Commit
This commit does not belong to any branch on this repository, and may belong to a fork outside of the repository.
- Commit - I made the following corrections: l. 6: I read Παν̣βαυ, and chi in the following line, perhaps a name with the αυνχις/αυνχης component (cf. e.g. Παύνχης in O.Theb. 106). In line 12: the problematic ἐκεῖθεν => ἔ[σ]ω̣ ('resides inside'). In l. 13 J.-L. Fournet had proposed γρά̣[μ]μ̣α̣, but γρά̣[ψα]ι̣ is more plausible followed by the conj. ἢ. I've retained his proposal in l. 14: ἀνελθεῖν. On the verso, a pi with a cross-stroke was misinterpreted => οἰ{π}νοπώλῃ (π(αρὰ)) (Constantinos Balamoshev) - Submit - Corrections in ll. 6-7, 12, 13 and the verso. (Constantinos Balamoshev) - Vote - AcceptText - lins6–7 Παν̣βαυ looks good, but χ̣ is not better than λ̣; the name appears to be new and it would be risky to restore it. || lin12 I suppose the correction is ἐκεῖθεν => ἐκεῖ ἔ[σ]ω̣, and this looks likely; cf. P.Warr. 17.8 ἐκεῖ ἔσ̣ω. || lin13 γρά̣[ψα]ι̣ ἢ̣ is better than what has proposed previously. || Verso: (π(αρὰ) is plausible. (οἰ{π}νοπώλῃ will hide οἰ{π}νοπώλῃ from searches; better <:οἰ{π}νοπώλῃ|reg| οἰπνοπώλῃ:>, but it’s a very strange error.) (Nikolaos Gonis) - General - Yes, correct. I forgot to add ἐκεῖ with ἔ[σ]ω̣. (Constantinos Balamoshev) - Vote - AcceptText - Agreed, Παν̣βα- is convincing, but based on other lines there shouldn't be a missing letter at the beginning of l. 7 and since the restoration is not attested, I would leave the name as Παν̣βαυ|λης for now. 12: ἐκεῖθεν => ἐκεῖ ἔ[σ]ω̣ is good (ἐκεῖ was omitted from the correction); on back correction to title and π(αρά) look good (Graham Claytor) - Finalized - done (Nikolaos Gonis)
- Loading branch information