DCLP

Introduction

Medical prescriptions. Two fragments: the first (6.3 x 8.4 cm) is broked on all sides, yet it preserves 16 lines of a column in which the beginning of each line is lost; maximum intercolumnium is 1.3 cm; the second fragment is 15.5 cm high and has a top margin of 1.4 cm and 1.1 cm at the bottom, preserves the entire height of a column with 26 lines incomplete at left and right. The text contains recipes for analgesic remedies (A I) and a series of medical prescriptions for woman diseases (B I.2, 13). The writing is a skilled, small-sized, upright bookhand of the late Ptolemaic period, written with a fine pen, and scant awareness of bilinearity.

(This papyrus has been digitally edited by Maddalena Mauriello as part of the Project "DIGMEDTEXT - Online Humanities Scholarship: A Digital Medical Library based on Ancient Texts" (ERC-AdG-2013, Grant Agreement no. 339828) funded by the European Research Council at the University of Parma (Principal Investigator: Prof. Isabella Andorlini). The digital edition is mostly based on the previous editions (ed.pr. = Th. Reinach, P.Rein. I 4 + H. Schöne, BKT III, pp. 33-34; ed.alt. = I. Andorlini, GMP I 10).)

Apparatus

Notes

• 7.

  ζύμῃ is acceptable on both paleographical and textual grounds. A form of άκόντιον / ἀκοντίζω would be consistent with a context involving traumatic wounds (cf. Hipp. Epid. V 61.1). The letters in the right margin can be read as upsilon preceded by a horizontal. in light of the placement of the writing, an annotation of some kind (correction?) rather than something belonging to the text (so ed.pr.).

• 8-9.

  8-9. A liquid agent is required in combination with δ̣ι[είς (or διεῖναι), which suits the context, see B I.22. Cf. Gal. Comp. sec. loc. III 1 (XII 646.16-17 K). 8. Cf. Dsc. Mat. med. I 123.2 [I 113.13-5 Wellmann].

• 9.

  Very similar directions occur in Hippocrates, Steril. 215 (VIII 416.6-8 L).

• 12.

  There is no hope of reading something plausible in this severely damaged line.

• col. II.

  In the left margin, opposite line 3-5, a rough coronis and two other quite different signs below, but their intention is not determinable. Perhaps a letter (omega, sigma?) with something above the line with an angular shape.

• 1.

  Lege πιεῖν. Then κ̣α̣ὶ̣ is expected and would fill the space, but it less compatible with the traces.

• 2.

  Between συν and ει probably only two letters. Συνε̣ρ̣γ̣εῖ is attractive, even if a bit too long.

• 3.

  Space and traces favour δ]ι̣δόμ̣ε̣ν̣ο̣ν (perhaps ἐν ὄξει δ]ι̣δόμ̣ε̣ν̣ο̣ν vel sim.. For the end of the line, possibly πρὸς τοὺς ἐπωδύν̣ο̣]υς πνιγμούς

• 4.

  If the previous edition is acceptable, probably ]η̣ν̣ at the beginning, but τοῦ̣ is dubious.

• 5.

  The traces are very difficult to decipher. Perhaps ]ε̣ο̣μ̣α̣[ι] (if so, omicron ex corr.) or ]..α̣σ̣α̣[ς] (ending of an aorist participle?). It is not sure what significance the ink above α̣[.] has; possibly one or two suprascript letters (a correction?). At line-end ἐπί[χει or ἐπιχ[έας

• 6.

  εἰς ἀγ̣γ̣[εῖον was probably followed by an adjective that extended into line 7. κε][ραμεοῦν would fit the lacuna in 6–7, but the range of possibilities is wider, e.g. πλατύστομον, καινόν or κεραμεοῦν καινόν, χαλκοῦν κτλ.

• 7.

  With περιπλάσσω, a rather thick eccipient is required; eg. ἔλαιον or μέλι or κηρός.

• 9.

  A possibility is ]π̣α̣[ρό]ν̣τ̣ος (or μὴ παρόντος), which would suit the context.

• 14.

  If ]...α̣ν̣, then ἄν vel sim. is possible. But, if ]…η̣ν̣, the end of an accusative? The traces on the right-hand edge are also consistent with ἄλλος. If so, it might pattern with παρείς (line 15).

• 15.

  At beginning, perhaps ]ο̣λ̣ο̣ν̣ (con. R. Luiselli). The following traces are meagre, and the space avaible could accomodate 3 to 4 letters. The ending -κους seems to suggest an adjective denoting affected person.

• 16.

  At beginning. e.g., παραπλησί]οις̣ vel ὑπνωτικ]κοῖς̣ vel sim.?.

• 17.

  ἐ]ν̣ τ̣ά̣χει (con. R. Luiselli) is a probable reading, see Hipp., Mul. II 145 (VIII 320.9 L). The final trace suits ν̣[(τὸ ν̣[?) better than α̣[. μέλιτος τὸ ἀρκοῦν is not excluded (e.g. Gal. Comp. sec. loc. VII 3 [XIII 70.7-8 K]).

• 19.

  At the end the scanty traces are difficult to decipeher; βοηθ̣ε̣ῖ̣ν̣ [καὶ] [ἐπὶ τῶν is a possible reading/restoration.

• 22.

  In the traces preceding [Αἰ]γύπτ̣ιον, there isn't space to accomodate κ]υ̣α̣μ̣ο̣ν̣, as one would expert. After οἴνῳ, γ̣[λυκεῖ is possible. The formula is common in the medical literature, cf., e.g., Hipp. Morb. II 64.