presence of a paragraphus cannot be verified. In 3, a horizontal line above -7 is probably a grave accent, and a circumflex occurs at 7. Scriptio plena seems not to have been the rule, as 2 clearly indicates: thus elision may be postulated, but definitely not marked, also for 9. Iota adscript is written in the only instance where it is required (10).

The textual basis for the supplement of the column is Burnet’s OCT (1901).
In 5 the papyrus agrees with B (with wrong accent and breathing, corrected by its more recent hand, b) against T. The papyrus offers a new reading in 7, for which the text transmitted by the medieval manuscripts has been rejected by the editors, but the reading of 5080 is not an improvement. The only other papyrus from Alcibiades //published so far is LII 3667 (CPF I.i*** Plato 3), assigned to the third century, with which the papyrus does not overlap.
rj]p.ac eiS[emi t] toj (146 b)
ovti et^jevai t[o]v6 o av Trp[oxeip<jL>c pLeA\]u)pL€V r) 7Tp<XTT€lV [f] Ae ye tv tSJoKti: ovkovv Kay [/xer 5 TrparrrjL a ti]c oiSev rj a SojVei eiSe

KNO WN L I TER ARY TEXTS

VCU 7Ta]p€7T7]TaL Se TO iO(j)\eXipUOC
Kai Xvc\lT€XoVVTO)C €^€LV

Kai ttjl ] rroXet Kat avr\ov a vtcol G
ttojc yap ov ]eav Sc y o[ip,cu r ava 10 vria tovtcov ovt € t]t)l 7to[Aci

5 rj a with b (rj a): rj a B (obviously erroneous): rj T. Due to the absence of breathings and accents in the papyrus, it is impossible to determine to which of the two hands of B our reading corresponds. It is reasonable to assume that B’s reading is a simple mistake, due either to its own scribe or to one of its ancestors' during the process of transcription into minuscule.

7 rjfjuv : rjfjL&c MSS. Assuming that the word t£;eiv followed, the papyrus texts confirms the doubts raised by Dobrce and Ast against rjfxac (Ast deleted it). The juncture XvciTeXovvTtoc is a hapax here, but comparison with eye o + adverb in other cases shows that it must have the meaning ‘to be useful’, rjfxac cannot be linked directly with this construction, so it lacks a verb indicating judgement.
Idlings do not become better, however, with die papyrus’ reading r)(juv , for it alters the balance of the whole sentence. It is not taken up later in io (= 146 03) which clearly shows the duality of 77 7 it oAei — olvto). So there are two possibilities: (a) in the papyrus rjfjuv was not followed by e£eiv but another verb (expressing ‘to act'?), or ( b ) pixac is an old corruption (a marginal note dropped into the text?) that turns up in the medieval manuscript tradition. The papyrus could imply that rjfjidc existed earlier.

A mark over v — tempting as it is to be seen as a critical sign introducing a variant reading or deleting an unsuitable one in such a troubling passage — is most probably a circumflex, the descending part of which is missing and mistakenly placed over v instead of l.

9—10 The text transmitted in the medieval tradition is slightly too long to fit in the available space.

A. SCHATZMAN

5081. Plato, Charmides 166 c, 167 a
31 4B.i6/K(i-2)a 7.9 x 5.6 cm Second/third century'

Fragment of a papyrus roll containing remains of two columns; the back is blank. The first column contains the ends of 13 lines, the second beginnings of 9 lines. The width of a column can be estimated as 6 cm; it ranges from 17 to 22 letters a line. The reconstructed column height is 54 lines in 23.8 cm. The interco- lumnium is 1.5 cm; no margins are preserved. Col. ii is sloping approximately 50 to the left. The lines look ascending. The whole dialogue as preserved by the medieval tradition would have covered 35 columns, of which our fragment gives parts of cols, xx and xxi, with 45 lines between the two preserved pieces.

F he text is written along the fibres in the 'Severe Style', sloping to the right, y once projects under the line (i 4), p never. There are two forms of the narrow e, the lunated version in two strokes (i 12, ii 13) and the angular one (e.g. i 10), both with short middle stroke. Close parallels are XXII 2320 and XXIII 2361.

5081. PLATO , CHARMIDES

The diacritical signs used are rough breathings of form i in GMAW 2 ii (i 7 and 12), accents (acute at i 3, 4 and circumflex together with a rough breathing at i 12), apostrophe to separate words at i 5, high stop (i 3, 6) and low stop (i 10), paragraph! (ii 12, 13) indicating change of speaker, and line-filler (i 6). For the preserved part the division at line-ends is syllabic, and reconstruction suggests that it was also the case in col. ii. The spacing in ii 13 leads to the assumption that, in addition to the paragraphi, a blank of two letters was used to indicate change of speaker in the line. In i 13 this would also be possible. The scribe elides tacitly (ii 13 and maybe in ii 14), but scriptio plena also occurs (i 4 and i 5, perhaps also in i 13). No opportunity occurs to determine the presence of iota adscript.

The text is collated with images of B, T, and W, and supplemented from Burnet’s OCT (1903). In the preserved parts there are only spelling variants, in the second column, however, there are two instances where spacing suggests that the papyrus had a shorter reading (ii 10, 11).

Col. i Col. ii
avrrjc t]ouc \aAAatc to 8 166 C

OVK CCTtv] OUT COC d|AA GU ptCV aAAat 7r]acar aAA[ou ctctv c 7Ttcrr)pt]at cavrcov 8c ov rj 5 8c fxovrj\ rcov re aAAa>C c
TTLCT7)lJL]tOV C7T tC [ T j rjfJLTj * €>
crt) Kat avTTj avrrjc Kai raura] cc 770AA0U 8a AcArjOc vat aA]Aa yap otptat o aprt 10 ovk ccf)]ccda TTOtav . tovto TTOtac c]p,c yap errtxapac eAeyyetr] eacac rrcpt ov o Ao yoc ccrtv] otov rjv 8 cyco 7 tol [ac

5 K\at otcrat aircp otSev Kat (167 a) r[t avroc otcrat ptcv ct8cvat ot[Sev 8 ov rcov 8 aAA<w ouS[etc Kat ecrtv 8r/ rovro to cco(f)[povctv rc Kat ccoppocv 10 vrj f<\at ro cavrov ytyvco cKCtv\ ro ct8cvat a rc ot8cv apa ra[vra ccrtv a Acyctc cycoy ccf)[rj naAtv rotvvv rjv 8c c\yco

Col. i
1 r]atc. The traces surviving could correspond either to rate or aAAaic. Spacing suggests that rate stood in this place of the line.

4 Sc. An acute accent would not be expected here, unless there was punctuation after 8e. The mark, over S rather than over e, could be a correction in the form of an apostrophe marking that elision should be effected between 8e and ovk.

10 e<f>]ec0a: MSS. The upper part of e is clearly visible. An interchange between e and
7] is common (see Gignac, Grammar i. 242-4).

KNO WN L I TER ARY TEXTS

Col. ii
6 t[l avroc : Spacing seems to exclude the possibility that the papyrus could have read Bekker’s conjecture av, but av tic (Buttmann) or avroc of BTW would fit the line.

10 There is not enough space for the transmitted text; iavrov or avrov instead of iavrov avrov would fit the line.

11 ck€iv[. There is not enough space for the OCT text to elSivat a re oiSev Kal a p.rj oiSev.
The first part of the clause, to elSivat a re oiSev, would fit the line. Omission by homoioteleuton conveniently explains the discrepancy in the papyrus: after having written the first oiSev, the scribe then mistook it for the second one and continued with apa ravra, omitting Kal a p.rj oTSev.

14 Se c[yoj. Only part of an upper horizontal is preserved before the papyrus breaks off. It looks slightly curved and should therefore rather be e than r.

H. ESSLER

5082. Plato, Charm ides 172 c-d, 173 a-b
58/6(72) part 4.3 x 7.5 cm Third century'

A fragment of a papyrus roll containing parts of two consecutive columns of Charmides , with an intercolumnium of c. 1.5 cm. The back is blank. The line length is 17—23 letters (5.8-6 cm), with c.50 lines per column (c.20 cm). The text lost before the first column would occupy r.31 columns, and the whole dialogue would need c. 40 columns occupying 2.8-3 metres. There was then room for 5086 ( Laches ) in the same roll, which according to calculations would be contained in e.54 columns of approximately 4 metres, constituting thus a composite roll.

The hand is a flowing, medium-sized, undecorated specimen of the ‘Formal Mixed’ style, of the general type commonly referred to as the sloping oval. The contrast between broad and narrow letters is not particularly marked, although k, m, N, and co are always wide, o is variable in size and spacing; M has a curve that goes halfway down the line of writing, and the base of co is almost flat. XXVII
2458, assigned to the third century, is similar but more rapidly written. II 223 =
GLH 2\a of the early part of that century is also similar but considerably sloppier and more angular.

There are no breathings, accents, or punctuation except a misplaced forked paragraphus below ii 3. Correction in i 14 has been made by the main scribe. Some critical scrutiny has been accorded the text. There are critical signs in the margin of what would have been lines 12-13 in c°l- 11 and an ancora mark, perhaps serving as a directional symbol to the misplaced forked paragraphus in the new section (col. ii 3-4).

T he text has been collated with and supplemented from the edition of Burnet’s OCT. This is the second papyrus of the Charmides to come to light. In so far as one can judge from so small a text, the papyrus sides twice with the united evidence of the direct tradition (BTW) as against that of the indirect tradition, mainly

5082. PLATO , CHARMIDES

Stobaeus (ii 6, 9—10) and once with Stobaeus as against the reading of the direct tradition (ii 1—2). Spacing considerations suggest that the reading elbevai at 172 c8 (i 4-5), which many editors from Heusde on have deleted against the testimony of all manuscripts, was already present in antiquity. The papyrus also confirms a modern conjecture at 173 B5 (ii 11).

Col. i

Col. ii

08[ CD (172 c)

)jl€v yap €L fiovXet cvyy\copr]

]

]..

5 a.px]r}c eridepceda ccocf)pocv]vrjv ecvai to etSevat a re oi]8cn
].

,0 ]

]
o v\rjcei toiovtov ov a yap vvv]8rj eX eyopcev coc pceya av €117] [[vj a 15 yadov r) ccocf>pocvvr] ei t]ol ovtov ecnv 18

[tlcl

Kara ra[c eiriCTrjpLac rrav 173 B ra it par\roiTO Kac ovro tlc ^Kv^epv[rjTrjC (f>acKcov eivac </ wv 8e o[u e^aTrarcm av rjpiac 5 ovre iarpo[c ovre crparrjyoc oyre aXXoc TTpociroc ov/xevoc [tl etSevat o per] ol 8ev A ay[9avoi av €K 8r] rov tojv ov[rcoc eyovreov aX
10 A o av V)\pLW TL CVpL^atVOL
r] yyL€c[tv
CO

C [

Col. i
14 Nu appears to have been cancelled by a diagonal stroke, the upper right end of which is visible to the right of the alpha.

Col. ii
1-2 7Tav]\ra with Stobaeus: av BT: iravra av conjectured by Burnet.

3—4 Perhaps the scribe was copying from an exemplar with longer lines and mistook the location of the paragraph ending. Approximately 2 mm to the left of the forked paragraphs ther e is a small ancora sign pointing upwards, which was intended to help the reader to relate a note to its correct point of reference. But it is impossible to specify either the note (which will have been lost with the top or bottom margin) or the point of reference (since the text preserved offers no clue as to the meaning of the ancora to be discerned), unless perhaps it has something to do with the misplaced

KNO WN LITERARY TEX TS
forked paragraphus. For the use of the ancora mark, see K. McNamee, Marginalia and Commentaries (>977) >2i-4-

4 Hjanarq) av T: itjairaTav B: a>v Se ov, itja.Tra.Tq) av rjq.ac was omitted in Stobaeus.

6 o[uSetc with BTW: tic oudetc Stobaeus.
g— io aA]|Ao av n cvfijiaivoi] with BTVVQ_: aAAo n av rjjxlv cvfijiaLvoi Stobaeus.

1 1 rj vyiec\lv with Heindorf (conjectured): /n) vyiiciv Stobaeus: vyieciv BTW Q.

12-13 There are two signs opposite what would have been 11. 12 13, if the lines had not been lost. The first looks like tops of three verticals, as of 00 ; the second looks like a cursive forward-falling c with a horizontal line drawn beneath it. If the critical signs put in the margin are stichometrical, they are meant to indicate a number or they may alternatively suggest that something in the lines now lost has received (or requires) attention or marginal comment.

M. SALEMENOU

5083. Plato, Crattlus 423 e
38 3B.7g/H(i)a 5.1 x i.g cm Third / early fourth century
One fragment from a papyrus roll, written along the fibres and blank on the back, together with a detached fragment with an undistinguishable trace. With an average of 9 letters per line or 3.5 cm, the column is very narrow but not unparalleled (Johnson, Bookrolls and Scribes in Oxyrhynchus 101-8). A relatively broad inter- columnium of 1.6 cm survives, probably slightly wider in full length, amounting to half the coumn width. The column height is uncertain.

The hand is of the informal mixed type, upright and fair-sized. There is marked contrast between broad letters such as n, k, and x and the narrow c and p, typical of the ‘Severe Style’. The 00 with fiat bottom is also characteristic. The script is similar to XI 1358 (= GBHBP ib), dated in the early fourth century on the basis of third-century official accounts on its back.

There are no breathings or accents and no evidence of punctuation and lectional marks. Iota adscript is written in the only instance where it is required (line 1). The papyrus offers no new readings and does not involve passages of textual disagreement in the medieval tradition. It is only the second fragment of the Cratylus from Oxyrhynchus. XXXIII 2663 preserves Cratylus 405c, clearly from a different copy and not overlapping with 5083. The text has been collated with the OCT (1995).

MkMf ^Lot eivai * (423 e)

KacTou loci r[ep kcu x/>cu[r|[p.a xau a vvv[8t]

5083. PLATO, CRATYLUS

3 The last surviving letter in the line seems to have been crossed out with a cancellation stroke almost reaching to the upper line. The cancelled letter seems to be a n or u (no other u survives), with its left vertical stroke and a clearly visibly diagonal descending not very sharply. The crossed-out letter may have been cancelled because it was wrong (if it is a v), or perhaps it was mistakenly written twice (if a jx).

Two traces of ink between a> and the cancelled letter look like dots, perhaps a dicolon, but it is not possible to explain its presence in the middle of a word. Possibly, it is accidental spilling of ink.

J. BARTON

5084. Plato, Crito 43 b, 45 b-e, 45 E-46 a, 46 c-d
88/287 Part Fr. 2 5.1 x 21.8 cm Second century
Plate I

Four fragments from a roll written along the fibres with blank back. Fr. 1 must have belonged to the first column of the dialogue. Frr. 2 and 3 + 4 represent parts of two consecutive columns no more than three columns (100-110 lines) further along than fr. 1. Fr. 2 is the most extensive and consists of the greater part of a column with lower margin (2.6 cm). Fr. 3 contains the beginning of the column immediately following fr. 2 with an upper margin (1.2 cm), and fr. 4 probably comes from near the bottom of that same column (about 27 lines down) or the beginning of the following column. Because the top of the column of fr. 2 has not been preserved, it is impossible to state the column’s height, but in width it must have contained an average of 30 letters and measured about 8 cm; this is slightly longer than the typical range of widths of prose texts written on papyrus (cf. Johnson, Bookrolls and Scribes in Oxyrhynchus 101-15). The roll, or the section thereof containing Crito , must have included a minimum of 20 columns.

The text is written in a medium-to-small upright hand of the informal type identical to that of 4935; see 4935 introd. for a description. The only lectional signs in the papyrus are tw?o diaereses over 1 and v respectively (fr. 2.5, 29) and also a high punctuation stop (fr. 2.25). The change of speaker from Crito to Socrates in 43 bio does not occur within the preserved text of fr. 1, so it is impossible to say whether and how this was indicated. The scribe often wrote iota adscript, but not always (fr. 2.4, 31, both endings of the second person subjunctive active).

This is the first published papyrus of Crito, according to the on-line catalogue of Mertens Pack3. The text has been collated and partly supplemented with the new OCT (1995). The portions of Plato’s text preserved do not diverge from the medieval transmission. Because no line-beginnings or endings are in evidence in any of the fragments and line divisions are therefore not known, I have preferred not to restore fully the articulated transcript. A letter count between successive lines does not suggest that anything of significance has been omitted from or added to the paradosis.

62 KNOWN LITERARY TEXTS

Fr. i c\c Kou 7rporc[pov (43 b)

7]v8aipi]ov\i]ca tod Tpo\iTOV r\rjL vvv Trapc[crcocr] pai]8uoc avrrjv k\cu 5 ] K[p]ltcov 7r[Xr]pLpLcXcc

Fr. 2

8tKaCTT]p]i[cOL

| fXOtC c£c[X9<jQV
7roAJAaxou pt€v y\ap a<f)LK\r) aya7Trjcov[a 06r]raAtav te[vat
CC 7T€pt 7ToX [AoU ac</>aA]etav cot rrapc^ovrai | Xvttcl[v Coj Kp[ar€C c]7JLyCLpc\lV
c\£ov cco[9rjV at
C7T€v8cl\c TTCpt \
ex\0p(n [co]v [
Sta]</>#etpa[t kol[l
I 7TpoStSovat |

CKdp€ijja]L KCLL €K7TOu8 \ CVCCU
KCU TO COV ptc[pOC
rrp]aao]vc[L]v [ tol]ovt[ojv ot]aye[p ] op<^>av[t]at[c
°]v x[pv cvv8taraXa\L7Tcop€LV /cat r[pc<j)0VTa 77atS]eaovra cv 8c jio t S[o/cetc pat0a]p,orara atpetc^at* xpl7] ayaOoc /cat av8pctoc \ atpetjc^at (fxxcKovra y[c

(45 b)

5084. PLATO , CRITO

rra]vroc rov {}lov en[LpLeXeLcdaL ey]coye kcll vrrep co [u
30 T (x)]v COJV e7TLTr)8[€LO)V E

8o]£r] aircxv to 7ipa[ypia avav]8pt at tlvl tt)l 7]p\ercpaL

] KCLL 7] €LCo8oC [t]t^[c 8lk(ict7]]plov ojc €icrj[ Xdev 35 ] kcll avroc o a[ya>v
] kcll to reAeurajiov /caray] eAcoc rr/c rrp[a^eojc
Fr. 3
avav]8pLaL t\t]l T^j/xac 8[ok€lv o]v8t [
j T[l
5 ] TCLvr[a j kol[kcol
cju A e[y€LC
KClA]<jl)C €[Aey€TO
] §€t TOj[v S] € OV [

5 /cjaA[a>c
[ " ] eXe]y€[ro

Fr. i
3 wv with j3 l1 and editors: vvvt VVSV

Fr. 2

12 ctt€v8€l]c with MSS and editors. Stephanus conjectured crrevSeiv supposedly to maintain parallelism with the preceding infinitive (eVtxctpaV) dependent on So/cetc: ovhe Ukolov pot 8ok€lc eTTLxcipelv rrpaypa, cavrov rrpoSovvai, i£6v ctuOrjvat, /cat rotavra crrcvSeic rrcpl cavrov yevecOa t arrcp av /cat oi iyOpol cov crrcvcatcv tc /cat i'crrevcav. This intervention does not seem necessary, however, and is not commended by the papyrus.

13-14 Letter-count suggests that the papyrus had ccnevcav (with the majority of MSS) in the

K.NO WN LITERARY TEX TS

unpreserved portion of the lines rather than icvovSacav (SV). The former is undoubtedly the correct reading, since the verb is coordinated with cvevcauev (see previous note).

A. BENAISSA

5085. Plato, Euthydemus 286 d, 286 e
3836.79/1(1 ~3)d part 8.5 x10.1cm Third century
Three fragments showing parts of two columns from a papyrus roll. The text is written along the fibres and the back is blank. Assuming no major textual discrepancy in the lost parts of cols, i and ii, the column height can be calculated at c.17 cm, occupied by c. 25 lines; column width will have been 5.8-6 cm with an average of 16 letters to the line; intercolumnium of approx. 2 cm survives. It can be estimated that the whole work would have occupied c.130 cols., requiring a roll of approx. 10 m in length.

The script is in a fair-sized formal rounded style. It is dated by comparison with XVII 2075 = GMAW2 11 (assigned to the third century) and P. Ryl. I.16 = GLH
22b, on the verso of which is a letter dated ad 255/6. The script generally maintains bilinearity, broken by p, t, y, <j>, and -f. Some letters show slight flourishes, such as y. Upper end of uprights of w and n present tiny leftward hooks. Letters of interest include u, written in four strokes; the loop of <f> is diamond-shaped; full, rounded co. There is some contrast between thick and thin pen strokes. The left margin of column ii shifts to the left (Maas’s law).

Space-fillers are found at the ends of i 3, 7. Punctuation marks are used by the original scribe, yet erratically, often seeming to do no more than occasionally mark word division: there is a middle point at ii 9, a low point at ii 4. A possibly misplaced dicolon at ii 14 does not coincide with the change of speaker, but another one at i 1 does (with no line-beginning preserved), as does the paragraphos in ii 10
(with no dicolon where it is expected). Thus, there is no evidence of their combined use. In col. ii there is a series of dots at the beginning of lines that presumably marked the alignment of the column; on alignment dots, see Johnson, Bookrolls and Scribes in Oxyrhynchus 91-9. At ii 13 there is a trace of a marginal siglum, a forward slash, which may have indicated a textual comment (probably on this roll, rather than in a separate commentary), perhaps noting the variant rayewc for 7ray€OJc or vice versa, or marking an error in the missing portion of the line; for more uses ol the siglum see McNamee, Sig/a and Select Marginalia in Greek Literary Papyri (1992)
17-18. Elision effected but not marked at i 4 and ii 4, but not in ii 5.

The papyrus offers two new readings in ii 5 and 12. It agrees with MS T against BVV in three cases (i 5-6, ii 9, and 9-10), but gives support to B’s reading against T in ii 6.

5085. PLATO , EUTHYDEMUS

The text has been collated with Burnet’s OCT (1903) and Meridier’s Bude (1949) and supplemented exempli gratia from the OCT

Col. 1
to iraparrav ovk €<£17]: (2860)
ov8 apa a]/xa[6h| a ov8 ap/a9]eic ar<

9pCOTTOi Tj o\y TOVT CLV
5 ear] ap,a9ta etjnep et 7] to pev8ec9at] rcov< tt pay pear cov 7r]avu ye’ epr] aXXa tovto\ovk
♦ • ♦

Col. ii
♦ • ♦

Ao]|yo[r e^eXey^ai par]8e (286 e)
roc lfj€v8\op,€VOV ov k] ecnv €<f>[r] o ev9v8r] p io]c. ov8 ap\a etceXev 5 cr] Cji i€ £<f>[r)v eyco vv\v8r] Atov[vco8copoc e<;]eXeyi; at [to yap par]

. or ttcoc ar t\ic KeXev . cat co’ Ev9v8r]\pL€ 1 ]v 8 e 10 . yco ra co\cf>]a [raura /cat
. Ta ev eyovra ov iravv ti Kar[api]av9a[vco aA
/ Aa [Tijayetoc rr[coc err oco tccoc pi€v o]yv: <f>op\riKcoTe 15 por Tt cp]r/cojaa[t aAAa
Col. i
5—6 ei] TTcp ei 7] with I : ei Trapelr] BW (W1 corrects e interlinearly above a).

Col. ii
2— 3 ovk] eenv. The division of ovk between two lines would have been odd. However, the whole word ovk would not fit in 3 before eerie, since there is only space for one or two letters (although

KNO WN LITERARY TEX TS

with an upsilon as narrow as in ev at ii n, it is not impossible). Even if ovk is all written in 3 or in the case of a total omission of the word, die problem is not solved, as 2 would be left untenably short. The restoration of k at the beginning of 3 is therefore very doubtful.

4-5 tKtXevev] €(jl€ €<f>[r]v: eKtXevov €(j)7] BT i €K€ Xevev €<f)7]v conjectured by Hermann and adopted by most other editors: tKeXeve (j>r}fi> Badham. This passage is elearly ambiguous in meaning, resulting in the ungrammatical and nonsensical eKeXevov found in all medieval manuscripts. There is no way to confirm whether the papyrus attests this reading or confirms Hermann’s conjecture eKeXevov, but the presence of epue indicates that tKtXevev was written and epue serves as its object, probably to clarify the meaning. The insertion of epue is in sciiptio plena contrary to the scribe’s practice in the rest of the surviving text.

6 ALov[vco8copoc with B: 6 Aiovvc68copoc TW.

7 e£] eAeyfai with MSS: l^eX ey^ov Badham.

8- 9 KeXevcai with I: KeXevcat ov 8e KeXeveic on BW: KeXevcai cv 8e KtXeveic on Wr y packer at.
BYV also mark a ehange of speaker after KeXevcat.

9- 10 or Ev9v8t][pl€ rjv S e]|yto with 1 : rjv S ’ iyto, <L Ev9v8r]pL€ BW.

1 1 The line is restored from the OCT as ov ttclvv n with TW against B, which omits ov. Speculative restoration allows room for ov.

12 Kar[api]av6a[voj\ puavdav oj MSS with all editors, kat is clearly visible at the beginning of the line, a and u are missing, but what follows is certainly in accordance with puavdavaj , attested by all manuscripts.

13 The papyrus could be restored to either the Trayewc with W or rayecoc with BT. Tray^c oc is printed following Burnet’s text.

J. BARTON

5086. Plato, Laches 179 c-d, 180 a-b
58/B(72)b (part) 6.8 x 9.5 cm Third century
Two fragments from the same roll as 5082 ( Charmides ) preserving a total of 37 lines from Laches. Between the two fragments approximately 10 lines must have intervened, bringing the total number of lines to 47, which can be still accommodated in a single column according to calculations for 5082. There is no way to determine whether the two fragments are from the same or two consecutive columns, but the way they are broken, both preserving the right part of lines with a portion of the right margin, might suggest that they are the upper and lower part of the same column.

A high stop is written in fr. 1.4 to denote a short pause and possibly another one in fr. 2.6. Iota adscript is written in fr. 1.6. There are no other opportunities to observe its use in the manuscript.

There is slight overlapping with LII 3671 (M-P3 1407.4) at fr.1.1. The papyrus offers no new readings. Five other papyri of Inches survive, including 5087 (M-P3 i4°7-4> i4°8-I°)- Burnet’s OCT (1903) has been used for the collation of the text.
The line division is arbitrary.

5086. PLATO, LACHES

Fr. i c/caTcpoc Trept ro\y eayroy irarpoc 7ioA]Aa /cat /caAa cpya cyet A]cyctv rrpoc rove vcancj/couc* /cat oca ev 5 TToXepLou rj\pyacavro
/cat oca ev ei\piqvrjL Stot Kovvrec ra re tojv\ cu|it/x[a] yoov /cat ra rrjcSe] t^Jc tto Xeojc
,0 ]
viraLcywoopLz]

9]a re roucSc k a[t atrta/]
/ac0a]rouc 77arc[pac 77/xcov] ort i^ajc pcev ct[co]y Tpu(/>a[v]
15 C77 ctS?^] /xct[pa]/cta cycvo[/ac]

9a ra Sc] too[v a]AAa>r 7rp[ay\ pcara e7Tpar]rov /cat ro[tc]

Sc rote vcartcjicotc aura ravra crSct/cv] y/aeOa 20 Acyovrcc ort ot /x]cv a/tx[c]

Xrjcovav eavroov] /cat per] 77Ctcovrat 77/xtv] a /cAcctc

(r.io lines missing)

Fr. 2

ja]a#77/x[a toc ctrc So/cct xJ RVvai H'Q'ly 9aV€LV CtTC /XT?] /Cat 7TC/C)[t rcor aAAcov ct r]t cy^c c 5 7iatrcc]at pcaOrjpLa yeco[i avSpt T] c^tr^Sco/xa [/c]at 7 rept TTjC /cotrcojrtac Acyct[r

(J79 G)

(180 a)

KNO WN LIT ERA R Y TEX TS

]...[ c-l°

■° ].[]...[ c.7
rrjv 8\iavoiav Kai kol vcovei]v eroiptoc ol/jlcu
8e koll Aa]x7]ra T9V S[e] 9'^V B
dr] yap oiet] to NtKta [coc o\ ye is eXeyev o Avciptaxoc apn 7re]pi
Fr. i
5—6 TToXefjLwi rj\pyacavTo\\Kcu oca cv with BWt: omitted in T.

6 ei\py]vrji. The iota adseript seems squeezed between the rj and the S. It was possibly added later.

12 roucSc with BWQ^: toicSc T.

22 [fjarj] with BTW but omitted in Q. The line is already short. Although the scribe is not particularly eareful about his line length, it is improbable that per) is missing.

Fr.2

2 x\f?VvaL vvhh TW: xpvvaL V

6 c7T\iTrjhcvfxa. A traee from a stroke at the top right side of a seems to be an acute aecent, but it is not required there. The space between a (from eTnrrjSevfjia) and the other a (from /cat ) is wider than required for the k. Perhaps a high stop is written to mark the short pause, as in fr. 1.4.

8-10 Fhe surfaee of the papyrus is much damaged here, and only traees survive from an inestimable number of letters. Fhe traees are undistinguishable exeept for the lower right bottom extremity of a diagonal and the lower part of an upright in 1. 9.

M. SALEMENOU

5087. Plato, Laches 180 e, 182 b-c (more of LII 3671

51 4B.i8/G(i-3)c Fr. 2 3.0 x 2.7 em Late second eentury
Two fragments from a papyrus roll written along the fibres; the back is blank.
The largest, fr. 2, preserves 11 lines of the left-hand portion of a single column.
Surface fibres appear to be worn off from large portions of its lower half; the depth of the lower margin is consequently uncertain. Fr. 1 preserves parts of 4 lines from the middle of a column from 182 b-c. braces in fr. 2 correspond to 180 e, although reconstruction is not certain. Close similarities in hand, format, and size suggest that frr. 1-2 came from the same roll as LII 3671, another papyrus of the Laches (i79 b-c).

The reconstruction of the roll is problematic, due to the fact that no full column or two consecutive ones survive. It is therefore impossible to calculate the exact number of lines per column. However, Carlini (CPF l.i*** Plato 21) notes that the text preserved in 3671 is very close to the beginning of the dialogue and

5087. PLATO, LACHES
therefore calculates the column to contain 52—3 lines (assuming that the dialogue begins at the top of a column, even if another dialogue precedes the Laches', cf.
5082 + 5086). II this is the case, then fr. 1 comes from col. v and fr. 2 from col. vi or vii of the Laches. Although Carlini’s argument about a 52-line column on account of close interlinear spacing is valid, it is also possible that 3671 preserves col. iii of a shorter roll with c.26 lines per column. In this case 5087 shows cols, viii (fr. 1) and ix or x (fr. 2).

The lines preserved on the fragments have a length of 17—23 letters. The hand is of the ‘Severe Style’, sloping to the right with wide letters (u tt h nj contrasting with narrower ones (e o p c). o and c ride high above the notional baseline, while the vertical stroke of t and sometimes that of y extend below the baseline. The horizontal stroke of t tilts sometimes slightly downward (fr. 2.4, 6). The horizontal stroke of tt sometimes extends through the left-hand vertical stroke. Letters occasionally connect (e.g. t and co 1.2, 2.6; 6 and n 2.3). The script is rather uniform, but all letters that can be verified are written in the same way as in 3671 and are of the same size. In addition, both papyri have an average of 20 letters per line, and line-spacing is 4 mm. Due to the small amount of text preserved, 5087 offers no opportunity to compare the scribe’s practice regarding lectional marks with that of 3671 (where punctuation, breathings, and a diaeresis are observed). 3671 is assigned to the end of the second century. There is no opportunity to determine whether iota adscript was written. A correction in fr. 2.10 seems to be itself a mistake.

Fr. 2 supports T against BWQ^at 7-8 and BTQ^ against W at 4. Four other papyri of the Laches survive in addition to LII 3671 + 5087 and 5086; see M-P3
1407.4, 1408-10. File text was collated with, and supplemented exempli gratia from,
Burnet’s OCT (1903). Badham’s edition (London 1865) was also consulted.

Fr. 1

Xovc

C. 12
C. IO

]...

X€]y°VTCOV
7Tp ]oc aXXrj
]..[

Fr. 2

7T€f)\i rac ra^eic koli ravTa Aa/3[o>v /rat (fyiAoTifJLrjdeic ev aurot[c evi rrav av to tt€

(180 e)

(182 b)

KNOWN LITERARY TEXTS

pt rac crpar\rjytac oppcrjcece 5 KCLL 7]8t] §7]Aoy[oT6 TCL TOV C
tcov €)(opL€va[Kai pcadr] p,ara rravra [/cat emrir]

Sevpcara /cat /c[aAa /cat uoXXov a^ta av8[pt fiadeiv
10 [T]]€ KaL fT(:TV§fv[cai OJV

Kadrjyrj]c[aiT av tovto
Fr. i i The two larger traces of the three, a vertical and a eross stroke, admit several possibilities (tt or t).

2—3 Reconstruction from 180 e is strained but possible, given that vre o of line 2 are positioned directly over AA of line 3 and assuming an average eount in frr. 1-2 of approximately 19-20 letters per line. If the right margin follows aXXrj in line 3, then the space before np] oc would be too short to accommodate ra yap puetpaKia ra8e (eodd.), and the text at this point is therefore uncertain.

Fr. 2

4 [oppi-r] cae] supplemented with Burnet and BTQ,: appcoceie W.

4-5 If the missing part of the line transmitting the medieval text is intaet, then the scribe wrote 23 letters on line 4, more than he did on average (19-20), perhaps producing an uneven right margin.
Lines 11-15 of 3671 indicate that the scribe did not always maintain evenness at the end of the lines.

5 KaL rj8r) 8rjAov with MSS: oppLrjceie' 8rjAov 8 ’ Badham.

7—8 €7tlt7)] 8evf.iara with T: iTTLrrjSevpiaTa 1 javra BWQ.

10 T appears to have been mistakenly erossed out with a diagonal stroke. These lines appear to have been written in a finer and lighter stroke than the preceding lines.

11 Kadrjyr]]c[atr. This curved traee might be the upper stroke of o, c, or e, but the horizontal position of this traee within the line, whieh would allow for approximately 5-6 letters preceding; suggests c.

B. H. WEAVER

5088. Plato, Meno 72 e, 73 a-b
49 56.96/0(5— 6)b 6.9 x 8.9 em Seeond eentury
Plate XII

The upper part of two consecutive incomplete columns from a roll preserving Plato’s Meno. The writing is along the fibres, and the back is blank. Only a few letters and traces survive from the right end of col. i. Parts of ten lines from col. ii are preserved, and the surface at their right end is much damaged. A top margin of 4.9 cm and an intercolumnium of 1.7 cm are preserved. The average number of letters per line is 16, producing a column of approximately 5.5-6 cm wide; evidence from col. i suggests that letters are squeezed at the end of the lines (i 1). The first

5088. PLATO, ME NO
column should have contained 27 lines, its height being around 15 cm. Seven or eight columns would have preceded col. i in the roll, and the total dialogue would have required around 130 columns (9—10 m) and occupied the whole roll, if not two shorter ones.

The hand is an upright, medium-sized, formal round one. It is comparable to that of Y 844 (Johnson's scribe Ai), generally assigned to the second century, but a slightly earlier date has also been proposed (see 5089 introd.). The script is also similar to XXVII 2468 + 5089 ( Politicus ) and possibly the same scribe as 5090, also of Politicus (see 5090 introd.). The writing is strictly bilinear apart from J. There is obvious shading, and letters are decorated with blobs, occasionally dragged and looking like serifs, k is made in two strokes, with the upper diagonal sometimes almost horizontal (note both instances in ii 1, especially the first one, where it looks like a r). The cross bar of e connects with the upper part as in 5089 and 5090; h has a high cross bar, and y is V-shaped as in 5090 but different from 5089. The beginnings of the lines in col. ii move to the left as the column proceeds. Although very few line-ends are preserved in col. i, the right margin is relatively uneven, but the scribe seems to have taken pains to maintain the width of the column (by compressing the letters in i 1 and writing a tiny c).

The change of speaker is marked by two dots (ii 3 and 7) and paragraphus in ii 3 (but this is impossible to determine for ii 7, since the bottom of its first letters is missing). Iota adscript is probably written in one place (ii 6), judging from the available space, but there is inconclusive evidence for other instances (ii 5). There is no case of possible elision.

The papyrus does not offer new readings. There is no overlap between this papyrus and XXXIII 2662 (= CPF 1. 1*** Plato 34), also preserving Metro. The text was collated with Bluck’s edition (1961) and A. Croiset and Bodin’s Bude (1949), and supplemented from Bluck’s edition.

Col. i
Kai j^eyedoc Kai ijcyuc (72 e) eavnep 1 cyvpa y|v[r]rj
71 TCU aVTCO €LO€l KCL 1 1
TTji avT7]i icytn icyju
5 pa C. 13 ].

£•15 1.

Col. ii
/cat 8lk cu[a)c Slolkovv ra: ov Srjra: ovk[ov v 73 B

OLVTTCp SiKCLltOcl Kai CCD

<j)povcoc 8lolk[coclv 5 8iKaiocvvrji [/cat cco
(f)pOCVVrj\l\ Sto[ LKTjCOV civ: av[ay/c]^: [tcdv av]rco[v apa api(j)OT€poL
Sc]ovr[at €L7T€p pteXXov ctv] aya[0OL civai

KNO WN LI TER ARY TEXTS

Col. i
4 The iotas adscript are restored in accordance with the scribe’s practice in ii 6.

5 The only trace surviving seems like the top of right arm of y. Restoring the line as icy\y\pa €c rai to yap tt]l a]y also agrees with the average number of letters per line. However, this restoration is uncertain, as the trace is minimal.

Col. ii
2 The dicola both in this line and in 1. 7 are not very clear, but there is little chance that anything else would have been written there, as there is no variation in the tradition. In both cases the traces are compatible with dicola, and they coincide with the changes of speaker.

3—4 Sik-guo)c[»«u ca>(j)p6i’U)c with most MSS: caxfrpovcDC kcu Stfcai'toc \ F.

5 8iKatocvvT]i [. The last trace is the lower half of an upright. Iota is restored rather than kappa on the basis of line 6, where the size of the lacuna presupposes the presence of iota adscript.

M. KONSTANTINIDOU

5089. Plato, Politicus 257 b-c, 257 D-258 a (more of XXVII 2468)

85/81(6) 17.5 x 13.4 cm Second century'

Plate X

Parts of two consecutive columns in one fragment, preserving the beginning of Plato's Politicus. The bottom of the roll’s first column and the middle part of the second are preserved. A lower margin of 5.4 cm and a large intercolumnium of 2.6 cm survive. It is probably the beginning of the roll, with a left margin of 5.1 cm.
Three full-length lines from the first column are 5.8-6 cm long, and the average number of letters per line is 17. The number of lines per column is 34; this would produce a column of around 19-20 cm high. With this format the Politicus would fit in a roll 10 m long, perhaps divided into two volumes. Col. i is shifting to the left (Maas’s law), and an even right margin is maintained, occasionally with space- fillers (i 7,10). The writing runs parallel with the fibres, and the back is blank.

5089 is the same manuscript as XXVII 2468. Fr. 2 from 2468 physically connects to the upper part of 5089, preserving parts of the lines missing from col. i (re-edited here in bold letters). The rest of 2468 is from cols, xii and xiii.

The hand is an upright formal round with decorations and minimal shading.
The script is carefully executed with a sharp pen. The script becomes evidendy faster as the text progresses (frr. 1 and 3 of 2468). cf> is the only letter to break bilinearity. Letters of interest are the typical two-stroke A with a loop at the bottom left, and the e with a higher middle stroke closing to the right with the upper crescent to form a loop. Decorative serifs mainly at the top and bottom of vertical strokes. 5089 is in a similar hand to that of 5088 and 5090. They are all comparable to V 844 (Johnson’s scribe Ai, assigned to the second century, but see CPF
1. 1** Isocrates 84, correcting the date to first/second century), despite their more prominent decorations. Due to 844’s three-stroke A and its y and 2, 5089 cannot

5089. PLATO , POLITICUS

be identified with Ai. 5088 and 5090 on the other hand are much closer, with all letter shapes in common, but slighdy more formal. G. Cavallo, ‘Osservazioni paleografiche sul canone e la cronologia della cosidetta “onciale romana’”, in II calamo e il papiro: La scrittura Greca dalV eta Ellenistica ai primi secoli di Bisanzio (2005)
153-4 (originally published in ASNP n, 36 (1967) 209-20), and G. Menci, ‘Scritture Greche Librarie’, S& C 3 (1979) 23-53, place 2468 in the late first century, which is likely, but its original editor’s view of the second century is equally plausible. M.
Tulli (CPFl.i*** Plato 57) dates it in the first/second century.

There are no accents and breathings, but lectional marks and punctuation are present. Two dots indicate the change of speaker in the dialogue. High point, paragraphus, and a y in the left margin of the last line of the first column of the roll (i 14). Two line-fillers in i 7, 10. Elision occurs but is not marked (i 10, 13, ii 6).
Iota adscript is written in the only case where it is required (i 12). The correction in i 10 is probably by the same scribe. 5089 does not overlap with the other papyri of Politicus. It offers no new readings. The papyrus was collated against the text of the OCT (1995).

Col. i Col. ii

] •
uh-eTl fPa[c ™Xvhc: (257 B)

€V ye VTj\ TOP 7Jfl€T€pOP

9eo\p W CcuKparec top
5 apLpL(Ov\a Kdl hlKOLlCOC'

KCU 7Taw\ /JL€P OVV fXPTj pi\oPLKCOC €7T€7r\rj£aC pLOL TO TTtpi TOVC A Oyt> cpiovc a/jLapTTifjLa' Kai ce 10 pi\€V CLPTL TOVTCOP etc au
[[t{] ' d'tc /JL€T€[Lpu] CV 8 T)pUP> co pLrj\8apuoc cltto
KapLTjLC Xapt^Opi€VOC'
aAA e^TjC €LT€ TOP TToXi is x TLK0V aL ^S]joa Trporepop * G

CO api<f)co TToOep epioi (257 d)
epcot [cvyyepetap cyap Ttpa top p\ep ye ovp v f lecc tf[ar]a tt/p [tou irpo
5 CCOTTOV (f)VCLP \oflOiOP

<j baipe[c6at cf>aTe tov 8 rjpup \rj kXtjclc o 258 A pLCOPVf^LOC ovca [kcll Tj 7r\pocp7]CLC [rrapex^Tai 10 Ttpa I OiKei\oTTjTa 8ei
§[77 tovc ye cvyyepeic rj\pLcic aec TTpodvpicoc 81 a[ Xoycop

Col. i
4-5 co ca j/cparcjc tov Afxfxcova with most MSS: top Afx\xcova c3 CcoKpartc W.

15 In XLVII 3326 {Republic) Haslam considers the xl^€lv sign as marking a passage of interest and referring to a vnofxvrjfxa accompanying the main text (also Turner, Greek Papyri , 112 18, McNa- mce, Marginalia and Commentaries in Greek Literary Papyri 104-5). Here it possibly marks the mentioning of the subject matter, as in P. Bcrol. 9780V {BKTIV 536, rc-edited in CPFl.i** Hierocles 1; McNamce,

KNO WN LITERARY TEX TS

Table 2), as it marks the only extant line where the title of the dialogue is repeated (ttoXltlkov avSpa).
This is also the case in BKTYV 536, where in two instances y marks both the actual title and its repetition in the main text. The word ttoXltlkov is also found in 2468 (Fr.i i 18), but the line-beginnings are not preserved and the presence of y cannot be confirmed. The same y is found three times in the similarly-formatted papyrus of Phaedrus XVII 2102, where its function is uncertain (McNamee,
Marginalia Table 3).

Col. ii
11 ye was supplemented exempli gratia following W and the editors (OCT and Dies) against /3 and T. There is no way to verify whether the papyrus has re or ye, since there is no space difference between the two.

M. KONSTANTINIDOU
5090. Plato, Politicus 270 d-e
48 5B.28/L(i-3)a 6.9 x17.1cm Second century
Plate XI

The upper left part of a single column from a papyrus roll preserving Plato’s Politicus. The writing is along the fibres, and the back is blank. A generous upper margin of 5.5 cm and a left one of 1.7 cm survive. The average number of letters per line is 16. This would produce a column 5 cm wide.

The papyrus is written in an upright, medium-sized, formal round hand. The script is carefully executed with a relatively broad edged pen. (j)’s vertical stroke extends beyond the notional upper and lower lines. The obliques of k do not touch the upright. In kk the meeting point of the left stroke with the middle cup is low, sometimes reaching the notional base line, e is closed-cupped like the Latin e, and Y is V-shaped. Decoration is by blobs at the edges of most vertical and diagonal strokes (but a blob on © in 2 is probably unintentional), and there is minimal shading. Decoration seems more prominent in the upper lines of the column, perhaps due to the damaged surface of the lower part of the fragment.

The script is of the formal round type, rather large and upright, assigned to the second century (see 5089 introd.). The handwriting is comparable with 5089
+ 2468 (also Politicus) and 5088 (Mend). 5089 is obviously by a different scribe, although the two hands are strikingly similar. 5089 is more fluid (an impression reinforced by the thinner pen) and with several letters drawn in a different way than in 5090 and 5088 (notably h, k, u, o, tt, and y). 5090 and 5088 are much closer, perhaps by the same hand: all letters are drawn in the same way (note k, the high middle bar of h, and the two different types of it at 1 and 5 in 5090 and at ii 3 and 10 in 5088), and the decoration is similar. The letters in 5088 are larger and the columns slightly wider, which might contribute to a first impression of dissimilarity between the two hands. Letter and line spacing is more liberal in 5090, but the ratio of spacing to the size of letters is the same in the two papyri. Although the

5090. PLATO , POLITICUS

format of the two manuscripts is different, it is possible that 5090 and 5088 were copied by the same scribe. For examples of a single scribe writing in different size and format, see Johnson, Bookrolls and Scribes in Oxyrhynchus 18, on scribe As. There is not enough evidence to compare the use of punctuation and lectional marks (there is no change of speaker in the passage preserved in 5090). In both papyri the columns are tilting to the right (Maas’s law).

There are no accents or breathings. Punctuation is by high point in 3 and 8, and there is possibly a middle point in 4. Unmarked elision occurs in 11. There is no opportunity to determine the scribe’s practice regarding iota adscript.

The only new reading in the papyrus at 3 is a grammatical variation; the papyrus transmits yepatorepov instead of ycpairepov. Where there is disagreement among the medieval manuscripts, 5090 supports the main families (j3 and S) against Y and T2W2 (at 9-10 and 19-20); in the one instance where the two main families disagree, 5090 agrees with TW (at 16), but aligns with W against T at 19-20. There is no overlapping with any other published papyrus of Politicus. The text was collated against the OCT (1995) and Dies’s Bude (1935) and supplemented exempli gratia from the OCT

/cat erravcaro tt[clv o (270 D)

COV TjV 6vTjTo[v £771
to yepcuorcpov' JSeiv
7TOp€VOpL€VOV [pL€TCL

5 fiaWov <§e ttclAlv [cttl E
rovvavnov ot[or ve corepov /cat a7ra[AcoT£ p[o]r e(f)V€TO‘ /cat [tojv pi\ev 7Tp€c]f3vT€pco[v at 10 A[e]y koll \rp] tyec e/uJeAat v[o]rro tojv 8 av yfevet ojvTOJv at 7rap£ta[t Ae atro/u,erat ttoXiv [e77t ttjv 7rap€A9ovc[av OJ
15 pav e/cacrov /ca[0tcra car tojv r £ rjj3o[vTcov r a ccopLara A£atr[opt£ va /cat c/xt/cporfypa Kad rjpijepav kcll rp[/cra 20 €Kacr]r]v yiyvo[pieva

KNO WN LITERARY TEXTS

3 yepaiorepov: yepairepov MSS.

9-10 eju[eAai)Mo]i'To with most MSS: eA evKalvovro Y. There is no doubt that the trace of the last preserved letter in 10 corresponds to kk rather than A.

16 re with TW and Dies: 8k j3\V above the line and OCT. Dies and Nicoll CQ,25 (1975) 43 n. 1) also report t transmitting 8k. The papyrus reading is erroneous, and Nicoll is right to assume that the shared error re is not important evidence for a T W link. The papyrus proves that the re was present in the tradition long be I ore the point when it is assumed that the medieval families broke off.
r)fio[vTCin>: -qfStovTonv MSS. The papyrus clearly transmits a spelling mistake.

18 c/.uKpoT[epa: cptxpoTara corrected in T above the line.

19-20 KaO r)p.](pav kcu vv[kto. | €Kacr\qv with most MSS: ko.6’ eKacrr/v rjpLepav Kal vvktcl 1 :
Kad ’ Tjpkpar kxacTrp' Kal vvKTa (corrected with transposition marks in T) Y.

M. KONSTANTINI DO U

5091. Plato, Politicus , 299 e, 300 a-b, 300 c
100/135(3) 14.6 x14 cm Second/third century'

Parts of three columns from a roll with a blank back. T he top of col. iii survives, preserving a generous upper margin of at least 3 cm. Hie column height by calculation is c. 22 cm, occupied by c. 35 lines. The rather wide intercolumnium of c.2.5 cm contrasts with the narrow columns of 5-6 cm (10-17 letters), showing a relatively uneven right margin. With an average of 13 letters per column, the column should have contained 36 lines. The whole dialogue would have fit in a 10-m roll.

The text is written in the ‘Severe Style’ with slightly slanting, medium-sized letters. There is an apparent contrast between thick and thin strokes. There are regular ligatures. Col. ii clearly shows that the letters become smaller and more condensed at the ends of some lines, evidently to achieve as even a margin as possible. Sporadic decorations can be distinguished on certain letters at line-beginnings.
Little vertical serifs decorate the K (top cross stroke) in ii 6, 10, and iii 7, 10, but not in ii 8 (possibly present originally, but now faded away). Similar vertical strokes can be found on the only z at the beginning of ii 15 and the y ii 9 (second letter of the line) but not in other y. For a similar hand, cf. XXVII 2452 = GMAW2 27, assigned to the third century (see 149 n. 48), and XVII 2098 = GLH 19b, dated from the document on the back to the first half of the third century.

No punctuation has been observed apart from paragraphus and dicolon combined to mark the change of speaker (ii 2 and iii 6). Space-fillers occur at the ends of i 1, ii 2, 4, and 5. There are neither breathings nor accents. Iota adscript appears where we would expect it. There is no opportunity to determine the scribe’s practice regarding elision, but spacing in iii 6 suggests that the scribe wrote in scriptio plena. Cols, i and ii exhibit Maas’s law.

The correction in ii 14 and marginalia in i 11 and ii 19 are written in a thinner pen, apparently by a second hand. Untypically, the marginalia appear in the

5091. PLATO, POLITICUS
right rather than in the left margin, where one would expect explanatory and not textual comments (see McNamee, Annotations in Greek and Latin Texts from Egypt (2007)
15—16). There is a striking similarity with the hand of XV 1808, also preserving Plato (. Republic viii) and heavily corrected and annotated by a second hand similar to — but not the same as — that of the marginalia in 5091. The format is similar but not identical. 1808 is slightly more upright, and there are small differences in the drawing of letters: the middle stroke of u in 5091 connects to the middle of the upright, and y is different (although in 5091 ii 9 there is an y similar to these of 1808). The two papyri show a close resemblance (cf. the decorated K and z at the beginning of lines), undermined by the thicker pen in 5091. This type of script is generally uniform, often lacking distinctive features, and the possibility that the two papyri were written by the same scribe cannot be ruled out.

The papyrus does not overlap with any other Politicus papyrus published so far.
However, col. ii 3-14 (300 bi— 6) coincides with the quotation in P. Berol. inv. 11749
(M— P3 1937. 1), col. i 6—16; see K. Treu, ‘Kleine Klassikerfragmente’, in Festschrift zum ijojahrigen Bestehen des Berliner Agyptischen Museums (Berlin 1974) 438—40 (= CPF
III 8) preserving a commentary on Politicus that is dated to the second century and thus earlier than 5091. P Berol. supports the conclusion that the reading deacdai in ii 1 1 is a scribal error and confirms that the supralinear addition at ii 14 is indeed part of the ancient tradition.

The fragment offers a new reading in the margin of col. ii. 9 fiovXevovTtov (or perhaps cvpLfiovXevovTtuv) instead of cvfxfiov\€vcavTa>v. I he preserved text stands in disagreement with TW and in agreement with /3 in ii 10. A change in word order occurs in ii 15—16. Possibly another new reading is to be seen in the margin of in.

The text has been supplemented exempli gratia from the OCT (1995).

Col. i f r.io ] cyy> (299 E)

[ypapL/xara yjtyro [/xeva Kcu fx\r] Ka [ ra reyvrjv J cnjXov 5 [on Tfaccu re a]t re [yrai TrarreAjoJC
[av avoXoLv^jo r)

[pav kcli ov8 ejtc av [ C.14 ]

10 [ c. 14 ]

[ c. 14 ] [r] ovro ^rjr(€iv)

Col. ii

KNOWN LITERARY TEXTS

\yt]y[voLTO kclk]o[v]
aX rjdecrara ye:>
rrapa ya[p o]ip,ai rove 300 B

VOfJLOVC TOVC €K>

5 rretpac rroXXr]c>

K€LpL€VOy[c KCU t]l VCDV CVpL^OvXcOV

€Kacra yapievrcoc cvpL^ovXevcavrajv jlovXevoPTcov
10 ACat TTdLCCLVT COV

\d]eacdcu r[o] rrXrjdoc [o] rrapa ra[ujra roA picov Sp[av apeap]

TrjpLaTOc 'a/x[ ]' a[7T€pya]

15 £ opcevoc a[varpe j ttol a[v] rr\acav C. 3 ]

Col. iii
C. 8 pUpLTjpLa] ra pLe[v av €KOlct ojv\ ravra[ earj ttjc aXr/\
9€lclc [ra rrapa rcov]
€l8otoj[v etc 8wa]

5 puv e[tvat yeypapt]
pteva \rrajc Se ov]

Kai p\rjv rov ye] etSora [ e(f>aptev ]

TOV OVr[o)C rroXlTL ]

10 kov €l pt\epivrj\
pL€0a 7To[l7]C€Lv]

TT]t T]t TToAAa]

€LC TTjV a[vTOV 77 pa]
£iv ropv \ypaptpta TO)\v OU§€V

(300 c)

5091. PLATO, POLITICUS

Col. i i The traces at the end of the line seem like part of the r and a small, rounded space-filler (very similar to the ones at ii 2 and 5). However, it would come to stand somewhat oddly beneath the horizontal stroke of r.

The lost text at the beginning of the line could have read either Kara cvyypapLfiara with j8\V or Kara ra cvyypafifiara with T

5 [re] with most MSS: omitted in B. Since the number of letters varies considerably from line to line, it cannot be determined whether re is actually written on the papyrus.

8-g ov S e] tc T: ov&elc B. ovS e]ic is restored following the OCT text, because it is not possible to determine which of the two readings was written in the papyrus. There is a hint that the scribe did not elide in iii 6 (see relevant note) and if this is the case, and he was consistent in his practice, then ouS ’ etc would have been written ov Se eic, which would have resulted in a 15-letter line. This is longer than the two previous lines (12 letters each), making it the longest surviving line of the column, and therefore ovSeic might seem more convenient in terms of spacing. However, line 8 extends slightly into the right margin, allowing space for an extra letter. Moreover, a 15-letter line is not excessively long (i 6 for instance has 14 letters).

11 [t] ovto £7 ]t{clv). The abbreviation £777- could stand either for its common use as a marginal note: 'look it up’, with a transcript of the text in question (cf. McNamee, Annotations 15, and
GAIA IV2 p.16), or conceivably, as a variant reading ( tovto £ 7]tclv ) for what should have been in i 11, tovtov t^rjreiv (299 E7). McNamce notes that the former usage is typical, when the text in the column contains an anomaly.

Col. ii
I The first remaining trace is best assigned to the second r. There might be a microscopic trace of the following letter, probably n. The last, disproportionately thick, trace in this line is written on a fibre that is significantly bent to the left, so it should be taken to belong to a letter at the end of the line, probably o of Kaxov, rather than to a letter that would have stood in the place in which the trace is now. If the scribe was consistent in his use of dicolon, we may assume one at the end of the line as there is a change of speaker. There also may have been room for a space-filler.

6 KeipL€vov[c with MSS: Keifie]vrjc P. Berol. 11749.

9 The marginal reading fiovXevovrajv must be a variant reading for cvfjLpovXevcavrwv written in the line. Maybe it indicates only a change of aspect, and we are meant to infer cvp.f}ovXevovrwv.
Neither fiovXevovrcov nor cvpL^ovXevovrcov made it into the medieval tradition, which unanimously transmits cvfifiovXevcavTajv. The latter is also the reading of P. Berol. 11749*

10 TTetcavrwv with /3: cvpLTretcavrwv TW.

II [6]eacdou\ deedat MSS and P. Berol. 11749. In Phaedo 84 B Plato uses deacdai with the meaning 'to contemplate5. However, it seems difficult to make much sense of such a meaning here. Similarly, the possible meanings 'to see clearly5 (cf. Protagoras 352 a) and *to behold with a sense of wonder5 hardly fit into the context of the passage, which makes it likely to be an uncorrected mistake by the scribe.

14 a/x [ ]'. There are traces from the wwd apLaprrjpLa above the line, but most probably
TToXXaTrXactov was also added. The two words, transmitted by all medieval manuscripts and P Berol.
11749, obviously were mistakenly left out by the scribe, since the preserved afiaprrj^aroc ai repyat^o- fievoc is a blatant mistake. In order to fit both words the scribe would possibly have had to write more than one line in the margin, in order to avoid entering the next columns space.

15-16 a[varpe] \ttol with most MSS: avarpeirei Y. All manuscripts transmit iracav av after avarpeTTOi{-ei). The traces on the papyrus suggest that there is a change of word order, and avarperroi av nacav was written there. The N from ae is missing, but the space is right for a wide letter. A tt, probably from iracav^ clearly follows.

KJVO WN LITER A R Y TEXTS

Col. iii
6 I he reconstructed line is rather short (although not shorter than iii io), suggesting that Se ov was written in full.

8 If the line preserves the same text as the medieval MSS, then it is the shortest surviving line of the papyrus. The numerous (j, and v (both wide letters) of this portion of text might have contributed to a smaller number of letters per line. It is also possible that in this and the previous lines (also relatively short) the scribe did not cram the letters at the line-ends. There might have been a space- filler at the end of the line.

O. RANNER

5092. Plato, Politicos 305 D-306 b (more of PSI XV 1484)

40 5B.uo/H(i— 2)b Fr. 2 8.3 x 18 cm Early second century
Two fragments that are clearly part of the same papyrus roll as PSI XV 1484
(giving 304 E12-305 cii) and P Oslo 2 9 (giving 308 Eio-309 c6); a comparison of the handwriting of the three papyri is possible on the basis of plate 254 in CPEYW.2.
In 5092 fr. 1 gives the lower line-ends of what can be seen to be col. ii of PSI 1484, a part of the lower margin measuring 2.2 cm and the right intercolumnium, which amounts to 05 cm. Fr. 2, the largest, contains the remains of the next two columns, which are separated by an intercolumnium also of 01.5 cm. Both the upper and bottom margins have been lost in this fragment. Col. i preserves the lower part of the written area and some of the upper line-ends. The 36 line-beginnings in col. ii cover the full written height, which amounts to 18 cm. Most lines contain 13-16 letters and are 4.5-5 cm wide. Fr. 3 remains unplaced. In the joint edition of the two papyri (CPFl.i*** Plato 61), Tulli has underestimated the number of missing columns between PSI 1468 and P Oslo 9: between 5092 col. ii and P. Oslo 2 9 col. i about nine columns can be estimated to be missing.

This is an informal round hand of small size, generally upright and bilinear except for cj>, which projects above and below the line, and p, which reaches below the line. Each letter stands independent and for itself, but a u n y are cursively made in one sequence, and A e tend to ligature. Letters worth noting: A has its left-hand corner almost rounded; tt has the right leg a little curved; y has lost the vertical stem and is sometimes V-shaped. The hand can be assigned to the early second century. P Phil. 1 = GLH 13a, written in ad 125, provides a good parallel for many of the individual letters (a, a, tt, y). Its more cursive character is due to the fact that it is a document. Also comparable are XVII 2076 and XV 1809 =
GMAW 2 18 and 19 respectively, both assigned to late first / early second century.
XI 1364 and 1365, adduced as parallels for P Oslo 2 9 by Eitrcm-Amundsen, are obviously no parallels, since they represent the Severe Style.

Dicolon (fr. 2 i 25, 26, ii 26, 31) combined with paragraphus (fr. 2 ii 4, 5) serves to mark change of speaker. In fr. 2 ii 12 and 35, where there are two changes of

5092. PLATO, POLITICUS

speaker in a single line, a double paragraphus appears (cf. P. Harr. 12). Punctuation in the form of a middle stop is used in fr. 1.4 and fr. 2 i 14 and 18 to aid correct division of the sense inside a period. A rough breathing (Turner’s form 1) and a circumflex are placed over to of to&e in fr. 2 ii 27. Elision is marked by apostrophe in fr. 2 ii 24, 27, but remains unsignalled in fr. 2 i 2, 24 and ii 34. It is not effected at all in fr. 2 i 1 1 . The scribe writes a supralinear addition in fr. 2 ii 2 to provide what he had left out propter homoioteleuton. In the intercolumnar area, to the left of each of fr.

2 ii 26 and 27 a diple appears, and against fr. 2 ii 28 there exists the sign i, attested also in PSI 1484 ii 10. M. Manfredi, Dai papiri della Societd Italiana (Firenze 1966) 9, followed by Tulli (CPFI.i*** Plato 61 p. 307), has suggested that the sign might have been used to refer the reader to a variant or a note somewhere in the margins, but there are no means to test the validity of this interpretation.

Other Politicus fragments in the Oxyrhynchus collection are X 1248, XXVII
2467 + 5089, 5090. and 5091. The text of this papyrus overlaps with no other previously published; collated with the OCT (1995) and Dies’s Bude (1935) ^ ex_ hibits three new variants (fr. 2 i 14, 17, 18), an original addition (fr. 2 ii 3), and, if the considerations in fr. 2 ii 30 are correct, an omission attested nowhere in the MS tradition. Where the two main medieval families are divided (BD and TW; at about 287 T changes source and moves to a position closer to W: see W. Nicoll, CQ
25 (1975) 41-7), 5092 offers the correct reading. As there is not a single agreement in manifest error between the papyrus and the rest of the tradition (in fr. 2 i 11-12 arractov is estimable although rejected by editors), we have no indication of the papyrus’ affiliations.

Fr. 1

« ♦ • •

]Tr)v 305 D
yap ovrtoc ovc a\v fi actXtKTjv ov\k av ttjv irparr^iv *

5 aAA apx^tv tcov\ 8v
VapL€VO)V 7T paTT J €tV

KNO WN LITERARY TEXTS

Fr. 2

Col. i Col. ii

(6 lines missing)

5
ayT[r]v vvv ore kcli ttclvtol Va/ \yevrj ra /ca ra tt)v [7 roXtv 8tj
Aa rjjJLLy \yeyovev:

/ca[t] ccf)o8\pa ye tt]v
8r] /3a[c]tA[t/cr^v cvpt
Sl]c
7tXok\7]V COC COLKC

XrjXvdaptev ou]t aX

A €/c[r]eoy [7701a tc
XrjXcov ov9 av]ra>v
€CTL k\cU TiVL TpOTTCO
apyovcat uept Se] rt
10
cvpar\XeKOvca ttol va tStav avrrjc\ ov ov r)fi[tv vcf>acpta ca 1. .

<17to8l\8coci 8rjXov
Kara rrjv tStorr^Jra rj yafAarov evSet tcov 7Tpa£e\co\v to] y
£ac9a[t TTpaypLa a vopta 8]t/ca[t]coc [et
15
yayK[at°y apa ye
A]^[(/>]€y t8t]ov: et^a
3°5 E
yovev \ coc c j>atve cl] yovv: tt/v 8e a toll 7r[ayrcoc ye per]

7ra|ccov toutcov ap prjTeov [to yap ape x\oycay /cat tcov
TTjc pi[epoc a peTTjc vo/xco]v* /col[ t] £u/x
20
ec8et 8\ta4>opov et
7ra[yr]oL>v tcov kol vat Ttv[a Tporrov t a y[oAt]v [e]rnpLeXov
TOtc 7rep[t Xoyovc apt ipeyr]v koll VaVavr a
(f>tcfirjTr{\TtKotc teat pta
£vyv(f>atvovcav'

A’ eveTnd[eTov Trpoc opOorara rov kolv\o]v
25

Tac TCo[v TToXXcOV

TTj kXtJC€L 7T€[p]tX(X

> So^ac: \ovk eptadov jSovrec rrjy [Suva
> aXX’ cb8e [77aAiv av
/x[t]v aur^c 7JPoca
H 8petav ' y[ap otptat yp[p€]yo[i]pL€V Slkcll ce 7]yet\cdat ptepoc ora]r av coc eotfce 1 to
30
e]y apeT[r]c etvat ira
XiTi\KTjv: 7Tav[r]a vv\ ye: /c[at ptrjv cco
7ract] pcey ovv: ovko\v\v
(f>R°[c]vvv[v &v8pet
8r) k]ou Kara to ttjc ac ip\ev eTepov ev v(f>a]yTLK7]c rrapa
8 ovv [/cat tovto pto
8etypt]a fiovXoLjjLe
35
ptoy f ye KaKetvo vat
].[ ]^f[t]v t[

306 A

Fr. 2
Col. i

5092. PLATO , POLITICUS

6 ] . The first trace has a horizontal line at top level whose left-hand extremity joins with vertical stroke now missing, perhaps compatible with both t and 2 (from the word rrpdt; tv expected there), but the trace following does not fit with in. The second trace is remains of two uprights (the first one with slightly rightward-curving extremities) joined by a horizontal stroke in their upper part, compatible with h. Could the scribe have reversed the order of eKacrrj npa^tv and written cVacrq irpa^Lv instead?

1 1 There are only minimal traces of the dicolon after yow, but there is adequate space between the words, and there is little doubt that it is written there.

11—12 a\7ra]ca>v with TW : TTClcdiV BD.

14-15 5092 is unique in offering £vp.Tja[vT]cov and in 18 £vyv(f>aLvovcav instead of cvp.- and cvv-. £-forms appear also in other Plato papyri and seem to be archaisms, well adapted to an age of Atticism. See Bastianini’s note on Protagoras X III 1624 in CPF I.i*** Plato 62 and the literature cited there. It should be noted that the scribe uses the £- forms inconsistently; he writes cvpir[X€Kovca] in ii 10.

17 VaVaera. The corrected reading ra iravra is not attested in any medieval manuscript.

1 g This is the longest line, comprising 17 letters.

25-6 77ae[T]a[77act] with BD: rrdvv TW.

27 k]cil with TW after correction : om. BDW before correction.

30 The text transmitted in the MSS is too short to fill the lacuna in this line. A textual discrepancy, such as a repetition, or a new variant must have occurred here.

Col. ii
1 A thin long line in the margin immediately left to line 1 is of uncertain significance. A para- graphus is not expected there.

2 P. Oslo 9 ii 10 proxides another instance of the scribe correcting himself his omission).

3 The insertion of the article before ttoXlv is a hitherto unrecorded addition.

9 [ tlvl ] supplemented from the OCT with T W. /3 transmits ttoIoj instead.

17 rat 7t[cu'to>c. There is no trace of a dicolon between the two words, although the surface of the papyrus is much damaged. Even if the dicolon is faded, there is not enough space between the two words; cf. for example 2 ii 26 and 31. Perhaps the scribe missed the change of speaker (there is no trace of a paragraphic where expected, but again the surface of the papyrus is damaged), or he inserted the dicolon later in the narrow space and the ink is now faded away. Three traces above rat could either be a damaged paragraphic (perhaps mistakenly written there instead ol below line 17), or three deletion dots above the letters, again mistaken.

21 There is a trace attached to the first n of the line and into the left margin. It is possibly a critical sign, like a x, with which the trace is compatible.

23-4 Spacing suggests that the papyrus originally had a^tcj^rjlrLKotc (with T before correction, B), not the correct apcfricfirjTrjTLKolc (with T alter correction, W). rrj was inserted above the line.

26 The double paragraphic which can be assumed to have existed below S in So£ac (cf. 2 ii 12) has been lost to abrasion.

27 a\\’ cSSc. The lectional signs distinguish from aAAoi Sc: an example of their use to clarify articulation.

30 There is not enough space for the received text cv aperrjc rjp.Lv dvat. I he scribe can be assumed to have left out either a perrjc or rjp.lv. rjp.lv is the likelier, not being indispensable to the sense.

G. XENIS

IV. SUBLITERARY TEXTS

5093. Rhetorical Epideixeis
120/ 18-19 fr. i 15.4 x 15.6 cm Second half of first century fr. 2 9.2 x 15.5 c.m Plates VI-IX

Two large fragments and 68 smaller pieces from a papyrus roll. On one side, written along the fibres, we have the upper parts of four consecutive columns (the first represented only by two line-ends); in col. iii the beginnings are on fr. 1, and the ends on fr. 2, but continuities of sense show that the two fragments should be aligned in this way (the running of the fibres is compatible with this). The reconstructed portion of the roll is c.30 cm wide. In this edition I will indicate this portion as fr. 1+2. The surviving upper margin measures c. 2 cm, the intercolumnium c.o. 5-1.0 cm; the margin to the right of col. iv measures 5.5 cm. Column-width is c. 7.5 cm. Column height survives to 32-4 lines, c.13.5 cm; there is no clear indication how many lines are lost at the foot. According to W. A. Johnson’s investigation [Bookrolls and Scribes in Oxyrhynchus (2004) 122-3) r°Hs written in informal and cursive scripts like 5093 could reach a column height of 029 cm. On the back the same hand has written another column at a point corresponding to cols, ii— iii, and the text might have continued to the right; but to the left there is a blank of c.20 cm.

Thus it seems that this was an opisthograph roll (see M. Manfredi, ‘Opi- stografo’, PP 38 (1983) 44-54; G. Messeri, R. Pintaudi, yPE 104 (1994) 233 n. 1;
CPF 1.2**, no. 65, introd., p. 648; £PE 168 (2009) 107-11, esp. 107 n. 6), but the format is odd. I am inclined to assume that the front is the original recto, although I cannot be sure, since no kollesis can be seen. In any case, one could assume that there was originally a kollesis in the part of col. iii that is now missing: this would imply a kollema-width of about 17 cm, which is perhaps relatively narrow, but still within the range described by Pliny and found among rolls from Oxyrhynchus (see Johnson, Bookrolls and Scribes 88-91). The wide margin to the right of col. iv would mark the end of the roll, since the right-hand edge looks straight enough to be the original edge. The blank space on the back may have been left empty to be filled later with writing (cf. LI V 3724). This is perfectly compatible with the character of the pieces contained in these fragments, probably representing a sub-literary text with practical purposes related to teaching (see below).

The smaller fragments have not been placed: I assume that they belong to the same roll on the basis ol the script, but some of them are thematically related to the two major fragments (see below). However, the thematic similarities do not mean that those smaller fragments belong necessarily to the compositions of fr. 1+2: they

5093. RHETORICAL EPIDEIXEIS

may belong to other pieces devoted to similar topics. Moreover, frr. ibis— 17 bis are written on both sides.
d he script also is compatible with the practical purposes of 5093 mentioned above. It is an informal handwriting with remarkable cursive tendency and numerous abbreviations, which appears quite similar to the script used for hypomnemata.
On the one hand, ligatures are numerous (see e.g. fr. 1+2 — »■ iv 3 toucct- and 11 aAAe-; F 3 -cat). On the other hand, some letters are drawn separately and are clearly distinct, as in an ordinary bookhand script. For the alternation of these two characteristics, see e.g. fr. 1+2 -» iv, at the beginning of 7, where the first four letters are in ligature, while in the following sequence volkovo/jl letters are distinct; 9, where there is a separated letter in the sequence /j-ev—q—c, which belongs to a single word; fr. 1+2 -* ii 11, crotyetoir, where the letters are mostly separated. It is worth considering the characteristics of individual letters. A presents a sort of narrow loop on the top. B presents usually a U-shape, typical for cursive, but in one occurrence it has the more bookhand-looking form with two clear-cut lobes (see fr. 5 ii 18). e presents a cursive shape, h approximates to an S, but there are occurrences presenting a more square shape with shorter right-hand upright whose tip joins the end of the central stroke (fr. 1+2 iio, fr. 5 ii 1 and 2, fr. 13.2 and 4). u consists of a diagonal departing from below the baseline and a deep central curve, which represents the two central diagonals; this shape is rather similar to that found in minuscule, t often takes a distinctive shape, with a curving stem through which the crossbar cuts; the upper arc of the curve sometimes blends with the left-hand half of the crossbar, sometimes joins it to form a closed loop, sometimes projects above it. y is V-shaped, •j" consists of a sort of crux. A good parallel lor this script is represented by P. Lond. Lit. 108 ( GK'lAW 2, no. 60), Arist. AQqvaiojv /7oAire(a, assigned to the late first century (on the basis of the documentary text on the recto, dated to ad 78-9), first hand (a-/3 cols, i— xii; see Adqva'uov /7oAireta: Facsimile oj Papyrus CXXXI in the British Museum (London 1891). pll. i-ix) and fourth hand (y cols, xxv-xxx; see Facsimile of Papyrus CXXXI pll. xvi-xviii); see also L. Del Corso,
‘L’Athenaion Politeia (P. Lond. Lit. 108) e la sua “biblioteca” : libri e mani nella chora egizia’, in D. Bianconi, L. Del Corso (eds.), Oltre la scrittura: Variazioni sul term per Guglielmo Cavallo (Paris 2008) 13-52, esp. 19-20 and 24-8). I am inclined to assign 5093 to the second half of the first century.

There are no accents or other diacritics (but see possible dicolon in fr. 1+2 i 17 and possible punctuation mark in fr. 26.2). Punctuation is marked by means of paragraphs at the beginning of the line plus blank space within the line. Forked paragraphs occurs in fr. 1+2 -a- ii, between 9-10, with a blank, to indicate the beginning of a new piece, in fr. 4.2-3 and 1 1-12 (but here blank space is not survived because the text breaks old) and in fr. 28.1. In fr. 1+2 ->iv 10 and 11 blank space occurs without paragraphs. Fr. 1+2 l presents two sections in ekthesis, lines 15-25 and 29-32; fr. 4, only two lines, 9 and 20. In fr. 5 ii three short sections — 3-4, 9—1 1 , and 18—20— are

SU BLITERARY TEXTS

in eisthesis. In fr. 1+2 -> ii lines 5-6 appear to be slightly in ekthesis, probably accidentally, as the first line of fr. 1+2 4,. Elision occurs in fr. 1+2 -+ iii 4, 9, probably 23, iv 11, 16, 19, 24; I 12, 14; fr. 3.3, fr. 8.2; scriptio plena occurs in fr. 1+2 I 2 em E[v ] pv&iKrji', 3 €ttl avayujyrji', 9 enl Apcivory. Crasis in fr. 1+2 — >• ii 4 kolk, iv 16 xav. Iota adscript is generally written correctly throughout. Correction apparently by the same hand occurs in fr. 1+2 — >• ii 2, 4- 20, fr. 3.9, fr. 4.17, fr. 12.8, fr. 17.11, fr. 10 bis — »■
2, possibly in fr. 3.6, fr. 19.9, fr. 20.5, 7 bis i 2. In fr. 24.3 correction or variant may be meant. Phonetic spellings occur (fr. 1+2-+ iii 6 pL€ipLr]Tix[, very probably 7 yp . [ =
XPf[tcac, and possibly 12 erre 1 = irrl , si 6 aA 1 vov = aXy(e)ivov); see Gignac, Grammar i 189-90. In fr. 1+2 si 12 the compound cvvcrr]ca[c is written without assimilation of the nasal, as frequently in papyri of the Roman period (see Gignac, Grammar i 165-6 and 170).

Atticized orthography is to be noticed: use of -rr- instead of -cc- (fr. 1+2 — >■ iii 5 ^uXarro/xaL, 24 xirr _ [, iv II rjTTOv, fr. 16 bis — + eAtrr [; fr. 3.3 6aXaT = da Aar(rav)), but aivicco/ievov in fr. 1+2 si 5, pieAi [ = MeX'ic[cr)i] in fr. 1+2 si 8, possibly 8aX a. = daXac(cr]c) in fr. 1+2 -+ ii 13 (unless daXar is read) and consistent use of cvv- instead of £vv- (fr. 1+2 — >■ iv 28-9, si 12, 13).

The writer makes much use of abbreviation. In many cases these are suspensions of the type familiar from documents: ceA7? = ceXrj(vr)c) in fr. 1+2 — > ii 12; ^OJ = t^toioov) in fr. 1+2 -+ ii 14; reyva = reyv a(ic) in fr. 1+2 -> ii 14; ypaG = ypapL(pLaTixr)i) in fr. 1+2 -» ii 15; croA = croixieia) in fr. 1+2 -> ii 16; cv^ = cvXiXafSai) in fr. 1+2 -»
ii 16; 7rpo|ot^ = Trpo\o'ipi(iov) in fr. 1+2 — > ii 16-17; S n] "Y = Sirjyirjcic) in fr. 1+2 — > ii
17; _ ^at|pec = i£al\pec(ic) in fr. 1+2 -+ ii 17—18; crA = ctlx(ovc) in fr. 1+2 -+ iv 3; cuko- vol1 = oiKOvopi(lav) in fr. 1+2 — > iv 7; vapoiY = 7rapotja(tar) in fr. 1+2 — >• iv 24; ]payw = r]paypj(8tay) in fr. 1+2 -> iv 26, fr. 3.8, fr. 4.17, fr. 45.2, and possibly in fr. 37.2; yv = yviyaixl) in fr. 1+2 si 2, 9; a _ = abeX^prjv) in fr. 1+2 T 14 ; e7retpac = eVeipadavro) in fr. 1+2 si 8; eXaxfrV = iXdxprjice) in fr. 1+2 sli2; eTra<pr)capLe = eTTaprjcapLeiyoL) in fr. 1+2
— > ii 8; = yeA(co-) in fr. 3.4 and 7; evav = Mevav(Sp-) in fr. 4.5; 8iovvc = Aiovva o-/
col) in fr. 4.14.

However, he also uses abbreviations of the 'scholiastic’ system, consisting of the abbreviation of syllables: y = y(ap); k = x(al); pi = pi(iv); o+ = 6V(i) in fr. 1+2 -+• ii 9, si 6, and fr. 2 bis i 6 (cf. also fr. 39.2); ov = ov(jojc) in fr. 1+2 -> iv 22, fr. 4.19; 7 t =
77 ’(epf); 77 P = 7 rp(oc); v = -v(ai), ending of the present infinite, used in eiv = eiv(ai) in fr. 1+2 ->• ii 1, iv 12, and fr. 4.17; veiv' = eWi'(ai) in fr. 1+2 ->• ii 5; cvv€iv = cuvetv(ai) in fr. 1+2 si 13; = yt(yverat) in fr. 4.6; yP = yp(ap-) in fr. 3.7, cf. eyP = iyp(acf>-) in fr.

!5-3 ; (f>V = <f>T}(cC) in fr. 4.19, fr. 5 i 17 and possibly in fr. 14.3.

Such forms may also be used when the same syllable forms part of a longer word, e.g. 'avSpoc = /7(ep!)av8poc in fr. 1+2 si 8 (and probably '0 cpc = ij{€pi)ovcrjc in fr. 1+2 si 17), TrpoTrepLTTcopl = TTpoTrepLiroopL^v) in fr. 1+2 — ► iv 29. Although there is no sure evidence from the extant text (as I have been able to restore it), it cannot be excluded that pi = pi(ev) was used in the middle of words, e.g. yevoploc = yevopi(ev)oc.

5093. RHETORICAL EPIDEIXEIS 87

I he scribe also uses a symbol that belongs to the same system: / = (ecn) in fr. 1+2 ii 7.

Papyri containing similar abbreviations are: VIII 1086, Hypomnema on Homer , of the first century" bc (GALA IV2 no. 58; CPF IV2, pi. 160); the above-mentioned P. Lond. Lit. 108; BKT I, Didymus’ Commentary on Demosthenes, assigned to the first half of the second century (cf. CPF I.i**, p. 272; images in BKT I, pll. 1-11; Schu- bart, PGP no. 20; Seider, Pal. Gr. ii.2, pi. xix.38; CPF IV2, pi. 14); P. Lond. Lit. 138,
Rhetorical Exercises of the first century; XXXI 2536, Hypomnema of Theon on Pindar, assigned to the second century (pi. in; GALAW2 no. 61); BKT IV (P. Berol 9780),
Hierocles, HBiK-q crcuyeitoac (republished in CPF I.i** no. 60, with images in CPF
IV.2, pll. 15-17), assigned to the later second century; LXXII 4854, [Aelius Aristides], Teyr cov 'Pr/ropiKoov a, assigned to the late second/early third century. For a general account, see K. McNamee, Abbreviations in Greek Literary Papyri and Ostraca,
BASP Suppl. 3 (Ann Arbor 1981), in particular pp. xi— xiv; cf. CPF I.i**, pp. 276-81.
The same abbreviations occur in a draft of a private letter from Lollianos, the hrjfxocioc ypa/xixaTiKoc of Oxyrhynchus (P. Coll. Youtie 66, of 253-60; reprinted as XLVII 3366). This tends to confirm the idea, based on the papyri mentioned, that this system is characteristic of commentary texts and informal copies of literary texts made for private use.

Note that 5093 does not make full use of the system as it appears e.g. in Didymus’ Commentary on Demosthenes (see BKT I, pp. 2-3); thus it writes <uv for etvai, not \, and em, not e; the conventional signs for final syllables like -cov (McNamee,
Abbreviations, 1 15-17) are not used. This may add to the impression of a private copy (see below). Finally it is to be noticed that in fr. 14.3 the sequence apfi very probably represents the siglum for Ap( icTo)<f>(av-qc).

The surviving text on fr. 1+2 represents at least four compositions:

(1) Recto i — ii 9: the title is not preserved; the subject is the difference between TraiSia and cTTov&Tj. The first is argued to be built into us, since tickling will produce laughter but no physical stimulation will produce seriousness.

(2) Recto ii g ff The title is preserved, ra^eojc iy Koopuof) ; the subject is order in the natural world and in human activities (reymt) like music, writing, and rhetoric.

(3) Recto iii-iv. The title is not preserved. With regard to the subject, col. iv clearly deals with child-murder and, more generally, immoral motifs as constituents of plots in Tragedy, in opposition to the realistic and more decent themes of Comedy. A syncrisis between the two genres seems to be developed, and the author expresses his favour for Comedy. The lower part of col. iii seems already to treat this subject, and there is no sign of paragraphus in its upper part, a fact that suggests that this section began in the lower part of col. ii and occupied more than two full columns.

(4) Verso. The title or heading is preserved and is rather mysterious (see comm, ad loc.). The subject is the attempt to recover wives from death by illicit means such

SUBLITERARY TEXTS

as magic, and the subsequent recourse to copla as real consolation for the death of a beloved person. This is exemplified by means of mythical and historical figures.

These sections are not homogeneous. (3) looks quite fully developed, and ran to 80 lines or more of connected prose. The better-preserved portion presents the end of a carefully structured speech, addressed to a plural audience, with a climactic movement that quotes a proverb and plays with its wording (iv 22—7), presents a personification of Tragedy and Comedy, and concludes by alluding to the typical conclusion of Menander’s comedies, the call for a torch to lead the actors off the stage (29 IT.). Of (1) we have only the end, but that too is presented in full sentences; the same is true of (4), so far as it goes. The exception is (2), which presents an asyndetic fist of topics; if (3) began already in col. ii, this may have been quite short.

Among the minor fragments, fr. 3 and 4 clearly deal with themes linked to fr.
1+2 — »• iii-iv: in spite of the fragmentary state of preservation, it is possible to distinguish elements related to laughter and mocking (fr. 3) and a comparison between Tragedy and Comedy (fr. 3 and 4), the names of Menander and Ecphantides (fr. 4).
Fr. 3 and fr. 4, on the basis of die content and the condition of preservation (they look slighdy darker than fr. 1+2) could belong to the same section, although direct material joining does not seem to be possible. In theory we cannot exclude that they were part of the speech of fr. 1+2 -> iii— iv, in which case we should assume a quite long column for a longer articulated treatment of the subject involving also Comedy and comic writers (it has to be noted, however, the presence of the forked paragraphus in fr. 4.2 and 11, which may indicate different sections as in fr. 1+2 ->• ii 9; cf. fr. 3.1— 10 n. and fr. 4.1--20 n.). Alternatively, we can think that the roll contained another section with a subject similar to that of fr. 1+2 ->■ iii— iv. Besides, fr.
5 i probably contained quotations from comic writers; frr. 5 ii, 6, 7, 10, 11, 37, and 45 present lexical elements thematically compatible with the topics of fr. 1+2 — » iii-iv. In particular, frr. 9, 10, and 11 may belong to the same column on the basis of lexical elements and material aspects: note that both frr. 9 and 11 partially preserve the intercolumnium.

In assessing the style on the basis of fr. 1+2, we can note the elaborate construction of many sentences, and the use of illustrations from Greek myth, tragedy, and biography. At a more detailed level:

(a) The Attic spelling in -tt- is used (see above), although not consistently.
However, cw- (instead of the £uv- that we expect in Attic) is consistently used: — ► iv 28-9, i 12, 13).

(b) Hiatus does occur, but rarely: -► ii 8 ov €7Tapr)cap.e(voi); -> iv 11 ivixrjdr] aXX’ (sentence-end); 16 TrjpeL ip’ (clause-end); T 4~ 5 ^^Tpa\prjv[ai] o.7totu)(€lv; 5
Syo alviccopuivov ; (cf. fr. 3.8 eprj a^tor; fr. 4.4 ttolcl avrov).

(c) The vocabulary includes items entirely or largely attested only in prose of the Hellenistic and Roman periods: ->• ii 2 imxX ivwc, 13 jSAac-n?, iii 21-2 jS pe- poxrovoc , iv 9 T€KvoKTOvla, 27 acpcevi^o), 4- 2 VTrepiradrjc.

5093. RHETORICAL EPIDEIXEIS

(d) Various kind of stylistic felicity: word-play with etymological figures ( vapaLTTjcofMevov . . . a.TTapaiTr]T{ouc ) in (4.) 3—4; co<f>ic(xaT\ a] 77 aprjyopiac ov Trapr]yoprjp.aTa in (4) 9-1 o); elegant word-order ( dpap-evoi . . . Kai QiyovTtc in (1)
5—6 where both participles apply to the genitive in the middle); elaborate paraphrase (01 ra -rraXcua p,vdoXoyovvr{ec ) in (4) 1 ; play with the overlap of two meanings of a single verb in (3) iv 18.

These texts seem to represent the writer’s own notes rather than the copy made by a professional scribe: the script, the 'scholiastic’ abbreviations unsystematically applied, and the opisthograph layout with space left empty on the back point in this direction. But the fact that there are not frequent corrections suggests a sort of ‘clean’ copy. This does not mean that the writer/ owner of the roll(s) is stricto sensu the author of the pieces: he may have copied or excerpted them from other sources or drawn heavily on texts by somebody else in composing his own version. In what context 5093 originated, we do not know, but only can guess.
On the one hand, at least at first glance, (2) suggests the school environment, since the encomium represents an important exercise in the series of the progymnasmata of the standard rhetorical training (see fr. 1+2 — > ii 9 n.; G. Anderson, 'I he Second Sophistic (Leiden/New York 1993) 47-53; T. Morgan, Literate Education in the Hellenistic and Roman Worlds (Cambridge 1998) 190-92). In other words, these notes for a ratyoic eynwpuov appear to be a very rough and concise sketch to be used in the actual practice of teaching. On the other hand, however, encomium was also an adult epideixis (see G. Anderson, ‘Lucian as Sophist’s Sophist’, ILLS 27 (1982) 61-3, for the peculiar treatment of progymnasmata by Lucian). We have also encomiums in verse showing a strict similarity with the prose ones in terms of themes and rhetorical features, in other words deeply influenced by school training and related rhetorical theories (L. Miguelez Cavero, Poems in Context: Greek Poetry in the Egyptian Thebaid , 200-600 AD (Berlin/New York 2008) esp. 264-5, 340-70). In this respect the literary production from Oxyrhynchus is particularly instructive: for example, two compositions in verse, L 3537v, Encomium, of Hermes and An tinous (3rd/ 4th c.) and LXIII 4352, Hexameter Verses (0285) are thematically related to the subject of an encomium on the flower of Antinoos contained in a collection of sketches for progymnasmata from Tebtunis, P. Mil. Vogl. I 20 (see J. A. Fernandez-Delgado, F.
Pordomingo, fPE 167 (2008) 167-92 , and ^ ii 9 n.). Three items from Oxyrhynchus deserve particular attention: XVII 2084, a short prose encomium on the fig, performed at a festival in honour of Hermes, to whom this fruit was sacred, a piece whose paleographical, orthographic, and stylistic characteristics suggest a student’s work (3rd c.); VII 1015, Panegyrical Poem on Hermes with the aim of praising Theon the Gymnasiarch (3rd c.); P. Oxy. inv. 45 5B.99/D (18— 2i)b (= Eos 56 (1966) 83-6,
2nd/3rd c.), containing an ‘Encomium on the Word', which praises the Aoyoc on the occasion of a festival in honour of Hermes, the god who invented it and is called Father of the Word. It is very likely that these three items were composed to

SUBLITERARY TEXTS

be performed at a festival in honour of Hermes, whose cult in Oxyrhynchus is well attested (see J. Whitehorne, ANRIV 18.5 II 3070; Miguelez Gavero, Poems in Context 43). Hermes had a particular function as god of gymnasia (1015 9 yvpivaclcov ctt'icxottoc), where rhetorical exercises might have been performed.

(3) might also correspond to one of the progymnasmata, cvyxpicic, which in the handbooks follows directly after cyxdopnov/ 1 poyoc. However, this elaborate composition does not seem likely to belong to the sphere of elementary teaching. I have not found any direct parallel to such a cvyxpicic, although we have comparisons between activities (e.g. vavTiXiac xal ycwpyiac, Lib. Prog, x 4, viii 349-53 Foerster) and between authors (Plutarch’s cvyxpicic Apicropavov c xal McvavSpov). In any case, one may take into account that cvyxpicic was an important part of the encomium already at a progymnasmatic level, as prescribed by [Herm.] Prog, vii 10, p. 196.9—11
Patillon; Aphth. Prog, viii 3, p. 132.10-12 Patillon; Nicol. Prog. p. 59.5-7 Felten. So, in theory, it cannot be excluded that our text is in fact an encomium of Comedy.

(4) , with its elements which recall the rrapapivdrjTixoc and its fictional exploitation and manipulation/ distortion of mythical and historical figures and data (see 8-14 and 12-14 n.), presents a flavour of popular philosophy, comparable to several works by Dio Chrysostom; see in particular xvi IIcpl Xvarjc, where the myth of Jason is exploited as an exemplum (10); xvii IIcpl 77 A covc^iac, where there is an assemblage of mythical and historical examples exploited in a free and simplistic way to illustrate a point; xxiii"Ort cvhalpuov 6 copoc ; xxiv IIcpl evSaipioviac; lxiii and lxiv, both entitled IIcpl Tvy-qc. It also recalls several hiaXcIcic of Maximus of lyre (e.g. xv Tic aycivvov filoc, 6 77 paxTixoc, rj 6 dccopr/Tixoc • on 6 irpaxTixoc ; cl. xvi "Oti 6 dcajprjTixoc j3ioc apieivcov tov irpaxTixov] xxix Ti tcXoc piXocopiac ; xxxv ride av tic -npoc piXov irapacxcvacaiTO ; xxxvi El 77 porjyovpicvoc 6 tov xvvi- xov jSloc), although the philosophical implications of the SiaXcgcic are certainly at a much higher level, since they often deal with philosophical authorities. Moreover, the freedom of the treatment and rendition of myths recalls the tone of the laliae and prolaliae , in the frame of a rather indiscriminate exploitation of mythical and historical figures and anecdotes in the construction and articulation of speeches (see D. A. Russell, Greek Declamation (Cambridge 1983) 77-9; Anderson, The Second Sophistic 53-5), a method also applied by Apuleius in Florida (see e.g. Lx, xvi, xviii).
On the basis of these observations, this piece may be cautiously (and at the same time highly hypothetically) considered as an essay or a group of notes for an essay on a moral topic, e.g. 'How one can free oneself from grief for a beloved person’.

It is very tempting to consider 5093 as the note-book(s) or working copy of a rhetor preparing for his everyday activity. If we assume that (2) represents the notes for the preparation of a lesson, while (3) represents a fully developed and polished cttiSci^ic to be delivered (or composed with the intention of being delivered) in front of an audience, this rhetor appears to be devoted both to the elementary teaching of pupils and to lecturing before well-educated audiences. Such a double

5093. RHETORICAL EPIDEIXEIS

dimension of teacher and lecturer is typical of the figure of the rhetor in the Second Sophistic (see Russell, Declamation 4-5, and Anderson, Second Sophistic 22—4), and the style and content of 5093 would allow us to assign it to a Second Sophistic context.
However, as said above, one cannot exclude that the owner/ writer of the roll(s) is producing a collection of excerpta without being necessarily the original author of the pieces. In any case the different degree of development of individual pieces suggests a practical purpose in the assemblage of the roll(s): a use for rhetorical training aimed to students at different levels. If so, the most accomplished piece (3) could have been used as a rather advanced model for school declamation, even if it had originally been composed as a public lecture to be delivered in front of a well-educated audience outside classrooms in the Second Sophistic context mentioned above. Among rhetorical papyri, there are items preserving different pieces of rhetorical compositions: P. Mil. Vogl. I 20 (2nd/3rd c., Tebtunis), containing sketchy notes for progymnasmatic compositions labeled with titles (a piece about the Phoenix, an ethopoeia on Heracles excluded from the Eleusinian Mysteries, a piece on the theme of the exile, an encomium on the flower of Antinoos; see Fernandez-Delgado-Pordomingo, /J*E 167, 167—92); P. Lond. Lit. 193 (2nd/ 3rd c.), containing the remains of an encomium on albcoc and of another piece on the Phoenix; P. Koln VI 250 (ist/ 2nd c.), containing very short notes for two ethopoeiae a-noTpzTTTLKai on historical themes (one probably concerning Alexander the Great, the other Cyrus the Younger before the battle of Cunaxa), a part of an ekphrasis or of an encomium on the swan, an ethopoeia SiTrXij in the form of a speech of npocay- yeXla by a lover who is going to commit suicide, which assumes the appearance of a pLeXerr], in other words an original variatio of a standard progymnasmatic exercise (see A. Stramaglia, Amori impossibili: PKoln 250, le raccolte proginnasmatiche e la tradizione retorica dell’“amante di un ritratto’' [tavole 1-5]’, in B. J. Schroder,
J.-P. Schroder (eds.), Studium declamatorium : Enter suchungen zu Schuliibungen und Prunk- reden von der Antike bis zur JVeuzeit (Miinchen/ Leipzig 2003) 213-39). In considering these papyri in relation to 5093, we have to take into account the fact that they are rather fragmentary, so that it is difficult to analyse them in terms of stylistic level and degree of elaboration : however, we can see that P. Koln VI 250 presents interesting similarities with 5093 in the fact that it contains compositions at different levels ol development : some in the form of notes, some as full-scale exercises. In any case, on the basis of the available evidence, 5093, because of the variety of pieces and the different stage of elaboration of each piece, appears to be unique in its dimension of ‘mirror’ of a diversified teaching activity" within the rhetorical training.

5093 remarkably contributes to the illustration of the flourishing of rhetoric and related teaching at Oxyrhynchus: from rhetorical handbooks (III 410, 2nd c.;
LIII 3708, 2nd /3rd c.; LXXII 4855, 3rd c.; PSI I 85, 2nd/3rd c.; P. Thomas 15,
2nd c.) to sketchy notes for a lecture (XVII 2086v, 2nd c.); from progymnasmata (see the encomiums mentioned above, and also fr. 1+2, col. li 9 tu) to declamations (II

SUBLITERARY TEXTS

216, ist c. ; XLV 3235, 3236, 3rd c.; LXXI 4810, 3rd c.) to a list containing subjects for declamations (XXIV 2400, 3rd c.); cf.J. Kruger, Oxyrhynchos in der Kaiserzeit (Frankfurt a. M. 1990) 345.

For valuable comments and suggestions I wish to thank Prof. L. Battezzato, Dr L. Carrara, Dr R. A. Coles, Dr M. Fassino, Prof. E. W. Flandley, Prof. W. Luppe,
Dr D. Obbink, Prof. P. J. Parsons, Dr M. Perale, Prof. F. Pontani, Dr I. Privitera,
Dr A. Rodighiero, Dr D. A. Russell, and Dr L. Savignago.

fr. 1+2 -»
Col. i
top
[1 line missing]

Col. ii

top
\ n t eivrrjccTTOV rr)vrr a iu€KTOvrrr rjVjX€TTiKXiV(JOCrj\ ' JV4 . ]] 'c€X€WKKOl>\vO
f levovcTrPrjvSe vckoXcdcktt t [ ] kcl Xov/jl€ KaKToyyeXcoTocapxa\ \rtvac peiVTOtcccopL^aifcaptcvoty # vevt cjovjjLepajvKdtyovre ycXavTTOtovpL
CTTOvSycSepLTjSepuavovy / ptoptovev r)puvov€7Ta<f)r)capL€c7Tov§r)VKaTa CKevacopt ra^€coc€yKCopu°o+ kv ficpvaradeta t [ ] av® SrjXotrjrcovov pavicovr at; rjcro eye ttovde etc tcovo ' oca/xf ] tfir)vvKr)pL . p^ceXVcfxjo
TLCpLOlfiXaCT (f)V COV OaXcL . CTTCLCpt0
ktt [.] .PP0La. [ £-6 ] 'V£>co€ Teyva ypLpLOVCtK\ c. 6 ] ji rpa\^evypa^
CTOt^CV^ [ C.8 ] Tlr°[ . . A^po ot^htrfY _ [ c.8 ] o[ c. 3 ] £cu p€CTCOV'[ r.15 ]"[c. 4 ]. ./x'
payptar[ c. 20

]ycto tva

5093. RHETORICAL EPIDEIXEIS

^djjLTjrT

] KTLKTj ] VOjJLLOL1’

25 ] _ LKOJV

] C€Vi
].rPOJ

]€€LKaC

]jJLOVL

30 ] odev
\vava
]vTj 0

Col. i
2 ] # , diagonal stroke, 1.5 mm long, ascending from left to right in lower part of writing space 3 ] , stroke approaching horizontal, 3 mm long, which may be projecting top of final c; cf. ii 4, 11, iv 4, 18, 26

Col. ii
1 1, left-hand arc whose top is in ligature with following 1 v , lower right-hand corner of raised triangular letter indicating abbreviation 2 [[ ]/x, deleted letter very likely to be c; y written in interlinear space in slightly smaller size [[ |c, deleted letter apparently a square one, possibly k or n; c written in interlinear space in slightly smaller size 3 u, sightly blurred di agonal descending from left to right [, three traces in slightly diagonal alignment ascending from left to right lying on left-hand edge of lacuna and in lower, middle and upper part of writing space respectively ] , fibres damaged: remains of triangular letter? 5 r, faded and very tiny trace at line-level; above it, at mid-height, almost in vertical alignment, thin diagonal stroke descending from left to right and touching following v 01, stroke, 3 mm long, approaching horizontal on 1, like acute accent or part of circumflex y , remains of left-hand arc _ r, diagonal stroke ascending from left to right in upper part of writing space 6 e , stroke approaching horizontal, 3.5 mm long, in upper part of writing space 10 a , diagonal stroke ascending from left to right lying in lower part of writing space and reaching mid-height, whose tip touches descender of previous a, and seems to be connected with lower extremity of stroke slightly slanting to left and protruding above writing space ] , extremely tiny mark at line-level; 0.5 mm further, stroke approaching horizontal,
1 mm long, lies in upper part of writing space and joins left-hand extremity of loop of following A nf. tiny traces in vertical alignment in upper part of writing space 77, horizontal stroke, 3 mm long, in upper part of writing space touching following letter 12 o , upright; attached to it,
traces at mid-height, followed by trace at line-level touching following o, suggest square letter ^ , stroke aproaching horizontal, 2 mm long, in upper part of writing space, touching head of following p, whose left-hand extremity joins another stroke (not preserved); below, in vertical alignment with left-hand end of this stroke trace lying in lower part of writing space 13 T. 5 stroke slightly slanting to left and departing from right-hand end of crossbar of preceding r vm , narrow bottom arc very close to horizontal stroke, 2 mm long, touching following o>: t with broken crossbar possible a , two tiny traces in upper part of writing space suggests superscript letter: 011c lies at bottom edge of lacuna, the other 1.5 further and 0.5 mm higher, at right-hand edge of lacuna 14 k , central part

SUBLITERARY TEXTS

of stroke indicating abbreviation falls in lacuna tt [, faded and tiny mark in upper part of waiting space p, lower half of upright a [, left-hand part of round letter, core ] r, extremely scanty7 traces on right-hand edge of lacuna, in upper part of writing space, possibly belonging to right-hand arc e , three traces in vertical alignment suggest upright, followed, i mm further, by other upright joining to left at mid-height another stroke (not preserved) 15 v, broad curve approaching left-
hand arc; very close to it, at mid-height, two extremely tiny traces in horizontal alignment and very close to each other p\ stroke above letter, indicating abbreviation, is damaged : only thick trace on tip of right-hand element of pt visible ] _ , remains of diagonal stroke ascending from left to right in upper part of writing space; below, at mid-height, two traces in horizontal alignment to each other . , stroke approaching vertical, 1.5 mm long, in upper part of writing space, wrhose lower extremity touches left-hand end of crossbar of following t; below', twTo tiny traces very close to each other at line-level 16 _ [, first, diagonal stroke ascending from left to right lying in lower part of writ ing space and joining lowrer extremity of descendant preceding superscript A; above it, top arc, whose left-hand extremity touches lower part of descendant of same preceding superscript A; second, thick trace in upper part of writing space touching foot of 1 of preceding line protruding below line-level; third, either y or part of two ligatured letters 77, very small circle lying in upper part of writing space 17 _ [, first, central part of left-hand arc; at opposite edge of lacuna, in upper part of writing space, diagonal stroke ascending from left to right joining following letter; second, upright whose tip joins diagonal stroke descending from left to right ] # , lower part of upright o, two traces at line-level, in horizontal alignment, 1 111m apart; the right-hand one consists of 1.5-mm-long horizontal stroke touching following letter ] , stroke, 2 mm long, approaching vertical, in upper part of writing space, whose lower extremity is ligatured with upper loop of following 2 18
scanty traces suggest left-hand half of triangular letter ] , remains of at least two letters, consisting of two extremely tiny traces protruding above writing space ] _ , first, short vertical trace in upper part of writing space; second, two diagonals, each about 2 mm long, in upper part of writing space, which form a sort of fork, whose vertex lies at mid-height 19 p, upper half of two uprights, 1
mm apart from each other j . . . . , first, diagonal trace descending from left to right in upper part of writing space; second, left-hand arc; third, lower part of two uprights, about 1 mm apart; fourth, wide loop in lower part of writing-space 21 ] , wide curve approaching left-hand arc below line-level 23 ] . ? horizontal stroke, 1.5 mm long, at mid-height in ligature with following letter
24 J . , right-hand arc 25 ] , trace in upper part of writing space 26 ] , diagonal de scending from left to right in ligature with following c, joining to left at mid-height another stroke (not preserved) 27 ] # , trace at line-level, in vertical alignment with upper extremity of broad curve approaching right-hand arc 3° ] . , short vertical trace in upper part of writing space, possibly part of upright 32 V.> upright protruding above writing space, 0.5 mm distant from diagonal ascending from left to right and reaching bottom of following superscritpt o
Col. ii top
< f)v]\ctKOj(r€pav ) etV(at) rrjc C7rov8(rjc) rrjv TraiS^av) e/c rov 1 Tp(oc) rjv fxikv) €T7 lk\lv Coe rjjjL&c eyeiv k(cu) kqjAuo- fi€vovc } np{6c) rjv §e SvckoAcoc k ai 77a[p]a/ca-
Aovpieiyovc) kclk tov yeAcoroc apya[c| Tt^ac 5 iv€iv( at) rote cajpLac(iv) — aifiapievot yovv ivl- cov p,epd)v kcll Ocyovrec ye Aav TTOtovpi(ev) — cnovhrjc §e pipSepLL av. ov y(ap) (eert) pioptov iv

5093. RHETORICAL EPIDEIXEIS

rj/jiiv ov eTTacfyrjcajjiciyoi) c7tov8t)v koltci- cK€vacojji(ev ). ra^ecoc iyKa)puo(y). or(t) kv-
fiepva r a Oet a k(<xl) [r]a avd(paj7T€ia) 8rjXot r] tlov oi)- pavlcov ra^iCy r] croLyelcov dictc,
lc6vojj,oc api[o\i^rj vv(kto)v) k( at) rjpiepcoiy), ceXrjiyrjc) (f)oj-
TLCpLOLy jSAa CTTj (f)VTO)Vy 9dXa c(cTjc) C77aCjLto(c) k( at) 77a[A]tppota, i[7nyo(vr]) rjcuv ^co(cov). iv riyv a(tc)* ev jLt(ev) pLovcLK^rji) [pvOpi^ of), pLcX~\r]y pcirpay iv ypapL(pLartKrjt)
CToty(efa), cuA(Aaj8ai), [ C.5 iv Se| prjro\piK{fji)\ npo- o tpi(tov)y 8tr]y{irjCic)y a y[Ti0(ecic), Xvc(ic)y 677]/Ao[y(oc) C. 2 ], e£cu- pec(ic) r cov a[iriaiv Cl 5 ] [

7TpaypLar[ c. 20 ] 67ra
]yea>

J ClKTt/O^

Jpvojtuav
. LKCOV

]a cevt
Iff TP^( )

M ) ei*ac( )

]/UOVl
]. O06V

] vava
]vt]ko( )

4 [We can infer] that play is more natural than seriousness from the fact that to the one we are inclined even if prevented, to the other we are reluctant even if exhorted to it, and from the fact that in (our) bodies there are some origins of laughter — indeed, by touching and palpating some parts (of the body) we produce laughter — but there is no origin of seriousness, since there is no part in us by touching which we will produce seriousness.

'Encomium of Order. The fact that it governs the divine and the human world, is shown by the order of the phenomena of the heaven, the disposition of the elements, the well-balanced alternation of nights and days, the phases of the moon, the sprouting of plants, the ebb and flow ol the sea, the generation of animals. [It is shown] in the arts! in music by [rhythms, tunes,] measures, in grammar by letters, syllables, ... in rhetoric by the exordium, the narrative, the antithesis (counter-proposition), the refutation, the peroration, ?the questioning of the charges . .
j_g Concise description of laughter from the physical standpoint in terms of the effect of stimulation of certain parts of the body, as opposed to seriousness, which does not have a comparable

SUBLITERART TEX TS

physical origin. As far as 1 know, in extant Greek literature there arc no eomparable passages that analyse the opposition crrov8p/ 1 rcuSia in these terms. However, laughter is described from the physical point of view in the following passages:

Arist. Pr. 965 a 8lcl rl avroc a vtov ov6clc yapyaXl^CL; rj otl koll vtt ’ aXXov tjttov, cav irpoaLcdrj- rat, paXXov 8c, a v prj opa ; coed’ rjKicra yapyaXicdrjcerai, orav pr] XavOavrj tovto iracyaiv. cctl 8’ o yeXa>c TrapaKOTTT] tlc /cat aTrarrj. 810 kcll tvtttopcvoi ic rac <f>pcvac ycXcbcw ov yap 6 Tvyoov tottoc cctiv (1) yeXcociv, to 8c Xadpalov arraTiqTLKov . 81 a tovto /cat ylvcTat 6 yeAtoc /cat ov ylvcTai vtt j a vtov.
8ta rt ttot€ ra yaA?? paXLCTa yapyaXL^opcda; rj 8lotl Set to yapyaXL^opcvov fir] TTpocoj tov alcdrjTtKOV etVat; eert Se ra yetAiy 7rept tov tottov tovtov pea Atcra. Sta tovto 8c yapyaAt^erat ra yetA^ tqjv 7 rcpl ttjv Kc<j>aXr]v tottojv, a cctlv eecap/ca. eS/cteprorara oi)y puaXtCTa cctlv. Sta rt, ear rtc ror rrcpl rac pacyaXac tottov Kvr]cr], e/cyeAcoetr, ear Se rtra aAAor, oe; /crA.

Id. /fl 673 a [subj. </>perec] otl Se dcppaLvopcvaL Tayicoc cttl8t]Xov 770101/ci T?)r ate^^etr, cr]palvcL
/cat to TT€pL tovc ycXooTac cvpfiatvov . yapyaXt^ofievol re yap rayu yeAcoct, Sta to T?)r kIvt]clv a<pL-
KV€Lc9at Tayv rrpoc tov tottov tovtov, dcppalvovcav S’ r]pcpa, ttolclv opcoc cttl8t]Xov /cat klvclv tt)k dtarotar Trapa tt]v 7rpoatpectr. toS Se yapyaXt^ecOat povov dvdpcoTTov atVtor rj t€ X€tttott]c tov 8cppa- toc /cat to povov yeAdr Ttdr ^epeor avOpcorrov . 6 de yapyaXtcpoc ycXojc cctl Std klvt]ccojc ToiavTrjc tov po pLov tov 7rept T?]r pacyaXr]v. cvpfialvcLv Se <pacL /cat Trcpl Tac er toic rroXipoLc TrXrjyac clc tov tottov tov TT€pi Tac fppcvac ycXojTa Std Tpr e/c Tijc rrXrjyrjc yLvopcvrjv dcppoTipTa.

Gf. Alex. Aphr. Pr. p. 4. 12—13 Ideler aTropoc Se ^rjTpccLc etetr at TotatSe* t'lvoc cvckcv ot yapya-
At^opterot payaXac 77 Tri.Xp.aTa rj TrXcvpac ye Acdctr;

Plu. De lande ipsius 547b tolvvv tolc piv TTpoc tovc yiXtoTac cvKaTacf)6pOLC (/>ucet /cat 77po- yetpotc ptaAtcTa pcvycLV TTpocpKCL /cat (pvXciTTccOai tovc yapyaXtCftovc /cat Tac iftrjXacfrrjceLC er ate tol XciOTOTa tov ccopaTOC oXtcdavovTa /cat cvppiovTa klvcl /cat evve^oppa to ttclOoc ocol Se 77poc So£ar e/i7radecTepor cppvrjKactv, tovtolc dr Ttc oi5y 17/aora TrapaiveccLCv arriyecdai tov c <j)dc a vtovc CTratvccv ojv CTTaivcovTai.

rt r ) n \ \
ot av vtt a Xa

The cook of Hcgesippus, /lSeA</>ot, fr. 1. 12-16 (K.— A.) describes the wonderful effect of the smell coming from his dishes prepared for a funeral banket in terms of a titillation (yapyaXicpoc) producing laughter in people who were just mourning as they were taking part in a wedding ( cttclv TaytcT’ cXOojclv e/c ttjc €K<f)Opdc, / tcl ftdrrT ' i'yovTCC, TOVTrWrjpa tt)c y^rpac / acfrcXdiv CTrolrfca tovc da/cpeorTac yeAar. / tolovtoc erSoder tlc er tco ccopaTL / SteSpa^ie yapyaAtcptoc coc ovtojv ydpcov),
Cif. Alex. Aphr. Pr. 2.45, who offers a description of vttvov as a consequence of physical stimulation of specific parts of the body. One may wonder whether similar features and elements were in the treatise Ihpl cTTov8rjc /cat 7mtStdc by the Stoic Athenodoros of Tarsos (. FGrHist 746 F 3), mentioned by Athen.
XII 519b in relation to the exploitation of dwarfs for entertainment.

Arist. RX X 6.5-7, analyses the relation cttov8t]/ 7raiStd from the ethieal point of view. 7ratStd is pre st nt( d as a Ik althy and necessary avauavcic from ttovclv (cf. PL Phil. 30 e 6 — 7 avanavXa yap,
(I) ripcoTapyc, TT]C cttov8t)c ylvcTaL cvlotc T) TratSta, eehoed by Aristacn. I 26.21-2), but clearly subordinate to C7 TovSrp in order to reach cdSaqcorta (So/cct 8’ ctiSalpcov \ Sloe 6 /cut’ dpcTrjv dvar ovtoc 8c pcTa cTTov8rjc, dAA’ ovk cv TratSta). This concept is expressed in a dietum of Anaeharsis, Tral^cLv
OTTQJC CTTOv8a£)r].

The author of 5093, in 7 9? after the analysis of laughter in terms of physical stimulation, seems to deny any physical origin of seriousness. In fact, in 3-4 he states that we are by nature disinclined to it, 77p(oc) rjv 8c SvckoXojc /c(at) 7ra[ p]aKa\Xovpc(vovc).

1 he treatment stops ex abnipto in the middle of line g, and a seetion concerning a completely different subject, the Ta^ccvc cyKojpto(v), begins. This short text is really difficult to classify. While the following portion of the same column — the Encomium on Order — is presented in note-form, the text in 1-9 has a coherent syntactical articulation, so that it may be the conclusion of a speech or a final corollary to suppoit an argument picviously developed. In — ► iv we have a cvyKpLCLc between Comedy

5093. RHETORICAL EPIDEIXEIS

and Tragedy, where the author clearly expresses his favour for Comedy Therefore it is not implausible to think that these observations on cttovStj and 7raiSia are related to the treatment ol literary genres and the emotions or psychological conditions peculiar to them. The type of comedy that emerges from col. iv, characterized as XPV^V an<^ jStoAoyoc (see 27—8 n.), may include both cttovStj and rraihia.
In this context, the concise observations in 1—9 may be considered as a further piece of evidence from a naturalistic point of view, suitable to support the arguments of an aesthetic treatment: the contrast between crrovSq and 7raiSta, and especially the formulation in 7-9 suggest an intellectual origin of cTTovby). Although in the extant portion of the text there is no hint of a moral evaluation ol the psychological conditions cuovSr]/ rratSia, it is possible to link this piece to the theme ol cols, iii— iv, namely to the defense of comedy: tragedy is what one would link exclusively with crrovSf while comedy by its own nature necessarily contains 77aiSia; then, TratSta being based on more natural causes, since laughter is determined by physical stimulation, there would be a sort of naturalistic justification in giving the preference to comedy as literary genre.

1 <f>v]\cLK(x)(repav) seems to suit the context, that TraiSia is closely connected with bodily reactions; the accusative and infinitive construction must depend on a verb, now lost, with the meaning ‘we can infer’ or the like. The form of abbreviation, with k raised and raised above that, is strange (McNamec, Abbreviations 118, gives a few parallels), but perhaps intended to distinguish this from ( j>vciK which could be understood as <; f>vcu<a)(v ). I have considered also reading etK(or)aj(c). But in that case the abbreviation by contraction is different from the abbreviations by suspension elsewhere adopted by the scribe.

2 For the use of the verb eyaj with the adverb eVi/cAivcoc meaning ‘to be inclined’, cl. Philo,
Lgatio ad Gaium 167-8 Tore (.lev ovv ovSepuac eTiiyyave 7Tpovo(.uac, oca p,cpaKuohi(j xaptevric/xara Tifieplov hia(.L€f.ucrjKoroc) eTreiSrj rrpoc to ce^tvoTepov re /cat avcrrjporcpov cyeSoe ck TTpajTTjc rjXiKiac €7tlkXlvwc elyev. Similar expression is to be found in De fuga et inventione 105-6 aAAa to ye rj^erepov yevoc ypeiov yeyove tovtojv Sta to TrecjyuKevai /cat €ttikXiv<1)C cyete Trpoc Te ra eKOVcia /cat a/coucta a/xapr^/xara; De cherubim 162; De opificio mundi 155*

9 Forked paragraphs and a blank within the line mark the beginning of a new section. The two words following the blank, rafeoc ey/ca)/uo(ej, are clearly the title of this new section, which is therefore an ey Koopuov. L his is a well-known type of progynuiasnia , which represents the basis foi further developments by the later sophists and in particular by Menander Rhetor (see H. Lausberg,
Handbuch der literarischen Rhetorik (Stuttgart i99°3) § 1129)- I he ran§c °t the subjects of encomia is quite wide both in literary sources and papyrus fragments (see D. A. Russell, ‘The Panegyrists and I heir Teachers’, in M. Withby (ed.), The Propaganda of Power: The Role of Panegyric in Lite Antiquity (Leiden/
Boston /Koln 1998) 23, and F. Pordomingo, ‘Ejercicios preliminares de la composition retorica y literaria en papiro: el encomio’, in J. A. Fernandez Delgado, F. Pordomingo, A. Stramaglia (cds.),
Escuelay literatura en Greek antigua (Cassino 2007) 405-53): from gods, heroes, historical and mythical figures (encomium of Diomedes, Odysseus, Achilles, and Thersites by Libanius (vol. viii, pp. 216-51
Foerster), the encomium of Dionysus by Lucian, and one on the same subject preserved in P. Koln VII 286, of the second/third century the encomium of Achilles partially preserved in P. Vindob. G
29789, a collection of rhetorical exercises of the third/fourth century from Soknopaiou Nesos (sec H.
Gerstinger, in Mitteilungen des Vereins Klassischer Philologen in Wien 4 (1927) 35 47) ■» the encomia of Minos,
Rhadamanthys, and Tydcus in P. Mil. Vogl. Ill 123, of the third century bc; the encomium of Thucydides by Aphthonius (Prog, viii 4, pp. 132-4 Patillon), of Demosthenes by Libanius (vol. viii, pp. 251-7) and of Herodotus by Lucian) to aAoya £a>a, </>vt a, ro7rot, and concrete objects (/xuiac eyKcoftiov by
Lucian, the eyKdjpuov fiooc cvyypa^iKcp xaPaKTlPl and hK<^Auov 4>°'lvlKOC KaL M^ac bY Libanius (vol. viii. pp. 267-77); the encomium of the horse in LXYIII 4647, of the second/third century, of the fig in XVII 2084, of the third century, of Antinoos’ flower in P. Mil. Vogl. I 20, col. ii 25-33-col. iii 1-25; the KOfirjc iyKcopuov by Dio Chrysostom (see Arnim II, Appendix i. 306-7; N. Terzaghi, Syne sir

SUBLITERART TEXTS

Cyrenensis Hymni et Opuscula ii (Roma 1944) 190-232, in particular p. 190 n. 1 ; M. Billerbeck, C. Zubler,
Das Lob der Fhege von Lukian bis L. B. Alberti: Gattungsgeschichte , Texte, Ubnsetzungen and Kommentar (Bern 2000) 11), and to towns (which play a remarkable role in sophistic oratory (cf. fPE^i (1981) 71-83, esp.
74-5). Besides there is a third category, concerning more abstract subjects, the so-called npayp^ara , including activities, like the yevopyta praised by Libanius (vol. viii, pp. 261-7), and moral virtues, like the hiKaiocvvrj praised by Libanius (vol. viii, pp. 257-61; cf. Aphth. Prog viii 2, p. 131.4 Patillon), the copia praised by Aphthonius (Prog, viii 10, pp. 134-7 Patillon), and the al8d>c (in P. Lond. Lit. 193, fr. 1, from the second/ third century), or achievements of civilization, like the (already mentioned) Xoyov €yK<l>p,iov in P. Oxy. inv. 45 5B.99/D (i8-2i)b, of the second/third century (Eos 56 (1966) 83-6). To this third category should be ascribed the subject of the eyKcdpuoo in 5093. It should be noted that this text presents an extremely simple syntactic structure, in list form. The subject of the first clause is to be understood from the title. I herefore it seems to be a sketch rather than a fully developed exercise. It may be divided into two main sections: the first one (10—14) consists of a list including natural phenomena governed by rd£ic; the second (14 flf) consists of a list of human activities, the reXv at, regulated by the same principle. For general theme, compare Arist. Quint. De musica 3.7 (pp. 105.7 fif) stressing the signs of sympathy between this world and the higher world: . . . ra kolO’ €kglctov Katpoo d)C eiTTClO yiVOp,€Va, (f) VT (do T€ ai)£r}C€lC Kal (f>0 LC€LC , £,(pCOO T€ nXrj p(dceiC Kal K€V(1)C€IC . . . Kal ptTJO Kal 9aXarryc naXippotac re Kai VTroXcopycetc . . . ptovctKyo 8y Kal avryo apXyo pteo eXeto Ik redo oXojo, cocrrep Kal ra aXXa, elneio ovk dr rt9aooo ktX.

9-10 Kv\fiepoa ra 9eia Ac(ai) [r] a ao9(pcb7reta). Gf. PI. Symp. 197b Kvfiepoao 9ecdo re Kal ao9pcd -
7Tcov, referring to Zeus and apparently from an unknown tragedy (see R. G. Bury, The Symposium of Plato (Cambridge 1973), comm, ad loc.)

10 av9(pto7T€ia) (the Attic form according to Moeris; see I). U. Hansen, Das attizistische Lexikon des Moeris: Quellenkntische Untersuchung und Edition (Sammlung griechischer und lateinischer Gram- matiker, Band 9) (Berlin/New \ork 1998) P* 74? a 4^ = I- Bekker, Harpocration et Moeris (Berlin 1883) p. 188.25), or do9(p<dmoa).

12 I he phrase dp,[o]tpy ovfrcdo) k(cli) yp,epcd(o) can be compared with the following passages:
Eus. PE 7.10. 2. 1.4 . . . Xoycp 8e Kai oop,cp 9eitp vvktoc Kai rjpcepac too aptoifiaiov aoaKVKXeic9at 8pop,oo, Xoycp 8e 9eov Kal oop,cp Kal avroo yXtoo Kal c eXyvyo Kal ryo redo Xotrrcdo acrepcoo Xopetao eo nperrooTi koc/xoj ryo rrpocyKovcao egaoveto 7 ropetao ktX.\ cf. ibid. 4. 5. 8. 7; id. De laudibus Constantini 1.5.6
. . . WKTtbv re Kal yfxepcdo dpLOtfiaiat Ktoycetc ktX .; ibid., 6.4.6 ovKrcdo re Kal yptepedo aptotfiaia Si- acryp^ara evo dpfioot a rfj Tracy KarefiaXero ktX.\ Soz. h.e. 8.22.1.2 ovKrcop Kal pte9’ yptepao dptotf3a8do.

12-13 ceXy(oyc) paj\ncfiot: the ‘illuminations of the moon’ by the sun, in the phases of the moon. For this term cf. Emped. fr. B42.8 DK dr roAaWai to'lvvo to rod Eptr tcSokXcovc, doaKXdcet Tivi tov yXiov rrpoc ryo ceXyoyo yiyvec9ai too eorav9a c fxoricpioo an ' avryc\ Alex. Aphr. in Metaph.
547.10 y 8e ceXyoy vXyo eXovca Kara tottoo perafioXyc eXet Ka'L TVC KaT> dXXotCDCiv; to yap 8eXec9at rove (f>coTLcp,ovc €k tov yXiov avro tovto aXXoLcoclc ecn\ ibid. 57-io (on the mutual influence between stars) erret8y 8e rtoa 7 rdcXet, edenep y ceXyoy rove peoneptove vno tov yXtov 8 eXo(.teoy, Kal d/xcoc ovk ecri tovto p9opa\ [Gal.J Phil. Hist. 69.1 ( Aoa£if.iao8poc ) I8100 eXeto avryo Pcdc etpyKeo, dpatorepov 8e 7tcoc. (QaXyc) 8e ano tov yXiov pa)TiI>ec9ai ryo ceXyoyo; Jo. Philop. In Aristotelis Analytic a posteriora commentana , GAG 13-3? P* 1 68.25—169.2 . . . Kai em redo peortepidjo rye ceXyoyc etre yap roicocSe pcorferai docnep i^aol^Tai, nd otojc Kal c<f>aipoei8yc cctio, etre c<f>aipoei8yc eert , ndorcoc Kal TOtcdcSe pcoTt^erai. ep’ d>o ovo doner pepovet rrpoc dXXyXa to ah tov Kal to alnaroo , 7 roXXaKic Sid to yocopipccdrepoo eioat tov air tov to airtaroo ck tov atnarov KaracKeva^opteo to a it too, otov ryo ceXyoyo c<patpoei8y 8clkovot€C ck redo (j>LQTtcf.id)0‘ Katrot ovX ot Pcortcptol tov c<patpoet8y eioat air tot, dAA ’ eKetoo tovtcoo. Aeyerat ovo ovtoc tov oti cvXXoytcptoc ■ to yap cpatpoet8ec rye ceXyoy c €K redo pcoTtcudnoo cvXXoy'ferat. Cf Vett. Val. Anthologiarum libri ix 1.12, p. 27 Pingree, who offers a detailed description of the paincyiol rye ceXyoyc from the astronomical point of Hew.

5093. RHETORICAL EPIDEIXEIS

13 fiXacTT] <f)vrd)v. I his conjunction occurs at PI. Lg. 765c navroc (jxvroi 3 7} rrpajTrf fiXacrr], and rather commonly in the literary prose of the Roman period (Dio Chrys. Or. 72.14.8; Plu. Bruta aniniaha ratione uti 990c; Ael. VH 13. 16.10; Clem. Alex. Strom. 6.2.24.1 and Iamblich. ap. Stob. 2.31. 122.3, t >° th quoting Plato; later Didym. Caec. In Genesim p. 67.22, Greg. Nyss. Deopificio hominis 145.21, 1 heodoret.
Affect. 12.56.5, Jo. Philop. De opificio mundi 68.3).

0aXac(c7]c). The last, superscript letter has largely disappeared in a hole. 1 he surviving traces are a mark on the lower edge of the hole, and extremely scanty remains of ink on the right-hand edge. I have interpreted these as c: the right-hand trace on the hole would correspond to the end of its upper curve. However, the same traces might fit t, with the lower mark as the foot of its upright.
In that case the alternative restoration 6aXar(Trjc) is possible, and even attractive if we consider that the text shows some examples of Atticized orthography (see above, introd.).

13-14 6aXac(crjc) c7racpLo(c)\K(al) 7Ta[X]lppota. The context shows that this phrase must refer to the regular ebb and flow of the tides. rraXlppota is certainly used of tides by other authors (e.g. Polyb.

34.9.5, Strab. 1.2.36), though it may also refer to violent currents or surges (e.g. Longus 2.14.1, Heliod.
5.17.3). Note Aristid. Quint. DeMus. 3.7, p. 105.1 ff. Wmnmgton-Ingram: . . . daXarrrjc maX tppotac re kcll i)7TO)(ajp7]C€tc, at Tpc avrrjc Ocov (the moon) t to Spoptto roll (paccct kcl9 cKacra cvp,p,craf3aXXovctv. cnacfxoc {cTracpia) elsewhere describes violent motions of the sea (D. S. 3.44, App. BCff.g o, whirlpools;
Plu. Cic. 32, sudden retreat caused by an earthquake), but l have not found it referring to the regular ebb.

14 €^'i7Lyo{vTj) t]ujp' 1 he space in lacuna allows about 5 letters. I his leads me to assume that the word was abbreviated, like some of the nouns in the previous and in the following lines. I his abbreviation may have been exempli gratia cmy°. I he same lunctura occurs in Ael. NA 9.48.1 and Porph.
Abst. 1.12.6.

14 ff. For the idea of basic elements (c rotyda) in music and writing, comparable with the croix^ta of the physical world, see: Alex. Aphr. In Aristotelis Metaphysic a commentana , CAG 1, p. 368.21-8
816 Kat cSct^cv on apyp c be yvcocrov’ St o yap rrpeorov yvtoptL,crat tl, tovto apyTj CKCtvov , tocrc yvcocc 00c Kal rod yvcocrov to cv apyp' evt re yap avOpcorrco 7rpa>rajc ot avOpajrrot yveopt^ovrat Kat evt 17T7TCO 01 LTTTTOt, Kal Kad ’ CKOCTOV yCVOC OtKCLtp Ttvl TOV yCVOVC CKCtVOV. OVTWC CV flcXct Tj SiCClC TOVTCp yap cXax'tCTCp alcdrjrcp Stacrrjptart Sokcl rravra ra Stacrffara cv rote p^cXcci p^crpctcSa t. /cat cv <f>wvfj Si to tpiovrjev fj a<f>wvov crotyCiov ev tovtoic yap eXaxlcroic naca faypapparoc <f>wv 77 perpe trat; p. 609.13-16 Kal ev povc tfa tj 8'iectc €cti 8e Tj Siecic o Xtav cpiKporararoc cjjdoyyoc fac yop^Tjc, ov fa Kal npojrov alcdavopeda Kal avalcO-qroc r ov fipayvTepov Kal cpt Kporepov eKeivov icpev, et reeve ecri cpuKporepoc eKeivov. aXXa Kal ev favfj HTP° v T° crotyetov; p. 609.30-33 Kal al fajval (Xeywv (jjojvac vvv ra crotyela tojv (jjojvo)vt to re aX <f>a Kat to f^Tjra Kat to Xoinaj nXetovec etctvr at ’to re to aXfa Kal to ev raiSe toj yapr-rj yeypappevov. otl 8e Talc cjjajvaic tojv CTOtyelojv ojc apyatc Kat perpoic ype opeda Sid to eXaylcrotc etvai 8tjXov ; p. 835. 4-9 yeXolov 8e Kal to. Tpvnrjpara tov avXov, u> ol avXrjTal ypdjvrat, Sid ra ypappara etKOCt Kal reccapa noietv, tj tt pocappofav to k8 crotyela TT) oXottjtl TOV Kocpov. fapfivKa 8e Aeyei TO peytcTOv Kal TrpwTOv ev toj avXu> TpvnTjp.a, a</>’ ov Kal o Kal 0 pupvTaroc 4 x°c airoTeXelrai, o^vTaTTjv 8e to eXa Xictov ecyaTov, avT 6 fa fit to k8', afa ov ofaTaToc a-noTeXetTai faoyyoc ; Aristid. Quint. De Musica 1.20.1 ApXV fav ovv ecTt fac IxeTpLKrjc o -nepl CTOiXeta)v Xoyoc, eW’ 6 nepl cvXXafav, eW 6 ire pi tto8wv, elf)’ ov tojc o nepl t<x>v fxeTpojv, TeXevTatoc 8e 6 nepl notrjfxaTOC, npoc evSetfftv rov CKonov tt/c jxeTptKTjc napaTtOefievoc ,
Simpl. In Aristotelis Physicorum libros commentana, CAG 9, p. 227, 12 to 8e koto. avaXoylav faXaTTet ra toj t bvciKtp npocrjKovra far pa fac tojv ctolxAojv tojv faciKcbv yvitceojc. die yap tt/c ypappaTtfac nepl tAjv elKoctTeTTapojv cTOtyelcov ecnv el8evat ra oXocyepecrepa, fav 8e aKptfa yvGjctv avrCov i) jiovcifa 8t8acKet, ovtojc Kal nepl to>v (jjvctKaiv croixetojv o npwroc StSafat (f>tXoco<f>oc.

The traces before fxerpa seem to fit better the upper half of an H. I he supplenic nt is based on Philo, De specialibus legibus 1.342, where pvOjiol , faX-q, and per pa are presented as constituents of

100

SUBLITER ART TEXTS

music: davfLacLwrarov Sc Kal at<orj yprj jtay St’ rjc jtcXrj Kal ptcTpa /cat pvdpioi, ctl Se appioviai Kal cvpLcfxovlaL Kal tcov ycv cov Kal cvcttj ptaTcov at ptCTafioXal /cat ttclv9 ’ oca Kara fiovciKrjv crriKplvcrat ktX. Cf id. De cherub. 105.5 • • • TO Se cv rjptlv appvdfiov Kal aptcrpov Kal c/c/xcAcc pvdpbtp Kal ptcTpco Kal /xcAct Sta fiovctKrjc acrclov dcparrcvovca ktX.

16 f. The three uncertain letters represent a paleographieal problem. In such a list, we expect as the next item a word like C7777, prjptara , ovo/xara, Ac^ctc, Aoyot, but the traces are not immediately compatible with such restorations. I suggest two possibilities. (1) 9c{i\aTa, cv Se], 'roots of words’. The space between © and the following traces seems to be too wide to have been oeeupied by the missing curve of the restored e; however, one may eompare the long ligature between 6 and c in the word 8cclc at 11. An objection may be raised about the interpretation of the traces as ligatured e-M, sinee the first diagonal of ka seems to be too curved.

(2) 8cc[lc avreov, cv Se], ‘the combination of them (i.e. letters and syllables)’. For the space between © and e see above. An objection may be raised about the interpretation of the traces as ligatured ec. Indeed, here it appears slightly different in comparison with other oceurrenees; see e.g. II 9cclc , iv I TTOtovvrcc, 16 cct ccj)avovT o, 17 ec[x]erAta£ev, 26 aycctv, 30 t]cc, i 11 X[rj]pr)cavTcc, 14 arvx€cri[pav. However, taking into consideration the irregularities of this seript, this interpretation of the traees can be aeeepted. In any ease, the two other traees — the dot above the ligature and the traee at the foot of the 1 projecting from the previous line — are perfectly compatible with e: they seem to belong to the upper part of the curve of this letter, while its eentral stroke is represented by the short diagonal descending from left to right in ligature with c. Parallel passages to be considered for this restoration are the following: Arist. Cat. 14 a 3^ Tplrov 8c Kara rtva raitv to TTpoTcpov A cyc- rat, Kadarrcp €7tl tcov cttlcttjplcov /cat tcov Aoycov. cv re yap Talc cltt 08c lktl Kale CTTLCTrjpLaLC virapyct to irpoTCpov /cat to vcTCpov Tjj Taijct — ra yap cTotycla t TpOTCpa tcov btaypapcpcaTcov Tjj tcl^cl — /cat cttI ypap.pLaTLKrjc tcl cTotycla irpOTCpa tcov cvXXaficov — cttl tc tcov Aoycov o/xotcoc — to yap npo- otfttov TTjc 8trjyr)ccajc irpoTcpov Tjj tcl£cl cctlv; Dexipp. In Aristotelis Categories commentarium, CAG 4.2, p. 22.1 G 17 cvvdcctv yap Ttva cvXXaficov Kal CTotyclcov cyctv Kal tcl ovo/xaTa; Ammon. In Aristotelis An- alyticorum priorum librum I commentarium, CAG 4.6, p. 5.10-14 /cat Xcyoptcv otl cctlv cv toIc cvXXoytcpcolc cvvdcctc, CCTLV Sc Kal avaXvctCy cocrrcp Kal Trapa toIc ypaptfiartKolc cctlv cvvdcc tc /cat avaXvctc , cvvdcctc /xcv Kad rjv arro tcov CTOtyclcov tj tcov cvXXaficov cvvTtdcactv ovo/xaTa rj prpiara , avaXvcic 8c Kad ’ rjv tcl cvvTcdcvTa avaXvovctv cttI tcl ariXa e£ cov cvvcTcdrj, etc tolc coAAa/8 ac /cat tcl crotycla ;
Jo. Philop. In Aristotelis Categorias commentarium , CAG 13.1, pp. 192.20-193.16 tp'ltov ciy/xatvo/xcvov tov
TTpOTCpOV TO Tjj Tafct TTpOTCpOVy COCTTCp CyCL, C^TjCLV, CttI TCOV CTTLCTTJ JLCOV’ CV TC yap Tjj CL7To8c LKT LKjj cttlcttj p,jj TTporjyovvTat /xcv at TTpOTacctc CTTOvrat 8c tcl cvpL7TCpacp,aTa Kal cttl ttjc yccoptCTplac tcl CTOLycla, <f)T)CLy irpOTCpa TCOV Staypa/x/xaTcov. CTOtycla 8c KaXovctv ol yccojtCTpat to crjptclov ttjv ypajLjLTjv ttjv im<f>av€Lav Kal tcl TOtama y oca ttjc tcov dccoprjptaTcov anoScl^ccoc TTpoXapL^avccdat ctcodcy Staypa/x/xaTa Sc avTa Ta 8ccoprjjLaTa Kal cttI tcov ypapcptaTcov Sc tcov ptev Xc^ccov tt pOTCpat at cvXXafiat, tcov Sc cvXXaficov tcl CTOtycla. to amo Kal cttI tcov Xoycov cpou/xcv TTporjyovvTat ptev yap TCL TTpootjLLay clkoXov8cI Sc rj tt po KaTCLCTactc , etVa rj KaTCLCTactCy tovtolc 8 c CTTOVTat tcl 8 LTjyrj ptaTa y ctVa ol aycovcc. TavTa Sc 7ravTa Tjj tcl^cl ptovj] to TTpoTcpov cyovcLV, ovtc Sc Tjj cfyvcct ovtc tco ypovep-
8waTOV yap Kal tov aTcyvov prjTopa TrpcoTov peev ypi] cacdat toIc aycociv cha tolc TTpooLpdotc Kal totc Ttp 8Lrjyr)jLaTLy Kal tov yetopLCTprjv TTpoTcpov CKdclvat to detoprj^a cha tcl CTOtycla • coctc Tama tjj Taijct JCOVJj TO TTpOTCpOV CyOVCL. TTCpL f.LCV OVV TCOV aAAaJV LCCOC TLC (XV CVyycOpTjCCLC pLOVJj Tjj TCL^CL TO
TTpoTcpov Xcyccdaty cttI Sc tcov ypajtpLCLTcov ovkctl ptovr) tjj tcl£cl tcl CTOiycla 8okcI tcov cvXX aftcov ij tcov ovojlcltcov rj tcov Aoycov clvat npcoTa • ktX cf. Elias In Aristotelis Categorias commentarium , CAG 18.1
PP- 1 95 -3“ 10 and 252.2-3.

16-17 cv Sc] pr)To[ptK(ijL). I restore this expression, whieh fully suits the suniving ink, because what follows seems to be a list of the sections of a speeeh. It seems to be possible to restore in lacuna the list ol five subdivisions of the speech offered at progymnasmatie level by Nicolaus, Prog. p. 4.6-7

5093. RHETORICAL EPIDEIXEIS

101

Felten (cf. ibid. p. 23- 1 8— 19, 28.10—12, 35.16—18, p. 69.18 70.1—2, 76.3 12), 7 rpoolfuov, 8 trjyrjCLC, a vrl-
9ecic, Auctc, and errlXoyoc. In other sources this subdivision is applied to the ttoXitikov X oyov, and presented together with variations; see in Syrian. Commentarium in Hermog. irepl cracewv, p. 12.5 13 rov yap ttoXitikov Aoyou oAou tlvoc ovtoc ol fiev reccapa <paav eivat ficprj, Trpooifuov Strjyrfctv ttIctlv rjTOL arroSet^LV eTrlXoyov, 01 8e ttcvtc, Trpooipuov SirjyrfCLV avrldectv Xvciv Kal eTrlXoyov, ol 8e Kal irXetova tovtojv ovofiara fiev Kaivorepa TrpoceTnvoovvrec avavrec Sc rrpoc ra ttcvtc fieprj KaravTwvrec aAA* ol /.ter avrwv cvctcXXovtcc rrjv irocor^ra ol §6 cktcIvovtcc; Anon, in Hermog. Rhet. Prolegomena in librum 7 repl cracewv, RG xiv ( Prolegomenon Sylloge Rabe), p. 214.4— 8 wOrt ttcvtc fieprj rfjc p^ropcKijc, evpccic, otKOVOfila , (ppaccc, CTrlKpictc /cat Stara^ic rcov cvprjficvwv. Kal fieprj rov Aoyou reccapa, Trpooipuov,
StrjyrjCtc, 1 rlcnc, errlXoyoc . CT/jaeicureov Sc, on rove aywvac nicTCtc CKaXecev, ovc aXXot avrt8eceic Kal AScctc eiTTovrec 1 icvre p.eprj eyetv rov ttoXitikov elprjKact Aoyov; Syriani, Sopatri et Marcellini Scholia ad Hermog. 77 epl cracccuv, RG iv, p. 61.1—3 rov ttoXltikov Xoyov oAou ovroc, ol ptev ecfaacav elvai pieprj,
Trpooipuov, 8trjy7]CLv, avrldeav, X vciv, CTrlXoyov * ol 8e Kal ttXcIoj tovtojv (cf. ibid. p. 194.15—17; cf.
Syrian. Commentarium in Hermog ire pi cracccuv, p. 45.22-4 Rabe); seej. Martin, Antike Rhetorik: Technik und Methode (1974) 52-60, and note that also Quint. 3.9.1 presents a subdivision of the speech into five items ( proemium , nar ratio, probatio, refutatio , peroratio) as the most attested [utplurimis auctoribus placuit).
However, 5093 seems to include another item after the irrlXoyoc , the c£at|pcc(tc) twv a[trtcuv, not attested in the other lists mentioned above, but attested as part of the errlXoyoc (see 17-18 11.). We cannot rule out the possibility that the author here is considering components of the rhetorical practice, without aiming to give in a strict sense subdivisions of a speech of a specific type. In any case it is worth noticing that a discussion of different traditions of speech subdivisions is attested, although in a very fragmentary state, in LIII 3708, a rhetorical treatise of the second or third century (see fr. 1
ll av[rl9(€CLc). I print this supplement only exempli gratia. The traces fit the required letters: the traces corresponding to the first uncertain letter can be interpreted as the remaining of the loop of A, and its join with the following letter; the traces corresponding to the second uncertain letter can be interpreted as the upper half of the upright of n, and the upper part of its diagonal. Alternatively, it is not impossible to read ay[cuv(cc), although that is less good in respect of the traces of the second letter.
Cf. Jo. Philop. in Arist. Physicorum libros commentaria, 131, pp. 192—3 (see above, 16-17 n.). Subdivisions of speech including the aycuv are attested in Anon, in Hermog. Rhet. Prolegomena in librum irepl cracecov ,
RG xiv [Prolegomenon Sylloge Rabe), p. 214.4-8 (quoted above, 16-17 n.); note that it is mostly attested in the quadripartite list form of subdivisions of speech, consisting of Trpooifuov , Str/yr/ctc, aycuv, and CTrlXoyoc (see e.g. Rhet. Anon. Plepl tojv reccapcov fieXcbv tov reXelov Xoyov , /?Giii, p. 57°-4 8? Anon. in Aristotelis Artem rhetoricam commentarium , p. 226.9-12; Anon, in Aphth. Prolegomena in progymnasmata , RG xiv [Prolegomenon Sylloge Rabe), p. 75.6-7; cf. the quadripartite lists given by Anon. Seguer. Ars rhetorica i, p. 2.1—7 Patillon (• Trpooipuov , Str/yr/ctc, rrlcnc , and CTrlXoyoc) and Arist. Rh. 1414a— b ( Trpooifuov ,
Trpodecic , ttIctlc , and irrlXoyoc).

677]tA°[y(°c). The traces fit the required letters: the lower half of an upright suits t; with regard to the second uncertain letter, the first trace fits the foot of the left-hand leg of a, while the short horizontal stroke at line-level represents the extremity of the right-hand legjoining the following o, as in 10 8r]Xot.

17-18 i^al\pec[tc) twv a[lnwv. I propose this restoration exempli gratia; it is compatible with the traces. Since the word i£al\pec[tc) occurs in the section containing the list of the sections of a speech, it is plausible that it refers to rhetoric, and therefore I understand i^alpeac in the rhetorical sense explained by C. T. Ernesti, Lexicon technologiae Graecorum rhetoricae (1995) s.v. Rhetoribus dicitur exceptio , qua quis adversarii rationes et praetextus refutat , elevat , vel suspectos reddit. Cf. Scholia vetera in Demosth. Contra Timocratem (xxiv), probably by Ulpianus, 148b, 344^21-8, 348a, 349; here in 344b it refers to a part of the CTrlXoyoc. In any case it has to be noticed that the lacuna at the end of 17 seems to have contained

102

SUBLITERARY TEXTS

about 2 more letters after eV]/Ao[y(oc) and before i{jalp€c(ic). Three alternative explanations may be offered, (i) The author has not abbreviated the word hriXoyoc by accident. (2) A blank space has accidentally been left; cf. fr. 1+2 -> ii 10, where a blank occurs in the middle of a sentence. (3) The part of the speech igalpecic rwv clitlwv has been singled out with a short explanation. One could supply 17-18 as follows: 77 S'] e£cu|pec(ic) rcov (x[Itlcov tov e7nX6y(ov) (xepoc.

19 ff. The remains are so scanty that they do not allow us to make a hypothesis on the content of the missing section of this encomium. However, it is not implausible to imagine that some other human activities were taken into consideration: 20 yecoWfierp-; 22 apt]0/x7/Ti/<( ), 23 rja/cri^^, 24 acTp\ovofua v for oncjpvopuav) would be possible restorations. For this sort of motif, see Xen. //// viii, who stresses the importance of order in household management comparing its role in a chorus, in an army, in ships, in the storage of cereals by a farmer (see commentary by S. B. Pomeroy, Xenophon ,
‘Oeconomicus’ : A Social and Historical Commentary (1994) 285-91). But of course wc cannot be sure where the encomium ended and a new subject began.

->■

Col. iii
top
cc[c.2] cev/JLxaXeTT [ £.10

TCOV

€7t[c.2] Cavr]Lpr]IA€v[ £.10
ocaA

Aa[£.2] T€\€TCOV€7T€ # [ £.10

* ] > wo
[£.2]vOCT77r'€77aU [ £.10

]..’

[£.2]uAarroptat [ £.10

].e^
if) [c.2]T7]VfjL€LIJLr)TL [ £.10

]cu '
c [c.2]acKfjivpa)ixp . [ £.10
a <f>o c [c.2] <jOjji€ 9 arr]VT\ £.10

]aAet iff [c. 1] ecaXXotaro [ £.10

^jJL€VT)

<J)\c.2]lc cujjLaTLKa[ £.10
vSeX €VK

C [c.2]aVT€C€ptOL \ £.10

]ot>7Toi;
cAcuVO € 7T€ [ £.10 ]p€TT€t
X[c.2]iCKfJL€XaCtC [ £.10

TTCLVTOJ

6p[c.2]a)l8oCTCQV€[ £.10
v a<f>€

15
jJL [£. 2] _ KT [ £.15 J €LCa '

,[c.2\'COV[ r.15 ].

€
pIpOlC [ C.15 ] €
ip[c.l]a)ra[ C.15 ]..
c a[c-l]'.poV' . .[ ff.15

IjJLCU

S[£.2] €t rac[ £.13

] . . .

6 [c. i] LVTOOV [ £.15

(f)OKT 0
v[c.2]c/jlv9ovc[ £.13
mdv
[£.2] TrXe^arcol £.13
jopta^Sc p t €LKLTT [ C.I3 j TOV7T €V

5093. RHETORICAL EPIDEIXEIS

103

9 QJCOVpiS [ c. 12

€pOVC

</>[ J CO/.lTOVc[ C. 13

K[c.l]<j0(f) y[
a. k*2] . [
k\ ] € 6VTa
] . . .Tf
30

7r[.].c.[. .].ea.r a ovKava7i[

9 ocefietcTT [

Col. iv
07) 7]
top
•
vavovvrrjvoifjiVKaXojcyeiroLOvvTec odeP€7T VOpd<jOCapL€VOCTOVTOTOpL€ p cevpi^KTOvccn^eKeLvovcojvpie pLvVnv€[ ] aypaifjacTTOiSrjrapirjTpoc 5 yeipahe [ ] avcrvycov^eyyeicavav
SpovfirjpLaT criOeicixvocKadoXov rerrjvoLKOvol^aXXa^acevSovapic^OTe povcKarec(f)a^€vcocpi€TpuoT€pac€

COpL€Vr)CT7]CT€KVOKTOViaC€lpLr]
io €V(j)av€pcm7T paydeirj Kroreovbev rjTTOV€VLK7]dr] aXXei T€iSr)T€0opv /S rjC0€7TPrrjV€vavTi(j}Civ€ivhoKOv cavrajv ' [ JcovAoy covovctt poSte^rjX
Qovrr'ro [ J tt oXvt OV T LCTjVOV LKT] CaC

15 aKOvcar[ ] . TivihpapLaTico<j)oKToivvv
€CT€ <f)CLV TOTT]p€i€(f)aJiKaVC(f)o8p€i kot<jjc€ [ j er X ta ^€v evpt^eirrjv pc €K
KoXxcjovpirjheiave^e^aXoveveKaTrjC
TTaihocjyoviacTrjvharTiKrjVTTpoKV'rf 20 vu<av€KpivavovpLOvovc(f)a£acav
TOvvLOVLTVvaXXaKdoLvavTOJLTra rpL7Tapad€tcavov€piTrXrjKTOV(f)VC€i KpL€crovaXoyov(f)opacox^oc ovk€lc atyacovvaypiacKararrjvTTapoil^aXXetc 25 avSpacaypiovcpL€Tacrr]capL€voiTr}v

104 SUBLITERART TEXTS

]payaj avoaoLcayecLv k puaufyovtatc
^CjJL€Vl^OVCaVeK6€CjJLOiCTljVXpi]CTipV

] ^ to Xoy ov k co piw 8 tav peer arcovcvv a)V7raiavwv7Tpo7Tepi7Tajpiavaifjav 30 ] €CaVT7]tTaC€7TLVLKLOVc8at8aC€VXO

] eVOLKaVTOLTOvfiiOVTOTeAoCOfJLOL

]ex^tVT7]tT€Xevrr]iT(joveKe c
• • • •

Col. iii
1 c[, central stroke of e presents ligature with following letter j c , tiny trace at line-level < [, oval with open top ] , upright whose tip joins to left another stroke (not preserved) 2 ] ,
vertical trace in upper part of writing space slightly slanting to left c, upright ] , trace approaching horizontal in upper part of writing space, linked to remains of diagonal ascending from left to right; both traces touch following o 3 ] , right-hand arc [, remains of upright? ] #, short diagonal stroke ascending from left to right in upper half of writing space joins upper extremity of other diagonal descending from left to right and reaching centre of left-hand upright of following N
4 [, curve approaching big left-hand arc touching extremity of loop of A of previous line; roughly at mid-height to right, very short horizontal trace attached to it [, only join with extremity of right-hand oblique of previous y lying at mid-height ] , first, diagonal trace descending from left to right, possibly tip of triangular letter or remains of round letter; second, diagonal descending from left to right, probably part of triangular letter 5 [, tiny trace descending below line-level: foot of upright? [, upright slightly slanting to right with leftwards finial descending below line-level, whose tip bears thick slightly diagonal stroke, ascending from left to right, 2 mm long ] _ , upright?
6 # [, small left-hand arc touching line-level [, remains of upright 00 # , remains of upright descending below line-level 7 [, diagonal trace departing from upper extremity of arc of previ ous c # [, short horizontal stroke in lower part of writing space ] , part of horizontal stroke at mid-height, touching top of loop of following A; above, in upper part of writing space three tiny traces very close to each other in diagonal alignment ascending from left to right 8 [, remains of upright J _ , join with following co, which consists of stroke 1 mm long approaching horizontal and touching tip of left-hand lobe of go 9 [, traces in upper and lower part of writing space,
at edge of lacuna, suggest triangular letter ] , part of crossbar touching following e # [, extremely tiny trace at mid-height 10 ] > , two tiny marks very close to each other, in vertical alignment,
at mid-height 11 c , stroke approaching diagonal ascending from left to right, 1 mm long, de parts from lower extremity of arc of c [, thin short horizontal trace in upper part of writing space 12 .€, diagonal ascending from left to right; from its tip other diagonal stroke, 2 mm long, descending from left to right, departs o , crossbar whose centre shows join with another stroke (not preserved) # [, remains of upright attached to left extremity central stroke of previous e and joining to right at mid-height another stroke (not preserved) 13 c , stroke approaching diagonal ascend ing from left to right, r mm long, departs from upper extremity of arc of previous c ] > , curve whose upper part approaches top arc 14 ] , left-hand arc in upper part of writing space 15 ] ,
short stroke approaching horizontal at line level; diagonal stroke, 3.5 mm long, descending from left to right in upper part of writing space, possibly sign of abbreviation ] # , only join with following letter at mid-height preserved a , first, scanty traces at mid-height, very close to diagonal descending from left to right; second, horizontal trace at mid-height 16 [, upright whose tip joins stroke approaching horizontal, 2 mm long, roughly at mid-height; worN ] , upright whose tip

5093. RHETORICAL EPIDEIXEIS

105

joins to right horizontal stroke, 2 mm long, in upper part of writing space # [, diagonal departing from foot of right-hand upright of previous n and ascending from left to right ] , very short trace, slightly diagonal, ascending from left to right and protruding above writing space 6, join between upper part of upright and another stroke (not preserved); 1.5 further, tip of upright: the complex suggests square letter, u or n 17 [, horizontal stroke, 2 mm long, at line-level: possibly a paragra-
phus? m [, upright slightly slanting to right, linked to right, at mid-height, to stroke approaching horizontal, 2 mm long 18 ] , short stroke approaching vertical in lower space of writing space,
followed, 1 mm further, by diagonal trace ascending from left to right in lower part of writing space c, remains of left-hand arc in lower part of writing space 19 ] , upright descending below line-level, whose tip joins to left another stroke (not preserved) v , first, remains of upright, slightly thicker at bottom; very close to it stroke approaching horizontal at mid-height; second, short vertical stroke at mid-height, possibly part of upright # [ , two tiny traces at line-level, 0.5 mm distant from each other ] _ , remains of upper part of upright t, remains of small left-hand arc roughly at mid-height 20 ] # , right-hand angle of triangular letter r , group of tiny traces suggesting round letter r, extremely tiny traces in vertical alignment, lying in upper and lower part of writing space and at mid-height; 0.5 mm further, diagonal stroke 1 mm long, descending from left to right and lying in upper part of writing space, whose lower extremity joins left-hand extremity of crossbar of following t ] _ , first, upright, 2 mm long, slightly slanting to right; second, upright;
0.5 mm further, diagonal, 1.5 mm long, ascending from left to right and lying in upper part of writing space; below some scanty and faded traces lying in lower part of writing space c, diagonal descending from left to right; some other scanty traces l>ing on its left suggests triangular letter 21 4 [, very scanty traces in vertical alignment, possibly part of upright j , stroke approaching horizontal, 1 mm long, touches roughly at mid-height following 1; above, two traces in diagonal alignment ascending from left to right _ [, remains of upright or of left-hand arc of rounded letter ] , only join with following 4> is preserved at mid-height 22 , 77-, curve approaching left-hand arc
23 [, diagonal ascending from left to right joining another stroke (not preserved) at mid-height; 1
mm further, in upper part of writing space, three tiny and faded traces very close to each other, almost in vertical alignment ] , tiny and faded trace at line-level 24 p , remains of small left-hand arc in upper part of writing space _ 6, very short horizontal stroke at mid-height at edge of lacuna [, tiny curve in upper part of writing space, possibly left-hand arc 25 0, upper right-
hand arc of this letter presents extra stroke at mid-height approaching horizontal , to, stroke approaching vertical, part of upright or of left-hand arc S. , left-hand are in ligature with previous letter J # , short diagonal stroke ascending from left to right in upper part of writing space . e, remains of upright 26 ] # , first, two tiny traces very close to each other and in vertical align ment ascending from left to right in upper part of writing space; slightly below a few other extremily thin and tiny traces; second, diagonal stroke, 2 mm long, ascending from left to right in upper part of writing space # r, stroke 4 mm long, approaching horizontal with slightly blurred lower part curving to left and protruding above writing space: possibly left-hand part of triangular letter 27 ,
vertical trace at mid-height touching previous letter _ . r, first, trace in lower part of writing space, possibly foot of upright; second, extremely tiny trace in upper part of writing space 28 . [,
lower half of diagonal ascending from left to right ] . , curve shaping bottom and right-hand of co ? v , small left-hand arc in upper part of writing space 29 ] #, low'er part ol diagonal descending from left to right in ligature with following e is preserved e , traces in vertical alignment in upper and lowrer part of writing space e, upper part of right-hand arc # [, curve in upper part of writing space, possibly part of left-hand arc 30 j # , diagonal ascending from left to right, in ligature with following letter: triangular letter? . c, lower part of upright? . [, lower half of upright? ] , upright whose tip is linked to right with left-hand end of' horizontal stroke, 1.5 mm long [, left-hand arc in low^er part of writing space 31 a . , two traces in vertical alignment,

106

subliterArt texts
respectively at line-level and in upper part of writing space; join with following o is preserved 32 9 ' , tiny trace in upper part of writing space, in vertical alignment with left-hand extremity of horizontal stroke, 1.5 mm long, lying at mid-height and touching following o 77 # , lower part of upright? 33 0, first, trace in upper part of writing space, touching bottom of e of previous line; second, trace in upper part of writing space in vertical alignment with left-hand end of horizontal stroke, 1.5 mm long, at mid-height .77, upright; tiny trace to left very close to its tip # [ , trace in upper part of writing space
Col. iv
2 77 # , vertical trace in upper part of writing space 3 p t , tiny trace at line-level 4 ] 4 ? blurred ink in upper part of writing space: no clear trace can be distinguished a, upright descending below baseline 5 4 [, trace bclowr baseline consisting of horizontal stroke approaching horizontal, 1 mm long 6 r , remains of right-hand arc 13 _ [, remains of left-hand arc
14 [, short diagonal stroke, 1 mm long, descending from left to right in upper part of writing space
15 ] . 5 short stroke, 2 mm long, approaching horizontal, in upper part of writing space : part of sign of abbreviation? 16 r , very thin stroke, 1.5 mm long, approaching vertical, in lower part of writing space # r, right-hand arc 17 _ [, left-hand arc 29 ] , slightly diagonal stroke descending from left to right, whose lowrer extremity preserves join to left with another stroke (not preserved) 32 ] _ , upper part of upright slightly slanting to right € , first, tip of upright in ligature with central stroke of previous letter; second, tip of two verticals, 2 mm apart; between them, very scanty remains suggest diagonal descending from left to right c, rather narrow loop in upper part of writing space

Col. iii

top ce[c. 2] c ev fi(ev) xa^e7T . [ £.10 ] .ram
€tt\c.2] cavrjLpyfjiev] CAO ] oc aA-
Aa[t;.2] reXerojv erre oy[fie]voc rr/v Itt' a vr\ p[a(/>JuAaTTOjL4at[ c. 7

0a[T°] TTjV fJUfiyTLK^rjV
ct[ci/i] ac /c(at) pvpcm XPL[C ac ] a</>o-

Ci[co]c(l>pe6a rr/v t[ cao JaAct- ipa[v]r€c aXX’ Old TO [ CAO
(f)[c. 2]lc at/xart/ca[ CAO JpuSc Acu/c(ofc)

CAO ] evvo-

C. IO ] 7TOL-

(XTrcjTrejLt- c. 5 ip[\coL

cr[eip]avrec iploic t.IO

] OV7TOV
jJLeXaivoreip- ) 7 re
C.IO

]p irrel
;y[t;.2]ic /c(at) pteAacL c
C. IO

]ci iravrco
9p[rjV^COi8oC TO)V 6 [

C. IO
a<f>€-
p [c. 2] fi(ev) /c(at) t[

C- 15

] etca/xc-
v[c.2]tcov [ c.15

]..«

5093. RHETORICAL EPIDEIXEIS

107

<AM
a>ra[ C. 15

].
ec a[r. i]
pou f.13
tpi at
20

8[c. 2]

8e raurac[
c. 13

] . . <M( )
e\c.\
l]etv tcov
C.II
fip\e(j)OKTO-
v[ou]
c piv9ovc[
c.13

]cj{ ) eTTidv-

/x[c.2
rrXe^arcu[

CA?>

]o pidX(Xov) 8e p et KiTT m [ £.13 ]to v Ilev-

25
decuc
. ov pL[ev) 8 [
c.13
epovc
:opi(ev) rove
C- 13
re k[c.i]

IW>. . .v[
a [( c
2] pjyevrjl
/<(gu)

[.].«. .^Ta.[

30
xc [ ] ea ovk dvau\^
deoeefieLCTT >

. . ®VRV . [

Col. iv
top vav ovv rrjv oifjiv KaXcuc ye rroiodvrec. odev eTravopdcocdfievoc tovto to pce- poc Evpi7T{iSr]c) fc(ai) rove crlx{ovc) eKetvovc oov pe- pLV7](vrai) rtve[c] Scaypaifjac' “ttol Sr/ra paprpoc 5 X€^Pa 8el[t]dv ervytov (fxevyetc, avdv-
8pov firjpLdTOC rtdelc lyyoc;” KadoXov re TTjV OLKOVOpL LCLV ) dXXd^CLC evSoV <XfA(f)OT€- povc Kareccjyalev cue pLerpicurepac e- copLevrjc rrjc reKVOKrovlac el per]

10 ev (fravepcuL TTpaydetr), K(al ) rore ov8ev TjTTOv evLKrjOr]. XXX ’ eTTecSr] redopv- firjede TTp(oc) rrjv evavrlouciv eiv( at) 8okov- eav t(juv e M WV XoyOJV OVC 7TpoSt€^TjX~ dov nlepl) tov [’ Itt]ttoXvtov , tic rjv 6 vuerjeae, is a.Kovca.T\e, fer] ( ott) tivi 8pap.a.Ti. Co^oKiXrjc) tolvvv icT€<f)O.VOVTO Trjpd, €<f)’ (hi KCLV C(j)o8p €L-
kotwc €c[x]erAta^ev Evp^lSpc), el rr/v p.(ev) Ik KoXydov MrjBeiav e^efiaXov eveKa Trjc

108

subliterArt texts

v o ? / / \

o|y £X€LV T7]l TeAevrrjL toiu eKetvrjc

[ Trpayixarcjjv

]

. . So [they felt disgust] at the spectacle, rightly. Hence Euripides, correcting this part, and crossing out those lines that some people recall, “Where then do you flee, hating your mother’s right hand, placing the footprint of a coward step?”, and changing the plot on the whole, slaughtered both

(sons) indoors, as if the child-murder would be less striking if it were not carried out in public — and
then he was defeated none the less. But, since you have shouted out at the seeming contradiction with the discourse which I went through before about the Hippolytus , hear who was the winner and with which play! Sophocles, then, was crowned for Iercus, at which Euripides very reasonably would have complained, if they threw out Medea of Colchis because of the child-murder, but judged the Attic Procne to win, who not only slaughtered her son Itys but also served him as a feast to his father.
Such a crazy thing by nature, and full of irrational impulse, (is) a crowd! So, transferring Tragedy, which takes satisfaction in unholy pollutions and lawless murders, not to the wild goats — according to the proverb — but to the wild men, let us escort good, life-representing Comedy with paeans sung together, lighting to her the torches of victory; praying that we ourselves too may have an end to our life similar to the end of her [action] . ,

Cols, iii and iv
( )n the basis of the matching of fibres and content, cols, iii and iv seem to belong to the same section. Col. iv, well presewed, contains a syncrisis between Tragedy and Comedy The author points out the fact that tragic plots consist of sanguinary and horrifying motifs (26 -7), while Comedy is good and realistic (27-8), and therefore to be preferred as a literary genre. The point against Tragedy is illustrated by the use of the motif of child-murder in two versions of the tragedy Medea: in die first version the murder — at least of one of Medea’s two sons — is represented on stage, in the second one — which is presented as a version drastically modified by Euripides — the murder does not take place in front of the audience but inside (see below, iv 1-14 n.). In col. iii, although the remains are very difficult to read and supplement, the following significant elements may be considered in relation to the content of col. iv. (a) rrjv /Lu^rtyl rjv at 6, which is significant in relation to the treatment of Tragedy and Comedy as potential representations of real life: cf. in particular iv 26-8. (b) The

5093. RHETORICAL EPIDEIXEIS

109

name IJevO^ooc at 24—5, the sequence kvtt % [ at 24, which recalls the ivy sacred to Dionysus, the verb -7TAe£- at 23, which recalls the making of wreaths in cult, and the adjective or verb Oeocej 3a(c) at 32, which can be easily placed in the context of the worship due to Dionysus and refused by Pcntheus, all lead us to identify another very famous myth where child-murder plays a central role : the myth of Pentheus, slaughtered by his own mother Agave. At 21-2 the word /. tvdovc leads me to restore the adjective {3p}e(f)OKT6\v[ou]c or /3 p}e(f)OKr6\v\o]c with considerable certainty (sec iii 21-2 n.). This means that in this section also the author is considering the sanguinary plots of Tragedy.

Moreover, from the paleographical standpoint it has to be noted that in col. iii there is no sign of paragraphus to mark division between sections (cf. ii 9, where division of section is marked). I’his suggests that the whole of col. iii belongs to the same text as col. iv. It is quite likely that the text began in the lost lower part of col. ii, where probably there was a title.

Col. iii col. ii (last line)— col. iii 1 <£i?]|c€[i rjtc (Handley).

1 xa^erT<-±>[- Exempli gratia xaAe7ra)[c, palaeographically more likely than xaA€7ra[-, i.e. a form of xa^€7TG uVco.

2 €77 [1 t]o[c av7]ip7]{.i€v[oic (Handley), or €7r[r.2]cav r)iprjpL€v[.

2— 3 aA| A 1 a[7r]o reXenov (Handley). reXercov would fit a religious/ ritual context (see above) and the mention of Pentheus at 24-5. However, 1 cannot exclude r€ Xiycov as a reading.

3— 4 ivvo\ov[f.ie]voc (Handley).

4— 5 In 5 <p] vXaTTO[.icu is clear; the compound ira\p[a(f)]v Xarroptat could be supplemented, although the traces of the uncertain letters — apart from a — are rather scanty. After that there is a blank space, which probably indicates a pause or break in the text.

5— 7 It is clear that the author is recalling PI. Rep. 398ab . . . avdpa St), ojc eotKe, S vvdf.t€vov vtto cofpiac Travro&airov ytyvec8at Kal puptctcdai Travra XPVl lGLTa> rjpttv dtpiKOtro etc rrjv noXtv avroc re Kal ra Trotrjf.Lara fiovXoi-ievoc imSel^acOat, TTpocKwot^tev av avrov coc lepov Kal dav^acrov Kal rjSvv, etirotf-iev S’ av, on ovt’cctlv tolovtoc dvrjp iv rfj TroXet Trap’rjpLiv ovre dif.uc iyyevicO at, a7T07T€pL7T0ipi€V re etc aXXrjv 77oAtv pivpov Kara TTjC K€<f>aXf)C Karax^avrec Kal ip'uo CTeifiavrec, avrol S’ av rep avcrrjporipcp Kal arjSecriptp TTOLrjrfj xPcPtt€@a Ka ^ l tvOoXoycp cocfyeXlac iveKa ktX. I have restored the text in 6-7 accordingly; the space after ^ uf.Lr]nK[rjv might be occupied e.g. by rixvriv or by o IlXarcov. The verb-form in 5-6 must be some form of a7ro77€/.t7rco ; the subject of the sentence should be a masculine singular, perhaps T or "Plato’ (or "Socrates’). arrf\iTeiA\ipa could be read, but not d7r€/Jy€/.t|0€. However, since the final a looks short for the space, the middle form of the third person singular a77€] Tjip\ i/j a [to ] seems to be possible, for reasons of space even better than the infinitive arr o]tt i pap a[i]^ which in any case would require a main verb preceding in lacuna. On this basis, we should expect that when the same rituals are mentioned below (8-9 dAetj^a[v]r€c; 11 cT[€0JavT€c iplotc) they have the same metaphorical application. The change from singular to first person plural (cf. 26) may mean a contrast such as 4Just as Plato sent away mimetike , so must we . . /; and the theme may be that wc, like Plato, should choose the plainer (i.c. Comedy) and dismiss the more elaborate (i.e. Tragedy), as happens at iv 23 ff.

7 x/4cac- ln t^ie papyrus the phonetic spelling xPf [tcac can bc reconstructed.

7-8 aepo \ci[co]ccof.L€da Handley/Parsons. This form could be interpreted as a future (cf. the use of the future in 26 (j>[rj]cofx(€v)) or as an aorist conjunctive (cf. the use of the conjunctive in iv 29).
The text could be reconstructed as K(al) rp,id]c dcf>o\ci[co]ccoi.u6a rrjv r[payco8tavj dA€ij0a[v]r€c, and translated as ‘Just as Plato sent away mimetike , we too will satisfy/lct us satisfy our religious duty by anointing Tragedy g dAA' ota. I assume that a contrast is introduced, and that ola should be understood as an adverb; but e.g. aXXoia would be also possible.

110

SUB LITER A R Y TEX TS

10 If aljxaTiKa[ is correctly read (the first a has an odd shape), then the word before could be restored as </>[ova]ic. Alternatively Parsons suggests alfxariKa[k aAot^atc], while Handley thinks of an articulation such as </>oro] ic a ipcaTi kol[lvo)l. At this point it is worth considering the reconstruction of 3-1 1 proposed exempli gratia by Handley:
ravr,\ ivvo-
oy[fjLe]voc ttjv iir ' avr[rji vejxeciv] na- p[a</>]i;AaTTO/xat. y[(ai) y(ap) ajcirep aiTe\iTejx- if)a[ro] ttjv jMpirjTLK\rjv 6 nXarlujv) ipl\ii)i cr\€ip\ac k(clI) jxvpan ^pt[cac, ovreo ttco]c acf)o- ct( oj\c(l)jxe9a ttjv T[paycpSlav €Tf\aXel- lpa\v\T€C3 aXX ’ Ola TOc[oVTOLC 7T€(j)Vp\jl€VTj(v)

<f>[6vo]ic aljxaTL /cajirau, ov jivpoic,} ov§€ X€vk(olc) cj[€i{j\avT€c eploic . . .

• • . reflecting upon these things I watch closely the nemesis against her. And in fact as Plato sent away the mimetike , crowning her with wool and anointing her with unguent,
in a similar way let us too satisfy our religious duty by anointing her not with unguents,
as being defiled by so many new murders, and by crowning her not with white fillets . . .’

According to this reconstruction, the expression in 10-11 would echo the phrase in 6-7 by reverting the two nouns and using an ‘augmentative’ plural (in this respect cf. the use of Kava and Xtpvifiec in Men. Dysk. 440 with comm, ad loc. in A. W. Gomme, F. H. Sandbach, Menander: A Com- mentary (1973) p. 204).

Finally it has to be noted that the traces at the end of 7 seem not to fit the c of iTto\c (rather e or H with curve attached to following A ?).

Note that in the lacuna in 8, on the basis of the space available, it has to be assumed that T\payip8lav was written in full, while it is abbreviated in iv 26, fr. 3.8, fr. 4.17 and fr. 45.2. If so, it is plausible to think that here the author probably uses the noun for the first time in his speech and prefers not to abbreviate it (similarly in iv 28 KcojicoSlav is written in full, but cf fr. 3.19), but it could be a mere inconsistency in the use of the abbreviations.

11-16 As suggested by Handley’s reconstruction in the previous note, the structure should be a contrast, ‘and not crowning (Tragedy?) with white fillets but . . . with black . . .’. In 12 I suggest ™r[A-, *n *3 x[oaKc (or e7u|x[°a]tc?) Kdl jieXact erfe^/raa. In 14 there is a reference to a mourner, in 15-16 possibly a libation (c]7reica/xe|r[-} seemingly a participle). The general idea seems to be that Tragedy should be ‘anointed’ with liquid from a libation and crowned with black garlands in the context of a metaphorical funeral ritual representing the (desired) death of Tragedy as literary genre.

11 ]ovttov. I cannot interpret this, tt would have an abnormal shape, and it might be possible to read the ink differently.

13 TTavTco(c) or TravTO>(v).

14—15 a</>e|/x[e(r-), possibly a form of the aorist participle of a^lrjpu^ in abbreviated form (cf. col. ii 3-4> % to be taken in the sense of ‘having sent away’. T he subject could be the first person plural (a</>e|/j,[e(rop ) or the third person singular (a</>e|/x[e(yoc)), perhaps referring to the mourner of 14?
A possible supplement could be t\tjv t paycolSlav) k(cli) /caTac] ye league |r- . If the sending away of Tragedy means its death as literary genre, the libation could be performed on its metaphorical grave. Given that in 15 /x(ev) *(at) occur, one expects a contrastive Se in one of the following badly damaged lines.

19 At line-end possibly oqxcu.

20-21 In 20 a supplement like S[et] Se TaMac or S[et] Se raura c[ can be proposed. At line-end the prolongation of the central stroke of d could represent an abbreviation, since the following line begins with <9, and the sequence -99- is to be ruled out. Perhaps it is possible to read -£acQ(ai)/ -c0(e).

5093. RHETORICAL E RIDE IX E IS

111

Otherwise we have to assume a mistake against the so-called Lex Youtie (see M. Fassino, RF1C 126
(1998) 72—5; N. Gonis, ^ (PE 151 (2005) 166). evtjacd- would fit the contest in the sense of ‘pray to die’, as happens in tragedy. In 21 at line-beginning an infinitive may occur, perhaps 8a[ r]eiV, or alternatively 8v€lv (Handley and Luppe). The sense may be exempli gratia ‘but it is necessary that these . . . pray to die3, possibly referred to typical characters of Tragedy Perhaps ravra indicates something like 77 pOCGJ7TOL.

21- 2 fi p\e(poKr6\v[ov\c . The adjective is attested only at Lyc. 229, and the noun fip€<f>0KT0PLa three times in spurious works ascribed to John Chrysostom (In synaxim archangelorum , PG 59, 755.52; In Herodem et infantes , PG 61, 699.67; In synaxim incorporalium, 4.34 Halkin). It seems very suitable in connection with the myths of Tragedy implied by Pentheus (24-5) and discussed in the next column. -v[o] c should also be considered, since the lacuna is not very wide (cf. 26).

The author may refer to E. Bacchae or to another of the lost tragedies dealing with this myth;
Pentheus by Aeschylus (TrGF III F 183, pp. 298-9), Bacchae (?) by Sophocles (TrGF iy p. 170), Bacchae or Pentheus by Thespis (TrGF I, no. 1, test. 1, p. 61, F [1 c], p. 65, perhaps also F [4], p. 66); Bacchae (or Pentheus?) by Iophon (TrGF I, no. 22, test, ia, p. 132, F 2, p. 135); Dionysos by Chaeremon (TrGF I, no. 71, test. 1, p. 215, F 4-7, p. 218); Pentheus by Lycophron of Chalchis (TrGF I, no. 100, test. 3, p. 274), Bacchae by Xenocles I (TrGF I, no. 33, F 1, p. 153); see further details in E. R. Dodds, Euripides Bacchae (i960} pp. xxviii-xxxii. The possibility that one of these plays other than the Euripidean Bacchae was in the author’s mind may be supported by the fact that in col. iv, as already said, he takes into consideration two plays that allegedly present a different treatment of the same myth, of which one is the best known version — i.e. the E. Medea transmitted to us — the other is a version unknown to us (iv 1-22).

22- 3 The sequence irXet;- in 23 leads us to relate €7ti9v\(i- to the rare word imdvfxtc "garland3
(cf. Hesych. s.v. 4818. Athen. XV 678c, Plu. Mor. 647Q. enXe^a could be read. Alternatively Parsons suggests the imperative, and reconstructs the passage as rj rpay]w(Sla) e77i0u|/x[iS(ac)] TrXe^aroj. In that case the tiny trace before the beginning of the imperative should be ignored as an accidental mark. The ]o before /xa^ should perhaps be read ]oj, the end of another imperative.

24- 5 kltt- also suits the idea of garlands, and Ilevdeooc introduces the idea of Bacchae and child-killing. In fact, although the Bacchae in Euripides’ play wear wreaths of ivy, this is not said directly about Pentheus. Perhaps the author is thinking of another play on the same myth (see above,
21-2 n.); probably he is simply imprecise. The trace suggests kltto[ or klttw[9 not klttl[p-. }top might be the article in a phrase like Kpdra , or crtipavov (note that fr. 10.3 has ]cre</>[, but I am not sure whether I could place it there) top IJevdecoc. At the beginning of 24 the traces of the first uncertain letter may fit the upper half of an e; the following traces perfectly fit the tip of the upright and the central stroke of Luppe suggests 8 ' e|pe^ei, quoting E. Ba. 323 klccco t} ipeipopce c9a. The articulation could be: p,dA(Aov) 8’ ejpe^ei kitt(2)[i c. 5 top /qoara] top J7er|0fwc, to be translated as: "rather (subject in the third person singular) will crown with ivy the head of Pentheus3; see E. Ba. 341-2
(Cadmos to Pentheus) 8evpo cov CTeipoo Kapa / /ctcccp, and cf. ibid. 81 klccw re cTecpaptodeic (referred to the ideal figure of Dionysus’ follower), 205 (Cadmos with regard to himself) p^eXXojp yopevetp KpaTa Kiccdocac eptor, 323 (Tiresias to the chorus) klccco t’ ipeipopiecd a roll yopaicopcev; 105-6 (chorus addressing Thebes) d) CepceXac Tpo<pol Qrj\ fiat, CT€<papovc9e Ktccto.

25— 6 At the end of 25 Luppe suggests tepouc, possibly referred to piv9ovc in 22. If so, then the sense should be something like: Sve will not say that these ?stories are holy’, perhaps implying the Dionisiac character of the tragedy alluded to in 24-5 by the mention of Pentheus, or in general the presence of gods in tragic plots.

32 d€oc€^€i or -/3eic, adjective or verb. This textual element can be related to the theme of religious pietas and Pentheus’ impiety towards Dionysus, so central in E. Bacchae ; see e.g.: 1008-9
(chorus) fjpLap ic pvkto r ev\a yovpT* evce/3 elp; 263 (exclamative phrase ttjc 8vcc e^etac); 476 (Dionysus to Pentheus) acejSeiav olckovpt ’ apyt’ eydatpet 9eoi 3; 490 (Dionysus to Pentheus) ce S ap.a9tac

112

sublitera'rt texts
ye Kacefiovvr ’ ic rov 9eov ; 502 (Dionysus to Pentheus) . . . ev Sf acefirjc avroe <Zv ovk elcopac (sc. rov 9eov); cf also 45, where Dionysus says that Pentheus 9eofiax€i , and 325 (Tiresias) kov fleo/xa^co) ccbv Xoycov 7Tetc9etc vrro.

Col. iv
1—14 1 he text visualizes Euripides deleting a few lines from a certain play and correcting its plot in order to produce the present Medea. The implication is that there was a previous version, where at least one of her children was killed on stage. This version contained the two iambic verses quoted at 4—6 as addressed by Medea to the child who is trying to escape. The text, as is stands, does not state apertis verbis whether the previous version of Medea was by Euripides, like the first version of Hippoly- tus mentioned at 14, or by somebody else. Prana facie there are two possibilities:

(4) I he author implies that Euripides wrote two versions of Medea : the two hitherto unknown iambic verses belong to this previous version of the play.

(2) I he author implies that an earlier Aledea had been written by another author, on which Euripides’ play was based and from which the two iambic verses come from.

With regard to (1), the implication that Euripides himself is meant as author of the first Medea can be supported with the fact that the revision of the play is paralleled with the case of a tragedy by the same author, Hippolytus , for which a revision for reason of morality is documented by ancient sources (see 11-14 n-) However, no ancient sources mention a first version of Medea by Euripides (in spite of YV. Luppe’s claim in fPE 173 (2010) 15-16, which I have treated in detail in fPE 176 (2011)
45“51)- 1 he case was made by modern scholars in the Renaissance, precisely in the sixteenth century by Paulus Manutius (in vol. vi of his edition published in 1579 by Aldus Manutius in Venice). Some pieces of evidence can be used to support this possibility. If Cic. De fin. 1.2.4 is to be understood in the sense that Ennius’ Medea is a verbal translation from the Greek (he speaks in terms of fabellas Latinos ad verbum e Graecis expressas ), the tetrameter by Ennius quoted by Cic. Earn. 7.6.2 {qui ipse sibi sapiens prodesse non quit nequiquam sapit) could be taken as the translation of a Greek trimeter, TrGF V2 F 905 fiicw c o<fucTr)v, oene ovy a vrd) eo<f>6e ), quoted as Euripidean by Cic. Earn. 13. 15. 2; cf. Flu. Vit. Alex.
53.2 (2/ 2, 223, 24 Ziegler; Flu. De latenter vivendo , 1 p. 1128b (Mor. 6/2, 216, 4 Pohlenz); [Men.] Monost.
457 Jabel); Luc. Apolog. 5 (3, 368, 26 MacLeod). This may provides the evidence that Roman scholars knew a different version of Medea (see details in II. D. Jocelyn, The Tragedies of Ennius (Cambridge r9b7) 347? N. YVecklein, Ausgewahlte Tragddien des Euripides , i: Medea (Leipzig/ Berlin 1909) 25-6 n. 1 ; A.
YV. Verrall, The Medea' of Euripides { London 1881) pp. xlx-xx). However, one should bear in mind that ( -icero’s statement at Earn. 7.6.2 is to be taken with caution, especially if compared to Cicero’s view at Acad. 1.3.10, where he states that Roman versions of Greek plays by Ennius and others give non uerba sed uim of their original models. On this question two further pieces of evidence have to be taken into consideration:

(a) Sch. Ar. Ach. 119 cites as from Euripides’ Medea the phrase d> 9ep(ji6fiov\ov cTrXayxvov (TrGF
V/2 F 858). K. O. F. Hense, De Ionis fibulae Euripideae partibus choricis commentatio (1876) 28-30, tried to insert it alter line 1274 °f the extant Medea, where there is a textual problem due to the absence of an iambic couplet required for the strophic responsion with the antistrophe at 1284-5 (cf. Hense, RhM n.s. 31 (1876) 593 n. 1).

(b) In the extant Medea it is possible to identify some dittographs (see D. L. Page, Euripides Medea (Oxford 1938) 124, comm, at 723 IT.).

I his alleged evidence can be easily dismissed. On the first point, one could argue that the fact that some lines attested by other sources are not found in the present version of the play may be due to the process of textual transmission. Alternatively, these ‘incriminated’ lines can be interpolations introduced by actors, loi instance, the above “mentioned iambic trimeter quoted by Cicero may be considered an interpolation constructed on the basis ol E. Aledea 294^3^1 ♦ Moreover, one has to take

5093. RHETORICAL EP1DEIXEIS

113

into consideration the inaccuracy of the sources. Sell, in Ach. 119 may draw on another play in which the figure of Medea was quite important, for instance Peliades or Aegeus ; see C. Collard and M. Cropp,
Euripides fragments (2008), vii, 5, introd. to Aegeus; viii, 62, introd. to Peliades ; cf. P. Elmslcy, Eunpidis Hera- clidae et Medea (Oxford 1828) 241, and U. von Wilamowitz, Analecta euripidea (Berlin 1875) 150. In fact mistakes in attributions are very frequent in ancient commentaries, as L. Sechan, REG 40 (1927) 273 n. 1, points out: ‘il leur arrive egalement de citer tin drame, non d’apres son titre officiel, mais d’apres un personnage qui y figure; rest ainsi que les Bacchantes d'Euripide ont cte appelees parfois Penthee; fOreste, Electee; les rProyennes, Hecube; etc.’; cf for example Stob. 3.36.9.1, where verses from Bac- chae are recorded as from Pentheus\ cf. ibid. 4.4.2. 1, 4.23.8.1. Alternatively the expression contained in the Sch. in Ach. 119 may be wrongly attributed to Euripides: it could come from a Medea by another author (see below); cf. Elmsley, Eunpidis Herachdae et Medea, 242, who argues that it actually belongs to the ridiculed version of Medea by Melanthius (see below).

With regard to the second possibility we have mentioned, namely that the implication of 5093 is that the earlier Medea on which Euripides' play was based and from which the two iambic verses come had been written by another author, it has to be said that there are many tragedians and comedy writers who wrote a play entitled Medea. To show the popularity of the subject in both Greek and Latin drama, it is worth giving here the complete list. Tragedians: Neophron (TrGF I, no. 15, test. 1-3,
F 1—3), Euripides II (TrGF I, no. 17, test. 1), Melanthius (TrGF I, no. 23, test. 4a, b, F [1] = no. 131, F
1), Dicaeogenes (TrGF I, no. 52, F ia), Carcinus 11 (TrGF I, no. 70, F ie; A. Belis, ‘Un papyrus musical inedit au Louvre’, C^l/2004, fasc. 3, 1305-29; M. L. West, ‘A New Musical Papyrus: Carcinus,
Medea5, fJPE 161 (2007) 1-10), Theodorides (TrGF I, no. 78A, test. 1), Diogenes Sinopensis (TrGF 88
T 1, 2, 3, F ie) or Philiscus (TrGF I, no. 89, test. 2), Biotus? (TrGF I, no. 205), Ennius (frr. ciii-cxi Jocelyn), Accius (TrRF, pp. 216-20 = ed. Bude byj. Dangel, pp. 202-6), Ovid (see Quint. 8.5.6, 10.1.98;
Sen. Suas. 3.7; Tac. Dial. 12.6), Seneca, Lucan (see Vacca, VitaM. Annaei Lucam , in J. Endt (ed.), Adnota - tiones super Lucanum (1909) p. 3.1 1 ; cf. A. Rostagni (ed.), Svetomo De poetis e Biografi minori (1944) p. 185.64),
Curatius Maternus (see Tac. Dial. 3.4), Bassus? (see Martial 5.53.1). See also P. Loud. Lit. 77 (CGFP dubia 350; R. L. Hunter, T. Lond. Lit. 77 and tragic burlesque in Attic comedy’, fPE^i (1981) 19-24;
D. F. Sutton, Papyrological Studies in Dionysiac Literature: P Lit. Ijmd. 77 and P. Ross. Georg, l.u (Oak Park, Ill.
1987) 9-53; A. Martina, ‘PLitLond 77, i frammenti della Medea di Neofrone e la Medea di Euripide’, in M. Capasso and S. Pernigotti (eds.), Studium atque urbanitas: Miscellanea in onore di Sergio Daris (Lecce 2001) 247-75; TrGF V.2, Addenda et corrigenda in vol. 2 , 667a, pp. 11 37-1 142); and the lost anonymous tragedy illustrated in an Apulian volute-krater assigned to c.320 (LIMC s.v. Medea, no. 29; IrGl II

Adesp. F 6a, cf. TrGF II, no. 29, F 1, and O. Tapi in, Pots & Plays: Interactions betaken Tragedy and Greek Vase-painting of the Fourth Century B.C. (Los Angeles 2007) 255-7). Comedy writers: Epicharmus (PCG I,

test. 35 and p. 55), Deinolochus (PCG I, test. 3, frr. 4-5), Cantharus (PCG IV, test. 1, Ir. 1-4), Strattis (PCG VII, test. 1, frr. 34 6), Antiphanes (PCG II, fr. 151; cf. fr. 239), Rhinton (PCG I, fr. 7), Eubulus (PCG V, fr. 64 = fr. 64 Hunter). Among these authors Neophron deserves particular attention because of his relationship with Euripides in respect to Medea. This is illustrated by three ancient sources:

1. Hypothesis E. Med. 25-7 Higgle (= TrGF 15 T 2, Aristotle fr. 635 Rose = fr. 774 Gigon, Di- caearchus fr. 63 Wchrli) to 8pdj ua 8ok€l vTTofiaXecOcu rrapa Necxfrpovoc 8cacK€vacac} coc AtKatapyoc (iv. . . ) rov rr/c * EXXaSoc /3tou Kal AptcToreXrjc iv V7rop,vrjp,aci.

2. Suda v 218 (= TrGF 15 T 1) Nzo<j)pcov 7} Neocfxdv, clkvcovioc , rpayiKOC * ov cfcaciv elvai rrjv rov Evpirrihov MrjSetav oc Trpdoroc elcpyaye iraidaywyovc Kai oIk€t<x>v /3 acavov. eScSa^e Se rpaycpStac pK.

3. Diog. Laer. 2.134 (= TrGF 15 T 3, ex Antig. Caryst.) . . . tt?c Mrfheia c rrjc EvpimSov, fjv evioi Neoppovoc eivou rov clkvwviov paciv.

The first witness states that it seems that Euripides took (down) the play Medea, by Neophron through a process of revision ( StacKevdcac ; for the sense ol this verb indicating revision of a literary work cf. [Aristeas], Epistula ad Philocratem 311; D. S. 1.5.2; Sch. Ar. Mi. 553; cf. E. Stemplingcr, Das

114

SUBLITERART TEXTS

Plagiat in der gnechischen Literatur (Leipzig/Berlin 1912) 215—18). It records as sources Dicearchus and Aristotle (with regard to the latter note that the hypomnemata ascribed to him have been written by a pupil, probably 1 heophrastus). I his piece of information is reported by the Suda and Diogenes Laertius much more vaguely and tout court in terms of plagiarism. The question whether we could rely on these witnesses charging Euripides of plagiarism, and whether Neophron really was the TTpdiToc evperrjc of the role of Medea as child-murderer has fuelled a huge debate (a useful and balanced overview is offered by B. Manuwald, ‘Der Mord an den Kindern: Bemerkungen zu den Medea-Tragodien des Euripides und des Neophron7, IVSt 96 N.F. 17 (1983) 27-61, esp. 50-56).

On the one hand, some scholars hold the view that Euripides was inspired by Neophron and borrowed the child-murder motif from him; see for instance Stemplinger, Das Plagiat 20—21, and E.
A. Thompson, Neophron and Euripides' Medea\ CQofi (1944) 10—14. The latter interestingly stresses the fact that E. Medea requires only two actors, although before 431 bo the third actor had already been used by Aeschylus and Sophocles: this would represent a piece of evidence for the dependence of Euripides on an earlier play, i.e. Neophron’s one (but cf. Mastronarde, Medea , 62 n. 99). Thompson also defends the reliability of a fourth-century scholar like Dicearchus, who had access to didascalic records of tragic performances and carried out work on them; cf. A. N. Michelini, ‘Neophron and Euripides’ Medeia 1056-80’, TAPhS 119 (1989) 115-35; R* Kannicht, B. Gauly, L. Kappel (eds.), Musa Tragica: Die griechische Tragodie von Thespis bis Ezechiel; Ausgewdhlte ^eugnisse und Jragmente griechisch und deutsch (Gottingen 1991) 60-63, 274.

On the other hand, other scholars deny the possibility of Neophron’s priority in respect to Euiipides on the basis of linguistic, metrical, and stylistic elements, which in their view should be ascribed to a fourth-century tragedian rather than a precursor of Euripides (see Page, Medea , pp. xxx— xxxvi ; Mastronarde, Medea, , 53, 60-64; J. Diggle, ‘Did Euripides Plagiarise the Medea of Neophron?’, (PtXevpnrlhrjc = Phileuripides : Melanges offerts a Francois Jouan (Paris 2008) 405-11), or on the basis of a clear Aristotelian influence on Neophron (see Martina, ‘PLitLond 77’, 247-73; cf. Mastronarde, Medea , 63, and comm, on w. 663-823, pp. 281-3). Moreover, the reliability of the witnesses on Neophron, in particular of the hypothesis, has been doubted (see Page, Medea, p. xxxvi; C. Barone,
RFIL 106 (1978) 1 29“36; Diggle, Did Euripides Plagiarise’, 406; Diggle, ‘Rhythmical Prose in the Euripidean Hypotheses , in G. Bastianini, A. Casanova (eds.), Euripide e 1 papin (Firenze 2003) 27—67).
To these arguments, however, one could object that perhaps the fragments transmitted to us under the name of Neophron belong to a later tragedy by a fourth-century author and had wrongly been attributed to him. Besides, Van Leeuwen (see J. H. Goedhart, De Medeae mytho apud antiguos scriptores et artifices (Leiden 1911) 4-5) hypothesizes that Euripides, after the failure of Medea in 431, modified his play and presented it again under Neophron’s name, a view that in a way assumes in reverse chronological order what could be supposed behind 5093.

In any case, for the assessment ot the text of 5093, it is not necessary to establish whether Neophron was prior to Euripides or not, and ultimately to define in clear-cut terms the relationship between the two tragedians. However, we have certainly to take into consideration the existence and circulation of such information 01, in other words, of such rumors within the ancient literary world, and the possibility that our author had access to them and to what extent. Further, if he had access to them, how and to what extent he exploited them for the construction of his speech. Finally, one should investigate the possible provenance of the two iambic verses quoted as from the alleged ‘Ur-
Medea . We could reconstruct several different scenarios.

(1) The author of 5093 knew another Medea (by Neophron or another of the numerous authors oi a play with such a tide), and had in his hands if not the entire play at least part of it, possibly 111 the form of quotations in another work. It is possible that in his (supposed) source the author of such a Medea was not mentioned, so that he assumed that the play in question wus the first version by the author pai excellence of a Afedea , Euripides. In this respect it is worth observing that the diction of

5093. RHETORICAL EPIDEIXEIS

115

the two iambic verses quoted in 5093 appears prima facie 'Euripidean' (see below, 4-6 n.). Moreover, one has to take into consideration that lack or even absence of philological and historical accuracy is a well-known feature of declamation practice (see Russell, Greek Declamation 106-7 , 1*3—28). In this respect, note that our author uses a rather vague expression to introduce the quotation — <Lv fjL€(jLvr}(vTai) tlv€[c] (3-4) — which recalls the formulation of the witnesses of the Suda and Diogenes Laertius quoted above. (2) Alternatively, it is possible that he is using witnesses that already speak about an Ur -Medea, whether by Euripides or another author. (3) The speech in 5093 could be the result of the interaction and free combination of different elements: for example, knowledge of the literary gossip’ on the alleged plagiarism of Neophron’s Medea by Euripides, or vague information of the existence of an Ur -Medea, could have been exploited in the elaboration of the story of a double redaction of Medea under the inspiration by the (documented) existence of a double redaction of the Hippolytus , due to reasons of decency and morality (see below 11-14 n-)> reasons that our author uses to motivate the 'reformation’ of the Ur -Medea. For this purpose he could have exploited the two iambic verses found somewhere.

In other words, the account of the double redaction of Medea seems to be a fictional story:
However, if it is not reliable in philological and historical terms, and therefore would not contribute to the clarification of the relationship between Neophron and Euripides, it is certainly extremely interesting for the story of the reception of the classical heritage in the first centuries of the common era, in particular by the Second Sophistic. The interest of this story should also be assessed in relation to Euripides’ 'image' in literature, especially in the biography genre, heavily influenced by the representation of the tragedian in Old Comedy, and in the philological and scholiastic tradition; see D. Kovacs’ introduction to the Loeb edition of Euripides, vol. i (20012) 1-49; S. Scullion, 6^53
(2003) 389-400; S. Schorn, Satyros ans Kallatis: Sammlung der Fragmente mit Kommentar (Basel 2004) 26-63.

Some examples of the type of material supposedly hang behind 5093 can be mentioned: the piece of information found in Sch. E. Phoen. 2, reporting an 'ancient opinion’ according to which Sophocles criticized Euripides for not having prefixed lines 1-2 to that play (see D. J. Mastronarde,
Euripides Phoenissae (Cambridge 1994) comm, ad loc., p. 140; cf. TrGF Vi, test. K a 73, p. 84); the rumors that Euripides received help by Socrates, Mnesicholos, Timocrates (or Democrates?) of Argos, and his slave Cephisophon in writing his plays (TrGF Vi, test. 1 LA 3 (p. 46), III. 3, p. 50, test. H, pp. 74-6; among them, test. H d 53 comes from the the Life of Euripides by Satyrus of Callatis, a biography in dialogue form transmitted by IX 1176; see relevant sections of 1176, cols, xii-xiii, in the re-edition and commentary by Schorn, Satyros 104-5, 29^^302i 011 Socrates’ influence on Euripides, see excursus on pp. 227-31); the story told by Parmeniscus (Schol. Med . 9) that Euripides transferred the infanticide to Medea after receiving five talents from the Corinthians, whose ancestors, according to a version of the myth, were the murderers of Medea’s children (cf. Mastronarde, Medea 6 n. 17, 50-51); the concrete support Euripides provided to Timotheus, who was depressed because of the failure of the New Music, by writing for him the proem of the Persai (TrGF Vi, test. K d 87a, pp. 88-9, from the Life by Satyrus; see the relevant section of 1176, fr. 39 col. xxii in the re-edition and commentary by Schorn, Satyros in 12, 341-6); the proverbial misogyny of the tragedian as reflected in his plays in relation to his personal life and marriage troubles (TrGF Vi, test. 1 A III. 2, p. 50, IV 1 and 2, pp. 50-51, test. 2, pp. 51-3, test. 3. 3 and 4, p. 54, test. 4, p. 55, lines 19-20, test. K, pp. 83-8, test. O f, pp. 99-101; cf. 1176, fr. 39 cols, x-xv, re-edited and commented by Schorn, Satyros 102-6,
285-308); the relationship with Sophocles, connoted both by rivalry and friendship (TrGF Vi, test.
A 1 A. 11 (p. 48), test. A 4, p. 56, lines 33-43; test. K a, pp. 83-6).

The image of Euripides emerging from 5093 is that of a tragedian seeking success by pleasing the Athenian audience through the revision of badly-received plays, Medea and (implicitly) Hippolytus.
This attitude may further be illustrated by an anedocte from the Lfe by Satyrus. Here lines from Melanippe Desmotis are quoted to demonstrate that Euripides 'corrected’ his misogynist attitude after

116

subliterArt texts
women plotted against him at the Thesmophoria (1176, fr. 39, cols, x-xii; see re-edition and commentary in Schorn, Satyros 102-3, 2^5~95i cf. J. C. Gibert, CQ 47 (1997) 93); variants of the episode are found in the anonymous Life of Euripides , where the tragedian is spared from murder under the promise not to criticize women any more (TrGF Vi, test. 1 1 A TV, pp. 50-51). Moreover, Plu. Arnatorius 756bc (Mor. 4, 355, 3 Hubert) reports that Euripides revised the opening line of Melanippe Sophe for a second performance because the original version caused an uproar (see TrGF V.i, F 480; Gibert,
02,47, 92-3): this episode probably originated from a misidentification of the ‘incriminated5 verse as the first line of the Melanippe Sophe , but in fact the verse seems to be a comic conflation of Euripidean phrases.
finally, it is worth mentioning another presumably fictional episode of Euripides" biography exploited in declamation practice: it is the accusation of impiety against Euripides for having portrayed in a blasphemous and irreverent way Heracles in his madness, proposed as a theme for a me- lete in the list for declamation topics preserved in XXIX 2400 10 14. This recalls Arist. Rhei. 1416a, who records that the charge of acefieta was brought against Euripides in the course of a trial for arrtSocic, on the basis of the content of Hipp. 612 ( vocTrep EvpiTrlSrjc rrpoc vyiaivovra iv rfj avrtSocet Karrjyopovvra toe acefirjc, oc y €7 roirjce KeXevcov imopKeLV lrj yXcocc'6fjidjpiO)(\ rj 8i <pprjv avcopboroc cf. also 1176, fr. 39, col. x; see re-edition and commentary in Schorn, Satyros 102-3, 282-5).

To sum up, in 5093 any use of the available material seems to aim at the rhetorical effect rather than at the logic of the argument. For example, the alleged major difference between the \Jv- Medea and Medea reformed is presented as a substantial change of plot (6—7 kol66Xov\t€ ttjv otKovop,1 lav aAAa^ac), but in reality it seems to consist in a change in the production and stage conventions: both children arc killed inside, but arc killed anyway as in the first version.

1 The participle ttolovvt€c implies a plural subject; at the very beginning of the line -vav may represent the end of an aorist indicative of the third person plural; the accusative rrjv oipiv could be the object of this verb. At the beginning of 2, oOev may introduce the alleged drastic revision of the plot by Euripides as a consequence of the action performed by the plural subject of the previous sentence. Given that Euripides’ aim — as illustrated in the following part of the text — consists in gaining the favour of the audience and winning the first prize, it is likely that the subject of the first sentence was the spectators, oi Oearal. Here the noun oifjiv clearly indicates the spectacle. Further, given the emphasis on Euripides’ revision, it is likely that the first sentence deals with a negative reaction by the audience at the performance of Medea I. On this basis a plausible supplement could be i^veyepa ]\vav.
For the iunctura cf. Philo De specialibus legibus 3*50*5 Cohn rrjv avTrjv oxpiv Svcyepatvovrec. and Plu. De cohibenda ira 456b. For the use of oxfnv in relation to dramatic performances, see e.g. Arist. Poet. 1449b,
1450a, 1453b.

2 ijTavop9cocdf.i€voc. The restoration of a is compatible with the traces and the available space: the letter appears to be rather narrow, like the initial A of the sequence ayptovc at 25; compare the ligature an with the first two letters of the sequence avav at the end of 5.

4 8iaypapac. For the use of this verb in the technical sense of ‘cross out’, cf. PI. Rep. 387b, E. El.
1073> Aristoph. jVu. 774; Schol. in Dem. InJVeiram (59) 1; Schol. vet. in Hes. Op. 561—3, 757—9 ( atheteseis by Plutarch); Schol. in Hes. Op. ‘Prolegomena Ac’ (p. 2 Pertusi).

Note the match between the two verbs of 5093 €7roLvop0ojccLpi€voc and 8tay pcupac and the verbs i>7 TofiaXecOcu and 8tacK€vacac used in the Hypothesis E. Med. quoted above at 1-14 n.

4-10 This section is particularly interesting in relation to a well-known convention of Greek drama: scenes of violence, murder, and suicide are not to be represented on stage, but narrated by a messenger. For the phrase in 9-10 /xt) iv c fiaveptp cf.: Philostr. 1/1 VI 11, p. 219.29-30 Kayser to vtto CK7}vi)c a7Todvr)CK€iv €7T€v6rjc€v (sc. Aeschylus), (he ptr) iv tpavtpw ctparroi] Schol. in Aesch. Clio. 904, which explains that Orestes orders to his mother to follow him into the palace tv a p,rj iv tpavepto fj avalpectc yivrjrat. (Note that the meaning of the phrase perj iv tpavtpd) is different from the expression

5093. RHETORICAL EPIDEIXEIS

117

in Arist. Poet. 1452b 11-12 ot re ev rco <pavep<h davaroi (with the article), to be taken as 'made public’ in the sense of 'made known’; cf. A. Andrisano, Aristot. Poet. 1452119-13 (of re ev rco <pavepqj Sararoi)’,
Museum criticum 30-31 (1995-6) 189-216, esp. 195-203, 210 11.)

This aspect can be illustrated by considering the following passages:

1) Arist. Poet. 1453^ *4 6CTty (^cv ovv to poftepov Kal eXeeivov eK rrjc oifteojc yiyvec9at> ecnv 8e kcll e£ avrrjc rrjc cvcracewc rd>v TTpaypLarcov, orrep eert rrporepov Kal rroirjTOV dpteivovoc. S ei ydp Kal avev rov op av ovreo cvvecravai rov ptvOov edere rov ciKovovra rd npaypLara yivofieva Kal (ppirreiv Kal eXeeiv eK tojv cvp.fiaivovTa>v' airep dv rradoi rtc olkovcov tov tov OlSlttov ptv9ov. to Sc Sta rrjc dipeoc tovto napacKeva^eiv areyvorepov Kal x°pr}yiac 8eoptev6v ecnv. ol 8e pbij to <f>of$epov Sta rrjc oipeojc dXXd to repartbSec ptovov TrapacKeva^ovrec ov8ev rpaycoSla kolvojvovclv’ ov ydp rrdcav 8ei £ rjreiv n]8ovr]v arro Tpayco8iac dXXd rrjv oiKelav. errel 8e rrjv &7to eXeov Kal (fiofiov Sta pupL'qcecoc Set rj8ovrjv 7 rapacKevd^eiv tov 7TOLrjTr)vt (pavepov a>c tovto ev role irpay^iacLV epLTTOirjreov.

2) Hor. AP 179-187 aut agitur res in scaenis aut acta refertur. / segnius irritant animos demissa per aurern ,
/ quam quae sunt oculis subiecta fidelibus et quae / ipse sibi tradit spectator, non tamen intus / digna geri promes in scaenam , multaque tolles / ex oculis quae mox narret facundia praesens: / ne pueros coram poptdo Medea trucidet y / aut humana palam coquat exta nefarius Atreus , / aut in auern Procne uertatu? ; Cadmus in anguem. Cf. C. O. Brink, Horace on Poetry : The Ars Poetica ’ (1971) 244.

3) Sell. vet. in Soph. Ajax 815a 6 ptev c<payevc ecrrjKev* pteraKiveLTat rj cktjvtj ini eprjptov nvoc ycopiov, ev9a 6 Alac evTperricac to £i<j)oc prjctv nva rrpo tov 9avdrov rrpo<pe per at' errel yeXoiov rjv Kaxpdv elceX9ovra rrepiTreceiv red t;i(pei. ecn 8e rd rotaSra napa tolc rraXaioic crrdvia • elwdaci ydp ra 7T€7Tpaypi€va SC ayyeXwv arrayyeXXeiv. tl ovv to ainov; <p9dvei AlcyoXoc ev Gpfjcca ic (TrGF
III F 83) ttjv dvatpeciv Aiavroc 81’dyyeXov arrayyelXac. lcojc ovv Kaivoropieiv fiovXo(.ievoc Kal ptr)
KaraKoXovdeiv tolc erepov ( tyveciv ) , vtt' oiffiv e9r}K€ to 8pwptevov 7)' pidXXov eKrrXij^aL fiovXopievoc. eiKrj ydp KaTrjyopeiv dvdpoc naXatov ovy ociov ovSe St/cator. irrj^ac Sc to £i<f)oc raura prjciv. c<payea Sc Xeyei rj tov Kaipov tov a7ro9aveiv rj tov Sta rrjc opayijc 9dvarov rj to £ t<j>oc . On the vexata quaestio of Ajax’ suicide, see S. Scullion, Three Studies in Athenian Dramaturgy (1994), chap. 3, ‘The Staging of Sophokles’s Aias\ 89-128.

5) Sch. in II. VI 58b 68—74 t17]^ ' dvTLva ( - <f>vyoi)m pucrjrd Kal ovy appio^ovra paciXcKip ijdei rd prjpLara * rporrov ydp 8 eiKWCi drjpLOTrjTa, 6 Sc dKpoarrjc dv9pcoTroc wv / licet to ay av 7 riKpov Kal aTTavOpcorrov. o6ev Kav rale rpaywhiatc KpvrrTovci rove Spdjvrac ra rocavra ev rate CKrjvaic Kal rj <f>ojvatc tlclv e^aKOvoptevatc rj SC ayyeXwv verepov crjpiaivovci ra 7 Tpax9evra} ov8ev dXXo rj (pofiovpievoi, ptrj avrol cvpLpucrjdcbci tolc dpcopevoic.

Horace’s passage is particularly interesting and raises the question why in the first century bc Horace felt the necessity to state the principle of not representing murder on stage — in which he explicitly mentions Medea’s murder. Ex silentio it is not implausible to assume that in the post-classical period stage conventions changed, and violence and murder were actually represented on stage. On the contrary, Seneca represents the murder by Medea on stage, in a rather ‘emphasized’ form that has been interpreted as an intentional and explicit violation of the Horatian principle: Medea, after having killed one child, climbs with his corpse and the other child onto the roof of the palace to be seen by Jason and by the people, where she accomplishes her revenge by killing the other son. Here she speaks in a ‘meta-theatrical way’, saying that her act must not remain in occulto (w. 976 fF.); see G. Rosati, ‘Sangue sulla scena: Un precetto oraziano (“Ars poet.r 185) c la “Medea” di Seneca’, in A. Delfino (ed.), (Varieta dharmonia et d'ajfetto Studi in onore di G. Marzi per il suo LXX compleanno (1995)
3-10; A. Rodighiero, La parola , la morte. Veroe: Aspetti di poetica sofoclea (2000) 63-114, Rodighiero, ‘“Ne pueros coram populo Medea trucidet”: alcuni modi dell’infanticidio’, in O. Vox (ed.), Ricerche euripidee (2003) 122-6.

4-6 It is worth comparing the two iambic lines quoted in 5093 with some verses from E. Medea , in order to appreciate the fact that, at least on the surface, the two trimeters present a Euripidean

118

SUBLITERARY TEXTS

diction. Some Euripidean verses present the motif of the right hand: 21-2 /? od piev opKovc, avaxaXel Se decide/ iricnv fxeyicrrjv (the right hand as symbol of the marriage alliance); 496 (f)€v Se£ia x€lP> fjc cv 770 AA * eXapifiavov (Medea addresses Jason); 899 \df3ec6e x€LP°c Se£iac (Medea informs her sons of her reconciliation with Jason and invites them to take Jason's hand); 1365 ovrot viv 7)^7) Se£ia y ’ airdiXecev (the speaker is Jason). Note also that at v. 1244 Medea addresses her own hand and exhorts it to take the sword to proceed to the murder: ay\ <L rdXaiva yet p epcr), Xafie £t<f)oc] cf. Neophron,
TrGF I, no. 15, F 2, 1 2—13: . . . cS x^Pec> y^/3^c,/77poc olov epyov i^07rXt(,6pi€c9a‘ <f)€v\ on the motif of the hands, cf. Mastronarde, Medea , 28-31 ;. However, the most interesting verse for comparison is 1271, pronounced by one of the children from inside, at the very moment of the murder, in which both motifs — the hand and the escape — occur: otpLoi, rt Spacco; ttol <f>vya> pLrjrpoc yepac; For the structure of the question, cf. also Ph. 1674 77of yap €K<f)€v£;rj Aeyoc; 77 1274 7701 Se c ’ if«j)vyoL€v av;

Moreover, the phrase rtOetc tyroc in 6 recalls tyvoc rtdetc in Ion 741, Ph. 836, and 770S0C iyroc in Ion 792, Troad. 3, IT 752, Ph. 105, fr. 530.7, Or. 140-41. Examining the two trimeters of 5093 more closely, they seem to be rather grotesque as pronounced by a murderous mother, who reproaches her son — trying to escape from her — with cowardice for hating her hand. In particular, the phrase dvdv\& pov firjpLaroc (5-6), if referring to a little child who is trying to escape the murderous hand of his own mother, sounds really awkward. It is true (as suggested by L. Carrara) that one could give to the adjective avav&poc the neutral meaning of ‘not yet a man', i.e. 'still a child* (cf. Lib. Decl. xxiii 59 (vi, 413.7 Foerster); Diogenian, CPG II i 12), but perhaps the meaning of 'coward' fits better the context, characterized by absurd indignation at the attempt at escape and the equally absurd accusation of hate. If these trimeters were really part of a tragedy one should explain the grotesque quality as due to the madness of Medea, and perhaps assume that she sees in her child Jason’s son, to whom she transfers the anger caused by Jasons cowardice cf. E. Medea 466, where Medea accuses Jason of avavhpia, and note that at 463 the verb ervydv defines in Jason’ speech Medea’s feelings towards him. However, in my opinion, they would fit better a satyr drama or a comic parody. In this respect it is worth noticing that with regard to E. Medea 1271 there is a sort of reversal of the point of view: in Euripides there is the point of view of the victim, in the verses of 5093 the point of view of the aggressor (I owe this point to A. Rodighiero).

Moreover, the trimeters themselves do not imply that the infanticide is taking place on stage: the lines could be pronounced inside. In other words, the play to which they belong did not necessarily include a scene of violence represented on stage, as the text of 5093 implies. In other words, our rhetor could have freely exploited these verses by presenting them as illustrating a child-murder on stage. In any case, the fact that he has done this leads us to speculate on the possibility that in the post-classical period theatrical conventions had been modified to the extent of including the representation of violent death in front of the audience (in general, on the possibility of introduction of variants — not only in the mise-en-scene but also in the text — in local re-performanccs of plays that could be traced back on the basis of vase-painting even to the fourth century bc; see Taplin, Pots &
Plays 120-21). This may be suggested by the Sell. vet. in Soph. Ajax 815a, quoted above (4 -10 n.), which implies that the suicide of Ajax took place on stage (commentators relates it to the use — in post- classical times — of a ‘theatrical sword’, with a special blade which could bc pressed back into the hilt, mentioned by the second-century sophist Polemon in Hcsych. s.v. cvciracrov, and described by Achilles Tatius 3.20.7, 3.21.3-4 Garnaud). Besides, Horace’s stress on the convention of avoiding violence on stage, with the mention of the specific episode of Medea , may lead to speculation whether in the first century bc an adaptation of E. Medea or another tragedy by the same title could have contained the representation of the infanticide on stage. Therefore it is not impossible that our author could have had direct experience of some staging of this kind or have access to information about them.

Finally, it is worth mentioning a rope-handled amphora, kept in Paris, Cab. Med. 876', from Nola (examined in LIMC , s.v., p. 391, no. 30, r.330 bc). Here Medea is portrayed in her barbarian cos-

5093. RHETORICAL EPIDEIXEIS

119

turne, with the Phrygian cap: one of the sons is represented already killed, and his corpse lies across an altar; the other child tries to escape, but Medea grasps his hair with the hand that holds the sword.
At upper right the tutor in mourning appears. Prima facie the depicted scene seems to correspond to the scene implied by the two trimeters of 5093. However, methodological caution is necessary in considering this as a virtual piece of evidence for the representation on the infanticide on stage, since the painter in this specific case as well as in general — could portray an episode narrated by the mes- sanger in a perfomed tragedy, modifying elements, adding details according to variants of the same myth or to a specific iconographical tradition, or his own creativity 'and taste (cf. Taplin, Pots & Plays 22-6, 62-4, 114-25, 255-7, 28o n- 1 2 i F. Caruso, cMedea senza Euripide: Un frammento attico da Siracusa e la questione della Medea di Neofrone’, in R. Gigli (ed.), MET AAAI NHCOI : Studi dedicati a Giovanni Rizza per il suo ottantesimo compleanno (2005), ii. 341-54). In any case it is certainly interesting that the amphora documents the murder of the two children as clearly distinct moments, recalling what happens in Seneca’s Medea (see above, 4-10 n.).

7 oLKovo^plav) is to be taken as a terminus tecknicus in the sense of ‘organization of the subject- matter’; see R. Meijering, Literary and Rhetorical Theories in Greek Scholia (1987) esp. 134-8, 156-7, 171-3,
177-80; R. Grisolia, OtKOvofila: Struttura e tecnica drammatica negli scoli antichi ai testi drammatici (Napoli 2001) esp. 73-95 ; R. Nihilist, The Ancient Clitic at Work: Terms and Concepts of Literary Criticism in Greek Scholia (2009), 24-34; cf* Arist. Poet. 1453a 29 (oiKovopilco).

11-14 1 he general sense of the passage here seems to be that the author has previously treated another similar episode of Euripides’ career, the revision of Hippolytus , whose second redaction was actually successful and gained the first prize for the tragedian. The alleged parallel case of the revision of Medea , on the contrary was a failure: hence the ‘apparent contradiction’ that has caused the resentment of the audience, a contradiction that is implicitly explained in what follows : the unexpected lack of success of Euripides on account of irrational judgment by the foolish crowd (15-23).

As said above, the double redaction of Hyppolitus is documented by the Hypothesis E. Hipp. 25-30
Higgle (Ar. Byz.; TrGF Vi (34) et (35) ILinOAYTOC A' et B\ test. 1, pp. 459-60) 77 cKrjvrj rod 8papa~ toc VTTOKCirai Iv |077/3ouct 18 iS<ry6h? (sc. LttttoXvtoc) Ittl Erra pclvovoc apyovToc (a. 429/8) 6XvpTTia8i ttC (87) €T€l 8’ (i.e. D1011. a. 428). TTpajTOC EvpLTrl8r]Cj 8cvTCpoc 7 opaiv, rplroc "Iojv. cctl 81 ovroc LttttoXvtoc Set repoc, (o) Kal CTCpavlac TTpocayopcvopcvoc. ippaiveTai 81 vcrcpoc ycypapplvoc to ycip a7Tp€7T€c Kal KaTrjyopiac a£tov iv tovtco 8i6jp6ojTai tco Spa/xart. to 8papa tcov TrpdoTcov. (For the interpretation, see \V. Luppe, Philologus 142 (1998) 173-5; Luppe, fPE 151 (2005) 11-14; Luppe, fJPE
156 (2006) 38.) It is worth noticing that the revision is presented in terms of Siopdcocic, as in 5093 frr.
1+2 xiv 2 Ijravopdojcapcvoc^ and similarly motivated by reasons of morality and decency. In several ancient sources the two versions are distinguished as LttttoXvtoc (KaTajKaXvTTTopcvoc and LttttoXvtoc CTCpaviac or cTcpavppopoc respectively (see W. S. Barrett, Hippolytos (1964) 10 n. 1, 37 n. 1; TrFG V.i, p. 459, test, iv, pp. 464-5; cf. also pp. 465-6); on the recent debate of the ‘actual' meaning of (Kara)
KaXvTTTo^icvoc see M. Magnani, Eikasmos 15 (2004) 227-40, esp. 239-40; W. Luppe, ‘Die Hypothesis
zum ersten Hippolytos’, in Bastianini-Casanova, Euripide e i papiri 87-96, esp. 89). Ancient witnesses and extant fragments (see TrGF Vi, test. *ii c, iiia, iiib, F 430, 432-434; detailed treatment in Barrett, Hippolytos 10-45, ^ut cf* Gibcrt, CQ,47, 85-97) may suggest that Phaedra made a directly sexual advance to Hippolytus. O11 this basis one could think that this striking scene— i.e. the scene that may have been the major cause of the failure of the play — could have taken place onstage, iv pave pep (cf.
Barrett, Hippolytos 11 : ‘It is likely that Phaidra made her approach to Hippolytos in person and on the stage’; cf. Collard and Cropp, Euripides , introd. to Hyppolitus Veiled , 466-71, esp. 467-70), as the striking TCKvoKTovla in the alleged version I of Medea in 5093.

Hippolytus is not the only case of double redaction in Euripides' career: there are attested an Autolykos A and B (TrGF V.i (15) and (16), frr. 282-284, pp. 342 7), a Phrixus A and B fErGF V.2, (75) and (77), pp. 856-76), and perhaps also an alternative version of Heracles in P. Hibeh II 179 (TrGF

120

SUBLITERARY TEXTS

\/2 | **953c; W Luppe, ZPE 95 ('995) 59“64; 84 0996) 234-5; R- Janko, 7J'E 136 (2001) 1-6), if it was not an adaptation of the play for a later production. Besides it is worth considering Schol. in Aristoph. Ran. 1400, a verse quoting a Euripidean line (TrGF V2 F 888): it reports that Aristarchus thought that this verse may belong to an earlier version of Telephos (cf. a similar opinion of Aristarchus on the proem of the Archelaus , reported by Schol. in Aristoph. Ran. 1206—8; see TrGF V2 F 846 and S. Scullion, ‘The Opening of Euripides' Archelaus’, in D. Cairns and V Liapis (eds.), Dionysalexandros :
Essays on Aeschylus and His Fellow Tragedians in Honour of Alexander F. Garvie (2006) 185-200).

11—12 re9opv\pr]c9e. The occurrence of this verb is a significant rhetorical device: it expresses a strong reaction from the audience to the speech. Interestingly the second person plural is used in addressing directly the audience, often in the attempt to prevent an expected ‘hostile’ reaction to the words of the speaker: PI. Ap. 2oe 3—5 /cat ^toi, a > av8pec Adrjvacoi, per) Oopvfirjcrjre, pirj S’ lav 8o£w n Vfuv [iky a Xeye tv; Dcm., 77ept cvvra^e a>c (xiii), 167 iyaj 8e frjpu 8etv (/cat pioi fir) 9opvprjc7]ry l(p' a> pieXXaj Xeyetv, aAA’ aKovcavrec /cptvare); Dio Chrys., Or. xxxviii, 6.16-17 flV Sopvfrjcrjre 8e apyo^evco naXiv , aAA’ vnopLelvare] Or. xxxii, 12.2—3 • • • (sc* 7Toirjral /cat prjropec) evXafovftevoi pLrj pbera^v 9o- pvfrjcrjre /cat napanrjpufjere avrovc. For comparable occurrences see also: Aeschin., Contra Timarchum (1) 78 • • • ev9vc oipLat 9opvpeire U/Ltctc c be ov pcerov Tcp Kptvopilvcp rr)c noXetoc; cf. 82, and Aristid. xxxvii, 465.28-30 (a sort of captatio benevolentiae in the proemium) ct tl Kapiol pLerecnv, a> ABrjvaioi, nappyctac, 7 T€ipacof.taL nepl rtov napovrojv elneiv a ytyva>c/cco, 8erj9elc vf.ux)v p.rj 9opvf3rjcai irplv ar rravTcav aKovcrjre ; Dio Chrys., Or. xxxiv, 6.23—4 • • • ^ v Y&P vpAv 8o/cco fXvapeiv , ov Srjrrov Xl9otc faXeire pee , aXXa 9opvj3r)cere ; Or. xl\i, 10.3—4 rraXiv av 9opvpeire} cocirep ifiov Xeyovroc on /cat nap ’ vf.uv avrov tocovtov npocrjKet etvat /cat pLTjSenore t}ttovoc. It must be noted that all the examples are in the active form. In the passive form the verb may mean ‘to be thrown into disorder, confused’ (see ESJ s.v.). The occurrence in 5093 perhaps also contains a nuance of this meaning also. However,
I have kept the meaning of ‘to protest' in the translation on the basis that, if the passive meaning of being confused was meant in the first place, we would have expected in what follows a a dative of agent or a construction with vno + genitive instead of the construction with npoc + accusative.

14-22 Interpretation and evaluation of this section are problematic. On the one hand, the hypothesis of Medea by Aristophanes of Byzantium (Hypothesis E. Med. 40-44 Diggle (Arist. Byz.)
ISiSaydr] enl Hv9o8a>pov apyovroc (a. 432/1) 6Xvpinia8i nT (87) erei a (i.e. Dion. a. 431). npwroc Evfop'uov , 8evrepoc CofoKXfjc , rptroc EvpiniSrjc M^Seta, (PtXoKT7]rrjy Alktvl} Oeptcraic carvpoic. ov caj^eTai) states that Sophocles obtained the second place and Euripides the third, while the first prize was assigned to Euphorion. The text names only the plays presented by Euripides; nothing is said about the works presented by die two other competitors. On the other hand, no information is provided by ancient sources on the date of the production of Tereus : we have only a terminus ante quern , the year 414 bc, which is the date of the production of Aristophanes’ Birds, where Tereus-Hoopoe refers to the Sophoclean treatment of the myth (w. 100-101).

Among modern scholars there are different positions on this matter, based on internal elements, especially with regard to the chronological relationship of the Sophoclean play with Medea , with which it shares the motif of child-murder. Some claim that it is later than Medea , alleging imitation of Euripides’ play by Sophocles; others that it is earlier, arguing that Euripides was influenced by Tereus in introducing into Medea’s myth the previously unknown child-murder. Moreover, other scholars based their views on the historical and contemporary political situation as allegedly reflected in the play, or on specific aspects of content or language and style. However, no argument is decisive (see bibliography on the problem in TrGF IV, p. 436, with update in A. H. Sommerstein, D. Fitzpatrick, T. Talboy, Sophocles: Selected Fragmentary Plays , i (2006) 157—9).

How shall we then interpret the formulation of 5093? The text does not state explicitly that Euripides and Sophocles competed with Medea and Tereus respectively in the same tragic contest.
Prima facie it cannot be ruled out the possibility that 5093 refers to two different tragic contests at

5093. RHETORICAL EPIDEIXEIS

121

which these two plays — with very similar plots — were received in a completely different way: one won, the other failed. However, the situation is represented in a ‘dramatic’ way so that the reader visualizes the crowning of Sophocles under the eyes of Euripides and the (supposed) consequent angry reaction by the latter as taking place at the same time and on the same scene. Therefore, on the basis of this dramatized way of reporting the facts and the rhetorical formulation of the text, it appears more probable that the author implies that the two tragedians competed at the same tragic contest, the one of 431 bc, at which, according to Aristophanes of Byzantium’s hypothesis, Sophocles got the second prize after Euphorion. But in 5093 we are told that Sophocles was the winner and was crowned. Does this statement really mean that he got the first prize? Or does it mean simply that he was acclaimed superior to Euripides by qualifying himself for the second place?

At this point one may wonder whether the author of 5093 knew Medea s hypothesis. Assuming that he did, and that he knew or supposed that Sophocles presented Tereus in 431 bc, he may have limited his consideration to Euripides and Sophocles in terms of competitors/ candidates for the victory: in this perspective, it appears to be appropriate to designate Sophocles as 6 vlktjccic in respect to Euripides. One could also observe that the winner of the first prize, Euphorion, son of Aeschylus, according to a (doubtful) tradition won four victories with unproduced plays by his father, as well as with his own plays (TrGF I, no. 12, test. 1, p. 88). On this basis, our author might not have considered Euphorion as a real contestant in comparison with Sophocles and Euripides, who presented two of their own plays with striking similarities of plot. Or he may simply have disregarded Euphorion, an almost unknown author in comparison with Sophocles and Euripides, who had long formed with Aeschylus the canonical triad of 'classical’ tragedy (already officially decreed, so to say, by Aristophanes’ Frogs, produced in 405 bc). But what is more likely is that our rhetor, in building his arguments to support his point about Tragedy, has simply ignored historical and philological accuracy: not only he would not have thought of checking historical records of tragic contests — if they could have been available to him — but he could have intentionally decided to exploit in a free way, in other words to fictionalize, historical facts in order to create his own picture, following the well-known tendency of declamation practice to manipulate historical and mythical material to fit a specific argument (see above, 1-14 n.).

In any case, the author has managed to give his account ‘historical plausibility’, as he has done in the case of the alleged ‘reformed’ Medea , which appears to be constructed on the historically documented revision of the Hippolytus. He could have been inspired by the fact that Sophocles beat Euripides in 428 bc, as the Hyp. inAlcestim (Diggle p. 34.17-18) states: Trpajroc rjv Co^o/cAijc, Sevrepoc Evp LTTiSrjc Kprjccaic, i4A/Cju.ea>ri rep 3ia Taxpi&oc, TrjXe(f)tpy AXktjctl&l , ( rptroc . . .). If we assume that he means that the two plays were competing at two different contests, Tereus seems to be presented as later than the ‘reformed’ Medea (as some modern scholars have proposed in the attempt to date Tereus ; see G. Radke, RE s.v. Prokne, xxxiii.i, 251). If we assume, on the contrary, the implication to be that Tereus was represented at the same contest as the Medea , it should be placed in 431 bc, a date that is not implausible (and also has been already proposed by T. B. L. Webster, An Introduction to Sophocles (1936) 4, on the basis of similarities with Trachiniae in terms of content and metre; on the date of the latter P. E. Easterling, Sophocles Trachiniae (1982) 19-23; M. Davies, Sophocles drachmae (1991) p. xviii n. 4). In any case, on the basis of the general unreliability of our author, 5093 does not provide any piece of evidence to be taken seriously in chronologically placing Tereus.

1 6-22 I have transcribed and interpreted the sequence after e<p' Ac as /car, written rather cursively; cf. fr. 3 bis i 3. Alternatively, one could think of the abbreviation /c(at). However, in the rest of the text the sign for the abbreviation of this conjunction consists of a clear-cut diagonal stroke (descending from left to right), while in this sequence the K clearly bears a loop shaping a cursive A and reaching the baseline to shape an even more cursive n. The passage sounds rather elliptical. The fully expressed thought seems to be: i(f) ’ an [el EvptTr(l8r]c) ecx^r Aia£er] /car c^oSp’ elKorcoc ec[x\ erXla^ev /crA., ‘at which [if Euripides complained], he would have complained very reasonably . . .’.

122

SUBLITERART TEXTS

The section in 17-22 (el . . . napadeicav) is not the actual protasis, but rather has causal sense; see Kiihner— Gerth, Grammatik ii §577.1.

The passage stresses the ethnic difference between Medea, a barbarian woman, and Procne, of Attic parentage: the latter commits a crime even worse — coupling infanticide and cannibalism — and, being a Greek woman, her act should have caused a stronger reaction by the audience than the reaction towards Medea, whose deviant behaviour could be considered less striking as being related to her barbarian/ wild/ uncivilized nature.

18 i^efiaXov. In this context, the two meanings of the verb overlap, the general one ‘to banish’, and the technical one ‘to drive somebody from the stage’; for the latter sense, cf. Dem. De falsa legatione (79) 337 with comm, ad loc. in D. M . MacDowell, Demosthenes: On the False Embassy (Oration ig) (2000)
352-3. This appears to be an elegant stylistic device. Note that the verb occurs in E. Medea , referring to the exile of Medea, in 373, 749 (here as the mere possibility that she will be banished by Aegeus in the future), and 1357.

21 dotvav. I take this as the accusative of doiv a, a form of dotvrj used in the post-classical period (see, for example, LXX in Mach. 5.31 2, Sapientia Salomonis 12.52, Athen. Ill 91c); cf. Hansen, Das attizis- tische Lexikon 106 dolvr] Attlkol , doiva rEXXrjvec (= Bekker, Moeris et Harpocration 198.28). Alternatively we could consider dotvav as an epexegctic infinitive.

22- 3 i'jjLTrXrjKTov pveet | fat) ptecrov aXoyov popac sounds rather idiomatic and stereotyped, as showed by several comparable passages: Plu. E. 3.10.2 rov Aeovvarov efnXrjKrov ovra Kat popac pecrov a fieftatov /cat 6£etac airoyvovc . . . ; Posidonius, fr. 187.49 Edelste in-Kidd 6 ptev yap Kara rradoc ovy optoXoyovptevcoc £17 rf) pveet, 6 8e ptrj Kara rradoc optoXoyovptevcoc l,f) rfj pveet. errerat yap o p,ev rep aXoyco Kat eprrXrjKrcp rrjc pvyrjc, 6 8e rco XoytKtp re /cat no detcp\ D. C. Historiae Romanae,
77*5*2 [Chilon] eftTTXrjKroc yap pveet rrpoc iravra ra irpayptara a>v Kat ertpta rtvac pteyaXcoc Kat Tjrtp.a^ev i£at<f)vr]c rove avrovc aXoytorara ; Lib. Orat. xlLx 19 (vol. iii, 461.22-3 Foerster) crpar^yov SouAor opyrjc Kat ptecrov popac.

23- 7 etc atyac ayptac is the traditional formula for averting illness, especially epilepsy, by transferring it to a 'scapegoat'. It is well documented in the paraerniographi: Diogenian. CPG I, v 49, p. 261
/car ’ atyac ayptac • optola rf) ec KopaKac (cf. Apostol. CPG II, ix 61, p. 474); Macarius, CPG II, iii 59, p. 161 etc atyac ayptac • eirl rd>v ra /ca/ca air or poirta^optevcov. Compare also Hesych. k 1123 /car’ afyac ayptac * napotfta A eyoptevr) etc ayptac atyac rperretv ( rrjv rocor), ptaXtcra 8e tt)v tepav. Moreover, it is alluded to in Call. Aet. Ill, fr. 75*12—14 Pfeiffer (8eteXtvpv rrjv S’ elXe /ca/coc yX ooc, fjXde Se vovcoc , / atyac ec ayptaSac rrjv ariose par opted a, / pev8optevot S’ teprjv prjpLt^optev). At Athen. 11183a AlvprtXoc p,ev yap epacKev } cocnep etc atyac rjptac ayptac anonepLTnjov rove t, rjrovvrac ... it is used in a more figurative sense, ‘send to the devil’, i.e. ‘reduce to silence’, with personal subject (Myrtilos stops questioning among the company by mentioning an authority on the subject of the debate), as equivalent of etc /copa/cac aTToneptTretv (cf. Hesych. e 1156, and s.v. *c/copa/ct^et 1102). The author of 5093 plays with this proverbial phrase by introducing his own alternative etc av8pac ayptovc (24-5) in order to emphasize the brutality of Tragedy. The polemic is developed as a cvyKptctc of Tragedy and Comedy, in which both are to some extent anthropomorphized: Tragedy is to be exiled to the wild men, while Comedy should be escorted in a torchlit procession (a well-known structural motif from the comic genre itself; see 29-31 n.). I. Ruffcll suggests that there may be a learned and sophisticated allusion to the comedy Ayptot by Pherccrates (PCG VII, fix 5-20), produced in 420 bc (test, in PCG
VII, pp. 106-7; see P* Ceccarelli, 'Life Among the Savages and Escape from the City’, in D. Harvey,
J. Wilkins (eds.), The Rivals of Aristophanes: Studies in Athenian Old Comedy (2000) 453-71, esp. 455-8; I.
Ruffell, ‘The World Turned Upside Down: Utopia and Uptopianism’, ibid. 473-506, esp. 493-5), and therefore contemporary with the tragedies considered in 5093. But the fact that the formula is mentioned by Plato in Prot. 327c-d may suggest that our author has in mind Plato’s passage rather than anything about Pherecrates5 play.

5093. RHETORICAL EPIDEIXEIS

123

I he personification of literary genres recalls other well-known examples in classical literature:
Poetry appears to be the protagonist in two fragmentary eomedies both entitled IJoItjclc , one by Aristophanes (PCG III. 2, test. 2e.i8, 2a. 22, 1.59, frr. 466—467), the other by Antiphanes (PCG II, fr.
189). In the latter is also possible that the speaking character of the surviving fragment was in fact a personification of Comedy (see O. Bianeo, RCCAl 3 (1961) 91).

27- 8 The adjective xpiqcroc applied to Comedy seems to have an ethical eonnotation relating to the dramatic effectiveness of this genre in transmitting positive values; in this sense ef. the Italian translation of the adjeetive as ‘valido' at Arist. Poet . 1454a by P. Donini, Aristotele Poetica (2008) with detailed explanation at 103 n. 165.
fi LoXoyoc oeeurs in inscriptions to indicate a mime aetor; see F. Perpillou-Thomas, fPE 108

(1998) 230; the same meaning is to be found in VII 1025 7-8, ‘Engagement of Performers', assigned to the late 3rd e., from Euergetis, Cynopolite?). Cf. L. Robert, REG 49 (1936) 237-43 (= Robert,

Opera minora selecta: Epigraphie et antiquites grecques i (1969) 673—80); C. Roueehe, Peiformers and Partisans at Aphrodisias in the Roman and Late Roman Periods (1993) 19, 22; R. Webb, ‘Female Entertainers in Late Antiquity’, in P. Easterling, E. Hall (eds.), Greek and Roman Actors: Aspects of an Ancient Profession (2002)
282-303, at 290, 301-2. In 5093 the word seems to mean ‘imitating and representing ordinary life5.
Here it might be translated as ‘realistic’, but probably the author ehose the word earefully to suit his personification of Comedy as a eomie aetor (29—30). In this respect an interesting passage is [Longin.]
De subl. 9.15 tololvtol yap ttov ra rrepl rrjp rov ’ OSvccecoc tjOlkwc avrqj (sc. Homer) fi toXoyovpcera ocKcav olopel KcopuoSla rlc ecnp rjOoXoyovpLepr]] ef. Aristophanes of Byzantium, ap. Syrian, in Hermog. ii, p. 23 (= W. J. Slater, Aristophanis Byzantii Fragmenta fig86) vii, 2) w MevavSpe koI file, rrorepoc ap’ vpecov TTorepov ane paper) car o; D. A. Russell, Longinus: On the Sublime (1964) 99. Besides, Dion. Hal. Comp. Verb.
3.13 ealls the incidents of the arrival of Telemaehus at Eumaeus’ hut ( Od . 16.1—16) 77 pay peart' a rra fiiajT lkol, r)ppL7)vevpL€va vrrepev. For a similar definition of Comedy in comparison with Tragedy, see ‘Ex Seholiis in Dionysium Thrace iff (Scholia in Aristophanes : Prolegomena de comoedia , ed. W. J. \V. Koster,
I.iA,p. 73, XVIII b 2.5— I F Set Se yivcocKeiv , otl ttoXXt) Sca(f)Opd rrjc rpaycoSlac Kal rrjc KcopupSlac, on r) peep rpaycpSla it epl r)pa)LK(l)v rrpaypLarcop Kal TTpocdorrcop Xeyee, r) Se KcopecpSla arrpXXaKTai tovtcov Kal on rj peep rpaycoSia ra reXrj rrepl apaycov Kal povcov rj Se KcopecoSla rrepl apaypcopLCpeov-

Kal on rj peep rpaycpSla Icroplav Kal arrayyeXlap eyei rrpa^ecop yepopeepcop, rj Se KcopuoSla SidrrXacpLa fiuoriKwv 7TpaypLaT(x)p' Kal on ttolXlp rj peep rpaycpSla StaXvei top filop , rj Se KcopecoSla cvplcrrjcep ; ibid. p. 74, XVIII b 4.1—2 dpaycypcocKOpLev Se ra peep rjpcoLKa “ rjpcoLKcbc ” ijyovp peeyaXocpdjpcoc, rac Se KcopupSlac “ fiuonKOJc rjyovp Kara pelperjciv rov filov. Cf. ibid. p. 126, XX\ I.a; 1 heophrastus ap.
Diomedes, De eomeoedia graeea (Kaibel, CGF I.i, p. 57 = W. W. Fortenbaugh et al. (eds.), Theophrastus of Eresus: Sources for his Life. Writings , Thought and Influence , Part ii (1992) 552, no. 708): KcopuoSla ecrlv ISicotikojp TTpaypidnop olkIpSvpoc rreptoyf.

The adjectives and fi^oXoyoc here used to describe Comedy, especially if considered in the context of the severe eritieism of the way the violence of Tragedy fulfils the taste of the senseless crowd, seem to eontain an element of ethical and didaetie intention and attitude from the author. Clearly he has in mind the plays of the New Comedy, from which he quotes a typical formula in 29-30; moreover, the occurrence of the adjeetive fitoXoyoc may reveal the influence of the mime, extremely popular in Roman period. See also Suda <p 364 <PlXlctIcop, Ilpovcaevc, rj ojc (PIXcop CapSiavoc, KcopLtKoc . reXevrq Se errl CcoKparovc. oc eypaipe KCopecpStac fiioXoyiKac , reXevrq Se vrro yeXcoroc drrelpov , Spapcara Se avrov McpLof^ficral, where the phrase KcopupSlac fiioXoyiKac clearly indieates mimes.

28- 9 cuv|[w]So>v. I print this supplement exempli gratia since it is compatible with the space and the traees, which fit the right-hand diagonal of A and the join between this diagonal and the right-hand end of the horizontal base. For a similar shape of A, compare 10 ov Sep. Alternatively cvp\[rj]8cop, in the sense of ‘eustomary’, may be possible. It seems to be slightly less good for the traces

124

SUBLITERARY TEXTS

because 0 usually looks quite well rounded. However, we may observe that the central stroke of © is usually drawn in a single movement with the ligature with the following letter, so that, when this ligature lies in the lower part of the writing-space, the central stroke crosses the circle (which forms the body of the letter) at a rather lower point, as at 2 o0ev, 6 rtdelc, col. ii 10 Bela, 11 Oecic. Thus the traces at the beginning of 29 may be interpreted as follows: the slightly diagonal stroke may represent part oi the right-hand arc of the body of 0, while the join at line-level may represent the point where the central stroke crosses that circle, even though it seems to be slightly too low. For the iunrtura with cwco86c I have found no parallels, but cvvrjdrjc is used in reference to song in lulius Africanus, Cesti I.11.15 [cvvrjdojv pteXcov).

29-31 Cf the following passages from Menander: Dysk. 963-964 Id), ck8oto) / crcfiavovc tic rjfALv, SaSa; Mis. 459—460 77aiSapior, ai/tac 8a[8a] / cre^arouc t’ c[^]ovre[e] ; Sam. 731—732 8cvpo 8’rjiALv ck86toj tlc SaSa /cat crcfiavovc, tva / cvpmpoTrcpmojpicv. The same motif can be reconstructed in more fragmentary texts: Men. Sik. 418-20, fr. 903 and 910 K.-A.; see A. M. Belardinelli (ed.), Me- nandro Sicioni. introd. ^1994) 227-33. F°r comparable passages in earlier comedy see A. W. Gommc, F.
H. Sandbach, Menander: A Commentary (1973) at Dysk. 964. For the idea of rr pone pm av cf. Adesp. *925
K.-A., as emended by Bentley.

30 The adjective ctuvikioc is never applied to the noun Sac, but is frequently used in reference to song (for example in: Pi. K 4.78, Plu. Sertorius 22.4, D. S. 5.29.4, Philo, De ebrietate , 1 11.27, n5-23~4
Wendland, De vita Alosis , 1.284.2 Cohn), while the neutral form ctuvikiov can be used substantively in the sense of song of victory (see LSJ s.v. 11). Therefore 5093 seems to introduce a new iunctura.
Here the papyrus breaks off, but it seems that this is nearly the end of the speech: the author would conclude his own performance in praise of Comedy by alluding to the typical conclusion of a performance of Comedy itself.

I
ya ac
°p(f> ' [ # \ (jyacivOLT _ 7raAcuapLv6oAoyovvT

€77 . \ J vSiKrji 7]Lyv [ ] pTradrjyevojjL^otye cOcueLCcuSoveTTLa _ aycoyrjtTTapaLTrjcopie vovTOvcairapaLTrj < €OVK8taro€7Ttcrpa 5 fiv . I . . ]tt7TOTL>XetvS OCLLVtCCOpL€VOv[
ptv\ Jouo+aA LVOVKcocf)OLc9vpLr]pr][ aTTofioAr/KaTTpcLKT VTOpLTjyavacO
€77€tpac[j K f] Kal 'av8pOCOCO(f)Oce7TipLeAt T7]LyVK7TT0^€7TLapCLV07]LC0(f)LCpLa [

10 TTaprjyopLacovTTaprjyoprjpLaTa&LapLa yai2€UT60V7roAAaA[ j prjca vrecStev So^iAa^eAcafiVTopLO etovcvvcrrj a[ vTTeprovcweLVTOLC m ofi> /cYaure/xcr [ rrjva ^ Kocpcrjcac [ J vrarvy €cr t f 15 OVT€7tAoVCLCx)T avre(f)pav f ] 7T
TLT(JJ ' pi€pu)[ C. 5 \ VTj(f)VC cav [

5093. RHETORICAL EPIDEIXEIS

125

. L.[

€a>c[' . .]. ,[.]ev[

8poy[ c. 4 ] 77/x aca[

. [

T0VX[

Kade ouSetcf
77 pCOjLt [

«7<v[

TP°.[
S.i. .[

I,etSr)ix[

Kovcf)a[
pL7)8v ptav(j)y[

T €C

]’[

£.10 ] O C7]C€V7TOu8[

C. 9 ja AarapLa
£.12 ]pu;ya>/X€V

£. 26 lcaurop

Heading: a. , lower half of diagonal stroke in vertical alignment with tiny vertical trace in upper part of writing space a, remains of diagonal stroke slightly ascending from left to right, whose tip is linked with stroke approaching diagonal descending from left to right and ending up at mid-height in ligature with following letter
1 (f> [, left-hand arc ] /, trace at line-level, 2 mm further faded traces in lower part of writing space, in diagonal alignment ascending from left to right touching at mid-height curve approaching left-hand arc r , short vertical trace in lower part of writing space ; 1 mm further, trace at mid-height touching left-hand upright of following it 2 77 , vertical trace in lower part of writing space, possibly upright f, curve approaching left-hand arc with thicker upper part v , small right-hand arc in upper part of writing space; below, in vertical alignment, tiny trace at line- level _ rj , remains of crossbar in upper part of writing space and in ligature with following letter [, vertical trace in upper part of writing space ] , remains of' top and bottom of round letter? 3 a , remains of foot of upright? 4 rj , trace suggesting raised letter of smaller size as part of abbreviation e, top of round letter in upper part of writing space; below, slightly blurred vertical trace at mid-height 5 rj m , upper part of upright S # , tiny trace in upper part of writing space ; slighdy below, remains of stroke approaching diagonal ascending from left to right and touching top of following o ] , first, remains of top of round letter in upper part of writing space; second, remains of diagonal stroke ascending from left to right in upper part of writing space 6 A # , crossbar touching following 1 7 t(, left-hand arc 9 1 , remains of rather deep curve, in lower part of writing-space: loop? . [, dot below line-level, probably foot of upright 8 ' a,
thick trace at mid height attached to diagonal of previous A ^ [, remains ol left-hand arc 9 . [, very tiny and faded trace in upper part of writing space 10 # [, curve departing from lower extremity of diagonal of preceding a and curving to right n # [, thick trace in lower part

126

SUBLITERART TEXTS

of writing space 12 9 , short diagonal stroke descending from left to right in upper part of writing space e, trace at line-level, in vertical alignment with tip of curve approaching diagonal descending from left to right, in ligature with following e q , traces in upper part of writing space in roughly horizontal alignment 13 c , stroke, 1 mm long, approaching horizontal, lying in upper part of writing space and touching following o ^ , small left-hand arc lying in upper part ol writing space, possibly belonging to raised letter as part of abbreviation 14 a , first, left-
hand half of triangular letter, a or a; second, vertical trace in upper part of writing space, almost in vertical alignment with left-hand extremity of horizontal, 1 mm long, lying at mid height [ , upper part of left-hand arc whose upper extremity joins short vertical stroke 15 r # , short diagonal trace ascending from left to right protruding above writing space a, short vertical trace in upper part of writing space which may belong to upright or right-hand arc y , first, trace in upper part of writing space; second, left-hand arc 77- , short thick stroke, 1 mm long, approaching horizontal, at line-level [, trace in lower part of writing space 16 co , remains of two uprights, about
2 mm apart ] # , curve lying in upper part of writing space approaching right-hand arc c , trace at line-level # [, small left-hand arc 17 ] _ , first, fibres badly damaged: two traces in vertical alignment lying in upper and lower part of writing space respectively; 0.5 further, in upper part of writing space, stroke 1 mm long, approaching diagonal descending from left to right; second, trace in upper part of writing space in vertical alignment with stroke approaching diagonal, 1.5 mm long, lying at line-level: the complex may represent the extremities of upright or a dicolon (in fact there is some distance from previous letter) (x , trace in upper part of writing space, possibly tip of upright ] . > upright bearing stroke as sign of' abbreviation in the form of acute accent o < , diagonal, 4 mm long, descending from left to right, in upper part of writing space; below, very close to it, two tiny traces in vertical alignment in lower part of writing space 18 ] # , first, trace in upper part of writing space, followed, about 0.5 mm further, by extremely tiny trace lying in lower part of writing space; second, extremities of' diagonal descending from left to right and touching following e a , diagonal stroke, 1 mm long, ascending from left to right [, remains of lower part of upright? l9 ] . > horizontal stroke, 1.5 mm long, in upper part of' writing space jx [, extremely tiny trace at line-level [, very short diagonal stroke, 1 mm long, ascending from left to right in upper part of writing space 20 a as correction from previous fx? [, first, upright; 0.5 mm further, trace at mid-height approaching diagonal ascending from left to right; other trace approaching horizontal, lying at line-level, 2 mm distant from previously mentioned diagonal; second, vertical stroke, 1 mm long, lying in upper part ol writing space and joining at mid-height stroke 1 mm long approaching horizontal; to left, 1 mm distant, tiny trace protruding above writing space 21 [. first,
lower half of' left-hand arc; second, upright joining another stroke (not preserved) to right; third, upright with rather thick tip; fourth, blurred traces in diagonal alignment ascending from left to right in upper part of writing space; in vertical alignment with last trace to right, two tiny traces in vertical alignment lying in lower part of writing space; fifth, horizontal stroke, 1.5 mm long, in upper part of writing space, whose left-hand extremity is in vertical alignment with very tiny trace at mid-height ; its right-hand extremity touches tip of following letter; sixth, upright whose lower extremity presents tiny rightwards curve # . [, first, extremely tiny trace protruding above writing space; second, tip of upright protruding above writing space # [, very thin horizontal trace, 1 mm long, in upper part of' writing space 23 # [, scanty remains of lower part of left-hand arc 26 [, two traces in vertical alignment, respectively at line-level and in upper part of writing space 27 [, vertical trace at mid-height 28 § , stroke, 1 mm long, approaching horizontal, lying at mid-height and touching tip of following letter t m , diagonal ascending from left to right and protruding above writing space; close to it, at mid-height, two traces in horizontal alignment [, two tiny traces in vertical alignment in lower part of writing space 31 [, horizontal stroke, 1.5 mm long, in lower part of writing space 33 # [, diagonal descending from left to right in upper part of writing space, whose lower extremity joins at mid-height vertical stroke lying in upper part of writing space

5093. RHETORICAL EPIDEIXEIS 127

34 . [> very short diagonal trace ascending from left to right, possibly belonging to stroke protruding above writing space
ya ac

'Op<j>e[ a] /x(ey) (Jxjlclv ol ra ttolAollcl /JLvdoXoyovvr^ec) irrl E[v]pv8 LKTji rrji yv(ycuKL ) y\ tt ] cpTradij yevofxe{yov) otye- c9cu etc Al8oV €ttl a vaycoyrji TrapaLTrjcopLC- vov rove aTrapaiTrjripvc ) deovc k( at) Sid to ImcTpa-
(j)T)v[ai\ aTTOTvyelv, 8yo alvtccopLCvov [r]ou piv[d\ov, ot(l) dA y(e)LVOv k(gll) cocfroic 9vpir]pr)\c\ aTTofioArj k( ai) anpaKTOV to pLTjyavacdai.

€TT€Lpac(avTo) Kal /7(epi)arS poc 6 cocf)6c irrl MeAlc^crji]

TTji yv(vaLKl) k(clI) nToXiepLCLLOc) € 771 ApCLVOTjL CO(f)LCpLaT\ a |
Traprjyopiac ov TraprjyoprjpLaTa 8ta piay- yavevToov jroAAa A[r]\ prjcavTec. 8i€vc[yK(8)v)\

8’ 6 0iAaS(eAc/>oc) iAajcfrrj^ce) to Moycetov cvvcTrjca[c]

VTTCp TOV CVV€LV(ai) TOLC CO(f)o(iC ) k( at) TOOL T€pi€v\ei\

TTjV a8eA((j)r]v) Kocpcrjcac. [o] vt* dru%6CT€[par]
OVTC 7rAoVCia>T€paV T€<f)paV ' [ ] 7T

]a>v rj (f)vcic av c. 10 ] ijiepijoycrjc eu77cuS[
c-9
e. 12

TL TO)V pL€pto\ C. 5

/3aAAe[ t _ pi

. .1. . LM

9pov\ c. 4 ] 'T/pc
ac a

[

c. 26 c.18

| aAAa ra piicv) a
]pVXOJfX€v [
\cavT0p
]..[.].[

TOV )([
k adc ov8clc I

7Tp(jJpi\

cvc.[

TP° . [
8cl A [

&r]pL[

30 K0V(f)a[
pLTj8v t piav <f>y[

T€C t
].’[

128

SUBLITERART TEXTS

<rI he tellers of old stories say that Orpheus, on the one hand, full of suffering for his wife Eury- dice, went to Hades in order to beseech the unbeseechable gods for her return (to life) and, because he turned round, failed, the myth hinting two things: that even for wise men the loss of what is beloved is painful and (that) it is impossible to remedy. Both Periander the wise for his wife Melissa, and Ptolemy for Arsinoe, tried to apply sophisms of consolation instead of (real) consolations, resorting to sorcerers and doing many foolish things. However, Philadelphia, suffering with patience (or being superior or taking a different position), recovered (from his wife’s loss) by establishing the Museum in order to be with the wise and honouring his sister with the temenos . . .’

Heading: ya ac. This sequence raises several questions and requires a careful treatment, although it is not possible to offer a definitive solution. Its position in the middle of the line leads us to think that it is a title or a heading. One can compare the heading in — > ii g rd^earc lyKojpuo{v). This, however, at the same time supplies the subject of the following clause; this double function is clearly due to the particular nature of this piece, which consists of a series of concise notes rather than of a syntactically elaborated development of the exercise. The damaged sequence described above in the palcographical apparatus can be restored in two different ways:

(1) AiAAac, to be considered a geminated form (see Gignac, Grammar i 155 6) of the male personal name AzAac. This offers three possible interpretations, (a) It is the rare form of raXarrjc (gen.
-ou), son of Polyphemos and Galateia, the ancestor and eponymous hero of the Galatians (see Timae.
FGrHist 566 F 69 M; App. III. 2). The connection which can be establish between AdAac and the text is rather speculative. It concerns the figure of Ptolemy Philadelphus: he destroyed a group of mutinying Gaulish mercenaries (r.274-272 bc), an event celebrated by Callimachus {Del. 185-7) and linked by him with the earlier defeat of the Gaulish invasion of Greece [Dei 175 ff; Galateia , frr. 378-9; on this topic see S. Barbantani, 0artc viKTjpopoc: Frammenti di elegia encomiastica nelVeta delle Guerre Galatiche ,
Supple men turn Hellenisticum 958, 969 (2001), esp. pp. xi-xii, 160-65, J77“9» 181-223). (b) It is the name of the rhetor who composed the text, (c) If we provisionally assume that this text is an yffomua (see below), FdXac may be the name of the speaking character. However, this is only a speculative suggestion, since the extant text does not offer any really significant element to support it. Alternatively he could be the protagonist of the piece, a man who has lost his wife and to whom the author is offering exempla to take as models to overcome sorrow.

(2) AxA/3ac, as Parsons suggests, could be read assuming a rather cursive b in ligature with the following A. The personal life of the Emperor offers an element that seems to fit the topic of the piece: according to Suetonius, Galb. 5, the emperor was so attached to his dead wife Lepida that he refused to marry again. Taking into consideration that Galba died in 69 and that 5093 may be ascribed to the second half of the first century, there is what might be called a ‘chronological’ probability that the Emperor s marriage story represented a good piece of contemporary history for the author of’ our piece.

1-14 The author deals with a crucial aspect of human life: the reaction to the death of a loved one (6-7 9vfir)prj[ c] | aTTofioXrj), specifically a wife. He illustrates and supports his argument by means of three exempla concerning three famous figures: the mythical figure Orpheus, the historical- mythical figure Periander, and the historical figure Ptolemy Philadelphus. All three had to cope with the dramatic experience of the loss of their wives, and all three tried in the first instance to deal with it through ^xavdcOaL (7), i.e. through resort to devices and illicit means, a wrong choice that determined their failure. This is explicitly and fully illustrated in the case of Orpheus, the first exemplum , with a clear indication of the allegorical/philosophical meaning of the myth (5-6 S vo aiWco/xAou [t]ov j nv[0]ov). Through the generalization in 6-7, the meaning of Orpheus’ myth is applied to and further illustrated by the exempla of Periander and Ptolemy, which are introduced as two other cases of firjxavdcdai. This firjxaudcBa t consists of co^tc/iar[a] | rraprjyopiac (9-10) which are performed Sid

5093. RHETORICAL EPIDEIXEIS

129

ftay| yav€vrd)v (10-11), a suggestion of magical practices. These practices are considered foolish (10-11 noXXa X\rj\pr}cavT€c). However, Philadelphia eventually finds the right way to attain real consolation (i 1-14), a rational way, which consists of pursuing wisdom. Its concrete implementation is represented by the building/ foundation of the Museum and the institution of a community of wise men. This piece recalls motifs characteristic of the genre of the consolatio (see below 12-14 n.).

1-5 Concise account of Orpheus1 myth as it is appropriate for an exemplum. It consists of the two basic elements of this myth: the Karafiactc to Hades allowed to Orpheus by the gods in order to recover Eurydice from death, and the failure of his attempt because of his premature turning back to look at his beloved wife. "There is no explicit mention of the divine prohibition on looking back, nor mention of the power of Orpheus1 song to enchant Hades, two elements contained in other sources (see e.g. Apollod. 1.3.2; Conon, FGrHist 26 F 1 (XIA7), Verg. G. 453-525, and Ov. Met. 10.1-11.84).
However, several key words are comparable with the account given by other authors, in particular by Apollod. I.3.2: . . . Kat 'Optpevc 6 acKpcac Kt9aptv8tav, oc a8a)V eKtvet XWovc re /cat 8ev8pa. aTTodavovcrjC 8e Evpv8tK7]c rpc yvvatKoc avrov, 8r]x9etcr]c vrro expeoje, Kari]X9ev etc At8ov 9eXcov avayetv avayetv Heyne: ayayeiv A) a vrrjv /cat PlXovrcvva erretcev avairepopat. 6 8e virkcytTO rovro Trotrjcetv, av ptrj rropevoptevoc ’ Opcpevc €TTiCTpa<f>Tj it piv etc rrjv otKtav avrov 7rapayevec9ac 6 8e di Ttcrcvv emcr patpetc e9edcaro rrjv ywat/ca, rj 8e iraXtv vrreerpepev. Cf. D. S. 4.25.4 evveerparevearo 8e /cat rote Apyovavratc, /cat Sta rov epevra top irpoc rpv yvvatKa Karafirjvat ptev etc At8ov 1 rapaSo^coc eroXptrfce, rrjv 8e <Pepce(f)6vrjv Sta rrjc evpteXetac i/jvxayajyrjcac erretce cvvepyfjcat rate e7Tt9vpttatc /cat cvyx<Hprjcat rrjv yvvatKa avrov rereXevrrjKvtav avayayetv e£ At8ov 7Tapa7TX7]cta>c raj Atovvccy /cat yap eKetvov ptv9oXoyovctv avayayetv rrjv firjrepa CepteXrjv e£ At8ov, /cat ptera8ovra rrjc a9avactac ©vd)V7]v pterovoptacat.

6 cocpotc. This qualification, considered in the context of the philosophical interpretation of the myth of Orpheus (5-7) and compared to 8 IJ(ept)av8poc 6 co</>oc, shows that the author is implicitly referring to the Seven Wise Men, among whom both Orpheus and Periander were numbered. For Periander, see D. L. 1.13.1, 1.30.4, 1.42.4, 1.42.4; 1.98.13; AP VII 81.2, VII 619.1-2 ( ttXovtov /cat co<p tac Trpvravtv ), VII 620.3, IX 366.4 (where the Delphic v7ro9rjK7] 'XoXov Kpareetv ’ is ascribed to him; cf.
Sell, in Luc. 1.7; Suda tt 1067 mentions him as author of v7To9r)Kat). However, in the later tradition there are some attempts to exclude him from the group because of his reputation as a brutal tyrant, and replace him with Myson or Anacharsis or Epimcnides (see e.g. PI. Prot. 343a, Plu. Solon 12.7.4, ^u*
De E. apud Delphos, 385c, Id., Septem sapientium conviviurn 147c 9, Paus. 10.24.1).

6-7 9vptrjpr)[c] | ai ToftoXrj. In this context this expression clearly means ‘the loss of what is beloved’. If so, we expect 9vpppr][c in the genitive. The nominative — which is certain from the palaeo- graphical point of view — may be explained in two ways: (1) mechanical error; (2) hypaUage. 9vptrjpr]c is an adjective of a poetic, epic flavour, used in II. 9.336, Od. 23.232, Hes. fr. 43a. 20 with the noun aXoyov\ cf. Q. S., Posthomerica , 5.376 9vptr]pe a tckv a and 7.702 eov 9vptppea 7rat8a (both occurrences are at the end of the hexameter). However, there are occurrences in prose to qualify relatives and close people: Philo DeAbrahamo 245.11 Cohn (wife), Herodian. Hist. Regnum post Marcum 8.5.9 Lucarini (cptXovc), Jul. Epistulae dubiae 201.4 Bidcz (wife).

7 pt7]xavac9at. The verb is clearly used here with a negative connotation, confirmed by the expression in 9—10 co(ptcpLar[a] \ Traprjy optac. Tor this use cf. PI. Symp. 179^ containing a negative judgement on Orpheus, who, instead of offering his own life for his wife, attempted to bring her back to life by trickery: 'Opcpea 8e rov Ulaypov dreXrj arreTrepipav At8ov} (pa epa 8et£avrec rrjc yvvatKoc e<p} rjv rjKev, avrrjv 8e ov 8 ovrec, on ptaX9aKt£)ec9at e8oKet, are d>v Kt9apcp8oc, Kat ov roXp,av eveKa rov epcoroc a7To9vrjCKetv ajerrep AXktjctic , aAAa 8taptrjxavdc9at i^djv ectev at etc At8ov. For the use of the verb in relation to magic, sec Plu. De tuenda sanitate praecepta , 126a ovk ol8a 8 ' ovrtva rpoirov , r}p,wv rac ywatKac ocat cptXrpa jtx^yarcSrrai Kat yor]retac h Tt rove civ8pac f38eXvrropevojv Kat 8vcycpatvo- vroiVy pttc9o)roic re Kat 8ovXotc 7rpotepte9a ra etna Kat ra oipa ptovovov ptayyavevetv Kat (papp,arretv.

130

SUBLITERARY TEXTS

1 he trickery is to be linked with the traditional figure of Orpheus as master of music and song.
In this respect, he is often connected to the sphere of magic; see Apollod. 1.3.2 (quoted above, 1-5 n.)
. . . oc aheuv €klv€l AWovc re Kal ScVSpa; Verg. Culex 278-88, G. iv 464-86 (where Orpheus obtains the return of his wife because of the magic power of his rexvr] (aovcikt), which placates the infernal gods); Sch. in E. Ale. 357? where he is defined yorjTevc fi Oppeajc yvvrj EvpvSiKr ], rjc airodavovcrjc vrro o(f>€coc KareXdcov /cat rfj plovclkt} 8eA£ac toy TJAovrcova Kal rrjv Koprjv avrrjv a vrjyayev it; . 'Ai8ov );
Paus. 6.20.18 Tj^iov Se ovroc (o) Alyvirnoc etVat p,ev Apiplova, eivai Se Kal tov ©pa/ca 'Oppe a p.a- yevcai 8eivovy /cat ovtolc enaSovci 8r)pla re apiKveicdai rw 'Oppei /cat Apiplovt ic rac rov tcl^ovc ot/coSopiac rac nerpac ; cf. Philostr. VA 8.7.14, where Orpheus’ case is mentioned in relation to the passionate desire to bring a dead person back to life! . . . /catrot rroAAac av rfu^a^LrjV tvyyac vnep rrjc ckclvov ifjvyrjc yevec8a t /xot, Kal, vrj Al\ ei' Tivec'Oppecoc elclv vnep r oov arrodavovrcov p,eAcpStat, p/pS ’ eKeivac ayvorjcai, /cat yap av p.01 So/ca> /cat vrro ttjv yrjv Tropevdrjvat St * avrov , el e(f>LKra rjv ravra ktA. O11 Orpheus’ katabasis and dimension as ‘paradigmatic necromancer’, see also D. Ogden, Greek and Roman Necromancy (2001) 124-7.

8 /cat was first written in the usual abbreviated form k\ which was then deleted and replaced by the form written in full with the final t at a slightly smaller size above the line. This may be explained as follows. I he scribe, after writing k\ realized that the following word began with the abbreviation 7/; the succession of two abbreviations might cause confusion (at first sight at least) and therefore he preferred to delete the usual abbreviation of /cat and write the conjunction in full.

8-14 The general statement in 6-7 is further supported by the parallel exempla of Periander and Ptolemy Philadelphia, which are concisely presented together. Both attempted co(f>lcfxara naprjyoplac (9— io) as reaction to the death of their wives. As to what they actually did, the author gives only a hint in the phrase Skz p.ay\yavevra)v (10-11), ‘through sorcerers’. This element, together with the exemplum of Orpheus, suggests that Periander and Ptolemy tried to bring back their wives by magical means.
Some of this information is new. So far as I know, the extant sources about Ptolemy do not mention such a reaction to Arsinoe’s death. For Periander, w^e have two pardy relevant accounts. Herodotus 5.92 reports that Periander consulted the veKvopLavrrjiov on the Acheron in Thesprotia about a treasure buried by his dead wife Melissa (he had killed her, 5.50); Melissa appeared but refused to answer, saying that she was cold and naked, since the clothes buried with her had not been burnt; as a sign that it was really her, she alluded to the fact that Periander had had intercourse with her corpse. Periander then stripped the women of Corinth of their clothes, and burnt them with prayers to Melissa; when he sent a second time, her eiScaAov revealed the location of the treasure. Diogenes Laertius 1.94 adds the detail that he killed her in a rage, with a footstool, or by kicking her, when she was pregnant, persuaded by the slanders of his mistresses, whom he afterwards burnt. On Periander and Melissa, see Ogden, Necromancy 54-7. There are two possible connections between this story and the hints of 5093. (1) Periander had intercourse with his wife after her death. (2) He also summoned back her eiSa/Aor from the dead. In this case, as in Orpheus’ story, some form of pLrjxavacdai was used to get in touch with the dead in the underworld; in the cases of Periander and Ptolemy, this was ‘nonsense’
(Ar)pr)cavTec), presumably because the magicians were charlatans (see below), and the only true consolation was that of philosophy, namely, in a broader sense, wisdom.

Therefore I assume that the author thinks of both Periander and Ptolemy as seeking to communicate with their dead wives by means of veKpop^avreia. In the Suda puayyavela is explained as yo- yreia; under yo^reia a distinction is drawn between different kinds of magic: yorjrela Kal puayeia Kal (f)app.aKeia htapepovav . . . p.ayeia p.ev ovv ecjiv ei tikAyjclc Saipiovtov ayaOoTroitov Si^dev irpoc ayaOov tlioc cvcracLv, cocnep Ta tov AttoAAujviou tov Tv av£OJc OecmcpLaTa. yoipTeia §6 em tqj avayeiv veKpov 81’ eTTLKArjceajc, o8ev eiprjrai ai to tcoy yocov /cat tcov Sprjvcov rcov nepl rove rapovc yivopievcov ktA.
Cf. Philostr. 1715.12 . . . oi yorjrec, rjyovp,ai S’ a vrovc iyd> KaKoSatpiovecrarovc avd pevneov , 01 p,ev ic fiacavovc ei8a)Atov ycopovYrec , ot S ec Svciac fiapfiapovc, ol S’ ic to inacal tl rj aAelpai pLeTanoieiY

5093. RHETORICAL EPIDEIXEIS

131

<f>aci ra eLp.app.epa, Kai ttoXXol tovtcup Karrjy opiate viraydevrec ra roiavd ’ cbpoXoyr) cap c o(f)ol elvat.
0 h [/JttoAAojvioc] etTrero pe v role Ik MoLptup, TrpovXeye he, cue avaKyrj yevecdai aura, n poeyiypcucKe he OV yOTjTCVCUP , aXX C^ (i)P OL 0COL €<j)dtVOV\ 8.7.3 • . . CCTL he Tl . . . pevhoCOL^OL TC KO.L dyCLpOPTCC ,

6 {.tTj /. iavTiKTjv V7ToXafir}C3 ttoXXov pep yap a£la, rjp o.Xt]9€VT)L, el S ’ ecrl reyvr] ovttoj ofSa, aAAa rove yorjrac pevhocopovc <j)7]pi ktX. See also Jo. Chrys. in Matth. PG 57, 403.43-6 (sec below, 14 11.). In particular, Luc. Dem. 25 (see below; 14 11.) contrasts the philosopher as consoler with the pdyoc who claims to bring back the etStoAor of a deceased.

As regards Ptolemy, the author may develop this idea from the deification and Tepepoc of Arsi-
110c. It is worth noticing that the motif honouring the deceased wife or mistress with a monumental building also occurs in Melissa’s story (Paus. 2.28.4) ancl m the legendary tale of Harpalus and his mistress Pythionice, whose ghost — like Melissa’s ghost — wras invoked (Theopompus, FGrliist 115 F
253; Diodor. 17.108.5; Paus. 1.37.5; Plu. Phocion 22.1-4; Athen. XIII 594d~595c). The latter tale even inspired the fourth-century tragedian Python, who wrote the satyr play Agen (TrGF I, no. 91, F 1), where Babylonian payoL (who form the chorus) seem to offer to Harpalus to call back Pythionice’s ghost at a lakeside. Harpalus’ case shows a further element in common with Philadclphus: according to Theopompus (see above) Pythionice w^as worshipped as Pythionice Aphrodite, a fact that recalls Arsinoe’s apotheosis and cult (see below, 13 n.). On the two stories, see Ogden, Necromancy 9—11, 27,
51, 130, 132. The author of 5093 may also be influenced by the reputation of Egypt for magicians.
Heliodorus Aeth. 6.14.1-7 describes a peKpopapTcia performed on a corpse according to the Alyvrrrlcov copla , where the mother of a dead man, aiming to obtain information about the future, offers a libation with a human figure made of flour and her own blood, and pronounces ritual formulas: sec in particular the description of the temporary resurrection of the son in 6.14.4 irpoc tovtolc cttI top peKpop rov 7rcuSoc irpoc Kvi/iaca Kai tip a rrpoc to ovc errahoovea e^rjyeLpe Te Kai op9op ecTavai ttj payyapela KaT7]paya^ep , and the condemnation of these practices in 6.14,7 * • • €* vaL y^P oz^ rrpo^rj-

TLKOP OVTC OVTC TTapCLPaL TdiC TOLdLC he TTpa^CCLP, aAAa TO pLdPTLKOP TOVTOLC pLCP €K 9vCLO)P
evpopcup Kai evycbp Ka9apcup TrapayLPec9aL, tolc he fiefirjXoic Kai rrepi yfjp tcu optl Kai cwpara peKpcup elXovpepoLc ovtcuc cue tt)p AlyviTTiap opdp r) tov Kaipov TrepLTTTcucLC epheheuKe and 3.16.3 H pep yap [rj Alyv7TTLO)p copla] tlc ecri hrjpajhrjc Kai due ap tlc clttol yapai epyopeprj, elhwXcup 9epdrraLpa Kai rrepi ccupaTa peKpcup elXovpepr], fioTapatc TrpocTeTTjKvla Kai erTwhalc errapeyovea, Trpoc ovhep aya9ov tcXoc ovtc a vtt) 77 po'iovca ovtc tovc ypeupepove (frepovea, aAA’ a vttj Trepi avTTjp ra 7xoAAac 7rratouca XvTrpa he tip a Kai yXicypa cctlp otc Ka9op9ovca , paPTaclac tcup prj optcop coc optcop Kai arroTvylac Ttbp eXrTL^opepcop, TTpd^ecop d9epLLTWP evpeTLC Kai rjhopcbp aKoXacTcop vrrrjpeTLC.

The mismatch between the hiew^ information’ provided by 5093 and the material contained in other sources leads us to consider carefully the reliability of this information. As 12-14 illustrate, the author manipulates and freely exploits historical figures and events to support his own argument (cf. introd. and -> iv 1-14 n.).

9- 11 Cf. Theodor. Interpretatio in xii prophetae minor es, PG 81, 1585.7—10 IJeipaTf} he ttjp leyvp avTrjc drreiKacep , eTrechr) yorjTLKatc payyaveiaic Kai coplcpiaci tlcl fxefxr^xav'qpievoic, tcic tcup elhcuXojp eTTOLOVPTO KLPTj CCLC.

10— 11 p,ay\yapevTcbp. The noun fxayyapevTpc is attested only three times (Eus. Dem. Ev. 3.6.1;
Phot. Lexicon s.v. 8 Theodoridis = Suda s.v. 3; plus two occurrences in Byzantine times, in Nicetas Choniates, Historia ), while the feminine form ^ayyapeoTpia is used as a gloss of fiaf-ifiaKevTpLa and synonym of </>apfia/acca; see Hcsych. s.v. /3ap,/3a/ceuTpiat, and [Jo. Chrys.] De Cananea PG 52, 453. 1.
But w;ords with the same root often occur in association with pdppiaKa and irrcphal PI. Gorg. 484a;
Dem. InAristog. 1.80; Luc. BisAcc. 21.8; Max. Tyr. 23.3; Lib. Or. i 245, vol. i, p. 189 Foerster): thus the pLayyapevTrjc is a magician and a charlatan; cf. Dem. in Aristog. I 80 p.ayyapevei Kai </>era/d£ a; Luc.
Alex. 6 yoj]TevopTec Kai piayyapevopTec Kai tovc 7ra^6tc . . . airoKelpopTec] Eus, Dem. Ev. 3-G-1 ^ Si) pLayyapevTrjc tlc rjp Kai pappLaKevc, aTraTCcup tc Kai yorjc rreue ap TOLavTrjc StSac/caAtac. Moreover,

132

SUBLITER ART TEXTS

Phot. Lexicon s.v. 8 Theodoridis = Suda s.v. 3 gives the definition 6 puyvvc TravToSana irpoc ^cvaKtcpLov.
Such people may sacrifice children to avert fate (D. C. 73.16.5), change their shape (Luc. A sin. 11) or make spirits speak through other bodies (Jo. Chrys. In Matth. PG 57, 403.43-6 . . . 77-etcat Salpiovac (f)9cyycc9 at St’ avTojv oi ra rotafra piayyavcvciv ToXpLajvrec, ottov ye Kal vvv ol rac vcKpopLavTclac roXficovrec rroXXa tovtojv arorfeorepa emyeipova).

11 Stere[y/<(<w)]. The short space available leads me to assume an abbreviated form of the participle with raised k at line-end. This participle may mean ‘suffering with patience’, or ‘being superior’, or possibly "taking a different position'.

12 14 The Museum was founded around 280 bc, i.c. around a decade before the actual death of Arsinoe 11, by the predecessor of Philadclphus, Ptolemy Soter (see P. M. Fraser, Ptolemaic Alexandria (1972) i 314-15; J. McKenzie, The Architecture of Alexandria and Egypt, 300 BC - AD yoo (2007) 33, 37, 41,
5o)- Philadclphus, however, through his generous patronage remarkably developed this institution and the connected Library (see Fraser, Ptolemaic Alexandria i 306, 321-5; McKenzie, Architecture of Alexandria, locc. cit.). The concise statement of 5093, which presents the founding of the Museum as Ptolemy n’s specific means of overcoming his sorrow for the death of' his wife, represents a typical case of the exploitation and often distortion and manipulation of historical data to support a specific argument; see Russell, Greek Declamation, on the relationship between declamation and history (chap. 6, pp. 106-28).

Some lines of Herodas 1 26-31 include </>tAoco</>ot, the Movcytov, and re/xeroc (see below) among the glories of Egypt! Kei S’ cctIv olkoc rye 9coi 3* ra yap rravra , / occ’ cctl kov kcll yiver \ cct ’ iv AlyvTTTOJU / ttXovtoc, iraXalcTpy , Sura puc, euS ly, So£a, / deat, <f>i\oco<f)oi, ypuctov, vcyvi ckol, / 9cojv a8eX(/)d)v rejxevoc , 6 fiaciXevc ypyerbe , / Movcytov, olvoc , aya9a rravr' oc ’ av xpyfyi. The noun <f>tXoco<f)oi is used in documents of the Roman period to indicate the members of the Museum (cf.
P. Pruned, "II termine OIAOCOOOC nei papiri documentari’, in M. S. Funghi (ed.), fOSot S fyaoc = Le vie della ricerca: Studi in onore di Francesco Adorno (1996) 389-401, esp. 390-91 ; D. Obbink, ‘Readers and Intellectuals’, in A. K. Bowman et al. (eds.), Oxyrhynchus: A City and Its Texts (2007) 271-86, esp.
272, 280-81).

13 virep tov cvv€iv(at) role co<j>o(ic). This expression recalls the image of the historical community" of scholars in the Museum. See Strabo 17.1.8'. ... to Movcclov cyov TrcplrraTov teal c^cSpav Kal olkov pieyav, cv cb to cvccltlov tojv pLCTcyovToov tov Movcclov <f>iXoXoyojv avSpcbv. cctl S e ry cvvohcp TavTy Kal xPVPara f<oiva Kal Upcvc 6 cnl toi Movceicp ktX. For the designation of these scholars as <f)iXoXoyoi in the broad sense of "men of culture’, see Fraser, Ptolemaic Alexandria i 317-18, ii 471-2 n. 90, 917 n. 293. This noun also occurs in P. Mil. Vogl. I 18, col. vi 3, Diegesis in Call. Iambus I (fr.
191 Pfeiffer, vol. I, p. 163-4), as a ^ater correction of a previous <£tAoco</>ot; for the use of the latter see above, 12— 14 n.
ran Tepiev[eL j. The dedication of the rcpLcvoc is to be considered in the context of the institution of a cult of Arsinoe just after her death, which probably occurred in 270 bc. (for recent bibliography on the debate on this question, see McKenzie, Architecture of Alexandria 386 n. 144). This cult is separated from the cult of the Theoi Adelphoi, which Ptolemy 11 had established for himself and his sister already by 272/1 (P. Hib. II 199. 11-17 shows that in this year their names were added to that of Alexander in the titulature of the eponymous priesthood: see Fraser, Ptolemaic Alexandria i 216, 228-9;
S. Muller, Das hellenistische honigspaar in der medialen Representation: Ptolemaios II. und Arsinoe II. (2009)
246-50, 260, 262-6, 280-300, 329-35). Herondas i 30 refers to a Tcpccvoc of this cult (see Fraser, Ptolemaic Alexandria ii 385-6 n. 367, 876-8 n. 30).

The Tcpievoc of Arsinoe is mentioned in P. Mil. Vogl. I 18, col. x 10 13 = fr. 228 Pfeiffer, vol. 1, p. 218: ck9ccoclc Apcivoyc: AycTOJ 9coc, ov yap cyaj S lya to>v S’ olclBclv Ek\9ccoclc A pcivoyc' (fjyclv Se avryv avy prrac\9aL vtto tojv Alockovpojv Kal fiojpLov Kal Tc\pcvoc avTyc Ka9i8pvc9at rrpoc tool EpL7TOpioji. Gf. also Sell. BE II. I3*7°3 olvottc] otVcoSetc etc to opav. ol Se pcXavec, ojc “olvorra ttovtov (//. 1.350)”. Kal riToXcpaLOC yap etc to Tyc Apcivoyc fytAt apoTpov (ytA tapovpov Wilam)

5093. RHETORICAL EPIDEIXEIS

133

t€{X€voc fi€ Xavac ivrjKe fiovc. If xiAiapoepoe is correct, this may be a different institution, since the area would be too large for a temple in the centre of Alexandria (see Fraser, Ptolemaic Alexandria i 25, ii 72 n. 167, 72—3 n. 168), unless the size of 1,000 arourai derives from confusion with the Egyptian hieroglyphic term for 'a thousand', 10 square khet or 10 arourai, as McKenzie, Architecture of Alexandria 386 n. 151, points out. Pliny JVH 34.148 mentions a temple of Arsinoe at Alexandria, left unfinished at Ptolemy ii’s death; this should be the same as the Arsinoeum mentioned at 36.68 (Ptolemy set up a statue of Arsinoe in topaz). Presumably the repievoc mentioned in 5093 should be identified with Callimachus’ Tepievoc and Pliny’s Arsinoeum. On the temenos and Arsinoe’s cult, efi McKenzie, Architecture of Alexandria 51-2; Muller, Das hellenistische Aon igspaar 281—3.

14 KocfjLTjcac. For the use of Kocpie w with the instrumental dative, cf. [Callisthenes] Historia Alexandri Magni, recensio a, 1.33.11 (w. 14-17 of the oracular quotation) [sc. ttoXlc] xatpwv Se nXeicToov
KILL ypOVWV TTpofiaiVOVTCOV / KCLVTrj 7Tpofil)C€T' €V ayaOoLC } KOCpLOVpL€V7] / VCLOlCl TToXXoiC KOLL T€pL€V€CL
ttolklXolc / KaXXei re \xeye9ei rwv oyXajv einrXrjdeLa.

The final decision of Ptolemy 11 and his relationship with the copoi may be compared with a sort of stereotype found in other sources: the figure of the copoc (usually a philosopher) as admon- isher and adviser of a figure of authority who expresses excessive and irrational mourning for the death of a loved one. This is illustrated by the following passages.

(1) Plu. Cons, ad Ap. 104c presents philosophy as means of recovering from the death of sons:

TOVTOLC S’ €7TOfX€VOC KOLL O KpOLVTWp 7Tapapiv9oVpL€VOC €7Tl TTj T<1)V T€KV(1)V TeXeVTTj TOV iTTTTOKXea pTjCl' ravra yap 7rdca avrrj rj apy ala ptXocopla Xeyei re /cat rrapaKeXeveTai. d>v el S rj tl aXXo perj arro-
S eyo\xe9a> to ye noXXayrj etvai epyd>Srj /cat Suc/coAov tov fitov ayav aXr)9ec.

(2) Philostr. VS II 556-8 reports the story of Herodes Atticus, exhorted by Lucius, avrjp copoc, iv role pavepoic crrovSaioc, Movcwvlco rw Tvplw TrpocptXocoprjcac. Lucius criticizes the excessive manifestation of sorrow by Herodes for the death of his wife Regilla (. . . e/<77€C<w a£ta rov 7rev9eic9ai TTparreLc rrepl rfj 8 o^rj KtvSwevooVy cf. 5093, n 7roAAa X[rj]pr)cavr€c) and finally persuades him to givre up his ridiculous behaviour, which consisted of keeping his house completely decorated in black in her honour. Analogous advice to maintain self-control is given to Herodes by the philosopher Sextus for the death of his daughter.

(3) Luc. Dem. 25 O S’ aeroc vlov tt€v9ovvti /cat ev ckotco eavrov Ka9elp^avrt
7TpoceX9d)v eXeyev puayoc re etvai /cat Swac0at avreo avayayeiv rov natSoc to erSajAor, el piovov avTW
Tpetc Ttvac av9pd>rrovc ovopiaceie parjSeva rroorroTe ner7ev9rjKOTae' enl 7toXv Se eKelvov evSoiacavToe /cat a7 TOpovvToc — ov yap elyev rtva, otpat, elrreiv tolovtov — Elt \ eprj, d) yeXoie, piovoc apoprjTa rracyeiv vopil^eic pcrjheva opdjv Trev9ovc dpboipov;

(4) With regard to consolation specifically concerning Ptolemy Philadelphus and Arsinoe 11 and their relation with copoi , note Plu. Cons, ad Ap. nifi-ii2a, where Arsinoe is persuaded to give up immoderate mourning for the death of her son thanks to a tale about the origin of the deity7 Alev9oe narrated to her by one of the apyalojv piXocopoov. T. his philosopher is to be identified with Straton, who wrote a letter to Arsinoe (D. L. 5.60), or with Xenocrates, wiio wrote a Aoyoc ApcivorjTiKoc in honour of Arsinoe after her death fD. L. 4.15).

14-34 The rest of the column is so badly preserved that it is not possible to give a satisfactory7 account of the content. However, two observations are to be made. (1) from the palaeographical point of view7 this portion of text presents five paragraphic whereas there are no paragraphi at all in lines 1-12, and the scribe rarely uses them elsewhere. This w7ould lead us to ask whether such paragraphi mark sections of text rather than sentences. On the other hand, there seems to be a paragraphns below line 13, which is either mistaken or intended to mark the beginning of a substantial new phrase within a sentence. Further, two sections (lines 15-25 and 29-34) are in ckthesis, as is done for instance to show lemmata in commentaries. Both features may indicate subdivisions of the text, and the possibility that quotations were inserted, possibly verses (but note that in — > iv 4 6 the tw7o iambic lines are quoted

134

SUBLITERARY TEXTS

within the text, as a part of the discourse, without any layout device to distinguish them). Moreover, in 14-17 the blanks after Kocpafjc ac and after /3aAAe[ ] should mark pauses. (2) From the point of view of content, the legible sequences suggest supplements that may be related to the context of death and grief presented in the earlier part of the column. The problem is to distinguish the quotations, if they are present, and their metrical pattern, if they are from poetry, and to find a clear syntactic articulation. In any case, the nature of the text, if it consisted of separate notes or quotations, as in the iyKojfjuov ragecoc of -> ii, may explain the difficulty of finding a coherent syntactic structure.

14-18 I he only sequence that could be reconstructed to any degree of certainty is 14-15 [o] vt* a rvyecrelpav] \ ovre TrXovcLOjrepav reppav. Note that the final v in 14 is assumed to be written above the penultimate letter of the line as in -> iv 15, 19, 27. The ‘ashes’ of the dead suit the context;
‘richer ashes’ sounds poetical, and one could think of a hitherto unattested poetic quotation that seems to give the key of the sense of the passage: ‘[whatever we experience in life (Nature?/Fate?) will not make us / leave us as] ashes that are not unhappier or richer [than anyone else’s?]’; but see below for different attempts at a more complete articulation. One could propose two possible metrical constructions: (1) Iambic trimeters, but with the omission — at least at first sight — of three syllables before oure, i.e. *. ovr ariyecrepar x — w ovre rrXovcLcorepav reppav. Alternatively one may think that in fact the author did not omit anything, but abbreviated the first adjective as drityecTe(par) and wrote another word at line-end, a three-syllable word, necessarily with a very heavy abbreviation to reduce it to two or three letters. (2) 1 rochaic tetrameters. The pattern may be reconstructed by placing one extra syllable at the end of 14 within the lacuna, assuming that the adjective was abbreviated in the form exempli gratia arvy^cr^pav), as Parsons suggests: [o]zV <XTityecTe[(pav) y(dp)] | ovre TrXovciwrepav reppav. However, one could object that the second element replaces the normal short syllable with a double-short, a phenomenon occasionally attested in Aristophanes and Menander (see M. C. Mar- tinelli, Gli strumenti del poeta : Element i di metricagreca (19972) 128), so that methodological caution would prevent us from assuming it in a fragmentary context.

If we give up the attempt of reconstructing a clear-cut metrical pattern for the following part of the text and assume accidental unmetrical quotations by heart or a more or less intentional paraphrase of verses mixed together with segments of actual verses, further supplements that suit sense and context could be suggested for the second part of 15 and 16. In 15, if the syntax continues, we need a verb to govern the accusative. The writing after reppav is damaged, but I think that exempli gratia Ae[ij7rei could be read. On the assumption that the sequence is a quotation, and possibly with omissions, we can explain the lack of a subject: it could have been mentally supplied by the audience/ readers if the quotation were from a well-known poem. The paragraphus in 15 should indicate a syntactic break at line-end; at the beginning ol 16 the sequence rt revv pe/xo[ r.5 ]o>v should represent the beginning of a new sentence; it suggests a perfect participle middle-passive. Possible supplements include: pepto[tpa/xev]cpv (or iaep,o[prjp,ev]cov) ‘things fated , pL€fAo[xOrjpi€v]cov ‘things toiled over’, pue- fAo[yr]p,€v\a)v ‘things endured’. The initial n might represent the interrogative or indefinite pronoun: less likely it might continue a word from the previous line (e.g. dv]|rt: in that case we should assume at line-end a with superscript v\ since the paragraphus in 15, if not misplaced, should indicate a break at line-end. Within the line, 7) pvcic can be distinguished.

Then a possible supplement between 16 and 17 is dva|/3dAAe[T]cu or ave\paXXe[r]o (the trace seems more suitable for e, but might perhaps belong to the top of a ; with the second form we have to explain the extra ink visible after -[t]9, perhaps as a clicolon). In general, the idea that death is fated and natural and cannot be postponed could suit the context. The syntax might be rl rd>v pquo[t- pafiev]a)v rj pvctc dva\PaXXe[r]ai; ‘What part of things fated does Nature delay?’ It is more difficult to relate this with lines 14-15, although we could supply an extra connection by writing p,ep,o[ipap,e- v(aiv)] (Lv assuming abbreviation in lacuna, instead of f.iep,o[ipa^ev]cpv. In 17 the sequence Tj{epi)ovc7]c et>77aiS[ may be supplemented in two ways. (1) 7r(ept)ouo?c ev7TatS[lac.]; cf. fr. 7. 4 ?evr]eKvla. Taking

5093. RHETORICAL EPIDEIXEIS

135

into consideration the space available at the end of the line, I am inclined to assume that the final c of the word was raised above the line. In the context, a good family of children surviving — surviving would be particularly poignant in relation to the normal level of infant mortality in Antiquity — would represent a likely motif of consolation. More specifically Parsons thinks of ‘children surviving the death of the wife and notes that Cxalba also lost both his sons (Suet. Galb. 5). (2) ] rr{ept)ovcT]c evirat-
S[euc(mc)] : in this case, I assume an abbreviated form by suspension at the end of the line. evnouSevcta means ‘good education’, ‘culture’. 1 his too would suit the context, given the emphasis on co<f)ta as the true consolation for bereavement. ij(€pi)oycr)c might then means ‘surviving’ (in relation to death), or alternatively ‘superior’. In either case, to provide a construction for the genitive, we could consider supplementing the beginning of the clause as e.g. pi€[(ivrpie(voc) rrjc\ or pL€[\6pLe(yoc) tt)c].

18-20 In 19 the sequence ]pvycopi€v # [ suggests some form of rpvxow/rpvxco = ‘wear out’,
‘exhaust’, or of one of its compounds: e.g. r]pvxtopi£v, r€r]pvxco^v-. Alternatively a form from fipv-
XaopLcu , in the sense of ‘lamenting’, would be possible. A possible pattern for 18-19 could be ra fi(ev) a. [. ]\9pov[vT€]c r)pLe[tc, ra Se k(cu) Karar]pvxu>pi£vo[L, assuming that the main verb of the sentence falls in lacuna at 20. For the first participle one could suggest ap[a]\6povv[ri\c, ‘looking up at’. The meaning of the passage could be ‘. . . looking up at something, being exhausted or overwelmed from other things . . .’. In 20 one could think of an articulation such as a ca[, but also of a form of the adjective aca^c, -ec, or a corresponding adverb or a form of the noun acafieta, to be related to the notion of die obscurity of destiny/future or death. Alternatively a form of the adjective dcdAeuroc.
-or, ‘unmoved’, ‘unshaken’, or a corresponding adverb, may be compatible with the same notion. So is the general meaning of 18-20 that, whatever we look at or we have experienced, destiny and future remain obscure and unpredictable to us?

20 ]cavrop [. The sequence could be articulated as ] cavro p _ [ or as ]c avrop # [.

24-5 Possibly a participle rre Wnpcofi-, in the sense of ‘fated’, which would suit the context.

fr. 3 -+

]....[

J^TOc^a
]cu rjvdaXa * [

€7TavTcotrj8vy€^ [

5 ] poVCK<JL)(f)d€VT€C

] covavairaWaKTO

]€^8€OjjLevovyProj [

]v€(f)7]a^cov ' pay 00

' pLr}8€K<JL>ll[

10 ]..[

li?..d
]co( ) to c<f> a ]co ' trjv daXa t(t-)[

]ay( ) €7Ty avron rj8vy€X(oj -1 /x[

J €pOV CKCO(f)d€VT€C Vlj[6

]cov avairaXXaKTOv \ yleX^coroc) 8€opi€VOV yp(a<f>-) too [
\v €(f) 7] a£cov Tpaypj(8tac) j per] Sc Kojpi[cp8ia-

]..[

1 ] [, first, lower half of oval descending below writing space, possibly b; second, vertical trace in lower part of writing space, possibly part of upright; third, tiny trace at line-level; fourth, tiny trace at line-level 2 [, lower part of upright slightly slanting to right 3 ]o> # , first,
short stroke, slightly slanting to right and descending below line-level; second, lower part of upright descending below line-level; third, very tiny trace at line-level; fourth, two tiny traces roughly in vertical alignment lying at line-level and at mid-height respectively; 0.5 mm further short horizontal trace

136

SUBLITERARY TEXTS

in upper part of writing space touching following letter 4 ] . . » complex consisting of remains of triangular letter, A or a, and superscript letter, consisting of upright joining to left at mid-height another stroke (not preserved) _ [, diagonal ascending from left to right joining at mid-height another partially preserved stroke approaching horizontal 5 ] , stroke approaching horizontal at mid-height; in upper part of writing space two traces very close to each other in diagonal alignment ascending from left to right and roughly in vertical alignment with tiny trace lying at line-level c < , upright whose upper part slightly slants to left and joins at mid-height another partially preserved stroke approaching diagonal ascending from left to right # [, tiny trace at line-level 6 r, correction currente calamo from a previous 6? m [, upright with thick tip 7 [, upright 8 p,
trace in upper part of writing space [, remains of upright g ] 5 very tiny trace at mid-height 10 ] _ [, first, very tiny trace in upper part of writing space; second, trace of stroke protruding above writing space, possibly upper extremity of diagonal stroke descending from left to right

1-10 As said in introd., the content of the fragment is thematically very close to the subject treated in lr. 1+2 — ► iii — iv, but no physical join can be found. Lines 8 and 9 suggest a syncrisis between Tragedy and Comedy, a topic compatible with the references to laughter in 4 (and perhaps in 7) and to the scoptic element in 5. In 8 an authority seems to be mentioned (cf. fr. 4.18, iq). Taking into consideration the possibility that fr. 3 belonged to the same composition as fr. 1+2 iii-iv, some observations may be made. Col. iv breaks up at a point seemingly coinciding with the very end of the speech (23-33), including a brief syncrisis between Tragedy and Comedy: this makes it unlikely that fr.
3 was placed afterwards in the lost part of the column as a part of the same epideixis. Alternatively, one could place fr. 3 in the lost part of col. iii: however, the text of this column seems to focus on the sanguinary aspects of Tragedy, and its argumentation seems to carry on straightforwardly in col. iv, so that a section considering also Comedy coming in between, though not implausible, does not seem to be the most likely possibility. Therefore I am inclined to think that the fragment belonged to another part of the same roll. Similar observations may be made for fr. 4 also: moreover, this fragment presents two forked paragraph, which may indicate different sections, but in any case it shows striking thematic similarities with fr. 3 (see below, fr. 4.1—20 n.). On this basis I do not rule out the possibility that the two fragments belonged to the same composition, although no physical join can be found. In any case the fragmentary state of the two fragments does not allow us to distinguish a clear development of a coherent argument to establish which of the two fragments could have come first in the hypothetical composition to which they both may have belonged. In other words, the sequence Tr. 3 followed by fr. 4' is purely editorial.

In general on the syncrisis between Tragedy and Comedy, see Scholia in Aristophanes: Prolegomena de comoedia , ed. Koster, XIc: Anonymi Crameri 11, pp. 44-5, 46-9 lSlov Sc /co^cpSt'ac fxev to piepuypik- vov €X€LV tolc c/cco/x/xaa ycAcora, Tpaycoblac Sc rrkvftr) /cat c vpicpopac- carvptKrjc Sc ov to ano 1 rkvOovc etc xapap Ka-TavTav, c be 6 EvpiTrlSov VpkcTrjc /cat ’AXktjctlc /cat rj CocpouXtovc HAc/crpa, c/c pulpovc , a)C7T€p Tivkc (pactv, aXX> ap,iyfj /cat ^api'cv-ra /cat dvpLtXtKov c^ct ykXcoTa, olov • 7/pa/cA^c npadeic rep cvXei (be yecopyoc SouAoc ccraArai etc top aypop top apu neXcova ipyacacda t, dpecnaKOic Sc St/ccAA??
7 Tpoppl^ovc rac apLneXovc ktX.

A point of particular interest is the mention of what seems to be an authority on Tragedy and Comedy. The fragmentary state of the text leaves the question open to speculation, and at the same time requires extreme caution. The authority par excellence on Tragedy and Comedy of whom one may think in the first place, is of course Aristotle, but other authors could also be considered: Theophrastus, author of a 77cpi yeXoiov (D. L. 5.46 = fr. 130 Wehrli, Athcn. VIII 348a = fr. 710 Fortenbaugh) and a 77cpt /cco^cpStac (D. L. 5.47, Athen. VI 26id = fr. 709 Fortenbaugh = 124 Wimmer); Lycophron, author of a 77cpt Ka)fxcp8lac in at least nine books (Athcn. VII 278a b = fr. 19 Strecker, Athen. XI
483d = fr. 83 Strecker); Eratosthenes, author of a IJepl ap^atac KcopLcoSlac in at least twelve books

5093. RHETORICAL EPIDEIXEIS

137

(Athen. XI 501 d = fr. 25 Strecker); Chamaeleon of Hcraclca Pontica, author of a IIcpl rf}c apyalac Kto^cpStac in at least six books (Athen. IX 374a = fr. 43 Wehrli = Anaxandrides test. 2 K.— A., Athen.
4o6e = fr. 44 Wehrli); Crates of Athens, author of a IIcpl Kwpuphlac (D. L. 4.23 = FGrHist. 244 F 14).
See also R. Janko, Aiistotle on Comedy: Towards a Reconstruction of Poetics ii (1984) 44—7. Moreover, note that in fr. 14.3 Aristophanes of Byzantium is probably mentioned. Alternatively, we can consider the possibility of a reference to an obscure or completely unknown author. In this respect it is worth mentioning the grammaticus Soteridas ( Suda s.v. 875), author not only of a IIcpl KtopupSi ac, but also of a vTTopivrjpLa etc Mevavhpov, and an etc EvpLTrlSrjv. In any case, various literary works on these topics were certainly in circulation. In the case of Oxyrhynchus, for example, XVIIII 2192, the well-known sccond-century letter containing a list of books as desiderata, mentions a work by Hypsicrates entitled K<upoi)?>6vpi€voi/ Koopaphovpeva (col. ii 28 -9), Characters/Topics in Comedy (see die re-edition by R.
Hatzilambrou in Bowman ct al. (eds.), Oxyrhynchus : A City and Its Texts 282 6): the fact that other works with the same title are mentioned in ancient sources suggests that KoopLtpSovpLCPoi/ Kco pccoS ovpccpa represented a sort of genre in its own right.

2-3 In 2 different supplements can be proposed: c</>ay[ioiy ‘sacrificial victim’/ ‘sacrifice5, or cpayfyaL, ‘to be slaughtered’, or c</>ay[ia^av/c</)ay[ux^cc0at, ‘to be sacrificed’. In any case it is not implausible to think of a reference to tragic plots. Alternatively a reference to the sacrifices performed at the altar of Dionysus on the occasion of performances is not to be ruled out; see A. Pickard-
Cambridge, The Dramatic Festivals of Athens (19682) 61. Moreover, one may think of a metaphorical meaning of the (assumed) slaughter/sacrifice: the victim may be the (personified) Tragedy as bad literary genre, as in fr. 1+2 — >iv 23-7, where it is sent away to the wild men. A reading c<f>aX[- is also possible: e.g. c<f>a\[pLa or c<f>dX\Xctp/c(f)dX[Xcc9aL.

The most straightforward way to articulate the sequence in 3 is tt)p OaXafrav) (for the abbreviation cf. fr. 1+2 ii 13). It is very difficult to relate this to the context, but one could take into consideration several possibilities. (1) It could be a reference to the fact that the Great Dionysia took place at the end of March, when the seas were navigable; see Theophr. Char. 3.3 rrjv daXarrav Ik Alopvclojp 7tX oLfiov elvat (on a typical topic of the dSoXccyrjc; cf. Pickard-Cambridge, Dramatic Festivals 5 8 n. 5).
(2) Another possible connection widi dramatic performances and the sea seems to be suggested by Eust. in Od. 1472.4—6 on the names of theatres: Ictcop Sc otl tKpia irpoTrapo^vrovcoc cXcyopTo Kal tcl cv rfj ayopa a <f>> (Lp c9ca)i no to TraXatbv roue zhoi'ucia/couc aycovac TTptvrj cKCvacdrjvat to cp Atovvcov dear pop. otl Sc ra rotaura dcaTpa OaXacca kolXt] cXcyopTo, Ilavcaplac SrjXot. (3) The sea could be connected with the sales of Comedy. In this respect see e.g. Plu. Mor. 854c . . . popat al McpapSpov KOjficpSlaL d<f>9opcop aXcop Kal IXapwv pLCTcyovctp, cbcircp it; ckclpt]c ycyopoTCOP Trjc OaXaTTrjc , Ijc A<f>poSlTrj ycyopcp. (4) In connection with Comedy, especially from the standpoint of its dimension as a ‘democratic’ instrument of social criticism (see below, fr. 4.11-17 n.), the reading c<f>aX[ in 2 in the sense of ‘throwing’/ ‘being thrown’, and the sequence ttjp OaXaTfap) in 3 recall the episode of Eupolis, who was thrown in the sea for having criticized Alcibiades in his play BanTat ; see: Cic. ad Att. VI 1 . 1 8 ; Scholia in Aristophanes: Prolegomena de comoedia , ed. Roster, I, p. 1.18—19 (Platonius, Tlcpl Stapopdc KooficpSuap), XIa I, p. 27.87-101 (Tzetzes), XIc, p. 44.29-43 (Anonymus Crameri 11); cf. PCG
V} pp. 332-3, test, iv and v; F. Perusino (ed.), Platonio: La commedia greca (Urbino 1989) 48-9; H.-G.

Nesselrath, ‘Eupolis and the Periodization of Athenian Comedy’, in Harvey- Wilkins, Rivals 233-46, esp. 234-6. (5) If the textual segment in 4 refers to Dionysus, lines 2-3 may refer to a mythical episode concerning the god. Horn. II. 6.130-37 reports that Lycurgus persecuted Dionysus and his nurses: the god, still a child, threw himself in the sea because of fear, and was welcomed by Thetis; cf Heraclit.
All. 35.5-8, Corn. De natura deorum 62.16-23, Athen. I 26b, Porph. ad II. 6.129. Apollod. Bibl. 3.5.1 places the episode of Dionysus’ jumping into the sea and seeking refuge with Thetis in the context of Lycurgus’ opposition to the god: Dionysus’ cortege of Bacchantes and Satyrs is temporarily imprisoned by Lycurgus and later freed by Dionysus. Heraclitus, Cornutus, and Athenaeus (quoted above)

138

SUBLITERARY TEXTS

explain the Homeric episode as an allegory of the custom of mixing wine (symbolized by Dionysus) with sea water (symbolized by the sea); cf. Plu. Mon 914b, and Eust. in II. 736.46—49, 871.33—46.
Moreover, note that a Satyr drama on the myth of Lycurgus was composed by Aeschylus (of which only 4 partly fragmentary lines are preserved; see TrGF II, pp. 234-6, frr. 124—6) and another one by 1 imocles ( FrFG 86, test. 2), while a comedy was composed by Anaxandrides (fr. 28 K.-A.). Besides, one may take into account the episode narrated in h. Bacch.'. Dioiwsus transforms the Tyrrhenian pirates into dolphins when they try to escape him by jumping into the sea (w. 51—3). (6) Finally, one must consider the possibility^ that 2—3 belong to an unknown quotation, which may or may not concern Dionvsus.

An alternative reading paleographically plausible — would be #aear(-): but this would represent a unattested sequence, which should be corrected perhaps as 8{a}eaTi -), and supplied as a form of dearrjc, spectators, or as the verbal form 0ear(at) with indefinite subject (tic) or with a subject meaning ‘the audience1, ‘the people1, ‘the crowd1.

4-5 The adjective rj8vyiXajc occurs six times in Greek literature (according to a TLG search): it is referred to Comedy (IG II2 11367? line 5 = CFG 2.550.3, funeral epigram for an actor, r.350), to a comic chorus at the Dionysia (IG II2 3101> lino 1 = CEG 2.773T dedicatory epigram commemorating the victory of a unknown choregus, r.350 bc; see R Wilson, The Athenian Institution of the Khoregia :
The Chorus, the City and the Stage (2000) 246—8), to Pan in h. Pan 37, as well as to a woman represented in a sympotic context and qualified as BdKyov kcu Movcicov iXoprj Adrpt Kdl Kvdepelrjc in AP 5. 135.3—4; cf. also Hesych. p 602 (gloss on peiXixopei8rjc). In 5093 it is tempting to supply the text as in’ avrep r)SvyiX(ojTi) and refer the phrase to Dionysus (cf. fr. 4.14) taking into consideration Luc. Pise. 25 /cat-

TOi e/CetVot pev KdO €VOC dv8pOC eToXpOJV TOldVTd, Kdl ev AlOVVClOlC i(f)eipivOV CLVTO e8pOJV} Kdl TO

CKOjpp a eSo/cet pepoc rt rrjc eoprrjc , /cat o deoc lcojc e^atpe <f>iX6yeXdjc rtc cor. However, the text is very fragmentary, and the grammar is not so clear as to be sure that r)8vyeX(co-) is a dative.

5 Possible supplements: cKoxpdevTec vn[o tojv noirjTcbv/ Kojp<p8ionoidjv. Object of the c/cco- nr€tv could bc e.g. politicians as in Old Comedy; cf. Scholia in Aristophanes .* Prolegomena de cotnoedia , ed.
K-OSter, I. Ek tojv riXdTOJViov TIepi St dcjjopdc KOjp<p8iojv, p. 4*25 ffi CKonov ydp ovtoc f ttj apyata Kcop<p8id EI\ G \rfj dpxtKojpajSid Ir2] rou CKOjnreiv 8rjpovc /cat St/cacrac /cat crpdTTjyovc, ktX. On the scoptic clement in comedy, sec Arist. £V 1128a 01 pev ovv rip yeXolip vneppdXXovnec pajpoXoXoi Sokovciv eivdi Kdl (fyopriKOL, yXiyopevoi ndvrcoc rov yeXoiov, Kdl pdXXov CToXd£opevoi rov yiXojTd noirjcai rj rov Xiyeiv evcXr)pov a /cat prj Xvneiv rov CKOJTTTopevov 01 Se prjT ’ dvrol dv elnovrec prj8ev yeXoiov role re Xeyovci Sucyepatrorrec aypot/cot Kdl CKXrjpoi 8okovciv etVat. ot 8’ ippeXcdc nd'fovrtc evrpdneXoi npocdyopevovroi , oiov evrponor rov ydp rjdovc at roidOrdt 8okovci Kivrjceic elvoi, edenep 8e Td COJfAdTd €K TOJV KlVTjCeOJV KplVeTdl, OUT OJ Kdl TO i rjdrj. ini noXdI,OVTOC 8i rov yeXoiov, Kdl TO)V nXelcTtov xcupovrojv rrj TratSta /cat r<p CKwnreLv pdXXov 77 Set, /cat ot pojpoXoxoi evrpdneXoi npoed- yopevovrdi ojc yapterrec- ort Se S idcfjipovci, Kdl ov piKpov , e/c rwv elprjpivcvv 8-qXov. rfj picj] 8’ e£e t ot/cetor /cat 77 emde^iorpc ecrtV rou S’ ini8e£iov eert rotaura Xiyeiv Kdl dKOveiv old rip eVtet/cet /cat iXevdeptip opporrer i'ert ydp nvd npinovrd r<p toiovtco Xiyeiv iv ndiSidc pipe t /cat dKOveiv, /cat 77 tov iXevdeplov ndi8id 8id<f)ipei rrjc rov dv8pdno8co8ovc , /cat nendi8evpivov Kdl dndi8evrov. 1801 8 ’ dv Tic Kdl €K TOJV KOjpcp8id>v tojv rroXdiojv Kdl tojv Kdivojv TOic pev ydp Tjv yeXoiov 77 dlcxpoXoyld,
TOic Se pdXXov rj vnovoid’ Sta^epet S’ ov piKpov raura npoc evcxrjpocvvpv. noTepov ovv tov ev ckojtttovto opicTiov to) Xiyeiv prj dnpenrj iXevOeptip , 7? toj prj Xvnelv tov d/couorra 77 /cat Tipneiv; fj Kdl TO ye tolovtov dopiCTOv; dXXo ydp dXXcp picrjTOv re /cat rj8v. rotaura Se /cat a/coucerar a ydp vnopivei a/coucov, raura /cat noieiv 8ok€i; Aspasius, in Ethica jVichomachea commentaria , p. 125.18-22 V
Se vnepfidXXojv fiojpoXoxoc /caAetrat, imnoXdioc tic idv Kdl ndvTOJc tov yeXoiov CToyd^opevoc rjnep 1 ov Xeyeiv eucyp/xot a /cat prj Au7retv tov CKOJiTTopevov • ere/cer Se rou yeAcora Kiveiv oi)8evoc 0etSerat, oure (fjiXov oure eydpou* ertore Se ouSe tojv Oeojv, Koddnep ot rac ndXoidc KOjpcp8ldc noirjcdVTec • u7ro ydp fiojpoXoxldc ouSe twv dec dv dnelyovTo. Cf. also [Plu.] De proverbis Alexandrinorum , fr. 30 = Scholia

5093. RHETORICAL EPIDEIXEIS

139

in Aristophanes : Prolegomena de comoedia , cd. Roster, XVII p. 69.1—9, who stresses that at the very origins Comedy and Tragedy shared the yeXcoc and the scoptic element. Other relevant passages are: Scholia in Aristophanes: Prolegomena de comoedia , ed. Roster, XIc. Anonymi Crameri 11, pp. 44-5.46-9 fStor 8e KO)(jLCpSlac ptev to /ze/ziy/xevor eyeiv to fc c#co)/x/xact yeXcora, rpaycySlac 8e rrevOr] Kal cvpL<popac\ ibid., p. 5.44—6.65; II. To v avrov Tlepl Sta popac yapa/cr raptor, p. 6.2—4 °v dberrep ApLcropdvrjc, erriTpe- yeiv rrjv yaptv role CKCopL^iaci Trotei [Kpanvoc] to popriKov rrjc h TiTLpLTjceojc Sta Tavrrjc avaiptov ktX.
The later passage may suggest a further supplement at the beginning of 5: ^apteerjepov CKcopdevTec ktX. (note that we cannot establish the layout of the column, so that part of the supplement may have occurred at the end of 4; alternatively, part of the supplement suggested in the right-hand lacuna may have occurred at the beginning of 6). Cf also PI. R. 452b ra ro>r yapierrcor cKcopcpLara. Our passage could be taken in the sense of 'rather/ somewhat elegandy/ gracefully jeered’.

6 ava77-aAAa/crov. 'Irremovable’? Does it refer to the comic and scoptic clement of Comedy? Interestingly, this adjective never occurs before the fourth century (a TLG search gives six occurrences:
Jul. ad Them. 265d; Synes. Ep. 44.58-9; Palladius, Dialogus de vitajoannis Chrysostomi 6*1.2; Theophyl.
Ilpoc rove avrov pLadyrdc draKrrjcavrac 2. 14; Gregrorius Acindynus, Refutatio magna 64; Martyrium Sanctae Tatianae 47).

7 The abbreviated form yp(a</>-) may represent yp(a</>efi or ypiapercu). The wording of this line curiously recalls a twelfth-century author, Nicolaus Methonaeus, Oratio 4, p. 272.19-23: aAA’ eydo tocovtov errl tovtolc pu k p op v ydb , cbc Kal St’ auio tovto ptaXXov rrjv cvptpopav rjyeicdai ar Taprjyoprj- rov, on ra 7T€vdovc Kal TpaycoSlac 8eopieva yeXcoroc a^iovrai Kal KcopLcoS lac.

At line-end possibly dative ran [.

8 Exempli gratia: ouS<T|r eprj a £iov rpayco(8tac) with the infinitive efr(ai) falling in lacuna , to be taken as: ‘he said that this fi.e. the yeXcora/ yeXotov/ ckwtttov) is not appropriate to tragedy at all’.
See e.g. Demetr. Eloc. 169 rpaycoSla 8e yapirac ptev TrapaXapLpai'eiv ev ttoXXolc, 6 8e ye Xwc eydpoc Tpaya/Stac* ov8e yap imvorjceiev av tic rpayco8lav 77a/£oi/car, errel carvpov ypdpei avrl rpayco8lac.
Note also that an authority (possibly the same to whom eprj refers) is mentioned in 7 yp( ap-).

9 There are several possibilities of articulation: (1) XPVC ]'LtjLl Se K<x)fi[co8ia (or Kwp.[cp(8la) written in abbreviated form); cf. fr. 1+2 -> iv 27-8 and following passages: Plu. Adv. Colot. 1127a aXX' on Kal rpaycp8td)v 7rotr]Tal Kal /ccop,cpSitor ael n Treipcovrai ypijcqxor 7rapeyec#ai Kal Xeyeiv virep vopuov Kal TToXtT elac , ovtol 8e, /car ypapcoct, ypapovci rrepl TroXiretac tv a ptr) TToXtrevdopLcOa , Kal rrepl py]~
TOpiKrjc tv a pLTj py)TopevcopL€v} Kal rrepl fiaccXelac fra \ptrj] pevyco^ev to cvpifitov r fiactXevci ktX.\ Gal.
Libr. Propr. XX. I, p. 173.11-12 Boudon-Millot el yp^cLpiov avayveoepta toIc 7Tat8evoj.ievotc f) TraXaia Kwpuo8la. The adjective xpvciptoc is referred to tragedy in Athen. VI 223b-d in relation to a quotation from Timocles’ Aiovvcia^ovcai (fr. 6 R.— A.). (2) oeSJap.17 8e Kcofa[cp8ta-. (3) ]. /.rr/Se /ca>p,[cpSta-/-tur or a case of the noun KcopLcp8 lotto 10c.

fr. 4 ~ ^

]..[

V # . [£.3] lAl7T7r[

T07TCLV[ ] V(l£uo[

TTOieiavro TrPrriv
5 evava)caytov [
ft c ov nd7 ave k vra rroXXaKav • ■ 9 *—

]..[

VI [^3] ^tAt7777^-
ro 7rav[r]tpv a£uh[rarov 7TOL€L avrov 7 Tp(oc) T7]V
Mevav(8p-) (he aywv [ fiapt ov ou yt(yv-) ave [ k vra t 77oAAa/dtc) av [

140

SUBLITERART TEXTS

co €K [ J chrjc
Kca thovirovcKa v£a i a vk€

^ EvcradeiacaTTe [ r coheir pcoTTjKio [ ra^ecoeet Xrjyev [
<§tovuc # ciral}Ojjie\ y avTrjVKhrjfxco [ dpei/jeairohet £ etvr rpay^ri] v' k[ k roc vemXo aOV(f)r1 [ ] KCOpL [

. . .XvPl.[c^].><'[

].[.].[

coc EK(^[a]vrlhr]c a[~ k(cu) ca ihovirovc k(gu) a eu^atro ay k[ at) ck[

^evcradetac aire # [ r co Sc irpcorr] Kcojx\cphta ra^ecoc etXrjyev \

Aiovvc( ) ac7Ta£o^u,e[- y(ap) avrrjv ac(gu) St^coJ- dpeifje airoheit;
eiv(ou) rrjc rpaycp(hiac) rr/v K[copLCphlav fc(at) auroc er C7nAoy( ) | a ou(rcoc) tt[ (epc) j /cco^co[S/ac k(cu) [

].’[.].[

1 ] . . L first, tiny trace at line-level; second, two traces, very close to each other, at line-level
2 * . L first, upright whose upper part slightly slants to left; second, small circle in lower part of writing space, either a small o or loop of a ; third, lower part of diagonal stroke ascending from left to right; fourth, two traces very close to each other in diagonal alignment ascending from left to right, lying in lower part of writing space; fifth, extremely tiny trace at line-level J # , extremely tiny trace at mid-height 3 J . , remains of small circle in upper part of writing space 4 o , remains of two uprights belonging to square letter # [, two extremely tiny traces in vertical alignment, 1 mm distant, lying at line-level and below line-level respectively 5 e, upright slightly slanting to right; 1 mm further short horizontal trace at mid-height ^ , upper part of upright whose tip joins to left crossbar touching following letter . [, upright 6 j} , lower extremity of diagonal ascending from left to right; slightly further, in upper part of writing space, scanty and slightly blurred trace suggests diagonal stroke descending from left to right and touching following letter at mid- height . <0, upright whose tip bears a very small circle, 1 or p v, left-hand arc [, tiny trace slightly deset nding below hne-lc\el y k . , remains of triangular letter, a or A a , upright whose tip is attached to light to thick horizontal trace, 1 or p [, remains of upright descending below line-level 8 wi5 two traces in vertical alignment lying at line-level and in upper part of writing space respectively k , lower extremity of upright descending below line-level ] , tiny trace in upper part of writing space . 1, very tiny trace at line-level in diagonal alignment ascending from k ft to right with short horizontal trace lying in upper part of writing space [, confused traces suggest diagonal stroke ascending from left to right 9 a , upright followed, 2 mm further, by trace in upper part of writing space, possibly tip of another upright t [, upright (above it very short diagonal stroke ascending from left to right, but perhaps it belongs to previous line) 10 u, re mains of k ft-hand arc 1 first, crossbar whose centre joins another stroke qiot preserved) and is in roughly vertical alignment with tiny trace at line-level; second, upper part of right-hand arc touching previous letter? .a, remains of triangular letter # [, upright joining at mid-height another stroke (not presewed) 11 central part of upright? 12 _ [, upright slightly slanting to right joins at mid-height another partially presented stroke approaching horizontal 14 c, remains of triangular letter 16 [, extremely tiny trace at mid-height ly 7- , remains of stroke approaching horizontal at mid-height whose right-hand extremity joins another slightly diagonal

5093. RHETORICAL EPIDEIXEIS

141

stroke ascending from left to right and lying in lower part of writing space r, short diagonal stroke descending from left to right in lower part of writing space; 2 mm further, small trace in upper part of writing space joining following letter: the complex suggests left-hand arc 18 k , trace in lower part of writing space, possibly part of left-hand arc or loop . t, short diagonal stroke ascending from left to right in upper part of writing space, touching following letter; its lower extremity is in vertical alignment with very tiny trace in lower part of writing space > r, upper part of upright protruding above writing space and slightly slanting to right # [, vertical stroke, 2 mm long, in upper part of writing space, perhaps part of raised letter as abbreviation 19 , central part of upright slighdy slanting to right? [, left-hand arc and bottom part of circle? 20 , first,
tip of upright; second, remains of upper part of upright? y, short horizontal stroke in upper part of writing space touching following letter 1 , twTo tiny traces roughly in vertical alignment ] , upper part of a right-hand arc 21 [, very tiny trace in upper part of writing space ] # , very tiny trace in upper part of writing space

1-20 The preserved text appears to be articulated through two devices: (1) forked paragraphic (lines 2 and 11), indicating a substantial break in the text either within the line (in wrhich case it wmild probably be marked with a blank space) or at the end of it (in which case the line may have ended short' ; (2) ekthesis of lines 9 and 20. With respect to (1) wre have to assume that the text is divided into two sections: in the first section (2-1 1) the comic writers Menander and Ecphantides are mentioned; the second section (11—20) seems to deal with the origin of Comedy and to introduce a comparison with Tragedy (17). Line 1 should have contained the end of a previous section, probably thematically related to the following one (sec 2 n.). With respect to (2), the context suggests that the ekthesis marks quotations, in the wray that it marks lemmata of commentaries. In commentaries the lemma often begins in the line before the line in ekthesis, and the verse citations are normally written out as prose ; cf. e.g. LIII 3710, XXX 2737 (= CLGP I.1.4, Aristophanes, no. 27, pp. 157-82), XXI 2306 (= CLGP
1. 1. 1. Alcaeus, no. 11, pp. 150-60).

T he supplements suggested are based on the assumption that a line contained originally about 28-30 letters; but in a such cursive script variations in the number of letters per line are to be expected (see 17—20 n.).

2 Two alternative supplements can be suggested: ] 0iAt7777[t§- and ] &l\l7T7t[o-. These personal names can be referred to a comic character or to a comedy writer (cf. 5 and 8, wrhere Menander and Ecphantides are mentioned respectively). There are two comedy writers of the Newr Comedy called (Pi\i7T7rl8r)c (PCG VII, test. 1-9, fix 1-41, pp. 333-52) and &1\itt7toc (PCG VII, test. 1-4, frr.
1-3, pp. 353-5) respectively. Very speculatively one could suggest in 1-2 Nav]\yiov, a play by the above- mentioned Philippus.

The forked paragraphs at line-beginning should mark the end of a section and the beginning of a new one.

3 to 7Tav[r]cov a^Lco[rarov Parsons.

4 7tol€i ainov kt A. Possible reference to a comic writer representing a comic character?

5 aycov # [. In relation to Menander, this sequence can be articulated as the noun aya>r, or as the present participle of the verb ayco. The two uncertain letters at the end of the line may fit yi[, the beginning of a form of yiyvopc at, but rt[ is not to be ruled out as an alternative: it could be an indefinite pronoun referred to comedies or comic characters, exempli gratia Mev(av8poc) ebe aycov ri[/ ri[ra, in the sense ‘Menander introducing (on stage) a [comic character]5; cf. 4 11. Unfortunately no syntactical articulation can be reconstructed with certainty: of course ebe could be used as an adverb or as conjunction. In the latter case it could introduce different types of clauses (declarative, final, causal, etc.); moreover, it could be constructed with the participle.

5—6 A number of supplements may be considered. (1) (3ap]\j3apcov, or the participle fiapfiapebv

142

SUBLITERART TEXTS

from the verb j8apj8apoco in relation to characters or linguistic aspects of Comedy. With regard to the representation of certain characters, one could recall Lzetzes’ remarks on the fact that New Comedy limits the use of the poyoc to three specific social categories: slaves, foreigners, and barbarians; see Scholia in Aristophanes : Prolegomena de comoedia , ed. Koster, XXIa, p. 88.85—7: /cat ttjc Tptrrjc rjv 6 poyoc K€K pu(jLjjL€voc y / ttXt)v Kara SouAaw /cat /cat /3apj8apa>r, / rfc rjv MevavSpoc ipyarrjc /cat 0tAr 7-
pioov; cf. also XVIIIa, p. 71.38-39. (2) TrathlcKojv co]\^apojvy capricious courtesans; cf. Plu. Quaestiones conviviales 706b cocnep cqxcAet rrapa rto Mevdvhpco [7rapd| rcov cvpLTTortbv c/cacroc €7Tij3ovAev6pL€voc vrro tov TTopvofiocKov cofiapav Two. TTatStCKTjv irrayovroc clvtolc. On meretrices in Menander, cf. fr. 23.2.

In 6 after yt(yv-) a syntactical pause indicated by a short blank space should occur.

6-7 /ce] |/cAarat would be possible, but the verb is used in poetry: of course, in theory, one could think of a quotation incorporated in the text without any layout device (cf. fr. 1+2 — > iv 4-6). Alternatively KavTOLL or T7]Xt]\KavTaL or /ce]/caurat.

8-11 The supplement !E/c$[a]yrt'S?7c, suggested by Parsons, fits the traces and the context.
Among die very few fragments by this comic writer we have a fragment from a uncertain work criticizing the Megarian Farce (fr. 3 K.-A.), which the Megarians claimed was the origin of Comedy (cf.
Arist. Po. 1448a). It has to be pointed out the fact that Ecphantides enjoyed a reputation as the eldest comic writer (see Anon, in Arist Eth. Me. IV 6, CAG XX p. 186 Heylb. = PCG Y p. 126, test. 4, and p. 128, fr. 3); this seems to be compatible with the reconstruction of the argument in 11-12 — probably introduced by ov\\rw — that Comedy was the first to take shape, in the sense of being born or having reached its full form before Tragedy.

As said above, in 9 the ekthesis suggests a quotation. If diat is the case, we may think of a line (or a part of it) by Ecphantides; lines 10 and 11 may also represent quotations. The sequence ca tSou- ttovc is rather difficult to articulate and interpret. We can consider three possibilities: (1) cclkiSovttovc , as a plural accusative from the adjective cclklSovttoc , an unattested formation similar to the Pindaric adjective c IcttlSoSovttoc , with the meaning of ‘carrying the noise of shields' , as Parsons suggests. The meaning may lead to assume a quotation about noisy battles, unless the adjective was used in a metaphorical sense. In that case it could perhaps be applied to the Megarian Farce, carrying a negative connotation. (2) A form of the personal name Ca/ctc/ Ct]klc , assuming an otherwise unattested second- declension genitive in -Sou through metaplasm, a name occurring in Epicharmus, fr. 123 K.-A. (PCG
I, pp. 95-6), and in Pherecrates, fr. 10.1 K.-A. (PCG VII, p. 110), and also in an inscription of c.450 bc from Camarina; see F Cordano, Le tessere pubbliche dal ternpio diAtena a Camarina fRoma 1992) no. 41.
Besides, this form is used as a noun to indicate a servant: see Aristoph. Ve. 768 and schol. ad loc.; Poll.
Ill 76, Hesych. c 480 (oy/ctc- oLKoyevrjc SouAoc, 77 SovXr]. ktX.). Note also note that Ca/dc is attested as a feminine form for the ethnic Schyta in Ctesias of Cnidos, FGrHist 668 F. 8a, p. 452, and Steph. Byz.
Ethnica , s.v. Colkcll, p. 550 (cf. R. Lesi, Mus. Grit. 10-12 (1975-7) 86). (3) caviSov novc , considering cavlSov as an otherwise unattested sccond-declension form through metaplasm for cade, dSoc, perhaps to be understood as the platform of the stage. The phrase cavlhov ttovc would mean then Toot/base of the stage’, possibly in relation to evcradelac in 11 in the sense of ‘firm foundation’.

The textual elements surviving in 10 and 11 — cu£a tro and ajcradelac — may be thematically related to interpretation (1) of the sequence ca lSovttovc in 9: the idea of boasting and of firm foundation may fit a sort of poetic manifesto by Ecphantides, taking a clear-cut position against the Megarian Farce, criticizing somebody who ‘might boast . . .’ — perhaps affirming his superiority or priority as a comic writer? — in relation to a well-built comedy structure (e.g. fier' j | evcradeiac ), which could also be related to rd^ccoc in 13. From a metrical standpoint in 10 the phrase ev^airo S’ av k(oi) could fit a trimeter, assuming that k( at) is in crasis, e.g. /ca/c[etvoc. In 11 evcradelac would certainly fit an iambic trimeter, either near the beginning (e.g. pier*] \ evcradeiac) or after the caesura.
After that, if the trimeter carries on, the sequence aire [ — if epsilon is short — should represent the resolution of the long element into two shorts. More problematic appears line 9: the sequence *(ai)

5093. RHETORICAL E RIDE IX E IS

143

camtSov7Tovc K(ai) a [ could be the beginning of a trimeter if ca iSou scans as a crctic and k(cu) d [ is taken as a crasis. But supplements (i) and (2) suggested above would produce a choriamb, which in the first metron of an iambic trimeter is very rare in tragedy and can hardly be paralleled in Comedy (see Martinelli, Gli strumenti del poeta 94-5, 11 1).

1 1 17 ln 11 the forked paragraphus indicates the beginning of a new section. Since the scribe usually writes consistently iota adscript, it is perhaps advisable to exclude a dative at the beginning of 12 for the sequence ra». Among the possibilities: ov\\toj or an imperative like Aeye]|rai with Comedy as subject (Parsons). In 13 the expression ra^eeve ei'A^yer could be taken in the sense of hook shape’,
Svas organized’ (cf. Plu. A lor. 1024b). In 14 Alovvc( ) ac77a£op,e[- is likely to indicate the relationship between Comedy and Dionysus, and may be supplied as ac7ra^opie[V7]) having as subject Comedy, in the sense of ‘embracing Dionysus (in her process of taking shape)’. In 15 the sequence 8thjlu)[ leads one to think of a mention of the function of Comedy as an instrument of political and social criticism, and therefore of the education of the people; see: Aristoph. Ach. 631; Xenoph. Ath. 2.18; Luc.
Anach. 22; Marcus Aurelius 11.6; Scholia in Aristophanes: Prolegomena de comoedia , ed. Koster, V. TJepl rijc KU)(j,a)8iac , p. 14.19 ([Cratinus] . . . ojcirep S^/xocia /xacriyi rjj Kcu/xajSia /coAa£a»r), Xlb. Anonymi Crameri 1, p. 40.24—35. The adjective 8r]puh8j]c probably qualifies the preceding avrpv indicating Comedy. Note that it is used in Scholia in Aristophanes : Prolegomena de comoedia , ed. Koster, X\j p. 66.43, referring to Ae£ic in the sense of ‘common’, ‘popular’ (ku>{jukt) iert Xe £lc kolvj] Kal S^/xtoS^c); here it is tempting to give it the meaning of ‘democratic’. In 15-16 a very likely supplement may be e]\ dpepe, possibly referring to a metaphorical upbringing of Comedy. If so, a putative father could be Dionysus himself (cf. Aristoph. Xu. 531-2). The basic line of thought could be that Comedy took shape as first (i.e. before Tragedy) and that Dionysus brought her up in her function of a democratic instrument.
Developing this line of interpretation at the end of 14 one may supply a verb with Dionysus as subject, e.g. aveiXaro (Parsons) in the sense of recognizing as a child.

°u-]

TOO Se 77 pOJTTj KCOfp[cp8ta r.15 ra^ecoc eiXjjxev [tuc rov ptXoyeXojra Alovvc(ov) ac77a£o/xe[v77 r.5 aveiXaro 15 y(oip) <XVT7]V k{oa) S^XO^St} K(a'i) C. I O €-

9peipe a7To8el^a[c ttoXXw xprjCTOTCpav eiV(ai) rfjc rpayaj(8tac> tt)v /<r[cu/xai§tar
A rough translation could be: ‘In this way Comedy first took shape, welcoming Dionysus [as lover of laughter. . .] for [he recognized] her [as his child and] brought her up as democratic [and . . .] showing that Comedy is [more useful] than Tragedy.’

As far as I know, however, the claim that Comedy took shape before Tragedy does not occur in any source.

17-20 /c(at) avroc in 18 is very' likely to refer to ou(tcuc) in 19; the subject must come at the end of 17. The letter a at the beginning of 19 may be interpreted in three different ways: (a) End of a word of the preceding line; but this seems to be not very likely, since there are no other examples of such an unexpected word division in this papyrus, (b) It could be a word itself, the relative pronoun neuter plural a, but the syntax is not clear, (c) As Parsons suggests, it may be taken as a numeral, although the usual horizontal stroke is not preserved, but this could have fallen in lacuna just above the letter. Such a numeral may be used to indicate the first of two plays with the same title, the second of which should be indicated with a /3. Such a case is attested several times for Aristophanes; see:
XXX 2659, a list of comic poets and their plays of the 2nd century, fr. 2, col. i 10 Nc\<peXai /L, and 14 nX]ovr[o]c a (cf. PCG III. 2, test. 2C, p. 6); Scholia in Aristophanes : Prolegomena de comoedia , ed. Koster,
XXXa, p. 142 (cf. PCG III. 2, test. 2a, pp. 4-5) AIoXoclkojv /L(line 8), OecpLo^opia^ov cat ft' (lines 13-14),

144

SUBLITERARY TEXTS

NecjyeXat ft (line 16), EIXovtoc ft (lines 17—18). Besides, the fifth /fourth-century-BC comic poet Diocles is author of a ©vecrrjc ft according to Suda 8 1155, while Schol. (Aid.) in Aristoph. Mu. iogd (I 3.1, p. 34.19-20 Holwerda) refers to the AvtoXlkoc ft by Eupolis (cf. PGG V, test. 1, p. 18). With regard to Menander’s production, see XXVIII 2462, a list of Menander’s plays of the 2nd century, line 9
ASeXcjyoL afi (cf. PCG VI. 2, test. 41, p. 16), and Harp. p. 226.8 Dind. (O 35 Keaney), who refers to the 5 EttIkXtjpoc ft (cf. PCG VI. 2, fr. 136, p. no). In this respect one could take into consideration a particular feature of Menander’s rather formulaic epilogues to his plays: the 6metatheatrical’ dimension, in which the author gets directly in contact with the audience, addressing the spectators by inviting them to clap, in the context of the announcement of the komos to lead off the actors, asking for garland and torch, and the prayer to the goddesses Nike for victory [Dysk. 965-9; Mis. 464-6; Sam. 733-7;
Sik. 420-23; Epit. fr. 20; cf. fr. 1+ 2 -»iv 29-31 n., and see A. Martina, Menandro Epitrepontes (Roma 2000) ii.2 602-7, comm, on fr. 20). According to my reconstruction of the text, in 5093 an author is reported to make a statement Tr[(epi)] Acco/xco[Stac in the epilogue of his play. Given the 'formularity’ of the 'metatheatrical’ epilogues of Menander, I am more inclined to think that the comedy writer quoted as the author of wa certain play alpha' is Menander rather than Aristophanes or somebody else, although of course it is not possible to prove it. On this basis lines 18—19 could be supplied exempli gratia as follows:

Mevav(8poc) §e]

/c(at) ayroc ev emXoyfcp) [rrjc *Ei TiKXrjpov a ou(tcl)c) 7r[(epi)j K<x)pLtp[8lac C.16

In 18 I have chosen the supplement ttjc \ EmuXippov because it fits better the space available in lacuna (note that this line would have 25 letters, i.e. it would be rather shorter than average, but this is not impossible taking into consideration the cursivity of the script, as said in 1-20 n.). One could think that the space available in lacuna in 19 after the trace I have interpreted as if = irf epl)] (cf fr. 1+2
-*iv 14) may have contained a r = r(rjc). However, this abbreviation for the article is never attested in 5093. 'Therefore perhaps the article was accidentally omitted or, taking into consideration the numerous books simply called irepi KcopupSlac (cf. fr. 3, 1-10 n.), one could think that the phrase Ktx)pLcp[8iac survived in the papyrus is just what the author meant. For the abbreviation iv hnXoyfcp) in 18, cf. fr. 1+2 ->ii 17. This word has here the specific meaning of 'concluding part of a play’, i.e.
€k0€clc , which is attested in Schol. vet. in Aristoph. Ran. 1500 Diibner (cf. LJS s.v. 11.2) and in Schol. rec. in Mu. 1452b (Thomas/Triclinius, ed. Roster, I 3.2, p. 194).

In 20 the ekthesis suggests a quotation, which, according to the reconstruction of the text in 18-19, is likely to come from Menander. At the very beginning, the first trace could be reconstructed as a 1, while the following ones may fit a c with extended flat top, as in 5 toe, Icxvpt # [. We could reasonably assume that a quotation from Menander would be in iambic trimeters, since they represent the great bulk of his work (iambic tetrameters catalectic only occasionally, and lyric metres in special circumstances; cf Gomme-Sandbach, Menander: A Commentary 36; Martina, Menandro Epitrepontes ii.i 16-17, 311-12). On the basis of the sequence we could then say that either [a] the line begins a trimeter, or (b) it continues a trimeter from the line before. If (a), the final trace of the sequence IcxvpL [ must belong to a vowel or a consonant or pair of consonants that do not lengthen the preceding iota. Possible supplements are a form of Attic future of the verb tcxvpl^ofjiat, lcxvpi€t-/tcxvptov or of the sigmatic aorist of the same verb, or of the adjective tcxvpiKoc. However, none of them seems to fit the traces. If ( b ), we could supply lcxvpi£[: the traces after the sequence icxvpt suggest the round top of a 2, as in 14 aci ra£o/x€[; after the lacuna of about two letters, the remaining trace fits an o. I am inclined to suggest lcxvptC[cr]p — in the sense of flo be strong, insist’? — (or a compound beginning in the previous line, like Sucxvpt^opLcu, amcxvpi^opiat^ c up tc xvp 1^0 peat ] but note that neither the verb IcxvptCopiat itself nor its compounds are attested in the surviving works by Menander). The full form

5093. RHETORICAL EPIDEIXEIS

145

would occupy the end ol a trimeter; if the final o was elided, it could come earlier, as e.g. e/cetvoc] | icxvpi^er (for letters that should be elided for the sake of the metrical laws but are written in scriptio contmua in papyri, see GAIA H 2 8), but in that case we have to assume that t<(at) was no part of the quotation. Assuming exempli gratia that fVxuP*£[er]? comes at the end of a trimeter, the first part of the trimeter should have come in 19 (of course we cannot exclude the possibility that only a part of a trimeter was quoted). In that case we need a rough estimate of the number of letters that a Menander trimeter could have contained: a random check suggests that a Menander trimeter may contain from about 25 letters to 32 letters (e.g. Asp. 133, 268, Dysk. 969 = 24.5; Asp. 331, Dysk. 384, Epit. 1116, Pk. 162,
8n = 25; Asp. 400, Georg. 68, 76, Mis. 260, Pk. 389, 503 = 25.5 \Asp. 145, Epit. 302, Mis. 210, Pk. 467 = 26;
Dis. Ex. 20, hi, Dysk. 107, 287, Mis. 7, 297 = 26.5; Dysk. 447, 479, 961, Epit. 261, 375, Georg. 23, 76, Mis.
299, Pk- I29> 363, 527 = 27; Asp. 120, Dis. Ex. 96, 112, Epit. 1100, Georg. 5, Mis. 303, Pk. 355 = 27.5; Asp.
60, Dis. Ex. 21, 94, 103, Epit. 1071, Georg. 51, Mis. 139, 296, 298, Pk. 375, Sam. 54 = 28; Dis. Ex. 97, Epit.
1120, Georg. 72, 80, 82, 86, Mis. 304, 318, Pk. 469, 483, 710 = 28.5; Asp. 4, Dysk. 31 1, 521, Mis. 282, 301 =
29; Asp. 96, 385, Dis. Ex. 100, Dysk. 4, 232, 822, Epit. 231, 418, 514, Georg. 47, Mis. 170, 300, 305 = 29.5;
Dysk. 835, Mis. 321, Sam. 18 = 30; Asp. 416, Dis. Ex. 17, 27, 61, 101, 104, 105, Dysk. 186, Georg. 79 = 30.5;
Asp. 360, Georg. 17, 75, Epit. 562, Sam. 45 = 31; Asp. 114, Dis. Ex. 16, 19, 95, Dysk. 666, Epit. 1127, Georg.

74? 77 = S1^; AsP- 326? Mm*, b Pk. 55° = 32i AsP- 3°b Georg. 73, Dysk. 66, Mis. 207, 310, Pk. 186, 540
= 32.5). Besides, we could also assume that the word Koj^coSiac supplied at the end of 19 could have been written in abbreviated form as /<oj^.6jS(tac), so that we could have roughly r.20 letters in lacuna ; considering also the irregularity of the script and the possible occurrence of abbreviations as well as the possibility of blank space before quotation, we can conclude that there is a statistic possibility that a Menander trimeter was quoted in 19-20: with regard to its length, we would have several alternatives within a range of ^.25-^32 letters.

Fr. 5 ->

Col. i Col. ii
?top ?top

]vo^e
VP-', f
].a7

T] [

].A?
p-I

] . rvP°
oj\

] VTTjC

Ta. [.].".[
w
Kdv[ ' ]<JJ [
jeoS^
a rp co >

]>
n[ Jrou[

]t07T

10
cAp\

K +
y[,]oji[

]r a
.□.. t.M

].’.*

]api€i r]adpo ' [

]. ,p°v
15
po-idvp.. .[.]..[

].T°S
rrepatrepco
146

SUBLITERARY TEXTS

]vXcf>V

]3?

].aP

20 ] apy
]v*

]

]...

J dav
25 ] V€tC

] . TO
] rjdr]

]c07TT0)

]€

reXeca ppa fiaK^etaic
K'T. [. .].‘q[

2° «P. [ f-3 ]T.a. [

[ *8 ].[

[

...[

25 <£ot[
av.[

Col. i
2 ] a, upright with tip joining crossbar to left, r or T 3 ] , remains of small right-hand arc in upper part of writing space 4 ] , remains of small right-hand arc in upper part of writing space 6 ] , tip of triangular letter, probably a 9 ] , tip of upright? 11 ]re +,
extremities of square letter, k, n, or x 12 r , upper part of left-hand arc? 13 ] , first,
trace at line-level, possibly foot of upright; second, two traces in vertical alignment at line-level and in lower part of writing space respectively, possibly belonging to upright 15 ] , first, remains of curve approaching left-hand arc; second, upright; close to it trace at mid-height, possibly remains of loop, j) ? 16 J , lower half of upright 19 ] , upper part of diagonal stroke rising from left to right and touching upper extremity of loop of following A, possibly y 20 ] , first, two traces in vertical alignment lying at line-level and in upper part of the writing space, possibly extremities of left-hand arc; second, upright joining following A with horizontal stroke at mid-height, possibly 1 with ligature 23 ] _ _ , first, trace at line-level; second, remains of lower part of upright protruding below line-level; third, trace at line-level 26]., very thin vertical trace above writing space touching left-hand extremity of crossbar of following t 29 e , remains of upper part of upright
Col. ii
1 [, left-hand arc 2 [, left-hand arc 3 [, part of curve that may belong to upper half of left-hand arc 5 . . [, first, right-hand arc rather oval, probably ©; second, left-hand half of n or M 6 ra , rather big upper arc w, join between two strokes of w'hich only one is partially preserved to the extent of upper part of upright [, rather thick upright 7 [, upright bearing remains of crossbar with a sort of grave accent above, probably abbre\iation 8 p .
short diagonal stroke ascending from left to right, departing from mid-height and touching left-hand extremity of first lobe of following co [, remains of upright joining at mid-height to right another stroke (not preserved) 10 c . , tiny trace at mid-height in vertical alignment with upper extremity of previous c [, left-hand arc 12 [, very short and tiny vertical stroke in upper part of writing space; 2 mm further, extremely tiny mark in lower part of writing space [. first, upper arc; second, tiny short stroke approaching vertical in upper part of writing space 13 [, loop in lower part of writing space, very likely belonging to A [, first, very tiny mark at line-level;
second, join between two strokes in lower part of writing space 14 [, circle with open top: o

5093. RHETORICAL EPIDEIXEIS

147

or left-hand lobe of co 15 . . [> first, tiny trace at line-level; second, trace of upright descending below line-level? (but it could belong to following line) [, first, trace at line-level; second,
foot of rather thick upright? 16 [, ligature at mid-height between go and following letter
(not preserved) 17 a , ligature with preceding letter forms curve approaching left-hand arc:
c or e ^ p> short vertical trace at mid-height [, upright reaching mid-height and joining to right another stroke (not preserved) 18 [, remains of loop and tiny trace lying in upper part of writing space, suggesting a 19 [, two traces in vertical alignment lying in upper part of writing space and at mid-height respectively; the first one touches right-hand extremity of crossbar
of preceding t ] , right-hand arc 20 [, upper half of upright a, trace of rather odd shape: perhaps upper part of 2? [, two tiny traces very close to each other in vertical alignment in lower part of writing space 21 [, trace in upper part of writing space 23 [, first,
lower part of upright descending below line -level; second, remains of bottom arc; third, trace in lower part of writing space 24 oj [, ligature at mid-height between go and following letter (not preserved) 26 [, very tiny horizontal trace in upper part of writing space; below, very close to it, stroke approaching horizontal, 1 .5 mm long; possibly e or © 27 [, trace at line-level, possibly foot of upright; above, in upper part of writing space, curve approaching horizontal: the complex
suggests t 28 [, tiny horizontal trace in upper part of writing space

Col. i
Possible articulations: 2 y(ap); 4 a] pyvpo-, cf. 20 a py( ); 7 8 e.g. ©]eo§a>(p-)?, cf. fr. 9.8;

10 7r(cpt); 14-15, possibly a reference to or quotation from note in 7 and 17 <£77(0')) the comic poet A^cuplac (PCG II, pp. 197-21 1), as Parsons suggests (on the popularity of Amipsias in Oxyrhynchus, see also XXXIII 2659, a list of comic writers and comedies of the first/second century, listing two plays of this comic writer, Moschmoi and Sappho ; his name is to be supplied in lacuna ); 17 Evvo]vx{-)
4>r](ci): possibly a quotation from Menander’s Evvovyoc (PCG VI.2, pp. 1 10-16, frr. 110-49) or fi~om Diphilus’ Evvovxoc 77 CrparLcoryc (PCG p. 54); 28 -c/c]a>7rra>(r).

Col. ii
Three sections of the column — 3-4, 9-11, and 18-20 — are in eisthesis, Unfotunately the scanty remains of the column do not allow us to establish if they are quotations, and if so, if they are of verse. Taking into consideration the sequence /3 a/cyetatc [ in 18, one could think of a relation with the theme of violence in Tragedy and the references to Pentheus’ myth.

9 Tt[c] (or Ti[ c ] tov[t-.

10 cco<ppo[- or cw(f)paj\-? Note that the motif of the ccoppovclv in relation to the devotion to Dionysus often occurs in E. Ba. ; see e.g 1150-51 to ccoppovetv Sc /cat ccfieiv ra tojv Ocoov / kolX\ictov\ cf. also 314, 317, 329, 504, 686, 940, 1341.

14 adpocp[i or adpoco[v , or the corresponding adverb a9poco[c. Note that in E. Ba. 725 this adjective refers to the invocation to Dionysus by the Bacchantes (7a/cyor aOpoco croptart rov A toe yovov).

15 A form of the adjective padv^oc, -or, or of the corresponding verb or noun: the notion of carelessness may be related to the attitude of Pentlieus towards Dionysus’ cult.

16 ttc l pciTc pcot [ or TTCipaTcpojv f. In this context perhaps to be taken in the sense of ‘beyond human nature, power or understanding’.

17 The sequence ppa [ may be restored as cppay[r), from the verb prjyvvpn ; in E. Ba. 1130 the phrase prjyvvca cap/cac describes Ino’s action in the cnapay^oc of Pentheus. It is therefore very tempting to see in 5093 a reference to Pentheus. The previous sequence can be interpreted as a participle,
TeAecac, in the sense of ‘performing rites'; if referred to Pentheus, the general sense of the passage may be that Pentheus, having joined the Bacchantes in performing the Bacchic rites, was lacerated by his own mother.

148

SUBLITERARY TEXTS

1 8 The sequence can be considered a form of the feminine noun ^a/c^ei'a, indicating the Bacchic revelry (as in E. Ba. 232 and 1293), or as a f°rm °f the adjective /3a /c^aoc. If this is the beginning of a metrical quotation, it clearly does not belong to an iambic trimeter. But the indentation may suggest that the text here continues from the line before, in which case jSa/c^taic could fit a trimeter after the fourth-foot caesura.

Fr. 7

] LvovcaSt ] ' vvrjOeic [

] ^ Kviavirp #

5 ] yieiceXe f
J 4 ov eKpiv
] _ ropdovc '

] _ ououca§[

Fr. 6

3 ] remains of upright 5 ] . 5 scanty remains of ligature with following e
9 ] , first, remains of upright in upper part of writing space; second, right-hand arc of round letter
10 ] , vertical trace in upper part of writing space; to right remains of ligature with following letter
11 ] , ligature with following letter in upper part of writing space; second, small circle, probably head of p 12 ] . , first, stroke approaching horizontal in upper part of writing space; second,
top of round letter?

Fr. 7

1 ] , scanty traces suggest shape of left-hand arc [, lower part of upright protruding below7 line-level 2 ] . > short horizontal stroke in upper part of writing space joining following letter [, remains of left-hand arc 3 ] . 5 very tiny trace at line-level < [, foot of upright ?

4 ] , oblique trace ascending from left to right in upper part of writing space; stroke approaching horizontal at mid-height and touching following letter [, left-hand arc 5 ] . ? diagonal stroke descending from left to right in upper part of writing space # [, diagonal stroke ascending from left to right with tip curving downwards 6 ] < , very small trace in upper part of writing space touching following letter [, small traces almost in vertical alignment, part of upright or left- hand arc 7 ] . j trace at line-level [, thick and blurred trace in knver part of writing space
8 ] , blurred trace in upper part of writing space
Fr. 6

5 e’Aeow-. Part of a participle from the verb iXee co, perhaps in relation to the stimulation of feelings of pity through tragic performances?

Fr. 6

top
]Acuc
]fldv[

] Save
] KTOt
] eXeovv \eacd ai ]racde ]/c'aAAo
] . . vxvc
] ^ €VOVTL

J . . T€V

5093. RHETORICAL EPIDEIXEIS

149

C 0]eac0at, possibly in the technical sense of being a spectator at dramatic performances (LSJ
s.v. 3).

Fr. 7

Possible articulations: 3 y]evpr]6
etc [; 4 €vr]€Kvlav, cf fr.

1+2 i 17 emraiSf; 5

7 opdovc .

Fr. 8 Fr.

Fr. 10 ->■
t •

]..«*.[
coco
].[

]Scoprac[
jcycuS

TOv[
cuauTOt[

]ara£i[

]cT€<f)[

^eOopco \

]7TGuSo <

] . 1

5 ] jJLCCCOL ' [ 5

•

1 KP^[

U770.1' t
*
roua
8^4

$ov [

10
ra[
mac; 6 h<piv [;

Fr. 8

1 ] , first, very tiny trace at line-level; second, bottom arc? [, left-hand arc 3 ] ,
short diagonal stroke descending from left to right in upper part of writing space, whose lower extremity joins left-hand extremity of horizontal stroke lying at mid-height 4 [, lower part of upright slightly slanting to right 5 ] > , upper part of upright [, tiny trace in lower part of writing space
Fr 9
i ] , bottom arc [, two traces in vertical alignment in upper part of writing space and at line-level respectively 2 [, remains of left-hand arc 4 [, two tiny traces in vertical alignment very close to each other in upper part of writing space and at mid-height respectively 5 ]_ , first, two very tiny traces below line-level; second, extremely tiny trace in upper part of writing space [, upright slightly slanting to left, whose upper part intersects diagonal stroke ascending from left to right and lying in upper part of writing space 6 f, remains of left-hand part of crossbar? below, in lower part of writing space, tiny vertical trace, 0.5 mm long, at edge 7 t [,
circle in upper part of writing space 8 [, two extremely tiny traces almost in vertical alignment lying in upper part of writing space and at line-level respectively 9 [, rather short diagonal stroke ascending from left to right in upper part of wridng space, whose lower extremity touches tip of right-hand oblique of previous y
Fr. 10

1 ] , very tiny trace below line-level 2 ] , thick trace at mid-height 4 ] . [,
first, tiny trace in upper part of writing space ; second, thin short diagonal trace ascending from left to right in upper part of writing space at edge of gap; third, upper part of upright whose tip joins to left

150

SUBLITERARY TEXTS
short stroke approaching horizontal; fourth, remains of top arc with sign of abbreviation consisting of a diagonal stroke ascending from left to right in upper part of writing space ; fifth, blurred trace in upper part of writing space touching centre of abbreviation stroke of previous letter
Fr. 8

Possible articulations: 2 S’ ioprac ; 3 avrol] 4 /x|e0opto-; 5 /xecan; 6 cf. fr. 15. 1.

Fr. 9

Possible articulations: 2 eyw Se; 3 cf. fr. 3.8 and fr. 4.3; 4 7toll5o # [, cf. fr. 1+2 — > iv 19
iraiho<f)ovLac. For the abbreviation in 8 cf. fr. 5 i 8.

6-10 remains to left of intercolumnium to 0.7 cm.

Fr. 10

3 See fr. 1+2 -* iii 7 and 23-4 n., iv 16.

4 [?

Fr. 11 —4 Fr. 12 —4
col. i col. ii

]..[

].?.[

]

] M

].«*/*£.[

J€

CT€(j> _ [

Jcvon
].

CfjLdK[

]0JT°IX [

♦

5 VLCUC[

0L7T€C

].PWT.[

CUOU7T

] . iSov [

KOLT €

]r°n-p[[a]'o/4

]ean8[

Fr. 11 col. i
1 ] . i two traces in vertical alignment in upper part of writing space and at mid-height respectively 4 ] . , thin vertical stroke, 0.2 cm long, probably remains of upright
Col. ii
1 ] . , very short diagonal trace at line-level _ [, diagonal stroke ascending from left to right, whose tip joins to left horizontal stroke 3 [, traces suggesting a thin stroke approaching horizontal, which could be part of upright or left-hand arc 6 [, upright 7 [, short diagonal trace descending from left to right at mid-height 8 [, short diagonal trace ascending from left to right in upper part of writing space 9 . . v, tip of upright protruding above writing space,
followed, 2 mm further, by very tiny and faded trace in upper part of writing space: square letter?

Fr. 12

1 # [, two extremely tiny traces in lower part of writing space very close to each other

5093. RHETORICAL EPIDEIXEIS

151

foot of upright 2 ] . , short horizontal trace at line-level # [, left-hand arc 3 [, three extremely tiny traces very close to each other in vertical alignment in upper part of writing space; very tiny trace at line-level in vertical alignment with previous group of traces 4 # [, very tiny vertical trace in upper part of writing space, rather close to previous letter 5 ] , trace protruding above writing space [, vertical stroke, perhaps central part of upright? 6 ] , slightly diagonal trace descending from left to right in lower part of writing space and at mid-height _ [, circle with open top: o or left-hand lobe of 00? 7 ] . ? short slightly diagonal stroke slanting to left in upper part of writing space 8 ]ro, position of o above the crossbar of t raises the ques tion whether it is meant as an addition, i.e. to, or as an abbreviation, i.e. ro( ) tt , corrected from a previous letter, perhaps £? [, slightly blurred trace belonging to upper part of upright or part of the deletion strokes of previous A 10 ] , first, tiny diagonal trace descending from left to right in upper part of writing space ; second, tip of upright followed by sign of abbreviation consisting of a diagonal descending from right to left, probably k; third, remains of crossbar? fourth, tip of triangular letter? fifth, upper part of upright
Fr. 1 1 col. ii
3 See fr. 10.3 n.

6 arrecK\eh-. Past form of drrocKeSavvvfju in the sense of "to scatter’: reference to Pentheus’ sparagtnos ? Cf. fr. 5 ii 17 n. and E. Ba. 1 137-9.

Fr. 12

2 lafjLpol or lajjij 3e[. Possible form of the noun ta/q3oc or from the adjective lafifieioc, referring to Tragedy or Comedy?

4 Possibly yeAJcoro(c) ; cf. 8.

Fr. 13 Fr. 14 — ► Fr. 15

]e/xt§4

].vw[

] . a^° . [
J . Q007! . [

]atov *
]vTTep.[

] (fiVapfil

Kptr'a[
_ VOLC€7t[

].[

Fr. 13
i [, lower extremity of upright protruding below writing space and ending with leftwards curve 2 ] , two traces in vertical alignment, lying in upper part of writing space and at line-level respectively 3 ] , diagonal stroke descending from left to right with upper extremity curving to right, a or e [, diagonal ascending from left to right 4 ] #, very tiny trace at mid-height [, upper part of upright whose tip joins left-hand extremity of horizontal, possibly belonging to crossbar
Fr. 14

1 # f, faded remains of upright slighdy slanting to right 2 ]., upright # [, left-hand angle of triangular letter 3 ] , remains of ligature with following letter, consisting of a diagonal trace descending from left to right in upper part of writing space </>, remains of abbreviation stroke, slighdy slanting to right, attached to left upper part of body of letter 4 ] . , two tiny traces in vertical alignment very close to each other in upper part of writing space . [, upper part of left- hand arc intersecting upright from previous line

152

SUBLITERARY TEXTS

Fr. 15

1 ] , trace at line-level in vertical alignment with left-hand extremity of horizontal 2 ] #,
left-hand arc 3 ] . ? remains of left-hand arc 4 J . ? tip of upright?

Fr. 13

Possible articulations: 2 77/Lttv; 4 9c of ‘punishment ?

Fr. 14

3 oj]c 4>v{Ci) or J (cf. fr. 3.8).

Ap(iCTo)(f)(avr}c)?, reading app' (with abbreviation stroke) and taking it as a monogram similar to the monogram April for Ap(ict6)v(ikoc), as Parsons suggests; but K. McNamee, Annotations in Greek and Latin Texts from Egypt (2007) 38, does not record this form in marginal references to Aristophanes of Byzantium (while the monogram for Aristonicus is illustrated at p. 39). The presence of Aristophanes of Byzantium as a source is perfectly compatible with the topics of other sections dealing with tragedy, comedy, Euripides, and Menander (cf. fr. 1+2 -► iv 1-14 n., 14-22 n.; fr. 4.5 11., 5-6 n., 17-20 n.).
Alternatively, one could consider the sequence a p<p\ as metathesis for app\ but the instance is not to be found in Gignac, Grammar i 314-15.

Fr. 15

Possible articulations: 1 cv]yKpir( ), from cvyxpiTtKoc , comparative?, cf. fr. 8.6; 3 fyv) 6Vp(a^-)? cf. fr. 3.7.

Fr. 16 ->

]/x a Aa[

]Kpica\
]£ac0aA€ [

5 ]€uf)d(JJK

]pLifjav od[
].... «.[

Fr. 17 -»

• ♦

].x.[

]ca[

]^[

]*L7T. . .L

5 J. ou.[

J V7T€VOr)\

] €C ^ tc[
j K0T[

].a>/ *'.[

10 ] ecpec . [

Fr. 18 -»

• • 1

].[.].[

JAcro [ ]a pra[
]owk[ ] vav[
]yovoc[ jcc/ca[

5 JcScr[ \e\6o [
]«•«. ,OV.[

].<4[

Fr. 16

1 ] . . > first, horizontal stroke in lower part of writing space, 3 mm long; second, extremity of diagonal stroke ascending from left to right? ] . . ., first, lower extremity of diagonal stroke ascending from left to right?; second, lower extremity of diagonal stroke ascending from left to right; third, trace at line-level 2 a. _ , first, remains of curve approaching left-hand arc and ligatured with following letter; second, wide cum- approaching upper part of left-hand arc and touching following

5093. RHETORICAL EPIDEIXEIS

153

letter 3 # [, traces in diagonal alignment ascending from left to right in upper part of writing space 4 _ [, upright 5 k [, remains of upright? 7 ] #, first, tiny traee in upper part of writing space; second, tip of diagonal stroke aseendingfrom left to right; third, tiny and faded traee in upper part of writing space; fourth, tiny trace in upper part of writing space k # [, remains of left-hand are in upper part of writing space
Fr. 17

1 ] , horizontal stroke at mid-height [, remains of left-hand are? 4 77 , first, upright followed, 3 mm further, by trace at line-level; second, part of upright protruding below line-level; 3 mm further, very tiny traee at mid-height [, left-hand arc 5 ] , right-hand arc in upper part of writing spaee, very likely raised letter belonging to abbreviation . [, l-mm-long diagonal traee aseending from left to right at line-level 6 ] , horizontal stroke, 1.5 mm long, in upper part of writing spaee, touching following letter 7 ] . ? traee in upper part of writing spaee 8 ] < ,
tip of upright; 1 mm further, tiny traee in upper part of writing spaee 9 ] . ? traee below line-
level [, upright slightly slanting to right in lower part of writing spaee; above, diagonal stroke descending from left to right, possibly sign of abbreviation 10 ] , part of diagonal stroke descending from left to right in ligature with following letter [, remains of left-hand are 11 rj written in a very redueed form, or rather t? seeond p, bearing a sort of circumflex accent as a sign of' deletion ? S overwritten on a previous letter? 12 ] , upper part of diagonal stroke descending from left to right [, very scanty remains of upright

Fr. 18

1 ] # , tiny trace in upper part of writing space < [, foot of long upright touching left-hand end of erossbar of t of following line 2 o # , remains of upright 3 ] . ? right-hand are in upper part of writing space 5 [, horizontal stroke in upper part of w riting spaee eurving dowrn to right, linked to remains of upright? 6 upper part of upright [, diagonal stroke aseending from left to right with upper extremity eurving down o, first, right-hand half of crossbar, touching tip of following letter; seeond, upright? [, short slightly diagonal traee aseending from left to right in upper part of writing spaee, in vertical alignment with tiny traee at line-level 7 ] _ , first, very short horizontal traee in upper part of writing spaee; seeond, tip of upright? a, apex in upper part of writing spaee, followed 2 mm further by upright, n possible ] , join between horizontal stroke and upright in upper part of writing spaee (only extremities of these stroke are preserved) 8 ] # # , first, tip of upright?; seeond, curve approaehing left-hand arc whose upper tip joins tip of thin vertical stroke: the eomplex suggests cursive e, similar to the e in the same line ] ligature with following letter consisting of stroke at mid-height slighdy aseending to left 9 j . ?
ligature with following letter consisting of short diagonal stroke descending from left to right in upper part of writing space
Fr 16

4 accfxiXei fa-?

Fr. 17

Possible articulations: 5 \co( ); 9 k( at); /x(cv)[; 12 J a^or(-).

Fr. 18

There are in fact two fragments: I have assumed that in the first 7 lines a letter is missing between the two fragments, but this is not eertain.

154

SUBLITERARY TEXTS

Fr. 19 -> Fr. 20 ->

].lv[

]ca fjiy[

]....[

]coS.[

] vckolcto
5

].P0C. . .[

]. . . pyeicu.f
].cre[

] . . .

]...[

] . . ac . . . [

. .

]dev[

] . v. v[

].[

Fr. 19

1 ] . > traces in lower part of writing space 2 ] , right-hand arc, either head of p or o
3 ] . .> first> right-hand arc; second, upper part of upright [, first, stroke approaching horizontal,
1 mm long, at mid-height; second, remains of triangular letter, either a or A 4 [, lower part of diagonal descending from left to right in lower part of writing space 5 ] , very short diagonal trace descending from right to left touching at mid-height upright of following letter [. lower half of upright protruding below line-level 6 ] , first, tip of upright protruding above, belonging to triangular letter?; second, very tiny trace in lower part of writing space at edge of lacuna p. very thin tiny diagonal trace ascending from left to right in lower part of waiting space, followed 1 mm further by upright joining to left remains of horizontal stroke at mid-height [, only join with previous letter preserved, consisting of diagonal stroke descending from left to right in upper part of writing space and departing from the upper extremity of the right-hand lobe of the preceding co 7 ] . . . ) first> trace at line-level at edge of lacuna; second, trace at line-level at edge of lacuna; third, trace at line-level at edge of lacuna, in vertical alignment with tiny trace in upper part of writing space, lying at the opposite edge of the lacuna 8 ] , two traces roughly in vertical alignment,
lying in upper part of writing space and below line-level respectively a, left-hand arc in upper part of writing space . . . [, first, two diagonal strokes joining at mid-height, tiny trace in upper part of writing space in diagonal alignment descending from left to right with the right-hand diagonal stroke: possible A or lower half of x; second, scanty remains of bottom arc?; third, two traces in diagonal alignment lying in upper part of writing space and at line-level respectively; further tiny trace to right of the lower trace previously mentioned 9 0 corrected currente calamo? 10 ] , upper part of right-hand arc? y, left-hand and right-hand corners of triangular letter n [, short thin horizontal stroke in upper part of writing space
Fr. 20

1 ] . _, first, bottom arc in lower part of writing space, bearing blurred horizontal stroke, 1.5 mm long; second, foot of upright protruding below line-level? [, first, tiny trace at line-level; second, very tiny trace at line-level 4 ] . , stroke approaching upright <j> , remains of left-hand arc
5 ] . , blurred remains of triangular letter c. . , first, blurred traces rather confused: correction?; second, blui red tiaces of diagonal stroke ascending from left to right, whose upper part seems to

5093. RHETORICAL EPIDEIXEIS

155

curve to left [, upright protruding below line-level and curving to left 6 ] ? right-hand arc 7 ] , first, trace in upper part of writing space, possibly belonging to right hand extremity of crossbar; second, tip of upright? # [, very tiny trace in upper part of writing space
Fr. 19

5 KCLCTOp[?

6 not Apyelco, unless the two parts of the fragments do not join so closely (Parsons), but cf. K in the previous line, whose right-hand part lies in the right-hand part of the fragment and seems to join perfectly with the left-hand part; possibly piretco?

Fr. 20

Possible articulations: 4 ]<f>ovr]c ; 5 ]Spoc.

Fr. 21 — ►

Fr. 22 ->

Fr. 23 ->

]..[

F.[

]ov.l
] . Ka . [
ca®p[

. K(Xi . [

]c*P.[

CTOcS [

].™.[

]avrp[

Ka \

5 j.ax[

3 ].[.].«v[

•

]to[

].[

Fr. 21

1 J , thick trace at line-level # [, lower extremity of stroke slightly slightly slanting to right and descending below line-level 2 . [, left-hand arc 3 ] # , remains of upright? _ [, traces in vertical alignment at edge; the lowest one could belong to left-hand arc 4 J . ? tipper part of upright with tip curving to left or upper part of right-hand arc # [, remains of upright slanting to left and joining another stroke (not preserved) at mid-height, r? 5 ] . , short vertical stroke in upper part of writing space
Fr. 22

1 [, very small loop in upper part of writing space, part of t? 2 ] . ? upright whose upper extremity is linked to left to diagonal stroke ascending from left to right; below lower extremity of that diagonal, extremely tiny remains of left-hand arc? . [, remains of left-hand arc in ligature with descending diagonal of previous a 3 . [, small loop in upper part of writing space; short horizontal trace at mid-height: t? 5 ] . , very tiny trace in upper part of writing space ] . ,
horizontal stroke, 2 cm long, in upper part of writing space, touching upper extremity of left-hand lobe of following co, whose left-hand extremity is in vertical alignment with tiny trace lying at midheight at edge 6 [, very tiny trace in upper part of writing space
Fr. 23

2 [, two extremely tiny traces in horizontal alignment with each other, 1 mm distant, lying in upper part of writing space p very close to preceding raised 9: added later? 3 . [, extremely short horizontal trace at line-level 4 ] . , remains of triangular letter t [, horizontal stroke at line-level with thicker right-hand extremity at edge

156

SUBLITERART TEXTS

Fr. 22

3 *p{oc).
5 J.w, r?

Fr. 23

2 /xa[A] 0(a/c-)* Possible (but rather speculative) articulation, as abbreviated form of the personal name MaXdaKTj, which oeeurs in this abbreviated form in X 1231 3 and 5, from Menander’s CtKvwvtoc (CGkP no. 189, fr. 11 Sandbaeh), rather common in New Comedy (see Gomme— Sand- baeh, Menander 833—4); 8'. 4-5~ ^ n- on Menandrean meretrices. However, from the paleographieal standpoint we have to assume that the A falls in lacuna , and therefore to consider the two tiny traces described above as mere spots of ink; moreover, the p following the abbreviated form is attached to the superlinear 0, as the 0 itself was added later after the p. Alternatively, the assumed raised 0 and the following p may form a complex that fits a cj) bearing a sign of abbreviation.

2, 3 Suggest line-beginnings.

4 / 1 instead of k?

Fr. 24 — >

Fr. 25 — >

Fr. 26

]....[
oiSetcl
Jrec [

]...?.[

]pov [

]...[

LVOV

[

Fr. 24

1 ] . . . > first> extremely tiny trace at line level; seeond, lower part of stroke slightly slanting to right protruding below line-level; third, lower part of diagonal stroke protruding below line-level; 0.5 mm farther remains of diagonal stroke descending from left to right lying at line-level [, very tiny trace at line level 2 ] , remains of triangular letter, A or A 3 | rec, civ written by the same hand above this sequenee in a slighdy smaller size

Fr. 25

1 ] . . . > first, diagonal stroke descending from left to right and reaching lower extremity of upnght, to left of this, in vertical alignment with left-hand extremity of diagonal, a very tiny traec at line-level; seeond, lower part of upright with rightwards hook; third, loop touching line-level [,
short stroke approaching horizontal at mid-height: ligature with previous letter? 4 ] .first,
top of an oval, seeond, top of a round letter _ [, very tiny trace above writing spaee

Fr. 26

2 ]. , horizontal stroke, 1 mm long, in upper part of writing spaee, touching tip of following 1 v . , tiny dot in upper part of writing spaee, at first sight like a high stop, but in 5093 no other dots to mark pause arc found [, horizontal trace at mid-height, possibly extremity of crossbar
3 ] . , first, extremely tiny trace in upper part of writing-space; seeond, tip of upright?; third,
tip of upright?; fourth, tip of upright attached to left of short diagonal traec descending from left to right; fifth, blurred top of round letter attached to following letter [, left-hand are? "

5093. RHETORICAL EPIDEIXEIS

157

Fr. 24

3 Likely a participle in the plural corrected into an indicative of the third person; but the sequence written above may represent a variant.

Fr- 27 Fr. 28

Col. i Col. ii

]€P°V

[

Fr. 27 col. i
1 ] . , lower part of upright protruding below line-level
Col. ii
2 [, remains of left-hand arc?

Fr. 28

1 ....[? first5 lower part of upright descending below line-level; second, lower part of upright descending below line-level; third, lower part of upright descending below line-level; fourth, bottom arc in lower part of writing space 2 _ [, remains of left-hand arc 3 [, first, upright touching not entirely preserved crossbar: t?; second, diagonal ascending from left to right, touching right-hand extremity of crossbar of previous letter; third, thin horizontal trace, 1 mm long, in upper part of writing space; fourth, top arc touching to left tip of upright; fifth, upper part of upright protruding above writing space, whose tip is in horizontal alignment with tiny trace lying 1 mm further

Fr. 29 —>■

Fr. 30 -»■

Fr. 31 -»

]....[

]..[

].«.[

]./*«[

] At
]««.[

]°A.[

]vrrll
K.[

]%[

\ai 7e[

Iv.l
5 1A[

]c?[

]..[

(foot)

5 ].*[

Fr. 29

1 ] . . #5 first, extremely tiny trace at line-level; second, bottom of loop at line-level; third, lower part of upright descending below line-level [, very tiny trace at line level 2 ] . , very short vertical trace in upper part of writing space 3 [, diagonal stroke descending from left to right in upper part of working space 5 ] , thick trace in upper part of writing space # [, thick trace at mid height, attached to previous letter, possibly belonging to upright 7 J . ? extremely tiny trace above writing space [, trace above writing space, possibly tip of upright or diagonal

158

SUBLITERART TEXTS

Fr. 30

1 ] , first, trace descending below line-level, possibly leftwards hook of' upright; second, left-
hand arc with tiny trace at mid-height : e or © 2 ] # , extremely tiny trace in upper part of writing space [, left-hand arc
Fr. 31
i ] , short diagonal stroke ascending from left to right in upper part of writing space; tiny trace at line-level in vertical alignment with previous stroke [, diagonal stroke ascending from left to right; at mid-height join with another stroke (not preserved) 2 _ [, diagonal stroke ascending from left to right 3 a , curve descending below line-level and approaching right-hand arc; above it some blurred trace; possibly h [, thick vertical trace in upper part of writing space 4 [, remains of left-hand arc? 5 ] , blurred diagonal stroke descending from left to right
Fr. 29

Possible articulation: 4 7t]oAl>[-.

Fr. 32 -»

Fr. 33 -> col. i
col. ii

]vvi. [
k
].°4

•

5 ]

]

]a
]u

[

..[
v.[

°.[ a . [
K.l 4

[

Fr. 32

1 [, traces that may belong to central part of left-hand arc 2 ] # , upright slightly slant ing to right
Fr. 33 col. i
2 ] % , part of diagonal stroke, descending from left to right, in lower part of writing space
3 ] . , short vertical trace in upper part of wTiting space 4 ] . ? blurred trace in lower part of writing space
Col. ii
1 above first preserved line in intercolumnium, rather faded and thin diagonal stroke, ascending from left to right, 2.5 mm long: critical sign or accidental stroke? 2 _ [, first, upright slightly slanting to right; on its left, in horizontal alignment with its tip, traces in horizontal alignment, probably left-hand part of crossbar: t?; second, short vertical trace in upper part of writing space 3 # [, extremely tiny and faded trace at mid-height 4 [, upright descending below' line-level
5 # [, part of upright? 6 [, extremely tiny trace at mid-height at edge

5093. RHETORICAL EPIDEIXEIS

159

Fr- 35

Fr. 36 ->

].T. .[

]...[

].«.[

]raf
]°V/?[

J.Xff
>wr[

]..[

>[..].[

^ ]..[

Fr- 34
i ] # , short vertical trace in upper part of writing space [, first, lower part of left-hand arc; second, trace at line-level 4 [, upper part of right-hand arc? 5 J . . , first, upper part of upright whose tip joins short horizontal stroke to right; second, two traces, very close to each other, in upper part of writing space
Fr- 35

1 ] . . . , first, lower part of upright; to right very close to it small trace; second, tiny trace at line-level; third, extremely tiny trace at line-level 3 J < , first, remains of upper part of upright; to left, very close to it, tiny trace; second, tip of upright?

Fr. 36

1 ] , right-hand arc # [, two very tiny traces in vertical alignment between each other in upper part of writing space 2 J # , two traces in vertical alignment, lying in upper part and in lower part of writing space respectively: possibly part of upright or extremities of left-hand arc

Fr. 36

Possible articulation: 1 Jou, but ]a with big loop not to be excluded

Fr- 37

Fr. 38

Fr- 39

]tcu[

].ov.[

] Tf?.i
]to[

] .™+[

].[

]..[

].[

Fr. 37

2 [, tip of diagonal stroke descending from left to right and protruding above writing space
3 [, very tiny trace probably belonging to stroke protruding above writing space
Fr. 38

3 ] , first, trace approaching vertical protruding above writing space; second, top of round letter?

Fr- 39

1 ] , upright whose tip joins left-hand crossbar: r or t possible [, left-hand arc 2 ]_,

160

SUBLITERARY TEXTS

short diagonal stroke descending from left to right, protruding above writing space, with lower extremity in ligature with crossbar of following letter 3 # [, two very tiny traces very close to each other and almost in vertical alignment in lower part of writing space
Fr. 37

Possible articulation: 2 ] rpa[y o>(Sta-) [; cf. fr. 45.2.

Fr. 39

Possible articulation: 2 /ejarorfi) [ without aspiration for ko.66t 1? (see Gignac, Grammar i 134—5).

40 “*

Fr. 41 -*

Fr. 42 -*
pcu[

]...[

♦

] .

].CX.[

]«M

« «

]...[

]..[

Fr. 40

2 ] # , two faded traces in vertical alignment, lying at line-level and in upper part of writing space respectively
Fr. 41

1 ] _, first, very tiny trace below line-level; second, two tiny traces very close to each other and close to right of lower part of upright protruding below line-level; third, very thin horizontal stroke,
2 mm long, in lower part of writing space 2 ] . , short vertical trace in upper part of writing space . [, remains of left-hand arc? 3 1 , first, very tiny trace in upper part of writing space; second, top of round letter; third, upper part of upright, joining to right crossbar
Fr. 42

1 . [> lower half of upright 3 J _ , first, short horizontal trace in upper part of writing space touching to left prolongation of upright of (f> of previous line; second, tip of upright?

Fr. 43 — ►

Fr. 44 -*

Fr. 45 ->

].".[

• •

].[

]’./?.

• •

].«[

].4

Fr. 43

1 ] . 5 lower part of upright # [, upright descending below line-level 2 ] . , circle in upper part of writing space: head of p or o

5093. RHETORICAL EPIDEIXEIS

161

Fr. 44
i ] . , extremity of upright protruding below line-level 3 ] , right-hand half of triangular letter, a or A 4 ] . > stroke 2 mm long approaching horizontal intersects upright and protrudes above writing space
Fr* 45

1 ] , remains of upright whose tip joins to left crossbar: r or T possible [, upright slightly slanting to right 2 ] . ? remains of crossbar touching following letter; join with missing stroke —
probably upright — is visible at left-hand extremity of preserved part of crossbar p , top of triangular letter [, trace at mid-height
Fr. 43

Possible articulation: 2 ] otv[ or }ptv[.

Fr. 44

Possible articulation: 3 ] Set [ or ] a el [.

Fr-45

2 ] rpayaj(Sta-) [; cf. fr. 37.2.

Fr. 46 -»

Fr. 47 -»

Fr 48 ->

Fr 49 ->

]..[

• ♦

]..[

].[

M
hixl lvTi
•

].oc.[

•

]..[

]...[

Fr. 47
i ]_ , first, bottom of round letter; second, foot of upright 3 ] , short stroke approach ing horizontal, 1 mm long, lying at line-level and touching following letter [, short diagonal trace descending from left to right in upper part of writing space, attached to upper extremity of previous c 4 ] , first, lower part of diagonal descending from left to right; second, left-hand corner of' trian gular letter, A or A ; third, tip of upright
Fr. 48

1 ] [, foot of two uprights, 2 mm distant from each other

Fr‘ 49

1 ] , lower part of upright touching to right remains of stroke approaching horizontal, possibly n 3 ] , upper part of two uprights, 2 mm distant from each other, possibly belonging to square letter

162

SUBLITERARY TEXTS
t
O
lQ

Ph
Fr. 51 ->

Fr. 52 ->

• •

]..[

• •

]...[

•

]..[

]klv[

]...[

>.[

]x..[

]...[

]A[

♦ •

]<^[

]..[

3 ].o.[

Fr. 50

1 ] . . j foot of two uprights 2 mm distant from each other, possibly belonging to square letter 3 x. .5 first, upper part of upright protruding above writing space; second, tiny trace in upper part of writing space, 1 mm distant from previous letter
Fr. 52

1 ] ^ first, short horizontal stroke, 2 mm long, roughly at mid-height; second, upright descending below line-level 2 # [, remains of left-hand arc 3 ] ., tiny trace in upper part of writing space 4 ] . . ? first, short stroke approaching horizontal joins upright at mid-height, very likely n ; second, lowrer extremity of diagonal stroke 5 ] . ? thin vertical trace below line-level # [,
thick stroke approaching upright ; left-hand arc also possible
Fr. 53 preserves traces of 7 lines: although no letter can be distinguished, ink and trace suggest the same hand.

The following fragments are written on both sides:

Fr. 1 bis
— y
top
]. 9-X.i ]'AvTrrj\a
] ot p'o ltjAuttV
t VVOV '

top crarrj t poo '
J/Sareo do\€[

].[Jot[.]ai'e[

].[.]. .VT.acS[

] €§ta[

1 ] . , horizontal stroke, 2 mm long, in upper part of writing space: part of crossbar? [, thick rather blurred trace in upper part of writing space, in vertical alignment with tiny trace at midheight 4 1 ., lower extremity of upright descending below line-level very close to tiny trace at mid-height [, left-hand arc 5 ] , diagonal stroke descending from left to right ] , upper half of upright . d, upper half of triangular letter, A or A [, tip of upright, followed 0.5 mm further by tiny trace at mid-height

5093. RHETORICAL EPIDEIXEIS

163

1 J . > tiny trace in upper part of writing space r] , lower half of two uprights belonging to square letter; possibly tt . [, short horizontal stroke in upper part of writing space, departing from upper extremity ot right-hand lobe of preceding co 2 remains of left-hand arc or upright tick 3 ] .5 diagonal trace ascending from left to right in upper part of writing space e[, sign in the form of a circumflex accent lying slightly above writing space and touching left upper extremity of arc of e 4 ] . . > first, remains of upright; second, shape of triangular letter, a or a ] re mains of right-hand arc and trace at mid-height: possible o or go (in the latter case the left-hand lobe of co should fall in lacuna) v , remains of upright as raised letter indicating abbreviation [, thick trace at line-level 5 ] . > remains of traces in vertical alignment, probably belonging to upright protruding above writing space ] , confused traces belonging to two or three letters; it is possible to distinguish two uprights descending below line-level and traces roughly in horizontal alignment in upper part of writing space: ci or ti possible r , short diagonal stroke ascending from left to right in upper part of writing space, whose lower extremity touches right-hand extremity of crossbar of preceding t: sign of abbreviation or upper extremity of left-hand arc of e? 6 ] . , curve in upper part of writing space approaching diagonal stroke descending from left to right 7 ] . . ?
first, apex in upper part of writing space, possible top of triangular letter; second, rather narrow bottom arc touching precious traces # [, upper part of round letter ] , two tiny traces very close to each other lying in vertical alignment in upper part of writing space

Upper margin about 2 cm.

Possible articulations: 2 Xvttt] ; 3 oltj Xvrrrj ; 3—4 Xvttt] | . . . [ fia]f)vvovc[a ; for the iunctura cf. D. L.

7.112.

Upper margin 0.5 cm.

Possible articulations: 2 ]/3arcoc 9oXe[ ; 5 i8coft(cu).

Fr. 2 bis
— >

Fr. 3 bis
4-
u.[

]..[

].[

]«..[

]^.[

].oA.[

].*...[

]?l7. .[

].oc.[

] < 7tPt(i£l[

# cofl toc\

}aij[

]vXo [

] ou cTa£[
kTCl>[ t ] < Oj[

Oi
1 _ 1

•V

5 ] . KOL * [

3 j . [

3 ].[.]..[

] . VK . [
j. o+[

•

].[

Fr. 2 bis ->

1 ] , short diagonal stroke descending from left to right in lower part of writing space, touching upright of following n . [, loop, possibly a 2 # [, left-hand arc 3 T. ? f°ot °k upright? g [, bottom of round letter, e or o 5 . [, upright, on its left, very close to it, two

164

SUBLITERARY TEXTS

extremely tiny traces in slightly diagonal alignment ascending from left to right at mid-height and in upper part of writing space respectively; above the upright tiny trace 6 ] # , curve approaching left-hand arc lying in upper part of writing space, whose lower extremity touches left-hand oblique of following y; oddly shaped o not to be ruled out > [, upright protruding above line-level and ending with leftwards tiny hook 7 1 . > extremely tiny and faded trace protruding above writing space,
possibly mere stain
I
i ] , two traces at line-level, 3 mm distant from each other: possibly feet of two uprights be longing to square letter 2 ] e , trace at line level [, stroke approaching vertical, departing from lower extremity of right-hand diagonal of previous letter and lying in lower part of writing space : left-hand arc not to be excluded 3 ] , short horizontal stroke in upper part of writing space,
possibly right-hand extremity of crossbar touching following letter [, remains of loop, possibly a 4 # [, short vertical stroke in lower part of writing space, possibly part of upright 5 ] . > thin short diagonal stroke descending from left to right in upper part of writing space and touching following letter at mid-height [, upper hall of left-hand arc 6 ] , extremities of left-hand arc?

Fr. 3 bis -»

1 ] # , extremely tiny trace at line level 2 ] . . 3 first, very short horizontal trace at mid height; second, curve approaching upper half of upright and slighdy slanting to left # [, remains of upright? 3 ] . j scanty remains of lower extremity of upright descending below line-level
4 ] , upright slightly slanting to right and joining to left remains of crossbar v # , tiny vertical trace,

1 mm long, in upper part of writing space 5 ] . , first, central part of right-hand arc?;
second, vertical stroke 3 mm long slightly slanting to left, protruding above writing space and touching line-level of preceding line; third, left-hand arc; fourth, upper part of upright protruding below- writing space; fifth, upper part of left-hand arc embracing small trace at mid-height; sixth, short diagonal trace ascending from left to right above writing space
i
1 ' first, lower part of upright descending below line-level and ending with leftwards blob; second, two traces in vertical alignment, very close to previous letter, lying in upper part of writing space and below line-level respectively 2 ] # , stroke approaching horizontal, 2 mm long, at midheight t _ [, first, very tiny trace above line-level, probably foot of upright; second, diagonal stroke,
1.5 mm long, descending from left to right and departing at mid-height; third, part of two diagonals ascending from left to right and descending from left to right respectively, suggest lower half of x 3 ] . , upright whose tip joins to left short horizontal stroke 4 ] < , tip of upright? o>[, two tiny and faded traces, 0.5 mm distant from each other, one lying in upper part of writing space, the other at mid-height and very close to following letter 5 ] , faded tiny trace in upper part of writing space ] _, first, short horizontal trace in upper part of writing space; second, tip of upright?

Fr. 2 bis F

Possible articulations: 2 o Ao[yoc; 4 ro\v \6y\ov or tovto\v Aoy[ov; 6 or(i); 7 ]c ofxv[: form of
OfjLVVfjU?

Fr. 3 bis ->

Possible articulations: 3 7rp(oc) ra£ i[v\ 4 a form of ra£ tc, cf. fr. 1+2 -» ii 9, 11, and fr. 4.13.

5093. RHETORICAL EPIDEIXEIS

165

Fr. 4 bis
Fr. 5 bis
— y
1

]£..[

]..[

] TTlAo _ [

]r°c.[

]..[

]. T". .[

] ^ adoc[

] SoVT ' [

]??.[

]..oAo.[

]..ac[
vet a >c
]fQ. . .[

]rv.[

]...[

5 ] . €v9oCjJ,[ 5

L.LfavC

» ]f[

^ ]..[

]>ov.[

•

]..[

• •

]..[

• •

Fr. 4 bis -»

1 | , left-hand arc?

[, two very tiny traces, 1 mm distant from each other, in diagonal alignment from left to right very close to previous letter; the second one protrudes below line-level 3 . [> veIT tiny trace slightly below line-level 4 ] . j diagonal trace descending from left to right in upper part of writing space; 0.5 mm further, remains of stroke approaching vertical in lower part of writing space . [, lower half of left-hand arc? 5 ] . ? upright whose tip joins to left short diagonal stroke ascending from left to right 6 [, only a join departing from centre of right-
hand upright of previous n is preserved
1

1 ] # , blurred trace in upper part of writing space _ [, lower part of upright 2 ] # ,
wide curve with arc facing upper part of writing space [, crossbar 3 _ [, blurred and thick horizontal stroke ascending from left to right, departing from mid-height and protruding above writing space 4 tj , upper part of upright protruding above writing space and slightly curving to right # [, first, two short parallel horizontal strokes, 0.5 mm distant from each other, lying in upper part of writing space; second, trace in upper part of writing space, possibly part of top arc; roughly in vertical alignment with it, thick trace below line-level 5 ] . , upper part of upright protruding above writing space _ [, tiny trace protruding above writing space a, small bottom arc in upper part of writing space
Fr. 5 bis-*

1 ] , two tiny traces in vertical alignment lying in upper and lower part of writing space respectively [, tiny trace at mid-height 2 ] 5 tiny trace slightly protruding above writing space o> , first, lower part of upright; second, tiny trace at line-level 3 ] . , upright w4iose tip joins to right horizontal stroke touching folio wdng letter o, upper half of right-hand arc t [, 1.5-mm- long stroke approaching vertical in upper part of writing space touching previous o 4 . [, tip of upright? 6 ] # , very tiny trace at mid-height # [, stroke approaching upright with tip curving leftwards joins to right at mid-height another stroke (not preserved); n possible i
1 [, remains of upright with lower extremity curving leftwards 2 ] , , short thin vertical trace in lower part of writing space 3 ] . . ? space available for two letters : 4-mm-long crossbar touches upper extremity' of loop of following A and joins in its centre 4 ] . . > crossbar whose right-hand extremity joins upper extremity of right-hand arc: to possible # [, blurred upright joining at mid-height another stroke (not presewed); n possible 5 ] . , remains of two diagonals

166

SUBLITERARY TEXTS

intersecting each other; a possible # [, trace in upper part of writing space suggesting apex of triangular letter 6 ] , right-hand arc belonging to raised letter indicating abbreviation? [,
blurred trace in upper part of writing space

Fr. 4 bis

Possible articulations: 3 t]Sovr(ec); 5 ] irevOoc.

Fr. 5 bis

Possible articulations: 1 ] eViAoyf-, cf. fr. 1+2 ->col. ii 17, fr. 4.18; 3 ]ro 6 Aoy[oc , cf. fr. 2 bis I 2, 4.

Possible articulation: 2 a]ya9oc [ or naOoc [.

Fr. 6 bis

Fr. 7 bis
h. tX

].c<M

].ud
]7T. .[

1. .
auAou[
l.^t
].€‘°[

] . 7ToXtJ . [

].?Ttc.[

]a7TOl [

]^C7?.[

].a[

1 . va . [

?foot
]..?[

» ]..[

5 ] aiV [

• ♦

]/V[

].-..[

Koc[

]vk[

].Ao.[

].x[

Fr. 6 bis ->

1 V . . 5 first, lower part ol diagonal ascending from left to right and departing from right-hand foot of upright of previous letter; second, lower part of upright descending below line-level [, upright descending below line-level 2 ] . .> first, tiny trace in lower part of writing space ; second, short diagonal stroke descending from left to right in lower part of writing space, very close to trace at mid-height: e? jx, upright 3 ] . > diagonal stroke descending from left to right, rather curvilinear, in ligature with following letter . [, stroke approaching diagonal descending from left to right, possibly part of left-hand arc 4 [, upper half of left-hand arc; in vertical alignment with its upper extremity, short horizontal trace 0.5 mm distant 5 ] , trace at mid-height €,
top of round letter bearing extra ink (possibly belonging to upright of previous line descending below writing space)

1 ] , short horizontal stroke in upper part of writing space, touching following letter two traces, very close to each other, in vertical alignment in upper part of writing space

2 ],

. a, upper

5093. RHETORICAL EPIDEIXEIS

167

part of upright with leftwards blob 4 ] . 5 upright joining at mid-height to left another stroke
(not preserved) 5 ] , , extremely tiny trace in upper part of writing space [, tip of upright slighdy slanting to right?

Fr. 7 bis
1 ] , remains of bottom of round letter, e or o 2 ] . > tiny trace in upper part of writing space 3 [, thin short vertical at mid-height, probably part of upright _ [, thin vertical trace in upper part of writing space 4 ] , tiny curve approaching diagonal stroke ascending from left to right and protruding below line-level, possibly h _ [, remains of diagonal stroke ascending from left to right; from its tip short horizontal stroke goes down: possibly remains of a 5 ] , join with left-hand extremity of loop of following letter at mid-height [, remains of diagonal stroke ascending from left to right 6 ] upright slightly slanting to right 7 ] . 5 horizontal stroke, 3 mm long, lying at mid-height and touching following letter k , scanty remains of left-hand arc [, left-hand arc 10 [, part of narrow loop in lower part of writing space, probably a 11],
upper half of diagonal stroke ascending from left to right [, lower half of upright 12 ] ,
short horizontal stroke, 2 mm long, in upper part of writing space, touching following letter
I

1 r , tiny trace at line-level; possibly foot of upright [, tiny trace at line-level, possibly foot of upright 2 ] , blurred and confused traces suggest correction 3 # [, upright very close to previous letter, with upper extremity slightly curving to right so that tt is not to be ruled out
Fr. 7 bis i
3.3 cm blank below written area.

8 bis
Fr. g bis
— >

] v<~

].[

]...[

].P°

S.[

J ^ 01

]p“. .[

]l]C
p<4

\%ovKav\\

]c a.[

]

]rode[

♦

5 ]ea
1 j
0

F*
m
].

]aeicr [

• • ]..[

Fr. 8 bis-*

1 ] , tiny vertical trace at mid-height, attached to thin horizontal stroke touching lower half of upright : possibly v v, blurred loop or circle, A or o 2 ] ., blurred trace in upper part of writing space, touching following letter, in vertical alignment with tiny trace protruding above writing space
I

1 [, vertical trace at line-level, possibly foot of upright 2 _ [, large loop bearing stroke approaching vertical, possibly A 4 . [, remaining traces may shape either left-hand arc or curve suiting tr

168

SUBLITERARY TEXTS

Fr. 9 bis — >

1 ] . » very tiny trace at line-level 2 ] , diagonal stroke descending from left to right,
whose upper extremity approaches upright: cursive e? 6 ] , upper extremity of diagonal stroke ascending from left to right
I

1 ] . > foot of upright # # [, first, foot of upright; second, tiny trace at line-level 2 i ,
upright joining another stroke (not preserved) at mid-height, possibly n (before it short vertical trace in lower part of writing space visible, but clearly accidental) [, two thick traces very close to each other in horizontal alignment lying in lower part of writing space and very close to foot of upright 6 # [, remains of upright? y ] , extremity of diagonal stroke ascending from left to right and protruding above writing space # [, extremely tiny trace in upper part of writing space, protruding above writing space

Fr. gbis -f
3 Compare the cursivity of the sequence av to fr. 1+2 — > iv 16, and see 16—22 n.

Fr. 10 bis
top?

]iavofx
]x^v[.]. .[

Fr. 11 bis
->
i
] to a[

].[

J to8rjvr]c
JTa. .[

].v .[

]e ev
]<?v.l
]?A.[

].[.].[

].?[

« 4

Fr. lohis — >

1 t4.) remains of left-hand arc or loop? [, first, trace below line-level; second, trace protruding above writing space 2 e corrected currente calamo from previous rj ] , vertical trace in upper part of writing space [, short thin slighdy diagonal trace, ascending from left to right,
protruding above writing space

* 1. . > first, remains of lelt-hand arc? second, foot of upright slightly descending below line- level o. , upright whose tip joins to right remains of stroke approaching horizontal 3 e top of round letter, e or o 4 ] , tiny trace in upper part of writing space [, upper half of small left-hand arc attached to upright protruding above writing space: <J>?

Fr. 1 ibis — >

1 ]. > foot °f upright descending below line-level 2a, upright slighdy slanting to right [, very short vertical trace at mid-height 3 [, confused traces roughly in vertical alignment in upper and lower part of writing space 4 ] , tip of triangular letter i
1 ] . , bottom of round letter, e or o 2 ] . , upper half of upright [, short vertical trace in upper part of writing space 3 [, wide curve approaching diagonal stroke ascending from left to right

5093. RHETORICAL EPIDEIXEIS

169

Fr. lobis — ►

8 mm blank above written area.

1 lavofjiaL . The verb is poetic: quotation?

2 A form of the aorist passive from eyoo or a compound of this verb, i.e. -c]xe@l[--
i
Possible articulation: 2 ] ojStjv or €7T]a)8r)v.

Fr. 12 bis Fr. 13 bis
— ^ | — y 4^

].[
h..[

].‘?v[

].0M

U4[

].**.[

]...[
top?
j/t^O [

].[

• •

].«<d
Jouv[

•

].‘V[

5 J cm k[

].[

]..[

Fr. 1 2 bis ->

1 ] 5 curve approaching right-hand arc 2 ] # , horizontal stroke, 2 mm long, in upper part of writing space touching following letter 3 ] . > tiny trace in upper part of writing space followed, 0.5 mm further, by other tiny trace touching following letter at mid-height [, upper half of left-hand arc? 4 ] . ? top of round letter very close to n of previous line, probably belonging to raised letter indicating abbreviation
1

1 7 t , extremely tiny trace at line-level very close to following trace # [, foot of upright?

2 ]. , curve possibly shaping left-hand side of rr [, upright 3 ] . . , first, curve approaching upper part of left-hand arc; second, two diagonals lying in upper part of writing space, one descending from left to right, the other ascending from left to right joining at mid-height: upper half of x?
But K is not to be ruled out # [, extremely tiny trace at mid-height
Fr. 13 bis
1 ] , stroke consisting of upright ending in rightwards curve: right-hand half of y or cursive c possible 2 ]., diagonal stroke, 2 mm long, ascending from left to right and lying in upper part of writing space, touches centre of other diagonal stroke descending from left to right in ligature with following c 3 F , horizontal stroke, 3.5 mm long, in upper part of writing space
I

1 ] , remains of small right-hand arc in upper part of writing space 2 ] . ? left-hand arc
3 [, lower extremity of diagonal ascending from left to right 6 ] . . , first, short and faded horizontal trace in upper part of writing space; second, extremely tiny and faded traces in diagonal alignment ascending from left to right in upper part of writing space: the complex of the two groups of traces may belong to y

170

subliterXrt texts

Fr. 13 bis ->

1.8 cm blank above written area.

Possible articulation: 2 ]ax/>eA[-, aoristic form from ofelXoo or dxfxzXe w.

Fr. 14 bis

Fr. 15 bis
-> I

].[

].°[

]..[

Id
]...«*.[

] . . . af[

]...v&.[

M.l.t
].'.[

Let top?

]. ,™.[

3 ].[

5 ] mair[

• •

•

].[

Fr. 14 bis
1 L> lower half of upright descending below line-level joining to right another stroke (not presen ed). n? 3 ] .5 remains of crossbar? . first, tip of upright; second, top of round letter;
abo\ i to right short diagonal stroke ascending from left to right and lying above writing space, probably sign of abbreviation [, tiny trace 111 upper part of writing space 4 J , diagonal stroke,

2 mm long, descending fiom left to light, lying in upper part of writing space, whose lower extremity joins stroke approaching horizontal, 2 mm long; the complex bears diagonal stroke descending from left to right and lying above writing space: k very likely [, left-hand arc i
1 J . , tiny trace at line-level 2 ] . ? right-hand arc # a, first, upright; second, tiny trace at line-level at edge of lacuna # [, short vertical trace departing from mid-height 4 ] , up right whose tip joins to right horizontal stroke # [, 3-mm diagonal stroke slightly slanting to right in lower part of writing space; above it small curve approaching left-hand arc ] , tiny trace in upper part of writing space
Fr. 15 bis ^

1 ] . ? top of rather narrow lound letter . [, upright slightly slanting to right, joining to right at mid-height another stroke (not preserved) 2 ] # , remains of circle i
1 ] . > diagonal stroke ascending from left to right protruding below line level [, upright de- sC( nding below line-lev cl 2 ] . . .> first, two traces almost in vertical alignment, lying respectively in upper part of writing space and at mid-height; second and third consist of curve shaping very cursive A with extremely narrow loop or A, whose right-hand diagonal is in ligature at mid-height with another letter, probably 1, almost completely faded 3 _ [, vertical trace at mid-height, very close on right to another small trace 4 ]., remains of upright? tt, lower half of upright [, extreme \y tiny tia( e at line-level 3 ] 4 , remains of two diagonals lying in upper part of writing space, descending from left to right and ascending from left to right respectively and joining at midheight: x? fi ] . ? tiny trace in upper part of writing space

5093. RHETORICAL EPIDEIXEIS

171

Fr. 15 bis-*

1.8 cm blank above written area.

Fr. 16 bis
—< ► F

Fr. 17 bis
-> I

]...[

]..[

>....[

]a )i\v '

].ap.l kp.[

] eXtrr [

].ae. . .[

]..[

].[

]>.[’

• •

♦ •

Fr. 16 bis — >

1 ] , extremity of diagonal ascending from left to right in upper part of writing space [, first, top of round letter; second, three extremely tiny traces in vertical alignment lying in upper part of writing space 2 it ^ first, short diagonal trace ascending from left to right at mid-height;
second, bottom of round letter _ . [, first, remains of round letter, e or o; second, trace slightly below line-level 3 # [, two traces in vertical alignment that may belong to raised letter representing abbreviation 4 ] . ? trace in upper part of writing space, very close to diagonal stroke ascending from left to right, departing from mid-height and bearing sign of abbreviaton consisting of diagonal stroke descending from right to left and King above writing space: very likely K . [, trace in upper part of writing space
I

1 [, trace in lower part of writing space ] scanty traces at the two opposite edges of lacuna suggest upright [, upright whose lower extremity ends in leftwards wide curve 2 < [, trace at line-level 3 ]>3 very short diagonal stroke descending from left to right in upper part of writing space, attached to left-hand extremity of loop of following a e , first, rather thick vertical trace in lower part of writing space, possibly belonging to upright; second, tip of round letter? # [, scanty faded traces suggest shape of left-hand arc
Fr. ij bis — ►

1 ] > , tiny trace below line-level _ [, first, two traces in diagonal alignment ascending from left to right, lying at line-level and below line level respectively; second, trace at line-level 2 ] ,
right-hand part of crossbar in vertical alignment with trace at line-level # [, upright 3 ] . >
tiny trace in upper part of writing space, possibly tip of upright . [, thick trace in upper part of writing space, possibly tip of upright
I

1 ] , lower part of triangular letter, a or a [, thick trace at line-level 2 # [, left-hand arc 3 ] 5 very tiny trace in upper part of writing space, possibly tip of upright
Fr. 1 6bis ->

Possible articulations: 3 form of the verb iXlrroj or a compound of it; 4 k( at).

D. COLOMO

172

SUBLITERART TEXTS

5094. Mythography
*7 2B-57/^'\a) ancl H(a) fr. i io.2 x 3 cm Late second / early third century
Plate XI

Five fragments from a papyrus roll, of which fr. i is the largest, containing across the fibres Greek prose writing mentioning the lost Cyclic poem Kimpia and the grammarian Demetrius of Skepsis. I he back is blank. A lower margin of i-3 cnL 1-5 cm3 and 2 cm is preserved in frr. i, 2, and 3 respectively, and an upper margin in fr. 4.

The script is an upright formal Round hand sometimes associated with the ‘biblical uncial’. Standard characteristics are (j) of elliptical shape with sharp angles, y and p always protruding below the baseline. This hand is easily recognizable in less refined cases from Oxyrhynchus from the middle of the second century; cf.
XXXII 2633, lyric poetry (the date assigned by Lobel has recently been confirmed by R Orsini, Manoscritti in maiuscola biblica , 96 k, which updates information for the manuscripts listed in G. Cavallo, Ricerche sulla maiuscola biblica, 34). Ours shows a more firm and regular writing than the earliest specimens, and is comparable to XXVIII 2491 (Hesiod, Catalogue, late second century according to Lobel, early third to Gavallo) or LX 4016 (Euripides, Orestes, late second, possibly first half of third century according to Haslam and Orsini), although written smaller than these; features like co with unflattened lobes and y with varying shape, point to a not yet canonical exemplar (or alternatively, as E J. Parsons, Gnomon 42 (1970)
378, argued, to an ‘ineptly executed canonical one’; cf GMAW 2 22); cf P. Berol.
7499 (Schubart, Paldographie, Abb. 93)5 PSI IX 108b = Scrivere libn e documenti no. 39.

Lectional signs and sigla are probably all by the same hand. Acute accent in fr. 3. 2, apostrophe in 1. 1, 1. 4, and 1.9, high point in 3. 3. The scribe is inconsistent in the treatment of elision (cf. fr. 1. 1, 1.4 with 1. g). In fr. 1 a wedge-shaped sign is placed inside the line, 1.3 cm far from the bottom margin. Possibly a paragraph us in fr. 1. 3-4 is used to mark a new section of the prose text. Guessing the exact line-length is difficult: according to Johnson, Bookrolls and Scribes 10 1, the ‘normative range’ in prose texts from Oxyrhynchus is 4.3 to 7.5 cm. In fr. 1.8, 13 letters occupy 3.1 cm, i.e. 1 cm = 2.5 letters. Therefore in this hand the range would be 11 — 1 g letters.

Fr. 1 deals with the genealogy of someone connected with Dymas (see 8), who could be identified with the Phaeacian seafarer mentioned in Horn. Od. 6.22, for 1. 8 appears to be compatible with that hexameter. It is also possible that 1. 7 refers to his daughter, whom Athena resembles 111 order to speak to Nausicaa in the same passage. Then at 9 the Cypria is cited before the text breaks off. Perhaps less likely, the identification of the Dymas in question could alternatively be with Hekabe’s father or with Aegimius’ son (see 8). The second is mentioned three times in the Latin

5094. MTTHOGRAPHT

173

\eision of Dictys Bellum Froianum (I 9, II 35, IV 12) and once in the Dictys papyrus found in lebtunis (P. Tebt. II 268, col. ii 57, early third century). No passages from the Greek original or the Latin adaptation seem to match our text, but the names of A/x(j)l[xa]xov and N6lct[t)c, which occur along with that of Avp,ac in P. Tebt. II
268, col. ii 58, might be restored in fr. 1.5 and 2. 4.

II the suggested supplement in 1. 4 Arjfxr/Tlpioc S' 6 Ck[^iJjloc is right, the verb <f>7]ci in 1. 5 probably introduced a quotation. Many citations from him occur, not in scholia or compendia (which might not be copied in such a calligraphic hand as this), but in continuous prose works such as Athenaeus’ or Strabo’s. He was much used by Apollodorus of Athens in his lie pi retor KaraXoyov (see F. Jacoby, FGrHist HD, 775 fh; cf. Lasserre, ad Strab. 10.2.16). A passage from Apollodorus’ catalogue is actually about the region of Avpoq in Achaia; see FGrHist 244 FF 190—91 Kal AnoXXoScopoc rj 6 ra tovtov i7riTep.v6p.evoc- “rjr Se x^>Pav e'xovCL Avp,aioi F
320, a (spurious? but see Muller’s FGH 114) excerpt taken from the Periegesis, mentions a Thracian city called Nacroc; cf. fr. 3. 4 pocevacr[.

Athenaeus’ Deipnosophistai show that Demetrius’ work contained all sorts of information, rather peripheral to the simple exposition of ships and heroes (gastronomy, local history, paintings, and so on), so our fragments do not necessarily need to be concerned primarily with the Greek or the Trojan army. Demetrius’

fr. 32 Gaede contains allusion to events prior to the Trojan war. 9 6 ra Kvrrpia a[ refers to a passage from that Cyclic poem.

Some mythological compendia consisted chiefly of lists or summaries, but they could contain literary quotations, e.g. LXII 4306 (first/second century) = M. van Rossum-Steenbeek, Greek Readers’ Digests? wo. 69 and p. 136: see in particular fr. 1 col. i 17, col. ii 8 If. Occasionally, they could be written, as in this case, in calligraphic style, cf. P. Ryl. I 22 + P. Yale II iiov (Oxyrhynchus, first century). The presence of possible quotations and the occurrence of a relatively rare mythological!?) personal name suggest a scholarly background, as in XIII 1611 (extracts from a work on literary criticism, early third century), rather than an educational context. No sufficient evidence allows us to think of a commentary on a specific poetic text, cf. XXVII 2463 = GPP 52 (genealogy of Poimandrus with quotation from Rhianus and Aristophanes of Thebes, second/third century).

Dr Perale has been responsible for the introduction and frr. 1—3, Dr Henry for
frr. 4-5.

174
Fr. i

SUBLITERARY TEXTS

^/3actAe[
7 IpavSpo '
]°[. . . .] (f>aciXpvc[

]S [ ]piOc8 yOCK [

M _ ] XOV(f>7]Cl [

\tOVt[ ] (f)€p€c9a[
]/x jit[ ] vrjdvya <

J KAeLTOLoSvpLCLV '
]coc§ raKVTrpiaa[

] S ^77 /3aaAe[
rjpavSpo
J°[. . . . ]<f>aci XP^C[

I ^77[iU/7?T]/nOC ^ O CK7][0tOC

M _ ]xov <f>Vcl.[
tout[cd]v (frepecd a[i
] /x /x [ J V77 9vya [ — muci-
J/cAetroi o ZlL>^taF,[roc aic S ’ o ra KvTTpia a[

Fr. 2

] . . .ec fivrep' .[

.OCOJ'[
pocevacr[

/rjpecfivrep > m pocevacr[

Fr.3

Fr. 4

Fr. 5

]..?[

>€.[

].Ta[

]..[

]a9r][

].07r[

].*.[

]«.[

a cSa/c[
J^)l7/\oVO/Lt7jr[ t/< aA/aju[ leTtvaL>7ra/c[
]aA/a/xe§[

]6L>pt>/ca0[
]a^a7rat§
7roca
J/xioci*.

] [
lae7r
,]^L
...].[

5094. MYTHOGRAPHY

175

Fr. i i ] , level with the tops of the letters, the upper right-hand arc of a circle, perhaps a mark of elision, and on the line, abraded traces of a cross-stroke e[, the left-hand parts 2 ] , faint traces of a cross-stroke high in the line above 77, a slighdy concave upright followed by the top of a loop . [, a thin trace suggesting the foot of an upright 4 * a dot at line level 5 t # [, lower part of an upright 7 ] . , specks on the line of the letter preceding v a [, beginning of horizontal at top line 8 # [, the left-hand end of a cross-stroke at letter-top level; above, traces of an oblique descending steeply from left to right 9 S, traces suiting the apex and part of the base . > top and left-hand arc of a circle 10 ] _ , small diagonal stroke at top line descending from right to left, a dot at baseline in vertical alignment with the beginning of the top stroke [,
the beginning of two diagonal strokes, apparently converging at mid-height: another space-filler-like sign or the lower left corner of a, a?

Fr. 2
t ] . . . 1 st two, indistinct traces; third, remains of two splayed legs at base-line with an apex at top line as of A a a 2 ] # , first, slightly curved small stroke at mid-height; second, remains of two uprights 3 mm apart; third, small trace of an upright with narrow horizontal mark departing at mid-height p # [, above p, 1 mm farther on, indistinct traces suggesting lower arc of circle and apex 3 ] . ? horizontal trace at top line or top of circle ] # , two isolated traces on a loose fibre on the line; a third, writh above it a cross-stroke at letter-top level _ [, a speck at letter-top level on the edge of the upper layer 4 ] . . , first, on loose fibres, traces suggesting an upright, with perhaps a cross-stroke high in the line and a stroke joining the upright from the left 5 ] , the upper left-hand arc of a circle and further specks; second, a trace high in the line, and above and just to the right, an upright and a trace like the upper part of the loop of p
Fr. 3

1 ] . . firsh trace on the line; second, foot of diagonal inclining to upper-right, a suggested; third, bottom of circle, end of a horizontal at mid-level 2 [, upright with speck at mid-level to right, the accent placed as for a diphthong, but perhaps rather a mark of punctuation 3 ]
t, the upright only vestigially represented on the edge, but apparently not tt
Fr. 4

1 ] _ , a stroke on the line, perhaps a tail, touching the shank of a letter descending below the fine ^ rather than a, though the base of the loop is only vestigially represented and may be illusion b [, an upright sloping forward slightly followed by a speck at mid-line level ] , the lowrer right-hand arc of a circle 2 In the interlinear space above </>, a cross-stroke 3 ] , a speck on the line _ , the first oblique and apex of a triangular letter; the top of a stroke descending from left to right, perhaps the second oblique of another triangular letter; the top of an upright and specks suggesting the left-hand part and end of a cross-stroke at letter-top level; a further trace on the line just before a may be stray ink 4 ]e, or 9 , abraded on the right r, traces of an upright and of a crossbar at letter-top level r, the top of the second upright and a speck in place for the top of the first 5 of a, the tail 6 ev, between which falls the gap between two fragments nowr joined, generously spaced but not I think impossibly so kol9 made out of av 7 ] [,
a high cross-bar followed by a low trace 8 ] . , at mid-line height, a trace of an upright or the right-hand arc of a circle on the edge [, a stroke level with the tops of the letters, abraded on the right 9 ] # , a speck at mid-line height [, the left-hand arc of a circle 10 [, a speck on the line 13-15 The final traces arc on a loose and twisted strip but are I think correctly placed as shown 13 [, the shank of a letter descending below the line 15 ] # [, parts of a round letter

176

S UB LITER AR T TEXTS

Fr. 5

1-2 abraded traces 3 A, or A, the tail and a speck of the apex 0, the left-hand part of the cross-bar with the lower right-hand arc of a circle and traces in place for the left-hand arc touching the cross-bar H, an upright and the left-hand end of a cross-bar or oblique at mid-line level: k not ruled out 4 ] # , a speck level with the tops of the letters 5 ] , an upright, perhaps joined at the foot by an oblique descending from the left, but this may be an illusion [, the first oblique and apex of a triangular letter 6 k, traces suggesting the arms . [, a trace at letter-
top level 7 ] . 5 ^e cap and base of c or e
Fr. 1

1 ]S ’ 7] ]SaaAe[. One may guess /JaciAefta, ‘kingdom' or /3acfiW]ia, ‘queen’. If ‘queen’, Hekabe?

2 ] rjpavhpo . 1 here are no likely single words suiting the traces. The separation of words suggests 9vya]rr]p vel na\ry]p Av8po[> e.g. Av8p6[y€w (Lobel). If a genealogical reference, it might be possibly paired with another one in 11. 7-8 (see 8 n.).

3 XPVCL The city of Xpvcrj was possibly mentioned in Demetrius of Skepsis’ Peri Troikou Diaho - smou (cf. 1. 4); see fr. 37 Gaede. But this name, which is placed before the sentence break (see 81 in 1. 4) and Demetrius’ name, is actually introduced by </>uct.

4 Ar)p,rjr\pLoc 8' 6 Cktj[Ploc. Probably also in E Schub. 21.23 = van Rossum-Steenbcek,
Greek Readers ’ Digests ?, no. 54 and p. 300 (. Mythographus Homericus , fifth century ad). The name of the grammarian of the second century bc would offer a terminus post quem for the composition of the compendium. According to the supposed ‘normative range’ of the column (see above), there would not be enough space for e.g iv Sevrepcvt TpcotKov AiaKocfiov .

5 ]yov. Possibly a proper name, perhaps another authority, e.g. K\Xcap\xov (of Soloi: F. YVehrli, ed., Die Schule des Aristoteles , iii), or a mythological character like Avrtpia\xovy mentioned along with Dymas by Dictys in P lebt. II 268; sec col. 11 55 fr cvvaipavrcov 8 > aXXrjXoic rrapa/ 8ovc Ai'ac tolc tt cpl r°v A[t]opL7]8rjv <pvX acc(e)ir rov v€Kp[ov / fiaXXet irpcorov Aciov Av(lclvtoc \ Ekcl^tjc dSeA</>ov. pie/ra Se rovro Nacrrjv /cat Tl/xt^t/xa^or, Kapajv rjyefiovac; or another authority like Apicrap\xov, apparently mentioned by Demetrius fr. 58 Gaede (see schol. in Horn. II. 11.757a); AvcipLa\xov, who wrote about genealogies, cf. schol. in Ibyc. PMGF S151.37 and E. Cingano, 79 (1989), 27-9; KaXXipLa]Xov and many others.

7 9vya [. Probably the daughter of the Phaeacian Dymas, mentioned in Horn. Od. 6.22, is recommended by the identification of its quotation in 7-8, less likely Nausicaa, who is called 9vyay7)p peyaXpropoc AXklvoolo in the same passage, v. 17, or Hekabe, daughter of Dymas, or a nymph connected to the Dymanes tribe: sacrifices to nymphs of the Dymanes are attested from the island of Thera (IG XII 3, 377.1-2, but vvpLc/xu is restored) and the Hellenistic Kos (Paton and Hicks no. 44, third century bc.; cf. also no. 45), seej. Larson, Greek Nymphs : Myth, Cult , Lore 188, 205.

8 vavct] kXgitoio Avf.tav[roc . A quotation of Horn. Od. 6.22, mentioning the Phaeacian seafarer Dymas.

9 o rd Kvtttlcl sc. rrotrjcac, by a familiar idiom, cf. frr. 20, 30 West.

10 ] . . [< The occurrence of the > sign preceding the bottom margin possibly marked the end of a section of the text. Single wedge-shaped fillers are commonly used in school exercises (R.
Cribiore, Writing , Teachers , and Students in Graeco-Roman Egypt, (1996) 78) and in exegetical (GMAW2, 5 and no. 44) and literary texts (R. Barbis Lupi, Proc. XIXth. Ini. Congr. Pap . (1992), i 503-10; T. Di Mat- teo, Proc. 24th Int. Congr. Pap. (2007), i 259-65). A single decorative wedge sign is placed between the name of the author and the title of a prose work in XLVII 3318 = M. Caroli, II titolo iniziale , P8 (Her- marchus, In Empedoclem IX, first or second century). A series of wedge-shaped fillers placed between the text and the ending title is found in VIII 1096 = CPF I.2, Isocrates, no. 95 ( Panegyricus , fourth century), and after the ending title in P. Mass. Col. xvi = CPF 1.2 no. 17 = II titolo iniziale P35 (Isocrates,

5094. MYTHOGRAPHY

111

AdNicoclem , early fourth century; see G. Messeri, in Papiri Filosofici: Miscellanea diStudiv. 55; cf K. A.
Worp, A. Rijksbaron, The Kellis Isocrates Codex 87 with pi. 3V).

Fr. 3

4 ] . . pocevacr[. Prof. Parsons suggests AXe^a]vSpoc Iv acrfei, but other possibilities are likely: j . . poce Nacr[rjc (the name of Nastes, commander of the Carians in Horn. II 2.867 , occurs along with the names of Dymas and Antimachus in the passage from Dictys quoted above, cf. also Horn II.
2.870-71); ] # pocer acr[; ] p oc iv dcr[.

Frr. 4-5

These have been ascribed to the same hand as frr. 1-3 and, in view of the closeness of their inventory number and of the apparent compatibility of the subject matter insofar as it can be determined, to the same roll.

Fr. 4

Various proper names are easily recognized in this fragment, but I have found no continuous thread. It is not possible to determine whether or not the fragment gives the top of the column wiiose foot is represented by fr. 1.

2 Phylonome is the name given in some manuscripts of Paus. 10.14.2 and elsewiiere to the stepmother of Ten(n)es. Other sources for the myth are given by Frazer at Apollod. Epit. 3.23; M. Huys,
ZPE 152 (2005), 203-8. Another Phylonome in Plut. Parall. min. 314EF.

The interpretation of the supralinear addition is uncertain. If it represents a paragraphus, there will be no room for the supplement /cAeoc at 6.

3 Alcimedon? Cf. 5.

4 Naupactus, or the epic Xaupadi(c)a.

5 Various Alcimedons are known, including a Myrmidon in the Iliad , and the father of Phialo, mother by Heracles of Aechmagoras.

6 tov /cAeoc ev pi) kolO ’ EXXdSa kcil pcecov Apyoc Od. 1. 344, 4.726, 816. The scribe may at first have intended to write av' EXXdSa Kal p,ecov Apyoc ( Od . 15.80).

7 This sequence 111 epic at II. 6.389 (f>€p€i S apea rraiSa nd'qvq.

11 Stesichorus?

14 dS]eX<f>[, A]eX(j>[.

M. PERALE
W. B. HENRY

5095. Commentary on Iliad XII and XV

84/ 17(a) + 84732(a) fr. 1 12.5 x 18 cm Fifth/ sixth century fr. 2 11.2 x 6.5 cm
Seven fragments of a papyrus codex containing a new commentary on the Iliad. A good portion of text is preserved in frr. 1 and 2+3. The side of fr. 1 shows a right-hand margin of 2 cm, the i side a left-hand margin of 2.5 cm ; the side of fr. 2 shows a left-hand margin of 2.2 cm and an upper margin of 1.5 cm, the 4- side a right-hand margin of 2 cm and an upper margin of 1.5 cm. Fr. 3 (4 x 5.4 cm)

178

SUBLITER ART TEXTS
belongs to the same leaf as fr. 2. The — > side of fr. 4 (2.5 x 2.1 cm) shows a left-hand margin of 1.5 cm, the 4 side a right-hand margin of 1 cm; the — »■ side of fr. 5 (6 x 4.5 cm) shows a lower margin of 4.3 cm, the 4 side a lower margin of 4 cm. Fr. 6 is 3x2 cm, and fr. 7 is 1 x 0.5 cm.

The scribe writes in a splendid example of the perfected Alexandrian majuscule of the type with contrasting broad and narrow letter forms, probably datable either to between the fifth and sixth centuries ad, i.e. the period during which the canon of this type of script became established, or to the first half of the sixth century. For the dating to the fifth/ sixth century (favoured by Professor G. Bastianini), see G. Cavallo, ‘Grammata Alexandria’, JOByz 24 (1975) 23-54, esp. 39-40, 46-8,
51 = R calamo e il papiro (2005) 175-202, esp. 188-90, 195-6, 199 (with tav. xlvii a-b);
Cavallo— Maehler GBEBP tav. 22a— b, with comm. p. 52; G. Cavallo, La scrittura greca e latina dd papiri: Una introduzione (2008) 101-5. Dr Daniela Colomo prefers a dating set well into the sixth century ad, drawing on a comparison with Cavallo-Maehler GBEBP 1987 tav. 37 (Paschal letter dated ad 577) with the references there. The broad margins (the lower one preserved for over 4 cm, the upper one for 1.5 cm, and the lateral margin for up to 2.5 cm) and the calligraphic style reveal a high- level book product, elegant in its graphic presentation, with great care devoted to precision in the text: a rather fine copy, certainly destined for the bookselling trade.
The height and width of the page cannot be determined with certainty: it can be said only that the lines contained roughly 37-40 letters and the writing area must have been about 14 cm wide, but there is nothing to indicate how many lines were contained in a page or to suggest the height of the writing area.

I he text was a rich and extensive hypomnema on the Riad in an independent codex, separate from the text of the poem. In the larger fragments, sections of commentary to book XII and book XV can be identified: fr. 1 preserves a series of lemmata belonging on the -* side to //. 12. 91-2, 110-11, on the 4 side to R. 12.136,
I39~4°> r47> !46; frr. 2+3 preserve a series of lemmata belonging on the -> side to R. 15.610-14, 618, 623, 624, 625, on the 4 side to R. 15.641— 2(?), 645, 653, 659, 661.
It was very likely part of a hypomnema to the entire Riad. The preserved portions clearly do not constitute sporadic annotations : rather, we are dealing with a complete and systematic work, reproduced in a fine high-quality edition. The lemmata identified on the two sides of fr. 1 go from 1. 91 to 1. 148 of book XII, and those identified on the scraps of the two sides of frr. 2+3 go from 1. 610 to 1. 661 of book XV We thus may have 50—60 commented lines per page in the preserved parts; but nothing can be said about the lost parts because the page size cannot be reconstructed. It may be conjectured that roughly 100 Riad lines may have been covered per sheet as an average for the whole poem, in which case book XII might have occupied five sheets, book XV eight sheets, and the entire hypomnema to the Riad could have been contained in a fine codex composed of roughly 140-160 sheets (this seems plausible, according to the data given by Turner, Typology 82-4).

179

5095. COMMENTARY ON ILIAD XII AND XV

Iota adscript is always written. But only a few lectional signs appear: an apostrophe in fr. i 1. 17 S ' o/xr/poc; diaeresis appears (unusually) marked by a single suprasciipt dot, both inorganic (fr. 1 — 1. 12 over 1 in nnrouc ) and organic (fr. 2+3
1. 5 over v in rjvre). ( GAIAW 2 10 with n. 44, asserts that ‘sometimes a single dot sen es to mark diaeresis, but give no examples.) The only visible abbreviation, k(gu) Ir. 1 1. 12, appears to be motivated by respect for end-of-line alignment,
but in fr. 2+3 -»■, 1. 3, the end-of-line alignment is not respected (because the word is a lemma?). In general, the spelling is correct and the text is written carefully; probably thcie is a (simply phonetic?) mistake in fr. 1 4- 19? oliccovtou for the dual cuccovre.

I he sections ol the commentary are well separated by means of a middle point (more frequent is the use of a dicolon or blank space; on the middle point, see R. P. Salomons, ‘Use and Meaning of the Middle Point in the Hawara Horner’,
Ath A III Congr. Intern. Papirol. (Napoli 1984) ii. 249-53), which is placed at the end of the lemma and at the end of the commentary section before a new lemma; but a middle point is also used as a punctuation sign within the sentences in the body of the exegesis (cf. fr. 1 -» 11, 17, 18; fr. 2 + 3 ->• 6; fr. 2 + 3 4- 15).

The extent of the lemmata is variable, as is usually the case: the majority are contained within one line; in one case it is certain that the lemma consists of a single word (15.645, fr. 2 4- 3); in one case the lemma is a pericope that extends over two lines, both incomplete (12.139-40, fr. 1 i 11-12); one lemma consists of two lines that are not fully written out but are instead indicated with a few words followed by ecoc and by the final word (12.110-1 1, possibly also 12. 91-2, both in fr. 1
-»). In the parts that have been preserved, the commentary matches the order of the Homeric text perfectly, and no lemmata placed in inappropriate positions are found. No names of grammarians appear, nor are citations from other authors adduced in the exegetic arguments.

A number of elements suggest that 5095 is of unusually high importance among previously known commentaries on Homer on papyrus. The Homeric commentary of the latest dating so far known (excluding the Scholia Minora and the Mythographus Homericus) is P. Mich. inv. 1206 of the the third/fourth century and written only along the fibres, suggesting (although this is not absolutely certain) that it is a fragment of a roll: W. Luppe, J<TE 93 (1992) 163-5; cf- M-P3
1198.01, LDAB 2078, CPP 0485. This means that 5095 is now unquestionably the latest known Homeric hypomnema and the first to come to light that is definitely contained in a papyrus codex. We have at least ten codex commentaries on various authors, datable to between the third/fourth and the sixth century, but so far none on Homer (M. Stroppa, ‘Some Remarks regarding Commentaries on Codex from Late Antiquity’, Trends in Classics 1 (2009) 298-327; Stroppa, Aegyptus 88 (2008) 49-
69); a few commentaries on papyrus rolls are dated to the fourth century ad, e.g.
VI 856, commentary on Aristophanes, Acharn. (Aristophanes 1 CLGP); P. Berol.

180

SUBLITERARY TEXTS

inv. 1 341 9 (M— P3 1357), commentary on Pindar, Pyth. 2.17— 19). This is somewhat strange, given the extensive and long-lived endurance of the Homeric poems at all levels of education, scholarship, and society. In 5095 we have a large-scale late-antique commentary, presumably on the entire Iliad, contained in a book of excellent quality both as regards its graphic appearance and accuracy of the text: a book that combines concerns for aesthetic qualities with that for high-quality critical exegesis and careful transcription, a product no doubt aimed at an equally discriminating public. (On the characteristics of the non-biblical manuscripts written in Alexandrian majuscule, see A. Porro, ‘Manoscritti in maiuscola alessandrina di contenuto profano: Aspetti grafici, codicologici, filologici’, S&C 9 (1985) 169-
215, with a typology that encompasses and includes 5095; for the papyrus commentaries in bookhands, see also M. Del Fabbro, ‘II commentario nella tradizione papiracea’, Stadia Papyrologica 18 (1979) 81-3.)

Some sections of the commentary form an almost word-perfect match to the corresponding scholia exegetica known from the medieval codices, and some lines can be reconstructed in parallel with them (following the edition of Erbse).
In other parts the phenomenon is not so striking, but here the exegetic contents and interests are of the same type as is found in the scholia exegetica of' the medieval tradition. None of the considerable number of Homeric papyrus commentaries known to date can be so closely likened to their medieval counterparts. In this respect they differ sharply, in other words, from the line of inquiry of Aristarchean Alexandrian ancestry7 which, through the works of Aristonicus, Didymus, Nicanor, and Herodianus and the so-called VMK, i.e. Viermannerkommentar, eventually led to their preponderance in the scholia of Yen. A, as well as in smaller quantity to the scholia of the bT group of manuscripts. By comparison, the hypomneina from which P. Mich. 1206 derives, mentioned above, cites the grammarians Demetrius Ixion (with the title of his work), Zenodotus, and Didymus in a few abbreviated lines.

Thus 5095 alternately coincides verbatim with the corresponding medieval scholia, or shows only partial agreement, or displays a clear difference while still addressing contents of the same kind; at times it contains richer materials and preserves unknown annotations, whereas elsewhere the material seems meagre and lacks portions present in the scholia of the bT tradition that have come down to us. For example, what can be read in fr. 1 -> 9-14 as a comment on II. 12. 91-2 is strikingly different and far richer than the material known from the corresponding scholia, but this annotation is then followed directly by that pertaining to 12. 110-1 1, while a number of observations on the portion of Homeric text between 12.92 and 1. no that are present in bT are missing in the papyrus; in fr. 1 f 15-18 the comment on II. 12.147 is certainly richer than the corresponding medieval scholia, but the preceding part unquestionably lacks the annotations to 12.137 and 144, which are present in bT.

181

5095. COMMENTARY ON ILIAD XII AND XV

We are grateful to Dr Davide Muratore and Professors F. Pontani and W.
Lapini for comments on an earlier version, and to Dr Daniela Colomo for the English translation from the Italian of the notes below.

Fr. i ->

].
at
]..

]..

]ec
]ac
L’.a
]a LC(f)LVK€

\fxevyapov
M. J [ j redpiTTTTOV'hia
] CeAa [ 7—9 ] T €LV$ LTT7T OUC/cQ

] ya to' 8 [ 4—6 JaAAov€77aura)v/ca J KTcop ( )tov [ ] acTOVKefipiovrjv
] vpTOLKiSrjced Xacioc cdepaTrovra
]vTOJi7TOv\v8apiaVTL7TaVTa €7TOL
JvODC'oS 'opLTjpOCpLLpLOVpLeVOCTriva \vt [ 3—5 ] dowraeicayerhian iTTTTOicrjyaXXe
] . [3-4 ](.).ec
J77/?0

]tl
i ] , part of horizontal stroke in upper part of writing space; to left possibly remains of upright, r or t 5 ] . .? possibly hc, less probably Tre 8 ] , first, negligible; second, remains of two uprights: n or tt 12 ] . . , first, possibly x (with upper part of diagonal ascending from left to right hardly visible), a not to be ruled out; second, remains of upright with thick foot, 1, t or tt 177, single dot above t, diaeresis 13 [, upright 14 p , first, upper part of upright; second,
lower part of upright curving to right; third, round letter, o or go v , two uncertain letters ] # ,
t ? 20 ] . [, first, remains of horizontal with, in upper part of the writing space to the right,
extremity of diagonal ascending from left to right, perhaps of a k; second, apex, probably of a a; third, remains of thick vertical or narrow arc or left-hand half of rather thick horizontal, compatible with 1; the whole series can be read as kai, but kat is not to be ruled out ] ec, upright curving to left probably in ligature with other letter, At or Ai

182

SUBLITER ART TEXTS

/c]at C(f>iv Ke fipiovrjc rptroc €L7T€to ]lJL€V Y&P ov
. ] . [ I0~12 ] # redpiTTTTOv 8ta ] ccAa [ y— g ] . re tv 8 ’ lttttovc k(cll)

] ya to' 8 [ 4—6 ] aAAor eir ’avrcov Ka- reXirrev o E J Krojp ( )rov m # # # ac top Kcfiptovrjv aAA* ov\x 'YpraKiSrjc idfX* Mcioc ecoc depairovra
€T€pOC TTOLTJTTJC a] V T(1)L /7ouAu8a/XaVTl 7T0LPTCLC 67706-
7]C€ U€tdop,f\vOVC ‘ O 8’ 'OpLTJpoC pUpLOVpi€VOC TT]P OlAt]- decav eva yov]p ro[v aTre^tdovvra elcayet' 8l a n 8e eva tovtov; on pcaXtcra to]lc lttttolc rjyaAAe -

XII 91-2

iio-ii
g 14 1 he commentary apparently focuses on the reOpinnoc . Although the preserved scholia on these lines do not treat it, ancient exegesis preserves discussions on the presence of the four-horse chariot in the Homeric poems; see sell. II 8.i85ab, 11.699, 19400, Od. 4.590. I11 II. 8.185 the names of Hector’s four horses are listed: Aristarchus expunges the verse mainly on the ground that the use of the four-horse chariot is not known to Homer, a fact supported by the use of the dual for the horses. (See Aristonicus in sch. 8.185a: on ov8apov 'Oprjpoc redplnnov yprjav napetcayet. payerat Se kcll r a enayopeva Sui/ca, Kal rj npoccjxvvrjctc evrjOrjc. The following part of the sch. seems to suggest that the four names were actually two names accompanied by two epithets; Nicanor, however,

refuses this possibility.) 1 he long sch. ex. 8.185b too states that ov8apov t>€ t€0 pinnto KkyprjvTai rjpco€C and adds that the rk0pinnoc is quoted only ini napaftoXrjc in Od. 13.81 (cf. sch. ad loe.). However, II.
11 *^99 apparently mentions a four- horse chariot belonging to Neleus, vnconrevrac c be vo0ov rj 8vo appara 8r]Xovv fiovXerai (p. 335-36— 9 Erbse): if so, the verse is spurious or it mentions two bigae and not a quadriga (so Aristonicus in sch. 11.699a, recording Aristarchus’ interpretations: not a rirpcopoc but 8vo cvvojpi8ec ; cf. sch. ex. 699b). In any case the same sch. ex. 8.185b goes on to present other elements of the discussion. In the first place the text (p. 335.39-49 Erbse) remarks that, although the other warriors do not use the four-hourse chariot, Hector alone dares to yoke four horses in order to awe and shock the enemy. Moreover, Hector is a descendant of Tros, Ganymede’s father: in exchange for Ganymede Zeus gave Tros special horses since he was particularly keen on and good at riding horses. But afterwards the objection that the use of the dual follows (8.186, 191) is taken into consideration: the problem should be solved by referring the dual to two yoked horses (^vyioc) and two added laterally (naprjopoi): heroes usually use three horses, two of them £vyioi and one naprjopoc in case one of the £vyiot is wounded, but Hector dared to yoke a fourth horse, fearing that both l^vyioi (P- 335-49 “ 336-62 Erbse) would be wounded. That Hector represents an ‘exception’ among Homeric heroes allows us to understand why sch. Od. 4.590, commenting on the gift of three horses and a chariot by Menelaus to Telemachus, observes that there would be no explanation for the number ‘three’ if they knew the ridpennoe: we have actually to do with a cvvcoplc (a biga with two £vytoi) plus a naprjopoc , as usual in the Iliad , nXrjv ” EKropoc : on this basis the reference to the idea that Hector
may represent an exception to the rule according to which riOpinnoc is not used appears to be clear.
In the same direction goes the sch. of Aristonicus on II 1 1.699a (see above) on the ‘possible’ four- horse chariot belonging to Neleus: it explains that it actually consists of two bigae and concludes ol 8k ojc Hoc€l8covoc viov rerpeopep (f>acl yprjc0ar I'nmoc yap 6 deoc. To sum up, on the one hand there was an exegetical view according to which the rkOpmnoc or rirpcopoc was not used by Homeric warriors,

5095. COMMENTARY ON ILIAD XII AND XV

183

apart from two exceptions due to different reasons: Hector at II. 8.185 anc^ Neleus at II. 11.699. On the other hand, the interpretation given by Aristarchus allows us to understand the two passages within the general rule, according to a typical Aristarchean critical tendency. This issue somehow emerges also in the sell, of Aristonicus at II. 19.400, which offers a comment on Achilles’ speech to his horses Xanthos and Balios, as gifts from the gods to Peleus: crjpLetovvral rive c, on evrevOev rj SiacKevrj rov reOpimrov 7T€7TOLr]Tcu (^av9e re /cat cvy Flohaype ’ (0 185). The meaning is not clear, but perhaps there are traces of a discussion making a point against those who held that this passage on Achilles’ horses could have been used as a model for the passage on Hector’s horses at II. 8.185, dealing with the problem of the reOpunroc in this instance too.

As said above, the preserved sell, at 12.91-2 do not mention this problem. However, 5095 reveals that the problem of the reQpimroe (see line 11) was relevant to the interpretation of this passage too, although it is difficult to understand how and to what extent. Lines 13-14 refer to 12.92 aAAor Kefiptovao x*pAova KaXXnrev^EKrwp^ which suggests that the lemma included this verse itself (with regard to line 10 one could think of rpiroc elrrero ecoc 1 Eiercup ; cf. line 15, but see below): exempli gratia St[o (Sc) /cat] aAAor or St[a rovro ] aAAor (Pontani) err'avrcov /ca| [rDinev 6 ''E]ktcdp or a AAov in ’avrcov Ka\ [klw KareXiirev 6''E]ktcvp (Lapini), perhaps too long, although it is difficult to count the letters in the rest of this line (eXnrev instead of KareXnrev seems to me less probable). One may think that the focus of the exegesis here was the following: Hector adds a third person to guide the first .group of warriors, apart from Cebrion, Poulydamas, and himself (see lemma in II. 9-10), 12.92 aXXov Kefipiovao x*pAov a), i.e. a fourth anonymous warrior, who was left near the chariot because his inferiority to Cebrion. This may have somehow been related to the horses (ittvovc in line 12). In any case it is not clear whether the argument was against or in favour of an allusion to the reOpunroc: such an allusion, however, would be rather tortuous and extravagant, given that nothing in the whole passage 12.80-92 suggests anything related to the four-horse chariot, although one cannot either rule out completely that this topic was somehow mentioned, or underestimate the fact that 5095 goes in the same direction as the sch. ex., whose sources consider Hector as an exception in relation to the use of the reOpimroc, as said above on II. 8.185: a commentator holding the view that Hector dared to yoke a four-horse chariot in order to impress the enemy could have tried to find traces of this interpretation at any cost, especially with regard to the moment of the attack against the Achaean wall. Professor Pontani suggests the following reconstruction of this passage:

/c]ai c<f>iv i£e-

10 fipiovrjc rpiroc €ltt€to * evXoycoc e'(f)a]piev yap ov-

8 apiov rrjc 7TOir)ce]co\c] ij\apeicayecd\ai reOpimrov' Sta- pepcov 8’ rjv ov]toc eXay[vetv oxVt1 a> K"]p<iT€iv S’ ittttovc /c(at)

TjTTOJV tic r)8]yyaTO' St[a rovro ] aXXov hr' avrtov Ka- rkXnrev or'E\Krojp _ ( jToiy ] rov Kefipiovrjv.

10 €(f>a]pi€v yap would refer to the discussion of the use of bigae instead of quadrigae; at line 13 rjrrajv nc or k'repoc tic can be suggested; at line 14 the idea of ‘taking with himself’ Cebrion could have been expressed.

15-20 At this point the text exactly coincides with the known sch., and therefore it is possible to reconstruct the text on the basis of the sch. ex. at this line: sch. no#1: /3ap/3apt/c?) rj aTreWeia. i'repoc pikv av 77 OLTjrrjc rep IIoXvSapLavrt cVorpcc navrac 7T€i9opL€vovc, 6 Sc "Oprqpoc pupLoypLevoc ri)v aXrjOeiav eVa yovv rov a7T€t8ovvra ctcayct. Sta r t Sc eva rovrov; on /xaAtcra rote ittttqic rjyaXXero’ “/xeyaAcu ”
(M 97) yap T/car* ofc /cat dappcov aTroXXvrai (cf. 384-93); the wording is more concise in sch. 110T: fiapfiapiKT] rj a77€i0cta. f.LipLQvpL€voc Sc rr}v aXrjOeLav 6 TTOirjrrjc eva yovv rov aTTtidovvra elcayet. Sta rt Sc k'va rovrov ; on (laXicra role imrotc riyaXXero . KaracrkXXei ovv rrjv rwv 77oAAcor aXa^ovetav.

184 SUBLITER'ART TEXTS

Fr. i 4-

*.[
c.[

T.[
t[

Aa.(.)[

/JLLfJLV O jJUOVTOV
racavTovKou [ # ] a op rada/jiavra [ ] ( )[
avcDTepajcrrapa [ ] rcxjvyap
. kolt a[ J . wv€VKaipaj[
iiojctvcyve ...[.](.), volvtovctcoi[ rjS KvvoovSex rar€fi(f>aTiK7][ rrjvyevopievrivTapaxrjVKat y \ \cTOiCKOj\oiCC [ ( )]

r ccovrat'TT
p*
rt

5 initial c rounded, while c in this script is usually oval: this may be due to the fact that the letter has slightly been enlarged because it is at line-beginntng 6 t [, tt is to be excluded be*
cause there is not the usual curving right-hand upright; of the second letter remains of left-hand arc, possibly t co 8 a,(J[, remains of upright at mid-height and perhaps traces of another letter
12 ] . > firsb two diagonals crossing one another: the upper part of both strokes and the lower part of the diagonal ascending from left to right are visible, possibly x; second, trace of horizontal stroke at mid-height touching an upright, perhaps h; third, perhaps m; fourth, right-hand angle of A or A; fifth, upright, perhaps with a horizontal protruding from the centre, as h 13 [. angle to the left in lower part of writing space, possibly A 15 first, upper part of upright 18 y [ ],
upright whose lower extremity ends with a small blob; to right, join with another letter at mid-height 20 . [) probablyt 21 [, upright slightly curved, apparently not e

5095. COMMENTARY ON ILIAD XII AND XV

185

fiifivoy [irrepxo^vov fieyav Aclov to ey/ca>- flLOV TOV A[ctOV (f)9aV€L KCLl €7Tt TOVC V7TOpL€VOV- rac auror /cat Y[a/xevov] teal 'Opc\cTi)v AclclStjv r 3 ASafiavra [ ] ( )[
dva)T€pa>i 7rapa [ . ] roov yap
€L . . . ( . .)ffar(.)a[ ] vvv iv Kaipoo[i
£tcx)civ c yve m [ ]( ) v auTOuc rcm[
r/Se kvvcov Se^arar ipL(f>aTiK7][

. (.)T77V ytvofJLtvrjv rapayr^v Kal r)[ y ' c rote kwAolc c TJ .
r y afccovrar tt

XII 136

x39-4°

/carJ a-
avSpcjv

Sox/xdi

148

9— II Cf. sch. ex. II. 12.136 p ufjivov in c pxo p.cv ov j^tiyav ’Aclov: pi€ya(v)- to iyKcopLLov Aclov (f)9avet Kal ini rove m TOfAevovrac avrov. At line 9 it is not clear whether the commentary began with the repetition of pLcyav as in sch. (/xey av Aciov * piiyav to iyK<jo\\paov) or not (fxeyav Aclov to iyKco] \puov):
Professor Pontani prefers the second possibility, assuming a line of 33 letters (plus high stop); the two following lines have 36 and 35 letters respectively but include several rather broad letters (4 u and go).

12 The form AS- is the commonest; only a couple of MSS contain the form Ak- (cf. West, app. ad loc.): V. 140 AcLaSrjv r ’ ASafxavra Oocova tc Olvopiaov re.

After the gap, the series may be read as cjxy^a. But see below a different interpretation of the traces.

12—15 Cf. sch. ex. 139—40: ovtol tcov nepl tov Aclov cIclv apLCTOL. iv Si rij npoKCLpLcvrj Slotcl^cl (M 95-7) ovk avay Kalov rjv Kal tovtovc KaraXiycLV . del yap Kara to lSlov raypia tov Aclov, ckcl (M
88—104) Si rove apLcrovc i£ dndvrcov KariXcycv. Perhaps a similar line of thought could be recognized here: as in sch. iv rfj npoKCLpicvr] Stara^t/ iKcl contrasts with the preceding ovtol ktX ., in 5095 dvcoripcoL (a later spelling for avcoripco) contrasts with vvv iv Kaipa>[y, then probably a comment on the fact that the poet thought it appropriate to list the dpLcroL companions of Asius; e.g. vvv iv /<atpa>[t 6 TroLTjTTjc /car ’ o\\^lojclv cyv€Ta[^]€v avrovc TOIL [ Aclcol (Lapini suggests a form of cvvraccco, cf. sch.
D a 12.415: iKapTvvavro cfyaXayyac glossed with cvvcrd^avTo, but cvvira^cv seems to be too short and ctWraccer is not very convincing).

15-16 After avrovc the commentary probably carries on (sc. avrovc tool [Aclcol?) rather than beginning a new lemma in the form avrovc(') ran [r* iv opccciv avSpa)v]\rjSi kvvcov Se^arat. Such a reconstruction would lead us to assume the omission of a high stop and a mistake, tool for rco; moreover line 15 would be too long.

16 All witnesses (included the oldest ones; cf. sch. ad loc.) have Sixarai) only Ambr. gr. F 205 inf. has Six€rat (cf aPP- West ad loc.). In 5095 the letter after y, crucial to deciding which reading was written on the papyrus, is damaged: however, the traces are compatible only with a, although some uncertainty remains.

The concept of emphasis often occurs in Homeric sch. as a criterion for stylistic judgment: examples can easily be found through Erbse’s Index III, but the sch. to this passage do not offer parallels. It is possible that the commentary referred to the simile as having an emphatic function (ipej) a- tlktj \r) napafioXr), cf. sch. II. 15.624-5, Od. 9.292) in relation to the rapayr) produced in the battle.

17 The o of yevopi€V7]v is particularly narrow, unless there is a mistake.

17-18 In line 18 the phrase role kcoXolc surely belongs to the comment on KoXocvprov of the second half of v. 147 (cf. sch. 12.147b KoXocvproc napd to KcoXa inLcvpcLv, rj tov koXwov Kal cvpLypiov).

186 SUBLITER'ARY TEXTS

As the lost part of v. 18 could contain from 12 to 15 letters, it does not seem possible to assume here another lemma.

* 11 18 Professor Pontani proposes the following reconstruction:

Kal 7 [afievov] teal 'Opflcrrjv AcidSrjv *39“ 4°
r 1 ASdfiavra @o[o>va re Ol\yopL,ao\y T€‘ tovtovc dveurepan irapa\\€L7rec a] yrcov yap r[ovc rjyepiovac €itt<1)v /car5 ar[SpJa, vvv iv KaLp(L[i iravrac /car’ d-
15 £ia)civ cyv€irrjy\a\ycv avrovc ran [Aclcm. av8pd)v 7]S€ kvvwv 8 c^arar ip,<f>aTiKr] [ rj TrapafioArj' vvv yap rrjv yevofaevrjv rapayi^v Kal kvclv /card yfjc role k(1)Aolc cypof.L[evot]c iraplefiaAev.

19 r ’ atccovrar. Of A and .1 after the initial T extremely scanty traces survive. The following high stop suggests that we have a lemma from v. 148, with a mistake in the ending, T* alccovrat for r’ atccovre (a simple phonetic exchange at/ e), although at fr. 2+3, line 6, the high stop is used within the commentary. It is possible that the lemma started in the preceding line and included the word SoxP'd) also from the same verse, cf. sch. 148a. Muratore suggests 7T/\[aylajc opf-iajvre c, cf. sch. D II. 12.148:
Soxfxa ) r atccovrec’ elc irAayiov 6p{.ia)VT€C.

Fr. 2 + 3

top
. ( . ) . ]€pya£>OVTCUKCU7Tad[

.[. .irafioX . vep [

. (>.. [.(.)].«□ . KVVT OUKCLLTOV [

7TLCT LV€jJ,7To[ J VCtV LC)(OVyap7T[

5 r)VT€TT€Tpri'r)IXeV€IJLfio\r}T<JOvY

CtV€LKaCTaiKataV€IJLCOL'rj8€T<jOv[

J.TOJtK.t
] . MeJA . [

J poc-evSe [ ]c ocorex [

10 ]TO[xr}(f)avaL [

] (f>o8pav€fX(f) [

}ea)vav€pL [

\TCUVaKOVOvl
] Plcltiovkclt [

15 ] C€KTVTTOVa [

J . vt

3 . (.), first, a tiny curve at line-level, possibly lower extremity of left-hand arc; second, two extremely scanty traces at line-level and in upper part of writing space (before diem perhaps small lacuna of one letter), third, upper part of two uprights (possibly n, although very doubtful) v , first,

5095. COMMENTARY ON ILIAD XII AND XV

187

probably e, second, curve in upper part of writing space (suiting e) v , left-hand arc, perhaps c 8 # [, left-hand arc suggesting an oval letter like e, o, c ; <f) not to be ruled out 17 ] u, horizontal stroke, perhaps t or tt, tollowed by traces compatible with the upper part of a y, but without the • usual ligature with t/tt
top

( ) ] epya^ovrou kcll 7rad[ m [pL€]ra^oXrj b # # V€P .

(. )7? . 8[e\iKvvraL kcll tov [ ttlctlv ijjL7To[Lo]ycLV tc^ov yap Tr\ypyr)86v aprjporec
TjVT€ TT €T pjj * Tj j.l€V i/JL^oXrj TO)V \fiapfiapCOV KVpLCL-
av eiKacrai kcll ave/xan* rj rcov [* EXXrjvcov Kapre- pla TOOL TTjC Trerpac OLKLv]r]T<JOL /ca[t SvCTTddcL. XapLTTO- fJL€VOC 7 TV pi- jaAAc^l
J7 TVpOC' €V 0 €TTl€C] C OC OT€ KV\JX a (707/1 €V V7)L 7 T€-
cjjlcc ev 8e] to per] (f>avcxL €7j\fjXdev
| ccf)oSpav epicJxx^LV- rrjv ^lav viral v€(f>]€a>v avepLpT\p€<f>€c ]rcov clkovov[ fiarcov kclt t ccKTvrrova #

KeKaX]vpLpL€V7][

]rv[

XV 610-14

618

623

624

625

1-4 The remains of the commentary certainly refer to 15.610-14, but the problem related to the expunction of these verses by Aristarchus is not treated. This problem is treated both in sch. a of Aristonicus (aderouvrai crlyoi ttcvtc) and in sch. ex. bl and b2. The sch. ex. defend the authenticity of those verses, especially on the basis of stylistic observations. Sch. b2 observes that the reiterated occurrence of Hector’s name at v. 610 conveys more emphasis (and therefore is not a pointless repetition; cf. sch. a). Moreover, sch. b 1 and bl coincide almost completely in the last section, which concerns 15.612—14: Kal rj TTpoXrjipLC (sc. 612—14) §e ecri cxrpua ttol7]tlk6v . ttpoccktlkov 8e ravra tov aKpoarrjv Kal 7T€pL7Tad€CT€pov ipya^ovTOL. Kal tov X cyovTOC f rjOoc yp7] cror, Kal toe [0.776 add. bx) cvvaXyovvTOc 7] ttlctlc (£2, sim. b l). It cannot be known whether in the lost part of our hypomnema the problem of the expunction was treated (if it was treated, probably the expunction was rejected); we can observe, however, that 5095 contains observations on three points: (a) the prolepsis in 15.612-14; (b) the psychological impact of the passage on oKpoaTrjc (cf. 1. 1); and (c) the ttlctlc produced by a speaker who sympathetically shares the sorrow (cf. 1. 4) — in a fuller form in comparison to the sch. This is significant because these points represent the arguments that in the sch. are used to reject the expunction by Aristarchus. The pLCTapoXrj of 1. 2 is not paralleled in the sch. ex.: it could refers to the ‘change1 announced at w. 612-14, where Hector’s imminent death is anticipated and announced, while Hector at this very moment is victorious thanks to Zeus’ support (cf. /. uvvvQahioc 612, oXLyoypovLoc sch. b\ p. 127, r. 39 Erbse).

188

SUBLITERART TEXTS

I Exempli gratia [upoceKTiKov 8e ravra tov aKpoa]\rrjv ] ipya^ovrai teal ira9\r]TLKcoTepov (La- pini), if not a mistake for ( Trepi)ira9\4cTepov ; cf. the sch. quoted above.

3 Possibly e[77jtS[e] t/craTat.

4 ttIctlv ifjiTTo[io]vciv. On this phrase cf. sch. ex. II. 23.670.

4-7 The text can be reconstructed on the basis of sch. ex. 15.618b: rj pcev ipifioXr) tcov fiapfiapcov KVfxaav et/cacrat rayv 8iaAvop,evoLC (sc. w. 624“ *8), 77 84 tcov EX Xrjvcov Kaprepla tco rrjc 7T€rpac aKLVTjrcp /cat' 8vcira9ei (sc. w. 618-22). The length of 1. 5, which seems to be of 34 letters (plus high stop) against the 40 letters of 1. 4 and the 38 letters of 1. 6, is doubtful; but cf. above, fr. 1 I g with comm, at 11. 9-1 1 : here too 1. 5 contains several broad letters (unless we insert vvv before /ca/xactv, as Pontani suggests). In 5095 as in sch. the comment at v. 618 parallels the two similes in a reverse sequence in respect to the poetic text. The simile at w. 624-8 is then treated separately at 11. 9 ff.

5 A single dot above v of t]vt€ marking diaeresis.

7-9 On the basis of j irypoc of 1. 9 one can suppose a comment on v. 623 avrap o Xaparo^ievoc TTvpL 1 TavroOev 4v9op of.uXco: cf. sell. ex. 623 (Aa^iiropLevoc irvpl:) irepiXaparopievoc viro tojv oirXcov c be
VI TO ITVpOC.

8 Although the body of p is usually more rounded, it may be possible to read if.Lp[a~, with rt ference to the c mphasis (cf. at 1. 11 and fr. 1 16) of the image ol Hector joining the fight Aa^iiro f^ievoc
TTVpl.

9 Here is the join between the two fix: )cocotck [ belongs to fr. 2, which here breaks off, while ] # 'poc-avSe. [ belongs to fr. 3, which includes the following lines.

9” 12 Cf. sch. ex. 624—5 ev $ eirec c be ore /co/^a (fiofj iv vrji iricrjci / — a vepLOTpepic):

TTCTTVKVOJTCU TCLIC TTapafioXaiC 6 TOITOC IT pOC €[LpaClV TCOV TTpaypLCLTCOV. 7 ) 84 €V (624) €f.lpalv€L rrjv filav tov Kvp,aroc. etc eirtTactv 84 irpocKetTat a veptoTpe <j>ec (625). ev 84 to (. lt] pavat iirijXOev 77 iire8pa[iev, aAA’ iviirece, cpo8pav ttjv /Star SijAwv. Possible reconstruction exempli gratia:
vito\ irypoc ev 8* C7r[ec] 3 coc ot € Kv[fia Oorji iv vrjl 1 re- 624

10 crjiCL • ev Sc] to [.ir] pavat eir\r]X9ev rj irre8paf.iev> aAA’ eveiT€ce\ cpo8pav eptpo\tv ojv ttjv fitav tov Kvptaioc viral vep]ecov av€ftpT[pepec 625

1 2 ff. Here the comme nt on the simile of the wave falling on the ship, with the description of the ship itself during the violent storm. Cf. sch. ex. II 15.6256a viral vepicov avep,oTpePec • (rj 84 Te rraca / ayvr] vireKpvp9r]): rjv^r/fAevov viro ave[.iov, coc etvat vitokoltco tojv vepcov teal irXr]Ctat)etv avTotc. ol 84 av€(.iOTp€(f)€C TO CVTOVOV. /cat Ctf.icovt8Vc (fr. 107 P. = PMG 612) “avef.iOTpePecov irvXacov33 eipi]Kev. o 8e Kop^iroc tcov Aeyof.ievcov /cat o popoc tcov ovofiaTcov ovk ea 1 8etv Tpv vavv appco K€KaAvf.ifj,4v7]v.

13 ]to)v olkovov\ tcov?

14 Possibly o popoc tcov ov]of.iaTcov.

15 Probably ] ce ktvitov afi[.

Fr. 2 + 3 i
top

] ap€Tr)V7rpoc€K\oyr) [

1 . [ . ]ove . [ . ] . . WT° 1 ,

] T7]VTOVTo8e _ (.)'CTP A

}K(uvocoTpoTroc [,(.)]a/°[. ]taAAa77-ra>
J €C€vovToccTpa<f>eicyapL[ J a(f>vXa ]aceavTovn pcnroSic et

5095. COMMENTARY ON I LI AD XII AND XV
cKara[

]x6ry€ic[

]yaP7rPaj[ .

] C77 pOCT 0)1

] a)V€a)pcx)vr\

]j.l€V7TepLTO)

]a[ ]orvecrm[

]c OV€VTOLc[

]fC*Starou
] TaiKaira ](.). * Kaiai
]. AT. .[

189

2 e [? probably a i # [, e rather than c 3 ] r, probably e [, upper part of upright with thicker extremity ] # # , two traces in upper part of writing-space, of which the seeond is the upper part of a upright with left-hand blob: N or ai 8 *0, first, short oblique trace ascending from left to right and slightly protruding below the line level, should belong to the ascending diagonal of a x; second, the prolongation of the lower part of the descending diagonal of x into © as in fr. i| 16
9 ] . . _ , third, A? 10 [, upright bearing a cross-bar: Tor tt i 6 ] , upright [, diagonal stroke descending from left to right 17 ](,)_, two traces in the upper part of the writing space, compatible with the upper part of n, or with the right-hand half of a a followed by 1, or with the central and right-hand part of go 18 1, possibly e or ©; less probably a
top
]a perrjv TTpoc €KXoyr)[v] XV 641—3?

].[.]°v«.[.]. . .]

] rrjv rovroSe ' .[(.).].(.)' crpe^detc kcuvoc 6 rpoiToc [ ( )]a p[ ]i aAAa ttto)-

] ecev ovroc crpacf)€Lc yap r[u]a (f>vX a-

£ TjraL cvcT€iX]ac iavrov irapaTrohicdelc tool p,r)~
k€l TTjC acmS ]oc Kara [rrjv avrvya vtttloc ttglXto
6 icTL Karrjv€\xOr]m €ic[a>7roi

]yaP ttPcx)[ (J] _ [..].[

10 ] cirpoCTOn
\a)v eojpo)vr[

7T€pi TO)

]a[ Jor N4cto)[p avT€ fiaXt era repr/vtoc ofipoc Al^at]cOv iv tolc\

]tc* Sta tov

645

653

659

190

SUBLITERARY TEXTS

rat Kat ra [

](.) . . ’ Kai <xtS[c5 66 1

]. AT. .[

i I he commentary' would refer to 15.641 or rather to 641-43, where Periphetes, son of Co- preus, is told to be much better than his father rravrotac aperac: the sell. ex. criticize the simile for being so unfavourable to the father in comparison to the son (cf. sch. ex. 15.641 ab). Line 1 should refer to the ‘choice’ based on the a pcTrj (on the phrase npoc cKXoyrjv cf. sch. ex. II. 18.490).

3 ] . Tr}v • Read a p]cTrjv?

I he middle stop before CTpc<f)dclc is very faded. The lemma slightly protrudes in the margin to the right and is followed by a dot indicating lemma-end: therefore it consisted of a single word.
Didymus’ sch. 645a, Siydk Sc to cTpc(f>dclc} Sia tov a Kal Slgl tov e, provides evidence for the existence of the alternative reading cTpa<f>8clc (cf. West app. ad loc.: no MSS record this reading): unfortunately in 5095 of the letter between p and </> only very scanty traces survive, although they seem to be compatible with a.

3—8 The comment concerns 15.645 ff.:

CTp€(f)0€LC yap plctottlc8cv cv clcttlSoc a vrvyi ttclXto ,
TTjV OVTOC (f)OpCCCKC TToSrjVCKc\ CpKOC CLKOVTCDV'

Tjj 6 y, cvl a(f)8clc ttcccv vtttloc , d/x0i Sc 7rrjXrj £ cpccpSaXcov Kovafirjcc ncpl Kparacfrotci ttccovtoc.

645

648

Periphetes (cf. 1 n.) ‘turning himself back, stumbled on the edge of his shield’, and therefore fell to the ground and was easily killed by Hector. The sch. ex. offer comparable elements: sch. 645b c Tpccf)8cLC yap {ictottlc8cv ( — ttoXto) : coctc ovSc tovto a covtov Karopdcbcac (fialverai o 'Ektcop , rfj §6 tov IlepL^rjrov bvcrvyia cvyKeypr^rat' to yap Ttrcopia cvvci rpa^c 1 rpoc to cvx^prj ycvccdaL ttjv araipeciv; sch. 645c (cTpccf)8cLC yap p.ctottlc8cv{) ottojc <fivX afirirai cvctcIXoc cavTOv vtto ttjv acmSa; sch. 645c: cv ScttlSoc avrvyi ttclXto: TrapaTroSLcdclc too /jlt]K€l rrjc clcttlSoc Kara ttjv avrvya vtttloc KaTigycydr). ttclXto Sc cvcncXacdrj (cf. also sell. ex. II. 4.462a vtttloc yap cvcttcccv ktX.).

At 1. 4 Pontani suggests tov 8ovclto]v /cat voc 6 Tponoc ; an explanatory' sentence could have followed (0 yap would be natural, but it does not seem possible to reconstruct the remainder with certainty). aXXa TTroz/xan would be plausible, followed by a verb like KaTc\ncccv or a similar verb (cf. sch. D 4.493 yjpLTTc: KaTrjvcxOrj, cttcccv] 14.55 KaTrjpLTTcv: KaTrjvcxdrj , kotcttcccv; 15.464 TTapcTrXayxdrj:
Traprjvkx®7)’ ^o.pcucccv)^ or by filov cltt6j\Xcccv (see below), and preceded by something contrasting the TTTibp.a as the cause of the warrior s death: e.g. ovk apai aAAa 7TTa>p,ari, perhaps with irony7 on the death of clumsy Periphetes (a most inescapable and fatal end, contrasting with a completely avoidable and banal obstacle; on the phrase cf. sch. ex. II. 6.286 ovtc yap cvvolvclv Tjj }lXc£a vSpov apa Suvarai (he pt rjT7]p} ovtc aTToXoycLcOaL ktX.). However, in view7 of the traces and space, it is not possible to read ovk before ap. Moreover, dpdt is not frequently used. Alternatively, one may think of a verb before aAAa (ending in -pet?) and indicating something (positive?) accomplished by the character, who, however, ingloriously dies because of his fall. An alternative interpretation is offered by Lapini: dAA’ d7TTa>|[roc thv av fjpjtcccev ovtoc (but it is unclear what preceded): in this case the comment would not be ironic, but Periphetes would be pitied as a warrior who has been much better than his father in
his dpcTy, and therefore would have been able to defend himself, if a cruel destiny had not reserved an inglorious death for him from a fall (a death that in any case brings to Hector kOSoc vtt cpTcpov, v.
644)* 6)n the basis of the plausible 7rrd>|[/xaTi fiiov a.7rd>]Aecer ovtoc at 11. 4-5, Pontani proposes three interpretations, ‘each unsatisfying for one reason or another’: (a) tov 8ava.To\v kolvoc 6 tP6ttoc • o[v

5095. COMMENTARY ON ILIAD XII AND XV

191

y]ap [8]T aAA’ rj 7rra)|/LtaTt filov arrch^Xcccv ouroc, which makes necessary the correction of aXXa into aXXrj * (7) too Qavaro^y kcllvoc o rporroc 7rap[a] TaAAa 7TT(l)\fxara} chi fSlov cbitojAcccr ouroc, with a problematic reading 7 rap[ after rpoiroc ; (c) rrjc pLayrjc o]u Kaivoc 6 rporroc rrap\rj\v} aAAa rrrch\piari fiiov a7rco] Acccr ouroc, with the same difficulty as above. F inally, there remains the possibility of a lacuna in 1. 4.

The phrase kcllvoc 6 rporroc at 1. 4 is interestingly paralleled by sch. ex. II. 16.594 ^parrcro: eSrjXcocev a vro c^rjc Sia rov crpc(f>6cLc c^amvrjc (77 598). kcllvoc Sc 0 rporroc * 6 yap (f>cvya)V emcrpacfrelc Krclvci rov SiwKovra. Under the attack by the Acheans, the Trojans are withdrawing, but Glaucus at first crpa7rcr(o) and, while being chased and caught (15.598), suddenly turns back, crpecf>deic c^arrtvrjc , and kills his pursuer. As in 15.645 ffi, here too we find a chased warrior who turns back to face his pursuer: while in the first case Pcriphetes fails in his attempt, falls and is killed by Hector, in this case, on the contrary, Glaucus succeeds against the warrior Bacticles, who is going to catch him. I he sch. remarks on the contrast, 6 cf>cvyajv cmcrpacpclc Krclvci rov SiwKovra. The two cases have in common the motive of a chased warrior who turns himself back and faces his pursuer: in 15.645 ff. one may say that the Kaivorrjc pointed out by the ancient interpreters consists in the fact that the chased warrior is killed because a clumsy fall in turning back, while in 16.593-8 the Kaivorrjc consists in the fact that the chased warrior succeeds against his pursuer.

7-8 rraXro or crraXro, followed by a gloss. Alternatively Pontani: Kara [rrjv avrvya ivcrrcccv Kal | V7T noc cccpa\y8rj.

After rj there is a high dot, probably followed by a lemma, which must be clcwrroi of 15.653: ciccottol S' eyevovro vcchv, rrcpl S' ccycOov aKpai / vrjee ocai rrpwrai cipvaro. There are problems here with the precise identification of places and movements of warriors at the moment when the Trojans reach the Achean ships. The sch. offer not many suggestions for the reconstruction of these lines: sch. ex. 653 cicojrroi S' eyevovro vcchv: vrrccrciXav cavrovc vrro rac vavc * etc yap ra jacra^v Siacrrjjiara (f>cvyov ci, f3 payu jxepoc orroXcirrojACvoi rchv vcchv cue rac rrpvpivac avrovc vrro^cprjKCvai.
01 Sc on vrToxooprjcavrcxjv rchv * EXXrjvcov cv arroipci ycyovc ro rrXrjdoc rchv vcchv role Tpoociv] sell. D cicojrroi S' eyevovro vcchv: cv oiftei rac vavc efiXerrov, 0 ccnv clcrjXdov cic aura c, rovreenv vrro rrjv crcyrjv avrehv eyevovro.

9 In this line the two frr. join: the sequence ]yap7ipcu[ belongs to fr. 2, which breaks off here; the following sequence ] # m8 [ J [ belongs to fr. 3, which includes the following lines. The sch. D aKpai: at rrpchpai suggests rac] yap 7rpcu[pac.

10 Muratore suggests Tajc rrpoc rchi rfetyet] |[rauc; cf. sch. ex. II. 14.31— 2, concerning the topography of the Achean camp (on which subject Aristarchus wrote a treatise): ccyarat Sc at (sc. vrjee) rrpoc rch rc tyei. at Sc rov Ayapicpivovoc vrjee rracai rrpoc rfj QaXaccrj rjeav.

11 ]c ov ea)ptuvr\. Read ewpchvro or cchpcvv. Exempli gratia r\_ac rrpvjjivac rrpchpac rchv vcchv.

13—17 The dots at 13 and 14 mark the beginning and the end of the lemma, which included all of v. 659. The comment here in 5095 was rather long, although the sch. preserve nothing (apart from sch. D ovpoc: vvv cf>v Xa£). Perhaps it included also the following v. 660; cf. sch. ad loc.

14 Probably cv role [.

15 Probably Sta rou [, preceded by the trace of a high stop: however, what precedes and what follows are not part of a lemma, and therefore the punctuation must articulate the commentary.

17 After the stop, a lemma from v. 661 beginns: tu cf>iXoi avcpcc cere Kal alSch 9cc8' cvl 9vpi(h , which is commented by sch. ex. 66i-2ab; the same verse occurs in 15.561, commented by sch. Ge (Erbse ad loc.).

subliterArt texts

192

— >

]CIK
bottom
i
].[

].V7T€

]pa>ec jrora
I

].VK[
bottom

Fr. 4 -+

1 ] . , because of the loss of the upper layer of fibres only a very scanty trace is visible; apparently accidental ink to the left of the preserved text, not in alignment with it 3 [, first, a curve in upper part of writing space; second, the thick upper extremity of an upright
2 Exempli gratia pe^a[im soikojc 15.58G or o]pe£a\i 13.596.

3 ?

Fr. 5 4-

1 ] . , horizontal stroke at mid-height, probably belonging to e.

Fr. 6 -»•(?) Fr. 7 —>•(?)
top

Fr. 6

Negligible traces. No traces of ink on the other side.

Fr. 7

On the other side very faded traces of ink.

F. MONTANARI

V. DOCUMENTARY TEXTS

5096. Roman Collection of Ptolemaic Rulings io6/i2(a) 15.4 x 13 cm Early first century
Plate XIV

A fragment of a collection made in the early Roman period of Ptolemaic royal rulings with Roman amendments. The verso of the papyrus was later reused for what seems to be a draft of a law-court speech, published as 5098 below. The fragment is complete at the top, which has a 3.5 cm margin, and the space at the end of 2 suggests that it is almost complete to the right. Probably half or more of lines 1—6 have been lost to the left. The text was written in a broad column or columns with generous interlinear spacing. The blank spaces at the ends of lines 4 and 7 show that it was arranged by paragraphs, apparently one for each ruling. The hand, which is confident and regular with occasional cursive tendencies (e.g. end of 4), looks to be of Augustan or Tiberian date.

The first two paragraphs (lines 1—4, 5—7) contain rulings of a single monarch — lyear !9 of my times’ — about confiscation to the idios logos of the estates of two categories of people who die after year 19 (see notes ad loc.): two-thirds if they have made wills or their whole property if they die intestate. The third paragraph contains a ruling about officials, whether those appointed by the kings (i.e. Ptolemies) or those who hold or have held a ‘public' position, probably fining those who had abused their office (see note ad loc.); because this usage of Stj/xocloc is Roman, this must be a Roman extension of a Ptolemaic ruling, presumably made when some former Ptolemaic officials or their heirs were still alive. So too, if the first two rulings are Ptolemaic, their reproduction here implies that they still had potential applicability; indeed the continued specification of the watershead of year 19 would seem to envisage that there could still be heirs living of men who had died before it.

On the above assumptions, the year 19 could be, in reverse chronological order, that of Tiberius (ad 32/3), Augustus (12/11 bc), Cleopatra vn (34/3 bc),
Ptolemy xii Auletes (63/ 2 bc) or possibly Ptolemy x Alexander 1 (96/5 bc). Tiberius and Augustus are unlikely because no rulings of this sort are cited in the Gnomon of the Idios Logos, and year 19 was not significant for either in terms of known legislation or events in Egypt. In theory Cleopatra vn and Ptolemy x should not be candidates because each was a joint ruler in their years 19, but caution is advised by the case of OGIS 761 (C. Ord. Ptol. 64), a grant of asylum to a temple by Ptolemy x in his year 18 prefaced as if he were sole monarch. However, Ptolemy x is probably too early, and P. Bingen 45 has revealed that Cleopatra vn termed 34/ 3 bc her ‘year

194

DOC UM EM TART TEX TS

19 and 4’ (sc. of Egypt and of Cyrene, Cyprus, and Phoenicia). In favour of year 19 of Ptolemy xii there is the positive consideration that he was almost certainly the author of the various rulings collected in BGU IV 1185 (C. Ord. Ptol. 71), one of which remits debts due to the crown up to year 19 of his reign, another concerns land on which geometria has been paid up to year 21, while a third allows relatives to inherit the allotments of catoecic cavalrymen who die intestate. These rulings, incidentally, were originally attributed to Ptolemy x; Wilcken’s reattribution of them to Ptolemy xii, although his reason that they are in the name of a sole monarch is not entirely safe (cf. the case of OGIS 761), is supported by the probability that the text comes from a cartonnage from Abusir el-Melek composed almost exclusively of documents from the reigns of Ptolemy xii and Cleopatra vn, including at least two copies of edicts of Cleopatra vn: see E. Salmenkivi, P. Berk Salmen. pp. 29—36.

The phrase ‘year t9 of my times’ finds no parallel in other edicts of the Ptolemies or Roman emperors, although they sometimes refer in more general terms to ‘my times' or ‘my principate’, and it is probably a later gloss to clarify that the year 19 was that of the author of the two rulings, Ptolemy xii, rather than the more recent years 19 of Cleopatra vn and Augustus (see note ad loc.). Presumably the first two edicts were issued shortly before his year 19, perhaps in 64 bc, which may also be the date of the edicts in BGU IV 1185. At the time Rome’s leaders were arguing over whether to annex Egypt, and Ptolemy xii needed both money and the support of the army. Hence his concessions to the catoecic cavalry, including remission of debts to the crown up to year 19, while the two rulings here probably represent the reaffirmation or toughening from year 19 onwards of some penalties due to the crown. They add to the evidence that the Ptolemaic office of the idios logos had by now developed into a patrimonial institution like that of the Roman period: see D. W. Rathbone, ‘Egypt, Augustus and Roman Taxation’, Cahiers du Centre Glotz 4 (1993) 81-112.

The collection and glossing of these rulings in a format that was, or was meant to look, ‘official’ illustrates the transition from Ptolemaic to Roman rule.
Where local rules did not conflict with Roman law or subsequent Roman enactments, they were usually treated as authoritative. There are several known Roman- period private and official citations of Ptolemaic royal edicts (C. Ord. Ptol All. n4— 23), and the Gnomon of the Idios Logos includes rulings which are clearly of Ptolemaic origin (e.g. §§11—12, 48), even if §37, which is also in XLII 3014, a mid-first-century copy of the Gnomon, is the only one to refer specifically, albeit generically, to ‘edicts of kings and prefects’. The dossier of known Ptolemaic royal edicts in C. Ord. Ptol. shows that there was already a long tradition of private and official collation and copying of edicts of current and previous rulers, sometimes with paragraphing of individual rulings. P Vindob. Tandem 1 (C. Ord. Ptol. add.
All. 124), which remains the only known case of a Roman-period copy of the full text of a Ptolemaic edict, shows that this practice continued through to the mid

5096. ROMAN COLLECTION OF PTOLEMAIC RULINGS 195
third century. I he Gnomon of the Idios Logos is different in that it was a centrally- issued and fairly stable collection, with fixed numbering of the paragraphs for each rule cited, and that all the rulings are cited in the third person and in abbreviated form. The Gnomon proclaims itself to be a selection of the most commonly encountered rules relevant to the Idios Logos. While the third ruling of this text may be subsumed in a paragraph of the Gnomon, the first two rulings do not appear, probably because their relevance soon passed. The text suggests that, at least in the earlier period of Roman rule, ad hoc collections of Ptolemaic rulings with Roman adaptations were compiled by local agents of the Roman administration in addition to the centralised creation and circulation of guides like the Gnomon of the Idios Logos.

[ifxajv xpovajv

Stadcovrac,

-J • • «

U7T o tqjp] fSaccXecov irri

] Tj ToXeVTTjCOVCL jJL€TOL TO id (cTOc) TQJP jSiadcovTar tqjp /rev 8 tad ejJLevojv etc rov lSlop Xoyopy tqjp §e aSta0er[cov]

Trap^ra ra vnapyopra.

\pojp of /jl€t6l to id (croc) tqjp iptcop ypopojp er[t]
] i ra Suo pL€pr] tqjp virapyoPTOop ecr[ ] naPTa ra virapyoPTa.

Tiptop TTpaypLaTGOP €Ta)(dr]cap rj hippLoaop rt iy[

L] who die after year 19 of [my times — whether or not? ] they have made wills; of those who have made wills [ — ] to the idios logos, but of the intestate [ — ] all their property
‘[— of those ] who after year 19 of my times still [ — ] two-thirds of their property [ — but if they] have [not ?] made wills, all their property.

'[— those] who have been appointed by the kings over any affairs or hold(?) any public position [’

1-4 The first ruling orders confiscation at death of the property of those from a defined group who die after year 19: the whole of it if they had not made wills, and probably, comparing the second ruling, two-thirds if they had. The intestate (aS taderoi) are mentioned and treated as a particular case in only one known ruling explicitly of a Ptolemaic monarch, but also in two rulings in the Gnomon of the Idios Logos apparently of Ptolemaic origin. In BGU IV 1185.16-19 (see introd.), Ptolemy XII extends to the Heracleopolite catoecic cavalry a right previously granted to the Arsinoite cavalry, that if they were to die intestate their relatives could inherit their allotments. The Gnomon has four paragraphs that list potential claims of the fiscus to property of the intestate. §4, ‘The property of those who die intestate to whom there is no heir in law is adjudicated to the fiscus\ is the Republican procedure for bona vacantia as diverted by Augustus to benefit the patnmonium , even if it was also applicable to inheritance under local law. §35 is a purely Roman rule applying to Roman soldiers. §9, which allows only patrons and their sons to inherit from freedmen of "citizens’ who die childless and intestate, despite intrusion of the Roman term "patrons’ for ex-masters, must be of Ptolemaic origin because it refers to acrot and is different from Roman law in excluding the daughters of ex-masters (cf. Gnomon §22). The fourth, §112, despite its problematic lacunae, is also strikingly similar in its penalty to the ruling here: ‘Of castrated men and (natural) eunuchs who [have been registered (Schu- bart, BL III 18) / do not have children (Reinach, BL II 30)], after their death, if they die intestate,

196

DOCUMENtARY TEX TS

the [whole property] is confiscated, but if they have made wills two thirds [are taken] and the third [goes] to those, if any, of the same (civil) status to whom they have bequeathed [their property]’.
Contrary to Schubart’s interpretation, this does not fit either the Roman legal tradition in general, which treated the castrated and natural eunuchs differently (. Dig. 23.3.39.1, 40.2. 14. 1), or Domitian’s edict against castration of slaves (Suet. Domit. 7.1), and so is probably Ptolemaic in origin. Another parallel in terms of penalty occurs in §45, which is probably Ptolemaic, like the other rules about aero/, because the concept of ‘later (post-marital) acquisitions’ has Greek roots (cf. R Dryton 4.20):
‘If a citizen (man) has married an Egyptian woman and died childless, the Jiscus confiscates his later acquisitions (inLKTrjra), but if he has children, it confiscates two thirds’ (there follow the rules if he had previous children by a citizen wife). It may be worth noting that two-thirds as the portion to be confiscated occurs in this (probably) and the second ruling of this text and in two probably Ptolemaic rulings from the Gnomon (§§45, 112), but in no certainly Roman regulation. In the case of this first ruling the lacunae are too large to allow any sensible guess at the category7 of people to whom it applied, or whether childlessness was also a criterion for the penalty
1 and 5 jjLera to l9 (eroc) tojv ip,d)v xpovcov. In other edicts where Ptolemaic rulers refer to past or future years in their reign, such as the ‘amnesty7’ edict of 118 bc fP. Tebt. I 5.42, 64, 95 etc.; C. Ord.
Ptol. 53) they just say ‘year *’. A similar use of the phrase occurs in XLYII 3343, in which a Prefect of around 204-6 circulates his responses to accumulated petitions and refers to those ‘of my times’
(line 3) as distinct, implicitly, from the petitions addressed to his predecessor but left to him to answer.

3 etc tov tSiov Aoyov. In the Gnomon of the Idios Logos confiscation is never said to be ‘to the Idios Logos’ but ‘to the fiscus> (in the sense of patrimonium). Whereas confiscation to the Ptolemaic idios logos was an automatic bureaucratic procedure, as it is here, the role of the Roman Idioslogos, following Roman Republican practice, was to adjudicate claims that property should be confiscated to the fiscus (e.g. Strabo 17.1.2; Gnomon §§4, 9).

5-7 This second ruling concerns another unidentifiable category of people who ‘still’ do something, or have not done something, after year 19 and then die; two-thirds or the whole of their property is, by analogy with the first ruling, to be confiscated on their death according to whether they had or had not made wills.

5 er[t] restored because lines 1-2 suggest that the scribe did not break words across lines, and because ‘after year 19’ refers to the future, so a verb in the past tense is not expected (cf. line 1).

7 It is implausible that all the property of those who make wills is to be confiscated; the ruling presumably said ‘who do not] make wills’, or perhaps ‘who make [invalid] wills’.

8 V7 to rd)v] ftaciXitav ini tivcdv npayfiarcuv iraxOrjcav. This is adapted and glossed from the phrase 01 ini npaypLarcuv reraypiivoL used in several Ptolemaic edicts to denote royal officials as a group distinct from the rest of the population, for instance P. Tebt. I 5.248 (C. Ord. Ptol. 53; 118 bc):
‘That neither those appointed over affairs nor the rest . . .’. The sense of this third ruling may have been similar to Gnomon §37 (also in the first-century copy XLII 3014 1 1-13): ‘Those who have acted in an improper manner contrary to the edicts of kings or prefects have been fined: some a quarter of their estate, some a half, others the whole’, if we follow Schubart and Uxkiill-Gyllenband in taking tl npa^avrec to mean action as an official.

D. W. RATHBONE

5097. PREFECTORAL EDICT

197

5097. Prefectoral Edict
21 3B.29-D(i5-i7)a fr. i 7. o x 8.3 cm 27 February 62
fr. 2 6.8 x 15.5 cm Plate XII

A light-coloured papyrus in two fragments, containing an edict of the prefect L. Julius Vestinus, attested in office in 60-62. It is not possible to join the two fragments directly, nor is it possible fully to recover the sense of the text in the middle section between the two fragments. It seems unlikely that much more than a couple of lines at most are wholly lost. The hand is a rounded documentary cursive typical of the mid first century, of not very high quality and degenerating towards the end of the text; mostly bilinear, letters well separated, little use of ligature, using the split-top tau characteristic of this period. It bears comparison in some respects with XXV 2435 recto (= GAIA IV2 57). The back is blank.

In fr. 1 the prefect deals with a matter involving Sarapion son of Diogenes, the president of the guild of weavers of Oxyrhynchus, in relation to (presumably illegal) financial exactions, Xoyeiac (fr. 1. 8). As far as the text takes us, Sarapion had been summoned to appear in court (KTjpvxdivTa) and had perhaps failed to appear, which might explain the prefect’s intervention to confirm a judgment or to threaten or secure some further action against him. One might normally be pessimistic about identifying Sarapion son of Diogenes at Oxyrhynchus, in view of the commonness of the names, but XLI 2957 (ad 91) might offer a possibility': there a woman registers with the collectors of the weavers’ tax the death of a slave weaver who formerly belonged to her deceased husband, Sarapion son of Diogenes, but was pledged 1 ivexvpacdel c) to Antonius Pallas, the latter presumably the Claudian freedman or a descendant/relative (see also the homonym in W. Chr. 370, Hermopolis ad 121) and strongly suggesting a connection with the imperial house, one manifestation of which was the possession of Egyptian estates (Parassoglou, Imperial Estates 23-4 and passim). Since we cannot know how long before 91 the death of Sarapion occurred, the interval of almost 30 years between the documents is not an insurmountable obstacle to identification. If there were an association between Sarapion and the house of the freedman Pallas, that might partly explain the desire of Vestinus, a known associate of the previous emperor Claudius, to take severe action against an errant individual after the removal of Pallas from office and the fall of Agrippina.

In fr. 2 the objects of the prefect’s attention seem to be Sarapion’s associates, who are threatened with appropriate punishment if they do not obey whatever injunction has been spelled out in the first part of the text. Edicts of prefects usually deal with more general issues, but there are other examples dealing with specific individuals (e.g. P. IFAO III 34, P. Berk Leihg. II 46). Of lexical interest are notable occurrences of two words which have not hitherto appeared in papyri: acupufia tov (‘contrary’?) cracetcoOeic = cracuaSeic? ("rebellious’, ‘dissident’) fr. 2 lines 4 and

198

DOC UMEN fA RT TEX TS

8. XXII 2339 (first century) offers evidence for unrest involving weavers (1. 25), though the editor thought the context Alexandrian (perhaps not conclusive). For bibliography on prefectoral edicts and recently published additions to the genre, seejordens, Statthaltliche Verwaltung (2009) 21 n. 24.

Fr. 1

AeVKLOC lovXtoc OvrjCT€ivoc Xeyet *
Caparrtcova Atoyevovc CL7 to rrjc jJLrjrpoTToXecjoc rov 'O^vpvyyjEirov Xe- yopcevov irpocrar TOV TtOV yepStcov TrXrj-
Oovc koll Xoyetac tt€ttol - rjcdcu KTjpvyQkvra
.[ _ ].*#4.]y . [

].[.].[

Fr. 2

yv a €t rove kol- vcovovc aevpifiaroy ycj) ’ r/picpy a
[ J (fyptc KCLL 5 0wcx)(j)p€i[c tcl ov ovopuxedev- rac cracetwOetc kclI cvvtpyovc TOV
Capa7Ttco[v]oc tl
. 1 . [..].[
eco{t} y€V€cdat e[[.]]ay §€
tl irapaKOvcojCL Trj tt pocrj KOVCYJ KoXa-

C€L KCLT ’ aVTOOV XPV~

CCOpLCLL . (cTOUc) T) NepcOVOC

KXavSiov Kalcapoc CefiacTOv reppcaviKOv AvTOKpaTOpOC
&apL€vtod y

5097. PREFECTORAL EDICT

199

fr. 1

2 1. OvrjCTivoc 5 1. 'O^vpvyxiTov 6 1. 'Ovvaxfcpic
fr. 2

8 1. cracuvScic? 12 letter after c crossed out 15—16 1. xp^opiai

‘Lucius Julius Vestinus says: Sarapion son of Diogenes from the metropolis of the Oxy- rhynchite (Nome), who is said to be the president of the guild of weavers and to have made exactions, having been summoned . . . with whom he is bringing (?) his associates contrary to (?)... — phris and Onnophrei[s] (?)... having been named as the dissidents and the accomplices of Sarapion . . .
I proclaim a fine and I allow it to stand (?), and if they fail to take notice in any respect I will employ the appropriate punishment against them. Year 8 of Nero Claudius Caesar, Augustus Germanicus Imperator, Phamenoth 3.’

Fr. 1

1 L. Julius Vestinus was prefect in 60-62; see Bastianini, ‘Lista dei prefetti’, 2J*E 17 1975) 273, and ‘Aggiunte e correzioni’, 2pPE 38 (1980) 77. The Roman praenomen is normally transliterated as Aovkioc , less commonly Acvkloc, as here (and also in IJ 250 2). Jt is unclear what influences the use of the variant: note that in SB XII 10788 (also from Oxyrhynchus, ad 61—4) the prefect’s praenomen is in the form with e, whereas that of L. Pompeius Niger is in the commoner form in the same text.
Vestinus is Aovkioc in \V. Chr. 374. 20-21.

3 For a possible ^identification, see introd. The accusative case indicates that Sarapion is the object of a verb (e.g. a threat or condemnation) in the fragmentary part of the text.

6 Although the last three letters have more or less disappeared, the reading of the first seven letters is compatible with the traces: Trpocrarrjc is the commonest term for the president of a guild (BGU IV 1137 = W. Chr. 112, SB XXII 15460, P. Mich.V 243, 332b); irpoccrajc is much less common.
Perhaps preferable, and compatible with the traces, is TTpocrarciv , with the same meaning, as fitting a structure with two infinitives linked by /cat, following A cyo^icvov. Trpocrrjvai is probably not worth considering since (a) it is mainly used in a more general context ‘to be in charge’, ‘supervise’ and (. b ) there seem to be more ink traces than this would justify. If either of these is correct, Sarapion will be the current president, but we should perhaps not exclude the possibility of an aorist TTpocTarrjcai (‘said to have been president . . .’).

7- 8 Cf. P. Mich. II 124.15, TrXrjOoc ipto7Tco\ajv, for the rank-and-file membership of a guild. For the weavers’ guild, see San Nicolo, Vereinswesen , 101.

8- 9 A oyclac TTCTTOiTjcdat : the prefect is presumably referring to irregular or illegal financial exactions, cf. P. Lips. II 145 verso. 73-4, a letter of the prefect Tineius Demetrius, of ad 188, forbidding such practices by the komogrammateis in villages of the Heptanomia and the Arsinoite. I he phrase also occurs in P. Amh. II 79.62-3, also a prefectoral edict, where an official takes a rake-off from stolen grain.

9 Despite the holes and damage after K7]pvx-> the reading is not in doubt, in a judicial context meaning ‘summons’. The closest parallel is P. Achmim 8.2J—8 irrcl ovv /cat trap ' ipuol KiqpvxSclc 6
Kadvrrjc ovk vTTrjKovcev ; see also P. Hamb. I 29.6, P. Bed. Zill.1.44, P. Fouacl I 24.15, and especially P. Mich. IX 534.12—13 CK7]pvxdrj 6 olvtlSlkoc piov TTpo firjpLdTOc rpclc Kai ovx vrrrjKOvccv. For the role of the Krjpv see P. Hamb. I 29 . . . KXrjdcvrcDV rivdiv ck tojp 7rp or [e]#er to; v rrpoc SiKaioSoclav ovop,aT[o>v]
Kal pirj viraKovcavTOAv Mcttloc Pou</>[oc] ckcXcvcc tov K[rj]pvKa Krjpv^ac ot irporeOcvrec ktX.\ the procedure is that the Krjpvt; makes a public announcement if the defendant fails to appear. Perhaps Sarapion had likewise failed to respond to the summons and is now being threatened with some further punishment or condemned in absence (cf. P. Achmim 8.27 ff). In that case one might expect something like Kal purj vtt aKovcavra to follow, but it is impossible to fit that to the surviving traces in line 9.

200

DOCUMENTARY TEXTS

io The clearly visible trace may be the top of o or c. There may but need not, be a letter lost before it. In any case, the traces in the line are insufficient to hazard a restoration. There are certainly traces of one line below this and possibly of two lines. The gap between the two fragments is uncertain, however, and if there are traces of a second line they may belong with the remains of the line at the top of fr. 2.

Fr. 2

3 This is very difficult. The letter after v is easily read as 00, but would be unusually narrow if followed by a vertical (1 ?). One could imagine (but hardly read) cvv an ayei ‘along with whom he [sc. perhaps Sarapion] brings his associates’. The letter between a and e (both good) has all but disappeared.

4 acv fjL^arov: the reading looks good, though the the final letter can only be said to be compatible with the traces. The word is rare and has not hitherto appeared in the papyri; it would presumably have to be understood as adverbial though LSJ cite only the plural dcv^/Sara in this sense (I owe this suggestion to Prof. A. Chaniotis). dcvfifidroyc, agreeing with the noun preceding it, does not fit the traces so well, and the position is awkward; but for its use with iyOpoc, a sense which would suit the context here, sec Philo, Quod detenus potion insidiari so lent 166 [45].

5—7 d he readings of the dotted letters in line 5 are very uncertain, and it is hard to imagine what could have been written in the short space at the right, with a sense of ‘contrary to our instructions’ velsim , It looks difficult to read the end of line 6 otherwise than ovva><j)p€t[ (but the last two letters are not easy), and that must be preceded by a personal name. It is possible to imagine two personal names, each with a patronym, N | > [ ] fipic ovvw<f)p€i\c] | ov. However, it is difficult to reconcile the traces at the beginning of line 7 with this idea; we seem to have rarou, possibly tguou, neither onomastically friendly. A possible solution might be ravrov (- rov avrov ), that is Wson of — phris and Onnophris, son of the same’; the ligature of ov is paralled in this hand in kolvojvovc (1. 4) but here we would have to suppose that we have lost the lower part of the vertical of y; and we would normally expect the onomastic pattern to be ‘N and N, sons of iV\ This leaves the difficulty that we must assume that these two individuals were named in the nominative, with some verb preceding, and then picked up in the accusative in a new clause or sentence with ovofiacdevrac in 7-8.

8 crac€id)0€Lc: a first occurrence in the papyri: presumably intended as adjectival acc. pi. of cracLcx)8r)c. For the intervocalic interchange of 8 and 0, sec Gignac, Grammar i 92. evvepyove can be adjectival or nominal.

10— 1 1 This must be the crucial passage in which the prefect announces his decision or sanction, or what needs to be done, but I am not able to suggest a satisfactory reconstruction. If the beginning of line 12 is understood correctly (see note), he is saying that he permits something to stand or be valid, e.g. the imposition of a fine. After the name in line 11 ti can be read, and it is possible but not easy to read n^rjy, which, however, would really want the definite article too. In line 11 Xeyco is a good reading, and k before it looks plausible; euXcyco would offer good sense (‘levy’; see LSJ s.v. 11), if it could be read, though the word is not common in papyri. The traces preceding that are indeterminate.

12 iw{i} yevkcQai: can be understood as first pers. sing, present indicative of ear; for the addition of iota adscript, not unusual in the indicative mood; see Mandilaras, The Verb 79. So, for example, rtfirjv e*Aeyoj . . . (*ai) iu>{i} yevkeffat, ‘I impose a fine . . . and allow it to stand’, but not an elegant reconstruction.

12-13 It would also be possible to divide S’ eri (‘if they still fail to take notice’), but 8k ti is perhaps preferable; expressions such as iav 8i tl plus some form of a verb such as Trapafialveiv are common.

16-20 I he latest date at which Vcstinus is attested as prefect is 7 July 62 (FIRA III 2).

A. K. BOWMAN

5098. ADVOCATE’S SPEECH (?)

201

5098. Advocate’s Speech (?)

106/ 12(a) 15.4 x 13 cm First century
Plate II

Remains of 13 or 14 lines from the top of a column written across the fibres.
On the other side, the same way up, is 5096, 'Roman Collection of Ptolemaic Rulings’; the papyrus was presumably reused for this text. The fragment is complete at the top, with a top margin of c. 2 cm. Line beginnings survive except for the last couple of lines, preceded by an intercolumnar space of 2.5 cm. There was at least one previous column of writing (see 1 n.). An indeterminate amount of text has been lost from the ends of lines: where the papyrus surface survives to the right of the legible text, it has been stripped of its top layer of fibres. Thus the width of the column and the amount of papyrus lost to the right is unknown.

The text is written in an unassuming hand that could be characterised as informal and semi-literary, marked by irregularities and some careless cursive. The detached cross-bar of 6 and formation of y (curve resting on a stem; different in 2) point to a date before the end of the first century. The hand has some affinities with that of 5096, but is not identical; k and kk, for instance, are different. Some phrases have the flavour of a speech (3 aAAa xai ; cf. 4 hi xa[), but this is not a known text, and the handwriting does not encourage classification as a literary or subliterary text. Other diction would be at home in a legal text (e.g. it; avdpu)7Tcov, 10 neldecdai tolc vojxoic). Possibly this is a draft of an advocate’s speech dealing with matters of inheritance (vloc in 6; av6pa>7Ta>v in 9). The earlier text on the other side, which cites royal rules about state confiscation of property, also suggests a legal milieu.
r] ov Kocpiou (fw Xa^ac fiorjOelac v [ ] or[

Se Kal rov jxrjhcva \ aAAa Kal a . a # a[

5 a[ ] . V ... .V ,e . Pi
.[. ,J4. . .1 vf°. . . . . .1
?a.l A ,r. . . fx[
ore avrov e av9pd)Tr[aj]v av [

10 Kal rreidecdai tolc vojx[oLC aAAoi tlvcc jjLcradov[

€ VC € TOVTOLC

77 0)776

202

DOC UMEN tART TEX TS

1 r]ov Kocf^iov (f)v\a£ac ' [: Perhaps (f>vXa(aca ‘having guarded the X of the jewellerly5? The syntax, beginning as it does in medias res , seems to presuppose a preceding column of writing. The jewellery could be part of a dowry : cf. C. Pap. Gr. I 30.85 r4) TraSlcp KocpLrjpia 8tacf)vXa^€L] C. Pap.
Gr. I 31.318.

2 Perhaps vfi[€r]epov.

8 ore: i.e. ore or e.g. ivi) ore.

9 av9pu)7r[w]v aiy m [. Perhaps av9pw7r[co]v avro\v yevofievov. The phrase ‘to be no more of mankind' is a common periphrasis for ‘to die’: cf. XLIII 4354 12 13 and XXVII 2474 25-6, both to do with inheritance.

10 7T€i9ec9ai role vofi[oLc : the DDDP gives no parallel for this phrase — ‘to obey the laws’ — but it is common enough in Demosthenes (Contr. Boeot. 13, In Olymp. 27, Contr. Polyol. 65) as well as in Plato and Xenophon.

11 Possibly p.€Ta(rL)9ov[rec , thematic form instead of the expected athematic pl€t<i{ti)9€vt€c , attested in papyri; cf. Gignac, Grammar'll 380-81.

12 e m mv€ m m€i The traces are difficult to interpret: one possibility consistent with the remains is ijACOV Iv 8e KT A.

D. W. RATH B ONE

5099. Letter of Heras to Theon and Sarapous
21 3B.29/D(5-6)(a) 8.7 x 9. 1 cm Late first/ early second centurv
Plate XIV

A nearly square fragment containing eleven lines from the beginning of a letter written along the fibres, ivith an address on the back also written along the fibres and sideways to the text on the front. There are three vertical fold lines, and. on the basis of the darkening of the middle two sections of the back, it appears that the sheet was folded lengthwise to a width of approximately 2.3 cm and its original full height of approximately 13 cm (see notes), with the outside edges tucked in and the address written parallel to the longer dimension of the folded papyrus. The top margin is preserved to its apparent full height of 1.7 cm, the left margin to 2.2 cm.
and the right margin to a maximum of 1.4 cm; there are approximately 20 letters per line.

The text is in a quickly written, well-executed cursive hand with a right- ward slope of a type common starting in the late first century, comparable to e.g. P. Lond. 140, sale of land ad 78-9 (= Thompson, Introduction to Greek and Latin Palaeography no. 28), or the cursive handwriting in the London papyrus of the Athena ion Pohteia , P. Lond. Lit. 108, late 1 ad with document on front dating from 78 — 9
(Turner-Parsons GMAW2 no. 60). The middle stroke of e joins the top, so that it is easily confused with c. h appears both in bookhand form and occasionally (1. 2. 5) in cursive form. © is sometimes written cursively. y is in V-form. c is written either in half-lunate form, curving only at the top and truncated at the bottom, or with the bottom curved up, sometimes looped back on itself (1. 7, 9). The crossbar of

5099. LETTER OF HERAS TO THEON AND SARAPOUS 203

t is made in a single movement, (f) appears written in a single movement, with an open ‘bowl’ on the left side of the vertical, ei are ligatured wherever they appear.
Iota adscript is written in every case in which it is called for (1. i, 2, 5). aheX<f>fji has been added in superscript to the salutation; no other corrections appear in the text.

Heras writes to his ‘brother and sister1, a couple named Theon and Sarapous, to let them know that a mutual acquaintance or relative named Thonas went on the first of the month of Hathyr (October 28 or 29) to ‘the city’ and found his sister ill. Heras did not, at the time, wish to inconvenience Thonas by sailing downriver to meet him (presumably in the aforementioned city). The letter breaks off here, but it appears that Heras has received more news of the situation, perhaps prompting the sending of this letter.

TTjpdc Oean’L rail a[S]eA^><m
/cat CapanovTi rrji 'a§eX(f)r)L yalpciv.

(vac.)
yeivOcxeiv ce OeXco oti Ocuvac vapcyevero elc tt)v ttoXlv 5 rrji a to v Advp p.rjvoc, xal iXOdjv evpe rrjv aSeX<f)r]v avrov acdevovcav, xal p.e-
Xpi tovtov acdevei. ovx r/dc-
Xov 8e avrov cxvXrjvai 10 xal xaTairXevcai, aXXa &L€p,a-
...]...[].[]..^avo....

Back
[ 'HpCLTOC X Oec or[i
3 1. ytVOJCKtlV

‘Heras to Theon his brother and Sarapous his sister, greetings. I want you to know that Thonas arrived at the city on the first of the month of Hathyr and when he came he found his sister growing ill, and until this time she is weakening. I did not wish to trouble him and sail down, but ... if (?) . .

Back: \ . . [from?] Heras [to] Theon
1 'H]pac\ Restored on the basis of the address on the back; this is also consistent with the small amount of space left before the beginning of the line. The name Heras is well attested at Oxyrhyn- chus.

1-2 Gcojvt to)l a[S]eA</>coi roll CaparrovTi rrji aS tXcfxpi: Both Theon and Sarapous are fairly common names in Oxyrhynchus. VIII 1154 (assigned to late first century) is a letter from a man named Theon to his ‘sister’ and perhaps wife Sarapous, and it is tempting (though difficult to substantiate) to postulate that this is the same couple. In any case, Theon and Sarapous here may be both

204

DOC U MEN fA R Y TEX TS

siblings and spouses. But the terms 'brother* and ‘sister* here could also be figurative, and it is possible that none of the three are in fact related. Kinship terms were often used in a figurative sense in letters, especially when expressing the addressee’s relation to the sender; for an extensive analysis of the use of such terms in papyrus letters, see E. Dickey ‘Literal and Extended Use of Kinship Terms in Documentary Papyri , Alnemosyne 57 (2004) 13 iff. It was also common to refer to a spouse using sibling terminology (ibid. 154).

3 ce: Heras uses the singular form of address, despite addressing the letter to both Theon and Sarapous.

Qa)vac\ The name Ihonas is rare, but for a roughly contemporary instance, see SB 9569 (19
Jan. 91), a contract for the sale of wine. It also appears in LXI 4113 (dated 138) — although the a is uncertain and the editor notes that Qdjvic (a spelling impossible to read there) is ‘much the commoner name5 — and in P. Rein. II 93 (after 159/60).

4 etc rrjv rroXtv: This means Alexandria, downriver from Oxyrhynchus (as indicated by koltol-
TrXevcai, 1. 10).

6 rrjv a8eX<f)T]v: As above (see note on 1. 2), this woman could be Thonas’ wife as well as sister, or possibly neither— although kinship terms relating two third parties ‘seem almost always to be used literally5 (Dickey, ‘Kinship Terms’ 148).

Back:

1 X. for 111k figures connected with the addresses of letters, see XL\ III 3396 letter, assigned to the fourth century) with discussion there, although the simple diagonal cross pattern here bears more resemblance to e.g. XLIII 3094 (dated 2 1 7 1 8) than to the former’s elaborate rectangular symbols. It seems to have indicated where the fastening of the letter was to be placed; the abrasion of part of the mark was probably caused by the placement of a tie or seal over it (in which case we know that the letter was completed and prepared for sending, though not whether it was actually sent or received).
J. R. Rea in the edition of XL\ III 3396 notes that the cross or saltire pattern ‘seems to be appropriate to the shape of a seal, rather than a tie, but that is not certain’ (note on 1. 32) and speculates that such letters were marked after being tied with a strip of papyrus to indicate the place to attach a seal.
Assuming that this was the only fastening and that the folded letter was tied or sealed roughly in the middle, the intact sheet would have been approximately 13 cm long.

A. KOENIG

5100. Letter of Hymenaeus to Dionysius 47 5B-45/F(i-3)a 5.8 x 17.8 cm 18 May, e.136

A letter preserved complete, with 19 lines of text on a long, narrow strip of papyrus. The back is blank, with no address. There is a horizontal fold line after 1. 10 (8 cm from the top) and three vertical fold lines, and a kollesis appears near the right edge (roughly 1.1 cm from bottom right corner).

The hand, while displaying a literary character (e.g. P. Lond. I no. Horoscope of the year ad 138), has a marked affinity with contemporary official hands of the chancery type, e.g. P. Brem. (ad 1 17-19). Its characteristic is the use of upright letter shapes with a strongly vertical trend, e.g. 1 (2), p (14). An ligature appears at line 14? and the writer uses se\eral abbreviations, two suprahnear corrections appear in

205

5100. LETTER OF HYM ENA E US TO DIONYSIUS
lines 3 and 5. Iota adscript is written in the prescript (1 and 2) but not in the body of the letter (7, 10, 17); see W. Clarysse, ‘Notes in the Use of the Iota Adscript in the Third Century b.c.’, CdE 51 (1976) 150-58.

Hymenaeus (a name previously unknown in the papyri) writes to ask Dionysius to pass on a letter to Kerdon, who is about to depart. The letter is intended for I heon, strategus of the Prosopite nome, who may be the one mentioned in a document dated to 136 (see notes).

m. 2

(YjJL€VaiOC Alovvclool
TOOL TLjJUOOTarOOL x(aLp€lv).
t \ \ 5 \ / <\ <>

TO €7TlCT OALOV OLVTO O OL€-
TTejJLlfjajJLTjV COL

' CCTTCpaC Slcl tov AWlottoc
COD C OCTC &COOVL
rep crp(arr]ya)) tov nPo-

C007TLT0V SoVVOLL,

K(lXd)C 7TO LTJCCLC
8ovc Kcp8o)VL TOO
Trap ’ TjpLOOV, €7T€L avayKaLOv cctl Kal picXXcL aVTOC
TTC^CVCLV. ippd)- cd(LL C€ CVyOpLCLL
TLpLLOOTCLTC.

Kal cvOcooc avToo t
Soc to cttlctoXlov.
vac .
eppoo(co). llayoov Ky.

2 xS 7 ctpS l * * * 59 zpp™

‘Hymenaeus to the most honourable Dionysius, greeting. The letter, the one that I sent you in the evening with your Ethiopian, to give to Theon the strategus of the Prosopite, you will do well to give to Kerdon, the one who is with us, since it is urgent and he himself is about to travel. I pray that you are in good health, most honourable one; and give him the letter straight away.7

2nd hand: ‘Farewell. 23 Pachon.7

1 Dionysius is a common name in Oxyrhynchus. Hymenaeus does not seem to be attested in any published papyri, but O. Petr. 240 (from Berenice, dated ad 34) mentions a Marcus Laelius Hyme naeus (confirmed by G. Messeri), and the Lexicon of Greek Personal Names notes over twenty attestations in the old Greek world.

5 ec7 repac. The late time and quick succession of the messages, as well as the absence of an

206

DOCUMENTARY TEXTS

address on the back of this letter, indicate that the sender and addressee are in fairly close proximity and that the message was hand-delivered.

Sta rov AWlottoc. For Ediiopian slaves in Egypt, see e.g. O. Florida 17 (assigned to the 2nd century) with notes and bibliography.

6—8 c Dcre . . . Sovvai . For the construction of c acre with the infinitive, see Mandilaras, The Verb in the Greek Non- Literary Papyri (1973) 321, no. 774.

QecovL to) crp aTrjyto) rov llpoccoTTLTov. A Theon appears as strategus of the Prosopite nome in a record of court proceedings dated to 136 (P. Oslo II 17). If this is the same man, this letter must date to within a few years of 136. For a list of strategi of the Prosopite nome, see J. Whitehorne, Strategi and Royal Scribes of Roman Egypt (2006) 116-17.

10 KepScovL. He is travelling to the Prosopite nome from Dionysius' location, presumably Oxy- rhynchus, so that he will be able to pass on Hymenaeus’ letter to Theon.

14 7re£eueiv: This word is used of traveling on foot or, more generally, by land rather than by water (see e.g. R Brem. 15, dated 0118).

A. KOENIG
M. SALEMENOU

INDEXES

Figures in raised type refer to fragments, small roman numerals to columns. Square brackets indicate that a word is wholly or substantially restored by conjecture or from other sources, round brackets that it is expanded from an abbreviation or a symbol. An asterisk denotes a word not recorded in LSJ or its Revised Supplement and previously unattested names and places. 1 he article and (in the documentary sections) ko.1 have not been indexed.

I. THEOLOGICAL, NEW LITERARY, AND SUBLITERARY TEXTS

Source

https://archive.org/details/p.-oxy.-16/Oxyrhynchus%20Papyri/P.%20Oxy.%201/

https://ia600303.us.archive.org/11/items/fragmentofuncano00grenuoft/fragmentofuncano00grenuoft.pdf

https://www.thegospelcoalition.org/article/new-gospel-manuscript-oxyrhynchus/