As some of you will definitely know, I have been grappling with Sappho for a long time. Lately, I have come to an impasse in a couple places, where I have said all I can without a specific reference I don't have access too. I don't know why I thought asking for those references in a question was inappropriate, but anyways I asked in CONLOQVIVM. The second request I posted yesterday, and JI encouraged me to post a question… so here I am.

I will give background for both requests. Feel free to skip to the list at the end of the post.

Number 1

Related questions are 1 and 2. A little backstory.

  • At some point, I googled my way to this Italian Sappho anthology, where I first found the text in questions 1 and 2 linked above;
  • As I am wont to do, I tried to retrace every letter in the text back to an LP fragment, and identified LP 86 60 65 66(c) and 67(a) as the sources. However, that left out two line endings;
  • I asked about those in question 1, and the question stayed unanswered;
  • I somehow (perhaps via the anthology's biblio) found this article which starts the combination. I think this was also uploaded to Academia.edu recently;
  • Thanks to question 2 or its Quora analog, I got an Academia.edu link for Una Mitra per Cleis in English translation from @NickNicholas, and I found the complete text, realizing, in bits, how much the text had been mangled by the anthology (see below for more);
  • Again in Una Mitra per Cleis, I was referenced to the Enzo Puglia 2007 article I'm requesting.

OK, so here's how this combination went.

  • Eduard Fraenkel suggested LP 86 and LP 60 should be joined, because they produce a development of the song that parallels many Greek prayers including Sappho's own Hymn to Aphrodite (LP 1);
  • Lobel-Page and Voigt said "Nah, not buying that";
  • Campbell said "Welp, I'm following those two editions, so those two fragments stay split";
  • Ferrari said "Guys, guys! The joining is very likely, and there is another fragment, LP 65, with the frustulum that is LP 66(c) already basically joined to it, that joins nicely into the combo, and strengthens the parallel! L. 1 of LP 86 may be from another poem, because, if we supposed there was no lacuna between it and LP 60, the paragraphoi make the line count such that that would be an odd line";
  • Puglia, in Per la ricomposizione del quarto libro dei canti di Saffo (POxy. 1787), published in 2007 at an event in Rome, said "Yeah, good job Ferrari… but did you notice that LP 67(a) also fits in nicely? Oh and by the way, remember P.Oxy. 1787 fr. 3, whose second column gave us LP 61-63? Well, P.Halle 3, the source of LP 60, joins in nicely with that, which implies there are 5 lines between LP 86 and LP 60, thus making that famous first line definitely part of our combo… unless we want to exclude the following line as well, but that fits in with the parallel. Oh, and joining LP 67(a) with LP 65 means l. 1 if the latter and the penultimate line of the former have letters split between them, with a combined reading of οὐδὲν πόλυ . . [, the two vestiges possibly giving πά[σασθ'";
  • Ferrari, Una Mitra per Cleis, agreed wholeheartedly, and printed that combined text with perhaps some extra supplements, and ideas for supplements in the translation;
  • The anthology didn't get the combined reading memo, eliminated the last line of LP 67(a) and completed the resulting hole as they pleased, didn't get the fr. 3 col. i joining memo outside the line endings, and mangled not just the supplement that's the object of question 2, but also another one in the line before, and turned ἀμφιβάσκει near the end into the unmetrical ἀμφιβιβάσκει, plus bracketing errors both in the Greek and in the translation.

I tried to figure out how the combination with fr. 3 col. i gave the lacuna's length, and the likely joint explained in my answer to question 1 implies that yes, a couple lines of LP 60 were completed, as appears in Ferrari/'s book but not in the anthology, but doesn't produce the line ends or the lacuna's length as far as I can tell. So the only way to figure that out would be to read the article by Puglia, hence my first request.

Number 2

In my Sappho work, I tried to be as complete as possible on everything, including testimonia. That is where I found P.Oxy. 2506. These are a bunch of fragments (over 50) all deemed part (I think) of a single scroll of commentaries on lives of poets. I have a bunch of images at my disposal, but what I'd like to know is a) WTF is up with all those fragments numbered with letters instead of numbers in the first image, and b) Why each fragment was or wasn't assigned to Sappho. I have found some articles that give partial answers, and I can see why each of those assigned to Sappho was assigned to Sappho, but I would like to know more. I believe at least part of the answers would probably be in the volume that published the papyri, which is vol. XXIX of The Oxyrhynchus Papyri. Sadly, the online volumes stop at XV (which is why I had to have scans posted here from vol. XXI about P.Oxy. 2166(a). So here's request 2.

Request list

  1. Enzo Puglia, Per la ricomposizione del quarto libro dei canti di Saffo (POxy. 1787), 2007;
  2. The Oxyrhynchus Papyri, vol. XXIX, don't know by whom, possibly Lobel; I know vol. X was by Grenfell and Hunt, and I believe XV was by Lobel, hence why I suspect XXIX may be by Lobel.

Bonus question: Can anyone find an article by Lobel or otherwise which explains why the missing P.Oxy. 1787 fragments (fr. 8 and 9, and fr. 45 with what seemed to be a book 4 colophon) were dropped from Sappho, or why the missing P.Oxy. 1231 fragments were?


I formerly wrote vol. XIX, then realised it was actually XXIX. Oops. XIX was indeed edited by Lobel, commented @Draconis.

  • 1
    The university library doesn't seem to have the article anywhere, but I've sent in a request for volume 19 (which is in fact edited by Lobel). You're looking in particular for fragment 2506?
    – Draconis
    Commented Sep 7, 2019 at 18:46
  • 1
    I'll have Puglia 2007 (a pdf-file) tomorrow, but I don't have time to read and summarize it, sorry. I could email the pdf to our mods to be forwarded to you, as long as our mods are willing to do it and it's ok with you.
    – Alex B.
    Commented Sep 7, 2019 at 20:18
  • 1
    @AlexB Or you could email it directly to [email protected].
    – MickG
    Commented Sep 7, 2019 at 21:12
  • 1
    @MickG Hm. I vaguely remember doing so, but apparently I never sent it to you. Let me see if I can request it again; I know it's available at the library but requesting materials is weird during the pandemic.
    – Draconis
    Commented Jan 14, 2021 at 5:22
  • 1
    @MickG Radio silence since the pandemic started, unfortunately.
    – Draconis
    Commented Jan 19, 2021 at 0:03

3 Answers 3


Puglia 2007

As announced in his comment, AlexB got ahold of Puglia 2007, sent it to the mods, and our tricipitous mod forwarded it to me. I read it, and I can now answer that part of this question.

So, with a lot of pretty solid arguments, the article proposes the following collage of P.Oxy. 1787 fragments (where 87(13) and 87(14) have swapped numbers):

enter image description here

From this, we can see the following:

  1. The famous mysterious line endings are actually from P.Halle, the leftmost fragment in the pic, and were missed by all previous transcribers;
  2. The joining of P.Halle with P.Oxy. 1787 fr. 3 is exactly as I guessed in my answer to the question of this question's body;
  3. Thanks to the topmost fragments, P.Halle must have lost three lines at its top, whence 5 lines reside between τύχοισα and the other fragment; or rather, at least 5.

The last missing bit is: "Why exactly five, and not, say, six?". Well, let's look at the other fragment that goes before this collage:

enter image description here

See that little protrusion at the bottom-right? It's empty. This means the last line of the fragment was the last of its column.

Now, we may say, "Why should we assume this fragment went immediately before the P.Halle lines?". Well, we have good reasons (cfr. history in the question body) to place it before said lines, and if we suppose a full other column between the two, the result is that we have a single poem that is way too long compared to the two whose lines are all partially preserved on fr. 3 and its ends 87(13)+87(14) – and we know those have no extra lines because they are between coronides. Therefore, the lacuna length is settled.

Moreover, we can also say that, after the last line of the collage 6.A.vi here, there were 6 lost lines, the line ending in ]ΗΡΟϹ on fr. 3, and then collage 6.A.v. Who knows where the poems split from each other…

P.Oxy. 2506, as far as I can say

In the below list, TBI stands for To Be Investigated

  • Fr. 1 is a mess with fragments (a)-(r) but skipping (f) for whatever reason; no idea why they are combined at all, let alone the way they are; [TBI]
  • Fr. 2 only reads Ο .[ | Π̣, so why is it not Sappho?
  • Fr. 3 is merely ]. Α . .[ | ]ΙΝΤ[, the I looking like a ि, so why is it not Sappho?
  • Fr. 4 contains the beginnings of 15 lines [TBI];
  • Fr. 5 is actually 3 fragments, (a)-(c), no idea why they are combined; [TBI]
  • Fr. 6 is ditto; [TBI]
  • Fr. 7 reads ] . . Λ̣C̣Ọ[ | ]C̣ỊΥΓ€Ρ[ | ]Χ€ΤΙΔΟ[ | ]ΡΟΝΛ€Γ . [ | ]ΤΑΥΤΗ[ | ]Δ€Ν€Ϲ̣[; [TBI]
  • For fr. 8, I agree with the Voigt transcription, pointing out that the Y ending l. 4 and the C starting l. 5 are initially completely unreadable and only identified through context, which I denote with underlines; in particular, that letter in l. 4 is identified thanks to reading the name Γογγύ[λ- in the fragment, which is also why this is Sappho;
  • Fr. 9 reads ] . ΤΑΥ̣[ | ]. ΟΙϹ[ | ]ωΙϹ[ | ].[; [TBI]
  • Fr. 10 reads ] . [ | ]. ϹΟ .[ | ]ωΦ̣[ | ]ΚΡΑ[, could l. 3 read σ]ώφ[ρων, as in Sophron? [TBI]
  • Fr. 11 reads ]ΔΙϹ̣[ | ]ΙΔΙ[ | ]Υ̣Ϲ[; [TBI]
  • Fr. 12 reads ]ωΧ̣ | ]ΙΟ̣C̣; [TBI]
  • Fr. 13 is two fragments, (a) and (b), lined up vertically in the picture;
  • Fr. 14 ]. .[ | ]. ΚΟ̣[ | ]€ϹṬ[ | ]Υ̣Ị[; [TBI]
  • Fr. 15 reads ].[~5 letters].[ | ]Γ̣ΑΡΕΥ̣ . Ϲ€[ | ]€ΚΡΟΝ . [; [TBI]
  • Fr. 16 is ]ΝΟΥ[; [TBI]
  • Fr. 17 contains portions of 9 lines; [TBI] [end of pic 1]
  • Fr. 18 appears to be two fragments, (a) and (b); I say "appears" because there is no number; [TBI]
  • Fr. 19 reads ] . ΞΑ[ | ]ΟΝΤ[, and is another unnumbered fragment; [TBI]
  • Fr. 20 reads either ]ω€ or ]ωΘ; [TBI]
  • Fr. 21 reads ] . .[. .].[ | ]ỊϹΑΝΑ[ | ]€̣ϹΤΑΤ€[; [TBI]
  • Fr. 22 contains the ends of 6 lines; [TBI]
  • Fr. 23 reads €̣N[ | Δ€[ | Τ[; [TBI]
  • Fr. 24 reads ]. ΑΙΝ .[ | ]€ΙΛΟ[; [TBI]
  • Fr. 25 contains the ends of 8 lines; [TBI]
  • Fr. 26 consists of fragments (a)-(f), of which (c) seems to consist of two fragments, and (e) of 3; 26(a) is assigned to Stesichorus, and I have yet to understand why; [TBI] [end of pic 2]
  • Frr. 27-29 are microscopic; [TBI]
  • Fr. 30 contains the beginings of 8 lines;
  • Frr. 31-41 are microscopic; [TBI]
  • Fr. 42 consists of fragments (a)-(d); concerning (a), I agree with the Voigt transcription, except that at l. 1 it's Κ€ΔΟΝΚ€[, not like Voigt's Κ€ΔΟΝ€[), l. 3 €̱[, l. 7 Χ̱ΑΡΑΞ̱[, a possible Charaxus mention hence this is Sappho, l. 8 the papyrus has no breathing (i.e. the breathing is added by Voigt because hers is not a raw transcription). (b)-(d) [TBI]
  • Fr. 43 contains the ends of 3 lines of one column and the beginnings of 11 of another; col. i reads ΚΑ/ΧΑ | Α̣Λ | . Ϲ, maybe l. 1 is again Charaxus, I'll say Sappho for this one too; as for col. ii, I agree with Voigt, except that in l. 2 there is no vestige at the start, it possibly reads ΧΑΡ]ΑΞΟ[ hence Sappho, at l. 10 ]ṮH̱, at l. 11 the initial epsilon is certain because the middle stroke is visible;
  • Fr. 44 is a bigger two-column fragment; for col. ii I agree with Voigt, noting there are no accents or breathing; it's ascribed to Sappho because she's mentioned in l. 1, and her brother possibly is in l. 2; as for col. i, will transcribe [TBI];
  • Fr. 45 I agree with Voigt, with notes l. 2 poss. IC or IE or ITH, l. 7 fort. M[?, l. 8 that's not g[ in Voigt but n[ (looks like g because of underdot), l. 9 ]e because middle and top, l. 20 ]. eg .[, l. 23 poss. ]HC, possible Charaxus mentions;
  • Fr. 46 contains the ends of 6 lines; [TBI]
  • Fr. 47 has a Sappho mention, I agree with Voigt except for reading l. 4 as ϹΑΠΦ .[ and l. 5 as ω̣ΡΑΝΤ̣ .[; [end of pic 3]
  • Fr. 48 appears (unnumbered) to consist of fragments (a)-(f); [TBI]
  • Frr. 49-58 are micro; 50 and 52 are joined for some reason; [TBI]
  • Fr. 59 has a mention of Sappho in l. 1, poss. ]H, then last two lines have no starting vestige (contrary to what Voigt says);
  • Fr. 60 is Sappho because poss. Andro]medan in l. 2, which is the last one;
  • Frr. 61-69 are micro; [TBI]
  • Fr. 70 contains the starts of 10 lines; [TBI]
  • Fr. 71 has 7 lines; [TBI]
  • Frr. 72-76 are microscopic; [TBI]
  • Fr. 77 is presumably the big fat scrap on the right edge of pic 4; [TBI] [end of pic 4]
  • [Frr. 78-89 to be described];
  • Fr. 90 contains the word Πίθω[νι, and thus belongs in Epicharmus's "The Monkey", as identified by Finglass;
  • [Frr. 91-107 to be described, end of pic 5];
  • [Frr. 108-130 to be described];
  • Fr. 131 is ascribed to Alcman by Stefano Vecchiato's Una nuova testimonianza su Alcmane in ‘P.Oxy.’ XXIX 2506, fr. 131?, given that l. 1 probably reads Αλκμα[ν;
  • [Frr. 132-158 to be described].

P.Oxy. 2637

Well, I mentioned it in the comments, so I might as well delve into it. Now, this is a group of papyrus fragments, whose image can be found here, which was mostly attributed to Ibycus. Now, I decided not to go too deep into this, but the gist is that there are good papyrological / content arguments to place most of these fragments into one or more scrolls of commentaries on Ibycus. There are, however, "three" exceptions which are attributed to Sappho, namely the three below.

enter image description here

This is fragment 27. I read it as:

]. Ι̣ϹΑΠ

The X in l. 2 may be a Z, and the vestige in the last line may just be something funny going on with the papyrus rather than actual ink (a "papyrus quirk", as I say). This is given to Sappho because l. 1 ends in ϹΑΠ[Φ-. Note that this fragments is confusingly joined to the Ibycean fr. 12(b) in the picture, and I believe the split happens either where the seemingly wannabe continuous ink stroke at the top-left breaks, or where the digitiform protuberance starts.

enter image description here

This is fr. 35. I think you can see why I said "three" exceptions above: this very clearly appears to be more than one fragment, plus another one below them all, which is fr. 4. Here are the borders I think I can trace:

enter image description here

I read the leftmost fragment as:

]+.+ .[
]. Ψ̣ .[
]Κ .[

with my usual convention of using + to denote blank spaces on the papyrus.

The top-left appears to be:

]+. . .+ . Π̣[
[blank line]

The top-right fragment, the smallest of the bunch, reads:


And the biggest fragment of all reads:

]. .[
]+.+ . . +.+[
]Η̣ . +.+[
]Η̣ΛωΙ . ΒΑ̣Λ̣[ . ]Ρ̣[
] . ΜΟΤΑΥ̣Ρ[
] . Φ̣[ . ]€ΝΑϹ€ . [
] . €ΛΛ[
] . ΠΑΘ€ΙΤ[

The following is the combined transcription:

]+. . .+ . Π̣'ΓΗ+.+[
]+. . . . . .+ . .[
]+.+ . +.+ . . +.+[
]. Ψ̣ .[ . ]Η̣ . +.+[
]Μ[]Η̣ΛωΙ . ΒΑ̣Λ̣[ . ]Ρ̣[
] . ΜΟΤΑΥ̣Ρ[
] . Φ̣[ . ]€ΝΑϹ€ . [
] . €ΛΛ[
] . ΠΑΘ€ΙΤ[

On line **, the alpha is the combination of the uncertain A in the biggest fragment, and the vestige on the leftmost one.

Well, there is one problem left here. Ll. 1-2 of this combination in my transcription appear to be usually taken as one line. My problem with that, and the reason I don't read π(ερὶ) γήρ[ως like Cambpell, is that the eta, were I to do so, would acquire a spurious little curve on its bottom-left. Here are the letters as I see them:

enter image description here

As you can see, the ?? doesn't belong in an eta. So I wonder: can we explain it away as a "papyrus quirk", and read the single line as Π̣'ΓΗΡ̣[ combining all fragments, or can we not?

enter image description here

Finally, this is fr. 38, which I read as:

].[.]. ϹΤΟϹ[
]ΟΝϹΦ .[

L. 2 completes to ἀπὸ Μυτ[ιλήνης, hence the attribution to Sappho.


z-lib, olim [b-ok olim bookzz], has the Oxy volumes for both 2506 and 2637. I will dive into 2506 at some point, but now let's deal with 2637.

P.Oxy. 2637

There are solid papyrological and textual arguments to assign most of the fragments of this group to one or more scrolls about Ibycus. I will not delve into the arguments, and just transcribe the fragments ascribed to Sappho.

Fr. 27

Fr. 27 is transcribed as below:

enter image description here

After better inspecting the papyrus, I agree with everything. On l. 1, I note that my I is actually curved, or «the right-hand arc of a circle», as the volume puts it, and that my vestige may not be in the papyrus fragment, since the division from another scrap is doubtful.

Fr. 35

On fr. 35, they say nothing about my problem, and just smash the lines together. I'm not 100% convinced that the spurious thing is a papyrus quirk, but I guess for the sake of consistency with "e.p." I will accept this explanation.

Now, my combined transcription with fragment separations is:

]+. . .+ . Π̣[]'ΓΗ[]+.+[
]+. . . . . [] .+[]. .[
]+.+ .[]+.+ . . +.+[
]. Ψ̣ .[]Η̣ . +.+[
]Μ[]Η̣ΛωΙ . ΒΑ̣Λ̣[ . ]Ρ̣[
]Κ .[∠]\ΙΗϹΑΠΦω[          .[∠]\ = Ạ
] . ΜΟΤΑΥ̣Ρ[
] . Φ̣[ . ]€ΝΑϹ€ . [
] . €ΛΛ[
] . ΠΑΘ€ΙΤ[

The volume gives:

enter image description here


  • I have quite a few vestiges they don't; not sure why they treat them as if they weren't there; maybe it's the pic? Or maybe they are convincingly explained away as quirks? Perhaps this header thing justifies treating a few lines below it as blank?
  • On l. 2 (counted from the Gongyla line), between I and B I see something on the bottom of the line, some kind of circle; punctuation mark? And the two vestiges at the end, I see connected by what is possibly a papyrus quirk, hence the doubtfulness of my rho;
  • On l. 3, I guess we cannot be sure if the C closes or not, or if the middle stroke is present, making it possibly O or €; volume only sees top, I guess the bottom I'm seeing is a quirk?
  • On l. 4, my initial M could be split into .Ạ, and my vestige could be a quirk (not sure where exactly I saw it); I have to say my M could be a bit too wide and slanted;
  • On l. 5, I defend my transcription; «only the overhang» of their C̣ is visible, and they see «short stretches of the shank» of a rho, but they're more likely quirks than those in the heading AFAICT;
  • On l. 6, I did miss a vestige, and my two lambdas do join and form a possible mu; in fact, they don't look at all like the lambda in μήλωι up in l. 2, so I'll follow the volume;
  • On l. 7, I defend my certain letters, but did indeed miss a vestige at line beginning;
  • On l. 9, I can see where the theta came from, and also where the volume's EI comes from; given the top doesn't close, I'll go for ẸỊ there; and of course my +.+ equates to their blank space.

Fr. 38

They read:

enter image description here

I read:

].[.]. ϹΤΟϹ[
]ΟΝϹΦ .[

  • On l. 3, my nu was utter bullshit, it's definitely an Y;
  • On l. 2, the T is certain to me;
  • On l. 1, besides my hole which is arguable, what about CTOC vs. ϹΠ€̣? Well, the sigma is unquestionable; my final C should probably be doubtful given we only have a small portion of the curve; as for TO vs. Π, well, the right leg of the alleged pi closes in on itself, so I read that as an omicron, and the rest had to be a tau; well actually, the closure is incomplete, so the omicron is impossible, and we'd get CTC only from trying to read CT there, which is impossible, I think, so I'll follow them.

P.Oxy. 2506

[I eventually decided to put all of these here. Putting them in this answer goes past the character limit.]

  • 2
    I'm glad you received it!
    – Alex B.
    Commented Sep 10, 2019 at 1:35

P.Oxy. 2506

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).

Fr. 1

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 theta possis);
  • 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.


col. i

In l. 2, I'd make the C uncertain because there is only the top arc, it could be several other letters.

col. ii

  • 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 middle stroke;
  • 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 uncertainty.


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 impossible.


] . . [ (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 at end;
  • 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.


]. .[

Fr. 2

This is a very small scrap of two lines. In l. 1, the final Ỵ is too precarious for a conjecture IMO. Adespoton.

Fr. 3

Very small scrap, I agree with the transcription fully. Adespoton.

Fr. 4

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 [.


Fr. 5

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 necessarily ΔΙΟ;
  • 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!

Fr. 6

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 possible;
  • 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 – left.

Fr. 7

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.

Fr. 8

Single fragment, points to Gongyla hence Sappho.

L. 2 starts Ṇ because a faint possibly quirky trace of the diagonal stroke is present.

Fr. 9

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.

Fr. 10

Single scrap.

  • L. 1 has just a vertical line;
  • L. 2 has a vestige to the right, i.e. is ]ω .[.

Fr. 11

Single adespoton.

  • 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.

Fr. 12

Single adespoton.

L. 1 to me that is an omega, because an omicron would close and this doesn't, and the next letter X[ possis.

Fr. 13

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.

Fr. 14

Single adespoton.

Fr. 15

Single adespoton.

  • 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.

Fr. 16

Single adespoton.

Fr. 17

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.


Fr. 18

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 that out.
  • 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.

Fr. 19

Single adespoton.

In l. 2 final letter can't be Γ because those don't curve right at the bottom.

Fr. 20

Single adespoton. Look at the picture:

[![enter image description here][11]][11]

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?

Fr. 21

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.

Fr. 23

Single adespoton.

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.

Fr. 23

Single adespoton.

The l. 2 vestige may be a quirk.

Fr. 24

Single adespoton. No notes.

Fr. 25

Single adespoton.

  • It starts with a 3-letter hole, maybe 4 letters.
  • L. 5 starts with +.+.
  • L. 7 starts with 2-letter hole.

Fr. 26

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 enter image description here, 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.

/pic2 pic3

Fr. 27

Single adespoton.

In l. 1 that lambda, while possible, seems like a bold guess.

Fr. 28

Single adespoton.

Fr. 29

enter image description here

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.

Fr. 30

Single adespoton.

  • 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.

Fr. 31

Single adespoton.

Fr. 32

enter image description here

Single adespoton.

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.

Fr. 33

Single adespoton.

Fr. 34

Single adespoton.

Fr. 35

Single adespoton.

Fr. 36

Single adespoton.

Fr. 37

Single adespoton.

  • 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.

Fr. 38

Single adespoton.

First vestige of l. 1 may be quirk.

Fr. 39

Single adespoton with either epsilon or theta in first line.

Fr. 40

Single adespoton with first line possibly just a quirk.

Fr. 41

Single adespoton where second line's first mu seems to continue leftwards with what may be a quirk.

Fr. 42

(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.

Fr. 43

Single fragment, potentially mentions Charaxus hence Sappho.

col. ii

  • 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.

Fr. 44

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.

col. i

  • 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?

Fr. 45

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.

Fr. 46

Single adespoton.

Fr. 47

Single fragment. L. 4 SAPPH.

  • L. 2 suggests ending with €, but maybe the closure faded and we can read θῶσθαι there.

/pic3 pic4

Fr. 48

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.


col. i

  • 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.

col. ii

Looks like we have another fragment ignored by the transcription, which reads:

]. .[
]. . .[
]T .+.+[
]. .[

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.


col. i

No idea what is happening here. Look:

enter image description here

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[
]Ṭ .[

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.

col. ii

  • L. 21 more like vestige than eta, basically only |.


col. i

  • L. 1 residue of phi is too curved to be any other round letter;
  • L. 5 has no final I.

col. ii

  • 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.

Fr. 49

Single adespoton.

  • 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.

Fr. 50

Single adespoton.

I say l. 1 is ]+.+. .[ and l. 2 is 3-letter blank.

Fr. 51

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.

Fr. 52

Single adespoton.

Fr. 53

Single adespoton. To me it reads:

]. OΠ[
]. C̣ .[

No idea where they see the extra line or that alpha.

Fr. 54

Single adespoton.

Fr. 55

Single adespoton.

Fr. 56

Single adespoton.

  • 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 €̣.

Fr. 57

Single adespoton. L. 3 €̣ has hint of overlong middle stroke.

Fr. 58

Single adespoton.

Fr. 59

Single fragment, starts with likely mention of Sappho.

Fr. 60

Single adespoton. L. 1 looks like |·| | / </sub>, possibly ΝΙΛ. L. 2 may end with Ἀνδρο]μέδαν, hence Sappho.

Fr. 61

Single adespoton. To me it reads:

]. ỊA[
]MA .[
]. . .[

Fr. 62

Single adespoton.

Fr. 63

Single adespoton. L. 3 not sure if connection + left half of mu or right half of mu period.

Fr. 64

Single adespoton.

Fr. 65

Single adespoton.

Fr. 66

Single adespoton. No idea where l. 2 comes from.

Fr. 67

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.

Fr. 68

Single adespoton.

Fr. 69

Single adespoton.

Fr. 70

Single adespoton, and that – from col. i may well be in the vertical middle of l. 3.

Fr. 71

Single adespoton. I read l. 3 as MEG, and the last line is ]LL[ to me.

Fr. 72

Single adespoton.

Fr. 73

Single adespoton.

  • 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.

Fr. 74

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.

Fr. 75

Single adespoton. Final vestige of l. 2 may be quirk, I can hardly even see it.

Fr. 76

Single adespoton.

Fr. 77

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€[.

/pic4 pic5

The rest must be in a third self-answer.


Character limitations are a pain in the a$$, so here's a third answer from fr. 78 on. Hopefully the last I add to this question.

Fr. 78

Single adespoton.

L. 11 KAI ., . epsilon or theta (closure would be off papyrus), hole is two letters.

Fr. 79

Single, fragment may mention Aristarchus and Dikaiargus, not sure where that points. The others single adespota.

L. 5 suggests TAYT to me.

Fr. 80

Single adespoton.

  • L. 1 three dots, a bottom arc, and possibly a bend down in the arc, not sure if that is a quirk or the upward continuation is; In fact everything here may be; The most certain thing is the arc;
  • L. 2 final nu possibly quirk.

Fr. 81

Seems to be two adespota treated as a single fragment for mysterious reasons. Fibers suggest ll. 1-10 of col. ii were opposite ll. 8-17 of fr. 98, whose subject is Alcaeus. No way to confirm 81 shares that subject.

col. ii

L. 6 vestige may be quirk.

col. i

  • L. 2 vestige at end is connection to iota;
  • L. 3 what happened to the C, it looks like it's split across a hole;
  • L. 5 vestige is connection, and a hint of the – of the H can be seen though the faded-our area goes right along said –;
  • L. 6 C looks like O which lost the bottom-right closure;
  • L. 7 I wonder if blank was +.+;
  • L. 8 3 vestiges are a two-dash \ and a –, could we argue they're two vestiges?

Fr. 82

Looks like three adespota treated as one fragment:

  • 82.1 is l. 1 + YMM of l. 2;
  • 82.3 is AC | . N ending ll. 3-4, the vestige is part of the epsilon;
  • 82.2 is rest.


L. 5 initial vestige may be quirk.

Fr. 83

Single adespoton.

  • L. 2 first uncertain letter is vestige to me, and I'm not sure why they see a N there when all that's left is a little ; Ị could be T because there is a fade-out at the top and something over the previous alpha (which may otherwise be part of the alpha and have lost its connection to the rest); final lambda may be quirk;
  • L. 4 can't see the vestige at the beginning, unless it's just that dot on the margin which is quite possibly a quirk;
  • L. 10 starts I˙C, or maybe IK, but I'm thinking εἰς τὸ δεύτερον there; KT… could that give a completion?

Fr. 84

Adespoton, joined with 108

  • L. I assume the joint motivates the uncertain readings at the start, whereas the final Ṇ is suggested by the traces;
  • L. 4 the gamma could be a tau, both bottoms have quirky visibility.

More may be found at 108 below.

Fr. 85

Single adespoton. In l. 1 I would have read a delta but the right closure stoops up a little too much for that.

Fr. 86

Two-column single adespoton.

  • L. 1 I see three traces, 3 vestiges it is;
  • L. 2 I suppose that left half-mu has too small a belly to be the alpha I originally mistook it for?
  • L. 3 speaks ωϹΑΝ to me;
  • L. 7 looks like HCN to me, no idea where that I would be or how they'd end the N if the I was what I'm taking to be the left leg of the N.

Fr. 87

Single adespoton.

  • L. 1 single vestige;
  • L. 3 3-letter hole seems too much considering the following vestige is just a high dash possibly from a tau.

Fr. 88

Two adespota. The pic places (a) above (b), a placement suggested by the volume, which however transcribes (a) to the left of (b), and gives no indication as to why they should even go together.


Where the heck are the three blank lines and the two vestigial lines?


Counting the superscript as a line:

  • L. 3 I guess the O is a bit squished, hence the vestige before it;
  • L. 5 vestige is connection to M;
  • L. 6 first vestige may be delta.

Fr. 89

Single adespoton. L. 5 possibly quirky extra vestige to right.

Fr. 90

Seems like two fragments, mentions the Monkey as said in my first self-answer.

  • L. 7 is ]. Ḷ[. . .]€̣ .[ to me;
  • Ll. 8-9 the main fragment starts with half-phi (no vertical part) and half-nu (basically _|), the smaller fragment ends with almost full omega and with full epsilon.

Fr. 91

L. 1 possibly Ἀλ]καῖος, so assigned to Alcaeus.

In the last line the alpha is uncertain as the bits that make it not-lambda are possibly quirky.

Frr. 92-95

All single adespota.

Fr. 96

Two fragments, (a) and (b). Adespota.

  • 96(a) l. 1 final Ạ is just /, make it .
  • 96(b) l. 2 Ị possibly gamma with cut-off top.

Apparently 96(a)-(b) «come from the same neighborhood, perhaps also Fr. 97». No idea why.

Fr. 97

Single adespoton.

  • L. 1 make mu vestige, I see it more as a N without the right leg than an M.
  • The space in l. 6 is hardly any bigger than the ignored space between A and COY in l. 5, remove it.
  • L. 7 what looks like a single first trace is actually | + something disconnected. Why not make it Ị then?

Fr. 98

Two groups, (a) and (b). 98(a) is multiple fragments:

  1. Top-left, contributing to ll. 1-9;
  2. Middle-left, contributing to ll. 7-17;
  3. Middle-right, contributing to ll. 5-12;
  4. Top-right, contributing to ll. 3-9.

The photo arranges the fragments horribly, lining up l. 3 of fr. 3 with l. 6 of fr. 1 whereas it should line up with l. 7. Frr. 1-2 are correctly lined up to each other, as are frr. 3-4.

L. 10 appears to mention Alcaeus, so this is not Sappho.

98(b) is a single fragment, joining in at l. 16. What the heck happened to it though? It looks like the papyrus was sabotaged by inserting a spurious bit which splits the C in the last line in 2 and causes the right-hand parts of the last two lines to be further down than the left-hand ones!

Fr. 96(a).1 (top-left)

  • L. 4 uncertain letters either alpha or lambda.
  • Ll., 6-9 of it stop at TAXIN, ME., NA.

Fr. 96(a).2 (middle)

Using line numberings from the combo, which are 7 ahead of the fragment's natural numbering.

  • L. 7 reads ET, the T being half on this one half on the one on the right.
  • L. 8 has IΔA, with A split between fragments. No disagreement with the crit note of the volume here.
  • Next line has ΛKAIO., but it looks like either that N was stretched like crazy or this should be ΛKAIO.[.]. with the hole between fr. 2 and fr. 3.
  • Next two lines have holes splitting this off from the right one.
  • Then at the OTPI of l. 12 this fragment extends further right, and the TOIC of that line is split vertically between this one and the end of fr. 3.

Fr. 96(a).3 (middle-right)

Again using the numbering of the combo, thus 5 ahead of the papyrus's natural numbering.

  • It starts at line 5, with bottoms of letters up to the phi.
  • L. 6 ends at phi.
  • L. 7 has T of MEMNHTAI split between frr. 3-4.
  • L. 8 ends at gamma
  • L. 9 ends at split H of THI, then fr. 4 ends.
Fr. 96(a).4 (top-right)

Again using the combo numbering, which is 3 lines ahead.

L. 6 has no space, what the heck is up with that? I was almost reading PHI with the left leg of the pi for crying out loud! Then I realized it's of course ΡΗΠΑΡΑ.

  • L. 9 ends with two possibly quirky traces.
  • L. 10 has only – left for tau.

Fr. 99

Single adespoton.

  • L. 3 looks like ]Ị more than ]Ḥ to me.
  • L. 4 I guess the bottom hook excludes T[?

Fr. 100

Single adespoton.

  • In l. 1, why . . when ΙΠ seems clear enough?
  • Last vestige of l. 2 is gamma or pi to me.

Fr. 101

Single adespoton.

To me that ]N in l. 3 could just as easily be ]Y.

Fr. 102

Mentions Alcaeus, so not Sappho.

3 fragments.

  • L. 4 not sure I see the final vestige, it's definitely connected to the alpha.
  • L. 5 fr. 2 starts, and that IΔAN is awfully garbled. In fact, the I is barely visible if at all, it's almost as if only serifs were left, and the delta is missing the bottom stroke, and the N, what the heck is that N?
  • Ll. 5-7 the two fragments are separated by the holes, the next lines have ΑΠΡΟϹ, ΚΙΝΔΥΝ, ΟϹΤΟ, Ν€ΤΟ, ΟϹ€Π, and the whole line on fr. 2.
  • In l. 6 I'd probably make the lambda of Alcaeus uncertain, since only a / is left.
  • In l. 7 the rho in the hole actually seems to have left a trace running along the margin, possibly quirky.
  • L. 8 ends fr. 1 and fr. 3 starts next line. The tau therein left so little I'm unsure whether to make it a vestige.
  • In l. 10 the space in OC TO seems justifiable as an accidentally longer tau-top.
  • In l. 11 the N of €Γ€N€TO is split between fragments. And the tau-top is even longer than the one in the line before 🙂.
  • In l. 12 the € of €P seems more like a C.

Fr. 103

Single adespoton.

  • L. 1 ]I or ]T or the likes.
  • L. 3 to me is ]H, I see the middle stroke starting.

Fr. 104

Single adespoton.

L. 2 Ẹ[ could be theta.

Fr. 105

L. 11 may mention Alcaeus, otherwise single adespoton.

  • L. 6 the delta looks like X because the bottom stroke is gone and the top has the lines going past their meeting point.
  • L. 10 [.] more like +.+ since there is some papyrus in there, albeit with holes.
  • L. 15 starts with +..+.
  • L. 16 why not ΠAΠHETAI?
  • L. 17 final Π would have read T more than Π but MT is probably not a thing.

Fr. 106

Single adespoton

  • L. 1 .[ could almost be a high dot.
  • L. 4 .[ not quirky as the nearby quirks are brown not black as this basically-dot is.

Fr. 107

Single adespoton.

Fr. 108

Single adespoton, joined with fr. 84 above at ll. 5-8.

  • L. 1 Ị uncertain possibly because of weird bottom hook, or because it's close to the margin and some pi-top could have been cut off?
  • L. 4 tempted to call .[ an omicron or omega or theta… OK vestige 🙂.
  • L. 8 .[ possibly quirk.
  • L. 10 quirks make end possibly EP[ or E .[, where P means pi.
  • L. 15 ω .[. Another blank line may fit in the end.

About 84.

  • Its l. 1 final nu weird but I guess it's the best guess. ]Y has top cut out but I guess the thickness variations point to Y?
  • L. 2 initial H becomes certain once fused with the final vestige on the corresponding line of 108.
  • L. 4 gamma I guess far too long top to be a tau.

Fr. 109

Single adespoton.

Fr. 110

Single adespoton

L. 2 ]. may be quirky.

Frr. 111-112

These seem to have been joined. Both single adespota.

Fr. 113

Single adespoton.

  • L. 2 hole maybe two letters.
  • L. 3 maybe ]. A.
  • Not sure what's appening after that, since I see ]. +.+ . [ with .[ possibly quirky, two blank lines, and ].[.

Fr. 114

In the only line I'm tempted to read HC but HO, HΘ, Η€ also possible.

Fr. 115

Single adespoton.

  • L. 2 phi ascender too high for anything else.
  • L. 3 can't see initial vestige.
  • L. 4 more like ]K to me, also A isn't underdotted, pretty sure that's a blemish in the paper.
  • L. 7 ]N possis.
  • L. 8 H[ possis I guess, would exclude TI[.
  • L. 11 last epsilon has lost middle stroke.
  • L. 12 final tau is but a high dot.
  • L. 15 ends with two dots, perhaps only one letter.

Fr. 116

Single adespoton.

Fr. 117

Single adespoton.

L. 1 alpha uncertain because the trace that would make it alpha not lambda is possibly quirky.

Fr. 118

Single adespoton.

Reads ]. O[ to me. I doubt it could be a theta there, and the dot on the O's top-left is definitely not a quirk.

Fr. 119

Single adespoton.

Fr. 120

Single adespoton.

  • Uncertain A in l. 2 is vestige to me, no idea how to be sure it's not lambda or delta.
  • L. 2 has extra vestige at start in the form of a connection to the €, which is barely recognizable and half-merged with the Y.

Fr. 121

Single adespoton.

Fr. 122

Single adespoton.

L. 3 final vestige possibly quirk, ]P probably certain (eta maybe?), rho definitely underdot.

Fr. 123

Single adespoton.

  • L. 4 ]. possibly quirk, there's two dots but the second one (also possibly quirk) is part of the omega.
  • L. 5 possibly ends with lambda.
  • L. 6 no initial vestige.

Fr. 124

Two fragments:

  1. Top-right (sellotaped incorrectly making the lines not line up, it should be a little higher up);
  2. Rest.

Fixed to 125-126 by fibers.

Column 1:

L. 3 maybe ].Y, possibly quirk.

Column 2:

  • L. 2 is EN[.]E, and in it and l. 1 the hole marks the fragment division.
  • L. 3 is split after KA.
  • L. 4 has A half on fr. 1 half gone, and C on fr. 2.
  • L. 5 I see a possibly quirky dot.
  • L. 6 I see ⌝C and possibly ··.
  • L. 7 pi I guess top too short from right to apparent | to be T.
  • L. 10 .[ at best possibly quirk if not entirely nonexistent.
  • L. 11 tempted to read OI or EI or O. or E.[.

Fr. 125

Single adespoton. Fixed to 124 and 126 by fibers.

Fr. 126

Single adespoton fixed relative to 124-125 by fibers.

  • L. 1 I'd say ]..[.
  • L. 2 [.] is half-hole half +.+, and .[ is possibly quirk.
  • L. 4 may end with possibly quirky vestige.
  • L. 5 CT[ possibly quirks.
  • L. 6 ]Η ]Π possis, after NI +...+ where I can see possibly quirky IIN.
  • L. 7 ]ΠΡΟC+...+[.
  • L. 8 ]H and NOI possibly quirky, and after that another possibly quirky dot.
  • L. 9 we have possible quirk, top arc, then a possibly quirky straight line three letters long with two possibly quirky dots on the left below it, and a possibly quirky smidge on the right, no idea where that N would be, I'd say ]. C̣ +....+[

Frr. 127-128

Single adespota.

Fr. 129

2 fragments fixed vertically by back fibers, (b) 1 and (a) 7 may be same line, that's how the image lines them up. Adespoton.

  • L. 1 phi uncertain, only half the circle is left.
  • L. 2 Ọ[… what else can it be? C after TP? No middle stroke so no € no Θ… make it certain.
  • L. 4 CHI[ not that likely, it would be CH I[. CHN possis.
  • L. 5 I guess X could be K hence uncertain?
  • Last line of (a) high dot and final . possibly quirky.
  • L. 3 of (b) K is just low , €X certain, the rest is barely visible. The Ρ left just the |, the Η just a smidge, the Ϲ is half-gone (bottom), the Θ is just a dot, the Α is possibly the most certain of the bunch.
  • L. 4 the Y is basically a dent in the papyrus with a little black at top-right, the Λ has only its left half.
  • L. 5 why space at end?
  • L. 7 seems to end C .[, but I guess we have a curved I and a very noticeable leftward extension of the N's left leg? Couldn't be ϹΘ or CT anyway.
  • L. 9 ]. is just a dot.

Fr. 130

Single adespoton.

  • L. 1 ends with ı ı ̮, HO[ ΠΟ[ ΙΓΟ[ suggested in note.
  • L. 6 KAI[ possis.
  • L. 7 .[ possibly quirky.
  • L. 9 second € is € because visible trace of middle stroke, final vestige pssibly quirky.

Fr. 131

This is the probable Alcman one in the other self-answer.

  • L. 1 .. may be M.
  • L. 3 ]K only low .
  • L. 4 ]E has middle stroke and possibly quirky dot from top.

Fr. 132

Single adespoton.

Fr. 133

3 fragments, (a)-(c).

  • (a) l. 4 initial .[ possibly quirky, .[ I see O .[.
  • (a) l. 7 €[ doesn't convince me at all, thought the bottom-right that would disambiguate is gone.
  • (c) l. 4 may start ]. €, possibly quirky just about like ]. in next line.
  • (c) l. 5 looks like Κ·ω, but that high dot there makes no sense, perhaps apostrophe?

Fr. 134

Single adespoton.

Fr. 135

Single adespoton.

L. 4 C certain because middle stroke and closure were definitely never there.

Fr. 136

Single adespoton.

Fr. 137

Two adespota, (a)-(b). Order uncertain. Adespoton.

  • (b) l. 7 either ] H or ]+.+H.
  • (b) l. 11 second . possibly quirky.

Fr. 138

3 fragments, (a)-(c). Order uncertain. Adespoton.

  • (b) ll. 1 & 3 look like –.
  • (c) l. 4 ]I possis.
  • (c) l. 6 possibly quirky.

Fr. 139

Single adespoton.

L. 5 .[ T possis.

Fr. 140

Single adespoton.

L. 1 T is –̣ basically.

Fr. 141

Single adespoton.

L. 1 ]H seems highly probable, H[ I will make .[ because IMHO the level of certainty is very low.

Fr. 142

Single adespoton.

  • L. 1 N[ doesn't exist. The margin cuts through the end of the omega.
  • L. 2 N is |/ </sub>|, so I guess certain? But the \ is potentially quirky and the / would be out of place, so Ṇ be it.

Fr. 143

Single adespoton.

Fr. 144

Single adespoton.

  • L. 1 suggests APTI but the I has some smidges at the bottom in both directions.
  • L. 2 vestige possibly quirky, A… I guess it can be nothing else? I mean, I'd be tempted to see a lambda there, but I'm pretty sure they don't do lambdas like computer lowercase lambdas on this papyrus.

Fr. 145

Single adespoton.

  • L. 2 tempted to read ΓΑΡ, not sure if Ρ is possible at end, Γ at start sure is.
  • L. 3 – is the trace.

Fr. 146

Single adespoton.

Fr. 147

Single adespoton.

  • L. 1 Π has a quirk that makes it look like an H. So I read the line as HC initially.
  • L. 4 ]ΛI possible.

Fr. 148

Single adespoton.

L. 2 I[ possis.

Fr. 149

Single adespoton.

  • L. 1 APX .[ to me.
  • L. 3 ]ΛM or ]AM.
  • L. 4 ]€Γ or ]. Π, I thought T originally but the | is too close to the trace from the left for that.

Fr. 150

2 fragments, what the heck is up with these? The best joining attempt is completely ignoring a bit of papyrus! Not ignoring this causes the portions of l. 4 on each fragment to not line up!

L. 4 if ignoring that bit then C is split between fragments with only a high \ left on the bottom one and very bottom of apha went on low frag.

Fr. 151

Single adespoton.

  • L. 1 Γ poss. Π.
  • L. 2 Ω not Ο or the likes because squished?

Fr. 154

Single adespoton.

  • L. 2 vestige possibly quirky.
  • L. 4 definitely at least three vestiges.

Frr. 155-156

Single adespota.

Fr. 157

Single adespoton.

L. 3 +..+

Fr. 158

Single adespoton.

Fr. 159

Single adespoton.

L. 2 gamma is Z without /, what is the bottom doing there? Or why not Z with faded-away /? Perhaps that bottom is a paragraphos.

Frr. 160-161

Single adespota.

Fr. 162

Single adespoton.

.[ quirk, it's actually +.+A[.

Fr. 163

Single adespoton.

Fr. 164

Single adespoton.

L. 2 Y I suppose not T because not constant thickness.

Frr. 165-170

Single adespota.

Fr. 171

Single adespoton.

L. 2 no idea where they got the certain N, that is definitely a Y to me.

Fr. 172

Single adespoton.

Fr. 173

Single adespoton.

L. 1 possibly quirky middle stroke probable cause of Ẹ reading rather than C̣

Frr. 174-175

Single adespota.

Fr. 176

Single adespoton.

Reads as below to me.

]. .[

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service and acknowledge you have read our privacy policy.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.