We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 09 November 2018
In PCPS N.S. XV (1969), 69 ff. I defined the triadic structure of P. Oxy. 2735 fr. I and suggested that the contents of this and other fragments would seem more at home in Ibycus than in Stesichorus. It was already clear that not all the fragments of this papyrus come from the same poem, but I had not yet noticed that the number of poems represented is probably at least three, and that there are now further reasons for preferring Ibycus as author.
The following two fragments belong to poems different from each other and from fr. 1:
(a) P. Oxy. 2735 fr. II
(i) The tradic structure (top of column)
(a), (b), (c) with paragraphos mark stanza-ends according to the three schemes described immediately below.
Though the left-hand margin is nowhere preserved, I take it as self-evident that these are the beginnings of lines. It is likely, in Ibycus or Stesichorus, that eighteen lines will cover at least about two-thirds, perhaps the whole, of a triad; and in fact it seems obvious that strophe, antistrophe, and epode are represented here, although it is not quite certain where the stanzas end.
There are three choices:
(a) 1–6 = ant., 7–11 = ep., 12–17 = str., 18 ff. = ant.
(b) 1–5 = ant., 6–10 = ep., 11–16 = str., 17 ff. = ant.
(c) 1–5 = str., 6–16 = ant., 17 ff. = ep.
page 89 note 1 Simultaneously also West, M. L., Z[eitschrift für] P[apyrologie und] E[pigraphik] (1969), pp. 142 ff.Google Scholar
page 90 note 1
Scanning 
and presuming a consonant after γαμεν in 6, and supposing 
in 17 (e.g. 
).
page 90 note 2
Scanning 
(or, with monosyllabic biceps, 
) in 6 and supposing 
(or 
) in 17.
page 90 note 3 This choice was overlooked by me, noticed by Mr Barrett. Mr Barrett has put me heavily in debt to him by sending me his comments on the present paper and allowing me to make full use of his work.
page 91 note 1 :]δε: δε is preceded by accent and ‘upper tip of a stroke rising from left’ (Lobel). The letter must be a vowel. The trace could not have been left by α ε η ι ο ω. It could have been left by υ, but no line began ύδε. The trace must be misleading, perhaps (as it looks in the Plate) a thickening of the left-hand extremity of the accent. The only practical possibility is ó.
page 91 note 2 Marked τᾰς as in Epicharmus, P. Oxy. 2427. 57. 2, τᾰσδεκ[.
page 91 note 3 Perhaps four-horse chariots, ἅρμασι τε[τρώροισ(ι). Then e.g. ἐριαύχενες ἵπποι ἐ]∣-νικάσαν; it is better to have a dactyl before νικάσαν.
page 92 note 1 Cf. Pausanias 5. 17. II, Ιόλαος… ἐθελοντὴς μετεῙχεν Ἡρακλέι τῶν ἔργων; it sounds as though Heracles did something more than sit in his chair.
page 92 note 2 Mr Barrett prefers γα μέν here and in P. Oxy. 2618 fr. 1 ii 9 (see below). I have some doubt whether there is room for a ‘γa μέν’ clause in the narrow space provided by this context.
page 93 note 1 Free composition is easy enough: ‘The fate of unforeseen misfortune is harsh for mortals –the kind that was as an iron bond upon Euphamos, who once married the sister of Heracles; whom etc’; χαλεττὰ δέ τις ἀν[δράσι μοῙρʾ ἀνελπίστου ττάθας, ∣ ἅτε σιδάρεος π[λετʾ ἐπʾ Εὐφάμοιο δεσμός· ὅς ττοτε ∣ Ἡρακλέος γᾶμεν σ[υνομαίμονα Λαονόμαν· ∣ ὃv ὑφʾ ἄρμασι κτλ.
page 94 note 1 But not fr. 13, as both West (ZPE (1969), p. 148) and I (PCPS, 1969) erroneously stated; there are two consecutive short lines at fr. 13. 4–5, which cannot be reconciled with the pattern of line-ends in fr. I.
page 94 note 2 The line-ends in frr. 2, 27, and 42 do not fit the pattern of fr. 1 or fr. 16, but their association with the poem represented in fr. II cannot be ruled out.
page 96 note 1 ἵπποι ἐ ∣ νικάσαν τρεχοίσαι would suit well in that place.
