DCLP

sign in

Trismegistos 59960 = LDAB 1072



DCLP Transcription [xml]

Introduction

Gal Antid. 1.8-9 (14, 49.6-50.2; 14, 50.9-51.4 K). Two fragments of a leaf from a papyrus codex written on both sides: P.Lond.Lit. 169 (5.7 x 7.9 cm; recto: ll. 1-11, verso: ll. 1-11) preserves one of the upper corners of the original leaf, inclusive remains of the upper and lateral margins; GMP 1.3 (4.6 x 6.4 cm; recto ll. 12-22; verso: ll. 12-20) comes from the part immediately below, inclusive of portions of the lateral margins. The codex as reconstructed had one column of approximately 29/30 lines to the page. On the recto, the upper margin survives to a depth pf 1.4 cm; the inner margin survives to a breadth of 1.7 cm; outer and lower margins lost. Subject headings are indented and marked with a sign (l.11 recto), while the first line of each chapter is set out in ekthesis (see again l.11 recto). The two fragments preserve a significant portion of Gal. Antid. 1.8-9. The relationship between the papyrus and the later tradition as a whole (HMP apud Luiselli 2001, 40 [= GMP 1.3]) is of great import: at l. 15 recto, the papyrus comes very close to the text transmitted by HMP, lending no manuscript support to an alteration printed by Kühn (ἢ τροχίσκους διαφέρει οὐδέν. οὐδὲν γὰρ βλάψεις τὸ φάρμακον [14, 49.16-7]), which can be refuted on stylistic grounds (see below). But the P.Lond.Lit. 169 + GMP 1.3 also exhibits several novelties as against HMP, thus proving the unity of the tradition to be illusory (see esp. ll. 13-7 with Luiselli 2001, 47-9). The script is a medium-sized onward sloping book-hand, which can be assigned to a date not earlier than the 6th cent. AD.

r
ἐτῶν καὶ τ[εττάρων ἀκμαῖοι παραμέ-]
νουσιν, ἐάν̣ [γε καλῶς ὦσιν ἀποκείμε-]
νοι, καὶ καθ̣[αροῖς ὀθονίοις δι’ἡμερῶν]
τινων ἀπ[ομάττοιτο τὸ ἐπιστρεφό-]
5μενον α[ὐτοῖς κονιορτῶδες. ἐὰν γὰρ]
προσμε[ὶνῃ τοῦτο χρόνῳ πλέονι, δι-]
ατίτρη[σιν αὐτούς. ἔυδηλον δ’ὅτι τοῦ-]
το παθόν[τες ἄχρηστοι γὶνονται, ὡς]
πρὶν γε τ̣[οῦτο παθεῖν κᾂν χρονίσω-]
10σιν(*) ἱκαν[ῶς διαμένουσι χρήσιμοι.]
((coronis)) ἀρτίσ[κων](*) [σκιλλητικῶν σκευασία.]
ε̣ἴτε σκιλ̣[λητικοὺς, εἴτε σκιλλίνους ἐθέ-]
λοι τις ὀν[ομάζειν τοὺς διὰ σκίλλης]
σκευαζομ̣[ένους ἀρτίσκους, ἢ κυκλίσ-]
15κους, ἢ τρο̣[χίσκους -ca.?- ]
τὸ φάρμα[κον](*) [ὅπως ἂν ὀνομάζῃς, ἐ-]
ά̣ν̣ ἐν τῆι̣ [συνθέσει μηδὲν -ca.?- ]
ς(*) ἐγὼ σοι φ[ράσω καὶ ταύτην σαφῶς.]
σ̣κ̣ίλ̣λ̣αν ε[ὔτροφον ἀναιρήσῃ μὲν]
20ἐκ τῆς γῆ[ς, ὁπόταν ἀκριβῶς αὐτῆς]
ξηρα[νθῇ -ca.?- ]
  ̣  ̣  ̣[ -ca.?- ](*)
-- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --
v
0[ -ca.?- ὠπτῆ-]
[σθαι γνώσῃ, καὶ διὰ -ca.?- ]θέσεως(*) κάρ-
[φους ἑτοίμως γὰρ αὐτὸ -ca.?- ]  ̣αδευεται(*) τὸ
[σῶμα τῆς σκίλλης, ἐπειδὰν καλ]ῶς ὀπτηθ̣ῇ.
[λειωθείσης δὲ ἀκριβῶς αὐτῆ]ς̣ μιγνύεται
5[τῶν λευκῶν ὀρόβων ἄλευρ]ο̣ν, ἰσχυρῶς
[γάρ ἐστι τὸ τῶν μὴ λευκῶν] πικρόν. εὔ-
[δηλον δ’ὅτι σεσῆσθαι χρ]ὴ̣ τοῦτο λε-
[πτῷ κοσκίνῳ, καὶ μετὰ ταῦ]τα ἀκριβ̣ῶς
[λελειῶσθαι, τῷ σταθμῷ δὲ ἡ]μιολίαν εἶ-
10[ναι χρὴ τὴν σκίλλαν. τοῦ ἀ]λεύρου λέ̣γω
[δὲ ἡμιολίαν, ὡς δύο μὲν ἀ]λεύρ[ο]υ̣ μ̣[οί-]
[ρας εἶναι, τρεῖς δὲ τῆς σκίλλ]ης. ὡς τοῦτο
[λέγ -ca.?- ὁ νεώτερος Ἀνδρόμ]αχος, ουκα
[ -ca.?- ὀγδοήκοντα μὲν ε]ἶναι δρα-
15[χμὰς βούλεται τοῦ ὀροβίνο]υ ἀλεύρου,
[τῆς σκίλλης δὲ -ca.?- ]τ̣α εἰς ἑκατὸν
[εἴκοσι -ca.?- εἶ]τα λεπτοὺς(*)
[κυκλίσκους ἐκ τῆς μίξεω]ς̣ ταύτας ἀνα-
[πλάσας ἐν οἴκῳ τίθει πρὸς μ]εσ̣η̣μ̣βρίαν̣
20[ἐστραμμένῳ, καθότι προείπομεν, οὐ] μ̣ὴ̣ν̣
-- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --

Apparatus


^ r.9-10. τ̣[οῦτο παθεῖν αὐτοὺς κᾂν χρονίσω]|σιν prev. ed.
^ r.11. θ̣’ ἀρτίσ[κων] Gronewald 1992, 24 : ((ekthesis)) ἐ̣ξ̣αρτίσ[ -ca.?- ] (i.e. δυαρτίσ[ -ca.?- ]) Milne 1927, 136
^ r.15-16. or ἢ τρο[χίσκους οὐδὲν βλάψει] | τὸ φάρμα[κον]
^ r.17-18. or [ἁμάρτῃ]|ς
^ r.22. or ε̣ἶ̣τ̣[α -ca.?- ]
^ v.1. or [κα]θέσεως, or [κατα]θέσεως
^ v.2. or [κα]τ̣αδεύεται, or [α]ν̣αδεύεται
^ v.13-17. or [λέγει ὁ νεώτερος Ἀνδρόμ]αχος, οὐκ ἀ|[γνόω ὅτι ὀγδοήκοντα μὲν ε]ἶναι δρα|[χμὰς βούλεται τοῦ ὀροβίνο]υ ἀλεύρου | [τῆς σκίλλης δὲ τὰ ἀπαλότα]τ̣α (or [ -ca.?- ]γ̣α) εἰς ἑκατὸν | [εἴκοσὶ ἐστι γὰρ ἡμιολίον εἶ]τα λεπτοὺς

Notes

  • Recto, l.1.

    Before this line, Gronewald 1992, 24 exhibits [τριω]ν, no doubt a misprint for [τριω]ν.

  • 9-10.

    τ̣[οῦτο παθεῖν αὐτοὺς κᾂν χρονίσω]σιν , but "αὐτοὺς fehlte vielleicht im Papyrus" (Gronewald 1992, 25)

  • 10.

    ϊκαν[ως] pap.

  • 11.

    The initial traces seem to combine to form a sign marking the indented heading; comparable devices are in evidence in other medical codices, see P.Mich. 17.758, fr. E recto (4th cent. AD) and P.Ant. 3.126 (6th-7th cent. AD). 11. Rho of ἀρτίσ[κων] is supralined. The function of the horizontal dash is uncertain. Perhaps it combined with other similar signs to the right to form a kind of discontinuos line; separators in the form of long horizontal lines are placed above and below indented headings in P.Ant. 3.127 (7th cent. AD).

  • 15.

    After κυκλίσκους, Kühn (14, 49.16-7 K) printed ἢ τροχίσκους διαφέρει οὐδέν. οὐδὲν γὰρ βλάψεις τὸ φάρμακον, which is too long for the available space in the papyrus. In fact, διαφέρει οὐδέν is not found in HMP; and the γάρ is given by HM, but is deleted by a second hand correction in P. The version given by the papyrus in the proposed reconstruction seems to be better than Kühn’s: see Luiselli 2001, 45-6.

  • 17.

    Iota adscript seems to have been written here but was omitted in l.3 verso. It has not been restored elsewhere.

  • 17-8.

    In spite of the erroneous syllabic division, [ἁμάρτῃ]ς (with HMP Kühn) seems unavoidable.

  • Verso, l.1.

    [...]θέσεως: καθέσεως H καταθέσεως MP Kühn. Considerations of space and vertical alignment in relation to the following lines would not rule out either reading.

  • 2.

    [κα]τ̣αδεύεται seems better than [α]ν̣αδεύεται (Milne 1927, 136 [P.Lond.Lit. 169]; not [ἀ]ν̣αδέχ̣εται, Gronewald 1992, 25), but no matter whether κατα- or ανα- is read.

  • 4.

    μιγνύεται: μίγνυε τό HMP Kühn. “I cannot exclude (but have no firm evidence to prove) that τό was written at the beginning of [l.]5” (Luiselli 2001, 47).

  • 5.

    ϊσχυρως pap.

  • 13-7.

    The view of Andromachus the Younger (fl. c. 70-80 AD) on the composition of squill pastilles is discussed. The papyrus deviates considerably from HMP: ὡς δὲ (ὥστε HM) ταὐτὸν λέγων ὁ νεώτερος Ἀνδρόμαχος, οὐκ οἶδεν (οὐκ εἶδεν H) ὅπως π' μὲν εἶναι δραχμὰς βούλεται τοῦ ὀροβίνου ἀλεύρου, τῆς σκίλλης δὲ ρκ'. ἤρκει γὰρ εἰπεῖν ἡμιόλιον. εἶτα λεπτοὺς κυκλίσκους κτλ. It is most unfortunate that its version is beyond secure recovery, but so far as it can be reconstructed, it would be unwise to dismiss it as aberrant; see Luiselli 2001, 47-9.

Editorial History; All History; (detailed)