DCLP

sign in

P.Grenf. 1 52 = Trismegistos 64213 = LDAB 5432



Canonical URI:

DCLP Transcription [xml]

Introduction

Medical recipes. Small oblong sheet (13.5 x 5.7 cm) written along the fibers on both sides. The fragment was cut from an already used sheet (see Youtie 1979, 149-150). The papyrus contains two separate prescriptions: the text arrangement makes it difficult to determine which side was intended to be the ‘recto’. The impression arises that  the scribe had first written an ἀχάριστον recipe (ll. 1-5) and then started copying a μάλαγμα recipe, which nonetheless abruptly stops after only the first three lines, probably for space reasons (ll. 6-9); then, the same hand rewrote the entire text of the μάλαγμα on the other side of the fragment (ll. 9bis-11), appending an almost complete copy of the preceding ἀχάριστον immediately after it (ll. 12-13bis); for a detailed reconstruction of the whole text and its different sections, see Andorlini 1981, 1-3. The script is a cursive hand assignable to the 3 rd cent. AD

r
ἀχάριστον
καδμ{ε}ίας (δραχμαί) η
χαλκοῦ (δραχμαί) η
ὀπίου (δραχμαί) η
5κόμ<μ>εως (δραχμαί) η
μάλαγμα
Κολοφωνείας
(δραχμαί) η
  ̣ρ̣  ̣ν̣(*)
v
9a ((eisthesis)) μάλαγμα Κολοφωνείας (δραχμαί) μ, κηροῦ (δραχμαί) κη, χαλβάνης (δραχμαί) ιβ̣
10μάλαγμα Κολοφωνείας (δραχμαί) μ, κηροῦ (δραχμαί) κη,
χαλβάνης (δραχμαί) ιβ̣, ὀποπάνακος (δραχμαί) β̣, πίσ<σ>ης (δραχμαί) β
——
((eisthesis)) ἀχάριστον καδμ{ε}ίας (δραχμαί) η, ὀπίου (δραχμαί) η
((eisthesis)) χαλκοῦ κεκαυμένου(*)
13a ((eisthesis)) χ̣α̣λ̣κ̣οῦ κεκαυμέ̣ν̣ο̣υ̣(*)

Apparatus


^ r.9. Andorlini, BASP 19 (1981) 3 : γί(νονται) ρνβ ed.pr., Youtie BASP 16 (1979) 149
^ v.13. χαλκοῦ η, κ̣ό̣μ̣μ̣ε̣ω̣ς̣   ̣  ̣  ̣  ̣ ed.pr.
^ v.13a. Andorlini, BASP 19 (1981) 3 : [ -ca.?- ]ου κε  ̣  ̣  ̣  ̣  ̣[ -ca.?- ] ed.pr. : [(δραχμαί) δ, ψ]ι̣μ̣ι̣θ̣ίο̣υ̣ κεκ̣α̣υμέν̣(ου) (δραχμαί) η (or [ -ca.?- ψ]ι̣μ̣ί̣θ̣ο̣υ̣ κεκ̣α̣υμ̣έ̣ν̣ο̣υ̣) Youtie BASP 16 (1979) 149

Notes

  • 8.

    η (8) is probably a mistake for μ (40), see l. 9a on verso and Andorlini 1981, 4.

  • 9.

    The interpretation of this line is tricky. Youtie’s hypothesis (Youtie 1979, 149-150) that we have a total of drug expended (γί(νονται) ρνβ) is not fully convincing: if so, the scribe would probably have taken note of both prices and weights (see Andorlini 1981, 4). Moreover, some quantities remain uncertain, making it particularly difficult to ascertain the correctness of the sum. Grenfell’s tentative reading (Ηρων) could be appropriate: a physician named Heron was actually renowned for his treatment of eye diseases (see Andorlini 1981, 5).

  • 13.

    χ̣α̣λ̣κ̣οῦ κεκαυμέ̣ν̣ο̣υ̣ is repeated at ll. 13 and 13a, probably because the text of l. 13 was scarcely readable (the surface of the papyrus is badly damaged throughout the line, with many dislodged fibres). The last ingredient of the ἀχάριστον, gum (κόμμεως, l. 5), was in all likelihood omitted by mistake.

Editorial History; All History; (detailed)