DDbDP transcription: bgu.20.2847 [xml]
I sac Herakleopolite
[Reprinted from: bgu.8.1763] BGU 8 1763
(hand 2) ☓ ἐλ(ήφθη) (ἔτους) γ Ἐπιφ κη κατὰ̣ Σ̣αδ̣α(λ- )
(hand 1) Σωτ̣έλει συγγενεῖ καὶ στρατηγῶι καὶ ἐπὶ τῶν
προσόδων vac. ?
παρὰ Ἀλεξάνδρου τοῦ Κε̣φ̣ά̣λωνοσ κ̣α̣ὶ̣
5τῶν σὺ̣ν̣ α̣ὐ̣τ̣ῷ̣ [ὄν]των ἀπὸ τοῦ Σαδαλείου
στρατιωτῶν τῆι κζ τοῦ ἐνεστῶτος
μηνὸς Ἐπεὶφ ἥ ἐστιν̣ π̣ροσάμβατον,
ἐρχομένων ἡμῶν ε ̣[ -ca.?- ]
ὀλίγων ὥστε ἐπ̣ι̣ ̣ ̣ ̣[ -ca.?- ](*)
10κεκοφότων ὑμῶν κατα[ -ca.?- ]
καὶ ἐν τῷ πεδίῳ ἐπίθεσ̣[ιν -ca.?- ](*)
ἀποστατικῷ τρόπῳ [ -ca.?- ]
ἐκ τοῦ Σαδαλείου σπεῖρ[ -ca.?- ]
Ἀλέξανδρο̣ν̣ λάαρχο̣ν̣ σκ̣α̣[ -ca.?- ](*)
15καὶ Φίλων Δωροθέου καὶ [ -ca.?- ]
καὶ Ζηνόδωρος Σωστρ[άτου -ca.?- ]
τοις ἑ̣π̣ό̣μενοι τ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣[ -ca.?- καθω-]
πλι̣σ̣μένοι παρὰ τὴν [ -ca.?- ]
ρ̣ο̣. προα̣ί̣ρε̣σιν̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣[ -ca.?- ]
20μάλιστα δὲ ἀβασιλευσ̣ί̣[α](*) [ -ca.?- ]
μὴ(*) στοχαζόμενοι το ̣ ̣[ -ca.?- ]
ἐξ ἡμῶν ταῖς μαχαίραις [ -ca.?- ]
[ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣] δὲ τοῖς ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣[ -ca.?- ]
[- ca.15 -]ισε[ -ca.?- ]
-- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --
Apparatus
^ 9.
ευ̣ρ̣ι̣σ̣θ̣ ̣ ̣[ -ca.?- ] prev. ed.^ 11.
ἐπιθεμ̣[εν -ca.?- ] prev. ed.^ 14.
N. Litinas (from image) (via PN) : Ἀλέξανδρο̣ς̣ λαάρχη̣ς̣ κ̣α̣[ὶ -ca.?- ] prev.
ed.^ 20.
D. Kaltsas : α βασιλεῦσ̣ι̣[ -ca.?- ] prev. ed.^ 20-21.
[αὐ]|τοῦ prev. ed.
- 2022-09-22T09:51:14-04:00 [james.cowey]: Finalized - Ready.
- 2022-09-22T09:06:20-04:00 [gclaytor]: Vote - Accept-Straight-to-Finalization - The accusative looks fine but I would dot
both nus. This needs to be marked as a PN correction with (image) as the source.
- 2022-09-22T07:51:36-04:00 [nikos]: Submit - In l. 14 Ἀλέξανδρο̣ς̣ λαάρχη̣ς̣ κ̣α̣[ὶ ][.?] -> Ἀλέξανδρο̣ν λάαρχο̣ν σκ̣α̣[.?]
on photo online The accusative is clear because we can see the last letter ν (especially
the oblique and the right vertical of N) in both words: Ἀλέξανδρο̣ν λάαρχο̣ν σκ̣α̣[
(or ση̣μ̣[ ). In any case, as indicated in the edition the ending of the nominative
Ἀλέξανδρο̣ς̣ λάαρχο̣ς̣ is uncertain. Part of the omicron of Ἀλέξανδρο̣ν can be seen
and it is almost a dor like the one at the end of Ζηνόδωρος in l. 16. As for λάαρχο̣ν,
we find χο only in ἐρχομένων in l. 8., and certainly it is not the same. However,
the letter α that follows χ in ll. 21 στοχαζόμενοι and 22 μαχαίραις is not formed
in the same way and ductus. Probably in λάαρχο̣ς̣ a small letter omicron was made
at the end of the right top edge of χ, and the ink spot there may be part of that
omicron, Otherwise, we have to assume that omicron is lost in the damaged area between
χ and ν, and so transcribe λάαρχ[o]ν. Then, σκ̣α̣[ as read in the edition looks fine,
even though I can even read ση̣μ̣[.
- 2022-09-22T06:28:59-04:00 [james.cowey]: Vote - Return-Straight-to-Sender - Sending back as requested
- 2022-09-13T10:28:55-04:00 [nikos]: Submit - In l. 14 Ἀλέξανδρο̣ς̣ λαάρχη̣ς̣ κ̣α̣[ὶ ][.?] -> Ἀλέξανδρο̣ν λάαρχο̣ν σκ̣α̣[.?]
on photo online The accusative is clear because we can see the last letter ν (especially
the oblique and the right vertical of N) in both words: Ἀλέξανδρο̣ν λάαρχο̣ν σκ̣α̣[
(or ση̣μ̣[ ). In any case, as indicated in the edition the ending of the nominative
Ἀλέξανδρο̣ς̣ λάαρχο̣ς̣ is uncertain. Part of the omicron of Ἀλέξανδρο̣ν can be seen
and it is almost a dor like the one at the end of Ζηνόδωρος in l. 16. As for λάαρχο̣ν,
we find χο only in ἐρχομένων in l. 8., and certainly it is not the same. However,
the letter α that follows χ in ll. 21 στοχαζόμενοι and 22 μαχαίραις is not formed
in the same way and ductus. Probably in λάαρχο̣ς̣ a small letter omicron was made
at the end of the right top edge of χ, and the ink spot there may be part of that
omicron, Otherwise, we have to assume that omicron is lost in the damaged area between
χ and ν, and so transcribe λάαρχ[o]ν. Then, σκ̣α̣[ as read in the edition looks fine,
even though I can even read ση̣μ̣[.
- 2022-09-13T10:28:03-04:00 [nikos]: Commit - In l. 14 Ἀλέξανδρο̣ς̣ λαάρχη̣ς̣ κ̣α̣[ὶ ][.?] -> Ἀλέξανδρο̣ν λάαρχο̣ν σκ̣α̣[.?]
on photo online The accusative is clear because we can see the last letter ν (especially
the oblique and the right vertical of N) in both words: Ἀλέξανδρο̣ν λάαρχο̣ν σκ̣α̣[
(or ση̣μ̣[ ). In any case, as indicated in the edition the ending of the nominative
Ἀλέξανδρο̣ς̣ λάαρχο̣ς̣ is uncertain. Part of the omicron of Ἀλέξανδρο̣ν can be seen
and it is almost a dor like the one at the end of Ζηνόδωρος in l. 16. As for λάαρχο̣ν,
we find χο only in ἐρχομένων in l. 8., and certainly it is not the same. However,
the letter α that follows χ in ll. 21 στοχαζόμενοι and 22 μαχαίραις is not formed
in the same way and ductus. Probably in λάαρχο̣ς̣ a small letter omicron was made
at the end of the right top edge of χ, and the ink spot there may be part of that
omicron, Otherwise, we have to assume that omicron is lost in the damaged area between
χ and ν, and so transcribe λάαρχ[o]ν. Then, σκ̣α̣[ as read in the edition looks fine,
even though I can even read ση̣μ̣[.
- 2015-03-19T06:58:50.706-04:00 [james.cowey]: Finalized - Ready.
- 2015-03-19T06:58:50.695-04:00 [james.cowey]: Vote - Accept-Straight-to-Finalization - Add the readings of the ed.pr.
- 2015-03-14T07:07:36.179-04:00 [GertBaetens]: corrected version following BGU 8 2847
- 2011-12-14 [gabrielbodard]: rationalized languages in langUsage
- 2011-12-14 [gabrielbodard]: changed editor names to URIs
- 2011-10-31 [gabrielbodard]: changed type=inWord to break=no
- 2010-05-05 [gabrielbodard]: changed schema; added xml:space=preserve; indented; moved title/@n to idno
- 2009-11-12 [gabrielbodard]: Added language la-Grek
- 2009-06-27 [gabrielbodard]: Converted from TEI P4 (EpiDoc DTD v. 6) to P5 (EpiDoc RNG schema)
- 2008-12-22 [papyri.info]: Automated split from transcoder files
© Duke Databank of Documentary Papyri.
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 License.
