6 S. EITREM. [No. 3 



Zapacofr etc. 



acoi) 



«■ 

 I do not agree with Preisendanz, Wien. Stud. 40 (1919), 115 

 in taking y.afrucpsp to mean xa9-u7rsp9-sv "downwards from above" 

 and every time repeating the whole line, only taking one letter 

 away from the beginning at every new start ; xaø-u<psp = xaftuTrsp 

 is without parallel. V. 230 s^a^vjs should be corrected into 

 sY(/.a£y)s "blot out" (syyovo? = sxyovog is different, cp. Mayser, 

 Gramm. p. 228 note). V. 232 Wessely's (and Wilcken's) reading 

 Tikifc^ is correct. V. 248: the pap. has a^suorwaacrxa . . ., 

 probably we have to take d^sutTTwaa; as one word (oc^sucttoc 

 elsewhere gives dc^siKrreiv, Polyb. III 111,8, Lobeck Phryn. 

 595 sq. ; atjjsurrrouv as ålsuft-spouv sim.). xa[Aok|, as Wessely 

 read, offers at least a fitting supplement. But then in my opinion 

 the pap. shows a /, not a X over the line. How Ken. can find 

 the headless figure prescribed above at the end of Pap. 122, I 

 cannot discover. This latter figure has both head and sword. 

 V. 260 sqq. contain a charm against "the rising of the 

 womb". The womb, ff^fpa, reminds the magician of all ysvvyjcng 

 and all yévscnc, also of the origin of the world. Perhaps we 

 have at the beginning to supplement: s£opxi£w as, M-/]Tpa[[v]] or 

 s£opxi£co as, <(tt]v) MvjTpav, {xxra tou ovofjuxTog tou (xsyxÅou '9xOU 

 tou) xaraaTafrsvTog S7u Tvjg a(3uaaou sim ; Wessely tried xoctoc 

 tou (xaTa)aTa9-£VToc. The second xoctoc- may have pulled out 

 the first xaTa and what follows. V. 261 tov xTiaavTa (izolvzol) 

 ayysXov a>v 7rpwToc etc, cp. e. g. Pap. Bibl. Nat. 1708 sq. : 6pxi£a) 

 y9]v xal oupavov xal cpcog xal axoTog xal tov xavTa XTiaavTa a^sojv 

 [xéyav Sapouaiv. Though TravTa is here the neuter plural, still 

 such doxologic phrases as ib. V. 1040 xTiaac %oia<x.v ^uj^vjv x- " 

 ysvsaiv and ib. V. 1202 xTiaag a)-soug xal ap^ayyéXouc xal 8sxavoug 

 clearly show how easily the same thought may have formed the 

 phrase at our place . But xaTa tou etc. above and then with the 

 accusative tov xtictocvtoc etc. form a bad anacolouth (thus Wessely). 

 The whole construction is as follows : s£opju£co es, MvJTpa, 

 . . . a7rozaTa<TTx9'7Jvaii . . . |i.7]o*£ x)a9"/]vai . . . uv/jSs xizobziEflq . . . 



