Final Destination 3 Ws 2 Discs

Sold on alibris.com
( 4.8/5.0 ★ | 351 downloads )
-- Click the link to download --

https://click.linksynergy.com/link?id=*C/UgjGtUZ8&offerid=1494105.26
530794043103728&type=15&murl=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.alibris.com%2Fsearch%2
Fbooks%2Fisbn%2F0794043103728
Final Destination 3 Ws 2 Discs

ISBN: 0794043103728
Category: Media > DVDs & Movies
File Fomat: PDF, EPUB, DOC...
File Details: 5.5 MB
Language: English
Website: alibris.com
Short description: Good. Run time: 92 mins. Language: English. Used-
Good Condition. Signs of use, but nothing that should affect playback.
Includes case and original artwork.

DOWNLOAD: https://click.linksynergy.com/link?id=*C/UgjGtUZ8&
offerid=1494105.26530794043103728&type=15&murl=http%3A%2F%2F
www.alibris.com%2Fsearch%2Fbooks%2Fisbn%2F0794043103728
 Final Destination 3 Ws 2
Discs

• Click the link: https://click.linksynergy.com/link?id=*C/UgjGtUZ8&offerid=1494105.2653079404310372

• Don’t miss the chance to explore our extensive collection of high-quality resources, books, and guides on
our website. Visit us regularly to stay updated with new titles and gain access to even more valuable
materials.
.
crediting them to Callimachus ; Schneider, of. c7/. ii. p. 272,
expressed no definite opinion. Lachmann and Schneidewin also
proposed to add at a short interval another anonymus verse restored
from Suidas s.v. ἔωσεν, καὶ περὶ τοῦ Αἰσώπου" οἱ Δελφοὶ ἔωσαν
αὐτὸν κατὰ κρημνοῦ μάλα (ἔωσαν αὐτὸν μάλ᾽ ἀθέως κατὰ κρημνοῦ
Schneider, 1. c.) of which there is no sign here, though the lacuna at
1. 177 would be a possible place for it. σαρδιήνευς in the papyrus
requires emendation. The object of the sign in the margin opposite
1. 173 is not clear ; it was added or renovated by a later hand. 174.
ja: cf. Eustath. € p. 1789. 27 (ρακλείδης) λέγει ὡς καὶ ἀναλογώτερον
τοῦ ἔα τὸ ἦα, γλώσσης μὲν ὃν ᾿Ασιανῆς, κείμενον δὲ καὶ παρὰ
Καλλιμάχῳ (Fr. 3.42), 175. ἐφο)ρμᾶσθε: the supposed mark of
elision, the ε and the p are all very doubtful, and there is barely
room for [go]. There are traces after 6e which suggest another letter
(e.g. v or wr), but this is inconsistent with the accent on the a. 179.
avr seems to have been accented, but the nature of the accent is
very uncertain. 181, Ἰλιστι : or conceivably Ἰδιστι, 182. επικεχειρίηται
in the marginal note is an abnormal division, and there are traces of
ink after the p, but perhaps ἡ was miswritten at the end of the first
line owing to the narrow space and therefore repeated in front of τ.
It is probable that the margin ‘did not extend farther to the right and
that p .[ and »{ were the last letters of Il. 1 and 2. The note may
have been continued in one or two more lines,
 74 THE OXYRHYNCHUS PAPYRI 185. ὠνθρωποι seems to
have been intended, though what precisely was written is open to
question. ὡπ is nearly certain, but the supposed deletion and
interlinear p are unsatisfactory. Possibly there are more letters than
one above the line. The speaker is perhaps Apollo. 186. ψηφ᾽οἱις
could be read. 187--9. To what this note refers is obscure. The line
with which it was to be connected was no doubt indicated by a
marginal symbol (cf. 1. 265), and the marks opposite ll. 214-16 may
denote its position, though they are at any rate partially in darker
ink. 192. λῶ; or δῶ, perhaps ὁδῷ, which would suit the context. The
supposed interlinear iota adscript resembles that noted in |. 97, and
might be interpreted as a high stop. At the beginning of the line x
may be x, and it is uncertain whether the circumflex accent was
intended for the a or the next letter, which would then be 1, Ἰκαῖ ὁ.
¢. 193. καί in some shape no doubt followed ἔδωκε, but it is useless
to restore this without the next word. κἀπάνω might be read. 194.
|...|y is presumably a participle, e. g. [ἰδώ]ν, if the subjects of εἶπεν
and ἥκειν were identical. 196. The inserted letters may also be read
as aio or oo. 198. ἀπρηγεῦνται : the middle form occurs only here
apparently. 199. ἐξεκνήμωσε : Cf. Hesych. ἐξεκνημώθη" ἐξεφθάρη.
200. The smooth breathing above » of nv is hardly certain. 201.
Only the tip of the supposed accent on αναριπτειν remains, and this
might be the base of an inserted p (by a later hand). 202. [ .
ἰρύπτουϊ : the accent is again uncertain. ἀσελγαίν(ενιν (W—M) suits
the remains of the letters, but is unsatisfactory owing to the rough
breathing added above the initial letter, which is much more like a
than 0; the termination may be -vy. 204. There is perhaps some
corruption here. japyos (or apyos) ες might be read, but the
preceding letters are then unintelligible, and « after p is more
suitable than y. There may be two letters between xo and ap. 210.
πε. Ἰεινέκ[ : OF e.g. To. [-|nved. 211-13. At]. 211 begins the
narrative of the quarrel between the laurel and the olive. ἄκου εἾ . ..
θέσθαι = Callim. Fr. 93 a, from Ammonius, De Diff. Vocab. αἶνός ἐστι
λόγος κατὰ ἀνάπλασιν μυθικὴν ἀπὸ ἀλόγων ζῴων ἢ φυτῶν... ἀπὸ δὲ
φυτῶν, ὡς παρὰ Καλλιμάχῳ" ἄκουε κτὰ., and other grammarians
and compilers. Bentley was evidently right in attributing to the same
poem the quotation in Cod. Oxon. Περὶ τρόπων ποιητικῶν, ἀστεϊσμὸς
... παρὰ δὴ Καλλιμάχῳ ἀστεῖζομένη ἡ ἐλαία φησίν: ἐγὼ φαύλη
πάντων τῶν δένδρων εἰμί. Critics have arranged the words in various
ways, mostly vitiated by the fault that condemns Schneider’s ἐγὼ
φαύλη | πάντων... τῶν δένδρων εἰμί, namely the presence of a
spondee in the fifth foot. As the papyrus proves, Callimachus in his
choliambics consistently avoids this; the version adopted by
Schneider of Fr. 98a is again inadmissible on the same ground.
Meineke’s ἐγὼ δὲ πάντων εἰμὶ δενδρέων φαύλη is metrically sound,
but ἐγὼ φαύλη | δένδρων ἁπάντων εἰμί would be nearer to tradition.
213. W—M’s suggestion for the completion of the verse is printed
exempli gratia. The only objection is the presence over the line
between y and a of a mark which does not suit an accent on γαῖρ
and might be taken to denote an elision, καὶ y’. But that this is its
purpose is by no means clear, and unmeaning ink-marks occur a
little lower down between I]. 214 and 215; moreover, Callimachus is
rather addicted to καὶ γάρ: cf. e.g. Il. 104 and 110. 214-15. The
papyrus is imperfect and the form of the signs in the margin here is
not quite certain. There seem to be three strokes, a vertical one
above and a horizontal one below, with something of the nature of a
curve between them. Possibly they had a connexion with the
adscript at the top of the page.
 1011. NEW CLASSICAL TEXTS 75 217. νέον δ᾽ οὖν or γοῦν
will not account for the vestiges. νεόμεθ᾽ odv-might be read, but is
not satisfactory. Schneider agrees with Meineke that Callim. Fr. 93
should be connected with Fr. 87, in which case the latter three
verses, if φηΐσι in 1. 216 is correct, must have succeeded
immediately here. They are > n a, ἦν κεῖνος οὑνιαυτός, @ TO τε
πτηνὸν \ > , \ ‘ , “ Kat τοὺυν θαλάσσῃ και τὸ τετράπουν OUT@S
ἐφθέγγεθ' ὡς ὁ πηλὸς ὁ Προμηθεῖος. But the first of these lines is
not to be identified with 1. 217, and, as W—M remarks, the *
passage may be referred with more probability to the Iambus
partially preserved on Fol. 4 verso. 218-239. ‘“... the left white as a
snake’s belly, the other, which is oft uncovered, burnt by the sun.
What house is there where I am not at the door-post ? What seer,
what offerer of sacrifice does not take me with him? Yea, and the
priestess of Pytho has her seat in laurel, of laurel she sings, of laurel
makes her couch. O foolish olive, did not Branchus save the sons of
the Ionians, when Phoebus was angry with them, by striking them
with laurel and saying twice or thrice ...? I go to feasts and to the
Pythian choral dance, I am made a prize of victory, and the Dorians
cut me on the hill-tops at Tempe and carry me to Delphi whene’er
the rites of Apollo are celebrated. O foolish olive, I am acquainted
with no hurt, nor know I the path of the bier-carrier, for I am pure,
nor do men trample me, for I am sacred; but with you whenever
they are about to burn a corpse or lay it out for burial they crown
themselves and also duly place you beneath the sides of the lifeless
body ”, 218-19. In ]. 218 above the « of λευκοσ there is a mark in
dark ink like a large sign of elision, with some lighter cross-strokes
through it. ὡς above the first v of vdpov has been written through a
circular mark somewhat like a 6, from the pen of the original scribe;
_ it is perhaps nothing more than a blot. The reference in these two
lines is obscure. It can hardly be to the olive, with regard to which
the distinctions of right and left would be inapposite ; nor do the
olive’s leaves or fruit show any such variation of colour as is here
indicated. Murray suggests that a person wearing an exomis is
meant, perhaps Apollo, who is sometimes so represented. ἡλιοπλήξ
is a new compound ; the accent was carelessly placed between the
π᾿ and X, instead of on the o. 223. ‘Sings of the laurel’ seems rather
strange here, and W—M suggests ἀείρει ; but it is perhaps best to
leave the text as it stands. The ὃ is clear. 224-7. Cf. Clem. Alex.
S/rom. v. 8. 48 ᾿Απολλόδωρος δ᾽ ὁ Κερκυραῖος rods στίχους τούτους
ὑπὸ Βράγχου ἀναφωνηθῆναι τοῦ μάντεως λέγει Μιλησίους
καθαίροντος ἀπὸ λοιμοῦ. ὁ μὲν γὰρ ἐπιρραίνων τὸ πλῆθος δάφνης
κλάδοις προκατήρχετο τοῦ ὕμνου ὧδέ πως" μέλπετε, ὦ παῖδες,
“Exdepyov καὶ “Εκαέργαν, ἐπέψαλλεν δ᾽ ὡς εἰπεῖν ὁ λαός" βέδυ, Cay,
χθώμ, πλῆκτρον, σφίγξ' κναξζβίχ, θύπτης (κναξζβὶ χθύπτης cod. L),
φλεγμό, δρώψ. μέμνηται τῆς ἱστορίας καὶ Καλλίμαχος ἐν ᾿Ιάμβοις (Fr.
75). In]. 224 the papyrus has ove before βράγχος, but a relative
would leave τοὺς δὲ παῖδας suspended, an unlikely anacoluthon. The
emendation of οὖς to ot and the restoration of ὠργίσθη are due to
W-M, who in ]. 226 further proposes κῆπος οὐ τορὸν κναξζβί (cf.
Clem. Alex.), but this does not suit the papyrus. That ov is for οὐ
(not οὗ) is apparently indicated by the accent, but ro is followed by
a vertical stroke which is not long enough for p and would suit «, x,
A, μη or ν. Above the final letter of the line a later hand has added a
curved mark which the printed text reproduces sufficiently nearly: it
is not much like a circumflex accent, though possibly |e? might be
read; |% is unsuitable. κῆπος must be right, though the remains of
the final
 76 THE OXYRHYNCAHUS PAPYRI letter suggest ε rather
than o. The sense of the gloss on 1. 224 is evident, but its precise
form is not very certain ; if ἐρώμζεν]ος is right the bracketed letters
were rather widely spaced. In ελαιη (1. 224) there is an (earlier)
accent on a as well as one on « 230-2. The allusion here is to the
Delphic theoria sent every ninth year to Tempe, whence a laurel
branch was carried back by a δαφνηφόρος παῖς. This solemnity
commemorated the purification of Apollo at Tempe (cf. 1. 232
τὠπόλλωνος ἱρά) after killing the Python ; see Steph. Byz. p. 223.
12, Plutarch, Aet. Gr. 12 (293c), Miiller, Dordans ii. τ. 2. Apparently
the form Τεμπόθεν is not otherwise attested. In ]. 232 a faint mark
above ἡ of ἐπὴν is probably not to be regarded as a grave accent.
231. es, aS written originally, is the commoner form in the iambists;
cf. 1, 248. 233. The marginal mark is of the nature of a coronis,
which however is not particularly apposite here. 234. The
appearance of an acute accent (by the first hand?) on o:d is possibly
due to the rubbing of a badly written circumflex. éx/oin|» was
restored by W—M, who also aptly refers for οὑλαφηφόρος to
Hesychius, οὐλαφηφορεῖ: νεκροφορεῖ. There seems to be no
justification for the correctotr’s initial o: ὁ - οὐ = οὗ, 6. 5. τοὔνομα,
Hdt. κάμπτει is similarly used absolutely e.g. in Eurip. Z. Z. 815 eyyis
. . . κάμπτεις. 235. οὐ πατεῦσί μ᾽ : cf. 1. 250. The correction of the
dittography is by a later hand. 236. The sign of elision was
eliminated by a corrector; the original scribe took the words as σοὶ
δ᾽ ἔχω. 238. mdevpal: the penultimate letter looks like a 8, but this
is probably due to some accident and πλευρά is doubtless the right
word. 239. κηπ]ιτάξ W-M, identifying Callim. Fr. 327 ap. Etym. Magn.
365. 25 ἐπιτάξ' παρὰ Καλλιμάχῳ ἐπίρρημα, παρὰ τὸν ἐπιτάξω
μέλλοντα, and Helladius in Phot. 2221. p. 532. 36 ἃ τὸ ἐπιτάξ παρὰ
Καλλιμάχῳ καὶ ᾿Αράτῳ κείμενον... ὃ κατ᾽ ἐπίταγμα καὶ κέλευσιν
πράττεται. This is attractive, though the καί could well be dispensed
with. 1π may be read in place of |e, and εἰσαϊπαξ would yield a
tolerable sense. 240-59. ‘Thus boasting spake she ; but nothing
daunted the producer of oil repelled her: “O laurel, utterly barren of
that which I bear, you have sung like a swan at the end I help to
carry to burial the men whom Ares slays and (am laid on the bier) of
the heroes who (perish nobly); and when a white-haired
grandmother or an aged Tithonus is borne to the grave by their
children, I attend them and am laid upon the ground. I... more than
you for those who bring you from Tempe; nay, even in that matter of
which . you spoke, am I not also as a prize superior to you, for
where is the greater festival, at Olympia or at Delphi? Yes, silence is
best! I indeed say nought of you that is either good or ill, but the
birds have long been sitting among my leaves unwontedly chattering
thus ”.’ 240. ad(x)ed[o’: sc. ἔφη: that 7= ἢ is less likely. The
participial form here was suggested by W-M, to whom also the
correction of τηνδ᾽ to τήν is due. τήνδ᾽ could stand as an internal
accusative with e. g. ἀπημ[ εἰφθη, but this is precluded by the
accented ἡ. υἱ may well be read instead of μ'. 241. For ἡ τεκοῦσα τὸ
xpipla cf, Callim. Aourp, Madd. 26 xpipara, τᾶς ἰδίας ἔκγονα
φυταλιᾶς. 242. The restoration of this verse is largely due to Murray.
τόκζων is strongly supported by τεκοῦσα in |. 241, and if rév ἐμῶν
τόκ[ων be granted, ax... should be some adjective with privative a,
The identity of this adjective is the problem. ax is certain, and the
remains of the third letter suggest a or A, but axapre cannot be read
and axAnpe is, to say the least, very unsatisfactory. Another
possibility is axv, if the v be supposed to have had as deep a fork as
e.g. the first v of υδρου in 1, 218, and of the few available words
axvée would be
 1011. NEW CLASSICAL TEXTS 7] consistent with the
papyrus. To this, however, there is the serious objection that in
Callim, H. Apoll. 53 the v is short. But in a derivative of κύειν an
irregularity of quantity is not incredible; or perhaps dxv@{v)e might
be written (cf. Hesych. s.v. κυθνόν). The oblique dash in the margin
may be presumed to mark the commencement of the speech. 243-4.
ἐν τῇ τελευτῇ... ἤεισας : i.e, your words are a presage of defeat. W-
M thinks that the point of this allusion to the κύκνειον μέλος is the
mention by the laurel of funerals, which is accepted as a bad omen.
246, Murray proposes χὐϊπὸ τῷ κάρᾳ κεῖμαι τῷ] τῶν ἀριστέων of
καλὸν νέμουσ᾽ οἶτον. καλὸν ve might be read, but the remaining
vestiges, though very slight, scarcely suit pou οἰτον. 248, ex: the
papyrus is broken, but there would hardly have been room for εἰσ.
249. Τιθωνόν: cf, Aristoph. Acharn. 688 ἄνδρα Τιθωνὸν σπαράττων.
250. For the accusative τὴν ὁδόν cf. e.g. Eurip. 7. 7: 620 εἰς ἀνάγκην
κείμεθ, The letters are faint, but do not suit της odov. 251. -eov
followed by ἤ looks like a comparative, and πλεῖον, though
unconvincing, may be right. τὸ θεῖον is a possible reading. ‘The
vestiges of the first letter of the line suggest e.g. γ, Κρ ¥, Or τ, and
the fourth is probably e or c. Murray thought of τελεῦσα πλεῖον,
which may give the sense but cannot be read: possibly δὲ πλεῖον.
252. ἀλλ᾽ ὅτευ is doubtfully deciphered and ἀλλά, τοῦ which W-M
proposes, is not impossible ; but if the letter before τ was a, it was
unusually upright, and that following τ is more satisfactory as ε than
as 0; moreover, there is a faint mark after αλλ which may denote an
elision. Another mark above ad might be taken for an accent. 253.
xoo is better interpreted with W—M as kas = καὶ ὡς than as κῶς =
πῶς. It is hardly necessary to write (x)os: cf. 1. 130, ἄς, With κῶς,
τοῦτο ἄεθλον might be taken to mean ‘in this contest ’ (cf. the
πτώματα of ll. 265 sqq.), but since the reference clearly is to 1, 229,
to give ἄεθλον one sense there and another here would not be at all
satisfactory. 254. There are several blunders in this line: a » was
originally omitted, ουλυμπιη which will not scan was written for
᾿Ολυμπίῃ, and it also seems evident that ovyey (or -των) is for
ὡγών. With these modifications the sentence might pass muster, but
there can be no question that W—M’s emendation of καί to κοῦ
distinctly improves it—unless, as Murray suggests, we read in ]. 254
ἦν, ‘always was.’ The remains of the y of γ[άϊρ are very slight, but
with that exception the imperfect letters are fairly clear. 256-9. Cf. ll.
277-8. There is a contrast between ἐγώ and ὄρνιθες, as is indicated
by the stop inserted by a later hand after οὐδεν in |. 257, and ἄηθες
must be taken adverbially : ‘I neither praise nor blame ; it is the
birds in my branches which chatter thus.’ The olive humourously
attributes to the birds its unflattering remarks. An extensive use of
the same motive is made in the Vienna fragments of the Heca/e,
where a large part is taken by birds ; see Wilamowitz, Goring.
Nachr., 1893, pp. 733-6. Above the o of ορνιθες a slightly curved
stroke in black ink is unsuitable for an acute accent and is much
more like a sign of elision ; but of ὄρνιθες should make οὕρνιθες,
and though the space occupied by the ὁ is somewhat large, v was
certainly not written after it, nor, probably, an «. τινθυρίζουσαι in 1.
258 is the Attic τονθορίζουσαι (or -ρύζουσαι), and the difference of
spelling here may be due to corruption, though in the case of an
onomatopoeic form it is unsafe to assume this. τονθρύζειν and
τονθορυγεῖν also occur. ‘The adscript written in coarse and indistinct
letters at some distance to the right of the line is perhaps a gloss on
τινθυρίζουσαι, e.g. some combination with ὀξύ, though that would
not be very apposite. In 1. 259 κωτιλοισ or κωτίλαισ can be read,
but it is difficult to find a suitable word to follow in agreement with
it; κωτιὰλ es o(e) would also serve. A vestige of the letter before εὖ
suggests y, τ, p, or @. The letters after ev are very uncertain; ow or
oa is possible, but the o in either case is not at all satisfactory, and
the final letter may be «. Above the line a small 6 in black ink is
 78 THE OXYRHYNCHUS PAPYRI clear, joined on the left by
a horizontal stroke which could well belong to an «; and conceivably
a third letter preceded. Another participle is not attractive, though
perhaps easiest to reconcile with the remains. 260-80. ‘Who found
the laurel? the earth (produced it) just like the ilex, the oak, the
galingale, or other timber. Who found the olive? Pallas, when she
contended for Acte with him who dwells amid the seaweed, and the
man of old who in the lower parts was a snake gave judgement.
That is one fall for the laurel. Who of the immortals honours the
olive, who the laurel? Apollo the laurel, Pallas her discovery the olive.
In this they are even, for I distinguish not between gods. What is
the laurel’s fruit? For what shall I use it? Neither eat it nor drink it
nor anoint yourself with it! But that of the olive pleases in many
ways: it is a morsel for food. .., and with it as an unguent one may
dive as deep as Theseus(?). A second fall I set down to the laurel.
Whose is the leaf that suppliants hold forward? The olive’s: for the
third and last time is the laurel thrown. Oh, the tireless ones! how
they chatter. Shameless crow, does not your beak ache? Whose is
the trunk preserved by the Delians? The olive’s, which gave a seat to
Leto.’ 261 = 265. ὕλην is superior to the marginal variant πεύκην,
which spoils the climax. The wavy mark above the v is a form of
diaeresis. 262-5 = 261-4. These four verses, originally omitted owing
to the homoeoarchon tis . . . ἐλαίην, have been subsequently
supplied at the top of the page, their position being marked by the
symbol in the margin. In 1. 262 (261) the corrector has τις, but τις
δ᾽, as written by the first hand in 1. 266, is preferable. At the end of
the verse jj[p|¢je is restored with much probability by W—M, who
also points out that this is the passage cited in Schol. A on P 54
Ποσειδῶν καὶ ᾿Αθηνᾶ περὶ τῆς ᾿Αττικῆς ἐφιλονείκουν" καὶ Toceday
μὲν ἐπὶ τῆς ἀκροπόλεως τῆς ᾿Αττικῆς κρούσας τῇ τριαίνῃ κῦμα
θαλάσσης ἐποίησεν ἀναδοθῆναι, ᾽Αθηνᾶ δὲ ἐλαίαν" κριτὴς δὲ αὐτῶν
γενόμενος Κέκροψ 6 τῶν τόπων τῆς ᾿Αττικῆς βασιλεὺς τῇ θεῷ
προσένειμε τὴν χώραν, εἰπὼν ὅτι θάλασσα μέν ἐστι πανταχοῦ, τὸ δὲ
φυτὸν τῆς ἐλαίας ἴδιον ᾿Αθηνᾶς. ἡ ἱστορία παρὰ Καλλιμάχῳ (Callim.
Fr. 384, wrongly referred by Meineke to Λουτρ. Παλλ, 26, by
Schneider to «46. i. 4); οἵ. Apollod. iii. 14. 1, &c. For ὄφις ra νέρθεν
cf. e.g. Apollod. 1. ς. Κέκροψ αὐτόχθων, συμφυὲς ἔχων σῶμα
ἀνδρὸς καὶ δράκοντος, Aristoph. Wasps 438 ὦ Κέκροψ ἥρως ἄναξ ra
πρὸς ποδῶν Δρακοντίδη. W-M is obviously right in emending
ἀρχαιοισ to ἀρχαῖος, The correction of de to pu was by a third hand.
267. v of evpev was added by a corrector. 268. ξυνόν Murray. αὐταῖς
is put for ἡμῖν because the birds are supposed to be speaking ; cf. ll.
277-8. 241-3. The general sense evidently is that the produce of the
olive is good both as food and as an unguent, but a satisfactory
restoration is still to be found. In]. 271 there is a slight break in the
papyrus in front of the two interlineated letters, but if a third had
been written it would have probably been partially apparent;
underneath this, just below the supposed σ, a dot of black ink is
visible, perhaps implying a deletion. But in a sentence contrasting
the internal and external uses of the olive ἔσω, which was
apparently originally written, would have a point, while the intention
of the corrector is not clear: ἴτω seems unintelligible. μάσταξ may
have the sense ‘ mouthful’, ‘morsel’, as in 1324, Theocr. xiv. 39 ; in
both of those passages the word is used of birds and so is very
appropriate here ; cf. ]. 277. In 1. 273 the employment of oil as an
unguent is apparently traced back to Theseus. a is followed at a
slight interval by a short vertical stroke which may be part of the
next letter, 6. g. ν, or possibly a sign of elision, Ba? . A verb is
expected after ἥν, and therefore ἐπα... a
 LOU NEMS GEASS SICAL TEXTS 79 χὠ (or κὠ ὃ) is suitable;
the alternative is ἐπ᾿ ad... » with a verb supplied from what
precedes. The remains rather suggest a ᾧ at an interval of one letter
from π, and εἐπεῴνε is not impossible; but a reference to one of the
persons or animals slain by Theseus seems difficult to work in here,
especially with the feminine ἥν. Moreover, the letter next to 7 is
more like a than the succeeding vestiges are like @, and both cannot
be read; probably, therefore, the @ is to be rejected and if ἐπα is
right the two following letters could well be Xr. At the beginning of
the line the doubtful ν may be μ or o, and above it is a mark like a
grave accent. A mention of the ἐλαία κολυμβάς (Athen. 56b) is
hardly likely; on the other hand some form or derivative of κολυμβᾶν
is not unattractive, and in front of the υ there is a tiny vestige visible
which, if it is really part of a letter, is quite consistent with X. Hence
it is rather tempting to suppose with Murray that the allusion is to
the famous dive of Theseus described in Bacchyl. xvi. ἐσ[τὶν
κο]λυμβᾶν ἣν ἐπᾶλτο would satisfy the palaeographical conditions,
but would be excessively harsh: the use of the preposition is
abnormal, while if ἄν be emended to ἤν, a verb is still lacking and is
not easily supplied ; moreover ἣν ἐπᾶλτο (SC, κολύμβησιν) is barely
tolerable. Possibly e .[...] is a verb governing xpipa, and κοἸλυμβᾶς
= κολυμβήσεις ; Or perhaps, in the last resort, refuge may be found
in the hypothesis of a lacuna in the text. 275-8. This passage was
written twice over, and the superfluous four lines were bracketed by
a corrector. It may be suspected that the dittography is to be
connected with the omission of the four verses at the top of the
page. The scribe, or a predecessor, may have been led by the
stichometry to notice that he was four lines short, and accordingly
may have made up the deficiency by the simple method of
repetition. It is difficult to believe that he could write out four whole
verses twice in immediate proximity without being aware of the
error. There was some slip in |. 275 @ after yap. 276. τὰ tpt: cf.
τριάζειν, Eurip. Or. 434 διὰ τριῶν ἀπόλλυμαι, &c, ελλασ, not ehaac,
was originally written, 277. τῶν ἀτρύτων : 80. ὀρνίθων ; cf. ll. 256-9.
The olive keeps up the fiction that it is the birds who are talking.
κωτιλίζειν is novel. The marginal symbol (by a later hand) opposite
this line was perhaps intended to call attention to the dittography.
278. The crow is singled out as the chatterer par excellence. For
χεῖλος of a bird’s beak cf. e.g. Eurip. 707: 1199. 279-80. Cf. Callim.
H. Del. 322 πρέμνον ὀδακτάσαι ἁγνὸν ἐλαίης χεῖρας ἀποστρέψαντας,
ἃ Δηλιὰς εὕρετο νύμφη παίγνια κουρίζοντι καὶ ᾿Απόλλωνι γελαστύν.
κ[αθεῖσ]ε in ]. 280 is suggested by W-M ; there is room for a slightly
longer supplement. A or ν might be read in place of x, and the
breathing on », though probable, is not certain. 281. |ov: ΟΓ τι. 282.
...wmn, if that be the reading, may of course*be a single word. ...
pevy is unsuitable, 286. It would be desirable to make οὔτε... εἰς
parallel to οὔτε πια[ίνεις in the next line, if a verb were forthcoming;
but it is difficult to avoid μάντεις, for which support may be found in
|. 221. 288. A slight interval is left before the two last letters of
δαῴνην, probably owing to a flaw in the papyrus ; cf. note on |. 110.
290. At the beginning of the line the first hand wrote something like
ἡγρὴησ or ἡστησ, which the corrector apparently wished to convert
into /Aynoe.. W-—M, however, points out that ὁ θυμὸς ἤλγησε is a
rather tautologous expression; moreover 7Ayyoev is the word which
seems best adapted to the remains at the end of the verse, where
neither ηχθ᾽ εσἸθη nor ὠὡργ[ισἼθη nor προσθ εμηιΐισ]εν is suitable.
He therefore proposes boldly to restore ᾧδησε, which is provisionally
adopted.
 80 THE OXYRHYNCHUS PAPYRI 291. Perhaps εἴ kor’,
possibly εἶχον ; but a partial restoration here is useless. 292. This
line describes the tree which here intervenes in the discussion. The
doubtful σ may be p, but rpnxv seems unlikely. 293. ἄπωθε is a
necessary correction of arabev. 294. λειην (W—M)is extremely
doubtful ; it is not clear exactly how far the line extends. 295.
γενομεθεχθραισ is easily emended ; what follows is more open to
question. Either μηδὲ Or py Ae may be read; and the accusative
ἀλλήλας, if correct, indicates a verb of speaking. W-—M proposes
μηδὲ φῶμεν which, however, is open to the objection that there
seems to be no actual use of φημί in this sense. Hence it is simpler
to read μὴ λέγωμεν, placing the note of interrogation either after
παυσόμεσθα, or, to avoid the asyndeton, after ἐχθραί. Asa matter of
fact neither μηδὲ φῶμεν nor μὴ λέγωμεν are palaeographically quite
satisfactory, since the ε is slightly separated from the letter before it;
and between them is a faint mark which may represent an elision.
μηδ᾽ epovzey would be attractive, if the future were admissible here.
οὐ ravodpecOa . . . μηδ᾽ ἐροῦμεν is logically parallel to e.g. οὐ σῖγ᾽
ἀνέξει μηδὲ δειλίαν ἀρεῖ, but an example of such a construction in
the first person is lacking. 296. The letter before ἀλλα seems to be a
round one, ε, 6, or 7; ro is followed by a vertical stroke which would
suit e.g.a v; the final a is very uncertain; the letter preceding may be
p, », or λ. 207. νη in δαφνὴ is apparently written in the form of a
compendium, the second upright of the ν serving as the first of the
η. 299. A trace of ink above « of μὲ may indicate some interlinear
addition; it is not quite in the right place for an elision sign. 299-300.
‘ Don’t you prescribe patience to me, as if you were one of us; your
very presence chokes me.’ εὔστεκτος is unsupported, but seems a
possible word in the sense of ‘tolerant’ ; εὔστοργον is unsuitable.
There might be another letter in front of the initial ε, which is not
quite in a straight line with the beginnings of the preceding verses. A
mark of elision should perhaps be recognized above the o of
γειτονευσ. 304. The very light vestiges of the last letter are not
inconsistent with a φ. 309. ἀμ[ίσθου : μυθου is hardly to be read.
311. μοζῦγνον : W-M suggests the insertion of v; a tribrach however,
though rare, does occur, e.g. Callim, Fr. 86. 313. mlevtdperpoy: cf. 1.
366. The left hand portions of ll. 313-14 are contained on the
detached fragment on which the preceding lines 303-12 are written.
A crease down the recto proves that the fragment is the upper part
of Fol. 6 and also shows its relative vertical position ; but it is not
certain that the combination with |.» and Ἰκρουσε is correct. 321. Cf.
Eurip. Bacch. 743 ταῦροι δ᾽ ὑβρισταὶ κἀς κέρας θυμούμενοι, to which
passage Callimachus is perhaps satirically alluding. 322. Possibly the
supposed y below the overwritten x has been crossed through. 325.
βράχιον, which must be scanned as a disyllable, with the Ionic short
4 is not very satisfactory, especially with τὸν preceding ; but τὸν
need not be the article, and the remains suggest Spa. βραχῖον is
impossible both on account of the following μ, which seems
undeniable, and because the verse then becomes too long, even if
epew, which is very doubtful, is wrong. The appearance of a o may
be caused by a low circumflex accent (though there is no other sure
instance of an accent on this leaf); in that case the two next letters
might well be vt, ep .f vr. For μοιζει = μύζει cf. 1. 73, where χρεισοὺς
may be a corruption of χρυσοὺς through an intermediate χροισους.
‘The termination is more like ζει than ζον, and μειζον would also be
an inexact form in this dialect. 329. An elision mark should perhaps
be recognized after the « of ovvex: vin that word has been rewritten
in darker ink. At the end of the line pnp . (μηρῷ ?) is possible.
 1011. NEW CLASSICAL TEXTS 8r 333-5. Lines 334-5 are
repeated on the recto ll. 348-9, and 1. 333 also begins with the
same word as ]. 347 while its conclusion apparently coincides with
that of I. 345 ; cf. ll. 275-8 @, where a dittography of four lines has
been cancelled by a corrector. Owing to the imperfect context no
reason can be assigned for the present more complex repetition, nor
can the right place of the verses be determined. When Callimachus
says that choliambic poets should draw their inspiration from
Ephesus he is of course again alluding to Hipponax (cf. ll. 92 sqq.),
whose native city Ephesus was. 346-7. The combination of ex .. p
and ovr’ eo with what follows is uncertain; cf. note on |}. 313. ote:
Cf. ll. 333-5 and note. Of the latter part of 1. 348 only slight vestiges
remain, and the central portion of l. 349 would have been
undecipherable without the aid of I. 335; but the dittography is
sufficiently evident. 352. Both aspirated and unaspirated perfect
forms occur in later Ionic, and ἐμπίεἸπλεκόσι may therefore stand.
ἐμπέπλεκε is found in three MSS. in Hippocr. ix. 192. This verse
offers a pretty certain instance of a tribrach ; cf. note on]. 311. 353:
Δωριστί is a fairly suitable reading, and is a most likely word to be
coupled with Ἰαστί, which was suggested by W—M. καἰϊολιστί is not
possible. 357- The last letter (ε, @?) before the lacuna in the middle
of the line has been rewritten or altered in blacker ink. A similar
modification has been made in the letter dividing the second and
third lacunae in ]. 358. 361. The remains after ἃ suggest a v, but
this gives no word. 364. It seems difficult to escape ῥεῦνται, with
which may be compared Theocr, xxx. 32 devpevov, Herodas vi. 77
ἐγχεῦσα. ν preceding the p is almost certain. 366. συντιθεὶς ib. ..: OF
συντίθει, ob... The line ends with a vertical stroke, which would suit
6. g. + or ἡ. 368. The last word is possibly γράψαι, in which case
there is a letter between y and the preceding a. 869-73. That the
detached fragment containing the ends of the lines belongs to this
column is shown by the metre, but the number of letters lost in the
middle cannot be estimated. Something must be wrong in I. 371.
382. τη; or re. With ry there need not be more than one letter
before ην. 385. ἥϊμεῖνοι is proposed by W—M. The letters 8d have
been rewritten in darker ink. 389. Perhaps ἀγλίαΐσματ᾽, as W—M
suggests ; but another adjective is also possible. 390. παίχιια] : cf. 1.
395. ~The form is best left unaltered in view of the occasional
interchange of y with x in Ionic; cf. Herodian ii. 252 = Etym. Magn.
151. 39 ἄρχμενος" . . ὥφειλε δὲ ἄργμενος" φύλαξαν δὲ τὸ χ δοκεῖ
Ἰωνικὸν εἶναι, καθὸ καὶ τὸ ἔργμα ἔρχμα φασίν. Some examples are
collected in Smyth, Zonic Dialect, p. 296. 395 8564. The latter
portion of these lines is again on a detached fragment, the position
of which is fixed not only by the metre and the appearance of the
papyrus, but also by the fact that Il. 400-2 have been to a large
extent rewritten, and this renovation is carried out at the ends of the
corresponding lines of the fragment. The width of the gap, however,
cannot be measured. 401. γυνὴ : OF your n? " 404-7. There can be
no doubt, owing to the appearance of the papyrus, that the small
fragment containing the letters Ja{ &c. from the bottom of a column
is to be placed here, though its relative distance from what precedes
and follows is uncertain. It cannot be joined up so as to read πάντα
καὶ [ in 1. 404. 406. There are some traces of ink above the line in
front of We. 408. νηός is the Callimachean form, but ναός occurs in
some Ionic inscriptions and so G
 82 THE OXYRHYNCHUS PAPYRI may be admissible.
μίείλλων would be a possible reading, which it might be easier to
combine with the following letters; but since, as l. 409 shows (unless
wzoAXov there is an error for amodov), there is a loss of two
syllables at the beginning of the verse, μ[ελλων would not be
metrical. ; 420-1. W-M points out the parallel in these two lines to
Hd. iil. 102 ev δὴ ὧν τῇ ἐρημίῃ ταύτῃ καὶ τῇ ψάμμῳ γίνονται
μύρμηκες μεγάθεα ἔχοντος κυνῶν μὲν ἐλάσσονα, ἀλωπέκων δὲ
peCova’ . . . οὗτοι ὧν οἱ μύρμηκες ποιεύμενοι οἴκησιν ὑπὸ γῆν
ἀναφορέουσι τὴν ψάμμον... ἡ δὲ ψάμμος ἡ ἀναφερομένη ἐστὶ
χρυσῖτις. For another probable reminiscence of Herodotus cf. Callim.
Fr. 209. ‘425. πολις might be read instead of rove. 427. Cf. note on
Frs. 2-8. 429. Cf. Soph. Fr. 868 χρόνος δ᾽ ἀμαυροῖ πάντα. Fr. 1. This
fragment from the top of a leaf very likely belongs to Fol. 6; Fol. 7 is
excluded by a difference in the width of the upper margin. Frs. 2-8
are likely to come from either Fol. 6 or Fol. 7, and Frs. 6 and 8
almost certainly do so. The former might be placed so that νησουσ
immediately precedes orepew in ]. 427; the second line of the recto
would then coincide with 1. 387, but though there are several
alternatives to λιπο, a suitable combination at that point has not
been established. Fr. 8 might be turned the other way up and 1. 1 of
the recto (which will then be 1. 2) read as |. @6. The letters of ]. 1
of Fr. 7 have been renovated in black ink, and in 1. x of Fr. 3 also
there was some addition by a later hand. Fr. 13. The recto possibly
gives beginnings of lines. Fr. 15. The fragment should perhaps not
be included here but referred to some other MS. The ink and the
spacing of the lines is similar, but the letters are somewhat smaller
and their formation in one or two cases looks different. 1012.
TREATISE ON LITERARY COMPOSITION. Height 33-5 cm. Third
century. Plate 1V (Frs. 1-3). The following fairly extensive fragments
of a prose treatise of the Roman period proceed from the same large
literary find to which we owe 841-4, 852-3, and, in the present
volume, also 1016-17. How precisely the subject of the treatise is to
be defined is not immediately clear. There is a considerable diversity
of topics: an analysis of the characteristics of Lysias (A),
observations on systems of Ethics (B), a collection of instances of
omission and suppression of names or facts in various prose-writers
(C), criticism of. ‘the orators’ for belittling the achievements of Philip
(D), censure of the diction of Xenophon (F), a list of words having
double meanings, which in Attic, though not elsewhere, were
distinguished by different accents, and of other ‘ Atticisms’ and ‘
Hellenisms’ (G). This variety might be explained by supposing the
work to be of the nature
 1012. NEW CLASSICAL TEXTS 83 of a commentary, but if
so, this could hardly fail to be more obvious, and the view does not
seem tenable. At first sight, indeed, ἀληθές and ἀχρεῖον in Fr. 16. 3
and 14 might be taken for lemmata; but it is hardly conceivable that
ἄγροικος, ἀληθές, and ἀχρεῖον, all exemplifying the peculiar Attic
accentuation, actually occurred in juxtaposition in some book, and
the following fragment shows clearly that the writer was simply
collecting Atticisms. Indentation of lines such as that in Frs. 21-2 is
no doubt a usual feature in scholia (cf. 6. g. 853 or the Berlin
Didymus); but quotations of any kind and not only lemmata for
comment were thus distinguished, and the nature of the small
fragments in question is too doubtful for them to be taken as the
basis of an argument. There is no real indication that the remains
are not those of a connected treatise. Its scope would be more
evident if the upper part of Fr. 1. Col. ii were in better preservation ;
when, however, the writer there declares his intention of considering
what books (or parts of books) were good, and lays down that 6
Adyos has four divisions (Il. 5 566. ; cf. Fr. 13. 26 sqq.), the most
natural conclusion is that he was a literary critic, and that his treatise
related in a general way to composition or style, more particularly
(though not exclusively ; cf. Frs. 18 and 23) in prose, and perhaps
with predominant reference to oratory. Discursiveness is natural with
such a theme; and the technical linguistic discussions of Frs. 14—17
are quite in keeping with it. With regard to the author, his date at
any rate can be fixed within tolerably narrow limits. He refers to
Didymus of Alexandria and probably to Caecilius Calactinus (Fr. 13.
24-5), who both flourished at about the beginning of the Christian
era; on the other hand, the manuscript is hardly later than the
middle of the third century (see below). Hence the two termini for
the date of composition are approximately A.D. 50 and 200. Of his
qualities, these disconnected fragments scarcely provide the material
for a fair estimate. He was sufficiently familiar with the classics,
judging from the frequent references and citations, which include,
besides the writers just mentioned, Herodotus (Fr. 9. ii. 56),
Thucydides (Frs. 5. 3, 9. ii. 23, 36 sqq., iii. 37), Xenophon, Hellenica
and Agesilaus (Fr. 14. 3, 9), Theopompus, Philippica (Fr. 9. ii. 13),
Lysias (Fr. 1. ii. 20), Demosthenes, Jz Androt. &c. (Frs. 1. ii. 36, 9.
ii..20, iti. 46, 12. 11. 17), Aeschines, / Timarch, (Fr. 9. ii. 6,14), ‘The
orators’ (Fr. 11. ii. 4), Theophrastus, Περὶ καιρῶν (Fr. ο. ii. 27),
Heraclides Ponticus (Fr. 9. ii. 1), Aristippus (Fr. 6. 13), Epicurus (? Fr.
6. 11), Aristophanes (Fr. 23. 3), and another comedian (Fr. 9. ii. 3);
and he shows good knowledge of detail (cf. e.g. notes on Fr. 9. ii, 6-
7 and 14-22). Some inaccuracies in names (Fr. 9. ii. 43, 51, 55) are
no doubt copyists’ errors. His brief estimate of Lysias is judicious,
recalling the criticism of Dionysius of Halicarnassus, of which it might
almost be a summary (cf. Fr. 1. G2
 64 THE OXYRHYNCHUS PAPYRI ii. 20 sqq. and note); he
had a correct appreciation of the greatness of Philip ; and his
remarks on Xenophon’s vocabulary, so far as they can be followed,
seem not unjustifiable. Modern critics too have fallen foul of
πολυεπαινετώτατος. There is then some reason to regret that the
treatise has been recovered in such poor preservation. Its
fragments, which originally amounted to over one hundred, have
been reduced by combination to nearly half that number; but efforts
to find a connexion between the larger resulting pieces, designated
by the letters A to G, have been unsuccessful. A roll of which the
recto was already occupied by a cursive document was used, the
writing proceeding in the contrary direction, i.e. the beginning of one
text corresponding with the conclusion of the other. That on the
recto is an official account, portions of which are printed under
1045, dating from the reign of Septimius Severus, and apparently
after his thirteenth year. The literary text on the verso is therefore
subsequent to A.D. 204~—5, while from the character of the
handwriting it would be placed at no great distance from that date.
It is written in tall columns in a medium-sized sloping hand, an
elegant, and to all appearance by no means a late example of the
oval type so frequently met with. A period of from thirty to fifty
years will be sufficient to allow for the recto to become antiquated
and useless, and the conditions will thus be welt satisfied if the
manuscript on the back be assigned to about the middle of the third
century. Lectional marks are scanty. There are no stops, but the
more important pauses are denoted by paragraphi, sometimes
accompanied by a blank space in the body of the text (Fr. 13. 26). A
single instance of an accent apparently occurs (Fr. 13. 32), though
not, where it would be most expected, in Frs. 16-17, where
accentual differences are under discussion. The usual angular sign,
which here not seldom assumes the shape of a comma, is used to fill
the shorter lines, but with little consistency, and the ends of the lines
are rather ragged ; with regard to their beginnings also the scribe
was somewhat irregular, gradually advancing to the left and so
giving his columns a considerable slope to the right. His occasional
errors in copying have remained uncorrected. In default of any clear
indications regarding the relative position of the main fragments, the
arrangement adopted below is more or less arbitrary. A, which is
much worm-eaten, is placed first on the strength of Col. ii, part of
which seems to be of an introductory character ; but, of course, this
may be merely the introduction of a fresh section, especially as
analogous language occurs in Fr. 13. 26 sqq., which cannot be
brought into close connexion with A. On the recto of A is part of an
official letter in the same hand as the account, to which it
presumably refers; cf. 1045. B, like A, has been damaged by worms,
and possibly its first column is the bottom of A Col. iii; the recto
contains only
 1012, NEVA CLASSICAL TEXTS 85 a few letters, but these
so far as they go suit that supposition. The third portion, C, is the
largest that has survived, including one nearly complete column ; on
the recto of this are beginnings of lines from the account: cf. 1045.
D consists of two small pieces, more decayed than the rest ; it has
been put next to C because, like Col. iii of the latter, it relates to
Philip; but the recto is inconsistent with the hypothesis that Fr. 11
Col. ii is the top of C, Col. iii. E and F are two narrow strips, the
former containing remains of two columns, the latter ends of lines
from another. The shape of the upper part of Fr. 13, which
resembles that of C, renders it likely that this fragment comes from
near the top of a column. F, on the other hand, is not improbably
from near the bottom. On the recto of both there are slight remains
of a few lines, some of which in each case seem to be of the nature
of headings or correspondence. The linguistic criticism of F smooths
the transition to G (Frs. 16-17), the technical details of which may
be suitably reserved for the final place. Fr. 17 probably succeeds Fr.
16, and perhaps belongs to the latter’s second column. The recto of
Fr. 16 contains a few letters from the tops of two columns, of which
the second at any rate shows the same formula as the recto of C. In
shape, the left-hand side of this fragment is similar to the upper
portion of C and of Fr. 13. Perhaps A, on the strength of the contents
of the recto, should be placed at the end instead of the beginning,
and E and F be grouped along with that section. A. (Frs. 1-5). Plate
IV. ἘΠ τ COlei: Col. ii. allot ἀν: ΠΠ 5. o boo ὦ Ὁ Ἰγω. [ ‘ile, πον Ἰ.
αρχαΐ ΠΡΌΣ flow cola 6 Ἰιδει 5 τινα τροῖπον.. .]. ς ev Kale κα κως
exovta τῶν βιβλιων τα μεν ow εὖ εἐχοντᾳ επισκεπίτεον τι va εστιν Ta
[μ]ερὴ του Alo}you εὖ προθεμενίοις εἸστί ιν δὲ τείτ]τα το ρα Κατὰ |b
lilo 6 6 00 00 He ἸΟ [5 5.5.6} Ὁ εὖ μερὶ ]. λαγί (Fr. 2) [jeder καί jus
δεικί
 86 σι ΙοΟ THE OXYRHYNCHUS PAPYRI [.Ἰειοισί Ἰαυτα
ὑπαρχέϊι nto... . Jal Ἰν ευρεσίιν (Ὁ) 15 0 καιρος o πρὶ ] και το πί τοις
προσωπίοις Ἰντοῖ touTo[.|s aval ].. doce [ [1- av ¢.Jral Ἰασαπί Ἰνί.
[γα οἱ 5 [ele - Ke. [8 ὁ ὁ Ὁ οἱ 6 [εἰ [ἢ}ς 20 ov μαλιστα
πεφροϊντ]ικεναι Av σιας τω)ν ρητορων [κ᾽ αι ylap τὴς αποδ εἤξεως
Tov πραγματων [εὐπορεῖ] μητε παϊ[ρ]αλιπίων) τι τῶν |e ἰχρησιμων
μηϊτ]ε mepirroly] . [.] | AR loo noo Jov Kat Tov εκασίτο]υ ppov jaL. .
ρων καιΐρον καὶ Tots ηθεῖσι των jo[.] . λεγοντὼν Kat Tov
ακ[ου]οντῶν | e€op.olot τους oyous καὶ TO προς | αλλη TOUS
αντιδικους καὶ TO προς τοὺς vet > 30 akpowpmevous κριτὰς ἡ
δικαστας (?) τα]ραχον πρέπον εν πᾶσι τηρῶν καὶ τοὺ σι a lle 5
μέτρου μαλισταὰ φροντιζει και μεν [our|o[s] τῶν ρητορὼν σχεδὸν
ἱπαντων πιθανωτατος ws duc 35 ἱμειμητοτατος ear και] βουλο
[μεν]ος καθαπερ και ο Ζημοῖσθε [yns] ev τοις πίλ]εισίτοις .. . .Ἱσί.
poo je. [| - καὶ IPS dts lee, Bs Gol ii Plate) IV: ] .| τῶν προοι[μιων
π]ρολαβων.. [ ε΄ 7 eorw [ πι (9) Dis ὁ
 1012. NEW CLASSICAL TEXTS 5 Oavn και εικὶ pa εξενηνίεγκ
κον ἡ Tape αἀλελυμενον | κριτικον ηλὶ Ἰρτων διηγί του πασχὴη | ο [.
[[αἹρμοζοῖ. .| - [ [. . [. [ Jora γία]ρ [ ..] mapal Sarat Ἰσκί 5, lines lost
ar χί Pe pavadbacnl + «ον ἵνα Tov ρητίορος «wes δια πολί Col. i. δι
Ἰους ελ Ic Ἱμετί Θ]ουκυ[διδ Ἰεθ. [ 87 Boll Fr. 8.
 88 THE OXYRHYNCHUS PAPYRI Slogal.} γέ. .] αλλί Ἰν και
περι vo το of 1 κατα τον βιον 9} 5 ]Ἰ εἰναι λέγοντες το εὖἱ Ἰρας ο
k[wAvope vBi[p vos ]. «νην ὕλην π | elivar δειν.. |. > lev οιδὲν ηχί.
Al 10 ] θεους ονταῖς of jew ὡς ἔπι 15 εν] κουρος (Ὁ) ] ηδονην τελος
τεῖ εἰναι AleyovTes ὡς AplotiT αἱ C (Fr. 9). Col. i. Col. ii. [o Ποντικῖος
δὲ Ἡραϊκλειδης ξ--- NYE ΖΠακ τ 6 5 Oo dc bo boo a oe ]s 0
kwpltkos...... ΕΣ Ἰῶν καὶ ἰδῆς, sent even aie. 5 [ εν τέλεσι bo co onc
os [...] εἰπὼν τὸ ονΐομα τῆς εν [πὴ Ipepa [tjeperafs....... [. .] ρηθηναι
παΐλιν δὲ των πὸ [τ|ε παρα Φιλιπποίυ εἰς AOnvas το mpecBevoavTwy
ἰουκ εἰρηκε Ta ονοματὰα σαν Ole Avtimatpos kat Παρμενίων και
Evpvdoxos ws ἵστορει Θεοπομῖπος ev τὴ εἰκτη των Φιλιππίίκων Αι σχι
Jo 15 νῆς δὲ To κατα γρίαμματειον ] πορνευσαντος ονομῖία οὐκ nyvo
 1012. NEW CLASSICAL TEXTS 30 35 40 45 5ο noe μεν
ὠκνῆσε Oe [εξειπειν de γων εἰναι αὐτοῖν των πίεπολι τευμενὼν ἣν δὲ
Ανδίροτιων ὡς [4ηἹμοσθενης δηλοι [ely [τω κατα [Αν]δροτίωνος
κατα γραμματέϊι ον αὑτον λεγὼν πεπορνευκεναι πραγματα δὲ ὡς
Θουκυδιδης εἰ πὼν yap ort] Θεμιστοκλὴς nKev εἰς Κερκυίρ]αν
φευγων o7[e nly av Ta|v| eviepye|tns τὴν εὐεργεσιαν [ove εἰπε
tav|rnv Θεοῴφραστος [de ev τοῖς περ]ι καιρων φησί) δια [popav
exely τους Kepxupaiolvs [Κορινθιοις] και διαιτητὴν γε ἰνομενῖον
Kpewat atrodov viat ΚἸερκυρία ιοις τον Κορινθι οἷν δη]μον εἰκοσι
ταλαντᾳ [... MAY) Ὁ ὁ:ό. 5 ἃ ὁ οἷο. 58 Jol. . . .17.] την συϊμμαχιαν
πο]ιησίας κα]ταριθμου μενοῖυς οσα] A@nvaliolus evepye τησαν
Σαμίους κολασθηναι Wn φισαμενοι και] προς Διγινηταις πολεμουσῖι
ν]αυς παρασχ[ίο]ντες τὴν μεγιστὴν εὐεργεσιαν ov kK εἰπεν οτι
Κλεομενους Imm αν Tov τυραννον καταγαγον τος εἰς ἄθηνας παλιν
Κορινθι οἱ περι το Θριασιον ηδὴ Aakedac μονιῶν οντων πρῶτοι των
συμμαχὼν αποσταντεῖς] αἰτιοι ἐγένοντο Tov διαλυθηναι τὴν
στρατείαν Και μὴ καταχθηναι 89
 go 25 35 THE OXYRHYNCHUS PAPYRI tov Immiav Kat οτι
εν Aaxkedat pour tov Π[ιησιστρατιδων κα ταχθηναι δεομενων και Ke
ομενους σ[υ]ναγορευοντος αὖ 55 τοις αντειπε Σωκλης o Κοριν θιος
ws ἵστορει Ηροδοτος αντι 23 lines lost εἶ αἱ πὶ κατί n εορίτη Kno οἷ
emit Ολυμῖπ νης τί [ [ 41... » Aeyor [ ws OofuKvd.dn¢ (?) cas yalp
Φρυγι! Col. iii. 40 45 50 55 της Ατίτικης ἐστι δὶ την πὶ petal a pikopl
ev ται καὶ τὴ Tov | νης 6, Φιλιππὶ Tew τί ἐπαθε | τον μεν οφθαλμίον
περι την Μεθωνης πο λιορκιαΐν τὴν de κίλειν ev ΪΙλλυριοις doy χη
πληγέεῖις τον de μηρον ev Τρι βαλλοις Ϊ Π {Π7Ξ: τὸ Ξ Τὴ:
 rate ΘΟ Fr. 12. ΕἼ, 13: 1012. ]. ot εἰσιν ‘Wiooe 5 Bapal ee [
Es NEW CLASSICAL TEXTS Le. [1 [δ- LJuets καί Los πεπραγμενων
κΪ.. νη] 5 φυλαὶ λομὶ ee) ew [pJev@v ἱπὲρ οἱ ρητορες πεῖποι 5
ἥκασιν διαβαλλοντες Φιλιπ πον πραξαι ραΐδια] παντα gal τες avtov
δωρ[οἸδίοκι)αις Kat emt opktats και] amlarats και] οὐκ aly Opera
χρωΐμενον ro οὐ φρονοίυντες σιαν rad. | xp πολ ἭΝ os ὁ δὶ εἰς au[T
[vas κί E (Frs. 12-13). Col. ii. αν]δρες δὶ Jal gl