DCLP

Introduction

Hp. De art. 57-58, 60. Three fragments (fr.1: 3.5 x 1.7 cm; fr.2: 5.2 x 4.1 cm; fr.3: 2.8 x 5.5cm) belonging to two consecutive leaves of a papyrus codex. On fr.3 recto the fibres are distorted and irregular and a coarse kollesis occurs. The upper margin of fr.3 and the lateral margin of frr.1 and 2 are 1.8 cm. Between fr. 3 recto ll.1-2 a diple obelismene is found (probably marking a stronger pause), while a simple paragraphos is used between ll. 5-6 of the same fragment. The scribe sometimes writes letters smaller at line-end to maintain alignment. This is the first papyrus witness to Hp. De art. known so far. The papyrus’ place in the history of the textual tradition of Art. seems to be quite independent and cannot be related to either of the two branches of the medieval tradition. In addition fr. 3 verso, which preserves Hp. De art. 60, certainly contains a text that diverges from that preserved by the medieval manuscripts, being longer, such that the lines cannot be reconstructed. The writing is of a small size, neat and careful, of the so-called ʻSevere Styleʼ. The hand may be placed between the late 2nd and the early 3rd cent. AD.

Apparatus

Notes

• Fragg.1+2, v., l.2.

  The available space between ll. 2 and 3 suggests that it contained the word μᾶλλον, which is found in BMV, but not in ΡΓ or Gal. Loc.aff. 6.5 (8, 430.18-431.1 K).

• 4.

  προσξυνϊενα[ι] pap.

• 5.

  [...]..υ[.] ἄ̣ξ̣[ιό]ν̣: unless the small lacuna before ἄ̣ξ̣[ιό]ν̣ contained a deletion, we have a variant reading as the manuscripts read καὶ πολλοῦ ἄξιόν ἐστιν (Gal. Loc.aff. 6.5 adds λόγου after πολλοῦ). The small trace of the first letter, high in the line, appears to be at the top of a vertical, and could be consistent with lambda; it certainly does not suggest a horizontal, which speaks against [λο]γ̣ο̣υ of Gal. Loc.aff. 6.5.

• 9.

  σ̣υ̣νκ̣άμπτειν: of first letter, foot of curve curling upwards, supporting the reading of sigma rather than the Ionic form with chi (contrast προσξυνιένα[ι], l. 4).

• 10.

  The manuscripts have πολύ, but the damaged traces do not seem to allow for this reading.

• r., l.1.

  Directly above πε in 2, a small hook belonging to either epsilon or sigma is visible. By comparison with the transmitted text of Art., the only possible candidate at this point is the epsilon of ἔιη, and the sequence ε̣ἴ̣[η] τ̣ῶ̣[ν] ἰ̣[σχίων].

• 2.

  On the basis of the reconstructed line 1, the text agrees with B in reading ἐς τοὐπίσω ἐπὶ πολὺ against ἐπὶ πολὺ ἐς τοὐπίσω MV.

• 3.

  μόγις: Ionicism not preserved in the manuscript tradition.

• 6.

  ϊγ[ν]υ̣ην pap.

• 9.

  τοῦτον αὐτὸν̣: the reading should not simply be regarded as an error, and it is unlikely that it represents a vulgarism (Mayser II.2,, 67). On the other hand, it cannot be explained as a dialectal variant, since neuter pronominal forms in –ον are attested, for αὐτός alone, in Attic more than in Ionic, but are in any case present in both (see Schwyzer I, 610). The reading can perhaps be interpreted as a form of the masculine accusative, referring to the patient, who is the logical subject of the whole passage.

• Frag. 3, r., l.1.

  [ὁ]κ̣[όσοισι]: what remains of the putative kappa is the top of an upright with left-facing serif, which is sometimes found in kappa, but not in iota; this suggests reading [ὁ]κ̣[όσοισι] MV, but excludes [ο]ἷ̣[σι] Β. The adoption of the first reading results in a longer than average line, pointing to an omission or variant in the papyrus: καὶ before ἄλλως is omitted in B and Ap., but it is doubtful whether such an omission alone could account for the discrepancy.

• 6.

  ὦν: Ionicism not preserved in the manuscript tradition.

• v., l.1.

  The manuscripts transmit the hyper-Ionic οδοιπορεειν, whose presence in the papyrus cannot be excluded.

• 2-9.

  Reconstruction on the basis of Kühlewein’s text repeatedly yields shorter-than-average lines. The text of the passage concerned, with the corresponding portions of the papyrus high-lighted, is as follows: ὁδοιπορεῖν ἄνευ ξύλου καὶ πάνυ μέντοι εὐθέες ἐπί γε τὸ σιναρὸν ἅτε οὔτε κατὰ τὸν βουβῶνα εὔκανμτοι ἐόντες οὔτε κατὰ τὴν ἰγνύην. διὰ οὖν τοῦ βουβῶνος τὴν ἀκαμπίην εὐθυτέρωι ὅλωι τῶι σκέλει ἐν τῆι ὁδοιπορίηι χρέωνται ἢ ὅτε ὑγιαῖνον. καὶ σύρουσι δὲ ἐνίοτε πρὸς τὴν γῆν τὸν πόδα, ἅτε οὐ ῥηιδίως συγκάμπτοντες τὰ ἄνω ἄρθρα καὶ ἅτε παντὶ βαίνοντες τῶι ποδί· οὐδὲν γὰρ ἧσσον τῆι πτέρνηι οὗτοι βαίνουσιν ἢ τὸ ἔμπροσθεν· εἰ δέ γε ἠδύναντο μέγα προβαίνειν κτλ.

• 4.

  ειθυγιω̣: it is possible that the corrupt text has arisen from a mistaken reading of a damaged exemplar.

• 5.

  The traces are so uncertain that it is impossible to identify the text, but the initial traces do not accord well with the manuscripts’ ὑγιαῖνον before καὶ σύ[ρουσι].

• 6.

  Unless we wish to regard πόδα δὲ οὐ as the result of a false reading of πόδα ἅτε οὐ in the codices through simplification and assimilation, we are confronted with an interesting variant, which presupposes a different syntactical structure.

• 7.

  In this case it is difficult to account for the text as the result of a mechanical error: the presence of the negative before παντί implies a contradictory text, according to which those affected by an untreated hip dislocation do not put their weight on the whole sole of the foot as they walk. This must also have consequences for the following phrase.