Ταξίαρχοι (fr. 268)

373
relationship of POxy. 2740 frr. 1-2 to the more exiguous scraps of papyrus
that preserve fr. 268p-r is even more uncertain. In addition, Kassel-Austin’s
continuous numbering obscures the existence of a considerable gap between
the two columns of text in POxy. 2740 fr. 2. POxy. 2740 fr. 2 col. I (= Eup. fr.
268.22-44 K.-A.) originally contained at least 26 lines of text (although the
first seven are so badly damaged as to be almost entirely illegible), along with
a lower margin. POxy. 2740 fr. 2 col. II (= Eup. fr. 268.45-55) contains only 11
lines of text (the first three badly damaged), ending at the same lower margin.
At least 15 lines of text, equivalent to perhaps 3-4 lemmata plus notes, are thus
missing between the bottom of col. I and the point at which the text preserved
for us resumes in col. II.
Left-hand margins of the columns or evidence of them have been preserved
in many places and allow lemmata and commentary to be provisionally dis-
tinguished, in that
(a) paragraphoi extending from the margin a letter or two into the text are
frequently used to indicate lines in which lemmata or portions of commentary
end, and
(b) lines that begin with lemma text have often been made to extend one letter
further to the left than those that begin with commentary text.200
In addition, a letter-space is sometimes left blank within a line between the
end of a lemma and the beginning of the commentary that follows. Although
no complete lines of the papyrus are preserved, a number can be restored with
sufficient confidence to show that lines set to the left that begin with lemma
material consist of 19-20 letters or letter spaces (see esp. 17, 18, 48, 52, 54),
while lines that begin with commentary material consist of 17-18 letters or
letter spaces (see esp. 50).
Lobel presented the text of the papyrus with no substantial independent
consideration of the text of Eupolis, a task first taken up in Austin 1973.
Important additional improvements and observations were offered by Luppe
1980 (working backward through POxy. fr. 1 and fr. 2 col. I, but largely ignoring
fr. 2 col. II). Kassel-Austin’s edition represented the first systematic effort to
make sense of the individual lines of Eupolis, which are printed together on p.
458 of their edition after the presentation of the papyrus itself. Although I in-
troduce a new reference system for the fragments designed to neutralize some
of the unwanted implications of Austin’s count (while nonetheless referring
to it throughout for the reader’s convenience), I follow previous editors and

200 The issue is occasionally complicated by examples of Maas’ Law, according to
which lines of writing tend to move left down the column; see Turner and Parsons
1987. 5; Johnson 2004. 91-3.