DCLP

Introduction

Hp. Epid. 7.80. Nine fragments (26 x 6.5 cm) from one column, which contains on the recto 34 lines with a generous margin at the bottom (at least 4 cm) and a smaller one at the top (1.25 cm). Verso is blank. No accents, punctuation marks or lectional signs are visible, with the exception of two dots to indicate an erasure in l. 32. Minor corrections have been made, in what seems to be a second hand, above ll. 16 and 31. The papyrus preserves almost the whole of Hp. Epid. 7.80, offering a great number of variant readings, some of them resulting from the scribe’s failure to understand what he was transcribing and from his carelessness, and others perhaps genuine new readings. The scribe has used an informal round majuscule book hand, which is notable for its heavy decoration with seriphs, finials and roundels. It is assignable to the 1st cent. AD or to the first half of the 2nd.

Apparatus

Notes

• 1-2.

  ἔδωκε for ἐδόκει (MV apud Jouanna [= Hippocrate, Épidemies V et VII, Paris 2000]) is an easy scribal error (McGing 1995, 5).

• 2.

  χαλάσαι: χαλάσειν Jouanna, following MV. χαλάσαι appears as a form in one other place in the Hippokratic corpus (Off. 13.2 [3, 316.2 L]; for ἐδόκει + χαλάσαι see also Jouanna, cvii). According to McGing 1995, 5, a longer alternative would be χαλάσασθαι, and it can hardly be ruled out: "If the scribe simply misread χαλάσειν, he would perhaps be more likely to have come up with χαλάσαι rather than χαλάσασθαι, but it is perfectly plausible that this represents a genuine reading".

• 7-8.

  [ἡ γ]λῶσσα τοιαύτη: τοιοῦτον ἡ γλῶσσα MV. The reading of the papyrus is a perfect equivalent for τοιοῦτον ἡ γλῶσσα (Manetti 2008, 149).

• 16.

  καὶ \κα/τὰ σπλῆνα: κατὰ σπλῆνα Jouanna. The scribe wrote καὶ τὰ σπλῆνα, but a second hand clearly thought that κατὰ should have appeared, and so added κα above τα, leaving us with καὶ \κα/τὰ σπλῆνα. According to McGing 1995, 5, καὶ κατὰ σπλῆνα could be a genuine variant; contra Jouanna, cvi.

• 17-8.

  οὐ πάνυ ἐπεδέχετο: οὐ πάνυ τι ἐδέχετο Jouanna. ἐπεδέχετο is an easy error for τι ἐδέχετο, or alternatively makes an excellent sense as a variant: ἐπιδέχομαι does occur in the Hippokratic corpus (e.g. Mul. 1 [8, 12.16 L], Vict. 2.40 [6, 536.18 L]), see McGing 1995, 5 and Jouanna, cviii.

• 24.

  The biggest difficulty is that the line ends with hypsilon, while we expect the eta of ὑπτίη, of which the initial υπ is quite visible before the lacuna. So it appears that the scribe did write, or intend to write, ὑπτίη. One explanation of the following hypsilon might be that having written ὑπτίη, the scribe noted the -ιη ending, thought that he had just written the preceding κλισίη, and began again to write ὑπτίη, realizing his mistake as soon as he started the next line (McGing 1995, 5-6).

• 25.

  σκέλεα διηγμένα (‘widened legs’): διηνοιγμένα Jouanna, following V; διηνυγμένα M. διηγμένα could, of course, just be a mistake (see Jouanna, cvi). The word διάγω, however, is used in the Hippokratic corpus to mean ‘separate’, ‘force apart’ and specifically with σκέλεα (see Fist. 3 [6, 448.16 L]; Mul. 3.230 [8, 444.15-6 L]), while διανοίγω does not actually appear with σκέλεα. So it is quite possible that διηγμένα represents a better reading (see McGing 1995, 6; Manetti 2008, 149-50).

• 28.

  ἐκωλύθη: ἐμωλύνθη Jouanna (ἐμολύνθη MV). ἐκωλύθη is probably a simple blunder (Jouanna, cvi).

• 30.

  ἄλλο ἀπὸ ἀλλήλων: ἄλλοτε ἀπὸ μήλων Jouanna. ἀλλήλων looks like a gross corruption of ἀπὸ μήλων (Jouanna, cviii); ἄλλο seems a possible variant for ἄλλοτε (see McGing 1995, 6).

• 31.

  The iota of καί has been added above, apparently but not certainly, in another hand. Post χυλὸς add. καὶ I edd. It is possible that the papyrus has καὶ, but the line would then have 20 letters, which is perhaps slightly less likely than the present 17 (the average is 17 or 18; McGing 1995, 5, 6).

• 32.

  πεφω〚τι〛σ[μένου]: πεφωγμένου Jouanna, following MV (from φώγω, ‘to roast’). πεφωτισμένου (from φωτίζω ‘to illuminate’) is obviously an error and makes no sense here. The mistake was noticed: clear dots over both tau and iota mark the erasure of these letters, and the restoration of the required sense: πεφωσμένου (from φώζω ‘to roast’). Whether it was our own scribe who made the correction, or another person, we cannot really tell: we might suspect the latter, as the only other corrections in the text (ll. 16, 31) seem to have been added in a different hand.