Ταξίαρχοι (fr. 268)

383

Context POxy. 2740 fr. 2 col. 1.14-18 = fr. 268.31-5 K.-A.
νή τον Δί’ άλ[λ
] καί μισώ γε πρ[ός]
]ν Φορμίωνα ι. []
]τε πρώτην ελ[
35 ] φυλακήν είτ’ ού
33-4 [τό]ν Φορμίωνα λε[γει.207 / την] τε πρώτην- έλ[λείπει τό] φυλακήν suppl. Luppe
] But of course
] and I hate him/it as well!
]v Phormio (acc.) i. []
]τε first (fem. acc. sing.) ελ[
35 ] guard/watch. In that case, not[
Interpretation 31 νή τον Δί’ (certainly a lemma) is preceded by an extra
letter-space marking the transition from the previous section of commentary.
33-5 might be either commentary or a mix of commentary and lemmata.
Luppe 1980. 44, noting a larger than normal space between πρώτην and ελ[
in 34, suggested restoring 33-4 [τό]ν Φορμίωνα λε[γει] (“he is referring to
Phormio”, i. e. as the person the speaker hates) and 34-5 [τήν] τε πρώτην-
έλ[λείπει τό] φυλακήν (“and the first”—thus a lemma = fr. 268i, not part of the
commentary—“the word ‘watch’ has been omitted”). I adopt his division here,
but what is preserved in the papyrus is in any case enough to make it clear
that Phormio is involved in the action, if only as a subject of discussion, and
to suggest that some aspect of standing night-watch is in question.
νή τον Δί’ άλ[λ Cf. line-initial νή τον Δί’ άλλ(ά) at Ar. V. 912; Αν. 954; Lys.
609; Th. 259; Pl. 20 2,208 and see in general fr. 270.2 n. The oath and the particle
are not to be divided by a comma (as in Lobel, Austin 1973 and Kassel-Austin)
as if these were two separate ideas (“Yes by Zeus, but ...”; thus Storey 2011.
215, who nonetheless omits the comma; cf. Rusten 2011. 265 “by Zeus! but”),
but are to be taken closely together (“but of course”; cf. Denniston 1950. 16
“Agreement is presented as self-evident and inevitable”).

207 The apparatus of Kassel-Austin mistakenly offers λε| γει, as if the final three letters
were preserved in the papyrus.
208 The punctuation of the lines varies in Wilson 2007 in a seemingly random fashion,
with a comma at e. g. Nu. 652 but no comma at e. g. V. 912.