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