Fragments of mummy-cartonnage, formerly in the collection of University College, London, now on permanent loan to the Ashmolean. Parts of two columns of a papyrus-text of a Greek Tragedy: head and foot of both columns partly preserved. The lines of col. ii are not quite straight opposite those of col i. There were eighteen or nineteen lines in col. i, nineteen in col. ii, the last line of col. ii being slightly below the level of the last line of col. (...) i. The text was written in the third century B.C, perhaps before 250 B.C. The hand is similar to that of P. Petrie I Plate V. No Lesezeichen of any kind are visible. [Fragment = 6·9×7·1 cm.: =6·7×10·9 cm.: = 4·2×14·2 cm. Height of column of writing =14·7 cm. Existing margins = 2·5 and 2·3 cm. Probable height of roll = 20/21 cm. . Fr. = col. i, 1–6 + col. ii, beginnings of 2–4: fr. = col. i, 9–18 + col. ii, beginnings of 9–14, 16–19: fr. = col. ii, middle of 1–15.]. (shrink)

In the Fitzwilliam Museum at Cambridge there is a papyrus fragment, hitherto unpublished, of Euripides' Medea. It was written early in the 2nd century A.D., or possibly at the end of the 1st century A.D. The hand is a good round medium upright, similar to that of P. Oxy. 1810, possibly a little older. The stop and apostrophe in Fr. 1 line 1174 were evidently added later. There are several smudges and blots. Elisions only. There were 35 lines to a (...) column. (shrink)

The irregular division of vv. 35 sqq. between two semi-choruses seems to bo widely accepted and approved.2 I wish first to discuss the obvious objection that such an irregular division is unparalleled in a strophic chorus,3 and secondly to show that the reasons advanced for the division are themselves insufficient.

Two papyri ascribe this poem to Sappho ; Athenaeus attributes v. 10 to her; Philostratos attributes v. 30 to her. In three of these places the poem is assigned to her Second Book. Perhaps it is true that hardly any other poem of Sappho is so often ascribed to her by antiquity. This admittedly proves no more than that the poem was certainly handed down in the Sappho-book in antiquity: it does not necessarily prove its authenticity. But at least it (...) settles the burden of proof on those who would deny that Sappho wrote it. Now it has been thought that certain arguments can be employed to justify the overthrow of ancient testimonies. If, however, these arguments should proveto be fallacious or insufficient, the poem will automatically be reascribed to Sappho. (shrink)