PA
NON
3318
CIRCULATING
C53
CHICAGO LITERARY PAPYRI
BY
EDGAR J. GOODSPEED
ASSISTANT PROFESSOR OF BIBLICAL AND PATRISTIC GREEK
IN THE UNIVERSITY OF CHICAGO
CHICAGO
THE UNIVERSITY OF CHICAGO PRESS
1908

ARTES
118.17
SCIENTIA
LIBRARY
VERITAS
OF THE
UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN
2 PLOMINUS
UNUM
TUEBOR
SI-QUÆRIS PENINSULAM AMŒNAN
CIRCUMSPICE
་
PA
3318
C 53
CHICAGO LITERARY PAPYRI
CHICAGO LITERARY PAPYRI
BY
EDGAR J GOODSPEED
ASSISTANT PROFESSOR OF BIBLICAL AND PATRISTIC GREEK
IN THE UNIVERSITY OF CHICAGO
CHICAGO
THE UNIVERSITY OF CHICAGO PRESS
1908
Published June 1908
PA
3317
.C. 53
BUHR
Composed and Printed By
The University of Chicago Press
Chicago, Illinois, U. S. A.
tr. to GRAD / BUMR
6-302
LOYALLY INSCRIBED
ΤΟ
MRS. JOSEPH BOND
B da v
5-20-32
26159
INTRODUCTION
•
TABLE OF CONTENTS
'PAGE
1
TEXTS:
I. Isocrates, To Nicocles, sect. 9-11.
II. Alexandrian Hexameters,
III. Geometrical Processes. (The Ayer
Papyrus.) PlateI.
A. D.
Third century
3
Ca. 200
6
First century
. 19
IV. Medical Prescriptions.
Second century
28
V. Homer, Iliad B, 1–20.
Second century
31
VI. Homer, Iliad E, 824-841. Plate II. Second century
VII. Homer, Iliad, 1-68.
33
Second century
38
APPENDIX: Chicago Papyri from Kôm Ushîm and Ashmunên
INDEX OF TEXTS NOT OTHERWISE EXTANT (II, III, IV)
45
47
•
vii
INTRODUCTION
Among the Chicago papyri which have been published in the
course of the past ten years are some literary pieces of value which
seem to merit republication in collected form. This is especially
desirable because they were first published scattered through
journals, American and English, so that they are not now easily
available for the textual and literary studies to which they are
related. It seems advisable therefore to collect and revise these
first publications of them, and present them as a group, unmixed
with non-literary material. Nos. II, III, IV, VI, VII, of the
present collection have already been published, with somewhat
full discussions: No. II in the Journal of Hellenic Studies, XXIII
(1903); Nos. III, IV, and VI in the American Journal of Phi-
lology, XIX (1898), XXIV (1903), and XXI (1900); and No.
VII in the American Journal of Archaeology, Second Series, II
(1898). No. V was described in Classical Philology, I (1906).
To the editors of these journals the writer's thanks are due for
their courteous permission to republish. To the scholars who
have aided in the work upon these texts the writer's obligations
are recognized in the several discussions, but his especial thanks
here as often before are due Drs. Grenfell and Hunt.
Not all of the following texts, however, are republications.
No. I, a fragment of the oration of Isocrates "To Nicocles," has
not previously been published or described. With the exception
of the third, the Ayer Papyrus, which belongs to the Field
Museum, the papyri are in the collection of the editor.
The Ayer
Papyrus was purchased in Cairo by Mr. Ed. E. Ayer, of Chicago,
about 1895. It afterward lay for a year in the Gizeh Museum,
and was then brought by Mr. Ayer to Chicago and presented to
the Field Museum, where it now lies. The papyri belonging to
the writer fall in two groups. Nos. I, IV, V, and VII formed
part of a considerable purchase of papyri made through friends in
Egypt in 1897. There is good reason for believing that all these
came from Kôm Ushim, the ancient Karanis, in the Fayûm.
Sm?
1
2
CHICAGO LITERARY PAPYRI
1
:
More than one hundred documentary pieces from this group have
now been published, chiefly in the first instalment of papyri from
Karanis, while less than half that number, for the most part very
fragmentary, still await publication. The other group, said to
have come from Ashmunên, was bought in Cairo in 1900. Of
the thirteen pieces composing this group, eleven belong to the
Alexandrian hexameter poem, No. II; one supplies the text of
part of Iliad E, No. VI; and one preserves part of a private letter,
which has been published elsewhere. The papyri of these groups
thus far published are listed in the Appendix.
I. ISOCRATES, TO NICOCLES, 9–11
E. J. G. 103. Third Century A. D. 16 × 4. 2 cm. From Kôm Ushim.
The papyrus is inscribed on the recto with parts of thirty lines
from Isocrates' oration To Nicocles, in a hand probably of the
third century. The hand is bold and clear, the letters well formed
but not elegant, and somewhat sloping. The o is small and round,
and stands high in the line. The a is much like that of the Ayer
Papyrus (Plate I, frontispiece). The verso is blank. The papy-
rus shows some punctuation, the low point appearing in 11. 7 and
15, and the high point in 1. 10. Itacisms appear in ll. 12, øpovel
[μωτερον], and 13, δ]ειακει[σονται. The text restored below is
from the edition of Drerup, but the lower part of the papyrus is
so broken that the identification of some lines, 20-22, 27-29, is in
doubt. The earlier lines are quite clear, however, and conditions
of space in them show that the text of the papyrus differed
importantly from that of Drerup; thus in 1. 11 there is not room
for the long reading μὴ ῥαθυμεῖν μηδ' ἀμελεῖ]ν. In 1. 9 Drerup has
περὶ τηλικούτων where the papyrus reads περὶ τού[των. In the open-
ing lines, too, the papyrus manifestly agrees with the vulgate order,
τὰ καθ' ἑκάστην ἡμέραν συμπίπτοντα, against the reading of Blass
and Drerup, τὰ συμπίπτοντα κατὰ τὴν ἡμέραν ἑκάστην. For
the identification of the fragment I am indebted to my friend
Martin Sprengling, Fellow in the University of Chicago, following
out a hint given us by Dr. Grenfell, who upon seeing the papyrus
at once referred us to Isocrates or Demosthenes.
Other papyri of Isocrates, to the number of ten, appear among
the London, Vienna, Berlin, Oxyrhynchus, Amherst, and other
papyri, and are discussed by Drerup in the introduction to his
text of Isocrates, pp. iv-viii. Since that publication, however,
Drs. Grenfell and Hunt have published one of the longest of the
Isocrates papyri, Oxyrhynchus 844, a second-century roll pre-
serving a large part of the Panegyricus, chaps. 19-116, though
with considerable lacunae.
3
4
CHICAGO LITERARY PAPYRI
Of the oration Το Nicocles, Papyrus Rainer 532, of the fourth
century, preserves a small fragment, but the great papyrus
witness to the text of that oration is the Marseilles papyrus
assigned by Kenyon to the third or fourth century, and preserving
the greater part of the oration, from the beginning to chap. 30.
This includes the passage covered by the present fragment, and a
comparison of the two papyrus texts is thus made possible.
5
10
15
20
25
Some lines are probably gone from the top of the column.
μεγαλην εκ ] μικρας
ποιησαι τα γαρ αλλα
τα καθ εκαστ ην ημε
ραν συμπιπτοντα
ν]
τούτων εν εκα πρακτεον
εστιν και μην εκει
να γε φανερον· οτι
δει τους ταυτ ]α δυνη
αλι
σομένους κα ι περι του
των βουλευομένους.
μη ραθυμει]ν αλλα σ
κοπειν οπως φρονει
μωτερον δ]ειακει
υ
σονται των αλλων διε
δεικται γαρ οτι τοια[υ
τας τας βασιλει]ας εξο
σιν οιας περ αν τας
αν τας [εαν
των γνωμας παρα[σκευα
σωσιν ωστ ουδε
ενι των
]
ασκητ ων ουτω προσ
το]
ηκει το σωμα γυμ
να ζειν ως τοις βασ
@]S
ιλευσι την ψυχην την
εαυτων α πασαι γαρ αι
πανηγύρεις ο υδεν μερ
ος τιθεασι τουτων
τ[
των αθλων [περι ων υ
μεις καθ ε κα στην
TEXTS
5
10
30
αγωνιζεσ ]θε [την ημ
εραν ων ενθυμ[ουμεν
The papyrus breaks off at this point.
The witnesses of most interest for comparison are Papyrus
Massiliensis (Pap. Mas.), saec. iii-iv (al. i-ii); Codex Urbinas
111 (F), saec. ix-x; Codex Vaticanus 65 (A), saec. xi; Codex
Parisinus 2932 (II), saec. xv. Of these Urbinas is rated best.
3, 4: τὰ συμπίπτοντα κατὰ τὴν ἡμέραν ἑκάστην, Drerup. ΛΠ
read: καθ' ἡμέραν ἑκάστην συμπίπτοντα.
9: τούτων is read by Λ and the Marseilles papyrus; τηλικού-
Twν, Drerup.
10: βουλευομένους with Drerup. Perhaps βουλευσ]ομένους
should be read, with AII.
11: μὴ ῥαθυμεῖν μηδ' ἀμελεῖν, Drerup. In omitting μηδ' ἀμελεῖν
the papyrus has the support of AII and the Marseilles papyrus.
16: τὰς βασιλείας ἕξουσιν with Drerup, Γ Pap. Mas.; ἕξουσι
τὰς βασιλείας, ΛΠ, the vulgate.
17: Drerup omits Teρ, but considerations of space indicate
that it stood in the papyrus, as it does in AII Pap. Mas. and the
vulgate. ἑαυτῶν, Drerup; ΛΠ, αὐτῶν.
20: Whether the papyrus had ảσêηтŵν, with Drerup, or åλn-
TV with AII Pap. Mas. and the vulgate cannot be determined.
22: Baoiλeûoi, with I (first hand), AII, the vulgate, and
Drerup, seems to be required by conditions of space, against
βασιλεύουσιν, Γ marg.
24: Éavтŵv dokiμáliv is read by Pap. Mas., but not by our
text, which agrees with Drerup.
27: åðìnτŵv, Pap. Mas., cannot have stood in the papyrus,
as the conditions of space show. Tepì read by Drerup; II and
the vulgate have vπèp. Either may have stood in the papyrus.
ὑπὲρ
28, 29, 30: Γ reads καθ' ἑκάστην τὴν ἡμέραν ἀγωνίζεσθε; Pap.
Mas. reads ἀγωνίζεσθαι καθ' ἑκάστην ἡμέραν. The papyrus prob-
ably agrees with Drerup, but even the few letters preserved are
here doubtful.
30: Pap. Mas. reads évévµovµévois; Drerup, évvμoúμevov. The
papyrus breaks off before the decisive syllable.
II. ALEXANDRIAN HEXAMETERS
E. J. G. 101. Ca. A. D. 200. The fragments measure: A, 10.3×21.5 cın.; B, 45.5
×16.2 cm.; C, 14.7×21.7 cm.; D, 3.6× 14.5 cm.; E, 9x16 cm.; F, 5.5×11.2
cm.; G, 6.7×18.5 cm. From Ashmunên? First published in the Journal
of Hellenic Studies, XXIII (1903), pp. 237-47, and Plate X.
The recto of the papyrus is covered with a series of late second-
century accounts in two, or possibly three, rapid cursive hands.
The verso of this old account roll-which seems to consist of
little more than lists of names followed by amounts in arourae
and artabae, and was perhaps a register of land, with the amounts
of produce chargeable upon it for rent or taxes—was afterward
used for a hexameter poem. The question arises whether the
papyrus of hexameters was not a copy made by someone for his
own use, rather than a copy made for sale. Mr. Kenyon has
been disposed to maintain that works written on the verso of old
accounts were always personal copies, not copies for sale. But
Drs. Grenfell and Hunt have pointed out that their fine copy of
thirty columns of Iliad E, a manuscript very well written and
apparently designed for sale, occupies the verso of the "Petition
of Dionysia to the Praefect" (Oxyrhynchus Papyri, II, p. 96).
Literary papyri more recently discovered supply additional evi-
dence that such copies on the verso of older rolls were not unusual,
and were intended for sale, doubtless at low prices.
Of the eleven fragments, the largest are B (45.5×16.2 cm.)
containing columns ii-v; C (14.7 × 21.7 cm.) containing columns
vi-vii; and A (10.3 X 21.5 cm.) containing column i. The order
of cursive hands on the recto suggests this placing of column i,
although other columns may have intervened between it and
column ii and between columns ii-v and column vi. The frag-
ments designated ix, x, xi seem certainly to belong after column
viii, but in what order cannot be determined, and the little frag-
ments xii and xiii, which I have been unable to fit in anywhere,
are added by themselves, for the sake of completeness.
It is uncial, careful and square,
The hand is a peculiar one.
6
TEXTS
7
but inelegant. a is in the late, almost cursive, form. x is hardly
larger than other letters. p is short, not going below the line,
while has a long vertical. But & is the distinctive letter of the
hand, having the form 2. The writing is in columns of twenty-
six or twenty-seven lines. There are no accents, unless a possible.
acute on Jeparaтa, vi. 13, be admitted. Breathings, marks of
quantity, scholia, and critical marks are lacking. The dative
adscript is not written. There are a few instances of punctuation,
some lines being followed by a high, middle, or low point. Several
short lines are followed by a crooked dash, to fill up the space and
relieve the inequality at the right margin of the column.
•
The orthography of the fragments constitutes their most inter-
esting feature. ἄνγελον for ἄγγελον, ix. 8, χαρίζι for χαρίζει, iii. 13,
τουτον for τούτων, φοιλα for φύλα, vi. 13, of course hardly require
mention. A more striking feature is the doubling of in such
words as πapnuov, iii. 6, and ůepós, iv. 1; vi. 10. This doubling
occurs, Professor Blass kindly informed me, in Cyprian, Attic
(THIIOI), and Pamphylian (A▲ PIINA) inscriptions, but I am
not aware of any other instances of such spellings in papyri.
ɩλokže, iv. 4, is paralleled in éέovoíav, Oxyrhynchus Papyri, ii.
p. 228, 1. 18, in a papyrus dated A. D. 23, and is, moreover, corrected
from kg to κσ. The alternative semi-resolution of to go appears
in ὑπερεξσοχ[ i. 25.
In orthography the papyrus presents a further point of resem-
blance to the inscriptions. Before σð, σµ, σπ, σт, an additional
σ is inserted. Meisterhans in his Grammatik der attischen In-
schriften has collected instances of a doubled before from Attic
inscriptions of the classical and Macedonian periods, of the second
century B.C., and of imperial times: Ασσκληπιός, Διοσσκουρίδης,
Þρvvíσσкos. Again, σ is doubled before x in an inscription of the
fifth century B. C.: Alooxúλos; and very often before 7 in inscrip-
tions of the old Attic time, of the fifth, fourth, and third centuries,
and of imperial times: ἐσστίν, χρησστή, Αρίσστων, Κάσστωρ, Νέσα
otwp, eios Tévedov, eios týv, eios tó (Meisterhans, op. cit., p. 69).
Similar instances occur in inscriptions from Ozolian Locris of the
fifth century B. C. (Roberts, Introduction to Greek Epigraphy,
Nos. 231, 232), and in Macedonian inscriptions from Pella, dated
T
8
CHICAGO LITERARY PAPYRI
A. D. 46, cf. Burton, "The Politarchs" (Am. Jour. Theology, II,
p. 611). Of instances of oσT, the papyrus gives the following:
περισστη i. 21, ασστ [εροεντι] i. 23, ]ισστοις ii. 4, ασστραππτουσα
iii. 1, γαμοσστολε iii. 5, μυροβοσστρυοεντος iii. 9, άρισστεας vi. 12,
πολυσσταφυλ[ vi. 25, αγνωσστο vi. 26. Of instances of σσθ, we
find πολυσσθενε ii. 11; of σσπ, συσσπορα vi. 2; of σσμ, κοσσμον
iv. 9; of ккт, VUKKT vii. 4; of ππт, Iππтатаι iii. 10. Moxxoois
iv. 11, επι κχθονι vi. 16, μοχθουσα xi. 7, and οπφθαλμοισ[ι ix. 3,
and oxμoto x. 5, are analogous spellings. Midway between
this insertion of the smooth mute before the smooth, and the
smooth mute before the rough, falls Teтакyμévot x. 6, in which the
smooth is inserted before the middle palatal. Some similar
instances, as of x for x, and of doubled σ, are noted in Crönert,
Memoria Gr. Herculanensis, pp. 89, 93, and in Mayser, Gram-
matik der griechischen Papyri in Ptolem. Zeit, pp. 210-20, but
as a whole, this series of spellings seems to have no parallel
among papyri, or other Greek manuscripts, and constitutes the
distinctive feature of these fragments. Professor Blass suggested
that this system of spelling may have been the work of a gram-
marian of the Alexandrian period or later.
KX
Of the poem to which these hexameters belong, the fragments
unfortunately preserve few complete lines and no complete sentence.
The halting meter of some verses suggests a late date for the work,
and the vocabulary occasionally recalls expressions in Theocritus
and the anthologies. The poem was doubtless a work of the
Alexandrian school, perhaps of the third century B. C., the reference
to the Ptolemaean Arsinoe, i. 5, suggesting the terminus a quo.
Dr. Schubart, who has cleared up several points in the text, sug-
gests that the poem relates to the marriage of Arsinoe and Phila-
delphus, since the gods are introduced in pairs, brother and sis-
ter together,— Helios and Selene, Apollo and Artemis; while the
Battle of Giants is reflected in col. vi, and col. i seems to deal
with the naval power of the empire.
Court poetry had no little vogue at Alexandria, if we may judge
by Callimachus and his "Berenice's Tress," but our poem is hardly
good enough in meter to have come from one of the well-known
Alexandrians. Professor Blass, who kindly looked over a copy of
5.
TEXTS
9
the fragments, pointed out to me that the laws of versification intro-
duced by Nonnus are not reflected in it, and it is thus earlier than
that poet, at any rate. Nonnus did not permit a hexameter to end
in a proparoxytone, while our poet does not scruple to end his
verses with ὄλυμπον and ἄνακτος. But the paleography of the
fragments will of itself carry the work back to a time some two
centuries before Nonnus. Of the nature of the poem it is more
difficult to judge. Several expressions, e. g., the "winged loves"
and the address to Aphrodite as γαμοστόλος, suggest an epithala-
mium. Professor G. J. Laing has proposed the view that it is a
little epic, or development of a single heroic episode, without
action-a favorite form of composition among the Alexandrians.
Such compositions probably rarely reached a length of 500 lines,
and as these fragments represent half that number, the complete
poem must have been at least of little epic length. Again, the
fragments may belong to a proper epic poem of the Alexandrian
time; but until some further fragments are recovered, it seems
impossible to decide between these views. The metrical blunders
of the composition incline Professor Arthur Ludwich to the view
that the piece is no more than an “occasional" poem from some
dilettante. The same accomplished scholar has kindly communi-
cated to me a number of helpful suggestions upon the text.
COLUMN I (Fragment A)
συν δ αλ[ο]χοις σεμναις καλαις και παρακοιτισι
σεμνοις
χαίρετα
•
•
μεγαλο[.] . . ρχησομαι[
τιωτ.. τα μακ
συν χθονι κα[ι] μεροπεσσι και αθανατοισι θεοισι
5 αρσινόα πτολεμα παλαιγενες
ην μαν αρεσπ . οβ'.
σο φ . οπ ν
•
•
•
ν πανδ[
•
γει
•
η καλως τε . [
ζηνι συν άθανατοις μαλα δα
ΤΟ
α .αν :
•
οδα πασι βροτοισι?
10 πρωτον μεν παρεχον προς σε
υομενας νηων του
μ
μητρι
ου .
[.]
ανα
•
[.]υ προ
•
αλαικκ
•
0. X χ. ο
ο. σ . ι
10
CHICAGO LITERARY PAPYRI
φοιν . . [. .
15 . [-] . . .
.].
. ]
•
[.
a
.] δε
a
•
προπασα κρατουσασ
τει
.] περι νωτα καλοις τε
.[. αμφιπολων συν κλε[
αθανάτων προκαθηγετις
α] μ[α φιπο [λοις σκοπελοισιν όμου τ[
οι αναφ[ρ]ασσουσιν πτολιν ημετε ρην
20 .]ρμαχ[. . ]εν πρωτα πατηρ ανδ[ρων τε θεών τε
]περχ[. . ] . φαεινα περισστη . [.] · [.]0[
εκείθ[ . .] . ιο
•
•
·
[.] . . s [.]υν καλλ[ ο ]πυρο[
.]
ουρανω ασστερόεντι
] κρονειονος πε[
αν υπερεξσοχ
25.
Το κολπω αλα[
(End of column)
5: Αρσινόα; cf. Theoc. 15. 111. The daughter of Ptolemy I
and sister and wife of Philadelphus is probably meant. Read
Πτολεμαία).
7: Perhaps σομφός.
6: Οι αρεστο
21: φαεσνα οι φαεενα may be read; the fourth letter is doubtful.
(Fragment J)
The following fragment shows the same hand on the recto as
that of the recto of column i, and may possibly belong to it; but
I have been unable to fit them together. It perhaps belongs to
an adjacent column. It shows no margin at top or bottom.
καλων υμεναίων
βιασειαις
ανδρασι τερπνοις
] αοιδη
5
] αρίσστοις
]
και καλα . . η
10
ν βασιληα[
1. πελοιο μεγ[
Τσι πλευροις
]ος ημετερη
μηλοισ[
μοιο
μεγιστο
].[
TEXTS
11
5 ..
10.
15 . .
COLUMN II (Fragment B)
·
•
•
ΦΕ
] . Φ[
. ]ηποντ[.
βους
.]νη
•
ννη
·]ισστοις
•
πολυσσθενε ωπα .
]ς τυπον η γεγαωσα
· υς χθονος ηδε ποληων
•
·]
•
στου
ς ποντον οπαζεις
] · [·
•
.]ον
. ]ον[ ]
.]s
]
οπλιζη
] . εσω[
• Jo[
]ṣ[
K
[..
[.
€[.
Ε
α[..
(Probably nine lines wanting.)
•
COLUMN III
] ασστ[ρ]αππτουσα γελα τ[ε]ρπνοισι προσωποις
θαλασσοπορον χαροπου δ απ[ο] ποντου ·
Ja
Τα .
•]
•
. απο . [. . . ] . [. .] . [-] . αθανατων τε
•
ει μ [. . . .] . αγαν αφρον. —
•
•
5 ω [καλη αφρ]ογενεια γαμο [σ]στολε και χαρι τερπνη
x[.
τω.
[.
εκγδια.
και εκ[.
•
. ]α τυπον γλυκεραις παρηιια δ εστιν
εφαρ . ν θαλεροι πηδώσι ερωτες
.] νεων μαζων δροσεραι θ αμα δυαι
10 ηδυτατ . [. . .]
:.]ων ξανθοιο κομη[ν] μυροβοστρυόεντος
ωρ ιδανοχροα ιππταται ανθη
η [κ αι προς θαλα[μ]οις μειξσασα καλων υμεναίων
] νως μεν νυνφην παπαπασσασιν ανδρι ποθητην
ενθαδε τη νυμφη προς λε
•
λον συ χαριζι
ω[ς] μεν χαρειτων τειμαν σε φυσις νενομισται
15 σεμνοτ[ατη
·
•
ει τον σον συνομευνον ανασσα
12
CHICAGO LITERARY PAPYRI
[.] · · [· · ·
]. τοισι φιλον και συμμαχον οντα
] . τονταμ . [. . . ]τοσαιθ[.] . [
Traces of four lines.
(Probably five others wanting.)
5: For the completion of this line I am indebted to Professor
Blass. On γαμοστόλος, an epithet of Hera and Aphrodite, cf.
Anthol. Pal. 6. 207.
9: μυροβοστρύχου ἐντός cannot be read (μυροβοστρύχου, cf.
Anthol. Pal. 5. 147, 5), nor do the traces fit μυροβοστρυχούντος.
15: On ovvóμevvos, cf. CIG. III, p. 265, No. 4622, 1. 4, a line
in which σεμνότατος also occurs: σεμνοτάτη συνόμευνε, καλῶν
ὑπόδειγμα φιλάνδρων. The inscription is a Palestinian epitaph.
COLUMN IV
τους μερους τη
αρμα αναγων δ . .
[
ηελιος φαεθων [. . .] - - [
σ (corr.)
ω . ιλοκξε το με . [. . ]ον[
5 αι . [.] γαρ μυθοισι πα . ν[. . .] . . [
πτηνους ες παντας έρωτας μη φαινομενους. [. . .
τους μεροπων μεταλλωντας [. . ]γοις φρενα καρτερο εσσιν
μυθον μεν τουτον παρελωμεθα
παρελωμεθα εισι δ' ερωτες
σεμνως οι κατα κοσσμον επ ανδρασι δωρα φέροντες
10 πρωτα μεν ηέλιος μετεπειτα τε [δ]ια σεληνη
μοχθοις ρα[.
. €[.
τρ[.
of.
15 αμ[.
•
. ]ολλ[. .]
.] . κωντ.
]ησοντ[.
αναφεροντες
Τα δικαιως
•
. ]ολειψαι
. . ες ημειν
·Ja
α θνητοις
| . εργων
Ποιο
Traces of two lines.
(Probably seven lines wanting.)
1: Apparent traces of xλe are discernible just to the left of
the line.
4: The second letter is perhaps δ, possibly φ. The fourth is
possibly a. A corrector has written σ above §.
TEXTS
13
"
6: ἔρωτες πτηνοί, “winged loves,” recalls the language of
Theocritus (7. 117) and Catullus, as well as Apollonius Rhodius,
and Simonides, in all of whom the plural of epws (Cupido) occurs
a usage unknown to Homer.
COLUMN V
Initial letters of seven lines: a[
Lines 8-12 σεμνως? π[ τ.[
.]ω. [
και.
τοις νε
15 ων κα
και
σου γαρ ε[
πρωτα
τ[ ο[ ω[ α[ δι
w[ a[ a.[
καρμη. [
τον τρισ
ζευ [
x[
(Probably seven lines wanting.)
16: Or perhaps σου σαρε
COLUMN VI (Fragment C. Facsimile in J. H. S., XXIII)
5 ..
10.
15.
•
]
•
] πολυν ηερα και χθονα δειαν —
και συσσπορα τερπνα τα γαιης
αρ όμου χλοεροις σπορι . σσιν
δροσερών ανεμοιο λαβοντα
ι καιροις ιδιοισι δοθεντων
μεγαν ουρανον ολβιοτα δεν
0 κρονείονος ανκυλομήτου
. . εοι δε τ εχοι προς ολυμπον
. αν ερανοβιην γονον ωκυν
•
. ]ραν ιερας χθονος ημετέρησιν
ετερον ηγεμονηα
και αρισστεας ης παλαμησιν
ερωτατα φοιλα γιγαντ[ω]ν
. ν γενος αγριον ανδρων
.] . . [. .] και αλων κατα κυμα θαλαττης
•
-1
. [. . . ]τον επι κχθονι (και) κατα ποντον
•
14
CHICAGO LITERARY PAPYRI
1
20.
25.
· .]ασει[.] . . . [. . . ] τον εκγαιων βρια ρεφοντης
. ]υσ[. . ε]κατηβελεταο ανακτος
•
] . ηυκομος τεκε λήτω
κορυφαις λασιωτιδος υλης
αμβροτοις και σε .
] . [.] . ν[.]μοι . προ
νωγοι
πων
· ]ν[.]ρκον[.]δε[.] - [.] . μων
.]το ακμαθ . α . αν
]ωντο πολυσσταφυλ[.] . ων .
.] . επ αγνωσστο[ν] επιλοιβαι·
] μαντικον οι δ εκάλουν τε·
(End of column)
2: Οι τέρπνατα (for τέρματα?)
6: ὄλβιστε has been suggested, but the papyrus seems to read
ολβιοτα, apparently a vocative like μητίετα.
9: Or perhaps a κερα(υ)νοβιην.
10: Or perhaps ημιπερησιν.
13: The traces of letters will not justify φ]οβερώτατα. The
phrase recalls the ἄγρια φύλα Γιγάντων of Odyssey η 206.
16: και must be supplied before κατα.
18: The phrase is familiar from Iliad A 75. It occurs also
in the Shield of Heracles, 100. The epithet occurs in the Hymn
to Apollo, 157.
20: λασιωτίς, though quite intelligible, seems to be a new word.
26: ἐπιλοίβη, cf. Orph. Αrg. 603.
τον και
ο δε και
προς με
νυκκτ
5 ανδρα[
αλλ . [
πρωτ
σεμν[
ενθα κ
COLUMN VII
TEXTS
15
10 θ . μο . [
υρ . η[
τοις κ[
[
ω πασ
χρυσ[
15 βαχχ[
και π
παντ[
κυμα
σεμν
20 πληκ[
κολπ
ξανθι
ευρό
ηδυν
25 ειν δω
και εκ
[
(End of column)
κηθα συν
ποντον [
ουχι ελ
γαιην δ
δι
5 μη πον
τας πε
ηστο μ
ναμα[
κλειθ
10 αλλας [
τον στ
COLUMN VIII (Fragment D)
αμ
Traces of five lines.
(Probably nine lines wanting.)
1: Perhaps και θα συν
16
CHICAGO LITERARY PAPYRI
COLUMN IX (Fragment E)
(Probably two lines wanting.)
Traces of two lines, ]καθῇ, ]σιφ].
·
. ν δ εν οπφ[θ]α[λ]μοισ[ι
οχλον επερχομενων α . [
5 θηπτο μαν ες μεγα κυμα
καλην τε ανδρομεδαν εν
θηρα δε και βυθιον στυγερου
ανγελον ουχι καλης βουλης
αν δρεσσιν ο δη κατ επη εη . [
10 τους μεν γαρ φευγοντας [
εντος δε καμάτοιο συ
την δε σιδηρεοεσσι βροχοισι
αλκυονις χηρα παρα κυμα
των κα[ι]νων μυθων ε. [
15 αν]τιλαλων γενετων λ[
εκ γδοτον αν[δ]ρομέδαν [
20.
]η
•
[.]ταχειν . [
.]νοσ [. . ]ουτας τον [
]ννε[.]νετ[. . ]ομ[
.] . αιση . [. . ]«χ[
5.
ωμω[
τόσπο[
ησαν[
Παραπτ[
4: Possibly ολων.
5: Possibly οππτο?
(End of column)
COLUMN X (Fragment F)
•
νηχους
•
•
•
•
•
αρτον[.]ναγνην
αρατην τρισι μορφαίς
. Τον αγλααν κουραν
λιπανγ εσιν οπφθαλμοισιν
τζετακγμενοι μυσσται
· ]σοφον κικλησκουσιν.
TEXTS
17
10 ..
3: Οι μορεαις.
.]σικον οντα προφητη [ν
αθανατοισιν ενιθλοι .
. ]ριησιν
σ - ελασσφορον αρμα
. ]παρεχεις φαος ιδυν
αντικεπαιαν
Ε
·]ακλονω [ . ]αιον . €
Traces of one line..
(Probably eleven lines wanting.)
13: The first v was first omitted, then supplied by the first
hand.
5
10
COLUMN XI (Fragment G)
(Probably three lines wanting.)
]ησκε . [
] . σεφυσ . [
αδεκα . [
] . .
εοιο βυ[. .] . [-]
]κληρο . [.] . δ
γυρεον γελα δ . :
8. . . [.]. [
.δ..
ω
ανδρα
μοκχθουσα τε μη . θητ . [
] . θαλασσοπ
דען
αλην
] . αφθ
Τσανθ
]αδουμ
ν
•
•
0
T
ע
άλ. [
[. .] ποσειδ[αων?
στον δαν
οι θαλαττη
[
15
20
θρονο [. . .]
οιοσ
•
]πεστο[. . .]δεον μ . . μ[
]μαλα[. . .] . νηκε βροτο[
] . φυδ[.]
μν
1'. ογα
]
•
κα .
[
ο . ς δαλησε . [
•
ερδαιν[
ερίσας λα
συνηφ
18
CHICAGO LITERARY PAPYRI
Τουρ
ν απομυ
] . .
[.
Ποιο φίλο . [
5
(End of column.)
8: Perhaps θαλασσοπόροιο.
10: καλη ?
COLUMN XII (Fragment H)
(Some lines probably wanting.)
]χον . [. ]ας
πε βέλεμνα
με φαρέτρας
ας οισστους
ρ επ αυτω
Traces of three lines.
(Others probably wanting.)
COLUMN XIII (Fragment I)
(Some lines probably wanting.)
γον δ[
νεαπο
] . ρμα κυμ[
τ αιγιδας
] =
λεποι . [
(Some lines probably wanting.)
III. THE AYER PAPYRUS: GEOMETRICAL
PROCESSES
21.3 × 40.5 cm.
Field Museum 1. First century A. D. 21.3 X 40.5 cm.
A.D.
From Hawara?
First published in the American Journal of Philology, XIX (1898).
(Plate I)
This fragment contains about thirty-five complete lines, with
parts of perhaps half as many more. Originally it formed part of
a papyrus roll, inscribed in clear uncials on one side only, the
writing being in columns slightly longer than broad. Portions of
three columns remain. In shape the fragment is irregular, the
first column being almost entirely gone, while the second lacks its
closing lines, and the third is practically complete. The third
column, the only complete one, measures 17.5 cm. in height,
including the figure of a rhomb at its foot, and 14.5 cm. in
breadth. Of column i there remain parts of the closing words of
eleven lines. Column ii preserves twenty-four lines, some of them
much mutilated, with one figure, a trapezoid. Column iii con-
sists of twenty-one lines and two figures, a parallelogram and a
rhomb. From what remains it can readily be seen that the three
columns contained seven processes, of which the papyrus gives us
inconsiderable fragments of the first, second, and fifth, the two
concluding lines and the figure of the third, the text but not the
figure of the fourth, and both text and figures of the sixth and
seventh. The geometrical figures illustrating the processes
described are appended to the processes, and are covered with
numerals indicative of the length of each side, part of a side, and
perpendicular, and the area of each section. They are accom-
panied also by short sentences giving the final result of the calcu-
lation; as, e. g., (yivetai) apov(pwv) §d, after Fig. 1. Occasional
lacunae in the text of 4, 6, and 7 are readily filled from the con-
text, or the parallels afforded by other portions, such restoration
being facilitated by the uniformity of the language used. The
letters are 2 to 2.5 mm. high and run 35 to 39 to the line. Iota
19
20
CHICAGO LITERARY PAPYRI
does not appear as subscript; it is adscript in aur@, but is not
written in the subjunctive doen. Breathings, accents, and punc-
tuation are wanting.
Dr. Grenfell informs me that in the Oxyrhynchus collection
there are several similar papyri dated in the reigns of Vespasian
and Trajan, and the clear, free, and unexaggerated uncials, especi-
ally the almost capital a, make a date late in the first or early in
second century probable.
One or two things confirm the natural presumption that the
fragment was a copy, and suggest that it was a somewhat careless
one. Such peculiarities as the writing of τραπέζηον for τραπέζειον
Οι τραπέζιον, and of ἀμλυγώνιον for ἀμβλυγώνιον, may be otherwise
explained. But the writing of ὀρογώνιον for ὀρθογώνιον, col. iii.
12, and the unmistakable displacement of μov, col. ii. 7— where
we must read λοιπὰ ι ὧν τὸ ἥμισυ γίνεται εκτέ—are clearly
scribal errors; and in examining the so-called parallelogram of
col. iii, one is struck with the fact that while the sides of the
figure are 6, 13, 10, 15, the scribe has drawn a Euclidean paral-
lelogram with opposite sides equal, and then, apparently oblivious
of the incongruity, has given to its sides the values prescribed in
his exemplar. Clearly the scribe did not belong to that geomet-
rical school which required of a parellelogram only that two sides
of it be parallel. In the other figures the scribe has been equally
careless. No effort seems to have been made to draw them in
true proportion. In the first one, the evident intention of the per-
pendicular is to cut the figure into two triangles and a rectangle;
but without the numbers that rescue it, the figure would suggest
anything but this. The scribe was perhaps absent-minded, and
unconsciously exaggerated the inaccuracies of his copy in the
figures, while writing in the correct numbers. In the papyrus
the trapezoid measures 1.1 by 2 cm.; the parallelogram, 1 by 3.8
cm.; the rhomb, 2.8 by 1.6 cm.
The work of which this papyrus is a fragment, was probably a
practical treatise on mensuration, designed for use in resurveying
farm-lands of irregular shape, which was especially necessary after
inundations. The word apoupa, however, does not seem to have
quite the meaning it ordinarily had in Egypt, but is employed
TEXTS
21
here simply as a unit of square measure. The apparently archaic
use of παραλληλόγραμμου may yet carry the date of the origin of
the work into pre-Christian times.
For a valuable suggestion as to the symbol 2 I am indebted
to M. Heiberg, who suggests rоÚTOV. This fits well with the con-
Toútwv.
text, except in the third line of the last process, and comports
well with the general usage of the processes. Even in the last
process, however, àñò тоúτwν may stand; but only as a set phrase,
used regardless of preceding context, to introduce a subtrahend.
The symbol o as a remainder sign occurs in the same form
in the Tebtunis Papyri.' It doubtless represents the AO of λoπά
or λοιπόν.
Κορυφή
Professor Beman has suggested the possible connection of the
fragment with the school of Heron Alexandrinus. There can be
no doubt that in many of its forms of expression the fragment
presents a striking similarity to the Geometry of Heron. Expres-
sions like ὧν τὸ ἥμισυ γίνεται μή, p. 88, 1. 20;” τὰ ιέ ἐφ' ἑαυτὰ
γίνονται σκέ, p. 86, 1. 16; τοσούτων σχοινίων ἔσται ἑκάστη πλευρά
τοῦ τετραγώνου, p. 74, 1. 25; λαβὲ τὸ ἥμισυ τῆς βάσεως, p. 62, 1. 10;
or the following: τὰ ί τῆς βάσεως ἐπὶ τὰ ιβ' τῆς πρὸς ὀρθὰς γίνον
ται ρκ'· ὧν τὸ ἥμισυ γίνεται ἑξήκοντα· τοσούτων σχοινίων ἔσται τὸ
ἐμβαδόν,
éµßadóv, p. 58, 11. 4-6, find rather close parallels in the fragment.
A more striking matter is the resemblance in the use of certain
mathematical terms. Kopupý has in Heron the characteristically
Egyptian meaning "upper side" of a four-sided figure. Heron's
definition of it reads: κορυφὴ δέ ἐστιν ἡ ἐπὶ τῇ βάσει ἐπιτιθεμένη
ev0eîa, p. 44, 1. 17, and in going on to define σkéλŋ he says:
σκέλη δὲ αἱ ἀπὸ τῶν ἄκρων τῆς κορυφῆς ἐπὶ τὰ ἄκρα τῆς βάσεως
τεταμέναι εὐθεῖαι, p. 44, 11. 18, 19. The expression τραπέζιον
σкаληvóν, found in Heron, p. 21, 1. 17, and in our fragment, is
not a common one. The character of the processes, however,
supplies the closest link between them. Heron concerns himself
with specific problems, not with general derivations of formulas
or theorems, although constantly assuming as familiar and fixed
¹Cf. Tebtunis Papyri, Part I, Nos. 91, 93.
2 The references are to Heron's Geometry, ed. Hultsch, Heronis Alexan-
drini Geometricorum et Stereometricorum Reliquiae, Berlin, 1864.
22
CHICAGO LITERARY PAPYRI
the results of such derivations. This will be seen to correspond
exactly to the material of the fragment. Another more striking
similarity in method is in connection with finding the areas of
irregular rectilinear figures. Heron's way is to cut a complicated
figure into triangles and rectangles, and then compute the areas
of these. The first figure in this papyrus, too, it will be observed,
is an isosceles trapezoid, a figure for which Heron has been said
to have a special fondness. In our second process, also, the
writer's first auxiliary line seems to have reduced his figure to an
obtuse-angled triangle and an isosceles trapezoid.
To this view, however, there are one or two serious objections.
Perhaps no great importance attaches to the fact that we cannot
in Heron find such phrases as dos deî, eis rò auró, for which latter
Heron's equivalent is uniformly oμov; or to the entire absence
from Heron's measures of apoupa. More significant must be con-
sidered the inconsistency between Heron's παραλληλόγραμμον and
that of the fragment. Heron's parallelogram does not differ from
Euclid's: ἐπὶ δὲ τῶν τετραπλεύρων ἃ μὲν καλεῖται παραλληλό
γραμμα, . . . . παραλληλόγραμμα μὲν οὖν τὰ τὰς ἀπεναντίον πλευρὰς
παραλλήλους ἔχοντα,
Tapaλλýλous exovтa, etc., p. 20, 11. 11-13. There appears to be
no way of bringing the "parallelogram" of column iii of our frag-
ment within the scope of this definition; and we are confronted with
an inconsistency as remarkable as was the agreement in the case of
кopʊþý. Of Heron's method of calculating the area of a triangle
in terms of its sides, our processes show hardly a trace. It has
been suggested that our fragment reflects the methods of the sec-
ond book of Euclid rather than the formula of Heron; but the diffi-
culty of relating our surveyor with Euclidean terminology and
method in general, has already been shown to be considerable.
The Heronian formula, on the other hand, he clearly had not.
Perhaps it is not much to say that he had the materials out of
which that formula was derived; but it seems not impossible that
we have in this fragment one of those early mathematical works
of whose materials Heron later became the organizer and compiler;
in other words, the work of which this papyrus was a copy, if not
itself one of Heron's sources, may fairly represent the character of
the sources he had and used.
TEXTS
23
3
1
Slight resemblances to other mathematicians may be noted.
The fragment's use of ὑπογεγραμμένον is somewhat closely paral-
leled in Apollodorus, ἔστι δὲ τὰ ὑπογεγραμμένα σχήματα, and in
Bito, τὸ δὲ σχῆμα οἷόν ἐστιν ὑπογέγραπται;” also in a passage
ascribed to Heron Byzantinus, καὶ τὸ σχῆμα ὑπογέγραπται. As
to ὡς δεῖ, M. Tannery has suggested that it may be a scribal error
for ὡς ἀεί, in uncials δ and a being easily confused. Ως δεῖ, how-
ever, does not seem difficult when compared with Euclid's ὡς
ἔτυχεν, ὃ ἔτυχεν, ἃ ἔτυχεν, with which expressions it would stand in
almost direct contrast, meaning “by construction,” or perhaps
better, "by the conditions of the problem."
In the following transcription, all abbreviations have been
expanded (). The figure following process 2 is a restoration sug-
gested in substantially the same form, by Professor E. H. Moore,
Dr. Hultsch, and M. Heiberg. The first lines of the third pro-
cess of col. i may be supplied about as follows, on the basis of the
figure near the top of col. ii:
[εαν δοθῇ τραπεζηον ισοσκελές οιον το υπογεγραμμένον ως δει τα
ι εφ αυτα γινεται ρ αφελε τα β της κορυφης απο των ιδ της βασεως
λοιπα ιβ ων το ημισυ γινεται ς εφ αυτα γινεται λς αφελε τα λς
λοιπα ξδ ων πλευρα η τηλικαυτη η καθετος ων το ημισυ γινεται
ταυτα επι τα ς της βασεως γινεται κδ τοσουτων αρουρων εκατερα
των ορθογωνιων και τα η της καθετου επι τα β της βασεως γινεται
ις τοσου-
U-]
COLUMN II:
των αρου (ρων) το εν αυτωι ετερομηκες εις το αυτο
αρουραι) ξδ το δε σχημα εσται τοιουτο

15
ΚΑ
ks
(γινεται) αρου(ρων) ξδ
1 Before Fig. 47, Wescher, Poliorcetique des Grecs.
2 Before Figs. 17, 19, 20, ibid.
3 Before Fig. 103.
24
CHICAGO LITERARY PAPYRI
εαν δοθη τραπεζηον σκαληνον οιον το υπογε
γραμμενον ως δει τα ιγ εφ αυ(τα) [ (γινεται) ρ]ξθ και τα ιε εφ
αυ(τα)
5 (γινεται) σκ]ε απο (τουτων) τα ρξθ (λοιπα) ως αφελε τα β
της κορυφής
απο των ις της βασεως (λοιπα) ιδ λαβε το ίδ' των νς
δ
γινεται απο των ιδ της βάσεως (λοιπα) ι ων το (ημισυ
(γινεται) ε εφ αυ(τα) γινεται) κε
απο των ρξθ (λοιπα) ρμδ ων πλευρα) ιβ τηλικαυτη η καθετος
ταυτα επι τα ε της βα[σεως (γινεται) ξ] ων το ημισυ) (γινεται)
λ τοσουτων
10 αρου (ρων) εκατερα τ [ων] ορθογωνιων και τα ιβ επι τα
β της κορυφης (γινεται) κδ τοσ[ο]υτων αρου(ρων) το εν
αυτών
ετερομηκες και τα ιβ επι τα δ της βασ[εω ]ς (γινεται) μη
ων το ημισυ) (γινεται) κδ τοσουτων αρουρων το εν [αυ]τωι
αμλυγωνιον εις το α]υτο (γινονται) αρουραι) ρη το [δε σχημα
εσται
15 τοιουτο
Πι

18
13
ir
JE
Λ
ΚΑ
Л
ΚΑ
E
B
F
Δ
[Restored]
7: Pap. reads (λοιπα) (ημισυ) ι ων το (γίνεται) κτέ.
COLUMN III:
εαν δοθη παραλληλόγραμμον οιον το υπογεγραμμένον
ως δει τα ιγ της πλευρας εφ αυ(τα) (γινεται) ρξθ και τα ιε της
πλευ
TEXTS
25
ρας εφ αυ(τα) (γίνεται) σκε απο (τουτων) τα ρξθ (λοιπα)
ν[ς] αφελε τα 5 της βασεως
απο των ι της κορυφης (λοιπα) δ λαβε το (τεταρτον) των νς
(γίνεται) ιδ
5 απο (τουτων) τα δ (λοιπα) ι ων το ημισυ) (γινεται) ε τηλι
καυτη η βασις του ορθο-
γωνιου εφ αυτα (γινεται) κε και τα ιγ εφ αυτα (γινεται) ρέθ
αφελε τα
κε (λοιπα) ρμδ ων πλευρα ιβ τηλικαυτη η καθετος και
αφελε τα ε απο των ς της βάσεως (λοιπον) α το εν απο των
ι της κορυφης (λοιπα) θ τηλικαυτη η λοιπη της ανω βασεως
10 του ορθογωνιου και τα ιβ της καθετου επι τα ε της
βάσεως (γινεται) ξ ων το ημισυ) (γίνεται) λ τοσουτων αρου-
(ρων) το εν αυτ[ω]ι
ορογωνιον και τα ιβ επι το α (γινεται) ιβ τοσουτων αρου (ρων) το
εν αυτωι ετερομηκες και τα ιβ επι τα θ της βάσεως
(γινεται) ρη ων το ημισυ) (γίνεται) νδ το [σουτ]ων αρουρών το
αλλο ορθογω-
15 νιον εις το αυτο αρου (ραι) γινονται) ες το δε σχημα εσται
τοιουτο
18 13
느
​(Γ
IB
Λ
95
Θ

IE
(γινεται) αρου(ρων) ας
εαν δοθη ρομβος οιον το υπογεγραμμενον ως δει τα ι
ε]φ αυτα (γινεται) ρ και το (ημισυ) των ιβ της βάσεως (γινεται)
5 εφ αυτα (γινεται) λς
απο (τουτων) τα λς (λοιπα) ξδ ων πλευρα η τηλικαυτη η καθετος
ταυτα επι τα της βάσεως μ[η] ων το (ημισυ) (γινεται) κ [δ]
τοσουτων
26
CHICAGO LITERARY PAPYRI
20 αρ ουρων εκατερα των ορθογωνιων εις το αυτο αρουραι) ες
το δε σ]χ[ημα ε]σται τοιουτο

H
KA
KA
KA
118
ΚΑ
HI
12: Read op oyóviov-
19: Sc. after éπì τà.
In the appended translation, superior numerals refer to lines of
the columns in the papyrus.
(Process 1)
COLUMN I, closing lines (restored)
[If there be given an isosceles trapezoid such as the one drawn below,
according to the conditions of the problem, the 10 squared is 100, and
the 2 of the upper side from the 14 of the base leaves 12, of which is
6. This squared is 36. Subtract this from 100; the remainder is 64, of
which the square root is 8. So great is the perpendicular. of this is
4. This by the 6 of the base is 24; of so many arourae is each of the
right-angled triangles. And the 8 of the perpendicular by the 2 of the
base is 16; of so]
COLUMN II
Altogether 264 arourae. And
¹many arourae is the rectangle in it.
the figure will be as follows.
(Process 2)
6
³If there be given a scalene trapezoid such as the one drawn below
*according to the conditions of the problem the 13 squared is 169 and
the 15 squared is 225. Subtract 169. 56 remains. Subtract the 2 of
the upper side from the 16 of the base. 14 remains. Take of the 56.
'It is 4. From the 14 of the base; there remains 10, of which is 5.
(This) squared is 25. (Take this) from the 169; 144 remains, of which
the square root (is) 12. So great is the perpendicular. "This (multiplied)
8
4
TEXTS
27
by the 5 of the base is 60, of which is 30. Of so many ¹ºarourae is each
of the right-angled triangles. And the 12 by the "2 of the upper side
is 24. Of so many arourae is the 12 parallelogram in it. And the 12 by
the 4 of the base is 48, 13 of which is 24. Of so many arourae is the
¹¹obtuse-angled triangle in it. Altogether it is 108 arourae. And the
figure will be ¹5 as follows.
15
131
(Process 3 is broken away.)
COLUMN III
(Process 4)
4
2
4 remains.
of which is
'If there be given a parallelogram such as the one drawn below
2according to the conditions of the problem the 13 of the side squared is
169 and the 15 of the side 'squared is 225. Subtract the 169. 56 remains.
Subtract the 6 of the base from the 10 of the upper side.
Take of the 56. It is 14. 5Subtract the 4. 10 remains,
5. So great is the base of the right-angled triangle. (This) squared is
25. And the 13 squared is 169. Subtract the 25. 144 remains, the
square root of which is 12. So great is the perpendicular. And sub-
tract the 5 from the 6 of the base. 1 remains. (Take) the 1 from the
910 of the upper side. 9 remains. So great is the remainder of the
upper base 10 of the right-angled triangle. And the 12 of the perpendic-
ular by the 5 of the "base is 60, of which is 30. Of so many arourae
is the right-angled triangle in it. And the 12 by the 1 is 12.
many arourae is the ¹³rectangle in it. And the 12 by the 9 of the base
14 is 108, of which is 54. Of so many arourae is the other right-angled
triangle. Altogether it is 96 arourae. And the figure will be as
follows.
12
15
(Process 5)
Of so
16 If there be given a rhomb such as the one drawn below according
to the conditions of the problem the 10 "squared is 100 and of the 12
of the base is 6. (This) squared is 36. 18 Subtract the 36. 64 remains,
the square root of which is 8. So great is the perpendicular. 19This by
the (6) of the base is 48, of which is 24. Of so many
Of so many 20arourae is each
of the right-angled triangles. Altogether 96 arourae. 21 And the figure
will be as follows.
IV. MEDICAL PRESCRIPTIONS
E. J. G. 108. Second century A. D. 16×6 cm. From Kôm Ushim. First pub-
lished in the American Journal of Philology, XXIV (1903), pp. 327- 29.
Like the Oxyrhynchus papyrus CCXXXIV, this papyrus con-
tains a series of medical prescriptions. Where alternative reme-
dies for the same ailment are given, they are introduced by aλλn,
much as in the Oxyrhynchus papyrus, which employs aλdo.
Parts of three remedies are preserved in the fragment. It is not
clear for what the first was designed, but alum (σTUTTηρía) and a
sort of wax ointment scented with rose (прwτǹ podívη) were
among the drugs recommended. The previous wiping (πрoaπо-
oμnxev) of the part affected or of some instrument or utensil
used, is also enjoined. The second disorder prescribed for seems
to have been leprosy; no other way of completing Xeπp[ seems
more probable. It is doubly annoying here that the lines should
be fragmentary, in view of the interest attaching to this disease
and to ancient methods of dealing with it. Two treatments are
prescribed. Of the second of these practically nothing remains.
The first seems to have consisted in part at least of external appli-
cations, perhaps of some ointment in which dry pitch and possi-
bly the blossom of some plant were ingredients. It is possible,
however, that the word partly lost before Toû avlovs was x]aλкoû
and that the reference is to the άveos xаλкoû, as the ancients
called the scaly efflorescence formed on the cooling surface of
the heated metal; cf. the scholium on Nicander, Th. 257. As in
the first prescription, the instructions include a wiping (πepiµáo-
σev), here probably of the part affected, perhaps to remove any
excess of the substance applied that might remain. Or as the
noun lost before ψυχρῷ seems to have modified περίμασσε, the
wiping may have been intended to cool and soothe the diseased
parts. Galen's expression, πepíµatte otóɣyw Depµ@ (14, 424, 3)
suggests σπόγγ]ῳ ψυχρῷ περίμασσε here; but the last trace
before yvxp cannot belong to w. It might be c of σπογγωι, but
adscript does not appear elsewhere in the papyrus.
28
TEXTS
29
As in the case of the Oxyrhynchus prescriptions, these are
written on the verso of a papyrus the recto of which had pre-
viously been used for some document, probably an account, as
several amounts in artabae of grain are clearly legible on the
recto. While the recto preserves no date, the hand is of a sort
common in the second century A. D., and the later use of the
papyrus for the medical prescriptions probably fell in the second
or third. It thus belongs in time as well as in subject-matter,
with the Oxyrhynchus medical papyrus, already mentioned.
The hand is a well-formed and fairly regular semi-uncial, not
of the best literary type, but very far removed from the ordinary
cursive hand of Roman documents. The spaces, such as are
sometimes called "half-paragraphs," in 11. 6 and 13, seem
further to favor the view that the manuscript was not a
mere private copy, made for the writer's own use, as many
literary works written on the verso of old documents doubtless
were, but a more careful and formal writing, perhaps designed
for sale. The only punctuation is a high point in 1. 6, at the end
of the first prescription. A blank space of 2 cm. is left after it
before the beginning of the second prescription, and a similar
space seems to have been left (1. 13) before the third. The lines
are from the upper part of the column, and 1. 7 cm. of the upper
margin are preserved. Little if anything is lost from the right-
hand margin of the column; at the left something is lost, but
how much cannot be certainly determined; hardly less than four
or five letters, however, for the lost beginning of 1. 8 pretty cer-
tainly contained the concluding letters of n[pâs and the opening
letter, or letters, of ?x]aλкoû, and probably some intervening
word or words besides.
10
las?
5
as
] δις μισυος στυπτηρ
]ς κεκαυμενης δι
1η κηρωτη ροδινη[
μα προαποσμηξί
]θει την επειφανεια [ν ?
επει δει· λεπρ[
] ... υρου λ ι πισης ξη
30
CHICAGO LITERARY PAPYRI
10
ρας ?χαλκου του ανθους
Έκοψας εμβαλε εις κ
λκου πυρος χρωτι[
1ξη ενχριε εις δερ
μα?
K[
Τι ψυχρω περιμασσε[
1 αλλη πυ[ . ]ιτυ.
γαιου παλαι
ιν
15
].(
ομιθιν
) π[
ου λι
Τυρι
αν
7: Or a L.- Read πίσσης.
Here the papyrus breaks off.
5: Read ἐπιφάνειαν.
Μίσυ (copperas) is not uncommon with the medical writers.
Many forms and sorts of στυπτηρία (alum) were known to
Greek writers on medicine; σχιστή, στρογγύλη, ἀστραγαλωτή,
χαλκίτις, τριχίτις, πλινθῖτις, πλακῖτις, ὑγρά, Αἰγυπτίη, Μηλίη, are
some of the names applied to them. The first letter of 1. 2 might
belong to στυπτηρ[ία ]s, were it not that ll. 7 and 8 lead us to expect
a greater lacuna at the beginning of lines. Even as it is, κεκαυ
μένης probably limits στυπτηρίας. Κηρωτὴ ῥοδίνη (1. 3), the cera-
tum rosaceum of Appuleius, seems to have been a recognized
preparation of the ancient pharmacopoeia. Προαποσμήχειν too
(1. 4) is met with in Dioscorides (1, 144), Oribasius (2, 417,
9),
and Galen (13, 374 C). Επιφάνεια (1. 5), while not primarily a
medical term, is used by medical writers in describing symptoms.
Paul of Aegina, for example, says that leprosy manifests itself in
τραχυσμὸς ἐπιφανείας. The restoration πίσσα ὑγρά is suggested
by Dioscorides (1, 95), who speaks of πίσσα ὑγρά and πίσσα ξηρά:
ἡ δὲ ξηρὰ πίσσα ἑψομένης τῆς ὑγρᾶς γίνεται· καλεῖται δὲ αὐτὴ ὑπ᾽
ἐνίων παλίμπισσα. That Theophrastus too recognized the same
distinction, though under a different terminology, is implied in
his πίττα ὠμή; and the corresponding πίσσα έφθή occurs in Hip-
pocrates. The imperatives ἔμβαλε and ἔνχριε, ll. 9 and 11, recall
some of the directions of Galen and of the Oxyrhynchus prescrip-
tions, where imperatives singular and aorist participles largely
constitute the verbal mechanisms.
V. HOMER, ILIAD B, 1-20
E. J. G. 124. Second century A. D. 12.5 x 3 cm. From Kôm Ushim. Described
in Classical Philology, I (1906), p. 167.
The papyrus preserves the beginnings of the first twenty lines
of the second book of the Iliad, and doubtless formed the begin-
ning of a roll containing that book. The very neat uncial hand
suggests a date in the second century, as do the dates on the bulk
of the documentary papyri found with this fragment. The text
is the vulgate. The paragraphus stands after 1. 7, marking the
pause in the sense. This and the reading waσov[dıŋ in l. 12,
(with HPQbCbEbЕcО³XZ, b²; πavovdíŋ, Ludwich) are the frag-
ment's chief points of interest. No trace of 1. 2 is preserved, but
the space shows that a verse stood here in the papyrus.
restorations are in accordance with the text of Ludwich.
πι
The
On the verso are parts of fourteen lines of a document, in a
large and rather rude uncial hand of the same century. Between
11. 1 and 2 there is space for perhaps seven lines uninscribed.
του
ωσ
Jap wo [
]
- απου ο [
10
5
]
των . . [
10
] οινου κ [
ο βολους [
1 : υς οβολ
] 2 . (αρουρας) ριβ |
1
•
pes v[
1 οσου[
]νο [ν]τας [
1.0.[
€
31
32
CHICAGO LITERARY PAPYRI
In the following transcription the parts missing in the papyrus
have been restored from the text of Ludwich.
αλ[λοι μεν ρα θεοι τε και ανερες ιπποκορυσται
ευδον παννύχιοι δια δ ουκ εχε νήδυμος ύπνος
αλλ [ο γε μερμηριζε κατα φρενα ως αχιληα
τιμηση ολεση δε πολεας επι νηυσιν αχαιων
5 ηδε δε οι κατα θυμον αριστη φαινετο βουλη
πεμψαι επ ατρείδη αγαμεμνονι ουλον ονειρον
και μιν φωνησας επεα πτερόεντα προσηυδα
βασ[κ ιθι ουλε ονειρε θοας επι νηας αχαιων
ελθων ες κλισιην αγαμεμνονος ατρείδαο
10 παν τα μαλ ατρεκεως αγορευεμεν ως επιτελλω
παντ
θωρη ξαι ε κελευε καρηκομόωντας αχαιούς
πασσυ διη νυν γαρ κεν ελοι πολιν ευρυάγυιαν
τρωων ου γαρ ετ αμφις ολυμπια δωματ έχοντες
αθανατοι φράζονται επεγναμψεν γαρ απαντας
15 ηρη λισσομενη τρωεσσι δε κηδε εφηπται
ως φατο βη δ αρ ονειρος επει τον μυθον ακουσε
καρπαλίμως δ ικανε θοας επι νηας αχαιων
βη δ [αρ επ ατρείδην αγαμεμνονα τον δε κιχανεν
ευδοντ εν κλισίη περι δ αμβροσιος κεχυθ υπνος
20 στη διαρ υπερ κεφαλης νηληιω υιι εοικως
•
1
VI. HOMER, Iliad E, 824-41
E. J. G. 93. Second century A. D. 9.5×4.8 cm.
From Ashmunên? First
published in the American Journal of Philology, XXI (1900), pp. 310–14,
and Plate.
(Plate II)
The middle parts of eighteen lines of Iliad E in a fine uncial
hand appear on the recto of this little fragment. On the verso are
parts of two columns, written in a bold, rude cursive. The ends of
thirteen lines of the first column and the initial letters of five of
the second are preserved. The name 'Op]σevoûþɩ, column i, l. 11,
betrays the non-literary character of the columns, of which these
are the remains:
10
5
Verso, Column i
].
θησεται
λοιποις
Joav
ανθα
][
ν τόπον
επικει
Column ii
T[
ФІ
€ [
5
T[
10
•
πας
10
ζωνη
ταστη
Ορισενονφιν
]TW
]ειπεν
The writing of the Iliad verses on the recto is a very fine and
neat back hand of the semi-uncial type. This hand has led
Drs. Grenfell and Hunt, to whom the papyrus has been sub-
mitted, to assign it to the middle or latter part of the second
century, when in the time of the Antonines such hands came into
vogue. The upper stroke of a is much prolonged, and the loop
is rather reduced in size.
The letter thus somewhat resembles
33
34
CHICAGO LITERARY PAPYRI
し
​2
η
the alphas of the first hand in the British Museum manuscript of
Isocrates On the Peace, assigned by Mr. Kenyon to the first
century;¹ and still more the alphas of the British Museum Odyssey,
which Mr. Kenyon refers to the early first century. The loops
of B are distinct from each other. In ε the upper curve often
meets the cross-stroke, giving the letter much the appearance of a
modern English e; sometimes the lower curve also meets the
cross-stroke, when the letter is indistinguishable from 0. In ʼn the
cross-stroke passes well to the left of the left vertical, while the
right vertical has become a short but decided curve hanging from
the right end of the cross-stroke. In o and the letters of a simi-
lar outline-€ σ the form is rather oval, the axis pointing not
straight up, but decidedly to the left, until it sometimes becomes
almost horizontal. This is indeed the prime characteristic of the
hand, and in it and all the vertical strokes of the angular letters
share. x is small, p and ☀ being the only letters which go below
the line. and έ do not occur.
The letters are all completely
formed, but they are often joined together.
I was written in the papyrus is not quite clear.
839 should we expect it, and here it was not
but it seems to have been supplied, together with a point-per-
haps by another hand-just above ŋ. The stroke above w of
πρóŋν 832 is probably similarly intended, and is doubtless due to
the same corrector, who thought of Tрwí and wished πpóny spelled
etymologically. Yet it is just possible that in 832 an acute accent
is meant, in which case it must come from another hand than the
rest of the accents in the fragment; and that in 839 some scholiast
wrote above 7, with reference to a scholium in the margin.
Didymus has a comment on this line, but it does not concern
βριθοσύνῃ; it reads: διὰ τοῦ δὲ αἱ ᾿Αριστάρχου ἄνδρα δ' ἄριστον.
Whether the dative
Only in ẞpiłoσúvy
βριθοσύνῃ
originally written;
The papyrus has a fair array of points and accents, generally
from the first hand. The rough breathing occurs twice-836 and
840. The acute appears frequently, in the case of diphthongs
standing over both vowels. It stands usually on antepenults, but
¹ Kenyon, Classical Texts from Papyri in the British Museum, Plate IV.
2 Kenyon, Palaeography of Greek Papyri, Plate XV, p. 84.
³ La Roche, Ilias, p. 159.
3
TEXTS
35
α
σú 827 and Toín 828 also have it. A feature somewhat less com-
mon is the marking of a-long: a'pna 827, a'pni 829, 841, epúσão
ερύσασ
(épúoaoa) 836. In 824, on the other hand, the initial a of "Apna
is short and is, of course, unmarked. epúσão was probably marked
to prevent confusion with epvoas, although the apostrophe would
have done as well. The diaeresis is used with its modern force,
and elision is sometimes indicated by the apostrophe. The high
point is the only punctuation-mark-828, 830, 838, and possibly
839. In 830, modern editions have a comma; in the other lines
they have a colon.
The fragment furnishes few interesting readings. Naturally,
it is the vulgate text that is represented. yvwσкwv 824 is prob-
ably an error for ywóσкw. It is unsupported by the manuscripts,
and the editors read γιγνώσκω οι γινώσκω, which the sense obvi-
ously requires. Deveλos 835 is equally unintelligible, and seems
to have no support, editors and manuscripts reading Σ0éveλov.
Yet the superior iotas in 832 and 839 show that the papyrus has
had at least one corrector, and one wonders why he was not
thoroughgoing. In the case of yɩváσкwv, indeed, it is probable
the v was marked for excision. There is an additional stroke in
the middle of it, which may be thus interpreted. The stroke with
which the corrector deleted the a of μaxnoaobaι 833 is hardly
more noticeable. But oeveλos shows no trace of the corrector's
hand, while the line can hardly be restored in such a way as to
justify the nominative.
The corrector has again asserted himself in 833, where he
writes e above the penultimate a of μαχήσασθαι. In this he has
the approval of most modern editors, who print paɣnocodai. There
are a number of manuscripts, however, which have the reading of
the first hand. The papyrus betrays no consciousness of Aristar-
chus's rejection of 838, 839; but the margins might tell a different
story. The reading in 840 is not quite certain. Apparently the
first hand wrote μaσreya, in which the corrector deleted the e.
In the following transcription the lacunae are supplied from the
text of Ludwich, except that, in view of the usage of the papyrus,
the dative iotas are omitted. Accents, points, and marks of
quantity are printed only where they occur in the papyrus.

A
36
CHICAGO LITERARY PAPYRI
...
point under a letter means that the reading is not quite certain;
a line, that the corrector has marked the letter as wrong.
lines are wanting at both top and bottom of the column.
γινωσκων γαρ αρηα μαχην ανα κοιρανέοντα
825 τον δ η ] μείβετ' επειτα θεα γλαυκώπις αθηνη
τυδείδη διομηδες ε[ μω κεχαρισμένε θυμω
μητε σύγ' άρηα το γε δε ιδιθι μητε τον αλλον
αθανατων· τοίη τοι εγ ων επιταρροθος ειμι
αλλ αγ] επ ά'ρηϊ πρωτω εχε μωνυχας ίππους
830 τυψον] δὲ σχεδιην· μη διαζε θούρον αργα
δε
τουτο ν μαινομενον τ υκτον κακον αλλοπροσαλλον
ος πρωην μεν εμοι τ ε και ηρη στεντ αγορεύων
τρωσι] μαχήσασθαι αταρ αργείοισιν αρηξειν
νυν δε μετα τρώεσσιν ομιλει των δε λελασται
835 ως φαμενη σθένελος [ μεν αφ ιππων ώσε χαμάζε
χειρι] παλιν ερύσασ ὁ δ' α ρ εμμαπεως απορουσεν
η
б
ες | διφρον έβαινε π αραι διομηδεα διον
εμμεμανια θεα· μεγα δ' εβ[ραχε φήγινος αξων
Some
βριθοσύνη·· δε [ι νην γα [ρ αγεν θεον ανδρα δ αριστον
840) λαζετζο δε μαστε[ι]γα και ἡ [νια παλλας αθήνη

α
αυτικ επ] ά' ρηι πρωτω εχε μωνυχας ίππους
824: γινωσκω Ludwich, Leaf, γιγνώσκω Dindorf, La Roche, Van
Leeuwen, with GH'N; -кo corr.
827: το γε with ASBMU", τόν γε FTWP UNE U@Y, Eust. :
τόνδε JLPCQUUZ; τὸν EΚ.
831: τυκτον; στυκτον Van Leeuwen.
832: πρωην man. prim. Dindorf.
πρωτην corr. Leaf, πρώην La Roche, Van Leeuwen, Lud-
wich, with AGXY.
833: μαχήσασθαι man. prim. HJPHN QUY.
μαχήσεσθαι corr. Dindorf, La Roche, Leaf, Ludwich.
રી 2
μαχέσθαι Χ'; μαχέσασθαι UX3 μαχέσσεσθαι Van Leeuwen.
αταρ; αὐτὰρ PE KY
835: σθένελος; Σθένελον Dindorf, La Roche, Van Leeuwen, Leaf,
Ludwich, etc.
TEXTS
37
836: ερύσασ; ἐρύσασα S.
838, 839: 'A0ETоûvтaι Aristarchus.
839: Van Leeuwen puts this verse in the margin; P¹ has it after
840.
840: de; Sǹ X²; yàp H.
μaoтeiya man. prim.; μaoтıya corr., Dindorf, La Roche,
Van Leeuwen, Leaf, etc.
VII. HOMER, ILIAD O, 1-68
E. J. G. 92. Second century A. D. 22 × 17. 4 cm. From Kôm Ushîm. First
published in the American Journal of Archaeology, II (1898) pp. 347–56,
and Plate XII.
W
The papyrus (II in Ludwich's apparatus), which is thick and
full of holes, formed a part of a roll, inscribed on one side only,
in columns 16 cm. in height, each containing thirty-three lines.
Parts of two such columns remain, giving the closing words of
the lines of one and the opening words of those of the other, but
in no case preserving a complete line. The hand is an even uncial,
written with evident care. There are occasional accents and points
of punctuation, with little, unless it be their sporadic occurrence,
to suggest that they are the work of a second hand. Acute, grave,
and circumflex accents all occur; the last with a diphthong being
written so as to embrace both letters. I have observed no breathings.
Of punctuation marks, the apostrophe, the colon (high point), and
possibly the period, appear. The apostrophe is used, though
irregularly, to mark elision. The period seems to occur in 1. 11.
Perhaps in 11. 20 (between Oeo and Taσai) and 66 (after ny) we
have cases of the middle point — στɩyµǹ μéon. The cases of the
high point are clear, as indicated in the transcription.
Iota is adscript in datives: as in [ακροτατη]ι, κορυφηι, 1. 3;
αυτηι, [θαλασσηι, 1. 24; αλληληισι, 1. 63. etc. v written after
Savaoioi, 1. 11, is marked for erasure. There seems to be no
attempt at separating the letters into words. Of the character of
the hand, it is enough to say that, letter for letter, it generally pre-
sents close resemblances to the writing of the Bankes papyrus of
Iliad . The strokes in the Bankes papyrus are perhaps a trifle
finer, while its accents and punctuation, on the other hand, are far
more clumsy and rude. These, however, it is agreed, are by a later
hand, which is hardly the case with the accents of the fragment
before us.
One point of real difference between the two—almost
the only point that interrupts this correspondence-is in the mat-
ter of -adscript. The iotas adscript of the Bankes papyrus have
38
TEXTS
39
been said to be the work of the hand that supplied the coarse
punctuation and accents which so mar that manuscript. In our
fragment, on the other hand, whatever might be thought of
accents and points, the adscripts are quite clearly the work of the
first hand. This is evidenced by the appearance of -adscript with
the second ŋ of åλλýλnioi, 1. 63; for had it been inserted by a late
hand, the adjoining letters would inevitably have looked crowded,
and of this there is no suggestion. Yet the resemblances of the
two manuscripts remain sufficient, at least, to warrant the belief
that they are the works of the same school of writing, and not far
separated from one another in point of time.
η
3
The question of the date of the Bankes Iliad thus becomes
important for the determination of that of our papyrus, for which
the prevailing date of the accompanying grain receipts, 159 A. D.,
affords at best only a terminus ad quem. Between the extremes
of the dates that have been suggested for the Bankes papyrus,
from three to four centuries intervene. Wattenbach,' in 1867,
characterized it as perhaps the finest example preserved to us of
old Alexandrian calligraphy in the time of the Ptolemies; La
Roche thinks it probably comes from the time of the last Ptole-
mies or the first century B. C., but may be one hundred years
younger; Gardthausen, while he nowhere precisely dates the
papyrus, considers it older than the Hypereides, and this again he
regards as earlier than 150 A. D. The possibility that the Louvre
fragments of Iliad N, which Silvestre assigned to the first century
B. C., were found with the Bankes papyrus has been suggested by
the editors of the Louvre fragments, and may serve as a further
attestation of the earlier date. The same dating has been revived,
in connection with a facsimile of a few lines of the papyrus, in
Harper's Classical Dictionary (p. 840). An origin in the second
century after Christ, however, has been maintained by Maunde
Thompson, accepted by Blass, Leaf, and Van Leeuwen, and adopted
as probable in the Palaeographical Society's first volume; while
¹Anleitung zur griechischen Paläographie, p. 5.
2 Homerische Textkritik, p. 439.
3 Griechische Paläographie, p. 154.
4
* Notices et extraits, tome XVIII, pp. 110, 111.
40
CHICAGO LITERARY PAPYRI
Wattenbach in the last edition of his Anleitung no longer defends
the earlier date. With this determination as to the kindred manu-
script, the evidence accompanying our payprus readily combines,
and we may with some confidence refer the fragment to the first
half of the second century after Christ.
The first column begins with the first line of ℗. It may be
that the roll contained only this book; so thick a piece of papyrus
would soon make a bulky roll, and would hardly have been select-
ed for copying a very considerable part of the Iliad. ℗ in col-
umns like these, with due allowance for margins, would make a
roll 7 feet 9 inches in length. The Bankes papyrus of Iliad Q,
lacking the first 126 lines, makes a roll 7 feet 8 inches long, with
42 to 44 lines to the column; the roll, when complete, cannot have
been over 9 feet in length; and this may be taken as indicating
what was considered a convenient size for a roll of Homer.
The textual evidence of the fragment is interesting. Line 6¹
of the traditional text was evidently never in this copy. Bekker
notes its absence from Codex Venetus A. Nauck, who, with F.
A. Wolf, Cauer, and Pierron, prints the line unbracketed, never-
theless, with La Roche, cites A and D as omitting it; von Christ,
retaining it, remarks, "om. AD, habet C et D in marg.” Leaf
and Rzach bracket the line, with La Roche and Hentze, and
Ludwich suspects it, while Van Leeuwen relegates it to the mar-
gin. As various editors have suggested, the line probably crept
into the text of ✪ under the shadow of l. 5, with which it forms a
couplet in T 101, 102.
The final -v of Aavaoîow, l. 11, was written by the scribe, and
then marked for erasure. The matter is a small one, but has
received the attention of the editors. Bekker, Leaf, Cauer, Pier-
ron, and Nauck retain the consonant; Wolf, La Roche, Ludwich,
and Van Leeuwen reject it. It has been pointed out that ℗ 11=
N 9.2 In the latter place all texts, I believe, have ▲avaoioiv.
There the word concludes a sentence and a paragraph; and as
the following verse begins with a vowel, there is much to be said
1 όφρ' είπω τά με θυμὸς ἐνὶ στήθεσσι κελεύει. T 102 differs only in reading στήθεσ-
σιν ἀνώγει.
2 Save that 0 11 reads åpnyéμev for the åpn§éµev of N 9.
TEXTS
41
for the strong ending. In 11, however, the word is followed
by a comma only, and the first word of 12 begins with two conso-
nants. The need of -v is much less evident here than in N 9.
Lines 11, 25, 26, and 18-40, which have been regarded with some
suspicion by many critics, are not omitted from our text, the frag-
ment, in its attestation of these lines, further allying itself with
the received text. An itacism, xpi- for xpe-, is to be observed in
57; probably also in 44, xpvoinv for xpvoeinv.
Line 59' seems to be lacking, though it must be said that the
writing here is so faint and the papyrus so fragmentary that one
cannot be certain. I think it certain that either 58 or 59 was
never in this copy; and what few letters I have been able to
recover seem to belong to 58. Of course in point of sense, 59 can
be dispensed with much better than 58, as 59 without 58 would
be meaningless. The two lines appear as a couplet in B 809, 810,
and perhaps the appearance of the second with the first in in the
received text is a parallel to the case of ℗ 5, 6, discussed above;
that is, 58 may have drawn 59 after it into the received text here,
just as 5 seems to have brought 6 after it, above. It should be
noted, too, that the second line of our couplet occurs in @ 70 with-
out the first; which may show that its connection with the first is
not as close as I have assumed; while quite as fairly suggesting
that if the second may occur without the first, the first may occur
without the second. I know of no other manuscript support for
this rejection; and as far as my observation goes, no editor has
conjectured it.
COLUMN I
ηως μεν κροκοπ]επλος εκίδνατο πᾶσαν επ' αιαν
ζευς δε θεων αγορην ποιήσατο τερπικέραυνος
ακροτατη ι κορυφηι πολυδε[ιραδο ]ς [ουλ]υμποιο ·
αυτος δε σφ αγορευε θ]εοι [δ υπο παντες ακουον·
5 κεκλυτέ μευ παντες τε θ]εοι [πασαι τ]ε θέαιναι·
7 μητε τις ουν θηλεια θεο]ς το γε μητε τις άρσην
πειρατω διακέρσαι εμον] ε[π]ο[ς αλλ αμ]α πάντες
αινειτ οφρα τάχιστα τελε]υτ[ησω τ]άδε έργα
1 πεζοί θ' ἱππές τε· πολὺς δ' ορυμαγδός ορώρει.
42
CHICAGO LITERARY PAPYRI
10 ον δ αν εγων απανευθε] θεων [ε]θ[ε]λοντα νοήσω
ελθοντ η τρωεσσιν αρηγέμεν] ή δαναοισιν.
πληγεις ου κατα κοσμον] ελ [εν]σεται ουλυμπον δε
η μιν ελων ριψω ες ταρταρον ηεροεντα
τηλε μαλ ηχι βαθιστον υπο χθ ονός εστι βερεθρον·
15 ενθα σιδηρείαι τε πυλαι και χαλκε]ος ουδος
τοσσον ενερθ αιδεω οσο]ν ουρα[νος ε]στ'
]ν ουρα [νος ε]στ' απο γα[ι]ης
γνωσετ επειθ όσον ειμ[ι θε] @[ν κάρ]τιστος α[π]αν[των
ει δ' αγε πειρήσασθε [θεοι ίνα ειδετζε πάντες
σειρην χρυσείην εξ ου [ρανοθ]εν [κρε]μασαντες
20 παντες δ εξαπτεσθε θεοι πασαι [τε θεα]ιναι·
αλλ ουκ αν ερυσαιτ] εξ ουρανόθεν π ]εδ[ι]ον δε
ζην υπατον μηστωρ ουδ ει μαλα] πο[λ]λα κα[μοιτε
αλλ οτε δη και εγω προ]φ[ρων] εθελ[ο]ι[μ]ι ερυσσ [αι
αυτηι κεν γαιηι ερυ] σαιμ' αυτῆι τ[ε θα]λάσσηι·
25 σειρην μεν κεν επ ειτα περι ρίον ουλ[ύ]μπο [ιο
δησαιμην τα δε κ α ]υτε μετη ο ρα πάντα γένοιτο
τοσσον εγω περι τ ει]μι θε[ω]ν [π]ερί τ' ειμ' ανθρωπων
ως εφαθ' οι δ' αρα παντες ακήν εγενοντο σιωπ [ηι
μυθον αγασσαμενοι μαλα γαρ κρατερως αγ]όρευ[σεν
The rest of the column, containing ll. 30-34, is broken away.
Possibly the last letter, with the high point following it, of the
long line 32, now lost, is apparent below column i.
COLUMN II
35 αλλ' η τοι πολεμου [μεν αφεξόμεθ ως συ κελεύεις
βουλην δ' αργειοι[ς υποθησομεθ η τις ονησει
ως μη παντ[ε]ς [ολωνται οδυσσαμένοιο τεοιο
την δ' επιμειδίησας προσέφη νεφεληγερέτα ζευς
θαρσει τριτογενεια φιλον τεκος ου νυ τι θυμωι
40 προφρονι μυθέζομαι εθελω δε τοι ηπιος είναι
ως ειπων υπ όχεσφι τιτύσκετο χαλκοποδ ιππω
ωκυπετα χρυσεηισιν εθειρηισιν κομόωντε
χρ[υσ]ον δ' αυτο[ς εδυνε περι χροι γεντο δ ιμασθλην
χρυσι [η]ν ευτυ[κτον εου δ επεβήσετο διφρου
45 μασ [τιξεν δ' ελ[ααν τω δ' ουκ ακοντε πετέσθην
TEXTS
43
μεσσηγυς γαιης τε και ουρανου αστερόεντος
ιδην δ[ ικανεν πολυπιδακα μητερα θηρων
γαργαρον ενθ α δε οι τεμενος βωμος τε θυηεις
ενθ' ι [ππους] ε[στησε πατηρ ανδρων τε θεων τε
50 λυσας εξ οχε[ων κατα δ ηερα πουλυν
πουλυν εχευεν
αυτος δ εν κορυφηισι καθέζετο κύδει γαιων
ε[ισο] ρο[ω]ν τ[ρωων τε πολιν και νηας αχαιων
οι] δ [αρα δειπνο]ν [ελοντο καρηκομόωντες αχαιοι
ριμ [φα κατα κλισι]α[ς απο δ αυτου θωρήσσοντο
55 τ]ρωες [δ αυθ ετερωθεν ανα πτολιν ωπλίζοντο
παν[ροτεροι μεμασαν δε και ως υσμινι μαχεσθαι
χρι [ οι αναγκαιηι] προ τ[ε παιδων και προ γυναικων
58 π[ασαι] δ' [ωιγνυ]ντο π[υλαι εκ δ εσσυτο λαος
60 οι δ οτε δη ρ ες χώρον [ενα ξυνιοντες ικοντο
συ[ν ρ εβαλον] ρινους συν [δ εγχεα και μενε ανδρων
χαλκεοθωρηκών ατα ρ ασπίδες ομφαλοεσσαι
επληντ' αλληληισι πο [λυς δ ορυμαγδός ορώρει
ε]νθα δ [ά]μ' οιμωγη [τε και ευχωλη πελεν ανδρων
65 ολ[λυ]ν[τ]ων τε και ολ[λ]υμενων ρεε δ αιματί γαια
οφρ[α μεν ηως η]ν [και αεξετο ιερον ημαρ
τ οφρα [μαλ αμφοτερων [βελε ηπτετο πιπτε δε λαος
η]μος δ' η[ελιος] μεσον ο [υρανον αμφιβεβήκει
1: 'A0. Zenodotus.
2: ποιησατο om. J. The line seems to end with a colon.
4: ακουον; ἤκουον SH. The line seems to end with a colon.
6: ὄφρ' εἴπω, τά με θυμὸς ἐνὶ στήθεσσι κελεύει. Omitted with
AS'P; added by S³BM, etc.
7: θεος; θεῶν Aristarchus, Apollonius.
11: The accent of ἀρηγέμεν is visible. The dot after the line
may be a period; or possibly an additional sign to indicate the
erasure of v. δανοιοισιν was first written, then corrected to
δαναοισι. δαναοισιν, WY.
12: ολυμπον is corrected to ουλυμπον.
14: βέλεθρον Γ.
15: Deleted in Bekker, 2d ed.
44
CHICAGO LITERARY PAPYRI
17: The acute accent over the first o of oσov is visible, as also that
over the lost a of καρτιστος. Is the mark over the first letter
α
of απαντων a trace of a rough breathing? θεός, Υ.
18: The accute accent of iva is visible.
22: κάμοιτε Ub, Aristot.
23: ἐρῦσαι W, ἐρύσαι Χ, ἐρῦσσαι HY.
24: έρύσαιμι S, έρύσσαιμ' J. ST read Kev for te.
25, 26: Αθ. Zenodotus; om. Aristid.
περι ρίον; al. περιρριον.
The accent of ουλύμποιο seems to be visible.
27: ειμ'; al. ειμι.
28-40: 'A0.
Aristarchus.
36: βουλήν τ' Ρ*.
Τ
37: ἀθετοῦσιν· οὐδὲ ἐν τῇ Ζηνοδότου ἐφέροντο sch. Τ.
41: εἰπὼν om. J'.
45: μάστιξε δ' GWYP; μάστιξέν τ' CZ.
46: μεσσηγύ P. An apostrophe after μεσ of μεσσηγυς?
48: ενθα δε 5', ἔνθα δέ AS, ἔνθα τέ Μ.
49: ἔνθα Χ.
50: λύσας δ' Η.
52: Zenodotus has vs. 1 after vs. 52.
54: κλισίης C.
55: τρῷες H.
57: χρειῇ PxUCY°, χρείῃ L.
59: πεζοί θ' ἱππῆές τε· πολὺς δ' ορυμαγδὸς ὀρώρει. Omitted.
62: αὐτὰρ SBMJWPX.
63: ἀλλήλῃσι Ludwich. ἀλλήλοισι WP=YKPCY°
64: ἔνθα δ' ἅμ' Ludwich. ἔνθ' ἅμ᾽ BMJKPs; ἔνθ' ἅμα Χ; ἔνθ' ἄρ
γ; ἔνθ' ἄρα Η; ἔνθα δ' YYP. The accent of άμα is visible.
APPENDIX
THE PAPYRI OF THE KÔM USHÎM AND ASHMUNÊN GROUPS
AS FAR AS PUBLISHED
Nos. 93, 101, 104 are said to be from Ashmunên; the others are from
Kôm Ushim.
1-91. Grain Receipts: The University of Chicago Studies in Classical
Philology, III, pp. 1-66. (No. 67 completed in Classical Phi-
lology, I, p. 172.)
92. Homer, Iliad ✪, 1–68: American Journal of Archaeology, Second
Series, II, pp. 347-56; Chicago Literary Papyri, pp. 38-43.
93. Homer, Iliad E, 824-41: American Journal of Philology, XXI,
310-14; Chicago Literary Papyri, pp. 33–37.
94. Boat Ticket: The University of Chicago Decennial Publications,
V, p. 28.
95. Legal Proceedings: ibid., pp. 29, 30.
96. Accounts: ibid., pp. 30–73.
97. Termination of Partnership: Classical Philology, I, p. 168.
98. Claim of Title: ibid., p. 169.
99. Accounts: ibid., III.
100. Declaration: ibid., I, p. 167.
101. Alexandrian Hexameters: Journal of Hellenic Studies, XXIII,
pp. 237-47; Chicago Literary Papyri, pp. 6–18.
102. Docket of a Village Scribe: Classical Philology, I, p. 173.
103. Isocrates, To Nicocles, chaps. 9-11: Chicago Literary Papyri, pp.
3-5.
104. Letter: ibid., p. 173.
105. Report of Officials: ibid., p. 174.
106. Address to Village Officials: ibid., p. 174.
107. Address to the Praefect: ibid., p. 175.
108. Medical Prescriptions: American Journal of Philology, XXIV,
pp. 327-29; Chicago Literary Papyri, pp. 28–30.
109. Tax Receipt: Classical Philology, I, p. 173.
110. Petition to the Strategus: ibid., p. 170.
124. Homer, Iliad B, 1-20: ibid., p. 167; Chicago Literary Papyri,
pp. 31, 32.
45
1
INDEX OF TEXTS NOT OTHERWISE EXTANT
ǎyav, II, iii, 4
ἄγγελος, II, ix, 8
ἀγκυλομήτης, II, vi, 7
ảyλaós, II, x, 4
åyvós, II, x, 2
ἄγνωστος, ΙΙ, vi, 26
ἄγριος, II, vi, 14
ảńp, II, vi, 1
(II, III, IV)
åðávaтos, II, i, 4, 8, 17; iii, 3; x, 9
aiyís, II, xiii, 4
ἀλκυονίς, II, ix, 13
άλλομαι, ΙΙ, vi, 15
äλλos, II, viii, 10; III, iii, 14; IV, 13
ἄλοχος, II, i, 1
äµa, II, i, 26; iii, 8
åµßporos, II, vi, 21
ἀμλυγώνιον, II, ii, 14
ἀμφίπολος, ΙΙ, i, 16, 18
ȧváyw, II, iv, 2
ǎvaέ, II, vi, 18
άνασσα, II, iii, 15
åvapépw, II, iv, 11
ἀναφράσσω, ΙΙ, i, 19
Ανδρομέδα, ΙΙ, ix, 6
åveμos, II, vi, 4
ávýp, II, ì, 20, J 3; iii, 12; iv, 9; vi, 14;
vii, 5; ix, 9; xi, 6
dveos, II, iii, 10; iv, 8
]αντικεπαια, ΙΙ, x, 13
ἀντίλαλος, ΙΙ, ix, 15
ǎvw, III, iii, 9
ἀοιδή, II, i, J 4
ἀριστεύς, II, vi, 12
ἄριστος, II, i, J 5
äpμa, II, iv, 2; x, 11
ăpovpa, III, ii, 1, 2, 10, 11, 13, 14; iii, 11,
12, 14, 15, 20
Αρσινόα, II, i, 5
αστερόεις, ΙΙ, 1, 23
ἀστράπτω, ΙΙ, iii, 1
avTÓS, III, ii, 4; iii, 2, 3, 6, 17
avtós, II, xii, 5; III, ii, 1, 11, 13, 14;
iii, 11, 13, 15, 20
ἀφαιρέω, ΙΙΙ, ii, 5; iii, 3, 6, 8
'Appoyévela, II, iii, 5
äøpwv, II, iii, 4
Báκxos, ? II, vii, 15
βασιλεύς ΙΙ, i, J 7
Báσis, III, ii, 6, 7, 9, 12; iii, 3, 5, 8, 9,
11, 13, 17, 19
βέλεμνον, II, xii, 2
]βιασεια? II, i, J 2
βουλή, II, ix, 8
Βριαρεφόντης, II, vi, 17
ВрOτós, ? II, i, 9; xi, 17
βρόχος, II, ix, 12
βύθιος, II, ix, 7
yaîa, II, vi, 2; viii, 4
γαμοστόλος, ΙΙ, iii, 5
yáp, II, iv, 5; v, 16; ix, 10
yéyaa, II, ii, 12
yeλáw, II, iii, 1; xi, 6
γενέτης, II, ix, 15
yévos, II, vi, 14
Γίγας, II, vi, 13
vívoμaι, III, ii, 4, 5, 7, 9, 11, 12, 13, 14;
iii, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 11, 12, 14, 15, 17, 19
γλυκερός, II, iii, 6
yóvos, II, vi, 9
deî, III, ii, 4; iii, 2, 16; IV, 6
dídwμ, II, vi, 5; III, ii, 3; iii, 1, 16
δικαίως, II, iv, 13
dîos, II, iv, 10; vi, 1
dis, IV, 1
Spoσepós, II, iii, 8; vi, 4
dún, II, iii, 8
dŵpov, II, iv, 9
¿áv, III, ii, 3; iii, 1, 16
eîs, III, iii, 8
¿KάTEρos, III, ii, 10; iii, 20
47
48
CHICAGO LITERARY PAPYRI
ἑκατηβελέτης,
? II, vi, 18
Εκγαίων, ΙΙ, vi, 17
ἔκδοτος, II, ix, 16
ἐμβάλλω, IV, 9
ἐνθάδε, II, iii, 13
ἐντός, II, ix, 11
ἐνχρίω, IV, 11
ἐπεί, ? IV, 6
ἐπέρχομαι, ΙΙ, ix, 4
ἐπιλοιβή, II, vi, 26
ἐπιφάνεια, IV, 5
ἔπος, II, ix, θ
ἐρανοβίη, ? II, vi, 9
ἔργον, II, iv, 16
ěpws, II, iii, 7; iv, 6, 8
]ερώτατος, II, vi, 13
ἑτερομήκης, ΙΙΙ, ii, 1, 12; iii, 13
ἕτερος, II, vi, 11
ἔχω, II, vi, 8
Zeús, II, i, 8; v, 18; vi, 6
ἡγεμονεύς, ΙΙ, vi, 11
noús, ? II, vii, 24; x, 12
ἡδύτατος, II, iii, 10
ἠέλιος, II, iv, 3, 10
μαι, II, viii, 7
ἡμέτερος, II, i, 19?, J 10; vi, 10
ημί, II, iii, 11
ἥμισυς, III, ii, 7, 9, 13; iii, 5, 11, 14, 17, 19
ηύκομος, II, vi, 19
θάλαμος, II, iii, 11
θαλασσοπόρος, II, iii, 2; xi, 8
θάλαττα, II, vi, 15; xi, 14
θαλερός, II, iii, 7
θεός, II, i, 4, 20
θήρ, II, ix, 7
θηπτο, ? II, ix, 5
θνητός, II, iv, 15
ιδανόχροος, II, iii, 10
ίδιος, II, vi, 5
iepós, II, iv, 1; vi, 10
ἵσταμαι, II, iii, 10
κάθετος, III, ii, 8; iii, 7, 10, 18
καινός, II, ix, 14
καιρός, II, vi, 5
καίω, IV, 2
καλέω, II, vi, 27
kaλós, II, i, 1, 15, J 1; iii, 5, 11; ix, 6, 8
κάματος, ΙΙ. ix, 11
καρτερός, II, iv, 7
κηρωτή, IV, 3
κικλήσκω, ΙΙ, x, 7
κλείθρον, ? II, viii, 9
κόλπος, II, i, 26, vii, 21?
κόμη, II, iii, 9
]κόπτω, IV, 9
kopupń, II, vi, 20; III, ii, 5, 11; iii, 4, 9
κόσμος, II, iv, 9
κούρη, ΙΙ, x, 4
κρατέω, II, i, 14
Kpovíwv, II, i, 24; vi, 7
κύμα, II, vi, 15; vii, 18; ix, 5, 13
λαμβάνω, II, vi, 4; III, ii, 6; iii, 4
λαός, II, i, 7
λασιωτίς, II, vi, 20
λέπρα, ? IV, 6
Λητώ, II, vi, 19
λιπανγής, ΙΙ, x, 5
XOLTÓS, III, ii, 5, 6, 7, 8; iii, 3, 4, 5, 7, 8,
9, 18
μαζός, II, iii, 8
μάλα, II, i, 8
µáv, II, i, 6; ix, 5
μαντικός, II, vi, 27
μéyas, II, i, 2; vi, 6; ix, 5
μέγιστος II, i, J 13
μέροψ, II, i, 4; iv, 7
μεταλλάω, II, iv, 7
μετέπειτα, II, iv, 10
μῆλον, II, i, J 11
μήτηρ, II, i, 12
μίγνυμι, II, iii, 11
μίου IV, 1
μορφή, ΙΙ, x, 3
μοχθέω, II, xi, 7
μόχθος, II, iv, 11
μύθος, II, iv, 5, 8; ix, 14
μυροβοστρυόεις, II, iii, 9
μύστης, ΙΙ, x, 6
vâμa, II, viii, 8
vnûs, II, i, 11
νομίζω, II, iii, 14
INDEX OF TEXTS NOT OTHERWISE EXTANT
νύμφη, II, iii, 13
vúvón, II, iii, 12
vúč, II, vii, 4
νῶτον, II, i, 15
ξανθός, II. iii, 9; vii, 22
ξηρός, IV, 7
olos, III, ii, 3; iii, 1, 16
Ŏis, II, ix, 12
διστός, II, xii, 4
ὀλβιότης, ? II, vi, 6
Ολος, II, ix, 4
Ολυμπος, II, vi, 8
òµoû, II, i, 18; vi, 3
ὀπάζω, II, ii, 14
ὁπλίζω, II, ii, 15
ὀρθογώνιον, ΙΙΙ, ii, 10; iii, 5, 10, 12, 14, 20
ovpavós, II, i, 23; vi, 6
οὗτος, II, iv, 8; III, ii, 5, 9; iii. 3, 5, 18, 19
ὀφθαλμός, ΙΙ, ix, 3; x, 5
ὄχλος, II, ix, 4
παλαιγενής, ΙΙ, i, 5
παλαιός, IV, 14
παλάμη, II, vi, 12
παπαπασσασιν, II, iii, 12
παραιρέω, II, iv, 8
παράκοιτις II, i, 1
παραλληλόγραμμον, III, iii, 1
παρέχω, II, i, 10; x, 12
παρήιον II, iii, 6
πᾶς, II, i, 9; iv, 6; vii, 13. 17
πατήρ, II, i, 20
πελός, II, i, J7
περί, II, i, 15
περιίστημι, ? II, i, 21
περιμάσσω, IV, 12
πηδάω, II, iii, 7
πίσσα, IV, 7
πλευρά, III, ii, 8; iii, 2, 7, 8
πλευρόν, ? II, i, J 9
ποθητός, II, iii, 12
πόλις, II, ii, 13
πολύς, II, vi, 1
πολυσθενής, ΙΙ, ii, 11
πολυστάφυλος, II, vi, 25
πόντος, II, ii, 14; iii, 2; vi, 16; viii, 2
Ποσειδάων, ? II, xi, 11
προαποσμήσσω, IV, 4
προκαθηγέτις, II, i, 17
πρόπας, II, i, 14
πρός, II, i, 10; iii, 11; vi, 8; vii, 3.
πρόσωπον, II, iii, 1
προφήτης, ΙΙ, x, 8
49
πρῶτος, II, i, 10, 20; iv, 10; v, 17; vii, 7
πτηνός, II, iv, 6
Πτολεμαία, ΙΙ, i, 5
πτόλις, II, i, 19
πύρ, ? IV, 10
ρόδινος, IV, 3
ρόμβος, III, iii, 16
σελασφόρος, II, x,
X, 11
σελήνη, II, iv, 10
σeμvós, II, i, 1, 2; vii, 8, 19?
σεμνότατος, ΙΙ, iii, 15
σεμνώς, II, iv, 9; ν, 8?
σιδήρεος, II, ix, 12
σκαληνός, ΙΙΙ, ii, 3
σκόπελος, II, i, 18
σοφός, ? II, x, 7
σπορι.σσιν, ? II, vi, 3
στυγερός, II, ix, 7
στυπτηρία, IV, i
σύμμαχος, II, iii, 16
σúv, II, i, 1, 4, 8, 16
1
συνδαμ, II, i, l
συνόμενος, II, iii, 15
συνχθ[, II, i, 4
σύσπορος, II, vi, 2
σχημα, III, ii, 2, 14; iii, 15, 21
τάσσω, ΙΙ, x, 6
τερπνός, II, i, J 3; ii, 1, 5; vi, 2
τέταρτος, III, iii, 4
τηλικούτος, III, ii, 8; iii, 5, 7, 9, 18
τίκτω, II, vi, 19
τιμάω, II, iii, 14
TOLOÛTOS, III, ii, 2, 15; iii, 15, 21
TOσOÛTOS, III, ii, 9, 11, 13; iii, 11, 12, 14, 19
τραπέζηον, III, ii, 3
τύπος, II, ii, 12, iii, 6
ὕλη, II, vi, 20
ὑμέναιος, II, i, J 1; iii, 11
ὑπερέξοχος, II, i, 25
ὑπογράφω, ΙΙΙ, ii, 3; iii, 1, 16
50
CHICAGO LITERARY PAPYRI
Φαέθων, II, iv, 3
φαεινός, ? II, i, 21
φαίνω, II, iv, 6
páos, II, x, 12
φαρέτρα, II, xii, 3
pépw, II, iv, 9
φεύγω, II, ix, 10
φίλος, II, iii, 16
øpýv, II, iv, 7
φύλον, II, vi, 13
púois, II, iii, 14
χαίρω, II, i, 3
χαλκός, IV, 8, 10?
χαρίζω, II, iii, 13
xápis, II, iii, 5, 14
xaporrós, II, iii, 2
xôpos, II, ix, 13
xowv, II, i, 4; ii, 13; vi, 1, 10, 16
χλοερός, II, vi, 3
χρυσούς, II, vii, 14
Xpús, II, iii, 10; IV, 10
ψυχρός, IV, 12
ὠκύς, II, vi, θ
ws, II, iii, 14; III, ii, 4; iii, 2, 16
y, II, ii, 11
·
T
BOUND
AUG 25 1932
UNE OF CH.
LIBRARY
UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN
3 9015 01058 2818
!