DCLP

sign in

Trismegistos 60194 = LDAB 1311



DCLP Transcription [xml]

Introduction

Hp. Epid. 2.6, 7-22 Smith. Two small fragments (P. Fackelmann 4 [Fr. 1]: 4.6 x 6.5 cm; P. Princeton inv. AM 15960A [Fr. 2]: 4 x 10,5 cm) of a papyrus roll, preserving on the recto, respectively, the top portion and the bottom portion of a single column of writing. Verso is blank. A lower margin of 0.9 cm survives. The amount of text lost along the left margin varies from 2 to 6 letters, except in the heavily damaged last two lines; the losses along the right margin are more extensive, and the supplements given must be understood as plausible, not certain. The papyrus’ place in the history of the textual tradition of Epid. 2.6, 7-22 seems to be quite independent: numerous, small differences occur when compared with the text of the Byzantine manuscripts HIR (representing the M-family) and V. The scribe makes repeated use of on-line blank spaces to articulate individual aphoristic statements. The writing is a neat, bookish hand assignable to the 1 st cent. BC.

fragment 1
[ -ca.?- ]  ̣[ -ca.?- ]
[μετὰ τ]ῶν κ[υάμων. (vacat) ἀπόληψις τοῦ(*)]
[νοσήμ]ατος οὐ[κ ἂ]ν̣ [γέ]ν[οιτο εἰ μὴ γονί-]
[μηι] ἡμέ̣ρη[ι], οὒδ' ἂν ἀρ[χὴ γένοιτο ἢν]
5[μὴ ἀγόν]ω̣ι̣ ἡμέρηι καὶ μηνὶ, [ἔτει γονίμωι(*).]
[(vacat) λ]ί̣τ̣ρ̣ο̣ν̣ αἰγύπτιο[ν καὶ κορίανον καὶ]
[κύμι]ν̣ο̣ν τρίβον[τ]α σὺ[ν ἀλείφατι συνα-]
[λείφει]ν̣(*). (vacat) ὅσα θν̣ή̣σ̣κ̣[ει, ἀνάγκη γονί-]
[μωι ἡμέ]ρ̣η[ι] κα̣ὶ̣ γονίμ[ωι μηνὶ καὶ]
10[γονίμ]ω̣ι ἔτει. προλέγει[ν ὀρθῶς](*)[ἔχει]
[θάνα]τον ἢ ὀδύνας ἰσχ[υράς, οἷον ἢν τὰ]
[ὄμμα]τ̣α μ̣ὴ̣ ερρωτα ὁ θάν[ατος ἐν τάχει.]
[(vacat) ἢν] μ̣ὲν γονίμωι ἔτει γ[ίνηται ἀπ']
[ἀμφοτ]έ̣ρων γονίμους ἀν[άγκη γενέσ-]
15[θαι·] ἢ̣ν δ̣ὲ ἀγόνωι ἔτει κ[αὶ ἀγόνωι ἡμέ-]
[ρηι, θ]ν̣ήσκειν ἀνάγκη γ[ονίμωι ἡμέρηι.]
fragment 2
[ἡ τρίτ]η̣ ἰσχυ̣ρ̣[οτάτ]η̣ (vacat) τὴν [κυνάγ-]
[χην] καὶ ὀφθαλμίην φλε̣[βοτομ- ](*). τρωθέν-
[το]ς̣ ἐντέρου [ἡ] ἀναπ[νοὴ ἔρχεται ἀφαν-]
20[ὴς] κάτω{ι}θ[ε]ν καὶ κ̣[ενοῦται τὰ στή-]
[θε]α̣. διδόναι οὖν γάλ̣[α καὶ οἶνον ἴσον]
[ἴσ]ωι. (vacat) ὧν κατακ[ορέα τὰ στήθεα,]
[ψελ]λ̣[ο]ί̣, μανιώδεις, κ̣[αὶ φαλακροί. (vacat)]
[ὅσοι ἐκ] γενε̣ῆς στρ[εβλοί, ἀσύνετοι(*)][ἠλι-]
25[θιῶντε]ς ἢ μαινόμε̣ν̣[οι· οἷσι δὲ μή, ἑτέ-]
[ρου κακ]ο̣ῦ̣ λύσις. (vacat) περὶ [φύσιος δύνα-]
[μιν πλ]ε̣ί̣σ̣τ̣[ην ἔχει] τι<τ>θός, [ὀφθαλμὸς δε-]
[ξιός], ὅ̣τι ἐμπέφυκε [τοῖσι δεξιοῖσι]
[καὶ] τ̣ὰ̣ ἄρσενα(*). (vacat) γυ̣ν̣[αιξὶν ἐπιμήνια]
30[ὥστ'(*)][ἴσ]χειν σικύην με̣[γάλην](*)[παρὰ τὸν]
[τιτθὸν] π̣ροσβάλλειν. (vacat) τ̣ρ̣[ίμηνον παι-]
[δίον π]ά̣ν̣τα̣ δηλοῖ καὶ γ̣[άλα τότε ἔχει.]
[ἢν π]ο[λ]λ̣ὸν̣ [ῥέη]ι̣ γάλα, ἀν[άγκη ἀσθενεῖν]
[τὸ ἐ]ν̣ γα[στρὶ·] (vacat) ἢν̣ στερεώ[τεροι τιτθοὶ,]
35[ὑ]γ̣ι̣ηρὸν τὸ ἔμβρυον. (vacat) [φλὲψ παχείη(*)]
[ἐν ἑ]κατέρωι τιτθῶι̣· τ̣α̣[ῦτα μέγιστον]
[τὸ μόρι]ον συνέσιος. στ[ραγγουρίην φλε-]
[βοτομί]η λύε\ι/· ἢν κεφαλὴ̣ [σπαργᾶι, ἑλκέ-]
[ων κάθαρσις, ἔ]μ̣ετος. (vacat) Ὕδρωψ̣ [ἀπὸ γαστρὸς]
40[ταραχῆς ἢ ἀπὸ β]η̣χός. (vacat) καρκί̣[νου γιν-]

Apparatus


^ 1.2. or ἀπόληψις δὲ τοῦ
^ 1.5. or ἔτει δὲ γονίμωι
^ 1.7-8. or [ξυνα|λείφει]ν̣
^ 1.10. or προλέγει[ν δὲ ὀρθῶς]
^ 2.18. or φλε̣[βοτομεῖν], or φλε̣[βοτομίη]
^ 2.24. or σύνετοι
^ 2.28-29. or [τοῖσι δεξιοῖσι]|τ̣ὰ̣ ἄρσενα
^ 2.30. or ὥστε
^ 2.30. or με̣[γίστην]
^ 2.35. or φλὲψ ἔχει παχείη

Notes

  • Frag. 1, l.2.

    [δὲ] om. V.

  • 12.

    Perhaps μὴ ερρωτα is simply a mistake, although Galen’s lemma (In Hipp. Epid. II comment. CMG 5.10.1, 381.1-2 Pfaff: ‘Augen nicht gesund sind’) may suggest an adjective at this point in his text – an otherwise unattested ἐρρωτός from ῥώννυμι, meaning ‘strong’, ‘healthy’? Alternately, perhaps οἷον ἢν τὰ ὄμματα ἄρρωστα evolved into ερρωτα, was corrected to μὴ ἐρρωτα (as in pap.), and finally became μὴ ἔρρωται, as in the mss.

  • Frag. 2, l.18.

    According to Smith’s edition (W.D. Smith, Hippokrates VII, London 1994): φλεβοτομεῖν (φλεβοτομίη HIR).

  • 23-24.

    τούτων om. pap., Gal. In Hipp. Epid. II comment.? Greek text lying behind Galen’s lemmata (CMG 5.10.1, 384.9-10 Pfaff) seems the same as that in pap.

  • 24.

    Galen’s comments mention that some have written the first sentence to read ‘sie sind vertändig’ (CMG 5.10.1, 385.1 Pfaff), apparently σύνετοι instead of ἀσύνετοι.

  • 26.

    The blank space between λύσις and περί is somewhat smaller than the space-dividers in ll. 8, 17, 22, 29, 31, 35, although about the same as that in l. 40.

  • 28-29.

    καί add. pap.? Gal. In Hipp. Epid. II comment. ‘auch’ τὰ ἄρσενα.

  • 30.

    Galen’s lemma suggests μεγάλην (‘einen grossen Schröpfkopf’ CMG 5.10.1, 386.25 Pfaff) rather than μεγίστην of HIRV, and, for reasons of space, μεγάλην is restored in the papyrus. Galen’s commentary reports that while many mss. read ‘large’ (μεγάλην), others read ‘very large’ (μεγίστην).

  • 38.

    The iota of λύει was originally omitted from the papyrus and was added above the line by the scribe afterward.

  • 39.

    Τhe papyrus has only a very small blank space between ἔμετος and ὕδρωψ, but the initial hypsilon of ὕδρωψ is considerably enlarged.

Editorial History; All History; (detailed)