Ah, here we are again. The Spanish edition I mentioned in a recent question has produced another piece of trivia. Here is the offending fragment, numbered 89:
Σαπ[φοΟί με[λών δ'?
Apart from the usual garbling of the text, this seems to be a colophon of a papyrus that, if the completion is read right, should give fragments from book IV. Looking at the translation:
would seem to suggest that the original line breaking was:
Now, I know of two colophons. One is of book 1, found on P.Oxy. 1231 fr. 56:
the other is of book 2, found on P.Oxy. 2076:
Very clearly, neither matches the assumed line breaking, or the bracketing for that matter.
Moreover, the Spanish edition says it uses the text of Reinach's edition, which I recently reconstructed to have been published in 1937 and reprinted in 1966. I assume they would follow Reinach's order of the fragments, besides the text, given that at the end there is a section called "Fragmentos no recopilados en la edición de T. Reinach" (framgents not compiled in the edition of T. Reinach). The fact of the matter is, this is placed at the very end of book IV, with the fragments right before it being all universally book IV (in fact, fr. 88 is a safopoemas-style smashing of P.Oxy. 1787 fragments, the other such smashing being fr. 40 from P.Oxy. 1231 fragments), and what starts afterwards being precisely the book V part of Lobel-Page, minus some fragments published later than Reinach. So this would lead me to assume Reinach actually had this as a book IV colophon, or a supposed such thing.
The problem with this is that, if such a colophon existed, I would assume Voigt's monumental edition would record it together with the two above, in the section ad editiones antiquorum pertinentia of the Testimonia. But that is not the case. In fact, the two colophons above are the only ones in that section. Which would lead me to assume no book IV colophon for Sappho was ever found.
So what do I make of this? Is there such a colophon which Voigt somehow missed or recorded elsewhere? Should that colophon be taken as one of the two above with a spectacular corruption? What did Reinach have that matches this? Can we answer any of these questions?
Here is the paragraph where the edition states they follow Reinach's text:
El texto griego que hemos utilizado fue el que preparó Theodore Reinach, en atención a su magnífico aparato crítico y como homenaje mínimo a su severo y conservador trabajo, que prefiere, sin audacia, leer lo mínimo con la seguridad de que esas escasas palabras fueron de Safo, en lugar de las largas, interesantes y arriesgadas reconstrucciones de otros autores. Como la edición de Reinach, que finalmente revisó Aimé Puech, fue anterior a la publicación de varios papiros importantes y de otras ediciones útilísimas, hemos consultado permanentemente las de Edmonds, Diehl y Page, y en varias ocasiones las hemos seguido.
The Greek text we have used was that which Théodore Reinach prepared, as a courtesy to his magnificent critical apparatus and as a minimal tribute to his strict and conservative work, who prefers, without audacity, to read as little as possible, with the certainty that those few words were by Sappho, in place of the wide, interesting and risky reconstructions of other authors. Since the edition of Reinach, finally revised by Aimé Puech, predated the publication of various important papyri and of other very useful editions, we have permanently consulted those of Edmonds, Diehl, and Page, and in various occasions we have followed them.
(So that is where all those daring reconstructions I saw in safopoemas come from! They should still be in variantes though, IMHO…)