I
GIFT OF
HERONDAEA
BY
JOHN HENRY WRIGHT
REPRINTED FROM THE
HARVARD STUDIES IN CLASSICAL PHILOLOGY
Vol. IV., 1893.
BOSTON
QINN & COMPANY
1893
HERONDAEA.
BY JOHN HENRY WRIGHT.
I.
PUNCTUATION IN THE PAPYRUS.
I. The Spaces. It is an important peculiarity of the papyrus
manuscript of the Mimiambi of Herondas recently discovered (Papy-
rus No. CXXXV., British Museum), that, while as a rule the letters
of the several verses are written continuously, without break or pause
between the different words, now and then in about twelve per
cent of the verses slight breaks or blank spaces do occur, never
amounting however to more than the space ordinarily taken up by
from one to two of the letters of average breadth. The significance
of these breaks for the punctuation of the text was first emphasized
by Blass, and has been recognized by several critics of the poet ;
but thus far only sporadically. In this article I propose to present
all the examples, and to discuss the doubtful ones, not neglecting at
the same time the examination of a few related topics, important in
their bearing on the text-criticism of our author. 1
It should be observed, in the first place, that these breaks are
never intended to mark words as words, nor to suggest the proper
combinations of letters into words in ambiguous instances : this work
is performed, but without system, incompletely, and only very rarely
directly, by the marks of the rough breathing, 2 the accents, 3 the coro-
1 For convenience ordinary type will be regularly used in the notes for the
readings of the manuscript. It is to be regretted that in the text the font of
inscriptional type so imperfectly represents the cursive majuscules of the papyrus.
2 Only the rough breathing is written, and always in an angular form ( h ),
except in the late ovS'iv, VI. 3. The cases are: II. 70 (wwryijcr); V. 20 (orev-
wic); VI. 25 (77 Biraroo-); VI. 68 (d/u[XX]i7); VII. 46 (dl).
8 The accents, acute, circumflex, and grave, exhibit interesting peculiarities.
The circumflex and acute are used with many proper names, but not with all ; also
to distinguish between words spelled alike but differently accented, and to indicate
the correct grouping of letters into words, etc.: e.g., I. 29 (0&u, not 0eaQ; I. 85
169
170 John Henry Wright.
nis, 1 and perhaps once or twice by the use of the dot or point. 2 The
last, however, has a more extended use in perhaps a dozen exam-
ples, collected below as a sign of punctuation (cmy/a?j), having here
a value not wholly unlike that of the spaces, but not so strong as that
of the Trapdypatfros.
Punctuation within the verses is indicated mainly by these spaces :
indeed, these spaces have no value except as signs of strong inter-
punctuation, and they always have this value, when not accidentally
made.
(/*, not /x(); ibid. (WcroO = oj <rou, not 6V(rou); IV. 42 (avr>; = a'vTi), not
atfrij); II. I (<rr^ = &rr^, not e<rre). At .41 (o5i}) perhaps the accent may
indicate od-q. At II. 9 (-^ueatr) the accent seems to suggest the synalcepha of the
final syllable (Crusius) : and in V. 49 the acute on the ultima (ajojKovjcds) may
be intended to indicate a rising tone of voice, necessary in a question (Diels).
The grave accent regularly appears to be used to provide against misapprehen-
sions. The examples are I. 60 (rdraXi . . . : to show that this is not rara; it
also shows that we have a longer word here than rara); I. 76 (IIi;0ea> 5); I. 70
: 6 -f avay/is, not uv /crX.); II. I (kffrt: fort, not e<rre) ; II. 24 (fyi* :
not ^M)j HI. 74 (Trfyras: i.e. Trends, not TT^/JVOS); IV. 91 (ir\ai>ov : i.e.
; VII. 46 (dl : perhaps taken for article wrongly; hardly "aporiae
indicium," Crusius).
1 The coronis ('), usually written at the top of the line (at I. 15 and II. 83, at
the bottom), always appears to indicate elision at the end of words. It seems to
have been put in by the first hand, except at VI. 3 (ouS'ej/). The other cases are :
I. 15, nvi,0(rov = /ana foov; II. 24, fyt' ou = e/u'oi) = ^ ov; III. 49, KaXydiv' =
Ka\rj6iva; IV. 5, K'wvirep = KtSvirep = Kal uvirep; IV. 16, aXe/crop'njrpa dXe/c-
rbpa. trjrpa; IV. 41, /cu5iXX'iou<ra = Kvdt\\a louaa. The only doubtful case is II.
83, KavTO<rTO.(r,avTov : this must be Kal aur6s ra era auroO, hardly r d, treauroO, cer-
tainly not, in the light of all our examples, rds avrov (Doric short a). The cases
show that the mark is not necessarily used, as in the Codex Alexandrinus, to sepa-
rate words as words, nor like the StacrroX^ (yTroStacrroX^) : orav 5ta<rre?Xat Kal
Staxwp^mi 6(peL\(j)^v riva X^tv (e-g-, fffriv, at-tos, not e<rri Nd^tos : Bekker,
Anecd. Graeca, II. p. 675) ; some of the examples, however, might be explained
as instances of the diastole: e.g., II. 24 (^/i'ou, not /AOU), III. 49 (/caX^^tv', not
/caX^^'tVa), etc. Cf. Gardthausen, Griech. Palaographie, pp. 273 f.
2 In Pr oem. n (Cr.) raKvXX-ai5ij>, the point appears to be intended only to
mark off the words ra Kv\\a and aelSeiv: it can have no force for punctuation
here; cf. IV. 50 (eo-o-er-Tjyuepa), but see p. 182, note I. (In I. 3 [rts 1 ] the dot is
merely a part of the sigma : likewise at II. 6 [/cX'av<rai] , the mark above the X is
part of an unfinished a, begun too near the X; cf. I. 51; at VII. 48 [#KUS], the
mark on o is part of a in the preceding line.) For some remarks on the use of
the signs (" , ") see below, pp. 177, 178 notes.
Herondaea. 1 71
An examination of the photographic facsimile of the manuscript
discovers about one hundred and ten cases of such intentional spac-
ings. Of these not more than from two to six are in any way ambig-
uous, and a fair consideration, it seems to me, would deny ambiguity
to all. 1 The remainder, over one hundred and four, are nothing but
indications of punctuation, for which we have in our modern editions
our various signs. A classification of these examples according to
the punctuation adopted in the latest text-edition of Herondas {Bib-
liotheca Teubneriana : ed. Otto Crusius, 1892), which errs by no
means on the side of excessive, punctuation, yields the following
groupings :
a. The breaks accompany a change of speaker- in the dialogue at
I. 7* (eoriv; rvAAi's), 20, 82; II. 48; III. 58, 78*, 81, 82, 87, 93;
V- 31, 55 ; VI. 15, 17, 19*, 22*, 23*, 25 and are thus represented
by our period, colon, dash, or question-mark (the last indicated by
the*).
b. They stand at the end of a question in the examples starred
above, and in the following additional cases where no change of
speaker occurs after them : I. 9, 48 [?] ; III. 43, 60 ; IV. 57 (per-
haps an exclamation, ota epya;) ; V. 10, 18, 41, 75 ; VI. 10, 44, 45,
75> 76; VIII. 4, 5. In these cases they are represented by a
question-mark.
c. Many have the value indicated by Crusius by a period: most
of the unstarred cases under a, and the following additional examples :
I. 8, 79 ; II. 68 ; III. 59 ; IV. 33 ; V. 20, 56, 66, 67, 74 ; VII. 4, " 7-
d. They have the value of a colon at I. 15, 66, 82 ; III. u, 26 ;
IV. 21,55,92,93; V. 6; VI. 5, 31, 61; VII. 65, 128; VIII. n;
and of something like it at IV. 58.
1 The apparently exceptional cases are discussed below; see pp. I73f. Occa-
sionally, but extremely rarely, when the large bulk of the writing is considered, we
find other slight breaks. In most of these instances the letters of a verse have
been written more sprawlingly than usual, and thus give the appearance of spac-
ing where no pause is intended. I have observed only these examples : y&pjifjituv
(I. 46); TToe^uv (I. 60); fj.T\eiv rjvflvprjv (II. 50); Kflvovfit (IV. 30);
ot A ros (V. 43); TOU A TOV (V. 58); T)fJ.^^v (VI. 82). (In the apparent giXafi^ov,
I. 5, the letter iota has disappeared, leaving only a slight trace.) Such is not the
explanation of the pause in I. 55, discussed on pp. 186 ff.
2 Change of speakers is usually indicated, but with many omissions, by the
irapdypacpos; see pp. 178 ff.
1/2 John Henry Wright.
e. Crusius represents them by a comma at I. 13 (&is), 67, 89;
11. 22, 49, 77; III. 49, 8l (7rav<rai A iKav<u) ; IV. 43, 46, 90; V. 9,
25, 34, 42 (ro758e A Kat <n5), 53, 69 (rart \dXXa) , 70; VI. 3 (avriJv A (rv) ,
12, 18, 49, 77, [96, after n] ; VII. 57 (bis), 58 (before KawajSto-ica) ,
60 (after aKpocr<j>vpia) , 6 1 (after e^/Soi), 98, no.
/. In the following verses, where the spacings are indicated by
the sign of caret, Crusius inserts no mark of punctuation ; but no one
can deny that at least a strong phrasing, if not punctuation, was dis-
tinctly intended : II. 2 (OTJK core | ^/xeooi/ Kpiral &rjKovOev fi ov$ rfjs
III. IO (TOJ/ fJiicrOov atret^/dyi/ ra NavvaKov KA.av<rw) ; IV. 83
1175 | KaAo>s CTT* tpot? Tatcr8e A /ct rives rwj/Se | ea<r'
IV. 42 (ov (rot Aey(o A avT^ rfj , . . ^acr/cowry ;), and 55
; III. 25 (rpiO^^ipa. Mapcova ypa/x/xart^oi/TO? | rov Trarpos
Maptova eTrotrjcrtv \ ouros Si/xa>va) j IV. 24 (ou^( o/o?7? /ceti/a | ev T?7
pa/A/xara ; i.e. ' Don't you see those [things] on the pedes-
tal, the letters?') ; perhaps also IV. 59 (TOV TratSa 6\7 A (rov} yv/avoV).
At III. 80 there is a pause which taken in connexion with the cor-
rections at this point is extremely significant. As first copied, uncor-
rected,vv. 79, 80 read (in part): (79) ITICOIZUUHN (8o)<t>GP OC-
ACANHKAKHCQeNHIBYPCAI. The corrector, evidently the
first hand, having previously designated 80 as corrupt (by an oblique
line in the margin opposite <J>GP ; see p. 181) sets himself to correct
it. He puts a mark of erasure over the N of ZUJHN (superior dot) ;
writes in, in the upper part of the space after <t>GP, the letters GIN ;
and draws his reed through the two I's (at C0GNHI mistakenly; at
BY PC A I apparently correctly ; probably these I's were earlier can-
celled by the copyist, as he wrote) . These facts show that the original
manuscript from which the papyrus was transcribed read something as
follows, of course metrically an improbable reading :
METROTIME (to the master), et ri crot
<e'p', 6Vas av r) Ka/cr) crOevrj (3vp(ra :
i.e. 'If I am anything to you (cf. V. 70), come, [give him] all the
blows his vile hide may bear.' The corrector, however, so radically
modifies the text that it seems obvious, either (i) that the manuscript,
at the time it was copied (for the hands in G I N and $6 P are the
same), was corrected by comparison with another manuscript contain-
ing different readings, or (2) that our copy was made from dictation,
Herondaea. 173
the scribe not distinctly hearing the words. The second alternative
cannot be adopted; see p. 183, note 2. The first alternative is sup-
ported by other inserted readings. Now the reading <epeiv could not
have been in the original: otherwise the space after <ep would not
have been made. We infer accordingly that in the manuscript used
for correction the text read :
METROTIME (to her son) . ct TL <rot (077,
o(7as av 17 KOLKYJ (rOwy fivpcra.
1 While your life holds out, you'll Jiave to get all the blows your vile
hide can stand (or that the cowhide is good for).'
There are now left six cases, which upon first examination appear
to be exceptions to the law that spacing always indicates punctua-
tion. 1 These are I. i and 64 ; V. 68 ; VII. no and 118 ; and VIII.
3. (i.) In the difficult and corrupt passage I. 64 we are not shut up
to one reading ; the space after TT/O^CIS favors a reading like that first
proposed by Crusius : a irp^eis, YI eori KT\., or Blass's Soia irprj&ts,
rjBovyv KT\., rather than Blicheler's or Crusius's in the text-edition,
although it is not wholly impossible with the latter. 2 (2.) At VII. 118,
the papyrus reads : YUUPH (n8) APHP6NOTTAH BOYCOAAKTI-
CACYMAC. Blicheler's i^copr) | aprjpev oirXr), j3ov? 6 AaKTicras tyxas
' scabra congruit ungula, bos pressit vos calce ' gives excellent
sense, besides preserving the punctuation, and therefore may be pre-
ferred to Crusius's if/opy \ a.prjpfv oirXri (3ovs 6 AaKTc'cras v/xas ' Der
Ochs der euch versohlt hat, flihrt eine raudige Klaue.' The cases
VII. no, V. 68, and VIII. 3 belong together. (3.) In VII. 1 10 (!xs
yap A ovxt yXacro-av, lySov^s 8' f)6/j,6v), there is a strong rhetorical pause
before ov^t whereby ofyt yXacro-ai/ becomes parenthetical. (4.) At V.
68 (KarrjpTiqo-Ow OVTUJ Kara /u,vos w<T7rep A i7 Aaov Tt/xr;), the interesting
pause seems to be a rhetorical one, due to the verb that must be
supplied, of which ri^ is subject. (5.) In VIII. 3 (rj Trpotr/xems o-v,
pexpi o-ev A ijAios OaXtyti \ \_rov K]VCTOV eo-Svs) , the space is not large and
may be accidental, but a rhetorical pause is quite probable here also,
especially if we read /x^pis ev. It is not unlikely that the passage is
1 Among the exceptions I should not include I. 55 (&6iKTOs ts
7*s) ; see below, pp. 187 ff. The text at VIII. 28 ([d]vaXAr0eu A Ki7 : Frag. 2. 7), and
at Proem. 9 (8evrepr}^yv) is too fragmentary to be taken into consideration.
2 Diels proposes Trp-^eis, T^WS 5^ repQdeiari.
1/4 John Henry Wright.
slightly corrupt, and that the pause may be not original. 1 (6.) There
remains I. i (d/aacro-a rr)v Ovptjv^n^' OVK oij/u \ ei /crA.). 2 If we are to
adopt this punctuation as one originally intended in thought, we may
suppose that the scribe, by whom the original was made of which our
manuscript is a transcript, was misled by the form of TIS : he took
the pronoun with the ov as an interrogative beginning the sentence,
and therefore spaced it off from the preceding word (cf. IV. 21 ;
VI. 1 8). Our scribe merely copies what he has before him.
Of the six doubtful cases, then, one is probably due to a copyist's
mental confusion ; two cease to be exceptions upon the adoption of
otherwise approved readings; and three, if not purely accidental,
likewise cease to be exceptional if we admit the possibility of the
1 The synizesis of eu + 17, across a pause in the sense, is not an objection : cf.
III. 81 (TraOVcu, i/cavaQ, and IV. 50 (/JLapTvpo/j.a.1, <prjfji,L eVaeT' ijfitpr) Kelvrf). But
the place is otherwise open to criticism, and from several points of view appears
to be corrupt. As it stands it would probably be better to take it as /^%/ns ev
>7\tos 0d\\f/ei (for eu compare VII. 123, where read TTJV . . . palryv \ 6d\Trov<rav
ev Set ' vSov . . . Ka.1 pdirreiv and for the position of ev compare also Dem. Cor. 14/1,
ev Trpayfj.a vvvredtv, or Plat. Rep. I. 329 C, ev ovv /xot Kal r6re e8oev e'jceij'os eiire'iv') ;
or, possibly, fJ-^xP 1 ~' eu 6d\\[>et.. But the synizesis ev + t\ is perhaps too harsh to
be allowed even to Herondas. The papyrus has only one other instance, TO /uev
af/ia (V. 7), but a similar synizesis in kerevw (III. 71) was avoided by the cor-
rector by erasing the v. And at II. 43, where /xe'xpts ov a not dissimilar diph-
thong, though elsewhere freely suffering synizesis is used, hiatus is permitted
(/ne"xpts ov etirrj). Perhaps even TO juev afyca, in V. 7, is an analogical form, and
should be written TO' /*eo alfw. : compare Te'o in VIII. I (TCV, II. 98) and tre'w
irpij&s (= tre'o ^ Trprj&s, Cr.), VII. 96, if reference may be made to so problemat-
ical a passage. If, now, we reject the present reading because of its extraordinary
synizesis, the words will be seen to be an easy palaeographical corruption of
M 6 X P I CO Y H A I OC (cf. fi^xpa ov ef^, II. 43, and & X pu ^'Xios SVT;, II. 88), or,
since that combination is objectionable because it made hiatus at II. 43, and must
not here, MGX PI COM A IOC (cf. r[ov ij\]iov SVVTOS, II. 13). In the latter case
the CO might have been taken for 60 (Cobet, Nov. Led. pp. I78f.), and this
easily written into the more familiar 6 Y. This process was, of course, helped by
the MeXPICGY* a few lines below (A?X/H <rev, but perhaps ^XP 5). In this
line (VIII. 3) we can hardly make the letters = /-te'xpts ev, as an hyperionism for
/xe*xP ls ov, under the influence of the foregoing ^XP 1 - T ^ ( v - *)
2 Can we take dpdffffei impersonally, and read the verse : Qp&'fftra, dpcWet r^v
Otpyv. T/S; ov/c 6$ei KT\.? (Cf. Kiihner, Ausf. Gramm. II. p. 30.) It is per-
haps better, however, to explain it as above, if after all the pause be not an
accidental one, like those in OV A TOJ (V. 43), and TOVJOV (V. 58) mentioned at
p. 171, note I.
Herondaea. 175
use of the space to suggest merely a slight rhetorical pause, such as
was regularly indicated by the <my/xr) /ACCTT; in the writing of the
Roman period. 1
It may, therefore, be reaffirmed with emphasis, that in the Heron-
das papyrus the blank spaces between certain words in the verses
always have the value of strong interpunctuation, and must be care-
fully heeded by all who would seek to construct the text or to inter-
pret the poet.
But the punctuation by spacing goes only a little way. If it had
been applied consistently and completely, we should have had more
nearly a thousand than a hundreH cases to register.
II. Sny/W. Punctuation is also indicated in the papyrus by the
use of the dot or point in the line. This method of punctuation has
not the significance of the former for purposes of text-criticism, since
it may be in large part the arbitrary work of later correctors or
readers, whereas the spacing must have been made by the original
scribe, and can have been only a reproduction of what he had before
him. Punctuation according to spacings may go back to Herondas ;
but that by points hardly.
Some of the points or dots in the text may be mere blots, for we
find others like them in the middle of words, or hanging on the tips
of thickly- written letters, or even parts of letters detached from
the body of their letters on fibres of papyrus slightly shredded off.
Again, very frequently the intentional dot does duty in Herondas to
indicate omission or erasure, and is then regularly placed above the
letter or letters to be rejected : occasionally it is also placed, both
above and below, and once in a while at the right side or on both
sides 2 of the objectionable word or letters. In the latter position it
may lead to a confusion with the use of the point for punctuation.
Actual cancellation is effected by drawing a line obliquely, or some-
times horizontally, across the undesired letters, syllables, or signs : it
is sometimes combined with omission as indicated by a superior dot
1 On the use of the nfoy see Blass, Griechische Palacographie, in I. Miiller's
Handbuch, I 2 , pp. 311, 312, 323.
2 For example at I. 50 (naTcuKiou-ruXXou-), where the marginal rpuX(Xos)
is to replace the word in the text. Possibly the point in II. 98 (after 4>ot^7j) has
a like value; but its mate is not visible at the beginning of the word, nor has any
substitute or gloss been written on the margin.
176 John Henry Wright.
(see IV. 67). It is not unlikely, though not certain, that this cancel-
lation was done by the first hand, in the progress of his writing : see
IV. 83, where in CM TT the M is cancelled, and the correct TT placed
just after, though it is possible that the scribe here wrote out 6MTTP
at first. The dots indicating omission were added on the revision by
the corrector, who was apparently the first hand (see on III. 80,
above, pp. 172 ff., also p. 184).
The points as distinctly used for punctuation 1 may be grouped as
follows : cases where they are by Crusius represented by periods, by
interrogation-points, by colons, and by commas. Where the o-rty/xTJ
falls at the close of the verse it is designated in my list by an asterisk.
a. Periods: 1.3 (CTUIAe* ; point at middle) ; I. 4 (ACCOM'*) ;
I. 8 (AOYAH-; middle); I. 82 (TTGIGI.; middle); II. 98
(<t>OIBH.; perhaps middle); VI. 5 (MGTPeUU* with H- written
above G ; unless the point here merely indicates erasure of H on
second thoughts [so Crusius, and cf. III. 62], it means that we are
to read M6TPH- with full pause, and not MeTPHUU) ; VII. 76
(TTPH1I": if this be a o-rty/xrj; if a line, there are no similar uses in
the papyrus) ; VII. 113 (GUUMCN').
b. Question-marks: I. 3(0YPHN.; interrupted question) ; 1.3
(CV); L 4 (TTPOCGA0IN.).
c. Colons: IV. 21 (ArAAMATUUN') ; VII. 114 (TTA5- ; mid-
dle).
d. Commas: I. 8 (Tl- ; middle) ; IV. 37 (BATAAHN.).
A glance at this list shows at once the futility of attempting to
identify these points with any ancient system of o-riy/W (reXeta,
vTToa-TL-yfjLTfj [and /xeVr?]). They are inserted with little discrimination.
Thus all three are used to indicate a strong pause; the "reXeta" at
I. 4 has very strong force ; less at IV. 21. The " vTrooriy/^ " is weak
at IV. 37, less weak at I. 3, and rather strong at VII. 113. Prob-
ably the papyrus is not carefully enough written to justify us in very
nice distinctions between the " /xeVy; " and either of the others, but a
difference is certainly to be observed between the top and bottom of
the line as places to receive the points. And we must also bear in
mind that some of these cases may well be those of accidental
1 The following cases appear to be accidental : in V. 21 the point under /x of
(ji.va<r ; and the points on both sides of \ in VIII. 42 (o'X'T/i), where the sense
demands 0^X77.
Herondaea. 1 77
blots. Probably some early owner of the papyrus began with the
good intention of putting the points in (&a<m&u TOV 'Hpwi/Sav) , but
soon gave up the task. It will be observed that eight out of the
thirteen or fourteen crny/uuu are found in the first mime, and most of
these near the beginning.
II.
THE Trapdypa<t>os AND o/JcAos. 1
J. IIapaypa(os. A short horizontal line, drawn distinctly, firmly,
and usually with full reed, is frequently met with in the papyrus, and
has various values. 2 Within the verses and between the lines, where
it occurs rarely, it is placed close above certain letters, regularly
vowels : in this position so miscellaneous seem to be its functions
that we cannot speak more definitely of it than to say that it calls
attention to something noteworthy in the letters or words marked. 3
1 On this name see p. 180, note 4.
2 The sign (") is used five times in Herondas, and, as with perhaps one
exception it is always over short syllables, it may be identified with the sign
invented by the Alexandrine metricians to indicate a short syllable (/3paxa
Trpwroj XP" OS )' The sign cannot be taken as a rhythmical sign, since while
ordinarily in the &p<ns, at VII. 108 it stands on one of the resolved feet in the
0Arw. The cases are I. 50 (6 Mara^^^s) ; I. 56 (MiVTjs) ; IV. 30 (rbv ytpovrd ;
?rp6s Motp^wv); VII. 108 ([8v]vatro /A IXatrcu); and the puzzling IV. 62, which
has given rise to a spirited controversy (see Crusius, Philol. 50 (1891), p. 446;
Ludwich, Berl. Phil. Woch. S., 1892, pp. 642, 1349, and L. Miiller, ibid. p. 995).
Here the original draft had TTYP ACTON, or TTYPA r TON : over T a P is
written and upon T and A stand the marks",". Meister's irvpaffrpov is now
adopted by both Kenyon and Crusius. The first syllable of the word, contrary to
usage, is here metrically long : hence it is marked; it also has the acute accent.
The second sign perhaps refers to the original or natural quantity of the syllable
in Trtpaypov, which on this theory the scribe must have thought he had before
him, in his original: otherwise the sign is unintelligible to me. For -rrvpaypov,
cf. wpdypr], Anth. Pal. VI. 117.
8 The examples of this sign (") in the papyrus are the following: over iota,
III. 74 (t<r = els) ; III. 79 (f = e/, followed by enclitic) ; V. 5 (trpoQairlo- =
7iv>o0d(reis) ; V. 1 8 (0ept<r = 0^/oeis, Cr. : probably 0fy' efs) ; Proem. 1 1 (c7rtoucri= ?) ;
IV. 43 (/tartc, a short vowel: perhaps a mark of cancellation?); VI. 25 (BZrarocr,
a short vowel); and perhaps in the obscurely written I. 82 (3etoi>=?), unless
here it be meant for the superior dot indicating erasure, the scribe mistakenly
thinking of 5^o. The only other cases are : over alpha, III. 79 (rara), and
1/8 John Henry Wright.
But the chief use of the horizontal line in the papyrus is to indi-
cate a change of speaker in the dialogue, and in this function it may
be identified with the very ancient sign known as the Tra/oay/oa^os.
In cases of this sort it is always placed just under the beginning of a
line, slightly projecting into the margin, and shows that within the line
IV. 56 (/cai>ei0), both at the beginning of the line; over T, IV. 62, Trvpaa-rpov
(Trvpaypovty cited in the previous note.
It will be noticed that, in all the cases where the sign is used with iota having
the value of ei, there exists a second form, with which confusion might arise :
thus at III. 74, els and e/s; III. 79, ei and d; V. 5, Trpo^dcrets, not 7r/>o'0a(m.
Since epets is at IV. 28 given by epi<r, it is probable that a different expression
was meant in the (f>epl<r of V. 18, i.e. 0e>' els. The form at Proem. II (eir~iov<n}
is enigmatical. Crusius takes it for eVioucri, but Diels and Biicheler render it by
eVp'ouo-t. Perhaps the mark over the iota merely calls attention to the anomalous
quantity of the vowel.
Since the sign ("), as used in the papyrus, may with probability be identified
with the Alexandrine sign for the short syllable, one is tempted to connect this
sign with the Alexandrine (") used to designate a long syllable (/ua/c/ad, %poVos
Surras). But the data will not support such a conclusion. The sign has not
metrical value, since it stands over long and short (IV. 43, VI. 25) syllables with-
out distinction. Nor has it rhythmical value, since, while on syllables under the
0eVis at [I. 82], III. 74, 79, IV. 62, V. 18, and Proem, n, in an equal number
of cases its syllables are in the p<rts (III. 79; IV. 43, 56; V. 5; VI. 25). Its
peculiar use in connexion with duplicate values of iota which could not be or
had not been differentiated by the addition of an accent, its possible use with
del&v (I. 82) taken in an unusual sense, and its erratic application to other
syllables lead one to believe that, as inserted by the scribe of the papyrus, it was
nothing more than an intermarginal " obelus," intended to call attention to
dubious or peculiar forms and uses. Unlike the " obeli " discussed below,
these cases were probably a tradition from the original manuscript (see pp. 180 ff.).
Several apparent " obeli " of this sort require attention. In I. 7 the mark
after KO\L is hardly a " paragraphus " (Crusius), at least in the sense of a sign
indicating punctuation; it is rather part of the upper bar of the following r;
the papyrus fibres (vertical) have shredded loose at this point, and sagged down,
as a comparison of the writing above and below will demonstrate. The mark
over the first a of Mara- in I. 50 does seem to me an intended"; it is rather a
thickened fibre of the papyrus. At V. 17 (^icipa) , the mark is probably an acute
accent, the scribe taking the word as fjidpav, not ftupav. The peculiar line
over the first v in VII. 77 (rbv rt^wv) is nothing more than a part of the follow-
ing r. In II. 73 the line over the much blotted r (?) in <J>iXt[]r[ ]s must be the
remnant of a letter suggested for the place, perhaps a sprawling r. In I. 54 the
line over r in r[6 xa\6'] appears to be the horizontal stroke of a r begun too
high.
Herondaea. 1 79
above, or at the end of the line, there is a transition to a second
speaker. In this place it never has any other meaning. Not taking
into account the ornamental forms of the sign found under and
adjoining the closing lines of each mime, 1 there are sixty-three cases
of the use of the 7ra/oaypa<os in Herondas to indicate change of
speaker. These do not, however, comprise the total number of
necessary changes of this sort ; hardly more than from sixty to
sixty-five per cent.
The 7rapaypa<os indicates a change of speaker at the end of the
line in the following verses : I. 66 ; III. 70, 76, 83, 85, 86, 88 ; IV.
18 [ ? ]> 38, 5 1 * 53, 7i, 78 ; V. 3, 7, 9, 18, 19, 25, 28, 34, 36, 38, 39,
62, 68, 79, 80; VI. n, 21, 26, 36, 56, 73, 78, 79, 84, 88, 92; VII.
63, 76, 78, 82, 90, 92. It indicates a change of speaker in the middle
of the verse, there being none at the end, in I. 7 ; III. 58, 81, 87 ;
IV. 88 ; V. 73 ; VI. 19, 20, 22, 23, 25, 47, 97 ; VII. 3. At II. 78,
it shows, like our marks of quotation, that the speaker has finished
his own remarks, and is now about to introduce a citation from the
laws of Chaerondas.
Only at one place, out of the sixty-three cases, is the 7rapaypa<os
certainly wrongly applied : at V. 55 it comes a line too soon. (At
I. 65 it also comes a line too soon, but it is there cancelled, and
given correctly below under line 66.) In the distribution among the
speakers proposed by Bucheler and Crusius, though not in that pro-
posed by Rutherford, it would seem that also after I. 81 and IV. 34
the 7rapdypa(j>o<s had been wrongly used. But in view of the number
of correct examples and of the nature of the blunders made, we ought
to be slow to admit exceptions here. The verse I. 82 may well be
put into the mouth of Threissa, 2 and the words in IV. 35-38 could
have been said by one of the maids. At all events it can be urged
that such was the distribution of parts in the manuscript from which
the papyrus was copied, though this may not have been the original
intention of the poet.
1 At the close of a book the ornamental finial sign was called the
Isidore, Orig. I. 21; cf. Blass, Griech. Palaeographie, p. 311. In this papyrus
it often resembles the Stir\TJ direplo-riKTos, with additional flourishes.
2 This has been proposed, on other grounds, by O. Ribbeck, Rhein. Museum
47 (1892), p. 629.
i8o John Henry Wright.
There appears to be little doubt that the mark (-) above letters
and the Trapdypa^os were inserted by the first hand. 1
II. 'O/3eAo's. With the 7ra/oaypa<os must not be confused other
short lines not marks of accent or of quantity found both in the
text and on the margin of the papyrus : they are usually drawn from
right to left obliquely downward. 2 When placed in the body of the
text, a line of this description sometimes here taking a horizontal
position, and ordinarily roughly drawn actually cancels an objec-
tionable letter or group of letters ; I think these marks were, as a
rule, made by the scribe in the progress of his writing, whereas eras-
ures suggested on the revision are designated by the superior dot.
In one place this mark appears to cancel a faultily placed Trapd-
ypa<os (I. 65).
But the chief function of this obliquely drawn line is to call atten-
tion to verses 3 requiring examination for one reason or another : and,
since in this function though hardly in its form it resembles the
6/?eAos of the Alexandrines, it may provisionally receive this name. 4
In these cases it is placed on the left margin directly opposite, or
near, the first letter of the line in question. While it signalizes many
verses it by no means calls attention to all corrupt readings or
obscure passages. In many instances, if not in all, it appears to be
the work of the first hand or of an immediate contemporary, since
it not seldom calls attention to omission of letters, or to incorrect
letters, where the correction is made by the first hand. But not all
of the corrections that it points out as necessary are actually made,
nor when made are they invariably in the first hand. The cases of
the use of this obelus, which is extremely important for the text-
criticism of our poet, may be grouped as follows :
a. It designates verses where letters have been omitted, or
1 The nature of the blunders made in inserting the Trapdypafoi appears to
prove that the signs were copied by the scribe after he had written a considerable
part of the text, and were not due to his own conjecture.
2 In IV. 5 1 the line has the opposite slant.
3 In II. 36 the mark is placed opposite a word in the verse (oiiciav). This is
the only clear case where it is found not in the margin, in this function.
4 It is probably forcing language a little to name this sign an <5/3eXo's. The
obelus of Homeric and Platonic text-criticism was used distinctively to indicate
athetesis; combined with other signs, however, it had many other values. Thus
Herondaea. 1 8 1
wrongly given, in the first draft, but are supplied or corrected either
by the first or by a later hand : II. 3 (NYN becomes v-qw, with H
written above by first hand) ; III. 45 (HMG0A ly/xai&x, A I above,
late hand?) ; III. 46 (KAAIOYCAGKACTOY A before 6 erased
in line) ; III. 80 (4>GP OCAC <epew>o-as, v written above, first
hand; see pp. 172 f.) ; IV. 10 (IAGUJ-A above the A, first hand?) ;
IV. 67 (avJACIMOC-CIAAOC, first hand?; earlier in the line also
erasures by cancellation and superior points) ; IV. 76 (after GPTA,
TA inserted, late hand [Crusius] ?).
b. In the following, marks &i accent are added: II. 83 (KAY-
TOCTACAYTOY0AH; acute on first 0, circumflex on H; also
coronis at bottom of line after TAG : all probably by first hand) ;
III. 6 (XAAKINAA, acute on I) ; and VIII. 14 (ANNA, circum-
flex on ultima ; first hand) . See also IV. 2, under d, below.
c. At III. 49, KAAH0IN UJCTG, after N above the line, in the
first hand, a coronis is inserted, probably in first draft; also at II.
83 (see under b above) .
d. A short vowelis designated as such in VII. 108 (G A AC A I ;
a w over A, in first hand?), and at IV. 2 (TTYP ACTON ; a short w is
put over A, but at the same time a P is written above the T ; the Y
also bears a" : see p. 177, note 2, above). 1
e. At the following places a corrupt text is indicated but no
attempt is made to correct it, either by the first hand or by later
among the TCL irapaTidt/jieva. ro?s 'O/iTj/HKots (Tracts 'Apitrrapxeta <r?;/aeta we read of
the obelus, figured as a short horizontal line : 6 5 <5/3eX6s irpfc r& aderov/meva tiri
TOU TrotrjTov, r/yovv vevodov/j-tva y \nrofiefi\rnji4va (Osann, Anecd. Romanum, p. 3;
cf. Nauck, Lex. Vindob. pp. 271 f., also 274^, 277 f.). In Plato texts: 6j3e\6s
7r/)6s T$)V dd^rrjo'Lv ' 6/3eX6s irepieffTiy/j.{vos Trpbs robs eiKatovs d^er^o'eis (Diog.
Laert. III. 66). Our "obelus" in Herondas may sometimes be used with this
value, but probably not : its various uses, as we have surveyed them, better fit
the Aristarchean 5i?rX^ aireplo'TiKTos (7ry>ds T& tvdvTia Kal /io%o/xe>'a, Kal re/>a
(rx^ara Trd/iTroXXa Kal for y par a). It also differs from the obelus of the classical
manuscripts, in that on our theory it is merely a conventional sign, originally
adopted by our scribe and used by him as a memorandum, whereas the ordinary
obeli represent a tradition of literary criticism going back usually to the Alex-
andrine age, and were copied from manuscript to manuscript ; cf. Weil, Melanges
Graux, pp. 13 ff., on obeli in the MSS. S and B of Demosthenes.
1 Except at this place, which was probably obelized for other reasons, no (")
is found at all in obelized verses. This suggests that these (") marks were in the
text before the obeli were written on the margin.
1 82 John Henry Wright.
hands: V. 59, Rutherford supplies (o-)c; VI. 63, 01 KG IN corrected
by Crusius to OLK&JV [i.e. oiW^v], by Rutherford and others to otKnyv ;
VII. 35 a fragmentary verse : obelus of peculiar form, inserted at
first draft?; VII. 46, if not a grave accent, the obelus calls attention
to ambiguous grouping of letters ; VII. 88, 96, corrupt lines : restora-
tion uncertain; VII. no, end of line unintelligible to scribe : prob-
ably fjOpov; VII. 126, correction is attempted but left incomplete:
VIII. 21, fragmentary line.
/. In three places there seems to be nothing the matter with
the text ; all of the lines, however, appear to have something inter-
esting to the scribe: IV. 32, its ambiguous construction; IV. 50,
perhaps, its droll Homeric reminiscence, and VII. 71, the extraordi-
nary form of oath. 1 Except for the consistent and exclusive use of
the oblique line elsewhere to indicate corruption of text, we might
infer that it was here used, like the StTrX^ a7re/H<rrtKTos, ascribed to
Aristophanes of Byzantium, to point out passages remarkable for
some reason or other. Otherwise it may have been only an accidental
memorandum sign arbitrarily adopted by the scribe when engaged
in revision.
III.
THE EARLIEST CORRECTIONS.
THE subject of the earliest corrections in the papyrus, their rela-
tion to the original, and to later corrections, and their chronological
sequence is important in determining the character of the original
of our copy and that of other manuscripts possibly used for collation.
It is at the same time an extremely difficult subject, especially when
investigated through the medium of a photographic facsimile of the
papyrus, in which many peculiarities of the original fail to reproduce
themselves. My remarks on this subject are offered tentatively :
they are doubtless open to correction in detail, though I trust not to
serious modification.
1 Possibly, however, we ought to rule out these also. For in IV. 50 there
seems to be a ariy^ after ecro-ex, which, however, may have been put in, not as
a punctuation mark, but like the uTroSicto-roX?? to be sure, not elsewhere occur-
ring to mark off the r from rf^pa (cf. Proem, n, for the only other certain
instance of this sort in the papyrus; but see above, p. 170, note 2). And in VII.
71, attention may have been merely called to pd, as different from the /ua, with
circumflex accent, elsewhere found in the manuscript {e.g. I. 85, IV. 20, etc.).
Herondaea. \ 83
An independent examination of the internal evidence available, in
the collection of which the notes of Kenyon and of Crusius have
been most helpful, makes it possible for us to reconstruct the early
history of our papyrus somewhat as follows :
The scribe had before him, as the original to be copied, a manu-
script in which the verses were written line by line, with occasional
spacings to indicate punctuation ; it was also provided, at least to
some extent, with diacritical marks 7rapaypa<ot, the signs ~, w , but
not completely at least with signs for accent. It was written on the
whole legibly, and in a style of waiting not differing essentially from
that of the papyrus, and exhibited peculiarities of orthography such
as prevailed only in late Alexandrine times, and afterward. Not to
take into consideration the perishableness J of papyrus manuscripts
when much used, this original could not have been prepared much
before the first century B.C., if even as early as that.
This original manuscript the scribe now copies, 2 with reasonable
fidelity, cutting himself a new reed once or twice. In copying he
makes mistakes of various sorts : occasionally he unconsciously
changes the Ionic forms of the original into the more familiar Attic
forms, 3 and sometimes slightly blunders in his grammar and syntax ; 4
here and there he appears to be carrying the thought, and not the
exact words of the original in his mind, and thus when he writes he
unconsciously substitutes a new word for the word first read ; 5 of
course he makes mistakes in reading the letters, and occasionally
gives us nonsense, and also writes verses metrically impossible.
1 Cf. Plin. N. H. XIII. 83 : he speaks of papyri two hundred years old as Ion-
ginqua monumenta, rarely met with.
2 That our copy was not written from dictation is clear from the nature of
several blunders, where the forms of the letters, not their sounds, are misappre-
hended : e.g.i.2 (ATTOIKIHCfor ArPOIKIHC); I. 76 (AI for n, in A/-
0ew); V. 65 (6A0IN for 6 AGIN : Aflet?); III. 19 (AAIira/owTepai : AI for
AI: i.e. 5 XiTrapcirepcu) ; III. 34 (AT for AT in a7peu); IV. 94 (Awi for Aon).
8 For example: I. 39 (x^/iepacr for /c^/xepacr) ; II. 7 ([Tro'jXeaxr for [ir6]Xio<r);
II. 36 (oiKiao for OIKITJJ/); III. 59 (TTOU for KOU) ; V. 63 (av6i<r for aimer), etc.
* He makes Xfflos masculine in IV. 21; writes aorist subjunctive for future
indicative in VIII. 3 (0<X^fl after ^%/H(S)), and present subjunctive for aorist
optative in III. 52 (jSaXXi changed to jSaXot).
5 At II. 64 he writes fwipav, but at once changes it to fj.i<r0ov by drawing his
pen through the middle letters and writing urdo over oipa. At III. 82 he wrote
184 John Henry Wright.
Some of his errors he detects just after they have been made, and
these he corrects on the spot, either, when possible, by changing the
actual forms of the letters, or by drawing his reed across the wrong
letters and writing the correct ones just above. In the actual prog-
ress of writing the first draft he probably does not copy the Trapd-
ypa<j>oi, possibly not all the diacritical marks, and certainly not all the
accents.
His draft now completed, he takes it in hand for revision. That
the original scribe revises the manuscript, and not another hand, is
clear from the handwriting of many of the corrections. At first he
carefully collates his copy with the original, and corrects innumerable
blunders. It is at this time 1 that he puts in the Trapaypa^oi, and
some of the diacritical marks : letters and words to be omitted he
now neatly indicates by putting points over them ; letters or words
to be substituted he now writes in between the lines, just above those
that he had mistakenly written. Some of the errors or obscurities in
his own written copy he cannot correct from his original : in these
instances he dashes an "obelus " in the margin to mark the verse as
one requiring subsequent attention. 2
This collation now finished a hurried collation, since he leaves
a number of corrupt passages, not only uncorrected, but also un-
noticed he examines the "obelized" lines in detail, and here for
the first time appears to have called in the aid of a second manu-
7raict> (fut. of Tra^aj; probably thinking of what he had written at 63; for the
form, cf. Anth. Pal. XII. 21 1, Anacreont. 38. 8) : the correct word was Trpfeu.
At III. 63, where he first wrote Trefjureiv, probably following his copy, he at once
changes the word to Traifciv, apparently a sudden conjectural emendation sug-
gested by the context; ir^ireLv is more probable : cf. Crusius ad loc.
1 The fact that the Trapdypafiot. are twice put in a line too soon suggests that
the scribe's eye ran down the column as he inserted them, and this would not
have been the case if he had written them in each time after writing the line
(cf. I. 65, V. 55).
2 Cases where the obelized lines contain corrections certainly written by the
first hand are II. 36, III. 80, IV. n and 67; perhaps also IV. 76. There is
uncertainty about some of the other lines.
It might be urged that the obelus was inserted by a late hand to call atten-
tion to much-corrected verses. But it may be replied, first, that the obeli have
the characteristics of the first hand, and, secondly, that many other verses show-
ing much greater correction are not obelized. The explanation given above
accounts for all the phenomena; the other one does not.
Herondaea. 185
script : i.e., he uses a second manuscript only to correct otherwise
obscure passages, not for the purpose of preparing a critical edition. 1
In this second manuscript the accents in particular were more fully
given than in his original, and the reading of the text was different
in a few places ; for the obelized lines in question he adopts the read-
ings and corrections suggested by the manuscript, though occasionally
he appears to reject them on second thoughts.
From the spasmodic way in which the <my/W are put in, we might
infer either that the scribe began to copy these marks while first
writing, but soon wearied of the effort and gave it up, only now and
then later in the progress of this writing copying a crny//,?}, or, what
is more probable, that he or another later hand at a subsequent time
began, but did not complete, the task of punctuating with the points. 2
The following examples, taken with those mentioned above and in
the notes, will at once bear out and elucidate some of the positions
here taken.
IV. 83. X KAAOICIGMTTPOIC. At first examination and compari-
son with his original the line looked faulty, and was obelized, but on
closer comparison he found that by inserting I after TT it became intel-
ligible. He thereupon cancels the obelus. (On the M, see p. 176, top.)
IV. 10. Here he had written IAGUJ, which could not be right. Appeal
to the original failed to solve the doubt. An obelus is dashed in: on
comparison with another manuscript, or perhaps as a result of his own
conjecture, he now writes IAGUJ.
III. 36. 01 K I AN. After comparing his original and correcting A to H,
1 Except in obelized lines, there are no first-hand corrections in the manu-
script that must be accounted for on the theory of an appeal to another manu-
script. (For in VI. 38 KO\OV for croQov is in a later hand, and in I. 15 /j.vi,ocrov
the coronis was inserted merely to indicate an elision of a (i.e., not in6s), of
course not to differentiate /JLV? 8<rov from the other reading /x,0s &TOJ>, preserved in
various proverbial forms, here given in the margin in a late hand.)
2 If the insertion of the ffny^aL had been undertaken by the scribe, it prob-
ably would have been carried out to the end, as were the other parts of his colla-
tion. He could hardly have inserted these marks, at least at the earliest stage,
except as he copied them; but it is hardly conceivable that the original manu-
script could have been as erratically punctuated as the earlier 0-rtyfj.aL indicate.
The points were certainly put in after the verses were written, since no space is
allowed for them. In view of all these facts it seems more likely that the <rnyiJ.a.i
were, in the main, the work of later owners of the manuscript.
1 86 John Henry Wright.
the word is still puzzling: he obelizes it; later, on comparison with
another manuscript, he inserts the acute accent, which shows that this is
, not otKctV (cf. VI. 63, and p. 182).
V. 19. AO is corrected to AG (Sov/xcu, i.e. Seo/xat, to 8et)/xai) : hence
and G in the original manuscript must have resembled each other. See
on VIII. 3, above, p. 174, note i.
VIII. 6. KAI ACTHCON. This reading, suggested by the famfli at
the beginning of the line, is on revision seen to be false ; the scribe points
C, H and C, and changes T to Y, restoring the correct reading a^ov.
111.45. The scribe wrote HMGOA (for ij/xai&x), probably through
association with ist pi. mid., and not because he pronounced G and A I
alike ; the latter is not to be expected in a manuscript of this date, and
there are no other cases of this confusion in the papyrus : of course early
G I is often given by I, and not seldom even G I as written is corrected, by
a superior dot, to I. The correction at III. 45 was made by a later hand.
The manuscript, thus prepared for use, passes into other hands.
In its later history it suffers more or less modification. Errors
previously undetected are now corrected (IV. 61, 80, etc.) ; conjec-
tural emendation is attempted, sometimes unhappily. Readings,
interlinear or marginal, are apparently imported from other manu-
scripts, from Herondaean quotations in other authors, or, in the case
of some proverbial expressions, from variant forms in literature or
life. The glossator appears with his bits of scholia, very few in num-
ber, and in abbreviated form.
In making this attempt to ascertain the oldest accessible readings
on record or reasonably to be deduced from the record, we by no
means would assume that text-criticism should cease upon the com-
pletion of this task. Indeed the large work will yet remain of tracing
the text back to the pen of the author, and in this more interest-
ing work conjectural emendation must play a large part. But the
conjectural reconstruction of the text can never safely begin until
the utmost possible has been made of the record.
Herondaea. 187
IV.
ts IN HEROND. I. 55.
THE facsimile of the papyrus at I. 55 reads :
KINGUJNAGIK
" 1 "
The gap at the middle, between T and 17, in which there is room for
from seven to nine letters, has been filled by Blicheler and others so
as to read a0tKr[os vat KvO^pfyv* 2 by Crusius and others, a&Krfos
es Kv&]r]pir)v. The latter is palaeographically more probable. The
close of the line is universally understood to be o^/c^yis ; but the
traces of the ink quite as well agree with o-^pty^is, or even possibly
with (T(f>piy7JL. The very distinct break in the continuity of the
writing before the letters <r<f>p shows that there is a pause in the
sense at this point, i.e. that the last word cannot be taken closely
with the foregoing. It is mainly in the light of this consideration
that the interpretation here offered is new. 3
Now cr(/>/oiyoj, with its short penult in classical usage, is impossible,
and is hardly to be justified by Oppian, Cyn. III. 368, where
<7<piyaa might be read for MS. <r<piya, or by Draco Stratonicensis
(p. 119. 7 Hermann), who gives or^ptyw in a list of words with long
penult, a list teeming with demonstrably false quantities. 4
1 The final letter is probably <r, but it may be a blotted t.
2 There are traces of the <r of ddiKros, and ~Kv6 is fairly certain. The space
between this a- and Kvdrjplrjv appears to me much too small for val, at least as val
is written a few lines below, and elsewhere (I. 66, 86; VII. 71, etc.).
3 Rutherford has proposed #0iKros ttav Kvd^prjs %v, a-^prjyts, but it cannot be
wholly right : it offends against the metre besides being too much of a departure
from the clear traces of the letters on the papyrus. All other editors have com-
bined <r(ppr)yts closely with the foregoing words : either with dtftKros, or with 17
K.vdript'rjs (Bucheler's first proposition).
4 If 0-0/u7?7t were possible, it would refer to the manly vigor and strength of
the athlete Gryllus, lover of Metriche. In an epigram of Leontius we read
of an aged athlete vanquishing his vigorous younger rivals : Trptafivs tin vtfrpLybuv-
ras tv t7T7ro5c/iy TT\{OV a\K$. | vi/cTfa-as, Anth. Pal. XVI. 359; cf. also Tjprj v^pi-
yuvres ^uTropetfoirat, said by Achaeus irepl rijs i>etas T&V dd\rjTwv dir)yot/j.fi>os,
Athen. X. 414 c, D. (Nauck, p. 747). 20/31777:?, if admissible, could be taken
either as a parenthetical interrogative (like ye\as in II. 74), addressed to Me-
triche, ' Don't you glow with desire? ' (at this description) ; or as a parenthetical
remark ' Ah ! you glow with desire, I see.'
1 88 John Henry Wright.
Rejecting o-</>/Hy^is or <r<j)piyfji, and accepting the reading o-c
we have yet to find a wholly satisfactory interpretation of the word
in this context. It is possible in classical Greek to understand
o-<f>pr)yi<s (o-</oayis) , l seal,' in the literal sense, as either the metal
seal or the stone (with inscribed device or legend, or uninscribed)
or as the impression made by whatever kind of a seal, often also
expressed by cr^paytcr/Aa. 1 Horace's grata sigilla pudico {Epist. I.
20. 3), cited by Biicheler, is hardly apposite, at least in the meaning
attached to it by Horace. Here the reference is to seals impressed
upon the barred doors of the apartments of the chaste one, who
delights in the protection assured by them. Horace probably had
in mind such passages 2 as Aristophanes's rats ywat/cwvirto-tv | o-^payt-
Sas 7rij3dX.\ov(TLv 17877 KO.I /xo^Xovs | Tr/powre? ^/xas {Thesm. 4146) ;
or Euripides's /AOVT? 8e nXflOp eyw <r</>payio/aai (Phaethon, Fr. 781. 10
Nauck) ; or the Euripidean 3 ocms 8e /xo^Xot? /cat 8ia o-^payio-yuarcoj/ |
<ra>ei Sajuapra (T. G. F.? Eur. 1063. 9 Nauck) ; or Lycophron's TO. 8'
a\\a 6pnr6j3p<OTO<; ai/'avo-TOS 8o/xcov | <T(f)payl<s SoKevet {Alex. 508, where
see also the Scholiast), but hardly the passage in Herondas, which
gives us a situation the exact opposite of that in Horace. That
Metriche shall cease to be pudica is Gyllis's contention and errand.
The use of crcfrprjyis in the sense of an uncut stone "a gem for
Aphrodite's service " (R. Ellis), gemma Veneris (Biicheler's first prop-
osition) is possible here, but hardly certain, in view of other
1 Most of the examples refer to the engraved metal or stone, but there are a
few where the uncut stone is meant. The interchangeableness of the two senses
of 'seal' and 'impression' are seen in Xenoph. Hellen. I. 4. 3, and VII. I. 39:
in the former <r0pcyt07ia, in the latter <r<f>payls are used of the impression. Cf.
Dittenberger, Sylloge, I. 195. 15. See also, for the various senses of the word,
Steph.-Dind. TAes., s.vv.
2 Aristoph. Av. 560, &ri/3<XXetj> | 0-0/>ayZ5' avrots &rl TTJV \f/b)\i)v, Iva. ^
jStvwo-' ticeivas, is an amusing parody on this practice.
3 The passage in which these words occur is ascribed to Menander by Stobaeus,
Flor. 74. 27. Cobet conjectured Euripidean authority {Nov. Lect. p. 46), and his
conjecture has been confirmed by a sentence in the recently discovered Choricius,
Apol. pro mimis 7. 4 Graux (rpayiK^v prjariv . . . dvdpbs puroyvvov KO! ffdxf) povos).
An expansion of this thought is found in a Danae of Byzantine date, a feeble
Euripidean imitation : TT 01x77/3 5^ fj,tv K\rj<ras | ev irapOevwi crcppayiffi S^uas 0uAd<r-
a-ei (7'. G. P., Eur. 1132. 58, 59 Nauck). The same idea was expressed in
Lucian, Tim. 13: KaTa.KK\eicr9ai . . . VTTO /^oxAots Kal /cXetai Ka.1 fyftoUtW C7rt/3oAcus
. . . Kaddnep TTJV Aavdfjv Trapdevefco-dai, KT\.
Herondaea. 1 89
more probable possibilities. If the lexica and word-lists are to be
trusted, this sense of o-^payt? is mainly petrographical and technical,
and not popular. There remains to be considered the interpretation
which takes the expression OI&KTOS es Kv^pir/v o-^p^yts in a
figurative sense, ' a seal unbroken in love,' or ' a seal of inviolate
virginity.' In support of this view of the passage Crusius cites
Nonnus, Awa/xcvr; 8' a^avc-rov 079 cr^paytSa KO/OCI^S (Dwnys. II. 305),
and compares Paul the Silentiary, 1 ^pro-cos d^aw-roto SieV/wxyev a/x/xa
KOpetas | Zevs, StaSvs Aavaas ^aX/ceAaTOvs OaXdfJLOvs (Anth.Pal.N. 217;
also Suid. .r.2W. Kao-tov opos, a^/x.ai'a) . These examples appear to be
very apposite, and almost silence objection, especially if we group
with them the otyavcrros . . . o-</>payi's of Lycophron. But they
obtain compelling force only on three rather violent assumptions,
viz. (i) that the expression ' inviolate seal of virginity' in the words
a0iKTos (ctyavo-Tos) o-<payi's with some word for love or maidenhood,
had become a stereotyped phrase in early Hellenistic poetry ; (2) that
as such it was here used by Herondas, and (3), that as such it was,
centuries later, reproduced by Nonnus and Paul. The truth of these
assumptions it will be impossible to demonstrate, at least from these
examples or from others like them. No one would dream of turn-
ing to Lycophron as a mirror of current usage, and both Nonnus
and Paul, Christians of the fourth century A.D., are quite too far
removed from the Hellenistic age to require us to explain the
phenomena of their art only on the theory of an imitation of Hellen-
istic models. The collocation a^t/cros <7<payis is not in itself so
extraordinary as to require us, finding it in Lycophron, to view it as
already a stereotyped one, or to prevent our taking the words sepa-
rately under some circumstances. The words a^t/cro? (ctyavcrTos)
v<f>pr)yl<s TrapOtvLrjs, /copers, or the like, do not occur in the Anthology,
1 It is not impossible that the received text of this much-quoted epigram may
be incorrect, and that we should read xp^creos &6 pavvr oio St^Tfj,ayev a/j.fj.a /co/oetas
for d^aua-Toto. This is the reading of Cod. Leidensis of Suidas, s. Kdaiov, though
elsewhere we have fyavo-roio. Probably the situation is conceived by Paul in
this epigram, about Danae imprisoned in a tower, much in the way that a cor-
responding situation is represented by his contemporary Agathias in Anth. Pal.
V. 294. 19, ^aXd7raa <f>l\r)s Trvpyufjia Kopel-rjs, and a classical adjective for
and a word used in the sense of irvpyufjia is &0pav<rTos, rather than
: Eur. Her.. 17, irvpyoi 8,6pav<rToi.
190 John Henry Wright.
where if the expression had become common in Hellenistic times,
it would certainly have been reflected, so numerous are the situations
that might well call for it; indeed, the frequency of the some-
what similar a/x/xa Traptfevias renders yet more significant the absence
of phrases with cr<pay6s. It seems to me quite probable that the
expression at/ravo-ros ox^payis was suggested to Nonnus, if not by
Lycophron, by current usage in his own time, 1 in which the word
o-<payi's had gained, largely through Christian influence, many new
and sacred associations. This expression he combines with refer-
ences to maidenhood, influenced in part by literary models from the
later epigrammatists (a/x/m 7rap0evias KT\.), and in part by Christian
ideas which had given to maidenhood as well as to o-<payis new
meanings. 2 Paul the Silentiary, known as an imitator and student
of Nonnus and of Antipater of Sidon, mainly imitates these and other
late writers, and not necessarily writers of the Alexandrine age ; he is
besides also more or less under the influence of certain Latin poets. 3
Hence the presence in Nonnus and Paul of expressions apparently
equivalent to the aOiKTos es KvOrjpfyv cr</>p77yi's of Herondas by no
means proves that the latter must be taken in the sense of the
former.
The strong punctuation in the verse between KvQrjpirjv and o-cjjprjyfe
requires us to take OL&KTOS c<s KvOrjptrjv together, and to separate them
from o-cpp-tjyfe. This independent use of aflt/cros can be abundantly
illustrated : cf. Trarpos . . . ^iXoT-qri 0i'ye, Soph. Aj. 1410; O.QLKTOV 8'
OVKZT av TrcAot Keap, Aesch. Suppl. 784 (where aOiKrov is Dindorf s
safe emendation for a<wTov) ; Traces Ka*ta? OL&KTOS /Jibs, Plut. Num.
20. In the sense of 'virgin,' ' chaste,' cf. OL&KTOV ewrjv, Eur. Hel.
1 The words icopetr], &\f/av<TTos, irapdevir) very frequently recur in Nonnus, and
are used in a hackneyed way.
2 Cf. tireidTj rb (r<t>pdyi<r/j.a rijs irapQevlas Ka.1 rb tvayts TrpoVx^a r&v ayytXuv
7re/nj3ej3X^/*e0a al &valcu, Martyr. S. Arethae, ap. Boissonade, Anecd. Graeca, V.
p. 15. See Steph.-Dind. Thesaurus, on <r<ppayis and its various compounds.
8 See Merian-Genast, De Paulo Silentiario Byzantino Nonni sectatore, Leip-
zig, 1889. Antipater of Sidon has 6 irplv &0iKra \ ^/ier^pas Xutras &/j./j.ara irap-
eevias (Antk. Pal. VII. 164, found in Kaibel, Epigr. Graeca, 248. 8, and compare
also Meleager's irap0evtas &/j./j.ara \vofjitva, Anth. Pal. VII. 182) while Paul writes
&\}/av<rToio Sitr/jLayev tippa Kopelas. The most superficial comparison discloses
the dependence of Paul's epigram {Anth. Pal V. 217) upon Horace, Carm.
III. 16; see Jacobs ad loc.
Herondaea. 191
795 ; ywcuicds Oiyelv, Eur. EL 255 : and in the gloss a&Kros 17
fleVos in Bekk. Anecd. 828, where the word is quoted from Araros,
a poet of the New Comedy, the reference is, of course, to a maiden.
These and other examples justify us in taking O.&IKTOS e's KvO-qpfyv,
like a&KTos KvTT/atSos, as ' [hitherto] untouched of love, heart- free.'
It may be that in the appended o-^p^yts we have only an emphatic
appositive, ' untouched by love, a very seal,' 1 but I am disposed
to believe that there is here an added thought, coordinate with the
leading expressions : viz. the thought of secrecy which often attaches
to o-</>payi's and its derivatives, rather than that of inviolateness or
purity. This sense not sufficiently noted in L. and S. maybe
illustrated by the following examples : 2 cr</3ayie rov \6yov <nyfj,
Solon ap. Stob. Serm. III. 79, p. 87 Mein. ; d/o/oTJrwv eTreW yAwo-o-fl
o-<f>prjyl<s e7riKeto-0a>, Lucian ap. Anth. Pal X. 42 ; oAAa 8e Oav^ara
TToAAa <ro<f>rj (r^pyyicra'aTo cnyfj, Nonn. loh. xxi. 139 ', ^et'Xctn 8' a
<t>06yyoi(nv eTrecr^pTyytcrcraro cnyrjv, Nonn. Dionys. XLVII. 2l8; dXAa e
Txyrj ^aA./cei775 CTreS^crev VTTO (T(f>prjy2Ba CTICOTT^?, Christod. Ecphr. 31,
i.e. Anth. Pal. II. v. 31. Probably it was in large part the idea
of secrecy associated with the seal that lent special force to <T<t>pa.yi<s
and its derivatives in reference to the Greek mysteries : e.g., CTTI-
o-(j)payieo-0ai means ' to initiate,' { to make one of the /ZVO-TCU (/xvco,
'to be closed').' Of course the term has chiefly the connotations
of authority and completeness, and these meanings develop especially
in the numerous applications of the words to Christian usages. (Cf.
Steph.-Dind. Thes., s.vv.)
This interpretation whereby a-^pyjy^ is understood to suggest the
idea of secrecy is quite in the spirit of Herondas. It furnishes
an additional example of a motive elsewhere found in the mimes,
that of caution and silence in matters of love and intrigue (I. 47,
1 To Paul the Silentiary the expression might mean ' untouched of love, yet
bearing love's own image or seal ' : cf. T^V irplv tv<r<f>p'/]yi<ret' "E/>o;s[0/>a<ri>s]ei'/c6j'a,
Anth. Pal. V. 274. Rutherford's TJV, ff^pyyts, 'look, his seal,' is rather abrupt
and harsh, but it has the advantage of preserving the punctuation.
2 In Aeschylus the same thought is expressed by icX^'s : dXX' 6<rri jcd/io! K\T/S
tiri y\d)<T<rri 0i5\a {Frag. 316 Nauck), with which compare Soph. O. C. 1052,
6va.Tol(riv <2v Kal xpwta fX^s tirl y\6<r(rri /3^3a*e irpo<nr6\(j}v ~Evfj.o\iri8a.v, and
Frag. 849. 2 Nauck. Cf. Lobeck, Aglaoph. I. p. 36, note. Ancient rings made
of key and seal combined have been sometimes found : cf. Daremberg et Saglio,
Diet. Ant. I. p. 295,^. 349.
1 92 John Henry Wright.
VI. 70) . It is also in keeping with the context and with the course
of thought : the crowning excellence in the young athlete com-
mended by Gyllis to the favor of the coy Metriche is his habit of
perfect secrecy and discretion ; he is ' very rich, modest and quiet, 1
heart-free, and silent; at sight of you, etc.' (TrAovreW TO
Finally, the juxtaposition of similar ideas at III. 66, 67 (eyw <re
6y<T(D KOO-/Al(OTpOJ/ KOVprjS \ KLVOVVTO. fJLYj^f. Kap<os) SUppOrtS this inter-
pretation. Perhaps, however, in this passage we have only a literary
reminiscence of Aristophanes, Lys. 474.
If the papyrus would only allow us to read either aOiKros, val
KvOrjpcrjv, tnfrpnrftfa or OL&KTO?, vat p,a KvTrpi'^v, (T(f>pr)yi<s (the adjective
having a negative force) there would be no objection to connecting
d&KTos and o-(p?7yis, 'unbroken seal.' But these appear to be
palaeographically out of the question.
V.
MOLON, SIMON, AND ARATUS.
TpiOrjfJiepa Mapcwa ypa//y>umovTOs
TOV Trarpos avrcu TOV Mapcova 7rotrycrev
OVTOS 2t/x,(ova 6 XP^TOS. HEROND. III. 24-26.
ts 8* cwro racrSe, ^epwrrc, MoAwv ayxotro TraXatcrrpa?.
THEOC. Id. VII. 125.
THE Scholium on Theoc. Id. VII. 125 in Cod. Ambr. 222 (), as
reported by Ziegler, reads MoAon/ ^ St/Aw, "Aparos di/repao-rrjs. 2
The vulgate reading is MoAw Kat ^6 / / u,wj', 'Aparov di/repao-Tat'. Before
the publication of the Ambrosian Scholia, Meineke had already pro-
posed to emend the vulgate to MoAwi/ 77 ^LJJLWV, 'Aparov dvrfpao-T^?.
This reading, apparently confirmed by that of Ambr. k, where, how-
ever, *Aparos avrepao-r^s stands (not 'ApdYov dvrepao-TiJs) , has been
accepted, as definitely established, by Ziegler, Hiller, Maass, and
others. It has been suggested by Hiller 3 with much plausibility
1 The gloss in Diogenianus (VI. 67) on the proverbial expression . .
*cd/o0os Kiveiv, is tirl r&v rjffvxw. Suidas has lirl TOV -rjffvxov.
2 This reading, at least M^Xwy 77 2lfjuav, is given also in Par. L (Reg. 2831).
8 On this theory of Hiller, I should be disposed to explain 2//xcov as originally
Herondaea. 193
that a Simon might have been mentioned by Aratus in one of his
lesser poems l as a rival in love, and thus may have been regarded
by the Scholiast as identical with Molon (>/ 3ifia>y). Meineke's
suggestion that MoAwv in the text of Theocritus is a corruption of
2fyuw is hardly probable in view of the impossible quantity of the
penult of the latter word.
The vulgate reading goes back to the manuscripts used by Cal-
lierges in his editio princeps of the Scholia (Rome, 1506) ; these
were several in number (e/< Sta^opwi/ dvrtypa^wv) , and at least one
of them appears to have belonged to the same family as Ambr. k. z
If we bear in mind the easy confusion of the ancient abbreviation
for /ecu with majuscule -rj it is not difficult for us to believe that even
Ambr. /'s MoAwv ^ 2t/xo>v may be a mistake for an earlier Mo'Aw KCU
^LfjLdiv. On palaeographical grounds then we might accept as the
original reading something like this : Mo'Aon/ K<H 26/xon/ *Aparos
dvTepaor?7s (' Molon and Simon: Aratus was their rival in love'),
which involves the least possible departure from the manuscript
tradition ; or the vulgate reading MdAw KCH iSt/Awi/ 'Aparov dt/repao-rat
(' Molon and Simon : Aratus's rivals in love ').
It is well known that in the Scholia Vetustiora of Theocritus lurk
several pieces of extremely explicit information upon matters in Cos,
which may safely be ascribed to an early commentator on the poet,
himself a resident or native of the island, apparently recording and
reporting stories and traditions locally current. This was Nicanor
the Coan : he is certainly the authority for several items in the long
Scholium on Theoc. Id. VII. 6, where he is cited by name (Ni/cavwp
6 KaJos v7ro/xv77/xaTiwv) , probably also for much in Schol. Idd. I. 5 7,
a marginal explanatory gloss in a text in which /wXtiv (participle) was read or
understood: see below, p. 197, note 2. The Scholiast of Ambr. k, endeavoring to
stand on two stools and to reconcile the older and better text-tradition of M6\uv
(proper name) with the suggested 2t/j.b)v, connects the two names in his remark
on the verse. But I do not believe we are forced to such a conclusion.
1 On Aratus's Ae7e?cu, ^rrypd/i/xara, and iralyvta, see now Maass, Aratea,
pp. 230 ff. (Wilamowitz-Kiessling, Phil. Unt. XII., 1892). In the epigrams
Philocles was celebrated: Anth. Pal. XII. 129.
2 For some remarks on the very complex sources of Callierges's Scholia, see
Ahrens, Bucolicorum Graecorum . . . Reliquiae, vol. II. pp. Ixi, bcii. I regret
that it is impossible for me to identify the manuscript sources at the place under
discussion.
194 John Henry Wright.
V. 123, VII. i, 5, 10, 21, 45, XVII. 68, 69, Syr. 12 ; and doubtless
to him also we owe some of our information as to Theocritus's family
connexions at Cos.
Now it seems to me highly probable that among the minor chro-
niques scandaleuses of the prominent men of the little island was a
piquant story to the effect that the great Aratus, 1 and two other per-
sons known as Molon and Simon were rivals in certain love-affairs in
which one Philinus figured; and that this story, gaining doubtless
greater currency from the fact that the liaison may have been cele-
brated in part by Aratus in one of his minor poems, was recorded by
Nicanor in his commentary, and lies at the bottom of the Scholium
on Id. VII. 125. It is a matter of indifference to the argument
whether the names Molon, Simon, and Philinus were the actual 2
names of the persons concerned or were partially fictitious, though
the former seems to me more probable. At all events it was under
the names of Molon and Simon that the story was current, and was
reported by Nicanor. Molon, from the fact of his mention in such
good company 3 as that of Id. VII., which appears to have included,
1 Maass, Aratea, c. viii (de Coo poetarum sodalico), discusses the question of
Aratus's sojourn in Cos, and his friendships in the island, where he passed several
years in his youth. The Phaenomena were there composed, and were read and
recited to the literary coterie, mainly pupils of Philetas, among whom Aratus was
a leading figure. Were Herondas, and, after an interval, Artemidorus, the editor
of Theocritus, later members of the same fraternity?
2 From the fact that so many of the persons mentioned by Theocritus in Id.
VII. appear under fictitious names (see the next note), and commonly in forms
shorter than those of their actual names, Maass suggests that Molon is a pseudonym
for an otherwise unknown Anchimolus (M6Xw' &yx oiro ' I2 5)- He and Knaack
associate Philinus with Philocles, ibid. pp. 230 f., 322 f. But the identification
of Philinus and Philocles is by no means certain : Philinus may well have been
the actual name of a real person; and certainly Aratus's own name appears in
this idyl in an undisguised form, as does also that of Philetas. The presence of
the name Molon in Coan legend is an argument for the name Molon rather
than Anchimolus: Dibbelt, Quaestiones Coae mythologae, Greifswald, 1891, cited
by Maass.
8 Philetas (v. 40); Aratus (v. 98, 122); Theocritus (Siytux^as, w. 21, 50, 96;
cf. Syrinx 12); Dosiades (AvKldas, vv. 12, 27, 55, 91; unless Lycidas be O. Rib-
beck's Astacides; he cannot have been Gercke's Callimachus) ; Alexander
Aetolus (TLrvpos, i.e. Sdrv^os, the name of Alexander's father, 72) ; Asclepiades
(SiKeXfSas, 40). With "A/our-m (v. 99) Maass {I.e. p. 320) would identify Aris-
totherus the astronomer; Bergk makes of Aristis the astronomer Aristarchus of
Herondaea. 195
besides Theocritus, Philetas, and Aratus, the names of Dosiades,
Alexander Aetolus, Asclepiades, and possibly Hegesianax, Alexus,
and Aristotherus, was doubtless a person of some distinction. And
the same might have been true of Simon. Unless he was a Coan
citizen, perhaps we have in this name a vague reminiscence of
another hitherto unsuspected member of the Coan fraternity of
poets, viz. Simias 1 of Rhodes, the author of the Alae, Ovum
Samos. Haberlin (Carmina figurata Graeca, pp. 53, 54) finds Hermesianax
referred to in 'Ayedva.% (vv. 52, 61); Alexus (Athen. Xiv. 620 E; this name may
be the double for Alexander Aetolus;"cf. Crusius, Jahrbb.f. Philol. 143, p. 387)
in 'A/jajvTas or 'A/itfi/rixos (vv. 2, 132); and a possible Pericles, brother of Theoc-
ritus, in EvKpiros (w. i, 131).
Probably Haberlin is not right in identifying 3>tX?j/os (vv. 105, 121) with the
runner of the same name, friend of Daphnis, in Theoc. Id. II. 115. The latter,
as Wilamowitz has suggested, is certainly the famous Coan sprinter who won
the prize in the StauXos at Olympia in at least two successive Olympiads (B.C. 264,
260: Euseb. Chron. I., Schone, vol. I. pp. 208, 209; cf. also Paus. VI. 17. 2, who
makes him winner at five Olympic contests boys' race, B.C. 268? H. Forster,
Die Sieger in den Olympischen Spielen, nos. 440-445). If there is at vv. 98 ff.
a reference to an actual love-affair of Aratus's youth, and this seems highly
probable, since with all its anachronisms Id. VII. gains its main charm from its
reminiscent character, this Philinus, in the prime of his youthful powers in
260 B.C., could hardly have been old enough, if actually then born, to have been
the object of Aratus's affections as early as circa B.C. 292-288, when Aratus appears
to have sojourned in Cos as a young man. Perhaps, however, unless the name
be wholly fictitious or a substitute for that of Philocles or of some other person,
it is the type of the youthful lover in Eupolis (Pol. Fr. 206, p. 314 Kock; so
Crusius), Aratus's Philinus may have been, as Haberlin suggests, the one named
by Strato (C.A. III. p. 362 Kock), or the glossographer of Athen. xvi. 681, 682
(pupil of Philetas?). But the extreme frequency of the name <I>iXtVos, espe-
cially in Coan inscriptions, should make us pause before insisting upon an iden-
tification. The name, referring to different persons, occurs in the following
inscriptions, not later than the third century B.C. : Paton-Hicks, Inscriptions of
Cos, nos. 10 b 48; 10 c 36, 70, 75, 83, and 45 a 9.
It is an interesting coincidence that on the same set of stones, to be dated
not far from B.C. 260, we find the names of Nannacus, Aratus (of course not the
poet, who had long since left Cos), Philinus, and Simus (see the next note),
referring each to more than one person. One of the older inscriptions (Paton-
Hicks, no. 149) is that of a family Simonidae (Atdj 'Iitefflov SiyttowSaj') .
1 Of the date and literary affiliations of Simias we know little. He preceded
the tragic poet Philicus (Hephaest. Ench. p. 58, Gaisf. : in Athen. v. 198 B.C.
his name appears as Philiscus) ; wrote in his carmina figurata a kind of
poem, on which Dosiades and Theocritus tried their hands, and like Asclepiades
196 John Henry Wright.
and Securis, companion-pieces of Dosiades's Ara and Theocritus' s
Syrinx.
Have we not in Herond. III. 25, 26 another covert reference, if
not to this particular story, at least to the two citizens or residents of
Cos named in it ? The Coan affinities and connexions of Herondas
are everywhere evident in the mimes. 1 And in this same third mime
we have at least two passages where we may safely see local allusions. 2
At III. 10, in ?/ v Navi/axov KAcuxra), there is probably a hit at a Coan
worthy, if at the same time a personal application of a proverbial
expression. The extremely rare proper name Nannacus is found on
a Coan inscription of the same period as Herondas. And in ras
c/3So/zas T* a/xetvoi/ eiKaSas T* otSf | raiv a<TTpoSi<a>v (III. 53, 54),
with its novel da-rpoSt^evs, it is extremely likely that there is an
allusion to the Coan school of astronomers, established by Aris-
totherus, if not earlier, and represented at the time of Herondas
apparently by Dositheus. 3 In the light of these parallels it does not
seem to me too violent to assume that in the Molon and Simon of
III. 25, 26 which I suggest for the Mapw and ^I/MOV of the papy-
rus we have a third local touch, which would be highly appreciated
by Herondas's Coan readers. At the same time we must not forget
that the word SI/AWV might carry with it, at this place, several second-
ary suggestions, since it is not only the name of many very respec-
table people in antiquity, but also has some other connotations at
once ludicrous and otherwise objectionable. 4 Names from the circle
gave his name to a metre. His date and birthplace, his poetic tastes and his
activity as Homeric glossographer make it probable that he was, like Theocritus,
a pupil of Philetas at Cos, circa 300-290 B.C. Cf. Susemihl, Gesch. d. Griech.
Literatur in der Alexandrinerzeit, I. pp. 179-182; II. p. 660.
The name Si/uas might well be disguised in Sfyxwi', or the two could easily
interchange: compare Havo'a.vla.s, Jlauo^as, Ilaucrajv referring to the same person;
S?/tos = 'ZliJ.wv, Strabo xiv. 648. Cf. Crusius, Jahrbb. 143, pp. 385 ff.
1 Cf. Crusius, Untersuchungen zu den Mimiamben des Herondas, pp. 186 f.,
8, 34, 56, 84, 113, 125, and the index to the same scholar's text-edition, where
words found both in Herondas and in the inscriptions and other Coan records are
designated by an asterisk.
2 The fact that the e/35o/7 and ek<s are spoken of as holidays both in this
mime (53; cf. V. 80) and in Coan inscriptions (Paton-Hicks, ibid. nos. 369. 3,
402*. 6, etc.) cannot be pressed, since these days were also elsewhere holidays.
Cf. Crusius, Untersuchungen, pp. 68, 113.
3 Maass, Aratea, p. 321, note 56.
4 Crusius, Untersuchungen, p. 60.
Herondaea. 197
of the doctus poeta Aratus, itself the school of the
Philetas, might very well be chosen by the fond father in his attempt
to examine his son on the rudiments of letters, the first step in litera-
ture (ypa/x/AaTtoi/ros TOU Trarpo? avrw). Possibly also in the ^lAcu'nov
of Herond. I. 5, daughter of the go-between Gyllis, 1 we may see
the double of the frail youth who had stirred the emotions of Aratus
and his friends.
If, now, Molon (or Maron) and Simon belong together in the
Coan story, it is clear that if the MoAon/ 2 of Theocritus is correct,
the Mapwv of Herondas must J}e wrong ; or, vice versa, that the
MoAun/ of Theocritus must be a corruption of Mapon/. In my opinion
Mo'Awv is too strongly fortified to be dislodged from Theocritus and
his commentator. In its favor are the tradition of the best manu-
scripts, and, apparently, the text at the bottom of the Scholia Vetus-
tiora. It is perhaps also sustained by Eustathius, who is full of
Theocritean reminiscences, in the words Mo'Aon/es ot Trapa TO> KW/UKW,
o re r]pa)s [read epcov] KO! 6 CTKCOTTTO/ACVOS (p. 882. 24). Now a hero
Molon is nowhere mentioned in Greek literature, so far as I know,
unless he lies behind the word Molon which is found in Coan
mythology. I suggest that lypw? is here a corruption for cpw (' the
lover'), and that in appending this epithet Eustathius had in mind,
though vaguely, the Molon of Theoc. Id. VII. 125. The MoAoov
6 o-KWTTTo/xevos is the one mentioned in Aristoph. Ran. 55. Eusta-
thius might very well have here connected both the Melons with
the poet of comedy, through a slightly confused recollection of a
sentence in the Didymean commentary on Aristophanes, of which we
1 The original form of the name here is QiXalviov. The marginal variant
$i\aivldos probably suggested itself to a late corrector of the papyrus because of
the notorious hetaera of this name (Antk. Pal. V. 202: cf. Crusius, Untersuch-
ungen, pp. 43, 129). Perhaps, however, there is in this daughter of the athlete
Gryllus's friend, a covert reference to the great athlete and runner Philinus named
above, whose career resembles that of Gryllus.
2 The reading fj.o\6v, participle, adopted by Ahrens and others from inferior
manuscripts, and from a varia lectio of the Scholiast, is hardly probable. As the
lectio facilior it probably arose from a misunderstanding of the proper name
M6Awi>, well attested by Ambr. k text and Scholia, by the first hand of Medic.
/, and by the Juntine, which is based in part upon a manuscript of the same
family as Ambr. k, as good as k, if not better. This confusion was not a little
helped by the /xoXotcra | T^prja-ov irorl rav Tt/xa7ijroto ira\aia-Tpav of Id. II. 96, 97.
198 John Henry Wright.
have traces in the Scholiast on Aristophanes and in Suidas. 1 In this
commentary Didymus had said that there were two Molons in an-
tiquity, respectively actor and thief, and that Aristophanes here (Ran.
55) means the thief, since he was small of stature. Now in the pas-
sage cited above from Eustathius we are also told that there were two
Molons, and that both were celebrated by the comic poet ; whereas
in fact only one Molon is mentioned by the poet, while it is the com-
mentator that discourses of two Molons. This duality of Molons in
Greek comedy according to Eustathius, arises from a misrecollection,
on his part, of the Didymean commentary, since elsewhere he refers
apparently to only one Molon as mentioned by a comic poet. 2 All
these facts with others show, first, that Eustathius read his Aristoph-
anes, his Theocritus, and his Didymus, and, secondly, that at least in
two cases where by a false association of ideas he gives to Aris-
tophanes what Didymus had said, and where he turns a thief into a
lover (or hero) his recollection of his reading was of such a nature
as to make it quite probable that the Theocritean Molon came into
his mind and was duly noted as he endeavored to recall and record
a bit of dimly remembered Didymean lore.
Retaining, then, the Molon of Theocritus, the question arises
whether the Mapwv of the Herondas papyrus can be traced to an
original MoXwv as written by the mimographer. There is no uncer-
tainty about the reading of the papyrus: MAPUUN is unmistak-
able in both places where the word occurs. If an error was made
by this or an earlier scribe, it must have come about in one of two
ways, either through a misreading of the letters of the original text,
or from some probably unconscious mental confusion, on the part of
the copyist. The manuscript from which the papyrus was copied,
though in the main quite legible, was at places obscurely written,
and abounded in orthographical errors, among which misread letters
figure largely, all of which may be seen from the corrections made
1 Schol. Aristoph. Ran. 55 : MSvfji6s <pr]<riv 6'rt 8vo M6Xwi/& dcriv, 6
Kai 6 XajTroSyTTjs Kal //.aXXov rbv \uirodvTrjv X^*xec, 6s cm [UKpbs rb (TcD/^a. Suid. s.
M6Xa>j' : M6Xwves 5vo, vtroKpiral Kal XwTroSurcu.
2 Eustath. p. 1852. 1 1 : irapa rb fji.o\iv d 6 MovXtos 'IwviKrj ^Trevd^ffei rov v KaOa
Kal 6 TOV KUfUKov Mo'Xwj/ Kal ol (j.o\toves. Eustathius's remark that Molons were
large persons is probably to be traced to some other source, if not one of his own
etymologies (Mo'Xwves ol TroXvpeytdeis awb TOIOIJTOV Mo'Xwpos, p. 1834. 32).
Herondaea. 199
by the first hand in his revised copy ; this has been pointed out on
pp. 182 ff. Now the letters OA in the writing of circ. B.C. 100-
A.D. 100, or even earlier, might well have been dashed off by a scribe
so as to be taken by a copyist for A P : interesting -examples of these
letters blindly written occur in our papyrus itself at IV. 29 (MHAON),
and II. 78 (0APCGUJN).
But we are not reduced to the necessity of explaining the probable
corruption on palaeographical grounds alone. As we have already
seen, the scribe of this manuscript did not slavishly copy his original,
letter by letter, but appears often, to have carried the words in his
mind, dictating them as it were to himself, and writing sometimes
not the word he saw, but the word he thought he heard. Now in
such a process it is quite possible that, in the case of an unusual
proper name, the cognate sounds of the liquids A. and p might have
become interchanged, 1 as in the classical example of Alcibiades's
pronunciation of ewpos and Kopa as ewXos and KoAa and that
while our scribe saw MoAw he wrote Mapwv. The mistake may
have been made the easier by an association of ideas with Virgil.
The writer of the papyrus manuscript, "who may be provisionally
assigned to the second or third century A.D." (Kenyon), when Virgil
had already become a text-book in the schools and was well known
in the ancient world, might well have associated the supposed Maro
of the original mime, whose name is there spelled out to a lazy school-
boy, with the famous Roman. 2 It should finally be remarked that the
Mapwv of the Coan inscriptions, to which reference has been made
in illustration of the name in Herondas, cannot be taken into consid-
eration in this connexion. Unlike the Nannacus, Simus, Philinus,
and Aratus mentioned as found on stones of the third century
B.C., this word occurs only in a late Christian inscription ; 3 perhaps
1 For Alcibiades's mispronunciation see Aristoph. Hnr/. 44, 45 ; Plut. Ale. i.
Cf. 'Anopyos . . . X^erat *al "A/io\7os, Stephan. Byz. s.v. In one of the
modern Cretan dialects dXXo is arro.
' 2 To a scribe writing in Egypt after B.C. 50, the name of the Alexandrian
Marion, the Olympic Trapado^ovLKtjs of B.C. 52, who won the prize for the pancra-
tium and the wrestling match on the same day, and thus became the fifth Hera-
clean double-victor, would also have its associations. Forster, Die Sieger, nos.
579, 58o.
3 " Mdpajpos. r(wi>) /c. Small stele, with aedicula in the centre of which is
a cross within a circle " : Paton-Hicks, Inscriptions of Cos, no. 339, p. 219.
2OO John Henry Wright.
the young man on whose gravestone it stands received his name,
which is not a frequent one among the Greeks, in honor of the
author of the Aeneid.
In view, then, of all these considerations, I do not hesitate to pro-
pose as, at least, a probable, if not a certain, reading at Herond. II.
24-26 :
TpiOrj[j.fpa MoAwva
TOV TTCtT/OOS aVTU> TOV ooOVO, G7TOLTfJ(TV
OVTOS Si'/Awa 6
demand may, ,be v t^C e d if !rSf th f day ' B oks not in
. appllcatlon ^ made before
15m-4,'24
VC 54734
411423
UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA LIBRARY