These are 150ish fragments assigned to various authors. I say 150ish referring to the nominal number, but many numbers have multiple fragments under them, and the extreme example is fr. 1, which has (a)-(s).
This is a group of 19 fragments of various sizes. Why they were originally numbered like this, I do not know, but there are papyrological arguments, agreed upon by both Page, who published the papyri, and Blass, for the combination. The TL;DR is that the fibers (a)-(e) (h) (k) (n)-(o) (s) certainly, aside from (k) and (o) floating vertically and (h) horizontally, (f)-(g) relative to each other and apparently in the previous combo, except they're printed separately from it for whatever reason, (i)-(j) in relation to each other, (l) and (m) are related but it's impossible to say who was on the left and who on the right, and (p)-(r) are unmentioned in the notes on these arguments. That said, fragment by fragment transcription. The pic attaches a mystery fragment to the right of (e), which doesn't seem to be transcribed. I transcribed it myself. Maybe I'll find it in one of the fragments I haven't checked yet? Those are (a) (c) (e) (m) (o).
One might recover (a) col. i, (l)+(m), (p)-(r) as adespota since we cannot know anything about their content and they may have been speaking about something other than what the rest are since they aren't fixed in relation to those. The rest appear to be about Alcman and how he "brought the art of the lyre to the Spartans".
- In l. 1, the Ọ has its closure gone, and a potential hole where the
mid stroke of a theta could be, hence the uncertainty (omega and
- In l. 7, the epsilon has its mid stroke fully faded, except for
the smallest of traces; I mistook it for a sigma;
- In l. 12, I'd make the final sigma uncertain, because only a
top-left arc is left, so why not epsilon or omicron?
- In l. 13, the first alpha may seem like a possible lambda,
but the slanting of that thinner stroke suggests there was a
loop being traced that came back to the diagonal stroke going
almost vertical, which a lambda would not have allowed.
No notes here, I fully agree with the published transcription.
In l. 2, I'd make the C uncertain because there is only the top arc, it could be several other letters.
- In l. 1, the three vestiges are a descender, probably a phi but maybe
psi, then a possible bottom of lambda, and then a dot; the final
sigma is certain to me because what else would we have any reason to
suspect it to be? I see an extra vestige before the alpha, did they
treat it as a quirk? – In l. 3, the epsilon has a dot pointing at the
- L. 4 is ]Ν€ΙΤΟΝΑ[.]+. .+ΑΝΑ[ to me;
- In l. 19 the final letter is way far from certain, since only the
ascender is left; I'd even make it a vestige.
- In l. 1 I see ]M[, no extra vestige, and what else could that be if
not a M?
- l. 7 may be ONI.
- In l. 4 at the end, the reading ]ΤΑΛΜ[ is discouraged by the wannabe
mu's right leg being disconnected from the rest;
- In l. 6 at the end I only see the space for one vestige, and the
hanging bit from up top doesn't seem to have any traces;
- Ll. 8-9 include the MYSTERY FRAGMENT, which in the pic is 4 lines
further down for some reason;
- L. 16 could be […] €Τ[. .] to me;
- In l. 17 the Ḳ could be a nu;
This one appears to have gone missing, and is reported as such in the pic. Thus, I can only trust the available transcription.
- In l. 4 vestige is curved, so not I.
- In l. 6 I see either ]M[ or ]ΛA[, no other vestige, no other options
for the L.
- In l. 1 the mu certain to me;
- In l. 4, the uncertain gamma way below could be a pi, hence the
L. 1 is ]. T .[, the last vestige is too precarious to conjecture anything IMO.
In l. 5 the K is uncertain and could be X.
- In l. 2 why that basically-dot would be an uncertain lambda is beyond
me. The starting Ọ could be an omega. It's too tall to be rho or phi.
- In l. 5 the uncertainty of the omicron is just because the dot that
seems to make it close may be a margin quirk rather than ink, which
would make it a sigma; no middle stroke, so epsilon or theta is
] . . [ (CI possis)
]K .[ | ]COD[
Second vestige of l. 1 and first of l. 3 may be quirks.
- In l. 1 ]AC[ possis;
- In l. 2 I can see a hint of the right leg of the pi;
- In l. 5 the M is too rounded to be AI, there may be an extra vestige
- In l. 6 all letters are certain.
- L. 1 I'd have read as ]Λ but alpha is also possible;
- In l. 6, I guess the final tau could be a pi with a faded left leg?
What else could it be to make it uncertain?
- L. 1 may be one vestige instead of two (omicron, theta possis).
- In l. 2 Θ[ possis.
In l. 3 there is no ]., just ]ΔΑ[.
The vestige in l. 1 may be quirks.
This is a very small scrap of two lines. In l. 1, the final Ỵ is too precarious for a conjecture IMO. Adespoton.
Very small scrap, I agree with the transcription fully. Adespoton.
Bigger scrap, contains the name of Alcman on a line.
- In l. 5, the ending is [. .] . [.]+.+[;
- L. 6 actually ends with 3-4 letters' worth of blank space;
- In l. 7, the KAI is certain to me, and after the two vestiges you
have a one-letter blank;
- L. 7 ends C [.
Two fragments, multiple columns. The second column, wholly from (a), contains elements pointing to Alcman. (b) also contains ALK[, potentially Alcman again, which is the only argument I see to put (b) with (a). And (c) is a whole other column and I have no idea why it's in here. Aha! Found it! Fibers again! Yay!
(a) col. i
- L. 6 is actually ]NO-;
- L. 8 analogously has a final -.
- L. 2 ends with a -;
- L. 6 has a certain mu to me.
(a) col. ii
- Final vestige of l. 3 may be quirk;
- In l. 4, the first hole may be filled by the omicron, or it's
- L. 6 starts with 3-letter hole;
- L. 7 may have [. . .] rather than [. .];
- L. 11 after chi either . +.+[.] or [.]+.+[.]; with the vestige right
after that, the last hole may be covered;
- L. 12 has a 2-3 letter hole;
- L. 13 has a 1-2 letter hole;
- L. 14's first lambda is just a vestige, no certainty whatsoever; the
hole is 4 letters; the gamma is uncertain;
- L. 15 has no hole, and the space at the end is not totally justified
and definitely way too wide;
- Space at end of l. 16 is one letter;
- L. 17's uncertain A is oddly shaped and possibly a lambda, it covers
the possibly quirky dot below the hole, which might even fit two
letters; the space at the end is longer than the previous ones;
- L. 19's space is longer than the previous line;
- L. 21 second ]. may be quirk;
- L. 22 ends ]N . +.+ . [.] . to me;
- L. 26 ends either T .[ or with pi to me.
Where is the omega in the faint traces on l. 1? Make that two vesiges!
Multiple fragments again. Fibers relate them, but the distances are wholly uncertain. Elements point to Pittacus and Alcaeus, but they are all completions, and why this couldn't have a mention of Sappho in between those elements I don't know. Then again, Pittacus is the one who allowed Alcaeus to come back from exile, so I guess this is wholly Alcaeus.
L. 7 hole is blank space.
- L. 1 vestige is _ that does seem to curve up-right so beta is
- L. 2 final letter does have a hint of a , but it's so faint it might
as well be a quirk;
- Ll. 3-4 alpha vs. lambda told apart by how their oblique stroke bends
(alpha bends down, lambda up);
- L. 4 final letter doesn't close so no omicron.
- L. 3 starts .]. .;
- L. 9 K can't be C because it's pointy; the epsilon is not certain
because the middle stroke is gone;
- L. 12 is ]. Α̣Ρ€ΙϹ̣Π€̣ΜΨ̣[ to me; sigma could be epsilon;
- L. 13 starting vestige doesn't exist, final tau uncertain only top –
Single fragment, bottom of scroll (long blank vertical space at bottom clearly visible). Adespoton.
L. 1 vestige is basically || with some curves, could be H or pi or even two letters, and then we have chi, then bottom of sigma/epsilon/theta/omicron, then other bottom arc bending up into what is the bottom of an alpha, but can't be omicron or theta because it doesn't close, and chi-sigma impossible, so X€ is unavoidable.
Single fragment, points to Gongyla hence Sappho.
L. 2 starts Ṇ because a faint possibly quirky trace of the diagonal stroke is present.
Single scrap. Adespoton.
I see ]. TAỴ[ in l. 1, the ending being probably the top of Y plus w downward bend for the top-right, hence the vestige; the initial vestige might be a quirk though.
- L. 1 has just a vertical line;
- L. 2 has a vestige to the right, i.e. is ]ω .[.
- L. 2 looks like IDI, thought the last I is a bit curved;
- L. 3 final sigma is certain to me, and the top bends into a – so I'd
read CṬ there.
L. 1 to me that is an omega, because an omicron would close and this doesn't, and the next letter X[ possis.
Two adespota lined up vertically. Let me see papyrological arguments for the joining… «apparently line ends of the same column», yeah, not very strong. OK, notes?
- L. 3 gamma uncertain, could be tau;
- L. 4 no vestige if omega is to be read.
L. 2 either two vestiges or C̣ or similar.
- L. 1 has two dots (far enough apart to give two vestiges? I say nay),
a 4-5 letter hole, and a vestige;
- The vestige in line 4 may be a quirk.
Single fragment. L. 6 has a «likely» integration Alk]man, hence why not Sappho.
- In l. 1 the hole may be 3 letters;
- Last line features a blank space, and possibly a blank top.
Fibers place these two adespota together with unknown distance. It's apparently likely that fr. 19 below comes from the same column as 18(b).
(a) col. i
- In l. 6 Y uncertain to me, what prevents it from being K? Though the
trace of the bottom diagonal may be a quirk…
- In l. 11 the ]O is almost certain.
- In l. 15 the alpha is too precarious for a conjecture IMO, so I make it a vestige.
- In l. 16 the omega is certain because top doesn't close.
(a) col. ii
- In l. 3 the final vestige is a possibly quirk dot.
- L. 6 may be Y[ to me,
- In l. 14 the IT may look like potential Γ but a disconnection rules
- In l. 16 final letter epsilon or theta.
- In l. 3 final alpha just vestige, too precarious for me.
- In l. 6 €[ O[ C[ Θ[ possis.
In l. 2 final letter can't be Γ because those don't curve right at the bottom.
Single adespoton. Look at the picture:
[![enter image description here]]
That is ]ω€̣[ to me: an almost-circle that doesn't close at the top, hence omega, and what looks like an arc with a straight bottom, half an epsilon. How on earth does the volume read ]θω̣[ there?
L. 1 is ] . [.]+.+, perhaps with 2 letters in the hole. That means we have a vestige, a 1 or 2 letter hole, and a one-letter blank space.
The last line doesn't start with ]T because the horizontal top is too long without vertical stroke to be a tau, hence the gamma.
The l. 2 vestige may be a quirk.
Single adespoton. No notes.
- It starts with a 3-letter hole, maybe 4 letters.
- L. 5 starts with +.+.
- L. 7 starts with 2-letter hole.
Group of fragments (a)-(f), with (a)-(d) forming col. i and (e)-(f) forming col. ii. (e) seems to have three parts: a bigger one, then a small one on the left reading ].ϹΙΝ€[ | ]. .[, and a medium-sized one on the right reading ]ΘΑΙ[ | ]ΙΤΟ[ | ]ΛΑ[ | ]ΝΑ[ | ]€ΙΝ[, the last line looking like €ΠΙ except for the visible but faint diagonal stroke of the nu. This last fragment seems to have been placed too far from the main (e) to match the transcription, which puts no space between the two. «Frr. (b) and (c) are located as shown on the evidence of both front and back fibers», I assume that means fibers fix (a)-(c) in relation to each other. (d) is fixed as shown by fibers. Not sure about the relation between (e) and (f), can't seem to find a comment. Both columns keep mentioning Stesichorus, so that's whom they are about.
- L. 2 should start with a vestige since it's just a – and could well be a T to me;
- In l. 3 the alpha is uncertain because it almost looks like a lambda with its "loop" being so tight, and the apparent gamma has the top disconnected from the rest so it's actually IT;
- In l. 4 the OIH looks like OHI to me;
- L. 5 has a 2-letter blank after ΗϹΙΟΔ;
- In l. 7 the superscript iotas are misplaced in the transcriptions and should be placed as ΔΙΤΤΑΓΑΡ€Ϲ*;
- In l. 11, the high dot is actually over the epsilon of €ΡωϹ;
- L. 13 should have ϹΤΗϹ . [.] ΟΡΟ[ rather than having that hole as a vestige;
- L. 16 may have a one-letter hole between the two vestiges; the Μ€ΙΝ looks like a Μ€ΗΝ where the left leg of the eta is half-gone (bottom half gone);
- I assume the three final dots of l. 17 are not vestiges but makrs of a fragment beginning (the start of (b)), because (b) has no line in that place;
- In l. 18 the AC looks like AI ., but the I is curved, I could almost take that for an epsilon or theta; after that, there is a trace of the bottom of the omega, so one could see either . [.] or just a vestige there, but not [.]; or maybe we dismiss that trace as a quirk? Nah, I don't buy it; the reading DEMOFONTA looks almost like it's missing a letter, because even stretching the phi and omicron quite a bit there is still, AFAICT, a gap; but that may be due to incorrect placement of (b) horizontally in the pic; maybe it was ΔΗΜΟΦ ωΝΤ… oh wait, that's an omega there, not an omicron, so scratch all this;
- In l. 19, between the fragments there is actually just a one-letter blank, with a trace that might be a quirk;
- In l. 20, the fragment-separation gap is three letters wide;
- In l. 21, between (a) and (c) we have 6/7 letters
- In l. 22, GYPTON is followed by a vestige, a high dot; the hole is 5 letters plus the one that vestige could form;
- The vestige starting (c) in l. 23 is a dot, the hole has 5 letters plus the one it forms;
- In l. 24, hole has 5/6 letters, second alpha of (c) is /\ but the / does seem to be a point; not sure I'd make that certain still;
- In l. 25, the margin of (a) goes on for one letter on both sides of the two vestiges; past that, 1/2 letters before the epsilon of (c); I'll be as bold as to make the uncertain delta a vestige since I can't see it at all; the final vestige is either a lambda or a mu, I'd say;
- In l. 28, lambda and final sigma are uncertain, as the former could be al A IMO, and the latter could definitely be an omicron since the part where it either closes (O) or doesn't (C) is cut away;
- In l. 29, the final mu is barely visible and hardly certain, could be a lambda;
- In l. 30 the final nu could be a pi IMO.
- L. 3's initial vestige may be a quirk;
- In l. 5, final vestige may be the alpha's tail stretching longer than expected;
- In l. 6, last letter is not T, those have way more to the left than this thing;
- Below l. 8, there is a trace, is that a coronis?
- In l. 5, the uncertain omicron may be a sigma; no idea where they see a lacuna, at most there's a blank, and even that is kind of doubtful since it's pretty narrow;
- L. 6 lacuna may be three letters;
- L. 7 I'd be as daring as to make the last vestige into Ọ; I mean, it isn't more uncertain than the Ọ in CTHCIXỌ[ in the previous line;
- Gamma in l. 9 can't be a tau, those have way less on the right;
- L. 13 may well start with an I;
- In l. 15 the two initial vestiges are a continuous stroke, they are two because the line bends; possibly ΓΟ/ΤΟ;
- L. 16 the last vestige doesn't exist; also, they forgot an I after ΑΥΤω;
- L. 21 ends ITO and IT are disconnected cannot be Π; maybe the lacuna in this and the previous line could be two letters?
- L. 25 cannot start with I because there is a trace in the middle of that wannabe I;
- L. 27 is , which I'd read ]. . . CỊ[. .] . .[, maybe the lacuna has one letter, maybe the initial vestige is a quirk, but from C to lacuna there are no two traces.
- L. 1 has a couple possible quirky traces to the right beyond the four marked in the transcription;
- I'd start l. 4 with ]. . E, that delta is too precarious to me, and the starting vestige may be a quirk;
- In l. 5, the final omega seems quite precarious, wouldn't call it anything other than a vestige, there's only about a quarter of it left, and on a dark region of the papyrus;
- L. 6 starts with two possibly quirky traces, then two | treated as a single vestige;
- In l. 9, I don't see what doubts we can have about the gamma.
In l. 1 that lambda, while possible, seems like a bold guess.
OK, so we clearly have that C at the end, which may be O, but even € or Θ, since a possibly quirky middle stroke can be seen. To the left, a big mess. There's something at the top in the fingerlike extension, and a curved \ cut in two by the margin. I'd read that as ].'Ọ[ or ].'C̣[, the . possibly ΑΔΛΜ.
- The final letter of l. 6 has a top that doesn't reach the margin, hence the uncertain omega, but it could just have faded, hence the uncertainty;
- In l. 7 I see a dot near the margin, maybe a quirk, ignored by the volume;
- In l. 8, you can see a hint of the top of the tau connecting to the nu.
In l. 1, I see | – ⎩, then a blank. I might read the first two traces as Ṭ, but there is absolutely nothing before it, and the last trace may be an epsilon, but very precarious, and again, absolutely nothing after it.
- In l. 1, the Ọ doesn't close so could be a C, but with the faded top an O is not to be excluded;
- L. 3 isn't a hole, it's a blank; one letter.
First vestige of l. 1 may be quirk.
Single adespoton with either epsilon or theta in first line.
Single adespoton with first line possibly just a quirk.
Single adespoton where second line's first mu seems to continue leftwards with what may be a quirk.
(a)-(d), fibers fix (d) vertically relative to (a), but interval uncertain, (c)-(b) cannot be from the same column as (a) but may be the top of the following one. Mentions Charaxus repeatedly (or are there mentions in multiple consecutive fragments?), so Sappho.
- In l. 7 the final xi is uncertain to me.
- First vestige of l. 6 connects to the top of the H.
Single fragment, potentially mentions Charaxus hence Sappho.
- L. 1 starts with a vestige to me, it's just a belly, could be the right half of an omega; oh wait, there's a dot next to the H, omega ruled out, beta confirmed;
- Initial vestige in l. 2 is connection to A; potential mention of Charaxus.
Single fragment, the SAPPH in l. 12 (which is actually the first line of cool. ii) is eloquent, and the XON in the following line may be CHARAXON.
- L. 1, vestige after omega may be I;
- L. 5 vestige after M may be quirk;
- L. 7 couldn't the chi be a xi too?
- I'd say l. 11 also ends with –, or can we explain that away as a quirk or as an overlong middle stroke for the epsilon?
Single fragment. Lines 16 and 24 have ΞΟΝ & ΧΑΡΑ suggesting mentions of Charaxus, and l. 4 may be Κ]έρκυλο[ς, Sappho's alleged husband, so there's your Sappho attribution.
- L. 2 suggests ]. ICN[;
- L. 9 starts with a vestige, it's barely even visible and definitely too little to be sure of an epsilon;
- L. 17 ends with possibly an angle, but there's too little of it to really see the lines departing, so uncertain alpha;
- L. 19 ends with a C whose top bends to horizontal, so CṬ[ for me;
- L. 22 first vestige is a dot near the margin, possibly a quirk;
- Ditto for l. 26.
Single fragment. L. 4 SAPPH.
- L. 2 suggests ending with €, but maybe the closure faded and we can read θῶσθαι there.
Group of 8 fragments numbered (a)-(e). Yes you read that right, because (e) is actually three fragments, and (b) is two. No idea why. Anyway fibers fix everything except for (e)1 and (c) being lined up differently in the pic, as well as (e)2 and (e)1, where the former should be a little further down, as in the pic's position the lines seem to slant down-right. Oh, and (f) is left floating between (d) and (e), and in the pic it's rotated for some reason. At any rate, you see Sappho's name in (e)1 col. ii, and a ΓΥΙΟ which probably refers to Erigyios in (e)1 l. 5, hence Sappho.
Nothing to say about (a).
- L. 1 first vestige is dot; or dot + possible quirk;
- L. 3 vestiges 5-6 could be top of K or X;
- L. 4 I see two possibly quirky dots and the bottom of a potential alpha, not sure where they see the single vestige;
- L. 5 the uncertain mu looks like |·, but the | actually has a hint of a down bend, basically |</sup>, hence the uncertain mu; otherwise I'd have gone for two vestiges; the other half of the line is ].€I.[ or ].ΘI.[ to me;
- L. vestige is just a possibly quirky dot, and there is another such thing on the other margin; though actually now that I look again the latter is definitely a quirk;
- L. 10 the initial thing is a vestige to me, basically a connection; the rest is not a pi because the wannabe right leg curves the wrong way;
- L. 12 vestige is a connection to the Y.
- L. 2 I say two vestiges; or maybe they're part of a single letter?
- L. 5 two vestiges may be bottom of two-legged letter;
- L. 6 I see 5 vestiges and N, not sure where they want that Ṇ;
- L. 7 lacuna is blank to me;
- L. 8 lacuna is definitely blank;
- L. 9 uncertain alpha is vestige to me, and we have a 1-letter hole and a 2/3-letter blank;
- L. 10 not sure if epsilon was seen as superscript or cut in half;
- L. 11 how would you read \ / - - -? I'd say 6 vestiges; not . . Ạ . . as they do;
- L. 15 pi is certain, the vestige mixes with it, and then a 1-letter blank;
- L. 16 also has a 1-letter blank;
- L. 17 may end with theta;
- L. 18 not sure where they're seeing the vestige;
- L. 25 ends with a 1-letter blank.
- L. 1 why uncertain pi? Vestige!
- L. 2 lacuna is blank, not hole;
- L. 3 wonder what that / between C and I is;
- L. 6 T is too narrow to be pi;
- L. 7 final alpha is certain to me, and after that +.+[.]+...+[;
- L. 8 initial vestige is dot; why uncertain I? Could . + I = Ḥ? The two vestiges I may read as .Z, and the first one is just a possibly quirky dot.
Looks like we have another fragment ignored by the transcription, which reads:
]. . .[
And l. 3 has a 1-letter interval from the transcribed part, while l. 1 has 4-letter interval.
- L. 4 after G we have 1-letter blank, then the above l. 2;
- L. 6 I don't even know; based on the apparent fragment split, we should have .+.+[, and then the two vestiges from the above; aside from that, I say the delta is a vestige; there's literally just a dot left;
- L. 7 ends with 1-letter blank after transcribed stuff.
No idea what is happening here. Look:
Seems to be all connected, right? Well the transcription only takes the far left into account starting at the third line of this clipping, leaving the following untranscribed:
]. . . Θ[
The last vestige of l. 1 may be lambda, and the final letter of l. 2 is half on the untranscribed and half on the transcribed portions.
- L. 11 blank is lacuna;
- L. 14 vestige is connection/dot;
- L. 20 initial alpha vestige.
- L. 21 more like vestige than eta, basically only |.
- L. 1 residue of phi is too curved to be any other round letter;
- L. 5 has no final I.
- L. 2 could end C[, I guess that optino was eliminated because PS would be spelled psi?
- L. 8 the omega is so precarious; I mean OK, top doesn't close, but could it not have faded? And the other fragments suggests Σαπφοῖ, and what is Σαππφωι?
- L. 1 might end with theta.
L. 2 may all be quirks.
- L. 1 not sure if ..O or .[.]O; ah no, I don't think that bottom trace is a quirk;
- L. 5 I'd say ].Ṭ.[, looks like Ṭ. = pi but the right leg curves wrongly for that and the connection of top horizontal and right leg isn't clear;
- L. 9 I say ].TACK[, that vestige may be on an ignored fragment.
I say l. 1 is ]+.+. .[ and l. 2 is 3-letter blank.
Two adespota, 51.1 and 51.2, the latter of which seems joined to 53 and has one extra blank top line which is as narrow as a dot.
- L. 1 epsilon certain because middle stroke; nu is split between two fragments;
- L. 2 vestige from 51.2;
- L. 3 alpha split chi on 51.2;
- L. 4 one vestige per fragment and 51.2 ends here;
- L. 6 maybe 3 vestiges, the extra one possibly a quirk on the left;
- L. 7 vestige is possibly C or O, but maybe K with vertical line faded away, what's left is on the fine boundary between angle and curve.
Single adespoton. To me it reads:
]. C̣ .[
No idea where they see the extra line or that alpha.
- L. 1 starts and ends with uncertain letters to me, possibly ΑΕΓΟΤ;
- L. 2 blank has / to it;
- L. 3 I say 3 vestiges then €̣.
Single adespoton. L. 3 €̣ has hint of overlong middle stroke.
Single fragment, starts with likely mention of Sappho.
Single adespoton. L. 1 looks like |·| | / </sub>, possibly ΝΙΛ. L. 2 may end with Ἀνδρο]μέδαν, hence Sappho.
Single adespoton. To me it reads:
]. . .[
Single adespoton. L. 3 not sure if connection + left half of mu or right half of mu period.
Single adespoton. No idea where l. 2 comes from.
Single adespoton. No idea where N€ comes from. I see three traces, perhaps TON. In fact, I think this joins with 66. Which further discredits l. 2.
Single adespoton, and that – from col. i may well be in the vertical middle of l. 3.
Single adespoton. I read l. 3 as MEG, and the last line is ]LL[ to me.
- L. 1 has top dot to left of alpha as initial vestige;
- L. 2 initial high dot may be quirk, and final vestige is probably I.
Single adespoton. All I can see is the eta, which is P.Berol. levels of faint, and has a blank line above and one below.
Single adespoton. Final vestige of l. 2 may be quirk, I can hardly even see it.
Single fragment, mentions Alcaeus.
- L. 1 ends ]. Ḷ .[ to me;
- L. 6 final vestige may be quirk;
- Ditto l. 7;
- L. 10 2-letter hole plus 1-letter blank + 2-letter hole plus either .. or +.+.;
- L. 11 AD are superscripted;
- L. 14 initial vestige doesn't exist;
- L. 15 final vestige may be quirk;
- L. 17 third vestige may be quirk leaving blank;
- L. 19 hole 2-3 letters;
- L. 31 first vestige may be quirk;
- L. 32 ]+.+[. . .]+.+[. .]. Δ€[.
The rest must be in a third self-answer.